What, however, of Hobbes' return to England in 1651, and then his living peaceably under the Commonwealth and Protectorate? This, of course, was a key accusation against Hobbes, together with the supposed 'atheism' of Leviathan. Hobbes, however, could point to the example of a particular group of figures whose acted as he did under the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Addressing opponents of the Restoration, he said:
Of the Bishops that then were, and for whose sakes (in part) you raised this War, there was not one that followed the King out of the Land, though they loved him, but lived quietly under the Protection, first of the Parliament, and then of Oliver (whole Titles and Actions were equally unjust) without treachery. Is not this as bad as if they had gone over, and (which was Mr. Hobbes his case) been driven back again? I hope you will not call them all desertors, (or because by their stay here openly they accepted of the Parliament's and of Oliver's Protection,) defenders either of Oliver's, or of the Parliament's Title to the Sovereign Power.
Hobbes' invocation of the bishops at this point is very significant. It is a reminder of how only a tiny minority of Episcopal clergy and laity refused some form of accommodation with the post-1649 authorities, never mind joining Charles II in the exile. The overwhelming majority of Episcopal clergy and laity lived peaceably under the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Indeed, despite the approximately 3,000 sequestered clergy, a majority of conforming Episcopal clergy continued to serve in the Cromwellian Church. As Fincham and Taylor have also demonstrated in their excellent study, "over 2,500 men received [illegal] episcopal orders between 1646 and 1660, equating to an average of 203 per annum" - men who served in the Cromwellian Church. Among them was a future luminary of the Church of England, George Bull. It is also worth noting that Jeremy Taylor ended the Interregnum as a Lecturer in the Cromwellian Church, appointed by his cautious patron Viscount Conway, and travelling to Ireland with Cromwell's permission.
In other words, Hobbes' experience of leaving peaceably under the Commonwealth and Protectorate was the experience of the vast majority of Episcopal laity and clergy. The outliers were the very small numbers of clergy and laity who refused any compromise with the post-1649 regimes. Recent historical studies have emphasised just how typical it was for laity and clergy to make accommodations.
Anna Keay, in her superb The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown (2022), notes how Royalist hopes in 1652 that the country would rally to Charles II's standard at the Battle of Worcester were "bitterly disappointed":
War, almost ten years of it, had exhausted appetites for political or military campaigning. People longed for peace and order [which would have been entirely unsurprising to the author of Leviathan], not new conflict.
Likewise, Henry Reece in The Fall: Last Days of the English Republic (2024) shows how there was nothing at all inevitable about the collapse of the Protectorate precisely because it addressed that concern for peace and order:
The Protectorate of Richard Cromwell had by far the greatest potential of the regimes of 1658 to 1660 for lasting survival. It offered a recognizable version of traditional forms of government ... the later Protectorate was the first government that looked capable of reconciling the disagreements of principle that had driven the political nation to civil war in the first place.
Indeed, it was Charles II's recognition of these realities which secured the Restoration. And this, of course, contributed to the restored Charles II granting his favour and protection to Hobbes, seeing in Hobbes the character of the realm.
This had a significant ecclesiastical aspect. Clergy who had served in the Cromwellian Church were found amongst those elevated to the episcopate by Charles II: Robert Sanderson, appointed to Lincoln in 1660; Herbert Croft, appointed to Hereford in 1661; Seth Ward, appointed to Exeter in 1662; John Wilkins (who had married Cromwell's sister), appointed to Chester in 1668. This was the ecclesiastical expression of Charles II - and his prudent, wise Lord Chancellor, Clarendon - binding up the wounds of the realm.
It was also reflected at parish level. In his paper 'Remembering Episcopalian Conformity in Restoration England', William White explores how Episcopalian conformity during the Interregnum - while running contrary to narratives of Episcopalian persecution and martyrdom - could find support from various constituencies post-1660. Lay patrons in particular prized moderation and stability:
There were also plenty of lay patrons in the provinces likely to be less receptive to narratives of steadfast loyalty and indeed positively sympathetic towards those episcopalian churchmen who had conformed in the 1650s. The most hard-line clerical supporters of the re-established Church could, after all, prove decidedly divisive at a local level, unsuited to the realities of confessional diversity that often characterised parish life in Restoration England.
Contrary to post-1660 narratives which emphasised the sufferings of sequestered Episcopal clergy, White notes that those clergy who had conformed in the 1650s were quite prepared to defend their record:
this emphasis on martyrdom, ejection and exile has obscured the extent to which prominent episcopalian conformists were subsequently prepared to defend their Interregnum careers, presenting their ministries in these years as evidence of steadfast commitment to both the Church of England and the king.
As a prime example of this, he quotes Sanderson's defence of his ministry in the Cromwellian Church as a refusal to hand over "the sheep of Christ ... into the hands of ravening wolves":
when such guides shall be set over the several Congregations as will be sure to misteach them one way or other, viz. by instilling into them Puritanical and Superstitious Principles, that they may the more securely exercise their Presbyterian tyranny over their judgements, consciences, persons, and estates; or else, by setting up new lights before them, to lead them into a maze of Anabaptistical confusion and frenzy.
Hobbes' peaceable acquiescence to the Commonwealth and Protectorate placed him among the ranks of the vast majority of those in the pews - and pulpits - post-1660. This had also been their experience during 'the late unhappy confusions'. To attack Hobbes' actions in the 1650s was to attack the normative, conventional response of Episcopalian laity and clergy during those distracted times. The actions of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury during the Interregnum were entirely typical of the conforming sons and daughters of the Church of England.
__________
After a short break, Laudable Practice will resume on 12th October.
Comments
Post a Comment