History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1 of 3

674

Barrow, displeased at not receiving preferment after the Restoration, wrote the lines:

‘Te magis optavit rediturum Carole nemo;

Et sensit nemo te rediisse minus.’

Hamilton's Life of Barrow, in Barrow's Works, Edinb. 1845, vol. i. p. xxiii.

675

Everything Mr. Macaulay has said on the contempt into which the clergy fell in the reign of Charles II. is perfectly accurate; and from evidence which I have collected, I know that this very able writer, of whose immense research few people are competent judges, has rather understated the case than overstated it. On several subjects I should venture to differ from Mr. Macaulay; but I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration of his unwearied diligence, of the consummate skill with which he has arranged his materials, and of the noble love of liberty which animates his entire work. These are qualities which will long survive the aspersions of his puny detractors, – men who, in point of knowledge and ability, are unworthy to loosen the shoe-latchet of him they foolishly attack.

676

Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 142, 143, 153–156; from which it appears that this movement began about 1681. The clergy, as a body, are naturally favourable to this doctrine; and the following passage, published only twelve years ago, will give the reader an idea of the views that some of them entertain. The Rev. Mr. Sewell (Christian Politics, Lond. 1844, p. 157) says, that the reigning prince is ‘a being armed with supreme physical power by the hand and permission of Providence; as such, the lord of our property, the master of our lives, the fountain of honour, the dispenser of law, before whom each subject must surrender his will and conform his actions… Who, when he errs, errs as a man, and not as a king, and is responsible, not to man, but to God.’ And at p. 111, the same writer informs us that the church, ‘with one uniform, unhesitating voice, has proclaimed the duty of “passive obedience.”’ See also on this slavish tenet, as upheld by the church, Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog. vol. iv. p. 668; Life of Ken, by a Layman, vol. ii. p. 523; Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, p. 228; Lathbury's Nonjurors, pp. 50, 135, 197; and a letter from Nelson, author of the Fasts and Festivals, in Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. iv. p. 216. With good reason, therefore, did Fox tell the House of Commons, that ‘by being a good churchman, a person might become a bad citizen.’ Parl. Hist. vol. xxix. p. 1377.

677

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1678, was engaged in an attempt to convert James; and in a letter to the Bishop of Winchester, he notices the ‘happy consequences’ which would result from his success. See this characteristic letter in Clarendon Corresp. vol. ii. pp. 465, 466. See also the motives of the bishops, candidly but broadly stated, in Mr. Wilson's valuable work, Life of De Foe, vol. i. p. 74.

678

In a high-church pamphlet, published in 1682, against the Bill of Exclusion, the cause of James is advocated; but the inconvenience he would suffer by remaining a Catholic is strongly insisted upon. See the wily remarks in Somers Tracts, vol. viii. pp. 258, 259.

679

Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog. vol. iv. p. 665. On their eagerness against the bill, see Harris's Lives of the Stuarts, vol. v. p. 181; Burnet's Own Time, vol. ii. p. 246; Somers Tracts, vol. x. pp. 216, 253; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 353; Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 431.

680

At the accession of James II. ‘the pulpits throughout England resounded with thanksgivings; and a numerous set of addresses flattered his Majesty, in the strongest expressions, with assurances of unshaken loyalty and obedience, without limitation or reserve.’ Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 2. See also Calamy's Life, vol. i. p. 118.

681

On the 18th March, 1687, the king announced to the Privy Council that he had determined ‘to grant, by his own authority, entire liberty of conscience to all his subjects. On the 4th April appeared the memorable Declaration of Indulgence.’ Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 211; and see Life of James II., edited by Clarke, vol. ii, p. 112. There is a summary of the Declaration in Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. pp. 30, 31. As to the second Declaration, see Macaulay, vol. ii. pp. 344, 345; Clarendon Correspond. vol. ii. p. 170.

682

It was in the autumn of 1685, that the clergy and the government persecuted the dissenters with the greatest virulence. See Macaulay's Hist. vol. i. pp. 667, 668. Compare Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. pp. 4–12, with a letter from Lord Clarendon, dated 21st December 1685, in Clarendon Correspond. vol. i. p. 192. It is said (Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. pp. 175, 176), that on many occasions the church party made use of the ecclesiastical courts to extort money from the Nonconformists; and for confirmation of this, see Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688, pp. 173, 640.

683

It appears from the accounts in the War Office, that James, even in the first year of his reign, had a standing army of nearly 20,000 men. Mackintosh's Revolution, pp. 3, 77, 688: ‘A disciplined army of about 20,000 men was, for the first time, established during peace in this island.’ As this naturally inspired great alarm, the king gave out that the number did not exceed 15,000. Life of James II., edited by Clarke, vol. ii. pp. 52, 57.

684

Compare Burnet, vol. iii. pp. 55–62, with Dalrymple's Memoirs, vol. i. part i. book ii. pp. 198–203. Ken, so far as I remember, was the only one who set his face against these atrocities. He was a very humane man, and did what he could to mitigate the sufferings of the prisoners in Monmouth's rebellion; but it is not mentioned that he attempted to stop the persecutions directed against the innocent Nonconformists, who were barbarously punished, not because they rebelled, but because they dissented. Life of Ken, by a Layman, vol. i. p. 298.

685

‘From the conduct of the clergy in this and the former reign, it is quite clear, that if the king had been a Protestant, of the profession of the Church of England, or even a quiet, submissive Catholic, without any zeal for his religion, – confining himself solely to matters of state, and having a proper respect for church property, – he might have plundered other Protestants at his pleasure, and have trampled upon the liberties of his country, without the danger of resistance.’ Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. i. p. 136. Or, as Fox says, ‘Thus, as long as James contented himself with absolute power in civil matters, and did not make use of his authority against the church, everything went smooth and easy.’ Fox's Hist. of James II., p. 165.

686

Compare Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 58, with Life of James II., edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 70; where it is well said, that the clergy of the Church of England ‘had preached prerogative and the sovereign power to the highest pitch, while it was favourable to them; but when they apprehended the least danger from it, they cried out as soon as the shoe pinched, though it was of their own putting on.’ See also pp. 113, 164. What their servility was to the crown, while they thought that the crown was with them, may be estimated from the statement of De Foe: ‘I have heard it publicly preached, that if the king commanded my head, and sent his messengers to fetch it, I was bound to submit, and stand while it was cut off.’ Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. i. p. 118.

687

D'Oyly (Life of Sancroft, p. 164) says, ‘On the whole, it is supposed that not more than 200 out of the whole body of clergy, estimated at 10,000, complied with the king's requisition.’ ‘Only seven obeyed in the city of London, and not above 200 all England over.’ Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. p. 218. On Sunday, 20th May 1688, Lord Clarendon writes: ‘I was at St. James's church; in the evening I had an account that the Declaration was read only in four churches in the city and liberties.’ Clarendon Corresp. vol. ii. pp. 172, 173. When this conduct became known, it was observed that the church ‘supported the crown only so long as she dictated to it; and became rebellious at the moment when she was forbidden to be intolerant.’ Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688, p. 255.

688

The first advances were made when the Declaration of the king in favour of ‘liberty of conscience’ was on the point of being issued, and immediately after the proceedings at Oxford had shown his determination to break down the monopoly of offices possessed by the church. ‘The clergy at the same time prayed and entreated the dissenters to appear on their side, and stand by the Establishment, making large promises of favour and brotherly affection if ever they came into power.’ Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 29. See also, at pp. 58, 59, the conciliating letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury after the Declaration. ‘Such,’ says Neal, ‘such was the language of the church in distress!’ Compare Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 153; Ellis's Correspond. vol. ii. p. 63; Ellis's Orig. Letters, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 117; Mackintosh's Revolution, p. 286; Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 132; Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. ii. pp. 218, 219.

689

See the indignant language of De Foe Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. i. pp. 130, 131, 133, 134; and a Letter from a Dissenter to the Petitioning Bishops, in Somers Tracts, vol. ix. pp. 117, 118. The writer says: ‘Pray, my lords, let me ask you a question. Suppose the king, instead of his Declaration, had issued out a proclamation, commanding justices of the peace, constables, informers, and all other persons, to be more rigorous, if possible, against dissenters, and do their utmost to the perfect quelling and destroying them; and had ordered this to be read in your churches in the time of divine service, – would you have made any scruple of that?’

690

That this was the immediate cause, so far as the head of the church-party was concerned, is unblushingly avowed by the biographer and defender of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. ‘The order published from the king in council, May 4th, 1688, directing the archbishops and bishops to send to the clergy in their respective dioceses the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, to be publicly read in all the churches of the kingdom, made it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to abstain any longer from engaging in an open and declared opposition to the counsels under which the king was now unhappily acting.’ D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft, p. 151.

691

Some writers have attempted to defend the clergy, on the ground that they thought it illegal to publish a declaration of this kind. But such a defence is incompatible with their doctrine of passive obedience; and besides this, it was contradicted by precedents and decisions of their own. Jeremy Taylor, in his Ductor Dubitantium, their great work of authority, asserts that ‘the unlawful proclamations and edicts of a true prince may be published by the clergy in their several charges.’ Heber's Life of Taylor, p. cclxxxvi. Heber adds: ‘I wish I had not found this in Taylor; and I thank Heaven that the principle was not adopted by the English clergy in 1687.’ But why was it not adopted in 1687? Simply because in 1687 the king attacked the monopoly enjoyed by the clergy; and therefore the clergy forgot their principle, that they might smite their enemy. And what makes the motives of this change still more palpable is, that as late as 1681, the Archbishop of Canterbury caused the clergy to read a Declaration issued by Charles II.; and that in a revised copy of the Liturgy he had also added to the rubric to the same effect. See Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 56. Compare Calamy's Own Life, vol. i. pp. 199, 200; Mackintosh's Revolution, pp. 242, 243; D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft, p. 152; King's Life of Locke, vol. i. p. 259; Life of James II., edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 156.

692

They are summed up in a popular pamphlet ascribed to Lord Somers, and printed in Somers Tracts, vol. x. pp. 263, 264. The diminished respect felt for the crown after 1688 is judiciously noticed in Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. i. p. 9.

693

The Toleration Act was passed in 1689. A copy of it is given by the historians of the dissenters, who call it their Magna Charta. See Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters, vol. i. pp. 187–198. The historian of the Catholics equally allows that the reign of William III. is ‘the era from which their enjoyment of religious toleration may be dated.’ Butler's Memoirs of the Catholics, vol. iii. pp. 122, 139. This is said by Mr. Butler in regard, not to the Protestant dissenters, but to the Catholics; so that we have the admission of both parties as to the importance of this epoch. Even the shameful act forced upon William in 1700 was, as Mr. Hallam truly says, evaded in its worst provisions. Const. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.

694

Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. pp. 102, 355, and his Chief-Justices, vol. ii. pp. 95, 116, 118, 136, 142, 143. See also Barrington's Observations on the Statutes, pp. 23, 102, 558; and even Alison's Hist. of Europe, vol. i. p. 236, vol. ix. p. 243; an unwary concession from such an enemy to popular liberty.

695

This was effected before the end of the seventeenth century. See Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. pp. 121, 122. Compare Lord Camden on Literary Property, in Parl. Hist. vol. xvii. p. 994; Hunt's History of Newspapers, vol. i. pp. 161, 162; Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 555; and a more detailed account in Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. iv. pp. 348 seq. 540 seq.; though Mr. Macaulay in ascribing, p. 353, so much to the influence of Blount, has not, I think, sufficiently dwelt on the operation of larger and more general causes.

696

Mr. Cooke (Hist. of Party, vol. ii. pp. 5, 148) notices this remarkable rise of the monied classes early in the eighteenth century; but he merely observes, that the consequence was to strengthen the Whig party. Though this is undoubtedly true, the ultimate results, as I shall hereafter point out, were far more important than any political or even economical consequences. It was not till 1694 that the Bank of England was established; and this great institution at first met with the warmest opposition from the admirers of old times, who thought it must be useless because their ancestors did without it. See the curious details in Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue, vol. iii. pp. 6–9; and on the connexion between it and the Whigs, see Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. iv. p. 502. There is a short account of its origin and progress in Smith's Wealth of Nations, book ii. chap. ii. p. 130.

697

Frequently misunderstood, even by those who praise it. Thus, for instance, a living writer informs us that, ‘great as have been the obligations which England owes, in many different views, to the Revolution, it is beyond all question the greatest, that it brought in a sovereign instructed in the art of overcoming the ignorant impatience of taxation which is the invariable characteristic of free communities; and thus gave it a government capable of turning to the best account the activity and energy of its inhabitants, at the same time that it had the means given it of maintaining their independence.’ Alison's Hist. of Europe, vol. vii. p. 5. This, I should suppose, is the most eccentric eulogy ever passed on William III.

698

On their sudden repentance, and on the causes of it, see Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 71.

699

Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688, pp. 81, 191. After the death of Archbishop Dolben, ‘the see was kept vacant for more than two years,’ and Cartwright hoped to obtain it. See Cartwright's Diary, by Hunter, 4to, 1843, p. 45. In the same way, we find from a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Clarendon Corresp. vol. i. p. 409) that in May 1686 uneasiness was felt because the Irish bishoprics were not filled up. Compare Burnet, vol. iii. p. 103. Carwithen (Hist. of the Ch. of England, vol. ii. p. 492) says, that James had intended to raise the Jesuit Petre to the archbishopric.

700

Lamplugh was translated from the bishopric of Exeter to the archbishopric of York in November 1688. See the contemporary account in the Ellis Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 303, and Ellis's Original Letters, second series, vol. iv. p. 151. He was a most orthodox man; and not only hated the dissenters, but showed his zeal by persecuting them. Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. i. pp. 94, 95. Compare an anecdote of him in Baxter's Life of Himself, folio, 1696, part iii. pp. 178, 179.

701

In a letter, dated London, 29th September 1688 (Ellis, Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 224, and Ellis's Orig. Letters, second series, vol. iv. p. 128), it is stated, that the Bishop of London's ‘suspension is taken off.’ See also Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 215. This is the more observable, because, according to Johnstone, there was an intention, in December 1687, of depriving him. Mackintosh's Revolution, pp. 211, 212.

702

This disposition on the part of the king again to favour the bishops and the church became a matter of common remark in September 1688. See Ellis Correspond. vol. ii. pp. 201, 202, 209, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227; Clarendon Correspond. vol. ii. pp. 188, 192. Sir John Reresby, who was then in London, writes, in October 1688, that James ‘begins again to court the Church of England.’ Reresby's Memoirs, p. 357. Indeed, the difficulties of James were now becoming so great, that he had hardly any choice.

703

Ellis Correspond. vol. ii. p. 211; Life of James II., edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 189.

704

In November 1687, it was said that he wished the dissenters to have ‘entire liberty for the full exercise of their religion,’ and to be freed ‘from the severity of the penal laws.’ Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 184. This is the earliest distinct notice I have seen of William's desire to deprive the church of the power of punishing nonconformists; but after he arrived in England his intentions became obvious. In January 1688–9 the friends of the church complained ‘that the countenance he gave the dissenters gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of England.’ Clarendon Correspond. vol. ii. p. 238. Compare Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 81; Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters, vol. ii. p. 318; Birch's Life of Tillotson, pp. 156, 157; Somers Tracts, vol. x. p. 341, vol. xi. p. 108. Burnet, in his summary of the character of William, observes that, ‘his indifference as to the forms of church-government, and his being zealous for toleration, together with his cold behaviour towards the clergy, gave them generally very ill impressions of him.’ Own Time, vol. iv. p. 550. At p. 192 the bishop says, ‘He took no notice of the clergy, and seemed to have little concern in the matters of the church or of religion.’

705

Sir John Reresby, who was an attentive observer of what was going on, says, ‘The prince, upon his arrival, seemed more inclined to the Presbyterians than to the members of the church; which startled the clergy.’ Reresby's Memoirs, p. 375: see also pp. 399, 405: ‘the church-people hated the Dutch, and had rather turn Papists than receive the Presbyterians among them.’ Compare Evelyn's Diary, vol. iii. p. 281: ‘the Presbyterians, our new governors.’

706

Burnet (Own Time, vol. iv. p. 50) says of the clergy in 1689: ‘The king was suspected by them, by reason of the favour showed to dissenters; but chiefly for his abolishing episcopacy in Scotland, and his consenting to the setting up presbytery there.’ On this great change, compare Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters, vol. ii. pp. 379–384; Barry's Hist. of the Orkney Islands, p. 257; Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. pp. 85, 86: and on the indignation felt by the Anglican clergy at the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, see a contemporary pamphlet in Somers Tracts, vol. ix. pp. 510, 516, where fears are expressed lest William should effect a similar measure in England. The writer very fairly observes, p. 522, ‘For if we give up the jus divinum of episcopacy in Scotland, we must yield it also as to England. And then we are wholly precarious.’ See also vol. x. pp. 341, 503; Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, pp. 277, 278; and Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 509.

707

Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. p. 340. Burnet, who had the best means of information, says, ‘Though he had once agreed to it, yet would not come.’ Lord Clarendon, in his Diary, 3rd January 1688–9, writes, that the archbishop expressed to him on that day his determination neither to call on William nor even to send to him (Clarendon Correspond. vol. ii. p. 240); and this resolution appears to have been taken deliberately: ‘he was careful not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave me.’

708

See the account given by his chaplain Wharton, in D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft, p. 259, where it is stated that the archbishop was very irate (‘vehementer excandescens’), and told him, ‘that he must thenceforward desist from offering prayers for the new king and queen, or else from performing the duties of his chapel.’ See also Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 144. Thus too the Bishop of Norwich declared ‘that he would not pray for King William and Queen Mary.’ Clarendon Correspond. vol. ii. p. 263. The same spirit was universal among the high-church clergy; and when public prayers were offered up for the king and queen, they were called by the nonjurors ‘the immoral prayers,’ and this became a technical and recognized expression. Life of Ken, by a Layman, vol. ii. pp. 648, 650.

709

Lathbury's Hist. of the Nonjurors, p. 45; D'Oyly's Sancroft, p. 260.

710

Nairne's Papers mention, in 1693, ‘six hundred ministers who have not taken the oaths.’ Macpherson's Orig. Papers, vol. i. p. 459.

711

The only friends William possessed among the clergy were the low-churchmen, as they were afterwards called; and it is supposed that they formed barely a tenth of the entire body in 1689: ‘We should probably overrate their numerical strength, if we were to estimate them at a tenth part of the priesthood.’ Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. iii. p. 74.

712

The earliest allusion I have seen to the injury the clergy were inflicting on the church, by their conduct after the arrival of William, is in Evelyn's Diary, vol. iii. p. 273, – a curious passage, gently hinting at the ‘wonder of many,’ at the behaviour of ‘the Archbishop of Canterbury, and some of the rest.’ With Evelyn, who loved the church, this was an unpleasant subject; but others were less scrupulous; and in parliament, in particular, men did not refrain from expressing what must have been the sentiments of every impartial observer. In the celebrated debate, in January 1688–9, when the throne was declared vacant, Pollexfen said: ‘Some of the clergy are for one thing, some for another; I think they scarce know what they would have.’ Parl. Hist. vol. v. p. 55. In February, Maynard, one of the most influential members, indignantly said: ‘I think the clergy are out of their wits; and I believe, if the clergy should have their wills, few or none of us should be here again.’ Ibid. vol. v. p. 129. The clergy were themselves bitterly sensible of the general hostility; and one of them writes, in 1694: ‘The people of England, who were so excessively enamoured of us when the bishops were in the tower, that they hardly forbore to worship us, are now, I wish I could say but cool and very indifferent towards us.’ Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 525. The growing indignation against the clergy, caused by their obvious desire to sacrifice the country to the interests of the church, is strikingly displayed in a letter from Sir Roland Gwyne, written in 1710, and printed in Macpherson's Orig. Papers, vol. ii. p. 207.