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.