The History of Persecution, from the Patriarchal Age, to the Reign of George II

by Samuel Chandler

In order to understand the bearings and effect of this important and salutary Act of Parliament, and before we make any general remarks, it may be necessary to advert to the situation in which our Societies were placed, and to some of the proceedings of the Committee for the purpose of accomplishing the object they had in view.

By the Conventicle Act, (22 Charles II. c. 1) it was enacted, that if any person of sixteen years of age and upwards, should be present at any Conventicle or meeting for religion, other than according to the Liturgy, and practice of the Church of England, at which should be present above five persons besides those of the same household, he should pay a fine of five shillings for the first offence, and ten shillings for every subsequent offence; which penalties might, in case of the poverty of an offender, be levied on the goods and chattles of any person present. Every person who should teach or preach at such Conventicle or meeting, should forfeit twenty pounds for the first offence; and forty pounds, for every subsequent offence. Every person who should suffer any such Conventicle or meeting in his house or premises, should forfeit twenty pounds, which, in case of his poverty, might be levied upon the goods of any person present. The justices and the military were impowered to enter Conventicles, and disperse religious meetings. And the Act declares the principle (most severe and intolerant) upon which it is to be interpreted, namely:—“That it shall be construed most largely and beneficially for the suppressing of Conventicles, and for the justification and encouragement of all persons to be employed in the execution thereof;” and that no record, warrant, or mittimus to be made by virtue of that Act, or any proceedings thereupon should be reversed, avoided, or any way impeached, by reason of any default in form! It was also declared, that the goods and chattles of the husband should be liable for the penalties incurred by the wife for attending a meeting for religious worship.

As to the Five Mile Act, (17 Charles II. c. 2) it is thereby declared, that persons therein mentioned who should preach in any Conventicle, should not come within five miles of any corporate town sending burgesses to Parliament, unless in passing upon the road, before such person shall have taken the oath therein-mentioned at the Quarter Sessions, under a penalty of forty pounds.

Besides these two Acts of Parliament, there were several other Acts which rendered nonconformity, or a deviation from the established religion of the country, unlawful, and highly penal.

Thus stood the law relative to religious assemblies on the accession of King William and Queen Mary, when, or soon afterwards, an Act of Parliament was passed for the relief of conscientious persons, suffering under or exposed to those intolerant and oppressive laws. By that Act (1 William and Mary, c. 18) usually called the Toleration Act, it was in substance declared, that with regard to private individuals, the former Acts should not extend to any person dissenting from the Church of England, who should at the Sessions take the Oaths, and subscribe the Declaration therein mentioned; and with regard to the ministers of religion, it was enacted that no person dissenting from the Church of England, in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, who should at the Sessions make the Declaration and take the Oaths therein expressed, should be liable to the penalties of the Acts of Parliament therein mentioned. Provided that such person should not at any time preach in any place with the doors locked, barred, or bolted. By this Act also, a justice was empowered at any time to require any person that went to any meeting for the exercise of religious worship, to subscribe the Declaration and take the Oaths therein mentioned; and in case of refusal, to commit such person to prison. And the ministers of religion having taken the Oaths under the Act, were exempt from certain offices. It was declared, that no assembly for religious worship should be allowed till registered. And disturbers of religious worship coming into a registered place, were subjected to the penalty of twenty pounds. There are other provisions in the Act, which it may be unnecessary to mention; nor need we particularize the Statute of the 10th of Queen Anne, c. 2, which extends the liberty of a person having taken the Oaths in one county, to preach in another county; nor the Statute of the 19th of George III. which regulates the Oaths and Declaration to be made, and extends the exemptions.

You will perceive, that it was only by the operation of these last Acts, that any Protestant not resorting to the established church, could be protected from the antecedent penal statutes; and in proportion as the construction of these Tolerating Acts was limited, would be the destructive operation of those penal statutes. However, these Acts of Toleration were considered by the various classes of Dissenters as the Palladium of their religious liberty; and their efficacy for the protection of the various classes of Dissenters was never questioned till very lately; and all who believed it their duty to preach the religious doctrines which they held, and were inclined to protect themselves from the penalties of former Acts, found little difficulty in getting the magistrates at the Sessions to administer the oaths; &c. as it was the generally received doctrine, that the magistrates acted merely ministerially—that they had no authority to enquire into the fitness or character of the applicant—and could not refuse the oaths, &c. to any man who represented himself in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, or as pretending to Holy Orders; or as being a teacher or preacher of a congregation dissenting from the church of England; and it was thought, that there could scarcely be any dissenting teacher of religion who could not properly consider himself as falling within one of the above descriptions. But latterly there has been a manifest alteration in the conduct of many magistrates, who, by narrowing the construction of the Toleration Act, have, on many alleged reasons, refused the oaths, &c. to several applicants. The new construction of the magistrates, has in some points of very great importance to the religious nonconformists, or occasional conformists, been sanctioned by the Court of King’s Bench, which held, that a man to entitle himself to take the oaths, &c. as required by the Act of Toleration, ought to shew himself to be the acknowledged teacher or preacher of some particular congregation, and that it was not enough for a man to state himself a Protestant Dissenter, who preaches to several congregations of Protestant Dissenters. And with regard to persons pretending to Holy Orders, the decision of the Court left us in great uncertainty.

In this state of perplexity, with regard to what was to be the construction of the Toleration Act, or rather of probability that it would afford but a very insufficient protection for the Methodists, even if they could denominate themselves Dissenters, the Committee were under the necessity of deeply considering the situation of the whole body. But when they were constantly receiving intelligence from various parts of the country, of the appearance of a new spirit of hostility to the preachers, and of persecution against the harmless members of their Societies, by enforcing the penalties of the most odious of obsolete laws upon the persons of the poor and defenceless, the Committee were exceedingly alarmed. For although they admired, and have experienced the benefit of the pure and impartial administration of justice, for which this country is so celebrated, yet they could not but consider the state of the Societies with apprehension, when they saw the press teeming with the grossest slander and falsehood against them; their religious practices traduced and vilified; and they themselves represented as “vermin fit only to be destroyed,” had such representations been casual, they would have been disregarded; but when they were reiterated in certain popular Publications month after month, and one quarter of a year after another—when the legislature were loudly and repeatedly called upon to adopt measures of coercion against them, under the pretence that evangelical religion was inimical to public security and morals; and, as they saw, that in unison with this spirit, there seemed a growing disposition in many to enforce the penalties of the Conventicle Act upon those who either had not taken the oaths, or could not take them, or were not permitted to take them, &c. under the Toleration Act, the Committee were under the greatest apprehension that the Societies were about to be deprived of that liberty to worship God, which, either under the law, or by the courtesy of the country, they had enjoyed from their first rise nearly a century ago. And their fears were far from being allayed by the intelligence which thickened upon them, and they became furnished with a mass of incontrovertible evidence from different parts of the country, which shewed that, even if the members of our Societies were to be considered as Dissenters, it would be utterly impossible to get protection under the Toleration Acts for our Preachers and Teachers, especially for the Local Preachers, Class Leaders, &c. &c.

These various Teachers were absolutely necessary for our economy, and without them we knew that our Societies and religious customs could not be carried on. They had, it is true, been tolerated by the general consent of the country, rather than protected by the law; but this had with almost equal efficacy secured the free exercise of their religious privileges.

However, as a bitter spirit of intolerance was thus manifesting itself, the Committee thought it in vain to contend for protection under acts of parliament which were of uncertain interpretation as to Dissenters, but of no value to those who considered themselves as belonging to the Church of England, of which the great bulk of our Societies is composed, the Committee therefore determined to submit their case to the Government, and to Parliament; and to solicit the adoption of such a measure as would secure to the Methodist Societies, and to other denominations of Christians suffering with them, the free exercise of their religious rights and privileges.

It now became necessary for the Committee deeply and critically to consider the situation and principles of the Societies, in order to adopt a measure for their relief, which they might submit to his Majesty’s ministers for their support in parliament. In doing this, the Committee could not forget that the Societies are mere associations of christians, united for general improvement and edification; and as the great majority of them were, from religious principle, attached to the Church of England, they could not conscientiously take the oaths as Dissenters,—to whom, alone, the Act of Toleration applied. Therefore no amendment of that Act appeared likely to answer the purpose. But as Dissenters of various denominations were also to be contemplated by the projected measure, it became necessary to proceed upon some principle common to all. A principle which should recognize the rights of conscience, and at the same time afford that security for peaceable and loyal conduct, which the government of any State has a right to expect. It appeared also material to avoid all phraseology which would be exclusively applicable to any one sect of religious people.