Although Parliament claimed the absolute right to control benefices, there were some things needful for the induction of clergymen which could not be comprehended within the range of Parliamentary functions. Ministers already accredited, having received Episcopal or Presbyterian orders, found no difficulty in the way of collation; but what method was to be pursued relative to ministerial candidates still unordained? To meet this difficulty the Westminster Assembly recommended the temporary appointment of committees for the ordination of ministers—only their temporary appointment—for whenever Presbyterianism should be fully established, then the Church would of course do all things after a Presbyterian fashion. Yet not without difficulty did the Divines reach a conclusion on this subject, as the Independents and Presbyterians differed to some extent respecting the nature of ordination.
1644.
Church and Parliament.
The entire control of Church temporalities centred in Parliament.[488] The arrangement had great inconvenience. How such a scheme (had it continued) would have worked in the long run, may be conjectured from the contests inevitably arising, whenever the civil and sacred authorities have come into such close connexion. The quarrels of Hildebrand and Henry IV. are but conspicuous, perhaps extreme illustrations, of what naturally results from an intimate alliance of two such powers as Church and State when guided by different impulses. Only so long as sympathy prevailed between the two bodies at Westminster could coincident authority continue. The moment that any change of feeling arose between them, their co-operation would be at an end. The temporary rules which were adopted with regard to ordination were the same as those established with a view to permanence the year following.[489] They required candidates to take the covenant, to undergo an examination in religion and learning, and to prove a call to the ministry. If the candidate happened to be deficient in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, he had severer tests applied to his knowledge of logic and philosophy. But the machine did not always work smoothly. For example, the Committee for plundered ministers sequestered a Mr. Leader, vicar of the parish of Thaxted, in Essex, and settled in his room a Mr. Hall. The patroness, Lady Maynard, would not present Mr. Hall, and preferred to appoint a Mr. Croxon, a man represented as notorious for drunkenness and profanity. Articles accordingly were exhibited against the latter, in consequence of which Croxon was sequestered. Lady Maynard being allowed again to nominate, the well-affected parishioners protested against the concession of that privilege. The Commissioners, however, stood by her ladyship's rights as patroness, and she now recommended another person of the same name as before. But on his being submitted to the Assembly, they would not sanction his appointment. Three times they declined, and the Lords approved of the refusal, yet after all, in some clandestine way, the candidate obtained an order for induction. This person, whom the Divines pronounced the most troublesome they ever had to do with, came to Thaxted Church, and insisted upon preaching. The sequestrators stood at the door of the desk to prevent his doing so; but the mayor and churchwarden espoused his cause, as did also the rabble of the parish. The latter assaulted the sequestrators, tore their hair, rent their neck-bands, and seized their hats and cloaks. "Let them alone," said the mayor, "and let the women decide the case." This fray in the parish church ended in the commitment of parson, mayor, and town-clerk to prison, "whence they were released on submission." This case gives us a curious insight into the local church politics of those days.[490]
CHAPTER XVII.
Laud, the principal author of the evils which induced the revolution, remained a prisoner. He had become a helpless old man; and it would have been better for the Puritans had they checked their resentment, and suffered their vanquished enemy to linger out his days as a captive or an exile; but unfortunately they determined otherwise. The Scotch Commissioners had presented Articles against him in the House of Lords on December the 17th, 1640; and on the following day the Commons had resolved to accuse him of high treason.[491] In the following February, articles of accusation had been exhibited by the Commons, after which his case had been kept in abeyance for more than two years and a half. Though the idea of bringing him to trial had never been abandoned, mild views of his punishment had been entertained; for, in a newspaper published in May, 1643, it is stated that "the sending of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of Bishop Wren to New England had been agitated in the House, and that Parliament would not banish them without a trial."[492] In the opening of the year 1644, it was resolved that Laud should take his trial.
Laud's Trial.