Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/714

Rh 690 PRESBYTERIANISM [ENGLAND. subsequent to Monk s entry into London, had seemed com plete. The council was almost exclusively Presbyterian ; Presbyterians commanded the garrison towns and the fleet, and had possession of the universities. The last acts of the Long Parliament had been to establish Presbyterianism as the religion of the state. It was therefore necessary on the part of Charles and Clarendon to temporize. Pro mises were made from Breda; hopes of comprehension and preferment were placed before the Presbyterian minis ters ; conferences were arranged between them and the leading Episcopal clergy. There is no sign, however, that the most ardent Presbyterian hoped for more than Ussher s model. They were sufficiently bound over by the Cove nant, the oath of allegiance, the traditional connexion of parliament and monarchy, and, above all, by their jealousy of the Scots, to restore the king. The solemn farce began. Ten ministers were made royal chaplains, and Charles II. expressed his intention of doing his best to heal the differences in religion. He wished to know their desires. They asked for a resident ministry, Sunday observance, Ussher s model, the revision of the Prayer Book, extemporary prayer, that kneeling at communion and the observance of saints days might not be enforced, and that bowing at the name of Jesus, making the sign of the cross in baptism, and the use of the surplice might be abolished. Baxter also suggested that the suffragan bishop should be elected by the clergy of the rural deanery. The bishops replied in writing, refusing all concession, ex cept, perhaps, as regarded the cross, bowing, and the surplice, and taunting their opponents with &quot; scruple-mongering.&quot; Charles now put out his declaration, which included a proviso that the presbyters advice and assistance should be necessary to certain episcopal functions, and especially to church censures. This, and the Bill to turn it into a law, kept the Presbyterians in play ; by Clarendon s influ ence the Bill was thrown out on the second reading, and the convention parliament was dissolved. The parliament which followed Avas Episcopalian. The church at once struck hard. The Corporation Act, 20th December 1661, destroyed Presbyterian influence in the large towns, the centres of its power; the Act of Uniformity, 19th May 1662, compelling &quot;assent and consent&quot; to everything in the Book of Common Prayer, destroyed it in the church. Under circumstances of open deceit and flippant cruelty 2000 ministers were, on St Bartholomew s Day, deprived of their offices. It is important to notice that the Papists and other Dissenting bodies opposed toleration to the Presbyterians ; they felt that the only chance of a general toleration was in the failure of the Presbyterians to obtain comprehension. Between these two Acts the Savoy Conference had been held, beginning 25th March 1662; it met apparently to signalize the church s triumph. It was intended to fail, as the Hampton Court Conference had been intended to fail, and is of interest merely as being the last attempt at union by conference. With regard to toleration Charles II. and James II. were Bourbons, and they wished to carry out the policy of their ancestor, Henry IV. of France. They hoped to use the grati tude and dependence of the sects whereby to sustain them against the church. Cromwell had done the same ; tolera tion and military despotism had been parallel ideas. Charles desired that the church should not tolerate, but that he should. Thus he hoped to have a despotism founded upon the support of the sects. The greater part of his reign presents a constant struggle of the church and parliament to frustrate his views. To gain the power of suspending the penal laws was the great object in the com prehension scheme of 26th December 1662. In an instant church opposition began ; the primate and the parliament spoke with equal sternness, and the suggestion was dropped. As had happened in Scotland, the ejection of St Bartholo mew s Day had led to conventicles ; the first Conventicle Act, 16th May 1664, was an expression of the hatred of the Anglican Church to Charles s scheme. In 1665 the plague occurred; the pulpits of London were deserted by the Episcopal clergy, with a few brilliant exceptions. The Presbyterians and Independents came forward to fill them. The jealousy of the church was aroused, and at its demand, and in return for a supply for the Dutch War, Charles passed the Five Mile Act. 1 The extent to which these successive acts of persecution affected the country varied greatly. In some parts the justices refused to convict, or were languid. Thus Seth Ward, in one of his reports to Sheldon from Exeter (in 1663), says, &quot; Your Grace shall know that there are, in this county of Devon onely, ... at least fourteen Justices of the peace who are accounted arrant Presbyterians.&quot; The bishop of Chester makes the same complaint in 1667. 2 With the fall of Clarendon the idea of toleration at once revived. In February 1667 Charles recommended it to parliament and relaxed the penal laws. But the idea had taken possession of the English mind that what Charles wanted to tolerate was Popery; wherever Charles wrote &quot;dissent&quot; the English mind read &quot;pope of Rome.&quot; Some questions drawn out by Sheldon against toleration may be seen in the Sheldon MSS., and are worth reading. It was this fear, and the belief that the integrity of the Church of England was the great safeguard against Popery, that had to answer for much of the persecution. By 176 votes against 70 parliament voted against comprehension, and by 144 against 78 for the continuance of the Con venticle Act, Avhile on 2d March 1670 a second Conventicle Act of special severity was forced from Charles. On 15th March 1672 the king made another attempt by his famous Declaration of Indulgence, in which he boldly claimed the suspensory power. This caused great searchings of heart among the Dissenters, for they must either refuse the indulgence or uphold an unconstitutional proceeding. Ought they to accept anything short of comprehension 1 Their doubts were cut short by the withdrawal of the Indulgence only three months after its utterance, and the Test Act signalized the victory of the church. The church became more and more exclusive ; the parliament, drawing its life from the people, gradually changed its tone. In 1663 the Anglican Church wished to triumph over Dissent ; in 1673 Protestants wished only to secure themselves against Popery. The Commons there fore passed a Bill for the ease of Dissenters, which was, however, dropped in the Lords. No further change occurred in the legal status of the Presbyterians. Their party continually increased in in fluence under Shaftesbury s guidance, and in 1680 the Commons agreed to a scheme of comprehension for all Dissenters who would subscribe the doctrinal Articles; the surplice was to be omitted except in cathedrals or royal chapels ; and ceremonies were to be regarded as in different. This attempt at union came to nothing, how ever, through church opposition, as did a final attempt at toleration by Charles in 1 684. Throughout his reign the church had held him in a never -relaxing grasp. The intervening years were a period of constant annoyance to the Presbyterians, who were discredited by the Bye 1 By tliis Act all who refused to declare that they &quot; would not at any time endeavour any alteration in church or state &quot; were made in capable of teaching in schools, and prohibited from coming within 5 miles of any city, corporate town, or parliamentary borough, or within 5 miles of any parish, town, or place, where they had since the Act of Oblivion been parson, vicar, or lecturer, or where they had preached in any conventicle, on any pretence whatever. 2 Sheldon MSS., Bodleian Library.