[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
[Sidenote: 1660.]
Charles, on his way to England, had reason for anxious care and steady
forethought. Never had an English Prince come to the throne under such
circumstances. A civil war was just over--the swelling of the storm had
hardly ceased; a party adverse to that which the King regarded as his
own remained still in power; many were expecting at his hand favour for
recent services, notwithstanding former offences; Presbyterians looked
at least for comprehension within the Establishment. Independents,
Baptists, Quakers, asked for toleration, and Roman Catholics, who
had been friends to the beheaded father and the exiled son, thought
themselves entitled to some measure of religious liberty. The Episcopal
Church claimed the new Monarch as her own; her prelates and ministers
were waiting to welcome him--to open in the parish churches once more
the beautiful old Prayer Book, with its litanies and collects for
the King and Royal family. They sought exclusive re-establishment;
they would cast out all Presbyterian intruders--they would tolerate
no Sectaries. Here were perplexing circumstances to be encountered.
The Breda Declaration had bound Charles to be considerate in dealing
with religious matters, to show respect for tender consciences.
_Comprehension_, _toleration_--he stood pledged to promote. But how
were the problems to be solved? He was a Constitutional King. He
was to rule through Parliaments. Should bigotry arise and carry all
before it in the Commons' House, as elsewhere, what was he to do?
Should his Ministers differ from him, how then? Such possibilities
gazed at by a thoughtful man might well have made him anxious, if
not alarmed. Who would not sympathize with any conscientious prince
under such circumstances? Charles possessed certain intellectual
and social qualities which fitted him for the task he had now to
perform; for he had common sense--was keen and clever, with quick
insight into character, made still more so by large acquaintance with
human nature,--he knew how to put unpleasant things in a pleasant
way,--could command considerable powers of persuasion when he liked,
and was courteous, affable, and of winning manners. But he was not
thoughtful--not conscientious; he lacked the two things which alone
could enable him to turn his abilities and experience to good account.
The crown was to him a toy; the throne a chair of pleasure, at best, of
pompous state. The heedless, folly-loving prince takes himself quite
out of the range of our sympathies, and leaves us to condemn the breach
of his plighted faith, and all the intolerance incident to his return.
A useless controversy was once carried on as to whether he was really a
Papist at the time of the Restoration. It is idle to dispute respecting
the theological opinions of a man so utterly destitute of religious
feeling and thoughtfulness. That he was _not_ a Protestant at the
time--meaning by the word a person attached to the Reformed faith--is
plain enough from what is said by those who knew him best. Probably
Buckingham, who calls him a Deist, is nearest the truth.[89] But that
he had sympathies with the Roman Catholic party, and considered
their Church as the most convenient for an easy-living gentleman like
himself, there can be no doubt. Had death stared him in the face just
after his return, he would probably have sought refuge in confession
and priestly absolution, as he did twenty-five years later. Yet he
professed to be a Protestant by solemn kingly acts, and in other ways
when he thought it politic. Charles was a dissembler.[90] He had, with
all his occasional rollicking frankness, an almost equal mastery over
his conversation and his countenance. His face, encompassed by flowing
black locks, illuminated by lustrous eyes, was said to be as little a
blab as most men's: it might tell tales to a good physiognomist, but
it was no prattler to people in general. If he had a wish to conceal
his purpose, he could do it effectually. Lord Halifax apologized for
him by saying, that if he dissembled it is to be remembered "that
dissimulation is a jewel of the crown," and that "it is very hard for a
man not to do sometimes too much of that which he concludeth necessary
for him to practise."[91]
Monk proceeded to Dover May the 22nd.[92] Numbers of the nobility and
gentry wished to follow him, and he arranged that they should march in
companies, in differently-coloured uniforms, under certain noblemen,
who were to act as captains of these loyal bands. They had not fought
any of Monk's battles; they came in now to swell Monk's triumph. As the
General was standing at a window in the City of Canterbury, while they
marched by gaily with green scarfs and feathers, a friend observed:
"You had none of these at Coldstream, General; but grasshoppers and
butterflies never come abroad in frosty weather, and, at the best,
never abound in Scotland."
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
On Friday, the 25th of May, at one o'clock, Charles landed at Dover;
and, notwithstanding his levity, his heart surely must have been
touched as the Castle guns gave him welcome; and another and far more
gladdening demonstration proceeded from the ten thousands of his
subjects, who lined the pebbly beach, or looked down from the old chalk
cliffs, waving their broad-brimmed and feathered hats, and giving the
home-bound exile right hearty cheers such as only Englishmen can give.
General Monk, with all the nobility and gentry present, prostrated
themselves before the Prince as he stepped ashore, with his plumed
beaver in his hand; and some rushed forward to kiss the hem of his
garment, whilst he gracefully raised from his knees, and embraced
the soldier, who whatever might be his character in other respects,
had certainly proved the star of his master's fortune. A canopy was
ready for His Majesty, as he walked to the town; and the Mayor and
Aldermen made obeisance as their chaplain placed in the Royal hands a
gold-clasped Bible. No Bishop was present.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
A State coach stood in waiting, in which the King seated himself, the
Duke of York by his side, and opposite, the Duke of Gloucester; General
Monk and the Duke of Buckingham occupying the boot. Thus they travelled
two miles out of Dover, when they mounted horse, and so proceeded
the rest of the way to Canterbury,--where speeches were made, and a
gold tankard was presented to the King; on the following day several
persons were knighted by him, and Monk, the real hero of the hour,
was invested with the Order of the Garter. All went to the Cathedral
on Sunday, when the Liturgy was used; and on Monday they proceeded to
Rochester, where a basin and ewer, silver-gilt, were loyally given, and
graciously accepted. Between four and five o'clock on Tuesday morning,
they started again, "the militia forces of Kent lining the ways, and
maidens strewing herbs and flowers, and the several towns hanging out
white sheets." At Dartford, certain regiments of cavalry presented an
address, and at Blackheath, the old Army appeared drawn up to meet
the very Monarch against whom so many of them had been fighting. The
vexation felt at this termination of the great change inaugurated by
the Civil Wars must have touched many a Republican to the quick; and
at the moment of their chagrin rapturous feelings filled many a noble
Royalist, like those which inspired the _Nunc dimittas_ of Sir Henry
Lee, so touchingly described on the last page of Scott's _Woodstock_.
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
At St. George's-in-the-Field the Corporation of London waited in a tent
to receive their Sovereign, where the Lord Mayor presented the City
sword, and then the procession slowly moving from Southwark, passed
through the City Gates, crossed the pent-up alley of London Bridge,
and marched on through Cheapside, Fleet-street, and the Strand, the
houses all the way adorned with tapestry;--the train bands lining the
streets on one side, and the livery companies on the other. A troop of
300 men, in cloth of silver doublets, led the van; then came 1200 in
velvet coats, with footmen in purple; followed by another troop in
buff and silver, and rich green scarfs; then 150 in blue and silver,
with six trumpeters and seven footmen in sea-green and silver; then a
troop of 220, with 30 footmen in grey and silver; then other troops
in like splendour. The Sheriff's men in red cloaks, to the number of
fourscore, with half-pikes--and hundreds of the companies on horseback
in black velvet with golden chains followed in due order. Preceded by
kettle-drums and trumpets, came twelve London ministers, their Genevan
gowns and bands looking "sad" amidst the glaring colours. The Life
Guards followed: more trumpeters appeared in satin doublets; and next,
the City Marshal, attended by footmen in French green trimmed with
white and crimson. The City Waits succeeded, and next the Sheriffs and
the Aldermen, with their footmen in scarlet, and with heralds. The Lord
Mayor carried the Sword of State, and close by him rode Monk and the
Duke of Buckingham. Then appeared the King, accompanied by his brothers
York and Gloucester: the Royal eyes, black and keen, looking out with
gracious smiles from a sallow face on the gathered thousands, who, with
awe and delight, returned the gaze. Troops, with white flags, brought
up the rear; and thus the gaudy and imposing pageant filed under the
very window, where fourteen years before had stood the scaffold of
Charles I.[93]
[Sidenote: 1660.]
As soon as Charles II. had taken his seat on the throne addresses
flowed in from all quarters--from the nobility, the gentry, and the
militia of counties; from the Corporations and inhabitants of towns,
and from divers religious bodies. The time had not yet come for
Episcopalians to address His Majesty. Presbyterianism, recognized by
the Convention as the established religion, had not been dethroned
from its supremacy; and it was not quite safe at present for its
great rival ecclesiastical power prominently to show itself. Their
silence just then is very significant. The Roman Catholics, many of
whom had sacrificed much for the sake of the Stuart family, assured
the King of their attachment; and distinctly repudiated the doctrine,
that the Pope can lay any commands upon English Catholic subjects in
civil and temporal matters; also the "damnable and most un-Christian
position,"--these are the very words--"that kings or absolute princes,
of what belief soever, who are excommunicated by the Pope may be
deposed, killed, or murthered by their subjects."[94] Presbyterian
ministers expressed the warmest loyalty. "Such," they said, "of late
days, have been the wonderful appearances of God towards both your
Royal self and the people, that (when we feared our quarrels should be
entailed and bound over to posterity) we hope they all are miraculously
taken up in your Majesty's restoration to your Crown and imperial
dignity. It cannot be denied, but that Providence was eminently exalted
in the work of your protection for many years; but it seems to avail
to the efficacy of that grace, which hath prevented you from putting
forth your hands unto iniquity, and sinful compliances with the enemies
of the Protestant, and in disposing of the hearts of your subjects
to receive you with loyalty and affection." With this expression of
loyalty is combined the utterance of hope. "We beseech you not to give
Him less than He requires by way of gratitude, of which we are the
more confident, when we consider your Majesty's gracious letters to
both Houses of Parliament, with the enclosed Declaration, wherein we
see your zeal for the Protestant religion, with a pitiful heart toward
tender consciences, wherein we have assurance that the hail of your
displeasure shall not fall on any who have (upon the word of Moses)
betaken themselves to yourself as a sanctuary. And now, most gracious
Sovereign, what remains for us to do? We are not fit to advise you, but
give us leave to be your remembrancers before the Lord." They conclude
with devout aspirations for His Majesty's spiritual welfare: "May you
never see the handwriting on the wall that your kingdom is divided,
but let this be your motto--'Not by power, not by might, but by the
Spirit.' May you rejoice in this, that you have better chariots and
horsemen (in the many of your subjects who are faithful, chosen, and
true) than other princes can boast of. And still, may your tenderness
be found, that of a nursing father towards the young and weak of the
flock that cannot pace it with their elder brethren, and yet are God's
anointed, nay, God's jewels, the apple of His eye, His children, they
for whom Christ died, and is now an Intercessor."[95]
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
[Sidenote: 1660.]
There was also an address from the Independent ministers of London
and Westminster, in which they referred to the Breda Declaration,
indicating how greatly it sustained their hopes. They did not, they
said, wish for liberty longer than they deserved it. "And it is our
desire," they added, "no longer to sit under the shadow, and to
taste the fruit of this your Majesty's royal favour, than we approve
ourselves followers of peace with all men, seeking the peace of these
kingdoms united under your Majesty's Government, and abiding in our
loyalty to your royal person and submission to your laws."[96]
An address, sent by the ministers of Lancashire at a later period,
shows their desire to wipe out the stigma of disloyalty:--
"Whereas we, or some of us, have been injuriously misrepresented to
your Majesty, or some eminent persons about you, and have also been
prejudiced and molested, as if we denied your Supremacy, or were
disaffected to your Government (which hindered this our application
to your Majesty, although prepared, and which otherwise had been much
earlier, even with the first), we do, in all humility, and with great
earnestness, profess before God and man, that we detest and abhor the
very thoughts of such unworthy principles, behaviour, and expression,
having always, according to occasion, expressed and declared the
contrary."[97]
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
In this address we notice a recognition of the Royal Supremacy. Not
only the civil, but, in some sense, the ecclesiastical Supremacy of the
Crown must, under the circumstances, have been meant. Ecclesiastical
Supremacy would be claimed and exercised by the restored sovereign as
a matter of course. No new Act of Parliament was passed reconferring
it on the Crown, and defining the limits.[98] Henry VIII. had been
declared "_Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ et Hibernicæ Supremum Caput_." That title
had been continued during the reign of Edward VI., but was repealed
in the reign of Queen Mary. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth,
Supremacy was restored to the Crown, the Queen being styled, not
"Supreme _Head_ of the Church," but "Supreme _Governor_, as well in
all spiritual and ecclesiastical causes as in others." Henry's and
Edward's title had never been resumed, but that of Elizabeth, having
belonged to the first two monarchs of the Stuart line, descended to
Charles II.[99] Charles II., then, could not, in legal phrase, be "Head
of the Church;" if he happened to be so designated, it would be in
adulation or in ignorance. But he inherited the ecclesiastical powers
possessed by Queen Elizabeth, except in relation to the High Commission
Court, which had been abolished by Act of Parliament in the reign
of his father. The canons--as well as Acts of Parliament unrepealed
before the Civil Wars--were regarded by Churchmen as remaining in
force, and the second canon required an oath to the effect that "the
King's Majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that
the Godly kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian emperors of the
primitive Church"--whatever might be meant by that vague appeal to
ancient and obscure precedents. The Supremacy of the Crown, however,
as asserted by Anglican lawyers, would be one thing; the Supremacy,
as acknowledged by Puritans, especially any Nonconformist portion of
them, would be quite another. The authority of the temporal ruler
over the temporalities of the Church, all parties probably would
be prepared to allow; those of them who approved of a State Church
would not object to his being invested with ecclesiastical patronage;
Presbyterians, who wished for the establishment of perfect parochial
discipline by the magistrate's aid, could not consistently object to
some kind of Royal Supremacy in reference to that matter; but High
Church Puritans, if I may so term persons holding exalted ideas of
the spiritual, as distinguished from the temporal powers, like High
Church Anglicans, would entertain a reduced and modified conception of
the legitimate interference of the Crown with Christ's Church; whilst
Nonconformists, who embraced the voluntary principle, would (even if
from loyal courtesy they conceded the title of Supreme Governor in
causes ecclesiastical) extract from it almost all which constituted its
signification in the eyes of others.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
It should further be borne in mind, not only here, but throughout this
division of our narrative, indeed onward to the passing of the Act of
Uniformity,--that ecclesiastical affairs were in a transition state,
that scarcely anything could be regarded as perfectly settled. The High
Church party took it for granted, that with the return of the King came
the return of the episcopal constitution, with its laws, ceremonies,
and usages. They assumed that at once, without any new Parliamentary
statute, the stream of affairs would flow back into the old
channel--that all which had been done by the Long Parliament, without
the sanction of the Crown, ought to be treated as if it had never
been done at all. The opposite party also had law on their side; for
some valid Acts, affecting the Establishment, remained unrepealed--for
example, the Act for divesting Bishops of their temporal powers. Under
existing circumstances, much might be said on behalf of other portions
of recent legislation, even where the Royal assent had not been
obtained. And very few people now will deny that the clergy holding
preferment during the Commonwealth had reason and common sense in
their favour when they maintained--that, after nearly twenty years of
change, after a revolution carried on by a _de facto_ Government which
had destroyed old vested rights, and created new ones--things could
not be expected to resume their former position as a matter of course;
that those in possession, and in possession by sanction of Government,
had something to say for themselves, and that the conclusion as to the
Church of the future was not foreclosed. And whatever might be said
to the contrary, this aspect of the question had been, and still was,
tacitly accepted as the true one by Charles and by Clarendon, in their
negotiations with the Presbyterians, for they kept them in suspense for
more than a year, holding out the idea of a compromise, and did not
attempt to carry matters with a high hand until the Presbyterians had
been reduced to a condition in which they could be easily crushed.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
The counsellors by whom Charles was surrounded on his return were men
of different characters, and they ought at once to be noticed, since
they had more or less to do with the ecclesiastical affairs, which it
is our business to study. Hyde immediately became Chief Minister. His
round face and double chin, as we see them in his portrait, appear
signs of good nature; but, perhaps, a skilful physiognomist would
discover in his eyes and lips indications of qualities less pleasant.
He was a different man from his master. Like Charles I., he was
sincerely attached to the Episcopal Church of England. That unhappy
Monarch, in one of his published letters, dated Oxford, March 30, 1646,
assures Queen Henrietta that "Ned Hide" was fully of his mind on the
subject of Episcopacy; he was almost, if not altogether (at that time),
the only person in the confidence of the King who concurred with him
on the point of religion.[100] The same year, when matters were even
worse, Hyde expressed himself against "buying a peace at a dearer
price than was offered at Uxbridge," and encouraged the notion that it
was the duty of the Royalists to submit to a kind of martyrdom. "It
may be," he remarked, "God hath resolved we shall perish, and then it
becomes us to perish with those decent and honest circumstances that
our good fame may procure a better peace to those who succeed us, than
we were able to procure for them, and ourselves shall be happier than
any other condition could render us."[101] Looking at the circumstances
under which the letter was written, there can be no doubt of the
sincerity of this confession--a sincerity confirmed in all the years
of his exile under the Commonwealth, and in his active solicitude for
the interests of the Church in the prospect of the Restoration. His
subsequent conduct in reference to ecclesiastical affairs will appear
as we proceed.
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
The Duke of Ormond, who had done and suffered much for the Stuarts,
was, according to Burnet, a courtier of graceful manners, of lively
wit, and of cheerful temper, extravagant in his expenditure, but
decent in his vices; he was a firm Protestant, and always kept up the
forms of religion, even amidst the indulgence of his passions.[102]
The Earl of Southampton, who had faithfully adhered to Charles I. and
his son throughout their troubles, enjoyed a merited reputation for
virtue, for attachment to liberal principles, and for being guiltless
of promoting the arbitrary designs of the restored Monarch; he leaned
towards a favourable treatment of the Presbyterians; but, after
holding the Treasurer's staff he grew weary of business, perhaps from
disapprobation of the Court policy, no less than from disease.[103]
Sir Edward Nicholas appears to have been a mere official perfunctorily
discharging the office of Secretary; and the same may be said of Sir
William Morrice. Nicholas Culpepper, who had served as Master of
the Rolls to Charles I., and who showed himself to be a politician
favourable to the constitutional privileges of the Crown, and no more,
took little interest in ecclesiastical affairs. To these Ministers
is to be added the Earl of Manchester, a man virtuous and beloved,
gentle and obliging, but not marked by any strong individuality of
character. On the side of Parliament in the Civil Wars he had been
a main pillar of Presbyterianism under the Protectorate; yet though
nominated by Oliver, one of his Lords, he had been opposed to Oliver's
government. As a Presbyterian leader he had taken a prominent part in a
meeting held at Northumberland House, with a view to the Restoration,
after which event, upon becoming Lord Chamberlain, he "never failed
being at chapel, and at all the King's devotions with all imaginable
decency."[104] He did not, however, abandon his old associates. Next
to Manchester may be mentioned the Presbyterian Lord Hollis, a man
of sincere religion, who had opposed the Independents in the Long
Parliament, and had resisted Cromwell; he bore the character of a
friend, rough but faithful, and of an enemy violent but just; and he
now espoused with fervour the cause of Charles.[105] Sir Anthony Ashley
Cooper was a different kind of person. He had been a Royalist, and
also a member of the Little Parliament; and if he could be said to be
anything in reference to religion, he might be pronounced a Deist; yet
he mingled with his scepticism the superstition of astrology.[106] For
his position near the King this versatile, inconstant, unprincipled,
yet clever man, was indebted to his friend Monk, now created Duke of
Albemarle, whose character has been already indicated in these pages.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
Clarendon, Albemarle, Southampton, and Ormond were the ruling spirits
immediately after the Restoration; and together with them ought to be
mentioned the Earl of Bristol, who, though by having recently declared
himself a Roman Catholic, he had excluded himself from the Privy
Council, yet retained a place at Court; and whilst his religious policy
and general character made him obnoxious to Clarendon, the very same
things made him agreeable to Charles.
Buckingham and Bennet will come upon the stage at a future period.
[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]
Soon after the Restoration, which placed these men in power, there
occurred the disbanding of the old Revolutionary Army, which had
throughout the Commonwealth been the main guardian of the Church as
well as of the State. That Army had apparently brought back the
exiled Monarch, or rather it had strengthened the hands of those who
performed that deed; but in consequence of its past history, and the
character of many numbered amongst the troops, it was not a prop upon
which sagacious and far-sighted Royalists could place much reliance.
Indeed, signs of disaffection were already visible. There were veterans
who, whilst formally obeying the command of Royalist officers, in
their hearts retained allegiance to Lambert, and other Republicans.
Whispers about the "good old cause" might be heard in garrisons, and
other military quarters; and, it is said, that even a revolt against
Monk had begun to be planned. Charles sought to win by flattery such of
the soldiers as were of unsettled mind; and his Ministers, at the same
time, employed spies to find out and secure the sowers of sedition, and
so to pluck the tares from amidst the wheat; but the most effectual
method of preventing the apprehended mischief was to dissolve the Army
altogether. That difficult and delicate business received prompt and
careful attention. The Government employed members to represent to
Parliament, first, the uselessness of a military force 60,000 strong
in time of peace; and next, the pecuniary burden which it imposed upon
the State, then encumbered in other ways with pecuniary difficulties.
Consequently motions for a gradual reduction and payment of the Army
were carried; and, gradually the regiments, which had seen so much
service, and had passed through such a memorable history, melted
away. They took home recollections of Marston Moor and Naseby, of the
Dunbar fight, and of Worcester field; and to old age men told their
children, and their children's children, of their marchings and their
defences, especially of the officers under whom they had fought, and
of Old Noll, the greatest of them all. Dispersed over the country,
settled in their former homes, or choosing new localities, they spread
afar the sentiments and traditions of past days; and the religious
amongst them--still very numerous--the Puritan, the Presbyterian, the
Independent, the Baptist, the Fifth Monarchy Millenarian, and the
Spiritual Fanatic of some inexpressible shade, would be each a centre
of influence in his respective circle, stimulating and promoting
Nonconformity. Perhaps the Commonwealth soldiers, whilst prevented by
their being disbanded from shaking the pillars of the State, were by
that very measure placed in circumstances which enabled them quietly
to exert an influence tending to undermine the foundations of the
Church. Officers and soldiers of Cromwell's are often noticed in the
informations laid against Dissenters during the next ten or fifteen
years; and it is because of the religious character of that Army, and
because of the numbers belonging to it, who afterwards appeared in the
ranks of Dissent, that I have stepped aside for a moment to allude to
an event of a military character.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]
Returning to our proper line of history we meet with certain
ecclesiastical results in the proceedings of Parliament. For a time
the Presbyterian element manifested itself in opposing Popery, and
in supporting the existing Church establishment; but signs of change
became apparent in the summer months, and Episcopalians began to
recover their long lost sway over the councils of the nation. The
following consequences ensued:--
I. The Commons debated the question of the Church's settlement,
expressing opinions and using arguments similar to those which had been
heard at the opening of the Long Parliament. Some members extolled
the Thirty-nine Articles, and dwelt upon the merits of Episcopalian
Government; some were opposed to Deans and Chapters, yet dealt
tenderly with Bishops; some were for Prelacy as of old; some advocated
moderate Episcopacy; and some indicated a lingering love for the Solemn
League and Covenant; others thought mere politicians were unfitted to
handle theological topics--that, as was oddly said, the judges had
sent for a falconer to give opinion in a case touching a hawk--so, on
the principle _quilibet in arte sua_, a synod of the Clergy ought to
be called, lest honourable members "should be like little boys, who,
learning to swim, go out of their reach, and are drowned." Twice it was
decided that the King should "convene a select number of Divines to
treat concerning that affair."[107]
Much was thus deferred for the present; nevertheless, an Act speedily
passed, allowing present incumbents with undisputed titles to retain
their livings, yet restoring to his preferment every clergyman who
had been ejected under the Commonwealth, if he claimed re-induction,
provided he had not been implicated in the death of Charles I., and had
not discountenanced infant baptism.[108]
[Sidenote: 1660.]
In consequence of this, many clergymen, including Presbyterians
and Congregationalists, were immediately displaced, and dispersed
Episcopalians came back to their former abodes.[109] It is easier
to imagine than to describe the excitement attending this change. Not
only did sorrow fill the dismissed and joy inspire the reinstated, but
congregations, in many cases, deplored the contrast between the former
and the present occupant of the pulpit; whilst, also, many a squire
and yeoman hailed the reappearance of the Prayer Book, and welcomed
home some genial incumbent after his long and weary exile. Unseemly
contests were renewed in the House of God, such as had been witnessed
at the outbreak of the Civil Wars. As a Presbyterian at Halifax began
worship in his usual manner, the Episcopalian Vicar made his appearance
at the Church door, with the Prayer Book under his arm, and marching up
the aisle, clothed in his surplice, insisted upon entering the desk,
after which he read the Litany and sung the Te Deum. Joyous peals of
bells accompanied the return of the old clergy, and texts were selected
expressive of natural feelings on the occasion. One discoursed upon the
sufferings of himself and his brethren from the words, "The ploughers
ploughed upon my back; they made long their furrows. The Lord is
righteous; he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked." Another, in a
milder spirit, selected this verse, "He that goeth forth and weepeth
bearing precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing,
bringing his sheaves with him." An itinerating lecturer, with an income
of £50 a year, chose as a Restoration motto, "Let him take all;" which,
upon his losing his appointment, gave "occasion for a shrewd taunt
of the adversary."[110] Parish registers contain curious memorials of
the period. Thus one clergyman records his own story:--"Memorandum,
That John Whitford, Rector of Ashen, alias Ashton, in the County of
Northampton, was plundered and sequestered by a Committee of rebels,
sitting at Northampton, for his loyalty to his gracious sovereign,
of blessed memory, Charles I., in the year of our Lord 1645, and was
restored to his said Rectory in the twelfth year of the reign of
Charles II., in the year 1660."[111]
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]
The Liturgy was reintroduced. It had been used in the service at
Canterbury Cathedral upon the occasion of the King's visit to that
city, on his way to London; and earlier still in the House of Lords,
two days after he had been proclaimed. It appeared in the Royal Chapel
immediately after his taking possession of Whitehall; and Evelyn, on
the 8th of July, records, that the Prayer Book was publicly read in
"churches, whence it had been for so many years banished." In a number
of parishes, however, between the Restoration and Bartholomew's day,
1662, ministers continued to carry on worship as they had done before;
either following the Directory or engaging in prayer as they pleased.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
II. Parliament took up in detail a variety of business connected with
the restoring of Cathedral and parochial edifices, the recovering of
what had been taken away, the reinstating of things in their former
condition, and the removing of alterations made by Nonconformists. For
example: upon a report from the Lords, appointed to compose differences
in the City of Exeter, it was ordered that certain churches, of which
a list is given, should be repaired at the charge of the respective
parishioners, and that all the bells, plate, utensils, and materials,
formerly belonging to those buildings, should be delivered to the
Churchwardens:--that money still unpaid for their purchase should not
be paid; and that bonds for payment should be given up; and that the
Chamber of Exeter should forthwith, at their own charge, take away
the partition wall built in the Cathedral, and the new-built seats in
the Choir, all the materials whereof were to be employed towards "the
making up again the churches which were defaced."[112]
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]
III. Petitions came from the Universities, and the Upper House ordered
the Chancellors to take care that the Colleges should be governed
according to their statutes, and that persons unjustly ejected
should be restored to office.[113] Commissioners also were Royally
appointed to hear and determine all questions of claim, and they
were engaged through the months of August and September in restoring
such as were eligible to their former position as Fellows and Heads
of Houses. University honours were offered largely to such as
professed attachment to Episcopacy, and a numerous creation in all
faculties ensued.[114] Oxford and Cambridge immediately witnessed
great changes. Restored Episcopalians occupied the places of the
ejected, and the ancient forms of worship were at once resumed. The
use of the surplice in Parish Churches, by the Royal Declaration of
the 25th of October, fully noticed hereafter, was left at the option
of incumbents; but it was enjoined upon those who officiated in the
Royal Chapel, in Cathedrals, in Collegiate Churches, or in Colleges of
the Universities.[115] Yet, we learn from a letter written by Thomas
Smith, at Christ's College, Cambridge, November 2nd, 1660, that the
Puritanical party were still powerful there. "In your College," says
the writer, addressing Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury,
"half the Society are for the Liturgy and half against it; so it is
read one week and the Directory used another; but till the Directory be
laid aside, I believe no surplices will be worn."[116]
During the progress of these measures, signs appeared in the House of
Commons of changes in the relative position of parties which could not
but entail important consequences.
[Sidenote: 1660.]
Upon the 30th of June a complaint reached Parliament--that a paper
had been printed, in His Majesty's name, authorizing the uniform
use of the Book of Common Prayer throughout the Realm: that a Form
of Service for the 28th of June, had been published as by Royal
authority: and that there had also appeared in print "a protestation of
the Bishops against proceedings of Parliament in their absence."[117]
This subject the Commons referred to a Committee, to ascertain how such
papers came to be printed, and by what authority. In this proceeding
may be traced the impress of Presbyterian influence, attempting to
preserve Presbyterian rights, and to resist the return of Episcopal
authority. Presently, a Bill was produced "for the maintenance of
the true Reformed Protestant religion, and for the suppression of
Popery, superstition, profaneness, and other disorders and innovations
in worship and ceremonies."[118] But it soon appeared that the
Episcopalian party had gained ground on the Presbyterians.
Sharp, the Scotch agent, in a letter dated July the 7th, remarked:
"Some yesterday spoke in the House for Episcopacy, and Mr. Bampfield,
speaking against it, was hissed down. The English lawyers have given in
papers to show that the Bishops have not been outed by law. The cloud
is more dark than was apprehended. The Presbyterians are like to be
ground betwixt two millstones. The Papists and fanatics are busy."[119]
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]
The fact is, that in the first instance, many Episcopalians had been
elected members of the Convention, and that their numbers increased
after the King's return as fresh elections occurred. They formed a
compact body, and made a vigorous opposition to the Puritans; an
opposition which, gradually increasing both in power and boldness, was
found by the latter too formidable to be overcome. Consequently, the
irresolute and the selfish amongst them, feeling alarmed, and seeing
which way the wind blew, began to sail on a new tack, and to follow
those who were making towards a safe harbour. Many members became, in
a few months, as staunch in the maintenance of the Episcopal Church as
they had ever been in the cause of the Presbyterian Covenant.
When the ecclesiastical business of the Session had been transacted,
the King, in the month of September, after giving his assent to various
Bills, made a speech to the two Houses, followed by another of great
length from the lips of Clarendon, the Lord Chancellor, who on that, as
well as on other occasions, showed a talent for sermonizing which would
not have disgraced a Bishop.
A large proportion of what had been Church property existed in a very
unsatisfactory state. It had been disposed of by the Long Parliament or
the Commonwealth Government in the form of rewards for service and of
sales for money. Was it now to revert at once to its previous uses? If
so, should not some compensation be made to the present possessors or
occupiers?
[Sidenote: 1660.]
Ecclesiastical claimants argued, that such property had been illegally
secularized, and that those who had received it had taken it with all
the risks of a bad title. In justice to the Convention it should be
remarked, that it passed a resolution favourable to the rights of those
who had purchased Church lands on the faith of the Parliament;[120]
and, in justice to Charles II., that he issued a Commission in
November, 1660, to inquire into the history of such transactions.
This Commission was authorized to compose differences between the
Bishops and the purchasers of estates, the direction being, that
Archbishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons were to accept
such reasonable conditions as should be tendered to them by the
Commissioners on behalf of such purchasers; and that they would do no
act to the prejudice of any purchasers, by granting new or concurrent
leases whereby their existing interest or position might be injured,
while the same was under deliberation, and until His Majesty's pleasure
should be further known.[121] In accordance with the spirit of this
Commission the King dealt leniently with those who had become possessed
of Crown property; and this circumstance, which was creditable to him,
caused the course adopted by the authorities of the Church to appear
the more reprehensible. The Resolution passed by the Convention came
to nothing, upon the dissolution of that Assembly; and the holders
of Church lands, unprotected by Parliament, and left to the mercy of
clerical claimants, experienced severe treatment.[122] Old incumbents,
writhing under the remembrance of wrong, and seeking compensation for
their losses, refused compensation to their enemies, and made the best
bargain they could for themselves.
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]
It is convenient in this connection to allude to a change in certain
privileges which indirectly affected, to some extent, the revenues
of the Church. Amongst feudal rights were those of tenures by
Knight's-service, including the benefits of marriages, reliefs, and
wardships. Though the profits derived from the Court of Wards were
casual, they amounted sometimes to a considerable sum, but these
and other contingent revenues were, by a Parliamentary arrangement,
withdrawn from the Sovereign, and in lieu of the income thus forfeited,
one moiety of the excise became settled on the Crown. The Act affected
the revenues of the Church, and of this circumstance a remarkable
illustration is afforded by a paper in the Record Office, in which the
Bishop of Durham complains of a loss of £2,000 through the abolition of
these courts.[123]
[Sidenote: 1660.]
In connection with this reference to Episcopal revenues, it may be
stated that at the Restoration nine Bishops of the old ecclesiastical
_régime_ were still alive. These were--Juxon, Bishop of London; Wren,
of Ely; Piers, of Bath and Wells; Skinner, of Oxford; Roberts, of
Bangor; Warner, of Rochester; King, of Chichester; Duppa, of Salisbury;
and Frewen, of Lichfield and Coventry. They considered themselves, and,
by their own Church they were regarded, as having a title to resume
the episcopates from which they had been ejected. But whilst things
remained in a transition state they seem to have acted with caution.
Without a repeal of the Act of Charles I., which disqualified them for
sitting in the House of Lords, they could not resume their seats. Nor
until the purchasers of their episcopal estates were dispossessed,
could they recover their property; nor, for a while, could they
obtain possession of their palaces, or enter upon the possession
of their sees. Those who were boldest in maintaining the theory,
that the Episcopal Church at the Restoration resumed its rights and
prerogatives, could not at once reduce that theory to practice.
It may be added that new Bishops were appointed to vacant sees; some
account of their consecration, their history, and character, will be
given hereafter.
[Sidenote: PREFERMENTS.]
Throughout the latter half of the year 1660 and onwards, applications
by Episcopalian clergymen to be restored to their benefices, or to be
favoured with higher preferment, were as numerous as they were urgent.
They occur amongst the _State Papers_ of that period, in all sorts of
connections; and one volume of them alone--assigned in the Calendar
to the month of August, 1660--contains no less than 143 documents of
this description. One clergyman beseeches the King to recommend him to
the Dean and Chapter of York, as Vicar-General of the diocese during a
vacancy, the petitioner having suffered by resisting both the Covenant
and the Engagement. A second begs the Deanery of Lichfield, he having
lost a valuable living given him at Oxford by the late King as a reward
for his loyalty. A third applies for the Archdeaconry of Hereford. A
fourth prefers his claim to the Archdeaconry of Chester, on the ground
of having been deprived and plundered for constancy in maintaining the
doctrine and discipline of the Church.
There are many petitions for prebends, one from a clergyman who
appears to have been a wit, for he begs the reversion of the next
stall in Worcester Cathedral; only excepting that connected with the
Margaret Professorship of Divinity--saying, that "though not likely
to receive benefit thereby on account of his age, yet having long
waited, as the cripple at the pool of Bethesda, it will comfort him
to think that he dies cousin-german to some preferment." Another
pleads, with some humour, that having sacrificed liberty to duty, he
must now forfeit it in another way, even for debt, unless aided by
His Majesty's generosity.[124] To most of these forms of application
there are annexed certificates from various persons, particularly Dr.
Sheldon, who seems to have taken a great deal of trouble to promote
the interests of his clerical brethren. The hopes and fears which
at other times agitate two or three candidates are, at a general
election, multiplied by hundreds all over the kingdom; so at the
Restoration,--what commonly is a flutter amongst a few aspirants after
ecclesiastical promotion, was then the experience of multitudes at the
same moment; and perhaps there never were before or since, within the
same compass of time, so many clergymen on the tip-toe of expectation,
doomed of course, in many cases, to utter disappointment.