[Sidenote: COURT INTRIGUES.]
Important changes occurred in the Cabinet towards the close of 1685.
Halifax, President of the Council--but no favourite with the King on
account of his opposition to Roman Catholicism, the repeal of the
Test Act, and the Royal foreign policy--was dismissed in the month
of October. In December he was succeeded by Sunderland, who, from
having conformed to Roman Catholic ceremonies at the commencement of
the reign, and from having encouraged his Master in anti-Protestant
proceedings, had succeeded in securing and retaining his good opinion.
There existed a violent Popish party at Court, consisting of the Earl
of Castelmaine, husband to one of Charles’ mistresses,[152] of Henry
Jermyn, created Lord Dover by James II., of the Earl of Tyrconnel,
and of another Irishman, named White. These persons promoted measures
as rash as they were violent, and in so doing acted in concert with
a few Jesuits who dwelt in England, at the head of whom was Father
Petre. The Order at that time had come into collision with the Pontiff,
Innocent XI. They were now in a state of alliance with the French
King, who resisted Ultramontane pretensions, rather than in a state
of obedience to the occupant of St. Peter’s Chair. Then, as it has
happened at other times, parties in a Church which boasts of unity,
were engaged in carrying on the most opposite intrigues: the Jesuits
counselling the English King to set the liberties and wishes of his
subjects at defiance, and to play the despot out-and-out; while the
Roman Court advised him to preserve caution, and to keep within the
lines of the British Constitution. Sunderland united with the Jesuits,
and the other extreme Roman Catholic politicians, in encouraging the
Monarch to follow those ways which ultimately led to his downfall. The
Minister, to strengthen his own position, embraced the King’s religion.
He had before conformed to Catholic rites, but now he professed himself
a decided convert, giving to James the credit of having effected
the change. After the elevation of Sunderland came the dismissal of
Rochester, who had long been a Trimmer, as well as an adviser of
moderation. To recover the good opinion of the King and Queen he
professed to be open to conviction, courted Popish advocates, and
listened to controversies between Divines of the opposite Church--but,
at last, this cunning intriguer thought it the safest plan not to go
over to Rome.[153]
[Sidenote: 1686.]
James, encouraged in his extreme folly, rushed headlong to utter
ruin. It was not because he had become a Roman Catholic, it was not
simply because he sought to promote the interests of the Church which
he had espoused; it was because, in seeking to accomplish that end,
he violated the Constitution of his country. His despotism, not his
religion, was the immediate cause of his losing a throne. He violated
the law--that most sacred palladium in the eyes of an Englishman.
Having commenced the practice of granting dispensations to certain
individuals before the reign of persecution came to an end, he
was sometimes found pursuing a course which placed him and some
chiefs of the Church in apparently contradictory positions, whilst,
notwithstanding, they were, for awhile, promoting the same end.
“You may see,” says a contemporary Diarist, “somewhat remarkable in
this last week’s account--the Hierarchy so severely prosecuting the
Dissenters, and the Crown’s granting dispensations to them under seal.
Cross winds sometimes raise waves that break the force of one another,
and the ship is thereby preserved--sometimes they presage a tempest
that destroys it, when those winds centre in a dangerous quarter.
The Hierarchists have not appeared in the prosecution of one Papist
this Assizes, nor Sessions, upon the strictest inquiries that can be
made; but they say the only way to prevent Popery is to prosecute the
penal laws against the Protestant Dissenters, and, which is somewhat
mysterious, the best way to prevent Popery is not to prosecute
Papists.”[154]
Calamy refers to the Royal exercise of a dispensing power, and to the
sending out of injunctions by the Bishops for the presentment of all
such as did not receive the Lord’s Supper at Easter.[155]
[Sidenote: JAMES’ POLICY.]
In the Journal just quoted, an entry occurs a little earlier, showing
the indignity with which the Monarch treated some of his suppliants,
and the fruitlessness, occasionally, of their humble applications. The
Anabaptists presented an address for “His Majesty’s gracious pardon,”
when “they were kept long on their knees, while His Majesty showed
the petition to several about him, at which they were very merry;” and
the Quakers, who had petitioned for liberty, received “only a verbal
order for impunity,” and were, nevertheless, still “disturbed and
punished.”[156]
Such were the floating stories of treatment experienced by the
persecuted sects; and, if I may be permitted further to use the MS.
from which our knowledge of these impressions is derived, I will
extract the following passage which vividly reflects the perplexity
some Dissenters felt at this time, in consequence of endeavours made to
obtain their consent to measures of toleration, including Papists as
well as themselves.
“The great inquiry now is, whether persons will not only use, but
thankfully accept of and vigorously endeavour after universal liberty,
by taking off the penal laws, and incapacitating laws against Papists;
if the Dissenters do not comply, they will incur the displeasure of the
Court, and the Court will destroy them. And, on the other hand, the
Church also, if these laws continue in being, or at least the Church
and the Court, will unite, and thereby utterly destroy them. And if
they do comply, they will first verify the imputation, the Church lays
upon them, as if they favoured Popery; and say, ‘they themselves are
the only pillars of the Protestant religion, you see the Dissenters
betray and give it up.’ Secondly, they may probably be dragooned by the
Court, when they have helped to take the laws off from the Papists, and
thereby weaken the Protestant interest. Thirdly, and lastly, in time to
come, the Church may call them to an account, and be severe upon them
for their compliance.”[157]
James’ policy of granting indulgence reached its culminating point in
the famous Declaration, published on the 4th of April, 1687.
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The document presented signs of righteous toleration, and viewed
superficially it exhibits a favourable contrast with the policy then
pursued in France. France and England seemed bent upon adopting
contrary lines of policy. When Elizabeth had supported ecclesiastical
despotism, Henry IV., by the Edict of Nantes, had proclaimed himself a
friend of religious liberty: now, as Louis XIV. drove from the French
shores his Protestant subjects, by striving to dragoon them out of
their religion, James II. talked to the English people graciously
touching freedom of conscience.
But what was the real design of it all? Fully to answer this question
we must carefully look at the line of policy which he previously
pursued towards Popery, towards the Church of England, and towards
Protestant Dissent. And here it should be premised, that the crushing
of Monmouth’s rebellion in England, and of Argyle’s rebellion in
Scotland, had swept away for a time all opposition to James’ title
and authority,--had consolidated his power, and had encouraged him to
attempt the experiment of ruling the nation as an absolute monarch: and
let it also be remembered, that his despotic designs were intimately
connected with his ecclesiastical polity.
His object with regard to Popery seems to have been, by a succession of
bold attempts, to give it not only toleration, but an establishment in
this country,--at least, an establishment upon terms of equality with
the Protestant Church.[158]
[Sidenote: JAMES’ POLICY.]
The Judges, in the case of Sir Edward Hales, having decided in favour
of the King’s dispensing power; and having also given it as their
opinion, that the laws of England were the King’s laws, that it was an
inseparable branch of his prerogative to dispense with penal statutes,
and that of the reasons for doing so in particular cases he was sole
Judge;--James immediately proceeded by Letters Patent, dated May the
3rd, 1686, to authorize Edward Sclater to retain his benefice, after he
had, on the previous Palm Sunday, confessed his conversion to Romanism
by attending Mass. He also allowed Obadiah Walker, a clergyman who had
long secretly leaned to Popery, and now openly avowed his conversion,
to retain his position and emoluments as Master of University College,
Cambridge. By a still bolder stroke, the King dashed down the barriers
which guarded admission to the Establishment, and conferred the Deanery
of Christ Church upon John Massey,--a Roman Catholic priest, possessing
neither learning nor ability,--who instantly decked an altar in the
usual way for the celebration of Mass.
The two sees of Chester and Oxford fell vacant in 1686. James appointed
to the one Thomas Cartwright, Dean of Ripon, a worthless sycophant,
who might be expected to do anything to please his master; and to the
other, Samuel Parker, already well known to the reader for his violent
Tory and High Church publications.[159] “I wished,” says the King to
the Papal Nuncio, Adda, “to appoint an avowed Catholic, but the time is
not come. Parker is well inclined to us, he is one of us in feeling,
and, by degrees, he will bring round his clergy.”[160]
[Sidenote: 1686.]
Whilst James secured for his purpose tools of this description he
did whatever he could to silence the voice of controversy against the
Church of his affections. He caused the Lord Treasurer to reprove
Sherlock, and to stop his pension for preaching against Popery;[161]
and he wrote to Compton, the Bishop of London, commanding him to
suspend the Rector of St. Giles, Dr. Sharp, who had engaged in a
pulpit contest with a Roman Catholic priest. This last interference
involved consequences more mischievous than itself. It had long been
in the mind of the Sovereign to revive the Court of High Commission,
as an efficient agent for the control of the clergy. To any one else,
the Act of Charles II., confirming the abolition of that Court by
the Long Parliament, would have been an insurmountable barrier, yet
despising such reasons as would have guided other men, James gradually
brought himself to the determination of re-establishing that odious
tribunal. The lawyers told him that what he proposed would be found to
be unconstitutional. His Ministers shrunk from committing themselves
to so perilous an act, but Sharp’s affair fixed his decision. Compton,
son of the Royalist Earl of Northampton, himself once an officer of the
Guards, had with something of a soldier’s gallantry and dash, opposed
the Government, from his seat in the House of Lords; and when receiving
the King’s command for the suspension of Sharp, he had declined to
take that step without a trial of the denounced clergyman, and had
also, by mere private influence, arranged for his submitting to a
period of silence. This conduct on the part of the prelate provoked the
King to end his hesitation, and to revive the very Court, which had
been a chief cause of his father’s ruin. The New Commission conferred
an indefinite spiritual jurisdiction, in this case the more dangerous
from its being indefinite.[162]
[Sidenote: JAMES’ POLICY.]
[Sidenote: 1686.]
It was to cover England and Wales; it was to be for the reform of
all abuses, contrary to the ecclesiastical laws of the realm. It
gave authority to summon before it such ecclesiastical persons of
every degree as should offend in any of the particulars mentioned,
and punish them accordingly, by depriving them of their preferment,
and by inflicting ecclesiastical censures and penalties. It brought
within its scope _suspected_ persons to be proceeded against, “as
the nature and quality of the offence, or suspicion in that behalf”
should require. It prescribed summary excommunication and deprivation
for all persons, who should be obstinate or disobedient; and it
brought within the control of the Commissioners, the Universities,
Cathedrals, Collegiate Churches, Colleges, and all ecclesiastical
Corporations whatever, with the power of obtaining and examining
all kinds of documents touching those foundations. This formidable
instrument was addressed to seven Commissioners, four laymen, and three
Bishops. Jeffreys, now Lord Chancellor, was President, and with him
were associated the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Chief
Justice of the King’s Bench. The three Bishops named were Sancroft, of
Canterbury; Crew, of Durham; and Sprat, of Rochester. The Primate at
once saw the illegality of the measure, yet had not firmness enough
to do more than excuse himself, on the ground of ill-health, from
attending the Board. This engine, contrived for the widest action,
was precipitately brought into play, to meet the particular emergency
of Compton’s case. The Commissioners summoned him before them upon
the charge, that he had not suspended the obnoxious Rector according
to Royal command. First, Compton objected to the tribunal itself as
illegal, an objection which the Commissioners instantly overruled.
Instead of persevering in that objection, and thus commencing at once
a constitutional struggle, which was both imminent and necessary,
the Bishop quietly gave way, and proceeded to plead that he had, in
fact, complied with His Majesty’s injunctions. To have suspended
Sharp formally, he contended would have been illegal; to prevent
Sharp from preaching, he represented as the only thing possible
under the circumstances. This line of defence reflects no honour
upon the defendant, it simply sheltered him from personal injury,
without raising any question of principle. It virtually surrendered
the liberties of the Church, and appears altogether unworthy of the
occasion. Nor did it avail for the protection of the accused. The
Commissioners pronounced him guilty, and for his “disobedience and
contempt” suspended him from his Episcopal office, permitting him,
however, to retain his revenues and his residence. The Bishop of
Peterborough, with the Bishops of Durham and Rochester, were directed
to execute the sentence.
As at St. James’, so at Whitehall, the King provided a Roman Catholic
Chapel.[163] He encouraged the fitting up of a similar place of
worship at the residence of an Englishman in London, who acted as Envoy
for the Elector Palatine. The Benedictines established themselves at
St. James’, the Franciscans in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, the Jesuits at the
Savoy, and the Carmelites in the City; and Roman Catholics are accused
of having seized some of the parish churches in Lancashire.[164]
[Sidenote: JAMES’ POLICY.]
The religious orders of Rome, arrayed in their distinguishing costumes,
now appeared in the streets of the Metropolis,--a sight which must have
shocked the old Puritans--but in such exhibitions the King greatly
rejoiced, prematurely exulting “that his capital had the appearance of
a Catholic city.”[165]
If the facts adduced be not sufficient to indicate the King’s
intentions, any remaining doubts must be dispelled by turning to his
private correspondence. The letters of the last two years of his reign
serve the same purpose as the letters of Charles I. in the year 1646.
They fully reveal his private designs, whatever, on certain occasions,
he might publicly declare. They repeatedly refer to the “establishment”
of the Catholic religion--which means, in the judgment of one of the
calmest of critics, that he “meditated no less than to transfer to his
own religion the privileges of an Established Church.”[166] What is
now so manifest from this correspondence, Halifax, Nottingham, and
Danby, perceived at the time, and though they differed from each other
on many points they agreed on this.
[Sidenote: 1686.]
Sunderland thoroughly engaged himself on behalf of the interests of
Popery, and communicated, without reserve, the Royal intentions to
Barillon, the French representative at the Court of St. James’. “This
minister,” wrote Barillon to Louis XIV., “said to me, I do not know
if they see things in France as they are here, but I defy those who
see them near, not to know, that the King, my master, has nothing so
much at heart as to establish the Catholic religion; that he cannot,
even according to good sense and right reason, have any other end;
that without it he will never be in safety, and always exposed to the
indiscreet zeal of those who will heat the people against the Catholic
religion as long as it is not fully established.”[167] Another fact at
the time is significant. The oath administered to Privy Councillors
included the words, “I shall to my utmost defend all jurisdictions,
pre-eminencies, and authorities, granted to His Majesty, and annexed
to his Crown by Act of Parliament, or otherwise, against all foreign
Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.” But this part
of the oath, it is stated, was by the Royal order expunged from the
Council-book.[168] In addition to all these circumstances, James
availed himself of the religious sympathies of the Irish people, to
establish a Roman Catholic hierarchy amongst them, assigning to the
Primate a revenue of £2,000 a year, and he authorized the clergy to
wear in public the habits belonging to their order.[169]
[Sidenote: JAMES’ POLICY.]
It must be confessed that the King met with much in the preaching of
the Protestant clergy to encourage his fondest hopes. A Chaplain to the
Bishop of Ely maintained the immaculate holiness of the Virgin, and the
necessity for seeking her intercession. Also, a Popish priest, in a
sermon at Court, proclaimed himself as an ambassador sent from heaven
to admonish the King to extirpate heresy, and to plant in the kingdom
the true grace of God.[170]
Encouragement of another kind presented itself. Conversions to Popery
became numerous. The Earl of Peterborough and the Earl of Salisbury
both embraced the faith patronized by royalty; the first described as
a worn-out Courtier, the second as a worn-out sensualist. Sir Ellis
Leighton, brother of the good Archbishop of that name, recanted the
Protestantism of his youth; and Sir Christopher Milton, a Judge,
brother of John Milton, the poet, if he did not do the same thing,
at any rate scrupled to communicate with the Church of England, in
consequence of Popish leanings. The lady of Sir Thomas Grosvenor, “the
Elizabeth Ebury, who brought the Westminster estates into his family,”
and the Lady Theophila, wife of Robert Nelson, both joined the Papal
communion; and Samuel Pepys, tells us in his _Diary_, that he
did not press his wife to attend the parish church, lest she should
“declare herself a Catholic.” Dryden, the poet, a man who perhaps cared
little about religion, Wycherley, the licentious dramatist, Haines, an
utterly worthless adventurer, and Tindal, who afterwards wrote against
Christianity, also seceded from the Church of the Reformation to the
Church of the Council of Trent.[171]
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The fact being proved that James intended to re-establish Popery, and
received encouragement to do so, little need be said respecting his
purpose in reference to the Protestant Episcopal Church. It follows
that he must have designed, through placing a rival and ambitious
power by its side, to overthrow its supremacy, if not to destroy its
existence. Such policy was alike ungrateful and treacherous. It was
_ungrateful_--for if the Presbyterians placed Charles II. upon
the throne, the Episcopalians secured the succession to James II.; and
amongst the most effective supporters of his arbitrary authority were
those Anglicans who had preached passive obedience and non-resistance.
And it was _treacherous_--for repeatedly he had declared, that he
would make it his endeavour to defend and support the Church of England.
[Sidenote: JAMES’ POLICY.]
Perhaps the actual discouragement which the prelates and clergy
received at the hands of him who had sworn to support them, and the
imminent perils which stared them in the face, roused the rather
inanimate Archbishop of Canterbury to attempt some little reform in
the Establishment. He, with the concurrence of the Bishops of his
province, issued Articles for some better regulations in the mode
of admitting candidates to the cure of souls, since many abuses
and uncanonical practices had lately crept in.[172] The Articles,
however, did not amount to anything remarkable, and what might be
their practical effect does not appear. If preventing the introduction
of Roman Catholic priests into the Church, or discouraging in it all
Romanizing tendencies, came within the designs of the Primate and his
brethren, no signs of it can be traced in the Articles themselves;
but there were other ways in which Anglican zeal against Popery at
that time made itself visible. Forbidden to preach against Popery,
the clergy employed their pens. Amongst four hundred and fifty-seven
controversial pamphlets which issued from the press--including those
written on both sides--may be mentioned Wake’s and Dodwell’s answers
to Bossuet; Clagett and Williams’ replies to Gother, author of _The
Papist Represented and Misrepresented_; Stillingfleet’s attack upon
Godden’s _Dialogues_; and Sherlock’s answer to Sabran, the Jesuit.
Atterbury, Smalridge, Tenison, and Tillotson, also took part in the
controversy. A noble set of writings, Calamy remarks, was now published
by Church Divines against the errors of Rome; and he endeavours to
explain the causes of that comparative silence which the Dissenters
maintained upon a subject in which they were so deeply interested. It
is pleaded by him, that they had written largely on the subject before,
their own people were not much in danger, if they did not write, they
preached upon Popery, they were satisfied to see the work well done by
others, and some who wished to publish had little chance of being read,
public attention being engrossed by distinguished Churchmen.[173] Some
of these excuses carry a measure of force; Nonconformists had not been
deficient in exposing the fallacies of Romanism, and the pulpit was now
employed when the press was inactive, but other parts of the defence
are more ingenious than valid; and it must be confessed, that clear and
distinct argumentative attacks upon the common foe of Protestantism
from the Dissenting point of view, coupled with the assertion of civil
liberty on behalf of all religionists, so far as the doctrine was then
understood, would have been more worthy of the Nonconformist cause at
that critical juncture.
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The policy of James respecting the Protestant Establishment, thus
nobly resisted by some of its members, together with his policy
towards Romanism, will help the reader to understand his designs upon
Protestant Nonconformity. He could not but be aware of its deadly
opposition to his own religion; its evangelical creed, its popular
discipline, and its simple worship, must have inspired his deepest
dislike; and, whatever professions of charity and forbearance he
might offer at times, the same feelings which created his enmity to a
Protestant Establishment, must necessarily have created in him also
enmity to Protestant Dissent.
His threefold policy thus throws light upon the Declaration of
Indulgence published in 1687. That Declaration could not proceed from
sound views of religious freedom, or from a generous desire to relieve
Protestant sufferers, it must have been designed immediately to help,
and ultimately to establish, Roman Catholicism in England. According
to the terms of the Declaration, the King wished that all his subjects
had been members of the Catholic Church, but such not being the case,
he respected the rights of conscience, promising to protect those of
his subjects who belonged to the Church of England; he also resolved
to suspend the laws for the punishment of Nonconformity, and therefore
granted liberty of worship to all who did not encourage political
disaffection. The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the Tests
and Declarations, mentioned in the 25th and 30th of his brother’s
reign, were to be no longer enforced; and ample pardon was extended to
all Nonconformist recusants, for all acts contrary to the penal laws
respecting religion.
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
That James simply wished to promote his own religion, and did not
care for what is meant by religious freedom, is clear from the
French ambassador’s account of the liberty which the King conceded to
the people of Scotland; for the diplomatist, writing to his master,
states that the measure, debated for several days, created much
difficulty, and that he would by no means allow to Scotch Protestants
the extensive right of worship which he granted to Scotch Roman
Catholics.[174] The same writer, a little earlier, told the French
Sovereign that His Britannic Majesty heard with pleasure a recital of
the wonderful progress with which God had blessed the efforts of the
former for the conversion of the Huguenots, there being no example of
a similar thing happening at any time, or in any country, with so much
promptitude.[175] It is absurd to represent a man who thus approved
of conversion by violence as a friend to religious liberty. It should
also be remembered that there was no little duplicity involved in the
conduct of the English Monarch at this time, for just after the above
communication had been privately made to the Court at Versailles, he
issued letters patent to the Bishops, authorizing a collection on
behalf of the exiles.
How was the Declaration received?
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The Catholics expressed their satisfaction with it; and whilst they
gladly availed themselves of the professed benefit, they felt pleasure
in seeing liberty extended to all sects without exception, by a prince
of their own communion.[176] Politicians, who understood and cared for
the liberties of their country, however glad they might be to see
different forms of religion tolerated, could not help being alarmed
by so daring an exercise of the Royal prerogative, which if conceded,
would imperil the Constitution, break down the safeguards of law, and
place the destinies of the nation for evil, as well as for good, in
the hands of a despotic sovereign. Members of the Church of England,
in this hour of its need, said kind things of the Nonconformists,
whom they had persecuted before, and spoke of legal securities for
freedom of worship; yet they viewed with the utmost alarm this exercise
of absolute power, and saw in it only a confirmation of their worst
fears, that, under a pretence of general liberty, the Monarch sought to
destroy the ascendancy of Protestantism. The selfishness, which blended
with their fears, and the compunctions which mingled with their alarm,
did not diminish the reasonableness of their apprehension.
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
Some Bishops, however, distinguished themselves by a line of conduct
different from that pursued by their brethren. Durham, Rochester,
Peterborough, Oxford, and Chester, being invited to meet the Lord
Chancellor and the Earl of Sunderland, the latter told them how
acceptable to His Majesty would be an address of thanks. Three of them
at once signed such an address. Rochester hesitated, but complied;
Peterborough decidedly refused. Chester reported that the four who
signed altered their first paper, which gave thanks for the Declaration
as a whole, into a second, which acknowledged only the King’s promise
to protect the Church; and it is further reported that when the Bishop
of Durham presented the document to the King, His Majesty said, “I
expected this sooner from you of the Church of England, and also now,
that it would have come much fuller than what it is. Can you find
nothing to give thanks for, but that one clause which relates to
yourselves? Have you no sense of that kindness others have received
thereby? Methinks you might have given thanks, at least, for that ease
and relief your Protestant brethren have received by it.”[177]
Those who prepared such cautious addresses found it difficult to obtain
signatures, even when requested to sign, by diocesans favourable to the
proceeding. The subject seems to have been most carefully canvassed
by the superior as well as by the inferior clergy; for I find in the
library of the Cambridge University a long paper, containing the
reasons of the Bishops for and against subscription to an Oxford
address. Amongst the reasons for subscription, as offered by the
Chancellor, are these--that it might continue the King’s favour,
whereas the omission might irritate the Treasury to call upon the £500
bonds of first-fruits at full worth; and that it would testify unity
with and submission to the Bishops who required the address, and who,
perhaps, expected it upon the canonical obedience of the clergy, there
being nothing in the document _præter licitum et honestum_. On
the other side, amongst other things, it is alleged that it would be
superfluous to thank His Majesty for continuing legal rights; and it
is remarked, respecting the Declaration, and the aspect of it upon
the Established Episcopal Church, “As to the free exercise of our
religion, it necessarily holds us among the various sects, under the
Toleration, who for that favour in suspending the laws have led the way
to such addresses, depending for protection upon no legal statutes, but
entirely upon the sovereign pleasure and indulgence which at pleasure
is revocable.”[178]
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The manner in which Nonconformists received the measure requires to be
more fully explained.
One class, not so fanatical as to refuse the liberty offered, objected
notwithstanding, and that strongly, to the dispensing power; and,
after much deliberation, they declined to present to the King any
acknowledgment. This class included Richard Baxter and John Howe:
Baxter refusing to join in offering thanks; Howe, wavering at first,
but at last becoming so decided respecting the matter, as to move and
carry a resolution against going to Court upon the occasion.
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
Another class remains, including Vincent Alsop and Stephen Lobb; the
former being drawn into “some high flights” of loyal flattery in return
for a Royal pardon granted to his son; the latter showing himself
contemptibly obsequious in his approaches to the King, and receiving
in consequence the appellation of the “Jacobite Independent.” Of the
favourable addresses then presented, one from the Anabaptists in and
about the City of London came first:[179] One from the Presbyterians
in the same neighbourhood came next. This, whilst giving thanks for
the Indulgence, expressed a hope that the two Houses of Parliament
would concur in the measure.[180] The Quakers said the Declaration did
the less surprise them, because it was what some of them had known to
be the principle of the King long before he came to the throne.[181]
In some of these compositions very eulogistic terms appear. The loyal
subjects of the Congregational persuasion in Ipswich, and other towns
of Suffolk, displayed a curiously rhetorical style. “The shields of
the earth,” said they, “belong unto God, He hath made you a covering
cherub to us, under whose refreshing shadow we promise ourselves
rest.”[182] The Dissenters of Malden in Essex spoke of the great
service God designed to accomplish by His Majesty, “the blossoming
whereof is now made visible in your celebrated wisdom, in hapning
(_sic_) upon the most melodious harp to charm all evil spirits,
that many other princes had no skill to use.”[183] Some Dissenters, in
and about the City of London, exceeded their brethren in extravagance.
“Your Majesty,” they declared, “hath distinguished and set the bounds
of your own dominion from that of heaven itself. You have given to God
and man their due, and yet preserved your own right.”[184] Who were the
persons engaged in drawing up these adulatory compositions, by what
kind of people, and by how many they were signed, we have no method of
ascertaining; but it is more than probable, that Court agents employed
the most insinuating arts to secure their production. Addresses to
the King were for a twelvemonth all the fashion. They were presented
by all sorts of people, who vied with each other in most absurd
expressions of loyalty. The Company of Cooks were pre-eminent in their
laudations, and praised the Indulgence as resembling the Almighty’s
manna, which suited every man’s palate; and they declared “that
men’s different gustos might as well be forced, as their different
apprehensions about religion.”[185] In some cases the compliments of
the subject were matched by the complaisance of the Sovereign; and in
answer to a Presbyterian address he professed he had no other design
than toleration, and “hoped to see the day when the people should have
a _Magna Charta_ for liberty of conscience, as well as for the
protection of their property.”
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The Yarmouth Congregational Church Book bears witness to the effect
produced by the Declaration just afterwards:--“It was ordered by the
Church, that the Meeting-house should be made clean, and shutters be
made for the upper windows, which was accordingly done by many of
our maid-servants.” This curious minute affords an example of busy
scenes of religious zeal, such, probably, as occurred in many towns
and villages. The humble conventicle was repaired, the interior was
cleansed and fitted up for a public assembly, and many a heart beat
with joy at signs which promised they should once more “sit under their
vine and fig-tree, none daring to make them afraid.”
About the same time Evelyn remarks:--“There was a wonderful concourse
of people at the Dissenters’ meeting-house in this parish, and the
parish church (Deptford) left exceeding thin. What this will end in,
God Almighty only knows; but it looks like confusion, which I pray God
avert.”[186]
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
The Dissenters generally, whilst they accepted James’ Indulgence, saw
through his designs. Not only did they oppose the King’s claim to
dispense with laws, but many of them also, through fear of Popery,
resisted the repeal of the Test Act; choosing rather to suffer
exclusion from civil offices than open a door for the admission of
Papists. Some indeed, who advocated occasional conformity (that is
communicating at times with Episcopalians in the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper), suffered no personal inconvenience from the Test Act,
and therefore advocated its continuance. Among them was Sir John
Shorter, the Presbyterian Lord Mayor of London, in the year 1687; he
preferred occasional attendance at Church during his mayoralty, to
an acceptance of the suspected benefits offered by the Indulgence.
Considering such cases, one cannot help seeing, that if such persons
confined conformity to their year of office, they laid themselves open
to the charge of sacrificing their principles for personal ends.
[Sidenote: 1687.]
The King, at this period, regarded the famous Quaker, William Penn, as
his particular friend and supporter. The Admiral, his father, had been
a favourite with James when Duke of York; that favour he transferred
after the Admiral’s death, to the pious son. The Royal regard--added to
the Quaker’s wealth and rank, his personal character, social qualities,
and active habits--made him one of the most important and influential
men of his day, and the early gathering of suitors at the door of
his mansion at Kensington, resembled the resort of clients to some
popular Roman patrician. Penn has been charged with involving himself
in dishonourable transactions with the maids of honour for the purchase
of a Royal pardon for girls at Taunton, who presented a banner to
Monmouth; and also with attempting to bribe the Fellows of Magdalen
College, Oxford, to submit to the King in certain illegal proceedings
which we shall hereafter describe. But it appears in a very high
degree probable, that the Penn, who acted as a pardon-broker for the
Taunton young ladies was not Penn the Quaker: and the charge against
the latter, in reference to the business at Magdalen College, is not
established, even after the cleverest special pleading employed for the
purpose.[187] But Penn certainly did all he could to support James in
his policy of Indulgence, and to persuade Nonconformists to accept its
benefits. As an Englishman this excellent person could not have had
a clear understanding of the constitutional question involved in the
measure; as a Nonconformist he showed a want of wisdom in countenancing
the dispensing power; and he is to be reckoned as one of that class
whose humanity, whose benevolence, and whose desire to secure present
liberty under critical circumstances, are wont to interfere with their
perception of fundamental principles and of ultimate results. Nor can
any one, even with the greatest admiration of his eminent virtues,
and of his conscientious adherence to his religion in the midst of
persecution, regard him as free from infirmities. It may be fairly
suspected that, with his courteous manners, he blended, in spite of his
Quaker usages, a measure of obsequiousness to Royalty, that gratified
by Royal attention, this Courtier Friend felt disposed to go further
than other conscientious men could do in promoting Royal designs, and
that a little spice of personal vanity was sprinkled over the better
qualities of this very estimable person.
[Sidenote: WILLIAM KIFFIN.]
[Sidenote: 1687.]
Upon a different character from Penn, James wasted his acts in vain.
William Kiffin has been mentioned already as the victim of a scandalous
forgery. This and other attempts upon his safety he overcame. Indeed,
he was charged with designs upon the life of Charles II., a charge
too absurd to be prosecuted, yet it exposed him to some degree of
temporary inconvenience. Although not himself accused of complicity in
the Rye House Plot, or in the Monmouth Rebellion, his family suffered
from both--a son-in-law being tried for his connection with the first,
and two grandsons, handsome youths, pious, and of great promise,
being executed for their share in the second. Kiffin still continued
a preacher of the Gospel in the Baptist denomination, as well as a
prosperous merchant in the City of London, and it is curious to notice
how this twofold character is indicated in his portrait: a Puritan
skull-cap covers his head, whilst long curly locks flow from under it,
and a richly embroidered lace collar covers his breast, with a loose
cloak gracefully wrapped round his shoulders. His wealth and position
in the City, together with his influence amongst Nonconformists,
rendered him a person worthy of being conciliated. Upon his coming
to Court, in obedience to the Royal command, the King told him that
his name had been put down as an alderman in the new Charter. “Sire,”
he replied, “I am a very old man, and have withdrawn myself from all
kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any
service in such an affair, to your Majesty or the City--besides,
Sire,” he continued, the tears running down his cheeks, “the death of
my grandsons gave a wound to my heart, which is still bleeding, and
never will close, but in the grave.” “Mr. Kiffin,” returned James, “I
shall find a balsam for that sore.” The marble-hearted[188] monarch
had no conception of such deep sorrow as filled Kiffin’s breast; and
Kiffin showed himself proof against all attempts upon his political
and ecclesiastical integrity. He felt obliged nominally to accept the
aldermanship; but, after holding it for a few months, without meddling
much in civic affairs, he obtained a discharge from his troublesome
office.[189]