When the Act had taken effect, some of the Presbyterians looked for a
mitigation of its severity. Those who lived in London, and were upon
terms of friendship with the Earl of Manchester, and other Puritan
noblemen, trusting to their influence at Court, resolved to make an
effort to obtain redress. Calamy, Manton, and Bates, the leaders of
this forlorn hope, prepared a petition, numerously signed by London
pastors.[382] It spoke of His Majesty's indulgence, and besought him,
in his princely wisdom and compassion, to take some effectual course,
whereby they might be continued in the exercise of their office.[383]
Whatever might be the effect of the petition, Clarendon admits that
the King made a positive promise to do what the ministers desired.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
At this time the nobility had gone down to their country-seats to
enjoy the summer months; the Bishops generally were engaged in their
visitations. Charles, at Hampton Court, was joking with his lords,
toying with his mistresses, rambling in the green alleys, lounging in
the cool saloons, watching games in the tennis-court, and feeding the
ducks in the broad ponds. However unwilling to attend to business, he
found that a Council must be held. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishops of London and Winchester were therefore summoned, together with
Chief Justice Bridgman, and the Attorney-General, the Duke of Ormond,
and the Secretaries of State. The King's promise was communicated to
the Council. "The Bishops were very much troubled that _those fellows_
should still presume to give His Majesty so much vexation, and that
they should have such access to him." As for themselves, they desired
"to be excused for not conniving in any degree at the breach of the
Act of Parliament, either by not presenting a clerk where themselves
were patrons, or deferring to give institution upon the presentation
of others; and that His Majesty's giving such a declaration or
recommendation, would be the greatest wound to the Church, and to the
government thereof, that it could receive."[384]
[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]
Sheldon vehemently urged, that it was now too late to alter what
had been done; the Sunday before he had ejected those who would not
subscribe; the King had thus provoked them, and that now to admit them
to the Church would be for him to put his head in the lion's mouth. He
further urged that resolutions of Council could not justify contempt
for an Act of Parliament. The argument is thoroughly constitutional,
and so far Sheldon appears right; but before he completed his speech,
he manifested his real spirit by contending, that if the importunity of
disaffected people were a reason for humouring them, neither Church nor
State would ever be free from disturbance.[385]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The operation of the Act, the petition of ministers, and the
discussions in Council, were soon the topic of newspapers, and the talk
of the country; and great credit was given for the "care and prudence
of the most worthy diocesan" of London, in filling up the numerous
vacancies. It was reported, that at Northampton, "all except two
or three" conformed; that at Gloucester, there was "scarcely a man"
who did not subscribe; and that at Newport, an instance occurred of a
building erected by Nonconformists being seized and appropriated for
Episcopal worship. We find it also stated that in the City of Chester,
Nonconformists preached on the 24th of August, though cautioned against
it by the Bishop; and that the following Sunday they being displaced,
and other ministers being appointed, the Presbyterians still came to
the parish service; and that in Northumberland, there were "only three
disaffected ministers, Scotchmen, who quietly left their livings,
and crossed the Tweed." The High Church party believed the Act to be
popular, and Nonconformity to be an insignificant affair--a mere puff
of smoke, which a moment's wind would blow away. Episcopal visitations
created much enthusiasm. All the gentry went out to meet the Bishop
of Exeter, with one thousand horse, and foot without number, and many
coaches; City music sounded from the top of Guildhall, and the Bishop
drove up to the Deanery amidst volleys of shot. At Chippenham, like
honours saluted the Bishop of Salisbury.[386] Rumours of another kind
floated in other quarters. William Hook, an Independent, who had been
ejected from the Savoy, informed an American correspondent, that after
the Act of Uniformity, there were few communicants at the churches,
"only ten, twenty, or forty, where there were 20,000 persons more than
sixteen years old; and on festival days only the parsons and three or
four at their devotions."[387] It is not to be supposed that Hook, any
more than his contemporaries in newspapers, gave himself much trouble
in sifting evidence, still probably there is truth in what he says.
Beyond idle rumours certain facts are established. For example, St.
Mary's Church, at Taunton, was closed for several weeks successively;
and although we find that afterwards public services were held at
rare intervals, the parish had no resident minister for the next nine
months.[388]
[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]
The law bound every clergyman to subscribe in the presence of his
Archbishop or Ordinary, and it may be mentioned in illustration, that
the Canons of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, subscribed before the
Dean, he being the Ordinary of the place; some of them, in _majorem
cautionem_, subscribed also before the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet
was it with this proviso--saving the rights and privileges of this free
chapel.[389]
Some clergymen, who ultimately subscribed, did so with hesitation. Sir
Thomas Browne, in his tour through Derbyshire, met with a friend who,
the day before he saw him, which was in the month of September, "had
most manfully led up a train of above twenty parsons, and though they
thought themselves to be great Presbyterians, yet they followed" this
leader to Chesterfield, and by subscribing there "kept themselves in
their livings despite of their own teeth."[390] Some lingered awhile
on neutral ground; others went back to the Establishment. A large
number of cases of this kind may be found in _Calamy's Account_ and
_Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial_.[391] Men of character and worth,
belonging to the Puritan party, overcame their scruples by putting a
general interpretation on a precise declaration, and by pondering the
thought that a superior social influence for good would attend their
remaining as shepherds within the Episcopalian sheep-fold.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
Lightfoot, Wallis, and Horton, who had been Presbyterian Commissioners
at the Savoy, became Conformists. Dr. Fogg, of Chester, joined them at
the end of five years; Dr. Conant at the end of seven.
Gurnal, the devout author of the _Christian Armour_, belongs to the
same class. All such men had to pay the penalty of separating from
old friends.[392] They suffered abuse; being taunted with the use of
"Episcopal eye-salve," and for bowing down to "the whore of Babylon."
All sorts of stories were buzzed abroad to their discredit; it is
related as a Divine judgment that a Conformist crossing a bridge on
his way to the place where he meant to subscribe, was thrown from his
horse and killed. The tale appears in connection with an account of a
clergyman, who, after expressing himself in a sermon bitterly against
the Presbyterians, dreamed that he should die at a certain time, and,
in accordance with this warning, was found dead in his bed.[393] Cases
also occurred in which clergymen at first conformed to the Act, and
afterwards became Dissenters.[394]
[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]
Soon after the Act had been passed, the Bishops issued articles of
inquiry and visitation, very much of the same comprehensive, minute,
and sifting description, as those which had been issued before the
Civil Wars. In these articles, distinct reference is made to the
conformity required by the new law. The text of the articles for the
dioceses of Bath and Wells, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln,
Llandaff, Oxford, Peterborough, and St. David's is, with slight
exception, the same as that for the diocese of Winchester, of which
Morley was Bishop; and, under the third title, _Concerning Ministers_,
it is asked, whether they had been legally instituted and inducted;
and had, within two months after induction, on some Sunday or holyday,
publicly, in the time of Divine service, read the Thirty-nine Articles
and declared assent to them; also, whether in the daily Morning and
Evening service, Administration of the Holy Sacraments, Celebration of
Marriage, Churching of Women, Visitation of the Sick, Burial of the
Dead, and pronouncing God's Commination against impenitent sinners,
they used the words prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, without
any addition, omission, or alteration of the same? Also whether they
wore the surplice, and such scholastical habit as was suitable to
their degree, and observed holydays, fasts, embers, and the yearly
perambulations in Rogation weeks? Also whether any person had preached
in the parish as a lecturer, and if so, whether he had obtained a
license from the Bishop, and had read the appointed prayers, and was in
all respects conformable to the laws of the Church?[395]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
In some articles, the questions on these points are still more precise
and stringent. Cosin, Bishop of Durham, asks "Do you not know, or
have you not heard, that in his reading, or pretending to read, these
Thirty-nine Articles, he (the minister) omitted or skipped over some
one or more of them? What article was it, or what part thereof that he
left unread?" The same prelate also inquires whether lecturers read
prayers in a surplice.[396] Other Bishops satisfied themselves with
general questions. Griffith, Bishop of St. Asaph, and Henchman, Bishop
of Salisbury, both use these words, "Doth your minister distinctly,
reverently, say Divine service upon Sundays and holydays;" "doth he
duly observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the said
Book of Common Prayer?"[397] Bishop Reynolds asks whether the minister
had been freely presented, and legally instituted and inducted?
whether he had publicly read the Thirty-nine Articles, and given his
assent, and celebrated every office in such form, manner, and habit,
as is prescribed? He inquires as to the right and due observance of
the sacraments, and the notice of holydays: and, like others of his
brethren, inquires respecting the observance of the 5th of November,
the 30th of January, and the 29th of May.[398]
Archdeacons also issued articles touching the manner of celebrating
Divine service.[399]
Notwithstanding all these precautions, a few ministers continued within
the pale of the Establishment without conforming to the Act.
[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]
John Chandler held the living of Petto in Essex; although he had only
received Presbyterian ordination, he was pronounced by his diocesan,
Bishop Reynolds--thus far true to his old faith--to be as good a
minister as he could make him; and notwithstanding his only partial
use of liturgical worship, he was allowed to retain his incumbency.
Mr. Ashurst, of Arlsey--a poor Bedfordshire vicarage--in the diocese
of Lincoln, in which Laney succeeded Sanderson in 1663, continued to
officiate in the parish church, reading parts of the Common Prayer, and
taking for his support whatever his parishioners chose to contribute.
Nicholas Billingsley, settled at Blakeney, in the parish of Awre, in
the diocese of Gloucester--"lived very peaceably for awhile"--on his
impropriation of £50 per annum, by the permission of Bishop Nicholson.
We also find in the diocese of Chester, under the successive episcopacy
of Hall, Wilkins, and Pearson, that Angier of Denton, continued the
occupancy of the parish pulpit, and the enjoyment of parish emoluments,
notwithstanding his perseverance in Presbyterian worship. Tilsley, the
Presbyterian Vicar of Dean, after losing his vicarage, was, by Wilkins,
permitted to resume his ministry as lecturer in his old parish, the
new Vicar reading prayers. There were other instances in the same
diocese of an evasion of the law. In the diocese of Gloucester, under
Nicholson, Henry Stubbs was allowed the poor living of Horsley; and in
the diocese of Llandaff, under Lloyd, Richard Hawes was permitted to
preach without subscribing. Similar instances of irregularity occurred
in different parts of the country. Some clergymen, after being ejected,
were allowed to become chaplains in hospitals and prisons, and to
officiate occasionally for parochial Incumbents.[400]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
It may be added, that there were clergymen in the Establishment who
disapproved of what had been done. Edward Stillingfleet, however he
might speak and act afterwards, expressed, at that time, liberal
opinions, and acted in a manner consistent with them. He maintained
that Christ's design was to ease men of their former burdens, and not
to lay on more; that the unity of the Church is an unity of love and
affection, and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion; and that
however desirable in a Church the latter might be, as long as there are
men of different ranks and sizes in it, it is hardly attainable.[401]
In accordance with these sentiments, Stillingfleet sheltered at his
rectory of Sutton, in Bedfordshire, one of the ejected ministers, and
took a large house, which he converted into a school for another.
Laymen also deplored the severities of the measure. Hale, Boyle,
and Sir Peter Pett did so; whilst Locke's earliest work, written
in 1660, aimed at reconciling the Puritans to submission in things
indifferent.[402] A strong conviction existed in the minds of
Episcopalians and Royalists that Nonconformity was disloyal and
insurrectionary; and this conviction, then, and long afterwards,
operated as a power in the Church of England, destructive of social
peace and union, far beyond what is generally supposed. The rumours
about plots in the earlier period of the reign of Charles II. have
not much occupied the attention of historians. They are commonly
dismissed as idle tales. No doubt they were such in most instances;
and not in a single instance did any actual insurrection occur. But
in history, it is important to notice, not only what men have done,
but what men have believed to be done. Beliefs, however absurd, have
been to those who entertained them, just the same as facts, and these
beliefs have actually been factors of great power: as such they claim
to be noted by the historian. I have too much faith in the English
spirit of the seventeenth century, in the generosity which mingled
with the High Churchmanship of the best of the Cavaliers, and in the
thorough conscientiousness of many of the Conformists, to believe that
they could have acted towards Dissenters as they did, unless they
had been hood-winked by people who persuaded them, that Dissenters
were not true-hearted Englishmen, but only so many wretched rebels.
It so happens that the _State Papers_, as already indicated, afford
almost innumerable illustrations of the extent and operation of these
prejudices, and I make no apology for employing many of these documents
in subsequent pages as useful contributions to English history.
[Sidenote: RUMOURED PLOTS.]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
In October, 1662, Sir Edward Nicholas was succeeded by Sir Henry
Bennet. Like his predecessor, he gave himself diligently to inquiries
respecting suspected persons. A month before the former retired,
he told Lord Rutherford that there were rumours of disturbances
intended by Presbyterians and Independents, but at present all was
quiet. A month afterwards he confessed to the same person, that
there was no commotion in any part of the kingdom, although factious
sectaries raised reports to frighten people.[403] Frivolous letters
constantly poured in upon the bewildered officials. There came
notes of conversation with Edward Bagshawe,[404] who said London
was discontented; that 1,960[405] ministers were turned out of
their livings; that Dunkirk was sold; that the King only minded his
mistresses; that the Queen and her cabal carried on the Government
at Somerset House; that Popery was coming in; that the people would
not endure these things, but would rise on the ground _that the Long
Parliament was not yet dissolved because they had passed an Act against
any dissolution but by themselves_. A large bundle of examinations
was forwarded to Bennet, about the same time, by the Earl of
Northumberland--an informer conveying them, and adding to the written
secrets, _vivâ voce_ revelations--the papers disclosing such frivolous
circumstances as that three gentlemen and two servants, whom nobody
knew, had been seen somewhere, and that "an ancient grey man," and "a
Jersey Frenchman" were mysteriously moving from place to place. Also,
there arrived a packet promising much information, which, when opened,
was found to contain only religious sentences, and a number of love
verses. Suspicious persons were reported, and it is amusing, amongst
unknown names to find mentioned "Dr. Goodwin and Owen, who now scruple
at the surplice, but used to wear velvet cassocks, and to receive
from five to seven hundred a-year from their Churches."[406] The
letter-bags were robbed; people's houses were broken into, and trunks
full of papers seized and carried off by constables. Spies employed by
the Government were active in collecting reports, and there can be no
doubt that they were quite as active in inventing them. Two informers,
Peter and John Crabb, brought accounts of intended insurrections; but
at the same time they made awkward revelations respecting themselves.
Peter had told the Secretary of State, that he and his brother John
were the Secretary's devoted servants, and wished to be employed in
a certain business; that he had only received a part of the money,
which he understood the Secretary had sent him; and that to cover his
profession as a spy, lest City people should wonder how he lived, he
put out a "bill, advertizing the cure of the rickets in children, in
Red Lion Court, Bishopsgate."[407] After reading the correspondence of
these two brothers, I am not surprised to find depositions charging
one of them with being a liar and a villain. The depositions are met
by cross-swearing; the whole business leaving the impression that
Whitehall was beset by troops of scoundrels.[408] A result of this kind
of espionage, and of the exaggerations and inventions of informers,
may be found in the trial and condemnation of six men in the month of
December for being concerned in an intended rising of "Fifth Monarchy
men, Anabaptists, Independents, and fighting Quakers." The evidence
rested chiefly upon rumours.