Abstract
As the Restoration graduated from the status of remote possibility to near certainty in the spring of 1660, many Anglican clergymen at home could not restrain themselves. Finally, after all their suffering and all their troubles, it seemed certain that the king was again to come into his own. Many took to their pulpits to offer thanksgiving to God for his salvation and also, with newfound courage, to excoriate their Puritan enemies. Publicly and exultantly they predicted dire retributions upon their foes once the king was returned. One even had the effrontery to publish a sermon containing such sentiments and dedicate it to General Monk!1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barwick, p. 515.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 524.
Morley ultimately won Gauden over to episcopacy by offering him church preferment.
Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, XVI, 193. Charles was no doubt sincere in his statement about religion in the Breda Declaration; to Hyde it was merely the politic thing to say at that moment. It certainly reassured many a Presbyterian and did much to reconcile them to the Stuart restoration. They quoted it frequently in their debates with the Anglicans.
Carte Mss., Bodleian Library.
Charles thanked them and remarked solemnly that “this was the object which he valued above all else on earth.”
Gilbert Sheldon, David’s Deliverance and Thanksgiving (London, 1660).
A. Bryant, Charles II (London, 1931), p. 141.
M. Sylvester (ed.), Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), p. 229.
R. Bosher, The Making of the Restoration Settlement (London, 1957), p. 129.
Add. Mss. 4162, Hyde to Sheldon, Jan. 21, 1658/9.
Robert Baillie, The Journals of Robert Baillie (London, 1842), II, 459.
Sheldon’s company was eagerly welcomed and even sought after. He must have been an extremely interesting person to be around. Later when he was archbishop, young noblemen thronged Lambeth Palace to eat with him and to enjoy his conversation. See Parker, p. 36.
Pepys, I, 322.
Ibid., I, 419. This of course did not come about, but it shows something of what Sheldon’s influence was reported to be.
CSP, Clarendon, V, 360.
Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1660–61, p. 283.
Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 229.
Repeated in F. Bate, The Declaration of Indulgence, 1672 (London, 1908), p. 8.
A. G. Mathews, Walker Revised (Oxford, 1948), p. 165.
Baillie, II, 443. Morley put a pamphlet into the press supporting episcopacy, and probably Sheldon did too. See Morley, A Modest Advertisement Concerning the Protestant Controversy About Church Government, (London, 1661),
G. S. Morley, The Dignity of Kingship Asserted (London, 1660). In an introduction to this latter pamphlet, William R. Parker, an Indiana University scholar, makes “G. S.” George Starkey, although he admits that except for the fawning dedication, it sounds like Sheldon himself. I rather think that “G. S.” was George Stradling, one of Sheldon’s chaplains. It could well have been written by Sheldon himself except for the introduction. Most of Sheldon’s chaplains — Myles Smith, Robert Tompkins, Samuel Parker, Mr. Pell, and George Stradling — recommended themselves to the Church leader by publishing pamphlets on behalf of the Church in this period.
Barwick, p. 338. All of these accusations are reported bitterly by Barwick’s brother and biographer, Peter Barwick.
Mathews, pp. xii, xiii, estimates that over 700 Puritan ministers were ejected in 1660 alone.
Baxter records these meetings in Reliquiae Baxterianae, pp. 230–232.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 232.
See A. Bryant, King Charles II (London, 1931), p. 155, for an assessment of Charles’ religious outlook.
See a letter from Duppa to Sheldon, August 11, 1660, where Duppa can’t understand why episcopal consecrations have not been held. Tanner Mss. 49.
Clarendon, Continuation of His Life (Oxford, 1759), p. 9.
L. F. Brown, “Religious Factors in the Convention Parliament,” English History Review, VOL. XXII, (1907), p. 52.
Clarendon, Continuation of His Life, p. 9.
Ibid., p. 8.
Tanner Mss. 49, Duppa to Sheldon, Aug. 11, 1660.
Ibid.
Sheldon certified the validity of the royal vow in his own handwriting on August 21, 1660. It is surprising that he had not shown it to Charles before, but apparently it had completely slipped his mind. See Lambeth Mss. #943.
Cal. of States Papers, Domestic, 1660–61, p. 93. See Ibid., pp. 113 and 436 for other examples of petitions assigned to Sheldon and his friends.
Barwick, p. 287.
Evelyn’s Diary, p. 448. The equivalent in modern American money is about $ 50,000.
Reynolds apparently was a sincere low churchman who thought he was doing the correct thing by accepting a bishopric. Gauden was assisting the Anglican party at this time and received Exeter as pay for betraying his colleagues. Sheldon had no use for the latter — Morley won him over to the Anglican cause — and strongly opposed his elevation. See Barwick, p. 368 and CSP, Clarendon, V, Part I, 68 and 81, for letters from Gauden to Hyde regarding his elevation. Also G. Burnet, History of His Own Times (Oxford, 1897), I, 324. Burnet attests Sheldon’s dislike of Gauden.
Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 283.
Isaak Walton in The Complete Angler and Lives (London, 1678), pp. 158–9, states: “Dr. Sheldon… was by his majesty made a chief trustee to commend to him fit men to supply the vacant bishoprics.” Bishop Nicholson was fully aware of Sheldon’s power also. In 1661 he wrote to him: “In all gratitude I do acknowledge that next to his majesty… your endeavors from an obscure man have advanced me to a place of honor and dignity.” Reported by Bosher, p. 183.
Clarendon, Continuation of His Life, p. 74.
Ibid.
Reproduced in J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England (London, 1908), III, 116–117.
For an account of this incident see Ibid., III. 114. It is interesting that in his account of this conference, Clarendon makes no mention of this matter.
Clarendon, Continuation, p. 76.
Ibid.
Brown, p. 55.
Ibid.
See D. Wilkins. Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (London, 1737), IV, 564.
Most of these incidents are reported in Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1660–61, pp. 537 through 552.
Baxter reports: “The archbishop [Baxter is writing later] received me with very great expressions of respect; and offered me his licence, and would let his secretary take no money of me. But he offered me the book to subscribe in. I told him that he knew that the King’s Declaration exempted us from subscription. He bid me write what I would. I told him that what I resolved to do… I would do of [free] choice, though I might forbear. And so (in Latin) I subscribed my promise not to preach against the doctrine of the church… in his diocese while I used his licence.” Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 369.
Again, in general, I am following Robert Bosher’s excellent study of the various moves which led to the Restoration.
The complete commission is reproduced in W. H. Hutton, A History of the English Church (New York, 1903), p. 185.
Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 305.
Baxter’s reasons for this surprising agreement were as follows: 1) They were expected to submit new forms and this would give them the opportunity to do so in writing; 2) they could, he felt, reach agreement even with this stilted arrangement; 3) verbal disputes among themselves would be easier to resolve in private; 4) they could subsequently publish their case, in the event of failure, and make it known throughout England and the continent. It would be difficult to publish verbal discussions with the bishops. Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 306.
Burnet, p. 319.
Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 335.
Ibid., p. 340. One must beware of being influenced too much by Baxter who has given us the most complete account of this conference. Yet there is too much sincere indignation and hurt pride evident in his writing to doubt but that he was describing exactly what they were doing to him.
There is a story that Laud’s old secretary, Peter Heylin, was responsible for the summoning of Convocation in 1661. He wrote a letter to Hyde suggesting it. See W. H. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1875), XI, 430. However, it is unlikely that Sheldon would have needed such prodding. My explanation seems more valid.
Burnet, p. 325.
Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 333.
Mercurius Publiais, (1661), No. 20, p. 305, cited by Bosher.
One of these ordinances provided that: 1) All churches and chapels were in the future to be guarded from promiscuous and common usage, 2) The Book of Common Prayer only was to be the order of service, 3) All persons were to come on time and not leave until the service was over, 4) All persons were to uncover their heads during church services, 5) There was to be no walking, talking, or any other misdeameanor during services, 6) All persons were to perform due reverence at the mention of the name of Jesus. David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae, IV, 577.
Bosher, p. 246.
H. M. Gwatkin, Church and State in England to the Death of Queen Anne (London, 1917), p. 352.
See Journals of the House of Lords, XI, 383, for Sheldon’s answer to the Lords when they requested a copy of the new Prayer Book.
Henry Gee and Wm. Hardy (eds.), Documents Illustrative of Church History (London, 1914), p. 604.
Journals of the House of Lords, XI, 409–10.
Burnet, p. 341, gives an account of this debate.
Parker, p. 33.
Pepys, I, 324.
Mercurius Publiais (1662), No. 33, p. 554.
Mathews, pp. xii and xiii.
Pepys, I, 322.
See Clarendon Mss. C. 70, Vol. 77, the Bodleian library, where, in a letter from Morley to Clarendon, Sept. 3, 1662, Morley refers to these talks with Brown.
See W. H. Marah (ed.), Memoirs of Archbishop Juxon (London, 1869), p. 80, where this confrontation is described in some detail. Also see Parker, pp. 31–33.
Bosher, p. 263.
Mercurius Publicus, (1662) No. 33, p. 548.
Clarendon Mss. C. 70, Vol. 77, Sheldon to Clarendon, August 30, 1662.
Gauden was won over by Morley. See CSP, Clarendon, V, Part I, 68 and 81, for two letters from Gauden to Morley expressing his dissatisfaction with his payment. Some have maintained that Gauden received Exeter because he was the reputed author of the Eikon Basilike. Both Hammond and Sheldon had been among the first to see the Eikon — Hammond edited it for publication — and both were thoroughly convinced that Charles I was the author. Sheldon would not have been paying Gauden for this service.
Baillie, II, 459.
We have already noted Hyde’s interception of Calamy’s letters. For another reference — this time to reading Baxter’s mail — see CSP, Clarendon, V, 274.
Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 302.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1973 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sutch, V.D. (1973). The Restoration. In: Gilbert Sheldon. Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idees / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2003-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2003-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1567-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2003-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive