[1645 A.D.]

duces its contrary, we find, with this intolerant austerity, the most scandalous excesses committed by the image-breakers in consecrated places.

Meantime the parliament had, as we have seen, solemnly sworn to the covenant, at Westminster, on the 25th of September, 1643, and required the same oath from every person in office, and every clergyman in the kingdom. Collier is perhaps right when he affirms that the Presbyterians expelled far more at this time than the Papists had done under Mary, and the bishops under Elizabeth. All this was, of course, recommended and approved from the pulpit. Thus, Stephen Marshall said in a sermon, "What soldier's heart is not appalled at the thought of piercing little children in a conquered city or of holding them up by the legs and dashing their heads against the wall. But if this work is done to avenge God's church (the Presbyterians) upon Babylon (the Church of England), happy is he that taketh the little ones and dasheth them against the stones." This increased intolerance was manifested towards no individual with more violence than Archbishop Laud, who had been imprisoned for three years, and was almost forgotten. "Poor Canterbury," so Baillie,bb the Scotch clergyman, writes, "is so contemptible that nobody thinks of him; he was only a ring in Strafford's ear." Yet, chiefly to please the Scotch, the proceedings against the old bishop were now resumed by the parliament, and very unjustly placed under the direction of his old adversary Prynne. His enemies now possessed the power (as he formerly had), and took care to exercise it. The main accusation, that he had attempted to overthrow the laws, religion, and the rights of parliament, was divided into numerous branches, which we have not space to detail.

Laud defended himself with boldness, acuteness, and wit; nay, he spoke rather as an accuser, than submissively and asking favour. Though everything was represented in the most unfavourable light, the judges declared, on the 17th of December, 1644, that they could not find the archbishop guilty of treason, and left the decision to the house of lords. The latter communicated the difficulty that had arisen to the lower house, which answered: That there was in the first place, treason against the king, on which the inferior tribunals decide according to the law; secondly, treason against the kingdom. on which the parliament decided. However, as in the case of Strafford's trial, the form of the proceeding was changed into a bill of attainder, which was passed on the 4th of January, 1645, by the house of lords; and with much difficulty his petition was acceded to that he might not be hanged and quartered, but only beheaded. A pardon granted to the archbishop by the king, dated the 12th of April, 1643, was over-ruled and rejected.

On the 10th of January, 1645, Laud ascended the scaffold, and acknowledged that he was a great sinner, but that he had never endeavoured to subvert the laws of the realm, or change the Protestant religion, and that he had not done anything deserving death, according to the laws of the kingdom. He thanked God for suffering him to die for his honour; prayed for the happiness of the king, the restoration of the church to truth, peace, and prosperity; for the parliament according to its ancient and just power; and that the unhappy and distracted nation might penitently cease from war and bloodshed, and enjoy its hereditary rights and lawful liberties. "Now," said he, "the blind lead the blind, and all will fall into the ditch. As others would not honour the images which the king set up, I will not worship the vain phantoms which the people invent, nor will I abandon the temple and the truth of God to follow the bleating of Jeroboam's calves in Dan and Bethel. I am no enemy to parliaments, and acknowledge their utility; but corruptio optimi est pessima. For my part, I freely forgive everybody." Laud submitted to the fatal

[1645 A.D.]

stroke with courage and composure. Immediately before him, was executed Hotham, who had first accused Laud in parliament.

The trial and the condemnation of Laud are much less to be excused than that of the dangerous and powerful Lord Strafford; for the single points laid to his charge appear to be mere trifles, and the vague reproach of overthrowing the constitution, in church and state, he might have flung back with double force upon his accusers. They, besides, never attended the proceedings and

(1612-1680)

examination of the witnesses, but deciding in the lower house entirely after the representations of their counsel; and of the lords, there were never more than fourteen present at the trial; and at the passing of the sentence only twelve, or, as others say, only seven. Except the speaker, not a single member had attended the trial from the beginning to the end. That an old man, seventy-two years of age, who was wholly powerless, was brought to the scaffold, after the overthrow of the Episcopal system, and four years' imprisonment, with the violation of so many legal forms, and without any motives of political necessity, was a proof of the blind passion of the pretended defenders of liberty, justice, and law. They could not, or would not see, what disgrace they prepared for their own reputation, and what honour for the archbishop, by thus raising him to the dignity of a martyr.

Loud complaints of this and other despotic acts being made, the parliament, following the course which it had blamed in its opponents, again

made the censorship of the press more severe; but was not able thereby to restrain its excesses, much less to repress arbitrary proceedings of another kind.

THE WARRING CREEDS AND INTOLERANCE

On the 4th of January, 1645, a few days before the execution of Laud, it had been resolved by the assembly of divines (in session since July 1, 1643) that the book of common prayer should be laid aside; the form of divine worship hitherto observed should be abolished; and a new directory, which had been framed by the assembly of divines, a creed, a catechism, and a scheme of a Presbyterian constitution of the church, were drawn up. In the creed all was on strict Calvinistic principles, and peculiar stress was laid on the doctrine of predestination. It was left to a future general assembly to decide a question which was stated to be of the highest importance, namely, whether there had been at Ephesus a classical presbytery, and in Jerusalem a simple congregation. Many of the old forms and arrangements, such as crosses, altars, and confessions of the sick, were abolished. "Nobody shall

[1645 A.D.]

write or preach against the new ordinances; he who shall in future use the old common prayer book either in the church or in public places, nay, even in his own house and family, shall pay for the first offence £5, for the second £10, and for the third be imprisoned for a year, and not allowed to give bail. The church having the right of the keys, may, through its priests, classes, and synods, censure, remove, depose, and excommunicate."

In this manner the Presbyterians had, in their opinion, obtained a complete victory; but, at the very moment when they were rejoicing at it and proclaimed it aloud, the real power, as usually happens in revolutions, had already passed into other hands. So long as the only question was a contest against the Papists and Episcopalians, there appeared to be scarcely any difference among the assailants, and this contributed to their victory. Now, however, that the Puritans wished to enforce their principles with the same partiality as those whom they had overcome had done before, many really liberal-minded men resisted this practical tyranny and were equally ready in adducing theoretical arguments in support of their assertions. Irritated by the unconditional claims of the Puritans, and excluded from all toleration, the Independents now opposed them, and affirmed that it was quite the same thing whether Christendom was tyrannised over by a pope, twenty bishops, or a thousand priests; and thus an external union and slavish subordination was not only necessary in spiritual Christianity, but was also contrary to Christian liberty; that every Christian congregation was in itself a complete perfect church, which was, immediately and independently of other churches, under Christ, by which, however, the idea of a universal Christian church, in a truly spiritual sense was not abolished; only it was maintained that no ecclesiastical constitution was absolutely of divine institution.

The Independents gave to every male communicant the right of voting in all ecclesiastical affairs or in determining points of doctrine, and in the appointment and removal of clergymen. The Erastians' rejected all church government whatever, and assigned only to the state the superintendence of all religious communities, merely however with regard to public safety and order. Lastly, appeared the Levellers, at the farthest extreme of the course we have pointed out: since they did not, like the Presbyterians, stop at the independence of a national church with a connected organisation; or, like the Independents, at that of the several congregations; but claimed for every individual an absolute right of self-government in religious matters, without denying that a similarity of sentiments might lead to a natural union.

In connection with these religious views, political actions were developed; and if the Episcopalians generally promoted unlimited monarchy, and the Puritans an essential limitation of it, the Independents for the most part recommended, and endeavoured to obtain, a republican constitution; and the Levellers were in danger of rejecting civil as well as ecclesiastical authority and of running into pure anarchy.

2

At that time the victorious Presbyterians considered themselves as the only true divine church, the only one agreeable to God, and stigmatised all persons who entertained different sentiments as damnable heretics. The latter, however they differed in other respects, agreed that such discrepancies are natural; that liberty of conscience is an inalienable right; and that it is the indispensable duty of every one to inquire and decide for himself in matters of religion.

[A small party named from Thomas Erastus (Lieber), a German divine who died in 1583.] However, we are only half entitled to look on the Independents as necessarily republi cans, for under other circumstances they were zealous adherents of the house of Hanover.]

[1645 A.D.]

It was and is of little importance what the Independents themselves taught on any particular point, but that they maintained the idea of toleration, and church government, in a new and highly important manner; nay, that they placed it at the head of their whole system. It is true that they contradicted themselves, inasmuch as they more or less excluded Romanists and Episcopalians from this toleration; this exception, however, was founded chiefly on the circumstance that these set up unlimited claims, and that political reasons had essential influence. It was only by degrees that Chillingworth, Hale, Locke, etc., freed the doctrine of the Independents from defects and exaggeration. Though the Independents were not able to get their views adopted in the assembly at Westminster, they met with much approbation among the people, and even in parliament. And thus the Presbyterians found that their apparently absolute victory availed them nothing, because the house of commons did not confirm their resolutions, and the people did not voluntarily adopt and carry them into effect. The heads of the Presbyterians, Holles, Long, Waller, etc., found themselves overpowered by the enthusiasm and worldly wisdom of their opponents, Cromwell, Vane, Whitelocke, Selden, Fiennes, St. John, Haslerig, and Martin; and the Self-Denying Ordinance was for the latter not merely a political but a theological victory, because above two-thirds of the officers and most of the soldiers in the newly-formed army were of the party of the Independents.

In this divided opposition both parties needed a mediator or an ally. Hence the king acquired new importance, and he thought that the disunion of his adversaries would enable him to become master of them all; though the events of the war had not led to any positive superiority but to misery of all kinds. Necessity and arrogance served equally as an occasion or pretext for acts of plunder and violence; whence an acute observer says, "The vexatious austerity of the Puritans was no less oppressive than the boastful licentiousness of many royalists." The one party plundered in the name of God, the other in the name of the king. On both sides the people's minds were agitated by the most powerful motives: liberty, religion, law, love of the king and of the country. No one dared to remain neutral; though, as we have said, not merely the timid and selfish would willingly have withdrawn, but even the most noble-minded men scarcely knew what party to join, or how they should lead everything to a middle and moderate course.

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS AT UXBRIDGE (1645 A.D.)

This deplorable state of things, and the position of the great religious and political parties in parliament and in the assembly at Westminster, had led, even before the passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance, to fresh attempts to negotiate a peace. On the 20th of November, 1644, four deputies from the house of commons, and two from the lords, repaired to Oxford, to submit to the king the conditions proposed by parliament. They received an answer, which they brought back to the parliament, at the end of November. Four lords, eight commoners, and four Scotchmen were commissioned to negotiate for peace, at Uxbridge, with the king's commissioners.y

On the 30th of January the commissioners on both sides met at Uxbridge. The royalists were sixteen in number, those of the parliament twelve, together with four Scottish commissioners; both parties were attended by their divines. After the preliminaries had been arranged, they commenced with the subject of religion. The parliament insisted on the unqualified abolition of Episcopacy and the establishment of Presbytery: the king would not abandon the former,

[1645 A.D.]

which he regarded as of divine institution; but he was willing to limit it, to reform abuses in it, and to grant indulgence to tender consciences in matters of ceremonies. This subject having been debated for three days to no purpose, they next passed to the militia. The parliament demanded that it should be entirely vested in them and in persons in whom they could confide. They relaxed so far as to demand it only for seven years, after which it should be settled by bill or agreement between the king and parliament. The king was willing to surrender it for three years, provided it then returned fully to the crown. With respect to Ireland, the parliament required the "Cessation" to be declared null and void, and the conduct of the war and government of that country to be committed to them; the royal commissioners justified the king in making the Cessation, and asserted that he was in honour bound to maintain it. These matters were debated over and over till the 22nd of February, when the parliament having refused to prolong the treaty, the commissioners returned to Westminster and Oxford, and preparations were made for another appeal to the sword.

This treaty, the inutility of which must have been apparent, had been entered into solely in compliance with the wishes of those on both sides who were weary of the evils of war and sincerely desirous of peace. Among these the king himself cannot be included, for he was determined to concede none of the points at issue, and his usual duplicity was displayed even in the commencement; for when he had been induced to style in his answer the two houses the parliament of England, he writes to the queen, "If there had been but two besides myself of my opinion, I had not done it; and the argument that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no ways acknowledge them to be a parliament," and he adds that it is so registered in the council book. He was besides negotiating for foreign aid, and treating for a peace and an army with the Irish rebels; and he was so much elated by exaggerated accounts of the successes of Montrose in Scotland, that he was in full expectation of being shortly able to resume the plentitude of his despotism.

In effect, when the situations and tempers of the parties are considered, it is manifest that there was no room for accommodation, that one or other must be subdued, and despotism of one kind or other be the result.

THE VICTORIES OF MONTROSE IN SCOTLAND

1

In the summer of the preceding year, the earls of Montrose and Antrim ' had come to Oxford with tenders of their services to the crown. They were both inveterate enemies of Argyll, who had now the chief power in Scotland, and Montrose asserted that if Antrim could raise fifteen hundred or two thousand men in Ireland and land them in the Highlands, he himself would be able to join them with so many of the Highland clansmen, loyal to the king and enemies of Argyll, as would make such a diversion, as would, if not recover the kingdom, at least oblige the Scottish army in England to return to its defence. The king listened to the proposal, and gave them the necessary commissions. Antrim forthwith passed over to Ireland, and raising about eighteen hundred men among his clan there, sent them over under his kinsman Sir Alister M'Donnel named Colkitto.

Montrose having left Oxford with a good company, suddenly disappeared, and with only two attendants eluded the vigilance of both nations till he

'Randal M'Donnel earl of Antrim, an Irish Catholic nobleman, had Buckingham, who was the daughter and heiress of the earl of Rutland. consideration; but Clarendon describes him as a vain, weak man.

H. W. - VOL. XX. D

married the widow of Her wealth gave him