CHAPTER VII.
The time had arrived for calling a new Parliament, since the Convention lacked certain constitutional attributes: and it seemed a further reason for summoning another House of Commons, that the Presbyterians in the Convention, notwithstanding secessions from their ranks, were still too numerous, and too troublesome, to be well managed by the Court.
Writs were issued upon the 9th of March, 1661; and, in ten days, the whole country was found uproariously busy in the election of Knights and Burgesses. The City of London took the lead; and, as so much new and curious information on the subject is afforded by letters in the State Paper Office, I shall largely make use of them in the present chapter. It was known that the new Parliament would have important ecclesiastical questions to settle, and therefore a great deal of religious feeling became mixed up with the political sentiments of the electors.
The Guildhall of the City of London, though magnificently restored very recently, carries back our thoughts to distant days, but it has rarely, if ever, contained within its walls a throng so densely packed, or been filled with shouts so dissonant, as on the 19th of March, 1661.
1661.
In confused ways, the Lord Mayor and some of the Aldermen were proposed as candidates:—Recorder Wylde, Sir John Robinson, Sir Richard Ford, Sir Thomas Bloworth, Sir Nicholas Crisp, and Alderman Adams, stood on the Royalist side; on the popular side, appeared Alderman Thompson and Alderman Love—"godly men, and of good parts, Congregationalists,"—Captain Jones, a Presbyterian, and Alderman Foulke, "not much noted for religion, but a countenancer of good ministers, one who was present at the act for abolishing Kingly Government," and "deeply engaged in Bishops' lands." Recorder Wylde, and Sir John Robinson, with Sir Richard Brown, and William Vincent, had been City Members of the Convention Parliament; but the citizens disliked them, because they were not sufficiently advanced in political sentiments, and also because they had not opposed the abolition of Purveyance, and the Court of Wards, the imposition of the Excise, and the levying of Poll Money. The tide just then ran strongly in favour of ultra-dissent. The candidates of the Royalist party, except Ford, had scarcely a word spoken in their favour. The Recorder's name, Wylde, awakened rude shouts, amidst which might be heard a feeble pun: "We have been too WILD already." Episcopacy stood at a discount, and the old Hall echoed with cries of "No Bishops—no Bishops." Ten thousand citizens in livery—no doubt an exaggeration—were computed to be present; but the multitude, whatever the exact number, seemed of one mind. A shrewd courtier in one corner whispered to an elector, that he hoped what was going on there would be a warning to the Bishops. The calling of nicknames, and the outpouring of ridicule, were shared, in nearly equal portions, by the two parties. The Royalists pelted their opponents with scurrilous abuse, yet they seemed to have nothing worse to say of Alderman Thompson than "that he was a rare pedlar; so fond of smoking, that his breath would poison a whole Committee." Jones was also reproached for smoking; but the Captain was admitted by an opponent to be an honest man, if amongst such a party there could be one.[186] No applause equalled that which his name called forth; and when the opposite party would have had him omitted, "the Court never left off crying, 'A Jones! a Jones!' till it was otherwise resolved." Only a few hands were held up for the Recorder and his friends. The election was all but unanimous, and no poll was demanded by the candidates defeated at the hustings.
NEW PARLIAMENT.
Some Nonconforming ministers are noticed as interesting themselves in this election, though "others, like Demas," wounded "their consciences by complying somewhat." In an election squib, called A Dialogue between the two Giants in Guildhall,—one Congregational pastor is said "to bring a hundred, another of the holders forth sixty, to the destruction of the beast." And as Gog and Magog are represented discussing the matter, one of them—referring to the union of Presbyterians and Independents in the election—observes, "I thought these two, like two buckets, could not possibly be weighed up together." "Yes," says his brother giant, "there is an engine called Necessity, made with the screws of Interest, that doth it secundum artem." Of course such publications are worth nothing as witnesses to political facts, but they vividly bring to light the political contest; and as they repeat the rumours they also reveal the hatred which influenced the contending factions. Certain persons are mentioned as taking part in the City strife in other ways than by heading mobs. "Mr. Carill, and other eminent ministers, held a fast, and prayed heartily, and God has heard them," writes an Independent to a friend in Norwich; but Zachary Crofton is most frequently mentioned as a champion on the side of the anti-episcopalian party. "A subtle, witty man," "bitter against the Bishops," and "a great vexation to them." He "prosecuted his argument last Lord's Day, and there were more people than could get into the Church." "Thank God," says one, "that Mr. Crofton is still at liberty; he preaches that Bishops are a human institution, and lead to the Papacy." "Little Crofton," says another, "preaches against Bishop Gauden every Sunday night, with an infinite auditory, itching, and applause." Others, like Crofton, won popularity by political harangues. "All who oppose Prelacy," observes a correspondent, who evidently opposed it himself, and no doubt went to hear the men, whom he so admiringly mentions, "are mightily followed as Dr. Seaman and others." "Mr. Graffen had two thousand in the streets, who could not get into the Tantling Meeting House, to hear him bang the Bishops, which theme he doth most exquisitely handle." Crofton is often referred to in these letters. He was prosecuted for writing inflammatory books with comical titles, and being imprisoned in the Tower when the election was over, and before the Coronation took place, he petitioned His Majesty for release, that he might enjoy the approaching festival in liberty, as well as with loyalty. This bustling Divine, like many others, pleaded the sufferings he had endured for his attachment to Monarchy; and attempted to excuse certain inconsiderate expressions employed by him on matters beyond his sphere, on the ground that they were not written with an evil intention.
1661.
NEW PARLIAMENT.
The citizens, talking over the great folk-mote of the morning, retired to their wainscoted parlours in the evening, and putting pen to paper, wrote to their friends in the country. Some deplored the election of the fanatics. Some jubilantly proclaimed the Liberal triumph. What they said, however, mattered little. The letters never reached their destination.[187] They were pilfered at the post office. In vain people in the country waited for the arrival of the post-boy in those windy March days; in vain the Londoners expected answers to their epistles. Those time-stained, yellowish-looking sheets, of all shapes and sizes, and of varied and often puzzling caligraphy, are still safe in the Public Record Office.
The object of the interception was to find out if there were anything treasonable in the correspondence; or to prevent Liberal citizens from influencing country constituences. Whether, if the letters had been delivered, they would have altered the results of the general election, may be doubted. At all events, the elections were in favour of the Royalists.[188] Government influence was employed. Corporations returning members had been purged of disaffected elements;[189] and no doubt manifold tricks were played. Nor can we believe they were confined to one side. But, independently of unconstitutional interference, there were causes which will account for the success of the Cavaliers. Many old Presbyterian and Independent politicians had become ineligible through political offences. The zeal of the nobility and of the Episcopalian clergy told powerfully in favour of old Royalists. Great in many boroughs and counties was the popularity of candidates who had fought at Edgehill, at Marston Moor, or at Naseby, under the banner of Charles I.
1661.
NEW PARLIAMENT.
Of the members returned there were four men who in the Long Parliament had appeared as leaders. John Maynard, who was a manager in the trial of Laud—who had taken the Covenant, and had been a member of the Westminster Assembly—represented Beralston;[190] but he had now become so noted for his loyalty, that, in consideration of it, as well as his legal eminence, Charles II. made him a serjeant, and conferred upon him knighthood, in the month of November, 1660. Several notices of speeches delivered by Maynard may be found in the Parliamentary History; but, except as an opponent of Popery, he does not appear to have taken any important part in ecclesiastical questions. John Glynne, who, when Recorder of London, had advocated Presbyterianism, now sat for Caernarvonshire; and, like his friend Maynard, enjoyed the honour of serjeantship, and was knighted for his loyalty at the Restoration. There remains no indication of his having taken any part in the debates of the House, from which he was removed by death in 1667.[191] William Prynne—who had suffered so much as a Puritan, had written so much as a Presbyterian, and had spoken so much as a Royalist—now took his place on the benches of St. Stephen's as a member for Bath; but no mention is made of his ever speaking, except once, when he uttered a few words relative to the impeachment of Lord Clarendon.[192] Sir Harbottle Grimston—another well-known Presbyterian, who also was Speaker of the Convention—again appeared as a member of the House of Commons, representing the town of Colchester. But in his case, as in the others, Presbyterianism now was absorbed in the return of loyalty; and no words, that we can find, fell from his lips touching Church subjects, excepting a few against Roman Catholicism.[193] These men, after all their zeal in former days, said little or nothing in Parliament on behalf of religious liberty after the Restoration. Besides these four, may be mentioned Colonel Birch, a Lancashire Presbyterian, who having in the Long Parliament and in Cromwell's Parliaments represented Leominster, was in 1661, returned for the borough of Penryn. This gentleman frequently spoke on the side of civil and spiritual freedom. Hugh Boscawen, who had been member for Cornwall and Truro, under the Protectorate, now sat for Tregony, but scarcely ever opened his lips. The same may be remarked of Griffith Bodurda, member for Beaumaris.
1661.
Presbyterianism or Independency in particular could not be said to be represented in the new House of Commons; and Puritanism in general could scarcely be regarded as finding full and decided expression within those walls, where twenty years before it had been so triumphant.
Parliament assembled on the 8th of May.[194] The Upper House presented more of its ancient appearance than recently it had done; for although the Bishops were not yet restored, more than a hundred Peers took their seats—a striking contrast to the opening of the Convention, when only five Earls, one Viscount, and four Barons mustered in the Chamber. His Majesty, crowned and wearing his regal robes, ascended the throne, attended on each side by Officers of State, including a few who had favoured Presbyterianism. The Commons took their places below the bar.
The King kept silence on Church matters, unless he may have referred to the Breda Declaration, when saying that he valued himself much upon keeping his word, and upon making good whatever he had promised to his subjects. The Lord Chancellor, after an allusion to the constitution and disorders of the State—its stomach and appetite, its humour and fevers—indignantly inquired, "What good Christian can think without horror of these ministers of the Gospel, who by their function should be the messengers of peace, and are in their practice the only trumpets of war, and incendiaries towards rebellion?" Such preaching he pronounced to be a sin against the Holy Ghost.
COMMISSION FOR CONFERENCE.
Sir Edward Turner, a thorough Royalist, was elected Speaker; and, when presented to the King, he delivered one of those tiresome speeches which were so characteristic of the age.[195]
The House ordered that the Communion of the Lord's Supper should, on Sunday, the 26th of January, be celebrated at St. Margaret's Church, according to the Liturgy of the Church of England; and that no one who did not partake of this sacrament should be allowed to enter the House.[196]
We must now leave the transactions of Parliament for awhile, that we may attend to the proceedings of two ecclesiastical bodies, contemporaneously engaged in discussing affairs over which Parliament exercised supreme control.
1661.
The Worcester House Declaration had spoken of a revision of the Liturgy. The King said, he found some exceptions made against several things therein—and would appoint an equal number of learned Divines of both persuasions, to review the same; and to make such alterations as should be thought necessary. In formal agreement with this promise, a Royal Commission was issued. Twelve Bishops, with nine coadjutors, were chosen to represent the Episcopalians, and twelve leading Divines, also with nine coadjutors, were chosen to represent the Presbyterians.[197] The Chancellor arranged that Dr. Reynolds—already consecrated Bishop of Norwich, he having accepted that see, with the idea that the Declaration would be carried out, but who, inconsistent as it may seem, still bore the name of a Presbyterian,—and Calamy, who remained a Presbyterian in reality, should nominate the Commissioners on their side of the question. Baxter expressed a wish to have his name omitted; for he found he had made himself unacceptable to the opposite party, but he observes, he could not prevail unless he had "peremptorily refused it"—words which do not indicate any earnestness in declining office. Indeed it is impossible to conceive that Baxter could have endured to hear of such a debate as was now at hand, without taking a leading part in it himself. Moreover, he had so far recognized Episcopal authority, as to seek from Sheldon a license publicly to preach, and as a condition of obtaining it, he gave a written promise not to speak against the doctrines of the Church or the ceremonies established by law, a circumstance which certainly showed his disposition to concede as much as possible.[198]
COMMISSION FOR CONFERENCE.
The Royal Commission bore date the 25th of March.[199] It gave the Commissioners authority to review the Book of Common Prayer—to compare it with the most ancient Liturgies—to take into consideration all things which it contained—to consult respecting the exceptions against it—and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed "the Master's lodgings in the Savoy" as the place of meeting.
Sheldon having borne off from all competitors the appointment to the Mastership of that Hospital,[200] it was under his roof that the approaching Ecclesiastical Debates were to take place; perhaps convenience sought by the Master as well as convenience afforded by the hall in the palace, might influence the selection; and it becomes a curious coincidence that the scene of these debates—professedly for the purpose of effecting union between Conformists and Nonconformists—should be a building under the control of a High Churchman, and yet one which had witnessed the consultations of Independents; for they had drawn up a Confession of Faith and Order within those very walls about eighteen months before. That meeting had borne some resemblance to the Westminster Assembly, since the Confession adopted by it, though never an authoritative standard, remained long in honour amongst Congregationalists; but the Conference which now took place was not intended to settle points of faith, nor did it issue in any practical conclusion whatever.[201]
1661.
The Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April; but before that day arrived, arrangements were made for another kind of Ecclesiastical Assembly, the contemporary existence of which is often overlooked, although it be of the utmost importance for the understanding of the one, that we should carefully consider the contemporary existence of the other.
Hesitancy, if not a deeper feeling, appears in reference to a regular Convocation of the clergy at that time. If the Breda and Worcester House Declarations had meant what they said, an assembly gathered on the principle of former Convocations could not with the least propriety be held at this juncture: however, now that the old constitution of national government had resumed its place, some High Churchmen inferred, and earnestly contended, that ancient ecclesiastical as well as civil arrangements had become virtually re-established; and therefore, that Convocation ought to be summoned at the opening of Parliament. But to summon Convocation would be to nullify the Conference.
Dr. Peter Heylyn—the admiring biographer of Archbishop Laud—was aware of the difficulty, at this crisis, of convoking the clergy after the ancient manner; and at the beginning of the month of March, 1661, he referred to it as raising sad thoughts in the hearts of those who wished for the peace and happiness of the English Sion.[202] The matter came before the Council Board at Whitehall, on the 10th of April; and it was then ordered, that the Lord Chancellor should direct the Clerk of the Crown to draw up the writs for Convocation in the usual form. This occurred more than a fortnight after the date of the Commission, and five days before the Commissioners were to meet. Clarendon remarks that at the time when the King "issued out his writs for convening the Parliament, he had likewise sent summons to the Bishops, for the meeting of the clergy in Convocation, which is the legal synod in England; against the coming together whereof the Liturgy would be finished, which His Majesty intended to send thither to be examined, debated, and confirmed. And then he hoped to provide, with the assistance of the Parliament, such a settlement in religion, as would prevent any disorder in the State upon those pretences."[203]
CONVOCATION.
Not to dwell upon this instance of carelessness respecting dates—inasmuch as the writ for calling a Parliament is dated the 9th of March, and the summons for a Convocation the 11th of April—it is worth asking, what is meant by the Liturgy being finished against the coming together of Convocation? It could not mean that in the Conference the Liturgy was to be finished; for that would be contradicted by the whole policy of the Bishops. Surely it must mean that the King and his Minister intended that the Liturgy should be finished by the Bishops themselves, as it will afterwards appear, it really was by Cosin and others before Convocation met, without any regard to the transactions of the Conference; and if such was the case, the issue of the Conference is seen to have been determined at the commencement.
1661.
When the 15th of April arrived, the Commissioners came together—and the Presbyterians must have been as much vexed as the Anglicans would be pleased, not only with the treatment of the business of the Worcester House Declaration in the House of Commons, but with the prospect of Convocation meeting for business at the same time as they themselves were engaged in the appointed Conference. The Commissioners met upon unequal terms. All London was astir with the approaching Convocation; and the Officers of the Crown and of the Herald's College had just been busy in examining claims and searching precedents relative to the solemnity.
In the order of procession, and the details of the ceremonial, the Bishops who now assembled found, together with other Bishops, places of distinction and functions of importance assigned to them. Sheldon, Bishop of London, was to officiate, in part, in the room of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Juxon, the latter being now old and full of years, and incapable of performing the whole duty pertaining to his office on the occasion. Cosin, Bishop of Durham, was to support the King on one side beneath the canopy borne by the Barons of the Cinque Ports, and to assist His Majesty in certain portions of the ceremony. Warner, Bishop of Rochester, was to deliver the prelates' petition to the King, praying him to preserve to them all canonical privileges. King, Bishop of Chichester, was to read the Epistle before the Holy Communion. Morley, Bishop of Worcester, was to preach the sermon. Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, was to carry the patena. These Bishops, with the rest of their brethren, besides discharging high offices in particular, were generally to swell the grandeur of the procession, and, in doing homage, to kiss the King on the left cheek before any Marquis or Duke was allowed the privilege. Besides—Earle, Dean of Westminster, was to assist at the anointing, to put the coif, with the colobium sindonis, or surplice, upon the Royal person. Heylyn was to carry the sceptre with the cross; while other Doctors of Divinity were to bear the sceptre with the dove, the orb with the cross, King Edward's staff, the chalice, the spoon, and the ampulla.[204]
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
The ceremony of the Coronation, according to immemorial usage, was to be an Episcopalian ceremony. Of course no part could be assigned to Presbyterians, unless—as in the case of the Bishop of Norwich—Presbyterianism clothed itself in the robes of Prelacy. Presbyterians, as such, had been appointed Chaplains and preached before the King; but, as such, they were passed by in the gorgeous ceremonies of Westminster. This fact is very significant, and it bore immediately upon the nature, and on the probable issues of the Conference. It has often been said, that the Presbyterians were in the saddle at the time of the Restoration; it is as plain that the Episcopalians were in the saddle at the time of the Coronation and the Conference. A meeting at the Savoy, between Divines of the two schools, to consult respecting a revision of the Prayer Book, in the spring of 1660, would have been a perfectly different affair from such a meeting in the spring of 1661. Something at least like equal terms might at the former date have been secured, although Presbyters were then beginning to give way to Priests; but it is plain that at the later date the men of Geneva stood no chance with those of Canterbury. Episcopacy and the Liturgy were in possession. Presbyterianism had no chance of displacing or even modifying either. According to the terms of the Commission, all the members stood on an equality, but their positions in point of fact differed exceedingly.
1661.
Nor must it be imagined that the hopelessness of the scheme arose entirely from the fact of political and social superiority on one side: it sprung also from causes at work on the other side. Without repeating what has been already said, I would remark that a gulf had yawned between them ever since the opening of the Civil Wars. They had been placed in strong mutual antagonism by the revolutionary ecclesiastical changes effected by the Long Parliament. Besides this, the doctrinal differences between the Anglicans and the Puritans so sharply defined, and so resolutely maintained, still kept them wide asunder. Moreover, their opposite modes of expressing devotion, the love of litanies with their responses, and of collects with their brevity, on the one hand, and the love of prayers vocally offered by the minister, and running into great length, on the other, served effectually to strengthen and to heighten the dividing barrier. The results which ensued fulfilled this reasonable anticipation of failure.
What in those days remained of the old Savoy Palace,—one of the three most sumptuous edifices[205] erected by the most penurious of monarchs—presented externally a fine architectural appearance on the river side; within there existed a very spacious hall, with a ceiling of timber curiously wrought, "having knobs in due places hanging down, and images of angels holding before their breasts coats of arms." Under the shadow of that roof, and within walls of stone and brick, "three foot broad at least,"[206] representative men of two ecclesiastical systems, some of them after twenty years of strife, met face to face on formal terms of truce. Two of the Divines, Calamy, the Presbyterian, and Hacket, the Episcopalian, had, in 1641, under the presidency of Archbishop Williams, taken part in a similar conference; several, on different sides now, had in early days, in the Universities and elsewhere, been friendly or civil towards each other; but memories of the Deanery of Westminster augured little of hope for the Savoy Palace, and the influence of former private intercourse stood little chance of overcoming the party spirit evoked on this new occasion.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Before we notice any of the papers exchanged, or any of the words spoken, it is proper to look at the more notable men who appeared at this meeting. There was Sheldon himself—a chief adviser, yet taking little share in the vivâ voce discussions, a man as full of worldly policy, as he was agreeable and pleasant in his manners. There was Morley, a leader next to Sheldon, and a prominent debater, genial and witty, but extremely passionate and full of obstinacy. There was Cosin, bringing with him a high reputation for learning and devoutness, blended with strong Anglo-Catholic feeling, which had, however, been somewhat checked of late.[207] There was Gauden, who had conformed to the state of things under the Commonwealth, and was still inclined to moderation, yet aiming to bring all within the ranks of revived Episcopalianism. There was Gunning, an unequalled textuary, a pre-eminent controversialist in an age of controversy, a public disputant of singular fame in an age of disputation, fervent in spirit, eager in speech, zealous for Arminianism and ritualistic worship, and vehement in his advocacy of "high imposing principles."[208] And there was Pearson, the most gifted, perhaps, on the Episcopalian side—enriched with large and varied stores of divinity, and distinguished by that closeness of thought, and that judicious selection of proofs which secure eminence to the advocate, and success at the bar.[209] There was also Reynolds, a Presbyterian Bishop—by his position marked out to take a leading part in the Conference, and to be a healing mediator, using his influence to soften the temper of his more prelatical brethren; but he brought to the work a feeble character, and had lost rather than gained moral weight by the acceptance of a mitre.
1661.
The Presbyterians were led by Baxter—an acute metaphysician, a keen debater, subtle and fertile in mind, in character honest, and open as the day—possessing at all times in abundance the silvern gift of speech—rarely, if ever, showing the golden gift of silence. He lacked that sobriety of judgment, that patience under contradiction, that employment of means for attainable results, and that common-sense acquaintance with men and things, which are essential to success in all deliberations. Calamy does not appear as a speaker in the Conference, but he played an active part in Committees. Proofs of his general eminence are afforded by his preaching before Parliament when the King was voted home, by his being one of the deputation sent to wait on His Majesty, and by the offer made to him of a Bishopric. Proofs of his fitness to occupy a place in the Commission are supplied by his reputation for learning, for prudence, for dignity, and for courtier-like bearing. Moreover, as in early life, he had been moderate in his views, and had, therefore, been chosen as one of the Committee in 1641, under the presidency of Williams, so at the Restoration he wished for a comprehensive ecclesiastical scheme, and would have accepted the preferment offered him, had the Worcester Declaration become constitutional law. Bates, a Presbyterian, renowned for candour, is particularly commended by Baxter for solidity, judiciousness, and pertinence in debate, but he lacked the vehemence of the pastor of Kidderminster. Jacomb, Newcomen, and Clarke were active in Committee.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Jacomb is described as a man of superior education, of a staid mind, of temperate passions, moderate in his counsels, and in the management of affairs, not vehement and confident, not imposing and overbearing, but receptive of advice, and yielding to reason. Newcomen, like Calamy, belonged to the five Divines who wrote Smectymnuus, a circumstance of no favourable omen in the estimation of opponents. Clarke, pious, charitable, laborious, and fond of biography, is still well-known for his Martyrology and for his Lives.[210]
Frewen, Archbishop of York, opened the proceedings by apologizing for his ignorance of the business, and by stating that he should leave all in the hands of the Bishop of London. That prelate proposed at once that the Presbyterians should reduce their objections to writing, to which they replied that the meeting was intended to be a conference, and that free debate would best prepare for an ultimate agreement. The Bishop adhered to his first proposal, and Baxter falling in with it, prevailed on his brethren to do the same.
1661.
According to the terms of the Commission, they met together to "advise" and to "consult," and the professed character and object of the Commission implied that there was to be friendly conference and mutual concession. But the Bishops manifested no disposition to concede anything; they assumed the port and bearing of persons who were in the ascendant, and who had to do with troublesome people, asking disagreeable favours. They had made up their minds not to speak freely,—and as men of business, and as stern conservators bent upon keeping up the ancient restrictions of their Church, the course which they pursued could be plausibly defended. Perhaps it would have mattered little in the end if Baxter's colleagues had persevered in their objections; yet his falling at once into the trap, and his so eagerly adopting the method of written communications, especially of the kind which he contemplated, showed how little he had of the wisdom of the serpent. The Bishops required the Presbyterian exceptions and additions to the Prayer Book to be presented at once; but Baxter succeeded so far as to obtain permission for bringing in exceptions at one time, and additions at another; and it was arranged that his brethren should prepare the former, and that he should prepare the latter. The two parties separated, the Presbyters to prepare for the future Conference, the Prelates for the Coronation. The Coronation was very magnificent.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Clarendon informs us:—"The King went early in the morning to the Tower of London, in his coach, most of the Lords being there before; and about ten of the clock they set forward towards Whitehall, ranged in that order as the Heralds had appointed; those of the Long Robe, the King's Council-at-law, the Masters of the Chancery and Judges going first; and so the Lords in their order, very splendidly habited, on rich footcloths; the number of their footmen being limited, to the Dukes ten, to the Earls eight, and to the Viscounts six, and the Barons four, all richly clad, as their other servants were. The whole show was the most glorious in the order and expense that had been ever seen in England; they who rode first being in Fleet Street when the King issued out of the Tower, as was known by the discharge of the ordnance; and it was near three of the clock in the afternoon when the King alighted at Whitehall. The next morning the King rode in the same state in his robes, and with his crown on his head, and all the Lords in their robes, to Westminster Hall, where all the ensigns for the Coronation were delivered to those who were appointed to carry them, the Earl of Northumberland being made High Constable, and the Earl of Suffolk Earl Marshal for the day; and then all the Lords in their order, and the King himself walked on foot upon blue cloth from Westminster Hall to the Abbey Church, where, after a sermon preached by Dr. Morley (then Bishop of Worcester), in Henry VII.'s Chapel, the King was sworn, crowned, and anointed by Dr. Juxon, Archbishop of Canterbury, with all the solemnity that in those cases had been used. All which being done, the King returned in the same manner on foot to Westminster Hall, which was adorned with rich hangings and statues; and there the King dined, and the Lords on either side, at tables provided for them; and all other ceremonies were performed with great order and magnificence."[211]
1661.
In the beginning of May the elections occurred for members of Convocation. The two theories already noticed, regarding the Church of England at that juncture, came into collision in these elections. The Presbyterians maintained that the existing establishment was the Church of England, that they were legally members of that Establishment, that they held their maintenances by a claim as valid as that of any of their brethren. The new Act of Uniformity had not yet been passed, and, therefore, there was no flaw in their title to be considered part of the English clergy. But the High Church party fell back upon their favourite idea that the Church of England was the Episcopal Church. Then, as always, they could plead laws, as good arguments when in their favour; then, as always, they set aside laws when against them. Even allowing that the Church of England might be exclusively an Episcopal Church de jure, it was not so at that time, de lege, or de facto. But the Episcopalian party managed to get the power into their hands, and to exercise it. Presbyterians accordingly were pronounced unfit to be elected, and Episcopalians were returned.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
There were Presbyterians who disapproved of the constitution of Convocation; Baxter, Bates, and Jacomb distinctly said,—not only many hundreds of their ministerial brethren were displaced or removed before the meeting of the Convocation and others denied their votes, because they were not ordained by Diocesans; but there were others who disapproved of the way in which Convocation was constituted, and, therefore, would not meddle in the choice of its members; whether such persons would feel themselves bound by its determination it was impossible to predict.[212]
1661.
Upon the 2nd of May the election of London members for the Lower House of Convocation took place in Christ Church. The metropolitan ministers, who were not yet ejected, proved a majority against the diocesan party, and when Baxter expressed his intention of being present, they sent to their busy friend not to come, and also begged Calamy to absent himself; the object being to secure the election of these two Presbyters, who were accordingly chosen by a majority of three. The Bishop of London, however, as Baxter remarks, "having the power of choosing two out of four, or four out of six, that are chosen by the ministers in a certain circuit, did give us the great use of being both left out, and so we were excused, and the City of London had no clerk in the Convocation."[213] Sheldon naturally preferred men of his own way of thinking, and selected out of the names presented to him, those of Dr. Haywood and Mr. Thorndike; the latter eminent Divine being removed as far as possible from all sympathy with Puritans. Hence arose the result that the Presbyterian portion of the City clergy at the time holding parish livings, and being therefore, in fact, members of the Establishment, had no one to represent them in Convocation; and the passing over by Sheldon of the two Presbyterian Divines, although not at all surprising under the circumstances, should be borne in mind, in connection with the meeting held at the Savoy only two days afterwards. The circumstance would not be forgotten on either side, but would be regarded by the two parties with very different feelings, when Sheldon at his lodgings met those who were discarded candidates.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Upon the 4th of May the exceptions were presented. The principal persons employed in drawing them up were Calamy, Newcomen, Bates, Clarke, Wallis, and Jacomb, and—which will surprise many readers—Dr. Reynolds; so that the Bishop of Norwich must be regarded as sharing in the responsibility of preparing these Presbyterian objections to the Prayer Book.[214] Baxter, though not at first assisting in this division of labour, afterwards helped in the work. His objections were more minute than his brethren approved, but he wished them to understand he did not, like some, charge the Common Prayer with idolatry or false worship, he only took its faults to be "disorder and defectivenesss;" this, he thought, was the mind of all the Presbyterian Commissioners except one. They pleaded in their paper that as the first Reformers composed the Liturgy with a view to win over Papists, the Liturgy ought now to be revised so as to gain upon the judgments and affections of all substantial Protestants. They suggested that repetitions, responses, and an alternate reading of psalms and hymns, which "cause a confused murmur in the congregation," should be omitted; that the Litany, a great part of which was uttered only by the people, should be formed into one prayer, to be offered by the minister, who according to Scripture is the mouth of the people to God—a very remarkable objection, it may be noticed by the way, coming as it did from men who professed to hold unpriestly views of worship. They further requested that neither Lent nor saints' days should be any longer observed; that free prayer should be allowed; that it should be permissible for the minister to omit part of the Liturgy as occasion might require; that King James' translation should alone be used at Church; that only the Old and New Testament might be read in the daily lessons; that no part of the Communion Service should take place at the communion table, except at the administration of the Lord's Supper; that the word "minister" should be employed instead of "priest," and the "Lord's Day" instead of "Sunday;" that the version of the psalter should be amended; that obsolete words should be altered into others generally received; and that phrases presuming the congregation to be regenerated and in a state of grace should be revised. These Commissioners further said, that the Liturgy was defective in praise and thanksgiving; that the confession and catechism were imperfect; and that the surplice, the signing of the cross, and kneeling at the Lord's Supper, were unwarrantable. The objectors took special exception to certain expressions in the daily service, and to the rubrics. But their objections related mainly to the forms for the ordinance of baptism; the celebration of matrimony; the visitation of the sick; and the burial of the dead.[215]
1661.
Parallels may be noticed between the exceptions taken on this occasion, and those taken in William's Committee of 1641.[216]
The Presbyterians requested that instead of the words in the prayer before baptism, "May receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration," the form might run thus: "May be regenerated and receive the remission of sins." In reference to the words afterwards, "That it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant by Thy Holy Spirit," it is remarkable, that the objection is couched in cautious terms. "We cannot in faith say that every child that is baptized is 'regenerated by God's Holy Spirit,' at least, it is a disputable point, and therefore we desire it may be otherwise expressed." Confirmation is not condemned, but it is urged, that for children to repeat memoriter the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and to answer some questions of the catechism, is not a sufficient preparation for the rite; and that it ought, according to His Majesty's declaration, to be "solemnly performed by the information, and with the consent of the minister of the place." In relation to the words "who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these Thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins," the objectors remark, "This supposeth that all the children who are brought to be confirmed have the Spirit of Christ and the forgiveness of all their sins; whereas a great number of children at that age, having committed many sins since their baptism, do show no evidence of serious repentance, or of any special saving grace; and therefore this confirmation (if administered to such) would be a perilous and gross abuse."[217] It should be added, that the Presbyterians disapproved of confirmation being made necessary for preparing communicants. With regard to the solemnization of matrimony, they objected to the use of the ring, and of the word "worship," and to the rubric which enjoins receiving the communion; and with respect to the visitation of the sick, the same persons wished that a form of absolution might be omitted at the minister's option, or that if used, it might be framed on a declarative and conditional form. The exceptions taken to the burial service were the same as those which have been current ever since.
CONVOCATION.
On the 8th of May, four days after the Presbyterians had put in their exceptions, Convocation met for the first time since the year 1640;[218] the Northern Synod assembling at York, the Southern at London.
Sheldon, Bishop of London, with other Bishops of the province of Canterbury, together with Deans, Archdeacons, and Priests, also the Dean of the Arches, with his Advocates and Proctors, repaired to the house of Dr. Barwick, a physician, in St. Paul's Churchyard. In that house, during the Civil Wars, he had entertained his brother John, afterwards Dean of St. Paul's, and allowed him the use of an oratory—some Gothic chamber, perhaps, with quaint oriel, destroyed in the London fire. Arrayed in their vestments, the Bishops and clergy entered in procession through the "little south gate," into the ancient Gothic edifice, for the restoring of which a deep and wide-spread zeal had begun to show itself—the Cathedral being, it is said, "a princely ornament of the Royal city," where was a confluence of foreign princes' ambassadors, the structure being "injured by the iniquity of the late times," and its repair being necessary to prevent the dishonour of its neglect falling upon the whole city.[219]
1661.
There, the Dean, Residentiaries, and the rest of the Canons, were waiting to receive the procession with due ceremony, and to conduct its members into the choir. It was a jubilant hour for the Episcopal Church of England, for it betokened a resurrection after years of death-like silence, imprisonment, and humiliation; and no doubt, in many a bosom, sentiments of deepest gratitude and adoration, mingled with feelings of excusable pride, as the choir fervently sang the Te Deum in English; and Dr. Thomas Pearce preached a sermon in Latin from Acts xv. 28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." The sermon ended, and an anthem sung, Sheldon, the Bishop of London, who acted as President, in consequence of the advanced age and infirmities of Juxon, with the rest of the clergy, went into a Chapter House provided for the occasion, "the goodly old house being, by the impiety of Oliver Cromwell's Horse Guards, rendered unfit for use." The King's Writ and the Archbishop's Commission to the Bishop were formally presented and read; after which the latter, "in excellent Latin," addressed the Lower House, bidding them go and choose their Prolocutor.
CONVOCATION.
On the Thursday following, May the 16th, Dr. John Pearson, Archdeacon of Surrey, presented Dr. Henry Ferne, Dean of Ely, as the Prolocutor chosen by the Lower House; and "three elegant Latin speeches were made: one by the presenter, another by the Prolocutor, and a third by His Lordship the Bishop of London, in approbation of their election."[220] This ceremony took place in Henry VII.'s Chapel, Westminster—whither, from St. Paul's Cathedral, Convocation had adjourned, as to the place of meeting used by the representatives of the clergy before the Civil Wars—and that Chapel, many of those who now ascended the stone steps at the back of the Abbey choir, would consider to have suffered almost as much desecration from the Presbyterian Assembly of Divines, as other parts of the sacred edifice had done from the depredations of the soldiery.
Convocation sat, probably, "in one of the inferior chapels."[221] No one like Robert Baillie—who so minutely describes the Westminster Assembly—has bequeathed us a picture of this Episcopalian Synod twenty years afterwards; but anybody who has witnessed the meetings of the Lower House—the Deans in their scarlet robes as Doctors, and other dignitaries in academic costumes, with square caps in their hands, can picture what a contrast, in these respects, the clergy convened in 1661, in a side Chapel of the Abbey, must have presented to the ministers, who assembled in 1643, within the Jerusalem Chamber. Nor can we find any report of the Debate, like that preserved in the Diary of Lightfoot; but there can be no doubt that the usual characteristics of ecclesiastical councils and conferences might be found on this occasion; that there was much of learning, of eloquence, and of hair-splitting; that some speeches were logical, and others very illogical; that the debates were sometimes wearisome, and sometimes lively; and that, occasionally, irregularities of discussion called for the interference of the Prolocutor.[222]
1661.
An early act of Convocation, indeed, one on the very day of meeting, was to deliberate respecting forms of prayer for the two anniversaries so intimately connected with the Royal family—the anniversary of Charles II.'s birth, and return; and the anniversary of his father's death. The Bishop of Ely, one of a Committee appointed for the purpose, presented the first of these to the Upper House on the 18th, and the form was confirmed and issued by the King in Council on the 22nd.[223] On the 18th also, the Bishop of London recommended that a form should be prepared for the baptism of adults,—it being alleged that many people, owing to the diffusion of Anabaptist opinions, had not been baptized in their childhood. That duty was entrusted, like the other, to four Bishops and eight clergymen, and the result appeared and received approval on the 31st. A Committee of Prelates and Presbyters undertook to frame the service for Charles' martyrdom. It is a curious fact, that there were two offices for the 30th of January, drawn up in the year 1661, in one of which, referring to Charles and other martyrs, there occurred the words, "That we may be made worthy to receive benefit by their prayers, which they, in communion with the Church Catholic, offer up unto Thee for that part of it here militant." Such a recognition of the intercession of saints in Heaven, indicating a strong Romanist tendency, has been made a ground of reproach by Nonconformist opponents; on the other hand, Episcopalians have denied the existence of the words in any collect prepared for the occasion. The contradiction is just, so far as the form adopted by Convocation is concerned; but there was an earlier one, laid aside on account of its containing the clause in question.[224] The form in the Prayer Book of 1662 differed from both the forms which made their appearance in 1661.
CONVOCATION.
Upon the 31st of May, Dr. Pory introduced a prayer for the Parliament, which was not an entirely new composition, inasmuch as one including the expression, "our religious and gracious King," had been inserted in the Prayer Book in the reign of Charles I.[225] It appeared, for the first time, in its present shape for use, at a general fast, held on the 12th of June, 1661, special mention of it being made on the title page; from which form of service it was transferred to the Book of Common Prayer. For the same fast a general form, suited for such an occasion, was ordered on the 7th of June, to be prepared by a Committee; also, a supplication for fair weather was recommended for consideration. Upon the 18th of June, the King issued his letters patent, authorizing Convocation to make canons and constitutions; in which letters occur a formula, to the effect that the clergy had always promised, "in verbo sacerdotii," that they would never promulge, or execute any new ordinances without legal license:[226] accordingly the Acts of Convocation, on the following day, notice the receiving of this Royal license, and record the appointment of certain Bishops and Presbyters as a Committee for considering the business to which it relates,—the Committee being appointed to meet at the Savoy Palace.[227] Upon the 17th of July the Bishop of Salisbury presented a draft of canons which he had prepared, and which were again referred to him for further consideration. On the 19th and 22nd the canons still occupied the attention of the Upper House. On the 27th a benevolence was voted to His Majesty; on the 31st Convocation adjourned.[228]
1661.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Thus far, we have ventured to place the contemporary proceedings of the Savoy Conference, and those of Convocation, in parallel lines; there is an advantage in doing so. We see how additions to the Prayer Book, made at the very time when the Commissioners were engaged in discussions upon its existing contents, would appear vexatious to the Puritans: we also clearly notice the peculiar position of Reynolds, who appeared at the Savoy as a Presbyterian, and in Convocation as a Prelate—in the one character apparently objecting to the Prayer Book, in the other, adding to it new forms; and we discover that the Houses of Convocation refrained, whilst the Commission lasted, from doing more than supplying certain additional prayers, deferring the business of revision until the Conference had broken up.
We have seen the Presbyterians at the Conference putting in their exceptions; we now turn to the answers of the Bishops. They were written in an discourteous, uncharitable, and captious spirit, not indicating the slightest disposition to conciliate, but foreclosing the possibility of removing any Presbyterian objection: for they said, the alteration asked would be a virtual confession that the Liturgy is an intolerable burden to tender consciences, a direct cause of schism, a superstitious usage—it would justify past Nonconformity, and condemn the conduct of Conformists. The document presents an angry defence of the Church formulas; and, whilst there is much in the reasoning which commends itself to admirers of the Liturgy, the temper betrayed is of a kind which assuredly most of those admirers will condemn.[229]
1661.
The discussion upon baptism alone needs particular attention. It is affirmed that the form in the Prayer Book is "most proper; for baptism is our spiritual regeneration." That answer indicates that the Episcopalians in the Conference took the words in the Prayer Book to express the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. "Seeing," say they, "that God's sacraments have their effects where the receiver doth not 'ponere obicem' put any bar against them (which children cannot do), we may say in faith, of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament as nothing worthy, nor material, whether it be administered to children or no."[230]
It had been arranged, that whilst the rest of the Presbyterian brethren employed themselves in drawing up exceptions against the Book of Common Prayer, Baxter should prepare additions. In one fortnight he accomplished his task, and presented his Reformed Liturgy. A Reformed Liturgy, differing from that of the Church of England, had, in the sixteenth century, been published in Holland; but it amounts to no more than a compilation from Calvin's Genevan Service Book. Baxter determined that his should be original; and, accordingly, setting to work with his Bible and his Concordance, he drew up a new collection of devotional offices. They include orders of service for the Lord's Day, and for the celebration of the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism; a discourse upon catechizing, preparatory to the communion; a form to be used in marriage; directions for the visitation of the sick, and the burial of the dead; prayers and thanksgiving for extraordinary occasions, and for particular persons; and a discourse on pastoral discipline, with forms of public confession, absolution, and exclusion from the fellowship of the Church. He also prepared an Appendix, containing a larger litany or general prayer, and a long ascription of praise for our redemption.[231]
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
The author tells us that he compared what he did with the Assembly's Directory, the Book of Common Prayer, and Hammond L'Estrange; but he seems to have borrowed little or nothing from these sources, beyond introducing or allowing the use of the creeds—sometimes the use of the Athanasian Creed—the Te Deum, and the psalms in order for the day. The modes of expression employed by Baxter are not founded upon the study of former liturgies, and are remarkably unlike those of the Anglican and the ancient Communions. They are carefully drawn from the Bible, and the margin of the new service book is studded with innumerable references to Scripture texts. No one who reads the work, especially considering the short time in which it was executed, but must acknowledge it to be a very extraordinary performance; and even Dr. Johnson said of the office for the communion, "that it was one of the first compositions of the ritual kind he had ever seen."[232] The comprehension and fervour of all the prayers must excite admiration; but many of them labour under the Puritan disadvantage of being too long, and they are frequently at variance with that kind of religious taste which appreciates the character and tone of the litanies and the collects of the Church of England.
Baxter candidly admits, that he made "an entire Liturgy, but might not call it so," because the Commissioners required only "additions to, or alterations of, the Book of Common Prayer."[233] How a completely new Liturgy could come under the latter denomination I cannot understand. As he omitted all reference to the Book of Common Prayer, his new Directory bore on the face of it the intention of superseding, or of rivalling that venerable manual of devotion; and wherever the former might have been adopted, it would virtually have put the latter aside. Still, as his petition shows, he was willing that it should be left for ministers to decide which Liturgy they would adopt; and, it may be concluded, that he would not have objected to a blending of the two, however incongruous such a thing may appear to many.
1661.
This famous Presbyterian polemic, at the same time that he presented his reformed formularies, presented with them a petition to the Bishops, begging them to yield to such terms of peace and concord as they themselves confessed to be lawful. "For though," as he argued, "we are equals in the King's Commission, yet we are commanded by the Holy Ghost, if it be possible, and as much as in us lieth, to live peaceably with all men;—and if we were denied, it would satisfy our consciences, and justify us before all the world;"[234]—two points which that honest theologian ever kept in mind. He craved consent to read the document; some objected, but, ultimately, the reading of it was allowed. It consisted chiefly of an appeal to Christian feeling, founded upon a variety of considerations, especially upon the wrong which would be done to the Puritan brethren, and the mischief inflicted on the Church of England if their scruples were disregarded.[235]
The contrast between the pacific, conciliatory, and reasonable strain of the petition, and the hard and repulsive tone of the prelates' answers to the exceptions, is very striking.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
A rejoinder to the Bishops' answers, touching the exceptions made to the Liturgy, followed, on the part of the ministers. A preface to it was drawn up by Calamy. The rejoinder itself, composed by Baxter, forming, indeed, a book of 148 pages, and taking up the Episcopal document, paragraph by paragraph, with a great deal of close reasoning and scholastic subtilty, is too extensive in its range, and too minute in its details, to admit of any satisfactory synopsis of its contents being presented on these pages. But a sharp reference, at the close, to the concessions offered by the Bishops must be noticed. After thanking them, Baxter adds, in the name of his brethren, "we must say in the conclusion, that, if these be all the abatements and amendments you will admit, you sell your innocency and the Church's peace for nothing."[236]
Time wore away, and nothing resulted from these long papers. At last came a session for vivâ voce debate. The Puritans wished the Bishops to talk freely, but their Lordships maintained a prudent reticence, and even Reynolds could not persuade his Episcopalian brethren by "friendly conference to go over the particulars excepted against;" they resolutely insisted that they had nothing to do until the necessity for alteration should be proved,—proved that necessity already was, in the estimation of Puritans, proved it could not be in the estimation of Anglicans.
1661.
All hope of a pacifying conference being abandoned, the Presbyterian Divines agreed to a debate; many hours were spent in fixing its order. The Bishops, according to their policy throughout, maintained that it belonged to those who were accusers to begin; they were simply on the defence. No effect was produced by the Presbyterians' rejoinder:—"We are the defendants against your impositions; you command us to do certain things under pain of excommunication, imprisonment, and silence. We defend ourselves against this cruelty, by asking you to show authority for this." At last it was settled, that there should be a formal dispute, to be conducted by three persons on each side. Strangers were allowed to be present, and the room was full of auditors,—young Tillotson, the eminent preacher and Archbishop of later days, being amongst them. The debate turned upon vague abstractions, and upon subtle theological distinctions, occasionally interrupted by outbursts of temper and uncivil personalities. As might be expected, the Hall of the Savoy Palace became an arena for logical gladiatorship, and the object of the meeting a strife for victory.
At one time it seemed as if light were breaking through the clouds. Bishop Cosin, who on the occasion now referred to, occupied the chair, laid before the meeting a paper, which, he said, a worthy person had offered unto his superiors. It put,
I. The question, "Whether there be anything in the Doctrine, or Discipline, or the Common Prayer, or Ceremonies, contrary to the Word of God?"
II. It asked, if nothing in the Book was unscriptural, what the Presbyterians desired in point of expediency?
III. It then suggested that such desires should be submitted to "the consideration and judgment of the Convocation, who are the proper and authentic representatives of the Ministry."[237]
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Baxter drew up an answer, in which he maintained the principal part of these proposals "to be rational, regular, and Christianlike." After going over much of the old ground, and referring to the Convocation in no unfriendly spirit, he says: "We are resolved faithfully to teach the people, that the division of the Church is worse than inexpedient:" and, "We conclude with the repetition of our more earnest request, that these wise and moderate proposals may be prosecuted, and all things be abated us, which we have proved or shall prove to be contrary to the Word of God."[238]
To talk in this way seemed hopeful; but hope in this instance was a delusion. Each party suspected the other. Mutual confidence did not exist. Baxter, although he wrote as he did, really looked at the seemingly friendly proposals, as "a cunning snare."
1661.
The paper warfare recommenced—the disputants on each side, "writing extempore," withdrawing into another room for that purpose.[239] The first subject discussed was the "imposition of kneeling," to which Baxter, although he took the gesture itself as lawful, objected, because he thought antiquity was against the custom, and because "the penalty is so immediate and great, to put all that kneel not, from the communion." With this discussion was connected another, as to whether there is anything sinful in the Liturgy.[240] The following specimen in relation to the last question may give some idea of the scholastic forms which were employed. The Episcopal opponents maintained, "That command which commandeth only an act, in itself lawful, is not sinful." The Presbyterian respondents denied this, contending that some unlawful circumstance might hang in the command, or that the penalty might be overcharged. The proposition, after revision, was put thus: "That command which commandeth an act, in itself lawful, and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence directly, or per accidens any sin is consequent, which the commander ought to provide against, is not sinful." The respondents denied again, on the ground, that "the first act commanded may be per accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other act or circumstance be such." The Bishops amended their proposition at last, making their logical network so fine that even Baxter, subtle as he might be, could scarcely wriggle through the meshes. "That command which commandeth an act, in itself lawful, and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence directly, or per accidens, any sin is consequent, which the commander ought to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an act per accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an act under an unjust penalty."[241] Thomas Aquinas was not more acute, more ingenious, or more wearisome. Morley, many years afterwards, urged that denying such a proposition as the last, was not only false and frivolous, but "destructive of all authority," and struck the Church out of all power to make canons for order and discipline.[242] To those who admit that the Church may, within limits, decree rites and ceremonies—and Baxter in his arguments did not deny this—Morley's reasoning is forcible. The manner in which Baxter met the position of his opponents was by no means satisfactory, and his warmest admirers must acknowledge that his mode of conducting this part of the controversy was no less injudicious than honest.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
In drawing to a close our account of the Conference, it is important to mention that the Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described, actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were, by this premature act, really treated with mockery—a circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy the Puritan members, and especially serve to embitter the language of Baxter as the end of the fruitless sittings approached.[243]
1661.
The last two meetings are particularly described: The Doctors on the Episcopalian side, Baxter says, crowded in—not more than two or three were present on the other side. Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, occupied the chair—"a very worthy man, but for that great peevishness, which injuries, partiality, temperature, and age had caused in him." A paper by Gunning came under discussion. He denied a statement made by Baxter, Bates, and Jacomb. The latter, on oath, confirmed what Baxter said; but the Chairman pronounced that Gunning had the best of it. He further charged Baxter with being contentious. Baxter told him that it was strange, a man should be prevented from replying to his antagonist. Gunning advanced citations in proof of his point; upon which Cosin called upon all the Bishops and Doctors on his side, at that moment a large majority, to give their votes. They all cried "Aye!" Those who are familiar with modern committees, and with what occurs when both parties lose their tempers, and the stronger carries the point, can understand how the Savoy Conference terminated. "We were all agreed," says Baxter, "on the ends for the Church's welfare, unity, and peace, and His Majesty's happiness and contentment; but after all our debates, were disagreed of the means, and this was the end of that Assembly and Commission."[244]
Thus ended the last of the three great Conferences between Anglicans and Puritans; the two previous ones being held, respectively, at Hampton Court before King James, and in the Jerusalem Chamber under Dean Williams. It reminds us of another Conference, the last between Romanists and Reformers, carried on in Westminster Abbey in the month of March, 1559. Like the Romanist Bishops on that occasion, the Anglican Bishops on this, protested, with some reason, that it was not for them to prove the Church's doctrine to be true; they professed the old established faith of Christendom; if it was attacked, they were ready to answer objections. But unlike the Popish, the Anglican prelates were now in the ascendant, and had their opponents at their feet. The Puritans, on the other hand, resembled, as to relative position, the Romanists, of whom it is remarked, they "were but actors in a play, of which the finale was already arranged."[245]
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
It is amusing to read Baxter's account of his brother Commissioners. Some, he says, rarely attended, and when they did, said very little. Morley was often there, a chief speaker, with fluent words, and much earnestness, vehemently going on, and bearing down replies by his interruptions. Cosin was constant in attendance, talking much, with little logic, though with abundant learning in canons, councils, and patristic lore. Henchman was the most grave and comely of the Bishops, and expressed himself calmly and slowly, with some reticence. Gauden was almost always present, and though he had a bitter pen, he was moderate in speech, "and if all had been of his mind," says our reporter, "we had been reconciled." Reynolds spoke much the first day, to bring his Episcopal brethren to moderation; a "solid, honest man, but through mildness and excess of timorous reverence to great men, altogether unfit to contend with them." Dr. Pearson was a true logician, disputing "accurately, soberly, and calmly"—"breeding in us a great respect for him, and a persuasion that if he had been independent he would have been for peace." Dr. Gunning mixed passionate invectives with some of his argumentations, though understanding well what belonged to a disputant, but "so vehement for his high imposing principles, and so over zealous for Arminianism and formality and Church pomp."[246] Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle, "looked so honestly and gravely and soberly," that it seemed, such a face could not have deceived. Baxter's judgment of physiognomy here, however, proved to be at fault, for when the prelate once broke silence, it was to exclaim,—as Baxter used the word, "nation:"—"he will not say kingdom lest he should own a king."[247] While Baxter thus spoke of his opponents, they thus spoke of him: "At this Conference in the Savoy, that reverend and great man, Bishop Morley, tells us, the generality of the nonconforming Divines showed themselves unwilling to enter upon dispute, and seemed to like much better another way tending to an amicable and fair compliance, which was frustrated by a certain person's furious eagerness to engage in a disputation, meaning Mr. Baxter."[248] "There was a great submission paid to him by the whole party. So he persuaded them, that from the words of the Commission they were bound to offer every thing that they thought might conduce to the good or peace of the Church, without considering what was like to be obtained, or what effect their demanding so much might have, in irritating the minds of those who were then the superior body in strength and number."[249]
1661.
After the debates were over, the Presbyterians waited on the Lord Chancellor, to advise with him as to the account to be given of their doings to the King. At first His Lordship received Baxter "merrily," and comparing his spare figure and his thin face with the rotunder form and plumper cheeks of one of his companions, said, "If you were as fat as Dr. Manton, we should all do well." To which Baxter—fixing his dark eyes on Clarendon, replied—"If His Lordship could teach me the art of growing fat, he should find me not unwilling to learn by any good means."[250] Becoming serious, the Chancellor charged the Divine with being severe, strict, and melancholy, making things to be sin which were not so. The latter simply rejoined, that he had spoken nothing but what he thought, and nothing but what he had given reasons for thinking.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
He afterwards drew up a paper in the form of a petition, supplying an account of the Conference; and it was arranged that Reynolds, Bates, and Manton should present the document. Baxter accompanied them at their own request. Manton delivered the paper into the Royal hands; Reynolds added a few words; and, of course, Baxter could not be silent. He made, as he represents, "a short speech," in which he informed His Majesty how far they had agreed with the Bishops, "and wherein the difference did not lie, as in the points of loyalty, obedience, and Church order." The King put the commonplace question suggested in all such disputes, "But who shall be judge?" Baxter seized the opportunity to say that "Judgment is either public or private—private judgment called discretionis, which is but the use of my reason to conduct my actions, belongeth to every private rational man; public judgment is ecclesiastical or civil, and belongeth accordingly to the ecclesiastical governors (or pastors), and the civil, and not to any private man." If Charles II. had been like his grandfather, James, a scholastic discussion had been inevitable; but the gay grandson, perhaps without heeding what the words meant, passed over Baxter's remark in silence. The Puritan historian winds up all with the curt remark, "And this was the end of these affairs."[251]
1661.
Much sorrow and trouble sprung out of the Conference.[252] The Episcopalian Royalists treated their opponents as a vanquished party, and retorted on their old persecutors by calling them seditious and disaffected. Young clergymen hoped they were on the road to preferment if they reviled and calumniated Presbyterians; and Baxter especially became a butt for malignant marksmen. Even his prayers were heard with suspicion, and so, as he said, it was a mercy when he was silenced. Yet his own account of the Conference produced a favourable impression in quarters where he and his friends had been misapprehended. The Independents, in the first instance, had been annoyed that the Presbyterians had not consulted them; some of the latter Divines, too, had been zealous of their more influential brethren, and both parties had joined in saying that the Puritan Commissioners were too forward in meeting the Bishops, and too ready to make concessions; and that Baxter, although unimpeachable as to his motives, had been too eager for concord, and too ready for compromise. But now the printed papers turned the tide; the Independents admitted that the Presbyterian Commissioners had been faithful to their principles.[253]
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
The Independents took no part in the Conference at Worcester House or in that at the Savoy. They were not consulted by Presbyterians—an instance of neglect which some of the Independents resented—but it is plain, from a consideration of the principles of the latter party during the Civil Wars and Commonwealth, that they could not, consistently with those principles, harmoniously unite in any scheme for comprehension. Their methods of Church discipline, felt to be most important for securing the purity of their Churches, rendered it impossible that their ecclesiastical institutions should work in harmony with an Establishment. Why the Independents were overlooked by the Government at that period, is obvious. At the Restoration they were thrown into the background. Their previous political influence had sprung from their connection with the Army, from the favour of Republican officers, and from the religious sympathies of Oliver Cromwell. That influence terminated on the eve of the King's return; and it is easy, without suspecting their loyalty, to understand how they would, at such a crisis, lose social position as well as political influence.[254] Their prosperity under the Protectorate necessarily entailed their adversity at the Restoration. Moreover, although to the Presbyterians there remained friends at Court in the Earl of Manchester and other noblemen, the Independents enjoyed no aristocratic patrons. The Fleetwoods, Desboroughs, and Berrys, so far from being able to assist their fellow-religionists, had enough to do to take care of themselves. The Presbyterians, as we have seen, had still, in London, clergymen of high standing and great activity, but the Independents could not make any boast of that kind. Dr. Owen, who of them all, perhaps, possessed the greatest influence, lived in retirement at Stadham. John Howe, never a party man, and thoroughly averse to the occupations of public life, quietly pursued his pastoral duties at Torrington. Dr. Goodwin, it is true, had removed to the metropolis on his ejectment from Oxford, but he now spent his time in seclusion; and Caryl, another distinguished member of the Congregational body, and a City pastor, preferred commenting on the Book of Job, to any entanglement in political affairs. Philip Nye was, probably, the most active of the denomination, but he had no power to serve the cause, forasmuch, as at the time of the Restoration he had narrowly escaped the fate of Hugh Peters.[255] The Independents, as a party, were not in a position just then to render it a matter of importance that the Government should conciliate them; nor did they manifest any desire to secure for their system the temporal benefits of State endowment. Their retirement from the stage of public affairs brought them no disadvantage. Providence had appointed for them a moral discipline, of which the fruit was to appear in after years. They had embraced principles eminently conducive to the freedom and spirituality of Christ's Church, and they were destined to take an important part in the development of English Christianity through the diffusion of those principles. Their disconnection with the Establishment harmonized with that destiny. The Baptists, like the Independents, and for similar reasons, were unrepresented in the Commission; so indeed, also, if we except Reynolds, were the moderate Episcopalians, who although not prepared to go so far as their High Church brethren in the matter of conformity, were ready to advance in that direction much beyond the limits marked out by the Presbyterians; but looking at the temper on the other side, there is no reason to suppose that the presence and counsels of such men would have altered the results of the discussions.
1661.
SAVOY CONFERENCE.
Having described the Savoy Conference, and the contemporary meetings of Convocation, there remain to be noticed the proceedings of that higher assembly, with which both the others were coeval.