Upon the 2nd of May, 1680, Dr. Stillingfleet preached a sermon before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and the Judges and Sergeants-at-law. The subject of discourse being “The Mischief of Separation,” he treated his audience with an invective against Dissenters as schismatics, who had rent the Church in twain; and he represented them as reduced to this dilemma—“that though the really conscientious Nonconformist is justified in not worshipping after the prescribed forms of the Church of England, or rather would be criminal if he did so, yet he is not less criminal in setting up a separate assembly.”[34] Victims so impaled were in a wretched condition, and no one can wonder that they made an effort to extricate themselves. They did so with success, and if not always with perfect good temper, nobody can severely blame them for that. Owen wrote with “great gravity and seriousness.” Baxter was very “particular, warm, and close.” Alsop briskly turned upon the preacher “his own words and phrases.”[35] Stillingfleet’s Irenicum, published in 1659, had shown that no form of Church government could be jure divino, a position of which his opponents now took advantage, whilst they failed not to ply the argumentum ad hominem. “A person of quality” sent to John Howe the printed sermon, enclosing with it severe remarks. Howe, with calm impartiality, such as nettles a partisan of either extreme more than any stinging attacks can do, immediately expressed his intention “of defending the cause of the Nonconformists against the Dean, and then of adding something in defence of the Dean against his correspondent.”[36] The reply which he produced is one of the most beautiful specimens of controversy in existence. Stillingfleet was subdued when he read it, and confessed that Howe discoursed “more like a gentleman than a Divine, without any mixture of rancour, or any sharp reflections, and sometimes with a great degree of kindness towards him, for which, and his prayers for him, he heartily thanked him.”[37]
TILLOTSON.
The year proved unfortunate for the consistency of Divines of the Liberal school, for Tillotson also committed himself. Preaching a sermon at Court he maintained the monstrous position “that no man is obliged to preach against the religion of his country, though a false one, unless he has the power of working miracles.” “It is a pity your Majesty slept,” observed a Courtier at the close of the service, “for we have had the rarest piece of Hobbism that ever you heard in your life.” “Odsfish!” rejoined Charles, “he shall print it then.” Howe once more came forward with reproof and expostulation. He regretted that the Dean should have pleaded “the Popish cause against the Fathers of the Reformation;” and as the Nonconformist was riding with his friend to see Lady Falconbridge at Sutton Court, he so touched the heart of the Church dignitary, that the latter bursting into tears, confessed that it “was the unhappiest thing which had for a long time happened to him;” and pleaded in excuse of his great error, the haste with which he had prepared his discourse, and the alarm produced in his mind by the spread of Popery.[38]
1680.
COMPREHENSION.
Perhaps these circumstances had some influence in producing another useless attempt at comprehension at the close of the year 1680, inasmuch as we shall find Howe in consultation with the two Divines just mentioned touching the subject. Howe met Bishop Lloyd at Tillotson’s house.[39] The Bishop asked what would satisfy the Nonconformists, if an attempt should be made to adjust the differences between them and the Church. Howe observed “as all had not the same latitude, he could only answer for himself.” What concessions, he was further asked, would, in his opinion, satisfy the scruples of the greater number—for, added Lloyd, “I would have the terms so large as to comprehend the most of them.” Howe declared that he thought “a very considerable obstacle would be removed, if the law were so framed as to enable ministers to attempt parochial reformation.” “For that reason,” said the Bishop, “I am for abolishing the lay Chancellors as being the great hindrance to such reformation.”[40] The next evening Howe and Bates, with Tillotson, met at the Deanery of St. Paul’s, where Stillingfleet had provided a handsome entertainment for his visitors. Lloyd, though expected, did not join the party, being prevented by a division in the House of Lords, upon the Exclusion Bill. Whatever the bearing of these circumstances might be upon what followed, there appeared in Parliament three days afterwards (November 18) a scheme of comprehension.
The second reading of the Bill, embodying the scheme, occasioned a debate, which went over well-worn topics, and presents no points of interest.
The measure emanated from the Episcopalian party in the House of Commons; but the Presbyterian members, to the amazement of every one, did not promote it. They knew it could not be carried in the House of Lords; and the clergy, as Kennet confesses, were “no further in earnest than as they apprehended the knife of the Papists” to be near their throats.[41]
The Bill dropped—what else could be expected, there being on one side no earnestness in making the offer, and on the other no disposition to accept it?[42]
1680–81.