HUMBLY SHEWETH,
“How your much and long distressed petitioner, on the 17th of February gone ten years, was apprehended in Black-Fryers, coming from the sermon, by a high commission warrant (to which no subject’s body is liable), and thence, with a multitude of staves and bills, was dragged along (and all the way reproached by the name of jesuit and traitor) till they brought him to London-House, where he was shut up, and, by a strong guard, kept (without food) till seven of the clock, till Dr. Laud, then Prelate of London, and Dr. Corbet, then of Oxford, returned from Fulham-House, with a troop attending. The jailer of Newgate was sent for, who came with irons, and with a strong power of halberts and staves; they carried your petitioner through a blind, hollow way, without pretence or examination; and opening up a gate into the street (which some say had not been opened since Queen Mary’s days) they thrust him into a loathsome and ruinous dog-hole, full of rats and mice, which had no light but a little grate; and the roof being uncovered, the snow and rain beat in upon him, having no bedding, nor place to make a fire, but the ruins of an old smoky chimney; where he had neither meat nor drink, from the Tuesday at night, till the Thursday at noon. In this woeful place and doleful plight, they kept him close, with two doors shut upon him, for the space of fifteen weeks; suffering none to come at him, till at length his wife was only admitted.
“The fourth day after his commitment, the high commission pursuivants came (under the conduct of the sheriffs of London) to your petitioner’s house, and a mighty multitude with them, giving out that they came to search for jesuit’s books. There these violent fellows of prey laid violent hands upon your petitioner’s distressed wife, with such barbarous inhumanity, as he is ashamed to express; and so rifled every soul in the house, holding a bent pistol to a child’s breast of five years old, threatening to kill him, if he would not tell where the books were; through which the child was so affrighted, that he never cast it. They broke open presses, chests, boxes, the boards of the house, and every thing they found in the way, though they were willing to open all. They, and some of the sheriffs’ men, spoiled, robbed, and carried away all the books and manuscripts they found, with household stuff, your petitioner’s apparel, arms, and other things; so that they left nothing that liked them; notwithstanding your petitioner’s wife told the sheriffs, they might come to reckon for it. They carried also a great number of divers of your petitioner’s books, and other things, from one Mr. Archer’s house, as he will testify.
“Farther, your petitioner being denied the copy of his commitment, by the jailor of Newgate, his wife, with some friends, repaired to the sheriff, offering him bail, according to the statute in that behalf; which being shewed by an attorney at law, the sheriff replied, that he wished the laws of the land, and privileges of the subject, had never been named in the parliament, &c. Your petitioner (having thus suffered in body, liberty, family, estate, and house) at the end of fifteen weeks was served with a subpœna, on information laid against him by Sir Robert Heath, then his Majesty’s attorney general; whose dealing with your prisoner was full of cruelty and deceit. In the mean time it did more than appear, to four physicians, that poison had been given him in Newgate; for his hair and skin came off in a sickness (deadly to the eye) in the height whereof, as he did lie, censure was passed against him in the star chamber, without hearing (which had not been heard of) notwithstanding of a certificate from four physicians, and affidavit made by an attorney, of the desperateness of the disease. But nothing would serve Dr. Laud, but the highest censure that ever was passed in that court to be put upon him; and so it was to be inflicted with knife, fire, and whip, at and upon the pillory, with ten thousand pounds fine; which some of the lords conceived should never be inflicted, only it was imposed (as on a dying man) to terrify others. But the said doctor and his combinants, caused the said censure to be executed the 26th day of November following (with a witness) for the hang-man was armed with strong drink all the night before in prison, and, with threatning words, to do it cruelly. Your petitioner’s hands being tied to a stake (besides all other torments) he received thirty-six stripes with a treble cord; after which, he stood almost two hours on the pillory, in cold frost and snow, and suffered the rest; as cutting off the ear, firing the face, and slitting of the nose; so that he was made a theatre of misery to men and angels.” [Here the compassion of the house of commons was so great, that they were generally in tears, and ordered the clerk to stop reading twice, till they had recovered themselves.] “And being so broken with his sufferings, that he was not able to go, the warden of the Fleet would not suffer him to be carried in a coach: but he was forced to go by water, to the farther endangering of his life; returning to the jail after much harsh and cruel usage, for the space of eight years, paying more for a chamber than the worth of it (having not a bit of bread, nor a drop of water allowed). The clerk of the Fleet, to top up your petitioner’s sufferings, sent for him to his office, and without warrant, or cause given by your petitioner, set eight strong fellows upon him, who tore his clothes, bruised his body, so that he was never well, and carried him by head and heels to that loathsome and common gaol; where, besides the filthiness of the place, and vileness of the company, divers contrivances were laid for taking away the life of your petitioner, as shall manifestly appear, if your honours will be pleased to receive and peruse a schedule of that subject.
“Now the cause of all this harsh, cruel, and continued ill usage, unparalleled yet upon any one since Britain was blessed with christianity, was nothing but a book written by your petitioner, called “Sion’s Plea against the Prelacy; and that, by the call of divers and many good Christians in the parliament time, after divers refusals given by your petitioner; who would not publish it being done, till it had the view and approbation of the best in the city, country, and university, and some of the parliament itself: In witness whereof he had about 500 hands; for revealing of whose names he was promised more favors by Sir Robert Heath than he will speak of: But denying to turn accuser of his brethren, he was threatened with a storm, which he felt to the full; wherein (through God’s mercy) he hath lived, though but lived; choosing rather to lay his neck to the yoke for others, than to release himself by others’ sufferings.
“Farther, the petitioner was robbed of divers goods, by one Lightborn, Graves, and others, officers and servants of the Fleet, amounting towards the value of thirty pounds, for which Lightborn offered composition (by a second hand) upon the hearing of the approach of parliament; but your petitioner (notwithstanding his necessity) refused to hearken to any such illegal and dangerous way. To innumerate the rest of your petitioner’s heavy pressures, would take up a volume; with which he will not burden your honours, till further opportunity.
“And therefore, he humbly and heartily entreateth, that you would be graciously pleased to take this his petition into your serious thoughts, and to command deliverance, that he may plead his own cause, or rather Christ’s, and the state’s. As also to afford such cost and damages as he has suffered in body, estate, and family; having been prisoner (and that many times) in the most nasty prisons, eleven years, not suffered to breathe in the open air: to which, give him leave to add his great sufferings in all those particulars, some sixteen years ago, for publishing a book, called, ‘The Looking-Glass of Holy War.’
“Farther, as the cause is Christ’s and the states, so your petitioner conceiveth (under correction) that the subject of the book will be the prime and main matter of your agitation, to whose wisdom he hopeth the book shall approve itself.
“Also your petitioner’s wearing age, going now in seventy-two years, together with the sicknesses and weakness of his long distressed wife, require a speedy deliverance.
“Lastly, the sons of death, the jesuits and jesuited, have so long insulted in their own licentious liberty, and over the miseries of your servant, and others; who, forbearing more motives, craves pardon for his prolixity, being necessitated thereto from the depth and length of his miseries. In all which he ceaseth not to pray, &c. and,
“Wilt thou not deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain?”
When this merciless sentence on Leighton was pronouncing, Laud stood up in public court, and “pulled off his cap, and gave God thanks for it;” and in his diary he makes this remark on the execution, without one word to discover that his bowels yearned, or his heart relented. “Friday, Nov. 16. He (Leighton) was severely whipped; and being set in the pillory, he had one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and branded on one cheek with a red-hot iron. And on that day sevennight his sores upon his back, ear, nose and face, not being cured, he was whipped again at the pillory in Cheapside, and there had the remainder of his sentence executed upon him, by cutting off the other ear, slitting the other side of his nose, and branding the other cheek.”cheek.”
These, and the like instances are specimens of this most reverend prelate’s humanity, compassion, and christian moderation. I shall only consider him in one view more, viz. his constant regard to the laws and liberties of his country.
He justified, and did all he could to support Charles I. in all the illegal and arbitrary measuresmeasures of his government. In 1626, after he had dissolved his Parliament, because they were too intent upon the redress of grievances, though they had voted four subsidies, and three fifteenths, he resolved to raise money by the illegal method of a loan. And to promote this, who so fit as Laud; who, with others of his brethren, were, as the complete historian expresses it, unhappily “engaged in the interest of Buckingham, and very forward in those measures which the king unfortunately took.” Accordingly Laud received a command from the king to draw up instructions to shew the urgency of the king’s affairs, and his occasions of supply. These instructions Laud soon got ready; and the king sent them as letters of precept to the two archbishops, to be communicated to their suffragans, to be published in all the parishes of the kingdom. This was justly looked upon as a stratagem of state to promote the raising of money without a parliament, and Laud was employed as the fittest tool to promote these arbitrary measures of the king. The papists joined with the bishops, and were very forward in the loan: whilst the puritans were backward in it; and some of the best gentlemen in the kingdom, upon their refusal to lend money, were immediately committed to several jails.
Besides this, the court had their parsons to preach up absolute obedience to the king’s commands. Sibthorp, in his sermon at Northampton, laid it down as gospel, that “It is the king’s duty to direct and make laws; that he doth whatever pleaseth him; and that it is the subject’s duty to yield a passive obedience.” Manwaring, in a sermon, spoke more plainly, and affirmed, that “the king was not bound to observe the laws of the realm concerning the subject’s rights and liberties; but that his royal will and command, in imposing loans and taxes, without common consent of Parliament, doth oblige the subject’s conscience, upon pain of eternal damnation;”damnation;” and that those who refused the loan, became guilty of impiety, disloyalty, and rebellion. And yet infamous as this doctrine was, and subversive of all the laws of the kingdom, Laud was their patron and advocate; and in contempt of the censure of the House of Lords on Manwaring, gave him first as his reward a good benefice, and afterwards advanced him to the Bishoprick of St. David. And because this parliament, which had censured Manwaring, had also complained of Laud himself, and passed a vote against innovations in religion, and against such as should counsel and advise the levying of tonnage and poundage without grant of parliament; Laud, out of his great love for the liberties of the kingdom, advised the king to dissolve it; which he accordingly did, to the great discontent of the nation in general.
Another illegal project for raising money, was by a tax to provide and maintain a certain number of ships to guard the seas; and writs were sent all over the kingdom, An. 1636, for this purpose. Laud was peculiarly active in this affair; and as several persons refused to pay the sums they were rated at, they were summoned before the council table, where they were brow-beaten, and sentenced to jail by Laud, and others of the council.[352] Laud acknowledges he gave his vote with the rest, and he had an hand in these and almost all other illegal pressures for ship-money; and in his diary he tells us, that “Dec. 5, 1639. A resolution was voted at the council board,” when he was present, “to assist the king in extraordinary ways, if the parliament should prove peevish, and refuse, &c.”
[353]The endeavouring arbitrarily to reduce the kirk of Scotland to the discipline of the church of England, was also by Laud’s persuasion and advice; who was ordered by the king to hold continual correspondence with the bishops and council of Scotland, and to take with them the necessary measures to accomplish the design. [354]The Scots bishops were so lifted up, says Burnet, with the king’s zeal, and so encouraged by Archbishop Laud, that they lost all temper. And when the violent measures that were used to impose the liturgy, &c. drove the Scots to an open rupture, he forwardly procured an order of council, directed to the two archbishops, to write their several letters to the bishops, that they might incite their clergy to assist the king to reduce the Scots. Laud accordingly wrote to his several suffragans, and raised by the clergy a very great sum on this occasion. The queen also wrote letters to promote contributions amongst the Roman catholics, to further the same good cause. So that Laud and his clergy, the queen and her papists, joined hand in hand to destroy or enslave the protestants of Scotland; who rose in their own defence, and to preserve themselves from the arbitrary measures of this tyrannical archpriest.
But it would be endless to reckon up all the instances of his illegal proceedings. He was a confederate with all the enemies of the liberties of these kingdoms, and pushed on the unhappy king to such fatal measures, as at last produced the civil wars and the subversion of the constitution. He was chief counsellor and minister after Buckingham’s death; so that as Sir Edward Deering said of him, to the parliament, “Our manifold griefs do fill a mighty and vast circumference, yet so that from every part our lines of sorrow do lead unto him, and point at him the centre, from whence our miseries in this church, and many of them in the commonwealth, do flow.” Sir Harbottle Grimstone was more severe, who called him, “The sty of all pestilential filth—The great and common enemy of all goodness, and good men—A viper near his majesty’s person, to distill poison into his sacred ears.”
These and the like violences of Laud and his creatures, drew down the just vengeance of the parliament on his head, and involved the church of England itself in his ruin. Bishops and common prayer were now no more. The church was formed after a quite different model, and the presbyterian discipline received and established, both the lords and commons taking the solemn league and covenant, which was intended for the utter abolishing prelatical government. The writers of the church party think this an everlasting brand of infamy upon the presbyterians. But how doth this throw greater infamy upon them, than the subversion of presbytery in Scotland, and the imposing canons and common prayer on that nation, doth on Laud and his creatures? If the alteration of the established religion, in any nation, be a crime in itself, it is so in every nation; and I doubt not but the Scotch presbyterians, think that that archbishop, and the prelatical party, acted as unjustly, illegally, and tyrannically, in introducing the English form of church government and worship into Scotland, contrarycontrary to their former settlement, and the inclination of almost the whole nation, as the high-church party can do with respect to the presbyterians, for altering the form of the establishment in England; And, indeed, the same arguments that will vindicate the alterations made in Scotland by the king and the bishops, will vindicate those made in England by the parliament and the presbyterians.
[355]It would have been highly honourable to the presbyterian party, had they used their power, when in possession of it, with moderation, and avoided all those methods of persecutions and suspensions they had themselves felt the effects of in former times. But to do them justice, they had no great inclination for moderate measures, or allowing any form of religion but their own; as appears from the larger catechism of the Westminster divines, approved by the general assembly of the kirk of Scotland; in which the “tolerating a false religion” is ranked amongst the sins forbidden in the second commandment. And accordingly as soon as they came into the church, all others must out who would not comply, and submit to sequestrations and imprisonments.
“The solemn league and covenant” was imposed, and rigorously exacted of all people, as they would escape their brand and penalty of malignants. Many of the episcopal clergy, both in the city and country, were expelled their livings; though by a generosity, not afterwards imitated by them, provision was made for the support of their wives and children. The lord-mayor, aldermen, and common-councilmen of London, presented a remonstrance to the parliament, desiring a strict course for suppressing all private and separate congregations; that all anabaptists, heretics, &c. as conformed not to the public discipline, may be declared and proceeded against; that all be required to obey the government settled, or to be settled; and that none disaffected to the presbyterian government, be employed in any place of public trust.
An ordinance of parliament was also made; by which every minister that should use the common prayer, in church or family, was to forfeit five pounds for the first time, ten pounds for the second, and to suffer a year’s imprisonment for the third. Also every minister, for every neglect of the directory, was to pay forty shillings; and for every contempt of it, by writing or preaching, to forfeit, at the discretion of those before whom he was convicted, any sum not under five pounds, nor above fifty pounds. The parliament also appointed elderships to suspend, at their discretion, such whom they should judge to be scandalous, from the sacrament, with a liberty of appeal to the classical eldership, &c. They set up, also, arbitrary rules about the examination and ordination of ministers by Triers, who were to be sound in faith, and such as usually received the sacrament. And in these things they were quickened by the Scots, who complained that reformation moved so slowly, and that sects and errors encreased, and endeavours were used for their toleration. Great restraints also were put upon the liberty of the press, by several ordinances made for that purpose. And, to say the truth, when they once got presbytery established, they used the same methods of suspensions, sequestrations and fines, that the prelatical party had done before, though not with equal severity; and were as zealous for uniformity in their own covenant and discipline, as the bishops were for hierarchy, liturgy, and ceremonies.
[356]But the triumphs of the presbytery and covenant were but short. Upon the restoration of the “royal wanderer,”wanderer,”Charles II. prelacy immediately revived, and exerted itself in its primitive vigor and severity. In his majesty’s first declaration to his loving subjects, he was pleased to promise “a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man should be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion; and that he would consent to an act of parliament for the full granting that indulgence.” But other measures soon prevailed. In the second year after his restoration, the act of uniformity was passed; by which all ministers were to read, and “publicly declare unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in, and prescribed by the book of common prayer,” before the feast of St. Bartholomew then ensuing, under the penalty of immediate and absolute deprivation. The consequence of this act was, that between two and three thousand excellent divines were turned out of their churches; many of them, to say the least, as eminent for learning and piety as the bishops, who were the great promoters of this barbarous act; and themselves and families, many of them, exposed to the greatest distress and poverty.
This cruel injustice obliged the ejected ministers, and their friends, to set up separate congregations; and occasioned such a division from the established church, as will, I hope, ever remain, to witness against the tyranny of those times, and the reverend authors and promoters of that act, to maintain the spirit and practice of serious religion, and as a public protestation for the civil and religious liberties of mankind, till time shall be no more; or till the church shall do herself the justice and honour to open wide her gates, for the reception of all into her communion and ministry, who are not rendered incapable of either, by Jesus Christ the great shepherd and bishop of souls. But however, measures were then soon taken to disturb their meetings. In 1664, the bill against frequenting conventicles passed, the first offence made punishable with five pounds, or three months imprisonment; the second offence with ten pounds, or six months imprisonment; and the third with banishment to some of the foreign plantations; sham plots being fathered on the dissenters, to prepare the way for these severities.
But some of the bishops, such as Sheldon, Ward, Wrenn, &c. did not think these hardships enough; and therefore, notwithstanding the devastations of the plague, and though several of the ejected ministers shewed their piety and courage, in staying and preaching in the city during the fury of it, the five mile act was passed against them the next year at Oxford; by which all the silenced ministers were obliged to take an oath, that it was not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king, or any commissioned by him; and that they would not, at any time, endeavour an alteration in the government of church and state. Such who scrupled the oath were forbid to come within five miles of any city or parliament borough, or of the church where they had been ministers, under penalty of forty pounds, or six months imprisonment, for every offence.
After these things, several attempts were set on foot for a comprehension, but rendered ineffectual by the practices of the bishops; and particularly by Ward, bishop of Salisbury, who had himself taken the solemn league and covenant: But having forsaken his first principles, it is no wonder he became a bitter persecutor. In the year 1670, another severe act was passed against them: by which it was provided, that if any person, upwards of sixteen, should be present at any conventicle, under colour of exercising religion in any other manner than according to the practice of the church of England, where there were five persons or more, besides those of the said household, the offenders were to pay five shillings for the first offence, and ten shillings for the second; and the preacher to forfeit twenty pounds for the first, and forty pounds for the second offence, and those who knowingly suffered any such conventicles in their houses, barns, yards, &c. were to forfeit twenty pounds. The effect of these acts was, that great numbers of ministers and their people were laid in jails amongst thieves and common malefactors, where they suffered the greatest hardships and indignities; their effects were seized on, and themselves and families reduced to almost beggary and famine.
But at length this very parliament, which had passed these severe bills against protestant dissenters, began themselves to be awakened, and justly grew jealous of their religion and liberties, from the increase of popery: and therefore, to prevent all dangers which might happen from popish recusants, they passed, in 1673, the test act; which hath since been, contrary to the original design of the law, turned against the protestant dissenters, and made use of to exclude them from the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which they have a natural claim to. In the year 1680, a bill passed both houses of parliament, for exempting his majesty’s protestant dissenting subjects from certain penalties; but when the king came to the house to pass the bills, this bill was taken from the table, and never heard of more; And though this parliament voted, that the prosecution of protestant dissenters, upon the penal laws, was grievous to the subject, a weakening the protestant interest, an encouragement to popery, and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom; yet they underwent a fresh prosecution, their meetings were broken up, many ministers imprisoned, and most exhorbitant fines levied on them and their hearers.
In the beginning of King James’s (II.) reign, these rigorous proceedings were continued, but as the design of that unhappy bigotted prince was to subvert the religion and laws of these kingdoms, he published in the year 1687, a declaration for a general liberty of conscience to all persons, of what persuasion soever; not out of any regard or affection to the protestant dissenters, but for the promoting the popish religion and interest. He also caused an order of council to be passed, that his declaration of indulgence should be read, in all churches and chapels, in the time of divine service, all over England and Wales. But though the dissenters used the liberty which was thus granted them, and had several opportunities to have been revenged on their former persecutors; yet they had too much honour, and regard to the protestant religion and liberties, ever to fall in with the measures of the court, or lend their assistance to introduce arbitrary power and popery. And as the divines of the church of England, when they saw King James’s furious measures to subvert the whole constitution, threw off their stiff and haughty carriage towards the dissenters, owned them for brethren, put on the appearance of the spirit of peace and charity, and assured them that no such rigorous methods should be used towards them for the future; things that never entered into their hearts whilst they were triumphant in power, and which nothing but a sense of their own extreme danger seems then to have extorted from them; the dissenters, far from following their resentments, readily entered into all measures with them for the common safety, and were amongst the first and heartiest friends of the revolution, under King William III. of glorious and immortal memory.
Soon after the settlement of this prince upon the throne, an act was passed for exempting their majesty’s protestant subjects, dissenting from the church of England, from the penal laws; and though the king, in a speech to the two houses of parliament, told them, “That he hoped they would leave room for the admission of all protestants that were willing and able to serve him;” agreeable to which, a clause was ordered to be brought into the house of lords, to take away the necessity of receiving the sacrament to make persons capable of offices; yet his majesty’s gracious intentions were frustrated, and the clause rejected by a great majority. Another clause also that was afterwards added, that the receiving the sacrament in the church of England, or in any other protestant congregation, should be a sufficient qualification, met with the same fate as the former: so that though the dissenters were freed from the penal laws, they were left under a brand of infamy, and rendered incapable of serving their king and country. And the Lord’s Supper laid open to be prostituted by law to the most abandoned and profligate sinners; and an institution designed for the union of all christians, made the test of a party, and the means of their separation from each other; a scandal that remains upon the church of England to this day. It is indeed but too plain, that when the established church saw itself out of danger, she forgot her promises of moderation and condescension towards the dissenters, who readily and openly declared their willingness to yield to a coalition. But as the clergy had formed a resolution of consenting to no alterations, in order to such an union; all the attempts made to this purpose became wholly ineffectual. Indeed, their very exemption from the penal laws was envied them by many; and several attempts were made to disturb and prosecute them in this reign, but were prevented from taking effect by royal injunctions.
Upon the death of King William, and the succession of Queen Anne, the hatred of the clergy towards the dissenters, that had lurked in their breasts, during the former reign, immediately broke out. Several sermons were preached to render them odious, and expose them to the fury of the mob. A bill was brought in and passed by the house of commons, for preventing occasional conformity, imposing an hundred pounds penalty upon every person resorting to a conventicle or meeting, after his admission into offices, and five pounds for every day’s continuance in such offices, after having been present at such conventicle: but upon some disagreement between the Lords and Commons, the bill dropped for that time. The same bill, with some few alterations, passed the house of commons the two next sessions, but was rejected by the lords. During this reign several pamphlets were published, containing bitter invectives against the dissenters, and exciting the government to extirpate and destroy them. Several prosecutions were also carried on against them for teaching schools, &c. with great eagerness and malice. In 1709, an open rebellion broke out, when the mob pulled down the meeting-houses, and publicly burnt the pews and pulpits. Sacheverell was trumpet to the rebellion, by preaching treason and persecution; and the parliament that censured him, was hastily dissolved. The parliament that succeeded, 1711, was of a true tory spirit and complexion; and, in its second session, passed the bill against occasional conformity. The next parliament, which met in 1714, was of the same disposition, and passed a bill to prevent the growth of schism; by which the dissenters were restrained from teaching schools, or from being tutors to instruct pupils in any family, without the license of the archbishop or bishop of the diocese where they resided; and the justices of the peace had power given them finally to determine in all cases relating thereto. Another bill was also intended to be brought in against them, to incapacitate them from voting in elections for parliament men, or being chosen members of parliament themselves.
But before these unjust proceedings had their intended effect, the protestant succession, in his late majesty king George I. took place; Queen Anne dying on the first of August, the very day on which the schism bill was to have commenced; which, together with that to prevent occasional conformity, were both repealed by the first parliament called together by that excellent prince. And I cannot help thinking that if the church of England had then consented to have set the dissenters intirely free, by repealing the test and corporation acts; it would have been much to its own honour and reputation, as well as a great strength and security to the national interest. But the time was not then come. We still labour under the oppression of those two acts; and notwithstanding our zeal for his majesty’s person and family, must sit down as easy as we can, with the inclination to serve him, whilst by law we are denied the opportunity and power.
The sentiments of his late majesty, of glorious memory, with respect to moderation, and the tolerating of dissentersdissenters, were so fully understood by the whole nation, as kept the clergy in tolerable good order, and from breaking out into many outrages against them. But a controversy that began amongst themselves, soon discovered what spirit many of them were of. The then bishop of Bangor, the now[357] worthy and reverend bishop of Winchester, happened in a sermon before his majesty, to assert the supreme authority of Christ as king in his own kingdom; and that he had not delegated his power, like temporal lawgivers, during their absence from their kingdoms, to any persons, as his deputies and vicegerents. Anno 1717. He also published his preservative; in which he advanced some positions contrary to temporal and spiritual tyranny, and in behalf of the civil and religious liberties of mankind. The goodness of his lordship’s intentions to serve the family of his present majesty, the interest of his country, and the honour of the church of God, might methinks have screened him from all scurrilous abuses. But how numerous were his adversaries, and how hard the weapons with which they attacked him! Not only the dregs of the people and clergy opened against him; but mighty men, and men of great renown, from whom better things might have been expected, entered the lists with him, and became the avowed champions for spiritual power, and the division of the kingdom between Christ Jesus and themselves. His lordship of Bangor had this manifest advantage upon the face of the argument. He pleaded for Christ’s being king in his own kingdom: his adversaries pleaded for the translation of his kingdom to certain spiritual viceroys. He for liberty of private judgment, in matters of religion and conscience: they for dominion over the faith and consciences of others. He against all the methods of persecution: they for penal laws; for corporation and test acts, and the powerful motives of positive and negative discouragements. He with the spirit of meekness and of a friend to truth: they with bitterness and rancour, and an evident regard to interest and party.
However, the lower house of convocation accused and prosecuted him, for attempting the subversion of all government and discipline in the church of Christ, with a view undoubtedly of bringing him under a spiritual censure, and with impeaching the regal supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, to subject him to the weight of a civil one. Of the bishop it must be said, to his everlasting honour, that the temper he discovered, under the opposition he met with, and the slanders that were thrown on him, was as much more amiable than that of his adversaries, as his cause was better, his writings and principles more consistent, and his arguments more conclusive and convincing. But notwithstanding these advantages, his lordship had great reason to be thankful to God that the civil power supported and protected him; otherwise his enemies would not, in all probability, have been content with throwing scandal upon his character, but forced him to have parted with SOMETHING, and then delivered him unto Satan for the punishment of his flesh, and made him have felt the weight of that authority, which God made him the happy and honourable instrument of opposing; especially if they were all of them of a certain good archdeacon’s mind, who thought he deserved to have his tongue cut out.
The dissenters also have had their quarrels and controversies amongst themselves, and managed them with great warmth and eagerness of temper. During their persecution under King Charles II. and the common danger of the nation under his brother James, they kept tolerably quiet; the designs of the common enemy to ruin them all, uniting them the more firmly amongst themselves. But after the revolution, when they were secure from oppression by the civil power, they soon fell into eager disputes about justification, and other points of like nature. The high-flown orthodox party would scarce own for their brethren those who were for moderation in these principles, or who differed in the least from their doctrine concerning them. [358]And when they could no longer produce reason and scripture in their defence, they, some of them, made use of infamous methods of scandal, and endeavoured to blast the character of a reverend and worthy divine, Dr. Williams, in the most desperate manner; because they could no otherwise answer and refute his arguments. But his virtue stood the shock of all their attempts to defame it; for after about eight weeks spent in an enquiry into his life, by a committee of the united ministers, which received all manner of complaints and accusations against him; it was declared at a general meeting, as their unanimous opinion, and repeated and agreed to in three several meetings successively, that he was intirely clear and innocent of all that was laid to his charge.
Thus was he vindicated in the amplest form, after the strictest examination that could be made; and his adversaries, who dealt in defamation and scandal, if not brought to repentance, were yet put to silence. It was almost incredible how much he was a sufferer for his opposition to Antinomianism, by a strong party, who left nothing unattempted to crush him, if it had been possible. But as his innocence appeared the brighter, after his character had been thoroughly sifted, he was, under God, greatly instrumental in putting a stop to those pernicious opinions which his opposers propagated; which struck at the very essentials of all natural and revealed religion. His Gospel Truth remains a monument of his honour; a monument his enemies were never able to destroy. However, nothing would serve, but his exclusion from the merchant’s Lecture at Pinners-Hall. Three other worthy divines, who had been his partners in that service, bore him company; and their places were supplied with four others, of unquestionable rigidness and sterling orthodoxy. Many papers were drawn up on each side, in order to an accommodation; so that it looked as Dr. Calamy tells us, as if the creed-making age was again revived. It was insisted, that Arminianism should be renounced on one side, and Antinomianism on the other. But all was in vain; and the papers that were drawn up to compose matters, created new heats, instead of extinguishing the old ones. These contentions were kept up for several years, till at last the disputants grew weary, and the controversy thread-bare, when it dropped of itself.
The next thing that divided them was the Trinitarian controversy, and the affair of subscription to human creeds and articles of faith, as a test of orthodoxy. In the year 1695, a great contest arose about the trinity, amongst the divines of the church of England, who charged each other with Tritheism and Sabellianism; and according to the ecclesiastical manner of managing disputes, bestowed invectives and scurrilous language very plentifully upon each other. The dissenters, in the reign of his late majesty, not only unfortunately fell into the same debate, but carried it on, some of them at least, with equal want of prudence and temper.
In the west of England, where the fire first broke out, moderation, christian forbearance, and charity, seemed to have been wholly extinguished. The reverend and learned Mr. James Peirce, minister in the city of Exeter, was dismissed from his congregation, upon a charge of heresy; and treated by his opposers, with shameful rudeness and insolence. Other congregations were also practised with, to discard their pastors upon the same suspicion, who were accused of impiously “denying the Lord that bought them;” to render them odious to their congregations, merely because they could not come up to the unscriptural tests of human orthodoxy. And when several of the ministers of London thought proper to interpose, and try, if by advices for peace, they could not compose the differences of their brethren in the west; this christian design was as furiously opposed as if it had been a combination to extirpate christianity itself; and a proposal made in the room of it, that the article of the church of England, and the answer in the assembly’s catechism, relating to the trinity, should be subscribed by all the ministers, as a declaration of their faith, and a test of their orthodoxy.
This proposal was considered by many of the ministers, not only as a thing unreasonable in itself, thus to make inquisition into the faith of others, but highly inconsistent with the character of protestants, dissenting from the national establishment; and dissenting from it for this reason amongst others, because the established church expressly claims “an authority in controversies of faith.” And, therefore, after the affair had been debated for a considerable while, the question was solemnly put, and the proposal rejected by a majority of voices. This the zealots were highly displeased with, and accordingly publicly proclaimed their resentments from the pulpits. Fasts were appointed solemnly to deplore, confess, and pray against the aboundings of heresy; and their sermons directly levelled against the two great evils of the church, Nonsubscription and Arianism. Through the goodness of God they had no power to proceed farther; and when praying and preaching in this manner began to grow tedious, and were, by experience, found to prove ineffectual, to put a stop to the progress of the cause of liberty, their zeal immediately abated, the cry of heresy was seldomer heard, and the alarm of the church’s being endangered by pernicious errors, gradually ceased; it being very observable, that though heresy be ever in its nature the same thing, yet that the cry against it is either more or less, according as the political managers of it, can find more or fewer passions to work on, or a greater or lesser interest to subserve by it.
It hath been already remarked, in the foregoing section, that the rigours with which Laud, and his persecuting brethren treated the puritans, occasioned many of them to transport themselves to New England, for the sake of enjoying that liberty of conscience, which they were cruelly denied in their native country. And who could have imagined, but that their own sufferings for conscience sake must have excited in them an utter abhorrence of these antichristian principles, by which they themselves had so deeply smarted? But though they carried over with them incurable prejudices against persecuting prelates, yet they seem many of them to have thought that they had the right of persecution in themselves; and accordingly practised many grievous cruelties towards those who did not fall in with their doctrine and discipline, and church order.
I shall not here mention the severities practised on great numbers of persons for supposed witchcraft, to the great blemish and dishonour of the government there, those prosecutions being carried on not properly upon a religious account; but I am obliged, in justice, not to pass by the cruel laws they made against the persons called Quakers, who felt the weight of their “independent discipline,” and were treated with the utmost rigour by their magistrates and ministers.
[359]In the year 1656, a law was made at Boston, prohibiting all masters of ships to bring any quakers into that jurisdiction, and themselves from coming in, “on penalty of the house of correction.”correction.” When this law was published, one Nicholas Upshal, who was himself an independent, argued against the unreasonableness of such a law; and warned them to take heed “not to fight against God,” and so draw down a judgment upon the land.land. For this they fined him twenty-three pounds, imprisoned him for not coming to church, and banished him out of their jurisdiction.
[360]But though this law was executed upon many persons with unrelenting and extreme rigour; yet, as it did not entirely prevent the quakers from coming into New England, a more cruel law was made against them in the year 1658. “That whosoever of the inhabitants should, directly or indirectly, cause any of the quakers to come into that jurisdiction, he ‘should forfeit one hundred pounds to the country, and be committed to prison,’ there to remain till the penalty should be satisfied: and whosoever should entertain them, knowing them to be so, ‘should forfeit forty shillings to the country for every hour’s entertainment’ or concealment, and be committed to prison till the forfeiture should be fully paid and satisfied. And farther, that all and every of those people, that should arise amongst them there, should be dealt withal, and suffer the like punishment as the laws provided for those that came in: viz. That for the first offence, if a male, ‘one of his ears should be cut off, and he kept at work in the house of correction,’ till he should be sent away at his own charge. For the second, ‘the other ear, and be kept in the house of correction,’ as aforesaid. If a woman, then ‘to be severely whipped,’ and kept as aforesaid, as the male for the first; and for the second offence, to be dealt withal as the first. And for the third, ‘he or she should have their tongues bored through with an hot iron,’ and be kept in the house of correction close at work, till they be sent away at their own charge.”
Could it be imagined that the authors of these bloody laws had been forced from their own native country by the terrors of persecution? or that after all their complaints, about the violences and oppressions of the prelates against themselves, they should yet think persecution for conscience-sake a lawful thing; and that they had a right, as soon as ever they could get power, to persecute others? The making such laws, and the execution of them, was certainly more detestable in them than others; who should have learnt forbearance and compassion towards others, by the things which they themselves had suffered. And yet they seem to have been as devoid of these virtues, as Laud or any of his brethren, against whom they had so bitterly and justly exclaimed.
[370]In pursuance of the before-mentioned law, one William Brend, and William Leddra, were committed to the house of correction at Boston; where they were kept five days without food, and after that received twenty blows each with a three-corded whip. The next day Brend, who was an elderly man, was put in irons, and tied neck and heels close together for sixteen hours. The next morning the jailer took a pitched rope, about an inch thick, and gave him twenty blows over the back and arms with as much force as he could, so that the rope untwisted. But he fetched another thicker and stronger, and gave him fourscore and seventeen more blows, and threatened to give him as many more the next morning. Brend had nothing on but a serge cassock upon his shirt, so that his back and arms were grievously bruised, and the blood hung as in bags under his arms; and so cruelly was his body mangled, that it was reduced almost to a perfect jelly.
The same year J. Copeland, Christ. Helder, and J. Rous, were apprehended and imprisoned, and condemned to have each of them their right ear cut off by the hangman; which was accordingly executed; after which they were whipped.
But things did not stop here. Norton and others of his brethren the ministers, petitioned the magistrates to cause the court to make some law to banish the quakers, upon pain of death. The court consisted of twenty-five persons; and the law being proposed, it was carried in the affirmative, thirteen to twelve. As the law is very peculiar, and contains the reasons given by these “Independent Persecutors,” and shews the severity of their discipline, I shall give the substance of it; which is as follows:
[371]“Whereas there is a pernicious sect, commonly called quakers, lately risen, who by word and writing have published and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and do take on them to change and alter the received laudable customs of our nation, in giving civil respect to equals, or reverence to superiors, whose actions tend to undermine the civil government, and also to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship, and by withdrawing from orderly church fellowship, allowed and approved by all orthodox professors of the truth—whereby divers of our inhabitants have been infected;—for prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact, that every person or persons of “the cursed sect” of the ‘Quakers,’ who is not an inhabitant of, but is found within this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable, commissioner, or select man—who shall commit the said person to close prison, there to remain without bail until the next court of assistance, where they shall have a legal trial: and ‘being convicted to be of the sect of the quakers, shall be sentenced to be banished, upon pain of death.’ And that every inhabitant of this jurisdiction, being convicted to be of the aforesaid sect, either by taking up, publishing, or defending the horrid opinions of the quakers, or the stirring up mutiny, sedition, and rebellion against the government, or by taking up their absurd and destructive practices, viz. denying civil respect to equals and superiors, and withdrawing from our church assemblies, and instead thereof frequent meetings of their own, in opposition to our church order, or by adhering to, or approving of any known quaker, and the tenets and practices of the quakers, that are opposite to “the orthodox received opinions of the godly, and endeavouring to disaffect others to civil government, and church orders, or condemning the practice and proceedings of this court against the quakers, manifesting hereby their complying with those, whose design is to overthrow the order established in church and state; every such person, upon conviction before the said court of assistants, in manner as aforesaid, ‘shall be committed to close prison for one month;’ and then, unless they choose voluntarily to depart this jurisdiction, shall give bond for their good behaviour, and appear at the next court; where continuing obstinate, and ‘refusing to retract or reform the aforesaid opinions,’ they shall ‘be sentenced to banishment, upon pain of death:’ And any one magistrate, upon information given him of any such person, shall cause him to be apprehended; and shall commit any such person to prison, according to his discretion, until he come to trial, as aforesaid.”
“Here endeth,” says my author, “this sanguinary act, being more like to the decrees of the Spanish inquisition, than the laws of a reformed christian magistracy; consisting of such who themselves, to shun persecution (which was but a small fine for not frequenting the public worship) had left Old England.” And what was it occasioned this bloody law? Why, because the poor quakers refused to pull off their hats, and withdrew from the church assemblies of these independent persecutors, and frequented their own meetings, in opposition to their church order; and because the quakers held tenets opposite to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, i. e. opposite to their own opinions, who by flying from England seem to have imagined that they carried away with them all the orthodoxy and godliness out of the kingdom.
And to shew the rigidness of their discipline, and that they did not intend this law merely “in terrorem,” they wickedly murdered several innocent persons under the cover of it, several of their priests standing with pleasure to see them executed. Thus William Robinson, merchant, Marmaduke Stephenson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra, were hanged at Boston for being quakers; and they would have proceeded to more executions, had it not been for the Mandamus of Charles II. who, though a papist, yet was of a more merciful disposition than these New England disciplinarians, and ordered all proceedings against the quakers immediately to stop.
It would be endless to recount all the cruelties they used to these poor people, whom they imprisoned, unmercifully whipped, oppressed with fines, and then condemned them to be sold to the plantations, to answer the fines they had laid upon them. But enough hath been said to shew the inhumanity of their spirit and practice, and to raise in the reader an abhorrence and detestation of such a conduct in men, who, though they had been persecuted themselves, carried the principles of persecution with them into the place of their banishment, and used worse severities towards others for conscience-sake, than what they themselves had experienced from the bitterness of their enemies; and thereby made it appear, that they complained against the persecutions of the prelatical party, not because they were for moderation and christian charity in their own conduct, but because they thought the right of persecution only in themselves, and that violence ought not to be made use of to support any but the orthodox opinions of such as they themselves esteemed to be godly, and to maintain what they called the order and fellowship of their own churches.
[372]I have only to add, that I find also from the same author, that the quakers were much persecuted in Scotland; but as he hath given no particular account of that affair, I have nothing farther to enlarge upon that subject.
And thus have I brought the History of Persecution down to our own times, and nation; and shewn how all parties have, in their turns of power, been sharers in this guilt. If church history would have afforded me a better account, I assure my reader he should have had it told with pleasure. The story, as it is, I have told with grief. But it is time to dismiss him from so ungrateful an entertainment, and see what useful reflections we can make on the whole.