If we look for a moment at the ecclesiastical appointments of Charles, we shall find evidence of the same tendency. In his reign, the highest dignities in the church were invariably conferred upon men who were deficient either in ability or in honesty. It would perhaps be an over-refinement to ascribe to the king a deliberate plan for lowering the reputation of the episcopal bench; but it is certain, that if he had such a plan, he followed the course most likely to effect his purpose. For it is no exaggeration to say, that during his life, the leading English prelates were, without exception, either incapable or insincere; they were unable to defend what they really believed, or else they did not believe what they openly professed. Never before were the interests of the Anglican church so feebly guarded. The first Archbishop of Canterbury appointed by Charles was Juxon, whose deficiencies were notorious; and of whom, his friends could only say, that his want of ability was only compensated by the goodness of his intentions.115 When he died, the king raised up as his successor Sheldon, whom he had previously made Bishop of London; and who not only brought discredit on his order by acts of gross intolerance, but who was so regardless of the common decencies of his station, that he used to amuse his associates by having exhibitions in his own house, imitating the way in which the Presbyterians delivered their sermons.117 After the death of Sheldon, Charles appointed to the archbishopric Sancroft; whose superstitious fancies exposed him to the contempt even of his own profession, and who was as much despised as Sheldon had been hated.118 In the rank immediately below. this, we find the same principle at work. The three archbishops of York, during the reign of Charles II., were Frewen, Stearn, and Dolben; who were so utterly devoid of ability, that, not1208. On the popularity of the works of Hobbes in the reign of Charles II. compare Pepys' Diary, vol. iv. p. 164, with Lives of the Norths, vol. iii. p. 339.

115 Bishop Burnet says of him at his appointment: "As he was never a great divine, so he was now superannuated." Own Time, vol. i. p. 303.

116 Of which his own friend, Bishop Parker, gives a specimen. See Parker's History of his own Time, pp. 31-33. Compare Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 429; Wilson's Mem. of De Foe, vol. i. p. 46.

117 In 1669, Pepys was at one of these entertainments, which took place not only at the house, but in the presence, of the archbishop. See the scandalous details in Pepys' Diary, vol. iv. pp. 321-322; or in Wilson's De Foe, vol. i. pp. 44, 45.

118 Burnet, who knew Sancroft, calls him "a poor-spirited and fearful man” (Own Time, vol. iii. p. 354); and mentions (vol. iii. p. 138) an instance of his superstition, which will be easily believed by whoever has read his ridiculous sermons, which D'Oyly has wickedly published. See Appendix to D'Oyly's Sancroft, pp. 339-420. Dr. Lake says, that every body was amazed when it was known that Sancroft was to be archbishop. Lake's Diary, 30th Dec. 1677, p. 18, in vol. i. of the Camden Mis cellany, 1847, 4to. His character, so far as he had one, is fairly drawn by Dr. Birch: slow, timorous, and narrow-spirited, but at the same time a good, honest, and wellmeaning man.' Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 151. See also respecting him, Macau lay's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 616, vol. iii. p. 77, vol. iv. pp. 40-42.

withstanding their elevated position, they are altogether forgotten, not one reader out of a thousand having ever heard their

names. 119

Such appointments as these are indeed striking; and what makes them more so, is, that they were by no means necessary; they were not forced on the king by court intrigue, nor was there a lack of more competent men. The truth seems to be, that Charles was unwilling to confer ecclesiastical promotion upon any one who had ability enough to increase the authority of the church, and restore it to its former pre-eminence. At his acces sion, the two ablest of the clergy were undoubtedly Jeremy Taylor and Isaac Barrow. Both of them were notorious for their loyalty; both of them were men of unspotted virtue; and both of them have left a reputation which will hardly perish while the English language is remembered. But Taylor, though he had married the king's sister, 120 was treated with marked neglect; and being exiled to an Irish bishopric, had to pass the remainder of his life in what at that time was truly called a barbarous country. As to Barrow, who, in point of genius, was probably superior to Taylor, 122 he had the mortification of seeing the most incapable men raised to the highest posts in the church, while he himself was unnoticed; and, notwithstanding that his family had greatly suffered in the royal cause, 123 he received no sort of preferment until five years before his death, when the king conferred on him the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge.124

121

119 Frewen was so obscure a man, that there is no life of him either in Chalmers' Biographical Dictionary, or in Rose's more recent, but inferior work. The little that is known of Stearn, or Sterne, is unfavourable. Compare Burnet, vol. ii. p. 427, with Baxter's Life of Himself, folio, 1696, part ii. p. 338. And of Dolben I have been unable to collect any thing of interest, except that he had a good library. See the traditionary account in Jones's Memoirs of Bishop Horne, p. 66.

120 His wife was Joanna Bridges, a bastard of Charles I. Compare Notes and Queries, vol. vii. p. 305, with Heber's Life of Jeremy Taylor, in Taylor's Works, vol. i. p. xxxiv. Bishop Heber, p. xxxv., adds, "But, notwithstanding the splendour of such an alliance, there is no reason to believe that it added materially to Taylor's income."

Coleridge (Lit. Remains, vol. iii. p. 208) says, that this neglect of Jeremy Taylor by Charles "is a problem of which perhaps his virtues present the most probable solution."

Superior, certainly, in comprehensiveness, and in the range of his studies; so that it is aptly said by a respectable authority, that he was at once "the great precursor of Sir Isaac Newton, and the pride of the English pulpit." Wordsworth's Ecclesiast. Biog. vol. iv. p. 344. See also, respecting Barrow, Montucla, Hist. des Mathémat. vol. ii. pp. 88, 89, 359, 360, 504, 505, vol. iii. pp. 436-438.

123"His father having suffered greatly in his estate by his attachment to the royal cause." Chalmers' Biog. Dict. vol. iv. p. 39.

124 Barrow, displeased at not receiving preferment after the Restoration, wrote the lines:

"Te magis optavit rediturum Carole nemo;

Et sensit nemo te rediisse minus "

Hamilton's Life of Barrow, in Barrow's Works, Edinb. 1845, vol. i. p. xxiii.

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

125 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

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. 128 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.

10 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.

1

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.