To prevent breaking the continuity of the narrative, an incident has
been passed over requiring some notice.
Upon the 2nd of May, 1680, Dr. Stillingfleet preached a sermon before
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and the Judges
and Sergeants-at-law. The subject of discourse being “The Mischief
of Separation,” he treated his audience with an invective against
Dissenters as schismatics, who had rent the Church in twain; and he
represented them as reduced to this dilemma--“that though the really
conscientious Nonconformist is justified in not worshipping after the
prescribed forms of the Church of England, or rather would be criminal
if he did so, yet he is not less criminal in setting up a separate
assembly.”[34] Victims so impaled were in a wretched condition, and
no one can wonder that they made an effort to extricate themselves.
They did so with success, and if not always with perfect good temper,
nobody can severely blame them for that. Owen wrote with “great gravity
and seriousness.” Baxter was very “particular, warm, and close.” Alsop
briskly turned upon the preacher “his own words and phrases.”[35]
Stillingfleet’s _Irenicum_, published in 1659, had shown that
no form of Church government could be _jure divino_, a position
of which his opponents now took advantage, whilst they failed not to
ply the _argumentum ad hominem_. “A person of quality” sent to
John Howe the printed sermon, enclosing with it severe remarks. Howe,
with calm impartiality, such as nettles a partisan of either extreme
more than any stinging attacks can do, immediately expressed his
intention “of defending the cause of the Nonconformists against the
Dean, and then of adding something in defence of the Dean against his
correspondent.”[36] The reply which he produced is one of the most
beautiful specimens of controversy in existence. Stillingfleet was
subdued when he read it, and confessed that Howe discoursed “more like
a gentleman than a Divine, without any mixture of rancour, or any sharp
reflections, and sometimes with a great degree of kindness towards him,
for which, and his prayers for him, he heartily thanked him.”[37]
[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.]
The year proved unfortunate for the consistency of Divines of the
Liberal school, for Tillotson also committed himself. Preaching a
sermon at Court he maintained the monstrous position “that no man is
obliged to preach against the religion of his country, though a false
one, unless he has the power of working miracles.” “It is a pity your
Majesty slept,” observed a Courtier at the close of the service, “for
we have had the rarest piece of Hobbism that ever you heard in your
life.” “Odsfish!” rejoined Charles, “he shall print it then.” Howe once
more came forward with reproof and expostulation. He regretted that
the Dean should have pleaded “the Popish cause against the Fathers of
the Reformation;” and as the Nonconformist was riding with his friend
to see Lady Falconbridge at Sutton Court, he so touched the heart of
the Church dignitary, that the latter bursting into tears, confessed
that it “was the unhappiest thing which had for a long time happened to
him;” and pleaded in excuse of his great error, the haste with which he
had prepared his discourse, and the alarm produced in his mind by the
spread of Popery.[38]
[Sidenote: 1680.]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
Perhaps these circumstances had some influence in producing another
useless attempt at comprehension at the close of the year 1680,
inasmuch as we shall find Howe in consultation with the two Divines
just mentioned touching the subject. Howe met Bishop Lloyd at
Tillotson’s house.[39] The Bishop asked what would satisfy the
Nonconformists, if an attempt should be made to adjust the differences
between them and the Church. Howe observed “as all had not the same
latitude, he could only answer for himself.” What concessions, he was
further asked, would, in his opinion, satisfy the scruples of the
greater number--for, added Lloyd, “I would have the terms so large
as to comprehend the most of them.” Howe declared that he thought “a
very considerable obstacle would be removed, if the law were so framed
as to enable ministers to attempt parochial reformation.” “For that
reason,” said the Bishop, “I am for abolishing the lay Chancellors as
being the great hindrance to such reformation.”[40] The next evening
Howe and Bates, with Tillotson, met at the Deanery of St. Paul’s, where
Stillingfleet had provided a handsome entertainment for his visitors.
Lloyd, though expected, did not join the party, being prevented by
a division in the House of Lords, upon the Exclusion Bill. Whatever
the bearing of these circumstances might be upon what followed, there
appeared in Parliament three days afterwards (November 18) a scheme of
comprehension.
The second reading of the Bill, embodying the scheme, occasioned a
debate, which went over well-worn topics, and presents no points of
interest.
The measure emanated from the Episcopalian party in the House of
Commons; but the Presbyterian members, to the amazement of every one,
did not promote it. They knew it could not be carried in the House of
Lords; and the clergy, as Kennet confesses, were “no further in earnest
than as they apprehended the knife of the Papists” to be near their
throats.[41]
The Bill dropped--what else could be expected, there being on one side
no earnestness in making the offer, and on the other no disposition to
accept it?[42]
[Sidenote: 1680–81.]
With the Bill founded on the principle of comprehension another was
brought forward, based on the principle of toleration. It proposed to
exempt Protestant Dissenters “from the penalties of certain laws.”[43]
The measure made way through the House of Commons, and it forced itself
through the House of Lords;[44] but because distasteful to the King on
account of its limiting toleration to Protestant Nonconformists, it was
put aside by some contemptible trick, when other Bills were presented
for the Royal assent.[45]
On the day of the prorogation, the Commons by a formal resolution
pronounced the prosecution of Protestant Dissenters to be a
grievance to the subject, a detriment to the Protestant interest, an
encouragement to Popery, and a danger to the kingdom’s peace.[46]
However strange it is to find such a resolution in the Journals, after
a Bill had been carried through the two Houses to the same effect a few
days before, the fact may be explained by the circumstance that the
Commons had become aware of the foul play practised on these cherished
measures. It seems incredible, but such was the factious spirit
existing, that the Court and High Church party--who were prepared to
vindicate, or to wink at all kinds of excesses in the despotism of the
Crown--positively objected to the resolution, as an unconstitutional
method of invalidating Acts of Parliament.[47]
[Sidenote: OXFORD PARLIAMENT.]
Charles II. dissolved his fourth Parliament on the 18th of January,
1681, and summoned a fifth to meet at Oxford on the 21st of March.[48]
This fifth Parliament opened amidst great excitement. The members for
London, who had sat before, received the thanks of the citizens for
searching into the Popish plot, and for supporting the Comprehension,
the Toleration, and the Exclusion Bills. They rode to the City
on the banks of the Isis, attended by a large body of horsemen,
with ribbons stuck in their hats, displaying the watchwords, “No
Popery--No Slavery.” Other members received similar addresses, and
proceeded to the scholastic halls,--for the occasion transferred into
senate-houses,--stirred by the conviction that a great political and
ecclesiastical crisis had arisen. Met by the King with gracious but
hollow sayings of the accustomed stamp, Parliament did not pass over
the recent breach of decency committed in reference to the Toleration
Bill, and reflections not more sharp than just were uttered by Liberal
members. It was said, that those who charged the Country party with
being Republicans were Revolutionists themselves, like thieves in a
crowd, crying “Gentlemen, have a care of your pockets;”[49] that if
Bills could be so thrown away the Commons vainly spent their time in
passing them, and that what had been done inflicted a heavy blow on
the English Constitution. The Commons requested a conference with the
Lords, and took up the subject with spirit, declaring, as recorded in
the _Lords’ Journals_, an intention to search out the accomplices
in the piece of impudent knavery, which had just been practised on
their own House.[50] Another Bill of Exclusion made its appearance, and
another debate on Popery arose; but a dissolution within one week put
an end to all Parliamentary inquiry, and extinguished all Parliamentary
discussion.
[Sidenote: 1681.]
Amidst much false alarm, and much popular folly, there existed a
reasonable antipathy to the superstition and intolerance of Rome; the
return of Papal ascendancy being, at that moment, no unreasonable
object of fear; for with it would have inevitably arrived a new reign
of civil and spiritual despotism. Protestantism on the one side, and
Popery on the other, stood face to face in irreconcilable conflict; and
during the storm which raged from one end of the Island to the other,
there came into play two famous party watchwords, which, though in our
time they have become nearly superseded, are not yet wholly swept out
of existence. It is curious to notice that “Whig” and “Tory”--names
then and since appropriated to political uses--had a religious origin:
Whig being the title coined to fit the Presbyterian Covenanters of
Scotland, suspected of anti-Monarchical principles; and “Tory” being
meant to designate the Roman Catholic Irishmen, who seized the property
of English settlers, and whose religion was considered most favourable
to despotism.
[Sidenote: EXCLUSION BILL.]
Whilst, in these days of enlightenment and of perfectly altered
circumstances, we can see how, without sacrificing universal religious
liberty, we can protect ourselves against the danger of Papal
ascendancy and despotism, should that danger again threaten us, it
is proper to take into account the whole case respecting the conduct
of our ancestors in the last two Stuart reigns, and to remember that
they dreaded such broad toleration, because they apprehended it would
lead to the supremacy of Romanism; and they could not see how it was
possible, in this case, to concede liberty without opening a gate
for the entrance of injustice. There was wisdom in the end they kept
in view, though there was error in the method they employed for its
attainment.
[Sidenote: 1681.]
It is ridiculous to look upon the Earl of Shaftesbury as the Æolus
who let loose the anti-Papal winds. He doubtless availed himself of
the public favour to accomplish ends of his own, and the elevation
of the Duke of Monmouth to the honour of legitimacy and heirship was
with him a favourite idea, equally absurd and mischievous; but the
desire, prevalent for a time, of cutting off the entail of the crown
from the King’s brother, was no creation of a single person, but the
offspring of public sentiment, and the outgrowth of years on years.
Indignation against Popery, and the support of an Exclusion Bill,
intimately connected as cause and effect, were two distinct things: but
although the former continued in unabated force, the latter dwindled
away, and the nation came to acquiesce, so far as the succession to
the throne was concerned, in the policy of the Court. The reasons
are easily assigned. Popular falsehoods respecting the Popish plots
exploded in disgrace, and honest folks saw they had been deceived
by knaves. From dislike to Rome, her doctrines, her polity, and her
worship, some diseased secretions, which had gathered over feeling,
came to be rubbed off. Romanists had been found less desperate plotters
than had been dreamed. Limitations upon the descent of the crown
appeared more efficacious than they had done before. The probability
of another Civil War, if James were excluded, alarmed many; personal
sympathy with a Sovereign required to perform so unnatural an act as
that of disinheriting a brother, prevailed with more; and perhaps,
considering the Royal ages, the uncertainty of the contemplated
emergency influenced most. In this last respect, a manifest difference
exists between the policy of an Exclusion Bill founded on a contingency
which might never occur, and the policy of a Revolution based upon
the despotic proceedings of an actual King. That these reasons proved
effective is plain; whether they were valid and wise is another
point. The sequel showed a Revolution to be inevitable. To have
anticipated the event of 1688 might have saved England some trouble
and much suffering; but England has always been slow to depart from
constitutional principles, and has always loved to stand as long as
possible “in the old ways.” The conflict which opened in 1643 had been
put off until it could be put off no longer: and the men of the second
half of the seventeenth century were, as it regarded an unwillingness
to come to extremities, just like their fathers of the first. What
really followed the departure from the scheme of Exclusion justified
some of the worst fears of its supporters. The Duke was restored to his
former position, and carried things with a high hand.[51]
[Sidenote: KING’S DECLARATION.]
After the dissolution of Parliament at Oxford, the King, by the advice
of Halifax, published a Declaration, explaining the reasons which
induced him to take that critical step. He charged the Commons with
arbitrary orders; with bringing forward accusations on mere suspicion;
with unconstitutional votes, especially in support of resolutions
condemning the persecution of Dissenters, according to law; with
obstinacy in the matter of the Exclusion Bill; with a design of
changing the government of the realm; and with a determination to set
and keep at variance the two Houses of Legislature.[52] In short, he
managed, as his father had done, only with more dexterity, to cover and
defend his own unconstitutional purposes, by throwing all blame on the
Houses of Parliament.
Immediately afterwards, Archbishop Sancroft received a Royal command
to require the public reading of the Declaration in all and every the
churches and chapels within the province of Canterbury, at the time of
Divine service, upon some Lord’s Day, with all convenient speed. If we
may here believe Burnet, Sancroft, at a meeting of Council, moved that
this order should be given; remembering the habits of the Historian
of his _Own Times_, I can scarcely trust his statement, without
confirmation from some other quarter. Yet, if Sancroft did not suggest,
he certainly did not resist the publication of this document--as he
did the publication of another at a later period; and, because he
received the order for its publication, and the publication followed
accordingly, he must bear the responsibility of having sanctioned a
procedure, which really made the Church an approving herald to the
nation, of the King’s despotic policy.[53]
[Sidenote: 1681.]
High Churchmen took the opportunity of presenting to the Throne the
most obsequious and abject addresses. Our princes, said they, derive
not their title from the people, but from God; to Him alone they are
accountable: and it belongs not to subjects either to create or to
censure, but only to honour and obey their Sovereign. They besought
His Majesty to accept the tender of their hearts and hands, their
lives and fortunes. These dearest sacrifices they abjectly laid down
at Royal feet.[54] It was about the same time that Morley, Bishop of
Winchester, declared:--“If ever it might be said of any--it may now
most emphatically be said of us: Happy are the people that are in such
a case.” We have “a Government pretending to no power at all above the
King, nor to no power under the King neither, but from him, and by him,
and for him--a Government enjoining active obedience to all lawful
commands of lawful authority; and passive obedience when we cannot obey
actively, forbidding and condemning all taking up of arms, offensive or
defensive, by subjects of any quality.”[55]
The King’s Declaration was compared by a writer of later date,
reflecting upon it, to the olive branch brought by the dove into the
ark,--an indication of peace, of the abatement of popular excitement,
and of the stability of laws and religion, like the dove which had
found _ubi pedem figeret_. Warming with his subject, he calls the
Declaration “that great vision of the _Lex terræ_” long wrapped in
mists, but now revealed; and likens the addresses called forth to the
seamen’s shout on approaching land, after a stormy voyage.[56] Some of
the Tory party went mad with joy at the triumph of despotism.
[Sidenote: LOYAL ADDRESSES.]
There were not wanting utterances of a very different order. A
well-known publication, entitled, _The Conformist’s Plea for the
Nonconformists, in four parts, by a Beneficed Minister, and a regular
Son of the Church of England_, bears the date of 1681, and at the
time made much stir. The author dwells upon the sufferings of his
Dissenting brethren--their hard case, their equitable proposals, their
ministerial qualifications, their peaceable behaviour, their orthodoxy
as tested by the doctrinal articles of the Church--and the injury
inflicted on that Church by their exclusion. “Some reverend sons of
the Church,” he remarked, with a good deal of common sense, “in love
to peace, and fear of enemies, have earnestly called and exhorted
the Dissenting ejected brethren, to come and unite, to come into the
present Constitution, as safest, as strongest, as best, &c. But if
they could not come in at the narrow door eighteen years ago, and the
door as narrow still as it was then, and there be the same cross-bars
laid across, as were then to keep them out, to what purpose is the
exhortation? Is there a great storm a coming? they think that Christ
is the same ship, and they are as safe as any other. They may clearly
plead, they could have conformed at first upon better worldly terms
than now; they might have saved what they have lost, and got their
share with others; to come now to conform, when all places are full,
and not enow for numerous expectants, and when there is nothing for
them without tedious waiting; and if their judgments and consciences
could not enter then, how can they now?”[57]
[Sidenote: 1681.]
Wit is not wanting, when he asks:--“But how did these Master-Builders
proceed in the Government of their New Reformed Church? It seemed to be
built no larger than to contain one family, the genuine sons of such
fathers; there was but one narrow door of admission to it, a strong
lock upon it, and the sole power of the keys was in trusty hands, and
the sword in the hand of a friend, there was no outward apartment in it
to entertain strangers, or belonging to it; but some got a false key to
the door, as many call it, a key of a larger sense; and when some got
in, more crowded in; and so the Latitudinarian in charity, came in with
the Latitudinarian in discipline, to the no little grief of some who do
not like their company. The fathers keep above stairs, and now and then
come down among us, and send their officers to visit us, and have their
watch renewed every year to tell tales of us; and they that are without
doors, cry, If there be any love in our Governors to Christ, and His
divided flock, that we would but widen the door, and reform but ill
customs; but we say, we cannot help ourselves or them, for the law will
have it so.”[58]