Movatterモバイル変換

It will be found that in this Volume I have assigned a large space tothe attempt at Comprehension in the year 1689—as it is a subject ofpresent interest, and because the proceedings connected with it havebeen but inadequately described. An examination of the Bill introducedfor the purpose to the House of Lords—a comparison of the Journalsof both Houses, whence it appears that another Bill of the same kindwas contemporaneously proposed in the House of Commons—the report ofthe proceedings of the Commissioners in 1689, published by order ofthe 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 hithertoappeared. As I believe the Lords’ Bill has never been printed, I havearranged for its insertion in the Appendix.

A large collection of Tracts in Dr. Williams’ Library, besidesthose in the British Museum and University Libraries—the TannerMSS. at Oxford—the Strype and other collections belonging to theSister University—and the Gibson Papers at Lambeth, have alsoafforded a[vi] number of new, if not important, illustrations touchingthe Nonjurors—the proceedings of Convocation—the Trinitariancontroversies—the social life of the Clergy—and the character of theNonconformist ministers.

I may add that in tracing the origin and progress of ReligiousSocieties during the reign of William III., I have received mostvaluable assistance from the respected Secretaries of the Society forPromoting Christian Knowledge, and the Society for the Propagation ofthe Gospel, who have favoured me with interesting extracts from theirearliest records.

My best thanks are also due to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Chesterfor a copy of the writ summoning Spiritual peers to Parliament.Sir John G. S. Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, to whose usualcourtesy 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 underobligations which I gratefully acknowledge.

I venture to add, that in this, as in my former volumes, I haveendeavoured to maintain an honest impartiality in the estimate ofcharacters and incidents, together with a firm attachment to my ownreligious and ecclesiastical principles. My aim throughout has been topromote the cause of truth and charity among Christian Englishmen.

William Henry, Prince of Orange, was a member of the House ofNassau—the antiquity of which is traced by some historians as farback as the days of Julius Cæsar. Others are content to stop at CountOtho, in the 12th century, whom they regard as founder of the family,because, through his wife, he obtained large possessions in the LowCountries. The immediate ancestors of William Henry are renowned asfathers of the Dutch Republic, and from them he inherited patrioticvirtues.

He was born in Holland on the 14th of November, 1650—the posthumousson of William II., who had in 1641 married Mary, the eldest daughterof Charles I. of England. He created the fondest hopes, and medals werestruck to commemorate his auspicious birth. “Though the orange-treebe fallen down,” so ran the Dutch legend in allusion to his father’sdeath, “this noble sprig has been preserved, by Divine care, in thebosom of Mary. Thus the father arises after his death like a phenixin his son. May he grow, may he flourish, and in virtue excel thegreatest princes, to the glory and safety of his country.” At the ageof ten, the youth lost his mother, who died within her native shoresin 1660, when on a[2] visit to her brother Charles. The affectionatecare of his grandmother could not make up for these bereavements, andthis child of sorrow had the further misfortune to be deprived of thehereditary Stadtholdership bestowed on his ancestors by the StatesGeneral. With the death of his mother came the loss, for a time, of thePrincipality 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, headedby the two De Witts, who sought to break down his spirit, and refusedhim a range of education befitting his rank. Having been brought up inthe Stadtholder’s Palace at the Hague—which then, as now, uniquelycombined, in streams and woods, the quiet rusticity of a village, withthe bustle and magnificence of a metropolis—he received a notice toquit his ancestral abode in his seventeenth year, and only retained thefavourite residence, by declaring that nothing but force should tearhim from its hearthstone.

First made Captain and Admiral-General, and then forced by publicacclamation into the position of Chief Magistrate when he was buttwenty-two—at a time of tremendous peril—he had to bear the yoke inhis youth. Nothing indeed could have saved his dominions just then butthe magnanimity inspired by memories of his country’s heroic struggleswith Spain: that magnanimity he expressed in the well-known words,“There is one method which will save me from the sight of my country’sruin: I will die in the last ditch.”

The man whom I have thus described had from infancy suffered frombad health. Asthma and consumption—likely to be increased by thedamp atmosphere and[3] the unhealthy fogs which float about the Dutchdykes—rendered it necessary for him to be propped up in bed, whencruel headaches did not make repose impossible; and soon afterreaching manhood, he had to endure a severe attack of that virulentdisease—small-pox. Such circumstances did not improve a melancholytemperament. Not naturally unamiable, William, like his countrymen,was grave and taciturn; and amongst his original endowments wenotice a judgment unaccompanied by imagination, but with a quickperception and a keen forecast, which made him sensitively alive tothe responsibilities and issues of his own career. He saw himselfentering a thorny road, which might conduct to prosperity or end indefeat; at any rate, he resolved it should not lead to disgrace. Insuch circumstances and with such a character, we are not surprised tofind him pronounced cold, reserved, and phlegmatic. His lofty forehead,piercing eyes, aquiline nose, and compressed lips, indicated energy ofmind and force of will; but attenuated features, delicate limbs, andfeeble gait, betrayed the frailty of the framework which encased hissoul.

People of his disposition at times reveal the existence of tendersensibilities. They form friendships limited in extent, but intensein degree. Nor do sallies of humour fail to sparkle in their sombrelives. William’s almost romantic love for Bentinck, who watched himin illness, is generally known. Less noticed is the Prince’s power ofrepartee. One day as he walked in the pleasant gardens of the Hague,the Grand Pensionary praised one of the parterres. “Yes,” replied HisHighness, “this garden is very fine, but there is too muchwhitein it.” The lilies were abundant, but the Pensionary—whose name, DeWitt, meant white—perceived at once that William was thinking moreof him and of his influence[4] 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 teno’clock; and he preferred a “tumbler of cold ale” to a glass of thechoicest wine.[1]

The Prince paid a second visit to England in 1678, when he married hiscousin, the Princess Mary—a match which, though suggested by Statepolicy, turned out one of pure affection. It prepared the way for thepart he was to play in the Revolution, and on account of that event,which, in its ecclesiastical consequences, forms a prominent subject inthis volume, a glance at his early life has been deemed essential.

What most concerns us is not his military and political character, nothis career as a soldier or a statesman, but his religious opinions,sympathies, and policy, and the bearing of these upon the changeswrought during his reign in the ecclesiastical affairs of our country.

William was a staunch Calvinist. “He was much possessed with the beliefof absolute decrees,” and said to Burnet he adhered to them “becausehe did not see how the belief of Providence could be maintained uponany other supposition.”[2] Such convictions in such a man becameelements of heroism, but it was thought, not perhaps without reason,that more care had been taken to impress his mind with the doctrine ofPredestination, than to guard him against abuses incident to such anopinion. Yet there appears nothing fanatical in William’s religion,and whatever might be his moral conduct, it did not seem to havebeen connected with[5] Antinomian prejudices, or with any doubt of theobligations of Christian virtue. It is remarkable, that though inHolland, at the time of the Synod of Dort, Calvinism appeared in unionwith intolerance, William had no sympathy in that feeling. Tolerationwas a ruling idea in his mind; and he blamed the English Church foralienating itself from other communions, and for claiming infallibilityin practice, though eschewing it in theory.

He had been brought up a Presbyterian, but he appears to have regardedChurch government of secondary importance, and, as events proved, hecould conform to Episcopacy. Indeed, it is said by Burnet—who claimedto know him well—that he, on the whole, preferred the English to theDutch type of ecclesiastical rule.[3] The Prince had no reverencefor antiquity, no æsthetic taste, no sensibility under the touch ofelaborate ceremonies, or amidst the flow of harmonious music. Hepreferred an unritualistic worship, and distinctly disapproved of thesurplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing to the altar; yet, again, weare 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 acquaintancewith English Divines. Dr. Hooper became chaplain to the Princess, onthe recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft; and he remained in office ayear and a half. The chaplain found Her Royal Highness reading worksfavourable to Dissenters; to counteract their tendency, he recommendedworks of another description. One day the Prince observed his wife withthe pages of Eusebius and Hooker open on her table, when[6] he exclaimed,“I suppose Dr. Hooker persuades you to read these books?” She had atfirst 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. ThePrince, as he saw them being made, rudely kicked at them, asking whatthey meant. Informed on the point, he answered “with a hum.” After thechapel had been fitted up, he never attended Divine service there; andas this chaplain talked about the Popish Plot and the indulgence ofDissenters in terms less favourable to the latter than His Highnessliked, he bluntly said, “Well, Dr. Hooper, you will never be a Bishop;”and on another occasion remarked if he had ever “anything to do withEngland, Dr. Hooper should be Dr. Hooper still.”[5]

Ken succeeded Hooper in 1679; we have no particulars of his relationswith William, but those relations do not seem to have been verycordial. Each of the clergymen now mentioned belonged to the HighChurch party, and William could not agree with either, so that the endof Ken’s connection with the Dutch Court produced satisfaction on bothsides. Yet the conduct of this excellent man “gained him entire creditand high esteem with the Princess, whom to his death he distinguishedby the title of his Mistress.”[6]

The sincerity and strength of William’s Protestantism was unmistakable.Protestantism had the approval of[7] his intellect, and it penetratedhis 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 hispolicy. Protestantism for Holland was his first thought, Protestantismfor Europe his second; and he saw dependent upon Protestantism thepolitical, commercial, and social prosperity of nations, scarcely lessthan the spiritual well-being of individuals. Roman Catholicism to hismind was identical with a violation of the law of God and an invasionof the rights of man; yet his large views of toleration embraced RomanCatholics; he would not rob any man of the liberty of conscience, butthe ascendency of the Romanist system, and the tendency of its spirit,he thoroughly abhorred as one of the worst foes to the welfare ofthe race. France at that moment showed herself to be more violentlyRoman Catholic than the Pope himself, and was seeking to establishcontrol over Europe. Therefore towards France William turned a gazeof defiance, prepared to shed the last drop of his blood in resistingher ambition. Louis XIV. stood forth as William’s personal enemy, butWilliam’s history shows how much more he himself was swayed in thisrespect by reason than by resentment. At the same time he regardedHolland as one of the last defences of liberty, and desired to seeEngland united with that country in the resistance of a common foe.

Mary responded to her husband’s sentiments. Although nurtured in aRoman Catholic atmosphere, she proved herself entirely free fromRoman Catholic predilections, and indicated a preference for LowChurch principles. A woman of reading, she turned her attention to thecontroversies of the day, and not only resisted the attempts of herfather to convert her to Popery, but,[8] with all her respect for Ken,kept herself free from the ecclesiastical views which that devout manresolutely upheld.

In 1686, Gilbert Burnet accepted an invitation to the Hague, andavailed himself of opportunities to support the Low Church opinionsof the Prince and his Consort. The historian of hisOwn Timeshas taken posterity into his confidence, and he relates, withcharacteristic vanity, how he advised his illustrious friends inmatters of the highest importance. But whatever may be thought ofBurnet’s foibles, he appears to have judiciously counselled bothhusband and wife, especially the latter, and to have done much towardsa wise settlement of the Crown at the Revolution. His counsels werein favour of constitutional government and of toleration; and heinculcated upon Mary that whenever she might inherit her father’sthrone, she should use her influence to obtain for her husband real andpermanent authority. Such advice laid the Prince, and the country ofhis adoption, under lasting obligations to the busy Whig Churchman.

As the peculiar relation in which this noble couple stood to thiskingdom could not but interest them in English affairs, neither couldit fail to attract towards them the attention of the English people.English Protestants sympathized with William in his continentalpolicy. They disliked France almost as much as he did. The Huguenotsdriven to our shores were memorials before their eyes of RomanCatholic intolerance; and besides this, they knew that their ownfellow countrymen naturalized in France had to suffer from the repealof the Edict of Nantes, and that the wives and children of those sonaturalized had to suffer in the same way. Moreover, they learned thatdragoons were quartered upon English merchants residing in France, toprevent their[9] passing the frontiers, and to compel them to changetheir religion.[7] These circumstances, backed by the humiliatingfact, that the Stuarts were hirelings of Louis, brought the feelingsof Protestant Englishmen into sympathy with those of the NetherlandStadtholder. He, in his turn, looked with anxiety towards this countrywhilst suffering under the misgovernment of James II. What James wasdoing for Dissenters by a stretch of prerogative, William wishedto see done by constitutional law. Mary took a still more lively,because a patriotic, interest in these subjects, and disapproved ofher father’s despotism and Popery. For the Church of England she hada strong affection, which she expressed to Archbishop Sancroft, whencongratulating him upon the firmness of the clergy in their religion aswell as their loyalty.[8]

Matters in England were brought to a crisis in the month of June. UponTrinity Sunday, the 10th of the month—two days after the imprisonmentof the seven Bishops—London was thrown into frantic excitement by areport that James’s Queen had presented him with a son and heir. APopish successor would bring upon the country those calamities of whichthe prospect for two reigns had filled men with dismay. The bulk of thepeople could not believe the fact. They declared that the Queen had notbeen confined at all—that she for some time had worn a cushion underher dress—that her pretended son had been conveyed into her chamber ina silver warming-pan on a Sunday morning, when Whig lords and ladies,who otherwise might have detected the cheat, were lying in bed or weregone to prayers. Stories the most absurd and disgusting were believed.At that moment anything seemed more credible than the simple[10] eventwhich had really occurred. The news of this assumed Royal conspiracyflew over to Holland, and it created the utmost consternation, Williamand Mary sincerely believing what they were confidently told. At allevents, the child—of whose supposititious character the idea vanishedafterwards from all but the most fanatical minds—was publicly baptizedin the Church of Rome, the Pope’s Nuncio standing sponsor. This addedto the national exasperation, and the Whig and Protestant partyimmediately began to think of seeking succour from Holland, and puttingan end at all hazards to the existing state of things.

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 Churchmenwho believed in Calvinism—Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists,the first anxious for comprehension, the second and third wishingonly for freedom of worship—all had been turning their thoughts forsome time to the Prince of Orange as the star of their hopes. Englishsoldiers, English sailors, and English Divines, had publicly presentedthemselves in the old GothicBinnenhof of the Hague, or heldprivate interviews with the Dutch Governor. The Earl of Devonshire,Lord Shrewsbury, Admiral Herbert, Lord Lumley, and others, had writtento His Highness, more or less explicitly, offering to devote to himtheir fortunes and their lives.

This went on in the spring of 1688, amidst excitements produced bythe Declaration of Indulgence. Holland at the same period felt deepsympathy with England.

Dr. Edmund Calamy, grandson of the well-known Puritan, in the earlypart of 1688 lived as a student at[11] Utrecht, and he says thereprevailed in the States a conviction that their own, and the Protestantinterest in general, could be preserved only by a revolution inEngland, since nothing else could prevent Europe from being ingulfedin France; he adds, the Dutch were disposed to assist in making headagainst King James, and in relieving the people, who cried to them forsuccour, as they, a century before, had appealed for help to QueenElizabeth.[9]

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 theexcitement of that event, which shook not the English throne but himwho sat on it, seven members of the Whig party invited the Prince ofOrange to come over. They informed him of the prevalent dissatisfactionof the people with the Government, and of their willingness to rise indefence of their liberties, if His Highness would land with sufficientstrength to put himself at the head of the Protestant party. Theystated that the soldiers unequivocally manifested an aversion to thePopish religion; that they certainly would desert the Royal standard ingreat numbers; and that not one out of ten in the navy could be trustedin case of an invasion. They promised to attend on His Highness as soonas he should land; and they commissioned a confidential messenger toconsult with him about artillery and ammunition. This act of daringtreason, or of triumphant patriotism—whichever the issue mightdetermine it to be—decidedly turned the scales which quivered betweenfurther[12] delay and immediate action. The “immortal seven,” as theyhave been called, who signed in cypher, were Shrewsbury, Devonshire,Danby, Lumley, Russel, Sydney, and Compton, Bishop of London.[10] Theconspirators—perfect in number like the Bishops, now at the momentof their acquittal and ovation—thus cast the die whichmightbring death, whichdid bring freedom. The adhesion of Comptonto this scheme is what most concerns us, as it indicates the earlyinfusion of an ecclesiastical element into this undertaking—an elementwhich became deeper, wider, stronger, as time rolled on. In less thana month afterwards the same dignitary replied to a letter from thePrince concerning the trial of the seven Bishops, and informed him howsensible he and others were of the advantage of having so powerful afriend; that they would make no ill use of it; and that they were sowell satisfied of the justness of their cause, that they would lay downtheir lives rather than forsake it.[11]

William must for some time have been expecting overtures. They wouldnot find a man of so much forecast unprepared; yet not a littleremained to be done that the proposed descent might prove a success.The remainder of summer and the early part of autumn were spentin secret military preparations at home, in secret diplomaticalnegotiations abroad. He even decoyed the Pope into his toils, by baitswhich did more credit to his statesmanship than to his honesty. Hepersuaded His Holiness to advance money for an attack, as he thought,upon France, in reality upon England. Rome, ever trying to over-reachothers, was herself over-reached; and help, supposed to be rendered forthe humiliation of a power then inimical to the Papal Court, came to beapplied[13] to the overthrow of a Popish Sovereign and the strengtheningof the cause of European Protestantism.[12]

When the military movements in Holland became generally known, theywere given out to be intended for a campaign against France, in whichthe Prince was to receive support from the Imperial army on theRhine; yet, whatever dust might be thrown in men’s eyes, the realtruth appeared to many. Even as early as the 7th of August, news ofthe Prince’s intention to come over with an army reached the quietcloisters of Westminster Abbey; and Dr. Patrick, at four o’clock in theafternoon, received at his prebendal residence tidings of the importantsecret through his friend, Dr. Tenison, who came “to have some privateconversation.”[13] But almost up to the last hour James remained in thedark, partly through his own obtuseness, partly—and much more—throughthe selfish designs of France, through the treachery of courtiers, andthrough denials made by the Dutch Ambassador. No doubt a clear-headedman, with a sharp eye, would have caught signs of the true direction ofthe brewing storm; but a man like James, narrow-minded and prejudiced,might easily be duped by diplomatic arts and courtierly deceit. Hepersuaded himself into the belief that the rumours of a Dutch invasionof England were raised by the Court of France to promote his politicalinterests and to bring him into closer alliance with Louis[14]—apolicy at that moment appearing to him most perilous, because it wouldbe sure to increase his unpopularity with his subjects.

His conduct after the acquittal of the Bishops proves[14] that he hadnot learnt wisdom from that significant event. His treatment ofthe lawyers, in the face of public opinion, seems incredible. Hehonoured with a baronetcy Williams, the Solicitor-General, who led theprosecution, and Holloway and Powell, who gave it as their opinionthat the Bishops’ petition did not amount to a libel, he punished bydismissal from the Bench.

To the Judges who went their circuits in the summer, Royal instructionswere communicated to the effect, that they should persuade the peopleto assist in supporting the unpopular Declaration for liberty ofconscience, telling them that a Parliament would speedily be called tomake the Sovereign’s favour statute law. Churchmen were to be assuredof the fulfilment of His Majesty’s promises; and persons of all classeswere to be reminded what a gracious Prince they had upon the throne.Liberty of conscience, they were to be informed, had advanced thetrade, and would prove the means of increasing the population of thecountry. The tone was fair—the phraseology specious; but the friendsof freedom were not to be hoodwinked after this fashion.

Justice Allybone, a reputed Papist, sought, at the Croydon Assizes,to give effect to these instructions, by the charge which he thendelivered to the Grand Jury. After dealing in a few commonplaces as tothe desirableness of living in love, and the blessings of religiousliberty, and after maintaining that the King wished every one to be asfree in his conscience as in his thoughts, immediately applied whathe had advanced to the Sacramental Test. “Why,” he asked, “because Icannot take the Test, must I be hindered of an employment in the world?This, gentlemen, pincheth sore with them in liberal education. It issaid, ‘Upon this Rock will I build my Church.’ Was this meant of theChurch of[15] 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 justpretences for religion, then religion is not at the bottom of it. This,gentlemen, is a matter of great importance. It is in the Catechismthat Christ is really in the Lord’s Supper; nor hath it been objectedagainst the Church of Rome, by the Church of England, that He was notreally, but by way of presentation, and that is a great reproach.Christ Himself told us He was there; now, be you not more strict thanChrist Himself. I am not arguing what my sense is, but I am onlyshowing, that as the Church of England would impose, that Christ was byway of presentation, is it not equally difficult that we shall believethus 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 incoherenceof the thing.” The meaning which the Croydon Grand Jury might gatherfrom this wretched rabble of words would be, that the Judge put in aplea for the toleration of Catholics—a plea which, however just, woreat that crisis a suspicious aspect, and could find no favour with theSurrey squires. Allybone finished by remarking that he would not havethe world mistaken about the Bishops’ trial—it was not for religionthey 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 hisDeclaration; they would not do it.If the King had been Turk orJew, it had been all one—for the subject ought to obey.”[15] Theinfatuation of the Judge equalled the infatuation of the King.

Of course the effect was to identify the Judges with unconstitutionalindulgence. Where it had been successful, they were welcomed—where ithad created alarm, they were rebuffed.

Down in the West, the Declaration had been published by some—byothers denounced. The wearers of the ermine were treated accordingly.Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, wrote to Sancroft, at the time ofthe Assizes, a letter which gives us some idea of what was going on atBristol and Exeter:—

The Bishop of Exeter was Dr. Lamplugh, and how he was rewarded for hisdevotion to the measures of the Court will presently appear.

James’s proceedings in reference to the Church at this time were inkeeping with the rest of his conduct. He[18] issued an order, requiringChancellors of Dioceses and Archdeacons to report to the HighCommission 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 Commissionersbecoming alarmed, as well they might, hesitated to proceed withthe odious investigation. In the same month of July, James sent amandate to Oxford for the election of Jeffreys to the Chancellorship;a disgrace which the authorities of the Universities prevented bystealing a march on the Monarch, and electing a Chancellor beforethe mandate arrived. On the 13th of August the King exercised anewhis dispensing power, by charging the Wardens and Fellows of AllSouls, 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, whohad gained notoriety by reading the Declaration. Such persistency inan unpopular course increased national indignation; all classes becamemore and more weary of this galling despotism, and were goaded on tohasten the King’s downfall.

Whilst such were the proceedings of the temporal head of the Church,what was the course pursued by the Primate? Sancroft despatchedadmonitions to the clergy of his province, exhorting them to thezealous discharge of their duties, and concluding his appeal byrecommending them to show a friendly spirit towards Nonconformists,by visiting them and receiving them kindly at their own homes, witha view to persuade them “to a full compliance with our Church.” Theywere to insist upon two points: that the Bishops were irreconcilableenemies to Rome, and that[19] jealousies to the contrary were altogethergroundless. Finally, clergymen were invited to pray for the union ofall Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad, against their commonfoe, and that all who confessed the name of our dear Lord, might meetin 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 tohave engaged in a scheme of comprehension, the design being, so far asit can be gathered from a speech made long afterwards by Dr. Wake, toamend and improve the discipline of the Church; to review and enlargethe Liturgy, by correcting some things, by adding others; and, it isstated, that he proposed, if advised by authority, to have the matterconsidered first in Convocation, then in Parliament.[20] This wouldhave been to walk in steps taken by Low Churchmen some years before,and to anticipate the endeavours of the same class of Churchmen somemonths afterwards. When efforts had been made in that directionby Tillotson and others, the Archbishop had not showed the leastdisposition to help them; and on the whole it appears to me that socautious and conservative a man as Sancroft could never have intendedto go the length which the reports just noticed might indicate toecclesiastical reformers. Indeed, Wake, when he repeated the story,took care to add that the intended changes related “to things of moreordinary composition,” whilst the doctrine, government, and worship ofthe Church were to remain entire. Probably the alterations contemplatedby Sancroft were very slight indeed, and certainly they were concededonly in consequence of the excitement of the times.

Before the end of September, the King, being unable any longer toresist, altered his policy; he and the Archbishop came together,the former beginning at last to be frightened; the latter anxiousto do what he could to save his master. On the 21st of September, aDeclaration appeared, to the effect that it was the Royal purpose toprovide a legal security for universal liberty of conscience, yetto preserve the Church of England in particular, and to secure theProtestant religion in general; at the same time it was indicatedthat Roman Catholics were to remain incapable of being members ofParliament.[21] Upon the 24th, Sancroft received a summons to attendthe Royal presence, and a like command was sent to Compton, Bishop ofLondon; Mew, of Winchester; Turner, of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken,of Bath and Wells; White, of Peterborough; Trelawny, of Bristol; andSprat, of Rochester. They were men of different mark: Compton had gonebeyond any of his brethren in bold resistance of James’s policy; Mewhad been a Royalist in the days of Charles I., and had fought as asoldier in his master’s service; Trelawny had won popularity by beingone of the imprisoned seven, but, like other men in Church and State,he had shown a time-serving spirit.[22] Sprat distinguished himself asan accommodating mortal; the rest were High Churchmen, and supportersof the divine right of Kings.

On the day of dispatching the summons, James told Clarendon that theDutch were coming in earnest to invade England. “And now, my Lord,” headded, “I shall see what the Church of England men will do.”[23] Onthe 26th, the King saw Turner, Bishop of Ely, who reported that theconversation which arose was only of a general kind. Whatever liberalsentiments might have dawned on the Royal mind, all seemed dark on the27th, when the Lord Chancellor informed Clarendon that some rogues hadchanged the King’s purposes, that he would yield in nothing to theBishops, “that the Virgin Mary was to do all.”

The first meeting between the King and the Bishops took place onFriday, September the 28th. All invited were present, except Sancroft,who excused himself on the ground of being unwell, and Compton andTrelawny, who did not reach town in time. Their brethren, however, who,like them, were in the country when the command arrived, managed to bethere. 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 onthe other, reminding[22] his spiritual advisers of their duty to be loyalto 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 beenequally so if they had not stirred one foot out of their dioceses.”[24]As the Prelates issued from the Royal presence, the courtiers loiteringabout the closet door, full of curiosity as to this much-talked-ofinterview, inquired, “How things went?” The Bishop of Winchester—“poorman,” as Clarendon calls, him—answered, “Omnia bene.”[25] Jameswished to make capital for himself out of what had taken place, andimmediately announced to his subjects, through theGazette,that several of the Bishops having attended, he was pleased, amongstother gracious expressions, to let them know that he would signifyhis pleasure for taking off the suspension of the Bishop of London,which was done accordingly. That any such communication was made couldscarcely have been gathered from the account of the audience given byothers.

The sameGazette contained a Proclamation, dated September the28th, stating, that undoubted advice had been received of a projectedinvasion from Holland, under false pretences relating to liberty,property, and religion, but really aiming at the conquest of thekingdom. The King declared his purpose to resist this attempt, toventure his life for the honour of the nation; and deferring at presentthe meeting of Parliament, he called upon his subjects to resist theirenemies, and prohibited any assistance being given them on pain of hightreason.[26]

The Bishops were dissatisfied with the interview of the 28th, andrequested the Archbishop to procure another audience. One wasappointed for Tuesday, the 2nd of October; then it was postponed untilthe following day. The Prelates occupied the interval in carefuldeliberation, and drew up a paper, in which they advised, that themanagement of affairs in the counties should be entrusted to qualifiedpersons amongst the nobility and gentry; that the EcclesiasticalCommission should be annulled, dispensations terminated, the Presidentand Fellows of Magdalen restored, licenses to Papists recalled,the Vicars Apostolical inhibited, vacant Bishoprics filled,QuoWarrantos superseded, charters restored, a Parliament called, inwhich, with due regard to the security of the Established Religion,liberty of conscience should be granted; and, finally, permissionvouchsafed to the Bishops to attempt the re-conversion of His Majestyto the Protestant faith.

The paper containing this advice was signed by the Archbishop ofCanterbury, 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 madeanother concession to popular excitement, by declaring in Councilto the Aldermen of London, his intention to restore to the City themuch-prized charter of which it had been deprived.

On the 3rd of October the second meeting of the Bishops with the Kingoccurred. They presented their paper, and whatever the immediateeffect of their last request might have been, they now received theassurance of a gracious consideration being given to their requests.[24]The King almost immediately afterwards extinguished the Commission, andsignified his purpose of rectifying corporate abuses.[28]

Within a few days, collects were drawn up by the Bishops, to be used inall cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches and chapels withinthe kingdom during this time of public danger. They received HisMajesty’s approval, and were printed for general use. It is curious toobserve that they are so framed as to lay all the blame of existingcalamities on the shoulders of the people, and to breathe a spirit ofintense loyalty to His Majesty’s person.[29]

Upon the 12th of October, the King authorized the Bishop of Winchesterto settle the troubles at Magdalen College; but so suspicious hadthe public become in reference to the Royal sincerity, that it wascurrently and falsely reported immediately afterwards, that he hadaltered his mind, and withdrawn the order.[30]

Repeated Royal conferences could not be held without attractingattention. They became the subject of common talk, and the suspicioustemper of people appeared in a rumour, that the right reverend fatherswere being hoodwinked by a Popish Sovereign and his Popish Councillors.Evelyn wrote to Sancroft on the 10th of October, telling him thatthe calling of His Grace and the Bishops to Court, and what hadbeen required of them, was only calculated to create jealousies andsuspicions amongst well-meaning people—the whole of the plan beingthe work of Jesuits. He also complained that in all the Declarationspublished in pretended favour of the Church of England, there was notonce any mention made of the Reformed or Protestant religion.[31]

In another letter, the contents of which were intended to becommunicated to His Grace, serious charges are alluded to as broughtagainst the Bishops.

“Knowing your interest in my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury,” says thewriter, “you are desired to let him know that it was my fortune thisweek to have the sight of a most malicious libel against the mosteminent Bishops of the Church of England; the extent and substance ofit is to show how the Bishops mind only popularity, and to make a noisein the world. For that the Bishops themselves do dispense with the lawsand canons of the Church,[26] as well as the King hath done by virtue ofhis prerogative. This was lent me to peruse one evening, so that Icould not read it fully, but the chief thing they aim at is to showthat the Bishops do dispense with non-residence, contrary to the canonsof 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, whichis very virulent, and filled with near 300 instances of prebends andclergymen that are non-resident, contrary to the law in all countiesof England; for they have a perfect account from all counties, exceptabout eight or ten, which are promised against this term; and had notthis juncture of affairs hindered, it had been fully printed in a fewweeks.” After transcribing the heads, the writer proceeds: ”All theseheads have several scandalous instances (that lack reformation) inmany counties, and it would be happy if my good Lord of Canterburydid require a speedy reformation, and make all Ecclesiastical Judgesinquire into the truth hereof, and give him a speedy account, and soprevent these just scandals, which will otherwise fall upon the Bishopsof the Church of England.”[32]

The invitation to the Prince of Orange had been signed by the Bishopof 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 inmaking preparations for his enterprise. The document, drawn up by theGrand Pensionary of Holland, had been revised and translated by Burnet,who sat by the Prince’s elbow, and came to be described as “Champion inordinary of the Revolution, and ready to enter the lists against allcomers.”

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 there-establishment of Popery in Protestant England. Monasteries,convents, Popish churches, and Jesuit colleges had sprung up in alldirections, and at the Council Board one of the hated order had takenhis seat. Political liberties had been violated, charters withdrawn,Parliamentary government suspended, Judges displaced for theirconscientiousness, and the right of petition denied even to spiritualLords; Ireland had been[28] given over to Papists, Scotland had beenshorn of her freedom, and to crown all, the public had been deceivedby the announcement of the birth of a pretended Prince. Hence therights of the Princess of Orange had been invaded, and His Highnesshad undertaken an expedition “with no other view than to get a freeParliament assembled which might remedy those grievances, inquire intothat birth, and secure national religion and liberty under a just andlegal government for the future.” He further stated that he had beenearnestly solicited by many Lords, both spiritual and temporal, by manygentlemen, and by other subjects of all ranks, to interpose.[33]

After James had made his concessions, a postscript to the Declarationwas received from William. The concessions, he urged, went to prove thetruth of the charges made; they arose from a consciousness of guilt;no dependence could be placed upon them; and only a Parliament couldre-establish the rights of the English people.

Other documents of the same kind followed. The Prince boldly appealedto the military, reminding them how Protestant soldiers had beencashiered in Ireland, and Popish soldiers forced upon England. It wouldbe the crime of the army, if the nation lost its liberty; the glory ofthe army, if the liberty of the nation was saved. Herbert wrote to theseamen, telling them their fate would be infamy, if the Prince failedof success; dismission from the service, if he succeeded.[34]

William’s Declaration alarmed James; at last he became undeceived. Thewebs woven by Dutch diplomacy were blown away. His confusion increasedat finding he had reason to suspect Bishops as being amongst thePrince’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 wouldbe a fitting thing for the Bishops to draw up a paper expressingtheir abhorrence of the attempt. The Primate plausibly pleaded thatthe Bishops had left London, and strangely declared, that he couldnot believe the Prince of Orange had any such design as was supposed.Matters were allowed to rest until the 31st of October, and then theKing sent for Compton, Bishop of London.[35] He came the next day. TheKing referred to William’s Declaration, and read the paragraph statingthat 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 readilyanswer in the negative as myself.”[36] This skilfully-contrived evasionwas a lie to all intents and purposes; but it took effect, for Jamesadmitted that he believed the Bishops were innocent. When he proceededto urge a request that they should publicly disown any implicationin this matter, his Lordship answered that the request should beconsidered. The King rejoined, that every one must answer for himself,and that he would send for the Archbishop to bring his brethrentogether.

A third important meeting followed next day, the 2nd of November,when the Bishop of London, with Crew, of Durham, and Cartwright, ofChester—both considered[30] half Papists—and Watson, of St. David’s,a thorough courtier,[37] were brought together at Whitehall, and theArchbishop following them there, conducted them into the Royal closet.The Archbishop explicitly denied having signed the invitation. TheBishop 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 andtheir brethren on the Bench should publicly vindicate themselves, andexpress abhorrence of William’s design.

The next day, November the 3rd, the Bishops of London and Rochesterwent to Lambeth to dine with His Grace, but finding their brethren ofChester and St. David’s present, though uninvited, they proceeded toa friend’s house in the neighbourhood, and returned, between two andthree o’clock, to the Palace, after the other two had[31] left. Then theyconferred with Sancroft as to what should be done.[38]

The fourth important meeting of this kind took place on November the6th, when the Archbishop, and the Bishops of London, Rochester, andPeterborough, made their appearance in the Sovereign’s presence;the Bishop of St. David’s—throughout an object ofsuspicion—“waiting for them in the Guard-chamber, ready to thrustin with them to the King.” The Primate, taking Lord Preston aside,requested him to procure for them a private audience; upon which theKing, through his Lordship, ordered the obnoxious and forward Prelateto withdraw. The rest told James they had done all they could, and thatif 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, theyfell back on the ground they had occupied before, that scarcely onein five hundred believed in the genuineness of the document publishedin the Prince’s name. The Archbishop did not touch the question ofthe paper so much wished for by James, although one had been drawnup, and signed by himself; most probably the reason of this omissionwas, that he could not carry his brethren with him in the matter, and[32]he felt it would not do for him to make a solitary disavowal on thesubject. Presently the dispute wandered into a confused maze, and theArchbishop could not help adverting to the treatment which he and hissix brethren had received at the Royal hands. The King was annoyed, butthe Primate persevered; the rest supported him, and His Majesty stoodlike a stag at bay. James retorted that if they complained, he had aright to complain too, and the quarrel became unseemly in the extreme.Indeed, His Majesty was now beginning to find that whatsoever a mansoweth that shall he also reap, and as he had by his lawyers beardedthe Bishops in his own Court at Westminster, the Bishops in returnwere bearding him in his own Palace of Whitehall. The conversationcame round to the old point. James wanted them to sign a paper. Theywould 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 wayhe might, but they would not go with him. Whatever their high notionsof Royal prerogatives, and the obligations of subjects, might havebeen once, the recent trial had wonderfully opened the eyes of theirunderstanding. They would not take on themselves the responsibility ofpublishing any disclaimer. His Majesty might publish to the world whatthey had said, if he liked.[39] “No,” said he; “if I should publishit, the people would not believe me.” Not believe him? The confessionwas most[33] humiliating. “Sir,” said the right reverend father, “theword of a King is sacred—it ought to be believed.” “They that couldbelieve 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 standupon my own legs, and trust to myself and my own arms.” So they weredismissed.[40]

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 whomthey say they shall ever owe the preservation of our religion,”—astatement which should be considered in connection with what I havesaid as to letters of a different purport addressed to Sancroft. Thefact seems to have been, that whilst some Churchmen were dissatisfiedwith irregularities in the Establishment which they blamed theBishops for not correcting, others—a far larger number—lookingchiefly at that moment to the religious and political liberties ofthe country, regarded certain of the Bishops as making a noble standagainst the designs of James. The Bishops’ popularity increased thefollowing month, and although Compton’s Jesuitical answer to theKing must be condemned by everybody, and the doubts expressed by theBishops present at the interview on the 6th, as to the genuinenessof William’s Declaration, will appear to most people as reflectingeither upon their judgment or their straightforwardness, still theirdetermination not to submit to James’ dictation was in harmony withthe spirit which had made the seven so popular. Their firmness in thisrespect—in connection with the resistance offered to[34] James by otherPrelates not present on this last occasion, and responsible neither forCompton’s equivocation or their brethren’s remarks about the Orangedocuments—certainly operated in favour of the approaching Revolution,the full nature of which, however, they did not foresee.

The day before this 6th of November a momentous event had occurred, ofwhich at the time they knew nothing.

William had set sail from Holland on the 16th of October, with a flagfloating 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 Protestantreligion.” As it fluttered on the staff, the wind changed, the fleethad 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 waftover the desired Deliverer. Whilst James was talking to the Bishops onthe 2nd of November, the ship had left Helvoetsluys, and after sailingnorthward, had tacked about a second time, and with a fair wind wasmaking for the British Channel.

In the fleet with the Prince was Frederic, Count of Schomberg,who, though he had been in the service of Louis XIV., remained astaunch member of the Reformed Church, and entered heartily into thedesign of the Protestant Champion, whom he attended in the capacityof Lieutenant. Another distinguished officer was Isaac Dumont deBostaquet—a Huguenot soldier who had suffered for his religion,and had been driven from his paternal chateau of La Fontelaye, inFrance, by the intolerant policy of his infatuated Sovereign. Narrowlyescaping with his life,[35] after a number of romantic adventures, hefound refuge in Holland, and now placed his sword at the command ofthe Prince, with all the zeal which could be kindled in the cause ofliberty by memories of tyranny and oppression. In William’s dragoonregiments of red and blue were fifty French officers, all more or lessinspired by similar feelings. Two companies of French infantry werecommanded by Captains de Chauvernay and Rapin-Thoyras, afterwards thehistorian of England. Perhaps the equipment of these soldiers—dusty,worn, and tattered—appeared to disadvantage when compared with thebrilliant uniforms of the Dutch, the German, the Swedes, the Swiss,and the English, who crowded within the wooden walls; but they deservemore notice than they have received, and more gratitude than was everpaid them.[41] Whilst England afforded a sanctuary to the Huguenotsoppressed by Popery, in their own country,—Huguenots helped England tokeep off the yoke of a like oppression. There were other noteworthy menamongst William’s followers.

Gilbert Burnet was there, full of Dutch memories, full of Englishhopes, picking up knowledge from the sailors, and musing upon theissue of his patron’s enterprise, not without side glances at his ownfortunes. Not far off stood Carstairs, a catholic-spirited ScotchPresbyterian, 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 adifferent character, Robert Ferguson, implicated in the Rye-house Plot,and a ringleader in Monmouth’s rebellion.

The fleet presented a magnificent spectacle. “Nothing[36] could be morebeautiful,” says Dumont de Bostaquet, “than the evolution of theimmense flotilla which now took place under a glorious sky;”[42] andRapin, recording his own impressions of the moment, observes, “What aglorious show the fleet made! Five or six hundred ships in so narrow achannel, and both the English and French shores covered with numberlessspectators is no common sight. For my part, who was then on board thefleet, it struck me extremely.”

Such a fleet, known to be conveying an army to the coast, watched onits way with imperfect information and with mingled fear and hope,must have been to Englishmen a spectacle full of excitement, to whichhistory 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 himselfcarried beyond his destination by the violence of the wind, or theunskilfulness of the pilot; and some measure of agitation,—such asthrilled the multitudes straining their eyes on the Dover Cliffs,whilst the quaintly-built vessels passed by,—must have moved theinhabitants of the towns and villages on both sides the sweep of waterat the mouth of the Ex: as we imagine, on the red sand hills, groupsgathered here and there, peering through windy weather in search ofthe ships about to rest under the headland of Devonshire Tor. The nextday, the Dutch reached the desired spot, and “the forces were landedwith such diligence and tranquillity, that the whole army was on shorebefore night.”[43]

The associations of the year and the day were propitious. Just acentury before, God had scattered the[37] Spanish Armada; and on the 5thof November, 1605, the three Estates of England had been delivered fromthe Gunpowder Plot. The Calvinist William took the Arminian Burnetby the hand, asking, “Will you not believe in predestination?” “Iwill never forget,” the chaplain cautiously replied, “that providenceof God which has appeared so signally on this occasion.” Publicworship followed the landing. Carstairs was the first, “Scotsman andPresbyterian as he was,” to call down the blessings of Heaven on theexpedition; and after his prayer, “the troops all along the beach, athis instance, joined in the 118th Psalm,” and this act of devotionproduced a sensible effect on the troops.[44] The Prince for awhileseemed elated, yet soon relapsed into his habitual gravity; but Burnetonly interpreted the general feeling of the moment when he says, “Wesaw new and unthought-of characters of a favourable providence of Godwatching over us.”[45]

Tidings of what had happened rapidly spread, and excited all sortsof people, especially such as had religious sympathies with the newvisitors. Devonshire traditions afford an idea of what was felt anddone by Dissenters. A lady, worshipping in a meeting-house at Totnes,in commemoration of the discovery of Gunpowder Plot, when she learntthat the Prince had reached the neighbouring bay, immediately hastened,in company with another like-spirited matron, to meet His Highness atBrixham, who “shook hands with them, and gave them a parcel of hisProclamations to distribute, which[38] they did so industriously that notone was left in the family as a memorial of their adventure.”[46]

A story is also told that Roman Catholics were at the time eagerlyexpecting assistance from the French, and a priest with his friends,stationed on a watch-tower, having descried white flags on the menof war as they hove in sight, prepared an entertainment for theearnestly-desired guests, and proceeded to chant aTe Deum, ingratitude for their arrival. They were soon undeceived, and the fareprovided for the French was enjoyed by the Dutch.[47]

The army next day marched on to Exeter, the officers, like thesoldiers, wet to the skin, having neither change of raiment, nor food,nor horses, nor servants, nor beds—the baggage still remaining inthe ships. But expressions of sympathy, perhaps timorously conveyed,cheered them somewhat on this dreary day; and stories are stillcirculated amongst the Nonconformist families of the neighbourhood, ofancestors who watched the landing, and spoke of “seeing the[39] countrypeople rolling apples down the hill-side to the soldiers.”[48]

The progress was slow, and the stay at the Western capital long. ThomasLamplugh, the Bishop who had approved of the Declaration and of theconduct of His Majesty’s servile Judges, showed his fidelity to Jamesby rushing up to London, where he was rewarded with the Archiepiscopalthrone of York. York had been left vacant for more than two years anda half, with the design, it was said, of being ultimately occupied bya Roman Catholic. A Popish Bishop had been settled there, with a titlein partibus infidelium, whose crosier and utensils were seizedafter the landing of the Prince of Orange.[49]

The Dean of Exeter also fled in alarm, and His Highness took up hisabode in the deserted Deanery. The Prebendaries refused to meet him,or to occupy their stalls, when he marched in military state throughthe 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[40] beautiful screen,and took his seat on the Episcopal throne,—the ornamentation of whichin ebonlike oak, without a single nail in the curious structure, soadmirably contrasts with the pale arches and the vaulted roof. As soonas the chanting of theTe Deum had ceased, Burnet read HisHighness’s Declaration, which proved a signal for such of the clergyand choristers as had ventured on being present, to quit the edifice.At the end of the reading the Doctor cried, “God save the Prince ofOrange!” to which some of the congregation responded with a hearty Amen.

De Bostaquet, the French Huguenot, accustomed to the extreme and rigidsimplicity of Protestant worship in his own country, was scandalizedat what he witnessed at Exeter. He regarded the English service asretaining nearly all the externals of Popery—for such he counted thealtar, and the great candles on each side, and the basin of silver-giltbetween, and the Canons, in surplices and stoles, ranged in stalls oneach side the nave, and the choir of little boys singing with charmingvoices. He was touched somewhat with the beauty of the music, but thesturdy and ultra-Reformer declared it was all opposed to the simplicityof the French reformed religion, and he confessed he was by no meansedified 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 themeeting-house in St. James Street, exclaimed, “I will take the kingdomof heaven by violence!” and calling for a hammer, broke open the door.Sword in hand he mounted the pulpit, and preached against the Papistsfrom the 16th verse of the[41] 94th Psalm: “Who will rise up for meagainst the evil doers?”[51]

At first the Prince’s affairs wore an unfavourable appearance—peopleof influence did not join him; but before long the tide turned,“and every man mistaking his neighbour’s courage for his own, allrushed to the camp or to the stations which had been assigned them,with a violence proportioned to their late fears.”[52] A heartywelcome awaited His Highness in many places through which he marched,the Dissenters in particular hailing his approach. One of them, acountry gentleman, living at Coaxden Hall, rich in rookeries, betweenAxminster and Chard, had tables spread with provisions under an avenueof trees leading up to the house. The gentleman was Richard Cogan,whose wife Elizabeth, before her marriage, concealed him under afeather-bed, after the Monmouth rebellion, and so saved his life andwon his affections. His mother had been a Royalist; and amongst manystories told of Charles’s adventures after his defeat at Worcester,it is related that this lady covered him with the skirts of herenormously-hooped petticoats.[53] The clergy of Dorset found themselvesin an awkward position after William had triumphantly passed throughthe country. They had[42] received an order of Council, sent by theBishop, prescribing prayers for the Prince of Wales and the Royalfamily. But now, although some persevered in using the prayers, otherslaid them aside. There still exists a letter to the Archbishop ofCanterbury from the incumbent of Wimborne, asking what he should dounder the circumstances.[54]

When Ken heard that the Dutch were coming to Wells, he immediately leftthe city, and in obedience to His Majesty’s general commands, tookall his coach horses with him, and as many of his saddle horses as hecould; seeking shelter in a village near Devizes, intending to waiton James, should he come into that neighbourhood. Ken was awkwardlysituated, having been chaplain to the Princess of Orange, and knowingmany of the Dutch officers; therefore, to prevent suspicion, he lefthis diocese, determined to preserve his allegiance to a Monarchwho still occupied the throne.[55] William found himself in theneighbourhood where the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth had a few yearsearlier unfurled his flag, to which certain Nonconformists had beendrawn, who paid a terrible penalty for their rashness. Many retainedkeen recollections of Sedgmoor fight and Taunton Assizes, and couldscarcely calculate upon the success of this new attempt; yet theysympathized intensely in William’s designs, as is manifest from someof their Church records containing narratives of the Deliverer’s marchthrough the west of England. The Declaration said little in favourof Nonconformists, and only by implication gave hopes to them oflegal security. But the documents received an interpretation from theknowledge that William believed[43] conscience to be God’s province, andthat toleration is as politic as it is righteous.

Three days before the landing of the Prince, James admonishedhis subjects, upon peril of being prosecuted, not to publish thetreasonable Proclamations; and on the day after the landing, hedenounced the act as aiming at the immediate possession of the Crown.Between those two dates, the Scottish Bishops, whose feudal-likeloyalty mastered their patriotism, and placed them in opposition totheir Episcopal brethren of the South, sent an address to the fallingMonarch, in which they denounced the invasion, and professed unshakenallegiance to be part of their religion; not doubting that God, whohad often delivered His Majesty, would now give him the hearts of hissubjects and the necks of his enemies.[56] Another Scotch address,breathing the utmost devotion, followed, in significant opposition tothe ominous silence maintained by Englishmen. This flash of enthusiasm,however, on the other side the Tweed, did nothing for the salvationof 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 atWhitehall, and as selfish courtiers were waiting to see how they couldpromote their own interests, the misguided Sovereign commanded his armyto march towards Salisbury. The night before he himself started forthat city, a few noblemen and Bishops waited upon him with a proposalto assemble Parliament, and treat with the Prince of Orange; when,according to his own account, he told the Prelates that it would muchbetter become men of their calling to instruct the people in their[44]duty to God and the King, rather than foment a rebellions temper, bypresenting such petitions at the very moment the enemy stood at thedoor. He says he regarded them as making religion a cloak of rebellion,and was at last convinced that the Church’s doctrine of passiveobedience formed too sandy a foundation for a Prince’s hope.[57] Hisanswer to the request for a Parliament, according to the report of theBishop of Rochester, ran in these words: “What you ask of me, I mostpassionately desire, and I promise you upon the faith of a king, that Iwill have a Parliament, and such an one as you ask for, as soon as everthe Prince of Orange has quitted this realm. For how is it possible aParliament should be free in all its circumstances, as you petitionfor, whilst an enemy is in the kingdom, and can make return of near ahundred voices?”[58]

James reached Salisbury on the 19th of November, and took up hisabode in the Episcopal Palace,—under the shadow of the noble spirewhich rises so gracefully out of the midst of a pleasant landscape ofquaint-looking houses, near the confluence of two rivers, bordered bygardens and orchards, by green meadows and brown fields. There he hadreason enough to be alarmed by the progress of events, and to reflecton the instability of worldly greatness; yet he did not despair.

He was wonderfully slow in giving up all hope of help from Bishops. Tothe last he seemed to cling to that order with the tenacity of a sailorwho has seized on a plank from a foundered vessel. From Salisbury he[45]sent for the Bishop of Winchester, who had cautiously remained at hisprincely castle during these troublous times. The Bishop wrote tothe Archbishop of Canterbury the following account of this fruitlessvisit:—

A spirit of disaffection soon showed itself in the upper ranks. LordLovelace had been deeply involved in intrigues preparatory to theRevolution; and in a crypt under his Elizabethan mansion, calledLady-place, at Hurley, so well known to all pilgrims to picturesquespots, on the[46] banks of the Thames, he had held midnight conferenceswhilst all the Whigs were longing for a Protestant wind. He now quittedhis home, at the head of seventy followers, and galloped westward tojoin the Prince. Colchester, Wharton, Russel, and Abingdon proceededin the same direction; but, what foreboded more mischief, defectionbroke out in the ranks of Royalism. Cornbury, eldest son of LordClarendon, and nephew of James’ first wife, at the head of threeregiments, deserted the camp at Salisbury, and joined the Prince—mostof his soldiers, more faithful than himself, deserting him, when theydiscovered his treachery. Still worse defections followed. PrinceGeorge of Denmark—the husband of the Princess Anne, James’ daughter,a person who, with all her weakness of mind, had acquired a reputationfor Protestant zeal—went next. In company with the Duke of Ormond,he rode off from Andover, having the previous night supped at hisfather-in-law’s table. The Churchills—great favourites with James,great supporters of his cause—soon fell into the stream. The destinedhero of Blenheim, accompanied by Grafton, pushed on his way to worshipthe rising sun. A story is told, I do not know on what authority, thatWilliam, on seeing these unexpected visitors, exclaimed, “If ye be comepeaceably to me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you, but ifye be come to betray me to mine enemies (seeing that there is no wrongin 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, peacebe unto thee, and peace be to thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee.”The Princess Anne, imitating her husband’s example, disappeared fromWhitehall, and in a carriage—preceded by Compton, Bishop of London,who wore a purple velvet coat and jack boots, with pistols in hisholsters and a sword in his[47] hand[60]—was driving off at the top ofher horses’ speed to the town of Nottingham.

The desertions at Salisbury drove James back to London; there the lastdrop was added to the cup of his domestic sorrow, when he learnedthat his daughter Anne had abandoned his cause. Further calamitiesbefell him. Rochester, Godolphin, even Jeffreys, meeting their masterin Council, recommended the calling of a Parliament; and at the sametime Clarendon blamed James for leaving Salisbury without fighting abattle. Eventually, after having bewailed his son Cornbury’s apostacy,the great courtier thought it the safest course to imitate that son’sexample.

James was now reduced to extremities, and on the 22nd of November heissued a Proclamation, in which he recalled his revolted subjects toallegiance with the promise of a free and gracious pardon, and temptedthe soldiers of the Dutch army to come over to the Royal standard withthe promise of liberal entertainment, or of safe dismissal to their owncountry. On the 30th, appeared another Proclamation, for the speedycalling of a Parliament.[61]

Matters were proceeding favourably on the other side. CrossingSalisbury Plain, marching past Stonehenge, William and his army, withgreat military display, took possession of Salisbury, after whichthe Prince occupied a house in the neighbouring village of Berwick.Clarendon, on reaching the Episcopal city, which had become the headquarters of the Revolution, alighted at the George Inn, where he foundthe Dutch Ambassador; and the next morning waited on the Prince, whotook 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[48]accession of his son had proved. The Earl, hearing Burnet was in thehouse, went to see that important person. “What,” asked the latter,“can be the meaning of the King’s sending these Commissioners?” “Toadjust 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 possessedby the Prince’s forces, and all the North being in arms for him?”Clarendon urged that if the design was to settle things, they mighthope “for a composure.” The Doctor, with his usual warmth, answered,“It is impossible: there can be no Parliament: there must be noParliament. It is impossible!”[62]

Clarendon made his way to Berwick—the house used by the Prince atthe time was in the possession of one of Clarendon’s relatives—therehe had a private conference with His Highness, and was received “veryobligingly.” The Earl wished that the opposing parties might come toterms, and talked with Burnet, who, walking up and down the room, inwonderful warmth exclaimed, “What treaty? How can there be a treaty?The sword is drawn. There is a supposititious child, which must beinquired into.” Clarendon was puzzled at Burnet’s conduct, and askedhim why the day before, at prayers in the Cathedral, he had behavedso as to make the congregation stare; for when the usual collectfor the Sovereign was being repeated, he sat down in his stall andmade an “ugly noise.” Burnet replied, he could not join in the usualsupplications for James as King of England.[63]

As William rode on horseback from Berwick to Salisbury,[49] the peopleflocked to see and bless him. He acknowledged their affectionatesalutations by taking off his hat, saying, “Thank you, good people. Iam come to secure the Protestant religion, and to free you from Popery.”

William’s popularity advanced with hasty strides from the south tothe north and east of England, obtaining marked manifestation incertain towns and cities, connected with other and somewhat similarstruggles. The nobility and gentry of the northern midland countiesmet at Derby—where, a little more than half a century later, thePretender Charles Edward lodged for a few days, flushed with the hopeof recovering his grandfather’s crown—and there they declared it to betheir duty to endeavour the healing of present distractions, as theyapprehended the consequences which might arise from the landing of anarmy. 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. hadraised his standard, and Colonel Hutchinson had held the Castle—manyof the upper and middle classes assembled, to enumerate grievancesunder which the nation groaned. The laws, as they said, had become anose of wax, and being sensible of the influence of Jesuitical councilsin the Government, they avowed their determination not to deliverposterity over to Rome and slavery, but to join with the Prince inrecovering their almost ruined laws, liberties, and religion.

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 oflate years to bring Popery into the kingdom, and by many[50] devicesto set at nought the laws of the land,” there could be no properredress of grievances “but by a free Parliament; that now was theonly time to prefer a petition of the sort; and that they could notimitate a better pattern than had been set before them by severalLords, spiritual and temporal.” Alarmed by flying reports of whatthe Papists were about to do, the Earl of Danby, Lord Horton, LordWilloughby, and others, scoured the streets of the city at the head ofa troop, shouting, “A free Parliament, the Protestant religion, and noPopery!”[64] At Newcastle and at Hull—ground covered by Commonwealthmemories—demonstrations occurred in favour of a free Parliament.In the fine old Market-place of Norwich, abounding in Puritanassociations, the Duke of Norfolk addressed the Mayor and citizens,and talked of securing law, liberty, and the Protestant religion. Justafterwards, the townsmen of King’s Lynn—where one meets with theshades of Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester—responded to theDuke in a strain like his own. Berwick-on-Tweed followed in the wakeof other towns. Even the heads of Houses at Oxford sent to the Princean assurance of support, and an invitation to visit them, telling himthat their plate, if needful, should be at his service.[65] In short,a flame of enthusiasm in favour of the Dutch deliverer spread from oneend of the land to the other.[66]

I have shown that treachery weakened the cause of James; I am sorry tosay, that falsehood was employed in support of William. Two genuineDeclarations were published in his cause; a third appeared, of themost violent description. It stated as his resolution, that allPapists found with arms on their persons or[51] in their houses, shouldbe treated as freebooters and banditti, be incapable of quarter,and be delivered up to the discretion of his soldiers; all personsassisting them were to be looked upon as partakers of their crimes.It stated, also, that numerous Papists had of late resorted to Londonand Westminster; that there was reason to suspect they did so, not fortheir own security, but in order to make a desperate attempt upon thoseplaces; and that French troops, procured by the interest and power ofthe Jesuits, would, if possible, land in England, in “pursuance ofthe engagements which, at the instigation of that pestilent Society,His most Christian Majesty, with one of his neighbouring Princes ofthe same communion, had entered into, for the utter extirpation ofthe Protestant religion out of Europe.”[67] Burnet, who was in thesecrets of the Prince’s Court, observes, “No doubt was made that itwas truly the Prince’s Declaration; but he knew nothing of it; andit was never known who was the author of so bold a thing. No personever claimed the merit of it, for though it had an amazing effect,yet, it seems he that contrived it apprehended that the Prince wouldnot be well pleased with the author of such an imposture in his name.The King was under such a consternation, that he neither knew whatto resolve on, nor whom to trust.”[68] It has been said[69] thatthe Declaration was not made public until after the Prince had leftSherborne. William did not issue any counter Declaration nor publishany repudiation of the document, but left it to produce its effect.Such a want of straightforwardness contradicts his general character,but most[52] likely those about him, seeing how effective the Declarationproved, prevented its being cancelled; still, if the main blame restswith them, their master remains responsible for having at least winkedat the maxim of doing evil that good might come. Years afterwardsone Speke—who had been in the Prince’s army, and who was goaded byrevenge for his brother’s death under Judge Jeffreys—avowed himselfthe fabricator of the infamous device, and said that he gave it tothe Prince with his own hand at Sherborne Castle; that His Highnessseemed somewhat surprised at first, but that when he had consideredit, he and those about him were not displeased. No credit can be givento a man who played the part which Speke confessed he had done. Partof his statement is improbable, and is contradicted by the relationof circumstances given by Bishop Burnet. At all events, the effect ofthe forgery was terrible, and soon afterwards this same man contrivedanother and still more diabolical scheme. In the meanwhile, attempts atnegotiation went on. James had appointed Commissioners to meet William,but things now reached a point rendering conferences utterly idle. ThePalace was thrown into confusion by the escape of the Royal family, andthe consternation of the Court is reflected in a much damaged letter,brought under the notice of historical students by the HistoricalMSS. Commission. “Your lordship,” says Turner, Bishop of Ely, underdate December 11, 1688, to Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol, both numberedamongst the seven, “has heard by [this time that on] Sunday night,the Queen and Prince of Wales [left] about 2 in the morning. Theywent [in a boat with] oars to Lambeth, and so, without guards, in [acoach] towards Gravesend, where a yacht lay for [them]. Many of qualityslink away daily. ’Tis believed [the[53] Ki]ng will follow very suddenly.How are the mighty fallen. [My] Lord, these are sad and strangerevolutions for our general [and grie]vous national sins, which GodAlmighty forgive and relieve us. This minute I receive an advice fromthe Earl of Rochester that the King is secretly withdrawn this morning.God preserve him and direct us.”

James fled to Sheerness, having burnt the unissued Parliamentary writs,and thrown into the Thames the Great Seal of the realm. Arrived atSheerness, he fell into the hands of the rabble, upon which, as De Foerelates, “he applied himself to a clergyman in words to this effect:‘Sir, ’tis men of your cloth have reduced me to this condition: Idesire you will use your endeavour to still and quiet the people, anddisperse them, that I may be freed from this tumult.’ The gentleman’sanswer was cold and insignificant, and going down to the people, hereturned no more to the King.”[70]

What was to be done? Amidst consternation indescribable, some of thePeers resolved to hold a meeting in Guildhall, the walls of whichhad often echoed with popular cries of all sorts. At this meeting,held December the 10th, amidst the temporal Lords there appeared theArchbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Winchester,Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough. The Archbishop of Canterburypresided, and a sub-committee of three or four drew up a Declaration,in which they promised to assist the Prince of Orange in obtaining aParliament for the welfare of England, the security of the Church, andthe freedom of Dissenters. This was signed by the two Archbishops, theBishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough,[54]and by several Peers. A deputation of four, including the Bishop ofEly, was appointed to wait upon His Highness. Riots followed. “NoPopery” became the general cry. Roman Catholic chapels were strippedof furniture, in some instances the buildings were demolished.Oranges—symbolic of the Deliverer—were stuck on the ends of spikesand staves, and waved in triumph. The Embassies of Roman Catholiccountries were no longer safe, and the mansion of the Spanish Ministerwas sacked. One act of vengeance will surprise no one who has read thestory of the previous reign: Jeffreys, disguised as a sailor, fellinto the hands of the mob, and narrowly escaped with life. Speke, notsatisfied with the fictitious Declaration, invented terrific storiesabout massacres, which he said were already begun by the Irish. Allkinds of atrocities were to be perpetrated by the disbanded army. DeFoe repeated that, “the Irish dragoons which had fled from Reading,rallied at Twyford, and having lost not many of their number—forthere were not above twelve men killed—marched on for Maidenhead,swearing and cursing, after a most soldierly manner, that they wouldburn all the towns wherever they came, and cut the throats of thepeople.” He adds, that as he himself rode to Maidenhead, he learnt atSlough that Maidenhead had been burnt, also Uxbridge and Reading. Whenhe came to Reading, he was assured Maidenhead and Oakingham were inflames.[71] Imagination invented all kinds of horrors. In consequenceof Speke’s letters came theIrish night, as it is called,when the citizens of London, in the[55] utmost terror at the thought ofinsurgents entering their gates and murdering them in their beds, satup till morning,—drums beating to arms, women screaming in agony,lights blazing at windows, streets lined with soldiers, and the doorsof houses barricaded against the fancied foe. The panic could not beconfined to the Metropolis. It spread to the North; it reached Leeds.Stories were told of Papists at Nottingham burning and slaying allbefore them; whereupon, the people of Leeds mended their fire-arms andfixed scythes on poles, kept watch and ward, and sent for the military,who came in such strong force that they amounted to seven thousandhorse and foot. This pacified the inhabitants, until in the middleof the night there rose a cry, “Horse and arms! horse and arms!—theenemy are upon us! Beeston is actually burnt, and only some escapedto bring the doleful tidings!” The bells were rung backwards, womenshrieked, candles were placed in the windows, armed horsemen rodein the direction where the destroyers were expected; and men withtheir wives and children, leaving all behind, even money and plateupon the tables, ran for shelter to barns and haystacks. The terrorwas 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 ofa few drunken people. Again came the cry of “Fire! fire! Horse andarms! for God’s sake!”—simply because beacons were burning over thetown of Halifax. Whether deluded, or wishing to keep up an excitementfor political purposes, military expresses brought pretended advice“that the Irish were broken into parties and dispersed.” The wholewas managed so artfully, that one who inquired into the matter couldnot learn who contrived it.[72] Hatred[56] against the Roman Catholics,kindled by atrocious falsehoods, contributed to strengthen a desirefor the expatriation of all priests; but other causes, according tothe confession of Jesuits themselves, helped to bring on the downfallof Popery. Father Con, an active Jesuit in London, wrote a letter tothe provincial of his order at Rome, telling a story, in which heascribes a considerable share in the catastrophe, to his own party, andespecially to D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio. The mischief, he said, camefrom 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]

James, after a short detention at Sheerness, returned to London. LordMiddleton heard of his coming, and hurriedly scrawled a note in thesewords: “The King will be at Rochester this night, and intends to beat Whitehall to-morrow; has ordered his coaches to meet him at hislodgings.” Immediately from Westminster, under date “Dec. 15, 1688, 7at night,” the Bishop of Winchester wrote to Sancroft, “May it pleaseyour 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 andorders came from my Lord Middleton.”[74]

The discarded Monarch came, as Middleton said, and a gleam of loyaltyburst out once more, amidst bells and bonfires. The poor man almostthought he should gain a new lease of power, and the frightened Papistscame out of holes and corners to welcome their regal friend.[57] He evenventured to assume a rather haughty tone, but in vain. The die wascast. The Dutch Ambassador informed him that the Prince would allow noRoyal guards, but such as were under his own command. This amounted toa demand of surrender. William was in a position to insist upon it.Three Dutch battalions reached Whitehall at 10 o’clock on the nightof December the 17th. Before the morning a message arrived from thePrince, requiring James to proceed to Ham, near Richmond. James said heshould prefer Rochester. It mattered little where he went. The partyin 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 severalBishops concurred in entreating him not to leave the country.[75] FromRochester he stole away to France. Next we find him at St. Germains.

As the rejected King slipped down the Thames on the morning of Decemberthe 18th, his destined successor was preparing to take up his quartersat St. James’s Palace. He disappointed the people, who waited inthe rain to welcome him, by driving through the park. Attended by abrilliant train of courtiers and officers, he reached the gatewayof the Royal residence late in the afternoon. The Princess Anne,accompanied by Lady Churchill, both covered with orange ribbons, wentthat night to the theatre in her father’s coach.

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 twobeing imprisoned in Newgate, the busy ecclesiastical[58] Minister of HisHighness paid them a visit, and took upon himself to provide for theircomfort. A little incident, recorded by Dr. Patrick, brings beforeus vividly the excitement amongst Churchmen at that critical period.“It was a very rainy night when Dr. Tenison and I being together, anddiscoursing in my parlour, in the little cloisters in Westminster,one knocked hard at the door. It being opened, in came the Bishop ofSt. Asaph; to whom I said, ‘What makes your Lordship come abroad insuch weather, when the rain pours down as if heaven and earth wouldcome together?’ To which he answered, ‘He had been at Lambeth, and wassent by the Bishops to wait upon the Prince, and know when they mightall come and pay their duty to him.’ I asked if my Lord of Canterburyhad agreed to it, together with the rest. He said, ‘Yea, he made somedifficulty at the first, but consented at the last, and ordered him togo with that message.’”[76]

Whitehall, which, up to the flight of James, had been crowded byfriends or time-servers, now became a desert; and St. James’s, whichhad 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 oneanother on the threshold of the house where the new master of Englandhad taken up his abode. Clarendon went to Court instantly, but couldnot get near His Highness for the crowd of people.

A clerical address appears to have been amongst the first, if not thevery first, presented to him on his arrival. At noon, after the rainynight when the Bishop of St.[59] Asaph knocked at a door in the littlecloisters at Westminster, Dr. Paman, a domestic of the Archbishop ofCanterbury, called on Dr. Patrick to inform him that the Prince hadappointed three o’clock in the afternoon to receive the Bishops. “Willmy Lord of Canterbury be with them?” asked Patrick. “Yes, yes,” wasthe reply. Whether an interview between the Prince and any Bishops didtake place that day, or the messenger had mistaken the time, or theappointment had been altered, certain it is that the Archbishop did notgo, and we have no particular account of the presentation of an addressbefore the 21st.

On that occasion, Compton, Bishop of London, took the lead. Two daysbefore, he and some of his clergy met to agree upon an address. Therewere present persons who desired the insertion of a passage to theeffect that the Prince should “have respect to the King, and preservethe Church established by law;” and “one of considerable note refusedto go, because these clauses were not inserted.” Certain Nonconformistsheard what was going on, and requested they might unite with theirEpiscopal brethren. Compton complied, and on Friday morning, the21st, when the address was to be presented, sixteen early risers lefttheir homes and threaded their way through the dusky streets. “Nomore could be got together in due time that morning, for the Bishopwas to make the address about 9 or 10 o’clock that day.” They deputedHowe, Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo “to go with the conformableclergy (who numbered about 99) and the Bishop of London to attend thePrince.” Admitted to His Highness’s presence, the Bishop—a perfectcourtier—conducted the interview with becoming grace, addressinghimviva voce, and gratifying the Nonconformists by a specialreference to them as brethren who differed on some[60] minor matters,but in nothing substantial, and who fully concurred in the addresspresented, “at which words, the Prince took particular notice of thefour Nonconformist ministers”—an incident which no doubt would giverise to some talk that memorable Christmas-time.

A large meeting of Presbyterian and Independent brethren was heldjust afterwards, to depute four of their number to wait on Compton,to thank him for his courtesy, and whilst they were considering thismatter, “there were divers bundles of the King’s letters, containingthe reasons of his withdrawing, delivered or thrown in amongst themby a stranger. Some bundles had particular directions on them.” Thecircumstance indicates the activity of James’ agents, and their ideathat he had special claims on the Dissenters, who had taken advantageof his Indulgences. But, says the person who records the incident,“they are the more fortified hereby in their purpose, that they maycast off the imputation cast upon them by their enemies, as betrayersof the religion and laws of the kingdom, by complying with theCourt.”[77] Other Nonconformists, who did not hear of the Bishops’audience in sufficient time, presented a distinct address a few daysafterwards, promising “the utmost endeavour, which in their stationsthey were capable of affording, for the promoting the excellent andmost desirable ends for which His Highness had declared.”[78]

England was now in the midst of a revolution. What was its character?Its ecclesiastical aspects alone demand our attention, but these are soclosely connected with others, that we shall be compelled to look atthem all together. Politics and religion were inextricably interwoven.They had been so in earlier changes. Changes mainly religious were alsopolitical; changes mainly political were also religious. Lollardismwrought a vast religious revolution, but though it principally aimed atpurifying the Church, it sought, as a means to that end, the amendmentof the State. The Reformation was pre-eminently an ecclesiasticalmovement, but its political entanglements are obvious to everybody.The Civil Wars were struggles for civil liberty—for the rights of thepeople against the oppression of the Crown; but the religious spirit,at first hidden in the heart of those conflicts, was so strong, andsoon burst out in other forms so conspicuously, that the Commonwealthof England and the Protectorate of Cromwell became entangled withecclesiastical and theological controversies. The Revolution of 1688came in the wake of the Puritan movement.

The union between Church and State, which runs back through Englishhistory to its earliest days, rendered this[62] intermingling of interestsan unavoidable necessity. Great movements in the Church affected theGovernment; great changes in the Government affected the Church. Whilstthis union is obviously a cause of additional complexity, no thoughtfulperson can fail to discover in even the simplest principles of polityand doctrine, forces which are sure to touch society in its temporalinterests, and render inevitable political developments of religion andreligious developments of politics. If the Church were separated fromthe State to-morrow, a connexion between religion and politics wouldremain.

The two great political Revolutions of England in the 17th centurysprung from religious feeling, from religious antipathies, fromreligious aspirations. Fiery impulses, kindled by faith, did more toscorch and destroy civil despotism than any constitutional traditions,any maxims of secular policy. Religion was the prime mover in theevents of 1688. Not only did ministers of religion take part in it, butreligion itself entered deeply into the political question. When movingin one direction the Popery of James prompted him to play the despot,and when moving in another direction the Protestantism of his subjectsimpelled them to fight for their liberties—the two forces came incontact, and issued in a crash, bringing about the King’s downfall andthe Prince’s elevation. The same influences led to a settlement of thelong-debated question of prerogative—they consolidated the power ofParliament, they created the Bill of Rights; without such religiousenthusiasm as then existed, it may be doubted whether such a Revolutionwould have been possible; and as it sprung from religious causes, sothe Revolution produced religious results. It checked the progress ofPopery, it inaugurated a new form of Protestant ascendency,[63] which haslasted down to our own time; it altered the position of the ChurchEstablishment; it materially modified the Act of Uniformity; and itlegally secured toleration. These subjects will claim attention as weproceed, and a fuller estimate of the character of the Revolution hadbetter be deferred for the present.

The Peers met in their own House on the 22nd of December. Nothing ofmoment passed. The day before Christmas-day they met again, and we findClarendon, with a lingering regard for the Stuart family, asking foran inquiry into the birth of the Prince of Wales, when Lord Wharton,an old Puritan, indignantly replied, “My Lords, I did not expect, atthis time of day, to hear anybody mention that child, who was calledthe Prince of Wales; indeed I did not, and I hope we shall hear no moreof him.” It was at last decided that an address should be presented tothe Prince of Orange to take on him the Administration of affairs, andto issue circular-letters to the counties, cities, universities, andcinque-ports, to send Representatives to a Convention at Westminster onthe 22nd of January following.[79]

The Archbishop did not attend. Clarendon and the Bishop of Ely sent forhim, “but the King’s being gone had cast such a damp upon him that hewould not come.”[80] James, soon after his flight, had written to thePrimate, informing him that, but for his hasty departure, he shouldhave explained the reasons of his becoming a Roman Catholic; thatalthough he had not thought proper to do this on a former occasion,when his re-conversion had been attempted, yet he never refusedspeaking freely with Protestants, especially with His Grace, “whomhe[64] always considered to be his friend, and for whom he had a greatesteem.” His own “conversion had taken place in his riper years, andon the full conviction of his mind as to the controverted points.”[81]Sancroft, with all his weakness, narrowness, and obstinacy, had akindness of heart, which, in spite of the treatment received fromthe fallen Monarch, inspired compassion for him in a season of deepadversity.

Clarendon busied himself in interviews with the Prelates, and we findthat on the 29th of December, he and the Bishops of St. Asaph and Elywere together reading over the King’s reasons for leaving Rochester.Different opinions of his conduct appear, together with Clarendon’spredilections in favour of his old master, in the following passage ofhis Diary—a Diary which sheds much light on that changeful time:—“TheBishop of Ely and I were moved, but the Bishop of St. Asaph tookthe paper, and began to comment upon it, saying it was a Jesuiticalmasterpiece. I think I never heard more malicious inferences than hedrew from the King’s expression in that paper. Good God! where isloyalty and Christian charity.”[82] On New Year’s-day, 1689, amidst ahard frost, Clarendon’s lingering loyalty to James did not prevent hispaying court to William; and afterwards visiting Sir Edward Seymour,he heard him say, amongst other things, the countenance shown by thePrince to Dissenters “gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church ofEngland,” and if that Church were not supported, England would “runinto a Commonwealth, and all would be ruined.”[83]

Another interesting peep into ecclesiastical secrets[65] is affordedby Clarendon, whose report, for the sake of accuracy, had better bepreserved in his own words:—

“I went to dinner at Lambeth: Dr. Tenison with me. We went over thebridge, by reason the river was so full of ice, that boats could notpass. After dinner I spoke to the Archbishop (as I had done severaltimes before) of going to the Prince of Orange, or sending some messageto him by some of the Bishops: for he had yet taken no notice at all ofhim: but he was positive not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gaveme. We then spoke to him of the approaching Convention, and whetherhe would not think of preparing something against that time in behalfof the Dissenters. Dr. Tenison added, it would be expected somethingshould be offered in pursuance of the petition which the seven Bishopshad 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 hebelieved every Bishop in England intended to make it good, when therewas an opportunity of debating those matters in Convocation; but tillthen, or without a commission from the King, it was highly penal toenter upon Church matters; but, however, he would have it in his mind,and would be willing to discourse any of the Bishops or other Clergythereupon, if they came to him; though he believed the Dissenterswould never agree among themselves with what concessions they wouldbe satisfied. To which Dr. Tenison replied, he believed so too; thathe had not discoursed with any of them upon this subject; and the wayto do good was, not to discourse with them, but for the Bishops toendeavour to get such concessions settled in Parliament, the grantingwhereof (whether accepted or not by the Dissenters) should be good forthe Church. The Archbishop answered, that when there was a Convocation,those[66] matters would be considered of; and in the meantime, he knewnot what to say, but that he would think of what had been offered byus.”[84]

What the thoughts of the Archbishop were just then with regard toDissenters, it is impossible to say. It is otherwise respecting hisopinion upon another point.

All Protestants, high and low, had united for some months in onething—the desire for a Revolution which should put a stop to thereign of prerogative, and place the liberties of the country upon alegal basis. But what exactly was the Revolution to be? Who was tobe Ruler in the room of James? As to this pressing subject, opinionsran in divergent lines. The Archbishop, suffering from ill-health,worried by distractions around him, shut himself up in his Palace thatcold Christmas-time, and covered closely, with his own neat hand,twenty-five pages of paper, from which we learn how he looked at thepolitics of the hour. Gazing at the engravings taken from his portraitin Lambeth Palace, we see him—with his simple, honest face, and aclose black cap, such as gives the wearer a Puritan look, but for apair of lawn sleeves sometimes worn—industriously putting down thepros andcons of the puzzle.

The King is gone. The Government is without a pilot. The captain ofa foreign force is at the head of affairs. How is the Government tobe settled legally and securely? Shall the commander of the foreignforce be declared King, and solemnly crowned? Shall the next heir—thePrincess Mary (the Prince of Wales is not mentioned)—be Queen, herhusband acquiring an interest in the government through her right?or shall the King be declared incapable of personal government, thecommander[67] being madeCustos Regni, who shall administer affairsin the King’s name? “I am clearly of opinion,” writes the perplexedcritic, “that the last way is the best, and that a settlement cannot bemade so justifiable and lasting any other way.”[85] We cannot proceedthrough the prolix dissertation in which Sancroft endeavours to supporthis conclusion. Every word proves his simplicity and conscientiousness,but a weaker set of reasons, and a set of reasons more pedanticallyexpressed, one rarely meets with. Both the moral and intellectualsides of the man’s character are apparent throughout. But for thetheory of the divine right of kings, and the subject’s duty of passiveobedience, which acted as a spell upon his mind, it would be impossibleto conceive how a person of ordinary intelligence could advocate sucha scheme as he did. Before long it must have been found unmanageable,leading to a second Revolution. While professedly concocted for thepurpose of maintaining James’ kingly rights, it stripped him of allpower; and curiously enough, as appears on a moment’s reflection, itis open to precisely the objections which had been brought against thePuritan Commonwealth’s-men, who administered government against theKing in the King’s own name. To call James sovereign, with William asCustos Regni, was to use words in the way Pym and Hampden andCromwell had done. What makes Sancroft’s conduct the more inconsistentis, that he and his party supported the Act of Uniformity, whichrequired the Clergy to abhor that traitorous position of taking armsby the King’s authority against the King’s person, or against thosecommissioned by him. Must not William have done this, if Sancroft’sadvice had been[68] adopted? Must he not have defended his Regency byforce against the nominal Monarch, who would have regarded that Regencyas a flagrant usurpation?

The Archbishop anxiously consulted with some of the Bishops of hisprovince touching this subject, and when the meetings became publiclyknown, they received the name of the Lambeth, or Holy JacobiteClub.[86] They did not all agree. Four of them went home one day fromLambeth, in the coach of Turner, Bishop of Ely, deploring they shoulddisagree in anything, and especially in such a thing as that which allthe world must needs observe. Turner wrote immediately afterwards tothe Primate, asking him to draw up propositions against deposition andelection, or anything else which would break the succession, becausehe was better versed than his brethren in canons and statutes, out ofwhich the propositions ought to be drawn. Ken, he said, had left adraft with him, which might facilitate a completion of the task. Theafternoon of the same day, Turner was to hold a meeting in Ely House,at which Patrick, Tenison, Sherlock, Scott, and Burnet were to bepresent, as well as two Bishops—St. Asaph and Peterborough. These menwere of diverse opinions; how they got on together we do not know, butit appears some underhand work occurred in reference to James on thepart of the Bishop of Ely. He enclosed, in his letter to Lambeth, apaper to be kept very private, of which he says, it “may be publishedone day, to show we have not been wanting[69] faithfully to serve a hardmaster in his extremity; and for the present it will be proof enoughto your Grace, that although I have made some steps, which you couldnot, towards our new masters, I did it purely to serve our old one,and preserve the public.”[87] At any rate, Sancroft appears morestraightforward in this business than some of his brethren.

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 havethe Princess proclaimed Queen without hesitation; others inclined to aRegency; a Tory party wished to invite the King back upon conditions;Republicans preferred to have the Prince of Orange constituted anEnglish Stadtholder; and the Popish party simply aimed at throwing thewhole country into confusion, with the hope of something springing outof it to serve their ends. Evelyn records that he saw nothing of thisvariety of objects in the assembly of Bishops, who were unanimous for aRegency, and for suffering public matters to proceed in the name of theKing.[88] Such perfect unanimity, however, as Evelyn supposed, couldnot have existed if Clarendon be right, who says he feared the Bishopof St. Asaph had been wheedled by Burnet into supporting the transferof the Crown, and would be induced to make the King’s going away acession—a word Burnet fondly used.[89]

The presence of the Primate at the Convention about to be held was ofthe first importance, and Clarendon earnestly urged his attendance;but the obstinacy of the[70] one equalled the importunity of the other.Sancroft would not go, nor would he visit His Highness. “Would you haveme kill myself?” he petulantly asked his noble friend; “do you not seewhat a cold I have?” “No,” said the Earl; “but it would do well if youwould excuse your not waiting on the Prince, by letting him know what acold you have, and that you will wait on him when it is gone.” All thereply he could get was, “I will consider of it.”[90]

Whatever might be the opinions of the Lambeth party, the Bishop ofLondon shared neither in their counsels nor in their sympathy. Hewished to see the Princess Mary Queen Regent, leaving her at liberty,if she liked, to bestow upon her husband, by consent of Parliament, thetitle of King. Nor did the prevalent desire of the councillors of theArchbishop, for a Regent who should rule in the King’s name, satisfyall James’ Anglican adherents. Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had athis back a large number of Divines, and he contended for inviting Jamesback to Whitehall, with such stipulations as would secure the safetyand peace of the realm—an utterly Utopian idea. Burnet, on the otherhand, talked of William’s having acquired a right to the Crown basedon conquest—a notion scouted by most Englishmen. Nine-tenths of theClergy were for upholding the cause of hereditary monarchy; but thislarge majority broke up into several sections, nor did the remainingtenth part entirely agree.

Neither were Nonconformists of one mind. Some were so engrossed inthe discharge of spiritual duties that they paid surprisingly littleattention to the questions of the day. The biographer of OliverHeywood[71] informs us that little remains in his papers to show what hethought of the Revolution, politically regarded. His mind rested onone point—the liberty of preaching, and it seemed indifferent to himwhether it came by a Royal Declaration or by an Act of Parliament.[91]Matthew Henry states that it was not without fear and trembling hisfather Philip received the tidings of the Prince’s landing, “as beingsomewhat in the dark concerning the clearness of his call, and dreadingwhat might be the consequence of it,”—that he used to say, “Give peacein 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 nationalthanksgiving.[92]

Another class of Nonconformists were in an awkward position. Theirfault had been that they identified themselves with men and measuresout of all harmony with their own principles. William Penn, VincentAlsop, Stephen Lobb, and others had signed obsequious addresses toJames. They had blindly credited him with a love for religious liberty,and had really, though not intentionally, upheld his despotism. But inthis emergency they presented no word of condolence to the man whomthey had helped to befool, nor did they attempt anything to save himfrom 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 galledby the reproach of enemies, also they must have felt reproaches ofconscience.

Another class of Nonconformists had, without any compromise, availedthemselves of the liberty offered[72] them, though disliking theunconstitutional quarter whence it came. When the Revolution tookplace, most of these, and others who survived to witness it, weredelighted and thankful. What John Howe did appears from what I havesaid already, and shall have to say hereafter. Baxter had becometoo old and infirm to take any active part in public business.Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo, as we have seen, joined Howe in theclerical address to William on the 21st of December; others presentedcongratulations afterwards.

If Protestant Nonconformists formed a twentieth part of the population,the community to that extent may be reckoned as rejoicing in thedownfall of James; probably by far the larger part supported the claimsof William; yet a few old Republicans—Independent and Baptist—would,I apprehend, have preferred to see a Commonwealth, with the Prince ofOrange in a presidential chair, such as the Lord Protector Cromwell hadoccupied.

It is no part of my task to describe minutely the method by whichthe new settlement was effected: an outline is sufficient. A meetinghad been summoned by His Highness for the 26th of December, 1688, toconsist, first, of all such persons as had been Knights or Burgessesin any of the Parliaments of Charles II.; and next, of the Lord Mayorand Aldermen of the City of London, with fifty of the Common Councilchosen by the whole body. This mode of proceeding appears remarkablyconservative, and so far was in harmony with all the great changeswrought in the political government of this country.

When those who formed this meeting mooted the question, “What authoritythey had to assemble,” they agreed, “that the request of His Highnessthe Prince was a sufficient warrant,” and proceeded to entrust him[73]with the administration of public affairs until a Convention should beheld, which he was to call by writs addressed to the Lords temporaland 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 beingchiefly Whigs, and those Whigs numbering an immense majority ofEpiscopalians, perhaps not more than twenty Nonconformists werereturned—a fact which ought to be carefully borne in mind.

The day on which the Commons assembled, the Lords also appeared, tothe number of about ninety, of whom sixteen were spiritual Peers. Noprayers were read; the first thing done, after a short letter from thePrince had been laid on the table, was the appointment of a day ofsolemn 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 thisservice.[94] The 30th of January fell on a Sunday; and in such a caseit had been arranged that the office for Charles’ martyrdom should beused on that day, and the observances of the fast transferred to thenext. On the 30th, however, Evelyn notices that “in all the publicoffices and pulpit prayers, the collects and litany for the King andQueen were curtailed and mutilated.” On the 31st the thanksgiving setaside the fast. Burnet preached before the Commons, saying, “You feela great deal, and promise a great deal[74] more; and your are now in theright way to it, when you come with the solemnities of thanksgiving tooffer up your acknowledgments to that Fountain of Life to whom you owethis new lease of your own.”[95]

The Bishop of St. Asaph, whose political sympathies have beenindicated, was appointed to preach before the Lords at WestminsterAbbey on the 31st, but according to Clarendon, Mr. Gee took hisplace.[96]

The House of Commons, after the customary formalities, and the electionof Mr. Powle as Speaker, and an expression of concurrence in the Lords’order respecting a day of thanksgiving, proceeded, on the 28th, todebate on the state of the nation. Amidst multifarious topics, Popery,the Church, and the divine right of kings were prominent; and the nextday Colonel Birch, the Puritan, gave his view of past and presentstruggles by saying, “These forty years we have been scrambling forour religion, and have saved but little of it. We have been strivingagainst Antichrist, Popery, and Tyranny.”[97]

The House voted that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert theconstitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract betweenKing and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons,having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out ofthe Kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne wasthereby vacant. The next day it was resolved that it had been foundby experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of thisProtestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince.

Thanks were given to the clergymen who had assailed Popery, and hadrefused to read the King’s Declaration.[98] Things deemed necessaryfor better securing religious liberty and law were reported from aCommittee, who particularly specified, “effectual provision to be madefor the liberty of Protestants in the exercise of their religion, andfor uniting all Protestants in the matter of public worship as far asmay be”—in which provision, are found germs of the Toleration andComprehension Bills.

The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for aProtestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant,much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne wasvacant—only for the present supposing it to be so—they wished todetermine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to bedevolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debatedby 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, occurthe names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph,who in this matter had not been “wheedled” by Burnet, as Clarendonsurmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, asa Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishopapproved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of Londonand Bristol.[99] The question raised in an abstract form—whether orno there was an original contract between King and people—involveda controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops hadmaintained. For the principle of a social[76] compact, 53 Peers votedagainst 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea ofa contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had brokenit; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, “desertedthe Government,” for the Commons’ phrase, “abdicated theGovernment;” nor would the majority allow the wordvacant tostand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies;and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimatelydevolved upon the Princess of Orange—the claim of the infant Princeof Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus atissue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed.The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walkingand lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs andTories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled atthe doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accessionof William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses memberscrossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, accordingas they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter indispute.[100]

A conference ensued between the Houses. The Bishop of Ely strenuouslyargued against using the wordabdication, or regarding thethrone as vacant; he hoped that Lords and Commons would agree inthis, not to break the line of succession, not to make the Crownelective.[101] He wished to save the divine right. By some personsthe idea was entertained of making William sole King—an idea whichBurnet 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[77] him to express his sentiments. It hadbeen proposed, he said, to settle the Government in the hands of aRegent;—that might be a wise project. It had also been suggested thatthe Princess should succeed to the throne, and that he, by courtesy,might share in her power. Her rights he would not oppose, her virtueshe respected. But for himself, he would accept no dignity dependentupon the life of another, or on the will of a woman. Should either ofthe schemes be adopted, he would return to Holland, satisfied withthe consciousness of having endeavoured to serve England, though invain.[103]

William’s decision took effect, and the conference ended in droppingwhat was theoretical, and in coming to a practical resolution—that thePrince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. TheLords carried this by 62 against 47. Forty of the latter protested,amongst whom were twelve out of the seventeen Bishops present. The fivewho went with the majority were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Sprat,Hall, and Crew.[104] Crew, the time-serving Bishop of Durham, hadsupported James in his obnoxious measures, had fled at the outbreakof the Revolution, had been lurking on the coast for a vessel toconvey him abroad, and had returned in time to secure the advantage ofsupporting the new Sovereign. It has often been said that the Bishopsaccomplished the Revolution. No doubt the seven imprisoned in theTower brought on the crisis which terminated in the new settlement,and so far were the authors of the change. Certain of the brethrencontributed, in the way I have described, to terminate the despotismof James II., but all the seven decidedly disapproved of the Prince ofOrange being constituted King, and two-thirds[78] of the other Bishopsagreed with them in this respect.

The Commons would not unite in the settlement approved by the Lordsuntil they had carefully asserted the fundamental principles upon whichthey based the Revolution. The Declaration of Right, embodying theseprinciples, having recited the unconstitutional acts of James—hisendeavours to extirpate the Protestant religion, and to subvert thelaws and liberties of the kingdom—goes on to state that the Prince ofOrange had summoned the Convention, which Convention did now specifythe ancient liberties of the English people. Amongst them appear theright of petition, freedom of Parliamentary debate, and the duty ofthe Crown frequently to call together the representatives of thepeople.[105] William and Mary are then solemnly declared to be King andQueen; 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 defaultof her issue, then in the heirs of the King.

In this Parliamentary transaction two things appear, which have beenever kept in sight under Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman dynasties,namely, hereditary right and popular election. That the crown shouldpass from a Monarch to one of his own blood had been a fundamental[79] lawfrom the beginning, modified by a choice of the people in any greatcrisis, when the interests of the nation have been seen to depend uponthe succession of one Royal personage rather than another. In 1688,respect was paid to the ancient tradition. In the Bill of Rights thehereditary claim is distinctly set forth. “It is curious to observewith what address this temporary solution of continuity is kept fromthe eye, whilst all that could be found in this act of necessity tocountenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought forwardand fostered and made the most of.” “The Lords and Commons fall to apious, legislative ejaculation, and declare that they consider it ‘asa marvellous providence, and merciful goodness of God to this nation,to preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons, most happily to reignover us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom oftheir hearts, they return their humblest thanks and praises.’”[106]

But the election of William and Mary, though veiled under a referenceto the throne of their ancestors, is really the point upon which theiraccession hinged. Mary’s accession might, by those who disbelievedthat the Prince of Wales was James’ son, be made to depend entirely onnatural descent, but the accession of William could not rest on thatground; his election was essential to the legitimacy of his rights.Yet there was no setting aside of any divine laws, no contempt forthe teaching of Scripture, as was pretended by nonjurors. When we aretold “the powers that be are ordained of God,” those words invest withdivine authority all constitutional governments, whether Monarchicalor Republican, whether entirely by descent or wholly by election, orpartly by one[80] and partly by the other; they do not apply alone toKings and their eldest sons. To plead nonjuring interpretations ofScripture in England at the Revolution tended to make men slaves, evenas to plead them now in America would make men rebels.

The oaths of allegiance prescribed, as they led to momentousconsequences, ought to be given. “I, A. B., do sincerely promise andswear, That I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to theirMajesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.” “I, A. B., doswear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impiousand heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, That Princesexcommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the Seeof Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any otherwhatsoever. 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]

Before the completion of this Parliamentary manifesto, the PrincessMary had come to England; and upon the 13th of February she took herplace beside her husband in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall undera canopy of State, when the two Speakers, followed by the Lords andCommons respectively, were conducted into their presence by theUsher of the Black Rod, to offer the Crown upon conditions impliedin the Declaration of Rights. When the document had been read, thePrince replied, “This is certainly the greatest proof of the trustyou have in us that can be given, which is the thing which makes usvalue it the more; and we thankfully accept[81] what you have offeredto us. And as I had no other intention in coming hither, than topreserve your religion, laws, and liberties, so you may be sure thatI shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur inanything that shall be for the good of the kingdom; and to do allthat 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 gorgeousceremonial by which Kings and Queens in England had been proclaimed.A long line of coaches passed from Westminster to the City, with abrilliant array of marshals’ men, trumpeters, and heralds. A pauseat Temple Bar at the Gates, and then a formal opening took place indue order. The Lord Mayor in a coach, and the Aldermen, Sheriffs, andRecorder on horseback, conducted the Peers and Commons to the middle ofCheapside—the train bands lining the way. Then, after declaring thatGod had vouchsafed a miraculous deliverance from Popery and arbitrarypower through His Highness the Prince of Orange, and after referringto the great and eminent virtue of Her Highness the Princess, whosezeal for the Protestant religion was sure to bring a blessing upon thisnation—the heralds proclaimed William and Mary “King and Queen ofEngland, France, and Ireland, with all the dominions and territoriesthereunto belonging.”[108]

That evening, the Queen sent two of her Chaplains to the Archbishop ofCanterbury to beg his blessing; and, by a suspicious combination oftwo errands, desired them to attend the service in Lambeth Chapel, andnotice whether prayers were offered for the Sovereigns. The Chaplainbeing alarmed, asked His Grace what should be done: he replied, “Ihave no new instructions to give.”[82] The Chaplain interpreted this asentrusting him with a discretionary power, and, wishing to keep thePrimate out of difficulty, prayed for the King and Queen who had justbeen proclaimed. The act provoked Sancroft, who sent for the Chaplain,and commanded him either to desist from such petitions, or to ceasefrom officiating in Lambeth; for so long as King James lived, no otherperson could be Sovereign of England. Sancroft’s conviction that aRegency was the right thing seems to have deepened, when in the opinionof everybody else it passed utterly out of the question; for thePrimate had a temper which increased in obstinacy in proportion as theobject pursued became unattainable.

The appointment of officers of State immediately followed the accessionto the throne. The reader will bear in mind what has been said informer volumes respecting the mode of administering affairs in theStuart reigns. No Ministry, in our sense of the term, existed then,men of different political opinions being employed as functionaries ofGovernment. This usage survived the Revolution; and William surroundedhimself with Whigs and Tories. Reserving to himself the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, he appointed as President of the Council the Earl ofDanby, although that nobleman differed from him in many opinions. Danbyhad countenanced encroachments by the Royal prerogatives; he had evenmaintained the doctrine of passive obedience. That doctrine he was now,through the necessities of the times, forced to abandon, and by servingunder a Monarch whose throne rested on the Declaration of Rights, hevirtually repudiated his earlier opinions. He had also persecutedDissenters—a policy now professedly abandoned. Yet there remained inLord Danby a strong attachment to high ecclesiastical views, and hewas[83] zealous for the old connection between Church and Crown as thebest method of preserving both. Halifax, described as the Trimmer,[109]had become more of a Liberal, and to him was entrusted the Privy Sealand the Speakership of the Upper House. The Earl of Nottingham—anotherdeserter from the Tory ranks—professed that although his principlesdid 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 obediencethan he could expect from those who had made him Sovereign. He acceptedthe 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 Toriesand High Churchmen. Shrewsbury, a popular Whig, and a young man oftwenty-eight, was the other Secretary. The Great Seal came into thehands of Commissioners, the chief of whom was Sir John Maynard, whohad upheld the Petition of Rights in 1628, had voted with the countryparty in the struggles preceding the Civil Wars, had subscribed theLeague and Covenant, and had advised Cromwell to accept the Crown. Hewas ninety years of age, and when presented to William at Whitehall thePrince remarked, he must have survived all the lawyers of his time. Hereplied, “he had like to have outlived the law itself, if His Highnesshad not come over.”[110] The Treasury fell into the hands of Whigs,amongst whom was Godolphin, the husband of Margaret Blagge, a man ofpractical ability, but of no fixed principle, a staunch Churchman, yetone of a class that could live amongst Jesuits under King James, andcould keep on terms with Presbyterians under King William.

This administration—a Joseph’s coat of many colours—proceeded[84] froma compromise which under existing circumstances seemed unavoidable.Intended to please different parties, it actually displeased them—afact soon manifested. But no political appointment aroused so muchcriticism as the nomination of Burnet to the See of Salisbury. That Seehad become vacant through the death of Seth Ward; and it was the firstpiece of ecclesiastical preferment of which William had to disposeafter his accession to the throne. The nomination of Bishops in ourown time has occasionally provoked immense discussion, but perhapsnobody ever stepped up to the Episcopal Bench amidst such showers ofabuse as Gilbert Burnet. To select a High Churchman would have beeninconsistent and disastrous; and amongst eligible Low Churchmen, no onehad such strong claims upon William as the friend whom he and his wifehad consulted at the Hague, the Chaplain who had come with his Fleet,the Secretary who had drawn up his Declarations, and the clergyman whohad advocated his cause from the pulpit. But the very grounds uponwhich rested Burnet’s claims made him the more objectionable to many.These grounds were decidedly political, yet though many a Bishop hasbeen appointed for political reasons, the services now enumeratedwere not exactly such as to indicate qualification for the office ofa spiritual overseership. At the same time it is unfair to Burnet’smemory not to say, that he was a man of piety, Protestant zeal, variedlearning, large experience, and indefatigable industry. At a laterperiod, after time had worn down the asperities of the controversy,a mitre could with much propriety have been given him; but it wasscarcely in accordance with William’s policy in political appointmentsto bestow it at once upon one who had obtrusively acted as a partisan,and inspired so much dislike in the opposite party. It[85] should befurther stated that many Churchmen were deeply offended at Burnet’selevation, because they had a strong aversion to what they call hisLatitudinarian and Low Church views. Consequently, when it came to thepoint of sanctioning by consecration the Royal nominee, a difficultyarose. The Dean and Chapter of Salisbury were as prompt to elect as theKing to propose; but the Archbishop of Canterbury no sooner heard ofthecongé d’élire, than he refused to engage in the requisitesolemnity. Burnet himself goes so far as to say that Sancroft refusedeven to see him on the subject.[111] No friendly influence could inducethe Primate to swerve from his determination; but by an evasion, suchas unfortunately too often commends itself to clerical judgments,he resolved to grant a commission for others to do what he declinedto do himself. The Vicar-General appeared, produced the commission,and through his officers received the usual fees. To make the matterworse, when the Archbishop’s conduct was complained of by his ownparty, either he, or some one in his name, contrived to abstract thedocument from the Registrar’s office; and it could not be recovereduntil after Sancroft’s death, when Burnet threatened to commence legalproceedings for obtaining what was necessary to prove the validity ofhis consecration and his right to the Bishopric.[112]

Some Churchmen soon manifested their dissatisfaction with the turnaffairs had taken; and Maynard, the first Commissioner of the GreatSeal, remarked, in a debate upon making the Convention a Parliament,“There is a great danger in sending out writs at this time, if youconsider what a ferment the nation is in; and I think the Clergy areout of their wits, and I believe, if the Clergy[86] should have theirwills, few or none of us should be here again.” The remark brought upSir Thomas Clarges, who defended the Ministers in the Metropolis, andpraised the Church as a bulwark during the late trials. “Clarges speakshonestly,” 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 arein a ferment—there are pluralists among them, and when they shouldpreach the Gospel, they preach against the Parliament and the law ofEngland.”[113] At a moment when some showed dissatisfaction towardsWilliam, and the highest legal officer of the Crown thus talked aboutChurchmen, Lord Danby complained to His Majesty that he did all hecould to encourage Presbyterians, and to dishearten Episcopalians—acircumstance which, he said, could not fail to be prejudicial to hisGovernment and to himself.[114] It is certain that no sooner hadWilliam as King of England grasped the reins, than intrigues becamerife; thoughts arose of bringing back James, and men in office began toexpress a want of confidence in the New Settlement. Halifax mutteredsomething to the effect that if the exiled King were a Protestant, hecould not be kept out four months; and Danby, that if the exile wouldbut give satisfaction as to Religion, “it would be very hard to makehead against him.”[115]

Still, however, a large number of Clergymen not only accepted the neworder of things, but heartily espoused the cause of the new dynasty.Besides those dignitaries who assisted in raising William and Mary tothe throne, many in the lower ranks, by exhortations from the pulpit,arguments from the press, and the exercise of private[87] influence,sought to gather up popular affection, and weave it around the chosenoccupants of the throne. It may be worth while to mention that SamuelWesley, Rector of Epworth, the father of John, founder of Methodism,states that he wrote and printed the first publication which appearedin defence of the Government; and he also composed “many little piecesmore, both in prose and verse, with the same view.”[116]

In the laws respecting oaths at the period of the Revolution, certainchanges took place, which from their religions aspect demand our notice.

The new Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Declaration of Rightsdiffered from the old Oaths of Allegiance imposed by statute law.To make this change perfectly constitutional, and to secure entireuniformity in the expression of loyal obedience, it was necessary topass an Act abolishing ancient forms, and determining the circumstancesunder which a new one should be enforced. Leave having been grantedin the House of Commons upon the 25th of February to bring in sucha measure, upon the 16th of March the Solicitor-General reportedamendments made in the Bill, and upon the 18th of the same month theBill passed the House. Being sent up to the Lords, it was read by thema second time only, attention becoming absorbed by another Bill for thesame purpose, originating in their own House, and on the 25th sent downto the Commons, by whom it was immediately read, and committed on the28th. The Journals of the two Houses for the month of April abound innotices of debates, amendments, protests, reports, and conferences inreference to this question. Its religious bearings were twofold.

The Bill first provided that the new oaths should be taken byall persons holding office in the Church of England and the twoUniversities. No one could sit on the Prelates’ bench, or performthe duties of a Diocesan; no one could enjoy a benefice, or ministerin a parish church; no one could be the head of a House, or possessa fellowship at Oxford or Cambridge, who did not “sincerely promiseand swear to bear true allegiance to their Majesties King Williamand Queen Mary.” Looking at the baronial and legislative characterof Bishops; at the dependence of many Ecclesiastical prefermentson the Crown; at the national character of the Universities; andat the relation of the whole body of the Established Clergy to theGovernment, there appears the same reason for enacting a declarationof loyalty from them as from officers in the army and navy. To haveexcepted the Church from the obligations of the oath, would have beento make an invidious distinction between classes of the communitybound by manifold political ties, and it would have been liable to theinterpretation that the Government, conscious of weakness, felt afraidof the Clergy. Besides, if there be any binding form in oaths—ifthey afford any security at all for the stability of a throne, theycertainly needed, in a pre-eminent degree at that time, to be enforcedupon all Ecclesiastical persons, when so many of them were known to bedisaffected to the reigning Sovereigns. The difficulty expressed bydisaffected Clergymen in reference to the new oaths rested mainly ontwo grounds. Those of them who had already sworn allegiance to KingJames could not reconcile it with their consciences to put aside thosevows, and to adopt opposite ones. In this respect, however, theircase was no worse than that of civilians and military men, though noappeals for their relief were ever urged. An officer of the Customs,or the captain of[90] a regiment, might very well feel the same scruplesas troubled the Rector of a parish, or the Dean of a cathedral; andif 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 strikeevery reader, is, that the men who showed so much sensitiveness withrespect to their former oaths, were, many of them, the very samepersons, and all of them belonged to the same class, as those who hadtreated with contempt or indifference like difficulties on the part ofPresbyterians at the time of the Restoration. Yet what was required nowcannot be made to appear so harsh as what had been required before. AnEpiscopalian Clergyman had only to promise allegiance to the personswho occupied the throne, without expressing any abstract opinion on thesubject; whereas, a Presbyterian Clergyman had not only been requiredto swear allegiance to Charles II., which he was willing to do, buthad been also required to swear that his previous oath was unlawful;and to declare, moreover, that the doctrine of resisting a despoticking is a position to be held in abhorrence. An express denunciationof former oaths had been required at the Restoration; only a practicalrelinquishment of former oaths was required at the Revolution. Thelaw of 1662 had told the Presbyterian he must denounce the doctrineof resistance—the law of 1689 did not tell the Episcopalian he mustdenounce the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings. At the earlier eraa political dogma had been imposed as a requisite for clerical office;at the later era no political dogma was imposed at all. Conscience issacred; yet whilst I give credit to Clergymen who scrupled to swearallegiance to the new dynasty, I cannot discover the reasonableness oftheir scruples. If any of them did not hold the Divine right of Kings,it is hard to discern[91] any plausible ground for refusing to transferallegiance according to the terms of the new oath; if they did hold theDivine right of Kings—and therefore preferred a Regency to a change inthe succession, as was the case with Sancroft—still it appears thatthey might, consistently with their abstract principle, have swornto obey ade facto potentate. At any rate, their difficultieswere less than the difficulties of their Nonconforming brethrenseven-and-twenty years before. Then High Churchmen treated mountains asmolehills,—now they magnified molehills into mountains.

The second source of clerical resistance is found in the sacredness ofclerical character, and the indelibility of clerical orders. Adherenceto the supposed rights of the King in exile rarely existed, except inthe case of High Churchmen. A belief of the Divine rights of princesentwined itself round a belief in the Divine right of priests. A notionthat Monarchs should be independent of Parliaments, associated itselfwith a notion that Ministers of religion should be independent of humanlaw.

Sovereigns could not be made and unmade by subjects, neither couldClergymen be made or unmade by States, therefore such a law as that nowenacted became, in a spiritual point of view, futile, impertinent, evenimpious. A strange confusion of truth and error obtained throughoutthis reasoning of the Nonjurors. No doubt the Church, as a Divinecommunity, is independent of human governments. The pastors andteachers are not the creatures of the Civil power, they are in thehands of Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks. Of spiritualoffice and character the Civil power is not competent to denude anyservant of Christ. But when chief Ministers of the Church are amongstchief officers of State, when Bishops[92] are Peers, and Clergymen havelegally-vested rights, the case is different. Church temporalitiesare from first to last the creations of secular government; and theauthority which gives can take away. Parliament had no business toalter the religious position of Ministers, but it had a right toimpose conditions, for its own safety, upon those who added to thecharacter of Ministers that of political legislators and officers ofa nationally-endowed Church. Erastianism had been predominant underCharles II. It had lingered under James II. It was to be revived andto be manifested, in some respects more distinctly than ever, underWilliam III.; but, at the Revolution, many who had been Erastianenough through the previous quarter of a century, began to be restlessand to sigh for emancipation. Circumstances made them voluntaries inpractice, although circumstances did not make them voluntaries inprinciple. As time rolled on, the doctrine of the Church’s independencecame more distinctly within view, notwithstanding their blindness toits consequences; and the assertion of that independency increased inearnestness after the rupture, of which I shall have much to say.

A further religious complication of the measure under review arosein connection with its first appearance in the House of Commons,and was renewed in the course of its progress through the House ofLords. It requires attention. Upon the 25th of February, the day whenleave was given to bring in the Bill for changing the oath, leave wasalso given to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act. TheCorporation Act, the reader will remember, enjoined the repudiation ofthe doctrine of resistance, the renunciation of the Solemn League andCovenant, and the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, as a qualificationfor municipal office. It had been a blow[93] aimed at Nonconformists; nowthat the justice of affording them some relief was acknowledged bythe Whig party, it seemed only consistent that this statute should beextinguished. In a debate which arose at the time when the two Billsoriginated, one member maintained that the Corporation Act “had as muchintrinsic iniquity as any Act whatsoever,” and that it profaned theSacrament; another—who said he had been educated for the Church, andwould live and die in it—advocated the repeal of the Act; but a thirdcontended for the continuance of conformity as essential to the holdingof a public trust, and proposed that the oath of non-resistance,instead of being taken away, should be explained. All this ended innothing. Soon after the Bill was brought in, it was, through partycomplications, set aside on a question of adjournment;[117] and theinconsistency arose of a Government, plainly based upon Revolution,and therefore upon resistance, being left to enforce a principledestructive of its own authority; the inconsistency, moreover, wasassociated with injustice and ingratitude towards a party zealousin its support. High Church Tories of course wished to preserve theCorporation Act, and contributed to its preservation; Low ChurchWhigs, though willing to relieve Nonconformists, still wished to keepNonconformity in check, and manifested no zeal for the removal of anengine of intolerance, which lasted down even to our own times.

Efforts in favour of Nonconformists having thus failed in the LowerHouse, like movements were uselessly made in the Upper. The King, ina speech delivered on the 16th of March, emphatically recommendedParliament to provide against Papists, so as to “leave room for the[94]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 civiloffice; and, zealous for the accomplishment of that end, Nonconformistshad supported it at the sacrifice of their own interests. There weremembers in the House of Lords prepared to carry out the King’s wishes.They desired to render all Protestant citizens eligible to serve theState; during the progress of the Allegiance Bill, they supportedthe 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 aprotest against the rejection of the clause. They protested for thesereasons—Because a hearty alliance amongst Protestants was a greatersecurity than any test: because the obligation to receive the Sacramentoperated against Protestants rather than Papists: because it preventeda thorough Protestant union: and because, what was not required ofmembers of Parliament, ought not to be required of candidates foroffice. Not discouraged by defeat, one of the Lords proposed anotherclause, the object of which was to render the celebration of the Lord’sSupper in a Nonconformist place of worship legally equivalent to itscelebration in a parish church. This, like the former attempt, failed;and again we find a protest recorded in the Journals, Lord Whartonbeing again among the protesters. In this protest they amplify whatthey had said before, and introduce this additional reason—that HisMajesty had expressed an earnest desire for the liberty of all hisProtestant subjects, and that divers Bishops had professed[95] the same.The majority of the Lords, in the rejection of clauses for the partialrepeal of the Test Act, proceeded on the same line with the majority ofthe Commons, in getting rid of the repeal of the Corporation Act.[119]But another wish rose in the King’s mind, which received support froma majority in the Upper House. It is very well known that he desiredto treat the Clergy in general with great lenience, and to make asmuch allowance as possible for nonjuring scruples. By conceding somuch to the High Church party, he aimed at reconciling them to thoseconcessions which, on the other side, he longed to see granted toNonconformists. He could not secure the latter concessions, but heeasily 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 HighChurch Peers was to support those Clergymen with whom they sympathizedin Ecclesiastical views, and to relieve them from the pressure ofthe new oaths; and the policy of the Whig Low Church Peers was toconciliate the same party as much as possible. Even Burnet, justexalted to the Bench, took part in a debate before his consecration,advocating a mild arrangement of the matter in reference to hisscrupulous brethren.[120] It followed that the Bill left the Lords witha provision allowing every beneficed divine to continue in his beneficewithout taking the oath, unless the Government saw reason for puttinghis loyalty to the test. Upon this point the temper of the Lower Housediffered from that of the Upper. They inserted in the Bill a clauserendering it absolutely incumbent on every one holding preferment totake the oath by the[96] 1st of August, 1689, under pain of immediatesuspension—by the end of six months afterwards, upon pain of finaldeprivation.[121] With that claim embodied in it, the Bill went backto the Lords. They fought for their own gentler method. Conferenceswere held between the Houses: compromises were suggested: reports weremade: debates were renewed; but the Lords could not stand against theCommons, and the stringent method insisted upon by the latter becamethe law of the land.

The Whig majority in the House of Commons were as zealous as the Torymajority in the House of Lords in maintaining the Church of England,but they were utterly averse to the secular and ecclesiastical politicsof that party, which the project of William, supported by the Peers,sought to win over by conciliation. They could not forget the supportthat party had rendered to the Stuart despotism, their oppositionto the Exclusion Bill, their intolerant despotism, and their steadyopposition to the Whig Commons. They could not favour High Churchviews, they had no notion of the Church being independent of theState. If the Clergy received honours and emoluments from the Civilpower, then to the Civil power they must, like other subjects, yieldobedience. The spirit of the House was Erastian; and no doubt passionmingled with principle—resentment with the maintenance of supremacy.

The Oaths of Allegiance had at an early period been readily taken bythe Commons, only two of them refusing to swear. In the other Housea vast majority of the lay and spiritual Lords had complied with thelaw, but certain Bishops had been incapacitated, or were reluctant incompliance; others altogether refused to submit to[97] authority. In theJournal of the Lords for the 18th of March, amongst notices of absence,we find the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield described as “ill of thestrangury 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 ofexcuse, not at all satisfactory. This last Prelate, who had for sometime been mistrusted by his brethren, consulted Sir John Reresby, whotold him to fall back on his own conscience. The next day the Bishoptook the oath.[122] But the Primate Sancroft, Lake of Chichester,Turner of Ely, Lloyd of Norwich, Ken of Bath and Wells, Frampton ofGloucester, White of Peterborough, and Thomas of Worcester, steadilyrefused, and came forward as vanguard to that body of which we shallhave more to say hereafter.

The oath was taken by the Clergy in various ways. Some, who objectedto its being imposed, felt they could adopt it conscientiously. Somequestioned the lawfulness of it, and did not blame the Nonjurors, butthemselves took the benefit of the doubt. Some swore with a certainreserve, expressing the sense in which they explained the obligationwith “an implicit relaxation” of the meaning of the words. Others, ata loss to determine the point, yielded to the opinions of lawyers anddivines.[123]

The Coronation Oath came under consideration at the same time as theOath of Allegiance, and, like it, occasioned great discussion. The oathpledged the Sovereign to preserve the Church “as it is now establishedby law;” and the Commons were thereby led to inquire into the exactmeaning of the words, whether they affected in any way the questionof introducing changes, such as many most earnestly desired. Some,who longed for an[98] alteration in the formularies, were anxious that,instead of the words “Church as it is now established by law,” shouldbe the words, “Church as it is, orshall be, established bylaw,” thus expressly providing for new arrangements. It was contendedthat the Church doors ought to be made wider, that it might be easilydone, and that in anticipation of this, the proposed alteration inthe oath should be accomplished. Before—some argued—it did not muchmatter how the Coronation Oath ran, but it did now that a King occupiedthe 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 inceremonies, and they felt unwilling that the Coronation Oath shouldpreclude the latter. Moreover, they desired to prevent any taunt fromforeign Protestants of the following kind—“Your Parliament has limitedyou to a Church unalterable, and will let in nobody.” Some of thosewho objected to the additional words replied, that their omissionwould not be any bar to reform; that Parliament had power to alterlaws; that, consistently with the maintenance of Protestant doctrine,there might be the relaxation of certain forms; that essentials beingpreserved, non-essentials could be removed; and that tender consciencescould be brought in at a door without pulling down the rafters to letthem through the roof. Though a rider to the effect, that no clause inthe Act should prevent the Sovereign from giving assent to a Bill forChurch Reform was not formally adopted, yet it was at length clearlyunderstood that the oath did not fetter the Sovereign in any act oflegislative concurrence, but only bound him in his executive capacity;the original words therefore were sanctioned by a majority of 188against 149.[124]

The Coronation, for which this oath prepared, took place on the 11th ofApril, when both political parties in unequal proportions participatedin the solemnities. Tory and Jacobite Lords, who had voted for aRegency, increased the magnificence—one carrying the crown of theKing, another the crown of the Queen, and a third the sword of Justice;whilst a fourth rode up the middle of Westminster Hall, as championfor William and Mary against all comers. Noble damsels of both classesappeared in large numbers and dazzling splendour to swell the retinue,or to watch the movements of the Regnant Queen; and amongst them walkedthe pretty little Lady Henrietta, daughter of the Earl of Rochester,who had persistently opposed the idea that the throne was vacated bythe departure of James. The nonjuring Prelates would take no part inthe ceremonies; the absence of the Primate was a serious circumstance,but, by a clause in the Coronation Act, the King had authority to chosesome other Bishop for the principal ceremony of the day. Accordingly hechose Compton, Bishop of London, to place the crown upon his head. ThisLow Churchman and staunch Revolutionist was accompanied by Prelates ofdifferent characters: Lloyd of St. Asaph, one of the seven who had beensent to the Tower, walked on the one hand, holding the paten; Spratof Rochester, who had been a member of the High Commission, walkedon the other, carrying the chalice; and Burnet of Salisbury ascendedthe pulpit to deliver a sermon, of which the peroration, imploringthe blessing of Heaven on the King and Queen in this life, and thebestowment upon them in the life to come of crowns more enduring thanthose on the altar, excited a hum of applause from the Commons, whowere seated behind it. For the first time the Coronation occurred[100]neither on a Sunday nor a holiday; and for the first time really inaccordance with a precedent set at Cromwell’s installation, a Biblewas presented to the Sovereigns as “the most valuable thing that thisworld contains;” and it would appear that the identical volume stillexists, for one of the treasures of the Royal Library at the Hague is aBible, inscribed with these words: “This Book was given the King and Iat our Coronation. Marie R.” The event was celebrated in the provinces;garlands adorned with oranges were carried about the streets of countrytowns, amidst the beating of drums, the pealing of bells, and thehuzzas of the people, followed at night by the blazing of bonfires.[125]

As the great Revolution under William I. was perfected by theCoronation at Westminster on Christmas-day, 1066, so the greatRevolution under William III. was perfected by the Coronation inthe same place on the 11th of April, 1689. In both cases certainreligious rites were necessary to the completeness of the new Monarch’sinauguration, but in both cases they were celebrated only as a solemnratification of a choice made by the national voice. It is curious tonotice, that in addition to the coincidence of names in the case ofthe authors of the two most momentous revolutionary successions to theEnglish crown, there is a further coincidence: each arrived on thesouthern shores of England as an invader, and then became the choice ofthe people; and neither of them rested on the right of conquest as thebasis of power.

At the time when the Allegiance and Coronation Oaths were underdiscussion, two other important subjects, immediately[101] connected withEcclesiastical History, occupied Parliamentary attention. The one wasthe widening of admission into the Church, the other was the concessionto Dissenters of liberty to worship according to conviction: bothmeasures had been repeatedly taken up and repeatedly laid down duringthe reign of Charles II.

The Primate Sancroft, it is alleged,[126] looked favourably in thatdirection, amidst the excitement to liberal feeling, which sprung up onthe 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 ofWestminster—who was present on the occasion—to consult about suchconcessions as might bring in Dissenters to communion, “for which,”Patrick says, “the Bishop of St. Asaph told us, he had the Archbishopof Canterbury’s leave. We agreed that a Bill should be prepared, tobe offered by the Bishops, and we drew up the matter of it in ten oreleven heads.”[127] Coincident with the time when such proposals weresufficiently matured to be laid before Parliament, but not coincidentwith the particular purpose and method which these and other Divineshad in view, was the publication of a draft, by some irresponsibleperson, for the universal accommodation of Dissenters, and the bringingof all parties into communion with the Established Church. This scheme,which bore the title of an amicable reconciliation, soon dropped intothe limbo of quixotic[102] plans, but it made some noise at the time, andis sufficiently curious to be worth a few words.

Amidst existing religious differences the principle is laid down thatas there is one Catholic Church under Christ, so there must be manylocal Churches framed after some type of political organization. TheChurch of England is of the latter kind, placed under the governmentof King and Bishops. This Church requires a change. It wantscomprehensiveness. Now, a distinction exists between tolerable andintolerable religions. Intolerable religions are set aside, but alltolerable religions, it is affirmed, ought not only to be legalized,but incorporated in the Establishment. Bishops should be King’sofficers, to actcirca sacra; and those now called Dissentersshould be eligible for such an office, with power to supervise allparties, in order to the keeping of them in harmony with their ownprinciples, so as not to disturb the peace of others.[128] This schemeincluded a provision that Ecclesiastical laws should be enacted by aConvocation, including non-episcopal members, or by the two Houses ofParliament.

A Bill “for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects” wasintroduced in the House of Lords by the Earl of Nottingham on the 11thof March, and that day received its first reading. Upon the 14th it wasread a second time and committed; and at the same sitting there wasintroduced[103] 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 thepenalties of certain laws.” Two measures, intimately connected witheach other, and embodying opinions and wishes long cherished, were thuslaunched side by side, destined to meet different fates. Debated by theLords with considerable sharpness, the Bill for uniting Protestantswas narrowly watched by people outside, of different sentiments; andwhen no regular system existed for reporting speeches, fragments ofsenatorial oratory were casually picked up and preserved from oblivionby diarists and others; a person who looked at the subject from adissenting point of view thus recorded what he learnt:

The Bill was thought by some not “large enough to comprehend the sobersort of Dissenters, for it did not grant to them some of the greatpoints they had always and still did insist upon; and if it werethought 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 goodand sufficient, and in order to the taking of them in, it was notnecessary there should be the imposition of Episcopal hands.

The Marquis of Winchester, fervent for Comprehension, as conducive tothe interest of the Church, was unconcerned for the Bill of Indulgence,since “that would but nourish Church snakes and vipers in the bosom ofthe Church.”[129]

Early in the month of April we find the Lords busy[104] with theComprehension Bill. Upon the 4th, they were engaged upon the question,“Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the clause aboutthe indifferency of the posture at the receiving the Sacrament?” Thevotes being equal, the Journal records, “Then, according to the ancientrule in the like case,semper præsumitur pro negante,” thatis to say, the question as to leaving out the clause was decided inthe negative, and therefore the clause remained. “There was a provisolikewise in the Bill for dispensing with kneeling at the Sacrament andbeing baptized with the sign of the cross, to such as, after conferenceon those heads, should solemnly protest they were not satisfied as tothe lawfulness of them. That concerning kneeling occasioned a vehementdebate; for the posture being the chief exception that the Dissentershad, the giving up this was thought to be the opening a way for them tocome into employments. Yet it was carried in the House of Lords, andI declared myself zealous for it. For since it was acknowledged thatthe posture was not essential in itself, and that scruples, how illgrounded soever, were raised upon it, it seemed reasonable to leave thematter as indifferent in its practice, as it was in its nature.”[130]

On the next day another debate rose on an important point. It wasproposed that a Commission should be appointed, including laymenas well as clergymen, to[105] prepare some plan for healing divisions,correcting errors, and supplying defects in the constitution of theChurch. Burnet, adopting the questionable policy of striving to pleaseopponents, and bring them to adopt a comprehensive scheme by humouringtheir prejudice—a policy of which he afterwards repented—arguedagainst the proposed Commission, and upon the question being put,strangely enough, there was again an equality of votes. The same ruleas before was followed, and a negative being put on the proposition,the Marquis of Winchester and the Lords Mordaunt and Lovelace enteredtheir protest against it as contrary to the constitution, inconsistentwith Protestantism, inexpedient as to the end proposed, likely tocreate jealousies, to raise objections, and to countenance thedangerous position that the laity were not a part of the Church. TheEarl of Stamford added a distinct protest, on the further ground, thatto refuse laymen a place in such a Commission was opposed to statutesof Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., whichempowered a mixed Commission to revise the Canon law.

The Comprehension Bill, with these modifications, passed the Houseof Lords on the 8th of April, and was sent down to the House ofCommons.[131]

Strange again—the fact has been overlooked by our principal modernhistorians—before the Lords’ Bill reached the Commons, the Commonswere engaged upon a Comprehension Bill of their own, and upon aToleration Bill likewise. The day which saw the Lords reading theformer of these for the third time, saw the Commons also reading asimilar one of their own for the first time, and granting leave tobring in another[106] Bill, as the phrase went, for “easing of ProtestantDissenters.”

But the party in the Commons earnest for Comprehension, had to rowagainst wind and tide. One member desired the new Bill might beadjourned for a fortnight; another wished to put it off till Domesday.Old Colonel Birch impugned the motives of those who opposed the measureby mentioning the names of two members in the last Long Parliament, whohad objected to a similar proposal, and who proved afterwards to bePapists 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 expressinggratitude for His Majesty’s repeated assurances to maintain the Churchof England, and praying that he would continue his care for thepreservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, hewould issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation ofthe Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. “It is ourintention,” they add, “forthwith to proceed to the consideration ofgiving ease to Protestant Dissenters.”[133][107] The reference here is towhat is called the Toleration Bill.

By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summonConvocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commonsforeclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference toComprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debateson the point dropped in both Houses.[134]

At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particularattempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibilitymust be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge ofthe views and aims of different parties interested in the subject.The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employmentof double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was inmany respects a “glorious Revolution,” influenced the minds of thosewho took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men asCompton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union;but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,[135] whointroduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman,must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of itsprovisions. Still more difficult is it to understand[108] the conduct ofcertain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House,moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance ofSancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it.Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so morefrom fear than inclination;[136] and Burnet declares, “those who hadmoved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted avery disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselvesby this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; andsuch as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented asthe enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it.”[137]

As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they wouldnot have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or anyencroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext fordividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denouncedafterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors.[138] The wholeatmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when themeasure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction ofthe Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet thenurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the childperish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity,excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifestpartiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters.[139]

The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, notto the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to havebeen made to it by the[109] Commons. They had appeared at first friendlyenough to the general measure, and when they abandoned it, they didso under cover of desiring a meeting of Convocation, which mightefficiently deal with the subject. The hapless infant died, not fromviolence, but neglect; not through blows dealt by an open enemy, butfrom want of nursing on the part of those pledged to cherish it.

The treachery, or apathy, of the Commons can be accounted for when weremember the character of the House and the circumstances of the times:as we have seen, but few Nonconformists—not more than twenty or thirtyPresbyterians—could be counted among the members. The vast majoritywere Churchmen—some, Tory Churchmen, looking with a sinister eye uponthe whole affair; some, Whig Churchmen, liberal in a limited degree,but opposed to the principle of Dissent: they cared much more for theEpiscopalian Establishment than for what was called the ProtestantReligion; they had little or no sympathy with the religious sentimentsof 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. Muchmischief was foreboded from that quarter, should such alterationsbe made as would countenance the idea that the Establishment underWilliam and Mary was giving up its Episcopalian distinctions. Such anidea would strengthen the counter schism; for the Nonjurors might beexpected to make capital out of the circumstance, and claim no smallhonour for maintaining Episcopalianism in its integrity. Anothercircumstance doubtless contributed to the turn affairs took in theLower House.

Dissenters were not of one mind. Philip Henry earnestly desiredComprehension, “for never,” says his[110] son, “was any more averse tothat which looked like a separation than he was, if he could possiblyhave helped it—salvâ conscientiâ. His prayers were constant,and his endeavours, as he had opportunity, that there might be somehealing methods found out and agreed upon.”[140] It would also havedelighted Richard Baxter in his last days to see the door opened aswide as he had long before desired it should be. Bates would havebeen much pleased. The same may be said of Howe. But many were of adifferent mind.[141] The Nonconformist advocates of Comprehensionbelonged chiefly to the Presbyterian Church. Almost all Independentsand Baptists felt it impossible for any alterations to be made such ascould allow of their becoming parochial incumbents. More than a few hadlong been voluntaries, numbers were beginning to look in a directionopposite to that of an Establishment.[142] Selfishness has beenassigned as a[111] motive. “Some few pastors of wealthy congregations mightbe tempted to desire a continuance of the distance between Dissentersand Churchmen.” Yet Churchmen entertained “more charitable thoughtsof sincere Dissenters.” The balance of temporal advantages certainlyinclined on the side of a nationally-endowed Church, rich in tithesand other revenues, richer still in rank and prestige. However, it isunfair to suppose that, except in very rare instances indeed, an eye toincome retained men in Nonconformist positions. Beyond all doubt, hadDissenting ministers been generally zealous in supporting the measure,they would have been charged by their neighbours with looking after theloaves and fishes. Where, however, no love of this world influenced thedecision, the decision might be influenced by prejudice and suspicion;for persons must have been[112] more or less than human, who, after suchtreatment as they had received for thirty years, could be free fromall passionate emotion in estimating the conduct of those who hadbeen either bitter persecutors or unconcerned witnesses of wrong. Themotives of Churchmen at the Revolution would not always be fairlyweighed by Dissenters. Suspicion, where it could not be justified, maystill be condoned, looking at the antecedents of the case; and wherethere was not sufficient ground for imputing dishonourable motives toChurchmen, 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 wererife 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 thathe might ascend the throne. A lady who was the representative and heirof the dispossessed line of Princes married the Duke of Medina Celi,who assumed the rights of his wife. He and his descendants accordinglypresented a petition to the Sovereign that he would restore thecrown—a petition to which he gave the reply, “No es lugar,”“There is no room.” This story had been applied by Presbyterians to theabeyance in which their claims to Church readmission had been held formore 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 offwithNo es lugar, There is no room.”[143] It was thought thestory remained as applicable after the Revolution as before.

This fact should be remembered. Comprehension became to all partiesmore and more difficult, and to[113] 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 ownordained ministers, and had begun to create an ecclesiastical history,and to cherish in their separate capacity something of anesprit decorps. The opportunity of reclaiming the wanderers, once possessedby the Church party, had slipped away beyond recall. Overtures, whichwould have been eagerly grasped before, were coldly looked at now.[144]

The history of the measures foreasing orindulgingDissenters presents a marked contrast to the history of the measurefor uniting them to the Establishment. The Bill ordered on the 8th ofApril 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 hadsmoothly passed, was received on the 18th, and first read on the 20thof the same month. Both Bills were committed on the 15th of May. Whatlittle of the debate has been preserved shows it to have been brief,desultory, and superficial—not dealing with any great principles, butonly discussing details, with an outburst now and then of ill-temper.One speaker would not give indulgence to Quakers, because they wouldnot take an oath. Another identified them with Penn, and looked uponthem as Papists in disguise. Yet all the speakers supported more orless the principle of the Bill, although some were of opinion that itshould be adopted as an experiment for seven years.[145] It speedilypassed without any such limitation, and received the Royal assent onthe 24th of May.[146]

The cause of this great and successful measure lay in a deeper regionthan that of political intrigue and party faction. Powerful and tellingarguments had long been pressed upon the abettors of intolerance; andthe impiety, the injustice, the absurdity, and the uselessness ofattempting to coerce the conscience, had been demonstrated hundreds oftimes on grounds of Religion, Reason, and History. No class of writershad performed this important service so fully as certain Baptists andIndependents, whom we have had occasion to notice. They had contendedagainst intolerant laws, not in the spirit of indifference, not becausereligion was to them a matter of trivial or secondary importance, butbecause it was to them all in all, and they shuddered to see its nametainted by an alliance with despotic principles. Although their pleasand appeals did not perhaps to any appreciable extent directly affectpublic opinion, yet they secretly leavened the minds of religiouspeople, and prepared for the coming change.

The doctrine of Toleration has of late been described as the offspringof scepticism. What kind of scepticism?[116] If it mean scepticism orunbelief as to the obligation to punish men for opinions, or as to themoral criminality of errors purely intellectual, or as to the wisdomof vesting political power in ecclesiastical persons, to say thatthis lies at the basis of Toleration is simply to repeat an identicalproposition. But if it mean doubt or disbelief as to religion ingeneral, or Christianity in particular, then to say Toleration arosefrom 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 tosuch a theory, ought not to have been the apostles of freedom; yetthey 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 ofthe State rather than of the Church. The Liberal Bishops supported it;but the great body of Churchmen were averse to its provisions. Withregard to a number of the clergy and the laity, the State came forwardas a constable to keep the peace between them and their Nonconformistfellow-citizens, whose rights they had violated.

Books and pamphlets were not the only nor the main agencies whichbrought about the Religious Revolution of 1689. It is remarkable,that the first of Locke’s famous letters on Toleration was printedin Holland, in the Latin language, in the year 1689, and was nottranslated into English and circulated in this country time enough toassist in the passing of the Toleration Bill. It threw into form, andit made plain to the common sense of humanity, those sentiments whichwere almost universal amongst the Dutch, and were beginning to becommon amongst the English. It rather justified[117] what was being done atthe time by the Legislature, than prompted or supported the Legislaturein its career. It formulated the reasons of a conclusion at the momentpractically reached; it expounded principles just being embodied in anAct of Parliament.

John Locke brought out the philosophy of Toleration. Toleration hadbecome the genius of his character. Men whose minds have many sides,and who, from large human sympathies, tolerate those who differ fromthem, are made what they are by wide intercourse with the world. Bornof Puritan parents, educated at Oxford under Dr. Owen, attached to thepreaching of Whitecote, intimate with Cudworth’s family, connectedwith Lord Shaftesbury, friendly with Le Clerc, Limborch, and otherDivines of the Remonstrant school, Locke caught and, in the advocacy ofToleration, reflected influences emanating from diversified sources.Reduced to a simple formula, the basis of his scheme was this: TheState and the Church are essentially distinct. The Law recognized aJewish commonwealth; the Gospel recognizes no Christian commonwealth.He repudiated all connection between the State and the Church; but hedid not repudiate all connection between the State and Religion, forhe excluded Atheists from Toleration. He also excluded Papists, nothowever 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 henever published. Though nominally in communion with the Establishmentto the day of his death, he generally attended the ministry of a laypreacher.[147]

A paper by John Howe—in which he stated the case of ProtestantDissenters—came nearest, in point of time, to the position of amanifesto in advance, clearing ground for the new law. His paper wasdrawn up in the beginning of 1689, yet it may be doubted whether it hadany wide influence in consummating the change.

Amongst the immediate causes of the Bill being passed must be numberedold promises made to Dissenters by men in power, again and again;the pledges of political parties of all sorts, Whigs and Tories, LowChurchmen and High Churchmen, given amidst struggles against Poperyin the preceding summer, all originating in religious impulses; andespecially the influences of William, who honestly advocated libertyon a wide scale. Beyond this, and more effectual still, there existeda state of public feeling which, although most reasonable, had notbeen produced by reasoning and, though it could be victoriouslydefended by argument, had not really been reached by logical formulas.It is only one of a number of instances in which a change comes overthe legislative enactments of a nation through a change wrought inthe minds of rulers, wrought also in the minds of a people,—theZeit-Geist, or spirit of the age,—produced by the disciplineof circumstances, and by sympathetic impulses, in which pious menrecognize the finger of Providence. What the Earl of Nottingham saidin defence of his measure when he laid his Bill upon the table, I donot know; but I apprehend that, as a High Churchman he must have foundit difficult to show how[119] his advocacy could be reconciled with hisantecedents. He might have been unable to explain how, by reasoning, hehad passed from his former to his present position. He and others mightbe fairly charged with inconsistency; a suspicion of it might evennow and then cross their own minds. But, like all mankind, they werethe subjects of influences more powerful than syllogisms, they bentbeneath a force mightier than logic. Sophistical theories ingeniouslyspun, fondly watched, and for a time vigilantly guarded, get blown tothe winds by the breath of inexorable facts, and of the spirit whichthrobs at the heart of them. False systems and ideas are found to beimpracticable; as such they are given up by everybody. It is of nouse to preserve them; they must be thrown away. So with the doctrineof religious intolerance. Englishmen could endure it in its old formno longer. A new spirit had taken possession of the age, and ancientrestrictions must at last be sacrificed. But for such facts, men likeLeonard Busher and John Goodwin might have gone on arguing for ever invain.

In estimating the worth of what was done at this period, it betraysa narrow philosophy to harp upon the word “Toleration” as being anoffensive term, and to ask, Has any man a right to talk of toleratinganother man in the worship which his conscience bids him render to theinfinitely glorious Creator? It is a curious fact that the word wasnot used in the Bill from beginning to end. It is entitled, “An Actfor exempting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting fromthe Church of England from the penalties of certain laws.” Why dwellupon what the measure was popularly called—the question is, What didit accomplish? Its provisions confessedly are imperfect. Restrictionsinconsistent with its principle were left, reminding us, how muchmore, certain feelings connected[120] with certain events have to do withproducing them than any abstract conceptions whatever. But the Act didthis, it afforded to all Protestants, with few exceptions, a legalprotection in carrying out their systems of doctrine, worship, anddiscipline. It not only granted, but it guarded liberty of conscience.It threw the shield of law over every religious assembly within opendoors. To interrupt the Independent, the Baptist, the Quaker, in theservice of God, became a criminal offence. The amount of relief thusafforded can be appreciated only by those who are familiar with theharassing persecutions of the preceding reigns. By shielding Dissent,the law, though of course not endowing it, might be said, in a certainsense, to establish it. It placed Dissent upon a legal footing, andprotected it side by side with the Endowed Church. It confined nationalemoluments to Episcopalians; but it secured as much religious freedomto other denominations as to them. Nay, it secured more—a consequencenecessarily resulting from the difference in relation to the State,between voluntary Churches and one nationally endowed. By the changewhich the Act effected in the legal position of Nonconformity, itproduced a relative change in the legal position of the Establishment.From the moment that William gave his assent to the Act, that Churchceased to be national in the sense in which it had been so before. Thetheory of its constitution underwent a revolution. It could no longerassume the attitude it had done, could no longer claim all Englishmen,as by sovereign right, worshippers within its pale; it gave legalizedscope for differences of action,—for their growth, and advancement,and for the increase of their supporters in point of numbers,character, and influence.

The restrictions of the Act pressed upon two classes of religionists.It distinctly provided that the law should[121] not be construed as givingany ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist, or Popish recusant,whatever. It therefore left in full operation the old laws pointedat the adherents of Rome,—laws with which James had dispensed, lawswhich, with most mistaken views, at that period almost all Protestantsmaintained. But not satisfied with a prohibition of Roman worship,the Government caused to be issued Royal proclamations requiringall reputed Papists to depart out of London and Westminster, andconfining all Popish recusants within five miles of their respectivedwellings.[148] In connexion with this fact it should be noticed, thatin the month of July, the Royal assent was given to an Act which vestedin the two Universities, the presentations of benefices belonging toPapists.

The other class of persons to whom liberty of worship was refused,consisted of such as denied, in preaching or writing, the doctrineof the Blessed Trinity declared in the Articles of the Church ofEngland,—a stipulation which indicated zeal for orthodoxy on the partof a large majority of the House, and which ought to be noted amidstthe strong rationalistic tendencies of the age. Zeal of this kind weshall find manifesting itself again and again during William’s reign.

Special provision was made for the relief of Quakers. Instead of beingrequired 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 thesewords: “I, A. B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus ChristHis eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessedfor evermore; and do acknowledge[122] the Holy Scriptures of the Old andNew Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” It would appear thatthis declaration was altered from the original one to satisfy theQuakers, who, represented by four of their number during the passingof the Bill, objected to the expression “coequal with the Father andthe Son” as applied to the Holy Spirit, and to another expression, “therevealed will and word of God” as applied to the Scriptures. Theseexpressions were accordingly struck out. A Quaker historian observes,“That as a profession of faith is required of this Society only, itevinces the truth of the conjecture, that this profession of faithwas started with a view to exclude the people called Quakers from aparticipation in the benefits of the Act.” If the remark be true inreference to the original form of the declaration—but of this I findno proof—it certainly is not true of the revised declaration, whichreceived the sanction of Friends, before it was introduced into theBill, and was affirmed by them after it became law.[149]

Comprehension fared differently from Toleration; but Tillotson wouldnot let the former drop. Nobody was more sincere and earnest about it,and the view he took of the grounds on which Christians of differentopinions might be brought together, appears from a paper copied intohis commonplace book under the title of “Concessions, which willprobably be made by the Church of England for the union of Protestants,which I sent to the Earl of Portland by Dr. Stillingfleet, September13, 1689.

“I. That the ceremonies injoined or recommended in the Liturgy orCanons be left indifferent.

“II. That the Liturgy be carefully reviewed, and such alterations andchanges therein made, as may supply the defects, and remove, as much asis possible, all ground of exception to any part of it, by leaving outthe Apocryphal lessons, and correcting the translation of the psalms,used in the public service, where there is need of it; and in manyother particulars.

“III. That instead of all former declarations and subscriptions to bemade by ministers, it shall be sufficient for them that are admitted tothe exercise of their ministry in the Church of England, to subscribeone general declaration and promise to this purpose, viz., that wedo submit to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church ofEngland, as it shall be established by law, and promise to teach andpractice accordingly.

“IV. That a new body of Ecclesiastical Canons be made, particularlywith a regard to a more effectual provision for the reformation ofmanners 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, andlength of time, have crept into them; and particularly, that the powerof excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers, andplaced in the Bishop, and not to be exercised for trivial matters, butupon great and weighty occasions.

“VI. That for the future those who have been ordained in any of theforeign Reformed Churches, be not required to be re-ordained here, torender them capable of preferment in this Church.

“VII. That for the future none be capable of any ecclesiasticalbenefice or preferment in the Church of England, that shall be ordainedin England otherwise than by Bishops; and that those who have been[124]ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce theirformer ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of thevalidity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, andis by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receiveordination from a Bishop in this or the like form:If thou art notalready ordained, I ordain thee, &c., as in case a doubt be made ofany one’s baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptizedin this form,If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, &c.”[150]

Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrustConvocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin;Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs oughtto be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offeredfor objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change wasaccomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however,considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commissionshould be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, todigest a scheme for “establishing a durable peace.”[151] His objectwas good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; forwhat chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming toan agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It wasto renew Archbishop Williams’ Committee in 1641; it was to repeatthe inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relationbetween Tillotson’s Committee and the Convocation was more definitethan that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was ofan abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers.Though Burnet had in April predicted the[125] failure of the scheme, hein the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influencedby the Dean’s persuasion and by Burnet’s concurrence, issued, on the13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishopsand twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissionerson the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber—that oldtheological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare.Proceedings opened at 9 o’clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissionerspresent.[152] After listening to the Commission, they discussed thequestion, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church.Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping theold custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supportedby Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawingup the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books anddamnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha,yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the otherhand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable,but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessonsfrom them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church ofRome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defertheir decision until a larger number should meet; to which it wasreplied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would bereferred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon[126] whichthe Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons.

The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, whenKidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authorityon the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave hisopinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growingweary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatlyto the improvement of the whole, although the entire translationdiffered 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 aroseas to the authority of the Commission itself. Sprat, Bishop ofRochester—then, as Dean of Westminster, living next door to theJerusalem Chamber—had been an active member of James’ High Commission,and now, inconsistently enough, objected to the Low Commissionappointed by William; yet this was as constitutional as the former hadbeen the reverse, forthis amounted to no more than a committeeof advice, whereasthat claimed judicial prerogatives. Sprateither overlooked or pretended not to see the distinction, and talkedof the danger of incurring apremunire by venturing to proceedwith business. He said a burnt child dreads the fire, and as he hadbeen deceived with regard to the other Commission, though some ofthe Judges were in its favour, he should not be satisfied with theCommission under which they were now brought together, unless the wholeJudicial bench sanctioned its appointment. After quibbles about thealtered official position of some Commissioners, and the small numberleft at the close of the last meeting, he urged the inconsistencyof touching formularies to which they had given their assent and[127]consent; the impropriety of forestalling Convocational debates; andthe probability of provoking Parliament by usurping its functions.Sprat found a supporter in Jane—“a double-faced Janus,” as peoplecalled him, for, after being a staunch supporter of non-resistance, hehad conveyed to the Prince of Orange the offer of the University tocoin its plate in the Deliverer’s service; and next, disappointed ofa mitre, had on that account (so said his enemies) abandoned liberalopinions, and gone over to the camp of Toryism, where he found a morecongenial atmosphere and a more agreeable home.

Another of Sprat’s allies was Dr. Aldrich,[153] Dean of Christchurch,a man of much higher character than Jane, architect of the PeckwaterQuadrangle, munificent in his patronage and gifts, a master of logic,a proficient in music, and generous and genial in his hospitality. ButPatrick, the new Bishop of Chichester, came to the rescue, dwellingupon the difference between the two Commissions, and urging thehigh legal sanction of their present operations. Compton, Bishop ofLondon—still zealous on the liberal side—told his brethren thatwhat they were doing had received the sanction of the Lords; that ifthey did not execute their trust, it would be taken out of the handsof the Clergy altogether; and that discharging their duty now wouldfacilitate the business of Convocation, in the same way as Committeeshelped on the work of Parliament. Already it appeared that the reverendand 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,[128] hastilyrose to move that those who were not satisfied with the Commissionwere 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 thattime might be kept secret.” The stormy discussion lasted beyond noon,when the Bishops of London and Worcester and several others retiredto the hospitable table of Dr. Patrick in the neighbouring cloister,and then went over several amendments to be made in the Liturgy. Twodays afterwards, on the 18th, the Commissioners entered upon theconsideration of ceremonies distasteful to Dissenters. Aldrich andJane left soon after the debate commenced, and those who remained cameto the conclusion that, as for receiving the Sacrament, “it should bein some posture of reverence, and in some convenient pew or place inthe church, so that none but those that kneeled should come up to therails or table, and that the persons scrupling, should some week-daybefore come to the minister, and declare that they could not kneel witha good conscience. This was agreed to, and drawn up. Only the Bishopof Winchester moved that the names of such persons might be writtendown, but that was not approved, and after all he dissented from thewhole.”[154]

At the next meeting they took up the question of godfathers, Beveridgecontending for the retention of them as being agreeable to ancientpractice; some, on the other hand, declared that the custom oftenbecame 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.”

The calendar underwent revision, and several Saints’ days were struckout 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, andlatitudinarian sentiment, momentous moot-points. The atmosphereof theological thought existing at the time, indicated by thecontroversies on the Trinity, to be hereafter described, could notbut fix attention on a formulary, which, viewed either as a creed oras a hymn, not only embodies definite opinion on the most abstruseof mysteries, but declares that those who do not keep it whole andundefiled must “without doubt perish everlastingly.” Burnet andTillotson were willing to drop the so-called creed out of the servicealtogether; so was Fowler—the first of these Divines urging that theChurch of England received the four first General Councils; that theEphesian Council condemns all new symbols; that the Athanasian Creedisnot very ancient; and that it condemns the Greek Church,which, said the Bishop, “we defend.” The utmost amount of changefinally recommended as to this formula was its less frequent use andan explanation of its damnatory clauses. Its repetition was to bediscontinued on the Epiphany, and the Feasts of St. Matthias, St. Johnthe 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 wordsung was struck out of the rubric, leaving the creed tobesaid; and the following came at the end:—“The Articles ofwhich (creed) ought to be received and believed as being agreeable tothe Holy Scriptures. And the condemning clauses are to be understoodas relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of theChristian faith [according to the 18th Article of[130] this Church].” Theselast words were afterwards cancelled.[155]

The subject of Ordination occupied the members through four successivemeetings.[156] Questions were discussed—first in reference to thosewho had been Ministers of other communions; secondly, with regard tonew candidates; and thirdly, as to the ceremony of conferring orders.The Bishop of Salisbury took a prominent part in this debate, on thefirst of these points, contending—that there was room to challenge theorders of the Romanists, “because that they ordained without impositionof hands,” and without the words, “whosesoever sins ye remit they areremitted,” and mixed up the matter with the theory of intention—thatthe Church of England had allowed the orders of Foreign Churches inthe case of Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury—that Presbyterianshad been consecrated Bishops of the Scotch Church without beingfirst ordained as Priests; James I. stiffly insisting upon it, beingpresent at their consecration in Westminster Abbey; Bishop Andrewes,after having opposed it, also yielding assent to the service. As toDissenters, Burnet strove to apply to their case the allowed validityof Donatist ordination in the early Church, on the ground of necessityfor the healing of schism. But it was on the Conservative sideobjected, that Romanist orders were owned by the Anglican Church, theBishop of London[131] admitting that no question arose about the validityof Roman Catholic orders, but only about the sufficiency of evidenceas to their being properly conferred. Beveridge, in this debate as inothers, distinguished himself by maintaining Anglican views, and showedthat if cheats were put upon the Church by Romanists, so they mightbe by the Reformed; yet he admitted, in reference to the case of DuMoulin, that regular Episcopal ordination is not necessary, where nocure of souls is involved; upon which the Dean of Canterbury affirmedthat he had heard even of laymen having been made Prebendaries.Beveridge met the case of the Donatists by pointing out that they wereEpiscopalians, and therefore in point of orders did not present anyresemblance to Nonconformists.

“It was sometimes queried, What good would this do as to theDissenters? It was answered by Dr. Still:[157] We sat there to makesuch alterations as were fit, which would be fit to make were there noDissenters, and which would be for the improvement of the service.”

“It was said, I think by Dr. F., that some of the Nonconformistsdesired to be heard. It was replied by Dr. Still: That was not to beallowed, because doubtless they had no more to say by word of mouththan they had in their writings; and, that they might do them justice,there were several of their books laid before the Committee, that theymight consult if there be occasion.”

In answer to the suggestion of the old compromise of a hypotheticalreference to the invalidity of any former ordination, Beveridgeremarked that it looked like equivocation on the part both of ordainerand ordained; the[132] first believing the second not ordained before,contrary to the belief of the second, who did not doubt his formerorders. Burnet replied, there could be no ground for this objection,if a statement were annexed to the effect that each reserved his ownopinion. Dr. Grove suggested that the former rite might be esteemed,not as wholly invalid, but as merely imperfect, and that the Bishop’slaying on of hands would complete what had been previously commenced.“But to this the Dean of St. Paul’s (Stillingfleet) replied, that inthis point we were to respect two things—first, the preservation ofthe Church’s principle about the necessity of Episcopal ordination,when it might be had; and secondly, the case of the Dissenters,” inreference to whom he relates, or supposes, a most extraordinary andindeed unintelligible story, “that it was much like the marrying of theman, and the woman refusing; but after a term of years she consentingto go on, the woman was then married alone, without beginning againwith the man.” What that means I leave the reader to find out. Thestudy of the whole Report is dreary work.

Yet Tillotson, rich in common sense, must have been amused with thesedebates. He simply asked why might not the Church of England admitother orders, as it had been proposed its own should be admitted by theChurch of Rome, when Queen Mary wrote to Gardiner, saying, “Quodillis deerat, supplebit Episcopus.” The Bishop’s supplement wasalone sufficient for thepotestas sacrificandi, without anyinvalidation of what had been previously accomplished. At last theCommissioners resolved upon adopting the hypothetical scheme—Beveridgeand Scot alone dissenting from that conclusion.

The subject of exercising care relative to candidates occasionedno controversy; it was proposed that a month[133] before ordination,testimonials should be sent to the Bishop; and that candidates shouldbe tested by being required to compose some short discourse in writing“upon some point or article.” Burnet, not much to the satisfaction ofsome of his brethren, who eschewed all ecclesiastical precedents takenfrom the north of the Tweed, reported the Scotch method of requiringthe composition of a doctrinal and practical discourse, and theexamination of the candidate in the original Scriptures and in sacredchronology.

In the Ordination Service the use of the words “receive the HolyGhost” gave rise to much discussion, as a command to receive involvesthe possession on the speaker’s part of a power to bestow; and Burnetcontended that such a use could not be traced back above 400 years, ithaving been introduced in the Middle Ages for the purpose of exaltingthe priesthood. The form was originally, that of a humble prayer,not of an absolute bestowment. Thus it appeared in the ApostolicalConstitutions, in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in theCanons of the Councils of Carthage—the alteration being the fruitof Hildebrand’s time. The Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Scot, however,vindicated the Church of England in her employment of the Saviour’swords, and asserted that if they be not retained, “there is no form ofordination authoritatively,”—a very unfortunate ground of defence,for, as it was justly said, if so, then, the words not being used inthe absolute form until within the previous four centuries, no validordinations had previously taken place. Tillotson selected a quotationfrom St. Augustine,[158] proving Christ to be God, because He bestowedthe Holy Ghost; thus suggesting the[134] argument that the Church could notauthoritatively confer the celestial gift, but only pray that it mightbe conferred by the Divine Being. The rest of the time was spent inrevising the Daily Prayer, the Communion and Confirmation Services, theCatechism, and other formularies, and in preparing new Collects.

The second paragraph of the general rubric at the beginning of theorder for Morning and Evening Prayer was struck out, and the followingpassage was inserted instead:—“Whereas the surplice is appointed tobe used by all ministers in performing divine offices, it is herebydeclared, that it is continued only as being an ancient and decenthabit. But yet, if any minister shall come and declare to his Bishopthat he cannot satisfy his conscience in the use of the surplice indivine service, in that case the Bishop shall dispense with his notusing it, and if he shall see cause for it, he shall appoint a curateto officiate in a surplice.” The new paragraph was afterwards scoreddown the side, the following memorandum being appended:—“This rubricwas suggested but not agreed to, but left to further consideration.”Another memorandum followed in these words, “A Canon to specify thevestments.”

Numerous verbal alterations were introduced into the Litany,—“suddendeath” being altered into “dying suddenly and unprepared;” and newversicles and responses were inserted, “From all infidelity anderror, from all impiety and profaneness, from all superstition andidolatry,—Good Lord deliver us.” With the Litany it was proposed toconnect the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, and the response, “Lord,have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”

To the Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions were added twonew forms: one a prayer to be said[135] before receiving the Communion,another a prayer for any time of calamity. Forty-two new Collects werecomposed; and in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, after the TenCommandments, came the insertion of the Beatitudes, with this petitionafter each of them, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and make us partakersof this blessing.” Here, and throughout the whole Prayer-Book, for thetitlepriest is substituted that ofminister. In theoffice for Baptism of Infants, the presentation of children for thatpurpose by godfathers and godmothers is acknowledged as an ancientcustom to be continued; it is added, that if any person comes to theMinister, and tells him he cannot conveniently procure godfathers andgodmothers for his child, and that he desires the child may be baptizedupon the engagement of the parent or parents only, in that case theMinister, after discourse with him, if he persists, shall be obligedto baptize such child, or children, upon the suretiship of the parent,or parents, or some other near relation or friends. If any Ministerobjected at his institution to use the sign of the cross, the Bishopmight dispense with that particular, and name a Curate to act for him.In reference to the doctrine of Regeneration, the form of Baptismremained the same as before.

Large additions were made to the Catechism and to the ConfirmationService, the prayers after the last answer being considerably modified;and a new prayer and exhortation prepared for the confirmed, who wererequired to stay and listen to it.

The “Solemnization of Matrimony,” with several verbal changes, remainssubstantially unaltered; but in “the Order for the Visitation of theSick,” together with fresh interrogatories, there is this importantchange in the words of absolution: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who[136] hathleft power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent andbelieve in Him, of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences; andupon thy true faith and repentance, by His authority committed to me, Ipronounce 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” isstruck 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 alteredthat the latter portion becomes quite different. It runs thus: “We giveThee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased Thee to instruct us in thisheavenly knowledge, beseeching Thee so to affect our hearts therewith,that seeing we believe such a happy estate hereafter, we may live herein all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening untothe coming of the day of God; that being then found of Thee in peacewithout spot and blameless, we may have our perfect consummation andbliss, both in body and soul, in Thy eternal and everlasting glory,through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

No one who takes the trouble to read through the report of thesetedious proceedings but must be astonished at the extent of theproposed alterations. They prove that some of the Episcopalian Divineswho took part in the revision of 1689 must have been a very differentclass of men from the Episcopalian Divines who took part in therevision of 1662. Calamy became acquainted with the alterations, andsaid he thought if the scheme had been carried out, it would “havebrought in two-thirds of the Dissenters.”[159] No doubt a considerable[137]number might have been satisfied, but I consider Calamy to have beentoo sanguine in his expectation; his expectation resting mainly onwhat he knew of Presbyterians, who were much more disposed to returnto the Establishment than were brethren of other denominations.But in addition to circumstances already mentioned unfavourable toComprehension, the triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland, whichinvolved the abolition of Prelacy in that country, produced inPrelatists a great deal of bad feeling, and stood in the way of thepresent attempt; this obstacle was greatly increased by Nonconformistattacks at the time upon the use of Liturgies, and by a constantlyaugmenting number of Nonconformist ordinations. Besides, althoughextensive alterations came under discussion, very few Episcopalianswere disposed to go to such lengths as were proposed; some who wereactive in the affair were also cautious, and an immense majorityoutside the Committee utterly disliked the whole business, and wereopposed to any alteration whatever in the formularies.[160]

The changes proposed did not touch any articles of faith, andtherefore exhibit the English Latitudinarian party in a very differentposition from that of the foreign Latitudinarians, who threw downall the barriers of orthodoxy, and opened the doors of the Church toUnitarians. 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 considerablenote.[138] The English Episcopalians, who moved in the matter as justdescribed, rather resembled Jurieu, an eminent French theologian,ordained by an Anglican Bishop, yet officiating as a Presbyterianclergyman in France and in Holland. He advocated Comprehension on anorthodox basis, and treated Church organization and forms of worship asof minor importance.

The sittings of the Commission ended on November the 18th. Convocationhad 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 needslament. To the Catholic—the old Catholic of the Döllinger type—theReformation appears a lost opportunity for removing abuses and unitingEuropean Christendom. It comes before him as a crisis, which, if theCatholic party had been wise, they would have used for the purpose ofpurifying the Church and conciliating opponents, and so retaining themwithin the same fold. By the Puritan, freeing himself from party bias,I should think, the era of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealthmust be regarded as a lost opportunity for treating Episcopalians(their inveterate persecutors) in the spirit of Christian justice andcharity, by granting admirers of the Prayer-Book a freedom of worshipwhich admirers of the Prayer-Book had never granted to the Puritans;thus returning good for evil, and so reading with emphasis a pricelesslesson to the whole world. In like manner, surely, the liberalChurchman of the present day, whatever he may think of[139] Tillotson’sCommission, must mourn over the Revolution as a lost opportunityfor enlarging the boundaries of her communion, of recoveringDissenters—not to the extent Calamy supposed, yet in considerablenumbers—and of removing from the Church of England many incumbrances,which have ever since been points of attack and sources of weakness.

Much excitement had been manifested during the clerical elections inthe year 1661, but there was far greater excitement during the electionof 1689. Canvassing for members of Parliament was an old custom,but canvassing for members of Convocation was a new one, and at thetime it was noticed as a sign of party spirit then so rife. The factis remarkable, that whilst the official members of the Lower Houseincluded many distinguished men, nobody of any mark waselected,except Dr. John Mill, the eminent Greek scholar, who edited a newversion of the text of the New Testament.[161] By far the majoritywas composed of persons who had long been Tories in politics, and nowshowed themselves to be High Churchmen in religion; but the UpperHouse,—thinned, by refusal to attend, of those nonjuring Prelates whostill survived, two of them having died,—contained decidedly liberalpoliticians and divines in the persons of Compton, Lloyd, Burnet, andPatrick, the last of whom had in September been raised to the Bishopricof Chichester. These Bishops took the lead in the proceedings of thatassembly, and imparted to them a liberal spirit. The difference betweenthe temper of the two Houses soon appeared.

Convocation had formerly met first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards atWestminster. Now that the new Cathedral[140] of London, though nearlycompleted, had not been consecrated, Convocation assembled at oncewithin the walls of Henry VII.’s Chapel, when a Latin sermon waspreached by Beveridge.

As soon as the Lower House proceeded to business, the choice of aProlocutor was the first step. On the 21st of November, Sharp—whohad in the Deanery of Canterbury succeeded Tillotson, now made Deanof St. Paul’s—proposed as Prolocutor his distinguished predecessor,who was a friend of the King, a favourite at Court, a man of prudenceand moderation, and a promoter of the scheme of Comprehension. ButTillotson was rejected by two to one in favour of Jane. Nobody couldmistake the significancy of the choice. It would appear that personalfeeling had some influence in it. The Earls of Clarendon and Rochesterare accused of having intrigued against Tillotson from resentmenttowards his patrons, the King and Queen—the latter of them, althoughtheir near relative, not having raised them to any high employments inthe State. Moreover, it had become known, that Tillotson was intendedby William to be Sancroft’s successor, as soon as Sancroft’s depositioncould be legally accomplished. This circumstance stung the mind ofCompton, who, on account of his former relation to the Queen as hertutor, and the signal service he had rendered at the Revolution, notto mention his noble rank, considered he had a claim superior tothat of the Dean. Unworthy motives are often attributed to men uponinsufficient grounds, and I am unable to discover the reasons forTillotson’s unfavourable opinion of Compton; but as Tillotson wasnot likely to have adopted suspicions without reason, it is probablethat Compton had something to do with the rejection of Tillotson as acandidate for the Prolocutorship. Knowing what human[141] nature is, onedoes not wonder that Compton was annoyed at Tillotson being preferredto him; yet it should be remembered that if Compton was mortified bythe Royal preference for Tillotson, it did not at present induce him toabandon the Liberal party. When Jane the Prolocutor was presented toCompton as President of the Upper Chamber, in the room of the absentPrimate, he finished a speech upon the perfection of the Church, andthe mischief of any change in it, with the words, “Nolumus legesAngliæ mutari,” in allusion, it is inferred, to Compton’s havingadopted that motto for the colours of his regiment, when he hadplayed the part of a colonel. The Bishop, in his answer, indicatedhis adherence to the opinions and measures he had before proposed, bysaying to the Clergy, that “they ought to endeavour a temper in thosethings that are not essential in religion, thereby to open the door ofsalvation to a multitude of straying Christians; that it must needs betheir duty to show the same indulgence and charity to the Dissentersunder King William, which some of the Bishops and Clergy had promisedto them in their addresses to King James.”[162]

After the Royal Commission—a commission which spoke of rites andceremonies as “indifferent and alterable”—authorizing the Convocationto proceed to business had been read, and after the delivery of aRoyal message full of gracious expressions, conveyed by the Earl ofNottingham, the Bishops prepared an address. In this address theythanked His Majesty for the zeal he had shown “for the Protestantreligion in general, and the Church of England in particular.”[163] Tothese words a strong objection was taken by the Lower House. First,[142]they claimed a right to present an address of their own, which beingdisallowed, they claimed a right to offer amendments. They wished theaddress to be confined to what concerned the Church of England, and nomention to be made of the Protestant religion in general. An amendmentbeing carried to that effect, there followed a conference between thetwo Houses—Burnet representing the Upper, Jane the Lower. The LowerHouse desired the words “Established Church” to be employed, which ledto a dispute between the Bishop and the Prolocutor. The Bishop argued,that the Church of England as established was only distinguished fromother Churches by its hierarchy and revenues, and that if Popery wererestored there would still be an Established Church of England. TheProlocutor replied, that the Church was distinguished by its Articles,Liturgy, and Homilies.

The discussion between these two Divines resembled that between thetwo knights who could not agree about the device on a shield, becausethe first looked at it on one side and the second on the other. Thefact is, that the disputants were thinking of different things. Burnetwas thinking only of the circumstance of an Establishment—of thatwhich is a mere incident to any Church connected with the State; soconsidering the question, no doubt he was right. Jane, on the otherhand, was thinking of the Church itself, and not the establishmentof it. Consequently he was wrong in saying what he did of the Churchas established, though he would have been right had Burnet used thedisputed words in the sense in which Jane was employing them. Thelogomachy terminated in a compromise; and the two Houses concurred inthanking William for the zeal he had expressed concerning the honour,peace, advantage, and establishment of the English Church, whereby theydoubted not[143] the interest of the Protestant religion, which in allother Protestant Churches was dear to them, would be the better secured.

The King, in reply, assured the Bishops, that they might depend on hisformer promises, and he gave a new assurance that he would improve alloccasions and opportunities for serving the Church of England. Therealso occurred in this Convocation, debates about proxies, complaintsrespecting the custody of Convocation records, and charges broughtagainst the publication of books on the Athanasian Creed, contraryto the Canons. We are informed that a reverend person made a uselessspeech on behalf of the Bishops under suspension, wishing thatsomething could be done to qualify them for sitting in Convocationwithout endangering the constitution of the Assembly; and Burnet tellsus that the majority in Convocation refused to consider any compromisewith the Dissenters, one argument being that it was derogatory to theChurch to make overtures to them until they expressed a desire forreconciliation, and either offered proposals themselves, or showed awillingness 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 toConvocation, but nothing important was effected in any way. Convocationadjourned on the 16th of December through successive prorogations, andremained inoperative for ten years.

The periods prescribed by the Act which altered the Oaths ofAllegiance—first for the suspension, and next for the ejectment ofthose who refused to swear—were the 1st of August, 1689, and the 1stof February, 1690.

In the early part of the year events occurred which increased theimportance of exacting the prescribed oaths.

James left France in the month of March, 1689. Rumour ran that he hadreached England, that he was in London, that he was secretly lodged inthe house of Lloyd, the Nonjuror.[165] This proved to be a mistake. Helanded at Kinsale in Ireland, trusting to his friends, and saying, “Iwill recover my own dominions with my own subjects, or perish in theattempt.” The French King speeded the parting guest with the equivocalcompliment, “The best wish I can form for your service is, that I maynever see you again.”[166] But with the people of Ireland James foundlittle favour—the Protestants disliking him as a Papist, the Papistssuspecting him because they considered his policy towards Protestantstoo lenient.[167] In support[145] of his attempt to recover the crown, hisarmy laid siege to Londonderry, and the French navy skirmished with anEnglish 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 Irishsubjects, exhorting them to support his claims.

Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, who after the revocation of theEdict of Nantes had witnessed the demolition of his church, and haddared one night, at the request of his congregation, to preach amidstthe ruins, was for the offence sentenced to be broken on the wheel.Having effected his escape from France, he happened, at the time ofJames’ arrival in Ireland, to be an exile there. One of the firstthings done by this Royal friend of religious liberty was to deliverthe refugee to the Ambassador of Louis, who had him conveyed home toundergo his sentence.[168]

Copies of James’ Declaration were circulated in England, and foundtheir way to Cambridge. One Thomas Fowler, from the University, stoodat the bar of the House of Commons on the 20th of June, to statethat the documents came down in boxes, directed to the Masters ofQueen’s and St. John’s; and one of the Burgesses for the Universityacquainted the House that the boxes were in the custody of theVice-Chancellor.[169]

The Government in England, with their elected Sovereign, was challengedto submit to the cashiered King, or to hold their own by force ofarms. The gauntlet being[146] thrown down before the world, no alternativeremained but for William to return to Holland, or to fight out thecontest as best he could. The position in which these circumstancesplaced him in reference to the Nonjurors is obvious. Personally he hadno disposition to come to extremities with them; he had given proof ofa desire to treat them with the utmost leniency; but the exigencies ofhis position rendered it indispensable that at this moment he shouldbe unyielding towards all justly suspected of disaffection. Of thedisaffection of the Nonjurors there could be no doubt. They refused totake 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 betterthan a usurper.

Three nonjuring Prelates died in the course of the spring and summer.Cartwright, the semi-Popish Bishop of Chester, after joining James atSt. Germains, accompanied him to Ireland, where on the 15th of Aprilhe expired, having received on his death-bed the sacrament and theabsolution of the Church of England, instead of conforming to Rome,as at the time he was reported to have done.[170] Thomas, Bishop ofWorcester, died June the 25th, solemnly declaring on his death-bedthat, if his heart did not deceive him, and the grace of God failedhim not, he thought he could burn at a stake before he would takethe new oath.[171] Lake, Bishop of Chichester, followed Thomas tothe grave in the month of August, expressing satisfaction with thecourse which he had pursued, and declaring his conviction that theoaths were inconsistent with the doctrine of passive obedience, whichhe maintained to be[147] a doctrine of the English Church.[172] Thesetestimonies, hallowed by the solemnity of death, were heirlooms forthe Nonjurors, who preserved them with care, and exhibited them withreverence, not without considerable effect in promoting their cause.

The Prelates who had not sworn, persistently continued to refuse theoaths; the Primate being reproached with his inconsistency for the parthe had taken in the Revolution. He was insolently told by a Jacobitecorrespondent in Holland, “Your Grace has forfeited your neck alreadyin signing that traitorous Declaration at Guildhall, wherein you castoff your allegiance to your lawful Sovereign, and applied yourself tothe Prince of Orange.”[173] Free to discharge their functions up to the1st of August, 1689, the Bishops were then suspended from the exerciseof them. Still they enjoyed their benefices, and continued to residein their palaces. The interim was filled up by the defence of theiropinions. Sancroft, following the bent of his disposition, shut himselfup at Lambeth, retaining impracticable views of a Regency, refusing toacknowledge William and Mary, combining good intentions with narrownessof mind, and saying to the last, with Pius the IX. at Rome,Nonpossumus. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, unfortunately sympathizedwith the Archbishop, and encouraged him in his policy. Ken—a fardifferent man, firm in principle, of a tender conscience, yet open to[148]conviction, careless about his interests, only anxious to do what wasright—almost resolved to submit. But, after a night’s rest, he saidto Dr. Hooper, who had pressed submission upon him, “I question notbut that you, and several others, have taken the oaths with as good aconscience as myself shall refuse them; and sometimes you have almostpersuaded me to comply by the arguments you have used; but I beg youto use them no further, for should I be persuaded to comply, and aftersee reason to repent, you would make me the most miserable man in theworld.”[174]

Turner, Bishop of Ely, another of the nonjuring band, whose characterhas been indicated already, whose Jacobitism is unquestionable, andwho supported the Archbishop in his defiant course, wrote to him onAscension Day, 1689, a letter in which he refers to Ken, and thedoubts felt respecting him. “I must needs say, the sooner we meet ourbrother of Bath the better, for I must no longer in duty conceal fromyour Grace—though I beseech you to keep it in terms of a secret—thatthis very good man is, I fear, warping from us, and the trueinterests of the Church of England, towards a compliance with the newGovernment.”[175]

Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, coincided with Ken in his moderation;and if the rest had resembled them, possibly a practical adjustmentof the controversy might have been reached. He is described as agentle, amiable man, unfitted for an Episcopal position during a seasonof political trouble. After his deprivation he pursued a quiet andinoffensive course, without giving any umbrage to the Government.[176]Sancroft, Lloyd, and Turner were men of a different mould.

During the period of the Bishops’ remaining in suspension, their caseexcited immense interest—friends loudly expressing sympathy, opponentsloudly expressing disapproval. The press was employed. Apologieswere published; answers were returned. On the one hand the servicesof the Seven in the cause of liberty were gratefully rehearsed,their sufferings pitifully depicted, their temper under trialsenthusiastically extolled, and the sacredness of oaths, as asserted intheir conduct, earnestly enforced. Connected with this vindication andeulogy, were mystical allusions to the perfect number of the Episcopalconfessors, the Seven imprisoned being irreverently compared to theburning lamps before the throne of God. On the other hand, this playof fancy met with sarcasm and ridicule; the old arguments for thenew oaths came into hackneyed use; the patient temper of the Bishopsfailed to excite any longer much admiration, and a ridiculous panegyricpronounced upon them for “the holy tears” they wept, like “trees ofsovereign[150] balm, to cure the wounds of their Royal enemy,” only arousedmockery, whilst their suffering and services were depreciated by areference to the story of Alexander the Great. Alexander had coatsof armour made for men and horses three times the ordinary size, andleft behind on the banks of the River Indus, to make succeeding agesbelieve that his soldiery were of gigantic bigness. So, it was said,the setting forth a few days’ imprisonment in the Royal palace ofthe Tower,—under the notion of its being a prison such as confinedthe primitive Christians,—detracted from the real glory gained bythe Bishops, since everybody saw the vast disproportion between thedungeons of Diocletian and the Tower of London.[177]

As the 1st of February approached, a few Clergymen in the archdeaconryof Sudbury applied to their Diocesan, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, tellinghim that though they thought of nothing less than losing all, yet theypassionately desired to know whether they should voluntarily leavetheir respective cures, or wait to be forcibly thrust out; also theywished to know how they were to behave, so as, if possible, to preservethe ancient Church of England. He informed them that in the opinionof eminent lawyers a judicial sentence alone could eject them; andtherefore that they might retain possession until they were judiciallyexpelled. Their second question he left unanswered.[178] WhetherLloyd’s notion of[151] law was right or wrong, the Clergy generally did notact upon it, for most of them quietly quitted possession on the 1stof February.[179] Amongst the most distinguished of these Nonjurorswere George Hickes, Dean of Worcester; Henry Dodwell, who, thoughnot in orders, was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford;Jeremy Collier, Lecturer at Gray’s Inn; and John Kettlewell, Vicar ofColeshill, in Warwickshire.

Hickes was a man of great learning, skilled both in patristic lore andTeutonic tongues. He was brother to the Nonconformist Minister of thename, who suffered death after Monmouth’s rebellion; but, so far frombeing tainted with his brother’s sentiments, he was an intense opponentof Nonconformity, and an extravagant assertor of passive obedience.He published the last speeches of two Presbyterian Ministers, underthe title ofThe Spirit of Popery, speaking out of the Mouths ofFanatical Protestants; and declared, in hisThebæan Legion,that if King James should imitate the Emperor Maximian, and doom hissoldiers to death, for refusing to commit idolatry, it would be theirduty to submit with meekness to the Royal decree. He wrote lettersto a Popish priest, and an apologetical vindication of the EnglishChurch, in answer to those who reproached her with heresy and schism;and he also composed a book, entitledSpeculum Beatæ Virginis, adiscourse of the due praise and heroism of the Virgin Mary. Theseworks indicate what manner of man he must have been, yet it is affirmedthat at first he felt disposed to take the oaths, and came up to Londonfor the purpose, but swerved from it through the influence of his HighChurch friends; a statement which seems very improbable.[180] Dodwellwas still more[152] learned than Hickes, and if in his theories moreabsurd, he was in practice more reasonable. Some of his speculativeideas upon marriage and music, upon the old serpent and the human soul,were as extraordinary as any that ever entered the human brain; butthe fact which more immediately relates to my purpose is, that on theone hand he wroteDiscourses against the Romanists, and on theother hand treatises uponSchism andOne Priesthood, insuch a style, that when Tillotson read the MS. he told him some thingsin it were so palpably false, he wondered the author did not see theirabsurdity, and that they were so gross as to grate much upon one’sinward sense. He compared him to Richard Baxter—a man unlike him inmost respects, but whom he resembled in pertinacity of purpose andfondness for his own opinion. Collier was described in his own day asa breathing library, and for metaphysical learning and eloquence asbearing the bell from most men.[181]

Inferior to Collier in point of ability, and to Dodwell and Hickes inpoint of learning, Kettlewell exceeded them in the fervour of his pietyand in the force of his character. Eminently spiritual and devout, withhis heart fixed upon another world, he threw into his life and ministrya spiritual force, which touched as with an electric spark those whocame in contact with him, and made him a centre of power, though he wasfree from any ambition to become a party leader. He had been Chaplainin the Bedford family, and had been held in affectionate esteem byLord William Russell, though he utterly differed from him in politicalopinion, for Kettlewell strongly maintained the doctrine of passiveobedience. He did not join in the outcry against Popery in the reignof James II.; he thought it[153] betrayed unworthy fears to be so alarmedat the antagonism of error; and instead of preaching against Romanism,he enforced the doctrines of the Creeds. When others were exclaimingagainst the miscarriages of Government, he, it is said, turned thethoughts of his hearers upon themselves, bidding them contemplatethe judgment of God, adore His wisdom, and submit to His will.[182]The use which he meant to be made of these religious reflections wasto reconcile people to the ruling powers, and to repress the idea ofresisting them, whatever might be the excesses to which they ran. “Hepreached up,” as his sympathizing biographer, remarks, “the dutiesof common Christianity and of universal obligation, of reliance uponProvidence, of simplicity and sincerity, of fidelity and perseverance,with all the branches of the great doctrine of the Cross, and thebenefit which the Church maketh by sufferings; constantly recommendingChristianity to his flock as a passive religion, and giving them rulesfor begetting in them a meek and passive spirit.”[183] The temperof the man, the tone of his churchmanship, and the preparation hewas 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 setof Communion plate had been presented to the church at Coleshill, hecaused the vessels to be dedicated by Archbishop Sancroft. They wereplaced upon a table below the altar steps, and then taken, piece bypiece, and reverently placed upon the altar, sentences of Scripturesbeing repeated in connection with the presentation of each. When thepatten, the chalices, the flagon, and the bason had been so offered,a prayer of consecration[154] followed, then a benediction, and then theHoly Communion.[184] Kettlewell is described as a man of a peaceabledisposition; but it is clear from his Memoirs that the ardour of hisaffections led him to speak and act with a vehemence not agreeableto those who differed from him, and “the true effigies” of his faceprefixed to the book, confirms the inference which in this respect mustbe drawn from the narrative. He was unquestionably a man of enthusiasm,and his enthusiasm had a capacity for becoming fanatical.

The Nonjurors were not so numerous as Kettlewell and others wished.Only six joined him in his own county. In the diocese of Lichfield andCoventry there might be twenty. In one archdeaconry in the diocese ofNorwich there might be half that number, owing to the influence of anonjuring Bishop. In one College at Cambridge there was a considerablemajority of Nonjurors, attributable to the party spirit they managed tomaintain. Altogether, about 400 Clergymen quitted the Establishment.When we remember how prevalent had been the doctrines of the Divineright 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 Nonjurorswere not more numerous.

Dignitaries were not so submissive as their inferior brethren. Indefiance of the Act of Parliament, nonjuring Bishops retained theirpalaces; and so lenient was the Government, that, at the eleventh hour,forms of proviso were proposed, under which Nonjurors might[155] continueto enjoy their benefices. The suspicion with which all such overturesof kindness were regarded appears in a letter to Sancroft written byLloyd, the Coryphæus of the obstinates:

This secession from the Church on a question touching the Crowncould not but be a trouble to William; at the same time he had othertroubles. The intrigues and trials between Whigs and Tories were theplague of his reign. He wished he were a thousand miles away, and thathe had never become King of England. He thought he could not trust theTories—he resolved he would not trust the Whigs; and once he was onthe point of going back to Holland, leaving the Government here in thehands of the Queen. He and his Ministers had warm debates, and it issaid that amongst them tears were shed. At last William made up hismind to go to Ireland, and there put an end to the war.[186]

He assembled a new Parliament on the 2nd of April. Terrific excitementprevailed at the elections. The Whigs denounced the Tories asJacobites, and the Jacobites as Papists. The Tories denounced the Whigsas Republicans, Fanatics, Latitudinarians, and Atheists. The Tories hadthe best of it, and returned a majority. Four Tories were declared tobe at the head of the poll for the City of London. Prominent and noisyWhigs were excluded from their old seats; liberal men, disgusted at theexcesses of their own party, voted on the other side; even Sir IsaacNewton declined a contest at Cambridge, and recorded his name in favourof Sir Robert Sawyer, who had been expelled from the Whig Convention.Yet in spite of defeats, the Whigs took heart and concocted[157] plans,hoping to frustrate the opposite policy. This subject, however, it isnot necessary to pursue, neither need we describe the changes whichtook place in the Ministry. Before the Revolution, the conduct of theMinistry affected most materially the affairs of the Church and thecondition of Dissenters; after the passing of the Allegiance Act, theChurch was little affected by the policy of the Government, exceptas connected with Convocation; still less did that policy touch theDissenters after the passing of the Toleration Act.

In anticipation of the Irish campaign, a national fast was fixed forthe 12th of March, when prayers were offered for the personal safety ofWilliam. Immediately afterwards, a form of prayer of a very differentdescription was printed and circulated. It referred to England as ina state of religious apostacy, and it sought the restoration of Jameswithout mentioning him by name. He was referred to as the stone whichthe 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, “Givethe King the necks of his enemies;” “Raise him up friends abroad;” “Dosome mighty thing for him, which we, in particular, know not how topray for.”[187]

This inflammatory performance under a devout disguise arousedindignation, and numbers of the adherents of William ascribed itscomposition to the Nonjurors. The excitement against the Bishops ofthat 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 theDissenters, now happily out of their clutches.” The new prayers arecalled[158] the Bishop’s “Great Guns;” and Ken is alluded to as a fellowwho had eaten King William’s bread. The most shameful passage is onein which, under a covert allusion to the massacre of the De Witts inAmsterdam, a violent assault upon the individuals abused is obviouslysuggested.[188]

The Bishops published a vindication of themselves, denying that theyhad any share in the recent form of prayer, or that they had anyknowledge as to who were the writers. In reference to the attack uponthem 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, toreturn him good for evil, and recommended him to the Divine mercy.”They had all, they went on to declare, actually or virtually, hazardedwhatever they possessed in opposing Popery and arbitrary power; andwere still ready to sacrifice their very lives in the same noble cause.In conclusion, they lamented the misfortune that they were unable topublish full and particular replies to the many libels which wereindustriously circulated by enemies, to the injury of their reputation.The authorship of the prayers being denied by the Bishops, it wasattributed to Hickes, or to Sherlock, or to Kettlewell; on theirbehalf a protest was entered against such a suspicion in the Life ofthe last of these persons; but some sympathy with the New Liturgyitself is betrayed by the writer, when, without any condemnatory orqualifying remark, he calls it “as solemn and expressive as any couldwell be;” nor does he hint at its being the work of Roman Catholics—anorigin which, by some writers, has been suggested without sufficientreason.[189]

On the 1st of July, 1690, the memorable Battle of the Boyne wasfought and won by William III. He received a slight wound; and thatslight wound created an unexampled sensation throughout England andthe cities and courts of Europe. A letter conveying the intelligencereached 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 outof her senses with trouble one day, she was out of her senses withjoy the next, to find the injury turned out to be very slight.[190]Paris, at first frantic with exultation on hearing of the supposeddeath of the great enemy of France, sunk into rageful disappointmentto find that he was still alive, and ready to fight further battles insupport of Protestantism. Strange as it may appear—but the strangecombinations of European parties and politics at that time will accountfor it—the tidings of the wound brought no joy to Rome, any more thanto Austria.[191] Both were reassured by a true report of the fate ofWilliam. “No mortal man,” said Tillotson, “ever had his shoulder sokindly kissed by a cannon bullet;” a felicitous tune of expression,[160]which even South, with all his prejudice against Tillotson, could notfail to admire.[192]

Whilst the battle was raging on the banks of the Boyne, a sea fightoccurred off the Sussex coast; an English Bishop, in sympathy withhis Royal master, was performing his sacred functions in the vicinityof the latter of these conflicts; and an extract from his Diary inreference 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 onThursday went towards Hastings, and heard by the way that the Frenchwere burning that town. But we resolved to go on, being invited tolie at Sir Nicholas Pelham’s, whose house was not many miles from it.He was gone thither with other country gentlemen; the French havingattempted to burn some ships that were run on ground there. He sent usword the town was safe, but he could not come home that night. At sixin the morning he came, and said there was no danger, but the town wasin such confusion that it would be to no purpose to go thither. Forthe churches were full of soldiers, who lay there all night, and thestreets full of country people, and all the women frighted away andfled, so that there were none left to dress any victuals. He invitedus therefore to stay with him, and entertained us most kindly. But myChancellor, Dr. Briggs, all on a sudden started up, and would go toHastings, and about noon word was brought us some of the Clergy werethere; which made me condemn myself for not going with him, though Ifollowed the best advice I could get. And afterward it appeared to bethe best; for though some of the clergy appeared, there was no placewherein to visit them;[161] and besides it might have proved dangerous: fortwo men were killed with a cannon bullet in the very next house to thatwhere my Chancellor sat; which made him run away in haste before he haddone his business, and (as I remember) left some of his books behindhim.”[193]

The Battle of the Boyne led to an important clerical conversion.William Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had distinguished himself inthe reign of James II., not only by his zeal in contending againstPopery, but also by his decision in maintaining the principle ofnon-resistance. He strongly disapproved of the turn which affairstook at the Revolution, and advocated negotiations with the exiledMonarch, in reference to his being restored upon terms which wouldpreserve constitutional liberty. The accession of the Prince andPrincess of Orange inspired indignation, and the new oaths were by himunhesitatingly declined. He threw in his lot with the Nonjurors, whoregarded his talents with respect and his character with admiration;and they esteemed the support of a man so popular as a tower ofstrength. After losing the Mastership of the Temple, he retired intoprivate life, and, pensive amidst misfortunes, wrote and published hiscelebrated treatise on Death. Still he deprecated schism; disapprovedof the establishment of any Episcopal sect; advised those who couldconscientiously remain, not to forsake their parish churches; and evenofficiated himself at St. Dunstan’s, actually reading the prayersfor William and Mary. When the Battle of the Boyne decided the fateof the exile, and secured peace for the occupants of the throne,Sherlock looked at things in another light, became reconciled to therevolutionary[162] settlement, and took the oaths which he had beforerefused. As a consequence, he returned to the Mastership of the Temple,and also received the Deanery of St. Paul’s, vacated by Tillotson’selevation to Canterbury. So prominent a man on the nonjuring side,could not pass through such a conversion without giving some reasonsfor it; accordingly he wrote a book, which he entitled,The Case ofthe Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers stated and resolved according toScripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England.

Sancroft, soon after the Revolution, published what was calledBishop Overall’s Convocation Book, written in the reign of JamesI., containing certain conclusions respecting Ecclesiastical and CivilGovernment, one of which, notwithstanding the current tone of thebook in favour of non-resistance, is to the effect, that a Governmentoriginating in rebellion, when thoroughly settled, should be reverencedand obeyed as “being always God’s authority, and therefore receiving noimpeachment by the wickedness of those that have it.” The Convocationsof Canterbury and York had endorsed the contents of Overall’s volume;and, by a canon, distinctly condemned the doctrine that a Governmentbegun by rebellion, after being thoroughly settled, is not of God.[194]Sherlock made a good deal out of this, and said he should havecontinued to stick at the oaths, had he not been relieved by Overall’sbook, and had not the venerable authority of a Convocation given him afreedom of thinking, which the apprehensions of novelty and singularityhad cramped before.[195] He did not consider, as is sometimesrepresented, that the Bishop and Convocation settled the matter, andthat[163] he was to submit as a child to the authoritative decree; but thata door had been thereby opened to the sons of the Church to look atthe matter;[196] and that he, having been thus induced to examine itafresh, had for various reasons, which he assigns—some of which, itmust be acknowledged, run counter to his previous publications on thesubject[197]—arrived at the conclusion that he could conscientiouslytake the required vow. A terrible storm assailed him after this.Argument, satire, and abuse, sometimes in vulgar prose, sometimes indoggerel rhyme, descended in torrents upon his devoted head. Nonjurorsreviled him on the one side; Revolutionists on the other; and peoplewho did not care for either side joined in the old English cry againstturncoats and time-servers.[164] Most people maintained he had changedfor the sake of loaves and fishes; and, as Mrs. Sherlock had madeherself very notorious, and was said to have had immense influenceover her husband, she caught a terrible pelting from a literary mob,who assailed her as Xanthippe, Delilah, and Eve, all in one. Sherlockhad to pay the penalty, which men, whose new opinions jump in thesame direction as their pecuniary interests, must ever pay; but humanmotives, whether good or evil, lie so far beneath the surface, that thereading of them by even honest historians may widely differ from thereading of them by the only Omniscient One. Contemporaries were toomuch involved in party strife to take an unbiassed view of Sherlock’sconduct; and writers since have scarcely been able to free themselvesfrom prejudices handed down by the pamphlets of that day. The gravefeature of the case affecting the reputation of the Master and Dean,is to be found, not in the new application of a principle which hehad long held; but in the repudiation of his old principles, just atthe moment when the Battle of the Boyne had destroyed all prospectof James’ restoration—the chance upon which, as Sherlock’s enemiesbelieved, he had ventured hopes of high preferment, during the time ofcasting in his lot with the poor Nonjurors.[198]

The Battle of the Boyne having established the Revolution, and with itthe throne of William, the people who had hailed him as their Delivererbecame more than ever impatient towards all who remained disaffectedtowards his Government.

Lloyd, the nonjuring Bishop of Norwich, a friend,[165] adviser, andcorrespondent of Sancroft, not being one of the illustrious Seven,had never shared in that halo of confessorship which for awhile hadplayed around their sacred heads; but he had long been, and was stillmore than ever, regarded as an obstinate, violent, and intriguingChurchman, bent upon overthrowing the new Sovereign, and bringing backto Whitehall the exiled King. His politics, not his religion, made himunpopular; and his letters to his archiepiscopal friend, written in thesummer of 1690, betray the fact, that whatever might be the dislikeof the London populace to nonjuring Bishops in general, a feeling ofhatred prevailed against him in particular, and threatened his securityin one of the most unaristocratic districts of the Metropolis.

“I was yesterday,” he wrote on the 5th of August, “forced to a suddenflight, being alarmed by the rabble, who began to appear at theirReformation work in Old Street. I had a message from a good friend lastSaturday, which assured me that the rabble would be up in a short time.And on Friday, my housekeeper (being among some of her relations inCripplegate) brought me word, that the fanatics talked bitterly againstthe Bishops, and would shortly call them to an account.

“About 9 of the clock yesterday, Mr. Edwards, of Eye, and anothergentleman, called upon me, and told me they saw about 150 of the mobvery busy in pulling down of houses in Old Street. Within a few minutesthe hawker which sells pamphlets brought the same tidings, and, inregard the dangerous crew were so near, I sent forthwith one of my mento see how the affair went abroad, and another to fetch me a hackneycoach, into which I got with my wife and child, and straightway tooksanctuary in the Temple. From thence I sent for further information,and found that the crew in Old[166] Street was dispersed; partly by JusticeParry coming among them and taking their names and threatening themwith informations; and chiefly by a company of the train-bands, who inthat nick of time passed that way to muster in the fields.

“About four in the afternoon I returned to my house and found all quietin the way. If the rabble had continued I would not have failed to sendnotice to your Grace; and, on the other hand, I resolved not to send aconfused uncertain alarm. God be praised, this scarecrow is over, andI hope God will still deliver us from the bloody fangs of cruel saintsand scoundrels.”[199]

Six months later the popular fury against men of Lloyd’s order wasbeing fanned afresh, and again he told his sorrows to his old friend:

“Your Grace will see by the enclosed papers how the mob are encouragedto bring some under their discipline: their wrath is cruel, and theirmalice as keen as razors, but God defend the innocent from their rage.

“There is also published a most devilish Atheistical satire against theClergy in general, but more especially against poor Nonjurors. I thinkno age hath seen the like of it,—it’s called a Satire against thePriests.”[200]

Nonjurors lived on both sides the Irish Channel. Soon after the battlewhich decided the fate of James, though it did not crush the hopes andschemes of his supporters, William had his attention called to therefusal of the Bishop of Ossory to pray for him in public worship. “HisMajesty’s command,” said the Secretary of State to the delinquent, “is,that your Lordship be suspended till further order. I know not theterms, being here in a[167] camp, that are used in things of this nature;but I acquaint your Lordship of His Majesty’s present resentment, andcan say no more till I hear from your Lordship herein.”[201] Nonjurorson this side of the Channel, however, gave much more trouble than theydid on the other.

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 hadbeen drawn up at St. Germains, and who retained his seals of officein spite of the Revolution. Secret conferences were held amongst theEnglish Jacobites, and as the result, Lord Preston, with a Mr. Ashtonand another companion, were despatched with treasonable papers to theex-King; but ere they had passed Tilbury Fort, in a smack which wasto convey them to the shores of France, they were seized and broughtback to London. Preston and Ashton were tried, convicted, and condemnedat the Old Bailey. Ashton was executed; Preston was pardoned. Asthey lay under sentence of death, the sympathies of the Nonjurorseagerly gathered round them, and the following letter from twowell-known members of the party, to Sancroft—who still lingered in hisArchiepiscopal Palace on the banks of the Thames—shows how earnestlythey sought to enlist his offices:—

Turner, Bishop of Ely, was charged with complicity in Preston’streasonable business, and two suspicious letters were produced, saidto be in the Prelate’s handwriting; but I cannot find evidence oftheir authorship, or any proof in their contents justifying a chargeof 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 ofhumour,—which occasionally illumined his misfortunes,—spoke ofhis friend as resembling Paul’s ship of Alexandria, which carrieda well-known sign upon its prow, or beak. Hence, though London wasa great wood, it would be hard for one with such a face, howeverdisguised by a patriarchal beard, or by a huge peruke, to escapedetection.[203] It is not a[169] little remarkable that, though the deposedPrimate prayed for his friend’s safety, he expressed no convictionof his friend’s innocence. The Nonjurors, as we have seen, had beentreated with consideration and kindness. Though forfeiting their Seesin February, 1690, after which successors were nominated, the Prelatesof the party were allowed to retain their palaces; and even as lateas April, 1691, attempts were made by friends of the Government tocompromise matters with them, in spite of the increased odium cast ontheir order by Turner’s conduct: it was proposed that, at least, theyshould disavow all share in the alleged conspiracy, but Sancroft woulddo nothing of the kind, easy and reasonable as such a concession seemed.

There remained no alternative but to eject the disaffected, and toinduct loyal successors. As the crisis approached, questions wereraised and discussed by Nonjurors, touching the treatment of thoseso inducted. Lloyd, Sancroft’s busy correspondent, now wrote to sayhow perplexed he felt; for, extreme as might be his views, they weresurpassed by the views of others. He reported that they asked, whatthey should do in case they appeared at any of the new Episcopalelections,—should they oppose them? From such a proposal he shrunk,for to carry it out might incur apremunire. Further, heinquired whether for him to recommend their absenting themselveswould not be cowardly? Nonplussed by these problems, he despondinglyadded, “What, then, is to be done? Here I stick.” His friend Wagstaffeinformed him, some had resolved to resist all Erastian intrusion,and expected the displaced Bishops would assert their rights. Lloydgrew testy at such an excess of zeal, and wished to know what theself-appointed critics would advise the Prelates to do? Had not thosevery critics[170] submitted to deprivation? Of what use would it be fortheir superiors to do otherwise?[204]

“May it please your Grace,” wrote the indefatigable Lloyd, “I had lastSaturday a fit opportunity to discourse with Sir Edward Entwich aboutthevexatio questio, and found him—upon consideration of thewhole matter—to be of the same opinion with Mr. N—— th. The firstquestion that I proposed was, whether it was advisable for us to keeppossession till we were ejected by legal processes; his answer was, wemight, if we judged it meet, dispute the possession; but then, saithhe, you must at last expect to be outed, and to pay the costs andcharges of the suit, and to be called to Westminster Hall, and perhapselsewhere, to answer hard questions, and that with all rigour. I thenasked whether he would advise us so to do, and appear for us, and drawpleas as occasions offered? To this his answer was, that he knew not towhat purpose we should put ourselves to fruitless trouble; for, saithhe, if a happy turn should come, all the proceedings against you willbe out of doors. This is the sum of our discourse.”

He adds a paragraph respecting a Nonjuror whose Jacobitism had plungedhim into serious danger:

“I saw Dr. B[ea]ch last week, who hopes shortly to be at liberty, or atleast to be abroad upon bail.

“It was well for him that the informer blundered in his depositionsagainst him, and indeed, so did the justices who took the information;for there is not in the deposition any express mention of the time orplace, when and where the Doctor said, thatthe same power which putour Saviour on the pinnacle of the Temple, put William and[171] Mary uponthe throne; but I am told that there are other informations againsthim. His successor has broke into his Church in his absence, and gotpossession in his absence, and this is a very great trouble to the Dr.

“I hear that Mr. Dean of Worcester begins to appear again, and hopesthat the storm will blow over him. I heartily wish it may,sed timeoDanaos; for commonly they are not so generous.”[205]

The Dean of Worcester here referred to was Dr. Hickes. A little morethan a fortnight before Lloyd’s letter was written, the Dean drew upa protest against his own ejectment, addressed to the Sub-Dean andPrebendaries, idly declaring the appointment of a successor to beillegal, and as idly calling upon them to defend the rights of thedispossessed. This protesting ended in smoke. Hickes and Wagstaffe, aswell as Lloyd, had to succumb; so had Frampton of Gloucester, and Whiteof Peterborough. Sancroft yielded only to a legal process; and at last,on Midsummer eve, between seven and eight o’clock, accompanied by thesteward of his household and three other friends, he entered a boat atLambeth ferry, which conveyed the little party to the Temple stairs,where the deprived Primate sought shelter for a few days in PalsgraveCourt. One imagines, as amidst the lengthening shadows on the watersthat same night he left for ever the towers of the familiar palace, hewould cast “one longing, lingering look behind.” But history preservesa more touching picture of the departure of Ken from the city of Wells.

After he had from his pastoral chair in the Cathedral asserted hisCanonical right to remain Bishop of the Diocese, he passed throughthe gardens and crossed the[172] drawbridge over the moat, whilst old andyoung 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 stationto dependence and poverty, as the morning sun shone on the turretedchapel, we naturally imagine he may have shed only one tear, whenlooking back on those interesting scenes. Perhaps his eye might haverested on the pale faces of some of the poor old men and women who hadpartaken their Sunday dinner so often, and heard his discourse in theold hall.”[206]

Dr. Beveridge, who will be more particularly noticed hereafter, wasoffered the See of Bath and Wells; but he was threatened by theNonjurors, in case he should accept the offer, with the fate ofschismatical usurpers, like Gregory and George of Cappadocia, whoinvaded the See of Alexandria, upon the deposition of the orthodoxAthanasius.

A rumour went abroad that the Archdeacon of Colchester had accepted amitre, in consequence of which friends pestered him with letters forhis suspected act, and turned against him his reputation for learningand loyalty. Dr. Lowth prematurely addressed him under an Episcopaltitle, and expostulated with him in the following terms:—

Whether or not such rebukes and warnings prevented Beveridge fromaccepting the vacant See, at all events he declined it, and remained aPresbyter till after the death of William.

Nonconformists regarded the Revolution with thankfulness. Williamwas, in their eyes, a Heavensent deliverer, and at weekly and monthlyfasts they joined in prayer, that God’s blessing might rest on hisforces,[208] which they regarded as being at war with Babylon. It issaid that had the London Dissenters been requested to raise a monumentto his memory, they would have provided a statue of gold;[209] andCalamy paints in bright colours their payment of taxes, and heartyintercession for both King and Queen. He also alludes to their publicordinations, their loving carriage amongst themselves, and theirfriendly behaviour towards the Established Church. There is truth inwhat he says, and we can conceive how, with memories of ancestraltroubles, he would rise to enthusiastic delight whilst recording theblessings of the Revolution; but truth throws strong shadows amidstthese brilliant hues, and, indeed, he himself, in subsequent portionsof his narrative, makes an abatement in his demands on our admiration.

Mutual charity would have been exemplified if Howe’s advice hadprevailed, for he urged Conformists and Nonconformists[175] not to magnifydiversities of opinion, but to promote the interests of a commonChristianity. “If our rulers,” he adds, “shall judge such intercoursesconducing to so desirable an end, they may perhaps in due time thinkit reasonable to put things into that state, that ministers of bothsorts may be capable of inviting one another occasionally to thebrotherly offices of mutual assistance in each other’s congregations.For which, and all things that tend to make us a happy people, wemust wait upon Him in whose hands their hearts are.”[210] But on manypeople these sentiments fell as idle words; and if by others theywere heard for one moment, the very next they were drowned by thedin of old controversies, or the outburst of new passions. Beautifuland blessed ideals of union to most were as destitute of all charmfor 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 offellowship, yet freedom of intercourse; but then, as always, prejudicesin the many defeated endeavours on the part of a few, and reopenedbreaches when they seemed on the point of being healed.

Death removed some most distinguished Nonconformist Ministers at theera of the Revolution.

John Bunyan, who belongs more to the universal church than to aparticular sect, died, as he had lived, in the Baptist communion.He has come before us in a former volume, not as a leader inecclesiastical affairs, but as a sufferer for conscience’ sake, andas 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 Londonhis “preaching attracted enormous multitudes;” and it was[176] in the citywhich had witnessed his vast popularity that he breathed his last. Aminister of peace, he took a long journey on horseback to extinguishdomestic strife, and on his way afterwards to the Metropolis, broughton a fatal fever, through fatigue and exposure to heavy rains. Thisoccurred in the month of August, 1688, when the throne of James wastottering to its fall, and plans which led to the Revolution were beingformed; probably whisperings of what was to happen to his countryreached Bunyan’s ears in his last hours. Illness overtook him in thehouse of his friend Mr. Strudwick, a grocer on Snow Hill, and justbefore his death he said to his friends, “Weep not for me, but foryourselves. I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, nodoubt, through the mediation of His blessed Son, receive me, though asinner, where I hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song andremain everlastingly happy, world without end.” “He felt the groundsolid under his feet in passing the black river which has no bridge,and followed his pilgrim into the celestial city.” He expired beforethe end of August, and was interred in Bunhill Fields; his church atBedford lamented with unaffected sorrow his loss at the age of 60;and keep the next month days of humiliation and prayer for the heavybereavement they had sustained.[211]

Dr. John Collinges, a Presbyterian, once Vicar of St. Stephen’s,Norwich, died in 1690. He had assisted Pool in hisAnnotations,and written practical as well as controversial works. One of them,entitledThe Weaver’s Pocket-book, or Weaving Spiritualized,was no doubt suggested to him as he had stood watching the loom in thehouse of some industrious parishioner in days[177] when the city of Norwichenjoyed the zenith of its manufacturing industry. He left behind agood reputation, being, as his brethren testified, “a man of variouslearning and excelling as a textuary and a critic, and generallyesteemed for his great industry, humanity, and exemplary piety.”

John Flavel ended his days on the 26th of June, 1691, at Exeter. Hehad, before his death, left the town of Dartmouth, the scene of hislong and zealous ministrations, because the rabble, headed by certainaldermen, in 1685 paraded the town, carrying the good man’s effigy tobe burnt,—an insult he revenged by praying, “Father, forgive them, forthey know not what they do.” With his lively imagination he combinedintense spiritual emotion, and the following story, which he relatesof himself in hisPneumatologia is so curious that, thoughfamiliar from frequent quotation, it deserves to be inserted here. Itexemplifies a phase of spiritual life belonging to an age which haspassed 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 tastesof heavenly joys, and such full assurance of his interest therein, thathe 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 himselffaint from a great loss of blood from his nose, he alighted from hishorse and sat down at a[178] spring, where he washed and refreshed himself;earnestly desiring, if it were the will of God, that he might thereleave the world. His spirits reviving, he finished his journey in thesame delightful frame. And all that night passed without a wink ofsleep, the joy of the Lord still overflowing him, so that he seemed aninhabitant of the other world. After this, an heavenly serenity andsweet peace continued long with him; and for many years he called thatday one of the days of heaven, and professed he understood more of thelife of heaven by it, than by all the discourses he had heard or thebooks he ever read.”[213]

Richard Baxter was an old man at the time of the Revolution, weigheddown by suffering; and the Toleration Act came too late to give scopeto energies which, had the event happened twenty years earlier, wouldhave been ardently spent in tilling the newly-opened fields of labour.Yet, when the adoption of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church wasrequired as the condition of exercising a Nonconformist ministry, thetrembling hand of the veteran theologist could not resist an impulseto write down scholastically the sense in which the Articles were tobe 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, tooknotice of his explication, and at this we are not surprised, as hisexplication contains more in the way of suggestive thought than ofexplicit definition. His metaphysics, warmed by zeal for practicalreligion, appear distinctly in this farewell effort. He has somethingabstruse to say as to the glorified body of Christ, and upon someother points; and he lays down a dictum, often repeated since in awider sense than he specifies, with regard to legislation in Churchand State:[179] “God’s laws are the supreme civil laws, man’s laws arebut by-laws.” He also insists upon the doctrine of the Apostle James,as well as the doctrine of the Apostle Paul; and, after charitablysaying, “all were not accursed that hoped well of Socrates, Antonine,Alexander, Severus, Cicero, Epictetus, Plutarch,” and others, headds, “there is no name, that is, no Messiah, to be saved by, butChrist.”[214]

In a tenement near his friend Sylvester’s, in Charterhouse Square,Baxter spent his last days; and when disabled from preaching in hisfriend’s meeting-house, he preached in his own dwelling, almost dyingin the exercise of his favourite employment. “It would doubtless,”it is said, “have been his joy to have been transfigured on theMount.” “He talked in the pulpit,” as one reports, “with great freedomabout another world, like one who had been there, and was come as asort of express from thence to make report concerning it.” His busypen was employed as long as he could grasp it with his fingers, inwriting something for the benefit of his fellow-men. At last growinginfirmities confined him to his chamber, and then to his bed. There hisvigorous mind “abode rational, strong in faith and hope, arguing itselfinto, and preserving itself in, that patience, hope, and joy, throughgrace.” With unaffected humility he spoke of himself as a sinner worthyof 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 hisworks had produced, he replied, “I was but a pen in God’s hands, andwhat praise is due to a pen?” When extremity of pain constrained himto pray for release, he would check himself with the words, “It[180] isnot fit for me to prescribe;—when Thou wilt, what Thou wilt, andhow Thou wilt!” “Oh! how unsearchable are His ways, and His pathspast finding out; the reaches of His providence we cannot fathom! Donot think the worse of religion for what you see me suffer.” He hadassurance 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 ofthe celestial Church, remarked, that it deserved a thousand thousandthoughts. With characteristic width of sympathy, he spent many of hislast 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—Ihave peace.” The catalogue of his diseases is enough to excite pityin the most inhuman, and our sensibilities are positively torturedby the pathetic descriptions he gives of himself. They illustratethe beautifulness of his oft-quoted answer to the question, How hedid?—“Almost well.” “On Monday, about five in the evening,”says Sylvester, “Death sent his harbinger to summon him away. A greattrembling and coldness awakened nature, and extorted strong cries,which continued for some time;” at length he ceased, waiting inpatient expectation for his change. The gentle cry in the ear of hishousekeeper, “Death, death!” betokened full consciousness at the lastmoment, and turning to thank a friend for his visit, he exclaimed,“The Lord teach you to die.” About four o’clock on the morning ofthe 8th of December, 1691, he had done for ever with the sorrows ofmortality, and entered on the saints’ everlasting rest. His body sleepsin Christchurch beside the ashes of his wife and mother. Many vied indoing honour to his memory. Conformists as well as[181] Nonconformistscarried him to the grave, and made great lamentations over him; a trainof mourning-coaches reached from Merchant Taylors’ Hall—whence thecorpse was carried—to the place of burial.

At the commencement of the year 1692, another of the old Puritans leftthis world. He represented a class which had borne the brunt of thebattle, and who, when the Revolution brought peace, loved to relatestories of sufferings which promoted Dissent, after the severer lawsagainst 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, andDavid Clarkson a Fellow. Under the instructions of the latter, thegownsman became a Puritan, and as, on a Sunday morning, he sat overthe College Gate, in a chamber which he shared in common with youngTillotson, described as “his bed-fellow,” he sometimes observed ahorse, which was brought up for one of the Fellows, who served theliving of Littlington, and which was frequently led away without itsmaster. Pitying the sheep without a shepherd, the young Puritan offeredto supply the neglected parish, where his services were crowned withsignal success. Promoted in 1655 to the Vicarage of Bassingbourne,he became exceedingly popular, and, not content with the effect ofhis sermons, he felt anxious to establish ecclesiastical discipline,and therefore formed a Church upon Congregational principles. At theRestoration things changed. Holcroft was ejected, and the sheep werescattered. He met them as he could, some in one place, some in another;but the circuit of his labours becoming too wide for his failingstrength, he arranged that four members should assist him in pastoralwork. Worship was disturbed by the beating of drums, and the pastor wasimprisoned; but the greater[182] the persecution the more his popularityincreased, and when silenced as a preacher, he sent pastorals roundhis wide rural diocese. For some time the congregations to which heministered, formed of Baptists and Pædobaptists, constituted onlyone Church; but after the Revolution they settled down into distinctcommunities. The memory of Holcroft still lingers in the neighbourhoodof Cambridge, and old barns in which he ministered were pointed outa few years ago. He died on the 6th of January, 1692. Before hisdeparture, spiritual tranquility, awhile disturbed, was happilyrestored, for he died exclaiming, “I know that if the earthly houseof this tabernacle be dissolved, I have a house not made with hands,eternal in the heavens.” He sleeps in a small burial-ground beside thechurchyard of Oakington, four miles from Cambridge. Three flat stonescover the spot hallowed by the remains of two other Nonconformistministers, as well as his own. Over his resting-place are inscribed theappropriate words, “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness ofthe firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the starsfor ever and ever.”

Several others of the ejected died about the period of the Revolution.Veneration for them increased as death swept them away: their virtueswere embalmed; their names were canonized. Collectors of anecdotespublished whatever they could find respecting the departed, sometimesaccompanied by severe reflections upon the old laws which had thrustthem out of the gates of the Establishment. People in Derbyshire weretold that rich as might be their treasures in wool and lead, theshepherds they had lost were more precious than all the flocks grazingon their beautiful hills; and the sermons they had preached werecostlier than all the metals dug out of[183] their capacious mines. Aftera short beadroll of pastors in the county, the writer asks, What hathcast away the shields of the mighty?Uniformity. What hath slainthe beauty of England, and made the mighty fall?Uniformity.What hath despoiled the neck of the Church, like the town of Davidbuilded for an armoury, whereon there hung a thousand bucklers, allshields of mighty men?Uniformity.[215]

It is a curious coincidence that Tillotson, Barrow, and Howe wereall born in the year 1630. Tillotson’s father lived at Sowerby,near Halifax; a respectable clothier, a decided Puritan, a zealousCalvinist, yet at that time an Episcopalian in practice, for he had hischild baptized in the Church of his native village, and a gentleman,afterwards Rector of Thornhill, stood godfather. When this littleboy came to be Archbishop, his Puritan parentage, and the fact ofhis father being a Baptist, occasioned reproach; it was said that hehad never been baptized in any way, and a preacher before the Houseof Commons, after Tillotson’s elevation to the Primacy, is supposedto have alluded to the rumour, when he declared, with more absurditythan wit, that there were fathers of the Church who never were hersons. The register of Sowerby, however, sets that question at rest,showing that he was baptized in the parish church; and another mootpoint touching Tillotson’s ecclesiastical life, namely, whether he wasever episcopally ordained, is now also settled; it appears he receivedordination from a Scotch Bishop—the Bishop of Galloway.[216]

Educated at Cambridge under the Commonwealth by Puritan tutors, heafterwards became identified with the[185] Latitudinarian school ofDivines, but in 1661 we find him amongst the Presbyterians, preachinga 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 heread 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 speakextempore upon a plain text, and one upon which he has five discoursesin his printed works; yet he found himself so much at a loss, “thatafter about ten minutes spent with great pain to himself, and no greatsatisfaction to his audience, he came down with a resolution neverto make the like attempt for the future.”[217] He was successivelyCurate at Cheshunt; Rector of Ketton, or Kedington in the County ofSuffolk; preacher at Lincoln’s Inn; Tuesday Lecturer at St. Lawrence,Jewry; and Canon and Dean of Canterbury. After the Revolution heaccepted the Deanery of St. Paul’s, and his position in reference topublic affairs at that juncture has been noticed already; here itwill be sufficient to trace the steps by which he reached the highestposition in the Church of England. In some way Tillotson had become apersonal favourite with the Prince of Orange, and had been desired topreach before him at St. James’s, soon after his arrival in London.Burnet interested himself zealously on the Dean’s behalf; but, beyondpersonal grounds, the popularity of this Divine as a preacher, hiseminent abilities, his opposition to the policy of the late King,his liberal politics, his desire for Comprehension, his conciliatorytemper, and his moderation in ecclesiastical affairs, recommended himto the new Sovereign as[186] fitted to occupy the post vacated by Sancroft.The very day Tillotson kissed hands on his appointment to the Deaneryin September, 1689, the King told him, in reply to his thanks foran office which had set him at ease for the rest of his life, thatthis was no great matter, for his services would soon be needed inthe highest office of the Church.[218] In February, 1690, Williampressed upon Tillotson the acceptance of the Primacy; of his extremereluctance to accept it there can be no doubt; his conversation withhis Royal Master, his correspondence with Lady Rachel Russell, and hisown private memoranda, prove that if ever a man honestly said,NoloEpiscopari, Tillotson did. What he wrote within a year afterwardsshows that to him the archiepiscopal throne was a bed, not of roses,but of thorns. Thecongé d’élire was issued May the 1st, andhis consecration followed on Whit-Sunday at St. Mary-le-Bow, when thecongregation included some of the principal Whig nobility, and hisprogress along Cheapside was an ovation amidst crowds who admired bothhis eloquence and his liberality.

He took possession of Lambeth Palace in November, 1691, having firstrepaired the building, altered the windows, wainscoted the rooms, anderected a large apartment for his wife, he being one of the earliestArchbishops living there in lawful wedlock.

With congratulations from friends there came insults from foes. Arian,Socinian, Deist, Atheist, were titles bestowed on his Grace; and inallusion to the doubts respecting his baptism, he received the nicknameofUndipped John. His manner of bearing such treatment showedhis proficiency in the Christian virtues of patience and meekness. Oneday, when he was conversing[187] with a gentleman, a servant brought in asealed packet containing a mask. The Archbishop smiled, and said, “Thisis a gentle rebuke, if compared with some others in black and white,”pointing to papers lying on the table. A bundle of letters, found afterhis death, exhibited a memorandum in his own handwriting, “These arelibels. I pray God forgive them; I do.”[219]

It is interesting to follow Sancroft into his retirement. He left theMetropolis—never to see it again—in August, 1691, for Fresingfield, avillage in Suffolk, where his family had been settled for generations,where his ancestors lay buried in the parish church, and where hehimself had been born and baptized. He went down at harvest-time, thesweet air and quiet of the place being, as he said, so preferable tothe smoke and noise of London. Presently we find him busy in buildinga 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 beexpected to begin by St. Bartholomew’s-day—then at hand. He complainsof being weakly, and describes himself as eating bread-and-butter in amorning, and “superbibing a second dish of coffee after it;” waitingto see what that, and time, and native air would do for his health.He gave up pills, and swallowed juniper-berries, and lived upon plainfood, and ate with a keener appetite than he had been accustomed to atLambeth. In the late autumn the new house remained incomplete; therewas winter work to do within doors, paving and flooring, daubing andceiling, plastering, glazing, and wainscoting, making doors and layinghearths; the old tenement, in the meantime, being packed close from endto end with the Bishop, his little household and workmen.[220] The[188]superintendence of building, which appears to have occupied him for atime, presents a strange contrast to previous employments in the Churchand the Palace, the Court and the Council-Board; and the simplicityof Sancroft’s rural life appears simpler still when we think of thepalatial splendour in which he had previously moved. He wished to shutout the world; he sometimes felt like a dead man out of mind; oldfriends dropped off, and tales of sorrow aroused his sympathies; yethe seems, on the whole, to have spent a pleasant time down in Suffolk,although those who disliked his nonjuring principles did what theycould to plague his peace. He was reported to be engaged with some ofhis brethren in plots for the restoration of the exiled Monarch; andSprat, Bishop of Rochester, came under suspicion of the same offence,in consequence of which he was arrested in his orchard at Bromley oneday, whilst quietly working out the heads of a sermon.[221] In the end,these charges of conspiracy proved to be abominable fabrications, whichSprat took care fully to expose.[222] Other Nonjurors were suspected oftreasonable intrigues, and Dean Hickes fell into great trouble. “If thepersons,” it is said in a letter written at the time, “now malignantlyfermented, should find him walking abroad, they would certainly takehim up and bring him forthwith to the King’s Bench, and be ready withan information against him.” The Dean was[189] advised to abscond for thepresent, and so he became, “like the tortoise in winter-time, earthedfor some days.” Dr. Bryan about the same time heard that a warrant hadbeen issued for his apprehension, on account of his having written“flat treason.” “It was advisable for him to step out of the way.” Tendays later, Bishop Lloyd, to whom we are indebted for these snatchesof information, wrote again to the archiepiscopalian recluse, thathe found the Dean had removed his quarters, and desired to be veryprivate, and that messengers were searching for Dr. Bryan.[223]

Sancroft, who escaped arrest because Sprat, when confronted with hisaccusers, exposed their falsehoods, seems to have been more annoyeda few months before by a very different accusation. “The spiritof calumny, the persecution of the tongue, dogs me even into thiswilderness. Dr. Lake, of Garlick Hill, and others, have (as I aminformed) filled your city with a report that I go constantly to thisparish church, and pray for I know not whom, nor how, and receive theHoly Sacrament; so that my cousin had something to do to satisfy evenmy friends that it was quite otherwise.”[224] The fallen Primate’sintense dislike to the Establishment—as bitter as could be manifestedby 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 ecclesiasticalmatters,[225] and inaugurated a voluntary and schismatical EpiscopalianChurch.

At the end of the year 1691 he removed into his new[190] house, and on NewYear’s-day at family worship he officiated himself, “in a very coldroom where there never was a fire.” He would not employ a Chaplain.The preparation and arrangement of Laud’s MSS. for the press, occupieda 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; andwith what wonderful regard and humility he treated those who visitedhim, and particularly myself.” His pious ejaculations were carefullyrecorded by his friends, and we are glad to find him saying to avisitor, “You and I have gone different ways in these late affairs,but I trust heaven’s gates are wide enough to receive us both. WhatI have done, I have done in the integrity of my heart.” The approachof mortality expands human charity, yet the ruling passion may bestrong 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 andpreserve His poor suffering Church, which by the Revolution had beenalmost destroyed; that he would bless and preserve the King, Queen, andPrince, and in His due time restore to them their undoubted rights.[226]

Sancroft had an active but narrow intellect, a playful but feebleimagination, a careful but perverted judgment. His powers had beencultivated by study, and his productions indicate compass and commandof learning. Living in a narrow circle, his prejudices were strong;and bitter memories of Presbyterian oppression at Cambridge followedhim to the grave. His nature was not destitute of affection andgenerosity, and he seems not to have[191] been morose; he was simple in hisliving, rather than ascetic in his temper. By no means a Ritualist, hedecidedly opposed Romanism, though his sentiments were what would becalled decidedly High Church. Of his conscientiousness, honesty, andself-denial, the sacrifice of the Primacy is a sufficient proof; and ofhis obstinacy, the conduct he manifested on leaving Lambeth, and thepersistency he showed in nonjuring habits, afford abundant evidence.

Tillotson survived his predecessor little more than twelve months.He did not occupy his See long enough to accomplish much either asBishop or Primate. In neither capacity has he left any memorials. Noinjunctions from him appear in the Archiepiscopal Register, and hisbiographer makes no mention of his visitations. We are told that heconvened an assembly of Bishops at Lambeth, when they agreed with himupon certain regulations, which remained at his death unpublished,as he preferred they should appear with Royal as well as Episcopalauthority, and he had not time to complete arrangements for thatpurpose. His biographer furnishes a list of his deeds, which form but ameagre total for a primacy of even two years and a half, when so muchneeded to be done. Le Neve, who is particular in noting archiepiscopalacts, has next to nothing to say of Tillotson’s archiepiscopalcareer. The most he can do is to supply extracts from a MS. diary,eulogizing the Primate’s eloquence and charities, and stating thatWilliam, after his Grace’s death, never mentioned him without sometestimony of esteem. He used to say to Mr. Chadwick—son-in-law of theArchbishop—“I loved your father: I never knew an honester man, and Inever had a better friend.”[227]

From what we know of him, we should judge that the deficiency ofresults during his episcopate is to be attributed more to thedifficulties of the times and the inconvenience of circumstances, thanto want of ability or the absence of devotedness.

He was seized, in the Chapel at Whitehall, with paralysis on the 18thof November, 1694; and though the fit crept over him slowly, he wouldnot call for assistance, lest he should disturb Divine worship. Hisdeath occurred on the 22nd, at the age of 65.

His character, as compared with Sancroft’s, has been differently viewedby enemies and friends. Nonjurors said that his predecessor devised noproject for revolutionizing the Church, implying that Tillotson did;that his predecessor was no Latitudinarian, more than insinuating thatTillotson was; and when they spoke of Sancroft as a true Father, theymeant to affirm that his successor was by no means such. “Intruder,”“thief,” “robber,” “ecclesiastical usurper,” were epithets fastened onthe Archbishop of the Revolution. Burnet, on the other hand, extols himas a faithful friend, a gentle enemy, with a clear head and a tenderheart, without superstition in his religion, and, as a preacher, thebest 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 theArchbishopric, Tillotson, according to his private confessions, madescarcely less sacrifice in accepting it.

Intellectually he was a man of eminence;[229] what Burnet advancescannot be gainsayed; for Tillotson’s writings[193] indicate a rare amountof common sense and of calm judgment, the more remarkable in an ageof manifold passions;[230] and he shows eminent precision and forcein stating propositions and arguments, at a time when a great deal ofloose reasoning passed muster. His sermons are chiefly remarkable inthis point of view. Free from Puritan stiffness, and what many wouldcall Puritan enthusiasm, free also from that academical affectationwhich had so long offended pure taste,—they were couched in thelanguage of common life, and people felt a strange pleasure, whichthey could not describe, at hearing from the pulpit language such asthey heard at their own fireside. He seems to have aimed at that whichought to be the object of every Christian preacher, to translate thetruths of the Gospel into such forms of thought and utterance as weresuited to the age in which he lived. He spoke upon religion just as mentalk upon every-day topics; and thus he brought down Divinity to thelevel of his congregation. He could be earnest and even vehement in theinculcation of truth and duty; and never would he be more acceptableto a large class of his hearers than when, with tact and warmth, heexposed the errors of Popery—an opportunity for doing which he rarely,if ever, missed. His habit, too, of insisting upon the reasonablenessof almost everything he taught would coincide with the current which,in educated circles, had strongly set in against the enforcement ofmorality and religion on grounds of authority. Preachers not only helpto promote, but they reflect the spirit of their own times. Their modesof[194] teaching are fashioned by it. A reaction had arisen against theauthority of the Church, of the Fathers, of the Schoolmen, and of theReformers; consequently, sermons filled with quotations and appeals togreat names were no longer in request. Even Scripture came to be lessfavourably used in the way of exclusive authority, than in the way ofaddition to the force of reasoning. Texts were with many not so muchcorner-stones, as pillars and buttresses. Tillotson made a large use ofScripture, but the common key-note with him was the reasonableness ofthe doctrines he laid down. I should suppose that his appearance, hisvoice, and his manner in the pulpit—the fact of what he was, as wellas the circumstance of what he said, and that indefinable somethingwhich contributes so much to a speaker’s popularity—added immenselyto the impressiveness of his elocution. There is for modern readersnothing attractive in his style, quite the reverse. I know scarcelyany other popular sermons so hard to read. Some are exceedingly dryand uninteresting.[231] From natural temperament he lacked what issignified by the wordunction. He has no strokes of pathos,and the spirit of his theology adds to the defect, by depriving hissermons, to some extent, of that light and beauty, that tenderness andpower, which proceed from a clear insight into the deepest spiritualwants of humanity, and the supply made for them in the unsearchableriches of Christ.

Wit was not wanting amongst Tillotson’s gifts. “I hate a fanatic inlawn sleeves,” cried one of his detractors—“I hate a knave in anysleeves,” replied the Prelate. He said South “wrote like a man, butbit like a dog;”[195] and when South replied, “he would rather bite likea dog, than fawn like one,” Tillotson rejoined, “that for his part hewould choose to be a spaniel rather than a cur.”[232] Sancroft was aTory. Tillotson, through the discipline of the Revolution, had castoff the last remnant of the doctrine which he unfortunately inculcatedat the time of Russel’s execution. Tillotson had by his Puritan birth,childhood, and education, imbibed feelings which he never completelylost; and his personal sympathies with those who retained a Puritancreed continued to live in his later days, fostered by friendlyintercourse with members of nonconforming communions. Yet perhaps hehad not a whit more of love for Nonconformity than High Churchmen,whose reputation for charity his own completely eclipsed.

As in our day, so it was in the days of William the III., when avacancy occurred in the See of Canterbury, different names weresuggested 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, guidedby the Queen, it fell upon Thomas Tenison, Bishop of Lincoln. He hadbeen a distinguished London clergyman, prominent in opposing Popery andKing James. A nobleman, wishing to secure the Bishopric of Lincoln forsome one else, and to prejudice the Queen against Tenison, told HerMajesty that he had delivered a funeral sermon for Nell Gwyn, and hadpraised that concubine of Charles II. “I have heard as much,” repliedMary; “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 madea truly pious and Christian end, the Doctor could[196] never have beeninduced to speak well of her.”[233] Tenison’s conduct in the dioceseof 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 onthe 16th of January, 1695.

Between those two dates, his Royal patroness sickened with thesmall-pox, three days before Christmas, and died three days after.I shall employ a passage in the funeral sermon which he preached onthe occasion, not only because it well describes the event, but alsobecause it exhibits the preacher’s style, and occasioned at the timeconsiderable controversy.

“Some few days before the feast of our Lord’s nativity, she foundherself indisposed. I will not say that of this affliction she hadany formal presage, but yet there was something that looked like animmediate preparation for it. I mean her choosing to hear read morethan 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 fromthe hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ This indispositionspeedily grew up into a dangerous distemper; as soon as this wasunderstood, the earliest care of this charitable mistress was for theremoving of such immediate servants, as might by distance, be preservedin health. Soon after this she fixed the times of prayers in thatchamber to which her sickness had confined her.

“On that very day she showed how sensible she was of death, and howlittle she feared it. She required him who officiated there to add thatcollect in the Communion[197] of the Sick, in which are these words, ‘Thatwhensoever the soul shall depart from the body, it may be, withoutspot, presented unto Thee.’ ‘I will,’ said she, ‘have this collect readtwice every day. All have need to be put in mind of death, and Princesas much as anybody else.’

“On Monday the flattering disease occasioned some hopes, though theywere 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, agreat joy seen in the countenances of all good people. That joy enduredbut for a day, and that day was closed with a very dismal night. Thedisease showed itself in various forms, and small hopes of life werenow left. Then it was that he who performed the holy offices, believedhimself obliged to acquaint the good Queen of the small hopes allhad of any likelihood of her recovery. She received the tidings witha courage agreeable to the strength of her faith. Loath she was toterrify those about her; but for herself, she seemed neither to feardeath, nor to covet life. It was, you may imagine, high satisfactionto hear her say a great many most Christian things, and this amongthem: ‘I believe I shall now soon die, and I thank God I have, from myyouth, learned a true doctrine, that repentance is not to be put offto a death-bed.’ That day she called for prayers a third time, fearingshe had slept a little, when they were the second time read; for shethought a duty was not performed if it was not minded.

“On Thursday she prepared herself for the blessed communion, to whichshe had been no stranger from the 15th year of her age. She was muchconcerned that she found herself in so dozing a condition, so sheexpressed it. To that, she added, ‘Others had need pray for me,[198] seeingI am so little able to pray for myself.’ However, she stirred up herattention, and prayed to God for His assistance, and God heard her, forfrom thenceforth to the end of the office, she had the perfect commandof her understanding, and was intent upon the great work she was goingabout; and so intent, that when a second draught was offered her, sherefused it, saying, ‘I have but a little time to live, and I wouldspend it a better way.’

“The holy elements being ready, and several Bishops coming to becommunicants, she repeated piously and distinctly, but with a low voice(for such her weakness had then made it) all the parts of the holyoffice which were proper for her, and received, with all the signs of astrong faith and fervent devotion, the blessed pledges of God’s favour,and thanked Him with a joyful heart that she was not deprived of theopportunity. She owned also, that God had been good to her, beyondher expectation, though in a circumstance of smaller importance, shehaving, without any indecency or difficulty, taken down that bread,when it had not been so easy for her, for some time, to swallow anyother.

“That afternoon she called for prayers somewhat earlier than theappointed time, because she feared (that was her reason) that sheshould not long be so well composed. And so it came to pass; forevery minute after this ’twas plain that death made nearer and nearerapproaches. However, this true Christian kept her mind as fixed, aspossible she could, upon the best things; and there were read, by herdirections, several psalms of David, and also a chapter of a pious bookconcerning trust in God. Toward the latter end of it, her apprehensionbegan to fail, yet not so much but that she could say a devout Amen tothat prayer in which her pious soul was recommended to that God whogave it.

“During all this time there appeared nothing of impatience, nothing offrowardness, nothing of anger; there was heard nothing of murmuring,nothing of impertinence, nothing of ill-sound, and scarce a number ofdisjointed words.

“In all these afflictions the King was greatly afflicted; how sensibly,and yet how becomingly, many saw, but few have skill enough todescribe; I am sure I have not. At last, the helps of art and prayersand tears not prevailing, a quarter before one on Friday morning, aftertwo or three small strugglings of nature, and without such agonies asin such cases are common, she fell asleep.”[234]

I have thought it best to give this extract without any abridgment, ascertain omissions in the account of the Queen’s last hours became thesubject of much controversy.

Mary was buried in Westminster Abbey, with all the pomp of a purple andgold coffin, banners, and escutcheons, Lords in scarlet and ermine, andCommons in black mantles; far more interesting than all that is thefollowing incident, carefully recorded: “A robin redbreast, which hadtaken refuge in the Abbey, was seen constantly on her hearse, and waslooked upon with tender affection for its seeming love to the lamentedQueen.”[235]

Loyalty to William, and sympathy with him in his great loss, wereexpressed in numerous addresses. A large collection of elegiac poemswere published at Cambridge, entitled,Lacrymæ Cantabrigienses,&c., by a list of Dons, some of whom became Bishops; and the LondonClergy vied with each other in their eulogiums—to use the words of acontemporary letter-writer, playing “the fool in their hyperbolicalcommendation of the Queen,[200] that looks like fulsome flattery, and someexpressions bordering upon blasphemy.”[236] The Presbyterians, headedby Dr. Bates, presented an address of condolence to His Majesty.

The nonjuring Clergy were much excited by the publication of Tenison’ssermon, since it represented the Queen as eminently religious anddevout, but said not a word of any repentance for having assumed herfather’s crown, and for the filial impiety considered to be involved insuch 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 theLayman who wrote Ken’s life pronounces it “a tissue of bitter obloquyagainst the Queen and the Archbishop, wholly inconsistent with the meekspirit of the author of thePractice of Divine Love.”[237] Uponinternal grounds he rejects its genuineness. I feel disposed to dothe same. Tenison also, it appears, doubted it, but I find no noticeof Ken’s having disavowed the authorship; and we must not forget howpossible it is[201] for an amiable and pious man, under the influenceof what he regards as duty, to say things which run counter to thegenerally calm and quiet current of his life.

Tenison’s sermon was zealously defended by an anonymous pamphleteer,who included within his defence funeral discourses delivered by otherdignitaries; and whilst the press was occupied by this controversy,the friends and agents of James were rejoicing in the death of Maryas endangering the position of William. The Church of England, it wasnow thought, would be weaned from his cause, by the outburst of hisPresbyterian predilections, even to the overthrow of Episcopacy. Theruin of its interests seemed at hand, unless the Revolution could berevolutionized. Ten thousand men, the Jacobite plotters surmised, wouldsuffice for the reconquest of the kingdom, since the Church of Englandparty, who had been for William only on Mary’s account, were, it wasthought, now entirely alienated from him. The confusion occasioned byher removal was relied upon as a proof of the inclination of the peopleto see their Stuart King back at St. James.[238]

In noticing the deaths of Sancroft, Tillotson, and Mary, we have passedover a period marked by one of those silent changes which often eludethe notice of historians. The change referred to is connected veryclosely with religious freedom. We have had frequent occasion to noticerestrictions on the liberty of the press. It is not necessary to goback further than 1662, when Lord Clarendon’s Act for licensing bookswas passed. The Act proscribed the printing and selling of heretical,schismatical, blasphemous, seditious, and treasonable publications.Nothing was to appear contrary to the Christian[202] faith, or thedoctrines or discipline of the Church of England. Books on law requireda license from the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justices; books ofhistory, a license from the Secretaries of State; books of divinity andphilosophy, a license from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The folly ofsuch restrictions—proved by their futility when evaded, and by theirmischievousness when carried into effect—needs no comment. The Act nownoticed 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 theRevolution; and in 1692 was renewed under the Tories for two yearsmore. At four different times, from 1694 to 1698, attempts were madein Parliament to prepare new Bills for licensing printing presses, andthe Whigs on one occasion seemed on the point of following the exampleof their political rivals. Movement in the old direction went so faronce, that a restrictive Bill passed the Lords and was read in theCommons—to be thrown out on a second reading. Church and State thusnarrowly missed being shackled again in the exercise of rights everprecious to enlightened humanity; and the year 1694, though unmarked inhistory, is illustrious in fact through the melting away for ever of along-continued and mischievous licensing law. Not, however, as we shallpresently see, that all legislative interference with the publishers ofopinions then terminated; but a great obstacle vanished out of the pathto that wide intellectual liberty which as a nation we now enjoy.

Tillotson, shortly before his death, as already related, was engagedwith his Episcopal brethren in drawing up certain ecclesiasticalregulations to be issued on their authority, but which he afterwardsfelt would be more effective if published in the King’s name. Shortlyafter Tenison’s accession to the Archiepiscopate, injunctions were sentforth by Royal command, touching points exactly of the nature indicatedto have been discussed in prior Episcopal meetings at Lambeth. Whenwe consider the time of their appearance, we have no doubt the newArchbishop adopted the draft of his predecessor. It appeared in theform of a Royal proclamation, recommending care in conferring orders,condemning pluralities and non-residence, and urging upon Bishops towatch over their Clergy, and promote, through them, the celebrationof Sacraments, the visitation of the sick, and the catecheticalinstruction of the young.[239]

The publication of these articles in the King’s name is a fact notto be lightly passed over. Royal letters had been issued by QueenElizabeth for the reform of ecclesiastical affairs, yet none of themdealt so particularly with abuses as did this mandate of William’s.It is remarkable that Charles I.—the opposite in ecclesiastical and[204]political sentiments to the hero of the Revolution—had addressed toLaud a number of instructions, which strongly resemble those now undernotice.[240] After the Restoration, although Charles II. by severalmissives had exercised immediate authority over the Church, and hadgiven explicit directions as to how the Clergy were to preach,[241]such orders as approach nearest to those of William are found to bearthe simple impress of archiepiscopal authority.[242] What had beenattempted in the way of Church reform by Sancroft appears in the shapeof an agreement between himself and the other Prelates to do thingsformerly enunciated.[243] The grounds upon which Tillotson and Tenisonarrived at the determination to seek Church reform under cover of Royalauthority, do not appear; but the proclamations indicate that, at thetime, the chief spiritual rulers of the land must have had high viewsof the prerogatives of the Crown. If since Elizabeth’s Reformation thetitle ofHead of the Church[244] had not been legally employed,all which that title could be taken to mean, successive Archbishops ofCanterbury—Tillotson and Tenison—were ready to concede; and what is alittle curious, in making this concession they could find a precedentin the acts of Archbishop Laud under Charles I.[205] A still more strikingexample of the interference of the Crown with purely religious subjectswill soon come under our notice.

The fact is, that what is generally called Erastianism attained morepower than ever after the Revolution. The State ruled the Church. Inthe matter of Toleration it maintained the liberties of Nonconformityagainst the designs of bigoted Churchmen, and in the management ofinternal affairs it sought to promote the interests of a moderate andsalutary reform.

A circular from the Archbishop, addressed to each of his suffraganBishops, followed on the 16th of July, 1695; and in it, withoutreferring to the Royal communication made in the month of February,he specifies a number of particulars which had been considered by himand such of his brethren as were at the time in or near London. Theseparticulars relate to certain religious matters—to the public readingin church of the Act against profane cursing and swearing, and tocatechetical instruction—but they relate also to a number of subjectsconnected with temporalities, such as the prevention of Simoniacalcovenants, 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 ofgreat religious importance—is, however, enforced at length, and eachBishop is urged to lay it upon the conscience of the candidate, toobserve such fasting as is prescribed upon Ember-days, and to givehimself to meditation and prayer. It is worth noticing that the thirdof the injunctions calls attention to the 55th canon, which enjoinsthe bidding of prayer for the King before sermon; “it being commonlyreported,” says the Archbishop, “that it is the manner of some in everydiocese either to use the Lord’s Prayer (which the canons prescribe[206]as the conclusion of the prayer, and not the whole prayer) or atleast, to leave out the King’s titles, and to forbear to pray for theBishops as such.”[245] The sentence reveals a state of things serious,if not alarming, both to the King and the Bishops. Plainly therebrooded disaffection towards the existing power in Church and State.Jacobites and Nonjurors troubled the British Israel, and manifestedtheir feelings in the House of God. Parish churches, if not cathedrals,presented Sunday after Sunday proofs of disloyalty and spiritualrevolt. A new species of Nonconformity ate its way into the hearts ofEnglishmen—a fact to be illustrated in subsequent portions of thishistory.

Between the months of February and July, to which the Royal and theEpiscopal letters belonged, there occurred an incident which comesin juxtaposition with what has been related of ecclesiastical powersexercised by the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the monthof May nominated as the first of the Lords Justices of England forthe administration of public affairs during His Majesty’s absence inHolland and Flanders.

William had repeatedly left England since the Revolution. In 1691 hewas absent from January to March, and from May to October; in 1692 fromMarch to October; in 1693 from March to November; in 1694 from May toNovember. Like Richard Coeur de Lion, like the three Edwards, like thefifth Henry, William of Orange was a man of war from his youth, andhis military vocation led him, as it led them, away from the peacefulduties of home government. As they at the head of steel-clad knightsand sturdy bowmen marched over the Tweed or through Normandy, Picardy,and Poitou; as they led[207] crusaders to fight battles at Jaffa, Askelon,and Jerusalem, so did he who now swayed the English sceptre, carry histroops over into the Netherlands to bear the brunt of the Landen fight,or recover the strongholds of Namur.

When William had been abroad before in the life-time of Mary, she ruledas Queen Consort, rendering a special regency needless; now that sheslept in her grave, it was necessary that representatives appointed bythe 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 piningin captivity on his return from Palestine, Archbishop Hubert Walteracted as Chief Justiciary of the kingdom, and even in person laid siegeto the castles of malcontents and reduced them to his master’s sway;and whilst the not less brave, but more prudent, Henry V. was winninglaurels at Agincourt, Archbishop Chicheley acted as Prime Minister athome, and took his place at the head of the Council-Board.[246] Afterthe Reformation, Churchmen, though of diminished influence, appearedin high political positions. Juxon held the staff of Lord Treasurer,and Williams kept the Great Seal; but after the blow struck at theChurch by the Long Parliament, no ecclesiastic occupied any importantState office until the reign of William III. Upon this new turn in thewheel, curiously enough, came the restoration of high civil authorityto ecclesiastical hands. At the same moment, the Church appearedsubmissive to the State, and the State appeared in submission to thechief ruler of the Church. The former kind of submission was real, thelatter only apparent.

The Archbishop did not fill the place of a Prime Minister likeChicheley, any more than he took the command of troops like HubertWalter. It is difficult to say who in the month of May, 1695, was PrimeMinister; as the Duke of Leeds, who had headed the late administration,just then, though still nominally President of the Council, layprostrate in disgrace, and his name is omitted in the list of LordsJustices who held the Regency. The Whigs were recovering power, andwith the seven members of that party who were commissioned to act inthe Royal name, there appeared but one Tory. William III. himselfalways acted as Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he was at home orabroad, and during his absence from England on this occasion probablythe management of domestic business principally rested with Somers,Keeper of the Great Seal, and Shrewsbury, Secretary of State. TheArchbishop, as standing next to the Royal family, took precedence inthe Commission, but the actual power which he exercised must not bemeasured by that circumstance.

On the 10th of October William returned, after having had thesatisfaction of seeing a Marshal of France surrender to the allies,the Castle of Namur. The sound of bells from every steeple, thetwinkling—for in those days it could hardly be a glare—of lights inevery window, and street crowds rending the air with hurrahs, welcomedthe victor as he passed through London to his favourite residence atKensington. Speedily afterwards he made a Royal progress, and visitedNewmarket, 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 delivereda congratulatory speech. The usual kissing of hands and assurancesof favour wound up the ceremony.[247][209] He also visited Oxford, wherehe had been unpopular; but now, if we were to judge by the receptionprepared, we should conclude the tide had turned; for Latin orations,musical concerts, and a splendid banquet were all arranged in honourof his presence. However, he would stay in the beautiful city only afew hours, excusing himself on the ground that he had seen the Collegesbefore. He had no admiration for Oxford, and Oxford had no admirationfor him; and between the two no love was lost, when he drove off in hislumbering coach on the road to London.

The Royal injunctions relative to ecclesiastical reforms, publishedin February, 1695, were followed by other Royal injunctions relativeto theological disputes in February, 1696. Just then, a money panicstruck not only the commercial classes, but the whole community. Thecurrency sank into such a state, that owing to the wear and tearof coin, and the ingenious arts of clippers, neither the gentlemanwho paid his guinea nor the peasant who received his shilling, knewexactly what the piece of gold or silver happened to be worth. Thesubject came up in sermons, and preachers deplored the low state ofpublic morality. Fleetwood, preaching before the Lord Mayor of Londonin the month of December, deplored that “a soft pernicious tendernessslackened the care of magistrates, kept back the under officers,corrupted the juries, and withheld the evidence;” and one of the clergyconnected with the Cathedral of York, when addressing some clipperswho were to be hanged next day, dwelt on the insensibility of culpritsof that class to the heinousness of their crime.[248] Exactly at thetime when this monetary question had thrown everybody into a state ofembarrassment,[210] a theological controversy added to the excitement ofreligious people.

To judge of the new Royal injunctions we must first understand thecontroversy, and to understand the controversy is no easy matter. Totrace the dispute through all its windings would only perplex thereader—to enumerate the publications which appeared would be wearisomeand profitless; therefore I shall content myself with indicating thedifferent lines pursued by the principal controversialists, and thetreatment which consequently some of them received.

It may be premised that the controversy indicates a new position ofChristian thought, a new atmosphere of theological feeling, as comparedwith that which had obtained in Commonwealth times and after theRestoration. The question raised did not relate to predestination,to the nature of Christ’s death, the extent of its efficacy andapplication, but to the mode of the Divine existence. It showed aretreat back to inquiries akin to such as agitated the Nicene Age.Oxford and London witnessed a revival of conflicts similar to thoseof Constantinople and Alexandria. Battles about grace, election, andfree-will had been fought out, and the warriors were exhausted: somehad passed away, some were growing old. The human mind now rangedover other fields long neglected, seeking fresh victories over olderrors. Theological discussion is determined in a great degree bycircumstances, idiosyncracies, friendships, and associations; butthe spirit of an age is also a mighty force, acting with, and actingthrough all other influences. And it is not a little remarkable, thatas the revival of the study of philosophy in the Christian schools ofAlexandria was followed by controversies respecting the Divine nature,so the revival of the study of a similar[211] philosophy at Cambridge wasfollowed by a similar result. Whereas the logic, ethics, and politicsof Aristotle have affinity with questions relating to the Divinegovernment, the speculations of Plato connect themselves more withquestions as to the Divine Being Himself. Accordingly, the Aristotelianlogicians of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Commonwealth,dwelt much upon predestination, justification, and the atonement; andthe philosophical Divines of the Revolution, trained more in Platonicculture, devoted themselves to questions respecting the Trinity and thePerson of Christ.

At the time of the Revolution, Unitarian principles in England wereon the advance, both as to explicitness of statement and extent ofcurrency. The preparations for this change have been indicated. Itobtained in a decided form to no great degree, but its influence wasfelt beyond its definite boundaries. According to the Toleration Act,Antitrinitarians were as much precluded from publicly celebratingworship after the Revolution, as Presbyterians and others had beenbefore; yet, by the close of the 17th century, it is said, Unitarianmeeting-houses were erected.[249] Some Presbyterians, perhaps, ratherof an Arian than of a Socinian type, at that period diverged fromorthodox paths; but it is stated that on the whole these opinions“were more prevalent in the Church than among the Dissenters.”[250]The republication ofBiddle’s Tracts, and the issue of newworks, published anonymously, going far beyond the theological pointBiddle had reached, promoted the[212] denial of our Lord’s Divinity. Theseries was zealously supported, if not prepared by the well-knownThomas Firman, who, though an Unitarian, remained a member of theChurch of England.[251] The modern assailants of orthodoxy, catchingthe rationalistic spirit of the times, dwelt upon what they conceivedto be the unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity, and urgedthe absence in Scripture of the scholastic terms in which the doctrineis commonly defined. They charged the Fathers and the Schoolmen withcorrupting Christianity; then directing their attention to the doctrineof the Redeemer’s Deity, they insisted much upon His proper humanity,upon His trustfulness, devotion, and obedience.

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 trulyGod, 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 simplyman, it would be blasphemy to ascribe to Him Divine names, attributes,and honours. Arguments were also adduced against the doctrine of thePersonality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost. A violent attack also wasmade, in a distinct publication, on the character of Athanasius, withthe object of damaging the theological belief which that great Fatherof the Church so zealously upheld.[252] Books of this description,vindicating opinions under a legal ban, excited the indignation both ofChurch and Parliament. A work, bearing on the heterodox side, writtenby a Divine of the Latitudinarian school, led to[213] his being deprived ofthe Rectorship of Lincoln College, Oxford,[253] and a vote was passedby the Commons dooming to the flames an attack on the doctrine of theTrinity.[254]

Dr. Wallis, the Savillian professor of Geometry, wrote a pamphlet[255]in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, and employed some of thestrangest expressions and illustrations with regard to the mysterythat were ever conceived by any human being. “What is it,” he asks,“that is pretended to be impossible? ’Tis but this, that there be threesomewhats, which are but one God, and thesesomewhatsare called Persons.” To explain the Trinity in unity, he comparesthe Almighty to acube, with its length, breadth, and heightinfinitely extended. The length, breadth, and height of the cube, hesays, are equal, and they are the equal sides of one substance—afair resemblance of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thislongum,latum,profundum, such are his words, is one cube ofthree dimensions, yet but one body; and this Father, Son, and HolyGhost are three Persons, and yet one God. Vain attempts were made bythe early Fathers to give definite conceptions of the mode of theDivine existence—the sun and its rays, a fountain and its streams,reason and speech, ointment and fragrance, being employed for thepurpose; but Dr. Wallis attained to an originality as unenviable asit was startling; and were it[214] not for his known candour and piety,it might be supposed he intended to turn the orthodox doctrine intoridicule.

Dr. Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul’s and Master of the Temple, now in theblack books of High Churchmen, undertook to meet the new attacks uponthe Trinity; and, as so much was made of the assumed unreasonablenessof that doctrine, he commenced his vindication of it with an elaborateargument to prove that it involves no contradiction whatever. He usedthe shield of reason to resist the darts of reason. His notion was,that self-consciousness constitutes the numerical unity of a SpiritualBeing,—that the unity of a mind or spirit reaches as far as itsself-consciousness,—that, in the three Persons of the Trinity, thereis what may be called a mutual self-consciousness, a self-consciousnesscommon to the three; and that therefore these three Persons areessentially and numerically one. A moral union in knowledge, will,and love, he says, is the only union of created spirits; but there isan essential union between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, through theexistence of a mutual consciousness. This notion contains, accordingto Sherlock, the true faith of a Trinity in unity. It is orthodoxyrationalized. It does not confound the Persons; it does not dividethe substance.[256] After working out an abstruse argument to thiseffect, and after endeavouring to show there is authority in some ofthe Fathers for his theory, he concludes by taking up,seriatim,certain objections which had been urged in recent Unitarian writings.

A young man, a Master of Arts, just turned 27, stood up, on the 28thof October, 1695, in the pulpit of St. Mary’s, Oxford, before a largeaudience of Dons and[215] Gownsmen, to preach from the text—now given upon all hands as an interpolation—“There are three that bear recordin heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these threeare one.” The preacher was Joseph Bingham, a scholar of surprisingerudition, destined to throw a world of light upon the antiquities ofthe Christian Church; in the sermon, and preface to it when published,he distinguished between the patristic and the scholastic doctrines ofthe Trinity, maintaining that Luther, in his theology on that point,followed in the wake of the Fathers, whilst Calvin trod in the stepsof the Schoolmen. The Lutheran, the Patristic, and the Scripturedoctrine, in Bingham’s estimation, amounted to this—that there arethree individual substances in the Godhead, really and numericallydistinct from each other, though at the same time they are one inanother sense; for they are not of a different nature; they are notdivided 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, orthree providences, clashing with one another. No; they constitute“one harmonious providence, and one undivided principle of all otherthings.”[257] Sherlock, a citizen of the world, catching the spirit ofthe age, appealed to reason; Bingham, a recluse, scarcely touched byhabits of thought outside his University, appealed to tradition. Thispiece of hard, dry learning, without the slightest tincture of pathos,or a single practical remark from beginning to end, must have proved arepulsive lesson even to an Oxford audience. Its general drift, runningin the same direction as Sherlock’s teaching, though it[216] included notheory of mutual consciousness, alarmed the authorities; they wenthome from St. Mary’s in great agitation, muttering against the youngpreacher charges of Tritheism, Arianism, and other heresies. Binghamwas simply a student who had missed his way in theological speculation;but Sherlock was personally disliked by Jacobites, who were irritatedby his political apostacy, and by the adherents of William, who enviedhim his church preferments. No hornet’s nest could be worse thanthe attacks which this unlucky controversialist aroused. Many who,under other circumstances, would have let heterodoxy alone, could nottolerate it when coming from such a quarter; and the most unseemlyreflections on the man’s character were mixed up with arguments againsthis doctrines.[258]

South plunged into the fray, and used his sledgehammer with unmercifulviolence. Not unlearned, not unversed in logic, South was more of arhetorician than a philosopher, more of a wit than a Divine. Afterdenouncing Sherlock’s explication as wholly inconsistent with themysteriousness of the subject, and representing his exceptions tothe use of certain words in relation to it as false, groundless, andimpertinent, he exposed, with tremendous ridicule, the theory of mutualconsciousness. “For self-consciousness, according to him,” says South,“is the constituent principle, or formal reason, of personality. Sothat self-consciousness properly constitutes or makes a person, and somany self-consciousnesses make so many distinct persons. But mutualconsciousness, so far as it extends, makes a unity not of persons (forpersonality as such imports distinction and something[217] personallyincommunicable), but an unity of nature in persons. So that afterself-consciousness has made several distinct persons, in comes mutualconsciousness and sets them all at one again, and gives them all butone and the same nature, which they are to take amongst themselvesas well as they can. And this is a true and strict account of thisauthor’s new hypothesis; and such, as I suppose, he will not exceptagainst, because justly I am sure he cannot; howsoever, I may haveexpressed the novel whimsey something for the reader’s diversion.”[259]How monstrous to think of diverting people, when professedly engaged instudying the awful secrets of the Divine Essence!

South maintained that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not distinctinfinite minds or spirits—that to say they are so, is to contradictCouncils, Fathers, Schoolmen, and later Divines; that the book heassailed contains philosophical paradoxies and grammatical mistakes;and that the author was insolent, scornful, and proud beyond allparallel. To quote a full sample of South’s personal abuse would be tocover pages.[260]

No doubt there is much force in some of his arguments, and hecompletely demolished the theory of mutual consciousness. But he wasmuch stronger as a destructive than as an architect. When he attemptedto define a positive notion of the Trinity, he failed, as all didwho went before him, as all have who followed after him. Nor couldhe escape the infection of a most infelicitous, if not a decidedlyirreverent,[218] habit of illustrating theological mysteries. Wallishad written ofthree somewhats, and of aDivine cubeof infinite dimensions. Sherlock had propounded a theory of Divinemutual-consciousness; and now South came forward with the idea,that the distinctions in the Godhead aremodes, habitudes, andaffections of the Divine substance—they arepostures—suchin spiritual and immaterial beings, asposture is to the humanbody.[261] Passing over South’s coarse scurrility, I cannot conceivehow any inquirer after truth can be helped on his way by this cleverand brilliant companion, who never misses an opportunity of cracking ajoke in his reader’s ear. Even when South’s reasoning is forcible, heis ever interrupting it with flashes of wit; and throughout one feels,what is fatal to all religious instruction, that the polemic is moreanxious about victory than truth. No doubt his attack on Sherlock wasdeemed by contemporaries a decided success; he drove his antagonistfrom the field and spoiled him of his armour. But when he charged himwith Tritheism, he charged him with what Sherlock utterly denied.That Sherlock’s theory is Tritheistic was a mere inference, and whatmay seem a logical deduction to others did not appear so to himself.In like manner Sabellianism, in the eyes of some, lurked under thefolds of South’s argument, though he indignantly repelled the idea.The fact is, no man can attempt a logical explanation[219] of the Godheadwithout being in danger of falling into Tritheism on the one side, orSabellianism on the other. In such controversies we notice the frequentuse of some word not in Scripture, but considered to be an equivalentfor what is Scripture—a term conceived to be a concentration ofdiffused truth—the quintessence of a doctrine previously in a stateof solution. Unfortunately such words are differently understood bydifferent parties. One person refuses to take them in the sense affixedto them by another, and will employ a meaning of his own. The sameproposition thus becomes to two different minds entirely differentthings, and the utmost confusion is the consequence. Theories toexplain facts are confounded with the facts themselves, and a man whoonly denies a particular theory, is charged with denying the fact towhich the theory relates. Hence, whilst Sherlock and South were reallycontending for the doctrine of the Trinity, each regarded the other asgiving it up. It should be added that in the end, Sherlock’s statementswere more cautious than at the beginning; for he came to admit that thephrases—three minds, three spirits, three substances—which he had sofreely used, needed great care for their proper employment, and wereliable to be taken in a heretical sense; that after all, Father, Son,and Spirit, are really of one and the same substance.[262] Sherlockand South did but follow up divergent tendencies of thought and actionbefore the Council of Nicæa—tendencies which that Council sought tocheck and harmonize. Sherlock followed in the wake of Tertullian,Novatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, whose inquiries mainly pointed todistinctions in the Godhead.[220] South trod in the footsteps ofJustin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria, wholeaned towards Monarchianism, and were jealous of any dishonour done tothe Divine Unity.

In this controversy, which divided two men by a distance, inthe judgment of some thinkers, infinitesimally small, homagewas nevertheless done to the essential importance of truth. Thecontroversy, however, betrayed the utter absence of disposition onthe part of each to learn one jot of wisdom from the other. It wasliterally apolemical affair; a battle, each seeing in hisopposite an enemy—in fact the old story of disputes between Church andChurch, sect and sect, conformist and nonconformist—war to the knifeby mistaken foes, instead of mutual help by friends in council.

Of course Unitarians, as they stood by, watched the conflict witheager curiosity, striving to turn it to their own account. In the viewof those who had advanced beyond John Biddle, the doctrine of theTrinity and the use of the Word were repugnant; and they traced whatthey deemed an innovation to the early philosophical schools that hadso powerfully influenced the after-history of theological thought.They labelled Cudworth’s theory as the Platonic; Sherlock’s as theCartesian; South’s as the Aristotelian. Moreover, they connected thescheme of Sherlock with the philosophy of Realism, and the schemeof South with that of Nominalism. With regard to speculations whichhad been woven around the teaching of Holy Scripture, there was someground for the nomenclature; but it really forms another instance ofthe confusion of thought produced when critics identify metaphysicaltheories with simple conclusions drawn from Scripture, as expressed inthe grand old words, “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy[221]Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”

Howe took part in the bewildering dispute, and has been supposed bysome to have advocated Sherlock’s side. But it seems to me that what Ihave been saying accords with his views, and that he counted such anopinion as that expressed by Sherlock only as a theory for obviatingobjection to a fact, whilst another theory might be held in perfectconsistency with a sincere faith in the truth to which both theoriesapply. In hisCalm and Sober Inquiry Concerning the Possibilityof a Trinity in the Godhead, the utmost he asserts is, that sucha mode of triune existence as Sherlock attributes to the DivineBeing ispossible, and to his mind the most reasonable; buthe did not think another hypothesis of a different kind altogetherindefensible. He adopted what is called thepersonal theory;but he did not deem amodal theory, like South’s, either absurdor heterodox.[263] Evidently he considered that different hypothesesare at hand not fully to elucidate the mode of the Divine existence,but to obviate objections, by showing that a threefold distinction inthat existence can be imagined, so as not to involve any contradictionwhatever.[264]

Amidst this war of words, in which reason and tradition had a share,secular authority interfered. On the 3rd of January, 1694, the Lordsspiritual and temporal ordered their Majesties’ Attorney-General toprosecute the author and printer of an infamous and scandalous libel,entitled,A Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of theTrinity.[265] This was a State condemnation of Unitarianism, andthe same year a tract[222] printed by the Unitarian Society was seized byauthority, and the writer apprehended. On the 25th of November, 1695,the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses at Oxford decreed it to befalse, impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the CatholicChurch, and especially the Church of England, to say that there arethree infinite, distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, or thatthe three Persons are three distinct, infinite minds or spirits. Thiswas a condemnation by the University of the doctrines enunciated bySherlock and supported by Bingham. The latter, in consequence of thestorm raised by his sermon, resigned his fellowship, and withdrew fromthe University; but others, who thought with him, asserted, that whatthe Heads of Oxford had condemned as heretical, really expressed theCatholic faith; that the decree virtually accused of error the NiceneCreed and the Church of England, and exposed both to the scorn andtriumph of the Socinians. Sherlock declared “that he would undertake,any day in the year, to procure a meeting of twice as many wise andlearned men to censure their decree.”[266] Out of this state of thingsalso arose the new Royal injunctions I have noticed. They prohibitedevery preacher from delivering any other doctrine concerning theBlessed Trinity than what is contained in the Holy Scriptures, andis agreeable to the three Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles; andthey also strictly charged the right reverend fathers to make use oftheir authority for repressing the publication of books against thatdoctrine.[267]

Charles II. had in 1662 commanded the Clergy to avoid[223] “the deep pointsof election and reprobation, together with the incomprehensible mannerof the concurrence of God’s free grace and man’s free will.”[268]He thus claimed a high spiritual authority over the Ministers ofreligion, but it was by removing certain topics from within the rangeof discussion. In the instance just given, William III. enjoinedthe positive inculcation of a particular doctrine, and no other. Hedid not on his own authority define the doctrine, but only referredto the doctrine authorized in the Creeds and Articles recognizedby the Established Church; indeed, he did not go beyond the termsemployed in the sixteenth clause of the Toleration Act;[269] yet itmust be confessed that altogether he appears as a still more definitetheological censor than Charles II. And it is worth notice that in thisrespect he not only assumed a supreme Headship over the EstablishedChurch, but he also claimed to rule the Free Churches of England, forhe commanded that no “preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture,should presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the Trinitythan that defined in the Creeds and Articles.” When we weigh thewords employed, we are astonished to find the constitutional King ofthe Revolution—the Prince who came to deliver the consciences ofEnglishmen from the despotism of James and the tyranny of Rome—bindingupon the Ministers of religion one precise and rigid form of expressionas to the most profound of all theological mysteries. What makesthis fact still more curious, and the conduct in question still moreunreasonable, is that the most learned[224] men in the Church at thatvery crisis were unable to decide amongst themselves what was thedoctrine of her formularies, Sherlock declaring it to be one thing andSouth another. The truth is, that William lent himself to a deviceof the well-meaning Archbishop for maintaining the orthodoxy of allreligionists in the realm, without meaning to claim any power overthe religion of his subjects; for to any usurpation of that sort hewas, from temperament, education, and principle, utterly averse.The Whig Archbishop, whose intellectual acuteness did not equal hiscommon sense, who could detect no political or philosophical heresyin the course which he recommended, simply sought to accomplish whathe considered as a laudable end by a method which he thought mosteffectual. He sought to put down error, and to promote peace, and indoing it, hastily snatched at the rusty halberd of authority overconscience, 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 adoredas the incarnation of civil and religious liberty.

Although it is true of ancient times and Oriental states, that “wherethe word of a King is, there is power,” the King’s word amongstEnglishmen at the time we speak of, especially upon religious subjects,carried with it no weight whatever; and although the controversyraging when the injunctions were devised soon burnt out, the heresiesassailed lingered on, and in 1698 the Commons appealed to His Majestyfor a proclamation for suppressing pernicious books containingdoctrines opposed to the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articlesof the Christian faith.[270] The King, not choosing to do this, gavehis[225] faithful Commons a short answer, promising attention to thesubject, and wishing that provision could be made for the purposedesired; but, however, a proclamation was immediately issued forpreventing and punishing immorality and profaneness. Not long beforethis circumstance, a youth of only eighteen years of age was executedin the city of Edinburgh for blasphemy—a victim to the zeal of thePresbyterian Clergy;[271] and, about the same time, the orthodoxDissenters of England, in an address of theirs, most inconsistentlyurged His Majesty to deprive Unitarians of the liberty of thepress.[272]

An Act of Parliament was passed in 1698 declaring that any one educatedin the Christian religion, who should, by writing, printing, orteaching, 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, beincapacitated for bringing an action, possessing lands, becoming aguardian, acting as an executor, or receiving a legacy; moreover, sucha person might be subjected to imprisonment for three years. Parliamentthus united its authority with that of the Sovereign in the support oforthodox opinions, without perceiving the futility of such methods ofdefending the Gospel. And it is not a little surprising that such a manas Calamy, both in hisDiary and in hisHistorical Additionto Baxter’s Life and Times, passes by[226] the objectionable enactment;indeed, so entirely unaffected by its injustice does he appear tohave been, that, in the latter work, he tells us, in the year 1698,Parliament “did not meddle with matters of religion, though they had acommittee for religion as usually.”[273] Nothing could more decidedlyprove how much even the advocates of religious liberty had yet to learntouching that very object which they were supposed to understand, andwere 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 deadletter until its repeal in the year 1813.[274]

James, after his defeat on the banks of the Boyne, did not relinquishthe hope of recovering his crown. In 1692, amidst preparations for adescent on the shores of England, he issued a Declaration, in whichhe promised to maintain the rights of the Established Church; but asfor 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 ruleotherwise than he had been doing. Not only were all who should resisthis new attempt to expect his vengeance, but whole classes of persons,amounting to some thousands, who had incurred his displeasure, werethreatened with punishment. High in the list of culprits excluded frommercy, stood Tillotson and Burnet. Such a manifesto, of course, didthe Exile’s cause more harm than good; and, therefore, in 1693, hereluctantly published another, pitched in a different key, promisingan amnesty to those who would submit, and to all his subjects therestoration of Parliaments, the preservation of the Test Act, and alimitation of the dispensing power. These concessions were as tardy andineffectual as they were insincere. “After all,” said one who was inthe confidence of James, “the object of this Declaration is only to getus back to England. We shall fight the battle of the[228] Catholics withmuch greater advantage at Whitehall than at St. Germains.”[275]

Within the gloomy courts and chambers of the old Palace of St.Germains—which in melancholy stateliness furnishes such a contrastto the cheerful prospect from its windows—James, with his Court ofblinded partizans and his crowds of Jesuit priests, was aiming toconvert certain English Protestants who had followed his unhappyfortunes, and was planning his return to the land of his fathers, withthe hope of reconciling an heretical realm to the true Catholic Church.Schemes of insurrection were contrived before the death of QueenMary; 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 anadvantageous step. That James originated any plot for the murder of hisson-in-law cannot be proved, and ought not to be believed; nor can itbe shown that he expressly sanctioned anything of the kind; but it canscarcely be questioned that he knew and connived at what was going on.Insurrection and assassination plots together opened up vistas intowhich the refugees at St. Germains wistfully peered, as they laid theirheads together, and talked over the business in retired corners of theshaded alleys, or in secret nooks of the rambling palace galleries. Ahundred priests, it is said, were to attend the anointed King in hisexpedition, carrying precious relics as pledges of victory—includingthe image of St. Victor, of which the miraculous virtue upon infidelsand heretics had been proved, when it was sent as a present to Francefrom the Queen of Poland. So confident of success were the plotters,that they talked[229] of taking debentures on English estates, soon tofall into their hands; also pieces of preferment in Church and Statewere allotted to Royal favourites, and Jesuits rejoiced in the idea ofsetting up a branch of their order within the spacious precincts ofChelsea College.[276] These Papists abroad found sympathizing friendsat home amongst the Nonjurors, some of whom were at the time chargedwith preaching from texts suggestive of treason and rebellion.

A correspondence between the Court of St. Germains and the EnglishJacobites, ranging from October, 1693, to August, 1694, brought tolight by Macpherson, shows what was going on at that period. “It isHis Majesty’s desire,” said an agent of the Exile, “that the Bishopsand non-swearing Clergy send one or two of their number, especiallyone of the Bishops, to him, with all convenient speed, instructed bythe Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [Sancroft], and the rest of the mostconsiderable of them, to inform His Majesty of the readiness they werein last year to have joined him at his landing, and to have preachedloyalty and due obedience to the people; and to bring assurances, underthe Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand, that they are in the samedisposition still, and will join His Majesty whenever he shall land.For the same end, to encourage the people to come into their duty, andbecause that there may be some danger in inserting of names, ways ofwriting 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 thelast importance for the King’s service, and therefore, tho’ difficultin appearance, must be complied with; and it’s[230] hoped that there maybe no danger, considering how safe all things come. The King is sorryhe cannot put his own hand to this. The King’s affairs depend upon thepunctual doing of what he desires, as you shall know in due time. Theperson sent may come safe by Holland. He must likewise bring as good anaccount as he can, of the number and names of the non-swearing Clergy;and likewise, how the non-swearing Clergy stand affected, and what theKing may expect from them, with the best account he can of the state ofthe King’s affairs in general.”[277] “You are,” it is said in anotherletter, “to let the Bishop of Norwich [Lloyd] know from us, how much weare pleased with his zeal and faithfulness in our service, to assurehim of our favour, and to return him our most hearty thanks.”[278]

Assurances were sent from this side the water to the plotters abroad,full of the spirit of revolt. “His Majesty [James] has likewise forhim, six Protestant Bishops and 600 Ministers who have not taken theoaths, and almost all the Ministers of the Church of England who havetaken 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 theirchurches to stir up the people in his favour,—500 of them havingbeen ready to join him last year, in order to convince Protestantsthat their religion was in no danger, and in order to preach theirsentiments to the inhabitants of the country, thro’ which the Kingshould pass.”[279]

Another of these conspirators assured his accomplices abroad, that hewould unite with his regiment a company of Clergymen of the Churchof England, who were determined[231] to serve as volunteers in thisexpedition; and he hoped also, by a stratagem, to seize the Prince andPrincess of Orange, and to bring them as prisoners to His Majesty.[280]

Captain Crisp declared that the Bishop of Exeter was entirely in theKing’s interest; and that five parts of seven in the county of Cornwallwere on the same side.[281]

Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, Sir John Fenwick, Major-General Sackville,and several other persons of quality and distinction, maintained thatthe persons mentioned, having made an exact inquiry through all thecounties of England, found that the mind of the nation in generalwas entirely alienated from the Prince of Orange, by losses sufferedat sea, by heavy taxes, by the interruption of commerce within andwithout the kingdom, and by the general disorder occasioned througha change in the circulation of the coin. It is distinctly affirmed,“that four parts out of five of the Clergy are disposed to declare forthe King;”[282] and His Majesty was earnestly besought to think ofsome way to reconcile the Church party, and those of the Dissenterswho were in Parliament, as it would contribute much to His Majesty’sservice.[283] This was before the death of Mary, afterwards intriguesdid not end in foolish, harmless, and untruthful correspondence. Aconspiracy was formed to attack William when driving over a piece ofbad road between Brentford and Turnham Green, but the conspirators werebetrayed, and the bubble of vengeance immediately burst. Charnock,Keyes, and King, Roman Catholic Jacobites—who, with others of thesame faith in religion and politics, had been[232] deeply involved in thisaffair—suffered for their offence, the last-named declaring at thefoot of the gallows, that what he had done was to be attributed to hisown sinful passions, not to any Roman Catholic doctrine on the subjectof tyrannicide. Two others of higher grade—Sir John Friend, belongingto the Jacobite nonjuring class, and Sir William Parkyns, a Jacobite,but a juror too—on the 3rd of April, also suffered death for theirshare in the conspiracy. The fate of these knights created immenseexcitement, chiefly on account of a circumstance which brings theirexecution before us. Jeremy Collier has been already mentioned as adistinguished nonjuring Divine, and a great sensation was produced inthe vast crowds round the fatal tree by the sight of this clergyman—incompany with two others less known, named Cook and Snatt—performingsome peculiar religious rites at the last moment of the culprits’lives. The three Divines were observed in the cart, not only prayingwith the unhappy men, but laying hands upon them as they kneltdown—Collier solemnly pronouncing over them the form of absolution,prescribed in the Visitation of the Sick. A paper, professedly writtenby Friend, and delivered to the Sheriff, contained a prayer for KingJames’ restoration, and stated that the writer was a member of theChurch, “though,” he adds, “a most unworthy and unprofitable part of it(meaning the nonjuring part), which suffers so much at present for astrict adherence to the laws and Christian principles.

People were astonished at the strange absolution performed. Multitudesmore who heard of it shared in the wonder, and the circulation of thepaper increased the[233] excitement. To all but the most obstinate, theadministering of absolution under the circumstances seemed like anact of sympathy with civil treason, and a gross perversion of Churchformularies. London presently rose in a state of high commotion. TheTyburn affair was in everybody’s mouth, and broadsides and pamphletsbearing upon it were in everybody’s hands. The public authoritiesinterfered, and at once seized Cook and Snatt. Collier eluded theirsearch; 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 forto Newgate; Sir William Parkyns had begged that the absolution of theChurch might be pronounced over him in his last moments. Collier hadbeen refused admittance to the prisoner in his cell on the day ofexecution, and so he went to Tyburn to pronounce absolution there. Heused a form in the Prayer-Book; and as to the imposition of hands,complained of as an innovation, he concluded that it was a veryancient, and, at least, a very innocent ceremony.[285]

The Bishops, considering that a scandal had been brought upon theChurch, published a declaration condemnatory both of the culprits’papers and the Clergymen’s conduct. The papers they charged with makinga favourable mention of so foul a thing as the assassination of HisMajesty; and the Clergymen’s conduct they denounced as insolent, andwithout precedent either in the English Church or in any other.[286]All the Bishops in London signed this document, including Crew ofDurham, and Sprat of Rochester, who, from their past career, were stillsuspected of Jacobite tendencies. Collier, whose boldness equalled hislearning, returned[234] to the charge, and from the depths of his obscurityre-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 theconduct of Bishop Sanderson, oddly enough putting the Prelate in theplace 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, hepulled off his cap that Mr. Pullin might lay his hand upon his barehead.”[287]

Collier was the leading spirit in this transaction, and he willinglyaccepted the chief responsibility; yet he continued to hide himself,and finally escaped the constable’s clutches. His two companions, aftera 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 beenlegally convicted of the commission of any crime against the law of theland—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 notbe regarded as a political offence; and absolving such men, althoughit looked like sympathy in their enterprise, could scarcely bring theabsolvers within the compass of the statute of treason.

Another conspirator’s name gathered round it ecclesiasticalcomplications. Sir John Fenwick, an active person amongst the numerousplotters against William, fell into the hands of justice in the monthof June. A letter, from the Duke of Shrewsbury to William III.,indicates what thoughts were entertained of this[235] conspirator, and ofthe views of certain people in France at that juncture.

“I am not acquainted with the particulars my Lord Steward has sent yourMajesty 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 isno contradiction to that character. I am confident he knows what, ifhe will discover, may be much more valuable than his life. If he werewell managed, possibly he might lay open a scene that would facilitatethe business the next winter, which, without some such miracle, I doubtwill be difficult enough.

“An acquaintance of mine saw a fresh letter to my Lady Walgrave, frommy Lord Galmoy, at St. Germains, who I think is her husband, where hesays 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 thisyear, and with good appearance of success. The same person saw anotherletter from another hand, they would not say from whom, but from onemore 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 supposedhim not unlikely to do; but, to the great surprise and indignation ofthe latter, he learnt before long, that the cunning conspirator hadwoven a story, by which he had contrived to bring the Duke himself intosuspicion. The fact is, that for a long time after the Revolution,things were said and done—whispered, insinuated, listened to, andwinked at—which bore an ugly look in the eyes of honest people; andit is wonderful in[236] what a perilous position the frail, eagle-facedchampion of constitutional rights and of European Protestantism stoodfor years after he had accepted the British crown. True, some men wereaccused without good reason, but to many cases the adage applied,“Where there is smoke there is fire.”[289]

Charles, Earl of Middleton, took an active part in Jacobite intrigues,and he is worth notice here as an example of Jacobitism in alliancewith 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 heknew how, with a clever stroke, to repel the onsets of Jesuiticalsophistry. A priest one day tried to prove to him the doctrine ofTransubstantiation. “Your Lordship,” said he, “believes in theTrinity;” Middleton stopped him by asking, “Who told you so?” Thepriest felt amazed, upon which the Peer added, it was the priest’sbusiness to prove that his own belief was true, and not to questionanother man about his.[290] In one of the Earl’s furtive missionsto England upon the business of the exiled Prince, he had met withShrewsbury, and had evidently tried, in an underhand way, to work hismind into a Jacobite direction. Fenwick had got hold of this, and hadmade the most of it against the Duke, who now occupied the office ofSecretary of State,[291] and had, during William’s absence, discharged,along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, the high functionof a Lord Justice. The letter which Shrewsbury wrote[237] to William isworth insertion, as illustrative of what went on behind the scenes,of the scrapes men fell into, of the way they got out of them, ofthe generosity and forgiving spirit of the King, and of the ricketycondition of English Protestantism, if it had rested upon nothingbetter than the character of politicians.

Fenwick disclosed divisions amongst the Nonjurors, classifying them ascompounders and non-compounders—the[239] compounders being anxious forsome security from King James, that English religion and liberty wouldbe preserved in case of his restoration; and the non-compounders beingprepared to cast themselves entirely upon his honour and generosity.Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, adopted the latter view, andwould hear of no terms in a matter of Divine right.[293]

The Bill for Fenwick’s attainder created much discussion in the Houseof Commons. The discussion took a theological turn upon the point ofdeficiency of evidence, the testimony of one witness not being backedby the testimony of a second. Much was said by the opponents of theattainder, respecting the eternal law of God and man, and of the HolyScriptures requiring more witnesses than one to convict a person of acapital crime. “No man,” it was repeated, “shall be condemned to dieby the mouth of one witness, but by two or three witnesses he shallsuffer.” It was replied, that not the Levitical law, but the law ofEngland, should be guide in such a case; then, some one rejoined, thathe and those who thought with him, did not wish to base their argumentsimply on Scripture, but upon the fact that this law of Moses havingbeen confirmed by our Saviour in the New Testament, it ought to bebrought into connection with the law of the land.[294] In spite ofattempts made to save Sir John, the Bill passed both Houses. RobertNelson interceded with Tenison to plead with the King. “My very goodfriend,” returned the Primate, “give me leave to tell you, that youknow not what spirit this man, nor I am of; I wish for his, nor noman’s blood, but how can I do my duty to God and my King, should Ideclare a man[240] innocent; for my not being of the side of the Bill willconvince the world that I think him so, when I am satisfied in myconscience, not only from Goodman’s evidence, but all the convincingtestimonies in the world, that he is guilty. Lawsex post factomay indeed carry the face of rigour with them, but if ever a law wasnecessary this is.”[295]

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 beforethe third reading of the Bill. Rushing into the Bishops’ chamber torobe 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 lestthe Bill against Sir John Fenwick should be read before I could takemy place in the House.” “Fye, my Lord,” said Tenison; “you might havespared yourself that labour, since you had not an opportunity ofhearing the merits of the cause at the first and second reading; butsince, 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 doit.”[296]

After the Bill had passed, efforts were continued on the culprit’sbehalf. His Lady petitioned the House of Lords and the House ofCommons; also she threw herself as a suppliant at William’s feet invain. Fenwick delivered a paper, supposed to have been drawn up byWhite, the deprived Bishop of Peterborough, in which he did not denythe facts sworn, but only complained of his attainder as unjust; atthe same time declaring his loyalty to[241] King James and to the Princeof Wales, but denouncing, with horror, the idea of assassinatingWilliam.[297]

Fenwick suffered upon Tower Hill the 20th of January, 1697. That wintrymorning, cold with storms, White appeared with him on the scaffold,not to pronounce absolution or lay on hands, but simply to pray with adying man.[298] Commending the King to the Divine protection—meaningJames, but not using his name—Fenwick, as he laid his neck on theblock, cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my soul.” His corpse was buried bytorch-light in St. Martin’s Church.

Others were hanged for treasonable practices, including Cranburne,who professed himself a member of the Church of England; andRookwood and Lowick, Roman Catholics, whoseJesu Maria andPaternosters are particularly mentioned by the Protestantnarrator of their last end.[299]

The peace of Ryswick, which put an end to the war between William andLouis, and detached the latter from the cause of James, dispelled forawhile the visions which had tantalized and disappointed the nonjuringparty; for the treaty, sanctioned by France, Spain, and the UnitedProvinces, recognized the constitution of England, and William as aconstitutional King. Some Clergymen, wearied by the bootless resistanceof eight long years, now came to terms, and swore allegiance to thereigning Sovereign, adopting at last the principle which they haddenounced, that a settled Government, though illegitimate in itsorigin, is binding in its authority.

Immense joy arose on this occasion; it prolonged itself during themonth of November. The anniversary of the landing at Torbay of courseset in motion peals of bells, lighted up candles in windows, kindledbonfires in market-places, and evoked shouts of glee from assembledmultitudes. The 14th of November, the day of Williams return andlanding at Margate, became an additional season of joy. On the16th, which turned out a bright morning, he entered his capital instate, attended by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, with a measure ofthe splendour which on past occasions brightened the City’s dark andnarrow streets; although some of the spectators of the sight noticed adecline[243] in the splendour of the pageantry.[300] The triumph of the daywas complete when the University of Oxford, to the unutterable chagrinof the Nonjurors, struck its colours, and in an adulatory address didhomage 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 floridpanegyric,”[301] founded on the words, “Happy are thy men, and happyare these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and hearthy wisdom. Blessed be the Lord thy God which delighted in thee toset thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God: because thyGod loved Israel to establish them for ever, therefore made he theeking over them, to do judgment and justice.” The same day St. Paul’sCathedral was opened for Divine service, and William would have beenthere, instead of being in his own Chapel, but for fear lest themultitude, thronging the streets, should render his approach almostimpracticable. The Corporation of London appeared in their civic pomp;Compton ascended his throne, just enriched by the carvings of GrinlingGibbons; and he afterwards preached from the appropriate text, “Iwas glad when they said unto me, Let us go up into the house of theLord.”[302]

A new Parliament, of a decidedly High-Church stamp, assembled onthe 9th of December, amidst an atmosphere of hypocrisy and intriguerarely equalled. A sermon preached before the Commons by the Rector ofSutton,[244] in Surrey, upon government originating with the people, andgood government alone being the ordinance of God, gave vast offenceto the Tories, and occasioned the passing of a curious resolution,that no one should preach before the House unless he was a Dean or aD.D. A Committee of the Lower House formally complained of Dissentersbeing made Justices of the Peace; whereas it turned out on inquirythat not two of their number were placed on the roll, besides suchas had become occasional Conformists. Some zealots went so far as topropose, that an address should be presented to the King, to removeBurnet 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 tobe withdrawn.[303] Under pretence of patriotism and economy, a strongopposition party carried one measure for a reduction of the army, whichcompelled William to part with his Dutch Guards, the sorest sacrificehe ever made; and another for the recovery of Irish estates, bestowedby the Monarch on his supporters, a proceeding which ended in theaggrandizement of its inventors.

The peace of Ryswick had brought “a great swarm of priests”[304] toEngland, who held up their heads with so much insolence, that somefoolish Protestants and some cunning politicians absurdly declared,the articles of peace favoured Popery, and the King was a Papist indisguise. Soon the new Parliament, stirred by a gust of[245] wind whichthreatened a “No Popery” tempest, set to work upon a Bill obligingevery Popish minor succeeding to an estate, immediately to take theoath of allegiance, and, as soon as he attained his majority, tosubmit to the Test Act,—otherwise his property would devolve on theProtestant next of kin. The Bill also banished Popish priests, andadjudged them to perpetual imprisonment in case they dared to return;the reward for conviction being £100. The Bill is said to have beenpartly a trick contrived by the Tories to perplex the Whigs, who pridedthemselves on being the champions of Toleration; but when they sawthe Whigs supporting it, they indicated a desire to drop the measure.With a view of provoking defeat, they introduced additionally severeand unreasonable clauses; yet, contrary to their expectations, theLords, under the influence of an anti-Popish fever, accepted what cameup to them, and the Bill, unamended, not only passed the Upper House,but received the Royal assent. Burnet supported it, and endeavouredto defend himself against the charge of injustice and inconsistency.“I had always thought,” he says, “that if a Government found any sectin religion incompatible with its quiet and safety, it might, andsometimes ought, to send away all of that sect, with as little hardshipas 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 beapprehended when there is a pretended Popish heir in the case.” Thenew law happily proved a nullity. Some of the terms were so vague, andthe provisions were so oppressive, that the “Act was not followed, norexecuted in any sort.”[305]

Complaints of growing immorality had been repeatedly made;proclamations to check it had been often issued; and on the 28th ofNovember, Parliament requested the publication of a new one. Upon this,the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a pastoral letter to each of hisSuffragans, requesting them to stir up the Clergy to a more zealousdischarge of their duties. The good effects of pastoral diligence hadbeen made apparent in London; now Ministers in general were exhortedto imitate the admirable example. Let them by their consistent livesrecommend the doctrines which they preached. The family and the parishwere spheres of usefulness, to be filled up by the discharge of theduties included in a Christian walk and conversation; persons in holyorders ought to be pre-eminently holy. Enemies were seeking objectionsagainst Christ’s religion, its friends therefore ought to be diligentin its defence, acquainting themselves with the grounds on which itrested, and the modes of sophistry by which it was assailed. Frequentmeetings of the Clergy for conference on religious matters might domuch good, especially if Churchwardens and others of the laity couldbe brought to co-operate. Obstinate offenders should be subjected toecclesiastical censure, and the assistance of the magistrate should besought when it was likely to be effectual; people were not to shrinkfrom exposing crime and securing its punishment, through fear of beingdenounced as informers. Finally, since education laid the firmestbasis for morality and religion, it became the parochial clergy to besedulous in the catechizing of children. In this way the Archbishop,through the medium of Diocesans and their Clergy, endeavoured topromote the interests of the Church.[306]

The power vested in the Crown of nominating Bishops and otherdignitaries had been exercised during the life of Queen Mary verymuch according to her discretion. William,—perhaps because he was aforeigner, and also destitute of entire sympathy with Episcopalianism,or because he was so engrossed with foreign affairs,—seems to havebeen reluctant to take part in the bestowment of ecclesiasticalpatronage. In the year 1700 he devolved its responsibilities, to alarge extent, upon the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and theBishops of Salisbury, Worcester, Ely, and Norwich. Whilst he was in therealm they were to signify to him their recommendation of such personsas they thought fit for vacant preferments, which recommendation theywere to present through the Secretaries of State. If whilst he wasbeyond the seas, any Bishoprics, Deaneries, or other specified clericaloffices in his gift, above the annual value of £140, should needfilling up, the Commissioners were to transmit the names of suitablepersons, respecting whom his pleasure would be made known under hissign-manual. At the same time he delegated to them full power at onceto appoint to other preferments. Also, he declared, that neither whenhe was abroad nor when he was at home, should either of his Secretariesaddress him in reference to any benefices left to the recommendation ordisposal of the Commissioners, without first communicating with them,also that no warrant should be presented for the Royal signature untiltheir recommendation had been obtained.[307]

An affecting bereavement now occurred in the Royal family. William,Duke of Gloucester, a son of Princess[248] Anne and Prince George ofDenmark, was heir to the throne, and therefore in him centred thehopes of the nation. He seems to have been a lively child, for in1695, when only six years old, he ran to meet his uncle with a littlemusket on his shoulder, and presented arms. “I am learning my drill,”he cried, “that I may help you to beat the French.” Nothing couldhave better pleased the veteran, who soon afterwards actually createdthe boy Knight of the Garter. Military tastes continued to guide hischildish amusements, and he formed a regiment of lads, chiefly fromKensington, who attended him at Campden House, the residence of hismother, a quaint mansion burnt down a few years ago. The education ofthe Prince early occupied the thoughts of William, who offered thepost of Governor to the Duke of Shrewsbury, now restored to the Royalconfidence.[308] Shrewsbury declined, and the office fell into thehands of Marlborough. A story is told to the effect, that the King saidto the future hero of Blenheim, “Teach him to be what you are,[249] and mynephew cannot want accomplishments.” The still more important duties ofpreceptor to the youth were entrusted to Burnet, as already indicated.Windsor then being within the diocese of Salisbury, the Prince was tolive there during the summer months, when the Bishop reckoned he wouldbe in his diocese, and therefore in the way of his proper episcopalduties; he satisfied himself with thinking, that all would be rightif the King allowed him ten weeks in the year for the other parts ofhis diocese,—a circumstance which shows how in those days notions ofa Bishop’s office were different from what, happily, they are now.“I took to my own province,” says the right reverend preceptor, “thereading and explaining the Scriptures to him, the instructing him inthe principles of religion, and the rules of virtue, and the giving hima view of history, geography, politics, and government. I resolved alsoto look very exactly to all the masters that were appointed to teachhim other things.”[309]

But a sad fatality brooded over all the offspring of poor Anne. After afew days’ attack of fever, the young Duke died on the 30th of July.

He was buried in Westminster Abbey, and recently, upon the family vaultbeing opened, amongst the ten small coffins of the children of JamesII., and the eighteen small coffins of the children of his daughterAnne, lay the coffin of the youthful William, resting in remarkablejuxtaposition upon that of Elizabeth of Bohemia.[310] Thus one of anunfortunate race, who never attained the crown he inherited, mingledhis dust with that of a great aunt, who soon lost the crown she hadprompted her husband too eagerly to seize. As the nation unaffectedlymourned[250] the death of the youthful Duke, a gentleman,[311] living atHolland House, a friend of Atterbury’s, lamented the removal of hisRoyal neighbour in the following lines, which afford a specimen of theaffected elegiac strains popular at the period:—

The Duke of Gloucester was the last Protestant heir to the Crownrecognized in the Act of Settlement. His death therefore exposed theRoyal succession to new perils, revived the hopes of the Jacobites, andcreated anxiety in the minds of William and his Ministers. The King atthe time had left England nearly a month; and as, amidst the gardensof his retreat at Loo, he saw the shortening of the summer days, hehad pondered future contingencies, and laid plans for preserving thework which he had wrought. When, in the following February, 1701, he,bearing evident signs of increasing frailty, met Parliament, he toldthe Houses that the loss just sustained made it necessary there shouldbe a further provision for a Protestant succession; adding, that thehappiness of the nation, and the security of religion, seemed to dependso much upon this, that he could not doubt it would meet with generalconcurrence. The addresses echoed the same sentiment, and in March theBill of Succession came under Parliamentary debate. It determined thatthe Princess Sophia, Duchess-Dowager of Hanover, or her heirs, should[251]succeed upon failure of issue to William and Anne; and it laid downthe principle that whosoever wore the Crown should commune with theChurch of England, as by law established. Other important resolutions,which it does not come within my province to notice, were incorporatedin the Bill; and these gave rise to fierce discussions between the twogreat political parties, who, throughout the whole of this reign, wereteasing William out of his life, provoking the phlegmatic Dutchman toexclaim, that “all the difference he knew between the two parties was,that the Tories would cut his throat in the morning, and the Whigsin the afternoon.”[312] The Act of Settlement at length passed, andreceived the Royal assent.

It is curious to observe with respect to this Act, that Sophia, who wasmade the protectress of the Reformed faith, and who was to supersedethe Stuarts on the throne, was neither a zealous Protestant nor afoe to the exiled family. For when asked what was the religion ofher blooming daughter, at the time just thirteen years of age, shereplied she had none as yet; “we are waiting to know what prince sheis to marry, and whenever that point is determined, she will be dulyinstructed in the religion of her future husband—whether Protestantor Catholic.” And in a communication, which Lord Chancellor Hardwickecalled her Jacobite letter, she bewailed the fate of the poor Prince ofWales, who, if restored, she said, might be easily guided in a rightdirection.[313]

A limitation of the heirship, within the pale of any particularProtestant community, which may become less and less national as timerolls on, is open to grave objections; but the limitation of descentwithin Protestant lines of some kind, appears to rest upon a soundbasis. The[252] reasons for it are furnished not by the religious, but bythe political character of Romanism. No doctrinal or ecclesiasticalopinions ought to exclude a legitimate heir, but a Popish claimantis the subject of another and an ambitious power, which associatestemporal with spiritual authority, and exercises assumed prerogativesafter an elastic fashion, which can contract or expand them withexquisite cunning, as fear darkens, or as hope brightens the prospectof futurity. A Roman Catholic Sovereign is involved in complicationsintolerable to a Protestant people, with a history full of warningagainst foreign interference. It was a true instinct which led LordWilliam Russell, amidst the aberrations of party zeal, to deprecateas a terrible calamity the accession of a Papist; the same instinctprompted the limitation of the Succession Act. Taught by the story ofthe past, our ancestors guarded against Romish intermeddling, and it iswell for the fortunes of this country, that, acting on this maxim, ourfathers did not, in a fit of blind generosity, mistaken for justice,open or keep open a door of mischief which, in some perilous hour, itmight be impossible to shut.

Another important event was now approaching. James II., tired outby a chequered life, desired to die. Whatever may be thought of hisprinciples, and the effect of his reign upon the interests of hiscountry, no one can doubt his religious sincerity, and when theimmoralities of his earlier days had been discontinued, confessed, anddeplored,[314] he manifested an earnest devoutness, tinged, of course,by the peculiarities of his faith. Dwelling upon the examples of somegood men who had longed to be removed from this world, and upon themoral dangers to which others had been exposed, he counted[253] it “a highpresumption for a slender reed not to desire to be sheltered from suchterrible gusts as had overturned those lofty cedars.” When indulging insuch meditations, he was seized with a fit in early spring, from whichhe partially recovered. Once more, within the Palace at St. Germains,he was seized, in the midst of his devotions at chapel, with anotherattack on the 2nd of September. Afterwards he sent for his son, who,seeing the bed stained with blood from a violent hæmorrhage, burstinto violent weeping. Having calmed the child, his father conjured himto adhere to the Catholic faith; to be obedient to his mother, andgrateful to the King of France; to serve God with all his strength,and if he should reign, to remember kings were made not for themselvesbut the good of their people, and to set a pattern of all manner ofvirtues.[315]

This was good advice, but it bore an application such as would guidethe son in the father’s ways. He exhorted everybody about him to spendpious lives, and urged his few Protestant courtiers and servants toembrace the Catholic faith. It deserves mention that he forgave allwho had injured him, mentioning in particular his daughter Anne, andhis son-in-law William. But the most important circumstance connectedwith his dying moments was the visit of theGrand Monarque,who promised James he would take his family under his protection, andacknowledge the Prince of Wales as King of England—an assurance whichdrew joyful tears from the family and courtiers. On Friday, the 16th ofSeptember, 1701, James expired; as if a saint had been taken to heaven,the physicians and surgeons who made apost-mortem examination,kept particles of his body as relics, and the[254] attendants dipped theirchaplets and handkerchiefs in his blood.[316]

William went into mourning. Coaches and liveries were put inblack;[317] but tidings of the promise made by Louis soon arousedindignation.

The King was in Holland at this crisis, but Sir Thomas Abney, theNonconformist Lord Mayor of London, at once caused an address to bevoted to His Majesty, expressive of the loyalty of the citizens, and oftheir 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 wastaking this step, loyal addresses poured in from all parts, and amongstthem one from the London Nonconformists, presented by John Howe. Theysaid they were grateful to Divine Providence for the settlement ofthe Protestant succession, and pledged themselves to use their utmostendeavours to maintain His Majesty’s title, and that of his successors,as by law established.[318] An address of the same nature was presentedby the Baptists.[319]

The truth is, a new war now threatened Europe, for Louis had torn inpieces the Ryswick Treaty by the bedside of James, and deliberatelydefied the provisions of the Act of Settlement.

When William met his new Parliament on the 31st of December, 1701,he told them that the setting up of[255] the pretended Prince of Walesas King of England was not only the highest indignity to himself andthe nation, but it concerned every one who valued the Protestantreligion or the welfare of his country. “I have shown,” these werethe closing words he used, “and will always show, how desirous I amto be the common father of all my people. Do you, in like manner, layaside parties and divisions. Let there be no other distinction heardof amongst us for the future, but of those who are for the Protestantreligion and the present Establishment, and of those who mean a PopishPrince and a French Government. I will only add this—if you do in goodearnest desire to see England hold the balance of Europe, and to beindeed at the head of the Protestant interest, it will appear by yourright improving the present opportunity.”[320]

His speech elicited applause. It charmed the Whigs, and many had itornamentally printed in English, French, and Dutch, and hung up on thewalls of their homes. Political animosities were lulled for awhile bycircumstances inspiring concern for the Empire, and “the whole nation,split before into an hundred adverse factions, with a King at its headevidently declining to his tomb, the whole nation, Lords, Commons, andpeople, proceeded as one body, informed by one soul.”[321] Unanimouslyit was resolved that no peace should be made with France until afterreparation for the indignity done to England.

A mania for oath-taking infected our fathers, and now, in addition tothe old law, which had occasioned the nonjuring party, came a new law,which served to revive it. When death had taken away the Sovereignto whom they regarded themselves as pledged while he lived, theNonjurors began to deliberate about taking the oath, but a[256] new form ofabjuration stopped their deliberations.[322] Ken was troubled at theprospect of its universal imposition, and hoped its enforcement wouldbe limited; but a Bill passed requiring not only all civil officers,but also all ecclesiastics, all members of the Universities, and allschoolmasters to acknowledge William aslawful and rightfulKing, and to deny any title whatever in the pretended Prince of Wales.Sixteen Lords, including Compton, Bishop of London, and Sprat, Bishopof Rochester, protested against the Abjuration Bill;[323] and othersreasonably judged that to swear allegiance was one thing, but to swearrespecting the nature of a title to the Crown was another—that in thefirst case people were within the region of fact, that in the secondthey were brought into the region of theory. Calamy records, with noapparent dissatisfaction, that the oath was thought to be the bestmeans of disappointing such as hoped by the assistance of France tomake way for the Pretender, and so accomplish the design of restoringarbitrary power and the Popish religion.[324] The Abjuration Billreceived the Royal assent by Commission in the month of March, 1702.

Naturally at this juncture there were Jacobites who felt a flutterof 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 anotherof prospects, which brightened as the declining health of Williamforeboded his speedy removal. One busy agent forwarded for the useof the Stuarts certain proposals, in which he curiously sketched thepolitical views of religious parties in this country, as they struckhis eye.

“As for England, the parties most to be considered are—First, theEpiscopal, which, being in possession of the bells, is by far themost numerous, though not the most active; for, being at their ease,and possessing not only the tythes but the magistracy and profitableemployments of the nation, they flatter themselves with an opinionthat upon any emergency or change of State, they shall be able to givethe 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, thatparty rather suffers than approves of what has been done, by adding theHouse of Hanover to their weak and trembling entail, which, as it wasthe project only of the Prince of Orange and his Dutch Council, is bymany suspected, but despised by more, nor could have passed the Houseof Commons, but that they were told it was the only way to express acontempt of the power of France; and by that means to make the peoplebelieve that they feared nothing thence, and likewise to oblige thatMonarch to apprehend their power to be much greater than indeed it is;to stave off a war they more apprehend and dread themselves than heneeds to do, notwithstanding all the rabble and trading part of thenation are universally for it.

“The next party requiring consideration is the Presbyterian, whichconsists of a malicious, sour, and subtle part of men, who aremore united in malice than the former, and do, with their demurecountenances and outside Pharisaical righteousness, draw from thechurches to their meeting-houses the most hypocritical part of thetrading people; so that their numbers are wonderfully increased of lateyears, to the terror of the aspiring part of the episcopal parsons,who dread that Bishops, Deans, and Chapters are tumbling down again,knowing bare[258] competencies too weak supports for their dissolute andscandalous lives.

“The next party to be considered is the Independent, under whichdenomination may be included that rabble of divers sects, which byabove fifty several whimsical societies engross in the whole a greaternumber of dissenters to the Prelatical Church than the Presbyteriansdo, and are mortal enemies to both, including within them that sort ofmen which are most properly called Republicans or Commonwealth’s-men, arestless, bold, and busy spirit, easiest to be gained to your Majesty’sinterest, it being become a maxim amongst the wisest of them, thatsince it appears impracticable to unite and settle all interests in aCommonwealth, it is absolutely necessary to restore your Majesty andthe right line, to keep off the necessity of a perpetual war, whichthese botching entails apparently threaten the nation with. Nay, intheir maxims they go farther, and say that it were better for thekingdom in general, but most for themselves in particular, that therightful Monarch should be a Catholic rather than of the Episcopal orPresbyterian ways, which will ever in their several turns, when unitedto the Crown, persecute or at least discountenance them.

“The numerous party of the Quakers cannot be reckoned under the lasthead, and are not to be disregarded as mad men, as they seem to many tobe. For, generally speaking; they are your Majesty’s friends, and inall discourses with their oppugners charge them with their inhuman andunjust dealing with their rightful Prince; an argument that nonplussesall, and converts some to see the wickedness of their ways. Besides,to my certain experience, there are many capable of being agents andnegotiators amongst them, as willing, as able, if well directed.

“Lastly, the non-jurant party of the nation may be thought of, thoughnot numerous enough without the Catholics to make any considerablestrength or appearance in the field. These, however, are respectedas men of honour, that the penitent or discontented may safely opentheir minds to, and can confide in; so that properly instructed, theyare safe agitators dispersed in every corner of the nation, who too,upon occasion, will, to a man, appear in the field for your Majesty’sservice.

“As for the Catholics, though I am sorry to say it, they seem the mostdesponding and least useful party in the kingdom; nay, which is worse,they are the only people who encourage the interested and atheisticalto stick to the Prince of Orange, though they both despise and hatehim as much as any; for the avowed despair the priests have broughtthose to is so universally owned, that it discourages the waverers fromdeclaring themselves to be for their duty, and confirms the maliciousin their insolence, so that some course must be taken for alteringtheir conduct and conversation, or they will prove the greatestremora to any good design which may be set on foot.”[325]

We are apt to read History amidst mental illusions. We unconsciouslytransfer our knowledge of results to those who were living amidstantecedents. Hence, sometimes we credit Englishmen of William’s reignwith a sense of security which could only arise from a defeat of plots,which then appeared by no means certain. Indeed, the stability of theRevolution Settlement was not assured until the middle of the nextcentury. Up to that time moments occurred when Government knew it satupon barrels of gunpowder. William’s throne to the last[260] remained ina shaky condition. The end alone prevents our recognizing the obviousparallel between his reign and that of Louis Philippe in France. Acounter-Revolution was imminent throughout; and to our fathers in thosedays we must not attribute the lordly conviction of permanence which wecherish with so much pride. People in London under William could counton things lasting as then they were, with almost as little confidenceas people in Paris during the last forty years. But powerful elementsblended with changes in Great Britain such as have not influencedthose of our Gallic neighbours. With them Revolutions have beenpolitical—with us religious. Puritanism and Anglo-Catholicism—factorsboth for good and evil—we find at work on this side the channel, noton the other.

As Parliament was framing oaths, and Jacobites were brewing plots,Convocation, being restored to activity, plunged itself into newcontroversies, the outgrowths of old ones, which require to be recordedwith some minuteness, in spite of their being as dry as witheredthorns.

Convocational history in the reign of William III., from the year1689 to the year 1700, is simply a history of writs and prorogations.During that period no business was ever transacted, the Lower Housenever met. Tillotson and Tenison, knowing the temper prevalent inthe Church, aware of the influence of the nonjuring Clergy, sensibleof the wide diffusion of sympathy with them, and alive to the factof an extensive revival of High-Church principles, were apprehensiveof a collision between the two Houses in case they proceeded tobusiness. They therefore thought it prudent to hold in abeyance theright of meeting, until some exigency rendered their coming togetherindispensable. Indignant murmurs at this state of things freely escapedthe lips of many a Dean, Prebendary, Archdeacon, and Rector; and atlength found utterance in a publication, which produced a wonderfulimpression, and led to important results. Few pamphlets have beenmore famous in their day than theLetter to a Convocation Man,published in the year 1697. It was widely circulated, read by allsorts of people, canvassed in City coffee-houses, discussed in countryinns, talked of by parishioners under church porches, and pondered inrectories, vicarages, and quiet homes all over England. It made, saysNicholson, “a[262] considerable noise and pother in the kingdom.”[326]TheLetter insisted upon the state of the country—so markedby false and pernicious principles, by irreligious indifference,and by immoral conduct—as a reason why the representatives of theChurch should assemble in their legal capacity. The constitutionalright of Convocation was strongly urged, the Royal writ needful forit being, as the writer alleged, no more a sign of precariousness inthis case, than is a Royal writ in any other. A resemblance was tracedbetween Convocation and Parliament, and curious antiquarian and legalquestions were reviewed. The author touched on the mode of summoningConvocation—a subject which requires to be explained, not only onaccount of the use which he made of it, but on account of a use towhich it was put by another advocate on the same side.

English Convocations, since the 25th of Henry VIII.—when an Act waspassed depriving Archbishops of the right to call those assemblies atpleasure—came to be convoked exclusively by writs addressed to theArchbishops, who were authorized, under their seals, to summon forbusiness the Clergy of their province. The Archbishop of Canterburyaddressed his mandate to the Bishop of London, to be executed by himas his provincial Dean, and the Bishop of each diocese to whom theimmediate execution of such a mandate belongs, received directionsto 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 intothe writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament a clause—called thepræmonentes orpræmunientes clause, from its beginningwith that word—requiring him[263] to give notice of such writ to thePrior and Chapter, and to the Archdeacon and Clergy, so as to causethe Prior and the Archdeacon, in their own persons, and the Chapterand Clergy by their Procurators, or proxies—one for the Chapter, andtwo for the Clergy—to be present with him at Westminster, there toattend to public affairs. After the Reformation, Deans were substitutedfor Priors; and, with that alteration, the writ continued to run inits ancient form.[327] The writ indicated exactly the same kind ofrepresentatives to be summoned as did the Archbishop’s mandate; and,upon this ground, the author of theLetter insisted upon theright of the Lower Clergy to assemble for deliberation as being no lessinalienable than the right of the House of Commons—the premonition, orwarning, to be delivered to the Clergy being, as he says, “an argumentof invincible strength to establish the necessity of Convocationsmeeting as often as Parliaments.”

The author of this famous pamphlet maintained that Convocation had thepower of determining its own matters of debate; but in the maintenanceof this position, he had to explain away the sense of the wordsemployed in the writ of summons,super præmissis, et aliis quæsibi clarius exponentur ex parte Domini Regis—words which limitConvocational discussions to topics proposed by Royal authority.[328]

To this anonymous publication, which roused High Churchmen to activityand filled Low Churchmen with[264] alarm, an answer appeared from the penof Dr. William Wake, already well and favourably known in the worldof letters, through his answers to Bossuet, and other writings on theRoman Catholic controversy, as well as his version of the Epistles ofthe Apostolical Fathers. He contended that ancient Synods were convenedby Royal authority, that when they assembled, the Civil Magistrate hada right to prescribe questions for debate, and that they could notdissolve without his license. The King of England, he said, had supremepower over English Convocations, and the Clergy could confer on nosubject without his permission. After certain historical deductions,he denied that sitting in Convocation is an original Church right, orthat it is the same thing as the Parliamentary privilege, vouchsafedby thepræmonentes clause in writs sent to Bishops. Accordingto Wake’s argument, the 25th of Henry VIII. has restored to the Crownits full authority, and placed the control of Convocation entirelyin Royal hands; and he ventures to declare the possibility of ChurchSynods becoming useless and even hurtful; asking, with reference toopinions then violently expressed, “What good can the Prince proposeto himself, or any wise man hope for, from any assembly that can bebrought together, under the unhappy influence of these and the likeprepossessions?”[329]

Passing over other combatants, we must particularly notice one whoentered the field on the other side, and was destined to play adistinguished part in the political as well as the ecclesiasticalaffairs of his country. Francis Atterbury, born just before the Act ofUniformity was passed in 1662, and educated first at Westminster andthen at Oxford, distinguished himself at the early age of[265] twenty-five,by the extraordinary ability which he exhibited as a controversialist.He then won literary laurels by answering an attack upon the spirit ofMartin Luther and the origin of the Reformation; and soon afterwards,when minister of Bridewell, where his eloquence attracted popularattention, some of his sermons involved him in discussions upon pointsof moral and practical divinity. Scarcely had he been made Preacherof the Rolls, when he plunged into a conflict purely classical.Charles Boyle, afterwards Earl of Orrery, who had been Atterbury’spupil at Oxford, published an edition of the Epistles of Phalaris andthe Fables of Æsop, then recently eulogized by Sir William Temple—apublication which led to a controversy singularly renowned in thehistory of criticism. Richard Bentley exposed the spurious characterof these Epistles by an appeal to external evidence, and therebypaved the way for an application of similar criticism to productionsof a far different character.[330] In defiance of the exposure whichreflected upon the literary reputation of both Temple and Boyle, someof their friends, with chivalrous devotion, came forward on theirbehalf; Swift, in hisTale of the Tub, and hisBattle of theBooks, tilting his lance on the side of his patron Temple; andAtterbury—associated with others under Boyle’s name, in an examinationof Bentley’s Dissertations—appearing as the champion of his latepupil. Though no match for Bentley in scholarship, Atterbury possessedimmense power in respect of rhetorical style, clever sophistry, cuttingsarcasm, and personal invective; and these were employed with sucheffect as for awhile to overwhelm the illustrious scholar, and tosilence his charges against the defenders of Phalaris.[266] However, thetriumph was short; Bentley resumed his attacks, and demolished the workof his critics, in a book which, for learning, logic, and humour, isperhaps unrivalled in that class of productions. Atterbury must havebeen sorely vexed by his discomfiture when in 1700 he threw himselfinto the great ecclesiastical contest of the period, and published hisRights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation.

Indulging in his fondness for personal attack, he abused the recentvolume by Dr. Wake as a shallow and empty performance, deficient inhistorical learning and destructive of Church liberty. After referringto the ancient practice of holding provincial Synods, he treatedConvocations as coming in their room, and as constituting necessaryappendages to English Parliaments. He insisted much upon the fact ofthe Clergy having been summoned by thepræmonentes clause in thewrits addressed to spiritual Peers, and regretted that by a politicalblunder the legislative representation of the Church had becomeseparated from the legislative representation of the State. Without,however, attempting to revive obsolete proceedings, he asserted mostpertinaciously the indefeasible right of the clerical order to sit inConvocation, and to petition, advise, address, represent, and declaretheir judgment upon their own affairs, notwithstanding their inabilityto make, or attempt, any new canons without express Royal authority.

The question of assembling Convocation started from an historical pointof view, but it came before the public mind in its constitutional andpractical bearings; yet, amidst the multitude of publications on thesubject, one seeks in vain for a consistent and satisfying treatment ofthe subject on either side. Those who believed in Convocation, and whowished to see it vigorously[267] revived, did not dare to express all thatthey believed, or all that they wished; they were checked by the spiritof the age, and hampered by the circumstances of the Church. At thesame time they ignored the great change which had come over politicaland ecclesiastical affairs through the Revolution, and they also shuttheir eyes to the fact, that it is impossible to enjoy State patronageand emoluments without some abridgment of ecclesiastical action. Thosewho wished Convocation should not assemble feared to deny its rights,and shrunk from either proposing its extinction or advocating itsreform. They only desired to mesmerize it, till clerical animositiesshould expire, and the Church should be of one mind—a consummation nonearer now than it was then. The prudence forced upon this class ofpersons by their political position, asserted itself at the expense oflogical consistency; and, as is often the case, practical sagacity mademen awkward reasoners.

There might be arguments for abolishing Convocation, or modifying itspowers—at any rate for defining them; but, whilst no such argumentswere urged, it was impossible to silence gainsayers, who contended thatpractice ought to be accordant with theory. If Convocations be likeParliaments, things in themselves good and wise, differences of opinionno more furnish reasons against Convocations than against Parliaments.If what Clarendon says be true, “that of all mankind, none form sobad an estimate of human affairs as Churchmen,”[331] that may be anargument for extinguishing Convocational rights, not for continuing tothem a nominal instead of a real existence.

Nor was there conclusiveness of historical argument,[268] or anyconsistency of demand, on the other side. High-Church advocates werethen, as always, puzzled how to forge links of union between EnglishConvocations and the early Synods of the Church, especially theassembly at Jerusalem. What resemblance exists between them, exceptof the most general description?—a resemblance such as pertains toall ecclesiastical meetings whatsoever. The essential conditions of aConvocation of Canterbury are that it must meet by authority from theCrown; that it consist of two Houses, one composed of Bishops, and theother of Presbyters, both purely clerical; that the members of theLower House must be dignitaries, together with Proctors, elected bythe Clergy, and that nothing which they do has binding force withoutthe consent of the Sovereign. What is there in these distinctivefeatures of an English Convocation to connect it with Synods before theera of State Establishments? What precedent for any of the essentialparts of the structure can be found in the history of the meeting atJerusalem? The Apostles and Elders met altogether, and joined in adeliverance upon the question at issue. No other representatives ordelegates appeared except those who came from Antioch. The resemblancebetween the meeting at Jerusalem and meetings in Saxon and Normantimes is a pure imagination, beyond such resemblance as belongs toreligious conferences in general. Nor can any specific likenessbe traced between mixed Anglo-Saxon Councils and purely clericalConvocations. An Anglo-Saxon provincial Synod was in many points veryunlike Convocation;[332] and betweenA.D. 816, when the Synod[269]of Challok occurred, in which Abbots, Presbyters, and Deacons met,andA.D. 1065, I do not find that more than one provincialSynod was held; a national Synod met under Dunstan,A.D. 969.Provincial Synods, previously occasional and rare, did not becomeregular and frequent until the reign of Edward I.

Convocation, with full power to deliberate, to propose and enactcanons, to alter existing formularies, to pronounce authoritativelyupon points of doctrine, and to originate schemes of ecclesiasticalaction, co-ordinate with the functions of Parliament, would have beena reality; but, in the view of many, such power would be inconsistentwith the secular relations of the Church, as dependent on the Statefor much of its pecuniary support, for more of its social prestige,and for all of its political pre-eminence. Convocation, as it waspermitted to exist under William III., was really a mere form, andthat a very troublesome one. Nor did Atterbury, or any who sidedwith him, endeavour to bring it into accordance with their theory.The theory was one of ecclesiastical independence; but when they sawsome of the difficulties of their position, they only endeavoured toloosen a little the chain which bound up the liberty of Convocationalaction.[333]

The new Ministry, formed in 1700, stipulated that Convocation should berestored to its sessional rights and privileges.[334] This point beingconceded, those of the Clergy whom it particularly gratified, burstinto a state of clamorous excitement, broaching new or reviving[270] oldtheories. Atterbury, as earnest in action as he was eloquent in speech,regarded it as eminently a critical juncture, and felt a strong desirethat those members who thought with him should come to town a fortnightbeforehand for consultation. He wished them, he said, to take propermethods for preventing or breaking through the snares of enemies.[335]He urged upon his friends, Trelawny, Sprat, and Compton, the executionof thepræmunientes clause in the Parliamentary writ, as wellas the execution of the Archbishop’s provincial mandate.[336] Inthis measure the Bishops just named concurred, and used their writsaccordingly; so did Hough, Bishop of Lichfield, and Mew, Bishop ofWinchester.[337]

Tenison, in his archiepiscopal barge, started from Lambeth Palace onMonday morning. February the 10th, and landed at St. Paul’s Wharf,whence he was escorted[271] by a number of Advocates and Proctors tothe west end of the new Cathedral; the Portland stone being thenunblackened by London smoke, and the structure, as well as itsornaments, being still in a state of incompleteness. Received by theDean and Canons, his Grace was conducted to the choir, and placed inthe Dean’s Stall, fresh from the touch of the carver’s chisel,—theSuffragan Bishops occupying the other stalls on either side. After theLitany had been chanted in Latin, the Bishop of Chichester preached,and at the close of the sermon the choir sung an anthem. The assemblyproceeded to the new Chapter-House, where the Archbishop, being seatedon his throne, addressed his brethren, after the writ of summonshad been read by the Bishop of London. The election of a Prolocutorfor the Lower House followed in order; the Dean of Canterbury, Dr.George Hooper, being preferred to the Dean of Gloucester, Dr. WilliamJane. High Churchmen, with dismal forebodings of opposition from LowChurchmen, whispered amongst themselves as soon as they had presentedtheir Prolocutor, that perhaps they would be adjourned, withoutpermission to enter on business. This policy Atterbury determinedto obstruct; for, said he, if we come to any resolutions, they willcertainly be for the honour and interest of the Church, since we have amajority in the Lower House, as remarkable as that of our opponents inthe Upper.[338]

Convocation having solemnly assembled, and the usual preliminariesbeing accomplished, Atterbury was intent on going to work; but hiscorrespondence indicates that he moved too fast to please some of hisbrethren, and that he had reason to apprehend they meant to reject hisleadership. They had not proceeded many steps, when Dr. Ashurst and Dr.Freeman incurred Atterbury’s censure, because after the Archbishop’sform of prorogation had come down, and the Prolocutor had informed theHouse they were not to regard themselves as being prorogued until hetold 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 thesegentlemen were fidgeting about in their scarlet robes, that if theythought they were incurring any risk, they were at liberty to depart.They immediately rose, with the hope of a respectable following, butas they vanished, they were, if we may depend on an opponent’s report,followed only by a general smile, and the condemnation of their ownparty.[339]

Another question agitated the House the same day. Complaints weremade of episcopal interference with the election of clergymen, andaccordingly a resolution to that effect passed the House, supportedby a large number, says one authority—by a small number, saysanother.[340] The same day a committee was appointed to investigatedisputed elections—a step which, in the estimation of Low Churchmenencroached upon the episcopal[273] prerogative, for they maintained thatthe Bishop with his suffragans must be the final judge of all suchmatters.[341]

Robing themselves on the 28th of February, the members glided alongthe aisles of the Abbey up the steps of Henry the VII.’s Chapel, whenthey proceeded to business, without taking any notice of their rightreverend superiors, who had also robed themselves that same morning,and sat down within the Jerusalem Chamber. It plainly appeared thatthe two ecclesiastical conclaves were becoming hostile camps. Amessage from the Archbishop soon reached the Lower House, asking foran explanation, why they went to prayers before the Bishops came. Thequestion at issue now formally arose, and then began a lengthenedcontest, as to whether the Lower House had self-contained rights, likethose of the Commons—a right of self-adjournment and prorogation,and a right to meet, consult, and resolve, without being dependentfrom step to step upon the will of Prelates. The High-Church party,so zealous in theory for episcopal order, thus in practice broke withtheir right reverend fathers. In the controversy was mixed up alsoan obstinate contention on the part of the Prolocutor about what wasmeant by the words,in hunc locum in the Archbishop’s schedule;to settle this point were added the words,vulgo vocatum JerusalemChamber. 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 snortingon the edge of a battle-field. He pressed the Lower House not to waitfor[274] the Lords, but to prepare an address of its own; yet, when anaddress came down to them, the Lower House heartily joined in it, onlyproposing a slight alteration, which the Prelates approved. Ripplesquickly rose on the surface of debate. According to Atterbury, uponthe 8th of March, the Dean of Peterborough, Dr. Freeman, alreadymentioned, behaved amiss, and threw out words reflecting on theProlocutor, for which a censure was demanded, and would have followed,had the offender not begged pardon. The confused statement made tothis effect, indicates that some of the Clergy resisted the highflownpolicy of their brethren; two days afterwards, however, we find bothHouses amicably taking a journey to the pleasant village of Kensington,where stood His Majesty’s favourite palace. At half-past two on Mondayafternoon, March the 10th, the Archbishop and Bishops, in theirdistinctive attire, and the Prolocutor in his cap and hood, and therest of the Clergy following, took coach at the west end of the Abbey.They proceeded by Knightsbridge and the side of the Park—the treesbeginning to bud with early spring, the people by the way watching thedignitaries as their faces peered through the windows of the lumberingvehicles—until, arriving at the Dutch-looking palace, with its primgardens, the procession of the Clergy reached the Royal presence—theBishops going to the right hand of the throne, the Prolocutor and therest to the left. A loyal address was presented, and a gracious replyreturned.

The tug of war, of which there had been omens before that pleasantexcursion, began in earnest soon afterwards.

The Lower House asserted its claim to independent action, to adjournitself when and where it pleased, to[275] originate and transact anybusiness whatsoever and howsoever it pleased; always, it should bedistinctly stated, choosing its time of sitting according to the timefixed by his Grace of Canterbury’s schedule. To accomplish what wasdesigned, committees of the whole House were appointed, who claimed aright to sit, in this form at least, upon intermediate days, when manydid so assemble under cover of a strict adherence to admitted rules;but others would not, counting it a breach of law in substance, if notin form. A matter of business, originating in the Lower House, withoutconsultation with the Upper, and in known opposition to its wishes,was the examination of a certain heretical book—namely, Toland’sChristianity not Mysterious—the object of which is explained onthe title page, “A Treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospelcontrary to Reason, nor above it, and that no Christian Doctrine can becalled 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 fornothing but their disbelief in the Divinity of Christ—a statementintended to bring certain Bishops into disrepute—attracted theattention of the Upper House; upon which their Lordships caused to beaffixed to the Abbey doors a paper calling upon the author, whoever hemight be, to make good his assertions or to submit to punishment for sobase and public a scandal. This was an extraordinary plan, remindingone—chiefly, however, by contrast as to importance—of Luther’sdoctrinal theses affixed to the church gates at Wittenberg; and alsorecalling—more in the way of resemblance—how Archbishop Arundel’scitation of Lord Cobham was stuck on the entrance to RochesterCathedral, to be defied by him to whom it was addressed.

When Toland’s book was sent up from the Lower House to the Bishops forjudgment, they felt that it was a serious matter to enter upon thebusiness, as by condemning certain published opinions, and approvingothers, they might be altering the recognized doctrines of the Church.Legal objections had on a similar occasion been alleged against suchproceedings, because of the consequences they might involve; now theywere urged afresh. The Bishops, therefore, came to the conclusion, inaccordance with the advice of eminent lawyers, that they could notcensure the books without license from the King, lest they should incurcertain penalties.

Upon the eve of a prorogation for Easter, after the dispute about therights of sitting and adjournment had been carried on with an obstinacywhich it would be tiresome to describe, the Archbishop delivered to themembers of Convocation a speech, in which he alluded to the existingdispute: “We have many enemies, and they wait for nothing more thanto see the union and order of this Church, which is both its beautyand its strength, broken by those who ought to preserve it.” “For themaintaining the episcopal authority is so necessary to the preservationof the Church, that the rest of the Clergy are no less concerned in itthan the Bishops themselves.” “I have thought fit, with the rest of mybrethren, to prorogue the Convocation for some time. It is a season ofdevotion, 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 goon with you at our next meeting, as well as at all times, with alltenderness and parental affection, in all such things as shall conduceto the good of this Church.”[342]

In spite of the prorogation until the 8th of May, the Prolocutor andsome of the Clergy persevered in their assertion of independence, andsat for some hours the same day on which his Grace prorogued bothHouses; then they adjourned to meet the next day. But this policy,being esteemed by some High Churchmen as a stretch of power quiteunconstitutional, led to a secession, which considerably weakened theinfluence of the party.

When all had come back from celebrating the Easter festival, and theProlocutor appeared before the Upper House with a paper in his hand,the Primate returned to the old charge of irregularity, and told himhe could not recognize any of the proceedings carried on since hisadjournment. The Prolocutor replied, that he had been commanded bythe 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 pursuedby them in reference to Toland’s work. The Bishops now proposedthat committees from the two Houses should meet, with a view to anamicable arrangement, but the majority of the Lower House refused tonominate any committee for the purpose; a refusal which exceedinglyannoyed several members. The majority determined to ride the highhorse, and to dig the spur into its flanks; so when the schedule ofadjournment next time came down, the Prolocutor refused to noticeit at all, and adjourned on his own authority; an act against whichBeveridge, Sherlock, and others protested, in a paper which theysigned and presented to the Archbishop. What still more annoyed theUpper House, was that the Clergy, under the Prolocutor’s presidency,agreed upon a censure of a book by one of the Prelates. This wasTheExposition of the XXXIX Articles, by Bishop Burnet,[278] in which, withlearning, moderation, and good temper, he expounded the doctrines ofthe Church of England according to his idea, treating the Articles asterms of peace and union, intended to receive a considerable latitudeof interpretation. Anything but unanimity and decorum of behaviourmarked the proceedings of the Lower Assembly at this moment; anda report went abroad that one of the members, in consequence of aspeech he delivered, ran the risk of having his gown torn off hisback. The report is an exaggeration; it arose out of the conduct ofsome one who, by rudely twitching the dress of a speaker, put an endto his unpleasant oration. Words uttered within the Abbey walls werereported outside in garbled forms, which led to explanations andcounter-explanations, to assertions and denials, which provoked freshcontroversy, and it became a difficult thing to determine what exactlythe two parties up in arms did and said. Enough, however, was manifestto prove, that many of the ministers of religion, assembled to promotethe prosperity of Christ’s Church, were sadly forgetful of the simplestlessons of the Gospel.

Connected with the presentation of the censure upon Burnet’s bookto the Upper House, there occurred two or three curious episodes.Adjoining the Jerusalem Chamber is a small apartment called the OrganChamber; and there, a month before, on the 5th of April, had happenedan incident which ruffled the feelings of the very reverend Prolocutor,and the clergymen who accompanied him. They were kept waiting at theirLordships’ door, as they said, an hour and a half, as their opponentssaid, only so long as was needful to read their paper and debate uponit; the circumstance being attributed by some to the insolence of thePrelates, by others, to a[279] mistake of the doorkeeper. On the 30thof May, when the Prolocutor, with the Deans of Windsor and ChristChurch, went up with the paper about Burnet’s book, and were againwaiting a while in the same antechamber, the Bishop of Bangor cameout, commissioned by their Lordships, to ask the Prolocutor whetherthe message he had now to bring in, was to set right the irregularitycomplained of? The Prolocutor, according to the Bishop’s report,said, first “it was something in order to set that irregularityright;” then, correcting himself, he added, “it was concerning thatirregularity.” After which the door to the chamber being opened, inwalked the Prolocutor and his companions, the Archbishop observingto them, “If you have anything to offer, in order to the settingright the irregularity we have complained of, we are ready to receiveit.” Immediately the Prolocutor stated, that he had brought a humblerepresentation touching anExposition of the XXXIX Articles,that it had no relation to the alleged irregularity; but with regard tothat, they were ready to satisfy their Lordships whenever called uponto do so. The paper containing the censure was rejected, and some ofthe Prelates considered the Prolocutor had employed a subterfuge forits introduction. The Bishop of Bangor, in so many words, complained ofprevarication, a charge which fanned the Lower House into a blaze ofresentment.

At this time, as on a former occasion, some of the minority in theLower House protested against the proceedings of the majority, bysigning a paper to that effect, to be presented to the Bishops; GeorgeBull, Archdeacon of Llandaff, being amongst those who appended theirnames. This protest, in its turn, became another element of discord.

Upon the 6th of June, as the Prolocutor and others of[280] the Lower Housecrowded the little Organ Chamber, whom should they find there, quietlyputting 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 Housethat I lied to you?” According to a second, “My Lord of Bangor, didyou say I lied?” The Bishop answered, in some disorder, “I did not sayyou lied; but I did say, or might say, that you told me a very greatuntruth.” Amidst threats and demands of satisfaction, the Prelate wasglad to get out of the noise of the crowded anteroom into the sereneatmosphere of the more spacious chamber; which, however, as soon asthe Prolocutor had been admitted within the door, witnessed a renewalof personal strife. Bishop Humphreys adhering to his statement aboutwhat had taken place, and Dean Hooper adhering to his, something stillworse immediately followed. The Prolocutor having inquired whethertheir Lordships had entered upon their Acts any reflections uponhim, Tenison rejoined, with all his rock-like firmness, and all hisprudent control of temper, “Acts, we have no acts, only minutes.” TheProlocutor’s inquiry proved too much for Burnet, the person attackedin the paper, who now—with characteristic impetuosity, his round faceno doubt flushed with scarlet—cried aloud with a sonorous voice,“This is fine, indeed. The Lower House will not allow a committee toinspect their books, and now they demand to see ours.” “I ask nothing,”exclaimed the Prolocutor, “but what I am concerned to know, and whatof right I may demand.” “This,” retorted Burnet, “is according to yourusual 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[281] worse. Think what you will of yourself,I know what you are.” The Archbishop, wondering whereunto all thismight grow, civilly interposed, that perhaps the Prolocutor had beenmisrepresented, which the Prolocutor turned to his own advantage, and,to Burnet’s annoyance, wound up this extraordinary altercation withthe remark, that he was “satisfied if in this matter he stood right intheir Lordships’ opinion; about what his Lordship of Salisbury pleasedto think, he felt not much concerned.” Back went the Dean to Henrythe VII.’s Chapel, determined to make the best of the business to theClergy, who sat down to hear his report; but when he said that theUpper House had expressed their satisfaction, or seemed to be satisfied(for theipsissima verba in these contentions were continuallycoming into question), up rose one who had attended him to the Bishops’chamber, to say, “he must do this justice to declare, that theirLordships did not so much as seem to be satisfied, but had showed theirpartiality.”[343]

Another heap of fuel was by all this cast upon the already blazingfire, and it was moved that the House should resent the indignityoffered to their Prolocutor in the execution of his office, and returnhim thanks for his conduct.

The House recorded in its minutes the following entry: “Whereas thereverend the Prolocutor hath been hardly[282] treated in the Upper House,and particularly this 6th day of June, 1701, was taxed by the Bishop ofSalisbury as behaving himself with his usual insolence, saying further,he deserved that and worse words, we cannot but resent this greatindignity offered to our Prolocutor and this House; and, therefore,take this opportunity to return our most humble thanks for his conductin the faithful and recent discharge of his office upon all occasions.”

The Upper House, on the 13th of June, determined that the Lower hadno power judicially to censure any book; that it ought not to haveentered upon the examination of one by a Bishop, without acquaintingthe Bishops with it; that the censure on the Bishop of Sarum’s work wasin general terms, without any citation of passages; that the Bishop haddone great service by hisHistory of the Reformation, and otherwritings; and that, though private persons might expound the Articles,it was not proper for Convocation to enter upon such a subject. Theyalso resolved, that the Bishop of Bangor had made a true and justreport of what had taken place between himself and the Prolocutor;that the paper read by the latter did not relate to the irregularitycomplained of; and that his answer was such as ought not to have beengiven to his Grace, or to any member of the Upper House.

Convocation was prorogued to the 7th of August, then to the 18th ofSeptember, and was at length dissolved with the Parliament.

All the Prelates, with three exceptions, concurred in theseproceedings. The exceptions were Compton, Bishop of London; Trelawny,Bishop of Exeter; and Sprat, who, with the Deanery of Westminster, heldthe Bishopric of Rochester.

Compton, after his extreme liberalism and low[283] churchmanship at thetime of the Revolution, had, by the end of the century—soured,perhaps, by being twice passed over in appointments to theprimacy—become a decided Tory; and now he threw his influence into theHigh-Church scale, without, however, making himself conspicuous in theConvocation controversy. Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, had beenimmensely popular in his native county at the time of the great trial,and had formed the burden of a Cornish ballad—

He retained a secret attachment to James II. after the Revolution.That monarch had, in the midst of his troubles, promised to translatehim from Bristol to Exeter; but the turn of events in favour ofWilliam, so it is insinuated, drew the Bishop into a betrayal of hisold master; at any rate, in some way, from William he obtained hisimproved preferment; but afterwards he showed himself anxious to denythat the Bishops had invited the Prince over, though, as he said, “wefound ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.”[344] Trelawnynever showed any sympathy with the party led by Tillotson, Burnet, andTenison; and, in theCorrespondence of Atterbury, he appearsas the chief of those to whom, as diocesan and friend, the livelyand interesting letters of the Archdeacon of Totness are addressed.The Archdeacon constantly kept the Bishop informed of what was goingon in the Jerusalem Chamber and in Henry the VII.’s Chapel; and itis plain, from the way in which he[284] wrote, how much influence he hadacquired over his patron’s mind. The intimate, cordial, and approvingfriend of Atterbury could not but be opposed to the proceedings ofTenison and Burnet. Sprat was not a man of much principle; he hadjoined with Dryden and Waller in poetic praise of Oliver Cromwell, hehad sat on James’ High Commission, he had read theDeclaration ofIndulgence in servile submissiveness, but with faltering lips; hehad voted for the Regency, and then taken the new oaths, and assistedat the Coronation; and though he had cleared himself from the chargeof treason, there is reason to believe that he was Jacobite at heart.He hated Nonconformists, and went in for High Church measures; and asno love was lost between the Bishops of Rochester and Salisbury, thelatter said of the former, he had “been deeply engaged in the formerreigns, and he stuck firm to the party to which, by reason of theliberties of his life, he brought no sort of honour.”[345]

In the spring of 1701, when the great ecclesiastical tournament wasgoing on within the Abbey walls, a new ecclesiastical knight enteredthe lists outside, in the field of literature. He not only brokea lance, but engaged in a hand-to-hand encounter with the famousantagonist who had distinguished himself equally in book-writing andin debate; White Kennet came forward to answer Francis Atterbury.White Kennet—a curious-looking person, whose forehead, to the day ofhis death, bore witness to an accident which happened in his youth,for he wore a large patch of black velvet over a ghastly scar—wasa man of great archeological research, an eminent Saxon scholar,and a friend of Mr. Tanner and[285] of Dr. Hicks. He had published, in1695, his well knownParochial Antiquities, and now he sentforth hisEcclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocationshistorically stated and vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Mr.Atterbury. The title intimates that the object was not to testthe Convocation question by applying to it texts of Scripture, or theopinions of the Fathers, or principles of reason, or the results ofexperience; but to examine it closely in its connection with Englishhistory and English law. After the fashion of the day, especially asit appears in the polemical department, whilst using occasionallycourteous expressions, he deals very unpleasant blows, depreciatinghis opponent’s learning, exposing his mistakes, pointing out wherehe had confounded facts and fallen into sophistry, not omitting tothrow the shield of his erudition over Dr. Wake, who had been roughlyhandled by his excited adversaries. Kennet’s main positions were—thatParliamentary Convocations are not in essence and nature the samethings as ecclesiastical synods; that not spiritual affairs, but thetaxing of the Clergy, gave the first occasion of their being calledtogether in connection with Parliament—their first appearance in thatassociation being in the year 1282, in the eleventh year of Edward I.,the first proctors of the rural priesthood being soon brought intoparliamentary attendance. Repeatedly he asserts that ParliamentaryConvocations, although ecclesiastical in their constituent parts, arenot ecclesiastical in their objects and purposes, and he repeatedlycharges Atterbury with confusing civil councils with sacred synods.[346]

It was a pet idea with Atterbury, that Bishops should avail themselvesof thepræmunientes clause. Kennet[286] undertook to show thathe was mistaken as to the time of its origin; that he incorrectlymaintained the constancy of its practical application; that he wasdeceived in his notice of its nature and effect, and that the modernhad not, any more than the ancient Clergy, reason to be fond of it.The provincial summons to Convocation, issued by an Archbishop, hemaintained to be a sufficient authority without diocesan writs. “Fromthe three or four first years of Queen Elizabeth,” he says, “when theProtestant Clergy might be trusted for obedient subjects, there is notone proof that ever any Bishop made a return of thepræmunientesto the Crown, or that ever the Crown challenged such a return from anyBishop.”[347]

Of the erudition and ingenuity shown in Kennet’s book there can be nodoubt: it clears up some interesting archeological points in Englishhistory; 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 firstpart of the work—are meant to have on the practical determination ofthe controversy. If, as he represented, the existing Convocation wasbut the relic of an extinguished prerogative of self-taxation, oncepossessed by the Clergy, then it remained only the shadow of a name,and stood amongst the meaningless things which it would be a goodclearance to sweep away. If he took such a view, he does not, as far asI can find, express it; rather he assumes throughout, that Convocationsby Royal authority, under archiepiscopal control, without the powerof making laws or discussing theological or ecclesiastical questions,are quite wise and proper. How they can be so when reduced to such anullity, it is difficult to conceive. Kennet’s theory, to any one free[287]from the prejudices and heartburnings of the dispute, is unsatisfactoryto the last degree.

When winter approached, the prospect of a new Parliament and a newConvocation opened on the eyes of Atterbury with a fascinating effect;and as the autumn leaves fell in the London parks, the Archdeacongirded up his loins for a fresh attack. He was concerned about manythings—about the opposition his party was likely to encounter, aboutthe exact place of meeting of the Clergy, and about the execution ofthepræmunientes clause, notwithstanding Kennet’s destructivecriticisms. He says to Trelawny, “Unless some spirit be put into ouraffairs, 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 theywill be too hard for us. Their Lay interest is much stronger than it isimagined to be; they know it, and feel it, and accordingly speak in amuch higher strain than ever they used to do, and talk more securely ofsuccess at the next meeting.”[348]

It was thought the Lower House needed more room for their assembly. SirChristopher Wren was consulted on the subject; but “any carpenter inthe town understood that matter as well as he, and I would undertake,”said the impatient Archdeacon, “to bring one that should contrive seatsto hold near six score, which is more than ever yet met at once.”[349]

Christmas festivities had scarcely ended, holly branches still hungin the parish churches, when the new Convocation met. The day beforeNew Years’ Day, after a Latin service read by the Bishop of Oxford,a[288] Latin sermon preached by the Dean of St. Paul’s, and the King’swrit and the Bishop of London’s certificate formally delivered, “theArchbishop admonished the Clergy to retire into the chapel, at the westend 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 ofJanuary.”[350] No sooner had they met for that purpose, than the oldembers of strife were kindled afresh, and blazed up furiously asbefore. The first contention pertained to proxy votes, the Dean ofCanterbury contending they were valid, others answering they were quitecontrary to custom, and indeed, that absent members were guilty ofcontumacy till their absence received judicial excuse, and thereforelay under a canonical impediment,[351] which for the time deprivedthem of their ecclesiastical power. The election of Prolocutor was thenext struggle. Even such a candidate as Beveridge, decided Anglican ashe was, could not satisfy the extreme party, and they elected, by amajority of 36 or 37 against 30, the Dean of Salisbury, Dr. Woodward,a civilian who had grown popular with High Churchmen by opposing hisDiocesan. At that very moment, the two were engaged in litigation witheach other; and, in addition to this circumstance, which rendered theelection unseemly, the fact should be remembered that Woodward, now asharp thorn in the sides of Burnet, owed to that Prelate his churchpreferment. The election over, the new Prolocutor approached the chairoccupied by the Dean of St. Paul’s as temporary president whilst thevotes were being taken; but the[289] Dean kept possession of his seat, onthe ground that the Prolocutor could not preside when as yet there wasno House. The Prolocutor being duly presented to the Archbishop, on the13th of January he made a speech, bristling with military allusions.

After this, Archbishop Tenison, rock-like as ever, in a gracefultone, recommended charity and union, and lamented existing divisions;the only good effect of which, he said, was the impulse it had givento the study of historical questions, whereby light had fallen onConvocational rights, privileges, and customs. “The Prolocutor andClergy were then ordered to withdraw to the consistory at the west endof the church.” Now reappeared the old bone of contention. A scheduleof prorogation from the Archbishop reached the hands of the Prolocutor:“A paper,” he called it, “by which their Lordships had adjournedthemselves;” a paper which he would not read to the House himself; apaper which he gave the actuary to read; a paper to which he addedwords of his own, substitutingthis place forJerusalemChamber—the gist of his treating the document thus, being that hewould not admit the power of the Upper House to prorogue the meetingof the Lower. “Mr. Prolocutor,” said Archdeacon Beveridge, “I adviseyou, in the name of Jesus Christ, not to open our first meeting in suchcontempt and disobedience to the Archbishop and Bishops, and in givingsuch offence and scandal to our enemies.” “I have,” replied Woodward,“the power to alter the schedule when I intimate it.”[352] The battlefor independence now reopened, the majority of the Lower House, headedby the defiant Prolocutor, resolving to fight it out to the last.

The Clergy, on the 20th of January, assembled early in the cold naveof the Abbey, after which they proceeded to prayers in the JerusalemChamber. Thence they returned to Henry the VII.’s Chapel, where theyfound the floor matted and curtains hung,—no small comfort on afrosty morning.[353] If their feet were as warm as their tempers,they had no reason to complain, for no sooner had they taken theirplaces 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 ofhis being admitted was discussed. After “a little noise,” he came inwith the hated schedule of prorogation. The Prolocutor took it up,and “playing with it in his hands, supposed it to be a paper aboutadjourning; and at last repeated the place and time, and putting itto the House for their pleasure, drew up a paper and read it.” Thisoccurred on the 22nd of January. Upon the 28th, the Prolocutor againinformed the members he had received a message of adjournment, but thathe would not communicate it except by order of the House. Dr. Freemanmaintained it ought to be delivered in obedience to the Archbishop. TheProlocutor tartly replied, he did not need to be taught what was hisbusiness; and Atterbury, starting up, accused Freeman of using indecentwords.[354] Then came discussions about committees for purposespresented in the last Convocation. Further personalities arose.One made an offensive allusion, another felt annoyed. “Expressionswere used,” it is said, “which might have laid the foundation of amisunderstanding or something worse,” but for subsequent[291] explanations.On the 28th, Atterbury—the spirit of the storm—rejoiced in his nativeelement, as he proposed, and at last carried the point, that theProlocutor should have inserted in the minutes a phrase which assumedthe right of independent assembling. “This new and improper entry,” inKennet’s judgment, “so thrust upon the minutes, was the great cause ofwidening the divisions in the Lower House.”[355]

Another source of discord was found in the quarrel between Burnetand Woodward the Prolocutor. Some members complained of a breach ofprivilege, and an indignity to Convocation offered to the Prolocutorby Burnet, his Diocesan, who was said to have required him to attenda visitation, while he was occupied with Convocational duties, and tohave issued a process against him for non-compliance. Burnet was alsocharged by Woodward himself, with declaring that Convocation had noprivileges which it could plead.[356]

On the 9th of February, Beveridge “made a long and pathetic speech uponthe dispute at present depending between the two Houses.” “He earnestlyexhorted both sides to union, and to think of such methods of healingthe breach as might secure the Lower House’s liberty, and yet notentrench on the Archbishop’s authority.” He so influenced his brethren,that a committee was appointed to consider an expedient for composingthe differences relative to prorogations.[357] But to this note ofpeace there speedily succeeded another outburst of war.

Never, perhaps, did Convocation pass through a more tumultuous daythan Thursday, the 12th of February, ushered in though it was bya circumstance adapted to[292] calm the spirit of ever so excited anassembly. Between 9 and 10 o’clock, as the members of the Lower Housewere pacing up and down the nave of Westminster Abbey—not thencrowded with monuments as it is now—waiting for the commencement ofbusiness, 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, Deanof Christ Church, a man of like spirit with the Prolocutor himself.Upon proceeding to read prayers in the Lower House, this deputywas 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 hadbeen done; but on their way through the cloisters[358] to the yard,into which opened the principal door to the Jerusalem Chamber, theywere stopped by another member, who proposed that they should returnand wait until after prayers. They did so. As Aldrich, encouraged byAtterbury, ventured to take the chair, “a tumultuous noise” arose.Opposing members “persisted with vehemence in their demand, thatthe 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 thedisturbance, Wickart, Dean of Winchester, and Archdeacon Beveridge,removed the instrument of substitution from the table, and carried itto the Upper House, where they met with a gracious reception. Afterthe two had ventured so far to take the matter into their own hands,the Lower House came[293] to a resolution formally to depute certainothers to go and wait upon their Lordships; but these messengers,unlike their predecessors, were not admitted. Instead, an order wasdespatched for the whole House to attend. Accordingly they left Henrythe VII.’s Chapel, the Dean of Christ Church at their head “in hissquare cap and a verger before him,”[360] and crowded up the stepsto the Jerusalem Chamber, where, face to face with those whom theyregarded as their enemies, they heard from the lips of the Archbishop asimple acknowledgment of a paper of consequence having been received,in allusion to their choice of a deputy, as “an incident of greatmoment;” and, besides, a formal announcement of prorogation untilFebruary the 14th. This Atterbury and his friends confessed to be“every way a surprise to them;” yet, nothing daunted, the Corypheusof the party—as the members were struggling through the small room,and the narrow passage which formed the only outlet from what wasthe Prelates’ audience-room—pushed them on, crying, “Away to theLower House—to the Lower House.” In accordance with this boisteroussuggestion, about forty-two members rushed towards the steps of Henrythe VII.’s Chapel, and there, in defiance of archiepiscopal authority,placed their sub-prolocutor in the chair, intending by this methodto constitute a House. Having, as they considered, thus saved theirrights, they then formally adjourned to the same day as the UpperHouse had fixed. Woodward died on the 13th of February. The House nowdestitute of a Prolocutor—a body without a head—became organicallyincomplete, and therefore incapable of constitutional action. The firstobject of desire with the members struggling for independence,[294] was tosupply the deficiency; but this was what the Archbishop and his friendsin the Upper House were determined to prevent—being by this time tiredout of all patience with their impracticable brethren. When, therefore,the Lower House, on the 14th, formally communicated intelligence of thedeath of Dr. Woodward, his Grace curtly expressed surprise at the news,and at once ordered a schedule of prorogation for the 19th, the dayafter 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 thoughtthat he and the Bishops wished to bring Convocation into disuse; andremarking, on the other, that such heats as theirs had given greatscandal to those who understood not the controversy, but were muchconcerned that there should be any differences among men, who were byprofession ministers of the gospel of peace.

The party who sympathized with the Bishops felt satisfied; a greatmajority felt otherwise. They met of their own accord in Henry theVII.’s Chapel, and having chosen a Chairman or Moderator, marchedup to the little old anteroom, which had become a sort of outpostfor the episcopal garrison, where the invincible besiegers were everpressing upon the trenches of the upper citadel. They were now met bythe Bishop of Lincoln, whom they requested to convey a message to theother Bishops, expressing a desire to elect a Prolocutor. A new pointof difference immediately arose. As amidst the confusion of the crowdedapartments, some members began to dictate a message to the effect thatthe House wished to proceed to an election, Kennet interposed, sayinghe hoped the message would not be worded so, for they were not a House,and were unable to act as such; and, moreover,[295] some of the members, hebeing one, did not agree to the proposed message. The Bishop wrote downthe communication as coming from certain members of the Lower House—aform of expression vehemently opposed by several of the listening andagitated group, and bringing down hot indignation upon him who hadsuggested it.

One death had already disabled the Lower House, another death suddenlyand completely extinguished its paralyzed and convulsed existence.

William of Orange fell from his horse as he was riding in theneighbourhood of Hampton Court, and broke his collar-bone. Removed toKensington, he was seized with shivering fits, and it soon appeareddeath was approaching. The Earl of Portland states, “that when he wasonce encouraging him, from the good state his affairs were in both homeand abroad, to take more heart, the King answered him, that he knewdeath was that which he had looked at on all occasions without anyterror; sometimes he would have been glad to have been delivered out ofall his troubles, but he confessed now he saw another scene, and couldwish to live a little longer. He died with a clear and full presenceof mind, and in a wonderful tranquillity. Those who knew it was hisrule all his life long to hide the impressions that religion made onhim, as much as possible, did not wonder at his silence in his lastminutes; but they lamented it much, they knew what a handle it wouldgive 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’clockhe was a corpse. Round his[296] neck a black ribbon was discovered with agold ring, and a lock of Queen Mary’s hair.

The moral conduct of the King had not been in accordance with hisreligious professions. Burnet, who honestly gives his impressions ofWilliam’s character, says in a few words, “He had no vice but of onesort, in which he was very cautious and secret”—a statement which,whilst it presents a contrast to James and Charles, who were barefacedin their sensualities, admits the fact of William’s being addictedto vicious indulgence, of which concealment neither expiated nordiminished the guilt. It is not a little surprising that so many goodmen, both Churchmen and Dissenters, who could not have been indifferentto the interests of morality, should have lauded, as they did, theHero of the Revolution, both living and dead, as if he had been thevery ideal of virtue and piety. Yet Burnet, who was disposed to takethe most favourable view of his character, cannot be charged withexaggeration when he informs us, that “he believed the truth of theChristian religion very firmly, and he expressed a horror at atheismand blasphemy, and though there was much of both in his Court, yetit was always denied to him, and kept out of his sight. He was mostexemplary, decent, and devout in the public exercises of the worship ofGod—only on week days he came too seldom to them. He was an attentivehearer of sermons,[363] and was constant in his private prayers andin reading the Scriptures; and when he spoke of religious matters,which he did not often, it was with a becoming gravity. He was much[297]possessed with the belief of absolute decrees: he said to me, headhered to these, because he did not see how the belief of Providencecould be maintained upon any other supposition. His indifferenceas to the forms of Church government, and his being zealous fortoleration, together with his cold behaviour towards the Clergy, gavethem generally very ill impressions of him.”[364] The effect of frigidmanners, felt by the nation at large, was deepened in the case of highChurchmen, by William’s well-known Presbyterian predilections, andhis dislike to what is meant by Anglo-Catholicism. As we have seen,during the life of Mary, he left the exercise of his prerogative inreference to ecclesiastical matters in her hands, and after her deathmeddled with them in the smallest possible degree, so that he nevercould be said to have exerted any direct influence in the governmentof the Church.[365] But, indirectly, by the Revolution itself, andby the Act of Toleration which followed, and was promoted by him, hechanged the position of the Establishment altogether, and opened up tothe Episcopal Church a new career, in which conciliation instead ofpersecution could alone prove its permanent safeguard, and a secret ofprosperity. The first monarch on the throne of these realms who loveda constitutional system of religious liberty, William not only wonthe affection of Dissenters, as he might be naturally expected to do,but by his wise and equitable policy in this respect, laid the wholekingdom and posterity under obligations which have never yet been fullyacknowledged.

The most distinguished divines who sat upon the Episcopal Bench in thereign of William III., were more or less imbued with what were calledLatitudinarian sentiments.

Tillotson and Tenison who did so much, especially the latter of them,by force of character, as well as prominence of position, towardskeeping the Church in subordination to the State, have alreadyoccupied a considerable space in this History. Next to them, Burnetwas most distinguished, and he also has received repeated notice as anecclesiastical statesman; it should be added, that he was no less adiligent diocesan and a laborious divine. His treatise onPastoralCare expresses the spiritual anxieties of a good minister of JesusChrist: his Histories are pervaded by a spirit of Erastianism, asdescribed by some; by a tone of liberality, as denoted by others; andhisExposition of the XXXIX Articles, in like manner, is bothcondemned as latitudinarian, and commended as comprehensive.

No work gives me so favourable an opinion of Burnet as hisFourDiscourses, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum.[366]For learning, earnestness, and ability, they deserve a higher place intheological literature[299] than they have ever won. In them he exhibitsthe evidences of the Christian religion with considerable vigour ofthought, and for the age in which he wrote, with much originality. Hisdissertation on the Divinity and death of Christ exhibit the orthodoxCreed, as to the Godhead and Atonement of the Lord, together with aview of Justification by Faith, very similar to that inculcated inthe writings of Bull. The authority of the Church he discusses as anenlightened Protestant, and demolishes the arguments of the Papists;giving, as he proceeds, some valuable hints on the history of religiousopinions, and dealing with the dogma of infallibility in a way whichis singularly curious, looked at in the light of the recent EcumenicalCouncil. The obligation to continue in the communion of the Church ofEngland is exhibited, from his own point of view, in a temperate spirit.

Stillingfleet accepted, in reward of his theological services, the Seeof Worcester in 1689. His reputation, connected with a friendly bearingtowards Dissenters in the latter, as in the earlier period of hislife, caused him to be engaged as referee in a doctrinal dispute, tobe hereafter related; his polemical skill and unimpeachable orthodoxywere manifested afresh in hisVindication of the Trinity;he also entered into a metaphysical controversy with Locke, but todiocesan duties Stillingfleet devoted the remainder of his life. In hisyounger days he had been an eloquent preacher, generally dwelling uponthe ethical more than the doctrinal side of religion; he neverthelessinsisted 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 fervourto that of the Puritans, which, if not in harmony with the tasteof the upper classes in the palmy days of Tillotson’s[300] popularity,must have commended Stillingfleet’s ministry to the hearts of commonpeople. In his first Visitation Charge, in 1690, he says there is“an affected fineness of expression which by no means becomes thepulpit, but seems to be like stroking the consciences of people byfeathers dipped in oil;” then, after speedily dismissing the subjectof preaching, and condemning extempore sermons, he proceeds, at greatlength, to vindicate episcopal order, and to enforce the dischargeof pastoral duties. These topics, with discussions relative toEcclesiastical Courts, appear prominently in his episcopal charges.And his attempts to enforce discipline, his zeal for the Reformationand authority of Church tribunals, his enforcement of residence onthe Canons of his Cathedral, his protection of the poor, and his careabout the application of charitable funds, are the chief grounds onwhich Stillingfleet’s episcopal career is eulogized by his admiringbiographer. It strikes me as unsafe to judge of him simply by whatthat writer has advanced. Another and more spiritual aspect of hischaracter, suggested by his sermons and other productions, is leftuntouched in those unsatisfactory memoirs.[367]

Patrick, made Bishop of Chichester in 1689, and of Ely in 1691, wasa man of inferior ability to Stillingfleet, but of greater learning,perhaps of higher spiritual mark. Ranked amongst Latitudinariansthrough his early connection with John Smith and Henry More, he caughtand infused into some of his writings a Platonic tincture;[301] but asto the philosophical spirit of inquiry, cultivated in the Cambridgeschool, he was a perfect alien. He agreed, with the least moderateof the class, in a dislike to Puritanism, and went beyond them allin dogmatic emphasis and Anglican leanings. He distinguished betweentraditions to be rejected and traditions to be received—includingamongst the latter, not only primitive testimony as to the transmissionof Scripture, and the settlement of the Canon, but as to the doctrinesof the Faith, and the polity of the Church. He insisted upon theefficacy of baptism as producing regeneration, and held that ordinanceto be necessary for the salvation of infants.[368] As to the Lord’sSupper, he dwelt little upon its nature, but much upon its benefits,and the duty of frequent communion. His published sermons are notspecimens of his general preaching, for they were mostly delivered onpolitical and other public occasions. Some posthumous discourses oncontentment, and resignation to the will of God, have been preserved,through accidental circumstances, not on account of any superiorexcellence.[369]

He wrote, besides his Paraphrases and works against Popery, a numberof practical and devout books; amongst them theParable of thePilgrim, which might be read with more satisfaction, did it notprovoke humiliating comparisons with Bunyan’s Allegory. The reputationPatrick enjoyed in his own day for devout composition, suffers greatlywhen, in the light of modern taste and criticism, we examine theforms which he prepared for the revised Prayer Book, contemplated in1680; but I know of nothing to invalidate the manner in which hisconduct as a Bishop is eulogized. He early appeared as[302] a championof the Church of England against Dissent, by publishing what hecalled aFriendly Debate,—in point of fact, a most unfriendlyproduction, full of virulent attacks upon those who separated from theestablished communion, and even advocating coercion in the service ofUniformity.[370] The book appeared anonymously in 1668; fifteen yearsafterwards, notwithstanding the damaging circumstance that it had beencondemned by Matthew Hale, and praised by Gilbert Sheldon and SamuelParker, the author stated his continued opinion that the discourse was“useful and reasonable.”[371] It may be hoped Patrick repented of whathe had done, for he expressed in the House of Lords “regret for thewarmth with which he had written against the Dissenters in his youngeryears;” and Wharton said of him, “After he was made a Bishop, he losthis reputation through imprudent management, openly favouring theDissenters, and employing none but such, whereupon he lost the love ofthe gentry.”[372] However, there is evidence, that towards the Baptistdenomination, at least, he continued to manifest a most unfriendlyspirit.

After the Revolution, he expressed concern at finding so little ofunity and concord, when it was natural to expect they would have beenthe result of that deliverance. He seems to have become weary of theworld before he left it, and cried out with the Psalmist, “O that Ihad wings like a dove! for then would I fly away and be at rest.”Stillingfleet wrote hisIrenicum in 1660, and twenty years aftertheMischief of Separation. Patrick advocated intolerance in1683; and twenty years afterwards, though still retaining some of theold leaven, uttered words of charity and healing.

To the class of Cambridge theologians probably belongs John Moore,consecrated Bishop of Norwich in 1691, who is described as enjoyingBurnet’s confidence, and as being consulted by him in the compositionof his works. But Moore was one of a considerable number who gain areputation among friends for ability to do what they never accomplish;since, according to one of his eulogists, “the world had reason toexpect from him many excellent and useful works,” had not episcopalduties prevented their being composed. He was also one of a stillgreater number in whom the love of books weakens regard for the rightsof property; for according to a critic less friendly to his reputation,Moore indulged an “avarice in that respect,” which “carried him a stepbeyond the sin of coveting.” His library numbered 30,000 volumes,and was bought, after his death, by George I., as a present to theUniversity of Cambridge.[373]

Cumberland, made Bishop of Peterborough in 1691,[304] wrote in reply toHobbes, a Latin treatise,On the Laws of Nature, mentionedin a former volume, and of him his great grandson Richard says, “Hehad no pretension to quick and brilliant talents; but his mind wasfitted for elaborate and profound researches, as his works more fullytestify.”[374] He is known to posterity, and that with faded light,simply as a philosopher of the Cambridge stamp, and has left no proofsof pre-eminence in episcopal efficiency; but we may conclude that hewas devoted to his office from the anecdote, that, when in his old agehis friends recommended retirement and rest, he said, “I will do myduty as long as I can; I had betterwear out thanrustout.”[375]

Something similar may be said of Fowler, an active opponent ofJames’ Declaration, promoted to the See of Gloucester in 1690, whoseexposition of Latitudinarian theology has been described in theChurch of the Restoration. His broad views of Christianity, andhis opposition to Popery, recommended him to a Bishopric. He is spokenof as a very respectable, but not very eminent, Prelate; and what iscurious in connection with his rationalism, he was credited with afaith in the existence of witches and fairies, “whom he dreaded as muchas 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 impressupon his character, and were[305] calculated to impart moderation to hisepiscopal proceedings. He, in 1662, was deprived of his living for notsubscribing to the Prayer-Book, before he could examine it. Approvingof it after examination, he pursued a chequered career, strugglingwith poverty, but exhibiting generous dispositions; suffering duringthe plague year, but persevering in his spiritual duties; vexed byNonconformists in his parish, yet administering the Lord’s Supperto those who refused to kneel. His autobiography, besides sketchingthese circumstances, relates what he did in the way of Visitations,Confirmations, and Ordinations, and how he was troubled by the conductof some of his Clergy, by the behaviour of a physician who courted hisdaughter, and by a faction in his diocese who opposed his ordination ofone who had been a Nonconformist.

Kidder paid half his income from the See of Bath and Wells into thehands of ex-Bishop Ken; and another circumstance is related respectinghim, which places his integrity in a conspicuous light. A message wassent him by a minister of King William, telling him heMUSTgive his vote in Parliament in a certain way. “Must vote!”“Yes,must vote: consider whose bread you eat.” “I eat no man’sbread but poor Dr. Ken’s; and if he will take the oaths, he shallhave it again. I did not think of going to the Parliament, but now Ishall undoubtedly go, and vote contrary to your commands.”[377] Theautobiography suggests the idea that Kidder was a well-meaning man,sometimes wanting in firmness and wisdom. His publications, which arenumerous, include—besides his Boyle Lecture—Tracts against Popery,and Plain Treatises enforcing the practice of a religious life.[306] Theonly sermon of his which I have read, one preached at Court on the dutyof fasting, suggests no high opinion of his pulpit power.

Amongst the Episcopal Divines of William’s reign, only one can beconsidered as a decided Puritan. This was John Hall, Master ofPembroke, Oxford, who retained that position after he became Bishop ofBristol in 1691,—a poor piece of preferment. He is far less noticeableas a Bishop than as a Theological Professor, in which capacity,however, he earned no enviable fame, even in the estimation of thosewho sympathized with him in his theological opinions; for Calamy says,that he brought all the theology of the Westminster Assembly out ofthe Church Catechism. He was a good man, laughed at by the wits, butesteemed for his godliness by pious people.

Nicholas Stratford—possessed of learning, a firm supporter of theChurch of England, and, judging of him by his primary visitationcharge, an earnest preacher and a faithful pastor, bent on thesalvation 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 in1691, the staunch Protestantism of Dr. Sharpe, the Dean of Norwich;and, if we are to believe all the encomiums on his virtues, inscribedupon his monument in York Cathedral, scarcely ever before did sucha paragon of excellence exist.[379] Notices of him by Thoresby—towhose conversion from Dissent to Episcopacy,[307] Sharpe had largelycontributed—so far confirm the praise in his epitaph, as to show thathe was diligent, courteous, devout, and kind, and most zealous inendeavouring to win Nonconformists over to the Church. He is describedas 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 aboveStillingfleet, and even above Tillotson, calling him “a more popularpulpit orator than either;”[381] but a set-off against these partialcommendations will appear, when we reach the history of ReligiousSocieties and of Dissenting Academies, and observe the course which hisGrace pursued in relation to them.

Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry until 1699, when, on the deathof Stillingfleet, the King translated him to Worcester, is describedby Whiston, who received ordination at his hands, as engaging in “amost uncommon, but vastly improving examination and instruction, in theCathedral, beforehand.”[382] Lloyd’s prophetical studies, vindicated byWhiston, exposed him to a good deal of raillery and satire; Shippen, inhisFaction Displayed, saying of him—

As with other students in the same school, his studies proved labourlost, for Dr. Johnson relates, that “his writings supplied the kitchenof his successor with fuel for many years;” but his character defieddetraction, and whilst revered for his virtues, that reverence wasincreased by his “learning and longevity.”[383]

Politics, rather than Divinity, recommended men as Bishops underWilliam III. They were constitutional Whigs sympathizing in the objectsand promoting the interests of the Revolution. The anti-Papal zeal, andthe readiness of most of them to conciliate Nonconformists, gave themfavour in the eyes of both King and Queen; nor should we overlook theinfluence of Tillotson and Burnet, the great ecclesiastical apostles ofthe period, in the advancement of these brethren. Sharpe’s promotionwas owing to the former, probably Moore’s was owing to the latter.

In point of personal character the new Prelates will bear comparisonwith their predecessors. Kidder indeed never enjoyed the reputationfor sanctity possessed by Ken. Tillotson, Tenison, Burnet,Stillingfleet, Patrick, Cumberland, and Fowler, were in mental powersuperior to Sancroft, Thomas, Lake, White, and Frampton; and as topersonal religion, which admits not of precise judgment, there is noevidence that they were inferior. Stratford might easily surpass thedisreputable Cartwright; the name of Hough is as illustrious as thename of Samuel Parker is disgraceful, and the name of Timothy Hallobscure. In political bias, ecclesiastical feeling, and theologicalopinion, the new Prelates differed from their predecessors, and musttherefore have imported into their dioceses some new methods ofprocedure.[384]

Another class of Bishops consisted of men who appear in history aspolitical celebrities.

Compton, Bishop of London, is familiar to the reader as an activerevolutionist, a man of disappointed ambition, and a friend to theHigh Church party in Convocation. Having nothing to do with theCourt after Queen Mary’s death, he steps out of historical noticefor a while, spending his time in the quiet discharge of episcopalfunctions, and relieving himself in hours of leisure, amidst theflowers and shrubs of his beautiful garden at Fulham, with botanicalstudies, which brought him into scientific correspondence with Ray,Petiver, and Plunkenet. Other letters of his indicate the active andzealous part he took in electioneering affairs, seeking to promotethe return of Church candidates;[385] and a charge he deliveredsoon after the Revolution, deals largely in warnings against heresyand schism, Popery and Dissent—with a few milder words at the endrelative to a kind treatment of loving brethren, if “found humble andof a quiet spirit.”[386] Burnet speaks of Compton as “a generous[310]and good-natured man, but easy and weak, and much in the power ofothers,”[387]—an estimate of his character, copied by Birch andrepeated since; but as to Compton’s imputed weakness, it is right toremember that Burnet, after his right reverend brother’s alliance withthe High Church party, cannot be regarded as an impartial witness. Thefragment of a Greek inscription upon Compton’s tombstone at Fulham, ifplaced there by his request, would indicate a devout appreciation ofthe redemptive nature of the Gospel, for the letters which remain arepart of the Apostle’s memorable words, “God forbid that I should glory,save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The tergiversations of Trelawny, successively Bishop of Bristol andExeter, modify the traditionary laudation of his courage and alacrity,magnanimity and address, in defence of the just rights and privilegesof the Church; yet I am not aware of anything which contradicts thestatement, that “he was friendly and open, generous and charitable, agood companion, and a good man.”[388] Atterbury seems to have greatlyadmired him, and in the dedication of his own sermons to the Prelate,he delicately praises him for manifold virtues. The virtue of loyaltyto the existing Government he certainly did not possess.[389]

Of the politics of Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, I have spoken before. Itwill suffice to notice him now as a preacher. His style of compositionsecured the applause of contemporaries, and Dunton, in one of hisextravagant flights, eulogized the Bishop by saying—

Respecting his oratory, an amusing anecdote is related by Dr. Johnson.Burnet and Sprat were rivals. “On some public occasion they bothpreached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those daysan indecent custom; when the preacher touched any favourite topic ina manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressedby a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure.When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly andso long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with hishandkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with thelike animating hum; but he stretched out his hand to the congregationand cried, ‘Peace, peace, I pray you peace.’”[391]

Let the story pass for what it is worth. Both Burnet and Sprat weremen of power; both had at command a flowing and, when they pleased,a rhetorical style; and both delivered sermons marked by superiorinstruction and fervent appeal. Each attended to the method ofdelivery, as well as to the substance of thought, a matter to whichSprat devotes considerable space in an episcopal charge. After urgingthe Clergy to set forth the public prayers to “due advantage, bypronouncing them leisurely, fitly, warmly, decently,” he tells them toutter their discourses “in a natural, comely, modest, yet undauntedforce of pronunciation;” but he reprobates extempore preaching, no lessthan extempore prayer.[392]

Nathaniel Crew, Bishop of Durham, fifth son of the first Lord who borethat name, succeeded upon the death of his last surviving brother tothe family estate and the title, and therefore was entitled to a seatin Parliament both as Prelate and Baron. Committed to the worst policyof James, and for a time excepted from pardon by William, he narrowlysecured his See by taking the oath of allegiance at the last moment,and was scarcely admitted to Court during the reign of the last-namedMonarch. Handsome features, imposing presence, winning manners, andprincely munificence—although commending him to the affection offriends and the gratitude of dependants—could not redeem his characterfrom the consequences incurred by his political conduct, or render himeither a strong or an ornamental pillar of the English Church.

I pass over Bishops altogether obscure,[393] to notice one whoattained an unenviable notoriety. This was Thomas Watson, Bishop ofSt. David’s, who experienced the singular fate of being proceededagainst in the Court of Arches, when he received a sentence ofdeprivation. He was convicted of applying to his own use offeringsgiven at ordinations; receiving what had been bestowed on servantsas gratuities; not administering oaths required by law; ordaining atother times than the Sundays next[313] Ember weeks; conferring orderson a candidate below the canonical age; exacting illegal fees; anddemanding excessive procurations. There must have been at the bottomof these proceedings much more than appears on the surface. He isreported to have been coarse and violent in his language and conduct,and to have thereby exposed himself to popular odium; but these werenot the things for which he was tried, nor was he formally accused ofPopish opinions, though, in public estimation, he stood suspected ofRomanist sympathies. He had been made a Bishop by James II., whosepolicy he approved, and this circumstance seems to have had much to dowith the issue of his trial. He appealed to the House of Lords againstthe sentence of the spiritual court, but the sentence was confirmed.The case made much noise at the time, and excited a good deal ofcontroversy. In aReview[394] of it published by a friendlyhand, the charges brought against him are pronounced to be false,the veracity of the witnesses is impugned, and the whole process isdescribed as a conspiracy carried on by “subordination,” and inspiredby “political motives and inducements of pique and revenge.” The writerintends to suggest the animus of Watson’s prosecutors, by stating thathe was asked what Papists and Nonjurors came to his house, and whetherhe had not drunk the health of King James; and I also find one deponentdeclaring that, in the oath of allegiance administered by the Bishopat an ordination, neither William nor Mary were mentioned by name. Icannot but think that political feeling[314] prompted the prosecution;yet, if we look at the characters of such men as Tenison, Patrick, andothers, who united in his condemnation, we must suppose that he hadbeen guilty of great irregularities in his episcopal office.[395]

There were to be found distinguished clergymen occupying parochialcures—clergymen eminent for learning, godliness, and zeal, amidstthe bustle of a London life. Some were Anglican. William Beveridge,Rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, united with a profound reverencefor antiquity, an attachment to doctrinal truths dear to Puritans.He insisted upon Episcopacy, Sacraments, the observance of Lent, andfellowship with the Church of England, and he did this often in anarrow, hard, exclusive spirit; yet he sometimes preached sermons suchas would be admired by modern Evangelicals.[396] Those published insix octavo volumes, were regarded at the time as forming a valuabletheological library. They exhibit no closeness of reasoning or sagacityof remark, no command of illustration, or felicity of style, yet theyare sensible, unaffected, and somewhat forcible, from the manifestsincerity and earnestness of the author. Beveridge’sThoughts onReligion are perhaps the most edifying, certainly the best known ofhis works, though they were written when he was a young man; but as toterseness of expression—not as to breadth of thought—he appears, inmy judgment, to more advantage in hisEcclesia Anglicana, Ecclesia[315]Catholica, a posthumous work on the Articles. In the exposition ofthe XI. Article, on Justification, he decidedly follows the Puritanlead, saying, “It is not by the inhesion of grace in us, but by theimputation of righteousness to us, that we are justified; as it isnot by the imputation of righteousness to us, but by the inhesion ofgrace in us, that we are sanctified.” As to the XVII. Article, onPredestination, he is cautious, and his quotations would not satisfy,but they do not condemn, Calvinistic Divines.

Down in the pleasant county of Gloucester, at the Rectory of Avening,George Bull—besides his literary labours, which before the end ofthe century won for him such high renown, that he was complimented byBossuet—showed himself to be indefatigable in discharging pastoralduties, putting down country revels, and otherwise aiming at theimprovement of his parishioners.

In Wiltshire, John Norris, an English disciple of Malbranche, held theliving of Bemerton; and, while he practised the quiet virtues of theparish priest, he selected for the pulpit, subjects of a moral andspiritual nature, rather than the more distinctive truths connectedwith our redemption by Christ; not but that there is a tone in Norris’steaching in unison with habits of thought cultivated by modernEvangelicals.[397] His published discourses, for the most part, areplain and practical; yet sometimes his handling of topics is such asto make his readers think that he shot over the heads of the Wiltshirefarmers and peasantry. In Suffolk, William Burkett, Rector of Milden,added to his ministerial excellence, large-hearted efforts for theFrench refugees, and for[316] preaching the Gospel in America. He secureda long reputation by hisExpository Notes on the New Testament,which strongly reflect the opinions of others, and whilst decidedlyArminian, are more practical than critical. Of a well-known Kentishclergyman, Stanhope, Vicar of Lewisham, in no sense a party man, Evelynremarks: “He is one of the most accomplished preachers I ever heard,for matter, eloquence, action, and voice.”[398]

In closing this list of distinguished clergymen, I would refer to twomen known as ecclesiastical archæologists, rather than as preachersand pastors. John Strype, Incumbent of Low Leyton, in Essex, thenbetween fifty and sixty years of age, was just beginning that careeras a biographer and historian, which he prolonged for so many yearsafterwards, and for which he had so laboriously amassed materialsduring 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 inthe University Library at Cambridge, indicate, in connection with hisdiligence of research, his busy care respecting ecclesiastical affairs.Working hard upon black-letter books and hardly decipherable MSS., hewas ready as a rural Dean, at the call of his Diocesan, to arrangefor clerical meetings, or to preach visitation sermons.[399] HenryWharton at the same time, though a young man, was closing his courseas a laborious editor and critic, in fact, a martyr to excessive[317]study; and, in turning over theStrype Correspondence, I wasmuch touched by the following passage, in a letter written to Strypeby one of Wharton’s friends, in reference to a visit paid him atCanterbury:—“One day he opened his trunk and drawers, and showed mehis great collections concerning the state of our Church, and with adeep sigh told me that all his labours were at an end, and that hisstrength would not permit him to finish any more of the subject.”[400]

One clergyman claims separate notice as a foreigner, a poor pluralist,and an exceedingly popular preacher. Dr. Horneck, a native ofBacharach—so familiar to all Rhine tourists—held, in conjunction witha stall at Exeter worth only twenty pounds a year, the preachershipof the Savoy, which afforded but a miserable income. His povertyended three years before his death, when, through the united kindnessof Queen Mary and Archbishop Tillotson, he was made Prebendary ofWestminster. But from first to last his ministry was exceedinglypopular; it was no easy matter for him to get through the crowd tohis pulpit. So great was the number of communicants at his church,that he had to seek the help of clergymen in the delivery of thebread and wine, “and with such assistance it was very late before thecongregation could be dismissed.”[401] His virtues are extolled in theepitaph inscribed on his monument in the Abbey.

Leaving men of honourable renown, in order to throw in truthful shadowsamidst 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][318] Holding Predestinarian opinions to suchan extent as to acknowledge no other difference between Judas andSt. Peter than what proceeded from absolute decrees and irresistiblegrace; and further believing that it was all one whether a man kept thecommandments or broke them, inasmuch as Christ observed the whole lawon behalf of His people; this strange mortal, who had drunk the dregsof Antinomianism, added to his absurd caricatures of Calvinism, otherideas equally extravagant respecting the personal reign of Christ—areign which he expected would instantly be set up. So far as extremePredestinarianism and Millenarianism are concerned, he may be takenas typical of a small section of religious teachers living then, notentirely extinct even now; but he proceeded to the excess of regardinghimself as a favoured recipient of celestial visions. Not long beforehis death, he fancied he saw Christ clothed in a crimson garment, Hiscountenance exceedingly beautiful, with an abundance of sweetness andgreat majesty. Relatives indignantly denied a charitable report thathe was mad, and did not doubt he would prove the prophet of the age—aNoah to warn the world, a John the Baptist to herald in the Messiah, anElijah sent before the just and terrible day. Beyond his own circle,belief in his predictions spread, until nigh a hundred followers fromthe country ten miles round came to the rectory, and took up theirabode within and around it, waiting for a revelation, which it wassaid came on the 16th of April, 1694, in the manner described. “WhenI 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[319] down, onewhile stretching theirarms upwards to catch their Saviour coming down, others extending themforward to meet His embraces; a third, with a sudden turn, pretends tograsp Him; and a fourth clapping their hands for joy they had Him; withseveral other antic postures, which made me think that Bedlam itselfwas but a faint image of their spiritual frenzies. All this while theywere singing as loud as their throats would give them leave, till theywere quite spent and looked black in the face.”[403] Fanaticism, moreinsane than ever possessed any of the Roundhead preachers in OliverCromwell’s camp, thus raged in the person of an episcopal clergymanunder William III. Country folks crowded about his house, his barn,and his garden; hundreds more are said to have venerated his characterand believed in his prophecies. The story affords an instance of thewild enthusiasm which it is in the power of extravagant visionariesto excite, even in an age commonly considered as rationalistic andcold.[404]

It is very remarkable, in casting one’s eye over these sketches, tonotice the absence of the old Puritan party. Hall, of Oxford, asalready noticed, was the only Divine of that class on the Bishops’Bench; and amongst names[320] of repute belonging to the rest of theClergy, not one of the same kind can be produced. I do not deny thatthere may be clerical publications of the period marked by Puritandivinity; I only say that the celebrated authors were of anotherdescription.

Vigorous and commanding Puritanic thought, such as moved the religiousintellect of England a generation or two earlier, for a time quitedied out in the Establishment. Low Churchmanship had been of thePuritan type. Montague, Laud, and the like, found their opponents inCalvinistic clergymen. Now Low Churchmanship took what some would calla rationalistic form; at any rate its advocates were inspired by aphilosophical theology, rather than by the institutes of Calvin, or thegenius of Geneva. Sancroft and Hicks found their opposites in Tillotsonand Burnet. The Act of Uniformity had clearly done its work, and shutor kept out teachers akin to Calamy and Marshall. Their theologicalspirit, their distinctive evangelical teaching, disappears, so far asthe Established Church is concerned, like the stream of Arethusa, andflows underground for a considerable space, to burst out once more in astrong current, a century afterwards.

Attempts were not wanting on the part of some of the Bishops tomaintain ecclesiastical discipline. There are papers amongst theTanner MSS. which indicate what went on amidst the throes of theRevolution, in the diocese of Norwich, before the ejectment of BishopLloyd. John Gibbs, Rector of Gissing, had been a convert to the Churchof Rome; but on the 14th of November, nine days after the landing ofthe Prince of Orange, when Protestant East Anglicans would be exultingat the advent of the Deliverer, this recusant is referred to as wishingto be reconciled with the Church of his fathers; and a report is givenof the sermon which he preached on the occasion.[405] A little whileafterwards an instance occurs of clerical immorality, and of that kindof trouble which has often disturbed episcopal peace: a Norwich rectorwas accused of “lewdness,” amounting to a capital crime.

The case was undoubted. It came to the Bishop’s knowledge. To concealthe fact would have been to connive at the sin, to make it known toendanger the culprit’s life. Indeed, to conceal it was no longerpossible, and to stifle the charge was felt to be a scandal toreligion. Under these circumstances, Lloyd, Bishop of[322] Norwich, askedthe Archbishop whether, by a judicial monition, he might not requirethe offender to abstain from clerical functions till he could purgehimself from the terrible accusation brought against him.

The Canon law, he said, did not deal with the offence in question, andhe felt himself in much difficulty as to the course of proceeding. Ascapital punishment might follow conviction, the Bishop feared lest itshould prove acausa sanguinis—an affair with which he wishedto have nothing to do. The common tactics of defence were adopted bythe accused. He appealed to the Archdeacon, with the view of gainingtime, and by such means he cunningly slipped entirely out of the handsof the Consistory at Norwich; but the Bishop comforted himself byhoping that the criminal would meet with justice at Doctors’ Commons.

On the 30th of August, 1689, when Lloyd had been himself suspended, hewrote to Sancroft, saying, “It is too late for me now to meddle furtherin the matter.”[406]

After the Revolution, we meet with a case in which moral disciplinewas exercised by Patrick, Bishop of Ely. The Incumbent of GreatEversden had, by intemperance, drowned his reason and scandalizedhis profession. Grieved at what he heard, the Bishop required him topreach two penitential sermons, one in each of the churches wherehe officiated, from the words, “He that covereth his sins shall notprosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Hedid so, and concluded with the words: “You see, beloved, what a blackindictment I have here drawn up against myself, wherein I have not beenfavourable or partial to my fatal miscarriages, but have dissected andripped up my many[323] enormous crimes, and exposed them to public view.I beseech you not to be too censorious and uncharitable, since I havepassed so severe a censure upon myself.”[407]

A passing remark is required touching the manner of worship. Nothinglike what is now called Ritualism had then any existence. Thingscontinued much as they were before. No coloured vestments were wornby Anglicans either within or without the Establishment, nor werethere any attempts at extraordinary ornamentation of either altarsor churches. Æsthetic culture, apart from distinctive ecclesiasticalopinions, may powerfully affect psalmody, and other accompaniments ofdevotion, 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 cultureprevailed. Some religious people have a keen sense of propriety as tooutward observances; others have none. It matters not to them, thoughthe adoration of the High and Lofty One be marked by slovenliness ofarrangement and irreverence of behaviour. There were many persons ofthis kind amongst Clergy and laity during the last ten, as there hadbeen during the previous fifty years of the seventeenth century.

The use of the surplice in the pulpit, now a common practice withalmost all sections in the Established Church, was within our ownrecollection very rare, and when first prominently introduced, producedexcitement and confusion. It seems to have been a novelty in the reignof William III. “Yesterday,” says the writer of a letter in 1696, “Isaw in Low Leighton Church, that which to my remembrance I never didsee in a church in England but once, and that is a minister preach in asurplice for Mr. Harrison (whereas other ministers on Fast-days do[324] notso much as wear any surplice), he, by way of supererogation, preachedin his. The sight did stir up in me more of pity than anger to see thefolly of the man; but if he preach in a fool’s coat we will go and hearhim.”[408]

Low Leighton (or Leyton), it will be remembered, was the parish inwhich John Strype fulfilled his ministry, and therefore it was in thepulpit of that distinguished ecclesiologist, that the writer of theextract beheld the phenomenon which startled him out of his propriety;if the surplice was worn by the Incumbent, or with his sanction, thecircumstance 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, ofthe extreme ignorance and irreligion of the people, and of theirdesecration 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 hismouth, that such had been the practice for the last sixty years. Notten persons in the place had ever received the Sacrament; one used totake it by himself in brown bread and small beer.[409]

An important change took place in the psalmody of the Church ofEngland. The archaic version of the Psalms, by Sternhold and Hopkins,kept possession in cathedral and parish congregations until the middleof the reign of William III. Attempts had been made at improving theversification.A Century of Select Psalms, in verse, for theuse of the Charterhouse, by Dr. Patrick, appeared in 1679. RichardGoodridge followed him by a[325] 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 Bradyand Nahum Tate, who, in 1695, published a tentativeEssay,and in 1696 aComplete New Version, differing from such asthey themselves had previously prepared. This version, afterwards sopopular, did not escape criticism; but was most determinately opposedby Dr. Beveridge, who preferred the old rhymes of the Reformation toany modern rendering of the Songs of David. His course of argument, ifit had any force, would be fatal to any attempt at improving scripturetranslations of all kinds.[410]

The character of the Clergy at that time has been drawn by differenthands. Samuel Wesley, in theAthenian Oracle, said, that out offifty or threescore parishes with which he was acquainted, he could notthink of above three or four clergymen who disgraced their office.

The Nonjurors represented their brethren in the Establishment asnewsmongers and busy-bodies, guilty of non-residence, faulty in theirmorals, and negligent of their duties. Some were often seen frequentingale-houses and taverns, where they behaved disorderly. The communionin the London parish churches, before largely attended, was, accordingto the same authority, unfrequented; and in cathedral churches thingswere worse, so that the alms collected did little more than pay for thebread and wine.[411]

Nonjurors looked through a prejudiced medium at those who took theoaths. They regarded most of them as indifferent to a matter ofimmense importance, and[326] not a few as deliberately dishonest, swearingto that which they did not believe. The amount of false swearing atthat period must have been prodigious; and the fact could not fail toproduce mischievous results—it demoralized such as indulged in it, andimpressed people with an idea of the falseness of their instructors.Men looking at the subject from another point of the compass, also cameto an unfavourable conclusion. Whiston declared how well he rememberedthat by far the greater part of University members and clergymen tookthe oaths with a doubtful, if not an accusing, conscience. Consideringthe doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance in which they hadbeen educated, he thought it could not be otherwise; and he scarcelyknew who were the worst, some who imposed or some who submitted to thenew law of allegiance.[412]

As the Nonjurors judged of ministers through the medium of the oathquestion, so Whiston, who rejected the Athanasian Creed, judged ofministers through the medium of that formulary. No doubt he wasprejudiced, and his conclusions were exaggerated; but it is hardto understand how men of latitudinarian views could, with thoroughhonesty, repeat an intensely orthodox formulary imbued with anintensely exclusive spirit. What Whiston says of a rather laterperiod, 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 forscruples.” “In your Courts do they allow of such prevarication?” askedthe Presbyter. “Certainly not,” rejoined the lawyer. “Suppose then,”returned Whiston, “God Almighty should be as just in the next[327] world asmy Lord Chief Justice is in this, where are we then?”[413] Whiston’sestimate of some of the Clergy is corroborated by Burnet, who mournsover the inconsistency of men described as practically contradictingthe oaths they had taken and the prayers they preferred.[414]

De Foe acknowledged that there were in England a great many religiouspersons, both among the gentry and Clergy; but he remarked uponthe inconsistency of many in both classes. “The parson preaches athundering sermon against drunkenness, and the justice of peace setsmy poor neighbour in the stocks; and I am like to be much the betterfor either, when I know, perhaps, that this same parson and this samejustice were both drunk together but the night before. A vicious parsonthat preaches well, but lives ill, may be likened to an unskilfulhorseman, who opens a gate on the wrong side, and lets other folksthrough, but shuts himself out.”[415] In judging of the Clergy of thosedays, we must take into account indirect evidence. The Convocationcontroversy, degenerating into a contemptible feud between class andclass, 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 theirproper duties. Neither was the method of conducting controversy on moreimportant points—the doctrine of the Trinity, for example—at allcalculated to preserve ministers of religion from injurious habits;for the temper shown in books and tracts on this subject is mostirreverent, most conceited, most uncharitable, most unchristian.

It should also be noticed, that after religious freedom[328] to some extenthad been legalized by the Toleration Act, a clerical reaction violentlyset in. Low Churchmen had been the principal advocates for grantingliberty of worship to their Nonconforming brethren; but beyond theircircle were some who, during appearances of Popery under James II., hadlooked with sympathy upon fellow Protestants outside their own pale,and had afterwards hailed them with a kindly welcome to the enjoymentof their rights. When the no-Popery tempest subsided, and whenpolitical fears, raised by Royal despotism, passed away, some of thesepersons relapsed into their previous state, and together with those whohad been bigoted throughout, looked at Nonconformists with bitternessand hatred.[416] A wide current of intolerant feeling returned, ofwhich the result became visible enough after the accession of QueenAnne.

Turning from the character of the Clergy to notice their circumstances,we meet with an interesting picture of domestic life in the case ofthe father of the Wesleys. He was a rector upon £50 a year at SouthOrmsby, a little village in Lincolnshire, skirting the parks andwoodlands of a goodly mansion. We find the same clergyman shortlyafterwards established in the same county at the Rectory of Epworth,described, in a survey of the period, as consisting of “five bays builtall of timber and plaister, and covered with straw thatch, the wholebuilding being contrived into three stories, and disposed into sevenchief rooms, namely—a kitchen, a hall, a parlour, a buttery, and threelarge upper rooms, besides some others of[329] common use, and also alittle garden impaled between the stone wall and the south.”[417] Thisminute description brings before us a humble, but pleasant parsonageof the end of the seventeenth century; and it is added that to thedwelling stood attached one barn of six bays, likewise built of clayand 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 wavedin the fields. The parishioners were, according to Wesley’s daughter,“unpolished wights,” “dull as asses,” and with heads “imperviousas stones.” The clerical dress, the rustic manner, and the lowlyemployments of the Rector, are portrayed by another member of thegifted family:

The outlay upon taking the new living amounted to £50—just one-fourthof the annual income of the living. It was a practice for parishofficers to compel people to lighten parochial burdens by taking, asapprentices, the children of paupers; and one of these unfortunateswas actually palmed on the Epworth Incumbent, who said he supposed hemust teach the boy “to beat rhyme.” These items are worth mentioningas illustrations of the times, and in this case they are interestingin connection with the early life of the founder of[330] Methodism and themaster of English psalmody. The two boys played in the rectory garden;and from their parents derived some of the power and peculiarity oftheir mature life. The parents, it is curious to remember, differed onthe Jacobite question; and a story is told to the effect that Wesley,observing that his wife did not pray for William, and hearing herdeclare she could regard him only as Prince of Orange, told her, insorrowing words, “If that be the case, you and I must part; for if wehave two Kings, we must have two beds.” It is added that he took horseand rode to London; and being “Convocation man” for the diocese ofLincoln, resided in the Metropolis a whole year without correspondingwith his family. The anecdote perhaps has in it much of exaggeration,and it has been questioned of late more than once, yet one would thinkthere must be some truth in it, since it rests on the authority of JohnWesley.[418] At that time a mean-looking parsonage was the rule, notthe exception: and even in the parish of Kensington, though honoured bythe presence of Royalty, the vicarage is described as having been ofa very humble character, with lattice windows. A large proportion ofthe 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 ifso small a sum was paid in the Metropolis, what must it have been insome of the provinces! The pitiful condition of clergymen under CharlesII. could have undergone no great improvement under William III. Ofcourse in places of importance, if clerical incomes happened to reacha large amount, a handsome rectory or vicarage might be found, ofwhich a few, built in Sir Christopher Wren’s time, with more regardto convenience[331] than taste, still remain. Of nearly the same date,deaneries and prebendal houses still linger amongst us—and long maythey linger—snugly ensconced amidst pleasant gardens, in those mostpleasant of all English precincts—our cathedral closes—so green andquiet, solemn and quaint.

As in the reign of Charles II., so in the reign of William III., theoffice of chaplain in the families of the great was not enviable.The salary was small, the position undignified, the treatment oftendisrespectful, and the means of usefulness limited and questionable. IntheAthenian Oracle, the chaplain of a family not very regularor religious—forced to see Misses drinking and gaming, and afraidto open his mouth on the subject—complains of the miseries of hissituation; he inquires what he ought to do, so as neither to betrayreligion nor give offence. He could not believe that to say grace andread prayers, when his patron was at leisure, constituted his duty,yet he found his brethren thought they had done enough when they haddone no more than that.[420] Thomas Wilson, afterwards Bishop ofSodor and Man, certainly took a different view, for when chaplain andtutor to Lord Derby, he, with commendable faithfulness, rebuked hispupil’s extravagance, so as to restore his reputation and relieve hiscreditors. Once, as the young nobleman was about to sign his name, hefelt some melted sealing-wax dropped on his finger by this eccentricmentor, who remarked, that the pain ought to impress him with aresolution never to sign what he had never examined.[421]

Clerical costume is a trifle worth only a passing sentence,[332] and it maybe observed that it remained the same after the Revolution as before.But Archbishop Tillotson introduced a novelty. He is the first Prelaterepresented in a wig. The wig is of moderate dimensions, and not muchunlike a head of natural hair. It is curious to find him remarkingupon this innovation in one of his sermons. “I can remember, since thewearing the hair below the ears was looked upon as a sin of the firstmagnitude; and when ministers generally, whatever their text was, dideither find or make occasion to reprove the great sin of long hair;and if they saw anyone in the congregation guilty in that kind, theywould point him out particularly, andlet fly at him with greatzeal.”[422]

Partly as the result of causes at work ever since the Restoration—suchas the poverty, the imperfect education, and the unexemplary characterof many incumbents and curates—the Clergy, as a class, were in lowesteem. What has been related of the profession in the reign of CharlesII. produced effects which lasted long, and the conduct of a number ofConstitutionalists, as well as of Jacobites, contributed to deepen theunpopularity of the order. Good men, lamenting the evils of the age,traced to them this state of feeling, and Robert Nelson speaks of thegreat contempt of the Clergy, than which he thought nothing could be agreater evidence of the decayed state of religion.[423]

Whatever may be the relation between social corruption and clericalunpopularity, it is certain the two things co-existed. Nelson deploreda decay of the spirit and life of devotion;[424] Thoresby declared thatGod seemed angry with the nation, as well He might, and so hid counsel[333]from men, and left them to take such courses as would be neither fortheir own nor the public good;[425] and Burnet relates, that profanewits were delighted at the circulation of books against the Trinity;that it became a common thing to treat mysteries in religion aspriestly contrivances; and that, under cover of popular expressions,the enemies of religion vented their impieties.[426] Patrick lamentedthe prevalent coldness and carelessness in religion, “scarce an handfulof people appearing in many churches at Divine Service, when theplayhouses were crowded every day with numerous spectators;”[427] andJohn Norris referred to the decay of Christian piety and the universalcorruption of manners. Christ seemed to him, asleep in the sacredvessel, while the tempest raged, and the waves almost overwhelmed thebark. Students of prophecy, regarding the state of Christianity asanti-christianized, anticipated the outpouring of the vials ofwrath, the breaking-up of Christendom, and the replacement of God’schosen people, the Jews, on the ruins of the Gentile Church.[428]

Profane swearing so far prevailed, that it is said in many circlesa man’s discourse was hardly agreeable without it;[429] and it isremarkable that the instances given of John Howe’s courtesy, and thewisdom with which he administered reproof, relates to the frequentutterance of oaths. On one occasion, a gentleman addicted to thispractice expatiated at great length on the merits of Charles I. Howeremarked that in his enumeration of the excellencies of the unfortunateSovereign, he had omitted one—that he was never known to utter an oathin common discourse. On another occasion, he heard two gentlemen[334] inthe street damning each other. The Divine, taking off his hat with apolite bow, exclaimed, “I pray God save you both!” Meeting a noblemanin the park, who, in speaking of the Occasional Conformity Bill,burst into a rage and said, “Damn the wretches! for they are mad, andwill bring us all into confusion!” Howe replied, “My Lord, it is agreat satisfaction to us, who in all affairs of this nature desire tolook upwards, that there is a God who governs the world, to whom wecan leave the issues and events of things; and we are satisfied, andmay thereupon be easy, that He will not fail in due time of making asuitable retribution to all, according to their present carriage. Andthis great Ruler of the world, my Lord, has among other things alsodeclared, He will make a difference between him that sweareth and himthat feareth an oath.” “Sir, I thank you for your freedom,” was thereply; “I understand your meaning: I shall endeavour to make a gooduse of it.” “My Lord,” added Howe, “I have a great deal more reasonto thank your Lordship for saving me the most difficult part of adiscourse, which is the application.”[430]

Intemperance, increasing from the time of the Restoration, continuedto extend its curses towards the close of the eighteenth century; oldpublic-houses attracted more customers than ever, and many new oneswere opened, the money spent in this way by the lower classes reachingan incredible amount.[431] Sober people lamented that their neighbourswere, with temperance, losing also that kindliness of temper which hadbeen prevalent amongst Englishmen.

The shock of an earthquake in September, 1692, alarmed the nation, andmade “those who studied apocalyptical matters imagine that the end ofthe world drew near.” Burnet tells us it brought people “to more ofan outward face of virtue and sobriety;” but, in his apprehension,they “became deeply corrupted in principle; a disbelief of revealedreligion, and a profane mocking at the Christian faith and themysteries of it, became avowed and scandalous.” Orders were given toexecute the laws against drunkenness, swearing, and the profanation ofthe Lord’s-day; and, consequently, loud complaints arose of Puritanicalregulations, savouring of John Knox’s doctrine and discipline. Blamefor this was laid on the Bishop of Salisbury’s shoulders; and to makethe whole thing appear ridiculous, a noble commentator on the rightreverend historian, relates that hackney-coaches were not allowed tobe used on the Sabbath, and constables were directed to take awaypies and puddings from anybody who might be carrying them through thestreets.[432]

Popular opinion in reference to supernatural agencies requires somenotice, and presents signs of both mental stagnation and mentalprogress. Many were in a state of superstition as immovable as thatof their fathers, believing in the reality, and smitten with theterrors, of diabolical possession and infernal witchcraft. Even towardsthe end of William’s reign, the diocese of Worcester was infectedwith this kind of faith; and the Bishop, Dr. Lloyd—who succeededStillingfleet—urged his Clergy to preach against errors respectingSatanic agency, indicating to them his own views on the subject. He didnot doubt the extraordinary power of the Devil over heathen nations inancient and modern times; but he thought[336] the Gospel had diminishedhis power; that those who were in the covenant of grace could not beinjured by him, either in their persons, their possessions, or theirchildren; nevertheless he admitted that a man, by profligacy, mightyield himself to the great enemy, but could not receive from himsupernatural help to hurt anybody else.[433]

Lancashire continued the home of such beliefs, and in the middle ofKing William’s reign, a place in that county called Surrey becamepowerfully agitated by the case of a lad, who stood upon his head,danced upon his knees, scrambled about on all fours, barked like adog, talked shreds of Latin, ran into the water, and told things ata distance—all, it was said, the result of selling his soul to theDevil, in hopes of thereby becoming a first-rate dancer. The neighbourstreated it as a real possession, and so did certain Presbyterianministers, who appointed days of fasting and prayer on the youth’sbehalf, and continued them weekly for a twelvemonth. Folks from thecountry flocked in to see and hear the marvels going on, and madethemselves merry at the expense of the fruitless intercessors; they,in their turn, laid their want of success at the door of the boy’sfamily, saying the witches were in league with Satan, and thereforesupplication could not avail. The supposed demoniac named three Popishpriests as likely to cure him—a circumstance which led the discomfitedPresbyterians to say that the Devil had more mind to let the Popishpriests have “the credit of casting him out, because his ends would bebetter served by Popery than by them.”

The Episcopal Clergy in the neighbourhood stood aloof[337] from thisstupid credulity. That the boy had been given to tricks from hisearly days was shown by witnesses; and collusions with his sister inpretended intercourse with the spirit-world were also proved. Foolishand wretched creatures now began to trade upon what had been a genuinebelief, and their conduct, whilst it showed that sincerity was partingcompany with superstition, helped to undermine faith in all such things.

In London, similar but still more disgusting exhibitions were made bypeople 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, andpretenders suffered the punishment they deserved, whilst poor oldcrones, bent double with age, escaped the river, the gallows, and thestake. Between 1640 and 1680, many unhappy creatures were punishedfor witchcraft. Between 1680 and 1691, three were hanged at Exeter,the last instance of capital punishment inflicted in England for thisoffence; three were imprisoned in Somersetshire; and several in othercounties 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 tobe a white lock of wool in a basket, throwing a deep shadow, wasacquitted. Afterwards, acquittals became common; indeed, I find nomore convictions in England during the reign of William III.; on theother hand, I notice cases of people put in the pillory for pretendingto be possessed.[434] Very much of this[338] change must be ascribed tothe course pursued by Lord Chief Justice Holt. The wise and humaneSir Matthew Hale had retained through life a belief in the black act.His wisdom and humanity did not prove sufficient to penetrate to thedelusion which from boyhood lay all around him; but Sir John Holt cameinto the world at a later period, and when he reached manhood, oldprejudices had less power, the atmosphere of superstition was lessdense; his shrewdness led him to see the falsehood of the theory, andto him belongs the honour of having swept the dust and dirt of thewhole business clean out of English courts for ever.

The merit of Sir John Holt is all the greater in that a belief inbewitchment kept ground in many religious minds; and it was stillcommon in other lands to punish people accused of the offence. One ofthe last books Baxter wrote contained notices of diabolical agencies,which he pressed upon atheists, sadducees, and infidels, with a viewto their conversion. Many of the stories were communicated by such menas the Duke of Lauderdale, Lord Broghill, Dr. Daniel Williams, and theRev. Thomas Evelyn, of Dublin, the last two being by no means personsof a superstitious turn. Making allowance for incorrect information,clever imposture, and the operation of natural causes, we findmentioned some things which must be referred to the operation of occultinfluences, never yet explained. The idea that there are no mysteries,evil as well as good, in the universe, is quite as much a prejudice, asthe idea current in the days of Baxter; and the words which Shakespeareputs into the lips of Hamlet are profoundly wise—

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of inour[435] philosophy.”

Yet to make use of such stories as Baxter tells for religious purposesis vain. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will theybe persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” His book no doubt provedto be labour lost, but he had plenty of people still to keep him incountenance. Samuel Wesley wrote in defence of the doctrine,[436] andin Scotland witch finding went on with vigour. In 1697 no less thantwenty-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; abovetwo hundred were accused, of whom many fled the country to save theirlives.[438]

One piece of superstition maintained by English Sovereigns received avigorous check, but not a death-blow. I have described the ceremony oftouching for the “king’s evil,” so ostentatiously revived by CharlesII. His brother perpetuated the practice. The pecuniary benefit ofsubmitting to the operation, no doubt, made it very popular, sinceit cost £10,000 a year for silver coins to be hung round the necksof patients. When, at the close of Lent, crowds besieged his doors,William exclaimed, “It is a silly superstition; give the poor[340]creatures some money, and send them away.” Once only could he beprevailed upon to touch a suppliant, when he added, “God give youbetter health, and more sense.” There were not wanting some to reproachthe King as cruel and impious, for refusing to exercise a Divine gift;but the Jacobites turned his conduct to account by saying, he did notdare to pretend to a power which only belonged to the Lord’s anointed.

Courses of lectures on doctrinal and devotional themes had beenfashionable with the Puritans. Robert Boyle, looking at the spread ofinfidelity, 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, andothers. The trustees—Tenison, then Bishop of Lincoln, and John Evelynbeing two of them—selected for the first performance of the duty arising clergyman, already known in University circles by his vastattainments, and afterwards famous throughout the world of letters.Evelyn records the appointment in hisDiary, by saying “hemade choice of one Mr. Bentley, chaplain to the Bishop of Worcester;”and the comparatively obscure student, so described, regarded it inafter-life as the greatest honour with which he was ever invested. Hedetermined to follow Cudworth and Cumberland without imitating them,to go down to the basis of all theology, and to confute the opinionsof Hobbes and Spinoza. Bentley’s Lectures, entitled,A Confutationof Atheism, after exposing the folly of a godless belief, aimed atdemonstrating the Divine existence from an inquiry into the facultiesof the human soul, the structure of the body, and the frame of theworld. It was a movement[342] along the line of rational thought. TheRevolution had appealed to reason in matters of government. Withoutthrowing aside traditions—even while appealing to constitutionalforms—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; philosophynow came to the rescue. Faith in an infinite cause, shaken by the humanintellect, was to be reinforced by a more vigorous exercise of the samefaculty.

Boyle, the founder of the Lecture, had collected scientific factsavailable for the lecturer’s purpose. Locke, by illustrating theessential difference between matter and mind, had become a pioneerin the path along which Bentley pushed parts of his argument; andNewton, by hisPrincipia, had prepared for him methods by whichto demonstrate the Creator’s providence and goodness. Thus assisted,Bentley showed himself possessed of original genius; and having atcommand satire as well as logic, with a style adapted to give effectto his thoughts, he produced a deep impression by his discourses. Thefirst he delivered at St. Martin’s—the second at Bow Church; whenEvelyn, ensconced in a tall-backed pew, listened with delight to thepreacher, and immediately admitted him to his friendship. Before hepublished his work he wrote to the great philosopher, then resident inTrinity College, Cambridge. Newton corrected and modified Bentley’sopinions upon some points, but he confirmed his views respecting most,and supplied him with additional arguments.[439]

Bentley soon afterwards obtained a stall in Worcester Cathedral,probably through the influence of Stillingfleet,[343] his patron. If we areto believe his words, he had what was a better reward, for he says:“The Atheists were silent since that time, and sheltered themselvesunder Deism.” It is a pity that historical justice requires it to besaid that this advocate of natural theology did not possess the primaryvirtue of religion, and the chief ornament of all learning. A noblemanhappening one day to sit near Stillingfleet at dinner, observed to him,“My Lord, that chaplain of yours is certainly a very extraordinaryman.” “Yes,” he replied; “had he but the gift of humility, he would bethe most extraordinary man in Europe.”[440]

According to the terms of Boyle’s will, which authorized theappointment of the same lecturer for three years, Bentley might havedelivered another course of sermons; but owing, as it is said, to thefavouritism of one of the trustees, and in opposition to Evelyn’swishes, Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, delivered the secondseries, entitled,A Demonstration of the Messias. Williams,afterwards made a Bishop, exhibited in his lecturesA General Ideaof Revealed Religion. Gastrell, subsequently Bishop of Chester,a friend to Atterbury, and one who pleaded for him in Parliament,insisted uponThe Certainty and Necessity of Divine Religion.Dr. Harris refuted the objections of Atheists to the existence andattributes of God; a superfluous task, it would seem, if we are toadmit what has been said of the effect of Bentley’s dissertations.Bradford, “the little ebony doctor,” as he was called—an enemyof Atterbury’s—discoursed upon the credibility of the ChristianReligion. Blackall, afterwards a Bishop, established and illustratedthe sufficiency and perfection of the Old and New Testaments;[344] and Dr.Stanhope defended the truth and excellence of the Christian Religionagainst Jews, Infidels, and Heretics.[441]

In 1695, Locke anonymously published hisReasonableness ofChristianity. Again the appeal was made, not to authority,tradition, or history, but to reason. The main object was to presentthe simplest and most rational form of religion. He concluded, fromhis study of the Gospels, that the primary requirement is, that menshould believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed and sent of God;that such a belief makes everyone a Christian; and that upon it thesuperstructure of Christian piety must ever rest. Every reader of thiswork must see how hardly he labours to establish his point, how herepeats over and over again his fundamental principle. He objects tothe enforcement of particular creeds, and he is opposed to all Churchauthority in reference to religion; though he speaks in general termsof salvation through Christ, he enters into no definition whatever ofevangelical doctrines, indeed such definitions he regards as foreign tohis purpose.

Whilst teaching of this kind, with a continuous appeal to reason,runs through the larger part of the book, towards the close heenters upon the supernatural evidences of Christianity. Locke was anapostle of human reason as opposed to human authority, but he wasno rationalist in the sense of opposing revelation. Revelation herecognized as a form of supernatural wisdom, and in advocating it heappealed to supernatural wonders. He dwelt upon the miracles of Christas conclusive proofs of His Messianic office—a topic which he alsolargely treated in a distinct essay, which will be noticed hereafter.

The book was attacked not by infidels but by believers, not by thosewho objected to Christianity but by those who, attaching importanceto certain truths passed over by Locke, thought that he presentedan objectionable view of the Gospel. He appeared to them to be arationalist. Dr. Edwards, a clergyman of the Church of England, sonof the famous Presbyterian who wrote theGangræna, assailedthe treatise with bitterness; and so great was its unpopularity insome quarters, that a Prelate, who thought of it favourably, candidlyconfessed: “If I should be known to think so, I should have my lawnsleeves torn from my shoulders.” Foreign divines, however, hailed itwith applause, especially Dutch friends of the Remonstrant school, LeClerc and Limborch. It found numerous readers abroad, and a Dorsetshirerector, named Samuel Bold, though thoroughly orthodox on the subject ofthe Trinity—respecting which Locke laboured under some suspicion—tookup his pen in defence of the lay theologian. Locke’s idea of faith, asa simple belief that Jesus is the Messiah, will be regarded by mosttheologians as very defective; nor is the account which he gives ofChristianity one likely to afford satisfaction to any reader who hasmastered the contents of the New Testament, whether he believes themor not. Absorbed in the effort to enforce his own view of the Gospel,Locke merely ignores, without disproving, certain doctrines, which byevangelical teachers of Christianity are identified with the systemitself. I plainly see that with his habits of close philosophicalthinking, he could not but be repelled by the manner in which thosedoctrines were urged by some warm-hearted divines. Yet howeverobjectionably or offensively presented, they require to be noticedand disposed of in some way. They are true or false—if true, theymust be taken into full account[346] before any conclusion can be drawnrespecting the reasonableness of revelation; if false, they need to berefuted, ere such a notion of Christian faith as is propounded by ourphilosopher can be placed upon a sufficient basis. But Locke’s defectsor mistakes relative to the extent of faith do not invalidate his mainreasoning. His proofs of the truth and divinity of the Gospel, drawnfrom the miracles of Jesus, and from the necessity of an authoritativerevelation of truth and morals, remain the same; and I would add, thatof the devout faith of the author there can be no doubt, when we areassured that “he admired the wisdom and goodness of God in the methodfound 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 thegoodness and knowledge of God.’”[442]

Locke, in hisEssay on the Human Understanding, entersat large upon the question of the boundaries between reason andrevelation—a question involved in what he says on the Reasonablenessof Christianity. He asserts most plainly the principle, that revelationcannot be admitted against the clear evidence of reason, but then,immediately afterwards, he adopts the distinction between thingscontrary to reason and things above reason—citing, as examples of thelatter, the fall of angels and the resurrection of the dead. Anythingnot contrary to reason, he contends, is to be believed if taught byrevelation; “whatever proposition,” he says, “is revealed, of whosetruth our mind, by its natural faculties and notions, cannot judge,that is purely matter of faith, and above reason.” Revelation insuch matters “ought to be hearkened unto.” Indeed, Locke goes so faras to say, that in those things concerning which the mind “has but[347]an uncertain evidence, and so is persuaded of their truth only uponprobable grounds, which still admit a possibility of the contraryto be true, without doing violence to the certain evidence of itsown knowledge and overturning the principles of all reason: in suchprobable propositions, I say, an evident revelation ought to determineour assent, even against probability.” Afterwards dwelling upon theevils of enthusiasm, of which he had a great horror, he goes on toremark: “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 thatwe must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealedfrom 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 examinewhether it be a revelation from God, or no. And if reason finds it tobe revealed from God, reason then declares for it, as much as for anyother truth, and makes it one of her dictates.”[443] This explanationrestricts the office of reason to an inquiry into evidence, as towhether what is thought to be revealed is really such, and leaves faithto rest ultimately, not in the apparent truth of a doctrine, but on therevelation making it known. To some, Locke in all this will not appearto have diverged from an orthodox treatment of evidences; to others, hewill seem to have vacillated a little, leaning now in a rationalistic,and then in an opposite direction; by none, I think, can he be fairlyregarded as holding the modern doctrine of a verifying faculty—adoctrine based on a philosophy different from his, and leading toconclusions at variance with his belief. Whatever might be Locke’sabstract[348] opinions, it is quite clear that he had no sympathy withthe Socinian party, of whom he speaks as “positive and eager in theirdisputes;” “forward to have their interpretations of Scripture receivedfor authentic, though to others in several places they seem very muchstrained;” impatient of contradiction, treating their opponents with“disrespect and roughness.” “May it not be suspected,” he asks, “thatthis so visible a warmth in their present circumstances, and zeal fortheir orthodoxy, would (had they the power) work in them as it does inothers? They, in their turn, would, I fear, be ready with their set offundamentals, which they would be as forward to impose on others, asothers have been to impose contrary fundamentals on them.”[444]

Bentley and Locke added what was of the highest value to the literatureof the Evidences. On a far lower[349] intellectual level appeared Leslie,the Nonjuror, who, eschewing paths of reason, prepared to enter thepath of history, and addressed himself to those of his countrymen whohave little time for study and less capacity for reflection. In 1696he publishedA Short and Easy Method with the Deists, in whichare 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 outwardsenses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it; that it be donepublicly, in the face of the world; that not only public monuments bekept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be performed; thatsuch monuments and such actions or observances be instituted and docommence from the time that the matter of fact was done.” These rules,Leslie insists, could be successfully applied to the facts connectedwith the origin of the religion of Moses and the religion of Christ,pointing to the institution and observance of Baptism and of the Lord’sSupper as memorials of the latter. Mohammedanism, he said, lacks suchevidence, 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 ofa very slight description, and is composed in a loose and inaccuratestyle. It could not meet the case of any who have adopted theprinciples of historical inquiry laid down by Voltaire and developed byNiebuhr, and by them applied to classical annals; nor could the methodbe applied by any critical student without great modification, and atthe expense of an amount of learning, which would render the argumentuseless for popular purposes.

Charles Blount, after a side thrust at Christianity in hisNoteson Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius Tyanæus, left[350] behind himpapers, which were published in a book, entitled,The Oracles ofReason, containing desultory attacks on revelation, chiefly in acovert form. Indeed, Blount quaintly observes: “Undoubtedly, in ourtravels to the other world, the common road is the safest; and thoughDeism is a good manuring of a man’s conscience, yet certainly, if sowedwith Christianity, it will produce the most plentiful crop.” It is acurious fact that the editor and publishers of these posthumous essaysafterwards became convinced of their true character, and, with a viewto counteracting their effect, issued theDeist’s Manual.

John Toland—who, after being educated a Roman Catholic, whilst stilla boy rushed out of gross superstition into what was to him the morecongenial region of scepticism—began his career as an author bywriting hisChristianity not Mysterious, a discourse showingthat there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason nor above it,and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. Inthis work he does not appear as an antagonist of Christianity; perhapshe had not yet begun to regard himself otherwise than as a Christian;yet the tendency of his opinions is to undermine the authority ofrevelation. His book, which attracted wide attention, and was, as wehave seen, condemned by the Lower House of Convocation, engaged the penof the Bemerton Rector, John Norris, whose extraordinary metaphysicalgenius found scope for its exercise in examining Toland’s lucubrations.HisAccount of Reason and Faith, in Relation to the Mysteriesof Christianity, is one of the ablest books of the period, anddisplays a power of analysis, and a determination to reduce the powersof the human mind to their simplest form, such as reminds one of thesubtle originality of Dr. Thomas Browne.

Metaphysics are made to do duty in the service of[351] orthodoxy. Norrisdwells upon the distinction of things contrary to reason and aboveit, showing that there is a valid ground for the distinction, thathuman reason is not the measure of truth; that, therefore, a thingbeing incomprehensible by reason, is of itself no conclusive argumentof its being untrue; that if the incomprehensibility of a thing werean argument against it, human reason would become the measure oftruth; and, therefore, he concludes that incomprehensibility shouldnot militate against faith. Of course the terms of a proposition mustbe intelligible and not contradictory, for no man can accept what isplainly nonsensical or obviously false; but the mysterious nature of afact asserted in a proposition, Norris proves to be no valid objectionto the veracity of the proposition. His mode of handling this subject,though extremely skilful and effective, is not always such as to bear avery close scrutiny; and some modification of his argument is required,in order to a safe entrenchment against inimical attacks. But hesuccessfully establishes this point—the fundamental one throughout thecontroversy—that it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly consonantwith the laws and constitution of the human mind, to believe uponthe authority of revelation, in other words, upon the authority ofinfinite wisdom. Norris does not treat Toland’s doctrine as a form ofDeism; his particular application of the principles laid down in thisaccount of reason and faith is to the Socinian system, but much of thereasoning is strictly applicable to a form of Deism very prevalent inthe present day. A great deal of what he says goes to the heart ofcertain modern theories, and several pages upon the nature and degreesof mental assent deserve careful study in connection with existingcontroversies.[445]

It will be sufficient to complete this sketch if I observe that Tolandmade a decided attack on the New Testament Canon in hisAmyntor,published in 1698; and that the formidable controversialist, SamuelClark, the next year commenced his polemical career by a successfulencounter in defence of the canonicity of the Gospels.

In the course of this work I have had repeated occasions for noticingthe theological literature of the period—dogmatical, practical, andpolemical. It will not be impertinent, as we wind up the subject, toremark respecting its form and style.

The Renaissance had been at work in art and poetry, and had graduallysupplanted the old romantic school. Gothic churches disappearedin the fire of London; those built on their ruins were classicalreproductions. A new St. Paul’s arose on Ludgate Hill, in contrast withold St. Peter’s on Thorney Island. Multiplicity of parts, angularityof form, picturesqueness of detail, brilliancy of hue, gave placeto 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-stainedwindows;—all became round, uniform, pale, cold.

A similar change came over poetry. It were an indignity to thegreat bard of the seventeenth century to compare him with any otherthan the great bard of the sixteenth. Milton’s name is linked withShakespeare’s, but in the way of contrast, just as St. Paul’s Cathedralis associated with Westminster Abbey. The poet of the Renaissancesucceeds the poet of romance. The architectural character of the twobuildings symbolize the characteristic differences of the two mastersof English song. And this same Renaissance spirit worked its way intotheological literature. Taylor and Bunyan, indeed, all the great[353]religious writers of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, appearmore or less romancists in the style of their thoughts, regarded froma literary point of view. Divisions, pointedness, quaint expression,warmth of sentiment, such as arrests us in mediæval buildings, arereproduced in the books of that picturesque age. The two authors justmentioned belong to the class of romancist prose poets. But all ischanged when we turn to the theological literature of King William’sdays—Tillotson, Burnet, Bentley, Locke. We miss Anglican and Puritansweep of thought, minuteness of detail, intensity of utterance, andglow of passion. There is no depth of colour, all is pale; no flash offire, all is cold. We meet with regularity, order, smoothness. It isthe age of Renaissance in Divinity.

Roman Catholicism, during the Middle Ages, had given scope to theinstitution, and had paid attention to the culture, of voluntarysocieties. Such societies had sprung up in different parts of Europeamongst the Clergy and amongst the Laity, being placed in subjectionto the laws, animated by sympathy with the spirit, and directed to thepromotion of the interests of the Church. Monks praying in cloisters,friars preaching in streets, secular fraternities in towns and citiesvisiting the poor and sick, had engaged in spontaneous activity, yethad 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 anddomestic, as well as lay associations for spiritual improvement, wereunknown. In one ascertained exceptional instance, under Edward VI., anunordained person was allowed to preach; but it was the rule to excludeall but men in orders from every kind of public or socially organizedusefulness. Not only were Anglicans destitute of any association oflay helpers in Christian work at home, and of any means for carryingon Missions abroad, but Puritans were in the same predicament, sincemeetings for prophesying, catechizing,[355] and lecturing, and plans forpurchasing presentations to livings, did not constitute the kind ofco-operation now in view. Presbyterians, and many Independents also,not only from necessity, but from that neglect of unclerical enterprisewhich 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 infull play in other portions of Western Christendom. A clerical jealousyof laymen, a fear of schism, and a dislike of everything approaching toirregularity, lay at the bottom of the Anglican aversion to lay agency.Prejudices of a similar kind influenced Puritans; for although thereexisted abundant religious irregularity during the Commonwealth, therewere not a few amongst Nonconformists wedded to their own notions ofchurch order. They were High Churchmen in their own way, regarding theecclesiastical principles of the New Testament as so comprehensive intheir direct application, as to render all associations distinguishedfrom the Church itself as perfectly needless.

This state of things prevailed during three-fourths of the seventeenthcentury, when a movement began, opening the way to consequences whichever since have been unfolding themselves. At present, the vast numberof our religious societies—some in slender connection with churches,some in no connection with them at all—form phenomena worth the studyof social philosophers; and the rise of them may be distinctly tracedin those combinations for certain purposes, just before and during thereign of William III., which are now to be described. The outburst ofzeal at that time has received much less notice than its importancedeserves.

It was about the year 1678—sixty years after the first[356] establishmentin Paris of the societies by St. Vincent de Paul—that a few young menin London, belonging to the congregations of Dr. Horneck, the popularpreacher at the Savoy, and of Mr. Smithies, an impressive lecturer atSt. Michael’s, Cornhill, came under one of those inspirations whichmark epochs of revival. They agreed to meet weekly for religiousconference, prayer, and scripture reading. When, under James II.,signs of Papal outgrowths were visible, they sought to check returningsuperstition, and promoted the use of daily common prayer at thechurch of St. Clement Danes, as a sort of protest against the use ofdaily mass at the Chapel Royal. Feeling a more than ordinary desirefor the Communion, they frequented the Lord’s-table whenever they hadan opportunity, and stimulated clergymen to celebrate, not only uponSundays but upon holidays; and on the vigils of feasts they met forpreparation at one another’s houses. They thus fell in with a currentof sacramental feeling, which became prevalent and powerful at theopening of the eighteenth century—promoted by the writings of RobertNelson and others, and by the example of distinguished persons amongstboth Clergy and Laity.[446] They also raised money for the paymentof clergymen who read prayers, for the relief of the poor, for thesupport of schools, and for the spread of Christianity abroad and athome. They laid down rules of conduct, drawn from their own religiousand ecclesiastical principles, “To love one another; when revilednot to revile again; to speak evil of no man; to wrong no man; topray, if possible, seven times a-day; to keep close to the Church ofEngland; to transact all things peaceably and gently; to be helpfulto each other; to use themselves to holy thoughts[357] on coming in andgoing out; to examine themselves every night; to give every one hisdue; to obey superiors, both spiritual and temporal.” Controvertedpoints of Divinity were banished from discussion, no prayers were usedbut those in the Prayer-Book, or sanctioned by clergymen; the strongChurch element in these societies further manifesting itself in carefulabstinence from a lay use of absolution. Resembling in some respects,in others differing from, Young Men’s Christian Associations, they mustbe regarded as harbingers of the latter institutions; and, so regarded,they in certain minds acquire an interest beyond that which inherentlybelongs to them.

The societies, developed in the way described, attained vigour andprosperity in the middle of King William’s reign, being promoted by theapproval 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 atNottingham and Gloucester, and we follow them across the Channel toIreland, to Kilkenny and Drogheda, especially to Dublin, where no lessthan ten of them arose under the sanction and help of the Bishops andClergy.[447]

Tillotson, Compton, and other Prelates, at an early period lookedfavourably upon the associations and aided their endeavours; but someat 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 laypromoters of these societies,[358] Robert Nelson becomes conspicuous afterthe 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 includeNonconformists. The methods of operation were manifold. The mostprominent was to enforce the execution of the laws against vice andprofanity; and to stir up people to join in this enforcement, theutmost ingenuity and the most plausible eloquence were employed. Anabstract of the statutes against the profanation of the Lord’s-day,drunkenness, swearing and cursing, blasphemy, lewd and disorderlypractices, and gaming, was published and circulated, with a list ofpenalties annexed; and all good subjects were exhorted, on grounds ofpatriotism and religion, to aid in executing these statutes. Otherassociations 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 publicmorals; they chiefly furnished the supplies for carrying on the war.About fifty persons, including tradesmen and others, composed a secondband, to promote, by individual efforts, the prosecution of the design.A third detachment embraced constables, who were “to meet to considerof the most effectual way to discharge their oaths, to acquaint oneanother with the difficulties they met with, to resolve on properremedies, to divide themselves in the several parts of the city so asto take in the whole to the best advantage for inspecting of disorderlyhouses, taking up of drunkards, lewd persons, profaners of theLord’s-day, and swearers out of the streets and markets, and carryingthem before the magistrates.” A fourth rank of[359] men, described as thecorner-stone of the undertaking, contained as many as were disposedto inform against delinquents; the money arising from informationsbeing devoted to the help of the poor, except a third part of thepenalty against Sabbath-breaking, which the magistrate had the power todistribute, but which had never, so it was said, been bestowed upon theinformers themselves.

The necessity of laws for the punishment of offences against societyand individual rights is plain, but the efficacy of legislation forthe suppression of immorality and irreligion is more than questioned.Fines and imprisonments can only produce a skin-deep reformation, andwhen relaxed are followed by fresh outbursts of vicious indulgence;and if the least objectionable part of the plan now under reviewwas defective, the encouragement given to informers was adapted toproduce bad results, only second to those which were assailed. To stirup people to lay informations against their neighbours, must breedmutual suspicion; and with the honest intention of destroying oneevil, provoke another into fiercer rage. The laws against drunkenness,houses of ill-fame, and gambling, were wise and good, and deserved tobe put in force; but the laws against some kinds of conduct, calledSabbath-breaking, and profaneness, and blasphemy, were of a differentclass and of a doubtful character. Blasphemy included the denial ofthe doctrine of the Trinity, so that any honest and upright Sociniancame under the scourge, it being sophistically added as a note at thebottom of the published abstract, “This statute punishes not the error,but the impudence of the offender.” It should be stated further, thatover the enforcement of the law against immorality and irreligionan even-handed justice did not preside. The bandage[360] sometimes fellfrom the eyes of that impartial lady. The cases of rich and poor, ofhigh and low, were not always weighed in the same scales. The crusadeagainst sinners in the valleys and low lands of social life was mostvigorously carried on; the sinners on the hills were left to do verymuch 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. Seventyor eighty warrants a week were executed upon street swearers, sothat the constables “found it difficult to take up a swearer indivers of our streets.” Sunday markets ceased; drovers and carrierswere stopped; bakers did not dare to appear with their baskets, or“barbers with their pot, basin, or periwig-box;” hundreds of badhouses became closed; and “thousands of lewd persons were imprisoned,fined, and whipped, and the Tower end of the town much purged fromthat pestilential generation of night-walkers, forty or fifty of thembeing sent in a week to Bridewell, from whence, at their own desire,they were transported to America, to gain an honest livelihood in theplantations.”

Means of another and an unexceptionable nature were employed for thefurtherance of the general object. The distribution of tracts—nowbecome so conspicuous and powerful an agency—was then systematicallycommenced, and we notice in the scanty but gradually increasinglist,Kind Caution to Profane Swearers andThe Soldier’sMonitor, the last of these publications indicating the interesttaken in the spiritual welfare of the army. A hundred thousand shorttracts against drunkenness and other vices were distributed throughoutthe country, and we meet with the statement that especial care wastaken to present them to culprits after their conviction. Connectedwith this[361] enterprise appears the germ of another usage, exceedinglypopular in our own times—the preaching of sermons on particularoccasions in behalf of societies. Episcopal clergymen advocated themfrom the pulpit of Bow Church, Nonconforming ministers from the pulpitof Salter’s Hall. With eloquence, or with varying degrees in the wantof it; with spirit, or with dulness; with a pleasant voice, as of onewho can play well on an instrument, or with an unmusical delivery,which grated harshly on sensitive ears,—did these divines stand upbefore congregations, crowded or scanty, charmed or disappointed,enthusiastic or critical; after which a collection was made, yieldinga goodly amount of gold and silver, or the reverse. Then, as now,secretaries would be filled with anxiety, committees would listenwith a feeling of responsibility, praises and censures would followthe appeals, complacency would be inspired, mortification wouldbe provoked, thanks would be returned; and the good and evil, thegrace and the frailty, the virtues and the infirmities incident tosuch occasions would begin to manifest themselves on a small scale,in prophetic type of what obtains in the May anniversaries of thenineteenth century.

The meetings at Bow Church, graced by the presence and assisted by theadvocacy of such men as Patrick, Burnet, Trelawny, Kidder, Williams,Stanhope, and Bray, were held once a quarter; and, besides sermonsdelivered on behalf of these societies, there were sermons preached,exposing the vices of the age. In different parts of the countryefforts of this kind were made. Stratford, the Bishop, and Fog, theDean of Chester, warmly took up the new cause, and the picturesque oldcity in the north became head-quarters for the new crusade.

Societies for the reformation of manners gradually multiplied, andwithin a few years they existed numerously, not only in England, butin Scotland and Ireland; and the undulations of the excitement rolledover 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 theseproceedings, seeing that they combined Conformists and Nonconformistsin works of charity. The goodness of the object did not preventdisapproval of union with schismatics. Archbishop Sharpe, whosesuspicions as to the Young Men’s Societies have been already mentioned,refused to countenance in any way those on a broader basis; and HenryNewcome, son of the eminent Presbyterian of that name, when preachinga Reformation Lecture, railed against Dissenters, a circumstance whichled Matthew Henry to say, “The Lord be judge between us. Perhaps itwill be found that the body of Dissenters have been the strongestbulwarks against profaneness in England.” The practice of layinginformations sometimes produced bad blood in Church circles. “Mybrother Hulton,” Henry records in hisDiary, “on Lord’s-day wasseven-night, observing the churchwardens of St. Peter’s with a strangeminister and others, go to Mr. Holland’s alehouse, and sit there threehours, told the Recorder of it. The Bishop came to hear of it, andMr. Hulton desired his Lordship to admonish them. They set light bythe Bishop, and challenged the magistrates to fine them; whereuponMr. Hulton was summoned to inform against them, and did so, and theywere fined, but they were very abusive to him.” The co-operation ofChurchmen and Dissenters excited political suspicion; and Vernon,Secretary of State, by no means[363] friendly to such movements, told theDuke of Shrewsbury that the Archbishop apprehended their design wasto undermine the Church, and that the Lord Chancellor thought theyrather aimed at discrediting the Administration. Even William approvedof a watch being kept over the movement, and Somers was for findingout all ways of getting into their secret, and by clandestine meansto defeat clandestine objects. Not that Dissenters were suspected oftreason, but his Lordship wished to know “what discontented Churchmenor discarded statesmen meant by insinuating themselves into theirfamiliarities.”[448]

In one instance the activity of the reformers occasioned a riot. MayFair reached its zenith in the reign of William III., when, in additionto the sale of leather and cattle, all sorts of exhibitions took placeadapted to high and low, rich and poor. Graceful dancers attractednoblemen; duck-hunting in a pond at the back of a wooden house—whichthen, in rural simplicity, stood in what is now the heart of a west-endpopulation—drew together crowds of the vulgar; and for the curious ofall ranks there was provided a model of the City of Amsterdam, carvedin wood; and, amongst other wonders, a body was shown with the wordsDeus Meus written on the pupil of one eye, and on the other aHebrew inscription, which had to be taken on trust. Want of loyaltywas not one of the vices of the place, for a play-bill informed thepublic that during the time of May Fair an excellent droll would beperformed, called, “King William’s Happy Deliverance, and GloriousTriumph over his Enemies.” Even ecclesiastical zeal penetrated thismultifarious assemblage, for the bill gave as a second title of thepiece, “The Consultation of the Pope, Devil, French King, and[364] theGrand Turk.”Vivat Rex closed the advertisement.[449] Notconfining themselves to the quiet distribution of tracts, the friendsof morality who visited the Fair in 1702 were bent upon executingthe law. Informers, constables, and magistrates were busy at theirwork, apprehending the worst offenders, and no doubt plenty theyfound to do, for it is stated by a contemporary that young people, bythe temptation they met with here, committed much sin, and fell intomuch disorder. “Here they spent their time and money in drunkenness,fornication, gaming, and lewdness, whereby were occasioned oftentimesquarrels, tumults, and shedding of blood.”[450] The consequence ofthe 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 theconstable was hanged.

At the close of the year 1698 an organization more important thanany of the preceding took its rise. Dr. Bray and four distinguishedfriends, consisting of Lord Guildford, Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Mr.Justice Hook, and Colonel Maynard Colchester, met, and drew up adocument, by which they agreed as often as conveniently, to consulttogether how they might be able, by due and lawful methods, to promoteChristian knowledge. The last words pointed to the general objectcontemplated, and gave a distinctive name to the institution arisingout of these circumstances,The Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge. As the purpose was comprehensive, and the meansremained to be arranged, a principle of selectness appeared essentialto success; and, accordingly, the possession of “noted humility,condescension, and charity,”[365] was laid down as essential to membership.It was determined to have a chairman to preserve order, and the memberswere urged, first, to “prevent heats and to allay such as may arise,”and then “to exercise discretion in talking of their affairs.” Prayerswere to be offered upon commencing business. Members were to becarefully elected, no payment of money or possession of office beingrecognized as a qualification. A candidate was proposed at two meetingsbefore admission, and in the minutes for June, 1699, it is recordedon the 27th, that the Lord Bishop of Gloucester was proposed for thefirst time, and on the 29th that he was proposed a second time. Eminentpersons, including Prelates, Presbyters, and Laymen, soon joined thenew 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 Nonjuringprinciples, and their association with such men as Fowler and Burnetin this kind of work is very remarkable. Amongst the Laymen wereRichard Blackmore, William Melmoth, and Robert Nelson; the last, whojoined in 1699, whilst still a Jacobite, and a non-communicant with theEstablished Church, further illustrates the toleration of politicaland ecclesiastical differences. Besides members in London, who couldmeet for personal conference, there were corresponding associates.John Strype, at Low Leyton, turned aside from his ancient rolls andfaded manuscripts to unite in this movement, and Samuel Wesley formed abranch at Epworth.

Manifold were the methods adopted at the beginning, and various schemesbeing from time to time discussed, the Society pursued diversifiedforms of action, according to circumstances. It was primarily a Bookand Tract[366] Society. The establishment of parochial libraries in Americato aid the work of the Clergy, and of lending catechetical librariesin market towns of this kingdom, together with the distribution ofgood books, as the Society should direct, are amongst the decisionsmentioned in the minutes. At an early period we find in its list ofpublications,Bradford on Regeneration,Scougal’s Life of Godin the Soul of Man,Melmoth’s Great Importance of a ReligiousLife, andBull’s Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Thirtythousand copies ofThe Soldier’s Monitor were sent to the armyin Holland. Admiral Benbow and Sir George Rooke caused similar tractsto be circulated throughout the fleet; andCautions to Watermenwere sent down to the West for distribution amongst people employed onrivers and canals. It was also a School Society upon Church principles.Catechetical schools in and about London received attention; and beforethe 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 similarefforts were made, as appears from a report by Lord Guildford, as toteaching paupers in workhouses and instructing them in the Catechism;and further, it may be stated that resolutions were passed to inducethe parents of scholars to attend catechetical lectures. It is alsoworth noticing, as a curiosity, that Mr. Symons, schoolmaster atCripplegate, discovered a secret, by which he could teach twenty orthirty boys the alphabet in a day. Allusions occur, in the months ofJuly and August, 1699, to efforts at instruction in the parish of St.George’s, Southwark, being “much obstructed,” when it was ordered thatthe agents should immediately treat with a schoolmaster, the Society toensure him one half-year’s[367] pay; but the measure was postponed in hopesof an agreement with the parish officers, who seemed to have throwndifficulties in the way.

Whilst the promotion of Christian knowledge, by means of publicationsand schools, formed the main object of the Society, other purposes wereincidentally contemplated, and we find these good men anticipating thelabours of John Howard by seeking to improve the state of prisons,and the modern condemnation of duelling, by giving thanks to Sir JohnPhillips for his noble Christian example in refusing a challenge.Numerous references occur in the earliest proceedings to efforts forthe conversion of Quakers, and, as they are so singular, they claimnotice and require explanation.

There was a man named George Keith, a native of Aberdeen, and afellow-student with Gilbert Burnet at the University of that city. Hewent over to America, and there pursued a distinguished course as apreacher amongst the Quakers; but disputes arose between him and thePennsylvanian Friends, which ended in their disowning him, and in hisresisting them. They could not retain a person who openly declaredthat he “trampled their judgments under his feet as dirt;” who chargedthose who opposed him, with apostacy from Quakers’ principles; and whoestablished a separate meeting for such as sympathized in his views.Strange to say, after protesting against American Friends as untrue tothe doctrine of their Society, this energetic person became a member ofthe Church of England, and, on his return to this country, entered intoholy orders. He now became a zealous opponent of the people with whomhe had been identified, and being brought into intimate connection withDr. Bray, that gentleman considered him a suitable agent for the newSociety. Whether the Society[368] originally designed him for the purposeor not, certainly Keith deemed it his vocation to do all in his powerto bring Quakers within the pale of the English Church, and the recordsof the Society endorse his efforts in this respect. They “report aboutthe Quakers, and give a satisfactory account of Keith’s designs,”bestowing upon him a certificate or recommendation, to protect himin his travels and procure him encouragement from the justices ofthe peace, at the same time resolving to circulate his narrative andcatechism. A little later a resolution was adopted “respecting Keith’sprogress into the country to convert the Quakers,” and the sum of£10 12s. was voted for the purchase of publications, which he wasto distribute in his tour. Reports were sent in by him stating theresult of his mission in Bristol and elsewhere; and it seems that, asthe Quakers at an earlier period had been in the habit of enteringparish churches, to bear witness there against what they considered adeparture from the spirit of the Gospel, so now their former friend,George Keith, carried on his labours against them in a strictlyretaliative form.

It is stated in the Society’s minutes, that the Quakers opposed hisattempts to preach in their meeting-houses; and one is surprisedto find, after the Act of Toleration had passed, the followingentry:—“Resolved, that Mr. Keith attempts again, and, if opposed, thathe pursue his remedy according to law.”

Quakers are not the only persons whose conversion was speciallycontemplated; particular attention was paid to Roman Catholics, andit was agreed that the members of the Society should endeavour toinform themselves of the practices of priests to pervert His Majesty’ssubjects. I do not find any mention made of special endeavours to[369]bring back to the Church any other section of Nonconformists than thepeople called Quakers.[451]

The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was the parent of anothersociety of not less importance. Dr. Bray was deeply interested inMissions abroad; with extraordinary efforts for the diffusion of theGospel in England, he combined extraordinary efforts for the diffusionof the Gospel in the American colonies. He went out to Marylandat his own expense, as Ecclesiastical Commissary to the Bishop ofLondon, and did not return to England until after he had exhaustedhis resources. It appears that in March, 1697, when a Bill was beingread in Parliament respecting estates devoted to superstitious uses,he presented a petition, praying that a portion of such estates mightbe set apart for the propagation of the reformed religion in Maryland,Virginia, and the Leeward Isles, or that some other provision shouldbe made for the purpose. Animated by this spirit, he induced theSociety to approve of libraries in North America for the use of theClergy. He visited Holland to obtain from His Majesty a grant in aid,and reported the design of Sir Richard Bulkeley to settle on his Irishestate a rent-charge of £20 a year, and his gift of a share in certainmines for the furtherance of this object. At length, floating desiresassumed definite shape, and steps were taken to secure a charterfor Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Dr. Bray, through theinstrumentality of Archbishop Tenison and Bishop Compton, succeeded inaccomplishing this object, and in May, 1701, the draft of a charter“was read and[370] debated, and several amendments made, and the namesof 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 ofJune, Dr. Bray stated that His Majesty in Council had signed an orderfor incorporating the Society. Convocation had turned its thoughts toForeign Missions, but relinquished further proceedings upon findingthis charter was granted. The instrument described the objects of thenew Society as being, first, the providing of learned and orthodoxministers for the administration of God’s word and sacraments amongstthe King’s loving subjects in the plantations, colonies, and factoriesbeyond the seas. So far the enterprise was strictly colonial, intendedfor the spiritual instruction and welfare of English emigrants todistant shores. The charter, secondly, contemplated the making ofsuch other provision as might be necessary for the propagation ofthe Gospel in those parts; and this, read in the light of subsequentoperations, might be interpreted to signify the diffusion of Christianknowledge amongst such of the heathen as lived in the neighbourhood ofEnglish colonists. Still the objects remained limited; it was confinedto the British dominions, and took no account of pagan countrieslying outside. Now that our Indian dominion is so extensive, the oldcharter may be construed as pointing to an immense field of labourthere; but the charter at first—when our colonial dependencies wereof comparatively narrow extent—contemplated, consistently with itsnature as an incorporation under the English crown, a range of effortfar within the wide sweep which Missions since have happily[371] taken.Power was given to hold property, to carry on legal proceedings, tomake bye-laws, and to collect subscriptions. To stamp the whole witha Church of England character, the Archbishops of Canterbury andYork, the Bishops of London and Ely, the Lord Almoner, the Deans ofWestminster and St. Paul’s, the Archdeacon of London, and the Regiusand Margaret Professors of Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge for thetime being, were constituted trustees, the selection of some of thesedignitaries at first being doubtless determined on personal grounds.

Under the presidency of his Grace of Canterbury, a meeting of memberstook place within one of the apartments of Lambeth Palace on the 27thof June, 1701; and we can fancy Compton, Williams, Fowler, Sherlock,and others, coming in barges along the Thames, or in coaches, onhorseback, or a-foot through the narrow streets, to the well-knowngateway of the Archiepiscopal abode. The charter was read. Five hundredprinted copies of it were ordered. Melmoth was chosen treasurer, andChamberlayne secretary. According to a vote on the occasion, there wasprepared a symbolical seal, representing a ship in full sail, with agigantic clergyman, half-mast high, standing by the bowsprit with anopen Bible in his hands, whilst diminutive negroes, in an attitudeof expectancy, are sprinkled over a hilly beach. Overhead is one ofthose awkward scrolls, devised to convey words uttered by the personsintroduced; and here it contains in Latin the Macedonian prayer, whichthe little blacks are supposed to be offering: “Come over and helpus.” At the top is a face surrounded by sun rays, apparently intendedto denote the presence and benediction of God vouchsafed to theundertaking.

Meetings afterwards were held at the Cockpit, in Whitehall, or in thevestry of Bow Church, and afterwards[372] in Archbishop Tenison’s library,in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. Soon the secretary prepared parchmentrolls for the use of members deputed to receive subscriptions, amongstwhom were Bishop Patrick, Archdeacon Stanley, and others. The Societyfor Promoting Christian Knowledge had at least contemplated missionarywork in our western colonies; but now that a new Society had beenincorporated for extending the Gospel in foreign parts, these fields oflabour were placed under its care.

As a precursor of publications in religious literature, issued withina short time in such numbers as would fill a library, there waspresented, at the close of the first year’s operations, a report, fromwhich it is worth while to extract a passage or two illustrating theway in which such documents were then drawn up, and of the nature ofthe work accomplished by the Society.

Mention is made of “one missionary for the service of the YeomanseeIndians to the South of Carolina;” of regard had to infidels amongstEnglish settlers in North America; and of the determination also toresist the progress of “Quakerism, Antinomianism, ignorance, andimmorality, which have hitherto fatally overspread those infantchurches.” Provision was made for “some of the islands by a supplyof two ministers;” further, there had been “a settlement compassedfor a congregation at Amsterdam, with the consent of the magistratesof the place;” and encouragement had been given to commence a churchat Moscow, of which the Czar had laid the foundation. The expense ofthese undertakings was paid out of a fund of about £800, aided bysubscriptions amounting to £1,700.

In an appendix of the year 1701 is found a plan, proposed by PatrickGordon, for establishing seminaries on the verge of the Indianterritory, where boys from London[373] charity-schools should be sent;the main object being to “induce Indian children to play with theseboys, that marriages might be promoted among them, and a mixed race ofChristians might thus arise.”[453]

It is a curious fact that in the year 1703 overtures were made by WhiteKennet on behalf of the Society to Thomas Hearne, to settle in Marylandin 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 belibrarian to the province, at an additional salary of £10 a year; andit was added: “When you have been there any time, you have liberty toreturn with money in your pocket and settle here in England, if you arenot more pleased with all the good accommodations of that place.” Theoffer was not accepted. Hearne felt no vocation to colonial work.[454]By his refusal, the Society lost one who might have been no verysuccessful missionary, and Oxford gained an illustrious archæologist.

A bold step taken by the Nonjurors in the year 1694 deepened andperpetuated their schism, and some circumstances tainted theirproceedings with more disloyalty than could be involved in the mererefusal 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 concertwith the deprived Prelates of Peterborough and Ely, to appoint twoBishops. To soften appearances and to avoid collisions, they gave thepersons appointed the titles of Suffragans of Thetford and of Ipswich,and, in keeping with their own Jacobitism, they consulted the RoyalExile respecting those who should fill the offices. Dr. Hickes wasdespatched on a visit to St. Germains, with a list of the Nonjurors, toask James to exercise the prerogative by nominating two clergymen forthese posts. He graciously received the delegate, who spent six weeksin travelling that short distance, and in overcoming the difficultiesof access to his Court. Having consulted the Pope, the Archbishopof Paris, and Bossuet of Meaux, whether it would be consistent withloyalty to the Church to do what was asked, James, with their sanction,nominated Hickes as Suffragan of Thetford, and Wagstaffe as Suffragan[375]of Ipswich.[455] It is plain that James made capital out of this tofurther his own designs, for he was at that time deep in plans ofinvasion, and his correspondence with Hickes and the Bishop of Norwichpoints to them as accredited agents.[456] On the 24th of February,1694, Hickes and Wagstaffe were admitted into the Episcopal order bythe three deprived Bishops, and the ceremony took place in a privatehouse in London, where the Bishop of Peterborough lodged, the Earl ofClarendon being present on the occasion.

Great care was taken by some of the Nonjurors to ascertain the numberand circumstances of clergymen included within their party. It is theeffect of such ecclesiastical divisions to bring into bonds of closestacquaintance those who agree upon some distinctive principle. AmongsttheBaker MSS. is a document containing a long list of thosewho forfeited their preferment rather than take the new oath,[457]and among them the following names occur, with some indications ofcharacter 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 toa good living in Sussex by the late Bishop of Chichester, his uncle,and a daughter yet unmarried. Mr. Yorke, one of the Vicars Choral ofthe 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.[376] Mr. Cressey, Vicar of Sheriff Hutton (of the yearlyvalue of about £50), a gentleman well born, of good principles, andsober conversation; he married old Mr. Thinscrosse’s niece; hath withher two children; little to live on, save the charity of relations,and that Sir Henry Slingsbie at present retains him for his domesticchaplain. Mr. Winshup, Curate of Malton and Prebendary of York (hisloss 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 amtold, is now at London, bending his studies towards the law; a greatacquaintance of late Baron Ingleby. Mr. Symms, Rector of Langton (valueabout £80 per annum), a truly loyal and firmly-principled Church ofEngland man; was lately imprisoned through malice, when the Papistswere secured, the grief whereof (as thought) broke his wife’s heart,who was a devout gentlewoman; he hath a daughter, and may be an objectworthy of compassion and charity. Mr. Holmes, Rector of Burstwicke andVicar 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 makesvery hard shift to live. Mr. Rosse, Vicar of Scawby (valued at £40 perannum), a man of very good parts and learning, but given to excess ofdrinking, even to scandal, yet hath a wife and charge of children, andis an object of pity and charity (if he could be reformed), and veryright in his principles. Mr. Mawburn, Minister of Crake, though withinours, yet of the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Durham; one who ismaster of too much learning, except he made better use of it, a greatcomplier with all the designs of the late reign, and too scandalousin his conversation upon all accounts. I do not know of any charge hehath, nor what is[377] become of him, but his living was commonly reportedabout £100 per annum.”

Many other names are given, some reported as “poor,” others “not poor,”or “well to pass.”

The Nonjurors fixed their head-quarters in the Metropolis. ThereKettlewell settled after leaving his incumbency. With all his ardourand decision he did not practically go so far as some of his brethren.He objected to the clergy attending parish churches, because, ashe said, if only two or three joined them in private, they mightcanonically minister, and have Christ in the midst of them; but he didnot object to the laity uniting in worship with clergymen who tookthe oaths. Upon examining the ground of this concession, however, wefind it rests on the idea that the ministration of the ordained isessential to the Divine acceptance of social service, and the publicdevotion in which he allowed the laity to participate only consisted ofcommon prayer on ordinary occasions, not of special prayer connectedwith national festivals.[458] He would in no way sanction the use ofintercession for William and Mary, and was himself very particular inpraying not only for King James, but in obeying the order issued beforethe Revolution, for supplications on behalf of the Prince of Wales. Hereached, by a confused logical process, the high ecclesiastical ground,“that the determination of the Church of England, so solemnly givenin her prayers, was on his side, and was so binding as it could notbe reversed by a superior authority, or even reversed at all, withoutmaking the public voice of this Church to contradict itself.”[459] Hepushed his views of the individual responsibility of clergymen—and,if I understand him aright, of laymen as well—to such an[378] extent thathe reached a position of thorough independency, for he says, true andfaithful pastors are not so strictly bound to keep up external unityand peace, as to maintain truth and righteousness and the unpollutedworship of the Church; and that however private persons are bound touse modesty and caution in following the “venerable ecclesiasticaljudicatories on earth, yet it is not anyimplicit dependenceon men, or ablind obedience to any human sentence or decisionwhatsoever, but observance of the truth itself, and of what God hathin His Word decided, that must justify them in determining themselveswhom they are to follow.”[460] This is the very protestantism of theProtestant Religion, the very dissidence of dissent, and it affords anexample of the inconsistency which comes in the wake of circumstances,and of the odd way in which extremes meet. Kettlewell, in fact, hadbecome a Nonconformist, and he justified himself only by argumentsof the same description as those which other Nonconformists employ.From the same cause he was led to declare, there might be ground forbreaking off from any Church without incurring schism, “there beingsome things not to be borne with, nor others to be parted with, for thesake of an external union;”[461] so far he made common cause with JohnRobinson and John Owen.

Kettlewell entered with sympathy into the poverty and sufferings ofhis brethren. They had many of them lost all, and this benevolentman, anxious to assuage their distress, drew up a plan for collectingand distributing a fund for their relief, directing inquiries as tothe income and expenditure of the deprived, with a view to preventimpositions upon charity. He proposed that the Clergy in London, whohad no business there, but remained only[379] because it was the bestplace for obtaining gifts, should be sent where they would be bettermaintained at less expense, and where they might make themselves ofsome service. Then, touching upon a notorious evil, he remarked, thatothers would then have no excuse for frequenting coffee-houses andhunting after benefactions, but would have time to promote their ownimprovement, and he advised those who sought relief, simply to notetheir sufferings, without making reflections.[462] He did not confinehimself to sectarian charity, but sought also to promote the welfare ofpersons not of his own communion, of which a monument remained afterhis death, in a comprehensive trust, of which he was the founder.[463]

Kettlewell remained a Nonjuror to the last, and on his death-bedexpressed his distinctive principles; but he did something better, andbeautifully uttered the language of Christian hope.

He expired April the 12th, 1695, in London, and was buried in theparish church of All Hallows, near the Tower, in the same grave whichhad contained the remains of Archbishop Laud from his death till theRestoration. Ken was permitted by the Incumbent to read Evening Prayerson the occasion, and to attend in his episcopal robes to perform theburial service.

Kettlewell’s scheme of charitable relief received the sanction of theNonjuring Bishops, who wrote a letter in its favour. The proceedingwas laudable; yet such was the political antipathy to the Nonjurorsby those in power, that Ken had to appear before the Privy Council toaccount for putting his name to the appeal; and of the interrogationshe received and the answers he gave, there remains a report under hisown hand.

Dodwell threw his whole soul into the Nonjuring cause, and continuedon its behalf, after the schism had occurred, the advocacy he hadundertaken at the beginning. His pen was busy with denunciations andencouragements; in private letters to those whom he suspected oftimidity, he deplored the general apostacy from Church principles;described the apostates as pretending to the name of the Church ofEngland, whilst acting on the principles of its adversaries; spoke oflatitudinarian notions as tincturing those of the laity who were sowarm for what they call liberty of conscience; and expressed his deepsorrow for what he considered vacillation and cowardice.

No multitude of apostates, he declared, could ever be pleaded as anauthoritative example against a small number continuing firm. Thedoctrine and practice of these faithful Abdiels, he added, had beenmaintained by the Church in all the cases which had occurred fromthe beginning of the Reformation to that very day. In the case ofQueen Mary and the Lady Jane Grey, in the case of Cromwell and KingCharles II., nay, in the present case, and in opposition to republicanadversaries. He believed there were few of these great lapsers butwould, a few years before, have resented it, like Hazael, as a greatcalamity and scandal had they been charged with doing the things whichthey had since actually done.

He denounced all compliance, eschewed all compromise, and reprobatedall “carnal politics;” warned against balancing expediency withconscience, and against seeking to promote Protestantism by a sacrificeof Church principles.[464] He set aside reasons for taking the oaths,by saying there is no cause so bad[381] but something may be said in itssupport, and by referring to Carneades’Oration on Injustice,Burgess and Barnet’sDefence of Sacrilege, and the Hungarian’sVindication of Polygamy. As an illustration of the lengths towhich party spirit will carry people, I may cite the following passagefrom Dodwell’s vehement lucubration: “It is not a particular sect oropinion that we contend for, but the very being of a Church and ofreligion. Whether there shall be any faith that shall oblige to ourown hindrance? Whether religion, which ought to add to its sacredness,shall be made a pretence for violating it? Whether our Holy Mother, theChurch of England, which hath been famous for her loyalty, shall now beas infamous for her apostacy? Whether there be any understanding menwho, in this incredulous age, can find in their hearts to venture thegreatest worldly interest for their religion; that is, indeed, whetherthere be any that are in earnest with religion?”[465]

Yet Dodwell wrote from Shottesbrook, August 29th, 1700, to ArchbishopTenison, requesting him to use his influence in providing Bishopsfor the colonies. “The occasion of this present address,” he says,“is not to beg any favour for myself, nor for our dear fathers andbrethren whom I follow in this excellent cause; it is for that verybody which is headed by you against us, which, we hope, will at lengthunite with us on the old terms, when worldly concerns are removed.You have an opportunity put into your hands of doing God service inthe plantations, and of entitling yourself thereby to greater rewardsfrom God than you can expect from any of your worldly designs.” Andin November of the same year I discover him corresponding with thesame distinguished[382] person as to healing the Church’s wound. First,he despatched afeeler on the subject, which was civillyreceived, with a request for further communication, and then hepropounded certain terms of recommunion. He thought the Clergy who hadtaken the oaths might agree with the Nonjurors so far as to maintain,in opposition to all Commonwealth’s-men, the doctrine of passiveobedience “to the lawful Prince for the time being,” each party beingleft to apply the principle in his own way. As to the doctrine of theChurch’s independency, he proposed there should be “expressions asfull as possible disowning the validity of the Lay Act with regard toconscience, and protesting against what had been done in this matteras unfit to pass into a precedent.” As to prayers for the reigningfamily, so strongly objected to by Kettlewell, he did not regardthem as obliging a separation. He took, he says in obscure language,the right of public offices to belong to governors who mightbonafide differ in opinion from their subjects, and, notwithstanding,be included by them in their intercessions. He did not mean that menmight own those opinions as true which they believed false, yet theymight let them pass as the sense of the community of which they weremembers. At the beginning Dodwell suggested, if the reconciliationcould be effected, that the remaining deprived Bishops should “holdtheir places, with a third part of the profits, without taking theoaths;” and in the end, “If you will do nothing on your part to qualifyyou for union with us, our fathers will have performed their part, andyou alone must be answerable for the consequences of it.”[466]

Hickes, Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, resided in[383] Ormond Street,exerting an influence very different from that of Ken, Kettlewell, andNelson; for whilst they kept aloof from political intrigues, he plungeddeeply into the eddying whirlpool, and whilst they allowed the laity toattend parish churches, he denounced those who did so. He most absurdlymaintained that even when no State prayers occurred in the service,simply to hold fellowship with schismatics—and such he denominated allexcept Nonjurors—was a flagrant betrayal of Christian principle.[467]

On another point he was at variance with Kettlewell. Hickes thought itlawful to wear a military disguise that he might escape detection, andonce was introduced, in Kettlewell’s presence, as Captain or ColonelSomebody, for which a patriotic precedent was characteristicallyalleged, by quoting the case of a certain Bishop of old, who, amidst anArian persecution, assumed a military title. Nor did Turner object tothe practice of absconding under borrowed names. But against everythingof this kind the severely truthful Kettlewell set his face like aflint, and would not have swerved a hair’s-breadth from the straightestline of honesty to save his life.[468]

Eccentric individuals might be found amongst those who, by Nonjuringsympathies, were drawn together in a city then, as now, containingsocial worlds, scarcely by any chance touching each other. Suchprecisians cut themselves off from general intercourse and formnarrow-minded habits, which satisfy their own consciences, but provokethe ridicule of other people.

Amongst those who in William’s reign often met together and talked overthe affairs of the deprived Clergy, occurs the name of Dr. FrancisLee—Rabbi Lee, as he[384] came to be called, because of his Jewishlearning. He had been deprived of a fellowship at St. John’s College,Oxford, and after travelling abroad and practising as a physician inVenice for a couple of years, had returned to London in 1694, when hejoined a company of Mystics, and married the prophetess of the sect—awild sort of lady, who imagined that she received revelations fromGod and from angels, and had been taught by them the finite durationof future punishment. Besides this species of modern Montanism, Leeadopted peculiar opinions on other subjects, and published proposalsto Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, for the better framing of hisextensive government.[469]

No layman attained such a position amongst the Nonjurors as RobertNelson, 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 favourableto the adoption of High Church views. His friendship with theLatitudinarian Archbishop Tillotson, and with the half-Puritan BishopKidder, might hold in check for awhile prior tendencies, but could notprevent their ultimately producing effect. His personal regard forTillotson lasted till death; he held the Primate in his arms at themoment he expired; yet then all Nelson’s deference to his opinions hadceased, for from the crisis of the Revolution he had been a NonjuringJacobite. The conversion to Popery of his wife—an aristocratic widow,the Lady Theophila Lucy, who had become violently enamoured of hishandsome person—did not incline him at all towards Rome, though itcould not prove inimical to the development of his Catholic tendencies.Of his[385] intense devoutness and religious zeal there can be no doubt,nor of his respectable abilities; and the importance of such anaccession to the new sect was heightened by other circumstances. Noone can look at his portrait without admiring the taste of Lady Lucy.His fine features, set off to advantage by a good complexion and theadventitious decoration of a magnificent wig, must have given him animposing presence. That presence was further aided by the taste andexpensiveness of his apparel, to which should be added the recollectionof his wealth and his aristocratic connections. Thus fitted to make hisway in society, he naturally became amongst poor and persecuted peoplea commanding personage—an oracle with some, a counsellor with all. Heassociated with Lloyd; corresponded with Frampton; was acquainted withKen; for Kettlewell he felt a warm attachment; Collier and Spinckeswere numbered amongst his friends; and Hickes lived close neighbour tohim in Ormond Street, Red Lion Fields.

In his previous residence at Blackheath Nelson wrote books by whichhe has become well known to posterity. Few may have heard ofThePractice of True Devotion, which he anonymously published in 1698,or of hisExhortation to Housekeepers, which appeared in 1702;but a lasting fame has followed hisCompanion for the Festivals andFasts, 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 booksexplanatory of Church offices had attained some reputation;[470] but nobook aiming to explain[386] theological doctrine, through ecclesiasticalassociations, could vie with this in the extent of its immediatecirculation. The design struck in with tendencies then beginning tounfold—not ritualistic in the modern acceptation of the term; butsacramental—in the way of frequent celebration of the Eucharist and astrict observance of sacred seasons. The production is pervaded witha cast of thought which, though pre-eminently cherished by Nonjurors,was not peculiar to them. Nelson believed that the Episcopal Church ofEngland is the great conservator of orthodoxy; that her Prayer-Book isan unparalleled help to devotion; that Sacraments lie at the centreof Christianity; and that holy days are seasons of blessed revival.He wrote accordingly; and what he wrote was acceptable to membersoutside his own circle, not only on account of their sympathy withhis Church views, but because there lay at the bottom of it this trueidea, that theology should be the handmaid of devotion; that faithfinds 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 thepopularity of Nelson’s publication seems in some degree due to thepatronage it received, the eulogiums pronounced upon it, and the meansadopted by religious societies for its circulation. In a literarypoint of view it can pretend to little, if any merit. The form ofquestion and answer, as bare as any catechism, gives it no attraction.The remarks are commonplace, without any attempt at illustration. Forwhatever learning may be found in its pages the reader is indebted notto Robert Nelson, but to Dr. Cave.

The book, prepared I presume at Blackheath, was published whilst Nelsonlived in Ormond Street, where[387] he received the congratulations ofhis friends, especially of the Nonjurors, who naturally regarded thepopularity of the work as a signal service to their cause.

Nonjuring circles in the Metropolis must often have been agitatedby rumours of plots, real or imagined. In the saloons of Jacobitenobles, in the back rooms of city shops, in the garrets of LittleBritain, stories would be whispered of preparations made for restoringthe legitimate Sovereign. In the autumn of 1698 such tales reachedthe ears of the Duke of Shrewsbury’s Secretary. A Jacobite party hadprovided sixty horses: these were dispersed in Kent and about town,some in the hands of jockeys. They had engaged a Canterbury innkeeperto help onward their project, had raised a fund of above £1,000, wereon the tiptoe of expectation, and only waited for a signal to mounttheir steeds and be off like the wind. So the Secretary heard, and,in connection with the retailing of all this talk, he stated, thathe was on the point of apprehending a person who dealt in policiesof insurance upon James’s restoration. He paid a guinea—so runs theletter—to receive fifty if the King or his son should reascend thethrone by the following Michaelmas—certainly a strange scheme forpromoting his return, since it became the interest of everyone whoreceived the guinea to keep the Royal refugee away.[471]

Centres of Nonjuring influence and activity existed in the country.Shottesbrook Park, near Maidenhead, with its beautiful church ofdecorated Gothic, and its manor-house full of convenience andcomfort—the home of Francis Cherry, a country gentleman, both handsomeand accomplished, “the idol of Berkshire”—offered a[388] pleasant retreatfor the deprived.[472] Many could be accommodated within the spaciousHall, for it contained not less than seventy beds; and the ownerwas as free in his hospitality as he was rich in his resources. Hisheart went with the exiled King, and a story is told to the effectthat once, in a hunting-field, when closely pressed by William’ssteed, he plunged into the Thames where the river was deep and broad,hoping that the piqued monarch might be induced to follow through theuncomfortable if not perilous passage. To Shottesbrook House, RobertNelson often repaired. There the Nonjuror Charles Leslie found awelcome, and at a later period than this volume embraces, disguisedin regimentals, when, in danger of apprehension, he obtained shelterin 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 offear, many a pang of disappointment must have occurred under the roofof the Shottesbrook squire, as persons deep in political intriguesmet for conference. Bowdler, Nelson’s neighbour in Ormond Street,accompanied by his family, was a visitor to this spot; Brokesby, adeprived clergyman of Rowley, near Hull, found in it a resting-place;and the learned Prussian Lutheran, Dr. Grabe, who had come over toreceive orders in the Episcopal Church, cultivated friendships atthe agreeable mansion—convenient for him because not very far fromOxford, where treasures of learning excited his curiosity and increasedhis erudition. Hickes delighted in his company, and after his deathcompared him to a great and mighty prince, who, dying, leaves[389] behindmany plans of noble and curious buildings, some half, some almost,and others entirely finished.[473] In the same place, there alsoresided the famous Henry Dodwell, whose views distinguished him fromKettlewell, and still more from Hickes. Entering into ecclesiasticalsubtleties, Dodwell would say “that if there had been a synodicaldeprivation of the orthodox and faithful fathers of the Church, howeverin itself unjust, yet the Clergy and laity ought to have compliedwith the greater obligation of owning the Episcopal College than withthe less obligation of owning any particular Bishop.” In this respecthe differed from Kettlewell, who would no more allow of a synodicalthan of a secular deprivation, making, as we have seen in referenceto this question, individual conscientiousness the paramount rule ofaction. And further in the same line he differed from Kettlewell, forKettlewell made the Church throughout subserve religion, but Dodwellmade religion subserve the Church.[474] Dodwell was really in principlea higher Churchman, though in practice lower, than Kettlewell—muchlower than Hickes; for Hickes would not attend parish worship at all,and Kettlewell discountenanced it in the Clergy; but Dodwell wouldjoin in morning and evening prayer, childishly satisfying his scrupleswhen the name of the reigning Sovereign occurred by sliding off hisknees and sitting down on the hassock. It is amusing to notice themethods of protest against prayers for the reigning family adoptedby Nonjurors. Some rose from their knees and stood up in the face ofthe congregation; some shut their books; some turned over the leavesso as to make a noise; some satisfied themselves by declining to sayAmen, or by mentally substituting the[390] names of the exiledStuarts. Dodwell, whilst living with Mr. Cherry, had a remarkable pupilin Thomas Hearne, who was patronized by the generous host, supportedat his cost, and prepared at his expense for the University, as if hehad been his own son. Hearne, as we are informed on his own authority,was instructed “in the true principles of the Church of England”—anexpression we can easily understand; and we learn from the samesource how busily the incipient archæologist engaged at Shottesbrookin studies and work subsidiary to literary schemes carried on by theeminent Nonjurors there congregated together.[475]

Within a few miles of Frome, in Somersetshire, stands Longleat House, apalatial abode, surrounded by gardens, in the midst of a wooded park,worthy of the beauty and magnificence of the mansion. Just outsidethe park paling rises the old church of Horningsham, and hard by is alittle Dissenting meeting-house, the most ancient in our island. Theplace is not above twenty miles from Wells, and part of the domaincomes within the diocese. There the most eminent and the most admirableof Nonjurors, Thomas Ken, took up his abode, at the request of LordWeymouth, the possessor of Longleat; and if social gatherings likethose of Shottesbrook did not occur there, the residence of the Prelaterendered it a source of the purest Nonjuring influence. He occupied aroom at the top of the house, removed from the noise and bustle of anEnglish hall, “open to all comers of fashion and quality.” Surroundedby his large library, “he wrote hymns, and sang them to his viol, andprayed, and died.”[476] The most popular of all his sacred lays—theMorning[391] and Evening Hymns—were composed on the top of a hill, which,from the prospect it commands through a break in the woods, is wellknown throughout the neighbourhood by the beautiful name of “the Gateof Heaven.”

Whether he attended the services at the parish church is matter ofcontroversy. One of his biographers thinks that up to the accessionof Queen Anne he enjoyed, in Lord Weymouth’s private chapel, “theprivilege of pure services, without alloy of the State prayers;” butit is added, “During his visits to his nephew at Poulshot, or when hewas in other places where he could not find any Nonjuring assembly, wemay conclude, from what he himself says, that, rather than be debarredthe solace of Christian communion, he went to church.”[477] At allevents, Ken was distressed at the idea of perpetuating schism; hehad no sympathy with the spirit of Hickes; though he allowed excusesfor clandestine consecration, he declared his own judgment to beagainst them; and though his scruples compelled him to retire from hisbishopric, he longed earnestly for the reunion of the Church.

Ken survived King William some years, but two of the NonjuringPrelates, in addition to those already deceased, expired before theSovereign whose rights they would not acknowledge.

White, Bishop of Peterborough, died in 1698. Bishop Turner sent tothe Dean of St. Paul’s to bury the deceased Bishop in St. Gregory’schurchyard; the Dean had it intimated to him “that any clergymanconformable to the Church and Government might bury him.” “BishopTurner, who was one that carried up the pall, with thirty or fortymore of the Clergy, and some few laymen, attended him from the housewhere he died, and[392] being come into the churchyard almost as far asthe grave, they espied Mr. Standish, one of the Minor Canons, inhis surplice, ready to read the office. At the sight of him theyimmediately made a halt, and, after they had conferred amongstthemselves a little while, all the Clergy opened on each side to letthe 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 himinterred. It seems the party renounced all manner of communion with anyperson conformable to the Church and Government.”[478] I have alreadypointed out that there were two classes of Nonjurors: the practicallymoderate, represented by Ken and others, even indeed by Dodwell—andthe extreme, represented by Hickes; and it is apparent that the personswho attended White’s funeral were of the latter description, and wouldnot in any way hold fellowship with any but their own party.

In the month of November, 1700, the Bishop who attended that funeralfollowed his episcopal brother into the invisible world. Turner wasvery poor—“in very needy circumstances,” says Bishop Nicholson,“having a large family, and no support out of the common bank ofcharity.” He lived in extreme retirement, and was buried in the chancelof Therfield Church, Hertford, where he had once been rector, a singleword only being inscribed on the stone which covered his mortalremains, but that word most expressive—Expergiscar.

Samuel Pepys, who lost his official appointment upon the accession ofWilliam and Mary, and consequently at that time retired into privatelife, wearied in his last days with[393] cares and jaded with pleasures,sought relief in the duties of religion, and inquired through Nelsonfor a spiritual adviser. Nelson’s reply to his request throws acurious light upon the circumstances of the Nonjurors’ condition:“After the strictest inquiry, I find none of our Clergy placed in yourneighbourhood nearer than Mitcham, where lives one Mr. Higden, a veryingenious person, who married the late Lord Stowell’s sister; but Ibelieve you may have one with greater ease from London, by reason ofthe conveniency of public conveyances. Our friend, Dean Hickes, is atpresent at Oxford; but if you will be pleased whenever your occasionsrequire it to send to Mr. Spinckes, who has the honour of being knownto you, he will be sure to wait upon you, and take such measuresthat you may always be supplied whenever you stand in need of suchassistance. He lodges at a glazier’s in Winchester Street, near LondonWall.”[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 effectwhich they produced upon him.

Some Jacobites who took the oaths with certain qualifications repentedafterwards, and openly threw in their lot with such as refused toswear. One of them drew up a penitential confession, in which, withmorbid conscientiousness, he dwelt upon what he called his sinfulcompliance. Acknowledgment after acknowledgment of minute particulars,expanded in terms which magnified each, occurs in the document, closingwith the reiterated prayer: “I accuse, and judge, and condemn myself:God be merciful to me a penitent!” Retraction was accompanied by apetition to the ejected Bishop, in which the writer exclaims: “BlessedJesu! though I cannot now glory[394] in my not having fallen, yet I willtake 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 causejoy in heaven (and if Thou pleasest, many penitents on earth) by myrepentance.”[480] No one who is at the trouble of perusing this tediouscomposition can doubt the sincerity of the writer, but nobody of commonsense can fail to perceive his weakness, not to speak of the mischiefhe did to morality and religion by exaggerations of minor casuisticalpoints. For though this man mentions his “first dismal step of takingthe sacred name of God in vain,” he does not dwell upon the sin ofperjury, 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 publiclyretracted his oath, and preached upon the words: “I have sinned greatlyin that I have done; and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away theiniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,” at the sametime he exhorted his congregation to renew their allegiance to James,for whom, as the King of England, and for his family, he publiclyprayed. Such an act was downright rebellion, and no wonder the man gotinto trouble. Being tried for his offence, he was sentenced to standin the pillory and to pay a fine of £200; but the Government wiselytreated him as a lunatic, and offered a pardon if he would confess hisfault. This he declined to do; consequently he remained in confinement.

Not only did other clergymen retract compliance, but a layman whohad qualified himself for office by taking the oaths, solemnly, onhis death-bed, in the presence of witnesses, signed a declaration ofpenitence. The political[395] feeling mixed up with the confession isplain, and all these people, while professing the utmost piety, provedthemselves to be unfaithful subjects.

The political views of the Nonjurors were narrow in the extreme, andthough to be irreligious was a thing they dreaded most of all, theirviews of the State were of a very irreligious kind. They took away fromit all moral and religious life, and if they consistently followedout their own theory, they took away all conscience from the subjectsof a legitimate and anointed King. Their system exalted such a personto the highest point of favour, and degraded the people to the loweststep of slavery. Denuding them of political rights, they denied thempolitical duties, and annihilated all their political responsibilities.In the death-blow aimed at popular power, morality and religion, inreference to political life, were blindly smitten. Yet whilst theircreed only left scope for patience in suffering, numbers of themdid not practice this patience, but were everlastingly plotting acounter-revolution. To them the State appeared as an instrument in thehands of the Church—to be controlled for its use, to afford revenuesfor its support, to supply means for the enforcement of its laws. Thecivil power, according to their theory, has been described as “a bodyconstituted, it would seem, of three principal elements—an absoluteking, money-bags, and a hangman.”[481] It must be said, to the creditof 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 differenttheory from them.

To Sancroft, the Nonjurors, the ecclesiastical Tories[396] of the period,and all men of that stamp who clung to the notion of the divine rightof kings, may be applied the remark: “The great crises in the historyof nations have often been met by a sort of feminine positiveness anda more obstinate reassertion of principles which have lost their holdupon a nation. The fixed ideas of a reactionary politician may becompared to madness. He grows more and more convinced of the truth ofhis notions as he becomes more isolated, and would rather await theinevitable than in any degree yield to circumstances.”[482]

The Nonjuring movement took a narrow and troublesome politicalform, yet, notwithstanding all we have said, it was animated byan intensely religious spirit. This movement did not proceed fromany 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, thatsubjects should unresistingly obey the Lord’s annointed. The schemetended to the political enslavement of the country; it sapped theliberties of our constitution; yet it appears to have been an honestendeavour—prejudiced and ignorant, still an honest endeavour—to serveGod: one of a multitude of instances in which false opinions haveperverted true sentiments, and good motives have given sincerity anddisinterestedness to bad actions. No philosophy of history, but one sowretchedly narrow as to forfeit all title to the name, will deny theco-existence of right and wrong in the same men, however hard it may beto untie the knot between them.

High Church theology of the Thorndike type had no adequaterepresentative amongst the Nonjurors. They[397] included no one ofintellectual mark. Bull, the most distinguished scholar and the ablestdivine of the old Anglican school, remained in the Establishment;so did all the chief theologians who leaned in the same directionwith him. But High Church sentiment of the Laudean order, and suchas belonged to Cosin and Seth Ward, drained off almost entirely intoNonjuring channels. The Nonjurors also went beyond their predecessorsin this respect. They cast off all the Erastian trammels which werewillingly worn by the Bishops of the Restoration.

Gladly would the Nonjurors have wrought out a method of parochialdiscipline which would have kept in order not merely such religionistsas agreed in their views, but the population at large, reducingeverybody to a Procrustean bed of belief and practice. No Presbyteriansunder the Commonwealth could have been more rigorous apostles ofuniformity than the Nonjurors would have proved, had they but obtainedpermission to do as they pleased. They would have gone beyond theirpredecessors; for though Milton says presbyter is priest writ large,a mere presbyter has not the same element of despotic force at hiscommand as is possessed by the genuine priest. The priest, as a stewardof mystical sacraments, becomes more potent than preacher or pastor. Heis constituted lord of a domain beyond the borders of reason and moralauthority; he carries keys which open and shut what the superstitiousimagine to be gates of heaven. The Nonjurors were priests, not withlimitations, like some of their episcopalian brethren, but out and out.Their ministers offered sacrifice upon an altar, they did not merelycommemorate one at the Lord’s-table. Laymen imbibed their views—theywere maintained by Robert Nelson.[483]

As to modes of worship, the Nonjurors were in circumstances whichprecluded ritualistic magnificence. They were proscribed, asNonconformist confessors had been, and therefore were forced toserve God in obscurity. Cathedrals and churches were closed againstthem—they were driven into barns and garrets. Pomp, such as is nowso fashionable, was to them an impossibility; not that I find themmanifesting any cravings in that direction. They did not followArchbishop Laud. High sacramental views are by no means necessarilyconnected with Ritualism. Ritualism may be purely æsthetical, and quiteseparate from peculiar doctrinal opinions; at the same time a belief inthe Real presence and in the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper may wear anoutward form not more artistic than that which obtains in a Dissentingmeeting-house.[484]

With all the political and ecclesiastical passions of that age, thereexisted comparatively little of what may be properly called religiousexcitement. The principal amount of religious excitement in the reignof William III. must not be sought in the Established Church, oramongst Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists. It must be dividedbetween Nonjurors and Quakers. Dismissing the latter for the present,it may be said that the former exhibited abundant enthusiasm. Hickeswas as much a spiritual fanatic as any of the Presbyterian armychaplains, or any of Cromwell’s troopers. Some who reviled the madnessof the sects during the Civil Wars and the[399] Commonwealth, were as madthemselves after the Revolution. Of that kind of devout fervour, whichthough not healthy is free from worldliness, and which draws its maininspirations from the world to come, Kettlewell is a fair example. Inintensity of religious feelings, he resembled a staunch Methodist ofthe eighteenth century.

The last ten years of the seventeenth century witnessed theconsolidation of Dissent. Growing in confidence, Dissenters madebolder ventures. If some old congregations melted away in villages,where an ejected clergyman had worn out his days, or where theoriginal 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 aidedreligious effort. Preachers with a roving commission settled downinto local pastors, and a spirit of enterprise appeared in buildingplaces of worship. Nonconformists had for some time amidst hindranceand irritation been digging again the wells of their fathers, stoppedby the Philistines; but the days of strife were so far over thatthey could say: “Now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall befruitful in the land;” yet such names as Rehoboth and Beersheba, sooften ridiculed, were not used by them as by some of their descendantsof later date.

As to the erection of religious edifices in London, it may bementioned that about the era of the Revolution one was erected in ZoarStreet, another in Gravel Lane, and a third in Hare Court.[485] Theneglected Halls of City[401] Companies had become available for Dissentingworship, and by economical alterations were transformed into housesof prayer. Turners’ Hall fell into the hands of the General Baptistsabout the year 1688; soon afterwards the Presbyterians erected “alarge substantial brick building of a square form, with four deepgalleries, and capable of seating a considerable congregation.”[486]Chapels, as we should call them—but the name was not used by the earlyNonconformists—arose in Fair Street, Southwark; in Meeting-houseCourt, Blackfriars; in the Old Barbican, beyond Aldersgate; and overthe King’s Weigh-House, Little Eastcheap. At the end of the century,the Presbyterians provided a moderate-sized wooden building with onegallery in King John’s Court, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen,Bermondsey. About the same period, the Independents provided a place ofworship in Rosemary Lane; and soon afterwards a large and substantialedifice was built by Presbyterians in the Old Jewry, Aldgate. It isremarkable that, after the Act of Toleration had been passed someyears, liberty seemed of so precarious a nature, that to enjoy itconcealment was necessary. Private houses, therefore, were in this caseerected between the meeting-house and the street, that the former mightbe 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 citymuch occupied by clothiers, had a congregation which before had beenwont 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 pleasantneighbourhood of Shepton Mallet, people who had assembled in the[402]green woods now erected chapels in the town and adjacent villages. TheWarminster people raised a meeting-house at the cost of £487 2s. 7d.,the sum being obtained partly by subscription and partly by the sale ofpews and seats, which became the property of the purchasers, and wereaccordingly sold and bequeathed.[488]

Turning to midland counties, we find that at Nottingham—whereNonconformists had met in rock cellars such as honeycombed the sandformation, and are now formed into a cemetery—Presbyterians registeredrooms in Bridlesmith Gate, and the Independents sought shelter inPostern Place. A few months after William’s accession, the former setto work upon a meeting-house in the High Pavement, and the lattercautiously attempted a smaller edifice at Castlegate. Little leadedwindows admitted light through diamond panes; two pillars sprang fromthe floor to support the ceiling; stairs rising within led up to asmall front gallery; a sounding-board covered the pulpit; and squarepews, with other accommodation, provided for about 450 people.[489]

At Chester a new edifice, still in existence, carefully[403] preserved,and not long ago tastefully restored, cost £532 16s. 1d. It was openedin August, 1700, when Matthew Henry preached from a text indicating anapologetic spirit for what was thought a daring enterprise: “The LordGod of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, He knoweth, and Israel He shallknow, if it be in rebellion, or if it be in transgression against theLord, that we have built us an altar.”

At Daventry, in Northamptonshire, Dissent made a humble advance, butunder circumstances so interesting as to deserve notice. The originof the church there forms one of the legends which in the followingcentury became dear to many. When Charles II. was on the throne, ithappened that a minister put up on his way to London at the sign of theOld Swan. He was taken ill and detained for more than a week, duringwhich period the host and his family paid him kind attentions andcompletely won his heart. The traveller, restored to health, summonedinto his room the kind-hearted people, thanked them for their greatcivility, and expressed his satisfaction at the order maintained inthe house—an exceptional instance in days when hostelries were givenover 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 intoconversation, and closed by telling them he had in his saddlebag alittle book, which he begged them to accept, requesting that they wouldcarefully read it. Having presented them with Baxter’sPoor Man’sFamily Book, he went on his way without telling them who he was,nor did they ever ascertain his name, but they felt a suspicion thestranger was no other than Baxter himself. The result[404] of reading thisand other works by the same author was that the innkeeper and some ofhis family became Nonconformists. Weary of his mode of life and havingacquired a competence, he retired to a house having a close behindit, at the extremity of which stood some humble outbuildings. Theseafter the Revolution he converted into a legalized meeting-house. Hisneighbours came, a congregation was established, and a pastor chosen.

Places of worship were put in trust. Presbyterians drew up their deedsin general terms, not enumerating articles of faith or referring toany ecclesiastical standard. In many cases, Congregational edificeswere secured in a similar way, some schedule being annexed to the deed,declaring that the structure should be used by such Protestants inthe neighbourhood as could not conform to the established religion.Whatever might be the policy ruling the arrangement, the selection ofministers, and the character of their preaching, in numerous casesstill easily ascertained, betrayed no indifference as to what isesteemed orthodoxy of sentiment.[490]

Energies which resisted persecution did not expire in the midst offreedom, although Bishop Burnet predicted “that Nonconformity could notlast long, and that after Baxter, Bates, and Howe were laid in theirgraves, it would die of itself.” The last of these, on hearing theprophecy, remarked to the Bishop, “that its existence depended muchmore on principles than persons”—an opinion verified by subsequentfacts.

The Presbyterians formed the largest, and, in point of social position,the most respectable branch of English Nonconformists in the reign ofWilliam. What most[405] indicated their persistency and hope is discoveredin their numerous ordinations. Down to the time of the Revolutionthey had been privately conducted. Just as the Prince of Orange wasbeing driven back to his native shores by untoward storms, a young mannamed Joseph Hussey, who had been preaching for eight years, soughtthe rite from the hands of Dr. Annesley and other Presbyterians. Notin the meeting-house of Little St. Helen’s did the parties dare toassemble, but at the Doctor’s “private dwelling in Spitalfields, in anupper chamber.” There, on the 24th of October, 1688, the candidate,as he himself reports, was examined “in the parts of learning bythe Elder, who took the chair and spoke in Latin.” The next day hedefended a thesis against the Papacy. Upon the 26th he was ordained.The proceedings were begun and finished within the same chamber, ina neighbourhood then losing the last vestiges of rural life underthe encroachments of weavers, driven from France by the revocationof the Edict of Nantes.[491] As another instance of the privacy ofNonconformist services, I would mention that the Lord’s Supper wasnot publicly celebrated in the new chapel in Leeds until the month ofOctober, 1692.[492]

Ordinations emerged from private habitations when, in September,1689, five ministers were ordained by Oliver[406] Heywood and four ofhis brethren, after a notice had been given that the service wouldbe held in the meeting-house at Alverthorpe, “to which whoever had adesire might repair.” One of the candidates stood behind a chair, andpoured out a Latin discourse, which seemed to beextempore, butwhich Heywood believed to bememoriter, upon the validity ofPresbyterian orders. This person behaved in an extraordinary manner thenext day, for he was seen “walking in a lane, reading a book,” whilstthe ordaining ministers were waiting for his appearance. After he hadarrived, and had given in his confession, “running through the wholebody of Divinity, according to Mr. Baxter’sMethodus Theologiæ,we proceeded,” says Heywood, “to setting the candidates apart. I camedown, and there being a void space made, we made them kneel down, oneby one, while we all prayed over them.” This was succeeded by theimposition of hands, the delivery of a Bible, the grasp of fellowship,a charge to the ordained, and a sermon to the congregation. Theministers assembled at eight o’clock, waited till ten for the eccentricyouth, 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 moreunseemly, the misbehaviour now being on the part of ordainers. Theservice took place at Rathmel in Yorkshire. Oliver Heywood and otherPresbyterians came to share in the solemnity with two Independentministers. Strange as it appears, those who thus met had not agreedwhat should be done; and one of the Independents, as Heywood reports,urged objections which the Presbyterians undertook to answer. Heobjected, amongst other things, that messengers from neighbouringchurches were not present, and that the minister in this[407] case wouldnot be, as he ought, ordained in the midst of the congregation heintended to serve. Both the Independents were desired to pray,but they refused, “and sat by the whole day taking no part in theproceedings.” The service, however, was decorously enough conductedby the Presbyterians, who, touching the heads of the candidates,offered prayer, and after presenting a Bible, gave the right hand offellowship. Heywood preached to the candidates and to the people,and the whole ended with singing and prayer. If anybody had wishedto prejudice orderly people against Nonconformity, he could not havefollowed a more effectual method than we find pursued by Independentson this occasion.

A few Presbyterians attempted to revive synodical action, and ameeting with that view at Newbury created much stir—displeasingNonconformists, who regarded it as injudicious, and provokingChurchmen, who urged it was unjust. Convocation remained in shackles;why, then, should Presbyterian Synods be free?[493] This question wasasked, in forgetfulness of the obvious difference relative to the stateof voluntary churches on the one hand, and endowed churches on theother.

As ministers could not continue by reason of death, it becamenecessary to reinforce the ranks. One young[408] student of honourabledescent made his appearance in public life at this juncture. EdmundCalamy—grandson of the Divine of the same name, who had beenIncumbent of Aldermanbury—after studying in Holland, where he hadaccumulated stores of Dutch theology, returned to his native land,and went down to Oxford, where he devoted himself to the study ofthe question, whether he should enter the Church, or continue hislot with Dissenters? Certainly if anybody ever gave himself to theinvestigation of the subject, young Edmund did—for, first, he studiedthe Bible; then he read several of the Fathers, with all sorts ofcritical helps; then he perused Pearson, on the Ignatian Epistles,as well as Monsieur Daillé and Larroque on the other side; then hebetook himself to the examination of Chillingworth’sReligion ofProtestants, which he carefully epitomized; then he attackedHooker’sEcclesiastical Polity, and went through it book bybook, setting down the arguments with such remarks as they suggested;then he turned to Jeremy Taylor’sDuctor Dubitantium, dealingwith this as he had done with the rest; and, lastly, with care heread over the Articles, Liturgy, Homilies, and Canons of the Churchof England.[494] Such an amount of reading for the settlement ofopinion was very well for a youth of twenty-one, and, making allowancefor a bias derived from family traditions and from the ugly memoriesof 1662, we must credit him with candour in looking at the subjecton all sides. According to his own account, his reading was chieflyin favour of Episcopacy; yet his conclusion was decidedly in favourof Nonconformity. The Nonconformity which he adopted, however, wasmoderate; it shrunk neither from Episcopal orders, Liturgical worship,nor the Establishment[409] principle, but from certain things enforced bythe Church of England. He tells us himself that he would have receivedordination at the hands of a Bishop, “could he have found anyone thatwould not have demanded a subscription and engagement to conformity,and a subjection to the present ecclesiastical government.”[495]

It is remarkable to find how much this young man engaged in preachingwhen he had made up his mind upon ecclesiastical points. He occupiedpulpits wherever they were open. He seems to have been welcomedeverywhere—now officiating at the opening of a meeting-house, andonce at least preaching in a parish church.[496] He had conflictinginvitations. He describes a visit to Andover, where the meeting-housewas in a back yard, through which he had to pass, the people making alane for him and presenting their acknowledgments for his good sermon;and how he found the parlour full of men, women, and children—amongstthem was a grave old woman with a high-crowned hat, who thanked himcivilly for his pains, telling him she thought a special Providencehad sent such a shepherd to such neglected sheep. The conversation,however, as it went on proved less and less satisfactory, sinceit turned out that these Andover folks were divided into parties,the old lady’s Calvinistic sentiments being loftier even than hersteeple headgear.[497] Calamy travelled down to Bristol, the greatNonconformist stronghold in the west, to preach to a congregationof 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 theroad others came to welcome the stranger, like the brethren who metPaul at Appii-Forum, and brought him[410] on his way “in a manner veryrespectful.” Many of the congregation were wealthy, and they offeredhim £100 a year and a house to live in, as assistant to their infirmpastor. But, upon returning to London, Calamy decided on acceptingan invitation to assist Mr. Sylvester upon an allowance of £40 perannum.[498] He had there the counterbalancing advantage of mixing inthe best Nonconformist society. He spent many an evening at the houseof 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 theirown day. Other ministerial meetings were kept up in Dr. Annesley’svestry, Little St. Helen’s, where once a month Latin disputations tookplace. Whilst thus engaged, Calamy remained unordained. Desirous ofthis 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 afterwardsdemurred, saying he must wait upon Lord Somers, and inquire whethersuch a proceeding would not be taken ill at Court. Bates decidedlydeclined, 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 byjoining in a Presbyterian ordination. The whole of the transaction isenveloped in mystery; perhaps Bates had not given up all hopes of acomprehension, 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 mightfor[411] personal reasons be unwilling to do what they had no objectionshould be done by others. My own impression is that both, especiallyHowe, 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 aseparation they would fain have seen come to an end.

At length Calamy and six others were publicly set apart to theministry, at Dr. Annesley’s meeting-house, by the Doctor himself,Vincent Alsop, of Princes Street, Westminster, Daniel Williams, pastorat Hand Alley, Bishopsgate Street, Richard Stretton, of Haberdashers’Hall, Matthew Sylvester, of Carter Lane, and Thomas Kentish of theWeigh-House. Annesley began with prayer; Alsop preached; Williams,after another prayer, delivered a second sermon; then he read thetestimonials in favour of the candidates; next each of them delivered aprofession of faith; and then, one after another, different ministersprayed; Sylvester followed with a charge, and concluded with a psalmand a prayer.[499] The service lasted from before ten o’clock untilpast six.

As vacancies in Nonconformist pastorates occurred, successors had to beappointed; and it is amusing to meet in the Diaries of the day, crosslights thrown upon the choice of ministers. The famous antiquarianThoresby was in 1693 a leading member of the old Dissenting Church atLeeds. When deprived of its excellent instructor, Mr. Sharp, “we hadseveral meetings to consult in order to the choice of a successor. Ihad the usual hap of moderators, to displease both the extremes. Inthe interim I wrote to several ministers to supply his place. We rodeto Ovenden, and made our first application to[412] Mr. Priestly, a personof moderate principles, learned, ingenious, and pious; but the peopleabout Halifax and Horton could not be prevailed upon to resign theirinterest in him, without which he was not willing to desert them. Iafterwards rode with some of the people to Pontefract, to solicit Mr.Manlove, who was at first very compliant, yet after relapsed, but inthe conclusion accepted the call and removed to Leeds.”[500]

Glimpses are caught of meeting-house politics. Thoresby receivedfrom his cousin a discouraging account of Mr. Manlove; but when thiscandidate visited the people, Thoresby found an unanimous desire forthe man’s coming, testified by proffered subscriptions.[501] After thisperson’s settlement at Leeds, the love of Thoresby towards him and theold Dissent began to cool. His archæological pursuits brought him intothe society of ecclesiastical dignitaries, and he frequently attendedthe parish church. By degrees his sympathy with Episcopalians deepened;he received the sacrament with them—a proceeding which offendedold friends, and produced alienation. Attracted on the one side andrepelled on the other, after hanging for awhile in suspense betweenthe opposite communities, he found himself drawn into the bosom of theEstablishment. The Corporation elected him one of their fraternity, andnot long afterwards we find him saying: “I received a most comfortableletter from my Lord Archbishop of York, answering many objectionsagainst my Conformity, and gave me great satisfaction.”[502]

Fallings-off from Dissent happened in one place, accessions occurred inanother. A clergyman, named Michael[413] Harrison, who had usually preachedat the church in Caversfield, gathered a congregation of Dissenters atPotterspury, near Stony Stratford, and died a Nonconformist minister atSt. Ives.[503] Amidst the reproaches of High Churchmen at the growthof Dissent, from Low Churchmen there were received expressions ofgoodwill. Hough, Vicar of Halifax, stepped into Heywood’s new place ofworship at Northowram, and putting off his hat, exclaimed: “The goodLord bless the Word preached in this place!”[504]

The education of boys, and the theological training of those designedfor the ministry, were matters of great anxiety during the reigns ofCharles II. and James II., and afterwards received increasing attention.

Seminaries for Dissenters did not in the seventeenth century attainthe dignified title of colleges. They were schools where youths wereeducated for secular vocations, and only by degrees did they becomethe resort of candidates for the ministry. There was no trust-deed,no constituency, no council, but the entire management rested withthe person responsible for opening the institution. In the romanticdistrict of Craven, Richard Frankland, a learned ejected minister,received pupils, but the Five-Mile Act drove him to Attercliffe. Firstand last he educated three hundred youths for the professions of lawand of medicine, and for the work of the Christian ministry.

Archbishop Sharpe was requested by some of the Clergy to preventFrankland from proceeding in his labours. He consulted Tillotson as tothe best method of procedure, and received from him this reply: “Hisinstructing young men in so public a manner in University learning iscontrary to his oath to do, if he hath taken a degree in either of ourUniversities, and I doubt, contrary to the Bishop’s oath to grant hima 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 Graceas what seems to me the fairest and softest way of ridding your handsof this business.” To explain this advice, it is proper to remark,that in the Middle Ages, factions arose at Oxford and Cambridge, andhosts of students, under some favourite professors, would march offto Northampton or Stamford to set up rival schools and grant degrees.Hence an oath came to be required of the University graduates, that inno other places than in the favoured retreats on the Isis and the Camwould they ever establish a scholastic lecture. It was in harmony withTillotson’s characteristic wariness to give such counsel, but it ishardly worthy of his reputation for gentleness and Catholicity to putthe disconcerted Prelate up to the trick of masking the batteries ofintolerance under the specious cover of obsolete precedents.

It should be added, that Archbishop Sharpe behaved very courteously toFrankland throughout this unpleasant business;[505] and also that otherDissenting tutors in different ways were hindered by the opposition ofChurchmen.

Two other academies sprung out of Richard Frankland’s—one atAttercliffe under the superintendence of[415] Timothy Jollie, anotherat Manchester under the care of John Chorlton. In the old town ofShrewsbury, Francis Tallents established a seminary about the timeof the Revolution. At Taunton, Matthew Warren educated several younggentlemen for the pastorate and for secular occupations. So did SamuelBirch at an earlier period in Shilton. Joshua Oldfield also kept aschool at Coventry. John Woodhouse, of Sheriff Hales, Shropshire;George Burden, of Somersetshire; Edmund Thorpe, of Sussex; JosephBennet, of the same county; and Josiah Bassett, of Warwickshire, may beadded 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 DissentingMuses.” There the learned Theophilus Gale, and the less known buterudite and able Charles Morton, educated a number of young men. EdwardVeal had a school at Stepney, and Samuel Wesley, after having been apupil of Veal’s, became a student under Morton. Violent opposition tothe Established Church is said to have been fostered under Veal’s roof,and this young man, who possessed a lively poetical talent, answeredinvectives against Dissent by invectives against the Church, until,from some cause which has been differently explained, he abandonedNonconformity, and one August morning in 1683, with forty-fiveshillings in his pocket, walked all the way to Oxford, and enteredhimself as a servitor of Exeter College. Samuel Wesley, in a letterpublished in the year 1703, reflected upon the Dissenting academies,and afterwards defended what he said in a reply to Mr. Palmer. Muchbitterness appeared in Wesley’s pamphlet, and he was accused ofingratitude for assailing institutions, to one of which he had been[416]indebted for a gratuitous education. Palmer vindicated the academiesfrom the charge brought against them; but, by a curious coincidence,he like Wesley gave up all connection with Dissent, and obtained theliving of Maldon, in Essex.

Thomas Doolittle, of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and Thomas Vincent,of Christ Church, Oxford, united in conducting, until within a shorttime before his death in 1708, an academy at Islington. Thither PhilipHenry sent his son Matthew, and immediately after his arrival theyoung man wrote to his sisters, informing them that in his tutor’smeeting-house “there are several galleries. It is all pewed, and abrave pulpit a great height above the people,” adding, in the sameletter: “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 readingwhich bore upon the Christian ministry, but when he left that place hestudied law for a time at Gray’s Inn, although it does not appear thathe ever thought of entering the legal profession. The fact is, that theelder educated Nonconformists of that day valued all kinds of learning,and were anxious that their children, especially if designed for theministry, should traverse the widest curriculum of study. Further, itmay 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. Avariety of professors, extensive libraries, aristocratic society werebeyond their reach, and polite literature and the graces of compositionwere but little cultivated. Too much time was given to the study ofdead languages—a mistake, indeed, shared by the Universities.[417] A keenobserver, Daniel De Foe, noticed this defect, and pointed out howabsurd it was, that all the time should be spent on the languages whichlearning was to befetched from, and none on the language it wasto bedelivered in. To this error he attributed the fact thatmany learned, and otherwise excellent, ministers preached away theircongregations, “while a jingling, noisy boy, that had a good stockin his face, and a dysentery of the tongue, though he had little ornothing in his head, should run away with the whole town.”[506]

Youths of all sorts were admitted into these academies, as into modernboarding-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 berevived, and enthusiastic spirits would tilt a lance on the sideof “the good old cause.” Charles I. and Charles II. would be nofavourites; James II.’s Popery would be denounced; Cromwell would beexcused and praised; and William III. lauded to the skies. In thecommon room where students unbent, there might be fun and laughter;in the private study there might be other volumes than classical andtheological text-books; levity and idleness probably existed in thesegatherings of great boys and young men; and damaging charges, nodoubt, could be substantiated against some of them; but the characterof these maligned institutions must, after all, be judged by theircourses of study, by the character of their professors, and by theireducational results. These tests being applied, lead to a favourableconclusion. The studies combined logic, metaphysics, and ethics, withreadings in Colbert, Le Clerc, Suarez, More, Cicero,[418] 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 GreekTestament with such critical helps as were afforded in those times. Weare assured that in lectures the Church of England was treated withrespect, the Predestinarian controversy was discussed with moderation,and Monarchical maxims of government were upheld.[507]

What the most distinguished teachers were, and what many of the pupilsbecame, may be seen in preceding pages.

I must not conclude this chapter without stating that as theseacademies were interrupted by intolerant laws, common schools alsowere subject to the same inconvenience. Cunning methods were sometimesadopted by schoolmasters, or were alleged to be so, with the view ofovercoming clerical opposition,[508] and occasion was given[419] for thedisplay of an unseemly spirit even by Bishops otherwise exemplary;bad mutual relations consequently in many quarters existed betweenChurchmen and Nonconformists.

During the Civil Wars, heartburnings existed between Presbyterians andIndependents. They continued under the Protectorate, they diminishedafter the Restoration, and it might have been hoped would then havedied out for ever; but unhappily they revived when the Revolution hadset both parties at liberty. When old persecutions ended in England, itcould not be said, as it was when Saul of Tarsus ceased to breathe outthreatenings and slaughter, “then had the Church rest.” Whatever mightbe the dispositions of some—and certainly Howe and others were loversof peace—ancient animosities exploded afresh. What happened at theRathmel ordination indicated this; other proofs will appear.

An effort at union was, however, made in 1690, under the form ofarticles agreed to by the Dissenting ministers. They were published,under the title of “Heads of Agreement, assented to by theunited ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterianand Congregational.” This document is worth attention, not onlyas an experiment to bring together different parties, but also asindicating modifications of opinion on both sides. The Presbyteriansand Independents, who after the Revolution adopted these Articles,could not have held exactly the same views as did Presbyteriansand Independents before[421] the Restoration. The former must now haveabandoned all notions of parish presbyteries and provincial synods,and must have approximated to the Congregational idea of what used tobe called “gathered churches,” or limited communities, resting on aprinciple of mutual choice. Reference is made to parochial bounds asnot being of divine right; yet for common edification, the membersof a particular church, it is said, ought, as far as convenient, tolive near each other. A great deal was conceded by Presbyterians, whenthey allowed that each church has a right to choose its own officers,and that no officers of any one church shall exercise any powerover any other church.[509] The Independents also must have passedthrough a change, inasmuch as they now ceased to insist upon the dutyof church members entering into formal covenants, and allowed that,in the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastor andelders torule andgovern, and to the brotherhood toconsent, according to the rule of the Gospel. They also tacitlyadmitted that a man might be ordained to the work of the ministrywithout having a specific pastoral charge, and that the pastors orbishops of neighbouring churches should concur in the ordination of anew pastor or bishop over a particular congregation.

In the chapter relative to the communion of churches, the Independentsof the Revolution showed more disposition towards unity than theirpredecessors had done, and the chapter indicates an approach toPresbyterian government.[510] Seeds of concord between the twodenominations bore some fruit in the provinces. An associationcombining them grew up in Devon and Cornwall, and Flavel preached andpresided at its first meeting. In Hampshire and Norfolk the plan metwith favour. So it[422] did in Nottinghamshire, and in the neighbourhood ofManchester, where, however, Independents were few. It was warmly takenup in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and at Wakefield a united meetingwas held, when Heywood preached from Zech. xiv. 9: “In that day shallthere be one Lord, and His name one.” It seems that the townspeople atWakefield were alarmed at the influx of ministers walking through theirstreets—the fashionably-dressed people of the reign of William III.,in their jaunty costume, looking with curiosity and suspicion uponthe Puritan garb and the staid demeanour of their visitors. Yet thesereverend gentlemen did not amount in number to more than twenty-four,and “when the service at Mrs. Kirby’s” was over, “they thought itprudent to go apart, and by several ways, to the house at which theydined.”[511]

A violent controversy—which, before its close, ran through bothCalvinistic and Socinian questions, and gathered up personalentanglements—started into life soon after the Act of Tolerationhad been passed. The doctrines of Justification, the Atonement, andChrist’s Divinity came successively within its range. Combatant aftercombatant entered the field, and although the antagonists, for themost part, were Nonconformists, they managed, before they had done, toinvolve one or two distinguished Churchmen within the coils of theirdispute.

The scene of the first stage was the little town of Rowell, inNorthamptonshire, where a devoted Puritan, named John Beverley, hadcreated a considerable sensation in the days of the Commonwealth, andout of this a church had sprung. After the Revolution, Richard Davis,[423]from the Principality, became minister; and as an indication of hisnarrow and jealous independence, it is mentioned that he was “installedin the office of pastor or bishop” by the church itself, and by thatchurch alone, some pastors of other congregations, who had come “tobehold their faith and order,” withdrawing from the assembly, becausethere was nothing for them to do. Brooking no restraint, he made thewhole county of Northampton his diocese, and went from place to placepreaching and gathering converts into his fold. He enflamed others withardour like his own, and became the centre of a wide circle of layagency. People living at a great distance were brought into fellowshipwith the band at Rowell, and they would, lantern in hand, trudge twentymiles along dirty roads on winter mornings to hear him preach, and inthe same way go back at night. Offshoots from this vigorous communitybecame in time distinct societies. These proceedings soon excitedjealousy, and the jealous were not slow to accuse the lay agents ofignorance, and their superintendent of great imprudence.[512] A noisyrevival broke out in February, 1692, and the press was soon employedin giving what is calledA Plain and Just Account of a most Horridand Dismal Plague at Rowell, in which tract the “visions andrevelations” of Richard Davis and his “emissaries, the shoemakers,joiners, dyers, tailors, weavers, farmers, &c.,” are odiouslyexhibited. Tidings of this reached London, and attracted the attentionof respectable Presbyterian ministers, who were as much shocked asit was possible for any Episcopalians to be. What was worse, heresy,as reported, mingled with wildfire, and Davis stood charged withmaintaining that believers always appear before God[424] without sin; thatif they do wrong they are still without spot; that prayers are offeredmore for the sake of discovering guilt to their own consciences, thanfor securing forgiveness from God; and that Christ fulfilled thecovenant of grace, “and believed for us as our representative.” Oddlyenough, this Antinomian preacher is said to have entertained an ideathat baptism in the parish church is invalid, for this, amongst otherreasons, that the administrators are not of Christ’s sending. Davisdefended himself as best he could, and the church of which he waspastor vindicated his character, denying some ridiculous stories, yetspeaking of his ministry in terms corroborative of its high Calvinistictype.

The second stage of this controversy appears in London. The Calvinismof the Commonwealth had by no means perished. Old books bearing itsimpress, old preachers repeating its echoes, remained, and whereversympathies with it continued to thrive, of course the Northamptonshirepastor found advocates. Just at this moment an insignificant incidentfanned the flame. A son of the noted Dr. Tobias Crisp reprinted hisfather’s works, with additions from unpublished papers; and veryartfully, the editor procured the names of some well-known Divines,simply, as he said, to attest the genuineness of the MSS.—a thingperfectly superfluous—really, as he must have meant, to promote thesale of the new edition. Crisp was a Predestinarian of the first water,and maintained the doctrine of Election and the limitation of theAtonement in the narrowest and most repulsive form.

The excitement produced by this book, in connection with thedisturbance created by Davis, was wonderful. The advocates of HighCalvinism hailed it as the commencement of a millennium; they talkedand preached and wrote with renewed vigour, and those who opposed[425] themwere denounced as legalists. On both sides bitterness increased. Themore Crisp’s book was condemned, the more it was read. Its circulationwas greatest amongst the uneducated, who praised the author up to theskies. The editor informs us that, in so unlikely a place as Guildhall,at one of the livery meetings, he was accosted by a citizen, whowrung him by the hand, and, with tears in his eyes, thanked him forreprinting his father’s sermons.

Daniel Williams, a Presbyterian minister, formerly of Dublin, and atthe time of the Revolution presiding over a numerous congregation atHand Alley, in Bishopsgate Street, was then rising into eminence; andbeing a moderate Calvinist, he determined to oppose the circulationof Crisp’s work. Consequently, in 1692, he published hisGospelTruth Vindicated, in which Crisp’s dogmas are arranged, errorsare separated from truths, and confutations supplied, not only fromScripture, but also from other writings of that very Divine. Prefixedto Williams’ book is a list of approving theologians, including Bates,Howe, Alsop, and Lorimer.

This publication led to unpleasant complications, and to understandthem we must refer to the celebrated lectures delivered in Pinners’Hall. Lectures in the heart of the Metropolis had been popular whenPuritanism was at its zenith. Merchants turned from their walk inthe Exchange and their seats in the counting-house, to listen to afavourite preacher as he meted out his message by the hour-glass.When Indulgence came, Pinners’ Hall happened to be vacant, and beingconveniently situated in Broad Street, it was hired for a Wednesdaymorning exercise. Four Presbyterians and two Independents undertookto officiate in succession. Dr. Bates, Dr. Manton, Mr. Baxter, andMr. Jenkyn, had as their associates Dr.[426] Owen and Mr. Collins. Fromthe beginning, however, unfortunate bickerings appeared, and at theRevolution dogmatic differences became increasingly manifest—theIndependents were more Calvinistic than their Presbyterian brethren.The circumstances of this Lecture perhaps had something to do with theway in which the Northamptonshire quarrel was taken up, certainly itadded fuel to the fire kindled by the republication of Crisp’s works.In 1692, of the old Pinners’ Hall lecturers only Bates remained, hisnew colleagues being Williams and Alsop. The other new lecturers wereMead and Cole, decidedly Independent, and John Howe, who, althoughpreviously reckoned amongst Independents, seems by this time to haveassociated chiefly with Presbyterians, and to have had more sympathy intheir temper than in that manifested by some of his active Independentbrethren. Attempts at union entirely failed. Storms of feeling couldnot be allayed by verbal incantation, and a contemporary, who narrowlywatched the proceedings, deplored the absence of a healing spirit.[513]Williams, by his book against Crisp, offended some of the supportersof the Lecture—a circumstance which led to discussion amongst thelecturers; and in 1694, Williams was voted out, and three of thenumber—Bates, Howe, and Alsop—withdrew from Pinners’ to Salters’Hall, and commenced a distinct lecture there. Cole and Mead, the twoIndependents, remained in the old place, and associated with themselvesfour other Independents—Mather, Cruso, Lobb, and Gouge.

But I must hasten to the third stage of this intricate dispute, when,in 1695, Stephen Lobb, “the Jacobite Independent,” charged Williamswith implicitly denying[427] the commutation of persons between Christ andbelievers, because he had denied such a relation as Crisp maintained,who went so far as to declare Christ to be by imputation as sinful asman, and the believer to become through faith as righteous as Christ.This led to explanations too wearisome for notice. If anyone will takethe trouble to look into what Williams wrote, he will be astonished tofind a man, who went so far in his notions of the union between theMediator and His people, suspected of not believing in the Atonement;and he will discover a signal instance of the intolerable demands whichsome will make upon others, in order to enlist from them a full amountof prescribed orthodoxy.

The battle raged hotter and hotter. Williams was even accused ofSocinianism, and not content with robbing him of all claim toorthodoxy, his exasperated opponents tried to filch from him hisvirtuous reputation. But he kept them at bay, and at last completelyovercame them.[514]

Towards the end, two distinguished Churchmen came upon the stage—Dr.Jonathan Edwards, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and BishopStillingfleet—both of whom were appealed to by the disputants as tothe doctrine of Commutation, and the charge of Socinianism broughtagainst Williams. The Bishop, of course, contradicted Crisp’s absurdnotion, and pronounced Williams innocent of heterodoxy.

It is said that the number of Antinomians amongst Nonconformistsdiminished after the close of the controversy.

Dissenters cannot be charged with an absorbing attachment to theirdistinctive system; they valued more the common truths of Christianity,but they were prepared to vindicate their own ecclesiastical viewsand to repel aspersions. David Clarkson, who had before publishedbooks on Episcopacy, in answer to Stillingfleet, sent forth in 1689his discourse on Liturgies. The charge of being schismatical, laidat the doors of Nonconformists, led Matthew Henry to publish in thesame year aDiscourse concerning the Nature of Schism, in whichhe endeavoured to prove, that there may be schism where there is noseparation, and that there may be separation where there is no schism.The discourse being attacked, William Tong, in the year 1693, cameforward in its defence, maintaining that the want of charity, not thewant of particular ministerial orders, creates sinful schism; andthat 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 theend, “that non-resistance and passive obedience was the universal cryin the Church, and squeezed till the blood came: but the mischief was,when they had nursed the prerogative, till it had stung some of themand hissed[429] at all the rest, they presently let the world see theynever brewed this doctrine for their own drinking.”

James Owen, a learned Presbyterian minister, published in 1694 a pleafor Presbyterian ordination, and afterwards composed another essayin support of his views, showing that neither Timothy nor Titus werediocesan 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 atMiletus; and that the ancient Waldenses did not acknowledge diocesanprelates. This course of reasoning is a specimen of the manner in whichPresbyterians were wont to state and defend their own system.

But Nonconformist polemics were not confined to the maintenance of acommon cause; they took an internecine turn, not only in connectionwith the Crisp affair, but in connection with occasional conformity.

By the Corporation Act, everyone holding a municipal office wasrequired to receive the Lord’s Supper in the Church of England. SirJohn Shorter, a Presbyterian, had by such conformity qualified himselfto act as Lord Mayor of the city of London in the reign of James II.,and two distinguished Dissenters in the following reign occupied thesame civic post and adopted the same policy. Sir Humphrey Edwin wasLord Mayor in 1697, and, dressed in a gown of crimson velvet, carriedthe city sword before William, as, on his return from the Continent, hepassed through London with the customary pomp of a public procession.He not only conformed at certain times during his mayoralty, but healso, on one occasion when he attended Divine Service at Pinners’ HallMeeting-house, caused the civic paraphernalia to be carried before him.I am not aware whether any other Lord[430] Mayor did this. Sir HumphreyEdwin might be said to bring the State over to Nonconformity, as atother times, when he knelt at the altars of the Establishment, hebrought Nonconformity over to the State. At all events, his conductsubjected him to annoying criticism. He was attacked by a clergyman whopreached before the Corporation in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ballads andlampoons, caricaturing what he had done, were hawked about the streets,and Swift, in hisTale of the Tub, satirized Sir Humphrey in hiswell-known reference to Jack’s tatters coming into fashion, and hisgetting upon a great horse and eating custard. Tragical exclamationswere uttered in High Church circles, and in a publication of laterdate it is declared, that “to the great reproach of the laws, and ofthe city magistracy,” the Mayor “carried the sword with him to a nastyconventicle, that was kept in one of the City Halls, which horridcrime one of his own party defended by giving this arrogant reason forit, that by the Act of Parliament by which they have their liberty,their religion was as much established as ours.”[515] The Lord Mayor’sproceeding did not meet with the approbation of his co-religionists.They felt the injustice of the attacks which it had occasioned; itseemed to them inconsistent and arrogant for Churchmen to speak in theway they did of a religion which had the same object of worship, thesame rule of faith and life, and the same end and aim as their own; yetthey saw that Sir Humphrey’s conduct had been such as naturally to leadto misapprehension and to produce annoyance. Calamy lamented that “thismeasure drew unhappy consequences after it, both in this reign and inthat which succeeded.”[516]

Sir Thomas Abney, a Presbyterian, became Lord Mayor of London in theyear 1701. Prior to that date he had favoured occasional Conformity.When in office he attended church. This occasioned a controversybetween two Nonconformists, who regarded the conduct of Abney and Edwinfrom different points of view.

Daniel De Foe, who had been educated in Mr. Morton’s academy with aview to becoming a Presbyterian minister, and then found the study ofpolitics 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 halfa dozen clever pamphlets in about fifteen years, and was on the pointof commencing that career as an author which made him so notoriousamong contemporaries, so popular with posterity, when, in 1697, hepublished anonymously anEnquiry into the Occasional Conformity ofDissenters. In his own trenchant style, with vigorous Anglo-Saxonidioms, employed after a rasping fashion, he declared that none butProtestants halt between God and Baal; none but Christians of anamphibious nature could believe one way, and worship another.

In the year of Sir Thomas Abney’s mayoralty, De Foe republishedhisEnquiry, and prefixed to it a preface addressed to JohnHowe. John Howe was Sir Thomas’s pastor, and addressing him, De Foedemanded that Howe should declare to the world, whether the practiceof alternate communion was allowed either by his congregation, or byDissenters in general. The practice, he said, should be defended ifdefensible, otherwise “the world must believe that Dissenters do allowthemselves to practice what they cannot defend.”

Howe being dragged before the public, referred to his[432] own moderateviews in points of difference between Conformists and Nonconformists,but denied having advised Sir Thomas as to his conduct; he declined toenter upon the question, and only contended that occasional conformityto one communion, if a fault, should not exclude a person from habitualfellowship with another. De Foe had taken up occasional Conformity asa qualification for holding office, and had shown that so regarded itis incapable of vindication; but Howe regarded the question generally,and proved that a person who, apart from worldly motives, communeswith one church on particular occasions, and with another church oncommon occasions, does nothing which impeaches his conscientiousness ordestroys his consistency.

The author’s calm temper becomes ruffled towards the close, when healludes to the “stingy and narrow spirit” of his opponent, and to hisseeking to impose upon the world a false impression of the EnglishPuritans. He declared that in 1662 “most of the considerable ejectedLondon ministers met and agreed to hold occasional communion with thenow re-established Church, not quitting their own ministry or decliningthe exercise of it as they could have opportunity.”[517]

De Foe replied, vindicating his own character, and animadverting uponHowe’s want of zeal. The latter having reluctantly taken part in thisbusiness, could not be induced to say another word. The spirit ofHowe had greatly the advantage over the temper of De Foe; nothing butone-sided partizanship could induce any man to charge the advocate ofoccasional communion with disloyalty to Nonconformist principles.

Nonconformist preaching was orthodox. The existing[433] generation,however, deviated from their father’s footsteps. Sermons differedfrom those of an earlier period in form: divisions were less numerousand perplexing, bones were not so visible, there was more symmetryof proportion, and more roundness of style. In spirit some preachersdiverged from their predecessors—betraying a lack of fire, unction,and healing power. Nevertheless, there were pastors who caught themantle and spirit of the departed. Anyone visiting “the ancient andfair city of Chester” found a specimen of this in the ministry ofMatthew 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 congregationso large, that ultimately it contained as many as 350 communicants,including a few city magnates. They assembled in their large oakenpews at 9 o’clock on a Sunday morning, the richer men in curly wigs,lace ruffles, and ample broad cloth suits; their wives and daughterswith long stomachers, hoops, and lofty head-dresses; but beneathcostumes fashioned by the fancies of the age, they carried in theirhearts wants, cares, and desires belonging to all ages, and such as theworship and ministry upon which they attended were adapted to meet andsatisfy.

The service began with the hundredth psalm, according to the version ofSternhold and Hopkins; and then we can easily image the pastor beneaththe huge sounding-board, standing erect—portly in form, dignified inmien, comely in face, his person set off to advantage by a curled wigand a flowing gown—offering prayer and next expounding a lesson inthe Old Testament. The matter and manner may be learnt from perusinghisCommentary, where, in the picturesque quaintness of histhoughts, he aims not at singularity, but at fixing Divine truth in[434]people’s memories and hearts. Another psalm and a longer supplicationsucceeded, and judging from his book on prayer, he must have excelledin that form of spiritual exercise. Then followed a sermon full ofuseful practical thought, arranged in singular devices, after Puritanprecedents; for Matthew had great reverence for the ways of his fatherPhilip, and of his father’s friends. What is said of the sire may besaid of the son: “Many a good thought has perished because it was notportable, and many a sermon is forgotten, because it is not memorable;but like seeds with wings, the sayings of Henry have floated far andnear, and like seeds with hooked prickles, his sermons stuck in hismost careless hearers. His tenacious words took root; and it was hishappiness to see, not only scriptural intelligence but fervent andconsistent piety spreading among his parishioners.”[518] Singing andpraying wound up the service, after it had lasted some three hours.This protracted worship would be deemed sufficient for one day; but inthe afternoon the same thing was repeated, the exposition of the NewTestament being substituted for that of the Old. We are apt to pity menwho performed or endured such lengthened duties, but really the dutycannot be regarded as having involved much hardship for them. Such longservices were their own choice. Some might fancy that under the weightof these prayers, these expositions, and these sermons, every Sabbathregularly for twenty-four years, the pastor’s strength would breakdown; yet the good man seems to have borne the wear and tear of it allremarkably well.

The Lord’s Supper he celebrated monthly, remarking that “among theJews, the beginning of the month was[435] esteemed sacred; and althoughhe did not consider the Jewish law as to the new moons still inforce, yet from general reasoning he thought the conclusion a safeone, that whatsoever may be our divisions of time, it is always goodto begin such divisions with God—seeking first His kingdom and itsrighteousness.”[519]

He was impressive in his mode of administering baptism, which helikened to the taking of a beneficial lease for a child while inthe cradle, and putting his life into it. He used the Assembly’sCatechism, and when “he perceived in any of his catechumens symptoms ofthoughtfulness upon religious subjects, he specially noticed them, andas soon as there was a competent number, conversed with them severallyand apart upon their everlasting interests; afterwards in the solemnAssembly, he catechised them concerning the Lord’s Supper, by a formwhich he printed.” He next appointed a day in the week preceding themonthly sacrament, in which, before the congregation, he was theirintercessor 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 trueconfirmation, or transition into a state of adult and completechurch membership.” He considered the ordinances of Christ asmysteries, of which His ministers are the stewards, and in admittingany to membership, “they were entrusted with the keys.”[520] Holdingthis view, he kept in his own hands the exercise of discipline; andon one occasion he pronounced sentence of excommunication on threepersons, the act being accompanied by a congregational fast.

Neighbouring villages were visited, and periodical lecturesestablished. Twice a year county unions met, when ecclesiasticalmatters came under discussion. “Affairs of the State or the EstablishedChurch were never meddled with.”[521]

The account I have given applies particularly to Presbyterians, butassociation meetings were also held by Independents. They did not,however, at these gatherings ordain ministers; ordinations amongst themgenerally took place in the presence of the church members by whomthe pastor was chosen. Orders—technically speaking—maintained byPresbyterians as well as Episcopalians, could scarcely be said to berecognized by Congregationalists, who considered ordination simply asan acknowledgment of the church’s act in electing ministers. The key tothe 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 inthe people; and as this distinction and difference affected the subjectof ordination, so it did that of admission and discipline. Admissionof members amongst Congregationalists depended upon a vote of thechurch, after an account had been given of the candidate’s religiouscharacter. Congregational churches were not all alike as to terms ofadmission. Some were narrow and severe. They[437] exacted circumstantialproofs of conversion, and an ample confession of faith. In not a fewcases this was required to be given in writing. Others accepted thechildren of members, to use their quaint language, when they took holdof their father and mother’s covenant, and expressed their confidencein Christ’s passion, and repentance from dead works. The Church havingnothing to object to “their walking,” they were permitted to partake ofthe Ordinance of the Supper, and were confirmed.[522]

Yet churches less exacting in terms of admission were curiouslyvigilant in the oversight of members, and would call people toaccount even for lying in bed, instead of coming to the communion;for consulting a lawyer on a Sunday afternoon; and for going to acock-fight when the brethren were met to seek God.[523] Acts ofdiscipline depended upon church votes, and sometimes differences ofopinion arose between pastor and people.

An instance of the manner in which the Independents of the villageof Guestwick, in Norfolk, invited a minister, and prepared for hisreception, is preserved in their church book. They set forward forLondon about the beginning of the month of October, 1694, and fromthence to Chalfont in Buckinghamshire, with letters from the churchto the gentleman whom they wished to become their pastor. If he wouldcome, the church would comply with what he desired. At last theyobtained his consent, the tidings of which were forwarded to thechurch. One of the deacons tarried to accompany him and his family.They went by coach, and were met by several of the brethren[438] atSwaffham the 1st of November, and arrived at Guestwick the 2nd, atnight. The charges which the church and other friends incurred forthis expenditure amounted to nearly £20. A similar entry of later datemay be found in the Yarmouth Congregational Church-Book, relative to acoach and four being sent for the conveyance of their new Bishop.[524]

When ministers grew old and needed assistance, churches were ready tocontribute an additional income. At Cockermouth the aged pastor wishedhis son to be associated with him; consequently, the people agreed togive a call for that purpose, and a letter accordingly was drawn upand numerously signed. Previously “they subscribed to make him £30 perannum, with a great deal of readiness and freedom.”[525]

Congregations testified their interest in public events. At the placejust mentioned, in January, 1689, the people assembled to seek the Lordfor the Convention, held that day in London for settling the nation.The pastor spoke from Psalm lxxxii. 1. In February, 1698, “the churchpassed a day of prayer for the Protestants in France;” and in thefollowing November they kept a solemnity for God’s deliverance of thenation and the Church from “the Popish hellish powder-plot;” also “forsaving the nation from Popery and slavery by the landing of the Princeof Orange.” When the pastor died, December, 1700, the church recordedhis 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 sameway. The latter was[439] celebrated in most places once a month; in some,once in six weeks.[527]

Ecclesiastical revenues of course were voluntary. The expense ofeducating 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 fromits proceeds young candidates received grants. To this fund thePresbyterians contributed £2,000, and the Independents nearly £1,700,a year. Assistance also proceeded from an endowment under the will ofa Mr. Trotman, who, after the Act of Uniformity, bequeathed propertyfor Nonconformist purposes. The trustees were ejected ministers,almost all of them belonging to the Independent denomination; andthey afforded small exhibitions to persons studying for the ministry.Amongst distinguished beneficiaries were Stephen Lobb, who enteredTrinity College, Oxford, in 1679; Benjamin Chandler, who studiedat the same University; Samuel Wesley, who, for awhile, as we haveseen, contemplated being a Dissenting pastor; William Payne, ofSaffron Walden, a friend of John Owen; and the celebrated divine andpoet, Isaac Watts, the last of whom received aid from the Fund Boardalso.[528]

The support of Dissenting pastors depended mainly upon their flocks.Sometimes, as we have seen, money was raised for the erection ofmeeting-houses by the sale of pews, which became the property of thepurchasers;[440] but in such cases, as well as others, the salary of theminister 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, grantswere made from the Fund Board. Trotman’s Trust availed in a smalldegree for ministerial support, as well as education, so long as anyof the ejected survived, and the money bequeathed to them lasted; forby 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 whileto advert to Sundays at home. In many a farmhouse and city dwelling,the master called his household round him in the evening, to read achapter and to ask religious questions; all being catechised, from theold servant by the door to the child who sat beside the cosy hearth,within the folds of mamma’s ornamented apron. Perhaps a discourse wasread, a psalm sung, and a prayer offered. The young folks might havelooked sleepy before all was over, and some of the older ones mightwith difficulty have kept their eyes open; but there were men and womenwho could say at the end of these Puritan Sabbaths, with the Henryfamily 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 theirguide and counsellor. Families grew up calling him their own friend andtheir father’s friend; for the pastoral bond was rarely broken in thosedays, except by death or some very remarkable circumstance.

Of the character of the early Nonconformists, testimony is borne byDr. Watts, who loved to cherish memories of the old Dissent, as he hadseen it in his young days. No[441] doubt we sometimes deceive ourselvesin looking down the vista of the past. A transparent haze mellows thewhole; perhaps fancy takes liberties with the details, and lays ontints of her own. How more than halcyon were the times of the Confessorfrom the distance of the reign of Rufus; yet there was truth in theSaxon’s estimate, under a Norman dynasty, of a former generation.Unquestionably, there is truth in Watts’ review. He refers mainly toa period rather earlier than that embraced within this chapter, yetthe light of Puritanism’s autumn day did not expire so long as Baxterand Howe survived; Watts mentions the reverence of Dissenters for thename of God, of their strict observance of the Sabbath, of their habitsof religious conversation, of their regular discharge of religiousduties, of their nonconformity to the world, and of their economicalexpenditure.

But all was not sunshine in the old Dissent. Indeed, Watts lamentedthe changes he witnessed. So did Howe; his lamentations being deepenedby the loss of early friends—“so many great lights withdrawn, bothsuch as were within the National Church Constitution, and such as werewithout it.” And, no doubt, in connection with altered circumstancesand the advance of free ecclesiastical opinion, there came aconsiderable decline of spiritual fervour. The strain and tension ofearlier religious life almost ceased. As in the Church of England therewas more calmness and moderation in Tillotson, Tenison, and Burnet, forexample, than in Cosin and Ward—so it was with Dissenters, as appearswhen we compare such a man as Matthew Henry with such a man as RichardBaxter, or when we place Edmund Calamy by the side of his grandfather.

One by one in the reign of our third William the fathers of the oldDissent passed away. They just saw the morning of religious liberty,they just touched the border of the land of promise, they dwelt underits 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 theministry, who had in private academies gone through what they termeda University course, were permitted to reside at Broad Oak, and tolisten to the instructions of its master. “You come to me,” he wouldsay, “as Naaman did to Elisha, expecting that I should do this and theother thing for you, and, alas! I can but say as he did: ‘Go wash inJordan.’ Go study the Scriptures. I profess to teach no other learningbut Scripture learning.”

Philip Henry reminds us of John Bunyan’s pilgrims in the land ofBeulah, as we read the following passage, written not long before hisdeath: “Methinks it is strange that it should be your lot and mine toabide so long on earth by the stuff, when so many of our friends aredividing the spoil above, but God will have it so; and to be willing tolive in obedience to His holy will is as true an act of grace, as tobe willing to die when He calls,[443] especially when life is labour andsorrow. But when it is labour and joy, service to His name, and somemeasure of success and comfort in serving Him, when it is to stop a gapand stem a tide, it is to be rejoiced in—it is heaven upon earth.”

The shadow of death in mid-winter enveloped another scarcely lessfamous Puritan home. Samuel Annesley, an older man than Philip Henry bytwelve years, with a ministerial history which ran far back into thetroubles of the Commonwealth and Civil Wars, continued to preach inLittle St. Helen’s to a congregation of wealthy citizens, amongst whommight be seen Daniel De Foe,[529] sometimes the eccentric John Dunton,and at an earlier time the almost equally eccentric Samuel Wesley, thetwo latter being married to two of Annesley’s daughters. Of a hardyconstitution, still more indurated by severe personal habits, Annesleycould bear the greatest cold without hat, gloves, or fire. He dranklittle besides water, and to the day of his death could read smallprint without spectacles.[530] The pastor’s family was large, for Dr.Manton, baptizing one of them, asked how many children he had. Annesleyreturned for answer, that he believed it was two dozen or a quarterof a hundred; “this reckoning children by dozens,” says Dunton, “wasa thing so very uncommon, that I have heard Dr. Annesley mention itwith a special remark.” He to the last retained great influence amongstthe Presbyterians,[444] having, “the care of all the churches on his mind,and being a great support of Dissenting ministers and of the MorningLecture.” He entered his pulpit for the last time, saying, “I must workwhile it is day,” and died with ecstatic exclamations on his lips: “Ihave no doubt nor shadow of doubt—all is clear between God and mysoul. He chains up Satan; he cannot trouble me. Come, dear Jesus! thenearer the more precious, and the more welcome. What manner of love isthis to a poor worm! I cannot express a thousandth part of what praiseis due to Thee! We know what we do when we aim at praising God for Hismercies! It is but little I can give, but, Lord, help me to give Theemy all. I will die praising Thee, and rejoice that there are othersthat can praise Thee better. I shall be satisfied with Thy likeness!satisfied! satisfied! Oh, my dearest Jesus, I come!” The old registerof St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, for December, 1696, has this entry:“Samuel Annesley was buried the seventh day, from Spittle Yard.”[531]

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 hehad gathered; but an unhappy division before his death gave himtrouble—sixty members breaking off to join another church, but noblame attached to him for this. If the eulogium pronounced by hisfriends be true, “he scarcely entered into any company, but he waslike a box of precious ointment, and left some sweet perfume fromhis heavenly discourse.” Vincent’s end was sudden and premature; hehad only leisure to exclaim: “I find I am dying. Lord! Lord! Lord!have mercy on my[445] family and my congregation.” His age was butfifty-three.[532]

Dr. William Bates, a close friend of Archbishop Tillotson, retained hispopularity and his renown for “silver-tongued” eloquence beyond theRevolution of 1688. As one of the preachers at Salters’ Hall after theestablishment of the New Lecture there in 1694, although an old man ofseventy-four, he preached to a thronged assembly; but he lived in thevillage of Hackney, where he ministered to a Presbyterian congregationin Mare Street.[533] Howe’s estimate of Bates’ character has beenquoted in a former volume; it is sufficient here to add the followingwords by the same writer: “God took him, even kissed away his soul,as hath been said of those great favourites of heaven, did let himdie without being sick, vouchsafed him that great privilege—which agood man would choose before many—not to outlive serviceableness. Tolive till one be weary of the world, not till the world be weary ofhim—thus he prayed wisely, thus God answered graciously.”[534] He diedin July, 1699.

John Howe survived his friend about five years. It appears fromhis allusion to “the great lights of the National Church,” how hisaffections lingered around those who were its ornaments, and passagesoccurring in his answer to De Foe, indicate Howe’s increasingtenderness[446] towards the Church of England in his last days. He hadalways been a moderate Dissenter, but his moderation assumes broaderdimensions than ever in that publication—the effect, I apprehend,partly of natural tenderness and partly of unpleasant circumstances. Hehad, from the very constitution of his mind, what many great and goodmen have not—a burning thirst for union, for a large fellowship ofsouls on earth preparatory to the final gathering of the purified andperfected. This passion increased in Howe the nearer he approached theworld of light and love. He longed, as his days ebbed away, to embracewithin his fellowship the good and wise of all parties; consequentlylines of distinction between church and church, between sect and sect,became in his eyes paler and paler. And I cannot help seeing thatthe disputes amongst Nonconformist ministers in London—the unhappydivisions arising out of the Crisp controversy—vexed him exceedingly,and loosened a little the bonds which had bound him to the Independentbody. A moderate Congregationalist in earlier life, he appearslatterly to have sympathized most with Presbyterians. The church inSilver Street, of which he took the pastoral charge, was Presbyterian.The Salters’ Hall Lecture, with which he identified himself, wasPresbyterian. Presbyterians were less opposed to the Established Churchthan were Independents; the latter felt no wish for comprehension,the former did; and in that wish, which the impossibility of itsgratification could not quench, John Howe to the last deeply shared.

In his latter days he largely experienced the joys of religion. Heseemed at that period to attain a more ethereal purity of soul, amore sublime elevation of mind, and a more seraphic glow of devotion.The ancients believed that the nearer men approach the hour of deaththe more[447] divine they become, and the more piercing is their insightinto the mysteries of futurity. Howe, under the influence of a divineenthusiasm, certainly appeared during the last year of his life asif the veil of flesh had been parted, and his free spirit had founda pathway which “the vulture’s eye hath never seen.” It is relatedthat on one occasion, at the Lord’s-table, his soul was suffused withsuch rapture that the communicants thought his physical strength wouldhave sunk under the weight of his preternatural emotions. And anotherinstance of overpowering delight about the same time, is recorded byhimself in a Latin note found on the blank leaf of his study Bible.After notice of a peculiarly beautiful and refreshing dream which hehad some years before, he adds: “But what of the same kind I sensiblyfelt through the admirable bounty of my God, and the most pleasantcomforting influence of the Holy Spirit, on October 22nd, 1704,far surpassed the most expressive words my thoughts can suggest. Ithen experienced an inexpressibly pleasant melting of heart, tearsgushing out of mine eyes for joy that God should shed abroad His loveabundantly through the hearts of men, and that for this very purposemine own should be so signally possessed of and by His blessed Spirit.”One trembles at criticizing such a phenomenon, and at attempting toresolve it all into a delirium of excitement. Who that has ever musedon the nature of the human mind, on the mystery of that unseen worldwhich presses close around it, on the piety of such a man as Howe, andon the special love which God bears to those whom he makes so likeHimself, would dare to speak lightly of such an incident?

Howe spent some of his closing days in the composition of a workOnPatience in Expectation of Future Blessedness, expressive of hisown religious experience;[448] and it shows that such were his thoughts ofheaven, such his desire to depart, that he had to practice an unwontedform of self-denial to reconcile himself to continuance in a worldwhich so many are loth to leave. Friends conversed with him to thelast, and the visit of one of them deserves special notice. RichardCromwell called upon him in his last illness, but the words theyinterchanged have died away, save an indistinct echo lingering in abrief sentence by Calamy: “There was a great deal of serious discoursebetween them; tears were freely shed on both sides, and the parting wasvery solemn, as I have been informed by one that was present on theoccasion.”[535]

As a proof that Howe needed patience of an unusual kind, I may mentionthat he said to his wife: “Though he thought he loved her as well asit was fit for one creature to love another; yet if it were put to hischoice, whether to die that moment, or to live that night, and theliving that night would secure the continuance of his life for sevenyears to come, he would choose to die that moment.” In the same spirithe remarked to an attendant one morning, after being relieved from theintense sufferings of the previous night: “He was forfeelingthat he was alive, though most willing to die, and lay the ‘clog ofmortality aside.’” When his son, a physician, was lancing his leg todiminish his sufferings, Howe inquired what he was doing, and observed:“I am not[449] afraid of dying, but I am afraid of pain.” Indeed, he hada peculiar sensitiveness with regard to physical agony, which seems tohave been constitutional. All but joy soon afterwards terminated, for,on the 2nd of April, 1705, his spirit entered those regions of reposewhich he had long so fervently desired to reach.

The passing away of the old Puritans could not but produce a greateffect. When the last of the Apostles left the world, those whoremained in the line of succession—so far as Apostles could haveany proper successors—would fail to reach the level of experience,character, and influence which their predecessors occupied. And whenthe last of the Protestant Reformers died, there would be a fallingoff in the ardour and force which marked the religious leaders of thenext generation. And so, without equalizing Apostles, Reformers, andPuritans, we may say of the last, that when they were all gone—thoughtheir cause remained in the hands of men who had learned theirlessons—the fire no longer burned with the glowing heat it had donebefore. There might be more breadth of view, there might be advancementin some respects, but there remained not the same force which hadoperated so mightily at an earlier period. Puritanism, as a creed, as adiscipline, 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 Commonwealthhad in early life mingled socially with Anglicans. They had sat onthe same forms at school, had lived under the same college roof, hadpreached in the same places of worship. Owen, Baxter, and Howe had allshared more or less with Churchmen in the same modes of life beforethe severance of 1662. Those who followed them were for the[450] most partwholly separated from the Establishment, from its universities, itspulpits, its society, its courtesies, its atmosphere. Hence arose apersonal estrangement between two great parties, in some respects moremischievous in its results than any of the controversies previouslywaged.

There have been influences at work in Society which rarely arrest theattention of historians, because hidden in the obscure depths of commonlife; and yet they have had a potency of effect, beyond even someprominent events which come out as landmarks in the past. I am inclinedto ascribe to the social separation of Churchmen from Nonconformists,which opened in the middle of the seventeenth century, and gaped sowide at the close—much of that mutual suspicion, and that tendencyto attribute bad motives to those of a different opinion, which stillprevent, more or less, a candid and charitable consideration of eachothers’ arguments. Friendly intercourse is a moral discipline whichaffects our intellectual nature, and, by softening the asperitiesof temper, prepares a man to meet his fellow man with less of thatprejudice so common to all, which blinds one person to phases of truthdiscerned by another.

The Baptists multiplied after the Revolution, and continued—whatthey had been before—often obscure, but always staunch supportersof independence and voluntaryism. In this respect they differed fromPresbyterians, and often went beyond Independents. The representativesof more than one hundred churches met in London in the year 1689, andcontinued in conference a few days. They republished a Calvinisticconfession of faith, adopted in the year 1677, but their business inthe main was with practical matters and the religious improvementof their denomination. One doctrinal question which they discussedwas whether believers wereactually reconciled, justified,and adopted when Christ died; this they resolved by affirming thatreconciliation and justification have been infallibly secured by thegrace of God and the merit of Christ; but that theiractualpossession comes as the result of individual faith. They took a gloomyview of spiritual affairs, and, although looking at them from a verydifferent point of view, reached conclusions resembling those of theNonjurors. And this is noteworthy: they referred to the Jews, andentreated their brethren to “put up earnest cries and supplicationsto the Lord for the lineal seed of Abraham.” In furtherance of theirobjects they appointed a general fast, and[452] directed that the causesand reasons of it should be explained. With respect to governmentand discipline, they disclaimed authority, nor did they attempt tosettle differences even in respect to communion. They projected asustentation fund, in aid of churches, ministers, and students; atthe same time they pronounced it expedient for small churches, inthe same neighbourhood, to unite together for the support of theministry. They ventured to commence an attack on the long periwigs ofmen, especially ministers, and the bravery, haughtiness, and pride ofwomen, who walked “with stretched-out necks and wanton eyes, mincingas they went.” They deplored worldly conformity, and though they didnot deny that ornaments were allowable, they said every ornament whichopens the mouths of the ungodly ought to be cast off. Baptists hadbeen reproached as Trimmers under James II. for the sake of their ownliberty; but the representatives on this occasion declared that, totheir knowledge, not one congregation had ever countenanced a powerin the King to dispense with penal tests, and that William III. was aDivine instrument for the deliverance of England.[536]

A second assembly of the same nature met in London upon the 2nd ofJune, 1691, and another on the 3rd of May, 1692. They proposed todivide their annual assembly into two—one for the east in London, andthe other for the west in Bristol, and they enjoined the making ofquarterly collections for objects specified, at the same time expresslyrepudiating all idea of exercising synodical control.

Musical harmony had been a cause of discord; some of the Baptistcelebrities, including Kiffin and Keach, had plunged into disputes onthe subject, and[453] it was alleged that facts had been misrepresentedand unwarrantable reflections published to the world. The mattercame under the notice of a committee, which appears to have given animpartial decision. They declared that both parties were in the wrong;that, granting some statements might be true, they had laid open oneanother’s errors in an unbecoming spirit; that they ought to rememberhow Ham, for discovering the nakedness of Noah, was accursed of God,and how failings were forbidden to be told in Gath and Gilgal. Theyrecommended that all the publications produced by the dispute shouldbe called in and disposed of by the Assembly; and they finished theiraward by entreating, as upon their knees, that the brethren would keepthe unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.[537]

Kiffin and Keach were amongst the Baptist magnates at the end of theRevolution, and were far more influential than Bunyan. Of Kiffin Ihave had occasion to speak. It only remains to add, that he continuedhis ministry to old age, and that his latter days were adorned by anact of beneficence. After the French Protestants had been driven fromtheir own land, he took under his protection and entirely supported afamily of rank, nor would he when these refugees recovered a portion oftheir 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 ofCalvinistic and strict communion views.

Of Benjamin Keach I have also spoken. Although a good man, and of aningenious turn, he must have been rather pugnacious, for his works areof a controversial stamp, relating to the seventh-day Sabbath and thequestion[454] of psalmody. He was one of those who have not the smallestdoubt of being themselves right, and of everybody else being wrong.Adult Baptism he described asGold Refined; the Athenian Societyhe attacked for what it had said respecting Pædobaptism; he rectifieda Rector by proving Infant Baptism unlawful in hisAxe Laid to theRoot, or one blow more aimed at that practice, which one blow wouldbeat down for ever the arguments of Mr. Flavel, Mr. Rothwell, and Mr.Exell; finally, byA Counter Antidote, he strove to resist theassaults upon what his antagonists would callAnabaptism. Hiscongregation is spoken of as the first to sing in public worship. Socautious were they, because of the prejudices of their brethren, thatthey went on step by step, for a long time restricting the practiceto the close of the Lord’s Supper, then venturing upon a hymn amidstthe exultation of a thanksgiving-day, and at last, after a struggle offourteen years, becoming so bold and yet so temperate, as to sing everySunday, after objectors to the practice had been allowed to retire.[538]

The distinction between Particular and General Baptists assumed sharperform and greater prominence after the Revolution. The General Baptistsof the county of Somerset, in the year 1691, published an originalmanifesto of doctrine. These articles, upon the Will of Man, theWork of the Spirit, God’s Decrees, and the Saints’ Perseverance, aredecidedly anti-Calvinistic, and the final chapter bears a millenarianimpress; but, to avoid being charged with the excesses of the old fifthmonarchists, the brethren declared that the “kingdom ought not to beset up by the material sword,” that being “contrary to the very natureof Christianity.”[539]

Matthew Caffin was a celebrated man amongst the General Baptists. Fivetimes he suffered imprisonment for his Nonconformity, besides which hewas repeatedly fined under the Conventicle Act. Opposed to the doctrineof Calvinism, like the rest of his brethren, he also distinguishedhimself by opposition to the Athanasian Creed. He objected to itsdefinition and to its damnatory clauses, although he did not adopteither Socinian or Arian tenets.

Caffin appears to have been one of those one-sided people who, witha repugnance to all assumption on the part of the Church, and with adislike of what are called dogmas, do not sufficiently consider theimportance of principles as resting-places for faith and as sourcesof religious inspirations. In his horror of ultra-Calvinism, heforgot that dangers may arise from other points of the horizon. Notforeseeing the consequences of his course, not intending to open thedoor of heresy, he, through lack of sufficient positiveness, becamethe forerunner of those lax opinions which afterwards injured thechurches of the General Baptist order. Orthodoxy is not identical withscholastic definitions; neither is it a foe or a stranger to charity.Caffin’s forgetfulness of this involved him in disputes with his ownand with other denominations, and brought upon him suspicions which hedid not deserve. Of his pugnacity, evidence exists in the account ofhis debates; and as a specimen of his wit, the following incident isrelated: A Quaker called on Caffin, saying he had a message from theLord. “Come in then and do thy message,” replied Caffin. The Quakerrejoined: “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 convincethee,” said the Baptist, “that thou art deceived, and that the Lordhath not sent thee; for I[456] assure thee I never did pay any tithes,nor am ever like to be charged with any.” The land he rented wastithe-free.[540]

Turning to the Quakers, we find them placidly thankful for toleration,yet vexed by demands for tithes and church-rates—sufferings, of whichrecords were drawn up and sometimes printed and circulated. When theyapproached the Throne, both the King and the Lord-Keeper treated themwith respect, and gave them assurances of friendship. Parliamentlistened to their expostulations, but of course the laws of the countryrendered it impossible that they should be exempted from the paymentsin question any more than other people. Justified by the substitutionof affirmations for oaths, the members of their community did notshrink from an anti-Socinian test; but the continued requirement ofoaths in various relations exposed them to much hardship, for as theywould not swear in legal exigencies, they were often defrauded of theirrights. The policy of the Revolution opposed this condition of things,and in 1695 the complaints of Quakers and the efforts of their friendssecured a beneficial change: affirmations were substituted for oaths incivil as well as ecclesiastical concerns.

Fox and Barclay remained leaders, visiting societies and promoting thespread of their principles. Identifying their own cause with the causeof humanity, regarding themselves as charged with a pacific mission tothe world, they continued to serve their generation in the spirit ofthe angels’ song: “On earth peace, goodwill toward men.”

Barclay died in 1690, signifying, as it is quaintly said, with a goodunderstanding, that it was well with him as to his soul. “God,” heremarked to a friend, “is good still, and though I am under a greatweight of weakness[457] and sickness, yet my peace flows: and this I know,whatever exercises maybe permitted to come upon me, they shall tend toGod’s glory and my salvation; and in that I rest.”

Fox died in 1691, saying to those around him: “All is well; the Seedof God reigns over all, and over death itself. And though I am weak inbody, yet the power of God is over all, and the Seed reigns over alldisorderly spirits.” By “the Seed,” we are informed that he meant theDivine Saviour. A few hours before his departure he exclaimed: “Do notheed: the power of the Lord is above all sickness and death; the Seedreigns, blessed be the Lord.”

William Penn, although adhering to Quaker principles, was too muchoccupied with other things to allow of his being in later life veryprominent as an apostle of the Quaker faith.

Friends continued to maintain their self-government. The poor weretaken care of; widows and orphans were provided for; local meetingswere held by each congregation for the supervision of affairs everyweek, fortnight, or month, according to numbers; quarterly meetingswere held in every county; and a general yearly meeting was heldin London in Whitsun-week, “not,” it is cautiously said, “for anysuperstitious observation the Quakers have for that more than anyother time, but because that season of the year best suits the generalaccommodation.”[541] In the genial spring, therefore, the Friends metin the days of King William; and with the men attired in their drabgarments, might be seen matrons and maidens clothed in the finestraiment, like troops “of the shining ones.” Nonconformity to theworld in point of dress was an[458] important article of practice, andsorely were the spirits of the Elders vexed by the tendency of youngermembers. The question was discussed: Friends were warned against thefashions of the world, and were forbidden not only to wear but to sellany garments of vanity. Earnest exhortations were delivered touchingreligious education and simplicity of speech.[542]

Mysticism, at the close of the seventeenth century, found a homealmost exclusively amongst Quakers. It had won wide sympathies at onetime; Davenant had predicted that in a hundred years religions wouldcome to a settlement in a kind of “ingeniose Quakerism;” andHales, as he studied writings of the mystical Familists’ school, usedto say that some time or other these fine notions would take in theworld. But, instead of a widening flow, these “fine notions” came tobe contracted within a single channel. Instead of an “ingenioseQuakerism” leavening the world, the world left this leaven to fermentall but entirely amongst the people called Friends. Norris was theprincipal person outside that circle who, in the reign of William III.,cultivated a mystical spirit; and he did so in a limited degree.[459] Butfew of the many pieces written by him indicate any marked quietestsentiments. In a paper entitledAn Idea of Happiness, he speaksmystically of the fruition of God and of seraphic love, but in thesame paper he speaks of the mystical doctrine of infused virtue asbeing a paradox in Divinity, like the doctrine of occult qualitiesin philosophy.[543] Norris’s mysticism did not go beyond that of aPlatonistic divine. The Quakers had almost all the English mysticism ofthe age to themselves.

Amongst them, too, there was more of religious enthusiasm than amongstany other body of Nonconformists as a whole. Then occurred what isa curious but not uncommon fact, that as a rationalistic spirit wascreeping over theology, sobering the spirit of most denominations, thefires of excitement were kept burning in two extreme divisions of theChristian camp. The Quakers and the Nonjurors were the two most ferventreligious bodies at the end of the seventeenth century.

Here for the present I lay down my pen. I have endeavoured in precedingvolumes to tell the story of ecclesiastical change, theologicaldevelopment, 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 eventsoccurring outside, nor can the state of one religious section be fullyunderstood apart from its bearing on other communities: thereforeI have interwoven the[460] threads of their respective destinies, andof their mutual relations and antagonisms. The series of strugglesportrayed present something of an Epic interest; for during the CivilWars there was strife forAscendency, which ended in thetriumph of Puritanism, and in the treatment of Anglicans, somewhatafter a wretched fashion which had been set in former days. After theRestoration, the resentment of Anglicans came once more into play,and severe persecutions followed; yet efforts atComprehensionwere made by healing spirits on both sides without effect. At theRevolution, as I have largely shown, experiments with a view to reunionwere attempted with no better result, but a great and most beneficialchange was accomplished by the legalising of freedom in religiousthought and ecclesiastical action. The shield of the constitutionwas extended over previously persecuted Englishmen, and the age ofToleration, as it is termed, then began. Local interferenceswith the liberty of worship continued to occur, but they were contraryto law. The steps by which this consummation was accomplished I havesomewhat minutely traced, and the earlier causes of the RevolutionI have endeavoured to explore. The reign of William III. was thebeginning of a new era in English History, and its ecclesiasticalconsequences can be ascertained only through a careful study of thegreat religious movements of the eighteenth century.

Whether I shall ever be able to pursue my investigations into thatinteresting subject depends on circumstances, which I must leave in thehands of Him whom in all the labours of my life I desire to serve.

I.—P. 107.

The following is a copy of the Bill after certain omissions andadditions had been made, and the subjoined paper will give an idea ofthe extent of the latter:—

A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects. Firstreading, March 11, 1688; second reading, March 14, 1688.

Whereas the peace of the State is highly concerned in the peace ofthe Church, which therefore at all times, but especially in thisconjuncture, is most necessary to be preserved: In order thereforeto remove occasions of differences and dissatisfaccons which mayarise amongst Protestants, Be it Enacted by the King and Queen’s mostexcellent Ma^ties, By and with the advice and consent of the LordsSpiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons in this present Parliam^tassembled, and by the authority of the same, That in order to y^e beinga Minister of this Church, or the taking, holding, and enjoying anyEcclesiastical Benefice or promotion in the same, noe other subscripconor declaracons shall from henceforward be required of any person, butonely the Declaracon menconed in a Statute made in the thirtieth yearof the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second, Intituled, An Actfor the more effectual preserving the King’s person and Governm^tby disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliam^t,and also the Declaration following, viz^t: I, A. B., doe submit tothe prnt Constitucon of the Church of Engl. I acknowledge that thedoctrine of it contains in it all things necessary to Salvation, andI will conforme myself to the worship and the government thereof, asestablished by Law; And I solemnly promise, in y^e exercise of myMinistry, to Preach and practice according thereunto.

And Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in order[462]to the being Collated or Instituted into any Benefice or promotion noemore or other Oaths shall be required to be taken of any person thanonely the two Oaths menconed in the late Statute made in the firstyear of the Reigne of King William and Queen Mary, Intituled, an Actfor removing and preventing all questions and disputes concerning theassembling and sitting of this present Parliament, and alsoe the Oathof Simony, and the Oath of Residence, any Statute or Canon to thecontrary notwithstanding.

And Be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the TwoDeclaracons aforesaid shall be made and subscribed in y^e said Oathsmenconed in the s^d Stat, made in the first yeare of the Reigne ofKing William and Queene Mary, shall be taken in the presence of theBishop or his Chancellor, or the Guardian of the Spiritualities, byevery person that is to receive any Holy orders, or keepe any publicSchoole, and alsoe the p^r Oathes and Declaracon, together with thesaid Oathes of Simony and residence by every person that is to have aLycence to preach any Lecture or that is to be Collated or Institutedinto any Benefice, or that is to be admitted into any Ecclesiasticaldignity or promotion before such his Ordination, Lycencing, Collation,Institution, or Admission, respectively.

And be it further Enacted, that every person that shall fromhenceforward take any Degree in either of the Universities, or anyfellowship, headship, or professors place in the same, shall, beforehis admission to that degree, or fellowship, or headship, or professorsplace, subscribe the aforesaid Declaracons and take the said Oathsmentioned in the said Statute, made in the first yeare of the Reigneof King William and Queen Mary, in the presence of the Vice-Chancelloror his Deputy. Provided that if any of the persons herein beforerequired to make and subscribe the said Declaracons be not in Holyorders, such person shall not be obliged to make and subscribe allthe Declaracon hereinbefore expressed, but onely this part thereof,viz.: I, A. B., doe submitt to the psent Constitucon of the Church ofEngld. I acknowledge that the doctrine of it contains in it all thingsnecessary to Salvacon, and I will conforme myselfe to the worship andthe Governm^t thereof, as established by law, together with the otherDeclaracon aforesaid menconed in said Statute, made in the Thirtiethyear of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second.

And be it further Enacted, that the making and subscribing the saidDeclaracons, and taking the said Oaths as aforesaid, shall be assufficient to all intents and purposes aforesaid as if the parties hadmade all other Declaracons and subscripcons, and taken all other oathswhich[463] they should have taken by vertue of any law, Statute, or Canon,whatsoever.

And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that fromhenceforth noe Minister shall be obliged to wear a surplice in the timeof reading prayers or performing any other Religious Office—Exceptonely in the King and Queen’s Ma^ties Chappells, and in all Cathedralor Collegiate Churches and Chappells of this Realme of England andDominion of Wales. Provided alsoe that every Minister that shall notthink fitt to wear a surplice as aforesaid shall nevertheless beobliged to performe all y^e Publick Offices of his Ministry in theChurch in a Black Gowne, suitable to his Degree. And if it be in aplace where a Gowne is not the dayly constant habit of the Minister, inevery such parish the parish shall provide a Gowne for him, to be worneby him dureing the time of his officiating in the Church.

And be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no Ministerfrom henceforward shall be obliged to use the signe of the Crosse inBaptisme, nor any parent obliged to have his Child Christned by theMinister of the Parish if the said Minister will not use or omitt thesigne of the Cross, according to the desire of the parent, who in thatcase may procure some other Minister of the Church of Engld to doe it.

And be it further Enacted, by y^e authority aforesaid, that noeMinister or Ecclesiastical person shall oblige any person to findGodfathers or Godmothers for any child to be baptized, soe as theparents or parent or other friend of such Child shall present the sameto be Baptized, and shall answer for such child in like manner as theGodfathers and Godmothers are now required to doe.

And be it further Enacted, by y^e authority aforesaid, that noeMinister that shall officiate in the administracon of the Sacram^t ofthe Lord’s Supper shall deny or refuse to any person that desires tobe admitted to the same, in a pew or seate in the Church, altho’ suchperson shall not receive it kneeling.

And whereas the Liturgie of y^e Church of England is capable ofseve^ll alteracons and additions, which may free it from exception,and may conduce to y^e Glory of God and y^e better Edefication ofthe people, And whereas the Book of Canons is fitt to be reviewedand made suitable to the present state of the Church, And whereasthere are divers abuses and defects in y^e Ecclesiastical Courtsand Jurisdiction, and particularly for reformacon or removeing ofscandalous Ministers, And whereas it is very fitt and profitable thatConfirmacon be administred with such due preparacon and solemnity as isdirected in the late King[464] Charles the Second’s Declaration concerningEcclesiastical affairs, issued in the yeare of our Lord 1660, And astrict care be used in the Examinacon of such persons as desire to beadmitted into Holy Orders, both as to their learning and manners:

Wee, your Ma^ties most dutifull and Loyall Subjects, the LordsSpiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliam^tassembled, doe most humbly beseech your Majesties to issue out aComission under yo^r Great Seale, directed to the Arch Bishops, andsuch Bishops, and such others of the Clergy of the Church of England,not exceeding the number of thirty in y^e whole, impowering andrequiring them, or any twelve of them, to meet from time to time, andas often as shall be needfull, and to make such alteracons in theLiturgie and reformacon of the Canons and Ecclesiastical Courts as mayconduce to the Establishm^t of the Church in peace and Tranquility,and to present such alteracons and reformacons to the Convocation andto the Parliam^t that the same may be approved and established in dueforme of Law.

Alterations made in Committee.

II.—P. 114.

Forasmuch as some ease to scrupulous consciences, in the exercise ofReligion, may be an effectual means to unite their Majesty’s Protestantsubjects in interest and affection:

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 theauthority of the same, That neither the Statute made in the 23^rdyear of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled,23 Eliz., cap. 1.An Actto 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,29 Eliz., cap. 6.An Act for the more speedy and due execution of certain branchesof the Statute made in the 23^rd year of the Queen’s Majesty’sreign, viz., the aforesaid Act; nor that branch or clause ofa Statute made in the 1^st year of the reign of the said Queen,entituled,29 Eliz., cap. 2, f 14.An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and servicein the Church, and administration of the Sacraments; whereby allpersons, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, arerequired to resort to their Parish Church or Chapel, or some usualplace where the Common Prayer shall be used, upon pain of punishmentby the censures of the Church; and also, upon pain, that every personso offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence. Northe Statute made in the 3^rd year of the reign of the late KingJames the First, entituled,3 Jac. I., cap. 4.An Act for the better discovering andrepressing Popish recusants. Nor that other Statute, made in thesame year, entituled,3 Jac. I., cap. 5.An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which maygrow by Popish Recusants. Nor any other Law or Statute of thisrealm made against Papists or Popish recusants,Exception.except the Statutemade in the 25^th year of King Charles II., entituled,25 Car. II., cap. 2.An Actfor preventing dangers which may happen from Popish recusants.And except also the Statute made in the 30^th year of the said KingCharles II., entituled,30 Car. II., Stat. 2d, cap. 1.An Act for the more effectual preservingthe King’s person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting ineither House of Parliament, shall be construed to extend to anyperson or persons dissenting from the Church of England, that shalltake the oaths mentioned in a Statute made this present Parliament,entituled,_Supra_, cap. 1.An Act for removing and preventing all questions anddisputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this presentParliament, and shall make and subscribe the Declaration mentionedin a Statute made in the 30^th year of the reign of King CharlesII., entituled,Car. II., Stat. 2d, cap. 1.An Act to prevent Papists from sitting in eitherHouse of Parliament. Which Oaths and Declaration the Justices ofPeace, at the General Sessions of the Peace to be held for the Countyor Place where such person shall live, are hereby required to tenderand administer to such persons as shall offer themselves toTaking Declaration to be Registered.take, make,and subscribe the same, and thereof to keep a Register.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[467] Court aforesaid, abovethe sum of 6^d, nor that more than once, for his or their entry of histaking 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 bemade out and signed by the Officer or officers of the said Court.

II.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That alland every person and persons already convicted, or prosecuted inorder to conviction of Recusancy, by Indictment, Information, Actionof Debt, or otherwise grounded upon the aforesaid Statute; or any ofthem that shall take the said Oaths mentioned in the said Statute,made this present Parliament, and make and subscribe the Declarationaforesaid in the Court of Exchequer, or Assizes, or General or QuarterSessions, to be held for the county where such person lives, and to bethence respectively certified into the Exchequer, shall be thenceforthexempted and discharged from all the Penalties, Seizures, Forfeitures,Judgments, and Executions, incurred by force of any the aforesaidStatutes, without any composition, fee, or further charge whatsoever.

III.—And be it further enacted, by the Authority aforesaid, That alland every person and persons that shall, as aforesaid, take the saidOaths, and make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, shall not beliable to any pains, penalties, or forfeitures, mentioned in an Actmade in the 35^th year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth,entituled,35 Eliz., cap. 1.An Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s Subjects in theirdue obedience. Nor in an Act made in the 22^nd year of the reignof the late King Charles II., entituled,22 Car. II., cap. 1.An Act to prevent andsuppress seditious Conventicles.Ecclesiastical Court.Nor shall any of the said personsbe prosecuted in any Ecclesiastical Court, for, or by reason of, theirNon-Conforming to the Church of England.

IV.—Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid,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 andevery 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 thepains and penalties of all the aforesaid Laws recited in this Act,for such their meeting, notwithstanding his taking the Oaths, and hismaking and subscribing the Declaration aforesaid.

V.—Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construedto exempt any of the persons aforesaid from paying of Tithes, or otherParochial Duties, or any other duties to the Church or Minister, norfrom any prosecution in any Ecclesiastical Court, or elsewhere, for thesame.

VI.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That ifany person dissenting from the Church of England, as aforesaid, shallhereafter be chosen, or otherwise appointed to bear the office ofHigh-Constable, or Petit-Constable, Church-Warden, Overseer of thePoor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, and such person shallscruple to take upon him any of the said offices, in regard of theOaths, or any other matter or thing required by the law to be takenor done, in respect of such office, every such person shall and mayexecute such office or employment by a sufficient deputy, by him tobe provided, that shall comply with the laws on this behalf. Providedalways, the said deputy be allowed and approved by such person orpersons in such manner as such officer or officers respectively shouldby law have been allowed and approved.

VII.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, Thatno person dissenting from the Church of England in Holy Orders, orpretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any Preacheror Teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, that shallmake and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, and take the said Oaths,at the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for theCounty, Town, Parts, or Division where such person lives, which Courtis hereby empowered to administer the same; and shall also declare hisapprobation of, and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned inthe Statute made in the 13^th year of the reign of the late QueenElizabeth, except the 34^th, 35^th, and 36^th, and these words ofthe 20^th Article, viz.13 Eliz., cap. 12.[The Church hath power to decree Rites orCeremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, and yet] shallbe liable to any of the pains or penalties mentioned in an Act made inthe 17^th year of the reign of King Charles II., entituled,17 Car. II., cap. 2.An Actfor restraining Non-Conformists from inhabiting in Corporations;nor the penalties mentioned in the aforesaid Act, made in the 22^ndyear of his said late Majesty’s reign, for or by reason of suchpersons preaching at any meeting for the exercise of Religion; norto the penalties of £100 mentioned in an Act made in the 13^th and14^th of King Charles II., entituled,13 and 14 Car. II., cap. 4.An Act for the Uniformityof public prayers, and administration of Sacraments, and other ritesand ceremonies; and for establishing the form of making, ordaining,and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in the Church ofEngland, for officiating in any Congregation for the exercise ofreligion permitted and allowed by this Act.

VIII.—Provided always, that the making and subscribing the saidDeclaration, and the taking the said Oaths, and making the Declaration[469]of approbation and subscription to the said Articles, in manneras aforesaid, by every respective person or persons hereinbeforementioned, at such General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace asaforesaid, 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 butMeeting doors to be unlocked.with the doors not locked, barred, or bolted, as aforesaid.

IX.—And whereas some Dissenting Protestants scruple the baptizing ofinfants, be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every personin pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, or Preacheror Teacher, that shall subscribe the aforesaid Articles of Religion,except before excepted; and also except part of the 27^th Articleteaching Infant baptism, and shall take the Oaths, and make andsubscribe the Declaration aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, every suchperson shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and advantages, whichany other Dissenting Minister, as aforesaid, might have or enjoy byvirtue of this Act.

X.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That everyTeacher or Preacher in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, that isa Minister, Preacher, or Teacher of a Congregation, that shall takethe Oaths herein required, and make and subscribe the Declarationaforesaid; and also subscribe such of the aforesaid Articles of theChurch of England, as are required by this Act in manner aforesaid,shall be thenceforth exempted from serving upon any Jury, or from beingchosen or appointed to bear the Office of Church-Warden, Overseer ofthe Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, or other Office in anyHundred of any Shire, City, Town, Parish, Division, or Wapentake.

XI.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That anyJustice of the Peace may at any time hereafter require any person thatgoes to any meeting for exercise of Religion, to make and subscribe theDeclaration aforesaid, and also to take the said Oaths or Declarationof fidelity hereinafter mentioned, in case such person scruples thetaking of an oath, andPenalty for refusing.upon refusal thereof such Justice of the Peaceis hereby required to commit such person to prison without bail ormainprize, and to certify the name of such person to the next Generalor Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for that County, City,Town, Part, or Division, where such person then resides; and if suchperson so committed, shall, upon a second tender at the Generalor Quarter Sessions, refuse to make and subscribe the Declarationaforesaid, such person refusing shall be then and there recorded, andshall be taken thenceforth, to all intents and purposes, for a PopishRecusant convict,[470] and suffer accordingly, and incur all the penaltiesand forfeitures of all the aforesaid laws.

XII.—And whereas there are certain other persons, Dissenters from theChurch of England, who scruple the taking of any oath, be it enactedby the authority aforesaid,Altered as to Quakers by 8 Geo. I., cap. 6.That every such person shall make andsubscribe the aforesaid Declaration; and also this Declaration ofFidelity following:

I, A. B., do sincerely promise, and solemnly declare, before God andthe world, that I will be true and faithful to King William and QueenMary; and I do solemnly profess and declare that I do from my heartabhor, detest, and renounce, as impious and heretical, that damnableDoctrine and Position, That Princes excommunicated, or deprived by thePope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murtheredby their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that noforeign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought tohave, any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority,Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm.

I, A. B., profess Faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ Hiseternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed forevermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and NewTestament to be given by Divine Inspiration.

Which Declaration and Subscription shall be made andentered of Record at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for theCounty, City, or Place, where every such person shall then reside. Andevery such person that shall make and subscribe the two Declarationsand Profession aforesaid, being thereunto required, shall be exemptedfrom all the pains and penalties of all and every the afore-mentionedStatutes made against Popish Recusants, or Protestant Nonconformists;and also from the penalties of an Act made in the 5^th year ofthe reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled,5 Eliz., cap. 1.An Act for theAssurance of the Queen’s Royal Power over all Estates and Subjectswithin her Dominions, for or by reason of such persons not taking,or refusing to take, the Oath mentioned in the said Act; and alsofrom the penalties of an Act made in the 13^th and 14^th years ofthe reign of King Charles II., entituled,13 and 14 Car. II., cap. 1.An Act for preventingmischiefs that may arise by certain persons called Quakers refusing totake 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 thisAct.

XIII.—Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid,That in case any person shall refuse to take the said Oaths whentendered to them, which every Justice of the Peace is hereby impoweredto do, such person shall not be admitted to make and subscribe the twoDeclarations aforesaid, though required thereunto, either before anyJustice of the Peace, or at the General or Quarter Sessions, before orafter any conviction of Popish Recusancy, as aforesaid, unless suchperson can, within thirty-one days after such tender of the Declarationto him, produce two sufficient Protestant witnesses to testify uponoath, that they believe him to be a Protestant Dissenter, or aCertificate under the hands of four Protestants, who are conformableto the Church of England, or have taken the oaths, and subscribed theDeclaration above mentioned, and shall produce a certificate under thehands and seals of six or more sufficient men of the congregation towhich he belongs, owning him for one of them.

XIV.—Provided also, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, Thatuntil such certificate, under the hands of six of his Congregation, asaforesaid, be produced, and two Protestant witnesses come to attest hisbeing a Protestant Dissenter, or a certificate under the hands of fourProtestants, as aforesaid, be produced, the Justice of the Peace shall,and hereby is required to take a Recognizance, with two Sureties, inthe 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 hecannot give such security, to commit him to prison, there to remainuntil he has produced such certificates, or two witnesses, as aforesaid.

XV.—Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of thisAct, That all the laws made and provided for the frequenting of DivineService on the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, shall be still inforce, and executed against all persons that offend against the saidlaws, except such persons come to some Congregation, or Assembly ofReligious Worship, allowed or permitted by this Act.

XVI.—Provided always, and be it further enacted by the Authorityaforesaid, that neither this Act, nor any Clause, Article, or thing,herein contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to giveany ease, benefit, or advantage, to any Papist or Popish Recusantwhatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writingthe Doctrine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaidArticles of Religion.

XVII.—Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid,[472]That if any person or persons, at any time or times, after the 10^thday of June, do,How punished. See 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2, cap. 5, f 4.and shall willingly, and of purpose, maliciously, orcontemptuously, come into any Cathedral, or Parish Church, Chapel, orother Congregation, permitted by this Act, and disquiet or disturb thesame; or misuse any Preacher or Teacher, such person or persons, uponproof thereof, before any Justice of Peace, by two or more sufficientwitnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizance in thepenal sum of fifty pounds, and in default of such sureties shall becommitted to prison, there to remain till the next General or QuarterSession; and upon conviction of the said offence, at the said Generalor Quarter Sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of twentypounds, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties, their Heirs andSuccessors.

XVIII.—Provided always, That no Congregation or Assembly for religiousworship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place ofsuch meeting shall be certified to the Bishop of the Diocese, or to theArchdeacon of that Archdeaconry, or to the Justices of the Peace, atthe General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County, City, orPlace, in which such meeting shall be held and registered in the saidBishop’s or Archdeacon’s Court respectively, or recorded at the saidGeneral or Quarter Sessions; the register or clerk of the Peace whereofrespectively is hereby required to register the same, and to givecertificate thereof to such person as shall demand the same, for whichthere shall be no greater fee nor reward taken than the sum of sixpence.

III.—P. 229.

To prevent the possibility of misapprehension, it may be proper toremark that the extracts I have given fromMacpherson’s OriginalPapers, are intended simply to show what was reported and desiredby the Jacobite party. Many statements in the correspondence areutterly untrustworthy. History has to do not only with what has beenactually accomplished or attempted, but with what has been thoughtand said; for rumour and falsehood have been powerful factors in theaffairs of this world.

IV.—P. 263.

Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, to the * * * * * Greeting.Whereas by the advice and assent of our Council for certain arduous andurgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our said UnitedKingdom and the Church, we have ordered a certain Parliament to beholden at our City of Westminster on the * day of * next ensuing, andthere to treat and have conference with the Prelates, Great Men, andPeers of our Realm. We strictly enjoining command you, upon the faithand love by which you are bound to us, that the weightiness of the saidaffairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be atthe said day and place personally present with us, and with the saidPrelates, Great Men, and Peers, to treat and give your counsel upon theaffairs aforesaid. And this, as you regard us and our honour, and thesafety and defence of the said United Kingdom and Church, and despatchof the said affairs, in no wise do you omit. Forewarning the Dean andChapter of your Church of * * and the Archdeacons and all the Clergy ofyour Diocese, that they the said Dean and Archdeacons, in their properpersons, and the said Chapter by one, and the said Clergy by two, meetProctors severally, having full and sufficient authority from them,the said Chapter and Clergy, at the said day and place, be personallypresent to consent to those things which then and there by the CommonCouncil of our said United Kingdom (by the favour of the Divineclemency) shall happen to be ordained. Witness ourself at Westminster,the * of * in the * * year of our Reign.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the early life of the Prince of Orange, seeTheLife of William III. 8vo., Lond., 1703;The Hist. of KingWilliam III., 3 vols. 8vo., 1703;The Life of William, Prince ofOrange, 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 ofa Churchman as possible.

[5] These anecdotes are found in a MS.Life of Hooper,by Prouse. SeeLife of Ken, by a Layman, 101–3.

[6]Hawkins’ Life of Ken, 7. In theLife of Ken,by a Layman, 105, we are told that William was much offended atthe marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced—whichmarriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’sdispleasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence withBentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning thatone of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refusedto 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 theprophetic dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell,in hisHist. of the Quakers, ii. 353, speaks of a propheticletter (containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by aQuaker at London to his friend, as a forgery.

[10]Dalrymple, iii. appen. part i. 228.

[11]Ibid., 238.

[12] See curious correspondence inDalrymple, 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: “Ifind 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 adyer. In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Orderof the Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations tosurrender their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty andwell-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 ofNovember, 1687. Jenkins, our local historian, says, ‘that not onlythe Mayor, but the other members of the newly-created Chamber, werePresbyterians. When the Corporation sent up an address to the King,congratulating him on the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received thehonour of knighthood. When the King turned penitent, as you are aware,one of the fruits of his repentance was the restoration of theircharters to corporate towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend fromhis corporate dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, Ihave not been able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that theMayor was a Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’sallusion to the Conventicle.”

[17] Aug. 16, 1688.Bodleian, Tanner MSS., xxviii.

[18]Tanner MSS., 28, 113, printed inGutch’sCollectanea, i. 404.

[19] July 27, 1688.Wilkin’s Concilia, iv. 618.

[20]D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 326–8. I am verysceptical 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 clergymanfor an impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely infear, yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery.Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was socareful 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 hisEpiscopal income being desperately poor.Facsimiles of NationalMSS., iv. 92.

[23]Clarendon Correspondence. Lord Dartmouth says,“Not long before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept hischamber), my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was notabove twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of theDuke, and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, thatif ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would findhimself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, thoughthere were not many of the Church of England that thought proper tocontradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. Myfather told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’slast message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answerwas, 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 humblesupplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee inthis time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. GiveThy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in healthand safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels;prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with goodsuccess; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all hispeople; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and trueallegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining togetherto promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties intheir several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thymost mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafedto us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour.Amen.

For Repentance.

Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do herehumbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the leastof all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of oursouls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all ordersof men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we havehitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to ouramendment. 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 hasthitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us torepentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godlysorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of;that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayestrejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation ofJesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.Amen.

There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by HisMajesty to be printed.

[30] Macpherson (Hist. i. 518) succinctly andcompletely refutes the assertion.

[31]Gutch, i. 414.

[32]Tanner MSS., vol. xxviii. 153. There is anotherletter on the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5.

[33]Dalrymple, i. 210.

[34]Ibid., i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized withJames, remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor thecommonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Princecomes only to maintain the Protestant religion—he will do no harm toEngland.’” p. 358.

[35]D’Oyley, i. 355.

[36] Compton’s own account.Gulch, i. 443.

[37] The following passage in a memorandum, written byTrelawny, Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of theseBishops was afterwards to deny that they had anything to do withbringing 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, thatinsinuated in the Prince of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops hadinvited him to come over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterlyfalse; he replied, ‘I took an occasion to discourse Will Harbordabout the particular, and asked him whether it was true; his answerwas, No, damn ’em, they were not so honest, but I caus’d it to beput in, to raise a jealousy and hatred on both sides, that the King,believing it, might never forgive them, and they, fearing that he didbelieve, might be push’d for their own safety to wish and help on hisruin.’”—First Report of the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS., 52.

There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by theBishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcesterto draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c.,‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”—SeesameReport.

[38] Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introducedby Sancroft of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paperis in existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas therehath been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the PrinceofOrange hath anintention to invade this kingdomin hostile manner; and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of hisattempt, that he hath been thereunto invited by severalEnglishLords, both temporal and spiritual;I William, Archbishop ofCant., do for my own discharge profess and declare That I nevergave him any such invitation by word or writing or otherwise, nor do Iknow, 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 issubstituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here at Lambeth, this 3rdday of November, 1688, W. C.”Gutch, ii. 366.

[39] The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs inthe original document: “Here also something was added which I (theBp. of Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to thiseffect, that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselvesmight be a thing of very tender concernment to the liberties andproperties of the subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore webegged His Majesty would require no more of us in particular, but wouldrest 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 Ihave quoted, refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs.StatePapers, Lectures on the Church of Scotland, 116.

[45]Burnet, i. 789.

[46] “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she issaid to have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain andlocket, are still preserved in the family.”

“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ whoassisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hiddenfrom Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all theycould lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors havingan estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sentto Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for sometime. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removedwhen 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 housestood where the entrance to the Priory now is.”

[47]Harl. Miscell., i. 449.

“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit oftheir provision; and instead of ‘Votre serviteur, Monsieur,’they were entertained with ‘Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken,’ uponwhich they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few oldservants.”

[48] “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, underthe Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of hisgrandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used tostate that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, overninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by hismaster, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads ofapples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves.

“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the firstperson of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is howeverbelieved that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publiclygave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on theborders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still knownas ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council.The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retiredspot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham toNewton.”MS. Information.

[49]Le Neve’s Archbishops, 269.

[50] Quoted inSmiles’ Huguenots, 256.

[51] I give this story as it is found in theHarleianMiscellany, andMurch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches.Ferguson was first a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and forsome time he acted as assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on theauthority of Burnet, gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed inPalmer’s Nonconf. Memorial, and by Wilson in hisDissentingChurches, i. 284.

It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize adifferent idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this maybe, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity andviolence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters afterthe Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his ownextraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives afull account of it.

[52]Dalrymple, i. 225.

[53] Note inWilson’s Life of Defoe, i. 110.

[54]Tanner MSS., xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688.

[55]Ken’s Life, by a Layman, 324.

[56] SeeGazette, Nov.

[57]Life of James II., ii. 209–212.

[58]Sprat’s History of the Desertion, 62. Macphersonmentions a meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Princeof Orange, at which Compton was present.Hist. of Great Britain,i. 530.Original Papers, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as anauthority, 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] SeeSprat’s History of the Desertion.

[70]Wilson’s Life of De Foe, i. 159.

[71]Tour through Great Britain, ii. 64–70. Theexcitement extended into Essex.

“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, andin many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irishsoldiers that were coming, they said.”Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annalsof Coggeshall, 269.

[72]Thoresby’s Diary, i. 188–191.

[73]Diary and Correspondence, ii. 506.

[74] These notes are preserved amongst theTanner 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 havebeen the 18th.

[77] This account is taken from a Diary in what is calledtheHistorical Register Entering Book, vol. ii. 383.MoriceMSS., Dr. Williams’ Library.

[78]Ralph, i. 1073.

[79]Diary and Correspondence, ii. 235.

[80]Ibid., ii. 234.

[81]Stuart Papers, quoted inD’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, therewere meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both beforeand after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as theywere 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 inLathbury’s Hist. of Convocation, 317.

[96]Journals of Lords. CompareClarendon’s Diaryand Correspondence, ii. 257.

[97]Parl. Hist., v. 51.

[98] The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops,who acknowledged them, repeating expressions of attachment toProtestantism, which they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilableboth 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 aspectof the Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting thefollowing passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; itis gratifying to all Englishmen and Americans:—“I call restorativethe Government of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington,because these great, good men have established society on respect forright, and have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty,that is to say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on thecontrary, anarchical and destructive, every arbitraryrégime,whether it be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the moredangerous the more skilfully it has organised the country of which itdisposes 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 beremembered that his sympathies were with James.

[116]Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family, i. 320.

[117] SeeCommons’ Journals, March 7, April 1, andParl. 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 ofWestminster Abbey, &c., 94, andBufton’s Diary inDale’sAnnals of Coggleshall, 270.

[126] SeeChurch of the Restoration, ii. 145.

[127]Autobiography, 516.

[128]Somer’s Tracts (old edition), i. 380. There isa scheme of Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several waysamongst theTanner MSS., 290, 242, without date. Also anotherfor indulgence that Dissenters be registered, and make a declarationthat their Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and inno way through crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb thepeace of Church or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and areopenly profane, the Magistrate may require their conformity until, inthe judgment of charity, they may be comprehended within the number ofconscientious 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 DissentingDiarist reports (Entering Book, ii. 511) a “variety of debatesin the House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishopof Lincoln would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, forthe Church had established it, and the taking of it away would be areflection upon the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. TheArchbishop of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians,for they refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and theSacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this andother Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were notto be comprehended or indulged.”

[131] SeeLords’ Journal.

[132]Entering Book, April 13. The following entryappears on the 20th:—“The Lords have sent down their Bill for unitingProtestant subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet beforethem a Bill of their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjectsand for giving indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. TheCommons’ Bill for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, orderedto be read a second time this day fortnight.”

[133] April 13.Parl. Hist., v. 217. The followingpassage occurs in theEntering Book, 217, Wednesday, May15:—“Commons proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill forDissenters. The anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild;and Sir Thomas Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgenceseemed very grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was verywell content it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’own Indulgence Bill should also be committed, and both of the Billsbeing committed, they might take anything that was good out of theirown Bill and insert it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr.Sacheverel.” It is added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passagein it that is not in the Lords’ Bill,i.e. it repeals all thepenal statutes against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Billdoes only suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetingsalone, but leaves them in force upon all other accounts.”

[134] The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestantsubjects will be printed in the Appendix.

[135] “The party which was now beginning to be formed againstthe Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared theirapprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to theEarl 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; butthey looked with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House.“The truth of the story,” says one of them, “is that neither Houseof Parliament was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in theState. And the House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundredvoices to reform things amiss in the State than in the Church, andtherefore, in such a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies andweak friends to Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting orgiving impunity to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would beprostituted and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so tobe by those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others soto do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the unitingof Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a betteropportunity.”—April, 1689.Entering Book, 534.

[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worthinsertion:—“Although in history the causes of events should bepointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrarymethod becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes ofthese disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerousin Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in theState. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament,returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order toprotect the Church from the invasion—as they called it—which wasmaking on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and indefence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-livedconnections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathieswith new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and bothwere increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords,particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in theirspeeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear hertreated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of theWhig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters ofreligion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favourof all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportionto the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissentersthemselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they shouldweaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest;and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation ofhonours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain,and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few inParliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting thatthe Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, asthe Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that oppositionand liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factionsshould be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of theState itself.”—Dalrymple, i. 318.

[143]Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 200.

[144] The following entries in theHist. Register,Williams’ MSS., relate to subsequent conversations and rumours onthe 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. Howeanswered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majestytheir humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they shoulddo.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their goodaffection to his person and Government, that were mostly concernedin that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ HisMajesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act mightalso pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might beof latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty,‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongstothers, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination asis allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can neverconcur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides,in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination byPresbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very goodsuggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, theydid then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of thiskind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”—Saturday, June22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Billfor the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted theBishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr.John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (theson of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Ofwhat latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether hefall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen.They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then,and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhatunsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside,or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty showshimself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it shouldpass, so as to make those concerned easy.”

[145]Parl. Hist., v. 263. It is greatly to be lamentedthat the debates on many important questions of the period are totallylost, and those reported are given in such a confused state as to bein some cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates herenoticed. Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer,named Dyer, was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded forreporting their proceedings.

[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passageoccurs in theEntering Book, May 25:—“I do not understand themystery of it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and thoseLords and Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some saythe Bishops passed it with that latitude, concluding it would havebeen stopped in the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it,because then the imputation of persecution would have been laid uponthem. But I think there was some greater reason, that at that timeinduced them to pass it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did callfor it, and did promote the passing of it.Nota.—And its ascertain, that they do now heartily repent they have passed it, and ifit were not passed they would stop it.”

Amongst the Camb. MSS. (Strype Cor., iii. 191) I find this noteaddressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, thatI shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th ofthis instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Actof Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, andhe shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend andbrother,

“H. London.

“June 19, 1689.”

[147]Life, byLord King, 341. Preface toLetters on Toleration, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter datedJune 6, 1689, “You have no doubt heard before this time that Tolerationis at length established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you,and such as you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians woulddesire; but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such abeginning, I trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laidon which the Church of Christ was at first established.”—FamiliarLetters, 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 remarksrespecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakersacknowledged, 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 hewas prevented from attending by a fit of the gout.Life ofStillingfleet, 75.

Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary ofthe proceedings of the Commission, which, with aCopy of theAlterations, is printed in aParliamentary Return, 1854. TothisReturn I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papersprinted in it had long been desired by historical students.

[153] Spelt Aldridge in theParliamentary Return.

[154]Return, 98.

[155]Return, 15. It would be beside the mark toenter upon a discussion relative to the creed itself, but I wouldcall attention to a valuable little book on the subject, by my friendProfessor Swainson, and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely referto theFourth Report of the Ritual Commission. The theologicalpart of the Creed I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; buthow any charitable Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to meinexplicable.

[156] Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6;Friday, Nov. 8.

[157] So inReturn, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet.

[158]De Trinitate, l. 15. c. 27.

[159]Calamy’s Abridgment, 448. The alterations cover90 pages, and amount to 598 in number.

[160]See Letter to a friend containing some queries,and alsoVox Cleri.

The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocationalrights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to anychange in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” saysBurnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to bettertimes.”—Triennial Visitation Charges, 1704.

[161] This is noticed byMacaulay, v. 112.

[162]Tillotson’s Life, 202. Jane, it should berecollected, was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preachedat his consecration.

[163]Cardwell’s Conferences, 434, 451.Synodalia, 692–700.

[164]Kennet Hist., iii. 552.

[165]Tanner MSS., 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd toSancroft, March 31, 1689.

[166]Dalrymple, i. 322.

[167]Macpherson’s Hist., i. 630.

[168]Oldmixon, iii. 18.

[169]House of Commons’ Journals. Amongst theTannerMSS., xxvii. 161, is aLetter from a Fellow of St. John’sCollege, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicatingthe 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 theTanner MSS., xxvii. 77. Thesignature 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 onein my possession.

[173]Tanner MSS., 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April23, 1689.

[174]Life of Ken, by a Layman, 365.

[175]Ibid., 366. The following extracts respectingTurner are curious:

He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trialof the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower,when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutualrecognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was awrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in ChristianBishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed,and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceivedthat he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he wasBishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermonwas preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomondsat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. Heasked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was oneMr. 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, whencertainly he knew him very well.”—Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll.,987, 138.

[176] I state this on the authority of a paper in the samecollection, 987, 310.

[177]An examination of the case of the suspendedBishops. 1690, p. 12.

[178]Life of Kettlewell. Appendix, Nos. ii., iii.

The following note to the Archbishop is among theTanner MSS.,xxvii. 101:—

“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learnedlawyers, 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—2dInstit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby—who, referring to a recordin Edward the Second’s time in which the wordmenses occurs,says, ‘Qui menses in Calendario computantur.’

“27 December, 1689.W. Norw.”

[179]Lathbury’s Nonjurors, 85.

[180] It occurs in theLife 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 inState Tracts,vol. ii.

[189] SeeLife of Ken, by a Layman, 370–376. CompareLife 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’sWorks, ix. 529.

[194]Convocation Book, b. i. c. 28. Edition inLibrary of Anglo Cathe. Theology, 50, 51.

[195]Case of Allegiance, Preface.

[196] Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock ofthe Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church hadspoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.”

[197] These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphletentitledSherlock against Sherlock, a long extract as given byRalph (ii. 270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as aspecimen of the attacks on the Master of the Temple.

Amongst theBaker MSS., 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, isan undated letter written by

“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,—

“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part ofBp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of itas your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it,the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, thatwe owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on thethrone, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legalrights.”

After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying hisargument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying:“I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, formy thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence tome that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, asserves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal morethan ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcilethe doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submissionand allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughlysettled. 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 tosome one who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which hehad 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 ofKen’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.TannerMSS., 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 inCalamy’sAbridgment, i. 497.

[211]Memoir by Offer. Bunyan’sWorks, iii.lxxiii.

[212] Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is toldof Flavel the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly goodevidence, of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curiousresemblance in the words of the two narratives.” (Kingdom ofChrist, ii. 344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historianin his honesty and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote ofFlavel to prove anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I findit—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 2Cor. v. 10. I have related a similar anecdote of Sanderson,Churchof 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 ofStephen Blackhead and Robert Young, against the lives of severalpersons by forging an association under their hands, written by theBishop of Rochester. In two parts: the first part being a relationof what passed at the three examinations of the said Bishop by aCommittee of Lords of the Privy Council; the second being an accountof 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 theTanner MSS.

[224]Life of Sancroft, ii. 20.

[225] The instrument, which is very curious, is given byD’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 acutelogician and philosopher, a quick disputant, of a solid judgment. Hespoke Latin exceedingly well.”—Lansdowne MSS., Kennet’s Coll.,949, 114.

[230] Milman has well brought out this point in hisAnnalsof St. Paul’s. I quite agree with that distinguished critic inplacing Barrow far above Tillotson. To several others I should alsoassign a higher place. Yet we must not forget Dryden’s literaryobligations to Tillotson, and the praise bestowed on him by M. H. A.Taine.

[231] In reading Tillotson’s Sermons, the first volume strikesme 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 hercelestial 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 hisLife of Christ he couples the Queen with the VirginMary.—Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley, 192–194.

[237] SeeMemoirs of Tenison, 32. andLife ofKen, 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 BishopKenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, andless 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 ofScotland of a similar kind to those of William were issued by CharlesII.—Ibid., 590. There are also several documents in the King’sname respecting English Nonconformists and Papists, which do not affectthe point now before us.

[243]Ibid., 612.

[244] I do not forget that even Henry VIII. wrote to theClergy of the province of York, saying, “Christ is indeedunicusdominus et supremus, as we confess him in the Church daily: itwerenimis absurdum for us to be calledCaput Ecclesiæ,representans Corpus Christi mysticum.” And I am prepared to admitthat the theory of the National Church is that the Sovereign is simplysupreme ruler intemporal things; but certainly in practiceSovereigns have gone beyond this, especially in the case now before us.

[245]Memoirs of Tenison, 54–59. This circular letteris not inWilkins.

[246] The Duke of Bedford was Lieutenant, but Chicheley seemsto have been the ruling power.

[247]London Gazette.

[248]Macaulay, vii. 253 (note).

[249] This is stated by Wallace, in his introduction to hisAntitrinitarian Biography, i. 252; yet on p. 316 he quotes froma publication in 1697, where it is said the Unitarians had “not any setMeeting-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 elaborateintroduction toWallace’s Antitrinitarian Biography, vol. i.

[252]The Brief Hist. and Acts of the Great Athanasius.

[253] The Book is entitled,The Naked Gospel. Thewriter, Dr. Bury, doubts whether Mahomet or Christian doctors have mostcorrupted the doctrines of the Gospel. He was deprived, in 1690, byTrelawny, Bishop of Exeter, the Visitor of Lincoln College.

[254]Journals, January 3, 1694. The book so treatedwas theBrief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of theTrinity. The author was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to givebail for good behaviour for the next three years, and to make a publicrecantation.

[255] The pamphlet is entitled,The Doctrine of the BlessedTrinity, 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 ofthe 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 ownhands, “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 blackdirt thrown by him on the Schoolmen and their terms, to lick it offagain with his own tongue,” p. 381.

[261]South’s Animadversions, 240, andConsiderations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity,&c., written to a Person of Quality. 1693. Another example ofthe same kind occurs inThe Doctrine of the Trinity placed in itsdue Light. “We have seen two men that were made one Admiral by ajoint Commission; and we see every day many men incorporate into onepolitical body by patent, whereby they are one person in law. And inthis known sense are the Godhead and manhood joined together in onePerson, whereof comes one Christ, and very God, and very man.” Theauthor was the Dr. Bury, mentioned on p. 213, who was deprived of hisUniversity preferment by the Bishop of Exeter.

[262] On the controversy, seeThe Distinction betweenReal and Nominal Trinitarians Examined, in Answer to a SocinianPamphlet. 1696.

[263]Works, v. 111.

[264] See on this subjectRoger’s Life of Howe, 419.Sherlock differed from Howe in some respects, and censured him for it.Howe defended himself inA Letter to a Friend, andA View ofthe late Considerations, &c.Works, v.

[265]Lords’ Journal.

[266]Ben Mordecai’s Letters, i. 70, quoted inToulmin, 182.

[267]Tenison’s Life, 51. In this dispute, and theproceedings which it occasioned, ridicule, satire, and abuse wereemployed. Dignitaries of the Church were lampooned in coarse and vulgarballads, and the most sacred doctrines of the Gospel became associatedwith what is ridiculous and absurd. SeeThe Battle Royal, South’sPosthumous Works.Memoirs, 128–130.

[268]Wilkin’s Concilia, iv. 577.

[269] That clause excepts from the Act “any person that shalldeny 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 inArnot’s State Trials, xiii. An eminent advocate of the periodremarked, respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was ThomasAikenhead, “I do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had helived; but the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal,spoke and preached for cutting him off” (p. 930). A book was publishedin England in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled,The BlasphemousHeresy Disproved, in which he says, “Blasphemy and idolatry, byGod’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 inMacaulay, vii. 15.

[276]An Impartial Hist. of the Plots and Conspiraciesagainst 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 correspondentswere more faithful, and told James not to believe that Protestantswould 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 WilliamIII., Whitehall, July 28, 1696.

[289] SeeMacpherson’s Orig. Papers, i. 514, 595.

[290]Burnet, i. 683.

[291] It appears, in the course of Fenwick’s trial, that hehad said Shrewsbury came into the office of Secretary to William “bythe operation and consent of King James.”—Parl. Hist., v. 1051.

[292]State Papers: Shrewsbury to William III.,Whitehall, Sept. 8, 1696.

InMacpherson’s Original Papers, i. 481, Captain Floyd, aJacobite emissary, tells James that Shrewsbury, according to hismother’s account, accepted the seals of office from the Princeof Orange “only in order to serve your Majesty more effectuallyhereafter.”

[293] The substance of his discoveries is given inTindal’sHistory.

[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 theauthority of theState Tracts, ii. 561, states that Fenwickwas permitted to seek the aid of any of the Clergy who had taken theoaths, or any of the Bishops who had opposed the attainder; that onhis refusal of the offer, the names of three or four Nonjurors werementioned, but they declined to attend him, fearing the oaths might betendered. Macaulay (vii. 404), however, says White was with him at thelast.

[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 serviceperformed in it since it was burnt in 1666.”

[303]Kennet’s Hist. of England, iii. 777.

[304] Tallard, the French Ambassador, writing home, says theCatholic religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even inthe time of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King ofEngland has determined to leave it in peace, in order to secure hisown.”

“I hear from Calais of priests coming over every day, and here theyget into the herd, so that it is hard to distinguish them.”—VernonCor., ii. 193.

[305]Burnet, ii. 229; Statutes 11 and 12 Will. III. c.4.

“The judges put such constructions upon the clause of forfeiture aseluded its efficacy; and I believe there were scarce any instances ofa 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 (StatePapers), December 19, 1697 (?) or 1 (?), acknowledges letteroffering him the post of Governor to the Duke of Gloucester, pleads hismany defects, but especially his health, which may render it necessaryfor 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 Iwas to find, by your Majesty’s letter of the 24th August, thatyou were satisfied with my endeavours to serve you. I wish Icould please myself better with the effects and that I were notobliged to attribute this opinion of your Majesty’s to your ownnatural indulgence and my Lord Portland’s kind representationrather than to any merit of mine, beyond sincere intention topromote yours and the kingdom’s interest to the utmost of mypower, without being able to contribute much to either.”

In a letter to Lord Hatton, described in theFirst Report of theHistorical MSS. Commission, p. 23, it is said, “The Duke ofShrewsbury would be a greater person than he is, if his health wouldpermit him to stay at Court; but it is wonderful that the laboriousdiversion 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 ofLouis XIV., ii. 184.

The Earl of Middleton is reported to have been converted to Catholicismby this death-bed scene; miracles were absurdly said to be wroughtby the dying King’s intercession; and there is reason to believethat, if the Stuart family had been restored, James would have beencanonized.—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 ofthe editor of theSomers’ Tracts (last edit., xi. 363), to SirBartholomew Shower; on the authority of the editor ofAtterbury’sCorrespondence (ii. 25, iii. 71), to Dr. Binckes, Vicar ofLeamington at the time, and in 1703 made Dean of Lichfield. I cannotascertain the evidence on which either of them proceeds.

[329]The Authority of Christian Princes over theirEcclesiastical Synods, 1697.

[330] SeeFarrer’s Critical History of Free Thought,186.

[331] SeeHallam, ii. 396.

[332] Since writing the above I find Mr. Freeman, in hisNorman Conquest (vol. iv. 343), speaking of an EcclesiasticalSynod in 1070 as beginning to be distinguished from the generalGemotes; and, again (360), noticing that the King held his Court forfive days, and then the Archbishop held his Synod for three daysmore. “Here are the beginnings of the anomalous position of the twoConvocations in England, half ecclesiastical Synods, half estatesof the Realm—each character hindering the effectual working of theother.”

[333] Convocation is now (1872) entering upon a new phase ofits 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 Clergyof the Diocese of Wells, assembled to elect Proctors, stating that theywere advised they had a right to be summoned to Westminster by virtueof thepræmunientes clause.—Lambeth MSS., Gibson, vi. 1.

But the next paper in the same volume is an address to the electedProctors, breathing a spirit of profound submission to the Archbishop,and calling the King “His Sacred Majesty, and the Supreme Head of theChurch on earth.”

At the election of Proctors for the Diocese of Bristol, a paper wasintroduced advocating the view of thepræmunientes clause takenby Atterbury.—Gibson, vi. 3.

[337] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to the Archbishop ofCanterbury on the 8th January, 1701, remarking, “I could with humblesubmission wish there might be no license for business this firstsession, 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 answerwhile they carry their chief point; it is also to be suspected theywill vote it their right and privilege to sit and do business as oftenas the Houses of Parliament do; but if a good answer to that book shallprecede the sitting of the Convocation, persons will probably meetwith more settled and easy minds, and fall more kindly to business,and also suppose there was more than ordinary reason for theirmeeting.”—Lambeth MSS., Gibson, 933, 41.

[338]Atterbury’s Correspondence, iii. 22. He says,writing to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday uponour adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who madean admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of ouraffairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigourthan I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill stateof health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, wasextremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither ofthem, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they wereaddressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), myLord 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 inLathbury’s History ofConvocation, 351.

[343] The main facts in the history of this Convocationare given by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I haveused, besides Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and theMemoirs ofTenison,The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House,&c., from Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawnup by order of the House;A Letter to the Author of the Narrative,&c., andThe History of the Convocation, drawn up from theJournal of the Upper House, &c.The Narrative gives theHigh Church view;The History the Lower. It is ascribed toKennet. A number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library Ihave also consulted.

[344] See Letters described inFirst Report of Hist. MSS.Com., 52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before.

[345]Burnet, ii. 285.

[346] SeeEcclesiastical Synods, 99–149, 245.

[347] SeeEcclesiastical Synods, 299.

[348]Atterbury’s Correspondence, iii. 53.

[349]Ibid. 57.

[350]Lathbury’s History of Convocation, 363.

[351] SeeGibson’s Synodus Anglicana, 21.

[352]Lathbury’s History of Convocation, 363–365.

[353] “Upon coming to Henry VII.’s Chapel, we found it veryconvenient, by a curtain across the upper end, and matting on thefloor.”—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 threelast 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 becameBishop 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 couldscarcely have borne to hear Doctor or Prelate read a sermon out of thepulpit 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 referenceto patronage did not please some of the Bishops. Patrick says, “Wecannot serve His Majesty unless he will countenance those whom wecommend to him, purely because they have deserved well of him, andhave no friends to make their worth known but we alone.”Patrick’sWorks, ix. 621. The date is misprinted 1731; I take it for 1701.

[366]The Bishop of Sarum’s Four Treatises appeared in1695.

[367] SeeLife and Character of Stillingfleet, 93, 104,111, 119, andTwelve Sermons preached on several occasions,between 1666 and 1672. Published 1696. The first of his episcopalcharges is the only one I have seen. For the rest, I depend on thereport of the biographer.

For an account of Stillingfleet’s earlier writings, seeChurch ofthe 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’spreaching 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 (attributedby some to Dr. Trapp; by others to Mr. Warton, his successor in thepoetry professorship), added to the circumstance of the ministry’ssending at the same time a troop of horse to Oxford, to suppress somedisturbances that had happened there.

The King observing, with judicious eyes,

The state of both his Universities,

To one he sends a regiment; For why?

Thatlearned body wantedloyalty.

To th’ other books he gave, as well discerning,

How much thatloyal body wantedlearning.

It is but fair to subjoin the reply, particularly as it is the bestthing that ever came from the pen of Sir William Browne, the physician;and extorted praise, even from Johnson himself, in favour of aCambridge man.

“The King to Oxford sent his troop of horse,

For Tories own noargument butforce.

With equal care, to Cambridge books he sent,

For Whigs allow noforce butargument.”

Noble’s continuation of Granger ii. 89.

[374]Observer. The following note by Onslow occurs inthe Oxford edition of Burnet’sHist. of his own Time. “I haveheard that the first notice or thought which that extraordinary man,the Bishop Cumberland, had of his promotion, was by reading it in anewspaper at Stamford, where he was minister.” Vol. iv. 131.

[375]Noble’s continuation, ii. 88.

[376]Ibid., 87.

In theLansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll., 987, 356, it is said Fowler“had a very superstitious fancy in catching at stories of apparitionsand witches.”

[377]Noble, ii. 101.Kidder’s Autobiography isprinted inCassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells.

[378] A high character is given to Nicholas Stratford forkindness, courteousness, and charity inLansdowne MSS., KennetColl., 987, 304.

[379] This curious piece of eulogistic Latinity may be seen inLe 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 strangeAutobiography, relates a practicaljoke played by Lloyd when he was at Oxford. He contrived that a Londoncitizen should disguise himself as a Greek Patriarch, and get people,including learned professors, to kneel before him for a blessing. “Itwas a piece of waggery to impose upon the Royalists, and such that hada mind to be blest by a Patriarch instead of Archbishop or Bishop, andit made great sport for a time, and those that were blest were ashamedof it.”—Lives of Eminent Antiquaries, ii. 132.

[384] The change produced by the Revolution is thus estimatedinTracts for the Times, No. 80, p. 77. “Since the great lossof Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the Rebellionof 1688, when she threw, as it were, out of her pale the doctrineof Christ crucified (together with Ken and Kettlewell), a low toneof morals has pervaded her teaching, and not founded on the greatChristian principle; and that Baptism, which implied it, has been muchforgotten.”

[385]

“Fulham, Nov. 20, 1701.

“Sir,—I entreat you to let the Clergy of your Deanery know that it ismy opinion that the peace, honour, and safety of this Church and nationdepend in a great measure upon the good success of the next election,and that I do therefore think it was common duty, especially for usof the Clergy, to contribute all we can to get in good ones. Now Iconfess from these considerations, and as matters stand in Essex, inmy judgment we shall be greatly wanting to ourselves and our commongood, if we do not make the best interest we can, and be vigorousourselves for the choice of Sir Charles Barrington and Mr. Bullock. Itwill be for the reputation of the Church, and for its service, if we beunanimous.—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 Exeteris 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 hisVisitation, 1695.

[393] There is a most amusing letter in the Lambeth Libraryfrom Dr. Wm. Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, giving particulars of hislife—of his service in the army—his promotion in the Church—thepoverty of his See—and an interview he had with the Archbishop, atLambeth, in order to get a better Bishopric. “I was passing through thehall up the stairs, thinking to have found him in the wonted place ofreception in the old lodgings; but he no sooner heard of me, than hecame himself to direct me, and introduce me into his new ones. When hetold me, almost at the first word, that the Bishop of Hereford woulddie; no, my Lord, said I, for he is newly married. Oh, said he, thesooner for that.”—Gibson Papers, ii. 49.

[394] This is entitled, “A Large Review of the Articlesexhibited 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, seeLord Raymond’s Reports, i. 447;andHowel’s State Trials, xiv. 447. The deed of deprivation isin the Lambeth Library, 951, 6.

[395] In theCole MSS. (Brit. Mus.), xxx. 149, it isstated that Bishop Watson died June 3rd, 1717, at Great Wilbraham, andwas put in the ground the night following in the Chancel, under thesouth wall,sans service, being excommunicated by the Archbishopof Canterbury, whose officers’ fees he would not pay. On his coffin wasput, 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 nearlyforty years ago, through a recommendation from that quarter. Duntonspeaks 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 thesubject of our Conference. I beseech you try if you can get anyof our brethren to give us a quarter of an hour’s discourse uponthat 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 inEvelyn’s Diary, April 24th,1694.

[403]An impartial account of Mr. John Mason, p. 8.

[404] The following account of an eccentric clergyman, whodied just after the Revolution, occurs in theLansdowne MSS., KennetColl., 987, 116. The person referred to is Joseph Crowther, of whomWalker gives some account in hisSufferings of the Clergy, andWood in hisAthenæ Oxonienses.

“I remember him esteemed at Oxford a very severe disputant, and verytenacious of the rules of logic. He would often moderate in the publicdisputation in his own hall; but so fierce and passionate, that if theopponent made a false syllogism, or the respondent a wrong answer,he bid the next that sat by them kick their shins, and it became aproverb, ‘kick shins Crowther.’ He was extremely hated at Tredington(Diocese of Worcester), for his stiff contending with the people; theyobliged him to keep a boar—he got a black one to spite them. The blackpigs 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, StrypeCorrespondence, iii. 45.

[409]Gibson Papers, v. 9. 1692, Dec. 17.

[410] The very injudiciousDefence of the Old SingingPsalms may be found in the first volume ofBeveridge’sWorks, 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 cherishedtowards Richard Baxter and his admirers:—“His writings furnish greatpart of the libraries of the young fanatic divines, who have sucked inall the venom and poison of his unhappy writings, in order to propagatethem in this city and country.”—From Chas. Goodall to Mr. Strype, June12, 1701. Brit. Mus. Addl. MSS., 5853, p. 35.

[417]Anecdotes of the Wesley Family, i. 207.

[418] SeeKirk’s Mother of the Wesleys, 186, andTyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley, 251.

[419] SeeEcton’s Liber Valorum.

[420]Athenian Oracle, i. 542, probably written bySamuel Wesley, and drawn from his own experience.

[421]Keble’s Life of Wilson, 61. The memory of Wilsonis still cherished at Knowsley.

[422]Planche’s Hist. of British Costume, 395.

[423] Preface toCompanion for Fasts and Festivals.

[424] Preface to thePractice 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 inthe life of Samuel Wesley illustrates the same fact. He met with aprofane officer, and so reproved him as to break for ever his habit ofswearing.—Life of S. Wesley, by Tyerman, 134.

[431] Richard Dunning’sBread for the Poor.

[432]History of his Own Time, ii. 101. See note byLord Dartmouth in the Oxford edition.

[433]Letters Illustrative of the Reign of WilliamIII., by Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 302. I find amongst theTanner MSS., xxviii. 162, “Case of Sir Peter Gleanes’ daughter,supposed to be suffering from witchcraft, Aug. 17, 1688.”

[434] This information is gathered chiefly fromHutchinson’s Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft.

[435] Not “your,” as often quoted.

[436]Athenian Oracle, i. 153.

[437]Hutchinson, 62. Hume says, in hisCommentarieson the Laws of Scotland, ii. 556, that among the many trials forwitchcraft, he had not observed “one which proceeds upon the notionof a vain, cheating art, falsely used by an impostor to deceive theweak and credulous.” It is not until faith in witchcraft expires thatsuch a notion obtains. The Scotch were more superstitious than theEnglish. English believers in witchcraft regarded the witch as theslave; the Scotch regarded her as the mistress, of the evil power. SeeBurton’s Criminal Trials in Scotland, i. 240. Dugald Stuart,in hisDissertation on the Progress of Metaphysical and EthicalPhilosophy, notices Malbranche’s scepticism as to sorcery, andgives 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 toWorks, i. xii.

[443] These passages occur in the 18th and 19th chapters ofthe fourth book of theEssay.

[444]Second Vindication.Works, ii. 656.

Since this volume was sent to the press, I have been reading theinterestingLetters, Lectures, and Reviews of Dean Mansell.From p. 306 to 316, he dwells on the tendency of Locke’s philosophy inthe direction of theological scepticism, though at the same time hedoes justice to Locke’s character, and remarks that “when challengedon account of the relation of his premises to Toland’s conclusions,he expressly repudiated the connection, and declared his own sincerebelief in those mysteries of the Christian faith which Toland hadassailed.” The Dean maintains that in Locke’s philosophy “there isno 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 fromSanderson’s Works, i. 233, that“Sanderson’s distinction between the τὸ ὅτι,that it is, andthe τὸ πῶς,how it is, indicates the exact point which Lockeoverlooked and which Toland denied.” He also remarks that Locke wrotehis great work without reference to theology, and probably withoutany distinct thought of its theological bearings. But the Dean takesno notice of the passages quoted in the text from Locke’sEssay onthe Understanding, in which he distinctly notices the theologicalbearings of his speculation, and makes a distinction between theinconceivable and absurd, in other words, what is above reason andcontrary to it; and virtually recognizes the truth of what Sandersonsays about the τὸ ὅτι and the τὸ πῶς, the fact of existence and themode.

[445] It will be found instructive to compare chap. ii. withNewman’s Grammar of Assent.

[446] Numerous illustrations are afforded inSecretan’sLife of Nelson, 174.

[447] See Woodward’sAccount of the Rise and Progress ofReligious Societies, &c., and of their Endeavours for Reformation ofManners; Dr. Horneck’s Life; Toulmin, 415;Secretan’s Life ofNelson, 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 theearly minutes of the S.P.C.K., kindly furnished me by the Secretary,and upon information supplied inAnderson’s Colonial Church, andSecretan’s Life of Nelson.

[452] Much of this account, like the former, rests upon theminutes of the S.P.C.K.

[453]Colonial Church Chronicle, v. 121. Thereare several papers in this volume on the early proceedings of thePropagation Society, but they chiefly relate to a period later thanthat contained in the present work. The authorities for the rest of myaccount 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.) Thereis also a list of the Nonjurors in the Diocese of Ely and University ofCambridge, 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,etseq.

[465] Dodwell to Sherlock.Baker MSS., 86,etseq.

[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, orDissertations Theological,Mathematical, and Physical.

[470]Scintilla Altaris. Primitive Devotion in the Feastsand 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 theCommonwealth.

[471] Dated Oct. 22, 1698.Letters Illustrative of theReign of William III., by James Vernon, Secretary of State, ii.203.

[472] For several particulars in this account I am indebted toSecretan’s Life of Nelson.

[473]Nelson’s Life of Bull.

[474]Life of Kettlewell, 316, 317.

[475]Life of Hearne, p. 3 inLives of EminentAntiquaries, 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 alsoEvelyn’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 theVernon 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 tothe Duke of Shrewsbury, “there never was so true a pharisee; he wasaffectedly devout in outward show, using all the ceremonies both of theGreek and Western Churches; his practice was to pray and sing psalmswhile 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 aMr. Butler, of the disbursements to every labourer, and for all thematerials used in the erection of the meeting-house at Warminster.” Thenew chapel was opened in 1704; previously the Dissenters of Warminsterworshipped in a barn. The Rev. H. Gunn, in his interestingHistoryof Nonconformity in Warminster, gives full particulars derived fromthis account, and adds that William Penn once preached in the barn. Healso 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; materialswere purchased and labour procured as necessity required. The entirecost 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; eightdeal boards for the pulpit were charged 14s. 8d., and the making ofit is put down at £1 10s. Church Documents, Castlegate Chapel.—SeeHistorical Account, by the Rev. S. M’All.

[490] A remarkable instance of an Independent trust, couchedin general terms, occurs in the History of the Independent Church atBeccles.—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 testifyconcerning Mr. Joseph Hussey, that upon our personal knowledge he isan ordained minister of the Gospel, whose natural parts, acquiredlearning, and soundness in the faith, holiness of life, and allministerial abilities are so considerable that we groundedly hopefor God’s blessing upon his ministry, both for the conversion andedification of souls wherever God shall employ him.” Upon thistestimonial there are signs of the furtiveness in which the businesshad been accomplished. Five signed their names;Domino Anonymois the signature of the sixth, with this appendage: “He was shiebecause of the cloudiness of the times, and would neither subscribe norbe 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 itfor granted the meeting at Newbury was in the nature of a provincialsynod, which he has found the Presbyterian ministers very fond oflate, and blames them for it. This passion of theirs has appeared morebarefaced in Ireland, where they have had such an assembly at Antrim,and published the sermon preached upon the occasion, maintaining it wastheir 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 thereagainst this liberty. I know not how soon we may expect the like tobe done in England, and if it break into an open contest about Churchdiscipline, 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 removedto Pury, a Mr. John Warr, who formerly lived in the neighbourhood ofCaversfield, came with him to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. Andconnected with this circumstance is another, which will show somethingof the spirit of the times. When Mr. Harrison came to Pury he broughta pulpit with him, which he deemed it necessary to conceal; therefore,to prevent it being known, Mr. Warr, being a shoemaker, contrivedto fill it with shoe-pegs, and brought it among his own goods ina waggon from Bicester.”—Memorials of Independent Churches inNorthamptonshire, by T. Coleman, 276.

[504]Thoresby, i. 256. April, 1694.

[505] See correspondence inThoresby, iii. 177.

[506]Present State of Parties, 319.

[507] The whole of the above account is rendered necessary bycontroversies respecting these academies. I have examined what is saidby Samuel Wesley, Palmer, De Foe, and other contemporaries, and haveconsulted the opinions of modern writers who have gone over the wholeground. My notice of the course of study is taken from Palmer. Furtherparticulars may be found inNonconformity in Cheshire, 491, andMilner’s Life of Watts.

[508] An example of this occurs in the following letter byBishop Patrick, addressed to Mr. Williams, Rector of Dodington:—

“You have done very worthily and prudently in stopping the progress ofthe Anabaptist faction, by applying yourself to the Justices, to calltheir unlicensed schoolmasters to account; who, you tell me, and I amglad to hear it, have bound him over to appear at the next sessions. Ithink you need not fear his procuring a license from the Archbishop’sCourt, for I had the like attempt here at Littleport, where I refusedto licence a fellow whom a party set up against one, who had a longtime taught school there with good acceptance. Whereupon they pretendedto have not only applied themselves above, but actually procured theArchbishop’s licence, and showed an instrument with a seal to it to theignorant people. But I soon found it was a cheat; the Archbishop havinggranted none, and having given a strict charge in his office that noneshould be granted (as he told me himself), without acquainting theBishop of the Diocese with it. But for fear of the worst, I will writeto his Grace by the next post, and let him know what the sectariespretend, who, I am sure, will stop the granting of a licence, or revokeit if any have been granted, which I think you need not fear; for aftera great deal of vapouring at Littleport about the licence they saidthey had got, the fellow durst not appear at the sessions, nor come tome, but ran the country.”—Letter to the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector ofDodington.Cole MSS. (British Museum), xxx. 148.

[509]Heads of Agreement.

[510]Ibid.

[511]Thoresby’s Diary, i. 210.Hunter’s Life ofHeywood, 374.

[512] Extracts from the Church-Book inMemorials, by T.Coleman.

[513]Calamy’s Life, i. 327.

[514] This account is drawn up from Williams’ collected piecesin two volumes,Crispianism Unmasked,Crisp’s Christ madeSin; pamphlets by Lorimer,Calamy’s Abridgment,Life ofBull, andToulmin’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 toCommentary, 60.

[520]Ibid., 61, 62.

[521] Ordinations often occurred at these meetings.The following extract from Henry’sDiary furnishes aninstance:—“The 24th was kept as a fast-day in Broad Oak Meeting-House,a competent number present. Mr. Latham prayed; Mr. Lawrence gave anaccount 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,’ andprayed. Mr. Owen, as Moderator, demanded a confession of his faith andordination vows, which he made abundantly to our satisfaction. We thenproceeded to set him apart. Mr. Owen concluded with the exhortation. Wehave 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 isexplained to mean establishment as to right of membership, by beingadmitted 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 hisVindication of Dissenters, 1705,says, p. 99, “In all our churches we administer the Sacrament twelvetimes, at least, in a year.” From the records of Castle Gate Church,Nottingham, it appears the Lord’s Supper was there celebrated once insix weeks.

[528] These particulars are taken from the records of theTrust, 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, publishedby Dunton, 1697.

[531]Williams’ Life of Annesley, andKirk’s Motherof 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 accountof it is given by Mr. Hunter in his biography. Thoresby notes down,“May 7: Rode with Mr. Peters to Northowram, to the funeral of goodold Mr. O. Heywood. He was interred with great lamentations in theparish church at Halifax; was surprised at the following Arvill, ortreat of cold possets, stewed prunes, cake and cheese, prepared forthe company, where had several Con. and Noncon. ministers and oldacquaintance.”—Diary, i. 362.

[535]Rogers’ Life of Howe, 357, 316. “I well rememberthat he himself once informed me,” says Calamy, “of some very privateconversation he had with that Prince (William III.) not long before hisdeath. Among other things the King asked him a great many questionsabout his old master Oliver, as he called him, and seemed not a littlepleased with the answers that were returned to some of his questions.”Those answers would throw some additional light on the popular questionof 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 beensince fixed for the month of May.

[542] “Forasmuch,” it is recorded in the minutes of QuakerMeetings in Worcester (1695), “as it hath been the good advice of ourfriends of the yearly meeting that friends shall in all plainness sohabit themselves as truth requires, and to lay aside those floweredand striped stuffs, with the changeable fashions of this world, it isthought meet by this meeting, that what in us lies it may be put forthe future into practice, and that none do wear them or sell them,when those by them are disposed of; also that friends take care totrain up their children in the fear of the Lord, and bring them up notonly in plainness of habit, but take care to bring them up in plainlanguage also, that there may be no good Nehemiah grieved to hearhalf Hebrew and half Ashdod spoken.” Complaint is made of sleeping atpublic meeting. Those so overtaken were informed, “they must be openlydealt with, if a more private admonition will not do.”—Extracted fromrecords 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 beencorrected silently.
2. The words Yeomansee Indians could be a error for Yamassee orYemassee.
3. The corrigenda have been silently corrected.
4. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have beenretained as in the original.

1 sh.	6 l.—	For (of) Reade (in).
„	14 l.—	Instead of (as containing) reade (w^ch I doe acknowledgeto 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^dStat, 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, togetherwith 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 thes^d Stat made in the first yeare of the Raigne ofKing 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).[465]
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 ofthe Church of England. I acknowledge that theDoctrine of it contains in it all things necessary toSalvation, and that I will conform my selfe to theworship and the government thereof as establishedby 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., doesubmit to the prsent constitucon of the Church ofEngld. I acknowledge that the doctrine of it containsin it all things necessary for Salvacon, and Iwill conforme my selfe to the worship and the governmentthereof as established by Law).
4 sh.	3 l.—	After (same) add (in a Pew or Seate in the Church).

Page	144,	line	13,	for Kingsaleread Kinsale.
„	222,	„	1,	for Unitariamread Unitarian.
„	343,	„	30,	for Blackallread Blackhall.

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEcclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution

ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

ADVERTISEMENT.

CONTENTS.

CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHAPTER IX.

CHAPTER X.

CHAPTER XI.

CHAPTER XII.

CHAPTER XIII.

CHAPTER XIV.

CHAPTER XV.

CHAPTER XVI.

CHAPTER XVII.

CHAPTER XVIII.

CHAPTER XIX.

CHAPTER XX.

CHAPTER XXI.

CHAPTER XXII.

APPENDIX.

I.—P. 107.

Alterations made in Committee.

II.—P. 114.

III.—P. 229.

IV.—P. 263.

INDEX.

CORRIGENDA.

FOOTNOTES:

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

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[viii]
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[ix]
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[x]
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

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 Englandfrom the penalties of certain Laws	465
III.	Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers	472
IV.	The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament	473

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEcclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution

ECCLESIASTICALHISTORY OF ENGLAND.

ADVERTISEMENT.

CONTENTS.

CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHAPTER IX.

CHAPTER X.

CHAPTER XI.

CHAPTER XII.

CHAPTER XIII.

CHAPTER XIV.

CHAPTER XV.

CHAPTER XVI.

CHAPTER XVII.

CHAPTER XVIII.

CHAPTER XIX.

CHAPTER XX.

CHAPTER XXI.

CHAPTER XXII.

APPENDIX.

I.—P. 107.

Alterations made in Committee.

II.—P. 114.

III.—P. 229.

IV.—P. 263.

INDEX.

CORRIGENDA.

FOOTNOTES:

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.