It was a pamphleteering age; and religion as well as politics fell
under discussion in numerous small publications. Some one published in
the beginning of August, 1667, under the name of "A Lover of Sincerity
and Peace," _A Proposition for the Safety and Happiness of the King
and Kingdom, both in Church and State_, a work in which the writer
advocated comprehension and toleration. In the middle of the month of
October there followed a reply, from the pen of a Mr. Tomkyns, one
of Archbishop Sheldon's chaplains. The same month another pamphlet
appeared anonymously, under the title of _A Discourse of the Religion
of England_, maintaining that Reformed Christianity, settled in its
due latitude, secures the stability and advancement of the kingdom,
of which the author is known to have been John Corbet, an ejected
minister, who lived privately in London, after the passing of the
Bartholomew Act.[533] Corbet was answered by Dr. Perinchief, Prebendary
of Westminster, whereupon Corbet replied, and Perinchief put in a
rejoinder. From August to November the printers and the public seem to
have been busy in producing and reading these controversial tracts.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
Whether or not this circumstance arose from a knowledge of what
was going on in upper circles, it is certain that, now Clarendon
had gone, Sir Robert Atkins--who afterwards became one of the
Justices of the Common Pleas, and ultimately Lord Chief Baron of the
Exchequer,--prepared a Bill of Comprehension. This healing measure,
Colonel Birch, member for Penryn, undertook to introduce in the House
of Commons;[534] and a careful account of it, written by Bishop Barlow,
is preserved at Oxford in the Bodleian Library,[535] from which
document we derive our information. The Bill provided that ordained
ministers--whether Episcopal or Presbyterian--who should within the
next three months subscribe to all the Articles of Religion "which only
concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine
of the sacraments" should be capable of preaching in any church or
chapel in England, of administering the sacraments according to the
Book of Common Prayer, of taking upon them the cure of souls, and of
enjoying any spiritual promotion. After prescribing that the Common
Prayer, according to law, should be read before sermon, there follows
a proviso, that no one should be denied the Lord's Supper, although he
did not kneel in the act of receiving it; and that no minister should
be compelled to wear the surplice, or use the cross in baptism. The
authors of the project, in addition to clauses touching Presbyterian
ordination and ceremonies, wished to have the word "consent" left out
of the form of subscription,--to confine subscription to the doctrine
of the Christian faith,--not to bind ministers to read the Common
Prayer themselves, if they procured others to do it,--and to lay aside
the Oath of Adjuration.
[Sidenote: 1667.]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The session of Parliament opened upon the 10th of October and ended
just before Christmas; but the Bill, although ready, was never printed,
nor brought into the House. This first scheme of comprehension came
to nothing; but a second scheme, which like the first failed in the
end, proceeded somewhat further. Rumours of it were circulated in
the month of January, and were caught up by Pepys, to whom it seemed
there was a great presumption of a toleration being granted, so that
the Presbyterians held up their heads: ten days later, he heard that
the King approved of it, but that the Bishops were against it: and
the Diarist further states, that his informant, Colonel Birch, did
not doubt but that it would be carried through Parliament; only he
feared some would advocate the toleration of Papists.[536] A few days
afterwards, Pepys heard that an Act was likely to pass for admitting
all persuasions to hold public worship, "but in certain places; and
the persons therein concerned to be listed of this or that church,
which, it is thought, will do more hurt than good, and make them not
own their persuasion."[537] The proposal was made by Sir Orlando
Bridgeman, the Lord Keeper, and supported by Sir Matthew Hale, the Lord
Chief Baron.[538] The Earl of Manchester favoured the plan, and Dr.
Wilkins, on the Episcopal side, entered into negotiations with the
Presbyterians, who were represented by Baxter, Manton, and Bates.
Baxter gives a full account of the scheme, which account is confirmed
substantially by the memoranda of Barlow, at the time Archdeacon of
Oxford, and afterwards Bishop of Lincoln.[539] The basis of the plan
was the King's Declaration from Breda; and the scheme may be considered
under three aspects--as proposed by the Episcopalians,--as modified
by the Presbyterians,--and as it bore relation to the Independents. I
shall quote a few passages from Barlow's MS., as it is important to
convey an exact idea of what was proposed.
[Sidenote: 1667.]
I. In order to comprehension, the Episcopalians proposed,--1. That
such persons as in the late times of disorder had been ordained only
by Presbyters, should be admitted to the exercise of the ministerial
function, by the imposition of the hands of the Bishop, with this or
the like form of words: "Take thou (legal) authority to preach the Word
of God and to administer the sacraments in any congregation of the
Church of England when thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto." 2.
That clergymen and schoolmasters (after taking the Oaths of Allegiance
or Supremacy) should be required to subscribe this or the like form
of words: "I, A. B., do hereby profess and declare that I do approve
the doctrine, worship, and government established in the Church of
England, as containing all things necessary to salvation; and that I
will not endeavour, by myself or any other, directly or indirectly,
to bring in any doctrine contrary to that which is so established:
and I do hereby promise, that I will continue in the communion of
the Church of England, and will not do anything to disturb the peace
thereof." 3. That kneeling at the sacrament, the use of the cross in
baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus might be left indifferent or
be altogether omitted; Barlow being willing to class with these things
the wearing of the surplice. 4. That in case it should be thought
fit to review and alter the Liturgy and canons for the satisfaction
of Dissenters, then every person admitted to preach should--upon
admission--publicly and solemnly read the said Liturgy, openly declare
his assent to the lawfulness of using it, and give a promise that it
should be constantly read at the time and place accustomed. It also was
added, that the Liturgy might be altered by using the reading Psalms
in the new translations;--by appointing some other lessons out of the
canonical Scriptures instead of those taken out of the Apocrypha;--by
not enjoining godfathers and godmothers, when either of the parents
were ready to answer for the child;--by omitting "every clause in the
services connecting regeneration with baptism;"--by omitting in the
Collect after imposition of hands in Confirmation this clause--"After
the example of Thy holy apostles, and to certify them by this sign
of Thy favour and gracious goodness towards them;" and this also in
the office of matrimony--"With my body I thee worship;"--by allowing
ministers some liberty in the visitation of the sick, to use such
other prayers as they might judge expedient;--by so altering the
Burial Service, as to imply nothing respecting the safety of the
deceased person;--by several changes in the services with a view to
abbreviation, omitting all "responsal prayers," and all repetitions,
and throwing separate petitions altogether in one continuous
prayer;--by not reading the Communion Service at such times as are
not communion days, but only repeating the Ten Commandments;--and by
altering the catechism at the question, "How many sacraments hath
Christ ordained?" so that the answer may be, "Two only, Baptism and the
Lord's Supper."
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
II. The modifications proposed by the Presbyterians were as
follows:--1. That all ministers ordained by Presbyters should, when
admitted by the Bishop to minister in the Church, "have leave," if
they "desired" it, to "give in their profession, that they renounce
not their ordination nor take it for a nullity, and that they take
this as the magistrate's license and confirmation." 2. That in the
form of subscription they should assent to the truth of all the Holy
Scriptures, to the articles of Creed, and to the doctrine of the Church
of England contained in the Thirty-six Articles; or to the doctrinal
part of the Thirty-nine Articles, excepting only the three articles
touching ceremonies and prelacy. 3. That an appeal be allowed for a
suspended minister from the Bishop to the King's Courts of Justice;
and lastly, that certain rules be enacted for the due enforcement
of discipline, respecting admission to holy communion, and also
respecting meetings for worship. A few additional suggestions were
proposed, relating to alterations in the Liturgy, of which these were
the most remarkable--"the Lord's Prayer should be used entirely with
the Doxologies;" the word "Sabbath" should replace "seventh-day" in
the fourth commandment; holydays should be left indifferent, save only
that all persons be restrained from open labour, and contempt of them;
and "no minister" should "be forced" to "baptize the child of proved
atheists and infidels." The addition of the surplice to the other
ceremonies to be left indifferent; the expression "sacramentally" to
be subjoined to the word "regenerate" in the baptismal service; the
catechism to be altered as regards the doctrine of the sacraments; and
the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick to be made conditional.
[Sidenote: 1667.]
After considerable debate, principally upon the subject of
reordination, a Bill of Comprehension was drawn up by Sir Matthew Hale.
The points comprised were, first, the insertion of the word "legal"
before the word "authority" instead of the demanded liberty to declare
the validity of the previous Presbyterian ordination; and secondly, the
omission of the clause proposed by Baxter and his friends relating to
appeals. Two forms of subscription, framed so as to exclude Romanists,
were likewise adopted respectively for established ministers and for
tolerated persons.
III. The Episcopalian scheme, endorsed and revised by Barlow,
included the indulgence of such orthodox Protestants, as could not be
comprehended within the Establishment. These, upon registering their
names, were to have liberty to worship in public, and to erect edifices
for that purpose. Although disabled from holding public offices, they
were to be fined for not fulfilling them, and also obliged, "according
to their respective qualities," to pay annually for indulgence, a sum
not above forty shillings, nor under ten, for any master of a family;
not above eight, nor under two, for any other individual,--the tribute
to form a fund for church building. Upon producing a certificate,
Nonconformists were to be exempted from legal penalties for
non-attendance at parish worship; but they were to pay church rates,
and it was suggested by Barlow that they should be forbidden to preach
against the Establishment. This arrangement was to be limited to three
years, and to be confined to such Protestants as are described in
Cromwell's Act of Settlement.
These intentions were frustrated. Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, mentioned
the subject to Seth Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, "hoping to have
prevailed for his concurrence in it;" but the latter, availing himself
of the communication, did his utmost to defeat the scheme. The Bishops
generally were against it. The old Clarendon party was against it.[540]
[Sidenote: THORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLES.]
Herbert Thorndike wrote his _True Principle of Comprehension_ in
the year 1667, just at the time when the question had been taken up
by Wilkins and Barlow.[541] He did not at all mince the matter, but
began by saying that Presbyterians could not, any more than Papists,
be good subjects; an assertion which, if true, would of course render
comprehension, in the common meaning of the term, impossible; but it is
not in that meaning that he uses the term, and he proceeds to declare
most distinctly, that "an Act comprehending Presbyterians, as such,
in the Church, would fail of its purpose, and not give satisfaction
or peace in matters of religion." The only cure for disputes, he
maintained, was to authorize the faith and laws of the Catholic
Church, _i.e._, within the first six general Councils, "enacting the
same with competent penalties." This proposal really signified that
Nonconformists were to retract their opinions altogether, or continue
to be persecuted. What the author called the true principle of
comprehension was the false principle of coercion. He would have men
think with him, and if possible force them into the Church; if they
were incorrigible, he would shut them out and punish them. Nor did he
leave any doubt as to what he intended by the enactment of "competent
penalties;" for he laid down the doctrine, that the Church is justified
in having recourse to _the civil power_, to enforce union.
[Sidenote: 1668.]
Parliament met on the 6th of February, and then adjourned to the 10th.
When the Commons had assembled, and before the King had arrived,
reports were made to the House respecting insolent language said to
have been used in Nonconformist Conventicles; and it being known
that in the Royal Speech some notice would be taken of a measure of
Comprehension, about which there had been so much discussion out of
doors, the members did "mightily and generally inveigh against it;"
and they voted that the King should strictly put in force the Act of
Uniformity. It was also moved, "that if any people had a mind to bring
any new laws into the House, about religion, they might come, as a
proposer of new laws did in Athens, with ropes about their necks."[542]
His Majesty, however, in his speech from the throne, recommended the
Houses to adopt some course for securing "a better union and composure
in the minds of my Protestant subjects in matters of religion."[543]
From this it appears that His Majesty felt disposed to favour some
measure pointing in the same direction as did that which had been drawn
up by Barlow.[544]
[Sidenote: NEW CONVENTICLE BILL.]
Colonel Birch told Pepys on the 28th of February, that the House the
same morning had been in a state of madness, in consequence of letters
received respecting fanatics who had come in great numbers to certain
churches, turning people out, "and there preaching themselves, and
pulling the surplice over the parsons' heads;" this excited "the
hectors and bravadoes of the House."[545] The report was utterly
false,[546] but influenced by it, the Commons, on the 4th of March,
resolved to desire His Majesty to issue a Proclamation for enforcing
the laws against Conventicles, and to provide against all unlawful
assemblies of Papists and Nonconformists.[547] When, upon the 11th
of March, the King's Speech respecting the union of his Protestant
subjects came under consideration, all sorts of opinions were expressed
upon all sorts of ecclesiastical topics. One declared that he never
knew a toleration which did not need an army to keep all quiet;
another expressed himself in favour of the reform of Ecclesiastical
Courts, which had become very obnoxious. A third concurred in this
opinion, and also complained that the Bishops had little power in
the Church except authority to ordain. A fourth wished to see the
Act of Uniformity revised, in order to temper its severe provisions,
especially in reference to the Covenant, and assent and consent to the
Common Prayer. A fifth compared the King and clergy to a master having
quarrelsome servants, "One will not stay unless the other goes away." A
theological debater alluded to predestination and free-will as at the
foundation of all the religious disputes in England, and lamented the
growth of Arminianism, affirming that so long as the Church was true to
herself, she need not be in fear of Nonconformity: placing candles on
the communion table greatly displeased him. A Broad Church polemic held
that the Articles were drawn up so that both parties might subscribe,
and that Convocation was a mixed assembly of "both persuasions;" no
canon, he said, enjoined bowing at the altar, and Bishop Morton left
people to use their own liberty as to that practice; this gentleman
was against Conventicles. A more prudent debater wished to veil the
infirmities of his mother rather than proclaim them in Gath and
Askelon; he advocated comprehension, and thought an end would be put to
Nonconformity by making two or three Presbyterians Bishops. These brief
notices of the debate will afford an idea of the diversity of opinion
which was expressed on this occasion.[548]
[Sidenote: 1668.]
[Sidenote: NEW CONVENTICLE BILL.]
Instead of the Bill described by Barlow, or any measure of a similar
kind for comprehension and toleration, a Bill for reviving the
Conventicle Act was submitted to the Commons. The Conventicle Act of
1664 had been limited in its operation to the end of the next session
of Parliament after the expiration of three years, and therefore it
remained no longer in force. Leave was now given to bring in a Bill for
the continuance of it.
The High Church party, by a majority of 176 against 70, negatived the
proposal that His Majesty be desired to send for such persons as he
might think fit, in order to the uniting of his Protestant subjects:
the first instance, as Hallam says, "of a triumph obtained by the
Church over the Crown in the House of Commons."[549] Upon the 28th of
April, the Bill for revising the Conventicle Act was carried by 144
against 78. The new Conventicle Bill, sent up to the Lords, was by them
read a first time on the 29th of April; but it does not appear to have
reached a second reading, as the House, on the 9th of May, adjourned
until August, then again to November, and then again to the following
March, 1669, when Parliament was prorogued. Consequently the Bill fell
through; and the law with regard to Conventicles underwent a change,
through the expiration of the Act of 1664.