11 December 1640 A.D. LONDON: Root and Branch Petition
|
What is the best form of church
government? Should there be bishops ruling in a hierarchical order, should each
congregation be independent, should councils and synods establish church
policy, or should a church be organized along some other lines? These issues
were being fiercely debated in England in the seventeenth century. On December 11, 1640, the citizens of
London presented a petition with 15,000 signatures to Parliament. Known as the
"Root and Branch Petition", it sought to sweep away the existing
church hierarchy with its "roots and branches."
The petition listed dozens of
reasons for being rid of the existing system. Its second point can be taken as
an example of the whole document. The evil it complained of was "The
faint-heartedness of ministers to preach the truth of God, lest they should
displease the prelates [churchmen of high rank]; as namely, the doctrine of
predestination, of free grace, of perseverance, of original sin remaining after
baptism, of the Sabbath, the doctrine against universal grace, election for
faith foreseen, freewill against Antichrist, non-residents, human inventions in
God's worship; all which are generally withheld from the people's knowledge,
because not relishing [ie: not pleasing] to the bishops."
The Parliament which received
the "Root and Branch Petition" became known as the Long Parliament.
It was called by King Charles I out of his desperate need for money and lasted
for twenty years. Once called, the Parliament took measures to destroy the
absolutism of the King in both civil and religious affairs. The House of
Commons accepted the "Root and Branch Petition" and passed the
"Roots and Branch Bill." A majority of the members believed the
office of bishop and the policies of Archbishop Laud should be destroyed, but
they were not sure what form of church government to put in their place. As one
member, Oliver Cromwell said, "I can tell you, sirs, what I would not
have, though I cannot what I would."
There were several options
available once the old hierarchy of rule by king-appointed bishops was
abolished. Some wanted a state church with a commission chosen by Parliament
replacing the bishops; some wanted a form of Scottish Presbyterianism. Others
wanted an independent church, with each individual congregation controlling its
own affairs. In the end, the House of Commons favored Presbyterianism while the
Army favored the Independents. The House of Lords (which included many
bishops), opposed the Root and Branch Bill entirely. They resented any pressure
from the people to reorganize their House. Ultimately, the Bill was rejected by
the House of Lords, and the episcopal organization of the Church of England
remained in place.
Bibliography:
2. Gee, Henry and Hardy, William John, editors. Documents Illustrative of
English Church
History. New York:
Macmillan, 1896.
3. Jesse, John Heneage. Memoirs of the Court of England During the Reign of
the Stuarts, including the Protectorate. (England Under the
Stewarts). London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847. Source of the image.
Last updated July,
2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment