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.

The object of my former volumes upon the Ecclesiastical History of England was to state facts and to draw conclusions, without seeking to gratify any particular party, and by such a method to promote the cause of Christian truth and charity. Acknowledgments of success to some extent, expressed by public critics, and by private friends, holding very different ecclesiastical opinions, encourage me to proceed in my arduous but agreeable task; and I now venture to lay before the public another instalment of my work.

To account for its appearance so soon after its predecessor, it is but fair to my readers and myself to state, that it became the dream and desire of my life, a quarter of a century ago, to write an Ecclesiastical History of my own country; and that, ever since, my reading and my reflections have been directed very much into this channel. For many years past, I have been engaged in studying the affairs of the Church from the Commonwealth to the Revolution; and therefore, whatever may be the imperfections of these volumes, they are not, at any rate, a hasty compilation, but the result of long and laborious research.

It may be well to indicate the sources from which my materials are drawn.

The printed Journals of the Lords and Commons,—the Parliamentary History of England,—Cardwell's Synodalia,—Thurloe's State Papers,—and other similar collections, which did not exist in the days of Kennet, Collier, and Neal,—supply, together with Burnet's and Baxter's contemporary accounts, the backbone of the following narrative. Journals, diaries, and biographies of the period, with newspapers and tracts, of which extraordinarily rich collections are found in the British Museum and in Dr. Williams' Library, have helped to clothe the skeleton. But the sources of illustration, upon which I rest some slight claim to originality, are found in certain unpublished MSS. which it has been my privilege to examine and employ.

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 Green, extending from 1660 to 1667, I have been favoured with the use of that lady's unpublished notes down to the close of 1669; these helps have greatly facilitated my inquiries into the history of the first decade embraced within these volumes.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

As to the Established Church—

i. Note-book of Sir Joseph Williamson.

ii. Applications for preferments, and correspondence relating to them.

iii. Private letters alluding in various ways to Church affairs.

As to Nonconformists—

i. Informations against them, which are very numerous.

ii. A spy-book, containing many curious particulars of suspected persons.

iii. Correspondence containing a great number of incidental allusions to the condition of Nonconformity.

The details are generally of a minute description, and would very extensively serve the purpose of biographers and local historians; but they are not without considerable value for a purpose like mine, as my foot-notes will testify.

Amongst the new historical illustrations thus afforded, are those connected with the ecclesiastical aspects of the general election of 1661, with the rumoured plots of that and succeeding years, plots in which Nonconformists were accused of being involved,—the conduct of Nonconformists under their persecutions,—and the fabrication of letters with the view of involving Nonconformists in trouble—of which one striking example occurs in relation to William Baffin, and, as appears very probable, another referring to certain London ministers. There are also notices of the Indulgence of 1672, and of the case of Colledge, the Protestant Joiner, as he was called. It is apparent how much the antipathies of the two religious parties of that day were augmented by political considerations; and from the documents are also obtained many interesting and amusing glimpses of private social life.

II. Next to the State Papers, I may mention a collection of fragmentary remains in the Archives of Parliament, connected with the passing of the Act of Uniformity,—and especially the Book of Common Prayer attached to the Act (described in my Appendix), prefixed to which is an Analysis of the alterations made in the formularies. Accurate copies of these papers have been furnished for my use by the kindness of Sir Denis Le Marchant.

III. The well-known MS. Collections in the British Museum and at Lambeth. They have yielded items of information I believe not published before—particularly the returns made to Episcopal inquiries as preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library.

IV. The MSS. in the University Library of Cambridge. I have found amongst these some papers which have been of service, especially in relation to the reign of James II.; one of them, giving an account of the opening of Parliament, I have printed in my Appendix.

V. The Morice and other MSS. in Dr. Williams' Library. This collection forms a quarry hitherto imperfectly worked. There are three folio volumes, entitled, Entering Books, or Historical Register, extending over the period between 1676-91. These I have found of great service in throwing light upon Nonconformist opinions of public events, in supplying the current rumours of the day, and in recording pieces of information relating to minor matters illustrative of those times. And here I may add, not only with regard to this and other diaries, but also with reference to letters and notes amongst the State Papers, that I have relied on them only for such purposes as are now indicated, and that I do not rest my belief of any important historical events simply upon evidence of this description.

VI. A curious Diary, kept at the time of the Restoration, for the loan of which some years ago I was indebted to Mrs. Green, who copied it from the original in the Middleshill Collection. I have called it the Worcester MSS. The diarist was Henry Townshend, Esquire, of Elmley Lovet, Worcestershire, who lies buried in the church of that parish; and the nature of his impressions of what went on around him may be inferred from his epitaph.

VII. A document relative to the death of Charles II., being one of the valuable collection of papers entrusted to the Record Commission for examination. This document solves the curious enigma which puzzled Lord Macaulay. For a copy of it I am indebted to the kindness of Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, who takes an important part in the Commission.

VIII. A MS. History of the Congregational Churches of Suffolk, by the Rev. Thomas Harmer, Author of Observations on Scripture; a MS. History of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth, drawn up from the Church Book by my late friend Mr. Joseph Davey; and other old Church Records which I have been permitted to inspect, as will appear from the foot-notes to these volumes.

IX. MS. Volumes and Papers in the Archives of Canterbury. For the inspection and use of these I am indebted to the kindness and assistance of the Dean and of Canon Robertson.

X. Subscription Book, amongst the records of Chichester Cathedral, which has been examined by Canon Swainson, who has furnished me with the results inserted in the Appendix. To him my best thanks are due; nor can I omit to record my acknowledgments to the Dean of Chichester also, for all his kind and friendly attention.

With these various materials before me, I have entered much more fully than previous historians have done into several subjects—especially the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church by the Act of Uniformity. In our time, when the question of Establishments has been so earnestly and so practically taken up, as to work out already the greatest ecclesiastical change since 1662, surely a full account of what was accomplished in that memorable year, with its immediate results,—results far from having spent their influence,—must be reckoned amongst the most desirable portions of history. It is remarkable that no State Churchman has ever gone at large into this subject, supplying the defects of Neal, and correcting the inaccuracies of Clarendon and Burnet. Whilst I have attempted to supply the acknowledged desideratum from my own point of view, it has been my aim, in these as in former volumes, to make my readers acquainted not only with prominent transactions, but with the social and private religious life of the period, the personal piety which existed in different communions, and the identity of that spiritual life which then deeply struck its roots, as it ever does, under varied forms of doctrinal belief, of Christian worship, and of ecclesiastical government.

I have also attempted to redeem my promise to furnish a sketch of the theological opinions entertained in England between the commencement of the Civil Wars and the fall of James II. It would have been easier and more attractive to indulge in broad generalizations on the subject, and to work out my own theological conclusions, through the medium of historical reflection and argument; but I have preferred the more useful and trustworthy, as well as the more humble and laborious method of analyzing and describing the publications of the period in connection with the authors, and thus indicating some of the extraneous influences which have wrought upon the minds of eminent thinkers. Of course I have been compelled to limit myself to those writers who are best known and most significant, and therefore the student will perhaps miss in my account some favourite or expected name. But imperfect as the review will be found, enough will appear to indicate strong resemblances between currents of opinion then and now; and in this respect, the true apprehension of the present will be materially assisted by a knowledge of the past.

As in the course of my researches I have detected in authors of the highest reputation a number of minute inaccuracies, and some important errors, I cannot hope to have escaped such evils myself, and I shall be very thankful to candid critics for kindly pointing them out.

About one half of this volume covers ground traversed by me in Church and State two hundred years ago, published in 1862: but it will be found, that with the exception of a few sentences here and there, the account now published is quite new. Facts before passed over are here described at length, whilst certain trivial details are omitted; my views on some points have undergone a little modification, and the entire narrative has been rearranged; but the spirit which I sought at the beginning I have endeavoured to retain throughout.

It would be ungrateful not to add, that for facilities in research, and for direct literary aid, I am indebted to many friends. Besides special obligations which I have acknowledged in the foot-notes and Appendix, I beg to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. Thoms, Sub-Librarian to the House of Lords—Mr. Aldis Wright, Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge—Mr. Bullen, of the British Museum—and Mr. Hunter, keeper of Dr. Williams' Library.

Nor can I omit to mention again, my fellow-workers at home, especially one whose assiduity and care in helping me to correct the press, deserve the highest praise.

Two literary friends who took much interest in this work,—the Rev. Joseph Aspland and Mr. John Bruce, F.S.A.,—are now, alas, beyond the reach of my thanks.

Should my life be spared, I hope in another volume to bring the Ecclesiastical History down to the Revolution. A history of the eighteenth century lies amongst the visions of the future.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

The knell of the Puritan Commonwealth was rung when Oliver Cromwell died. The causes of its dissolution may easily be discovered. Some of them had been in operation for a long time, and had prepared for the change which now took place.[1]

Puritanism never won a majority of the English people. By some of the greatest in the nation it was espoused, and their name, example, and influence, gave it for a time a position which defied assault; but the multitude stood ranged on the opposite side. Forced to succumb, and stricken with silence, the disaffected nevertheless abated not a jot of their bitter antipathy to the party in power. Even amongst those who wore the livery of the day, who used the forms, who adopted the usages of their masters, many lacked the slightest sympathy with the system which, from self-interest or timidity, they had been induced to accept. The Puritans were not the hypocrites; the hypocrites really were people of another religion, or of no religion, who pretended to be Puritans. Besides these, there were numbers who whispered murmurs, or bit their lips in dumb impatience, as they watched for signs of change in the political firmament.

A mischievous policy had been pursued by the Puritans towards the old Church of England. Laud's execution yielded a harvest of revenge. The extirpation of Episcopacy, and the suppression of the Prayer Book, kindled an exasperation which kept alive a resentful intolerance down to the period of the Revolution. I am aware of the excuses made for Puritan despotism, and am ready to allow some palliation for wrong done under provoking circumstances, but I must continue to express indignation at the injustice committed; all the more, because of my religious sympathy with the men who thus tarnished their fame. It must, however, be confessed that had Presbyterians and Independents been ever so merciful in the hour of their might, there is no reason to suppose, from what is known of their opponents, that they would have shewn any mercy in return.

In enumerating the causes of the failure of Puritanism as a political institution notice should be taken of the prohibition of ancient customs. How far the prohibition extended has been pointed out in former volumes, and I must repeat, that whilst endeavours to suppress national vice were most praiseworthy, some of the Parliamentary prohibitions at the time were, to a considerable extent, unjust and unnatural. Those who chose to celebrate Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other seasons, had a perfect right so to do; and some, though not all, of the amusements remorselessly put down, were in themselves innocent; pleasant, and even venerable in their associations; and in their tendencies productive of kindly fellowship between class and class.

Puritan rule in England came as the child of revolution—a revolution mainly accomplished by civil war. The first battle, indeed, and that which led to all the others, was fought on the floor of the House of Commons. The patriots being returned as the representatives of the most active and influential citizens, many of whom were Puritans, possessed an immense amount of political power, and, as statesmen, they turned the scale in favour of revolution; but the revolution had to make good its ground by force, and the patriots, as soldiers, had to crush resistance in the field. This was a necessity. The attitude of the King, the chivalrous spirit of the nobles who rallied round him, under the circumstances in which Parliament had placed itself, rendered an appeal to arms inevitable. The wager of battle having been accepted, the quarrel having been fought out bravely, the relative position afterwards of the victors and the vanquished could not but embitter the feelings existing on both sides. The vanquished submitted without grace to their conquerors. They hated the new political constitution. When they seemed quiet they were only biding their time, only preparing for some fresh outbreak. Memories of privation, of imprisonment, of cruel usage, of houses burnt, of fathers, sons, and brothers slain, and especially the mortification of defeat, constantly irritated the Cavalier and goaded him to revenge. The blister was kept open year after year. The wound never healed. Alienation, or resentment, on the part of the Royalist provoked new oppression on the part of the Commonwealths-man. Fresh oppression from the hands of the one produced fresh resentment in the breast of the other.

A civil war may be needful for the deliverance of a country; but the recollections of it for a long while must be a misfortune, since those recollections exhibit the new state of things to the party on the opposite side as a result of force, not as a result of reason; and the remembrance of imposition ever involves a sense of wrong. Under this misfortune the triumphant Puritans laboured throughout the Protectorate.

After the Restoration the misfortune, in some respects, became heavier than before. The previous eighteen years had been to the Royalists years in which violence destroyed the Monarchy and the Church. They were the years of the Great Rebellion—so the political Revolution came to be named—and in that name, specious and plausible, although untruthful and unjust, lay much of the capital with which political leaders after the Restoration carried on their trade of oppression and wrong. The Puritans, they said, were rebels, for they had fought against the Crown: what they had done once they would do again. A valid defence was at hand, for the Puritans could show that there was nothing really inconsistent between their peaceful submission to the restored monarch, and the course which they had pursued under the Long Parliament; yet, although they could make out a case satisfactory to impartial men, over against their logic, however forcible, there stood some awkward facts of 1642 and the following years, upon which High Churchmen in the reign of Charles II. were never weary of ringing changes.

The Long Parliament had rested upon the Army; so had the constitution of the Protectorate. His Highness's rule had been fortified by his major-generals and his troops. For its good and for its evil it depended upon soldiers. A military despotism had become necessary from the confusion of the times; it alone could bring quiet to the country after political earthquakes. The regal sway had fallen into the hands of a great general, a great statesman, and a great patriot, who, because he combined these three characters, was able to work out benevolent designs for his country. So long as he held the baton, so long as he drew the sword, he could maintain his standing, but not a moment longer. He had immense difficulties to overcome. Episcopalians were almost all against him; very many Presbyterians stood aloof or offered opposition; Spiritual Republicans, Fifth Monarchy men were his torment; even Congregationalists, with whom he felt spiritual sympathy, wished for a more democratic government than he would allow; the Quakers neither loved nor feared him. Besides, he had political colleagues who, as statesmen, appeared in opposition. Also, old generals were looking after an occasion for making resistance. Vane and Haselrig, Harrison and Ludlow, disapproved of the policy of their former friend. They disliked the new Constitution; they were for placing the keys in the hands of Parliament, not in the hands of a single person. They regarded the Protector as the Greeks had regarded a tyrant. Monarchy they detested, Democracy they would enthrone; yet they saw amongst them a sovereign, mightier than any Stuart, only called by another name. And it became a germ of weakness in the new Constitution, that it had to be defended by arguments similar to those which availed for the support of the ancient monarchy. It could be said—and truly said—that English traditions, usages, genius, spirit, and social necessities, demanded a supreme head—the rule "of a single person." But the rule of a single person was the very thing so hateful to the Republicans, although connected with the modifying checks of a Parliament. Many saw that the reasons employed in favour of Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate might be employed more consistently in favour of the restoration of Charles Stuart. This circumstance was felt by numbers who did not confess it.

Moreover, respecting domestic and foreign policy Cromwell had to meet strong opposition. Finances, and law reform, were matters of contention. The Dutch war, the French alliance, and the relations with Spain, also presented points in which he and other distinguished Commonwealths-men differed. As the political reign of Puritanism depended upon Cromwell these circumstances could not fail to undermine its strength. His statesmanship showed consummate ability; his knowledge of mankind and of individuals amounted to a species of divination; his control over those about him was irresistible; his sagacity, vigilance, promptitude, decision, and patience were unrivalled; his name was a tower of strength at home and abroad; his foreign policy was successful, and therefore, as long as he lived, the system which he had inaugurated and administered was sure to last. It did—but at his death came collapse. There remained no master-mind to rule the State, and to control the Army. The State soon showed a disposition to go one way, the Army another. Confusions ensued; and the latter fell under the command of a soldier who betrayed his trust, and employed his influence to pull down the entire fabric of Puritan power.

So far, then, as Puritanism had become a political institute it sunk under the shock of Oliver Cromwell's death. But though as an institute it crumbled away, the political spirit which it had evoked and cherished did not die. It would be a repetition of what has been said a hundred times, to insist here upon the influence of the Puritan leaders of the Long Parliament, and the influence of the Puritan chiefs of the Commonwealth Army in preparing for the political liberties of England, guaranteed at the Revolution. A peaceful change then came as the consequence and complement of the Civil Wars. It is the destiny of nations to pass through the waters of conflict and suffering ere they can reach the shores of freedom. Our Puritan fathers then breasted the torrent, and made good their landing on the right side, where we, thanks to their bravery and endurance, have, under God, found a home. The superstructure they immediately raised was not permanent; but its strong foundation-stones were too deeply laid to be removed in a brief period of reaction; and on them we now are building new forms of political justice, order, and peace. It may take longer time and nobler labour than we imagine to complete the edifice, but our hope and trust is that Divine providence will one day bring it to perfection.

Puritanism must be considered under its ecclesiastical as well as its political aspect. It became political through its ecclesiastical action, and its ecclesiastical character has been damaged by its political relations. It was worked up into an elaborate Presbyterian system, framed not only for the purpose of instructing the nation in the truths of the Bible, but for the purpose also of constituting every Englishman a member of the Church, and of subjecting him to the authority and discipline of its officers. This ecclesiastical organization its advocates brought, so far as they could, into union with the civil government to be defended and enforced by the magistrate. And where Puritanism assumed a Congregational shape, and claimed the name of freedom, although, as to Church institutes, it sought, and to some degree attained liberty of operation, yet, in all cases where its ministers were parochial incumbents, they, by their identification with the national establishment, exposed themselves to the political danger which, at certain crises, threaten institutions of that description. When ecclesiastical arrangements are complicated with State affairs they must be subject to a common fortune. What endangers the one endangers the other, and the history of Puritanism offers no exception to the general rule.

Two ecclesiastical principles are seen at work in connection with the religious organizations which existed in the middle of the seventeenth century: Erastianism and Voluntaryism. Erastianism came across the path of both Presbyterians and Congregationalists. It wrought powerfully through the ordinances and laws of the Long Parliament, in the way of checking what it justly deemed the despotic tendencies of uncontrolled authority in the exercise of discipline. The working of Erastianism is visible in the legal prevention of the full establishment of parochial assemblies and provincial synods; and in the interference of the magistrate with those Independent pastors holding benefices, who would fain have excluded from the Lord's table persons whom they deemed morally unfitted for approaching it. In curbing suspected despotism, Erastianism, as is its wont, paralyzed the hand of a salutary restraint upon the irregularities of Christian professors. It opened a door for promiscuous communion. It thwarted the designs, and enfeebled the energy of ecclesiastical Puritanism; and thus laxity of fellowship followed as a penalty for seeking State support, on the part of communities which prized the purity of Christ's Church.

Voluntaryism cannot properly be identified with Puritanism. The leading Puritans neither advocated nor countenanced that principle; such as were Episcopalians did not. The Presbyterians, and some of the Independents, as we have this moment noticed, did not. A few of the Baptists did not. Oliver Cromwell, who protected them all, did not. Whilst some Puritans thus stood apart from Voluntaries, and even opposed them, there were some Voluntaries who stood apart from Puritanism, and even opposed that. The Quakers, from the commencement of their history, protested against the union of Church and State, and were ever faithful to their convictions in this as well as in other respects; they also kept aloof from Puritanism altogether, and even condemned it severely, under several of its aspects. Many of the Independents, and more of the Baptists, previously to the Civil Wars, also disapproved strongly of that kind of union which displeased the Quakers, and contended firmly for the support of Churches by voluntary contributions; yet they entered into cordial alliance with Puritanism in other things, promoting certain of its political proceedings, and sympathizing generally with its spiritual movements and tendencies. Voluntaryism had strong affinities for the spiritual side of Puritanism, deriving from it the most vigorous impulses, contributing towards it the most devoted service; and if it did not win its way at first amongst the rich, the noble, and the learned, it laid hold upon the hearts of the humbler classes; and, by widely leavening them with its power, prepared for subsequently working upwards to that influence which is exercised by it in the present day. The history of this principle is the same throughout: as it was with the primitive Christians,—as it was with so many of the most pious and active men of the Middle Ages,—as it has been with the Methodists,—so it was with those of whom I speak. They began their work—"in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality."

Voluntaryism, so far as it affected Puritanism, did not contribute to its weakness, but to its strength; yet amongst those who professed Voluntaryism, as amongst those who adopted different views, there appeared an element which proved injurious to them all. It was dis-union—it was strife.

If the Crusading knights had been of one mind, it is a question, whether, in the end, they would have retained mastery over the Mussulmen; but certainly they stood no chance whilst feuds were rife in the Camp of the Cross. The same may be said of the Puritans. It would have been hard enough, with the utmost concentration of force, to bear down opposition; but amidst their own discords it became simply impossible. Presbyterians were of different shades of opinion, and they were not without mutual jealousies. But their hatred of what they stigmatized as Sectarianism appears scarcely less than their hatred of Prelacy, or even of Romanism; in some minds abhorrence existed equally in reference to all three. The sects were not behindhand in their mutual antipathies, and were by no means gentle in their collisions. Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, to mention no others—I speak of them all generally—did anything but keep "the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace." The apostolic warning betokened evil to Puritan Christendom in England—"If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." Yet those whose eyes are open to discern the defects in principle and temper of the ecclesiastical organizations of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth, can also see that Puritanism has bequeathed to English Christendom a precious legacy of religious freedom. That spirit has not only wrought out modern Free Churches—which, whatever may be men's opinions on ecclesiastical questions, must be admitted by everyone to be efficient powers in spreading Christianity at home and abroad, and in exerting beneficial influences of many kinds upon society at large—but that spirit has also leavened, to a large extent, other communities not based upon what is called the voluntary principle. Toleration, for which the Independents struggled under Cromwell, won a victory in 1688—an imperfect victory it is true, but still precious; and the toleration then established opened the way for the progress now advancing along the paths of mutual religious justice.

Puritanism presents another—a spiritual aspect—under which it has exercised an influence more vigorous and salutary than it has done in any other way.

It laid hold on thousands, not only by simple methods of religious worship which commended themselves to the plain understanding, and the unsophisticated taste of Anglo-Saxon people,—but by its emphatic exhibition of the truths of Christianity as a redemptive system, full of the love of God to sinful men, commending itself to humble and sorrow-stricken hearts. In the Gospel of Christ, which Puritanism prominently exhibited as adapted to the wants of mankind, lay the secret of its greatest success, and the key to its noblest results. As a spiritual power it had been strong under Elizabeth and the Stuarts; but its conflicts in war, its entrance into the Court, its elevation to the throne, defaced somewhat its spiritual beauty, and impaired in a measure its spiritual force. The most favourable aspects of Puritanism are not found in the history of the Civil Wars, and of the Commonwealth. As with Christianity in general—as with Protestantism at large, so with the system now under consideration. Not in the palace of Constantine do we discover the best specimens of Gospel piety; not in the Courts of English and German sovereigns do we see the workings of the Reformed Faith to most advantage; and not at Whitehall must we watch for the fairest visions of Puritan life. Our religion, in its best forms, is no doubt essentially a genial social power, healing, constructive, conservative—such we believe it will prove itself to be in the Church of the future—but in the Church of the past, it has shown itself purest and strongest when contending against opposition, when passing through scenes of suffering, when grappling with the evils of society, and when informing and animating individual souls. Persecution has been to piety what the furnace is to the potter's clay; it has burnt in, it has brought out, its richest colours. The Huguenots appear to much greater advantage in the defeats which they endured than in the victories which they won; the peasantry in their cottages are more to be admired than the nobles in their chateaux. The history of successful battles fought, or of courageous resistance made by the French Protestants; and the story of Henry of Navarre and his Courtiers even before his reconciliation with Rome; read not so well as does the record of men of the same class who were burnt at the stake, or who were sent to the galleys, or who were exiled from their country. So also the chief moral charm of Puritanism is found, not in the successes of statesmen and soldiers; not in Pym's debates and majorities; not in Cromwell's charges and laurels; but in the deaths of Barrow and Greenwood, and in the tortures of Leighton and Burton; and, if we may anticipate, in the ejection, the wanderings and the imprisonment of Howe, and Heywood, and Baxter. On the same principle the quiet, earnest, and exemplary lives of the middle-class Puritans did more than anything else, at the commencement of the Civil Wars to give ascendancy to their cause; and after the Restoration to recover its character, and promote its progress. Puritanism, when once more separated from the State, returned to the old and better paths of confessorship and humiliation; and thrown back upon itself and upon God, it became, as of yore, a spiritual agency of the most potent kind. The theological books it produced, the devoted characters it formed, and the pious memories it handed to posterity, have created an influence embracing within its reach both England and America. The effect of its works, examples, and traditions have never perished in Dissenting Churches and families; but beyond these circles, it has manifestly told upon the Christian world. It contributed to the great revival of religion which arose within the pale of the Establishment during the last century; and from an earlier period than that, down to the present day, its perpetuated spiritual power has been deeply felt, and gratefully acknowledged on the other side of the Atlantic.

Such was the system of Puritanism—politically, ecclesiastically, spiritually; such were some of the causes which produced changes in it at the era of the Restoration. What it was, and what it did at that period and afterwards, remains to be related. We are to consider what, in its Presbyterian, Congregational, and other forms, it became; what it endured of direct persecution and of indirect social wrong; and what it achieved in works of faith, and love, and zeal. We are to trace its social influence in the retirements of English life; its new political influence on the side of liberty; the germs of after-thought which it planted; the stones of reform and improvement which it laid. Also, and this will occupy a still wider space, we are to mark how the Episcopal Church of England rose out of her ruins, and the Establishment became once more Anglican. All this, in the minute grades of the process, together with the form of the re-edification; the policy of its new builders; their relations and conduct towards their Nonconformist brethren; the intermingling of ecclesiastical and political events; the Church developments; the theological controversies; and the spiritual life of the period, amongst Conformists and Nonconformists—much of it, on each side, beautiful, some of it, on both sides, marred—it is my arduous task faithfully to unfold.

CHAPTER I.

Richard Cromwell succeeded his father in the government of the realm, as if his family had from of old occupied the throne. What renders this fact the more remarkable is that the new ruler had never been a public character, except so far as holding offices of honour might be considered as giving him that appearance. He had spent a quiet and almost unnoticed life, in the retirement of Hursley Park, in Hampshire—an inheritance he had acquired by marriage,—and there, in the society of neighbouring Cavaliers, he had enjoyed the sports of a country gentleman. Imbued with loyalty to the Stuarts, notwithstanding his father's position; conforming to the Established religion, without any sympathy in his father's opinions; indeed, destitute of deep religious feeling of any kind, as well as of genius, enthusiasm, and force of will, he stood ill-prepared to sustain the enormous responsibility which now fell upon his shoulders.

1658.

Instantly after Oliver's death, on the 3rd of September, the Council assembled and acknowledged Richard's title. All the chief cities and towns in the dominion were informed that the late Protector—"according to the petition and advice in his lifetime"—had declared his "noble and illustrious son to be his successor." The Mayor and Aldermen of London proceeded to Whitehall with condolences and congratulations; and the new Protector, in their presence, took the Oath of the Constitution, administered to him by Fiennes, a Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal. Manton offered prayer, and blessed His Highness, "his council, armies, and people."[2]

Proclamation of Richard's accession throughout the country immediately followed; and, according to a custom which had originated under the Protectorate, addresses, overflowing with adulation, poured in from various public bodies. Foreign courts, too, acknowledged the Protector's title, and honoured his father's memory. "It a sad thing to say," remarks Cosin, writing from Paris, "but here in the French Court, they wear mourning apparel for Cromwell; yea, the King of France, and all do it."[3] Richard's chief councillors were Lord Broghill, the Royalist, who had been a faithful servant to Oliver; Dr. Wilkins, Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, married to the late Protector's sister; and Colonel Philip Jones, one of the Protectorate Lords. The union between these councillors sufficiently indicates that no extreme ecclesiastical policy could be contemplated; and, accordingly, in the month of November, a Declaration appeared, couched in liberal terms, conceding general toleration, and promising to godly ministers "their dues and liberties, according to law."[4]

RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE.

Richard was tolerant both from disposition and policy; owing to circumstances, he sympathized more with Presbyterians than with Independents; perhaps he would not have been adverse to some kind of modified Episcopacy. Moderate people, of different parties, therefore, looked kindly upon his sway; but it soon appeared that the embers of discontent were smouldering still. Scarcely had he worn his title one month, when his brother, Henry Cromwell, wrote in an alarming tone to Lord General Fleetwood, who had married Henry's sister. "Remember," he says, "what has always befallen imposing spirits. Will not the loins of an imposing Independent or Anabaptist be as heavy as the loins of an imposing Prelate or Presbyter? And is it a dangerous error, that dominion is founded in grace when it is held by the Church of Rome, and a sound principle when it is held by the Fifth Monarchy?" "Let it be so carried, that all the people of God, though under different forms, yea, even those whom you count without, may enjoy their birthright and civil liberty, and that no one party may tread upon the neck of another."[5] Henry Cromwell feared lest certain well-known unquiet spirits, now that his sire's strong hand had crumbled into dust, should disturb the peace of the country, and, under pretence of universal freedom, throw everything into confusion. He had reasons for his fear.

1659.

Richard called a Parliament, which met on the 27th of January, 1659. Writs were issued to "rotten boroughs;" representatives were summoned from Scotland and Ireland; means not constitutional, so it is said, were employed to secure a House of Commons favourable to the Court party. The majority consisted of Presbyterians, to whom the Protector chiefly looked for support; but old political Independents also secured their election, and Sir Henry Vane and Sir Arthur Haselrig, excluded by the old Protector, now, under the milder sway of the new one, took their seats in St. Stephen's Chapel.[6] They evaded the oath of allegiance, and boldly advocated Republicanism.

Parliament opened with a sermon in Westminster Abbey, by Dr. Thomas Goodwin, the Independent, who preached from Psalm lxxxv. 10, advocating liberty of conscience, and exhorting to union and peace. To that venerable edifice, ever identified with our national history, His Highness, attended by the Privy Council, by the Officers of State, and by the Gentlemen of the Household, "passed by water in a stately new-built galley, and landed at the Parliament Stairs." Lord Cleypole, Master of the Horse, bore the Sword of State before Richard, who in the Abbey sat surrounded by his Lords, the Commons, much to their displeasure—afterwards expressed by them—being seated here and there; "sparsim," as a contemporary chronicle discontentedly states.[7] The Protector concluded his opening speech in the Painted Chamber, by recommending to the care of Parliament, first, "the people of God in these nations, with their concernments;" secondly, "the good and necessary work of reformation, both in manners and in the administration of justice;" thirdly, the Protestant cause abroad, which seemed at that time to be in some danger; and lastly, the maintenance of love and duty among themselves.[8]

RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE.

After a rather ill-tempered discussion, Reynolds, Manton, Calamy, and Owen—three Presbyterians and one Independent—were appointed by the Commons, "two to preach and two to pray," on the occasion of the succeeding fast; and it is curious to find that in this instance the service took place, not at St. Margaret's Church, but within the walls of the House, to avoid, as alleged, the inconvenience of a promiscuous auditory, when "good men wanted the liberty, which it was fit they should have," to rebuke and reprove "the faults and miscarriages of their superiors." "Ill-affected persons came frequently to such exercises, not out of any zeal or devotion, but to feel the pulse of the State, and to steer their counsels and affairs accordingly."[9] The desirableness of sometimes giving admonition and advice to bodies of men, unembarrassed by the presence of critical and alienated spectators, still felt by many, was felt then.

The debates mainly turned upon fundamental questions of government. In them little appears relative to religion. Complaints were made of the Commissioners for trying ministers, and of the mismanagement of funds for the support of the latter. Maynard, and others, affirmed that souls were starved; that the sheep were committed to the wolf; that scandalous preachers had scandalous judges; that Welsh Churches were unsupplied except by "a few grocers, or such persons;" that "dippers and creepers" were found in the Army; that Jesuits had been in the House, &c. "See," exclaimed one speaker, "what congregations we had in '43, and what now! It is questioned whether we have a Church in England; questioned, I doubt, whether Scripture or rule of life is in England."[10] In the Grand Committee, a Bill was ordered to be drawn for revising Acts touching the Prayer Book; and for the suppression of Quakers, Papists, Socinians, and Jews.[11] Just before, a member named Nevile had been denounced and threatened with prosecution as an atheist and blasphemer, for saying that the reading of Cicero affected him more than the reading of the Bible.[12]

1659.

These proceedings, together with a declaration a few weeks afterwards, which spoke of blasphemies and heresies against God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures; of the advocates of an inward light; also of atheism, profaneness, and Sabbath-breaking,[13]—indicate the revival of Presbyterian influence, and the renewed activity of Presbyterian zeal. On the other hand, Sir Henry Vane, who had been so earnest in supporting the Covenant, had now changed his mind on that subject, maintaining that the compact had become invalid through what he called the Scotch invasion of England, meaning by this the invasion which ended in the defeat at Worcester.[14] In the same spirit exceptions were taken by a Committee to the harsh treatment of Fifth Monarchy men; and some of that class were referred to with respect.[15] In these Parliamentary allusions to religious questions—the chief allusions of the kind which occurred about this time—we discern the flow of two opposite currents of feeling.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

Other debates issued in important consequences. Republicans and the advocates of a mixed Government came into collision upon their particular points of difference. Sir Arthur Haselrig openly arraigned the acts of Oliver Cromwell, condemned the dismissal of the Long Parliament, and most irreverently compared the extinction of Monarchy and of the Upper House to the effect of the crucifying of our Saviour on the Cross. Haselrig proclaimed England to be a theocracy. "God," said he, "is the King of this Great Island." Haselrig acknowledged no power under God but that of the Parliament; the Protector he utterly ignored. Scott and Ludlow also gloried in their regicidal deeds. Vane, in a calmer strain, upheld Republicanism. On the other side the friends of the Protectorate contended for the "petition and advice" as "the Boaz and Jachin of Solomon's temple." The hand of Providence, they said, had set up the Protector, Richard. He was Protector before the House assembled; the House had owned him in that capacity, and had taken an oath of allegiance. A Royalist, amidst the expression of these opinions, exclaimed, "I am for the Constitution we lived under—for building up the ancient fabric."[16] Thus early, certain of the senators of England showed their determination to plunge at once into the vortex of a new revolution.

1659.

Questions touching foreign affairs, the Army, and finance came under debate at the same time; the Republicans, led by Vane, deploring, in a spirit of infatuation, the late peace with Holland, and wishing that the war had been perpetuated until the Dutch had been conquered, and forced into union with this country. They contended also that the control of the military should be placed in the hands of the Parliament, not in the hands of the Protector; and they inveighed against the extravagance of the Government, declaring that the deficiency in the revenue would produce a national debt enough to sink the country in ruin. But what proved of still more serious consequence, the Republicans not only canvassed, but set aside certain acts of the late Protector. Oliver had left behind him many State prisoners, committed for political offences. They were now liberated. Major-General Overton, one of these prisoners, appeared before the House as a martyr, being escorted on his return from imprisonment—like Burton, Prynne, and others, nearly twenty years before—by "four or five hundred men on horseback, and a vast crowd bearing branches of laurel."[17]

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

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

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

1659.

The Commons, although weak, assumed the semblance of strength, and upon the 18th of April resolved that no Council of Officers should be held without permission of the Protector and the Parliament; and that no one should have command in the Army or Navy who did not engage to leave the two Houses uninterrupted in their deliberations. The Protector, still more feeble than Parliament, proceeded to dissolve the Council; the officers asserted their authority by continuing to meet for conference.

As it was in the father's days so it was in the son's: when argument failed violence took its place. Violence, like that which had been employed by Oliver against the Parliament, was now threatened against Richard by the Army. The officers, clutching at their old weapons, seeing how things were likely to proceed, fearing the Presbyterian ascendancy, and the destruction of their liberties, determined to put an end to the sitting of the two Houses; and told His Highness that if he did not dismiss them he might expect to be dismissed himself. Richard was no soldier, and had not, like Oliver, secured the attachment of the military, so that resistance by him to martial chiefs could avail nothing. He, therefore, allowed the Parliament to be dissolved by Commission, upon the 22nd of April. After this act had been accomplished, not without opposition from some members, the party in power summoned to the resumption of their trust, such of the Long Parliament as had continued to sit until the year 1653. They amounted in number to ninety-one; out of these forty-two obeyed the new order, and took their places on the 7th of May. Fourteen of the old Presbyterians, including Prynne,[20] who had sat in St. Stephen's before Pride's purge, were refused admittance.

INTERREGNUM.

Upon the 13th of May the heads of the Army presented a petition, in which they proposed to men whom they addressed as rulers, but who were in fact servants, that religious liberty should, as in the days of Oliver, continue to be conceded to all orthodox believers (Papists and Prelatists being distinctly excepted); that a godly ministry should be everywhere maintained; and that the universities and schools of learning should be countenanced and reformed.[21] Gleams of Presbyterian influence disappeared; the broad ecclesiastical policy of Oliver again resumed the ascendant.

A new Council of State was formed, and the names of Vane and Haselrig once more prominently appeared, together with those of Whitelock and Fleetwood—the one a legal cipher, the other a military tool.

1659.

Fleetwood occupied Wallingford House, which stood on the site of the present Admiralty, the birthplace of the second Duke of Buckingham, and the residence of the infamous Countess of Essex. Here it was, from the roof of the mansion, then occupied by the Earl of Peterborough, that Archbishop Ussher had swooned at the sight of Charles' execution; and here Fleetwood, who from his connection with the Cromwells on the one side, and with the Army on the other, now possessed more power than any other person, gathered together his brother officers for conference. Fleetwood was a pious and respectable Independent,[22] a sincere patriot, a Republican only in a qualified sense, willing to concede to a Protector large administrative authority. He was not without ambition, although he had prudence enough to curb it; yet neither by gifts of nature, force of character, or study and experience, was he a man fitted to deal with existing emergencies. He had no original genius, being born to follow, not to lead. He helped to pull down the Protectorate, and to dethrone his brother-in-law, but he had no gift for building up any better order of things. He could aid the destructive movements of Vane and Haselrig; but he had no more of the faculty of constructiveness than had they.

INTERREGNUM.

John Howe, who, in the month of May, was residing at Whitehall after an absence of some months, saw and lamented the condition of affairs. The "army-men," he says, under pretence of zeal for the interests of religious liberty were seeking their own ends, and were for that purpose drawing to themselves "wild-headed persons of all sorts." "Such persons," he adds, "as are now at the head of affairs will blast religion, if God prevent not." "I know some leading men are not Christians. Religion is lost out of England, farther than as it can creep into corners. Those in power, who are friends to it, will no more suspect these persons than their ownselves."[23] These are not the words of a party man; and they show that whatever might be the piety of Fleetwood, and the purity of Vane, there were persons of a different character who employed them as tools for selfish ends. In the same letter, Howe speaks in favourable terms of Richard, whom he must have known well. The disinterestedness, and even patriotism of the Protector appeared in his resignation of power. "He resolved to venture upon it himself, rather than suffer it to be taken with more hazard to the country by others," and he awakens our sympathy by his own truthful words, that "he was betrayed by those whom he most trusted." He quitted Whitehall, with trunks full of addresses, which contained, as he humorously remarked, "the lives and fortunes of all the good people of England." More at home in the hunting-field than in the cabinet—he, after residing abroad for a time, spent the rest of his days in his native land as a country gentleman; and died at Cheshunt, July the 12th, 1712, saying to his daughter, "Live in love; I am going to the God of love."[24] He lies buried in Hursley Church, where he regularly worshipped during his residence in the parish. Within the same walls, by a coincidence which will be often noticed in future days, there now repose the remains of a holy man and a great poet, whose sympathies never seem to have reached the fallen Protector during a ministry, in that place, of thirty years.[25]

The power of the Cromwell family came to an end upon the dissolution of Richard's Parliament, except that Fleetwood was acknowledged by the Army as Lieutenant-general. Lord Falconbridge, and also the Lords Broghill and Howard retired into the country; and, as the Protectorate had vanished, they prepared to welcome the restoration of Monarchy.

1659.

Leaving Whitehall we return to Wallingford House. Fleetwood, being an Independent, civil affairs being entangled with such as were ecclesiastical, and the interests of religion being so completely involved in the political changes of the day—a fact which justifies so much being said about them in an Ecclesiastical History—he and Desborough, who sympathized with him, invited to their councils Dr. Owen, the Independent, and Dr. Manton, the Presbyterian. A story is told of the former, to the effect, that, at Wallingford House, he had prayed for the downfall of Richard, so as to be heard by Manton, who stood outside the door. It is further stated that Owen had gathered a Church there; and that in one of its assemblies a determination had been formed to compel Richard to dissolve his Parliament.[26] The Independent Divine denied that he had anything to do with the setting up, or the pulling down of Richard; and it has been also denied that he gathered a Church in Wallingford House. Whatever might be the extent of Owen's political interference at that crisis, and whether or not he gathered a Church there, certainly at the time one existed upon the spot. The Records of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth indicate that a religious society assembled at Fleetwood's residence, and carried on correspondence with other similar bodies.[27] These records shed light upon a critical and dubious juncture in our history.

INTERREGNUM.—INDEPENDENTS.

A meeting was held at Norwich, and another in London, respecting which Dr. Owen wrote to Mr. Bridge. The resolutions at which the Yarmouth Church arrived, as they were probably drawn up by the eminent minister, who presided over that community, may be regarded as expressing the opinions of a wider circle than the provincial society which adopted them.

First—"We judge a Parliament to be the expedient for the preservation of the peace of these nations; and withal we do desire that all due care be taken that the Parliament be such as may preserve the interest of Christ and His people in these nations." Secondly—"As touching the magistrate's power in matters of faith and worship we have declared our judgment in our late Confession[28] (by the Savoy Conference); and though we greatly prize our Christian liberties, yet we profess our utter dislike and abhorrence of a universal toleration as being contrary to the mind of God in His word." Thirdly—"We judge that the taking away of tithes for maintenance of ministers until as full a maintenance be equally secured, and as legally settled, tend very much to the destruction of the ministry and the preaching of the Gospel in these nations." Fourthly—"It is our desire that countenance be not given, nor trust reposed in the hands of Quakers, they being persons of such principles as are destructive to the Gospel, and inconsistent with the peace of civil societies."[29]

1659.

Into a miserable state must England have drifted when a congregation of Independents, no doubt containing many worthy people, but certainly not fitted to act as a Council of State, came to be consulted upon the most important public questions, and to give their opinion after this fashion.

What the opinions of Dr. Owen were upon two of the points mooted in these resolutions we learn from a short paper which he wrote at this time, and which is preserved in his collected works. There are three questions, and he gives three answers. The first two relate to the power of the supreme magistrate touching religion and the worship of God. Notwithstanding the haste with which the replies were furnished, they must be considered as expressing the writer's mature judgment, for the interrogatories embody the most pressing questions of the times. To the first query, whether the supreme magistrate in a Commonwealth professing the religion of Christ, may exert his legislative and executive power for furthering the profession of the faith and worship, and whether he ought to coerce or restrain such principles and practices as were contrary to them, Owen replied distinctly in the affirmative. He supported his affirmation by arguments drawn from the law and the light of nature; from the government of nations; from God's revealed institutions; from the examples of God's magistrates; "from the promises of Gospel times;" "from the equity of Gospel rules;" from the confession of all Protestant Churches; and particularly from the Savoy declaration. Owen was asked, secondly, whether the supreme magistrate might "by laws and penalties compel any one who holds the Head Christ Jesus to subscribe to that confession of faith, and attend to that way of worship which he esteems incumbent on him to promote and further." Restricting attention to those described as "holding the Head," the Independent Divine remarks, that though it cannot be proved that the magistrate is divinely authorized to take away the lives of men for their disbelief, "yet it doth not seem to be the duty of any, professing obedience to Jesus Christ, to make any stated legal unalterable provision for their immunity who renounce Him." He decides also that opinions of public scandal ought to be restrained, and not suffered to be divulged, either by open speech or by the press. Subsequently, after premising (to use his own words) that "the measure of doctrinal holding the Head, consists in some few clear fundamental propositions," and that men are apt to run to extremes, he finally concludes upon giving a negative answer to their second question. As to the third, "whether it be convenient that the present way of the maintenance of ministers or preachers of the Gospel be removed and taken away, or changed into some other provision;" Owen vindicates the claim of the ministry to temporal support, and places the payment of tithes upon a Divine basis. He declares that to take away "the public maintenance" would be "a contempt of the care and faithfulness of God towards His Church, and, in plain terms, downright robbery."[30]

INTERREGNUM.—BAPTISTS.

A Church book of the period has thus afforded an insight into certain political relations sustained by Independents in the year 1659. A celebrated historian may next be quoted, in reference to alleged proceedings of a very different nature on the part of Baptists. Clarendon relates a strange story of overtures made to Charles before the death of Cromwell by persons of that denomination. He gives a copy of an address to His Majesty, as Charles is styled, signed by ten such persons, in which address occur violent lamentations over the troubles of the times. Attached to it are proposals "in order to an happy, speedy, and well-grounded peace." The document contains a prayer, that no anti-Christian Hierarchy, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or otherwise, should be created, and that every one should be left at liberty to worship God in such a way and manner as might appear to them to be agreeable to the mind and will of Christ.[31]

1659.

According to Clarendon—the only authority upon which we have to depend in reference to the subject—a curious letter accompanied the address and the proposals; in which letter the correspondent alludes to a "worthy gentleman" by whose hands it was conveyed, and who being acquainted with the circumstances, would fully explain the case and answer objections. He refers to the subscribers as "young proselytes" to the Royal cause, as needing to be driven "lento pede," as being neither of great families or great estates, but as capable of being more serviceable to His Majesty than some whose names would "swell much bigger than theirs."[32]

There is no sufficient reason for pronouncing the story an invention, or the documents forgeries; at any rate it appears as if Clarendon believed in them; yet on the other hand, there is not the slightest evidence that any of the leaders of the Baptist body ever concurred in any such movement—the names appended to the address are unknown—and no reference to the affair, that I am aware of, was ever made after the Restoration, either by Baptists or any other party. On the whole it is not unlikely that some few people, calling themselves Baptists, disliking Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate, and differing from those ministers of their denomination who held parish livings, might have engaged in a correspondence with a view to the restoration of Monarchy under certain conditions—especially that of unfettered toleration. No practical result followed these reported overtures.[33]

INTERREGNUM—PRESBYTERIANS.

The Presbyterians had, for the most part, after the death of Charles I., preserved a sentiment of loyalty towards the House of Stuart; and now that Richard had fallen, they were eager for the restoration of Monarchy in the person of the exiled prince. Presbyterian clergymen animated and controlled this new movement, of which the extensive ramifications spread themselves abroad in secrecy and caution. Only in Cheshire did any military demonstration occur. There, in the month of August, under Sir George Booth, a popular Presbyterian of the county, numbers of persons appeared in arms; yet, although the object evidently was to place Prince Charles on the throne of his fathers, the leaders professed nothing more than a desire to secure the assembling of a free Parliament. The Presbyterians rejected the aid of the Roman Catholics, and but warily accepted the advances of a Presbyterian knight, Sir Thomas Middleton, because he was known to be a Royalist.[34]

1659.

The rising proved unfortunate. After being hopefully prosecuted a little while, it then appeared that the Republicans under Lambert were too strong for these Northern insurgents. The former scoured the country. Their shots in some places disturbed the Presbyterian communicants at the Lord's Supper; their advances in the neighbourhood of Manchester filled that town with alarm. Houses were emptied of their valuables by the people who were anxious to hide them from the enemy.[35] Booth was obliged to flee; and to provide against detection he assumed a female disguise, and rode on a pillion, but his awkwardness in alighting from his horse betrayed him; and Middleton, after a brief resistance within the walls of Chirk Castle, capitulated to the foe.

Fleetwood now seemed the chief man in England; and to him certain Republicans, who had been desired, or as they interpreted it, commanded to retire from the Council of Officers, turned as to their last hope, asking him in a "humble representation" full of religious sentiment, "to remove the present force upon the Parliament, that it might sit in safety without interruption."[36] Other persons of more consequence, including Haselrig, followed up the appeal in a rather different strain, but with the same object, and charged Fleetwood with destroying Parliamentary authority, after the example of his father-in-law.[37] Sir Ashley Cooper subsequently wrote to him in like manner, protesting against "red-coats and muskets" as a "non obstante" to national laws and public privileges.[38]

INTERREGNUM—EPISCOPALIANS.

Amidst the confusion of the period hope dawned upon the persecuted Episcopalians.

Whether or not influenced by the death of Cromwell, and the foresight of coming changes favourable to his own Church, Henry Thorndike, the able Episcopalian scholar and divine, published in 1659 what he called An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England; a book which, an admiring critic says, proved to be in spirit a prologue to the renewed life of a Church more vigorous than ever! The aim of the work is to promote the welfare of the Episcopal Church of England, not by any compromise, but by endeavouring to persuade all to unite together on her behalf. Looking at the claims of the Romish Church to immediate inspiration (placed no matter where), and to the equally groundless and more arrogant claims of the fanatics—as Thorndike terms them—to individual inspiration, he urges that each party should be brought to admit themselves limited to the sense of Scripture as expounded by the primitive laws and faith of the Church. Thus, he says, the ground of their errors is cut away. With this imaginary solution of the difficulty, which begs the question, this calculation upon what is impossible, and this triumphant assurance of a conclusion based on premises, which neither Papist nor Puritan would admit—the high, but honest Churchman, shows how much he sympathized with the one and how little with the other.

1659.

He expressly avows his approval of prayers for the dead, of the invocation of the Spirit on the elements of the Eucharist, and of the practice of penance; whilst he contends for Episcopacy in the Anglican sense, and wishes to see Presbyters restored to their ancient position of a council to be consulted by the bishop. Thorndike's notion was, in prospect of its restoration, to reform his own Church, by bringing it back to what he considered primitive usage. Those who most condemn some of the views which he advocated will be constrained, on reading his life and works, to acknowledge the guileless simplicity of his character, as apparent in this very publication at such a crisis. He says himself—"That I should publish the result of my thoughts to the world may seem to fall under the historian's censure. 'Frustra autem niti, neque aliud se fatigando, nisi odium quærere, extremæ dementiæ est.'" He adds, "If I be like a man with an arrow in his thigh, or like a woman ready to bring forth,—that is, as Ecclesiasticus saith, like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart—I am in this, I hope, no fool of Solomon's, but with St. Paul, 'a fool for Christ's sake.'"[39]

INTERREGNUM—EPISCOPALIANS.

This straightforward course annoyed those who were seeking to restore the Church in a different way. "Pray tell me what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever imparting it, or communicating with them?" Such questions were asked by Sir Edward Hyde, who wondered that Thorndike should publish his "doubts to the world in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them."[40] Hyde's own method of proceeding at this juncture appears in his correspondence with Dr. Barwick. He did not trouble himself, like Thorndike, with theological questions, or attempt any reformation of the Church which he wished to restore; but he threw himself heartily into efforts for the preservation of the Episcopal order. For the Bishops were dying out, only a few survived; in a short time all would be dead, and then how would the ministerial succession be perpetuated? By repairing to Rome, or by admitting the validity of Presbyterian ordination? As Hyde pondered these queries he rebuked the friends of the Church for their apathy—"The King hath done all that is in his power to do, and if my Lords the Bishops will not do the rest, what can become of the Church? The conspiracies to destroy it are very evident; and, if there can be no combination to preserve it, it must expire. I do assure you, the names of all the Bishops who are alive and their several ages are as well known at Rome as in England; and both the Papist and the Presbyterian value themselves very much upon computing in how few years the Church of England must expire."[41] While the Prelates generally came in for his censure, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and Duppa, Bishop of Salisbury, were exceptionally noticed as active and earnest—the most lukewarm being Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter, and Skinner, Bishop of Oxford.[42] It was easier, however, for Hyde, on the Continent, to write zealously on this subject than for the Bishops in England, under inimical rulers, and with the fear of penalties before them, to do anything effective for the consecration of successors. Difficulties were felt, both in the wandering Court of Charles and in the troubled homes of ejected Episcopalians. There were no Deans and Chapters to receive the congé d'élire, and to act upon it. Canonical and constitutional law interposed obstacles in the way of consecration. Bramhall thought, that as the King had an absolute power of nomination for Ireland, the best way would be for surviving Bishops to consecrate persons Royally nominated to Irish sees, and then translate them to England. The Bishop of Ely objected to this as practically approving what he considered a defect in the Church of the sister island; and he would rather, he said, see Ireland conformed to England, than England to Ireland. His own plan, in which Dr. Cosin concurred, was much the same as one which Barwick proposed—i.e., that the King should grant a Commission to the Bishops of each province, to elect and consecrate fit persons for vacant sees, and ratify and confirm the process afterwards.[43] To this Hyde agreed, and wrote for the form of such a Commission as the Bishops might judge proper. No further steps appear to have been taken in that direction.

1659.

Hyde counselled as much privacy as possible in measures for the preservation of the Episcopal order; and in all affairs relating to the Church he recommended the utmost prudence and moderation: at a later period, when Monk was preparing for Charles' return, Hyde complained of the "unskilful passion and distemper" of some Divines. The King, he added, was really troubled, and "extremely apprehensive of inconvenience and mischief to the Church and himself." Still later, he advised that endeavours should be made to win over those who had reputation, and desired to merit well of the Church—and that there should be no compliance "with the pride and passion of those who propose extravagant things."[44]

As correspondence passed between Hyde and Barwick many Episcopalians in England gave themselves to fasting and prayer. Evelyn writes in his diary on the 21st of October: "A private fast was kept by the Church of England Protestants in town, to beg of God the removal of His judgments, with devout prayers for His mercy to our calamitous Church." Other entries appear, of the same kind. The ruling politicians in England, out of all sympathy with the exiles, were, nevertheless, promoting their interests by divisions at home.[45]

INTERREGNUM—EPISCOPALIANS.

Money-matters, out of which broods of quarrels are always being hatched, caused what remained of the Long Parliament to be very unpopular; and the upshot is seen in the dissolution by General Lambert, on the 13th of October, of that attenuated but vivacious body, whose continued, or renewed existence, through an age of revolutions, presents such a singular phenomenon.

CHAPTER II.

After 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?

INTERREGNUM—CONFUSION.

London was a Babel of ecclesiastical no less than of political theories. Presbyterians contended that the 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]

1659.

It is startling to find how rapidly change succeeded change in high places. The remains of the 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.

INTERREGNUM.—CONFUSION.

Something needed to be done. The Royalists throughout all this tumult had not been asleep. They 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]

1659.

These appeals fell on willing ears. The nation was weary—weary of inefficient rulers, weary of ideal 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.

MONK.

General Monk had a large portion of it under his immediate control in the North. The Committee of 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.

1660.

Monk, at the time, was far from being reputed a Royalist. He, with his officers, had in the month of 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]

MONK.

The joy which this intelligence produced in the City was unbounded, and it comes before us with the 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]

1660.

The rabble raved with joy. Milton mourned over the madness in strains of majestic sorrow. "And what 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.

Monk, the author of this revolution, addressed Parliament on that same day, and gave it as his 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.

1660.

It soon became plain to which ecclesiastical party most influence belonged. On the 2nd of March the 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.

The 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]

1660.

Baxter informs us respecting schemes adopted by the Episcopalian Royalists, with a view to influence 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

In coincidence with these circumstances the personal friends of the exiled Prince revolved in 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]

1660.

Sir William Killegrew addressing Charles, upon the 8th of April, shrewdly states the difficulties of 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

Two days before the date of this last letter, Secretary Thurloe, at Whitehall, silently watching 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]

1660.

The first decided declaration in favour of the restoration of Charles on the part of Monk, who for 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

The dissolution of the Rump had been connected with a determination to call together a new 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.

1660.

The persons who had been elected members of the Convention began to assemble in St. Stephen's 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

"Great alarm," he says, "has been felt about an insurrection of Sectaries in different localities; some 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."

1660.

It is remarkable that the troops employed by the Council of State to crush Lambert's outbreak were 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

When May-day had arrived—with its vernal memories and hopes stirring the hearts of Royalists 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.

1660.

A conference took place the same afternoon between the Lords and Commons, when it was 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

Sir Matthew Hale moved, that a Committee might be appointed to consider the propositions which had 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.

1660.

Speedily the Proclamation was repeated throughout the kingdom, and everywhere revived 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]

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

In places where Presbyterianism prevailed the ceremony differed. At Sherborne the Proclamation 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.

1660.
PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

Yet, after all, the mode of the Restoration excites less surprise than lamentation. For it is easy to understand how natural it was for the Royalist party, 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]

1660.

Certain Presbyterian ministers—Reynolds, Calamy, Manton, and Case—accompanied a 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.

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

The Scotch were very earnest for an exclusive Presbyterian Establishment in England. They had 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.

1660.

Upon the following Sunday, Mr. Hardy, one of the ministers, preached before the King at the 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."

PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.

Whilst the Presbyterians were active the Episcopalians were not idle. The Bishops despatched 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.

THE KING'S RETURN.
1660.

Charles, on his way to England, had reason for anxious care and steady forethought. Never had an English Prince come to the throne under such circumstances. A civil war was just over—the swelling of the storm had hardly ceased; a party adverse to that which the King regarded as his own remained still in power; many were expecting at his hand favour for recent services, notwithstanding former offences; Presbyterians looked at least for comprehension within the Establishment. Independents, Baptists, Quakers, asked for toleration, and Roman Catholics, who had been friends to the beheaded father and the exiled son, thought themselves entitled to some measure of religious liberty. The Episcopal Church claimed the new Monarch as her own; her prelates and ministers were waiting to welcome him—to open in the parish churches once more the beautiful old Prayer Book, with its litanies and collects for the King and Royal family. They sought exclusive re-establishment; they would cast out all Presbyterian intruders—they would tolerate no Sectaries. Here were perplexing circumstances to be encountered. The Breda Declaration had bound Charles to be considerate in dealing with religious matters, to show respect for tender consciences. Comprehension, toleration—he stood pledged to promote. But how were the problems to be solved? He was a Constitutional King. He was to rule through Parliaments. Should bigotry arise and carry all before it in the Commons' House, as elsewhere, what was he to do? Should his Ministers differ from him, how then? Such possibilities gazed at by a thoughtful man might well have made him anxious, if not alarmed. Who would not sympathize with any conscientious prince under such circumstances? Charles possessed certain intellectual and social qualities which fitted him for the task he had now to perform; for he had common sense—was keen and clever, with quick insight into character, made still more so by large acquaintance with human nature,—he knew how to put unpleasant things in a pleasant way,—could command considerable powers of persuasion when he liked, and was courteous, affable, and of winning manners. But he was not thoughtful—not conscientious; he lacked the two things which alone could enable him to turn his abilities and experience to good account. The crown was to him a toy; the throne a chair of pleasure, at best, of pompous state. The heedless, folly-loving prince takes himself quite out of the range of our sympathies, and leaves us to condemn the breach of his plighted faith, and all the intolerance incident to his return. A useless controversy was once carried on as to whether he was really a Papist at the time of the Restoration. It is idle to dispute respecting the theological opinions of a man so utterly destitute of religious feeling and thoughtfulness. That he was not a Protestant at the time—meaning by the word a person attached to the Reformed faith—is plain enough from what is said by those who knew him best. Probably Buckingham, who calls him a Deist, is nearest the truth.[89] But that he had sympathies with the Roman Catholic party, and considered their Church as the most convenient for an easy-living gentleman like himself, there can be no doubt. Had death stared him in the face just after his return, he would probably have sought refuge in confession and priestly absolution, as he did twenty-five years later. Yet he professed to be a Protestant by solemn kingly acts, and in other ways when he thought it politic. Charles was a dissembler.[90] He had, with all his occasional rollicking frankness, an almost equal mastery over his conversation and his countenance. His face, encompassed by flowing black locks, illuminated by lustrous eyes, was said to be as little a blab as most men's: it might tell tales to a good physiognomist, but it was no prattler to people in general. If he had a wish to conceal his purpose, he could do it effectually. Lord Halifax apologized for him by saying, that if he dissembled it is to be remembered "that dissimulation is a jewel of the crown," and that "it is very hard for a man not to do sometimes too much of that which he concludeth necessary for him to practise."[91]

Monk proceeded to Dover May the 22nd.[92] Numbers of the nobility and gentry wished to follow him, and he arranged that they should march in companies, in differently-coloured uniforms, under certain noblemen, who were to act as captains of these loyal bands. They had not fought any of Monk's battles; they came in now to swell Monk's triumph. As the General was standing at a window in the City of Canterbury, while they marched by gaily with green scarfs and feathers, a friend observed: "You had none of these at Coldstream, General; but grasshoppers and butterflies never come abroad in frosty weather, and, at the best, never abound in Scotland."

THE KING'S RETURN.

On Friday, the 25th of May, at one o'clock, Charles landed at Dover; and, notwithstanding his levity, his heart surely must have been touched as the Castle guns gave him welcome; and another and far more gladdening demonstration proceeded from the ten thousands of his subjects, who lined the pebbly beach, or looked down from the old chalk cliffs, waving their broad-brimmed and feathered hats, and giving the home-bound exile right hearty cheers such as only Englishmen can give. General Monk, with all the nobility and gentry present, prostrated themselves before the Prince as he stepped ashore, with his plumed beaver in his hand; and some rushed forward to kiss the hem of his garment, whilst he gracefully raised from his knees, and embraced the soldier, who whatever might be his character in other respects, had certainly proved the star of his master's fortune. A canopy was ready for His Majesty, as he walked to the town; and the Mayor and Aldermen made obeisance as their chaplain placed in the Royal hands a gold-clasped Bible. No Bishop was present.

1660.

A State coach stood in waiting, in which the King seated himself, the Duke of York by his side, and opposite, the Duke of Gloucester; General Monk and the Duke of Buckingham occupying the boot. Thus they travelled two miles out of Dover, when they mounted horse, and so proceeded the rest of the way to Canterbury,—where speeches were made, and a gold tankard was presented to the King; on the following day several persons were knighted by him, and Monk, the real hero of the hour, was invested with the Order of the Garter. All went to the Cathedral on Sunday, when the Liturgy was used; and on Monday they proceeded to Rochester, where a basin and ewer, silver-gilt, were loyally given, and graciously accepted. Between four and five o'clock on Tuesday morning, they started again, "the militia forces of Kent lining the ways, and maidens strewing herbs and flowers, and the several towns hanging out white sheets." At Dartford, certain regiments of cavalry presented an address, and at Blackheath, the old Army appeared drawn up to meet the very Monarch against whom so many of them had been fighting. The vexation felt at this termination of the great change inaugurated by the Civil Wars must have touched many a Republican to the quick; and at the moment of their chagrin rapturous feelings filled many a noble Royalist, like those which inspired the Nunc dimittas of Sir Henry Lee, so touchingly described on the last page of Scott's Woodstock.

THE KING'S RETURN.

At St. George's-in-the-Field the Corporation of London waited in a tent to receive their Sovereign, where the Lord Mayor presented the City sword, and then the procession slowly moving from Southwark, passed through the City Gates, crossed the pent-up alley of London Bridge, and marched on through Cheapside, Fleet-street, and the Strand, the houses all the way adorned with tapestry;—the train bands lining the streets on one side, and the livery companies on the other. A troop of 300 men, in cloth of silver doublets, led the van; then came 1200 in velvet coats, with footmen in purple; followed by another troop in buff and silver, and rich green scarfs; then 150 in blue and silver, with six trumpeters and seven footmen in sea-green and silver; then a troop of 220, with 30 footmen in grey and silver; then other troops in like splendour. The Sheriff's men in red cloaks, to the number of fourscore, with half-pikes—and hundreds of the companies on horseback in black velvet with golden chains followed in due order. Preceded by kettle-drums and trumpets, came twelve London ministers, their Genevan gowns and bands looking "sad" amidst the glaring colours. The Life Guards followed: more trumpeters appeared in satin doublets; and next, the City Marshal, attended by footmen in French green trimmed with white and crimson. The City Waits succeeded, and next the Sheriffs and the Aldermen, with their footmen in scarlet, and with heralds. The Lord Mayor carried the Sword of State, and close by him rode Monk and the Duke of Buckingham. Then appeared the King, accompanied by his brothers York and Gloucester: the Royal eyes, black and keen, looking out with gracious smiles from a sallow face on the gathered thousands, who, with awe and delight, returned the gaze. Troops, with white flags, brought up the rear; and thus the gaudy and imposing pageant filed under the very window, where fourteen years before had stood the scaffold of Charles I.[93]

1660.

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

THE KING'S RETURN.
1660.

There was also an address from the Independent ministers of London and Westminster, in which they referred to the Breda Declaration, indicating how greatly it sustained their hopes. They did not, they said, wish for liberty longer than they deserved it. "And it is our desire," they added, "no longer to sit under the shadow, and to taste the fruit of this your Majesty's royal favour, than we approve ourselves followers of peace with all men, seeking the peace of these kingdoms united under your Majesty's Government, and abiding in our loyalty to your royal person and submission to your laws."[96]

An address, sent by the ministers of Lancashire at a later period, shows their desire to wipe out the stigma of disloyalty:—

"Whereas we, or some of us, have been injuriously misrepresented to your Majesty, or some eminent persons about you, and have also been prejudiced and molested, as if we denied your Supremacy, or were disaffected to your Government (which hindered this our application to your Majesty, although prepared, and which otherwise had been much earlier, even with the first), we do, in all humility, and with great earnestness, profess before God and man, that we detest and abhor the very thoughts of such unworthy principles, behaviour, and expression, having always, according to occasion, expressed and declared the contrary."[97]

THE KING'S RETURN.

In this address we notice a recognition of the Royal Supremacy. Not only the civil, but, in some sense, the ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Crown must, under the circumstances, have been meant. Ecclesiastical Supremacy would be claimed and exercised by the restored sovereign as a matter of course. No new Act of Parliament was passed reconferring it on the Crown, and defining the limits.[98] Henry VIII. had been declared "Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ et Hibernicæ Supremum Caput." That title had been continued during the reign of Edward VI., but was repealed in the reign of Queen Mary. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, Supremacy was restored to the Crown, the Queen being styled, not "Supreme Head of the Church," but "Supreme Governor, as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical causes as in others." Henry's and Edward's title had never been resumed, but that of Elizabeth, having belonged to the first two monarchs of the Stuart line, descended to Charles II.[99] Charles II., then, could not, in legal phrase, be "Head of the Church;" if he happened to be so designated, it would be in adulation or in ignorance. But he inherited the ecclesiastical powers possessed by Queen Elizabeth, except in relation to the High Commission Court, which had been abolished by Act of Parliament in the reign of his father. The canons—as well as Acts of Parliament unrepealed before the Civil Wars—were regarded by Churchmen as remaining in force, and the second canon required an oath to the effect that "the King's Majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the Godly kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian emperors of the primitive Church"—whatever might be meant by that vague appeal to ancient and obscure precedents. The Supremacy of the Crown, however, as asserted by Anglican lawyers, would be one thing; the Supremacy, as acknowledged by Puritans, especially any Nonconformist portion of them, would be quite another. The authority of the temporal ruler over the temporalities of the Church, all parties probably would be prepared to allow; those of them who approved of a State Church would not object to his being invested with ecclesiastical patronage; Presbyterians, who wished for the establishment of perfect parochial discipline by the magistrate's aid, could not consistently object to some kind of Royal Supremacy in reference to that matter; but High Church Puritans, if I may so term persons holding exalted ideas of the spiritual, as distinguished from the temporal powers, like High Church Anglicans, would entertain a reduced and modified conception of the legitimate interference of the Crown with Christ's Church; whilst Nonconformists, who embraced the voluntary principle, would (even if from loyal courtesy they conceded the title of Supreme Governor in causes ecclesiastical) extract from it almost all which constituted its signification in the eyes of others.

1660.
THE KING'S RETURN.

It should further be borne in mind, not only here, but throughout this division of our narrative, indeed onward to the passing of the Act of Uniformity,—that ecclesiastical affairs were in a transition state, that scarcely anything could be regarded as perfectly settled. The High Church party took it for granted, that with the return of the King came the return of the episcopal constitution, with its laws, ceremonies, and usages. They assumed that at once, without any new Parliamentary statute, the stream of affairs would flow back into the old channel—that all which had been done by the Long Parliament, without the sanction of the Crown, ought to be treated as if it had never been done at all. The opposite party also had law on their side; for some valid Acts, affecting the Establishment, remained unrepealed—for example, the Act for divesting Bishops of their temporal powers. Under existing circumstances, much might be said on behalf of other portions of recent legislation, even where the Royal assent had not been obtained. And very few people now will deny that the clergy holding preferment during the Commonwealth had reason and common sense in their favour when they maintained—that, after nearly twenty years of change, after a revolution carried on by a de facto Government which had destroyed old vested rights, and created new ones—things could not be expected to resume their former position as a matter of course; that those in possession, and in possession by sanction of Government, had something to say for themselves, and that the conclusion as to the Church of the future was not foreclosed. And whatever might be said to the contrary, this aspect of the question had been, and still was, tacitly accepted as the true one by Charles and by Clarendon, in their negotiations with the Presbyterians, for they kept them in suspense for more than a year, holding out the idea of a compromise, and did not attempt to carry matters with a high hand until the Presbyterians had been reduced to a condition in which they could be easily crushed.

1660.

The counsellors by whom Charles was surrounded on his return were men of different characters, and they ought at once to be noticed, since they had more or less to do with the ecclesiastical affairs, which it is our business to study. Hyde immediately became Chief Minister. His round face and double chin, as we see them in his portrait, appear signs of good nature; but, perhaps, a skilful physiognomist would discover in his eyes and lips indications of qualities less pleasant. He was a different man from his master. Like Charles I., he was sincerely attached to the Episcopal Church of England. That unhappy Monarch, in one of his published letters, dated Oxford, March 30, 1646, assures Queen Henrietta that "Ned Hide" was fully of his mind on the subject of Episcopacy; he was almost, if not altogether (at that time), the only person in the confidence of the King who concurred with him on the point of religion.[100] The same year, when matters were even worse, Hyde expressed himself against "buying a peace at a dearer price than was offered at Uxbridge," and encouraged the notion that it was the duty of the Royalists to submit to a kind of martyrdom. "It may be," he remarked, "God hath resolved we shall perish, and then it becomes us to perish with those decent and honest circumstances that our good fame may procure a better peace to those who succeed us, than we were able to procure for them, and ourselves shall be happier than any other condition could render us."[101] Looking at the circumstances under which the letter was written, there can be no doubt of the sincerity of this confession—a sincerity confirmed in all the years of his exile under the Commonwealth, and in his active solicitude for the interests of the Church in the prospect of the Restoration. His subsequent conduct in reference to ecclesiastical affairs will appear as we proceed.

THE KING'S RETURN.

The Duke of Ormond, who had done and suffered much for the Stuarts, was, according to Burnet, a courtier of graceful manners, of lively wit, and of cheerful temper, extravagant in his expenditure, but decent in his vices; he was a firm Protestant, and always kept up the forms of religion, even amidst the indulgence of his passions.[102] The Earl of Southampton, who had faithfully adhered to Charles I. and his son throughout their troubles, enjoyed a merited reputation for virtue, for attachment to liberal principles, and for being guiltless of promoting the arbitrary designs of the restored Monarch; he leaned towards a favourable treatment of the Presbyterians; but, after holding the Treasurer's staff he grew weary of business, perhaps from disapprobation of the Court policy, no less than from disease.[103] Sir Edward Nicholas appears to have been a mere official perfunctorily discharging the office of Secretary; and the same may be said of Sir William Morrice. Nicholas Culpepper, who had served as Master of the Rolls to Charles I., and who showed himself to be a politician favourable to the constitutional privileges of the Crown, and no more, took little interest in ecclesiastical affairs. To these Ministers is to be added the Earl of Manchester, a man virtuous and beloved, gentle and obliging, but not marked by any strong individuality of character. On the side of Parliament in the Civil Wars he had been a main pillar of Presbyterianism under the Protectorate; yet though nominated by Oliver, one of his Lords, he had been opposed to Oliver's government. As a Presbyterian leader he had taken a prominent part in a meeting held at Northumberland House, with a view to the Restoration, after which event, upon becoming Lord Chamberlain, he "never failed being at chapel, and at all the King's devotions with all imaginable decency."[104] He did not, however, abandon his old associates. Next to Manchester may be mentioned the Presbyterian Lord Hollis, a man of sincere religion, who had opposed the Independents in the Long Parliament, and had resisted Cromwell; he bore the character of a friend, rough but faithful, and of an enemy violent but just; and he now espoused with fervour the cause of Charles.[105] Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper was a different kind of person. He had been a Royalist, and also a member of the Little Parliament; and if he could be said to be anything in reference to religion, he might be pronounced a Deist; yet he mingled with his scepticism the superstition of astrology.[106] For his position near the King this versatile, inconstant, unprincipled, yet clever man, was indebted to his friend Monk, now created Duke of Albemarle, whose character has been already indicated in these pages.

1660.

Clarendon, Albemarle, Southampton, and Ormond were the ruling spirits immediately after the Restoration; and together with them ought to be mentioned the Earl of Bristol, who, though by having recently declared himself a Roman Catholic, he had excluded himself from the Privy Council, yet retained a place at Court; and whilst his religious policy and general character made him obnoxious to Clarendon, the very same things made him agreeable to Charles.

Buckingham and Bennet will come upon the stage at a future period.

THE KING'S RETURN.

Soon after the Restoration, which placed these men in power, there occurred the disbanding of the old Revolutionary Army, which had throughout the Commonwealth been the main guardian of the Church as well as of the State. That Army had apparently brought back the exiled Monarch, or rather it had strengthened the hands of those who performed that deed; but in consequence of its past history, and the character of many numbered amongst the troops, it was not a prop upon which sagacious and far-sighted Royalists could place much reliance. Indeed, signs of disaffection were already visible. There were veterans who, whilst formally obeying the command of Royalist officers, in their hearts retained allegiance to Lambert, and other Republicans. Whispers about the "good old cause" might be heard in garrisons, and other military quarters; and, it is said, that even a revolt against Monk had begun to be planned. Charles sought to win by flattery such of the soldiers as were of unsettled mind; and his Ministers, at the same time, employed spies to find out and secure the sowers of sedition, and so to pluck the tares from amidst the wheat; but the most effectual method of preventing the apprehended mischief was to dissolve the Army altogether. That difficult and delicate business received prompt and careful attention. The Government employed members to represent to Parliament, first, the uselessness of a military force 60,000 strong in time of peace; and next, the pecuniary burden which it imposed upon the State, then encumbered in other ways with pecuniary difficulties. Consequently motions for a gradual reduction and payment of the Army were carried; and, gradually the regiments, which had seen so much service, and had passed through such a memorable history, melted away. They took home recollections of Marston Moor and Naseby, of the Dunbar fight, and of Worcester field; and to old age men told their children, and their children's children, of their marchings and their defences, especially of the officers under whom they had fought, and of Old Noll, the greatest of them all. Dispersed over the country, settled in their former homes, or choosing new localities, they spread afar the sentiments and traditions of past days; and the religious amongst them—still very numerous—the Puritan, the Presbyterian, the Independent, the Baptist, the Fifth Monarchy Millenarian, and the Spiritual Fanatic of some inexpressible shade, would be each a centre of influence in his respective circle, stimulating and promoting Nonconformity. Perhaps the Commonwealth soldiers, whilst prevented by their being disbanded from shaking the pillars of the State, were by that very measure placed in circumstances which enabled them quietly to exert an influence tending to undermine the foundations of the Church. Officers and soldiers of Cromwell's are often noticed in the informations laid against Dissenters during the next ten or fifteen years; and it is because of the religious character of that Army, and because of the numbers belonging to it, who afterwards appeared in the ranks of Dissent, that I have stepped aside for a moment to allude to an event of a military character.

1660.
ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

Returning to our proper line of history we meet with certain ecclesiastical results in the proceedings of Parliament. For a time the Presbyterian element manifested itself in opposing Popery, and in supporting the existing Church establishment; but signs of change became apparent in the summer months, and Episcopalians began to recover their long lost sway over the councils of the nation. The following consequences ensued:—

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

Much was thus deferred for the present; nevertheless, an Act speedily passed, allowing present incumbents with undisputed titles to retain their livings, yet restoring to his preferment every clergyman who had been ejected under the Commonwealth, if he claimed re-induction, provided he had not been implicated in the death of Charles I., and had not discountenanced infant baptism.[108]

1660.

In consequence of this, many clergymen, including Presbyterians and Congregationalists, were immediately displaced, and dispersed Episcopalians came back to their former abodes.[109] It is easier to imagine than to describe the excitement attending this change. Not only did sorrow fill the dismissed and joy inspire the reinstated, but congregations, in many cases, deplored the contrast between the former and the present occupant of the pulpit; whilst, also, many a squire and yeoman hailed the reappearance of the Prayer Book, and welcomed home some genial incumbent after his long and weary exile. Unseemly contests were renewed in the House of God, such as had been witnessed at the outbreak of the Civil Wars. As a Presbyterian at Halifax began worship in his usual manner, the Episcopalian Vicar made his appearance at the Church door, with the Prayer Book under his arm, and marching up the aisle, clothed in his surplice, insisted upon entering the desk, after which he read the Litany and sung the Te Deum. Joyous peals of bells accompanied the return of the old clergy, and texts were selected expressive of natural feelings on the occasion. One discoursed upon the sufferings of himself and his brethren from the words, "The ploughers ploughed upon my back; they made long their furrows. The Lord is righteous; he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked." Another, in a milder spirit, selected this verse, "He that goeth forth and weepeth bearing precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." An itinerating lecturer, with an income of £50 a year, chose as a Restoration motto, "Let him take all;" which, upon his losing his appointment, gave "occasion for a shrewd taunt of the adversary."[110] Parish registers contain curious memorials of the period. Thus one clergyman records his own story:—"Memorandum, That John Whitford, Rector of Ashen, alias Ashton, in the County of Northampton, was plundered and sequestered by a Committee of rebels, sitting at Northampton, for his loyalty to his gracious sovereign, of blessed memory, Charles I., in the year of our Lord 1645, and was restored to his said Rectory in the twelfth year of the reign of Charles II., in the year 1660."[111]

ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

The Liturgy was reintroduced. It had been used in the service at Canterbury Cathedral upon the occasion of the King's visit to that city, on his way to London; and earlier still in the House of Lords, two days after he had been proclaimed. It appeared in the Royal Chapel immediately after his taking possession of Whitehall; and Evelyn, on the 8th of July, records, that the Prayer Book was publicly read in "churches, whence it had been for so many years banished." In a number of parishes, however, between the Restoration and Bartholomew's day, 1662, ministers continued to carry on worship as they had done before; either following the Directory or engaging in prayer as they pleased.

1660.

II. Parliament took up in detail a variety of business connected with the restoring of Cathedral and parochial edifices, the recovering of what had been taken away, the reinstating of things in their former condition, and the removing of alterations made by Nonconformists. For example: upon a report from the Lords, appointed to compose differences in the City of Exeter, it was ordered that certain churches, of which a list is given, should be repaired at the charge of the respective parishioners, and that all the bells, plate, utensils, and materials, formerly belonging to those buildings, should be delivered to the Churchwardens:—that money still unpaid for their purchase should not be paid; and that bonds for payment should be given up; and that the Chamber of Exeter should forthwith, at their own charge, take away the partition wall built in the Cathedral, and the new-built seats in the Choir, all the materials whereof were to be employed towards "the making up again the churches which were defaced."[112]

ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

III. Petitions came from the Universities, and the Upper House ordered the Chancellors to take care that the Colleges should be governed according to their statutes, and that persons unjustly ejected should be restored to office.[113] Commissioners also were Royally appointed to hear and determine all questions of claim, and they were engaged through the months of August and September in restoring such as were eligible to their former position as Fellows and Heads of Houses. University honours were offered largely to such as professed attachment to Episcopacy, and a numerous creation in all faculties ensued.[114] Oxford and Cambridge immediately witnessed great changes. Restored Episcopalians occupied the places of the ejected, and the ancient forms of worship were at once resumed. The use of the surplice in Parish Churches, by the Royal Declaration of the 25th of October, fully noticed hereafter, was left at the option of incumbents; but it was enjoined upon those who officiated in the Royal Chapel, in Cathedrals, in Collegiate Churches, or in Colleges of the Universities.[115] Yet, we learn from a letter written by Thomas Smith, at Christ's College, Cambridge, November 2nd, 1660, that the Puritanical party were still powerful there. "In your College," says the writer, addressing Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, "half the Society are for the Liturgy and half against it; so it is read one week and the Directory used another; but till the Directory be laid aside, I believe no surplices will be worn."[116]

During the progress of these measures, signs appeared in the House of Commons of changes in the relative position of parties which could not but entail important consequences.

1660.

Upon the 30th of June a complaint reached Parliament—that a paper had been printed, in His Majesty's name, authorizing the uniform use of the Book of Common Prayer throughout the Realm: that a Form of Service for the 28th of June, had been published as by Royal authority: and that there had also appeared in print "a protestation of the Bishops against proceedings of Parliament in their absence."[117] This subject the Commons referred to a Committee, to ascertain how such papers came to be printed, and by what authority. In this proceeding may be traced the impress of Presbyterian influence, attempting to preserve Presbyterian rights, and to resist the return of Episcopal authority. Presently, a Bill was produced "for the maintenance of the true Reformed Protestant religion, and for the suppression of Popery, superstition, profaneness, and other disorders and innovations in worship and ceremonies."[118] But it soon appeared that the Episcopalian party had gained ground on the Presbyterians.

Sharp, the Scotch agent, in a letter dated July the 7th, remarked: "Some yesterday spoke in the House for Episcopacy, and Mr. Bampfield, speaking against it, was hissed down. The English lawyers have given in papers to show that the Bishops have not been outed by law. The cloud is more dark than was apprehended. The Presbyterians are like to be ground betwixt two millstones. The Papists and fanatics are busy."[119]

ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

The fact is, that in the first instance, many Episcopalians had been elected members of the Convention, and that their numbers increased after the King's return as fresh elections occurred. They formed a compact body, and made a vigorous opposition to the Puritans; an opposition which, gradually increasing both in power and boldness, was found by the latter too formidable to be overcome. Consequently, the irresolute and the selfish amongst them, feeling alarmed, and seeing which way the wind blew, began to sail on a new tack, and to follow those who were making towards a safe harbour. Many members became, in a few months, as staunch in the maintenance of the Episcopal Church as they had ever been in the cause of the Presbyterian Covenant.

When the ecclesiastical business of the Session had been transacted, the King, in the month of September, after giving his assent to various Bills, made a speech to the two Houses, followed by another of great length from the lips of Clarendon, the Lord Chancellor, who on that, as well as on other occasions, showed a talent for sermonizing which would not have disgraced a Bishop.

A large proportion of what had been Church property existed in a very unsatisfactory state. It had been disposed of by the Long Parliament or the Commonwealth Government in the form of rewards for service and of sales for money. Was it now to revert at once to its previous uses? If so, should not some compensation be made to the present possessors or occupiers?

1660.

Ecclesiastical claimants argued, that such property had been illegally secularized, and that those who had received it had taken it with all the risks of a bad title. In justice to the Convention it should be remarked, that it passed a resolution favourable to the rights of those who had purchased Church lands on the faith of the Parliament;[120] and, in justice to Charles II., that he issued a Commission in November, 1660, to inquire into the history of such transactions. This Commission was authorized to compose differences between the Bishops and the purchasers of estates, the direction being, that Archbishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons were to accept such reasonable conditions as should be tendered to them by the Commissioners on behalf of such purchasers; and that they would do no act to the prejudice of any purchasers, by granting new or concurrent leases whereby their existing interest or position might be injured, while the same was under deliberation, and until His Majesty's pleasure should be further known.[121] In accordance with the spirit of this Commission the King dealt leniently with those who had become possessed of Crown property; and this circumstance, which was creditable to him, caused the course adopted by the authorities of the Church to appear the more reprehensible. The Resolution passed by the Convention came to nothing, upon the dissolution of that Assembly; and the holders of Church lands, unprotected by Parliament, and left to the mercy of clerical claimants, experienced severe treatment.[122] Old incumbents, writhing under the remembrance of wrong, and seeking compensation for their losses, refused compensation to their enemies, and made the best bargain they could for themselves.

ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

It is convenient in this connection to allude to a change in certain privileges which indirectly affected, to some extent, the revenues of the Church. Amongst feudal rights were those of tenures by Knight's-service, including the benefits of marriages, reliefs, and wardships. Though the profits derived from the Court of Wards were casual, they amounted sometimes to a considerable sum, but these and other contingent revenues were, by a Parliamentary arrangement, withdrawn from the Sovereign, and in lieu of the income thus forfeited, one moiety of the excise became settled on the Crown. The Act affected the revenues of the Church, and of this circumstance a remarkable illustration is afforded by a paper in the Record Office, in which the Bishop of Durham complains of a loss of £2,000 through the abolition of these courts.[123]

1660.

In connection with this reference to Episcopal revenues, it may be stated that at the Restoration nine Bishops of the old ecclesiastical régime were still alive. These were—Juxon, Bishop of London; Wren, of Ely; Piers, of Bath and Wells; Skinner, of Oxford; Roberts, of Bangor; Warner, of Rochester; King, of Chichester; Duppa, of Salisbury; and Frewen, of Lichfield and Coventry. They considered themselves, and, by their own Church they were regarded, as having a title to resume the episcopates from which they had been ejected. But whilst things remained in a transition state they seem to have acted with caution. Without a repeal of the Act of Charles I., which disqualified them for sitting in the House of Lords, they could not resume their seats. Nor until the purchasers of their episcopal estates were dispossessed, could they recover their property; nor, for a while, could they obtain possession of their palaces, or enter upon the possession of their sees. Those who were boldest in maintaining the theory, that the Episcopal Church at the Restoration resumed its rights and prerogatives, could not at once reduce that theory to practice.

It may be added that new Bishops were appointed to vacant sees; some account of their consecration, their history, and character, will be given hereafter.

PREFERMENTS.

Throughout the latter half of the year 1660 and onwards, applications by Episcopalian clergymen to be restored to their benefices, or to be favoured with higher preferment, were as numerous as they were urgent. They occur amongst the State Papers of that period, in all sorts of connections; and one volume of them alone—assigned in the Calendar to the month of August, 1660—contains no less than 143 documents of this description. One clergyman beseeches the King to recommend him to the Dean and Chapter of York, as Vicar-General of the diocese during a vacancy, the petitioner having suffered by resisting both the Covenant and the Engagement. A second begs the Deanery of Lichfield, he having lost a valuable living given him at Oxford by the late King as a reward for his loyalty. A third applies for the Archdeaconry of Hereford. A fourth prefers his claim to the Archdeaconry of Chester, on the ground of having been deprived and plundered for constancy in maintaining the doctrine and discipline of the Church.

There are many petitions for prebends, one from a clergyman who appears to have been a wit, for he begs the reversion of the next stall in Worcester Cathedral; only excepting that connected with the Margaret Professorship of Divinity—saying, that "though not likely to receive benefit thereby on account of his age, yet having long waited, as the cripple at the pool of Bethesda, it will comfort him to think that he dies cousin-german to some preferment." Another pleads, with some humour, that having sacrificed liberty to duty, he must now forfeit it in another way, even for debt, unless aided by His Majesty's generosity.[124] To most of these forms of application there are annexed certificates from various persons, particularly Dr. Sheldon, who seems to have taken a great deal of trouble to promote the interests of his clerical brethren. The hopes and fears which at other times agitate two or three candidates are, at a general election, multiplied by hundreds all over the kingdom; so at the Restoration,—what commonly is a flutter amongst a few aspirants after ecclesiastical promotion, was then the experience of multitudes at the same moment; and perhaps there never were before or since, within the same compass of time, so many clergymen on the tip-toe of expectation, doomed of course, in many cases, to utter disappointment.

CHAPTER V.

MEETINGS OF PRESBYTERIANS.

Soon after the King's return the Earl of Manchester employed his influence, as Lord Chamberlain, in the appointment of ten or twelve Presbyterian chaplains at Court; of these only four—Reynolds, Calamy, Spurstow, and Baxter—ever had the honour of ministering before His Majesty.[125] Baxter states that there was no profit connected with the distinction; and that not "a man of them all ever received, or expected a penny for the salary of their places." But if the office brought no pay to himself, he was anxious it should bring profit to the Church; and, therefore, he employed the influence, which his chaplaincy gave him, to promote such measures as he thought conducive to the advancement of religion. He suggested to the Earl, and to Lord Broghill, a conference, for what he called "agreement," or "coalition;"[126] and as Calamy, Reynolds, and Ash, concurred in his views, he procured an arrangement in the month of June for himself, and his brethren in office, to meet their Royal master, with Clarendon, the Earl of St. Albans, and other noble persons, at the house of the Lord Chamberlain.

1660.

When they met, Baxter, with characteristic ardour and pathos, delivered a long address, probably such as Charles had never listened to before, although he had heard much plain speaking on the other side the Tweed. The Puritan Divine besought His Majesty's aid in favour of union, urging, that it would be a blessed work to promote holiness and concord; and, "whereas there were differences between them and their brethren about some ceremonies or discipline of the Church," he "craved His Majesty's favour for the ending of those differences, it being easy for him to interpose, that so the people might not be deprived of their faithful pastors, nor [have] ignorant, scandalous, unworthy ones obtruded on them." Baxter also expressed a hope that the King would never suffer himself to undo the good which Cromwell, or any other, had done, because they were usurpers that did it, "but that he would rather outgo them in doing good." Then, with exquisite simplicity, the speaker went on to say that common people judged of governors by their conduct; and took him to be the best who did the most good, and him to be the worst who did the most harm. He hoped that the freedom of his expressions might be pardoned, as they were "extracted by the present necessity;" and he further declared that he was pleading for no one party in particular, but for the interests of religion at large. In concluding his address he urged the great advantage which union would prove to His Majesty, to the people, and to the Bishops; and showed how easily that blessing might be secured, by insisting only upon necessary things, by providing for the exercise of Church discipline, and by not casting out faithful ministers, "nor obtruding unworthy men on the people."[127] The whole speech was pitched in a key of earnestness beyond the sympathy of him to whom it was addressed; there was in it, nevertheless, a charm to which the easy-tempered Charles might not be insensible, and with his usual politeness, he professed himself gratified by any approach being made towards agreement. He, at the same time, remarked that there ought to be abatements on both sides, and a meeting midway; adding, that he had resolved to see the thing brought to pass, indeed, that he would himself draw the parties together. Upon listening to this Royal pledge, Mr. Ash, one of the chaplains, was so affected that he burst into tears.

PRESBYTERIAN PROPOSALS.

Baxter and his associates were requested to draw up proposals for consideration at a future conference, to which they consented, with the understanding, that for the present they could only speak for themselves, and not as representatives of others. They also craved, that if concessions were granted on one side, concessions should be granted on the other. To this Charles agreed.

Meetings were accordingly held immediately afterwards at Sion College—meetings prolonged from day to day. By general invitation both city and country ministers attended, including Dr. Worth, afterwards made an Irish Bishop, and Mr. Fulwood, subsequently appointed Archdeacon of Totness.[128]

Difficulties arose of a nature necessarily accompanying all debates; for, as Baxter says, that which seemed the most convenient expression to one, seemed inconvenient to another, and those who agreed as to matter had much ado in agreeing as to words. The latter might be true to some extent, but in all probability the discussions at Sion College resembled others elsewhere, in which men have agreed as to words, in order to cover some very important difference as to things. At last the brethren resolved to make the following proposals:—

That their flocks should have liberty of worship; that they should have godly pastors; that no persons should be admitted to the Lord's table except upon a credible profession of faith; and that care should be taken to secure the sanctification of the Lord's Day. For "matters in difference, viz., Church government, Liturgy, and ceremonies"—they professed not to dislike Episcopacy, or the true ancient primitive presidency, as it was balanced and managed, with a due commixture of Presbyters; yet they omitted not to state what they conceived to be amiss in the Episcopal government, as practised before the year 1640—specifying the too great extent of the Bishop's diocese, their employment of officials instead of personal oversight, the absorption by prelates of the functions of ordination and government, and the exercise of arbitrary power in spiritual rule. They proposed, as a remedy, Ussher's scheme of suffragan Bishops and diocesan synods, the associations not to "be so large as to make the discipline impossible;" and they requested that no oaths of obedience to Bishops should be necessary for ordination; and that Bishops should not exercise authority at their pleasure, but only according to such rules and canons as should be established by Act of Parliament. They were satisfied concerning the lawfulness of a Liturgy, but they objected to the Prayer Book, as having in it many things justly offensive and needing amendment.

1660.