Deadlock in 1711. The autumn of 1711 brought the whole matter of the subjects suggested by the queen to a deadlock; for the Lower House, acting under the advice of Atterbury, claimed, and persisted in the claim in spite of precedents to the contrary, that everything must be begun anew after a prorogation, according to the custom of Parliament. Nor was anything else done, even a declaration on the validity of lay-baptism falling to the ground between the two Houses. Before the Convocation of 1714 met Atterbury had been made Bishop of Rochester; but the disputes were not yet at rest. There was a difference as to the address to be presented to the queen, and she received the address of the Lower House separately. Some progress was, however, made with regard to the matters named by the queen in 1711, when, in 1714, the Houses were again diverted to the consideration of the heresies of Mr. Samuel Clarke on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; but, owing to a disagreement between the Houses, no conclusion was arrived at when the queen died. A futile contest. Thus abruptly and unsatisfactorily does the history of Convocation break off at the death of Anne. If any conclusions can be drawn from it they must be that the clergy displayed considerable learning, interest, vivacity, and independence; that the unhappy policy of appointing bishops for political reasons, and out of one particular party, led inevitably to a deep rift between the higher and lower clergy; and that the public interest in the questions of constitutional right, though not unintelligent, was largely determined by political considerations. In the powers of Convocation what was needed was definition; but this in the heated political atmosphere it was impossible to obtain. AUTHORITIES.—On the question affecting Convocation, see A Letter from a Minister in the Country to a Member of the Convocation, 1689; A Letter to a Friend relating to the present Convocation, 1690; Remarks from the Country upon the Two Letters, 1689-1690; Vox Cleri, or the Sense of the Clergy concerning the making of Alterations in the Established Liturgy, etc. 1690 (this contains an account of the proceedings of the Convocation, with the documents, resolutions, etc.); An Answer to Vox Cleri, 1690; A Letter to a Convocation Man concerning the Rights, Powers, and Privileges of that Body, 1697; The Authority of Christian Princes with particular respect to the Convocation of the Clergy of the Realm and State of England, by William Wake, D.D., 1697; Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English XV THE CONVOCATION DISPUTES 281 Convocation, by Francis Atterbury, D.D., 1700; Reflections on a Book entitled the Rights, etc. by Gilbert, Bishop of Sarum, 1700; Kennett, Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations, 1701; Forma sive descriptio Convocationis celebrandæ, etc. n.d.; The Power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself, etc. 1701; The right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole Convocation, 1701; A narrative of the proceedings of the Lower House, drawn up by order of the House [written by Dr. Hooper], 1701; The present state of Convocation, etc. 1702; The Case of the Schedule stated, 1702; The Parliamentary original and Rights of the Lower House, etc. 1702; A Faithful Account, etc. (two numbers), 1702; A Summary Defence of the Lower House, etc. 1703; The Pretended Independence of the Lower House, etc. 1703; The state of the Church and Clergy of England in their Convocation, by William Wake, D.D., 1703; Gibson, Synodus Anglicana; Nicholson, Correspondence; Lathbury, History of Convocation; Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iv. CHAPTER XVI THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO POLITICAL THEORY THE close association between politics and religion which had marked alike the personal government of Charles I. and the rule of Commonwealth and Protector, though it received a severe blow at the Restoration by the legal acceptance of dissent from the religion established by law, and a blow still more severe by the Toleration Act of the Revolution, remained till the death of Queen Anne an important feature in the national history. While men were searching for a satisfactory theory which might define the relations of Church and State in practice their spheres were constantly confused. It is well before we speak of the theory to note how closely the practice was related to it during the years of the later Stewarts. Instances have already been given of the interference of William III. and Anne, directly or indirectly, in what may be The State regarded as the specially spiritual work of the and the clergy. It must not be imagined, that even after the Church, 1662. Restoration, there were no precedents for such action. On October 14, 1662, for example, a letter was addressed by the king to the archbishops which is thus summarised in the Calendar of State Papers: "The extravagance of preachers has much heightened the disorders, and still continues so to do, by the diligence of factious spirits, who dispose them to jealousy of the government. Young divines, in ostentation of learning, handle the deep points of God's eternal counsels, or wrangle about gestures and fruitless controversies. To put a timely stop to these abuses he has, as CHAP. XVI THE CHURCH AND THE STATE 283 done by former kings, drawn up directions for preachers, which are to be communicated to every minister." To this letter were annexed directions concerning preachers: “None are in their sermons to bound the authority of sovereigns, or determine the differences between them and the people; nor to argue the deep points of election, reprobation, free will, etc.; they are to abstain as much as possible from controversies ; catechise the children according to the Prayer-book; stir up the people to the practice of religious and moral duties; at afternoon service to expound the Church Catechism and prayers; read publicly the Canons and Thirty-nine Articles twice a year; no minister is to preach without special licence from the archbishop or bishop. Attendance at Divine service on the Lord's Day is to be enforced, and frequenters of taverns and unlawful sports punished according to law." Such a letter was indeed a close imitation of some of the instructions issued by Charles I. to Laud. A later one, of 1665, follows on much the same lines. In July, during the height of the plague, Arlington wrote to the Bishop of London that the king was informed that many incumbents and lecturers had deserted their posts and that nonconformists had thrust themselves into their pulpits, and preached sedition and doctrines contrary to the Church; wherefore the bishop is ordered to prevent such mischiefs to Church and State. On the other hand, instances were not wanting of a scrupulous observance by the civil authorities of the rights of the Church. During the period of discussion about the revision of the Prayer-book in 1662, for example, at a conference between the Houses of Parliament a suggestion was brought forward to make a provision for "reverend and uniform gestures and demeanours to be used at the time of divine service"; but it was agreed that this was a matter for the Convocations, and they were requested "to prepare some rule or canon for that purpose, to be humbly presented unto his Majesty for his assent." Other and less trivial examples might be quoted; the general attitude of Parliament towards the Church is indeed well illustrated by the position assumed during the early years of Queen Anne. (See above, p. 276.) When we pass from practice to theory we find the field occupied by one great writer, whose work has an influence as Political theory. Hobbes. In the : widespread as profound; and with whose opinions all political and ecclesiastical writers of the age found themselves compelled to deal, whether in support or in opposition. We have seen (above, p. 213) the view which was taken by the University of Oxford of the works of Hobbes. Though his great work deals hardly more than indirectly with the Church, it must receive at least brief mention here. Of the rights of sovereigns it was his cue to argue for the most part, as he said, from "the principles of nature only," in other words, from experience he would make a distinction of Christian politics, as depending "much upon supernatural revelations of the will of God," and thus, in his elaborate manner— often, very plainly, with his tongue in his cheek— Leviathan. he considers whether Christian sovereigns are absolute in their own territories, immediately under God, and then rejects the assumptions of "a vicar of Christ constituted of the Universal Church": he dismisses metaphorical, spiritual, or ecclesiastical interpretations of "the kingdom of God," and decides that it is a civil kingdom in which the Christian sovereign is the representative of God, and His prophet. From this he was able, by quaint and devious paths, to pass to the definition of a Church as "a company of men professing the Christian religion, united in the person of one sovereign; at whose command they ought to assemble, and without whose authority they ought not to assemble." This leads to an identification of the Church in each country with the civil commonwealth and it involves an explicit denial of the existence of "such universal Church as all Christians are forced to obey," and an emphatic declaration that "there is no other government in this life, neither of State nor religion, but temporal; nor teaching of any doctrine, lawful to any subject, which the government both of the State and of the religion forbiddeth to be taught." Thus "temporal and spiritual government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign," and so the civil sovereign is chief pastor of the Church as well as chief ruler of the State. As such he has power to ordain what pastors he please, and they are simply his ministers, in the same manner as are the civil magistrates, and derive |