A.D. 1645. CHAPTER prescribed in holy writ. They were not satisfied to IV. urge that it was the best or the most convenient CHAS. I. form; it was the only one; it existed jure divino. The constitution of the christian church was a part of God's revelation to mankind; and that constitution was presbyterian and nothing else: no other church was lawful. In the assembly they had to maintain this dogma against the independents; at Uxbridge, against the episcopal divines. The latter, not to be outdone, advanced the same claim on behalf of their own church government. They took up the position of bishop Bancroft, in the days of Whitgift, and asserted, with equal if not with greater vehemence, the exclusive and divine right of episcopacy.* But the arguments on each side fell short of their pretensions. "My lords," said the marquis of Hertford, "here is much said concerning church government in the general; the reverend doctors on the king's part affirm that episcopacy is jure divino; the reverend ministers on the other part, affirm that presbytery is jure divino : for my part, I think neither the one nor the other, nor any government whatever, to be jure divino; and I desire we may leave this argument, and proceed to debate upon the particular proposals." The question was repeatedly proposed, by Hyde and others, to the parliamentary commissioners, whether episcopacy were unlawful. Was it, in its own nature, and per se, a sinful institution? But they failed to extort a direct answer. The Scotch commissioners, Maitland, Johnstone, and the rest, were held in check by the representatives of the English parlia*Whitelocke, p. 123. IV. A.D. 1645. ment; and the selection of such names as St. John, CHAPTER Whitelocke, Denzil Hollis, and the younger sir Henry Vane, who regarded presbyterianism, some of CHAS. I. them with aversion, and all of them with indifference, told significantly that the house of commons viewed the presbyterian claims with jealousy. The king himself advanced one argument, through his divines, which required no proofs to make it plain. He was bound, he said, by his coronation oath to defend the rights of the church in his conscience he could not consent either to abrogate episcopacy or to alienate the church lands, which latter, he thought, would be direct sacrilege.* Hyde, now the king's chancellor of exchequer, was one of the commissioners. In private conversations with the other party he discovered that none but the Scotch, and the Westminster divines, were in earnest in the matter. In short, the parliament was more unconcerned and less united in what concerned the church than upon any other point discussed at Uxbridge.† The remaining demands of the parliament were, that the militia should be placed at its disposal, and that the king should prosecute the war against the Irish rebels with vigour, notwithstanding a treaty he had lately made with them. Even those of the parliamentary commissioners who were most anxious for peace insisted, both publicly and in private, upon having the whole command of the militia by sea and land, and all the forts and ships of the kingdom at their disposal; without which, to repeat the words of Clarendon, they looked upon themselves as lost, and at the king's mercy. The * Clarendon, book vii. p. 586. † Ib. p. 581. IV. A.D. 1645. CHAPTER most reasonable amongst them thought these securities necessary to their safety. "To refuse them CHAS. I. could, they believed, proceed from nothing else but the resolution to take the highest vengeance upon their rebellion."* So low had sunk the reputation of Charles's honour and veracity. The Irish question was debated with great asperity on both sides. The king was roundly charged with abetting the rebels; and his commissioners replied by charging on the parliament the whole guilt of a rebellion which had even forced his majesty to call in the assistance of the Irish papists. In short the treaty failed; the commissioners left Uxbridge at the expiration of the twenty days; and each side prepared, with animosities hitherto unknown, to renew the war. The contest for presbyterian supremacy which had now been waged, in the assembly against the independents and sectaries, and at Uxbridge against the episcopalians, was advanced in the course of the summer against a more powerful antagonist. As it was intended to erect ecclesiastical courts and to cover the nation with a net-work of novel jurisdictions, it became necessary to settle and define their limits, as well as the nature of their powers. For the highest of the presbyterian courts, the Westminster assembly, claimed the supreme right of excommunication. The parliament, however, insisted upon an appeal from the ecclesiastical to the civil tribunal-from the national synod to themselves. The assembly remonstrated against this impiety; and in return the parliament informed * Clarendon, book vii. p. 589. IV. CHAS. I. A.D. 1645. them that they had violated its privileges and in- CHAPTER curred the penalties of a premunire. The discussion was prolonged with some interruption for a whole year. So jealous had the parliament now become of the power of ecclesiastics that even exclusion from the Lord's supper was a question on which it insisted on hearing an appeal from the excluded party. This was Erastianism without disguise, and the assembly chafed beneath it. Touching the question of a jus divinum, the parliament propounded to the assembly of divines a series of questions, which the historians of that grave body speak of with indignation, and which certainly throw an air of ridicule over the high pretensions of the presbyterian champions. They desire, for instance, to be satisfied upon the following amongst other points: 1. Whether congregational and parochial elderships appointed by ordinance of parliament, or any other congregational or presbyterial elderships, are jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ? and whether any particular church government be jure divino?-and what that government is? 2. Whether all the members of the said eldership, as members thereof, or which of them, are jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ? 3. Whether the superior assemblies of elderships, viz., the classical, provincial, or national, whether all or any of them, and which of them, are jure divino, and by the will and appointment or Jesus Christ? 4. Whether appeals from the congregational elderships to the classical, provincial, or national assemblies, or any of them, and if so, which of them, are jure divino? And are their powers upon such appeals jure divino, and by the IV. A.D. 1645. CHAPTER Will and appointment of Jesus Christ ?* And thus they proceed through the presbyterian system. CHAS. I. And lastly, they demand, whether there be anything in the word of God which forbids the supreme magistracy in a christian state from determining what are the notorious and scandalous offences which deserve church censures, and what shall be the manner of suspension for the same ?--and in what points, they ask, concerning such offences, is the supreme magistracy by the word of God excluded? The assembly were required to give their proofs from scripture and in writing. But they found it an easier, and no doubt a much safer task, to close the controversy with an opponent that, in the last resort, could wield the terrors of a premuniret in the general terms of the following proposition:-"The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers distinct from the civil magistrate." The conduct of the house of commons at this period was not unlike that of Henry VIII. while the reformation was in progress. Undetermined themselves, they forbad the right of choice to others. Their reformation hitherto had gone no further than the dislike of prelacy had forced it: they had rejected much, they had established no * Hetherington, p. 281. † Premunire, a barbarous word for premonere; it took its original from the exorbitant power claimed and exercised by the pope in England. The punishment was, that the convicted party forfeited his lands and property to the king; that he was imprisoned during pleasure, or even during life; and further, he was placed beyond the protection of the law, he could bring an action for no injury, however atrocious, nor obtain a remedy for any grievance he might suffer. Blackstone, Comment. book iv. chapter viii. |