CHAPTER V.
MEETINGS OF PRESBYTERIANS.
Soon after the King's return the Earl of Manchester employed his influence, as Lord Chamberlain, in the appointment of ten or twelve Presbyterian chaplains at Court; of these only four—Reynolds, Calamy, Spurstow, and Baxter—ever had the honour of ministering before His Majesty.[125] Baxter states that there was no profit connected with the distinction; and that not "a man of them all ever received, or expected a penny for the salary of their places." But if the office brought no pay to himself, he was anxious it should bring profit to the Church; and, therefore, he employed the influence, which his chaplaincy gave him, to promote such measures as he thought conducive to the advancement of religion. He suggested to the Earl, and to Lord Broghill, a conference, for what he called "agreement," or "coalition;"[126] and as Calamy, Reynolds, and Ash, concurred in his views, he procured an arrangement in the month of June for himself, and his brethren in office, to meet their Royal master, with Clarendon, the Earl of St. Albans, and other noble persons, at the house of the Lord Chamberlain.
1660.
When they met, Baxter, with characteristic ardour and pathos, delivered a long address, probably such as Charles had never listened to before, although he had heard much plain speaking on the other side the Tweed. The Puritan Divine besought His Majesty's aid in favour of union, urging, that it would be a blessed work to promote holiness and concord; and, "whereas there were differences between them and their brethren about some ceremonies or discipline of the Church," he "craved His Majesty's favour for the ending of those differences, it being easy for him to interpose, that so the people might not be deprived of their faithful pastors, nor [have] ignorant, scandalous, unworthy ones obtruded on them." Baxter also expressed a hope that the King would never suffer himself to undo the good which Cromwell, or any other, had done, because they were usurpers that did it, "but that he would rather outgo them in doing good." Then, with exquisite simplicity, the speaker went on to say that common people judged of governors by their conduct; and took him to be the best who did the most good, and him to be the worst who did the most harm. He hoped that the freedom of his expressions might be pardoned, as they were "extracted by the present necessity;" and he further declared that he was pleading for no one party in particular, but for the interests of religion at large. In concluding his address he urged the great advantage which union would prove to His Majesty, to the people, and to the Bishops; and showed how easily that blessing might be secured, by insisting only upon necessary things, by providing for the exercise of Church discipline, and by not casting out faithful ministers, "nor obtruding unworthy men on the people."[127] The whole speech was pitched in a key of earnestness beyond the sympathy of him to whom it was addressed; there was in it, nevertheless, a charm to which the easy-tempered Charles might not be insensible, and with his usual politeness, he professed himself gratified by any approach being made towards agreement. He, at the same time, remarked that there ought to be abatements on both sides, and a meeting midway; adding, that he had resolved to see the thing brought to pass, indeed, that he would himself draw the parties together. Upon listening to this Royal pledge, Mr. Ash, one of the chaplains, was so affected that he burst into tears.
PRESBYTERIAN PROPOSALS.
Baxter and his associates were requested to draw up proposals for consideration at a future conference, to which they consented, with the understanding, that for the present they could only speak for themselves, and not as representatives of others. They also craved, that if concessions were granted on one side, concessions should be granted on the other. To this Charles agreed.
Meetings were accordingly held immediately afterwards at Sion College—meetings prolonged from day to day. By general invitation both city and country ministers attended, including Dr. Worth, afterwards made an Irish Bishop, and Mr. Fulwood, subsequently appointed Archdeacon of Totness.[128]
Difficulties arose of a nature necessarily accompanying all debates; for, as Baxter says, that which seemed the most convenient expression to one, seemed inconvenient to another, and those who agreed as to matter had much ado in agreeing as to words. The latter might be true to some extent, but in all probability the discussions at Sion College resembled others elsewhere, in which men have agreed as to words, in order to cover some very important difference as to things. At last the brethren resolved to make the following proposals:—
That their flocks should have liberty of worship; that they should have godly pastors; that no persons should be admitted to the Lord's table except upon a credible profession of faith; and that care should be taken to secure the sanctification of the Lord's Day. For "matters in difference, viz., Church government, Liturgy, and ceremonies"—they professed not to dislike Episcopacy, or the true ancient primitive presidency, as it was balanced and managed, with a due commixture of Presbyters; yet they omitted not to state what they conceived to be amiss in the Episcopal government, as practised before the year 1640—specifying the too great extent of the Bishop's diocese, their employment of officials instead of personal oversight, the absorption by prelates of the functions of ordination and government, and the exercise of arbitrary power in spiritual rule. They proposed, as a remedy, Ussher's scheme of suffragan Bishops and diocesan synods, the associations not to "be so large as to make the discipline impossible;" and they requested that no oaths of obedience to Bishops should be necessary for ordination; and that Bishops should not exercise authority at their pleasure, but only according to such rules and canons as should be established by Act of Parliament. They were satisfied concerning the lawfulness of a Liturgy, but they objected to the Prayer Book, as having in it many things justly offensive and needing amendment.
1660.
It may be stated here, that all these proposals took the form of a direct address to His Majesty; and in reference to ceremonies, the memorialists heartily acknowledged His Majesty "to be Custos utriusque tabulæ, and to be supreme governor over all persons, and in all things and causes as well ecclesiastical as civil." After this they besought him to consider, as a Christian magistrate, whether he felt not obliged, by the apostle's rule, touching things indifferent, to act so as not to occasion an offence to weak brethren. They therefore prayed that kneeling at the sacrament, and such holydays as are of human institution, might not be imposed; and that the use of the surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus, might be abolished.[129] Objections to these practices had become traditional. They had been urged throughout the reign of Queen Elizabeth—they were specified in the Millenary Petition presented to King James. It should be added, that neither in this paper, nor in any of the conferences which followed, did the ministers plead for the establishment of Presbyterianism. "I leave it here on record," says Baxter, "to the notice of posterity, that to the best of my knowledge, the Presbyterian cause was never spoken for, nor were they ever heard to petition for it at all." All they sought was a reduced Episcopacy.[130]
THE PRELATES' ANSWER.
When Baxter and his friends attended the next meeting with the King, expecting to find the Episcopalians prepared with some concessions, he "saw not a man of them, nor any papers from them of that nature." Still Charles showed himself gracious, promising, after all, to bring the Bishops together, and get them to yield something; at the same time expressing gratification with the Presbyterians' address, especially with their expressed willingness to adopt a Liturgy.[131] Instead of the desired conference being granted, a written answer came from the prelates, to the chaplains.[132] In this answer we find that the prelates begin by turning to their own advantage the concessions of the Presbyterians. The Presbyterians agreed with the Episcopalians in doctrine. Why should they be so scrupulous about minor matters? Such is the tone of the paper, and it is the habitual Episcopalian temper throughout, even in its least unfriendly moods. Professing a willingness to reform what had been objectionable in time past, or what might be inconvenient for the future, the Bishops defended the constitution and usages of their own Church before the Wars, and treated "Ussher's Reduction," so called, as inconsistent with other discourses of the learned prelate. After extolling the Liturgy, they remarked—"nor are ministers denied the use and exercise of their gifts in praying before and after sermon, although such praying be but the continuance of a custom of no great antiquity." Had this sentence meant, that scope should be given for free, as well as for liturgical, worship—that clergymen should be allowed to pray at Church extempore, as well as read prayers, the concession would have been most important; subsequent events, however, show that such was not the meaning, and also that the following passage, which might be construed as granting much, signified little, or nothing—"If anything in the established Liturgy shall be made appear to be justly offensive to sober persons, we are not at all unwilling that the same should be changed." With regard to ceremonies, they now seemed to concede what they afterwards refused to allow. "How far forth, in regard of tender consciences, a liberty may be thought fit to be indulged to any, His Majesty, according to his great wisdom and goodness, is best able to judge."
1660.
The Presbyterians were not slow in offering a defence of their own proposals, and a remonstrance against the replies. Some of Baxter's companions were for giving up further attempts in despair; but he, although not sanguine, determined to persevere, for reasons which deserve to be remembered. After calling to mind that Christians were commanded, if possible, to live peaceably with all men;—that failure in the negotiations going on was not inevitable;—and that no political apprehensions need be entertained respecting Nonconformists, because even if they were far more numerous than they really were, yet they abhorred "all thoughts of sedition and rebellion,"—he ended the vindication of his policy in the following noble words:—"I looked to the end of all these actions, and the chief things that moved me, next the pleasing of God and conscience is, that when we are all silenced and persecuted—and the history of these things shall be delivered to posterity—it will be a just blot upon us if we suffer as refusing to sue for peace; and it will be our just vindication, when it shall appear that we humbly petitioned for and earnestly pursued after peace, and came as near them for the obtaining it as Scripture and reason will allow us to do, and were ready to do anything for peace except to sin and damn our souls."[133] "Let God be judge between you and me," had been Oliver's words when he dismissed his last intractable Parliament, thus appealing to Heaven and posterity. To the same tribunal Baxter was prepared to remit his own controversy with his Anglican brethren.
THE CONTROVERSY.
It looked at first as if the Presbyterians had really made some impression on their opponents; at least Clarendon was willing, that just then, they should think so. On the 4th of September he sent them the draft of a Royal Declaration of Indulgence. It did not satisfy Baxter; and he, therefore, wrote an elaborate reply, which was altered at the suggestion of some of his friends.[134] The reply took the shape of a petition to the King; yet it was such an immoderately long dissertation that the idea of Charles reading it through is perfectly amusing. No man except a guileless one could have written the paper, but the paper betrayed an utter want of tact and judgment.
1660.
THE CONTROVERSY.
An opportunity had arisen in the history of the Church of England for healing a wound which had been bleeding ever since the Reformation. A moment had arrived, calling upon the two great parties, into which that Church had been so long divided, to look at their differences in the light of wisdom and charity. But the history of mankind presents so many misimproved conjunctions of circumstances, that students of the past become familiar with lost opportunities, and are almost hardened against the sorrow which they inspire in the bosoms of more benevolent but less experienced persons. It is useless to speculate upon the probable issue, at the period under review, if the settlement of affairs had been approached in another kind of spirit. It is more practical to endeavour to understand how things really stood; and it will enable the reader to follow the controversy better, if we here pause for a moment to look distinctly at deep differences which lay around narrow discussions, and to show what were some of the salient points which presented themselves in relation to the larger question. The Presbyterians, with great confidence, carried their cause before the tribunal of Scripture, and showed from their own point of view, that for their fundamental doctrine of the official equality of all Christian ministers they had on their side the law of the New Testament; for they maintained that on its pages the terms Bishop and Presbyter are interchangeably used, and that no traces of a clerical hierarchy are to be found in the inspired records. Turning to Church history, from the third century to the seventeenth, they easily gathered proofs and illustrations of the growth of ecclesiastical usurpation; of the change of primitive Episcopacy into an elaborate system of spiritual despotism; of the rise of Archbishops and Patriarchs; of the pride, the power, the ambition, and the wealth of prelates; of the tyranny they exercised over civil society; of the corruptions of all kinds which gathered round the perverted institute; and of the tendency from bad to worse, which exists in all cases where men are not careful to preserve the simplicity of Christ. The state of England in the time of Archbishop Laud was a subject upon which they were able to dwell with great force. They showed the cruel oppression endured by holy men, at the hands of prelates, who sought to revive in this country the ceremonies renounced, and the doctrines condemned at the Reformation; and they insisted upon the obvious fact that the Church was then in danger of becoming thoroughly Romanized, under the pernicious culture of superstitious teachers. The Revolution accomplished by the Long Parliament, the Presbyterians were prepared to defend as a political and ecclesiastical necessity, arising out of previous corruptions; whilst they pointed, with satisfaction and thankfulness, to the progress of spiritual religion under the Commonwealth, in spite of sectarianism, and the other evils of the times,—all of which they condemned, and deplored quite as much as any of the Episcopalian clergy could do. Ecclesiastical discipline in the parishes of England—for attempting which they had been so much blamed—the Presbyterians could show, rested on a principle conceded by Prelatists; and though it failed to produce all the fruits which its administrators could wish, yet it had turned many a town and village from a wilderness into a garden of the Lord. And when they contended against the Prelacy of former days, and protested against its restoration they distinctly stated, as we have seen, that they had no objection to a modified Episcopacy, to the rule of a Bishop, with his co-Presbyters, over dioceses of such dimensions as would admit of careful oversight and efficient rule; nor did they condemn all liturgies—not even the Book of Common Prayer, if certain things in the formularies and the rubric, which they and their Puritan fathers had complained of as superstitious, were now altered. The Presbyterian party, moreover, professed the most affectionate loyalty to the Crown, and the warmest attachment to the English Constitution; and in support of that profession could point to valuable services rendered by them at the Restoration. Lastly, they were in possession of incumbencies, to which they had been introduced according to the law of the land, some of them before the late troubles began. They had been educated at the Universities, had been many of them episcopally ordained, had led quiet lives in their respective parishes, had preached the Gospel for many long years, and had gathered round them large and affectionate congregations. Hence they urged, that for them now to suffer expulsion, to be turned adrift on the wide world without subsistence, to be silenced, and to have an end put to their spiritual influence, would be, in the sight of the world, of the Church, and of God, a burning shame.
1660.
THE CONTROVERSY.
The Episcopalians also, looking at the matter on the other side, had something to say. They prized the past History of the Church, and esteemed it of great importance to stand in the relation of successors to the Christian teachers of antiquity. Their theory was that the Church of England had not been established in the reign of Elizabeth or Henry, but had then been only reformed; that it constituted part of the Catholic Church, of which Rome had unjustly usurped the name, without possessing the attribute. Their formularies they traced back through mediæval times. For their doctrines they claimed the support of early Councils and Fathers. They pointed to the great antiquity of their orders, to the diocesan Bishops of the second century, and of every century since; and were prepared to argue, that the early prevalence of the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters is a presumptive proof of its having been sanctioned by apostolic authority. As to the evils flowing from Prelacy, the advocates of it would maintain that the abuse of a system is one thing, and the system itself another; that, although in the Middle Ages, in the Church of Rome, Prelacy had been made the instrument of immense mischief, this fact had nothing to do with the present controversy, the subject in dispute being not Popish Episcopalianism, but the Episcopalianism of the Reformed Church of England—the Episcopalianism of Ridley and Parker. Such Prelacy, the Bishops and their friends could irresistibly maintain to have been part and parcel of the law of England since the Reformation down to the Civil Wars; and, at the same time, they could point to the recognition of the rights of Spiritual Peers in the Constitution of this country from the early Saxon period—the legal or constitutional argument being the great bulwark of the Episcopalian cause, when treated as a social or political question. The ecclesiastical changes accomplished by the Long Parliament, were, in the eyes of Royalist and Anglican Churchmen, perfectly unconstitutional, illegal, and nugatory—for, in the accomplishment of them, one House had virtually done everything, the remnant of the Lords being mere ciphers; and the King, so far from having sanctioned the overthrow of the ancient Church, had protested against it, even unto death. With the Restoration, it was said again and again, came back the old Constitution of King, Lords, and Commons; and with that Constitution the Reformed Episcopacy and Prayer Book of England. The gravest and most forcible of all the allegations which the men now claiming their former position could bring against their opponents was, that they, in their turn, had been as exclusive as it was possible for any class to be. The Presbyterians, in the day of their power, had shown no consideration whatever for their Episcopalian neighbours. They had ruled with a high hand, and those who differed from them had experienced no mercy. They had proscribed the Prayer Book, and had vilified it in all kinds of ways—that very Prayer Book which now, with certain alterations, they would not decline to use. They had persecuted some of the very persons to whose candour and generosity they now appealed; also, they had been Commissioners for casting out scandalous ministers, and had assisted to expel some, from whom now, they were asking the privilege of continued ministration, with its emoluments, as an act of strict justice, or, at least, of reasonable favour. Besides, the Anglicans charged the Puritans with narrow-mindedness, with sticking at trifles, with making mountains of mole-hills, with cherishing scruples about points which involved no principle—in short, with being under the influence of prejudice and obstinacy. And then, beyond all other things which separated Episcopalians from their brethren, was a certain element of feeling in some—not in Sheldon, but in Cosin and Thorndike, and Heylyn,—which gave a mystical tinge to their views of matter in relation to mind, and which was the soul of their distinctive sacramental theology.[135]
1660.
Such were the religious, theological, and ecclesiastical differences between the two parties, to which must be added strong political antagonism for the last twenty years. That antagonism has been described in my former volumes. It will reappear in these.
Thus the two parties looked upon the question in dispute from their own point of view, influenced by past circumstances and by personal prejudices, after the manner of most controversialists.
Both are chargeable with faults of reasoning, and faults of temper. Each made too much of little things: one in enforcing them for the sake of order, the other in objecting to them as sins against God. The strong despised the weak. The weak condemned the strong. Neither mastered the lessons of St. Paul.[136] Yet the two were by no means equally blameable. More of Christian consideration and charity is discernible on the Puritan than on the other side, although even the Puritans had not attained to the exercise of that rare sympathy by which one man penetrates into the soul of another, making him as it were a second self,—by which process alone can a man subdue prejudice and win his brother over to that which he believes to be the truth.
THE CONTROVERSY.
It is necessary also to bear in mind this circumstance, that both parties were advocates for a national establishment of religion. Each party fixed its thoughts upon one society in which substantial uniformity of government and worship should be maintained—one society engrossing patronage and absorbing emoluments. It requires some effort for persons familiar only with modern phases of thought, thoroughly to enter into the ideas of the seventeenth century, and accurately to apprehend and estimate the views which were then current. Ecclesiastical controversy has undergone an immense change since that day; and could those who met together, as about to be described, now rise from the dead, it would be difficult for them to comprehend the position into which the Church questions of our age seem to be drifting.[137]
Remembering all this we proceed with our history.
1660.
WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.
There was a house in the Strand known as Worcester House. It had belonged to the Bishops of Carlisle; it had been bestowed on the Bedford family; it had been transferred to the author of the Century of Inventions, whose family title of Marquis of Worcester, gave it its name; and it had been fitted up by the Long Parliament for the reception of the Scotch Commissioners. By a turn in the wheel of fortune, which, at the Restoration, brought about so many changes, this residence had come once more into the possession of the Marquis, and he had lent it to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, as a residence, without requiring "one penny rent." The mansion, over which had fallen such varying shadows—and which had been designed to accommodate the deputation in 1643 from the Presbyterians of Scotland—now appeared as the scene of important negotiations between the Court and the Presbyterians of England.
Clarendon proposed a meeting of the two parties upon the 22nd of October. It was a time of great excitement in London, for the execution of the regicides—which will be noticed hereafter—had only just taken place; and, through the fortitude with which some of them had suffered, a reaction of feeling had arisen, and people had become disgusted with such bloody spectacles. His Majesty was present in the Chancellor's mansion, with the Dukes of Albemarle and Ormond, the Earls of Manchester and Anglesea, Lord Holles, and the Bishops of London, Worcester, Salisbury, Durham, Exeter,[138] and Lichfield and Coventry. Presently were ushered into the apartment—fitted up in the style of the seventeenth century, with costly furniture and superb decorations, for Clarendon lived like a prince—the following Presbyterian Divines—Reynolds, Spurstow, Wallis, Manton, Ash, and Baxter. Their Puritan habits contrasted obviously with the costume of the Courtiers and the Bishops, and would be eyed, we imagine, rather oddly by the pages as they announced their entrance. No disputing was to be allowed; the Lord Chancellor was simply to read over his revised Declaration, and as he advanced, the two parties were simply to declare their approbation or their disapproval. The particulars of the interview are too long for insertion; but we may observe, that after many comments upon Clarendon's paper, and after much conversation respecting the subjects of Episcopal power, and of reordination, the Chancellor drew out of his pocket another paper, observing, that the King had been asked by Independents and Anabaptists to grant toleration. He therefore proposed to insert in the document which had been read, a clause to the effect, that persons not members of the endowed Church should be permitted to meet for religious worship, provided they did not disturb the public peace. A pause followed. "The Presbyterians all perceived," says Baxter, "that it would secure the liberty of the Papists." Dr. Wallis whispered to him to be silent, and to leave the Bishops to give an answer. But the eager disputant could not hold his tongue. "I only said this," he reports, "that this reverend brother, Dr. Gunning, even now speaking against sects, had named the Papists and the Socinians. For our parts, we desired not favour to ourselves alone, and rigorous severity we desired against none! As we humbly thanked His Majesty for his indulgence to ourselves, so we distinguish the tolerable parties from the intolerable. For the former, we humbly crave just lenity and favour; but, for the latter, such as the two sorts named before by that reverend brother, for our parts we cannot make their toleration our request. To which His Majesty said, that there were laws enough against the Papists; and I replied, that we understood the question to be, whether those laws should be executed on them, or not. And so His Majesty brake up the meeting of that day."[139]
1660.
No doubt Charles looked as grave and as gracious as possible whilst he talked at Worcester House with Baxter and his brethren; and, although His Majesty alarmed his auditors by a reference to laws against Papists, he took care not to betray the utter hollowness of his professed zeal for Protestantism. So far as he had any sincere desire to grant an indulgence, it was not on behalf of Protestants, but on behalf of other persons whom Protestants most disliked. Puritans were to him troublesome people, whom he had to keep quiet as long as he could; and, in the meantime, he seems to have wished to use them as tools for producing the liberty which the Papists craved.
WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.
1660.
Baxter went home dejected; two or three days afterwards, however, as he was walking in the City, amidst the din of carts and coaches, and the confusion of London cries, he heard a boy bawling at the top of his voice, that he had on sale copies of the King's new Declaration. He bought one of the sheets, and stepped into a shop to peruse the contents. The King, he found, commended in the highest terms the Church of England; and also acknowledged the moderation of the Presbyterians; he then proceeded to enumerate a series of concessions, which he had not the least doubt that the present Bishops would think "just and reasonable," and "very cheerfully conform themselves thereunto:"—That none should be presented to Bishoprics but men of learning, virtue, and piety; that suffragans should be appointed in the larger Dioceses; that the censures of the Church should not be inflicted without the advice and assistance of Presbyters, who should aid Bishops, Chancellors, and Archdeacons, in their respective offices; and that Confirmation should be rightly and solemnly performed:—that no Bishop should exercise any arbitrary power; that the Liturgy should be revised; but, that until the revision was effected, the unexceptionable portion of it should be used; that no existing ceremonies in the Church should be at once formally abolished; but, to gratify the private consciences of those who were grieved with the use of some of them, they should be dispensed with for the present; the final decision being left to a national Synod, to be duly called after a little time, when mutual conversation between persons of different persuasions should have mollified those distempers, abated those sharpnesses, and extinguished those jealousies which made men unfit for such consultation. The sign of the cross in baptism, bowing at the name of Jesus, the use of the surplice, and the oath of canonical obedience, were things not to be enforced, but to be left to individual opinion and choice. The King concluded, by renewing his Declaration from Breda, for the liberty of tender consciences, and by expressing hopes for the unity of the Church, the prosperity of religion, and the peace and happiness of the nation.[140] This Declaration went a long way towards meeting the views of moderate Presbyterians, and seemed at first to supply a basis on which a scheme of comprehension might have been reared. It is expressed in a tone utterly different from that adopted by the Bishops. It might well lead some Presbyterians to believe that the hour of union had come. Baxter found that suggestions made by himself and his friends, at the Worcester House Conference, had been adopted in the Declaration; and, on the whole, he felt pleased with the document. On the day that it appeared, he received from the Lord Chancellor an offer of a Bishopric. He replied, that if this offer had come before his seeing the Declaration, he should have declined it at once; now, however, he said, "I take myself, for the Churches' sake, exceedingly beholden to his Lordship for those moderations; and my desire to promote the happiness of the Church, which that moderation tendeth to, doth make me resolve to take that course which tendeth most thereto; but whether to take a Bishopric be the way I was in doubt, and desired some farther time of consideration; but if His Lordship would procure us the settlement of the matter of that Declaration, by passing it into a law, I promised him to take that way in which I might most serve the public peace." Soon afterwards Baxter made up his mind to decline the proffered honour, partly on personal, partly on ecclesiastical grounds.[141] He tells us, indeed, that he disapproved of the "Old Diocesan frame," and feared that, as a Bishop, he might have work to do contrary to his conscience; but he also particularly expresses the feeling that the Episcopal office would draw him aside from those works of theological authorship, for which he believed he had a special fitness, and a divine mission.
WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.
Reynolds, at the same time, was offered the Bishopric of Norwich, and accepted it. For this he was then reproached, and has often since been severely blamed. Yet Baxter persuaded him to take this step, advising him to declare, that he did so upon the terms of the Royal Declaration, and that he would resign if these terms were withdrawn. Reynolds read to his friend a paper which he had prepared for His Majesty's hands, stating that he believed a Bishop was only a chief Presbyter, and ought not to ordain or govern but with the assistance of his co-Presbyters,—such being the doctrine according to which he was prepared to take his seat on the Bench. Whether he actually did present such a paper, Baxter could not tell.[142]
1660.
The ecclesiastical weather had suddenly changed. The clouds were breaking. The sun began to shine. Conciliation had become the order of the day. Calamy was offered the Bishopric, and Bates the Deanery of Lichfield; Manton the Deanery of Rochester, and Bowles that of York. Other preferments were left vacant for awhile, professedly with the hope that they might be accepted by Presbyterians. The see of Carlisle was intended for Dr. Gilpin;[143] and a fortnight after the Declaration had been issued, Diplomas were conferred at Cambridge, by Royal mandate, on Bates, Jacomb, and Wilde.[144]
To reciprocate these friendly approaches, some Presbyterians, but not those who had met at Worcester House, prepared an address to His Majesty.[145]
They craved leave to profess, that though all things in the frame of government were not exactly to their minds, yet His Majesty's moderation had so great an influence upon them, that they had determined to use their utmost endeavour to heal the breaches, and to promote the peace and union of the Church. They begged of His Majesty, that reordination and the surplice in Colleges might not be imposed, and they hoped God would incline his heart to gratify their desires.[146] The Address was presented on the 16th of November by Samuel Clarke, of St. Bennett Fink. This fair weather was of short continuance. The sun was soon concealed again. The clouds returned after the rain. Suspicions respecting the sincerity of the Declaration increased; from the beginning, some had been dissatisfied with it. The treatment it finally received from the Commons, under the exercise of Court influence, shows the real character of the whole affair; we must therefore enter the House, and watch its proceedings.
WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.
Nothing could exceed the gratitude expressed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the name of the members, for His Majesty's Declaration.[147] Yet, three days before he did so, it had been significantly proposed that the Book of Common Prayer should be used in the daily worship of the House, little objection being made to this proposal. The prevalent opinion appeared to be in favour of a form, and "the Speaker excused the minister from any more service, till the form was ordered."[148]
A Bill, founded upon the Declaration, followed upon the 28th of November. The arguments adduced in its favour were to the effect—that without a Bill the Declaration would be ineffective; that it was fitting to alter many things in the Liturgy; that the present business was of the highest concernment to the glory of God and the peace of the nation; that the ceremonies of the Church were not of such importance as to justify another war; that some indulgence ought to be granted to those who "ventured their lives for the good of all;" and that the passing of the measure would not vex the Bishops at all, because they were with the King at the framing of the Declaration. Prynne thought that it would be astonishing if, after thanking the King for issuing the document, the House rejected the Bill, which had been founded upon it. But many, who approved of the Declaration, spoke against the Bill. They said it was contrary to precedent to turn a Royal Edict into an Act of Parliament; that it was not the King's desire; and that it would dissatisfy the Roman Catholics. Secretary Morrice is reported to have spoken ambiguously, and to have concluded his speech by advising that the Bill should be laid aside: 183 voted against it, and 157 for it.[149]
1660.
The Declaration, it must be acknowledged, was so obviously a temporary expedient, and of so provisional a nature, that there seemed room to oppose a Bill like this, framed "for making the King's Majesty's Declaration touching ecclesiastical affairs effectual." Preparatory steps needed to be taken before a complete Church for the future could be established. Yet, if the leaders of the House had been sincerely bent upon a conciliatory policy, they might easily have contrived some measure for that purpose.
WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.
1660.
The course pursued by the Commons may be explained. Out of doors a strong feeling was making itself heard in favour of such Episcopalianism as existed in the days of Elizabeth. At the moment of the King's return much talk of moderation had been heard from politic men in the Church. Even Sheldon then spoke of charity when preaching before the King in the month of June:[150] but now the tone of the principal clergy altered, and before the end of the year a specimen of the change occurs in a consecration sermon, in which it is declared that "the work of the Bishops was not so much to convert infidels as to confute heretics and schismatics."[151] In addition to the growing strength and boldness of the Episcopalians, there was another cause for the defeat of the Bill. Clarendon states that, in the summer, when the Grand Committee entered upon the settlement of the question of religion, "the King desired no more than that they should do nothing, being sure that in a little time he should himself do the work best;"[152] he wished to have the matter under his own control; and Secretary Nicholas, writing to Sir Henry Bennet, informed him that Parliament would meet with better hope of success because the King had "removed the main bone of division, by taking into his own hand the great point of Church Government."[153] It is plain that Charles felt an aversion to any Act of Parliament whatever upon the subject; it is also plain that the Commons were in some way induced to act accordingly. "When the Parliament," says the noble historian, "came together again after their adjournment they gave the King public thanks for his Declaration, and never proceeded further in the matter of religion; of which the King was very glad; only some of the leaders brought a Bill into the House 'for the making that Declaration a law,' which was suitable to their other acts of ingenuity, to keep the Church for ever under the same indulgence, and without any settlement; which, being quickly perceived, there was no further progress in it."[154] Who were the instruments commonly employed to influence the House, so as to bring it into unison with Royal designs, the same authority explains, when he says, that from the Restoration, he and Lord Southampton, by desire of the King, "had every day conference with some select persons of the House of Commons, and with these they consulted in what method to proceed in disposing the House, sometimes to propose, sometimes to consent, to what should be most necessary for the public, and by them to assign parts to other men whom they found disposed and willing to concur in what was to be desired."[155] There is then no room for believing otherwise than that the Chancellor, in agreement with the King, did what he could to influence members to vote against the Bill for turning the Royal Declaration into law. Consistently with this inference we find Secretary Morrice speaking against it; and Secretary Nicholas informing Sir Henry de Vic that the Bill for passing the King's late Declaration had "happily been thrown out."[156] The circumstance, at that juncture, of the elevation to the Bench of Matthew Hale, who had acted on the Committee for framing the Bill, tallies with other proceedings; and the whole shows that the policy of the Court was to get rid of the Bill, and with it the obligations incurred by the Declaration. For, it cannot be said, that the question before the House was a mere question of form, and that opposing the Bill did not necessarily imply opposition to the scheme which it embodied; since all the promises held out in the Declaration were set at nought by the subsequent proceedings of the King and his Minister.
WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.
Charles, there can be no doubt, simply wished to keep the Presbyterians quiet as long as possible, to get a few of their leaders into the Episcopal Church, and to employ others, to whom he held out hopes of toleration, as tools for securing liberty to the Papists.[157] Clarendon, I believe, sincerely desired, as a staunch Episcopalian, to restore the Establishment upon its old basis—nor do I see any reason to question, that he also sincerely desired to bring Baxter and others within its pale. With the purpose of winning Presbyterians over to Episcopacy he was willing to make a few concessions. But, of any genuine wish to base the Church upon the principles laid down in the Declaration, there is no proof; and such a wish is inconsistent with his known attachment to Prelacy. He had, it is true, ever since the return of Royalty became probable, shown great moderation in his behaviour to the Puritan party; but this circumstance is quite consistent with the idea of his simply proposing to bring them over to Episcopalianism. Looking at the opinions of the prelates already expressed, and afterwards maintained at the Savoy, is it possible that the Declaration could have been designed as a bonâ fide basis of a Church settlement? The conclusion is inevitable, that Clarendon aimed at accomplishing his object by such a method as statesmen deem to be justifiable diplomacy.[158] After the fate of the Declaration in Parliament, the aspect of affairs changed in reference to Presbyterians. Hopes once raised were dashed to the ground. The overtures of the Court were seen to be hollow, and the preferments offered were declined. Reynolds, nevertheless, retained the Bishopric of Norwich.