dalous hinovations, he made many fair approaches towards Rome, in point of doctrine.” Under his primacy the church of England evidently assumed a very popish appearance. And, according to Hume, the court of Rome itself entertained hopes of regaining its authority in this island; and, in order to forward Laud's supposed good intentions, an offer was twice made him, in private, of a cardinal's hat, which he declined accepting. His answer was, as he observes himself, “that something dwelt within him which would not suffer his compliance, till Rome was other than it is.”4 The London ministers having presented a petition to parliament, for a settlement of the ecclesiastical discipline and government, according to the directory of public worship, they had the thanks of the house; and a committee was appointed to confer with the assembly, and to ascertain how far tender consciences might be borne with, consistent with the peace of the kingdom and the word of God.t An ordinance soon passed to set aside the Book of Common Prayer, and to establish the directory. The presbyterians now gaining the ascendancy, discovered a strong propensity to grasp at the same arbitrary power, as that under which they had formerly and for a long time groaned. The parliament published two ordinances, one against the preaching of unordained ministers, the other against blasphemy and heresy, both of which became the o of oppression and persecution. The latter, says Mr. Neal, is one of the most shocking laws I have met with in restraint of religious liberty, and shews, that the governing presbyterians would have made a terrible use of their power, had they been supported by the sword of the civil magistrate. Several ministers of puritan principles, became sufferers by these ordinances. Mr. Clarkson having embraced the sentiments of the antipardobaptists, was cast into prison, and required to recant, for the marvellous sin of dipping. Mr. Lamb, Mr. Denne, and Mr. Knollys, all of the same denomination, were apprehended and committed to prison. Mr. Knollys was afterwards prosecuted at the sessions, and sent prisoner to London. Mr. Oates was tried for his life, but acquitted. Mr. Biddle was cast into prison, where he remained seven years. The civil war having now continued several years, introduced dreadful confusion and distress into every part of the kingdom. Numerous were the sufferers on both sides. But the parliament's army proving every where triumphant, the king himself was taken prisoner. During these commotions, the rump parliament passed a decree to establish a government without a king and house of lords, and so governed alone. They erected a high court of justice, brought the king to trial, condemned him, erected a scaffold before Whitehall, and there, before a large concourse of people, struck off his head, January 30, 1649. “The king had a mistaken principle, that kingly government in the state, could not stand without episcopal government in the church. Therefore, as the bishops flattered him by preaching up the sovereign prerogative, and inveighing against the puritans as factious and disloyal : so he protected them in their pomp and pride, and insolent practices against all the godly and sober people in the land.” “An immoderate desire of power, beyond what the constitution did allow of, was the rock on which he split.” +

* May's Hist. of Parliaments, p. 22—23.

+. Prynne's Breviate of Laud, p. 18.—Hume's Hist of Eng. vol. vi. p. 209.-It is observed that a court lady, daughter of the Earl of Devonshire, having turned papist, was asked by Laud the reasons of her conversion. “It is chiefly,” said she, “because I hate to travel in a crowd.” The meaning of this expression being demanded, she replied, “I perceive your grace and many others are making haste to Rome; and, therefore, in order to prevent my being crowded, I have gone before you.”—Ibid. p. 210.

# Whitlocke's Mem. p. 99.

$ 8cobell's Collec. part i. p. 75, 97.

[ocr errors][merged small]

From the Death of King Charles I. to the passing of the Act of §, in 1662.

THE King being taken out of the way, CRomwell, proposed a Commonwealth, till he laid a foundation for his own advancement. The parliament drew up a form of ENGAGEMENT, to be subscribed by all persons above eighteen years of age, in these words:—“I do promise to be true and faithful to the commonwealth as it is now established, without a king or house of lords.” No man who refused this engagement could have the benefit of suing another at law, or hold any mastership in either university, or travel more than a certain number of miles from his own house." Therefore, Mr. Wines, Mr. Blake, and many other puritan ministers, for refusing to subscribe, were turned out of their livings. The terms of conformity were now less rigid than at any time since the commencement of the civil wars. The oppressive statutes of the parliament were relaxed or not acted upon, the covenant was laid aside, and no other civil qualification required of ministers, besides the engagement. Though the episcopal divines were forbidden to read the liturgy in form, they might frame their prayers as near it as they pleased; and upon this principle, many of them complied with the government. Numerous episcopal assemblies were connived at, where the liturgy was read, till they were found plotting against the government: nor would they have been denied an open toleration, if they would have given security for their peaceable behaviour, and not meddled with the affairs of government. Cromwell and his friends, indeed, gave it out, that they could not understand what right the magistrate had to use compulsion in matters of religion. They thought that all men ought to be left to the dictates of their own consciences, and that the civil magistrate could not interpose in any religious concerns, without ensnaring himself in the guilt of persecution.f Dr. George Bates, an eminent royalist, and an avowed enemy to Cromwell, observes, “That the protector indulged the use of the common prayer in families, and in private conventicles; and it cannot be denied, that churchmen had a great deal more favour and indulgence than under the parliament; which would never have been interrupted, had they not insulted the protector, and forfeited their liberty by their seditious practices and plottings against his person and government.” December 16, 1653, Oliver Cromwell was installed Lord PRotector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, when an INSTRUMENT of Gover NMENT was adopted and subscribed. The thirty-seventh article observes, “ that all who profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, shall be protected in their religion.” The parliament afterwards voted, that all should be tolerated, or indulged, who professed the fundamentals of christianity; and certain

* Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 129, 130.

+ Welwood's Memoirs, p. 87.-The puritan ministers of the presbyterian denomination in London being charged with bringing the king to the block, published a “Vindication” of themselves, declaring the falsehood of the charge, and protesting their abhorrence of the fact, and their unshaken ło". his majesty's person and just government.—Calamy’s Contin. vol. ii. p. 737.


* Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 64. + Neal's Puritans, vol. iv. p. 61. : Sylvester’s Life of Baxter, part i. p. 193. § Neal's Puritans, vol. iv. p. 102. # Whitlocke's Mem. p. 552–558. - . . .

learned divines were appointed to draw up the fundamentals to be presented to the house. Those who acted were Drs. Owen, Goodwin, and Cheynell, and Messrs. Marshall, Reyner, Nye, Sympson, Wines, Manton, Jacomb, and Baxter. Archbishop Usher was nominated, but declined his attendance.* During the national confusions there were many persons denominated fifth monarchy-men, chiefly of the baptist persuasion. They were in immediate expectation of Kin Jesus, and of the commencement of his glorious, person reign of a thousand years upon the earth. Though they were avowedly of commonwealth principles, they were extremely hostile to Cromwell's government. Several of them having discovered considerable enmity and opposition against the protector, were apprehended and committed to prison; among whom were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Feake, and Mr. Vavasor Powell. On account of the rigorous laws still in force, they were kept in prison a long time, under the plea of mercy, and to save their lives. The protector having discovered some inconvenience from the approbation of ministers being left wholly to the presbyterians, he contrived a middle way, by joining the various parties together, and committing the business to certain men of approved abilities and integrity, belonging to each denomination. For this purpose, an ordinance was passed, March 20, 1654, appointing thirty-eight commissioners to this office, commonly called TRYERs.; Another ordinance was also passed, “for ejecting scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” It appointed certain lay-commissioners for every county, to be joined by ten or more of the best divines, as their assistants. They were required to call before them any public preacher, vicar, curate, or schoolmaster, reputed to be ignorant, scandalous, or insufficient.} * This ordinance, it must be acknowledged, bore hard upon some of the episcopal clergy; among whom were Dr. Pordage, charged with blasphemy and heresy; and Mr. Bushnal, charged with drunkenness, profanation of the sabbath, gaming, and disaffection to the government. . For these crimes, they were both turned out of their livings. Also, by the act for propagating the gospel in Wales, many ignorant and scandalous ministers were ejected, and others put in their places. It is observed, that in a short time, there were one hundred and fifty good preachers in the thirteen Welch counties, most of whom preached three or four times a week." But the generality of the ejected clergy did not preach at all, or were scandalous in their lives; and the commissioners affirm, that of the sixteen they turned out in Cardiganshire, only three of them were preachers, and those of very immoral character.{ The protector's health, through his excessive toils and fatigues, began at length to decline. And having nominated a successor, he died of a fever, September 3, 1658, aged fifty-nine years. Never was man more highly extolled, nor more basely vilified, according as men's interests led their judgments. “The royalists,” says Mr. Baxter, “ abhorred him as a most perfidious hypocrite, and the presbyterians thought him little better. He kept up his approbation of a godly life in the general, and of all that was good, except that which the interest of his sinful cause engaged him to be against. I perceived,” our author adds, “that it was his design to do good in the main, and to promote the gospel and the interests of goodness, more than any had done before him.”f His son Richard, according to his father's will, succeeded him. Numerous addresses were sent from all parts of the country, congratulating the new protector. He was of a calm and peaceable temper, but unfit to be at the helm in such boisterous times. Richard Cromwell finding the nation involved in difficulties, tamely resigned his high dignity and government, after enjoying it only eight months. The nation being tired of changes, and now in danger of universal anarchy, soon discovered its uneasiness. General Monk, with his army, was called out of Scotland; and upon his arrival in London, he declared in favour of the king. A council of state was called; and having agreed to invite home the king, the question was put, “Whether they should call him in upon treaty and covenant, or entirely confide in him?” After some debate, it was resolved to trust him absolutely. The new parliament assembling, they unanimously voted the king home. He was sent £, to Holland, when Mr. Calamy, Mr. Bowles, Dr. Manton, and some others, were deputed by the parliament and city to attend him. His majesty gave them such encouraging promises, as raised in some of them very high * Whitlocke's Mem. p. 518. + Neal’s Puritans, vol. iv. p. 116.

* Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part ii. p. 197. + Thurloe's State Papers, vol. i. p. 621, 641. f Scobell's Collec. part ii. p. 279. $ Ibid., p. 335, 340–347. I Neal's Puritans, vol. iv. p. 112, 113.

[ocr errors]
« 上一頁繼續 »