Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution

by John Stoughton

The Bill first provided that the new oaths should be taken by all persons holding office in the Church of England and the two Universities. No one could sit on the Prelates’ bench, or perform the duties of a Diocesan; no one could enjoy a benefice, or minister in a parish church; no one could be the head of a House, or possess a fellowship at Oxford or Cambridge, who did not “sincerely promise and swear to bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary.” Looking at the baronial and legislative character of Bishops; at the dependence of many Ecclesiastical preferments on the Crown; at the national character of the Universities; and at the relation of the whole body of the Established Clergy to the Government, there appears the same reason for enacting a declaration of loyalty from them as from officers in the army and navy. To have excepted the Church from the obligations of the oath, would have been to make an invidious distinction between classes of the community bound by manifold political ties, and it would have been liable to the interpretation that the Government, conscious of weakness, felt afraid of the Clergy. Besides, if there be any binding form in oaths—if they afford any security at all for the stability of a throne, they certainly needed, in a pre-eminent degree at that time, to be enforced upon all Ecclesiastical persons, when so many of them were known to be disaffected to the reigning Sovereigns. The difficulty expressed by disaffected Clergymen in reference to the new oaths rested mainly on two grounds. Those of them who had already sworn allegiance to King James could not reconcile it with their consciences to put aside those vows, and to adopt opposite ones. In this respect, however, their case was no worse than that of civilians and military men, though no appeals for their relief were ever urged. An officer of the Customs, or the captain of a regiment, might very well feel the same scruples as troubled the Rector of a parish, or the Dean of a cathedral; and if exceptions of this sort were once begun, where were they to end? What could not at the time fail to be noticed, and now must strike every reader, is, that the men who showed so much sensitiveness with respect to their former oaths, were, many of them, the very same persons, and all of them belonged to the same class, as those who had treated with contempt or indifference like difficulties on the part of Presbyterians at the time of the Restoration. Yet what was required now cannot be made to appear so harsh as what had been required before. An Episcopalian Clergyman had only to promise allegiance to the persons who occupied the throne, without expressing any abstract opinion on the subject; whereas, a Presbyterian Clergyman had not only been required to swear allegiance to Charles II., which he was willing to do, but had been also required to swear that his previous oath was unlawful; and to declare, moreover, that the doctrine of resisting a despotic king is a position to be held in abhorrence. An express denunciation of former oaths had been required at the Restoration; only a practical relinquishment of former oaths was required at the Revolution. The law of 1662 had told the Presbyterian he must denounce the doctrine of resistance—the law of 1689 did not tell the Episcopalian he must denounce the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings. At the earlier era a political dogma had been imposed as a requisite for clerical office; at the later era no political dogma was imposed at all. Conscience is sacred; yet whilst I give credit to Clergymen who scrupled to swear allegiance to the new dynasty, I cannot discover the reasonableness of their scruples. If any of them did not hold the Divine right of Kings, it is hard to discern any plausible ground for refusing to transfer allegiance according to the terms of the new oath; if they did hold the Divine right of Kings—and therefore preferred a Regency to a change in the succession, as was the case with Sancroft—still it appears that they might, consistently with their abstract principle, have sworn to obey a de facto potentate. At any rate, their difficulties were less than the difficulties of their Nonconforming brethren seven-and-twenty years before. Then High Churchmen treated mountains as molehills,—now they magnified molehills into mountains.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

The second source of clerical resistance is found in the sacredness of clerical character, and the indelibility of clerical orders. Adherence to the supposed rights of the King in exile rarely existed, except in the case of High Churchmen. A belief of the Divine rights of princes entwined itself round a belief in the Divine right of priests. A notion that Monarchs should be independent of Parliaments, associated itself with a notion that Ministers of religion should be independent of human law.

1689.

Sovereigns could not be made and unmade by subjects, neither could Clergymen be made or unmade by States, therefore such a law as that now enacted became, in a spiritual point of view, futile, impertinent, even impious. A strange confusion of truth and error obtained throughout this reasoning of the Nonjurors. No doubt the Church, as a Divine community, is independent of human governments. The pastors and teachers are not the creatures of the Civil power, they are in the hands of Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks. Of spiritual office and character the Civil power is not competent to denude any servant of Christ. But when chief Ministers of the Church are amongst chief officers of State, when Bishops are Peers, and Clergymen have legally-vested rights, the case is different. Church temporalities are from first to last the creations of secular government; and the authority which gives can take away. Parliament had no business to alter the religious position of Ministers, but it had a right to impose conditions, for its own safety, upon those who added to the character of Ministers that of political legislators and officers of a nationally-endowed Church. Erastianism had been predominant under Charles II. It had lingered under James II. It was to be revived and to be manifested, in some respects more distinctly than ever, under William III.; but, at the Revolution, many who had been Erastian enough through the previous quarter of a century, began to be restless and to sigh for emancipation. Circumstances made them voluntaries in practice, although circumstances did not make them voluntaries in principle. As time rolled on, the doctrine of the Church’s independence came more distinctly within view, notwithstanding their blindness to its consequences; and the assertion of that independency increased in earnestness after the rupture, of which I shall have much to say.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

A further religious complication of the measure under review arose in connection with its first appearance in the House of Commons, and was renewed in the course of its progress through the House of Lords. It requires attention. Upon the 25th of February, the day when leave was given to bring in the Bill for changing the oath, leave was also given to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act. The Corporation Act, the reader will remember, enjoined the repudiation of the doctrine of resistance, the renunciation of the Solemn League and Covenant, and the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, as a qualification for municipal office. It had been a blow aimed at Nonconformists; now that the justice of affording them some relief was acknowledged by the Whig party, it seemed only consistent that this statute should be extinguished. In a debate which arose at the time when the two Bills originated, one member maintained that the Corporation Act “had as much intrinsic iniquity as any Act whatsoever,” and that it profaned the Sacrament; another—who said he had been educated for the Church, and would live and die in it—advocated the repeal of the Act; but a third contended for the continuance of conformity as essential to the holding of a public trust, and proposed that the oath of non-resistance, instead of being taken away, should be explained. All this ended in nothing. Soon after the Bill was brought in, it was, through party complications, set aside on a question of adjournment;[117] and the inconsistency arose of a Government, plainly based upon Revolution, and therefore upon resistance, being left to enforce a principle destructive of its own authority; the inconsistency, moreover, was associated with injustice and ingratitude towards a party zealous in its support. High Church Tories of course wished to preserve the Corporation Act, and contributed to its preservation; Low Church Whigs, though willing to relieve Nonconformists, still wished to keep Nonconformity in check, and manifested no zeal for the removal of an engine of intolerance, which lasted down even to our own times.

1689.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

Efforts in favour of Nonconformists having thus failed in the Lower House, like movements were uselessly made in the Upper. The King, in a speech delivered on the 16th of March, emphatically recommended Parliament to provide against Papists, so as to “leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve.”[118] In these words he showed his desire for the alteration of the Test Act. The Test Act had been passed to exclude Papists from holding civil office; and, zealous for the accomplishment of that end, Nonconformists had supported it at the sacrifice of their own interests. There were members in the House of Lords prepared to carry out the King’s wishes. They desired to render all Protestant citizens eligible to serve the State; during the progress of the Allegiance Bill, they supported the introduction of a clause for abolishing the sacramental test. But the Tory Lords were too numerous to allow of its being passed; and some Whig Peers, including the puritan Lord Wharton, recorded a protest against the rejection of the clause. They protested for these reasons—Because a hearty alliance amongst Protestants was a greater security than any test: because the obligation to receive the Sacrament operated against Protestants rather than Papists: because it prevented a thorough Protestant union: and because, what was not required of members of Parliament, ought not to be required of candidates for office. Not discouraged by defeat, one of the Lords proposed another clause, the object of which was to render the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in a Nonconformist place of worship legally equivalent to its celebration in a parish church. This, like the former attempt, failed; and again we find a protest recorded in the Journals, Lord Wharton being again among the protesters. In this protest they amplify what they had said before, and introduce this additional reason—that His Majesty had expressed an earnest desire for the liberty of all his Protestant subjects, and that divers Bishops had professed the same. The majority of the Lords, in the rejection of clauses for the partial repeal of the Test Act, proceeded on the same line with the majority of the Commons, in getting rid of the repeal of the Corporation Act.[119] But another wish rose in the King’s mind, which received support from a majority in the Upper House. It is very well known that he desired to treat the Clergy in general with great lenience, and to make as much allowance as possible for nonjuring scruples. By conceding so much to the High Church party, he aimed at reconciling them to those concessions which, on the other side, he longed to see granted to Nonconformists. He could not secure the latter concessions, but he easily secured the former. The policy of the Lords, both Whig and Tory, both Low Church and High Church, was to discountenance Nonconformity, and to maintain the Episcopalian Establishment; the policy of the High Church Peers was to support those Clergymen with whom they sympathized in Ecclesiastical views, and to relieve them from the pressure of the new oaths; and the policy of the Whig Low Church Peers was to conciliate the same party as much as possible. Even Burnet, just exalted to the Bench, took part in a debate before his consecration, advocating a mild arrangement of the matter in reference to his scrupulous brethren.[120] It followed that the Bill left the Lords with a provision allowing every beneficed divine to continue in his benefice without taking the oath, unless the Government saw reason for putting his loyalty to the test. Upon this point the temper of the Lower House differed from that of the Upper. They inserted in the Bill a clause rendering it absolutely incumbent on every one holding preferment to take the oath by the 1st of August, 1689, under pain of immediate suspension—by the end of six months afterwards, upon pain of final deprivation.[121] With that claim embodied in it, the Bill went back to the Lords. They fought for their own gentler method. Conferences were held between the Houses: compromises were suggested: reports were made: debates were renewed; but the Lords could not stand against the Commons, and the stringent method insisted upon by the latter became the law of the land.