1660-73. CHAP. some compromise with their adversaries. They had never, geXI. nerally speaking, embraced the rigid principles of the Scottish Charles II. clergy, and were willing to admit what they called a moderate episcopacy. They offered, accordingly, on the king's request to know their terms, a middle scheme, usually denominated Bishop Usher's Model, not as altogether approving it, but because they could not hope for any thing nearer to their own views. This consisted, first, in the appointment of a suffragan bishop for each rural deanery, holding a monthly synod of the presbyters within his district; and, secondly, in an annual diocesan synod of suffragans and representatives of the presbyters, under the presidency of the bishop, and deciding upon all matters before them by plurality of suffrages*. This is, I believe, considered by most competent judges as approaching more nearly than our own system to the usage of the primitive church, which gave considerable influence and superiority of rank to the bishop, without destroying the aristocratical character and co-ordinate jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical senate. It lessened also the inconveniences Collier, 869. 871; Baxter, 232. 238. The bishops said, in their answer to the presbyterians' proposals, that the objections against a single person's administration in the church were equally applicable to the state. Collier, 872. But this was false, But this was false, as they well knew, and designed only to produce an effect at court; for the objections were not grounded on reasoning, but on a presumed positive institution. Besides which the argument cut against themselves for if the English constitution, or something analogous to it, had been established in the church, their adversaries would have had all they now asked. + Stillingfleet's Irenicum. King's Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church. The former work was published at this time, with a view to moderate the pretensions of the Anglican party, to which the author belonged, by showing: 1. That there are no sufficient data for determining with certainty the form of church-government in the apostolical age, or that which immediately followed it; 2. That, as far as we may probably conjecture, the primitive church was framed on the model of the synagogue; that is, a synod of priests in every congregation, having one of their own number for a chief or president; 3. That there is no reason to consider any part of the apostolical discipline as an invariable model for future ages, and that much of our own ecclesiastical polity cannot any way pretend to primitive authority; 4. That this has been the opinion of all the most eminent theologians at home and abroad; 5. That it would be expedient to introduce various modifications, not on the whole much different from the scheme of Usher. Stillingfleet, whose work is a remarkable instance of extensive learning and mature judgment at the age of about twentythree, thought fit afterwards to retract it in a certain degree, and towards the latter part of his life, gave into more high-church politics. It is true that the Irenicum must. have been composed with almost unparal→ XI. 1660-73. supposed to result from the great extent of some English dioceses. CHAP. But though such a system was inconsistent with that parity which the rigid presbyterians maintained to be indispensable, and those Charles II. who espoused it are reckoned, in a theological division, among episcopalians, it was, in the eyes of equally rigid churchmen, little better than a disguised presbytery, and a real subversion of the Anglican hierarchy *. The presbyterian ministers, or rather a few eminent persons of that class, proceeded to solicit a revision of the liturgy, and a consideration of the numerous objections which they made to certain passages, while they admitted the lawfulness of a prescribed form. They implored the king also to abolish, or at least not to enjoin as necessary, some of those ceremonies which they scrupled to use, and which in fact had been the original cause of their schism; the surplice, the cross in baptism, the practice of kneeling at the communion, and one or two more. A tone of humble supplication pervades all their language, which some might invidiously contrast with their unbending haughtiness in prosperity. The bishops and other Anglican divines, to whom their propositions were referred, met the offer of capitulation with a scornful and vindictive smile. They held out not the least overture towards a compromise. The king, however, deemed it expedient, during the continuance of a parliament, the majority of whom were desirous of union in the church, and had given some indications of their disposition †, to keep up the delusion a little longer, and prevent the possible consequences of despair. He had already appointed several presbyterian ministers his chaplains, and given them fre leled rapidity for such a work; but it shows, as far as I can judge, no marks of precipitancy. The biographical writers put its publication in 1659; but this must be a mistake; no one can avoid perceiving that it could not have passed the press on the 24th of March, 1660. *Baxter's Life. Neal. They addressed the king to call such divines as he should think fit to advise with concerning matters of religion. July 20, 1660. Journals and Parl. Hist. 1660-73. CHAP. quent audiences. But during the recess of parliament he pubXI. lished a declaration, wherein, after some compliments to the miCharles II. nisters of the presbyterian opinion, and an artful expression of satisfaction that he had found them no enemies to episcopacy or a liturgy, as they had been reported to be, he announces his intention to appoint a sufficient number of suffragan bishops in the larger dioceses; he promises that no bishop should ordain or exercise any part of his spiritual jurisdiction without advice and assistance of his presbyters; that no chancellors or officials of the bishop should use any jurisdiction over the ministry, nor any archdeacon without the advice of a council of his clergy; that the dean and chapter of the diocese, together with an equal number of presbyters, annually chosen by the clergy, should be always advising and assisting at all ordinations, church censures, and other important acts of spiritual jurisdiction. He declared also that he would appoint an equal number of divines of both persuasions to revise the liturgy, desiring that in the mean time none would wholly lay it aside, yet promising that no one should be molested for not using it till it should be reviewed and reformed. With regard to ceremonies, he declared that none should be compelled to receive the sacrament kneeling, nor to use the cross in baptism, nor to bow at the name of Jesus, nor to wear the surplice, except in the royal chapel and in cathedrals, nor should subscription to articles not doctrinal be required. He renewed also his declaration from Breda, that no man should be called in question for differences of religious opinion, not disturbing the peace of the kingdom *. * Parl. Hist. Neal, Baxter, Collier, &c. Burnet says that Clarendon had made the king publish this declaration; "but the bishops did not approve of this; and after the service they did that lord in the Duke of York's marriage, he would not put any hardship on those who had so signally obliged him." This is very invidious. I know no evidence that the declaration was published at Clarendon's suggestion, except indeed that he was the great adviser of the crown; yet in some things, especially of this nature, the king seems to have acted without his concurrence. He certainly speaks of the declaration as if he did not wholly relish it, (Life, 75.) and does not state it fairly. In State Trials, vi. 11, it is said to have been XI. 1660-73. Though many of the presbyterian party deemed this modi- CHAP. fication of Anglican episcopacy a departure from their notions of an apostolic church, and inconsistent with their covenant, the Charles II. majority would doubtless have acquiesced in so extensive a concession from the ruling power. If faithfully executed, according to its apparent meaning, it does not seem that the declaration falls very short of their own proposal, the scheme of Usher*. The high churchmen indeed would have murmured had it been made effectual. But such as were nearest the king's councils well knew that nothing else was intended by it than to scatter dust in men's eyes, and prevent the interference of parliament. This was soon rendered manifest, when a bill to render the king's declaration effectual was vigorously opposed by the courtiers, and rejected on a second reading by 183 to 157t. Nothing could more forcibly demonstrate an intention of breaking faith with the presbyterians than this vote. For the king's declaration was repugnant to the act of uniformity and many other statutes, so that it could not be carried into effect without the authority of parliament, unless by means of such a general dispensing power as no parliament would endure. And it is impossible to question drawn up by Morley and Henchman for the church, Reynolds and Calamy for the dissenters; if they disagreed, lords Anglesea and Hollis to decide. *The chief objection made by the presbyterians, as far as we learn from Baxter, was, that the consent of presbyters to the bishop's acts was not promised by the declaration, but only their advice; a distinction not apparently very material in practice, but bearing perhaps on the great point of controversy, whether the difference between the two were in order, or in degree. The king would not come into the scheme of consent; though they pressed him with a passage out of the Icon Basilike, where his father allowed of it. Life of Baxter, 276. Some alterations, however, were made in consequence of their suggestions. + Parl. Hist. 141. 152. Clarendon, 76, Collier, who of course thinks this de- Neal con XI. CHAP. that a bill for confirming it would have easily passed through this house of commons, had it not been for the resistance of the Charles II. government. 1660-73. Charles now dissolved the convention parliament, having obtained from it what was immediately necessary, but well aware that he could better accomplish his objects with another. It was studiously inculcated by the royalist lawyers, that as this assembly had not been summoned by the king's writ, none of its acts could have any real validity, except by the confirmation of a true parliament*. This doctrine being applicable to the act of indemnity left the kingdom in a precarious condition, till an undeniable security could be obtained, and rendered the dissolution almost necessary. Another parliament was called of very different composition from the last. Possession and the standing ordinances against royalists had enabled the secluded members of 1648, that is, the adherents of the long parliament, to stem with some degree of success the impetuous tide of loyalty in the last elections, and put them almost upon an equality with the court. But in the new assembly, cavaliers, and the sons of cavaliers, entirely predominated; the great families, the ancient gentry, the episcopal clergy, resumed their influence; the presbyterians and sectarians feared to have their offences remembered; so that we may rather be surprised that about fifty or sixty who *Life of Clarendon, 74. A plausible and somewhat dangerous attack had been made on the authority of this parliament from an opposite quarter, in a pamphlet written by one Drake, under the name of Thomas Philips, intitled "The Long Parliament Revived," and intended to prove that by the act of the late king, providing that they should not be dissolved but by the concurrence of the whole legislature, they were still in existence; and that the king's demise, which legally puts an end to a parliament, could not affect one that was declared permanent by so direct an enactment. This argument seems by no means inconsiderable; but the times were not such as to permit of technical reasoning. The convention parliament, after questioning Drake, finally sent up articles of impeachment against him; but the lords, after hearing him in his defence, when he confessed his fault, left him to be prosecuted by the attorney-general. Nothing more, probably, took place. Parl. Hist. 145. 157. This was in November and December 1660: but Drake's book seems still to have been in considerable circulation; at least I have two editions of it, both bearing the date of 1661. The argument it contains is purely legal; but the aim must have been to serve the presbyterian or parliamentarian cause. |