It is hardly necessary to point out how all this must have tended to weaken the church, and accelerate that great movement for which the reign of Charles II. is remarkable.125 At the same time, there were many other circumstances which in this preliminary sketch, it is impossible to notice, but which were stamped with the general character of revolt against ancient authority. In a subsequent volume, this will be placed in a still clearer light, because I shall have an opportunity of bringing forward evidence which, from the abundance of its details, would be unsuited to the present Introduction. Enough, however, has been stated, to indicate the general march of the English mind, and supply the reader with a clue by which he may understand those still more complicated events, which, as the seventeenth century advanced, began to thicken upon us.

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.126 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 rein

126 Every thing Mr. Macaulay has said on the contempt into which the clergy fell in the reign of Charles II. is perfectly accurate; and from evidence which I have collected, I know that this very able writer, of whose immense research few people are competent judges, has rather under-stated the case than over-stated it. On several subjects I should venture to differ from Mr. Macaulay; but I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration of his unwearied diligence, of the consummate skill with which he has arranged his materials, and of the noble love of liberty which animates his entire work. These are qualities which will long survive the aspersions of his puny detractors,-men who, in point of knowledge and ability, are unworthy to loosen the shoe-lachet of him they foolishly attack.

126 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 favour able 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. 175) 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.

state 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 affection 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.127 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. 128 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.129 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.130 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

127 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. as 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.

129 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 History of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 431.

130 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.

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. 131 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 in 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.132 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.133 They saw Jeffreys and Kirke torturing their fellow-subjects; they saw the gaols crowded with prisoners, and the scaffolds streaming with blood.134 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

131 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.

132 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. p. 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.

133 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 Revolu tion, 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.

134 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.

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. 135 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.136 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. 137 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 mag

135 "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 churchproperty, 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, every thing went smooth and easy." Fox's Hist. of James II. p. 165.

136 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.

17 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.

nificent promises to win over to their side men they had hitherto hunted even to the death. 138 The most eminent of the Nonconformists were far from being duped by this sudden affection.139 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.

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.140 There is no doubt that the Declaration which was

138 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, 2d 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.

139 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 procla mation, 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 ?" 140 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.