Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/713

Rh ENGLAND.] PRESBYTERIANISM 689 arbitrary and unlimited power to near 10,000 judicatories within this kingdom,&quot; and declared that, experience having shown that the parliament had preserved the Reformation and purity of religion, they had no reason &quot; to part with this power out of the hand of the civil magistrate.&quot; On 30th April 1646 the House proposed queries which practi cally challenged the jus divinwn position from one end to the other. The assembly at once set themselves to answer these captious questions ; but of questions and answers the parliament took care that for the present no more should be heard. When, however, on 1st December 1646 the London ministers published their manifesto Jus divinutn reyiminis ecclesiastici, the House of Commons called for the assembly s answers, which do not appear to have been forthcoming. Throughout the contest the Scottish com missioners, especially Baillie, organized the opposition, im mortalized in Milton s sonnet, of the London ministers against the parliament s action. The king, however, hav ing fled in April to the Scots, parliament thought it need ful to temporize. On 5th June, therefore, both Houses ratified the ordinance establishing presbyteries ; on the 9th they ordered it at once to be put into execution; and a still more significant step they rescinded the clause for provincial committees which had given Baillie such vexa tion. The order, however, remained a dead letter until 22d April 1647. Twelve presbyteries were then erected for London ; Lancashire and Shropshire were organized, and Bolton was so vigorous in the cause as to gain the name of the Geneva of Lancashire ; but the system spread no farther in the ungenial soil and air of England. Even here the difference between Scottish and English Presby- terianism is shown by the fact that two-thirds of every classis or presbytery were necessarily laymen. The first meeting of the London synod was on 3d May 1647, and it met half-yearly until 1655. That of Lancashire met at Preston in February 1648. After all, however, it appeared that the votes of the Houses were permissive only ; for on 13th October 1647 the Lords voted to ask the king for his sanction to the proviso that &quot; no person shall be liable to any question or penalty only for Non-Conformity to the said government or to the form of the divine services appointed in the ordinances,&quot; while such as would not con form were to be allowed to meet for religious exercise in a fit place so long as the peace was not disturbed. 1 The language of the Commons was almost equally indulgent, while on 1st November the &quot;agitators&quot; declared that &quot; matters of religion and the ways of God s worship are not at all entrusted by us to any human power.&quot; Presby- terianism was wellnigh as far from being established at the close of the assembly as in the days of Elizabeth. English Protestantism had been a protest, not against Roman Catholicism, but against papal supremacy; the country was as little disposed to accept Presbyterian supremacy. The reader will gain some idea of the parti cular forms of tyranny which England had declined in &quot; The Harmonious Consent of the ministers of the pro vince within the County Palatine of Lancaster, &c.&quot; (Hal- ley, Lancashire, its Noncon/., p. 467). In May 1648 the parliament, now that army pressure was removed, passed the celebrated &quot; ordinance against blasphemy and heresy.&quot; If ordinances could have fought against the inherited instincts of centuries Presbyterian government would have run riot. On 29th August it was again decreed that &quot;all parishes and places whatsoever within England and Wales shall be under the government of congregational, classical, 1 In December 1647 Charles, at Carisbrooke, again agreed with the commissioners from the Scottish Kirk to the conditions formerly offered at Newcastle, in consideration of their promise to take up arms for his cause. The establishment of Presbyterianism, the extirpation of sectaries, and covenant uniformity were demanded by the English. provincial or national assemblies,&quot; except royal chapels and peers houses. In October 1648 Charles at Newport offered to accept Ussher s scheme, 2 and, in answer to an address from London, consented to a temporary alienation of church property for the maintenance of Presbyterian ministers. In November, however, the army asserted it- Under self ; it afterwards purged the parliament when it found the that there was an accommodation between Charles and Con ! on &quot; the Presbyterians, and killed the king. With the founda- W&amp;lt; tion of the Commonwealth the dream of Presbyterian supremacy passed aM r ay. The Presbyterians are hence forth to be regarded as a political far more than as a religious body. They now formed the nucleus of that party which desired the restoration of monarchy on good conditions. Opposing the toleration granted to all forms of Protestantism by Cromwell, they became his most dangerous opponents by their sympathy with the Scots and their refusal to take the &quot; engagement,&quot; as is illus trated by the plot for which Love was executed. The parliament meanwhile secured them in their livings. As Cromwell said to the Scots, &quot; The ministers in England are supported and have liberty to preach the Gospel, though not to rail at their superiors at discretion, nor under a pretended privilege of character to overtop the civil powers.&quot; In the Instrument of Government (1653) Cromwell expressly retained all the laws in their favour and appointed some of them on the list of triers. They had their classical presbyteries for ordination, but these, having no coercive power, gradually became merely meet ings of ministers of all denominations. The position of Baxter and his followers is worthy of notice, and should be read jn his own words (Orme s Baxter, vol. i. p. 92). Nominally a Presbyterian, he disliked the lay eldership ; he disliked their intolerance ; he disliked the subordinate position ascribed to the civil magistrate ; in his own terse language, &quot;Till magistrates keep the sword themselves, and learn to deny it to every angry clergyman who would do his own work by it,. . . the church will never have unity and peace.&quot; On the question of the independence of congregations he was an Independent in sympathy and practice. His absorbing idea was union ; with Ussher, he says, he had agreed in half an hour ; among rigidly de fined parties it is not possible to find him a place ; but in the light of that idea he appears perfectly consistent. John Owen was another man who illustrates the light and shade of English opinion. He opposed the London ministers, though he held a Presbyterian appointment. In 1644 he upheld Presbyterianism against Independency; in 1646 he became formally connected with the Independ ents. The Presbyterian was above all, on the political side, a hater of the army and a parliamentarian, and therefore, especially after Richard Cromwell s resignation, a monarchist. Monarchy and parliaments were co-ordi nated in the English mind. Baxter preaching before the Commons on 30th April 1660 said, &quot;Whether we should be loyal to our king is none of our differences. . . . For the concord now wished in matters of religion it is easy for moderate men to come to a fair agreement.&quot; To take advantage of this feeling Charles II. used all the resources Under of duplicity ; the deputation of divines was easily and Charles entirely tricked, and on his entry into London the Presby terian ministers received him with acclamation. Until the actual Restoration the ascendency of Presbyterianism, 2 Ussher s scheme suggested (a) three synods, namely, one of the clergy of the rural deanery, meeting once a month ; one of the clergy of the whole diocese, meeting once or twice a year ; and representatives of the clergy of the province, meeting once in three years, the arch bishop presiding ; (b) if parliament were sitting, the two provincial synods were to unite, and the whole government of the church was to be in their hands. There was no representative of the laity in the scheme. XIX. 87