Chapter VII (4)

A few years before the death of Charles II., the clergy made a great effort to recover their former power by reviving those doctrines of Passive Obedience and Divine Right, which are obviously favourable to the progress of superstition.[669] But as the English intellect was now sufficiently advanced to reject such dogmas, this futile attempt only increased the opposition between the interests of the people as a body, and the interests of the clergy as a class. Scarcely had this scheme been defeated, when the sudden death of Charles placed on the throne a prince whose most earnest desire was to restore the Catholic church, and reinstate among us that mischievous system which openly boasts of subjugating the reason of Man. This change in affairs was, if we consider it in its ultimate results, the most fortunate circumstance which could have happened to our country. In spite of the difference of their religion, the English clergy had always displayed an affection towards James, whose reverence for the priesthood they greatly admired; though they were anxious that the warmth of his affections should be lavished on the Church of England and not on the Church of Rome. They were sensible of the advantages which would accrue to their own order, if his piety could be turned into a new channel.[670] They saw that it was for his interest to abandon his religion; and they thought that to a man so cruel and so vicious, his own interest would be the sole consideration.[671] The consequence was, that in one of the most critical moments of his life, they made in his favour a great and successful effort; and they not only used all their strength to defeat the bill by which it was proposed to exclude him from the succession, but when the measure was rejected, they presented an address to Charles, congratulating him on the result.[672] When James actually mounted the throne, they continued to display the same spirit. Whether they still hoped for his conversion, or whether, in their eagerness to persecute the dissenters, they overlooked the danger to their own church, is uncertain; but it is one of the most singular and unquestionable facts in our history, that for some time there existed a strict alliance between a Protestant hierarchy and a Popish king.[673] The terrible crimes which were the result of this compact are but too notorious. But what is more worthy of attention is, the circumstance that caused the dissolution of this conspiracy between the crown and the church. The ground of the quarrel was an attempt made by the king to effect, in some degree, a religious toleration. By the celebrated Test and Corporation Acts, it had been ordered, that all persons who were employed by government should be compelled, under a heavy penalty, to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the English church. The offence of James was, that he now issued what was called a Declaration of Indulgence, in which he announced his intention of suspending the execution of these laws.[674] From this moment, the position of the two great parties was entirely changed. The bishops clearly perceived that the statutes which it was thus attempted to abrogate, were highly favourable to their own power; and hence, in their opinion, formed an essential part of the constitution of a Christian country. They had willingly combined with James, while he assisted them in persecuting men who worshipped God in a manner different from themselves.[675] So long as this compact held good, they were indifferent as to matters which they considered to be of minor importance. They looked on in silence, while the king was amassing the materials with which he hoped to turn a free government into an absolute monarchy.[676] They saw Jeffreys and Kirke torturing their fellow-subjects; they saw the gaols crowded with prisoners, and the scaffold streaming with blood.[677] They were well pleased that some of the best and ablest men in the kingdom should be barbarously persecuted; that Baxter should be thrown into prison, and that Howe should be forced into exile. They witnessed with composure the most revolting cruelties, because the victims of them were the opponents of the English church. Although the minds of men were filled with terror and with loathing, the bishops made no complaint. They preserved their loyalty unimpaired, and insisted on the necessity of humble submission to the Lord's anointed.[678] But the moment James proposed to protect against persecution those who were hostile to the church; the moment he announced his intention of breaking down that monopoly of offices and of honours which the bishops had long secured for their own party;--the moment this took place, the hierarchy became alive to the dangers with which the country was threatened from the violence of so arbitrary a prince.[679] The king had laid his hand on the ark, and the guardians of the temple flew to arms. How could they tolerate a prince who would not allow them to persecute their enemies? How could they support a sovereign who sought to favour those who differed from the national church? They soon determined on the line of conduct it behoved them to take. With an almost unanimous voice, they refused to obey the order by which the king commanded them to read in their churches the edict for religious toleration.[680] Nor did they stop there. So great was their enmity against him they had recently cherished, that they actually applied for aid to those very dissenters whom, only a few weeks before, they had hotly persecuted; seeking by magnificent promises to win over to their side men they had hitherto hunted even to the death.[681] The most eminent of the Nonconformists were far from being duped by this sudden affection.[682] But their hatred of Popery, and their fear of the ulterior designs of the king, prevailed over every other consideration; and there arose that singular combination between churchmen and dissenters, which has never since been repeated. This coalition, backed by the general voice of the people, soon overturned the throne, and gave rise to what is justly deemed one of the most important events in the history of England.

[669] _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 142, 143, 153-156; from which
it appears that this movement began about 1681. The clergy, as a
body, are naturally favourable to this doctrine; and the
following passage, published only twelve years ago, will give the
reader an idea of the views that some of them entertain. The Rev.
Mr. Sewell (_Christian Politics_, Lond. 1844, p. 157) says, that
the reigning prince is 'a being armed with supreme physical power
by the hand and permission of Providence; as such, the lord of
our property, the master of our lives, the fountain of honour,
the dispenser of law, before whom each subject must surrender his
will and conform his actions.... Who, when he errs, errs as a
man, and not as a king, and is responsible, not to man, but to
God.' And at p. 111, the same writer informs us that the church,
'with one uniform, unhesitating voice, has proclaimed the duty of
"passive obedience."' See also on this slavish tenet, as upheld
by the church, _Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog._ vol. iv. p. 668;
_Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 523; _Lathbury's Hist. of
Convocation_, p. 228; _Lathbury's Nonjurors_, pp. 50, 135, 197;
and a letter from Nelson, author of the _Fasts and Festivals_, in
_Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iv. p. 216. With good reason,
therefore, did Fox tell the House of Commons, that 'by being a
good churchman, a person might become a bad citizen.' _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxix. p. 1377.

[670] The Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1678, was engaged in an attempt
to convert James; and in a letter to the Bishop of Winchester, he
notices the 'happy consequences' which would result from his
success. See this characteristic letter in _Clarendon Corresp._
vol. ii. pp. 465, 466. See also the motives of the bishops,
candidly but broadly stated, in Mr. Wilson's valuable work, _Life
of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 74.

[671] In a high-church pamphlet, published in 1682, against the Bill of
Exclusion, the cause of James is advocated; but the inconvenience
he would suffer by remaining a Catholic is strongly insisted
upon. See the wily remarks in _Somers Tracts_, vol. viii.
pp. 258, 259.

[672] _Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog._ vol. iv. p. 665. On their
eagerness against the bill, see _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_,
vol. v. p. 181; _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. ii. p. 246; _Somers
Tracts_, vol. x. pp. 216, 253; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol.
iii. p. 353; _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol.
ii. p. 431.

[673] At the accession of James II. 'the pulpits throughout England
resounded with thanksgivings; and a numerous set of addresses
flattered his Majesty, in the strongest expressions, with
assurances of unshaken loyalty and obedience, without limitation
or reserve.' _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 2. See
also _Calamy's Life_, vol. i. p. 118.

[674] On the 18th March, 1687, the king announced to the Privy Council
that he had determined 'to grant, by his own authority, entire
liberty of conscience to all his subjects. On the 4th April
appeared the memorable Declaration of Indulgence.' _Macaulay's
Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 211; and see _Life of James II._,
edited by Clarke, vol. ii, p. 112. There is a summary of the
Declaration in _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. pp. 30,
31. As to the second Declaration, see _Macaulay_, vol. ii. pp.
344, 345; _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 170.

[675] It was in the autumn of 1685, that the clergy and the government
persecuted the dissenters with the greatest virulence. See
_Macaulay's Hist._ vol. i. pp. 667, 668. Compare _Neal's Hist. of
the Puritans_, vol. v. pp. 4-12, with a letter from Lord
Clarendon, dated 21st December 1685, in _Clarendon Correspond._
vol. i. p. 192. It is said (_Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. pp.
175, 176), that on many occasions the church party made use of
the ecclesiastical courts to extort money from the
Nonconformists; and for confirmation of this, see _Mackintosh's
Revolution of 1688_, pp. 173, 640.

[676] It appears from the accounts in the War Office, that James, even
in the first year of his reign, had a standing army of nearly
20,000 men. _Mackintosh's Revolution_, pp. 3, 77, 688: 'A
disciplined army of about 20,000 men was, for the first time,
established during peace in this island.' As this naturally
inspired great alarm, the king gave out that the number did not
exceed 15,000. _Life of James II._, edited by Clarke, vol. ii.
pp. 52, 57.

[677] Compare _Burnet_, vol. iii. pp. 55-62, with _Dalrymple's Memoirs_,
vol. i. part i. book ii. pp. 198-203. Ken, so far as I remember,
was the only one who set his face against these atrocities. He
was a very humane man, and did what he could to mitigate the
sufferings of the prisoners in Monmouth's rebellion; but it is
not mentioned that he attempted to stop the persecutions directed
against the innocent Nonconformists, who were barbarously
punished, not because they rebelled, but because they dissented.
_Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. i. p. 298.

[678] 'From the conduct of the clergy in this and the former reign, it
is quite clear, that if the king had been a Protestant, of the
profession of the Church of England, or even a quiet, submissive
Catholic, without any zeal for his religion,--confining himself
solely to matters of state, and having a proper respect for
church property,--he might have plundered other Protestants at
his pleasure, and have trampled upon the liberties of his
country, without the danger of resistance.' _Wilson's Life of De
Foe_, vol. i. p. 136. Or, as Fox says, 'Thus, as long as James
contented himself with absolute power in civil matters, and did
not make use of his authority against the church, everything went
smooth and easy.' _Fox's Hist. of James II._, p. 165.

[679] Compare _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 58, with _Life
of James II._, edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 70; where it is well
said, that the clergy of the Church of England 'had preached
prerogative and the sovereign power to the highest pitch, while
it was favourable to them; but when they apprehended the least
danger from it, they cried out as soon as the shoe pinched,
though it was of their own putting on.' See also pp. 113, 164.
What their servility was to the crown, while they thought that
the crown was with them, may be estimated from the statement of
De Foe: 'I have heard it publicly preached, that if the king
commanded my head, and sent his messengers to fetch it, I was
bound to submit, and stand while it was cut off.' _Wilson's Life
of De Foe_, vol. i. p. 118.

[680] D'Oyly (_Life of Sancroft_, p. 164) says, 'On the whole, it is
supposed that not more than 200 out of the whole body of clergy,
estimated at 10,000, complied with the king's requisition.' 'Only
seven obeyed in the city of London, and not above 200 all England
over.' _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 218. On Sunday, 20th May
1688, Lord Clarendon writes: 'I was at St. James's church; in the
evening I had an account that the Declaration was read only in
four churches in the city and liberties.' _Clarendon Corresp._
vol. ii. pp. 172, 173. When this conduct became known, it was
observed that the church 'supported the crown only so long as she
dictated to it; and became rebellious at the moment when she was
forbidden to be intolerant.' _Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688_,
p. 255.

[681] The first advances were made when the Declaration of the king in
favour of 'liberty of conscience' was on the point of being
issued, and immediately after the proceedings at Oxford had shown
his determination to break down the monopoly of offices possessed
by the church. 'The clergy at the same time prayed and entreated
the dissenters to appear on their side, and stand by the
Establishment, making large promises of favour and brotherly
affection if ever they came into power.' _Neal's Hist. of the
Puritans_, vol. v. p. 29. See also, at pp. 58, 59, the
conciliating letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury after the
Declaration. 'Such,' says Neal, 'such was the language of the
church in distress!' Compare _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, p. 153;
_Ellis's Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 63; _Ellis's Orig. Letters_,
2nd series, vol. iv. p. 117; _Mackintosh's Revolution_, p. 286;
_Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 132; _Macaulay's Hist. of England_,
vol. ii. pp. 218, 219.

[682] See the indignant language of De Foe _Wilson's Life of De Foe_,
vol. i. pp. 130, 131, 133, 134; and a _Letter from a Dissenter to
the Petitioning Bishops_, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. pp. 117,
118. The writer says: 'Pray, my lords, let me ask you a question.
Suppose the king, instead of his Declaration, had issued out a
proclamation, commanding justices of the peace, constables,
informers, and all other persons, to be more rigorous, if
possible, against dissenters, and do their utmost to the perfect
quelling and destroying them; and had ordered this to be read in
your churches in the time of divine service,--would you have made
any scruple of that?'

Thus it was, that the proximate cause of that great revolution which cost James his crown, was the publication by the king of an edict of religious toleration, and the consequent indignation of the clergy at seeing so audacious an act performed by a Christian prince. It is true, that if other things had not conspired, this alone could never have effected so great a change. But it was the immediate cause of it, because it was the cause of the schism between the church and the throne, and of the alliance between the church and the dissenters. This is a fact never to be forgotten. We ought never to forget, that the first and only time the Church of England has made war upon the crown, was when the crown had declared its intention of tolerating, and in some degree protecting, the rival religions of the country.[683] There is no doubt that the Declaration which was then issued was illegal, and that it was conceived in an insidious spirit. But declarations equally illegal, equally insidious, and much more tyrannical, had on other occasions been made by the sovereign, without exciting the anger of the clergy.[684] These are things which it is good for us to ponder. These are lessons of inestimable value for those to whom it is given, not, indeed, to direct, but in some degree to modify, the march of public opinion. As to the people in general, it is impossible for them to exaggerate the obligations which they and all of us owe to the Revolution of 1688. But let them take heed that superstition does not mingle with their gratitude. Let them admire that majestic edifice of national liberty, which stands alone in Europe like a beacon in the midst of the waters; but let them not think that they owe anything to men who, in contributing to its erection, sought the gratification of their own selfishness, and the consolidation of that spiritual power which by it they fondly hoped to secure.

[683] That this was the immediate cause, so far as the head of the
church-party was concerned, is unblushingly avowed by the
biographer and defender of the then Archbishop of Canterbury.
'The order published from the king in council, May 4th, 1688,
directing the archbishops and bishops to send to the clergy in
their respective dioceses the Declaration for Liberty of
Conscience, to be publicly read in all the churches of the
kingdom, made it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to
abstain any longer from engaging in an open and declared
opposition to the counsels under which the king was now unhappily
acting.' _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 151.

[684] Some writers have attempted to defend the clergy, on the ground
that they thought it illegal to publish a declaration of this
kind. But such a defence is incompatible with their doctrine of
passive obedience; and besides this, it was contradicted by
precedents and decisions of their own. Jeremy Taylor, in his
_Ductor Dubitantium_, their great work of authority, asserts that
'the unlawful proclamations and edicts of a true prince may be
published by the clergy in their several charges.' _Heber's Life
of Taylor_, p. cclxxxvi. Heber adds: 'I wish I had not found this
in Taylor; and I thank Heaven that the principle was not adopted
by the English clergy in 1687.' But why was it not adopted in
1687? Simply because in 1687 the king attacked the monopoly
enjoyed by the clergy; and therefore the clergy forgot their
principle, that they might smite their enemy. And what makes the
motives of this change still more palpable is, that as late as
1681, the Archbishop of Canterbury caused the clergy to read a
Declaration issued by Charles II.; and that in a revised copy of
the Liturgy he had also added to the rubric to the same effect.
See _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 56. Compare
_Calamy's Own Life_, vol. i. pp. 199, 200; _Mackintosh's
Revolution_, pp. 242, 243; _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 152;
_King's Life of Locke_, vol. i. p. 259; _Life of James II._,
edit. Clarke, vol. ii. p. 156.

It is, indeed, difficult to conceive the full amount of the impetus given to English civilization by the expulsion of the House of Stuart. Among the most immediate results, may be mentioned the limits that were set to the royal prerogative;[685] the important steps that were taken towards religious toleration;[686] the remarkable and permanent improvement in the administration of justice;[687] the final abolition of a censorship over the press;[688] and, what has not excited sufficient attention, the rapid growth, of those great monetary interests by which, as we shall hereafter see, the prejudices of the superstitious classes have in no small degree been counterbalanced.[689] These are the main characteristics of the reign of William III.; a reign often aspersed, and little understood,[690] but of which it may be truly said, that, taking its difficulties into due consideration, it is the most successful and the most splendid recorded in the history of any country. But these topics rather belong to the subsequent volumes of this work; and at present we are only concerned in tracing the effects of the Revolution upon that ecclesiastical power by which it was immediately brought about.

[685] They are summed up in a popular pamphlet ascribed to Lord Somers,
and printed in _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. pp. 263, 264. The
diminished respect felt for the crown after 1688 is judiciously
noticed in _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 9.

[686] The Toleration Act was passed in 1689. A copy of it is given by
the historians of the dissenters, who call it their Magna Charta.
See _Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters_, vol. i. pp.
187-198. The historian of the Catholics equally allows that the
reign of William III. is 'the era from which their enjoyment of
religious toleration may be dated.' _Butler's Memoirs of the
Catholics_, vol. iii. pp. 122, 139. This is said by Mr. Butler in
regard, not to the Protestant dissenters, but to the Catholics;
so that we have the admission of both parties as to the
importance of this epoch. Even the shameful act forced upon
William in 1700 was, as Mr. Hallam truly says, evaded in its
worst provisions. _Const. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.

[687] _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. pp. 102, 355, and his
_Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. pp. 95, 116, 118, 136, 142, 143. See
also _Barrington's Observations on the Statutes_, pp. 23, 102,
558; and even _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. i. p. 236, vol.
ix. p. 243; an unwary concession from such an enemy to popular
liberty.

[688] This was effected before the end of the seventeenth century. See
_Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. pp. 121, 122. Compare Lord
Camden on Literary Property, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 994;
_Hunt's History of Newspapers_, vol. i. pp. 161, 162; _Somers
Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 555; and a more detailed account in
_Macaulay's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp. 348 seq. 540 seq.;
though Mr. Macaulay in ascribing, p. 353, so much to the
influence of Blount, has not, I think, sufficiently dwelt on the
operation of larger and more general causes.

[689] Mr. Cooke (_Hist. of Party_, vol. ii. pp. 5, 148) notices this
remarkable rise of the monied classes early in the eighteenth
century; but he merely observes, that the consequence was to
strengthen the Whig party. Though this is undoubtedly true, the
ultimate results, as I shall hereafter point out, were far more
important than any political or even economical consequences. It
was not till 1694 that the Bank of England was established; and
this great institution at first met with the warmest opposition
from the admirers of old times, who thought it must be useless
because their ancestors did without it. See the curious details
in _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. iii. pp. 6-9; and on
the connexion between it and the Whigs, see _Macaulay's Hist. of
England_, vol. iv. p. 502. There is a short account of its origin
and progress in _Smith's Wealth of Nations_, book ii. chap. ii.
p. 130.

[690] Frequently misunderstood, even by those who praise it. Thus, for
instance, a living writer informs us that, 'great as have been
the obligations which England owes, in many different views, to
the Revolution, it is beyond all question the greatest, that it
brought in a sovereign instructed in the art of overcoming the
ignorant impatience of taxation which is the invariable
characteristic of free communities; and thus gave it a government
capable of turning to the best account the activity and energy of
its inhabitants, at the same time that it had the means given it
of maintaining their independence.' _Alison's Hist. of Europe_,
vol. vii. p. 5. This, I should suppose, is the most eccentric
eulogy ever passed on William III.

Scarcely had the clergy succeeded in expelling James, when the greater number of them repented of their own act.[691] Indeed, even before he was driven from the country, several things had occurred to make them doubt the policy of the course they were pursuing. During the last few weeks that he was allowed to reign, he had shown symptoms of increasing respect for the English hierarchy. The archbishopric of York had so long been vacant, as to cause a belief that it was the intention of the crown either to appoint to it a Catholic, or else to seize its revenues.[692] But James, to the delight of the church, now filled up this important office by nominating Lamplugh, who was well known to be a stanch churchman and a zealous defender of episcopal privileges.[693] Just before this, the king also rescinded the order by which the Bishop of London had been suspended from the exercise of his functions.[694] To the bishops in general he made great promises of future favour;[695] some of them, it was said, were to be called to his privy council; and, in the meantime, he cancelled that ecclesiastical commission which, by limiting their power, had excited their anger.[696] Besides this, there occurred some other circumstances which the clergy now had to consider. It was rumoured, and it was generally believed, that William was no great admirer of ecclesiastical establishments; and that, being a friend to toleration, he was more likely to diminish the power than increase the privileges of the English hierarchy.[697] It was also known that he favoured the Presbyterians, whom the Church not unreasonably regarded as her bitterest enemies.[698] And when, in addition to all this, William, on mere grounds of expediency, actually abolished episcopacy in Scotland, it became evident that, by thus repudiating the doctrine of divine right, he had directed a great blow against those opinions on which, in England, ecclesiastical authority was based.[699]

[691] On their sudden repentance, and on the causes of it, see _Neal's
Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 71.

[692] _Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688_, pp. 81, 191. After the death of
Archbishop Dolben, 'the see was kept vacant for more than two
years,' and Cartwright hoped to obtain it. See _Cartwright's
Diary_, by Hunter, 4to, 1843, p. 45. In the same way, we find
from a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (_Clarendon
Corresp._ vol. i. p. 409) that in May 1686 uneasiness was felt
because the Irish bishoprics were not filled up. Compare
_Burnet_, vol. iii. p. 103. Carwithen (_Hist. of the Ch. of
England_, vol. ii. p. 492) says, that James had intended to raise
the Jesuit Petre to the archbishopric.

[693] Lamplugh was translated from the bishopric of Exeter to the
archbishopric of York in November 1688. See the contemporary
account in the _Ellis Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 303, and
_Ellis's Original Letters_, second series, vol. iv. p. 151. He
was a most orthodox man; and not only hated the dissenters, but
showed his zeal by persecuting them. _Wilson's Life of De Foe_,
vol. i. pp. 94, 95. Compare an anecdote of him in _Baxter's Life
of Himself_, folio, 1696, part iii. pp. 178, 179.

[694] In a letter, dated London, 29th September 1688 (_Ellis_,
_Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 224, and _Ellis's Orig. Letters_,
second series, vol. iv. p. 128), it is stated, that the Bishop of
London's 'suspension is taken off.' See also _Somers Tracts_,
vol. ix. p. 215. This is the more observable, because, according
to Johnstone, there was an intention, in December 1687, of
depriving him. _Mackintosh's Revolution_, pp. 211, 212.

[695] This disposition on the part of the king again to favour the
bishops and the church became a matter of common remark in
September 1688. See _Ellis Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 201, 202,
209, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227; _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii.
pp. 188, 192. Sir John Reresby, who was then in London, writes,
in October 1688, that James 'begins again to court the Church of
England.' _Reresby's Memoirs_, p. 357. Indeed, the difficulties
of James were now becoming so great, that he had hardly any
choice.

[696] _Ellis Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 211; _Life of James II._, edit.
Clarke, vol. ii. p. 189.

[697] In November 1687, it was said that he wished the dissenters to
have 'entire liberty for the full exercise of their religion,'
and to be freed 'from the severity of the penal laws.' _Somers
Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 184. This is the earliest distinct notice I
have seen of William's desire to deprive the church of the power
of punishing nonconformists; but after he arrived in England his
intentions became obvious. In January 1688-9 the friends of the
church complained 'that the countenance he gave the dissenters
gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of England.'
_Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 238. Compare _Neal's Hist. of
the Puritans_, vol. v. p. 81; _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the
Dissenters_, vol. ii. p. 318; _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, pp.
156, 157; _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. p. 341, vol. xi. p. 108.
Burnet, in his summary of the character of William, observes
that, 'his indifference as to the forms of church-government, and
his being zealous for toleration, together with his cold
behaviour towards the clergy, gave them generally very ill
impressions of him.' _Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 550. At p. 192 the
bishop says, 'He took no notice of the clergy, and seemed to have
little concern in the matters of the church or of religion.'

[698] Sir John Reresby, who was an attentive observer of what was going
on, says, 'The prince, upon his arrival, seemed more inclined to
the Presbyterians than to the members of the church; which
startled the clergy.' _Reresby's Memoirs_, p. 375: see also pp.
399, 405: 'the church-people hated the Dutch, and had rather turn
Papists than receive the Presbyterians among them.' Compare
_Evelyn's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 281: 'the Presbyterians, our new
governors.'

[699] Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 50) says of the clergy in 1689:
'The king was suspected by them, by reason of the favour showed
to dissenters; but chiefly for his abolishing episcopacy in
Scotland, and his consenting to the setting up presbytery there.'
On this great change, compare _Bogue and Bennett's History of
Dissenters_, vol. ii. pp. 379-384; _Barry's Hist. of the Orkney
Islands_, p. 257; _Neal's Hist. of the Puritans_, vol. v. pp. 85,
86: and on the indignation felt by the Anglican clergy at the
abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, see a contemporary pamphlet
in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. pp. 510, 516, where fears are
expressed lest William should effect a similar measure in
England. The writer very fairly observes, p. 522, 'For if we give
up the _jus divinum_ of episcopacy in Scotland, we must yield it
also as to England. And then we are wholly precarious.' See also
vol. x. pp. 341, 503; _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, pp. 277,
278; and _Macpherson's Original Papers_, vol. i. p. 509.

While these things were agitating the public mind, the eyes of men were naturally turned upon the bishops, who, though they had lost much of their former power, were still respected by a large majority of the people as the guardians of the national religion. But at this critical moment they were so blinded, either by their ambition or by their prejudices, that they adopted a course which of all others was the most injurious to their reputation. They made a sudden attempt to reverse that political movement of which they were themselves the principal originators. Their conduct on this occasion amply confirms that account of their motives which I have already given. If, in aiding those preliminary measures by which the Revolution was effected, they had been moved by a desire of relieving the nation from despotism, they would have eagerly welcomed that great man at whose approach the despot took to flight. This is what the clergy would have done, if they had loved their country better than they loved their order. But they pursued a precisely opposite course; because they preferred the petty interests of their own class to the welfare of the great body of the people, and because they would rather that the country should be oppressed than that the church should be humbled. Nearly the whole of the bishops and clergy had, only a few weeks before, braved the anger of their sovereign sooner than read in their churches an edict for religious toleration, and seven of the most influential of the episcopal order had, in the same cause, willingly submitted to the risk of a public trial before the ordinary tribunals of the land. This bold course they professed to have adopted, not because they disliked toleration, but because they hated tyranny. And yet when William arrived in England, and when James stole away from the kingdom like a thief in the night, this same ecclesiastical profession pressed forward to reject that great man, who, without striking a blow, had by his mere presence saved the country from the slavery with which it was threatened. We shall not easily find in modern history another instance of such gross inconsistency, or rather, let us say, of such selfish and reckless ambition. For this change of plan, far from being concealed, was so openly displayed, and the causes of it were so obvious, that the scandal was laid bare before the whole country. Within the space of a few weeks the apostasy was consummated. The first in the field was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, anxious to retain his office, had promised to wait upon William. But when he saw the direction things were likely to take, he withdrew his promise, and would not recognize a prince who showed such indifference to the sacred order.[700] Indeed, so great was his anger, that he sharply rebuked his chaplain for presuming to pray for William and Mary, although they had been proclaimed with the full consent of the nation, and although the crown had been delivered to them by the solemn and deliberate act of a public convention of the estates of the realm.[701] While such was the conduct of the primate of England, his brethren were not wanting to him in this great emergency of their common fate. The oath of allegiance was refused not only by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but also by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, by the Bishop of Chester, by the Bishop of Chichester, by the Bishop of Ely, by the Bishop of Gloucester, by the Bishop of Norwich, by the Bishop of Peterborough, and by the Bishop of Worcester.[702] As to the inferior clergy, our information is less precise; but it is said that about six hundred of them imitated their superiors in declining to recognize for their king him whom the country had elected.[703] The other members of this turbulent faction were unwilling, by so bold a measure, to incur that deprivation of their livings with which William would probably have visited them. They, therefore, preferred a safer and more inglorious opposition, by which they could embarrass the government without injuring themselves, and could gain the reputation of orthodoxy without incurring the pains of martyrdom.

[700] _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 340. Burnet, who had the best
means of information, says, 'Though he had once agreed to it, yet
would not come.' Lord Clarendon, in his _Diary_, 3rd January
1688-9, writes, that the archbishop expressed to him on that day
his determination neither to call on William nor even to send to
him (_Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 240); and this
resolution appears to have been taken deliberately: 'he was
careful not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave me.'

[701] See the account given by his chaplain Wharton, in _D'Oyly's Life
of Sancroft_, p. 259, where it is stated that the archbishop was
very irate ('vehementer excandescens'), and told him, 'that he
must thenceforward desist from offering prayers for the new king
and queen, or else from performing the duties of his chapel.' See
also _Birch's Life of Tillotson_, p. 144. Thus too the Bishop of
Norwich declared 'that he would not pray for King William and
Queen Mary.' _Clarendon Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 263. The same
spirit was universal among the high-church clergy; and when
public prayers were offered up for the king and queen, they were
called by the nonjurors 'the immoral prayers,' and this became a
technical and recognized expression. _Life of Ken, by a Layman_,
vol. ii. pp. 648, 650.

[702] _Lathbury's Hist. of the Nonjurors_, p. 45; _D'Oyly's Sancroft_,
p. 260.

[703] Nairne's Papers mention, in 1693, 'six hundred ministers who have
not taken the oaths.' _Macpherson's Orig. Papers_, vol. i. p. 459.

The effect which all this produced on the temper of the nation may be easily imagined. The question was now narrowed to an issue which every plain man could at once understand. On the one side, there was an overwhelming majority of the clergy.[704] On the other side there was all the intellect of England, and all her dearest interests. The mere fact that such an opposition could exist without kindling a civil war, showed how the growing intelligence of the people had weakened the authority of the ecclesiastical profession. Besides this, the opposition was not only futile, but it was also injurious to the class that made it.[705] For it was now seen that the clergy only cared for the people as long as the people cared for them. The violence with which these angry men[706] set themselves against the interests of the nation clearly proved the selfishness of that zeal against James, of which they had formerly made so great a merit. They continued to hope for his return, to intrigue for him, and in some instances to correspond with him; although they well knew that his presence would cause a civil war, and that he was so generally hated that he dared not show his face in England unless protected by the troops of a foreign and hostile power.[707]

[704] The only friends William possessed among the clergy were the
low-churchmen, as they were afterwards called; and it is supposed
that they formed barely a tenth of the entire body in 1689: 'We
should probably overrate their numerical strength, if we were to
estimate them at a tenth part of the priesthood.' _Macaulay's
Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 74.

[705] The earliest allusion I have seen to the injury the clergy were
inflicting on the church, by their conduct after the arrival of
William, is in _Evelyn's Diary_, vol. iii. p. 273,--a curious
passage, gently hinting at the 'wonder of many,' at the behaviour
of 'the Archbishop of Canterbury, and some of the rest.' With
Evelyn, who loved the church, this was an unpleasant subject; but
others were less scrupulous; and in parliament, in particular,
men did not refrain from expressing what must have been the
sentiments of every impartial observer. In the celebrated debate,
in January 1688-9, when the throne was declared vacant, Pollexfen
said: 'Some of the clergy are for one thing, some for another; I
think they scarce know what they would have.' _Parl. Hist._ vol.
v. p. 55. In February, Maynard, one of the most influential
members, indignantly said: 'I think the clergy are out of their
wits; and I believe, if the clergy should have their wills, few
or none of us should be here again.' _Ibid._ vol. v. p. 129. The
clergy were themselves bitterly sensible of the general
hostility; and one of them writes, in 1694: 'The people of
England, who were so excessively enamoured of us when the bishops
were in the tower, that they hardly forbore to worship us, are
now, I wish I could say but cool and very indifferent towards
us.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 525. The growing indignation
against the clergy, caused by their obvious desire to sacrifice
the country to the interests of the church, is strikingly
displayed in a letter from Sir Roland Gwyne, written in 1710, and
printed in _Macpherson's Orig. Papers_, vol. ii. p. 207.

[706] They are so called by Burnet: 'these angry men, that had raised
this flame in the church.' _Own Time_, vol. v. p. 17.

[707] Indeed, the high-church party, in their publications, distinctly
intimated, that if James were not recalled, he should be
reinstated by a foreign army. _Somers Tracts_, vol. x. pp. 377,
405, 457, 462. Compare _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p.
138. Burnet (_Own Time_, vol. iv. pp. 361, 362) says, they were
'confounded' when they heard of the peace of 1697; and Calamy
(_Life of Himself_, vol. ii. p. 322) makes the same remark on the
death of Louis XIV.: 'It very much puzzled the counsels of the
Jacobites, and spoiled their projects.'

But this was not the whole of the damage which, in those anxious times, the church inflicted upon herself. When the bishops refused to take the oaths to the new government, measures were adopted to remove them from their sees; and William did not hesitate to eject by force of law the Archbishop of Canterbury and five of his brethren.[708] The prelates, smarting under the insult, were goaded into measures of unusual activity. They loudly proclaimed that the powers of the church, which had long been waning, were now extinct.[709] They denied the right of the legislature to pass a law against them. They denied the right of the sovereign to put that law into execution.[710] They not only continued to give themselves the title of bishops, but they made arrangements to perpetuate the schism which their own violence had created. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as he insisted upon being called, made a formal renunciation of his imaginary right into the hands of Lloyd,[711] who still supposed himself to be Bishop of Norwich, although William had recently expelled him from his see. The scheme of these turbulent priests was then communicated to James, who willingly supported their plan for establishing a permanent feud in the English church.[712] The result of this conspiracy between the rebellious prelates and the pretended king, was the appointment of a series of men who gave themselves out as forming the real episcopacy, and who received the homage of every one who preferred the claims of the church to the authority of the state.[713] This mock succession of imaginary bishops continued for more than a century;[714] and, by dividing the allegiance of churchmen, lessened the power of the church.[715] In several instances, the unseemly spectacle was exhibited of two bishops for the same place; one nominated by the spiritual power, the other nominated by the temporal power. Those who considered the church as superior to the state, of course attached themselves to the spurious bishops; while the appointments of William were acknowledged by that rapidly increasing party, who preferred secular advantages to ecclesiastical theories.[716]

[708] _D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft_, p. 266; _Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog._
iv. p. 683.

[709] Sancroft, on his death-bed, in 1693, prayed for the 'poor
suffering church, which, by this revolution, is almost
destroyed.' _D'Oyly's Sancroft_, p. 311; and _Macpherson's
Original Papers_, vol. i. p. 280. See also _Remarks_, published
in 1693 (_Somers Tracts_, vol. x. p. 504) where it is said, that
William had, 'as far as possible he could, dissolved the true old
Church of England;' and that, 'in a moment of time, her face was
so altered, as scarce to be known again.'

[710] 'Ken, though deprived, never admitted in the secular power the
right of deprivation; and it is well known that he studiously
retained his title.' _Bowles's Life of Ken_, vol. ii. p. 225.
Thus, too, Lloyd, so late as 1703, signs himself, 'Wm. Nor.'
(_Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 720); though, having
been legally deprived, he was no more bishop of Norwich than he
was emperor of China. And Sancroft, in the last of his letters,
published by D'Oyly (_Life_, p. 303), signs 'W. C.'

[711] The strange document, by which he appointed Dr. Lloyd his
vicar-general, is printed in Latin, in _D'Oyly's Sancroft_, p.
295, and in English, in _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii.
p. 640.

[712] _Lathbury's Hist. of the Nonjurors_, p. 96; _Life of Ken, by a
Layman_, vol. ii. pp. 641, 642.

[713] The struggle between James and William was essentially a struggle
between ecclesiastical interests and secular interests; and this
was seen as early as 1689, when, as we learn from Burnet, who was
much more a politician than a priest, 'the church was as the word
given out by the Jacobite party, under which they might more
safely shelter themselves,' _Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 57. See also,
on this identification of the Jacobites with the church, _Birch's
Life of Tillotson_, p. 222; and the argument of Dodwell, pp. 246,
247, in 1691. Dodwell justly observed, that the successors of the
deprived bishops were schismatical, in a spiritual point of view;
and that, 'if they should pretend to lay authority as sufficient,
they would overthrow the being of a church as a society.' The
bishops appointed by William were evidently intruders, according
to church principles; and as their intrusion could only be
justified according to lay principles, it followed that the
success of the intrusion was the triumph of lay principles over
church ones. Hence it is, that the fundamental idea of the
rebellion of 1688, is the elevation of the state above the
church; just as the fundamental idea of the rebellion of 1642, is
the elevation of the commons above the crown.

[714] According to Dr. D'Oyly (_Life of Sancroft_, p. 297), Dr. Gordon
'died in London, November 1779, and is supposed to have been the
last nonjuring bishop.' In _Short's Hist. of the Church of
England_, p. 583, Lond. 1847, it is also stated, that 'this
schism continued till 1779.' But Mr. Hallam (_Const. Hist._ vol.
ii. p. 404) has pointed out a passage in the _State Trials_,
which proves that another of the bishops, named Cartwright, was
still living at Shrewsbury in 1793; and Mr. Lathbury (_Hist. of
the Nonjurors_, Lond. 1845, p. 412) says, that he died in 1799.

[715] Calamy (_Own Life_, vol. i. pp. 328-330, vol. ii. pp. 338, 357,
358) gives an interesting account of these feuds within the
church, consequent upon the revolution. Indeed, their bitterness
was such, that it was necessary to coin names for the two
parties; and, between 1700 and 1702, we, for the first time, hear
the expressions, high-church and low-church. See _Burnet's Own
Time_, vol. iv. p. 447, vol. v. p. 70. Compare _Wilson's Life of
De Foe_, vol. ii. p. 26; _Parl. Hist._ vol. vi. pp. 162, 498. On
the difference between them, as it was understood in the reign of
Anne, see _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 532, and _Macpherson's
Orig. Papers_, vol. ii. p. 166. On the dawning schism in the
church, see the speech of Sir T. Littleton, in 1690, _Parl.
Hist._ vol. v. p. 593. Hence many complained that they could not
tell which was the real church. See curious evidence of this
perplexity in _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. pp. 477-481.

[716] The alternative is fairly stated in a letter written in 1691
(_Life of Ken, by a Layman_, vol. ii. p. 599): 'If the deprived
bishop be the only lawful bishop, then the people and clergy of
his diocese are bound to own him, and no other; then all the
bishops who own the authority of a new archbishop, and live in
communion with him, are schismatics; and the clergy who live in
communion with schismatical bishops are schismatics themselves;
and the whole Church of England now established by law is
schismatical.'

Such were some of the events which, at the end of the seventeenth century, widened the breach that had long existed between the interests of the nation and the interests of the clergy.[717] There was also another circumstance which considerably increased this alienation. Many of the English clergy, though they retained their affection for James, did not choose to brave the anger of the government, or risk the loss of their livings. To avoid this, and to reconcile their conscience with their interest, they availed themselves of a supposed distinction between a king by right and a king in possession.[718] The consequence was, that while with their lips they took an oath of allegiance to William, they in their hearts paid homage to James; and, while they prayed for one king in their churches, they were bound to pray for another in their closets.[719] By this wretched subterfuge, a large body of the clergy were at once turned into concealed rebels; and we have it on the authority of a contemporary bishop, that the prevarication of which these men were notoriously guilty was a still further aid to that scepticism, the progress of which he bitterly deplores.[720]

[717] Lord Mahon (_Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 245) notices, what he
terms, the 'unnatural alienation between the church and state,'
consequent upon the Revolution of 1688: and on the diminished
power of the church caused by the same event, see _Phillimore's
Mem. of Lyttleton_, vol. i. p. 352.

[718] The old absurdity of _de facto_ and _de jure_; as if any man could
retain a right to a throne which the people would not allow him
to occupy!

[719] In 1715, Leslie, by far the ablest of them, thus states their
position: 'You are now driven to this dilemma,--swear, or swear
not; if you swear, you kill the soul; and if you swear not, you
kill the body, in the loss of your bread.' _Somers Tracts_, vol.
xiii. p. 686. The result of the dilemma was what might have been
expected; and a high-church writer, in the reign of William III.,
boasts (_Somers Tracts_, vol. x. p. 344) that the oaths taken by
the clergy were no protection to the government: 'not that the
government receives any security from oaths.' Whiston, too, says
in his _Memoirs_, p. 30: 'Yet do I too well remember that the far
greatest part of those of the university and clergy that then
took the oaths to the government, seemed to me to take them with
a doubtful conscience, if not against its dictates.' This was in
1693; and, in 1710, we find: 'There are now circumstances to make
us believe that the Jacobite clergy have the like instructions to
take any oaths, to get possession of a pulpit for the service of
the cause, to bellow out the hereditary right, the pretended
title of the Pretender.' _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 641. A
knowledge of this fact, or, at all events, a belief of it, was
soon diffused; and, eight years later, the celebrated Lord.
Cowper, then lord chancellor, said, in the House of Lords, 'that
his majesty had also the best part of the landed, and all the
trading interest; _that as to the clergy, he would say
nothing--but that it was notorious that the majority of the
populace had been poisoned, and that the poison was not yet quite
expelled_.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. vii. p. 541; also given, but not
quite _verbatim_, in _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 365.

[720] 'The prevarication of too many in so sacred a matter contributed
not a little to fortify the growing atheism of the present age.'
_Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. p. 381. See also, to the same
effect, vol. iv. pp. 176, 177; and a remarkable passage in
_Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 573. I need hardly add, that it was
then usual to confuse scepticism with atheism; though the two
things are not only different, but incompatible. In regard to the
quibble respecting _de facto_ and _de jure_, and the use made of
it by the clergy, the reader should compare _Wilson's Mem. of De
Foe_, vol. i. pp. 171, 172; _Somers Tracts_, vol. ix. p. 531;
_Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 409; and a letter from the
Rev. Francis Jessop, written in 1717, in _Nichols's Lit.
Illustrations_, vol. iv. pp. 120-123.