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