Ecclesiastical History of England_ Volume 3_The Church of the Restoration [part 1] John Stoughton 1851 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Ecclesiastical History of
England, Volume 3—The Church of the Restoration [part 1]
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 3—The Church of the
Restoration [part 1]

Author: John Stoughton

Release date: May 13, 2021 [eBook #65334]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65334

Credits: Emmanuel Ackerman, Karin Spence and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, VOLUME 3—THE
CHURCH OF THE RESTORATION [PART 1] ***

ECCLESIASTICAL

HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

The Church of the Restoration.

BY

JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.

IN TWO VOLUMES—VOL. I.

London:
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
MDCCCLXX.

UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS,
BUCKLERSBURY, AND CANNON ST. E.C.

ADVERTISEMENT.

T he object of my former volumes upon the Ecclesiastical History of
England was to state facts and to draw conclusions, without seeking to
gratify any particular party, and by such a method to promote the cause of
Christian truth and charity. Acknowledgments of success to some extent,
expressed by public critics, and by private friends, holding very different
ecclesiastical opinions, encourage me to proceed in my arduous but
agreeable task; and I now venture to lay before the public another
instalment of my work.
To account for its appearance so soon after its predecessor, it is but fair
to my readers and myself to state, that it became the dream and desire of my
life, a quarter of a century ago, to write an Ecclesiastical History of my own
country; and that, ever since, my reading and my reflections have been
directed very much into this channel. For many years past, I have been
engaged in studying the affairs of the Church from the Commonwealth to
the Revolution; and therefore, whatever may be the imperfections of these
volumes, they are not, at any rate, a hasty compilation, but the result of long
and laborious research.
It may be well to indicate the sources from which my materials are
drawn.
The printed Journals of the Lords and Commons,—the Parliamentary
History of England,—Cardwell's Synodalia,—Thurloe's State Papers,—and
other similar collections, which did not exist in the days of Kennet, Collier,
and Neal,—supply, together with Burnet's and Baxter's contemporary
accounts, the backbone of the following narrative. Journals, diaries, and
biographies of the period, with newspapers and tracts, of which
extraordinarily rich collections are found in the British Museum and in Dr.
Williams' Library, have helped to clothe the skeleton. But the sources of
illustration, upon which I rest some slight claim to originality, are found in
certain unpublished MSS. which it has been my privilege to examine and
employ.

I. Amongst these the first place belongs to the Collection of Papers in the
Record Office. Besides the assistance furnished by the published calendars
of Mrs. Green, extending from 1660 to 1667, I have been favoured with the
use of that lady's unpublished notes down to the close of 1669; these helps
have greatly facilitated my inquiries into the history of the first decade
embraced within these volumes. From that period to the Revolution, I have
been left with no other clue than the Office catalogue of the books and
bundles chronologically arranged; and all the documents which I could find
bearing on domestic affairs—and they amount to many hundreds—I have
carefully examined. Although those which relate to ecclesiastical matters
are by no means so numerous as those which relate to political, commercial,
and other subjects, they are of very great value to the Church historian.
They may be classified as follows:—
As to the Established Church—
i. Note-book of Sir Joseph Williamson.
ii. Applications for preferments, and correspondence relating to them.
iii. Private letters alluding in various ways to Church affairs.

As to Nonconformists—
i. Informations against them, which are very numerous.
ii. A spy-book, containing many curious particulars of suspected persons.
iii. Correspondence containing a great number of incidental allusions to the condition of
Nonconformity.

The details are generally of a minute description, and would very
extensively serve the purpose of biographers and local historians; but they
are not without considerable value for a purpose like mine, as my foot-notes
will testify.
Amongst the new historical illustrations thus afforded, are those
connected with the ecclesiastical aspects of the general election of 1661,
with the rumoured plots of that and succeeding years, plots in which
Nonconformists were accused of being involved,—the conduct of
Nonconformists under their persecutions,—and the fabrication of letters
with the view of involving Nonconformists in trouble—of which one
striking example occurs in relation to William Baffin, and, as appears very
probable, another referring to certain London ministers. There are also

notices of the Indulgence of 1672, and of the case of Colledge, the
Protestant Joiner, as he was called. It is apparent how much the antipathies
of the two religious parties of that day were augmented by political
considerations; and from the documents are also obtained many interesting
and amusing glimpses of private social life.
II. Next to the State Papers, I may mention a collection of fragmentary
remains in the Archives of Parliament, connected with the passing of the
Act of Uniformity,—and especially the Book of Common Prayer attached
to the Act (described in my Appendix), prefixed to which is an Analysis of
the alterations made in the formularies. Accurate copies of these papers
have been furnished for my use by the kindness of Sir Denis Le Marchant.
III. The well-known MS. Collections in the British Museum and at
Lambeth. They have yielded items of information I believe not published
before—particularly the returns made to Episcopal inquiries as preserved in
the Archiepiscopal Library.
IV. The MSS. in the University Library of Cambridge. I have found
amongst these some papers which have been of service, especially in
relation to the reign of James II.; one of them, giving an account of the
opening of Parliament, I have printed in my Appendix.
V. The Morice and other MSS. in Dr. Williams' Library. This collection
forms a quarry hitherto imperfectly worked. There are three folio volumes,
entitled, Entering Books, or Historical Register, extending over the period
between 1676-91. These I have found of great service in throwing light
upon Nonconformist opinions of public events, in supplying the current
rumours of the day, and in recording pieces of information relating to minor
matters illustrative of those times. And here I may add, not only with regard
to this and other diaries, but also with reference to letters and notes amongst
the State Papers, that I have relied on them only for such purposes as are
now indicated, and that I do not rest my belief of any important historical
events simply upon evidence of this description.
VI. A curious Diary, kept at the time of the Restoration, for the loan of
which some years ago I was indebted to Mrs. Green, who copied it from the
original in the Middleshill Collection. I have called it the Worcester MSS.
The diarist was Henry Townshend, Esquire, of Elmley Lovet,
Worcestershire, who lies buried in the church of that parish; and the nature

of his impressions of what went on around him may be inferred from his
epitaph.
VII. A document relative to the death of Charles II., being one of the
valuable collection of papers entrusted to the Record Commission for
examination. This document solves the curious enigma which puzzled Lord
Macaulay. For a copy of it I am indebted to the kindness of Sir Thomas
Duffus Hardy, who takes an important part in the Commission.
VIII. A MS. History of the Congregational Churches of Suffolk, by the
Rev. Thomas Harmer, Author of Observations on Scripture; a MS. History
of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth, drawn up from the Church
Book by my late friend Mr. Joseph Davey; and other old Church Records
which I have been permitted to inspect, as will appear from the foot-notes
to these volumes.
IX. MS. Volumes and Papers in the Archives of Canterbury. For the
inspection and use of these I am indebted to the kindness and assistance of
the Dean and of Canon Robertson.
X. Subscription Book, amongst the records of Chichester Cathedral,
which has been examined by Canon Swainson, who has furnished me with
the results inserted in the Appendix. To him my best thanks are due; nor can
I omit to record my acknowledgments to the Dean of Chichester also, for all
his kind and friendly attention.
With these various materials before me, I have entered much more fully
than previous historians have done into several subjects—especially the re-
establishment of the Episcopal Church by the Act of Uniformity. In our
time, when the question of Establishments has been so earnestly and so
practically taken up, as to work out already the greatest ecclesiastical
change since 1662, surely a full account of what was accomplished in that
memorable year, with its immediate results,—results far from having spent
their influence,—must be reckoned amongst the most desirable portions of
history. It is remarkable that no State Churchman has ever gone at large into
this subject, supplying the defects of Neal, and correcting the inaccuracies
of Clarendon and Burnet. Whilst I have attempted to supply the
acknowledged desideratum from my own point of view, it has been my aim,
in these as in former volumes, to make my readers acquainted not only with
prominent transactions, but with the social and private religious life of the

period, the personal piety which existed in different communions, and the
identity of that spiritual life which then deeply struck its roots, as it ever
does, under varied forms of doctrinal belief, of Christian worship, and of
ecclesiastical government.
I have also attempted to redeem my promise to furnish a sketch of the
theological opinions entertained in England between the commencement of
the Civil Wars and the fall of James II. It would have been easier and more
attractive to indulge in broad generalizations on the subject, and to work out
my own theological conclusions, through the medium of historical
reflection and argument; but I have preferred the more useful and
trustworthy, as well as the more humble and laborious method of analyzing
and describing the publications of the period in connection with the authors,
and thus indicating some of the extraneous influences which have wrought
upon the minds of eminent thinkers. Of course I have been compelled to
limit myself to those writers who are best known and most significant, and
therefore the student will perhaps miss in my account some favourite or
expected name. But imperfect as the review will be found, enough will
appear to indicate strong resemblances between currents of opinion then
and now; and in this respect, the true apprehension of the present will be
materially assisted by a knowledge of the past.
As in the course of my researches I have detected in authors of the
highest reputation a number of minute inaccuracies, and some important
errors, I cannot hope to have escaped such evils myself, and I shall be very
thankful to candid critics for kindly pointing them out.
About one half of this volume covers ground traversed by me in Church
and State two hundred years ago, published in 1862: but it will be found,
that with the exception of a few sentences here and there, the account now
published is quite new. Facts before passed over are here described at
length, whilst certain trivial details are omitted; my views on some points
have undergone a little modification, and the entire narrative has been
rearranged; but the spirit which I sought at the beginning I have
endeavoured to retain throughout.
It would be ungrateful not to add, that for facilities in research, and for
direct literary aid, I am indebted to many friends. Besides special
obligations which I have acknowledged in the foot-notes and Appendix, I

beg to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. Thoms, Sub-Librarian to the House
of Lords—Mr. Aldis Wright, Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge—Mr.
Bullen, of the British Museum—and Mr. Hunter, keeper of Dr. Williams'
Library.
Nor can I omit to mention again, my fellow-workers at home, especially
one whose assiduity and care in helping me to correct the press, deserve the
highest praise.
Two literary friends who took much interest in this work,—the Rev.
Joseph Aspland and Mr. John Bruce, F.S.A.,—are now, alas, beyond the
reach of my thanks.
Should my life be spared, I hope in another volume to bring the
Ecclesiastical History down to the Revolution. A history of the eighteenth
century lies amongst the visions of the future.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
Political Character of Puritanism 1
Ecclesiastical Character of Puritanism 7
Spiritual Character of Puritanism 11

CHAPTER I.
Richard Cromwell 15
His Parliament 17
Petitions from the Army 23
Richard's Resignation of the Protectorate 26
Independents 28
Baptists 31
Presbyterians 33
Episcopalians 34

CHAPTER II.
Interregnum 40
Restoration of Rump Parliament 42
Monk's Military Power 44
Re-establishment of Presbyterianism 49

CHAPTER III.
Presbyterians and Monk 51
Presbyterians and Episcopalians 52
State of Parties 55
Convention Parliament 57
Commonwealth Army 58
Breda Declaration 61
Proclamation of Charles II. 63
Manner of Restoration 65
Presbyterian Deputation to the King 68
Episcopalian Address 71

CHAPTER IV.
The King's return 72
Presbyterian Addresses 77
Independent Addresses 79
Royal Supremacy 80
Disbanding of the Old Army 86
Ecclesiastical proceedings in Parliament 88
Question of the Church's Settlement 88
Restoration of Cathedrals 92
Petitions from Universities 92
Changes in the position of Parties in the House of Commons 93
Church Property 95
Bishops 97
Preferments 98

CHAPTER V.
Presbyterian Chaplains 100
Meetings of Presbyterians 101
Presbyterian Proposals 102
Prelates' Answer 105
Controversy 106
Meetings at Worcester House 114
The King's Declaration 117

CHAPTER VI.
The Regicides 126
New Bishops 131
Persecution of Nonconformists 134
Reaction against Puritanism 138
Venner's Insurrection 140
Opening of Suspected Letters 145

CHAPTER VII.
Elections for New Parliament 147
Interception of Letters 151
Meeting of Parliament 154
Commission for Savoy Conference 155

Convocation 158
Savoy Palace 162
Members of Conference 163
Coronation 166
Election for Members of Convocation 168
Presbyterians' Exceptions to the Liturgy 170
Meeting of Convocation 173
Proceedings of Convocation 176
Bishops' Answers to Exceptions 179
Baxter's Liturgy 180
Presbyterians' Rejoinder to Bishops' Answers 183
Last two Meetings of Savoy Conference 187
Baxter's Account of Commissioners 189
Baxter's Petition 191

CHAPTER VIII.
Proceedings of Parliament 196
Burning of Solemn League and Covenant 196
Bill for restoring Prelates to the Upper House 197
Bill for governing Corporations 199
Bill for Restoration of Ecclesiastical Courts 200
Uniformity Bill 202
State of feeling 206

CHAPTER IX.
Re-assembling of Parliament 209
Pretended Plots 211
Deliberations of Convocation 213
History of the Prayer Book 214
Revision of the Book 219
Subscription 223
Consecration of Bishops 227

CHAPTER X.
Uniformity Bill 229
Lords' Amendments 231
Debates on Amendments 233
Commons' Amendments 239
Conference between the two Houses 241

CHAPTER XI.
Royal Assent to Bill of Uniformity 245
Change in the Establishment made by the Act 246
Convocation responsible for Changes in the Prayer Book 247
Bishops' share in Responsibility 248
House of Commons 250
Clarendon 250
Roman Catholic Party 251
Omissions in Act 253
Classes affected by it 255

CHAPTER XII.
Sir Henry Vane 256
Edmund Ludlow 258
Edward Whalley and Major-General Gough 259
Effects of the Act of Uniformity 261
Reports of Disaffection 267

CHAPTER XIII.
Bartholomew Ejectment—Farewell Sermons 271
Reception of Catherine of Braganza 275
Petitions from Quakers 275
St. Bartholomew's Day 278
The Ejected Ministers 278

CHAPTER XIV.
Petition from Presbyterians 283
Operation of the Act 285
Clergy who conformed 287
Bishops' Articles of Visitation 289
Ministers who continued in the Establishment without conforming 290
Clergy who disapproved of the Ejectment 291
Rumoured Plots 292

CHAPTER XV.
King's Declaration of Indulgence 296

Baxter and the Independents 298
Parliament 299
Debate on Indulgence 300
Papists and Nonconformists 303
Deaths of Bishops 305
Proscribed Worship 308
Colonial Policy 310
Plots and Informers 312
Nonconformist Places of Worship 314
Ejected Ministers 316

CHAPTER XVI.
Conventicle Act 322
Execution of the Act 327
Convocation 329
Sheldon's Inquiries 331

CHAPTER XVII.
The Plague 333
Ministers who remained in London during the Plague 338
Usefulness of the Ejected Clergy 340
Mompesson 341
Stanley and Shaw 342
Parliament at Oxford 343
Increase of Nonconformity 343
Five Mile Act 345
Nonconformists who took the Oath of Non-resistance 348
Those who refused it 350
Dutch War 355

CHAPTER XVIII.
The Fire of London 357
Papists suspected 361
Exertions of Nonconformists after the Fire 362
Disturbances in Scotland 363
Fanatics 365
The Dutch 366
Empty Exchequer 367
Impeachment of Clarendon 369

His Character 371
Comparison between Clarendon and Burleigh 373
Extent of Nonconformity 375

CHAPTER XIX.
Comprehension 378
Episcopalian Proposals 381
Presbyterian Modifications 383
Thorndike's Principles 385
New Conventicle Bill 387

CHAPTER XX.
Manton and Baxter 390
Conventicles 392
Sufferings of Quakers 398

CHAPTER XXI.
The Cabal 400
Declaration of Indulgence 403
How regarded by Politicians 404
By Episcopalians and Presbyterians 406
By Independents 407
Nonconformists return thanks for Declaration 408
Grants to Nonconformists 410
Charles II. and the Quakers Carver and Moore 412
Pardon of Quakers 414

CHAPTER XXII.
Opening of Parliament 416
Political parties 417
Debate on the Declaration 418
Measures for Relief 421
Test Act 425
Cancelling of the Declaration of Indulgence 428
State of Nonconformists 429

CHAPTER XXIII.

Earl of Danby 434
New Test 436
Comprehension 438
Persecution of Nonconformists 441
Coffee Houses 443
Comprehension and Toleration 444
Bishop Croft 447

CHAPTER XXIV.
Roman Catholicism 450
The Duke of York 451
Protestant Opposition 455
St. Germain and Luzancy 458
Parliament 459
Committal of Four Lords to the Tower 462
Bills against Popery 463
Act for Better Observance of the Lord's Day 465
Act for Augmentation of Small Livings 467
Repeal of the law De Hæretico Comburendo 467
Bill for Exclusion of Papists from Parliament 469

CHAPTER XXV.
Bishops—Sheldon 470
Ward 474
Morley 477
Cosin 478
Hacket 481
Wilkins 483
Pearson—Reynolds 485
Croft 487
Laney 488
Gunning 489
Paul—Warner 490
Earle—Skinner 491
Nicholson—Henchman 492
Rainbow—Henshaw 493
Ironside 494
Frewen—Sterne 495
Dolben 498
Griffith—Glemham—Barrow 499

Wood 500
Brideoake 501
Lloyd 502
State of the Clergy 502
Their Ignorance 507
Religious and Moral Character 510

INTRODUCTION.

T he knell of the Puritan Commonwealth was rung when Oliver Cromwell
died. The causes of its dissolution may easily be discovered. Some of
them had been in operation for a long time, and had prepared for the change
which now took place.[1]
Puritanism never won a majority of the English people. By some of the
greatest in the nation it was espoused, and their name, example, and
influence, gave it for a time a position which defied assault; but the
multitude stood ranged on the opposite side. Forced to succumb, and
stricken with silence, the disaffected nevertheless abated not a jot of their
bitter antipathy to the party in power. Even amongst those who wore the
livery of the day, who used the forms, who adopted the usages of their
masters, many lacked the slightest sympathy with the system which, from
self-interest or timidity, they had been induced to accept. The Puritans were
not the hypocrites; the hypocrites really were people of another religion, or
of no religion, who pretended to be Puritans. Besides these, there were
numbers who whispered murmurs, or bit their lips in dumb impatience, as
they watched for signs of change in the political firmament.
A mischievous policy had been pursued by the Puritans towards the old
Church of England. Laud's execution yielded a harvest of revenge. The
extirpation of Episcopacy, and the suppression of the Prayer Book, kindled
an exasperation which kept alive a resentful intolerance down to the period
of the Revolution. I am aware of the excuses made for Puritan despotism,
and am ready to allow some palliation for wrong done under provoking
circumstances, but I must continue to express indignation at the injustice
committed; all the more, because of my religious sympathy with the men
who thus tarnished their fame. It must, however, be confessed that had
Presbyterians and Independents been ever so merciful in the hour of their
might, there is no reason to suppose, from what is known of their
opponents, that they would have shewn any mercy in return.
In enumerating the causes of the failure of Puritanism as a political
institution notice should be taken of the prohibition of ancient customs.

How far the prohibition extended has been pointed out in former volumes,
and I must repeat, that whilst endeavours to suppress national vice were
most praiseworthy, some of the Parliamentary prohibitions at the time were,
to a considerable extent, unjust and unnatural. Those who chose to celebrate
Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other seasons, had a perfect right so to
do; and some, though not all, of the amusements remorselessly put down,
were in themselves innocent; pleasant, and even venerable in their
associations; and in their tendencies productive of kindly fellowship
between class and class.
Puritan rule in England came as the child of revolution—a revolution
mainly accomplished by civil war. The first battle, indeed, and that which
led to all the others, was fought on the floor of the House of Commons. The
patriots being returned as the representatives of the most active and
influential citizens, many of whom were Puritans, possessed an immense
amount of political power, and, as statesmen, they turned the scale in favour
of revolution; but the revolution had to make good its ground by force, and
the patriots, as soldiers, had to crush resistance in the field. This was a
necessity. The attitude of the King, the chivalrous spirit of the nobles who
rallied round him, under the circumstances in which Parliament had placed
itself, rendered an appeal to arms inevitable. The wager of battle having
been accepted, the quarrel having been fought out bravely, the relative
position afterwards of the victors and the vanquished could not but embitter
the feelings existing on both sides. The vanquished submitted without grace
to their conquerors. They hated the new political constitution. When they
seemed quiet they were only biding their time, only preparing for some
fresh outbreak. Memories of privation, of imprisonment, of cruel usage, of
houses burnt, of fathers, sons, and brothers slain, and especially the
mortification of defeat, constantly irritated the Cavalier and goaded him to
revenge. The blister was kept open year after year. The wound never healed.
Alienation, or resentment, on the part of the Royalist provoked new
oppression on the part of the Commonwealths-man. Fresh oppression from
the hands of the one produced fresh resentment in the breast of the other.
A civil war may be needful for the deliverance of a country; but the
recollections of it for a long while must be a misfortune, since those
recollections exhibit the new state of things to the party on the opposite side
as a result of force, not as a result of reason; and the remembrance of

imposition ever involves a sense of wrong. Under this misfortune the
triumphant Puritans laboured throughout the Protectorate.
After the Restoration the misfortune, in some respects, became heavier
than before. The previous eighteen years had been to the Royalists years in
which violence destroyed the Monarchy and the Church. They were the
years of the Great Rebellion—so the political Revolution came to be named
—and in that name, specious and plausible, although untruthful and unjust,
lay much of the capital with which political leaders after the Restoration
carried on their trade of oppression and wrong. The Puritans, they said,
were rebels, for they had fought against the Crown: what they had done
once they would do again. A valid defence was at hand, for the Puritans
could show that there was nothing really inconsistent between their
peaceful submission to the restored monarch, and the course which they had
pursued under the Long Parliament; yet, although they could make out a
case satisfactory to impartial men, over against their logic, however
forcible, there stood some awkward facts of 1642 and the following years,
upon which High Churchmen in the reign of Charles II. were never weary
of ringing changes.
The Long Parliament had rested upon the Army; so had the constitution
of the Protectorate. His Highness's rule had been fortified by his major-
generals and his troops. For its good and for its evil it depended upon
soldiers. A military despotism had become necessary from the confusion of
the times; it alone could bring quiet to the country after political
earthquakes. The regal sway had fallen into the hands of a great general, a
great statesman, and a great patriot, who, because he combined these three
characters, was able to work out benevolent designs for his country. So long
as he held the baton, so long as he drew the sword, he could maintain his
standing, but not a moment longer. He had immense difficulties to
overcome. Episcopalians were almost all against him; very many
Presbyterians stood aloof or offered opposition; Spiritual Republicans, Fifth
Monarchy men were his torment; even Congregationalists, with whom he
felt spiritual sympathy, wished for a more democratic government than he
would allow; the Quakers neither loved nor feared him. Besides, he had
political colleagues who, as statesmen, appeared in opposition. Also, old
generals were looking after an occasion for making resistance. Vane and
Haselrig, Harrison and Ludlow, disapproved of the policy of their former

friend. They disliked the new Constitution; they were for placing the keys
in the hands of Parliament, not in the hands of a single person. They
regarded the Protector as the Greeks had regarded a tyrant. Monarchy they
detested, Democracy they would enthrone; yet they saw amongst them a
sovereign, mightier than any Stuart, only called by another name. And it
became a germ of weakness in the new Constitution, that it had to be
defended by arguments similar to those which availed for the support of the
ancient monarchy. It could be said—and truly said—that English traditions,
usages, genius, spirit, and social necessities, demanded a supreme head—
the rule "of a single person." But the rule of a single person was the very
thing so hateful to the Republicans, although connected with the modifying
checks of a Parliament. Many saw that the reasons employed in favour of
Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate might be employed more consistently in
favour of the restoration of Charles Stuart. This circumstance was felt by
numbers who did not confess it.
Moreover, respecting domestic and foreign policy Cromwell had to meet
strong opposition. Finances, and law reform, were matters of contention.
The Dutch war, the French alliance, and the relations with Spain, also
presented points in which he and other distinguished Commonwealths-men
differed. As the political reign of Puritanism depended upon Cromwell
these circumstances could not fail to undermine its strength. His
statesmanship showed consummate ability; his knowledge of mankind and
of individuals amounted to a species of divination; his control over those
about him was irresistible; his sagacity, vigilance, promptitude, decision,
and patience were unrivalled; his name was a tower of strength at home and
abroad; his foreign policy was successful, and therefore, as long as he lived,
the system which he had inaugurated and administered was sure to last. It
did—but at his death came collapse. There remained no master-mind to rule
the State, and to control the Army. The State soon showed a disposition to
go one way, the Army another. Confusions ensued; and the latter fell under
the command of a soldier who betrayed his trust, and employed his
influence to pull down the entire fabric of Puritan power.
So far, then, as Puritanism had become a political institute it sunk under
the shock of Oliver Cromwell's death. But though as an institute it crumbled
away, the political spirit which it had evoked and cherished did not die. It
would be a repetition of what has been said a hundred times, to insist here

upon the influence of the Puritan leaders of the Long Parliament, and the
influence of the Puritan chiefs of the Commonwealth Army in preparing for
the political liberties of England, guaranteed at the Revolution. A peaceful
change then came as the consequence and complement of the Civil Wars. It
is the destiny of nations to pass through the waters of conflict and suffering
ere they can reach the shores of freedom. Our Puritan fathers then breasted
the torrent, and made good their landing on the right side, where we, thanks
to their bravery and endurance, have, under God, found a home. The
superstructure they immediately raised was not permanent; but its strong
foundation-stones were too deeply laid to be removed in a brief period of
reaction; and on them we now are building new forms of political justice,
order, and peace. It may take longer time and nobler labour than we imagine
to complete the edifice, but our hope and trust is that Divine providence
will one day bring it to perfection.
Puritanism must be considered under its ecclesiastical as well as its
political aspect. It became political through its ecclesiastical action, and its
ecclesiastical character has been damaged by its political relations. It was
worked up into an elaborate Presbyterian system, framed not only for the
purpose of instructing the nation in the truths of the Bible, but for the
purpose also of constituting every Englishman a member of the Church, and
of subjecting him to the authority and discipline of its officers. This
ecclesiastical organization its advocates brought, so far as they could, into
union with the civil government to be defended and enforced by the
magistrate. And where Puritanism assumed a Congregational shape, and
claimed the name of freedom, although, as to Church institutes, it sought,
and to some degree attained liberty of operation, yet, in all cases where its
ministers were parochial incumbents, they, by their identification with the
national establishment, exposed themselves to the political danger which, at
certain crises, threaten institutions of that description. When ecclesiastical
arrangements are complicated with State affairs they must be subject to a
common fortune. What endangers the one endangers the other, and the
history of Puritanism offers no exception to the general rule.
Two ecclesiastical principles are seen at work in connection with the
religious organizations which existed in the middle of the seventeenth
century: Erastianism and Voluntaryism. Erastianism came across the path of
both Presbyterians and Congregationalists. It wrought powerfully through

the ordinances and laws of the Long Parliament, in the way of checking
what it justly deemed the despotic tendencies of uncontrolled authority in
the exercise of discipline. The working of Erastianism is visible in the legal
prevention of the full establishment of parochial assemblies and provincial
synods; and in the interference of the magistrate with those Independent
pastors holding benefices, who would fain have excluded from the Lord's
table persons whom they deemed morally unfitted for approaching it. In
curbing suspected despotism, Erastianism, as is its wont, paralyzed the hand
of a salutary restraint upon the irregularities of Christian professors. It
opened a door for promiscuous communion. It thwarted the designs, and
enfeebled the energy of ecclesiastical Puritanism; and thus laxity of
fellowship followed as a penalty for seeking State support, on the part of
communities which prized the purity of Christ's Church.
Voluntaryism cannot properly be identified with Puritanism. The leading
Puritans neither advocated nor countenanced that principle; such as were
Episcopalians did not. The Presbyterians, and some of the Independents, as
we have this moment noticed, did not. A few of the Baptists did not. Oliver
Cromwell, who protected them all, did not. Whilst some Puritans thus stood
apart from Voluntaries, and even opposed them, there were some
Voluntaries who stood apart from Puritanism, and even opposed that. The
Quakers, from the commencement of their history, protested against the
union of Church and State, and were ever faithful to their convictions in this
as well as in other respects; they also kept aloof from Puritanism altogether,
and even condemned it severely, under several of its aspects. Many of the
Independents, and more of the Baptists, previously to the Civil Wars, also
disapproved strongly of that kind of union which displeased the Quakers,
and contended firmly for the support of Churches by voluntary
contributions; yet they entered into cordial alliance with Puritanism in other
things, promoting certain of its political proceedings, and sympathizing
generally with its spiritual movements and tendencies. Voluntaryism had
strong affinities for the spiritual side of Puritanism, deriving from it the
most vigorous impulses, contributing towards it the most devoted service;
and if it did not win its way at first amongst the rich, the noble, and the
learned, it laid hold upon the hearts of the humbler classes; and, by widely
leavening them with its power, prepared for subsequently working upwards
to that influence which is exercised by it in the present day. The history of
this principle is the same throughout: as it was with the primitive Christians,

—as it was with so many of the most pious and active men of the Middle
Ages,—as it has been with the Methodists,—so it was with those of whom I
speak. They began their work—"in a great trial of affliction the abundance
of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their
liberality."
Voluntaryism, so far as it affected Puritanism, did not contribute to its
weakness, but to its strength; yet amongst those who professed
Voluntaryism, as amongst those who adopted different views, there
appeared an element which proved injurious to them all. It was dis-union—
it was strife.
If the Crusading knights had been of one mind, it is a question, whether,
in the end, they would have retained mastery over the Mussulmen; but
certainly they stood no chance whilst feuds were rife in the Camp of the
Cross. The same may be said of the Puritans. It would have been hard
enough, with the utmost concentration of force, to bear down opposition;
but amidst their own discords it became simply impossible. Presbyterians
were of different shades of opinion, and they were not without mutual
jealousies. But their hatred of what they stigmatized as Sectarianism
appears scarcely less than their hatred of Prelacy, or even of Romanism; in
some minds abhorrence existed equally in reference to all three. The sects
were not behindhand in their mutual antipathies, and were by no means
gentle in their collisions. Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, to mention
no others—I speak of them all generally—did anything but keep "the unity
of the spirit in the bonds of peace." The apostolic warning betokened evil to
Puritan Christendom in England—"If ye bite and devour one another, take
heed that ye be not consumed one of another." Yet those whose eyes are
open to discern the defects in principle and temper of the ecclesiastical
organizations of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth, can also see
that Puritanism has bequeathed to English Christendom a precious legacy of
religious freedom. That spirit has not only wrought out modern Free
Churches—which, whatever may be men's opinions on ecclesiastical
questions, must be admitted by everyone to be efficient powers in spreading
Christianity at home and abroad, and in exerting beneficial influences of
many kinds upon society at large—but that spirit has also leavened, to a
large extent, other communities not based upon what is called the voluntary
principle. Toleration, for which the Independents struggled under

Cromwell, won a victory in 1688—an imperfect victory it is true, but still
precious; and the toleration then established opened the way for the
progress now advancing along the paths of mutual religious justice.
Puritanism presents another—a spiritual aspect—under which it has
exercised an influence more vigorous and salutary than it has done in any
other way.
It laid hold on thousands, not only by simple methods of religious
worship which commended themselves to the plain understanding, and the
unsophisticated taste of Anglo-Saxon people,—but by its emphatic
exhibition of the truths of Christianity as a redemptive system, full of the
love of God to sinful men, commending itself to humble and sorrow-
stricken hearts. In the Gospel of Christ, which Puritanism prominently
exhibited as adapted to the wants of mankind, lay the secret of its greatest
success, and the key to its noblest results. As a spiritual power it had been
strong under Elizabeth and the Stuarts; but its conflicts in war, its entrance
into the Court, its elevation to the throne, defaced somewhat its spiritual
beauty, and impaired in a measure its spiritual force. The most favourable
aspects of Puritanism are not found in the history of the Civil Wars, and of
the Commonwealth. As with Christianity in general—as with Protestantism
at large, so with the system now under consideration. Not in the palace of
Constantine do we discover the best specimens of Gospel piety; not in the
Courts of English and German sovereigns do we see the workings of the
Reformed Faith to most advantage; and not at Whitehall must we watch for
the fairest visions of Puritan life. Our religion, in its best forms, is no doubt
essentially a genial social power, healing, constructive, conservative—such
we believe it will prove itself to be in the Church of the future—but in the
Church of the past, it has shown itself purest and strongest when contending
against opposition, when passing through scenes of suffering, when
grappling with the evils of society, and when informing and animating
individual souls. Persecution has been to piety what the furnace is to the
potter's clay; it has burnt in, it has brought out, its richest colours. The
Huguenots appear to much greater advantage in the defeats which they
endured than in the victories which they won; the peasantry in their cottages
are more to be admired than the nobles in their chateaux. The history of
successful battles fought, or of courageous resistance made by the French
Protestants; and the story of Henry of Navarre and his Courtiers even before

his reconciliation with Rome; read not so well as does the record of men of
the same class who were burnt at the stake, or who were sent to the galleys,
or who were exiled from their country. So also the chief moral charm of
Puritanism is found, not in the successes of statesmen and soldiers; not in
Pym's debates and majorities; not in Cromwell's charges and laurels; but in
the deaths of Barrow and Greenwood, and in the tortures of Leighton and
Burton; and, if we may anticipate, in the ejection, the wanderings and the
imprisonment of Howe, and Heywood, and Baxter. On the same principle
the quiet, earnest, and exemplary lives of the middle-class Puritans did
more than anything else, at the commencement of the Civil Wars to give
ascendancy to their cause; and after the Restoration to recover its character,
and promote its progress. Puritanism, when once more separated from the
State, returned to the old and better paths of confessorship and humiliation;
and thrown back upon itself and upon God, it became, as of yore, a spiritual
agency of the most potent kind. The theological books it produced, the
devoted characters it formed, and the pious memories it handed to posterity,
have created an influence embracing within its reach both England and
America. The effect of its works, examples, and traditions have never
perished in Dissenting Churches and families; but beyond these circles, it
has manifestly told upon the Christian world. It contributed to the great
revival of religion which arose within the pale of the Establishment during
the last century; and from an earlier period than that, down to the present
day, its perpetuated spiritual power has been deeply felt, and gratefully
acknowledged on the other side of the Atlantic.
Such was the system of Puritanism—politically, ecclesiastically,
spiritually; such were some of the causes which produced changes in it at
the era of the Restoration. What it was, and what it did at that period and
afterwards, remains to be related. We are to consider what, in its
Presbyterian, Congregational, and other forms, it became; what it endured
of direct persecution and of indirect social wrong; and what it achieved in
works of faith, and love, and zeal. We are to trace its social influence in the
retirements of English life; its new political influence on the side of liberty;
the germs of after-thought which it planted; the stones of reform and
improvement which it laid. Also, and this will occupy a still wider space,
we are to mark how the Episcopal Church of England rose out of her ruins,
and the Establishment became once more Anglican. All this, in the minute
grades of the process, together with the form of the re-edification; the

policy of its new builders; their relations and conduct towards their
Nonconformist brethren; the intermingling of ecclesiastical and political
events; the Church developments; the theological controversies; and the
spiritual life of the period, amongst Conformists and Nonconformists—
much of it, on each side, beautiful, some of it, on both sides, marred—it is
my arduous task faithfully to unfold.

CHAPTER I.

R ichard Cromwell succeeded his father in the government of the realm,
as if his family had from of old occupied the throne. What renders this
fact the more remarkable is that the new ruler had never been a public
character, except so far as holding offices of honour might be considered as
giving him that appearance. He had spent a quiet and almost unnoticed life,
in the retirement of Hursley Park, in Hampshire—an inheritance he had
acquired by marriage,—and there, in the society of neighbouring Cavaliers,
he had enjoyed the sports of a country gentleman. Imbued with loyalty to
the Stuarts, notwithstanding his father's position; conforming to the
Established religion, without any sympathy in his father's opinions; indeed,
destitute of deep religious feeling of any kind, as well as of genius,
enthusiasm, and force of will, he stood ill-prepared to sustain the enormous
responsibility which now fell upon his shoulders.
Instantly after Oliver's death, on the 3rd of
September, the Council assembled and 1658.
acknowledged Richard's title. All the chief cities and
towns in the dominion were informed that the late Protector—"according to
the petition and advice in his lifetime"—had declared his "noble and
illustrious son to be his successor." The Mayor and Aldermen of London
proceeded to Whitehall with condolences and congratulations; and the new
Protector, in their presence, took the Oath of the Constitution, administered
to him by Fiennes, a Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal. Manton offered
prayer, and blessed His Highness, "his council, armies, and people."[2]
Proclamation of Richard's accession throughout the country immediately
followed; and, according to a custom which had originated under the
Protectorate, addresses, overflowing with adulation, poured in from various
public bodies. Foreign courts, too, acknowledged the Protector's title, and
honoured his father's memory. "It a sad thing to say," remarks Cosin,
writing from Paris, "but here in the French Court, they wear mourning
apparel for Cromwell; yea, the King of France, and all do it."[3] Richard's
chief councillors were Lord Broghill, the Royalist, who had been a faithful

servant to Oliver; Dr. Wilkins, Warden of Wadham College, Oxford,
married to the late Protector's sister; and Colonel Philip Jones, one of the
Protectorate Lords. The union between these councillors sufficiently
indicates that no extreme ecclesiastical policy could be contemplated; and,
accordingly, in the month of November, a Declaration appeared, couched in
liberal terms, conceding general toleration, and promising to godly
ministers "their dues and liberties, according to law."[4]
Richard was tolerant both from disposition and
policy; owing to circumstances, he sympathized RICHARD'S
PROTECTORATE.
more with Presbyterians than with Independents;
perhaps he would not have been adverse to some kind of modified
Episcopacy. Moderate people, of different parties, therefore, looked kindly
upon his sway; but it soon appeared that the embers of discontent were
smouldering still. Scarcely had he worn his title one month, when his
brother, Henry Cromwell, wrote in an alarming tone to Lord General
Fleetwood, who had married Henry's sister. "Remember," he says, "what
has always befallen imposing spirits. Will not the loins of an imposing
Independent or Anabaptist be as heavy as the loins of an imposing Prelate
or Presbyter? And is it a dangerous error, that dominion is founded in grace
when it is held by the Church of Rome, and a sound principle when it is
held by the Fifth Monarchy?" "Let it be so carried, that all the people of
God, though under different forms, yea, even those whom you count
without, may enjoy their birthright and civil liberty, and that no one party
may tread upon the neck of another."[5] Henry Cromwell feared lest certain
well-known unquiet spirits, now that his sire's strong hand had crumbled
into dust, should disturb the peace of the country, and, under pretence of
universal freedom, throw everything into confusion. He had reasons for his
fear.
Richard called a Parliament, which met on the
27th of January, 1659. Writs were issued to "rotten 1659.
boroughs;" representatives were summoned from
Scotland and Ireland; means not constitutional, so it is said, were employed
to secure a House of Commons favourable to the Court party. The majority
consisted of Presbyterians, to whom the Protector chiefly looked for
support; but old political Independents also secured their election, and Sir
Henry Vane and Sir Arthur Haselrig, excluded by the old Protector, now,

under the milder sway of the new one, took their seats in St. Stephen's
Chapel.[6] They evaded the oath of allegiance, and boldly advocated
Republicanism.
Parliament opened with a sermon in Westminster Abbey, by Dr. Thomas
Goodwin, the Independent, who preached from Psalm lxxxv. 10, advocating
liberty of conscience, and exhorting to union and peace. To that venerable
edifice, ever identified with our national history, His Highness, attended by
the Privy Council, by the Officers of State, and by the Gentlemen of the
Household, "passed by water in a stately new-built galley, and landed at the
Parliament Stairs." Lord Cleypole, Master of the Horse, bore the Sword of
State before Richard, who in the Abbey sat surrounded by his Lords, the
Commons, much to their displeasure—afterwards expressed by them—
being seated here and there; "sparsim," as a contemporary chronicle
discontentedly states.[7] The Protector concluded his opening speech in the
Painted Chamber, by recommending to the care of Parliament, first, "the
people of God in these nations, with their concernments;" secondly, "the
good and necessary work of reformation, both in manners and in the
administration of justice;" thirdly, the Protestant cause abroad, which
seemed at that time to be in some danger; and lastly, the maintenance of
love and duty among themselves.[8]
After a rather ill-tempered discussion, Reynolds,
Manton, Calamy, and Owen—three Presbyterians RICHARD'S
PROTECTORATE.
and one Independent—were appointed by the
Commons, "two to preach and two to pray," on the occasion of the
succeeding fast; and it is curious to find that in this instance the service took
place, not at St. Margaret's Church, but within the walls of the House, to
avoid, as alleged, the inconvenience of a promiscuous auditory, when "good
men wanted the liberty, which it was fit they should have," to rebuke and
reprove "the faults and miscarriages of their superiors." "Ill-affected persons
came frequently to such exercises, not out of any zeal or devotion, but to
feel the pulse of the State, and to steer their counsels and affairs
accordingly."[9] The desirableness of sometimes giving admonition and
advice to bodies of men, unembarrassed by the presence of critical and
alienated spectators, still felt by many, was felt then.

The debates mainly turned upon fundamental questions of government.
In them little appears relative to religion. Complaints were made of the
Commissioners for trying ministers, and of the mismanagement of funds for
the support of the latter. Maynard, and others, affirmed that souls were
starved; that the sheep were committed to the wolf; that scandalous
preachers had scandalous judges; that Welsh Churches were unsupplied
except by "a few grocers, or such persons;" that "dippers and creepers"
were found in the Army; that Jesuits had been in the House, &c. "See,"
exclaimed one speaker, "what congregations we had in '43, and what now!
It is questioned whether we have a Church in England; questioned, I doubt,
whether Scripture or rule of life is in England."[10] In the Grand Committee,
a Bill was ordered to be drawn for revising Acts touching the Prayer Book;
and for the suppression of Quakers, Papists, Socinians, and Jews.[11] Just
before, a member named Nevile had been denounced and threatened with
prosecution as an atheist and blasphemer, for saying that the reading of
Cicero affected him more than the reading of the Bible.[12]
These proceedings, together with a declaration a
few weeks afterwards, which spoke of blasphemies 1659.
and heresies against God, and Christ, and the Holy
Spirit, and the Scriptures; of the advocates of an inward light; also of
atheism, profaneness, and Sabbath-breaking,[13]—indicate the revival of
Presbyterian influence, and the renewed activity of Presbyterian zeal. On
the other hand, Sir Henry Vane, who had been so earnest in supporting the
Covenant, had now changed his mind on that subject, maintaining that the
compact had become invalid through what he called the Scotch invasion of
England, meaning by this the invasion which ended in the defeat at
Worcester.[14] In the same spirit exceptions were taken by a Committee to
the harsh treatment of Fifth Monarchy men; and some of that class were
referred to with respect.[15] In these Parliamentary allusions to religious
questions—the chief allusions of the kind which occurred about this time—
we discern the flow of two opposite currents of feeling.
Other debates issued in important consequences.
Republicans and the advocates of a mixed PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES.
Government came into collision upon their particular
points of difference. Sir Arthur Haselrig openly arraigned the acts of Oliver

Cromwell, condemned the dismissal of the Long Parliament, and most
irreverently compared the extinction of Monarchy and of the Upper House
to the effect of the crucifying of our Saviour on the Cross. Haselrig
proclaimed England to be a theocracy. "God," said he, "is the King of this
Great Island." Haselrig acknowledged no power under God but that of the
Parliament; the Protector he utterly ignored. Scott and Ludlow also gloried
in their regicidal deeds. Vane, in a calmer strain, upheld Republicanism. On
the other side the friends of the Protectorate contended for the "petition and
advice" as "the Boaz and Jachin of Solomon's temple." The hand of
Providence, they said, had set up the Protector, Richard. He was Protector
before the House assembled; the House had owned him in that capacity, and
had taken an oath of allegiance. A Royalist, amidst the expression of these
opinions, exclaimed, "I am for the Constitution we lived under—for
building up the ancient fabric."[16] Thus early, certain of the senators of
England showed their determination to plunge at once into the vortex of a
new revolution.
Questions touching foreign affairs, the Army, and
finance came under debate at the same time; the 1659.
Republicans, led by Vane, deploring, in a spirit of
infatuation, the late peace with Holland, and wishing that the war had been
perpetuated until the Dutch had been conquered, and forced into union with
this country. They contended also that the control of the military should be
placed in the hands of the Parliament, not in the hands of the Protector; and
they inveighed against the extravagance of the Government, declaring that
the deficiency in the revenue would produce a national debt enough to sink
the country in ruin. But what proved of still more serious consequence, the
Republicans not only canvassed, but set aside certain acts of the late
Protector. Oliver had left behind him many State prisoners, committed for
political offences. They were now liberated. Major-General Overton, one of
these prisoners, appeared before the House as a martyr, being escorted on
his return from imprisonment—like Burton, Prynne, and others, nearly
twenty years before—by "four or five hundred men on horseback, and a
vast crowd bearing branches of laurel."[17]
Richard could not be held responsible for the
arbitrary proceedings of Oliver. He had not been PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES.
privy to his father's deeds; he had not entered into

his father's purposes; he had not adopted his father's opinions; he had
befriended the Royalists, and was still supposed to have sympathies with
them; at the same time also his moderation and urbanity attracted towards
him some of his father's companions and allies. "Though perhaps you will
not believe it," wrote Broderick to Hyde, "they really are more affectionate
to the present than the late Protector, whose temper so differed from theirs
that it was usually averse to the deliberate caution they advised, running
hazards they trembled to think of upon a sudden violent suggestion, of
which they could give themselves no account, which precipices this young
Prince doth prudently, as well as naturally avoid, and is thereby rendered
more agreeable to those wary statesmen."[18] Yet personal popularity did not
suffice to defend him from the disaffection of Republicans, and the
discontent and intrigues of Army officers. Late in the month of March,
Fleetwood and Desborough reported to Richard that agitation prevailed
amongst the troops; that they complained of not having received their pay;
that they were angry at the conduct of Parliament towards some of their old
generals; and that these circumstances afforded encouragement to the
Cavalier party. The two officers proceeded to employ these facts for the
purpose of enforcing the advice that His Highness should immediately
summon a Council of Officers to consider the state of affairs. Such a
Council was held; and, after prayer, by Dr. Owen, deliberations
commenced. Desborough recommended the application to the Army of a
political test, the test to be—approval of the execution of Charles I. The
proposition shocked the Lords Howard and Falconbridge. Broghill
suggested a different method—that every one should be turned out of the
Army who would not swear allegiance to the Protectorate, a proposition
supported by Whalley and Goffe. At last it was resolved to separate the
command of the Army from the civil power; a resolution afterwards
presented to His Highness, who forwarded it to the House of Commons.
Such discussions only served to widen the breach between the House and
the Army, in the end diminishing the influence of the former, and leaving it
in a position of weakness, so as to compel its submission to the assumption
of the latter. The resolution sent to the Protector, and by him forwarded to
the Commons, tended to throw the greatest influence into the hands of the
officers, and to promote Desborough's Republican views.
Petitions from the Army followed these proceedings, the soldiers saying,
"Because our consciences bear us witness that we dipped our hands in

blood in that cause; and the blood of many thousands hath been shed by our
immediate hands under your command in that quarrel, we are amazed to
think of the account that we must render at the great and terrible day of the
Lord, if by your silence the freedom of these nations should be lost, and
returned into the hands of that family, which God hath so eminently
appeared against in His many signal providences little less than miracles."
[19]

The Commons, although weak, assumed the
semblance of strength, and upon the 18th of April 1659.
resolved that no Council of Officers should be held
without permission of the Protector and the Parliament; and that no one
should have command in the Army or Navy who did not engage to leave the
two Houses uninterrupted in their deliberations. The Protector, still more
feeble than Parliament, proceeded to dissolve the Council; the officers
asserted their authority by continuing to meet for conference.
As it was in the father's days so it was in the son's: when argument failed
violence took its place. Violence, like that which had been employed by
Oliver against the Parliament, was now threatened against Richard by the
Army. The officers, clutching at their old weapons, seeing how things were
likely to proceed, fearing the Presbyterian ascendancy, and the destruction
of their liberties, determined to put an end to the sitting of the two Houses;
and told His Highness that if he did not dismiss them he might expect to be
dismissed himself. Richard was no soldier, and had not, like Oliver, secured
the attachment of the military, so that resistance by him to martial chiefs
could avail nothing. He, therefore, allowed the Parliament to be dissolved
by Commission, upon the 22nd of April. After this act had been
accomplished, not without opposition from some members, the party in
power summoned to the resumption of their trust, such of the Long
Parliament as had continued to sit until the year 1653. They amounted in
number to ninety-one; out of these forty-two obeyed the new order, and
took their places on the 7th of May. Fourteen of the old Presbyterians,
including Prynne,[20] who had sat in St. Stephen's before Pride's purge, were
refused admittance.
Upon the 13th of May the heads of the Army
presented a petition, in which they proposed to men INTERREGNUM.
whom they addressed as rulers, but who were in fact

servants, that religious liberty should, as in the days of Oliver, continue to
be conceded to all orthodox believers (Papists and Prelatists being distinctly
excepted); that a godly ministry should be everywhere maintained; and that
the universities and schools of learning should be countenanced and
reformed.[21] Gleams of Presbyterian influence disappeared; the broad
ecclesiastical policy of Oliver again resumed the ascendant.
A new Council of State was formed, and the names of Vane and Haselrig
once more prominently appeared, together with those of Whitelock and
Fleetwood—the one a legal cipher, the other a military tool.
Fleetwood occupied Wallingford House, which
stood on the site of the present Admiralty, the 1659.
birthplace of the second Duke of Buckingham, and
the residence of the infamous Countess of Essex. Here it was, from the roof
of the mansion, then occupied by the Earl of Peterborough, that Archbishop
Ussher had swooned at the sight of Charles' execution; and here Fleetwood,
who from his connection with the Cromwells on the one side, and with the
Army on the other, now possessed more power than any other person,
gathered together his brother officers for conference. Fleetwood was a pious
and respectable Independent,[22] a sincere patriot, a Republican only in a
qualified sense, willing to concede to a Protector large administrative
authority. He was not without ambition, although he had prudence enough
to curb it; yet neither by gifts of nature, force of character, or study and
experience, was he a man fitted to deal with existing emergencies. He had
no original genius, being born to follow, not to lead. He helped to pull down
the Protectorate, and to dethrone his brother-in-law, but he had no gift for
building up any better order of things. He could aid the destructive
movements of Vane and Haselrig; but he had no more of the faculty of
constructiveness than had they.
John Howe, who, in the month of May, was
residing at Whitehall after an absence of some INTERREGNUM.
months, saw and lamented the condition of affairs.
The "army-men," he says, under pretence of zeal for the interests of
religious liberty were seeking their own ends, and were for that purpose
drawing to themselves "wild-headed persons of all sorts." "Such persons,"
he adds, "as are now at the head of affairs will blast religion, if God prevent
not." "I know some leading men are not Christians. Religion is lost out of

England, farther than as it can creep into corners. Those in power, who are
friends to it, will no more suspect these persons than their ownselves."[23]
These are not the words of a party man; and they show that whatever might
be the piety of Fleetwood, and the purity of Vane, there were persons of a
different character who employed them as tools for selfish ends. In the same
letter, Howe speaks in favourable terms of Richard, whom he must have
known well. The disinterestedness, and even patriotism of the Protector
appeared in his resignation of power. "He resolved to venture upon it
himself, rather than suffer it to be taken with more hazard to the country by
others," and he awakens our sympathy by his own truthful words, that "he
was betrayed by those whom he most trusted." He quitted Whitehall, with
trunks full of addresses, which contained, as he humorously remarked, "the
lives and fortunes of all the good people of England." More at home in the
hunting-field than in the cabinet—he, after residing abroad for a time, spent
the rest of his days in his native land as a country gentleman; and died at
Cheshunt, July the 12th, 1712, saying to his daughter, "Live in love; I am
going to the God of love."[24] He lies buried in Hursley Church, where he
regularly worshipped during his residence in the parish. Within the same
walls, by a coincidence which will be often noticed in future days, there
now repose the remains of a holy man and a great poet, whose sympathies
never seem to have reached the fallen Protector during a ministry, in that
place, of thirty years.[25]
The power of the Cromwell family came to an end upon the dissolution
of Richard's Parliament, except that Fleetwood was acknowledged by the
Army as Lieutenant-general. Lord Falconbridge, and also the Lords
Broghill and Howard retired into the country; and, as the Protectorate had
vanished, they prepared to welcome the restoration of Monarchy.
Leaving Whitehall we return to Wallingford
House. Fleetwood, being an Independent, civil 1659.
affairs being entangled with such as were
ecclesiastical, and the interests of religion being so completely involved in
the political changes of the day—a fact which justifies so much being said
about them in an Ecclesiastical History—he and Desborough, who
sympathized with him, invited to their councils Dr. Owen, the Independent,
and Dr. Manton, the Presbyterian. A story is told of the former, to the effect,
that, at Wallingford House, he had prayed for the downfall of Richard, so as

to be heard by Manton, who stood outside the door. It is further stated that
Owen had gathered a Church there; and that in one of its assemblies a
determination had been formed to compel Richard to dissolve his
Parliament.[26] The Independent Divine denied that he had anything to do
with the setting up, or the pulling down of Richard; and it has been also
denied that he gathered a Church in Wallingford House. Whatever might be
the extent of Owen's political interference at that crisis, and whether or not
he gathered a Church there, certainly at the time one existed upon the spot.
The Records of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth indicate that a
religious society assembled at Fleetwood's residence, and carried on
correspondence with other similar bodies.[27] These records shed light upon
a critical and dubious juncture in our history.
A meeting was held at Norwich, and another in
London, respecting which Dr. Owen wrote to Mr. INTERREGNUM.—
INDEPENDENTS.
Bridge. The resolutions at which the Yarmouth
Church arrived, as they were probably drawn up by the eminent minister,
who presided over that community, may be regarded as expressing the
opinions of a wider circle than the provincial society which adopted them.
First—"We judge a Parliament to be the expedient for the preservation of
the peace of these nations; and withal we do desire that all due care be taken
that the Parliament be such as may preserve the interest of Christ and His
people in these nations." Secondly—"As touching the magistrate's power in
matters of faith and worship we have declared our judgment in our late
Confession[28] (by the Savoy Conference); and though we greatly prize our
Christian liberties, yet we profess our utter dislike and abhorrence of a
universal toleration as being contrary to the mind of God in His word."
Thirdly—"We judge that the taking away of tithes for maintenance of
ministers until as full a maintenance be equally secured, and as legally
settled, tend very much to the destruction of the ministry and the preaching
of the Gospel in these nations." Fourthly—"It is our desire that countenance
be not given, nor trust reposed in the hands of Quakers, they being persons
of such principles as are destructive to the Gospel, and inconsistent with the
peace of civil societies."[29]
Into a miserable state must England have drifted
when a congregation of Independents, no doubt 1659.

containing many worthy people, but certainly not fitted to act as a Council
of State, came to be consulted upon the most important public questions,
and to give their opinion after this fashion.
What the opinions of Dr. Owen were upon two of the points mooted in
these resolutions we learn from a short paper which he wrote at this time,
and which is preserved in his collected works. There are three questions,
and he gives three answers. The first two relate to the power of the supreme
magistrate touching religion and the worship of God. Notwithstanding the
haste with which the replies were furnished, they must be considered as
expressing the writer's mature judgment, for the interrogatories embody the
most pressing questions of the times. To the first query, whether the
supreme magistrate in a Commonwealth professing the religion of Christ,
may exert his legislative and executive power for furthering the profession
of the faith and worship, and whether he ought to coerce or restrain such
principles and practices as were contrary to them, Owen replied distinctly in
the affirmative. He supported his affirmation by arguments drawn from the
law and the light of nature; from the government of nations; from God's
revealed institutions; from the examples of God's magistrates; "from the
promises of Gospel times;" "from the equity of Gospel rules;" from the
confession of all Protestant Churches; and particularly from the Savoy
declaration. Owen was asked, secondly, whether the supreme magistrate
might "by laws and penalties compel any one who holds the Head Christ
Jesus to subscribe to that confession of faith, and attend to that way of
worship which he esteems incumbent on him to promote and further."
Restricting attention to those described as "holding the Head," the
Independent Divine remarks, that though it cannot be proved that the
magistrate is divinely authorized to take away the lives of men for their
disbelief, "yet it doth not seem to be the duty of any, professing obedience
to Jesus Christ, to make any stated legal unalterable provision for their
immunity who renounce Him." He decides also that opinions of public
scandal ought to be restrained, and not suffered to be divulged, either by
open speech or by the press. Subsequently, after premising (to use his own
words) that "the measure of doctrinal holding the Head, consists in some
few clear fundamental propositions," and that men are apt to run to
extremes, he finally concludes upon giving a negative answer to their
second question. As to the third, "whether it be convenient that the present
way of the maintenance of ministers or preachers of the Gospel be removed

and taken away, or changed into some other provision;" Owen vindicates
the claim of the ministry to temporal support, and places the payment of
tithes upon a Divine basis. He declares that to take away "the public
maintenance" would be "a contempt of the care and faithfulness of God
towards His Church, and, in plain terms, downright robbery."[30]
A Church book of the period has thus afforded an
insight into certain political relations sustained by INTERREGNUM.—
BAPTISTS.
Independents in the year 1659. A celebrated historian
may next be quoted, in reference to alleged proceedings of a very different
nature on the part of Baptists. Clarendon relates a strange story of overtures
made to Charles before the death of Cromwell by persons of that
denomination. He gives a copy of an address to His Majesty, as Charles is
styled, signed by ten such persons, in which address occur violent
lamentations over the troubles of the times. Attached to it are proposals "in
order to an happy, speedy, and well-grounded peace." The document
contains a prayer, that no anti-Christian Hierarchy, Episcopal, Presbyterian,
or otherwise, should be created, and that every one should be left at liberty
to worship God in such a way and manner as might appear to them to be
agreeable to the mind and will of Christ.[31]
According to Clarendon—the only authority upon
which we have to depend in reference to the subject 1659.
—a curious letter accompanied the address and the
proposals; in which letter the correspondent alludes to a "worthy
gentleman" by whose hands it was conveyed, and who being acquainted
with the circumstances, would fully explain the case and answer objections.
He refers to the subscribers as "young proselytes" to the Royal cause, as
needing to be driven "lento pede," as being neither of great families or great
estates, but as capable of being more serviceable to His Majesty than some
whose names would "swell much bigger than theirs."[32]
There is no sufficient reason for pronouncing the story an invention, or
the documents forgeries; at any rate it appears as if Clarendon believed in
them; yet on the other hand, there is not the slightest evidence that any of
the leaders of the Baptist body ever concurred in any such movement—the
names appended to the address are unknown—and no reference to the
affair, that I am aware of, was ever made after the Restoration, either by

Baptists or any other party. On the whole it is not unlikely that some few
people, calling themselves Baptists, disliking Oliver Cromwell and the
Protectorate, and differing from those ministers of their denomination who
held parish livings, might have engaged in a correspondence with a view to
the restoration of Monarchy under certain conditions—especially that of
unfettered toleration. No practical result followed these reported overtures.
[33]

The Presbyterians had, for the most part, after the
death of Charles I., preserved a sentiment of loyalty INTERREGNUM—
PRESBYTERIANS.
towards the House of Stuart; and now that Richard
had fallen, they were eager for the restoration of Monarchy in the person of
the exiled prince. Presbyterian clergymen animated and controlled this new
movement, of which the extensive ramifications spread themselves abroad
in secrecy and caution. Only in Cheshire did any military demonstration
occur. There, in the month of August, under Sir George Booth, a popular
Presbyterian of the county, numbers of persons appeared in arms; yet,
although the object evidently was to place Prince Charles on the throne of
his fathers, the leaders professed nothing more than a desire to secure the
assembling of a free Parliament. The Presbyterians rejected the aid of the
Roman Catholics, and but warily accepted the advances of a Presbyterian
knight, Sir Thomas Middleton, because he was known to be a Royalist.[34]
The rising proved unfortunate. After being
hopefully prosecuted a little while, it then appeared 1659.
that the Republicans under Lambert were too strong
for these Northern insurgents. The former scoured the country. Their shots
in some places disturbed the Presbyterian communicants at the Lord's
Supper; their advances in the neighbourhood of Manchester filled that town
with alarm. Houses were emptied of their valuables by the people who were
anxious to hide them from the enemy.[35] Booth was obliged to flee; and to
provide against detection he assumed a female disguise, and rode on a
pillion, but his awkwardness in alighting from his horse betrayed him; and
Middleton, after a brief resistance within the walls of Chirk Castle,
capitulated to the foe.
Fleetwood now seemed the chief man in England; and to him certain
Republicans, who had been desired, or as they interpreted it, commanded to

retire from the Council of Officers, turned as to their last hope, asking him
in a "humble representation" full of religious sentiment, "to remove the
present force upon the Parliament, that it might sit in safety without
interruption."[36] Other persons of more consequence, including Haselrig,
followed up the appeal in a rather different strain, but with the same object,
and charged Fleetwood with destroying Parliamentary authority, after the
example of his father-in-law.[37] Sir Ashley Cooper subsequently wrote to
him in like manner, protesting against "red-coats and muskets" as a "non
obstante" to national laws and public privileges.[38]
Amidst the confusion of the period hope dawned
upon the persecuted Episcopalians. INTERREGNUM—
EPISCOPALIANS.
Whether or not influenced by the death of
Cromwell, and the foresight of coming changes favourable to his own
Church, Henry Thorndike, the able Episcopalian scholar and divine,
published in 1659 what he called An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church
of England; a book which, an admiring critic says, proved to be in spirit a
prologue to the renewed life of a Church more vigorous than ever! The aim
of the work is to promote the welfare of the Episcopal Church of England,
not by any compromise, but by endeavouring to persuade all to unite
together on her behalf. Looking at the claims of the Romish Church to
immediate inspiration (placed no matter where), and to the equally
groundless and more arrogant claims of the fanatics—as Thorndike terms
them—to individual inspiration, he urges that each party should be brought
to admit themselves limited to the sense of Scripture as expounded by the
primitive laws and faith of the Church. Thus, he says, the ground of their
errors is cut away. With this imaginary solution of the difficulty, which begs
the question, this calculation upon what is impossible, and this triumphant
assurance of a conclusion based on premises, which neither Papist nor
Puritan would admit—the high, but honest Churchman, shows how much
he sympathized with the one and how little with the other.
He expressly avows his approval of prayers for
the dead, of the invocation of the Spirit on the 1659.
elements of the Eucharist, and of the practice of
penance; whilst he contends for Episcopacy in the Anglican sense, and
wishes to see Presbyters restored to their ancient position of a council to be

consulted by the bishop. Thorndike's notion was, in prospect of its
restoration, to reform his own Church, by bringing it back to what he
considered primitive usage. Those who most condemn some of the views
which he advocated will be constrained, on reading his life and works, to
acknowledge the guileless simplicity of his character, as apparent in this
very publication at such a crisis. He says himself—"That I should publish
the result of my thoughts to the world may seem to fall under the historian's
censure. 'Frustra autem niti, neque aliud se fatigando, nisi odium quærere,
extremæ dementiæ est.'" He adds, "If I be like a man with an arrow in his
thigh, or like a woman ready to bring forth,—that is, as Ecclesiasticus saith,
like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart—I am in this, I hope, no fool
of Solomon's, but with St. Paul, 'a fool for Christ's sake.'"[39]
This straightforward course annoyed those who
were seeking to restore the Church in a different INTERREGNUM—
EPISCOPALIANS.
way. "Pray tell me what melancholy hath possessed
poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it
possible that he would publish it, without ever imparting it, or
communicating with them?" Such questions were asked by Sir Edward
Hyde, who wondered that Thorndike should publish his "doubts to the
world in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be
made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them."[40] Hyde's own method
of proceeding at this juncture appears in his correspondence with Dr.
Barwick. He did not trouble himself, like Thorndike, with theological
questions, or attempt any reformation of the Church which he wished to
restore; but he threw himself heartily into efforts for the preservation of the
Episcopal order. For the Bishops were dying out, only a few survived; in a
short time all would be dead, and then how would the ministerial succession
be perpetuated? By repairing to Rome, or by admitting the validity of
Presbyterian ordination? As Hyde pondered these queries he rebuked the
friends of the Church for their apathy—"The King hath done all that is in
his power to do, and if my Lords the Bishops will not do the rest, what can
become of the Church? The conspiracies to destroy it are very evident; and,
if there can be no combination to preserve it, it must expire. I do assure you,
the names of all the Bishops who are alive and their several ages are as well
known at Rome as in England; and both the Papist and the Presbyterian
value themselves very much upon computing in how few years the Church

of England must expire."[41] While the Prelates generally came in for his
censure, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and Duppa, Bishop of Salisbury, were
exceptionally noticed as active and earnest—the most lukewarm being
Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter, and Skinner, Bishop of Oxford.[42] It was
easier, however, for Hyde, on the Continent, to write zealously on this
subject than for the Bishops in England, under inimical rulers, and with the
fear of penalties before them, to do anything effective for the consecration
of successors. Difficulties were felt, both in the wandering Court of Charles
and in the troubled homes of ejected Episcopalians. There were no Deans
and Chapters to receive the congé d'élire, and to act upon it. Canonical and
constitutional law interposed obstacles in the way of consecration. Bramhall
thought, that as the King had an absolute power of nomination for Ireland,
the best way would be for surviving Bishops to consecrate persons Royally
nominated to Irish sees, and then translate them to England. The Bishop of
Ely objected to this as practically approving what he considered a defect in
the Church of the sister island; and he would rather, he said, see Ireland
conformed to England, than England to Ireland. His own plan, in which Dr.
Cosin concurred, was much the same as one which Barwick proposed—i.e.,
that the King should grant a Commission to the Bishops of each province,
to elect and consecrate fit persons for vacant sees, and ratify and confirm
the process afterwards.[43] To this Hyde agreed, and wrote for the form of
such a Commission as the Bishops might judge proper. No further steps
appear to have been taken in that direction.
Hyde counselled as much privacy as possible in
measures for the preservation of the Episcopal order; 1659.
and in all affairs relating to the Church he
recommended the utmost prudence and moderation: at a later period, when
Monk was preparing for Charles' return, Hyde complained of the "unskilful
passion and distemper" of some Divines. The King, he added, was really
troubled, and "extremely apprehensive of inconvenience and mischief to the
Church and himself." Still later, he advised that endeavours should be made
to win over those who had reputation, and desired to merit well of the
Church—and that there should be no compliance "with the pride and
passion of those who propose extravagant things."[44]
As correspondence passed between Hyde and Barwick many
Episcopalians in England gave themselves to fasting and prayer. Evelyn

writes in his diary on the 21st of October: "A private fast was kept by the
Church of England Protestants in town, to beg of God the removal of His
judgments, with devout prayers for His mercy to our calamitous Church."
Other entries appear, of the same kind. The ruling politicians in England,
out of all sympathy with the exiles, were, nevertheless, promoting their
interests by divisions at home.[45]
Money-matters, out of which broods of quarrels
are always being hatched, caused what remained of INTERREGNUM—
EPISCOPALIANS.
the Long Parliament to be very unpopular; and the
upshot is seen in the dissolution by General Lambert, on the 13th of
October, of that attenuated but vivacious body, whose continued, or
renewed existence, through an age of revolutions, presents such a singular
phenomenon.

CHAPTER II.

A fter Lambert's imitation of Oliver Cromwell, in dissolving the House of
Commons, England might be said to be without any Government at all.
In contrast with our conscious security twenty years ago, and our reliance
upon the stability of the Constitution at a moment when political changes
were sweeping over Europe, as rapidly as the shadows of the clouds chase
each other over the corn-fields, our fathers, in the latter part of the year
1659, felt they had no political constitution whatever in existence, except as
it might be preserved in lawyers' books, and in people's memories. The
Republicans were at sixes and sevens. Some were for a select Senate, and a
Parliamentary representation; some for an Assembly chosen by the people,
and for Councils of State chosen by that Assembly; some for a couple of
Councils, both chosen by the popular voice; and some for a scheme which
seemed like a revival of the Lacedæmonian Ephori.[46] Amidst distractions
of opinion these speculatists were inspired by personal animosities; and,
being mutually jealous, they constantly misapprehended each other's
motives. It was a strange time, and as sad as it was strange—when, at the
Rota Club, which met at the Turk's Head, in New Palace Yard, where
Harrington and his friends were wont to drink their glasses of water—it had
become a practical question, under what sort of Government they were to
live the following year?
London was a Babel of ecclesiastical no less than
of political theories. Presbyterians contended that the INTERREGNUM—
CONFUSION.
Solemn League and Covenant alone could heal the
nation's wounds. Fifth Monarchy men could see no hope but in the second
coming of Christ. Some contended for toleration to a limited extent, with a
national religion exercised according to Parliamentary law—the legal and
ancient provision for a national ministry being augmented, so as to secure to
each clergyman £100 per annum. Others contended for "the way of old, laid
down by Christ," to bring it about again, and settle it in the world; and such
teachers declared that there needed to be an utter plucking up of all that was
in esteem or desire, or had been for many hundred years.[47] In the Modest
Plea for an Equal Commonwealth, published in 1659, it was proposed to

abolish tithes, upon composition being made for them by landholders; the
money so raised to be used for satisfying the proprietors, and paying the
arrears of the Army; also for discharging public debts, and providing for the
dispossessed incumbents during the remainder of their lives.[48] Causes of
discontent and disquiet, often overlooked, existed at that period. Scarcity
always aggravates when it does not produce political confusion. The price
of corn had singularly fluctuated during the Commonwealth: like the tide it
had gradually ebbed during the first half; like the tide it had gradually
flowed during the second. In 1649, the year of Charles' execution, wheat
had reached eighty shillings a quarter; in 1654, the first year of Oliver's
protectorate, it fell as low as twenty-six shillings—good harvests coming to
bless his new administration. After that year wheat rose again, till in 1659 it
attained the price of sixty-six shillings; the dearness of bread being, as we
might expect, however unjustly, laid at the door of a Government arrived at
the last stage of incompetency and weakness.[49] The result of combined
calamities speedily became apparent. The military were dissatisfied and
divided. Troops lawlessly prowled about the country; they levied
contributions in all quarters, threatening their enemies, and harassing their
friends. Their swords were warrants for exaction; and when told that their
conduct would lead to the return of Charles Stuart, they answered such an
event could never happen so long as they continued to carry arms. Colonels
and Captains lost command over their men; the latter did what was right in
their own eyes, and nothing else.[50]
It is startling to find how rapidly change
succeeded change in high places. The remains of the 1659.
Long Parliament, as it existed at the time of its
dissolution by Oliver Cromwell, were, for want of better rulers, restored the
day after Christmas-day,[51] according to the wishes of the soldiers, not the
Generals. Lenthall, after summoning such members as could be found,
again arrayed himself in his Speaker's robes; again went in state to the
House to reoccupy the old chair; and the soldiers, who ten weeks before had
driven him from the doors of St. Stephen's, now shouted, at the top of their
voices, in honour of his solemn re-entrance. Prynne, and other gentlemen
excluded by Pride's purge, were once more excepted from the number
summoned, and sought in vain re-admission to their vacant seats. The
remnant of legislators upon assembling anew appointed a Council of State;

but never was any form of Government so unmercifully ridiculed as was
this.
Something needed to be done. The Royalists
throughout all this tumult had not been asleep. They INTERREGNUM.—
CONFUSION.
had increased the miserable confusion, and even
rejoiced in the gloom, because the darker the night the nearer the dawn.
Booth's rising in August had been repressed, but an enormous flood of
disaffection, of which that had been a sort of Geyser outgush, continued to
boil beneath the surface. Secret conferences were held; plots were laid. The
deeply engrained love of Monarchy in the English mind—only painted over
of late years—now that the paint was being rubbed off, became distinctly
visible. The press took the utmost license. Evelyn in his Apology for the
Royal Party denounced the Rump as a coffin which was yet less empty than
the heads of certain politicians. He boldly demanded the restoration of
Charles Stuart, maintaining that he might be trusted because of his innate
love of justice, and his father's dying injunctions; and because there were
none, however crimson-dyed their crimes, whom he would not pardon in
the abundance of his clemency and mercy. The author of A Plea for Limited
Monarchy adds the sorrows of memory to the pleasures of hope, as motives
for restoring the King; for he dwells upon the decay of trade, and complains
that the oil and honey promised by Oliver had been turned to bitterness and
gall; and that Lambert's free quarterings had licked up the little which had
been left in the people's cruse.[52]
These appeals fell on willing ears. The nation was
weary—weary of inefficient rulers, weary of ideal 1659.
Republics. Had there been some master-spirit equal
to the departed one, with a strong and well-disciplined Army at his back, the
Commonwealth might even now at last have been restored to what it was
two years before; but nobody like the vanished man remained, and the
Army fell to pieces.
General Monk had a large portion of it under his
immediate control in the North. The Committee of MONK.
Safety had, in the month of November, appointed
him Commander-in-Chief of all the forces, and he now determined to
employ his influence for purposes of his own. The troops under Lambert,
who still cherished Republican ideas and designs, were ordered by a

messenger of Parliament to withdraw to their respective quarters;
consequently that ambitious and turbulent personage retired into privacy.
The soldiers in London, tired of their commanders, had asked for the
restoration of the Rump, and had placed themselves under its authority.
Monk alone possessed much military power. In the month of January we
find him marching up to London. On entering the gates of York two
Presbyterian ministers escorted him to his lodgings; one of them, the
eminent Edward Bowles, "the spring that moved all the wheels in that city,"
who "dealt with the General about weighty and dangerous affairs," keeping
him up till midnight, and pressing him very hard to stay there, and declare
for the King. "Have you made any such promise?" inquired Monk's
chaplain. "No, truly, I have not; or, I have not yet," was the reply. After a
pause the chaplain remarked, "When the famous Gustavus entered
Germany, he said, 'that if his shirt knew what he intended to do, he would
tear it from his back, and burn it.'" The speaker applied the story to his
master, entreating him to sleep between York and London; and when he
entered the walls of the Metropolis to open his eyes, and look about him.[53]
Perhaps the chaplain knew that such counsel would be agreeable to his
patron; but it was quite unnecessary to talk in this fashion to one pre-
eminently reticent, and as watchful with his eyes as he was cautious with
his lips.
Monk, at the time, was far from being reputed a
Royalist. He, with his officers, had in the month of 1660.
June, 1659, expressed Republican opinions. In the
following November the same person corresponding with Dr. Owen, and
other representatives of the Independents in London, promised that their
interests should ever be dear to his heart; and gave it as his opinion that the
laws and rights for which they had been struggling through eighteen years
might be "reduced to a Parliamentary Government, and the people's
consenting to the laws."[54] The General reached St. Albans on the 28th of
January, when Hugh Peters preached before him a characteristic sermon,
little thinking of what the chief person in the audience was about to
accomplish. "As for his sermon," says one who heard it, "he managed it
with some dexterity at the first (allowing the cantings of his expressions.)
His text was Psalm cvii. 7. 'He led them forth by the right way, that they
might go to the city where they dwelt.'[55] With his fingers on the cushion

he measured the right way from the Red Sea through the wilderness to
Canaan; told us it was not forty days' march, but God led Israel forty years
through the wilderness before they came thither; yet this was still the Lord's
right way, who led his people crinkledom cum crankledom; and he
particularly descended into the lives of the patriarchs, how they journeyed
up and down though there were promises of blessing and rest to them. Then
he reviewed our civil wars, our intervals of peace and fresh distractions, and
hopes of rest; but though the Lord's people (he said) were not yet come to
the City of Habitation, He was still leading them on in the right way, how
dark soever His dispensations might appear to us."[56]
As I am writing an Ecclesiastical, and not a Political History, I leave
untouched the tangled web of incidents occurring in the City in the councils
of the Republicans; and in the relations of Monk to the conflicting parties,
between the 6th and 11th of February. I can only state, that on the last of
these days the martial chief appeared at Guildhall, and said, "What I have to
tell you is this: I have this morning sent to the Parliament to issue out writs
within seven days, for the filling up of their House, and when filled to sit no
longer than the 6th of May, but then to give place to a full and free
Parliament."[57]
The joy which this intelligence produced in the
City was unbounded, and it comes before us with the MONK.
vividness of a present event in the garrulous Diary of
Pepys. As merry peals rolled and fired from the London steeples, fourteen
bonfires were kindled between St. Dunstan's and Temple Bar; and at Strand
Bridge the gossip at the same time counted thirty-one of those English
demonstrations of delight. The butchers, at the Maypole in the Strand, rang
a peal with their knives; and on Ludgate-hill a man occupied himself with
turning a spit, on which was tied a rump of beef, whilst another man basted
it. At one end of the street there seemed "a whole lane of fire," so hot that
people were fain to keep on the side farthest off.[58]
The excitement following the news in other parts seems to have been not
less intense.
At Nottingham, "as almost all the rest of the island," the town "began to
grow mad." Boys marched about with drums and colours, and offered
insults to Republican soldiers. One night some forty of the latter class were

wounded by stones, thrown at them as they attempted to seize the
obstreperous lads. Two Presbyterians were shot in the scuffle; one a zealous
Royalist, master of the Magazine, at Nottingham Castle. "Upon the killing
of this man," the Presbyterians "were hugely enraged, and prayed very
seditiously in their pulpits, and began openly to desire the King; not for
good will, neither to him, but for destruction to all the fanatics."[59]
The rabble raved with joy. Milton mourned over
the madness in strains of majestic sorrow. "And what 1660.
will they at best say of us, and of the whole English
name, but scoffingly, as of that foolish builder mentioned by our Saviour,
who began to build a tower, and was not able to finish it? Where is this
goodly tower of a Commonwealth, which the English boasted they would
build to overshadow kings, and be another Rome in the West? The
foundation indeed they laid gallantly; but fell into a worse confusion, not of
tongues, but of factions, than those at the tower of Babel; and have left no
memorial of their work behind them remaining, but in the common laughter
of Europe! Which must needs redound the more to our shame, if we but
look on our neighbours, the United Provinces, to us inferior in all outward
advantages; who notwithstanding, in the midst of greater difficulties,
courageously, wisely, constantly went through with the same work, and are
settled in all the happy enjoyments of a potent and flourishing Republic to
this day."[60]
The political importance of the Independents had declined with the
humiliation of Fleetwood, and of the officers who sympathized with him.
Their strength had rested on the Army, and with the dislocation of the Army
came the termination of their ascendancy. On the 21st of February the
surviving members of the Commons House, who had been excluded by
Colonel Pride, were restored to their former seats, a measure which placed
power once more in Presbyterian hands.
Monk, the author of this revolution, addressed
Parliament on that same day, and gave it as his MONK.
opinion that the interests of London must lie in a
Commonwealth—that Government only being capable of making the
country, through the Lord's blessing, the metropolis and bank of trade for all
Christendom; "and as to a government in the Church," he proceeded to say,
"the want whereof hath been no small cause of these nations' distractions; it

is most manifest that if it be monarchical in the State, the Church must
follow, and Prelacy must be brought in, which these nations, I know, cannot
bear, and against which they have so solemnly sworn: and, indeed,
moderate not rigid Presbyterian government, with a sufficient liberty for
consciences truly tender, appears at present to be the most indifferent and
acceptable way to the Church's settlement."[61]
The fortunes of Presbyterianism had been changeful fortunes. It had
been established by the Long Parliament; its power had waned under the
predominant sway of the Army; though adopted more or less throughout the
country, it had been nowhere so fully developed as in Lancashire; and it had
received no special encouragement from Oliver Cromwell. After his death it
received a slight impetus, only to be checked by the Republican policy of
Vane and the Military. But now Presbyterianism appears reconstituted in the
Church of England—re-established as the national religion; and it is of
great importance to remember this fact throughout the narrative of the
Restoration; for it was with Presbyterianism thus situated, rather than with
Independency, or any other ecclesiastical systems, that Episcopacy came
first into competition and conflict after the King's return.
It soon became plain to which ecclesiastical party
most influence belonged. On the 2nd of March the 1660.
Westminster Confession was readopted; a
proclamation was issued for enforcing all existing laws against popish
priests, Jesuits, and recusants; and a bill was introduced to provide for an
authorized approval of ministers previously to their holding benefices. The
Solemn League and Covenant reappeared on the wall of the House of
Commons, and also was ordered to be read in every church once a year.
Upon the 13th, Dr. Owen, the Independent, was removed from the Deanery
of Christ Church, and Dr. Reynolds, the Presbyterian, appointed in his
room.
But appearances were fallacious. The Restoration was inevitable, and
with the Restoration, the Puritan Establishment, which had been the
offspring of the Civil Wars, virtually expired.

CHAPTER III.

T he Presbyterians were the principal instruments in Charles' restoration;
and in this they acted as the exponents and instruments of the nation's
will. It was not Monk who influenced the Presbyterians—the Presbyterians
influenced Monk. Their leaders encouraged his bringing back the King, and
conveyed to him that encouragement at a conference which they held with
him in the City.[62] The part played by the Presbyterians in this transaction
is admitted by members of the Royal family; and in the correspondence of
the period a curtain is lifted up, disclosing Court secrets, and illustrating the
manner in which the Presbyterians at that moment were overreached. When
the Queen Dowager saw Lord Aubony she remarked, "My Lord, I hear you
say that the King is to go to England, and that you are glad there is such a
(way) laid open for him. Do not you know that the Presbyterians are those
that are to invite him?" The nobleman answered that he did not care who
they were, but only wished to see His Majesty restored to his own realm.
"But the conditions," rejoined the Queen, "may be such as they would have
pressed upon the King his father." "Madam," replied his lordship, "a king
crowned, and in his own dominions has more reason to insist upon terms
than an exiled prince that hath not been accepted by them. What would any
one have him do, other than receive his kingdoms by what means soever
they were given him? And some better way than this occurs not, what fault
is to be found with that which cannot be mended?"[63]
Baxter informs us respecting schemes adopted by
the Episcopalian Royalists, with a view to influence 1660.
their Presbyterian brethren. Sir Ralph Clare, of
Kidderminster, and therefore one of Baxter's parishioners had, before
Booth's rising, spoken to his pastor on the subject; and he had replied by
expressing fears of prelatical intolerance, and of the danger to the interests
of spiritual religion in case of the restoration of the Stuarts. The Knight
said, that being acquainted with Dr. Hammond, a correspondent of Dr.
Morley, then attending upon His Majesty, he could assure Baxter, the
utmost moderation was intended, and that "any episcopacy, how low soever,
would serve the turn and be accepted." Letters from France were procured,

testifying to the character of the Royal exile. They abounded in eulogies
upon his Protestantism. Monsieur Gaches, a famous preacher at Charenton,
after flattering Baxter, gave "a pompous character of the King," stating that
during his residence in France he never neglected the public profession of
the Protestant religion, not even in those places where it seemed prejudicial
to his affairs.[64] Baxter's pages bear witness to the fears of others as well as
to his own, to lull which dulcet promises were sung. Presbyterians and
Episcopalians, it was softly said, were not irreconcilable; union was
possible; present incumbents would not be turned out of their livings. Their
ordinations would be valid.[65] Episcopalians were resolved to forgive, to
bury the remains of rancour, malice, and animosity for ever; having been
taught by sufferings from the hand of God, not to cherish violent thoughts
against their brother man.[66] Some Presbyterians were pacified, expecting
that subscription to the Prayer book would be no longer required. Others, at
least, hoped for toleration. Some acted simply from a conviction that it was
a duty to bring back the King; others regarded that event as at once ruinous
but inevitable.[67] A few could not abandon the idea of restoring Charles on
Covenant terms; but only such as lived in a little world of their own dreamt
of a thing so preposterous.[68]
In coincidence with these circumstances the
personal friends of the exiled Prince revolved in PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
their minds the possibilities of the future, and
employed themselves in framing suggestions to be laid upon the Royal
table. We read in a paper without signature, dated March 28, 1660, "It is
most certainly true that Presbytery is a very ill foundation to Monarchy, and
therefore it must be said with great care and circumspection. You know
what your father suffered by them, and yourself also in Scotland, whither
when you went, though all were for it, I was absolutely against it, and gave
my reasons to one, who I suppose now attends you, which experience hath
proved true." And again, "'Twill be of great consequence that you mainly
insist upon a toleration for all, as well Roman Catholics as others, or, at
least, to take off the penal statutes against them. There is not anything you
can do will be of more advantage than this, for thereby you will satisfy all
here and abroad. Moreover, by doing this you will secure yourself against
the Presbyterians and Sectaries, by equally poising them with others of
contrary judgments, for you may doubt that the Presbyterians and Sectaries

will at length fall to their first principles again, and endeavour to make you
at the best but a Duke of Venice, if they see not a visible power to defend
you. The like course hath many times been used by great princes, and never
succeeded ill when they saw one faction rise too high to suffer a quite
contrary to grow up to balance it."[69]
Sir William Killegrew addressing Charles, upon
the 8th of April, shrewdly states the difficulties of 1660.
his new position: "If your Majesty do but think on
the numerous clergy with their families, and on the innumerable multitudes
of all those that have suffered on your side that will expect a reparation or
recompence; nay, Sir, it is evident that all the people in general do look that
you should bring them peace and plenty, as well as a pardon for all those
who have offended. And I do fear you will find it a harder matter to satisfy
those that call themselves your friends, and those who really are so than all
those who have been against your Majesty." "Next, Sir, if you come to your
crown as freely as you are born to it, how will you settle Church-
government at first to please the old true Protestants? And how the
Presbyterians, who now call you in, when all other interests have failed to
do it? And how the Papists, who do hope for a toleration? How satisfy the
Independents, the Congregation, and all the several sorts of violent
Sectaries? Whereas if your Majesty be tied up by Articles, none of all these
can blame you for not answering their expectations."[70]
Two days before the date of this last letter,
Secretary Thurloe, at Whitehall, silently watching PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
what was going on around him, conveyed his
impressions of the state of religious parties to the English minister at the
Hague.
"There are here great thoughts of heart touching the present constitution
of affairs. The Sectarians with the Commonwealth's men look upon
themselves as utterly lost if the King comes in, and therefore probably will
leave no stone unturned to prevent it; but what they will be able to do, I see
not, of themselves, unless the Presbyterian joins with them, whereto I see
no disposition; yet many of them are alarmed also, and are thinking how to
keep him out, and yet not mingle again with the Sectaries. Others of the
Presbyterians are studying strict conditions to be put upon the King,
especially touching Church-government, hoping to bind him that way; and

therein are most severe against all the King's old party, proscribing them
which are already beyond sea. Not one of them is to return with him if he
comes in upon their terms, and prohibiting his party here to come near him:
he must also confirm all sales whatsoever."[71]
The first decided declaration in favour of the
restoration of Charles on the part of Monk, who for 1660.
months had perplexed everybody, seems to have
occurred on the 19th of March, when, in answer to Royal overtures for his
assistance, and to Royal promises of high rewards, he said to Sir John
Grenville, about to join the little Court at Breda, "I hope the King will
forgive what is past, both in my words and actions, according to the
contents of his gracious letter, for my heart was ever faithful to him; but I
was never in a condition to do him service till this present; and you shall
assure His Majesty that I am now not only ready to obey his commands, but
to sacrifice my life and fortune in his service."[72]
Thus, the man who had solemnly declared himself in favour of a
Commonwealth, now suddenly, with open arms, embraced the Royal cause,
as the turn of events began to brighten its fortunes; and, as he had been first
an Independent, and then a Presbyterian, so now he became not only a
Royalist, but an Episcopalian. Most likely Monk was all the way through a
selfish schemer, trimming his sails to the wind, and ready for King or
Commonwealth, as he might see it safe and advantageous. If that view of
his character be not correct, then the only alternative—one which his
admiring biographers adopt, and which he avowed himself—is, that he had
long been promoting Royalist interests under the disguise of Republican
sentiments,—a conclusion which would justify us in pronouncing him one
of the most consummate hypocrites the world ever saw.[73]
The dissolution of the Rump had been connected
with a determination to call together a new PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
Parliament to meet on the 25th of April. The
preparatory elections evoked the efforts of all parties—the Presbyterians,
the Episcopalians, and the "sects," as Congregationalists and other
Nonconformists were termed. The last of these three parties—mostly
anxious for a Republican form of government—did what they could to
return representatives holding extreme democratical opinions. The second

of them, where they dared to appear, in some cases, from a too fervent zeal,
overshot the mark, and by their violence alienated the constituences which
they canvassed. The first of these parties, the Presbyterians,—who, after the
dissolution of Parliament, had held the administration of affairs in their own
hands, and with whom, for the time being, Monk, their betrayer in the end,
was in co-operation,—used such methods as their executive powers
afforded, to sway the elections in favour of their own views. The
Presbyterians, including different shades of opinion, uniting with the more
moderate Episcopalians and Cavaliers, succeeded in obtaining a large
majority.
The persons who had been elected members of
the Convention began to assemble in St. Stephen's 1660.
Chapel upon the 25th of April. The Presbyterian
leaders, Hollis, Pierrepoint, and Lewis, secured immediately the office of
Speaker for Sir Harbottle Grimston, of whose decided Presbyterianism
there could be no doubt. This critical movement was accomplished in an
irregular manner, before even forty members had taken their seats. The
preachers appointed to address the Commons were Gauden, Calamy, and
Baxter,—all three at that time Presbyterian Conformists. In the House of
Peers, where only ten members at first resumed their places, the
Presbyterian Earl of Manchester was chosen to preside. Two Presbyterian
ministers, Reynolds and Hardy, were selected to preach to their Lordships.
Before proceeding to describe the revived loyalty displayed by the
Convention, we must notice the violent manifestation of opposite feelings
by a portion of the Commonwealth Army. Lambert, one of Cromwell's
officers, escaped on the 9th of April from the Tower, where he had been
imprisoned, and, gathering around him some of his comrades, marched into
the Midland Counties, hoping successfully to raise a standard in support of
Republicanism. Ludlow and Scott had before this been preparing for such a
movement; and, it is said, that despondency of success alone prevented
Haselrig from drawing his sword.[74] The French Ambassador, writing on
the 3rd of May to Cardinal Mazarin, thus describes the actual outbreak
which followed:—[75]
"Great alarm," he says, "has been felt about an
insurrection of Sectaries in different localities; some PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
had assembled in the neighbourhood of York, with

the intention of taking it by surprise; and, at the distance of twenty leagues
from London, Colonel Lambert had gathered together a body of cavalry,
which the first accounts stated to consist of three hundred men. Orders were
immediately given to send against him most of the troops which are in
London; the levy of the London militia was directed to hold itself in
readiness, and that of several counties, which has not been set on foot, to be
placed within the hands of persons considered to be too violent Royalists,
was also ordered out. At the same time, some of the most distinguished
Sectaries, both in this city and in the country, were arrested, and the General
was making preparations to go and attack Lambert before he could increase
his forces; but news arrived, at the end of last week, that he had only two or
three hundred men; and, this morning, we were informed of his defeat by a
party of six hundred horse, without much bloodshed; his troops having
abandoned him one after another, he was taken prisoner with a few others
who have been officers in the Army, and they are on their way to London.
The militia were immediately countermanded, and the universal topic of
conversation now is the punishment of the offenders, whose leader was
proclaimed a traitor on the day before yesterday.
"His capture seems entirely to ruin all his party, against which the people
entertain so great an aversion, that, unless the old troops had mutinied, it
could not have met with better fortune. Some Royalists could have wished
it to hold out a little longer, in the hope that the present authorities would
have been thereby compelled to hasten the return of the King upon more
advantageous conditions, whereas they will now have entire liberty to act,
and will, perhaps, impose harsher conditions, as they have nothing to fear
from the Sectaries."
It is remarkable that the troops employed by the
Council of State to crush Lambert's outbreak were 1660.
led by Ingoldsby, one of Oliver Cromwell's attached
officers; and, amongst those acting under him on this occasion, was the
Fifth Monarchist, Colonel Okey. Republicanism, at that moment, was a
house divided against itself; and very different were the subsequent fortunes
of the two men just mentioned. Ingoldsby's previous support of Cromwell
obtained Royal forgiveness on account of his defeating Lambert; the dark
fate which befell Okey will be noticed hereafter. The rash attempt thus
promptly resisted, and speedily suppressed, was, there can be no doubt, the

result of a feeling more widely diffused than the limited action of the
Commonwealth soldiery, as just described, would by itself indicate. The
Civil Wars had proceeded on the principle that it is justifiable to defend by
arms what is deemed the cause of freedom; and, at this juncture, Charles
had not yet returned, he was not, in fact, King of England; and, therefore,
Republicans might naturally feel all the more satisfied in resisting his
restoration, as that restoration, in their opinion, would be a revolutionary
act, overthrowing the Commonwealth—a form of English government won
by Parliamentary Armies, and established by the decisions of the
Legislature.[76]
When May-day had arrived—with its vernal
memories and hopes stirring the hearts of Royalists PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
all over the country—Mr. Annesley reported to the
Commons a letter from the King, unopened, directed to "Our trusty and
well-beloved General Monk, to be communicated to the President and
Council of State, and to the Officers of the Armies under his command." He
stated that Sir John Grenville, a Royal messenger, was at the door.
Permitted by a vote to approach the bar, this gentleman proceeded to
announce that he had been commanded by the King, his master, to deliver a
letter directed to "Our trusty and well-beloved the Speaker of the House of
Commons." Inclosed within the letter was a declaration, given under the
King's sign-manual and privy signet, at his Court at Breda. When the
messenger had withdrawn, both communications were read aloud by Sir
Harbottle Grimston. They are entered in the Journals; so also is Monk's
letter. Immediately afterwards the same messenger delivered a letter "To the
Speaker of the House of Peers, and the Lords there assembled;" that letter
inclosing the same declaration as had been communicated to the Commons.
[77]

The last-named document, which soon became so famous, states that
Charles had never given up the hope of recovering his rights, that he did not
more desire to enjoy what was his own, than that his subjects by law might
enjoy what was theirs; that he would grant a free pardon under the Great
Seal to all who should lay hold of his grace and favour within forty days,
save those only who should be excepted by Act of Parliament; and that he
desired all notes of discord and separation should be utterly abolished. Then
came the following clause:—"And, because the passion and

uncharitableness of the times have produced several opinions in religion, by
which men are engaged in parties and animosities against each other, which,
when they shall hereafter unite in a freedom of conversation, will be
composed or better understood; we do declare a liberty to tender
consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question, for
differences of opinion in matter of religion which do not disturb the peace
of the kingdom, and that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of
Parliament, as, upon mature deliberation, shall be offered to us for the full
granting that indulgence." In conclusion, there appeared a promise to refer
to Parliament all grants and purchases made by officers and soldiers who
might be liable to actions at law, and to pay arrears due to the Army.
A conference took place the same afternoon
between the Lords and Commons, when it was 1660.
agreed that, according to the ancient and
fundamental laws of the kingdom, the Government is and ought to be by
King, Lords, and Commons,—a conclusion of the two Houses which
formally re-established Monarchy in England.
Amidst all this haste there were not wanting some who, to use
Clarendon's words, "thought that the guilt of the nation did require less
precipitation than was like to be used, and that the treaty ought first to be
made with the King, and conditions of security agreed on before His
Majesty should be received." The Presbyterians in Parliament, he further
says, were "solicitous that somewhat should be concluded in veneration of
the Covenant; and, at least, that somewhat should be inserted in their
answer to the discountenance of the Bishops."[78]
Sir Matthew Hale moved, that a Committee might
be appointed to consider the propositions which had PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
been made to Charles I. at Newport, and the
concessions then allowed by him, as affording materials for a constitutional
compact with the Prince now about to ascend the throne. But no more
attention was paid to the wise lawyer than to the zealous Presbyterians.
Monk assured the House that the nation was now quiet, but he could not
answer for the public tranquillity should the Restoration be delayed.[79] At
the same time, the General was quietly seeking to accelerate the execution
of his plans by pressing Sharp, the agent in London of the Scotch
Presbyterians, to go over to the King at Breda, "to deal that he might write a

letter to Mr. Calamy, to be communicated to the Presbyterian ministers,
showing his resolution to own the godly, sober party, and to stand for the
true Protestant religion in the power of it."[80]
Upon the 2nd of May the House resolved to send a grateful letter to His
Majesty, together with a grant of £50,000 for his immediate use; and, at the
same time, it was resolved to proclaim King Charles the following day, a
ceremony duly performed in Palace Yard, Westminster, and at Temple Bar,
London.
Sermons were delivered before the Houses, and Richard Baxter preached
in St. Paul's Cathedral, before the Lord Mayor and the Corporation, one of
his most spiritual and earnest discourses, entitled "Right Rejoicing:" with
this discourse, the preacher says, the moderate were pleased and the fanatics
were offended, whilst the diocesan party thought he did suppress their joy.
Speedily the Proclamation was repeated
throughout the kingdom, and everywhere revived 1660.
loyalty took a tinge from its ecclesiastical
associations. In cities, where Episcopalians retained ascendancy, scarlet
gowns, scaffolds covered with red cloth, volleys fired by musqueteers, and
cathedral men singing anthems, appeared conspicuously in the
arrangements. A diarist of that period thus describes what he witnessed:—
"May 12th.—Mem. This day, at the city of Worcester, were placed on
high four scaffolds, one at the Cross, two at the Corn-market, three at the
Knole End, four at or near All-Hallow's Well. The scaffold at the Cross was
encompassed with green, white, and purple colours; the two first as his own
colours, being Prince, the third as King. Mr. Ashby, the Mayor, a Mercer,
and all Aldermen in scarlet, the Sheriff of the City, the 24 and 48 in their
liveries; each trade and free-man marching with their colours. First went
100 trained city bandmen, after their captain, Alderman Vernon. Then came
the Sheriffs, Thos. Coventry, Esq., the Lord Coventry's eldest son, servants;
then the two Army companies; then the several livery companies with their
showmen or band; then the City Officers; then the Mace and Sword-
bearers; then the Mayor, with the High Sheriff and some gentlemen; then all
the 24 and 48; then part of a troop of horse of the Army. The Mayor,
mounting the scaffold with the gentlemen and Aldermen, Mr. John Ashby,
reading softly by degrees the Proclamation of Charles II., to be King of

England, Scotland, France, and Ireland; the Mayor himself spoke it aloud to
all the people; which done, all with a shout said, 'God save the King.' Then
all guns went off, and swords drawn and flourishing over their heads, drums
beating and trumpets blowing, loud music playing before the Mayor and
company, to every scaffold, which was done in the same manner
throughout; and all finished, the Mayor and City gave wine and biscuits in
the chamber liberally. Bonfires made at night throughout the City, and the
King's health with wine was drank freely. Never such a concourse of people
seen upon so short a notice, with high rejoicings and acclamations for the
restoring of the King. God guard him from his enemies as He ever hath
done most miraculously, and send him a prosperous peaceable reign, and
long healthful life, for the happiness of his subjects, who is their delight."
[81]

In places where Presbyterianism prevailed the
ceremony differed. At Sherborne the Proclamation PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
followed "solemn prayers, praises, and seasonable
premonition in the Church." At Manchester, Henry Newcome went into the
pulpit and prayed about half an hour. At Northampton "Mr. Ford, the
minister, went with several others to a great bonfire in the Market-place,
when, after a suitable exhortation, he joined them in singing the twenty-first
Psalm." At Northenbury, Philip Henry preached a discourse, congratulatory
and thanksgiving, from the words, "The king's heart is in the hand of the
Lord" (Proverbs xxi. 1); but, many years afterwards, he dated a letter 29th
of May, as a day in which the bitter was mingled with the sweet.[82]
Every lover of peace will rejoice that the Restoration was a bloodless
change; but the mode of deciding upon it suggests grave reflections. After a
long period of strife spent in order to bring within limits the prerogatives of
the Crown; after the desperate remedies which had been adopted for the
cure of evils brought on by Royal aggression; after all which had been done
to resist and overcome the intolerance of the High Church party,—the
nation invited Charles Stuart back without any condition, and opened the
way for the re-establishment of the old order of things, without any
provision against the recurrence of mischief. Such a proceeding, to say the
least, exposed the country to imminent hazard; and the history of the next
eight and twenty years proves that the fears which were entertained by a
few were but too well founded. The old Stuart disposition and habits

reappeared, the old ecclesiastical intolerance returned, and the Revolution
of 1688 was found necessary to supply the defects of the Restoration of
1660.
Yet, after all, the mode of the Restoration excites
less surprise than lamentation. For it is easy to 1660.
PROGRESS OF
understand how natural it was for the Royalist party, RESTORATION.
even the more moderate portion of it, to feel
extremely anxious to accomplish the one thing which at that critical
juncture seemed to them so necessary. As in private affairs, as in the
exigencies of domestic and social life, people are apt precipitately to adopt
a certain course, at the moment appearing indispensable—flattering
themselves that afterwards, with proper care, any seriously unpleasant
results may be prevented or cured, that matters can be made all right in the
end: so the leaders of the English people, at that moment, felt the question
to be Restoration or Ruin; and that, the grand prerequisite for renewed
prosperity being secured, other desirable things could be afterwards shaped
according to pleasure or circumstances. Besides, the Presbyterians clung to
the Breda Declaration as a sheet anchor of hope. It was thought then, and is
still so thought by some, that however theoretically desirable stipulations
might have been, it was practically unwise to insist upon them at the time;
that delay in negotiation with the exiled Prince tended to involve the
country in fresh confusions, and exposed it to the risk of a military
despotism; and that what Parliament could not then safely wait to do might
be subsequently effected. After all reasonable excuses and palliations for
the course adopted, that course is now seen to have been an enormous
mistake. The dangers of a little delay have been assumed, not proved; there
could be no probability of losing the chance of restoring Charles, had
Parliament determined beforehand to bind him to terms. He would gladly
have accepted the Royalty of England, with such guarantees for public
liberty as were accorded by William III. And as to the Army, from which
chiefly alarm arose, it does not appear how the difficulty of keeping
Republican soldiers quiet for a month or so, whilst pacific men were
engaged in laying foundations for the stability of their liberties, could be
greater than the difficulty of keeping those same soldiers quiet between the
decision for the King's return and his actual arrival. Possible evils, in the
form of political intrigues, the conflict of parties, the further unsettlement of
the country, and the postponement of the Restoration, might be imagined as

the result of delay; but over against them we are justified in placing the evil
which did come as the consequence of haste. And with regard to
expectations resting on a future Parliament—the Parliament now sitting
could not calculate upon what the character and proceedings of its successor
might be. That which really prevented any conditions from being imposed
on the returning Prince, was the want of a few wise heads and a few stout
hearts. Who can believe that if Pym or Hampden, or even Falkland, had
been members of the Convention, matters would have been managed as
they were? We cannot but think that during the infinitely momentous weeks
which made up that month of May, such men would have little heeded the
voting of jewels to Royal messengers, and decisions respecting State beds
and State coaches—things which occupied the Houses for some time—but
would rather have thrown themselves heart and soul into the work of
building up some safe and sure defence against the return of arbitrary
government and ecclesiastical intolerance. But England was wanting in
great Statesmen. There remained one wise, good man who proposed a pause
for the arrangement of conditions: but another man, selfish and
unprincipled, put him down. It is deplorable to think of a Parliament in
which Monk silenced Hale.[83]
Certain Presbyterian ministers—Reynolds,
Calamy, Manton, and Case—accompanied a 1660.
deputation from London to express the loyalty of the
citizens. Pepys gives the amusing information, that, as he was posting in a
coach to Scheveling, the wind being very high, he "saw two boats overset,
and the gallants forced to be pulled on shore by the heels, while their
trunks, portmanteaus, hats, and feathers were swimming in the sea;" the
ministers that came with the Commissioners—Mr. Case amongst the rest—
were "sadly dripped."[84]
The King resided at the Hague, and to that pleasant Dutch town the
reverend brethren proceeded without delay; they were graciously received.
They assured Charles, that in obedience to the Covenant, they had urged
upon the people the duty of restoring him; and, after thanking God for His
Majesty's constancy to the Protestant religion, they declared themselves by
no means inimical to moderate Episcopacy; they only desired that in
religion, things held indifferent by those who used them, should not be
imposed upon the consciences of others to whom they appeared unlawful.

The first interview seems to have passed off pleasantly; another audience
was sought by the clergymen for closer conversation.
The Scotch were very earnest for an exclusive
Presbyterian Establishment in England. They had PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
frequent correspondence with Sharp, now in
Holland, and they urged him to remember the great inconvenience which
would ensue if the King used the Prayer Book upon returning to his
dominions.[85] Whether or not Sharp (then believed to be a zealous
Presbyterian) influenced the London ministers, it is certain they adopted an
intolerant policy. Admitted once more to the Royal presence[86] they told
His Majesty that the people were unaccustomed to the Common Prayer, and
it would be much wondered at, if, as soon as he landed, he should introduce
it in his own chapel. They begged, at all events, that he would not use it
entirely, but only some parts of it, and permit extempore prayers by his
chaplains. The King replied, reasonably enough, and with some warmth,
"that whilst they sought liberty, he wished to enjoy the same himself." He
professed his strong attachment to the Liturgy, and said, although he would
not severely inquire about the use of it elsewhere he would certainly have it
in his own chapel. Then they besought him not to have the surplice worn:
upon which he declared he would not himself be restrained whilst giving so
much liberty to others; a declaration proper enough had he adhered to both
parts of it. Whatever the Presbyterian deputation might have said, probably
it would have made little difference as to the issue; yet all must see how
foolishly they committed themselves at the very commencement of their
negotiations—giving Charles and his Court too much ground for meeting
the charge of Episcopal intolerance by the accusation of Presbyterian
bigotry.
Upon the following Sunday, Mr. Hardy, one of
the ministers, preached before the King at the 1660.
Hague, when some amusing circumstances occurred.
The place appointed for the service was the French Church, and it was
arranged that the English worship should begin as soon as the French
should end. Crowds came from the neighbouring towns to see the Monarch
and his retinue. Precautions were adopted to prevent their admission in a
way which might inconvenience the illustrious worshippers, and particular
care was taken to reserve for the Court a pew "clothed with black velvet,

and covered with a canopy of the same stuff." But another contingency had
not been contemplated—the difficulty of dismissing those already in the
building before others were admitted. The French congregation wished to
wait and witness the subsequent worship, and Dutch persons of distinction,
occupying the velvet pew, would not retire. The French ministers urged
them to withdraw, but there they were, and there they would remain. The
people in possession outwitted the rest, and outwitted themselves too; for
the church being crammed, and no more being able to enter, the King gave
up the idea of going into it, and attended Divine service in a private room,
with as many of the Lords as the place would accommodate. Mr. Hardy
preached from Isaiah xxvi. 19, "and made so learned and so pathetic a
discourse that there was not any one there which was not touched and
edified therewith."[87] After the Liturgy and sermon the King, according to a
long and elaborate ceremonial, touched certain persons afflicted with "the
evil."
Whilst the Presbyterians were active the
Episcopalians were not idle. The Bishops despatched PROGRESS OF
RESTORATION.
Mr. Barwick to Breda with a loyal address to His
Majesty, and letter of thanks to Hyde, now Chancellor Clarendon. Barwick
was instructed to report upon ecclesiastical affairs, and to bring back the
Royal commands, particularly as to which of the Bishops should pay their
duty upon their Master's landing; and whether they should present
themselves in their Episcopal habits; and also as to the appointment of
Court Chaplains. Since it had been customary for the Kings of England to
return public thanksgivings at St. Paul's Cathedral on great occasions,
Barwick inquired what was the Royal pleasure as to the place in which such
service should be held, seeing the ruinous condition of the Metropolitan
Church at that time? He met with a gracious reception, and on the Sunday
after his arrival preached before the King.
The Episcopalians in England very naturally were filled with joy. As
early as the month of March one gave expression to it in violent language
from the pulpit. The prudent Chancellor at Breda, hearing of these
intemperate effusions, had written, in April, begging that the Episcopalian
clergy would restrain their tempers. "And truly I hope," he added, "if faults
of this kind are not committed that both the Church and the Kingdom will
be better dealt with than is imagined; and I am confident those good men

will be more troubled that the Church should undergo a new suffering by
their indiscretion than for all that they have suffered hitherto themselves."
[88]

CHAPTER IV.

C harles, on his way to England, had reason for
anxious care and steady forethought. Never had THE KING'S RETURN.
an English Prince come to the throne under such 1660.
circumstances. A civil war was just over—the swelling of the storm had
hardly ceased; a party adverse to that which the King regarded as his own
remained still in power; many were expecting at his hand favour for recent
services, notwithstanding former offences; Presbyterians looked at least for
comprehension within the Establishment. Independents, Baptists, Quakers,
asked for toleration, and Roman Catholics, who had been friends to the
beheaded father and the exiled son, thought themselves entitled to some
measure of religious liberty. The Episcopal Church claimed the new
Monarch as her own; her prelates and ministers were waiting to welcome
him—to open in the parish churches once more the beautiful old Prayer
Book, with its litanies and collects for the King and Royal family. They
sought exclusive re-establishment; they would cast out all Presbyterian
intruders—they would tolerate no Sectaries. Here were perplexing
circumstances to be encountered. The Breda Declaration had bound Charles
to be considerate in dealing with religious matters, to show respect for
tender consciences. Comprehension, toleration—he stood pledged to
promote. But how were the problems to be solved? He was a Constitutional
King. He was to rule through Parliaments. Should bigotry arise and carry all
before it in the Commons' House, as elsewhere, what was he to do? Should
his Ministers differ from him, how then? Such possibilities gazed at by a
thoughtful man might well have made him anxious, if not alarmed. Who
would not sympathize with any conscientious prince under such
circumstances? Charles possessed certain intellectual and social qualities
which fitted him for the task he had now to perform; for he had common
sense—was keen and clever, with quick insight into character, made still
more so by large acquaintance with human nature,—he knew how to put
unpleasant things in a pleasant way,—could command considerable powers
of persuasion when he liked, and was courteous, affable, and of winning
manners. But he was not thoughtful—not conscientious; he lacked the two

things which alone could enable him to turn his abilities and experience to
good account. The crown was to him a toy; the throne a chair of pleasure, at
best, of pompous state. The heedless, folly-loving prince takes himself quite
out of the range of our sympathies, and leaves us to condemn the breach of
his plighted faith, and all the intolerance incident to his return. A useless
controversy was once carried on as to whether he was really a Papist at the
time of the Restoration. It is idle to dispute respecting the theological
opinions of a man so utterly destitute of religious feeling and
thoughtfulness. That he was not a Protestant at the time—meaning by the
word a person attached to the Reformed faith—is plain enough from what is
said by those who knew him best. Probably Buckingham, who calls him a
Deist, is nearest the truth.[89] But that he had sympathies with the Roman
Catholic party, and considered their Church as the most convenient for an
easy-living gentleman like himself, there can be no doubt. Had death stared
him in the face just after his return, he would probably have sought refuge
in confession and priestly absolution, as he did twenty-five years later. Yet
he professed to be a Protestant by solemn kingly acts, and in other ways
when he thought it politic. Charles was a dissembler.[90] He had, with all his
occasional rollicking frankness, an almost equal mastery over his
conversation and his countenance. His face, encompassed by flowing black
locks, illuminated by lustrous eyes, was said to be as little a blab as most
men's: it might tell tales to a good physiognomist, but it was no prattler to
people in general. If he had a wish to conceal his purpose, he could do it
effectually. Lord Halifax apologized for him by saying, that if he
dissembled it is to be remembered "that dissimulation is a jewel of the
crown," and that "it is very hard for a man not to do sometimes too much of
that which he concludeth necessary for him to practise."[91]
Monk proceeded to Dover May the 22nd.[92] Numbers of the nobility
and gentry wished to follow him, and he arranged that they should march in
companies, in differently-coloured uniforms, under certain noblemen, who
were to act as captains of these loyal bands. They had not fought any of
Monk's battles; they came in now to swell Monk's triumph. As the General
was standing at a window in the City of Canterbury, while they marched by
gaily with green scarfs and feathers, a friend observed: "You had none of
these at Coldstream, General; but grasshoppers and butterflies never come
abroad in frosty weather, and, at the best, never abound in Scotland."

On Friday, the 25th of May, at one o'clock,
Charles landed at Dover; and, notwithstanding his THE KING'S RETURN.
levity, his heart surely must have been touched as the
Castle guns gave him welcome; and another and far more gladdening
demonstration proceeded from the ten thousands of his subjects, who lined
the pebbly beach, or looked down from the old chalk cliffs, waving their
broad-brimmed and feathered hats, and giving the home-bound exile right
hearty cheers such as only Englishmen can give. General Monk, with all the
nobility and gentry present, prostrated themselves before the Prince as he
stepped ashore, with his plumed beaver in his hand; and some rushed
forward to kiss the hem of his garment, whilst he gracefully raised from his
knees, and embraced the soldier, who whatever might be his character in
other respects, had certainly proved the star of his master's fortune. A
canopy was ready for His Majesty, as he walked to the town; and the Mayor
and Aldermen made obeisance as their chaplain placed in the Royal hands a
gold-clasped Bible. No Bishop was present.
A State coach stood in waiting, in which the King
seated himself, the Duke of York by his side, and 1660.
opposite, the Duke of Gloucester; General Monk and
the Duke of Buckingham occupying the boot. Thus they travelled two miles
out of Dover, when they mounted horse, and so proceeded the rest of the
way to Canterbury,—where speeches were made, and a gold tankard was
presented to the King; on the following day several persons were knighted
by him, and Monk, the real hero of the hour, was invested with the Order of
the Garter. All went to the Cathedral on Sunday, when the Liturgy was used;
and on Monday they proceeded to Rochester, where a basin and ewer,
silver-gilt, were loyally given, and graciously accepted. Between four and
five o'clock on Tuesday morning, they started again, "the militia forces of
Kent lining the ways, and maidens strewing herbs and flowers, and the
several towns hanging out white sheets." At Dartford, certain regiments of
cavalry presented an address, and at Blackheath, the old Army appeared
drawn up to meet the very Monarch against whom so many of them had
been fighting. The vexation felt at this termination of the great change
inaugurated by the Civil Wars must have touched many a Republican to the
quick; and at the moment of their chagrin rapturous feelings filled many a
noble Royalist, like those which inspired the Nunc dimittas of Sir Henry
Lee, so touchingly described on the last page of Scott's Woodstock.

At St. George's-in-the-Field the Corporation of
London waited in a tent to receive their Sovereign, THE KING'S RETURN.
where the Lord Mayor presented the City sword, and
then the procession slowly moving from Southwark, passed through the
City Gates, crossed the pent-up alley of London Bridge, and marched on
through Cheapside, Fleet-street, and the Strand, the houses all the way
adorned with tapestry;—the train bands lining the streets on one side, and
the livery companies on the other. A troop of 300 men, in cloth of silver
doublets, led the van; then came 1200 in velvet coats, with footmen in
purple; followed by another troop in buff and silver, and rich green scarfs;
then 150 in blue and silver, with six trumpeters and seven footmen in sea-
green and silver; then a troop of 220, with 30 footmen in grey and silver;
then other troops in like splendour. The Sheriff's men in red cloaks, to the
number of fourscore, with half-pikes—and hundreds of the companies on
horseback in black velvet with golden chains followed in due order.
Preceded by kettle-drums and trumpets, came twelve London ministers,
their Genevan gowns and bands looking "sad" amidst the glaring colours.
The Life Guards followed: more trumpeters appeared in satin doublets; and
next, the City Marshal, attended by footmen in French green trimmed with
white and crimson. The City Waits succeeded, and next the Sheriffs and the
Aldermen, with their footmen in scarlet, and with heralds. The Lord Mayor
carried the Sword of State, and close by him rode Monk and the Duke of
Buckingham. Then appeared the King, accompanied by his brothers York
and Gloucester: the Royal eyes, black and keen, looking out with gracious
smiles from a sallow face on the gathered thousands, who, with awe and
delight, returned the gaze. Troops, with white flags, brought up the rear; and
thus the gaudy and imposing pageant filed under the very window, where
fourteen years before had stood the scaffold of Charles I.[93]
As soon as Charles II. had taken his seat on the
throne addresses flowed in from all quarters—from 1660.
the nobility, the gentry, and the militia of counties;
from the Corporations and inhabitants of towns, and from divers religious
bodies. The time had not yet come for Episcopalians to address His
Majesty. Presbyterianism, recognized by the Convention as the established
religion, had not been dethroned from its supremacy; and it was not quite
safe at present for its great rival ecclesiastical power prominently to show
itself. Their silence just then is very significant. The Roman Catholics,

many of whom had sacrificed much for the sake of the Stuart family,
assured the King of their attachment; and distinctly repudiated the doctrine,
that the Pope can lay any commands upon English Catholic subjects in civil
and temporal matters; also the "damnable and most un-Christian
position,"—these are the very words—"that kings or absolute princes, of
what belief soever, who are excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed,
killed, or murthered by their subjects."[94] Presbyterian ministers expressed
the warmest loyalty. "Such," they said, "of late days, have been the
wonderful appearances of God towards both your Royal self and the people,
that (when we feared our quarrels should be entailed and bound over to
posterity) we hope they all are miraculously taken up in your Majesty's
restoration to your Crown and imperial dignity. It cannot be denied, but that
Providence was eminently exalted in the work of your protection for many
years; but it seems to avail to the efficacy of that grace, which hath
prevented you from putting forth your hands unto iniquity, and sinful
compliances with the enemies of the Protestant, and in disposing of the
hearts of your subjects to receive you with loyalty and affection." With this
expression of loyalty is combined the utterance of hope. "We beseech you
not to give Him less than He requires by way of gratitude, of which we are
the more confident, when we consider your Majesty's gracious letters to
both Houses of Parliament, with the enclosed Declaration, wherein we see
your zeal for the Protestant religion, with a pitiful heart toward tender
consciences, wherein we have assurance that the hail of your displeasure
shall not fall on any who have (upon the word of Moses) betaken
themselves to yourself as a sanctuary. And now, most gracious Sovereign,
what remains for us to do? We are not fit to advise you, but give us leave to
be your remembrancers before the Lord." They conclude with devout
aspirations for His Majesty's spiritual welfare: "May you never see the
handwriting on the wall that your kingdom is divided, but let this be your
motto—'Not by power, not by might, but by the Spirit.' May you rejoice in
this, that you have better chariots and horsemen (in the many of your
subjects who are faithful, chosen, and true) than other princes can boast of.
And still, may your tenderness be found, that of a nursing father towards the
young and weak of the flock that cannot pace it with their elder brethren,
and yet are God's anointed, nay, God's jewels, the apple of His eye, His
children, they for whom Christ died, and is now an Intercessor."[95]

There was also an address from the Independent
ministers of London and Westminster, in which they THE KING'S RETURN.
referred to the Breda Declaration, indicating how 1660.
greatly it sustained their hopes. They did not, they said, wish for liberty
longer than they deserved it. "And it is our desire," they added, "no longer
to sit under the shadow, and to taste the fruit of this your Majesty's royal
favour, than we approve ourselves followers of peace with all men, seeking
the peace of these kingdoms united under your Majesty's Government, and
abiding in our loyalty to your royal person and submission to your laws."[96]
An address, sent by the ministers of Lancashire at a later period, shows
their desire to wipe out the stigma of disloyalty:—
"Whereas we, or some of us, have been injuriously misrepresented to
your Majesty, or some eminent persons about you, and have also been
prejudiced and molested, as if we denied your Supremacy, or were
disaffected to your Government (which hindered this our application to
your Majesty, although prepared, and which otherwise had been much
earlier, even with the first), we do, in all humility, and with great
earnestness, profess before God and man, that we detest and abhor the very
thoughts of such unworthy principles, behaviour, and expression, having
always, according to occasion, expressed and declared the contrary."[97]
In this address we notice a recognition of the
Royal Supremacy. Not only the civil, but, in some THE KING'S RETURN.
sense, the ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Crown
must, under the circumstances, have been meant. Ecclesiastical Supremacy
would be claimed and exercised by the restored sovereign as a matter of
course. No new Act of Parliament was passed reconferring it on the Crown,
and defining the limits.[98] Henry VIII. had been declared "Ecclesiæ
Anglicanæ et Hibernicæ Supremum Caput." That title had been continued
during the reign of Edward VI., but was repealed in the reign of Queen
Mary. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, Supremacy was restored to the
Crown, the Queen being styled, not "Supreme Head of the Church," but
"Supreme Governor, as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical causes as in
others." Henry's and Edward's title had never been resumed, but that of
Elizabeth, having belonged to the first two monarchs of the Stuart line,
descended to Charles II.[99] Charles II., then, could not, in legal phrase, be

"Head of the Church;" if he happened to be so designated, it would be in
adulation or in ignorance. But he inherited the ecclesiastical powers
possessed by Queen Elizabeth, except in relation to the High Commission
Court, which had been abolished by Act of Parliament in the reign of his
father. The canons—as well as Acts of Parliament unrepealed before the
Civil Wars—were regarded by Churchmen as remaining in force, and the
second canon required an oath to the effect that "the King's Majesty hath the
same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the Godly kings had amongst the
Jews, and Christian emperors of the primitive Church"—whatever might be
meant by that vague appeal to ancient and obscure precedents. The
Supremacy of the Crown, however, as asserted by Anglican lawyers, would
be one thing; the Supremacy, as acknowledged by Puritans, especially any
Nonconformist portion of them, would be quite another. The authority of
the temporal ruler over the temporalities of the Church, all parties probably
would be prepared to allow; those of them who approved of a State Church
would not object to his being invested with ecclesiastical patronage;
Presbyterians, who wished for the establishment of perfect parochial
discipline by the magistrate's aid, could not consistently object to some kind
of Royal Supremacy in reference to that matter; but High Church Puritans,
if I may so term persons holding exalted ideas of the spiritual, as
distinguished from the temporal powers, like High Church Anglicans,
would entertain a reduced and modified conception of the legitimate
interference of the Crown with Christ's Church; whilst Nonconformists,
who embraced the voluntary principle, would (even if from loyal courtesy
they conceded the title of Supreme Governor in causes ecclesiastical)
extract from it almost all which constituted its signification in the eyes of
others.
It should further be borne in mind, not only here,
but throughout this division of our narrative, indeed 1660.
THE KING'S RETURN.
onward to the passing of the Act of Uniformity,—
that ecclesiastical affairs were in a transition state, that scarcely anything
could be regarded as perfectly settled. The High Church party took it for
granted, that with the return of the King came the return of the episcopal
constitution, with its laws, ceremonies, and usages. They assumed that at
once, without any new Parliamentary statute, the stream of affairs would
flow back into the old channel—that all which had been done by the Long
Parliament, without the sanction of the Crown, ought to be treated as if it

had never been done at all. The opposite party also had law on their side;
for some valid Acts, affecting the Establishment, remained unrepealed—for
example, the Act for divesting Bishops of their temporal powers. Under
existing circumstances, much might be said on behalf of other portions of
recent legislation, even where the Royal assent had not been obtained. And
very few people now will deny that the clergy holding preferment during
the Commonwealth had reason and common sense in their favour when
they maintained—that, after nearly twenty years of change, after a
revolution carried on by a de facto Government which had destroyed old
vested rights, and created new ones—things could not be expected to
resume their former position as a matter of course; that those in possession,
and in possession by sanction of Government, had something to say for
themselves, and that the conclusion as to the Church of the future was not
foreclosed. And whatever might be said to the contrary, this aspect of the
question had been, and still was, tacitly accepted as the true one by Charles
and by Clarendon, in their negotiations with the Presbyterians, for they kept
them in suspense for more than a year, holding out the idea of a
compromise, and did not attempt to carry matters with a high hand until the
Presbyterians had been reduced to a condition in which they could be easily
crushed.
The counsellors by whom Charles was
surrounded on his return were men of different 1660.
characters, and they ought at once to be noticed,
since they had more or less to do with the ecclesiastical affairs, which it is
our business to study. Hyde immediately became Chief Minister. His round
face and double chin, as we see them in his portrait, appear signs of good
nature; but, perhaps, a skilful physiognomist would discover in his eyes and
lips indications of qualities less pleasant. He was a different man from his
master. Like Charles I., he was sincerely attached to the Episcopal Church
of England. That unhappy Monarch, in one of his published letters, dated
Oxford, March 30, 1646, assures Queen Henrietta that "Ned Hide" was
fully of his mind on the subject of Episcopacy; he was almost, if not
altogether (at that time), the only person in the confidence of the King who
concurred with him on the point of religion.[100] The same year, when
matters were even worse, Hyde expressed himself against "buying a peace
at a dearer price than was offered at Uxbridge," and encouraged the notion
that it was the duty of the Royalists to submit to a kind of martyrdom. "It

may be," he remarked, "God hath resolved we shall perish, and then it
becomes us to perish with those decent and honest circumstances that our
good fame may procure a better peace to those who succeed us, than we
were able to procure for them, and ourselves shall be happier than any other
condition could render us."[101] Looking at the circumstances under which
the letter was written, there can be no doubt of the sincerity of this
confession—a sincerity confirmed in all the years of his exile under the
Commonwealth, and in his active solicitude for the interests of the Church
in the prospect of the Restoration. His subsequent conduct in reference to
ecclesiastical affairs will appear as we proceed.
The Duke of Ormond, who had done and suffered
much for the Stuarts, was, according to Burnet, a THE KING'S RETURN.
courtier of graceful manners, of lively wit, and of
cheerful temper, extravagant in his expenditure, but decent in his vices; he
was a firm Protestant, and always kept up the forms of religion, even amidst
the indulgence of his passions.[102] The Earl of Southampton, who had
faithfully adhered to Charles I. and his son throughout their troubles,
enjoyed a merited reputation for virtue, for attachment to liberal principles,
and for being guiltless of promoting the arbitrary designs of the restored
Monarch; he leaned towards a favourable treatment of the Presbyterians;
but, after holding the Treasurer's staff he grew weary of business, perhaps
from disapprobation of the Court policy, no less than from disease.[103] Sir
Edward Nicholas appears to have been a mere official perfunctorily
discharging the office of Secretary; and the same may be said of Sir William
Morrice. Nicholas Culpepper, who had served as Master of the Rolls to
Charles I., and who showed himself to be a politician favourable to the
constitutional privileges of the Crown, and no more, took little interest in
ecclesiastical affairs. To these Ministers is to be added the Earl of
Manchester, a man virtuous and beloved, gentle and obliging, but not
marked by any strong individuality of character. On the side of Parliament
in the Civil Wars he had been a main pillar of Presbyterianism under the
Protectorate; yet though nominated by Oliver, one of his Lords, he had been
opposed to Oliver's government. As a Presbyterian leader he had taken a
prominent part in a meeting held at Northumberland House, with a view to
the Restoration, after which event, upon becoming Lord Chamberlain, he
"never failed being at chapel, and at all the King's devotions with all

imaginable decency."[104] He did not, however, abandon his old associates.
Next to Manchester may be mentioned the Presbyterian Lord Hollis, a man
of sincere religion, who had opposed the Independents in the Long
Parliament, and had resisted Cromwell; he bore the character of a friend,
rough but faithful, and of an enemy violent but just; and he now espoused
with fervour the cause of Charles.[105] Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper was a
different kind of person. He had been a Royalist, and also a member of the
Little Parliament; and if he could be said to be anything in reference to
religion, he might be pronounced a Deist; yet he mingled with his
scepticism the superstition of astrology.[106] For his position near the King
this versatile, inconstant, unprincipled, yet clever man, was indebted to his
friend Monk, now created Duke of Albemarle, whose character has been
already indicated in these pages.
Clarendon, Albemarle, Southampton, and
Ormond were the ruling spirits immediately after the 1660.
Restoration; and together with them ought to be
mentioned the Earl of Bristol, who, though by having recently declared
himself a Roman Catholic, he had excluded himself from the Privy Council,
yet retained a place at Court; and whilst his religious policy and general
character made him obnoxious to Clarendon, the very same things made
him agreeable to Charles.
Buckingham and Bennet will come upon the stage at a future period.
Soon after the Restoration, which placed these
men in power, there occurred the disbanding of the THE KING'S RETURN.
old Revolutionary Army, which had throughout the
Commonwealth been the main guardian of the Church as well as of the
State. That Army had apparently brought back the exiled Monarch, or rather
it had strengthened the hands of those who performed that deed; but in
consequence of its past history, and the character of many numbered
amongst the troops, it was not a prop upon which sagacious and far-sighted
Royalists could place much reliance. Indeed, signs of disaffection were
already visible. There were veterans who, whilst formally obeying the
command of Royalist officers, in their hearts retained allegiance to
Lambert, and other Republicans. Whispers about the "good old cause"
might be heard in garrisons, and other military quarters; and, it is said, that

even a revolt against Monk had begun to be planned. Charles sought to win
by flattery such of the soldiers as were of unsettled mind; and his Ministers,
at the same time, employed spies to find out and secure the sowers of
sedition, and so to pluck the tares from amidst the wheat; but the most
effectual method of preventing the apprehended mischief was to dissolve
the Army altogether. That difficult and delicate business received prompt
and careful attention. The Government employed members to represent to
Parliament, first, the uselessness of a military force 60,000 strong in time of
peace; and next, the pecuniary burden which it imposed upon the State, then
encumbered in other ways with pecuniary difficulties. Consequently
motions for a gradual reduction and payment of the Army were carried; and,
gradually the regiments, which had seen so much service, and had passed
through such a memorable history, melted away. They took home
recollections of Marston Moor and Naseby, of the Dunbar fight, and of
Worcester field; and to old age men told their children, and their children's
children, of their marchings and their defences, especially of the officers
under whom they had fought, and of Old Noll, the greatest of them all.
Dispersed over the country, settled in their former homes, or choosing new
localities, they spread afar the sentiments and traditions of past days; and
the religious amongst them—still very numerous—the Puritan, the
Presbyterian, the Independent, the Baptist, the Fifth Monarchy Millenarian,
and the Spiritual Fanatic of some inexpressible shade, would be each a
centre of influence in his respective circle, stimulating and promoting
Nonconformity. Perhaps the Commonwealth soldiers, whilst prevented by
their being disbanded from shaking the pillars of the State, were by that
very measure placed in circumstances which enabled them quietly to exert
an influence tending to undermine the foundations of the Church. Officers
and soldiers of Cromwell's are often noticed in the informations laid against
Dissenters during the next ten or fifteen years; and it is because of the
religious character of that Army, and because of the numbers belonging to
it, who afterwards appeared in the ranks of Dissent, that I have stepped
aside for a moment to allude to an event of a military character.
Returning to our proper line of history we meet
with certain ecclesiastical results in the proceedings 1660.
ECCLESIASTICAL
of Parliament. For a time the Presbyterian element PROCEEDINGS IN
manifested itself in opposing Popery, and in PARLIAMENT.
supporting the existing Church establishment; but

signs of change became apparent in the summer months, and Episcopalians
began to recover their long lost sway over the councils of the nation. The
following consequences ensued:—
I. The Commons debated the question of the Church's settlement,
expressing opinions and using arguments similar to those which had been
heard at the opening of the Long Parliament. Some members extolled the
Thirty-nine Articles, and dwelt upon the merits of Episcopalian
Government; some were opposed to Deans and Chapters, yet dealt tenderly
with Bishops; some were for Prelacy as of old; some advocated moderate
Episcopacy; and some indicated a lingering love for the Solemn League and
Covenant; others thought mere politicians were unfitted to handle
theological topics—that, as was oddly said, the judges had sent for a
falconer to give opinion in a case touching a hawk—so, on the principle
quilibet in arte sua, a synod of the Clergy ought to be called, lest
honourable members "should be like little boys, who, learning to swim, go
out of their reach, and are drowned." Twice it was decided that the King
should "convene a select number of Divines to treat concerning that affair."
[107]

Much was thus deferred for the present; nevertheless, an Act speedily
passed, allowing present incumbents with undisputed titles to retain their
livings, yet restoring to his preferment every clergyman who had been
ejected under the Commonwealth, if he claimed re-induction, provided he
had not been implicated in the death of Charles I., and had not
discountenanced infant baptism.[108]
In consequence of this, many clergymen,
including Presbyterians and Congregationalists, were 1660.
immediately displaced, and dispersed Episcopalians
came back to their former abodes.[109] It is easier to imagine than to
describe the excitement attending this change. Not only did sorrow fill the
dismissed and joy inspire the reinstated, but congregations, in many cases,
deplored the contrast between the former and the present occupant of the
pulpit; whilst, also, many a squire and yeoman hailed the reappearance of
the Prayer Book, and welcomed home some genial incumbent after his long
and weary exile. Unseemly contests were renewed in the House of God,
such as had been witnessed at the outbreak of the Civil Wars. As a

Presbyterian at Halifax began worship in his usual manner, the Episcopalian
Vicar made his appearance at the Church door, with the Prayer Book under
his arm, and marching up the aisle, clothed in his surplice, insisted upon
entering the desk, after which he read the Litany and sung the Te Deum.
Joyous peals of bells accompanied the return of the old clergy, and texts
were selected expressive of natural feelings on the occasion. One
discoursed upon the sufferings of himself and his brethren from the words,
"The ploughers ploughed upon my back; they made long their furrows. The
Lord is righteous; he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked." Another, in
a milder spirit, selected this verse, "He that goeth forth and weepeth bearing
precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his
sheaves with him." An itinerating lecturer, with an income of £50 a year,
chose as a Restoration motto, "Let him take all;" which, upon his losing his
appointment, gave "occasion for a shrewd taunt of the adversary."[110]
Parish registers contain curious memorials of the period. Thus one
clergyman records his own story:—"Memorandum, That John Whitford,
Rector of Ashen, alias Ashton, in the County of Northampton, was
plundered and sequestered by a Committee of rebels, sitting at
Northampton, for his loyalty to his gracious sovereign, of blessed memory,
Charles I., in the year of our Lord 1645, and was restored to his said
Rectory in the twelfth year of the reign of Charles II., in the year 1660."[111]
The Liturgy was reintroduced. It had been used in
the service at Canterbury Cathedral upon the ECCLESIASTICAL
PROCEEDINGS IN
occasion of the King's visit to that city, on his way to PARLIAMENT.
London; and earlier still in the House of Lords, two
days after he had been proclaimed. It appeared in the Royal Chapel
immediately after his taking possession of Whitehall; and Evelyn, on the
8th of July, records, that the Prayer Book was publicly read in "churches,
whence it had been for so many years banished." In a number of parishes,
however, between the Restoration and Bartholomew's day, 1662, ministers
continued to carry on worship as they had done before; either following the
Directory or engaging in prayer as they pleased.
II. Parliament took up in detail a variety of
business connected with the restoring of Cathedral 1660.
and parochial edifices, the recovering of what had
been taken away, the reinstating of things in their former condition, and the

removing of alterations made by Nonconformists. For example: upon a
report from the Lords, appointed to compose differences in the City of
Exeter, it was ordered that certain churches, of which a list is given, should
be repaired at the charge of the respective parishioners, and that all the
bells, plate, utensils, and materials, formerly belonging to those buildings,
should be delivered to the Churchwardens:—that money still unpaid for
their purchase should not be paid; and that bonds for payment should be
given up; and that the Chamber of Exeter should forthwith, at their own
charge, take away the partition wall built in the Cathedral, and the new-built
seats in the Choir, all the materials whereof were to be employed towards
"the making up again the churches which were defaced."[112]
III. Petitions came from the Universities, and the
Upper House ordered the Chancellors to take care ECCLESIASTICAL
PROCEEDINGS IN
that the Colleges should be governed according to PARLIAMENT.
their statutes, and that persons unjustly ejected
should be restored to office.[113] Commissioners also were Royally
appointed to hear and determine all questions of claim, and they were
engaged through the months of August and September in restoring such as
were eligible to their former position as Fellows and Heads of Houses.
University honours were offered largely to such as professed attachment to
Episcopacy, and a numerous creation in all faculties ensued.[114] Oxford and
Cambridge immediately witnessed great changes. Restored Episcopalians
occupied the places of the ejected, and the ancient forms of worship were at
once resumed. The use of the surplice in Parish Churches, by the Royal
Declaration of the 25th of October, fully noticed hereafter, was left at the
option of incumbents; but it was enjoined upon those who officiated in the
Royal Chapel, in Cathedrals, in Collegiate Churches, or in Colleges of the
Universities.[115] Yet, we learn from a letter written by Thomas Smith, at
Christ's College, Cambridge, November 2nd, 1660, that the Puritanical
party were still powerful there. "In your College," says the writer,
addressing Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, "half the Society
are for the Liturgy and half against it; so it is read one week and the
Directory used another; but till the Directory be laid aside, I believe no
surplices will be worn."[116]
During the progress of these measures, signs appeared in the House of
Commons of changes in the relative position of parties which could not but

entail important consequences.
Upon the 30th of June a complaint reached
Parliament—that a paper had been printed, in His 1660.
Majesty's name, authorizing the uniform use of the
Book of Common Prayer throughout the Realm: that a Form of Service for
the 28th of June, had been published as by Royal authority: and that there
had also appeared in print "a protestation of the Bishops against
proceedings of Parliament in their absence."[117] This subject the Commons
referred to a Committee, to ascertain how such papers came to be printed,
and by what authority. In this proceeding may be traced the impress of
Presbyterian influence, attempting to preserve Presbyterian rights, and to
resist the return of Episcopal authority. Presently, a Bill was produced "for
the maintenance of the true Reformed Protestant religion, and for the
suppression of Popery, superstition, profaneness, and other disorders and
innovations in worship and ceremonies."[118] But it soon appeared that the
Episcopalian party had gained ground on the Presbyterians.
Sharp, the Scotch agent, in a letter dated July the 7th, remarked: "Some
yesterday spoke in the House for Episcopacy, and Mr. Bampfield, speaking
against it, was hissed down. The English lawyers have given in papers to
show that the Bishops have not been outed by law. The cloud is more dark
than was apprehended. The Presbyterians are like to be ground betwixt two
millstones. The Papists and fanatics are busy."[119]
The fact is, that in the first instance, many
Episcopalians had been elected members of the ECCLESIASTICAL
PROCEEDINGS IN
Convention, and that their numbers increased after PARLIAMENT.
the King's return as fresh elections occurred. They
formed a compact body, and made a vigorous opposition to the Puritans; an
opposition which, gradually increasing both in power and boldness, was
found by the latter too formidable to be overcome. Consequently, the
irresolute and the selfish amongst them, feeling alarmed, and seeing which
way the wind blew, began to sail on a new tack, and to follow those who
were making towards a safe harbour. Many members became, in a few
months, as staunch in the maintenance of the Episcopal Church as they had
ever been in the cause of the Presbyterian Covenant.

When the ecclesiastical business of the Session had been transacted, the
King, in the month of September, after giving his assent to various Bills,
made a speech to the two Houses, followed by another of great length from
the lips of Clarendon, the Lord Chancellor, who on that, as well as on other
occasions, showed a talent for sermonizing which would not have disgraced
a Bishop.
A large proportion of what had been Church property existed in a very
unsatisfactory state. It had been disposed of by the Long Parliament or the
Commonwealth Government in the form of rewards for service and of sales
for money. Was it now to revert at once to its previous uses? If so, should
not some compensation be made to the present possessors or occupiers?
Ecclesiastical claimants argued, that such
property had been illegally secularized, and that 1660.
those who had received it had taken it with all the
risks of a bad title. In justice to the Convention it should be remarked, that it
passed a resolution favourable to the rights of those who had purchased
Church lands on the faith of the Parliament;[120] and, in justice to Charles
II., that he issued a Commission in November, 1660, to inquire into the
history of such transactions. This Commission was authorized to compose
differences between the Bishops and the purchasers of estates, the direction
being, that Archbishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons were to
accept such reasonable conditions as should be tendered to them by the
Commissioners on behalf of such purchasers; and that they would do no act
to the prejudice of any purchasers, by granting new or concurrent leases
whereby their existing interest or position might be injured, while the same
was under deliberation, and until His Majesty's pleasure should be further
known.[121] In accordance with the spirit of this Commission the King dealt
leniently with those who had become possessed of Crown property; and this
circumstance, which was creditable to him, caused the course adopted by
the authorities of the Church to appear the more reprehensible. The
Resolution passed by the Convention came to nothing, upon the dissolution
of that Assembly; and the holders of Church lands, unprotected by
Parliament, and left to the mercy of clerical claimants, experienced severe
treatment.[122] Old incumbents, writhing under the remembrance of wrong,
and seeking compensation for their losses, refused compensation to their
enemies, and made the best bargain they could for themselves.

It is convenient in this connection to allude to a
change in certain privileges which indirectly ECCLESIASTICAL
affected, to some extent, the revenues of the Church. PROCEEDINGS
PARLIAMENT.
IN

Amongst feudal rights were those of tenures by
Knight's-service, including the benefits of marriages, reliefs, and wardships.
Though the profits derived from the Court of Wards were casual, they
amounted sometimes to a considerable sum, but these and other contingent
revenues were, by a Parliamentary arrangement, withdrawn from the
Sovereign, and in lieu of the income thus forfeited, one moiety of the excise
became settled on the Crown. The Act affected the revenues of the Church,
and of this circumstance a remarkable illustration is afforded by a paper in
the Record Office, in which the Bishop of Durham complains of a loss of
£2,000 through the abolition of these courts.[123]
In connection with this reference to Episcopal
revenues, it may be stated that at the Restoration 1660.
nine Bishops of the old ecclesiastical régime were
still alive. These were—Juxon, Bishop of London; Wren, of Ely; Piers, of
Bath and Wells; Skinner, of Oxford; Roberts, of Bangor; Warner, of
Rochester; King, of Chichester; Duppa, of Salisbury; and Frewen, of
Lichfield and Coventry. They considered themselves, and, by their own
Church they were regarded, as having a title to resume the episcopates from
which they had been ejected. But whilst things remained in a transition state
they seem to have acted with caution. Without a repeal of the Act of Charles
I., which disqualified them for sitting in the House of Lords, they could not
resume their seats. Nor until the purchasers of their episcopal estates were
dispossessed, could they recover their property; nor, for a while, could they
obtain possession of their palaces, or enter upon the possession of their
sees. Those who were boldest in maintaining the theory, that the Episcopal
Church at the Restoration resumed its rights and prerogatives, could not at
once reduce that theory to practice.
It may be added that new Bishops were appointed to vacant sees; some
account of their consecration, their history, and character, will be given
hereafter.
Throughout the latter half of the year 1660 and
onwards, applications by Episcopalian clergymen to PREFERMENTS.
be restored to their benefices, or to be favoured with

higher preferment, were as numerous as they were urgent. They occur
amongst the State Papers of that period, in all sorts of connections; and one
volume of them alone—assigned in the Calendar to the month of August,
1660—contains no less than 143 documents of this description. One
clergyman beseeches the King to recommend him to the Dean and Chapter
of York, as Vicar-General of the diocese during a vacancy, the petitioner
having suffered by resisting both the Covenant and the Engagement. A
second begs the Deanery of Lichfield, he having lost a valuable living given
him at Oxford by the late King as a reward for his loyalty. A third applies
for the Archdeaconry of Hereford. A fourth prefers his claim to the
Archdeaconry of Chester, on the ground of having been deprived and
plundered for constancy in maintaining the doctrine and discipline of the
Church.
There are many petitions for prebends, one from a clergyman who
appears to have been a wit, for he begs the reversion of the next stall in
Worcester Cathedral; only excepting that connected with the Margaret
Professorship of Divinity—saying, that "though not likely to receive benefit
thereby on account of his age, yet having long waited, as the cripple at the
pool of Bethesda, it will comfort him to think that he dies cousin-german to
some preferment." Another pleads, with some humour, that having
sacrificed liberty to duty, he must now forfeit it in another way, even for
debt, unless aided by His Majesty's generosity.[124] To most of these forms
of application there are annexed certificates from various persons,
particularly Dr. Sheldon, who seems to have taken a great deal of trouble to
promote the interests of his clerical brethren. The hopes and fears which at
other times agitate two or three candidates are, at a general election,
multiplied by hundreds all over the kingdom; so at the Restoration,—what
commonly is a flutter amongst a few aspirants after ecclesiastical
promotion, was then the experience of multitudes at the same moment; and
perhaps there never were before or since, within the same compass of time,
so many clergymen on the tip-toe of expectation, doomed of course, in
many cases, to utter disappointment.

CHAPTER V.

S oon after the King's return the Earl of Manchester
employed his influence, as Lord Chamberlain, in MEETINGS OF
the appointment of ten or twelve Presbyterian PRESBYTERIANS.
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.
When they met, Baxter, with characteristic ardour
and pathos, delivered a long address, probably such 1660.
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.
Baxter and his associates were requested to draw
up proposals for consideration at a future PRESBYTERIAN
PROPOSALS.
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.
It may be stated here, that all these proposals took
the form of a direct address to His Majesty; and in 1660.
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]
When Baxter and his friends attended the next
meeting with the King, expecting to find the THE PRELATES'
ANSWER.
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."
The Presbyterians were not slow in offering a
defence of their own proposals, and a remonstrance 1660.
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.
It looked at first as if the Presbyterians had really
made some impression on their opponents; at least THE CONTROVERSY.
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.

An opportunity had arisen in the history of the
Church of England for healing a wound which had 1660.
been bleeding ever since the Reformation. A moment THE CONTROVERSY.
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.
The Episcopalians also, looking at the matter on
the other side, had something to say. They prized the 1660.
THE CONTROVERSY.
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]
Such were the religious, theological, and
ecclesiastical differences between the two parties, to 1660.
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.

It is necessary also to bear in mind this
circumstance, that both parties were advocates for a THE CONTROVERSY.
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.
There was a house in the Strand known as
Worcester House. It had belonged to the Bishops of 1660.
Carlisle; it had been bestowed on the Bedford WORCESTERDECLARATION.
HOUSE

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]
No doubt Charles looked as grave and as gracious
as possible whilst he talked at Worcester House with 1660.
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.
Baxter went home dejected; two or three days
afterwards, however, as he was walking in the City, WORCESTER HOUSE
amidst the din of carts and coaches, and the DECLARATION.1660.
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.
Reynolds, at the same time, was offered the
Bishopric of Norwich, and accepted it. For this he WORCESTER HOUSE
DECLARATION.
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]
The ecclesiastical weather had suddenly changed.
The clouds were breaking. The sun began to shine. 1660.
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.
Nothing could exceed the gratitude expressed by
the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the name WORCESTER HOUSE
DECLARATION.
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]
The Declaration, it must be acknowledged, was
so obviously a temporary expedient, and of so 1660.
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.
The course pursued by the Commons may be
explained. Out of doors a strong feeling was making WORCESTER HOUSE
DECLARATION.
itself heard in favour of such Episcopalianism as 1660.
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.
Charles, there can be no doubt, simply wished to
keep the Presbyterians quiet as long as possible, to WORCESTER HOUSE
DECLARATION.
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.

CHAPTER VI.

T he treatment of the men who had been foremost
in what the Royalists called the Great Rebellion, THE REGICIDES.
affords a further and a critical instance of the temper
of Parliament. At first, and for some little time afterwards, the majority
supported a large measure of oblivion. Not more than seven persons were
excepted from the Act of Indemnity. But the number speedily increased to
twenty-nine.[159] Afterwards it was proposed that all who sat on the trial of
Charles I., and had not surrendered according to a late Proclamation, were
to be excluded from the Act of Oblivion,—a point carried without any
division. The Lords made the Bill more stringent. They determined to
exclude all who had signed the death-warrant, or were sitting in the court
when sentence was pronounced, whether they had submitted since the
Restoration or not; to these the Lords added the names of Hacker, Vane,
Lambert, Haselrig, and Axtell. Yet they struck out a clause, reserving
Lenthall and others for future punishment. The Commons had been slow
with the Act of Indemnity, notwithstanding the salvation of many of their
old friends was involved in it. The Lords were slower still, and both had to
be spurred on by Royal messages. When the Bill, in its increased severity,
came down from the Lords, the Commons resisted the sweeping
amendment which excluded all the members of the High Court of Justice
from the general amnesty. They pleaded that such an exclusion would
violate the promise from Breda, and the terms of the recent Proclamation.
Repeated conferences took place between the Houses, and it is visible that
the spirit of resistance to the vindictiveness of the Lords gradually gave
way, and that the violent Royalists were gaining ground amongst them. The
Commons entered into a compromise. Most of the judges were excepted;
others were reserved for lesser penalties. About twenty persons, besides
those who had pronounced sentence in the High Court of Justice, were
incapacitated for any civil or military office.[160]
The regicides being excluded from the Act of Oblivion, some of them
were tried at the Old Bailey, in the month of October, 1660. Amongst those
who then stood at the bar were four persons who have appeared, more or

less conspicuously, in connection with the Ecclesiastical History of the
Civil Wars and the Commonwealth.
Major-General Harrison, the famous Republican,
who, in the Little Parliament had opposed the tithe 1660.
system, who had plunged deeply into the study of
prophecy, had been for some time expecting the reign of the saints, and had
been involved in the revolutionary schemes of the Fifth Monarchy men,
was arraigned for having sat upon the trial of his "late Sovereign Lord King
Charles I., of ever blessed memory," and for having signed and sealed the
warrant for his execution.[161] He was found guilty, and condemned to die.
With his political fanaticism there blended other feelings; and the propriety
of his demeanour in prison was such, that the woman, who cleaned his cell,
and kindled his fire, declared she could not conceive how he deserved to be
there, for he was a man "full of God—there was nothing but God in his
mouth—and his discourse and frame of heart would melt the hardest of
their hearts."[162] He died expressing transports of religious joy.
Hugh Peters, the military Divine, who had beat
up for recruits at country market crosses, and carried THE REGICIDES.
messages of victory from the Army to the Commons,
was now condemned for stirring up the soldiery to demand the Monarch's
execution, and for giving publicity to the Proclamation for the High Court
of Justice. As he was going to execution, he replied to a person—who
abused him as a regicide—"Friend, you do not well to trample upon a dying
man, you are greatly mistaken. I had nothing to do with the death of the
King."
Peters, although coarse, vulgar, and violent, has been painted in darker
colours than he deserves. It is certain that he approved of the execution of
the King; but whether his complicity in the deed was legally proved is
another question. That he was one of the masked headsman on the 30th of
January, 1649, is an idle tale; and of the charges against his moral character
no adequate proof has ever been adduced. Without any respect for his
memory I wish to do him justice. He has been commonly represented by
Royalists as an unprincipled and cruel villain, steeped in vice, and laden
with crime. The facts of his history do not support that indictment; they

rather show him to have been a sincere, misguided, and unhappy enthusiast.
[163]

Isaac Pennington—who presented to the Long Parliament in 1640 the
famous "Root and Branch" Petition of the London citizens—was at this
time also charged with compassing the Monarch's death. The Lord Chief
Baron alluded to him in merciful terms, and although found guilty, his life
was spared through the intercession of influential friends. He died a
prisoner in the Tower, December the 17th, 1661. His son Isaac had
embraced Quakerism; and a daughter of his wife, by a former husband,
became the wife of William Penn.
By the side of Isaac Pennington stood another
prisoner with whom we are already acquainted— 1660.
Henry Marten.[164] Of his Revolutionary opinions,
and of his active part in the Whitehall tragedy, there could be no question—
perhaps he had as much to do with it as any one; yet after he had been
convicted, he threw himself upon the mercy of Parliament. In the petition
which he presented he observed, with the careless wit which no misfortune
could subdue, that he had surrendered himself upon the Restoration in
consequence of the King's "Declaration of Breda," and that "since he had
never obeyed any Royal proclamation before this, he hoped that he should
not be hanged for taking the King's word now?"[165] The Commons do not
appear to have attempted anything in his favour; but his cause received
warm advocacy when it came before the Lords. With a dash of invincible
humour, the Republican pleaded, that since the honourable House of
Commons, which he before so idolized, had given him up to death, the
honourable House of Peers, which he had so much opposed, especially in
their power of judicature, was now left as a sanctuary to which he fled for
life. He had submitted himself to His Majesty's gracious Proclamation, he
took hold of it, and hoped to receive pardon through it. He now submitted
himself to His Majesty and to the House for mercy.[166] Marten obtained
what was denied to men more worthy; but although his life was spared, he
spent twenty years in prison, and expired in Chepstow Castle, at the age of
78.[167]
The growth of vindictive loyalty was rapid; it rose to an alarming height,
and assumed a frantic mien, when, after re-assembling in November, the

Commons resolved, that the carcases of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton,
John Bradshaw, and Thomas Pride, whether buried in Westminster Abbey or
elsewhere, should with all expedition be taken up, drawn upon a hurdle to
Tyburn, there hanged up in their coffins for a time, and afterwards buried
under the gallows.[168]
Leaving this horrid subject, we notice that at the
close of the year a consecration of new Bishops took NEW BISHOPS.
place. Of the nine prelates remaining alive at the
time, Juxon, who had been Bishop of London, was translated to Canterbury;
Frewen, who had been nominated by Charles I. to the see of Lichfield and
Coventry, was promoted to the Archbishopric of York; and Duppa, who had
held the see of Salisbury, was transferred to the diocese of Winchester. To
the Bishopric of London, vacated by the translation of Juxon, Sheldon
succeeded—a reward considered due for unceasing vigilance over
Episcopalian interests during the Commonwealth. Morley, who had
attended Charles at the Hague, was appointed Bishop of Worcester; and
Henchman, who had aided His Majesty's escape after the battle near that
city, became Bishop of Salisbury.[169]
Seven new prelates together were consecrated at Westminster on Sunday,
the 2nd of December:—Cosin, the patristic scholar, who had been chaplain
in the household of Queen Henrietta,—as Bishop of Durham; and Walton,
the editor of the Polyglott,—as Bishop of Chester. Gauden also was one of
the number. Though he had remained in Cromwell's Broad Church, it is said
that upon all occasions he had taken worthy pains in the pulpit and by the
press to rescue His Majesty and the Church of England, from all mistaken
and heterodox opinions of several and different factions, as well as from the
sacrilegious hands of false brethren whose scandalous conversation was
consummate, in devouring Churchlands, and in impudently making
sacrilege lawful.
He received for these services the Bishopric of
Exeter;[170] and at the same time there was 1660.
consecrated with him—as Bishop of Carlisle—Richard Sterne, who had
suffered much from the Presbyterians, and had attended on the scaffold his
friend, Archbishop Laud. Laney designated to Peterborough, Lloyd to
Llandaff, and Lucy to St. David's, complete the seven.

Sancroft, then domestic chaplain to Bishop Cosin, preached the sermon,
in which he defended diocesan Episcopacy from the words of St. Paul to
Titus: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the
things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee." He who appointed him, said the preacher, was "not a suffragan of St.
Peter," "not a disciple of Gamaliel," "not a delegate of the civil magistrate,"
but "an apostle of Jesus Christ." And he who was appointed was "a single
person; not a consistory of Presbyters, or a bench of elders," and his office
was to supply defects—to correct what might be amiss—and to exercise the
power of ordination; "our most reverend Titus" being "a genuine son and
successor of the apostles." The theological reader will infer at once what
were the arguments under each head, and he may judge of the style and
spirit of the discourse from the following passage—"And blessed be this
day (let God regard it from above, and a more than common light shine
upon it!) in which we see the Phœnix arising from her funeral pile, and
taking wing again; our Holy Mother, the Church, standing up from the dust
and ruins in which she sate so long, taking beauty again for ashes, and the
garments of praise for the spirit of heaviness, remounting the Episcopal
throne, bearing the keys of the kingdom of heaven with her, and armed (we
hope) with the rod of discipline; her hands spread abroad, to bless and to
ordain, to confirm the weak, and to reconcile the penitent; her breasts
flowing with the sincere milk of the word, and girt with a golden girdle
under the paps, tying up all by a meet limitation and restriction to primitive
patterns, and prescripts apostolical. A sight so venerable and august, that
methinks, it should at once strike love and fear into every beholder, and an
awful veneration. I may confidently say it. It was never well with us, since
we strayed from the due reverence we owed to Heaven and her; and it is
strange we should no sooner observe it, but run a maddening after other
lovers that ruined us, till God hedged in our way with thorns, that we could
no longer find them, and then we said, I will go and return to my former
husband, for then was it better with me than now."[171]
Eight Bishops of the Irish Church were still
living. Bramhall was translated to the primacy as NEW BISHOPS.
Archbishop of Armagh. Nominations to vacant Sees
followed; including that of Jeremy Taylor to the diocese of Down and
Conner, upon Henry Lesley being translated to Meath; but his consecration
was delayed until the 27th of January, 1661, when ten new Bishops, and

two old ones promoted to the Archiepiscopate, were solemnly set apart in
Saint Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. The consecration of so many at one time
has been pronounced, "an event probably without a parallel in the Church."
[172]

We have crossed, almost unconsciously, from
England to Ireland. Between lies the Isle of Man; 1660.
and this reminds us of what was going on there, a
short time before the remarkable consecration at Dublin. In the autumn of
1660, Commissioners were engaged in reducing to order ecclesiastical
affairs. They summoned the clergy before them to exhibit their letters of
orders and of presentation; they enforced the use of the Prayer Book, and of
catechizing, the keeping also of feasts and fast days, including the 30th of
January, the day of King Charles' martyrdom, and the 15th of October, the
day of Earl James' martyrdom. The observance of Lent was afterwards
enjoined, with the customary penalties and with provision for dispensations.
Parish discipline was established according to canon law; and, without any
ejectment or any opposition, the portion of the Church existing in that
island submitted at once to Episcopalian rule.[173]
Returning to England, we remark that since
certain old laws were deemed by Churchmen as still PERSECUTION.
in force, notwithstanding the legislature of the last
twenty years, they constituted an arsenal of weapons, with which
magistrates and others could, if they were disposed, grievously disturb their
Puritan neighbours. The Canon law prohibited dissent from the Church
under pain of excommunication. The same penalty was threatened against
all who affirmed that ministers not subscribing to the form of worship in the
Communion Book, might "truly take unto them the name of another Church
not established by law," or that religious assemblies other than such as by
the law of the land were allowed, might rightly challenge the name of true
Churches, or that it was lawful for any sort of ministers or lay persons, to
join together to make ecclesiastical rules or constitutions without the King's
authority. No minister, without license of the Bishop, could presume to hold
meetings for sermons. As all conventicles were hurtful to the state of the
Church, no ministers or other persons were to assemble in any private house
or elsewhere for ecclesiastical purposes, under pain of excommunication.
[174]
As to Statute law, the 1 Eliz. c. 2, required all persons to resort to

Church every Sunday and every day ordained a holiday. The penalty of
disobedience was a shilling fine, with Church censure for every offence.
The 23 Eliz. c. 1, made the fine twenty pounds a month, and the offender
who persevered for twelve months had to be bound to good behaviour with
two sureties in two hundred pounds, until he conformed. To keep a
schoolmaster who did not attend Church, incurred a monthly fine of ten
pounds. The 29 Eliz. c. 6, empowered the Queen, by process out of the
Exchequer, to seize the goods and two parts of the real property of
offenders, upon default of paying their fines. The 35 Eliz. c. 1, made the
frequenting of conventicles punishable by imprisonment. Those who after
conviction would not submit were to abjure the realm. Refusal to abjure
was felony, without benefit of clergy.[175]
These laws, however, do not suggest a full idea of
all the inconvenience and suffering to which 1660.
Nonconformists, before the Civil War, had been
exposed. That we may understand fully the circumstances in which they
were placed, we must add the activity of spiritual courts, the jurisdiction of
the High Commission, and the indefinite powers of the Crown. Nor do
these laws, statute and canon, exhibit all the forces of oppression which
continued to exist after the Restoration, and before the passing of the Act of
Uniformity—forces which could be brought into play at any moment, and
in any situation. Spiritual courts, it is true, had not yet been re-established;
the High Commission no longer existed. The power of the Crown had
received a check; but in addition to laws prohibitory of religious gatherings
outside the Establishment, there stood the law of Royal Supremacy, which
could not be taken by Papists, and was objected to by some Protestant
Dissenters. The statute, which had sent More and Fisher to the block,
brought sorrow upon a large number of unknown persons, who, on a
different principle from that adopted by those sufferers, objected strongly to
Royal Supremacy over causes ecclesiastical as well as civil. Their
resistance and their trouble, together with the perplexity of magistrates
respecting them, are illustrated in the following extract of a letter written
from Bristol, in the autumn of 1660:—"Be pleased to take notice that no
Quaker, or rarely any Anabaptist, will take these oaths; so that the said oaths
are refused by many hundreds of their judgment, being persons of very
dangerous principles, and great enemies in this city to His Majesty's royal
person, government, and restoration—and some of them [are] petitioners to

bring his martyred Majesty, of blessed memory, to his trial,—and will
undoubtedly fly out again and kick up the heel against his sovereign
authority, should it be in their power, therefore [they] are not worthy His
Majesty's protection, refusing to swear loyalty to him. Besides, their said
refusal, if suspended or connived at, will cause a general discontent and
repining in, by those His Majesty's loyal subjects who have already taken,
or are to take the said oaths; for 'tis already the language of many of them,
and these not a few, 'Why should any oaths be imposed on or required of
us? and the Quakers, Anabaptists, and others, His Majesty's enemies, be
gratified with a suspension thereof.' And 'tis the answer of others, 'If the
Quakers, Anabaptists, and others of dangerous practices and principles do,
or are enforced to, take the said oaths, then will we. In the interim, we want
the same liberty which is to them afforded.'" The writer next asks
instructions to guide him in his perplexity. "Sir," he continues, "these, I had
almost said, monsters of men with us are, yea more numerous than in all the
West of England; and here they all centre and have their meetings, at all
seasons till 9 of the clock at night, and later;—sometimes about 1,000 or
1,200 at a time,—to the great affrightening of this city as to what will be
consequent thereof if not restrained, or should a suspension of the said oaths
be to them given."[176]
Many persons had to suffer severely. In Wales the
fire was first kindled, and burnt most fiercely. Before PERSECUTION.
1660.
the King landed at Dover the Episcopalians in the
Principality busied themselves in persecuting Quakers. Several
Nonconformists were imprisoned at Caermarthen, and the gaol at
Montgomery was so filled with them that the gaoler had to pack them into
garrets. Pitiful stories, with some exaggerations perhaps, are told of
sufferers in the May and June of 1660, who were dragged out of their beds
to prison, or like stray cattle driven into parish pounds, or led in chains to
the Quarter Sessions.[177] If violence with so wide a sweep did not rage on
our side the border, the confessors for conscience' sake in England were
nevertheless numerous enough. In that transitional state of things all sorts of
irregular proceedings took place. Even Philip Henry could not preach in
quiet, but was presented in the month of September, at the Flint assizes, for
not reading the Common Prayer. John Howe also fell into trouble for what
he had said in the pulpit; and it is not generally remembered that long

before the Uniformity, the Conventicle, and the Five Mile Acts were passed,
John Bunyan was cast into Bedford gaol.[178] In England, as well as in
Wales, many Quakers and Anabaptists suffered a loathsome imprisonment.
If, in London, Nonconformity was strong, in the provinces it was rapidly
becoming otherwise. Bishops were busy; Episcopalian Rectors were being
restored, and Loyal Corporations were getting more and more noisy in their
demonstrations of zeal for Church and Crown. Grey-headed squires, and
nobles in Cavalier plumes and doublets, with their courtly dames in rustling
silks, and with their children in bright-coloured sashes, and attended by
servants clothed in gay liveries, sat with joy before the crackling yule log
that merry Christmas; and when the boar's head and the roast beef had been
despatched, they related stories of their virtuous and devout King,[179] and
told their sons and daughters of the gay doings and merry games of their
own young days. The mistletoe hanging in the hall corresponded with the
holly suspended in the Church; and the service, which members of these
merry parties had heard that Christmas morning for the first time, as they
sat in the old family pew, sustained worthy association with the pleasant
festivities of the afternoon and evening. Puritanism had been to them a
religion of restraint, and now the return of Bishops and Prayer Books
brought freedom and joy. Of course there were sentiments of a far higher
order cherished at that season, but the existence of much of the humbler
feeling now described may be taken for granted.
Other ceremonies besides those immediately
connected with Christmas time appeared that winter. REACTION AGAINST
PURITANISM.
Newspaper letters from Exeter, dated the 29th of
December, 1660, announced the joyful welcome of Dr. Gauden, the new
Bishop of the diocese, who had been met by most of the gentry, to the
number of one hundred and twenty, and escorted by the High Sheriff, with
nearly five times as many horse; the Mayor and Aldermen in scarlet and fur,
waiting on His Lordship, amidst the ringing of bells. A week later,
Londoners saw, in the public prints, a glowing account of a public
Episcopalian christening at Dover—a most significant service in a town
where Anabaptists were numerous. So great a concourse, it is reported, had
seldom been seen, the Mayor being obliged to make way that the children
might reach the font, which had not been used for nearly twenty years, and

had now, by the care and prudence of the Churchwardens, been set up for
this solemnity.
The reaction against the Puritanism of the
Commonwealth, visible in so many ways, received a 1660.
fresh impulse from the insurrection of Venner and
his associates. This fanatical wine-cooper had been before laying plots: in
the month of April, 1657, he and his confederates, after conferring at a
Meeting House in Swan Alley, had assembled on Mile End Green, when
Cromwell sent a troop of horse, and seized him, with twenty other
ringleaders. The cause of Fifth Monarchism, during the season of confusion
consequent upon the resignation of the Protector Richard, reappeared, and
made itself heard through its irrepressibly loquacious advocates, Rogers and
Feake. The revival of their tenets, in connection with a renewal of pure
Republicanism under Sir Henry Vane and his party, was of short duration;
and there is nothing noticeable, in connection with this form of religious
sentiment, until Venner's second outbreak.
Instead of narrating that incident in words of my own, I shall simply use
a letter, written respecting it in the midst of the excitement. The
circumstances mentioned at the close, although below the dignity of history,
are too amusing to be omitted.
The writer is Sir John Finch; he directs his letter
to Lord Conway:—"My dearest and best Lord,—As VENNER'S
INSURRECTION.
for news, my last acquainted you with the Duchess 1661.
of York's coming to Court. I forgot to tell you that
the child was christened Charles, and created Duke of Cambridge, and that
His Majesty in person and the Duke of Albemarle were godfathers, and my
Lady of Ormond personated the Queen for godmother. Our great news here
is, that since His Majesty's departure to Portsmouth there have been two
great alarms. Upon Sunday night about fifty Fifth Monarchy men, at ten
o'clock, came to Mr. Johnson, a bookseller at the north gate of St. Paul's,
and there demanded the keys of the Church, which he either not having, or
refusing, they broke open the door, and, setting their sentries, examined the
passengers who they were for, and one with a lantern replying that he was
for King Charles, they answered that they were for King Jesus, and shot
him through the head, where he lay as a spectacle all the next day. This
gave the alarm to the mainguard at the Exchange, who sent four files of

musketeers to reduce them. But the Fifth Monarchy men made them run,
which so terrified the City, that the Lord Mayor in person came with his
troop to reduce them. Before he arrived they drew off, and at Aldersgate
forced the constable to open the gate, and so marched through Whitecross
Street, where they killed another constable, and so went into the woods near
Highgate, where being almost famished, on Wednesday morning, about five
of the clock, fell again into the City, and, with a mad courage, fell upon the
guard and beat them, which put the City into such confusion, that the King's
Life and all the City regiments advanced against them. These forty men
beat the Life Guard and a whole regiment for half an hour's time. They
refused all quarter; but at length, Venner, their captain, a wine-cooper, after
he had received three shots, was taken, and nine more, and twenty slain. Six
got into a house, and refusing quarter, and with their blunderbusses
defending themselves, were slain. The Duke and the Duke of Albemarle,
with 700 horse, fell into the City; but all was over before they came. This,
my Lord, is strange, that all that are alive, being maimed, not one person
will confess anything concerning their accomplices, crying that they will
not betray the servants of the Lord Jesus to the kings of the earth. Ludlow
Major is committed close to the Tower for saying he would kill the King.
These things have produced their effects: that no man shall have any arms
that are not registered; that no man shall live in the City that takes not the
Oath of Allegiance; that no person of any sect shall, out of his own house,
exercise religious duties, nor admit any into his house under penalty of
arrest, which troubles the Quakers and Anabaptists, who profess they knew
not of this last business. And, besides all this, His Majesty is resolved to
raise a new Army, and the general is not known; but I believe it will be the
Duke of Albemarle, rather than the Duke of York or Prince Rupert, in
regard he hath the office by patent, and in regard of his eminent services.
The Duke took it very unkind of my Lord Chamberlain that upon
information of Prince Rupert's attendants, his Lordship, in the Duke's
absence, searched his cellar for gunpowder, it being under the King's seat at
the Cockpit, and the Duke with his own hands so cudgelled the informer
that he hath almost maimed him; and Prince Rupert assured the Duke that
he so resented it, that he was not content to put away his servant, but
offered to fight any person that set the design on foot. However, the
business is not made up, though my Lord Chamberlain told the Duke he had
done over hastily. The Princess Henrietta is sick of the measles on

shipboard; but out of danger of wind. Dr. Frasier hath let her blood; I hope
with better success than the rest of the royal blood have had."[180]
It may be mentioned, that this insurrection had
been hatched at the same place as the former one; VENNER'S
INSURRECTION.
and the conspirators are said to have marched first to
Rogers' old quarters at St. Thomas the Apostle, to join nine of the party, and
thence to Whitecross Street. It came as the expiring flash of a fanatical
creed, which had blended itself with Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of
the latter; and, dying out rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of
Millenarianism, which, at the present day, we find largely infused into the
tenets of a considerable class of Christians.
Venner's explosion occurred on the 6th of January; but it is remarkable,
that four days before that date, an order was issued from Council,
forbidding the meetings of Anabaptists, Quakers, and other sectaries, in
large numbers, and at unusual times, and restricting their assembling to
their own parishes. Rumours of plots are alleged as reasons for the decision
thus adopted upon the 2nd of January; but that decision plainly shows, that
ere the insane enthusiasts of Coleman Street had fired a shot, whatever
liberty had been conceded at Worcester House was now to suffer great
abridgment. Venner's insurrection could not be the cause of curtailing the
liberty of the subject at that moment, though it proved a plausible argument
for the Proclamation which followed. The Proclamation appeared four days
after the riot; yet the terms of the document agree so closely with those
employed in the records of Council, as to indicate that, with the exception
of a reference to the disturbance of the peace by bloodshed and murder, and
some mention of Fifth Monarchy men, little or no alteration could have
been made in the phraseology. All meetings, except those held in parochial
churches and chapels, or in private houses by the inhabitants, were declared
seditious, and were peremptorily forbidden.[181]
Against Venner's insurrection the Independents
protested; disowning "the principles of a Fifth 1661.
Monarchy, or the personal reign of King Jesus on
earth, as dishonourable to him and prejudicial to His Church," and
abhorring "the propagating this or any other opinion by force or blood."[182]
The Baptists declared their obedience to Government, and expressed a hope

that they might enjoy what had been granted by His Majesty's Declaration,
and be protected, like other subjects, from injury and violence.[183] The
Quakers also expressed their loyalty; praying that their meetings might not
be broken up, and that their imprisoned members might be set at liberty. But
these addresses neither blunted the edge of Royal displeasure, nor removed
the public suspicion that many Nonconformists sympathized with the Fifth
Monarchists. Peaceable subjects, therefore, suffered insult and interruption.
Horns were blown at the doors of their houses, and stones were thrown at
them whilst they were at prayer; also, magistrates enforced the Oath of
Allegiance, which many Nonconformists, on different grounds, declined to
take.[184]
Amongst other methods of annoyance was that of
opening suspected letters—a practice of which BAXTER.
1661.
numerous illustrations will presently appear. "I wrote
a letter at this time," says Richard Baxter, "to my mother-in-law, containing
nothing but our usual matter. Even encouragements to her in her age and
weakness, fetched from the nearness of her rest, together with the report of
the news, and some sharp and vehement words against the rebels. By the
means of Sir John Packington, or his soldiers, the post was searched, and
my letter intercepted, opened, and revised, and by Sir John sent up to
London to the Bishop and the Lord Chancellor, so that it was a wonder, that
having read it, they were not ashamed to send it up; but joyful would they
have been, could they but have found a word in it which could possibly
have been distorted to an evil sense, that malice might have had its prey. I
went to the Lord Chancellor and complained of this usage, and that I had
not the common liberty of a subject, to converse by letters with my own
family. He disowned it, and blamed men's rashness, but excused it from the
distempers of the times; and he and the Bishops confessed they had seen the
letter, and there was nothing in it but what was good and pious. And two
days after came the Lord Windsor, Lord-Lieutenant of the County, and
Governor of Jamaica, with Sir Charles Littleton, the King's cupbearer, to
bring me my letter again to my lodgings; and the Lord Windsor told me, the
Lord Chancellor appointed him to do it. After some expression of my sense
of the abuse, I thanked him for his great civility and favour. But I saw how
far that sort of men were to be trusted."[185]

CHAPTER VII.

T he 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.
In confused ways, the Lord Mayor and some of
the Aldermen were proposed as candidates:— 1661.
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.
Some Nonconforming ministers are noticed as
interesting themselves in this election, though NEW PARLIAMENT.
"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.
The citizens, talking over the great folk-mote of
the morning, retired to their wainscoted parlours in 1661.
NEW PARLIAMENT.
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.
Of the members returned there were four men
who in the Long Parliament had appeared as leaders. 1661.
NEW PARLIAMENT.
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.
Presbyterianism or Independency in particular
could not be said to be represented in the new House 1661.
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.
Sir Edward Turner, a thorough Royalist, was
elected Speaker; and, when presented to the King, he COMMISSION FOR
CONFERENCE.
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.
The Worcester House Declaration had spoken of a
revision of the Liturgy. The King said, he found 1661.
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]
The Royal Commission bore date the 25th of
March.[199] It gave the Commissioners authority to COMMISSION
CONFERENCE.
FOR

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]
The Commissioners were summoned to meet
upon the 15th of April; but before that day arrived, 1661.
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]
Not to dwell upon this instance of carelessness
respecting dates—inasmuch as the writ for calling a CONVOCATION.
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.
When the 15th of April arrived, the
Commissioners came together—and the 1661.
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]
The ceremony of the Coronation, according to
immemorial usage, was to be an Episcopalian SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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.
Nor must it be imagined that the hopelessness of
the scheme arose entirely from the fact of political 1661.
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.
Before we notice any of the papers exchanged, or
any of the words spoken, it is proper to look at the SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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.
The Presbyterians were led by Baxter—an acute
metaphysician, a keen debater, subtle and fertile in 1661.
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.
Jacomb is described as a man of superior
education, of a staid mind, of temperate passions, SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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.
According to the terms of the Commission, they
met together to "advise" and to "consult," and the 1661.
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.
Clarendon informs us:—"The King went early in
the morning to the Tower of London, in his coach, SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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]
In the beginning of May the elections occurred
for members of Convocation. The two theories 1661.
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.
There were Presbyterians who disapproved of the
constitution of Convocation; Baxter, Bates, and SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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]
Upon the 2nd of May the election of London
members for the Lower House of Convocation took 1661.
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.
Upon the 4th of May the exceptions were
presented. The principal persons employed in SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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]
Parallels may be noticed between the exceptions
taken on this occasion, and those taken in William's 1661.

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.
On the 8th of May, four days after the
Presbyterians had put in their exceptions, CONVOCATION.
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]
There, the Dean, Residentiaries, and the rest of
the Canons, were waiting to receive the procession 1661.
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.
On the Thursday following, May the 16th, Dr.
John Pearson, Archdeacon of Surrey, presented Dr. CONVOCATION.
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]
An early act of Convocation, indeed, one on the
very day of meeting, was to deliberate respecting 1661.
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.
Upon the 31st of May, Dr. Pory introduced a
prayer for the Parliament, which was not an entirely CONVOCATION.
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]
Thus far, we have ventured to place the
contemporary proceedings of the Savoy Conference, 1661.
SAVOY
and those of Convocation, in parallel lines; there is CONFERENCE.
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]

The discussion upon baptism alone needs
particular attention. It is affirmed that the form in the 1661.
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]
The author tells us that he compared what he did
with the Assembly's Directory, the Book of Common SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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.
This famous Presbyterian polemic, at the same
time that he presented his reformed formularies, 1661.
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.
A rejoinder to the Bishops' answers, touching the
exceptions made to the Liturgy, followed, on the part SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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.
All hope of a pacifying conference being
abandoned, the Presbyterian Divines agreed to a 1661.
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]
Baxter drew up an answer, in which he
maintained the principal part of these proposals "to SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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."

The paper warfare recommenced—the disputants
on each side, "writing extempore," withdrawing into 1661.
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.
In drawing to a close our account of the
Conference, it is important to mention that the Bill SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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]
The last two meetings are particularly described:
The Doctors on the Episcopalian side, Baxter says, 1661.
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]
It is amusing to read Baxter's account of his
brother Commissioners. Some, he says, rarely SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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]
After the debates were over, the Presbyterians
waited on the Lord Chancellor, to advise with him as 1661.
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.
He afterwards drew up a paper in the form of a
petition, supplying an account of the Conference; SAVOY
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]
Much sorrow and trouble sprung out of the
Conference.[252] The Episcopalian Royalists treated 1661.
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]
The Independents took no part in the Conference
at Worcester House or in that at the Savoy. They SAVOY
CONFERENCE.
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.
Having described the Savoy Conference, and the
contemporary meetings of Convocation, there 1661.
SAVOY
remain to be noticed the proceedings of that higher CONFERENCE.
assembly, with which both the others were coeval.

CHAPTER VIII.

T he Solemn League and Covenant had been displaced a year, and the
New Parliament now resolved to brand it with fresh indignities.[256]
Accordingly it was, by the common hangman, burnt at Westminster, in
Cheapside, and before the Exchange. The executioner "did his work
perfectly well; for having kindled his fire, he tore the document into very
many pieces, and first burned the preface; and then cast each parcel
solemnly into the fire, lifting up his hands and eyes, not leaving the least
shred, but burnt it root and branch."[257]
Similar spectacles were enacted elsewhere; and at Bury St. Edmunds,
upon the anniversary of the Restoration—amidst floral decorations, and the
adornment of houses with tapestry and pictures, after service at church,
Hugh Peters was gibbeted in effigy, with the Solemn League grasped in his
hand, and the Directory tucked under his arm. In Southampton, after the
firing of culverins, and the marching of scarlet-robed Aldermen, there
followed the burning of the Covenant, "in a stately frame, taken from the
chancel of an Anabaptist Church."[258]
As a further indication of the temper of the
Commons at the moment, it may be stated, that the PROCEEDINGS OF
PARLIAMENT.
Speaker rebuked the Mayor of Northampton—
summoned to the bar of the House for irreverent carriage in the church, and
at the communion table—and that a Bill was read three times for preventing
the mischiefs and dangers, which might arise from certain persons called
Quakers, and others, "refusing to take lawful oaths."[259]
Ere the House had been sitting two months, Bills were introduced of
such a character as to prove, that, from the beginning of the Session,
measures had been framed for bringing back the Church to the standard of
former days, without making any concessions to Nonconformists. The Bills
now about to be described, did not appear one after another, as expedients
adopted for public safety in consequence of plots, real or suspected; but
they constituted parts of one coherent and comprehensive method for re-

establishing Episcopacy and crushing Dissent. They must be traced out
distinctly.
I. A Bill for restoring the prelates to the Upper House was introduced to
the Commons by "a gentleman of a Presbyterian family," and it met with
little opposition. The ancient constitution of the Upper House could be
successfully pleaded in its favour, but it involved the principle of a State
Establishment of religion; and would, if discussed by voluntaries on the one
hand, and by the advocates of a nationally-established Church on the other,
raise the whole question as to the Christian legitimacy and the social justice
of such an arrangement. It involved, also, the recognition of Prelacy as the
most expedient, if not the most scriptural form of ecclesiastical government,
and would thus present a momentous subject of controversy to
Presbyterians. But few, if any, decided voluntaries could then be found in
the House of Commons; the number of Presbyterians also was small, and
their influence manifestly on the decline.
Upon the Bill reaching the Lords, some
obstruction of a very different kind from that which, 1661.
under other circumstances, might have been
expected from the parties just named, arose from the Roman Catholic Earl
of Bristol. He obtained an interview with the King and told him "that if this
Bill should speedily pass, it would absolutely deprive the Catholics of all
those graces and indulgence which he intended to them; for that the
Bishops, when they should sit in the House, whatever their own opinions or
inclinations were, would find themselves obliged, that they might preserve
their reputation with the people, to contradict and oppose whatsoever
should look like favour or connivance towards the Catholics: and therefore,
if His Majesty continued his former gracious inclination towards the Roman
Catholics, he must put some stop (even for the Bishops' own sakes) to the
passing that Bill, till the other should be more advanced, which he supposed
might shortly be done."[260] Charles listened, and desired the Earl to inform
his friends in the House, that he "would be well pleased, that there should
not be overmuch haste in the presenting that Bill for his Royal assent." Its
progress was accordingly retarded in Committee, until the Chancellor
decided the Monarch, who—veering from point to point, as influence
brought to bear on him by his Courtiers varied, although, no doubt, he was
in his heart more disposed to follow Bristol than Clarendon—at last

consented that the Bill might be despatched. It passed at the end of the
Session; and when the Parliament was adjourned at the end of July, and the
Speaker in his robes, at the summons of the Black Rod, knelt before the
enthroned Sovereign, the measure was the subject of emphatic reference in
a speech filled with quaint conceits.[261]
II. Next, in the course of proceedings, bearing
upon religion, came the Bill for the well-governing PROCEEDINGS OF
PARLIAMENT.
of Corporations. It was early read, speedily
committed, and largely discussed; and within a month of its being
introduced, it passed the Lower House. The Lords amended it, and,
according to the complaint of the Commons, changed "the whole body of
the Bill." First read on the 19th of June, it did not receive the Royal assent
until the 20th of December.[262] The Act required that all members of
Corporations should, besides taking the Oath of Supremacy, swear that it is
not lawful, under any pretence, to bear arms against the King, and that the
Solemn League and Covenant was illegal. It also declared every one
ineligible for a municipal office, who had not, within one year, received the
Lord's Supper, according to the rites of the Church of England.
III. The House, on the 25th of June, appointed a
Committee to report, how far the coercive power of 1661.
Ecclesiastical Courts had been taken away, and to
prepare a Bill for their restoration. The Bill provided that, although the High
Commission had been abolished, Archbishops, Bishops, and other persons
exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, should have their power restored as
before, two provisions being subjoined—one forbidding the use of the ex
officio oath, and another preserving the Royal Supremacy from abridgment.
This Bill involved the further re-establishment of Episcopalianism. It does
not appear that any debate was raised on that ground. The Bill passed, as if
a matter of course; and together with the Bill, reinstating the Bishops,
received the Royal assent before the end of July.[263] Thus within a few
weeks, three measures were introduced, and two of them were carried,
tending to repress Dissent and consolidate the Episcopalian Church. The
fourth measure, which was central in point of importance, remains to be
considered. Its origin and progress must be patiently followed.

IV. Whilst many of the Episcopalian party
assumed the existence of a legal obligation to use the PROCEEDINGS OF
Common Prayer, some Nonconformists adopted this PARLIAMENT.
curious line of argument: "That the Common Prayer Book, 5th and 6th of
Edward VI., with some alterations made 1st of Elizabeth, was so established
we know, but what that book was, or where it is, we cannot tell; it is
apparent that the books ordinarily walking up and down are not so
established."[264] It would seem as if this odd kind of objection secured
some respect; for the first step towards a settlement of the question of
worship is found in a resolution, by the House of Commons, that a
Committee of all the members, who were of the Long Robe,[265] should
view the several laws for confirming the Liturgy of the Church of England,
and make search, whether the original Book of the Liturgy, annexed to the
Act passed in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of King Edward VI., was
still extant; they were also "to bring in a compendious Bill to supply any
defect in the former laws, and to provide for an effectual conformity to the
Liturgy of the Church for the time to come."
It cannot be ascertained how the new measure originated, but we may be
sure that Government would not leave it to be dealt with by any private
person. It formed part of a manifold scheme which must have had a single
origin. The practice of holding Cabinet meetings—long regarded with
jealousy by pedantic Constitutionalists—had commenced in the reign of
Charles I. That businesslike and hard-working Monarch had, from time to
time, drawn around him a few select members of his Privy Council, whom
he assembled in his Cabinet, as it was called; and it appears that sometimes
they had been obliged to register his absolute decrees, rather than by their
advice to control his headstrong career. Charles II., idle and dissolute—in
that respect the opposite of his father—held meetings of the same
description, not that he might guide the helm, but often that he might sit on
the quarter-deck, and laugh and joke with the officers, whilst they managed
the ship very much as they pleased. The proposal of a new Law of
Uniformity probably was made and discussed at one of these private
conferences; and it also seems probable, that the proposal emanated from
Lord Clarendon, who was, to all intents, Prime Minister.
In connection with the appointment of the
Committee, the House recommended that the 1661.

preparation of the Bill should be entrusted to the care of Serjeant Keeling.
He had been engaged as Junior Counsel for the Crown on the trial of the
Regicides, in 1660; and for his activity and zeal on that occasion, had
attained to the distinction of the coif. He was subsequently entrusted with
the prosecution of Hacker, Colonel of the Guard at the execution of Charles
I. After the new Bill of Uniformity had passed, he conducted the
prosecution of Sir Henry Vane, in 1662; and on each of these occasions
approved himself to the ruling party, and especially to Clarendon, as a
useful instrument. Created a puisne Judge in 1663, he subsequently rose to
a Chief Justiceship, over the head of Sir Matthew Hale; and whilst on the
bench manifested his devotedness to the Church, by fining a jury one
hundred marks each, for acquitting a few poor people, who assembled on
Sunday with Bibles without Prayer-books. He was a violent man, and had
the character of being more fit to charge Roundheads under Prince Rupert,
than to charge juries from the bench of justice.[266] When, at length, his
arbitrary proceedings and a contemptuous allusion which he made to
Magna Charta, brought him under the notice of Parliament, he escaped its
condemnation, only by an act of obsequious submission.
The Bill prepared by this lawyer came before the Commons on the 29th
of June, and was read a first time. The second reading followed on the 3rd
of July. No account is preserved of the debate. History is as silent respecting
what ensued within the walls of St. Stephen's after Keeling had expounded
his measure, as it is silent relative to any discussion of the principle and
details of the other Bills previously introduced for the re-institution of the
Episcopalian Church. The Serjeant, perhaps, would deem it unnecessary to
enter into a lengthened argument in favour of imposing some one form of
religious worship upon the nation, since the desirableness of such
uniformity was a forgone conclusion with almost all the members of the
House. But would he not defend his proposal against the objections of
Presbyterians? Would not they have something to advance during the
proceedings? The wish to know what was said on either side seems
altogether in vain.
Upon the second reading, the printed Prayer Book
of Queen Elizabeth, not that of Edward, in 1552, was 1661.
attached to the Bill, and a Committee was named to
meet in the Star Chamber. They were directed, if the original book of

Edward before specified, could not be found, to report upon the printed one
of Elizabeth. No reference to the original book of Edward appears in the
subsequent proceedings.[267] On the day when the Bill was committed,
Serjeant Keeling, with Sir John Maynard, and another member, were
ordered to prepare a measure for "calling in all seditious and schismatical
books and pamphlets;" and the names of the members who had not taken
the Lord's Supper were reported. The House with one hand thus exercised
Church discipline, whilst with the other hand it was making Church law.
Upon the 8th of July, Sir Edmond Peirce reported that several amendments
had been agreed to; and upon the 9th, the "Bill for the Uniformity of Public
Prayers and Administration of Sacraments" was read a third time and
passed; and instead of a Prayer Book, printed in the reign of Elizabeth,
another printed in the reign of King James (1604) "was, at the Clerk's table,
annexed to the said Bill; part of the two prayers inserted therein, before the
Reading Psalms, being first taken out, and the other part thereof
obliterated."[268] This copy of the Prayer Book appears to have been
attached to the Bill chiefly for the sake of form, as the Book had not yet
been examined and revised by Convocation. That important business was
not performed until the close of the year; and in the final stage of
proceedings, before the Act of Uniformity passed, this scarcely altered
volume was superseded by the revised one, which was fastened to the Bill
as passed, and which will be described in the Appendix to this History.
Thus everything connected with the proceedings showed the utmost
despatch; and upon Wednesday the 10th of July "the Bill for establishing
the Book of Common Prayer was brought up to the Lords by a very great
number of members of the House of Commons, to testify their great desire
for the settlement of the Church of England."[269]
The Bill as it left the Commons differed
materially from the Act as it ultimately passed. PROCEEDINGS OF
PARLIAMENT.
Those differences will appear in the sequel.
Although the Bill reached the Upper House on the 10th of July, it did not
come under discussion there for more than five months. This may be
accounted for. Curious as it may seem, the Bill for Uniformity had passed
the Commons before it had been decided what the Uniformity should be.
New prayers were composed by Convocation before it broke up in July; but

the revision of the Prayer Book by Convocation did not commence until the
month of November, four months after the Bill had been sent up from the
Commons. The Bill could not be completely carried before the revision was
settled; and the Convocation did not accomplish that task until the end of
the year. Another cause of delay is seen in the fact, that the Bishops were
not restored to their seats until the 20th of November; and it was important,
if not constitutionally essential, for them to take part in the decision of a
question like this.
At the time when the new Bill reached the Lords, they were engaged
upon a report concerning the penal laws against Papists. Hoping to share in
any relief which might be extended to the last-named religionists, certain
Anabaptists and "good Christians," as they called themselves, had presented
a petition upon the 5th of July, and were on the 12th permitted to plead on
their own behalf. The Lords finished the report on the penal laws against
Catholics upon the 16th of the month; and a Committee was then appointed
to prepare a Bill to repeal certain statutes concerning Jesuits, also the clause
in the Act of the 35th of Queen Elizabeth c. i., respecting Nonconformists,
together with the writ de Hæretico Comburendo. The reasons of the
alterations were to be set forth, and proper remedies were to be devised for
preserving the Protestant religion from any inconveniences incident upon
the repeal of these ancient enactments. Such proceedings, at first sight,
appear as so much progress towards religious liberty; but there is ground for
believing that the reference to the statute against Nonconformists, only
served to cover some relief designed for the Papists. Whatever the real
intention might be, the whole business soon dropped, and no further
allusion to it is found in the Journals; nor during the remainder of the year
1661 is any further mention made of the Bill of Uniformity.
In those days the transmission of intelligence to
the provinces could not be otherwise than slow, and 1661.
when it had reached its destination it often proved
inaccurate. The broad-wheeled coach, or the horse laden with saddle-bags,
could only, with measured pace, convey the London citizen to the house of
a country friend. The news which he related at the supper-table, or which he
conveyed in some quaintly-written epistle, would then be stale indeed,
according to the judgment of such as are familiar with telegrams. The
cumbrous stage-waggon, more heavily laden, would be slower still in its

movements, and by the time it reached the rural inn, the newspapers it
carried would be far advanced in age. Altogether the Mercuries were tardy
in their flight, and the Public Intelligencers were addicted to garbling
reports, and falsifying stories. What had been done in the Session would,
therefore, not be known in distant counties until some time afterwards; and
then, probably, in some instances, reports would be circulated through a
town or a village in erroneous form.
Tidings of the new Bill, in confused fashion,
struggled down to Worthenbury, seven miles from STATE OF FEELING.
Wrexham, where lived the eminently pious Philip
Henry. Just before the Bill passed its last stage in the Lower House, he
received news from London of speedy severity intended against
Nonconformists. In daily doubt of what was to happen, he, on the 7th of
July recorded, that "In despite of enemies the Lord hath granted the liberty
of one Sabbath more." Next day he received a letter from Dr. Bridgeman
(the restored Rector), informing him that if he did not speedily conform, he,
Dr. Bridgeman, could no longer protect him. Henry wrote a "dilatory
answer," to the Episcopalian clergyman, hoping that time might bring some
deliverance. The old Incumbent acted kindly, and showed no sympathy with
the ruling powers. On the 24th, news of the progress of the Bill reached the
Flintshire rectory, and shaped itself into a report, that the Bill had passed
both Houses, and now only waited His Majesty's assent. "Lord, his heart is
in Thy hand," ejaculated the devout Puritan; "if it be Thy will, turn it; if
otherwise, fit Thy people to suffer, and cut short the work in righteousness."
[270]

Means were not wanting for the annoyance of Nonconformist ministers
by those who wished to restore the surplice and the Liturgy; and on Sunday,
the 25th of August, 1661, just a year before the legal enforcement of
Uniformity, Oliver Heywood had the Prayer Book publicly presented to him
in his Church, with a demand that he would use it in the devotions of the
day. It was laid on the pulpit cushion. He quietly took it down, and placed it
on the reading-desk, and then went on with the service in the accustomed
Presbyterian fashion, being "wonderfully assisted," as he remarks, "that day,
in praying and preaching."
It is difficult, even amidst the strongest
excitement of the nineteenth century, to conceive of 1661.

the bitter feelings which existed in the middle of the seventeenth. Our abuse
is courtesy, compared with the abuse which prevailed then. Fierce diatribes
were uttered from parish pulpits by restored Incumbents against
Roundheads, Anabaptists, and Quakers. They were denounced as rebels
who had narrowly escaped the gallows. "Many of you," said Dr. Reeve, in
the Abbey Church of Waltham, "have gotten a pardon for all your
exorbitances, but death will seal no act of indemnity. Ye have escaped the
halter of many of your fellow miscreants, but death hath set up her gibbet
for you."[271] The press also was plied for reducing intractable parishes into
a state of submission. Swarms of pamphlets and broadsides were issued—
some reprints, some originals—with a view to support the Church by
argument, or by satire, or by ridicule.[272] Marvellous stories also were
manufactured about the devil having appeared to fanatics, who, late at
night, were on their way to Conventicles; and sharp, severe, and unjust
things were also said on the other side.[273]

CHAPTER IX.

P arliament, which had been adjourned in July, reassembled in November.
Charles, on the 20th of that month, attired in crimson velvet, the crown
on his head, the sceptre in his hand, sat upon the throne of his fathers,
attended by a good number of Earls and Barons, occupying their benches. It
was a proud day for the Church of England; for then, the first time after a
lapse of twenty years, the Spiritual Fathers, in their scarlet robes, as Peers
of the realm, filled their ancient seats; and His Majesty, it seems, came to
the House partly in honour of their re-instatement. "My Lords and
Gentlemen of the House of Commons," he remarked; "I know the visit I
make you this day is not necessary—is not of course—yet, if there were no
more in it, it would not be strange that I come to see what you and I have so
long desired to see, the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons of
England met together."
The greater part of the speech from the Throne
related to the crying debts which every day he heard; 1661.
but before the King ended he said: "Those [things]
which concern matters of religion, I confess to you, are too hard for me, and
therefore I do commend them to your care and deliberation which can best
provide for them."[274] He was no polemic like his grandfather; but he had
himself, in the autumn of 1660, undertaken to manage the Church question;
a year's experience, however, had taught him a little wisdom, and no
wonder that the subject which had been more than Charles V. could manage
in Germany, had proved much too hard for Charles II. in England.
The Lord Chancellor delivered a message to the House of Peers on the
19th of December, to the effect that, besides the apprehensions and fears
then generally prevalent, His Majesty had received alarming letters from
several parts of the kingdom; and also that from intercepted letters, it
appeared there were many discontented persons troubling the nation's
peace; in consequence of which he sought the assistance of Parliament.[275]
The contents of some of these letters we know. The object of informers, and
of the people who rifled the post, was to make it appear that

Nonconformists were disaffected, that Dissent was treason; and that
measures ought to be adopted for the utter extinction of the growing evil.
Yet the accusers, in many cases, were forced to acknowledge, that the
accused were quiet when let alone. The letters prove that the nation felt
dissatisfied,[276] that multitudes murmured against the Government, that
Republican officers were unsettled, and that some were watching for a good
opportunity to take up arms. A few fanatics entertained rebellious designs;
but that Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, or Quakers, either generally
or in large numbers, were covering political plots under a veil of religious
worship—the point sought to be established—is an unfounded surmise,
indeed a pure invention.
An example of the method employed to criminate
innocent persons may be adduced, and it will furnish PRETENDED PLOTS.
an illustration of some of the evidence to which
Clarendon alluded.
William Kiffin was a rich London merchant, and a famous Baptist
preacher. Whilst held in honour by his fellow-citizens for commercial
integrity, and by his fellow-religionists for fervent zeal, he was the object of
relentless persecution to the party now in the ascendant, and his steps were
tracked by informers with lynx-eyed vigilance, and wolfish ferocity. When
other methods had failed to bring him within the reach of the law, one of the
most abominable schemes which cunning and malignity ever contrived, was
adopted with a view to compass his ruin.
A letter was posted at Taunton bearing the signature of Colonel Basset of
that town, and directed to one Nathaniel Crabb, Silk-thrower, in London,
"residing at his house in Gravel Lane." The letter is preserved in the State
Paper Office. It is written in a spirit of fanaticism, expressing a desire for
the destruction of the sons and daughters of Belial, and declaring that there
were thousands of "dear saints" who were ready to "lay down their lives to
do the work of God." "We do desire you," it is said, "to be careful to get
into your hands powder and arms; as many as you can between this and
Easter, and we will do what we can to perfect the work." The name of
Kiffin is introduced, together with the names of Jesse and Griffin, as
conspirators in the design. At first sight the letter appears genuine. Nothing
is indicated to the contrary in the Calendar of State Papers. When I read it
at first, it startled me; yet this letter is a fabrication. An autobiography,

written by Kiffin, is at hand to expose the fraud. He was summoned before
the Council. The letter was read to him. He replied that he knew nothing of
the matters to which it referred; and afterwards, before the Chief Justice, by
whom he was examined, he proceeded to show, from certain anachronisms
in the document, that it must be a forgery. His Lordship expressed his
satisfaction with Kiffin's defence, assuring him that the author of the letter,
if discovered, should be punished.[277]
A Committee of Lords and Commons having
been appointed to report respecting plots, Mr. Waller, 1661.
on the re-assembling of Parliament, after the
Christmas recess, stated that not less than 160 of the old Army officers were
suspected of being implicated in treasonable schemes. Some of the
regicides, he alleged, were being entertained in France, Holland, and
Germany; arms were being bought by them to accomplish these designs;
many pretended Quakers were riding about at night to the terror of
peaceable subjects, and seditious preachers were plying their mischievous
trade.[278] This report, in some parts obviously absurd, was followed by no
confirmatory evidence, although further information was promised.
The day after the re-assembling of Parliament, in
the month of November, the Houses of Convocation CONVOCATION.
resumed their deliberations. To facilitate the
despatch of business in reference to the Prayer Book, the Convocation of
the province of York agreed to unite with the Convocation of the province
of Canterbury, by means of proxies, binding themselves to submit to the
decisions thus obtained.[279] So earnest was the Northern Archbishop, that
he wrote to the Prolocutor of his Lower House to send up proxies by the
next post, and told the Registrar of his diocese, "if we have not all from you
by the end of next week we are lost."[280] Several clergymen came from the
North to town, to act on behalf of their brethren. The two provinces thus co-
operating, the business of revising the Prayer Book rapidly proceeded.
Upon the 10th of October, the King had written to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, directing His Grace, with the other Bishops and clergy, to
discharge that duty;[281] and, probably, before Convocation met in
November, the Bishops had begun to prepare for the task, although there
were differences of opinion amongst them; for, whilst some pressed for

alterations such as might "silence scruples and satisfy claims," others were
for adopting the Prayer Book as it stood.
Before describing the alterations which were now
made, it is proper to give, at least, a slight sketch of 1661.
the history of the volume. The Middle Ages had no
Act of Uniformity. There were several rituals, called Uses, of York,
Hereford, Exeter, Lincoln, and other dioceses. These Uses, which did not
materially differ from each other, gave place after the eleventh century,
especially in the South of England, to that of Sarum; Osmund, Bishop of
Salisbury, having about the year 1085, bestowed great pains upon the
revision of the ecclesiastical offices in his Church. The Missal and Breviary
contained in Osmund's revision of the English mediæval formularies,
constitute the basis and, indeed, the substance of the Book of Common
Prayer.[282] The first reformed Liturgy for the use of the Protestant Church
in England was set forth under Edward VI., in the year 1549. A second,
which showed a further advance on the side of the Reformation, appeared in
1552. A primer, or book of private prayer, containing the catechism, with
collects and other forms of secret devotions, was published in 1553.
Elizabeth's Book of Common Prayer belongs to the year 1559; and
afterwards, at different times, came particular forms of devotion, prepared
for particular seasons and circumstances. The Prayer Book of 1559
underwent some alterations at the commencement of the reign of James I.,
after the Hampton Court Conference, but they were very slight, and were
simply called Explanations. The Book prepared in the reign of Elizabeth,
thus altered, was that which the Convocation of 1661–2 had to revise.
Perhaps I shall best succeed in giving with
brevity some idea of the origin of the Common CONVOCATION.
Prayer, and other offices of the Church of England, if
I take the Morning Service, the Communion, and the Order for performing
Baptism, as they were found in the Book used before the revision under
Charles II., and point out, in a general way, the sources from which those
forms were derived.
Morning prayer is in the main drawn from the Matins, Lauds, and Prime
of the Sarum Breviary. That which may be called the introduction—
extending from the opening sentence to the end of the Absolution—was a
new feature in the Prayer Book of 1552. The materials of it may be found in

mediæval Lent services, the old Office for the Visitation of the Sick, and
certain portions of a homily by Pope Leo. Some have supposed that some
hints for this introduction were gathered from the reformed Strasburg
Liturgy, published by Pollanus (or Pullain).[283] The idea embodied was that
of substituting public confession, awakened by the reading of Holy
Scripture, for private confession made to a priest; and, on the same
principle, the using of a public form of absolution for a secret one. The
object was to make that congregational and common which had previously
been individual or monastic.
The second portion or main substance of the
Morning Service, from the Lord's Prayer to the three 1661.
collects, is derived obviously from different sources.
The Versicles are taken from the Sarum Use, and other old offices. The
version of the Psalter is that of Cranmer's Bible, 1539. The Lessons were
substituted for the numerous, but brief Scripture sections of the Breviary,
the Apocrypha being occasionally used. The Te Deum is an old canticle of
Gallic origin;[284] the Benedicite is the Song of the Three Children, a Greek
addition to the third chapter of Daniel; the Apostles' Creed is taken from the
Anglo-Saxon office of Prime; and, as to the other creeds, we may add, that
the Nicene was sung at Mass, after the Gallican Use; the Athanasian was
sung in the Matin offices.[285]
The Litany may be regarded as a distinct service. It is a very old form of
devotion, differing somewhat in different countries. The Invocation of
Saints was removed by the Reformers; and in the compilation of its
numerous sentences, along with the Sarum ritual, the Consultation of
Hermann, the reforming Archbishop of Cologne (1543), was extensively
employed.[286] The collects and short prayers come from various sources;
many of them from the Sacramentary of Gregory, and some from that of
Gelasius; others were drawn from ancient models, but much altered; several
were new. The few Occasional Prayers in the books of 1552 and 1559 were,
like those added in the revision of 1661–2, new compositions arising out of
existing circumstances.
The Communion Service, or Liturgy proper, was
derived from the Missal, expurgated of course. The CONVOCATION.
second Prayer Book of Edward, in that respect, was

a decided improvement on the first. It omits even an implied oblation of the
consecrated elements, and simply expresses the oblation of the worshippers
—the difference of oblation being one grand difference between the Romish
and Protestant Eucharist. The second Book also omits the commemoration
of "the most blessed Virgin Mary," with the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles,
and Martyrs, contained in the first. Other alterations were made of a
decidedly Protestant character in the time of Edward. The Prayer Book of
1559 indicates certain retrograde changes. The omission of the thoroughly
Protestant declaration respecting the Lord's Supper in the Book of 1552, is
very significant. It may be added, however, that Bishops Grindal and Horn,
when writing to Bullinger and Gaulter, assured them that the declaration
"continued to be most diligently declared, published and impressed upon
the people."[287]
The Baptismal Service was founded upon formularies, priestly and
pontificial, in the Sarum offices. Certain idle ceremonies were omitted, but
the order of making catechumens, the blessing of the font, and the form of
baptizing, as constituted in the mediæval Church, were adopted by the
Reformers. There are also in the service plain traces of the influence of
Bucer and Melancthon, through Hermann's Consultation. The first prayer
was originally composed by Luther. The thanksgiving after the rite is a
much stronger expression of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, than the
ancient Gallic form of words from which it seems to be derived.[288]
These imperfect notices show how carefully the
Reformers retained what they considered most 1661.
precious in the ancient records of Christian devotion;
how reverently they looked on words which had been vehicles for ages, of
the service of song and the offering of prayer. This conservative element—
connected with a prudential policy lest offence should be given to semi-
Protestants, when it could by any means be avoided—appears to many an
admirer of the Liturgy in the present day to have been a snare, betraying the
compilers into the retention of some things which marred the beauty of their
work, and really caused it to narrow "the Communion of Saints" in the
kingdom of England. Others think far otherwise. For my own part I would
say that as the sources whence the Book was compiled are so numerous and
so ancient, belonging to Christendom in the remotest times—as there is in it
so little that is really original, so little that belongs to the Reformed

Episcopal Church in England, any more than to other Churches constrained
by conscience to separate from Rome—the bulk of what the Book contains,
including all that is most beautiful and noble, like hymns which, by
whomsoever written, are sung in Churches of every name, ought to be
regarded as the rightful inheritance of any who believe in the essential unity
of Christ's Catholic Church, and can sympathize in the devotions of a
Chrysostom, a Hilary, and an Ambrose.
Such was the Book which Convocation had now
to examine and revise, in connection with necessities CONVOCATION.
which had been felt ever since the Reformation, and
which had greatly increased during the seventeenth century.
The Upper House appointed on the 21st of November, a Committee
consisting of the Bishops of Durham, Ely, Oxford, Rochester, Sarum,
Worcester, Lincoln, and Gloucester, most of whom had been
Commissioners at the Savoy, to meet in the palace of the Bishop of Ely in
Hatton Garden, at five o'clock in the afternoon of every day, except Sunday,
until their work was finished. But when they had taken their walk as the
evening drew in, they really found little to do. Their work had been
anticipated; materials were ready to hand, The Prayer Book had been
carefully studied and revised for a long time, by eminent Anglicans. MS.
notes existed of great value, made or collected by Bishop Overall, Bishop
Andrewes, and Bishop Cosin.[289] Those by the last, as we shall see, were
largely used.
That the Bishops when they met had much of what they needed provided
for them may be concluded from the fact that, on the 23rd of November,
only the second day after the appointment of the Committee, a portion of
the corrected copy was delivered to the Prolocutor of the Lower House.[290]
Previous labours had almost superseded a discharge of the duties laid upon
the newly-appointed Committee.[291] From day to day progress was made,
until, within a month, the work was completed.
Forms of prayer which had been adopted by
Convocation in the summer, were now inserted in 1661.
the volume. So also were the General Thanksgiving,
drawn up by Dr. Reynolds, and the Prayer for all sorts and conditions of
men, composed by Dr. Gunning.[292] New collects were introduced, with

occasional prayers in the visitation of the sick.[293] About 600 alterations
were made in the body of the volume. Some of these were in accordance
with suggestions made by the Puritans at the Savoy Conference, but they
did not amount to important concessions. Others of them were adapted to
render the Prayer Book more distasteful to that party than before. The word
Priest was substituted for the word Minister in the Absolution; instead of
Bishops, Pastors, and Ministers, were introduced Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons; and the words rebellion and schism were added to the petition
against sedition; but many of the alterations are unconnected with any
theological or ecclesiastical controversy. There is a volume amongst the
Tennison MSS., Lambeth, which contains The Differences of the Old
Common Prayer Book and the New, being a copy of the edition, printed in
1663, with the variations written upon the margins and upon the paper
interleaved; at the beginning, are the words, "This is the publique Liturgy
revised and rectified. Ao 1662." The notes which had been collected or
composed by Cosin seem to have been largely used throughout the revision.
[294]

The Bishops came to an unanimous vote in
favour of a form of prayer before and after sermon; CONVOCATION.
thus cutting off all liberty to introduce extempore
devotion, and extinguishing one of the last hopes of the Puritan party: but
this design was afterwards dropped "upon prudential reasons."[295] Pell,[296]
assisted by Sancroft, revised the Calendar, and with the Calendar was
connected the arrangement of daily lessons. Should the Apocrypha be read
as before in the Church Service? The Puritans deemed it a profanation to
read uninspired and, in some respects, superstitious books, as if they formed
part of Holy Scripture. A severe battle seems to have been fought on this
vital question. One can imagine how feelings would be excited to the
highest pitch, how the question would be canvassed in different circles, how
people would watch for tidings of the debate, how the History of Susanna
and the Elders would be like a standard wrestled for in the tug of war; and
very probable is Andrew Marvell's story of a jolly doctor, coming out with a
face full of joy, shouting "We have carried it for Bel and the Dragon!"[297]
We learn that during the later Sessions of the
Convocation, Herbert Thorndike "constantly 1661.
attended and had a hand more than ordinary in the

business"—a piece of information which rests upon the authority of
Sancroft. Both Sancroft and his friend were in favour of such alterations as
have been sometimes called Laudian, and they were anxious (especially the
latter of these Divines) to proceed further in that direction. Thorndike, there
is reason to believe, regarded as imperfections the omission of all
intercession for departed souls, and of the prayer for the descent of the Holy
Spirit upon the elements used at the communion.[298] Perhaps some others
sympathized with these eminent persons in this respect, but they found their
tendencies checked by the decided Protestantism of the larger portion of the
clergy, and by a regard to expediency in some who had no decided
convictions on the subject.
Upon the 19th of December—a day on which complaints were made to
the House of Lords to the effect that many disaffected persons, both on
political and ecclesiastical grounds, existed in the realm—the Upper House
committed the preparing of a form of subscription to Cosin and Henchman,
Bishops of Durham and Salisbury, who, in the discharge of this duty, were
to receive assistance from Drs. Chaworth and Burrett. This small
Committee met the same afternoon, when they came to an agreement
respecting the mode of expressing approval of the revised formularies of the
Church of England.[299]
Convocation has been charged with indecent
haste in the management of this whole business. I do CONVOCATION.
not wonder at such a charge, since a similar
accusation had been brought against the Presbyterians at the Savoy,
especially in reference to Baxter's Prayer Book: and so far as the adoption
of alterations, proposed to the Houses by individuals or committees, is
concerned, there is ground for the complaint. Six hundred alterations could
never have been properly considered by two large bodies of men in the
short time actually devoted to them; and looking at the matter as one so
much affecting their own consciences, and the consciences of all clergymen
in future time, we must regard so hasty a decision on the part of
Convocation as unjustifiable. But, as it regards preparing the alterations, I
see no ground on which to charge with want of care the persons who
performed that duty.[300]

There does not appear to have been any discussion in Convocation
touching the Thirty-nine Articles. No alterations in them were proposed by
the Anglican party, although the Articles have always been considered as
presenting the more thoroughly Protestant or Evangelical side of the
Church formularies.
The two Houses of Convocation adopted and subscribed the Book of
Common Prayer on the 20th of December. As the Act of Uniformity had not
then been passed, as this subscription was intended to prepare for it, and as
no Act of Parliament existed at the time requiring subscription, it may be
instructive and useful to notice the grounds on which this subscription took
place.
This fact is curious that, although the practice of
subscribing to a creed began so early as the Council 1661.
of Nicæa, neither the clergy of the Roman Catholic
Church, nor the clergy of the Greek Church have ever been required, or are
now required, by any of their laws, so to express their belief as to doctrine
and their resolution as to practice. The enforcement of subscription upon
Protestant ministers commenced soon after the Reformation; and, in some
cases, the extent of belief which it was intended to cover seems wide
indeed; for in the Duchy of Brunswick, Duke Julius required from
clergymen, from professors, and from magistrates, "a subscription to all and
everything contained in the Confession of Augsburg, in the apology for the
Confession, in the Smalcaldic Articles, in all the works of Luther, and in all
the works of Chemnitz."[301] The Articles of the Church of England were
not subscribed generally until the twelfth year of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, when subscription was ordered for the special purpose of
checking the admission of Papists into the English Church, and also the
admission of those who had taken orders in the foreign Reformed Churches.
The assent required was confined to those Articles "which only concern the
Confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments."
[302]
The Earl of Leicester introduced to the University of Oxford, in 1581,
subscription to the Articles, without any precise form of words to be
required from all undergraduates upon matriculation, and from all who took
degrees. The extending of the act of subscription to the entire Liturgy was a
step not taken until 1603, when, by the canons of Convocation of that year,
this form of assent came to be required of all the clergy. Hence it appears to

have been in compliance with a canon law enacted by their predecessors,
and not in compliance with any statute law, that the members of
Convocation, in the year 1661, signed the declaration of assent and consent
to the contents of the Prayer Book.[303]
After the Revision had been completed, a copy of
the Bill then pending in Parliament was read and CONVOCATION.
examined in the Upper House of Convocation upon
the 29th of January. Upon the 18th of February, Dr. Barwick was chosen
Prolocutor in the room of Dr. Ferne, promoted to the see of Chester. The
Bishops deputed their brethren of St. Asaph, Carlisle, and Chester, on the
5th of March, with the concurrence of the Lower House, to revise
alterations in the Book during its progress through Parliament—a resolution
which seems to have had a prospective reference to alterations anticipated
as possible, but which do not appear to have been ever attempted; for it is
known, as will be hereafter seen, that none were made by the Commons,
and it may be inferred that none were made by the Lords.[304] Upon the 8th
of March Convocation directed Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of
Canterbury, to superintend the printing of the Book; and Mr. Scattergood
and Mr. Dillingham to correct the proofs. Upon the 22nd of the same month
the subject of a special form for the consecration of churches came under
discussion.[305]
Convocation accomplished no alterations in the
canons, though it took up the subject repeatedly; nor 1661.
did it determine anything with regard to Church
discipline. The whole of this question had remained in an unsettled state
ever since the Reformation. In the reign of Henry VIII. (1534), a
Commission had been appointed by statute to revise the ecclesiastical laws;
and enactments respecting them nearly up to the time of the death of that
monarch were repealed. In the reign of Edward VI. (1551), a renewed
Commission for the same purpose was statutably instituted; and the labours
of the Commissioners issued in the well-known book, entitled Reformatio
legum Ecclesiasticarum, a code strongly imbued with the intolerance of the
age.[306] But it never received the Royal sanction; it never became legally
binding. Another abortive attempt was made in Convocation (1603), when
James I. occupied the throne; and canons were passed declaring the doctrine
of passive obedience, and denouncing a series of opposite opinions.[307]

Happily for the credit of the Church and the peace of the realm, this, like
the previous scheme of ecclesiastical law, failed to obtain constitutional
sanction. The last endeavour at making canons (1640) hastened the crisis of
the Civil Wars. There was little then to encourage Convocation to proceed
with the business of Church discipline, and, therefore, notwithstanding the
earnestness of Thorndike in promoting it, the subject was allowed to drop.
[308]

The month of December, which saw the
revisionary labours of Convocation completed, also BISHOPS.
witnessed within the walls of Westminster Abbey
two remarkable solemnities connected with the revival of Episcopacy. Upon
the 12th of December, Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrew's, Fairfull,
Archbishop of Glasgow, Leighton, Bishop of Dunblaine, and Hamilton,
Bishop of Galloway, were consecrated by the Bishops of London and
Worcester;[309] and upon the 20th, the day when the Prayer Book was being
subscribed by the members of the two Houses of Convocation, the Bishop
of Hereford, brother to the Duke of Albemarle, was buried,—a silver mitre,
with his Episcopal robes, being borne by the Herald before the hearse,
which was followed by the Duke, by several noblemen, and by all the
Bishops.[310]
The Bishops, this year, had other business besides
that of Convocation to occupy time, and to create 1661.
anxiety. Prior to the passing of the Act of
Uniformity, their dioceses could not but be in a state of confusion. Many
clergymen who were disaffected to the restored system and its Episcopal
administrators, retained incumbencies, and gave considerable trouble to the
ecclesiastical superiors. It was as if, after the suppression of a long-
continued and successful mutiny, and the re-instatement of old officers in
command, a number of soldiers in the ranks, or of sailors on board ship,
should still remain opposed to the colonel or the captain.[311]

CHAPTER X.

A s there had been only an adjournment, and not a prorogation in the
summer of 1661, the Bill of Uniformity, carried by the Commons
before that period, remained eligible for consideration from the Lords in the
following January. They read the Bill a first time, on the 14th, the Spiritual
Peers before that date having taken their seats, and the revision of the
Prayer Book by Convocation having also been completed. The Bill was
read a second time, and referred upon the 17th of January to a Select
Committee. Upon the 13th of February, this Committee requested to know
whether they should proceed with the old Prayer Book sent up to them by
the Commons, or wait for the copy revised by Convocation. That copy had
been handed to the King for examination—a thing not suited to his taste—
but whether teased to the performance of a task, or taking the whole matter
on trust, it is certain, that before the end of the month of February, he
formally sanctioned the alterations.[312]
The volume having been, by the two Archbishops presented to the Lords,
the Earl of Northumberland proposed that the old Prayer Book should be
adopted, in connection with Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity—a
proposition which, however feasible at an earlier period, came now too late.
The slow progress made by the Lords had
dissatisfied the Lower House, and complaints from 1662.
that quarter had reached the Royal ears; hence, when
the King gave audience to the Commons at Whitehall, on the 3rd of March,
respecting his revenues, he, having before that time sent the revised Prayer
Book to the Peers, could boldly speak as follows: "I hear you are very
zealous for the Church, and very solicitous, and even jealous, that there is
not expedition enough used in that affair; I thank you for it, since, I
presume, it proceeds from a good root of piety and devotion; but I must tell
you I have the worst luck in the world, if, after all the reproaches of being a
Papist, whilst I was abroad, I am suspected of being a Presbyterian now I
am come home."[313] This strange kind of talk was followed by a
declaration of zeal for the interests of the Church of England. The Duke of

Buckingham, the Earl of Pembroke, Lord Wharton, and other Peers, were
added to the Committee of the Upper House for considering the contents of
the Bill.[314]
The secrets of that Committee have not been disclosed. It is remarkable
that it included a decided Nonconformist in Lord Wharton, one still
favourable to Nonconformity in the Earl of Manchester, and two Bishops
who had been Presbyterians—Gauden, the Bishop of Exeter,[315] and
Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich,—to say nothing of the Duke of Albemarle,
who had been identified both with Independents and with Presbyterians.
These persons formed but a small minority in a Committee which consisted
altogether of above thirty members; and they formed but a feeble minority
compared with such powerful men as Sheldon, Bishop of London, Cosin,
Bishop of Durham, Morley, then Bishop of Worcester, and Sanderson,
Bishop of Lincoln. Was the opposition of the small minority violently
overborne? or did the small minority tamely submit? Wharton was the only
man likely to make much resistance.
The Earl of Bridgwater reported on the 13th of
March, "divers amendments and alterations," stating UNIFORMITY BILL.
that they related to the Book recommended by the
King, and not to the Book brought up from the House of Commons. The
alterations in the Book were read before reading the amendments to the
Bill.
Two days after the report had been delivered, the business was
completed; the Peers had caught the spirit of Convocation, and, by their
haste now, had made up for lost time. Clarendon took occasion to thank the
Bishops for their revision of the Book in Convocation, and requested them
to thank their clerical brethren of the Lower House. The preamble to the
Bill received approval upon the 17th of March, when the Minister just
mentioned communicated a message from His Majesty, and read a proviso
which he wished to be inserted. The House, evidently startled at the wish,
requested him to read the proviso a second time. This being done, the
matter stood over for consideration until the following day. The Journals are
silent as to the nature of this proviso; but a despatch by De Wiquefort, the
Dutch Minister, explains the matter. Amongst the gossip which he details to
his Court—how in a chest belonging to Henry Marten, was found a memoir
by the French Ambassador, full of the praises of the Commonwealth; how

the Irish Catholics were getting into trouble because they had been
negotiating with Rome to the King's prejudice; how they were forbidden to
present any request; how their agent was not allowed to appear at Court;
and how the Chancellor had a strong party formed against him;—the writer
communicates an important fact, which solves the enigma left by the
Journals. The Chancellor, says De Wiquefort, informed the Lords that the
King wanted a power to be inserted in the Act of Uniformity, enabling him
to relieve clergymen from an obligation to wear the surplice and to make
the sign of the cross.[316] From this information it appears that Charles, even
at this early period, aimed at a dispensing power, a power which, before the
close of the year, he eagerly endeavoured to grasp. The Lords, however,
were jealous of the interference of the Crown in sending such a message as
had been delivered by Clarendon; and they questioned whether a resolution
ought not to be entered on the Journals in reference to it, fearing lest their
privileges might be endangered by their going so far as even to take such a
subject into consideration. The 19th of March found the Bill recommitted,
including the Royal proviso and the several amendments.
The amendments consisted of certain additions to
the preamble—of the connection with the Prayer 1662.
Book of the Psalms of David, as they were to be said
or sung in churches; of the form of ordaining and consecrating Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons;—of the substitution of the feast of St. Bartholomew
for Michaelmas, as the time when the Act should come in force;—of the
insertion of a new form, according to that adopted by Convocation,
declaring "unfeigned assent and consent" not only as originally prepared to
the use of the Book, but to all and everything it contained and prescribed;
and of an additional form, repudiating the Solemn League and Covenant.
Both these forms required subscription. A further amendment rendered it
necessary, that every minister of the Church of England should be
episcopally ordained, and that licenses from Bishops should be secured by
all who undertook the office of Lecturers.[317]
Some of the amendments occasioned little or no
debate, a circumstance which surprises us when we UNIFORMITY BILL.
consider the Puritan tendencies of certain Lords. The
points which chiefly occupied attention were—first, the requirement of
Episcopal ordination as a sine quâ non; and, secondly, the imposition of the

form which repudiated the Covenant. The debates on these questions, so far
as they can be recovered, will now be given.
I. It was argued by some who retained Puritan sympathies, that the first
of these requirements was not in accordance with what had "been the
opinion of the Church of England,—and that it would lay a great reproach
upon all other Protestant Churches, who had no Bishops; as if they had no
ministers, and, consequently, were no Churches:—for, that it was well
known, the Church of England did not allow reordination, as the ancient
Church never admitted it; insomuch, as if any priest of the Church of Rome
renounces the communion thereof, his ordination is not questioned, but he
is as capable of any preferment in this Church, as if he had been ordained in
it. And, therefore, the not admitting the ministers of other Protestant
Churches, to have the same privilege, can proceed from no other ground
than that they looked not upon them as ministers, having no ordination;
which is a judgment the Church of England had not ever owned, and that it
would be very imprudent to do it now."
This argument called forth replies from other
members—most likely from some of the Bishops— 1662.
to the following effect:—"That the Church of
England judged none but her own children, nor did not determine that other
Protestant Churches were without ordination. It is a thing without their
cognizance; and most of the learned men of those Churches had made
necessity the chief pillar to support that ordination of theirs. That necessity
cannot be pleaded here, where ordination is given according to the
unquestionable practice of the Church of Christ; if they who pretend foreign
ordination are His Majesty's subjects, they have no excuse of necessity, for
they might in all times have received Episcopal ordination; and so they did
upon the matter renounce their own Church; if they are strangers, and
pretend to preferment in this Church, they ought to conform, and to be
subject to the laws of the kingdom, which concern only those who desire to
live under the protection [thereof.] For the argument of reordination, there
is no such thing required. Rebaptization is not allowed in or by any Church;
yet in all Churches where it is doubted, as it may be often with very good
reason, whether the person hath been baptized or no, or if it hath been
baptized by a midwife or lay person; without determining the validity or
invalidity of such baptism, there is an hypothetical form—'If thou hast not

been already baptized, I do baptize,' &c. So, in this case of ordination, the
form may be the same—'If thou hast not been already ordained, then I do
ordain,' &c. If his former ordination were good, this is void; if the other was
invalid or defective, he hath reason to be glad that it be thus supplied."[318]
Such a mode of silencing the scruples of ministers on whom the ceremonies
of reordination was imposed, came extensively into fashion after the
passing of the Act.
II. When the House resumed their discussions,
[319]
the point in consideration was "the clause of UNIFORMITY BILL.
ministers declaring against the Covenant."[320] A form of abjuring both the
doctrine of resistance, and the obligations of the Covenant, had been
required by the Corporation Act. Upon comparing the words in that Act
with the words in the Bill of Uniformity, it will be found that the latter are
the same as the former, with the addition of two short clauses,—first, "that I
will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law
established;" and, secondly, that the Covenant entailed no obligation "to
endeavour any change or alteration of government in Church or State." As
this form of renouncing the Covenant was only of temporary use, and was
to be abolished in twenty years, it ceased afterwards to receive much
attention; but, at first, it constituted a chief point of interest both to the
upholders and opponents of the Bill, even beyond the importance attached
to the form of subscription and declaration respecting the Prayer Book.
Many of the Peers, who had taken the Covenant, were not so much
concerned that the clergy should be obliged to make this declaration, as
that, when such a clause should be passed and sanctioned, it might be
inserted in other Acts relating to the functions of other offices, so that, in a
short time, what was now only required of the clergy might be required of
themselves.[321]
The Puritan Peers warmly opposed the clause as
unnecessary, and as widening the breach instead of 1662.
closing up the wounds which had been made. Many
men would believe or fear that this clause might prove a breach of the Act
of Indemnity, which had not only provided against indictments and suits at
law and penalties, but against reproaches for what was past. As for
conformity to the Liturgy, it was provided for fully in the former
subscription prescribed by the Bill. The Covenant contained many good

things, as defending the King's person, and maintaining the Protestant
religion: and to say that it entailed no obligation would neither be for the
service of the King, or the interest of the Church; especially since it was
well known, it had wrought upon the conscience of many in the late
revolution. At any rate, it was now dead; all were absolved from taking it. If
it had at any time produced any good, that was an excuse for its irregularity:
it could do no mischief for the future; and therefore it was time to bury it in
oblivion.[322]
The Court party, Clarendon says, made
themselves very merry with the allegation, that the UNIFORMITY BILL.
King's safety and the interest of the Church were
provided for by the Covenant, since it had been entered into, in order to
fight the King and destroy the Church. It contradicted itself; and, if it were
not so, the obligation to loyalty was better provided for by some other
oaths. The Bill was no breach of the Act of Indemnity, the new Declaration
was absolutely necessary, for the safety of the King's person, and the peace
of the kingdom; the Covenant was still the idol to which the Presbyterians
sacrificed: and there must always be a jealousy of those who had taken it,
until they had declared that it did not bind them. The clergy, of all men,
ought to be glad of the opportunity which was offered, to vindicate their
loyalty and obedience.[323]
The Bill being now in its last stage, the Lords
appointed certain of their number to draw up a 1662.
clause empowering the King to make such provision
for any of the deprived clergy as he should see fit.[324] As this clause—like
the proviso respecting the cross in baptism—opened the door for Royal
interference—so, probably, like that, it originated in a Royal suggestion. At
all events, these two amendments in contrast with others which increased
the severity of the Bill, indicated the existence of kindliness towards tender
consciences, and impoverished clergymen,—a disposition which Charles
entertained, and in which certain Lords, including some not puritanically
inclined, concurred with him.
When the Bill had reached a third reading, the amendments were
referred to the Commons for their consideration. The Commons vigorously

set themselves to work; the Committee sitting until eight at night—a late
hour in those days—and meeting early the next morning.[325]
No debate arose upon the alterations made in the Prayer Book by the
Houses of Convocation. The House of Commons, indeed, appointed a
Committee to compare the Book of Common Prayer sent down from the
Lords with the Book sent up by themselves; but the alterations were
adopted at once; or, rather, the Book as a whole was adopted. It is
remarkable, however, to find how then, as almost always, the members
showed themselves jealous of their privileges; for, upon a question being
put, whether the contents of the revised Book should come under debate,
and the question being negatived,[326] lest it should be thought that the State
in this matter submitted to the Church, and allowed the right of
Convocation to control Parliamentary proceedings, another question, i.e.,
"that the amendments made by the Convocation, and sent down by the
Lords to this House, might by the order of this House, have been debated,"
received an affirmative answer, without a single dissentient voice.
Whilst jealous of any interference with their own
privileges, the Commons had no regard for the UNIFORMITY BILL.
interests or feelings of the Puritan clergy; since they
accepted the harsh amendments of the Peers, and added others of their own,
so as to render the Bill more intolerable than it had been before. This
circumstance has commonly been overlooked, and therefore requires
particular attention.
The Lords had introduced a reference to "the tenderness of some men's
consciences;" the Commons struck out the words.[327]
When the Lords' substitution of "Bartholomew" for "Michael the
Archangel," a substitution which aggravated the severity of the measure,
came to the vote, there were 87 for the Angel's day, and 96 for the Saint's.
[328]
The amendments and alterations respecting ordination, subscription,
and the Covenant, all of which had been conceived in the same spirit of
severity, were adopted without division.
At the same time the Commons extended the
operation of the measure so as to bring within the 1662.
meshes of their net not only the clergy, but all who

held offices in the Universities, and every kind of teacher down to the
village schoolmaster, and the tutor in a private family. All such persons, as
well as Deans, Canons, and Prebendaries, who had been mentioned in the
original Bill, were obliged, through the amendments of the Commons, to
subscribe the declaration of non-resistance; to conform to the Liturgy of the
Church of England, as now by law established; to deny that any obligation
had been incurred by taking the Covenant; and to repudiate that oath as
altogether unlawful. The addition of a penalty of three months'
imprisonment to meet the case of those men who had no livings to lose,
affords another instance of the harsh spirit of the Lower House. Likewise
these legislators drew within the reach of the Bill, the case of those who
held benefices without cures—for the reason that the House did not "think
fit to leave sinecures to Nonconformists," nor permit a Nonconformist to
hold a Curate's or a Lecturer's place.[329] An attempt being made in a
different direction to confine preferment to those who should receive
Episcopal ordination "according to the form of the Church of England,"—a
restriction which would have excluded such as were in Romish orders,—the
attempt met with a different fate. It entirely failed.[330] The Lords' tolerant
proviso for dispensing with the cross and surplice was by the Commons
negatived at once;[331] and after an adjourned debate upon the allowance of
a fifth part of the income to ejected Incumbents, the considerate amendment
of the Peers was thrown out by a majority of seven.[332]
When all this had been done, a message reached
the Upper House, on the 30th of April, to request a UNIFORMITY BILL.
1662.
Conference with the Commons relative to the
amendments; but owing to the dilatoriness of the Peers the Conference did
not take place before the 7th of May, when Serjeant Charlton defended the
Bill in the shape in which the Commons had left it.[333] In an elaborate
oration he pointed out, and defended each of their amendments, dwelling
upon the extension of the Act to schoolmasters, as necessary for the proper
education of the young, the neglect of which amongst the gentry and
nobility had been, he said, the root of numerous mischiefs in the Long
Parliament. "It was an oversight," he added, "in the usurped powers that
they took no care in this particular, whereby many young persons were well
seasoned in their judgments as to the King. This made the Commons take
care that schoolmasters, as well as ministers should subscribe, and rather

more." The penalty of three months' imprisonment, this gentleman
ingeniously urged, was designed to meet the case of those who had no
livings to lose: it was imprisonment in default of paying a fine: whilst the
proviso introduced by the Lords, to dispense with cross and surplice, he
contended was a thing altogether without precedent, which would establish
schism, and yet not satisfy those for whose relief it was intended. The
King's engagement at Breda to respect "tender consciences" had been
noticed by the Lords in support of their amendment; and now, with the
commonplace sophistries always at hand for the use of intolerance, the
manager laughed at the idea of calling schismatical consciences "tender."
"A tender conscience denoted," according to his definition, "an impression
from without received from another, and that upon which another strikes;"
what the definition exactly means I am at a loss to comprehend. The
Serjeant was clearer, and more plausible, although equally sophistical in his
legal reasoning, to the effect that the Breda Declaration had two limitations:
first, its validity depended upon the sanction of Parliament; and, secondly,
the bestowment of liberty must consist with the kingdom's peace. As to the
allowance of fifths to the ejected ministers, he argued that it would be
repugnant to the idea of uniformity; that, "joined with the pity of their
party" it "would amount to more than the value of the whole living;" that it
would be a reflection on the Act; that it would impoverish Incumbents; and
that it would encourage Dissent. This argument was no less heartless than
contrary to the precedent, which, under similar circumstances, had been
furnished by the Long Parliament. Charlton further suggested that the Lords
should recommend Convocation, to direct "such decent gestures," to be
used during the time of Divine service, as was fit. It may be stated that the
Lords, on the 8th of May, recommended to the Bishops and the House of
Convocation, to prepare some canon or rule for the purpose; and that the
matter was accordingly brought before Convocation on the 10th and 12th of
May, when the 18th of the canons of James I., relating to the subject,
underwent emendation.[334] Charlton concluded by saying, that he found
one mistake in the rubric of baptism, which he conceived was made by a
copyist, the word persons being written instead of the word children.[335]
The amendments and alterations reported to the Lords were all agreed to,
and the clerical error in the Bill pointed out by Charlton, was formally
rectified at the Clerks' table by the Bishops of Durham, St. Asaph, and
Carlisle, under authority from Convocation.[336]

The MS. volume, copied from the printed Book
of Common Prayer, of the edition of 1636, and UNIFORMITY BILL.
1662.
altered according to the decisions of Convocation,
was with the printed Book attached to the Act.[337]

CHAPTER XI.

T he Bill received the Royal assent upon the 19th of May. Perhaps the
reader will not be wearied with an account of the ceremony, and of the
speeches delivered at the time.
His Majesty occupied the throne in Royal magnificence. The Lord
Chancellor took his place on the woolsack. On the right side, below the
throne, sat the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, and other prelates, including Reynolds of Norwich, who
could scarcely, with comfort, have witnessed the proceedings of that day.
Neither Sheldon nor Morley was present. On the left side, at the upper end
of the Chamber, were the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, and three
Dukes—Buckingham, Richmond, and Albemarle. The Marquis of
Winchester sat by Albemarle's side, and below came twenty-six Earls, one
Viscount, and thirty-six Barons. The Commons appeared at the bar, with the
Speaker of the House, who delivered a highly rhetorical speech.
The King, after giving his assent, delivered a
curious homily upon the extravagant habits of the 1662.
people, without saying one word about the Act of
Uniformity—after which Clarendon pronounced a long oration, in the
course of which he observed, "the execution of these sharp laws depends
upon the wisdom of the most discerning, generous, and merciful Prince,
who, having had more experience of the nature and humour of mankind
than any Prince living, can best distinguish between the tenderness of
conscience and the pride of conscience, between the real effects of
conscience and the wicked pretences to conscience—a Prince of so
excellent a nature and tender a conscience himself, that he hath the highest
compassion for all errors of that kind, and will never suffer the weak to
undergo the punishment ordained for the wicked."[338]
This was an extraordinary speech to an English Parliament. It can bear
no construction but that of being a plea for a dispensing power. The Houses
having framed a law, Clarendon would have it left to the Royal wisdom to
temper its administration, and to distinguish between the tenderness and the

pride of conscience,—as if the power of discerning spirits were a gift to
kings. What, in the lips of any English senator would be inconsistent,
appears doubly so in the present instance, for Clarendon afterwards opposed
the exercise of the power which he now claimed on his master's behalf.
It is necessary here to pause, and inquire what change this famous Act
made in the Establishment of England. The insisting upon Episcopal
ordination, in every case, as essential to the conducting of public service,
and to the preaching of the Gospel, certainly cut off the English Church,
more completely than before, from fellowship with other reformed
Churches;[339] and, in consequence of another provision for a certain period,
the pastoral office became dependent on the taking of a political oath, to
which some, approving of her doctrine and of her discipline, might
conscientiously object. The Church also stood pledged to the maintenance
of civil despotism. Under pretence of reprobating the course pursued under
the Commonwealth, a dogma was imposed upon the ministers of religion,
which, if believed, would effectually prevent any resistance to the designs
of an arbitrary monarch, even if he should lend himself to the overthrow of
the Church itself. Besides, persons might be found not unfriendly to
moderate Episcopacy, who, nevertheless felt it wrong to use respecting the
League and Covenant the terms which this Act prescribed.
The Act of Uniformity added the requirement of
"unfeigned assent and consent" to everything ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
contained in the Prayer Book. By such alterations the
Church of England became increasingly exclusive and Erastian in its
principles, and less Protestant and liberal in its spirit.
In carrying a great measure, responsibility must
be divided. It rarely happens that a number of 1662.
persons combining together to effect any change are
influenced by the same views; and in this instance of united action different
degrees of responsibility, and different kinds of motives, are discoverable,
when we look a little below the surface.
I. Convocation must be held responsible for the changes made in the
Prayer Book, its revision being exclusively the work of that assembly; but,
at the same time, it should be remembered, that assembly formed only a
small body, and represented but in part the sentiments of the clergy. Many

of the members felt a strong zeal for order and union; the feeling assumed
different aspects in different instances. Some in the Upper House, as Cosin,
Sanderson, Hacket, Ward, Morley; some in the Lower, especially
Thorndike, sympathized in the sentiments of Cyprian, as expressed in his
Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ, confounding unity with uniformity, and
allegiance to Christ with submission to Bishops. They, like him, might
suppose that in their zeal for Episcopal order, they were working out an
answer to our Lord's intercessory prayer. Such a conception of ecclesiastical
oneness had been, by the Nicene and Mediæval Churches, handed down to
the Church of the English Reformation; and it must be admitted, that desires
for uniformity by means of Episcopal order, were in many cases so
interlinked with submission to Christ, as, even in the estimation of those
who differ from Anglo-Catholics, to have their errors, in a measure,
redeemed by the devoutness of their affections. Desires for uniformity,
however, as they wrought in some, both of the superior and inferior clergy,
at the period of the Restoration, had nothing whatever of nobleness in them.
The Bishops shared in the responsibility of the Upper House of
Parliament, as well as in the responsibility of the Upper House of
Convocation. Sheldon,—to whom must be attributed much influence over
the latter, and also much over the former, so far as the Bishops were
concerned; and who also, from his prominent position and great activity at
the Restoration, could not fail to share in Clarendon's counsels, respecting
the Bill,—was not a man of religious zeal, but a man of worldly principles;
and it is not uncharitable to regard others on the Bench, and in the Lower
House, as closely resembling him in this respect. Reynolds belonged to a
class which, when a crisis arrives, will always bend to the force of stronger
minds, and be carried along by the current of authority.
Between the Bishops at the Restoration and the
Bishops at the Reformation, a considerable ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
difference appears. The theology of the Anglican
prelates at the Restoration was not imbued with those elements of thought,
which the early Reformers held in common with Puritan Divines; hence, in
part, arose the dislike which the Fathers of the re-established Church
cherished towards Nonconformists. Sheldon, as will appear when we fully
examine his character, differed from the ecclesiastical leaders in Queen
Elizabeth's time, such as Parker and Jewel,[340] who had strong religious

affections, and were earnestly bent upon building up Protestantism in
England as the great bulwark of her prosperity; moreover, the Caroline
restorers and revisers of the Prayer Book were utterly deficient in
comprehensive policy. The Elizabethan Divines did avoid, as much as
possible, giving offence to such of the old Roman Catholic party, just
dispossessed of power, as felt at all disposed to join them; but the
ecclesiastical leaders of Charles' day, threw every obstacle they could in the
path of those Nonconformists who showed any disposition to adopt a
modified system of Episcopacy.[341]
II. In the House of Commons there existed a mad
Royalist party, influenced by strong personal 1662.
resentment, who identified the Church with the
Throne, who could not forget what they had suffered under the
Commonwealth, and who especially had a keen recollection of estates
sequestered, and of fines imposed. They were bent upon punishing their
foes, and therefore made the Act as rigid as possible. Its severest provisions
are to be ascribed not to any clerical body, nor to the Lords, nor to the
Prelates, but to the Commons. The Commons were more intolerant and
fierce than any of the Bishops, than any of the clergy. "Every man,
according to his passion, thought of adding somewhat" to the Bill which
"might make it more grievous to somebody whom he did not love."[342]
Liberal amendments in the Upper House were resisted in the Lower; and to
the unjust and ungenerous provisions added by the Lords, were others more
unjust and ungenerous added by the Commons. The Commons, in
comparison with the Lords, appear to have been what the young men,
whom Rehoboam consulted and followed, were in comparison with the old
men, who stood before Solomon his father; and the scourge of whips
became a scourge of scorpions.[343] Bad as was the Bill from the first, it was
worse in the end than in the beginning.
III. Clarendon ought to bear a large share of responsibility. His
attachment to an Episcopalian establishment has been repeatedly noticed.
He regarded it as the bulwark of Protestantism, the main stay of the nation's
weal. Burnet reckons him more a friend of the Bishops than of the Church;
certainly he showed anxiety to please them, and their good opinion and
support were of importance to him in many ways. What induced him to
court the Bishops would, in a still stronger degree, induce him to gratify the

Commons. Consequently, supposing that his better nature, or his wiser
judgment, inclined him—which is probable—towards a more moderate
course, other considerations induced him to adopt the severe line of policy
which had been chalked out by some, and filled up by others.[344]
Clarendon, as leader of the Upper House, does not appear to have used his
influence for the purpose of removing from the Bill any of the most
rigorous parts of it; to their abatement perhaps he might contribute,
although this does not appear. The liberal amendments proposed by certain
Peers seem to have been abandoned without a struggle; and for this
surrender surely Clarendon is mainly answerable.
IV. Another party concurred in the Act from
entirely different motives. The Roman Catholics had ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
been on the increase since the Restoration. Somerset
House, the residence of the Queen Mother, was the place of resort for the
leaders of the party. There, and at the mansion of the Earl of Bristol, they
consulted upon the interests of their own Church. Of course, they had no
idea of seeking comprehension in the Establishment: their policy was to
procure toleration; with that for the present they would be satisfied,
whatever might be their ulterior aims. Nothing promised so much advantage
to them as the passing of a stringent measure, which would cast out of the
English Church as many Protestants as possible. Whilst they were aware of
the terror which they inspired in the minds of Nonconformists, they hoped
that fellowship in suffering might soften antipathy, and dispose their
enemies, for their own sakes, to advocate some general indulgence: they
considered that the fact, of a large number of Protestants suffering from
persecuting laws, would at least strengthen the argument in its favour. It
was, I apprehend, on this principle, that the Duke of York and the Catholic
Peers united in supporting all the provisions for uniformity.
At the head of this Roman Catholic party the
King himself is to be placed. When he had 1662.
reluctantly made up his mind to consent to the
measure, it was in accordance with the circuitous policy I have now pointed
out. Besides, he was fond of a dispensing power, liking Royal Declarations
better than Acts of Parliament; almost any statute would be tolerable to him,
if it gave him the prospect of affording relief to his subjects in the form of
sovereign concession. Clarendon, who subsequently opposed the exercise

of this power, now virtually recognized it, as a prerogative of the King, in
the speech just quoted, and plainly pointed to the Royal intention of
employing that assumed prerogative for mitigating the severities of the
present statute.
Policy and passion were stamped upon the face of the measure. It would
be the bitterest of all satires to say that the men principally concerned in it
were influenced by religious conviction—that conscientiously and in the
sight of God, they performed an act which, though they saw it to be
rigorous, they felt to be righteous. Amidst keenly excited feelings on the
side of an exclusive policy, perhaps there was no impulse of greater force
than the very common one of party feeling.
When we recollect that it was not to the clergy then expressing itself in
Convocation, or in any other way, but to Parliament, that the Church of
England owed the clauses which required the repudiation of the Covenant,
and of the doctrine of non-resistance—clauses which so galled the Puritans
—the Act, to a large extent, appears, not so much an ecclesiastical measure,
as a work executed by a political faction, bent upon crushing opponents,
under pretence of their being unpatriotic and disloyal. Of the bad spirit in
which Parliament framed and passed this act there remains not the shadow
of a doubt; and it is impossible that any one acquainted with the
circumstance, however he may admire the Church so re-established at the
Restoration, can think of the mode of its re-establishment without shame
and sorrow.
It is very remarkable that the Act omitted to
provide for uniformity in certain important ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
particulars; and it has failed to produce the
uniformity intended in others.[345] Nothing was done in relation to
psalmody; forms of prayer and praise in prose were rigidly set down, but
forms of prayer and praise in verse were left to be composed or adopted at
the pleasure of any one, subject only to the doubtful authority of the Bishop
or Ordinary. The formularies of the Prayer Book relating to baptism have
long received from Episcopalians contradictory interpretations; and, of late
years, liberty in this respect has been legally conceded, as not inconsistent
with the Act of Uniformity. The obscurity of the rubric on the subject of
ornaments renders a decision of the controversy by ecclesiastical lawyers a
difficult matter, and consequently places Bishops in perplexity as to what is

the law, and how they are to proceed. We are struck with the unequal
pressure of the Act. It made clerical practice in some respects very strict,
and in others very lax: whilst, as to prominent points then in dispute
between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the law is precise; as to other
points, far from unimportant, the same law, through intention or neglect,
opened, or left open, a wide field for difference and for controversy.
The experience of a hundred years was thrown
away upon the authors of the measure. The first Act 1662.
of Uniformity under Elizabeth had proved a failure
—the subsequent history of her reign had shown, that this contrivance to
repress the spirit of religious liberty, produced no more effect than did the
green withs which bound Samson. The troubles of James' reign, the
overthrow of Laud's policy, together with his sufferings and death,
illustrated the mischievous consequences of confounding unity with
uniformity, and of seeking the first by means of the second. Grindal and
other prelates had been sick at heart, through fruitless endeavours made to
secure spiritual obedience by physical force. Lord Bacon had pointed out
the difference between unity and uniformity, and had reproved the
persecutor, by saying, that the silencing of ministers was a punishment that
lighteth upon the people, as well as upon the party;[346] others of humbler
name had still more clearly explained, and still more directly enforced, the
lessons of toleration. But all in vain; the teaching of a whole century had
been wasted on the contrivers and supporters of the second Act of
Uniformity.
The Act did not merely eject all Incumbents who scrupled to comply
with its requirement, but it silenced throughout the land all the preachers of
Christianity who were not Conformists.
All Nonconformist ministers were prohibited
from officiating in the pulpits of the Episcopalian ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
Church established by law; few other places of
worship were in existence, and the operation of the Act, especially by citing
and recognizing the Act of Uniformity under Elizabeth, would be to prevent
Nonconformists from preaching anywhere.
Two classes then were affected: Incumbents, whom the Act ejected; and
ministers, not Incumbents, whom it silenced. Plausible arguments might be

adduced for the uniformity of an establishment; strong reasons might be
urged against a coalition of Episcopacy with Presbyterianism. The
government of Bishops, and the use of a Liturgy, being adopted in the
Church, it may be said that it is only consistent, that there should be the
maintenance of order in the ministry, and of regularity in the worship. But
the Act went much further, and proceeded upon the theory of one
ecclesiastical incorporation of the entire State, without recognizing outside
the existence of any religion whatever. To Nonconformists there was an
utter denial of any spiritual rights. For them there was to be neither
comprehension nor toleration. The germs of the Conventicle and Five Mile
Acts were in the bosom of the Uniformity Bill.

CHAPTER XII.

M ore victims in the month of April were sacrificed upon the altar of
revenge. Colonel John Okey, a distinguished officer in the
Commonwealth Army, who had adopted Republican and Millenarian views;
Miles Corbet, a member of the Long Parliament, and Recorder of
Yarmouth, who had been connected with the Church under the pastoral care
of William Bridge, in that town; and Colonel John Barkstead, who had been
knighted by Cromwell, and had been appointed to a seat in his House of
Lords—all three, after a brief trial, and a merciless sentence, for the part
they had taken in the High Court of Justice, were executed at Tyburn.
A noble victim perished two months afterwards. It has been with Sir
Henry Vane as with Oliver Cromwell: having disliked each other in life,
they have shared a common fate in the judgment of posterity: for, after
years of odium, the names of both are raised to honour. Vane's
Republicanism rendered him impracticable, and his mysticism, although
undeserving the reproaches of Baxter and Burnet, threw a haze over his
speculations, which makes them somewhat unintelligible; but the piety and
genius of his Meditations, and the purity and virtue of his life, render him
an object of reverence and love.
He was tried for compassing the death of the
King; yet, whatever he might be in other respects, he REPUBLICAN
VICTIMS.
was no regicide. The evidence on his trial only
proved that he had held office under the Commonwealth, that he had been a
member of the Council of State in 1651, and had belonged to the
Committee of Safety in 1659. To make the condemnation and sentence of
Vane the more unrighteous, the King, after solemnly promising to spare the
life of the Republican, had written to Clarendon, saying—Vane "is too
dangerous a man to let live, if we can honestly put him out of the way."
The spirit of the prisoner appears in a letter which he wrote to his wife.
"This dark night, and black shade," he observes, "which God hath drawn
over His work in the midst of us, may be, for aught we know, the ground
colour to some beautiful piece that He is now exposing to the light." His

execution was an ovation. From the crowded tops and windows of the
houses, people expressed their deep sympathy, crying aloud, "The Lord go
with you, the great God of heaven and earth appear in you and for you;"—
signs of popular feeling which sustained the sufferer, who gratefully
acknowledged them, "putting off his hat and bowing." When asked how he
did, he answered, "Never better in all my life;" and on the scaffold his noble
bearing so affected the spectators that they could scarcely believe "the
gentleman in the black suit and cloak, with a scarlet silk waistcoat (the
victorious colour) showing itself at the breast, was the prisoner." Frequent
interruptions from the sound of drums drowned his voice, which, as Burnet
says, was "a new and very indecent practice." The officers, as they put their
hands in his pockets, searching for papers, exasperated the populace, whilst
Vane's calmness led a Royalist present to say, "he died like a prince."
Before receiving the last stroke, he exclaimed, "I bless the Lord, who hath
accounted me worthy to suffer for His name. Blessed be the Lord, that I
have kept a conscience void of offence to this day. I bless the Lord I have
not deserted the righteous cause for which I suffer."—"Father, glorify Thy
servant in the sight of men, that he may glorify Thee in the discharge of his
duty to Thee and to his country." One blow did the work. "It was generally
thought," remarks Burnet, "the Government had lost more than it had
gained by his death." Pepys declares the people counted his constancy "a
miracle;" adding, "The King lost more by that man's death than he will get
again for a good while."[347]
Thus fell one of the triumvirate described in a
former volume—thus fell the noblest mystic of the 1662.
age, next to George Fox—thus was devoted to death
in the Temple of Expediency, one who had never bowed at the shrine of that
heathen goddess, but had always fervently worshipped in the Temple of
Christian Virtue. Whatever his enemies might do with his body, they could
not prevent his pure soul from entering that adjacent Temple of Honour, on
the walls of which his name is inscribed for evermore.
Some of the regicides escaped with their lives. Well known is the story
of Edmund Ludlow—how he fled at the Restoration, and went to Geneva,
and settled at Vevay; how he came back to England at the period of the
Revolution, and set sail for Ireland to assist William III. at the siege of
Londonderry, and was compelled to return because that prince would not

allow in his fleet, the presence of one who had been implicated in his
grandfather's execution.[348] But history tells of another regicide, less
known to fame—whose fortunes were less happy, and more wonderful.
Edward Whalley figured amongst Cromwell's Major-Generals, and was so
considerable a person that Richard Baxter dedicated to him a controversial
work, entitled The Apology, in which he says, "Think not that your greatest
trials are all over. Prosperity hath its peculiar temptations, by which it hath
foiled many that stood unshaken in the storms of adversity. The tempter,
who hath had you on the waves, will now assault you in the calm, and hath
his last game to play on the mountain till nature cause you to descend.
Stand this charge, and you win the day."[349]
The Divine little apprehended the fate awaiting
the soldier. A few days before Charles' return, REPUBLICAN
VICTIMS.
Whalley, with his son-in-law, Major-General Gough,
—who had stood together by Oliver Cromwell's death-bed,—sailed for
America. Landing at Boston, they were protected by the Governor, until
scented out by the Royalists of Barbadoes, they were forced to renew their
flight. Settled at Newhaven, the minister of the place, named Davenport,
pleaded for their security in a sermon from the ingeniously selected words:
"Let mine outcasts dwell with thee,—be thou a covert to them from the face
of the spoiler."[350] Rewards were offered for the fugitives, and this minister
was threatened for his advocacy on their behalf, but he continued to harbour
them in his neighbourhood, where they abode in a cave on the top of a rock,
to which was given the name of Providence. This kind of life they spent for
two or three years, when they removed to Hadley, and there, under the
protection of another minister, spent sixteen years more of alarm, privation,
and sorrow. The people in these parts were at war with the famous Indian
Chief, Philip of Pokanoket, who with his tribe one day surrounded the little
town at an hour when the inhabitants were engaged in public worship.
Although the people always carried arms, even at church, on this occasion
the sudden assault filled them with fear, and, for once unmanned, they
would have probably fallen into the hands of their foes, had not a strange
person, in peculiar attire, and of commanding presence, put himself at their
head, skilfully marshalling the little band, with the words and authority of a
general. It was as when the Romans fought under the leadership of the twin
brethren; and the unknown visitant and deliverer proved to be no other than

Gough, who had learned the arts of war under Oliver Cromwell. He
survived his father-in-law Whalley, who died in the year of the English
Revolution.[351]
The revised edition of the Prayer Book was not
ready until the 6th of August. Then appeared an 1662.
advertisement announcing that books in folio were
provided for all churches and chapels; the price of each being six shillings,
ready bound. Printed copies, examined and corrected, were certified under
the Great Seal, and the Deans and Chapters of cathedral and collegiate
churches were required to obtain one of these books annexed to a copy of
the Act, before the 25th of December. A similar copy was to be delivered to
the Courts at Westminster, to be placed amongst the Records in the Tower
of London.[352]
In those days, when editions were not thrown off
in thousands by a steam press, and there was no EFFECTS OF THE
ACT.
book post to convey parcels in one night to the
Land's End, it was slow work to multiply and circulate copies. Some
clergymen, therefore, could not get sight of the alterations before St.
Bartholomew's Day.
It showed indecent haste to date the time for decision so early as the 24th
of August; or it showed indecent delay, not to issue the Book until within
three weeks before. It has been asserted that few parishes received it till a
fortnight after the period prescribed, and Burnet says that he was informed
by some of the Bishops, that many clergymen subscribed before they had
seen the volume.[353] One, in the diocese of Lincoln, pleaded as a proof of
the injustice of his being silenced, that he had never had an opportunity of
reading what he was required to adopt; and he adds, that this was the case
with many more. A clergyman, named Steel, in his farewell sermon, at
Hanmer, in Flintshire, declared "he was silenced and turned out, for not
declaring his unfeigned assent and consent to a Book which he never saw or
could see."[354] Certainly the Book ought to have been in every rectory and
vicarage a month or two previously to the day of ejection; yet, it must be
acknowledged, too much was made of the difficulty at the time, and too
much has been made of it since; for the fifth clause of the Act distinctly
provides for lawful impediments "to be allowed and approved of by the

Ordinary of the place."[355] Upon this clause we have a practical
commentary in a paper issued by the Bishop of Peterborough, expressly
providing for such cases.[356]
The Bishop very properly treated as a lawful
impediment, inability to examine the Book: and in 1662.
the following year, as we shall see, an Act passed for
the relief of such persons as were disabled from declaring conformity.
Wherever and whenever a prelate felt so disposed, he could make
allowance for such inability; nevertheless, the fact remains, that it rested
entirely with him to determine what was a lawful impediment, and to allow
or not, the force of scruples, according to his own personal pleasure; if the
Diocesan chose to decide against the Incumbent, the patron might at once
present another person to the living.
Richard Baxter made up his mind to leave the Establishment within a
week of the time when the Act of Uniformity received the Royal assent. He
preached on the 25th of May, and then gave as reasons for his early silence,
that he considered the Act at once put an end to the liberty of his lecturing
in parish churches, and that he wished his brethren to understand he had
fully made up his mind not to conform. He thought if he "stayed to the last
day," some might be led to suppose he meant to submit, and so might be
drawn into an imitation of his supposed example.
Baxter's course in this respect was peculiar. The
Presbyterians generally remained in the Church, as EFFECTS OF THE
ACT.
long as they could, although they had quite made up
their minds as to what they should do when the decisive feast of St.
Bartholomew arrived. Philip Henry spent days of prayer for Divine
direction, and sought advice from friends at Oxford and Chester. He
objected to be ordained, and could not, after being a Presbyter for years,
declare himself moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon himself the office of
Deacon. The difficulty in his case was increased by the demand of Hall,
Bishop of Chester, that the Presbyterians whom he ordained should
explicitly repudiate their previous orders.[357] Henry could not give his
assent and consent to things in the Prayer Book which to him were not true.
He felt the force of the exceptions taken at the Savoy Conference, and did
not believe in the power of any company of men to impose a yoke of

ceremonial law upon the necks of their brethren. He disapproved of
kneeling at the Lord's table as a practice unwarranted by Scripture; unsuited
to the celebration of a supper; "grossly abused even to idolatry;" the
imposition of which was a violation of Christian liberty. He objected
particularly to kneeling at the rails, as smelling "rank of Popish
superstition:" the indiscriminate Communion of the Episcopalian Church he
could not reconcile with his notions of discipline; and, though he had never
taken the Covenant, he would not condemn those who had done so. He
approved of Archbishop Ussher's scheme of Episcopacy; and "thought it
lawful to join in the Common Prayer in public assemblies, and practised
accordingly, and endeavoured to satisfy others concerning it."[358] It is
curious to learn that he believed his views of spiritual religion formed the
basis of his objections to conformity: and that when Dr. Busby, to whom as
his friend, he owed his deep evangelic convictions, said once, "Prythee
child, what made thee a Nonconformist?" Henry replied to his much-loved
schoolmaster, "Truly, sir, you made me one; for you taught me those things
that hindered me from conforming."[359]
In the mind of Philip Henry there existed a strong
disposition to conform, and the case was the same 1662.
with Joseph Alleine, and others. Many, who had
been episcopally ordained, were prepared to do everything required, except
one thing—giving an unfeigned assent and consent to all the contents of the
Prayer Book.[360]
John Howe felt more difficulties than one; he had not received Episcopal
orders, but had been ordained at Winwick, in Lancashire, by the laying on
of the hands of the Presbytery; on which account, he used to say, that few
had so primitive an ordination as himself. After the Act had passed, Dr.
Wilkins expressed his surprise that a man of Howe's latitude should have
stood out; to which he replied, that he would gladly have remained in the
Establishment, but his latitude was the very thing that made him and kept
him a Nonconformist. He said also, "that he could not by any means he
fond of a Church, that in reality had no discipline at all, and that he thought
that a very considerable objection against the Establishment." In these
respects his difficulties were similar to those of Philip Henry. On another
occasion, when asked by Seth Ward, then Bishop of Exeter, "Pray, sir, what
hurt is there in being twice ordained?" he replied, "Hurt, my lord,—it hurts

my understanding; the thought is shocking; it is an absurdity, since nothing
can have two beginnings."[361]
We can enter into the struggles which agitated the
clergy during the three months before St. EFFECTS OF THE
ACT.
Bartholomew's Day. As the corn ripened, and the
country Rector sat with his wife in their little parlour,—as they looked out
of the latticed window on the children chasing the butterflies in the garden,
or picking up daisies on the glebe,—there came the alternative—"we must
conform, or leave all this next August;" and, as that necessity stared the
Incumbent in the face, it would require, in some cases, a woman's quieter
fortitude to reinforce a man's louder resolve.[362] Nor can it be denied, that
means of usefulness to some had brighter attractions than home comforts;
and that it proved the hardest wrench of all to break the bond between the
Christian shepherd and his flock. These men had hearts as well as heads;
but in the conflict the victory came from their judgments, not their
affections. I remember visiting Scotland more than a quarter of a century
ago, just on the eve of the great disruption, and spending an evening at a
pleasant manse inhabited by an able minister and his accomplished wife,
both of whom were pondering the question of "going out," or "remaining
in;" and never can I forget the look of anguish with which they alluded to
the impending crisis. The memory of that visit brings vividly to mind many
an English parsonage in the year 1662.
It required much effort in the minds of Puritan
clergymen to brace themselves up to meet what was 1662.
at hand. One prepared for the crisis by preaching to
his congregation four successive Sundays from words to the Hebrews: "Ye
took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye
have in heaven a better and an enduring substance." Another, who had a
wife and ten children—"eleven strong arguments," so he said, for
conformity—remarked, that his family must live on the 6th of Matthew,
"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body, what ye shall put on." A third, when asked what he would
do with his family, replied, "Should I have as many children as that hen has
chickens," pointing to one with a numerous brood, "I should not question
but God would provide for them all."[363]

Several of the ministers conferred or corresponded with each other. A
few came to London to know the opinions of their brethren. Letters passed
to and fro as fast as the post could carry them; and sheets full of arguments,
questions, replies, and rejoinders, were conveyed from place to place.
Stories respecting the treatment of Presbyterian Chaplains, the conduct of
the Bishops at the Savoy, the debates in Convocation, and the speeches in
Parliament, Sheldon's management, and Clarendon's policy, would be freely
told, not always with perfect accuracy. Ministers conversed with
Presbyterian Peers, and other patrons; and, it is said, that one of the former
being asked by one of the latter whether he would conform, answered,
"That such things were required and enjoined as he could not swallow," and
he was "necessitated to march off, and sound a retreat;" whereupon His
Lordship added, with a sigh, "I wish it had been otherwise; but they were
resolved either to reproach you, or undo you."[364] With conference and
correspondence there existed no organized confederation; each took his
own ground, and pursued his own course. Many a village Vicar stood alone,
and his conduct proceeded from individual conscientiousness. The ejected
had nothing to strengthen and animate them, like the understanding which
preceded the disruption in Scotland—nothing like the popular applause that
welcomed it—nothing like the éclat of the public procession from the
House of Assembly in the City of Edinburgh; no ovation soothed the cast-
out. The feast of St. Bartholomew became a fast; as in the Valley of
Megiddon, so in Puritan England, "The land mourned, every family apart."
As August approached, reports of disaffection
increased in gravity. In July, an idea was current that EFFECTS OF THE
ACT.
Cromwell's soldiers were waiting to learn what the
Presbyterians would do, being themselves ready to rekindle the flames of
revolution. From various parts of the country came news of refractory
trained bands, of gunsmiths preparing arms, and of ministers talking
treason. Rumour declared there was to be a general rising in a few weeks.
At all events, within two years of the Restoration, the joy of seeing a
crowned head once more, had given way. People began, not only to ask
what advantage had accrued from the King's return, but they also began to
institute comparisons between the Long Parliament and that which was now
sitting. De Wiquefort, the Dutch Minister, in a despatch dated the 14th of
May, informed his Government, that the chimney tax could not be levied

without much trouble, and that Parliament, which had been the idol of the
nation, was now sinking in popular respect.[365]
Several sources of discontent can be pointed out.
The licentiousness and extravagance of the Court 1662.
were passing all bounds; even such of the Cavaliers
as combined with their hatred of Puritan precision, some regard for outward
decency, were shocked at the stories of the mad revelries and shameless
debauchery of Whitehall; many individuals had been beggared in the Royal
service, and now they saw themselves totally neglected by the Prince in
whose cause they had sacrificed their property and shed their blood. To
replenish an empty exchequer, the Government effected the sale of Dunkirk
—a town which had been won by the valour of Cromwell. It wounded the
national honour, and roused popular indignation, to see the keys of that
fortress put into the hands of Louis XIV. for a sum of money; and also to
see Tangier, a useless possession, part of the dowry of Queen Catherine,
carefully preserved at a large cost. To add to the trouble, Popery was said to
be on the increase, especially through proceedings at Somerset House,
where the Queen Mother Henrietta kept her Court, gathered round her the
English Roman Catholics, and encouraged the intrigues of Jesuits and
priests.
Charles and his Council did not learn the whole truth, they only caught
glimpses of some wild phantasmagoria, with the great Gorgon-head of
insurrection in the midst of all; and, therefore, instead of striving to see
what could be done to re-establish confidence, he and his Ministers set to
work to demolish fortifications at Northampton, at Gloucester, and at other
places, and to issue instructions to Lieutenants of Counties to take
precautions against rebellion.[366]
Numbers of political papers and tracts appeared
expressing uneasiness. Much authority cannot be EFFECTS OF THE
ACT.
attached to such a random writer as Roger 1662.
L'Estrange; but when he states that not so few as
200,000 copies of seditious works had been printed "since the blessed
return of his sacred Majesty," and that to these were to be added new
editions of old ones to the amount of millions more,[367] we are justified in
believing that the printers were kept very busy by people of the kind so

much detested by this pamphleteer, nor do I doubt that, as he says, the
publications "were contrived and penned with accurate care and cunning to
catch all humours." On the other side, the Church and State party did not sit
with folded hands—Roger's own fiery pen being unceasingly employed in
the laudation of King, Church, and Bishops, and in vilifying Roundheads,
Republicans, and all Sectaries. Some authors mingled in the mêlée after a
very equivocal fashion, drawing "a parallel betwixt the ancient and the
modern fanatics," so as to place in company with Anabaptists, Quakers, and
Independents, not only the Lollards, but even Hugh Latimer—thus striking
a blow at Nonconformity through the side of the Reformation.[368] Much
more effective than abuse and satire, were papers, printed ready for
Bartholomew's Day, giving "a brief martyrology and catalogue of the
learned, grave, religious, and painful ministers of the City of London, who
were deprived, imprisoned, and plundered, during the Commonwealth."
The persecution of the Episcopalians afforded a strong point against the
Nonconformists, especially before it could be met by a long list of ejected
Nonconformists. Names of Episcopalians said to have been reviled, and
forced to resign, and "compelled to fly"—"violated, assaulted, abused in the
streets," and imprisoned in "the Compter, Ely House, Newgate, and the
ships"—furnished so many arguments for severe measures against those
who were charged with these indefensible persecutions.

CHAPTER XIII.

N o Sunday in England ever exactly resembled that which fell on the 17th
of August, 1662—one week before the feast of St. Bartholomew. There
have been "mourning, lamentation, and woe," in particular parish churches
when death, persecution, or some other cause has broken pastoral ties, and
severed from loving congregations, their spiritual guides; but for many
hundreds of ministers on the same day to be uttering farewells is an
unparalleled circumstance. In after years, Puritan fathers and mothers
related to their children the story of assembled crowds; of aisles, standing-
places, and stairs, filled to suffocation; of people clinging to open windows
like swarms of bees; of overflowing throngs in churchyards and streets; of
deep silence or stifled sobs, as the flock gazed on the shepherd—"sorrowing
most of all that they should see his face no more."
Pepys—who liked to see and hear everything
which was going on—walked to old St. Dunstan's 1662.
Church, at seven o'clock in the morning, but found
the doors unopened. He took a turn in the Temple Gardens until eight,
when, on coming back to the church, he saw people crowding in at a side
door, and found the edifice half-filled, ere the principal entrance had been
opened. Dr. Bates, minister of the church, took for his text— "Now the God
of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great
Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make
you perfect." "He making a very good sermon," reports the Secretary, "and
very little reflections in it to anything of the times." After dinner, the gossip
went to St. Dunstan's again, to hear a second sermon from the same
preacher upon the same text. Arriving at the church, about one o'clock, he
found it thronged, and had to stand during the whole of the service. Not
until the close of this second homily, did the preacher make any distinct
allusion to his ejectment, and then it was in terms the most concise and
temporate. "I know you expect I should say something as to my
nonconformity. I shall only say thus much—it is neither fancy, faction, nor
humour, that makes me not to comply, but merely for fear of offending
God. And if after the best means used for my illumination, as prayer to God,

discourse, study, I am not able to be satisfied concerning the lawfulness of
what is required; if it be my unhappiness to be in error, surely men will
have no reason to be angry with me in this world, and I hope God will
pardon me in the next."[369]
Dr. Jacomb occupied his pulpit in St. Martin's, Ludgate. It would seem,
from his remarks, that he did not expect it to be the last pastoral discourse
he would deliver; but I am unable to say whether the hope he had of
preaching to his parishioners again, arose from an idea that the law would
be mitigated. "Let me," he said, "require this of you, to pass a charitable
interpretation upon our laying down the exercise of our ministry." "I
censure none that differ from me, as though they displease God: but yet, as
to myself, should I do thus and thus, I should certainly violate the peace of
my own conscience, and offend God, which I must not do, no, not to secure
my ministry; though that either is, or ought to be dearer to me than my very
life; and how dear it is, God only knoweth."[370]
In the Cambridge University Library[371] is the
copy of A Prayer of a Nonconformist before his THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
Sermon, which was preached to an eminent
Congregation, August, 1662. The prayer is long, and consists chiefly of
confession of sin and of supplication for spiritual blessings; the only
passages which seem to refer to existing circumstances are the two
following:—"It is the Spirit that makes ordinances efficacious—although
Thou art pleased to tye us to them, when we may purely enjoy them, yet
Thou dost not tye Thyself to them." "Bring our hearts to our estates, if not
our estates to our hearts. It is the happiness of the saints in heaven to have
their estates brought to their hearts; but the happiness of the saints on earth
to have their hearts brought to their estates."
The Fire of London swept away so many of the
old City churches that we are unable to picture the 1662.
localities where the City ministers preached, what
they called, their own funeral sermons; but it is otherwise in the provinces.
Everyone who has entered the Vale of Taunton, and tarried in the town from
which it takes its name, must have lingered under the shadow of the noble
Church of St. Mary, and longer still within its spacious nave, sometime
since restored with exquisite taste. In 1662 the town had just had its walls

razed, as a punishment for what the inhabitants did in the Civil Wars—the
bones of their townsman Blake had been dug out of his grave in
Westminster Abbey; old Puritan members of the Corporation had been
displaced for new ones of Cavalier sympathies; and now, with bitter
recollections, the nonconforming parishioners entered the Church on the
17th of August, to listen for the last time to their minister, George Newton
—"a noted gospeller," and remarkable for his missionary zeal. "As to the
particular Divine providence," he said, "now ending our ministry among
you, whatever happeneth on this account, let it be your exercise to cry out
for the Holy Spirit of Christ, and He will grant you a greater support than
you may expect from any man whatever.... The withdrawing of this present
ministry may be to cause you to pray for this Holy Spirit, day and night;
and Christ promiseth that the Father will give it to them that ask it.... If I
cannot serve God one way, let me not be discouraged, but be more earnest
in another."[372]
The quiet little town of Beer Regis, in
Dorsetshire, retains its ancient church, with its THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
square tower and pinnacles, dedicated to St. John the
Baptist. The living, in conjunction with that of Charmouth, formed the
golden prebend of Salisbury Cathedral. How much of the income of the
stall belonged to the Incumbent under the Commonwealth I do not know,
but the Incumbency must have been of a description strongly to tempt
Philip Lamb, who then held it, to comply with the Act of Uniformity, had he
been a worldly-minded man.[373] But his farewell teaching proves him to
have been above the reach of such temptations. Like other discourses at the
same time, his was full of spiritual instruction and earnest appeal; the
following allusion being made to the event of the day:—"For now I must
tell you, that perhaps you may not see my face, or hear my voice anymore
in this place; yet not out of any peevish humour, or disaffection to the
present authority of the kingdom (I call God and man to witness this day), it
being my own practice and counsel to you all, to fear God and honour the
King;—but rather a real dissatisfaction in some particulars imposed, to
which (notwithstanding all endeavours to that purpose) my conscience
cannot yet be espoused."[374]
The week between the 17th and 24th of August proved an eventful one.
Charles had been married in the previous May to Catherine of Braganza; a

match which—though formally approved by the Privy Council and by
Parliament, because of her dowry, and of the possession of Tangier, on the
coast of Africa, and of Bombay, in the East Indies, and of a free trade with
Portugal and its colonies—was, because of the religion of the bride, hateful
to the English people, in proportion as they hated Popery. The day before
her reception, the King issued a Proclamation, addressed to the Lord Mayor
and Sheriffs of London. He laid "hold of this occasion of public joy, on the
first coming of the Queen to the Royal Palace of Westminster, to order the
release of Quakers and others, in gaol, in London and Middlesex, for being
present at unlawful assemblies, who yet profess all obedience and
allegiance; provided they are not indicted for refusing the Oath of
Allegiance, nor have been ringleaders nor preachers at their assemblies,
hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."[375]
The Quakers, George Fox and Richard
Hubberthorn, had just before addressed the King as 1662.
"Friend," and sent His Majesty a list of "three
thousand one hundred and seventy-three persons" who had suffered for
conscience' sake. "There have been also imprisoned in thy name," add these
plain-spoken memorialists, "three thousand sixty and eight." "Now this we
would have of thee, to set them at liberty that lie in prison, in the names of
the Commonwealth, and of the two Protectors, and them that lie in thy own
name, for speaking the truth."[376] How far this appeal influenced Charles in
his act of grace now performed I cannot say; nor does it appear how
clemency towards a despised sect tended to gratify the country at large;
which on such an occasion he might naturally wish to do. Perhaps, being
fond of exercising a dispensing power, this proceeding might afford some
gratification to himself; and as to the selection of objects, he had a liking for
Quakers, on account of what he regarded their harmlessness and oddity. He
had no fear of their arming themselves against his throne; and to quiz their
dress and their speech, seemed to his frivolous taste, a piece of real fun.
On Saturday, the 23rd of August, Catherine reached Whitehall; and the
citizens of London, ever prompt in their loyalty on such occasions, gave "a
large demonstration of their duty and affection to the King's and Queen's
Majesty on the River Thames." The Mercers, the Drapers, the Merchant
Taylors, and the Goldsmiths, appeared in stately barges, their pageantry and
that of the Lord Mayor outpeering the rest of the brilliant regatta. Music

floated from bands on deck, and thundering peals roared from pieces of
ordnance on shore. Their Majesties came in an antique-shaped, open vessel,
covered with a cupola-like canopy of cloth of gold, supported by Corinthian
pillars, wreathed with festoons and garlands of flowers,—the pageant
exceeding—as John Evelyn remarked, who was sailing near—all the
Venetian Bucentoras, in which, on Ascension Day, the Doge was wont to
wed, with a golden ring, the fair Adriatic. The spectacle on the water-
highway presented a contrast to the experiences in many parsonages
throughout broad England; and it is remarkable, that just then certain
persons were engaged in solemnities more in accordance with
Nonconformist depression.
Edward Calamy that very Saturday preached a
sermon at St. Austin's Church, in London, for Father THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
Ash (the old man who shed tears of joy over Charles'
early promises), from the words "The righteous perisheth, and no man
layeth it to heart; and merciful men are taken away, none considering that
the righteous is taken away from the evil to come,"—words befitting the
interment of a Puritan patriarch on Bartholomew's eve. Discoursing on his
text, the preacher reminded his audience how Methuselah died, a year
before the flood; Austin died a little before Hippo was taken; and Luther
died just as the wars in Germany were about to begin. He might have
added, that Blaise Pascal, who died the preceding Tuesday, August 19th,
had been removed just as the agony of the crisis came, in the history of the
Port Royalists.[377]
By a further coincidence, the same day on which Ash was buried in
London, Edward Bowles, the distinguished Nonconformist, breathed his
last in the City of York. He had just been elected Vicar of Leeds—but his
Nonconformity would have disqualified him from entering on the benefice,
had not his Master called him to a better preferment and a nobler ministry.
When St. Bartholomew's Day arrived, the
Nonconformist clergy who had not before taken 1662.
leave of their flocks, uttered their farewells. Thomas
Lye, Rector of Allhallows, London—whose catechetical lectures had made
him very popular with the youthful members of Puritan families—preached
twice from the words—"Therefore my brethren, dearly beloved and longed
for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved." Lye

mentioned in his morning address, that he had been ejected on the 24th of
August, 1651, because he would not swear against the King. Now, on the
24th of August, 1662, he was ejected for a very different reason. But he did
not repine. "By way of exhortation," said the preacher, "I remember good
Jacob when he was come into Egypt, ready to die, calls his children
together, and before he dies, he blesseth his children.—O beloved, I have a
few blessings for you, and, for God's sake, take them as if they dropt from
my lips when dying.—Whatever others think, I am utterly against all
irregular ways; I have (I bless the Lord) never had a hand in any change of
Government in all my life; I am for prayers, tears, quietness, submission,
and meekness, and let God do His work, and that will be best done when He
doth it."[378]
Another instance of a second ejectment occurred
the same day under different circumstances. Robert THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
Atkins, in the month of September, 1660, had been
dismissed from the choir of Exeter Cathedral—the part of the edifice
appropriated to the Presbyterians—"Church music," to use his own words,
"jostling out the constant preaching of the Word; the minister being obliged
to give place to the chorister; and hundreds, yea thousands, to seek where to
hear a sermon on the Lord's Day, rather than singing service should be
omitted, or not kept up in its ancient splendour and glory." Driven at the
Restoration from East Peter's, he found refuge in the parish church of St.
John—an instance which shows that nonconforming clergymen might lose
one living and gain another, between the King's return and the execution of
the Act. From St. John's, he was ejected in August, and then he preached a
sermon in which, rising above all such narrowness as prompted the
depreciation of cathedral music, he caught ennobling inspirations, and
employed only words of loyalty and love. "Let him never be accounted a
sound Christian that doth not both fear God and honour the King. I beg that
you would not interpret our Nonconformity to be an act of unpeaceableness
and disloyalty. We will do anything for His Majesty but sin. We will hazard
anything for him but our souls. We hope we could die for him, only we dare
not be damned for him. We make no question, however we may be
accounted of here, we shall be found loyal and obedient subjects at our
appearance before God's tribunal."[379]

Another day they had to quit the parsonage.[380]
No poet that I am aware of, has made the 1662.
Bartholomew Exodus a theme for his muse, but the
well-known lines in Goldsmith's "Deserted Village" may be accommodated
to the incident.

"Good heaven! what sorrows gloom'd that parting day,
That call'd them from their native walks away,
When the poor exiles, every pleasure past,
Hung round the bowers, and fondly look'd their last.
With loudest plaints the mother spoke her woes,
And blest the cot where every pleasure rose,
And kiss'd her thoughtless babes with many a tear,
And clasp'd them close, in sorrow doubly dear;
While her fond husband strove to lend relief,
In all the silent manliness of grief."

Some persons can allow no excuse for Puritans who conformed. Because
Nonconformity under the circumstances appears to these persons a plain
obligation, they suppose it must have appeared equally plain to everybody
entertaining evangelical views like their own. But if we exclude all Puritan
Conformists from the benefit of charitable allowance, on the score of
temptation; if we dismiss all thought of the medium through which, owing
to circumstances, they were likely to contemplate their own case,—then we
diminish our estimate of the clear-sighted judgment, the unprejudiced
resolves, and the self-sacrificing heroism of those Puritans who in a crisis of
extraordinary difficulty, pursued the course they did. When Nonconformists
discover considerations which mitigate the censure of some who
conformed, they must all the more admire those who, rising above motives
which spring from self-interest, from example, from persuasion, and from
prejudice, were, through a sense of duty, led to sacrifice so much which
they held dear.
The ejected differed from each other in many
respects: not more unlike are cedars and firs, oaks THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
and ashes, the elm and the ivy. Some were bold and
stern, of rugged nature and robust strength; others were gentle and
dependent, relying on friends for counsel and example. Some were rigid
and ascetic; others frank and genial. They included Presbyterians,

Independents, Baptists, and not a few whom it would be difficult to reduce
entirely under any of those denominations; also, Calvinists and Arminians,
with other Divines scarcely belonging to either of those schools. As to
learning, eloquence, reasoning, and imagination, the men varied; but under
all their peculiarities lay a common faith—of no ordinary character, a faith
of that rare kind which makes the confessor. They believed in God, in
Christ, in truth, in Heaven; and in the controversy which they carried on,
they regarded themselves as fighting for a Divine cause. People may think
some of these ministers made too much of wearing a surplice, using the
sign of the cross, and bowing at the name of Jesus; but such things were
considered by them as having a significance beyond themselves. They were,
by the ejected, judged to be signs of a corrupted Christianity—the banners
of an adverse army—flags of which the importance did not consist in the
silk, the crimson, and the gold, but in the import of the emblazoned device.
What might seem trifles to others, were in their estimation the marks of a
ceremonial, as opposed to a spiritual, of a legal as opposed to an evangelical
Christianity. They believed that, in the defence of the Gospel, they were
acting as they did. A strong evangelical faith upheld their ecclesiastical
opinions, like the everlasting rocks which form the ribs and backbone of
this grand old world.
The Church of England suffered no small loss
when she lost such men. So far as extreme Anglo- 1662.
Catholics on the one hand, and extreme
Presbyterians on the other were concerned, union was impossible; but it
should be remembered that in the conferences at Worcester House and the
Savoy, nothing more was sought by the Puritans than a moderate
Episcopacy; and, as already noticed, Baxter declared, that to the best of his
knowledge the Presbyterian cause was never spoken for, nor were they ever
heard to petition for it at all. There can be no question that there were
amongst the ejected many exemplary ministers, who would have been
perfectly satisfied with such concessions, as moderate Episcopalians might
have conscientiously sanctioned.
The great change having been accomplished, the King commanded
directions to be sent to the clergy respecting their preaching. They were
forbidden to meddle with matters of State, or to discuss speculative points

in theology, but were enjoined to catechize the young, to read the canons,
and to promote the observance of the Lord's Day.[381]

CHAPTER XIV.

W hen the Act had taken effect, some of the Presbyterians looked for a
mitigation of its severity. Those who lived in London, and were upon
terms of friendship with the Earl of Manchester, and other Puritan
noblemen, trusting to their influence at Court, resolved to make an effort to
obtain redress. Calamy, Manton, and Bates, the leaders of this forlorn hope,
prepared a petition, numerously signed by London pastors.[382] It spoke of
His Majesty's indulgence, and besought him, in his princely wisdom and
compassion, to take some effectual course, whereby they might be
continued in the exercise of their office.[383] Whatever might be the effect of
the petition, Clarendon admits that the King made a positive promise to do
what the ministers desired.
At this time the nobility had gone down to their
country-seats to enjoy the summer months; the 1662.
Bishops generally were engaged in their visitations.
Charles, at Hampton Court, was joking with his lords, toying with his
mistresses, rambling in the green alleys, lounging in the cool saloons,
watching games in the tennis-court, and feeding the ducks in the broad
ponds. However unwilling to attend to business, he found that a Council
must be held. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London
and Winchester were therefore summoned, together with Chief Justice
Bridgman, and the Attorney-General, the Duke of Ormond, and the
Secretaries of State. The King's promise was communicated to the Council.
"The Bishops were very much troubled that those fellows should still
presume to give His Majesty so much vexation, and that they should have
such access to him." As for themselves, they desired "to be excused for not
conniving in any degree at the breach of the Act of Parliament, either by not
presenting a clerk where themselves were patrons, or deferring to give
institution upon the presentation of others; and that His Majesty's giving
such a declaration or recommendation, would be the greatest wound to the
Church, and to the government thereof, that it could receive."[384]

Sheldon vehemently urged, that it was now too
late to alter what had been done; the Sunday before THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
he had ejected those who would not subscribe; the
King had thus provoked them, and that now to admit them to the Church
would be for him to put his head in the lion's mouth. He further urged that
resolutions of Council could not justify contempt for an Act of Parliament.
The argument is thoroughly constitutional, and so far Sheldon appears right;
but before he completed his speech, he manifested his real spirit by
contending, that if the importunity of disaffected people were a reason for
humouring them, neither Church nor State would ever be free from
disturbance.[385]
The operation of the Act, the petition of ministers,
and the discussions in Council, were soon the topic 1662.
of newspapers, and the talk of the country; and great
credit was given for the "care and prudence of the most worthy diocesan" of
London, in filling up the numerous vacancies. It was reported, that at
Northampton, "all except two or three" conformed; that at Gloucester, there
was "scarcely a man" who did not subscribe; and that at Newport, an
instance occurred of a building erected by Nonconformists being seized and
appropriated for Episcopal worship. We find it also stated that in the City of
Chester, Nonconformists preached on the 24th of August, though cautioned
against it by the Bishop; and that the following Sunday they being
displaced, and other ministers being appointed, the Presbyterians still came
to the parish service; and that in Northumberland, there were "only three
disaffected ministers, Scotchmen, who quietly left their livings, and crossed
the Tweed." The High Church party believed the Act to be popular, and
Nonconformity to be an insignificant affair—a mere puff of smoke, which a
moment's wind would blow away. Episcopal visitations created much
enthusiasm. All the gentry went out to meet the Bishop of Exeter, with one
thousand horse, and foot without number, and many coaches; City music
sounded from the top of Guildhall, and the Bishop drove up to the Deanery
amidst volleys of shot. At Chippenham, like honours saluted the Bishop of
Salisbury.[386] Rumours of another kind floated in other quarters. William
Hook, an Independent, who had been ejected from the Savoy, informed an
American correspondent, that after the Act of Uniformity, there were few
communicants at the churches, "only ten, twenty, or forty, where there were

20,000 persons more than sixteen years old; and on festival days only the
parsons and three or four at their devotions."[387] It is not to be supposed
that Hook, any more than his contemporaries in newspapers, gave himself
much trouble in sifting evidence, still probably there is truth in what he
says. Beyond idle rumours certain facts are established. For example, St.
Mary's Church, at Taunton, was closed for several weeks successively; and
although we find that afterwards public services were held at rare intervals,
the parish had no resident minister for the next nine months.[388]
The law bound every clergyman to subscribe in
the presence of his Archbishop or Ordinary, and it THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
may be mentioned in illustration, that the Canons of
St. George's Chapel, Windsor, subscribed before the Dean, he being the
Ordinary of the place; some of them, in majorem cautionem, subscribed
also before the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet was it with this proviso—
saving the rights and privileges of this free chapel.[389]
Some clergymen, who ultimately subscribed, did so with hesitation. Sir
Thomas Browne, in his tour through Derbyshire, met with a friend who, the
day before he saw him, which was in the month of September, "had most
manfully led up a train of above twenty parsons, and though they thought
themselves to be great Presbyterians, yet they followed" this leader to
Chesterfield, and by subscribing there "kept themselves in their livings
despite of their own teeth."[390] Some lingered awhile on neutral ground;
others went back to the Establishment. A large number of cases of this kind
may be found in Calamy's Account and Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial.
[391]
Men of character and worth, belonging to the Puritan party, overcame
their scruples by putting a general interpretation on a precise declaration,
and by pondering the thought that a superior social influence for good
would attend their remaining as shepherds within the Episcopalian sheep-
fold.
Lightfoot, Wallis, and Horton, who had been
Presbyterian Commissioners at the Savoy, became 1662.
Conformists. Dr. Fogg, of Chester, joined them at the
end of five years; Dr. Conant at the end of seven.
Gurnal, the devout author of the Christian Armour, belongs to the same
class. All such men had to pay the penalty of separating from old friends.

[392]
They suffered abuse; being taunted with the use of "Episcopal eye-
salve," and for bowing down to "the whore of Babylon." All sorts of stories
were buzzed abroad to their discredit; it is related as a Divine judgment that
a Conformist crossing a bridge on his way to the place where he meant to
subscribe, was thrown from his horse and killed. The tale appears in
connection with an account of a clergyman, who, after expressing himself
in a sermon bitterly against the Presbyterians, dreamed that he should die at
a certain time, and, in accordance with this warning, was found dead in his
bed.[393] Cases also occurred in which clergymen at first conformed to the
Act, and afterwards became Dissenters.[394]
Soon after the Act had been passed, the Bishops
issued articles of inquiry and visitation, very much THE BARTHOLOMEW
of the same comprehensive, minute, and sifting EJECTMENT.
description, as those which had been issued before the Civil Wars. In these
articles, distinct reference is made to the conformity required by the new
law. The text of the articles for the dioceses of Bath and Wells, Chichester,
Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, Llandaff, Oxford, Peterborough, and St. David's
is, with slight exception, the same as that for the diocese of Winchester, of
which Morley was Bishop; and, under the third title, Concerning Ministers,
it is asked, whether they had been legally instituted and inducted; and had,
within two months after induction, on some Sunday or holyday, publicly, in
the time of Divine service, read the Thirty-nine Articles and declared assent
to them; also, whether in the daily Morning and Evening service,
Administration of the Holy Sacraments, Celebration of Marriage,
Churching of Women, Visitation of the Sick, Burial of the Dead, and
pronouncing God's Commination against impenitent sinners, they used the
words prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, without any addition,
omission, or alteration of the same? Also whether they wore the surplice,
and such scholastical habit as was suitable to their degree, and observed
holydays, fasts, embers, and the yearly perambulations in Rogation weeks?
Also whether any person had preached in the parish as a lecturer, and if so,
whether he had obtained a license from the Bishop, and had read the
appointed prayers, and was in all respects conformable to the laws of the
Church?[395]
In some articles, the questions on these points are
still more precise and stringent. Cosin, Bishop of 1662.

Durham, asks "Do you not know, or have you not heard, that in his reading,
or pretending to read, these Thirty-nine Articles, he (the minister) omitted
or skipped over some one or more of them? What article was it, or what part
thereof that he left unread?" The same prelate also inquires whether
lecturers read prayers in a surplice.[396] Other Bishops satisfied themselves
with general questions. Griffith, Bishop of St. Asaph, and Henchman,
Bishop of Salisbury, both use these words, "Doth your minister distinctly,
reverently, say Divine service upon Sundays and holydays;" "doth he duly
observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of
Common Prayer?"[397] Bishop Reynolds asks whether the minister had been
freely presented, and legally instituted and inducted? whether he had
publicly read the Thirty-nine Articles, and given his assent, and celebrated
every office in such form, manner, and habit, as is prescribed? He inquires
as to the right and due observance of the sacraments, and the notice of
holydays: and, like others of his brethren, inquires respecting the
observance of the 5th of November, the 30th of January, and the 29th of
May.[398]
Archdeacons also issued articles touching the manner of celebrating
Divine service.[399]
Notwithstanding all these precautions, a few ministers continued within
the pale of the Establishment without conforming to the Act.
John Chandler held the living of Petto in Essex;
although he had only received Presbyterian THE BARTHOLOMEW
EJECTMENT.
ordination, he was pronounced by his diocesan,
Bishop Reynolds—thus far true to his old faith—to be as good a minister as
he could make him; and notwithstanding his only partial use of liturgical
worship, he was allowed to retain his incumbency. Mr. Ashurst, of Arlsey—
a poor Bedfordshire vicarage—in the diocese of Lincoln, in which Laney
succeeded Sanderson in 1663, continued to officiate in the parish church,
reading parts of the Common Prayer, and taking for his support whatever
his parishioners chose to contribute. Nicholas Billingsley, settled at
Blakeney, in the parish of Awre, in the diocese of Gloucester—"lived very
peaceably for awhile"—on his impropriation of £50 per annum, by the
permission of Bishop Nicholson. We also find in the diocese of Chester,
under the successive episcopacy of Hall, Wilkins, and Pearson, that Angier

of Denton, continued the occupancy of the parish pulpit, and the enjoyment
of parish emoluments, notwithstanding his perseverance in Presbyterian
worship. Tilsley, the Presbyterian Vicar of Dean, after losing his vicarage,
was, by Wilkins, permitted to resume his ministry as lecturer in his old
parish, the new Vicar reading prayers. There were other instances in the
same diocese of an evasion of the law. In the diocese of Gloucester, under
Nicholson, Henry Stubbs was allowed the poor living of Horsley; and in the
diocese of Llandaff, under Lloyd, Richard Hawes was permitted to preach
without subscribing. Similar instances of irregularity occurred in different
parts of the country. Some clergymen, after being ejected, were allowed to
become chaplains in hospitals and prisons, and to officiate occasionally for
parochial Incumbents.[400]
It may be added, that there were clergymen in the
Establishment who disapproved of what had been 1662.
done. Edward Stillingfleet, however he might speak
and act afterwards, expressed, at that time, liberal opinions, and acted in a
manner consistent with them. He maintained that Christ's design was to
ease men of their former burdens, and not to lay on more; that the unity of
the Church is an unity of love and affection, and not a bare uniformity of
practice or opinion; and that however desirable in a Church the latter might
be, as long as there are men of different ranks and sizes in it, it is hardly
attainable.[401]
In accordance with these sentiments, Stillingfleet sheltered at his rectory
of Sutton, in Bedfordshire, one of the ejected ministers, and took a large
house, which he converted into a school for another.
Laymen also deplored the severities of the measure. Hale, Boyle, and Sir
Peter Pett did so; whilst Locke's earliest work, written in 1660, aimed at
reconciling the Puritans to submission in things indifferent.[402] A strong
conviction existed in the minds of Episcopalians and Royalists that
Nonconformity was disloyal and insurrectionary; and this conviction, then,
and long afterwards, operated as a power in the Church of England,
destructive of social peace and union, far beyond what is generally
supposed. The rumours about plots in the earlier period of the reign of
Charles II. have not much occupied the attention of historians. They are
commonly dismissed as idle tales. No doubt they were such in most

instances; and not in a single instance did any actual insurrection occur. But
in history, it is important to notice, not only what men have done, but what
men have believed to be done. Beliefs, however absurd, have been to those
who entertained them, just the same as facts, and these beliefs have actually
been factors of great power: as such they claim to be noted by the historian.
I have too much faith in the English spirit of the seventeenth century, in the
generosity which mingled with the High Churchmanship of the best of the
Cavaliers, and in the thorough conscientiousness of many of the
Conformists, to believe that they could have acted towards Dissenters as
they did, unless they had been hood-winked by people who persuaded them,
that Dissenters were not true-hearted Englishmen, but only so many
wretched rebels. It so happens that the State Papers, as already indicated,
afford almost innumerable illustrations of the extent and operation of these
prejudices, and I make no apology for employing many of these documents
in subsequent pages as useful contributions to English history.
In October, 1662, Sir Edward Nicholas was
succeeded by Sir Henry Bennet. Like his RUMOURED PLOTS.
1662.
predecessor, he gave himself diligently to inquiries
respecting suspected persons. A month before the former retired, he told
Lord Rutherford that there were rumours of disturbances intended by
Presbyterians and Independents, but at present all was quiet. A month
afterwards he confessed to the same person, that there was no commotion in
any part of the kingdom, although factious sectaries raised reports to
frighten people.[403] Frivolous letters constantly poured in upon the
bewildered officials. There came notes of conversation with Edward
Bagshawe,[404] who said London was discontented; that 1,960[405] ministers
were turned out of their livings; that Dunkirk was sold; that the King only
minded his mistresses; that the Queen and her cabal carried on the
Government at Somerset House; that Popery was coming in; that the people
would not endure these things, but would rise on the ground that the Long
Parliament was not yet dissolved because they had passed an Act against
any dissolution but by themselves. A large bundle of examinations was
forwarded to Bennet, about the same time, by the Earl of Northumberland
—an informer conveying them, and adding to the written secrets, vivâ voce
revelations—the papers disclosing such frivolous circumstances as that
three gentlemen and two servants, whom nobody knew, had been seen

somewhere, and that "an ancient grey man," and "a Jersey Frenchman"
were mysteriously moving from place to place. Also, there arrived a packet
promising much information, which, when opened, was found to contain
only religious sentences, and a number of love verses. Suspicious persons
were reported, and it is amusing, amongst unknown names to find
mentioned "Dr. Goodwin and Owen, who now scruple at the surplice, but
used to wear velvet cassocks, and to receive from five to seven hundred a-
year from their Churches."[406] The letter-bags were robbed; people's houses
were broken into, and trunks full of papers seized and carried off by
constables. Spies employed by the Government were active in collecting
reports, and there can be no doubt that they were quite as active in inventing
them. Two informers, Peter and John Crabb, brought accounts of intended
insurrections; but at the same time they made awkward revelations
respecting themselves. Peter had told the Secretary of State, that he and his
brother John were the Secretary's devoted servants, and wished to be
employed in a certain business; that he had only received a part of the
money, which he understood the Secretary had sent him; and that to cover
his profession as a spy, lest City people should wonder how he lived, he put
out a "bill, advertizing the cure of the rickets in children, in Red Lion Court,
Bishopsgate."[407] After reading the correspondence of these two brothers, I
am not surprised to find depositions charging one of them with being a liar
and a villain. The depositions are met by cross-swearing; the whole
business leaving the impression that Whitehall was beset by troops of
scoundrels.[408] A result of this kind of espionage, and of the exaggerations
and inventions of informers, may be found in the trial and condemnation of
six men in the month of December for being concerned in an intended
rising of "Fifth Monarchy men, Anabaptists, Independents, and fighting
Quakers." The evidence rested chiefly upon rumours.

CHAPTER XV.

A fter all Clarendon's advice and all Sheldon's
opposition, the King, within four months of the DECLARATION OF
meeting of Council already described, returned to his INDULGENCE.
favourite expedient. He published, on the 26th of December, 1662, a
Declaration, in which he referred to promises from Breda, of ease and
liberty to tender consciences, and also to malicious rumours to the effect,
that at the time he denied a fitting liberty to other sects whose consciences
would not allow them to conform to the established religion, he was
indulgent to Papists, not only in exempting them from the penalties of the
law, but even to such a degree as might endanger the Protestant religion.
[409]
Respecting all this he asserted, that as he had been zealous to settle the
uniformity of the Church, in discipline, ceremony, and government, and
would ever constantly maintain it—so as for the penalties upon those who,
living peaceably, did not conform, he should make it his special care, so far
as possible, without invading the freedom of Parliament, to incline their
wisdom, the next sessions, to concur in the making some such Act for that
purpose, as might enable him to exercise, with a more universal
satisfaction, that power of dispensing, which he conceived to be inherent in
him as a Sovereign.[410]
When this Declaration was published, the hopes
of ejected ministers began to revive. Independents 1662.
took courage; Philip Nye, in spite of age and
poverty, manifested some eagerness to revive public Nonconformist
worship. Although personally under the ban of the law, he, with some other
brethren, found admission to Whitehall, and was graciously allowed an
interview with Charles. We do not exactly know what passed; but Nye
received so much encouragement from His Majesty's conversation, that he
told Baxter, the King had resolved to grant them liberty. The day after New
Year's Day, the Independent diplomatist appeared at the house of the
Presbyterian Divine to discuss the propriety of acknowledging the King's
Declaration and seeking indulgence. Baxter resolved not to commit himself;
nor would other Presbyterians take a share in the business; they had had

enough of it, they said: the reasons, at the bottom of their policy, being that
they dreaded a toleration which they knew would be extended so as to
embrace Roman Catholics. They looked on the Declaration as a Trojan
horse; but Nye, whose ideas of religious freedom perhaps had grown, so
that he might be willing to concede it to Roman Catholics, and who
certainly had a strong desire after unfettered action for himself and his
party, thought the tactics of the Presbyterians unwise, and he considered
that, through them, he and his brethren "missed of their intended liberty."
[411]

Further discussion followed between Baxter and
the Independents. They said that they had heard from DECLARATION OF
INDULGENCE.
the Lord Chancellor, that liberty had been intended
for them, but that the Presbyterians had opposed the measure. Old sores
were re-opened, and Baxter, evidently rather nettled, records how the
Independents became affected towards the Popish Earl of Bristol, thinking
that the King's Declaration had been obtained by him, and that he and the
Papists would contrive a general toleration. Burnet confirms what Baxter
says of the Earl's influence, by informing us, that just before, there had been
a meeting of Papists at that nobleman's residence, where it had been
resolved to make an effort in favour of the Roman Catholics, and with such
a view to help Dissenters.[412]
Clarendon, who had strong Protestant convictions, felt alarmed at the
brightening prospects of the Romanists, and he resolved to take a leaf out of
their own book—to fight them with their own weapons—and to adopt their
own principle—"Divide and conquer!" Clarendon accordingly proposed
that Roman Catholics should take the Oath of Allegiance, renouncing the
Pope's deposing power—an oath to which some did not object, but which
others would, on no account, accept. He also proposed the tolerating of
secular priests, coupling with it the banishment of Jesuits and other regular
orders—another scheme which he knew well would breed division. The
whole of the Chancellor's policy is not explained, but it is apparent that he
had set his mind upon extinguishing the hopes of the Papists.[413]
Parliament assembled on the 18th of February,
1663. The King's speech indicates the unpopularity 1663.
of the recent Declaration, and he found it necessary

to assure the Houses that he did not intend to favour Popery at all, and that
he would not yield to the Bishops in his zeal for uniformity; but still he
said, with obvious inconsistency, if Protestant Dissenters would be
peaceable and modest, he could heartily wish that he had such a power of
indulgence as might not needlessly force them out of the kingdom, or give
them cause to conspire against its peace. Five days afterwards, a Bill was
brought into the House of Lords and read the first time, to empower His
Majesty to dispense with the Act of Uniformity, and with other laws
concerning it.[414] This Bill came to nothing, being earnestly opposed by
Lord Southampton, by the Bishops, and by Clarendon, who, in spite of a fit
of the gout, delivered a speech on the adjourned debate, full of
uncompromising opposition to the King's favourite measure.[415] It is a
singular example of the difference between a Chief Minister of that day and
a Prime Minister of our own, that Clarendon should in the House of Lords
oppose the measure which had been brought in, according to wishes
expressed in the speech from the Throne; nor can his conduct respecting the
Declaration fail to support against him the charge of duplicity.[416]
Amongst the mischiefs which, Clarendon says, resulted from what he
calls the unhappy debate on the Indulgence, was the prejudice and
disadvantage which the Bishops experienced in consequence of their
unanimous opposition. "For from that time the King never treated any of
them with that respect as he had done formerly, and often spake of them too
slightly; which easily encouraged others not only to mention their persons
very negligently, but their function and religion itself, as an invention to
impose upon the free judgments and understandings of men. What was
preached in the pulpit was commented upon and derided in the chamber,
and preachers acted, and sermons vilified as laboured discourses, which the
preachers made only to show their own parts and wit, without any other
design than to be commended and preferred."[417]
The subject of Indulgence agitated the whole
country. It was keenly discussed in private meetings DECLARATION OF
INDULGENCE.
of Nonconformist ministers, at archidiaconal
visitations and other clerical gatherings—and still oftener, and with not less
heat, by burghers and yeomen around their firesides. Largely, too, did it
enter into the contents of letters, in one of which, written by William Hook
to his late colleague in New England, we discover copious references to this

and other ecclesiastical topics. Making allowance for the writer's prejudices,
we may learn something from his curious epistle.[418]
"There is a toleration talked of, and expected by many, since the King's
Declaration, which came forth about a month or six weeks since. The
Papists improve the best of their interest to move it; but as for their being
tolerated, there are many of the grandees against it, who are ready enough
to move a motion for toleration of the Protestant suffering party. The
Bishops greatly abhor such a thing, as not being able to subsist but by
rigour and persecution: for had we liberty as to the exercise of religion, they
would be contemned by almost all men; and whereas few frequent the
meeting-places now, they would scarce have any then. They have therefore
striven to strengthen themselves by moving and writing to Parliament men,
before they come up to the City, to sit again on February 18. And, as I hear,
some of their letters were intercepted and made known to the King, who
was offended at some passages, and their practices. Much to do there has
been about this business, and what will become of it, and the issue be, we
are all waiting for."
In another part of the same epistle, relating to the
same subject, Hook gives a glimpse of an amusing 1663.
incident:—"His Majesty sent for Mr. Calamy, Dr.
Bates, and Dr. Manton (and some say, Mr. Baxter also), on the last of the
last week, and took them into his closet, and promised to restore them to
their employments and places again, as pitying that such men should lie
vacant, speaking also against the Popish religion, as it is said. Before they
went in with the King, some said, 'What do these Presbyterians here?' but
when they came out, they said, 'Your servant, Mr. Calamy, and your servant,
Dr. Manton,' &c. It was told them that a Bill for Liberty should be given in
to the House; but, however it went, they should have their liberty, i.e., upon
subscribing (I take it) thirteen articles touching doctrine and worship, in
which there is nothing (as they say) offensive to a tender conscience. There
is a distinction between an act of comprehension and an act of judgment.
Some are for the first, others not. The first is comprehensive as to all forms
in religion (excepting Papist, &c., but I cannot well tell). The other leaves it
to His Majesty to indulge whom he seeth good. On the last day of the last
week, a motion was made in the Lower House for Liberty, according to the
King's Declaration, which I have sent you. A disaffected spirit to Liberty

was much discovered by very many, and the business was referred to be
debated upon the Wednesday following, which is this present day: what will
come of it I cannot yet tell."[419]
The subject of Indulgence was revived in the
summer, and again the Presbyterians and the DECLARATION OF
INDULGENCE.
Independents, as before, are found in controversy on
the point.[420]
Amidst rumours of various sorts, and as the Upper House still occupied
itself upon the offensive Bill, the Lower House showed, as they had done
from the beginning, the most intolerant zeal for the Established Church.
When thanking the King, on the 27th of February, for his speech, they told
him that an indulgence of Dissenters would establish schism by law—
would be inconsistent with the wisdom and gravity of Parliament—would
expose His Majesty to restless importunities—would increase the number
of sectaries—would be altogether contrary to precedent—and would be far
from promoting the peace of the kingdom.
This array of objections alarmed the Monarch; he immediately replied
that he would take time for consideration; and on the 16th of March, he sent
an answer—assuring his faithful Commons that they had misunderstood his
meaning—thanking them for their thanks—and desiring them to put the
kingdom in a state of defence, but not saying one word about the apple of
discord.[421]
Both Houses, on the 31st of March, 1663,
presented a Petition to the King, imploring him to 1663.
command all Jesuits and Popish Priests, whether
English, Irish, or Scotch, to quit the realm. To him such a Petition must
have been annoying, and after delaying a while, to give any distinct answer,
he replied, that he felt troubled on account of the resort to England of
Jesuits and Priests, that it was so much ill-use made of his lenity towards
many of the Popish persuasion,—that his feelings in this respect were the
natural effects of his generosity and good disposition, after having lived so
many years in the dominions of Catholic Princes,—that he would now
endeavour to check the evil,—that as his affection for the Protestant religion
and the Church of England had never been concealed, so he was less
solicitous for the settling of his revenue than for the advancement and

improvement of the ecclesiastical establishments, and for the using of all
effectual remedies for hindering the growth of Popery.[422]
The Commons passed Bills against Papists and Nonconformists, but
these Bills were not sanctioned by the Upper House.[423]
From the passing of the Act of Uniformity down to the repeal of the
clause in 1865, touching the declaration of assent and consent, the meaning
of those words was a constant subject of controversy, some even of the
Bishops construing them in a very lax and indefinite manner. The words
seem to many persons precise enough; and one might have thought that no
room remained for controversy respecting them, after what took place in the
House of Commons at the time now under review. A Bill passed in the
month of July, to relieve those who by sickness or other impediment had
been disabled from subscribing the required declaration. The Lords wished
to sanction the latitudinarian interpretation, and adopted as an amendment
this position, that "assent and consent" should "be understood only as to the
practice and obedience to the said Act, and not otherwise." Against this
construction the Duke of York and thirteen other Lords entered their protest.
The Commons indignantly rejected the amendment, as having "neither
justice nor prudence in it." Such conduct aroused the anger of the Lords,
who resolved to take up the subject in the following session; but they
allowed it to drop, and so virtually gave way to the Lower House, and left
the strict grammatical meaning as the true construction of the law.[424]
Upon the 27th of the same month, July, the
Speaker of the House of Commons alluded to a PAPISTS AND
NONCONFORMISTS.
measure for the better observance of the Sabbath; the
legislation of the Commonwealth on that as on all other subjects having
been rendered void. He dwelt in an affected strain upon the decline of
religion, and then returned to the subject of the growth of Popery, and of
Sectarianism. He was commanded, he said, to desire that His Majesty
would issue another proclamation for preventing profaneness, debauchery,
and licentiousness, and for better securing the peace of the nation against
the united counsels of Dissenters. Charles replied, that he had expected to
have had Bills presented to him against distempers in religion, seditious
Conventicles, and the increase of Popery; but, that not being done, if he
lived, he himself meant to introduce such Bills. Meanwhile, he had charged