Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/712

Rh 688 PRESBYTERIANISM [ENGLAND. monster.&quot; In a minor point they had experienced a rebuff. They had done, as true Presbyterians, all they could to induce the assembly to sit on Christmas Day, church fes tivals being to them an abomination ; but they only pre vailed so far &quot; that both houses [of Parliament] did profane that holy day, by sitting on it, to our joy and some of the assembly s shame.&quot; The observance of saints days and holidays was not abolished until 8th June 1647. On 9th January 1644 the pressing question of ordina tion was brought forward. The committee reported that preaching presbyters should alone ordain. To this the Independents of course objected and kept the assembly in debate until 21st January. The House of Lords pressing for a settlement, it was next day proposed that &quot;certain ministers of the city be desired to ordain ministers in the city and vicinity jure fraternitatis.&quot; On this and on the essential question, how far the consent of the congregation should be necessary, the Independents kept up the struggle until 19th April, when the latter point was determined in the non-intrusionist sense. The bitterness of the Scots against the Independents increased daily ; they were fairly puzzled at the want of enthusiasm for that which was the breath of their lives. &quot; This stupid and secure people,. . . this fainting and weak-hearted people,&quot; Baillie calls them, and adds, &quot; the humour of this people is very various, and inclinable to singularities, to differ from all the world and from one another, and shortly from themselves.&quot; No people, he says, had so much need of a presbytery. The hatred was fully returned. An intrigue l was set on foot for a union between the Independents and the moderate royalists to keep out Scots and Presbyterianism on the basis of the restoration of Charles. So anxious did this render the Presbyterians that they offered to make a com promise whereby to strengthen their cause in parliament ; and, probably at the suggestion of their chiefs there, the five leading Independents published (February 1644) their Apologetical Narrative, which traversed their whole contro versy with the Presbyterians and was addressed, not to the assembly, but to the parliament. This manifesto, as well as the Antapologia and other answers from the Pres byterians, is well analysed by Hetherington. From the moment of this publication there was no longer any object in delaying the main battle. &quot;The Independents are resolute to give in their reasons to parliament against us, and that shall be the beginning of an open schism : lykelie we shall be forced to deal with them as open enemies.&quot; On 6th February it was proposed that &quot;the Scripture holdeth forth that many particular congregations may be under one Presbyterian government.&quot; After six weeks incessant debate, in which both Erastians and Independents used their utmost ability, and in which Nye ostentatiously and successfully appealed to the jealousy of the imperium in imperio, they were forced to yield. In this discussion the English Presbyterians were less disposed to compromise than the Scottish, who were keenly anxious for the success of their mission. The ruling eldership was then voted, and &quot; on Fry day, after a week s debate, we carried, albeit hardlie (27 to 19), that no single congregation has the power of ordination.&quot; On 31st May Baillie adds, &quot;our church sessions, to which the Independents gave all, and their opposite nothing at all, we have gotten settled with unanimity in the Scots fashion.&quot; The Presbyterians were, however, by no means easy ; they felt their triumph to be yet but a barren one. &quot;The chief point we wish were proven is the real authority, power, and jurisdiction of synods and classical presbyteries over any the members of the whole of a particular congregation ; also I wish that the power of presbyteries classical to ordaine and excom- 1 For the first time investigated and brought to light by Professor S. R. Gardiner (Catnden Miscellany, 1883). municate were cleared. Many beside the Independents are brought to give the rights of both these actions to the congregational presbyteries, much against our mind and practice.&quot; The great question, the power of parliament in ecclesiastical affairs, was yet unsettled ; and here they looked anxiously at &quot; Selden and others, who will have no discipline at all in any church jure divino, but settled only on the free will and pleasure of the Parliament,&quot; and they had forebodings that &quot;Erastus way will triumph.&quot; Their fears were soon realized. On 15th November 1644 the assembly reported to parliament all that had been done, Parlir and the House at once debated the jus divinum question. nie nt: Glynn and AVhitelocke spoke vehemently and at great actlor length, and then upon the question it was carried to lay aside the point of jus divinum, and the House gave them thanks for preventing a surprise. It was resolved, how ever, that the Presbyterian government should be estab lished, and that if upon trial it was not found acceptable it should be reversed or amended. Cromwell, who had shortly before &quot; expressed himself with contempt of the assembly of divines,&quot; terming them &quot;persecutors&quot; and saying that &quot;they persecuted honester men than themselves,&quot; and who had told Manchester that &quot;in the way they [Scots] now carried themselves he could as soone draw his sword against them as against any in the king s army,&quot; came to the rescue of the Inde pendents in the assembly by procuring on 13th September an order from the parliament to refer to a committee of both kingdoms the accommodation or toleration of the Independents. This committee, lasting until 1 5th October, was no doubt intended to gain time, for time was against the Scots, and it did nothing else. The Independents then, with written reasons against the propositions respecting church government, with objections on the question of excommunication, with their &quot; model &quot; and their remon strances, managed to protract discussion until March 1646, and in the end to leave matters unsettled and without prospect of settlement. In January 1645 the abortive negotiations at Uxbridge took place, at which each party asserted the jus divinum. The conditions proposed to the king had been drawn up by Johnston of Warriston and approved by the Scottish parliament ; they included the acceptance of the Covenant. In the compromise offered by the king he assented to the limitation of the bishops power by a council of the lower clergy, and even by lay men to be elected by this council, in each diocese. In April (Self-Denying Ordinance) and again in October 1645 (the battle of Naseby having been fought in June) the parliament passed a vote which was gall and worm wood to the Scots, for it provided a power of appeal from the national assembly to the parliament. It also insisted that there should be two ruling elders for each minister in a church meeting, and allowed censures to be passed only in cases which it enumerated. No way remained to stay the mischief, Baillie felt, except by &quot;hastening up our army, well recruited and disciplined.&quot; On 20th February 1646 they resolved that a choice of elders should be made throughout the kingdom ; but on 14th March Baillie him self bewails that &quot;the House of Commons has gone on to vote (by a majority of one) a committee in every shire to cognosce on sundry ecclesiastical causes, which will spoil all our church government.&quot; The fact was that, the king 2 being now very weak, Scottish friendship was daily grow ing of less importance. When the commissioners from the Scottish parliament urged the speedy erecting of presby teries, the English expressed their dread of &quot;granting an 2 At Newcastle in November 1646 the king offered to sanction the Presbyterian establishment, with all its forms and the order of public worship already adopted, for a period of three years, without preju dice to his own personal liberty.