[78] By the ordinance of January the 19th, 1653-4, (see Scobell), the Act for taking the Engagement was repealed. Some of the sequestered ecclesiastical clergy took advantage of this, appeared before the tribunal, secured their approval, and returned to their livings. But by another ordinance of the 2nd of September, 1654, the Commissioners were forbidden to admit any delinquents until they submitted to the existing government, so as to satisfy his Highness and the Council. The enforcement of subscription to the doctrines of Presbyterianism by ministers of the Establishment was contemplated by some members of Parliament in December, 1654. Cromwellian Diary, i. cxvii.

[79] August the 28th—Scobell, 335-347.

[80] Scobell, 347, 353.

Besides support from tithes there were proposals that ministers should be exempted from paying tenths and first-fruits, and one debate went so far as to suggest the exemption of ministers from all taxation whatever.—Cromwellian Diary, i. ciii.-cxxi.

[81] Scobell, 139. This Act has been referred to, vol. i., p. 487.

[82] Ibid., 353.

[83] Articles xxxvi., xxxvii.—Parl. Hist., iii. 1425.

[84] "Provided this liberty be not extended to Popery nor Prelacy, nor to such as under the profession of Christ hold forth and practice licentiousness."—Art. xxx. 61.

Short observes in his Sketch of the Church of England, ii. 189: "There was at one time a project for extending liberty of conscience to the Roman Catholics, and consultations were held among the members of the Government for the purpose of granting them security of person, and of the remainder of their property after composition, as well as for providing a safe living for a prelate who might execute his functions. But the loyalty of the Roman Catholics was alarmed at the idea of compounding with the usurper, and they communicated the circumstances to the exiled court, where a stop was put to the whole." He refers to Butler's Roman Catholics, 418, and Thurloe's State Papers, i. 740.

[85] Cromwellian Diary, i. cxiv. Dec. 12th, 1654.

[86] At an earlier period, it is remarked in a letter in the State Paper Office, dated 10th of May, 1650: "I received notice of a meeting of my Lord Beauchamp and Sir Arundell, and many others, at Salisbury, upon pretence of being at a race, but purposely to treat of the King's business."

[87] The dates of these ordinances are March 31st, July 4th, June 29th, 1654.—See Scobell.

[88] In these books there occurs an order for the enforcement of arrears of rent due to Dr. Wyniffe, Bishop of Lincoln, before the 9th of November, 1646;—and a reference of the petition of Mrs. Cosin, wife of the Dean of Peterborough, respecting her claims upon the fifths of the income of the rectory of Brancepeth, Durham, held by her husband, to Sir George Vane and others, who, if possible, were to adjust this dispute with the incumbent, Mr. Leaver. If not, they were to report to the Council accordingly.

There is an order on the 3rd of July, 1654 for exempting from excise duty so much paper used in printing the Bible, in the original and other learned languages, as "shall make up 7,000 pounds."

It is remarkable what an unusual number of orders belong to the 2nd of September, 1654, the day before Cromwell met his first Protectorate Parliament.

[89] Newspaper (1654); Cromwellian Diary, i. p. xvii.; Carlyle, ii. 254; Whitelocke, 599.

On this second day of meeting the following resolutions were passed:—

"September 4th, 1654.—Resolved, that the governors of the school and almshouse of Westminster do take care that such of the morning lecturers as preacheth on the respective days, do attend, each morning that they preach, to pray in this House.

"Monday, 11th.—The House being met, and opportunity taken about something that fell from the parson that prayed this morning, it was moved that something should be done as to matter of religion. And in order thereunto, it was resolved that the several members of each county should present the name of one godly and able minister of the Gospel for each county, to be approved of by the House, who should meet together, and present their advice to the Parliament, in such points only as the Parliament should propose to them; the names to be presented upon Friday next."—Cromwellian Diary, i. p. xxvii.

[90] Godwin's Commonwealth, iv. 129.

[91] Article xvii.

[92] Cromwellian Diary, i. p. xcviii. The drinking of healths, however, it should be remembered, "seems now to have been chiefly, if not entirely, confined to the convivial meetings of the Cavaliers, and employed to express their disaffection" to the Commonwealth government.

[93] November 27th, 1654, Journals. This resolution deprived Owen of his seat.

[94] November 17th, 1654. Cromwellian Diary, i. p. lxxix.

[95] Baxter's account of this committee betrays his dislike to the "over-orthodox Doctors Owen and Cheynell." He introduces a rather triumphant description of his own hair-splitting as "one merry passage which occasioned laughter."

Some were, he says, for making it "a fundamental that he who alloweth himself or others in a known sin cannot be saved." Baxter wagered he would make them strike that out. "I told them that the Parliament took the Independent way of separation to be a sin; and when this article came before them, they would say, 'By our brethren's own judgment we are all damned men, if we allow the Independents or any other sectaries in their sin.' They gave me no answer, but left out the fundamental."—Life and Times, ii. 197-9.

[96] Calamy's Abridgment, 121.

[97] Neal, iv. 98. Baxter says twenty propositions were printed, but in Neal's copy, taken from Scobell, there are but sixteen.

[98] Cromwellian Diary, i. p. cxix.

After a careful consideration of what Baxter says, compared with Goddard's Journal in Cromwellian Diary, vol. i. (Introduction), I am brought to the conclusion above expressed, notwithstanding the attempt of Mr. Orme in his Life of Owen, p. 115, to give a different version of the affair. John Goodwin attacked the principle involved in the measure in his Thirty Queries modestly propounded in Order to the Discovery of the Truth and Mind of God in that Question or Case of Conscience, whether the Civil Magistrate stands bound by Way of Duty to interpose his Power or Authority in Matters of Religion and Worship of God. 1653.

[99] Soon after the rising of the first Protectorate Parliament, Biddle was released, but getting again into trouble, after much suffering and imprisonment in Newgate, the poor man became an exile for life. The Protector allowed him a hundred crowns per annum for his subsistence, and in 1658 permitted a writ of habeas corpus in his favour. Notwithstanding his errors, Biddle seems to have been an honest and devout man, and certainly the treatment which he received was most unrighteous.

[100] Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, part i. 176.

In vol. xvii. of Petitions and Reports (State Papers) are the following memoranda:—

"Case tried at Worcester Assizes, 1656. Charge of defamation of character by ejected clergyman, against the person who prosecuted him before the Commissioners. Sued the person for damages. Judge Windham, in charging the jury, did urge very much the increase of damages as aforesaid, declaring that by such conduct as the defendant's honest men came to be sequestered, to the discouragement of many then present who had stated this to be the fact. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—£80 damages."

[101] Some instances will occur in our account of the Episcopalians under the Commonwealth. Others beside Episcopalians were objected to before the Commissioners. In illustration of this, I subjoin the following document amongst the State Papers:—

"To the most reverend the Commissioners for approbation of public preachers.

"Articles that will be proved and deposed to upon oath against James Cockaine, of Tredsham, in the county of Chester.

"That Mr. James Cockaine denies the ministry as an office.

"That no Christian in these ages hath the Spirit of God in any measure.

"That the image of God in us doth not consist in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness.

"That Mr. Cockaine affirms in public, upon occasion, that the sacraments were Popery.

"That he disallows of catechising.

"That syllogisms are of the devil. Denies the Sabbath; saith all days are alike, and that it ought not to be called the Lord's Day.

"That several parishioners, eminent for religion and piety, have withdrawn themselves from his ministry in the said parish. He humbly prayed that as the witnesses are many who will ascertain these articles upon oath, there may issue a commission to justices of the peace for the said county, and ministers to examine the truth of the premises, and to certify thereon."

[102] So far as the law of the Triers were concerned, this is true; but it is right to add that the complaints of non-payment in many cases had a sufficient foundation.

[103] Compare Twell's Life of Pocock, 151, 175, with Thurloe, iii. 281. Owen says in the letter there printed—"There are in Barkshire some few men of mean quality and condition, rash, heady, enemies of tithes, who are the Commissioners for ejecting of ministers." He then refers to Pocock as a man of great learning and high character, as liable to be cast out "on slight and trivial pretences."

[104] These Royalists were religious men. Upon receiving sentence, they exclaimed: "Now, farewell world! welcome heaven! Oh! what a happy change shall we make from night to day! Oh! blessed Jesus and Saviour of the world, how wonderful are Thy mercies! Thy love is unspeakable!" This is reported in one of the newspapers of the day, dated April the 19th, 1655.

In the Perfect Proceedings of the 12th to the 19th of April, it is reported from Hereford that the governor had secured Colonel Birch, who affirmed that the plotters were not Cavaliers, but Ranters, Quakers, and Anabaptists.

[105] Letters from Secretary Thurloe and Mr. Pell in Vaughan's Protectorate of Cromwell, i. 145 and 165.

[106] Harris's Cromwell, 429. Cromwell attempted to vindicate himself on the ground that the Episcopal clergy "meant to entail their quarrel, and prevent the means to reconcile posterity" (435).

Amongst the State Papers is a petition to the Protector from Dr. Woolley, a schoolmaster, to be allowed to continue "his painful employment." There is also a certificate by his friends to the following effect:—"We, whose names are underwritten, do most humbly certify that, upon our knowledge, Edward Woolley, of Hammersmith, in the county of Middlesex, Doctor of Divinity, is a religious, learned, and sober person, and hath most quietly submitted to this present authority under his Highness's government, of whom he never speaks but with great honour and reverence, and so inclineth his scholars under his tuition. He hath a very excellent faculty in the education of youth in the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, with many other commendable exercises, beyond any whom we have seen besides in this nation.—Signed by Thomas Coxe, Doctor of Physic; John Hexing, Minister at Bride's, Fleet Street; and other persons."

[107] Derby, November 17th, 1655.—Thurloe, iv. 211.

[108] November 10th, 1655.—Ibid., 184.

[109] December 1st.—Thurloe, iv. 274.

[110] Ibid., 216.

[111] Thurloe, iv. 228.

[112] Ibid., 151.

[113] Thurloe, iv. 273.

[114] Ibid., 37. There is a curious letter from the same writer (p. 49) from which it appears that the policy of Cromwell's government in Scotland was not to interfere with religious peculiarities if they did not threaten any political disturbance.

[115] Thurloe, iv. 56.

[116] Ibid., 127, 128, 223, 250.

[117] Ibid., 700. The following is worth notice:—

"The other day a minister in a country church prayed for all the exiles and prisoners high, and low; and I being informed of it, caused the man to be brought before the council here, who not denying the words, we committed him, and afterwards he acknowledging his fault and promising never to be guilty of the like again, or using any indirect terms, which might keep up Charles Stuart in the memory of the people, we dismissed him from his imprisonment and from ever preaching again in that church."—Ibid. 558.

[118] History of Nonconformity in Wales, by T. Rees. Appendix, 501. This act is not given in Scobell.

[119] Thurloe, iv. 334.

[120] Thurloe, iv. 565.

[121] Ibid., 380, 505.

[122] Thurloe, iv. 314, 348.

[123] Ibid., 450.

[124] Ibid., 447.

[125] Forster's Statesmen of the Commonwealth, iii. 365.

[126] State Papers, Dom. Interregnum, August the 26th, 1656.

We find the author of the Christian Armour giving advice before the election.

The Magistrates' Portraiture: a Sermon at Stowmarket, in Suffolk, upon August the 20th, 1656, before the election of Parliament-men for the same county, on Is. i. 26: "And I will restore thy judges as at first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning;" by William Gurnall, of Lavenham. 1656.

The preacher expresses a fear of the letting in of Popery through the sects, Anabaptists, Seekers, Quakers, &c., and recommends his hearers to seek out men faithful to the ministers of the Gospel.

[127] Carlyle's Cromwell, ii. 416, et seq.

The following document is in the State Paper Office, 17th of September, 1656:—"We whose names are subscribed, with others, being chosen and accordingly returned to serve with you in this Parliament, and in discharge of our trust offering to go into the House, were at the lobby-door kept back by soldiers, which, lest we should be wanting in our duty to you and to our country, we have thought expedient to represent unto you to be communicated to the House, that we may be admitted therein."—Subscribed by Sir Ralph Hare and 160 others.

September 22.—Resolved, that the persons which have been returned from the several counties to serve the Parliament, and have not been approved, be referred to their application to the Council for their approbation, and that the House do proceed with the great affairs of the nation.

The Committee's answer is, that they have refused none that to them have appeared to be men of integrity, and according to the qualification of the Instrument. And therefore his Highness and the Council have given orders to the soldiers to keep those persons out.—State Papers Dom.

[128] This was Henry Laurence, Lord President of the Council, member for Westmoreland in the Long Parliament, and for Colchester in the Parliament of 1656.

[129] Member for Bedfordshire in the Parliaments of 1654 and 1656.

[130] This was Major-General Lambert, called Lord Lambert, from his being the first president of the Protector's Privy Council. He was member for Yorkshire in 1654 and again in 1656.

[131] Member for Somersetshire in 1654 and in 1656.

For all these speeches see Cromwellian Diary, i. 62, 28, 33, 55.

[132] Ibid., 158.

[133] Carlyle, ii. 470.

[134] Carlyle, ii. 473.

[135] Cromwellian Diary, i. 359.

Mr. Gillespie is no doubt intended. The editor says:—"Notes were expressly prohibited by a direction in the Covenant." I do not find this to have been the case. Nothing is said upon the subject in the Directory.

[136] The petition and advice was first presented to Cromwell, March the 31st, 1657. It was accepted by him May the 25th.

[137] It is related by Henry Neville, member for Reading, in Richard's Parliament, and the author of Plato Redivivus—That "Cromwell, upon this great occasion, sent for some of the chief city Divines, as if he made it a matter of conscience to be determined by their advice. Among these was the leading Mr. Calamy, who very boldly opposed the project of Cromwell's single government, and offered to prove it both unlawful and impracticable. Cromwell answered readily upon the first head of unlawful, and appealed to the safety of the nation being the supreme law. 'But,' says he, 'pray, Mr. Calamy, why impracticable?' Calamy replied, 'Oh, 'tis against the voice of the nation; there will be nine in ten against you.' 'Very well,' says Cromwell, 'but what if I should disarm the nine, and put the sword in the tenth man's hand; would not that do the business?'"—See Critical Review of the Life of Oliver Cromwell, p. 149, note. Cromwellian Diary, ii. 321.

[138] Parl. Hist., iii. 1508 and 1425.

[139] Carlyle, ii. 567.

[140] Carlyle, ii. 579-581.

[141] Ibid., 497.

[142] In 1651 "their High Mightinesses decreed that the sects should be restrained, and not suffered to spread. Sectas cohibendas et in ordinem redigendas, neque permittendum ut in plura loca quam hodie sunt diffundantur."—Bayle's Dict., Art. Anabaptists.

[143] Whitelocke, when Ambassador to the Court of Sweden, had the following conversation with the Archbishop of Upsala. Archbishop: "No one must vent his private fancies or new opinions contrary to the doctrine of the Church. If he does, we severely punish it." Whitelocke: "That is somewhat strict, and may be construed to a kind of assumption of infallibility." Archbishop: "We take no such thing upon us, but desire to preserve peace and unity in the Church and its members." Whitelocke: "Those are good things, but I doubt hardly to be settled in this world, where offences must come." Archbishop: "But woe to those by whom they come." Whitelocke: "They may possibly come by imposing too much on men's consciences as well as by new opinions."—Memoirs of Whitelocke, 375.

[144] April 28th. Cromwellian Diary, ii. 55, 58, 60., and Journals of the House of Commons.

[145] Cromwellian Diary, ii. 149-152.

[146] Faulkner's History of Brentford and Chiswick.—The minutes of the Commissioners are cited as authorities.

[147] Cromwellian Diary, ii. 165, 166.

[148] Neal, iv. 135.

[149] Cromwellian Diary, ii. 202-206.

[150] Journals, 11th of June, 1657.—In the report of the Committee, it is stated, that in the said Bibles there are already discovered these omissions and misprintings, i.e., "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God," for "shall not inherit."—John ix. 21; these words wholly left out: "Or who hath opened his eyes we know not."—Rom. vi. 13; "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin," for "unrighteousness."

On the 16th of January this year, 1657, the Grand Committee for Religion had ordered a sub-committee to advise with Drs. Walton, Cudworth, and others, respecting translations and impressions of the Bible. In consequence, there was a meeting at Whitelocke's house, at Chelsea, upon the 6th of February following. The Committee often met, "and had the most learned men in the Oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the translations of the Bible in English, which yet was agreed to be the best of any translation in the world." Great pains were taken in it, "but it became fruitless by the Parliament's dissolution."—Whitelocke's Memorials, 654.

[151] Cromwellian Diary, ii. 261-269.—The following instance of Parliamentary interference with the ministers of St. Margaret's church occurs in the Journals just after the debate on the Sabbath:—

"Tuesday, June 23rd, 1657.—Ordered, that the Lord Strickland and Major-General Whalley do represent it unto his Highness the Lord Protector, as the desire of the Parliament, that his Highness will be pleased to remove from Margaret's, Westminster, the present preacher, being a prisoner to the Upper Bench; and also one Warmstree, who is employed as a lecturer there, being a notorious delinquent; and to appoint some person of eminent godliness and abilities to be public preacher there; which the Parliament doth apprehend to be a matter of very great concernment to the good of this place."

This probably was Thomas Warmestry, who, though a Puritan, retired to Oxford during the Royal residence there. After the Restoration he was made Dean of Worcester.

[152] Scobell, 438. He places it under 1656.

[153] "It was moved that the sword to be delivered by way of investiture might not be left out.

"Mr. Lister: His Highness has a sword already. I would have him presented with a robe.

"Some understood it a rope, and it caused altum risum. He said he spoke as plain as he could—a robe.

"You are making his Highness a great prince—a king indeed—so far as he is Protector.

"Ceremonies signify much of the substance in such cases, as a shell preserves the kernel, or a casket a jewel. I would have him endowed with a robe of honour."—Cromwellian Diary, ii. 303.

At length it was "Resolved that there be a purple robe lined with ermine, a Bible, a sceptre, and a sword, provided for the investiture of the Lord Protector." Thursday, 25th June, 1657.—Post-meridian Journals.

[154] Mr. Lockyer, chaplain to his Highness, made an exhortation at the Banqueting House, Whitehall, after the Westminster Hall solemnity.

[155] Parl. Hist., iii. 1514-1518.

The following story is told:—"When Cromwell took on him the Protectorship, in the year 1653, the very morning the ceremony was to be performed, a messenger came to Dr. Manton to acquaint him that he must immediately come to Whitehall. The doctor asked him the occasion. He told him he should know that when he came there. The Protector himself, without any previous notice, told him what he was to do, i.e., to pray upon that occasion. The doctor laboured all he could to be excused, and told him it was a work of that nature which required some time to consider and prepare for it. The Protector replied that he knew he was not at a loss to perform the service he expected from him, and opening his study-door, he put him in with his hand, and bid him consider there—which was not above half an hour. The doctor employed that time in looking over his books, which he said was a noble collection."—Harris's Life of Cromwell, p. 4.

If the story be true, the date is incorrect; and the ceremonial of 1653, when Lockyer gave an exhortation at Whitehall Banqueting House, is confounded with the ceremony of 1657, when Manton prayed in Westminster Hall. It would look as if the devotional part of the service had not been contemplated in the original arrangement, but was afterwards introduced by the express desire of Cromwell.

[156] A report of this speech is given in the Journals of the Commons, under date January the 25th, 1657-8.

[157] In connection with this notice of a godly ministry at the re-opening of Parliament, it may not be irrelevant to mention that the daily meetings of Cromwell's Parliament commenced with prayer; and that whereas in the Little Parliament the members turned the legislative assembly into a prayer-meeting—and "engaged" one after another in devotional exercises—in the Parliaments which followed, no such custom obtained; but some regular minister officiated each morning. So scrupulous did the Commons become in confining the performance of Divine worship to the Clergy, that in the last of Oliver's Parliaments, the House on one occasion waited half an hour for the minister, and because he did not make his appearance proceeded without prayer.—Cromwellian Diary, i. xxvii., and Parry, 522.

[158] The Republicans at first rejected had been now admitted.

[159] "Il Signor Protettore col consenso del suo consilio di stato ha questa settima banito per una sua proclamatione di Londra tutte Cattollici e Roalisi alle lor proprie stanze di campagna, o al luogo della lor nascita, prohibendo li sotto pena di incarceramento di allontanarsi di detti luoghi più de cinque miglia, e questa proclamatione commencia a essere in vigore li venti-dui di Marzo, e dura fin alli otto di Maggio." Di Londra, 14mo. Marzo, 1658.—Thurloe, vi. 841.

[160] Carlyle's Cromwell, ii. 634.

[161] Carlyle, ii. 651.

[162] The question of augmentations of livings had been brought before the Council in the month of October, 1656: it was referred to the Lord Deputy and others to speak with Dr. Owen and Mr. Nye upon the subject, and to report their opinions to the Council.

Some points respecting ministers in later entries were referred to Nye, Caryl, and Peters.

[163] The last three minutes belong respectively to May, 1658, June, 1658, and March, 1656.

[164] The authorities for this sketch of Presbyterianism are the Westminster form of Presbyterian government, Parliamentary ordinances, and the account of the particular form under which Presbyterianism appeared in Lancashire, as given by Hibbert, in his History of the Foundations of Manchester.

It should be borne in mind that, while the law, as it regarded the civil enforcement of Presbyterian discipline, remained a dead letter, there was nothing to prevent the carrying out of its purely ecclesiastical arrangements.

[165] In the eighth chapter of the Second Book of Discipline, it is said of Deacons: "To them belongs the collection and distribution of the ecclesiastical property; and in this they must be subject to the presbytery, though they are not members of it."

[166] Members liable to be brought before their several Presbyteries adopted measures of retaliation. Accusations were preferred against church officers. They were accused, for instance, of being present at horse-races, or at ale-feasts, where there was fiddling, bowling, or tippling going on; of neglecting to sing psalms in the family; of entertaining Cavaliers; of affirming that the Parliament was a body without a head; of appealing to the authority of Scripture in support of the royal cause; and of never having publicly manifested any sorrow for malignancy. These accusations were followed by recriminations on the opposite side.—Hist. of the Foundations of Manchester, i. 276.

[167] The following passage with respect to him occurs in the Life of Adam Martindale, p. 61:—

"Mr. Heyrick was then up at London, and after his coming down, I heard him, on a fast day, in a great congregation at Manchester, declare himself (before the ministers of the classis then just setting up) so perfect a latitudinarian as to affirm that the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, might all practice according to their own judgments, yet each by Divine right. How his brethren liked this I know not; but I am sure so he said, his text being: 'The government shall be upon his shoulder' (Isaiah ix. 6). And Mr. Harrison did little less than contradict him, following him upon that text (Zechariah iv. 9), making it his great business to reprove the Independents for not laying a good foundation."

[168] Hist. of Manchester, i. 238.

[169] The Diary and the Autobiography of Newcome, and the Life of Adam Martindale, have been published by the Cheetham Society.

[170] It may be seen in Sion College Library. I feel much pleasure in here expressing my thanks to the librarian for the courteous aid he has afforded me in my researches.

[171] "In regard there was no more ministers present by reason of the Act at Oxford, the further consideration was deferred."

[172] 16th February, 1656.—"The question of the Fifth Monarchy being propounded, it was debated whether there shall be a more glorious time for the Church of Christ before the end of the world. Ordered that this branch of the question be further debated the next meeting."