XIV

THE CHURCH, 1625-1714

265

It

influence was acting, passed through strange vicissitudes. was involved in the fall of a dynasty, and in the triumph of a party. It suffered on both sides from religious opponents of its doctrine and order. But throughout it preserved the treasure committed to it in an unbroken adherence to the principles, which, in reliance on primitive tradition and the history of the Church Catholic, the reformers had reiterated for the guidance and the limitation of the Anglican Church. Through years of struggle against foes and of more dangerous protection by undiscerning friends, the Church endeavoured to reach the freedom which had been promised her in the old laws. Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit: neither in the restricted nor in any wider sense was the promise of Magna Carta yet fulfilled. But great churchmen and pious thinkers had still pointed towards the light. Even in the worst times of popular patronage, the old note of self-denial and of apostolic mission could be plainly heard. Yet, unhappily, disputes, internal and external, did much to drown it. The history of Convocation is a critical example.

AUTHORITIES. -State Papers, Domestic; Burnet, History of his own Time; Dean Swift, Works, notably his Sentiments of a Church of England Man and Last Four Years of Queen Anne; Kennett's Works and Life; Life of Archbishop Sharpe; Sacheverell's Trial in Howell, State Trials, vol. xv. ; The wisdom of looking backwards, to judge the better of one side and t'other by the speeches, writings, actions, and other matters of fact on both sides for the four years last past [Kennett] 1715; The Harley MSS., in Portland Papers (Historical MSS. Commission); Stillingfleet, Works and Life, by Bentley. Very interesting sketches of the lives of all the chief clergy are given, from a very complete study of all the materials, by J. H. Overton, in Life in the English Church, 1660-1714.

CHAPTER XV

ERASTIANISM AND THE CONVOCATION DISPUTES

The royal

and the

(1689-1715)

THE relations of the Church with the State during the reigns of William and Mary and of Anne may very obviously be contrasted. The Erastianism of William was power foreign to the temper and training of his successor. Convocations, Nevertheless, though with every difference in de1689-1714. tail, each reign was marked by an association of State and Church which was dangerous if not disastrous to the latter. Under William III. there was no question that the State ruled the Church; under Anne the same servitude continued, though the fetters were disguised with flowers. This was partly due to the action of the State; partly it was due to the errors of the Church. The note of Erastianism is distinctly audible in the warrant addressed to Compton, Bishop of London (November 26, 1689), on the opening of the Convocation of Canterbury. The license to confer upon matters seems to be limited to those which the Sovereign "shall propose or cause to be proposed." After the reform of the liturgy and other questions, the further power of discussion is limited to all such "other matters as their Majesties shall think necessary and expedient for advancing of the honour and service of Almighty God, the good and quiet of the Church, and the better government thereof, with liberty and authority to draw out forms, rules, orders, ordinances, constitutions, and canons on such matters as to them shall seem necessary and expedient for the purposes above mentioned, and to set them down in writing

CHAP. XV

ERASTIANISM, 1689-1714

267

and, from time to time, to deliver them unto the king to the end that he, as occasion shall require, may thereupon have the advice of Parliament." But if much of this may be explained as warranted by constitutional forms, the same can hardly be said with much truth-though there were precedents for them -for the royal injunctions, which were the characteristic instruments of William's government of the Church.

Sancroft as

On July 27, 1688, Sancroft had issued letters of advice to the bishops, which showed, as the letter, probably, of one of his chaplains expresses it, "that the storm in which he is does not affright him from doing his duty, but archbishop. rather awakens him to do it with so much the more vigour; and, indeed, the zeal that he expresses in these articles, both against the corruptions of the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the unhappy differences that are among Protestants on the other, are such apostolical things that all good men rejoice to see so great a prelate at the head of our Church, who in this critical time has had the courage to do his duty in so signal a manner." The document which Sancroft addressed to his suffragans showed, indeed, the apostolic fervour with which he guided the province of Canterbury. It urged the clergy often to read over their ordination vows, to be resident, to be diligent in catechising and in performing the daily office, in visiting the sick, and in observing the holy days and their eves, the Ember and Rogation days, and the seasons of Advent and Lent. It required them to exhort the people to frequent communion, and it gave sound advice as to their attitude towards Romanist and Protestant dissenters.

A letter such as this, coming from the primate of all England, was a seemly incitement to the performance of clerical duty. But less appropriate are similar words of advice when addressed by the State to intervenes. the Church. As example may be given a letter

The king

from the king to the Bishop of London, to be circulated throughout the provinces of Canterbury and York. "We require you to examine into the lives and learning of those desiring to be admitted in holy orders, to see that the clergy are resident in their livings, and to admonish them to religiously observe the canon as to sober conversation. You

shall order the clergy to preach frequently against those particular sins and vices which are most prevalent in this realm, and on every Lord's day on which such sermon shall be preached they shall also read such statutes as are provided against such sins; these statutes we have ordered to be printed, together with this letter, that they may be transmitted by you to every parish in the realm. You shall also require all churchwardens to impartially present all those guilty of adultery and fornication."

There were special circumstances, notably the king's adulterous life, which gave an air of insincerity to such a letter as this: yet it doubtless was not without good result, in aiding the religious societies and those for the reformation of manners which were then springing into importance. It was the method of advising rather than the nature of the advice which was unfortunate. The Church was to be ruled by royal injunctions. So again in 1695 another series was issued by the king and despatched through Archbishop Tenison to the bishops. It ordered that the canons with regard to ordination be strictly observed, and it added further directions as to pluralities and non-residence, the performance of divine service, catechising, visiting the sick, commutations Royal of penance, and the like. The king ordered the injunctions. injunctions to be conveyed to the bishops, and added, "as we esteem it a chief part of our princely care to promote the true religion as it is established in this Church, and in order thereunto, we have determined not to dispose of any Church preferments in our gift but to such of our clergy as we shall have reason to believe do live most exemplary and preach and watch most faithfully over the people committed to their charge, so we assure ourselves that these our pious intentions will be effectually seconded by you and the rest of our bishops."

A

This assumption of direction in the matter of the practical duties of the clergy was followed in the same month by a paper of Directions on the Trinitarian controversy. number of Socinian pamphlets had been met by Sherlock's Vindication of the doctrine (1693), and then by Dr. South. Oxford rang, as so often, with the vigorous language of the opponents and then the royal Directions stepped in to order that there must be no dispute at all. No preacher whatsoever

XV

THE ADVISERS OF WILLIAM III.

269

William's

advisers.

was to presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity than what is contained in the Holy Scriptures and is agreeable to the three Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles of religion. Whoever may have written the Directions, their language was singularly inept, and the intervention of the royal power was on every ground to be regretted. The advisers of William III. were not content to leave him to deal with his wars and his policies and to allow the Church to be governed by her own ministers. Not only did they thus bring him forward in the direction of purely ecclesiastical questions, but they were busy, as may be seen by several papers among the public records, with suggestions as to fit persons for preferment. Some of these suggestions have considerable interest, for example, one that never more than one foreigner at the same time shall have preferment in the same church, “lest the English be discouraged," recalls the abuses of the Middle Ages, and pointedly reprehends the custom of rewarding Dutchmen who had not received Episcopal ordination with preferments which were not beneficia curata (with cure of souls). No case, it may be observed, is known of one who had not been ordained by a bishop being admitted to minister in the English Church. Another of the proposed rules for better and more equal distribution of church preferments, which, it is observed, will free the king from a great deal of importunity, is that the prebends of Westminster should be limited to the ministers of London and Westminster; and that the minister of St. Margaret's Westminster, shall be always, as at present, one of the prebendaries, "because the House of Commons go to that church, and therefore it is fit there should be encouragement for a good preacher." Similarly one prebend, at least, in every cathedral church, should be bestowed on some minister in the city of that cathedral church.

Proposals of this kind were often unobjectionable: not so was the method of ruling the church by means of royal injunctions, for this practically involved the abeyance of the Church's provincial and representative bodies. Nor were

these the only instances of unconstitutional or extra-constitutional action. Thus, for example, the king summoned the bishops, while Parliament was not sitting, to meet together