CHAS. II. A.D. 1660. CHAPTER chester, Denzil Hollis, now lord Hollis, Annesley X. lord Anglesea, and sir Ashley Cooper lord Shaftesbury; and the presbyterian chaplains were requested to prepare for the king's satisfaction a statement of their grievances; and of the terms on which a comprehensive union might be formed to embrace the episcopalians and themselves. In return, they represented to his majesty their own want of authority; they could decide nothing for the puritans at large; they could but express their own private sentiments, and those of their friends in London with whom they might confer. The king said he wished for nothing more. They then added a request that, when their own concessions had been offered, "the brethren on the other side" might bring in theirs; stating fairly how much for the sake of concord they would abate and yield up; and the king promised on behalf of the bishops that they should do so.* Calamy and his party consulted with the presbyterian clergy at Sion college in the city, and within a few weeks presented their proposals in writing. These proposals, though advanced without the authority of the great body of the English puritans, or indeed their cognizance, clearly expressed their sentiments. Except the anabaptists, the quakers, and a few sectaries, all would have been satisfied. The presbyterian chaplains understood the wants and the disposition of their brethren; for though all termed presbyterians, they were in fact the representatives of various parties. The term puritan was passing out of date, and that of presbyterian now succeeded it, * Baxter, part i. p. 232. X. A.D. 1660. as a designation, comprehending all, whatever their CHAPTER notions of church-government, who disliked prelacy: thus Baxter was an independent, Manchester and CHAS. II. Hollis were moderate episcopalians. They agreed upon archbishop Ussher's reduced episcopacy as their basis, without the alteration of a word. They did so in order that the world might see that they did not reject episcopacy as in itself unlawful, and that the archbishop's reputation might shelter them from misrepresentations. On points of doctrine they still desired no change. The prayer-book, even as it stood, they charged with no false doctrines; it contained some obscure expressions, and perhaps it insisted with a needless preciseness on some controverted points. But it ought to be well observed that puritanism had now exhausted itself, it had arrived at the last crisis of its fate, and still it had no quarrel with the dogmatic teaching of the book of common prayer. "The king required us to draw up and offer him such proposals that we thought meet in order to agreement about churchgovernment; for that was the main difference. If that were agreed there would be little danger of differing in the rest. In all our treaty we had never meddled with the doctrine of the church, because though the most part of the bishops were taken to be arminians, as they are called, yet the articles of religion we took to be sound and moderate, however men do variously interpret them."* These are the words of Baxter. So moderate were the presbyterians that it was with difficulty that Baxter could induce them to premise four particulars on X. CHAS. II. 66 CHAPTER subjects of practical religion; viz., those for countenancing godliness; for establishing in every parish an orthodox, learned, and godly pastor; for insisting on a credible faith and obedience in communicants; and lastly, for the sanctification of the Lord's-day; which was urged no longer on jewish precedents, but on other grounds, viz.—" it being certain and on long experience found that the observation thereof is a special means of preserving and promoting the power of godliness, and obviating profaneness." These, however," said the associated chaplains, "are not the points in controversy." They repeated the complaint of the ancient puritans, that the book of common prayer contained many things that are justly offensive and need amendment. They went further, and implored the king that a new form of prayer might be devised by some learned, godly, and moderate divines of both persuasions, indifferently chosen; that it might be expressed as much as possible in scripture words; or at least that the old book might be effectually revised and reformed. They expressed their entire satisfaction with a liturgy; provided always that the minister might also "make use of those gifts for prayer and edification which Christ has given him for the service and edification of the church." It was with the ceremonies that puritanism struggled at its latest gasp as in its infancy;-with the cross in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's table, wearing the surplice, and bowing not only at the * All the papers on both sides, in this and the subsequent conference of the Savoy in 1661, may be seen in "The history of non-conformity, as it was argued and stated by commissioners on both sides. 1704.” X. A.D. 1660. name of Jesus, but now of late years towards the CHAPTER so-called altars. "It is not enough," they say, quoting the words of king James, "that public CHAS. II. worship is free from blame-it ought to be free from suspicion." With greater force they remind the king that these ceremonies are, in the judgment of the imposers themselves, indifferent and mutable; in the judgment of others, a rock of offence; in the judgment of all, not to be valued with the peace of the church. The paper is remarkable for its extreme moderation. It seemed as if the puritan sore would heal at last. After a hundred years of bitter conflict, all the aggravations with which Cartwright and his more intemperate followers had inflamed the quarrel were renounced, and Calamy and Baxter stood on the same ground which bishop Hooper and dean Sampson had once occupied. They "scrupled the habits," and they "misliked the ceremonies." The liberty which they sought for the officiating minister with respect to extempore prayer and irregular worship, was that liberty of prophesying for which archbishop Grindal had contended, at the cost of his mitre, with Elizabeth. Ussher's scheme of reduced episcopacy, however distasteful to an ambitious prelate, gave ample powers and sufficient honour to a good one. The ten surviving bishops had resumed their functions as soon as Charles returned; but the vacant sees were not filled, nor had the bishops resumed their places in the house of lords; so that the archbishop's scheme was not introduced to deprive the bishops of their rights, or to limit their just power; it was a proposal for a readjustment. Indeed episcopacy was in this dilemma: X. CHAPTER if it claimed to be restored upon its former footing, as in the reign of Charles I., it abandoned the CHAS. II. peerage and the house of lords. For Charles I. had A.D. 1661. signed the bill which excluded the bishops and abolished prelacy, before the war began. The acts and ordinances of the successive parliaments of the commonwealth, none of which had received the royal signature, were declared null and void; but this was not amongst the number. And it was by no means certain that the bishops' seats and dignities would be restored; for that must depend upon the decision of a parliament not yet in being; and so with regard to the size of their dioceses, the amount of their incomes, and the limits of their spiritual power; all these points were yet unsettled. The presbyterian chaplains, humbled and subdued, offered reasonable terms; nor were these even to be considered final; the king had told them that he expected each party to make concessions; they had stated the utmost of their demands. It was now to be seen what the bishops would concede on the part of the church of England. Adversity teaches little to old men; the discipline of youth and manhood fails in its office as life decays. The sorrows and vexations which schooled us once, irritate without improving us at last. The bishops had shared the exile of the young king and his joyous courtiers, and they returned home, not as they did, to forget the past, but peevish and unyielding. Their paper in answer to the presbyterian chaplains shewed a disposition to concede but little, and to make their few concessions with an ill grace. The first sentence was ominous of all the rest. "We |