Popish Plot 1
Titus Oates 2
Coleman 3
Act for Excluding Roman Catholics 10
CHAPTER II.
Fall of Danby 12
New Parliament 13
The Duke of York and the Bishops 14
Archbishop Sancroft 17
Dangerfield’s Plot 21
Exclusion Bill 23
CHAPTER III.
Stillingfleet 26
Howe and Tillotson 27
Scheme of Comprehension 29
Toleration Bill 30
Oxford Parliament 31
Exclusion Bill 32
King’s Declaration 35
CHAPTER IV.
Duke of Buckingham and Howe 40
Men in Power--
Halifax 41
Rochester 43
Conway and Jenkins 43
Trial of Colledge 45
Fall of Shaftesbury 49
Persecution of Nonconformists 50
Vincent 54
Annesley and Bates 57
CHAPTER V.
Duke of Monmouth 60
Royal Despotism 63
Rye House Plot 64
Lord Russell 65
Death of Owen 70
Persecution of Nonconformists--
Heywood 71
Rosewell 72
Delaune 73
Bampfield 75
CHAPTER VI.
French Protestants 76
Cabinet Meetings 82
William Jenkyn 84
Charles’ Court 85
Scenes at Whitehall 86
Death of Charles II. 87
CHAPTER VII.
James II. 89
Alterations in the Ministry 92
Trial of Baxter 95
Monmouth’s Rebellion 97
Alicia Lisle 98
Elizabeth Gaunt 99
Persecution of Nonconformists 100
CHAPTER VIII.
Changes in the Cabinet 104
Court Intrigues 105
James’ Policy 106
Declaration of Indulgence 118
Penn 125
Kiffin 127
CHAPTER IX.
The Papal Nuncio 129
Promotion of Romanists 131
Proceedings at the Universities 132
New Declaration 139
The Seven Bishops 140
Prosecution 149
Trial 153
Acquittal 155
CHAPTER X.
Development of Nonconformity 159
Presbyterians 159
Form of Church Government 160
Independents 164
Confession of Faith 166
Baptists 171
Confession of Faith 172
Quakers 177
Form of Church Government 178
CHAPTER XI.
Cathedrals 180
Churches 182
Worship 185
Ecclesiastical Revenues 190
Ecclesiastical Courts 198
Nonconformist Places of Worship 205
Relative number of Conformists and Nonconformists 207
Contrasts in Preaching 209
Superstition 213
CHAPTER XII.
Family Life amongst Nonconformists 217
Family Life amongst Episcopalians 228
Observance of the Sabbath 234
Festivals 237
Recreations 238
Charities 243
Missions 247
Universities 250
CHAPTER XIII.
Theology 259
Anglicans--
Thorndike 268
Bull 279
Heylyn 287
Taylor 289
Cosin 299
Morley 302
Bramhall 303
CHAPTER XIV.
Anglicans--
Sanderson 305
Hammond 306
Pearson 308
Barrow 311
Opinions respecting Popery 316
Opinions respecting Unepiscopal Churches 318
The Prayer Book 323
Hooker’s Works 324
Anglican Sermon Writers 328
Critics 331
CHAPTER XV.
Liberal Orthodox--
Chillingworth 334
Smith 336
Hales 338
Farindon 339
Fowler 344
Wilkins 348
Cudworth 349
Stillingfleet 352
Critics--
Lightfoot 353
Patrick 354
Science 355
CHAPTER XVI.
Latitudinarians 359
Milton 363
Biddle 365
Scargill 368
CHAPTER XVII.
Quakers--
Penn 369
Barclay 377
Other Mystics--
Saltmarsh 380
Sterry 382
Sir Henry Vane 385
CHAPTER XVIII.
Puritan Works on Evidences 386
Gale 387
Howe 389
Owen 390
Baxter 392
Puritan Theology 394
Thomas Goodwin 397
Owen 401
CHAPTER XIX.
John Goodwin 406
Horne 409
Conyers--Lawson 410
_Fur Prædestinatus_ 412
CHAPTER XX.
Baxter 414
Howe 421
Puritan Views on Sacraments and the Ministry 430
Controversy with Papists 435
Ecclesiastical Controversy 437
Practical Theology 442
Expositors 446
CHAPTER XXI.
Poetry 451
Hymnology 455
CHAPTER XXII.
Illustrations of Religious Character--
Isaak Walton 468
John Evelyn 471
Margaret Godolphin 475
Sir Matthew Hale 478
Dr. Henry More 482
Sir Thomas Browne 485
Countess of Warwick 488
CHAPTER XXIII.
Illustrations of Religious Character--(_Continued_)--
John Burnyeat 492
Joseph Alleine 494
Thomas Ewins 497
Owen Stockton 500
Dr. Thomas Jacomb 504
Sir Harbottle Grimston 505
Unity of Spiritual Life 506
APPENDIX.
I. Letter referring to Projected Insurrection. 509
II. Prayer Book attached to the Act of Uniformity. 513
III. Alterations in Prayer Book in compliance
with the Recommendation of the Puritans 521
IV. Act of Uniformity 522
V. Sealed Books 536
VI. Number of the Ejected 538
VII. Informer’s Note Book 542
VIII. Accuracy of Anecdote respecting Peter Ince 544
IX. Cecil, Lord Burleigh 545
X. MS. respecting the Death of Charles II. 546
XI. Story about Samuel Wesley 548
XII. Anglican Views on the Relations of Church
and State 549
XIII. MS. Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings,
by Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich 550
XIV. Extract from MS. Vol. in the Bodleian Library
respecting John Bunyan 555
INDEX 556
CHAPTER I.
We resume the thread of our History, and return to notice the progress
of the anti-Popish excitement.
[Sidenote: 1678.]
Perhaps, in the history of the civilized world, there never occurred
a period when the passions of men were more deeply moved, than in
the autumn of the year 1678, when England was startled from side to
side by the following extraordinary story. The Jesuits had formed a
project for the conversion of Great Britain to the Roman Catholic
faith; and £10,000 had been procured to assist in carrying out their
plans. With this project was blended a conspiracy to assassinate the
King, who was to be poisoned by the Queen’s physician; failing which,
he was to be shot with bullets; and, if that did not succeed, he was
to be stabbed with a large knife. With a feeble attempt at wit it was
said, if he would not become R.C., a Roman Catholic, he should be no
longer C.R., Charles Rex. Twenty thousand Catholics in London were to
rise within twenty-four hours, and cut the throats of the Protestant
inhabitants; eight thousand were to take up arms in Scotland; and, of
course, in Ireland the professors of the ancient religion, possessed
of enormous influence, meant to have it all their own way. The Crown
was to be offered to the Duke of York, upon certain conditions; and
if James refused, then, it was elegantly said, “to pot he must
go also.” Amongst other means certain Jesuits were instructed to
“carry themselves like Nonconformist ministers, and to preach to the
disaffected Scots, the necessity of taking up the sword for the defence
of liberty of conscience.” Seditious preachers and catechists were
to be sent out, and directed when and what to preach in private and
public conventicles, and field meetings. The Society in London intended
to knock on the head Dr. Stillingfleet and Matthew Pool, for writing
against them; and Croft, Bishop of Hereford, was doomed to death as
an apostate. A second conflagration in the City of London formed an
element in this scheme of wholesale destruction; and, in anticipation
of the success of the design, the Pope had prepared a list of the
priests to succeed the Bishops and other dignitaries, who were to be so
speedily swept away. The author of this intelligence was the notorious
Titus Oates, who professed to have picked it up at St. Omer’s, at
Valladolid, at Burgos, and at a tavern in the Strand, where, owing to
his pretended conversion and zeal in the Catholic service, the Jesuits
had entrusted him with their deepest secrets.
The first communication of the story staggered everybody. The King did
not know what to make of it. Danby, though inclined to use anything
he could for party purposes, hardly credited this amazing revelation.
Yet, incredible as it may appear, no means seem to have been used at
the outset to sift the matter to the bottom.[1] Therefore the tale came
to be looked at as credible, and, when Oates, on Michaelmas Eve, came
before the Council, and began his unprecedented story, he found ready
listeners. The items which he specified, with names and dates minutely
mentioned, certainly wore a plausible appearance; and, presently, two
circumstances occurred, which, at the time, obtained for his reports
all but universal credence.
[Sidenote: POPISH PLOT.]
The first of these circumstances was the sudden death of a magistrate,
Sir Edmondbury Godfrey, to whom Oates had made some of his statements
before divulging the whole to the Council. This magistrate was found
dead in a ditch near Primrose Hill, with a sword plunged in his body,
and marks of strangulation on his neck. A cry instantly rose, and ran
through London and the country, that Sir Edmondbury, who was famed for
his Protestant zeal, had been murdered by the Papists on account of his
receiving Oates’ deposition. The plot, it was argued, must be real, or
such a deed would not have been committed by the Roman Catholics. What
could the object of the murder be, but to take revenge on the exposers
of the conspiracy? The next circumstance which aided the prevalent
belief is found in the discovery of certain letters, in the handwriting
of one Coleman, addressed to Père la Chaise--the famous Jesuit, who
has given his name to the Cemetery at Paris--in which letters,
unmistakable allusions occur to designs for overthrowing Protestantism
in this country; and Coleman’s plans were at once identified with the
plot related by Titus Oates.[2]
[Sidenote: 1678.]
[Sidenote: POPISH PLOT.]
Believed by Parliament, not only by the Country party, but by the
Court party as well, believed also by the Ministers of State, and
by the dignitaries of the Church, the plot came to be regarded by
almost everybody as an unquestionable fact. The higher circles
would not tolerate any doubt of Oates’ veracity; even Burnet, with
all his Protestantism, inasmuch as he hesitated to accept Oates’
evidence, raised against himself “a great clamour:” and the Earl of
Shaftesbury, who threw himself with all his energy and eloquence into
the prosecution, declared “that all those who undermined the credit
of the witnesses were to be looked on as public enemies.”[3] In the
lower circles a conviction of the truthfulness of the accuser, and
of the guilt of the accused, prevailed to the last degree; and the
narrative related to the Council and the House of Commons, circulated
amongst eager and credulous groups, in thousands of chimney corners
during those autumn evenings. The King and the Duke of York seemed not
to believe what other people admitted. Yet the former felt obliged to
act as if he did. The reader who remembers the agitation attending
the Popish aggression more than twenty years ago, must not take even
that as a measure of the feeling awakened in 1678: perhaps nothing we
have ever seen could be a parallel to what our fathers experienced
at that time. Even the heavens were imagined to sympathize in the
abounding alarm: a fog, after Godfrey’s death, gave to the day on
which it occurred the name of _Black Sunday_; and a respectable
Nonconformist speaks of it growing so dark, all on a sudden, about
eleven in the forenoon, that ministers could not read their notes in
their pulpits without the help of candles,--no uncommon occurrence,
one would think, in the month of November. Not a house, he informs us,
could be found unfurnished with arms, nor did anybody go to bed without
apprehensions of something tragical which might happen before the next
morning.[4] People gave the martyred magistrate--for so they considered
Godfrey--a public funeral, after having for two days publicly exhibited
his wounded remains in his own house. An immense crowd followed him to
the grave, the corpse being preceded by seventy-two clergymen in their
robes; and, on its arrival at the church of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields,
the Incumbent, Dr. Lloyd, afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph, delivered
a sermon in honour of the slain confessor. A Protestant festival had
long been kept on the 17th of November, Queen Elizabeth’s birthday;
and this year an effigy of the Pope with the Devil whispering in his
ear--and models of Godfrey’s dead body, and of Romish Bishops and
priests in mitres and copes--were carried through the streets, to
inflame to the highest pitch the prevalent indignation against the
Church of Rome. Daniel Defoe was then a mere boy, and looked with
wonder upon what passed before him; and, in after years, told how old
City blunderbusses were burnished anew; how hats and feathers, and
shoulder belts, and other military gear, came into fashion again; how
the City train-bands appeared rampant, and how soldiers disturbed
meeting-houses, even murdering people, under pretence that they would
not stand at their command.[5] Justice, or injustice, showed itself
swift in apprehending Roman Catholics. Two thousand suspected persons
are said to have been imprisoned, the houses of Roman Catholics were
searched for arms, and it is computed that as many as 30,000 recusants
were driven to a distance of ten miles from Whitehall. Within little
more than two months of the first whisper of the conspiracy, Stayley,
a banker, accused of sharing in it, died on the gallows at Tyburn, and
Coleman perished on the scaffold about a week afterwards.[6] Three more
victims followed the next month, all of them to the last declaring
their innocence. Oates at the same time went about dressed in gown and
cassock, wearing a large hat with a silk band and rose, and attended by
guards to secure him from Popish violence. Lodgings at Whitehall were
assigned for his use; he received a pension of £1,200 per annum, and
was welcomed at the houses of the rich and great.[7] A large number of
pamphlets containing accounts of the plot issued from the press, whilst
pulpits rung with impassioned declamation against Popery and rebellion.
[Sidenote: 1678.]
Amongst papers belonging to the Secretary of State at that period are
memoranda of strange rumours--one that the progress in rebuilding St.
Paul’s Cathedral was suspended, from fear lest it should become a
Popish Church. There is also a note, that the Prince of Orange should
be written to, or that some communication should be made to him,
through the Ambassador at his Court, or through Sir W. Temple, to
prevent the publication in Holland of a remonstrance, and of a hellish
libel, “destructive to the Royal authority, and the fundamental laws
of the nation.” The same Collection includes a letter to the Bishop of
London from some zealous Protestant, proposing an attack on the City of
Rome, “on that side where the Vatican Palace stands, and bringing away
the library.”[8]
[Sidenote: POPISH PLOT.]
Reviewing the whole of this history, I may remark, that Titus Oates
was an utterly worthless character, and that his statements are not
entitled to the smallest belief. He had been an Anabaptist under
Cromwell, had become an orthodox clergyman at the Restoration, had
professed himself a Catholic on the Continent, had been admitted
to Jesuit colleges, and had then abjured Popery on his return to
England. All this while he conducted himself in so abominable a
manner as repeatedly to incur expulsion from the positions in which
he was placed. His tale was as absurd and incredible as his conduct
was infamous; yet, notwithstanding this circumstance, it is by no
means surprising that at the time, the story with its most improbable
details should be believed--for Englishmen were filled with alarm at
the Romanism of the Royal family, at the manifest signs of revived
activity in this island by the Jesuits, at the obvious alliance between
spiritual and political despotism, and at the then suspected, and to
us, well-known intrigues which were being carried on to overthrow
the Protestantism of this country,--and they were therefore prepared
to be the dupes of Protestant credulity. An excitement of many years’
accumulation now existed, and rumours and lies of all sorts were as
sparks sprinkled over heaps of gunpowder. As we criticize the evidence
of the plot, it will not stand for a single second. Yet, however we may
at first smile or sneer at the matter, on second thoughts, we shall
see that people only did what, probably, we should have done under
the influence of strong Protestant convictions, sharpened by terrible
memories, and goaded by equally terrible apprehensions. It would be
monstrous enough for us now to behave as did our ancestors, but we must
judge of their character in that emergency by the standard of their own
age, and according to the conditions of their own circumstances.
[Sidenote: 1678.]
Godfrey’s death is one of those mysteries permitted by Providence to
baffle our investigation, and to remain inscrutable secrets to the
end of time, stimulating a belief in the revelations and judgments
of eternity. Whichever hypothesis be adopted--that of murder or that
of suicide--grave exceptions to it may be taken. The supposition of
his having destroyed himself may be shown to be ridiculous, and also
no sufficient motive for a Papist to murder him can be assigned: the
argument, that the drops of melted wax found on the clothes of the
dead man must have been dropped by Papists, _because_ they are so
notorious for using wax candles, is ridiculous enough; yet, as in the
case of the plot, so in the case of the death brought into connection
with it, we do not wonder at the prevalent idea. All the circumstances
and antecedents of the time, the whole spirit of the age, together with
the tendencies of human nature, the readiness of men under a pressing
excitement to rush to conclusions, to interpret suspicious incidents
as demonstrations of guilt, must be taken into account as we reflect
upon the common opinion found at that period. Believing Oates’ tale,
and knowing both the Protestant zeal of Godfrey, and the consequences
to the Catholics of the explosion of the plot, zealots of the day
consistently attributed the crime of murder to the same persons to whom
they attributed the crime of treason.[9]
[Sidenote: POPISH PLOT.]
After all, there was a plot, not indeed to murder the King, but to
restore Popery. Coleman’s letters render this a fact beyond all
question, when we find him declaring “We have here a mighty work upon
our hands, no less than the conversion of three kingdoms, and by that
perhaps the subduing of a pestilent heresy, which has domineered
over great part of this northern world a long time. There never
was such hopes of success since the death of Queen Mary, as now in
our days.”[10] The designs and intrigues brought to light in this
correspondence harmonize with the purpose and spirit of the treaty
between Charles and Louis; and, therefore, we cannot wonder at the
reluctance of Charles and his brother to enter upon an inquiry into
the business, since however false might be the charge of contemplated
regicide, they knew too much, not to be aware that awkward facts
respecting French, Papal, and Jesuit schemes could be brought into
broad daylight, by searching to the bottom of this business. And it is
not unlikely that Oates might have heard at St. Omer’s, and at other
places, things uttered by some disciples of Ignatius Loyola, indicating
dark designs upon English religion and upon English liberty, which he
exaggerated immensely, and dressed up in the most frightful colours for
purposes of his own.
[Sidenote: 1678.]
Leaving this plot with its mysteries, falsehoods, and alarms, and
turning once more to the proceedings of Parliament, we find that the
sixteenth session opened on the 21st of October, just at the crisis
when the storm raised by Oates had reached its height. The King’s
speech touched lightly on the subject. Lord Chancellor Finch noticed
it with guarded phraseology, but the House of Commons at once resolved
upon an address for removing Popish recusants from the Metropolis,
and having appointed a Committee to inquire into Godfrey’s murder,
they also agreed with the Lords to request His Majesty to proclaim a
national fast.
In 1673 an Act had been passed excluding Roman Catholics from all
places of profit and trust; now a Bill was introduced to exclude
them from Parliament and from the Councils of the Sovereign.[11] By
help of the existing panic, the Bill made its way with ease; and
what is remarkable, in this measure the obligation to receive the
sacrament is not mentioned--an omission doubtless intended for the
benefit of Dissenters, whose sympathy and assistance were just then
valued by persons who had been accustomed before to treat them with
violence--but a strong declaration to the effect that Romish worship
is idolatrous was imposed, together with the Oaths of Allegiance and
Supremacy. When this Bill reached the House of Lords, Gunning, Bishop
of Ely, objected to the description and treatment of Romish worship
as idolatrous; yet his arguments on this point being met by Barlow,
Bishop of Lincoln, Gunning--although he said he could not himself adopt
the new declaration--after it became law, followed the example of his
brethren.[12]
[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]
The Lords looked with little favour upon a Bill which, by disqualifying
Papists from sitting in Parliament, would deprive some of their own
order of hereditary rights; notwithstanding goaded by the Commons, and
encouraged by the King, they at last without opposition passed the
measure, providing in it an exception on behalf of the Duke of York.
This exception displeased the Commons, who, above all things, desired
to remove a Roman Catholic prince from the government of the country;
and, therefore, when the Bill returned to them with its amendments, it
had to meet the most strenuous opposition from the Country party. High
words were followed not only, as in the Long Parliament, by storms of
outcries and by menaces of violence, but by actual blows; and after
a singularly angry debate, the proviso passed only by a majority of
two, and the Royal assent was given to the whole Bill with very great
reluctance.[13]