Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V.

A commission issues to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and eleven other persons, for governing the colonies, &c.— Abbot and Laud, their conduct contrasted-Severe trials of the Church-Its character and conduct-Colonists assume the right of making treaties-Free-Trade with the Narragansetts-Offer of hereditary rank made by Lord Saye and Sele-Reasons for declining it-Petition of the people debarred of civil rights for nonconformity— They are summoned to appear before the Governor and Assistants, and denounced by the Ministers-Heavily fined and bound over to keep the peace-Their private papers searched, and a memorial found addressed to the Earl of Warwick-Its contents The people extend their jurisdiction to Weathersfield, situated beyond the limits of Massachusetts-Justification of encroachmentGorton's settlement broken up, and his followers severely punished-The Grand Council of Plymouth surrenders its Charter on the ground of the colonists claiming independence-A Quo Warranto ordered to be issued for the revocation of the Charter Sir Ferdinando Georges nominated Governor-General-The Ministers convened to advise―They recommend resistance-Dissenters from

the Churches of Massachusetts settle at Connecticut, Rhode Island, and other places-War with the Pequods -The army under a covenant of works-Extermination of the Indian tribe-Troubles in England-The colony is left unmolested.

In England great astonishment was expressed at this usurpation, which naturally drew attention also to the artful manner in which Episcopalians were excluded, if not from the country, at least from all participation in its government. A royal commission, therefore, was granted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and eleven other persons, for the management of colonial affairs, conferring or revoking patents, appointing public officers, and other more extensive powers. The recital reasserts, in distinct terms, that the object of the King, in granting the Charter, "was not merely to enlarge the territories of our empire, but more especially to propagate the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The contumacy and intractability of the Puritans at home increased the alarm that was felt at the extension of the sect in America. Every means had been tried and exhausted for reconciling or conciliating them, but in vain. Concessions led to further demands, kindness only served to infuse a belief of weakness; and, in the exasperated state of public feeling, nothing appeared to be left but compulsion. The indulgence of Abbot rather emboldened their opposition, as they affected to see

in his mildness or negligence a similarity of opinions with their own. Laud, warned by the failure of his predecessor, was more vigilant and more rigid, and endeavoured to compel these refractory Nonconformists to obedience, by a strict enforcement of the law, in the execution of which he showed himself as zealous, active, and almost as severe as the Puritans themselves. These people exhibited the most melancholy specimen of the arrogance, obstinacy, and inconsistency of the human mind to be found in any age or country. At the very time that they were depriving every person in Massachusetts of all civil rights, who was not in full communion with them, or imprisoning, fining, or banishing whoever dared to maintain doctrines at variance with their own, they denounced as a bigot and a demon the Archbishop, who, unfortunately, adopted the same error of compulsory conversion as themselves.

It was not without great alarm, therefore, they were informed that a Quo Warranto had been issued against them, and that the Governor was ordered by the Board forthwith to send back to England the Charter which had been so surreptitiously removed. They had now a man to deal with, who knew their principles too well to be duped by professions, whose duty it was to protect his own Church, and to see that no part of his Majesty's dominions was closed against her

members, and who had penetrated the designs of their co-religionists to subvert the monarchy. From his well-known integrity and piety they knew that they might look for justice; but they saw nothing in the contumely and insults they had heaped upon him to lead them to hope that he would make another fruitless attempt to try the effect of indulgence.

The conduct of these two prelates, Abbot and Laud, has been variously viewed, both by contemporary authors and historians of the present day, according to the uncertain standard of their own morals and politics. By some the moderation or connivance of the first has been extolled as an example of Christian virtue, worthy of all praise; while a rigid adherence to ecclesiastical discipline, and a strict observance of the law of the land, has earned for the other a character for cruelty and tyranny. But the agitated state of the times, the fury of party, the ferocity and disloyalty of schismatics, and the intrigues of an unscrupulous Court, if they do not afford a justification for the negligence of the one, or the rigour of the other, well warrant us in putting a charitable construction on the conduct of both. Where the shelter of noninterference merely aggravated the evil, it was natural to try the only other alternative, severity; and subsequent events have now clearly disclosed to us that the middle course, in which justice is

tempered with mercy, so difficult at all times to be found, and especially in civil commotions, would have been equally unavailing. It is probable,

however, that if Abbot had been more firm, Laud would have been less severe; and it is certain that a proper discharge of his duty, without perilling his own life, would have saved that of his martyred successor.

No religious establishment has had so much to contend against as the Anglican Church. For centuries before the Reformation, she had to endure the assaults of Rome; and ever since, the furious attacks of fanatics; while lately she has had to withstand them both, under the serious disadvantage of being crippled by the State in the freedom of her actions. Formerly, the Government, to suit their own political views, found it necessary to fill the bench of Bishops with persons holding high prerogative opinions. In more recent times the selection for a similar purpose has been too often made from latitudinarians, while during the whole period of time, she has had within her own pale a numerous party who receive her pay, and eat her bread, but refuse to do her bidding, or teach her doctrines. Deprived of her convocation, she has been powerless to preserve uniformity, defend herself or enforce her discipline, and, above all, to exert her whole voice in demanding her ancient right of electing her own prelates. Hence the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »