« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
reply to Cotton's book." Persons of no less consideration than the Scottish Commissioners, Samuel Rutherfurd” and Robert Baylie,” came into the lists against him. Herle, the Prolocutor of the Assembly, lent his aid, and was answered by two divines of New England." Other distinguished Englishmen took part in the controversy;” none entered into it with more bitterness on the Presbyterian side than William Prynne, the sufferer a few years before from the tyranny of Laud." William Apollonius, of Middelburg, in Zeeland, maintained the cause of the English Presbyterians in a learned Latin treatise, and was answered by John Norton, of Ipswich, in Massachusetts.” Much of the discussion between parties in the Assembly was conducted in writing, and the papers were from time to time given to the public in print.” The irreconcilable character of these differences was becoming apparent, when, after the second battle of Newbury, the royalist and patriot armies withdrew for some months from the field. From other causes which had now arisen, the rivalry between the two popular religious parties took more practical and vigorous forms. The King signified his disposition to treat. His affairs had by no means become desperate. The great disasters which had befallen him had not been uncompeni. sated, and the termination of the last campaign .* had been honorable to his arms. But, in respect to regular supplies of money, he was at serious disadvantage when compared with the Parliament; and this, he now clearly perceived, would be a growing embarrassment, till negotiation or victory should restore him to his power. The Presbyterians were not indisposed to an accommodation with him. They meant that a condition of it should be the establishment of their own church order; but to this they were not without strong hope of obtaining his consent, and they had become jealous of the army, which they already apprehended to be freeing itself too much from their control, but which could not be disbanded while the King was at the head of a hostile array. The Independents, on the other hand, would have been satisfied with no peace which, in the place of the Episcopacy that had been overturned, would have set up a religious authority equally intolerant of them, if not equally odious to them. The negotiation for a peace was held at Uxbridge, a town fifteen miles from London, on the road to Negotiation Oxford, where were the royal head-quarters. It “...” lasted twenty days. The King was represented February. by sixteen Commissioners, the English Parliament by twelve, and the Scots by ten, “for the Estates of the Parliament, together with Mr. Alexander Henderson, upon the Propositions concerning religion.” The various subjects of dispute arranged themselves under three heads; — the religious establishment, the control of the militia, and the disposal of affairs in Ireland. The king was prevailed upon by his advisers to propose that the militia should be intrusted to twenty Commissioners, to be designated by agreement between him and the Parliament, or one half by each party; — the command to be restored to him at the end of three years. On the other side, no less was required than that the command for seven years should belong to officers named by the Parliament, and that at the end of that time it should be subject to legislative arrangement. As to Ireland, it was demanded that Parliament should have the exclusive management of the war, and that, after the reduction of that island, they should appoint the high officers for its government. To any such terms, it was manifestly impossible that the King should accede, until he was much further humbled; and it was therefore with indifference that the Independents saw him required by the Parliamentary negotiators, not only to abjure his own Episcopal religion, but to agree to the recognition of Presbytery as the exclusive national establishment. The parties separated to make another appeal to force. They could scarcely have expected anything else, when they met. Desirable to the King as a pacification was, could he have had it on his own conditions, one of his motives for proposing it in the existing circumstances may reasonably be supposed to have been, to throw upon his opponents the odium of obstinate rebellion; a manoeuvre which it was equally to be expected that they would traverse by accepting his overture, so as to convict him of the arrogance and hypocrisy of offering inadmissible terms. Oliver St. John and Henry Vane were at Uxbridge, looking on; and they were not men to read without discernment the signs of the times. The Independents and their allies had had little doubt that the war was to proceed, and they had already been taking their measures accordingly. The numerical strength was even now proportionately much greater in the army than in the Assembly or the Parliament; and their wise men did not fail to perceive what a power the army was rising to be in the State, as well as that, even more than Parliament or Assembly, it was a power to be controlled and used by the intelligence and resolution of single minds. The time had given them advantages. The events of the recent campaign, the disastrous defeats dealt to the King by their friends Fairfax and Cromwell, compared with the weakness of the war against him wherever the adherents of the rival party — Essex, Waller, and Manchester—had commanded, and the alleged misconduct of the Scots at Marston-Moor, had placed them in a position to feel great confidence in themselves and in one another, and to expect to be regarded with much deference. It was through Cromwell's
* “Vindicia Clavium, or a Windica-
the Independency of Churches,” &c.,
* “Consideratio quarundam Controversiarum, ad Regimen Ecclesiae spectantium, quae in Angliae Regno hodie agitantur,” &c.
* “Responsio ad totam Quaestionum Syllogen, &c. Per Johannem Norton, Ministrum Ecclesiae quae est Ipsuici in Nová Anglia.”
* In 1648, these papers were collected and published under the title, “The Reasons presented by the Dissenting Brethren against certain Propositions concerning Presbyterial Government, and the Proofs of them, voted by the Assembly of Divines sitting, by Authority of Parliament, at Westminster,
together with the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to those Reasons of Dissent.” The book is the same as that which, with the date of 1652, has for a title-page, “The Grand Debate concerning Presbytery and Independency,” &c. The copy which I use (belonging to the American Antiquarian Society) has attached to it another volume, also published in 1648, consisting of “Papers given in to the Honorable Committee of Lords and Commons and Assembly of Divines by a SubCommittee of Divines of the Assembly and Dissenting Brethren.”— Compare “Anatomy of Independency” (1644).
influence that Lord Manchester, previously to the important movements about York, in which he acted a leading part, had been placed in command of the levies from the counties composing what was called the “Eastern Association.” But Cromwell had been displeased with the inaction of his commander after the second battle of Newbury, and in his place in Parliament expressed his dissatisfaction in terms so vehement as to fall little short of a charge of treacherous disaffection to the CallSe. The rising party urged upon Parliament the necessity of a new organization of the troops. They insisted that the war, as it had been hitherto conducted,—without zeal, without activity, without judgment, without plan,— was cruelly harassing the country and affording no promise of a speedy issue. A day of fasting was kept, to implore Divine direction as to a method of ** extrication from the existing embarrassments and ..." fears. Some of the Independent ministers, in the City and elsewhere, used the occasion to trace the existing evils to such an ambition for self-aggrandizement on the part of eminent men, as caused them to retain high places at once in the civil and the military service, to the detriment of their efficiency in the field. Whether or not there had been concert between the Independents in the pulpit and the Independents in the House of Commons, the hint was taken up in Parliament. The day after the Fast, Sir Henry Vane, in his place, extolled the frankness of the preachers, ascribing it to an operation of the spirit of God. He earnestly recommended a course of self-abnegation; and, for his own part, proposed to resign at once the office which he held of Treasurer of the Navy. Cromwell followed in the same vein; and, while he cautioned the House not “to put trust in the arm of flesh,” he assured them that, if members of Parliament should resign their military commands, there would not be the difficulty