there can be no doubt that Fiennes kept his eye more closely than Digby had done upon the stern fact that the bishops of that generation had not merely acted harshly to individual Englishmen, but had opposed themselves to the Parliamentary conception of government. "Until the ecclesiastical government," said Fiennes, "be framed something of another twist. and be more assimilated to that of the commonwealth, I fear the ecclesiastical government will be no good neighbour unto the civil, but will be still casting of its leaven into it, to reduce that also to a sole absolute and arbitrary way of proceeding." Nor was it the political constitution alone that was endangered. "A second and great evil," added Fiennes, "and of dangerous consequence in the sole and arbitrary power of bishops over their clergy is this, that they have by this means a power to place and displace the whole clergy of their dioceses at their pleasure; and this is such a power as, for my part, I had rather they had the like power over the estate and persons of all within their diocese; for if I hold the one but at the will and pleasure of one man -I mean the ministry under which I must live-I can have but little, or at least no certain, joy or comfort in the other. But this is not all; for if they have such a power to mould the clergy of their dioceses according to their pleasure, we know what an influence they may have by them upon the people, and that in a short time they may bring them to such blindness, and so mould them also to their own wills, as that they may bring in what religion they please; nay, having put out our eyes, as the Philistines did Samson's, they may afterwards make us grind, and reduce us unto what slavery they please, either unto themselves, as formerly they have done, or unto others, as some of them lately. have been forward enough to do." Fiennes had yet more to say against the existing ecclesiastical system. He declared that excommunication had been degraded to a mere instrument for raising fees. In every respect the temporal part of the bishop's office had eaten away the spiritual. Bishoprics, deaneries, and chapters were like useless trees in a wood. They hindered the more profitable timber from growing. It would be much better to supply their places with preaching ministers. In con 1641 PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES. 281 clusion, he refrained from asking the House to abolish Episcoрасу. He would be content if the Londoners' petition were referred to the committee for its report.1 Continuance of the debate. On this ground the debate proceeded. Almost every member of note in the House, and very many who were of no note at all, rose to express an opinion on one side or the other. Pym and Hampden, St. John and Holles, the future leaders of the Parliamentary party, were all for the committal of the petition; though Pym is reported to have said 'that he thought it was not the intention of the House to abolish either Episcopacy or the Book of Common Prayer, but to reform both wherein offence was given to the people.'2 Hyde and Culpepper, Selden, Hopton, and Waller, the royalists of the days of the Grand Remonstrance, followed Digby and Falkland. ary parties. Slight as the difference might be between those who took opposite sides on that day, their parting gave the colour to The begin. English political life which has distinguished it ever ning of Parliament since, and which has distinguished every free government which has followed in the steps of our forefathers. It was the first day on which two parties stood opposed to one another in the House of Commons, not merely on some incidental question, but on a great principle of action which constituted a permanent bond between those who took one side or the other. How much was implied in this separation of Parliament into two bodies was little known then. For some little time it was only on one question that each group acted together at all, and even on that question the line which divided them was by no means sharply drawn. When that question rose into prominence it swallowed up all other questions, and those who had taken their sides on this February 8 were found agreeing or differing on all other points as they had agreed or differed then. It is absurd to speak of the two parties which came into existence on that day as answering in any way to our present 1 Rushworth, iv. 174. Bagshaw, who was 2 Bagshaw, A Just Vindication, 1660 (518, i. 2). at this time member for Southwark, speaks of Pym as a gentleman with whom I had familiar acquaintance, and knew his mind in that point.' D Question political divisions. It might seem at first, indeed, that no great political question was at issue at all. Both sides ostensibly at professed, and honestly professed, that they were in issue. favour of that limitation of monarchy which was implied in the passing of the Triennial Bill into law. Both sides honestly professed that they wished the Church to be under restrictions imposed by Parliament. Even in purely ecclesiastical matters there was a large amount of agreement. Digby wished, as little as Fiennes, to see the bishops again in possession of the powers which they had hitherto wielded, or dreamed for an instant of acknowledging any divine right in their order. The difference between the two parties lay in this. The one wished to leave the work of teaching and of conducting religious worship to the ministers themselves, whilst assigning to lay authorities all coercive jurisdiction. The other wished to retain the bishops as depositaries of coercive jurisdiction, whilst placing them strictly under the supervision of Parliament. The real cause of disunion. It Such at least was the question ostensibly at issue. If there had been no more than this between the parties, that question would doubtless have been settled one way or another without much more heart-burning than attends the settling of any complicated political difficulty in our own times. Both parties felt instinctively that the question before them was more than one of the arrangement of the manner in which coercive jurisdiction was to be exercised. was rather a question of influence. The possession of the pulpit brought with it the power of moulding the thoughts and habits. of men, which can only be compared with the power of the press in modern times. That the clergy would be far more Puritan than they had been in the days of Laud was perfectly evident. Even if Fiennes succeeded in establishing a body of lay commissioners to impose fines and imprisonment upon ecclesiastical offenders, or to decide testaEpiscopacy. mentary and matrimonial causes, they would have no power whatever to withstand the vast current of opinion which would be created by the Puritan clergy, and which would bear hardly upon those who by character, by position, or by intellect, were inclined to stand apart from the mass. To Pym Objects of the defenders of 1641 THE EPISCOPALIAN PARTY. 283 and Fiennes the danger was an unreal one. Partly they were thinking too much of combating the immediate evil before them to think at all of providing against an evil in the future, and partly they sympathised too strongly with the Puritan. teaching to be anxious to provide for the case of those who disapproved of it. In some sort, therefore, the party which followed Digby and Falkland was groping about in search of a shelter against the oppressive monotony of a democratic Church. Their weakness. Feb. 11. But they neither took a true measure of the proportion of the mischiefs to be counteracted, nor had they any clear conception of the fitting remedy to be applied. The immediate work of the day was to give to the ecclesiastical institutions of the nation, as Fiennes said, another twist, to bring them into some tolerable harmony with the religious feeling of the greater part of the nation. The next thing to be done was to provide space and room enough for the free play of religious and social life outside the organisation of the majority. What was really needed was the proclamation of religious liberty. It was precisely the thing of which no man in the House had any conception. Those who came nearest to it, Falkland and Selden, cried out for the maintenance of bishops. Undoubtedly there are conditions under which bishops are much safer guardians of religious liberty than Presbyterian Assemblies are likely to be. It was hardly the moment when this could be successfully alleged. The existing bishops, in all good conscience no doubt, had shown themselves strangely intolerant. Their warmest defenders asserted loudly that if they were to be retained at all they must be something very different from anything that they had been in past years. What Falk Indefinite aim. land and Digby offered to the world was, not a set ness of their of living men qualified to guide the Church, but a mere suggestion that a set of men, who had conspicuously failed in guiding it with reasonable prudence, might gradually be replaced by others who would understand their duty better, though no one knew on what principle the bishops of the future were likely to be selected. Pym's followers asked for inquiry with a definite object in view. Digby and Falkland resisted inquiry, and had no definite plan of their own to offer. No doubt the defenders of Episcopacy spoke of parliamentary and legal restrictions on the exercise of the office. But it needs little acquaintance with the world to know that no restrictions will make efficient leaders. It is better not to have a guide at all than to have one who is hampered at every turn, or who has no clear idea in what direction he wishes to go. The direction in which the new bishops were to go would depend very much upon the persons who had the selection of them. On this point, however, no new suggestion was made. There might be differences of opinion as to whether the bishops were the successors of the Apostles or not, as to whether they had been wise or foolish, self-seeking or self-denying. But it was impossible to deny that they had been the The bishops the King's King's nominees, and, for all that was said in the debate, it would appear that the defenders of Episcopacy intended that they should remain the King's nominees still. By this consideration the question was carried at once into the region of general politics. The supporters of Episcopacy would gradually become supporters of the independent authority of the Crown. They would become apt to overlook Charles's faults, and to trust him more than he deserved to be trusted. Those, on the other hand, who wished to be quit of bishops, lest in retaining them in the Church they should be retaining influences bitterly hostile to the parliamentary system which they wished to found, would only be confirmed in their distrust of a king to whom the bishops looked for support, and did not look in vain. nominees. Position of It is not probable that any decided resolution had been taken by the leaders of the party which associated itself with Fiennes on this question, beyond that required by the exigencies of the moment. Pym does not appear to have spoken at any length. He sympathised to some extent with the root-and-branch policy, and he had made up his mind that the institutions of Church and State must both receive another twist. The exact way in which this was to be accomplished must depend upon the course of circumstances, and especially upon the conduct of the King. |