" 1 66 14,350 gentlemen and freeholders, we are most thankful to God, believing it in our hearts to be the most pious and the wisest that any people or kingdom hath been blest withal since the apostles' times." "Our pious, ancient, and laudable form of Church service," says the Cheshire petition, signed by 10,000 gentlemen and yeomen, "composed by the holy martyrs and worthy instruments of reformation, with such general consent received by all the laity, that scarce any family or person that can read but are furnished with the Books of Common Prayer, in the conscionable use whereof many Christian hearts have found unspeakable joy and comfort, wherein the famous Church of England, our dear mother, hath just cause to glory." I have a collection of these petitions," says Mr. Hallam, "now before me, printed in 1642, from thirteen English and five Welsh counties, and all very numerously signed. In almost every instance I observe they thank the Parliament for ' putting a check to innovations and abuses, while they deprecate the abolition of Episcopacy and the liturgy." 2 The heart of the country was, in fact, sound towards the Church. Exasperated though men had been by the Laudian discipline, this had not yet made them revolt from the Church of their fathers. A busy Puritanical clique, the influence of the Scotch, and the support of the city of London, availed to organise a successful opposition; but the sorry substitutes for the Church of England never obtained real acceptance in the country, nor, had there been more capacity on the part of the king, would they in all probability have obtained even this temporary success. 1 Nalson, ii. 726-758. 2 Hallam, Const. Hist. i. 527 (note). NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. DECLARATION OF THE HOUSE OF "Whereas divers innovations in and about the service of God have been lately practised in this kingdom by enjoining some things and prohibiting others, without warrant of law, to the great grievance and discontent of his Majesty's subjects; For the suppression of such innovations, and for the preservation of the public peace, it is this day ordered by the Commons in Parliament assembled that the churchwardens of every parish do forthwith remove the communion table from the east of the church, chapel, or chancel, into some other convenient place, and that they take away the rails and level the chancels as heretofore they were before the late innovations. That all crucifixes, scandalous pictures of any one or more persons of the Trinity, and all images of the Virgin Mary, shall be taken away and abolished, and that all tapers, candlesticks, and basins be removed from the communion table. That all corporal bowing at the name of Jesus, or towards the east end of the church, or towards the communion table, be henceforth forborne. That the Lord's day be duly observed and sanctified; all dancing and other sports, either before or after Divine service, be forborne and restrained; and that the preaching of God's Word be permitted in the afternoon in the several churches and chapels in this kingdom, and that ministers and preachers be en couraged thereunto."-RUSHWORTH. CHAPTER XXIX. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES-THE COVENANT 66 1642-1647. § 1. Open strife between King and Parliament. § 2. The Parliamentary Declaration as to Religion. § 3. Presbyterianism forced upon the Parliament by the Scotch. § 4. The "Root and Branch" Bill passed. § 5. Calling of the Assembly of Divines. § 6. Commencement of their work. § 7. They adopt and confirm the Covenant. § 8. The Episcopal Clergy displaced by it. § 9. They make temporary provision for ordination. § 10. Appoint a Directory for Public Worship." § 11. Character of the Directory. § 12. The King forbids its use. § 13. The Independents and Erastians in the Assembly. § 14. The Directory for Ordination. § 15. The Scheme for Church Government. § 16. Only partially carried out. § 17. The Westminister Catechisms. Confession of Faith. § 19. The Assembly melts away. Character. § 18. The § 20. Its § 1. FROM the moment that the king quitted Whitehall on January 10, 1642, the open strife between him and the Parliament began. Both sides were preparing for war, and both strove to justify their position by appeals to law and precedent. "The two parties," says M. Guizot, "reciprocally accused each other of illegality and innovation, and both with justice; for the one had violated the ancient rights of the kingdom and would not abjure the maxims of tyranny; the other claimed, in the name of principles altogether indefinite and confused, liberties and a power till then unknown.” 1 The principles of the struggle being thus doubtful, there issued forth from the press, as might be expected, a vast mass of pamphlets and papers discussing the position, and the two parties commenced the struggle by broadsides of declarations and rejoinders. § 2. A declaration issued by the Parliament with respect to religion plainly shows that the tone of a total repudiation of and revolt from the Church was not one that could be safely adopted even by those who desired to please the persons most opposed to the old order of things. It says, "They intended a due and necessary reformation of the government and liturgy of the Church, and to take away nothing in the one or the other but what should be evil and justly offensive, or at least unnecessary and burdensome; and for the better effecting thereof, speedily to have consultation with 1 English Revolution (Trans.) p. 147. learned and godly divines; and because that would never of itself attain the end sought therein, they would also use their utmost endeavours to establish learned and preaching ministers with a good and sufficient maintenance throughout the whole kingdom, wherein many dark corners were miserably destitute of the means of salvation, and many poor ministers wanted necessary provision." 1 Here there is no expression in favour of Presbyterianism or against Episcopacy as a principle. In fact something very different was contemplated by the Parliament. The majority of the members were no doubt of Erastian views.2 They intended to reform the Church in their own fashion. When they presented their ultimatum to the king (June 2), they asked his Majesty to consent to such a reformation of Church government and liturgy as both Houses of Parliament shall advise.3 § 3. But the Parliament was not to be left free to patch up a religious system of their own. They could not carry on the struggle with the king without the aid of the Scotch, and the Scotch required, as the condition of their aid, "that there might be one confession of faith, one directory of worship, one public catechism, and one form of Church government, and that prelacy should be plucked up root and branch as a plant which God hath not planted." 4 In other words, the Scotch insisted upon the acceptance | of the Covenant and the Presbyterian platform. This was extremely unpalatable to almost the whole House of Commons, which was in antagonism to the king. The king took care to inform the Scotch that the chief persons among them would not sooner embrace a Presbyterian form of government than they would an Episcopal, and that their pretences of zeal for the Covenant were utterly hollow.5 6 § 4. It was necessary that something should be done by the Parliament to prove their sincerity. Accordingly the Root and Branch Bill, which had failed to get into committee in a former session, was passed by the Commons, (in September 1642), and, after four months' delay, was adopted by the Lords. Yet its provisions were not to come into operation for a year. "If," says Neal, "the two Houses had been inclined to Presbytery, as some have maintained, it had been easy to have adopted the Scotch model at once; but as the bill for extirpating Episcopacy was not to take place for 1 Clarendon, p. 212. 2 "The most of the House of Commons are downright Erastians." -Baillie's Letters, ii. 265. 3 Rushworth, iii. i. 723. 5 Neal's Puritans, ii. 463. 4 Rushworth, iii. ii. 387. 6 It must be remembered that almost all the loyalist members had now quitted Westminster, and were with the king. above a year forward, it is apparent that they were not willing it should take place at all if in that time they could come to an accommodation with the king." " 1 § 5. It was many months before anything further was done, nor indeed was it until the Parliament was in mortal terror from the successes gained by the king's troops in the north and west, and the aid of the Scotch was all important to them, that the ordinance "for the calling of an assembly of learned and godly divines, and others, to be consulted with by the Parliament for settling the government and liturgy of the Church of England, and for vindicating and clearing the doctrine of the said Church from false aspersions and interpretations," was passed, (June 12, 1643). The preamble of this document clearly shows that the Parliament was now in its necessities prepared to go considerable lengths to gratify the Scotch in religious matters. How far, however, it was sincere in its profession will abundantly appear hereafter. The preamble sets forth that many things yet remained in the discipline, liturgy, and government of the Church which required a more perfect reformation; and it having been resolved by the Parliament that the present Church government is evil and justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom, and a great impediment to reformation and growth of religion, it is to be taken away, and such a government settled as may be most agreeable to God's Holy Word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer in agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches abroad. § 6. For this purpose certain "godly and learned divines " had been summoned to meet at Westminster in King Henry VII.'s Chapel, on July 1, 1643, and to continue their session until dissolved by Parliament. They were to have power to treat of such things as should be proposed by either or both Houses of Parliament. The body was to consist of 131 divines and 30 layassessors-10 lords, and 20 commoners; commissioners from Scotland were to sit with them.2 On July 1, 69 divines appeared at Westminster, and the Assembly began. It was commenced with a fast, at which the "exercises" in extemporary prayer and preaching lasted over nine hours.3 The first work assigned to the assembled divines was the revision of the Articles of the Church of England. The debates and orations of the divines must have 1 Neal's Puritans, ii. 465. We Of these, one was Robert Baillie, Principal of Glasgow University, who has left on record a full account of the proceedings of the Assembly. bave also a minute Journal of Dr. Lightfoot, one of the members. 3 Baillie, ii. 184. been somewhat prolix, for they spent ten weeks upon the first fifteen articles. The changes recommended by them after this long discussion were not many. They explained in the sense favoured by the Puritans the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, omitted the Article on the Creeds, and in the 11th Article declared that Christ's obedience was to be imputed to men. § 7. The review of the Articles was, however, merely intended to consume the time until the arrival of the Scotch Commissioners When these came it was found that they were instructed to press, as the price of Scotch co-operation, the acceptance by the Parliament of the Solemn League and Covenant. The Covenant was therefore referred to the Assembly of Divines. Some of them greatly disliked it.1 They had been ordained by bishops, and they believed Episcopacy to be the most scriptural form of church government, although they objected to some of its accessories. How then could they undertake to extirpate prelacy? It is lamentable to think that many of the Westminster Divines, and probably the great majority of the Lords and Commons, in consenting to take the Scotch Covenant, acted against their consciences.2 Their need of Scotch help was, however, pressing. On September 25 the House of Commons and the Assembly subscribed to it. On the Sunday following it was ordered to be read in all the churches in London; finally it was ordered to be taken by every person in England, above the age of eighteen, on February 2, 1644. Thus did a Parliament which professed to act in the sacred name of liberty, to resist tyrannical and illegal oppression, to champion the rights of conscience, deliberately inflict upon the country, and enforce, wherever they had power, a most tyrannical yoke and insupportable burden. The forced recantations, which had been a just cause of complaint in the administration of Archbishop Laud —what were they when compared to this proceeding which forced a whole nation to recant, and even to revile their former convictions ? Further, the most moderate of Churchmen says, "Churchmen cannot take this Covenant without injury and perjury to themselves :-injury, by ensnaring their consciences, credits, and estates; perjury, as, contrary to the solemn vow and protestation they had lately taken, and oath of supremacy, swearing therein to defend all the king's rights and privileges, whereof his spiritual jurisdiction in reforming Church matters is a principal."3 Among those men who were most opposed to the old order of things there 1 Calamy's Baxter, i. 81; Lightfoot's Journal, p. 11; Neal's Puritans, iii. 56. 2 Hallam, Const. Hist. i. 575; Neal's Puritans, iii. 57. 3 Fuller, Church Hist. xi. ix. 18. The Covenant was appointed to be framed and hung up in churches. |