[134] The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestant subjects will be printed in the Appendix.
[135] “The party which was now beginning to be formed against the Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the Earl of Nottingham.”—Birch’s Tillotson, 178.
[136] Reresby, 390.
[137] Burnet, ii. 11.
[138] Somerville’s Political Transactions, 275: Smith’s remarks—Lathbury’s Nonjurors, 158.
[139] Ralph, ii. 73.
[140] Life, by Matthew Henry, 181.
[141] There were laymen who longed for Comprehension; but they looked with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House. “The truth of the story,” says one of them, “is that neither House of Parliament was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in the State. And the House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundred voices to reform things amiss in the State than in the Church, and therefore, in such a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies and weak friends to Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting or giving impunity to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would be prostituted and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so to be by those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others so to do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the uniting of Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a better opportunity.”—April, 1689. Entering Book, 534.
[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth insertion:—“Although in history the causes of events should be pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament, returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to protect the Church from the invasion—as they called it—which was making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords, particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest; and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain, and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the State itself.”—Dalrymple, i. 318.
[143] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 200.
[144] The following entries in the Hist. Register, Williams’ MSS., relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on the subject:—Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, had some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, was pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose: ‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty, ‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides, in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”—Saturday, June 22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr. John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen. They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till 1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then, and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside, or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should pass, so as to make those concerned easy.”
[145] Parl. Hist., v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented that the debates on many important questions of the period are totally lost, and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be in some cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here noticed. Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, named Dyer, was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for reporting their proceedings.
[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage occurs in the Entering Book, May 25:—“I do not understand the mystery of it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those Lords and Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say the Bishops passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have been stopped in the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, because then the imputation of persecution would have been laid upon them. But I think there was some greater reason, that at that time induced them to pass it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call for it, and did promote the passing of it. Nota.—And its as certain, that they do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if it were not passed they would stop it.”
Amongst the Camb. MSS. (Strype Cor., iii. 191) I find this note addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and brother,
“H. London.
“June 19, 1689.”
[147] Life, by Lord King, 341. Preface to Letters on Toleration, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated June 6, 1689, “You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration is at length established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, and such as you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would desire; but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a beginning, I trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid on which the Church of Christ was at first established.”—Familiar Letters, 330.
[148] Ralph, ii. 225.
[149] Gough’s Hist. of the Quakers, iii. 232–235.
Sewel says nothing like what I have quoted from Gough. He remarks respecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakers acknowledged, and tolerated by an Act of Parliament.”—Hist., ii. 357.
[150] Birch’s Life of Tillotson, 182–184.
[151] Ibid., 180.
[152] Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he was prevented from attending by a fit of the gout. Life of Stillingfleet, 75.
Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of the proceedings of the Commission, which, with a Copy of the Alterations, is printed in a Parliamentary Return, 1854. To this Return I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers printed in it had long been desired by historical students.
[153] Spelt Aldridge in the Parliamentary Return.
[154] Return, 98.
[155] Return, 15. It would be beside the mark to enter upon a discussion relative to the creed itself, but I would call attention to a valuable little book on the subject, by my friend Professor Swainson, and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely refer to the Fourth Report of the Ritual Commission. The theological part of the Creed I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; but how any charitable Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to me inexplicable.
[156] Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6; Friday, Nov. 8.
[157] So in Return, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet.
[158] De Trinitate, l. 15. c. 27.
[159] Calamy’s Abridgment, 448. The alterations cover 90 pages, and amount to 598 in number.
[160] See Letter to a friend containing some queries, and also Vox Cleri.
The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocational rights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to any change in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” says Burnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to better times.”—Triennial Visitation Charges, 1704.
[161] This is noticed by Macaulay, v. 112.
[162] Tillotson’s Life, 202. Jane, it should be recollected, was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preached at his consecration.
[163] Cardwell’s Conferences, 434, 451. Synodalia, 692–700.
[164] Kennet Hist., iii. 552.
[165] Tanner MSS., 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd to Sancroft, March 31, 1689.
[166] Dalrymple, i. 322.
[167] Macpherson’s Hist., i. 630.
[168] Oldmixon, iii. 18.
[169] House of Commons’ Journals. Amongst the Tanner MSS., xxvii. 161, is a Letter from a Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicating the College from the charge of disaffection to the Government.
[170] Salmon’s Lives, 388.
[171] Life of Kettlewell, 199.
[172] Life of Kettlewell, 203.
The original declaration is in the Tanner MSS., xxvii. 77. The signature of the Bishop is in a trembling hand.
Witnesses.
MS. copies of the Declaration were circulated at the time. I have one in my possession.
[173] Tanner MSS., 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April 23, 1689.
[174] Life of Ken, by a Layman, 365.
[175] Ibid., 366. The following extracts respecting Turner are curious:
He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trial of the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower, when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutual recognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was a wrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in Christian Bishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed, and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceived that he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he was Bishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermon was preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomond sat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. He asked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was one Mr. Turner. ‘Turner,’ says my Lord Thomond, ‘he can’t be akin to Dr. Turner, Bishop of Rochester. He is the worst preacher in England, and this is one of the best,’ seeming not to know the Bishop, when certainly he knew him very well.”—Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll., 987, 138.
[176] I state this on the authority of a paper in the same collection, 987, 310.
[177] An examination of the case of the suspended Bishops. 1690, p. 12.
[178] Life of Kettlewell. Appendix, Nos. ii., iii.
The following note to the Archbishop is among the Tanner MSS., xxvii. 101:—
“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learned lawyers, that we are to be deprived the 15th or 16th of January, reckoning by the moon. I told him of Sir Edward Coke’s opinion—2d Instit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby—who, referring to a record in Edward the Second’s time in which the word menses occurs, says, ‘Qui menses in Calendario computantur.’
“27 December, 1689. W. Norw.”
[179] Lathbury’s Nonjurors, 85.
[180] It occurs in the Life of Kennet, 47.
[181] Dunton’s Life and Errors, 370.
[182] Life of Kettlewell, 152.
[183] Ibid., 98.
[184] Life of Kettlewell, 134.
[185] 19th February, 1689–90. Tanner MSS., xxvii. 91, 92.
[186] Burnet, ii. 39.
[187] State Tracts, ii. 95.
[188] A Modest Enquiry, printed in State Tracts, vol. ii.
[189] See Life of Ken, by a Layman, 370–376. Compare Life of Kettlewell, 255–263.
[190] Dalrymple, iii., appen. ii. 130, 132.
[191] Macaulay has graphically described all this.
[192] Birch’s Life of Tillotson, 306.
[193] Life, Patrick’s Works, ix. 529.
[194] Convocation Book, b. i. c. 28. Edition in Library of Anglo Cathe. Theology, 50, 51.
[195] Case of Allegiance, Preface.
[196] Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock of the Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church had spoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.”
[197] These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphlet entitled Sherlock against Sherlock, a long extract as given by Ralph (ii. 270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as a specimen of the attacks on the Master of the Temple.
Amongst the Baker MSS., 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, is an undated letter written by
“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,—
“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part of Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of it as your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it, the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, that we owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on the throne, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legal rights.”
After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying his argument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying: “I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, for my thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence to me that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, as serves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal more than ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcile the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submission and allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughly settled. I will wait on your Grace on Saturday or Monday next.”
[198] There is in the British Museum (Cole MSS., xxx. 168) a curious letter by Sherlock on taking rash vows, addressed to some one who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which he had been brought up.
[199] 5th August, 1690. Tanner MSS., xxvii. 176.
[200] 9th February, 1691. Ibid., 247.
[201] Mant’s Hist. of the Church of Ireland, ii. Preface.
[202] January 20, 1691. Tanner MSS., xxvii. 236.
[203] Ken’s Life, 381.
D’Oyley says that Turner was suspected “probably with great reason,” i. 461. And the author of Ken’s Life describes Turner as engaging “in a plot un-English and un-Christian,” 380.
[204] 9th of May, 1691. Tanner MSS., xxvi. 84.
[205] From the Bishop of Norwich, 18th May, 1691. Tanner MSS., xxvi. 59.
[206] Life, 391.
[207] Camb. Univ. Library. Baker MSS., 40, 90.
[208] Thoresby’s Diary, i. 197. Calamy’s Life, i. 300.
[209] Crossby’s Hist. of the Baptists, iii. 230.
[210] Humble Requests, &c., inserted in Calamy’s Abridgment, i. 497.
[211] Memoir by Offer. Bunyan’s Works, iii. lxxiii.
[212] Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is told of Flavel the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly good evidence, of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curious resemblance in the words of the two narratives.” (Kingdom of Christ, ii. 344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historian in his honesty and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote of Flavel to prove anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I find it—a remarkable psychological fact.
[213] Palmer, i. 354.
[214] Calamy’s Abridgment, 469–475.
[215] Life of Mr. John Hieron, &c., by D. Burgess, 1691.
[216] Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, iii. 188. Birch’s Tillotson [2nd Edition], 18, 387.
[217] Birch’s Life of Tillotson, 23. The text was 2 Cor. v. 10. I have related a similar anecdote of Sanderson, Church of the Commonwealth, 327.
[218] Life of Tillotson, 223.
[219] Life of Tillotson, 340, 341.
[220] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, ii. 4, 16.
[221] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, ii. 25.
[222] See “A relation of the late wicked contrivance of Stephen Blackhead and Robert Young, against the lives of several persons by forging an association under their hands, written by the Bishop of Rochester. In two parts: the first part being a relation of what passed at the three examinations of the said Bishop by a Committee of Lords of the Privy Council; the second being an account of the two above-mentioned authors of the forgery.” In the Savoy, 1692.—Harleian Missal (4to.) vi. 198.
Blackhead and Young seem to have been thorough-paced villains.
[223] These letters, dated March, 1692, are amongst the Tanner MSS.
[224] Life of Sancroft, ii. 20.
[225] The instrument, which is very curious, is given by D’Oyley, ii. 31.
[226] D’Oyley, ii. 43, 58, 62, 64.
[227] Lives of the Bishops, 234.
[228] Own Time, ii. 135.
[229] “He was, in those years, a very good scholar, an acute logician and philosopher, a quick disputant, of a solid judgment. He spoke Latin exceedingly well.”—Lansdowne MSS., Kennet’s Coll., 949, 114.
[230] Milman has well brought out this point in his Annals of St. Paul’s. I quite agree with that distinguished critic in placing Barrow far above Tillotson. To several others I should also assign a higher place. Yet we must not forget Dryden’s literary obligations to Tillotson, and the praise bestowed on him by M. H. A. Taine.
[231] In reading Tillotson’s Sermons, the first volume strikes me as much more interesting than the second.
[232] Birch’s Tillotson, 348.
[233] Memoirs of the Life and Times of Tenison, 20.
[234] Memoirs of Tenison, 27–31.
[235] Stanley’s Westminster Abbey, 182.
[236] Cooper’s Annals of Cambridge, iv. 28. Thoresby’s Diary and Correspondence, iii. 197.
Amongst the wilder eulogists was Samuel Wesley, who thus refers to her celestial happiness:—
In his Life of Christ he couples the Queen with the Virgin Mary.—Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley, 192–194.
[237] See Memoirs of Tenison, 32. and Life of Ken, 418.
Tenison, in a letter to Evelyn, speaks of his funeral sermon, adding, “There is come forth an answer to it, said to be written by Bishop Kenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, and less malice.”—Evelyn’s Diary and Corresp., iii. 345.
[238] Macpherson’s Original Papers, i. 509, 520.
[239] Memoirs of Tenison, 42–47.
[240] Wilkin’s Concilia, iv. 480.
[241] Ibid., 577.
[242] Ibid., 582. But constitutions for the Church of Scotland of a similar kind to those of William were issued by Charles II.—Ibid., 590. There are also several documents in the King’s name respecting English Nonconformists and Papists, which do not affect the point now before us.
[243] Ibid., 612.
[244] I do not forget that even Henry VIII. wrote to the Clergy of the province of York, saying, “Christ is indeed unicus dominus et supremus, as we confess him in the Church daily: it were nimis absurdum for us to be called Caput Ecclesiæ, representans Corpus Christi mysticum.” And I am prepared to admit that the theory of the National Church is that the Sovereign is simply supreme ruler in temporal things; but certainly in practice Sovereigns have gone beyond this, especially in the case now before us.
[245] Memoirs of Tenison, 54–59. This circular letter is not in Wilkins.
[246] The Duke of Bedford was Lieutenant, but Chicheley seems to have been the ruling power.
[247] London Gazette.
[248] Macaulay, vii. 253 (note).
[249] This is stated by Wallace, in his introduction to his Antitrinitarian Biography, i. 252; yet on p. 316 he quotes from a publication in 1697, where it is said the Unitarians had “not any set Meeting-house for the propagating of their doctrines.”
[250] Tayler’s Religious Life in England, 229.
[251] It is impossible to notice these publications in detail. They are very numerous. A large collection of them may be found in Dr. Williams’ Library, and an account of some of them in the elaborate introduction to Wallace’s Antitrinitarian Biography, vol. i.
[252] The Brief Hist. and Acts of the Great Athanasius.
[253] The Book is entitled, The Naked Gospel. The writer, Dr. Bury, doubts whether Mahomet or Christian doctors have most corrupted the doctrines of the Gospel. He was deprived, in 1690, by Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, the Visitor of Lincoln College.
[254] Journals, January 3, 1694. The book so treated was the Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. The author was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to give bail for good behaviour for the next three years, and to make a public recantation.
[255] The pamphlet is entitled, The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, Briefly Explained in a Letter to a Friend, 4to.
[256] Vindication, &c., sect. iv.