ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
=The Church of the Restoration.=
BY
JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.
IN TWO VOLUMES--VOL. I.
[Illustration]
=London:=
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
MDCCCLXX.
[Illustration:
UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS,
BUCKLERSBURY, AND CANNON ST. E.C.
]
ADVERTISEMENT.
The object of my former volumes upon the Ecclesiastical History of
England was to state facts and to draw conclusions, without seeking to
gratify any particular party, and by such a method to promote the cause
of Christian truth and charity. Acknowledgments of success to some
extent, expressed by public critics, and by private friends, holding
very different ecclesiastical opinions, encourage me to proceed in my
arduous but agreeable task; and I now venture to lay before the public
another instalment of my work.
To account for its appearance so soon after its predecessor, it
is but fair to my readers and myself to state, that it became the
dream and desire of my life, a quarter of a century ago, to write an
Ecclesiastical History of my own country; and that, ever since, my
reading and my reflections have been directed very much into this
channel. For many years past, I have been engaged in studying the
affairs of the Church from the Commonwealth to the Revolution; and
therefore, whatever may be the imperfections of these volumes, they
are not, at any rate, a hasty compilation, but the result of long and
laborious research.
It may be well to indicate the sources from which my materials are
drawn.
The printed _Journals_ of the Lords and Commons,--the _Parliamentary
History of England_,--_Cardwell's Synodalia_,--_Thurloe's State
Papers_,--and other similar collections, which did not exist in the
days of Kennet, Collier, and Neal,--supply, together with Burnet's
and Baxter's contemporary accounts, the backbone of the following
narrative. Journals, diaries, and biographies of the period, with
newspapers and tracts, of which extraordinarily rich collections are
found in the British Museum and in Dr. Williams' Library, have helped
to clothe the skeleton. But the sources of illustration, upon which I
rest some slight claim to originality, are found in certain unpublished
MSS. which it has been my privilege to examine and employ.
I. Amongst these the first place belongs to the _Collection of Papers
in the Record Office_. Besides the assistance furnished by the
published calendars of Mrs. Green, extending from 1660 to 1667, I have
been favoured with the use of that lady's unpublished notes down to
the close of 1669; these helps have greatly facilitated my inquiries
into the history of the first decade embraced within these volumes.
From that period to the Revolution, I have been left with no other clue
than the Office catalogue of the books and bundles chronologically
arranged; and all the documents which I could find bearing on domestic
affairs--and they amount to many hundreds--I have carefully examined.
Although those which relate to ecclesiastical matters are by no means
so numerous as those which relate to political, commercial, and other
subjects, they are of very great value to the Church historian. They
may be classified as follows:--
_As to the Established Church_--
i. Note-book of Sir Joseph Williamson.
ii. Applications for preferments, and correspondence relating to
them.
iii. Private letters alluding in various ways to Church
affairs.
_As to Nonconformists_--
i. Informations against them, which are very numerous.
ii. A spy-book, containing many curious particulars of
suspected persons.
iii. Correspondence containing a great number of incidental
allusions to the condition of Nonconformity.
The details are generally of a minute description, and would very
extensively serve the purpose of biographers and local historians; but
they are not without considerable value for a purpose like mine, as my
foot-notes will testify.
Amongst the new historical illustrations thus afforded, are those
connected with the ecclesiastical aspects of the general election of
1661, with the rumoured plots of that and succeeding years, plots in
which Nonconformists were accused of being involved,--the conduct
of Nonconformists under their persecutions,--and the fabrication of
letters with the view of involving Nonconformists in trouble--of which
one striking example occurs in relation to William Baffin, and, as
appears very probable, another referring to certain London ministers.
There are also notices of the Indulgence of 1672, and of the case of
Colledge, the Protestant Joiner, as he was called. It is apparent how
much the antipathies of the two religious parties of that day were
augmented by political considerations; and from the documents are also
obtained many interesting and amusing glimpses of private social life.
II. Next to the State Papers, I may mention a collection of fragmentary
remains in the _Archives of Parliament_, connected with the passing
of the Act of Uniformity,--and especially the Book of Common Prayer
attached to the Act (described in my Appendix), prefixed to which is an
Analysis of the alterations made in the formularies. Accurate copies
of these papers have been furnished for my use by the kindness of Sir
Denis Le Marchant.
III. _The well-known MS. Collections in the British Museum and at
Lambeth._ They have yielded items of information I believe not
published before--particularly the returns made to Episcopal inquiries
as preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library.
IV. _The MSS. in the University Library of Cambridge._ I have found
amongst these some papers which have been of service, especially in
relation to the reign of James II.; one of them, giving an account of
the opening of Parliament, I have printed in my Appendix.
V. _The Morice and other MSS. in Dr. Williams' Library._ This
collection forms a quarry hitherto imperfectly worked. There are three
folio volumes, entitled, _Entering Books, or Historical Register_,
extending over the period between 1676-91. These I have found of great
service in throwing light upon Nonconformist opinions of public events,
in supplying the current rumours of the day, and in recording pieces
of information relating to minor matters illustrative of those times.
And here I may add, not only with regard to this and other diaries, but
also with reference to letters and notes amongst the State Papers, that
I have relied on them only for such purposes as are now indicated, and
that I do not rest my belief of any important historical events simply
upon evidence of this description.
VI. _A curious Diary_, kept at the time of the Restoration, for the
loan of which some years ago I was indebted to Mrs. Green, who copied
it from the original in the Middleshill Collection. I have called it
the _Worcester MSS._ The diarist was Henry Townshend, Esquire, of
Elmley Lovet, Worcestershire, who lies buried in the church of that
parish; and the nature of his impressions of what went on around him
may be inferred from his epitaph.
VII. _A document relative to the death of Charles II._, being one of
the valuable collection of papers entrusted to the Record Commission
for examination. This document solves the curious enigma which puzzled
Lord Macaulay. For a copy of it I am indebted to the kindness of Sir
Thomas Duffus Hardy, who takes an important part in the Commission.
VIII. _A MS. History of the Congregational Churches of Suffolk_, by
the Rev. Thomas Harmer, Author of _Observations on Scripture; a MS.
History of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth_, drawn up from the
Church Book by my late friend Mr. Joseph Davey; and other old _Church
Records_ which I have been permitted to inspect, as will appear from
the foot-notes to these volumes.
IX. _MS. Volumes and Papers in the Archives of Canterbury._ For
the inspection and use of these I am indebted to the kindness and
assistance of the Dean and of Canon Robertson.
X. _Subscription Book_, amongst the records of Chichester Cathedral,
which has been examined by Canon Swainson, who has furnished me with
the results inserted in the Appendix. To him my best thanks are due;
nor can I omit to record my acknowledgments to the Dean of Chichester
also, for all his kind and friendly attention.
With these various materials before me, I have entered much more fully
than previous historians have done into several subjects--especially
the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church by the Act of Uniformity.
In our time, when the question of Establishments has been so
earnestly and so practically taken up, as to work out already the
greatest ecclesiastical change since 1662, surely a full account of
what was accomplished in that memorable year, with its immediate
results,--results far from having spent their influence,--must be
reckoned amongst the most desirable portions of history. It is
remarkable that no State Churchman has ever gone at large into this
subject, supplying the defects of Neal, and correcting the inaccuracies
of Clarendon and Burnet. Whilst I have attempted to supply the
acknowledged desideratum from my own point of view, it has been my aim,
in these as in former volumes, to make my readers acquainted not only
with prominent transactions, but with the social and private religious
life of the period, the personal piety which existed in different
communions, and the identity of that spiritual life which then deeply
struck its roots, as it ever does, under varied forms of doctrinal
belief, of Christian worship, and of ecclesiastical government.
I have also attempted to redeem my promise to furnish a sketch of the
theological opinions entertained in England between the commencement
of the Civil Wars and the fall of James II. It would have been easier
and more attractive to indulge in broad generalizations on the subject,
and to work out my own theological conclusions, through the medium
of historical reflection and argument; but I have preferred the more
useful and trustworthy, as well as the more humble and laborious
method of analyzing and describing the publications of the period in
connection with the authors, and thus indicating some of the extraneous
influences which have wrought upon the minds of eminent thinkers.
Of course I have been compelled to limit myself to those writers
who are best known and most significant, and therefore the student
will perhaps miss in my account some favourite or expected name. But
imperfect as the review will be found, enough will appear to indicate
strong resemblances between currents of opinion then and now; and in
this respect, the true apprehension of the present will be materially
assisted by a knowledge of the past.
As in the course of my researches I have detected in authors of the
highest reputation a number of minute inaccuracies, and some important
errors, I cannot hope to have escaped such evils myself, and I shall be
very thankful to candid critics for kindly pointing them out.
About one half of this volume covers ground traversed by me in _Church
and State two hundred years ago_, published in 1862: but it will be
found, that with the exception of a few sentences here and there, the
account now published is quite new. Facts before passed over are here
described at length, whilst certain trivial details are omitted; my
views on some points have undergone a little modification, and the
entire narrative has been rearranged; but the spirit which I sought at
the beginning I have endeavoured to retain throughout.
It would be ungrateful not to add, that for facilities in research, and
for direct literary aid, I am indebted to many friends. Besides special
obligations which I have acknowledged in the foot-notes and Appendix,
I beg to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. Thoms, Sub-Librarian to
the House of Lords--Mr. Aldis Wright, Librarian of Trinity College,
Cambridge--Mr. Bullen, of the British Museum--and Mr. Hunter, keeper of
Dr. Williams' Library.
Nor can I omit to mention again, my fellow-workers at home, especially
one whose assiduity and care in helping me to correct the press,
deserve the highest praise.
Two literary friends who took much interest in this work,--the Rev.
Joseph Aspland and Mr. John Bruce, F.S.A.,--are now, alas, beyond the
reach of my thanks.
Should my life be spared, I hope in another volume to bring the
Ecclesiastical History down to the Revolution. A history of the
eighteenth century lies amongst the visions of the future.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
Political Character of Puritanism 1
Ecclesiastical Character of Puritanism 7
Spiritual Character of Puritanism 11
CHAPTER I.
Richard Cromwell 15
His Parliament 17
Petitions from the Army 23
Richard's Resignation of the Protectorate 26
Independents 28
Baptists 31
Presbyterians 33
Episcopalians 34
CHAPTER II.
Interregnum 40
Restoration of Rump Parliament 42
Monk's Military Power 44
Re-establishment of Presbyterianism 49
CHAPTER III.
Presbyterians and Monk 51
Presbyterians and Episcopalians 52
State of Parties 55
Convention Parliament 57
Commonwealth Army 58
Breda Declaration 61
Proclamation of Charles II. 63
Manner of Restoration 65
Presbyterian Deputation to the King 68
Episcopalian Address 71
CHAPTER IV.
The King's return 72
Presbyterian Addresses 77
Independent Addresses 79
Royal Supremacy 80
Disbanding of the Old Army 86
Ecclesiastical proceedings in Parliament 88
Question of the Church's Settlement 88
Restoration of Cathedrals 92
Petitions from Universities 92
Changes in the position of Parties in the House of Commons 93
Church Property 95
Bishops 97
Preferments 98
CHAPTER V.
Presbyterian Chaplains 100
Meetings of Presbyterians 101
Presbyterian Proposals 102
Prelates' Answer 105
Controversy 106
Meetings at Worcester House 114
The King's Declaration 117
CHAPTER VI.
The Regicides 126
New Bishops 131
Persecution of Nonconformists 134
Reaction against Puritanism 138
Venner's Insurrection 140
Opening of Suspected Letters 145
CHAPTER VII.
Elections for New Parliament 147
Interception of Letters 151
Meeting of Parliament 154
Commission for Savoy Conference 155
Convocation 158
Savoy Palace 162
Members of Conference 163
Coronation 166
Election for Members of Convocation 168
Presbyterians' Exceptions to the Liturgy 170
Meeting of Convocation 173
Proceedings of Convocation 176
Bishops' Answers to Exceptions 179
Baxter's Liturgy 180
Presbyterians' Rejoinder to Bishops' Answers 183
Last two Meetings of Savoy Conference 187
Baxter's Account of Commissioners 189
Baxter's Petition 191
CHAPTER VIII.
Proceedings of Parliament 196
Burning of Solemn League and Covenant 196
Bill for restoring Prelates to the Upper House 197
Bill for governing Corporations 199
Bill for Restoration of Ecclesiastical Courts 200
Uniformity Bill 202
State of feeling 206
CHAPTER IX.
Re-assembling of Parliament 209
Pretended Plots 211
Deliberations of Convocation 213
History of the Prayer Book 214
Revision of the Book 219
Subscription 223
Consecration of Bishops 227
CHAPTER X.
Uniformity Bill 229
Lords' Amendments 231
Debates on Amendments 233
Commons' Amendments 239
Conference between the two Houses 241
CHAPTER XI.
Royal Assent to Bill of Uniformity 245
Change in the Establishment made by the Act 246
Convocation responsible for Changes in the Prayer Book 247
Bishops' share in Responsibility 248
House of Commons 250
Clarendon 250
Roman Catholic Party 251
Omissions in Act 253
Classes affected by it 255
CHAPTER XII.
Sir Henry Vane 256
Edmund Ludlow 258
Edward Whalley and Major-General Gough 259
Effects of the Act of Uniformity 261
Reports of Disaffection 267
CHAPTER XIII.
Bartholomew Ejectment--Farewell Sermons 271
Reception of Catherine of Braganza 275
Petitions from Quakers 275
St. Bartholomew's Day 278
The Ejected Ministers 278
CHAPTER XIV.
Petition from Presbyterians 283
Operation of the Act 285
Clergy who conformed 287
Bishops' Articles of Visitation 289
Ministers who continued in the Establishment without conforming 290
Clergy who disapproved of the Ejectment 291
Rumoured Plots 292
CHAPTER XV.
King's Declaration of Indulgence 296
Baxter and the Independents 298
Parliament 299
Debate on Indulgence 300
Papists and Nonconformists 303
Deaths of Bishops 305
Proscribed Worship 308
Colonial Policy 310
Plots and Informers 312
Nonconformist Places of Worship 314
Ejected Ministers 316
CHAPTER XVI.
Conventicle Act 322
Execution of the Act 327
Convocation 329
Sheldon's Inquiries 331
CHAPTER XVII.
The Plague 333
Ministers who remained in London during the Plague 338
Usefulness of the Ejected Clergy 340
Mompesson 341
Stanley and Shaw 342
Parliament at Oxford 343
Increase of Nonconformity 343
Five Mile Act 345
Nonconformists who took the Oath of Non-resistance 348
Those who refused it 350
Dutch War 355
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Fire of London 357
Papists suspected 361
Exertions of Nonconformists after the Fire 362
Disturbances in Scotland 363
Fanatics 365
The Dutch 366
Empty Exchequer 367
Impeachment of Clarendon 369
His Character 371
Comparison between Clarendon and Burleigh 373
Extent of Nonconformity 375
CHAPTER XIX.
Comprehension 378
Episcopalian Proposals 381
Presbyterian Modifications 383
Thorndike's Principles 385
New Conventicle Bill 387
CHAPTER XX.
Manton and Baxter 390
Conventicles 392
Sufferings of Quakers 398
CHAPTER XXI.
The Cabal 400
Declaration of Indulgence 403
How regarded by Politicians 404
By Episcopalians and Presbyterians 406
By Independents 407
Nonconformists return thanks for Declaration 408
Grants to Nonconformists 410
Charles II. and the Quakers Carver and Moore 412
Pardon of Quakers 414
CHAPTER XXII.
Opening of Parliament 416
Political parties 417
Debate on the Declaration 418
Measures for Relief 421
Test Act 425
Cancelling of the Declaration of Indulgence 428
State of Nonconformists 429
CHAPTER XXIII.
Earl of Danby 434
New Test 436
Comprehension 438
Persecution of Nonconformists 441
Coffee Houses 443
Comprehension and Toleration 444
Bishop Croft 447
CHAPTER XXIV.
Roman Catholicism 450
The Duke of York 451
Protestant Opposition 455
St. Germain and Luzancy 458
Parliament 459
Committal of Four Lords to the Tower 462
Bills against Popery 463
Act for Better Observance of the Lord's Day 465
Act for Augmentation of Small Livings 467
Repeal of the law _De Hæretico Comburendo_ 467
Bill for Exclusion of Papists from Parliament 469
CHAPTER XXV.
Bishops--Sheldon 470
Ward 474
Morley 477
Cosin 478
Hacket 481
Wilkins 483
Pearson--Reynolds 485
Croft 487
Laney 488
Gunning 489
Paul--Warner 490
Earle--Skinner 491
Nicholson--Henchman 492
Rainbow--Henshaw 493
Ironside 494
Frewen--Sterne 495
Dolben 498
Griffith--Glemham--Barrow 499
Wood 500
Brideoake 501
Lloyd 502
State of the Clergy 502
Their Ignorance 507
Religious and Moral Character 510
INTRODUCTION.
The knell of the Puritan Commonwealth was rung when Oliver Cromwell
died. The causes of its dissolution may easily be discovered. Some of
them had been in operation for a long time, and had prepared for the
change which now took place.[1]
Puritanism never won a majority of the English people. By some of the
greatest in the nation it was espoused, and their name, example, and
influence, gave it for a time a position which defied assault; but the
multitude stood ranged on the opposite side. Forced to succumb, and
stricken with silence, the disaffected nevertheless abated not a jot of
their bitter antipathy to the party in power. Even amongst those who
wore the livery of the day, who used the forms, who adopted the usages
of their masters, many lacked the slightest sympathy with the system
which, from self-interest or timidity, they had been induced to accept.
The Puritans were not the hypocrites; the hypocrites really were people
of another religion, or of no religion, who pretended to be Puritans.
Besides these, there were numbers who whispered murmurs, or bit their
lips in dumb impatience, as they watched for signs of change in the
political firmament.
A mischievous policy had been pursued by the Puritans towards the old
Church of England. Laud's execution yielded a harvest of revenge. The
extirpation of Episcopacy, and the suppression of the Prayer Book,
kindled an exasperation which kept alive a resentful intolerance down
to the period of the Revolution. I am aware of the excuses made for
Puritan despotism, and am ready to allow some palliation for wrong
done under provoking circumstances, but I must continue to express
indignation at the injustice committed; all the more, because of my
religious sympathy with the men who thus tarnished their fame. It must,
however, be confessed that had Presbyterians and Independents been ever
so merciful in the hour of their might, there is no reason to suppose,
from what is known of their opponents, that they would have shewn any
mercy in return.
In enumerating the causes of the failure of Puritanism as a _political_
institution notice should be taken of the prohibition of ancient
customs. How far the prohibition extended has been pointed out in
former volumes, and I must repeat, that whilst endeavours to suppress
national vice were most praiseworthy, some of the Parliamentary
prohibitions at the time were, to a considerable extent, unjust and
unnatural. Those who chose to celebrate Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide,
and other seasons, had a perfect right so to do; and some, though not
all, of the amusements remorselessly put down, were in themselves
innocent; pleasant, and even venerable in their associations; and in
their tendencies productive of kindly fellowship between class and
class.
Puritan rule in England came as the child of revolution--a revolution
mainly accomplished by civil war. The first battle, indeed, and that
which led to all the others, was fought on the floor of the House of
Commons. The patriots being returned as the representatives of the most
active and influential citizens, many of whom were Puritans, possessed
an immense amount of political power, and, as statesmen, they turned
the scale in favour of revolution; but the revolution had to make
good its ground by force, and the patriots, as soldiers, had to crush
resistance in the field. This was a necessity. The attitude of the
King, the chivalrous spirit of the nobles who rallied round him, under
the circumstances in which Parliament had placed itself, rendered an
appeal to arms inevitable. The wager of battle having been accepted,
the quarrel having been fought out bravely, the relative position
afterwards of the victors and the vanquished could not but embitter
the feelings existing on both sides. The vanquished submitted without
grace to their conquerors. They hated the new political constitution.
When they seemed quiet they were only biding their time, only preparing
for some fresh outbreak. Memories of privation, of imprisonment, of
cruel usage, of houses burnt, of fathers, sons, and brothers slain,
and especially the mortification of defeat, constantly irritated the
Cavalier and goaded him to revenge. The blister was kept open year
after year. The wound never healed. Alienation, or resentment, on
the part of the Royalist provoked new oppression on the part of the
Commonwealths-man. Fresh oppression from the hands of the one produced
fresh resentment in the breast of the other.
A civil war may be needful for the deliverance of a country; but the
recollections of it for a long while must be a misfortune, since those
recollections exhibit the new state of things to the party on the
opposite side as a result of force, not as a result of reason; and the
remembrance of imposition ever involves a sense of wrong. Under this
misfortune the triumphant Puritans laboured throughout the Protectorate.
After the Restoration the misfortune, in some respects, became heavier
than before. The previous eighteen years had been to the Royalists
years in which violence destroyed the Monarchy and the Church. They
were the years of the _Great Rebellion_--so the political Revolution
came to be named--and in that name, specious and plausible, although
untruthful and unjust, lay much of the capital with which political
leaders after the Restoration carried on their trade of oppression
and wrong. The Puritans, they said, were rebels, for they had fought
against the Crown: what they had done once they would do again. A
valid defence was at hand, for the Puritans could show that there was
nothing really inconsistent between their peaceful submission to the
restored monarch, and the course which they had pursued under the Long
Parliament; yet, although they could make out a case satisfactory to
impartial men, over against their logic, however forcible, there stood
some awkward facts of 1642 and the following years, upon which High
Churchmen in the reign of Charles II. were never weary of ringing
changes.
The Long Parliament had rested upon the Army; so had the constitution
of the Protectorate. His Highness's rule had been fortified by his
major-generals and his troops. For its good and for its evil it
depended upon soldiers. A military despotism had become necessary
from the confusion of the times; it alone could bring quiet to the
country after political earthquakes. The regal sway had fallen into
the hands of a great general, a great statesman, and a great patriot,
who, because he combined these three characters, was able to work out
benevolent designs for his country. So long as he held the baton, so
long as he drew the sword, he could maintain his standing, but not a
moment longer. He had immense difficulties to overcome. Episcopalians
were almost all against him; very many Presbyterians stood aloof or
offered opposition; Spiritual Republicans, Fifth Monarchy men were
his torment; even Congregationalists, with whom he felt spiritual
sympathy, wished for a more democratic government than he would allow;
the Quakers neither loved nor feared him. Besides, he had political
colleagues who, as statesmen, appeared in opposition. Also, old
generals were looking after an occasion for making resistance. Vane
and Haselrig, Harrison and Ludlow, disapproved of the policy of their
former friend. They disliked the new Constitution; they were for
placing the keys in the hands of Parliament, not in the hands of a
single person. They regarded the Protector as the Greeks had regarded
a tyrant. Monarchy they detested, Democracy they would enthrone; yet
they saw amongst them a sovereign, mightier than any Stuart, only
called by another name. And it became a germ of weakness in the new
Constitution, that it had to be defended by arguments similar to those
which availed for the support of the ancient monarchy. It could be
said--and truly said--that English traditions, usages, genius, spirit,
and social necessities, demanded a supreme head--the rule "of a single
person." But the rule of a single person was the very thing so hateful
to the Republicans, although connected with the modifying checks of
a Parliament. Many saw that the reasons employed in favour of Oliver
Cromwell's Protectorate might be employed more consistently in favour
of the restoration of Charles Stuart. This circumstance was felt by
numbers who did not confess it.
Moreover, respecting domestic and foreign policy Cromwell had to
meet strong opposition. Finances, and law reform, were matters of
contention. The Dutch war, the French alliance, and the relations
with Spain, also presented points in which he and other distinguished
Commonwealths-men differed. As the political reign of Puritanism
depended upon Cromwell these circumstances could not fail to
undermine its strength. His statesmanship showed consummate ability;
his knowledge of mankind and of individuals amounted to a species
of divination; his control over those about him was irresistible;
his sagacity, vigilance, promptitude, decision, and patience were
unrivalled; his name was a tower of strength at home and abroad; his
foreign policy was successful, and therefore, as long as he lived, the
system which he had inaugurated and administered was sure to last. It
did--but at his death came collapse. There remained no master-mind
to rule the State, and to control the Army. The State soon showed a
disposition to go one way, the Army another. Confusions ensued; and the
latter fell under the command of a soldier who betrayed his trust, and
employed his influence to pull down the entire fabric of Puritan power.
So far, then, as Puritanism had become a political institute it
sunk under the shock of Oliver Cromwell's death. But though as an
institute it crumbled away, the political spirit which it had evoked
and cherished did not die. It would be a repetition of what has been
said a hundred times, to insist here upon the influence of the Puritan
leaders of the Long Parliament, and the influence of the Puritan chiefs
of the Commonwealth Army in preparing for the political liberties of
England, guaranteed at the Revolution. A peaceful change then came as
the consequence and complement of the Civil Wars. It is the destiny of
nations to pass through the waters of conflict and suffering ere they
can reach the shores of freedom. Our Puritan fathers then breasted
the torrent, and made good their landing on the right side, where we,
thanks to their bravery and endurance, have, under God, found a home.
The superstructure they immediately raised was not permanent; but
its strong foundation-stones were too deeply laid to be removed in a
brief period of reaction; and on them we now are building new forms of
political justice, order, and peace. It may take longer time and nobler
labour than we imagine to complete the edifice, but our hope and trust
is that Divine providence will one day bring it to perfection.
Puritanism must be considered under its _ecclesiastical_ as well as
its political aspect. It became political through its ecclesiastical
action, and its ecclesiastical character has been damaged by its
political relations. It was worked up into an elaborate Presbyterian
system, framed not only for the purpose of instructing the nation in
the truths of the Bible, but for the purpose also of constituting
every Englishman a member of the Church, and of subjecting him to
the authority and discipline of its officers. This ecclesiastical
organization its advocates brought, so far as they could, into
union with the civil government to be defended and enforced by the
magistrate. And where Puritanism assumed a Congregational shape, and
claimed the name of freedom, although, as to Church institutes, it
sought, and to some degree attained liberty of operation, yet, in all
cases where its ministers were parochial incumbents, they, by their
identification with the national establishment, exposed themselves to
the political danger which, at certain crises, threaten institutions of
that description. When ecclesiastical arrangements are complicated with
State affairs they must be subject to a common fortune. What endangers
the one endangers the other, and the history of Puritanism offers no
exception to the general rule.
Two ecclesiastical principles are seen at work in connection with the
religious organizations which existed in the middle of the seventeenth
century: Erastianism and Voluntaryism. Erastianism came across the path
of both Presbyterians and Congregationalists. It wrought powerfully
through the ordinances and laws of the Long Parliament, in the way of
checking what it justly deemed the despotic tendencies of uncontrolled
authority in the exercise of discipline. The working of Erastianism is
visible in the legal prevention of the full establishment of parochial
assemblies and provincial synods; and in the interference of the
magistrate with those Independent pastors holding benefices, who would
fain have excluded from the Lord's table persons whom they deemed
morally unfitted for approaching it. In curbing suspected despotism,
Erastianism, as is its wont, paralyzed the hand of a salutary restraint
upon the irregularities of Christian professors. It opened a door for
promiscuous communion. It thwarted the designs, and enfeebled the
energy of ecclesiastical Puritanism; and thus laxity of fellowship
followed as a penalty for seeking State support, on the part of
communities which prized the purity of Christ's Church.
Voluntaryism cannot properly be identified with Puritanism. The
leading Puritans neither advocated nor countenanced that principle;
such as were Episcopalians did not. The Presbyterians, and some of
the Independents, as we have this moment noticed, did not. A few
of the Baptists did not. Oliver Cromwell, who protected them all,
did not. Whilst some Puritans thus stood apart from Voluntaries, and
even opposed _them_, there were some Voluntaries who stood apart from
Puritanism, and even opposed _that_. The Quakers, from the commencement
of their history, protested against the union of Church and State,
and were ever faithful to their convictions in this as well as in
other respects; they also kept aloof from Puritanism altogether, and
even condemned it severely, under several of its aspects. Many of the
Independents, and more of the Baptists, previously to the Civil Wars,
also disapproved strongly of that kind of union which displeased the
Quakers, and contended firmly for the support of Churches by voluntary
contributions; yet they entered into cordial alliance with Puritanism
in other things, promoting certain of its political proceedings, and
sympathizing generally with its spiritual movements and tendencies.
Voluntaryism had strong affinities for the spiritual side of
Puritanism, deriving from it the most vigorous impulses, contributing
towards it the most devoted service; and if it did not win its way
at first amongst the rich, the noble, and the learned, it laid hold
upon the hearts of the humbler classes; and, by widely leavening them
with its power, prepared for subsequently working upwards to that
influence which is exercised by it in the present day. The history of
this principle is the same throughout: as it was with the primitive
Christians,--as it was with so many of the most pious and active men
of the Middle Ages,--as it has been with the Methodists,--so it was
with those of whom I speak. They began their work--"in a great trial of
affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded
unto the riches of their liberality."
Voluntaryism, so far as it affected Puritanism, did not contribute to
its weakness, but to its strength; yet amongst those who professed
Voluntaryism, as amongst those who adopted different views, there
appeared an element which proved injurious to them all. It was
dis-union--it was strife.
If the Crusading knights had been of one mind, it is a question,
whether, in the end, they would have retained mastery over the
Mussulmen; but certainly they stood no chance whilst feuds were rife
in the Camp of the Cross. The same may be said of the Puritans. It
would have been hard enough, with the utmost concentration of force, to
bear down opposition; but amidst their own discords it became simply
impossible. Presbyterians were of different shades of opinion, and
they were not without mutual jealousies. But their hatred of what they
stigmatized as Sectarianism appears scarcely less than their hatred of
Prelacy, or even of Romanism; in some minds abhorrence existed equally
in reference to all three. The sects were not behindhand in their
mutual antipathies, and were by no means gentle in their collisions.
Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, to mention no others--I speak of
them all generally--did anything but keep "the unity of the spirit in
the bonds of peace." The apostolic warning betokened evil to Puritan
Christendom in England--"If ye bite and devour one another, take heed
that ye be not consumed one of another." Yet those whose eyes are open
to discern the defects in principle and temper of the ecclesiastical
organizations of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth, can also see
that Puritanism has bequeathed to English Christendom a precious legacy
of religious freedom. That spirit has not only wrought out modern Free
Churches--which, whatever may be men's opinions on ecclesiastical
questions, must be admitted by everyone to be efficient powers in
spreading Christianity at home and abroad, and in exerting beneficial
influences of many kinds upon society at large--but that spirit has
also leavened, to a large extent, other communities not based upon
what is called the voluntary principle. Toleration, for which the
Independents struggled under Cromwell, won a victory in 1688--an
imperfect victory it is true, but still precious; and the toleration
then established opened the way for the progress now advancing along
the paths of mutual religious justice.
Puritanism presents another--a _spiritual_ aspect--under which it has
exercised an influence more vigorous and salutary than it has done in
any other way.
It laid hold on thousands, not only by simple methods of religious
worship which commended themselves to the plain understanding, and
the unsophisticated taste of Anglo-Saxon people,--but by its emphatic
exhibition of the truths of Christianity as a redemptive system, full
of the love of God to sinful men, commending itself to humble and
sorrow-stricken hearts. In the Gospel of Christ, which Puritanism
prominently exhibited as adapted to the wants of mankind, lay the
secret of its greatest success, and the key to its noblest results. As
a spiritual power it had been strong under Elizabeth and the Stuarts;
but its conflicts in war, its entrance into the Court, its elevation
to the throne, defaced somewhat its spiritual beauty, and impaired
in a measure its spiritual force. The most favourable aspects of
Puritanism are not found in the history of the Civil Wars, and of the
Commonwealth. As with Christianity in general--as with Protestantism at
large, so with the system now under consideration. Not in the palace
of Constantine do we discover the best specimens of Gospel piety; not
in the Courts of English and German sovereigns do we see the workings
of the Reformed Faith to most advantage; and not at Whitehall must we
watch for the fairest visions of Puritan life. Our religion, in its
best forms, is no doubt essentially a genial social power, healing,
constructive, conservative--such we believe it will prove itself to
be in the Church of the future--but in the Church of the past, it has
shown itself purest and strongest when contending against opposition,
when passing through scenes of suffering, when grappling with the
evils of society, and when informing and animating individual souls.
Persecution has been to piety what the furnace is to the potter's clay;
it has burnt in, it has brought out, its richest colours. The Huguenots
appear to much greater advantage in the defeats which they endured
than in the victories which they won; the peasantry in their cottages
are more to be admired than the nobles in their chateaux. The history
of successful battles fought, or of courageous resistance made by the
French Protestants; and the story of Henry of Navarre and his Courtiers
even before his reconciliation with Rome; read not so well as does the
record of men of the same class who were burnt at the stake, or who
were sent to the galleys, or who were exiled from their country. So
also the chief moral charm of Puritanism is found, not in the successes
of statesmen and soldiers; not in Pym's debates and majorities; not
in Cromwell's charges and laurels; but in the deaths of Barrow and
Greenwood, and in the tortures of Leighton and Burton; and, if we
may anticipate, in the ejection, the wanderings and the imprisonment
of Howe, and Heywood, and Baxter. On the same principle the quiet,
earnest, and exemplary lives of the middle-class Puritans did more than
anything else, at the commencement of the Civil Wars to give ascendancy
to their cause; and after the Restoration to recover its character,
and promote its progress. Puritanism, when once more separated from
the State, returned to the old and better paths of confessorship and
humiliation; and thrown back upon itself and upon God, it became, as of
yore, a spiritual agency of the most potent kind. The theological books
it produced, the devoted characters it formed, and the pious memories
it handed to posterity, have created an influence embracing within its
reach both England and America. The effect of its works, examples, and
traditions have never perished in Dissenting Churches and families; but
beyond these circles, it has manifestly told upon the Christian world.
It contributed to the great revival of religion which arose within the
pale of the Establishment during the last century; and from an earlier
period than that, down to the present day, its perpetuated spiritual
power has been deeply felt, and gratefully acknowledged on the other
side of the Atlantic.
Such was the system of Puritanism--politically, ecclesiastically,
spiritually; such were some of the causes which produced changes in it
at the era of the Restoration. What it was, and what it did at that
period and afterwards, remains to be related. We are to consider what,
in its Presbyterian, Congregational, and other forms, it became; what
it endured of direct persecution and of indirect social wrong; and what
it achieved in works of faith, and love, and zeal. We are to trace its
social influence in the retirements of English life; its new political
influence on the side of liberty; the germs of after-thought which it
planted; the stones of reform and improvement which it laid. Also, and
this will occupy a still wider space, we are to mark how the Episcopal
Church of England rose out of her ruins, and the Establishment became
once more Anglican. All this, in the minute grades of the process,
together with the form of the re-edification; the policy of its new
builders; their relations and conduct towards their Nonconformist
brethren; the intermingling of ecclesiastical and political events; the
Church developments; the theological controversies; and the spiritual
life of the period, amongst Conformists and Nonconformists--much of it,
on each side, beautiful, some of it, on both sides, marred--it is my
arduous task faithfully to unfold.
CHAPTER I.
Richard Cromwell succeeded his father in the government of the realm,
as if his family had from of old occupied the throne. What renders
this fact the more remarkable is that the new ruler had never been a
public character, except so far as holding offices of honour might
be considered as giving him that appearance. He had spent a quiet
and almost unnoticed life, in the retirement of Hursley Park, in
Hampshire--an inheritance he had acquired by marriage,--and there, in
the society of neighbouring Cavaliers, he had enjoyed the sports of a
country gentleman. Imbued with loyalty to the Stuarts, notwithstanding
his father's position; conforming to the Established religion, without
any sympathy in his father's opinions; indeed, destitute of deep
religious feeling of any kind, as well as of genius, enthusiasm,
and force of will, he stood ill-prepared to sustain the enormous
responsibility which now fell upon his shoulders.
[Sidenote: 1658.]
Instantly after Oliver's death, on the 3rd of September, the Council
assembled and acknowledged Richard's title. All the chief cities and
towns in the dominion were informed that the late Protector--"according
to the petition and advice in his lifetime"--had declared his "noble
and illustrious son to be his successor." The Mayor and Aldermen of
London proceeded to Whitehall with condolences and congratulations;
and the new Protector, in their presence, took the Oath of the
Constitution, administered to him by Fiennes, a Lord Commissioner of
the Great Seal. Manton offered prayer, and blessed His Highness, "his
council, armies, and people."[2]
Proclamation of Richard's accession throughout the country immediately
followed; and, according to a custom which had originated under
the Protectorate, addresses, overflowing with adulation, poured in
from various public bodies. Foreign courts, too, acknowledged the
Protector's title, and honoured his father's memory. "It a sad thing to
say," remarks Cosin, writing from Paris, "but here in the French Court,
they wear mourning apparel for Cromwell; yea, the King of France, and
all do it."[3] Richard's chief councillors were Lord Broghill, the
Royalist, who had been a faithful servant to Oliver; Dr. Wilkins,
Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, married to the late Protector's
sister; and Colonel Philip Jones, one of the Protectorate Lords. The
union between these councillors sufficiently indicates that no extreme
ecclesiastical policy could be contemplated; and, accordingly, in the
month of November, a Declaration appeared, couched in liberal terms,
conceding general toleration, and promising to godly ministers "their
dues and liberties, according to law."[4]
[Sidenote: RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE.]
Richard was tolerant both from disposition and policy; owing to
circumstances, he sympathized more with Presbyterians than with
Independents; perhaps he would not have been adverse to some kind of
modified Episcopacy. Moderate people, of different parties, therefore,
looked kindly upon his sway; but it soon appeared that the embers of
discontent were smouldering still. Scarcely had he worn his title one
month, when his brother, Henry Cromwell, wrote in an alarming tone to
Lord General Fleetwood, who had married Henry's sister. "Remember," he
says, "what has always befallen imposing spirits. Will not the loins
of an imposing Independent or Anabaptist be as heavy as the loins of
an imposing Prelate or Presbyter? And is it a dangerous error, that
dominion is founded in grace when it is held by the Church of Rome, and
a sound principle when it is held by the Fifth Monarchy?" "Let it be
so carried, that all the people of God, though under different forms,
yea, even those whom you count _without_, may enjoy their birthright
and civil liberty, and that no one party may tread upon the neck of
another."[5] Henry Cromwell feared lest certain well-known unquiet
spirits, now that his sire's strong hand had crumbled into dust, should
disturb the peace of the country, and, under pretence of universal
freedom, throw everything into confusion. He had reasons for his fear.
[Sidenote: 1659.]
Richard called a Parliament, which met on the 27th of January, 1659.
Writs were issued to "rotten boroughs;" representatives were summoned
from Scotland and Ireland; means not constitutional, so it is said,
were employed to secure a House of Commons favourable to the Court
party. The majority consisted of Presbyterians, to whom the Protector
chiefly looked for support; but old political Independents also secured
their election, and Sir Henry Vane and Sir Arthur Haselrig, excluded
by the old Protector, now, under the milder sway of the new one,
took their seats in St. Stephen's Chapel.[6] They evaded the oath of
allegiance, and boldly advocated Republicanism.
Parliament opened with a sermon in Westminster Abbey, by Dr. Thomas
Goodwin, the Independent, who preached from Psalm lxxxv. 10, advocating
liberty of conscience, and exhorting to union and peace. To that
venerable edifice, ever identified with our national history, His
Highness, attended by the Privy Council, by the Officers of State,
and by the Gentlemen of the Household, "passed by water in a stately
new-built galley, and landed at the Parliament Stairs." Lord Cleypole,
Master of the Horse, bore the Sword of State before Richard, who
in the Abbey sat surrounded by his Lords, the Commons, much to
their displeasure--afterwards expressed by them--being seated here
and there; "_sparsim_," as a contemporary chronicle discontentedly
states.[7] The Protector concluded his opening speech in the Painted
Chamber, by recommending to the care of Parliament, first, "the people
of God in these nations, with their concernments;" secondly, "the
good and necessary work of reformation, both in manners and in the
administration of justice;" thirdly, the Protestant cause abroad, which
seemed at that time to be in some danger; and lastly, the maintenance
of love and duty among themselves.[8]
[Sidenote: RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE.]
After a rather ill-tempered discussion, Reynolds, Manton, Calamy,
and Owen--three Presbyterians and one Independent--were appointed by
the Commons, "two to preach and two to pray," on the occasion of the
succeeding fast; and it is curious to find that in this instance the
service took place, not at St. Margaret's Church, but within the walls
of the House, to avoid, as alleged, the inconvenience of a promiscuous
auditory, when "good men wanted the liberty, which it was fit they
should have," to rebuke and reprove "the faults and miscarriages
of their superiors." "Ill-affected persons came frequently to such
exercises, not out of any zeal or devotion, but to feel the pulse of
the State, and to steer their counsels and affairs accordingly."[9]
The desirableness of sometimes giving admonition and advice to bodies
of men, unembarrassed by the presence of critical and alienated
spectators, still felt by many, was felt then.
The debates mainly turned upon fundamental questions of government.
In them little appears relative to religion. Complaints were made of
the Commissioners for trying ministers, and of the mismanagement of
funds for the support of the latter. Maynard, and others, affirmed that
souls were starved; that the sheep were committed to the wolf; that
scandalous preachers had scandalous judges; that Welsh Churches were
unsupplied except by "a few grocers, or such persons;" that "dippers
and creepers" were found in the Army; that Jesuits had been in the
House, &c. "See," exclaimed one speaker, "what congregations we had
in '43, and what now! It is questioned whether we have a Church in
England; questioned, I doubt, whether Scripture or rule of life is in
England."[10] In the Grand Committee, a Bill was ordered to be drawn
for revising Acts touching the Prayer Book; and for the suppression of
Quakers, Papists, Socinians, and Jews.[11] Just before, a member named
Nevile had been denounced and threatened with prosecution as an atheist
and blasphemer, for saying that the reading of Cicero affected him more
than the reading of the Bible.[12]
[Sidenote: 1659.]
These proceedings, together with a declaration a few weeks
afterwards, which spoke of blasphemies and heresies against God,
and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures; of the
advocates of an inward light; also of atheism, profaneness, and
Sabbath-breaking,[13]--indicate the revival of Presbyterian influence,
and the renewed activity of Presbyterian zeal. On the other hand, Sir
Henry Vane, who had been so earnest in supporting the Covenant, had
now changed his mind on that subject, maintaining that the compact
had become invalid through what he called the Scotch invasion of
England, meaning by this the invasion which ended in the defeat at
Worcester.[14] In the same spirit exceptions were taken by a Committee
to the harsh treatment of Fifth Monarchy men; and some of that class
were referred to with respect.[15] In these Parliamentary allusions to
religious questions--the chief allusions of the kind which occurred
about this time--we discern the flow of two opposite currents of
feeling.
[Sidenote: PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.]
Other debates issued in important consequences. Republicans and
the advocates of a mixed Government came into collision upon their
particular points of difference. Sir Arthur Haselrig openly arraigned
the acts of Oliver Cromwell, condemned the dismissal of the Long
Parliament, and most irreverently compared the extinction of Monarchy
and of the Upper House to the effect of the crucifying of our Saviour
on the Cross. Haselrig proclaimed England to be a theocracy. "God,"
said he, "is the King of this Great Island." Haselrig acknowledged no
power under God but that of the Parliament; the Protector he utterly
ignored. Scott and Ludlow also gloried in their regicidal deeds. Vane,
in a calmer strain, upheld Republicanism. On the other side the
friends of the Protectorate contended for the "petition and advice"
as "the Boaz and Jachin of Solomon's temple." The hand of Providence,
they said, had set up the Protector, Richard. He was Protector before
the House assembled; the House had owned him in that capacity, and had
taken an oath of allegiance. A Royalist, amidst the expression of these
opinions, exclaimed, "I am for the Constitution we lived under--for
building up the ancient fabric."[16] Thus early, certain of the
senators of England showed their determination to plunge at once into
the vortex of a new revolution.
[Sidenote: 1659.]
Questions touching foreign affairs, the Army, and finance came under
debate at the same time; the Republicans, led by Vane, deploring, in
a spirit of infatuation, the late peace with Holland, and wishing
that the war had been perpetuated until the Dutch had been conquered,
and forced into union with this country. They contended also that
the control of the military should be placed in the hands of the
Parliament, not in the hands of the Protector; and they inveighed
against the extravagance of the Government, declaring that the
deficiency in the revenue would produce a national debt enough to
sink the country in ruin. But what proved of still more serious
consequence, the Republicans not only canvassed, but set aside certain
acts of the late Protector. Oliver had left behind him many State
prisoners, committed for political offences. They were now liberated.
Major-General Overton, one of these prisoners, appeared before the
House as a martyr, being escorted on his return from imprisonment--like
Burton, Prynne, and others, nearly twenty years before--by "four or
five hundred men on horseback, and a vast crowd bearing branches of
laurel."[17]
[Sidenote: PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.]
Richard could not be held responsible for the arbitrary proceedings
of Oliver. He had not been privy to his father's deeds; he had not
entered into his father's purposes; he had not adopted his father's
opinions; he had befriended the Royalists, and was still supposed to
have sympathies with them; at the same time also his moderation and
urbanity attracted towards him some of his father's companions and
allies. "Though perhaps you will not believe it," wrote Broderick to
Hyde, "they really are more affectionate to the present than the late
Protector, whose temper so differed from theirs that it was usually
averse to the deliberate caution they advised, running hazards they
trembled to think of upon a sudden violent suggestion, of which
they could give themselves no account, which precipices this young
Prince doth prudently, as well as naturally avoid, and is thereby
rendered more agreeable to those wary statesmen."[18] Yet personal
popularity did not suffice to defend him from the disaffection of
Republicans, and the discontent and intrigues of Army officers. Late
in the month of March, Fleetwood and Desborough reported to Richard
that agitation prevailed amongst the troops; that they complained of
not having received their pay; that they were angry at the conduct
of Parliament towards some of their old generals; and that these
circumstances afforded encouragement to the Cavalier party. The two
officers proceeded to employ these facts for the purpose of enforcing
the advice that His Highness should immediately summon a Council of
Officers to consider the state of affairs. Such a Council was held;
and, after prayer, by Dr. Owen, deliberations commenced. Desborough
recommended the application to the Army of a political test, the test
to be--approval of the execution of Charles I. The proposition shocked
the Lords Howard and Falconbridge. Broghill suggested a different
method--that every one should be turned out of the Army who would
not swear allegiance to the Protectorate, a proposition supported by
Whalley and Goffe. At last it was resolved to separate the command of
the Army from the civil power; a resolution afterwards presented to His
Highness, who forwarded it to the House of Commons. Such discussions
only served to widen the breach between the House and the Army, in
the end diminishing the influence of the former, and leaving it in a
position of weakness, so as to compel its submission to the assumption
of the latter. The resolution sent to the Protector, and by him
forwarded to the Commons, tended to throw the greatest influence into
the hands of the officers, and to promote Desborough's Republican views.
Petitions from the Army followed these proceedings, the soldiers
saying, "Because our consciences bear us witness that we dipped our
hands in blood in that cause; and the blood of many thousands hath
been shed by our immediate hands under your command in that quarrel,
we are amazed to think of the account that we must render at the
great and terrible day of the Lord, if by your silence the freedom
of these nations should be lost, and returned into the hands of that
family, which God hath so eminently appeared against in His many signal
providences little less than miracles."[19]
[Sidenote: 1659.]
The Commons, although weak, assumed the semblance of strength, and upon
the 18th of April resolved that no Council of Officers should be held
without permission of the Protector and the Parliament; and that no one
should have command in the Army or Navy who did not engage to leave the
two Houses uninterrupted in their deliberations. The Protector, still
more feeble than Parliament, proceeded to dissolve the Council; the
officers asserted their authority by continuing to meet for conference.
As it was in the father's days so it was in the son's: when argument
failed violence took its place. Violence, like that which had been
employed by Oliver against the Parliament, was now threatened against
Richard by the Army. The officers, clutching at their old weapons,
seeing how things were likely to proceed, fearing the Presbyterian
ascendancy, and the destruction of their liberties, determined to
put an end to the sitting of the two Houses; and told His Highness
that if he did not dismiss them he might expect to be dismissed
himself. Richard was no soldier, and had not, like Oliver, secured
the attachment of the military, so that resistance by him to martial
chiefs could avail nothing. He, therefore, allowed the Parliament to
be dissolved by Commission, upon the 22nd of April. After this act
had been accomplished, not without opposition from some members, the
party in power summoned to the resumption of their trust, such of the
Long Parliament as had continued to sit until the year 1653. They
amounted in number to ninety-one; out of these forty-two obeyed the
new order, and took their places on the 7th of May. Fourteen of the
old Presbyterians, including Prynne,[20] who had sat in St. Stephen's
before Pride's purge, were refused admittance.
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.]
Upon the 13th of May the heads of the Army presented a petition, in
which they proposed to men whom they addressed as rulers, but who
were in fact servants, that religious liberty should, as in the days
of Oliver, continue to be conceded to all orthodox believers (Papists
and Prelatists being distinctly excepted); that a godly ministry
should be everywhere maintained; and that the universities and schools
of learning should be countenanced and reformed.[21] Gleams of
Presbyterian influence disappeared; the broad ecclesiastical policy of
Oliver again resumed the ascendant.
A new Council of State was formed, and the names of Vane and Haselrig
once more prominently appeared, together with those of Whitelock and
Fleetwood--the one a legal cipher, the other a military tool.
[Sidenote: 1659.]
Fleetwood occupied Wallingford House, which stood on the site of the
present Admiralty, the birthplace of the second Duke of Buckingham, and
the residence of the infamous Countess of Essex. Here it was, from the
roof of the mansion, then occupied by the Earl of Peterborough, that
Archbishop Ussher had swooned at the sight of Charles' execution; and
here Fleetwood, who from his connection with the Cromwells on the one
side, and with the Army on the other, now possessed more power than any
other person, gathered together his brother officers for conference.
Fleetwood was a pious and respectable Independent,[22] a sincere
patriot, a Republican only in a qualified sense, willing to concede
to a Protector large administrative authority. He was not without
ambition, although he had prudence enough to curb it; yet neither by
gifts of nature, force of character, or study and experience, was he
a man fitted to deal with existing emergencies. He had no original
genius, being born to follow, not to lead. He helped to pull down
the Protectorate, and to dethrone his brother-in-law, but he had no
gift for building up any better order of things. He could aid the
destructive movements of Vane and Haselrig; but he had no more of the
faculty of constructiveness than had they.
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.]
John Howe, who, in the month of May, was residing at Whitehall after
an absence of some months, saw and lamented the condition of affairs.
The "army-men," he says, under pretence of zeal for the interests
of religious liberty were seeking their own ends, and were for that
purpose drawing to themselves "wild-headed persons of all sorts."
"Such persons," he adds, "as are now at the head of affairs will
blast religion, if God prevent not." "I know some leading men are not
Christians. Religion is lost out of England, farther than as it can
creep into corners. Those in power, who are friends to it, will no more
suspect these persons than their ownselves."[23] These are not the
words of a party man; and they show that whatever might be the piety of
Fleetwood, and the purity of Vane, there were persons of a different
character who employed them as tools for selfish ends. In the same
letter, Howe speaks in favourable terms of Richard, whom he must have
known well. The disinterestedness, and even patriotism of the Protector
appeared in his resignation of power. "He resolved to venture upon it
himself, rather than suffer it to be taken with more hazard to the
country by others," and he awakens our sympathy by his own truthful
words, that "he was betrayed by those whom he most trusted." He quitted
Whitehall, with trunks full of addresses, which contained, as he
humorously remarked, "the lives and fortunes of all the good people of
England." More at home in the hunting-field than in the cabinet--he,
after residing abroad for a time, spent the rest of his days in his
native land as a country gentleman; and died at Cheshunt, July the
12th, 1712, saying to his daughter, "Live in love; I am going to the
God of love."[24] He lies buried in Hursley Church, where he regularly
worshipped during his residence in the parish. Within the same walls,
by a coincidence which will be often noticed in future days, there now
repose the remains of a holy man and a great poet, whose sympathies
never seem to have reached the fallen Protector during a ministry, in
that place, of thirty years.[25]
The power of the Cromwell family came to an end upon the dissolution
of Richard's Parliament, except that Fleetwood was acknowledged by
the Army as Lieutenant-general. Lord Falconbridge, and also the Lords
Broghill and Howard retired into the country; and, as the Protectorate
had vanished, they prepared to welcome the restoration of Monarchy.
[Sidenote: 1659.]
Leaving Whitehall we return to Wallingford House. Fleetwood, being
an Independent, civil affairs being entangled with such as were
ecclesiastical, and the interests of religion being so completely
involved in the political changes of the day--a fact which justifies
so much being said about them in an Ecclesiastical History--he and
Desborough, who sympathized with him, invited to their councils Dr.
Owen, the Independent, and Dr. Manton, the Presbyterian. A story is
told of the former, to the effect, that, at Wallingford House, he had
prayed for the downfall of Richard, so as to be heard by Manton, who
stood outside the door. It is further stated that Owen had gathered a
Church there; and that in one of its assemblies a determination had
been formed to compel Richard to dissolve his Parliament.[26] The
Independent Divine denied that he had anything to do with the setting
up, or the pulling down of Richard; and it has been also denied that he
gathered a Church in Wallingford House. Whatever might be the extent
of Owen's political interference at that crisis, and whether or not he
gathered a Church there, certainly at the time one existed upon the
spot. The Records of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth indicate
that a religious society assembled at Fleetwood's residence, and
carried on correspondence with other similar bodies.[27] These records
shed light upon a critical and dubious juncture in our history.
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.--INDEPENDENTS.]
A meeting was held at Norwich, and another in London, respecting which
Dr. Owen wrote to Mr. Bridge. The resolutions at which the Yarmouth
Church arrived, as they were probably drawn up by the eminent minister,
who presided over that community, may be regarded as expressing the
opinions of a wider circle than the provincial society which adopted
them.
First--"We judge a Parliament to be the expedient for the preservation
of the peace of these nations; and withal we do desire that all due
care be taken that the Parliament be such as may preserve the interest
of Christ and His people in these nations." Secondly--"As touching the
magistrate's power in matters of faith and worship we have declared
our judgment in our late Confession[28] (by the Savoy Conference);
and though we greatly prize our Christian liberties, yet we profess
our utter dislike and abhorrence of a universal toleration as being
contrary to the mind of God in His word." Thirdly--"We judge that the
taking away of tithes for maintenance of ministers until as full a
maintenance be equally secured, and as legally settled, tend very much
to the destruction of the ministry and the preaching of the Gospel in
these nations." Fourthly--"It is our desire that countenance be not
given, nor trust reposed in the hands of Quakers, they being persons of
such principles as are destructive to the Gospel, and inconsistent with
the peace of civil societies."[29]
[Sidenote: 1659.]
Into a miserable state must England have drifted when a congregation
of Independents, no doubt containing many worthy people, but certainly
not fitted to act as a Council of State, came to be consulted upon the
most important public questions, and to give their opinion after this
fashion.
What the opinions of Dr. Owen were upon two of the points mooted in
these resolutions we learn from a short paper which he wrote at this
time, and which is preserved in his collected works. There are three
questions, and he gives three answers. The first two relate to the
power of the supreme magistrate touching religion and the worship of
God. Notwithstanding the haste with which the replies were furnished,
they must be considered as expressing the writer's mature judgment, for
the interrogatories embody the most pressing questions of the times.
To the first query, whether the supreme magistrate in a Commonwealth
professing the religion of Christ, may exert his legislative and
executive power for furthering the profession of the faith and
worship, and whether he ought to coerce or restrain such principles
and practices as were contrary to them, Owen replied distinctly in
the affirmative. He supported his affirmation by arguments drawn from
the law and the light of nature; from the government of nations; from
God's revealed institutions; from the examples of God's magistrates;
"from the promises of Gospel times;" "from the equity of Gospel rules;"
from the confession of all Protestant Churches; and particularly from
the Savoy declaration. Owen was asked, secondly, whether the supreme
magistrate might "by laws and penalties compel any one who holds the
Head Christ Jesus to subscribe to that confession of faith, and attend
to that way of worship which he esteems incumbent on him to promote
and further." Restricting attention to those described as "holding
the Head," the Independent Divine remarks, that though it cannot be
proved that the magistrate is divinely authorized to take away the
lives of men for their disbelief, "yet it doth not seem to be the
duty of any, professing obedience to Jesus Christ, to make any stated
legal unalterable provision for their immunity who renounce Him." He
decides also that opinions of public scandal ought to be restrained,
and not suffered to be divulged, either by open speech or by the press.
Subsequently, after premising (to use his own words) that "the measure
of doctrinal holding the Head, consists in some few clear fundamental
propositions," and that men are apt to run to extremes, he finally
concludes upon giving a negative answer to their second question. As
to the third, "whether it be convenient that the present way of the
maintenance of ministers or preachers of the Gospel be removed and
taken away, or changed into some other provision;" Owen vindicates the
claim of the ministry to temporal support, and places the payment of
tithes upon a Divine basis. He declares that to take away "the public
maintenance" would be "a contempt of the care and faithfulness of God
towards His Church, and, in plain terms, downright robbery."[30]
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.--BAPTISTS.]
A Church book of the period has thus afforded an insight into certain
political relations sustained by Independents in the year 1659. A
celebrated historian may next be quoted, in reference to alleged
proceedings of a very different nature on the part of Baptists.
Clarendon relates a strange story of overtures made to Charles before
the death of Cromwell by persons of that denomination. He gives a copy
of an address to His Majesty, as Charles is styled, signed by ten such
persons, in which address occur violent lamentations over the troubles
of the times. Attached to it are proposals "in order to an happy,
speedy, and well-grounded peace." The document contains a prayer, that
no anti-Christian Hierarchy, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or otherwise,
should be created, and that every one should be left at liberty to
worship God in such a way and manner as might appear to them to be
agreeable to the mind and will of Christ.[31]
[Sidenote: 1659.]
According to Clarendon--the only authority upon which we have to
depend in reference to the subject--a curious letter accompanied the
address and the proposals; in which letter the correspondent alludes
to a "worthy gentleman" by whose hands it was conveyed, and who being
acquainted with the circumstances, would fully explain the case and
answer objections. He refers to the subscribers as "young proselytes"
to the Royal cause, as needing to be driven "_lento pede_," as being
neither of great families or great estates, but as capable of being
more serviceable to His Majesty than some whose names would "swell much
bigger than theirs."[32]
There is no sufficient reason for pronouncing the story an invention,
or the documents forgeries; at any rate it appears as if Clarendon
believed in them; yet on the other hand, there is not the slightest
evidence that any of the leaders of the Baptist body ever concurred in
any such movement--the names appended to the address are unknown--and
no reference to the affair, that I am aware of, was ever made after
the Restoration, either by Baptists or any other party. On the whole
it is not unlikely that some few people, calling themselves Baptists,
disliking Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate, and differing from
those ministers of their denomination who held parish livings, might
have engaged in a correspondence with a view to the restoration of
Monarchy under certain conditions--especially that of unfettered
toleration. No practical result followed these reported overtures.[33]
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--PRESBYTERIANS.]
The Presbyterians had, for the most part, after the death of Charles
I., preserved a sentiment of loyalty towards the House of Stuart; and
now that Richard had fallen, they were eager for the restoration of
Monarchy in the person of the exiled prince. Presbyterian clergymen
animated and controlled this new movement, of which the extensive
ramifications spread themselves abroad in secrecy and caution. Only in
Cheshire did any military demonstration occur. There, in the month of
August, under Sir George Booth, a popular Presbyterian of the county,
numbers of persons appeared in arms; yet, although the object evidently
was to place Prince Charles on the throne of his fathers, the leaders
professed nothing more than a desire to secure the assembling of a free
Parliament. The Presbyterians rejected the aid of the Roman Catholics,
and but warily accepted the advances of a Presbyterian knight, Sir
Thomas Middleton, because he was known to be a Royalist.[34]
[Sidenote: 1659.]
The rising proved unfortunate. After being hopefully prosecuted a
little while, it then appeared that the Republicans under Lambert
were too strong for these Northern insurgents. The former scoured
the country. Their shots in some places disturbed the Presbyterian
communicants at the Lord's Supper; their advances in the neighbourhood
of Manchester filled that town with alarm. Houses were emptied of
their valuables by the people who were anxious to hide them from
the enemy.[35] Booth was obliged to flee; and to provide against
detection he assumed a female disguise, and rode on a pillion, but his
awkwardness in alighting from his horse betrayed him; and Middleton,
after a brief resistance within the walls of Chirk Castle, capitulated
to the foe.
Fleetwood now seemed the chief man in England; and to him certain
Republicans, who had been desired, or as they interpreted it, commanded
to retire from the Council of Officers, turned as to their last hope,
asking him in a "humble representation" full of religious sentiment,
"to remove the present force upon the Parliament, that it might sit in
safety without interruption."[36] Other persons of more consequence,
including Haselrig, followed up the appeal in a rather different
strain, but with the same object, and charged Fleetwood with destroying
Parliamentary authority, after the example of his father-in-law.[37]
Sir Ashley Cooper subsequently wrote to him in like manner, protesting
against "red-coats and muskets" as a "_non obstante_" to national laws
and public privileges.[38]
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--EPISCOPALIANS.]
Amidst the confusion of the period hope dawned upon the persecuted
Episcopalians.
Whether or not influenced by the death of Cromwell, and the foresight
of coming changes favourable to his own Church, Henry Thorndike, the
able Episcopalian scholar and divine, published in 1659 what he called
_An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England_; a book which,
an admiring critic says, proved to be in spirit a prologue to the
renewed life of a Church more vigorous than ever! The aim of the work
is to promote the welfare of the Episcopal Church of England, not by
any compromise, but by endeavouring to persuade all to unite together
on her behalf. Looking at the claims of the Romish Church to immediate
inspiration (placed no matter where), and to the equally groundless
and more arrogant claims of the fanatics--as Thorndike terms them--to
individual inspiration, he urges that each party should be brought
to admit themselves limited to the sense of Scripture as expounded
by the primitive laws and faith of the Church. Thus, he says, the
ground of their errors is cut away. With this imaginary solution of
the difficulty, which begs the question, this calculation upon what
is impossible, and this triumphant assurance of a conclusion based on
premises, which neither Papist nor Puritan would admit--the high, but
honest Churchman, shows how much he sympathized with the one and how
little with the other.
[Sidenote: 1659.]
He expressly avows his approval of prayers for the dead, of the
invocation of the Spirit on the elements of the Eucharist, and of the
practice of penance; whilst he contends for Episcopacy in the Anglican
sense, and wishes to see Presbyters restored to their ancient position
of a council to be consulted by the bishop. Thorndike's notion was,
in prospect of its restoration, to reform his own Church, by bringing
it back to what he considered primitive usage. Those who most condemn
some of the views which he advocated will be constrained, on reading
his life and works, to acknowledge the guileless simplicity of his
character, as apparent in this very publication at such a crisis. He
says himself--"That I should publish the result of my thoughts to the
world may seem to fall under the historian's censure. '_Frustra autem
niti, neque aliud se fatigando, nisi odium quærere, extremæ dementiæ
est._'" He adds, "If I be like a man with an arrow in his thigh, or
like a woman ready to bring forth,--that is, as Ecclesiasticus saith,
like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart--I am in this, I
hope, no fool of Solomon's, but with St. Paul, 'a fool for Christ's
sake.'"[39]
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--EPISCOPALIANS.]
This straightforward course annoyed those who were seeking to restore
the Church in a different way. "Pray tell me what melancholy hath
possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his
book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever
imparting it, or communicating with them?" Such questions were asked by
Sir Edward Hyde, who wondered that Thorndike should publish his "doubts
to the world in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use
would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them."[40] Hyde's
own method of proceeding at this juncture appears in his correspondence
with Dr. Barwick. He did not trouble himself, like Thorndike, with
theological questions, or attempt any reformation of the Church which
he wished to restore; but he threw himself heartily into efforts for
the preservation of the Episcopal order. For the Bishops were dying
out, only a few survived; in a short time all would be dead, and then
how would the ministerial succession be perpetuated? By repairing to
Rome, or by admitting the validity of Presbyterian ordination? As Hyde
pondered these queries he rebuked the friends of the Church for their
apathy--"The King hath done all that is in his power to do, and if my
Lords the Bishops will not do the rest, what can become of the Church?
The conspiracies to destroy it are very evident; and, if there can
be no combination to preserve it, it must expire. I do assure you,
the names of all the Bishops who are alive and their several ages
are as well known at Rome as in England; and both the Papist and the
Presbyterian value themselves very much upon computing in how few years
the Church of England must expire."[41] While the Prelates generally
came in for his censure, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and Duppa, Bishop of
Salisbury, were exceptionally noticed as active and earnest--the most
lukewarm being Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter, and Skinner, Bishop of
Oxford.[42] It was easier, however, for Hyde, on the Continent, to
write zealously on this subject than for the Bishops in England, under
inimical rulers, and with the fear of penalties before them, to do
anything effective for the consecration of successors. Difficulties
were felt, both in the wandering Court of Charles and in the troubled
homes of ejected Episcopalians. There were no Deans and Chapters
to receive the _congé d'élire_, and to act upon it. Canonical and
constitutional law interposed obstacles in the way of consecration.
Bramhall thought, that as the King had an absolute power of nomination
for Ireland, the best way would be for surviving Bishops to consecrate
persons Royally nominated to Irish sees, and then translate them to
England. The Bishop of Ely objected to this as practically approving
what he considered a defect in the Church of the sister island; and he
would rather, he said, see Ireland conformed to England, than England
to Ireland. His own plan, in which Dr. Cosin concurred, was much the
same as one which Barwick proposed--_i.e._, that the King should grant
a Commission to the Bishops of each province, to elect and consecrate
fit persons for vacant sees, and ratify and confirm the process
afterwards.[43] To this Hyde agreed, and wrote for the form of such a
Commission as the Bishops might judge proper. No further steps appear
to have been taken in that direction.
[Sidenote: 1659.]
Hyde counselled as much privacy as possible in measures for the
preservation of the Episcopal order; and in all affairs relating to
the Church he recommended the utmost prudence and moderation: at
a later period, when Monk was preparing for Charles' return, Hyde
complained of the "unskilful passion and distemper" of some Divines.
The King, he added, was really troubled, and "extremely apprehensive
of inconvenience and mischief to the Church and himself." Still later,
he advised that endeavours should be made to win over those who had
reputation, and desired to merit well of the Church--and that there
should be no compliance "with the pride and passion of those who
propose extravagant things."[44]
As correspondence passed between Hyde and Barwick many Episcopalians
in England gave themselves to fasting and prayer. Evelyn writes in
his diary on the 21st of October: "A private fast was kept by the
Church of England Protestants in town, to beg of God the removal of
His judgments, with devout prayers for His mercy to our calamitous
Church." Other entries appear, of the same kind. The ruling politicians
in England, out of all sympathy with the exiles, were, nevertheless,
promoting their interests by divisions at home.[45]
[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--EPISCOPALIANS.]
Money-matters, out of which broods of quarrels are always being
hatched, caused what remained of the Long Parliament to be very
unpopular; and the upshot is seen in the dissolution by General
Lambert, on the 13th of October, of that attenuated but vivacious body,
whose continued, or renewed existence, through an age of revolutions,
presents such a singular phenomenon.