Page images

still weak-hearted enough as a whole to adjourn for that day. It was the Scottish Commissioners, indeed, that had contrived this rebuke to the weaker spirits. And within a week or two thereafter there was this farther Puritan triumph—also the contrivance of the Scottish Commissioners through their friends in Parliament,—that the use of the Liturgy was discontinued in the two Houses, in favour of extempore prayers by Divines appointed for the duty by the Assembly.?

Ejection of Scandalous and Malignant Ministers. -A somewhat wholesale process, described in such terms by the winning side, had been going on, everywhere within the sway of Parliament, for several months. It was part, indeed, of a more general process, for the sequestration to the use of Parliament of the estates of notorious Delinquents of all kinds, which had been the subject of various Parliamentary ordinances. By these ordinances a machinery for the work of sequestration had been established, consisting of a central committee in London, and of committees in all the accessible counties. The special application of this machinery to clerical delinquents had come about gradually. From the very beginning of the Parliament (Nov. 1640) there had been a grand Committee of the Commons, of which Mr. White, member for Southwark, was chairman, for inquiring into the scandalous immoralities of the clergy, and an acting Sub-committee, of which Mr. White also was chairman, for considering how scandalous ministers might be removed, and real preaching ministers put in their places. By the action of these committees month after month-receiving and duly investigating complaints brought against clergymen, either of scandalous lives or of notoriously Laudian opinions and practices--a very large number of clergymen had been placed on the black books, and some actually ejected, before the commencement of the war.

But, after the war began, sharper action became necessary. For now the Parliament had to provide for what were called “the plundered ministers”-i.e. for those Puritan ministers who, driven from their parsonages in various parts of the country by the King's soldiers, had to tlock into London, with their families, for refuge and subsistence. A special Committee of the Commons had been appointed (Dec. 1642) to devise ways and means for the relief of these “godly and well-affected ministers ;” and, as was natural, the proceedings of this Committee had become interwound with those of the Committee for the ejection of scandalous ministers-Mr. White at the head of the whole agency. And so, in the Commons, we hear ultimately of such determinations as these respecting “ scandalous minsters: "-July 3, 1643 : " Ordinance to be prepared to enable the Committees (for sequestration) in the several counties to sequester their livings; "—July 27: "the Committee for plundered Ministers to consider of informations against them and to put them to the proof;"—Sept. 6: “Deputy Lieutenants and Committees in the counties empowered to examine witnesses against them.” The result was the beginning of that "great and general purgation of the clergy in the Parliament's quarters" about which there was such an outcry among the Royalists at the time, and which, after having been a rankling memory in the High Church heart for seventy years, became the main text of Walker's famous folio of 1714 on “The Sufferings of the Clergy of the Church of England in the Grand Rebellion." According to that book, and to Royalist tradition, it was a ruthless persecution and spoliation of all the best, the most venerable, and the most learned of the clergy of England. Fuller, however, writing at the time, and corroborated by Baxter, represents the facts more fairly. Not a few of the clergy first ejected, he admits, were really men of scandalous private character, and were turned out expressly on that account; others, who were turned out for what was called their “ false doctrine,” or obstinate adherence to that Arminian theology and ceremonial of worship which the nation had condemned, might regard themselves as simply suffering in their turn what Puritan ministers had suffered abundantly enough under the rule of Laud; and, if gradually the sequestration

1 Baillie, II. 120 and 130.

2 Commons Journals from March 1642-3 onwards. For sequence of proceedings and dates, see Index to

Journals, Vol. III., sub voce “Delinquents.' See also the main sequestrating ordinances (March 31 and Aug. 19, 1643) in Scobell's collection.

extended itself beyond these two categories of "scandalous ministers” and “ministers of unsound faith,” and swept in among “malignants” generally, or those whose only fault was that they were prominent adherents to the King, what was that but one of the harsh natural vengeances of a civil war? At the beginning of the purgation, at all events, Parliament professed carefulness and even leniency in its choice of victims. A fifth of the income of every ejected minister was reserved to his wife and family; and, in order that the public, and even the Royalists, might judge of the equity with which Parliament had proceeded in so odious a business, Mr. White, the chairman of the committees on clerical delinquency, put forth in print (Nov. 19, 1643) his “ First Century of Scandalous Malignant Priests,” or statement of the cases of one hundred of the sequestered clergy, chiefly in London and the adjacent counties, with the reasons of their ejection. At the time when Mr. White (thenceforward known as “Century White") put forth this pamphlet, the number of the ejected must have already considerably exceeded one hundred, or perhaps even three hundred; and, as the war went on, and sequestration became more and more co-extensive with “malignancy,” the number swelled till, as is calculated, some 1,500 or 1,600 clergymen in all, or about a sixth part of the total clergy of England, were thrown out of their livings.

Filling up of Vacant Livings by the appointment of New Ministers. For the sequestered livings there were, of course, numerous candidates. Not only were there the “plundered” Puritan ministers, most of them congregated in London, to be provided for; but there were the young Divinity scholars growing up, for whom, even in a state of war, or at least for such of them as took the side of Parliament, it was necessary to find employment. Obviously, however, some order or method had to be adopted in the exercise of the large patronage of vacant livings which had thus come suddenly into the hands of Parliament. The plundered ministers could not be thrust promiscuously, or by mere lottery, into such livings as were vacant. They had all, certainly, the qualification of being already ordained; but there were different sorts of persons among them, and some with very little to recommend them except their distress. It was essential that there should be some examination or re-examination of all such petitioners for new livings, in order that the unfit should not be appointed, and that the others might be provided for according to their degrees of fitness. Accordingly, at the request of the two Houses, the Westminster Assembly (Oct. 1643) appointed two-and-twenty of its Divines to be a committee for examining and reporting on the qualifications of all such petitioners for livings as might be referred to it by Parliament. About the same time a provisional arrangement was made for the more difficult matter of ordaining new candidates for the Ministry. The whole question of Ordination having yet to be argued and settled in the Assembly (see antè, p. 20), it was felt on all hands that some temporary arrangement was imperative. Accordingly, by the advice of the Assembly, the whole business of deciding who were fit to be ordained, and of duly ordaining such, was entrusted by Parliament to certain committees or associations of godly ministers, themselves already ordained, appointed for certain centres and districts. The chief Ordaining Committee was, of course, that for London and the country round. This committee, to which was assigned not only the ordination of new ministers for its important district, but also the ordination of all chaplains for the army and navy, consisted of twenty-three associated Presbyters (ten Divines of the Assembly and thirteen parish-ministers of London not in the Assembly), of whom seven were to be a quorum. Whosoever, not already ordained, should presume to preach publicly or otherwise exercise the ministerial office without having been ordained by this association, or one of the others, or at least without a certificate of having been approved by the Examining Committee of the Assembly, was to be reported to Parliament for censure and punishment. The London Divines were enjoined to be careful whom they admitted into their pulpits. In short, it was the object of both the Parliament and the Assembly to proclaim their determination that, while the question of Churchgovernment was being considered, some decent rule of practical order should be carefully observed, and England should not be allowed to lapse, as the Royalists were giving out, into a mere anarchy of ranters, preaching cobblers, and every fool his own parson.

i Commons Journals of dates July 3, July 27, and Sept. 6, 1613; White's First Century; Fuller's Church History

(ed. 1812), III. 458-460; Neal's Puritans, III. 23–34. See also Hallam's Const. Hist. (10th ed.), II. 164–166.

Visitation of the University of Cambridge. While the scandalous and malignant among the parish clergy were being sequestered and ejected, it was not to be expected that Parliament would spare the Universities. Oxford, for the present, was beyond reach ; but Cambridge was within reach. Was it to be endured that, while the town of Cambridge was the

very centre of the Associated Eastern Counties, the most zealously Parliamentarian region in all England, the University should be a fortress of malignancy, with many of its Heads of Houses and Fellows notoriously disaffected to Parliament, and showing their disaffection by sermons, publications from the University press, continuance of the forbidden usages and symbolisms in the College chapels, and such other acts of contumacy? For a long time Parliament had been asking itself this question. As early as June 10, 1643, the subject of “ some effectual means of reforming the University of Cambridge, “purging it from all abuses, innovations, and superstitions," and dealing with conspicuous malignants in it, had been under discussion in the Commons. There had been a reluctance, however, to proceed too rapidly, or so as to incur the Royalist reproaches of “invasion of University rights” and “ruin of a great seat of learning.” Hence, whatever dealings with the University had been necessary had been left very much to the discretion of the ordinary agencies representing Parliament in the Associated Counties, at the head of which, since Aug. 1613, had been the Earl of Manchester. There was even a Parliamentary ordinance (Jan. 6, 1643-4) explaining that, whatever sequestration there might

1 Neal, III. 88–90, and 138 --141.

« PreviousContinue »