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.