CHAPTER V.
All the ecclesiastical legislation of the first nine months of the Protectorate had been in the form of ordinances, framed mainly by the genius, and resting principally on the authority, of the Protector. In the autumn of 1654, he summoned his first Protectorate Parliament; and in our notices of its proceedings will be discovered the introduction of measures by certain ecclesiastical parties for modifying the platform of the Broad Establishment which he had laid down in the articles of government.
The elections met with little interference from the Protector and his Council. Glyn, and a large number of Presbyterians, took their seats. Neither Vane nor Marten were returned. Dr. Owen, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, was elected for the University.
The members assembled on the 3rd of September. It was, we are told, the Lord's Day, and they met "in the temple of the Lord," at Westminster; "and the first work they began was to seek the face of the most high God and Eternal Protector of Heaven, by prostrating themselves before Him in His Divine ordinances." On Monday, his Highness went to Westminster—regally attended by life guards, pages, and lackeys, and, upon alighting at the door of the abbey, he proceeded to take his seat over against the pulpit, "Members of Parliament sitting on both sides." Goodwin preached a sermon on "the deliverance out of Egypt and the pilgrimage towards Canaan through the wilderness"—which so gratified Cromwell, that he repeatedly referred to it in the speech with which he opened the Parliament, and indeed the spirit of it pervaded the whole of that address.[89]
First Protectorate Parliament.
This speech indicates that the Protector was environed by difficulties arising from Presbyterians, Ultra-voluntaries, and Fifth Monarchy men. In the estimation of the first of these classes he advanced beyond; in the judgment of the last two he lagged behind, the leadings of Divine truth. Not a theorist, but a practical man—in steering a middle course, he did, as all such statesmen must do, provoke violent opposition in partisans on the right hand and the left. His method of ecclesiastical government, as it appears in his own speeches and proceedings—not as we find them sometimes represented in the generalizations of historical writers—will no more satisfy some of the ecclesiastical reformers, or some of the ecclesiastical conservatives of our own day, than it satisfied similar classes under his own Commonwealth.
1654, November.
Haselrig, the impetuous republican, and Harrison, the religious visionary, both disliked the Protector's authority. The former reluctantly submitted to it, but the latter, being more obstinate, could be subdued only by military apprehension and a brief imprisonment.[90] Afterwards, when his Highness required Members of Parliament to declare their acceptance of certain fundamental principles of government, many of the Republicans withdrew, leaving the Presbyterians in a decided majority.
Debates arose on the new constitution and in the course taken by the House respecting the ecclesiastical bearings, of that constitution the strength of the Presbyterian party appeared manifest. The Instrument of December, 1653, in prescribing the religious qualifications of Members of Parliament, only stated that they must be of "known integrity," having "the fear of God and a good conscience."[91] But in the month of November, 1654, when the articles of that Instrument came under review, it was resolved that no one should be eligible to a seat who entertained any of the opinions specified in the Act of the 9th of August, 1650; or who should so far sympathize with Popery as to marry a Papist, or consent to his child being educated in that religion; or who should deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, or sacraments, prayer, the magistracy, or the ministry, to be Divine ordinances; or who should be guilty of profaning the Lord's Day, or of committing certain immoralities. It seems incredible, yet it is a fact, that the resolution which enumerates such as were excluded, specifies those who should thereafter drink healths.[92]
Limits of Toleration.
Following the example of the Long Parliament, the House now resolved to exclude spiritual persons from secular authority. To all public ministers of religion was applied the principle which had swept the bishops out of the House of Lords. It was determined that the Act of 1642, for disabling persons in holy orders to exercise temporal jurisdiction, should be in force, so as to prevent all public ministers and preachers of the Gospel from serving in Parliament.[93]
The Presbyterians wished to limit the toleration prescribed in the Articles of 1653. The matter was found more difficult than any which had been previously propounded for consideration. Accordingly, a sub-committee was appointed to wait upon the Lord Protector, and to advise with him about some probable means of reconcilement. The Committee found no favour in the eyes of his Highness. He evidently had no wish to see the liberty of his subjects circumscribed by minute specifications of doctrines. He told the members he was wholly dissatisfied with what they were about—that he had no "propensity" to it—that the Parliament had already taken the instrument of Government to pieces, and had made alterations without his advice—and it did not become him to counsel them in this particular, apart from the other articles contained in the instrument.[94] Yet certain Divines were appointed to explain what was meant by the words "such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ."
1654, November.
Baxter, who was one of this Committee,[95] lets us into the secret of its proceedings, by saying that he wished the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments to be the only "fundamentals" specified; and that the objection made to his proposal was, that Socinians and Papists would be thereby brought within the boundaries of toleration. To which he acutely replied, that it was impossible to devise any form of words which heretics would not subscribe, when they explained those words in their own sense.[96] The majority of the Committee took a different view; and—as Baxter informs us—Owen, Goodwin, Nye, Simpson, Cheynell, and Marshall, were the most active in framing the principles which at length were submitted to the House, to help them in laying down lines of liberty.
Limits of Toleration.
They were expressed in the following terms:
"First. That the Holy Scripture is that rule of knowing God, and living unto Him, which whoso does not believe cannot be saved.
"Secondly. That there is a God, who is the Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world, which is to be received by faith, and every other way of the knowledge of Him is insufficient.
"Thirdly. That this God, who is the Creator, is eternally distinct from all creatures in His being and blessedness.
"Fourthly. That this God is one in three persons or subsistences.
"Fifthly. That Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, without the knowledge of whom there is no salvation.
"Sixthly. That this Jesus Christ is the true God.
"Seventhly. That this Jesus Christ is also true man.
"Eighthly. That this Jesus Christ is God and man in one person.
"Ninthly. That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who, by paying a ransom, and bearing our sins, has made satisfaction for them.
"Tenthly. That this same Lord Jesus Christ is He that was crucified at Jerusalem, and rose again, and ascended into heaven.
"Eleventhly. That this same Jesus Christ, being the only God and man in one person, remains for ever a distinct person from all saints and angels, notwithstanding their union and communion with Him.
"Twelfthly. That all men by nature are dead in sins and trespasses, and no man can be saved unless he be born again, repent, and believe.
"Thirteenth. That we are justified and saved by grace, and faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works.
"Fourteenth. That to continue in any known sin, upon what pretence or principle soever, is damnable.
"Fifteenth. That God is to be worshipped according to His own will, and whosoever shall forsake and despise all the duties of His worship cannot be saved.
"Sixteenth. That the dead shall rise; and that there is a day of judgment, wherein all shall appear, some to go into everlasting life, and some into everlasting condemnation."[97]
1654.
Whatever might be the exact intention of the Divines who drew up these propositions, we cannot but conclude—looking at the circumstances of their appointment, and at the use made by a party in the House of what they did, which they could scarcely fail to foresee—that they really meant to confine toleration within the limits indicated by these theological propositions. But the scheme fell to the ground. It was moved that the Articles brought in as "fundamental and necessary to salvation might pass the approbation of the House, and the Lord Protector's consent. But upon perusal of the Articles they were laid aside, and not thought fit to be further proceeded with at that time."[98]
The temper of the Parliament appeared in its proceedings against John Biddle. This man had published a book entitled "The Twofold Catechism," in which he maintained wild and monstrous opinions respecting the Almighty; and denied the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Atonement, and of Eternal punishment. The House condemned the book as blasphemous; sentenced it to be burnt by the hangman; and referred to a committee the preparation of a Bill for the punishment of the author.[99]
Limits of Toleration.
Cromwell met his Parliament on the 22nd of January, 1655, and told them that dissettlement and division, discontent and dissatisfaction had been more multiplied during the five months of their deliberations than for years before. Seeds were being sown by them for the renewal of old troubles. Briers and thorns were nourished under their shadow. In connection with the fostered confusions—on which he emphatically dwelt—his Highness touched upon the spirit which the House had manifested in endeavouring to abridge the amount of religious liberty; although he did not seem at all to disapprove of the treatment which John Biddle had received.
He ended his speech by formally dissolving the Assembly.
