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