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.