ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
=The Church of the Revolution.=
BY
JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.
[Illustration]
=London:=
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27 & 31, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
MDCCCLXXIV.
[Illustration]
UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS.
ADVERTISEMENT.
It will be found that in this Volume I have assigned a large space to
the attempt at Comprehension in the year 1689--as it is a subject of
present interest, and because the proceedings connected with it have
been but inadequately described. An examination of the Bill introduced
for the purpose to the House of Lords--a comparison of the Journals
of both Houses, whence it appears that another Bill of the same kind
was contemporaneously proposed in the House of Commons--the report of
the proceedings of the Commissioners in 1689, published by order of
the House of Commons in 1854--and a curious Diary preserved in Dr.
Williams’ Library--together with other original sources of information,
have enabled me to present a fuller, and, I hope, more accurate,
account of that important but ineffective transaction than has hitherto
appeared. As I believe the Lords’ Bill has never been printed, I have
arranged for its insertion in the Appendix.
A large collection of Tracts in Dr. Williams’ Library, besides
those in the British Museum and University Libraries--the Tanner
MSS. at Oxford--the Strype and other collections belonging to the
Sister University--and the Gibson Papers at Lambeth, have also
afforded a number of new, if not important, illustrations touching
the Nonjurors--the proceedings of Convocation--the Trinitarian
controversies--the social life of the Clergy--and the character of the
Nonconformist ministers.
I may add that in tracing the origin and progress of Religious
Societies during the reign of William III., I have received most
valuable assistance from the respected Secretaries of the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel, who have favoured me with interesting extracts from their
earliest records.
My best thanks are also due to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Chester
for a copy of the writ summoning Spiritual peers to Parliament.
Sir John G. S. Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, to whose usual
courtesy I am indebted for a copy of the Comprehension Bill--Mr.
Thoms, the Librarian of the House of Lords--the Librarians at Oxford,
Cambridge, and Lambeth--the Rev. T. Hunter, librarian of Dr. Williams’
Library--and the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, have also laid me under
obligations which I gratefully acknowledge.
I venture to add, that in this, as in my former volumes, I have
endeavoured to maintain an honest impartiality in the estimate of
characters and incidents, together with a firm attachment to my own
religious and ecclesiastical principles. My aim throughout has been to
promote the cause of truth and charity among Christian Englishmen.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Early Days of William 1
Marriage with the Princess Mary 4
William and Mary in Holland 5
Preparations for Revolution 9
Infatuated Conduct of King James 13
CHAPTER II.
William’s Declaration 27
James gives Audience to the Bishops 29
William sets Sail 34
Landing of the Prince 36
James goes to Salisbury 43
William’s Popularity 49
Flight of James to Sheerness 53
Return of James to London 56
Arrival of William at St. James’s 57
CHAPTER III.
Character of the Revolution 61
The Holy Jacobite Club 68
State of Feeling 69
Meeting of Convention 73
Declaration of Right 78
Arrival of Mary in England 80
Accession of William and Mary 81
Appointment of Officers of State 82
CHAPTER IV.
Oath of Allegiance 88
Corporation Act 92
Test Act 94
Coronation Oath 97
The Coronation 99
Comprehension 101
Toleration 114
Ecclesiastical Commission 124
Convocation 138
CHAPTER V.
James in Ireland 144
Nonjurors: Cartwright--Thomas--Lake 146
Sancroft--Lloyd--Ken 147
Turner 148
Frampton 149
Hickes--Dodwell 151
Kettlewell 152
Whigs and Tories 156
Irish Campaign 157
CHAPTER VI.
Battle of the Boyne 159
Sherlock 161
Lloyd 164
Scheme for Restoration of James 167
Ejectment of Nonjurors 169
CHAPTER VII.
Nonconformists 174
Bunyan 175
Collinges 176
Flavel 177
Baxter 178
Holcroft 181
CHAPTER VIII.
Tillotson as Primate 186
Sancroft in Retirement 187
Tenison succeeds Tillotson in the Primacy 195
Death of Queen Mary 196
Tenison’s Funeral Sermon 196
Licensing of the Press 201
CHAPTER IX.
Ecclesiastical Regulations 203
Lords Justices 206
Trinitarian Controversy 210
Dr. Wallis 213
Sherlock’s Vindication 214
South’s Reply 216
Howe’s Views 221
William’s Injunctions 223
CHAPTER X.
James II. at St. Germains 228
Jacobites 229
Conspiracy against William 231
Execution of Sir John Friend and Sir William Parkyns 232
Collier 232
Sir John Fenwick 236
CHAPTER XI.
Peace of Ryswick 242
New Parliament 243
Bill against Papists 245
Church Preferments 247
Duke of Gloucester 248
Succession Act 250
Death of James II. 253
Abjuration Bill 256
State of Parties 257
CHAPTER XII.
Letter to a Convocation Man 261
Dr. Wake’s Reply 264
Francis Atterbury 264
Convocation Meets 270
Lower House resists the Archbishop’s Prorogation 272
Censures Toland’s Book 275
Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles 277
Dissolution of Convocation 282
White Kennet 284
New Convocation 287
Death of the Prolocutor 293
Death of William III. 295
CHAPTER XIII.
Bishops--Burnet 298
Stillingfleet 299
Patrick 300
Moore and Cumberland 303
Fowler and Kidder 304
Hall--Stratford--Sharpe 306
Lloyd 307
Compton 309
Trelawny 310
Burnet and Sprat 311
Crew--Watson 312
Clergy--Beveridge 314
Bull, Norris, Burkett 315
Strype--Wharton 316
Horneck 317
Fanaticism--Mason 317
CHAPTER XIV.
Ecclesiastical Discipline 321
Manner of Worship 323
Psalmody of the Church 324
Character of the Clergy 325
Condition of the Clergy 328
Clerical Costume 331
State of Society 332
Intemperance 334
Superstition 335
CHAPTER XV.
Boyle Lectures 341
Bentley 341
Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity 344
Essay on the Human Understanding 346
Leslie--Blount 349
Toland and Norris 350
Literary Style 352
CHAPTER XVI.
Rise of Religious Societies 354
Young Men’s Associations 356
Society for Reformation of Manners 358
Societies Advocated from the Pulpit 361
Christian Knowledge Society 364
Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts 369
CHAPTER XVII.
Circumstances of the Nonjurors 375
Kettlewell 377
Dodwell 380
Hickes 382
Lee 383
Nelson 384
Nonjurors in London 387
Social Gatherings at Shottesbrook Park 387
Ken’s Retirement at Longleat 390
Deaths of Nonjurors--
White 391
Turner 392
Samuel Pepys 393
Political Views of Nonjurors 395
Religious Spirit 396
Modes of Worship 398
CHAPTER XVIII.
Nonconformist Places of Worship in London 400
Nonconformists in Nottingham and Chester 402
In Northamptonshire 403
Presbyterians 404
Ordinations 405
Edmund Calamy 408
Seminaries for Dissenters 413
CHAPTER XIX.
Presbyterians and Independents 420
Antinomian Controversy 422
Richard Davis 423
Crisp 424
Daniel Williams 425
Stephen Lobb 426
CHAPTER XX.
Matthew Henry 428
Presbyterian Lord Mayors 429
Daniel De Foe 431
Manner of Worship 433
Independents 436
Ministerial Support 439
CHAPTER XXI.
Deaths of Nonconformists--
Philip Henry 442
Samuel Annesley 443
Vincent 444
Bates--Howe 445
CHAPTER XXII.
Baptists 451
Kiffin and Keach 453
Caffin 455
Quakers: Fox and Barclay 456
Penn 457
Mysticism 458
Norris 459
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.
I. A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects 461
II. The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for exempting
their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting
from the Church of England from the penalties of
certain Laws 465
III. Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers 472
IV. The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament 473
CHAPTER I.
William Henry, Prince of Orange, was a member of the House of
Nassau--the antiquity of which is traced by some historians as far
back as the days of Julius Cæsar. Others are content to stop at Count
Otho, in the 12th century, whom they regard as founder of the family,
because, through his wife, he obtained large possessions in the Low
Countries. The immediate ancestors of William Henry are renowned as
fathers of the Dutch Republic, and from them he inherited patriotic
virtues.
He was born in Holland on the 14th of November, 1650--the posthumous
son of William II., who had in 1641 married Mary, the eldest daughter
of Charles I. of England. He created the fondest hopes, and medals were
struck to commemorate his auspicious birth. “Though the orange-tree
be fallen down,” so ran the Dutch legend in allusion to his father’s
death, “this noble sprig has been preserved, by Divine care, in the
bosom of Mary. Thus the father arises after his death like a phenix
in his son. May he grow, may he flourish, and in virtue excel the
greatest princes, to the glory and safety of his country.” At the age
of ten, the youth lost his mother, who died within her native shores
in 1660, when on a visit to her brother Charles. The affectionate
care of his grandmother could not make up for these bereavements, and
this child of sorrow had the further misfortune to be deprived of the
hereditary Stadtholdership bestowed on his ancestors by the States
General. With the death of his mother came the loss, for a time, of the
Principality of Orange, which was unscrupulously seized by Louis XIV.,
who demolished the fortifications of the town.
William’s education fell into the hands of the Barneveldt party, headed
by the two De Witts, who sought to break down his spirit, and refused
him a range of education befitting his rank. Having been brought up in
the Stadtholder’s Palace at the Hague--which then, as now, uniquely
combined, in streams and woods, the quiet rusticity of a village, with
the bustle and magnificence of a metropolis--he received a notice to
quit his ancestral abode in his seventeenth year, and only retained the
favourite residence, by declaring that nothing but force should tear
him from its hearthstone.
First made Captain and Admiral-General, and then forced by public
acclamation into the position of Chief Magistrate when he was but
twenty-two--at a time of tremendous peril--he had to bear the yoke in
his youth. Nothing indeed could have saved his dominions just then but
the magnanimity inspired by memories of his country’s heroic struggles
with Spain: that magnanimity he expressed in the well-known words,
“There is one method which will save me from the sight of my country’s
ruin: I will die in the last ditch.”
[Sidenote: EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM]
The man whom I have thus described had from infancy suffered from
bad health. Asthma and consumption--likely to be increased by the
damp atmosphere and the unhealthy fogs which float about the Dutch
dykes--rendered it necessary for him to be propped up in bed, when
cruel headaches did not make repose impossible; and soon after
reaching manhood, he had to endure a severe attack of that virulent
disease--small-pox. Such circumstances did not improve a melancholy
temperament. Not naturally unamiable, William, like his countrymen,
was grave and taciturn; and amongst his original endowments we
notice a judgment unaccompanied by imagination, but with a quick
perception and a keen forecast, which made him sensitively alive to
the responsibilities and issues of his own career. He saw himself
entering a thorny road, which might conduct to prosperity or end in
defeat; at any rate, he resolved it should not lead to disgrace. In
such circumstances and with such a character, we are not surprised to
find him pronounced cold, reserved, and phlegmatic. His lofty forehead,
piercing eyes, aquiline nose, and compressed lips, indicated energy of
mind and force of will; but attenuated features, delicate limbs, and
feeble gait, betrayed the frailty of the framework which encased his
soul.
People of his disposition at times reveal the existence of tender
sensibilities. They form friendships limited in extent, but intense
in degree. Nor do sallies of humour fail to sparkle in their sombre
lives. William’s almost romantic love for Bentinck, who watched him
in illness, is generally known. Less noticed is the Prince’s power of
repartee. One day as he walked in the pleasant gardens of the Hague,
the Grand Pensionary praised one of the parterres. “Yes,” replied His
Highness, “this garden is very fine, but there is too much _white_
in it.” The lilies were abundant, but the Pensionary--whose name, De
Witt, meant white--perceived at once that William was thinking more
of him and of his influence than of the flowers smiling at his feet.
Averse to fashionable amusements, he dearly loved the chase. He was,
according to Sir William Temple, always in bed and asleep by ten
o’clock; and he preferred a “tumbler of cold ale” to a glass of the
choicest wine.[1]
The Prince paid a second visit to England in 1678, when he married his
cousin, the Princess Mary--a match which, though suggested by State
policy, turned out one of pure affection. It prepared the way for the
part he was to play in the Revolution, and on account of that event,
which, in its ecclesiastical consequences, forms a prominent subject in
this volume, a glance at his early life has been deemed essential.
What most concerns us is not his military and political character, not
his career as a soldier or a statesman, but his religious opinions,
sympathies, and policy, and the bearing of these upon the changes
wrought during his reign in the ecclesiastical affairs of our country.
William was a staunch Calvinist. “He was much possessed with the belief
of absolute decrees,” and said to Burnet he adhered to them “because
he did not see how the belief of Providence could be maintained upon
any other supposition.”[2] Such convictions in such a man became
elements of heroism, but it was thought, not perhaps without reason,
that more care had been taken to impress his mind with the doctrine of
Predestination, than to guard him against abuses incident to such an
opinion. Yet there appears nothing fanatical in William’s religion,
and whatever might be his moral conduct, it did not seem to have
been connected with Antinomian prejudices, or with any doubt of the
obligations of Christian virtue. It is remarkable, that though in
Holland, at the time of the Synod of Dort, Calvinism appeared in union
with intolerance, William had no sympathy in that feeling. Toleration
was a ruling idea in his mind; and he blamed the English Church for
alienating itself from other communions, and for claiming infallibility
in practice, though eschewing it in theory.
[Sidenote: PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.]
He had been brought up a Presbyterian, but he appears to have regarded
Church government of secondary importance, and, as events proved, he
could conform to Episcopacy. Indeed, it is said by Burnet--who claimed
to know him well--that he, on the whole, preferred the English to the
Dutch type of ecclesiastical rule.[3] The Prince had no reverence
for antiquity, no æsthetic taste, no sensibility under the touch of
elaborate ceremonies, or amidst the flow of harmonious music. He
preferred an unritualistic worship, and distinctly disapproved of the
surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing to the altar; yet, again, we
are assured that he highly esteemed the worship, as well as the polity,
of the Church of England.[4]
After his marriage with the Princess Mary, he formed an acquaintance
with English Divines. Dr. Hooper became chaplain to the Princess, on
the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft; and he remained in office a
year and a half. The chaplain found Her Royal Highness reading works
favourable to Dissenters; to counteract their tendency, he recommended
works of another description. One day the Prince observed his wife with
the pages of Eusebius and Hooker open on her table, when he exclaimed,
“I suppose Dr. Hooker persuades you to read these books?” She had at
first no chapel of her own for Divine worship; at the Doctor’s request,
a room was fitted up, with a communion-table elevated on steps. The
Prince, as he saw them being made, rudely kicked at them, asking what
they meant. Informed on the point, he answered “with a hum.” After the
chapel had been fitted up, he never attended Divine service there; and
as this chaplain talked about the Popish Plot and the indulgence of
Dissenters in terms less favourable to the latter than His Highness
liked, he bluntly said, “Well, Dr. Hooper, you will never be a Bishop;”
and on another occasion remarked if he had ever “anything to do with
England, Dr. Hooper should be Dr. Hooper still.”[5]
Ken succeeded Hooper in 1679; we have no particulars of his relations
with William, but those relations do not seem to have been very
cordial. Each of the clergymen now mentioned belonged to the High
Church party, and William could not agree with either, so that the end
of Ken’s connection with the Dutch Court produced satisfaction on both
sides. Yet the conduct of this excellent man “gained him entire credit
and high esteem with the Princess, whom to his death he distinguished
by the title of his Mistress.”[6]
The sincerity and strength of William’s Protestantism was unmistakable.
Protestantism had the approval of his intellect, and it penetrated
his soul. In him, cold as he was, it existed not merely as an opinion,
but as a passion. It accompanied him into the Cabinet and the field,
tincturing all his views; it pervaded all his purposes, shaped all his
policy. Protestantism for Holland was his first thought, Protestantism
for Europe his second; and he saw dependent upon Protestantism the
political, commercial, and social prosperity of nations, scarcely less
than the spiritual well-being of individuals. Roman Catholicism to his
mind was identical with a violation of the law of God and an invasion
of the rights of man; yet his large views of toleration embraced Roman
Catholics; he would not rob any man of the liberty of conscience, but
the ascendency of the Romanist system, and the tendency of its spirit,
he thoroughly abhorred as one of the worst foes to the welfare of
the race. France at that moment showed herself to be more violently
Roman Catholic than the Pope himself, and was seeking to establish
control over Europe. Therefore towards France William turned a gaze
of defiance, prepared to shed the last drop of his blood in resisting
her ambition. Louis XIV. stood forth as William’s personal enemy, but
William’s history shows how much more he himself was swayed in this
respect by reason than by resentment. At the same time he regarded
Holland as one of the last defences of liberty, and desired to see
England united with that country in the resistance of a common foe.
[Sidenote: PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.]
Mary responded to her husband’s sentiments. Although nurtured in a
Roman Catholic atmosphere, she proved herself entirely free from
Roman Catholic predilections, and indicated a preference for Low
Church principles. A woman of reading, she turned her attention to the
controversies of the day, and not only resisted the attempts of her
father to convert her to Popery, but, with all her respect for Ken,
kept herself free from the ecclesiastical views which that devout man
resolutely upheld.
In 1686, Gilbert Burnet accepted an invitation to the Hague, and
availed himself of opportunities to support the Low Church opinions
of the Prince and his Consort. The historian of his _Own Times_
has taken posterity into his confidence, and he relates, with
characteristic vanity, how he advised his illustrious friends in
matters of the highest importance. But whatever may be thought of
Burnet’s foibles, he appears to have judiciously counselled both
husband and wife, especially the latter, and to have done much towards
a wise settlement of the Crown at the Revolution. His counsels were
in favour of constitutional government and of toleration; and he
inculcated upon Mary that whenever she might inherit her father’s
throne, she should use her influence to obtain for her husband real and
permanent authority. Such advice laid the Prince, and the country of
his adoption, under lasting obligations to the busy Whig Churchman.
As the peculiar relation in which this noble couple stood to this
kingdom could not but interest them in English affairs, neither could
it fail to attract towards them the attention of the English people.
English Protestants sympathized with William in his continental
policy. They disliked France almost as much as he did. The Huguenots
driven to our shores were memorials before their eyes of Roman
Catholic intolerance; and besides this, they knew that their own
fellow countrymen naturalized in France had to suffer from the repeal
of the Edict of Nantes, and that the wives and children of those so
naturalized had to suffer in the same way. Moreover, they learned that
dragoons were quartered upon English merchants residing in France, to
prevent their passing the frontiers, and to compel them to change
their religion.[7] These circumstances, backed by the humiliating
fact, that the Stuarts were hirelings of Louis, brought the feelings
of Protestant Englishmen into sympathy with those of the Netherland
Stadtholder. He, in his turn, looked with anxiety towards this country
whilst suffering under the misgovernment of James II. What James was
doing for Dissenters by a stretch of prerogative, William wished
to see done by constitutional law. Mary took a still more lively,
because a patriotic, interest in these subjects, and disapproved of
her father’s despotism and Popery. For the Church of England she had
a strong affection, which she expressed to Archbishop Sancroft, when
congratulating him upon the firmness of the clergy in their religion as
well as their loyalty.[8]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Matters in England were brought to a crisis in the month of June. Upon
Trinity Sunday, the 10th of the month--two days after the imprisonment
of the seven Bishops--London was thrown into frantic excitement by a
report that James’s Queen had presented him with a son and heir. A
Popish successor would bring upon the country those calamities of which
the prospect for two reigns had filled men with dismay. The bulk of the
people could not believe the fact. They declared that the Queen had not
been confined at all--that she for some time had worn a cushion under
her dress--that her pretended son had been conveyed into her chamber in
a silver warming-pan on a Sunday morning, when Whig lords and ladies,
who otherwise might have detected the cheat, were lying in bed or were
gone to prayers. Stories the most absurd and disgusting were believed.
At that moment anything seemed more credible than the simple event
which had really occurred. The news of this assumed Royal conspiracy
flew over to Holland, and it created the utmost consternation, William
and Mary sincerely believing what they were confidently told. At all
events, the child--of whose supposititious character the idea vanished
afterwards from all but the most fanatical minds--was publicly baptized
in the Church of Rome, the Pope’s Nuncio standing sponsor. This added
to the national exasperation, and the Whig and Protestant party
immediately began to think of seeking succour from Holland, and putting
an end at all hazards to the existing state of things.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
William had before this become the head of the English opposition.
Old Republicans and old Royalists, Anglican Churchmen who hated Rome,
Latitudinarian Churchmen who loved liberty, and Evangelical Churchmen
who believed in Calvinism--Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists,
the first anxious for comprehension, the second and third wishing
only for freedom of worship--all had been turning their thoughts for
some time to the Prince of Orange as the star of their hopes. English
soldiers, English sailors, and English Divines, had publicly presented
themselves in the old Gothic _Binnenhof_ of the Hague, or held
private interviews with the Dutch Governor. The Earl of Devonshire,
Lord Shrewsbury, Admiral Herbert, Lord Lumley, and others, had written
to His Highness, more or less explicitly, offering to devote to him
their fortunes and their lives.
* * * * *
This went on in the spring of 1688, amidst excitements produced by
the Declaration of Indulgence. Holland at the same period felt deep
sympathy with England.
Dr. Edmund Calamy, grandson of the well-known Puritan, in the early
part of 1688 lived as a student at Utrecht, and he says there
prevailed in the States a conviction that their own, and the Protestant
interest in general, could be preserved only by a revolution in
England, since nothing else could prevent Europe from being ingulfed
in France; he adds, the Dutch were disposed to assist in making head
against King James, and in relieving the people, who cried to them for
succour, as they, a century before, had appealed for help to Queen
Elizabeth.[9]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
A decided but perilous step was taken in England on the 30th of June,
the day of the Bishops’ acquittal. By a letter written amidst the
excitement of that event, which shook not the English throne but him
who sat on it, seven members of the Whig party invited the Prince of
Orange to come over. They informed him of the prevalent dissatisfaction
of the people with the Government, and of their willingness to rise in
defence of their liberties, if His Highness would land with sufficient
strength to put himself at the head of the Protestant party. They
stated that the soldiers unequivocally manifested an aversion to the
Popish religion; that they certainly would desert the Royal standard in
great numbers; and that not one out of ten in the navy could be trusted
in case of an invasion. They promised to attend on His Highness as soon
as he should land; and they commissioned a confidential messenger to
consult with him about artillery and ammunition. This act of daring
treason, or of triumphant patriotism--whichever the issue might
determine it to be--decidedly turned the scales which quivered between
further delay and immediate action. The “immortal seven,” as they
have been called, who signed in cypher, were Shrewsbury, Devonshire,
Danby, Lumley, Russel, Sydney, and Compton, Bishop of London.[10] The
conspirators--perfect in number like the Bishops, now at the moment
of their acquittal and ovation--thus cast the die which _might_
bring death, which _did_ bring freedom. The adhesion of Compton
to this scheme is what most concerns us, as it indicates the early
infusion of an ecclesiastical element into this undertaking--an element
which became deeper, wider, stronger, as time rolled on. In less than
a month afterwards the same dignitary replied to a letter from the
Prince concerning the trial of the seven Bishops, and informed him how
sensible he and others were of the advantage of having so powerful a
friend; that they would make no ill use of it; and that they were so
well satisfied of the justness of their cause, that they would lay down
their lives rather than forsake it.[11]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
William must for some time have been expecting overtures. They would
not find a man of so much forecast unprepared; yet not a little
remained to be done that the proposed descent might prove a success.
The remainder of summer and the early part of autumn were spent
in secret military preparations at home, in secret diplomatical
negotiations abroad. He even decoyed the Pope into his toils, by baits
which did more credit to his statesmanship than to his honesty. He
persuaded His Holiness to advance money for an attack, as he thought,
upon France, in reality upon England. Rome, ever trying to over-reach
others, was herself over-reached; and help, supposed to be rendered for
the humiliation of a power then inimical to the Papal Court, came to be
applied to the overthrow of a Popish Sovereign and the strengthening
of the cause of European Protestantism.[12]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
When the military movements in Holland became generally known, they
were given out to be intended for a campaign against France, in which
the Prince was to receive support from the Imperial army on the
Rhine; yet, whatever dust might be thrown in men’s eyes, the real
truth appeared to many. Even as early as the 7th of August, news of
the Prince’s intention to come over with an army reached the quiet
cloisters of Westminster Abbey; and Dr. Patrick, at four o’clock in the
afternoon, received at his prebendal residence tidings of the important
secret through his friend, Dr. Tenison, who came “to have some private
conversation.”[13] But almost up to the last hour James remained in the
dark, partly through his own obtuseness, partly--and much more--through
the selfish designs of France, through the treachery of courtiers, and
through denials made by the Dutch Ambassador. No doubt a clear-headed
man, with a sharp eye, would have caught signs of the true direction of
the brewing storm; but a man like James, narrow-minded and prejudiced,
might easily be duped by diplomatic arts and courtierly deceit. He
persuaded himself into the belief that the rumours of a Dutch invasion
of England were raised by the Court of France to promote his political
interests and to bring him into closer alliance with Louis[14]--a
policy at that moment appearing to him most perilous, because it would
be sure to increase his unpopularity with his subjects.
His conduct after the acquittal of the Bishops proves that he had
not learnt wisdom from that significant event. His treatment of
the lawyers, in the face of public opinion, seems incredible. He
honoured with a baronetcy Williams, the Solicitor-General, who led the
prosecution, and Holloway and Powell, who gave it as their opinion
that the Bishops’ petition did not amount to a libel, he punished by
dismissal from the Bench.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
To the Judges who went their circuits in the summer, Royal instructions
were communicated to the effect, that they should persuade the people
to assist in supporting the unpopular Declaration for liberty of
conscience, telling them that a Parliament would speedily be called to
make the Sovereign’s favour statute law. Churchmen were to be assured
of the fulfilment of His Majesty’s promises; and persons of all classes
were to be reminded what a gracious Prince they had upon the throne.
Liberty of conscience, they were to be informed, had advanced the
trade, and would prove the means of increasing the population of the
country. The tone was fair--the phraseology specious; but the friends
of freedom were not to be hoodwinked after this fashion.
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Justice Allybone, a reputed Papist, sought, at the Croydon Assizes,
to give effect to these instructions, by the charge which he then
delivered to the Grand Jury. After dealing in a few commonplaces as to
the desirableness of living in love, and the blessings of religious
liberty, and after maintaining that the King wished every one to be as
free in his conscience as in his thoughts, immediately applied what
he had advanced to the Sacramental Test. “Why,” he asked, “because I
cannot take the Test, must I be hindered of an employment in the world?
This, gentlemen, pincheth sore with them in liberal education. It is
said, ‘Upon this Rock will I build my Church.’ Was this meant of the
Church of England?--it was but of yesterday’s standing. So, gentlemen,
’tis but a flourish. Gentlemen, the end of the Test is not religion,
but preferment; if any one therefore should be hindered upon just
pretences for religion, then religion is not at the bottom of it. This,
gentlemen, is a matter of great importance. It is in the Catechism
that Christ is really in the Lord’s Supper; nor hath it been objected
against the Church of Rome, by the Church of England, that He was not
really, but by way of presentation, and that is a great reproach.
Christ Himself told us He was there; now, be you not more strict than
Christ Himself. I am not arguing what my sense is, but I am only
showing, that as the Church of England would impose, that Christ was by
way of presentation, is it not equally difficult that we shall believe
thus and thus? Is not the like liberty to be had and taken of one side,
as well as the other? Gentlemen, I only argue this for the incoherence
of the thing.” The meaning which the Croydon Grand Jury might gather
from this wretched rabble of words would be, that the Judge put in a
plea for the toleration of Catholics--a plea which, however just, wore
at that crisis a suspicious aspect, and could find no favour with the
Surrey squires. Allybone finished by remarking that he would not have
the world mistaken about the Bishops’ trial--it was not for religion
they were tried, “they were tried for acting against the Government,
for publishing a libel which tended to sedition. The King,” he said,
“commands them with the advice of his Council for to publish his
Declaration; they would not do it. _If the King had been Turk or
Jew, it had been all one--for the subject ought to obey._”[15] The
infatuation of the Judge equalled the infatuation of the King.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
Of course the effect was to identify the Judges with unconstitutional
indulgence. Where it had been successful, they were welcomed--where it
had created alarm, they were rebuffed.
Down in the West, the Declaration had been published by some--by
others denounced. The wearers of the ermine were treated accordingly.
Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, wrote to Sancroft, at the time of
the Assizes, a letter which gives us some idea of what was going on at
Bristol and Exeter:--
“May it please your Grace,
“Mr. Gilbert, the bearer, going for London, and being desirous
of paying his duty to your Grace, I gave him this opportunity,
as well to receive your blessing as to present you with the
present state of the West. He is the laborious minister of
Plymouth, who, by his courage, life, and doctrine, hath done a
great deal of good in that town. I wish his Lordship the Bishop
of Exeter had as fixt and steady resolutions, but his Lordship,
acting according to a settled maxim of his own, _I will be
safe_, had given order for the publishing the Declaration,
notwithstanding the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and my letter
to him; and was at last brought to recall them by the Dean’s
sending him word, that if he would betray the Church, he should
not the Cathedral; for he would rather be hanged at the doors
of it, than that the Declaration should be read there, or in
any part of his jurisdiction, which is large in the county. The
gentry and clergy complained to me very much of the Bishop’s
giving a church to the Mayor[16] for his Conventicle (in which
the Declaration was read), and for his great respects to Mr.
Beare, the last sessions, which gave great offence. Who this
Mr. Beare is, Mr. Gilbert can give your Grace a full account.
I had a long and warm argument with the Bishop, to divert him
from waiting on the Judges and treating them,--setting at large
before him what a malicious, wicked instrument Justice Bolduck
was in our business; but all I said was to no purpose. However,
the Dean and Chapter assured me, they would withdraw their
civility, and not receive them either at the church or at an
entertainment, as hath been customary. I hope I shall do some
good with the gentry of Devonshire and Cornwall. I humbly beg
your blessing, and remain,
“Yours Grace’s most obedient, humble servant,
“J. BRISTOL.”[17]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
The Bishop of Exeter was Dr. Lamplugh, and how he was rewarded for his
devotion to the measures of the Court will presently appear.
James’s proceedings in reference to the Church at this time were in
keeping with the rest of his conduct. He issued an order, requiring
Chancellors of Dioceses and Archdeacons to report to the High
Commission the names of those who had not published the Declaration.
This went too far even for his friends. Sprat, Bishop of Rochester,
immediately resigned his seat, and the rest of the Commissioners
becoming alarmed, as well they might, hesitated to proceed with
the odious investigation. In the same month of July, James sent a
mandate to Oxford for the election of Jeffreys to the Chancellorship;
a disgrace which the authorities of the Universities prevented by
stealing a march on the Monarch, and electing a Chancellor before
the mandate arrived. On the 13th of August the King exercised anew
his dispensing power, by charging the Wardens and Fellows of All
Souls, Oxford, to admit John Cartwright to the Vicarage of Barking,
notwithstanding any custom or constitution to the contrary.[18] Next,
on the 23rd, he nominated to the Bishopric of Oxford, Timothy Hall, who
had gained notoriety by reading the Declaration. Such persistency in
an unpopular course increased national indignation; all classes became
more and more weary of this galling despotism, and were goaded on to
hasten the King’s downfall.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Whilst such were the proceedings of the temporal head of the Church,
what was the course pursued by the Primate? Sancroft despatched
admonitions to the clergy of his province, exhorting them to the
zealous discharge of their duties, and concluding his appeal by
recommending them to show a friendly spirit towards Nonconformists,
by visiting them and receiving them kindly at their own homes, with
a view to persuade them “to a full compliance with our Church.” They
were to insist upon two points: that the Bishops were irreconcilable
enemies to Rome, and that jealousies to the contrary were altogether
groundless. Finally, clergymen were invited to pray for the union of
all Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad, against their common
foe, and that all who confessed the name of our dear Lord, might meet
in one communion and live in godly love.[19] Next--and more surprising,
when we think of the Archbishop’s High Church views--he is said to
have engaged in a scheme of comprehension, the design being, so far as
it can be gathered from a speech made long afterwards by Dr. Wake, to
amend and improve the discipline of the Church; to review and enlarge
the Liturgy, by correcting some things, by adding others; and, it is
stated, that he proposed, if advised by authority, to have the matter
considered first in Convocation, then in Parliament.[20] This would
have been to walk in steps taken by Low Churchmen some years before,
and to anticipate the endeavours of the same class of Churchmen some
months afterwards. When efforts had been made in that direction
by Tillotson and others, the Archbishop had not showed the least
disposition to help them; and on the whole it appears to me that so
cautious and conservative a man as Sancroft could never have intended
to go the length which the reports just noticed might indicate to
ecclesiastical reformers. Indeed, Wake, when he repeated the story,
took care to add that the intended changes related “to things of more
ordinary composition,” whilst the doctrine, government, and worship of
the Church were to remain entire. Probably the alterations contemplated
by Sancroft were very slight indeed, and certainly they were conceded
only in consequence of the excitement of the times.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
Before the end of September, the King, being unable any longer to
resist, altered his policy; he and the Archbishop came together,
the former beginning at last to be frightened; the latter anxious
to do what he could to save his master. On the 21st of September, a
Declaration appeared, to the effect that it was the Royal purpose to
provide a legal security for universal liberty of conscience, yet
to preserve the Church of England in particular, and to secure the
Protestant religion in general; at the same time it was indicated
that Roman Catholics were to remain incapable of being members of
Parliament.[21] Upon the 24th, Sancroft received a summons to attend
the Royal presence, and a like command was sent to Compton, Bishop of
London; Mew, of Winchester; Turner, of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken,
of Bath and Wells; White, of Peterborough; Trelawny, of Bristol; and
Sprat, of Rochester. They were men of different mark: Compton had gone
beyond any of his brethren in bold resistance of James’s policy; Mew
had been a Royalist in the days of Charles I., and had fought as a
soldier in his master’s service; Trelawny had won popularity by being
one of the imprisoned seven, but, like other men in Church and State,
he had shown a time-serving spirit.[22] Sprat distinguished himself as
an accommodating mortal; the rest were High Churchmen, and supporters
of the divine right of Kings.
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
On the day of dispatching the summons, James told Clarendon that the
Dutch were coming in earnest to invade England. “And now, my Lord,” he
added, “I shall see what the Church of England men will do.”[23] On
the 26th, the King saw Turner, Bishop of Ely, who reported that the
conversation which arose was only of a general kind. Whatever liberal
sentiments might have dawned on the Royal mind, all seemed dark on the
27th, when the Lord Chancellor informed Clarendon that some rogues had
changed the King’s purposes, that he would yield in nothing to the
Bishops, “that the Virgin Mary was to do all.”
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The first meeting between the King and the Bishops took place on
Friday, September the 28th. All invited were present, except Sancroft,
who excused himself on the ground of being unwell, and Compton and
Trelawny, who did not reach town in time. Their brethren, however, who,
like them, were in the country when the command arrived, managed to be
there. The Prelates came prepared honestly to give advice; but James,
no doubt under the influence mentioned by Clarendon, was very reserved,
on the one hand declaring his goodwill to the Church of England, and on
the other, reminding his spiritual advisers of their duty to be loyal
to the Crown. Ken plainly expressed his disappointment, observing that
“His Majesty’s inclinations towards the Church, and their duty to him,
were sufficiently understood and declared before, and would have been
equally so if they had not stirred one foot out of their dioceses.”[24]
As the Prelates issued from the Royal presence, the courtiers loitering
about the closet door, full of curiosity as to this much-talked-of
interview, inquired, “How things went?” The Bishop of Winchester--“poor
man,” as Clarendon calls, him--answered, “_Omnia bene_.”[25] James
wished to make capital for himself out of what had taken place, and
immediately announced to his subjects, through the _Gazette_,
that several of the Bishops having attended, he was pleased, amongst
other gracious expressions, to let them know that he would signify
his pleasure for taking off the suspension of the Bishop of London,
which was done accordingly. That any such communication was made could
scarcely have been gathered from the account of the audience given by
others.
The same _Gazette_ contained a Proclamation, dated September the
28th, stating, that undoubted advice had been received of a projected
invasion from Holland, under false pretences relating to liberty,
property, and religion, but really aiming at the conquest of the
kingdom. The King declared his purpose to resist this attempt, to
venture his life for the honour of the nation; and deferring at present
the meeting of Parliament, he called upon his subjects to resist their
enemies, and prohibited any assistance being given them on pain of high
treason.[26]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
The Bishops were dissatisfied with the interview of the 28th, and
requested the Archbishop to procure another audience. One was
appointed for Tuesday, the 2nd of October; then it was postponed until
the following day. The Prelates occupied the interval in careful
deliberation, and drew up a paper, in which they advised, that the
management of affairs in the counties should be entrusted to qualified
persons amongst the nobility and gentry; that the Ecclesiastical
Commission should be annulled, dispensations terminated, the President
and Fellows of Magdalen restored, licenses to Papists recalled,
the Vicars Apostolical inhibited, vacant Bishoprics filled, _Quo
Warrantos_ superseded, charters restored, a Parliament called, in
which, with due regard to the security of the Established Religion,
liberty of conscience should be granted; and, finally, permission
vouchsafed to the Bishops to attempt the re-conversion of His Majesty
to the Protestant faith.
The paper containing this advice was signed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Asaph, Ely,
Chichester, Rochester, Bath and Wells, and Peterborough.[27]
Before the Bishops were admitted to the conference, James made
another concession to popular excitement, by declaring in Council
to the Aldermen of London, his intention to restore to the City the
much-prized charter of which it had been deprived.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
On the 3rd of October the second meeting of the Bishops with the King
occurred. They presented their paper, and whatever the immediate
effect of their last request might have been, they now received the
assurance of a gracious consideration being given to their requests.
The King almost immediately afterwards extinguished the Commission, and
signified his purpose of rectifying corporate abuses.[28]
Within a few days, collects were drawn up by the Bishops, to be used in
all cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches and chapels within
the kingdom during this time of public danger. They received His
Majesty’s approval, and were printed for general use. It is curious to
observe that they are so framed as to lay all the blame of existing
calamities on the shoulders of the people, and to breathe a spirit of
intense loyalty to His Majesty’s person.[29]
[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.]
Upon the 12th of October, the King authorized the Bishop of Winchester
to settle the troubles at Magdalen College; but so suspicious had
the public become in reference to the Royal sincerity, that it was
currently and falsely reported immediately afterwards, that he had
altered his mind, and withdrawn the order.[30]
Repeated Royal conferences could not be held without attracting
attention. They became the subject of common talk, and the suspicious
temper of people appeared in a rumour, that the right reverend fathers
were being hoodwinked by a Popish Sovereign and his Popish Councillors.
Evelyn wrote to Sancroft on the 10th of October, telling him that
the calling of His Grace and the Bishops to Court, and what had
been required of them, was only calculated to create jealousies and
suspicions amongst well-meaning people--the whole of the plan being
the work of Jesuits. He also complained that in all the Declarations
published in pretended favour of the Church of England, there was not
once any mention made of the Reformed or Protestant religion.[31]
In another letter, the contents of which were intended to be
communicated to His Grace, serious charges are alluded to as brought
against the Bishops.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
“Knowing your interest in my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury,” says the
writer, “you are desired to let him know that it was my fortune this
week to have the sight of a most malicious libel against the most
eminent Bishops of the Church of England; the extent and substance of
it is to show how the Bishops mind only popularity, and to make a noise
in the world. For that the Bishops themselves do dispense with the laws
and canons of the Church, as well as the King hath done by virtue of
his prerogative. This was lent me to peruse one evening, so that I
could not read it fully, but the chief thing they aim at is to show
that the Bishops do dispense with non-residence, contrary to the canons
of the Church and the Statute of the land, made 21 Henry VIII. 13.
Some things are frivolous, and some very sharp, and I fear too true;
so that I wrote out the heads on the chapter of non-residence, which
is very virulent, and filled with near 300 instances of prebends and
clergymen that are non-resident, contrary to the law in all counties
of England; for they have a perfect account from all counties, except
about eight or ten, which are promised against this term; and had not
this juncture of affairs hindered, it had been fully printed in a few
weeks.” After transcribing the heads, the writer proceeds: ”All these
heads have several scandalous instances (that lack reformation) in
many counties, and it would be happy if my good Lord of Canterbury
did require a speedy reformation, and make all Ecclesiastical Judges
inquire into the truth hereof, and give him a speedy account, and so
prevent these just scandals, which will otherwise fall upon the Bishops
of the Church of England.”[32]