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.

The king

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 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 adul terous 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 penance, and the like. The king ordered the 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.'

Royal of

injunctions.

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. A 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

to give advice about the best course to be taken for preserving the religion established by law and for suppressing the growth of Popery. Stillingfleet's undated memorandum on the subject is among the papers of his family. He pointed out that the real difficulty lay in the fact that the laws were quite strong enough, and he advised the bishops to return thanks, express their readiness, and prepare such proposals as may be judged convenient "after the ancient legal way."

The history of the Convocations during the reigns of William and Anne is important and significant. Constitutional forms survive, and are made the subject of hot contest: The history of the the example of party organisation and vituperation Convocations. is borrowed from the political assemblies of the nation, but practically little is accomplished save the elucidation of some problems of historical interest. In spite of the submission of the clergy, the power of the Convocations had been exercised with considerable freedom under the Stewarts, the notable instance being the enacting the canons of 1640, which received the royal assent, and have never been repealed, though they were condemned by a resolution of the Long Parliament, and the grant of supplies to the king by the clergy when the House of Commons had withheld them. The arrangement between Sheldon and Clarendon (see p. 199) had abolished part of these powers: but the legislative power, under royal authority, remained untouched. Its exercise in popular opinion was, it must be admitted, not calculated to inspire respect. It had been thus described by an opponent, R. Bernard ("A short view of the Prelaticall Church of England," 1641):

"There is a provincial assembly for the province of Canterbury, which consists of the archbishop, the president, of all the other bishops under him, deans, archdeacons with others, and of the two ministers chosen out of every diocese I called the clerks of the Convocation. These clerks should be chosen freely, by the publique consent and voice of all the ministers in every diocese, but the prelates propound whom they list or like best for their purpose, and do ask voices, which are given to them of many through fear, so as the choice is not free as it ought to be. That which is intended to be done there is contrived and hammered in the head of