opponent of Cromwell, but was too honest a man not to acknowledge that Cromwell had done a great work for the nation. He said that the late usurper had cared very much for the religious interests of the country, and had put godly ministers into the churches. He hoped that the King would follow this good example. Some of the other chaplains spoke with great frankness. Charles probably thought that the speakers were very tedious, and, but for his invariable good temper, he must have found the extreme fidelity of his new spiritual advisers very irritating. However, he gave them a gracious answer; told them that he was glad to hear of their inclinations to agreement with their Episcopalian brethren; that if there was to be reconciliation, concessions must be made on both sides; and that he himself would do his best to bring the reconciliation about. "Old Mr. Ash," says Baxter, "burst into tears with joy, and could not forbear expressing what gladness this promise of his Majesty had put into his heart." 3 After Baxter's own account of his speech there is nothing surprising in his statement that only four of the chaplains were ever asked to preach at court at all, and that of these not one was asked to preach a second time. He adds: "I suppose never a man of them all ever received or expected a penny for the salary of their places." 4 II Either at this meeting, or shortly afterwards, the King requested his Presbyterian chaplains to prepare a scheme of church government which would satisfy themselves and might also satisfy the Episcopalians; and he promised that when their scheme was ready he would invite a few of both sides to consider it. The proposals which Baxter and his friends drew up were moderate and conciliatory. 1. They ask (a) that godliness should not be discouraged; (b) that care should be taken to secure for every congregation a learned, orthodox, and godly resident minister; (c) that no persons should be admitted to the Lord's Supper till they had a competent understanding of the principles of the Christian religion, and made a creditable profession of their faith and › Baxter, Life, i. (2), 90–91. ♦ Ibid., i. (2), 88. s Ibid., i. (2), 92-93. obedience; (d) and that effective measures should be taken for the sanctification of the Lord's Day. 2. In reference to Church Government they profess themselves willing to accept the scheme of modified Episcopacy drawn up by Archbishop Ussher." 3. They admit the lawfulness of a Liturgy, provided it is not too rigorously enforced and does not prevent the ministers from offering extemporary prayers. In the Book of Common Prayer they think that there are some things which are offensive and need amendment; and they suggest that some learned, godly, and moderate divines of both persuasions should be commissioned to compile a new Prayer-Book, or at least to revise the present book, and to draw up alternative services which should be as much as possible in the words of Scripture. 4. In reference to Ceremonies, they say that they are willing that a proper authority should determine the mere circumstances of worship, by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of Holy Scripture. But they think that worship is most acceptable to God when it is most free from what they call "mere human admixtures in things of themselves confessedly unnecessary, adjoined and appropriated thereunto "; adding, with regard to certain ceremonies in the English Church which had occasioned bitter disputes, that "it is very needful and expedient, that things in themselves mutable be sometimes actually changed, lest they should, by perpetual permanency and constant use, be judged by the people as necessary as the substantials of worship themselves "-a true and profound principle of very wide application. They then specify the particular ceremonies to which they object. They request that kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and the Keeping of Holy Days that are of human institution, be not enforced; and that bowing at the name of Jesus, the use of the cross in baptism, and the wearing of the surplice, be abolished. They further desire that certain innovations, which they conceive were not sanctioned by the Prayer-Book and the laws of the land, should be forbidden, such as the erecting of altars, and bowing towards them. They say that "these ceremonies have been imposed and urged upon such considerations as draw too near to the significancy and moral See Note A, pp. 404-406. efficacy of sacraments themselves." There lay the danger. Whether or not the minister should make the sign of the cross in baptizing a child, may seem a small matter; but if people imagine that the sign is necessary to the sacrament; that it has some real though mysterious effect; that, for example, it drives away the evil spirits from the child, or accomplishes some other purpose equally marvellous, this is superstition; and the Puritans of the Restoration, like the Puritans under Elizabeth, regarded superstition with dismay. To these proposals the bishops sent a written reply which showed that they were not in the mood to make concessions. They declined a Conference. On three points only were they willing to yield. They say that they find no reason why the surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus should be abolished; "nevertheless, how far forth in regard of tender consciences, a liberty may be thought fit to be indulged to any, his Majesty, according to his great wisdom and goodness, is best able to judge." 8 III The King saw that it was too early to pursue the policy of the bishops, and to defy the men who had restored the monarchy. Parliament was full of Presbyterians, and had he refused at once to consider the position of the Presbyterian clergy his position might have been seriously imperilled. The remedy was obvious. The King was the supreme Governor of the Church, and he resolved to issue a Declaration of Indulgence, making large and immediate concessions to the party which had given him the crown, and providing for a fair and reasonable settlement of all disputed questions. A draft of the document was shown to Baxter and his friends early in September (1660), and they suggested omissions, modifications, and additions, a considerable number of which were accepted.9 On October 22 representatives of the two parties met the King at Worcester House-Lord Clarendon's-to listen to the revised document; several statesmen were present, and six bishops; the Presbyterians were represented by Baxter, 7 Baxter, Life, i. (2),"96, for The First Address and Proposals of the London Ministers (i. pp. 233-236); for Ussher's Model, ibid. (i. pp. 238-241). 8 Ibid., i. (2), 100, for The Bishops' Answer, etc. (i. pp. 242–247). • Ibid., i. (2), 107. Calamy, Reynolds, Spurstow, Manton, Wallis, and Ash. Clarendon read the Declaration; and, as he read, the bishops and the Presbyterians offered their several objections.10 What happened towards the close of the meeting was of such critical importance in its effect on the policy of the King, and indeed on the ecclesiastical history of the last two centuries, that it is worth while to give the story in Baxter's own words. He says: "The most of the time being spent thus in speaking to the Declaration as it was read, when we came to the end, the Lord Chancellor drew out another Paper, and told us that the King had been petitioned also by the Independents and Anabaptists, and though he-(that is, Clarendon)-knew not what to think of (it) himself, and did not very well like it; yet something he had drawn up which he would read to us, and desire us also to give our Advice about it. Thereupon he read, as an Addition to the Declaration, That others also be permitted to meet for Religious Worship, so be it, they do it not to the disturbance of the Peace: and that no Justice of [the] Peace or Officer disturb them. When he had read it, he again desired them all to think on it, and give their Advice. But all were silent. The Presbyterians all perceived, as soon as they heard it, that it would secure the liberty of the Papists; and one of them (Dr. Wallis) whispered me in the Ear, and intreated me to say nothing, for it was an odious Business, but let the Bishops speak to it. But the Bishops would not speak a word, nor any one of the Presbyterians neither; and so we were like to have ended in that Silence. I knew if we consented to it, it would be charged on us, that we spake for a Toleration of Papists and Sectaries: (But yet it might have lengthened out our own). And if we spake against it, all Sects and Parties would be set against us, as the Causers of their Sufferings, and as a partial People that would have Liberty ourselves, but would have no others have it with us. At last, seeing the Silence continue, I thought our very Silence would be charged on us [as] a consent if it went on, and therefore I only said this, That this Reverend Brother, Dr. Gunning, even now speaking against Sects, had named the Papists and the Socinians: For our parts we desired not favour to ourselves alone, and rigorous Severity we desired against none. As we humbly thanked His Majesty for his Indulgence to ourselves, so we distinguish the tolerable Parties from the intolerable. For the former, we humbly claim just lenity and favour; but for the latter, such as the two sorts named before by that Reverend Brother, for our part we cannot make their Toleration our request. 10" The Business of the Day was not to dispute, but as the Lord Chancellor read over [the] Declaration, each Party was to speak to what they disliked, and the King to determine how it should be, as liked himself." Ibid., i. (2), 108. "To which His Majesty said, That there were Laws enough against the Papists': and I replied, That we understood the Question to be whether those Laws should be executed on them, or not.' And so His Majesty brake up the Meeting of that day." 11 A small Committee, consisting of two Presbyterians—of whom Baxter was not one-and two Episcopalians, was appointed to revise the Declaration; and if they were equally divided, they were to consult the Earl of Anglesey and Lord Hollis.12 Baxter left the Conference "dejected," being fully satisfied that the Declaration, as it stood, would fail to secure concord, and believing that there was no probability that any such changes would be made in it as would enable him to approve it. Three days later, October 25, 1660, the Declaration was issued. Baxter heard men crying it in the streets, bought a copy, and stepped into a house to read it. He found, to his astonishment, that some of the Presbyterian proposals had been accepted, and that such changes had been made in the document as rendered it possible for "sober, honest ministers " to submit to the royal conditions. He at once resolved to do his best to persuade all his friends to conform to the Establishment on the terms of the Declaration, and "cheerfully to promote the Concord of the Church and [the] Brotherly Love which this Concord doth bespeak." 13 The document is indeed a very remarkable one. It does not contain the additional clause suggested by Lord Clarendon, which would have allowed persons that did not conform to the Church to meet for religious worship, provided they did not disturb the public peace; its whole object is to make the Church itself wide enough to comprehend those Presbyterians who had no objection to a moderate Episcopacy, but who were troubled by the want of discipline in the English Establishment, by the exorbitant and autocratic powers of the bishops, and by the "ceremonies." 1. It declares that no one shall be compelled to kneel at the reception of the Lord's Supper; or to bow at the name of Jesus; or to use the cross in baptism; or to wear the surplice in ordinary parish churches.14 11 Baxter, Life, i. (2), 110. 12 Ibid., i. (2), III. 14 Kennet, 289–293, viii. |