The Cabal crumbled to pieces in 1673. It had never been guided by any
common principles; it had never felt any community of interest; it
had never been united by personal sympathies. Our notions of cabinet
councillors bound together by some characteristic policy, do not apply
to the reign of Charles II., when a Ministry included persons of divers
opinions, drawn together simply by the choice of the Sovereign, who
selected them mainly for the discharge of executive duties. The want
of cohesion apparent in all the cabinets of that period was singularly
conspicuous in this instance. Clifford was compelled to resign office
by the operation of the Test Act; Shaftesbury, dismissed from the
office of Chancellor, went over, accompanied by Buckingham, to the
Opposition; and Arlington, threatened with impeachment, relinquished
his Secretaryship of State for a quiet post in the Royal household.
Lauderdale alone retained his seals, thenceforth, however, to be
chiefly employed in the administration of Scotch affairs.
[Sidenote: EARL OF DANBY.]
Sir Thomas Osborne, created Earl of Danby, having taken up the White
Staff which Clifford had laid down, now became principal minister; and
from his business talents and his love for the power and emoluments of
office, he acquired an influence over the Royal councils, like that
of Clarendon in his palmy days. He resembled his great predecessor
in his opposition to Popery, not less than in his abilities and in
his ambition; but he was much more of an Englishman, and thoroughly
detested the idea of truckling to France. In that respect his policy
differed from the policy of the Cabal; but he inherited from that
Ministry the practice of bribing Parliament--carrying corruption even
further than ever the Cabal had done--for, whereas they only bought
speeches, he bought votes as well. His policy was decidedly Protestant
in foreign affairs, as the means of attaining his objects; and also,
from his own predilections, he especially sought to gratify the old
Cavaliers and the High Church party. Clarendon had been accused of
neglecting the friends of the martyred King, and of being indifferent
to his memory: Danby now gave the former encouragement; and he also
did honour to the latter, by recovering the bronze statue of Charles
I., and by setting it up at Charing Cross. He earnestly promoted the
rebuilding of St. Paul's Cathedral, and, at the same time, turned his
attention to the Dissenters; but it was to restrain their liberty and
to check their progress, both of which had received an impetus during
the latter part of the administration of the Cabal. Danby, and Sir
Heneage Finch, now Lord Keeper, called to their councils, relative
to Church affairs, two prelates whom the Nonconformists exceedingly
disliked, and not without reason,--Morley, Bishop of Winchester, and
Ward, Bishop of Salisbury. These prelates, it was inferred, recommended
the King to call in the licenses for worship, which, notwithstanding
the cancelling of the Declaration, had not yet been individually
withdrawn.[613]
[Sidenote: 1673-5.]
The reign of intolerance returned, and the weight of its iron mace
fell upon multitudes. The men who before, rather than countenance an
exercise of illegal power, or share their liberty with the Papist,
had rejected the Indulgence, or supported the Test Act, now felt
how cruelly they were rewarded by Parliament for their zeal against
Absolutism and Popery; whilst others, who had taken no part in their
proceedings, found themselves treated just like their neighbours. The
Court, incensed at being thwarted in their plans respecting Popery,
despatched informers to ferret out Protestant Nonconformists. The drum
ecclesiastic was loudly beaten, and a High Churchman, in his sermon
before the House of Commons, told the honourable members that the
Nonconformists could be cured only by vengeance; and that the best way
was to set "fire to the faggot;" and to teach these obstinate people
"by scourges or scorpions;" and to "open their eyes with gall."[614]
[Sidenote: NEW TEST.]
One of the most vexatious impositions enacted immediately after the
Restoration was the oath presented by the Corporation Act, declaring
that it was unlawful _under any pretence_ to bear arms against the
King. This oath was introduced into the Act of Uniformity, with the
addition that the Covenant entailed no obligation "to endeavour any
change or alteration of Government in Church or State,"--this formulary
repudiating the Covenant being intended only for temporary use, to
expire at the end of twenty years. But now another test was proposed
in the House of Lords, if not by the suggestion, yet with the sanction
of Danby,--a test which went so far as to require the following
declaration: "I do swear that I will not endeavour an alteration of
the Protestant religion now established by law in the Church of
England; nor will I endeavour any alteration in the Government of this
kingdom in Church or State, as it is by law established."[615] Such a
declaration is so utterly opposed to all the sentiments and traditions
of Englishmen, that it fills us with wonder that it could even have
been thought of,--yet it was contrived as a thing to be imposed upon
every member of Parliament, and upon all persons holding office under
the Crown. The King, at that period under an hallucinating desire
for Absolutism, threw himself with so much energy into the conflict,
that he attended constantly on the debate, standing at the fire-side
in the Upper House, day after day for seventeen days, listening to
the oratory of the Peers. Not only the Lord Treasurer Danby, but the
Lord Keeper Finch encouraged this assault upon the liberties of their
country; and it must not be concealed that the two prelates, who had
already signalized themselves by their intolerance, Morley and Ward,
now united with the two temporal Lords in this matricidal attempt.
Their most determined, most able, and eloquent opponent was the Earl
of Shaftesbury. On this occasion certainly he did good service to
the cause of freedom. He prolonged the sittings till he wearied his
enemies, and most unmercifully did he lash the Bishops for the part
which they took in the debate. He asked, what were the boundaries of
the Protestant religion, which the new oath required men to swear they
would never alter? He pointed out defects in the Church of England,
and dwelt upon the conflicting interpretations which her standards had
received from her own Divines; and he inquired, whether it would be
a crime to make an alteration, by bringing back the Liturgy to what
it had been in the days of Elizabeth? One occupant of the Episcopal
Bench, who since his elevation had rarely entered a pulpit, whispered
to a friend, loud enough in the ill-constructed house to be heard by
his neighbours, "I wonder when he will have done preaching!" "When?"
continued Shaftesbury, "when I am made a Bishop, my Lord."
[Sidenote: 1675.]
We cannot follow the discussions upon the Bill: our brief notice of
which is introduced for the purpose of indicating its tendency with
regard to the Church,--by investing it with a fictitious infallibility,
by fostering towards it an admiration as fatal as it was foolish, since
it tended to prevent the increase of its benefits, through the reform
of its abuses. It is enough to add, that, after dragging the country to
the verge of a convulsion, the Government felt compelled to abandon the
Bill.[616]
Comprehension came anew under consideration.
Overtures respecting this point were made in the early part of the year
1673 to Richard Baxter by the Earl of Orrery. He professed that many
influential persons desired such a result, and mentioned the names
of the new Lord Treasurer, and Morley, Bishop of Winchester, "who
vehemently professed his desires of it."[617]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
[Sidenote: 1675.]
Messages and meetings, on the same subject, followed in the spring of
1675--after Morley had, during two or three sessions of Parliament,
"on all occasions, in the company of lords, gentlemen, and divines,
cried out of the danger of Popery, and talkt much for abatements and
taking in the Nonconformists, or else" all were "like to fall into
the Papists' hands." Bates brought to Baxter a message from Tillotson,
to the effect that Tillotson and Stillingfleet wished for a meeting
with himself, Manton, and others. The anxiety of the Presbyterians
for some _accommodation_, as they called it, became notorious; and
Baxter repeatedly showed now, as he had done before, the sincerity
and earnestness of his solicitude in reference to the matter.[618]
Prolonged debate and voluminous correspondence; the discussion of
principles, and the arrangement of details; questions, answers,
strictures, rejoinders could not quench the ardour of the man who
combined in one, the qualities of a theological disputant and an
apostle of union--qualities which in his case served to neutralize each
other. He had faith in some of his Episcopalian brethren, as disposed
to meet him half way. Witchcot, Stillingfleet, Gifford, Tillotson,
Cradock, Outram, he speaks of with honour; declaring he made no doubt,
if the matter could be left in such hands, that differences would be
"healed in a few weeks' time."[619] But in the Bishop of Winchester
he had no faith.[620] The inconsistencies of Morley may perhaps he
understood by examining into what were probably the motives of his
conduct. His main policy was to protect the Establishment, on the basis
of the Act of Uniformity, against Papists on the one hand, and against
Dissenters on the other. He shared in the alarm which conversions to
Rome and the encroachments of that Church inspired throughout England
at the time; and, partly from that cause, he was induced to support
the Bill just described, thinking by the new oath which stereotyped
the Church, to prevent an invasion by the enemy. But now the Bishop
might conceive that it would be desirable to consolidate English
Protestantism. Strength was being wasted by internecine warfare, at
a moment when Episcopalians and Presbyterians stood before a common
foe. It was the story of the Crusaders repeated. Why not gather the
forces of the Church and of the sects, and concentrate them upon the
great enemy of the country's liberty and peace? Such impressions,
under the circumstances, were not unnatural in the mind of a man like
Morley. Thus influenced, he would talk and act, as Baxter, with strong
suspicions of his sincerity, reports him to have done. Yet at the time
Morley might be perfectly sincere, although a reaction of prejudice,
after a time, proved too much for his new-born zeal in behalf of union.
The schemes of 1673 and 1675 met with the same fate as the schemes of
1667 and 1668.[621]
Parliament prorogued in June, reassembled the 13th of October, when
the Lord Keeper, in his opening speech, called renewed attention
to ecclesiastical affairs. He said that His Majesty had so often
recommended the consideration of religion, and so very often expressed
a desire for the assistance of the Houses in his care and protection
of it, that "the Defender of the Faith," had become "the advocate of it
too," and had left those without excuse, who remained under any kind
of doubts or fears--"Would you," asked he, "raise the due estimation
and reverence of the Church of England to its just height?" "All your
petitions of this kind will be grateful to the King."[622]
[Sidenote: PERSECUTION.]
The persecution of Nonconformists continued to depend very much upon
the temper of neighbours and the character of magistrates. In some
cases their meetings were broken up, and they were taken prisoners;
but, in other cases, they were allowed to assemble in their places of
worship without molestation, much to the annoyance of impotent enemies.
A Government correspondent in the town of Lynn reported a private
meeting of about forty of "the Presbyterian gang," discovered by the
Curate and officers of the parish of St. Margaret. These Nonconformists
made their escape, but "enough were taken notice of to make
satisfaction of the rest," and they "were to be presented according to
law."
[Sidenote: 1675.]
The Nonconformists at Yarmouth continued their meetings publicly, and
in as great numbers as ever. This sufferance, it was complained, filled
with impudence people who, when the laws were put in execution, were
as tame as lambs.[623] The same informant who states this, reports
that the "Bishop of Norwich had sent to know how many persons received
the communion at Church, and what was the number of recusants and
Nonconformists; and that the ministers and churchwardens feared if they
should make the Dissenting party so great as they are, it might put
some fear in His Majesty, and discourage him in attempting to reform
them, they judging their number has been the only cause they have been
so favourably dealt with hitherto." "Of the same opinion," he observes,
"they are in other parts as well as here, so that there is likely to be
an imperfect account." Not above 500, it is affirmed, would be found
to be in communion with the Church of England. As to Dissenters, says
this writer, "how many of them were in Church fellowship, as they term
it, or break bread together, I am certain here is not one hundred men
besides the women." He adds, "The greater number of people there, as
elsewhere, were the profane and unstable, who were on the increase,
tending to an unsettlement either in Church or State."[624]
It is curious to notice the changing fortunes of Dissenters--how, after
a lull of peace, they were overtaken again by a storm of trouble. The
copious correspondence of the Yarmouth informer traces the history in
that town time after time. The bailiff was stimulated to interfere,
and he issued his warrant to the constables to assist in dispersing
the illegal worshippers; but it seems to have been difficult to get
these officers to act in the business, since there were three of their
number who "daily frequented" the reprobated place of worship. It being
reported that the Anabaptists were meeting to the number of 80 or 90,
the constables were sent to disperse them, and they took five of the
chief into custody. The correspondent exultingly adds, "Several of the
Nonconformist grandees came yesterday to our Church, and of the common
sort, so many as filled our Church fuller than ever I saw it since the
year 1665."[625]
In the autumn of the same year Dissenting affairs at Yarmouth took
another favourable turn. Their approved friends having recovered
the helm of municipal affairs, Nonconformists were regarded as more
dangerous than ever, for their meetings were held at break of day
within closed doors. For two Sundays the angry correspondent was
awakened out of his sleep, the schismatics kept up such a trampling as
they passed the streets under his window, that he rose out of his bed
to see what could be the matter.[626]
[Sidenote: COFFEE-HOUSES.]
It is sometimes forgotten, but it is worth remark, that other meetings,
besides Conventicles, were at this period proscribed. Coffee-houses
were then such institutions as clubs are now; and Dryden might be
seen at "Wills," in Covent Garden, surrounded by the wits, seated in
"his armed chair, which in the winter had a settled and prescriptive
place by the fire." Some houses of a lower character are described
as exchanges "where haberdashers of political small-wares meet, and
mutually abuse each other and the public with bottomless stories."
Conversation ranged over all kinds of topics--scandalous, literary,
political, and ecclesiastical; and questions touching Papists and
Nonconformists were earnestly discussed within those quaint old
parlours, over cups of coffee and chocolate, sherbet, and tea. These
discussions were reported to the men in power as being often of a
treasonable nature, even as Nonconformist sermons--only with much less
reason--were so represented. Consequently a proclamation appeared
in the month of December, 1675, recalling licenses for the sale of
coffee, and ordering all coffee-houses to be shut up; "because in
such houses, and by the meeting of disaffected persons in them,
divers false, malicious, and scandalous reports were devised and
spread abroad, to the defamation of His Majesty's Government and the
disturbance of the quiet and peace of the realm." But public opinion
was stronger in reference to coffee-houses than it was in reference
to Conventicles--and whilst the latter remained beneath a legal ban,
the former were speedily re-opened, "under a severe admonition to the
keepers, that they should stop the reading of all scandalous books and
papers, and hinder every scandalous report against the Government."[627]
[Sidenote: 1668-1676.]
[Sidenote: SAMUEL PARKER.]
Comprehension and toleration continued to be discussed from the press.
We have noticed publications in the year 1667 bearing upon such
subjects. Between that date and the period to which we are now brought,
a controversy had been going on respecting the fundamental principles
of religious liberty; notorious on the one side for the baseness of the
attack, memorable on the other for the chivalry of the defence. Samuel
Parker had been brought up amongst the Puritans, had distinguished
himself at Oxford during the Commonwealth as one of the _gruellers_
(an ascetic little company of students, whose refection, when they
met together, was oatmeal and water), and was esteemed "one of the
preciousest young men in the University."[628] This man proved recreant
to his principles after Charles' return, and, swinging round with
immense momentum, became as violent in his Episcopalian as he could
ever have been in his Presbyterian zeal. Having come up to London, and
made himself known as "a great droller on the Puritans," he, in the
year 1667, obtained a chaplaincy at Lambeth, and thus found himself on
the high road to preferment. In 1669 he published a book, the title
of which--like so many in those days--fully describes its contents,
and expresses its spirit. He calls it "A discourse of ecclesiastical
polity, wherein the authority of the civil magistrate over the
consciences of subjects in matters of external religion is asserted,
the mischief and inconveniences of toleration are represented, and
all pretences pleaded on behalf of liberty of conscience are fully
answered." The spirit of this book may be seen from the preface,
in which the author justifies the violence of his attacks upon
Nonconformists. "Let any man that is acquainted with the wisdom and
sobriety of true religion," he exclaims indignantly, "tell me how 'tis
possible not to be provoked to scorn and indignation against such
proud, ignorant, and supercilious hypocrites. To lash these morose and
churlish zealots with smart and twinging satires is so far from being
a criminal passion, that 'tis a seal of meekness and charity." Thus he
strikes the key-note of what he continues from page to page, disgusting
every sensible reader; yet it is curious to find him maintaining
unequivocally that the affairs of religion, as they must be subject to
the supreme civil power, so they ought to be to none other, and "that
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of princes [is] not derived from any
grant of our Saviour, but from the natural and antecedent rights of
all sovereign power." His principles are thoroughly Erastian, although
the writer objects to Hobbes' philosophy; and whilst his positions are
often monstrous, his reasonings are contemptible. Dr. Owen wrote in
reply to this assault, his _Truth and Innocence vindicated_; in which,
after repelling the accusations brought forward by Parker, he exposes
and confutes that author's principles.[629] Parker, in his rejoinder,
poured upon Owen the coarsest abuse, calling him "the great bellwether
of disturbance and sedition, and the viper swelled with venom, which
must spit or burst." He also cast upon his old associates more and more
of bitter invective, calling them "the most villanous unsufferable
sort of sanctified fools, knaves, and unquiet rebels, that ever were
in the world;"[630] and having in his first book attacked Dissenters
in general, in the second he assailed Independents in particular,
quoting against Owen divers extracts taken from his sermons. That
Divine made no reply; but another formidable combatant appeared on
his side against the scurrilous accuser. As the High Church party
could boast of Samuel Parker who knew how to lampoon the Puritans, so
the Liberals of that day gloried in Andrew Marvell, who could quite
as cleverly satirize High Churchmen. In his _Rehearsal Transposed_,
he carried the day, and tormented beyond endurance the champions of
despotism. Everybody who could read, from the King to the artizan,
perused with glee the pages of the book, so that the discomfiture of
the Archbishop's Chaplain excited derision through a much wider circle
than was ever reached by his foolish writings. Parker, however, was not
a man easily to be silenced, nor was the cause he undertook easily to
be crushed; and therefore he and his friends returned to the onslaught,
and soon the printers were busy with a number of pamphlets, presenting
a catalogue of most ridiculous titles. Marvell rejoined; and it is
confessed by Parker that, at the end of the literary encounter, the
odds and victory were against him, and lay on Marvell's side: the style
of warfare adopted by the latter can scarcely be approved, but it was
in the fashion of the times, and had been provoked by an unprincipled
assailant, who, it may be hoped--as it is intimated by one sometimes
resembling Parker in virulence--was all the better for the castigation
he received.[631]
[Sidenote: 1668-76.]
[Sidenote: BISHOP CROFT.]
This remarkable controversy lasted from 1669 to 1673; and was in its
first stage when the new Conventicle Act appeared; and reached its
height whilst the debates on the Indulgence, the Relief Bill, and the
Test Act agitated Parliament and the country. High Churchmen read with
sympathy the pages of the assailant of Nonconformists, and they, on the
other hand, suffering from local persecution, or rejoicing in Royal
indulgence, pondered Owen's arguments, or laughed at Marvell's wit.
In the year 1675, Croft, Bishop of Hereford, despatched anonymously
_The Naked Truth_, in which he maintained the sufficiency of the
Apostles' Creed as a standard of faith, and protested against the
refinements of Alexandrian and scholastic philosophy. At the same time
he declined submission to the authority of the Fathers, or of Councils,
although paying respect to them as teachers and guides; and deprecated
the importance attached to ceremonies, pleading for such liberty as St.
Paul, "that great grandfather of the Church, allowed his children."
He would dispense with using the surplice, bowing to the altar, and
kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and also with the cross in baptism, and
the ring in marriage. He advocated a revision of the Prayer Book,
contended that all ministers are of one order, and believed that
confirmation might be administered by priests as well as by prelates.
The tract concludes with a charitable admonition to all Nonconformists,
in which the author, after pleading his own desire for certain changes,
yet confessing he saw no hope of being successful, most inconsistently
proceeds to exhort his Dissenting readers, on grounds of Christian
humility, and the mischiefs of separation, immediately to submit to the
authority of the Church.[632]
[Sidenote: 1668-76.]
[Sidenote: BISHOP CROFT.]
It has often been the fate of moderate men to suffer from condemnation
by zealots in their own Church. Even Popes of Rome, when taking the
side of charity and candour, have been dishonoured by advocates of the
Papacy; and Anastasius II., for his mild behaviour towards the Eastern
Church, has been represented by Cardinal Baronius as the victim of a
Divine judgment. Dante, too, has assigned him to one of the circles
of the damned. In a similar spirit contemporaries assailed the author
of _Naked Truth_. "Not only the Churches, but the coffee-houses rung
against it; they itinerated, like excise spies, from one house to
another, and some of the morning and evening chaplains burnt their
lips with perpetual discoursing it out of reputation, and loading the
author, whoever he were, with all contempt, malice, and obloquy. Nor
could this suffice them, but a lasting pillar of infamy must be erected
to eternize his crime and his punishment. There must be an answer to
him in print, and that not according to the ordinary rules of civility,
or in the sober way of arguing controversy, but with the utmost
extremity of jeer, disdain, and indignation."[633] Gunning, Bishop of
Ely, attacked it in a sermon which he preached before the King; and to
him has been ascribed a pamphlet entitled _The Author of Naked Truth
Stript Naked_. It also met with animadversions from Dr. Turner, Head
of St. John's, Cambridge. Still there were those of another spirit
who appreciated the calm reasoning and the amiable temper of the
Bishop; and Pearse, who is described by Wood as "a certain lukewarm
Conformist," because he could not join in reviling his Nonconformist
brethren, spoke of the book at a later date, in his _Third Plea for the
Nonconformists_, as a Divine manifestation of a primitive Christian
spirit of love. And he proceeds, "certainly, as that pious endeavour
hath increased his (the author's) comforts, so he hath not lost all
his labour; for since that, we have had more overtures of peace than
we heard of in many years before of discord and troubles, from the
learned in the Church of England." Marvell, in his answer to the
animadversions, styled the writer of _Naked Truth_ "judicious, learned,
conscientious, a sincere Protestant, and a true son, if not a father
of the Church of England." Baxter also alludes to it as an excellent
book, "written for the Nonconformists," in favour of "abatements, and
forbearance, and concord."[634]