[676] 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.
[677] 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.
[678] ‘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.
[679] 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.
[680] 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.
[681] 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.
[682] 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?’
[683] 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.
[684] 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.
[685] 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.