...

serious and grave considerations, the several Directions, Rules and Forms of Prayer, and things in the Book of Common Prayer contained, and to advise and consult upon and about the same, and the several Objections and Exceptions which shall now be raised against the same. And if occasion be, to make such reasonable and necessary Alterations, Corrections and Amendments therein, as. shall be agreed upon to be needful or expedient for the giving Satisfaction unto tender Consciences, and the restoring and continuance of Peace and Unity, in the Churches under our Protection and Government.' Whether Charles was sincere or whether he and Clarendon were merely playing with the dissenters until a new parliament was assembled must remain a mystery, but it is certain that many fully believed that the king was prepared to adopt a liberal scheme of church government and to accept reasonable alterations in the liturgy. On April 15th, the commissioners met at the Savoy. The problems which faced them and the possible modes of solving them are expounded and commented upon, seriously and satirically in the pamphlet literature of the time. 'The Interest of England in the Matter of Religion,' written by Corbett, endeavoured to show that the chief necessity was to form an union between Episcopalians and Presbyterians by mutual concessions. The view of extreme churchmen was expressed by Roger L'Estrange in his reply to Corbett called 'The Holy Cheat.' One thing,' he says, 'is very notable, they [the Presbyterians] never state what they would have; their termes are general and indefinite, and hard to be understood, because they are resolv'd not to be satisfied.' The same opinion was well expressed in the satire 'The Fortunate Change' :

'For if to Heretick in Church or State

You give an inch, they'l take an Ell, and prate
Their wild Opinions to the Multitude,

Who'l know no reason, but from hand that's rude.
Laugh we upon them, like the Black-Moor they
Will cut our Throats; well Cudgel'd they'l obey.

What would men have? No People's like us free.
We've best Religion, best Propriety.

Pearson; Thomas Pierce; Anthony Sparrow; Herbert Thorndike. The
Presbyterians were:-Anthony Tuckney; John Conant; William Spurstow;
John Wallis, Thomas Manton; Edmund Calamy; Richard Baxter;
Arthur Jackson; Thomas Case; Samuel Clark; Matthew Newcomen; and
Thomas Horton; Thomas Jacomb; William Bates; John Rawlinson; William
Cooper; John Lightfoot; John Collins; Benjamin Woodbridge; William
Drake. William Drake was written in error for Roger Drake, a circumstance
which resulted in Drake abstaining from attendance at the conference.

All nations court our true-fram'd Church and boast
Of all Reform'd we are Reformed most.

But we have found the cheat; for now we're sure
Their aim's to be most wicked and impure.

Let Country plot their grounds, contrive their Farms,
And City mind their Shops, nor neighbour's harms.
Let Pastors teach their Flocks true Faith and Love,
And not Sedition, or Superiors move,

Or tell close Counsels, lies, or publick news

In Parish-Church the people to abuse.

This was their trade whereby themselves they damn'd And Souls as fast as that men's Souls were fram'd.' Other Episcopalians were more moderate in their views. In his 'Irenicum. A weapon salve for the Churches Wounds,' written towards the close of 1660, Edward Stillingfleet wrote: 'Were we so happy but to take off things granted unnecessary by all, and suspected by many and judged unlawful by some; and to make nothing the bonds of our communion but what Christ hath done, viz., one Faith, one Baptism, &c., allowing a liberty for matters of indifferency, and bearing with the weakness of those who cannot bear things which others account lawful, we might indeed be restored to a true Primitive lustre far sooner than by furbishing up some antiquated ceremonies, which can derive their pedegree no higher, than from some ancient custom and tradition. God will some day convince men that the Union of the Church lies more in the Unity of faith and affection, than in uniformity of doubtful rites and ceremonies.'82 One can only regret that advice so good influenced so few.

From the very commencement of the conference it was evident that little concession would be granted by the representatives of the Established Church, for they adopted an attitude of obstinate defence towards all suggestions. Sheldon, president in the place of the Archbishop of York, demanded, much to the surprise of the Presbyterians, a written statement of their objections to the Liturgy. On May 4th, the Presbyterians presented their 'Exceptions against the Liturgy' together with 'The Petition for peace and concord.'83 To these their opponents replied, and for

82 See also: 'Terms of Accomodation between those of the Episcopal and their brethren of the Presbyterian Perswasions... By a Country Minister, a Friend to Both, a Stickler for Neither, but a Zealot for the peace of the Church.'

83 Documents,' p. 385. See Roger L'Estrange's 'The Relaps'd Apostate,' a reply to The Petition for Peace': 'Come leave your Jocky-tricks, your Religious Wranglings, about the thing ye least consider, Conscience. Leave your Streyning at Gnats, and swallowing of Camels, your Blewcap Divinity

more than three of the four months set apart for the conference, the parties engaged in a bitter paper controversy,84 Neither side made any great attempt to understand or to appreciate the attitude of the other. Thus the wearisome proceedings dragged along, each day showing more clearly than the last that comprehension was out of the question. Following the Savoy Conference, Convocation met in November, 'to review the Book of Common Prayer, and the manner of consecrating bishops, priests, &c., and to present for the king's allowance such alterations and additions therein as they should think fitting,'85 a task originally entrusted to the divines at the Savoy. This packed Convocation met ostensibly to amend the Prayer Book with a view to making it less objectionable to dissenters. If such were the intent, the attempt was a hopeless failure. Never till then, said the Presbyterians, had the Prayer Book been positively distasteful.86 Thus had Charles's task ended. Nothing remained but for parliament to try its hand at the problem.

Some months earlier, a new parliament had assembled. In contrast to the Convention parliament it was strongly royalist and episcopalian in character, only fifty-six Nonconformists finding seats. The feeling of the nation was, no doubt, strongly royalist, though it is questionable whether the elections had been perfectly free.87 London was the great exception to the almost universal choice of cavaliers. great talk of the towne,' says Pepys, 'is the strange election that the City of London made yesterday (March 19) for Parliament-men; viz., Fowke, Love, Jones, and . . . (Sir Wm.

The

of subjecting Publique and venerable Laws, to private and Factious Constitutions.' Also his State-Divinity; or a Supplement to the Relaps'd Apostate': 'Without this Liberty of Freedome, where had been their Separate Assemblies? Their Seditious Conventicles; Their Anti-Episcopal Lectures, and without These, their Desolating Reformation? Were we not in the high-way to Unity, when Churches were turned into Stables, and houses of Infamy supplyed the place of Churches? When Peters was fooling in One Pulpit, Marshall Denouncing in Another: and when the Now Pastor of Brainford threw the very Fire-brand of the Rebellion into the King's Coach; that execrable Pamphlet (To your Tents O Israel).'

84 Jack the Levite labours to confound Aaron the “ jure divino" priest.' (H.M.C.R., v. 173.)

85 C.S.P.D., 1661-2, p. 109. Baxter, ii, p. 333. Cong. Plea,' p. 35. 86 For alterations see Documents,' pp. 456-8.

87 April 8, 1661. H. Norwood to Sir Edward Harley, Whitehall: 'The elections are in all places such as you would wish, yet not without some offers of the Rumpers. Yesterday my Lord Mordant from Windsor did advertise here the towne of Reading would endeavour to make an ill election, but perhaps a little care extraordinary may helpe that alsoe.' (H.M.C.R., XIV. App. II, p. 250.)

Thompson), men that, so far from being episcopal, are thought to be Anabaptists; and chosen with a great deal of zeal, in spite of the other party that thought themselves so strong, calling out "No Bishops! no Lord Bishops!" It do make people to fear it may come to worse, by being an example to the country to do the same. And indeed the Bishops are so high, that very few do love them.'88 One rhymster breaks out into a veritable lament:

... Oh such hellish Choice

Will us undo; London, thy case all pitty,

And pray these Vermine may not spoil thy City.'89

At the opening of parliament, May 8th, the Chancellor exhibited his true temper, which he had to some extent veiled during the previous year. 'If the present oaths,' he exclaimed, 'have any terms or expressions in them that a tender conscience honestly makes scruple of submitting to, in God's name let other oaths be formed in their places, as comprehensive of all those obligations which the policy of government must exact; but still let there be a yoke; let there be an oath; let there be some law, that may be the rule to that Indulgence, that under pretence of liberty of conscience, men may not be absolved from all the obligations of law and conscience.'90 The new members were only too ready to follow whither the Chancellor pointed the way. The prelates were restored to the Upper House. On May 13th, it was agreed that all members of parliament should be compelled to take, before a certain date, the sacrament according to the Liturgy. The Solemn League and Covenant was declared void and illegal, and ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. Still more significant was the act for the wellgoverning and regulating corporations,' passed December 20th, 1661. It demanded from all holding office in corporations an oath that they believed it unlawful to take up arms against the king or those commissioned by him, and an abjuration of all obligations arising from the Solemn League and Covenant. Those elected in future were to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The act was a direct and heavy blow at the very heart of dissent, for its strength lay largely not in country places, but in corporate towns. No doubt Bunyan, in his 'Holy War' had acts of this kind in mind when he related how Diabolus

88 Pepys Diary, March 20 1661.

The Loyall Subjects Lamentation for Londons Perversenesse in the Malignant Choice of some Rotten Members, on Tuesday, the 19th of March, · 1661.

90 L. J., xi., p. 243.

confined the Lord Mayor to his own house, as to a prison, although that official had concurred with the people in admitting the giant into the town; how the recorder Conscience, gave place to Forget-good, and new aldermen, Haughty, Whoring, No-truth, Drunkenness, &c., were appointed. There is no doubt also, that the act was rigidly enforced. In Liverpool, Thomas Blackmore, Thomas Williamson, Ralph Massam, Edward Williamson, Gilbert Formby, and Richard Percivall, all of whom had occupied the civic chair during the Commonwealth, were removed from the office of aldermen. The town-clerk and seven councillors were also ejected from office.91

Having thus rid the corporate bodies of members suspected of disloyalty, the next step was to remove from the Church those ministers who had intruded during the late upheaval, the blacksmiths' and 'shoemakers' of cavalier scribblers. The oaths and yoke demanded by Clarendon were forthcoming in a bill 'for the uniformity of public prayers, and the administration of the sacraments,' which provided that all ministers should declare their 'unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book intituled "The Book of Common Prayer.. Moreover, all ministers and schoolmasters were required, upon pain of expulsion from their livings, to declare the unlawfulness of taking up arms against the king, or against those commissioned by him, and their abhorrence of the Solemn League and Covenant. The bill had been read for the first time in the Commons on June 29th, 1661, that is to say, before Charles and his synod had finally failed to arrive at a basis of settlement.92 On July 10th, it was sent up to the Lords, and on the re-assembling of parliament in November, Charles commended the work to their care. Referring to the many rumours of plots93 which had been in circulation, 'There are,' he said, 'many wicked instruments, still as active as ever, who labour day and night to disturb

91'Liverpool Municipal Records,' pp. 238-240. That there were other means of purging corporations and councils is shown by a letter from the King to the Lord Mayor of London. He demands that strict orders be given to the several wards for a quiet election of persons well affected towards Church and State; if others are returned he will be forced to an unwilling change of the elections. (C.S.P.D., 1661-2, p. 179.)

92 See Documents,' p. 386; and C. J., viii, p. 285.

93 See e.g. Hatton Corresp., i, p. 22. Charles Lyttelton to Lord Hatton : 'Wee have beene mightily alarumed heere with reports of plotts from London, and heere is very strict eys over all the fanatic party, orders being given out to disarme divers, at least to search for armes in theyr houses. (Aug. 31, 1661.) Burnet (i, 326) says that the plots were mere inventions, concocted to win over those who deemed the act much too severe.