house. July 27, 1643, they were empowered to consider of informations against scandalous ministers, though there were no malignancy proved against them, and to put out such whose scandal was sufficiently proved; from which time the committee for scandalous and plundered ministers were in a sort united, and so continued to the end of the long parliament.* In order to silence the clamours of the royalists, and justify the severe proceedings of these committees, it was resolved to print the cases of those whom they ejected, and submit their conduct to the public censure; accordingly, towards the latter end of the year, Mr. White the chairman published a pamphlet, entitled, "The first century of scandalous malignant priests, made and admitted into benefices by the prelate, in whose hands the ordination of ministers and government of the church had been; or, a narration of the causes for which the parliament has ordered the sequestration of the benefices of several ministers complained of before them, for viciousness of life, errors in doctrine, contrary to the articles of our religion, and for practising and pressing superstitious innovations against law, and for malignancy against the parliament." The author in his preface says, the reason of his appearing in print was, "that the parliament might appear just in their doings, that the mouth of iniquity might be stopped; that all the world might see, that the tongues of them that speak evil of the parliament are set on fire of hell; that they hide themselves under falsehood, and make lies their refuge." And then adds, "that the grossest faults which were charged on the clergy were proved by many witnesses, seldom less than six." The whole century were convicted of malignity, or disaffection to the parliament; and about eighty of them of scandalous immoralities in their lives. Dr. Walker has endeavoured to recover the reputation of seven or eight, and would insinuate that the rest were convicted upon too slender evidence, the witnesses not being always upon oath, nor in his opinion of sufficient credit to impeach a clergyman; that some of the crimes were capital, and therefore if they had been proved, must have touched not only the livings but the lives of the criminals; and that the parliament who set up for precise morals, accepted the mere verbal evidence of the most infa* Walker's Attempt, p. 73. mous people. However, the doctor himself has admitted and confirmed the centurist's account of many of the scandalous ministers, by the inquiries he has made into their characters in the places from whence they were ejected. Mr. Fuller confesses, "that several of the offences of the clergy were so foul, that it is a shame to report them, crying to justice for punishment." But then adds, in favour of others, "that witnesses against them were seldom examined on oath. That many of the complainers were factious people. That some of the clergy were convicted for delivering doctrines that were disputable, and others only for their loyalty."* Bishop Kennet says, that several of them were vicious to a scandal, And Mr. Archdeacon Echard is of the same mind. But Mr. Baxter's testimony is more particular and decisive, who says, "that in all the countries where he was acquainted, six to one at least, if not many more, that were sequestered by the committees, were by the oaths of witnesses proved insufficient or scandalous, or especially guilty of drunkenness and swearing. This I know (says the reverend author) will displease the party, but I am sure that this is true."+ It is impossible to account for the particular proceedings of all the committees, of which great outcries have been made by the friends of the sufferers. "If the meanest and most vicious parishioners could be brought to prefer a petition against their parson to the house of commons, how falsely soever (says lord Clarendon), he was sure to be prosecuted for a scandalous minister." His lordship adds, "that the committees accepted of the evidence not only of mean people, but of them who were professed enemies of the discipline of the church; that they baited the clergy with rude and uncivil language; that they obliged them to a long and tedious attendance, and were very partial in voting them out of their livings, right or wrong." In another place he says, "that these complaints were frequently exhibited by a few of the meanest of the people against the judgment of the parish." The like representation is made by most of the royalists; but the writers on the side of the parliament deny the charge, and complain as loudly of the contemptuous behaviour of the king's clergy to the commissioners, treating * Church History, b. 11. p. 207. t Baxter's Life, p. 74. them as a combination of illiterate laymen, who had nothing to do with the church; nay, as rebels and traitors. Some refused to obey their summons, and others who appeared took their time in examining the spelling of words, the propriety of grammar, and other little evasions, foreign to the purpose. They declared roundly, they did not own the tribunal before which they stood; they insulted the witnesses, and threatened reprisals out of court, when things should revert to their former channel; and upon the whole behaved as if they had engrossed all the law, learning, and good sense, of the nation to themselves. The commissioners, provoked with this usage, were obliged to behave with some sharpness, in order to support their own authority; they would not indulge them the peculiar privilege they claimed as clergymen, nor allow them as scholars to debate the truth of those doctrines of which they were accused, but confined them to matters of fact. When they excepted against the witnesses as ignorant mechanics, factious, schismatical, enemies to the church, &c. they overruled their exceptions, as long as there were no legal objections to their competency or credibility. With regard to the country committees, the commissioners were chosen out of the deputy-lieutenants, and the best country gentlemen in the parliament interest. Most of the crimes for which the clergy were sequestered were confessed by themselves; superstition and false doctrine were hardly ever objected, far the greatest part being cast out for malignity; and yet the proceedings of the sequestrators were not always justifiable; for whereas a court of judicature should rather be counsel for the prisoner than the prosecutor, the commissioners considered the king's clergy as their most dangerous enemies, and were ready to lay hold of all opportunities to discharge them their pulpits. par But whatever might be the excesses or partiality of ticular committees, no reasonable blame can be laid upon the two houses, whose instructions were, in my opinion, unexceptionable; the words of the ordinance are these:"And to the end that those who will appear before the committee may have the witnesses examined in their presence, it is farther ordained, that summonses, with sufficient warning of the time and place when and where the charge against them shall be proved, be either given to their per sons, or left at their houses; and if they desire it, they shall have a copy of the articles against them, with a convenient time to give in their answer under their hands, which toge, ther with their charge, and the proofs upon every particular of it, the said deputy-lieutenants, and committees of parliament, shall send up to the committee of this house, appointed to provide for plundered ministers; which committee shall from time to time transmit them to this house.”* And farther to prevent all abuses, it is ordained, in the ordinance for sequestration, "that if any person or persons find themselves aggrieved with any acts done by the sequestrators, their agents or deputies, and shall not therein be relieved by the sequestrators, upon complaint made to them, or any two or more of them; then upon information given to both houses of parliament, or to the committee of lords and commons aforementioned, such farther order shall be taken therein as shall be agreeable to justice." Here was an appeal from a lower to a higher court; and to prevent a scru tiny into the lives and manners of the clergy, when their witnesses might be dead, they were limited to such crimes as had been committed within three years before the beginning of the present parliament; so that if the committees observed their orders there could be little cause of complaint; yet as no one will undertake to vindicate all their proceedings, we must not, on the other hand, give ear to the petulant and angry complaints of every discontented clergyman.‡ I shall only observe farther, that these country committees hardly began to sit till the latter end of the year 1643, or the beginning of 1644; that they exercised their power very sparingly while the war was in suspense, but when the royal forces had been beat out of the field, and victory declared on their side, they proceeded with more freedom, especially against those who had made themselves parties in the war. Very different accounts are given of the numbers and quality of the ejected clergy by their several friends. Lord Clarendon says, that all the learned and orthodox divines of England were deemed scandalous. And Dr. Walker has taken a great deal of pains to increase their numbers, and vindicate their characters. By this account one would think most of them were of the first rank and character; but *Husband's Collections, p. 311. + Ibid. p. 15. Mr. Baxter,* who was much better acquainted with them, says, "that when the parliament purged the ministry, they cast out the grosser sort of insufficient and scandalous ones, and also some few civil men who had assisted in the wars against the parliament, or set up bowing to altars, and such innovations, but they left in near one half of the ministers that were not good enough to do much service, nor bad enough to be utterly intolerable. These were a company of poor weak preachers, who had no great skill in divinity, nor zeal for godliness, but preached weekly that that was true, and were free from notorious sins.' This seems a pretty fair relation of the matter; however, we shall have occasion to consider it more fully hereafter. Besides the sequestration of benefices, the parliament considered the king's clergy as parties in the war, and seized their estates both real and personal under that character, towards defraying the expenses of it; for this purpose they passed the following ordinance, April 1, 1643, the preamble to which sets forth,+ "that it is most agreeable to common justice, that the estates of such notorious delinquents as have been the causes or instruments of the public calamities, which have hitherto been employed to the fomenting and nourishing of this miserable distraction, should be converted and applied towards the support of the commonwealth. "Be it therefore enacted, that the estates, as well real as personal, of all such bishops, deans, deans and chapters, prebends, archdeacons, and of all other persons ecclesiastical or temporal, who have or shall raise arms against the parliament; or have been, or shall be, in actual war against the same; or who have, or shall voluntarily contribute, money, horse, plate, arms, ammunition, or other aid or assistance, towards the maintenance of any force raised against the parliament, or for the plundering the king's subjects, who have willingly contributed, or yielded obedience, to the commands of both houses of parliament, and of all such who have joined or shall join in any oath or association against the parliament, &c. shall be seized into the hands of sequestrators, to be named by both houses of parliament, which sequestrators, or their deputies, are to seize into their hands, as well all the money, goods, chattels, * Life, p. 95. + Husband's Collections, fol. 13. |