[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
After all Clarendon's advice and all Sheldon's opposition, the King,
within four months of the meeting of Council already described,
returned to his favourite expedient. He published, on the 26th of
December, 1662, a Declaration, in which he referred to promises from
Breda, of ease and liberty to tender consciences, and also to malicious
rumours to the effect, that at the time he denied a fitting liberty
to other sects whose consciences would not allow them to conform to
the established religion, he was indulgent to Papists, not only in
exempting them from the penalties of the law, but even to such a degree
as might endanger the Protestant religion.[409] Respecting all this he
asserted, that as he had been zealous to settle the uniformity of
the Church, in discipline, ceremony, and government, and would ever
constantly maintain it--so as for the penalties upon those who, living
peaceably, did not conform, he should make it his special care, so far
as possible, without invading the freedom of Parliament, to incline
their wisdom, the next sessions, to concur in the making some such
Act for that purpose, as might enable him to exercise, with a more
universal satisfaction, that power of dispensing, which he conceived to
be inherent in him as a Sovereign.[410]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
When this Declaration was published, the hopes of ejected ministers
began to revive. Independents took courage; Philip Nye, in spite of age
and poverty, manifested some eagerness to revive public Nonconformist
worship. Although personally under the ban of the law, he, with some
other brethren, found admission to Whitehall, and was graciously
allowed an interview with Charles. We do not exactly know what passed;
but Nye received so much encouragement from His Majesty's conversation,
that he told Baxter, the King had resolved to grant them liberty.
The day after New Year's Day, the Independent diplomatist appeared
at the house of the Presbyterian Divine to discuss the propriety of
acknowledging the King's Declaration and seeking indulgence. Baxter
resolved not to commit himself; nor would other Presbyterians take
a share in the business; they had had enough of it, they said: the
reasons, at the bottom of their policy, being that they dreaded a
toleration which they knew would be extended so as to embrace Roman
Catholics. They looked on the Declaration as a Trojan horse; but Nye,
whose ideas of religious freedom perhaps had grown, so that he might
be willing to concede it to Roman Catholics, and who certainly had
a strong desire after unfettered action for himself and his party,
thought the tactics of the Presbyterians unwise, and he considered
that, through them, he and his brethren "missed of their intended
liberty."[411]
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
Further discussion followed between Baxter and the Independents.
They said that they had heard from the Lord Chancellor, that liberty
had been intended for them, but that the Presbyterians had opposed
the measure. Old sores were re-opened, and Baxter, evidently rather
nettled, records how the Independents became affected towards the
Popish Earl of Bristol, thinking that the King's Declaration had been
obtained by him, and that he and the Papists would contrive a general
toleration. Burnet confirms what Baxter says of the Earl's influence,
by informing us, that just before, there had been a meeting of Papists
at that nobleman's residence, where it had been resolved to make an
effort in favour of the Roman Catholics, and with such a view to help
Dissenters.[412]
Clarendon, who had strong Protestant convictions, felt alarmed at the
brightening prospects of the Romanists, and he resolved to take a leaf
out of their own book--to fight them with their own weapons--and to
adopt their own principle--"Divide and conquer!" Clarendon accordingly
proposed that Roman Catholics should take the Oath of Allegiance,
renouncing the Pope's deposing power--an oath to which some did not
object, but which others would, on no account, accept. He also proposed
the tolerating of secular priests, coupling with it the banishment
of Jesuits and other regular orders--another scheme which he knew
well would breed division. The whole of the Chancellor's policy is
not explained, but it is apparent that he had set his mind upon
extinguishing the hopes of the Papists.[413]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Parliament assembled on the 18th of February, 1663. The King's speech
indicates the unpopularity of the recent Declaration, and he found
it necessary to assure the Houses that he did not intend to favour
Popery at all, and that he would not yield to the Bishops in his zeal
for uniformity; but still he said, with obvious inconsistency, if
Protestant Dissenters would be peaceable and modest, he could heartily
wish that he had such a power of indulgence as might not needlessly
force them out of the kingdom, or give them cause to conspire against
its peace. Five days afterwards, a Bill was brought into the House of
Lords and read the first time, to empower His Majesty to dispense with
the _Act of Uniformity_, and with other laws concerning it.[414] This
Bill came to nothing, being earnestly opposed by Lord Southampton,
by the Bishops, and by Clarendon, who, in spite of a fit of the gout,
delivered a speech on the adjourned debate, full of uncompromising
opposition to the King's favourite measure.[415] It is a singular
example of the difference between a Chief Minister of that day and
a Prime Minister of our own, that Clarendon should in the House of
Lords oppose the measure which had been brought in, according to
wishes expressed in the speech from the Throne; nor can his conduct
respecting the Declaration fail to support against him the charge of
duplicity.[416]
Amongst the mischiefs which, Clarendon says, resulted from what he
calls the unhappy debate on the Indulgence, was the prejudice and
disadvantage which the Bishops experienced in consequence of their
unanimous opposition. "For from that time the King never treated any
of them with that respect as he had done formerly, and often spake of
them too slightly; which easily encouraged others not only to mention
their persons very negligently, but their function and religion itself,
as an invention to impose upon the free judgments and understandings
of men. What was preached in the pulpit was commented upon and derided
in the chamber, and preachers acted, and sermons vilified as laboured
discourses, which the preachers made only to show their own parts and
wit, without any other design than to be commended and preferred."[417]
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
The subject of Indulgence agitated the whole country. It was keenly
discussed in private meetings of Nonconformist ministers, at
archidiaconal visitations and other clerical gatherings--and still
oftener, and with not less heat, by burghers and yeomen around their
firesides. Largely, too, did it enter into the contents of letters,
in one of which, written by William Hook to his late colleague
in New England, we discover copious references to this and other
ecclesiastical topics. Making allowance for the writer's prejudices, we
may learn something from his curious epistle.[418]
"There is a toleration talked of, and expected by many, since the
King's Declaration, which came forth about a month or six weeks since.
The Papists improve the best of their interest to move it; but as for
their being tolerated, there are many of the grandees against it, who
are ready enough to move a motion for toleration of the Protestant
suffering party. The Bishops greatly abhor such a thing, as not being
able to subsist but by rigour and persecution: for had we liberty as to
the exercise of religion, they would be contemned by almost all men;
and whereas few frequent the meeting-places now, they would scarce
have any then. They have therefore striven to strengthen themselves by
moving and writing to Parliament men, before they come up to the City,
to sit again on February 18. And, as I hear, some of their letters
were intercepted and made known to the King, who was offended at some
passages, and their practices. Much to do there has been about this
business, and what will become of it, and the issue be, we are all
waiting for."
[Sidenote: 1663.]
In another part of the same epistle, relating to the same subject,
Hook gives a glimpse of an amusing incident:--"His Majesty sent for
Mr. Calamy, Dr. Bates, and Dr. Manton (and some say, Mr. Baxter also),
on the last of the last week, and took them into his closet, and
promised to restore them to their employments and places again, as
pitying that such men should lie vacant, speaking also against the
Popish religion, as it is said. Before they went in with the King,
some said, 'What do these Presbyterians here?' but when they came out,
they said, 'Your servant, Mr. Calamy, and your servant, Dr. Manton,'
&c. It was told them that a Bill for Liberty should be given in to the
House; but, however it went, they should have their liberty, _i.e._,
upon subscribing (I take it) thirteen articles touching doctrine and
worship, in which there is nothing (as they say) offensive to a tender
conscience. There is a distinction between an act of comprehension and
an act of judgment. Some are for the first, others not. The first is
comprehensive as to all forms in religion (excepting Papist, &c., but I
cannot well tell). The other leaves it to His Majesty to indulge whom
he seeth good. On the last day of the last week, a motion was made in
the Lower House for Liberty, according to the King's Declaration, which
I have sent you. A disaffected spirit to Liberty was much discovered
by very many, and the business was referred to be debated upon the
Wednesday following, which is this present day: what will come of it I
cannot yet tell."[419]
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
The subject of Indulgence was revived in the summer, and again the
Presbyterians and the Independents, as before, are found in controversy
on the point.[420]
Amidst rumours of various sorts, and as the Upper House still occupied
itself upon the offensive Bill, the Lower House showed, as they had
done from the beginning, the most intolerant zeal for the Established
Church. When thanking the King, on the 27th of February, for his
speech, they told him that an indulgence of Dissenters would establish
schism by law--would be inconsistent with the wisdom and gravity of
Parliament--would expose His Majesty to restless importunities--would
increase the number of sectaries--would be altogether contrary to
precedent--and would be far from promoting the peace of the kingdom.
This array of objections alarmed the Monarch; he immediately replied
that he would take time for consideration; and on the 16th of March,
he sent an answer--assuring his faithful Commons that they had
misunderstood his meaning--thanking them for their thanks--and desiring
them to put the kingdom in a state of defence, but not saying one word
about the apple of discord.[421]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Both Houses, on the 31st of March, 1663, presented a Petition to the
King, imploring him to command all Jesuits and Popish Priests, whether
English, Irish, or Scotch, to quit the realm. To him such a Petition
must have been annoying, and after delaying a while, to give any
distinct answer, he replied, that he felt troubled on account of the
resort to England of Jesuits and Priests, that it was so much ill-use
made of his lenity towards many of the Popish persuasion,--that his
feelings in this respect were the natural effects of his generosity and
good disposition, after having lived so many years in the dominions
of Catholic Princes,--that he would now endeavour to check the
evil,--that as his affection for the Protestant religion and the Church
of England had never been concealed, so he was less solicitous for the
settling of his revenue than for the advancement and improvement of
the ecclesiastical establishments, and for the using of all effectual
remedies for hindering the growth of Popery.[422]
The Commons passed Bills against Papists and Nonconformists, but these
Bills were not sanctioned by the Upper House.[423]
From the passing of the Act of Uniformity down to the repeal of the
clause in 1865, touching the declaration of _assent and consent_, the
meaning of those words was a constant subject of controversy, some even
of the Bishops construing them in a very lax and indefinite manner. The
words seem to many persons precise enough; and one might have thought
that no room remained for controversy respecting them, after what took
place in the House of Commons at the time now under review. A Bill
passed in the month of July, to relieve those who by sickness or other
impediment had been disabled from subscribing the required declaration.
The Lords wished to sanction the latitudinarian interpretation, and
adopted as an amendment this position, that "_assent and consent_"
should "be understood only as to the practice and obedience to the said
Act, and not otherwise." Against this construction the Duke of York and
thirteen other Lords entered their protest. The Commons indignantly
rejected the amendment, as having "neither justice nor prudence in
it." Such conduct aroused the anger of the Lords, who resolved to take
up the subject in the following session; but they allowed it to drop,
and so virtually gave way to the Lower House, and left the strict
grammatical meaning as the true construction of the law.[424]
[Sidenote: PAPISTS AND NONCONFORMISTS.]
Upon the 27th of the same month, July, the Speaker of the House of
Commons alluded to a measure for the better observance of the Sabbath;
the legislation of the Commonwealth on that as on all other subjects
having been rendered void. He dwelt in an affected strain upon the
decline of religion, and then returned to the subject of the growth
of Popery, and of Sectarianism. He was commanded, he said, to desire
that His Majesty would issue another proclamation for preventing
profaneness, debauchery, and licentiousness, and for better securing
the peace of the nation against the united counsels of Dissenters.
Charles replied, that he had expected to have had Bills presented to
him against distempers in religion, seditious Conventicles, and the
increase of Popery; but, that not being done, if he lived, he himself
meant to introduce such Bills. Meanwhile, he had charged the Judges
to use all endeavours to disperse the Sectaries, and to convict the
Papists.[425]
Soon after the Restoration death removed several prelates. Brian
Walton died in November, 1661, in a little more than two months after
his installation at Chester, when Dr. George Hall succeeded him.
Nicholas Monk--whose funeral has been noticed--within one year of his
promotion to Hereford, died on the 17th of December, 1661, and was
succeeded by Herbert Croft. Duppa, Bishop of Winchester, died March
25th, 1662, leaving behind him a reputation for munificent charity,
and, just before his departure, bestowing his Episcopal benediction
upon the King, who had been his pupil, and who knelt by the side of his
death-bed. Gauden, who in the beginning of 1662 had been translated
from Exeter to Worcester, expired before the end of twelve months.
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, died in January, 1663. When in his
illness petitions were offered for his recovery, he remarked that "his
friends said their prayers backward for him; and that it was not his
desire to live a useless life, and, by filling up a place, keep another
out of it, that might do God and His Church service." With his dying
breath he exclaimed, "Thou, O God, tookest me out of my mother's womb,
and hast been the powerful protector of me to this present moment of
my life. Thou hast neither forsaken me now I am become grey-headed,
nor suffered me to forsake Thee in the late days of temptation, and
sacrifice my conscience for the preservation of my liberty or estate.
It was by grace that I have stood, when others have fallen under my
trials; and these mercies I now remember with joy and thankfulness,
and my hope and desire is that I may die praising Thee." He had no
taste for funeral parade, and expressly directed in his will, that he
should be buried with as little noise, pomp, and charge as might be--no
escutcheons, gloves, ribbons--no black hangings in the church, only a
pulpit cloth, a hearse cloth, and a mourning gown for the preacher of
the funeral sermon--who was to have five pounds for the service, upon
condition, that he spoke nothing of the deceased, either good or ill,
"other," Sanderson adds, "than I myself shall direct." Nor was any
costly monument to be raised to his memory, "only a fair flat marble
stone."[426]
[Sidenote: PRELATES.]
Juxon, Archbishop of Canterbury, expired at Lambeth Palace, on the
4th of June; and left behind him an honourable renown for meekness,
constancy, fortitude, and liberality. The sums which he contributed to
public objects of charity and religion amounted to no less than £48,000.
Archbishop Bramhall departed this life, in Dublin, on the 25th of the
same month, after three fits of paralysis. To use the words of Jeremy
Taylor in his funeral sermon for the Primate, "As the Apostles in the
vespers of Christ's passion, so he, in the eve of his own dissolution,
was heavy, not to sleep, but heavy unto death; and looked for the last
warning, which seized on him in the midst of business; and though it
was sudden, yet it could not be unexpected or unprovided by surprise,
and therefore could be no other than that εὐθανασία, which Augustus
used to wish unto himself, a civil and well-natured death, without
the amazement of troublesome circumstances, or the great cracks of a
falling house, or the convulsions of impatience."[427]
Through vacancies at the time of the Restoration, and deaths and
translations afterwards, within two years and a half, mitres fell to
the disposal of the Crown more than twenty times.
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Sheldon, as a reward for the great services which he had rendered to
the High Church party during the Commonwealth; at the Restoration, and
after his preferment to London, was translated to the Archiepiscopal
see of Canterbury. The ceremony of his installation was performed with
very great pomp.[428]
[Sidenote: PROSCRIBED WORSHIP.]
In spite of the severity of the law, and the activity of informers,
considerable numbers in different parts of the country met for
religious worship. It is very common, in the informations sent to
Secretary Bennet respecting these assemblies, to find mention made of
them as having a revolutionary object. There were, it is reported,
daily great Conventicles near Canterbury; and on Whit-Tuesday, June
20th, three hundred persons met in the village of Waltham, in a farm
cottage, described as "one Hobday's house." Others heard preaching in
a cherry orchard, sitting under trees then rich with ripening fruit;
upon leaving the enclosure, it is said, they had with them "fifty or
sixty good horses, several portmanteaus," and certain bundles "supposed
to contain arms." Liberty thus exercised, frightened intolerant
people. Sectaries in the City of Chichester were charged with treating
contemptuously the surplice and Prayer Book. Some were imprisoned,
and others bound over to the Sessions. The ringleaders promised to
be quiet, yet afterwards they interrupted the ministers in worship;
in consequence of which, the trained bands marched out to keep guard
for a fortnight, at the expiration of which period another company of
the same kind was to take their place. Like precautions were adopted
at Yarmouth, where two hundred Nonconformists were charged in the
Commissary Court with not taking the sacrament.[429] In the City of
Norwich, the Deputy-Lieutenant hearing of a meeting in a private house,
issued warrants to search for arms. The officers, upon being denied
entrance, broke open the doors, and found two or three hundred persons
engaged in worship, one hundred of whom were strong men. Their teacher
was identified, and all were bound over to the following Sessions.
Complaints were made from Lewes that the Sectaries in that town were
as numerous as ever. One of the "saints" there happening to die, the
clergyman of the parish heard that he was to be buried at night; so
when it grew dark, he began carefully to watch, and as the corpse
arrived at the churchyard, made his appearance to read the burial
service. Upon seeing him, the party retired and took back the body, but
they returned in two hours, and again the Incumbent was discerned in
the dark, standing by the grave, when they treated him so insolently,
that he had to bind several of them over to good behaviour. It was
also reported that shops in the town had been kept open in contempt
of Christmas Day, although the clergyman had sent orders to close the
shutters. "Fair means did no good to these stubborn rascals," said the
irritated informant; and his letter is but one specimen out of a great
number.[430]
Lucy Hutchinson tells a touching story, relating to the same summer
months, to which the earlier of these informations belong. Mr. Palmer,
a Nottingham Nonconformist minister, was apprehended, and some others
with him, at his own house, by the Mayor for preaching on the Lord's
Day, and was put into the town gaol for two or three months. Through
a grated window he and his brethren could be seen by the people in
the street. One Sunday, as the prisoners were singing a psalm, the
passengers stood still by the grated window to listen, and Mr. Palmer
went on to preach to the congregation outside, when the Mayor, a
renegade Parliament officer, came with officers, and beat the people,
and thrust some into confinement.[431]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
The ecclesiastical policy pursued at this time towards the English
colonists on the other side of the Atlantic was very different from
that adopted at home.
In the instructions given to the Governors of Jamaica, whilst they
were enjoined to encourage orthodox ministers of religion, in order
that Christianity and Anglican Protestantism might be reverenced and
exercised, it was commanded that those colonists who were of different
religious opinions should not be obstructed and hindered on such
account; that they should be excused from taking the Oath of Supremacy
according to the terms required in this country, and that some other
mode should be devised for securing their allegiance.[432]
In a Charter granted to the State of Carolina, dated March 24th, 1663,
there is a clause of indulgence to be granted to persons who could not
conform to the Liturgy, upon condition that they should declare their
loyalty, and not scandalize and reproach the Church.[433]
In the Royal Commission granted to the Governor of Virginia, he is
instructed not to suffer any one to be molested in the exercise of his
religion, provided he be content with a quiet and peaceable profession
of it, not giving offence or scandal to the Government.[434]
[Sidenote: COLONIAL POLICY.]
In the Charter granted to Rhode Island, July 8th, 1663, it is
distinctly provided, that no person within the colony should be
disquieted for differences of theological opinion.
Should any one ask, why were these people in the West so differently
treated from Englishmen in His Majesty's home dominions--the answer
is, that the power and the temper of the colonists were such that
it would have been dangerous to the Imperial rule of Great Britain
to have denied them the utmost toleration which they asked. Most
of the emigrants had fled the shores of England, because of their
Nonconformity, to seek a home in the New World, where they might
worship God; and for defence of the refuge which they had gained at
the cost of exile, they were willing to lay down their lives. It
would have been at the risk, nay, with the certainty of losing those
fair possessions, had the Government denied the fullest religious
liberty. Nor did the political fears which blended with the religious
animosities at home exist in relation to those distant settlements.
Neither could the Church be endangered, nor the Throne be shaken, nor
the State be disturbed by Nonconformists thousands of miles away. It is
also a fact that kindness and generosity will often flow in abundant
streams towards objects at a distance, whilst the current is diverted
from objects at the door.
Lastly, we should remember that Charles II. was not of an intolerant
and cruel disposition; that where he could, without trouble or danger,
concede religious liberty, he was ready to do so; and that Clarendon
was not destitute of all good-will towards people of other opinions
than his own when neither policy nor prejudice crossed his better
nature.
[Sidenote: 1663.]
In the month of October, after rumours of imagined outbreaks, something
of the kind actually occurred in Farnley Wood, Yorkshire. What was
going forward the Government knew, and enormously exaggerated reports
of it were conveyed to Whitehall. The wood was narrowly watched.
Twelve armed men met there. Two hundred were seen riding in an open
glade, after which they moved away, four or six together, in different
directions. Entrenchments were thrown up, but there was no fighting.
Several of these persons were arrested, amongst whom were Major
Thomas Greathead and Captain Thomas Oates, trustees of the curious
little Presbyterian chapel at Morley. Oates was tried at York, when
his infamous son Ralph appeared to give evidence against him, but was
refused a hearing by the Judge; the Captain, however, suffered death.
Greathead turned King's evidence, being promised not only his life but
a great reward, if he would confess the whole danger. The Royalist
spies and informers reported, that he was so necessary to the military
part of the business, that nothing could be done without him, and that
he was, therefore, fully trusted by the rebels. This appears in the
documents, touching the affair, preserved in the State Paper Office.
They are very numerous, and amidst much which is vague and confused,
may be discovered some definite proofs that a plot did exist in the
year 1663, with which the Farnley Wood entrenchments were connected.
There seem to have been exiles in Rotterdam, who had correspondence
with parties in England respecting this treasonable business,
especially Dr. Richardson, who surrendered his preferment at Ripon upon
the Restoration of the King, and had gone over to Holland. Among the
implicated persons he mentions Ralph Rymer, father of the Editor of
the _Fœdera_, which Ralph,--like Oates, and several others,--was hanged
for his share in the complicated proceedings of this extensive plot.
Richardson declared that if there had been a good leader the business
would have taken stronger and sooner. Their numbers were small, but
their faith was strong, and they believed miracles would have attended
their godly design. Several distinguished names are mentioned in the
documents, such as Lords Wharton and Fairfax; but the Government did
not meddle with these formidable personages.
[Sidenote: PLOTS AND INFORMERS.]
The sort of agency set to work, first to entrap, and then to convert
unwary Nonconformists, is revealed by a writer who, in the month of
December, bewails the severity of Government towards men deluded and
betrayed by informers; he instances a "Mr. Wakerley, a sober Yorkshire
Quaker, visited by Thomas Denham, a privileged spy, who tried to
persuade him to join the Northern design; he steadily refused, and even
wrote to Sir Thomas Gower an account of what passed, but his letter was
suppressed, and he summoned before the Duke of Buckingham as a plotter,
and only discharged on his letters being searched for and found."[435]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Not more frequent at that time, when old English sports continued to
amuse the nobility and gentry, was the flight of the hawk, freed from
its jess and hood, gliding through the air and striking its quarry,
than was the prowling abroad of the informer, who, freed from all
restraint of justice and humanity, pursued with keenest eye, and
seized with merciless vengeance, the ill-fated Sectary. This favourite
English bird, indeed, is dishonoured by the comparison, for, with
all the hawk's rapacity, the spy had none of its better qualities.
Sprung from the dregs of the people, mean and dastardly to the last
degree, and many of them spending their ill-gotten gains in gambling
and debauchery, creatures of this kind were as much the objects of
abhorrence to the respectable portion of the community, as they were
of terror to the innocent class upon which they pounced. Destitute
of the fear of God, caring not at all for religion, yet professing
themselves zealous Churchmen, they spent the Lord's Day in ferreting
out their fellow-citizens and disturbing them at their devotions. In
coffee-houses and places of public resort, during the week, they were
lying in wait to catch the unwary, or to obtain a clue to the discovery
of Conventicles. Many of them perished in poverty, shame, and despair;
smitten, as their victims thought, by the avenging hand of God. To
informers belonged a low coarse villany, peculiar to themselves; but
their criminality could not but be largely shared by others, and the
responsibility of the system, of which they were the instruments,
attached mainly to the Government which condescended to employ
them.[436]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMIST PLACES OF WORSHIP.]
At this point in our history we may appropriately answer two questions
which naturally arise respecting the Nonconformists--Where did they
worship? and how were the ejected ministers supported? These questions
lead us into the by-paths of our narrative, and entering them we
cannot avoid wandering a little further than strict chronological order
would allow. But, although we somewhat anticipate subsequent periods,
it will not matter; we shall presently return to the highway by the
gate through which we leave it, and the remembrance of what we pick
up in our short ramble will enable us better to understand much which
follows.
If Nonconformists would adore the Almighty as their consciences
dictated, they had to do so in concealment, and to adopt ingenious
devices to avoid notice, or to elude pursuit. In the old Tudor Mansion,
at Compton Winyates, Warwickshire, there is a chapel in the roof with
secret passages contrived for the safety of Popish recusants; and in
Oxburgh Hall, in Norfolk, there is a recess within a small closet, with
a trap-door concealed in the pavement. These contrivances were imitated
by Protestant Nonconformists in the days of Charles II. An instance
of this kind, not long since, could be shown among the ruins of the
Priory of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, consisting of subterranean ways
and doors in the crypt. The Baptists of Bristol hung up a curtain, and
placed their minister behind it, so that a spy coming in could not
see the speaker. When a suspicious person made his appearance it was
customary for the congregation to begin singing, and for the preacher
to pause. At Andover, it is said, that the Dissenters met for prayer in
a dark room, until a ray of morning light, struggling down the chimney,
announced the hour to depart.[437]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
In the village of Eversden, in the County of Cambridge, stands an old
Manor house, moated round and approached by an ancient bridge. It
is reported that a vehicle might be often seen crossing that bridge
after dark, in the time of persecution, on its way to Cambridge, to
bring back Francis Holcroft, to preach at midnight in the wood, which
skirted the back of the edifice. There was once a Gospel Beech in the
Wolds of Gloucestershire, a Gospel Oak near Kentish Town, and an Oak of
Reformation in Kett the Tanner's Camp, near the City of Norwich, and to
these may be added the Oak at Eversden,--remaining within the memory
of the present generation, called the Pulpit Tree--a sort of Christian
Dodona, from which the minister just named announced the Word of Life.
In the woods near Hitchin, tradition reports, that John Bunyan used,
after nightfall, to gather together great numbers of the neighbouring
peasantry; and at Duckinfield, in Cheshire, people can still point out
the place where the "proscribed ministers were met by their faithful
adherents, when the pious service of prayer, praise, and exhortation
had no other walls to surround it but the oaken thicket, and no other
roof for its protection but the canopy of Heaven."[438]
[Sidenote: EJECTED MINISTERS.]
A few of the ejected ministers lived in comfortable circumstances.
Inheriting a fortune, or acquiring property during their connection
with the Establishment, they were provided against pecuniary
inconvenience after the Restoration.
John Owen must have derived from the Deanery of Christchurch something
considerable, to which additions were made by the bequest of a
relative, if not by the profits of his publications. He had an estate
at Stadham, whither he retired on his removal from Oxford; and, after
his second marriage in 1667, he was enabled to keep his carriage,
and a country house at Ealing in Middlesex.[439] John Tombes, the
Antipædobaptist, married a rich widow at Salisbury, not long before
the King's return, and lived in that city upon her estate, visiting
the Bishop and enjoying the friendship of other dignitaries.[440] Some
of those who were compelled to renounce their incumbencies, adopted
secular employments as a means of livelihood; some became physicians
or lawyers, some established schools, which, however, were liable to
be broken up by the Five Mile Act, and several became chaplains or
tutors in private families.[441] John Howe spent about five years in
Ireland, at Antrim Castle, with its spacious and richly-timbered park,
upon the banks of the charming Lough Neagh, where he administered the
ordinances of religion to the family of Lord Massarene.[442] Dr. Jacomb
enjoyed the friendship of the Countess of Exeter, to whom he had been
chaplain; and, after his resignation of St. Martin's, Ludgate, he found
a comfortable home in her town house, where he made it his constant
care to promote domestic religion. John Flavel lived at Hudscott
Hall, belonging to the family of the Rolles, near South Molton, in
Devonshire. Supported by the liberality, and screened by the influence
of the Lord of the domain, he there, amidst plantations, gardens, and
other rural scenes, gathered together the materials of his _Husbandry
Spiritualized_. There, too, he assembled around him, as best he could,
sometimes at midnight, the members of his former parish flock, and
interested and instructed them by ingenious illustrations adapted to
their rustic habits and tastes.[443]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Those who steadily laboured, with more or less publicity, would receive
such assistance from their hearers as was voluntarily contributed. But
Richard Baxter, as he informs us, pursued a very independent course,
and sought to imitate the Apostle Paul by not being chargeable to
any. Dropping into a gossiping humour he declares, in his _Life and
Times_, that for eleven years he preached for nothing; that he did not
receive a groat but what he returned, unless it were between forty and
fifty pounds given him at different times, partly to defray his prison
charges, and an annuity of ten pounds sent by a friend. Having printed
about seventy books, no one, whether Lord, Knight, or other person
to whom they were dedicated, ever offered him a shilling, except the
Corporation of Coventry, and Lady Rous, each of whom presented him
with a piece of plate of the value of four pounds. The fifteenth copy
of a work was his due from the publisher; but he gave them away to the
amount of many thousands amongst his friends, who, noble or ignoble,
offered him not a sixpence in return.[444]
[Sidenote: EJECTED MINISTERS.]
Some of the ejected, reduced to extremities, were discovered under
the concealments which from poverty they contrived. Mr. Grove, a man
of great opulence, whose seat was in the neighbourhood of Birdbush,
in Wiltshire, in consequence of his wife's dangerous illness, sent
to the minister of the parish. The minister was riding out with the
hounds, when the messenger arrived, and he replied that he would visit
the gentleman when the hunt was over. Mr. Grove, having expressed his
displeasure that the clergyman should follow his diversions rather than
attend to his flock, one of the servants took the liberty of saying,
"Our shepherd, sir, if you will send for him, can pray very well: we
have often heard him in the field." Upon this the shepherd was sent
for, and Mr. Grove asking him whether he could pray, the shepherd
replied, "God forbid, sir, I should live one day without prayer." Upon
being desired to pray with the sick lady, he did it so pertinently,
with such fluency, and with such fervour, as greatly to astonish all
who listened. As they rose from their knees the gentleman observed:
"Your language and manner discover you to be a very different person
from what your appearance indicates. I conjure you to inform me who and
what you are, and what were your views and situation in life before you
came into my service." To this the shepherd rejoined, that he was one
of the ministers who had been lately ejected from the Church, and that,
having nothing left, he was content to adopt the honest employment of
keeping sheep. "Then you shall be my shepherd," rejoined the Squire,
and immediately erected a Meeting-house on his own estate, in which
Mr. Ince (for that was the shepherd's name) preached and gathered a
congregation of Dissenters.[445]
[Sidenote: 1663.]
Numerous anecdotes are recorded by Calamy, and others, of the
remarkable manner in which certain ejected ministers amidst their
privations received assistance. If we believe (and who that accepts the
New Testament can doubt it?) that a special Providence watches over
those who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, we are
prepared to discover special Divine interpositions on behalf of men
distinguished by integrity, faith, devotion, and self-sacrifice.