are gone, we are lost, in a most miserable confusion." *

In these prophetic anticipations this keen ecclesiastic displayed much sagacity. While, in a theoretic point of view, Individual Independency or liberty of private judgment is the germ, and Aggregate Independency the full compliment, of the system of Independency considered as a consistent whole; Congregational Independency has ever proved the most practically powerful feature of the system, superinducing the other two where previously wanting, and shielding them where they have existed already. At this time, in particular, the separatists, rigid puritans, and baptists, however divided in other respects, were one in the judgment of such men as Bishop Hall, inasmuch as they all followed the "anarchical fashion of Independent congregations." As we advance in our historical narration, it will become yet more evident that this was in fact the pillar of the system in relation to all others antagonistic to it.

* Hanbury, i. 466.

CHAPTER IV.

INDEPENDENCY IN THE EARLY PART OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES THE FIRST. 1625-1633.

THE reign upon which we have now entered was so eventful in relation to our subject, as well as to other important matters connected with it, that it is necessary to trace more consecutively than hitherto the course of public affairs, both in church and state. While the advocates of Independency were a proscribed and exiled sect, who had no part or lot in the nation but that of suffering whatever indignity might be heaped upon them, it was scarcely needful to do more than indicate their own separate history. Now, however, when they gradually emerge from obscurity, and become not only an integral but influential part of the community, their bistory necessarily involves a more ample reference to contemporaneous events.

Charles the First came to the throne at a critical period and under peculiar circumstances. Deformed in body, of a dogged temper, he had also the misfortune to be educated in opinions better suited to the head of an absolute than of a constitutional monarchy; and that, too, at a time when popular principles were daily gaining the ascendant in the nation over which he was called to rule. In addition to this he inherited with the crown, the duplicity of his father, James the First, who, though presiding as the

head of a Protestant nation, sought for his son a Catholic alliance, reckless of all the consequences it was likely to involve. Never did the boasted kingcraft of James more effectually over-reach itself, than when he signed the articles of marriage between his son Charles and Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry the Fourth, and sister of Louis the Thirteenth, of France. This, his last public act, was the signal termination of a career remarkable for the want of practical wisdom, and devolved upon his successor the long series of troubles which ended in dethronement and death. The smallest amount of political sagacity might have shown him, that in the existing temper of the nation, of which he had had repeated proofs, no step could have been more ill-advised. But it was too late to retract. The death of James, shortly after, seemed to seal the contract; and before the funeral obsequies had been performed the ceremonial of marriage was consummated.

The articles of marriage embraced provisions of a special nature in reference to the religion of the queen. Not only were the penal laws against Roman Catholics to be suspended, and the queen to be unmolested in the full and free observance of all the rites of the Romish church; but intercourse between her majesty and Rome, for the purpose of obtaining dispensations, indulgences, jubilees, and all other graces, for herself and her household, was on no account to be prohibited, and her children were to be educated by persons of her own appointment, until they had arrived at the age of thirteen.*

If the character of her majesty had been in all respects unexceptionable, such provisions as these, in

* Rushworth, i. 86.

respect to herself, her children, her household, and the subjects of the realm who happened to be of her religion, could scarcely have failed to excite the jealousy of the Protestant portion of the nation, by far the largest portion at this time. Unhappily, however, the queen was as imperious, as, in the estimation of Charles, she was beautiful; and her addiction to intrigues" of all sorts," rendered her position all the more offensive to the people, and prejudicial to the interests of the king.*

These were not the only disadvantages under which Charles ascended the throne. His father's favourite and unprincipled minister, Buckingham, had been politic enough to keep on good terms with the son for many years past. Suiting himself to his humour, and flattering his vanity, he had completely ingratiated himself into his favour, and secured his confidence. At the same time, the court clergy with Laud at their head were prepared for the present to lend their sanction to any measures, calculated to give them influence over both king and people. Thus, from the very commencement of his reign this unfortunate monarch was the dupe of others. Catholic at heart, and yet called to reign over a protestant nation; nursed in prejudices and one-sided views of his prerogative, although in reality nothing more than the chief of a constitutional monarchy; he was at fault from the very first. His position was altogether artificial. Intrigue and duplicity, therefore, were the essential elements of his rule; and the only counsellors fitted to aid him in the accomplishment of his aims were such as were most fertile in expedients and stra

* See the testimonies of Clarendon, Burnet, and Kennet, in Neal, i. 506, 507.

tagems of state. If he had occupied the throne at an earlier period, he might possibly have succeeded in taming the nation down to sullen acquiescence in his designs; but, as it was, any sagacious mind might easily have foreseen the probable result of the protracted struggle into which he was driven.*

As

The first year of Charles's reign witnessed the commencement of decisive proceedings on the side of the parliament. The then Bishop of Chichester, Richard Mountagu, had published a work in 1624, which on account of its offensive doctrines respecting the royal prerogative and the authority of the church, parliament had sought to suppress and censure. if to spite the representatives of the people, Mountagu was taken into the number of Charles's chaplains ; and imagining himself secure under cover of the royal favour, republished his views under a new title, not less significant than the former. The Commons immediately summoned Mountagu to their bar, and would have proceeded to extreme measures, but for the interference of the king. As it was, he was held to bail in the sum of two thousand pounds, to make his appearance whenever required. Laud, who had been the means of procuring the aid of the monarch on Mountagu's behalf, perceived accurately enough the effect thereby produced on the temper of the Commons. "I seem to see a cloud arising," were the

* Less than two years after Charles ascended the throne, Withers the poet predicted the civil war, in his "Britain's Remembrancer."

†The first title was "A Gag for the New Gospel? No! a New Gag for an Old Goose, &c." The second was 66 Apello Cæsarem (I appeal to Cæsar): a just Appeal from two unjust Informers."