| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Ecclesiastical History of England: The Church of the Revolution
Author: Stoughton, John
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Ecclesiastical History of England: The Church of the Revolution" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
ENGLAND ***
ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
=The Church of the Revolution.=
BY
JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.
[Illustration]
=London:=
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27 & 31, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
MDCCCLXXIV.
[Illustration]
UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS.
ADVERTISEMENT.
It will be found that in this Volume I have assigned a large space to
the attempt at Comprehension in the year 1689--as it is a subject of
present interest, and because the proceedings connected with it have
been but inadequately described. An examination of the Bill introduced
for the purpose to the House of Lords--a comparison of the Journals
of both Houses, whence it appears that another Bill of the same kind
was contemporaneously proposed in the House of Commons--the report of
the proceedings of the Commissioners in 1689, published by order of
the House of Commons in 1854--and a curious Diary preserved in Dr.
Williams’ Library--together with other original sources of information,
have enabled me to present a fuller, and, I hope, more accurate,
account of that important but ineffective transaction than has hitherto
appeared. As I believe the Lords’ Bill has never been printed, I have
arranged for its insertion in the Appendix.
A large collection of Tracts in Dr. Williams’ Library, besides
those in the British Museum and University Libraries--the Tanner
MSS. at Oxford--the Strype and other collections belonging to the
Sister University--and the Gibson Papers at Lambeth, have also
afforded a number of new, if not important, illustrations touching
the Nonjurors--the proceedings of Convocation--the Trinitarian
controversies--the social life of the Clergy--and the character of the
Nonconformist ministers.
I may add that in tracing the origin and progress of Religious
Societies during the reign of William III., I have received most
valuable assistance from the respected Secretaries of the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel, who have favoured me with interesting extracts from their
earliest records.
My best thanks are also due to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Chester
for a copy of the writ summoning Spiritual peers to Parliament.
Sir John G. S. Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, to whose usual
courtesy I am indebted for a copy of the Comprehension Bill--Mr.
Thoms, the Librarian of the House of Lords--the Librarians at Oxford,
Cambridge, and Lambeth--the Rev. T. Hunter, librarian of Dr. Williams’
Library--and the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, have also laid me under
obligations which I gratefully acknowledge.
I venture to add, that in this, as in my former volumes, I have
endeavoured to maintain an honest impartiality in the estimate of
characters and incidents, together with a firm attachment to my own
religious and ecclesiastical principles. My aim throughout has been to
promote the cause of truth and charity among Christian Englishmen.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Early Days of William 1
Marriage with the Princess Mary 4
William and Mary in Holland 5
Preparations for Revolution 9
Infatuated Conduct of King James 13
CHAPTER II.
William’s Declaration 27
James gives Audience to the Bishops 29
William sets Sail 34
Landing of the Prince 36
James goes to Salisbury 43
William’s Popularity 49
Flight of James to Sheerness 53
Return of James to London 56
Arrival of William at St. James’s 57
CHAPTER III.
Character of the Revolution 61
The Holy Jacobite Club 68
State of Feeling 69
Meeting of Convention 73
Declaration of Right 78
Arrival of Mary in England 80
Accession of William and Mary 81
Appointment of Officers of State 82
CHAPTER IV.
Oath of Allegiance 88
Corporation Act 92
Test Act 94
Coronation Oath 97
The Coronation 99
Comprehension 101
Toleration 114
Ecclesiastical Commission 124
Convocation 138
CHAPTER V.
James in Ireland 144
Nonjurors: Cartwright--Thomas--Lake 146
Sancroft--Lloyd--Ken 147
Turner 148
Frampton 149
Hickes--Dodwell 151
Kettlewell 152
Whigs and Tories 156
Irish Campaign 157
CHAPTER VI.
Battle of the Boyne 159
Sherlock 161
Lloyd 164
Scheme for Restoration of James 167
Ejectment of Nonjurors 169
CHAPTER VII.
Nonconformists 174
Bunyan 175
Collinges 176
Flavel 177
Baxter 178
Holcroft 181
CHAPTER VIII.
Tillotson as Primate 186
Sancroft in Retirement 187
Tenison succeeds Tillotson in the Primacy 195
Death of Queen Mary 196
Tenison’s Funeral Sermon 196
Licensing of the Press 201
CHAPTER IX.
Ecclesiastical Regulations 203
Lords Justices 206
Trinitarian Controversy 210
Dr. Wallis 213
Sherlock’s Vindication 214
South’s Reply 216
Howe’s Views 221
William’s Injunctions 223
CHAPTER X.
James II. at St. Germains 228
Jacobites 229
Conspiracy against William 231
Execution of Sir John Friend and Sir William Parkyns 232
Collier 232
Sir John Fenwick 236
CHAPTER XI.
Peace of Ryswick 242
New Parliament 243
Bill against Papists 245
Church Preferments 247
Duke of Gloucester 248
Succession Act 250
Death of James II. 253
Abjuration Bill 256
State of Parties 257
CHAPTER XII.
Letter to a Convocation Man 261
Dr. Wake’s Reply 264
Francis Atterbury 264
Convocation Meets 270
Lower House resists the Archbishop’s Prorogation 272
Censures Toland’s Book 275
Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles 277
Dissolution of Convocation 282
White Kennet 284
New Convocation 287
Death of the Prolocutor 293
Death of William III. 295
CHAPTER XIII.
Bishops--Burnet 298
Stillingfleet 299
Patrick 300
Moore and Cumberland 303
Fowler and Kidder 304
Hall--Stratford--Sharpe 306
Lloyd 307
Compton 309
Trelawny 310
Burnet and Sprat 311
Crew--Watson 312
Clergy--Beveridge 314
Bull, Norris, Burkett 315
Strype--Wharton 316
Horneck 317
Fanaticism--Mason 317
CHAPTER XIV.
Ecclesiastical Discipline 321
Manner of Worship 323
Psalmody of the Church 324
Character of the Clergy 325
Condition of the Clergy 328
Clerical Costume 331
State of Society 332
Intemperance 334
Superstition 335
CHAPTER XV.
Boyle Lectures 341
Bentley 341
Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity 344
Essay on the Human Understanding 346
Leslie--Blount 349
Toland and Norris 350
Literary Style 352
CHAPTER XVI.
Rise of Religious Societies 354
Young Men’s Associations 356
Society for Reformation of Manners 358
Societies Advocated from the Pulpit 361
Christian Knowledge Society 364
Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts 369
CHAPTER XVII.
Circumstances of the Nonjurors 375
Kettlewell 377
Dodwell 380
Hickes 382
Lee 383
Nelson 384
Nonjurors in London 387
Social Gatherings at Shottesbrook Park 387
Ken’s Retirement at Longleat 390
Deaths of Nonjurors--
White 391
Turner 392
Samuel Pepys 393
Political Views of Nonjurors 395
Religious Spirit 396
Modes of Worship 398
CHAPTER XVIII.
Nonconformist Places of Worship in London 400
Nonconformists in Nottingham and Chester 402
In Northamptonshire 403
Presbyterians 404
Ordinations 405
Edmund Calamy 408
Seminaries for Dissenters 413
CHAPTER XIX.
Presbyterians and Independents 420
Antinomian Controversy 422
Richard Davis 423
Crisp 424
Daniel Williams 425
Stephen Lobb 426
CHAPTER XX.
Matthew Henry 428
Presbyterian Lord Mayors 429
Daniel De Foe 431
Manner of Worship 433
Independents 436
Ministerial Support 439
CHAPTER XXI.
Deaths of Nonconformists--
Philip Henry 442
Samuel Annesley 443
Vincent 444
Bates--Howe 445
CHAPTER XXII.
Baptists 451
Kiffin and Keach 453
Caffin 455
Quakers: Fox and Barclay 456
Penn 457
Mysticism 458
Norris 459
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.
I. A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects 461
II. The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for exempting
their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting
from the Church of England from the penalties of
certain Laws 465
III. Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers 472
IV. The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament 473
CHAPTER I.
William Henry, Prince of Orange, was a member of the House of
Nassau--the antiquity of which is traced by some historians as far
back as the days of Julius Cæsar. Others are content to stop at Count
Otho, in the 12th century, whom they regard as founder of the family,
because, through his wife, he obtained large possessions in the Low
Countries. The immediate ancestors of William Henry are renowned as
fathers of the Dutch Republic, and from them he inherited patriotic
virtues.
He was born in Holland on the 14th of November, 1650--the posthumous
son of William II., who had in 1641 married Mary, the eldest daughter
of Charles I. of England. He created the fondest hopes, and medals were
struck to commemorate his auspicious birth. “Though the orange-tree
be fallen down,” so ran the Dutch legend in allusion to his father’s
death, “this noble sprig has been preserved, by Divine care, in the
bosom of Mary. Thus the father arises after his death like a phenix
in his son. May he grow, may he flourish, and in virtue excel the
greatest princes, to the glory and safety of his country.” At the age
of ten, the youth lost his mother, who died within her native shores
in 1660, when on a visit to her brother Charles. The affectionate
care of his grandmother could not make up for these bereavements, and
this child of sorrow had the further misfortune to be deprived of the
hereditary Stadtholdership bestowed on his ancestors by the States
General. With the death of his mother came the loss, for a time, of the
Principality of Orange, which was unscrupulously seized by Louis XIV.,
who demolished the fortifications of the town.
William’s education fell into the hands of the Barneveldt party, headed
by the two De Witts, who sought to break down his spirit, and refused
him a range of education befitting his rank. Having been brought up in
the Stadtholder’s Palace at the Hague--which then, as now, uniquely
combined, in streams and woods, the quiet rusticity of a village, with
the bustle and magnificence of a metropolis--he received a notice to
quit his ancestral abode in his seventeenth year, and only retained the
favourite residence, by declaring that nothing but force should tear
him from its hearthstone.
First made Captain and Admiral-General, and then forced by public
acclamation into the position of Chief Magistrate when he was but
twenty-two--at a time of tremendous peril--he had to bear the yoke in
his youth. Nothing indeed could have saved his dominions just then but
the magnanimity inspired by memories of his country’s heroic struggles
with Spain: that magnanimity he expressed in the well-known words,
“There is one method which will save me from the sight of my country’s
ruin: I will die in the last ditch.”
[Sidenote: EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM]
The man whom I have thus described had from infancy suffered from
bad health. Asthma and consumption--likely to be increased by the
damp atmosphere and the unhealthy fogs which float about the Dutch
dykes--rendered it necessary for him to be propped up in bed, when
cruel headaches did not make repose impossible; and soon after
reaching manhood, he had to endure a severe attack of that virulent
disease--small-pox. Such circumstances did not improve a melancholy
temperament. Not naturally unamiable, William, like his countrymen,
was grave and taciturn; and amongst his original endowments we
notice a judgment unaccompanied by imagination, but with a quick
perception and a keen forecast, which made him sensitively alive to
the responsibilities and issues of his own career. He saw himself
entering a thorny road, which might conduct to prosperity or end in
defeat; at any rate, he resolved it should not lead to disgrace. In
such circumstances and with such a character, we are not surprised to
find him pronounced cold, reserved, and phlegmatic. His lofty forehead,
piercing eyes, aquiline nose, and compressed lips, indicated energy of
mind and force of will; but attenuated features, delicate limbs, and
feeble gait, betrayed the frailty of the framework which encased his
soul.
People of his disposition at times reveal the existence of tender
sensibilities. They form friendships limited in extent, but intense
in degree. Nor do sallies of humour fail to sparkle in their sombre
lives. William’s almost romantic love for Bentinck, who watched him
in illness, is generally known. Less noticed is the Prince’s power of
repartee. One day as he walked in the pleasant gardens of the Hague,
the Grand Pensionary praised one of the parterres. “Yes,” replied His
Highness, “this garden is very fine, but there is too much _white_
in it.” The lilies were abundant, but the Pensionary--whose name, De
Witt, meant white--perceived at once that William was thinking more
of him and of his influence than of the flowers smiling at his feet.
Averse to fashionable amusements, he dearly loved the chase. He was,
according to Sir William Temple, always in bed and asleep by ten
o’clock; and he preferred a “tumbler of cold ale” to a glass of the
choicest wine.[1]
The Prince paid a second visit to England in 1678, when he married his
cousin, the Princess Mary--a match which, though suggested by State
policy, turned out one of pure affection. It prepared the way for the
part he was to play in the Revolution, and on account of that event,
which, in its ecclesiastical consequences, forms a prominent subject in
this volume, a glance at his early life has been deemed essential.
What most concerns us is not his military and political character, not
his career as a soldier or a statesman, but his religious opinions,
sympathies, and policy, and the bearing of these upon the changes
wrought during his reign in the ecclesiastical affairs of our country.
William was a staunch Calvinist. “He was much possessed with the belief
of absolute decrees,” and said to Burnet he adhered to them “because
he did not see how the belief of Providence could be maintained upon
any other supposition.”[2] Such convictions in such a man became
elements of heroism, but it was thought, not perhaps without reason,
that more care had been taken to impress his mind with the doctrine of
Predestination, than to guard him against abuses incident to such an
opinion. Yet there appears nothing fanatical in William’s religion,
and whatever might be his moral conduct, it did not seem to have
been connected with Antinomian prejudices, or with any doubt of the
obligations of Christian virtue. It is remarkable, that though in
Holland, at the time of the Synod of Dort, Calvinism appeared in union
with intolerance, William had no sympathy in that feeling. Toleration
was a ruling idea in his mind; and he blamed the English Church for
alienating itself from other communions, and for claiming infallibility
in practice, though eschewing it in theory.
[Sidenote: PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.]
He had been brought up a Presbyterian, but he appears to have regarded
Church government of secondary importance, and, as events proved, he
could conform to Episcopacy. Indeed, it is said by Burnet--who claimed
to know him well--that he, on the whole, preferred the English to the
Dutch type of ecclesiastical rule.[3] The Prince had no reverence
for antiquity, no æsthetic taste, no sensibility under the touch of
elaborate ceremonies, or amidst the flow of harmonious music. He
preferred an unritualistic worship, and distinctly disapproved of the
surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing to the altar; yet, again, we
are assured that he highly esteemed the worship, as well as the polity,
of the Church of England.[4]
After his marriage with the Princess Mary, he formed an acquaintance
with English Divines. Dr. Hooper became chaplain to the Princess, on
the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft; and he remained in office a
year and a half. The chaplain found Her Royal Highness reading works
favourable to Dissenters; to counteract their tendency, he recommended
works of another description. One day the Prince observed his wife with
the pages of Eusebius and Hooker open on her table, when he exclaimed,
“I suppose Dr. Hooker persuades you to read these books?” She had at
first no chapel of her own for Divine worship; at the Doctor’s request,
a room was fitted up, with a communion-table elevated on steps. The
Prince, as he saw them being made, rudely kicked at them, asking what
they meant. Informed on the point, he answered “with a hum.” After the
chapel had been fitted up, he never attended Divine service there; and
as this chaplain talked about the Popish Plot and the indulgence of
Dissenters in terms less favourable to the latter than His Highness
liked, he bluntly said, “Well, Dr. Hooper, you will never be a Bishop;”
and on another occasion remarked if he had ever “anything to do with
England, Dr. Hooper should be Dr. Hooper still.”[5]
Ken succeeded Hooper in 1679; we have no particulars of his relations
with William, but those relations do not seem to have been very
cordial. Each of the clergymen now mentioned belonged to the High
Church party, and William could not agree with either, so that the end
of Ken’s connection with the Dutch Court produced satisfaction on both
sides. Yet the conduct of this excellent man “gained him entire credit
and high esteem with the Princess, whom to his death he distinguished
by the title of his Mistress.”[6]
The sincerity and strength of William’s Protestantism was unmistakable.
Protestantism had the approval of his intellect, and it penetrated
his soul. In him, cold as he was, it existed not merely as an opinion,
but as a passion. It accompanied him into the Cabinet and the field,
tincturing all his views; it pervaded all his purposes, shaped all his
policy. Protestantism for Holland was his first thought, Protestantism
for Europe his second; and he saw dependent upon Protestantism the
political, commercial, and social prosperity of nations, scarcely less
than the spiritual well-being of individuals. Roman Catholicism to his
mind was identical with a violation of the law of God and an invasion
of the rights of man; yet his large views of toleration embraced Roman
Catholics; he would not rob any man of the liberty of conscience, but
the ascendency of the Romanist system, and the tendency of its spirit,
he thoroughly abhorred as one of the worst foes to the welfare of
the race. France at that moment showed herself to be more violently
Roman Catholic than the Pope himself, and was seeking to establish
control over Europe. Therefore towards France William turned a gaze
of defiance, prepared to shed the last drop of his blood in resisting
her ambition. Louis XIV. stood forth as William’s personal enemy, but
William’s history shows how much more he himself was swayed in this
respect by reason than by resentment. At the same time he regarded
Holland as one of the last defences of liberty, and desired to see
England united with that country in the resistance of a common foe.
[Sidenote: PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.]
Mary responded to her husband’s sentiments. Although nurtured in a
Roman Catholic atmosphere, she proved herself entirely free from
Roman Catholic predilections, and indicated a preference for Low
Church principles. A woman of reading, she turned her attention to the
controversies of the day, and not only resisted the attempts of her
father to convert her to Popery, but, with all her respect for Ken,
kept herself free from the ecclesiastical views which that devout man
resolutely upheld.
In 1686, Gilbert Burnet accepted an invitation to the Hague, and
availed himself of opportunities to support the Low Church opinions
of the Prince and his Consort. The historian of his _Own Times_
has taken posterity into his confidence, and he relates, with
characteristic vanity, how he advised his illustrious friends in
matters of the highest importance. But whatever may be thought of
Burnet’s foibles, he appears to have judiciously counselled both
husband and wife, especially the latter, and to have done much towards
a wise settlement of the Crown at the Revolution. His counsels were
in favour of constitutional government and of toleration; and he
inculcated upon Mary that whenever she might inherit her father’s
throne, she should use her influence to obtain for her husband real and
permanent authority. Such advice laid the Prince, and the country of
his adoption, under lasting obligations to the busy Whig Churchman.
As the peculiar relation in which this noble couple stood to this
kingdom could not but interest them in English affairs, neither could
it fail to attract towards them the attention of the English people.
English Protestants sympathized with William in his continental
policy. They disliked France almost as much as he did. The Huguenots
driven to our shores were memorials before their eyes of Roman
Catholic intolerance; and besides this, they knew that their own
fellow countrymen naturalized in France had to suffer from the repeal
of the Edict of Nantes, and that the wives and children of those so
naturalized had to suffer in the same way. Moreover, they learned that
dragoons were quartered upon English merchants residing in France, to
prevent their passing the frontiers, and to compel them to change
their religion.[7] These circumstances, backed by the humiliating
fact, that the Stuarts were hirelings of Louis, brought the feelings
of Protestant Englishmen into sympathy with those of the Netherland
Stadtholder. He, in his turn, looked with anxiety towards this country
whilst suffering under the misgovernment of James II. What James was
doing for Dissenters by a stretch of prerogative, William wished
to see done by constitutional law. Mary took a still more lively,
because a patriotic, interest in these subjects, and disapproved of
her father’s despotism and Popery. For the Church of England she had
a strong affection, which she expressed to Archbishop Sancroft, when
congratulating him upon the firmness of the clergy in their religion as
well as their loyalty.[8]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Matters in England were brought to a crisis in the month of June. Upon
Trinity Sunday, the 10th of the month--two days after the imprisonment
of the seven Bishops--London was thrown into frantic excitement by a
report that James’s Queen had presented him with a son and heir. A
Popish successor would bring upon the country those calamities of which
the prospect for two reigns had filled men with dismay. The bulk of the
people could not believe the fact. They declared that the Queen had not
been confined at all--that she for some time had worn a cushion under
her dress--that her pretended son had been conveyed into her chamber in
a silver warming-pan on a Sunday morning, when Whig lords and ladies,
who otherwise might have detected the cheat, were lying in bed or were
gone to prayers. Stories the most absurd and disgusting were believed.
At that moment anything seemed more credible than the simple event
which had really occurred. The news of this assumed Royal conspiracy
flew over to Holland, and it created the utmost consternation, William
and Mary sincerely believing what they were confidently told. At all
events, the child--of whose supposititious character the idea vanished
afterwards from all but the most fanatical minds--was publicly baptized
in the Church of Rome, the Pope’s Nuncio standing sponsor. This added
to the national exasperation, and the Whig and Protestant party
immediately began to think of seeking succour from Holland, and putting
an end at all hazards to the existing state of things.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
William had before this become the head of the English opposition.
Old Republicans and old Royalists, Anglican Churchmen who hated Rome,
Latitudinarian Churchmen who loved liberty, and Evangelical Churchmen
who believed in Calvinism--Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists,
the first anxious for comprehension, the second and third wishing
only for freedom of worship--all had been turning their thoughts for
some time to the Prince of Orange as the star of their hopes. English
soldiers, English sailors, and English Divines, had publicly presented
themselves in the old Gothic _Binnenhof_ of the Hague, or held
private interviews with the Dutch Governor. The Earl of Devonshire,
Lord Shrewsbury, Admiral Herbert, Lord Lumley, and others, had written
to His Highness, more or less explicitly, offering to devote to him
their fortunes and their lives.
* * * * *
This went on in the spring of 1688, amidst excitements produced by
the Declaration of Indulgence. Holland at the same period felt deep
sympathy with England.
Dr. Edmund Calamy, grandson of the well-known Puritan, in the early
part of 1688 lived as a student at Utrecht, and he says there
prevailed in the States a conviction that their own, and the Protestant
interest in general, could be preserved only by a revolution in
England, since nothing else could prevent Europe from being ingulfed
in France; he adds, the Dutch were disposed to assist in making head
against King James, and in relieving the people, who cried to them for
succour, as they, a century before, had appealed for help to Queen
Elizabeth.[9]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
A decided but perilous step was taken in England on the 30th of June,
the day of the Bishops’ acquittal. By a letter written amidst the
excitement of that event, which shook not the English throne but him
who sat on it, seven members of the Whig party invited the Prince of
Orange to come over. They informed him of the prevalent dissatisfaction
of the people with the Government, and of their willingness to rise in
defence of their liberties, if His Highness would land with sufficient
strength to put himself at the head of the Protestant party. They
stated that the soldiers unequivocally manifested an aversion to the
Popish religion; that they certainly would desert the Royal standard in
great numbers; and that not one out of ten in the navy could be trusted
in case of an invasion. They promised to attend on His Highness as soon
as he should land; and they commissioned a confidential messenger to
consult with him about artillery and ammunition. This act of daring
treason, or of triumphant patriotism--whichever the issue might
determine it to be--decidedly turned the scales which quivered between
further delay and immediate action. The “immortal seven,” as they
have been called, who signed in cypher, were Shrewsbury, Devonshire,
Danby, Lumley, Russel, Sydney, and Compton, Bishop of London.[10] The
conspirators--perfect in number like the Bishops, now at the moment
of their acquittal and ovation--thus cast the die which _might_
bring death, which _did_ bring freedom. The adhesion of Compton
to this scheme is what most concerns us, as it indicates the early
infusion of an ecclesiastical element into this undertaking--an element
which became deeper, wider, stronger, as time rolled on. In less than
a month afterwards the same dignitary replied to a letter from the
Prince concerning the trial of the seven Bishops, and informed him how
sensible he and others were of the advantage of having so powerful a
friend; that they would make no ill use of it; and that they were so
well satisfied of the justness of their cause, that they would lay down
their lives rather than forsake it.[11]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
William must for some time have been expecting overtures. They would
not find a man of so much forecast unprepared; yet not a little
remained to be done that the proposed descent might prove a success.
The remainder of summer and the early part of autumn were spent
in secret military preparations at home, in secret diplomatical
negotiations abroad. He even decoyed the Pope into his toils, by baits
which did more credit to his statesmanship than to his honesty. He
persuaded His Holiness to advance money for an attack, as he thought,
upon France, in reality upon England. Rome, ever trying to over-reach
others, was herself over-reached; and help, supposed to be rendered for
the humiliation of a power then inimical to the Papal Court, came to be
applied to the overthrow of a Popish Sovereign and the strengthening
of the cause of European Protestantism.[12]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
When the military movements in Holland became generally known, they
were given out to be intended for a campaign against France, in which
the Prince was to receive support from the Imperial army on the
Rhine; yet, whatever dust might be thrown in men’s eyes, the real
truth appeared to many. Even as early as the 7th of August, news of
the Prince’s intention to come over with an army reached the quiet
cloisters of Westminster Abbey; and Dr. Patrick, at four o’clock in the
afternoon, received at his prebendal residence tidings of the important
secret through his friend, Dr. Tenison, who came “to have some private
conversation.”[13] But almost up to the last hour James remained in the
dark, partly through his own obtuseness, partly--and much more--through
the selfish designs of France, through the treachery of courtiers, and
through denials made by the Dutch Ambassador. No doubt a clear-headed
man, with a sharp eye, would have caught signs of the true direction of
the brewing storm; but a man like James, narrow-minded and prejudiced,
might easily be duped by diplomatic arts and courtierly deceit. He
persuaded himself into the belief that the rumours of a Dutch invasion
of England were raised by the Court of France to promote his political
interests and to bring him into closer alliance with Louis[14]--a
policy at that moment appearing to him most perilous, because it would
be sure to increase his unpopularity with his subjects.
His conduct after the acquittal of the Bishops proves that he had
not learnt wisdom from that significant event. His treatment of
the lawyers, in the face of public opinion, seems incredible. He
honoured with a baronetcy Williams, the Solicitor-General, who led the
prosecution, and Holloway and Powell, who gave it as their opinion
that the Bishops’ petition did not amount to a libel, he punished by
dismissal from the Bench.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
To the Judges who went their circuits in the summer, Royal instructions
were communicated to the effect, that they should persuade the people
to assist in supporting the unpopular Declaration for liberty of
conscience, telling them that a Parliament would speedily be called to
make the Sovereign’s favour statute law. Churchmen were to be assured
of the fulfilment of His Majesty’s promises; and persons of all classes
were to be reminded what a gracious Prince they had upon the throne.
Liberty of conscience, they were to be informed, had advanced the
trade, and would prove the means of increasing the population of the
country. The tone was fair--the phraseology specious; but the friends
of freedom were not to be hoodwinked after this fashion.
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Justice Allybone, a reputed Papist, sought, at the Croydon Assizes,
to give effect to these instructions, by the charge which he then
delivered to the Grand Jury. After dealing in a few commonplaces as to
the desirableness of living in love, and the blessings of religious
liberty, and after maintaining that the King wished every one to be as
free in his conscience as in his thoughts, immediately applied what
he had advanced to the Sacramental Test. “Why,” he asked, “because I
cannot take the Test, must I be hindered of an employment in the world?
This, gentlemen, pincheth sore with them in liberal education. It is
said, ‘Upon this Rock will I build my Church.’ Was this meant of the
Church of England?--it was but of yesterday’s standing. So, gentlemen,
’tis but a flourish. Gentlemen, the end of the Test is not religion,
but preferment; if any one therefore should be hindered upon just
pretences for religion, then religion is not at the bottom of it. This,
gentlemen, is a matter of great importance. It is in the Catechism
that Christ is really in the Lord’s Supper; nor hath it been objected
against the Church of Rome, by the Church of England, that He was not
really, but by way of presentation, and that is a great reproach.
Christ Himself told us He was there; now, be you not more strict than
Christ Himself. I am not arguing what my sense is, but I am only
showing, that as the Church of England would impose, that Christ was by
way of presentation, is it not equally difficult that we shall believe
thus and thus? Is not the like liberty to be had and taken of one side,
as well as the other? Gentlemen, I only argue this for the incoherence
of the thing.” The meaning which the Croydon Grand Jury might gather
from this wretched rabble of words would be, that the Judge put in a
plea for the toleration of Catholics--a plea which, however just, wore
at that crisis a suspicious aspect, and could find no favour with the
Surrey squires. Allybone finished by remarking that he would not have
the world mistaken about the Bishops’ trial--it was not for religion
they were tried, “they were tried for acting against the Government,
for publishing a libel which tended to sedition. The King,” he said,
“commands them with the advice of his Council for to publish his
Declaration; they would not do it. _If the King had been Turk or
Jew, it had been all one--for the subject ought to obey._”[15] The
infatuation of the Judge equalled the infatuation of the King.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
Of course the effect was to identify the Judges with unconstitutional
indulgence. Where it had been successful, they were welcomed--where it
had created alarm, they were rebuffed.
Down in the West, the Declaration had been published by some--by
others denounced. The wearers of the ermine were treated accordingly.
Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, wrote to Sancroft, at the time of
the Assizes, a letter which gives us some idea of what was going on at
Bristol and Exeter:--
“May it please your Grace,
“Mr. Gilbert, the bearer, going for London, and being desirous
of paying his duty to your Grace, I gave him this opportunity,
as well to receive your blessing as to present you with the
present state of the West. He is the laborious minister of
Plymouth, who, by his courage, life, and doctrine, hath done a
great deal of good in that town. I wish his Lordship the Bishop
of Exeter had as fixt and steady resolutions, but his Lordship,
acting according to a settled maxim of his own, _I will be
safe_, had given order for the publishing the Declaration,
notwithstanding the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and my letter
to him; and was at last brought to recall them by the Dean’s
sending him word, that if he would betray the Church, he should
not the Cathedral; for he would rather be hanged at the doors
of it, than that the Declaration should be read there, or in
any part of his jurisdiction, which is large in the county. The
gentry and clergy complained to me very much of the Bishop’s
giving a church to the Mayor[16] for his Conventicle (in which
the Declaration was read), and for his great respects to Mr.
Beare, the last sessions, which gave great offence. Who this
Mr. Beare is, Mr. Gilbert can give your Grace a full account.
I had a long and warm argument with the Bishop, to divert him
from waiting on the Judges and treating them,--setting at large
before him what a malicious, wicked instrument Justice Bolduck
was in our business; but all I said was to no purpose. However,
the Dean and Chapter assured me, they would withdraw their
civility, and not receive them either at the church or at an
entertainment, as hath been customary. I hope I shall do some
good with the gentry of Devonshire and Cornwall. I humbly beg
your blessing, and remain,
“Yours Grace’s most obedient, humble servant,
“J. BRISTOL.”[17]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
The Bishop of Exeter was Dr. Lamplugh, and how he was rewarded for his
devotion to the measures of the Court will presently appear.
James’s proceedings in reference to the Church at this time were in
keeping with the rest of his conduct. He issued an order, requiring
Chancellors of Dioceses and Archdeacons to report to the High
Commission the names of those who had not published the Declaration.
This went too far even for his friends. Sprat, Bishop of Rochester,
immediately resigned his seat, and the rest of the Commissioners
becoming alarmed, as well they might, hesitated to proceed with
the odious investigation. In the same month of July, James sent a
mandate to Oxford for the election of Jeffreys to the Chancellorship;
a disgrace which the authorities of the Universities prevented by
stealing a march on the Monarch, and electing a Chancellor before
the mandate arrived. On the 13th of August the King exercised anew
his dispensing power, by charging the Wardens and Fellows of All
Souls, Oxford, to admit John Cartwright to the Vicarage of Barking,
notwithstanding any custom or constitution to the contrary.[18] Next,
on the 23rd, he nominated to the Bishopric of Oxford, Timothy Hall, who
had gained notoriety by reading the Declaration. Such persistency in
an unpopular course increased national indignation; all classes became
more and more weary of this galling despotism, and were goaded on to
hasten the King’s downfall.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Whilst such were the proceedings of the temporal head of the Church,
what was the course pursued by the Primate? Sancroft despatched
admonitions to the clergy of his province, exhorting them to the
zealous discharge of their duties, and concluding his appeal by
recommending them to show a friendly spirit towards Nonconformists,
by visiting them and receiving them kindly at their own homes, with
a view to persuade them “to a full compliance with our Church.” They
were to insist upon two points: that the Bishops were irreconcilable
enemies to Rome, and that jealousies to the contrary were altogether
groundless. Finally, clergymen were invited to pray for the union of
all Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad, against their common
foe, and that all who confessed the name of our dear Lord, might meet
in one communion and live in godly love.[19] Next--and more surprising,
when we think of the Archbishop’s High Church views--he is said to
have engaged in a scheme of comprehension, the design being, so far as
it can be gathered from a speech made long afterwards by Dr. Wake, to
amend and improve the discipline of the Church; to review and enlarge
the Liturgy, by correcting some things, by adding others; and, it is
stated, that he proposed, if advised by authority, to have the matter
considered first in Convocation, then in Parliament.[20] This would
have been to walk in steps taken by Low Churchmen some years before,
and to anticipate the endeavours of the same class of Churchmen some
months afterwards. When efforts had been made in that direction
by Tillotson and others, the Archbishop had not showed the least
disposition to help them; and on the whole it appears to me that so
cautious and conservative a man as Sancroft could never have intended
to go the length which the reports just noticed might indicate to
ecclesiastical reformers. Indeed, Wake, when he repeated the story,
took care to add that the intended changes related “to things of more
ordinary composition,” whilst the doctrine, government, and worship of
the Church were to remain entire. Probably the alterations contemplated
by Sancroft were very slight indeed, and certainly they were conceded
only in consequence of the excitement of the times.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
Before the end of September, the King, being unable any longer to
resist, altered his policy; he and the Archbishop came together,
the former beginning at last to be frightened; the latter anxious
to do what he could to save his master. On the 21st of September, a
Declaration appeared, to the effect that it was the Royal purpose to
provide a legal security for universal liberty of conscience, yet
to preserve the Church of England in particular, and to secure the
Protestant religion in general; at the same time it was indicated
that Roman Catholics were to remain incapable of being members of
Parliament.[21] Upon the 24th, Sancroft received a summons to attend
the Royal presence, and a like command was sent to Compton, Bishop of
London; Mew, of Winchester; Turner, of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken,
of Bath and Wells; White, of Peterborough; Trelawny, of Bristol; and
Sprat, of Rochester. They were men of different mark: Compton had gone
beyond any of his brethren in bold resistance of James’s policy; Mew
had been a Royalist in the days of Charles I., and had fought as a
soldier in his master’s service; Trelawny had won popularity by being
one of the imprisoned seven, but, like other men in Church and State,
he had shown a time-serving spirit.[22] Sprat distinguished himself as
an accommodating mortal; the rest were High Churchmen, and supporters
of the divine right of Kings.
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
On the day of dispatching the summons, James told Clarendon that the
Dutch were coming in earnest to invade England. “And now, my Lord,” he
added, “I shall see what the Church of England men will do.”[23] On
the 26th, the King saw Turner, Bishop of Ely, who reported that the
conversation which arose was only of a general kind. Whatever liberal
sentiments might have dawned on the Royal mind, all seemed dark on the
27th, when the Lord Chancellor informed Clarendon that some rogues had
changed the King’s purposes, that he would yield in nothing to the
Bishops, “that the Virgin Mary was to do all.”
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The first meeting between the King and the Bishops took place on
Friday, September the 28th. All invited were present, except Sancroft,
who excused himself on the ground of being unwell, and Compton and
Trelawny, who did not reach town in time. Their brethren, however, who,
like them, were in the country when the command arrived, managed to be
there. The Prelates came prepared honestly to give advice; but James,
no doubt under the influence mentioned by Clarendon, was very reserved,
on the one hand declaring his goodwill to the Church of England, and on
the other, reminding his spiritual advisers of their duty to be loyal
to the Crown. Ken plainly expressed his disappointment, observing that
“His Majesty’s inclinations towards the Church, and their duty to him,
were sufficiently understood and declared before, and would have been
equally so if they had not stirred one foot out of their dioceses.”[24]
As the Prelates issued from the Royal presence, the courtiers loitering
about the closet door, full of curiosity as to this much-talked-of
interview, inquired, “How things went?” The Bishop of Winchester--“poor
man,” as Clarendon calls, him--answered, “_Omnia bene_.”[25] James
wished to make capital for himself out of what had taken place, and
immediately announced to his subjects, through the _Gazette_,
that several of the Bishops having attended, he was pleased, amongst
other gracious expressions, to let them know that he would signify
his pleasure for taking off the suspension of the Bishop of London,
which was done accordingly. That any such communication was made could
scarcely have been gathered from the account of the audience given by
others.
The same _Gazette_ contained a Proclamation, dated September the
28th, stating, that undoubted advice had been received of a projected
invasion from Holland, under false pretences relating to liberty,
property, and religion, but really aiming at the conquest of the
kingdom. The King declared his purpose to resist this attempt, to
venture his life for the honour of the nation; and deferring at present
the meeting of Parliament, he called upon his subjects to resist their
enemies, and prohibited any assistance being given them on pain of high
treason.[26]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
The Bishops were dissatisfied with the interview of the 28th, and
requested the Archbishop to procure another audience. One was
appointed for Tuesday, the 2nd of October; then it was postponed until
the following day. The Prelates occupied the interval in careful
deliberation, and drew up a paper, in which they advised, that the
management of affairs in the counties should be entrusted to qualified
persons amongst the nobility and gentry; that the Ecclesiastical
Commission should be annulled, dispensations terminated, the President
and Fellows of Magdalen restored, licenses to Papists recalled,
the Vicars Apostolical inhibited, vacant Bishoprics filled, _Quo
Warrantos_ superseded, charters restored, a Parliament called, in
which, with due regard to the security of the Established Religion,
liberty of conscience should be granted; and, finally, permission
vouchsafed to the Bishops to attempt the re-conversion of His Majesty
to the Protestant faith.
The paper containing this advice was signed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Asaph, Ely,
Chichester, Rochester, Bath and Wells, and Peterborough.[27]
Before the Bishops were admitted to the conference, James made
another concession to popular excitement, by declaring in Council
to the Aldermen of London, his intention to restore to the City the
much-prized charter of which it had been deprived.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
On the 3rd of October the second meeting of the Bishops with the King
occurred. They presented their paper, and whatever the immediate
effect of their last request might have been, they now received the
assurance of a gracious consideration being given to their requests.
The King almost immediately afterwards extinguished the Commission, and
signified his purpose of rectifying corporate abuses.[28]
Within a few days, collects were drawn up by the Bishops, to be used in
all cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches and chapels within
the kingdom during this time of public danger. They received His
Majesty’s approval, and were printed for general use. It is curious to
observe that they are so framed as to lay all the blame of existing
calamities on the shoulders of the people, and to breathe a spirit of
intense loyalty to His Majesty’s person.[29]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Upon the 12th of October, the King authorized the Bishop of Winchester
to settle the troubles at Magdalen College; but so suspicious had
the public become in reference to the Royal sincerity, that it was
currently and falsely reported immediately afterwards, that he had
altered his mind, and withdrawn the order.[30]
Repeated Royal conferences could not be held without attracting
attention. They became the subject of common talk, and the suspicious
temper of people appeared in a rumour, that the right reverend fathers
were being hoodwinked by a Popish Sovereign and his Popish Councillors.
Evelyn wrote to Sancroft on the 10th of October, telling him that
the calling of His Grace and the Bishops to Court, and what had
been required of them, was only calculated to create jealousies and
suspicions amongst well-meaning people--the whole of the plan being
the work of Jesuits. He also complained that in all the Declarations
published in pretended favour of the Church of England, there was not
once any mention made of the Reformed or Protestant religion.[31]
In another letter, the contents of which were intended to be
communicated to His Grace, serious charges are alluded to as brought
against the Bishops.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
“Knowing your interest in my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury,” says the
writer, “you are desired to let him know that it was my fortune this
week to have the sight of a most malicious libel against the most
eminent Bishops of the Church of England; the extent and substance of
it is to show how the Bishops mind only popularity, and to make a noise
in the world. For that the Bishops themselves do dispense with the laws
and canons of the Church, as well as the King hath done by virtue of
his prerogative. This was lent me to peruse one evening, so that I
could not read it fully, but the chief thing they aim at is to show
that the Bishops do dispense with non-residence, contrary to the canons
of the Church and the Statute of the land, made 21 Henry VIII. 13.
Some things are frivolous, and some very sharp, and I fear too true;
so that I wrote out the heads on the chapter of non-residence, which
is very virulent, and filled with near 300 instances of prebends and
clergymen that are non-resident, contrary to the law in all counties
of England; for they have a perfect account from all counties, except
about eight or ten, which are promised against this term; and had not
this juncture of affairs hindered, it had been fully printed in a few
weeks.” After transcribing the heads, the writer proceeds: ”All these
heads have several scandalous instances (that lack reformation) in
many counties, and it would be happy if my good Lord of Canterbury
did require a speedy reformation, and make all Ecclesiastical Judges
inquire into the truth hereof, and give him a speedy account, and so
prevent these just scandals, which will otherwise fall upon the Bishops
of the Church of England.”[32]
CHAPTER II.
The invitation to the Prince of Orange had been signed by the Bishop
of London on the 30th of June. On the 2nd of November, a Declaration,
bearing date the 10th of October, began to be circulated in England,
the space between June and October having been spent by His Highness in
making preparations for his enterprise. The document, drawn up by the
Grand Pensionary of Holland, had been revised and translated by Burnet,
who sat by the Prince’s elbow, and came to be described as “Champion in
ordinary of the Revolution, and ready to enter the lists against all
comers.”
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The Declaration gave the utmost prominence to the religious question.
An ecclesiastical and unconstitutional Court had been revived,
which had misapplied the Church’s property, invaded her dignity,
and persecuted her members. A plan had been carried out for the
re-establishment of Popery in Protestant England. Monasteries,
convents, Popish churches, and Jesuit colleges had sprung up in all
directions, and at the Council Board one of the hated order had taken
his seat. Political liberties had been violated, charters withdrawn,
Parliamentary government suspended, Judges displaced for their
conscientiousness, and the right of petition denied even to spiritual
Lords; Ireland had been given over to Papists, Scotland had been
shorn of her freedom, and to crown all, the public had been deceived
by the announcement of the birth of a pretended Prince. Hence the
rights of the Princess of Orange had been invaded, and His Highness
had undertaken an expedition “with no other view than to get a free
Parliament assembled which might remedy those grievances, inquire into
that birth, and secure national religion and liberty under a just and
legal government for the future.” He further stated that he had been
earnestly solicited by many Lords, both spiritual and temporal, by many
gentlemen, and by other subjects of all ranks, to interpose.[33]
After James had made his concessions, a postscript to the Declaration
was received from William. The concessions, he urged, went to prove the
truth of the charges made; they arose from a consciousness of guilt;
no dependence could be placed upon them; and only a Parliament could
re-establish the rights of the English people.
Other documents of the same kind followed. The Prince boldly appealed
to the military, reminding them how Protestant soldiers had been
cashiered in Ireland, and Popish soldiers forced upon England. It would
be the crime of the army, if the nation lost its liberty; the glory of
the army, if the liberty of the nation was saved. Herbert wrote to the
seamen, telling them their fate would be infamy, if the Prince failed
of success; dismission from the service, if he succeeded.[34]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
William’s Declaration alarmed James; at last he became undeceived. The
webs woven by Dutch diplomacy were blown away. His confusion increased
at finding he had reason to suspect Bishops as being amongst the
Prince’s allies. He sent in haste to Sancroft on the 16th of October,
and told him of the intention to invade England. He added, it would
be a fitting thing for the Bishops to draw up a paper expressing
their abhorrence of the attempt. The Primate plausibly pleaded that
the Bishops had left London, and strangely declared, that he could
not believe the Prince of Orange had any such design as was supposed.
Matters were allowed to rest until the 31st of October, and then the
King sent for Compton, Bishop of London.[35] He came the next day. The
King referred to William’s Declaration, and read the paragraph stating
that spiritual Lords had invited the Prince to come over. Compton,
with a cunning which in a Papist he would have pronounced Jesuitical,
replied, “I am confident the rest of the Bishops would as readily
answer in the negative as myself.”[36] This skilfully-contrived evasion
was a lie to all intents and purposes; but it took effect, for James
admitted that he believed the Bishops were innocent. When he proceeded
to urge a request that they should publicly disown any implication
in this matter, his Lordship answered that the request should be
considered. The King rejoined, that every one must answer for himself,
and that he would send for the Archbishop to bring his brethren
together.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
A third important meeting followed next day, the 2nd of November,
when the Bishop of London, with Crew, of Durham, and Cartwright, of
Chester--both considered half Papists--and Watson, of St. David’s,
a thorough courtier,[37] were brought together at Whitehall, and the
Archbishop following them there, conducted them into the Royal closet.
The Archbishop explicitly denied having signed the invitation. The
Bishop of London artfully said he had given his answer the day before.
The Bishop of Durham declared, “I am sure I am none of them.” “Nor I.”
“Nor I,” cried the other two. James proceeded to insist that they and
their brethren on the Bench should publicly vindicate themselves, and
express abhorrence of William’s design.
The next day, November the 3rd, the Bishops of London and Rochester
went to Lambeth to dine with His Grace, but finding their brethren of
Chester and St. David’s present, though uninvited, they proceeded to
a friend’s house in the neighbourhood, and returned, between two and
three o’clock, to the Palace, after the other two had left. Then they
conferred with Sancroft as to what should be done.[38]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The fourth important meeting of this kind took place on November the
6th, when the Archbishop, and the Bishops of London, Rochester, and
Peterborough, made their appearance in the Sovereign’s presence; the
Bishop of St. David’s--throughout an object of suspicion--“waiting for
them in the Guard-chamber, ready to thrust in with them to the King.”
The Primate, taking Lord Preston aside, requested him to procure for
them a private audience; upon which the King, through his Lordship,
ordered the obnoxious and forward Prelate to withdraw. The rest told
James they had done all they could, and that if he were satisfied,
they did not care for other people’s opinions; but when he talked to
them of such a paper as he had required, they fell back on the ground
they had occupied before, that scarcely one in five hundred believed
in the genuineness of the document published in the Prince’s name. The
Archbishop did not touch the question of the paper so much wished for
by James, although one had been drawn up, and signed by himself; most
probably the reason of this omission was, that he could not carry his
brethren with him in the matter, and he felt it would not do for him
to make a solitary disavowal on the subject. Presently the dispute
wandered into a confused maze, and the Archbishop could not help
adverting to the treatment which he and his six brethren had received
at the Royal hands. The King was annoyed, but the Primate persevered;
the rest supported him, and His Majesty stood like a stag at bay. James
retorted that if they complained, he had a right to complain too, and
the quarrel became unseemly in the extreme. Indeed, His Majesty was
now beginning to find that whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also
reap, and as he had by his lawyers bearded the Bishops in his own
Court at Westminster, the Bishops in return were bearding him in his
own Palace of Whitehall. The conversation came round to the old point.
James wanted them to sign a paper. They would not. “I am your King,” he
said; “I am judge what is best for me. I will go my own way; I desire
your assistance in it.” Go his own way he might, but they would not
go with him. Whatever their high notions of Royal prerogatives, and
the obligations of subjects, might have been once, the recent trial
had wonderfully opened the eyes of their understanding. They would not
take on themselves the responsibility of publishing any disclaimer. His
Majesty might publish to the world what they had said, if he liked.[39]
“No,” said he; “if I should publish it, the people would not believe
me.” Not believe him? The confession was most humiliating. “Sir,” said
the right reverend father, “the word of a King is sacred--it ought to
be believed.” “They that could believe me guilty of a false son, what
will they not believe of me?” was the bitter rejoinder. James’ credit
had sunk as low as it could. Further talking was useless. “I will urge
you no further,” said he, in conclusion. “If you will not assist me as
I desire, I must stand upon my own legs, and trust to myself and my own
arms.” So they were dismissed.[40]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
One of the Bishops, writing on the 14th of October, had remarked,
“All people’s mouths are now full of praises for our order, to whom
they say they shall ever owe the preservation of our religion,”--a
statement which should be considered in connection with what I have
said as to letters of a different purport addressed to Sancroft. The
fact seems to have been, that whilst some Churchmen were dissatisfied
with irregularities in the Establishment which they blamed the
Bishops for not correcting, others--a far larger number--looking
chiefly at that moment to the religious and political liberties of
the country, regarded certain of the Bishops as making a noble stand
against the designs of James. The Bishops’ popularity increased the
following month, and although Compton’s Jesuitical answer to the
King must be condemned by everybody, and the doubts expressed by the
Bishops present at the interview on the 6th, as to the genuineness
of William’s Declaration, will appear to most people as reflecting
either upon their judgment or their straightforwardness, still their
determination not to submit to James’ dictation was in harmony with
the spirit which had made the seven so popular. Their firmness in this
respect--in connection with the resistance offered to James by other
Prelates not present on this last occasion, and responsible neither for
Compton’s equivocation or their brethren’s remarks about the Orange
documents--certainly operated in favour of the approaching Revolution,
the full nature of which, however, they did not foresee.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The day before this 6th of November a momentous event had occurred, of
which at the time they knew nothing.
William had set sail from Holland on the 16th of October, with a flag
floating over the quaint, high-built frigate, bearing an inscription,
of which the first three words formed the motto of the House of Orange,
“_I will maintain_--the liberties of England and the Protestant
religion.” As it fluttered on the staff, the wind changed, the fleet
had to put back; but the Declaration of the 10th, sent before him,
announced his coming, and people, as they awaited the visitation,
looked out to sea, and prayed for a “Protestant east wind” to waft
over the desired Deliverer. Whilst James was talking to the Bishops on
the 2nd of November, the ship had left Helvoetsluys, and after sailing
northward, had tacked about a second time, and with a fair wind was
making for the British Channel.
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
In the fleet with the Prince was Frederic, Count of Schomberg,
who, though he had been in the service of Louis XIV., remained a
staunch member of the Reformed Church, and entered heartily into the
design of the Protestant Champion, whom he attended in the capacity
of Lieutenant. Another distinguished officer was Isaac Dumont de
Bostaquet--a Huguenot soldier who had suffered for his religion,
and had been driven from his paternal chateau of La Fontelaye, in
France, by the intolerant policy of his infatuated Sovereign. Narrowly
escaping with his life, after a number of romantic adventures, he
found refuge in Holland, and now placed his sword at the command of
the Prince, with all the zeal which could be kindled in the cause of
liberty by memories of tyranny and oppression. In William’s dragoon
regiments of red and blue were fifty French officers, all more or less
inspired by similar feelings. Two companies of French infantry were
commanded by Captains de Chauvernay and Rapin-Thoyras, afterwards the
historian of England. Perhaps the equipment of these soldiers--dusty,
worn, and tattered--appeared to disadvantage when compared with the
brilliant uniforms of the Dutch, the German, the Swedes, the Swiss,
and the English, who crowded within the wooden walls; but they deserve
more notice than they have received, and more gratitude than was ever
paid them.[41] Whilst England afforded a sanctuary to the Huguenots
oppressed by Popery, in their own country,--Huguenots helped England to
keep off the yoke of a like oppression. There were other noteworthy men
amongst William’s followers.
Gilbert Burnet was there, full of Dutch memories, full of English
hopes, picking up knowledge from the sailors, and musing upon the
issue of his patron’s enterprise, not without side glances at his own
fortunes. Not far off stood Carstairs, a catholic-spirited Scotch
Presbyterian, who had manifested the utmost fortitude under torture,
and who, when his own cause rose to the ascendant, did what is rare,
for he signally manifested the virtue of moderation. Beside him was a
different character, Robert Ferguson, implicated in the Rye-house Plot,
and a ringleader in Monmouth’s rebellion.
The fleet presented a magnificent spectacle. “Nothing could be more
beautiful,” says Dumont de Bostaquet, “than the evolution of the
immense flotilla which now took place under a glorious sky;”[42] and
Rapin, recording his own impressions of the moment, observes, “What a
glorious show the fleet made! Five or six hundred ships in so narrow a
channel, and both the English and French shores covered with numberless
spectators is no common sight. For my part, who was then on board the
fleet, it struck me extremely.”
[Sidenote: 1688.]
Such a fleet, known to be conveying an army to the coast, watched on
its way with imperfect information and with mingled fear and hope,
must have been to Englishmen a spectacle full of excitement, to which
history records scarcely a parallel.
The 4th of November being Sunday, and also the Prince’s birthday,
he spent in devotion. Intending to land at Torbay, he found himself
carried beyond his destination by the violence of the wind, or the
unskilfulness of the pilot; and some measure of agitation,--such as
thrilled the multitudes straining their eyes on the Dover Cliffs,
whilst the quaintly-built vessels passed by,--must have moved the
inhabitants of the towns and villages on both sides the sweep of water
at the mouth of the Ex: as we imagine, on the red sand hills, groups
gathered here and there, peering through windy weather in search of
the ships about to rest under the headland of Devonshire Tor. The next
day, the Dutch reached the desired spot, and “the forces were landed
with such diligence and tranquillity, that the whole army was on shore
before night.”[43]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
The associations of the year and the day were propitious. Just a
century before, God had scattered the Spanish Armada; and on the 5th
of November, 1605, the three Estates of England had been delivered from
the Gunpowder Plot. The Calvinist William took the Arminian Burnet
by the hand, asking, “Will you not believe in predestination?” “I
will never forget,” the chaplain cautiously replied, “that providence
of God which has appeared so signally on this occasion.” Public
worship followed the landing. Carstairs was the first, “Scotsman and
Presbyterian as he was,” to call down the blessings of Heaven on the
expedition; and after his prayer, “the troops all along the beach, at
his instance, joined in the 118th Psalm,” and this act of devotion
produced a sensible effect on the troops.[44] The Prince for awhile
seemed elated, yet soon relapsed into his habitual gravity; but Burnet
only interpreted the general feeling of the moment when he says, “We
saw new and unthought-of characters of a favourable providence of God
watching over us.”[45]
Tidings of what had happened rapidly spread, and excited all sorts
of people, especially such as had religious sympathies with the new
visitors. Devonshire traditions afford an idea of what was felt and
done by Dissenters. A lady, worshipping in a meeting-house at Totnes,
in commemoration of the discovery of Gunpowder Plot, when she learnt
that the Prince had reached the neighbouring bay, immediately hastened,
in company with another like-spirited matron, to meet His Highness at
Brixham, who “shook hands with them, and gave them a parcel of his
Proclamations to distribute, which they did so industriously that not
one was left in the family as a memorial of their adventure.”[46]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
A story is also told that Roman Catholics were at the time eagerly
expecting assistance from the French, and a priest with his friends,
stationed on a watch-tower, having descried white flags on the men
of war as they hove in sight, prepared an entertainment for the
earnestly-desired guests, and proceeded to chant a _Te Deum_, in
gratitude for their arrival. They were soon undeceived, and the fare
provided for the French was enjoyed by the Dutch.[47]
The army next day marched on to Exeter, the officers, like the
soldiers, wet to the skin, having neither change of raiment, nor food,
nor horses, nor servants, nor beds--the baggage still remaining in
the ships. But expressions of sympathy, perhaps timorously conveyed,
cheered them somewhat on this dreary day; and stories are still
circulated amongst the Nonconformist families of the neighbourhood, of
ancestors who watched the landing, and spoke of “seeing the country
people rolling apples down the hill-side to the soldiers.”[48]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
The progress was slow, and the stay at the Western capital long. Thomas
Lamplugh, the Bishop who had approved of the Declaration and of the
conduct of His Majesty’s servile Judges, showed his fidelity to James
by rushing up to London, where he was rewarded with the Archiepiscopal
throne of York. York had been left vacant for more than two years and
a half, with the design, it was said, of being ultimately occupied by
a Roman Catholic. A Popish Bishop had been settled there, with a title
_in partibus infidelium_, whose crosier and utensils were seized
after the landing of the Prince of Orange.[49]
The Dean of Exeter also fled in alarm, and His Highness took up his
abode in the deserted Deanery. The Prebendaries refused to meet him,
or to occupy their stalls, when he marched in military state through
the western portal, well studded with statues of saints and kings;
and proceeding up the nave, with its exquisite minstrels’ gallery,
ascended the steps of the choir, passed under the beautiful screen,
and took his seat on the Episcopal throne,--the ornamentation of which
in ebonlike oak, without a single nail in the curious structure, so
admirably contrasts with the pale arches and the vaulted roof. As soon
as the chanting of the _Te Deum_ had ceased, Burnet read His
Highness’s Declaration, which proved a signal for such of the clergy
and choristers as had ventured on being present, to quit the edifice.
At the end of the reading the Doctor cried, “God save the Prince of
Orange!” to which some of the congregation responded with a hearty Amen.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
De Bostaquet, the French Huguenot, accustomed to the extreme and rigid
simplicity of Protestant worship in his own country, was scandalized
at what he witnessed at Exeter. He regarded the English service as
retaining nearly all the externals of Popery--for such he counted the
altar, and the great candles on each side, and the basin of silver-gilt
between, and the Canons, in surplices and stoles, ranged in stalls on
each side the nave, and the choir of little boys singing with charming
voices. He was touched somewhat with the beauty of the music, but the
sturdy and ultra-Reformer declared it was all opposed to the simplicity
of the French reformed religion, and he confessed he was by no means
edified with it.[50]
Burnet delivered a sermon on the following Sunday; and on the same day,
Robert Ferguson, being refused by the Presbyterians the keys of the
meeting-house in St. James Street, exclaimed, “I will take the kingdom
of heaven by violence!” and calling for a hammer, broke open the door.
Sword in hand he mounted the pulpit, and preached against the Papists
from the 16th verse of the 94th Psalm: “Who will rise up for me
against the evil doers?”[51]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
At first the Prince’s affairs wore an unfavourable appearance--people
of influence did not join him; but before long the tide turned,
“and every man mistaking his neighbour’s courage for his own, all
rushed to the camp or to the stations which had been assigned them,
with a violence proportioned to their late fears.”[52] A hearty
welcome awaited His Highness in many places through which he marched,
the Dissenters in particular hailing his approach. One of them, a
country gentleman, living at Coaxden Hall, rich in rookeries, between
Axminster and Chard, had tables spread with provisions under an avenue
of trees leading up to the house. The gentleman was Richard Cogan,
whose wife Elizabeth, before her marriage, concealed him under a
feather-bed, after the Monmouth rebellion, and so saved his life and
won his affections. His mother had been a Royalist; and amongst many
stories told of Charles’s adventures after his defeat at Worcester,
it is related that this lady covered him with the skirts of her
enormously-hooped petticoats.[53] The clergy of Dorset found themselves
in an awkward position after William had triumphantly passed through
the country. They had received an order of Council, sent by the
Bishop, prescribing prayers for the Prince of Wales and the Royal
family. But now, although some persevered in using the prayers, others
laid them aside. There still exists a letter to the Archbishop of
Canterbury from the incumbent of Wimborne, asking what he should do
under the circumstances.[54]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
When Ken heard that the Dutch were coming to Wells, he immediately left
the city, and in obedience to His Majesty’s general commands, took
all his coach horses with him, and as many of his saddle horses as he
could; seeking shelter in a village near Devizes, intending to wait
on James, should he come into that neighbourhood. Ken was awkwardly
situated, having been chaplain to the Princess of Orange, and knowing
many of the Dutch officers; therefore, to prevent suspicion, he left
his diocese, determined to preserve his allegiance to a Monarch
who still occupied the throne.[55] William found himself in the
neighbourhood where the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth had a few years
earlier unfurled his flag, to which certain Nonconformists had been
drawn, who paid a terrible penalty for their rashness. Many retained
keen recollections of Sedgmoor fight and Taunton Assizes, and could
scarcely calculate upon the success of this new attempt; yet they
sympathized intensely in William’s designs, as is manifest from some
of their Church records containing narratives of the Deliverer’s march
through the west of England. The Declaration said little in favour
of Nonconformists, and only by implication gave hopes to them of
legal security. But the documents received an interpretation from the
knowledge that William believed conscience to be God’s province, and
that toleration is as politic as it is righteous.
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
Three days before the landing of the Prince, James admonished
his subjects, upon peril of being prosecuted, not to publish the
treasonable Proclamations; and on the day after the landing, he
denounced the act as aiming at the immediate possession of the Crown.
Between those two dates, the Scottish Bishops, whose feudal-like
loyalty mastered their patriotism, and placed them in opposition to
their Episcopal brethren of the South, sent an address to the falling
Monarch, in which they denounced the invasion, and professed unshaken
allegiance to be part of their religion; not doubting that God, who
had often delivered His Majesty, would now give him the hearts of his
subjects and the necks of his enemies.[56] Another Scotch address,
breathing the utmost devotion, followed, in significant opposition to
the ominous silence maintained by Englishmen. This flash of enthusiasm,
however, on the other side the Tweed, did nothing for the salvation
of the House of Stuart,--the current of opinion throughout the realm,
amongst high and low, having set in the opposite direction.
At this critical moment, amidst the confusion which reigned at
Whitehall, and as selfish courtiers were waiting to see how they could
promote their own interests, the misguided Sovereign commanded his army
to march towards Salisbury. The night before he himself started for
that city, a few noblemen and Bishops waited upon him with a proposal
to assemble Parliament, and treat with the Prince of Orange; when,
according to his own account, he told the Prelates that it would much
better become men of their calling to instruct the people in their
duty to God and the King, rather than foment a rebellions temper, by
presenting such petitions at the very moment the enemy stood at the
door. He says he regarded them as making religion a cloak of rebellion,
and was at last convinced that the Church’s doctrine of passive
obedience formed too sandy a foundation for a Prince’s hope.[57] His
answer to the request for a Parliament, according to the report of the
Bishop of Rochester, ran in these words: “What you ask of me, I most
passionately desire, and I promise you upon the faith of a king, that I
will have a Parliament, and such an one as you ask for, as soon as ever
the Prince of Orange has quitted this realm. For how is it possible a
Parliament should be free in all its circumstances, as you petition
for, whilst an enemy is in the kingdom, and can make return of near a
hundred voices?”[58]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
James reached Salisbury on the 19th of November, and took up his
abode in the Episcopal Palace,--under the shadow of the noble spire
which rises so gracefully out of the midst of a pleasant landscape of
quaint-looking houses, near the confluence of two rivers, bordered by
gardens and orchards, by green meadows and brown fields. There he had
reason enough to be alarmed by the progress of events, and to reflect
on the instability of worldly greatness; yet he did not despair.
He was wonderfully slow in giving up all hope of help from Bishops. To
the last he seemed to cling to that order with the tenacity of a sailor
who has seized on a plank from a foundered vessel. From Salisbury he
sent for the Bishop of Winchester, who had cautiously remained at his
princely castle during these troublous times. The Bishop wrote to
the Archbishop of Canterbury the following account of this fruitless
visit:--
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
“May it please your Grace,
“His Majesty’s intimation to me, that he thought my presence
would, if occasion required, very much influence his army, I
could not take it for less than a command, and accordingly
posted to Sarum, where I pressed him, with all imaginable
arguments, to call a Parliament, as the most visible way to put
a stop to those confusions which threatened the Government;
and I left him in a far more inclinable disposition to it than
I found him, and engaged several persons near him to second
what I had attempted. The next day, which was Friday, I found
that several of the troops were commanded towards London, and,
waiting upon His Majesty, he told me he would be with me as
to-morrow; so that, in order to his reception, I came yesterday
from Sarum, which is a long journey of above forty miles, and I
now understand that His Majesty comes not this way. This account
of myself I thought proper to give your Grace, that I may
receive the commands, which shall, with all duty, be obeyed by
your son and servant.”[59]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
A spirit of disaffection soon showed itself in the upper ranks. Lord
Lovelace had been deeply involved in intrigues preparatory to the
Revolution; and in a crypt under his Elizabethan mansion, called
Lady-place, at Hurley, so well known to all pilgrims to picturesque
spots, on the banks of the Thames, he had held midnight conferences
whilst all the Whigs were longing for a Protestant wind. He now quitted
his home, at the head of seventy followers, and galloped westward to
join the Prince. Colchester, Wharton, Russel, and Abingdon proceeded
in the same direction; but, what foreboded more mischief, defection
broke out in the ranks of Royalism. Cornbury, eldest son of Lord
Clarendon, and nephew of James’ first wife, at the head of three
regiments, deserted the camp at Salisbury, and joined the Prince--most
of his soldiers, more faithful than himself, deserting him, when they
discovered his treachery. Still worse defections followed. Prince
George of Denmark--the husband of the Princess Anne, James’ daughter,
a person who, with all her weakness of mind, had acquired a reputation
for Protestant zeal--went next. In company with the Duke of Ormond,
he rode off from Andover, having the previous night supped at his
father-in-law’s table. The Churchills--great favourites with James,
great supporters of his cause--soon fell into the stream. The destined
hero of Blenheim, accompanied by Grafton, pushed on his way to worship
the rising sun. A story is told, I do not know on what authority, that
William, on seeing these unexpected visitors, exclaimed, “If ye be come
peaceably to me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you, but if
ye be come to betray me to mine enemies (seeing that there is no wrong
in my hands), the God of your fathers rebuke it.” One of them replied,
“Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse. Peace, peace
be unto thee, and peace be to thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee.”
The Princess Anne, imitating her husband’s example, disappeared from
Whitehall, and in a carriage--preceded by Compton, Bishop of London,
who wore a purple velvet coat and jack boots, with pistols in his
holsters and a sword in his hand[60]--was driving off at the top of
her horses’ speed to the town of Nottingham.
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
The desertions at Salisbury drove James back to London; there the last
drop was added to the cup of his domestic sorrow, when he learned
that his daughter Anne had abandoned his cause. Further calamities
befell him. Rochester, Godolphin, even Jeffreys, meeting their master
in Council, recommended the calling of a Parliament; and at the same
time Clarendon blamed James for leaving Salisbury without fighting a
battle. Eventually, after having bewailed his son Cornbury’s apostacy,
the great courtier thought it the safest course to imitate that son’s
example.
James was now reduced to extremities, and on the 22nd of November he
issued a Proclamation, in which he recalled his revolted subjects to
allegiance with the promise of a free and gracious pardon, and tempted
the soldiers of the Dutch army to come over to the Royal standard with
the promise of liberal entertainment, or of safe dismissal to their own
country. On the 30th, appeared another Proclamation, for the speedy
calling of a Parliament.[61]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
Matters were proceeding favourably on the other side. Crossing
Salisbury Plain, marching past Stonehenge, William and his army, with
great military display, took possession of Salisbury, after which
the Prince occupied a house in the neighbouring village of Berwick.
Clarendon, on reaching the Episcopal city, which had become the head
quarters of the Revolution, alighted at the George Inn, where he found
the Dutch Ambassador; and the next morning waited on the Prince, who
took him into his bedchamber, and talked with him for half an hour,
telling him how glad he felt to see him, and how seasonable the
accession of his son had proved. The Earl, hearing Burnet was in the
house, went to see that important person. “What,” asked the latter,
“can be the meaning of the King’s sending these Commissioners?” “To
adjust matters for the safe and easy meeting of the Parliament,”
replied Clarendon. “How,” rejoined the other, “can a Parliament meet,
now the kingdom is in this confusion--all the West being possessed
by the Prince’s forces, and all the North being in arms for him?”
Clarendon urged that if the design was to settle things, they might
hope “for a composure.” The Doctor, with his usual warmth, answered,
“It is impossible: there can be no Parliament: there must be no
Parliament. It is impossible!”[62]
Clarendon made his way to Berwick--the house used by the Prince at
the time was in the possession of one of Clarendon’s relatives--there
he had a private conference with His Highness, and was received “very
obligingly.” The Earl wished that the opposing parties might come to
terms, and talked with Burnet, who, walking up and down the room, in
wonderful warmth exclaimed, “What treaty? How can there be a treaty?
The sword is drawn. There is a supposititious child, which must be
inquired into.” Clarendon was puzzled at Burnet’s conduct, and asked
him why the day before, at prayers in the Cathedral, he had behaved
so as to make the congregation stare; for when the usual collect
for the Sovereign was being repeated, he sat down in his stall and
made an “ugly noise.” Burnet replied, he could not join in the usual
supplications for James as King of England.[63]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
As William rode on horseback from Berwick to Salisbury, the people
flocked to see and bless him. He acknowledged their affectionate
salutations by taking off his hat, saying, “Thank you, good people. I
am come to secure the Protestant religion, and to free you from Popery.”
William’s popularity advanced with hasty strides from the south to
the north and east of England, obtaining marked manifestation in
certain towns and cities, connected with other and somewhat similar
struggles. The nobility and gentry of the northern midland counties
met at Derby--where, a little more than half a century later, the
Pretender Charles Edward lodged for a few days, flushed with the hope
of recovering his grandfather’s crown--and there they declared it to be
their duty to endeavour the healing of present distractions, as they
apprehended the consequences which might arise from the landing of an
army. They wished there should be the calling of a free Parliament,
to which the Prince of Orange was willing to submit his pretensions.
At Nottingham, the refuge of the Princess Anne--where Charles I. had
raised his standard, and Colonel Hutchinson had held the Castle--many
of the upper and middle classes assembled, to enumerate grievances
under which the nation groaned. The laws, as they said, had become a
nose of wax, and being sensible of the influence of Jesuitical councils
in the Government, they avowed their determination not to deliver
posterity over to Rome and slavery, but to join with the Prince in
recovering their almost ruined laws, liberties, and religion.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
At York--so closely connected with the Civil Wars--Sir Henry Gooderick,
in the Common Hall, addressed a hundred gentlemen to this effect,
“that there having been great endeavours made by the Government of
late years to bring Popery into the kingdom, and by many devices
to set at nought the laws of the land,” there could be no proper
redress of grievances “but by a free Parliament; that now was the
only time to prefer a petition of the sort; and that they could not
imitate a better pattern than had been set before them by several
Lords, spiritual and temporal.” Alarmed by flying reports of what
the Papists were about to do, the Earl of Danby, Lord Horton, Lord
Willoughby, and others, scoured the streets of the city at the head of
a troop, shouting, “A free Parliament, the Protestant religion, and no
Popery!”[64] At Newcastle and at Hull--ground covered by Commonwealth
memories--demonstrations occurred in favour of a free Parliament.
In the fine old Market-place of Norwich, abounding in Puritan
associations, the Duke of Norfolk addressed the Mayor and citizens,
and talked of securing law, liberty, and the Protestant religion. Just
afterwards, the townsmen of King’s Lynn--where one meets with the
shades of Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester--responded to the
Duke in a strain like his own. Berwick-on-Tweed followed in the wake
of other towns. Even the heads of Houses at Oxford sent to the Prince
an assurance of support, and an invitation to visit them, telling him
that their plate, if needful, should be at his service.[65] In short,
a flame of enthusiasm in favour of the Dutch deliverer spread from one
end of the land to the other.[66]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
I have shown that treachery weakened the cause of James; I am sorry to
say, that falsehood was employed in support of William. Two genuine
Declarations were published in his cause; a third appeared, of the
most violent description. It stated as his resolution, that all
Papists found with arms on their persons or in their houses, should
be treated as freebooters and banditti, be incapable of quarter,
and be delivered up to the discretion of his soldiers; all persons
assisting them were to be looked upon as partakers of their crimes.
It stated, also, that numerous Papists had of late resorted to London
and Westminster; that there was reason to suspect they did so, not for
their own security, but in order to make a desperate attempt upon those
places; and that French troops, procured by the interest and power of
the Jesuits, would, if possible, land in England, in “pursuance of
the engagements which, at the instigation of that pestilent Society,
His most Christian Majesty, with one of his neighbouring Princes of
the same communion, had entered into, for the utter extirpation of
the Protestant religion out of Europe.”[67] Burnet, who was in the
secrets of the Prince’s Court, observes, “No doubt was made that it
was truly the Prince’s Declaration; but he knew nothing of it; and
it was never known who was the author of so bold a thing. No person
ever claimed the merit of it, for though it had an amazing effect,
yet, it seems he that contrived it apprehended that the Prince would
not be well pleased with the author of such an imposture in his name.
The King was under such a consternation, that he neither knew what
to resolve on, nor whom to trust.”[68] It has been said[69] that
the Declaration was not made public until after the Prince had left
Sherborne. William did not issue any counter Declaration nor publish
any repudiation of the document, but left it to produce its effect.
Such a want of straightforwardness contradicts his general character,
but most likely those about him, seeing how effective the Declaration
proved, prevented its being cancelled; still, if the main blame rests
with them, their master remains responsible for having at least winked
at the maxim of doing evil that good might come. Years afterwards
one Speke--who had been in the Prince’s army, and who was goaded by
revenge for his brother’s death under Judge Jeffreys--avowed himself
the fabricator of the infamous device, and said that he gave it to
the Prince with his own hand at Sherborne Castle; that His Highness
seemed somewhat surprised at first, but that when he had considered
it, he and those about him were not displeased. No credit can be given
to a man who played the part which Speke confessed he had done. Part
of his statement is improbable, and is contradicted by the relation
of circumstances given by Bishop Burnet. At all events, the effect of
the forgery was terrible, and soon afterwards this same man contrived
another and still more diabolical scheme. In the meanwhile, attempts at
negotiation went on. James had appointed Commissioners to meet William,
but things now reached a point rendering conferences utterly idle. The
Palace was thrown into confusion by the escape of the Royal family, and
the consternation of the Court is reflected in a much damaged letter,
brought under the notice of historical students by the Historical
MSS. Commission. “Your lordship,” says Turner, Bishop of Ely, under
date December 11, 1688, to Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol, both numbered
amongst the seven, “has heard by [this time that on] Sunday night,
the Queen and Prince of Wales [left] about 2 in the morning. They
went [in a boat with] oars to Lambeth, and so, without guards, in [a
coach] towards Gravesend, where a yacht lay for [them]. Many of quality
slink away daily. ’Tis believed [the Ki]ng will follow very suddenly.
_How are the mighty fallen._ [My] Lord, these are sad and strange
revolutions for our general [and grie]vous national sins, which God
Almighty forgive and relieve us. This minute I receive an advice from
the Earl of Rochester that the King is secretly withdrawn this morning.
God preserve him and direct us.”
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
James fled to Sheerness, having burnt the unissued Parliamentary writs,
and thrown into the Thames the Great Seal of the realm. Arrived at
Sheerness, he fell into the hands of the rabble, upon which, as De Foe
relates, “he applied himself to a clergyman in words to this effect:
‘Sir, ’tis men of your cloth have reduced me to this condition: I
desire you will use your endeavour to still and quiet the people, and
disperse them, that I may be freed from this tumult.’ The gentleman’s
answer was cold and insignificant, and going down to the people, he
returned no more to the King.”[70]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
What was to be done? Amidst consternation indescribable, some of the
Peers resolved to hold a meeting in Guildhall, the walls of which
had often echoed with popular cries of all sorts. At this meeting,
held December the 10th, amidst the temporal Lords there appeared the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Winchester,
Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough. The Archbishop of Canterbury
presided, and a sub-committee of three or four drew up a Declaration,
in which they promised to assist the Prince of Orange in obtaining a
Parliament for the welfare of England, the security of the Church, and
the freedom of Dissenters. This was signed by the two Archbishops, the
Bishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough,
and by several Peers. A deputation of four, including the Bishop of
Ely, was appointed to wait upon His Highness. Riots followed. “No
Popery” became the general cry. Roman Catholic chapels were stripped
of furniture, in some instances the buildings were demolished.
Oranges--symbolic of the Deliverer--were stuck on the ends of spikes
and staves, and waved in triumph. The Embassies of Roman Catholic
countries were no longer safe, and the mansion of the Spanish Minister
was sacked. One act of vengeance will surprise no one who has read the
story of the previous reign: Jeffreys, disguised as a sailor, fell
into the hands of the mob, and narrowly escaped with life. Speke, not
satisfied with the fictitious Declaration, invented terrific stories
about massacres, which he said were already begun by the Irish. All
kinds of atrocities were to be perpetrated by the disbanded army. De
Foe repeated that, “the Irish dragoons which had fled from Reading,
rallied at Twyford, and having lost not many of their number--for
there were not above twelve men killed--marched on for Maidenhead,
swearing and cursing, after a most soldierly manner, that they would
burn all the towns wherever they came, and cut the throats of the
people.” He adds, that as he himself rode to Maidenhead, he learnt at
Slough that Maidenhead had been burnt, also Uxbridge and Reading. When
he came to Reading, he was assured Maidenhead and Oakingham were in
flames.[71] Imagination invented all kinds of horrors. In consequence
of Speke’s letters came the _Irish night_, as it is called,
when the citizens of London, in the utmost terror at the thought of
insurgents entering their gates and murdering them in their beds, sat
up till morning,--drums beating to arms, women screaming in agony,
lights blazing at windows, streets lined with soldiers, and the doors
of houses barricaded against the fancied foe. The panic could not be
confined to the Metropolis. It spread to the North; it reached Leeds.
Stories were told of Papists at Nottingham burning and slaying all
before them; whereupon, the people of Leeds mended their fire-arms and
fixed scythes on poles, kept watch and ward, and sent for the military,
who came in such strong force that they amounted to seven thousand
horse and foot. This pacified the inhabitants, until in the middle
of the night there rose a cry, “Horse and arms! horse and arms!--the
enemy are upon us! Beeston is actually burnt, and only some escaped
to bring the doleful tidings!” The bells were rung backwards, women
shrieked, candles were placed in the windows, armed horsemen rode
in the direction where the destroyers were expected; and men with
their wives and children, leaving all behind, even money and plate
upon the tables, ran for shelter to barns and haystacks. The terror
was so great that nothing like it had occurred since the Civil Wars;
but the immediate cause of it all turned out to be the shouting of
a few drunken people. Again came the cry of “Fire! fire! Horse and
arms! for God’s sake!”--simply because beacons were burning over the
town of Halifax. Whether deluded, or wishing to keep up an excitement
for political purposes, military expresses brought pretended advice
“that the Irish were broken into parties and dispersed.” The whole
was managed so artfully, that one who inquired into the matter could
not learn who contrived it.[72] Hatred against the Roman Catholics,
kindled by atrocious falsehoods, contributed to strengthen a desire
for the expatriation of all priests; but other causes, according to
the confession of Jesuits themselves, helped to bring on the downfall
of Popery. Father Con, an active Jesuit in London, wrote a letter to
the provincial of his order at Rome, telling a story, in which he
ascribes a considerable share in the catastrophe, to his own party, and
especially to D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio. The mischief, he said, came
from their own avarice and ambition. The King had “made use of fools,
knaves, and blockheads,” and the favoured agent, instead of being a
“moderate, discreet, and sagacious minister,” was a “mere boy, a fine,
showy fop, to make love to the ladies.”[73]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
James, after a short detention at Sheerness, returned to London. Lord
Middleton heard of his coming, and hurriedly scrawled a note in these
words: “The King will be at Rochester this night, and intends to be
at Whitehall to-morrow; has ordered his coaches to meet him at his
lodgings.” Immediately from Westminster, under date “Dec. 15, 1688, 7
at night,” the Bishop of Winchester wrote to Sancroft, “May it please
your Grace--and I am sure it will--His Majesty will be here to-morrow,
and his coaches and guard are to meet him at Dartford. This account and
orders came from my Lord Middleton.”[74]
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
The discarded Monarch came, as Middleton said, and a gleam of loyalty
burst out once more, amidst bells and bonfires. The poor man almost
thought he should gain a new lease of power, and the frightened Papists
came out of holes and corners to welcome their regal friend. He even
ventured to assume a rather haughty tone, but in vain. The die was
cast. The Dutch Ambassador informed him that the Prince would allow no
Royal guards, but such as were under his own command. This amounted to
a demand of surrender. William was in a position to insist upon it.
Three Dutch battalions reached Whitehall at 10 o’clock on the night
of December the 17th. Before the morning a message arrived from the
Prince, requiring James to proceed to Ham, near Richmond. James said he
should prefer Rochester. It mattered little where he went. The party
in the ascendant only wished to get rid of him. He went to Rochester.
There we need not follow him. It is enough to notice that several
Bishops concurred in entreating him not to leave the country.[75] From
Rochester he stole away to France. Next we find him at St. Germains.
As the rejected King slipped down the Thames on the morning of December
the 18th, his destined successor was preparing to take up his quarters
at St. James’s Palace. He disappointed the people, who waited in
the rain to welcome him, by driving through the park. Attended by a
brilliant train of courtiers and officers, he reached the gateway
of the Royal residence late in the afternoon. The Princess Anne,
accompanied by Lady Churchill, both covered with orange ribbons, went
that night to the theatre in her father’s coach.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
William had ordered Burnet to secure the Papists from violence,
thinking perhaps of the probable consequences of the third Declaration.
He renewed the order after he had entered London; in consequence of it,
passports were granted to priests wishing to leave the country; and two
being imprisoned in Newgate, the busy ecclesiastical Minister of His
Highness paid them a visit, and took upon himself to provide for their
comfort. A little incident, recorded by Dr. Patrick, brings before
us vividly the excitement amongst Churchmen at that critical period.
“It was a very rainy night when Dr. Tenison and I being together, and
discoursing in my parlour, in the little cloisters in Westminster,
one knocked hard at the door. It being opened, in came the Bishop of
St. Asaph; to whom I said, ‘What makes your Lordship come abroad in
such weather, when the rain pours down as if heaven and earth would
come together?’ To which he answered, ‘He had been at Lambeth, and was
sent by the Bishops to wait upon the Prince, and know when they might
all come and pay their duty to him.’ I asked if my Lord of Canterbury
had agreed to it, together with the rest. He said, ‘Yea, he made some
difficulty at the first, but consented at the last, and ordered him to
go with that message.’”[76]
Whitehall, which, up to the flight of James, had been crowded by
friends or time-servers, now became a desert; and St. James’s, which
had been a desert, now became a rendezvous for courtiers of every kind.
Those who held staves, keys, or other badges of office, laid them down;
and the whole herd of seekers, expectants, and claimants jostled one
another on the threshold of the house where the new master of England
had taken up his abode. Clarendon went to Court instantly, but could
not get near His Highness for the crowd of people.
[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.]
A clerical address appears to have been amongst the first, if not the
very first, presented to him on his arrival. At noon, after the rainy
night when the Bishop of St. Asaph knocked at a door in the little
cloisters at Westminster, Dr. Paman, a domestic of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, called on Dr. Patrick to inform him that the Prince had
appointed three o’clock in the afternoon to receive the Bishops. “Will
my Lord of Canterbury be with them?” asked Patrick. “Yes, yes,” was
the reply. Whether an interview between the Prince and any Bishops did
take place that day, or the messenger had mistaken the time, or the
appointment had been altered, certain it is that the Archbishop did not
go, and we have no particular account of the presentation of an address
before the 21st.
On that occasion, Compton, Bishop of London, took the lead. Two days
before, he and some of his clergy met to agree upon an address. There
were present persons who desired the insertion of a passage to the
effect that the Prince should “have respect to the King, and preserve
the Church established by law;” and “one of considerable note refused
to go, because these clauses were not inserted.” Certain Nonconformists
heard what was going on, and requested they might unite with their
Episcopal brethren. Compton complied, and on Friday morning, the
21st, when the address was to be presented, sixteen early risers left
their homes and threaded their way through the dusky streets. “No
more could be got together in due time that morning, for the Bishop
was to make the address about 9 or 10 o’clock that day.” They deputed
Howe, Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo “to go with the conformable
clergy (who numbered about 99) and the Bishop of London to attend the
Prince.” Admitted to His Highness’s presence, the Bishop--a perfect
courtier--conducted the interview with becoming grace, addressing
him _viva voce_, and gratifying the Nonconformists by a special
reference to them as brethren who differed on some minor matters,
but in nothing substantial, and who fully concurred in the address
presented, “at which words, the Prince took particular notice of the
four Nonconformist ministers”--an incident which no doubt would give
rise to some talk that memorable Christmas-time.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
A large meeting of Presbyterian and Independent brethren was held
just afterwards, to depute four of their number to wait on Compton,
to thank him for his courtesy, and whilst they were considering this
matter, “there were divers bundles of the King’s letters, containing
the reasons of his withdrawing, delivered or thrown in amongst them
by a stranger. Some bundles had particular directions on them.” The
circumstance indicates the activity of James’ agents, and their idea
that he had special claims on the Dissenters, who had taken advantage
of his Indulgences. But, says the person who records the incident,
“they are the more fortified hereby in their purpose, that they may
cast off the imputation cast upon them by their enemies, as betrayers
of the religion and laws of the kingdom, by complying with the
Court.”[77] Other Nonconformists, who did not hear of the Bishops’
audience in sufficient time, presented a distinct address a few days
afterwards, promising “the utmost endeavour, which in their stations
they were capable of affording, for the promoting the excellent and
most desirable ends for which His Highness had declared.”[78]
CHAPTER III.
England was now in the midst of a revolution. What was its character?
Its ecclesiastical aspects alone demand our attention, but these are so
closely connected with others, that we shall be compelled to look at
them all together. Politics and religion were inextricably interwoven.
They had been so in earlier changes. Changes mainly religious were also
political; changes mainly political were also religious. Lollardism
wrought a vast religious revolution, but though it principally aimed at
purifying the Church, it sought, as a means to that end, the amendment
of the State. The Reformation was pre-eminently an ecclesiastical
movement, but its political entanglements are obvious to everybody.
The Civil Wars were struggles for civil liberty--for the rights of the
people against the oppression of the Crown; but the religious spirit,
at first hidden in the heart of those conflicts, was so strong, and
soon burst out in other forms so conspicuously, that the Commonwealth
of England and the Protectorate of Cromwell became entangled with
ecclesiastical and theological controversies. The Revolution of 1688
came in the wake of the Puritan movement.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The union between Church and State, which runs back through English
history to its earliest days, rendered this intermingling of interests
an unavoidable necessity. Great movements in the Church affected the
Government; great changes in the Government affected the Church. Whilst
this union is obviously a cause of additional complexity, no thoughtful
person can fail to discover in even the simplest principles of polity
and doctrine, forces which are sure to touch society in its temporal
interests, and render inevitable political developments of religion and
religious developments of politics. If the Church were separated from
the State to-morrow, a connexion between religion and politics would
remain.
The two great political Revolutions of England in the 17th century
sprung from religious feeling, from religious antipathies, from
religious aspirations. Fiery impulses, kindled by faith, did more to
scorch and destroy civil despotism than any constitutional traditions,
any maxims of secular policy. Religion was the prime mover in the
events of 1688. Not only did ministers of religion take part in it, but
religion itself entered deeply into the political question. When moving
in one direction the Popery of James prompted him to play the despot,
and when moving in another direction the Protestantism of his subjects
impelled them to fight for their liberties--the two forces came in
contact, and issued in a crash, bringing about the King’s downfall and
the Prince’s elevation. The same influences led to a settlement of the
long-debated question of prerogative--they consolidated the power of
Parliament, they created the Bill of Rights; without such religious
enthusiasm as then existed, it may be doubted whether such a Revolution
would have been possible; and as it sprung from religious causes, so
the Revolution produced religious results. It checked the progress of
Popery, it inaugurated a new form of Protestant ascendency, which has
lasted down to our own time; it altered the position of the Church
Establishment; it materially modified the Act of Uniformity; and it
legally secured toleration. These subjects will claim attention as we
proceed, and a fuller estimate of the character of the Revolution had
better be deferred for the present.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
The Peers met in their own House on the 22nd of December. Nothing of
moment passed. The day before Christmas-day they met again, and we find
Clarendon, with a lingering regard for the Stuart family, asking for
an inquiry into the birth of the Prince of Wales, when Lord Wharton,
an old Puritan, indignantly replied, “My Lords, I did not expect, at
this time of day, to hear anybody mention that child, who was called
the Prince of Wales; indeed I did not, and I hope we shall hear no more
of him.” It was at last decided that an address should be presented to
the Prince of Orange to take on him the Administration of affairs, and
to issue circular-letters to the counties, cities, universities, and
cinque-ports, to send Representatives to a Convention at Westminster on
the 22nd of January following.[79]
The Archbishop did not attend. Clarendon and the Bishop of Ely sent for
him, “but the King’s being gone had cast such a damp upon him that he
would not come.”[80] James, soon after his flight, had written to the
Primate, informing him that, but for his hasty departure, he should
have explained the reasons of his becoming a Roman Catholic; that
although he had not thought proper to do this on a former occasion,
when his re-conversion had been attempted, yet he never refused
speaking freely with Protestants, especially with His Grace, “whom
he always considered to be his friend, and for whom he had a great
esteem.” His own “conversion had taken place in his riper years, and
on the full conviction of his mind as to the controverted points.”[81]
Sancroft, with all his weakness, narrowness, and obstinacy, had a
kindness of heart, which, in spite of the treatment received from
the fallen Monarch, inspired compassion for him in a season of deep
adversity.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Clarendon busied himself in interviews with the Prelates, and we find
that on the 29th of December, he and the Bishops of St. Asaph and Ely
were together reading over the King’s reasons for leaving Rochester.
Different opinions of his conduct appear, together with Clarendon’s
predilections in favour of his old master, in the following passage of
his Diary--a Diary which sheds much light on that changeful time:--“The
Bishop of Ely and I were moved, but the Bishop of St. Asaph took
the paper, and began to comment upon it, saying it was a Jesuitical
masterpiece. I think I never heard more malicious inferences than he
drew from the King’s expression in that paper. Good God! where is
loyalty and Christian charity.”[82] On New Year’s-day, 1689, amidst a
hard frost, Clarendon’s lingering loyalty to James did not prevent his
paying court to William; and afterwards visiting Sir Edward Seymour,
he heard him say, amongst other things, the countenance shown by the
Prince to Dissenters “gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of
England,” and if that Church were not supported, England would “run
into a Commonwealth, and all would be ruined.”[83]
Another interesting peep into ecclesiastical secrets is afforded
by Clarendon, whose report, for the sake of accuracy, had better be
preserved in his own words:--
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
“I went to dinner at Lambeth: Dr. Tenison with me. We went over the
bridge, by reason the river was so full of ice, that boats could not
pass. After dinner I spoke to the Archbishop (as I had done several
times before) of going to the Prince of Orange, or sending some message
to him by some of the Bishops: for he had yet taken no notice at all of
him: but he was positive not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave
me. We then spoke to him of the approaching Convention, and whether
he would not think of preparing something against that time in behalf
of the Dissenters. Dr. Tenison added, it would be expected something
should be offered in pursuance of the petition which the seven Bishops
had given to the King: for which they had been put into the Tower.
The Archbishop said, he knew well what was in their petition; and he
believed every Bishop in England intended to make it good, when there
was an opportunity of debating those matters in Convocation; but till
then, or without a commission from the King, it was highly penal to
enter upon Church matters; but, however, he would have it in his mind,
and would be willing to discourse any of the Bishops or other Clergy
thereupon, if they came to him; though he believed the Dissenters
would never agree among themselves with what concessions they would
be satisfied. To which Dr. Tenison replied, he believed so too; that
he had not discoursed with any of them upon this subject; and the way
to do good was, not to discourse with them, but for the Bishops to
endeavour to get such concessions settled in Parliament, the granting
whereof (whether accepted or not by the Dissenters) should be good for
the Church. The Archbishop answered, that when there was a Convocation,
those matters would be considered of; and in the meantime, he knew
not what to say, but that he would think of what had been offered by
us.”[84]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
What the thoughts of the Archbishop were just then with regard to
Dissenters, it is impossible to say. It is otherwise respecting his
opinion upon another point.
All Protestants, high and low, had united for some months in one
thing--the desire for a Revolution which should put a stop to the
reign of prerogative, and place the liberties of the country upon a
legal basis. But what exactly was the Revolution to be? Who was to
be Ruler in the room of James? As to this pressing subject, opinions
ran in divergent lines. The Archbishop, suffering from ill-health,
worried by distractions around him, shut himself up in his Palace that
cold Christmas-time, and covered closely, with his own neat hand,
twenty-five pages of paper, from which we learn how he looked at the
politics of the hour. Gazing at the engravings taken from his portrait
in Lambeth Palace, we see him--with his simple, honest face, and a
close black cap, such as gives the wearer a Puritan look, but for a
pair of lawn sleeves sometimes worn--industriously putting down the
_pros_ and _cons_ of the puzzle.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
The King is gone. The Government is without a pilot. The captain of
a foreign force is at the head of affairs. How is the Government to
be settled legally and securely? Shall the commander of the foreign
force be declared King, and solemnly crowned? Shall the next heir--the
Princess Mary (the Prince of Wales is not mentioned)--be Queen, her
husband acquiring an interest in the government through her right?
or shall the King be declared incapable of personal government, the
commander being made _Custos Regni_, who shall administer affairs
in the King’s name? “I am clearly of opinion,” writes the perplexed
critic, “that the last way is the best, and that a settlement cannot be
made so justifiable and lasting any other way.”[85] We cannot proceed
through the prolix dissertation in which Sancroft endeavours to support
his conclusion. Every word proves his simplicity and conscientiousness,
but a weaker set of reasons, and a set of reasons more pedantically
expressed, one rarely meets with. Both the moral and intellectual
sides of the man’s character are apparent throughout. But for the
theory of the divine right of kings, and the subject’s duty of passive
obedience, which acted as a spell upon his mind, it would be impossible
to conceive how a person of ordinary intelligence could advocate such
a scheme as he did. Before long it must have been found unmanageable,
leading to a second Revolution. While professedly concocted for the
purpose of maintaining James’ kingly rights, it stripped him of all
power; and curiously enough, as appears on a moment’s reflection, it
is open to precisely the objections which had been brought against the
Puritan Commonwealth’s-men, who administered government against the
King in the King’s own name. To call James sovereign, with William as
_Custos Regni_, was to use words in the way Pym and Hampden and
Cromwell had done. What makes Sancroft’s conduct the more inconsistent
is, that he and his party supported the Act of Uniformity, which
required the Clergy to abhor that traitorous position of taking arms
by the King’s authority against the King’s person, or against those
commissioned by him. Must not William have done this, if Sancroft’s
advice had been adopted? Must he not have defended his Regency by
force against the nominal Monarch, who would have regarded that Regency
as a flagrant usurpation?
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Archbishop anxiously consulted with some of the Bishops of his
province touching this subject, and when the meetings became publicly
known, they received the name of the Lambeth, or Holy Jacobite
Club.[86] They did not all agree. Four of them went home one day from
Lambeth, in the coach of Turner, Bishop of Ely, deploring they should
disagree in anything, and especially in such a thing as that which all
the world must needs observe. Turner wrote immediately afterwards to
the Primate, asking him to draw up propositions against deposition and
election, or anything else which would break the succession, because
he was better versed than his brethren in canons and statutes, out of
which the propositions ought to be drawn. Ken, he said, had left a
draft with him, which might facilitate a completion of the task. The
afternoon of the same day, Turner was to hold a meeting in Ely House,
at which Patrick, Tenison, Sherlock, Scott, and Burnet were to be
present, as well as two Bishops--St. Asaph and Peterborough. These men
were of diverse opinions; how they got on together we do not know, but
it appears some underhand work occurred in reference to James on the
part of the Bishop of Ely. He enclosed, in his letter to Lambeth, a
paper to be kept very private, of which he says, it “may be published
one day, to show we have not been wanting faithfully to serve a hard
master in his extremity; and for the present it will be proof enough
to your Grace, that although I have made some steps, which you could
not, towards our new masters, I did it purely to serve our old one,
and preserve the public.”[87] At any rate, Sancroft appears more
straightforward in this business than some of his brethren.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Clarendon and Evelyn met at Lambeth Palace the Bishops of St. Asaph,
Ely, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, and Chichester. They prayed, dined,
and discoursed together. Outside, some persons were disposed to have
the Princess proclaimed Queen without hesitation; others inclined to a
Regency; a Tory party wished to invite the King back upon conditions;
Republicans preferred to have the Prince of Orange constituted an
English Stadtholder; and the Popish party simply aimed at throwing the
whole country into confusion, with the hope of something springing out
of it to serve their ends. Evelyn records that he saw nothing of this
variety of objects in the assembly of Bishops, who were unanimous for a
Regency, and for suffering public matters to proceed in the name of the
King.[88] Such perfect unanimity, however, as Evelyn supposed, could
not have existed if Clarendon be right, who says he feared the Bishop
of St. Asaph had been wheedled by Burnet into supporting the transfer
of the Crown, and would be induced to make the King’s going away a
_cession_--a word Burnet fondly used.[89]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The presence of the Primate at the Convention about to be held was of
the first importance, and Clarendon earnestly urged his attendance;
but the obstinacy of the one equalled the importunity of the other.
Sancroft would not go, nor would he visit His Highness. “Would you have
me kill myself?” he petulantly asked his noble friend; “do you not see
what a cold I have?” “No,” said the Earl; “but it would do well if you
would excuse your not waiting on the Prince, by letting him know what a
cold you have, and that you will wait on him when it is gone.” All the
reply he could get was, “I will consider of it.”[90]
Whatever might be the opinions of the Lambeth party, the Bishop of
London shared neither in their counsels nor in their sympathy. He
wished to see the Princess Mary Queen Regent, leaving her at liberty,
if she liked, to bestow upon her husband, by consent of Parliament, the
title of King. Nor did the prevalent desire of the councillors of the
Archbishop, for a Regent who should rule in the King’s name, satisfy
all James’ Anglican adherents. Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had at
his back a large number of Divines, and he contended for inviting James
back to Whitehall, with such stipulations as would secure the safety
and peace of the realm--an utterly Utopian idea. Burnet, on the other
hand, talked of William’s having acquired a right to the Crown based
on conquest--a notion scouted by most Englishmen. Nine-tenths of the
Clergy were for upholding the cause of hereditary monarchy; but this
large majority broke up into several sections, nor did the remaining
tenth part entirely agree.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Neither were Nonconformists of one mind. Some were so engrossed in
the discharge of spiritual duties that they paid surprisingly little
attention to the questions of the day. The biographer of Oliver
Heywood informs us that little remains in his papers to show what he
thought of the Revolution, politically regarded. His mind rested on
one point--the liberty of preaching, and it seemed indifferent to him
whether it came by a Royal Declaration or by an Act of Parliament.[91]
Matthew Henry states that it was not without fear and trembling his
father Philip received the tidings of the Prince’s landing, “as being
somewhat in the dark concerning the clearness of his call, and dreading
what might be the consequence of it,”--that he used to say, “Give peace
in our time, O Lord,” was a prayer to which he could add his Amen;
but he stopped there. However, when the Revolution was accomplished,
he rejoiced in the consequences, and joined in the national
thanksgiving.[92]
Another class of Nonconformists were in an awkward position. Their
fault had been that they identified themselves with men and measures
out of all harmony with their own principles. William Penn, Vincent
Alsop, Stephen Lobb, and others had signed obsequious addresses to
James. They had blindly credited him with a love for religious liberty,
and had really, though not intentionally, upheld his despotism. But in
this emergency they presented no word of condolence to the man whom
they had helped to befool, nor did they attempt anything to save him
from his impending fate. A double inconsistency marked their conduct:
first, they contradicted their profession of liberal principles; next,
they contradicted their profession of personal regard. They were galled
by the reproach of enemies, also they must have felt reproaches of
conscience.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Another class of Nonconformists had, without any compromise, availed
themselves of the liberty offered them, though disliking the
unconstitutional quarter whence it came. When the Revolution took
place, most of these, and others who survived to witness it, were
delighted and thankful. What John Howe did appears from what I have
said already, and shall have to say hereafter. Baxter had become
too old and infirm to take any active part in public business.
Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo, as we have seen, joined Howe in the
clerical address to William on the 21st of December; others presented
congratulations afterwards.
If Protestant Nonconformists formed a twentieth part of the population,
the community to that extent may be reckoned as rejoicing in the
downfall of James; probably by far the larger part supported the claims
of William; yet a few old Republicans--Independent and Baptist--would,
I apprehend, have preferred to see a Commonwealth, with the Prince of
Orange in a presidential chair, such as the Lord Protector Cromwell had
occupied.
It is no part of my task to describe minutely the method by which
the new settlement was effected: an outline is sufficient. A meeting
had been summoned by His Highness for the 26th of December, 1688, to
consist, first, of all such persons as had been Knights or Burgesses
in any of the Parliaments of Charles II.; and next, of the Lord Mayor
and Aldermen of the City of London, with fifty of the Common Council
chosen by the whole body. This mode of proceeding appears remarkably
conservative, and so far was in harmony with all the great changes
wrought in the political government of this country.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
When those who formed this meeting mooted the question, “What authority
they had to assemble,” they agreed, “that the request of His Highness
the Prince was a sufficient warrant,” and proceeded to entrust him
with the administration of public affairs until a Convention should be
held, which he was to call by writs addressed to the Lords temporal
and spiritual, being Protestants, and to the counties, universities,
cities, and boroughs of England.[93]
A Convention being elected, the members met on the 22nd of January,
1689. It was composed of Protestants alone. These Protestants being
chiefly Whigs, and those Whigs numbering an immense majority of
Episcopalians, perhaps not more than twenty Nonconformists were
returned--a fact which ought to be carefully borne in mind.
The day on which the Commons assembled, the Lords also appeared, to
the number of about ninety, of whom sixteen were spiritual Peers. No
prayers were read; the first thing done, after a short letter from the
Prince had been laid on the table, was the appointment of a day of
solemn thanksgiving.
Eleven Bishops were selected to draw up a form for the purpose,
and it does not appear that any of them scrupled to undertake this
service.[94] The 30th of January fell on a Sunday; and in such a case
it had been arranged that the office for Charles’ martyrdom should be
used on that day, and the observances of the fast transferred to the
next. On the 30th, however, Evelyn notices that “in all the public
offices and pulpit prayers, the collects and litany for the King and
Queen were curtailed and mutilated.” On the 31st the thanksgiving set
aside the fast. Burnet preached before the Commons, saying, “You feel
a great deal, and promise a great deal more; and your are now in the
right way to it, when you come with the solemnities of thanksgiving to
offer up your acknowledgments to that Fountain of Life to whom you owe
this new lease of your own.”[95]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Bishop of St. Asaph, whose political sympathies have been
indicated, was appointed to preach before the Lords at Westminster
Abbey on the 31st, but according to Clarendon, Mr. Gee took his
place.[96]
The House of Commons, after the customary formalities, and the election
of Mr. Powle as Speaker, and an expression of concurrence in the Lords’
order respecting a day of thanksgiving, proceeded, on the 28th, to
debate on the state of the nation. Amidst multifarious topics, Popery,
the Church, and the divine right of kings were prominent; and the next
day Colonel Birch, the Puritan, gave his view of past and present
struggles by saying, “These forty years we have been scrambling for
our religion, and have saved but little of it. We have been striving
against Antichrist, Popery, and Tyranny.”[97]
The House voted that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the
constitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract between
King and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons,
having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of
the Kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was
thereby vacant. The next day it was resolved that it had been found
by experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this
Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Thanks were given to the clergymen who had assailed Popery, and had
refused to read the King’s Declaration.[98] Things deemed necessary
for better securing religious liberty and law were reported from a
Committee, who particularly specified, “effectual provision to be made
for the liberty of Protestants in the exercise of their religion, and
for uniting all Protestants in the matter of public worship as far as
may be”--in which provision, are found germs of the Toleration and
Comprehension Bills.
The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for a
Protestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant,
much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne was
vacant--only for the present supposing it to be so--they wished to
determine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to be
devolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debated
by Sancroft and his brethren. He was not present now, but they were;
and in the minority of 49 for a Regency against 51 for a King, occur
the names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph,
who in this matter had not been “wheedled” by Burnet, as Clarendon
surmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, as
a Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishop
approved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of London
and Bristol.[99] The question raised in an abstract form--whether or
no there was an original contract between King and people--involved
a controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops had
maintained. For the principle of a social compact, 53 Peers voted
against 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea of
a contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had broken
it; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, “_deserted_
the Government,” for the Commons’ phrase, “_abdicated_ the
Government;” nor would the majority allow the word _vacant_ to
stand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies;
and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimately
devolved upon the Princess of Orange--the claim of the infant Prince
of Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus at
issue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed.
The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walking
and lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs and
Tories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled at
the doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accession
of William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses members
crossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, according
as they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter in
dispute.[100]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
A conference ensued between the Houses. The Bishop of Ely strenuously
argued against using the word _abdication_, or regarding the
throne as vacant; he hoped that Lords and Commons would agree in
this, not to break the line of succession, not to make the Crown
elective.[101] He wished to save the divine right. By some persons
the idea was entertained of making William sole King--an idea which
Burnet resisted, heart and soul, in a conversation held with Bentinck,
the Prince’s principal friend.[102] Amidst the heats of this debate,
the Prince thought it time for him to express his sentiments. It had
been proposed, he said, to settle the Government in the hands of a
Regent;--that might be a wise project. It had also been suggested that
the Princess should succeed to the throne, and that he, by courtesy,
might share in her power. Her rights he would not oppose, her virtues
he respected. But for himself, he would accept no dignity dependent
upon the life of another, or on the will of a woman. Should either of
the schemes be adopted, he would return to Holland, satisfied with
the consciousness of having endeavoured to serve England, though in
vain.[103]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
William’s decision took effect, and the conference ended in dropping
what was theoretical, and in coming to a practical resolution--that the
Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. The
Lords carried this by 62 against 47. Forty of the latter protested,
amongst whom were twelve out of the seventeen Bishops present. The five
who went with the majority were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Sprat,
Hall, and Crew.[104] Crew, the time-serving Bishop of Durham, had
supported James in his obnoxious measures, had fled at the outbreak
of the Revolution, had been lurking on the coast for a vessel to
convey him abroad, and had returned in time to secure the advantage of
supporting the new Sovereign. It has often been said that the Bishops
accomplished the Revolution. No doubt the seven imprisoned in the
Tower brought on the crisis which terminated in the new settlement,
and so far were the authors of the change. Certain of the brethren
contributed, in the way I have described, to terminate the despotism
of James II., but all the seven decidedly disapproved of the Prince of
Orange being constituted King, and two-thirds of the other Bishops
agreed with them in this respect.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Commons would not unite in the settlement approved by the Lords
until they had carefully asserted the fundamental principles upon which
they based the Revolution. The Declaration of Right, embodying these
principles, having recited the unconstitutional acts of James--his
endeavours to extirpate the Protestant religion, and to subvert the
laws and liberties of the kingdom--goes on to state that the Prince of
Orange had summoned the Convention, which Convention did now specify
the ancient liberties of the English people. Amongst them appear the
right of petition, freedom of Parliamentary debate, and the duty of
the Crown frequently to call together the representatives of the
people.[105] William and Mary are then solemnly declared to be King and
Queen; the succession is determined to be in the issue of the latter;
in default of such issue, in Anne of Denmark and her heirs; in default
of her issue, then in the heirs of the King.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
In this Parliamentary transaction two things appear, which have been
ever kept in sight under Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman dynasties,
namely, hereditary right and popular election. That the crown should
pass from a Monarch to one of his own blood had been a fundamental law
from the beginning, modified by a choice of the people in any great
crisis, when the interests of the nation have been seen to depend upon
the succession of one Royal personage rather than another. In 1688,
respect was paid to the ancient tradition. In the Bill of Rights the
hereditary claim is distinctly set forth. “It is curious to observe
with what address this temporary solution of continuity is kept from
the eye, whilst all that could be found in this act of necessity to
countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought forward
and fostered and made the most of.” “The Lords and Commons fall to a
pious, legislative ejaculation, and declare that they consider it ‘as
a marvellous providence, and merciful goodness of God to this nation,
to preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons, most happily to reign
over us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of
their hearts, they return their humblest thanks and praises.’”[106]
But the election of William and Mary, though veiled under a reference
to the throne of their ancestors, is really the point upon which their
accession hinged. Mary’s accession might, by those who disbelieved
that the Prince of Wales was James’ son, be made to depend entirely on
natural descent, but the accession of William could not rest on that
ground; his election was essential to the legitimacy of his rights.
Yet there was no setting aside of any divine laws, no contempt for
the teaching of Scripture, as was pretended by nonjurors. When we are
told “the powers that be are ordained of God,” those words invest with
divine authority all constitutional governments, whether Monarchical
or Republican, whether entirely by descent or wholly by election, or
partly by one and partly by the other; they do not apply alone to
Kings and their eldest sons. To plead nonjuring interpretations of
Scripture in England at the Revolution tended to make men slaves, even
as to plead them now in America would make men rebels.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The oaths of allegiance prescribed, as they led to momentous
consequences, ought to be given. “I, A. B., do sincerely promise and
swear, That I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to their
Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.” “I, A. B., do
swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious
and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, That Princes
excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See
of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare, That no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual,
within this realm. So help me God.”[107]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Before the completion of this Parliamentary manifesto, the Princess
Mary had come to England; and upon the 13th of February she took her
place beside her husband in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall under
a canopy of State, when the two Speakers, followed by the Lords and
Commons respectively, were conducted into their presence by the
Usher of the Black Rod, to offer the Crown upon conditions implied
in the Declaration of Rights. When the document had been read, the
Prince replied, “This is certainly the greatest proof of the trust
you have in us that can be given, which is the thing which makes us
value it the more; and we thankfully accept what you have offered
to us. And as I had no other intention in coming hither, than to
preserve your religion, laws, and liberties, so you may be sure that
I shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur in
anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom; and to do all
that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the nation.”
The day on which this tender was accepted, saw once more the gorgeous
ceremonial by which Kings and Queens in England had been proclaimed.
A long line of coaches passed from Westminster to the City, with a
brilliant array of marshals’ men, trumpeters, and heralds. A pause
at Temple Bar at the Gates, and then a formal opening took place in
due order. The Lord Mayor in a coach, and the Aldermen, Sheriffs, and
Recorder on horseback, conducted the Peers and Commons to the middle of
Cheapside--the train bands lining the way. Then, after declaring that
God had vouchsafed a miraculous deliverance from Popery and arbitrary
power through His Highness the Prince of Orange, and after referring
to the great and eminent virtue of Her Highness the Princess, whose
zeal for the Protestant religion was sure to bring a blessing upon this
nation--the heralds proclaimed William and Mary “King and Queen of
England, France, and Ireland, with all the dominions and territories
thereunto belonging.”[108]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
That evening, the Queen sent two of her Chaplains to the Archbishop of
Canterbury to beg his blessing; and, by a suspicious combination of
two errands, desired them to attend the service in Lambeth Chapel, and
notice whether prayers were offered for the Sovereigns. The Chaplain
being alarmed, asked His Grace what should be done: he replied, “I
have no new instructions to give.” The Chaplain interpreted this as
entrusting him with a discretionary power, and, wishing to keep the
Primate out of difficulty, prayed for the King and Queen who had just
been proclaimed. The act provoked Sancroft, who sent for the Chaplain,
and commanded him either to desist from such petitions, or to cease
from officiating in Lambeth; for so long as King James lived, no other
person could be Sovereign of England. Sancroft’s conviction that a
Regency was the right thing seems to have deepened, when in the opinion
of everybody else it passed utterly out of the question; for the
Primate had a temper which increased in obstinacy in proportion as the
object pursued became unattainable.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The appointment of officers of State immediately followed the accession
to the throne. The reader will bear in mind what has been said in
former volumes respecting the mode of administering affairs in the
Stuart reigns. No Ministry, in our sense of the term, existed then,
men of different political opinions being employed as functionaries of
Government. This usage survived the Revolution; and William surrounded
himself with Whigs and Tories. Reserving to himself the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, he appointed as President of the Council the Earl of
Danby, although that nobleman differed from him in many opinions. Danby
had countenanced encroachments by the Royal prerogatives; he had even
maintained the doctrine of passive obedience. That doctrine he was now,
through the necessities of the times, forced to abandon, and by serving
under a Monarch whose throne rested on the Declaration of Rights, he
virtually repudiated his earlier opinions. He had also persecuted
Dissenters--a policy now professedly abandoned. Yet there remained in
Lord Danby a strong attachment to high ecclesiastical views, and he
was zealous for the old connection between Church and Crown as the
best method of preserving both. Halifax, described as the Trimmer,[109]
had become more of a Liberal, and to him was entrusted the Privy Seal
and the Speakership of the Upper House. The Earl of Nottingham--another
deserter from the Tory ranks--professed that although his principles
did not allow him to take part in making William King, they bound him,
now that the deed was done, to pay His Majesty a more strict obedience
than he could expect from those who had made him Sovereign. He accepted
the office of a Secretary of State--an act which, like that of Danby,
served to give weight to the new administration in the eyes of Tories
and High Churchmen. Shrewsbury, a popular Whig, and a young man of
twenty-eight, was the other Secretary. The Great Seal came into the
hands of Commissioners, the chief of whom was Sir John Maynard, who
had upheld the Petition of Rights in 1628, had voted with the country
party in the struggles preceding the Civil Wars, had subscribed the
League and Covenant, and had advised Cromwell to accept the Crown. He
was ninety years of age, and when presented to William at Whitehall the
Prince remarked, he must have survived all the lawyers of his time. He
replied, “he had like to have outlived the law itself, if His Highness
had not come over.”[110] The Treasury fell into the hands of Whigs,
amongst whom was Godolphin, the husband of Margaret Blagge, a man of
practical ability, but of no fixed principle, a staunch Churchman, yet
one of a class that could live amongst Jesuits under King James, and
could keep on terms with Presbyterians under King William.
This administration--a Joseph’s coat of many colours--proceeded from
a compromise which under existing circumstances seemed unavoidable.
Intended to please different parties, it actually displeased them--a
fact soon manifested. But no political appointment aroused so much
criticism as the nomination of Burnet to the See of Salisbury. That See
had become vacant through the death of Seth Ward; and it was the first
piece of ecclesiastical preferment of which William had to dispose
after his accession to the throne. The nomination of Bishops in our
own time has occasionally provoked immense discussion, but perhaps
nobody ever stepped up to the Episcopal Bench amidst such showers of
abuse as Gilbert Burnet. To select a High Churchman would have been
inconsistent and disastrous; and amongst eligible Low Churchmen, no one
had such strong claims upon William as the friend whom he and his wife
had consulted at the Hague, the Chaplain who had come with his Fleet,
the Secretary who had drawn up his Declarations, and the clergyman who
had advocated his cause from the pulpit. But the very grounds upon
which rested Burnet’s claims made him the more objectionable to many.
These grounds were decidedly political, yet though many a Bishop has
been appointed for political reasons, the services now enumerated
were not exactly such as to indicate qualification for the office of
a spiritual overseership. At the same time it is unfair to Burnet’s
memory not to say, that he was a man of piety, Protestant zeal, varied
learning, large experience, and indefatigable industry. At a later
period, after time had worn down the asperities of the controversy,
a mitre could with much propriety have been given him; but it was
scarcely in accordance with William’s policy in political appointments
to bestow it at once upon one who had obtrusively acted as a partisan,
and inspired so much dislike in the opposite party. It should be
further stated that many Churchmen were deeply offended at Burnet’s
elevation, because they had a strong aversion to what they call his
Latitudinarian and Low Church views. Consequently, when it came to the
point of sanctioning by consecration the Royal nominee, a difficulty
arose. The Dean and Chapter of Salisbury were as prompt to elect as the
King to propose; but the Archbishop of Canterbury no sooner heard of
the _congé d’élire_, than he refused to engage in the requisite
solemnity. Burnet himself goes so far as to say that Sancroft refused
even to see him on the subject.[111] No friendly influence could induce
the Primate to swerve from his determination; but by an evasion, such
as unfortunately too often commends itself to clerical judgments,
he resolved to grant a commission for others to do what he declined
to do himself. The Vicar-General appeared, produced the commission,
and through his officers received the usual fees. To make the matter
worse, when the Archbishop’s conduct was complained of by his own
party, either he, or some one in his name, contrived to abstract the
document from the Registrar’s office; and it could not be recovered
until after Sancroft’s death, when Burnet threatened to commence legal
proceedings for obtaining what was necessary to prove the validity of
his consecration and his right to the Bishopric.[112]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Some Churchmen soon manifested their dissatisfaction with the turn
affairs had taken; and Maynard, the first Commissioner of the Great
Seal, remarked, in a debate upon making the Convention a Parliament,
“There is a great danger in sending out writs at this time, if you
consider what a ferment the nation is in; and I think the Clergy are
out of their wits, and I believe, if the Clergy should have their
wills, few or none of us should be here again.” The remark brought up
Sir Thomas Clarges, who defended the Ministers in the Metropolis, and
praised the Church as a bulwark during the late trials. “Clarges speaks
honestly,” replied Maynard, “as I believe he thinks. As for the Clergy,
I have much honour for High and Low of them; but I must say they are
in a ferment--there are pluralists among them, and when they should
preach the Gospel, they preach against the Parliament and the law of
England.”[113] At a moment when some showed dissatisfaction towards
William, and the highest legal officer of the Crown thus talked about
Churchmen, Lord Danby complained to His Majesty that he did all he
could to encourage Presbyterians, and to dishearten Episcopalians--a
circumstance which, he said, could not fail to be prejudicial to his
Government and to himself.[114] It is certain that no sooner had
William as King of England grasped the reins, than intrigues became
rife; thoughts arose of bringing back James, and men in office began to
express a want of confidence in the New Settlement. Halifax muttered
something to the effect that if the exiled King were a Protestant, he
could not be kept out four months; and Danby, that if the exile would
but give satisfaction as to Religion, “it would be very hard to make
head against him.”[115]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Still, however, a large number of Clergymen not only accepted the new
order of things, but heartily espoused the cause of the new dynasty.
Besides those dignitaries who assisted in raising William and Mary to
the throne, many in the lower ranks, by exhortations from the pulpit,
arguments from the press, and the exercise of private influence,
sought to gather up popular affection, and weave it around the chosen
occupants of the throne. It may be worth while to mention that Samuel
Wesley, Rector of Epworth, the father of John, founder of Methodism,
states that he wrote and printed the first publication which appeared
in defence of the Government; and he also composed “many little pieces
more, both in prose and verse, with the same view.”[116]
CHAPTER IV.
In the laws respecting oaths at the period of the Revolution, certain
changes took place, which from their religions aspect demand our notice.
The new Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Declaration of Rights
differed from the old Oaths of Allegiance imposed by statute law.
To make this change perfectly constitutional, and to secure entire
uniformity in the expression of loyal obedience, it was necessary to
pass an Act abolishing ancient forms, and determining the circumstances
under which a new one should be enforced. Leave having been granted
in the House of Commons upon the 25th of February to bring in such
a measure, upon the 16th of March the Solicitor-General reported
amendments made in the Bill, and upon the 18th of the same month the
Bill passed the House. Being sent up to the Lords, it was read by them
a second time only, attention becoming absorbed by another Bill for the
same purpose, originating in their own House, and on the 25th sent down
to the Commons, by whom it was immediately read, and committed on the
28th. The Journals of the two Houses for the month of April abound in
notices of debates, amendments, protests, reports, and conferences in
reference to this question. Its religious bearings were twofold.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Bill first provided that the new oaths should be taken by
all persons holding office in the Church of England and the two
Universities. No one could sit on the Prelates’ bench, or perform
the duties of a Diocesan; no one could enjoy a benefice, or minister
in a parish church; no one could be the head of a House, or possess
a fellowship at Oxford or Cambridge, who did not “sincerely promise
and swear to bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William
and Queen Mary.” Looking at the baronial and legislative character
of Bishops; at the dependence of many Ecclesiastical preferments
on the Crown; at the national character of the Universities; and
at the relation of the whole body of the Established Clergy to the
Government, there appears the same reason for enacting a declaration
of loyalty from them as from officers in the army and navy. To have
excepted the Church from the obligations of the oath, would have been
to make an invidious distinction between classes of the community
bound by manifold political ties, and it would have been liable to the
interpretation that the Government, conscious of weakness, felt afraid
of the Clergy. Besides, if there be any binding form in oaths--if
they afford any security at all for the stability of a throne, they
certainly needed, in a pre-eminent degree at that time, to be enforced
upon all Ecclesiastical persons, when so many of them were known to be
disaffected to the reigning Sovereigns. The difficulty expressed by
disaffected Clergymen in reference to the new oaths rested mainly on
two grounds. Those of them who had already sworn allegiance to King
James could not reconcile it with their consciences to put aside those
vows, and to adopt opposite ones. In this respect, however, their
case was no worse than that of civilians and military men, though no
appeals for their relief were ever urged. An officer of the Customs,
or the captain of a regiment, might very well feel the same scruples
as troubled the Rector of a parish, or the Dean of a cathedral; and
if exceptions of this sort were once begun, where were they to end?
What could not at the time fail to be noticed, and now must strike
every reader, is, that the men who showed so much sensitiveness with
respect to their former oaths, were, many of them, the very same
persons, and all of them belonged to the same class, as those who had
treated with contempt or indifference like difficulties on the part of
Presbyterians at the time of the Restoration. Yet what was required now
cannot be made to appear so harsh as what had been required before. An
Episcopalian Clergyman had only to promise allegiance to the persons
who occupied the throne, without expressing any abstract opinion on the
subject; whereas, a Presbyterian Clergyman had not only been required
to swear allegiance to Charles II., which he was willing to do, but
had been also required to swear that his previous oath was unlawful;
and to declare, moreover, that the doctrine of resisting a despotic
king is a position to be held in abhorrence. An express denunciation
of former oaths had been required at the Restoration; only a practical
relinquishment of former oaths was required at the Revolution. The
law of 1662 had told the Presbyterian he must denounce the doctrine
of resistance--the law of 1689 did not tell the Episcopalian he must
denounce the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings. At the earlier era
a political dogma had been imposed as a requisite for clerical office;
at the later era no political dogma was imposed at all. Conscience is
sacred; yet whilst I give credit to Clergymen who scrupled to swear
allegiance to the new dynasty, I cannot discover the reasonableness of
their scruples. If any of them did not hold the Divine right of Kings,
it is hard to discern any plausible ground for refusing to transfer
allegiance according to the terms of the new oath; if they did hold the
Divine right of Kings--and therefore preferred a Regency to a change in
the succession, as was the case with Sancroft--still it appears that
they might, consistently with their abstract principle, have sworn
to obey a _de facto_ potentate. At any rate, their difficulties
were less than the difficulties of their Nonconforming brethren
seven-and-twenty years before. Then High Churchmen treated mountains as
molehills,--now they magnified molehills into mountains.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
The second source of clerical resistance is found in the sacredness of
clerical character, and the indelibility of clerical orders. Adherence
to the supposed rights of the King in exile rarely existed, except in
the case of High Churchmen. A belief of the Divine rights of princes
entwined itself round a belief in the Divine right of priests. A notion
that Monarchs should be independent of Parliaments, associated itself
with a notion that Ministers of religion should be independent of human
law.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Sovereigns could not be made and unmade by subjects, neither could
Clergymen be made or unmade by States, therefore such a law as that now
enacted became, in a spiritual point of view, futile, impertinent, even
impious. A strange confusion of truth and error obtained throughout
this reasoning of the Nonjurors. No doubt the Church, as a Divine
community, is independent of human governments. The pastors and
teachers are not the creatures of the Civil power, they are in the
hands of Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks. Of spiritual
office and character the Civil power is not competent to denude any
servant of Christ. But when chief Ministers of the Church are amongst
chief officers of State, when Bishops are Peers, and Clergymen have
legally-vested rights, the case is different. Church temporalities
are from first to last the creations of secular government; and the
authority which gives can take away. Parliament had no business to
alter the religious position of Ministers, but it had a right to
impose conditions, for its own safety, upon those who added to the
character of Ministers that of political legislators and officers of
a nationally-endowed Church. Erastianism had been predominant under
Charles II. It had lingered under James II. It was to be revived and
to be manifested, in some respects more distinctly than ever, under
William III.; but, at the Revolution, many who had been Erastian
enough through the previous quarter of a century, began to be restless
and to sigh for emancipation. Circumstances made them voluntaries in
practice, although circumstances did not make them voluntaries in
principle. As time rolled on, the doctrine of the Church’s independence
came more distinctly within view, notwithstanding their blindness to
its consequences; and the assertion of that independency increased in
earnestness after the rupture, of which I shall have much to say.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
A further religious complication of the measure under review arose
in connection with its first appearance in the House of Commons,
and was renewed in the course of its progress through the House of
Lords. It requires attention. Upon the 25th of February, the day when
leave was given to bring in the Bill for changing the oath, leave was
also given to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act. The
Corporation Act, the reader will remember, enjoined the repudiation of
the doctrine of resistance, the renunciation of the Solemn League and
Covenant, and the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, as a qualification
for municipal office. It had been a blow aimed at Nonconformists; now
that the justice of affording them some relief was acknowledged by
the Whig party, it seemed only consistent that this statute should be
extinguished. In a debate which arose at the time when the two Bills
originated, one member maintained that the Corporation Act “had as much
intrinsic iniquity as any Act whatsoever,” and that it profaned the
Sacrament; another--who said he had been educated for the Church, and
would live and die in it--advocated the repeal of the Act; but a third
contended for the continuance of conformity as essential to the holding
of a public trust, and proposed that the oath of non-resistance,
instead of being taken away, should be explained. All this ended in
nothing. Soon after the Bill was brought in, it was, through party
complications, set aside on a question of adjournment;[117] and the
inconsistency arose of a Government, plainly based upon Revolution,
and therefore upon resistance, being left to enforce a principle
destructive of its own authority; the inconsistency, moreover, was
associated with injustice and ingratitude towards a party zealous
in its support. High Church Tories of course wished to preserve the
Corporation Act, and contributed to its preservation; Low Church
Whigs, though willing to relieve Nonconformists, still wished to keep
Nonconformity in check, and manifested no zeal for the removal of an
engine of intolerance, which lasted down even to our own times.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
Efforts in favour of Nonconformists having thus failed in the Lower
House, like movements were uselessly made in the Upper. The King, in
a speech delivered on the 16th of March, emphatically recommended
Parliament to provide against Papists, so as to “leave room for the
admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve.”[118]
In these words he showed his desire for the alteration of the Test Act.
The Test Act had been passed to exclude Papists from holding civil
office; and, zealous for the accomplishment of that end, Nonconformists
had supported it at the sacrifice of their own interests. There were
members in the House of Lords prepared to carry out the King’s wishes.
They desired to render all Protestant citizens eligible to serve the
State; during the progress of the Allegiance Bill, they supported
the introduction of a clause for abolishing the sacramental test.
But the Tory Lords were too numerous to allow of its being passed;
and some Whig Peers, including the puritan Lord Wharton, recorded a
protest against the rejection of the clause. They protested for these
reasons--Because a hearty alliance amongst Protestants was a greater
security than any test: because the obligation to receive the Sacrament
operated against Protestants rather than Papists: because it prevented
a thorough Protestant union: and because, what was not required of
members of Parliament, ought not to be required of candidates for
office. Not discouraged by defeat, one of the Lords proposed another
clause, the object of which was to render the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper in a Nonconformist place of worship legally equivalent to its
celebration in a parish church. This, like the former attempt, failed;
and again we find a protest recorded in the Journals, Lord Wharton
being again among the protesters. In this protest they amplify what
they had said before, and introduce this additional reason--that His
Majesty had expressed an earnest desire for the liberty of all his
Protestant subjects, and that divers Bishops had professed the same.
The majority of the Lords, in the rejection of clauses for the partial
repeal of the Test Act, proceeded on the same line with the majority of
the Commons, in getting rid of the repeal of the Corporation Act.[119]
But another wish rose in the King’s mind, which received support from
a majority in the Upper House. It is very well known that he desired
to treat the Clergy in general with great lenience, and to make as
much allowance as possible for nonjuring scruples. By conceding so
much to the High Church party, he aimed at reconciling them to those
concessions which, on the other side, he longed to see granted to
Nonconformists. He could not secure the latter concessions, but he
easily secured the former. The policy of the Lords, both Whig and Tory,
both Low Church and High Church, was to discountenance Nonconformity,
and to maintain the Episcopalian Establishment; the policy of the High
Church Peers was to support those Clergymen with whom they sympathized
in Ecclesiastical views, and to relieve them from the pressure of
the new oaths; and the policy of the Whig Low Church Peers was to
conciliate the same party as much as possible. Even Burnet, just
exalted to the Bench, took part in a debate before his consecration,
advocating a mild arrangement of the matter in reference to his
scrupulous brethren.[120] It followed that the Bill left the Lords with
a provision allowing every beneficed divine to continue in his benefice
without taking the oath, unless the Government saw reason for putting
his loyalty to the test. Upon this point the temper of the Lower House
differed from that of the Upper. They inserted in the Bill a clause
rendering it absolutely incumbent on every one holding preferment to
take the oath by the 1st of August, 1689, under pain of immediate
suspension--by the end of six months afterwards, upon pain of final
deprivation.[121] With that claim embodied in it, the Bill went back
to the Lords. They fought for their own gentler method. Conferences
were held between the Houses: compromises were suggested: reports were
made: debates were renewed; but the Lords could not stand against the
Commons, and the stringent method insisted upon by the latter became
the law of the land.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Whig majority in the House of Commons were as zealous as the Tory
majority in the House of Lords in maintaining the Church of England,
but they were utterly averse to the secular and ecclesiastical politics
of that party, which the project of William, supported by the Peers,
sought to win over by conciliation. They could not forget the support
that party had rendered to the Stuart despotism, their opposition
to the Exclusion Bill, their intolerant despotism, and their steady
opposition to the Whig Commons. They could not favour High Church
views, they had no notion of the Church being independent of the
State. If the Clergy received honours and emoluments from the Civil
power, then to the Civil power they must, like other subjects, yield
obedience. The spirit of the House was Erastian; and no doubt passion
mingled with principle--resentment with the maintenance of supremacy.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
The Oaths of Allegiance had at an early period been readily taken by
the Commons, only two of them refusing to swear. In the other House
a vast majority of the lay and spiritual Lords had complied with the
law, but certain Bishops had been incapacitated, or were reluctant in
compliance; others altogether refused to submit to authority. In the
Journal of the Lords for the 18th of March, amongst notices of absence,
we find the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield described as “ill of the
strangury and the stone;” the Bishop of Worcester as “weak in body,”
and very aged; and the Bishop of St. David’s as writing a letter of
excuse, not at all satisfactory. This last Prelate, who had for some
time been mistrusted by his brethren, consulted Sir John Reresby, who
told him to fall back on his own conscience. The next day the Bishop
took the oath.[122] But the Primate Sancroft, Lake of Chichester,
Turner of Ely, Lloyd of Norwich, Ken of Bath and Wells, Frampton of
Gloucester, White of Peterborough, and Thomas of Worcester, steadily
refused, and came forward as vanguard to that body of which we shall
have more to say hereafter.
The oath was taken by the Clergy in various ways. Some, who objected
to its being imposed, felt they could adopt it conscientiously. Some
questioned the lawfulness of it, and did not blame the Nonjurors, but
themselves took the benefit of the doubt. Some swore with a certain
reserve, expressing the sense in which they explained the obligation
with “an implicit relaxation” of the meaning of the words. Others, at
a loss to determine the point, yielded to the opinions of lawyers and
divines.[123]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Coronation Oath came under consideration at the same time as the
Oath of Allegiance, and, like it, occasioned great discussion. The oath
pledged the Sovereign to preserve the Church “as it is now established
by law;” and the Commons were thereby led to inquire into the exact
meaning of the words, whether they affected in any way the question
of introducing changes, such as many most earnestly desired. Some,
who longed for an alteration in the formularies, were anxious that,
instead of the words “Church as it is now established by law,” should
be the words, “Church as it is, or _shall be_, established by
law,” thus expressly providing for new arrangements. It was contended
that the Church doors ought to be made wider, that it might be easily
done, and that in anticipation of this, the proposed alteration in
the oath should be accomplished. Before--some argued--it did not much
matter how the Coronation Oath ran, but it did now that a King occupied
the throne, who might say, “I do not understand what is meant by law.”
They urged no wish for any change in doctrines, but only for change in
ceremonies, and they felt unwilling that the Coronation Oath should
preclude the latter. Moreover, they desired to prevent any taunt from
foreign Protestants of the following kind--“Your Parliament has limited
you to a Church unalterable, and will let in nobody.” Some of those
who objected to the additional words replied, that their omission
would not be any bar to reform; that Parliament had power to alter
laws; that, consistently with the maintenance of Protestant doctrine,
there might be the relaxation of certain forms; that essentials being
preserved, non-essentials could be removed; and that tender consciences
could be brought in at a door without pulling down the rafters to let
them through the roof. Though a rider to the effect, that no clause in
the Act should prevent the Sovereign from giving assent to a Bill for
Church Reform was not formally adopted, yet it was at length clearly
understood that the oath did not fetter the Sovereign in any act of
legislative concurrence, but only bound him in his executive capacity;
the original words therefore were sanctioned by a majority of 188
against 149.[124]
[Sidenote: CORONATION.]
The Coronation, for which this oath prepared, took place on the 11th of
April, when both political parties in unequal proportions participated
in the solemnities. Tory and Jacobite Lords, who had voted for a
Regency, increased the magnificence--one carrying the crown of the
King, another the crown of the Queen, and a third the sword of Justice;
whilst a fourth rode up the middle of Westminster Hall, as champion
for William and Mary against all comers. Noble damsels of both classes
appeared in large numbers and dazzling splendour to swell the retinue,
or to watch the movements of the Regnant Queen; and amongst them walked
the pretty little Lady Henrietta, daughter of the Earl of Rochester,
who had persistently opposed the idea that the throne was vacated by
the departure of James. The nonjuring Prelates would take no part in
the ceremonies; the absence of the Primate was a serious circumstance,
but, by a clause in the Coronation Act, the King had authority to chose
some other Bishop for the principal ceremony of the day. Accordingly he
chose Compton, Bishop of London, to place the crown upon his head. This
Low Churchman and staunch Revolutionist was accompanied by Prelates of
different characters: Lloyd of St. Asaph, one of the seven who had been
sent to the Tower, walked on the one hand, holding the paten; Sprat
of Rochester, who had been a member of the High Commission, walked
on the other, carrying the chalice; and Burnet of Salisbury ascended
the pulpit to deliver a sermon, of which the peroration, imploring
the blessing of Heaven on the King and Queen in this life, and the
bestowment upon them in the life to come of crowns more enduring than
those on the altar, excited a hum of applause from the Commons, who
were seated behind it. For the first time the Coronation occurred
neither on a Sunday nor a holiday; and for the first time really in
accordance with a precedent set at Cromwell’s installation, a Bible
was presented to the Sovereigns as “the most valuable thing that this
world contains;” and it would appear that the identical volume still
exists, for one of the treasures of the Royal Library at the Hague is a
Bible, inscribed with these words: “This Book was given the King and I
at our Coronation. Marie R.” The event was celebrated in the provinces;
garlands adorned with oranges were carried about the streets of country
towns, amidst the beating of drums, the pealing of bells, and the
huzzas of the people, followed at night by the blazing of bonfires.[125]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
As the great Revolution under William I. was perfected by the
Coronation at Westminster on Christmas-day, 1066, so the great
Revolution under William III. was perfected by the Coronation in
the same place on the 11th of April, 1689. In both cases certain
religious rites were necessary to the completeness of the new Monarch’s
inauguration, but in both cases they were celebrated only as a solemn
ratification of a choice made by the national voice. It is curious to
notice, that in addition to the coincidence of names in the case of
the authors of the two most momentous revolutionary successions to the
English crown, there is a further coincidence: each arrived on the
southern shores of England as an invader, and then became the choice of
the people; and neither of them rested on the right of conquest as the
basis of power.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
At the time when the Allegiance and Coronation Oaths were under
discussion, two other important subjects, immediately connected with
Ecclesiastical History, occupied Parliamentary attention. The one was
the widening of admission into the Church, the other was the concession
to Dissenters of liberty to worship according to conviction: both
measures had been repeatedly taken up and repeatedly laid down during
the reign of Charles II.
The steps in reference to Comprehension may be conveniently considered
first.
The Primate Sancroft, it is alleged,[126] looked favourably in that
direction, amidst the excitement to liberal feeling, which sprung up on
the eve of the Revolution: certainly at the beginning of the year 1689,
Lloyd, the Bishop of St. Asaph, Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, Sharp,
Dean of Norwich, and Dr. Tenison, met at the house of Stillingfleet,
Dean of St. Paul’s, as we are informed by Patrick, Prebendary of
Westminster--who was present on the occasion--to consult about such
concessions as might bring in Dissenters to communion, “for which,”
Patrick says, “the Bishop of St. Asaph told us, he had the Archbishop
of Canterbury’s leave. We agreed that a Bill should be prepared, to
be offered by the Bishops, and we drew up the matter of it in ten or
eleven heads.”[127] Coincident with the time when such proposals were
sufficiently matured to be laid before Parliament, but not coincident
with the particular purpose and method which these and other Divines
had in view, was the publication of a draft, by some irresponsible
person, for the universal accommodation of Dissenters, and the bringing
of all parties into communion with the Established Church. This scheme,
which bore the title of an amicable reconciliation, soon dropped into
the limbo of quixotic plans, but it made some noise at the time, and
is sufficiently curious to be worth a few words.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Amidst existing religious differences the principle is laid down that
as there is one Catholic Church under Christ, so there must be many
local Churches framed after some type of political organization. The
Church of England is of the latter kind, placed under the government
of King and Bishops. This Church requires a change. It wants
comprehensiveness. Now, a distinction exists between tolerable and
intolerable religions. Intolerable religions are set aside, but all
tolerable religions, it is affirmed, ought not only to be legalized,
but incorporated in the Establishment. Bishops should be King’s
officers, to act _circa sacra_; and those now called Dissenters
should be eligible for such an office, with power to supervise all
parties, in order to the keeping of them in harmony with their own
principles, so as not to disturb the peace of others.[128] This scheme
included a provision that Ecclesiastical laws should be enacted by a
Convocation, including non-episcopal members, or by the two Houses of
Parliament.
A Bill “for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects” was
introduced in the House of Lords by the Earl of Nottingham on the 11th
of March, and that day received its first reading. Upon the 14th it was
read a second time and committed; and at the same sitting there was
introduced by the same nobleman, and entrusted to the same Committee,
another Bill, entitled “An Act for exempting their Majesties’
Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the
penalties of certain laws.” Two measures, intimately connected with
each other, and embodying opinions and wishes long cherished, were thus
launched side by side, destined to meet different fates. Debated by the
Lords with considerable sharpness, the Bill for uniting Protestants
was narrowly watched by people outside, of different sentiments; and
when no regular system existed for reporting speeches, fragments of
senatorial oratory were casually picked up and preserved from oblivion
by diarists and others; a person who looked at the subject from a
dissenting point of view thus recorded what he learnt:
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The Bill was thought by some not “large enough to comprehend the sober
sort of Dissenters, for it did not grant to them some of the great
points they had always and still did insist upon; and if it were
thought the true interest of the Church and State to comprehend them,
they must enlarge that Bill.”
The Bishop of Lincoln considered ordination by Presbyters to be good
and sufficient, and in order to the taking of them in, it was not
necessary there should be the imposition of Episcopal hands.
The Marquis of Winchester, fervent for Comprehension, as conducive to
the interest of the Church, was unconcerned for the Bill of Indulgence,
since “that would but nourish Church snakes and vipers in the bosom of
the Church.”[129]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Early in the month of April we find the Lords busy with the
Comprehension Bill. Upon the 4th, they were engaged upon the question,
“Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the clause about
the indifferency of the posture at the receiving the Sacrament?” The
votes being equal, the Journal records, “Then, according to the ancient
rule in the like case, _semper præsumitur pro negante_,” that
is to say, the question as to leaving out the clause was decided in
the negative, and therefore the clause remained. “There was a proviso
likewise in the Bill for dispensing with kneeling at the Sacrament and
being baptized with the sign of the cross, to such as, after conference
on those heads, should solemnly protest they were not satisfied as to
the lawfulness of them. That concerning kneeling occasioned a vehement
debate; for the posture being the chief exception that the Dissenters
had, the giving up this was thought to be the opening a way for them to
come into employments. Yet it was carried in the House of Lords, and
I declared myself zealous for it. For since it was acknowledged that
the posture was not essential in itself, and that scruples, how ill
grounded soever, were raised upon it, it seemed reasonable to leave the
matter as indifferent in its practice, as it was in its nature.”[130]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
On the next day another debate rose on an important point. It was
proposed that a Commission should be appointed, including laymen
as well as clergymen, to prepare some plan for healing divisions,
correcting errors, and supplying defects in the constitution of the
Church. Burnet, adopting the questionable policy of striving to please
opponents, and bring them to adopt a comprehensive scheme by humouring
their prejudice--a policy of which he afterwards repented--argued
against the proposed Commission, and upon the question being put,
strangely enough, there was again an equality of votes. The same rule
as before was followed, and a negative being put on the proposition,
the Marquis of Winchester and the Lords Mordaunt and Lovelace entered
their protest against it as contrary to the constitution, inconsistent
with Protestantism, inexpedient as to the end proposed, likely to
create jealousies, to raise objections, and to countenance the
dangerous position that the laity were not a part of the Church. The
Earl of Stamford added a distinct protest, on the further ground, that
to refuse laymen a place in such a Commission was opposed to statutes
of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which
empowered a mixed Commission to revise the Canon law.
The Comprehension Bill, with these modifications, passed the House
of Lords on the 8th of April, and was sent down to the House of
Commons.[131]
Strange again--the fact has been overlooked by our principal modern
historians--before the Lords’ Bill reached the Commons, the Commons
were engaged upon a Comprehension Bill of their own, and upon a
Toleration Bill likewise. The day which saw the Lords reading the
former of these for the third time, saw the Commons also reading a
similar one of their own for the first time, and granting leave to
bring in another Bill, as the phrase went, for “easing of Protestant
Dissenters.”
[Sidenote: 1689.]
But the party in the Commons earnest for Comprehension, had to row
against wind and tide. One member desired the new Bill might be
adjourned for a fortnight; another wished to put it off till Domesday.
Old Colonel Birch impugned the motives of those who opposed the measure
by mentioning the names of two members in the last Long Parliament, who
had objected to a similar proposal, and who proved afterwards to be
Papists in disguise.[132]
Whilst the two Bills for Comprehension lay upon the Commons’ table,
the Commons concurred with the House of Lords in an address expressing
gratitude for His Majesty’s repeated assurances to maintain the Church
of England, and praying that he would continue his care for the
preservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, he
would issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation of
the Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. “It is our
intention,” they add, “forthwith to proceed to the consideration of
giving ease to Protestant Dissenters.”[133] The reference here is to
what is called the Toleration Bill.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summon
Convocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commons
foreclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference to
Comprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debates
on the point dropped in both Houses.[134]
At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particular
attempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibility
must be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge of
the views and aims of different parties interested in the subject.
The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employment
of double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was in
many respects a “glorious Revolution,” influenced the minds of those
who took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men as
Compton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union;
but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,[135] who
introduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman,
must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of its
provisions. Still more difficult is it to understand the conduct of
certain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House,
moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance of
Sancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it.
Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so more
from fear than inclination;[136] and Burnet declares, “those who had
moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted a
very disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselves
by this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and
such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as
the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it.”[137]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they would
not have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or any
encroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext for
dividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denounced
afterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors.[138] The whole
atmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when the
measure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction of
the Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet the
nurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the child
perish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity,
excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifest
partiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters.[139]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, not
to the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to have
been made to it by the Commons. They had appeared at first friendly
enough to the general measure, and when they abandoned it, they did
so under cover of desiring a meeting of Convocation, which might
efficiently deal with the subject. The hapless infant died, not from
violence, but neglect; not through blows dealt by an open enemy, but
from want of nursing on the part of those pledged to cherish it.
The treachery, or apathy, of the Commons can be accounted for when we
remember the character of the House and the circumstances of the times:
as we have seen, but few Nonconformists--not more than twenty or thirty
Presbyterians--could be counted among the members. The vast majority
were Churchmen--some, Tory Churchmen, looking with a sinister eye upon
the whole affair; some, Whig Churchmen, liberal in a limited degree,
but opposed to the principle of Dissent: they cared much more for the
Episcopalian Establishment than for what was called the Protestant
Religion; they had little or no sympathy with the religious sentiments
of the Nonconformists; they were unable to enter into their scruples;
they were afraid that concession might endanger their own community;
and they looked with apprehension upon the nonjuring movement. Much
mischief was foreboded from that quarter, should such alterations
be made as would countenance the idea that the Establishment under
William and Mary was giving up its Episcopalian distinctions. Such an
idea would strengthen the counter schism; for the Nonjurors might be
expected to make capital out of the circumstance, and claim no small
honour for maintaining Episcopalianism in its integrity. Another
circumstance doubtless contributed to the turn affairs took in the
Lower House.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
Dissenters were not of one mind. Philip Henry earnestly desired
Comprehension, “for never,” says his son, “was any more averse to
that which looked like a separation than he was, if he could possibly
have helped it--_salvâ conscientiâ_. His prayers were constant,
and his endeavours, as he had opportunity, that there might be some
healing methods found out and agreed upon.”[140] It would also have
delighted Richard Baxter in his last days to see the door opened as
wide as he had long before desired it should be. Bates would have
been much pleased. The same may be said of Howe. But many were of a
different mind.[141] The Nonconformist advocates of Comprehension
belonged chiefly to the Presbyterian Church. Almost all Independents
and Baptists felt it impossible for any alterations to be made such as
could allow of their becoming parochial incumbents. More than a few had
long been voluntaries, numbers were beginning to look in a direction
opposite to that of an Establishment.[142] Selfishness has been
assigned as a motive. “Some few pastors of wealthy congregations might
be tempted to desire a continuance of the distance between Dissenters
and Churchmen.” Yet Churchmen entertained “more charitable thoughts
of sincere Dissenters.” The balance of temporal advantages certainly
inclined on the side of a nationally-endowed Church, rich in tithes
and other revenues, richer still in rank and prestige. However, it is
unfair to suppose that, except in very rare instances indeed, an eye to
income retained men in Nonconformist positions. Beyond all doubt, had
Dissenting ministers been generally zealous in supporting the measure,
they would have been charged by their neighbours with looking after the
loaves and fishes. Where, however, no love of this world influenced the
decision, the decision might be influenced by prejudice and suspicion;
for persons must have been more or less than human, who, after such
treatment as they had received for thirty years, could be free from
all passionate emotion in estimating the conduct of those who had
been either bitter persecutors or unconcerned witnesses of wrong. The
motives of Churchmen at the Revolution would not always be fairly
weighed by Dissenters. Suspicion, where it could not be justified, may
still be condoned, looking at the antecedents of the case; and where
there was not sufficient ground for imputing dishonourable motives to
Churchmen, there might be enough to lead Nonconformists to suspect,
that no warm welcome would be afforded them within the Establishment,
even should the iron gates unfold. When reports of Comprehension were
rife at an earlier period, an old story had been told to this effect:
Sancho the Third, King of Spain, put aside his brother’s children that
he might ascend the throne. A lady who was the representative and heir
of the dispossessed line of Princes married the Duke of Medina Celi,
who assumed the rights of his wife. He and his descendants accordingly
presented a petition to the Sovereign that he would restore the
crown--a petition to which he gave the reply, “_No es lugar_,”
“There is no room.” This story had been applied by Presbyterians to the
abeyance in which their claims to Church readmission had been held for
more than a quarter of a century. “So our just liberty is talked of,”
says Newcome, of Manchester, “by fits in course; and in course doft off
with _No es lugar_, There is no room.”[143] It was thought the
story remained as applicable after the Revolution as before.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
This fact should be remembered. Comprehension became to all parties
more and more difficult, and to some parties less and less desirable,
as time rolled on. However hard it might be to effect a reconciliation,
looking at the temper of Churchmen in 1662, it became harder in 1689,
looking at the position of Dissenters. They had increased in numbers,
had formed themselves into distinct Churches, had obtained their own
ordained ministers, and had begun to create an ecclesiastical history,
and to cherish in their separate capacity something of an _esprit de
corps_. The opportunity of reclaiming the wanderers, once possessed
by the Church party, had slipped away beyond recall. Overtures, which
would have been eagerly grasped before, were coldly looked at now.[144]
The history of the measures for _easing_ or _indulging_ Dissenters
presents a marked contrast to the history of the measure for uniting
them to the Establishment. The Bill ordered on the 8th of April by the
House of Commons to be drawn up for the former purpose, was read on the
15th. The Bill from the Lords’ House, where it had smoothly passed, was
received on the 18th, and first read on the 20th of the same month.
Both Bills were committed on the 15th of May. What little of the
debate has been preserved shows it to have been brief, desultory, and
superficial--not dealing with any great principles, but only discussing
details, with an outburst now and then of ill-temper. One speaker would
not give indulgence to Quakers, because they would not take an oath.
Another identified them with Penn, and looked upon them as Papists in
disguise. Yet all the speakers supported more or less the principle of
the Bill, although some were of opinion that it should be adopted as an
experiment for seven years.[145] It speedily passed without any such
limitation, and received the Royal assent on the 24th of May.[146]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
The cause of this great and successful measure lay in a deeper region
than that of political intrigue and party faction. Powerful and telling
arguments had long been pressed upon the abettors of intolerance; and
the impiety, the injustice, the absurdity, and the uselessness of
attempting to coerce the conscience, had been demonstrated hundreds of
times on grounds of Religion, Reason, and History. No class of writers
had performed this important service so fully as certain Baptists and
Independents, whom we have had occasion to notice. They had contended
against intolerant laws, not in the spirit of indifference, not because
religion was to them a matter of trivial or secondary importance, but
because it was to them all in all, and they shuddered to see its name
tainted by an alliance with despotic principles. Although their pleas
and appeals did not perhaps to any appreciable extent directly affect
public opinion, yet they secretly leavened the minds of religious
people, and prepared for the coming change.
The doctrine of Toleration has of late been described as the offspring
of scepticism. What kind of scepticism? If it mean scepticism or
unbelief as to the obligation to punish men for opinions, or as to the
moral criminality of errors purely intellectual, or as to the wisdom
of vesting political power in ecclesiastical persons, to say that
this lies at the basis of Toleration is simply to repeat an identical
proposition. But if it mean doubt or disbelief as to religion in
general, or Christianity in particular, then to say Toleration arose
from that cause in this country is simply untrue. Herbert and Hobbes,
according to such a theory, ought to have been the apostles of freedom;
but they were not. Baptists, Independents, and Quakers, according to
such a theory, ought not to have been the apostles of freedom; yet
they were. The same thing may be said of Jeremy Taylor and John Locke.
Whilst, however, the chief advocates of Toleration were religious men,
it is not to be denied that the measure when carried was the work of
the State rather than of the Church. The Liberal Bishops supported it;
but the great body of Churchmen were averse to its provisions. With
regard to a number of the clergy and the laity, the State came forward
as a constable to keep the peace between them and their Nonconformist
fellow-citizens, whose rights they had violated.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Books and pamphlets were not the only nor the main agencies which
brought about the Religious Revolution of 1689. It is remarkable,
that the first of Locke’s famous letters on Toleration was printed
in Holland, in the Latin language, in the year 1689, and was not
translated into English and circulated in this country time enough to
assist in the passing of the Toleration Bill. It threw into form, and
it made plain to the common sense of humanity, those sentiments which
were almost universal amongst the Dutch, and were beginning to be
common amongst the English. It rather justified what was being done at
the time by the Legislature, than prompted or supported the Legislature
in its career. It formulated the reasons of a conclusion at the moment
practically reached; it expounded principles just being embodied in an
Act of Parliament.
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
John Locke brought out the philosophy of Toleration. Toleration had
become the genius of his character. Men whose minds have many sides,
and who, from large human sympathies, tolerate those who differ from
them, are made what they are by wide intercourse with the world. Born
of Puritan parents, educated at Oxford under Dr. Owen, attached to the
preaching of Whitecote, intimate with Cudworth’s family, connected
with Lord Shaftesbury, friendly with Le Clerc, Limborch, and other
Divines of the Remonstrant school, Locke caught and, in the advocacy of
Toleration, reflected influences emanating from diversified sources.
Reduced to a simple formula, the basis of his scheme was this: The
State and the Church are essentially distinct. The Law recognized a
Jewish commonwealth; the Gospel recognizes no Christian commonwealth.
He repudiated all connection between the State and the Church; but he
did not repudiate all connection between the State and Religion, for
he excluded Atheists from Toleration. He also excluded Papists, not
however on religious, but on political grounds.
Locke’s principle, followed out, would have made him a Dissenter;
and it is a fact that he wrote a defence of Nonconformity, which he
never published. Though nominally in communion with the Establishment
to the day of his death, he generally attended the ministry of a lay
preacher.[147]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
A paper by John Howe--in which he stated the case of Protestant
Dissenters--came nearest, in point of time, to the position of a
manifesto in advance, clearing ground for the new law. His paper was
drawn up in the beginning of 1689, yet it may be doubted whether it had
any wide influence in consummating the change.
Amongst the immediate causes of the Bill being passed must be numbered
old promises made to Dissenters by men in power, again and again;
the pledges of political parties of all sorts, Whigs and Tories, Low
Churchmen and High Churchmen, given amidst struggles against Popery
in the preceding summer, all originating in religious impulses; and
especially the influences of William, who honestly advocated liberty
on a wide scale. Beyond this, and more effectual still, there existed
a state of public feeling which, although most reasonable, had not
been produced by reasoning and, though it could be victoriously
defended by argument, had not really been reached by logical formulas.
It is only one of a number of instances in which a change comes over
the legislative enactments of a nation through a change wrought in
the minds of rulers, wrought also in the minds of a people,--the
_Zeit-Geist_, or spirit of the age,--produced by the discipline
of circumstances, and by sympathetic impulses, in which pious men
recognize the finger of Providence. What the Earl of Nottingham said
in defence of his measure when he laid his Bill upon the table, I do
not know; but I apprehend that, as a High Churchman he must have found
it difficult to show how his advocacy could be reconciled with his
antecedents. He might have been unable to explain how, by reasoning, he
had passed from his former to his present position. He and others might
be fairly charged with inconsistency; a suspicion of it might even
now and then cross their own minds. But, like all mankind, they were
the subjects of influences more powerful than syllogisms, they bent
beneath a force mightier than logic. Sophistical theories ingeniously
spun, fondly watched, and for a time vigilantly guarded, get blown to
the winds by the breath of inexorable facts, and of the spirit which
throbs at the heart of them. False systems and ideas are found to be
impracticable; as such they are given up by everybody. It is of no
use to preserve them; they must be thrown away. So with the doctrine
of religious intolerance. Englishmen could endure it in its old form
no longer. A new spirit had taken possession of the age, and ancient
restrictions must at last be sacrificed. But for such facts, men like
Leonard Busher and John Goodwin might have gone on arguing for ever in
vain.
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
In estimating the worth of what was done at this period, it betrays
a narrow philosophy to harp upon the word “Toleration” as being an
offensive term, and to ask, Has any man a right to talk of tolerating
another man in the worship which his conscience bids him render to the
infinitely glorious Creator? It is a curious fact that the word was
not used in the Bill from beginning to end. It is entitled, “An Act
for exempting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from
the Church of England from the penalties of certain laws.” Why dwell
upon what the measure was popularly called--the question is, What did
it accomplish? Its provisions confessedly are imperfect. Restrictions
inconsistent with its principle were left, reminding us, how much
more, certain feelings connected with certain events have to do with
producing them than any abstract conceptions whatever. But the Act did
this, it afforded to all Protestants, with few exceptions, a legal
protection in carrying out their systems of doctrine, worship, and
discipline. It not only granted, but it guarded liberty of conscience.
It threw the shield of law over every religious assembly within open
doors. To interrupt the Independent, the Baptist, the Quaker, in the
service of God, became a criminal offence. The amount of relief thus
afforded can be appreciated only by those who are familiar with the
harassing persecutions of the preceding reigns. By shielding Dissent,
the law, though of course not endowing it, might be said, in a certain
sense, to establish it. It placed Dissent upon a legal footing, and
protected it side by side with the Endowed Church. It confined national
emoluments to Episcopalians; but it secured as much religious freedom
to other denominations as to them. Nay, it secured more--a consequence
necessarily resulting from the difference in relation to the State,
between voluntary Churches and one nationally endowed. By the change
which the Act effected in the legal position of Nonconformity, it
produced a relative change in the legal position of the Establishment.
From the moment that William gave his assent to the Act, that Church
ceased to be national in the sense in which it had been so before. The
theory of its constitution underwent a revolution. It could no longer
assume the attitude it had done, could no longer claim all Englishmen,
as by sovereign right, worshippers within its pale; it gave legalized
scope for differences of action,--for their growth, and advancement,
and for the increase of their supporters in point of numbers,
character, and influence.
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
The restrictions of the Act pressed upon two classes of religionists.
It distinctly provided that the law should not be construed as giving
any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist, or Popish recusant,
whatever. It therefore left in full operation the old laws pointed
at the adherents of Rome,--laws with which James had dispensed, laws
which, with most mistaken views, at that period almost all Protestants
maintained. But not satisfied with a prohibition of Roman worship,
the Government caused to be issued Royal proclamations requiring
all reputed Papists to depart out of London and Westminster, and
confining all Popish recusants within five miles of their respective
dwellings.[148] In connexion with this fact it should be noticed, that
in the month of July, the Royal assent was given to an Act which vested
in the two Universities, the presentations of benefices belonging to
Papists.
The other class of persons to whom liberty of worship was refused,
consisted of such as denied, in preaching or writing, the doctrine
of the Blessed Trinity declared in the Articles of the Church of
England,--a stipulation which indicated zeal for orthodoxy on the part
of a large majority of the House, and which ought to be noted amidst
the strong rationalistic tendencies of the age. Zeal of this kind we
shall find manifesting itself again and again during William’s reign.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Special provision was made for the relief of Quakers. Instead of being
required to take any oath, they were allowed to make a declaration,
first, in common with others, of their abhorrence of Papal supremacy,
and next, of their orthodoxy. The latter declaration ran in these
words: “I, A. B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ
His eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed
for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” It would appear that
this declaration was altered from the original one to satisfy the
Quakers, who, represented by four of their number during the passing
of the Bill, objected to the expression “coequal with the Father and
the Son” as applied to the Holy Spirit, and to another expression, “the
revealed will and word of God” as applied to the Scriptures. These
expressions were accordingly struck out. A Quaker historian observes,
“That as a profession of faith is required of this Society only, it
evinces the truth of the conjecture, that this profession of faith
was started with a view to exclude the people called Quakers from a
participation in the benefits of the Act.” If the remark be true in
reference to the original form of the declaration--but of this I find
no proof--it certainly is not true of the revised declaration, which
received the sanction of Friends, before it was introduced into the
Bill, and was affirmed by them after it became law.[149]
Comprehension fared differently from Toleration; but Tillotson would
not let the former drop. Nobody was more sincere and earnest about it,
and the view he took of the grounds on which Christians of different
opinions might be brought together, appears from a paper copied into
his commonplace book under the title of “Concessions, which will
probably be made by the Church of England for the union of Protestants,
which I sent to the Earl of Portland by Dr. Stillingfleet, September
13, 1689.
“I. That the ceremonies injoined or recommended in the Liturgy or
Canons be left indifferent.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
“II. That the Liturgy be carefully reviewed, and such alterations and
changes therein made, as may supply the defects, and remove, as much as
is possible, all ground of exception to any part of it, by leaving out
the Apocryphal lessons, and correcting the translation of the psalms,
used in the public service, where there is need of it; and in many
other particulars.
“III. That instead of all former declarations and subscriptions to be
made by ministers, it shall be sufficient for them that are admitted to
the exercise of their ministry in the Church of England, to subscribe
one general declaration and promise to this purpose, viz., that we
do submit to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of
England, as it shall be established by law, and promise to teach and
practice accordingly.
“IV. That a new body of Ecclesiastical Canons be made, particularly
with a regard to a more effectual provision for the reformation of
manners both in ministers and people.
“V. That there be an effectual regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts,
to remedy the great abuses and inconveniences, which by degrees, and
length of time, have crept into them; and particularly, that the power
of excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers, and
placed in the Bishop, and not to be exercised for trivial matters, but
upon great and weighty occasions.
“VI. That for the future those who have been ordained in any of the
foreign Reformed Churches, be not required to be re-ordained here, to
render them capable of preferment in this Church.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
“VII. That for the future none be capable of any ecclesiastical
benefice or preferment in the Church of England, that shall be ordained
in England otherwise than by Bishops; and that those who have been
ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce their
former ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of the
validity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, and
is by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receive
ordination from a Bishop in this or the like form: _If thou art not
already ordained, I ordain thee_, &c., as in case a doubt be made of
any one’s baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptized
in this form, _If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee_, &c.”[150]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrust
Convocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin;
Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs ought
to be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offered
for objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change was
accomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however,
considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commission
should be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, to
digest a scheme for “establishing a durable peace.”[151] His object
was good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; for
what chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming to
an agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It was
to renew Archbishop Williams’ Committee in 1641; it was to repeat
the inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relation
between Tillotson’s Committee and the Convocation was more definite
than that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was of
an abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers.
Though Burnet had in April predicted the failure of the scheme, he
in the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influenced
by the Dean’s persuasion and by Burnet’s concurrence, issued, on the
13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishops
and twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissioners
on the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber--that old
theological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare.
Proceedings opened at 9 o’clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissioners
present.[152] After listening to the Commission, they discussed the
question, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church.
Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping the
old custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supported
by Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawing
up the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books and
damnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha,
yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the other
hand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable,
but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessons
from them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church of
Rome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defer
their decision until a larger number should meet; to which it was
replied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would be
referred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon which
the Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, when
Kidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authority
on the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave his
opinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growing
weary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatly
to the improvement of the whole, although the entire translation
differed from the Septuagint, as well as from the original Hebrew.
Nothing was determined, and the meeting broke up about 12 o’clock.
At the next sitting (October the 16th), a serious discussion arose
as to the authority of the Commission itself. Sprat, Bishop of
Rochester--then, as Dean of Westminster, living next door to the
Jerusalem Chamber--had been an active member of James’ High Commission,
and now, inconsistently enough, objected to the Low Commission
appointed by William; yet this was as constitutional as the former had
been the reverse, for _this_ amounted to no more than a committee
of advice, whereas _that_ claimed judicial prerogatives. Sprat
either overlooked or pretended not to see the distinction, and talked
of the danger of incurring a _premunire_ by venturing to proceed
with business. He said a burnt child dreads the fire, and as he had
been deceived with regard to the other Commission, though some of
the Judges were in its favour, he should not be satisfied with the
Commission under which they were now brought together, unless the whole
Judicial bench sanctioned its appointment. After quibbles about the
altered official position of some Commissioners, and the small number
left at the close of the last meeting, he urged the inconsistency
of touching formularies to which they had given their assent and
consent; the impropriety of forestalling Convocational debates; and
the probability of provoking Parliament by usurping its functions.
Sprat found a supporter in Jane--“a double-faced Janus,” as people
called him, for, after being a staunch supporter of non-resistance, he
had conveyed to the Prince of Orange the offer of the University to
coin its plate in the Deliverer’s service; and next, disappointed of
a mitre, had on that account (so said his enemies) abandoned liberal
opinions, and gone over to the camp of Toryism, where he found a more
congenial atmosphere and a more agreeable home.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Another of Sprat’s allies was Dr. Aldrich,[153] Dean of Christchurch,
a man of much higher character than Jane, architect of the Peckwater
Quadrangle, munificent in his patronage and gifts, a master of logic,
a proficient in music, and generous and genial in his hospitality. But
Patrick, the new Bishop of Chichester, came to the rescue, dwelling
upon the difference between the two Commissions, and urging the
high legal sanction of their present operations. Compton, Bishop of
London--still zealous on the liberal side--told his brethren that
what they were doing had received the sanction of the Lords; that if
they did not execute their trust, it would be taken out of the hands
of the Clergy altogether; and that discharging their duty now would
facilitate the business of Convocation, in the same way as Committees
helped on the work of Parliament. Already it appeared that the reverend
and right reverend Commissioners were sitting on barrels of gunpowder;
presently the first explosion occurred, when Lloyd, Bishop of St.
Asaph, one of the most zealous advocates of Comprehension, hastily
rose to move that those who were not satisfied with the Commission
were at liberty to withdraw. This offended Sprat, Aldrich, and Jane;
the last rose in a pet to leave the room, but was persuaded to remain,
and it was prudently advised “that all things that happened at that
time might be kept secret.” The stormy discussion lasted beyond noon,
when the Bishops of London and Worcester and several others retired
to the hospitable table of Dr. Patrick in the neighbouring cloister,
and then went over several amendments to be made in the Liturgy. Two
days afterwards, on the 18th, the Commissioners entered upon the
consideration of ceremonies distasteful to Dissenters. Aldrich and
Jane left soon after the debate commenced, and those who remained came
to the conclusion that, as for receiving the Sacrament, “it should be
in some posture of reverence, and in some convenient pew or place in
the church, so that none but those that kneeled should come up to the
rails or table, and that the persons scrupling, should some week-day
before come to the minister, and declare that they could not kneel with
a good conscience. This was agreed to, and drawn up. Only the Bishop
of Winchester moved that the names of such persons might be written
down, but that was not approved, and after all he dissented from the
whole.”[154]
At the next meeting they took up the question of godfathers, Beveridge
contending for the retention of them as being agreeable to ancient
practice; some, on the other hand, declared that the custom often
became a mere matter of interest, and even went so far as to assert,
“that it was hard to find an instance of a child baptized before St.
Cyprian’s time.”
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The calendar underwent revision, and several Saints’ days were struck
out of the list. Respecting the Athanasian Creed, much was said.
Its use, its theological meaning, especially its damnatory clauses,
had become in an age of rational inquiry, religious toleration, and
latitudinarian sentiment, momentous moot-points. The atmosphere
of theological thought existing at the time, indicated by the
controversies on the Trinity, to be hereafter described, could not
but fix attention on a formulary, which, viewed either as a creed or
as a hymn, not only embodies definite opinion on the most abstruse
of mysteries, but declares that those who do not keep it whole and
undefiled must “without doubt perish everlastingly.” Burnet and
Tillotson were willing to drop the so-called creed out of the service
altogether; so was Fowler--the first of these Divines urging that the
Church of England received the four first General Councils; that the
Ephesian Council condemns all new symbols; that the Athanasian Creed
is _not very ancient_; and that it condemns the Greek Church,
which, said the Bishop, “we defend.” The utmost amount of change
finally recommended as to this formula was its less frequent use and
an explanation of its damnatory clauses. Its repetition was to be
discontinued on the Epiphany, and the Feasts of St. Matthias, St. John
the Baptist, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St.
Jude, and St. Andrew; but its use on All Saints’ Day was recommended.
The word _sung_ was struck out of the rubric, leaving the creed to
be _said_; and the following came at the end:--“The Articles of
which (creed) ought to be received and believed as being agreeable to
the Holy Scriptures. And the condemning clauses are to be understood
as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the
Christian faith [according to the 18th Article of this Church].” These
last words were afterwards cancelled.[155]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The subject of Ordination occupied the members through four successive
meetings.[156] Questions were discussed--first in reference to those
who had been Ministers of other communions; secondly, with regard to
new candidates; and thirdly, as to the ceremony of conferring orders.
The Bishop of Salisbury took a prominent part in this debate, on the
first of these points, contending--that there was room to challenge the
orders of the Romanists, “because that they ordained without imposition
of hands,” and without the words, “whosesoever sins ye remit they are
remitted,” and mixed up the matter with the theory of intention--that
the Church of England had allowed the orders of Foreign Churches in
the case of Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury--that Presbyterians
had been consecrated Bishops of the Scotch Church without being
first ordained as Priests; James I. stiffly insisting upon it, being
present at their consecration in Westminster Abbey; Bishop Andrewes,
after having opposed it, also yielding assent to the service. As to
Dissenters, Burnet strove to apply to their case the allowed validity
of Donatist ordination in the early Church, on the ground of necessity
for the healing of schism. But it was on the Conservative side
objected, that Romanist orders were owned by the Anglican Church, the
Bishop of London admitting that no question arose about the validity
of Roman Catholic orders, but only about the sufficiency of evidence
as to their being properly conferred. Beveridge, in this debate as in
others, distinguished himself by maintaining Anglican views, and showed
that if cheats were put upon the Church by Romanists, so they might
be by the Reformed; yet he admitted, in reference to the case of Du
Moulin, that regular Episcopal ordination is not necessary, where no
cure of souls is involved; upon which the Dean of Canterbury affirmed
that he had heard even of laymen having been made Prebendaries.
Beveridge met the case of the Donatists by pointing out that they were
Episcopalians, and therefore in point of orders did not present any
resemblance to Nonconformists.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
Two passages in the report of the proceedings are well worthy of
attention.
“It was sometimes queried, What good would this do as to the
Dissenters? It was answered by Dr. Still:[157] We sat there to make
such alterations as were fit, which would be fit to make were there no
Dissenters, and which would be for the improvement of the service.”
“It was said, I think by Dr. F., that some of the Nonconformists
desired to be heard. It was replied by Dr. Still: That was not to be
allowed, because doubtless they had no more to say by word of mouth
than they had in their writings; and, that they might do them justice,
there were several of their books laid before the Committee, that they
might consult if there be occasion.”
[Sidenote: 1689.]
In answer to the suggestion of the old compromise of a hypothetical
reference to the invalidity of any former ordination, Beveridge
remarked that it looked like equivocation on the part both of ordainer
and ordained; the first believing the second not ordained before,
contrary to the belief of the second, who did not doubt his former
orders. Burnet replied, there could be no ground for this objection,
if a statement were annexed to the effect that each reserved his own
opinion. Dr. Grove suggested that the former rite might be esteemed,
not as wholly invalid, but as merely imperfect, and that the Bishop’s
laying on of hands would complete what had been previously commenced.
“But to this the Dean of St. Paul’s (Stillingfleet) replied, that in
this point we were to respect two things--first, the preservation of
the Church’s principle about the necessity of Episcopal ordination,
when it might be had; and secondly, the case of the Dissenters,” in
reference to whom he relates, or supposes, a most extraordinary and
indeed unintelligible story, “that it was much like the marrying of the
man, and the woman refusing; but after a term of years she consenting
to go on, the woman was then married alone, without beginning again
with the man.” What that means I leave the reader to find out. The
study of the whole Report is dreary work.
Yet Tillotson, rich in common sense, must have been amused with these
debates. He simply asked why might not the Church of England admit
other orders, as it had been proposed its own should be admitted by the
Church of Rome, when Queen Mary wrote to Gardiner, saying, “_Quod
illis deerat, supplebit Episcopus_.” The Bishop’s supplement was
alone sufficient for the _potestas sacrificandi_, without any
invalidation of what had been previously accomplished. At last the
Commissioners resolved upon adopting the hypothetical scheme--Beveridge
and Scot alone dissenting from that conclusion.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The subject of exercising care relative to candidates occasioned
no controversy; it was proposed that a month before ordination,
testimonials should be sent to the Bishop; and that candidates should
be tested by being required to compose some short discourse in writing
“upon some point or article.” Burnet, not much to the satisfaction of
some of his brethren, who eschewed all ecclesiastical precedents taken
from the north of the Tweed, reported the Scotch method of requiring
the composition of a doctrinal and practical discourse, and the
examination of the candidate in the original Scriptures and in sacred
chronology.
In the Ordination Service the use of the words “receive the Holy
Ghost” gave rise to much discussion, as a command to receive involves
the possession on the speaker’s part of a power to bestow; and Burnet
contended that such a use could not be traced back above 400 years, it
having been introduced in the Middle Ages for the purpose of exalting
the priesthood. The form was originally, that of a humble prayer,
not of an absolute bestowment. Thus it appeared in the Apostolical
Constitutions, in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in the
Canons of the Councils of Carthage--the alteration being the fruit
of Hildebrand’s time. The Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Scot, however,
vindicated the Church of England in her employment of the Saviour’s
words, and asserted that if they be not retained, “there is no form of
ordination authoritatively,”--a very unfortunate ground of defence,
for, as it was justly said, if so, then, the words not being used in
the absolute form until within the previous four centuries, no valid
ordinations had previously taken place. Tillotson selected a quotation
from St. Augustine,[158] proving Christ to be God, because He bestowed
the Holy Ghost; thus suggesting the argument that the Church could not
authoritatively confer the celestial gift, but only pray that it might
be conferred by the Divine Being. The rest of the time was spent in
revising the Daily Prayer, the Communion and Confirmation Services, the
Catechism, and other formularies, and in preparing new Collects.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The second paragraph of the general rubric at the beginning of the
order for Morning and Evening Prayer was struck out, and the following
passage was inserted instead:--“Whereas the surplice is appointed to
be used by all ministers in performing divine offices, it is hereby
declared, that it is continued only as being an ancient and decent
habit. But yet, if any minister shall come and declare to his Bishop
that he cannot satisfy his conscience in the use of the surplice in
divine service, in that case the Bishop shall dispense with his not
using it, and if he shall see cause for it, he shall appoint a curate
to officiate in a surplice.” The new paragraph was afterwards scored
down the side, the following memorandum being appended:--“This rubric
was suggested but not agreed to, but left to further consideration.”
Another memorandum followed in these words, “A Canon to specify the
vestments.”
Numerous verbal alterations were introduced into the Litany,--“sudden
death” being altered into “dying suddenly and unprepared;” and new
versicles and responses were inserted, “From all infidelity and
error, from all impiety and profaneness, from all superstition and
idolatry,--Good Lord deliver us.” With the Litany it was proposed to
connect the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, and the response, “Lord,
have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
To the Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions were added two
new forms: one a prayer to be said before receiving the Communion,
another a prayer for any time of calamity. Forty-two new Collects were
composed; and in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, after the Ten
Commandments, came the insertion of the Beatitudes, with this petition
after each of them, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and make us partakers
of this blessing.” Here, and throughout the whole Prayer-Book, for the
title _priest_ is substituted that of _minister_. In the
office for Baptism of Infants, the presentation of children for that
purpose by godfathers and godmothers is acknowledged as an ancient
custom to be continued; it is added, that if any person comes to the
Minister, and tells him he cannot conveniently procure godfathers and
godmothers for his child, and that he desires the child may be baptized
upon the engagement of the parent or parents only, in that case the
Minister, after discourse with him, if he persists, shall be obliged
to baptize such child, or children, upon the suretiship of the parent,
or parents, or some other near relation or friends. If any Minister
objected at his institution to use the sign of the cross, the Bishop
might dispense with that particular, and name a Curate to act for him.
In reference to the doctrine of Regeneration, the form of Baptism
remained the same as before.
Large additions were made to the Catechism and to the Confirmation
Service, the prayers after the last answer being considerably modified;
and a new prayer and exhortation prepared for the confirmed, who were
required to stay and listen to it.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The “Solemnization of Matrimony,” with several verbal changes, remains
substantially unaltered; but in “the Order for the Visitation of the
Sick,” together with fresh interrogatories, there is this important
change in the words of absolution: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and
believe in Him, of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences; and
upon thy true faith and repentance, by His authority committed to me, I
pronounce thee absolved from all thy sins, in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
In the Burial Service the word “dear” before the word “brother” is
struck out; so are the words “as our hope is this our brother doth.”
“Through any temptations” is substituted in place of the expression
“for any pains of death;” and the last prayer but one is so altered
that the latter portion becomes quite different. It runs thus: “We give
Thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased Thee to instruct us in this
heavenly knowledge, beseeching Thee so to affect our hearts therewith,
that seeing we believe such a happy estate hereafter, we may live here
in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening unto
the coming of the day of God; that being then found of Thee in peace
without spot and blameless, we may have our perfect consummation and
bliss, both in body and soul, in Thy eternal and everlasting glory,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
No one who takes the trouble to read through the report of these
tedious proceedings but must be astonished at the extent of the
proposed alterations. They prove that some of the Episcopalian Divines
who took part in the revision of 1689 must have been a very different
class of men from the Episcopalian Divines who took part in the
revision of 1662. Calamy became acquainted with the alterations, and
said he thought if the scheme had been carried out, it would “have
brought in two-thirds of the Dissenters.”[159] No doubt a considerable
number might have been satisfied, but I consider Calamy to have been
too sanguine in his expectation; his expectation resting mainly on
what he knew of Presbyterians, who were much more disposed to return
to the Establishment than were brethren of other denominations.
But in addition to circumstances already mentioned unfavourable to
Comprehension, the triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland, which
involved the abolition of Prelacy in that country, produced in
Prelatists a great deal of bad feeling, and stood in the way of the
present attempt; this obstacle was greatly increased by Nonconformist
attacks at the time upon the use of Liturgies, and by a constantly
augmenting number of Nonconformist ordinations. Besides, although
extensive alterations came under discussion, very few Episcopalians
were disposed to go to such lengths as were proposed; some who were
active in the affair were also cautious, and an immense majority
outside the Committee utterly disliked the whole business, and were
opposed to any alteration whatever in the formularies.[160]
The changes proposed did not touch any articles of faith, and
therefore exhibit the English Latitudinarian party in a very different
position from that of the foreign Latitudinarians, who threw down
all the barriers of orthodoxy, and opened the doors of the Church to
Unitarians. D’Huisseau, a distinguished professor and pastor at Saumur,
proposed the reunion of Christendom on the broadest doctrinal basis,
and received support from several Calvinistic Divines of considerable
note. The English Episcopalians, who moved in the matter as just
described, rather resembled Jurieu, an eminent French theologian,
ordained by an Anglican Bishop, yet officiating as a Presbyterian
clergyman in France and in Holland. He advocated Comprehension on an
orthodox basis, and treated Church organization and forms of worship as
of minor importance.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The sittings of the Commission ended on November the 18th. Convocation
had assembled on the 6th of the same month.
The labour of the Commissioners was labour in vain. It came to nothing.
All that remains of it is a royal octavo pamphlet in blue paper covers,
published some years ago by order of the House of Commons.
History records many a lost opportunity, which students of the past,
looking at events, each from his own point of view, must needs
lament. To the Catholic--the old Catholic of the Döllinger type--the
Reformation appears a lost opportunity for removing abuses and uniting
European Christendom. It comes before him as a crisis, which, if the
Catholic party had been wise, they would have used for the purpose of
purifying the Church and conciliating opponents, and so retaining them
within the same fold. By the Puritan, freeing himself from party bias,
I should think, the era of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth
must be regarded as a lost opportunity for treating Episcopalians
(their inveterate persecutors) in the spirit of Christian justice and
charity, by granting admirers of the Prayer-Book a freedom of worship
which admirers of the Prayer-Book had never granted to the Puritans;
thus returning good for evil, and so reading with emphasis a priceless
lesson to the whole world. In like manner, surely, the liberal
Churchman of the present day, whatever he may think of Tillotson’s
Commission, must mourn over the Revolution as a lost opportunity
for enlarging the boundaries of her communion, of recovering
Dissenters--not to the extent Calamy supposed, yet in considerable
numbers--and of removing from the Church of England many incumbrances,
which have ever since been points of attack and sources of weakness.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Much excitement had been manifested during the clerical elections in
the year 1661, but there was far greater excitement during the election
of 1689. Canvassing for members of Parliament was an old custom,
but canvassing for members of Convocation was a new one, and at the
time it was noticed as a sign of party spirit then so rife. The fact
is remarkable, that whilst the official members of the Lower House
included many distinguished men, nobody of any mark was _elected_,
except Dr. John Mill, the eminent Greek scholar, who edited a new
version of the text of the New Testament.[161] By far the majority
was composed of persons who had long been Tories in politics, and now
showed themselves to be High Churchmen in religion; but the Upper
House,--thinned, by refusal to attend, of those nonjuring Prelates who
still survived, two of them having died,--contained decidedly liberal
politicians and divines in the persons of Compton, Lloyd, Burnet, and
Patrick, the last of whom had in September been raised to the Bishopric
of Chichester. These Bishops took the lead in the proceedings of that
assembly, and imparted to them a liberal spirit. The difference between
the temper of the two Houses soon appeared.
Convocation had formerly met first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at
Westminster. Now that the new Cathedral of London, though nearly
completed, had not been consecrated, Convocation assembled at once
within the walls of Henry VII.’s Chapel, when a Latin sermon was
preached by Beveridge.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
As soon as the Lower House proceeded to business, the choice of a
Prolocutor was the first step. On the 21st of November, Sharp--who
had in the Deanery of Canterbury succeeded Tillotson, now made Dean
of St. Paul’s--proposed as Prolocutor his distinguished predecessor,
who was a friend of the King, a favourite at Court, a man of prudence
and moderation, and a promoter of the scheme of Comprehension. But
Tillotson was rejected by two to one in favour of Jane. Nobody could
mistake the significancy of the choice. It would appear that personal
feeling had some influence in it. The Earls of Clarendon and Rochester
are accused of having intrigued against Tillotson from resentment
towards his patrons, the King and Queen--the latter of them, although
their near relative, not having raised them to any high employments in
the State. Moreover, it had become known, that Tillotson was intended
by William to be Sancroft’s successor, as soon as Sancroft’s deposition
could be legally accomplished. This circumstance stung the mind of
Compton, who, on account of his former relation to the Queen as her
tutor, and the signal service he had rendered at the Revolution, not
to mention his noble rank, considered he had a claim superior to
that of the Dean. Unworthy motives are often attributed to men upon
insufficient grounds, and I am unable to discover the reasons for
Tillotson’s unfavourable opinion of Compton; but as Tillotson was
not likely to have adopted suspicions without reason, it is probable
that Compton had something to do with the rejection of Tillotson as a
candidate for the Prolocutorship. Knowing what human nature is, one
does not wonder that Compton was annoyed at Tillotson being preferred
to him; yet it should be remembered that if Compton was mortified by
the Royal preference for Tillotson, it did not at present induce him to
abandon the Liberal party. When Jane the Prolocutor was presented to
Compton as President of the Upper Chamber, in the room of the absent
Primate, he finished a speech upon the perfection of the Church, and
the mischief of any change in it, with the words, “_Nolumus leges
Angliæ mutari_,” in allusion, it is inferred, to Compton’s having
adopted that motto for the colours of his regiment, when he had
played the part of a colonel. The Bishop, in his answer, indicated
his adherence to the opinions and measures he had before proposed, by
saying to the Clergy, that “they ought to endeavour a temper in those
things that are not essential in religion, thereby to open the door of
salvation to a multitude of straying Christians; that it must needs be
their duty to show the same indulgence and charity to the Dissenters
under King William, which some of the Bishops and Clergy had promised
to them in their addresses to King James.”[162]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
After the Royal Commission--a commission which spoke of rites and
ceremonies as “indifferent and alterable”--authorizing the Convocation
to proceed to business had been read, and after the delivery of a
Royal message full of gracious expressions, conveyed by the Earl of
Nottingham, the Bishops prepared an address. In this address they
thanked His Majesty for the zeal he had shown “for the Protestant
religion in general, and the Church of England in particular.”[163] To
these words a strong objection was taken by the Lower House. First,
they claimed a right to present an address of their own, which being
disallowed, they claimed a right to offer amendments. They wished the
address to be confined to what concerned the Church of England, and no
mention to be made of the Protestant religion in general. An amendment
being carried to that effect, there followed a conference between the
two Houses--Burnet representing the Upper, Jane the Lower. The Lower
House desired the words “Established Church” to be employed, which led
to a dispute between the Bishop and the Prolocutor. The Bishop argued,
that the Church of England as established was only distinguished from
other Churches by its hierarchy and revenues, and that if Popery were
restored there would still be an Established Church of England. The
Prolocutor replied, that the Church was distinguished by its Articles,
Liturgy, and Homilies.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The discussion between these two Divines resembled that between the
two knights who could not agree about the device on a shield, because
the first looked at it on one side and the second on the other. The
fact is, that the disputants were thinking of different things. Burnet
was thinking only of the circumstance of an Establishment--of that
which is a mere incident to any Church connected with the State; so
considering the question, no doubt he was right. Jane, on the other
hand, was thinking of the Church itself, and not the establishment
of it. Consequently he was wrong in saying what he did of the Church
as established, though he would have been right had Burnet used the
disputed words in the sense in which Jane was employing them. The
logomachy terminated in a compromise; and the two Houses concurred in
thanking William for the zeal he had expressed concerning the honour,
peace, advantage, and establishment of the English Church, whereby they
doubted not the interest of the Protestant religion, which in all
other Protestant Churches was dear to them, would be the better secured.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
The King, in reply, assured the Bishops, that they might depend on his
former promises, and he gave a new assurance that he would improve all
occasions and opportunities for serving the Church of England. There
also occurred in this Convocation, debates about proxies, complaints
respecting the custody of Convocation records, and charges brought
against the publication of books on the Athanasian Creed, contrary
to the Canons. We are informed that a reverend person made a useless
speech on behalf of the Bishops under suspension, wishing that
something could be done to qualify them for sitting in Convocation
without endangering the constitution of the Assembly; and Burnet tells
us that the majority in Convocation refused to consider any compromise
with the Dissenters, one argument being that it was derogatory to the
Church to make overtures to them until they expressed a desire for
reconciliation, and either offered proposals themselves, or showed a
willingness to consider proposals made by others.[164]
Committee meetings were held in Dr. Busby’s chamber, and in Dr.
Tenison’s library there was an inspection of old books belonging to
Convocation, but nothing important was effected in any way. Convocation
adjourned on the 16th of December through successive prorogations, and
remained inoperative for ten years.
CHAPTER V.
The periods prescribed by the Act which altered the Oaths of
Allegiance--first for the suspension, and next for the ejectment of
those who refused to swear--were the 1st of August, 1689, and the 1st
of February, 1690.
In the early part of the year events occurred which increased the
importance of exacting the prescribed oaths.
James left France in the month of March, 1689. Rumour ran that he had
reached England, that he was in London, that he was secretly lodged in
the house of Lloyd, the Nonjuror.[165] This proved to be a mistake. He
landed at Kinsale in Ireland, trusting to his friends, and saying, “I
will recover my own dominions with my own subjects, or perish in the
attempt.” The French King speeded the parting guest with the equivocal
compliment, “The best wish I can form for your service is, that I may
never see you again.”[166] But with the people of Ireland James found
little favour--the Protestants disliking him as a Papist, the Papists
suspecting him because they considered his policy towards Protestants
too lenient.[167] In support of his attempt to recover the crown, his
army laid siege to Londonderry, and the French navy skirmished with an
English squadron in Bantry Bay. This occurred in April. A Parliament,
at his summons, met in Dublin the following month, and from the Castle,
where he took up his residence, he issued a Declaration to his Irish
subjects, exhorting them to support his claims.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, who after the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes had witnessed the demolition of his church, and had
dared one night, at the request of his congregation, to preach amidst
the ruins, was for the offence sentenced to be broken on the wheel.
Having effected his escape from France, he happened, at the time of
James’ arrival in Ireland, to be an exile there. One of the first
things done by this Royal friend of religious liberty was to deliver
the refugee to the Ambassador of Louis, who had him conveyed home to
undergo his sentence.[168]
Copies of James’ Declaration were circulated in England, and found
their way to Cambridge. One Thomas Fowler, from the University, stood
at the bar of the House of Commons on the 20th of June, to state
that the documents came down in boxes, directed to the Masters of
Queen’s and St. John’s; and one of the Burgesses for the University
acquainted the House that the boxes were in the custody of the
Vice-Chancellor.[169]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Government in England, with their elected Sovereign, was challenged
to submit to the cashiered King, or to hold their own by force of
arms. The gauntlet being thrown down before the world, no alternative
remained but for William to return to Holland, or to fight out the
contest as best he could. The position in which these circumstances
placed him in reference to the Nonjurors is obvious. Personally he had
no disposition to come to extremities with them; he had given proof of
a desire to treat them with the utmost leniency; but the exigencies of
his position rendered it indispensable that at this moment he should
be unyielding towards all justly suspected of disaffection. Of the
disaffection of the Nonjurors there could be no doubt. They refused to
take the new oath on the very ground that, by virtue of the old one,
their allegiance belonged to James. James was their anointed King,
their King by Divine right; William was esteemed by them as no better
than a usurper.
Three nonjuring Prelates died in the course of the spring and summer.
Cartwright, the semi-Popish Bishop of Chester, after joining James at
St. Germains, accompanied him to Ireland, where on the 15th of April
he expired, having received on his death-bed the sacrament and the
absolution of the Church of England, instead of conforming to Rome,
as at the time he was reported to have done.[170] Thomas, Bishop of
Worcester, died June the 25th, solemnly declaring on his death-bed
that, if his heart did not deceive him, and the grace of God failed
him not, he thought he could burn at a stake before he would take
the new oath.[171] Lake, Bishop of Chichester, followed Thomas to
the grave in the month of August, expressing satisfaction with the
course which he had pursued, and declaring his conviction that the
oaths were inconsistent with the doctrine of passive obedience, which
he maintained to be a doctrine of the English Church.[172] These
testimonies, hallowed by the solemnity of death, were heirlooms for
the Nonjurors, who preserved them with care, and exhibited them with
reverence, not without considerable effect in promoting their cause.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
The Prelates who had not sworn, persistently continued to refuse the
oaths; the Primate being reproached with his inconsistency for the part
he had taken in the Revolution. He was insolently told by a Jacobite
correspondent in Holland, “Your Grace has forfeited your neck already
in signing that traitorous Declaration at Guildhall, wherein you cast
off your allegiance to your lawful Sovereign, and applied yourself to
the Prince of Orange.”[173] Free to discharge their functions up to the
1st of August, 1689, the Bishops were then suspended from the exercise
of them. Still they enjoyed their benefices, and continued to reside
in their palaces. The interim was filled up by the defence of their
opinions. Sancroft, following the bent of his disposition, shut himself
up at Lambeth, retaining impracticable views of a Regency, refusing to
acknowledge William and Mary, combining good intentions with narrowness
of mind, and saying to the last, with Pius the IX. at Rome, _Non
possumus_. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, unfortunately sympathized
with the Archbishop, and encouraged him in his policy. Ken--a far
different man, firm in principle, of a tender conscience, yet open to
conviction, careless about his interests, only anxious to do what was
right--almost resolved to submit. But, after a night’s rest, he said
to Dr. Hooper, who had pressed submission upon him, “I question not
but that you, and several others, have taken the oaths with as good a
conscience as myself shall refuse them; and sometimes you have almost
persuaded me to comply by the arguments you have used; but I beg you
to use them no further, for should I be persuaded to comply, and after
see reason to repent, you would make me the most miserable man in the
world.”[174]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Turner, Bishop of Ely, another of the nonjuring band, whose character
has been indicated already, whose Jacobitism is unquestionable, and
who supported the Archbishop in his defiant course, wrote to him on
Ascension Day, 1689, a letter in which he refers to Ken, and the
doubts felt respecting him. “I must needs say, the sooner we meet our
brother of Bath the better, for I must no longer in duty conceal from
your Grace--though I beseech you to keep it in terms of a secret--that
this very good man is, I fear, warping from us, and the true
interests of the Church of England, towards a compliance with the new
Government.”[175]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, coincided with Ken in his moderation;
and if the rest had resembled them, possibly a practical adjustment
of the controversy might have been reached. He is described as a
gentle, amiable man, unfitted for an Episcopal position during a season
of political trouble. After his deprivation he pursued a quiet and
inoffensive course, without giving any umbrage to the Government.[176]
Sancroft, Lloyd, and Turner were men of a different mould.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
During the period of the Bishops’ remaining in suspension, their case
excited immense interest--friends loudly expressing sympathy, opponents
loudly expressing disapproval. The press was employed. Apologies
were published; answers were returned. On the one hand the services
of the Seven in the cause of liberty were gratefully rehearsed,
their sufferings pitifully depicted, their temper under trials
enthusiastically extolled, and the sacredness of oaths, as asserted in
their conduct, earnestly enforced. Connected with this vindication and
eulogy, were mystical allusions to the perfect number of the Episcopal
confessors, the Seven imprisoned being irreverently compared to the
burning lamps before the throne of God. On the other hand, this play
of fancy met with sarcasm and ridicule; the old arguments for the
new oaths came into hackneyed use; the patient temper of the Bishops
failed to excite any longer much admiration, and a ridiculous panegyric
pronounced upon them for “the holy tears” they wept, like “trees of
sovereign balm, to cure the wounds of their Royal enemy,” only aroused
mockery, whilst their suffering and services were depreciated by a
reference to the story of Alexander the Great. Alexander had coats
of armour made for men and horses three times the ordinary size, and
left behind on the banks of the River Indus, to make succeeding ages
believe that his soldiery were of gigantic bigness. So, it was said,
the setting forth a few days’ imprisonment in the Royal palace of
the Tower,--under the notion of its being a prison such as confined
the primitive Christians,--detracted from the real glory gained by
the Bishops, since everybody saw the vast disproportion between the
dungeons of Diocletian and the Tower of London.[177]
As the 1st of February approached, a few Clergymen in the archdeaconry
of Sudbury applied to their Diocesan, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, telling
him that though they thought of nothing less than losing all, yet they
passionately desired to know whether they should voluntarily leave
their respective cures, or wait to be forcibly thrust out; also they
wished to know how they were to behave, so as, if possible, to preserve
the ancient Church of England. He informed them that in the opinion
of eminent lawyers a judicial sentence alone could eject them; and
therefore that they might retain possession until they were judicially
expelled. Their second question he left unanswered.[178] Whether
Lloyd’s notion of law was right or wrong, the Clergy generally did not
act upon it, for most of them quietly quitted possession on the 1st
of February.[179] Amongst the most distinguished of these Nonjurors
were George Hickes, Dean of Worcester; Henry Dodwell, who, though
not in orders, was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford;
Jeremy Collier, Lecturer at Gray’s Inn; and John Kettlewell, Vicar of
Coleshill, in Warwickshire.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Hickes was a man of great learning, skilled both in patristic lore and
Teutonic tongues. He was brother to the Nonconformist Minister of the
name, who suffered death after Monmouth’s rebellion; but, so far from
being tainted with his brother’s sentiments, he was an intense opponent
of Nonconformity, and an extravagant assertor of passive obedience.
He published the last speeches of two Presbyterian Ministers, under
the title of _The Spirit of Popery, speaking out of the Mouths of
Fanatical Protestants_; and declared, in his _Thebæan Legion_,
that if King James should imitate the Emperor Maximian, and doom his
soldiers to death, for refusing to commit idolatry, it would be their
duty to submit with meekness to the Royal decree. He wrote letters
to a Popish priest, and an apologetical vindication of the English
Church, in answer to those who reproached her with heresy and schism;
and he also composed a book, entitled _Speculum Beatæ Virginis, a
discourse of the due praise and heroism of the Virgin Mary_. These
works indicate what manner of man he must have been, yet it is affirmed
that at first he felt disposed to take the oaths, and came up to London
for the purpose, but swerved from it through the influence of his High
Church friends; a statement which seems very improbable.[180] Dodwell
was still more learned than Hickes, and if in his theories more
absurd, he was in practice more reasonable. Some of his speculative
ideas upon marriage and music, upon the old serpent and the human soul,
were as extraordinary as any that ever entered the human brain; but
the fact which more immediately relates to my purpose is, that on the
one hand he wrote _Discourses against the Romanists_, and on the
other hand treatises upon _Schism_ and _One Priesthood_, in
such a style, that when Tillotson read the MS. he told him some things
in it were so palpably false, he wondered the author did not see their
absurdity, and that they were so gross as to grate much upon one’s
inward sense. He compared him to Richard Baxter--a man unlike him in
most respects, but whom he resembled in pertinacity of purpose and
fondness for his own opinion. Collier was described in his own day as
a breathing library, and for metaphysical learning and eloquence as
bearing the bell from most men.[181]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Inferior to Collier in point of ability, and to Dodwell and Hickes in
point of learning, Kettlewell exceeded them in the fervour of his piety
and in the force of his character. Eminently spiritual and devout, with
his heart fixed upon another world, he threw into his life and ministry
a spiritual force, which touched as with an electric spark those who
came in contact with him, and made him a centre of power, though he was
free from any ambition to become a party leader. He had been Chaplain
in the Bedford family, and had been held in affectionate esteem by
Lord William Russell, though he utterly differed from him in political
opinion, for Kettlewell strongly maintained the doctrine of passive
obedience. He did not join in the outcry against Popery in the reign
of James II.; he thought it betrayed unworthy fears to be so alarmed
at the antagonism of error; and instead of preaching against Romanism,
he enforced the doctrines of the Creeds. When others were exclaiming
against the miscarriages of Government, he, it is said, turned the
thoughts of his hearers upon themselves, bidding them contemplate
the judgment of God, adore His wisdom, and submit to His will.[182]
The use which he meant to be made of these religious reflections was
to reconcile people to the ruling powers, and to repress the idea of
resisting them, whatever might be the excesses to which they ran. “He
preached up,” as his sympathizing biographer, remarks, “the duties
of common Christianity and of universal obligation, of reliance upon
Providence, of simplicity and sincerity, of fidelity and perseverance,
with all the branches of the great doctrine of the Cross, and the
benefit which the Church maketh by sufferings; constantly recommending
Christianity to his flock as a passive religion, and giving them rules
for begetting in them a meek and passive spirit.”[183] The temper
of the man, the tone of his churchmanship, and the preparation he
was making for his ultimate position as a Nonjuror, are very plain;
and with peculiarities of this kind he blended a love of Ritualism,
which expressed itself in rather an unusual form, for when a new set
of Communion plate had been presented to the church at Coleshill, he
caused the vessels to be dedicated by Archbishop Sancroft. They were
placed upon a table below the altar steps, and then taken, piece by
piece, and reverently placed upon the altar, sentences of Scriptures
being repeated in connection with the presentation of each. When the
patten, the chalices, the flagon, and the bason had been so offered,
a prayer of consecration followed, then a benediction, and then the
Holy Communion.[184] Kettlewell is described as a man of a peaceable
disposition; but it is clear from his Memoirs that the ardour of his
affections led him to speak and act with a vehemence not agreeable
to those who differed from him, and “the true effigies” of his face
prefixed to the book, confirms the inference which in this respect must
be drawn from the narrative. He was unquestionably a man of enthusiasm,
and his enthusiasm had a capacity for becoming fanatical.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Nonjurors were not so numerous as Kettlewell and others wished.
Only six joined him in his own county. In the diocese of Lichfield and
Coventry there might be twenty. In one archdeaconry in the diocese of
Norwich there might be half that number, owing to the influence of a
nonjuring Bishop. In one College at Cambridge there was a considerable
majority of Nonjurors, attributable to the party spirit they managed to
maintain. Altogether, about 400 Clergymen quitted the Establishment.
When we remember how prevalent had been the doctrines of the Divine
right of Kings, and of the absolute submission of subjects; when,
besides this, we recollect the nature of the education given at Oxford,
where the decree against the opposite doctrines had been daily read,
and constantly hung up in the Colleges,--we wonder that the Nonjurors
were not more numerous.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Dignitaries were not so submissive as their inferior brethren. In
defiance of the Act of Parliament, nonjuring Bishops retained their
palaces; and so lenient was the Government, that, at the eleventh hour,
forms of proviso were proposed, under which Nonjurors might continue
to enjoy their benefices. The suspicion with which all such overtures
of kindness were regarded appears in a letter to Sancroft written by
Lloyd, the Coryphæus of the obstinates:
“May it please your Grace,
“Mr. Inch called upon me last Monday, and showed me a protest
contrived by him, and some of our good friends (as he styled
them), in order to fend off our deprivation. I thanked him and
our good friends for their kind designs, but at the same time I
could not well resolve what it might import, _Timeo Danaos et
dona_, and I dread lurking and consequential snares. It is
therefore necessary to consider well of this protest before any
determination about it.
“I must confess to your Grace, that I do not think it fit for us
to appear in it, or to push it on, as it took its rise from our
friends’ kindness; for it is most proper for them to manage it.
“Again, it may be very improper to stir the point, till we see
in what temper the gentlemen are that meet at St. Stephen’s
Chapel. The giving of a recognizance for the good behaving, or
quiet peaceable living, is a point that deserves to be well
weighed, especially since the interpretation of it depends much
on the mercy of the gentlemen that sit in Westminster Hall.
On the other hand, the circumstances of our poor noncomplying
brethren in our respective dioceses, must be considered, for (if
I mistake not) the benefit of the protest concerns them more
than us.
[Sidenote: 1690.]
“My Lord, upon the whole matter, I designed this day to have
waited upon your Grace and my Lord of Ely, but, in good truth,
I am not able to stir abroad. I took physic last Monday, and I
have been feverish ever since; but as soon as it shall please
God to enable me, I shall wait upon your Grace and my Lord of
Ely. In the meantime, with the tender of my humble duty and
service,
“I remain,
“Your Grace’s most obedient servant
to command,
“WILLIAM NORWICH.”[185]
This secession from the Church on a question touching the Crown
could not but be a trouble to William; at the same time he had other
troubles. The intrigues and trials between Whigs and Tories were the
plague of his reign. He wished he were a thousand miles away, and that
he had never become King of England. He thought he could not trust the
Tories--he resolved he would not trust the Whigs; and once he was on
the point of going back to Holland, leaving the Government here in the
hands of the Queen. He and his Ministers had warm debates, and it is
said that amongst them tears were shed. At last William made up his
mind to go to Ireland, and there put an end to the war.[186]
He assembled a new Parliament on the 2nd of April. Terrific excitement
prevailed at the elections. The Whigs denounced the Tories as
Jacobites, and the Jacobites as Papists. The Tories denounced the Whigs
as Republicans, Fanatics, Latitudinarians, and Atheists. The Tories had
the best of it, and returned a majority. Four Tories were declared to
be at the head of the poll for the City of London. Prominent and noisy
Whigs were excluded from their old seats; liberal men, disgusted at the
excesses of their own party, voted on the other side; even Sir Isaac
Newton declined a contest at Cambridge, and recorded his name in favour
of Sir Robert Sawyer, who had been expelled from the Whig Convention.
Yet in spite of defeats, the Whigs took heart and concocted plans,
hoping to frustrate the opposite policy. This subject, however, it is
not necessary to pursue, neither need we describe the changes which
took place in the Ministry. Before the Revolution, the conduct of the
Ministry affected most materially the affairs of the Church and the
condition of Dissenters; after the passing of the Allegiance Act, the
Church was little affected by the policy of the Government, except
as connected with Convocation; still less did that policy touch the
Dissenters after the passing of the Toleration Act.
[Sidenote: IRISH CAMPAIGN.]
In anticipation of the Irish campaign, a national fast was fixed for
the 12th of March, when prayers were offered for the personal safety of
William. Immediately afterwards, a form of prayer of a very different
description was printed and circulated. It referred to England as in
a state of religious apostacy, and it sought the restoration of James
without mentioning him by name. He was referred to as the stone which
the builders rejected, and which God would make the head of the corner.
There could be no mistake as to what was meant by the petitions, “Give
the King the necks of his enemies;” “Raise him up friends abroad;” “Do
some mighty thing for him, which we, in particular, know not how to
pray for.”[187]
This inflammatory performance under a devout disguise aroused
indignation, and numbers of the adherents of William ascribed its
composition to the Nonjurors. The excitement against the Bishops of
that party was increased by a publication, in which they were styled
“the Reverend Club of Lambeth,” “the Holy Jacobite Club,” “wretches,
great contrivers, and managers of Cabals,” who loved “to trample on the
Dissenters, now happily out of their clutches.” The new prayers are
called the Bishop’s “Great Guns;” and Ken is alluded to as a fellow
who had eaten King William’s bread. The most shameful passage is one
in which, under a covert allusion to the massacre of the De Witts in
Amsterdam, a violent assault upon the individuals abused is obviously
suggested.[188]
[Sidenote: 1690.]
The Bishops published a vindication of themselves, denying that they
had any share in the recent form of prayer, or that they had any
knowledge as to who were the writers. In reference to the attack upon
them they said, “Who the author of the libel was they did not know;
but whoever he might be, they desired, as the Lord had taught, to
return him good for evil, and recommended him to the Divine mercy.”
They had all, they went on to declare, actually or virtually, hazarded
whatever they possessed in opposing Popery and arbitrary power; and
were still ready to sacrifice their very lives in the same noble cause.
In conclusion, they lamented the misfortune that they were unable to
publish full and particular replies to the many libels which were
industriously circulated by enemies, to the injury of their reputation.
The authorship of the prayers being denied by the Bishops, it was
attributed to Hickes, or to Sherlock, or to Kettlewell; on their
behalf a protest was entered against such a suspicion in the Life of
the last of these persons; but some sympathy with the New Liturgy
itself is betrayed by the writer, when, without any condemnatory or
qualifying remark, he calls it “as solemn and expressive as any could
well be;” nor does he hint at its being the work of Roman Catholics--an
origin which, by some writers, has been suggested without sufficient
reason.[189]
CHAPTER VI.
On the 1st of July, 1690, the memorable Battle of the Boyne was
fought and won by William III. He received a slight wound; and that
slight wound created an unexampled sensation throughout England and
the cities and courts of Europe. A letter conveying the intelligence
reached the Queen at Whitehall just as she was going to chapel; and,
to use her own expression, it frightened her out of her wits. But out
of her senses with trouble one day, she was out of her senses with
joy the next, to find the injury turned out to be very slight.[190]
Paris, at first frantic with exultation on hearing of the supposed
death of the great enemy of France, sunk into rageful disappointment
to find that he was still alive, and ready to fight further battles in
support of Protestantism. Strange as it may appear--but the strange
combinations of European parties and politics at that time will account
for it--the tidings of the wound brought no joy to Rome, any more than
to Austria.[191] Both were reassured by a true report of the fate of
William. “No mortal man,” said Tillotson, “ever had his shoulder so
kindly kissed by a cannon bullet;” a felicitous tune of expression,
which even South, with all his prejudice against Tillotson, could not
fail to admire.[192]
[Sidenote: 1690.]
Whilst the battle was raging on the banks of the Boyne, a sea fight
occurred off the Sussex coast; an English Bishop, in sympathy with
his Royal master, was performing his sacred functions in the vicinity
of the latter of these conflicts; and an extract from his Diary in
reference to it is worth transcribing:--
“Thirtieth of June, being Monday, I began my visitation at Arundel;
and went the next day to Lewes, where I visited on Wednesday; and on
Thursday went towards Hastings, and heard by the way that the French
were burning that town. But we resolved to go on, being invited to
lie at Sir Nicholas Pelham’s, whose house was not many miles from it.
He was gone thither with other country gentlemen; the French having
attempted to burn some ships that were run on ground there. He sent us
word the town was safe, but he could not come home that night. At six
in the morning he came, and said there was no danger, but the town was
in such confusion that it would be to no purpose to go thither. For
the churches were full of soldiers, who lay there all night, and the
streets full of country people, and all the women frighted away and
fled, so that there were none left to dress any victuals. He invited
us therefore to stay with him, and entertained us most kindly. But my
Chancellor, Dr. Briggs, all on a sudden started up, and would go to
Hastings, and about noon word was brought us some of the Clergy were
there; which made me condemn myself for not going with him, though I
followed the best advice I could get. And afterward it appeared to be
the best; for though some of the clergy appeared, there was no place
wherein to visit them; and besides it might have proved dangerous: for
two men were killed with a cannon bullet in the very next house to that
where my Chancellor sat; which made him run away in haste before he had
done his business, and (as I remember) left some of his books behind
him.”[193]
[Sidenote: SHERLOCK.]
The Battle of the Boyne led to an important clerical conversion.
William Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had distinguished himself in
the reign of James II., not only by his zeal in contending against
Popery, but also by his decision in maintaining the principle of
non-resistance. He strongly disapproved of the turn which affairs
took at the Revolution, and advocated negotiations with the exiled
Monarch, in reference to his being restored upon terms which would
preserve constitutional liberty. The accession of the Prince and
Princess of Orange inspired indignation, and the new oaths were by him
unhesitatingly declined. He threw in his lot with the Nonjurors, who
regarded his talents with respect and his character with admiration;
and they esteemed the support of a man so popular as a tower of
strength. After losing the Mastership of the Temple, he retired into
private life, and, pensive amidst misfortunes, wrote and published his
celebrated treatise on Death. Still he deprecated schism; disapproved
of the establishment of any Episcopal sect; advised those who could
conscientiously remain, not to forsake their parish churches; and even
officiated himself at St. Dunstan’s, actually reading the prayers
for William and Mary. When the Battle of the Boyne decided the fate
of the exile, and secured peace for the occupants of the throne,
Sherlock looked at things in another light, became reconciled to the
revolutionary settlement, and took the oaths which he had before
refused. As a consequence, he returned to the Mastership of the Temple,
and also received the Deanery of St. Paul’s, vacated by Tillotson’s
elevation to Canterbury. So prominent a man on the nonjuring side,
could not pass through such a conversion without giving some reasons
for it; accordingly he wrote a book, which he entitled, _The Case of
the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers stated and resolved according to
Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England_.
[Sidenote: 1690.]
[Sidenote: SHERLOCK.]
Sancroft, soon after the Revolution, published what was called
_Bishop Overall’s Convocation Book_, written in the reign of James
I., containing certain conclusions respecting Ecclesiastical and Civil
Government, one of which, notwithstanding the current tone of the
book in favour of non-resistance, is to the effect, that a Government
originating in rebellion, when thoroughly settled, should be reverenced
and obeyed as “being always God’s authority, and therefore receiving no
impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it.” The Convocations
of Canterbury and York had endorsed the contents of Overall’s volume;
and, by a canon, distinctly condemned the doctrine that a Government
begun by rebellion, after being thoroughly settled, is not of God.[194]
Sherlock made a good deal out of this, and said he should have
continued to stick at the oaths, had he not been relieved by Overall’s
book, and had not the venerable authority of a Convocation given him a
freedom of thinking, which the apprehensions of novelty and singularity
had cramped before.[195] He did not consider, as is sometimes
represented, that the Bishop and Convocation settled the matter, and
that he was to submit as a child to the authoritative decree; but that
a door had been thereby opened to the sons of the Church to look at
the matter;[196] and that he, having been thus induced to examine it
afresh, had for various reasons, which he assigns--some of which, it
must be acknowledged, run counter to his previous publications on the
subject[197]--arrived at the conclusion that he could conscientiously
take the required vow. A terrible storm assailed him after this.
Argument, satire, and abuse, sometimes in vulgar prose, sometimes in
doggerel rhyme, descended in torrents upon his devoted head. Nonjurors
reviled him on the one side; Revolutionists on the other; and people
who did not care for either side joined in the old English cry against
turncoats and time-servers. Most people maintained he had changed
for the sake of loaves and fishes; and, as Mrs. Sherlock had made
herself very notorious, and was said to have had immense influence
over her husband, she caught a terrible pelting from a literary mob,
who assailed her as Xanthippe, Delilah, and Eve, all in one. Sherlock
had to pay the penalty, which men, whose new opinions jump in the
same direction as their pecuniary interests, must ever pay; but human
motives, whether good or evil, lie so far beneath the surface, that the
reading of them by even honest historians may widely differ from the
reading of them by the only Omniscient One. Contemporaries were too
much involved in party strife to take an unbiassed view of Sherlock’s
conduct; and writers since have scarcely been able to free themselves
from prejudices handed down by the pamphlets of that day. The grave
feature of the case affecting the reputation of the Master and Dean,
is to be found, not in the new application of a principle which he
had long held; but in the repudiation of his old principles, just at
the moment when the Battle of the Boyne had destroyed all prospect
of James’ restoration--the chance upon which, as Sherlock’s enemies
believed, he had ventured hopes of high preferment, during the time of
casting in his lot with the poor Nonjurors.[198]
[Sidenote: 1690.]
The Battle of the Boyne having established the Revolution, and with it
the throne of William, the people who had hailed him as their Deliverer
became more than ever impatient towards all who remained disaffected
towards his Government.
Lloyd, the nonjuring Bishop of Norwich, a friend, adviser, and
correspondent of Sancroft, not being one of the illustrious Seven,
had never shared in that halo of confessorship which for awhile had
played around their sacred heads; but he had long been, and was still
more than ever, regarded as an obstinate, violent, and intriguing
Churchman, bent upon overthrowing the new Sovereign, and bringing back
to Whitehall the exiled King. His politics, not his religion, made him
unpopular; and his letters to his archiepiscopal friend, written in the
summer of 1690, betray the fact, that whatever might be the dislike
of the London populace to nonjuring Bishops in general, a feeling of
hatred prevailed against him in particular, and threatened his security
in one of the most unaristocratic districts of the Metropolis.
“I was yesterday,” he wrote on the 5th of August, “forced to a sudden
flight, being alarmed by the rabble, who began to appear at their
Reformation work in Old Street. I had a message from a good friend last
Saturday, which assured me that the rabble would be up in a short time.
And on Friday, my housekeeper (being among some of her relations in
Cripplegate) brought me word, that the fanatics talked bitterly against
the Bishops, and would shortly call them to an account.
“About 9 of the clock yesterday, Mr. Edwards, of Eye, and another
gentleman, called upon me, and told me they saw about 150 of the mob
very busy in pulling down of houses in Old Street. Within a few minutes
the hawker which sells pamphlets brought the same tidings, and, in
regard the dangerous crew were so near, I sent forthwith one of my men
to see how the affair went abroad, and another to fetch me a hackney
coach, into which I got with my wife and child, and straightway took
sanctuary in the Temple. From thence I sent for further information,
and found that the crew in Old Street was dispersed; partly by Justice
Parry coming among them and taking their names and threatening them
with informations; and chiefly by a company of the train-bands, who in
that nick of time passed that way to muster in the fields.
[Sidenote: 1690.]
“About four in the afternoon I returned to my house and found all quiet
in the way. If the rabble had continued I would not have failed to send
notice to your Grace; and, on the other hand, I resolved not to send a
confused uncertain alarm. God be praised, this scarecrow is over, and
I hope God will still deliver us from the bloody fangs of cruel saints
and scoundrels.”[199]
Six months later the popular fury against men of Lloyd’s order was
being fanned afresh, and again he told his sorrows to his old friend:
“Your Grace will see by the enclosed papers how the mob are encouraged
to bring some under their discipline: their wrath is cruel, and their
malice as keen as razors, but God defend the innocent from their rage.
“There is also published a most devilish Atheistical satire against the
Clergy in general, but more especially against poor Nonjurors. I think
no age hath seen the like of it,--it’s called a Satire against the
Priests.”[200]
Nonjurors lived on both sides the Irish Channel. Soon after the battle
which decided the fate of James, though it did not crush the hopes and
schemes of his supporters, William had his attention called to the
refusal of the Bishop of Ossory to pray for him in public worship. “His
Majesty’s command,” said the Secretary of State to the delinquent, “is,
that your Lordship be suspended till further order. I know not the
terms, being here in a camp, that are used in things of this nature;
but I acquaint your Lordship of His Majesty’s present resentment, and
can say no more till I hear from your Lordship herein.”[201] Nonjurors
on this side of the Channel, however, gave much more trouble than they
did on the other.
[Sidenote: SCHEMES FOR RESTORATION.]
A scheme for the restoration of James came to light at the end of 1690.
The leader of the conspiracy was Richard Graham, Viscount Preston,
Secretary of State in the preceding reign, whose patent of nobility had
been drawn up at St. Germains, and who retained his seals of office
in spite of the Revolution. Secret conferences were held amongst the
English Jacobites, and as the result, Lord Preston, with a Mr. Ashton
and another companion, were despatched with treasonable papers to the
ex-King; but ere they had passed Tilbury Fort, in a smack which was
to convey them to the shores of France, they were seized and brought
back to London. Preston and Ashton were tried, convicted, and condemned
at the Old Bailey. Ashton was executed; Preston was pardoned. As
they lay under sentence of death, the sympathies of the Nonjurors
eagerly gathered round them, and the following letter from two
well-known members of the party, to Sancroft--who still lingered in his
Archiepiscopal Palace on the banks of the Thames--shows how earnestly
they sought to enlist his offices:--
[Sidenote: 1691.]
“We who waited on your Grace on Sunday last, in the evening,
being sensible that we were defective in the delivery of
our message, occasioned, in great measure, out of profound
respect to your Grace, have, upon a fuller recollection of
the importance of that affair, presumed to lay our thoughts
more plainly before your Grace, humbly conceiving, with all
due submission to your Grace’s judgment, that if your Grace
shall think it proper to give your personal assistance to the
gentlemen under sentence of death, it would not only be a
very great comfort and satisfaction to the dying gentlemen,
but likewise a considerable support and encouragement to all
surviving honest men.
“My Lord, the concern is very extraordinary, otherwise we had
not presumed to give your Grace this trouble, and therefore, we
humbly beg your Grace would please to excuse this freedom.[202]
“JEREMY COLLIER,
“SHADRACH COOKE.”
Turner, Bishop of Ely, was charged with complicity in Preston’s
treasonable business, and two suspicious letters were produced, said
to be in the Prelate’s handwriting; but I cannot find evidence of
their authorship, or any proof in their contents justifying a charge
of treason. As Turner immediately hid himself, and then absconded,
it looks, notwithstanding, as if he felt a pang of conscious guilt;
but concealment in his case seems to have been a difficult matter,
for he had such a remarkable nose, that Sancroft, with a play of
humour,--which occasionally illumined his misfortunes,--spoke of
his friend as resembling Paul’s ship of Alexandria, which carried
a well-known sign upon its prow, or beak. Hence, though London was
a great wood, it would be hard for one with such a face, however
disguised by a patriarchal beard, or by a huge peruke, to escape
detection.[203] It is not a little remarkable that, though the deposed
Primate prayed for his friend’s safety, he expressed no conviction
of his friend’s innocence. The Nonjurors, as we have seen, had been
treated with consideration and kindness. Though forfeiting their Sees
in February, 1690, after which successors were nominated, the Prelates
of the party were allowed to retain their palaces; and even as late
as April, 1691, attempts were made by friends of the Government to
compromise matters with them, in spite of the increased odium cast on
their order by Turner’s conduct: it was proposed that, at least, they
should disavow all share in the alleged conspiracy, but Sancroft would
do nothing of the kind, easy and reasonable as such a concession seemed.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS EJECTED.]
There remained no alternative but to eject the disaffected, and to
induct loyal successors. As the crisis approached, questions were
raised and discussed by Nonjurors, touching the treatment of those
so inducted. Lloyd, Sancroft’s busy correspondent, now wrote to say
how perplexed he felt; for, extreme as might be his views, they were
surpassed by the views of others. He reported that they asked, what
they should do in case they appeared at any of the new Episcopal
elections,--should they oppose them? From such a proposal he shrunk,
for to carry it out might incur a _premunire_. Further, he
inquired whether for him to recommend their absenting themselves
would not be cowardly? Nonplussed by these problems, he despondingly
added, “What, then, is to be done? Here I stick.” His friend Wagstaffe
informed him, some had resolved to resist all Erastian intrusion,
and expected the displaced Bishops would assert their rights. Lloyd
grew testy at such an excess of zeal, and wished to know what the
self-appointed critics would advise the Prelates to do? Had not those
very critics submitted to deprivation? Of what use would it be for
their superiors to do otherwise?[204]
[Sidenote: 1691.]
Presently the question came again on the carpet.
“May it please your Grace,” wrote the indefatigable Lloyd, “I had last
Saturday a fit opportunity to discourse with Sir Edward Entwich about
the _vexatio questio_, and found him--upon consideration of the
whole matter--to be of the same opinion with Mr. N---- th. The first
question that I proposed was, whether it was advisable for us to keep
possession till we were ejected by legal processes; his answer was, we
might, if we judged it meet, dispute the possession; but then, saith
he, you must at last expect to be outed, and to pay the costs and
charges of the suit, and to be called to Westminster Hall, and perhaps
elsewhere, to answer hard questions, and that with all rigour. I then
asked whether he would advise us so to do, and appear for us, and draw
pleas as occasions offered? To this his answer was, that he knew not to
what purpose we should put ourselves to fruitless trouble; for, saith
he, if a happy turn should come, all the proceedings against you will
be out of doors. This is the sum of our discourse.”
He adds a paragraph respecting a Nonjuror whose Jacobitism had plunged
him into serious danger:
“I saw Dr. B[ea]ch last week, who hopes shortly to be at liberty, or at
least to be abroad upon bail.
“It was well for him that the informer blundered in his depositions
against him, and indeed, so did the justices who took the information;
for there is not in the deposition any express mention of the time or
place, when and where the Doctor said, that _the same power which put
our Saviour on the pinnacle of the Temple, put William and Mary upon
the throne_; but I am told that there are other informations against
him. His successor has broke into his Church in his absence, and got
possession in his absence, and this is a very great trouble to the Dr.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS EJECTED.]
“I hear that Mr. Dean of Worcester begins to appear again, and hopes
that the storm will blow over him. I heartily wish it may, _sed timeo
Danaos_; for commonly they are not so generous.”[205]
The Dean of Worcester here referred to was Dr. Hickes. A little more
than a fortnight before Lloyd’s letter was written, the Dean drew up
a protest against his own ejectment, addressed to the Sub-Dean and
Prebendaries, idly declaring the appointment of a successor to be
illegal, and as idly calling upon them to defend the rights of the
dispossessed. This protesting ended in smoke. Hickes and Wagstaffe, as
well as Lloyd, had to succumb; so had Frampton of Gloucester, and White
of Peterborough. Sancroft yielded only to a legal process; and at last,
on Midsummer eve, between seven and eight o’clock, accompanied by the
steward of his household and three other friends, he entered a boat at
Lambeth ferry, which conveyed the little party to the Temple stairs,
where the deprived Primate sought shelter for a few days in Palsgrave
Court. One imagines, as amidst the lengthening shadows on the waters
that same night he left for ever the towers of the familiar palace, he
would cast “one longing, lingering look behind.” But history preserves
a more touching picture of the departure of Ken from the city of Wells.
[Sidenote: 1691.]
After he had from his pastoral chair in the Cathedral asserted his
Canonical right to remain Bishop of the Diocese, he passed through
the gardens and crossed the drawbridge over the moat, whilst old and
young crowded round him to ask his blessing and say farewell. “Mild,
complacent, yet dignified,” remarks the Layman who writes his life,
“on retiring with a peaceful conscience from opulence and station
to dependence and poverty, as the morning sun shone on the turreted
chapel, we naturally imagine he may have shed only one tear, when
looking back on those interesting scenes. Perhaps his eye might have
rested on the pale faces of some of the poor old men and women who had
partaken their Sunday dinner so often, and heard his discourse in the
old hall.”[206]
Dr. Beveridge, who will be more particularly noticed hereafter, was
offered the See of Bath and Wells; but he was threatened by the
Nonjurors, in case he should accept the offer, with the fate of
schismatical usurpers, like Gregory and George of Cappadocia, who
invaded the See of Alexandria, upon the deposition of the orthodox
Athanasius.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS EJECTED.]
A rumour went abroad that the Archdeacon of Colchester had accepted a
mitre, in consequence of which friends pestered him with letters for
his suspected act, and turned against him his reputation for learning
and loyalty. Dr. Lowth prematurely addressed him under an Episcopal
title, and expostulated with him in the following terms:--
“May it please your Lordship,
“You must be sensible in what great reputation all well-minded,
learned, and judicious men, have had your laborious performances
upon the Laws and Canons of the Church. But notwithstanding,
since you have accepted a nomination to the Bishopric of Bath
and Wells, of which See Dr. Ken is the Canonical proprietor;
and having not been removed by his brethren, the Bishops,
something more is required of you, whereby its comportment with
those Church Laws may appear, so frequently forbidding two
Bishops to be in one city. It is well known what separations
the same practice hath bred in God’s Church, as also that her
decision hath still been against you. If, then, the same return,
the guilt and schism of it must be laid at your door, unless
you can produce such ground for the present practice, whereof
not only yourself but the Ancient Church hath heretofore been
ignorant. These are the sentiments of many, who have formerly
been your just admirers, and desire that you will give them no
occasion of taking new measures concerning you, and particularly
of him, who, notwithstanding he may no longer--upon the account
of your present promotion--write himself your brother, yet will
always remain
“Yours, in the faith and discipline
of the Ancient Church.”[207]
Whether or not such rebukes and warnings prevented Beveridge from
accepting the vacant See, at all events he declined it, and remained a
Presbyter till after the death of William.
CHAPTER VII.
Nonconformists regarded the Revolution with thankfulness. William
was, in their eyes, a Heavensent deliverer, and at weekly and monthly
fasts they joined in prayer, that God’s blessing might rest on his
forces,[208] which they regarded as being at war with Babylon. It is
said that had the London Dissenters been requested to raise a monument
to his memory, they would have provided a statue of gold;[209] and
Calamy paints in bright colours their payment of taxes, and hearty
intercession for both King and Queen. He also alludes to their public
ordinations, their loving carriage amongst themselves, and their
friendly behaviour towards the Established Church. There is truth in
what he says, and we can conceive how, with memories of ancestral
troubles, he would rise to enthusiastic delight whilst recording the
blessings of the Revolution; but truth throws strong shadows amidst
these brilliant hues, and, indeed, he himself, in subsequent portions
of his narrative, makes an abatement in his demands on our admiration.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Mutual charity would have been exemplified if Howe’s advice had
prevailed, for he urged Conformists and Nonconformists not to magnify
diversities of opinion, but to promote the interests of a common
Christianity. “If our rulers,” he adds, “shall judge such intercourses
conducing to so desirable an end, they may perhaps in due time think
it reasonable to put things into that state, that ministers of both
sorts may be capable of inviting one another occasionally to the
brotherly offices of mutual assistance in each other’s congregations.
For which, and all things that tend to make us a happy people, we
must wait upon Him in whose hands their hearts are.”[210] But on many
people these sentiments fell as idle words; and if by others they
were heard for one moment, the very next they were drowned by the
din of old controversies, or the outburst of new passions. Beautiful
and blessed ideals of union to most were as destitute of all charm
for their affections as of power to work themselves out into facts.
Catholic-minded men on opposite sides, if unencumbered by partizanship,
would have surmounted difficulties, and reached, if not unity of
fellowship, yet freedom of intercourse; but then, as always, prejudices
in the many defeated endeavours on the part of a few, and reopened
breaches when they seemed on the point of being healed.
Death removed some most distinguished Nonconformist Ministers at the
era of the Revolution.
[Sidenote: 1691.]
John Bunyan, who belongs more to the universal church than to a
particular sect, died, as he had lived, in the Baptist communion.
He has come before us in a former volume, not as a leader in
ecclesiastical affairs, but as a sufferer for conscience’ sake, and
as an author of works which have won for him an unparalleled renown.
He trod the paths of private life, save that when he came to London
his “preaching attracted enormous multitudes;” and it was in the city
which had witnessed his vast popularity that he breathed his last. A
minister of peace, he took a long journey on horseback to extinguish
domestic strife, and on his way afterwards to the Metropolis, brought
on a fatal fever, through fatigue and exposure to heavy rains. This
occurred in the month of August, 1688, when the throne of James was
tottering to its fall, and plans which led to the Revolution were being
formed; probably whisperings of what was to happen to his country
reached Bunyan’s ears in his last hours. Illness overtook him in the
house of his friend Mr. Strudwick, a grocer on Snow Hill, and just
before his death he said to his friends, “Weep not for me, but for
yourselves. I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, no
doubt, through the mediation of His blessed Son, receive me, though a
sinner, where I hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song and
remain everlastingly happy, world without end.” “He felt the ground
solid under his feet in passing the black river which has no bridge,
and followed his pilgrim into the celestial city.” He expired before
the end of August, and was interred in Bunhill Fields; his church at
Bedford lamented with unaffected sorrow his loss at the age of 60;
and keep the next month days of humiliation and prayer for the heavy
bereavement they had sustained.[211]
Dr. John Collinges, a Presbyterian, once Vicar of St. Stephen’s,
Norwich, died in 1690. He had assisted Pool in his _Annotations_,
and written practical as well as controversial works. One of them,
entitled _The Weaver’s Pocket-book, or Weaving Spiritualized_,
was no doubt suggested to him as he had stood watching the loom in the
house of some industrious parishioner in days when the city of Norwich
enjoyed the zenith of its manufacturing industry. He left behind a
good reputation, being, as his brethren testified, “a man of various
learning and excelling as a textuary and a critic, and generally
esteemed for his great industry, humanity, and exemplary piety.”
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
John Flavel ended his days on the 26th of June, 1691, at Exeter. He
had, before his death, left the town of Dartmouth, the scene of his
long and zealous ministrations, because the rabble, headed by certain
aldermen, in 1685 paraded the town, carrying the good man’s effigy to
be burnt,--an insult he revenged by praying, “Father, forgive them, for
they know not what they do.” With his lively imagination he combined
intense spiritual emotion, and the following story, which he relates
of himself in his _Pneumatologia_ is so curious that, though
familiar from frequent quotation, it deserves to be inserted here. It
exemplifies a phase of spiritual life belonging to an age which has
passed away.[212]
“Being on a journey, he set himself to improve his time by meditation;
when his mind grew intent, till at length he had such ravishing tastes
of heavenly joys, and such full assurance of his interest therein, that
he utterly lost the sight and sense of this world and all its concerns,
so that for hours he knew not where he was. At last, perceiving himself
faint from a great loss of blood from his nose, he alighted from his
horse and sat down at a spring, where he washed and refreshed himself;
earnestly desiring, if it were the will of God, that he might there
leave the world. His spirits reviving, he finished his journey in the
same delightful frame. And all that night passed without a wink of
sleep, the joy of the Lord still overflowing him, so that he seemed an
inhabitant of the other world. After this, an heavenly serenity and
sweet peace continued long with him; and for many years he called that
day one of the days of heaven, and professed he understood more of the
life of heaven by it, than by all the discourses he had heard or the
books he ever read.”[213]
[Sidenote: 1691.]
Richard Baxter was an old man at the time of the Revolution, weighed
down by suffering; and the Toleration Act came too late to give scope
to energies which, had the event happened twenty years earlier, would
have been ardently spent in tilling the newly-opened fields of labour.
Yet, when the adoption of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church was
required as the condition of exercising a Nonconformist ministry, the
trembling hand of the veteran theologist could not resist an impulse
to write down scholastically the sense in which the Articles were to
be subscribed. It was his own sense, yet it was also, as he believed,
one in which many of his brethren concurred. Few, it is said, took
notice of his explication, and at this we are not surprised, as his
explication contains more in the way of suggestive thought than of
explicit definition. His metaphysics, warmed by zeal for practical
religion, appear distinctly in this farewell effort. He has something
abstruse to say as to the glorified body of Christ, and upon some
other points; and he lays down a dictum, often repeated since in a
wider sense than he specifies, with regard to legislation in Church
and State: “God’s laws are the supreme civil laws, man’s laws are
but by-laws.” He also insists upon the doctrine of the Apostle James,
as well as the doctrine of the Apostle Paul; and, after charitably
saying, “all were not accursed that hoped well of Socrates, Antonine,
Alexander, Severus, Cicero, Epictetus, Plutarch,” and others, he
adds, “there is no name, that is, no Messiah, to be saved by, but
Christ.”[214]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
[Sidenote: 1691.]
In a tenement near his friend Sylvester’s, in Charterhouse Square,
Baxter spent his last days; and when disabled from preaching in his
friend’s meeting-house, he preached in his own dwelling, almost dying
in the exercise of his favourite employment. “It would doubtless,”
it is said, “have been his joy to have been transfigured on the
Mount.” “He talked in the pulpit,” as one reports, “with great freedom
about another world, like one who had been there, and was come as a
sort of express from thence to make report concerning it.” His busy
pen was employed as long as he could grasp it with his fingers, in
writing something for the benefit of his fellow-men. At last growing
infirmities confined him to his chamber, and then to his bed. There his
vigorous mind “abode rational, strong in faith and hope, arguing itself
into, and preserving itself in, that patience, hope, and joy, through
grace.” With unaffected humility he spoke of himself as a sinner worthy
of being condemned for the best duty he ever did, whose hopes were all
“from the free mercy of God in Christ.” Reminded of the good which his
works had produced, he replied, “I was but a pen in God’s hands, and
what praise is due to a pen?” When extremity of pain constrained him
to pray for release, he would check himself with the words, “It is
not fit for me to prescribe;--_when Thou wilt, what Thou wilt, and
how Thou wilt_!” “Oh! how unsearchable are His ways, and His paths
past finding out; the reaches of His providence we cannot fathom! Do
not think the worse of religion for what you see me suffer.” He had
assurance of future happiness, and great peace and joy in believing,
only lamenting that because of pain he could not express all he felt.
Still he spoke of heaven, and quoting the Apostle’s description of
the celestial Church, remarked, that it deserved a thousand thousand
thoughts. With characteristic width of sympathy, he spent many of his
last hours in praying for a distracted world, and a divided Church.
Physical pain, his old companion, continued to the last. “I have pain,”
he said, “there is no arguing against sense; but I have peace--I
have peace.” The catalogue of his diseases is enough to excite pity
in the most inhuman, and our sensibilities are positively tortured
by the pathetic descriptions he gives of himself. They illustrate
the beautifulness of his oft-quoted answer to the question, How he
did?--“_Almost well._” “On Monday, about five in the evening,”
says Sylvester, “Death sent his harbinger to summon him away. A great
trembling and coldness awakened nature, and extorted strong cries,
which continued for some time;” at length he ceased, waiting in
patient expectation for his change. The gentle cry in the ear of his
housekeeper, “Death, death!” betokened full consciousness at the last
moment, and turning to thank a friend for his visit, he exclaimed,
“The Lord teach you to die.” About four o’clock on the morning of
the 8th of December, 1691, he had done for ever with the sorrows of
mortality, and entered on the saints’ everlasting rest. His body sleeps
in Christchurch beside the ashes of his wife and mother. Many vied in
doing honour to his memory. Conformists as well as Nonconformists
carried him to the grave, and made great lamentations over him; a train
of mourning-coaches reached from Merchant Taylors’ Hall--whence the
corpse was carried--to the place of burial.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
At the commencement of the year 1692, another of the old Puritans left
this world. He represented a class which had borne the brunt of the
battle, and who, when the Revolution brought peace, loved to relate
stories of sufferings which promoted Dissent, after the severer laws
against it were relaxed.
Francis Holcroft, son of a knight residing at Westham, near London,
was sent to Clare Hall, Cambridge, where Dr. Cudworth was Master, and
David Clarkson a Fellow. Under the instructions of the latter, the
gownsman became a Puritan, and as, on a Sunday morning, he sat over
the College Gate, in a chamber which he shared in common with young
Tillotson, described as “his bed-fellow,” he sometimes observed a
horse, which was brought up for one of the Fellows, who served the
living of Littlington, and which was frequently led away without its
master. Pitying the sheep without a shepherd, the young Puritan offered
to supply the neglected parish, where his services were crowned with
signal success. Promoted in 1655 to the Vicarage of Bassingbourne,
he became exceedingly popular, and, not content with the effect of
his sermons, he felt anxious to establish ecclesiastical discipline,
and therefore formed a Church upon Congregational principles. At the
Restoration things changed. Holcroft was ejected, and the sheep were
scattered. He met them as he could, some in one place, some in another;
but the circuit of his labours becoming too wide for his failing
strength, he arranged that four members should assist him in pastoral
work. Worship was disturbed by the beating of drums, and the pastor was
imprisoned; but the greater the persecution the more his popularity
increased, and when silenced as a preacher, he sent pastorals round
his wide rural diocese. For some time the congregations to which he
ministered, formed of Baptists and Pædobaptists, constituted only
one Church; but after the Revolution they settled down into distinct
communities. The memory of Holcroft still lingers in the neighbourhood
of Cambridge, and old barns in which he ministered were pointed out
a few years ago. He died on the 6th of January, 1692. Before his
departure, spiritual tranquility, awhile disturbed, was happily
restored, for he died exclaiming, “I know that if the earthly house
of this tabernacle be dissolved, I have a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens.” He sleeps in a small burial-ground beside the
churchyard of Oakington, four miles from Cambridge. Three flat stones
cover the spot hallowed by the remains of two other Nonconformist
ministers, as well as his own. Over his resting-place are inscribed the
appropriate words, “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of
the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars
for ever and ever.”
[Sidenote: 1691.]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Several others of the ejected died about the period of the Revolution.
Veneration for them increased as death swept them away: their virtues
were embalmed; their names were canonized. Collectors of anecdotes
published whatever they could find respecting the departed, sometimes
accompanied by severe reflections upon the old laws which had thrust
them out of the gates of the Establishment. People in Derbyshire were
told that rich as might be their treasures in wool and lead, the
shepherds they had lost were more precious than all the flocks grazing
on their beautiful hills; and the sermons they had preached were
costlier than all the metals dug out of their capacious mines. After
a short beadroll of pastors in the county, the writer asks, What hath
cast away the shields of the mighty? _Uniformity._ What hath slain
the beauty of England, and made the mighty fall? _Uniformity._
What hath despoiled the neck of the Church, like the town of David
builded for an armoury, whereon there hung a thousand bucklers, all
shields of mighty men? _Uniformity._[215]
CHAPTER VIII.
It is a curious coincidence that Tillotson, Barrow, and Howe were
all born in the year 1630. Tillotson’s father lived at Sowerby,
near Halifax; a respectable clothier, a decided Puritan, a zealous
Calvinist, yet at that time an Episcopalian in practice, for he had his
child baptized in the Church of his native village, and a gentleman,
afterwards Rector of Thornhill, stood godfather. When this little
boy came to be Archbishop, his Puritan parentage, and the fact of
his father being a Baptist, occasioned reproach; it was said that he
had never been baptized in any way, and a preacher before the House
of Commons, after Tillotson’s elevation to the Primacy, is supposed
to have alluded to the rumour, when he declared, with more absurdity
than wit, that there were fathers of the Church who never were her
sons. The register of Sowerby, however, sets that question at rest,
showing that he was baptized in the parish church; and another moot
point touching Tillotson’s ecclesiastical life, namely, whether he was
ever episcopally ordained, is now also settled; it appears he received
ordination from a Scotch Bishop--the Bishop of Galloway.[216]
[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.]
Educated at Cambridge under the Commonwealth by Puritan tutors, he
afterwards became identified with the Latitudinarian school of
Divines, but in 1661 we find him amongst the Presbyterians, preaching
a morning exercise at Cripplegate. He certainly conformed in 1662,
and that fact itself implies his submission to Episcopal ordination.
At an early period he attained celebrity as a preacher, although he
read his sermons, and never was able to preach without a manuscript.
It is related of him that on one occasion he made an attempt to speak
extempore upon a plain text, and one upon which he has five discourses
in his printed works; yet he found himself so much at a loss, “that
after about ten minutes spent with great pain to himself, and no great
satisfaction to his audience, he came down with a resolution never
to make the like attempt for the future.”[217] He was successively
Curate at Cheshunt; Rector of Ketton, or Kedington in the County of
Suffolk; preacher at Lincoln’s Inn; Tuesday Lecturer at St. Lawrence,
Jewry; and Canon and Dean of Canterbury. After the Revolution he
accepted the Deanery of St. Paul’s, and his position in reference to
public affairs at that juncture has been noticed already; here it
will be sufficient to trace the steps by which he reached the highest
position in the Church of England. In some way Tillotson had become a
personal favourite with the Prince of Orange, and had been desired to
preach before him at St. James’s, soon after his arrival in London.
Burnet interested himself zealously on the Dean’s behalf; but, beyond
personal grounds, the popularity of this Divine as a preacher, his
eminent abilities, his opposition to the policy of the late King,
his liberal politics, his desire for Comprehension, his conciliatory
temper, and his moderation in ecclesiastical affairs, recommended him
to the new Sovereign as fitted to occupy the post vacated by Sancroft.
The very day Tillotson kissed hands on his appointment to the Deanery
in September, 1689, the King told him, in reply to his thanks for
an office which had set him at ease for the rest of his life, that
this was no great matter, for his services would soon be needed in
the highest office of the Church.[218] In February, 1690, William
pressed upon Tillotson the acceptance of the Primacy; of his extreme
reluctance to accept it there can be no doubt; his conversation with
his Royal Master, his correspondence with Lady Rachel Russell, and his
own private memoranda, prove that if ever a man honestly said, _Nolo
Episcopari_, Tillotson did. What he wrote within a year afterwards
shows that to him the archiepiscopal throne was a bed, not of roses,
but of thorns. The _congé d’élire_ was issued May the 1st, and
his consecration followed on Whit-Sunday at St. Mary-le-Bow, when the
congregation included some of the principal Whig nobility, and his
progress along Cheapside was an ovation amidst crowds who admired both
his eloquence and his liberality.
[Sidenote: 1691.]
He took possession of Lambeth Palace in November, 1691, having first
repaired the building, altered the windows, wainscoted the rooms, and
erected a large apartment for his wife, he being one of the earliest
Archbishops living there in lawful wedlock.
[Sidenote: SANCROFT.]
With congratulations from friends there came insults from foes. Arian,
Socinian, Deist, Atheist, were titles bestowed on his Grace; and in
allusion to the doubts respecting his baptism, he received the nickname
of _Undipped John_. His manner of bearing such treatment showed
his proficiency in the Christian virtues of patience and meekness. One
day, when he was conversing with a gentleman, a servant brought in a
sealed packet containing a mask. The Archbishop smiled, and said, “This
is a gentle rebuke, if compared with some others in black and white,”
pointing to papers lying on the table. A bundle of letters, found after
his death, exhibited a memorandum in his own handwriting, “These are
libels. I pray God forgive them; I do.”[219]
[Sidenote: 1692.]
It is interesting to follow Sancroft into his retirement. He left the
Metropolis--never to see it again--in August, 1691, for Fresingfield, a
village in Suffolk, where his family had been settled for generations,
where his ancestors lay buried in the parish church, and where he
himself had been born and baptized. He went down at harvest-time, the
sweet air and quiet of the place being, as he said, so preferable to
the smoke and noise of London. Presently we find him busy in building
a new house, reckoning up the time it would take to daub and tile it,
to clothe and cover it in, amidst the dews and mists which might be
expected to begin by St. Bartholomew’s-day--then at hand. He complains
of being weakly, and describes himself as eating bread-and-butter in a
morning, and “superbibing a second dish of coffee after it;” waiting
to see what that, and time, and native air would do for his health.
He gave up pills, and swallowed juniper-berries, and lived upon plain
food, and ate with a keener appetite than he had been accustomed to at
Lambeth. In the late autumn the new house remained incomplete; there
was winter work to do within doors, paving and flooring, daubing and
ceiling, plastering, glazing, and wainscoting, making doors and laying
hearths; the old tenement, in the meantime, being packed close from end
to end with the Bishop, his little household and workmen.[220] The
superintendence of building, which appears to have occupied him for a
time, presents a strange contrast to previous employments in the Church
and the Palace, the Court and the Council-Board; and the simplicity
of Sancroft’s rural life appears simpler still when we think of the
palatial splendour in which he had previously moved. He wished to shut
out the world; he sometimes felt like a dead man out of mind; old
friends dropped off, and tales of sorrow aroused his sympathies; yet
he seems, on the whole, to have spent a pleasant time down in Suffolk,
although those who disliked his nonjuring principles did what they
could to plague his peace. He was reported to be engaged with some of
his brethren in plots for the restoration of the exiled Monarch; and
Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, came under suspicion of the same offence,
in consequence of which he was arrested in his orchard at Bromley one
day, whilst quietly working out the heads of a sermon.[221] In the end,
these charges of conspiracy proved to be abominable fabrications, which
Sprat took care fully to expose.[222] Other Nonjurors were suspected of
treasonable intrigues, and Dean Hickes fell into great trouble. “If the
persons,” it is said in a letter written at the time, “now malignantly
fermented, should find him walking abroad, they would certainly take
him up and bring him forthwith to the King’s Bench, and be ready with
an information against him.” The Dean was advised to abscond for the
present, and so he became, “like the tortoise in winter-time, earthed
for some days.” Dr. Bryan about the same time heard that a warrant had
been issued for his apprehension, on account of his having written
“flat treason.” “It was advisable for him to step out of the way.” Ten
days later, Bishop Lloyd, to whom we are indebted for these snatches
of information, wrote again to the archiepiscopalian recluse, that
he found the Dean had removed his quarters, and desired to be very
private, and that messengers were searching for Dr. Bryan.[223]
[Sidenote: SANCROFT.]
Sancroft, who escaped arrest because Sprat, when confronted with his
accusers, exposed their falsehoods, seems to have been more annoyed
a few months before by a very different accusation. “The spirit
of calumny, the persecution of the tongue, dogs me even into this
wilderness. Dr. Lake, of Garlick Hill, and others, have (as I am
informed) filled your city with a report that I go constantly to this
parish church, and pray for I know not whom, nor how, and receive the
Holy Sacrament; so that my cousin had something to do to satisfy even
my friends that it was quite otherwise.”[224] The fallen Primate’s
intense dislike to the Establishment--as bitter as could be manifested
by any virulent Dissenter--here bursts out in unmistakable fashion.
The feeling remained as a sort of monomania to the day of his death.
It kept him from setting foot over the threshold of a parish church,
and led him to frame an instrument by which he appointed Lloyd,
the deprived Bishop of Norwich, his Vicar in all ecclesiastical
matters,[225] and inaugurated a voluntary and schismatical Episcopalian
Church.
[Sidenote: 1693.]
At the end of the year 1691 he removed into his new house, and on New
Year’s-day at family worship he officiated himself, “in a very cold
room where there never was a fire.” He would not employ a Chaplain.
The preparation and arrangement of Laud’s MSS. for the press, occupied
a good deal of his time, after which, in the month of November, 1693,
his end approached. “It touched my spirits extremely,” says Mr. North,
who visited him, “to see the low estate of this poor old saint; and
with what wonderful regard and humility he treated those who visited
him, and particularly myself.” His pious ejaculations were carefully
recorded by his friends, and we are glad to find him saying to a
visitor, “You and I have gone different ways in these late affairs,
but I trust heaven’s gates are wide enough to receive us both. What
I have done, I have done in the integrity of my heart.” The approach
of mortality expands human charity, yet the ruling passion may be
strong in death. Hence, though the dying man felt kindly towards all,
he insisted that only Nonjurors should read prayers by his bedside,
or officiate at his funeral. He entreated that God would bless and
preserve His poor suffering Church, which by the Revolution had been
almost destroyed; that he would bless and preserve the King, Queen, and
Prince, and in His due time restore to them their undoubted rights.[226]
Sancroft had an active but narrow intellect, a playful but feeble
imagination, a careful but perverted judgment. His powers had been
cultivated by study, and his productions indicate compass and command
of learning. Living in a narrow circle, his prejudices were strong;
and bitter memories of Presbyterian oppression at Cambridge followed
him to the grave. His nature was not destitute of affection and
generosity, and he seems not to have been morose; he was simple in his
living, rather than ascetic in his temper. By no means a Ritualist, he
decidedly opposed Romanism, though his sentiments were what would be
called decidedly High Church. Of his conscientiousness, honesty, and
self-denial, the sacrifice of the Primacy is a sufficient proof; and of
his obstinacy, the conduct he manifested on leaving Lambeth, and the
persistency he showed in nonjuring habits, afford abundant evidence.
[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.]
Tillotson survived his predecessor little more than twelve months.
He did not occupy his See long enough to accomplish much either as
Bishop or Primate. In neither capacity has he left any memorials. No
injunctions from him appear in the Archiepiscopal Register, and his
biographer makes no mention of his visitations. We are told that he
convened an assembly of Bishops at Lambeth, when they agreed with him
upon certain regulations, which remained at his death unpublished,
as he preferred they should appear with Royal as well as Episcopal
authority, and he had not time to complete arrangements for that
purpose. His biographer furnishes a list of his deeds, which form but a
meagre total for a primacy of even two years and a half, when so much
needed to be done. Le Neve, who is particular in noting archiepiscopal
acts, has next to nothing to say of Tillotson’s archiepiscopal
career. The most he can do is to supply extracts from a MS. diary,
eulogizing the Primate’s eloquence and charities, and stating that
William, after his Grace’s death, never mentioned him without some
testimony of esteem. He used to say to Mr. Chadwick--son-in-law of the
Archbishop--“I loved your father: I never knew an honester man, and I
never had a better friend.”[227]
[Sidenote: 1694.]
From what we know of him, we should judge that the deficiency of
results during his episcopate is to be attributed more to the
difficulties of the times and the inconvenience of circumstances, than
to want of ability or the absence of devotedness.
He was seized, in the Chapel at Whitehall, with paralysis on the 18th
of November, 1694; and though the fit crept over him slowly, he would
not call for assistance, lest he should disturb Divine worship. His
death occurred on the 22nd, at the age of 65.
His character, as compared with Sancroft’s, has been differently viewed
by enemies and friends. Nonjurors said that his predecessor devised no
project for revolutionizing the Church, implying that Tillotson did;
that his predecessor was no Latitudinarian, more than insinuating that
Tillotson was; and when they spoke of Sancroft as a true Father, they
meant to affirm that his successor was by no means such. “Intruder,”
“thief,” “robber,” “ecclesiastical usurper,” were epithets fastened on
the Archbishop of the Revolution. Burnet, on the other hand, extols him
as a faithful friend, a gentle enemy, with a clear head and a tender
heart, without superstition in his religion, and, as a preacher, the
best of his age.[228]
In saying so much, Burnet probably went no further than facts warrant.
And I would add, that if Sancroft made a sacrifice in renouncing the
Archbishopric, Tillotson, according to his private confessions, made
scarcely less sacrifice in accepting it.
[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.]
Intellectually he was a man of eminence;[229] what Burnet advances
cannot be gainsayed; for Tillotson’s writings indicate a rare amount
of common sense and of calm judgment, the more remarkable in an age
of manifold passions;[230] and he shows eminent precision and force
in stating propositions and arguments, at a time when a great deal of
loose reasoning passed muster. His sermons are chiefly remarkable in
this point of view. Free from Puritan stiffness, and what many would
call Puritan enthusiasm, free also from that academical affectation
which had so long offended pure taste,--they were couched in the
language of common life, and people felt a strange pleasure, which
they could not describe, at hearing from the pulpit language such as
they heard at their own fireside. He seems to have aimed at that which
ought to be the object of every Christian preacher, to translate the
truths of the Gospel into such forms of thought and utterance as were
suited to the age in which he lived. He spoke upon religion just as men
talk upon every-day topics; and thus he brought down Divinity to the
level of his congregation. He could be earnest and even vehement in the
inculcation of truth and duty; and never would he be more acceptable
to a large class of his hearers than when, with tact and warmth, he
exposed the errors of Popery--an opportunity for doing which he rarely,
if ever, missed. His habit, too, of insisting upon the reasonableness
of almost everything he taught would coincide with the current which,
in educated circles, had strongly set in against the enforcement of
morality and religion on grounds of authority. Preachers not only help
to promote, but they reflect the spirit of their own times. Their modes
of teaching are fashioned by it. A reaction had arisen against the
authority of the Church, of the Fathers, of the Schoolmen, and of the
Reformers; consequently, sermons filled with quotations and appeals to
great names were no longer in request. Even Scripture came to be less
favourably used in the way of exclusive authority, than in the way of
addition to the force of reasoning. Texts were with many not so much
corner-stones, as pillars and buttresses. Tillotson made a large use of
Scripture, but the common key-note with him was the reasonableness of
the doctrines he laid down. I should suppose that his appearance, his
voice, and his manner in the pulpit--the fact of what he was, as well
as the circumstance of what he said, and that indefinable something
which contributes so much to a speaker’s popularity--added immensely
to the impressiveness of his elocution. There is for modern readers
nothing attractive in his style, quite the reverse. I know scarcely
any other popular sermons so hard to read. Some are exceedingly dry
and uninteresting.[231] From natural temperament he lacked what is
signified by the word _unction_. He has no strokes of pathos,
and the spirit of his theology adds to the defect, by depriving his
sermons, to some extent, of that light and beauty, that tenderness and
power, which proceed from a clear insight into the deepest spiritual
wants of humanity, and the supply made for them in the unsearchable
riches of Christ.
[Sidenote: 1694.]
Wit was not wanting amongst Tillotson’s gifts. “I hate a fanatic in
lawn sleeves,” cried one of his detractors--“I hate a knave in any
sleeves,” replied the Prelate. He said South “wrote like a man, but
bit like a dog;” and when South replied, “he would rather bite like
a dog, than fawn like one,” Tillotson rejoined, “that for his part he
would choose to be a spaniel rather than a cur.”[232] Sancroft was a
Tory. Tillotson, through the discipline of the Revolution, had cast
off the last remnant of the doctrine which he unfortunately inculcated
at the time of Russel’s execution. Tillotson had by his Puritan birth,
childhood, and education, imbibed feelings which he never completely
lost; and his personal sympathies with those who retained a Puritan
creed continued to live in his later days, fostered by friendly
intercourse with members of nonconforming communions. Yet perhaps he
had not a whit more of love for Nonconformity than High Churchmen,
whose reputation for charity his own completely eclipsed.
[Sidenote: TENISON.]
As in our day, so it was in the days of William the III., when a
vacancy occurred in the See of Canterbury, different names were
suggested for its supply. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, and Hall,
Bishop of Bristol, were both mentioned, and their merits canvassed,
but after the lot had been shaken a little in the Royal urn, guided
by the Queen, it fell upon Thomas Tenison, Bishop of Lincoln. He had
been a distinguished London clergyman, prominent in opposing Popery and
King James. A nobleman, wishing to secure the Bishopric of Lincoln for
some one else, and to prejudice the Queen against Tenison, told Her
Majesty that he had delivered a funeral sermon for Nell Gwyn, and had
praised that concubine of Charles II. “I have heard as much,” replied
Mary; “this is a sign that that poor unfortunate woman died penitent;
for if I can read a man’s heart through his looks, had not she made
a truly pious and Christian end, the Doctor could never have been
induced to speak well of her.”[233] Tenison’s conduct in the diocese
of Lincoln increased the high estimation in which he was held by Mary,
and consequently he was nominated to Canterbury on the 8th of December,
1694, and confirmed in his election in the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow on
the 16th of January, 1695.
[Sidenote: 1695.]
Between those two dates, his Royal patroness sickened with the
small-pox, three days before Christmas, and died three days after.
I shall employ a passage in the funeral sermon which he preached on
the occasion, not only because it well describes the event, but also
because it exhibits the preacher’s style, and occasioned at the time
considerable controversy.
“Some few days before the feast of our Lord’s nativity, she found
herself indisposed. I will not say that of this affliction she had
any formal presage, but yet there was something that looked like an
immediate preparation for it. I mean her choosing to hear read more
than once a little before it, the last sermon of a good and learned man
(now with God) upon this subject: ‘What, shall we receive good from
the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ This indisposition
speedily grew up into a dangerous distemper; as soon as this was
understood, the earliest care of this charitable mistress was for the
removing of such immediate servants, as might by distance, be preserved
in health. Soon after this she fixed the times of prayers in that
chamber to which her sickness had confined her.
[Sidenote: TENISON.]
“On that very day she showed how sensible she was of death, and how
little she feared it. She required him who officiated there to add that
collect in the Communion of the Sick, in which are these words, ‘That
whensoever the soul shall depart from the body, it may be, without
spot, presented unto Thee.’ ‘I will,’ said she, ‘have this collect read
twice every day. All have need to be put in mind of death, and Princes
as much as anybody else.’
“On Monday the flattering disease occasioned some hopes, though they
were but faint ones. On the next day, the festival of Christ’s birth,
those hopes were raised into a kind of assurance, and there was joy, a
great joy seen in the countenances of all good people. That joy endured
but for a day, and that day was closed with a very dismal night. The
disease showed itself in various forms, and small hopes of life were
now left. Then it was that he who performed the holy offices, believed
himself obliged to acquaint the good Queen of the small hopes all
had of any likelihood of her recovery. She received the tidings with
a courage agreeable to the strength of her faith. Loath she was to
terrify those about her; but for herself, she seemed neither to fear
death, nor to covet life. It was, you may imagine, high satisfaction
to hear her say a great many most Christian things, and this among
them: ‘I believe I shall now soon die, and I thank God I have, from my
youth, learned a true doctrine, that repentance is not to be put off
to a death-bed.’ That day she called for prayers a third time, fearing
she had slept a little, when they were the second time read; for she
thought a duty was not performed if it was not minded.
[Sidenote: 1695.]
“On Thursday she prepared herself for the blessed communion, to which
she had been no stranger from the 15th year of her age. She was much
concerned that she found herself in so dozing a condition, so she
expressed it. To that, she added, ‘Others had need pray for me, seeing
I am so little able to pray for myself.’ However, she stirred up her
attention, and prayed to God for His assistance, and God heard her, for
from thenceforth to the end of the office, she had the perfect command
of her understanding, and was intent upon the great work she was going
about; and so intent, that when a second draught was offered her, she
refused it, saying, ‘I have but a little time to live, and I would
spend it a better way.’
“The holy elements being ready, and several Bishops coming to be
communicants, she repeated piously and distinctly, but with a low voice
(for such her weakness had then made it) all the parts of the holy
office which were proper for her, and received, with all the signs of a
strong faith and fervent devotion, the blessed pledges of God’s favour,
and thanked Him with a joyful heart that she was not deprived of the
opportunity. She owned also, that God had been good to her, beyond
her expectation, though in a circumstance of smaller importance, she
having, without any indecency or difficulty, taken down that bread,
when it had not been so easy for her, for some time, to swallow any
other.
“That afternoon she called for prayers somewhat earlier than the
appointed time, because she feared (that was her reason) that she
should not long be so well composed. And so it came to pass; for
every minute after this ’twas plain that death made nearer and nearer
approaches. However, this true Christian kept her mind as fixed, as
possible she could, upon the best things; and there were read, by her
directions, several psalms of David, and also a chapter of a pious book
concerning trust in God. Toward the latter end of it, her apprehension
began to fail, yet not so much but that she could say a devout Amen to
that prayer in which her pious soul was recommended to that God who
gave it.
[Sidenote: TENISON.]
“During all this time there appeared nothing of impatience, nothing of
frowardness, nothing of anger; there was heard nothing of murmuring,
nothing of impertinence, nothing of ill-sound, and scarce a number of
disjointed words.
“In all these afflictions the King was greatly afflicted; how sensibly,
and yet how becomingly, many saw, but few have skill enough to
describe; I am sure I have not. At last, the helps of art and prayers
and tears not prevailing, a quarter before one on Friday morning, after
two or three small strugglings of nature, and without such agonies as
in such cases are common, she fell asleep.”[234]
I have thought it best to give this extract without any abridgment, as
certain omissions in the account of the Queen’s last hours became the
subject of much controversy.
Mary was buried in Westminster Abbey, with all the pomp of a purple and
gold coffin, banners, and escutcheons, Lords in scarlet and ermine, and
Commons in black mantles; far more interesting than all that is the
following incident, carefully recorded: “A robin redbreast, which had
taken refuge in the Abbey, was seen constantly on her hearse, and was
looked upon with tender affection for its seeming love to the lamented
Queen.”[235]
Loyalty to William, and sympathy with him in his great loss, were
expressed in numerous addresses. A large collection of elegiac poems
were published at Cambridge, entitled, _Lacrymæ Cantabrigienses_,
&c., by a list of Dons, some of whom became Bishops; and the London
Clergy vied with each other in their eulogiums--to use the words of a
contemporary letter-writer, playing “the fool in their hyperbolical
commendation of the Queen, that looks like fulsome flattery, and some
expressions bordering upon blasphemy.”[236] The Presbyterians, headed
by Dr. Bates, presented an address of condolence to His Majesty.
[Sidenote: 1695.]
The nonjuring Clergy were much excited by the publication of Tenison’s
sermon, since it represented the Queen as eminently religious and
devout, but said not a word of any repentance for having assumed her
father’s crown, and for the filial impiety considered to be involved in
such conduct. A letter to this effect, published in the month of March,
1695, created an intense sensation, being attributed to Bishop Ken.
It is printed as his composition in the Memoirs of Tenison; but the
Layman who wrote Ken’s life pronounces it “a tissue of bitter obloquy
against the Queen and the Archbishop, wholly inconsistent with the meek
spirit of the author of the _Practice of Divine Love_.”[237] Upon
internal grounds he rejects its genuineness. I feel disposed to do
the same. Tenison also, it appears, doubted it, but I find no notice
of Ken’s having disavowed the authorship; and we must not forget how
possible it is for an amiable and pious man, under the influence
of what he regards as duty, to say things which run counter to the
generally calm and quiet current of his life.
[Sidenote: LICENSING OF THE PRESS.]
Tenison’s sermon was zealously defended by an anonymous pamphleteer,
who included within his defence funeral discourses delivered by other
dignitaries; and whilst the press was occupied by this controversy,
the friends and agents of James were rejoicing in the death of Mary
as endangering the position of William. The Church of England, it was
now thought, would be weaned from his cause, by the outburst of his
Presbyterian predilections, even to the overthrow of Episcopacy. The
ruin of its interests seemed at hand, unless the Revolution could be
revolutionized. Ten thousand men, the Jacobite plotters surmised, would
suffice for the reconquest of the kingdom, since the Church of England
party, who had been for William only on Mary’s account, were, it was
thought, now entirely alienated from him. The confusion occasioned by
her removal was relied upon as a proof of the inclination of the people
to see their Stuart King back at St. James.[238]
[Sidenote: 1695.]
In noticing the deaths of Sancroft, Tillotson, and Mary, we have passed
over a period marked by one of those silent changes which often elude
the notice of historians. The change referred to is connected very
closely with religious freedom. We have had frequent occasion to notice
restrictions on the liberty of the press. It is not necessary to go
back further than 1662, when Lord Clarendon’s Act for licensing books
was passed. The Act proscribed the printing and selling of heretical,
schismatical, blasphemous, seditious, and treasonable publications.
Nothing was to appear contrary to the Christian faith, or the
doctrines or discipline of the Church of England. Books on law required
a license from the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justices; books of
history, a license from the Secretaries of State; books of divinity and
philosophy, a license from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The folly of
such restrictions--proved by their futility when evaded, and by their
mischievousness when carried into effect--needs no comment. The Act now
noticed was made to be in force for two years. It was then continued.
In 1685 it was re-enacted for seven years. It continued through the
Revolution; and in 1692 was renewed under the Tories for two years
more. At four different times, from 1694 to 1698, attempts were made
in Parliament to prepare new Bills for licensing printing presses, and
the Whigs on one occasion seemed on the point of following the example
of their political rivals. Movement in the old direction went so far
once, that a restrictive Bill passed the Lords and was read in the
Commons--to be thrown out on a second reading. Church and State thus
narrowly missed being shackled again in the exercise of rights ever
precious to enlightened humanity; and the year 1694, though unmarked in
history, is illustrious in fact through the melting away for ever of a
long-continued and mischievous licensing law. Not, however, as we shall
presently see, that all legislative interference with the publishers of
opinions then terminated; but a great obstacle vanished out of the path
to that wide intellectual liberty which as a nation we now enjoy.
CHAPTER IX.
Tillotson, shortly before his death, as already related, was engaged
with his Episcopal brethren in drawing up certain ecclesiastical
regulations to be issued on their authority, but which he afterwards
felt would be more effective if published in the King’s name. Shortly
after Tenison’s accession to the Archiepiscopate, injunctions were sent
forth by Royal command, touching points exactly of the nature indicated
to have been discussed in prior Episcopal meetings at Lambeth. When
we consider the time of their appearance, we have no doubt the new
Archbishop adopted the draft of his predecessor. It appeared in the
form of a Royal proclamation, recommending care in conferring orders,
condemning pluralities and non-residence, and urging upon Bishops to
watch over their Clergy, and promote, through them, the celebration
of Sacraments, the visitation of the sick, and the catechetical
instruction of the young.[239]
[Sidenote: 1695.]
The publication of these articles in the King’s name is a fact not
to be lightly passed over. Royal letters had been issued by Queen
Elizabeth for the reform of ecclesiastical affairs, yet none of them
dealt so particularly with abuses as did this mandate of William’s.
It is remarkable that Charles I.--the opposite in ecclesiastical and
political sentiments to the hero of the Revolution--had addressed to
Laud a number of instructions, which strongly resemble those now under
notice.[240] After the Restoration, although Charles II. by several
missives had exercised immediate authority over the Church, and had
given explicit directions as to how the Clergy were to preach,[241]
such orders as approach nearest to those of William are found to bear
the simple impress of archiepiscopal authority.[242] What had been
attempted in the way of Church reform by Sancroft appears in the shape
of an agreement between himself and the other Prelates to do things
formerly enunciated.[243] The grounds upon which Tillotson and Tenison
arrived at the determination to seek Church reform under cover of Royal
authority, do not appear; but the proclamations indicate that, at the
time, the chief spiritual rulers of the land must have had high views
of the prerogatives of the Crown. If since Elizabeth’s Reformation the
title of _Head of the Church_[244] had not been legally employed,
all which that title could be taken to mean, successive Archbishops of
Canterbury--Tillotson and Tenison--were ready to concede; and what is a
little curious, in making this concession they could find a precedent
in the acts of Archbishop Laud under Charles I. A still more striking
example of the interference of the Crown with purely religious subjects
will soon come under our notice.
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS.]
The fact is, that what is generally called Erastianism attained more
power than ever after the Revolution. The State ruled the Church. In
the matter of Toleration it maintained the liberties of Nonconformity
against the designs of bigoted Churchmen, and in the management of
internal affairs it sought to promote the interests of a moderate and
salutary reform.
A circular from the Archbishop, addressed to each of his suffragan
Bishops, followed on the 16th of July, 1695; and in it, without
referring to the Royal communication made in the month of February,
he specifies a number of particulars which had been considered by him
and such of his brethren as were at the time in or near London. These
particulars relate to certain religious matters--to the public reading
in church of the Act against profane cursing and swearing, and to
catechetical instruction--but they relate also to a number of subjects
connected with temporalities, such as the prevention of Simoniacal
covenants, the better payment of curates, dilapidations, glebe lands,
surrogates, and the removal of clergymen from one diocese to another.
The employment of proper care in examinations for orders--a point of
great religious importance--is, however, enforced at length, and each
Bishop is urged to lay it upon the conscience of the candidate, to
observe such fasting as is prescribed upon Ember-days, and to give
himself to meditation and prayer. It is worth noticing that the third
of the injunctions calls attention to the 55th canon, which enjoins
the bidding of prayer for the King before sermon; “it being commonly
reported,” says the Archbishop, “that it is the manner of some in every
diocese either to use the Lord’s Prayer (which the canons prescribe
as the conclusion of the prayer, and not the whole prayer) or at
least, to leave out the King’s titles, and to forbear to pray for the
Bishops as such.”[245] The sentence reveals a state of things serious,
if not alarming, both to the King and the Bishops. Plainly there
brooded disaffection towards the existing power in Church and State.
Jacobites and Nonjurors troubled the British Israel, and manifested
their feelings in the House of God. Parish churches, if not cathedrals,
presented Sunday after Sunday proofs of disloyalty and spiritual
revolt. A new species of Nonconformity ate its way into the hearts of
Englishmen--a fact to be illustrated in subsequent portions of this
history.
[Sidenote: 1695.]
Between the months of February and July, to which the Royal and the
Episcopal letters belonged, there occurred an incident which comes
in juxtaposition with what has been related of ecclesiastical powers
exercised by the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the month
of May nominated as the first of the Lords Justices of England for
the administration of public affairs during His Majesty’s absence in
Holland and Flanders.
William had repeatedly left England since the Revolution. In 1691 he
was absent from January to March, and from May to October; in 1692 from
March to October; in 1693 from March to November; in 1694 from May to
November. Like Richard Coeur de Lion, like the three Edwards, like the
fifth Henry, William of Orange was a man of war from his youth, and
his military vocation led him, as it led them, away from the peaceful
duties of home government. As they at the head of steel-clad knights
and sturdy bowmen marched over the Tweed or through Normandy, Picardy,
and Poitou; as they led crusaders to fight battles at Jaffa, Askelon,
and Jerusalem, so did he who now swayed the English sceptre, carry his
troops over into the Netherlands to bear the brunt of the Landen fight,
or recover the strongholds of Namur.
[Sidenote: LORDS JUSTICES.]
When William had been abroad before in the life-time of Mary, she ruled
as Queen Consort, rendering a special regency needless; now that she
slept in her grave, it was necessary that representatives appointed by
the Crown should during the Royal absence govern the threefold realm.
Churchmen in ancient times had held the highest offices in the State,
and had been the Prime Ministers of Kings. Whilst Richard I. was pining
in captivity on his return from Palestine, Archbishop Hubert Walter
acted as Chief Justiciary of the kingdom, and even in person laid siege
to the castles of malcontents and reduced them to his master’s sway;
and whilst the not less brave, but more prudent, Henry V. was winning
laurels at Agincourt, Archbishop Chicheley acted as Prime Minister at
home, and took his place at the head of the Council-Board.[246] After
the Reformation, Churchmen, though of diminished influence, appeared
in high political positions. Juxon held the staff of Lord Treasurer,
and Williams kept the Great Seal; but after the blow struck at the
Church by the Long Parliament, no ecclesiastic occupied any important
State office until the reign of William III. Upon this new turn in the
wheel, curiously enough, came the restoration of high civil authority
to ecclesiastical hands. At the same moment, the Church appeared
submissive to the State, and the State appeared in submission to the
chief ruler of the Church. The former kind of submission was real, the
latter only apparent.
[Sidenote: 1695.]
The Archbishop did not fill the place of a Prime Minister like
Chicheley, any more than he took the command of troops like Hubert
Walter. It is difficult to say who in the month of May, 1695, was Prime
Minister; as the Duke of Leeds, who had headed the late administration,
just then, though still nominally President of the Council, lay
prostrate in disgrace, and his name is omitted in the list of Lords
Justices who held the Regency. The Whigs were recovering power, and
with the seven members of that party who were commissioned to act in
the Royal name, there appeared but one Tory. William III. himself
always acted as Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he was at home or
abroad, and during his absence from England on this occasion probably
the management of domestic business principally rested with Somers,
Keeper of the Great Seal, and Shrewsbury, Secretary of State. The
Archbishop, as standing next to the Royal family, took precedence in
the Commission, but the actual power which he exercised must not be
measured by that circumstance.
On the 10th of October William returned, after having had the
satisfaction of seeing a Marshal of France surrender to the allies,
the Castle of Namur. The sound of bells from every steeple, the
twinkling--for in those days it could hardly be a glare--of lights in
every window, and street crowds rending the air with hurrahs, welcomed
the victor as he passed through London to his favourite residence at
Kensington. Speedily afterwards he made a Royal progress, and visited
Newmarket, where, on Sunday, October the 20th, the Vice-Chancellor,
accompanied by the principal members of the University of Cambridge,
in all their sedate magnificence, waited on His Majesty, and delivered
a congratulatory speech. The usual kissing of hands and assurances
of favour wound up the ceremony.[247] He also visited Oxford, where
he had been unpopular; but now, if we were to judge by the reception
prepared, we should conclude the tide had turned; for Latin orations,
musical concerts, and a splendid banquet were all arranged in honour
of his presence. However, he would stay in the beautiful city only a
few hours, excusing himself on the ground that he had seen the Colleges
before. He had no admiration for Oxford, and Oxford had no admiration
for him; and between the two no love was lost, when he drove off in his
lumbering coach on the road to London.
[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL INJUNCTIONS.]
The Royal injunctions relative to ecclesiastical reforms, published
in February, 1695, were followed by other Royal injunctions relative
to theological disputes in February, 1696. Just then, a money panic
struck not only the commercial classes, but the whole community. The
currency sank into such a state, that owing to the wear and tear
of coin, and the ingenious arts of clippers, neither the gentleman
who paid his guinea nor the peasant who received his shilling, knew
exactly what the piece of gold or silver happened to be worth. The
subject came up in sermons, and preachers deplored the low state of
public morality. Fleetwood, preaching before the Lord Mayor of London
in the month of December, deplored that “a soft pernicious tenderness
slackened the care of magistrates, kept back the under officers,
corrupted the juries, and withheld the evidence;” and one of the clergy
connected with the Cathedral of York, when addressing some clippers
who were to be hanged next day, dwelt on the insensibility of culprits
of that class to the heinousness of their crime.[248] Exactly at the
time when this monetary question had thrown everybody into a state of
embarrassment, a theological controversy added to the excitement of
religious people.
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
To judge of the new Royal injunctions we must first understand the
controversy, and to understand the controversy is no easy matter. To
trace the dispute through all its windings would only perplex the
reader--to enumerate the publications which appeared would be wearisome
and profitless; therefore I shall content myself with indicating the
different lines pursued by the principal controversialists, and the
treatment which consequently some of them received.
It may be premised that the controversy indicates a new position of
Christian thought, a new atmosphere of theological feeling, as compared
with that which had obtained in Commonwealth times and after the
Restoration. The question raised did not relate to predestination,
to the nature of Christ’s death, the extent of its efficacy and
application, but to the mode of the Divine existence. It showed a
retreat back to inquiries akin to such as agitated the Nicene Age.
Oxford and London witnessed a revival of conflicts similar to those
of Constantinople and Alexandria. Battles about grace, election, and
free-will had been fought out, and the warriors were exhausted: some
had passed away, some were growing old. The human mind now ranged
over other fields long neglected, seeking fresh victories over old
errors. Theological discussion is determined in a great degree by
circumstances, idiosyncracies, friendships, and associations; but
the spirit of an age is also a mighty force, acting with, and acting
through all other influences. And it is not a little remarkable, that
as the revival of the study of philosophy in the Christian schools of
Alexandria was followed by controversies respecting the Divine nature,
so the revival of the study of a similar philosophy at Cambridge was
followed by a similar result. Whereas the logic, ethics, and politics
of Aristotle have affinity with questions relating to the Divine
government, the speculations of Plato connect themselves more with
questions as to the Divine Being Himself. Accordingly, the Aristotelian
logicians of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Commonwealth,
dwelt much upon predestination, justification, and the atonement; and
the philosophical Divines of the Revolution, trained more in Platonic
culture, devoted themselves to questions respecting the Trinity and the
Person of Christ.
[Sidenote: CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE TRINITY.]
At the time of the Revolution, Unitarian principles in England were
on the advance, both as to explicitness of statement and extent of
currency. The preparations for this change have been indicated. It
obtained in a decided form to no great degree, but its influence was
felt beyond its definite boundaries. According to the Toleration Act,
Antitrinitarians were as much precluded from publicly celebrating
worship after the Revolution, as Presbyterians and others had been
before; yet, by the close of the 17th century, it is said, Unitarian
meeting-houses were erected.[249] Some Presbyterians, perhaps, rather
of an Arian than of a Socinian type, at that period diverged from
orthodox paths; but it is stated that on the whole these opinions
“were more prevalent in the Church than among the Dissenters.”[250]
The republication of _Biddle’s Tracts_, and the issue of new
works, published anonymously, going far beyond the theological point
Biddle had reached, promoted the denial of our Lord’s Divinity. The
series was zealously supported, if not prepared by the well-known
Thomas Firman, who, though an Unitarian, remained a member of the
Church of England.[251] The modern assailants of orthodoxy, catching
the rationalistic spirit of the times, dwelt upon what they conceived
to be the unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity, and urged
the absence in Scripture of the scholastic terms in which the doctrine
is commonly defined. They charged the Fathers and the Schoolmen with
corrupting Christianity; then directing their attention to the doctrine
of the Redeemer’s Deity, they insisted much upon His proper humanity,
upon His trustfulness, devotion, and obedience.
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
If, said the Unitarians, Christ be God, none can be greater than He,
yet He says, “The Father is greater than I.” If Jesus Christ were truly
God, they alleged, it would be blasphemy to call Him the sent of God;
heedless of the allegation, on the other side, that if He were simply
man, it would be blasphemy to ascribe to Him Divine names, attributes,
and honours. Arguments were also adduced against the doctrine of the
Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost. A violent attack also was
made, in a distinct publication, on the character of Athanasius, with
the object of damaging the theological belief which that great Father
of the Church so zealously upheld.[252] Books of this description,
vindicating opinions under a legal ban, excited the indignation both of
Church and Parliament. A work, bearing on the heterodox side, written
by a Divine of the Latitudinarian school, led to his being deprived of
the Rectorship of Lincoln College, Oxford,[253] and a vote was passed
by the Commons dooming to the flames an attack on the doctrine of the
Trinity.[254]
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
Dr. Wallis, the Savillian professor of Geometry, wrote a pamphlet[255]
in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, and employed some of the
strangest expressions and illustrations with regard to the mystery
that were ever conceived by any human being. “What is it,” he asks,
“that is pretended to be impossible? ’Tis but this, that there be three
_somewhats_, which are but one God, and these _somewhats_
are called Persons.” To explain the Trinity in unity, he compares
the Almighty to a _cube_, with its length, breadth, and height
infinitely extended. The length, breadth, and height of the cube, he
says, are equal, and they are the equal sides of one substance--a
fair resemblance of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This _longum_,
_latum_, _profundum_, such are his words, is one cube of
three dimensions, yet but one body; and this Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost are three Persons, and yet one God. Vain attempts were made by
the early Fathers to give definite conceptions of the mode of the
Divine existence--the sun and its rays, a fountain and its streams,
reason and speech, ointment and fragrance, being employed for the
purpose; but Dr. Wallis attained to an originality as unenviable as
it was startling; and were it not for his known candour and piety,
it might be supposed he intended to turn the orthodox doctrine into
ridicule.
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
Dr. Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul’s and Master of the Temple, now in the
black books of High Churchmen, undertook to meet the new attacks upon
the Trinity; and, as so much was made of the assumed unreasonableness
of that doctrine, he commenced his vindication of it with an elaborate
argument to prove that it involves no contradiction whatever. He used
the shield of reason to resist the darts of reason. His notion was,
that self-consciousness constitutes the numerical unity of a Spiritual
Being,--that the unity of a mind or spirit reaches as far as its
self-consciousness,--that, in the three Persons of the Trinity, there
is what may be called a mutual self-consciousness, a self-consciousness
common to the three; and that therefore these three Persons are
essentially and numerically one. A moral union in knowledge, will,
and love, he says, is the only union of created spirits; but there is
an essential union between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, through the
existence of a mutual consciousness. This notion contains, according
to Sherlock, the true faith of a Trinity in unity. It is orthodoxy
rationalized. It does not confound the Persons; it does not divide
the substance.[256] After working out an abstruse argument to this
effect, and after endeavouring to show there is authority in some of
the Fathers for his theory, he concludes by taking up, _seriatim_,
certain objections which had been urged in recent Unitarian writings.
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
A young man, a Master of Arts, just turned 27, stood up, on the 28th
of October, 1695, in the pulpit of St. Mary’s, Oxford, before a large
audience of Dons and Gownsmen, to preach from the text--now given up
on all hands as an interpolation--“There are three that bear record
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three
are one.” The preacher was Joseph Bingham, a scholar of surprising
erudition, destined to throw a world of light upon the antiquities of
the Christian Church; in the sermon, and preface to it when published,
he distinguished between the patristic and the scholastic doctrines of
the Trinity, maintaining that Luther, in his theology on that point,
followed in the wake of the Fathers, whilst Calvin trod in the steps
of the Schoolmen. The Lutheran, the Patristic, and the Scripture
doctrine, in Bingham’s estimation, amounted to this--that there are
three individual substances in the Godhead, really and numerically
distinct from each other, though at the same time they are one in
another sense; for they are not of a different nature; they are not
divided like men and angels; they are not three parts of one whole;
nor are they three Beings, who have Divine natures independently,
every one from himself; nor are they three opposite principles, or
three providences, clashing with one another. No; they constitute
“one harmonious providence, and one undivided principle of all other
things.”[257] Sherlock, a citizen of the world, catching the spirit of
the age, appealed to reason; Bingham, a recluse, scarcely touched by
habits of thought outside his University, appealed to tradition. This
piece of hard, dry learning, without the slightest tincture of pathos,
or a single practical remark from beginning to end, must have proved a
repulsive lesson even to an Oxford audience. Its general drift, running
in the same direction as Sherlock’s teaching, though it included no
theory of mutual consciousness, alarmed the authorities; they went
home from St. Mary’s in great agitation, muttering against the young
preacher charges of Tritheism, Arianism, and other heresies. Bingham
was simply a student who had missed his way in theological speculation;
but Sherlock was personally disliked by Jacobites, who were irritated
by his political apostacy, and by the adherents of William, who envied
him his church preferments. No hornet’s nest could be worse than
the attacks which this unlucky controversialist aroused. Many who,
under other circumstances, would have let heterodoxy alone, could not
tolerate it when coming from such a quarter; and the most unseemly
reflections on the man’s character were mixed up with arguments against
his doctrines.[258]
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
South plunged into the fray, and used his sledgehammer with unmerciful
violence. Not unlearned, not unversed in logic, South was more of a
rhetorician than a philosopher, more of a wit than a Divine. After
denouncing Sherlock’s explication as wholly inconsistent with the
mysteriousness of the subject, and representing his exceptions to
the use of certain words in relation to it as false, groundless, and
impertinent, he exposed, with tremendous ridicule, the theory of mutual
consciousness. “For self-consciousness, according to him,” says South,
“is the constituent principle, or formal reason, of personality. So
that self-consciousness properly constitutes or makes a person, and so
many self-consciousnesses make so many distinct persons. But mutual
consciousness, so far as it extends, makes a unity not of persons (for
personality as such imports distinction and something personally
incommunicable), but an unity of nature in persons. So that after
self-consciousness has made several distinct persons, in comes mutual
consciousness and sets them all at one again, and gives them all but
one and the same nature, which they are to take amongst themselves
as well as they can. And this is a true and strict account of this
author’s new hypothesis; and such, as I suppose, he will not except
against, because justly I am sure he cannot; howsoever, I may have
expressed the novel whimsey something for the reader’s diversion.”[259]
How monstrous to think of diverting people, when professedly engaged in
studying the awful secrets of the Divine Essence!
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
South maintained that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not distinct
infinite minds or spirits--that to say they are so, is to contradict
Councils, Fathers, Schoolmen, and later Divines; that the book he
assailed contains philosophical paradoxies and grammatical mistakes;
and that the author was insolent, scornful, and proud beyond all
parallel. To quote a full sample of South’s personal abuse would be to
cover pages.[260]
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
No doubt there is much force in some of his arguments, and he
completely demolished the theory of mutual consciousness. But he was
much stronger as a destructive than as an architect. When he attempted
to define a positive notion of the Trinity, he failed, as all did
who went before him, as all have who followed after him. Nor could
he escape the infection of a most infelicitous, if not a decidedly
irreverent, habit of illustrating theological mysteries. Wallis
had written of _three somewhats_, and of a _Divine cube_
of infinite dimensions. Sherlock had propounded a theory of Divine
_mutual-consciousness_; and now South came forward with the idea,
that the distinctions in the Godhead are _modes, habitudes, and
affections_ of the Divine substance--they are _postures_--such
in spiritual and immaterial beings, as _posture_ is to the human
body.[261] Passing over South’s coarse scurrility, I cannot conceive
how any inquirer after truth can be helped on his way by this clever
and brilliant companion, who never misses an opportunity of cracking a
joke in his reader’s ear. Even when South’s reasoning is forcible, he
is ever interrupting it with flashes of wit; and throughout one feels,
what is fatal to all religious instruction, that the polemic is more
anxious about victory than truth. No doubt his attack on Sherlock was
deemed by contemporaries a decided success; he drove his antagonist
from the field and spoiled him of his armour. But when he charged him
with Tritheism, he charged him with what Sherlock utterly denied.
That Sherlock’s theory is Tritheistic was a mere inference, and what
may seem a logical deduction to others did not appear so to himself.
In like manner Sabellianism, in the eyes of some, lurked under the
folds of South’s argument, though he indignantly repelled the idea.
The fact is, no man can attempt a logical explanation of the Godhead
without being in danger of falling into Tritheism on the one side, or
Sabellianism on the other. In such controversies we notice the frequent
use of some word not in Scripture, but considered to be an equivalent
for what is Scripture--a term conceived to be a concentration of
diffused truth--the quintessence of a doctrine previously in a state
of solution. Unfortunately such words are differently understood by
different parties. One person refuses to take them in the sense affixed
to them by another, and will employ a meaning of his own. The same
proposition thus becomes to two different minds entirely different
things, and the utmost confusion is the consequence. Theories to
explain facts are confounded with the facts themselves, and a man who
only denies a particular theory, is charged with denying the fact to
which the theory relates. Hence, whilst Sherlock and South were really
contending for the doctrine of the Trinity, each regarded the other as
giving it up. It should be added that in the end, Sherlock’s statements
were more cautious than at the beginning; for he came to admit that the
phrases--three minds, three spirits, three substances--which he had so
freely used, needed great care for their proper employment, and were
liable to be taken in a heretical sense; that after all, Father, Son,
and Spirit, are really of one and the same substance.[262] Sherlock
and South did but follow up divergent tendencies of thought and action
before the Council of Nicæa--tendencies which that Council sought to
check and harmonize. Sherlock followed in the wake of Tertullian,
Novatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, whose inquiries mainly pointed to
_distinctions_ in the Godhead. South trod in the footsteps of
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria, who
leaned towards Monarchianism, and were jealous of any dishonour done to
the Divine Unity.
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
In this controversy, which divided two men by a distance, in
the judgment of some thinkers, infinitesimally small, homage
was nevertheless done to the essential importance of truth. The
controversy, however, betrayed the utter absence of disposition on
the part of each to learn one jot of wisdom from the other. It was
literally a _polemical_ affair; a battle, each seeing in his
opposite an enemy--in fact the old story of disputes between Church and
Church, sect and sect, conformist and nonconformist--war to the knife
by mistaken foes, instead of mutual help by friends in council.
Of course Unitarians, as they stood by, watched the conflict with
eager curiosity, striving to turn it to their own account. In the view
of those who had advanced beyond John Biddle, the doctrine of the
Trinity and the use of the Word were repugnant; and they traced what
they deemed an innovation to the early philosophical schools that had
so powerfully influenced the after-history of theological thought.
They labelled Cudworth’s theory as the Platonic; Sherlock’s as the
Cartesian; South’s as the Aristotelian. Moreover, they connected the
scheme of Sherlock with the philosophy of Realism, and the scheme
of South with that of Nominalism. With regard to speculations which
had been woven around the teaching of Holy Scripture, there was some
ground for the nomenclature; but it really forms another instance of
the confusion of thought produced when critics identify metaphysical
theories with simple conclusions drawn from Scripture, as expressed in
the grand old words, “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
Howe took part in the bewildering dispute, and has been supposed by
some to have advocated Sherlock’s side. But it seems to me that what I
have been saying accords with his views, and that he counted such an
opinion as that expressed by Sherlock only as a theory for obviating
objection to a fact, whilst another theory might be held in perfect
consistency with a sincere faith in the truth to which both theories
apply. In his _Calm and Sober Inquiry Concerning the Possibility
of a Trinity in the Godhead_, the utmost he asserts is, that such
a mode of triune existence as Sherlock attributes to the Divine
Being is _possible_, and to his mind the most reasonable; but
he did not think another hypothesis of a different kind altogether
indefensible. He adopted what is called the _personal_ theory;
but he did not deem a _modal_ theory, like South’s, either absurd
or heterodox.[263] Evidently he considered that different hypotheses
are at hand not fully to elucidate the mode of the Divine existence,
but to obviate objections, by showing that a threefold distinction in
that existence can be imagined, so as not to involve any contradiction
whatever.[264]
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
Amidst this war of words, in which reason and tradition had a share,
secular authority interfered. On the 3rd of January, 1694, the Lords
spiritual and temporal ordered their Majesties’ Attorney-General to
prosecute the author and printer of an infamous and scandalous libel,
entitled, _A Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the
Trinity_.[265] This was a State condemnation of Unitarianism, and
the same year a tract printed by the Unitarian Society was seized by
authority, and the writer apprehended. On the 25th of November, 1695,
the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses at Oxford decreed it to be
false, impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, and especially the Church of England, to say that there are
three infinite, distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, or that
the three Persons are three distinct, infinite minds or spirits. This
was a condemnation by the University of the doctrines enunciated by
Sherlock and supported by Bingham. The latter, in consequence of the
storm raised by his sermon, resigned his fellowship, and withdrew from
the University; but others, who thought with him, asserted, that what
the Heads of Oxford had condemned as heretical, really expressed the
Catholic faith; that the decree virtually accused of error the Nicene
Creed and the Church of England, and exposed both to the scorn and
triumph of the Socinians. Sherlock declared “that he would undertake,
any day in the year, to procure a meeting of twice as many wise and
learned men to censure their decree.”[266] Out of this state of things
also arose the new Royal injunctions I have noticed. They prohibited
every preacher from delivering 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; and
they also strictly charged the right reverend fathers to make use of
their authority for repressing the publication of books against that
doctrine.[267]
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
Charles II. had in 1662 commanded the Clergy to avoid “the deep points
of election and reprobation, together with the incomprehensible manner
of the concurrence of God’s free grace and man’s free will.”[268]
He thus claimed a high spiritual authority over the Ministers of
religion, but it was by removing certain topics from within the range
of discussion. In the instance just given, William III. enjoined
the positive inculcation of a particular doctrine, and no other. He
did not on his own authority define the doctrine, but only referred
to the doctrine authorized in the Creeds and Articles recognized
by the Established Church; indeed, he did not go beyond the terms
employed in the sixteenth clause of the Toleration Act;[269] yet it
must be confessed that altogether he appears as a still more definite
theological censor than Charles II. And it is worth notice that in this
respect he not only assumed a supreme Headship over the Established
Church, but he also claimed to rule the Free Churches of England, for
he commanded that no “preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture,
should presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the Trinity
than that defined in the Creeds and Articles.” When we weigh the
words employed, we are astonished to find the constitutional King of
the Revolution--the Prince who came to deliver the consciences of
Englishmen from the despotism of James and the tyranny of Rome--binding
upon the Ministers of religion one precise and rigid form of expression
as to the most profound of all theological mysteries. What makes
this fact still more curious, and the conduct in question still more
unreasonable, is that the most learned men in the Church at that
very crisis were unable to decide amongst themselves what was the
doctrine of her formularies, Sherlock declaring it to be one thing and
South another. The truth is, that William lent himself to a device
of the well-meaning Archbishop for maintaining the orthodoxy of all
religionists in the realm, without meaning to claim any power over
the religion of his subjects; for to any usurpation of that sort he
was, from temperament, education, and principle, utterly averse.
The Whig Archbishop, whose intellectual acuteness did not equal his
common sense, who could detect no political or philosophical heresy
in the course which he recommended, simply sought to accomplish what
he considered as a laudable end by a method which he thought most
effectual. He sought to put down error, and to promote peace, and in
doing it, hastily snatched at the rusty halberd of authority over
conscience, which the Revolution had hung up as a relic of the past.
Nothing could be more awkward and inconsistent than such a weapon,
placed by a Latitudinarian Prelate in the hands of a Sovereign adored
as the incarnation of civil and religious liberty.
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
Although it is true of ancient times and Oriental states, that “where
the word of a King is, there is power,” the King’s word amongst
Englishmen at the time we speak of, especially upon religious subjects,
carried with it no weight whatever; and although the controversy
raging when the injunctions were devised soon burnt out, the heresies
assailed lingered on, and in 1698 the Commons appealed to His Majesty
for a proclamation for suppressing pernicious books containing
doctrines opposed to the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles
of the Christian faith.[270] The King, not choosing to do this, gave
his faithful Commons a short answer, promising attention to the
subject, and wishing that provision could be made for the purpose
desired; but, however, a proclamation was immediately issued for
preventing and punishing immorality and profaneness. Not long before
this circumstance, a youth of only eighteen years of age was executed
in the city of Edinburgh for blasphemy--a victim to the zeal of the
Presbyterian Clergy;[271] and, about the same time, the orthodox
Dissenters of England, in an address of theirs, most inconsistently
urged His Majesty to deprive Unitarians of the liberty of the
press.[272]
[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.]
[Sidenote: 1693–8.]
An Act of Parliament was passed in 1698 declaring that any one educated
in the Christian religion, who should, by writing, printing, or
teaching, deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the truth of Christianity,
or the authority of the Scriptures, must, for the first offence,
be disqualified for holding any office; and, for the second, be
incapacitated for bringing an action, possessing lands, becoming a
guardian, acting as an executor, or receiving a legacy; moreover, such
a person might be subjected to imprisonment for three years. Parliament
thus united its authority with that of the Sovereign in the support of
orthodox opinions, without perceiving the futility of such methods of
defending the Gospel. And it is not a little surprising that such a man
as Calamy, both in his _Diary_ and in his _Historical Addition
to Baxter’s Life and Times_, passes by the objectionable enactment;
indeed, so entirely unaffected by its injustice does he appear to
have been, that, in the latter work, he tells us, in the year 1698,
Parliament “did not meddle with matters of religion, though they had a
committee for religion as usually.”[273] Nothing could more decidedly
prove how much even the advocates of religious liberty had yet to learn
touching that very object which they were supposed to understand, and
were sincerely anxious to promote. It is a pleasure to be able to add,
that neither at the time, nor afterwards, so far as can be ascertained,
did this Act take any effect; and, apparently, it remained a dead
letter until its repeal in the year 1813.[274]
CHAPTER X.
James, after his defeat on the banks of the Boyne, did not relinquish
the hope of recovering his crown. In 1692, amidst preparations for a
descent on the shores of England, he issued a Declaration, in which
he promised to maintain the rights of the Established Church; but as
for his past conduct, he had nothing to retract, nothing to deplore;
and as to his future course, he held out no hopes that he would rule
otherwise than he had been doing. Not only were all who should resist
his new attempt to expect his vengeance, but whole classes of persons,
amounting to some thousands, who had incurred his displeasure, were
threatened with punishment. High in the list of culprits excluded from
mercy, stood Tillotson and Burnet. Such a manifesto, of course, did
the Exile’s cause more harm than good; and, therefore, in 1693, he
reluctantly published another, pitched in a different key, promising
an amnesty to those who would submit, and to all his subjects the
restoration of Parliaments, the preservation of the Test Act, and a
limitation of the dispensing power. These concessions were as tardy and
ineffectual as they were insincere. “After all,” said one who was in
the confidence of James, “the object of this Declaration is only to get
us back to England. We shall fight the battle of the Catholics with
much greater advantage at Whitehall than at St. Germains.”[275]
[Sidenote: 1693.]
Within the gloomy courts and chambers of the old Palace of St.
Germains--which in melancholy stateliness furnishes such a contrast
to the cheerful prospect from its windows--James, with his Court of
blinded partizans and his crowds of Jesuit priests, was aiming to
convert certain English Protestants who had followed his unhappy
fortunes, and was planning his return to the land of his fathers, with
the hope of reconciling an heretical realm to the true Catholic Church.
Schemes of insurrection were contrived before the death of Queen
Mary; then came schemes for assassination. Previous to that period,
the death of William had offered James no augmentation of hopes;
afterwards, to clear off the reigning Prince from the stage seemed an
advantageous step. That James originated any plot for the murder of his
son-in-law cannot be proved, and ought not to be believed; nor can it
be shown that he expressly sanctioned anything of the kind; but it can
scarcely be questioned that he knew and connived at what was going on.
Insurrection and assassination plots together opened up vistas into
which the refugees at St. Germains wistfully peered, as they laid their
heads together, and talked over the business in retired corners of the
shaded alleys, or in secret nooks of the rambling palace galleries. A
hundred priests, it is said, were to attend the anointed King in his
expedition, carrying precious relics as pledges of victory--including
the image of St. Victor, of which the miraculous virtue upon infidels
and heretics had been proved, when it was sent as a present to France
from the Queen of Poland. So confident of success were the plotters,
that they talked of taking debentures on English estates, soon to
fall into their hands; also pieces of preferment in Church and State
were allotted to Royal favourites, and Jesuits rejoiced in the idea of
setting up a branch of their order within the spacious precincts of
Chelsea College.[276] These Papists abroad found sympathizing friends
at home amongst the Nonjurors, some of whom were at the time charged
with preaching from texts suggestive of treason and rebellion.
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
A correspondence between the Court of St. Germains and the English
Jacobites, ranging from October, 1693, to August, 1694, brought to
light by Macpherson, shows what was going on at that period. “It is
His Majesty’s desire,” said an agent of the Exile, “that the Bishops
and non-swearing Clergy send one or two of their number, especially
one of the Bishops, to him, with all convenient speed, instructed by
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [Sancroft], and the rest of the most
considerable of them, to inform His Majesty of the readiness they were
in last year to have joined him at his landing, and to have preached
loyalty and due obedience to the people; and to bring assurances, under
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand, that they are in the same
disposition still, and will join His Majesty whenever he shall land.
For the same end, to encourage the people to come into their duty, and
because that there may be some danger in inserting of names, ways of
writing in white must be found out, and the paper sent by the boat,
and not be brought by any of the persons who are sent. This is of the
last importance for the King’s service, and therefore, tho’ difficult
in appearance, must be complied with; and it’s hoped that there may
be no danger, considering how safe all things come. The King is sorry
he cannot put his own hand to this. The King’s affairs depend upon the
punctual doing of what he desires, as you shall know in due time. The
person sent may come safe by Holland. He must likewise bring as good an
account as he can, of the number and names of the non-swearing Clergy;
and likewise, how the non-swearing Clergy stand affected, and what the
King may expect from them, with the best account he can of the state of
the King’s affairs in general.”[277] “You are,” it is said in another
letter, “to let the Bishop of Norwich [Lloyd] know from us, how much we
are pleased with his zeal and faithfulness in our service, to assure
him of our favour, and to return him our most hearty thanks.”[278]
[Sidenote: 1693.]
Assurances were sent from this side the water to the plotters abroad,
full of the spirit of revolt. “His Majesty [James] has likewise for
him, six Protestant Bishops and 600 Ministers who have not taken the
oaths, and almost all the Ministers of the Church of England who have
taken the oaths; that is to say, as one of their Bishops writes to me,
four parts in five are ready to join the King, or to preach in their
churches to stir up the people in his favour,--500 of them having
been ready to join him last year, in order to convince Protestants
that their religion was in no danger, and in order to preach their
sentiments to the inhabitants of the country, thro’ which the King
should pass.”[279]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
Another of these conspirators assured his accomplices abroad, that he
would unite with his regiment a company of Clergymen of the Church
of England, who were determined to serve as volunteers in this
expedition; and he hoped also, by a stratagem, to seize the Prince and
Princess of Orange, and to bring them as prisoners to His Majesty.[280]
Captain Crisp declared that the Bishop of Exeter was entirely in the
King’s interest; and that five parts of seven in the county of Cornwall
were on the same side.[281]
[Sidenote: 1694.]
Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, Sir John Fenwick, Major-General Sackville,
and several other persons of quality and distinction, maintained that
the persons mentioned, having made an exact inquiry through all the
counties of England, found that the mind of the nation in general
was entirely alienated from the Prince of Orange, by losses suffered
at sea, by heavy taxes, by the interruption of commerce within and
without the kingdom, and by the general disorder occasioned through
a change in the circulation of the coin. It is distinctly affirmed,
“that four parts out of five of the Clergy are disposed to declare for
the King;”[282] and His Majesty was earnestly besought to think of
some way to reconcile the Church party, and those of the Dissenters
who were in Parliament, as it would contribute much to His Majesty’s
service.[283] This was before the death of Mary, afterwards intrigues
did not end in foolish, harmless, and untruthful correspondence. A
conspiracy was formed to attack William when driving over a piece of
bad road between Brentford and Turnham Green, but the conspirators were
betrayed, and the bubble of vengeance immediately burst. Charnock,
Keyes, and King, Roman Catholic Jacobites--who, with others of the
same faith in religion and politics, had been deeply involved in this
affair--suffered for their offence, the last-named declaring at the
foot of the gallows, that what he had done was to be attributed to his
own sinful passions, not to any Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject
of tyrannicide. Two others of higher grade--Sir John Friend, belonging
to the Jacobite nonjuring class, and Sir William Parkyns, a Jacobite,
but a juror too--on the 3rd of April, also suffered death for their
share in the conspiracy. The fate of these knights created immense
excitement, chiefly on account of a circumstance which brings their
execution before us. Jeremy Collier has been already mentioned as a
distinguished nonjuring Divine, and a great sensation was produced in
the vast crowds round the fatal tree by the sight of this clergyman--in
company with two others less known, named Cook and Snatt--performing
some peculiar religious rites at the last moment of the culprits’
lives. The three Divines were observed in the cart, not only praying
with the unhappy men, but laying hands upon them as they knelt
down--Collier solemnly pronouncing over them the form of absolution,
prescribed in the Visitation of the Sick. A paper, professedly written
by Friend, and delivered to the Sheriff, contained a prayer for King
James’ restoration, and stated that the writer was a member of the
Church, “though,” he adds, “a most unworthy and unprofitable part of it
(meaning the nonjuring part), which suffers so much at present for a
strict adherence to the laws and Christian principles.
For this I suffer, and for this I die.”[284]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
People were astonished at the strange absolution performed. Multitudes
more who heard of it shared in the wonder, and the circulation of the
paper increased the excitement. To all but the most obstinate, the
administering of absolution under the circumstances seemed like an
act of sympathy with civil treason, and a gross perversion of Church
formularies. London presently rose in a state of high commotion. The
Tyburn affair was in everybody’s mouth, and broadsides and pamphlets
bearing upon it were in everybody’s hands. The public authorities
interfered, and at once seized Cook and Snatt. Collier eluded their
search; and in some garret, cellar, or other out-of-the-way place,
wrote a defence of what he had done. He had, he said, been sent for
to Newgate; Sir William Parkyns had begged that the absolution of the
Church might be pronounced over him in his last moments. Collier had
been refused admittance to the prisoner in his cell on the day of
execution, and so he went to Tyburn to pronounce absolution there. He
used a form in the Prayer-Book; and as to the imposition of hands,
complained of as an innovation, he concluded that it was a very
ancient, and, at least, a very innocent ceremony.[285]
The Bishops, considering that a scandal had been brought upon the
Church, published a declaration condemnatory both of the culprits’
papers and the Clergymen’s conduct. The papers they charged with making
a favourable mention of so foul a thing as the assassination of His
Majesty; and the Clergymen’s conduct they denounced as insolent, and
without precedent either in the English Church or in any other.[286]
All the Bishops in London signed this document, including Crew of
Durham, and Sprat of Rochester, who, from their past career, were still
suspected of Jacobite tendencies. Collier, whose boldness equalled his
learning, returned to the charge, and from the depths of his obscurity
re-proclaimed the doctrine of the imposition of hands as scriptural,
and consonant with patristic teaching. He also pleaded on its behalf,
in such a case as the one in question, no less a precedent than the
conduct of Bishop Sanderson, oddly enough putting the Prelate in the
place of the traitor under the fatal beam. “This eminent casuist,”
says Collier, “about a day before his death, desired his chaplain, Mr.
Pullin, to give him absolution; and at his performing that office, he
pulled off his cap that Mr. Pullin might lay his hand upon his bare
head.”[287]
[Sidenote: 1696.]
Collier was the leading spirit in this transaction, and he willingly
accepted the chief responsibility; yet he continued to hide himself,
and finally escaped the constable’s clutches. His two companions, after
a true Bill had been found against them by the Grand Jury of Middlesex,
were set at liberty; and it is a question whether they could have been
legally convicted of the commission of any crime against the law of the
land--for absolution at the point of death, by the imposition of hands,
whatever might be thought of it in a religious point of view, could not
be regarded as a political offence; and absolving such men, although
it looked like sympathy in their enterprise, could scarcely bring the
absolvers within the compass of the statute of treason.
Another conspirator’s name gathered round it ecclesiastical
complications. Sir John Fenwick, an active person amongst the numerous
plotters against William, fell into the hands of justice in the month
of June. A letter, from the Duke of Shrewsbury to William III.,
indicates what thoughts were entertained of this conspirator, and of
the views of certain people in France at that juncture.
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
“I am not acquainted with the particulars my Lord Steward has sent your
Majesty from Sir John Fenwick; he is generally reputed a fearful man,
and though now he may not offer to say all, yet beginning to treat is
no contradiction to that character. I am confident he knows what, if
he will discover, may be much more valuable than his life. If he were
well managed, possibly he might lay open a scene that would facilitate
the business the next winter, which, without some such miracle, I doubt
will be difficult enough.
“An acquaintance of mine saw a fresh letter to my Lady Walgrave, from
my Lord Galmoy, at St. Germains, who I think is her husband, where he
says he has never been credulous in the hopes of King James’ coming;
but that now he is well assured, it will be attempted the end of this
year, and with good appearance of success. The same person saw another
letter from another hand, they would not say from whom, but from one
more likely to know than the former, and spoke in the same language,
but with more assurance.”[288]
Fenwick, after his capture, made revelations, as Shrewsbury supposed
him not unlikely to do; but, to the great surprise and indignation of
the latter, he learnt before long, that the cunning conspirator had
woven a story, by which he had contrived to bring the Duke himself into
suspicion. The fact is, that for a long time after the Revolution,
things were said and done--whispered, insinuated, listened to, and
winked at--which bore an ugly look in the eyes of honest people; and
it is wonderful in what a perilous position the frail, eagle-faced
champion of constitutional rights and of European Protestantism stood
for years after he had accepted the British crown. True, some men were
accused without good reason, but to many cases the adage applied,
“Where there is smoke there is fire.”[289]
[Sidenote: 1696.]
Charles, Earl of Middleton, took an active part in Jacobite intrigues,
and he is worth notice here as an example of Jacobitism in alliance
with Protestantism, or rather in alliance with views anti-Catholic.
He married into a Popish family, but did not adopt their religion.
Indeed, his principles on that score were very loose, although he
knew how, with a clever stroke, to repel the onsets of Jesuitical
sophistry. A priest one day tried to prove to him the doctrine of
Transubstantiation. “Your Lordship,” said he, “believes in the
Trinity;” Middleton stopped him by asking, “Who told you so?” The
priest felt amazed, upon which the Peer added, it was the priest’s
business to prove that his own belief was true, and not to question
another man about his.[290] In one of the Earl’s furtive missions
to England upon the business of the exiled Prince, he had met with
Shrewsbury, and had evidently tried, in an underhand way, to work his
mind into a Jacobite direction. Fenwick had got hold of this, and had
made the most of it against the Duke, who now occupied the office of
Secretary of State,[291] and had, during William’s absence, discharged,
along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, the high function
of a Lord Justice. The letter which Shrewsbury wrote to William is
worth insertion, as illustrative of what went on behind the scenes,
of the scrapes men fell into, of the way they got out of them, of
the generosity and forgiving spirit of the King, and of the rickety
condition of English Protestantism, if it had rested upon nothing
better than the character of politicians.
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
“I want words,” says Shrewsbury, addressing William, “to express
my surprise at the impudent and unaccountable accusation of Sir
John Fenwick; I will, with all the sincerity imaginable, give
your Majesty an account of the only thing I can recollect, that
should give the least pretence to such an invention, and I am
confident you will judge there are few men in the kingdom, that
have not so far transgressed the law.
“After your Majesty was pleased to allow me to lay down my
employment, it was more than a year before I once saw my Lord
Middleton; then he came and stayed in town awhile, and returned
to the country; but a little before the La Hogue business he
came up again, and upon that alarm, being put in the Tower,
where people were permitted to see him, I visited him as often
as I thought decent for the nearness of our alliance. Upon his
enlargement, one night at supper, when he was pretty well in
drink, he told me he intended to go beyond seas, and asked if I
would command him no service. I then told him by the course he
was taking it would never be in his power to do himself or his
friends service, and if the time should come that he expected,
I looked upon myself as an offender not to be forgiven, and
therefore he should never find me asking it. In the condition
he was then, he seemed shocked at my answer, and it being some
months after before he went, he never mentioned his own going,
or anything else to me, but left a message with my aunt, that he
thought it better to say nothing to me, but that I might depend
upon his good offices upon any occasion, and in the same manner,
he relied upon mine here, and had left me trustee for the small
concern he had in England. I only bowed and told her I should
always be ready to serve her or him or their children.
[Sidenote: 1696.]
“Your Majesty now knows the extent of my crime, and, if I do not
flatter myself, it is not more than a king may forgive.
“I am sure, when I consider with what reason, justice, and
generosity, your Majesty has weighed this man’s information, I
have little cause to apprehend your ill-opinion upon his malice.
I wish it were as easy to answer for the reasonableness of the
generality of the world. When such a base invention shall be
made public, they may perhaps make me incapable of serving you,
but if till now I had had neither interest nor inclination, the
noble and frank manner with which your Majesty has used me upon
this occasion shall ever be owned with all gratitude in my power.
“My Lord Steward being at the Baths, nothing was resolved as to
Sir John Fenwick’s trial till his answer returns.
“I am, with all imaginable submission, your
Majesty’s most faithful, dutiful, and
obedient subject and servant,
“SHREWSBURY.”[292]
Fenwick disclosed divisions amongst the Nonjurors, classifying them as
compounders and non-compounders--the compounders being anxious for
some security from King James, that English religion and liberty would
be preserved in case of his restoration; and the non-compounders being
prepared to cast themselves entirely upon his honour and generosity.
Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, adopted the latter view, and
would hear of no terms in a matter of Divine right.[293]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
The Bill for Fenwick’s attainder created much discussion in the House
of Commons. The discussion took a theological turn upon the point of
deficiency of evidence, the testimony of one witness not being backed
by the testimony of a second. Much was said by the opponents of the
attainder, respecting the eternal law of God and man, and of the Holy
Scriptures requiring more witnesses than one to convict a person of a
capital crime. “No man,” it was repeated, “shall be condemned to die
by the mouth of one witness, but by two or three witnesses he shall
suffer.” It was replied, that not the Levitical law, but the law of
England, should be guide in such a case; then, some one rejoined, that
he and those who thought with him, did not wish to base their argument
simply on Scripture, but upon the fact that this law of Moses having
been confirmed by our Saviour in the New Testament, it ought to be
brought into connection with the law of the land.[294] In spite of
attempts made to save Sir John, the Bill passed both Houses. Robert
Nelson interceded with Tenison to plead with the King. “My very good
friend,” returned the Primate, “give me leave to tell you, that you
know not what spirit this man, nor I am of; I wish for his, nor no
man’s blood, but how can I do my duty to God and my King, should I
declare a man innocent; for my not being of the side of the Bill will
convince the world that I think him so, when I am satisfied in my
conscience, not only from Goodman’s evidence, but all the convincing
testimonies in the world, that he is guilty. Laws _ex post facto_
may indeed carry the face of rigour with them, but if ever a law was
necessary this is.”[295]
[Sidenote: 1696.]
An amusing circumstance occurred during the debate. Dr. John Williams,
Hector of St. Mildred’s, Poultry, accepted the Bishopric of Chichester,
and was consecrated at Lambeth, by Tenison and others, the day before
the third reading of the Bill. Rushing into the Bishops’ chamber to
robe himself, he was accosted by the Archbishop, “Brother, brother!
you’ll overheat yourself; what’s the reason of all this pother?”
“Nothing, may it please your Grace,” said he; “but I was fearful lest
the Bill against Sir John Fenwick should be read before I could take
my place in the House.” “Fye, my Lord,” said Tenison; “you might have
spared yourself that labour, since you had not an opportunity of
hearing the merits of the cause at the first and second reading; but
since, as I perceive, you are come to give your vote, pray, brother,
come in along with me, that you may hear it once read, before you do
it.”[296]
After the Bill had passed, efforts were continued on the culprit’s
behalf. His Lady petitioned the House of Lords and the House of
Commons; also she threw herself as a suppliant at William’s feet in
vain. Fenwick delivered a paper, supposed to have been drawn up by
White, the deprived Bishop of Peterborough, in which he did not deny
the facts sworn, but only complained of his attainder as unjust; at
the same time declaring his loyalty to King James and to the Prince
of Wales, but denouncing, with horror, the idea of assassinating
William.[297]
[Sidenote: JACOBITES.]
Fenwick suffered upon Tower Hill the 20th of January, 1697. That wintry
morning, cold with storms, White appeared with him on the scaffold,
not to pronounce absolution or lay on hands, but simply to pray with a
dying man.[298] Commending the King to the Divine protection--meaning
James, but not using his name--Fenwick, as he laid his neck on the
block, cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my soul.” His corpse was buried by
torch-light in St. Martin’s Church.
Others were hanged for treasonable practices, including Cranburne,
who professed himself a member of the Church of England; and
Rookwood and Lowick, Roman Catholics, whose _Jesu Maria_ and
_Paternosters_ are particularly mentioned by the Protestant
narrator of their last end.[299]
CHAPTER XI.
The peace of Ryswick, which put an end to the war between William and
Louis, and detached the latter from the cause of James, dispelled for
awhile the visions which had tantalized and disappointed the nonjuring
party; for the treaty, sanctioned by France, Spain, and the United
Provinces, recognized the constitution of England, and William as a
constitutional King. Some Clergymen, wearied by the bootless resistance
of eight long years, now came to terms, and swore allegiance to the
reigning Sovereign, adopting at last the principle which they had
denounced, that a settled Government, though illegitimate in its
origin, is binding in its authority.
[Sidenote: PEACE OF RYSWICK.]
Immense joy arose on this occasion; it prolonged itself during the
month of November. The anniversary of the landing at Torbay of course
set in motion peals of bells, lighted up candles in windows, kindled
bonfires in market-places, and evoked shouts of glee from assembled
multitudes. The 14th of November, the day of Williams return and
landing at Margate, became an additional season of joy. On the
16th, which turned out a bright morning, he entered his capital in
state, attended by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, with a measure of
the splendour which on past occasions brightened the City’s dark and
narrow streets; although some of the spectators of the sight noticed a
decline in the splendour of the pageantry.[300] The triumph of the day
was complete when the University of Oxford, to the unutterable chagrin
of the Nonjurors, struck its colours, and in an adulatory address did
homage to the hero. This tide of joy flowed into the following month.
The 2nd of December was held as a day of thanksgiving for the peace.
The King and Court attended Divine service in the Chapel at Whitehall,
where Burnet preached, or, as one who heard him says, “made a florid
panegyric,”[301] founded on the words, “Happy are thy men, and happy
are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and hear
thy wisdom. Blessed be the Lord thy God which delighted in thee to
set thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God: because thy
God loved Israel to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee
king over them, to do judgment and justice.” The same day St. Paul’s
Cathedral was opened for Divine service, and William would have been
there, instead of being in his own Chapel, but for fear lest the
multitude, thronging the streets, should render his approach almost
impracticable. The Corporation of London appeared in their civic pomp;
Compton ascended his throne, just enriched by the carvings of Grinling
Gibbons; and he afterwards preached from the appropriate text, “I
was glad when they said unto me, Let us go up into the house of the
Lord.”[302]
[Sidenote: 1698.]
A new Parliament, of a decidedly High-Church stamp, assembled on
the 9th of December, amidst an atmosphere of hypocrisy and intrigue
rarely equalled. A sermon preached before the Commons by the Rector of
Sutton, in Surrey, upon government originating with the people, and
good government alone being the ordinance of God, gave vast offence
to the Tories, and occasioned the passing of a curious resolution,
that no one should preach before the House unless he was a Dean or a
D.D. A Committee of the Lower House formally complained of Dissenters
being made Justices of the Peace; whereas it turned out on inquiry
that not two of their number were placed on the roll, besides such
as had become occasional Conformists. Some zealots went so far as to
propose, that an address should be presented to the King, to remove
Burnet from the office of Preceptor to the young Duke of Gloucester;
but as this was too absurd a proposal to find much support, it had to
be withdrawn.[303] Under pretence of patriotism and economy, a strong
opposition party carried one measure for a reduction of the army, which
compelled William to part with his Dutch Guards, the sorest sacrifice
he ever made; and another for the recovery of Irish estates, bestowed
by the Monarch on his supporters, a proceeding which ended in the
aggrandizement of its inventors.
[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]
The peace of Ryswick had brought “a great swarm of priests”[304] to
England, who held up their heads with so much insolence, that some
foolish Protestants and some cunning politicians absurdly declared,
the articles of peace favoured Popery, and the King was a Papist in
disguise. Soon the new Parliament, stirred by a gust of wind which
threatened a “No Popery” tempest, set to work upon a Bill obliging
every Popish minor succeeding to an estate, immediately to take the
oath of allegiance, and, as soon as he attained his majority, to
submit to the Test Act,--otherwise his property would devolve on the
Protestant next of kin. The Bill also banished Popish priests, and
adjudged them to perpetual imprisonment in case they dared to return;
the reward for conviction being £100. The Bill is said to have been
partly a trick contrived by the Tories to perplex the Whigs, who prided
themselves on being the champions of Toleration; but when they saw
the Whigs supporting it, they indicated a desire to drop the measure.
With a view of provoking defeat, they introduced additionally severe
and unreasonable clauses; yet, contrary to their expectations, the
Lords, under the influence of an anti-Popish fever, accepted what came
up to them, and the Bill, unamended, not only passed the Upper House,
but received the Royal assent. Burnet supported it, and endeavoured
to defend himself against the charge of injustice and inconsistency.
“I had always thought,” he says, “that if a Government found any sect
in religion incompatible with its quiet and safety, it might, and
sometimes ought, to send away all of that sect, with as little hardship
as possible. It is certain that as all Papists must, at all times,
be ill subjects to a Protestant prince, so this is much more to be
apprehended when there is a pretended Popish heir in the case.” The
new law happily proved a nullity. Some of the terms were so vague, and
the provisions were so oppressive, that the “Act was not followed, nor
executed in any sort.”[305]
[Sidenote: 1699.]
Complaints of growing immorality had been repeatedly made;
proclamations to check it had been often issued; and on the 28th of
November, Parliament requested the publication of a new one. Upon this,
the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a pastoral letter to each of his
Suffragans, requesting them to stir up the Clergy to a more zealous
discharge of their duties. The good effects of pastoral diligence had
been made apparent in London; now Ministers in general were exhorted
to imitate the admirable example. Let them by their consistent lives
recommend the doctrines which they preached. The family and the parish
were spheres of usefulness, to be filled up by the discharge of the
duties included in a Christian walk and conversation; persons in holy
orders ought to be pre-eminently holy. Enemies were seeking objections
against Christ’s religion, its friends therefore ought to be diligent
in its defence, acquainting themselves with the grounds on which it
rested, and the modes of sophistry by which it was assailed. Frequent
meetings of the Clergy for conference on religious matters might do
much good, especially if Churchwardens and others of the laity could
be brought to co-operate. Obstinate offenders should be subjected to
ecclesiastical censure, and the assistance of the magistrate should be
sought when it was likely to be effectual; people were not to shrink
from exposing crime and securing its punishment, through fear of being
denounced as informers. Finally, since education laid the firmest
basis for morality and religion, it became the parochial clergy to be
sedulous in the catechizing of children. In this way the Archbishop,
through the medium of Diocesans and their Clergy, endeavoured to
promote the interests of the Church.[306]
[Sidenote: CHURCH PREFERMENTS.]
The power vested in the Crown of nominating Bishops and other
dignitaries had been exercised during the life of Queen Mary very
much according to her discretion. William,--perhaps because he was a
foreigner, and also destitute of entire sympathy with Episcopalianism,
or because he was so engrossed with foreign affairs,--seems to have
been reluctant to take part in the bestowment of ecclesiastical
patronage. In the year 1700 he devolved its responsibilities, to a
large extent, upon the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the
Bishops of Salisbury, Worcester, Ely, and Norwich. Whilst he was in the
realm they were to signify to him their recommendation of such persons
as they thought fit for vacant preferments, which recommendation they
were to present through the Secretaries of State. If whilst he was
beyond the seas, any Bishoprics, Deaneries, or other specified clerical
offices in his gift, above the annual value of £140, should need
filling up, the Commissioners were to transmit the names of suitable
persons, respecting whom his pleasure would be made known under his
sign-manual. At the same time he delegated to them full power at once
to appoint to other preferments. Also, he declared, that neither when
he was abroad nor when he was at home, should either of his Secretaries
address him in reference to any benefices left to the recommendation or
disposal of the Commissioners, without first communicating with them,
also that no warrant should be presented for the Royal signature until
their recommendation had been obtained.[307]
[Sidenote: 1700.]
An affecting bereavement now occurred in the Royal family. William,
Duke of Gloucester, a son of Princess Anne and Prince George of
Denmark, was heir to the throne, and therefore in him centred the
hopes of the nation. He seems to have been a lively child, for in
1695, when only six years old, he ran to meet his uncle with a little
musket on his shoulder, and presented arms. “I am learning my drill,”
he cried, “that I may help you to beat the French.” Nothing could
have better pleased the veteran, who soon afterwards actually created
the boy Knight of the Garter. Military tastes continued to guide his
childish amusements, and he formed a regiment of lads, chiefly from
Kensington, who attended him at Campden House, the residence of his
mother, a quaint mansion burnt down a few years ago. The education of
the Prince early occupied the thoughts of William, who offered the
post of Governor to the Duke of Shrewsbury, now restored to the Royal
confidence.[308] Shrewsbury declined, and the office fell into the
hands of Marlborough. A story is told to the effect, that the King said
to the future hero of Blenheim, “Teach him to be what you are, and my
nephew cannot want accomplishments.” The still more important duties of
preceptor to the youth were entrusted to Burnet, as already indicated.
Windsor then being within the diocese of Salisbury, the Prince was to
live there during the summer months, when the Bishop reckoned he would
be in his diocese, and therefore in the way of his proper episcopal
duties; he satisfied himself with thinking, that all would be right
if the King allowed him ten weeks in the year for the other parts of
his diocese,--a circumstance which shows how in those days notions of
a Bishop’s office were different from what, happily, they are now.
“I took to my own province,” says the right reverend preceptor, “the
reading and explaining the Scriptures to him, the instructing him in
the principles of religion, and the rules of virtue, and the giving him
a view of history, geography, politics, and government. I resolved also
to look very exactly to all the masters that were appointed to teach
him other things.”[309]
[Sidenote: DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.]
[Sidenote: 1700.]
But a sad fatality brooded over all the offspring of poor Anne. After a
few days’ attack of fever, the young Duke died on the 30th of July.
He was buried in Westminster Abbey, and recently, upon the family vault
being opened, amongst the ten small coffins of the children of James
II., and the eighteen small coffins of the children of his daughter
Anne, lay the coffin of the youthful William, resting in remarkable
juxtaposition upon that of Elizabeth of Bohemia.[310] Thus one of an
unfortunate race, who never attained the crown he inherited, mingled
his dust with that of a great aunt, who soon lost the crown she had
prompted her husband too eagerly to seize. As the nation unaffectedly
mourned the death of the youthful Duke, a gentleman,[311] living at
Holland House, a friend of Atterbury’s, lamented the removal of his
Royal neighbour in the following lines, which afford a specimen of the
affected elegiac strains popular at the period:--
“So by the course of the revolving spheres,
When’er a new discover’d star appears,
Astronomers with pleasure and amaze,
Upon the infant luminary gaze.
They find their heaven’s enlarged, and wait from thence,
Some blest, some more than common influence;
But suddenly, alas! the fleeting light
Retiring, leaves their hopes involved in endless night.”
The Duke of Gloucester was the last Protestant heir to the Crown
recognized in the Act of Settlement. His death therefore exposed the
Royal succession to new perils, revived the hopes of the Jacobites, and
created anxiety in the minds of William and his Ministers. The King at
the time had left England nearly a month; and as, amidst the gardens
of his retreat at Loo, he saw the shortening of the summer days, he
had pondered future contingencies, and laid plans for preserving the
work which he had wrought. When, in the following February, 1701, he,
bearing evident signs of increasing frailty, met Parliament, he told
the Houses that the loss just sustained made it necessary there should
be a further provision for a Protestant succession; adding, that the
happiness of the nation, and the security of religion, seemed to depend
so much upon this, that he could not doubt it would meet with general
concurrence. The addresses echoed the same sentiment, and in March the
Bill of Succession came under Parliamentary debate. It determined that
the Princess Sophia, Duchess-Dowager of Hanover, or her heirs, should
succeed upon failure of issue to William and Anne; and it laid down
the principle that whosoever wore the Crown should commune with the
Church of England, as by law established. Other important resolutions,
which it does not come within my province to notice, were incorporated
in the Bill; and these gave rise to fierce discussions between the two
great political parties, who, throughout the whole of this reign, were
teasing William out of his life, provoking the phlegmatic Dutchman to
exclaim, that “all the difference he knew between the two parties was,
that the Tories would cut his throat in the morning, and the Whigs
in the afternoon.”[312] The Act of Settlement at length passed, and
received the Royal assent.
[Sidenote: THE SUCCESSION.]
It is curious to observe with respect to this Act, that Sophia, who was
made the protectress of the Reformed faith, and who was to supersede
the Stuarts on the throne, was neither a zealous Protestant nor a
foe to the exiled family. For when asked what was the religion of
her blooming daughter, at the time just thirteen years of age, she
replied she had none as yet; “we are waiting to know what prince she
is to marry, and whenever that point is determined, she will be duly
instructed in the religion of her future husband--whether Protestant
or Catholic.” And in a communication, which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke
called her Jacobite letter, she bewailed the fate of the poor Prince of
Wales, who, if restored, she said, might be easily guided in a right
direction.[313]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
A limitation of the heirship, within the pale of any particular
Protestant community, which may become less and less national as time
rolls on, is open to grave objections; but the limitation of descent
within Protestant lines of some kind, appears to rest upon a sound
basis. The reasons for it are furnished not by the religious, but by
the political character of Romanism. No doctrinal or ecclesiastical
opinions ought to exclude a legitimate heir, but a Popish claimant
is the subject of another and an ambitious power, which associates
temporal with spiritual authority, and exercises assumed prerogatives
after an elastic fashion, which can contract or expand them with
exquisite cunning, as fear darkens, or as hope brightens the prospect
of futurity. A Roman Catholic Sovereign is involved in complications
intolerable to a Protestant people, with a history full of warning
against foreign interference. It was a true instinct which led Lord
William Russell, amidst the aberrations of party zeal, to deprecate
as a terrible calamity the accession of a Papist; the same instinct
prompted the limitation of the Succession Act. Taught by the story of
the past, our ancestors guarded against Romish intermeddling, and it is
well for the fortunes of this country, that, acting on this maxim, our
fathers did not, in a fit of blind generosity, mistaken for justice,
open or keep open a door of mischief which, in some perilous hour, it
might be impossible to shut.
[Sidenote: JAMES II.]
Another important event was now approaching. James II., tired out
by a chequered life, desired to die. Whatever may be thought of his
principles, and the effect of his reign upon the interests of his
country, no one can doubt his religious sincerity, and when the
immoralities of his earlier days had been discontinued, confessed, and
deplored,[314] he manifested an earnest devoutness, tinged, of course,
by the peculiarities of his faith. Dwelling upon the examples of some
good men who had longed to be removed from this world, and upon the
moral dangers to which others had been exposed, he counted it “a high
presumption for a slender reed not to desire to be sheltered from such
terrible gusts as had overturned those lofty cedars.” When indulging in
such meditations, he was seized with a fit in early spring, from which
he partially recovered. Once more, within the Palace at St. Germains,
he was seized, in the midst of his devotions at chapel, with another
attack on the 2nd of September. Afterwards he sent for his son, who,
seeing the bed stained with blood from a violent hæmorrhage, burst
into violent weeping. Having calmed the child, his father conjured him
to adhere to the Catholic faith; to be obedient to his mother, and
grateful to the King of France; to serve God with all his strength,
and if he should reign, to remember kings were made not for themselves
but the good of their people, and to set a pattern of all manner of
virtues.[315]
This was good advice, but it bore an application such as would guide
the son in the father’s ways. He exhorted everybody about him to spend
pious lives, and urged his few Protestant courtiers and servants to
embrace the Catholic faith. It deserves mention that he forgave all
who had injured him, mentioning in particular his daughter Anne, and
his son-in-law William. But the most important circumstance connected
with his dying moments was the visit of the _Grand Monarque_,
who promised James he would take his family under his protection, and
acknowledge the Prince of Wales as King of England--an assurance which
drew joyful tears from the family and courtiers. On Friday, the 16th of
September, 1701, James expired; as if a saint had been taken to heaven,
the physicians and surgeons who made a _post-mortem_ examination,
kept particles of his body as relics, and the attendants dipped their
chaplets and handkerchiefs in his blood.[316]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
William went into mourning. Coaches and liveries were put in
black;[317] but tidings of the promise made by Louis soon aroused
indignation.
The King was in Holland at this crisis, but Sir Thomas Abney, the
Nonconformist Lord Mayor of London, at once caused an address to be
voted to His Majesty, expressive of the loyalty of the citizens, and of
their determination to oppose France and the Pretender.
After William had returned on his fortunate day, the 5th of November,
he on the 11th dissolved Parliament, and then called another: as he was
taking this step, loyal addresses poured in from all parts, and amongst
them one from the London Nonconformists, presented by John Howe. They
said they were grateful to Divine Providence for the settlement of
the Protestant succession, and pledged themselves to use their utmost
endeavours to maintain His Majesty’s title, and that of his successors,
as by law established.[318] An address of the same nature was presented
by the Baptists.[319]
The truth is, a new war now threatened Europe, for Louis had torn in
pieces the Ryswick Treaty by the bedside of James, and deliberately
defied the provisions of the Act of Settlement.
[Sidenote: THE SUCCESSION.]
When William met his new Parliament on the 31st of December, 1701,
he told them that the setting up of the pretended Prince of Wales
as King of England was not only the highest indignity to himself and
the nation, but it concerned every one who valued the Protestant
religion or the welfare of his country. “I have shown,” these were
the closing words he used, “and will always show, how desirous I am
to be the common father of all my people. Do you, in like manner, lay
aside parties and divisions. Let there be no other distinction heard
of amongst us for the future, but of those who are for the Protestant
religion and the present Establishment, and of those who mean a Popish
Prince and a French Government. I will only add this--if you do in good
earnest desire to see England hold the balance of Europe, and to be
indeed at the head of the Protestant interest, it will appear by your
right improving the present opportunity.”[320]
His speech elicited applause. It charmed the Whigs, and many had it
ornamentally printed in English, French, and Dutch, and hung up on the
walls of their homes. Political animosities were lulled for awhile by
circumstances inspiring concern for the Empire, and “the whole nation,
split before into an hundred adverse factions, with a King at its head
evidently declining to his tomb, the whole nation, Lords, Commons, and
people, proceeded as one body, informed by one soul.”[321] Unanimously
it was resolved that no peace should be made with France until after
reparation for the indignity done to England.
[Sidenote: 1702.]
A mania for oath-taking infected our fathers, and now, in addition to
the old law, which had occasioned the nonjuring party, came a new law,
which served to revive it. When death had taken away the Sovereign
to whom they regarded themselves as pledged while he lived, the
Nonjurors began to deliberate about taking the oath, but a new form of
abjuration stopped their deliberations.[322] Ken was troubled at the
prospect of its universal imposition, and hoped its enforcement would
be limited; but a Bill passed requiring not only all civil officers,
but also all ecclesiastics, all members of the Universities, and all
schoolmasters to acknowledge William as _lawful and rightful_
King, and to deny any title whatever in the pretended Prince of Wales.
Sixteen Lords, including Compton, Bishop of London, and Sprat, Bishop
of Rochester, protested against the Abjuration Bill;[323] and others
reasonably judged that to swear allegiance was one thing, but to swear
respecting the nature of a title to the Crown was another--that in the
first case people were within the region of fact, that in the second
they were brought into the region of theory. Calamy records, with no
apparent dissatisfaction, that the oath was thought to be the best
means of disappointing such as hoped by the assistance of France to
make way for the Pretender, and so accomplish the design of restoring
arbitrary power and the Popish religion.[324] The Abjuration Bill
received the Royal assent by Commission in the month of March, 1702.
Naturally at this juncture there were Jacobites who felt a flutter
of excitement. Looking upon oaths as cobwebs easily brushed away,
they hoped the Hanoverian succession might prove an idle dream, and,
on the tiptoe of expectation, began eagerly to talk to one another
of prospects, which brightened as the declining health of William
foreboded his speedy removal. One busy agent forwarded for the use
of the Stuarts certain proposals, in which he curiously sketched the
political views of religious parties in this country, as they struck
his eye.
[Sidenote: STATE OF PARTIES.]
“As for England, the parties most to be considered are--First, the
Episcopal, which, being in possession of the bells, is by far the
most numerous, though not the most active; for, being at their ease,
and possessing not only the tythes but the magistracy and profitable
employments of the nation, they flatter themselves with an opinion
that upon any emergency or change of State, they shall be able to give
the law to all other interests. And it is not improbable they might,
could they find out a way to settle the Crown upon any solid basis.
But that not being possible to be done but in the right line, that
party rather suffers than approves of what has been done, by adding the
House of Hanover to their weak and trembling entail, which, as it was
the project only of the Prince of Orange and his Dutch Council, is by
many suspected, but despised by more, nor could have passed the House
of Commons, but that they were told it was the only way to express a
contempt of the power of France; and by that means to make the people
believe that they feared nothing thence, and likewise to oblige that
Monarch to apprehend their power to be much greater than indeed it is;
to stave off a war they more apprehend and dread themselves than he
needs to do, notwithstanding all the rabble and trading part of the
nation are universally for it.
“The next party requiring consideration is the Presbyterian, which
consists of a malicious, sour, and subtle part of men, who are
more united in malice than the former, and do, with their demure
countenances and outside Pharisaical righteousness, draw from the
churches to their meeting-houses the most hypocritical part of the
trading people; so that their numbers are wonderfully increased of late
years, to the terror of the aspiring part of the episcopal parsons,
who dread that Bishops, Deans, and Chapters are tumbling down again,
knowing bare competencies too weak supports for their dissolute and
scandalous lives.
[Sidenote: 1702.]
“The next party to be considered is the Independent, under which
denomination may be included that rabble of divers sects, which by
above fifty several whimsical societies engross in the whole a greater
number of dissenters to the Prelatical Church than the Presbyterians
do, and are mortal enemies to both, including within them that sort of
men which are most properly called Republicans or Commonwealth’s-men, a
restless, bold, and busy spirit, easiest to be gained to your Majesty’s
interest, it being become a maxim amongst the wisest of them, that
since it appears impracticable to unite and settle all interests in a
Commonwealth, it is absolutely necessary to restore your Majesty and
the right line, to keep off the necessity of a perpetual war, which
these botching entails apparently threaten the nation with. Nay, in
their maxims they go farther, and say that it were better for the
kingdom in general, but most for themselves in particular, that the
rightful Monarch should be a Catholic rather than of the Episcopal or
Presbyterian ways, which will ever in their several turns, when united
to the Crown, persecute or at least discountenance them.
“The numerous party of the Quakers cannot be reckoned under the last
head, and are not to be disregarded as mad men, as they seem to many to
be. For, generally speaking; they are your Majesty’s friends, and in
all discourses with their oppugners charge them with their inhuman and
unjust dealing with their rightful Prince; an argument that nonplusses
all, and converts some to see the wickedness of their ways. Besides,
to my certain experience, there are many capable of being agents and
negotiators amongst them, as willing, as able, if well directed.
[Sidenote: STATE OF PARTIES.]
“Lastly, the non-jurant party of the nation may be thought of, though
not numerous enough without the Catholics to make any considerable
strength or appearance in the field. These, however, are respected
as men of honour, that the penitent or discontented may safely open
their minds to, and can confide in; so that properly instructed, they
are safe agitators dispersed in every corner of the nation, who too,
upon occasion, will, to a man, appear in the field for your Majesty’s
service.
“As for the Catholics, though I am sorry to say it, they seem the most
desponding and least useful party in the kingdom; nay, which is worse,
they are the only people who encourage the interested and atheistical
to stick to the Prince of Orange, though they both despise and hate
him as much as any; for the avowed despair the priests have brought
those to is so universally owned, that it discourages the waverers from
declaring themselves to be for their duty, and confirms the malicious
in their insolence, so that some course must be taken for altering
their conduct and conversation, or they will prove the greatest
_remora_ to any good design which may be set on foot.”[325]
[Sidenote: 1702.]
We are apt to read History amidst mental illusions. We unconsciously
transfer our knowledge of results to those who were living amidst
antecedents. Hence, sometimes we credit Englishmen of William’s reign
with a sense of security which could only arise from a defeat of plots,
which then appeared by no means certain. Indeed, the stability of the
Revolution Settlement was not assured until the middle of the next
century. Up to that time moments occurred when Government knew it sat
upon barrels of gunpowder. William’s throne to the last remained in
a shaky condition. The end alone prevents our recognizing the obvious
parallel between his reign and that of Louis Philippe in France. A
counter-Revolution was imminent throughout; and to our fathers in those
days we must not attribute the lordly conviction of permanence which we
cherish with so much pride. People in London under William could count
on things lasting as then they were, with almost as little confidence
as people in Paris during the last forty years. But powerful elements
blended with changes in Great Britain such as have not influenced
those of our Gallic neighbours. With them Revolutions have been
political--with us religious. Puritanism and Anglo-Catholicism--factors
both for good and evil--we find at work on this side the channel, not
on the other.
As Parliament was framing oaths, and Jacobites were brewing plots,
Convocation, being restored to activity, plunged itself into new
controversies, the outgrowths of old ones, which require to be recorded
with some minuteness, in spite of their being as dry as withered
thorns.
CHAPTER XII.
Convocational history in the reign of William III., from the year
1689 to the year 1700, is simply a history of writs and prorogations.
During that period no business was ever transacted, the Lower House
never met. Tillotson and Tenison, knowing the temper prevalent in
the Church, aware of the influence of the nonjuring Clergy, sensible
of the wide diffusion of sympathy with them, and alive to the fact
of an extensive revival of High-Church principles, were apprehensive
of a collision between the two Houses in case they proceeded to
business. They therefore thought it prudent to hold in abeyance the
right of meeting, until some exigency rendered their coming together
indispensable. Indignant murmurs at this state of things freely escaped
the lips of many a Dean, Prebendary, Archdeacon, and Rector; and at
length found utterance in a publication, which produced a wonderful
impression, and led to important results. Few pamphlets have been
more famous in their day than the _Letter to a Convocation Man_,
published in the year 1697. It was widely circulated, read by all
sorts of people, canvassed in City coffee-houses, discussed in country
inns, talked of by parishioners under church porches, and pondered in
rectories, vicarages, and quiet homes all over England. It made, says
Nicholson, “a considerable noise and pother in the kingdom.”[326]
The _Letter_ insisted upon the state of the country--so marked
by false and pernicious principles, by irreligious indifference,
and by immoral conduct--as a reason why the representatives of the
Church should assemble in their legal capacity. The constitutional
right of Convocation was strongly urged, the Royal writ needful for
it being, as the writer alleged, no more a sign of precariousness in
this case, than is a Royal writ in any other. A resemblance was traced
between Convocation and Parliament, and curious antiquarian and legal
questions were reviewed. The author touched on the mode of summoning
Convocation--a subject which requires to be explained, not only on
account of the use which he made of it, but on account of a use to
which it was put by another advocate on the same side.
[Sidenote: 1697.]
English Convocations, since the 25th of Henry VIII.--when an Act was
passed depriving Archbishops of the right to call those assemblies at
pleasure--came to be convoked exclusively by writs addressed to the
Archbishops, who were authorized, under their seals, to summon for
business the Clergy of their province. The Archbishop of Canterbury
addressed his mandate to the Bishop of London, to be executed by him
as his provincial Dean, and the Bishop of each diocese to whom the
immediate execution of such a mandate belongs, received directions
to make a proper return to his Grace or his Commissary--such return,
when made, being entered in the Register of the Archiepiscopal See.
But, as early as the reign of Edward I., there was introduced into
the writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament a clause--called the
_præmonentes_ or _præmunientes_ clause, from its beginning
with that word--requiring him to give notice of such writ to the
Prior and Chapter, and to the Archdeacon and Clergy, so as to cause
the Prior and the Archdeacon, in their own persons, and the Chapter
and Clergy by their Procurators, or proxies--one for the Chapter, and
two for the Clergy--to be present with him at Westminster, there to
attend to public affairs. After the Reformation, Deans were substituted
for Priors; and, with that alteration, the writ continued to run in
its ancient form.[327] The writ indicated exactly the same kind of
representatives to be summoned as did the Archbishop’s mandate; and,
upon this ground, the author of the _Letter_ insisted upon the
right of the Lower Clergy to assemble for deliberation as being no less
inalienable than the right of the House of Commons--the premonition, or
warning, to be delivered to the Clergy being, as he says, “an argument
of invincible strength to establish the necessity of Convocations
meeting as often as Parliaments.”
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
The author of this famous pamphlet maintained that Convocation had the
power of determining its own matters of debate; but in the maintenance
of this position, he had to explain away the sense of the words
employed in the writ of summons, _super præmissis, et aliis quæ
sibi clarius exponentur ex parte Domini Regis_--words which limit
Convocational discussions to topics proposed by Royal authority.[328]
[Sidenote: 1697.]
To this anonymous publication, which roused High Churchmen to activity
and filled Low Churchmen with alarm, an answer appeared from the pen
of Dr. William Wake, already well and favourably known in the world
of letters, through his answers to Bossuet, and other writings on the
Roman Catholic controversy, as well as his version of the Epistles of
the Apostolical Fathers. He contended that ancient Synods were convened
by Royal authority, that when they assembled, the Civil Magistrate had
a right to prescribe questions for debate, and that they could not
dissolve without his license. The King of England, he said, had supreme
power over English Convocations, and the Clergy could confer on no
subject without his permission. After certain historical deductions,
he denied that sitting in Convocation is an original Church right, or
that it is the same thing as the Parliamentary privilege, vouchsafed
by the _præmonentes_ clause in writs sent to Bishops. According
to Wake’s argument, the 25th of Henry VIII. has restored to the Crown
its full authority, and placed the control of Convocation entirely
in Royal hands; and he ventures to declare the possibility of Church
Synods becoming useless and even hurtful; asking, with reference to
opinions then violently expressed, “What good can the Prince propose
to himself, or any wise man hope for, from any assembly that can be
brought together, under the unhappy influence of these and the like
prepossessions?”[329]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Passing over other combatants, we must particularly notice one who
entered the field on the other side, and was destined to play a
distinguished part in the political as well as the ecclesiastical
affairs of his country. Francis Atterbury, born just before the Act of
Uniformity was passed in 1662, and educated first at Westminster and
then at Oxford, distinguished himself at the early age of twenty-five,
by the extraordinary ability which he exhibited as a controversialist.
He then won literary laurels by answering an attack upon the spirit of
Martin Luther and the origin of the Reformation; and soon afterwards,
when minister of Bridewell, where his eloquence attracted popular
attention, some of his sermons involved him in discussions upon points
of moral and practical divinity. Scarcely had he been made Preacher
of the Rolls, when he plunged into a conflict purely classical.
Charles Boyle, afterwards Earl of Orrery, who had been Atterbury’s
pupil at Oxford, published an edition of the Epistles of Phalaris and
the Fables of Æsop, then recently eulogized by Sir William Temple--a
publication which led to a controversy singularly renowned in the
history of criticism. Richard Bentley exposed the spurious character
of these Epistles by an appeal to external evidence, and thereby
paved the way for an application of similar criticism to productions
of a far different character.[330] In defiance of the exposure which
reflected upon the literary reputation of both Temple and Boyle, some
of their friends, with chivalrous devotion, came forward on their
behalf; Swift, in his _Tale of the Tub_, and his _Battle of the
Books_, tilting his lance on the side of his patron Temple; and
Atterbury--associated with others under Boyle’s name, in an examination
of Bentley’s Dissertations--appearing as the champion of his late
pupil. Though no match for Bentley in scholarship, Atterbury possessed
immense power in respect of rhetorical style, clever sophistry, cutting
sarcasm, and personal invective; and these were employed with such
effect as for awhile to overwhelm the illustrious scholar, and to
silence his charges against the defenders of Phalaris. However, the
triumph was short; Bentley resumed his attacks, and demolished the work
of his critics, in a book which, for learning, logic, and humour, is
perhaps unrivalled in that class of productions. Atterbury must have
been sorely vexed by his discomfiture when in 1700 he threw himself
into the great ecclesiastical contest of the period, and published his
_Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation_.
[Sidenote: 1700.]
Indulging in his fondness for personal attack, he abused the recent
volume by Dr. Wake as a shallow and empty performance, deficient in
historical learning and destructive of Church liberty. After referring
to the ancient practice of holding provincial Synods, he treated
Convocations as coming in their room, and as constituting necessary
appendages to English Parliaments. He insisted much upon the fact of
the Clergy having been summoned by the _præmonentes_ clause in the
writs addressed to spiritual Peers, and regretted that by a political
blunder the legislative representation of the Church had become
separated from the legislative representation of the State. Without,
however, attempting to revive obsolete proceedings, he asserted most
pertinaciously the indefeasible right of the clerical order to sit in
Convocation, and to petition, advise, address, represent, and declare
their judgment upon their own affairs, notwithstanding their inability
to make, or attempt, any new canons without express Royal authority.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
The question of assembling Convocation started from an historical point
of view, but it came before the public mind in its constitutional and
practical bearings; yet, amidst the multitude of publications on the
subject, one seeks in vain for a consistent and satisfying treatment of
the subject on either side. Those who believed in Convocation, and who
wished to see it vigorously revived, did not dare to express all that
they believed, or all that they wished; they were checked by the spirit
of the age, and hampered by the circumstances of the Church. At the
same time they ignored the great change which had come over political
and ecclesiastical affairs through the Revolution, and they also shut
their eyes to the fact, that it is impossible to enjoy State patronage
and emoluments without some abridgment of ecclesiastical action. Those
who wished Convocation should not assemble feared to deny its rights,
and shrunk from either proposing its extinction or advocating its
reform. They only desired to mesmerize it, till clerical animosities
should expire, and the Church should be of one mind--a consummation no
nearer now than it was then. The prudence forced upon this class of
persons by their political position, asserted itself at the expense of
logical consistency; and, as is often the case, practical sagacity made
men awkward reasoners.
There might be arguments for abolishing Convocation, or modifying its
powers--at any rate for defining them; but, whilst no such arguments
were urged, it was impossible to silence gainsayers, who contended that
practice ought to be accordant with theory. If Convocations be like
Parliaments, things in themselves good and wise, differences of opinion
no more furnish reasons against Convocations than against Parliaments.
If what Clarendon says be true, “that of all mankind, none form so
bad an estimate of human affairs as Churchmen,”[331] that may be an
argument for extinguishing Convocational rights, not for continuing to
them a nominal instead of a real existence.
[Sidenote: 1700.]
Nor was there conclusiveness of historical argument, or any
consistency of demand, on the other side. High-Church advocates were
then, as always, puzzled how to forge links of union between English
Convocations and the early Synods of the Church, especially the
assembly at Jerusalem. What resemblance exists between them, except
of the most general description?--a resemblance such as pertains to
all ecclesiastical meetings whatsoever. The essential conditions of a
Convocation of Canterbury are that it must meet by authority from the
Crown; that it consist of two Houses, one composed of Bishops, and the
other of Presbyters, both purely clerical; that the members of the
Lower House must be dignitaries, together with Proctors, elected by
the Clergy, and that nothing which they do has binding force without
the consent of the Sovereign. What is there in these distinctive
features of an English Convocation to connect it with Synods before the
era of State Establishments? What precedent for any of the essential
parts of the structure can be found in the history of the meeting at
Jerusalem? The Apostles and Elders met altogether, and joined in a
deliverance upon the question at issue. No other representatives or
delegates appeared except those who came from Antioch. The resemblance
between the meeting at Jerusalem and meetings in Saxon and Norman
times is a pure imagination, beyond such resemblance as belongs to
religious conferences in general. Nor can any specific likeness
be traced between mixed Anglo-Saxon Councils and purely clerical
Convocations. An Anglo-Saxon provincial Synod was in many points very
unlike Convocation;[332] and between A.D. 816, when the Synod
of Challok occurred, in which Abbots, Presbyters, and Deacons met,
and A.D. 1065, I do not find that more than one provincial
Synod was held; a national Synod met under Dunstan, A.D. 969.
Provincial Synods, previously occasional and rare, did not become
regular and frequent until the reign of Edward I.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Convocation, with full power to deliberate, to propose and enact
canons, to alter existing formularies, to pronounce authoritatively
upon points of doctrine, and to originate schemes of ecclesiastical
action, co-ordinate with the functions of Parliament, would have been
a reality; but, in the view of many, such power would be inconsistent
with the secular relations of the Church, as dependent on the State
for much of its pecuniary support, for more of its social prestige,
and for all of its political pre-eminence. Convocation, as it was
permitted to exist under William III., was really a mere form, and
that a very troublesome one. Nor did Atterbury, or any who sided
with him, endeavour to bring it into accordance with their theory.
The theory was one of ecclesiastical independence; but when they saw
some of the difficulties of their position, they only endeavoured to
loosen a little the chain which bound up the liberty of Convocational
action.[333]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
The new Ministry, formed in 1700, stipulated that Convocation should be
restored to its sessional rights and privileges.[334] This point being
conceded, those of the Clergy whom it particularly gratified, burst
into a state of clamorous excitement, broaching new or reviving old
theories. Atterbury, as earnest in action as he was eloquent in speech,
regarded it as eminently a critical juncture, and felt a strong desire
that those members who thought with him should come to town a fortnight
beforehand for consultation. He wished them, he said, to take proper
methods for preventing or breaking through the snares of enemies.[335]
He urged upon his friends, Trelawny, Sprat, and Compton, the execution
of the _præmunientes_ clause in the Parliamentary writ, as well
as the execution of the Archbishop’s provincial mandate.[336] In
this measure the Bishops just named concurred, and used their writs
accordingly; so did Hough, Bishop of Lichfield, and Mew, Bishop of
Winchester.[337]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Tenison, in his archiepiscopal barge, started from Lambeth Palace on
Monday morning. February the 10th, and landed at St. Paul’s Wharf,
whence he was escorted by a number of Advocates and Proctors to
the west end of the new Cathedral; the Portland stone being then
unblackened by London smoke, and the structure, as well as its
ornaments, being still in a state of incompleteness. Received by the
Dean and Canons, his Grace was conducted to the choir, and placed in
the Dean’s Stall, fresh from the touch of the carver’s chisel,--the
Suffragan Bishops occupying the other stalls on either side. After the
Litany had been chanted in Latin, the Bishop of Chichester preached,
and at the close of the sermon the choir sung an anthem. The assembly
proceeded to the new Chapter-House, where the Archbishop, being seated
on his throne, addressed his brethren, after the writ of summons
had been read by the Bishop of London. The election of a Prolocutor
for the Lower House followed in order; the Dean of Canterbury, Dr.
George Hooper, being preferred to the Dean of Gloucester, Dr. William
Jane. High Churchmen, with dismal forebodings of opposition from Low
Churchmen, whispered amongst themselves as soon as they had presented
their Prolocutor, that perhaps they would be adjourned, without
permission to enter on business. This policy Atterbury determined
to obstruct; for, said he, if we come to any resolutions, they will
certainly be for the honour and interest of the Church, since we have a
majority in the Lower House, as remarkable as that of our opponents in
the Upper.[338]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
Convocation having solemnly assembled, and the usual preliminaries
being accomplished, Atterbury was intent on going to work; but his
correspondence indicates that he moved too fast to please some of his
brethren, and that he had reason to apprehend they meant to reject his
leadership. They had not proceeded many steps, when Dr. Ashurst and Dr.
Freeman incurred Atterbury’s censure, because after the Archbishop’s
form of prorogation had come down, and the Prolocutor had informed the
House they were not to regard themselves as being prorogued until he
told them they were, these two gentlemen, as the Archdeacon states,
were very noisy, insisting upon it that they were actually prorogued,
and that it was a dangerous thing for them, under such circumstances,
to sit any longer. The Prolocutor immediately arose, and said, as these
gentlemen were fidgeting about in their scarlet robes, that if they
thought they were incurring any risk, they were at liberty to depart.
They immediately rose, with the hope of a respectable following, but
as they vanished, they were, if we may depend on an opponent’s report,
followed only by a general smile, and the condemnation of their own
party.[339]
Another question agitated the House the same day. Complaints were
made of episcopal interference with the election of clergymen, and
accordingly a resolution to that effect passed the House, supported
by a large number, says one authority--by a small number, says
another.[340] The same day a committee was appointed to investigate
disputed elections--a step which, in the estimation of Low Churchmen
encroached upon the episcopal prerogative, for they maintained that
the Bishop with his suffragans must be the final judge of all such
matters.[341]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
Robing themselves on the 28th of February, the members glided along
the aisles of the Abbey up the steps of Henry the VII.’s Chapel, when
they proceeded to business, without taking any notice of their right
reverend superiors, who had also robed themselves that same morning,
and sat down within the Jerusalem Chamber. It plainly appeared that
the two ecclesiastical conclaves were becoming hostile camps. A
message from the Archbishop soon reached the Lower House, asking for
an explanation, why they went to prayers before the Bishops came. The
question at issue now formally arose, and then began a lengthened
contest, as to whether the Lower House had self-contained rights, like
those of the Commons--a right of self-adjournment and prorogation,
and a right to meet, consult, and resolve, without being dependent
from step to step upon the will of Prelates. The High-Church party,
so zealous in theory for episcopal order, thus in practice broke with
their right reverend fathers. In the controversy was mixed up also
an obstinate contention on the part of the Prolocutor about what was
meant by the words, _in hunc locum_ in the Archbishop’s schedule;
to settle this point were added the words, _vulgo vocatum Jerusalem
Chamber_. For a little while, some semblance of union continued.
Each party treated the other with punctilious respect. Atterbury,
indeed, at the commencement anticipated, in the matter of the address,
a “tough dispute,” and, as he said this, resembled a war-horse snorting
on the edge of a battle-field. He pressed the Lower House not to wait
for the Lords, but to prepare an address of its own; yet, when an
address came down to them, the Lower House heartily joined in it, only
proposing a slight alteration, which the Prelates approved. Ripples
quickly rose on the surface of debate. According to Atterbury, upon
the 8th of March, the Dean of Peterborough, Dr. Freeman, already
mentioned, behaved amiss, and threw out words reflecting on the
Prolocutor, for which a censure was demanded, and would have followed,
had the offender not begged pardon. The confused statement made to
this effect, indicates that some of the Clergy resisted the highflown
policy of their brethren; two days afterwards, however, we find both
Houses amicably taking a journey to the pleasant village of Kensington,
where stood His Majesty’s favourite palace. At half-past two on Monday
afternoon, March the 10th, the Archbishop and Bishops, in their
distinctive attire, and the Prolocutor in his cap and hood, and the
rest of the Clergy following, took coach at the west end of the Abbey.
They proceeded by Knightsbridge and the side of the Park--the trees
beginning to bud with early spring, the people by the way watching the
dignitaries as their faces peered through the windows of the lumbering
vehicles--until, arriving at the Dutch-looking palace, with its prim
gardens, the procession of the Clergy reached the Royal presence--the
Bishops going to the right hand of the throne, the Prolocutor and the
rest to the left. A loyal address was presented, and a gracious reply
returned.
The tug of war, of which there had been omens before that pleasant
excursion, began in earnest soon afterwards.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
The Lower House asserted its claim to independent action, to adjourn
itself when and where it pleased, to originate and transact any
business whatsoever and howsoever it pleased; always, it should be
distinctly stated, choosing its time of sitting according to the time
fixed by his Grace of Canterbury’s schedule. To accomplish what was
designed, committees of the whole House were appointed, who claimed a
right to sit, in this form at least, upon intermediate days, when many
did so assemble under cover of a strict adherence to admitted rules;
but others would not, counting it a breach of law in substance, if not
in form. A matter of business, originating in the Lower House, without
consultation with the Upper, and in known opposition to its wishes,
was the examination of a certain heretical book--namely, Toland’s
_Christianity not Mysterious_--the object of which is explained on
the title page, “A Treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel
contrary to Reason, nor above it, and that no Christian Doctrine can be
called a Mystery.”
It should be stated, that at the same time another book, entitled,
_Essays on the Balance of Power_, in which the author asserted,
that men had been promoted in the Church who were remarkable for
nothing but their disbelief in the Divinity of Christ--a statement
intended to bring certain Bishops into disrepute--attracted the
attention of the Upper House; upon which their Lordships caused to be
affixed to the Abbey doors a paper calling upon the author, whoever he
might be, to make good his assertions or to submit to punishment for so
base and public a scandal. This was an extraordinary plan, reminding
one--chiefly, however, by contrast as to importance--of Luther’s
doctrinal theses affixed to the church gates at Wittenberg; and also
recalling--more in the way of resemblance--how Archbishop Arundel’s
citation of Lord Cobham was stuck on the entrance to Rochester
Cathedral, to be defied by him to whom it was addressed.
[Sidenote: 1701.]
When Toland’s book was sent up from the Lower House to the Bishops for
judgment, they felt that it was a serious matter to enter upon the
business, as by condemning certain published opinions, and approving
others, they might be altering the recognized doctrines of the Church.
Legal objections had on a similar occasion been alleged against such
proceedings, because of the consequences they might involve; now they
were urged afresh. The Bishops, therefore, came to the conclusion, in
accordance with the advice of eminent lawyers, that they could not
censure the books without license from the King, lest they should incur
certain penalties.
Upon the eve of a prorogation for Easter, after the dispute about the
rights of sitting and adjournment had been carried on with an obstinacy
which it would be tiresome to describe, the Archbishop delivered to the
members of Convocation a speech, in which he alluded to the existing
dispute: “We have many enemies, and they wait for nothing more than
to see the union and order of this Church, which is both its beauty
and its strength, broken by those who ought to preserve it.” “For the
maintaining the episcopal authority is so necessary to the preservation
of the Church, that the rest of the Clergy are no less concerned in it
than the Bishops themselves.” “I have thought fit, with the rest of my
brethren, to prorogue the Convocation for some time. It is a season of
devotion, and I pray God it may have a good effect on all our minds.”
“We, on our part, are willing to forget all that is past, and to go
on with you at our next meeting, as well as at all times, with all
tenderness and parental affection, in all such things as shall conduce
to the good of this Church.”[342]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
In spite of the prorogation until the 8th of May, the Prolocutor and
some of the Clergy persevered in their assertion of independence, and
sat for some hours the same day on which his Grace prorogued both
Houses; then they adjourned to meet the next day. But this policy,
being esteemed by some High Churchmen as a stretch of power quite
unconstitutional, led to a secession, which considerably weakened the
influence of the party.
When all had come back from celebrating the Easter festival, and the
Prolocutor appeared before the Upper House with a paper in his hand,
the Primate returned to the old charge of irregularity, and told him
he could not recognize any of the proceedings carried on since his
adjournment. The Prolocutor replied, that he had been commanded by
the Lower House to bring up the paper, and did therefore present it,
as an Act of the House. After being laid upon their Lordships’ table,
the paper was found to contain arguments against the course pursued
by them in reference to Toland’s work. The Bishops now proposed
that committees from the two Houses should meet, with a view to an
amicable arrangement, but the majority of the Lower House refused to
nominate any committee for the purpose; a refusal which exceedingly
annoyed several members. The majority determined to ride the high
horse, and to dig the spur into its flanks; so when the schedule of
adjournment next time came down, the Prolocutor refused to notice
it at all, and adjourned on his own authority; an act against which
Beveridge, Sherlock, and others protested, in a paper which they
signed and presented to the Archbishop. What still more annoyed the
Upper House, was that the Clergy, under the Prolocutor’s presidency,
agreed upon a censure of a book by one of the Prelates. This was _The
Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_, by Bishop Burnet, in which, with
learning, moderation, and good temper, he expounded the doctrines of
the Church of England according to his idea, treating the Articles as
terms of peace and union, intended to receive a considerable latitude
of interpretation. Anything but unanimity and decorum of behaviour
marked the proceedings of the Lower Assembly at this moment; and
a report went abroad that one of the members, in consequence of a
speech he delivered, ran the risk of having his gown torn off his
back. The report is an exaggeration; it arose out of the conduct of
some one who, by rudely twitching the dress of a speaker, put an end
to his unpleasant oration. Words uttered within the Abbey walls were
reported outside in garbled forms, which led to explanations and
counter-explanations, to assertions and denials, which provoked fresh
controversy, and it became a difficult thing to determine what exactly
the two parties up in arms did and said. Enough, however, was manifest
to prove, that many of the ministers of religion, assembled to promote
the prosperity of Christ’s Church, were sadly forgetful of the simplest
lessons of the Gospel.
[Sidenote: 1701.]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Connected with the presentation of the censure upon Burnet’s book
to the Upper House, there occurred two or three curious episodes.
Adjoining the Jerusalem Chamber is a small apartment called the Organ
Chamber; and there, a month before, on the 5th of April, had happened
an incident which ruffled the feelings of the very reverend Prolocutor,
and the clergymen who accompanied him. They were kept waiting at their
Lordships’ door, as they said, an hour and a half, as their opponents
said, only so long as was needful to read their paper and debate upon
it; the circumstance being attributed by some to the insolence of the
Prelates, by others, to a mistake of the doorkeeper. On the 30th
of May, when the Prolocutor, with the Deans of Windsor and Christ
Church, went up with the paper about Burnet’s book, and were again
waiting a while in the same antechamber, the Bishop of Bangor came
out, commissioned by their Lordships, to ask the Prolocutor whether
the message he had now to bring in, was to set right the irregularity
complained of? The Prolocutor, according to the Bishop’s report,
said, first “it was something in order to set that irregularity
right;” then, correcting himself, he added, “it was concerning that
irregularity.” After which the door to the chamber being opened, in
walked the Prolocutor and his companions, the Archbishop observing
to them, “If you have anything to offer, in order to the setting
right the irregularity we have complained of, we are ready to receive
it.” Immediately the Prolocutor stated, that he had brought a humble
representation touching an _Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_,
that it had no relation to the alleged irregularity; but with regard to
that, they were ready to satisfy their Lordships whenever called upon
to do so. The paper containing the censure was rejected, and some of
the Prelates considered the Prolocutor had employed a subterfuge for
its introduction. The Bishop of Bangor, in so many words, complained of
prevarication, a charge which fanned the Lower House into a blaze of
resentment.
At this time, as on a former occasion, some of the minority in the
Lower House protested against the proceedings of the majority, by
signing a paper to that effect, to be presented to the Bishops; George
Bull, Archdeacon of Llandaff, being amongst those who appended their
names. This protest, in its turn, became another element of discord.
[Sidenote: 1701.]
Upon the 6th of June, as the Prolocutor and others of the Lower House
crowded the little Organ Chamber, whom should they find there, quietly
putting on his robes, but the Welsh Bishop, whom they so much disliked.
Looking at him, the incensed president of the Lower Clergy asked,
according to one version, “Were you pleased to say in the Upper House
that I lied to you?” According to a second, “My Lord of Bangor, did
you say I lied?” The Bishop answered, in some disorder, “I did not say
you lied; but I did say, or might say, that you told me a very great
untruth.” Amidst threats and demands of satisfaction, the Prelate was
glad to get out of the noise of the crowded anteroom into the serene
atmosphere of the more spacious chamber; which, however, as soon as
the Prolocutor had been admitted within the door, witnessed a renewal
of personal strife. Bishop Humphreys adhering to his statement about
what had taken place, and Dean Hooper adhering to his, something still
worse immediately followed. The Prolocutor having inquired whether
their Lordships had entered upon their Acts any reflections upon
him, Tenison rejoined, with all his rock-like firmness, and all his
prudent control of temper, “Acts, we have no acts, only minutes.” The
Prolocutor’s inquiry proved too much for Burnet, the person attacked
in the paper, who now--with characteristic impetuosity, his round face
no doubt flushed with scarlet--cried aloud with a sonorous voice,
“This is fine, indeed. The Lower House will not allow a committee to
inspect their books, and now they demand to see ours.” “I ask nothing,”
exclaimed the Prolocutor, “but what I am concerned to know, and what
of right I may demand.” “This,” retorted Burnet, “is according to your
usual insolence.” “Insolence, my Lord, do you give me that word?”
asked the other. “Yes, insolence,” reiterated the Bishop of Salisbury;
“you deserve that word, and worse. Think what you will of yourself,
I know what you are.” The Archbishop, wondering whereunto all this
might grow, civilly interposed, that perhaps the Prolocutor had been
misrepresented, which the Prolocutor turned to his own advantage, and,
to Burnet’s annoyance, wound up this extraordinary altercation with
the remark, that he was “satisfied if in this matter he stood right in
their Lordships’ opinion; about what his Lordship of Salisbury pleased
to think, he felt not much concerned.” Back went the Dean to Henry
the VII.’s Chapel, determined to make the best of the business to the
Clergy, who sat down to hear his report; but when he said that the
Upper House had expressed their satisfaction, or seemed to be satisfied
(for the _ipsissima verba_ in these contentions were continually
coming into question), up rose one who had attended him to the Bishops’
chamber, to say, “he must do this justice to declare, that their
Lordships did not so much as seem to be satisfied, but had showed their
partiality.”[343]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Another heap of fuel was by all this cast upon the already blazing
fire, and it was moved that the House should resent the indignity
offered to their Prolocutor in the execution of his office, and return
him thanks for his conduct.
The House recorded in its minutes the following entry: “Whereas the
reverend the Prolocutor hath been hardly treated in the Upper House,
and particularly this 6th day of June, 1701, was taxed by the Bishop of
Salisbury as behaving himself with his usual insolence, saying further,
he deserved that and worse words, we cannot but resent this great
indignity offered to our Prolocutor and this House; and, therefore,
take this opportunity to return our most humble thanks for his conduct
in the faithful and recent discharge of his office upon all occasions.”
[Sidenote: 1701.]
The Upper House, on the 13th of June, determined that the Lower had
no power judicially to censure any book; that it ought not to have
entered upon the examination of one by a Bishop, without acquainting
the Bishops with it; that the censure on the Bishop of Sarum’s work was
in general terms, without any citation of passages; that the Bishop had
done great service by his _History of the Reformation_, and other
writings; and that, though private persons might expound the Articles,
it was not proper for Convocation to enter upon such a subject. They
also resolved, that the Bishop of Bangor had made a true and just
report of what had taken place between himself and the Prolocutor;
that the paper read by the latter did not relate to the irregularity
complained of; and that his answer was such as ought not to have been
given to his Grace, or to any member of the Upper House.
Convocation was prorogued to the 7th of August, then to the 18th of
September, and was at length dissolved with the Parliament.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
All the Prelates, with three exceptions, concurred in these
proceedings. The exceptions were Compton, Bishop of London; Trelawny,
Bishop of Exeter; and Sprat, who, with the Deanery of Westminster, held
the Bishopric of Rochester.
Compton, after his extreme liberalism and low churchmanship at the
time of the Revolution, had, by the end of the century--soured,
perhaps, by being twice passed over in appointments to the
primacy--become a decided Tory; and now he threw his influence into the
High-Church scale, without, however, making himself conspicuous in the
Convocation controversy. Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, had been
immensely popular in his native county at the time of the great trial,
and had formed the burden of a Cornish ballad--
“And shall Trelawny die?
And shall Trelawny die?
There’s twenty thousand Cornish lads
Will know the reason why.”
He retained a secret attachment to James II. after the Revolution.
That monarch had, in the midst of his troubles, promised to translate
him from Bristol to Exeter; but the turn of events in favour of
William, so it is insinuated, drew the Bishop into a betrayal of his
old master; at any rate, in some way, from William he obtained his
improved preferment; but afterwards he showed himself anxious to deny
that the Bishops had invited the Prince over, though, as he said, “we
found ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.”[344] Trelawny
never showed any sympathy with the party led by Tillotson, Burnet, and
Tenison; and, in the _Correspondence_ of Atterbury, he appears
as the chief of those to whom, as diocesan and friend, the lively
and interesting letters of the Archdeacon of Totness are addressed.
The Archdeacon constantly kept the Bishop informed of what was going
on in the Jerusalem Chamber and in Henry the VII.’s Chapel; and it
is plain, from the way in which he wrote, how much influence he had
acquired over his patron’s mind. The intimate, cordial, and approving
friend of Atterbury could not but be opposed to the proceedings of
Tenison and Burnet. Sprat was not a man of much principle; he had
joined with Dryden and Waller in poetic praise of Oliver Cromwell, he
had sat on James’ High Commission, he had read the _Declaration of
Indulgence_ in servile submissiveness, but with faltering lips; he
had voted for the Regency, and then taken the new oaths, and assisted
at the Coronation; and though he had cleared himself from the charge
of treason, there is reason to believe that he was Jacobite at heart.
He hated Nonconformists, and went in for High Church measures; and as
no love was lost between the Bishops of Rochester and Salisbury, the
latter said of the former, he had “been deeply engaged in the former
reigns, and he stuck firm to the party to which, by reason of the
liberties of his life, he brought no sort of honour.”[345]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
In the spring of 1701, when the great ecclesiastical tournament was
going on within the Abbey walls, a new ecclesiastical knight entered
the lists outside, in the field of literature. He not only broke
a lance, but engaged in a hand-to-hand encounter with the famous
antagonist who had distinguished himself equally in book-writing and
in debate; White Kennet came forward to answer Francis Atterbury.
White Kennet--a curious-looking person, whose forehead, to the day of
his death, bore witness to an accident which happened in his youth,
for he wore a large patch of black velvet over a ghastly scar--was
a man of great archeological research, an eminent Saxon scholar,
and a friend of Mr. Tanner and of Dr. Hicks. He had published, in
1695, his well known _Parochial Antiquities_, and now he sent
forth his _Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations
historically stated and vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Mr.
Atterbury_. The title intimates that the object was not to test
the Convocation question by applying to it texts of Scripture, or the
opinions of the Fathers, or principles of reason, or the results of
experience; but to examine it closely in its connection with English
history and English law. After the fashion of the day, especially as
it appears in the polemical department, whilst using occasionally
courteous expressions, he deals very unpleasant blows, depreciating
his opponent’s learning, exposing his mistakes, pointing out where
he had confounded facts and fallen into sophistry, not omitting to
throw the shield of his erudition over Dr. Wake, who had been roughly
handled by his excited adversaries. Kennet’s main positions were--that
Parliamentary Convocations are not in essence and nature the same
things as ecclesiastical synods; that not spiritual affairs, but the
taxing of the Clergy, gave the first occasion of their being called
together in connection with Parliament--their first appearance in that
association being in the year 1282, in the eleventh year of Edward I.,
the first proctors of the rural priesthood being soon brought into
parliamentary attendance. Repeatedly he asserts that Parliamentary
Convocations, although ecclesiastical in their constituent parts, are
not ecclesiastical in their objects and purposes, and he repeatedly
charges Atterbury with confusing civil councils with sacred synods.[346]
[Sidenote: 1701.]
It was a pet idea with Atterbury, that Bishops should avail themselves
of the _præmunientes_ clause. Kennet undertook to show that
he was mistaken as to the time of its origin; that he incorrectly
maintained the constancy of its practical application; that he was
deceived in his notice of its nature and effect, and that the modern
had not, any more than the ancient Clergy, reason to be fond of it.
The provincial summons to Convocation, issued by an Archbishop, he
maintained to be a sufficient authority without diocesan writs. “From
the three or four first years of Queen Elizabeth,” he says, “when the
Protestant Clergy might be trusted for obedient subjects, there is not
one proof that ever any Bishop made a return of the _præmunientes_
to the Crown, or that ever the Crown challenged such a return from any
Bishop.”[347]
Of the erudition and ingenuity shown in Kennet’s book there can be no
doubt: it clears up some interesting archeological points in English
history; but I am at a loss to understand what bearing his arguments,
as far as they go--for it must be remembered he gives only the first
part of the work--are meant to have on the practical determination of
the controversy. If, as he represented, the existing Convocation was
but the relic of an extinguished prerogative of self-taxation, once
possessed by the Clergy, then it remained only the shadow of a name,
and stood amongst the meaningless things which it would be a good
clearance to sweep away. If he took such a view, he does not, as far as
I can find, express it; rather he assumes throughout, that Convocations
by Royal authority, under archiepiscopal control, without the power
of making laws or discussing theological or ecclesiastical questions,
are quite wise and proper. How they can be so when reduced to such a
nullity, it is difficult to conceive. Kennet’s theory, to any one free
from the prejudices and heartburnings of the dispute, is unsatisfactory
to the last degree.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
When winter approached, the prospect of a new Parliament and a new
Convocation opened on the eyes of Atterbury with a fascinating effect;
and as the autumn leaves fell in the London parks, the Archdeacon
girded up his loins for a fresh attack. He was concerned about many
things--about the opposition his party was likely to encounter, about
the exact place of meeting of the Clergy, and about the execution of
the _præmunientes_ clause, notwithstanding Kennet’s destructive
criticisms. He says to Trelawny, “Unless some spirit be put into our
affairs, and the managers of them, and they attend here punctually,
and behave courageously, our cause must sink, and we must be broken;
for we are beset, and unless a vigorous stand be made, shall find they
will be too hard for us. Their Lay interest is much stronger than it is
imagined to be; they know it, and feel it, and accordingly speak in a
much higher strain than ever they used to do, and talk more securely of
success at the next meeting.”[348]
It was thought the Lower House needed more room for their assembly. Sir
Christopher Wren was consulted on the subject; but “any carpenter in
the town understood that matter as well as he, and I would undertake,”
said the impatient Archdeacon, “to bring one that should contrive seats
to hold near six score, which is more than ever yet met at once.”[349]
[Sidenote: 1702.]
Christmas festivities had scarcely ended, holly branches still hung
in the parish churches, when the new Convocation met. The day before
New Years’ Day, after a Latin service read by the Bishop of Oxford,
a Latin sermon preached by the Dean of St. Paul’s, and the King’s
writ and the Bishop of London’s certificate formally delivered, “the
Archbishop admonished the Clergy to retire into the chapel, at the west
end of the church, where morning prayers are usually said, and there,
under the conduct of the Dean of St. Paul’s, to choose a Prolocutor,
and present him in Henry the VII.’s Chapel, on Tuesday, the 13th of
January.”[350] No sooner had they met for that purpose, than the old
embers of strife were kindled afresh, and blazed up furiously as
before. The first contention pertained to proxy votes, the Dean of
Canterbury contending they were valid, others answering they were quite
contrary to custom, and indeed, that absent members were guilty of
contumacy till their absence received judicial excuse, and therefore
lay under a canonical impediment,[351] which for the time deprived
them of their ecclesiastical power. The election of Prolocutor was the
next struggle. Even such a candidate as Beveridge, decided Anglican as
he was, could not satisfy the extreme party, and they elected, by a
majority of 36 or 37 against 30, the Dean of Salisbury, Dr. Woodward,
a civilian who had grown popular with High Churchmen by opposing his
Diocesan. At that very moment, the two were engaged in litigation with
each other; and, in addition to this circumstance, which rendered the
election unseemly, the fact should be remembered that Woodward, now a
sharp thorn in the sides of Burnet, owed to that Prelate his church
preferment. The election over, the new Prolocutor approached the chair
occupied by the Dean of St. Paul’s as temporary president whilst the
votes were being taken; but the Dean kept possession of his seat, on
the ground that the Prolocutor could not preside when as yet there was
no House. The Prolocutor being duly presented to the Archbishop, on the
13th of January he made a speech, bristling with military allusions.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
After this, Archbishop Tenison, rock-like as ever, in a graceful
tone, recommended charity and union, and lamented existing divisions;
the only good effect of which, he said, was the impulse it had given
to the study of historical questions, whereby light had fallen on
Convocational rights, privileges, and customs. “The Prolocutor and
Clergy were then ordered to withdraw to the consistory at the west end
of the church.” Now reappeared the old bone of contention. A schedule
of prorogation from the Archbishop reached the hands of the Prolocutor:
“A paper,” he called it, “by which their Lordships had adjourned
themselves;” a paper which he would not read to the House himself; a
paper which he gave the actuary to read; a paper to which he added
words of his own, substituting _this place_ for _Jerusalem
Chamber_--the gist of his treating the document thus, being that he
would not admit the power of the Upper House to prorogue the meeting
of the Lower. “Mr. Prolocutor,” said Archdeacon Beveridge, “I advise
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, not to open our first meeting in such
contempt and disobedience to the Archbishop and Bishops, and in giving
such offence and scandal to our enemies.” “I have,” replied Woodward,
“the power to alter the schedule when I intimate it.”[352] The battle
for independence now reopened, the majority of the Lower House, headed
by the defiant Prolocutor, resolving to fight it out to the last.
[Sidenote: 1702.]
The Clergy, on the 20th of January, assembled early in the cold nave
of the Abbey, after which they proceeded to prayers in the Jerusalem
Chamber. Thence they returned to Henry the VII.’s Chapel, where they
found the floor matted and curtains hung,--no small comfort on a
frosty morning.[353] If their feet were as warm as their tempers,
they had no reason to complain, for no sooner had they taken their
places than it was proposed to have prayers over again by themselves,
to show their independence. The motion was opposed. Debates followed.
The Archbishop’s messenger waited at the door while the question of
his being admitted was discussed. After “a little noise,” he came in
with the hated schedule of prorogation. The Prolocutor took it up,
and “playing with it in his hands, supposed it to be a paper about
adjourning; and at last repeated the place and time, and putting it
to the House for their pleasure, drew up a paper and read it.” This
occurred on the 22nd of January. Upon the 28th, the Prolocutor again
informed the members he had received a message of adjournment, but that
he would not communicate it except by order of the House. Dr. Freeman
maintained it ought to be delivered in obedience to the Archbishop. The
Prolocutor tartly replied, he did not need to be taught what was his
business; and Atterbury, starting up, accused Freeman of using indecent
words.[354] Then came discussions about committees for purposes
presented in the last Convocation. Further personalities arose.
One made an offensive allusion, another felt annoyed. “Expressions
were used,” it is said, “which might have laid the foundation of a
misunderstanding or something worse,” but for subsequent explanations.
On the 28th, Atterbury--the spirit of the storm--rejoiced in his native
element, as he proposed, and at last carried the point, that the
Prolocutor should have inserted in the minutes a phrase which assumed
the right of independent assembling. “This new and improper entry,” in
Kennet’s judgment, “so thrust upon the minutes, was the great cause of
widening the divisions in the Lower House.”[355]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Another source of discord was found in the quarrel between Burnet
and Woodward the Prolocutor. Some members complained of a breach of
privilege, and an indignity to Convocation offered to the Prolocutor
by Burnet, his Diocesan, who was said to have required him to attend
a visitation, while he was occupied with Convocational duties, and to
have issued a process against him for non-compliance. Burnet was also
charged by Woodward himself, with declaring that Convocation had no
privileges which it could plead.[356]
On the 9th of February, Beveridge “made a long and pathetic speech upon
the dispute at present depending between the two Houses.” “He earnestly
exhorted both sides to union, and to think of such methods of healing
the breach as might secure the Lower House’s liberty, and yet not
entrench on the Archbishop’s authority.” He so influenced his brethren,
that a committee was appointed to consider an expedient for composing
the differences relative to prorogations.[357] But to this note of
peace there speedily succeeded another outburst of war.
[Sidenote: 1702.]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
Never, perhaps, did Convocation pass through a more tumultuous day
than Thursday, the 12th of February, ushered in though it was by
a circumstance adapted to calm the spirit of ever so excited an
assembly. Between 9 and 10 o’clock, as the members of the Lower House
were pacing up and down the nave of Westminster Abbey--not then
crowded with monuments as it is now--waiting for the commencement of
business, and eager to know what turn discussions were about to take,
news came that Woodward, the Prolocutor, had been taken ill--very ill,
and could not possibly attend to his duties. He must send a deputy,
said his friends, and the deputy sent, turned out to be Aldrich, Dean
of Christ Church, a man of like spirit with the Prolocutor himself.
Upon proceeding to read prayers in the Lower House, this deputy
was interrupted by a question, whether he ought to take the chair,
without receiving the sanction of the Archbishop to his appointment.
Kennet and Birch hastily departed to inform his Grace of what had
been done; but on their way through the cloisters[358] to the yard,
into which opened the principal door to the Jerusalem Chamber, they
were stopped by another member, who proposed that they should return
and wait until after prayers. They did so. As Aldrich, encouraged by
Atterbury, ventured to take the chair, “a tumultuous noise” arose.
Opposing members “persisted with vehemence in their demand, that
the Dean of Christ Church should relinquish the chair.” They were
“peremptory in their manner”--they came “prepared for a rupture,”
says a nettled member on the other side.[359] In the midst of the
disturbance, Wickart, Dean of Winchester, and Archdeacon Beveridge,
removed the instrument of substitution from the table, and carried it
to the Upper House, where they met with a gracious reception. After
the two had ventured so far to take the matter into their own hands,
the Lower House came to a resolution formally to depute certain
others to go and wait upon their Lordships; but these messengers,
unlike their predecessors, were not admitted. Instead, an order was
despatched for the whole House to attend. Accordingly they left Henry
the VII.’s Chapel, the Dean of Christ Church at their head “in his
square cap and a verger before him,”[360] and crowded up the steps
to the Jerusalem Chamber, where, face to face with those whom they
regarded as their enemies, they heard from the lips of the Archbishop a
simple acknowledgment of a paper of consequence having been received,
in allusion to their choice of a deputy, as “an incident of great
moment;” and, besides, a formal announcement of prorogation until
February the 14th. This Atterbury and his friends confessed to be
“every way a surprise to them;” yet, nothing daunted, the Corypheus
of the party--as the members were struggling through the small room,
and the narrow passage which formed the only outlet from what was
the Prelates’ audience-room--pushed them on, crying, “Away to the
Lower House--to the Lower House.” In accordance with this boisterous
suggestion, about forty-two members rushed towards the steps of Henry
the VII.’s Chapel, and there, in defiance of archiepiscopal authority,
placed their sub-prolocutor in the chair, intending by this method
to constitute a House. Having, as they considered, thus saved their
rights, they then formally adjourned to the same day as the Upper
House had fixed. Woodward died on the 13th of February. The House now
destitute of a Prolocutor--a body without a head--became organically
incomplete, and therefore incapable of constitutional action. The first
object of desire with the members struggling for independence, was to
supply the deficiency; but this was what the Archbishop and his friends
in the Upper House were determined to prevent--being by this time tired
out of all patience with their impracticable brethren. When, therefore,
the Lower House, on the 14th, formally communicated intelligence of the
death of Dr. Woodward, his Grace curtly expressed surprise at the news,
and at once ordered a schedule of prorogation for the 19th, the day
after Ash Wednesday. Tenison persevered in the policy of prorogation.
On the 29th he told his brethren, in plain words, he meant to do so,
assuring them, on the one hand, that they were mistaken who thought
that he and the Bishops wished to bring Convocation into disuse; and
remarking, on the other, that such heats as theirs had given great
scandal to those who understood not the controversy, but were much
concerned that there should be any differences among men, who were by
profession ministers of the gospel of peace.
[Sidenote: 1702.]
The party who sympathized with the Bishops felt satisfied; a great
majority felt otherwise. They met of their own accord in Henry the
VII.’s Chapel, and having chosen a Chairman or Moderator, marched
up to the little old anteroom, which had become a sort of outpost
for the episcopal garrison, where the invincible besiegers were ever
pressing upon the trenches of the upper citadel. They were now met by
the Bishop of Lincoln, whom they requested to convey a message to the
other Bishops, expressing a desire to elect a Prolocutor. A new point
of difference immediately arose. As amidst the confusion of the crowded
apartments, some members began to dictate a message to the effect that
the House wished to proceed to an election, Kennet interposed, saying
he hoped the message would not be worded so, for they were not a House,
and were unable to act as such; and, moreover, some of the members, he
being one, did not agree to the proposed message. The Bishop wrote down
the communication as coming from certain members of the Lower House--a
form of expression vehemently opposed by several of the listening and
agitated group, and bringing down hot indignation upon him who had
suggested it.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF WILLIAM III.]
One death had already disabled the Lower House, another death suddenly
and completely extinguished its paralyzed and convulsed existence.
William of Orange fell from his horse as he was riding in the
neighbourhood of Hampton Court, and broke his collar-bone. Removed to
Kensington, he was seized with shivering fits, and it soon appeared
death was approaching. The Earl of Portland states, “that when he was
once encouraging him, from the good state his affairs were in both home
and abroad, to take more heart, the King answered him, that he knew
death was that which he had looked at on all occasions without any
terror; sometimes he would have been glad to have been delivered out of
all his troubles, but he confessed now he saw another scene, and could
wish to live a little longer. He died with a clear and full presence
of mind, and in a wonderful tranquillity. Those who knew it was his
rule all his life long to hide the impressions that religion made on
him, as much as possible, did not wonder at his silence in his last
minutes; but they lamented it much, they knew what a handle it would
give to censure and obloquy.”[361] Early on Sunday, January the 8th,
he received “the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, with great devotion,
from the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury”[362]--about 8 o’clock
he was a corpse. Round his neck a black ribbon was discovered with a
gold ring, and a lock of Queen Mary’s hair.
[Sidenote: 1702.]
[Sidenote: WILLIAM III.]
The moral conduct of the King had not been in accordance with his
religious professions. Burnet, who honestly gives his impressions of
William’s character, says in a few words, “He had no vice but of one
sort, in which he was very cautious and secret”--a statement which,
whilst it presents a contrast to James and Charles, who were barefaced
in their sensualities, admits the fact of William’s being addicted
to vicious indulgence, of which concealment neither expiated nor
diminished the guilt. It is not a little surprising that so many good
men, both Churchmen and Dissenters, who could not have been indifferent
to the interests of morality, should have lauded, as they did, the
Hero of the Revolution, both living and dead, as if he had been the
very ideal of virtue and piety. Yet Burnet, who was disposed to take
the most favourable view of his character, cannot be charged with
exaggeration when he informs us, that “he believed the truth of the
Christian religion very firmly, and he expressed a horror at atheism
and blasphemy, and though there was much of both in his Court, yet
it was always denied to him, and kept out of his sight. He was most
exemplary, decent, and devout in the public exercises of the worship of
God--only on week days he came too seldom to them. He was an attentive
hearer of sermons,[363] and was constant in his private prayers and
in reading the Scriptures; and when he spoke of religious matters,
which he did not often, it was with a becoming gravity. He was much
possessed with the belief of absolute decrees: he said to me, he
adhered to these, because he did not see how the belief of Providence
could be maintained upon any other supposition. His indifference
as to the forms of Church government, and his being zealous for
toleration, together with his cold behaviour towards the Clergy, gave
them generally very ill impressions of him.”[364] The effect of frigid
manners, felt by the nation at large, was deepened in the case of high
Churchmen, by William’s well-known Presbyterian predilections, and
his dislike to what is meant by Anglo-Catholicism. As we have seen,
during the life of Mary, he left the exercise of his prerogative in
reference to ecclesiastical matters in her hands, and after her death
meddled with them in the smallest possible degree, so that he never
could be said to have exerted any direct influence in the government
of the Church.[365] But, indirectly, by the Revolution itself, and
by the Act of Toleration which followed, and was promoted by him, he
changed the position of the Establishment altogether, and opened up to
the Episcopal Church a new career, in which conciliation instead of
persecution could alone prove its permanent safeguard, and a secret of
prosperity. The first monarch on the throne of these realms who loved
a constitutional system of religious liberty, William not only won
the affection of Dissenters, as he might be naturally expected to do,
but by his wise and equitable policy in this respect, laid the whole
kingdom and posterity under obligations which have never yet been fully
acknowledged.
CHAPTER XIII.
The most distinguished divines who sat upon the Episcopal Bench in the
reign of William III., were more or less imbued with what were called
Latitudinarian sentiments.
Tillotson and Tenison who did so much, especially the latter of them,
by force of character, as well as prominence of position, towards
keeping the Church in subordination to the State, have already
occupied a considerable space in this History. Next to them, Burnet
was most distinguished, and he also has received repeated notice as an
ecclesiastical statesman; it should be added, that he was no less a
diligent diocesan and a laborious divine. His treatise on _Pastoral
Care_ expresses the spiritual anxieties of a good minister of Jesus
Christ: his Histories are pervaded by a spirit of Erastianism, as
described by some; by a tone of liberality, as denoted by others; and
his _Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_, in like manner, is both
condemned as latitudinarian, and commended as comprehensive.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
No work gives me so favourable an opinion of Burnet as his _Four
Discourses_, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum.[366]
For learning, earnestness, and ability, they deserve a higher place in
theological literature than they have ever won. In them he exhibits
the evidences of the Christian religion with considerable vigour of
thought, and for the age in which he wrote, with much originality. His
dissertation on the Divinity and death of Christ exhibit the orthodox
Creed, as to the Godhead and Atonement of the Lord, together with a
view of Justification by Faith, very similar to that inculcated in
the writings of Bull. The authority of the Church he discusses as an
enlightened Protestant, and demolishes the arguments of the Papists;
giving, as he proceeds, some valuable hints on the history of religious
opinions, and dealing with the dogma of infallibility in a way which
is singularly curious, looked at in the light of the recent Ecumenical
Council. The obligation to continue in the communion of the Church of
England is exhibited, from his own point of view, in a temperate spirit.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Stillingfleet accepted, in reward of his theological services, the See
of Worcester in 1689. His reputation, connected with a friendly bearing
towards Dissenters in the latter, as in the earlier period of his
life, caused him to be engaged as referee in a doctrinal dispute, to
be hereafter related; his polemical skill and unimpeachable orthodoxy
were manifested afresh in his _Vindication of the Trinity_;
he also entered into a metaphysical controversy with Locke, but to
diocesan duties Stillingfleet devoted the remainder of his life. In his
younger days he had been an eloquent preacher, generally dwelling upon
the ethical more than the doctrinal side of religion; he nevertheless
insisted upon theological points, following, in his views of salvation,
Bull’s line of thought, as did Burnet, and others of the same school.
There is an hortatory tone in his sermons, approaching in fervour
to that of the Puritans, which, if not in harmony with the taste
of the upper classes in the palmy days of Tillotson’s popularity,
must have commended Stillingfleet’s ministry to the hearts of common
people. In his first Visitation Charge, in 1690, he says there is
“an affected fineness of expression which by no means becomes the
pulpit, but seems to be like stroking the consciences of people by
feathers dipped in oil;” then, after speedily dismissing the subject
of preaching, and condemning extempore sermons, he proceeds, at great
length, to vindicate episcopal order, and to enforce the discharge
of pastoral duties. These topics, with discussions relative to
Ecclesiastical Courts, appear prominently in his episcopal charges.
And his attempts to enforce discipline, his zeal for the Reformation
and authority of Church tribunals, his enforcement of residence on
the Canons of his Cathedral, his protection of the poor, and his care
about the application of charitable funds, are the chief grounds on
which Stillingfleet’s episcopal career is eulogized by his admiring
biographer. It strikes me as unsafe to judge of him simply by what
that writer has advanced. Another and more spiritual aspect of his
character, suggested by his sermons and other productions, is left
untouched in those unsatisfactory memoirs.[367]
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Patrick, made Bishop of Chichester in 1689, and of Ely in 1691, was
a man of inferior ability to Stillingfleet, but of greater learning,
perhaps of higher spiritual mark. Ranked amongst Latitudinarians
through his early connection with John Smith and Henry More, he caught
and infused into some of his writings a Platonic tincture; but as
to the philosophical spirit of inquiry, cultivated in the Cambridge
school, he was a perfect alien. He agreed, with the least moderate
of the class, in a dislike to Puritanism, and went beyond them all
in dogmatic emphasis and Anglican leanings. He distinguished between
traditions to be rejected and traditions to be received--including
amongst the latter, not only primitive testimony as to the transmission
of Scripture, and the settlement of the Canon, but as to the doctrines
of the Faith, and the polity of the Church. He insisted upon the
efficacy of baptism as producing regeneration, and held that ordinance
to be necessary for the salvation of infants.[368] As to the Lord’s
Supper, he dwelt little upon its nature, but much upon its benefits,
and the duty of frequent communion. His published sermons are not
specimens of his general preaching, for they were mostly delivered on
political and other public occasions. Some posthumous discourses on
contentment, and resignation to the will of God, have been preserved,
through accidental circumstances, not on account of any superior
excellence.[369]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
He wrote, besides his Paraphrases and works against Popery, a number
of practical and devout books; amongst them the _Parable of the
Pilgrim_, which might be read with more satisfaction, did it not
provoke humiliating comparisons with Bunyan’s Allegory. The reputation
Patrick enjoyed in his own day for devout composition, suffers greatly
when, in the light of modern taste and criticism, we examine the
forms which he prepared for the revised Prayer Book, contemplated in
1680; but I know of nothing to invalidate the manner in which his
conduct as a Bishop is eulogized. He early appeared as a champion
of the Church of England against Dissent, by publishing what he
called a _Friendly Debate_,--in point of fact, a most unfriendly
production, full of virulent attacks upon those who separated from the
established communion, and even advocating coercion in the service of
Uniformity.[370] The book appeared anonymously in 1668; fifteen years
afterwards, notwithstanding the damaging circumstance that it had been
condemned by Matthew Hale, and praised by Gilbert Sheldon and Samuel
Parker, the author stated his continued opinion that the discourse was
“useful and reasonable.”[371] It may be hoped Patrick repented of what
he had done, for he expressed in the House of Lords “regret for the
warmth with which he had written against the Dissenters in his younger
years;” and Wharton said of him, “After he was made a Bishop, he lost
his reputation through imprudent management, openly favouring the
Dissenters, and employing none but such, whereupon he lost the love of
the gentry.”[372] However, there is evidence, that towards the Baptist
denomination, at least, he continued to manifest a most unfriendly
spirit.
After the Revolution, he expressed concern at finding so little of
unity and concord, when it was natural to expect they would have been
the result of that deliverance. He seems to have become weary of the
world before he left it, and cried out with the Psalmist, “O that I
had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away and be at rest.”
Stillingfleet wrote his _Irenicum_ in 1660, and twenty years after
the _Mischief of Separation_. Patrick advocated intolerance in
1683; and twenty years afterwards, though still retaining some of the
old leaven, uttered words of charity and healing.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
To the class of Cambridge theologians probably belongs John Moore,
consecrated Bishop of Norwich in 1691, who is described as enjoying
Burnet’s confidence, and as being consulted by him in the composition
of his works. But Moore was one of a considerable number who gain a
reputation among friends for ability to do what they never accomplish;
since, according to one of his eulogists, “the world had reason to
expect from him many excellent and useful works,” had not episcopal
duties prevented their being composed. He was also one of a still
greater number in whom the love of books weakens regard for the rights
of property; for according to a critic less friendly to his reputation,
Moore indulged an “avarice in that respect,” which “carried him a step
beyond the sin of coveting.” His library numbered 30,000 volumes,
and was bought, after his death, by George I., as a present to the
University of Cambridge.[373]
Cumberland, made Bishop of Peterborough in 1691, wrote in reply to
Hobbes, a Latin treatise, _On the Laws of Nature_, mentioned
in a former volume, and of him his great grandson Richard says, “He
had no pretension to quick and brilliant talents; but his mind was
fitted for elaborate and profound researches, as his works more fully
testify.”[374] He is known to posterity, and that with faded light,
simply as a philosopher of the Cambridge stamp, and has left no proofs
of pre-eminence in episcopal efficiency; but we may conclude that he
was devoted to his office from the anecdote, that, when in his old age
his friends recommended retirement and rest, he said, “I will do my
duty as long as I can; I had better _wear_ out than _rust_
out.”[375]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Something similar may be said of Fowler, an active opponent of
James’ Declaration, promoted to the See of Gloucester in 1690, whose
exposition of Latitudinarian theology has been described in the
_Church of the Restoration_. His broad views of Christianity, and
his opposition to Popery, recommended him to a Bishopric. He is spoken
of as a very respectable, but not very eminent, Prelate; and what is
curious in connection with his rationalism, he was credited with a
faith in the existence of witches and fairies, “whom he dreaded as much
as the lady upon the seven hills, and all the scarlet train.”[376]
Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had, before he wore a mitre,
passed through circumstances which must have left a deep impress
upon his character, and were calculated to impart moderation to his
episcopal proceedings. He, in 1662, was deprived of his living for not
subscribing to the Prayer-Book, before he could examine it. Approving
of it after examination, he pursued a chequered career, struggling
with poverty, but exhibiting generous dispositions; suffering during
the plague year, but persevering in his spiritual duties; vexed by
Nonconformists in his parish, yet administering the Lord’s Supper
to those who refused to kneel. His autobiography, besides sketching
these circumstances, relates what he did in the way of Visitations,
Confirmations, and Ordinations, and how he was troubled by the conduct
of some of his Clergy, by the behaviour of a physician who courted his
daughter, and by a faction in his diocese who opposed his ordination of
one who had been a Nonconformist.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Kidder paid half his income from the See of Bath and Wells into the
hands of ex-Bishop Ken; and another circumstance is related respecting
him, which places his integrity in a conspicuous light. A message was
sent him by a minister of King William, telling him he MUST
give his vote in Parliament in a certain way. “_Must_ vote!”
“Yes, _must_ vote: consider whose bread you eat.” “I eat no man’s
bread but poor Dr. Ken’s; and if he will take the oaths, he shall
have it again. I did not think of going to the Parliament, but now I
shall undoubtedly go, and vote contrary to your commands.”[377] The
autobiography suggests the idea that Kidder was a well-meaning man,
sometimes wanting in firmness and wisdom. His publications, which are
numerous, include--besides his Boyle Lecture--Tracts against Popery,
and Plain Treatises enforcing the practice of a religious life. The
only sermon of his which I have read, one preached at Court on the duty
of fasting, suggests no high opinion of his pulpit power.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Amongst the Episcopal Divines of William’s reign, only one can be
considered as a decided Puritan. This was John Hall, Master of
Pembroke, Oxford, who retained that position after he became Bishop of
Bristol in 1691,--a poor piece of preferment. He is far less noticeable
as a Bishop than as a Theological Professor, in which capacity,
however, he earned no enviable fame, even in the estimation of those
who sympathized with him in his theological opinions; for Calamy says,
that he brought all the theology of the Westminster Assembly out of
the Church Catechism. He was a good man, laughed at by the wits, but
esteemed for his godliness by pious people.
Nicholas Stratford--possessed of learning, a firm supporter of the
Church of England, and, judging of him by his primary visitation
charge, an earnest preacher and a faithful pastor, bent on the
salvation of souls--succeeded Cartwright in the Bishopric of Chester,
in 1689; and in the same year, John Hough, the Champion of Magdalen,
rose to the episcopal chair of Oxford.[378]
An Archiepiscopal mitre rewarded, at the suggestion of Tillotson in
1691, the staunch Protestantism of Dr. Sharpe, the Dean of Norwich;
and, if we are to believe all the encomiums on his virtues, inscribed
upon his monument in York Cathedral, scarcely ever before did such
a paragon of excellence exist.[379] Notices of him by Thoresby--to
whose conversion from Dissent to Episcopacy, Sharpe had largely
contributed--so far confirm the praise in his epitaph, as to show that
he was diligent, courteous, devout, and kind, and most zealous in
endeavouring to win Nonconformists over to the Church. He is described
as the best of the Bishops who had honoured Leeds with their presence,
“a most excellent preacher, universally beloved.”[380] Samuel Wesley,
who was under great obligations to him, ranked him as a preacher above
Stillingfleet, and even above Tillotson, calling him “a more popular
pulpit orator than either;”[381] but a set-off against these partial
commendations will appear, when we reach the history of Religious
Societies and of Dissenting Academies, and observe the course which his
Grace pursued in relation to them.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry until 1699, when, on the death
of Stillingfleet, the King translated him to Worcester, is described
by Whiston, who received ordination at his hands, as engaging in “a
most uncommon, but vastly improving examination and instruction, in the
Cathedral, beforehand.”[382] Lloyd’s prophetical studies, vindicated by
Whiston, exposed him to a good deal of raillery and satire; Shippen, in
his _Faction Displayed_, saying of him--
“Then old Mysterio shook his silver hairs,
Loaded with learning, prophecy, and years.”
As with other students in the same school, his studies proved labour
lost, for Dr. Johnson relates, that “his writings supplied the kitchen
of his successor with fuel for many years;” but his character defied
detraction, and whilst revered for his virtues, that reverence was
increased by his “learning and longevity.”[383]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Politics, rather than Divinity, recommended men as Bishops under
William III. They were constitutional Whigs sympathizing in the objects
and promoting the interests of the Revolution. The anti-Papal zeal, and
the readiness of most of them to conciliate Nonconformists, gave them
favour in the eyes of both King and Queen; nor should we overlook the
influence of Tillotson and Burnet, the great ecclesiastical apostles of
the period, in the advancement of these brethren. Sharpe’s promotion
was owing to the former, probably Moore’s was owing to the latter.
In point of personal character the new Prelates will bear comparison
with their predecessors. Kidder indeed never enjoyed the reputation
for sanctity possessed by Ken. Tillotson, Tenison, Burnet,
Stillingfleet, Patrick, Cumberland, and Fowler, were in mental power
superior to Sancroft, Thomas, Lake, White, and Frampton; and as to
personal religion, which admits not of precise judgment, there is no
evidence that they were inferior. Stratford might easily surpass the
disreputable Cartwright; the name of Hough is as illustrious as the
name of Samuel Parker is disgraceful, and the name of Timothy Hall
obscure. In political bias, ecclesiastical feeling, and theological
opinion, the new Prelates differed from their predecessors, and must
therefore have imported into their dioceses some new methods of
procedure.[384]
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Another class of Bishops consisted of men who appear in history as
political celebrities.
Compton, Bishop of London, is familiar to the reader as an active
revolutionist, a man of disappointed ambition, and a friend to the
High Church party in Convocation. Having nothing to do with the
Court after Queen Mary’s death, he steps out of historical notice
for a while, spending his time in the quiet discharge of episcopal
functions, and relieving himself in hours of leisure, amidst the
flowers and shrubs of his beautiful garden at Fulham, with botanical
studies, which brought him into scientific correspondence with Ray,
Petiver, and Plunkenet. Other letters of his indicate the active and
zealous part he took in electioneering affairs, seeking to promote
the return of Church candidates;[385] and a charge he delivered
soon after the Revolution, deals largely in warnings against heresy
and schism, Popery and Dissent--with a few milder words at the end
relative to a kind treatment of loving brethren, if “found humble and
of a quiet spirit.”[386] Burnet speaks of Compton as “a generous
and good-natured man, but easy and weak, and much in the power of
others,”[387]--an estimate of his character, copied by Birch and
repeated since; but as to Compton’s imputed weakness, it is right to
remember that Burnet, after his right reverend brother’s alliance with
the High Church party, cannot be regarded as an impartial witness. The
fragment of a Greek inscription upon Compton’s tombstone at Fulham, if
placed there by his request, would indicate a devout appreciation of
the redemptive nature of the Gospel, for the letters which remain are
part of the Apostle’s memorable words, “God forbid that I should glory,
save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
The tergiversations of Trelawny, successively Bishop of Bristol and
Exeter, modify the traditionary laudation of his courage and alacrity,
magnanimity and address, in defence of the just rights and privileges
of the Church; yet I am not aware of anything which contradicts the
statement, that “he was friendly and open, generous and charitable, a
good companion, and a good man.”[388] Atterbury seems to have greatly
admired him, and in the dedication of his own sermons to the Prelate,
he delicately praises him for manifold virtues. The virtue of loyalty
to the existing Government he certainly did not possess.[389]
Of the politics of Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, I have spoken before. It
will suffice to notice him now as a preacher. His style of composition
secured the applause of contemporaries, and Dunton, in one of his
extravagant flights, eulogized the Bishop by saying--
“Nature rejoic’d beneath his charming power,
His lucky hand makes everything a flower,”
“On earth the King of wits (they are but few)
And, though a Bishop, he’s a preacher too.”[390]
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Respecting his oratory, an amusing anecdote is related by Dr. Johnson.
Burnet and Sprat were rivals. “On some public occasion they both
preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days
an indecent custom; when the preacher touched any favourite topic in
a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed
by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure.
When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and
so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his
handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the
like animating hum; but he stretched out his hand to the congregation
and cried, ‘Peace, peace, I pray you peace.’”[391]
Let the story pass for what it is worth. Both Burnet and Sprat were
men of power; both had at command a flowing and, when they pleased,
a rhetorical style; and both delivered sermons marked by superior
instruction and fervent appeal. Each attended to the method of
delivery, as well as to the substance of thought, a matter to which
Sprat devotes considerable space in an episcopal charge. After urging
the Clergy to set forth the public prayers to “due advantage, by
pronouncing them leisurely, fitly, warmly, decently,” he tells them to
utter their discourses “in a natural, comely, modest, yet undaunted
force of pronunciation;” but he reprobates extempore preaching, no less
than extempore prayer.[392]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Nathaniel Crew, Bishop of Durham, fifth son of the first Lord who bore
that name, succeeded upon the death of his last surviving brother to
the family estate and the title, and therefore was entitled to a seat
in Parliament both as Prelate and Baron. Committed to the worst policy
of James, and for a time excepted from pardon by William, he narrowly
secured his See by taking the oath of allegiance at the last moment,
and was scarcely admitted to Court during the reign of the last-named
Monarch. Handsome features, imposing presence, winning manners, and
princely munificence--although commending him to the affection of
friends and the gratitude of dependants--could not redeem his character
from the consequences incurred by his political conduct, or render him
either a strong or an ornamental pillar of the English Church.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
I pass over Bishops altogether obscure,[393] to notice one who
attained an unenviable notoriety. This was Thomas Watson, Bishop of
St. David’s, who experienced the singular fate of being proceeded
against in the Court of Arches, when he received a sentence of
deprivation. He was convicted of applying to his own use offerings
given at ordinations; receiving what had been bestowed on servants
as gratuities; not administering oaths required by law; ordaining at
other times than the Sundays next Ember weeks; conferring orders
on a candidate below the canonical age; exacting illegal fees; and
demanding excessive procurations. There must have been at the bottom
of these proceedings much more than appears on the surface. He is
reported to have been coarse and violent in his language and conduct,
and to have thereby exposed himself to popular odium; but these were
not the things for which he was tried, nor was he formally accused of
Popish opinions, though, in public estimation, he stood suspected of
Romanist sympathies. He had been made a Bishop by James II., whose
policy he approved, and this circumstance seems to have had much to do
with the issue of his trial. He appealed to the House of Lords against
the sentence of the spiritual court, but the sentence was confirmed.
The case made much noise at the time, and excited a good deal of
controversy. In a _Review_[394] of it published by a friendly
hand, the charges brought against him are pronounced to be false,
the veracity of the witnesses is impugned, and the whole process is
described as a conspiracy carried on by “subordination,” and inspired
by “political motives and inducements of pique and revenge.” The writer
intends to suggest the animus of Watson’s prosecutors, by stating that
he was asked what Papists and Nonjurors came to his house, and whether
he had not drunk the health of King James; and I also find one deponent
declaring that, in the oath of allegiance administered by the Bishop
at an ordination, neither William nor Mary were mentioned by name. I
cannot but think that political feeling prompted the prosecution;
yet, if we look at the characters of such men as Tenison, Patrick, and
others, who united in his condemnation, we must suppose that he had
been guilty of great irregularities in his episcopal office.[395]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
There were to be found distinguished clergymen occupying parochial
cures--clergymen eminent for learning, godliness, and zeal, amidst
the bustle of a London life. Some were Anglican. William Beveridge,
Rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, united with a profound reverence
for antiquity, an attachment to doctrinal truths dear to Puritans.
He insisted upon Episcopacy, Sacraments, the observance of Lent, and
fellowship with the Church of England, and he did this often in a
narrow, hard, exclusive spirit; yet he sometimes preached sermons such
as would be admired by modern Evangelicals.[396] Those published in
six octavo volumes, were regarded at the time as forming a valuable
theological library. They exhibit no closeness of reasoning or sagacity
of remark, no command of illustration, or felicity of style, yet they
are sensible, unaffected, and somewhat forcible, from the manifest
sincerity and earnestness of the author. Beveridge’s _Thoughts on
Religion_ are perhaps the most edifying, certainly the best known of
his works, though they were written when he was a young man; but as to
terseness of expression--not as to breadth of thought--he appears, in
my judgment, to more advantage in his _Ecclesia Anglicana, Ecclesia
Catholica_, a posthumous work on the Articles. In the exposition of
the XI. Article, on Justification, he decidedly follows the Puritan
lead, saying, “It is not by the inhesion of grace in us, but by the
imputation of righteousness to us, that we are justified; as it is
not by the imputation of righteousness to us, but by the inhesion of
grace in us, that we are sanctified.” As to the XVII. Article, on
Predestination, he is cautious, and his quotations would not satisfy,
but they do not condemn, Calvinistic Divines.
[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.]
Down in the pleasant county of Gloucester, at the Rectory of Avening,
George Bull--besides his literary labours, which before the end of
the century won for him such high renown, that he was complimented by
Bossuet--showed himself to be indefatigable in discharging pastoral
duties, putting down country revels, and otherwise aiming at the
improvement of his parishioners.
In Wiltshire, John Norris, an English disciple of Malbranche, held the
living of Bemerton; and, while he practised the quiet virtues of the
parish priest, he selected for the pulpit, subjects of a moral and
spiritual nature, rather than the more distinctive truths connected
with our redemption by Christ; not but that there is a tone in Norris’s
teaching in unison with habits of thought cultivated by modern
Evangelicals.[397] His published discourses, for the most part, are
plain and practical; yet sometimes his handling of topics is such as
to make his readers think that he shot over the heads of the Wiltshire
farmers and peasantry. In Suffolk, William Burkett, Rector of Milden,
added to his ministerial excellence, large-hearted efforts for the
French refugees, and for preaching the Gospel in America. He secured
a long reputation by his _Expository Notes on the New Testament_,
which strongly reflect the opinions of others, and whilst decidedly
Arminian, are more practical than critical. Of a well-known Kentish
clergyman, Stanhope, Vicar of Lewisham, in no sense a party man, Evelyn
remarks: “He is one of the most accomplished preachers I ever heard,
for matter, eloquence, action, and voice.”[398]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
In closing this list of distinguished clergymen, I would refer to two
men known as ecclesiastical archæologists, rather than as preachers
and pastors. John Strype, Incumbent of Low Leyton, in Essex, then
between fifty and sixty years of age, was just beginning that career
as a biographer and historian, which he prolonged for so many years
afterwards, and for which he had so laboriously amassed materials
during the previous portion of his life. His memoirs of Cranmer,
Smith, and Aylmer, which issued from the press under William III.,
and the large correspondence of the author at the time, preserved in
the University Library at Cambridge, indicate, in connection with his
diligence of research, his busy care respecting ecclesiastical affairs.
Working hard upon black-letter books and hardly decipherable MSS., he
was ready as a rural Dean, at the call of his Diocesan, to arrange
for clerical meetings, or to preach visitation sermons.[399] Henry
Wharton at the same time, though a young man, was closing his course
as a laborious editor and critic, in fact, a martyr to excessive
study; and, in turning over the _Strype Correspondence_, I was
much touched by the following passage, in a letter written to Strype
by one of Wharton’s friends, in reference to a visit paid him at
Canterbury:--“One day he opened his trunk and drawers, and showed me
his great collections concerning the state of our Church, and with a
deep sigh told me that all his labours were at an end, and that his
strength would not permit him to finish any more of the subject.”[400]
[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.]
One clergyman claims separate notice as a foreigner, a poor pluralist,
and an exceedingly popular preacher. Dr. Horneck, a native of
Bacharach--so familiar to all Rhine tourists--held, in conjunction with
a stall at Exeter worth only twenty pounds a year, the preachership
of the Savoy, which afforded but a miserable income. His poverty
ended three years before his death, when, through the united kindness
of Queen Mary and Archbishop Tillotson, he was made Prebendary of
Westminster. But from first to last his ministry was exceedingly
popular; it was no easy matter for him to get through the crowd to
his pulpit. So great was the number of communicants at his church,
that he had to seek the help of clergymen in the delivery of the
bread and wine, “and with such assistance it was very late before the
congregation could be dismissed.”[401] His virtues are extolled in the
epitaph inscribed on his monument in the Abbey.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Leaving men of honourable renown, in order to throw in truthful shadows
amidst grateful lights, I will mention a case of their fanaticism.
It appears in the life of John Mason, Rector of Walter Stratford,
in Buckinghamshire.[402] Holding Predestinarian opinions to such
an extent as to acknowledge no other difference between Judas and
St. Peter than what proceeded from absolute decrees and irresistible
grace; and further believing that it was all one whether a man kept the
commandments or broke them, inasmuch as Christ observed the whole law
on behalf of His people; this strange mortal, who had drunk the dregs
of Antinomianism, added to his absurd caricatures of Calvinism, other
ideas equally extravagant respecting the personal reign of Christ--a
reign which he expected would instantly be set up. So far as extreme
Predestinarianism and Millenarianism are concerned, he may be taken
as typical of a small section of religious teachers living then, not
entirely extinct even now; but he proceeded to the excess of regarding
himself as a favoured recipient of celestial visions. Not long before
his death, he fancied he saw Christ clothed in a crimson garment, His
countenance exceedingly beautiful, with an abundance of sweetness and
great majesty. Relatives indignantly denied a charitable report that
he was mad, and did not doubt he would prove the prophet of the age--a
Noah to warn the world, a John the Baptist to herald in the Messiah, an
Elijah sent before the just and terrible day. Beyond his own circle,
belief in his predictions spread, until nigh a hundred followers from
the country ten miles round came to the rectory, and took up their
abode within and around it, waiting for a revelation, which it was
said came on the 16th of April, 1694, in the manner described. “When
I entered the house,” relates one who wrote an account of his visit,
“a more melancholy scene of a spiritual Bedlam presented itself. Men,
women, and children running up and down, onewhile stretching their
arms upwards to catch their Saviour coming down, others extending them
forward to meet His embraces; a third, with a sudden turn, pretends to
grasp Him; and a fourth clapping their hands for joy they had Him; with
several other antic postures, which made me think that Bedlam itself
was but a faint image of their spiritual frenzies. All this while they
were singing as loud as their throats would give them leave, till they
were quite spent and looked black in the face.”[403] Fanaticism, more
insane than ever possessed any of the Roundhead preachers in Oliver
Cromwell’s camp, thus raged in the person of an episcopal clergyman
under William III. Country folks crowded about his house, his barn,
and his garden; hundreds more are said to have venerated his character
and believed in his prophecies. The story affords an instance of the
wild enthusiasm which it is in the power of extravagant visionaries
to excite, even in an age commonly considered as rationalistic and
cold.[404]
[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.]
It is very remarkable, in casting one’s eye over these sketches, to
notice the absence of the old Puritan party. Hall, of Oxford, as
already noticed, was the only Divine of that class on the Bishops’
Bench; and amongst names of repute belonging to the rest of the
Clergy, not one of the same kind can be produced. I do not deny that
there may be clerical publications of the period marked by Puritan
divinity; I only say that the celebrated authors were of another
description.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Vigorous and commanding Puritanic thought, such as moved the religious
intellect of England a generation or two earlier, for a time quite
died out in the Establishment. Low Churchmanship had been of the
Puritan type. Montague, Laud, and the like, found their opponents in
Calvinistic clergymen. Now Low Churchmanship took what some would call
a rationalistic form; at any rate its advocates were inspired by a
philosophical theology, rather than by the institutes of Calvin, or the
genius of Geneva. Sancroft and Hicks found their opposites in Tillotson
and Burnet. The Act of Uniformity had clearly done its work, and shut
or kept out teachers akin to Calamy and Marshall. Their theological
spirit, their distinctive evangelical teaching, disappears, so far as
the Established Church is concerned, like the stream of Arethusa, and
flows underground for a considerable space, to burst out once more in a
strong current, a century afterwards.
CHAPTER XIV.
Attempts were not wanting on the part of some of the Bishops to
maintain ecclesiastical discipline. There are papers amongst the
_Tanner MSS._ which indicate what went on amidst the throes of the
Revolution, in the diocese of Norwich, before the ejectment of Bishop
Lloyd. John Gibbs, Rector of Gissing, had been a convert to the Church
of Rome; but on the 14th of November, nine days after the landing of
the Prince of Orange, when Protestant East Anglicans would be exulting
at the advent of the Deliverer, this recusant is referred to as wishing
to be reconciled with the Church of his fathers; and a report is given
of the sermon which he preached on the occasion.[405] A little while
afterwards an instance occurs of clerical immorality, and of that kind
of trouble which has often disturbed episcopal peace: a Norwich rector
was accused of “lewdness,” amounting to a capital crime.
The case was undoubted. It came to the Bishop’s knowledge. To conceal
the fact would have been to connive at the sin, to make it known to
endanger the culprit’s life. Indeed, to conceal it was no longer
possible, and to stifle the charge was felt to be a scandal to
religion. Under these circumstances, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, asked
the Archbishop whether, by a judicial monition, he might not require
the offender to abstain from clerical functions till he could purge
himself from the terrible accusation brought against him.
The Canon law, he said, did not deal with the offence in question, and
he felt himself in much difficulty as to the course of proceeding. As
capital punishment might follow conviction, the Bishop feared lest it
should prove a _causa sanguinis_--an affair with which he wished
to have nothing to do. The common tactics of defence were adopted by
the accused. He appealed to the Archdeacon, with the view of gaining
time, and by such means he cunningly slipped entirely out of the hands
of the Consistory at Norwich; but the Bishop comforted himself by
hoping that the criminal would meet with justice at Doctors’ Commons.
On the 30th of August, 1689, when Lloyd had been himself suspended, he
wrote to Sancroft, saying, “It is too late for me now to meddle further
in the matter.”[406]
After the Revolution, we meet with a case in which moral discipline
was exercised by Patrick, Bishop of Ely. The Incumbent of Great
Eversden had, by intemperance, drowned his reason and scandalized
his profession. Grieved at what he heard, the Bishop required him to
preach two penitential sermons, one in each of the churches where
he officiated, from the words, “He that covereth his sins shall not
prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” He
did so, and concluded with the words: “You see, beloved, what a black
indictment I have here drawn up against myself, wherein I have not been
favourable or partial to my fatal miscarriages, but have dissected and
ripped up my many enormous crimes, and exposed them to public view.
I beseech you not to be too censorious and uncharitable, since I have
passed so severe a censure upon myself.”[407]
[Sidenote: WORSHIP.]
A passing remark is required touching the manner of worship. Nothing
like what is now called Ritualism had then any existence. Things
continued much as they were before. No coloured vestments were worn
by Anglicans either within or without the Establishment, nor were
there any attempts at extraordinary ornamentation of either altars
or churches. Æsthetic culture, apart from distinctive ecclesiastical
opinions, may powerfully affect psalmody, and other accompaniments of
devotion, as well as the structure and adornment of the House of God;
but the reign of William was not at all an age in which such culture
prevailed. Some religious people have a keen sense of propriety as to
outward observances; others have none. It matters not to them, though
the adoration of the High and Lofty One be marked by slovenliness of
arrangement and irreverence of behaviour. There were many persons of
this kind amongst Clergy and laity during the last ten, as there had
been during the previous fifty years of the seventeenth century.
The use of the surplice in the pulpit, now a common practice with
almost all sections in the Established Church, was within our own
recollection very rare, and when first prominently introduced, produced
excitement and confusion. It seems to have been a novelty in the reign
of William III. “Yesterday,” says the writer of a letter in 1696, “I
saw in Low Leighton Church, that which to my remembrance I never did
see in a church in England but once, and that is a minister preach in a
surplice for Mr. Harrison (whereas other ministers on Fast-days do not
so much as wear any surplice), he, by way of supererogation, preached
in his. The sight did stir up in me more of pity than anger to see the
folly of the man; but if he preach in a fool’s coat we will go and hear
him.”[408]
Low Leighton (or Leyton), it will be remembered, was the parish in
which John Strype fulfilled his ministry, and therefore it was in the
pulpit of that distinguished ecclesiologist, that the writer of the
extract beheld the phenomenon which startled him out of his propriety;
if the surplice was worn by the Incumbent, or with his sanction, the
circumstance would indicate that he regarded the usage as canonical,
however it might have fallen into abeyance.
Amongst the Lambeth archives is a very long letter by Edmund Bowerman,
Vicar of Codrington, who gives a curious account of his parish, of
the extreme ignorance and irreligion of the people, and of their
desecration of the church. They played cards on the communion-table,
and when they met to choose churchwardens, sat with their hats on,
smoking and drinking--the clerk gravely saying, with a pipe in his
mouth, that such had been the practice for the last sixty years. Not
ten persons in the place had ever received the Sacrament; one used to
take it by himself in brown bread and small beer.[409]
An important change took place in the psalmody of the Church of
England. The archaic version of the Psalms, by Sternhold and Hopkins,
kept possession in cathedral and parish congregations until the middle
of the reign of William III. Attempts had been made at improving the
versification. _A Century of Select Psalms_, in verse, for the
use of the Charterhouse, by Dr. Patrick, appeared in 1679. Richard
Goodridge followed him by a similar effort in 1682. Dr. Simon Ford,
not to mention others, attempted something of the same kind in 1688.
But a more successful enterprise was accomplished by Nicholas Brady
and Nahum Tate, who, in 1695, published a tentative _Essay_,
and in 1696 a _Complete New Version_, differing from such as
they themselves had previously prepared. This version, afterwards so
popular, did not escape criticism; but was most determinately opposed
by Dr. Beveridge, who preferred the old rhymes of the Reformation to
any modern rendering of the Songs of David. His course of argument, if
it had any force, would be fatal to any attempt at improving scripture
translations of all kinds.[410]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY.]
The character of the Clergy at that time has been drawn by different
hands. Samuel Wesley, in the _Athenian Oracle_, said, that out of
fifty or threescore parishes with which he was acquainted, he could not
think of above three or four clergymen who disgraced their office.
The Nonjurors represented their brethren in the Establishment as
newsmongers and busy-bodies, guilty of non-residence, faulty in their
morals, and negligent of their duties. Some were often seen frequenting
ale-houses and taverns, where they behaved disorderly. The communion
in the London parish churches, before largely attended, was, according
to the same authority, unfrequented; and in cathedral churches things
were worse, so that the alms collected did little more than pay for the
bread and wine.[411]
Nonjurors looked through a prejudiced medium at those who took the
oaths. They regarded most of them as indifferent to a matter of
immense importance, and not a few as deliberately dishonest, swearing
to that which they did not believe. The amount of false swearing at
that period must have been prodigious; and the fact could not fail to
produce mischievous results--it demoralized such as indulged in it, and
impressed people with an idea of the falseness of their instructors.
Men looking at the subject from another point of the compass, also came
to an unfavourable conclusion. Whiston declared how well he remembered
that by far the greater part of University members and clergymen took
the oaths with a doubtful, if not an accusing, conscience. Considering
the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance in which they had
been educated, he thought it could not be otherwise; and he scarcely
knew who were the worst, some who imposed or some who submitted to the
new law of allegiance.[412]
As the Nonjurors judged of ministers through the medium of the oath
question, so Whiston, who rejected the Athanasian Creed, judged of
ministers through the medium of that formulary. No doubt he was
prejudiced, and his conclusions were exaggerated; but it is hard
to understand how men of latitudinarian views could, with thorough
honesty, repeat an intensely orthodox formulary imbued with an
intensely exclusive spirit. What Whiston says of a rather later
period, may be applied here. Conversing with Lord Chief Justice King,
about signing articles not believed, in order to secure preferment,
he heard his Lordship observe, “We must not lose our usefulness for
scruples.” “In your Courts do they allow of such prevarication?” asked
the Presbyter. “Certainly not,” rejoined the lawyer. “Suppose then,”
returned Whiston, “God Almighty should be as just in the next world as
my Lord Chief Justice is in this, where are we then?”[413] Whiston’s
estimate of some of the Clergy is corroborated by Burnet, who mourns
over the inconsistency of men described as practically contradicting
the oaths they had taken and the prayers they preferred.[414]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY.]
De Foe acknowledged that there were in England a great many religious
persons, both among the gentry and Clergy; but he remarked upon
the inconsistency of many in both classes. “The parson preaches a
thundering sermon against drunkenness, and the justice of peace sets
my poor neighbour in the stocks; and I am like to be much the better
for either, when I know, perhaps, that this same parson and this same
justice were both drunk together but the night before. A vicious parson
that preaches well, but lives ill, may be likened to an unskilful
horseman, who opens a gate on the wrong side, and lets other folks
through, but shuts himself out.”[415] In judging of the Clergy of those
days, we must take into account indirect evidence. The Convocation
controversy, degenerating into a contemptible feud between class and
class, or into a despicable squabble between clergyman and clergyman,
proved the extensive existence of prejudice, obstinacy, and resentment,
and must have drawn off the minds of many from the discharge of their
proper duties. Neither was the method of conducting controversy on more
important points--the doctrine of the Trinity, for example--at all
calculated to preserve ministers of religion from injurious habits;
for the temper shown in books and tracts on this subject is most
irreverent, most conceited, most uncharitable, most unchristian.
It should also be noticed, that after religious freedom to some extent
had been legalized by the Toleration Act, a clerical reaction violently
set in. Low Churchmen had been the principal advocates for granting
liberty of worship to their Nonconforming brethren; but beyond their
circle were some who, during appearances of Popery under James II., had
looked with sympathy upon fellow Protestants outside their own pale,
and had afterwards hailed them with a kindly welcome to the enjoyment
of their rights. When the no-Popery tempest subsided, and when
political fears, raised by Royal despotism, passed away, some of these
persons relapsed into their previous state, and together with those who
had been bigoted throughout, looked at Nonconformists with bitterness
and hatred.[416] A wide current of intolerant feeling returned, of
which the result became visible enough after the accession of Queen
Anne.
[Sidenote: CONDITION OF THE CLERGY.]
Turning from the character of the Clergy to notice their circumstances,
we meet with an interesting picture of domestic life in the case of
the father of the Wesleys. He was a rector upon £50 a year at South
Ormsby, a little village in Lincolnshire, skirting the parks and
woodlands of a goodly mansion. We find the same clergyman shortly
afterwards established in the same county at the Rectory of Epworth,
described, in a survey of the period, as consisting of “five bays built
all of timber and plaister, and covered with straw thatch, the whole
building being contrived into three stories, and disposed into seven
chief rooms, namely--a kitchen, a hall, a parlour, a buttery, and three
large upper rooms, besides some others of common use, and also a
little garden impaled between the stone wall and the south.”[417] This
minute description brings before us a humble, but pleasant parsonage
of the end of the seventeenth century; and it is added that to the
dwelling stood attached one barn of six bays, likewise built of clay
and thatch; also one dovecote of timber and plaister, and one hempkiln.
The glebe was stocked. Cows fed in the meadows, and pigs in the stye.
A nag and two fillies occupied the stable, and flax and barley waved
in the fields. The parishioners were, according to Wesley’s daughter,
“unpolished wights,” “dull as asses,” and with heads “impervious
as stones.” The clerical dress, the rustic manner, and the lowly
employments of the Rector, are portrayed by another member of the
gifted family:
“To rub his cassock’s draggled tail,
Or reach his hat from off the nail,
Or seek the key to draw the ale,
When damsel haps to steal it;
To burn his pipe, or mend his clothes,
Or nicely darn his russet hose,
For comfort of his aged toes,
So fine they cannot feel it.”
The outlay upon taking the new living amounted to £50--just one-fourth
of the annual income of the living. It was a practice for parish
officers to compel people to lighten parochial burdens by taking, as
apprentices, the children of paupers; and one of these unfortunates
was actually palmed on the Epworth Incumbent, who said he supposed he
must teach the boy “to beat rhyme.” These items are worth mentioning
as illustrations of the times, and in this case they are interesting
in connection with the early life of the founder of Methodism and the
master of English psalmody. The two boys played in the rectory garden;
and from their parents derived some of the power and peculiarity of
their mature life. The parents, it is curious to remember, differed on
the Jacobite question; and a story is told to the effect that Wesley,
observing that his wife did not pray for William, and hearing her
declare she could regard him only as Prince of Orange, told her, in
sorrowing words, “If that be the case, you and I must part; for if we
have two Kings, we must have two beds.” It is added that he took horse
and rode to London; and being “Convocation man” for the diocese of
Lincoln, resided in the Metropolis a whole year without corresponding
with his family. The anecdote perhaps has in it much of exaggeration,
and it has been questioned of late more than once, yet one would think
there must be some truth in it, since it rests on the authority of John
Wesley.[418] At that time a mean-looking parsonage was the rule, not
the exception: and even in the parish of Kensington, though honoured by
the presence of Royalty, the vicarage is described as having been of
a very humble character, with lattice windows. A large proportion of
the livings were very poor, some as low as £14 or £15 per annum.[419]
Wesley’s first income was £30 a year from a curacy in London; and if
so small a sum was paid in the Metropolis, what must it have been in
some of the provinces! The pitiful condition of clergymen under Charles
II. could have undergone no great improvement under William III. Of
course in places of importance, if clerical incomes happened to reach
a large amount, a handsome rectory or vicarage might be found, of
which a few, built in Sir Christopher Wren’s time, with more regard
to convenience than taste, still remain. Of nearly the same date,
deaneries and prebendal houses still linger amongst us--and long may
they linger--snugly ensconced amidst pleasant gardens, in those most
pleasant of all English precincts--our cathedral closes--so green and
quiet, solemn and quaint.
[Sidenote: CONDITION OF THE CLERGY.]
As in the reign of Charles II., so in the reign of William III., the
office of chaplain in the families of the great was not enviable.
The salary was small, the position undignified, the treatment often
disrespectful, and the means of usefulness limited and questionable. In
the _Athenian Oracle_, the chaplain of a family not very regular
or religious--forced to see Misses drinking and gaming, and afraid
to open his mouth on the subject--complains of the miseries of his
situation; he inquires what he ought to do, so as neither to betray
religion nor give offence. He could not believe that to say grace and
read prayers, when his patron was at leisure, constituted his duty,
yet he found his brethren thought they had done enough when they had
done no more than that.[420] Thomas Wilson, afterwards Bishop of
Sodor and Man, certainly took a different view, for when chaplain and
tutor to Lord Derby, he, with commendable faithfulness, rebuked his
pupil’s extravagance, so as to restore his reputation and relieve his
creditors. Once, as the young nobleman was about to sign his name, he
felt some melted sealing-wax dropped on his finger by this eccentric
mentor, who remarked, that the pain ought to impress him with a
resolution never to sign what he had never examined.[421]
Clerical costume is a trifle worth only a passing sentence, and it may
be observed that it remained the same after the Revolution as before.
But Archbishop Tillotson introduced a novelty. He is the first Prelate
represented in a wig. The wig is of moderate dimensions, and not much
unlike a head of natural hair. It is curious to find him remarking
upon this innovation in one of his sermons. “I can remember, since the
wearing the hair below the ears was looked upon as a sin of the first
magnitude; and when ministers generally, whatever their text was, did
either find or make occasion to reprove the great sin of long hair;
and if they saw anyone in the congregation guilty in that kind, they
would point him out particularly, and _let fly at him_ with great
zeal.”[422]
Partly as the result of causes at work ever since the Restoration--such
as the poverty, the imperfect education, and the unexemplary character
of many incumbents and curates--the Clergy, as a class, were in low
esteem. What has been related of the profession in the reign of Charles
II. produced effects which lasted long, and the conduct of a number of
Constitutionalists, as well as of Jacobites, contributed to deepen the
unpopularity of the order. Good men, lamenting the evils of the age,
traced to them this state of feeling, and Robert Nelson speaks of the
great contempt of the Clergy, than which he thought nothing could be a
greater evidence of the decayed state of religion.[423]
[Sidenote: STATE OF SOCIETY.]
Whatever may be the relation between social corruption and clerical
unpopularity, it is certain the two things co-existed. Nelson deplored
a decay of the spirit and life of devotion;[424] Thoresby declared that
God seemed angry with the nation, as well He might, and so hid counsel
from men, and left them to take such courses as would be neither for
their own nor the public good;[425] and Burnet relates, that profane
wits were delighted at the circulation of books against the Trinity;
that it became a common thing to treat mysteries in religion as
priestly contrivances; and that, under cover of popular expressions,
the enemies of religion vented their impieties.[426] Patrick lamented
the prevalent coldness and carelessness in religion, “scarce an handful
of people appearing in many churches at Divine Service, when the
playhouses were crowded every day with numerous spectators;”[427] and
John Norris referred to the decay of Christian piety and the universal
corruption of manners. Christ seemed to him, asleep in the sacred
vessel, while the tempest raged, and the waves almost overwhelmed the
bark. Students of prophecy, regarding the state of Christianity as
_anti-christianized_, anticipated the outpouring of the vials of
wrath, the breaking-up of Christendom, and the replacement of God’s
chosen people, the Jews, on the ruins of the Gentile Church.[428]
Profane swearing so far prevailed, that it is said in many circles
a man’s discourse was hardly agreeable without it;[429] and it is
remarkable that the instances given of John Howe’s courtesy, and the
wisdom with which he administered reproof, relates to the frequent
utterance of oaths. On one occasion, a gentleman addicted to this
practice expatiated at great length on the merits of Charles I. Howe
remarked that in his enumeration of the excellencies of the unfortunate
Sovereign, he had omitted one--that he was never known to utter an oath
in common discourse. On another occasion, he heard two gentlemen in
the street damning each other. The Divine, taking off his hat with a
polite bow, exclaimed, “I pray God save you both!” Meeting a nobleman
in the park, who, in speaking of the Occasional Conformity Bill,
burst into a rage and said, “Damn the wretches! for they are mad, and
will bring us all into confusion!” Howe replied, “My Lord, it is a
great satisfaction to us, who in all affairs of this nature desire to
look upwards, that there is a God who governs the world, to whom we
can leave the issues and events of things; and we are satisfied, and
may thereupon be easy, that He will not fail in due time of making a
suitable retribution to all, according to their present carriage. And
this great Ruler of the world, my Lord, has among other things also
declared, He will make a difference between him that sweareth and him
that feareth an oath.” “Sir, I thank you for your freedom,” was the
reply; “I understand your meaning: I shall endeavour to make a good
use of it.” “My Lord,” added Howe, “I have a great deal more reason
to thank your Lordship for saving me the most difficult part of a
discourse, which is the application.”[430]
Intemperance, increasing from the time of the Restoration, continued
to extend its curses towards the close of the eighteenth century; old
public-houses attracted more customers than ever, and many new ones
were opened, the money spent in this way by the lower classes reaching
an incredible amount.[431] Sober people lamented that their neighbours
were, with temperance, losing also that kindliness of temper which had
been prevalent amongst Englishmen.
[Sidenote: SUPERSTITION.]
The shock of an earthquake in September, 1692, alarmed the nation, and
made “those who studied apocalyptical matters imagine that the end of
the world drew near.” Burnet tells us it brought people “to more of
an outward face of virtue and sobriety;” but, in his apprehension,
they “became deeply corrupted in principle; a disbelief of revealed
religion, and a profane mocking at the Christian faith and the
mysteries of it, became avowed and scandalous.” Orders were given to
execute the laws against drunkenness, swearing, and the profanation of
the Lord’s-day; and, consequently, loud complaints arose of Puritanical
regulations, savouring of John Knox’s doctrine and discipline. Blame
for this was laid on the Bishop of Salisbury’s shoulders; and to make
the whole thing appear ridiculous, a noble commentator on the right
reverend historian, relates that hackney-coaches were not allowed to
be used on the Sabbath, and constables were directed to take away
pies and puddings from anybody who might be carrying them through the
streets.[432]
Popular opinion in reference to supernatural agencies requires some
notice, and presents signs of both mental stagnation and mental
progress. Many were in a state of superstition as immovable as that
of their fathers, believing in the reality, and smitten with the
terrors, of diabolical possession and infernal witchcraft. Even towards
the end of William’s reign, the diocese of Worcester was infected
with this kind of faith; and the Bishop, Dr. Lloyd--who succeeded
Stillingfleet--urged his Clergy to preach against errors respecting
Satanic agency, indicating to them his own views on the subject. He did
not doubt the extraordinary power of the Devil over heathen nations in
ancient and modern times; but he thought the Gospel had diminished
his power; that those who were in the covenant of grace could not be
injured by him, either in their persons, their possessions, or their
children; nevertheless he admitted that a man, by profligacy, might
yield himself to the great enemy, but could not receive from him
supernatural help to hurt anybody else.[433]
Lancashire continued the home of such beliefs, and in the middle of
King William’s reign, a place in that county called Surrey became
powerfully agitated by the case of a lad, who stood upon his head,
danced upon his knees, scrambled about on all fours, barked like a
dog, talked shreds of Latin, ran into the water, and told things at
a distance--all, it was said, the result of selling his soul to the
Devil, in hopes of thereby becoming a first-rate dancer. The neighbours
treated it as a real possession, and so did certain Presbyterian
ministers, who appointed days of fasting and prayer on the youth’s
behalf, and continued them weekly for a twelvemonth. Folks from the
country flocked in to see and hear the marvels going on, and made
themselves merry at the expense of the fruitless intercessors; they,
in their turn, laid their want of success at the door of the boy’s
family, saying the witches were in league with Satan, and therefore
supplication could not avail. The supposed demoniac named three Popish
priests as likely to cure him--a circumstance which led the discomfited
Presbyterians to say that the Devil had more mind to let the Popish
priests have “the credit of casting him out, because his ends would be
better served by Popery than by them.”
The Episcopal Clergy in the neighbourhood stood aloof from this
stupid credulity. That the boy had been given to tricks from his
early days was shown by witnesses; and collusions with his sister in
pretended intercourse with the spirit-world were also proved. Foolish
and wretched creatures now began to trade upon what had been a genuine
belief, and their conduct, whilst it showed that sincerity was parting
company with superstition, helped to undermine faith in all such things.
[Sidenote: SUPERSTITION.]
In London, similar but still more disgusting exhibitions were made by
people pretending to be possessed; and in one case a miserable woman,
through an accusation for witchcraft, had her hair torn off her head,
and after being kicked and trampled on, was thrown into a horse-pond.
A new result followed: instead of the supposed witch being punished,
the pretended victim was. All sorts of pretences were shown up, and
pretenders suffered the punishment they deserved, whilst poor old
crones, bent double with age, escaped the river, the gallows, and the
stake. Between 1640 and 1680, many unhappy creatures were punished
for witchcraft. Between 1680 and 1691, three were hanged at Exeter,
the last instance of capital punishment inflicted in England for this
offence; three were imprisoned in Somersetshire; and several in other
counties were ducked in horse-ponds.
An accused widow, really insane, died in Beccles Gaol; another,
represented as having black and white imps, which turned out to
be a white lock of wool in a basket, throwing a deep shadow, was
acquitted. Afterwards, acquittals became common; indeed, I find no
more convictions in England during the reign of William III.; on the
other hand, I notice cases of people put in the pillory for pretending
to be possessed.[434] Very much of this change must be ascribed to
the course pursued by Lord Chief Justice Holt. The wise and humane
Sir Matthew Hale had retained through life a belief in the black act.
His wisdom and humanity did not prove sufficient to penetrate to the
delusion which from boyhood lay all around him; but Sir John Holt came
into the world at a later period, and when he reached manhood, old
prejudices had less power, the atmosphere of superstition was less
dense; his shrewdness led him to see the falsehood of the theory, and
to him belongs the honour of having swept the dust and dirt of the
whole business clean out of English courts for ever.
The merit of Sir John Holt is all the greater in that a belief in
bewitchment kept ground in many religious minds; and it was still
common in other lands to punish people accused of the offence. One of
the last books Baxter wrote contained notices of diabolical agencies,
which he pressed upon atheists, sadducees, and infidels, with a view
to their conversion. Many of the stories were communicated by such men
as the Duke of Lauderdale, Lord Broghill, Dr. Daniel Williams, and the
Rev. Thomas Evelyn, of Dublin, the last two being by no means persons
of a superstitious turn. Making allowance for incorrect information,
clever imposture, and the operation of natural causes, we find
mentioned some things which must be referred to the operation of occult
influences, never yet explained. The idea that there are no mysteries,
evil as well as good, in the universe, is quite as much a prejudice, as
the idea current in the days of Baxter; and the words which Shakespeare
puts into the lips of Hamlet are profoundly wise--
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in _our_[435] philosophy.”
Yet to make use of such stories as Baxter tells for religious purposes
is vain. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” His book no doubt proved
to be labour lost, but he had plenty of people still to keep him in
countenance. Samuel Wesley wrote in defence of the doctrine,[436] and
in Scotland witch finding went on with vigour. In 1697 no less than
twenty-eight people were accused, and seven of them were executed.[437]
Nineteen were hanged within sixteen months (1692–3) in New England;
eight more were condemned; one hundred and fifty were imprisoned; above
two hundred were accused, of whom many fled the country to save their
lives.[438]
[Sidenote: SUPERSTITION.]
One piece of superstition maintained by English Sovereigns received a
vigorous check, but not a death-blow. I have described the ceremony of
touching for the “king’s evil,” so ostentatiously revived by Charles
II. His brother perpetuated the practice. The pecuniary benefit of
submitting to the operation, no doubt, made it very popular, since
it cost £10,000 a year for silver coins to be hung round the necks
of patients. When, at the close of Lent, crowds besieged his doors,
William exclaimed, “It is a silly superstition; give the poor
creatures some money, and send them away.” Once only could he be
prevailed upon to touch a suppliant, when he added, “God give you
better health, and more sense.” There were not wanting some to reproach
the King as cruel and impious, for refusing to exercise a Divine gift;
but the Jacobites turned his conduct to account by saying, he did not
dare to pretend to a power which only belonged to the Lord’s anointed.
CHAPTER XV.
Courses of lectures on doctrinal and devotional themes had been
fashionable with the Puritans. Robert Boyle, looking at the spread of
infidelity, provided, by his will, for the appointment of a lecturer,
to preach eight sermons in a year upon the Evidences of Christianity;
and thus set an example which has been followed by Bampton, Hulse, and
others. The trustees--Tenison, then Bishop of Lincoln, and John Evelyn
being two of them--selected for the first performance of the duty a
rising clergyman, already known in University circles by his vast
attainments, and afterwards famous throughout the world of letters.
Evelyn records the appointment in his _Diary_, by saying “he
made choice of one Mr. Bentley, chaplain to the Bishop of Worcester;”
and the comparatively obscure student, so described, regarded it in
after-life as the greatest honour with which he was ever invested. He
determined to follow Cudworth and Cumberland without imitating them,
to go down to the basis of all theology, and to confute the opinions
of Hobbes and Spinoza. Bentley’s Lectures, entitled, _A Confutation
of Atheism_, after exposing the folly of a godless belief, aimed at
demonstrating the Divine existence from an inquiry into the faculties
of the human soul, the structure of the body, and the frame of the
world. It was a movement along the line of rational thought. The
Revolution had appealed to reason in matters of government. Without
throwing aside traditions--even while appealing to constitutional
forms--Englishmen were seeking after fundamental political principles;
and reason came now to be earnestly invoked in the service of religion.
Philosophy had been employed in attacking Christian beliefs; philosophy
now came to the rescue. Faith in an infinite cause, shaken by the human
intellect, was to be reinforced by a more vigorous exercise of the same
faculty.
Boyle, the founder of the Lecture, had collected scientific facts
available for the lecturer’s purpose. Locke, by illustrating the
essential difference between matter and mind, had become a pioneer
in the path along which Bentley pushed parts of his argument; and
Newton, by his _Principia_, had prepared for him methods by which
to demonstrate the Creator’s providence and goodness. Thus assisted,
Bentley showed himself possessed of original genius; and having at
command satire as well as logic, with a style adapted to give effect
to his thoughts, he produced a deep impression by his discourses. The
first he delivered at St. Martin’s--the second at Bow Church; when
Evelyn, ensconced in a tall-backed pew, listened with delight to the
preacher, and immediately admitted him to his friendship. Before he
published his work he wrote to the great philosopher, then resident in
Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton corrected and modified Bentley’s
opinions upon some points, but he confirmed his views respecting most,
and supplied him with additional arguments.[439]
[Sidenote: BOYLE LECTURE.]
Bentley soon afterwards obtained a stall in Worcester Cathedral,
probably through the influence of Stillingfleet, his patron. If we are
to believe his words, he had what was a better reward, for he says:
“The Atheists were silent since that time, and sheltered themselves
under Deism.” It is a pity that historical justice requires it to be
said that this advocate of natural theology did not possess the primary
virtue of religion, and the chief ornament of all learning. A nobleman
happening one day to sit near Stillingfleet at dinner, observed to him,
“My Lord, that chaplain of yours is certainly a very extraordinary
man.” “Yes,” he replied; “had he but the gift of humility, he would be
the most extraordinary man in Europe.”[440]
According to the terms of Boyle’s will, which authorized the
appointment of the same lecturer for three years, Bentley might have
delivered another course of sermons; but owing, as it is said, to the
favouritism of one of the trustees, and in opposition to Evelyn’s
wishes, Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, delivered the second
series, entitled, _A Demonstration of the Messias_. Williams,
afterwards made a Bishop, exhibited in his lectures _A General Idea
of Revealed Religion_. Gastrell, subsequently Bishop of Chester,
a friend to Atterbury, and one who pleaded for him in Parliament,
insisted upon _The Certainty and Necessity of Divine Religion_.
Dr. Harris refuted the objections of Atheists to the existence and
attributes of God; a superfluous task, it would seem, if we are to
admit what has been said of the effect of Bentley’s dissertations.
Bradford, “the little ebony doctor,” as he was called--an enemy
of Atterbury’s--discoursed upon the credibility of the Christian
Religion. Blackall, afterwards a Bishop, established and illustrated
the sufficiency and perfection of the Old and New Testaments; and Dr.
Stanhope defended the truth and excellence of the Christian Religion
against Jews, Infidels, and Heretics.[441]
In 1695, Locke anonymously published his _Reasonableness of
Christianity_. Again the appeal was made, not to authority,
tradition, or history, but to reason. The main object was to present
the simplest and most rational form of religion. He concluded, from
his study of the Gospels, that the primary requirement is, that men
should believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed and sent of God;
that such a belief makes everyone a Christian; and that upon it the
superstructure of Christian piety must ever rest. Every reader of this
work must see how hardly he labours to establish his point, how he
repeats over and over again his fundamental principle. He objects to
the enforcement of particular creeds, and he is opposed to all Church
authority in reference to religion; though he speaks in general terms
of salvation through Christ, he enters into no definition whatever of
evangelical doctrines, indeed such definitions he regards as foreign to
his purpose.
Whilst teaching of this kind, with a continuous appeal to reason,
runs through the larger part of the book, towards the close he
enters upon the supernatural evidences of Christianity. Locke was an
apostle of human reason as opposed to human authority, but he was
no rationalist in the sense of opposing revelation. Revelation he
recognized as a form of supernatural wisdom, and in advocating it he
appealed to supernatural wonders. He dwelt upon the miracles of Christ
as conclusive proofs of His Messianic office--a topic which he also
largely treated in a distinct essay, which will be noticed hereafter.
[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.]
The book was attacked not by infidels but by believers, not by those
who objected to Christianity but by those who, attaching importance
to certain truths passed over by Locke, thought that he presented
an objectionable view of the Gospel. He appeared to them to be a
rationalist. Dr. Edwards, a clergyman of the Church of England, son
of the famous Presbyterian who wrote the _Gangræna_, assailed
the treatise with bitterness; and so great was its unpopularity in
some quarters, that a Prelate, who thought of it favourably, candidly
confessed: “If I should be known to think so, I should have my lawn
sleeves torn from my shoulders.” Foreign divines, however, hailed it
with applause, especially Dutch friends of the Remonstrant school, Le
Clerc and Limborch. It found numerous readers abroad, and a Dorsetshire
rector, named Samuel Bold, though thoroughly orthodox on the subject of
the Trinity--respecting which Locke laboured under some suspicion--took
up his pen in defence of the lay theologian. Locke’s idea of faith, as
a simple belief that Jesus is the Messiah, will be regarded by most
theologians as very defective; nor is the account which he gives of
Christianity one likely to afford satisfaction to any reader who has
mastered the contents of the New Testament, whether he believes them
or not. Absorbed in the effort to enforce his own view of the Gospel,
Locke merely ignores, without disproving, certain doctrines, which by
evangelical teachers of Christianity are identified with the system
itself. I plainly see that with his habits of close philosophical
thinking, he could not but be repelled by the manner in which those
doctrines were urged by some warm-hearted divines. Yet however
objectionably or offensively presented, they require to be noticed
and disposed of in some way. They are true or false--if true, they
must be taken into full account before any conclusion can be drawn
respecting the reasonableness of revelation; if false, they need to be
refuted, ere such a notion of Christian faith as is propounded by our
philosopher can be placed upon a sufficient basis. But Locke’s defects
or mistakes relative to the extent of faith do not invalidate his main
reasoning. His proofs of the truth and divinity of the Gospel, drawn
from the miracles of Jesus, and from the necessity of an authoritative
revelation of truth and morals, remain the same; and I would add, that
of the devout faith of the author there can be no doubt, when we are
assured that “he admired the wisdom and goodness of God in the method
found out for the salvation of mankind, and when he thought upon it,
he could not forbear crying out, ‘O the depth of the riches of the
goodness and knowledge of God.’”[442]
[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.]
Locke, in his _Essay on the Human Understanding_, enters
at large upon the question of the boundaries between reason and
revelation--a question involved in what he says on the Reasonableness
of Christianity. He asserts most plainly the principle, that revelation
cannot be admitted against the clear evidence of reason, but then,
immediately afterwards, he adopts the distinction between things
contrary to reason and things above reason--citing, as examples of the
latter, the fall of angels and the resurrection of the dead. Anything
not contrary to reason, he contends, is to be believed if taught by
revelation; “whatever proposition,” he says, “is revealed, of whose
truth our mind, by its natural faculties and notions, cannot judge,
that is purely matter of faith, and above reason.” Revelation in
such matters “ought to be hearkened unto.” Indeed, Locke goes so far
as to say, that in those things concerning which the mind “has but
an uncertain evidence, and so is persuaded of their truth only upon
probable grounds, which still admit a possibility of the contrary
to be true, without doing violence to the certain evidence of its
own knowledge and overturning the principles of all reason: in such
probable propositions, I say, an evident revelation ought to determine
our assent, even against probability.” Afterwards dwelling upon the
evils of enthusiasm, of which he had a great horror, he goes on to
remark: “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything;” which,
strictly taken, would mean that no revelation can be a final authority;
but he proceeds in the next sentence to tell us: “I do not mean that
we must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealed
from God can be made out by natural principles, and if it cannot,
that then we may reject it, but consult it we must, and by it examine
whether it be a revelation from God, or no. And if reason finds it to
be revealed from God, reason then declares for it, as much as for any
other truth, and makes it one of her dictates.”[443] This explanation
restricts the office of reason to an inquiry into evidence, as to
whether what is thought to be revealed is really such, and leaves faith
to rest ultimately, not in the apparent truth of a doctrine, but on the
revelation making it known. To some, Locke in all this will not appear
to have diverged from an orthodox treatment of evidences; to others, he
will seem to have vacillated a little, leaning now in a rationalistic,
and then in an opposite direction; by none, I think, can he be fairly
regarded as holding the modern doctrine of a verifying faculty--a
doctrine based on a philosophy different from his, and leading to
conclusions at variance with his belief. Whatever might be Locke’s
abstract opinions, it is quite clear that he had no sympathy with
the Socinian party, of whom he speaks as “positive and eager in their
disputes;” “forward to have their interpretations of Scripture received
for authentic, though to others in several places they seem very much
strained;” impatient of contradiction, treating their opponents with
“disrespect and roughness.” “May it not be suspected,” he asks, “that
this so visible a warmth in their present circumstances, and zeal for
their orthodoxy, would (had they the power) work in them as it does in
others? They, in their turn, would, I fear, be ready with their set of
fundamentals, which they would be as forward to impose on others, as
others have been to impose contrary fundamentals on them.”[444]
[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.]
Bentley and Locke added what was of the highest value to the literature
of the Evidences. On a far lower intellectual level appeared Leslie,
the Nonjuror, who, eschewing paths of reason, prepared to enter the
path of history, and addressed himself to those of his countrymen who
have little time for study and less capacity for reflection. In 1696
he published _A Short and Easy Method with the Deists_, in which
are laid down certain rules as to the truth of historical statements;
and he contends that when they all meet, statements cannot be false.
The rules are: “That the matter of fact be such, as that men’s outward
senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it; that it be done
publicly, in the face of the world; that not only public monuments be
kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be performed; that
such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted and do
commence from the time that the matter of fact was done.” These rules,
Leslie insists, could be successfully applied to the facts connected
with the origin of the religion of Moses and the religion of Christ,
pointing to the institution and observance of Baptism and of the Lord’s
Supper as memorials of the latter. Mohammedanism, he said, lacks such
evidence, and he challenged Deists to show any action that is fabulous,
in support of which all the four marks can be alleged. The work is of
a very slight description, and is composed in a loose and inaccurate
style. It could not meet the case of any who have adopted the
principles of historical inquiry laid down by Voltaire and developed by
Niebuhr, and by them applied to classical annals; nor could the method
be applied by any critical student without great modification, and at
the expense of an amount of learning, which would render the argument
useless for popular purposes.
Charles Blount, after a side thrust at Christianity in his _Notes
on Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius Tyanæus_, left behind him
papers, which were published in a book, entitled, _The Oracles of
Reason_, containing desultory attacks on revelation, chiefly in a
covert form. Indeed, Blount quaintly observes: “Undoubtedly, in our
travels to the other world, the common road is the safest; and though
Deism is a good manuring of a man’s conscience, yet certainly, if sowed
with Christianity, it will produce the most plentiful crop.” It is a
curious fact that the editor and publishers of these posthumous essays
afterwards became convinced of their true character, and, with a view
to counteracting their effect, issued the _Deist’s Manual_.
John Toland--who, after being educated a Roman Catholic, whilst still
a boy rushed out of gross superstition into what was to him the more
congenial region of scepticism--began his career as an author by
writing his _Christianity not Mysterious_, a discourse showing
that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason nor above it,
and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. In
this work he does not appear as an antagonist of Christianity; perhaps
he had not yet begun to regard himself otherwise than as a Christian;
yet the tendency of his opinions is to undermine the authority of
revelation. His book, which attracted wide attention, and was, as we
have seen, condemned by the Lower House of Convocation, engaged the pen
of the Bemerton Rector, John Norris, whose extraordinary metaphysical
genius found scope for its exercise in examining Toland’s lucubrations.
His _Account of Reason and Faith, in Relation to the Mysteries
of Christianity_, is one of the ablest books of the period, and
displays a power of analysis, and a determination to reduce the powers
of the human mind to their simplest form, such as reminds one of the
subtle originality of Dr. Thomas Browne.
[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.]
Metaphysics are made to do duty in the service of orthodoxy. Norris
dwells upon the distinction of things contrary to reason and above
it, showing that there is a valid ground for the distinction, that
human reason is not the measure of truth; that, therefore, a thing
being incomprehensible by reason, is of itself no conclusive argument
of its being untrue; that if the incomprehensibility of a thing were
an argument against it, human reason would become the measure of
truth; and, therefore, he concludes that incomprehensibility should
not militate against faith. Of course the terms of a proposition must
be intelligible and not contradictory, for no man can accept what is
plainly nonsensical or obviously false; but the mysterious nature of a
fact asserted in a proposition, Norris proves to be no valid objection
to the veracity of the proposition. His mode of handling this subject,
though extremely skilful and effective, is not always such as to bear a
very close scrutiny; and some modification of his argument is required,
in order to a safe entrenchment against inimical attacks. But he
successfully establishes this point--the fundamental one throughout the
controversy--that it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly consonant
with the laws and constitution of the human mind, to believe upon
the authority of revelation, in other words, upon the authority of
infinite wisdom. Norris does not treat Toland’s doctrine as a form of
Deism; his particular application of the principles laid down in this
account of reason and faith is to the Socinian system, but much of the
reasoning is strictly applicable to a form of Deism very prevalent in
the present day. A great deal of what he says goes to the heart of
certain modern theories, and several pages upon the nature and degrees
of mental assent deserve careful study in connection with existing
controversies.[445]
It will be sufficient to complete this sketch if I observe that Toland
made a decided attack on the New Testament Canon in his _Amyntor_,
published in 1698; and that the formidable controversialist, Samuel
Clark, the next year commenced his polemical career by a successful
encounter in defence of the canonicity of the Gospels.
In the course of this work I have had repeated occasions for noticing
the theological literature of the period--dogmatical, practical, and
polemical. It will not be impertinent, as we wind up the subject, to
remark respecting its form and style.
The Renaissance had been at work in art and poetry, and had gradually
supplanted the old romantic school. Gothic churches disappeared
in the fire of London; those built on their ruins were classical
reproductions. A new St. Paul’s arose on Ludgate Hill, in contrast with
old St. Peter’s on Thorney Island. Multiplicity of parts, angularity
of form, picturesqueness of detail, brilliancy of hue, gave place
to regularity of outline, a mathematical exactness of proportion,
smoothness of ornament, and absence of colour. No more pointed arches,
no more niches, no more finials and crockets, no more richly-stained
windows;--all became round, uniform, pale, cold.
[Sidenote: LITERARY STYLE.]
A similar change came over poetry. It were an indignity to the
great bard of the seventeenth century to compare him with any other
than the great bard of the sixteenth. Milton’s name is linked with
Shakespeare’s, but in the way of contrast, just as St. Paul’s Cathedral
is associated with Westminster Abbey. The poet of the Renaissance
succeeds the poet of romance. The architectural character of the two
buildings symbolize the characteristic differences of the two masters
of English song. And this same Renaissance spirit worked its way into
theological literature. Taylor and Bunyan, indeed, all the great
religious writers of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, appear
more or less romancists in the style of their thoughts, regarded from
a literary point of view. Divisions, pointedness, quaint expression,
warmth of sentiment, such as arrests us in mediæval buildings, are
reproduced in the books of that picturesque age. The two authors just
mentioned belong to the class of romancist prose poets. But all is
changed when we turn to the theological literature of King William’s
days--Tillotson, Burnet, Bentley, Locke. We miss Anglican and Puritan
sweep of thought, minuteness of detail, intensity of utterance, and
glow of passion. There is no depth of colour, all is pale; no flash of
fire, all is cold. We meet with regularity, order, smoothness. It is
the age of Renaissance in Divinity.
CHAPTER XVI.
Roman Catholicism, during the Middle Ages, had given scope to the
institution, and had paid attention to the culture, of voluntary
societies. Such societies had sprung up in different parts of Europe
amongst the Clergy and amongst the Laity, being placed in subjection
to the laws, animated by sympathy with the spirit, and directed to the
promotion of the interests of the Church. Monks praying in cloisters,
friars preaching in streets, secular fraternities in towns and cities
visiting the poor and sick, had engaged in spontaneous activity, yet
had remained faithful to their spiritual mother. English Protestantism,
at first, did not produce or encourage any such forms of operation.
Cathedral and parochial clergymen, in dignified or humble routine,
were its only authorized agents. Missionary efforts, foreign and
domestic, as well as lay associations for spiritual improvement, were
unknown. In one ascertained exceptional instance, under Edward VI., an
unordained person was allowed to preach; but it was the rule to exclude
all but men in orders from every kind of public or socially organized
usefulness. Not only were Anglicans destitute of any association of
lay helpers in Christian work at home, and of any means for carrying
on Missions abroad, but Puritans were in the same predicament, since
meetings for prophesying, catechizing, and lecturing, and plans for
purchasing presentations to livings, did not constitute the kind of
co-operation now in view. Presbyterians, and many Independents also,
not only from necessity, but from that neglect of unclerical enterprise
which characterized the age, confined themselves, with few exceptions,
to pulpit teaching and pastoral influences. High Church and Low Church,
the Establishment and the sects, exhibited disregard of a principle in
full play in other portions of Western Christendom. A clerical jealousy
of laymen, a fear of schism, and a dislike of everything approaching to
irregularity, lay at the bottom of the Anglican aversion to lay agency.
Prejudices of a similar kind influenced Puritans; for although there
existed abundant religious irregularity during the Commonwealth, there
were not a few amongst Nonconformists wedded to their own notions of
church order. They were High Churchmen in their own way, regarding the
ecclesiastical principles of the New Testament as so comprehensive in
their direct application, as to render all associations distinguished
from the Church itself as perfectly needless.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
This state of things prevailed during three-fourths of the seventeenth
century, when a movement began, opening the way to consequences which
ever since have been unfolding themselves. At present, the vast number
of our religious societies--some in slender connection with churches,
some in no connection with them at all--form phenomena worth the study
of social philosophers; and the rise of them may be distinctly traced
in those combinations for certain purposes, just before and during the
reign of William III., which are now to be described. The outburst of
zeal at that time has received much less notice than its importance
deserves.
It was about the year 1678--sixty years after the first establishment
in Paris of the societies by St. Vincent de Paul--that a few young men
in London, belonging to the congregations of Dr. Horneck, the popular
preacher at the Savoy, and of Mr. Smithies, an impressive lecturer at
St. Michael’s, Cornhill, came under one of those inspirations which
mark epochs of revival. They agreed to meet weekly for religious
conference, prayer, and scripture reading. When, under James II.,
signs of Papal outgrowths were visible, they sought to check returning
superstition, and promoted the use of daily common prayer at the
church of St. Clement Danes, as a sort of protest against the use of
daily mass at the Chapel Royal. Feeling a more than ordinary desire
for the Communion, they frequented the Lord’s-table whenever they had
an opportunity, and stimulated clergymen to celebrate, not only upon
Sundays but upon holidays; and on the vigils of feasts they met for
preparation at one another’s houses. They thus fell in with a current
of sacramental feeling, which became prevalent and powerful at the
opening of the eighteenth century--promoted by the writings of Robert
Nelson and others, and by the example of distinguished persons amongst
both Clergy and Laity.[446] They also raised money for the payment
of clergymen who read prayers, for the relief of the poor, for the
support of schools, and for the spread of Christianity abroad and at
home. They laid down rules of conduct, drawn from their own religious
and ecclesiastical principles, “To love one another; when reviled
not to revile again; to speak evil of no man; to wrong no man; to
pray, if possible, seven times a-day; to keep close to the Church of
England; to transact all things peaceably and gently; to be helpful
to each other; to use themselves to holy thoughts on coming in and
going out; to examine themselves every night; to give every one his
due; to obey superiors, both spiritual and temporal.” Controverted
points of Divinity were banished from discussion, no prayers were used
but those in the Prayer-Book, or sanctioned by clergymen; the strong
Church element in these societies further manifesting itself in careful
abstinence from a lay use of absolution. Resembling in some respects,
in others differing from, Young Men’s Christian Associations, they must
be regarded as harbingers of the latter institutions; and, so regarded,
they in certain minds acquire an interest beyond that which inherently
belongs to them.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
The societies, developed in the way described, attained vigour and
prosperity in the middle of King William’s reign, being promoted by the
approval of Queen Mary, who took a deep interest in their proceedings.
Thirty-nine of them were instituted in London and Westminster.
They spread into the midland and western counties; we find them at
Nottingham and Gloucester, and we follow them across the Channel to
Ireland, to Kilkenny and Drogheda, especially to Dublin, where no less
than ten of them arose under the sanction and help of the Bishops and
Clergy.[447]
Tillotson, Compton, and other Prelates, at an early period looked
favourably upon the associations and aided their endeavours; but some
at first were shy. Archbishop Sharpe, for example, and other clergymen,
both Bishops and Presbyters, frowned upon all movements of the kind,
as violations of order and as productive of schism. Amongst the lay
promoters of these societies, Robert Nelson becomes conspicuous after
the year 1700, when he abandoned the Nonjuring party.
Another kind of society, originated about the year 1691--not intended,
like the Young Men’s Associations, for personal religious improvement,
but for checking public immorality--was formed so as to include
Nonconformists. The methods of operation were manifold. The most
prominent was to enforce the execution of the laws against vice and
profanity; and to stir up people to join in this enforcement, the
utmost ingenuity and the most plausible eloquence were employed. An
abstract of the statutes against the profanation of the Lord’s-day,
drunkenness, swearing and cursing, blasphemy, lewd and disorderly
practices, and gaming, was published and circulated, with a list of
penalties annexed; and all good subjects were exhorted, on grounds of
patriotism and religion, to aid in executing these statutes. Other
associations were formed for the same purpose. Persons of eminence,
members of Parliament, justices of the peace, and London citizens,
constituted one division of the army enlisted in the service of public
morals; they chiefly furnished the supplies for carrying on the war.
About fifty persons, including tradesmen and others, composed a second
band, to promote, by individual efforts, the prosecution of the design.
A third detachment embraced constables, who were “to meet to consider
of the most effectual way to discharge their oaths, to acquaint one
another with the difficulties they met with, to resolve on proper
remedies, to divide themselves in the several parts of the city so as
to take in the whole to the best advantage for inspecting of disorderly
houses, taking up of drunkards, lewd persons, profaners of the
Lord’s-day, and swearers out of the streets and markets, and carrying
them before the magistrates.” A fourth rank of men, described as the
corner-stone of the undertaking, contained as many as were disposed
to inform against delinquents; the money arising from informations
being devoted to the help of the poor, except a third part of the
penalty against Sabbath-breaking, which the magistrate had the power to
distribute, but which had never, so it was said, been bestowed upon the
informers themselves.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
The necessity of laws for the punishment of offences against society
and individual rights is plain, but the efficacy of legislation for
the suppression of immorality and irreligion is more than questioned.
Fines and imprisonments can only produce a skin-deep reformation, and
when relaxed are followed by fresh outbursts of vicious indulgence;
and if the least objectionable part of the plan now under review
was defective, the encouragement given to informers was adapted to
produce bad results, only second to those which were assailed. To stir
up people to lay informations against their neighbours, must breed
mutual suspicion; and with the honest intention of destroying one
evil, provoke another into fiercer rage. The laws against drunkenness,
houses of ill-fame, and gambling, were wise and good, and deserved to
be put in force; but the laws against some kinds of conduct, called
Sabbath-breaking, and profaneness, and blasphemy, were of a different
class and of a doubtful character. Blasphemy included the denial of
the doctrine of the Trinity, so that any honest and upright Socinian
came under the scourge, it being sophistically added as a note at the
bottom of the published abstract, “This statute punishes not the error,
but the impudence of the offender.” It should be stated further, that
over the enforcement of the law against immorality and irreligion
an even-handed justice did not preside. The bandage sometimes fell
from the eyes of that impartial lady. The cases of rich and poor, of
high and low, were not always weighed in the same scales. The crusade
against sinners in the valleys and low lands of social life was most
vigorously carried on; the sinners on the hills were left to do very
much as they liked. De Foe exposed this kind of double-dealing.
But the result of the prosecutions was such that the good people,
working in this way, regarded themselves as very successful. Seventy
or eighty warrants a week were executed upon street swearers, so
that the constables “found it difficult to take up a swearer in
divers of our streets.” Sunday markets ceased; drovers and carriers
were stopped; bakers did not dare to appear with their baskets, or
“barbers with their pot, basin, or periwig-box;” hundreds of bad
houses became closed; and “thousands of lewd persons were imprisoned,
fined, and whipped, and the Tower end of the town much purged from
that pestilential generation of night-walkers, forty or fifty of them
being sent in a week to Bridewell, from whence, at their own desire,
they were transported to America, to gain an honest livelihood in the
plantations.”
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
Means of another and an unexceptionable nature were employed for the
furtherance of the general object. The distribution of tracts--now
become so conspicuous and powerful an agency--was then systematically
commenced, and we notice in the scanty but gradually increasing
list, _Kind Caution to Profane Swearers_ and _The Soldier’s
Monitor_, the last of these publications indicating the interest
taken in the spiritual welfare of the army. A hundred thousand short
tracts against drunkenness and other vices were distributed throughout
the country, and we meet with the statement that especial care was
taken to present them to culprits after their conviction. Connected
with this enterprise appears the germ of another usage, exceedingly
popular in our own times--the preaching of sermons on particular
occasions in behalf of societies. Episcopal clergymen advocated them
from the pulpit of Bow Church, Nonconforming ministers from the pulpit
of Salter’s Hall. With eloquence, or with varying degrees in the want
of it; with spirit, or with dulness; with a pleasant voice, as of one
who can play well on an instrument, or with an unmusical delivery,
which grated harshly on sensitive ears,--did these divines stand up
before congregations, crowded or scanty, charmed or disappointed,
enthusiastic or critical; after which a collection was made, yielding
a goodly amount of gold and silver, or the reverse. Then, as now,
secretaries would be filled with anxiety, committees would listen
with a feeling of responsibility, praises and censures would follow
the appeals, complacency would be inspired, mortification would
be provoked, thanks would be returned; and the good and evil, the
grace and the frailty, the virtues and the infirmities incident to
such occasions would begin to manifest themselves on a small scale,
in prophetic type of what obtains in the May anniversaries of the
nineteenth century.
The meetings at Bow Church, graced by the presence and assisted by the
advocacy of such men as Patrick, Burnet, Trelawny, Kidder, Williams,
Stanhope, and Bray, were held once a quarter; and, besides sermons
delivered on behalf of these societies, there were sermons preached,
exposing the vices of the age. In different parts of the country
efforts of this kind were made. Stratford, the Bishop, and Fog, the
Dean of Chester, warmly took up the new cause, and the picturesque old
city in the north became head-quarters for the new crusade.
Societies for the reformation of manners gradually multiplied, and
within a few years they existed numerously, not only in England, but
in Scotland and Ireland; and the undulations of the excitement rolled
over Europe, touched Flanders, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark,
Sweden, and also reached as far as the West Indies and North America.
There were not wanting Churchmen who fixed a jealous eye on these
proceedings, seeing that they combined Conformists and Nonconformists
in works of charity. The goodness of the object did not prevent
disapproval of union with schismatics. Archbishop Sharpe, whose
suspicions as to the Young Men’s Societies have been already mentioned,
refused to countenance in any way those on a broader basis; and Henry
Newcome, son of the eminent Presbyterian of that name, when preaching
a Reformation Lecture, railed against Dissenters, a circumstance which
led Matthew Henry to say, “The Lord be judge between us. Perhaps it
will be found that the body of Dissenters have been the strongest
bulwarks against profaneness in England.” The practice of laying
informations sometimes produced bad blood in Church circles. “My
brother Hulton,” Henry records in his _Diary_, “on Lord’s-day was
seven-night, observing the churchwardens of St. Peter’s with a strange
minister and others, go to Mr. Holland’s alehouse, and sit there three
hours, told the Recorder of it. The Bishop came to hear of it, and
Mr. Hulton desired his Lordship to admonish them. They set light by
the Bishop, and challenged the magistrates to fine them; whereupon
Mr. Hulton was summoned to inform against them, and did so, and they
were fined, but they were very abusive to him.” The co-operation of
Churchmen and Dissenters excited political suspicion; and Vernon,
Secretary of State, by no means friendly to such movements, told the
Duke of Shrewsbury that the Archbishop apprehended their design was
to undermine the Church, and that the Lord Chancellor thought they
rather aimed at discrediting the Administration. Even William approved
of a watch being kept over the movement, and Somers was for finding
out all ways of getting into their secret, and by clandestine means
to defeat clandestine objects. Not that Dissenters were suspected of
treason, but his Lordship wished to know “what discontented Churchmen
or discarded statesmen meant by insinuating themselves into their
familiarities.”[448]
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
In one instance the activity of the reformers occasioned a riot. May
Fair reached its zenith in the reign of William III., when, in addition
to the sale of leather and cattle, all sorts of exhibitions took place
adapted to high and low, rich and poor. Graceful dancers attracted
noblemen; duck-hunting in a pond at the back of a wooden house--which
then, in rural simplicity, stood in what is now the heart of a west-end
population--drew together crowds of the vulgar; and for the curious of
all ranks there was provided a model of the City of Amsterdam, carved
in wood; and, amongst other wonders, a body was shown with the words
_Deus Meus_ written on the pupil of one eye, and on the other a
Hebrew inscription, which had to be taken on trust. Want of loyalty
was not one of the vices of the place, for a play-bill informed the
public that during the time of May Fair an excellent droll would be
performed, called, “King William’s Happy Deliverance, and Glorious
Triumph over his Enemies.” Even ecclesiastical zeal penetrated this
multifarious assemblage, for the bill gave as a second title of the
piece, “The Consultation of the Pope, Devil, French King, and the
Grand Turk.” _Vivat Rex_ closed the advertisement.[449] Not
confining themselves to the quiet distribution of tracts, the friends
of morality who visited the Fair in 1702 were bent upon executing
the law. Informers, constables, and magistrates were busy at their
work, apprehending the worst offenders, and no doubt plenty they
found to do, for it is stated by a contemporary that young people, by
the temptation they met with here, committed much sin, and fell into
much disorder. “Here they spent their time and money in drunkenness,
fornication, gaming, and lewdness, whereby were occasioned oftentimes
quarrels, tumults, and shedding of blood.”[450] The consequence of
the excitement produced by the reformers was, that a set of ruffians,
including a number of soldiers, swore at the constables, drew swords,
made an assault, killed one, and wounded several. The man who slew the
constable was hanged.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
At the close of the year 1698 an organization more important than
any of the preceding took its rise. Dr. Bray and four distinguished
friends, consisting of Lord Guildford, Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Mr.
Justice Hook, and Colonel Maynard Colchester, met, and drew up a
document, by which they agreed as often as conveniently, to consult
together how they might be able, by due and lawful methods, to promote
Christian knowledge. The last words pointed to the general object
contemplated, and gave a distinctive name to the institution arising
out of these circumstances, _The Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge_. As the purpose was comprehensive, and the means
remained to be arranged, a principle of selectness appeared essential
to success; and, accordingly, the possession of “noted humility,
condescension, and charity,” was laid down as essential to membership.
It was determined to have a chairman to preserve order, and the members
were urged, first, to “prevent heats and to allay such as may arise,”
and then “to exercise discretion in talking of their affairs.” Prayers
were to be offered upon commencing business. Members were to be
carefully elected, no payment of money or possession of office being
recognized as a qualification. A candidate was proposed at two meetings
before admission, and in the minutes for June, 1699, it is recorded
on the 27th, that the Lord Bishop of Gloucester was proposed for the
first time, and on the 29th that he was proposed a second time. Eminent
persons, including Prelates, Presbyters, and Laymen, soon joined the
new association. Amongst the Prelates were Patrick, Fowler, Williams,
Kidder, Lloyd, and Burnet. Amongst Presbyters were Shute, Manningham,
Wheeler, and Mapletoft, the latter two being clergymen of Nonjuring
principles, and their association with such men as Fowler and Burnet
in this kind of work is very remarkable. Amongst the Laymen were
Richard Blackmore, William Melmoth, and Robert Nelson; the last, who
joined in 1699, whilst still a Jacobite, and a non-communicant with the
Established Church, further illustrates the toleration of political
and ecclesiastical differences. Besides members in London, who could
meet for personal conference, there were corresponding associates.
John Strype, at Low Leyton, turned aside from his ancient rolls and
faded manuscripts to unite in this movement, and Samuel Wesley formed a
branch at Epworth.
Manifold were the methods adopted at the beginning, and various schemes
being from time to time discussed, the Society pursued diversified
forms of action, according to circumstances. It was primarily a Book
and Tract Society. The establishment of parochial libraries in America
to aid the work of the Clergy, and of lending catechetical libraries
in market towns of this kingdom, together with the distribution of
good books, as the Society should direct, are amongst the decisions
mentioned in the minutes. At an early period we find in its list of
publications, _Bradford on Regeneration_, _Scougal’s Life of God
in the Soul of Man_, _Melmoth’s Great Importance of a Religious
Life_, and _Bull’s Corruptions of the Church of Rome_. Thirty
thousand copies of _The Soldier’s Monitor_ were sent to the army
in Holland. Admiral Benbow and Sir George Rooke caused similar tracts
to be circulated throughout the fleet; and _Cautions to Watermen_
were sent down to the West for distribution amongst people employed on
rivers and canals. It was also a School Society upon Church principles.
Catechetical schools in and about London received attention; and before
the end of the year 1699 it was reported that in Whitechapel, Poplar,
St. Martin’s, Cripplegate, Shadwell, Shoreditch, and Bishopsgate,
they had been set up through the Society’s operations. Other similar
efforts were made, as appears from a report by Lord Guildford, as to
teaching paupers in workhouses and instructing them in the Catechism;
and further, it may be stated that resolutions were passed to induce
the parents of scholars to attend catechetical lectures. It is also
worth noticing, as a curiosity, that Mr. Symons, schoolmaster at
Cripplegate, discovered a secret, by which he could teach twenty or
thirty boys the alphabet in a day. Allusions occur, in the months of
July and August, 1699, to efforts at instruction in the parish of St.
George’s, Southwark, being “much obstructed,” when it was ordered that
the agents should immediately treat with a schoolmaster, the Society to
ensure him one half-year’s pay; but the measure was postponed in hopes
of an agreement with the parish officers, who seemed to have thrown
difficulties in the way.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
Whilst the promotion of Christian knowledge, by means of publications
and schools, formed the main object of the Society, other purposes were
incidentally contemplated, and we find these good men anticipating the
labours of John Howard by seeking to improve the state of prisons,
and the modern condemnation of duelling, by giving thanks to Sir John
Phillips for his noble Christian example in refusing a challenge.
Numerous references occur in the earliest proceedings to efforts for
the conversion of Quakers, and, as they are so singular, they claim
notice and require explanation.
There was a man named George Keith, a native of Aberdeen, and a
fellow-student with Gilbert Burnet at the University of that city. He
went over to America, and there pursued a distinguished course as a
preacher amongst the Quakers; but disputes arose between him and the
Pennsylvanian Friends, which ended in their disowning him, and in his
resisting them. They could not retain a person who openly declared
that he “trampled their judgments under his feet as dirt;” who charged
those who opposed him, with apostacy from Quakers’ principles; and who
established a separate meeting for such as sympathized in his views.
Strange to say, after protesting against American Friends as untrue to
the doctrine of their Society, this energetic person became a member of
the Church of England, and, on his return to this country, entered into
holy orders. He now became a zealous opponent of the people with whom
he had been identified, and being brought into intimate connection with
Dr. Bray, that gentleman considered him a suitable agent for the new
Society. Whether the Society originally designed him for the purpose
or not, certainly Keith deemed it his vocation to do all in his power
to bring Quakers within the pale of the English Church, and the records
of the Society endorse his efforts in this respect. They “report about
the Quakers, and give a satisfactory account of Keith’s designs,”
bestowing upon him a certificate or recommendation, to protect him
in his travels and procure him encouragement from the justices of
the peace, at the same time resolving to circulate his narrative and
catechism. A little later a resolution was adopted “respecting Keith’s
progress into the country to convert the Quakers,” and the sum of
£10 12s. was voted for the purchase of publications, which he was
to distribute in his tour. Reports were sent in by him stating the
result of his mission in Bristol and elsewhere; and it seems that, as
the Quakers at an earlier period had been in the habit of entering
parish churches, to bear witness there against what they considered a
departure from the spirit of the Gospel, so now their former friend,
George Keith, carried on his labours against them in a strictly
retaliative form.
It is stated in the Society’s minutes, that the Quakers opposed his
attempts to preach in their meeting-houses; and one is surprised
to find, after the Act of Toleration had passed, the following
entry:--“Resolved, that Mr. Keith attempts again, and, if opposed, that
he pursue his remedy according to law.”
Quakers are not the only persons whose conversion was specially
contemplated; particular attention was paid to Roman Catholics, and
it was agreed that the members of the Society should endeavour to
inform themselves of the practices of priests to pervert His Majesty’s
subjects. I do not find any mention made of special endeavours to
bring back to the Church any other section of Nonconformists than the
people called Quakers.[451]
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was the parent of another
society of not less importance. Dr. Bray was deeply interested in
Missions abroad; with extraordinary efforts for the diffusion of the
Gospel in England, he combined extraordinary efforts for the diffusion
of the Gospel in the American colonies. He went out to Maryland
at his own expense, as Ecclesiastical Commissary to the Bishop of
London, and did not return to England until after he had exhausted
his resources. It appears that in March, 1697, when a Bill was being
read in Parliament respecting estates devoted to superstitious uses,
he presented a petition, praying that a portion of such estates might
be set apart for the propagation of the reformed religion in Maryland,
Virginia, and the Leeward Isles, or that some other provision should
be made for the purpose. Animated by this spirit, he induced the
Society to approve of libraries in North America for the use of the
Clergy. He visited Holland to obtain from His Majesty a grant in aid,
and reported the design of Sir Richard Bulkeley to settle on his Irish
estate a rent-charge of £20 a year, and his gift of a share in certain
mines for the furtherance of this object. At length, floating desires
assumed definite shape, and steps were taken to secure a charter
for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Dr. Bray, through the
instrumentality of Archbishop Tenison and Bishop Compton, succeeded in
accomplishing this object, and in May, 1701, the draft of a charter
“was read and debated, and several amendments made, and the names
of the secretary and other officers proposed and agreed to.”[452]
Repeated conferences took place at the meetings of the Society,
touching points connected with the new undertaking; and on the 9th of
June, Dr. Bray stated that His Majesty in Council had signed an order
for incorporating the Society. Convocation had turned its thoughts to
Foreign Missions, but relinquished further proceedings upon finding
this charter was granted. The instrument described the objects of the
new Society as being, first, the providing of learned and orthodox
ministers for the administration of God’s word and sacraments amongst
the King’s loving subjects in the plantations, colonies, and factories
beyond the seas. So far the enterprise was strictly colonial, intended
for the spiritual instruction and welfare of English emigrants to
distant shores. The charter, secondly, contemplated the making of
such other provision as might be necessary for the propagation of
the Gospel in those parts; and this, read in the light of subsequent
operations, might be interpreted to signify the diffusion of Christian
knowledge amongst such of the heathen as lived in the neighbourhood of
English colonists. Still the objects remained limited; it was confined
to the British dominions, and took no account of pagan countries
lying outside. Now that our Indian dominion is so extensive, the old
charter may be construed as pointing to an immense field of labour
there; but the charter at first--when our colonial dependencies were
of comparatively narrow extent--contemplated, consistently with its
nature as an incorporation under the English crown, a range of effort
far within the wide sweep which Missions since have happily taken.
Power was given to hold property, to carry on legal proceedings, to
make bye-laws, and to collect subscriptions. To stamp the whole with
a Church of England character, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York, the Bishops of London and Ely, the Lord Almoner, the Deans of
Westminster and St. Paul’s, the Archdeacon of London, and the Regius
and Margaret Professors of Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge for the
time being, were constituted trustees, the selection of some of these
dignitaries at first being doubtless determined on personal grounds.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
Under the presidency of his Grace of Canterbury, a meeting of members
took place within one of the apartments of Lambeth Palace on the 27th
of June, 1701; and we can fancy Compton, Williams, Fowler, Sherlock,
and others, coming in barges along the Thames, or in coaches, on
horseback, or a-foot through the narrow streets, to the well-known
gateway of the Archiepiscopal abode. The charter was read. Five hundred
printed copies of it were ordered. Melmoth was chosen treasurer, and
Chamberlayne secretary. According to a vote on the occasion, there was
prepared a symbolical seal, representing a ship in full sail, with a
gigantic clergyman, half-mast high, standing by the bowsprit with an
open Bible in his hands, whilst diminutive negroes, in an attitude
of expectancy, are sprinkled over a hilly beach. Overhead is one of
those awkward scrolls, devised to convey words uttered by the persons
introduced; and here it contains in Latin the Macedonian prayer, which
the little blacks are supposed to be offering: “Come over and help
us.” At the top is a face surrounded by sun rays, apparently intended
to denote the presence and benediction of God vouchsafed to the
undertaking.
Meetings afterwards were held at the Cockpit, in Whitehall, or in the
vestry of Bow Church, and afterwards in Archbishop Tenison’s library,
in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. Soon the secretary prepared parchment
rolls for the use of members deputed to receive subscriptions, amongst
whom were Bishop Patrick, Archdeacon Stanley, and others. The Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge had at least contemplated missionary
work in our western colonies; but now that a new Society had been
incorporated for extending the Gospel in foreign parts, these fields of
labour were placed under its care.
As a precursor of publications in religious literature, issued within
a short time in such numbers as would fill a library, there was
presented, at the close of the first year’s operations, a report, from
which it is worth while to extract a passage or two illustrating the
way in which such documents were then drawn up, and of the nature of
the work accomplished by the Society.
Mention is made of “one missionary for the service of the Yeomansee
Indians to the South of Carolina;” of regard had to infidels amongst
English settlers in North America; and of the determination also to
resist the progress of “Quakerism, Antinomianism, ignorance, and
immorality, which have hitherto fatally overspread those infant
churches.” Provision was made for “some of the islands by a supply
of two ministers;” further, there had been “a settlement compassed
for a congregation at Amsterdam, with the consent of the magistrates
of the place;” and encouragement had been given to commence a church
at Moscow, of which the Czar had laid the foundation. The expense of
these undertakings was paid out of a fund of about £800, aided by
subscriptions amounting to £1,700.
[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.]
In an appendix of the year 1701 is found a plan, proposed by Patrick
Gordon, for establishing seminaries on the verge of the Indian
territory, where boys from London charity-schools should be sent;
the main object being to “induce Indian children to play with these
boys, that marriages might be promoted among them, and a mixed race of
Christians might thus arise.”[453]
It is a curious fact that in the year 1703 overtures were made by White
Kennet on behalf of the Society to Thomas Hearne, to settle in Maryland
in a parochial cure. He was to be ordained at the charge of Dr. Bray,
to have a library of books to the value of £50, to receive for his cure
£70 per annum, and by degrees to be better preferred. He was to be
librarian to the province, at an additional salary of £10 a year; and
it was added: “When you have been there any time, you have liberty to
return with money in your pocket and settle here in England, if you are
not more pleased with all the good accommodations of that place.” The
offer was not accepted. Hearne felt no vocation to colonial work.[454]
By his refusal, the Society lost one who might have been no very
successful missionary, and Oxford gained an illustrious archæologist.
CHAPTER XVII.
A bold step taken by the Nonjurors in the year 1694 deepened and
perpetuated their schism, and some circumstances tainted their
proceedings with more disloyalty than could be involved in the mere
refusal of an oath. Sancroft, as if copying Romish pretensions,
had appointed Lloyd, ex-Bishop of Norwich, his “Vicar,” “Factor,”
“Proxy-General,” or “Nuncio.” Lloyd accordingly proceeded, in concert
with the deprived Prelates of Peterborough and Ely, to appoint two
Bishops. To soften appearances and to avoid collisions, they gave the
persons appointed the titles of Suffragans of Thetford and of Ipswich,
and, in keeping with their own Jacobitism, they consulted the Royal
Exile respecting those who should fill the offices. Dr. Hickes was
despatched on a visit to St. Germains, with a list of the Nonjurors, to
ask James to exercise the prerogative by nominating two clergymen for
these posts. He graciously received the delegate, who spent six weeks
in travelling that short distance, and in overcoming the difficulties
of access to his Court. Having consulted the Pope, the Archbishop
of Paris, and Bossuet of Meaux, whether it would be consistent with
loyalty to the Church to do what was asked, James, with their sanction,
nominated Hickes as Suffragan of Thetford, and Wagstaffe as Suffragan
of Ipswich.[455] It is plain that James made capital out of this to
further his own designs, for he was at that time deep in plans of
invasion, and his correspondence with Hickes and the Bishop of Norwich
points to them as accredited agents.[456] On the 24th of February,
1694, Hickes and Wagstaffe were admitted into the Episcopal order by
the three deprived Bishops, and the ceremony took place in a private
house in London, where the Bishop of Peterborough lodged, the Earl of
Clarendon being present on the occasion.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Great care was taken by some of the Nonjurors to ascertain the number
and circumstances of clergymen included within their party. It is the
effect of such ecclesiastical divisions to bring into bonds of closest
acquaintance those who agree upon some distinctive principle. Amongst
the _Baker MSS._ is a document containing a long list of those
who forfeited their preferment rather than take the new oath,[457]
and among them the following names occur, with some indications of
character and position appended:--
“Mr. Milner, Vicar of Leeds and Prebendary of Ripon, a very learned,
worthy person, is thought well able to live; hath a son preferred to
a good living in Sussex by the late Bishop of Chichester, his uncle,
and a daughter yet unmarried. Mr. Yorke, one of the Vicars Choral of
the Cathedral Church of York, and Curate of St. Belfrey’s, a sober,
loyal person, and zealous for our Church. He hath a wife and child,
but low in worldly circumstances; his losses might amount unto about
£80 per annum. Mr. Cressey, Vicar of Sheriff Hutton (of the yearly
value of about £50), a gentleman well born, of good principles, and
sober conversation; he married old Mr. Thinscrosse’s niece; hath with
her two children; little to live on, save the charity of relations,
and that Sir Henry Slingsbie at present retains him for his domestic
chaplain. Mr. Winshup, Curate of Malton and Prebendary of York (his
loss may be computed about £80); a very learned, good and brisk man;
hath a wife but no child, and some pretty temporal estate, and, as I am
told, is now at London, bending his studies towards the law; a great
acquaintance of late Baron Ingleby. Mr. Symms, Rector of Langton (value
about £80 per annum), a truly loyal and firmly-principled Church of
England man; was lately imprisoned through malice, when the Papists
were secured, the grief whereof (as thought) broke his wife’s heart,
who was a devout gentlewoman; he hath a daughter, and may be an object
worthy of compassion and charity. Mr. Holmes, Rector of Burstwicke and
Vicar of Paul (value about £100 per annum), a gentleman of good family,
(fellow-sufferer with Mr. Symms), sober and well deserving; hath a wife
(who was Dr. Stone’s daughter of York) and many children, and now makes
very hard shift to live. Mr. Rosse, Vicar of Scawby (valued at £40 per
annum), a man of very good parts and learning, but given to excess of
drinking, even to scandal, yet hath a wife and charge of children, and
is an object of pity and charity (if he could be reformed), and very
right in his principles. Mr. Mawburn, Minister of Crake, though within
ours, yet of the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Durham; one who is
master of too much learning, except he made better use of it, a great
complier with all the designs of the late reign, and too scandalous
in his conversation upon all accounts. I do not know of any charge he
hath, nor what is become of him, but his living was commonly reported
about £100 per annum.”
Many other names are given, some reported as “poor,” others “not poor,”
or “well to pass.”
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
The Nonjurors fixed their head-quarters in the Metropolis. There
Kettlewell settled after leaving his incumbency. With all his ardour
and decision he did not practically go so far as some of his brethren.
He objected to the clergy attending parish churches, because, as
he said, if only two or three joined them in private, they might
canonically minister, and have Christ in the midst of them; but he did
not object to the laity uniting in worship with clergymen who took
the oaths. Upon examining the ground of this concession, however, we
find it rests on the idea that the ministration of the ordained is
essential to the Divine acceptance of social service, and the public
devotion in which he allowed the laity to participate only consisted of
common prayer on ordinary occasions, not of special prayer connected
with national festivals.[458] He would in no way sanction the use of
intercession for William and Mary, and was himself very particular in
praying not only for King James, but in obeying the order issued before
the Revolution, for supplications on behalf of the Prince of Wales. He
reached, by a confused logical process, the high ecclesiastical ground,
“that the determination of the Church of England, so solemnly given
in her prayers, was on his side, and was so binding as it could not
be reversed by a superior authority, or even reversed at all, without
making the public voice of this Church to contradict itself.”[459] He
pushed his views of the individual responsibility of clergymen--and,
if I understand him aright, of laymen as well--to such an extent that
he reached a position of thorough independency, for he says, true and
faithful pastors are not so strictly bound to keep up external unity
and peace, as to maintain truth and righteousness and the unpolluted
worship of the Church; and that however private persons are bound to
use modesty and caution in following the “venerable ecclesiastical
judicatories on earth, yet it is not any _implicit dependence_
on men, or a _blind obedience_ to any human sentence or decision
whatsoever, but observance of the truth itself, and of what God hath
in His Word decided, that must justify them in determining themselves
whom they are to follow.”[460] This is the very protestantism of the
Protestant Religion, the very dissidence of dissent, and it affords an
example of the inconsistency which comes in the wake of circumstances,
and of the odd way in which extremes meet. Kettlewell, in fact, had
become a Nonconformist, and he justified himself only by arguments
of the same description as those which other Nonconformists employ.
From the same cause he was led to declare, there might be ground for
breaking off from any Church without incurring schism, “there being
some things not to be borne with, nor others to be parted with, for the
sake of an external union;”[461] so far he made common cause with John
Robinson and John Owen.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Kettlewell entered with sympathy into the poverty and sufferings of
his brethren. They had many of them lost all, and this benevolent
man, anxious to assuage their distress, drew up a plan for collecting
and distributing a fund for their relief, directing inquiries as to
the income and expenditure of the deprived, with a view to prevent
impositions upon charity. He proposed that the Clergy in London, who
had no business there, but remained only because it was the best
place for obtaining gifts, should be sent where they would be better
maintained at less expense, and where they might make themselves of
some service. Then, touching upon a notorious evil, he remarked, that
others would then have no excuse for frequenting coffee-houses and
hunting after benefactions, but would have time to promote their own
improvement, and he advised those who sought relief, simply to note
their sufferings, without making reflections.[462] He did not confine
himself to sectarian charity, but sought also to promote the welfare of
persons not of his own communion, of which a monument remained after
his death, in a comprehensive trust, of which he was the founder.[463]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Kettlewell remained a Nonjuror to the last, and on his death-bed
expressed his distinctive principles; but he did something better, and
beautifully uttered the language of Christian hope.
He expired April the 12th, 1695, in London, and was buried in the
parish church of All Hallows, near the Tower, in the same grave which
had contained the remains of Archbishop Laud from his death till the
Restoration. Ken was permitted by the Incumbent to read Evening Prayers
on the occasion, and to attend in his episcopal robes to perform the
burial service.
Kettlewell’s scheme of charitable relief received the sanction of the
Nonjuring Bishops, who wrote a letter in its favour. The proceeding
was laudable; yet such was the political antipathy to the Nonjurors
by those in power, that Ken had to appear before the Privy Council to
account for putting his name to the appeal; and of the interrogations
he received and the answers he gave, there remains a report under his
own hand.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Dodwell threw his whole soul into the Nonjuring cause, and continued
on its behalf, after the schism had occurred, the advocacy he had
undertaken at the beginning. His pen was busy with denunciations and
encouragements; in private letters to those whom he suspected of
timidity, he deplored the general apostacy from Church principles;
described the apostates as pretending to the name of the Church of
England, whilst acting on the principles of its adversaries; spoke of
latitudinarian notions as tincturing those of the laity who were so
warm for what they call liberty of conscience; and expressed his deep
sorrow for what he considered vacillation and cowardice.
No multitude of apostates, he declared, could ever be pleaded as an
authoritative example against a small number continuing firm. The
doctrine and practice of these faithful Abdiels, he added, had been
maintained by the Church in all the cases which had occurred from
the beginning of the Reformation to that very day. In the case of
Queen Mary and the Lady Jane Grey, in the case of Cromwell and King
Charles II., nay, in the present case, and in opposition to republican
adversaries. He believed there were few of these great lapsers but
would, a few years before, have resented it, like Hazael, as a great
calamity and scandal had they been charged with doing the things which
they had since actually done.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
He denounced all compliance, eschewed all compromise, and reprobated
all “carnal politics;” warned against balancing expediency with
conscience, and against seeking to promote Protestantism by a sacrifice
of Church principles.[464] He set aside reasons for taking the oaths,
by saying there is no cause so bad but something may be said in its
support, and by referring to Carneades’ _Oration on Injustice_,
Burgess and Barnet’s _Defence of Sacrilege_, and the Hungarian’s
_Vindication of Polygamy_. As an illustration of the lengths to
which party spirit will carry people, I may cite the following passage
from Dodwell’s vehement lucubration: “It is not a particular sect or
opinion that we contend for, but the very being of a Church and of
religion. Whether there shall be any faith that shall oblige to our
own hindrance? Whether religion, which ought to add to its sacredness,
shall be made a pretence for violating it? Whether our Holy Mother, the
Church of England, which hath been famous for her loyalty, shall now be
as infamous for her apostacy? Whether there be any understanding men
who, in this incredulous age, can find in their hearts to venture the
greatest worldly interest for their religion; that is, indeed, whether
there be any that are in earnest with religion?”[465]
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Yet Dodwell wrote from Shottesbrook, August 29th, 1700, to Archbishop
Tenison, requesting him to use his influence in providing Bishops
for the colonies. “The occasion of this present address,” he says,
“is not to beg any favour for myself, nor for our dear fathers and
brethren whom I follow in this excellent cause; it is for that very
body which is headed by you against us, which, we hope, will at length
unite with us on the old terms, when worldly concerns are removed.
You have an opportunity put into your hands of doing God service in
the plantations, and of entitling yourself thereby to greater rewards
from God than you can expect from any of your worldly designs.” And
in November of the same year I discover him corresponding with the
same distinguished person as to healing the Church’s wound. First,
he despatched a _feeler_ on the subject, which was civilly
received, with a request for further communication, and then he
propounded certain terms of recommunion. He thought the Clergy who had
taken the oaths might agree with the Nonjurors so far as to maintain,
in opposition to all Commonwealth’s-men, the doctrine of passive
obedience “to the lawful Prince for the time being,” each party being
left to apply the principle in his own way. As to the doctrine of the
Church’s independency, he proposed there should be “expressions as
full as possible disowning the validity of the Lay Act with regard to
conscience, and protesting against what had been done in this matter
as unfit to pass into a precedent.” As to prayers for the reigning
family, so strongly objected to by Kettlewell, he did not regard
them as obliging a separation. He took, he says in obscure language,
the right of public offices to belong to governors who might _bona
fide_ differ in opinion from their subjects, and, notwithstanding,
be included by them in their intercessions. He did not mean that men
might own those opinions as true which they believed false, yet they
might let them pass as the sense of the community of which they were
members. At the beginning Dodwell suggested, if the reconciliation
could be effected, that the remaining deprived Bishops should “hold
their places, with a third part of the profits, without taking the
oaths;” and in the end, “If you will do nothing on your part to qualify
you for union with us, our fathers will have performed their part, and
you alone must be answerable for the consequences of it.”[466]
Hickes, Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, resided in Ormond Street,
exerting an influence very different from that of Ken, Kettlewell, and
Nelson; for whilst they kept aloof from political intrigues, he plunged
deeply into the eddying whirlpool, and whilst they allowed the laity to
attend parish churches, he denounced those who did so. He most absurdly
maintained that even when no State prayers occurred in the service,
simply to hold fellowship with schismatics--and such he denominated all
except Nonjurors--was a flagrant betrayal of Christian principle.[467]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
On another point he was at variance with Kettlewell. Hickes thought it
lawful to wear a military disguise that he might escape detection, and
once was introduced, in Kettlewell’s presence, as Captain or Colonel
Somebody, for which a patriotic precedent was characteristically
alleged, by quoting the case of a certain Bishop of old, who, amidst an
Arian persecution, assumed a military title. Nor did Turner object to
the practice of absconding under borrowed names. But against everything
of this kind the severely truthful Kettlewell set his face like a
flint, and would not have swerved a hair’s-breadth from the straightest
line of honesty to save his life.[468]
Eccentric individuals might be found amongst those who, by Nonjuring
sympathies, were drawn together in a city then, as now, containing
social worlds, scarcely by any chance touching each other. Such
precisians cut themselves off from general intercourse and form
narrow-minded habits, which satisfy their own consciences, but provoke
the ridicule of other people.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Amongst those who in William’s reign often met together and talked over
the affairs of the deprived Clergy, occurs the name of Dr. Francis
Lee--Rabbi Lee, as he came to be called, because of his Jewish
learning. He had been deprived of a fellowship at St. John’s College,
Oxford, and after travelling abroad and practising as a physician in
Venice for a couple of years, had returned to London in 1694, when he
joined a company of Mystics, and married the prophetess of the sect--a
wild sort of lady, who imagined that she received revelations from
God and from angels, and had been taught by them the finite duration
of future punishment. Besides this species of modern Montanism, Lee
adopted peculiar opinions on other subjects, and published proposals
to Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, for the better framing of his
extensive government.[469]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
No layman attained such a position amongst the Nonjurors as Robert
Nelson, pupil of the Anglican Dr. George Bull, and friend of Dr.
Mapletoft, who had been educated in the family of his great-uncle,
Nicholas Farrer, of Gidding. He early imbibed influences favourable
to the adoption of High Church views. His friendship with the
Latitudinarian Archbishop Tillotson, and with the half-Puritan Bishop
Kidder, might hold in check for awhile prior tendencies, but could not
prevent their ultimately producing effect. His personal regard for
Tillotson lasted till death; he held the Primate in his arms at the
moment he expired; yet then all Nelson’s deference to his opinions had
ceased, for from the crisis of the Revolution he had been a Nonjuring
Jacobite. The conversion to Popery of his wife--an aristocratic widow,
the Lady Theophila Lucy, who had become violently enamoured of his
handsome person--did not incline him at all towards Rome, though it
could not prove inimical to the development of his Catholic tendencies.
Of his intense devoutness and religious zeal there can be no doubt,
nor of his respectable abilities; and the importance of such an
accession to the new sect was heightened by other circumstances. No
one can look at his portrait without admiring the taste of Lady Lucy.
His fine features, set off to advantage by a good complexion and the
adventitious decoration of a magnificent wig, must have given him an
imposing presence. That presence was further aided by the taste and
expensiveness of his apparel, to which should be added the recollection
of his wealth and his aristocratic connections. Thus fitted to make his
way in society, he naturally became amongst poor and persecuted people
a commanding personage--an oracle with some, a counsellor with all. He
associated with Lloyd; corresponded with Frampton; was acquainted with
Ken; for Kettlewell he felt a warm attachment; Collier and Spinckes
were numbered amongst his friends; and Hickes lived close neighbour to
him in Ormond Street, Red Lion Fields.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
In his previous residence at Blackheath Nelson wrote books by which
he has become well known to posterity. Few may have heard of _The
Practice of True Devotion_, which he anonymously published in 1698,
or of his _Exhortation to Housekeepers_, which appeared in 1702;
but a lasting fame has followed his _Companion for the Festivals and
Fasts_, which issued from the press in 1704. Bodies of divinity,
founded upon the Apostles’ Creed and upon the Thirty-Nine Articles,
bearing distinguished names, were popular at the time, and books
explanatory of Church offices had attained some reputation;[470] but no
book aiming to explain theological doctrine, through ecclesiastical
associations, could vie with this in the extent of its immediate
circulation. The design struck in with tendencies then beginning to
unfold--not ritualistic in the modern acceptation of the term; but
sacramental--in the way of frequent celebration of the Eucharist and a
strict observance of sacred seasons. The production is pervaded with
a cast of thought which, though pre-eminently cherished by Nonjurors,
was not peculiar to them. Nelson believed that the Episcopal Church of
England is the great conservator of orthodoxy; that her Prayer-Book is
an unparalleled help to devotion; that Sacraments lie at the centre
of Christianity; and that holy days are seasons of blessed revival.
He wrote accordingly; and what he wrote was acceptable to members
outside his own circle, not only on account of their sympathy with
his Church views, but because there lay at the bottom of it this true
idea, that theology should be the handmaid of devotion; that faith
finds expression in worship; that religion is not a metaphysical idea,
but a life which pours itself out in prayer and praise before God,
and in justice and charity towards man. I must add, however, that the
popularity of Nelson’s publication seems in some degree due to the
patronage it received, the eulogiums pronounced upon it, and the means
adopted by religious societies for its circulation. In a literary
point of view it can pretend to little, if any merit. The form of
question and answer, as bare as any catechism, gives it no attraction.
The remarks are commonplace, without any attempt at illustration. For
whatever learning may be found in its pages the reader is indebted not
to Robert Nelson, but to Dr. Cave.
The book, prepared I presume at Blackheath, was published whilst Nelson
lived in Ormond Street, where he received the congratulations of
his friends, especially of the Nonjurors, who naturally regarded the
popularity of the work as a signal service to their cause.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Nonjuring circles in the Metropolis must often have been agitated
by rumours of plots, real or imagined. In the saloons of Jacobite
nobles, in the back rooms of city shops, in the garrets of Little
Britain, stories would be whispered of preparations made for restoring
the legitimate Sovereign. In the autumn of 1698 such tales reached
the ears of the Duke of Shrewsbury’s Secretary. A Jacobite party had
provided sixty horses: these were dispersed in Kent and about town,
some in the hands of jockeys. They had engaged a Canterbury innkeeper
to help onward their project, had raised a fund of above £1,000, were
on the tiptoe of expectation, and only waited for a signal to mount
their steeds and be off like the wind. So the Secretary heard, and,
in connection with the retailing of all this talk, he stated, that
he was on the point of apprehending a person who dealt in policies
of insurance upon James’s restoration. He paid a guinea--so runs the
letter--to receive fifty if the King or his son should reascend the
throne by the following Michaelmas--certainly a strange scheme for
promoting his return, since it became the interest of everyone who
received the guinea to keep the Royal refugee away.[471]
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Centres of Nonjuring influence and activity existed in the country.
Shottesbrook Park, near Maidenhead, with its beautiful church of
decorated Gothic, and its manor-house full of convenience and
comfort--the home of Francis Cherry, a country gentleman, both handsome
and accomplished, “the idol of Berkshire”--offered a pleasant retreat
for the deprived.[472] Many could be accommodated within the spacious
Hall, for it contained not less than seventy beds; and the owner
was as free in his hospitality as he was rich in his resources. His
heart went with the exiled King, and a story is told to the effect
that once, in a hunting-field, when closely pressed by William’s
steed, he plunged into the Thames where the river was deep and broad,
hoping that the piqued monarch might be induced to follow through the
uncomfortable if not perilous passage. To Shottesbrook House, Robert
Nelson often repaired. There the Nonjuror Charles Leslie found a
welcome, and at a later period than this volume embraces, disguised
in regimentals, when, in danger of apprehension, he obtained shelter
in a neighbouring house until by Cherry’s help he made his escape,
and set out to Bar-le-duc to attempt the conversion of the Pretender.
Many a scene of excitement, many a flush of hope, many a flutter of
fear, many a pang of disappointment must have occurred under the roof
of the Shottesbrook squire, as persons deep in political intrigues
met for conference. Bowdler, Nelson’s neighbour in Ormond Street,
accompanied by his family, was a visitor to this spot; Brokesby, a
deprived clergyman of Rowley, near Hull, found in it a resting-place;
and the learned Prussian Lutheran, Dr. Grabe, who had come over to
receive orders in the Episcopal Church, cultivated friendships at
the agreeable mansion--convenient for him because not very far from
Oxford, where treasures of learning excited his curiosity and increased
his erudition. Hickes delighted in his company, and after his death
compared him to a great and mighty prince, who, dying, leaves behind
many plans of noble and curious buildings, some half, some almost,
and others entirely finished.[473] In the same place, there also
resided the famous Henry Dodwell, whose views distinguished him from
Kettlewell, and still more from Hickes. Entering into ecclesiastical
subtleties, Dodwell would say “that if there had been a synodical
deprivation of the orthodox and faithful fathers of the Church, however
in itself unjust, yet the Clergy and laity ought to have complied
with the greater obligation of owning the Episcopal College than with
the less obligation of owning any particular Bishop.” In this respect
he differed from Kettlewell, who would no more allow of a synodical
than of a secular deprivation, making, as we have seen in reference
to this question, individual conscientiousness the paramount rule of
action. And further in the same line he differed from Kettlewell, for
Kettlewell made the Church throughout subserve religion, but Dodwell
made religion subserve the Church.[474] Dodwell was really in principle
a higher Churchman, though in practice lower, than Kettlewell--much
lower than Hickes; for Hickes would not attend parish worship at all,
and Kettlewell discountenanced it in the Clergy; but Dodwell would
join in morning and evening prayer, childishly satisfying his scruples
when the name of the reigning Sovereign occurred by sliding off his
knees and sitting down on the hassock. It is amusing to notice the
methods of protest against prayers for the reigning family adopted
by Nonjurors. Some rose from their knees and stood up in the face of
the congregation; some shut their books; some turned over the leaves
so as to make a noise; some satisfied themselves by declining to say
_Amen_, or by mentally substituting the names of the exiled
Stuarts. Dodwell, whilst living with Mr. Cherry, had a remarkable pupil
in Thomas Hearne, who was patronized by the generous host, supported
at his cost, and prepared at his expense for the University, as if he
had been his own son. Hearne, as we are informed on his own authority,
was instructed “in the true principles of the Church of England”--an
expression we can easily understand; and we learn from the same
source how busily the incipient archæologist engaged at Shottesbrook
in studies and work subsidiary to literary schemes carried on by the
eminent Nonjurors there congregated together.[475]
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Within a few miles of Frome, in Somersetshire, stands Longleat House, a
palatial abode, surrounded by gardens, in the midst of a wooded park,
worthy of the beauty and magnificence of the mansion. Just outside
the park paling rises the old church of Horningsham, and hard by is a
little Dissenting meeting-house, the most ancient in our island. The
place is not above twenty miles from Wells, and part of the domain
comes within the diocese. There the most eminent and the most admirable
of Nonjurors, Thomas Ken, took up his abode, at the request of Lord
Weymouth, the possessor of Longleat; and if social gatherings like
those of Shottesbrook did not occur there, the residence of the Prelate
rendered it a source of the purest Nonjuring influence. He occupied a
room at the top of the house, removed from the noise and bustle of an
English hall, “open to all comers of fashion and quality.” Surrounded
by his large library, “he wrote hymns, and sang them to his viol, and
prayed, and died.”[476] The most popular of all his sacred lays--the
Morning and Evening Hymns--were composed on the top of a hill, which,
from the prospect it commands through a break in the woods, is well
known throughout the neighbourhood by the beautiful name of “the Gate
of Heaven.”
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Whether he attended the services at the parish church is matter of
controversy. One of his biographers thinks that up to the accession
of Queen Anne he enjoyed, in Lord Weymouth’s private chapel, “the
privilege of pure services, without alloy of the State prayers;” but
it is added, “During his visits to his nephew at Poulshot, or when he
was in other places where he could not find any Nonjuring assembly, we
may conclude, from what he himself says, that, rather than be debarred
the solace of Christian communion, he went to church.”[477] At all
events, Ken was distressed at the idea of perpetuating schism; he
had no sympathy with the spirit of Hickes; though he allowed excuses
for clandestine consecration, he declared his own judgment to be
against them; and though his scruples compelled him to retire from his
bishopric, he longed earnestly for the reunion of the Church.
Ken survived King William some years, but two of the Nonjuring
Prelates, in addition to those already deceased, expired before the
Sovereign whose rights they would not acknowledge.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
White, Bishop of Peterborough, died in 1698. Bishop Turner sent to
the Dean of St. Paul’s to bury the deceased Bishop in St. Gregory’s
churchyard; the Dean had it intimated to him “that any clergyman
conformable to the Church and Government might bury him.” “Bishop
Turner, who was one that carried up the pall, with thirty or forty
more of the Clergy, and some few laymen, attended him from the house
where he died, and being come into the churchyard almost as far as
the grave, they espied Mr. Standish, one of the Minor Canons, in
his surplice, ready to read the office. At the sight of him they
immediately made a halt, and, after they had conferred amongst
themselves a little while, all the Clergy opened on each side to let
the corpse pass along to the grave, and went, every one of them,
back again, so that only two or three of the laity stayed to see him
interred. It seems the party renounced all manner of communion with any
person conformable to the Church and Government.”[478] I have already
pointed out that there were two classes of Nonjurors: the practically
moderate, represented by Ken and others, even indeed by Dodwell--and
the extreme, represented by Hickes; and it is apparent that the persons
who attended White’s funeral were of the latter description, and would
not in any way hold fellowship with any but their own party.
In the month of November, 1700, the Bishop who attended that funeral
followed his episcopal brother into the invisible world. Turner was
very poor--“in very needy circumstances,” says Bishop Nicholson,
“having a large family, and no support out of the common bank of
charity.” He lived in extreme retirement, and was buried in the chancel
of Therfield Church, Hertford, where he had once been rector, a single
word only being inscribed on the stone which covered his mortal
remains, but that word most expressive--_Expergiscar_.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Samuel Pepys, who lost his official appointment upon the accession of
William and Mary, and consequently at that time retired into private
life, wearied in his last days with cares and jaded with pleasures,
sought relief in the duties of religion, and inquired through Nelson
for a spiritual adviser. Nelson’s reply to his request throws a
curious light upon the circumstances of the Nonjurors’ condition:
“After the strictest inquiry, I find none of our Clergy placed in your
neighbourhood nearer than Mitcham, where lives one Mr. Higden, a very
ingenious person, who married the late Lord Stowell’s sister; but I
believe you may have one with greater ease from London, by reason of
the conveniency of public conveyances. Our friend, Dean Hickes, is at
present at Oxford; but if you will be pleased whenever your occasions
require it to send to Mr. Spinckes, who has the honour of being known
to you, he will be sure to wait upon you, and take such measures
that you may always be supplied whenever you stand in need of such
assistance. He lodges at a glazier’s in Winchester Street, near London
Wall.”[479]
Pepys died in the summer of 1703, and, in a letter to Dr. Charlett,
Hickes described the services he rendered the dying man, and the effect
which they produced upon him.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
Some Jacobites who took the oaths with certain qualifications repented
afterwards, and openly threw in their lot with such as refused to
swear. One of them drew up a penitential confession, in which, with
morbid conscientiousness, he dwelt upon what he called his sinful
compliance. Acknowledgment after acknowledgment of minute particulars,
expanded in terms which magnified each, occurs in the document, closing
with the reiterated prayer: “I accuse, and judge, and condemn myself:
God be merciful to me a penitent!” Retraction was accompanied by a
petition to the ejected Bishop, in which the writer exclaims: “Blessed
Jesu! though I cannot now glory in my not having fallen, yet I will
take all the shame of my fall to myself, that I may give Thee glory;
and though I cannot now rejoice in my innocence, I desire to cause
joy in heaven (and if Thou pleasest, many penitents on earth) by my
repentance.”[480] No one who is at the trouble of perusing this tedious
composition can doubt the sincerity of the writer, but nobody of common
sense can fail to perceive his weakness, not to speak of the mischief
he did to morality and religion by exaggerations of minor casuistical
points. For though this man mentions his “first dismal step of taking
the sacred name of God in vain,” he does not dwell upon the sin of
perjury, but expatiates upon the wickedness of having connived at,
though he never used, the prayers introduced at the Revolution.
Another clergyman did what was still more astonishing: he publicly
retracted his oath, and preached upon the words: “I have sinned greatly
in that I have done; and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the
iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,” at the same
time he exhorted his congregation to renew their allegiance to James,
for whom, as the King of England, and for his family, he publicly
prayed. Such an act was downright rebellion, and no wonder the man got
into trouble. Being tried for his offence, he was sentenced to stand
in the pillory and to pay a fine of £200; but the Government wisely
treated him as a lunatic, and offered a pardon if he would confess his
fault. This he declined to do; consequently he remained in confinement.
Not only did other clergymen retract compliance, but a layman who
had qualified himself for office by taking the oaths, solemnly, on
his death-bed, in the presence of witnesses, signed a declaration of
penitence. The political feeling mixed up with the confession is
plain, and all these people, while professing the utmost piety, proved
themselves to be unfaithful subjects.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
The political views of the Nonjurors were narrow in the extreme, and
though to be irreligious was a thing they dreaded most of all, their
views of the State were of a very irreligious kind. They took away from
it all moral and religious life, and if they consistently followed
out their own theory, they took away all conscience from the subjects
of a legitimate and anointed King. Their system exalted such a person
to the highest point of favour, and degraded the people to the lowest
step of slavery. Denuding them of political rights, they denied them
political duties, and annihilated all their political responsibilities.
In the death-blow aimed at popular power, morality and religion, in
reference to political life, were blindly smitten. Yet whilst their
creed only left scope for patience in suffering, numbers of them
did not practice this patience, but were everlastingly plotting a
counter-revolution. To them the State appeared as an instrument in the
hands of the Church--to be controlled for its use, to afford revenues
for its support, to supply means for the enforcement of its laws. The
civil power, according to their theory, has been described as “a body
constituted, it would seem, of three principal elements--an absolute
king, money-bags, and a hangman.”[481] It must be said, to the credit
of the Nonjurors, that however slavishly loyal to an absolute king,
they showed an indifference to the “money-bags” and a contempt for the
“hangman”--a fact worthy of imitation by some who entertain a different
theory from them.
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
To Sancroft, the Nonjurors, the ecclesiastical Tories of the period,
and all men of that stamp who clung to the notion of the divine right
of kings, may be applied the remark: “The great crises in the history
of nations have often been met by a sort of feminine positiveness and
a more obstinate reassertion of principles which have lost their hold
upon a nation. The fixed ideas of a reactionary politician may be
compared to madness. He grows more and more convinced of the truth of
his notions as he becomes more isolated, and would rather await the
inevitable than in any degree yield to circumstances.”[482]
The Nonjuring movement took a narrow and troublesome political
form, yet, notwithstanding all we have said, it was animated by
an intensely religious spirit. This movement did not proceed from
any principle founded upon reason, observation, or experience,
but from a theological dogma about the divine right of kings,
and the consequent duty, religious as it appeared to them, that
subjects should unresistingly obey the Lord’s annointed. The scheme
tended to the political enslavement of the country; it sapped the
liberties of our constitution; yet it appears to have been an honest
endeavour--prejudiced and ignorant, still an honest endeavour--to serve
God: one of a multitude of instances in which false opinions have
perverted true sentiments, and good motives have given sincerity and
disinterestedness to bad actions. No philosophy of history, but one so
wretchedly narrow as to forfeit all title to the name, will deny the
co-existence of right and wrong in the same men, however hard it may be
to untie the knot between them.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
High Church theology of the Thorndike type had no adequate
representative amongst the Nonjurors. They included no one of
intellectual mark. Bull, the most distinguished scholar and the ablest
divine of the old Anglican school, remained in the Establishment;
so did all the chief theologians who leaned in the same direction
with him. But High Church sentiment of the Laudean order, and such
as belonged to Cosin and Seth Ward, drained off almost entirely into
Nonjuring channels. The Nonjurors also went beyond their predecessors
in this respect. They cast off all the Erastian trammels which were
willingly worn by the Bishops of the Restoration.
Gladly would the Nonjurors have wrought out a method of parochial
discipline which would have kept in order not merely such religionists
as agreed in their views, but the population at large, reducing
everybody to a Procrustean bed of belief and practice. No Presbyterians
under the Commonwealth could have been more rigorous apostles of
uniformity than the Nonjurors would have proved, had they but obtained
permission to do as they pleased. They would have gone beyond their
predecessors; for though Milton says presbyter is priest writ large,
a mere presbyter has not the same element of despotic force at his
command as is possessed by the genuine priest. The priest, as a steward
of mystical sacraments, becomes more potent than preacher or pastor. He
is constituted lord of a domain beyond the borders of reason and moral
authority; he carries keys which open and shut what the superstitious
imagine to be gates of heaven. The Nonjurors were priests, not with
limitations, like some of their episcopalian brethren, but out and out.
Their ministers offered sacrifice upon an altar, they did not merely
commemorate one at the Lord’s-table. Laymen imbibed their views--they
were maintained by Robert Nelson.[483]
[Sidenote: 1694–1702.]
As to modes of worship, the Nonjurors were in circumstances which
precluded ritualistic magnificence. They were proscribed, as
Nonconformist confessors had been, and therefore were forced to
serve God in obscurity. Cathedrals and churches were closed against
them--they were driven into barns and garrets. Pomp, such as is now
so fashionable, was to them an impossibility; not that I find them
manifesting any cravings in that direction. They did not follow
Archbishop Laud. High sacramental views are by no means necessarily
connected with Ritualism. Ritualism may be purely æsthetical, and quite
separate from peculiar doctrinal opinions; at the same time a belief in
the Real presence and in the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper may wear an
outward form not more artistic than that which obtains in a Dissenting
meeting-house.[484]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
With all the political and ecclesiastical passions of that age, there
existed comparatively little of what may be properly called religious
excitement. The principal amount of religious excitement in the reign
of William III. must not be sought in the Established Church, or
amongst Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists. It must be divided
between Nonjurors and Quakers. Dismissing the latter for the present,
it may be said that the former exhibited abundant enthusiasm. Hickes
was as much a spiritual fanatic as any of the Presbyterian army
chaplains, or any of Cromwell’s troopers. Some who reviled the madness
of the sects during the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth, were as mad
themselves after the Revolution. Of that kind of devout fervour, which
though not healthy is free from worldliness, and which draws its main
inspirations from the world to come, Kettlewell is a fair example. In
intensity of religious feelings, he resembled a staunch Methodist of
the eighteenth century.
CHAPTER XVIII.
The last ten years of the seventeenth century witnessed the
consolidation of Dissent. Growing in confidence, Dissenters made
bolder ventures. If some old congregations melted away in villages,
where an ejected clergyman had worn out his days, or where the
original supporters had died without bequeathing their opinions,
together with their property, new congregations were formed in towns,
where population gave scope for activity, and social freedom aided
religious effort. Preachers with a roving commission settled down
into local pastors, and a spirit of enterprise appeared in building
places of worship. Nonconformists had for some time amidst hindrance
and irritation been digging again the wells of their fathers, stopped
by the Philistines; but the days of strife were so far over that
they could say: “Now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be
fruitful in the land;” yet such names as Rehoboth and Beersheba, so
often ridiculed, were not used by them as by some of their descendants
of later date.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
As to the erection of religious edifices in London, it may be
mentioned that about the era of the Revolution one was erected in Zoar
Street, another in Gravel Lane, and a third in Hare Court.[485] The
neglected Halls of City Companies had become available for Dissenting
worship, and by economical alterations were transformed into houses
of prayer. Turners’ Hall fell into the hands of the General Baptists
about the year 1688; soon afterwards the Presbyterians erected “a
large substantial brick building of a square form, with four deep
galleries, and capable of seating a considerable congregation.”[486]
Chapels, as we should call them--but the name was not used by the early
Nonconformists--arose in Fair Street, Southwark; in Meeting-house
Court, Blackfriars; in the Old Barbican, beyond Aldersgate; and over
the King’s Weigh-House, Little Eastcheap. At the end of the century,
the Presbyterians provided a moderate-sized wooden building with one
gallery in King John’s Court, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen,
Bermondsey. About the same period, the Independents provided a place of
worship in Rosemary Lane; and soon afterwards a large and substantial
edifice was built by Presbyterians in the Old Jewry, Aldgate. It is
remarkable that, after the Act of Toleration had been passed some
years, liberty seemed of so precarious a nature, that to enjoy it
concealment was necessary. Private houses, therefore, were in this case
erected between the meeting-house and the street, that the former might
be screened from public view.[487]
Nonconformists in the provinces imitated Nonconformists in London.
Bath, then at the head of English watering-places, though still a city
much occupied by clothiers, had a congregation which before had been
wont to meet in “a shear-shop,” but now dared to come into open day,
and to build in Frog Lane, afterwards New Bond Street. In the pleasant
neighbourhood of Shepton Mallet, people who had assembled in the
green woods now erected chapels in the town and adjacent villages. The
Warminster people raised a meeting-house at the cost of £487 2s. 7d.,
the sum being obtained partly by subscription and partly by the sale of
pews and seats, which became the property of the purchasers, and were
accordingly sold and bequeathed.[488]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Turning to midland counties, we find that at Nottingham--where
Nonconformists had met in rock cellars such as honeycombed the sand
formation, and are now formed into a cemetery--Presbyterians registered
rooms in Bridlesmith Gate, and the Independents sought shelter in
Postern Place. A few months after William’s accession, the former set
to work upon a meeting-house in the High Pavement, and the latter
cautiously attempted a smaller edifice at Castlegate. Little leaded
windows admitted light through diamond panes; two pillars sprang from
the floor to support the ceiling; stairs rising within led up to a
small front gallery; a sounding-board covered the pulpit; and square
pews, with other accommodation, provided for about 450 people.[489]
At Chester a new edifice, still in existence, carefully preserved,
and not long ago tastefully restored, cost £532 16s. 1d. It was opened
in August, 1700, when Matthew Henry preached from a text indicating an
apologetic spirit for what was thought a daring enterprise: “The Lord
God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, He knoweth, and Israel He shall
know, if it be in rebellion, or if it be in transgression against the
Lord, that we have built us an altar.”
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
At Daventry, in Northamptonshire, Dissent made a humble advance, but
under circumstances so interesting as to deserve notice. The origin
of the church there forms one of the legends which in the following
century became dear to many. When Charles II. was on the throne, it
happened that a minister put up on his way to London at the sign of the
Old Swan. He was taken ill and detained for more than a week, during
which period the host and his family paid him kind attentions and
completely won his heart. The traveller, restored to health, summoned
into his room the kind-hearted people, thanked them for their great
civility, and expressed his satisfaction at the order maintained in
the house--an exceptional instance in days when hostelries were given
over to unrestrained indulgence and boisterous merriment. He added:
“Something leads me to suspect there is not the fear of God among you,
and it grieves me to see such honest civility, economy, and decency,
and yet religion wanting--the one thing needful.” He entered into
conversation, and closed by telling them he had in his saddlebag a
little book, which he begged them to accept, requesting that they would
carefully read it. Having presented them with Baxter’s _Poor Man’s
Family Book_, he went on his way without telling them who he was,
nor did they ever ascertain his name, but they felt a suspicion the
stranger was no other than Baxter himself. The result of reading this
and other works by the same author was that the innkeeper and some of
his family became Nonconformists. Weary of his mode of life and having
acquired a competence, he retired to a house having a close behind
it, at the extremity of which stood some humble outbuildings. These
after the Revolution he converted into a legalized meeting-house. His
neighbours came, a congregation was established, and a pastor chosen.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Places of worship were put in trust. Presbyterians drew up their deeds
in general terms, not enumerating articles of faith or referring to
any ecclesiastical standard. In many cases, Congregational edifices
were secured in a similar way, some schedule being annexed to the deed,
declaring that the structure should be used by such Protestants in
the neighbourhood as could not conform to the established religion.
Whatever might be the policy ruling the arrangement, the selection of
ministers, and the character of their preaching, in numerous cases
still easily ascertained, betrayed no indifference as to what is
esteemed orthodoxy of sentiment.[490]
Energies which resisted persecution did not expire in the midst of
freedom, although Bishop Burnet predicted “that Nonconformity could not
last long, and that after Baxter, Bates, and Howe were laid in their
graves, it would die of itself.” The last of these, on hearing the
prophecy, remarked to the Bishop, “that its existence depended much
more on principles than persons”--an opinion verified by subsequent
facts.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The Presbyterians formed the largest, and, in point of social position,
the most respectable branch of English Nonconformists in the reign of
William. What most indicated their persistency and hope is discovered
in their numerous ordinations. Down to the time of the Revolution
they had been privately conducted. Just as the Prince of Orange was
being driven back to his native shores by untoward storms, a young man
named Joseph Hussey, who had been preaching for eight years, sought
the rite from the hands of Dr. Annesley and other Presbyterians. Not
in the meeting-house of Little St. Helen’s did the parties dare to
assemble, but at the Doctor’s “private dwelling in Spitalfields, in an
upper chamber.” There, on the 24th of October, 1688, the candidate,
as he himself reports, was examined “in the parts of learning by
the Elder, who took the chair and spoke in Latin.” The next day he
defended a thesis against the Papacy. Upon the 26th he was ordained.
The proceedings were begun and finished within the same chamber, in
a neighbourhood then losing the last vestiges of rural life under
the encroachments of weavers, driven from France by the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes.[491] As another instance of the privacy of
Nonconformist services, I would mention that the Lord’s Supper was
not publicly celebrated in the new chapel in Leeds until the month of
October, 1692.[492]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Ordinations emerged from private habitations when, in September,
1689, five ministers were ordained by Oliver Heywood and four of
his brethren, after a notice had been given that the service would
be held in the meeting-house at Alverthorpe, “to which whoever had a
desire might repair.” One of the candidates stood behind a chair, and
poured out a Latin discourse, which seemed to be _extempore_, but
which Heywood believed to be _memoriter_, upon the validity of
Presbyterian orders. This person behaved in an extraordinary manner the
next day, for he was seen “walking in a lane, reading a book,” whilst
the ordaining ministers were waiting for his appearance. After he had
arrived, and had given in his confession, “running through the whole
body of Divinity, according to Mr. Baxter’s _Methodus Theologiæ_,
we proceeded,” says Heywood, “to setting the candidates apart. I came
down, and there being a void space made, we made them kneel down, one
by one, while we all prayed over them.” This was succeeded by the
imposition of hands, the delivery of a Bible, the grasp of fellowship,
a charge to the ordained, and a sermon to the congregation. The
ministers assembled at eight o’clock, waited till ten for the eccentric
youth, and did not terminate the service before five in the afternoon,
when a dinner followed, at the charge of the ordained.
Another service occurred in 1690, with accompaniments still more
unseemly, the misbehaviour now being on the part of ordainers. The
service took place at Rathmel in Yorkshire. Oliver Heywood and other
Presbyterians came to share in the solemnity with two Independent
ministers. Strange as it appears, those who thus met had not agreed
what should be done; and one of the Independents, as Heywood reports,
urged objections which the Presbyterians undertook to answer. He
objected, amongst other things, that messengers from neighbouring
churches were not present, and that the minister in this case would
not be, as he ought, ordained in the midst of the congregation he
intended to serve. Both the Independents were desired to pray,
but they refused, “and sat by the whole day taking no part in the
proceedings.” The service, however, was decorously enough conducted
by the Presbyterians, who, touching the heads of the candidates,
offered prayer, and after presenting a Bible, gave the right hand of
fellowship. Heywood preached to the candidates and to the people,
and the whole ended with singing and prayer. If anybody had wished
to prejudice orderly people against Nonconformity, he could not have
followed a more effectual method than we find pursued by Independents
on this occasion.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
A few Presbyterians attempted to revive synodical action, and a
meeting with that view at Newbury created much stir--displeasing
Nonconformists, who regarded it as injudicious, and provoking
Churchmen, who urged it was unjust. Convocation remained in shackles;
why, then, should Presbyterian Synods be free?[493] This question was
asked, in forgetfulness of the obvious difference relative to the state
of voluntary churches on the one hand, and endowed churches on the
other.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
As ministers could not continue by reason of death, it became
necessary to reinforce the ranks. One young student of honourable
descent made his appearance in public life at this juncture. Edmund
Calamy--grandson of the Divine of the same name, who had been
Incumbent of Aldermanbury--after studying in Holland, where he had
accumulated stores of Dutch theology, returned to his native land,
and went down to Oxford, where he devoted himself to the study of
the question, whether he should enter the Church, or continue his
lot with Dissenters? Certainly if anybody ever gave himself to the
investigation of the subject, young Edmund did--for, first, he studied
the Bible; then he read several of the Fathers, with all sorts of
critical helps; then he perused Pearson, on the Ignatian Epistles,
as well as Monsieur Daillé and Larroque on the other side; then he
betook himself to the examination of Chillingworth’s _Religion of
Protestants_, which he carefully epitomized; then he attacked
Hooker’s _Ecclesiastical Polity_, and went through it book by
book, setting down the arguments with such remarks as they suggested;
then he turned to Jeremy Taylor’s _Ductor Dubitantium_, dealing
with this as he had done with the rest; and, lastly, with care he
read over the Articles, Liturgy, Homilies, and Canons of the Church
of England.[494] Such an amount of reading for the settlement of
opinion was very well for a youth of twenty-one, and, making allowance
for a bias derived from family traditions and from the ugly memories
of 1662, we must credit him with candour in looking at the subject
on all sides. According to his own account, his reading was chiefly
in favour of Episcopacy; yet his conclusion was decidedly in favour
of Nonconformity. The Nonconformity which he adopted, however, was
moderate; it shrunk neither from Episcopal orders, Liturgical worship,
nor the Establishment principle, but from certain things enforced by
the Church of England. He tells us himself that he would have received
ordination at the hands of a Bishop, “could he have found anyone that
would not have demanded a subscription and engagement to conformity,
and a subjection to the present ecclesiastical government.”[495]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
It is remarkable to find how much this young man engaged in preaching
when he had made up his mind upon ecclesiastical points. He occupied
pulpits wherever they were open. He seems to have been welcomed
everywhere--now officiating at the opening of a meeting-house, and
once at least preaching in a parish church.[496] He had conflicting
invitations. He describes a visit to Andover, where the meeting-house
was in a back yard, through which he had to pass, the people making a
lane for him and presenting their acknowledgments for his good sermon;
and how he found the parlour full of men, women, and children--amongst
them was a grave old woman with a high-crowned hat, who thanked him
civilly for his pains, telling him she thought a special Providence
had sent such a shepherd to such neglected sheep. The conversation,
however, as it went on proved less and less satisfactory, since
it turned out that these Andover folks were divided into parties,
the old lady’s Calvinistic sentiments being loftier even than her
steeple headgear.[497] Calamy travelled down to Bristol, the great
Nonconformist stronghold in the west, to preach to a congregation
of 1,500 people, and was met at Bath by a couple of gentlemen,
“with a man and horse,” to conduct him to his destination. Upon the
road others came to welcome the stranger, like the brethren who met
Paul at Appii-Forum, and brought him on his way “in a manner very
respectful.” Many of the congregation were wealthy, and they offered
him £100 a year and a house to live in, as assistant to their infirm
pastor. But, upon returning to London, Calamy decided on accepting
an invitation to assist Mr. Sylvester upon an allowance of £40 per
annum.[498] He had there the counterbalancing advantage of mixing in
the best Nonconformist society. He spent many an evening at the house
of Dr. Upton, in Warwick-court, where he met his colleague and Mr.
Lorimer, Mr. John Shower, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, Mr. Thomas Kentish, Mr.
Nathaniel Oldfield--names now little known, but celebrities in their
own day. Other ministerial meetings were kept up in Dr. Annesley’s
vestry, Little St. Helen’s, where once a month Latin disputations took
place. Whilst thus engaged, Calamy remained unordained. Desirous of
this rite, he successively requested Howe and Bates to take part in it.
But no public ordination had yet been held within the city precints.
Howe at first seemed pleased with the proposal, but afterwards
demurred, saying he must wait upon Lord Somers, and inquire whether
such a proceeding would not be taken ill at Court. Bates decidedly
declined, and continued to do so for reasons he would not communicate.
Matthew Mead was indirectly asked, but begged to be excused, because,
as an Independent, he feared he might offend some of his brethren by
joining in a Presbyterian ordination. The whole of the transaction is
enveloped in mystery; perhaps Bates had not given up all hopes of a
comprehension, and thought a public ordination might bar the way to it;
perhaps he had given some pledge not to engage in any such service;
perhaps Howe was not quite free from similar determents, and both might
for personal reasons be unwilling to do what they had no objection
should be done by others. My own impression is that both, especially
Howe, clung with tenacity to the idea of one united church in England,
and though they had little hope of seeing the idea turned into fact,
they shrunk from a service like public ordination as perpetuating a
separation they would fain have seen come to an end.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
At length Calamy and six others were publicly set apart to the
ministry, at Dr. Annesley’s meeting-house, by the Doctor himself,
Vincent Alsop, of Princes Street, Westminster, Daniel Williams, pastor
at Hand Alley, Bishopsgate Street, Richard Stretton, of Haberdashers’
Hall, Matthew Sylvester, of Carter Lane, and Thomas Kentish of the
Weigh-House. Annesley began with prayer; Alsop preached; Williams,
after another prayer, delivered a second sermon; then he read the
testimonials in favour of the candidates; next each of them delivered a
profession of faith; and then, one after another, different ministers
prayed; Sylvester followed with a charge, and concluded with a psalm
and a prayer.[499] The service lasted from before ten o’clock until
past six.
As vacancies in Nonconformist pastorates occurred, successors had to be
appointed; and it is amusing to meet in the Diaries of the day, cross
lights thrown upon the choice of ministers. The famous antiquarian
Thoresby was in 1693 a leading member of the old Dissenting Church at
Leeds. When deprived of its excellent instructor, Mr. Sharp, “we had
several meetings to consult in order to the choice of a successor. I
had the usual hap of moderators, to displease both the extremes. In
the interim I wrote to several ministers to supply his place. We rode
to Ovenden, and made our first application to Mr. Priestly, a person
of moderate principles, learned, ingenious, and pious; but the people
about Halifax and Horton could not be prevailed upon to resign their
interest in him, without which he was not willing to desert them. I
afterwards rode with some of the people to Pontefract, to solicit Mr.
Manlove, who was at first very compliant, yet after relapsed, but in
the conclusion accepted the call and removed to Leeds.”[500]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Glimpses are caught of meeting-house politics. Thoresby received
from his cousin a discouraging account of Mr. Manlove; but when this
candidate visited the people, Thoresby found an unanimous desire for
the man’s coming, testified by proffered subscriptions.[501] After this
person’s settlement at Leeds, the love of Thoresby towards him and the
old Dissent began to cool. His archæological pursuits brought him into
the society of ecclesiastical dignitaries, and he frequently attended
the parish church. By degrees his sympathy with Episcopalians deepened;
he received the sacrament with them--a proceeding which offended
old friends, and produced alienation. Attracted on the one side and
repelled on the other, after hanging for awhile in suspense between
the opposite communities, he found himself drawn into the bosom of the
Establishment. The Corporation elected him one of their fraternity, and
not long afterwards we find him saying: “I received a most comfortable
letter from my Lord Archbishop of York, answering many objections
against my Conformity, and gave me great satisfaction.”[502]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Fallings-off from Dissent happened in one place, accessions occurred in
another. A clergyman, named Michael Harrison, who had usually preached
at the church in Caversfield, gathered a congregation of Dissenters at
Potterspury, near Stony Stratford, and died a Nonconformist minister at
St. Ives.[503] Amidst the reproaches of High Churchmen at the growth
of Dissent, from Low Churchmen there were received expressions of
goodwill. Hough, Vicar of Halifax, stepped into Heywood’s new place of
worship at Northowram, and putting off his hat, exclaimed: “The good
Lord bless the Word preached in this place!”[504]
The education of boys, and the theological training of those designed
for the ministry, were matters of great anxiety during the reigns of
Charles II. and James II., and afterwards received increasing attention.
Seminaries for Dissenters did not in the seventeenth century attain
the dignified title of colleges. They were schools where youths were
educated for secular vocations, and only by degrees did they become
the resort of candidates for the ministry. There was no trust-deed,
no constituency, no council, but the entire management rested with
the person responsible for opening the institution. In the romantic
district of Craven, Richard Frankland, a learned ejected minister,
received pupils, but the Five-Mile Act drove him to Attercliffe. First
and last he educated three hundred youths for the professions of law
and of medicine, and for the work of the Christian ministry.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Archbishop Sharpe was requested by some of the Clergy to prevent
Frankland from proceeding in his labours. He consulted Tillotson as to
the best method of procedure, and received from him this reply: “His
instructing young men in so public a manner in University learning is
contrary to his oath to do, if he hath taken a degree in either of our
Universities, and I doubt, contrary to the Bishop’s oath to grant him
a licence for doing it; so that your Grace does not, in this matter,
consider him at all as a Dissenter. This I only offer to your Grace
as what seems to me the fairest and softest way of ridding your hands
of this business.” To explain this advice, it is proper to remark,
that in the Middle Ages, factions arose at Oxford and Cambridge, and
hosts of students, under some favourite professors, would march off
to Northampton or Stamford to set up rival schools and grant degrees.
Hence an oath came to be required of the University graduates, that in
no other places than in the favoured retreats on the Isis and the Cam
would they ever establish a scholastic lecture. It was in harmony with
Tillotson’s characteristic wariness to give such counsel, but it is
hardly worthy of his reputation for gentleness and Catholicity to put
the disconcerted Prelate up to the trick of masking the batteries of
intolerance under the specious cover of obsolete precedents.
It should be added, that Archbishop Sharpe behaved very courteously to
Frankland throughout this unpleasant business;[505] and also that other
Dissenting tutors in different ways were hindered by the opposition of
Churchmen.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Two other academies sprung out of Richard Frankland’s--one at
Attercliffe under the superintendence of Timothy Jollie, another
at Manchester under the care of John Chorlton. In the old town of
Shrewsbury, Francis Tallents established a seminary about the time
of the Revolution. At Taunton, Matthew Warren educated several young
gentlemen for the pastorate and for secular occupations. So did Samuel
Birch at an earlier period in Shilton. Joshua Oldfield also kept a
school at Coventry. John Woodhouse, of Sheriff Hales, Shropshire;
George Burden, of Somersetshire; Edmund Thorpe, of Sussex; Joseph
Bennet, of the same county; and Josiah Bassett, of Warwickshire, may be
added to the list of Nonconformist schoolmasters at different dates,
between the ejectment and the end of the century.
The Metropolis drew towards it several learned men in this capacity,
and Newington Green became “the favourite seat of the Dissenting
Muses.” There the learned Theophilus Gale, and the less known but
erudite and able Charles Morton, educated a number of young men. Edward
Veal had a school at Stepney, and Samuel Wesley, after having been a
pupil of Veal’s, became a student under Morton. Violent opposition to
the Established Church is said to have been fostered under Veal’s roof,
and this young man, who possessed a lively poetical talent, answered
invectives against Dissent by invectives against the Church, until,
from some cause which has been differently explained, he abandoned
Nonconformity, and one August morning in 1683, with forty-five
shillings in his pocket, walked all the way to Oxford, and entered
himself as a servitor of Exeter College. Samuel Wesley, in a letter
published in the year 1703, reflected upon the Dissenting academies,
and afterwards defended what he said in a reply to Mr. Palmer. Much
bitterness appeared in Wesley’s pamphlet, and he was accused of
ingratitude for assailing institutions, to one of which he had been
indebted for a gratuitous education. Palmer vindicated the academies
from the charge brought against them; but, by a curious coincidence,
he like Wesley gave up all connection with Dissent, and obtained the
living of Maldon, in Essex.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Thomas Doolittle, of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and Thomas Vincent,
of Christ Church, Oxford, united in conducting, until within a short
time before his death in 1708, an academy at Islington. Thither Philip
Henry sent his son Matthew, and immediately after his arrival the
young man wrote to his sisters, informing them that in his tutor’s
meeting-house “there are several galleries. It is all pewed, and a
brave pulpit a great height above the people,” adding, in the same
letter: “I perceive that Mr. Doolittle is very studious and diligent,
and that Mrs. Doolittle and her daughter are very fine and gallant.”
During Matthew Henry’s stay at Islington he pursued a course of reading
which bore upon the Christian ministry, but when he left that place he
studied law for a time at Gray’s Inn, although it does not appear that
he ever thought of entering the legal profession. The fact is, that the
elder educated Nonconformists of that day valued all kinds of learning,
and were anxious that their children, especially if designed for the
ministry, should traverse the widest curriculum of study. Further, it
may be mentioned that Ralph Button, fellow and tutor of Merton, Oxford,
who died in 1680, conducted another academy at Islington.
Dissenting academies could not resemble national Universities. A
variety of professors, extensive libraries, aristocratic society were
beyond their reach, and polite literature and the graces of composition
were but little cultivated. Too much time was given to the study of
dead languages--a mistake, indeed, shared by the Universities. A keen
observer, Daniel De Foe, noticed this defect, and pointed out how
absurd it was, that all the time should be spent on the languages which
learning was to be _fetched from_, and none on the language it was
to be _delivered in_. To this error he attributed the fact that
many learned, and otherwise excellent, ministers preached away their
congregations, “while a jingling, noisy boy, that had a good stock
in his face, and a dysentery of the tongue, though he had little or
nothing in his head, should run away with the whole town.”[506]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Youths of all sorts were admitted into these academies, as into modern
boarding-schools; hence some pupils might be of doubtful character.
Also prejudices against the Church of England would naturally arise.
Amongst the elder pupils the controversies of other days would be
revived, and enthusiastic spirits would tilt a lance on the side
of “the good old cause.” Charles I. and Charles II. would be no
favourites; James II.’s Popery would be denounced; Cromwell would be
excused and praised; and William III. lauded to the skies. In the
common room where students unbent, there might be fun and laughter;
in the private study there might be other volumes than classical and
theological text-books; levity and idleness probably existed in these
gatherings of great boys and young men; and damaging charges, no
doubt, could be substantiated against some of them; but the character
of these maligned institutions must, after all, be judged by their
courses of study, by the character of their professors, and by their
educational results. These tests being applied, lead to a favourable
conclusion. The studies combined logic, metaphysics, and ethics, with
readings in Colbert, Le Clerc, Suarez, More, Cicero, and Epictetus;
natural and political philosophy, with the use of Aristotle, Descartes,
and Vossius; and the perusal of Latin and Greek historians and poets.
Candidates for the pastoral office read Divinity, and studied the Greek
Testament with such critical helps as were afforded in those times. We
are assured that in lectures the Church of England was treated with
respect, the Predestinarian controversy was discussed with moderation,
and Monarchical maxims of government were upheld.[507]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
What the most distinguished teachers were, and what many of the pupils
became, may be seen in preceding pages.
I must not conclude this chapter without stating that as these
academies were interrupted by intolerant laws, common schools also
were subject to the same inconvenience. Cunning methods were sometimes
adopted by schoolmasters, or were alleged to be so, with the view of
overcoming clerical opposition,[508] and occasion was given for the
display of an unseemly spirit even by Bishops otherwise exemplary;
bad mutual relations consequently in many quarters existed between
Churchmen and Nonconformists.
CHAPTER XIX.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
During the Civil Wars, heartburnings existed between Presbyterians and
Independents. They continued under the Protectorate, they diminished
after the Restoration, and it might have been hoped would then have
died out for ever; but unhappily they revived when the Revolution had
set both parties at liberty. When old persecutions ended in England, it
could not be said, as it was when Saul of Tarsus ceased to breathe out
threatenings and slaughter, “then had the Church rest.” Whatever might
be the dispositions of some--and certainly Howe and others were lovers
of peace--ancient animosities exploded afresh. What happened at the
Rathmel ordination indicated this; other proofs will appear.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
An effort at union was, however, made in 1690, under the form of
articles agreed to by the Dissenting ministers. They were published,
under the title of “_Heads of Agreement_, assented to by the
united ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian
and Congregational.” This document is worth attention, not only
as an experiment to bring together different parties, but also as
indicating modifications of opinion on both sides. The Presbyterians
and Independents, who after the Revolution adopted these Articles,
could not have held exactly the same views as did Presbyterians
and Independents before the Restoration. The former must now have
abandoned all notions of parish presbyteries and provincial synods,
and must have approximated to the Congregational idea of what used to
be called “gathered churches,” or limited communities, resting on a
principle of mutual choice. Reference is made to parochial bounds as
not being of divine right; yet for common edification, the members
of a particular church, it is said, ought, as far as convenient, to
live near each other. A great deal was conceded by Presbyterians, when
they allowed that each church has a right to choose its own officers,
and that no officers of any one church shall exercise any power
over any other church.[509] The Independents also must have passed
through a change, inasmuch as they now ceased to insist upon the duty
of church members entering into formal covenants, and allowed that,
in the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastor and
elders to _rule_ and _govern_, and to the brotherhood to
_consent_, according to the rule of the Gospel. They also tacitly
admitted that a man might be ordained to the work of the ministry
without having a specific pastoral charge, and that the pastors or
bishops of neighbouring churches should concur in the ordination of a
new pastor or bishop over a particular congregation.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
In the chapter relative to the communion of churches, the Independents
of the Revolution showed more disposition towards unity than their
predecessors had done, and the chapter indicates an approach to
Presbyterian government.[510] Seeds of concord between the two
denominations bore some fruit in the provinces. An association
combining them grew up in Devon and Cornwall, and Flavel preached and
presided at its first meeting. In Hampshire and Norfolk the plan met
with favour. So it did in Nottinghamshire, and in the neighbourhood of
Manchester, where, however, Independents were few. It was warmly taken
up in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and at Wakefield a united meeting
was held, when Heywood preached from Zech. xiv. 9: “In that day shall
there be one Lord, and His name one.” It seems that the townspeople at
Wakefield were alarmed at the influx of ministers walking through their
streets--the fashionably-dressed people of the reign of William III.,
in their jaunty costume, looking with curiosity and suspicion upon
the Puritan garb and the staid demeanour of their visitors. Yet these
reverend gentlemen did not amount in number to more than twenty-four,
and “when the service at Mrs. Kirby’s” was over, “they thought it
prudent to go apart, and by several ways, to the house at which they
dined.”[511]
A violent controversy--which, before its close, ran through both
Calvinistic and Socinian questions, and gathered up personal
entanglements--started into life soon after the Act of Toleration
had been passed. The doctrines of Justification, the Atonement, and
Christ’s Divinity came successively within its range. Combatant after
combatant entered the field, and although the antagonists, for the
most part, were Nonconformists, they managed, before they had done, to
involve one or two distinguished Churchmen within the coils of their
dispute.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The scene of the first stage was the little town of Rowell, in
Northamptonshire, where a devoted Puritan, named John Beverley, had
created a considerable sensation in the days of the Commonwealth, and
out of this a church had sprung. After the Revolution, Richard Davis,
from the Principality, became minister; and as an indication of his
narrow and jealous independence, it is mentioned that he was “installed
in the office of pastor or bishop” by the church itself, and by that
church alone, some pastors of other congregations, who had come “to
behold their faith and order,” withdrawing from the assembly, because
there was nothing for them to do. Brooking no restraint, he made the
whole county of Northampton his diocese, and went from place to place
preaching and gathering converts into his fold. He enflamed others with
ardour like his own, and became the centre of a wide circle of lay
agency. People living at a great distance were brought into fellowship
with the band at Rowell, and they would, lantern in hand, trudge twenty
miles along dirty roads on winter mornings to hear him preach, and in
the same way go back at night. Offshoots from this vigorous community
became in time distinct societies. These proceedings soon excited
jealousy, and the jealous were not slow to accuse the lay agents of
ignorance, and their superintendent of great imprudence.[512] A noisy
revival broke out in February, 1692, and the press was soon employed
in giving what is called _A Plain and Just Account of a most Horrid
and Dismal Plague at Rowell_, in which tract the “visions and
revelations” of Richard Davis and his “emissaries, the shoemakers,
joiners, dyers, tailors, weavers, farmers, &c.,” are odiously
exhibited. Tidings of this reached London, and attracted the attention
of respectable Presbyterian ministers, who were as much shocked as
it was possible for any Episcopalians to be. What was worse, heresy,
as reported, mingled with wildfire, and Davis stood charged with
maintaining that believers always appear before God without sin; that
if they do wrong they are still without spot; that prayers are offered
more for the sake of discovering guilt to their own consciences, than
for securing forgiveness from God; and that Christ fulfilled the
covenant of grace, “and believed for us as our representative.” Oddly
enough, this Antinomian preacher is said to have entertained an idea
that baptism in the parish church is invalid, for this, amongst other
reasons, that the administrators are not of Christ’s sending. Davis
defended himself as best he could, and the church of which he was
pastor vindicated his character, denying some ridiculous stories, yet
speaking of his ministry in terms corroborative of its high Calvinistic
type.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
The second stage of this controversy appears in London. The Calvinism
of the Commonwealth had by no means perished. Old books bearing its
impress, old preachers repeating its echoes, remained, and wherever
sympathies with it continued to thrive, of course the Northamptonshire
pastor found advocates. Just at this moment an insignificant incident
fanned the flame. A son of the noted Dr. Tobias Crisp reprinted his
father’s works, with additions from unpublished papers; and very
artfully, the editor procured the names of some well-known Divines,
simply, as he said, to attest the genuineness of the MSS.--a thing
perfectly superfluous--really, as he must have meant, to promote the
sale of the new edition. Crisp was a Predestinarian of the first water,
and maintained the doctrine of Election and the limitation of the
Atonement in the narrowest and most repulsive form.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The excitement produced by this book, in connection with the
disturbance created by Davis, was wonderful. The advocates of High
Calvinism hailed it as the commencement of a millennium; they talked
and preached and wrote with renewed vigour, and those who opposed them
were denounced as legalists. On both sides bitterness increased. The
more Crisp’s book was condemned, the more it was read. Its circulation
was greatest amongst the uneducated, who praised the author up to the
skies. The editor informs us that, in so unlikely a place as Guildhall,
at one of the livery meetings, he was accosted by a citizen, who
wrung him by the hand, and, with tears in his eyes, thanked him for
reprinting his father’s sermons.
Daniel Williams, a Presbyterian minister, formerly of Dublin, and at
the time of the Revolution presiding over a numerous congregation at
Hand Alley, in Bishopsgate Street, was then rising into eminence; and
being a moderate Calvinist, he determined to oppose the circulation
of Crisp’s work. Consequently, in 1692, he published his _Gospel
Truth Vindicated_, in which Crisp’s dogmas are arranged, errors
are separated from truths, and confutations supplied, not only from
Scripture, but also from other writings of that very Divine. Prefixed
to Williams’ book is a list of approving theologians, including Bates,
Howe, Alsop, and Lorimer.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
This publication led to unpleasant complications, and to understand
them we must refer to the celebrated lectures delivered in Pinners’
Hall. Lectures in the heart of the Metropolis had been popular when
Puritanism was at its zenith. Merchants turned from their walk in
the Exchange and their seats in the counting-house, to listen to a
favourite preacher as he meted out his message by the hour-glass.
When Indulgence came, Pinners’ Hall happened to be vacant, and being
conveniently situated in Broad Street, it was hired for a Wednesday
morning exercise. Four Presbyterians and two Independents undertook
to officiate in succession. Dr. Bates, Dr. Manton, Mr. Baxter, and
Mr. Jenkyn, had as their associates Dr. Owen and Mr. Collins. From
the beginning, however, unfortunate bickerings appeared, and at the
Revolution dogmatic differences became increasingly manifest--the
Independents were more Calvinistic than their Presbyterian brethren.
The circumstances of this Lecture perhaps had something to do with the
way in which the Northamptonshire quarrel was taken up, certainly it
added fuel to the fire kindled by the republication of Crisp’s works.
In 1692, of the old Pinners’ Hall lecturers only Bates remained, his
new colleagues being Williams and Alsop. The other new lecturers were
Mead and Cole, decidedly Independent, and John Howe, who, although
previously reckoned amongst Independents, seems by this time to have
associated chiefly with Presbyterians, and to have had more sympathy in
their temper than in that manifested by some of his active Independent
brethren. Attempts at union entirely failed. Storms of feeling could
not be allayed by verbal incantation, and a contemporary, who narrowly
watched the proceedings, deplored the absence of a healing spirit.[513]
Williams, by his book against Crisp, offended some of the supporters
of the Lecture--a circumstance which led to discussion amongst the
lecturers; and in 1694, Williams was voted out, and three of the
number--Bates, Howe, and Alsop--withdrew from Pinners’ to Salters’
Hall, and commenced a distinct lecture there. Cole and Mead, the two
Independents, remained in the old place, and associated with themselves
four other Independents--Mather, Cruso, Lobb, and Gouge.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
But I must hasten to the third stage of this intricate dispute, when,
in 1695, Stephen Lobb, “the Jacobite Independent,” charged Williams
with implicitly denying the commutation of persons between Christ and
believers, because he had denied such a relation as Crisp maintained,
who went so far as to declare Christ to be by imputation as sinful as
man, and the believer to become through faith as righteous as Christ.
This led to explanations too wearisome for notice. If anyone will take
the trouble to look into what Williams wrote, he will be astonished to
find a man, who went so far in his notions of the union between the
Mediator and His people, suspected of not believing in the Atonement;
and he will discover a signal instance of the intolerable demands which
some will make upon others, in order to enlist from them a full amount
of prescribed orthodoxy.
The battle raged hotter and hotter. Williams was even accused of
Socinianism, and not content with robbing him of all claim to
orthodoxy, his exasperated opponents tried to filch from him his
virtuous reputation. But he kept them at bay, and at last completely
overcame them.[514]
Towards the end, two distinguished Churchmen came upon the stage--Dr.
Jonathan Edwards, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and Bishop
Stillingfleet--both of whom were appealed to by the disputants as to
the doctrine of Commutation, and the charge of Socinianism brought
against Williams. The Bishop, of course, contradicted Crisp’s absurd
notion, and pronounced Williams innocent of heterodoxy.
It is said that the number of Antinomians amongst Nonconformists
diminished after the close of the controversy.
CHAPTER XX.
Dissenters cannot be charged with an absorbing attachment to their
distinctive system; they valued more the common truths of Christianity,
but they were prepared to vindicate their own ecclesiastical views
and to repel aspersions. David Clarkson, who had before published
books on Episcopacy, in answer to Stillingfleet, sent forth in 1689
his discourse on Liturgies. The charge of being schismatical, laid
at the doors of Nonconformists, led Matthew Henry to publish in the
same year a _Discourse concerning the Nature of Schism_, in which
he endeavoured to prove, that there may be schism where there is no
separation, and that there may be separation where there is no schism.
The discourse being attacked, William Tong, in the year 1693, came
forward in its defence, maintaining that the want of charity, not the
want of particular ministerial orders, creates sinful schism; and
that to charge the crime upon such Dissenters as cultivate candour,
liberality, and love, is “a piece of diabolism which the Gospel abhors,
and of which humanity itself will be ashamed;” and complained at the
end, “that non-resistance and passive obedience was the universal cry
in the Church, and squeezed till the blood came: but the mischief was,
when they had nursed the prerogative, till it had stung some of them
and hissed at all the rest, they presently let the world see they
never brewed this doctrine for their own drinking.”
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
James Owen, a learned Presbyterian minister, published in 1694 a plea
for Presbyterian ordination, and afterwards composed another essay
in support of his views, showing that neither Timothy nor Titus were
diocesan rulers; that the presbyters of Ephesus, not Timothy and Titus,
were successors to the Apostles in the government of the Church;
that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the meeting at
Miletus; and that the ancient Waldenses did not acknowledge diocesan
prelates. This course of reasoning is a specimen of the manner in which
Presbyterians were wont to state and defend their own system.
But Nonconformist polemics were not confined to the maintenance of a
common cause; they took an internecine turn, not only in connection
with the Crisp affair, but in connection with occasional conformity.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
By the Corporation Act, everyone holding a municipal office was
required to receive the Lord’s Supper in the Church of England. Sir
John Shorter, a Presbyterian, had by such conformity qualified himself
to act as Lord Mayor of the city of London in the reign of James II.,
and two distinguished Dissenters in the following reign occupied the
same civic post and adopted the same policy. Sir Humphrey Edwin was
Lord Mayor in 1697, and, dressed in a gown of crimson velvet, carried
the city sword before William, as, on his return from the Continent, he
passed through London with the customary pomp of a public procession.
He not only conformed at certain times during his mayoralty, but he
also, on one occasion when he attended Divine Service at Pinners’ Hall
Meeting-house, caused the civic paraphernalia to be carried before him.
I am not aware whether any other Lord Mayor did this. Sir Humphrey
Edwin might be said to bring the State over to Nonconformity, as at
other times, when he knelt at the altars of the Establishment, he
brought Nonconformity over to the State. At all events, his conduct
subjected him to annoying criticism. He was attacked by a clergyman who
preached before the Corporation in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ballads and
lampoons, caricaturing what he had done, were hawked about the streets,
and Swift, in his _Tale of the Tub_, satirized Sir Humphrey in his
well-known reference to Jack’s tatters coming into fashion, and his
getting upon a great horse and eating custard. Tragical exclamations
were uttered in High Church circles, and in a publication of later
date it is declared, that “to the great reproach of the laws, and of
the city magistracy,” the Mayor “carried the sword with him to a nasty
conventicle, that was kept in one of the City Halls, which horrid
crime one of his own party defended by giving this arrogant reason for
it, that by the Act of Parliament by which they have their liberty,
their religion was as much established as ours.”[515] The Lord Mayor’s
proceeding did not meet with the approbation of his co-religionists.
They felt the injustice of the attacks which it had occasioned; it
seemed to them inconsistent and arrogant for Churchmen to speak in the
way they did of a religion which had the same object of worship, the
same rule of faith and life, and the same end and aim as their own; yet
they saw that Sir Humphrey’s conduct had been such as naturally to lead
to misapprehension and to produce annoyance. Calamy lamented that “this
measure drew unhappy consequences after it, both in this reign and in
that which succeeded.”[516]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Sir Thomas Abney, a Presbyterian, became Lord Mayor of London in the
year 1701. Prior to that date he had favoured occasional Conformity.
When in office he attended church. This occasioned a controversy
between two Nonconformists, who regarded the conduct of Abney and Edwin
from different points of view.
Daniel De Foe, who had been educated in Mr. Morton’s academy with a
view to becoming a Presbyterian minister, and then found the study of
politics and the pursuits of literature more congenial to his taste,
distinguished himself by a firm attachment to Nonconformist principles,
and carried them out to an extreme extent. He had written about half
a dozen clever pamphlets in about fifteen years, and was on the point
of commencing that career as an author which made him so notorious
among contemporaries, so popular with posterity, when, in 1697, he
published anonymously an _Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of
Dissenters_. In his own trenchant style, with vigorous Anglo-Saxon
idioms, employed after a rasping fashion, he declared that none but
Protestants halt between God and Baal; none but Christians of an
amphibious nature could believe one way, and worship another.
In the year of Sir Thomas Abney’s mayoralty, De Foe republished
his _Enquiry_, and prefixed to it a preface addressed to John
Howe. John Howe was Sir Thomas’s pastor, and addressing him, De Foe
demanded that Howe should declare to the world, whether the practice
of alternate communion was allowed either by his congregation, or by
Dissenters in general. The practice, he said, should be defended if
defensible, otherwise “the world must believe that Dissenters do allow
themselves to practice what they cannot defend.”
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Howe being dragged before the public, referred to his own moderate
views in points of difference between Conformists and Nonconformists,
but denied having advised Sir Thomas as to his conduct; he declined to
enter upon the question, and only contended that occasional conformity
to one communion, if a fault, should not exclude a person from habitual
fellowship with another. De Foe had taken up occasional Conformity as
a qualification for holding office, and had shown that so regarded it
is incapable of vindication; but Howe regarded the question generally,
and proved that a person who, apart from worldly motives, communes
with one church on particular occasions, and with another church on
common occasions, does nothing which impeaches his conscientiousness or
destroys his consistency.
The author’s calm temper becomes ruffled towards the close, when he
alludes to the “stingy and narrow spirit” of his opponent, and to his
seeking to impose upon the world a false impression of the English
Puritans. He declared that in 1662 “most of the considerable ejected
London ministers met and agreed to hold occasional communion with the
now re-established Church, not quitting their own ministry or declining
the exercise of it as they could have opportunity.”[517]
De Foe replied, vindicating his own character, and animadverting upon
Howe’s want of zeal. The latter having reluctantly taken part in this
business, could not be induced to say another word. The spirit of
Howe had greatly the advantage over the temper of De Foe; nothing but
one-sided partizanship could induce any man to charge the advocate of
occasional communion with disloyalty to Nonconformist principles.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Nonconformist preaching was orthodox. The existing generation,
however, deviated from their father’s footsteps. Sermons differed
from those of an earlier period in form: divisions were less numerous
and perplexing, bones were not so visible, there was more symmetry
of proportion, and more roundness of style. In spirit some preachers
diverged from their predecessors--betraying a lack of fire, unction,
and healing power. Nevertheless, there were pastors who caught the
mantle and spirit of the departed. Anyone visiting “the ancient and
fair city of Chester” found a specimen of this in the ministry of
Matthew Henry. At a meeting-house in Crook Street--still in existence,
as I have already said, with the original pulpit and sounding-board,
from which the good man delivered his homilies--he had a congregation
so large, that ultimately it contained as many as 350 communicants,
including a few city magnates. They assembled in their large oaken
pews at 9 o’clock on a Sunday morning, the richer men in curly wigs,
lace ruffles, and ample broad cloth suits; their wives and daughters
with long stomachers, hoops, and lofty head-dresses; but beneath
costumes fashioned by the fancies of the age, they carried in their
hearts wants, cares, and desires belonging to all ages, and such as the
worship and ministry upon which they attended were adapted to meet and
satisfy.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
The service began with the hundredth psalm, according to the version of
Sternhold and Hopkins; and then we can easily image the pastor beneath
the huge sounding-board, standing erect--portly in form, dignified in
mien, comely in face, his person set off to advantage by a curled wig
and a flowing gown--offering prayer and next expounding a lesson in
the Old Testament. The matter and manner may be learnt from perusing
his _Commentary_, where, in the picturesque quaintness of his
thoughts, he aims not at singularity, but at fixing Divine truth in
people’s memories and hearts. Another psalm and a longer supplication
succeeded, and judging from his book on prayer, he must have excelled
in that form of spiritual exercise. Then followed a sermon full of
useful practical thought, arranged in singular devices, after Puritan
precedents; for Matthew had great reverence for the ways of his father
Philip, and of his father’s friends. What is said of the sire may be
said of the son: “Many a good thought has perished because it was not
portable, and many a sermon is forgotten, because it is not memorable;
but like seeds with wings, the sayings of Henry have floated far and
near, and like seeds with hooked prickles, his sermons stuck in his
most careless hearers. His tenacious words took root; and it was his
happiness to see, not only scriptural intelligence but fervent and
consistent piety spreading among his parishioners.”[518] Singing and
praying wound up the service, after it had lasted some three hours.
This protracted worship would be deemed sufficient for one day; but in
the afternoon the same thing was repeated, the exposition of the New
Testament being substituted for that of the Old. We are apt to pity men
who performed or endured such lengthened duties, but really the duty
cannot be regarded as having involved much hardship for them. Such long
services were their own choice. Some might fancy that under the weight
of these prayers, these expositions, and these sermons, every Sabbath
regularly for twenty-four years, the pastor’s strength would break
down; yet the good man seems to have borne the wear and tear of it all
remarkably well.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The Lord’s Supper he celebrated monthly, remarking that “among the
Jews, the beginning of the month was esteemed sacred; and although
he did not consider the Jewish law as to the new moons still in
force, yet from general reasoning he thought the conclusion a safe
one, that whatsoever may be our divisions of time, it is always good
to begin such divisions with God--seeking first His kingdom and its
righteousness.”[519]
He was impressive in his mode of administering baptism, which he
likened to the taking of a beneficial lease for a child while in
the cradle, and putting his life into it. He used the Assembly’s
Catechism, and when “he perceived in any of his catechumens symptoms of
thoughtfulness upon religious subjects, he specially noticed them, and
as soon as there was a competent number, conversed with them severally
and apart upon their everlasting interests; afterwards in the solemn
Assembly, he catechised them concerning the Lord’s Supper, by a form
which he printed.” He next appointed a day in the week preceding the
monthly sacrament, in which, before the congregation, he was their
intercessor at the Heavenly Throne: a sermon was addressed to them,
and the following Sabbath they were welcomed to the Lord’s-table.
“Such in his judgment, as in that of his father also, was the true
_confirmation_, or transition into a state of adult and complete
church membership.” He considered the ordinances of Christ as
mysteries, of which His ministers are the stewards, and in admitting
any to membership, “they were entrusted with the keys.”[520] Holding
this view, he kept in his own hands the exercise of discipline; and
on one occasion he pronounced sentence of excommunication on three
persons, the act being accompanied by a congregational fast.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Neighbouring villages were visited, and periodical lectures
established. Twice a year county unions met, when ecclesiastical
matters came under discussion. “Affairs of the State or the Established
Church were never meddled with.”[521]
The account I have given applies particularly to Presbyterians, but
association meetings were also held by Independents. They did not,
however, at these gatherings ordain ministers; ordinations amongst them
generally took place in the presence of the church members by whom
the pastor was chosen. Orders--technically speaking--maintained by
Presbyterians as well as Episcopalians, could scarcely be said to be
recognized by Congregationalists, who considered ordination simply as
an acknowledgment of the church’s act in electing ministers. The key to
the difference between the two denominations is found, on the one hand,
in the Presbyterian idea of power being lodged in the ministry, and,
on the other hand, in the Congregational idea of power being lodged in
the people; and as this distinction and difference affected the subject
of ordination, so it did that of admission and discipline. Admission
of members amongst Congregationalists depended upon a vote of the
church, after an account had been given of the candidate’s religious
character. Congregational churches were not all alike as to terms of
admission. Some were narrow and severe. They exacted circumstantial
proofs of conversion, and an ample confession of faith. In not a few
cases this was required to be given in writing. Others accepted the
children of members, to use their quaint language, when they took hold
of their father and mother’s covenant, and expressed their confidence
in Christ’s passion, and repentance from dead works. The Church having
nothing to object to “their walking,” they were permitted to partake of
the Ordinance of the Supper, and were confirmed.[522]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Yet churches less exacting in terms of admission were curiously
vigilant in the oversight of members, and would call people to
account even for lying in bed, instead of coming to the communion;
for consulting a lawyer on a Sunday afternoon; and for going to a
cock-fight when the brethren were met to seek God.[523] Acts of
discipline depended upon church votes, and sometimes differences of
opinion arose between pastor and people.
An instance of the manner in which the Independents of the village
of Guestwick, in Norfolk, invited a minister, and prepared for his
reception, is preserved in their church book. They set forward for
London about the beginning of the month of October, 1694, and from
thence to Chalfont in Buckinghamshire, with letters from the church
to the gentleman whom they wished to become their pastor. If he would
come, the church would comply with what he desired. At last they
obtained his consent, the tidings of which were forwarded to the
church. One of the deacons tarried to accompany him and his family.
They went by coach, and were met by several of the brethren at
Swaffham the 1st of November, and arrived at Guestwick the 2nd, at
night. The charges which the church and other friends incurred for
this expenditure amounted to nearly £20. A similar entry of later date
may be found in the Yarmouth Congregational Church-Book, relative to a
coach and four being sent for the conveyance of their new Bishop.[524]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
When ministers grew old and needed assistance, churches were ready to
contribute an additional income. At Cockermouth the aged pastor wished
his son to be associated with him; consequently, the people agreed to
give a call for that purpose, and a letter accordingly was drawn up
and numerously signed. Previously “they subscribed to make him £30 per
annum, with a great deal of readiness and freedom.”[525]
Congregations testified their interest in public events. At the place
just mentioned, in January, 1689, the people assembled to seek the Lord
for the Convention, held that day in London for settling the nation.
The pastor spoke from Psalm lxxxii. 1. In February, 1698, “the church
passed a day of prayer for the Protestants in France;” and in the
following November they kept a solemnity for God’s deliverance of the
nation and the Church from “the Popish hellish powder-plot;” also “for
saving the nation from Popery and slavery by the landing of the Prince
of Orange.” When the pastor died, December, 1700, the church recorded
his last words: “Lord, remember my poor brethren in France.”[526]
The Independent mode of conducting worship resembled the Presbyterian.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were observed by both much in the same
way. The latter was celebrated in most places once a month; in some,
once in six weeks.[527]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Ecclesiastical revenues of course were voluntary. The expense of
educating men for the ministry was met by parents or friends;
assistance in some cases being provided out of charitable funds.
The Fund Board was established soon after the Revolution, and from
its proceeds young candidates received grants. To this fund the
Presbyterians contributed £2,000, and the Independents nearly £1,700,
a year. Assistance also proceeded from an endowment under the will of
a Mr. Trotman, who, after the Act of Uniformity, bequeathed property
for Nonconformist purposes. The trustees were ejected ministers,
almost all of them belonging to the Independent denomination; and
they afforded small exhibitions to persons studying for the ministry.
Amongst distinguished beneficiaries were Stephen Lobb, who entered
Trinity College, Oxford, in 1679; Benjamin Chandler, who studied
at the same University; Samuel Wesley, who, for awhile, as we have
seen, contemplated being a Dissenting pastor; William Payne, of
Saffron Walden, a friend of John Owen; and the celebrated divine and
poet, Isaac Watts, the last of whom received aid from the Fund Board
also.[528]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
The support of Dissenting pastors depended mainly upon their flocks.
Sometimes, as we have seen, money was raised for the erection of
meeting-houses by the sale of pews, which became the property of the
purchasers; but in such cases, as well as others, the salary of the
minister principally arose from the subscriptions of the people.
Endowments in certain cases increased the revenues, but sometimes,
where churches had no such resources and needed sustentation, grants
were made from the Fund Board. Trotman’s Trust availed in a small
degree for ministerial support, as well as education, so long as any
of the ejected survived, and the money bequeathed to them lasted; for
by his will he left £500 to poor ministers, who had been removed from
“their employment” in the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity.
We have noticed the public worship of Nonconformists. It is worth while
to advert to Sundays at home. In many a farmhouse and city dwelling,
the master called his household round him in the evening, to read a
chapter and to ask religious questions; all being catechised, from the
old servant by the door to the child who sat beside the cosy hearth,
within the folds of mamma’s ornamented apron. Perhaps a discourse was
read, a psalm sung, and a prayer offered. The young folks might have
looked sleepy before all was over, and some of the older ones might
with difficulty have kept their eyes open; but there were men and women
who could say at the end of these Puritan Sabbaths, with the Henry
family at Broad Oak: “If this be not heaven, it is the way to it.”
The relation of the pastor to his flock was intimate. He was their
guide and counsellor. Families grew up calling him their own friend and
their father’s friend; for the pastoral bond was rarely broken in those
days, except by death or some very remarkable circumstance.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Of the character of the early Nonconformists, testimony is borne by
Dr. Watts, who loved to cherish memories of the old Dissent, as he had
seen it in his young days. No doubt we sometimes deceive ourselves
in looking down the vista of the past. A transparent haze mellows the
whole; perhaps fancy takes liberties with the details, and lays on
tints of her own. How more than halcyon were the times of the Confessor
from the distance of the reign of Rufus; yet there was truth in the
Saxon’s estimate, under a Norman dynasty, of a former generation.
Unquestionably, there is truth in Watts’ review. He refers mainly to
a period rather earlier than that embraced within this chapter, yet
the light of Puritanism’s autumn day did not expire so long as Baxter
and Howe survived; Watts mentions the reverence of Dissenters for the
name of God, of their strict observance of the Sabbath, of their habits
of religious conversation, of their regular discharge of religious
duties, of their nonconformity to the world, and of their economical
expenditure.
But all was not sunshine in the old Dissent. Indeed, Watts lamented
the changes he witnessed. So did Howe; his lamentations being deepened
by the loss of early friends--“so many great lights withdrawn, both
such as were within the National Church Constitution, and such as were
without it.” And, no doubt, in connection with altered circumstances
and the advance of free ecclesiastical opinion, there came a
considerable decline of spiritual fervour. The strain and tension of
earlier religious life almost ceased. As in the Church of England there
was more calmness and moderation in Tillotson, Tenison, and Burnet, for
example, than in Cosin and Ward--so it was with Dissenters, as appears
when we compare such a man as Matthew Henry with such a man as Richard
Baxter, or when we place Edmund Calamy by the side of his grandfather.
CHAPTER XXI.
One by one in the reign of our third William the fathers of the old
Dissent passed away. They just saw the morning of religious liberty,
they just touched the border of the land of promise, they dwelt under
its vines and fig-trees for a very little while, and then died in peace.
Philip Henry expired in the summer of 1696. A few candidates for the
ministry, who had in private academies gone through what they termed
a University course, were permitted to reside at Broad Oak, and to
listen to the instructions of its master. “You come to me,” he would
say, “as Naaman did to Elisha, expecting that I should do this and the
other thing for you, and, alas! I can but say as he did: ‘Go wash in
Jordan.’ Go study the Scriptures. I profess to teach no other learning
but Scripture learning.”
Philip Henry reminds us of John Bunyan’s pilgrims in the land of
Beulah, as we read the following passage, written not long before his
death: “Methinks it is strange that it should be your lot and mine to
abide so long on earth by the stuff, when so many of our friends are
dividing the spoil above, but God will have it so; and to be willing to
live in obedience to His holy will is as true an act of grace, as to
be willing to die when He calls, especially when life is labour and
sorrow. But when it is labour and joy, service to His name, and some
measure of success and comfort in serving Him, when it is to stop a gap
and stem a tide, it is to be rejoiced in--it is heaven upon earth.”
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The shadow of death in mid-winter enveloped another scarcely less
famous Puritan home. Samuel Annesley, an older man than Philip Henry by
twelve years, with a ministerial history which ran far back into the
troubles of the Commonwealth and Civil Wars, continued to preach in
Little St. Helen’s to a congregation of wealthy citizens, amongst whom
might be seen Daniel De Foe,[529] sometimes the eccentric John Dunton,
and at an earlier time the almost equally eccentric Samuel Wesley, the
two latter being married to two of Annesley’s daughters. Of a hardy
constitution, still more indurated by severe personal habits, Annesley
could bear the greatest cold without hat, gloves, or fire. He drank
little besides water, and to the day of his death could read small
print without spectacles.[530] The pastor’s family was large, for Dr.
Manton, baptizing one of them, asked how many children he had. Annesley
returned for answer, that he believed it was two dozen or a quarter
of a hundred; “this reckoning children by dozens,” says Dunton, “was
a thing so very uncommon, that I have heard Dr. Annesley mention it
with a special remark.” He to the last retained great influence amongst
the Presbyterians, having, “the care of all the churches on his mind,
and being a great support of Dissenting ministers and of the Morning
Lecture.” He entered his pulpit for the last time, saying, “I must work
while it is day,” and died with ecstatic exclamations on his lips: “I
have no doubt nor shadow of doubt--all is clear between God and my
soul. He chains up Satan; he cannot trouble me. Come, dear Jesus! the
nearer the more precious, and the more welcome. What manner of love is
this to a poor worm! I cannot express a thousandth part of what praise
is due to Thee! We know what we do when we aim at praising God for His
mercies! It is but little I can give, but, Lord, help me to give Thee
my all. I will die praising Thee, and rejoice that there are others
that can praise Thee better. I shall be satisfied with Thy likeness!
satisfied! satisfied! Oh, my dearest Jesus, I come!” The old register
of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, for December, 1696, has this entry:
“Samuel Annesley was buried the seventh day, from Spittle Yard.”[531]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Nathaniel Vincent, when the Revolution brought him rest from spies,
informers, and constables, quietly went on with his work in St.
Thomas’s, Southwark, amidst the Presbyterian congregation which he
had gathered; but an unhappy division before his death gave him
trouble--sixty members breaking off to join another church, but no
blame attached to him for this. If the eulogium pronounced by his
friends be true, “he scarcely entered into any company, but he was
like a box of precious ointment, and left some sweet perfume from
his heavenly discourse.” Vincent’s end was sudden and premature; he
had only leisure to exclaim: “I find I am dying. Lord! Lord! Lord!
have mercy on my family and my congregation.” His age was but
fifty-three.[532]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Dr. William Bates, a close friend of Archbishop Tillotson, retained his
popularity and his renown for “silver-tongued” eloquence beyond the
Revolution of 1688. As one of the preachers at Salters’ Hall after the
establishment of the New Lecture there in 1694, although an old man of
seventy-four, he preached to a thronged assembly; but he lived in the
village of Hackney, where he ministered to a Presbyterian congregation
in Mare Street.[533] Howe’s estimate of Bates’ character has been
quoted in a former volume; it is sufficient here to add the following
words by the same writer: “God took him, even kissed away his soul,
as hath been said of those great favourites of heaven, did let him
die without being sick, vouchsafed him that great privilege--which a
good man would choose before many--not to outlive serviceableness. To
live till one be weary of the world, not till the world be weary of
him--thus he prayed wisely, thus God answered graciously.”[534] He died
in July, 1699.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
John Howe survived his friend about five years. It appears from
his allusion to “the great lights of the National Church,” how his
affections lingered around those who were its ornaments, and passages
occurring in his answer to De Foe, indicate Howe’s increasing
tenderness towards the Church of England in his last days. He had
always been a moderate Dissenter, but his moderation assumes broader
dimensions than ever in that publication--the effect, I apprehend,
partly of natural tenderness and partly of unpleasant circumstances. He
had, from the very constitution of his mind, what many great and good
men have not--a burning thirst for union, for a large fellowship of
souls on earth preparatory to the final gathering of the purified and
perfected. This passion increased in Howe the nearer he approached the
world of light and love. He longed, as his days ebbed away, to embrace
within his fellowship the good and wise of all parties; consequently
lines of distinction between church and church, between sect and sect,
became in his eyes paler and paler. And I cannot help seeing that
the disputes amongst Nonconformist ministers in London--the unhappy
divisions arising out of the Crisp controversy--vexed him exceedingly,
and loosened a little the bonds which had bound him to the Independent
body. A moderate Congregationalist in earlier life, he appears
latterly to have sympathized most with Presbyterians. The church in
Silver Street, of which he took the pastoral charge, was Presbyterian.
The Salters’ Hall Lecture, with which he identified himself, was
Presbyterian. Presbyterians were less opposed to the Established Church
than were Independents; the latter felt no wish for comprehension,
the former did; and in that wish, which the impossibility of its
gratification could not quench, John Howe to the last deeply shared.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
In his latter days he largely experienced the joys of religion. He
seemed at that period to attain a more ethereal purity of soul, a
more sublime elevation of mind, and a more seraphic glow of devotion.
The ancients believed that the nearer men approach the hour of death
the more divine they become, and the more piercing is their insight
into the mysteries of futurity. Howe, under the influence of a divine
enthusiasm, certainly appeared during the last year of his life as
if the veil of flesh had been parted, and his free spirit had found
a pathway which “the vulture’s eye hath never seen.” It is related
that on one occasion, at the Lord’s-table, his soul was suffused with
such rapture that the communicants thought his physical strength would
have sunk under the weight of his preternatural emotions. And another
instance of overpowering delight about the same time, is recorded by
himself in a Latin note found on the blank leaf of his study Bible.
After notice of a peculiarly beautiful and refreshing dream which he
had some years before, he adds: “But what of the same kind I sensibly
felt through the admirable bounty of my God, and the most pleasant
comforting influence of the Holy Spirit, on October 22nd, 1704,
far surpassed the most expressive words my thoughts can suggest. I
then experienced an inexpressibly pleasant melting of heart, tears
gushing out of mine eyes for joy that God should shed abroad His love
abundantly through the hearts of men, and that for this very purpose
mine own should be so signally possessed of and by His blessed Spirit.”
One trembles at criticizing such a phenomenon, and at attempting to
resolve it all into a delirium of excitement. Who that has ever mused
on the nature of the human mind, on the mystery of that unseen world
which presses close around it, on the piety of such a man as Howe, and
on the special love which God bears to those whom he makes so like
Himself, would dare to speak lightly of such an incident?
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Howe spent some of his closing days in the composition of a work _On
Patience in Expectation of Future Blessedness_, expressive of his
own religious experience; and it shows that such were his thoughts of
heaven, such his desire to depart, that he had to practice an unwonted
form of self-denial to reconcile himself to continuance in a world
which so many are loth to leave. Friends conversed with him to the
last, and the visit of one of them deserves special notice. Richard
Cromwell called upon him in his last illness, but the words they
interchanged have died away, save an indistinct echo lingering in a
brief sentence by Calamy: “There was a great deal of serious discourse
between them; tears were freely shed on both sides, and the parting was
very solemn, as I have been informed by one that was present on the
occasion.”[535]
As a proof that Howe needed patience of an unusual kind, I may mention
that he said to his wife: “Though he thought he loved her as well as
it was fit for one creature to love another; yet if it were put to his
choice, whether to die that moment, or to live that night, and the
living that night would secure the continuance of his life for seven
years to come, he would choose to die that moment.” In the same spirit
he remarked to an attendant one morning, after being relieved from the
intense sufferings of the previous night: “He was for _feeling_
that he was alive, though most willing to die, and lay the ‘clog of
mortality aside.’” When his son, a physician, was lancing his leg to
diminish his sufferings, Howe inquired what he was doing, and observed:
“I am not afraid of dying, but I am afraid of pain.” Indeed, he had
a peculiar sensitiveness with regard to physical agony, which seems to
have been constitutional. All but joy soon afterwards terminated, for,
on the 2nd of April, 1705, his spirit entered those regions of repose
which he had long so fervently desired to reach.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The passing away of the old Puritans could not but produce a great
effect. When the last of the Apostles left the world, those who
remained in the line of succession--so far as Apostles could have
any proper successors--would fail to reach the level of experience,
character, and influence which their predecessors occupied. And when
the last of the Protestant Reformers died, there would be a falling
off in the ardour and force which marked the religious leaders of the
next generation. And so, without equalizing Apostles, Reformers, and
Puritans, we may say of the last, that when they were all gone--though
their cause remained in the hands of men who had learned their
lessons--the fire no longer burned with the glowing heat it had done
before. There might be more breadth of view, there might be advancement
in some respects, but there remained not the same force which had
operated so mightily at an earlier period. Puritanism, as a creed, as a
discipline, as a form of worship, as a religious sentiment, remained;
but much of its original inspiration passed away.
Another circumstance may be noticed. The Puritans of the Commonwealth
had in early life mingled socially with Anglicans. They had sat on
the same forms at school, had lived under the same college roof, had
preached in the same places of worship. Owen, Baxter, and Howe had all
shared more or less with Churchmen in the same modes of life before
the severance of 1662. Those who followed them were for the most part
wholly separated from the Establishment, from its universities, its
pulpits, its society, its courtesies, its atmosphere. Hence arose a
personal estrangement between two great parties, in some respects more
mischievous in its results than any of the controversies previously
waged.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
There have been influences at work in Society which rarely arrest the
attention of historians, because hidden in the obscure depths of common
life; and yet they have had a potency of effect, beyond even some
prominent events which come out as landmarks in the past. I am inclined
to ascribe to the social separation of Churchmen from Nonconformists,
which opened in the middle of the seventeenth century, and gaped so
wide at the close--much of that mutual suspicion, and that tendency
to attribute bad motives to those of a different opinion, which still
prevent, more or less, a candid and charitable consideration of each
others’ arguments. Friendly intercourse is a moral discipline which
affects our intellectual nature, and, by softening the asperities
of temper, prepares a man to meet his fellow man with less of that
prejudice so common to all, which blinds one person to phases of truth
discerned by another.
CHAPTER XXII.
The Baptists multiplied after the Revolution, and continued--what
they had been before--often obscure, but always staunch supporters
of independence and voluntaryism. In this respect they differed from
Presbyterians, and often went beyond Independents. The representatives
of more than one hundred churches met in London in the year 1689, and
continued in conference a few days. They republished a Calvinistic
confession of faith, adopted in the year 1677, but their business in
the main was with practical matters and the religious improvement
of their denomination. One doctrinal question which they discussed
was whether believers were _actually_ reconciled, justified,
and adopted when Christ died; this they resolved by affirming that
reconciliation and justification have been infallibly secured by the
grace of God and the merit of Christ; but that their _actual_
possession comes as the result of individual faith. They took a gloomy
view of spiritual affairs, and, although looking at them from a very
different point of view, reached conclusions resembling those of the
Nonjurors. And this is noteworthy: they referred to the Jews, and
entreated their brethren to “put up earnest cries and supplications
to the Lord for the lineal seed of Abraham.” In furtherance of their
objects they appointed a general fast, and directed that the causes
and reasons of it should be explained. With respect to government
and discipline, they disclaimed authority, nor did they attempt to
settle differences even in respect to communion. They projected a
sustentation fund, in aid of churches, ministers, and students; at
the same time they pronounced it expedient for small churches, in
the same neighbourhood, to unite together for the support of the
ministry. They ventured to commence an attack on the long periwigs of
men, especially ministers, and the bravery, haughtiness, and pride of
women, who walked “with stretched-out necks and wanton eyes, mincing
as they went.” They deplored worldly conformity, and though they did
not deny that ornaments were allowable, they said every ornament which
opens the mouths of the ungodly ought to be cast off. Baptists had
been reproached as Trimmers under James II. for the sake of their own
liberty; but the representatives on this occasion declared that, to
their knowledge, not one congregation had ever countenanced a power
in the King to dispense with penal tests, and that William III. was a
Divine instrument for the deliverance of England.[536]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
A second assembly of the same nature met in London upon the 2nd of
June, 1691, and another on the 3rd of May, 1692. They proposed to
divide their annual assembly into two--one for the east in London, and
the other for the west in Bristol, and they enjoined the making of
quarterly collections for objects specified, at the same time expressly
repudiating all idea of exercising synodical control.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Musical harmony had been a cause of discord; some of the Baptist
celebrities, including Kiffin and Keach, had plunged into disputes on
the subject, and it was alleged that facts had been misrepresented
and unwarrantable reflections published to the world. The matter
came under the notice of a committee, which appears to have given an
impartial decision. They declared that both parties were in the wrong;
that, granting some statements might be true, they had laid open one
another’s errors in an unbecoming spirit; that they ought to remember
how Ham, for discovering the nakedness of Noah, was accursed of God,
and how failings were forbidden to be told in Gath and Gilgal. They
recommended that all the publications produced by the dispute should
be called in and disposed of by the Assembly; and they finished their
award by entreating, as upon their knees, that the brethren would keep
the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.[537]
Kiffin and Keach were amongst the Baptist magnates at the end of the
Revolution, and were far more influential than Bunyan. Of Kiffin I
have had occasion to speak. It only remains to add, that he continued
his ministry to old age, and that his latter days were adorned by an
act of beneficence. After the French Protestants had been driven from
their own land, he took under his protection and entirely supported a
family of rank, nor would he when these refugees recovered a portion of
their fortune, accept any return for past services. He died in 1701,
leaving a reputation for piety, consistency, and theological knowledge,
and also for moderation, together with firmness in the maintenance of
Calvinistic and strict communion views.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Of Benjamin Keach I have also spoken. Although a good man, and of an
ingenious turn, he must have been rather pugnacious, for his works are
of a controversial stamp, relating to the seventh-day Sabbath and the
question of psalmody. He was one of those who have not the smallest
doubt of being themselves right, and of everybody else being wrong.
Adult Baptism he described as _Gold Refined_; the Athenian Society
he attacked for what it had said respecting Pædobaptism; he rectified
a Rector by proving Infant Baptism unlawful in his _Axe Laid to the
Root_, or one blow more aimed at that practice, which one blow would
beat down for ever the arguments of Mr. Flavel, Mr. Rothwell, and Mr.
Exell; finally, by _A Counter Antidote_, he strove to resist the
assaults upon what his antagonists would call _Anabaptism_. His
congregation is spoken of as the first to sing in public worship. So
cautious were they, because of the prejudices of their brethren, that
they went on step by step, for a long time restricting the practice
to the close of the Lord’s Supper, then venturing upon a hymn amidst
the exultation of a thanksgiving-day, and at last, after a struggle of
fourteen years, becoming so bold and yet so temperate, as to sing every
Sunday, after objectors to the practice had been allowed to retire.[538]
The distinction between Particular and General Baptists assumed sharper
form and greater prominence after the Revolution. The General Baptists
of the county of Somerset, in the year 1691, published an original
manifesto of doctrine. These articles, upon the Will of Man, the
Work of the Spirit, God’s Decrees, and the Saints’ Perseverance, are
decidedly anti-Calvinistic, and the final chapter bears a millenarian
impress; but, to avoid being charged with the excesses of the old fifth
monarchists, the brethren declared that the “kingdom ought not to be
set up by the material sword,” that being “contrary to the very nature
of Christianity.”[539]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Matthew Caffin was a celebrated man amongst the General Baptists. Five
times he suffered imprisonment for his Nonconformity, besides which he
was repeatedly fined under the Conventicle Act. Opposed to the doctrine
of Calvinism, like the rest of his brethren, he also distinguished
himself by opposition to the Athanasian Creed. He objected to its
definition and to its damnatory clauses, although he did not adopt
either Socinian or Arian tenets.
Caffin appears to have been one of those one-sided people who, with
a repugnance to all assumption on the part of the Church, and with a
dislike of what are called dogmas, do not sufficiently consider the
importance of principles as resting-places for faith and as sources
of religious inspirations. In his horror of ultra-Calvinism, he
forgot that dangers may arise from other points of the horizon. Not
foreseeing the consequences of his course, not intending to open the
door of heresy, he, through lack of sufficient positiveness, became
the forerunner of those lax opinions which afterwards injured the
churches of the General Baptist order. Orthodoxy is not identical with
scholastic definitions; neither is it a foe or a stranger to charity.
Caffin’s forgetfulness of this involved him in disputes with his own
and with other denominations, and brought upon him suspicions which he
did not deserve. Of his pugnacity, evidence exists in the account of
his debates; and as a specimen of his wit, the following incident is
related: A Quaker called on Caffin, saying he had a message from the
Lord. “Come in then and do thy message,” replied Caffin. The Quaker
rejoined: “I am come to reprove thee for paying tithes to the priests,
and to forbid thy doing so any more.” “I think I can fully convince
thee,” said the Baptist, “that thou art deceived, and that the Lord
hath not sent thee; for I assure thee I never did pay any tithes,
nor am ever like to be charged with any.” The land he rented was
tithe-free.[540]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Turning to the Quakers, we find them placidly thankful for toleration,
yet vexed by demands for tithes and church-rates--sufferings, of which
records were drawn up and sometimes printed and circulated. When they
approached the Throne, both the King and the Lord-Keeper treated them
with respect, and gave them assurances of friendship. Parliament
listened to their expostulations, but of course the laws of the country
rendered it impossible that they should be exempted from the payments
in question any more than other people. Justified by the substitution
of affirmations for oaths, the members of their community did not
shrink from an anti-Socinian test; but the continued requirement of
oaths in various relations exposed them to much hardship, for as they
would not swear in legal exigencies, they were often defrauded of their
rights. The policy of the Revolution opposed this condition of things,
and in 1695 the complaints of Quakers and the efforts of their friends
secured a beneficial change: affirmations were substituted for oaths in
civil as well as ecclesiastical concerns.
Fox and Barclay remained leaders, visiting societies and promoting the
spread of their principles. Identifying their own cause with the cause
of humanity, regarding themselves as charged with a pacific mission to
the world, they continued to serve their generation in the spirit of
the angels’ song: “On earth peace, goodwill toward men.”
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Barclay died in 1690, signifying, as it is quaintly said, with a good
understanding, that it was well with him as to his soul. “God,” he
remarked to a friend, “is good still, and though I am under a great
weight of weakness and sickness, yet my peace flows: and this I know,
whatever exercises maybe permitted to come upon me, they shall tend to
God’s glory and my salvation; and in that I rest.”
Fox died in 1691, saying to those around him: “All is well; the Seed
of God reigns over all, and over death itself. And though I am weak in
body, yet the power of God is over all, and the Seed reigns over all
disorderly spirits.” By “the Seed,” we are informed that he meant the
Divine Saviour. A few hours before his departure he exclaimed: “Do not
heed: the power of the Lord is above all sickness and death; the Seed
reigns, blessed be the Lord.”
William Penn, although adhering to Quaker principles, was too much
occupied with other things to allow of his being in later life very
prominent as an apostle of the Quaker faith.
Friends continued to maintain their self-government. The poor were
taken care of; widows and orphans were provided for; local meetings
were held by each congregation for the supervision of affairs every
week, fortnight, or month, according to numbers; quarterly meetings
were held in every county; and a general yearly meeting was held
in London in Whitsun-week, “not,” it is cautiously said, “for any
superstitious observation the Quakers have for that more than any
other time, but because that season of the year best suits the general
accommodation.”[541] In the genial spring, therefore, the Friends met
in the days of King William; and with the men attired in their drab
garments, might be seen matrons and maidens clothed in the finest
raiment, like troops “of the shining ones.” Nonconformity to the
world in point of dress was an important article of practice, and
sorely were the spirits of the Elders vexed by the tendency of younger
members. The question was discussed: Friends were warned against the
fashions of the world, and were forbidden not only to wear but to sell
any garments of vanity. Earnest exhortations were delivered touching
religious education and simplicity of speech.[542]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Mysticism, at the close of the seventeenth century, found a home
almost exclusively amongst Quakers. It had won wide sympathies at one
time; Davenant had predicted that in a hundred years religions would
come to a settlement in a kind of “_ingeniose_ Quakerism;” and
Hales, as he studied writings of the mystical Familists’ school, used
to say that some time or other these fine notions would take in the
world. But, instead of a widening flow, these “fine notions” came to
be contracted within a single channel. Instead of an “_ingeniose_
Quakerism” leavening the world, the world left this leaven to ferment
all but entirely amongst the people called Friends. Norris was the
principal person outside that circle who, in the reign of William III.,
cultivated a mystical spirit; and he did so in a limited degree. But
few of the many pieces written by him indicate any marked quietest
sentiments. In a paper entitled _An Idea of Happiness_, he speaks
mystically of the fruition of God and of seraphic love, but in the
same paper he speaks of the mystical doctrine of infused virtue as
being a paradox in Divinity, like the doctrine of occult qualities
in philosophy.[543] Norris’s mysticism did not go beyond that of a
Platonistic divine. The Quakers had almost all the English mysticism of
the age to themselves.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Amongst them, too, there was more of religious enthusiasm than amongst
any other body of Nonconformists as a whole. Then occurred what is
a curious but not uncommon fact, that as a rationalistic spirit was
creeping over theology, sobering the spirit of most denominations, the
fires of excitement were kept burning in two extreme divisions of the
Christian camp. The Quakers and the Nonjurors were the two most fervent
religious bodies at the end of the seventeenth century.
* * * * *
Here for the present I lay down my pen. I have endeavoured in preceding
volumes to tell the story of ecclesiastical change, theological
development, and religious life, amidst political scenes and incidents,
of which that story was partly the cause and partly the effect.
It is impossible to understand such an inner circle of thought,
experience, and conduct, without an examination of national events
occurring outside, nor can the state of one religious section be fully
understood apart from its bearing on other communities: therefore
I have interwoven the threads of their respective destinies, and
of their mutual relations and antagonisms. The series of struggles
portrayed present something of an Epic interest; for during the Civil
Wars there was strife for _Ascendency_, which ended in the
triumph of Puritanism, and in the treatment of Anglicans, somewhat
after a wretched fashion which had been set in former days. After the
Restoration, the resentment of Anglicans came once more into play,
and severe persecutions followed; yet efforts at _Comprehension_
were made by healing spirits on both sides without effect. At the
Revolution, as I have largely shown, experiments with a view to reunion
were attempted with no better result, but a great and most beneficial
change was accomplished by the legalising of freedom in religious
thought and ecclesiastical action. The shield of the constitution
was extended over previously persecuted Englishmen, and the age of
_Toleration_, as it is termed, then began. Local interferences
with the liberty of worship continued to occur, but they were contrary
to law. The steps by which this consummation was accomplished I have
somewhat minutely traced, and the earlier causes of the Revolution
I have endeavoured to explore. The reign of William III. was the
beginning of a new era in English History, and its ecclesiastical
consequences can be ascertained only through a careful study of the
great religious movements of the eighteenth century.
Whether I shall ever be able to pursue my investigations into that
interesting subject depends on circumstances, which I must leave in the
hands of Him whom in all the labours of my life I desire to serve.
APPENDIX.
I.--P. 107.
The following is a copy of the Bill after certain omissions and
additions had been made, and the subjoined paper will give an idea of
the extent of the latter:--
_A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects. First
reading, March 11, 1688; second reading, March 14, 1688._
Whereas the peace of the State is highly concerned in the peace of
the Church, which therefore at all times, but especially in this
conjuncture, is most necessary to be preserved: In order therefore
to remove occasions of differences and dissatisfaccons which may
arise amongst Protestants, Be it Enacted by the King and Queen’s most
excellent Ma^{ties,} By and with the advice and consent of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons in this present Parliam^t
assembled, and by the authority of the same, That in order to y^e being
a Minister of this Church, or the taking, holding, and enjoying any
Ecclesiastical Benefice or promotion in the same, noe other subscripcon
or declaracons shall from henceforward be required of any person, but
onely the Declaracon menconed in a Statute made in the thirtieth year
of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second, Intituled, An Act
for the more effectual preserving the King’s person and Governm^t
by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliam^t,
and also the Declaration following, viz^t: I, A. B., doe submit to
the prnt Constitucon of the Church of Engl. I acknowledge that the
doctrine of it contains in it all things necessary to Salvation, and
I will conforme myself to the worship and the government thereof, as
established by Law; And I solemnly promise, in y^e exercise of my
Ministry, to Preach and practice according thereunto.
And Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in order
to the being Collated or Instituted into any Benefice or promotion noe
more or other Oaths shall be required to be taken of any person than
onely the two Oaths menconed in the late Statute made in the first
year of the Reigne of King William and Queen Mary, Intituled, an Act
for removing and preventing all questions and disputes concerning the
assembling and sitting of this present Parliament, and alsoe the Oath
of Simony, and the Oath of Residence, any Statute or Canon to the
contrary notwithstanding.
And Be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the Two
Declaracons aforesaid shall be made and subscribed in y^e said Oaths
menconed in the s^d Stat, made in the first yeare of the Reigne of
King William and Queene Mary, shall be taken in the presence of the
Bishop or his Chancellor, or the Guardian of the Spiritualities, by
every person that is to receive any Holy orders, or keepe any public
Schoole, and alsoe the p^r Oathes and Declaracon, together with the
said Oathes of Simony and residence by every person that is to have a
Lycence to preach any Lecture or that is to be Collated or Instituted
into any Benefice, or that is to be admitted into any Ecclesiastical
dignity or promotion before such his Ordination, Lycencing, Collation,
Institution, or Admission, respectively.
And be it further Enacted, that every person that shall from
henceforward take any Degree in either of the Universities, or any
fellowship, headship, or professors place in the same, shall, before
his admission to that degree, or fellowship, or headship, or professors
place, subscribe the aforesaid Declaracons and take the said Oaths
mentioned in the said Statute, made in the first yeare of the Reigne
of King William and Queen Mary, in the presence of the Vice-Chancellor
or his Deputy. Provided that if any of the persons herein before
required to make and subscribe the said Declaracons be not in Holy
orders, such person shall not be obliged to make and subscribe all
the Declaracon hereinbefore expressed, but onely this part thereof,
viz.: I, A. B., doe submitt to the psent Constitucon of the Church of
Engld. I acknowledge that the doctrine of it contains in it all things
necessary to Salvacon, and I will conforme myselfe to the worship and
the Governm^t thereof, as established by law, together with the other
Declaracon aforesaid menconed in said Statute, made in the Thirtieth
year of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second.
And be it further Enacted, that the making and subscribing the said
Declaracons, and taking the said Oaths as aforesaid, shall be as
sufficient to all intents and purposes aforesaid as if the parties had
made all other Declaracons and subscripcons, and taken all other oaths
which they should have taken by vertue of any law, Statute, or Canon,
whatsoever.
And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from
henceforth noe Minister shall be obliged to wear a surplice in the time
of reading prayers or performing any other Religious Office--Except
onely in the King and Queen’s Ma^{ties} Chappells, and in all Cathedral
or Collegiate Churches and Chappells of this Realme of England and
Dominion of Wales. Provided alsoe that every Minister that shall not
think fitt to wear a surplice as aforesaid shall nevertheless be
obliged to performe all y^e Publick Offices of his Ministry in the
Church in a Black Gowne, suitable to his Degree. And if it be in a
place where a Gowne is not the dayly constant habit of the Minister, in
every such parish the parish shall provide a Gowne for him, to be worne
by him dureing the time of his officiating in the Church.
And be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no Minister
from henceforward shall be obliged to use the signe of the Crosse in
Baptisme, nor any parent obliged to have his Child Christned by the
Minister of the Parish if the said Minister will not use or omitt the
signe of the Cross, according to the desire of the parent, who in that
case may procure some other Minister of the Church of Engld to doe it.
And be it further Enacted, by y^e authority aforesaid, that noe
Minister or Ecclesiastical person shall oblige any person to find
Godfathers or Godmothers for any child to be baptized, soe as the
parents or parent or other friend of such Child shall present the same
to be Baptized, and shall answer for such child in like manner as the
Godfathers and Godmothers are now required to doe.
And be it further Enacted, by y^e authority aforesaid, that noe
Minister that shall officiate in the administracon of the Sacram^t of
the Lord’s Supper shall deny or refuse to any person that desires to
be admitted to the same, in a pew or seate in the Church, altho’ such
person shall not receive it kneeling.
And whereas the Liturgie of y^e Church of England is capable of
seve^{ll} alteracons and additions, which may free it from exception,
and may conduce to y^e Glory of God and y^e better Edefication of
the people, And whereas the Book of Canons is fitt to be reviewed
and made suitable to the present state of the Church, And whereas
there are divers abuses and defects in y^e Ecclesiastical Courts
and Jurisdiction, and particularly for reformacon or removeing of
scandalous Ministers, And whereas it is very fitt and profitable that
Confirmacon be administred with such due preparacon and solemnity as is
directed in the late King Charles the Second’s Declaration concerning
Ecclesiastical affairs, issued in the yeare of our Lord 1660, And a
strict care be used in the Examinacon of such persons as desire to be
admitted into Holy Orders, both as to their learning and manners:
Wee, your Ma^{ties} most dutifull and Loyall Subjects, the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliam^t
assembled, doe most humbly beseech your Majesties to issue out a
Comission under yo^r Great Seale, directed to the Arch Bishops, and
such Bishops, and such others of the Clergy of the Church of England,
not exceeding the number of thirty in y^e whole, impowering and
requiring them, or any twelve of them, to meet from time to time, and
as often as shall be needfull, and to make such alteracons in the
Liturgie and reformacon of the Canons and Ecclesiastical Courts as may
conduce to the Establishm^t of the Church in peace and Tranquility,
and to present such alteracons and reformacons to the Convocation and
to the Parliam^t that the same may be approved and established in due
forme of Law.
ALTERATIONS MADE IN COMMITTEE.
COMPREHENSION.
1 sh. 6 l.--For (of) Reade (in).
„ 14 l.--Instead of (as containing) reade (w^{ch} I doe
acknowledge to containe), and before (promise) add
(solemnely).
„ 18 l.--Before (Oathes) insert (two), and leave out (of
fidelity).
„ 21 l.--After (Symony) Add (And the Oath of Residence).
„ 24 l.--Leave out (of fidelitye), and add (mentioned in the s^d
Stat, made in the first yeare of the Raigne of King
William and Queene Mary shall be).
2 sh. 2 l.--After the first (or) insert (keepe any publiq schoole,
and alsoe the s^d oathes and declaracon, together
with the s^d oathes of Symony and Residence by every
pson).
„ 4 l.--After (admission) add (respectively).
„ 8 l.--Leave out (of fidelity) and reade (mentioned in the
s^d Stat made in the first yeare of the Raigne of
King William and Queene Mary).
„ 9 l.--Leave out from (Deputy) to (Provided) in the 11^{th} l.
„ 15 l.--For (as containing) reade (w^{ch} I doe acknowledge to
containe).
2 sh. 22 l.--Leave out from (And Bee it) inclusive to (And Bee it)
in the 5^{th} l. of the 3rd sheet.
3 sh. 11 l.--Leave out from (degree) to (And) in the 14th line.
„ 18 l.--After (Ministers) add (of the Church of Engld).
„ 1 l.--Leave out from (And) in the to (And) in 4th l.
4 sh. 4 l.--For (improvements) reade (additions).
„ 5 l.--For (if) Reade (is).
„ 5 l.--Before (edificacon) reade (better).
„ 16 l.--For (twenty) reade (thirty).
„ 20 l.--After (Reformacon) reade (to the Convocacon and).
1 sh. 14 l.--I, A. B., doe submit to the present Constitution of
the Church of England. I acknowledge that the
Doctrine of it contains in it all things necessary
to Salvation, and that I will conform my selfe to
the worship and the government thereof as
established by law.
And I solemnely pmise, in the exercise of my ministry,
to preach and practice according thereunto.
Agreed to.
2 sh. 14^a 15 l.--Instead of the 14^{th} and 15^{th} l. reade (I,
A. B., doe submit to the prsent constitucon of
the Church of Engld. I acknowledge that the
doctrine of it contains in it all things
necessary for Salvacon, and I will conforme my
selfe to the worship and the government
thereof as established by Law).
4 sh. 3 l.--After (same) add (in a Pew or Seate in the Church).
II.--P. 114.
_The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for Exempting their
Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of
England from the penalties of certain Laws._
[Sidenote: 1 Will. and Mary, cap. 18.]
Forasmuch as some ease to scrupulous consciences, in the exercise of
Religion, may be an effectual means to unite their Majesty’s Protestant
subjects in interest and affection:
[Sidenote: The several Laws against Dissenters repealed.]
I.--Be it enacted by the King’s and Queen’s most excellent Majesties,
by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, That neither the Statute made in the 23^{rd}
year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled, [Sidenote:
23 Eliz., cap. 1.] _An Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s Subjects
in their due obedience_; nor the Statute made in the 29^{th} year of
the said Queen, entituled, [Sidenote: 29 Eliz., cap. 6.] _An Act for
the more speedy and due execution of certain branches of the Statute
made in the 23^{rd} year of the Queen’s Majesty’s reign_, viz., the
aforesaid Act; nor that branch or clause of a Statute made in the
1^{st} year of the reign of the said Queen, entituled, [Sidenote: 29
Eliz., cap. 2, f 14.] _An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and
service in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments_; whereby
all persons, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, are
required to resort to their Parish Church or Chapel, or some usual
place where the Common Prayer shall be used, upon pain of punishment by
the censures of the Church; and also, upon pain, that every person so
offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence. Nor the
Statute made in the 3^{rd} year of the reign of the late King James
the First, entituled, [Sidenote: 3 Jac. I., cap. 4.] _An Act for the
better discovering and repressing Popish recusants_. Nor that other
Statute, made in the same year, entituled, [Sidenote: 3 Jac. I., cap.
5.] _An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish
Recusants_. Nor any other Law or Statute of this realm made against
Papists or Popish recusants, [Sidenote: Exception.] except the Statute
made in the 25^{th} year of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote:
25 Car. II., cap. 2.] _An Act for preventing dangers which may happen
from Popish recusants_. And except also the Statute made in the 30^{th}
year of the said King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 30 Car. II.,
Stat. 2d, cap. 1.] _An Act for the more effectual preserving the King’s
person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either
House of Parliament_, shall be construed to extend to any person or
persons dissenting from the Church of England, that shall take the
oaths mentioned in a Statute made this present Parliament, entituled,
[Sidenote: _Supra_, cap. 1.] _An Act for removing and preventing all
questions and disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this
present Parliament_, and shall make and subscribe the Declaration
mentioned in a Statute made in the 30^{th} year of the reign of King
Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: Car. II., Stat. 2d, cap. 1.] _An
Act to prevent Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament_.
Which Oaths and Declaration the Justices of Peace, at the General
Sessions of the Peace to be held for the County or Place where such
person shall live, are hereby required to tender and administer to such
persons as shall offer themselves to [Sidenote: Taking Declaration to
be Registered.] take, make, and subscribe the same, and thereof to keep
a Register. [Sidenote: Fee for register and Certificate.] And likewise,
none of the persons aforesaid shall give or pay, as any fee or reward,
to any officer or officers belonging to the Court aforesaid, above
the sum of 6^d, nor that more than once, for his or their entry of his
taking the said oaths, and making and subscribing the said Declaration;
nor above the further sum of 6^d for any certificate of the same, to be
made out and signed by the Officer or officers of the said Court.
[Sidenote: Persons convicted, &c. taking the oaths, &c. shall be
discharged.]
II.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all
and every person and persons already convicted, or prosecuted in
order to conviction of Recusancy, by Indictment, Information, Action
of Debt, or otherwise grounded upon the aforesaid Statute; or any of
them that shall take the said Oaths mentioned in the said Statute,
made this present Parliament, and make and subscribe the Declaration
aforesaid in the Court of Exchequer, or Assizes, or General or Quarter
Sessions, to be held for the county where such person lives, and to be
thence respectively certified into the Exchequer, shall be thenceforth
exempted and discharged from all the Penalties, Seizures, Forfeitures,
Judgments, and Executions, incurred by force of any the aforesaid
Statutes, without any composition, fee, or further charge whatsoever.
III.--And be it further enacted, by the Authority aforesaid, That all
and every person and persons that shall, as aforesaid, take the said
Oaths, and make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, shall not be
liable to any pains, penalties, or forfeitures, mentioned in an Act
made in the 35^{th} year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth,
entituled, [Sidenote: 35 Eliz., cap. 1.] _An Act to retain the Queen’s
Majesty’s Subjects in their due obedience_. Nor in an Act made in the
22^{nd} year of the reign of the late King Charles II., entituled,
[Sidenote: 22 Car. II., cap. 1.] _An Act to prevent and suppress
seditious Conventicles_. [Sidenote: Ecclesiastical Court.] Nor shall
any of the said persons be prosecuted in any Ecclesiastical Court, for,
or by reason of, their Non-Conforming to the Church of England.
IV.--Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
[Sidenote: Private Meetings excluded.] That if any assembly of persons,
dissenting from the Church of England, shall be had in any place for
Religious worship, with the doors locked, barred, or bolted, during
any time of such meeting together, all and every person or persons
that shall come to, and be at such meeting, shall not receive any
benefit from this Law, but be liable to all the pains and penalties of
all the aforesaid Laws recited in this Act, for such their meeting,
notwithstanding his taking the Oaths, and his making and subscribing
the Declaration aforesaid.
[Sidenote: Tithes saved.]
V.--Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed
to exempt any of the persons aforesaid from paying of Tithes, or other
Parochial Duties, or any other duties to the Church or Minister, nor
from any prosecution in any Ecclesiastical Court, or elsewhere, for the
same.
[Sidenote: Officers scrupling Oaths, &c. allowed to act by Deputy.]
VI.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if
any person dissenting from the Church of England, as aforesaid, shall
hereafter be chosen, or otherwise appointed to bear the office of
High-Constable, or Petit-Constable, Church-Warden, Overseer of the
Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, and such person shall
scruple to take upon him any of the said offices, in regard of the
Oaths, or any other matter or thing required by the law to be taken
or done, in respect of such office, every such person shall and may
execute such office or employment by a sufficient deputy, by him to
be provided, that shall comply with the laws on this behalf. Provided
always, the said deputy be allowed and approved by such person or
persons in such manner as such officer or officers respectively should
by law have been allowed and approved.
[Sidenote: Persons in Orders, how exempted from 17 Car. II., cap. 2,
13, 14 Car. II., cap. 4.]
VII.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
no person dissenting from the Church of England in Holy Orders, or
pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any Preacher
or Teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, that shall
make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, and take the said Oaths,
at the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for the
County, Town, Parts, or Division where such person lives, which Court
is hereby empowered to administer the same; and shall also declare his
approbation of, and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned in
the Statute made in the 13^{th} year of the reign of the late Queen
Elizabeth, except the 34^{th}, 35^{th}, and 36^{th}, and these words
of the 20^{th} Article, viz. [Sidenote: 13 Eliz., cap. 12.] [_The
Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in
controversies of faith, and yet_] shall be liable to any of the pains
or penalties mentioned in an Act made in the 17^{th} year of the reign
of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 17 Car. II., cap. 2.] _An
Act for restraining Non-Conformists from inhabiting in Corporations_;
nor the penalties mentioned in the aforesaid Act, made in the 22^{nd}
year of his said late Majesty’s reign, for or by reason of such persons
preaching at any meeting for the exercise of Religion; nor to the
penalties of £100 mentioned in an Act made in the 13^{th} and 14^{th}
of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 13 and 14 Car. II., cap. 4.]
_An Act for the Uniformity of public prayers, and administration of
Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies; and for establishing the
form of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, in the Church of England_, for officiating in any Congregation
for the exercise of religion permitted and allowed by this Act.
[Sidenote: Taking the oaths, &c., to be registered.]
VIII.--Provided always, that the making and subscribing the said
Declaration, and the taking the said Oaths, and making the Declaration
of approbation and subscription to the said Articles, in manner
as aforesaid, by every respective person or persons hereinbefore
mentioned, at such General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace as
aforesaid, shall be then and there entered of Record in the said Court,
for which 6^d shall be payed to the Clerk of the Peace, and no more.
Provided that such person shall not at any time preach in any place but
[Sidenote: Meeting doors to be unlocked.] with the doors not locked,
barred, or bolted, as aforesaid.
[Sidenote: Anabaptism.]
IX.--And whereas some Dissenting Protestants scruple the baptizing of
infants, be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every person
in pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, or Preacher
or Teacher, that shall subscribe the aforesaid Articles of Religion,
except before excepted; and also except part of the 27^{th} Article
teaching Infant baptism, and shall take the Oaths, and make and
subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, every such
person shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and advantages, which
any other Dissenting Minister, as aforesaid, might have or enjoy by
virtue of this Act.
[Sidenote: Teachers exempt from Offices.]
X.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every
Teacher or Preacher in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, that is
a Minister, Preacher, or Teacher of a Congregation, that shall take
the Oaths herein required, and make and subscribe the Declaration
aforesaid; and also subscribe such of the aforesaid Articles of the
Church of England, as are required by this Act in manner aforesaid,
shall be thenceforth exempted from serving upon any Jury, or from being
chosen or appointed to bear the Office of Church-Warden, Overseer of
the Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, or other Office in any
Hundred of any Shire, City, Town, Parish, Division, or Wapentake.
[Sidenote: Justices of Peace may tender the Oaths, &c.]
XI.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That any
Justice of the Peace may at any time hereafter require any person that
goes to any meeting for exercise of Religion, to make and subscribe the
Declaration aforesaid, and also to take the said Oaths or Declaration
of fidelity hereinafter mentioned, in case such person scruples the
taking of an oath, and [Sidenote: Penalty for refusing.] upon refusal
thereof such Justice of the Peace is hereby required to commit such
person to prison without bail or mainprize, and to certify the name of
such person to the next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be
held for that County, City, Town, Part, or Division, where such person
then resides; and if such person so committed, shall, upon a second
tender at the General or Quarter Sessions, refuse to make and subscribe
the Declaration aforesaid, such person refusing shall be then and there
recorded, and shall be taken thenceforth, to all intents and purposes,
for a Popish Recusant convict, and suffer accordingly, and incur all
the penalties and forfeitures of all the aforesaid laws.
[Sidenote: Quakers, how exempted.]
XII.--And whereas there are certain other persons, Dissenters from the
Church of England, who scruple the taking of any oath, be it enacted by
the authority aforesaid, [Sidenote: Altered as to Quakers by 8 Geo. I.,
cap. 6.] That every such person shall make and subscribe the aforesaid
Declaration; and also this Declaration of Fidelity following:
[Sidenote: Declaration of Fidelity.]
_I, A. B., do sincerely promise, and solemnly declare, before God and
the world, that I will be true and faithful to King William and Queen
Mary; and I do solemnly profess and declare that I do from my heart
abhor, detest, and renounce, as impious and heretical, that damnable
Doctrine and Position, That Princes excommunicated, or deprived by the
Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murthered
by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no
foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to
have, any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority,
Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm._
And shall subscribe a Profession of their Christian Belief in these
words:
[Sidenote: Profession.]
_I, A. B., profess Faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His
eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for
evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration._
Which Declaration and Subscription shall be made and entered of Record
at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County, City, or
Place, where every such person shall then reside. And every such person
that shall make and subscribe the two Declarations and Profession
aforesaid, being thereunto required, shall be exempted from all the
pains and penalties of all and every the afore-mentioned Statutes
made against Popish Recusants, or Protestant Nonconformists; and also
from the penalties of an Act made in the 5^{th} year of the reign of
the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled, [Sidenote: 5 Eliz., cap. 1.] _An
Act for the Assurance of the Queen’s Royal Power over all Estates and
Subjects within her Dominions_, for or by reason of such persons not
taking, or refusing to take, the Oath mentioned in the said Act; and
also from the penalties of an Act made in the 13^{th} and 14^{th}
years of the reign of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 13 and
14 Car. II., cap. 1.] _An Act for preventing mischiefs that may arise
by certain persons called Quakers refusing to take lawful oaths_,
and enjoy all the other Benefits, Privileges, and Advantages, under
the like Limitations, Provisions, and Conditions, which any other
Dissenters should or ought to enjoy by virtue of this Act.
[Sidenote: How purged after Refusal of the Oaths.]
XIII.--Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid,
That in case any person shall refuse to take the said Oaths when
tendered to them, which every Justice of the Peace is hereby impowered
to do, such person shall not be admitted to make and subscribe the two
Declarations aforesaid, though required thereunto, either before any
Justice of the Peace, or at the General or Quarter Sessions, before or
after any conviction of Popish Recusancy, as aforesaid, unless such
person can, within thirty-one days after such tender of the Declaration
to him, produce two sufficient Protestant witnesses to testify upon
oath, that they believe him to be a Protestant Dissenter, or a
Certificate under the hands of four Protestants, who are conformable
to the Church of England, or have taken the oaths, and subscribed the
Declaration above mentioned, and shall produce a certificate under the
hands and seals of six or more sufficient men of the congregation to
which he belongs, owning him for one of them.
XIV.--Provided also, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
until such certificate, under the hands of six of his Congregation, as
aforesaid, be produced, and two Protestant witnesses come to attest his
being a Protestant Dissenter, or a certificate under the hands of four
Protestants, as aforesaid, be produced, the Justice of the Peace shall,
and hereby is required to take a Recognizance, with two Sureties, in
the penal sum of fifty pounds, to be levied of his goods, chattels,
lands, and tenements, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties,
their heirs and successors, for his producing the same; and if he
cannot give such security, to commit him to prison, there to remain
until he has produced such certificates, or two witnesses, as aforesaid.
[Sidenote: Laws for Divine Service in force.]
XV.--Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of this
Act, That all the laws made and provided for the frequenting of Divine
Service on the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, shall be still in
force, and executed against all persons that offend against the said
laws, except such persons come to some Congregation, or Assembly of
Religious Worship, allowed or permitted by this Act.
[Sidenote: Papists, &c., excepted.]
XVI.--Provided always, and be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, that neither this Act, nor any Clause, Article, or thing,
herein contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to give
any ease, benefit, or advantage, to any Papist or Popish Recusant
whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing
the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid
Articles of Religion.
[Sidenote: Disturbers of Religious Worship.]
XVII.--Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That if any person or persons, at any time or times, after the 10^{th}
day of June, do, [Sidenote: How punished. See 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2,
cap. 5, f 4.] and shall willingly, and of purpose, maliciously, or
contemptuously, come into any Cathedral, or Parish Church, Chapel, or
other Congregation, permitted by this Act, and disquiet or disturb the
same; or misuse any Preacher or Teacher, such person or persons, upon
proof thereof, before any Justice of Peace, by two or more sufficient
witnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizance in the
penal sum of fifty pounds, and in default of such sureties shall be
committed to prison, there to remain till the next General or Quarter
Session; and upon conviction of the said offence, at the said General
or Quarter Sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of twenty
pounds, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties, their Heirs and
Successors.
[Sidenote: Place for Worship to be certified.]
XVIII.--Provided always, That no Congregation or Assembly for religious
worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of
such meeting shall be certified to the Bishop of the Diocese, or to the
Archdeacon of that Archdeaconry, or to the Justices of the Peace, at
the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County, City, or
Place, in which such meeting shall be held and registered in the said
Bishop’s or Archdeacon’s Court respectively, or recorded at the said
General or Quarter Sessions; the register or clerk of the Peace whereof
respectively is hereby required to register the same, and to give
certificate thereof to such person as shall demand the same, for which
there shall be no greater fee nor reward taken than the sum of sixpence.
III.--P. 229.
_Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers._
To prevent the possibility of misapprehension, it may be proper to
remark that the extracts I have given from _Macpherson’s Original
Papers_, are intended simply to show what was reported and desired
by the Jacobite party. Many statements in the correspondence are
utterly untrustworthy. History has to do not only with what has been
actually accomplished or attempted, but with what has been thought
and said; for rumour and falsehood have been powerful factors in the
affairs of this world.
IV.--P. 263.
_The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament._
Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, to the * * * * * Greeting.
Whereas by the advice and assent of our Council for certain arduous and
urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our said United
Kingdom and the Church, we have ordered a certain Parliament to be
holden at our City of Westminster on the * day of * next ensuing, and
there to treat and have conference with the Prelates, Great Men, and
Peers of our Realm. We strictly enjoining command you, upon the faith
and love by which you are bound to us, that the weightiness of the said
affairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be at
the said day and place personally present with us, and with the said
Prelates, Great Men, and Peers, to treat and give your counsel upon the
affairs aforesaid. And this, as you regard us and our honour, and the
safety and defence of the said United Kingdom and Church, and despatch
of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit. Forewarning the Dean and
Chapter of your Church of * * and the Archdeacons and all the Clergy of
your Diocese, that they the said Dean and Archdeacons, in their proper
persons, and the said Chapter by one, and the said Clergy by two, meet
Proctors severally, having full and sufficient authority from them,
the said Chapter and Clergy, at the said day and place, be personally
present to consent to those things which then and there by the Common
Council of our said United Kingdom (by the favour of the Divine
clemency) shall happen to be ordained. Witness ourself at Westminster,
the * of * in the * * year of our Reign.
To the Right Reverend Father in God.
* *
A writ of Summons to Parliament, to be holden the * day of * next.
INDEX.
Abney, Sir Thomas, 254, 431
Aikenhead, Thomas, 225, note
Aldrich, Dean of Christchurch, 127, 128, 292
Alex or Allix, 114, note
Allybone, Justice, 14
Alsop, Vincent, 71, 411, 425, 426
Anne, Princess, Daughter of James II., 46, 49, 57, 248, 253
Annesley, Dr. Samuel, 405, 410, 411
Account of him, 443
His Death, 444
Arundel, Archbishop, 275
Ashton, John, 167
Ashurst, Dr., 272
Atterbury, Francis, 250, 264, 269, 285, 310
His Correspondence, 271, note, 274, 283, 287
At Meetings of Convocation, 273, 290–293
Baptists, their Hopes in William III., 10
Their Views regarding Comprehension, 110
Advocates of Toleration, 115, 116
Protected by Toleration Act, 120
Present an Address to William, 254
Their Numbers Increase, 451
Their Conferences, 451–453
Their Ministers, 453
Distinction between Particular and General, 454
Barclay, Robert, 456
Barrington, Sir Charles, 309, note
Barrow, Dr. Isaac, 184, 193, note
Bassett, Josiah, 415
Bates, Dr. William, 425, 426
Favourable to Comprehension, 110
Refuses to take Part in Calamy’s Ordination, 410
His Death, 445
Baxter, Richard, 72, 152, 328, note,
Desires Comprehension, 110,
His Explication of the Doctrinal Articles, 178
His Last Days, 179
His Death, 180
His Book on Witchcraft, 338
Anecdote of, 403
Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, 312, note
Benbow, Admiral, 366
Bennet, Joseph, 415
Bentinck, William, 3, 76
Bentley, Richard, 265
His Boyle Lectures, 341–343
Beveridge, Archdeacon of Colchester, 277, 325
Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 125, 128, 131, 132
Preaches before Convocation, 140
Declines the See of Bath and Wells, 172, 173
At Meetings of Convocation, 288–292
His Writings, 314
Beverley, John, 422
Biddle, John, his Tracts, 211, 220
Binckes, Dr., 263, note
Bingham, Joseph, 215
Birch, Colonel, 74
Birch, Samuel, 415
Bishops, 9, 12
Summoned by King James, 20
First Meeting with the King, 21
Second Meeting, 23
Collects drawn up by them, 24
Charges against them, 25
Third Meeting, 29
Fourth Meeting, 31–33
Their Popularity, 33
Their Interviews with Clarendon, 64
Meetings at Lambeth, 68, 69
Desire a Regency, 69, 75
Their Reluctance to take the Oath of Allegiance, 96
Some of them Support Toleration Bill, 116
Ten appointed as Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 125
Nonjurors amongst them, 146
Prayers for James II. ascribed to them, 157
Some of them Ejected, 169
An Assembly Convened by Tillotson for Drawing up Ecclesiastical
Regulations, 191, 203
Tenison addresses Circular to them, 205
Their Declaration, 233
Responsibility of Nominating Dignitaries of the Church left to
them, 247
At Meetings of Convocation, 271–276, 277–282
Account of some of them, 298–314
Blackhall, 343
Blackhead, Stephen, 188, note
Blackmore, Richard, 365
Blagge, Margaret, 83
Blount, Charles, 349
Bold, Samuel, 345
Bostaquet, Isaac Dumont de, 34, 36, 40
Bowdler, 388
Bowerman, Edmund, 324
Boyle, Charles, 265
Boyle, Robert, Lectures Founded by, 341, _et seq._
Boyne, Battle of the, 159, 161, 164
Bradford, Dr., 343
Brady, Nicholas, 325
Bray, Dr., his Interest in the S.P.C.K., 364
And in Foreign Missions, 369, 370, 373
Broghill, Lord, 338
Brokesby, 388
Browne, Dr. Thomas, 350
Browne, Sir William, 303, note
Bryan, Dr., 189
Bulkeley, Sir Richard, 369
Bull, George, Archdeacon of Llandaff, 279, 315, 397
Bunyan, John, Popularity as a Preacher, 175
His Death, 176
Burden, George, 415
Burkett, William, 315
Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 5, 51, 52, 57, 69, 70, 335
At the Hague, 8
William’s Declaration Revised by him, 27
Comes over with William, 35, 37
Preaches at Exeter, 40
His Interview with Clarendon, 48
Preaches before the Commons, 73
Opposes the idea of making William sole King, 76
Made Bishop of Salisbury, 84
Preaches Coronation Sermon, 99
A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 129–133
At Meetings of Convocation, 139–143
His Liberalism, 139
His Dispute with Dr. Jane, 142
Extols Tillotson, 192
Preaches on Thanksgiving-Day, 243
Preceptor to the Duke of Gloucester, 244, 249
Supports the Bill against Popery, 245
His _Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles_ censured by Lower House
of Convocation, 277–282
His Quarrel with Woodward, 291
His Impressions of William’s Character, 296
His Writings, 298, 299
His Influence, 308
His Estimate of Compton’s Character, 309
Anecdote of, 311
Mourns over Inconsistency of the Clergy, 327
Predicts the Speedy Decline of Nonconformity, 404
Bury, Dr., 213, note, 218, note
Busby, Dr., 143
Busher, Leonard, 119
Button, Ralph, 416
Caffin, Matthew, 455
Calamy, Dr., Edmund, junior, 136, 137, 174, 225, 256, 306
A Student at Utrecht, 10
His Reading, 408
His Nonconformity, 408
His Preaching, 409
Accepts an Invitation to assist Sylvester, 410
His Ordination, 411
Calvin, 215
Carey, Lady, 38, note
Carstairs, 35, 37
Cartwright, Thomas, Bishop of Chester, 29, 30, 146, 308
Chadwick, 191
Chamberlayne, 371
Chandler, Benjamin, 439
Charles I., 203, 204, 333
Charles II., 204, 222
Charnock, Robert, 231
Cherry, Francis, his Hospitality, 387–390
Chicheley, Archbishop, 207, 208
Chorlton, John, 415
Clarendon, Henry Hyde, Earl of, 21, 22, 58, 63, 140
Joins the Prince of Orange, 47
His Private Conference with William, 48
His Interviews with Burnet, _ib._
Interviews with Bishops, 64, 65, 69
His remark about Churchmen, 267
Clarges, Sir Thomas, 86, 106, note
Clark, Samuel, 352
Clarkson, David, 181, 428
Clergy,
Present an Address to William III., 59
Uphold the Cause of Hereditary Monarchy, 70
Refuse to Read James II.’s. Declaration, 75
Question of Requiring Oaths from the Clergy, 89
Their manner of Taking the Oath, 97
Many of them Oppose the Toleration Bill, 116
Nonjurors who Voluntarily left their Cures, 151
Accounts of some of the Clergy, 314–320
Character of the, 325–328
Their Circumstances, 328–331
Costume, 331
Preach on Behalf of Societies, 361
Cobham, Lord, 275
Cogan, Richard, 41
Colchester, Colonel Maynard, 364
Collier, Jeremy, a Nonjuror, 151, 152, 168
Absolves Friend and Parkyns at Tyburn, 232
Defends what he did, 233, 234
Collinges, Dr. John, 176
Commission, Ecclesiastical
Appointment of, 125
Their Proceedings, 125
Discussions concerning the Apocrypha, 125
Prayer-book Version of Psalms, 126
Liturgy, 128
Manner of receiving the Sacrament, _ib._
Godfathers, _ib._
Calendar, 129
Athanasian Creed, _ib._
Ordination, 130
Daily Prayer, 134
Communion Service, 135
Baptism, 135
Catechism and Confirmation Service, _ib._
Visitation of the Sick, _ib._
Burial Service, 136
Sittings of Commission Ends, 138
Their Labour Lost, _ib._
Commons, House of, Assemble, 73
Declare the Throne Vacant, 74
Provisions for Securing Religious Liberty, 75
Conference with the Lords, 76
Declare William and Mary King and Queen, 78
Their Comprehension and Toleration Bills, 105, 106, note
Appeal to the King to Suppress Books against the Trinity, 224
Debate on the Bill for Fenwick’s Attainder, 239
Comprehension Bill, 101–109
Difficulties of Comprehension, 112
Tillotson’s Views on Comprehension, 122
Compton, Bishop of London, 12, 33, 75, 77, 270
Summoned to Attend James II., 20
Signs the Invitation to the Prince of Orange, 27
At Interviews with James, 29–31
Accompanies Princess Anne in her Flight, 46
Presents an Address to William, 59
Wishes Mary to be Queen Regent, 70
Assists at the Coronation of William and Mary, 99
Promotes Union, 107
His Note to Strype, 115, note
A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 127, 128
His Liberalism, 139
His Discontent at not being made Primate, 140
Preaches at Opening of St. Paul’s, 243
Becomes a Tory, 283
His Character, 309, 310
His Interest in Foreign Missions, 369, 371
Con, Father, 56
Convention, The, 63, 65, 69, 73, 85
Convocation, 107
Meets, 138
Houses differ about the Address, 141
Effect little, 143
_Letter to a Convocation Man_, 261–264
Little Resemblance between English Convocations and Early Synods,
268
Restored to its Sessional Rights, 269
Contests between the Two Houses, 272
Disagree about Prorogation, _ib._, 289
Present an Address to William, 274
Examine Toland’s Book, 275
Prorogued, 276
Reassembles, 277
Lower House Censures Burnet’s Book, 277
Incidents connected with Presentation of Censure to the Upper
House, 278–282
Prorogued, 282
Dissolved, _ib._
Kennet’s Book on Convocation, 284
Reassembles, 287
Fresh Contentions, 288
Illness and Death of Prolocutor, 292, 293
Prorogued, 294
Interest in Foreign Missions, 370
Cook, a Nonjuring Clergyman, 232, 233
Cornbury, Edward, Viscount, 46
Cranburne, Charles, 241
Cressey, a Nonjuror, 376
Crew, Nathaniel, Bishop of Durham, Present at Interview of Bishops
with James II., 29, 30
His Character, 77, 312
Crisp, Dr. Tobias, His Works, 424–427
Cromwell, Richard, Visits Howe in his last Illness, 448
Crowther, Joseph, 319, note
Cudworth, Dr., 181, 220, 341
Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, 303, 308
Currency, Debased State of, 209
D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio, 56
Danby, Earl of, 12, 50, 86
Appointed President of the Council, 82
Dartmouth, Lord, 21, note
Davis, Richard, 423
De Foe, Daniel, 53, 54, 327, 417, 443
_His Enquiry_, 431
Devonshire, Earl of, 10
De Witt, 2, 3, 158
Dodwell, Henry, a Nonjuror, 151, 152
Advocates Nonjuring Cause, 380
His Interest in the Colonies, 381
His Correspondence with Tenison, 381, 382
His Ecclesiastical Opinions, 389
His Pupil Hearne, 390
Doolittle, Thomas, 416
Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury, 130, 131
Dunton, John, 310, 443
Dyer, 114, note
Edward I., 262, 285
Edwards, Dr. Jonathan, 427
Edwin, Sir Humphrey, 429, 430
Elizabeth, Queen, 11, 203, 204
Entwich, Sir Edward, 170
Evelyn, John, 73
His Letter to Sancroft, 25
Meets the Bishops at Lambeth, 69
Boyle’s Trustee, 341
Appoints Bentley as Lecturer, 341, 342
Evelyn, Thomas, 338
Fairclough, 59, 72
Fenwick, Sir John, a Conspirator against William III., 231
Arrested, 234
His Disclosures, 235–238
Bill of Attainder against, 239
Attempts to Save his Life, 239, 240
His Execution, 241
Ferguson, Robert, 35, 40, 41, note
Firman, Thomas, 212
Flavel, John, 177
Fleetwood, 209
Fog, Dean of Chester, 361
Ford, Dr. Simon, 325
Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, 304, 308, 365
Fox, George, 456, 457
Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, 97, 308
A Moderator Nonjuror, 149
Ejected, 171
Frankland, Richard, 413
Freeman, Dean of Peterborough, 272, 274, 290
Friend, Sir John, 232
Gailhard, John, 225
Gale, Theophilus, 415
Galmoy, Lord, 235
Gastrell, 343
George, Prince of Denmark, 46, 248
Gibbons, Grinling, 243
Gibbs, John, 321
Gilbert, 16, 17
Gleanes, Sir Peter, 336, note
Gloucester, Duke of, Son of Princess Anne, 244
Anecdote of His Childhood, 248
His Education, _ib._
His Death, 249
Burial in Westminster Abbey, _ib._
His Death Mourned by the Nation, 250
Goodall, Charles, 328, note
Gooderick, Sir Henry, 49
Goodridge, Richard, 324
Goodwin, John, 119
Gordon, Patrick, 372
Grabe, Dr., 388
Grafton, 46
Griffith, 407
Grove, Dr., 132
Guildford, Lord, 364, 366
Gwyn, Nell, 195
Hale, Sir Matthew, 302, 338
Halifax, Lord, 83, 86
Hall, John, Bishop of Bristol, 195, 306
Hall, Timothy, Bishop of Oxford, 18, 308
Hardwick, Lord Chancellor, 251
Harris, Dr., 343
Harrison, Michael, 413
Hearne, Thomas, 373
Henry V., 207
Henry VIII., 204, note
Henry, Matthew, 71, 362
Preaches at Opening of the Chapel at Chester, 403
His Education, 416
His _Discourse concerning the Nature of Schism_, 428
His Ministry, 433–435, 436, note
Henry, Philip, 71, 416
Desires Comprehension, 109
His Death, 442
Herbert, Admiral, 10, 28
Heywood, Oliver, takes part in Ordinations, 405–407
His New Place of Worship, 413
Preaches at Wakefield, 422
His Death, 445, note
Hickes, George, Dean of Worcester, a Nonjuror, his Character and
Writings, 151, 383, 389
Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to Him, 158
Protests against his Ejectment, 171
Suspected of Treasonable Intrigues, 188
His Visit to St. Germains, 374
Nominated Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, 374
His Friendship for Dr. Grabe, 388
Attends Pepys in his Last Illness, 393
A Spiritual Fanatic, 398
Hobbes, Thomas, 116, 304, 341
Holcroft, Francis, 181, 182
Holmes, a Nonjuror, 376
Holt, Sir John, 338
Hooper, Dr., Chaplain to Princess Mary, 5, 6, 148
Prolocutor of Lower House of Convocation, 271–282
Hopkins, 324, 433
Horneck, Dr., 317, 356
Hough, John, Bishop of Oxford, Translated to Lichfield and
Coventry in 1699, 270, 306, 308
Horton, Lord, 50
Howard, John, 367
Howe, John, 184, 254, 404
Accompanies Clergy to present an Address to William, 59, 72
Desires Comprehension, 110
His Conversation with the King on Indulgence and Comprehension
Bills, 113, note
Anxious for Union, 175
Takes part in Trinitarian Controversy, 221
Reproves Profane Swearers, 333
Objects to take part in Calamy’s Ordination, 410
Lecturer at Pinners’ Hall, 426
His Answer to De Foe’s _Enquiry_, 432
Laments the Change in Dissent, 441
His Last Days, 445–448
Richard Cromwell Visits him, 448
His Death, 449
Hulton, 362
Humphreys, Humphrey, Bishop of Bangor, 279, 280, 282
Hussey, Joseph, 405
Inch, 155
Independents, their Hopes in William III., 10
Their Meeting with Presbyterians, 60
Their Views regarding Comprehension, 110
Advocate Toleration, 115, 116
Protected by Toleration Act, 120
Their Political Views, 258
Their Places of Worship, 401
Efforts at Union with Presbyterians, 420
Difference between Presbyterians and Independents, 436
Their Reception of a New Minister, 437
Mode of Conducting Worship, 438
Ireland, James lands in, 144
James’ Declaration to his Subjects in, 145
Battle of the Boyne, 159, 164
Irish Night, The, 54, 55
Jacobites, their Form of Prayer ascribed to Nonjuring Prelates, 157
Their Conspiracy, 167
Exult in Death of Mary, 201
Trouble the Church, 206
Their Hatred of Sherlock, 216
Their Correspondence with the Court of St. Germains, 229
Their Conspiracy against William, 231
Executions of, 232
Their Intrigues, 236–241, 387
Some who had taken Oaths Retract, 393
James II., his Misgovernment, 9
Birth of a Son, 9
The Child is Baptized in the Romish Church, 10
James Disbelieves in Rumours of Dutch Invasion, 13
His Conduct after the Bishops’ Acquittal, 14
His Proceedings in Reference to the Church, 18
His Declaration, 20
Summons the Bishops, _ib._
Interviews with the Bishops, 21, 23, 29, 31–33
His Concessions, 20, 23
Approves of the Bishops’ Collects, 24
Authorises Mew to Settle Troubles at Magdalen, 25
His Alarm at William’s Declaration, 29
Receives Loyal Addresses from Scotland, 43
Goes to Salisbury, 43
Advised to Treat with William, _ib._
His Faith in the Bishops, 44
Deserted by his Daughter Anne and many others, 46
His Return to London, 47
Issues New Proclamations, _ib._
Flies to Sheerness, 53
Returns to London, 56
Forced to Surrender, 57
Goes to Rochester, _ib._,
and to France, _ib._
His Letter to Sancroft, 63
Lands at Kinsale, 144
Issues a Declaration to his Irish Subjects, 145
Scheme for his Restoration, 167
His Declaration, 227
His Court at St. Germains, 228
His Knowledge of Insurrection, and Assassination Plot, _ib._
His Religious Sincerity, 252
Last Words to his Son, 253
Louis XIV. visits him, 253
His Death, _ib._
James, Prince of Wales, 76, 251
His Birth, 9
Suspected to be Supposititious, 10, 63
His Baptism, 10
Proclaimed King of England by Louis XIV., 253
Jane, Dr. William, Dean of Gloucester, 271, note
Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 125, 127, 128
Made Prolocutor, 140
His Dispute with Burnet, 142
Jefford, or Gifford, Mayor of Exeter, 16, note
Jeffreys, Sir George, 38, note, 47, 52
Elected Chancellor of Oxford by James II., 18
Falls into the Hands of the Mob, 54
Johnson, Dr., 303, note, 307
His Anecdote of Burnet and Sprat, 311
Jollie, Timothy, 415
Jurieu, a French Theologian, 138
Juxon, 207
Keach, Benjamin, 452–454
Keith, George, 367, 368
Ken, Thomas, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 23, 68, 379
Chaplain to the Princess Mary, 6
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Preserves his Allegiance to James, 42
Refuses to take the Oath, 97, 147, 148
A Moderate Nonjuror, 148
Ejected, 171
His Departure from Wells, _ib._
A Letter finding Fault with Tenison ascribed to him, 200
Troubled by the Abjuration Bill, 256
Receives Half the Income from the See of Bath and Wells, from
Kidder, 305
His Character, 308
His Retirement at Longleat, 390
Kennet, White, 292, 294, 373
His Book on Ecclesiastical Synods, 284–286
Kentish, Thomas, 410, 411
Kettlewell, John, a Nonjuror, 151
His Character, 152, 383, 399
Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to him, 158
His Ecclesiastical Opinions, 377, 389
His Benevolence, 378
His Death, 379
Keyes, Thomas, 231
Kidder, Richard, 126, 384
Made Bishop of Bath and Wells, 304
His Character, 305, 308
Boyle Lecturer, 343
Kiffin, William, 452
King, Lord Chief Justice, 326
Lake, Bishop of Chichester, a Nonjuror, Summoned to Attend the
King, 20
His Death, 146
Lamplugh, Thomas, Bishop of Exeter, 16, 17
Created Archbishop of York by James II., 39
Landen, Battle of, 207
Laud, Archbishop, 204, 320
Lauderdale, Duke of, 338
Le Clerc, 117, 345, 417
Lee, Dr. Francis, 383
Leeds, Duke of, 208
Le Neve, 191
Leslie, Charles, a Nonjuror, 349, 388
Licensing Act, 201
Limborch, 117, 345
Litany, Alterations made in, by Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 134
Lloyd, William, Bishop of Norwich, a Nonjuror, 97, 147
His Letters to Sancroft, 155, 165, 166, 169, 170, 189, 322
Appointed Sancroft’s Vicar, 189, 374
Assured of James’ Favour, 230
A Non-Compounder, 239
Discipline exercised by him, 321
Lloyd, William, Bishop of St. Asaph, calls on Patrick, 58
At Meetings with Clarendon and Bishops, 64, 68, 69, 101
Votes for a Regency, 75
Takes part in the Coronation, 99
A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 127, 133
Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry 1692; Translated to
Worcester, 307, 335
Practical Joke played by him, 308, note
Lobb, Stephen, 71, 426, 439
Locke, John, Advocates Toleration, 116
His Writings, 344–348
Lords, House of, 63, 73
Vote for a Protestant Succession, 75
Dispute with the Commons about the Throne being Vacant, 76
Declare William and Mary King and Queen, 77
Prosecute Author and Printer of a Book on the Trinity, 221
Louis XIV., 2, 7, 9, 13, 144, 145
Visits James on his Death-bed, 253
Acknowledges Prince of Wales, King, _ib._
Lovelace, Lord, 45, 105
Lowick, Edward, 241
Lowth, Dr., 172
Lucy, Lady Theophila, 384
Lumley, Lord, 10
Luther, Martin, 215, 265, 275
Macclesfield, 111, note
Mackworth, Sir Humphrey, 364
Macpherson, 229
Magdalen College, 23, 25
Manlove, 412
Manningham, 365
Manton, Dr., 425, 443
Mapletop, 365
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of, 46, 248
Mary, Princess, Daughter of Charles I., 1
Mary, Princess, Daughter of James II., 28, 66, 207, 247
Her Marriage, 4
Her Chaplains, 5, 6
Her Low Church Principle’s, 7
Burnet’s Counsels to, 8
Her Affection for the Church of England, 9
Proposals to make her Queen Regent, 69, 70
Declared Queen by the Lords, 77,
and by the Commons, 78
Proclaimed Queen, 81
Sends to Sancroft for his Blessing, _ib._
Her Coronation, 99
Receives Tidings of William’s Wound, 159
Highly esteems Tenison, 195
Attacked by Small-Pox, 196
Her Death, _ib._
Her Last Hours, 196–199
Her Funeral, 199
General Sorrow, _ib._
A Lock of her Hair found on William III. after his Death, 296
Mason, John, his Fanaticism, 317, 319
Mawburn, a Nonjuror, 376
May Fair, Riot in, 363
Maynard, Sir John, 83, 85
Mayo, 59, 72
Mead, Matthew, 410, 426
Meggot, Dean of Winchester, 125
Melmoth, William, 365, 371
Mew, Peter, Bishop of Winchester, 22, 23, 270
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Authorised to Settle Troubles at Magdalen, 25
His Letters to Sancroft, 45, 56
Middleton, Charles, Earl of, 5
Takes part in Jacobite Intrigues, 236
At the Death-bed of James II., 254, note
Mill, Dr. John, 139
Milner, a Nonjuror, 375
Milton, John, 397
Monmouth, James, Duke of, 38, note
Montague, 320
Moore, John, Bishop of Norwich, 308
His Extensive Library, 303
Mordaunt, Lord, 105, 111, note
More, Henry, 300
Morley, Bishop of Worcester, 21, note
Morton, Charles, 415
Namur Besieged by William, 207
Nelson, Robert, a Nonjuror, 239, 332
His Writings, 356, 385, 397
Abandons Nonjuring Party, 358
His Character and Appearance, 384
A Guest at Shottesbrook, 388
Newcome, Henry, 362
Newton, Sir Isaac, 156
His _Principia_, 342
Nicholson, Bishop of Carlisle, 392
Niebuhr, 349
Noncompounders, 238, 239
Nonconformists, 18, 73, 101, 106, 137, 358
Present Addresses to William, 59, 60, 254
Their Opinions concerning the Revolution, 70–72
Failure of Efforts in their Favour made in Parliament, 93
Differences of Opinion with regard to Comprehension, 109
Toleration Act passed for their Relief, 114–121
Thankful for the Revolution, 174
Deaths amongst their Ministers, 175–183
Preach Sermons on Behalf of Societies, 361
Their Places of Worship, 400
Ordinations, 405
Ministers, 408
Seminaries, 413
Attempt at Union amongst them, 420
Antinomian Controversy, 422
Their Worship, 433
The Fund Board, 439
Trotman’s Trust, 439
Sundays at Home, 440
Deaths among them, 442–449
Their Social Separation from Churchmen, 450
Nonjurors, their Objection to taking the Oaths, 89, _et. seq._
Their Disaffection, 146
Prelates, 146
Clergy, 151
Their Numbers, 154
Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to them, 157
In Ireland, 166
Their Sympathy with Jacobite Conspirators, 167
Treated with Consideration, 169
At last Ejected, _ib._
Find Fault with Tenison’s Funeral Sermon, 200
Trouble the Church, 206
Join in a Conspiracy against William, 232
Divisions among them, 238
Their Political Views, 259, 395
Their Judgment of Ministers who took the Oaths, 325, 326
Appoint Bishops, 374
Circumstances of Clergy among, 375
Eminent Divines among, 377–384
Laymen, 384
Centres of Influence, 387
Deaths of Prelates, 391
Religious Spirit, 396
Modes of Worship, 398
Norfolk, Duke of, 50
Norris, John, his Writings, 315, 333, 350
His Mysticism, 458
North, 190
Nottingham, Earl of, 102
Appointed Secretary of State, 83
Moves Toleration Bill, 107
Oath of Allegiance, 80, 88–97
Coronation Oath, 97
Oglethorpe, Sir Theophilus, 231
Oldfield, Joshua, 415
Oldfield, Nathaniel, 410
Overall, Bishop, his _Convocation Book_, 162
Owen, James, 429
Oxford University, Supports the Prince of Orange, 50
William’s Visit to, 209
Condemns the Doctrines of Sherlock and Bingham on the Trinity,
222
Presents an Address to William, 243
Palmer, 415, 416
Paman, Dr., 59
Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, 302, 308
Parkyns, Sir William, a Jacobite Conspirator, his Execution, 232,
233
Parliament, Debates on Oaths of Allegiance, 88
Bill for Repealing Corporation Act, 92
Coronation Oath, 97
Comprehension Bill, 101–107
Requests William to Summon Convocation, 107
Comprehension Bill dropped, 107
Passes Toleration Act, 114
Excitement at Election of New Parliament, 156
In 1698 passes Act against anyone Denying the Doctrine of the
Trinity, 225
Repealed in 1813, 226
Passes Bill against Roman Catholics, 245
Succession Bill, 250
Abjuration Bill, 256
Patrick, Dr. Simon, receives Tidings of William’s Intention to come
to England, 13
Visited by Tenison and Lloyd, 58
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 127, 128
Made Bishop of Chichester, 300
Translated to Ely, 300
His Writings, 301
His Character, 308
Discipline Exercised by, 322
His _Century of Select Psalms_, 324
Deplores Carelessness in Religion, 333
His Letter to the Rector of Dodington, 418, note
Payne, William, 439
Pelham, Sir Nicholas, 160
Penn, William, 71, 114, 457
Pepys, Samuel, 392, 393
Petiver, 309
Phillips, Sir John, 367
Plunkenet, 309
Pool, his _Annotations_, 176
Portland, Earl of, 122, 295
Powle, 74
Prayers for King James ascribed to Nonjurors, 157
Authorship Denied by them, 158
Attributed to Hickes, Kettlewell, or Sherlock, _ib._
Presbyterians, their Hopes in William III., 10
Their Meeting with Independents, 60
Advocates of Comprehension, 110
Present an Address of Condolence to William on the Death of Mary,
200
Their Political Views, 257
Their Places of Worship, 401
Ordinations, 405
Synods, 407
Attempts at Union with Independents, 420
Lord Mayors, 429–431
Difference between Independents and Presbyterians, 436
Preston, Richard Graham, Viscount, Head of the Jacobite Conspiracy,
167
Tried and Convicted, _ib._
Pardoned, 167
Psalms, Prayer-book Version, 126
Other Versions, 324, 325
Pullin, 234
Quakers, 114, 398
Advocates of Toleration, 116
Protected by Toleration Act, 120
Special Provision for their Relief, 121
Their Political Views, 258
Attempts to Convert them, 368
Benefited by the Revolution, 456
Their Leaders, 456
Self-government, 457
Mysticism, 458
Rapin-Thoyras, 35–36
Ray, 309
Reresby, Sir John, 97
Richard I., 206, 207
Robartes, Francis, 30, note
Rochester, Earl of, 140
Roman Catholics, Bill against them, 245
Their Political Views, 259
Attempts to Convert them, 368
Rooke, Sir George, 366
Rookwood, 241
Rosse, a Nonjuror, 376
Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, 145
Russell, Lady Rachel, 186
Russell, Lord William, 152, 252
Ryswick, Peace of, 242, 244
Sacheverel, 107, note
Sackville, Major-General, 231
Saint Germains, 57
James’ Court at, 228, 229
St. Paul’s Cathedral, 243, 352
St. Vincent de Paul, 356
Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, 5, 25, 42, 59, 63, 204, 229
Trelawny’s Letter to him, 16
Admonitions to his Clergy, 18
His Scheme of Comprehension, 19
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Excuses himself, 21
Signs Paper of Advice, 23
His Interviews with the King, 30, 31–33
Denies Signing Invitation to William, 30, 31, note
Mew’s Letters to him, 45, 56
His Discourse with Clarendon and Tenison, 65
Favours a Regency, 66–68, 82, 91
Refuses to Attend the Convention, 69
Reprimands his Chaplain for Praying for William and Mary, 2
Objects to Burnet being made Bishop of Salisbury, 85
Refuses to take Oath of Allegiance, 97
Favours Comprehension, 101, 108
Shuts himself up at Lambeth, 147
Lloyd’s Letters to him, 155, 165, 166, 169, 170, 189, 322
Ejected from Lambeth, 171
Retires to Freshingfield, 187
Suspected of Intrigues against William, 188
His Hatred against the Establishment, 189
Appoints Lloyd his Vicar in Ecclesiastical Matters, 189, 374
Last Days, 190
His Character, 191, 192, 308
A Tory, 195
Sanderson, 348, note
Sawyer, Sir Robert, 156
Schomberg, Count of, 34
Scot, Dr., 132, 133
Scotland, 28
Scotch Bishops Send an Address to James II., 43
Constitutions for the Church of, 204, note
Searle, 39, note
Seymour, Sir Edward, 39, note, 64
Sharpe, Dean of Norwich, 101, 414
Proposes Tillotson as Prolocutor, 140
Made Archbishop of York, 306, 308
Objects to Religious Societies, 357, 362
Sheldon, Gilbert, 302
Sherlock, Dr. William, 68, 70, 158
A Nonjuror, 161
Change in his Opinions, _ib._
Takes the Oaths, 162
Outcries against him, 163
Takes part in the Trinitarian Controversy, 214–222
Shorter, Sir John, 429
Shower, Sir Bartholomew, 263, note
Shower, John, 410
Shrewsbury, Duke of, 10, 83, 208, 363
His Letters to William III., 234, 237, 248
Fenwick’s Accusations against him, 235, 236
Shute, 365
Slingsbie, Sir Henry, 376
Smith, John, 300
Smithies, 356
Snatt, a Nonjuring Clergyman, 232, 233
Societies for Religious Purposes, their Origin and Development,
354–357
Advocated from the Pulpit, 361
S.P.C.K., 364
S.P.G., 369
Somers, Lord, 208, 363
Sophia, Princess, 250, 251
South, Dr. Robert, 160, 194, 223, note
Joins in the Trinitarian Controversy, 216–221
Speke, 52, 54
Spinoza, 341
Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Rochester, 23, 77, 270
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Present at the Interview of the Bishops with the King, 31
Extract from his Account, 32, note
Takes Part in Coronation, 99
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 126–128
Arrested on Charge of Conspiracy, 188
Exposes Falsehood of his Accusers, 189
His Want of Principle, 284
His Popularity as a Preacher, 310, 311
Stamford, Earl of, 105
Stancliffe, 59, 72
Standish, 392
Stanhope, Dr., 344
Sternhold, 324
Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul’s, 101, 122, 427
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 125, note, 131, 132
Bishop of Worcester, 195, 299, 308
His Writings, 299, 302
Bentley’s Patron, 342
Stratford, Nicholas, Bishop of Chester, 306, 308, 361
Stretton, Richard, 411
Strutwick, 176
Strype, John, 115, note, 316, 324, 365
Sunderland, Earl of, 20, note
Swift, 265
Sylvester, Matthew, 179, 180, 410, 411
Symms, a Nonjuror, 376
Symons, 366
Synods, 268, 269, 285
Tallard, the French Ambassador, 244, note
Tallents, Francis, 415
Tate, Nahum, 325
Taunton, Maids of, 38, note
Taylor, Jeremy, Advocates Toleration, 116
Taylor, Nathaniel, 410
Temple, Sir William, 4, 265
Tenison, Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, 68, 101, 261, 381
His Interviews with Patrick, 13, 58
His Discourse with Sancroft and Clarendon at Lambeth, 65
His Library, 143
Made Archbishop of Canterbury, 195
His Funeral Sermon for Queen Mary, 196–199
Censured in a Letter supposed to have been Written by Ken, 200
Defended in another Letter, 201
Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, 203, 204
His Circular to his Bishops, 205
Appointed one of the Lords Justices, 206, 208
Urged to Plead with William for Fenwick’s Life, 239
His Pastoral Letter, 246
At Meetings of Convocation, 271, 277–281, 287–295
Presents an Address to William, 274
Prorogues Convocation, 276, 294
Attends William on his Death-bed, 295
His Character, 298, 308
One of Boyle’s Trustees, 341
His Interest in Foreign Missions, 369, 371
Test Act, 94
Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, 97, 128, 146, 308
Thomond, Earl of, 148, note
Thoresby, Ralph, 322, 411, 412
Thorpe, Edmund, 415
Tillotson, John, 19, 101, 159, 181, 261, 353, 357
His Views on Comprehension, 122
His Committee, 124
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 129, 132, 133
Proposed as Prolocutor, 140
Rejected, _ib._
Made Archbishop of Canterbury, 162, 186
Account of him, 184–187
Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, 203, 204
His Archiepiscopal Career, 191, 203, 204
His Death and Character, 192, 382
His Writings, 193–195
A Latitudinarian, 192, 384
His Influence, 308
His Wig, 332
Toland, John, his _Christianity not Mysterious_ Examined by
Convocation, 275, 277
His Works, 348, note, 350–352
Toleration Bill, 105, 114, 211
Locke’s Letters on Toleration, 116
Advocates of, _ib._
Causes of the Bill being Passed, 118
What it Accomplished, 119, 120
Tong, William, 428
Tories, 93, 96, 110, note, 156
Their Discussions with Whigs, 251
Trapp, Dr., 303, note
Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, Translated from Bristol, 52, 75, 270
His Letter to Sancroft, 16, 17
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Denies that the Bishops Invited the Prince of Orange, 30, note,
283
His Character, 310
Trenchard, Secretary, 41, note
Trinitarian Controversy, 211–226, 327, 333
Trotman’s Trust, 439, 440
Turner, Francis, Bishop of Ely, 23, 53, 63, 64, 69, 76, 97
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
His Interview with the King, 21
His Letter to Trelawny, 52
Holds a Meeting at Ely House, 68
A Nonjuror, 148
Accused of Joining in the Jacobite Conspiracy, 168
His Death, 392
Unitarians
Join in Trinitarian Controversy, 211, 220
Their Doctrines Condemned by the House of Lords, 221
William urged to Deprive them of the Liberty of the Press, 225
Upton, Dr., 410
Veal, Edward, 415
Vernon, Secretary of State, 362
Vincent, Nathaniel, 444
Vincent, Thomas, 416
Voltaire, 349
Wagstaffe, Thomas, a Nonjuror, 169, 171, 374
Wake, Dr., 19, 285
His Answer to _Letter to a Convocation Man_, 264, 266
Walgrave, Lady, 235
Wallis, Dr., his Pamphlet on the Trinity, 213, 218
Walter, Hubert, Archbishop, 207, 208
Ward, Seth, 84
Warren, Matthew, 415
Warton, 303, note
Watson, Bishop of St. David’s, 30, 31
His Trial and Deprivation, 312
His Death, 314, note
Watts, Dr., Isaac, 439, 440
Wesley, John, 330
Wesley, Samuel, 87, 307, 365, 439, 443
His Eulogy on Queen Mary, 200, note
His _Athenian Oracle_, 325–331
His Domestic Life, 328
Anecdotes of, 330, 334, note
Enters himself as a Servitor at Exeter College, 415
Weymouth, Lord, 390
Wharton, Henry, 316
Wharton, Lord, 46, 63, 94
Wheeler, 365
Whigs, 73, 93, 96, 110, note, 156
Invite William to come to England, 11
Recover Power, 208
Their Discussions with Tories, 251
Pleased with the King’s Speech, 255
Whiston, 307, 326
White, Bishop of Peterborough, a Nonjuror, 23, 53, 68, 69, 240, 308
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
At Interview with the King, 31
Refuses to take the Oath, 97
Ejected, 171
Attends Fenwick on the Scaffold, 241
His Death and Funeral, 391, 392
Wickart, Dean of Winchester, 292
William III.
His Early Days, 1–3
His Character, 3
Marriage, 4
Religious Opinions, 4
His Protestantism, 6, 7
His Interest in England, 8, 9
Invited to England, 11
His Diplomatic Negotiations Abroad, 12
Military Preparations at Home, 13
His Declaration, 27
Appeals to the Army, 28
Sets Sail, 34
Lands at Torbay, 36
Marches with his Army to Exeter, 38
At Wells, 42
Takes Possession of Salisbury, 47
His Private Conference with Clarendon, 48
His Popularity, 49
False Declaration in his Cause, 50–51
Deputation waits upon him, 54
Forces James to Surrender, 57
Clergy Present him with an Address, 59
Sancroft’s Proposal to make him Regent, 67, 68
He Summons a Meeting, 72
Entrusted with Administration of Affairs, 73
Declared King by the Lords, 77
By the Commons, 78
His Speech at Whitehall, 80
Proclaimed King, 81
His Appointments to Office, 82
Nominates Burnet to the Bishopric of Salisbury, 84
Desires Alteration in Test Act, 94
His Coronation, 99
Requested by Parliament to Summon Convocation, 107
His Conversation with John Howe, 113, note
An Advocate of Liberty, 118
Appoints the Ecclesiastical Commission, 125
Desires to make Tillotson Archbishop of Canterbury, 140, 186
His Message to Convocation, 141
His Answer to their Address, 143
Disgusted with his Position, 156
Resolves to go to Ireland, 156
Assembles a New Parliament, 156
Wounded at the Battle of the Boyne, 159
His Esteem for Tillotson, 191
Sympathy with him on the Death of his Queen, 199
Articles Published in his Name for Ecclesiastical Reform, 203, 209
His Frequent Absence from England, 206
Appoints Lords Justices, 206
Administers Foreign Affairs, 208
His Return to England after Surrender of the Castle of Namur, 208
His Injunctions Relative to the Trinitarian Controversy, 209,
210, 223
His Inconsistency, 224
Conspiracy against him, 231
His Perilous Position in England, 236
Recognised as a Constitutional King by the Peace of Ryswick, 242
His Entry into London, 242, 243
Obliged to give up his Dutch Guards, 244
Devolves Part of Responsibility of Bestowing Church Preferment on
others, 247
Provides for Education of the Duke of Gloucester, 248, 249
Anxious about the Succession, 250
His Speech on Opening Parliament, 254
His Declining Health, 256
Instability of his Throne, 259
His Death, 295
Character, 296
Objects to Touching for King’s Evil, 339
Williams, Solicitor-General, 14
Williams, Daniel, 411, 425–427
Williams, Bishop of Chichester, 125, note
Willis, Dr., 296
Willoughby, Lord, 50
Wilson, Thomas, Bishop of Sodor and Man, 331
Winchester, Marquis of, 103, 105
Winshup, a Nonjuror, 376
Witchcraft, 335–339
Woodhouse, John, 415
Woodward, Dean of Salisbury, 288, 289, 292
Wren, Sir Christopher, 287
Yorke, a Nonjuror, 375
Young, Robert, 188, note
Zulestein, Count of, 6, note
CORRIGENDA.
Page 144, line 13, _for_ Kingsale _read_ Kinsale.
„ 222, „ 1, _for_ Unitariam _read_ Unitarian.
„ 343, „ 30, _for_ Blackall _read_ Blackhall.
UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND CHILWORTH.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For the early life of the Prince of Orange, see _The Life of
William III._ 8vo., Lond., 1703; _The Hist. of King William
III._, 3 vols. 8vo., 1703; _The Life of William, Prince of
Orange_, 8vo., Lond., 1688.
[2] _Own Times_, ii. 305, i. 689.
[3] _Own Times_, i. 691.
[4] Burnet evidently wished to make William appear as much of a
Churchman as possible.
[5] These anecdotes are found in a MS. _Life of Hooper_, by
Prouse. See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 101–3.
[6] _Hawkins’ Life of Ken_, 7. In the _Life of Ken, by a
Layman_, 105, we are told that William was much offended at the
marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced--which
marriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’s
displeasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence with
Bentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning that
one of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refused
to marry her. Which is right?
[7] _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 183.
[8] _Clarendon Correspondence_, ii. 484.
[9] _Calamy’s Hist. Account_, i. 147. He describes the prophetic
dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell, in his
_Hist. of the Quakers_, ii. 353, speaks of a prophetic letter
(containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by a Quaker
at London to his friend, as a forgery.
[10] _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. part i. 228.
[11] _Ibid._, 238.
[12] See curious correspondence in _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. i.
240. Throughout the business it was “diamond cut diamond.”
[13] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. (autobiography) 513.
[14] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 510.
[15] _Gutch’s Collectanea Curiosa_, i. 393–397.
[16] My friend, the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, informs me: “I find the
Mayor of Exeter for the year 1688 was a Jefford, or Gifford, as it
is sometimes spelt. He had acquired a fortune in business as a dyer.
In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Order of the
Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations to surrender
their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty and well-beloved,’
commanding them to remove the then present Mayor (J. Snell) and other
members of the Corporation, and to elect and admit ‘our well-beloved
Thomas Jefford’ to be Mayor, is dated 28th of November, 1687. Jenkins,
our local historian, says, ‘that not only the Mayor, but the other
members of the newly-created Chamber, were Presbyterians. When the
Corporation sent up an address to the King, congratulating him on
the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received the honour of knighthood.
When the King turned penitent, as you are aware, one of the fruits
of his repentance was the restoration of their charters to corporate
towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend from his corporate
dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, I have not been
able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that the Mayor was a
Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’s allusion to
the Conventicle.”
[17] Aug. 16, 1688. _Bodleian, Tanner MSS._, xxviii.
[18] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 113, printed in _Gutch’s Collectanea_, i. 404.
[19] July 27, 1688. _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 618.
[20] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 326–8. I am very sceptical
about this report.
[21] _London Gazette_, 2384.
[22] Trelawny wrote an obsequious letter (21st of May, 1686) to the
Earl of Sunderland, stating that he had reproved a clergyman for an
impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely in fear,
yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery.
Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was so
careful of the interests of the Church of England, that though the
“foolish heates” of some of its members had given him just provocation,
he had curtailed none of its liberties. The Bishop complains of his
Episcopal income being desperately poor. _Facsimiles of National
MSS._, iv. 92.
[23] _Clarendon Correspondence._ Lord Dartmouth says, “Not long
before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept his chamber),
my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was not above
twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of the Duke,
and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, that if
ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would find
himself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, though
there were not many of the Church of England that thought proper to
contradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. My
father told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’s
last message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answer
was, that the Bishop was a very good man, but grown old and timorous.”
_Dalrymple_, iii. appen. 289.
[24] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 317.
[25] _Clarendon Correspondence._
[26] _Gazette_, 2386.
[27] _Tanner MSS. D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 339–344.
[28] _D’Oyley_, i. 345.
[29]
_For the King._
O Almighty God, the blessed and only Potentate, we offer up our humble
supplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee in
this time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. Give
Thy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in health
and safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels;
prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with good
success; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all his
people; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and true
allegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining together
to promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties in
their several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thy
most mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafed
to us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour. _Amen._
_For Repentance._
Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do here
humbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the least
of all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of our
souls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all orders
of men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we have
hitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to our
amendment. It is of Thy mere mercy, O Lord, that we are not consumed;
for which our souls do magnify and bless Thy name. O God, who hast
hitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us to
repentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godly
sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of;
that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayest
rejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation of
Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour. _Amen._
There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by His
Majesty to be printed.
[30] Macpherson (_Hist._ i. 518) succinctly and completely refutes
the assertion.
[31] _Gutch_, i. 414.
[32] _Tanner MSS._, vol. xxviii. 153. There is another letter on
the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5.
[33] _Dalrymple_, i. 210.
[34] _Ibid._, i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized with James,
remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor the
commonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Prince
comes only to maintain the Protestant religion--he will do no harm to
England.’” p. 358.
[35] _D’Oyley_, i. 355.
[36] Compton’s own account. _Gulch_, i. 443.
[37] The following passage in a memorandum, written by Trelawny,
Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of these Bishops was
afterwards to deny that they had anything to do with bringing William
over to England:--“Having in a discourse with Mr. Francis Robartes, a
little time after the coronation of King William, resented to him the
impudence of the person, whoever he was, that insinuated in the Prince
of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops had invited him to come
over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterly false; he replied, ‘I
took an occasion to discourse Will Harbord about the particular, and
asked him whether it was true; his answer was, No, damn ’em, they were
not so honest, but I caus’d it to be put in, to raise a jealousy and
hatred on both sides, that the King, believing it, might never forgive
them, and they, fearing that he did believe, might be push’d for their
own safety to wish and help on his ruin.’”--_First Report of the
Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, 52.
There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated
25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by the
Bishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcester
to draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c.,
‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”--See
same _Report_.
[38] Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introduced by Sancroft
of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paper is in
existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas there hath
been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the Prince of
_Orange_ hath an _intention_ to invade this kingdom in hostile manner;
and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of his attempt, that he hath
been thereunto invited by several _English_ Lords, both temporal and
spiritual; _I William_, Archbishop of _Cant._, do for my own discharge
profess and declare That I never gave him any such invitation by word
or writing or otherwise, nor do I know, nor can believe, that any of my
reverend brethren, the Bishops, have in any such wise invited him. And
all this I aver upon my word, and in confirmation [for which word in
MS. _attestation_ is substituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here
at Lambeth, this 3rd day of November, 1688, W. C.” _Gutch_, ii. 366.
[39] The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs in the
original document: “Here also something was added which I (the Bp. of
Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to this effect,
that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselves might be a
thing of very tender concernment to the liberties and properties of the
subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore we begged His Majesty
would require no more of us in particular, but would rest contented
with publishing this our declaration of our innocency.” _Tanner
MSS._
[40] _Gutch_, i. 426–440.
[41] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 232.
[42] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256.
[43] _Rapin_, iii. 285.
[44] _Macaulay_, iii. 226. Dr. Stanley, whose words I have quoted,
refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs. _State Papers, Lectures
on the Church of Scotland_, 116.
[45] _Burnet_, i. 789.
[46] “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she is said to
have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain and locket, are
still preserved in the family.”
“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ who
assisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hidden
from Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all they
could lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors having
an estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sent
to Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for some
time. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removed
when not wanted. There the poor girl’s food was taken to her at night,
and her presence was only known to the heads of the family. The house
stood where the entrance to the Priory now is.”
[47] _Harl. Miscell._, i. 449.
“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit of
their provision; and instead of ‘_Votre serviteur, Monsieur_,’
they were entertained with ‘_Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken_,’ upon
which they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few old
servants.”
[48] “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, under the
Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of his
grandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used to
state that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, over
ninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by his
master, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads of
apples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves.
“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the first
person of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is however
believed that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publicly
gave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on the
borders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still known
as ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council.
The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retired
spot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham to
Newton.” _MS. Information._
[49] _Le Neve’s Archbishops_, 269.
[50] Quoted in _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256.
[51] I give this story as it is found in the _Harleian Miscellany_,
and _Murch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches_. Ferguson was first
a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and for some time he acted as
assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on the authority of Burnet,
gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed in _Palmer’s Nonconf.
Memorial_, and by Wilson in his _Dissenting Churches_, i. 284.
It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize a
different idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this may
be, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity and
violence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters after
the Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his own
extraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives a
full account of it.
[52] _Dalrymple_, i. 225.
[53] Note in _Wilson’s Life of Defoe_, i. 110.
[54] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688.
[55] _Ken’s Life, by a Layman_, 324.
[56] See _Gazette_, Nov.
[57] _Life of James II._, ii. 209–212.
[58] _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_, 62. Macpherson mentions a
meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Prince of Orange,
at which Compton was present. _Hist. of Great Britain_, i. 530.
_Original Papers_, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as an authority,
but I can find nothing about this circumstance in his Diary.
[59] Farnham Castle, Nov. 25, 1688. _Tanner MSS._, xxviii.
[60] _Ralph_, i. 1073.
[61] _Gazettes_ under dates.
[62] _Clarendon’s Diary_, Dec. 3; ii. 214.
[63] _Ibid._, Dec. 5, 6.
[64] _Reresby_, 363, 364.
[65] _Burnet_, i. 793.
[66] _Life of William III._, 1703.
[67] _Ralph_, i. 1051.
[68] _Burnet_, i. 793.
[69] See _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_.
[70] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 159.
[71] _Tour through Great Britain_, ii. 64–70. The excitement
extended into Essex.
“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, and
in many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irish
soldiers that were coming, they said.” _Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annals
of Coggeshall_, 269.
[72] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 188–191.
[73] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 506.
[74] These notes are preserved amongst the _Tanner MSS._, xxviii.
285, 286.
[75] _Dalrymple_, i. 248. _Memoirs of James II._, ii. 270.
[76] Account of the Life of Symon Patrick, _Works_, ix. 514. The
Dean says it was the 17th, but this is incorrect; it must have been the
18th.
[77] This account is taken from a Diary in what is called the
_Historical Register Entering Book_, vol. ii. 383. _Morice
MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library.
[78] _Ralph_, i. 1073.
[79] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 235.
[80] _Ibid._, ii. 234.
[81] _Stuart Papers_, quoted in _D’Oyley_, i. 410.
[82] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 237.
[83] _Ibid._, ii. 238.
[84] _Diary and Correspondence_, Jan. 3, 1689. Vol. ii. 240.
[85] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 415.
[86] “It is most certain that in the Palace of Lambeth, there were
meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both before and
after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as they were
even publicly taken notice of by their enemies, who, in derision,
were wont to call them the Lambeth Club, and the Holy Jacobite Club.”
_Lansd. MSS. Kennet’s Coll._, 987, 151.
[87] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 424.
[88] _Diary_, Jan. 15, 1689.
[89] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 247.
[90] _Patrick’s Life. Works_, ix. 515.
[91] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 358.
[92] _Life of Philip Henry_, 187.
[93] _Parl. Hist._, v. 24.
[94] _Ralph_, ii. 28. They were the Bishops of London, Rochester,
Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, Peterborough,
Lincoln, Bristol, and St. Asaph.
[95] Quoted in _Lathbury’s Hist. of Convocation_, 317.
[96] _Journals of Lords._ Compare _Clarendon’s Diary and
Correspondence_, ii. 257.
[97] _Parl. Hist._, v. 51.
[98] The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, who acknowledged
them, repeating expressions of attachment to Protestantism, which
they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilable both to Popery and
arbitrary power.” _Gutch_, i. 447.
[99] _Parl. Hist._, v. 59.
[100] _Dalrymple_, i. 267.
[101] _Parl. Hist._, v. 75.
[102] _Burnet_, i. 818.
[103] _Dalrymple_, i. 269.
[104] _Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. 256.
[105] It is not my province to discuss the political aspect of the
Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the following
passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; it is gratifying
to all Englishmen and Americans:--“I call restorative the Government
of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, because these
great, good men have established society on respect for right, and
have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, that is to
say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on the contrary,
anarchical and destructive, every arbitrary _régime_, whether it
be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the more dangerous
the more skilfully it has organised the country of which it disposes at
its pleasure.”
[106] _Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France._
_Works_, v. 103.
[107] _Parl. Hist._, v. iii.
[108] _Parl. Hist._, v. 111–113.
[109] _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 42.
[110] _Burnet_, i. 803.
[111] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 8.
[112] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 330.
[113] _Parl. Hist._, v. 129–131. Feb. 20.
[114] _Ralph_, ii. 63.
[115] _Memoirs of Sir John Reresby_, 398. It must be remembered
that his sympathies were with James.
[116] _Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family_, i. 320.
[117] See _Commons’ Journals_, March 7, April 1, and _Parl.
Hist._, v. 137.
[118] _Lords’ Journals_, March 16.
[119] _Journals_, March 23.
[120] _Burnet_, ii. 9, 10.
[121] _Commons’ Journals_, April 13.
[122] _Reresby_, 401. March 28.
[123] _Life of Kettlewell_, 217, 218.
[124] _Parl. Hist._, v. 199–206.
[125] _Macaulay_, iv. 121. _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster
Abbey_, &c., 94, and _Bufton’s Diary_ in _Dale’s Annals of
Coggleshall_, 270.
[126] See _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 145.
[127] _Autobiography_, 516.
[128] _Somer’s Tracts_ (old edition), i. 380. There is a scheme of
Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several ways amongst the
_Tanner MSS._, 290, 242, without date. Also another for indulgence
that Dissenters be registered, and make a declaration that their
Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and in no way through
crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb the peace of Church
or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and are openly profane,
the Magistrate may require their conformity until, in the judgment of
charity, they may be comprehended within the number of conscientious
Dissenters. _Tanner MSS._, 80, 108.
[129] March 23. _MSS. Journal_ (_Historical Register, Entering
Book_, ii.), Dr. Williams’ Library.
[130] _Burnet_, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting Diarist
reports (_Entering Book_, ii. 511) a “variety of debates in the
House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop of Lincoln
would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for the Church had
established it, and the taking of it away would be a reflection upon
the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. The Archbishop
of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians, for they
refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the
Sacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this and
other Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were not
to be comprehended or indulged.”
[131] See _Lords’ Journal_.
[132] _Entering Book_, April 13. The following entry appears on
the 20th:--“The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting Protestant
subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before them a Bill of
their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects and for giving
indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The Commons’ Bill
for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered to be read a
second time this day fortnight.”
[133] April 13. _Parl. Hist._, v. 217. The following passage
occurs in the _Entering Book_, 217, Wednesday, May 15:--“Commons
proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for Dissenters. The
anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; and Sir Thomas
Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgence seemed very
grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very well content
it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’ own Indulgence
Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills being committed,
they might take anything that was good out of their own Bill and insert
it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. Sacheverel.” It is
added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passage in it that is not
in the Lords’ Bill, _i.e._ it repeals all the penal statutes
against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Bill does only
suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings alone, but
leaves them in force upon all other accounts.”
[134] The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestant subjects
will be printed in the Appendix.
[135] “The party which was now beginning to be formed against the
Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their
apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the
Earl of Nottingham.”--_Birch’s Tillotson_, 178.
[136] _Reresby_, 390.
[137] _Burnet_, ii. 11.
[138] _Somerville’s Political Transactions_, 275: _Smith’s
remarks--Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 158.
[139] _Ralph_, ii. 73.
[140] _Life, by Matthew Henry_, 181.
[141] There were laymen who longed for Comprehension; but they looked
with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House. “The truth of
the story,” says one of them, “is that neither House of Parliament
was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in the State. And the
House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundred voices to reform
things amiss in the State than in the Church, and therefore, in such
a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies and weak friends to
Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting or giving impunity
to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would be prostituted
and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so to be by
those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others so to
do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the uniting of
Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a better
opportunity.”--April, 1689. _Entering Book_, 534.
[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth
insertion:--“Although in history the causes of events should be
pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary
method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of
these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous
in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the
State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament,
returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to
protect the Church from the invasion--as they called it--which was
making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in
defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived
connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies
with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both
were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords,
particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their
speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her
treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the
Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of
religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour
of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion
to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters
themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should
weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest;
and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of
honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain,
and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in
Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that
the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as
the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition
and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions
should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the
State itself.”--_Dalrymple_, i. 318.
[143] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 200.
[144] The following entries in the _Hist. Register, Williams’
MSS._, relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on the
subject:--Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, had
some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, was
pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose:
‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe
answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty
their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should
do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good
affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned
in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His
Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might
also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be
of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty,
‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst
others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as
is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never
concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides,
in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by
Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good
suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they
did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this
kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”--Saturday, June
22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill
for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the
Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr.
John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the
son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of
what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he
fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen.
They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till
1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then,
and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat
unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside,
or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows
himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should
pass, so as to make those concerned easy.”
[145] _Parl. Hist._, v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented that the
debates on many important questions of the period are totally lost,
and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be in some
cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here noticed.
Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, named Dyer,
was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for reporting
their proceedings.
[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage occurs in
the _Entering Book_, May 25:--“I do not understand the mystery of
it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those Lords and
Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say the Bishops
passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have been stopped in
the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, because then the
imputation of persecution would have been laid upon them. But I think
there was some greater reason, that at that time induced them to pass
it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call for it, and did
promote the passing of it. _Nota._--And its as certain, that they
do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if it were not passed
they would stop it.”
Amongst the Camb. MSS. (_Strype Cor._, iii. 191) I find this note
addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that
I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of
this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act
of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and
he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and
brother,
“H. LONDON.
“_June 19, 1689._”
[147] _Life_, by _Lord King_, 341. Preface to _Letters on
Toleration_, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated June 6, 1689,
“You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration is at length
established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, and such as
you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would desire;
but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a beginning, I
trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid on which the
Church of Christ was at first established.”--_Familiar Letters_,
330.
[148] _Ralph_, ii. 225.
[149] _Gough’s Hist. of the Quakers_, iii. 232–235.
Sewel says nothing like what I have quoted from Gough. He remarks
respecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakers
acknowledged, and tolerated by an Act of Parliament.”--_Hist._,
ii. 357.
[150] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 182–184.
[151] _Ibid._, 180.
[152] Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he was prevented from
attending by a fit of the gout. _Life of Stillingfleet_, 75.
Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of
the proceedings of the Commission, which, with a _Copy of the
Alterations_, is printed in a _Parliamentary Return_, 1854. To
this _Return_ I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers
printed in it had long been desired by historical students.
[153] Spelt Aldridge in the _Parliamentary Return_.
[154] _Return_, 98.
[155] _Return_, 15. It would be beside the mark to enter upon a
discussion relative to the creed itself, but I would call attention to
a valuable little book on the subject, by my friend Professor Swainson,
and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely refer to the _Fourth
Report of the Ritual Commission_. The theological part of the Creed
I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; but how any charitable
Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to me inexplicable.
[156] Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6; Friday, Nov. 8.
[157] So in _Return_, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet.
[158] _De Trinitate_, l. 15. c. 27.
[159] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 448. The alterations cover 90 pages,
and amount to 598 in number.
[160] _See Letter to a friend containing some queries_, and also
_Vox Cleri_.
The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocational
rights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to any
change in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” says
Burnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to better
times.”--_Triennial Visitation Charges_, 1704.
[161] This is noticed by _Macaulay_, v. 112.
[162] _Tillotson’s Life_, 202. Jane, it should be recollected,
was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preached at his
consecration.
[163] _Cardwell’s Conferences_, 434, 451. _Synodalia_,
692–700.
[164] _Kennet Hist._, iii. 552.
[165] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd to Sancroft, March
31, 1689.
[166] _Dalrymple_, i. 322.
[167] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 630.
[168] _Oldmixon_, iii. 18.
[169] _House of Commons’ Journals._ Amongst the _Tanner
MSS._, xxvii. 161, is a _Letter from a Fellow of St. John’s
College, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicating
the College from the charge of disaffection to the Government_.
[170] _Salmon’s Lives_, 388.
[171] _Life of Kettlewell_, 199.
[172] _Life of Kettlewell_, 203.
The original declaration is in the _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 77. The
signature of the Bishop is in a trembling hand.
_Witnesses._
Thos. Greene, D.D., the Bishop’s Chaplain.
G. Hickes, D.D.
R. Jenkyn, Precentor.
Nat. Powell, Not. Pub.
John Wilson, Not. Pub.
MS. copies of the Declaration were circulated at the time. I have one
in my possession.
[173] _Tanner MSS._, 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April 23, 1689.
[174] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 365.
[175] _Ibid._, 366. The following extracts respecting Turner are
curious:
He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trial
of the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower,
when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutual
recognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was a
wrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in Christian
Bishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed,
and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceived
that he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he was
Bishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermon
was preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomond
sat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. He
asked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was one
Mr. Turner. ‘Turner,’ says my Lord Thomond, ‘he can’t be akin to Dr.
Turner, Bishop of Rochester. He is the worst preacher in England,
and this is one of the best,’ seeming not to know the Bishop, when
certainly he knew him very well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._,
987, 138.
[176] I state this on the authority of a paper in the same collection,
987, 310.
[177] _An examination of the case of the suspended Bishops._ 1690,
p. 12.
[178] _Life of Kettlewell._ Appendix, Nos. ii., iii.
The following note to the Archbishop is among the _Tanner MSS._,
xxvii. 101:--
“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learned
lawyers, that we are to be deprived the 15th or 16th of January,
reckoning by the moon. I told him of Sir Edward Coke’s opinion--2d
Instit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby--who, referring to a record
in Edward the Second’s time in which the word _menses_ occurs,
says, ‘_Qui menses in Calendario computantur_.’
“27 December, 1689. W. NORW.”
[179] _Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 85.
[180] It occurs in the _Life of Kennet_, 47.
[181] _Dunton’s Life and Errors_, 370.
[182] _Life of Kettlewell_, 152.
[183] _Ibid._, 98.
[184] _Life of Kettlewell_, 134.
[185] 19th February, 1689–90. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 91, 92.
[186] _Burnet_, ii. 39.
[187] _State Tracts_, ii. 95.
[188] _A Modest Enquiry_, printed in _State Tracts_, vol. ii.
[189] See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 370–376. Compare _Life of
Kettlewell_, 255–263.
[190] _Dalrymple_, iii., appen. ii. 130, 132.
[191] Macaulay has graphically described all this.
[192] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 306.
[193] _Life_, Patrick’s _Works_, ix. 529.
[194] _Convocation Book_, b. i. c. 28. Edition in _Library of
Anglo Cathe. Theology_, 50, 51.
[195] _Case of Allegiance_, Preface.
[196] Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock of the
Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church had
spoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.”
[197] These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphlet entitled
_Sherlock against Sherlock_, a long extract as given by Ralph (ii.
270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as a specimen of the
attacks on the Master of the Temple.
Amongst the _Baker MSS._, 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, is
an undated letter written by
“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,--
“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part of
Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of it
as your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it,
the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, that
we owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on the
throne, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legal
rights.”
After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying his
argument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying:
“I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, for
my thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence to
me that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, as
serves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal more
than ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcile
the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submission
and allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughly
settled. I will wait on your Grace on Saturday or Monday next.”
[198] There is in the British Museum (_Cole MSS._, xxx. 168) a
curious letter by Sherlock on taking rash vows, addressed to some one
who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which he had been
brought up.
[199] 5th August, 1690. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 176.
[200] 9th February, 1691. _Ibid._, 247.
[201] _Mant’s Hist. of the Church of Ireland_, ii. Preface.
[202] January 20, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 236.
[203] _Ken’s Life_, 381.
D’Oyley says that Turner was suspected “probably with great reason,” i.
461. And the author of _Ken’s Life_ describes Turner as engaging
“in a plot un-English and un-Christian,” 380.
[204] 9th of May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvi. 84.
[205] From the Bishop of Norwich, 18th May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._,
xxvi. 59.
[206] _Life_, 391.
[207] Camb. Univ. Library. _Baker MSS._, 40, 90.
[208] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 197. _Calamy’s Life_, i. 300.
[209] _Crossby’s Hist. of the Baptists_, iii. 230.
[210] _Humble Requests, &c._, inserted in _Calamy’s
Abridgment_, i. 497.
[211] _Memoir by Offer._ Bunyan’s _Works_, iii. lxxiii.
[212] Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is told of Flavel
the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly good evidence,
of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curious resemblance
in the words of the two narratives.” (_Kingdom of Christ_, ii.
344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historian in his honesty
and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote of Flavel to prove
anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I find it--a remarkable
psychological fact.
[213] _Palmer_, i. 354.
[214] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 469–475.
[215] _Life of Mr. John Hieron, &c._, by D. Burgess, 1691.
[216] _Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, iii. 188.
_Birch’s Tillotson_ [2nd Edition], 18, 387.
[217] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 23. The text was 2 Cor. v.
10. I have related a similar anecdote of Sanderson, _Church of the
Commonwealth_, 327.
[218] _Life of Tillotson_, 223.
[219] _Life of Tillotson_, 340, 341.
[220] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, ii. 4, 16.
[221] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, ii. 25.
[222] See “A relation of the late wicked contrivance of Stephen
Blackhead and Robert Young, against the lives of several persons by
forging an association under their hands, written by the Bishop of
Rochester. In two parts: the first part being a relation of what
passed at the three examinations of the said Bishop by a Committee
of Lords of the Privy Council; the second being an account of
the two above-mentioned authors of the forgery.” In the Savoy,
1692.--_Harleian Missal_ (4to.) vi. 198.
Blackhead and Young seem to have been thorough-paced villains.
[223] These letters, dated March, 1692, are amongst the _Tanner
MSS._
[224] _Life of Sancroft_, ii. 20.
[225] The instrument, which is very curious, is given by
_D’Oyley_, ii. 31.
[226] _D’Oyley_, ii. 43, 58, 62, 64.
[227] _Lives of the Bishops_, 234.
[228] _Own Time_, ii. 135.
[229] “He was, in those years, a very good scholar, an acute logician
and philosopher, a quick disputant, of a solid judgment. He spoke Latin
exceedingly well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet’s Coll._, 949, 114.
[230] Milman has well brought out this point in his _Annals of St.
Paul’s_. I quite agree with that distinguished critic in placing
Barrow far above Tillotson. To several others I should also assign a
higher place. Yet we must not forget Dryden’s literary obligations to
Tillotson, and the praise bestowed on him by M. H. A. Taine.
[231] In reading Tillotson’s Sermons, the first volume strikes me as
much more interesting than the second.
[232] _Birch’s Tillotson_, 348.
[233] _Memoirs of the Life and Times of Tenison_, 20.
[234] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 27–31.
[235] _Stanley’s Westminster Abbey_, 182.
[236] _Cooper’s Annals of Cambridge_, iv. 28. _Thoresby’s Diary
and Correspondence_, iii. 197.
Amongst the wilder eulogists was Samuel Wesley, who thus refers to her
celestial happiness:--
“How was Heaven moved at her arrival there!
With how much more than usual art and care,
The angels, who so oft to earth had gone,
And borne her incense to the Eternal’s throne,
For her new coronation now prepare!
How welcome! how caressed!
Among the blest!
And first mankind’s great mother rose--
‘Give way, ye crowding souls,’ said she,
‘That I the second of my race may see!’”
In his _Life of Christ_ he couples the Queen with the Virgin
Mary.--_Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley_, 192–194.
[237] See _Memoirs of Tenison_, 32. and _Life of Ken_, 418.
Tenison, in a letter to Evelyn, speaks of his funeral sermon, adding,
“There is come forth an answer to it, said to be written by Bishop
Kenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, and
less malice.”--_Evelyn’s Diary and Corresp._, iii. 345.
[238] _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 509, 520.
[239] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 42–47.
[240] _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 480.
[241] _Ibid._, 577.
[242] _Ibid._, 582. But constitutions for the Church of Scotland
of a similar kind to those of William were issued by Charles
II.--_Ibid._, 590. There are also several documents in the King’s
name respecting English Nonconformists and Papists, which do not affect
the point now before us.
[243] _Ibid._, 612.
[244] I do not forget that even Henry VIII. wrote to the Clergy of
the province of York, saying, “Christ is indeed _unicus dominus et
supremus_, as we confess him in the Church daily: it were _nimis
absurdum_ for us to be called _Caput Ecclesiæ, representans Corpus
Christi mysticum_.” And I am prepared to admit that the theory of
the National Church is that the Sovereign is simply supreme ruler in
_temporal_ things; but certainly in practice Sovereigns have gone
beyond this, especially in the case now before us.
[245] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 54–59. This circular letter is not in
_Wilkins_.
[246] The Duke of Bedford was Lieutenant, but Chicheley seems to have
been the ruling power.
[247] _London Gazette_.
[248] _Macaulay_, vii. 253 (_note_).
[249] This is stated by Wallace, in his introduction to his
_Antitrinitarian Biography_, i. 252; yet on p. 316 he quotes from
a publication in 1697, where it is said the Unitarians had “not any set
Meeting-house for the propagating of their doctrines.”
[250] _Tayler’s Religious Life in England_, 229.
[251] It is impossible to notice these publications in detail. They are
very numerous. A large collection of them may be found in Dr. Williams’
Library, and an account of some of them in the elaborate introduction
to _Wallace’s Antitrinitarian Biography_, vol. i.
[252] _The Brief Hist. and Acts of the Great Athanasius._
[253] The Book is entitled, _The Naked Gospel_. The writer, Dr.
Bury, doubts whether Mahomet or Christian doctors have most corrupted
the doctrines of the Gospel. He was deprived, in 1690, by Trelawny,
Bishop of Exeter, the Visitor of Lincoln College.
[254] _Journals_, January 3, 1694. The book so treated was the
_Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the Trinity_.
The author was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to give bail for good
behaviour for the next three years, and to make a public recantation.
[255] The pamphlet is entitled, _The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity,
Briefly Explained in a Letter to a Friend_, 4to.
[256] _Vindication_, &c., sect. iv.
[257] _Bingham’s Works_, viii. 292, 319, 320.
[258] _Bingham’s Memoir_, i. 6. _Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person
of Christ_, Div. ii. vol. iii. 355.
[259] _Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book_, 69.
[260] He says that God had taken the matter into His own hands, “and
made this scornful man eat his own words (the hardest diet, certainly,
that a proud person can be put to), and after all the black dirt thrown
by him on the Schoolmen and their terms, to lick it off again with his
own tongue,” p. 381.
[261] _South’s Animadversions_, 240, and _Considerations on the
Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, &c., written to a Person
of Quality_. 1693. Another example of the same kind occurs in _The
Doctrine of the Trinity placed in its due Light_. “We have seen two
men that were made one Admiral by a joint Commission; and we see every
day many men incorporate into one political body by patent, whereby
they are one person in law. And in this known sense are the Godhead
and manhood joined together in one Person, whereof comes one Christ,
and very God, and very man.” The author was the Dr. Bury, mentioned on
p. 213, who was deprived of his University preferment by the Bishop of
Exeter.
[262] On the controversy, see _The Distinction between Real and
Nominal Trinitarians Examined, in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet_.
1696.
[263] _Works_, v. 111.
[264] See on this subject _Roger’s Life of Howe_, 419. Sherlock
differed from Howe in some respects, and censured him for it. Howe
defended himself in _A Letter to a Friend_, and _A View of the
late Considerations_, &c. _Works_, v.
[265] _Lords’ Journal._
[266] _Ben Mordecai’s Letters_, i. 70, quoted in _Toulmin_,
182.
[267] _Tenison’s Life_, 51. In this dispute, and the proceedings
which it occasioned, ridicule, satire, and abuse were employed.
Dignitaries of the Church were lampooned in coarse and vulgar ballads,
and the most sacred doctrines of the Gospel became associated with what
is ridiculous and absurd. See _The Battle Royal, South’s Posthumous
Works_. _Memoirs_, 128–130.
[268] _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 577.
[269] That clause excepts from the Act “any person that shall deny in
his preaching or writing the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is
declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion,” _i.e._ the XXXIX.
Articles.
[270] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1172. February 9, 1698.
[271] There is a full account of this horrible affair in _Arnot’s
State Trials_, xiii. An eminent advocate of the period remarked,
respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was Thomas Aikenhead, “I
do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had he lived; but
the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal, spoke and
preached for cutting him off” (p. 930). A book was published in England
in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled, _The Blasphemous Heresy
Disproved_, in which he says, “Blasphemy and idolatry, by God’s
express command, ought to be destroyed out of the land.”
[272] _Lindsay’s Hist. View_, 302.
[273] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 561.
[274] _Lindsay’s Hist. View_, 304. _Wallace_, i. 388.
[275] _Mazure_, quoted in _Macaulay_, vii. 15.
[276] _An Impartial Hist. of the Plots and Conspiracies against
William III._, p. 90.
[277] 1693, October 16. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 452.
[278] 1693, October 16. _Ibid_, 455.
[279] 1693, close of the year. _Ibid._, 459.
[280] 1693, December. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, 467.
[281] 1694, January. _Ibid._, 474.
[282] 1694, May. _Ibid._, 484.
[283] 1694, August. _Ibid._, 493. Some correspondents were more
faithful, and told James not to believe that Protestants would support
him (p. 490).
[284] _Lathbury’s Hist. of Nonjurors_, 169.
[285] _Collier’s Defence._
[286] _Wilkins_, iv. 627.
[287] _Answer to Animadversions_, 10.
[288] _State Papers_: Letter from Shrewsbury to William III.,
Whitehall, July 28, 1696.
[289] See _Macpherson’s Orig. Papers_, i. 514, 595.
[290] _Burnet_, i. 683.
[291] It appears, in the course of Fenwick’s trial, that he had said
Shrewsbury came into the office of Secretary to William “by the
operation and consent of King James.”--_Parl. Hist._, v. 1051.
[292] _State Papers_: Shrewsbury to William III., Whitehall, Sept.
8, 1696.
In _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 481, Captain Floyd, a
Jacobite emissary, tells James that Shrewsbury, according to his
mother’s account, accepted the seals of office from the Prince of
Orange “only in order to serve your Majesty more effectually hereafter.”
[293] The substance of his discoveries is given in _Tindal’s
History_.
[294] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1127–1130.
[295] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 62.
[296] _Ibid._, 63.
[297] _Burnet_, ii. 193.
[298] Lathbury (_Hist. of Nonjurors_, 178), on the authority of
the _State Tracts_, ii. 561, states that Fenwick was permitted to
seek the aid of any of the Clergy who had taken the oaths, or any of
the Bishops who had opposed the attainder; that on his refusal of the
offer, the names of three or four Nonjurors were mentioned, but they
declined to attend him, fearing the oaths might be tendered. Macaulay
(vii. 404), however, says White was with him at the last.
[299] _Impartial Hist. of Plots_, 176.
[300] Evelyn notices, “16 Nov., the King’s entry very pompous, but is
nothing approaching that of King Charles II.”
[301] _Evelyn’s Diary_, Dec. 2nd.
[302] _Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s_, 427. Evelyn says, “5th
December was the first Sunday that St. Paul’s had had service performed
in it since it was burnt in 1666.”
[303] _Kennet’s Hist. of England_, iii. 777.
[304] Tallard, the French Ambassador, writing home, says the Catholic
religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even in the time
of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King of England has
determined to leave it in peace, in order to secure his own.”
“I hear from Calais of priests coming over every day, and here they
get into the herd, so that it is hard to distinguish them.”--_Vernon
Cor._, ii. 193.
[305] _Burnet_, ii. 229; Statutes 11 and 12 Will. III. c. 4.
“The judges put such constructions upon the clause of forfeiture as
eluded its efficacy; and I believe there were scarce any instances of
a loss of property under this law.” (_Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii.
333.) The Act was repealed in 1779.
[306] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 65–73.
[307] _Le Neve’s Lives_, part i. 247–254.
[308] Letter from Shrewsbury to Mr. Secretary Vernon (_State
Papers_), December 19, 1697 (?) or 1 (?), acknowledges letter
offering him the post of Governor to the Duke of Gloucester, pleads his
many defects, but especially his health, which may render it necessary
for him to seek a warmer climate.
Shrewsbury to William III.
“_Whitehall, 1st Sept., 1696._
“I have not this long while been sensible of so real a joy as I
was to find, by your Majesty’s letter of the 24th August, that
you were satisfied with my endeavours to serve you. I wish I
could please myself better with the effects and that I were not
obliged to attribute this opinion of your Majesty’s to your own
natural indulgence and my Lord Portland’s kind representation
rather than to any merit of mine, beyond sincere intention to
promote yours and the kingdom’s interest to the utmost of my
power, without being able to contribute much to either.”
In a letter to Lord Hatton, described in the _First Report of the
Historical MSS. Commission_, p. 23, it is said, “The Duke of
Shrewsbury would be a greater person than he is, if his health would
permit him to stay at Court; but it is wonderful that the laborious
diversion of fox-hunting should agree so well with his Grace.”
[309] _Burnet_, ii. 211.
[310] _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey; Supplement_, 136.
[311] Mr. Shippen.
[312] _Ralph_, ii. 908.
[313] _Stanhope’s Queen Anne_, 19.
[314] _Clarke’s Life of James II._, ii. 606.
[315] _Clarke’s Life of James II._, ii. 590–594.
[316] _Life of James II._, ii. 598, 599. _Memoir of Louis
XIV._, ii. 184.
The Earl of Middleton is reported to have been converted to Catholicism
by this death-bed scene; miracles were absurdly said to be wrought
by the dying King’s intercession; and there is reason to believe
that, if the Stuart family had been restored, James would have been
canonized.--_Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 595–597.
[317] _Correspondence of Lord Clarendon_, ii. 389.
[318] _Life of Calamy_, i. 437.
[319] _Crosby_, iii. 357.
[320] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1331.
[321] Edmund Burke.
[322] _Whiston’s Memoirs_, 32.
[323] _Lords’ Journals_, February 24, 1702.
[324] _Life_, i. 440.
[325] 1702, January. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 602.
[326] _English Hist. Library_, 133.
[327] See in Appendix the form of writ now issued.
[328] The letter has been attributed, on the authority of the
editor of the _Somers’ Tracts_ (last edit., xi. 363), to Sir
Bartholomew Shower; on the authority of the editor of _Atterbury’s
Correspondence_ (ii. 25, iii. 71), to Dr. Binckes, Vicar of
Leamington at the time, and in 1703 made Dean of Lichfield. I cannot
ascertain the evidence on which either of them proceeds.
[329] _The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical
Synods_, 1697.
[330] See _Farrer’s Critical History of Free Thought_, 186.
[331] See _Hallam_, ii. 396.
[332] Since writing the above I find Mr. Freeman, in his _Norman
Conquest_ (vol. iv. 343), speaking of an Ecclesiastical Synod in
1070 as beginning to be distinguished from the general Gemotes; and,
again (360), noticing that the King held his Court for five days, and
then the Archbishop held his Synod for three days more. “Here are
the beginnings of the anomalous position of the two Convocations in
England, half ecclesiastical Synods, half estates of the Realm--each
character hindering the effectual working of the other.”
[333] Convocation is now (1872) entering upon a new phase of its
history, the results of which deserve careful study.
[334] _Burnet_, ii. 280.
[335] _Atterbury’s Corresp._, iii. 10.
[336] _Ibid._, 11, 13, 17.
An address was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Clergy
of the Diocese of Wells, assembled to elect Proctors, stating that they
were advised they had a right to be summoned to Westminster by virtue
of the _præmunientes_ clause.--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 1.
But the next paper in the same volume is an address to the elected
Proctors, breathing a spirit of profound submission to the Archbishop,
and calling the King “His Sacred Majesty, and the Supreme Head of the
Church on earth.”
At the election of Proctors for the Diocese of Bristol, a paper was
introduced advocating the view of the _præmunientes_ clause taken
by Atterbury.--_Gibson_, vi. 3.
[337] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on
the 8th January, 1701, remarking, “I could with humble submission
wish there might be no license for business this first session, for
if there should be, it will be thought the effect of Mr. A.’s book,
and they will not greatly regard the strength of any answer while
they carry their chief point; it is also to be suspected they will
vote it their right and privilege to sit and do business as often as
the Houses of Parliament do; but if a good answer to that book shall
precede the sitting of the Convocation, persons will probably meet
with more settled and easy minds, and fall more kindly to business,
and also suppose there was more than ordinary reason for their
meeting.”--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, 933, 41.
[338] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, iii. 22. He says, writing
to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday upon our
adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who made an
admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of our
affairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigour
than I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill state
of health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, was
extremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither of
them, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they were
addressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), my
Lord of Sarum declared very loudly” (p. 26).
[339] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, 31.
[340] _Letter to a Clergyman in the Country_, p. 1. _Answer to
the Letter_, p. 4.
[341] _The New Danger of Presbytery_, 3.
[342] These extracts are given in _Lathbury’s History of
Convocation_, 351.
[343] The main facts in the history of this Convocation are given
by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I have used, besides
Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and the _Memoirs of Tenison_,
_The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House, &c._, from
Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawn up by order of
the House; _A Letter to the Author of the Narrative, &c._, and
_The History of the Convocation_, drawn up from the _Journal of
the Upper House, &c._ _The Narrative_ gives the High Church
view; _The History_ the Lower. It is ascribed to Kennet. A
number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library I have also
consulted.
[344] See Letters described in _First Report of Hist. MSS. Com._,
52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before.
[345] _Burnet_, ii. 285.
[346] See _Ecclesiastical Synods_, 99–149, 245.
[347] See _Ecclesiastical Synods_, 299.
[348] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, iii. 53.
[349] _Ibid._ 57.
[350] _Lathbury’s History of Convocation_, 363.
[351] See _Gibson’s Synodus Anglicana_, 21.
[352] _Lathbury’s History of Convocation_, 363–365.
[353] “Upon coming to Henry VII.’s Chapel, we found it very
convenient, by a curtain across the upper end, and matting on the
floor.”--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson Papers_, vi. 8.
[354] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 9, 10.
[355] _Present State of Convocation_, 5.
[356] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 11.
[357] _Faithful account of some transactions in the three last
sessions of the present Convocation._ Attributed to Atterbury.
[358] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 18.
[359] _Faithful account, &c._
[360] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 11.
[361] _Burnet_, ii. 303.
[362] _Hist. of King William III_, 513.
[363] Dr. Willis, William’s Military Chaplain, who became Bishop of
Gloucester in 1714, was an extempore preacher. To this he “was at
first led, no doubt, by the temper of his master, King William, who
was accustomed to hear such kind of preaching in Holland, and could
scarcely have borne to hear Doctor or Prelate read a sermon out of the
pulpit at the congregation.”--_Anecdotes of the Wesley Family_,
ii. 243.
[364] _Own Time_, ii. 305.
[365] It would look as if the conduct of William in reference to
patronage did not please some of the Bishops. Patrick says, “We cannot
serve His Majesty unless he will countenance those whom we commend to
him, purely because they have deserved well of him, and have no friends
to make their worth known but we alone.” _Patrick’s Works_, ix.
621. The date is misprinted 1731; I take it for 1701.
[366] _The Bishop of Sarum’s Four Treatises_ appeared in 1695.
[367] See _Life and Character of Stillingfleet_, 93, 104, 111,
119, and _Twelve Sermons preached on several occasions_, between
1666 and 1672. Published 1696. The first of his episcopal charges is
the only one I have seen. For the rest, I depend on the report of the
biographer.
For an account of Stillingfleet’s earlier writings, see _Church of
the Restoration_, vol. ii.
[368] _A Discourse about Tradition. Works_, vol. vi.; i. 30–34;
vii. 294.
[369] Burnet, Evelyn and Dunton bear witness to Patrick’s preaching
power.
[370] _Patrick’s Works_, vi. 156.
[371] Preface to sixth edition.
[372] _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 294.
[373] This gave origin to the well-known epigram (attributed by some
to Dr. Trapp; by others to Mr. Warton, his successor in the poetry
professorship), added to the circumstance of the ministry’s sending at
the same time a troop of horse to Oxford, to suppress some disturbances
that had happened there.
The King observing, with judicious eyes,
The state of both his Universities,
To one he sends a regiment; For why?
That _learned_ body wanted _loyalty_.
To th’ other books he gave, as well discerning,
How much that _loyal_ body wanted _learning_.
It is but fair to subjoin the reply, particularly as it is the best
thing that ever came from the pen of Sir William Browne, the physician;
and extorted praise, even from Johnson himself, in favour of a
Cambridge man.
“The King to Oxford sent his troop of horse,
For Tories own no _argument_ but _force_.
With equal care, to Cambridge books he sent,
For Whigs allow no _force_ but _argument_.”
_Noble’s continuation of Granger_ ii. 89.
[374] _Observer._ The following note by Onslow occurs in the
Oxford edition of Burnet’s _Hist. of his own Time_. “I have
heard that the first notice or thought which that extraordinary man,
the Bishop Cumberland, had of his promotion, was by reading it in a
newspaper at Stamford, where he was minister.” Vol. iv. 131.
[375] _Noble’s continuation_, ii. 88.
[376] _Ibid._, 87.
In the _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 356, it is said Fowler
“had a very superstitious fancy in catching at stories of apparitions
and witches.”
[377] _Noble_, ii. 101. _Kidder’s Autobiography_ is printed
in _Cassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells_.
[378] A high character is given to Nicholas Stratford for kindness,
courteousness, and charity in _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987,
304.
[379] This curious piece of eulogistic Latinity may be seen in _Le
Neve’s Archbishops_, part ii. 286.
[380] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 224.
[381] _Tyerman’s Life of S. Wesley_, 385.
[382] _Memoirs of Whiston_, 31.
[383] _Noble’s Continuation_, ii. 82.
Anthony Wood, in his strange _Autobiography_, relates a practical
joke played by Lloyd when he was at Oxford. He contrived that a London
citizen should disguise himself as a Greek Patriarch, and get people,
including learned professors, to kneel before him for a blessing. “It
was a piece of waggery to impose upon the Royalists, and such that had
a mind to be blest by a Patriarch instead of Archbishop or Bishop, and
it made great sport for a time, and those that were blest were ashamed
of it.”--_Lives of Eminent Antiquaries_, ii. 132.
[384] The change produced by the Revolution is thus estimated in
_Tracts for the Times_, No. 80, p. 77. “Since the great loss
of Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the Rebellion
of 1688, when she threw, as it were, out of her pale the doctrine
of Christ crucified (together with Ken and Kettlewell), a low tone
of morals has pervaded her teaching, and not founded on the great
Christian principle; and that Baptism, which implied it, has been much
forgotten.”
[385]
“Fulham, Nov. 20, 1701.
“Sir,--I entreat you to let the Clergy of your Deanery know that it is
my opinion that the peace, honour, and safety of this Church and nation
depend in a great measure upon the good success of the next election,
and that I do therefore think it was common duty, especially for us
of the Clergy, to contribute all we can to get in good ones. Now I
confess from these considerations, and as matters stand in Essex, in
my judgment we shall be greatly wanting to ourselves and our common
good, if we do not make the best interest we can, and be vigorous
ourselves for the choice of Sir Charles Barrington and Mr. Bullock. It
will be for the reputation of the Church, and for its service, if we be
unanimous.--H. LONDON.”--_Strype Correspondence_, iii. 219. Cambridge.
Other letters of the same kind are preserved.
[386] _Visitation Charges_, 1693–4.
[387] _Hist. of his own Time_, ii. 630.
[388] _Grainger_, iv. 293.
[389] “Captain Crisp assures, that the Bishop of Exeter is entirely in
the King’s (James’) interest.” January, 1694. _Macpherson’s Original
Papers_, i. 474.
[390] _Life and Errors_, ii. 668.
[391] _Johnson’s Lives of the Poets._
[392] _Discourse made by the Lord Bishop of Rochester at his
Visitation_, 1695.
[393] There is a most amusing letter in the Lambeth Library from Dr.
Wm. Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, giving particulars of his life--of his
service in the army--his promotion in the Church--the poverty of his
See--and an interview he had with the Archbishop, at Lambeth, in order
to get a better Bishopric. “I was passing through the hall up the
stairs, thinking to have found him in the wonted place of reception in
the old lodgings; but he no sooner heard of me, than he came himself
to direct me, and introduce me into his new ones. When he told me,
almost at the first word, that the Bishop of Hereford would die; no,
my Lord, said I, for he is newly married. Oh, said he, the sooner for
that.”--_Gibson Papers_, ii. 49.
[394] This is entitled, “_A Large Review of the Articles exhibited
against the Bishop of St. David’s_.” There is a MS. book, containing
minutes of the charges, in the Cambridge University Library (MSS.
757). For the trial, see _Lord Raymond’s Reports_, i. 447; and
_Howel’s State Trials_, xiv. 447. The deed of deprivation is in
the Lambeth Library, 951, 6.
[395] In the _Cole MSS._ (Brit. Mus.), xxx. 149, it is stated
that Bishop Watson died June 3rd, 1717, at Great Wilbraham, and was
put in the ground the night following in the Chancel, under the south
wall, _sans_ service, being excommunicated by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, whose officers’ fees he would not pay. On his coffin was
put, T. W. B., St. D. Aged 80, died the 3rd of June, 1717.
[396] Compare for example Sermons iv. and xiv. _Works_, vol. ii.
[397] My acquaintance with Norris’s writings commenced nearly forty
years ago, through a recommendation from that quarter. Dunton speaks of
him in extravagant terms.--_Life and Errors_, ii. 671.
[398] _Diary_, Nov. 10, 1695.
[399] “I had quite forgot to desire one to preach upon the subject of
our Conference. I beseech you try if you can get any of our brethren to
give us a quarter of an hour’s discourse upon that subject.--H. LONDON.
I preached myself June 23rd, 1689.”--_Strype Correspondence_, iii. 192.
[400] _Strype Correspondence_, ii. 52.
[401] _The Life of Dr. Horneck_, by Bishop Kidder, 9, 10.
[402] He is noticed in _Evelyn’s Diary_, April 24th, 1694.
[403] _An impartial account of Mr. John Mason_, p. 8.
[404] The following account of an eccentric clergyman, who died
just after the Revolution, occurs in the _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet
Coll._, 987, 116. The person referred to is Joseph Crowther, of whom
Walker gives some account in his _Sufferings of the Clergy_, and
Wood in his _Athenæ Oxonienses_.
“I remember him esteemed at Oxford a very severe disputant, and very
tenacious of the rules of logic. He would often moderate in the public
disputation in his own hall; but so fierce and passionate, that if the
opponent made a false syllogism, or the respondent a wrong answer,
he bid the next that sat by them kick their shins, and it became a
proverb, ‘kick shins Crowther.’ He was extremely hated at Tredington
(Diocese of Worcester), for his stiff contending with the people; they
obliged him to keep a boar--he got a black one to spite them. The black
pigs were called Crowthers.”
[405] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 248, 274.
[406] _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 11, 78.
[407] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. 546.
[408] 1696, April 7. _Baumgartner Papers, Strype Correspondence_,
iii. 45.
[409] _Gibson Papers_, v. 9. 1692, Dec. 17.
[410] The very injudicious _Defence of the Old Singing Psalms_ may
be found in the first volume of _Beveridge’s Works_, collected by
Horne.
[411] _Life of Kettlewell_, 213, 214.
[412] _Memoirs_, 30.
[413] _Whiston’s Life_, 162.
[414] _Own Time_, ii. 215.
[415] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 292.
[416] The following extract indicates the feeling cherished towards
Richard Baxter and his admirers:--“His writings furnish great part of
the libraries of the young fanatic divines, who have sucked in all the
venom and poison of his unhappy writings, in order to propagate them
in this city and country.”--From Chas. Goodall to Mr. Strype, June 12,
1701. Brit. Mus. Addl. MSS., 5853, p. 35.
[417] _Anecdotes of the Wesley Family_, i. 207.
[418] See _Kirk’s Mother of the Wesleys_, 186, and _Tyerman’s
Life and Times of Samuel Wesley_, 251.
[419] See _Ecton’s Liber Valorum_.
[420] _Athenian Oracle_, i. 542, probably written by Samuel
Wesley, and drawn from his own experience.
[421] _Keble’s Life of Wilson_, 61. The memory of Wilson is still
cherished at Knowsley.
[422] _Planche’s Hist. of British Costume_, 395.
[423] Preface to _Companion for Fasts and Festivals_.
[424] Preface to the _Practice of True Devotion_, 1698.
[425] _Thoresby_, iii. 153.
[426] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 211.
[427] _Works_, viii. 451.
[428] _Reason and Faith._ Introduction.
[429] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 262.
[430] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 337, 309. An anecdote in the life
of Samuel Wesley illustrates the same fact. He met with a profane
officer, and so reproved him as to break for ever his habit of
swearing.--_Life of S. Wesley_, by Tyerman, 134.
[431] Richard Dunning’s _Bread for the Poor_.
[432] _History of his Own Time_, ii. 101. See note by Lord
Dartmouth in the Oxford edition.
[433] _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III._, by
Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 302. I find amongst the _Tanner
MSS._, xxviii. 162, “Case of Sir Peter Gleanes’ daughter, supposed
to be suffering from witchcraft, Aug. 17, 1688.”
[434] This information is gathered chiefly from _Hutchinson’s
Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_.
[435] Not “your,” as often quoted.
[436] _Athenian Oracle_, i. 153.
[437] _Hutchinson_, 62. Hume says, in his _Commentaries on
the Laws of Scotland_, ii. 556, that among the many trials for
witchcraft, he had not observed “one which proceeds upon the notion
of a vain, cheating art, falsely used by an impostor to deceive the
weak and credulous.” It is not until faith in witchcraft expires that
such a notion obtains. The Scotch were more superstitious than the
English. English believers in witchcraft regarded the witch as the
slave; the Scotch regarded her as the mistress, of the evil power. See
_Burton’s Criminal Trials in Scotland_, i. 240. Dugald Stuart,
in his _Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysical and Ethical
Philosophy_, notices Malbranche’s scepticism as to sorcery, and
gives an interesting extract on the subject, p. 75.
[438] _Hutchinson_, 58, 108.
[439] _Monk’s Life of Bentley_, 34.
[440] _Monk’s Life of Bentley_, 37.
[441] _Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes_, vi. 453.
[442] Life prefixed to _Works_, i. xii.
[443] These passages occur in the 18th and 19th chapters of the fourth
book of the _Essay_.
[444] _Second Vindication._ _Works_, ii. 656.
Since this volume was sent to the press, I have been reading the
interesting _Letters, Lectures, and Reviews_ of Dean Mansell.
From p. 306 to 316, he dwells on the tendency of Locke’s philosophy in
the direction of theological scepticism, though at the same time he
does justice to Locke’s character, and remarks that “when challenged
on account of the relation of his premises to Toland’s conclusions,
he expressly repudiated the connection, and declared his own sincere
belief in those mysteries of the Christian faith which Toland had
assailed.” The Dean maintains that in Locke’s philosophy “there is
no room for a distinction between the inconceivable or mysterious,
and the absurd and contradictory;” and he further goes on to say,
after quoting a passage from _Sanderson’s Works_, i. 233, that
“Sanderson’s distinction between the τὸ ὅτι, _that it is_, and
the τὸ πῶς, _how it is_, indicates the exact point which Locke
overlooked and which Toland denied.” He also remarks that Locke wrote
his great work without reference to theology, and probably without
any distinct thought of its theological bearings. But the Dean takes
no notice of the passages quoted in the text from Locke’s _Essay on
the Understanding_, in which he distinctly notices the theological
bearings of his speculation, and makes a distinction between the
inconceivable and absurd, in other words, what is above reason and
contrary to it; and virtually recognizes the truth of what Sanderson
says about the τὸ ὅτι and the τὸ πῶς, the fact of existence and the
mode.
[445] It will be found instructive to compare chap. ii. with
_Newman’s Grammar of Assent_.
[446] Numerous illustrations are afforded in _Secretan’s Life of
Nelson_, 174.
[447] See Woodward’s _Account of the Rise and Progress of Religious
Societies, &c., and of their Endeavours for Reformation of Manners; Dr.
Horneck’s Life; Toulmin_, 415; _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 91.
[448] _Vernon Cor._, ii. 128–130.
[449] _Streets of London_, 8.
[450] _Strype’s Stowe_, ii. 578.
[451] This account is founded upon numerous extracts from the early
minutes of the S.P.C.K., kindly furnished me by the Secretary, and
upon information supplied in _Anderson’s Colonial Church_, and
_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_.
[452] Much of this account, like the former, rests upon the minutes of
the S.P.C.K.
[453] _Colonial Church Chronicle_, v. 121. There are several
papers in this volume on the early proceedings of the Propagation
Society, but they chiefly relate to a period later than that contained
in the present work. The authorities for the rest of my account are the
same as in the case of the S.P.C.K.
[454] _Lives of Eminent Antiquaries_, Oxford, 1772, vol. i.
_Life of Hearne_, 8–10.
[455] _Mason’s Defence_, by Lindsay. Preface.
[456] _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 452.
[457] It is written by Hen. Wilkinson, and dated October 25, 1690.
(_Baker MSS._, 40, 91, Cambridge University Library.) There is
also a list of the Nonjurors in the Diocese of Ely and University of
Cambridge, 1689–1690. (Brit. Mus., Additional MSS. 5813 f. 119 b.)
[458] _Kettlewell’s Works_, ii. 635–638.
[459] _Life of Kettlewell_, 291.
[460] _Life of Kettlewell_, 317.
[461] _Ibid._, 322.
[462] _Kettlewell’s Works_, i., Appendix.
[463] _Miscellaneous Papers of Dr. Birch_, Brit. Mus., 4297.
_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 52.
[464] Dodwell to Ken. _Baker MSS._, 40, 82, _et seq._
[465] Dodwell to Sherlock. _Baker MSS._, 86, _et seq._
[466] Lambeth Library. _Gibson Papers_, ii. 38–41.
[467] _Life of Ken by a Layman_, 409.
[468] _Life of Kettlewell_, 471.
[469] His works were published in two volumes (1752), under the title
of Ἀπολειπόμενα, or _Dissertations Theological, Mathematical, and
Physical_.
[470] _Scintilla Altaris. Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts
of the Church of England_, by Ed. Sparkes, D.D, 1652. _The Holy
Feasts and Fasts of the Church_, by W. Brough, D.D., 1657. It is
curious that these should have been published under the Commonwealth.
[471] Dated Oct. 22, 1698. _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of
William III._, by James Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 203.
[472] For several particulars in this account I am indebted to
_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_.
[473] _Nelson’s Life of Bull._
[474] _Life of Kettlewell_, 316, 317.
[475] _Life of Hearne_, p. 3 in _Lives of Eminent
Antiquaries_, vol. i.
[476] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 398.
[477] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 414.
[478] June 6, 1698: letter from John Mandeville. See also _Evelyn’s
Diary_, June 5.
[479] _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 68.
[480] _Life of Kettlewell_, 368, _et seq._
[481] _Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ_, iii. 105.
[482] _Jowett’s Dialogues of Plato_, ii. Introduction, 150. I have
changed the word “statesman” for “politician.”
[483] _Nelson’s Christian Sacrifice._
[484] In the _Vernon Correspondence_, vol. ii. 55, allusions occur
to “one of the Prebends of Durham” a Nonjuror in heart, suspected of
Jacobitism. “By what I have now heard,” says Vernon to the Duke of
Shrewsbury, “there never was so true a pharisee; he was affectedly
devout in outward show, using all the ceremonies both of the Greek and
Western Churches; his practice was to pray and sing psalms while he and
his friends were travelling in his coach.”
[485] _Wilson’s Hist. of Dissenting Churches_, iv. 188, 192, iii.
277.
[486] At Salter’s Hall. _Wilson_, ii. 1.
[487] _Ibid._, ii. 303.
[488] _Murch’s History of Churches in West of England_, 139, 157,
89. “I have seen,” says Mr. Murch, “a curious account by a Mr. Butler,
of the disbursements to every labourer, and for all the materials used
in the erection of the meeting-house at Warminster.” The new chapel was
opened in 1704; previously the Dissenters of Warminster worshipped in a
barn. The Rev. H. Gunn, in his interesting _History of Nonconformity
in Warminster_, gives full particulars derived from this account,
and adds that William Penn once preached in the barn. He also notes
that the ministers regularly officiating received 12s. 6d. for two
services, equivalent to £1 17s. 6d. in the present day.
[489] There was no contractor for the building; materials were
purchased and labour procured as necessity required. The entire cost
of timber was £30; glass and lead for the windows, £8 19s. 1d.; the
painter’s bill was £4. 9s.; bricks were 11s. per 1,000; eight deal
boards for the pulpit were charged 14s. 8d., and the making of it
is put down at £1 10s. Church Documents, Castlegate Chapel.--See
_Historical Account_, by the Rev. S. M’All.
[490] A remarkable instance of an Independent trust, couched in
general terms, occurs in the History of the Independent Church at
Beccles.--_Rix’s East Anglican Nonconformity_, 161.
[491] The certificate, drawn up and signed on the occasion, is worth
preserving: “We, whose names are under written, do testify concerning
Mr. Joseph Hussey, that upon our personal knowledge he is an ordained
minister of the Gospel, whose natural parts, acquired learning, and
soundness in the faith, holiness of life, and all ministerial abilities
are so considerable that we groundedly hope for God’s blessing upon his
ministry, both for the conversion and edification of souls wherever
God shall employ him.” Upon this testimonial there are signs of the
furtiveness in which the business had been accomplished. Five signed
their names; _Domino Anonymo_ is the signature of the sixth, with
this appendage: “He was shie because of the cloudiness of the times,
and would neither subscribe nor be known to me.”--MS. by Wilson, Dr.
William’s Library.
[492] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 229.
[493] “Mr. Griffith,” an Independent, “tells me he takes it for granted
the meeting at Newbury was in the nature of a provincial synod, which
he has found the Presbyterian ministers very fond of late, and blames
them for it. This passion of theirs has appeared more barefaced in
Ireland, where they have had such an assembly at Antrim, and published
the sermon preached upon the occasion, maintaining it was their right
and duty to meet with or without the allowance of the laws, or the
consent of the supreme magistrate.”
“The Episcopal Clergy intend to remonstrate to the Government there
against this liberty. I know not how soon we may expect the like to
be done in England, and if it break into an open contest about Church
discipline, the moderate man will have a fine time of it.” August 23,
1698.--_Vernon Correspondence_, ii. 156.
[494] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 224–264.
[495] _Defence of Moderate Nonconformity_, part i. 213.
[496] _Life of Calamy_, i. 301.
[497] _Ibid._, 304–309.
[498] _Life of Calamy_, i. 313–318.
[499] _Life of Calamy_, i. 348–350, June 22, 1694.
[500] _Thoresby_, i. 246.
[501] _Ibid._, i. 246–253.
[502] This was in 1699, but the change began in 1694. _Diary_,
284–329.
[503] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 301. “When Mr. Harrison removed to
Pury, a Mr. John Warr, who formerly lived in the neighbourhood of
Caversfield, came with him to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. And
connected with this circumstance is another, which will show something
of the spirit of the times. When Mr. Harrison came to Pury he brought
a pulpit with him, which he deemed it necessary to conceal; therefore,
to prevent it being known, Mr. Warr, being a shoemaker, contrived
to fill it with shoe-pegs, and brought it among his own goods in
a waggon from Bicester.”--_Memorials of Independent Churches in
Northamptonshire_, by T. Coleman, 276.
[504] _Thoresby_, i. 256. April, 1694.
[505] See correspondence in _Thoresby_, iii. 177.
[506] _Present State of Parties_, 319.
[507] The whole of the above account is rendered necessary by
controversies respecting these academies. I have examined what is said
by Samuel Wesley, Palmer, De Foe, and other contemporaries, and have
consulted the opinions of modern writers who have gone over the whole
ground. My notice of the course of study is taken from Palmer. Further
particulars may be found in _Nonconformity in Cheshire_, 491, and
_Milner’s Life of Watts_.
[508] An example of this occurs in the following letter by Bishop
Patrick, addressed to Mr. Williams, Rector of Dodington:--
“You have done very worthily and prudently in stopping the progress of
the Anabaptist faction, by applying yourself to the Justices, to call
their unlicensed schoolmasters to account; who, you tell me, and I am
glad to hear it, have bound him over to appear at the next sessions. I
think you need not fear his procuring a license from the Archbishop’s
Court, for I had the like attempt here at Littleport, where I refused
to licence a fellow whom a party set up against one, who had a long
time taught school there with good acceptance. Whereupon they pretended
to have not only applied themselves above, but actually procured the
Archbishop’s licence, and showed an instrument with a seal to it to the
ignorant people. But I soon found it was a cheat; the Archbishop having
granted none, and having given a strict charge in his office that none
should be granted (as he told me himself), without acquainting the
Bishop of the Diocese with it. But for fear of the worst, I will write
to his Grace by the next post, and let him know what the sectaries
pretend, who, I am sure, will stop the granting of a licence, or revoke
it if any have been granted, which I think you need not fear; for after
a great deal of vapouring at Littleport about the licence they said
they had got, the fellow durst not appear at the sessions, nor come to
me, but ran the country.”--Letter to the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector of
Dodington. _Cole MSS._ (British Museum), xxx. 148.
[509] _Heads of Agreement._
[510] _Ibid._
[511] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 210. _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_,
374.
[512] Extracts from the Church-Book in _Memorials_, by T. Coleman.
[513] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 327.
[514] This account is drawn up from Williams’ collected pieces in two
volumes, _Crispianism Unmasked_, _Crisp’s Christ made Sin_;
pamphlets by Lorimer, _Calamy’s Abridgment_, _Life of Bull_,
and _Toulmin’s Hist. of Dissent_.
[515] _Nichols’ Apparat. ad Defens. Eccl. Ang._
[516] _Hist. Account of my Own Life_, i. 401.
[517] _Howe’s Works_, v. See passages, pp. 263–290.
[518] James Hamilton.
[519] _Life of Matt. Henry_, by Sir J. B. Williams, prefixed to
_Commentary_, 60.
[520] _Ibid._, 61, 62.
[521] Ordinations often occurred at these meetings. The following
extract from Henry’s _Diary_ furnishes an instance:--“The 24th
was kept as a fast-day in Broad Oak Meeting-House, a competent number
present. Mr. Latham prayed; Mr. Lawrence gave an account of the
business we met about, prayed and sung a psalm; Mr. Doughty prayed; I
preached from Isaiah vi. 8: ‘Here am I, send me,’ and prayed. Mr. Owen,
as Moderator, demanded a confession of his faith and ordination vows,
which he made abundantly to our satisfaction. We then proceeded to set
him apart. Mr. Owen concluded with the exhortation. We have reason to
say it was a good day, and the Lord was among us.”
[522] _Hist. of Congregational Church at Cockermouth_, 58. I have
adopted the language on the Church-Book. Confirmed is explained to mean
establishment as to right of membership, by being admitted to the table
of the Lord.
[523] _Ibid._, 97.
[524] _Guestwick Church-Books._
[525] _Hist. of Church at Cockermouth_, 94.
[526] _Ibid._, 90, 98, 99, 100.
[527] Palmer, in his _Vindication of Dissenters_, 1705, says, p.
99, “In all our churches we administer the Sacrament twelve times, at
least, in a year.” From the records of Castle Gate Church, Nottingham,
it appears the Lord’s Supper was there celebrated once in six weeks.
[528] These particulars are taken from the records of the Trust, of
which I have the honour to be a Trustee.
[529] De Foe says of him--
“His native candour and familiar style,
Which did so oft his hearers’ hours beguile,
Charmed us with godliness; and while he spake
We loved the doctrines for the teacher’s sake;
While he informed us what those doctrines meant
By dint of practice more than argument.”
[530] _Dr. Williams’ Life of Annesley_, p. 134, published by
Dunton, 1697.
[531] _Williams’ Life of Annesley_, and _Kirk’s Mother of the
Wesleys_.
[532] _Toulmin_, 522.
[533] _Palmer_, i. 103.
[534] _Howe’s Works_, vol. vi. 306.
Oliver Heywood’s death occurred in May, 1702. No particular account
of it is given by Mr. Hunter in his biography. Thoresby notes down,
“May 7: Rode with Mr. Peters to Northowram, to the funeral of good
old Mr. O. Heywood. He was interred with great lamentations in the
parish church at Halifax; was surprised at the following Arvill, or
treat of cold possets, stewed prunes, cake and cheese, prepared for
the company, where had several Con. and Noncon. ministers and old
acquaintance.”--_Diary_, i. 362.
[535] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 357, 316. “I well remember that
he himself once informed me,” says Calamy, “of some very private
conversation he had with that Prince (William III.) not long before his
death. Among other things the King asked him a great many questions
about his old master Oliver, as he called him, and seemed not a little
pleased with the answers that were returned to some of his questions.”
Those answers would throw some additional light on the popular question
of Oliver’s character.
[536] _Crosby’s Hist. of Baptists_, iii. 246–258.
[537] _Crosby_, iii. 259, 264–270.
[538] _Crosby_, iv. 298–301.
[539] _Ibid._, Appendix No. 1.
[540] _Crosby_, iv. 330.
[541] _Sewell_, ii. 370, 448. The early meeting has been since
fixed for the month of May.
[542] “Forasmuch,” it is recorded in the minutes of Quaker Meetings
in Worcester (1695), “as it hath been the good advice of our friends
of the yearly meeting that friends shall in all plainness so habit
themselves as truth requires, and to lay aside those flowered and
striped stuffs, with the changeable fashions of this world, it is
thought meet by this meeting, that what in us lies it may be put for
the future into practice, and that none do wear them or sell them,
when those by them are disposed of; also that friends take care to
train up their children in the fear of the Lord, and bring them up not
only in plainness of habit, but take care to bring them up in plain
language also, that there may be no good Nehemiah grieved to hear
half Hebrew and half Ashdod spoken.” Complaint is made of sleeping at
public meeting. Those so overtaken were informed, “they must be openly
dealt with, if a more private admonition will not do.”--Extracted from
records preserved by the Society of Friends at Worcester.
[543] _Miscellanies._ Compare pp. 326 and 340 with 334.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. The words Yeomansee Indians could be a error for Yamassee or
Yemassee.
3. Italics are shown as _xxx_.
4. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g.
D^r. or X^{xx}.
5. Bold text is shown as =xxx=.
6. The corrigenda have been silently corrected.
7. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Ecclesiastical History of England: The Church of the Revolution" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.