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