Sir Christopher Wren Part 4

Bishop Wren came to Windsor after this to marry Princess Mary, the King's eldest daughter, to William, eldest son of Henry Frederick, Prince of Orange, whom he succeeded in six years. The alliance was one which gratified the Parliament, being so Protestant a connection.

Little, however, could they have guessed how deadly an enemy Princess Mary's son would prove to the house of Stuart. Ten days after this wedding came May 12, when 'the wisest head in England was severed from the shoulders of Lord Strafford.' So writes John Evelyn. To the Archbishop, his friend's death must have been a terrible blow. He was just able to bestow a parting blessing through his prison window, and to hear Lord Strafford say, 'Farewell, my lord. G.o.d protect your innocency.' The Princess's marriage was the last occasion on which Bishop Wren was to officiate as Dean of the Chapels Royal.

The Commons had been industriously at work against him since the first attack in December, and as Archbishop Laud said of Prynne, 'by this time their malice had hammered out somewhat.' The committee sent in a report, charging the Bishop with 'excommunicating fifty painful ministers, practising superst.i.tion in his own person, placing "the table"

altarwise, elevation of the elements, the "eastward position," as it is now called, at the Eucharist, bowing to the Altar, causing all seats to be placed so that the people faced east, employing his authority to restrain "powerful preaching," and ordering catechising in the words of the Church Catechism only, permitting no prayer before the sermon but the bidding prayer (canon 5), publis.h.i.+ng a book of articles, to which the churchwardens were sworn, containing 187 questions.'

[BISHOP WREN'S RESIGNATION.]

Upon this report a debate ensued, ending in a vote that it was the opinion of the House that Matthew Wren was unworthy and unfit to hold or exercise any office or dignity in the Church, and voting that a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire them to join the Commons in pet.i.tioning his Majesty to remove Bishop Wren from his person and service. Evelyn's expression, 'to such an exorbitancy had the times grown,' aptly describes the state of matters when, for details such as these of the government of a diocese, and for practices which, if they had been proved, were both legal and reasonable, an a.s.sembly of laymen presumed to p.r.o.nounce a bishop unfit for his office in the Church.

Whether the pet.i.tion ever came before the King does not appear, but Wren thought it best to take the initiative; for he writes in his diary five days after the debate: 'I hardly obtained leave from the King to resign the deanery of the Chapels Royal.'

FOOTNOTES:

[20] _Vide infra_, p. 43.

[21] I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. R. N. Milford, rector of East Knoyle, for this account. See Sir R. C. h.o.a.re's History of Wilts.h.i.+re. The inscriptions on the columns have been destroyed.

[22] So guide and govern as to profit souls. Love, Pray. One thing needful. Ask fit things from G.o.d.

[23] Into whatsoever house ye enter, first say Peace be to this house.

To so solemn a precept, by a seasonable vow, I, entering, have set my name.

C. W. Rector.

July 28. In the said year, i.e. MDCXVVIII.

[24] 'To Thee, and to Thy service for ever, I offer a portion of Thy bounty, O Lord G.o.d Almighty.'

[25] Christian Van Vianen was an embosser and chaser of plate, much esteemed by Charles I. The gilt plate above mentioned was wrought at the rate of 12_s._ per oz.--_Anecdotes of Painting_, Walpole, vol. ii. p. 323.

[26] William Lenthall (born at Henley-on-Thames 1591), Speaker of the House of Commons 1640-1653 and 1660, lived chiefly at Lachford Manor in Great Haseley parish, which had been in his family since the reign of Edward IV. The property was sold by his eldest son. It may have been owing to the influence of the Speaker that Dean Wren escaped imprisonment during the Rebellion.

[27] Wood, _Fasti Oxon._, p. 139.

[28] 'Revered Father,--There is a common saying among the ancients which I remember to have had from your mouth; there is no equivalent that can be given back to parents. For their cares and perpetual labours concerning their children are indeed the evidence of immeasurable love. Now these precepts so often repeated, which have impelled my soul towards all that is highest in man, and to virtue, have superseded in me all other affections. What in me lies I will perform, as much as I am able, lest these gifts should have been bestowed on an ungrateful soul. May the good G.o.d Almighty be with me in my undertakings and make good to thee all thou most desirest in the tenderness of thy fatherly love. Thus prays thy son, most devoted to thee in all obedience, 'CHRISTOPHER WREN.'

'Script. hoc, A^o aetatis suae, Decimo. Ab Octobris 20^o elapso'

is the note in different hand of Dean Wren, who may very probably have felt that in the fast-rising storm all this fair promise might be swept away.

[29] Heylin, _Cypr. Ang._, p. 309.

[30] _Desiderata Curiosa_, p. 336. Peck. It will be borne in mind that the Office for the Baptism of such as are of Riper Years was only added to the Prayer Book at the last revision in 1662. Mr. John Bois was made a Prebendary of Ely by Bishop Andrewes, and was one of the translators of the Bible (1604-1611); he was on the Cambridge Committee, and a.s.sisted in the translation of the Apocrypha.--_Key to the Holy Bible_, p. 28. Rev. J. H. Blunt.

[31] _Diary_, October 30, 1640.

CHAPTER III.

1641-1647.

BISHOP WREN ACCUSED--WESTMINSTER ABBEY ATTACKED--IMPRISONMENT OF THE BISHOPS--BISHOP WREN'S DEFENCE--'UTTERLY DENIETH ALL POPISH AFFECTIONS'--THE GARTER JEWELS--ARCHBISHOP LAUD MURDERED--CHRISTOPHER AT OXFORD--PHILOSOPHICAL MEETINGS.

For though outnumber'd, overthrown, And by the fate of war run down, Their duty never was defeated, Nor from their oaths and faith retreated; For loyalty is still the same, Whether it win or lose the game; True as the dial to the sun, Although it be not s.h.i.+ned upon.

_Hudibras_, pt. iii. canto 2.

The concession Bishop Wren had thus made did not satisfy the Commons, and on July 20 they drew out the report into twenty articles of accusation, containing all the former charges and several additional ones, among which were the setting up of altar-rails, ordering the Holy Communion to be received kneeling, ordering the reading of the 'Book of Sports,' and preaching in a surplice; causing by prosecutions 3,000 of the King's poor subjects to go beyond the sea.

For these offences they prayed that Bishop Wren might answer, and suffer such punishment as law and justice required. The articles were transmitted to the House of Lords at a conference, and were read by Sir T. Widdrington, Recorder of York,[32] who prefaced them by a venomous speech against the Bishop of Ely, whom he compared to 'a wolf devouring the flock; an extinguisher of light; a Noah, who sent out doves from the ark, and refused to receive them back unless they returned as ravens, to feed upon the carrion of his new inventions, he himself standing with a flaming sword to keep such out of his diocese.' He accused the Bishop of raising fines for his own profit; called him a great robber, a malefactor, 'a compleat mirror of innovation, superst.i.tion, and oppression: an oppugner of the life and liberty of religion, and a devouring serpent in the diocese of Norwich.'

These are but a few phrases from Sir Thomas's speech; he used no argument, adduced no proof, but contented himself simply with clamour and reviling, and these were amply sufficient. In the Long Parliament it was enough to accuse anyone, especially a bishop, of Popery, superst.i.tion and 'innovation'--which was a term invented by Bishop Williams, then as now commonly applied to the oldest dogmas and practices of the Church--to insure his imprisonment, or at the least a heavy fine. In Wren's Diary opposite the day of the month is merely, 'Let G.o.d arise, and let his enemies be scattered.' Dr. Pierce, Bishop of Bath and Wells, was attacked at the same time; but at first no active steps were taken against them, perhaps because the Commons found matters not yet ripe for a wholesale imprisonment of the Bishops. Dr. Wren well knew that matters would not stop here, and while awaiting the next attack began to prepare his Defence against the Articles of Accusation.

The mob in the meanwhile were encouraged by caricatures, libels, and invectives to rail against the Bishops and impute every misfortune and every trade failure to them, by which means the Puritan leaders contrived to stir up a yelling mob of men and women.

[ATTACK ON WESTMINSTER ABBEY.]

[THE DECOY DUCK.]

All pet.i.tions against the Church were received and the pet.i.tioners encouraged and praised. The populace insulted the Bishops whenever they appeared, and threatened their lives. Westminster Abbey was attacked, when the Bishops were there, by a violent mob, led by Wiseman, a knight of Kent. The officers and choirmen of the Abbey with the boys of the School, among whom must have been Christopher Wren, defended it gallantly, and the fray ended when Wiseman was killed by a tile thrown from the battlements by one of the defenders. After this the Bishops who were in London met in the Deanery at Westminster, the lodging of Williams, Archbishop of York, who had just been translated from Lincoln to York, in succession to the late Archbishop Neile,[33] to consult what should be done. At the Archbishop's suggestion, they drew up a paper, remonstrating against the abuse offered them, and the manner in which they had been hindered from coming to the House of Lords, their coaches overset, their barges attacked and prevented landing, and they themselves beset and threatened. They claimed their right to sit in the House of Lords and vote, and protested against all that had been done since the 27th of that month (December, 1641), and all that should hereafter pa.s.s in time of this their forced and violent absence. This paper was signed by the Archbishop and eleven Bishops, of whom Bishop Wren was one, and presented to the King, who delivered it to Littleton, the Lord Keeper, to be communicated next day to the Peers. The Lord Keeper, who had already deserted his benefactor, Lord Strafford, contrary to the King's orders showed the paper first to 'some of the preaching party in both Houses,' and then to the Peers. Upon the reading a conference was desired between the Houses, and the Lord Keeper declared that the Bishops' paper contained 'matters of high and dangerous consequence, extending to the deep intrenching upon the fundamental privileges and being of Parliament.' The Commons, whose part, like that of the Lord Keeper[34] was pre-arranged, impeached the Bishops of high treason; the usher of the Black Rod was despatched to find and bring them before the House. They, lodging in different parts of London, were not all collected until eight o'clock on the winter's night, and then, their offence being signified, were committed to the Tower.[35] The Bishops of Durham and Lichfield, both aged and infirm, obtained leave to be in the custody of the Black Rod. The other bishops were carried to the Tower on the following morning. A libellous pamphlet was published at this time, ent.i.tled 'Wren's Anatomy, discovering his notorious Pranks &c., printed in the year when Wren ceased to domineer,' has in the t.i.tle-page a print of Bishop Wren sitting at a table; out of his mouth proceed two labels: on one, 'Canonical Prayers;' on the other, 'No Afternoon Sermon.' On one side stand several clergy, over whose heads is written 'Altar-cringing Priests.' On the other, two men in lay habits, above whom is this inscription, 'Churchwardens for Articles.' It serves to show what were considered as really the Bishop's crimes, and that he had a fair proportion of faithful clergy.[36] The Archbishop of York had served the Commons' turn in procuring the King's a.s.sent to Lord Strafford's death-warrant, and had enjoyed for a short time a remarkable though transient popularity both on that account and as Laud's bitter opponent.

The Commons were, however, soon weary of him, and gladly availed themselves of the pretext afforded by the protest to throw him aside. A pamphlet was published, which had a great success, ent.i.tled the 'Decoy Duck,' in allusion to the fens of his former diocese of Lincoln, in which he was represented as only released from the Tower in order to decoy the other bishops there. It was thought prudent that the bishops should make no attempt either to see each other, or Archbishop Laud, who had preceded them to that dreary lodging, so that only loving messages pa.s.sed between the prisoners. So many bishops being in custody, and five sees vacant, the Commons took their opportunity, and brought in a Bill depriving the Bishops of their seats in Parliament, and of the power of sitting as judges or privy councillors. It was feebly opposed by the Churchmen, who had been alienated by the prelates' desertion of Lord Strafford, and was finally carried. The remark made a little later by Lord Falkland on Sir E. Deering's 'Bill for the Extirpation of Episcopacy,' when the Churchmen, weary of their attendance, left the House at dinner-time, and did not return--'Those who hated the bishops, hated them worse than the devil, and those who loved them did not love them so well as their dinner,'--appears to have been applicable to this occasion also. Not very long after the first-named Bill had pa.s.sed, some of the bishops were set at liberty, but Bishop Wren was not released until May 6, 1642.

[IMPRISONMENT.]

It was a brief respite. He went down to his diocese, to a house at Downham, near Ely, where his wife and children were living, and there, August 17, he kept the last wedding-day that he and his wife were ever to celebrate together. On August 25 King Charles set up his standard at Nottingham and the Civil War began. On the 30th of the month Bishop Wren's house was entered by soldiers and he was taken prisoner, without, it will be observed, the shadow of a legal charge against him. On September 1st he was again thrown into the Tower, leaving Mrs. Wren with a daughter only eight days old and mourning for their son Francis, who had died in the previous month. Matthew, the eldest son, was then only thirteen years old. Bishop Wren's was a singularly steadfast, hopeful nature, and it may be that he expected to be speedily released by the victorious Royalist armies. Could he have foreseen the duration of his imprisonment and the miseries which were to befall the Church and the country, even his dauntless spirit might have been crushed. He did not seek an interview with Archbishop Laud, lest they should be accused of plotting, and so each injure the other. Otherwise it would not have been difficult, as the Archbishop was at first carelessly watched, in the hope that he would, by escaping, rid the Commons of a difficulty. The Archbishop 'would not, at seventy years, go about to prolong a miserable life by the trouble and shame of flying,' though Grotius sent him an intreaty to copy the example of his own marvellous escape from Loevenstein Castle twenty-one years previously.[37] The services in the Tower Chapel, where they probably met at first, could have given them little comfort, marred and mangled as the services were by the intruders, who came often with no better object than to preach insulting sermons against the prelates.

Dr. Wren busied himself in the completion of the 'Defence,' to which allusion has been made in the first chapter.[38] It is too long to allow of being set out in full, but a few points may be touched upon. Of the 'fifty painful ministers' whom he was said to have excommunicated, for some of the sentences there was, as has been said, very sufficient reason. As the Bishop says, 'Excommunication doth by law fall upon those that are absent, either from visitation, or synods; and suspension is a censure which in the practice of those courts is incurred in one hour and taken off in another, and is of little or no grievance at all except it be wilfully persisted in.' He complains of so vague a charge, not stating who the clergy were, and proceeds as well as he can recollect to mention those who had fallen under his censure. For those whose licence to preach had been withdrawn, the greater number ought never to have received it at all; one had been a broken tradesman in Ipswich, one a country apothecary, another a weaver, another 'no graduate, not long translated from common stage-playing to two cures and a publick lecture.' Yet still when all were reckoned who had ever been censured or admonished, the Bishop thinks that the fifty will hardly be made up.[39]

[BOWING TO THE ALTAR.]

It is a curious instance of the temper of the times that one head of so serious an indictment should be that 'To manifest his Popish Affections, he in 1636, caused a crucifix to be engraven upon his Episcopal seal.'

Bishop Wren carefully addresses himself to the defence of this point, and to that of bowing at the name of our Lord, and to the Altar.

'He began so to do by the example of that learned and holy Prelate Bishop Andrewes, now with G.o.d, under whom this defendant was brought up from his youth, and had depended upon him more than forty years since, and constantly and religiously practised the same upon all occasions ... as his own years and studies increased he found first, the bowing at the name of the Lord Jesus, had not only been practised by the clergy but had also been enjoined to all the people, ever since the first reformation, as appeareth by the Injunctions, 1^o Eliz. Cap. 52, thereby to testify our due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and Eternal Son of G.o.d, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone the mercies, graces and promises of G.o.d to mankind for this life and the life to come are fully and wholly comprised, 1^o Jac. Can. 18.'

For bowing to the Altar, while setting out how old a practice of the Church it was, designedly continued at the Reformation, how a like reverence was paid always to the King, or to his chair of estate if he was not in the Presence Chamber,

'No Christian would ever deny that bowing or doing adoration, was to be used as a part of G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p, the affirmative act being necessarily included in the negative precept, "Non adorabis ea, ergo adorabis Me."' 'No more as he humbly conceiveth is it any superst.i.tion, but a sign of devotion, and of an awful apprehension of G.o.d's divine Presence, to do Him reverence at the approach into the House of G.o.d, or unto the Lord's Table....

For the crucifix--

'He utterly denieth all popish affections, and saith that the figure of Christ upon the Cross may be had without any popish affection, and that the said figure upon his seal did itself declare what affection it was to manifest. For there was this posy engraven with it, "[Greek: En ho kosmos emoi kago to kosmo]," being taken out of S. Paul, Gal. vi. 14.... In an holy imitation whereof this defendant beareth divers coats of arms (as the use is) upon the said seal, to wit, the arms of the See of Norwich, and the arms of the See of Hereford, and of the Deanery of Windsor, and of the Masters.h.i.+p of Peterhouse, together with his own paternal coat of an ancient descent; he, considering with himself, that these were emblems all, and badges but of worldly and temporal glories, and desiring that the world should have a right apprehension of him, and to testify that he did no way glory in any thing of this transitory world, but humbly endeavoured to wean himself from all temporal and vain rejoycing, he therefore caused such a small figure of Christ on the Cross to be set over all the said coats.'

He adds that he princ.i.p.ally used it in signing 'presentments of Popish recusants.' ... not to say that although the said seal lay all the year long locked up in a chest, but at the time of sealing, and that when any sealing there was no wors.h.i.+p done by any; yet nevertheless, as soon as he understood that any had taken scruple at it, he presently, to avoid all pretence of scandal, caused the said seal to be altered and the figure of Christ to be wholly omitted.'[40]

[_EASTWARD POSITION._]

The part of the Defence, which has been most challenged, is that for the use of the 'Eastward position.' It is, however, important to remember that the Bishop had to defend himself against the charge, that once, while celebrating in the Tower Church at Ipswich, he had 'used idolatrous actions' in administering the Holy Communion, Consecrating the Elements with his face eastward, elevating the Paten and Chalice 'above his shoulders and bowing low either to or before them when set down on the Table.'