CHAPTER XXI.
The fall of Clarendon had been succeeded by a Ministry well known in history under the name of the Cabal.[562] With the merely political conduct of the statesmen indicated by that word, we have nothing to do; their policy in relation to ecclesiastical affairs alone demands our notice.
A change of feeling in the upper classes towards Nonconformists ensued, now that Clarendon's influence had been withdrawn, the virtues of distinguished sufferers became better known, and rumours about plots were far less frequent. This change prepared for a measure, which, unconstitutional as to its basis, was liberal in its operation. To found indulgence upon Royal authority alone, and not upon an Act of Parliament, was in harmony with a scheme for the exaltation of the Crown; but there is reason to believe that the measure proceeded, in part at least, from the better side of the nature of the Ministers, as well as from the better side of the nature of the Monarch. The previous history of those Ministers had been such as to dispose them to befriend oppressed Nonconformists.
THE CABAL.
The persons of whose names the initials made up the significant appellation just mentioned, were Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. The last three had themselves been more or less connected with Dissenters. Buckingham, notwithstanding his irreligion and profligacy, had sympathized with them in their sufferings; Ashley had been a member of the Little Parliament, and a friend of Oliver Cromwell; and Lauderdale had decidedly professed Presbyterianism.[563] Memories of the past would dispose these politicians to be favourable to their old friends. Clifford, who was rough, violent, ambitious, unscrupulous, and yet brave and generous, and Arlington, formerly known as Sir Henry Bennet,[564] a man timid and irresolute, had indeed no such reminiscences as their colleagues, and had begun by this time to veer towards Rome; yet, kindliness of disposition, which seems to have belonged to both these statesmen, probably blended itself with some design for promoting the interests of their adopted Church.
The Cabal Ministry determined upon a new war with Holland, for the insults and injury inflicted by the invasion in 1666 could not be forgotten, and the prosperity of a republic not far off, especially a naval one, appeared odious to such Englishmen as desired alike absolute monarchy at home, and an undivided sovereignty of the neighbouring seas. To humble a commercial power like Holland, would also, it was thought, improve British commerce; and of course a great victory would strengthen both the Ministry and the Crown. The war with Holland began in March, 1672, the advantage was on the side of England; and in February, 1674, Charles informed his Parliament that he had concluded "a speedy, honourable," and he hoped, "a lasting peace."[565]
1672.
With a prospect of this war, the Cabal felt it expedient to conciliate the Dissenting portion of the country, that there might be peace at home whilst there was war abroad; and that the sympathies of those who had before leaned towards the United Provinces, might be bound to the interests of their own empire.[566] Prudence of that kind united itself with whatever there might be of generosity in the Ministers who supported the King's new measure; but it should be stated that at this moment, when the Cabinet were looking one way, Archbishop Sheldon was looking another. Whilst the chief Ministers of State were preparing to show favour to the sects, the chief Minister of the Church was thinking only of checking their progress; yet, to his credit it should be noticed, that he appears, just then, as one who wished to promote his object by means of education, for he strongly enforced the use of the catechism;[567] but, to his discredit it must also be remarked, that he still showed himself wedded to a coercive policy, by urging proceedings against all nonconforming schoolmasters.
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
Within six weeks of the date of the Archbishop's circular respecting education upon Church principles, Charles issued his famous Declaration of Indulgence. Lord Keeper Bridgeman refused to affix the Great Seal to it, because, in his opinion, it was contrary to the laws of the constitution; but Ashley, to whom the Great Seal was transferred, as Lord High Chancellor, under the title of Earl of Shaftesbury, easily supplied that important deficiency.[568]
"Our care and endeavours for the preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Church," so ran the document, "have been sufficiently manifested to the world by the whole course of our Government since our happy Restoration, and by the many and frequent ways of coercion that we have used for reducing all erring or dissenting persons, and for composing the unhappy differences in matters of Religion, which we found among our subjects upon our return. But it being evident by the sad experience of twelve years that there is very little fruit of all those forcible courses, we think ourselves obliged to make use of that supreme power in ecclesiastical matters which is not only inherent in us, but hath been declared and recognized to be so by several Statutes and Acts of Parliament; and therefore we do now accordingly issue this our Declaration, as well for the quieting the minds of our good subjects in these points, for inviting strangers in this conjuncture to come and live under us, and for the better encouragement of all to a cheerful following of their trade and callings, from whence we hope, by the blessing of God to have many good and happy advantages to our Government; as also for preventing for the future the danger that might otherwise arise from private meetings and seditious Conventicles."[569]
1672.
The Declaration, after recognizing the established religion of the country, directed the immediate suspension of all penal laws against Nonconformists, and provided for the allowance of a sufficient number of places of worship, to be used by such as did not conform. None were to meet in any building until it should be certified; and until the teacher of the congregation should be approved by the King. All kinds of Nonconformists, except recusants of the Roman Catholic religion, were to share in the indulgence, but the preaching of sedition, or of anything derogatory to the Church of England was forbidden, under penalties of extreme severity.[570]
How was the Declaration regarded? Politicians looked at the subject from their own point of view; and it is curious and instructive to consult a paper, written some time afterwards, in which answers are given to legal objections against the measure. It is objected that the King has not power to suspend the laws of the land, he being, by his coronation oath, obliged to see the laws duly executed, and not infringed. The reply is that the King has both an ordinary and extraordinary power; and that, by the latter, he may mitigate and suspend the enactments of Parliament, in support of which position reference is made to the practice of the Roman Emperor, who dispensed with the Imperial laws by tolerating Arians, Novatians, and Donatists.
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
It is further objected, that the law against Conventicles had a penalty annexed, which was to be paid, not to the King, but to the informer, and therefore the King could not dispense with it. To this it is answered, that the King's ecclesiastical supremacy being reserved by the Act, such supremacy sufficed to authorize what he did in this matter. But to give a more particular solution the writer says, "that the Parliament, in spiritual matters, doth not act directly, as in the making of temporal decrees, such affairs are not under their proper cognizance by any law of the land. The Church, being a co-ordinate branch with the temporality under the King, ruled by a distinct power, and courts and laws, from the other. The which thing being granted, it is clear that the Parliament, in ecclesiastical matters, doth act only by way of corroboration of what is indeed enacted by the ecclesiastical supremacy. And when the ecclesiastical supremacy doth take away the subject of the temporal laws, the penalty (to whomsoever due) as an adjunct, doth cease. Thus, the King is not properly said to dispense with the penalty, but it ceases of itself, by virtue of the Royal indulgence, the same power being recognized to be in our King, which the Popes usurped here." This argument is followed up by a reference to Papal supremacy, and the exercise of pontifical authority in the toleration of Jews, Greeks, and Armenians in the Papal territories. The objection, that such dispensing power is new in England, is disposed of by the remark that the form is new, but not the thing itself. Ecclesiastical laws had been frequently changed by proclamation in the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. It being alleged lastly, that it was unbecoming the wisdom of the King to annul his own acts performed in giving the Royal assent to laws against Conventicles; the rejoinder is, that the King did not annul, but only suspend his own act; and if there be anything of weakness therein, His Majesty showed it in common with Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, Gratian, and Charles V. Such diversity of counsels appeared in all reigns.[571]
1672.
Some Episcopalians were perplexed, of which signs appear in questions proposed by Cosin, Bishop of Durham, to the clergy of his diocese. They asked whether or no a subject was bound to comply with the pleasure of his Prince in all cases, where he felt himself not bound in conscience to the contrary: whether he might not comply, in many things inexpedient, and even prejudicial, if the King pressed the command, and there seemed no way to avoid it but by disobedience: and whether he might not consent to the abrogating of penal laws in support of the Church, rather than provoke the King's displeasure, upon whose favour, under God, the clergy were dependent?[572]
Toleration did not meet the wishes of the Presbyterians; some of them had refused it to others, and now they did not care to accept it for themselves. Desiring comprehension—meaning by that "any tolerable state of unity with the public ministry,"—they looked on toleration as opening a way for the advance of Popery; and they believed that wherever indulgence might begin, in Popery it would end. Further, they apprehended that it would contribute to the permanence of Protestant dissensions, whereas comprehension would unite and consolidate Protestant interests: nor had they ceased to value parish order, and to believe that such order would be overthrown, if people were allowed to enjoy separate places of worship wherever they pleased. On this ground the Presbyterians confessed themselves to be in a dilemma—being forced either to become Independents in practice, or to remain as they were, in silence and in suffering.[573] Some also objected to the unconstitutional character of the King's proceeding, and looked upon it as pregnant with political, no less than with ecclesiastical, mischief; others, wearied with long years of persecution, felt glad to avail themselves of liberty from whatever quarter it arose. It is probable that some troubled themselves not at all with the constitutional question; and it is certain that others, who did apprehend the political bearing of the measure, and who also dreaded the progress of Popery, considered nevertheless, that to avail themselves of a right to which they were entitled on grounds of natural justice, was simply reasonable, and involved no approbation of either the actual manner, or the suspected design of the bestowment.
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
The Independents, who had long given up hopes of comprehension, who set no value on parish discipline, and who had only asked for freedom to worship God according to their consciences, were, for the most part, prepared to accept what appeared to them as a boon, without feeling any scruple in relation to its political aspects.[574]
1672.
The Court encouraged an approach to the throne of Nonconformists disposed to return thanks for the indulgence. The Presbyterians came in a body, headed by Dr. Manton, who, in their name, expressed hearty gratitude.[575] Dr. Owen also presented a loyal address, in which he expressed the joy of the Independents in declaring their loyalty; not only as that loyalty rested upon grounds common to all his subjects, but also as it arose from what His Majesty had just done in reference to liberty of conscience. Owen humbly prayed for the continuance of the Royal favour, assuring the King of the intercessions of Independents in his behalf, that God would continue His presence to him, and preserve him in counsels and thoughts of indulgence.[576]
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
Applications poured in, and licenses were granted in abundance. Thomas Doolittle, an eminent Presbyterian minister, obtained one; and for years afterwards it might be seen, framed and glazed, hanging in the vestry of the meeting-house where he preached, in Monkwell Street.[577] Availing themselves of the Royal permission, several merchants united in the establishment, at Pinners' Hall, of a Lecture, to be delivered by select preachers, including Richard Baxter. Buildings were constructed amidst the ruins left by the London fire, and some arose on the other side the Thames. In the latter neighbourhood four Presbyterians were licensed—one was in St. Mary Overy's, another in Deadman's Place, St. Saviour's. Independents, Baptists, and others, to the number of six, were registered for Southwark and Lambeth; some only by name, others for specified places. David Clarkson asked leave to preach in "a house belonging to John Beamish in Mortlake," to both Presbyterians and Baptists; and several licenses were granted to other ministers in Surrey. John Bunyan was allowed to teach a congregation in the house of Josias Roughed at Bedford; and numerous individuals and numerous dwellings in the City of Norwich were enrolled on the certified list, as many as four different houses in one parish, besides many more in other parishes, being enumerated. Oliver Heywood, "of the Presbyterian persuasion," received permission to use a room or rooms, in his own house, in the parish of Halifax, in the County of York; and Philip Henry, of Malpas, Flintshire, notwithstanding his scruples on the subject, accepted the same kind of permission.[578] These are only a few instances, showing the variety and extent of the rescripts which threw the Royal shield for a time over harassed Nonconformists. As many as three thousand five hundred licenses are reckoned to have been granted within the space of ten months. If it be supposed that the places of worship then licensed were generally at all like chapels in the present day, a most exaggerated and erroneous idea will be formed of the extent of Dissent; in point of fact many of the places of worship were but small rooms in private houses, within a short distance of each other; nevertheless, there must have been a large number of people professing Nonconformity, to require so many licenses; and it should be remembered that a portion of the nonconforming class did not feel prepared to accept liberty proffered in, what they considered, an unconstitutional way. So formidable did the number of Free Churches begin to appear, that one of the Bishops, writing to Sir Joseph Williamson, exclaimed—"These licensed persons increase strangely. The orthodox poor clergy are out of heart. Shall nothing be done to support them against the Presbyterians who grow and multiply faster than the other?"[579]
1672.
GRANTS TO NONCONFORMISTS.
In connection with the indulgence and the thanks returned to the King by the Presbyterians, Burnet relates that an order was given "to pay a yearly pension of fifty pounds to most of them, and of a hundred pounds a year to the chief of the party." He says further, that Baxter "sent back his pension, and would not touch it, but most of them took it." Burnet relates this on the authority of Stillingfleet, from whom he received the story; adding, "in particular he told me that Pool, who wrote the Synopsis of the Critics, confessed to him that he had had fifty pounds for two years." The historian remarks, "Thus the Court hired them to be silent, and the greatest part of them were so, and very compliant."[580] It is remarkable, that though there are several passages in Baxter's life, in which he mentions the fact of sums of money being offered to him, and the way in which he treated the offers, he makes no reference to any overture of pecuniary assistance from the Court. Some reference to it we might have expected, had such an overture been made; but that Baxter in that case would have declined to accept any grant, is quite in accordance with his character, and with his wish to be entirely independent of the King. Burnet's statements, given on the authority of conversations held some time before, were intended by him to be accurate, but they are not always reliable: in this case, however, whatever doubt may rest on his statement as to Baxter, there seems no reason for disbelieving what he says respecting Pool. Dr. Calamy, from his intimate acquaintance with the events of the period, would, we should infer, have been able to disprove Burnet's statement, had it been altogether untrue; but Calamy does not contradict the assertion as to the payment of money—rather he confirms it. After quoting from Burnet, that "most of them took it," he adds, "I cannot see why they should not;" he resents, however, Burnet's remarks about the Presbyterians being silent and compliant;[581] but he states in the next page that he was not forgetful of Dr. Owen's having received one thousand guineas from Charles II. to distribute amongst Dissenters; for the receipt of which he incurred reflections afterwards, as Calamy thought, very undeservedly.[581]
There seems no reason to doubt that at this time the Crown rendered pecuniary assistance to Nonconformist ministers, and that some of the leading brethren acted as the almoners of the Royal bounty to others. But, however the acceptance of it might be approved by some, it was condemned by others; and it would, by the latter, be naturally enough counted as "hush money;" that it really produced that effect, however, there is not a single tittle of evidence, and in itself it appears very improbable. Men who had resigned their livings, and all the honours of the Established Church, for conscience' sake, were not likely now to be bribed by an occasional remittance of a hundred or of fifty pounds; in some cases the sum must have been much smaller.
1672.
QUAKERS.
To this incident—in connection with the indulgence—may be added an interesting episode, which in one of its particulars, falls into the same connection.
After his romantic adventures at Boscobel in 1651, Charles reached the little town of Brighthelmstone, and there engaged a fisherman to take him over to the coast of France. The captain and the mate alone were in the secret that the boat carried, not Cæsar indeed, but the heir of England's crown, with all his fortunes; and when they reached their destination, the mate conveyed the Prince ashore upon his shoulders. The boat, in after days, when the Restoration had changed the destiny of the Stuarts, lay moored by the stairs at Whitehall—a memento of its Royal master's deliverance; and the captain, whose name was Nicholas Tattersall, after having enjoyed an annuity of £100 a year, slept with his fathers in the churchyard of the town in which he had lived, and was buried beneath a slab of black marble, still existing, with a scarcely legible inscription. The mate, who set the King on dry land, and whose name was Richard Carver, became a member of the Society of Friends. When nearly twenty years had rolled away, this transformed mariner made his appearance one day in the month of January, 1670, at the doors of the palace, and obtained admission to the King's presence. Time, the rough wear and tear of a seaman's life, and the assumption of a Quaker garb, had altered the visitor since His Majesty saw him last, but with that faculty of recognition, which is a princely instinct, he remembered the man at once, and reminded the sailor of several occurrences in the vessel during his eventful voyage. Charles had been annoyed by people who had shown him kindness in adversity, coming or writing to Whitehall for some substantial acknowledgment of obligation, and he wondered that Carver had not come before to ask for assistance. In reply to some expression of that feeling, the Quaker told the King that "he was satisfied, in that he had peace and satisfaction in himself, that he did what he did to relieve a man in distress, and now he desired nothing of him but that he would set Friends at liberty who were great sufferers." Carver then proceeded to inform His Majesty that he had a paper in his hand containing no names of Quakers, who had been in prison above six years, and could be released only on Royal authority. Charles took the paper, and said it was a long list; that people of that kind, if liberated, would get into prison again in a month's time; and that country gentlemen had complained to him of their being so much troubled by Quakers. Touched, however, by the remembrance of long gone years, whilst a gracious smile played on the flexible features of his swarthy face, he said to Carver, he would release him six. Carver, not thinking that the release of six poor Quakers was equivalent to a King's ransom, determined to approach the Royal presence again, and now took with him another Friend, Thomas Moore. "The King was very loving to them. He had a fair and free opportunity to open his mind to the King, and the King promised to do (more) for him, but willed him to wait a month or two longer." What became of this sailor, who nobly looked on the preservation of the King's life simply as relieving a man in distress, we do not know; but Moore, whom he introduced to the Monarch, continued to make earnest appeals to Royalty on behalf of imprisoned Friends. In these attempts he received assistance from George Whitehead—another eminent name in the annals of Quakerism; and when, two years afterwards, there appeared the Royal decree, which we have described, there also occurred the following incident, which forms a notable link in a wonderful chain of Divine providences.
1672.
The King, who felt now more than ever a special regard for Quakers, kept his word; and on the 29th of March, 1672, thirteen days after the date of the Declaration of Indulgence, a circular letter was sent to the Sheriffs of England and Wales, requiring from them a calendar of the names, times, and causes of commitment of all the Quakers confined within their gaols.
The returns from the Sheriffs came in due order before the Privy Council in reply to the circular, when His Majesty declared that he would pardon all those persons called Quakers then in prison for any offence which they had committed against him; and not to the injury of other persons: 471 names were included in the pardon.[582]
Whitehead, who co-operated with Moore, the friend of Richard Carver—to whom he owed his introduction to the King—was a large-hearted man, and when other Dissenters saw what he had done, and solicited his assistance to procure the liberation of another class of religious prisoners, he readily assisted, and recommended that they should petition His Majesty; adding, that their being of different judgments did not abate his charity towards them. The advice was taken.
JOHN BUNYAN.
John Bunyan, with a number of others unknown to fame, encouraged by the Quakers, asked to be set at liberty. The document, containing this prayer, came before the Privy Council on the 8th of May, 1672—and on the 17th, Archbishop Sheldon being present, it was ordered that, as these persons had been committed "for not conforming to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, and for being at unlawful meetings," and for no other offence, the Attorney-General be "authorized and required to insert them into the general pardon to be passed for the Quakers."
The pardon is dated the 13th of September; and second on the list of sufferers in Bedford Jail appears the name of "John Bunnion," who in common with 490 others, received forgiveness for "all, and all manner of crimes, transgressions, offences of premunire, unlawful Conventicles, contempts, and ill behaviour whatsoever."[583] Our great allegorist owed his deliverance to the intervention of Friends; and we do not wonder to find that afterwards an end came to those unseemly controversies which had been waged between him and the disciples of George Fox.