The Declaration of Indulgence CHAPTER I FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY OF the many problems which faced the restored monarch in 1660, none was more complex or more difficult of solution than the religious settlement of England. Every monarch since the Reformation had found, some of them to their cost, that this question demanded deliberation, tact and insight. The successors of Charles II had still to seek for a solution ; nay, even to-day the problem remains. Elizabeth had, with a certain amount of success, attempted some degree of comprehension of dissenters within the national church, thereby diverting attention largely to the struggle between the orthodox and the heretical. During her reign the twin movements towards scepticism and toleration made considerable progress: though many paid with their life's blood for their religious opinions, few ventured to assert that their religion was the reason for their condemnation. The limits of the church had been extended, and the language of the Prayer-Book purposely made obscure, that as many as possible might be folded within the State church. The immediate successors of the great queen reversed her enlightened policy. As a theorist, indeed, James I holds a high place among1 the philosophers who worked for freedom of thought, but in practice, political motives, reinforced by his native stubbornness, led him to adopt towards Protestant dissenters a tone far from conciliatory. 'If this be all your party hath to say,' he exclaimed at the Hampton Court Conference, I will make them conform themselves, or else will harry them out of the land.' Under Charles I the threat of James was actually carried into execution. Toleration was dismissed as not only unsafe for the State, but as morally wrong; not even foreign Protestants congregated in England were allowed to worship in peace. Then had come the mighty Puritan revolution in which religious feeling played so large a part, the execution of the Sovereign and the overthrow of the 1 In the pamphlet warfare of the restoration period, James is frequently quoted on behalf of religious toleration. B Anglican church. The attempt to establish Presbyterianism failed, perhaps fortunately so, for Milton spoke truly when he said, 'New Presbyter is but old priest writ large.' Almost all forms of worship were now openly practised and tolerated provided that the book of Common Prayer was not used. Cromwell himself, a sincere advocate of religious liberty, would have tolerated even the Prayer-Book: 'for, Brethren,' he said, 'in things of the mind we look for no compulsion but that of light and reason.' Political necessity compelled him to bow to the judgment of the majority and to forbid large assemblies of Anglicans. But if the religious difficulty was at least a hundred years old, it had never been so overwhelming as at the Restoration. Most of the Episcopalians, who had suffered with and for their murdered Sovereign, looked to his more fortunate son to take signal vengeance for their sufferings. There was no doubt that those who, under the Commonwealth, had lost livings, must be restored. The Presbyterians, who, if they could not drink the king's health, had helped to pray him to his throne,' had tasted the delights of more than toleration. They had done more than pray; they had given active aid towards the re-establishment of the exiled dynasty.3 For this and other reasons they looked for liberty at least, if not for comprehension within the national church. Split into several divisions during the late civil struggles, they represented many and varied shades of opinion. Some were quite as zealous for uniformity as any Episcopalian: most denounced toleration to Independents as not to be thought of. The Independents were remarkable as being among the first advocates of toleration. They refused to receive into communion any who had not given signs of possessing strong religious convictions: they demanded the free election of ministers by each congregation. They had no hope, or even desire, of comprehension, but looked for some measure of toleration. The Baptists, 'falsely called Anabaptists,' differed5 little from the Independents except as regards the immersion of 2 Conformist's Plea, p. 37 3' Charles II gets in, and Mr. Baxter cries "Hallelujah.' Barnes, p. 19.) 4 Baxter, ii, 217. (Ambrose 5 See A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith, lately presented to king Charles the Second: set forth by many of us, who are falsely called Anabaptists, to inform all men, in these days of scandal and reproach of our innocent Belief and Practice; for which we are not only resolved to suffer persecution to the loss of our goods, but also life itself, rather than to decline the same adults. Among them were the most consistent advocates of religious toleration. The Quakers were hated by one and all. They were 'heretics,' 'the most incorrigible sinners,' 'a dangerous sort of people.... who coloure their designs with a show of religion'; and 'those worst of sectaries; while their tenets were 'damnable principles.'6 They were attacked and ridiculed in pamphlets serious and satirical. The reasons for this universal hatred are not far to seek. Despite the fact that they were ready to promise due obedience to the State, and to abstain from conspiracies, men failed to understand why they should travel from all parts of the land to attend meetings, unless to concoct some nefarious design.8 Their resistance to tithes, and their refusal to accord to those in authority the usual marks of respect, irritated squire and parson. Their claim to inspiration, their testimony against sacraments, and their liberal ideas on the question of saving grace, called forth passionate aversion on the part of other sects. Indeed, many very foolishly suspected them of concealed Romanism.9 6 Broadmead Records, p. 158. Verney MSS., Dec. 13, 1666 (quoted Burnet, i, 492 note). Life of Ld. Keeper Guildford, p. 88. Thos. Vincent, Presbyterian minister, to some of his congregation who had been to hear Quakers: If ever you go again, I will give you up, and God will give you up, that you may believe a lie and be damned.' (Gough, ii, 227.) 7 Broadmead Records, p. 165. C.S.P.D., 1660-1, p. 361. See among others The Character of a Quaker in his true and proper Colours; or, The Clownish Hypocrite Anatomized,' by R. H., 1671. 'A Quaker with's dark Lanthorne light Is here exposed to your sight, Stript of's nice Vizard and fair Paint, Wherein he's wont to Ape a Saint, This Hypocrite we here essay, In's proper colours to display, Whose Yea and Nay in mischief goes Beyond the Hectors damning oathes. A Quaker is a Vessel of Phanaticisme drawn off to the Lees; ... the fag-end of Reformation marred with a sullen meagre look, and this Characteristick Thou: . . . . You may know him by his diminutive band, that looks like the Forlorne-hope of his Shirt crawling out at his Collar; . . . He hath a Pique against Paul for saying “most noble Festus," and hates the memory of Sarah because she called her Husband Lord. . In brief, a Quaker is a Cynick in Religion, one that would have Ill-nature translated Grace; as if the Holy Spirit (that pure, sweet, gentle Dove) did inspire men with sullen humours and waspish dispositions.' 8' Elwood,' p. 78, and Introduction, xiii. 9 See Truth Triumphant: in a Dialogue between a Papist and a Quaker: wherein (I suppose) is made Manifest, that Quaking is the Off-spring of Popery. At the least The Papist and the Quaker, Are (Fratres Uterine) Both of one Venter.' 1671. The Quakers unmasked, and clearly detected to be but the spawn of Romish Frogs, Jesuites and Franciscan Freers, sent from Rome to seduce the intoxicated giddy-headed English Nation,' by Prynne. 'The Capital Principles of the People called Quakers Discovered and Stated out of their own Writings,' Wm. Burnet, 1668. Among the very few who speak well of the Quakers is Marmaduke Lord Langdale who writes to Secretary Nicholas: 'There is a sect of persons, called Quakers, who hold meetings in several parts, and lead most exemplary lives, accounting persecution an honour.' (C.S.P.D. 1660-1, p. 466.) |