CHAPTER IV.
To prevent confusion, let it be distinctly stated at once, that in tracing the form which the new ecclesiastical establishment assumed under the impress of Cromwell's genius, we confine ourselves in this chapter to the legislation of nine months; consisting of those ordinances which were issued between the end of the Little Parliament, in December, 1653, and the opening of the first Protectorate Parliament, in September, 1654. During this period, the foundations of the Protector's ecclesiastical policy were laid.
I. State Recognition.—The articles of government—the conception and inspiration of which must be regarded as proceeding from Cromwell—distinctly declared "that the Christian religion, as contained in the Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public profession of these nations."[72] Christianity being thus recognized as part and parcel of the law of the land, the sanctions of religion were introduced at the inauguration of the Protector; the solemnities of worship and of preaching were connected with all special public acts; and the exercises of devotion constantly accompanied the ordinary business of Parliament. The State continued to recognize religion by the appointment of fast days, which were of frequent occurrence; whilst the Scotch brethren objected to this exercise of civil authority as an Erastian intrusion into the spiritual realm.[73] Preachers, both Presbyterian and Independent, were appointed on these occasions; and a fast day sometimes was solemnized by a service which lasted from nine o'clock in the morning until four in the afternoon.
1654.
By an express article, all who professed the Roman Catholic religion were disabled from voting, as well as from being elected; and as the Act which had been passed against execrable opinions, treated as culprits and subjected to penalties those who opposed Christianity, it virtually deprived all such persons of the electoral franchise. Infidels and heretics, also, who attacked or undermined the foundations of the Christian faith, forfeited the rights of denizenship. But these laws did not affect the social position of any individuals who professed Protestantism in any of its usually-recognized forms of orthodoxy. All the "sects" were accepted as citizens. So were the Presbyterians. And, although Prelacy was forbidden, there was nothing which could legally prevent an Episcopalian from going to the poll to give or receive the vote of a freeman. Still, we must not forget that, since the Common Prayer Book had been prohibited, any one who persisted in using its formularies might have both his franchise and his freedom brought into peril.[74] From these facts, it is evident that England under the Protectorate was, in theory, a religious Commonwealth; that the State possessed a spiritual as well as a secular character; that Christianity was considered essential to the welfare of society; and that an irreligious man was not regarded as a faithful subject. But this theory of the Commonwealth as a Christian State must not be confounded with the theory of the National Church as connected with the Commonwealth. The lines of limitation in the two cases were not the same. Considerable differences existed between the Christianity which entitled all its disciples to the franchise of the citizen and the Christianity which entitled its ministerial advocates to the support of the State. What those differences were will be indicated as we proceed.
State Control.
II. State Control.—The laws made certain distinctions between what was civil and what was sacred. They followed the early legislation of the Long Parliament by withdrawing all secular matters from ecclesiastical authority. Wills received careful attention from the Little Parliament in 1653, when commissioners were appointed to superintend that business, and to grant administrations "in the late provinces of Canterbury and York." Their powers were defined, and the probate fees to be taken by registrars were, after the payment of expenses, to be appropriated to the support of the navy. The Act of 1653 was revived in 1654, and more commissioners were added to the existing number.[75]
The main control over the Church consisted, not in any Act of Uniformity—nor in the establishment of a particular creed—nor in the maintenance of a simple mode of worship, but in the appointment of a spiritual tribunal, invested with the power of determining who were fitting persons to fulfil the Christian ministry. In the month of March, 1653-4, an ordinance appeared,[76] reciting that there had been no certain method adopted for supplying vacancies with able ministers, in consequence of which the rights of patrons had been prejudiced, and "weak, scandalous, popish, and ill-affected persons had intruded themselves, or been brought in, to the great grief and trouble of the good people of this nation." As a remedy, it was ordained that every person presented to a benefice, or appointed to a lecture, should be approved by certain Commissioners who were named for that purpose. No mention is made of any standard of faith, of any mode of worship, or of any scheme of polity. Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, Independency, anti-Pædobaptism—in short, particular forms of Christianity are entirely unnamed and unnoticed. In general terms, power was vested in the Commissioners:—they were to grant admission to the ministry; their certificate being a sufficient induction; but a vote of exclusion did not acquire validity unless nine members were present at the time when the vote was passed. Appointments made by these Commissioners did not interfere with the rights of patronage. They had no authority to dispose of Church benefices, or to elect lecturers; but only to determine upon the qualifications of those whom the patrons presented or the people chose. Nor did the law construe the decision of these judges "to be any solemn or sacred setting apart of a person to any particular office in the ministry." In short, the Commissioners formed a board, and nothing more, for the examination of persons who presented themselves for the ministerial office. So far, it bore a likeness to the Assembly of Divines, for they had exercised similar functions in the examination of clergymen; but then they had been more numerous, and had been wont to consult Church standards and formularies for the guidance of their judgment. Nothing of the sort limited the power of the new Commissioners, and, moreover, their unfettered power was lodged in comparatively few hands. Some creed, statute, canon, or established usage, had in all similar cases been recognized as a rule of action; but in this instance everything was left for determination by the wisdom or the will of irresponsible functionaries.[77] No distinct articles of faith were prescribed. No subscription whatever was enforced.[78] The only way to form an idea of the character of a Church so circumstanced is to infer what it must have been from the known opinions and characters of such powerful officers. The Commission was composed of men of very different characters. Some had much prejudice and party spirit, with little judgment, and less charity. No confidence could be placed in Hugh Peters, and in others of a similar stamp; but there were amongst the members individuals of great wisdom and large benevolence—such as Manton, Goodwin, Owen, and many more. Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists were of the number; and, so far, the constitution of the tribunal permitted access to benefices by ministers belonging to all three denominations. The proportion of different religious parties in the commission suggests what was likely to be the proportion of those admitted to preferment. Nothing hindered the admission of the members of any sect whatever, not even Episcopalians, provided they did not use the Book of Common Prayer; and such persons actually were admitted; but it is not probable that many would be included in the establishment who occupied a position far beyond the circle of the Commissioners' opinions.
State Control.
Another tribunal appeared in August, 1654, for ejecting "scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters."[79] Unlike the former, this Commission branched out into manifold divisions, which, in fact, formed ecclesiastical courts of assize, spreading over the whole country. Long lists of distinguished laymen are contained in the ordinance—including the names of the Lords Wharton, Fairfax, Lisle, Say and Sele, Sir A. Haselrig, Sir Anthony A. Cooper, and Nathaniel Fiennes. They were to bring before them all clergymen and teachers who were punishable by the Act against blasphemous opinions, or who were guilty of profanity, perjury, popish opinions, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, haunting taverns, quarrelling, fighting, playing at cards or dice, or profaning the Sabbath day. So ran the enumeration of the first class of scandals, cognizable by these judges. Then came words pointing to such as had publicly and frequently used the Common Prayer Book since the first of January last, or should at any time afterwards do so; such as publicly and profanely scoffed at or reviled the strict profession or professors of religion or godliness, or encouraged, or countenanced, "by word or practice, any Whitsun ales, wakes, Morris-dances, May-poles, stage-plays," or similar licentious practices; and such as declared their disaffection to the present government. As to "negligent" ministers, they are defined to be "non-residents," and such as omitted the public exercise of preaching and praying on the Lord's Day: but "the ignorant and insufficient" are not defined at all, they are left to be declared and judged by the Commissioners in every county, or by any five of them, together with five of the ministers mentioned in the ordinance. To them, therefore, in this respect, remained a wide margin of discretion, and individuals guiltless of the scandals and offences before enumerated—yet being charged in general terms by their parishioners with ministerial incompetency—were left to the mercy and the conscience of these lay and clerical assessors. Their character was the only guarantee that justice would be administered; and sometimes proofs appeared shewing how perilous a thing it was to the interests of the parties arraigned that even to men of established integrity there should be entrusted such large powers, especially at a time when party spirit on all sides ran so high.
1654.
III. State Support.—The articles of government declared, that as soon as might be, a provision less subject to contention and more certain than the one existing should be made for the maintenance of "able and painful" teachers, for instructing the people, and for the discovery and confutation of error, heresy, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine. But until such provision could be devised, the existing maintenance was not to be taken away or impeached. Also the ordinances of 1647, as to tithes, were in 1654 declared to remain in full force; and further still, for the more efficient support of the ministry, an ordinance of the 2nd of September, 1654, directed that there should be a union of small parishes and a division of large ones—authority for that purpose being vested in a Commission, according to a common plan then adopted in all business of that description.[80]
State Protection.
The Long Parliament, in the month of February, 1648, had commanded churchwardens and overseers of the poor to assess every inhabitant of a parish, in such sums as those officers should think proper; no mention being made of holding any vestry meetings whatever for that purpose. The law declared that such rates should be appropriated for repairing the fabric of the church, and keeping in order the churchyard and walls; for providing books to be used in Divine worship; and for the bread and wine required in the administration of the Lord's supper. When the rate had been confirmed by two justices of the peace, the churchwardens were authorized and required to levy payment and to recover by "distress" where payment was refused. The justices, "in default of such distress," might commit the defaulter to the common gaol.[81] This church-rate law remained unrepealed, and therefore was available for the support of worship by all those who were now incorporated in the Establishment. In the ordinance of 1654, for uniting and for severing parishes, reference is made to rates, taxes, parochial rights, charges and duties, as acknowledged sources of revenue.[82]
1654.
IV. State Protection.—The Articles of Government extended protection, within certain limits, to professing Christians who did not share in the resources and immunities of the State Church. Religious compulsion was forbidden, religious persuasion was recommended; and it was expressly declared, "That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, or discipline publicly held forth), shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts, provided this liberty be not extended to Popery nor Prelacy, nor to such as under the profession of Christ hold forth and practise licentiousness."[83] The shield of the law was thus placed over all Protestant sects whose liberty in no way threatened the security of the Government.
State Penalties.
V. State Penalties.—First, the Papists were deprived of all religious freedom and of all political rights, and this act of injustice was perpetrated as a retaliation which their own habitual intolerance had provoked; and as a precaution which the tendency of their system and their Jesuitical and treasonable practices had rendered expedient. The circumstances in which Prelatists were placed by the legislation of the Long Parliament have been explained. These circumstances remained unaltered; and Prelacy was now conjoined with Popery in the prohibition expressed by the articles. The supporters of Prelacy were known to be disaffected to the Government, and whenever that disaffection manifested itself in overt acts, the magistrates were justified in punishing the offenders; but to inflict penalties for using the Prayer Book was an unrighteous proceeding, no more to be excused than was the persecution of Nonconformists for their worship, after the Restoration. Sometimes that persecution has been defended or its guilt has been extenuated on the ground that the very religion of the Separatists made them disloyal; persons who condemn that plea as being insult added to injury must not set up a similar one on behalf of the rulers of the Commonwealth. After the mention of Prelacy in the articles comes a denial of freedom to such as maintained tenets inimical to the principles of public morality and order;[84] Fifth Monarchists, therefore, preaching after the fashion of Feake and Vavasour Powell, brought themselves within the scope of penal laws. So did some well-known disorderly fanatics, who hung on the skirts of Quakerism. Socinians likewise came under the legislative ban. As the statute against blasphemous opinions remained in force, all persons suspected of holding them were liable to be brought before the magistrate. Yet it should be stated that Cromwell checked as much as he could the severe application of this penal code: and when a Parliament, under his control, undertook to specify what particulars were embraced by the general title of heresy, there was so much caution exercised lest words expressing vague ideas should subject "the godly party to some danger of suffering," that not until after much debate could even the word atheism be allowed "to be part of the question."[85]
1654.
Such were the principles of Cromwell's ecclesiastical policy, and in it may be seen a singular combination of boldness and caution. Of boldness—for he fearlessly innovated upon the ancient principles and precedents of the kingdom, and also defied the prejudices of contemporary bigots by throwing open the Establishment to different sects, and by conceding toleration to all whose opinions and proceedings did not imperil the stability of his republic. Of caution—for he shrank from committing himself to theories of voluntary church support, and of thorough church independence, however those theories might be advocated by some with whom he would be regarded as having considerable sympathy. And the more his policy is examined, the plainer will it appear to be distinguished by originality no less than by the qualities we have just indicated. Whatever its merits or demerits, it was his own. He neither copied the forms of past times nor followed the counsels of contemporary advisers. It is very remarkable that no ecclesiastical personage appears controlling the affairs of the Commonwealth. Indeed his Highness occupied the throne without having at his right hand any prominent individual to influence him in either spiritual or in temporal business. No member of his Council of State was of such importance as to justify our applying to him the appellation of prime minister. We strive in vain to detect any clerical guidance. The principal Divines of the Presbyterian party were but little, if at all, attached to his government; they preferred the royalty which his rule suspended, and they disliked the Broad Church which he so zealously upheld. Independents were about his person, but no evidence exists of his constituting any of them ecclesiastical advisers. The only chaplain he had of high intellectual mark was John Howe, a man indisposed to take part in public affairs, and whose correspondence shews that whatever his power might be in the pulpit, he had little or no influence at court. Owen and Goodwin were too much engaged at Oxford to have many opportunities for conference at Whitehall. Philip Nye might be disposed to give the benefit of his counsel, but Philip was not the person to carry weight with Oliver. No doubt the Protector took care to ascertain the opinions of all parties, and, as a prudent, practical man, he shaped his course so as not to give unnecessary offence; but his own genius was the counsellor on which he chiefly, if not entirely, relied. The outward fortunes of the Church were completely in lay hands—the hands of the Lord Protector of England. In the days of Charles, the country, through Laud, had been priest-ridden, but not even in religious matters was it presbyter-ridden in the days of Cromwell.
Cromwell's Establishment not a Church.
One more remark may be made. Conforming to general usage, we have called Cromwell's religious establishment a Church; but, accurately speaking, it was not a Church at all. We do not mean by this what an ecclesiastical polemic means, when he refuses to apply the name to any organization at variance with what he considers to be New Testament principles. By withholding the title from a particular community, he intends to say that it is not a Church according to his idea of what a Church should be. We abstain from all such controversies in these pages. Our meaning is that Cromwell's establishment did not include or recognize any internal organization whatever of an ecclesiastical kind; it had no Church courts, no Church assemblies, no Church laws, no Church ordinances. It repudiated Prelacy without enforcing Presbyterianism or recognizing Congregationalism. While denying the aid of the civil power for carrying out one method of discipline, it gave no direct sanction to any other. It said nothing about rites and ceremonies. Not even the two great sacraments of Christianity were mentioned. What should be the mode of administering the Lord's Supper, and Baptism, and whether the latter should be confined to adults, or should be extended to infants, were open questions. What should be done in these respects was left to the ministers and their congregations to determine. One parish might be constituted a Presbyterian Church; another might contain an Independent Church; a third, a Baptist Church. But each Church, as shewn already, was independent of the parish incumbency; and often, in the case of Congregational Churches, the members met together in private houses. The particular society so organized really stood outside the Establishment. Hence it follows that the Protectorate Establishment was nothing more than an institution for preaching and teaching. The ministers were acknowledged by the State only in the capacity of instructors. The title given to State ordinances about religion seems in accordance with this; so were the functions of the Committee of Triers. The former were for the maintenance, the latter for the approbation, of "public preachers."
Cromwell's Establishment not a Church.
So far as moral discipline akin to that of the old Church Courts was instituted and enforced by Protectorate enactments, it was by civil statute, not by any kind of canon law. Ordinances for the improvement of public morals appear on the statute book of that period. Cock-matches and horse-races were prohibited, professedly on account of the danger attendant upon large gatherings of people.[86] Fighting a duel upon which death should ensue was adjudged to be murder. Challenges, and the conveyance of them, were made punishable.[87] The Commissioners of Customs, and other officers, received authority to suppress drunkenness and profane swearing amongst all people employed in their departments.
These laws rested on the authority of the Protector and his Council; and the resolutions enacting them can be traced in the order-books of that small but potent assembly. When we turn to these records, we discover numerous proofs and illustrations of the supreme power which was exercised in this way over ecclesiastical causes. Decisions respecting titles to Church livings, and the augmentation of poor benefices, and for the payment of sums to poor clergymen, frequently appear in those interesting minutes.[88]
