CHAPTER XIX.
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.
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.
1667.
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.
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."
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
1668.
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.