Page images
PDF
EPUB

them. The Book of Sports was burned by the common hangman by order of the Parliament, while the Book of Common Prayer paid the penalty of being found in bad company, and was set aside by the same authority. Our readers are aware of what followed, and, as we have recently taken a survey of these transactions in reviewing the Memoirs of Cromwell, we shall not again go over the ground; especially as we shall probably have occasion again to advert, in a future article, to the character of the Protector. We only stop to remark, that the springing up of a new Divine right, that of Presbytery, and the intolerance of the Long Parliament, were the chief causes of the ruin of the Commonwealth; that Episcopalians were the first conspirators against the Church and State, and that Presbyterians were the chief agents in restoring them.

Mr. Brook has passed rather rapidly over the reign of Charles I.; but he has not concealed the antichristian intolerance of the presbyterians. He does not scruple to term the "ordinance of "the lords for punishing blasphemies and heresies," one of the most cruel and bloody mandates ever published in a Protestant country.' The ordinances against unordained preachers, and against preaching, writing, or otherwise publishing any thing in derogation of the new church-government, were of the same intolerant character. We transcribe the following passage as a proof of our Author's impartiality. Speaking of the ordinance first mentioned, he says:

No decree of any council, no bull of any pope, could be more dogmatical, authoritative, or tyrannical; and few have been more sanguinary. The severity of the penalties which it denounced, as well as the mode of process which it appointed, was arbitrary and repugnant to the constitution, as well as directly opposed to the principles of justice and humanity; for it allowed neither the privilege of a jury, nor the liberty of appeal. In short, this new law was one of the most disgraceful and antichristian restraints on religious liberty, that was ever witnessed in any protestant, popish, or pagan country; and it clearly shews, that the governing presbyterians would have made a despotic and terrible use of their power, if they had possessed the sword of the civil magistrate.

The presbyterians in Scotland and in England, were alike censurable on account of their narrow and bigoted spirit. They had not learned wisdom and moderation from the multiplied sufferings which they had endured from the episcopal party. They had been grievously oppressed for almost a century; and when they came into power, they immediately set up the divine right of presbytery, and disallowed the toleration of others. Could any thing be more absurd, than for men who had long groaned under persecution, to practise the infamous work of persecuting their brethren? But their conduct was still more criminal, since they had been so earnestly engaged in the cause of civil and religious freedom, they ought to have discovered more VOL. XVI. N. S.

2 S

just and enlarged views concerning the rights of mankind. Most of the independents of that age, who were the first in this country that promulgated the doctrine of toleration, probably owed their liberal sentiments more to the peculiarity of their situation, than to the liberality of their minds. Placed between two powerful parties, and in danger of being crushed, whichsoever of them became uppermost, they were constrained to plead for the indulgence of their consciences. In forming a correct judgement, therefore, of these times, every unbiassed person will be obliged to censure both the episcopalians and presbyterians, and to lament that so bigoted and persecuting a spirit pervaded the clergy of each denomination. To whatever party we belong, we should unreservedly censure the bigotry and intolerance of our ancestors, but rejoice that better principles and better prac. tices now prevail.' Vol. I. pp. 488, 9.

Our Author's comment on the conduct of the Independents, however, is hardly fair, and, when we consider who were the most distinguished advocates for Toleration, not very reasonable. Milton, Vane, and Owen were not men to owe their liberality of sentiment to their circumstances. If Cromwell is to be numbered among the Independents, so far from his being indebted to the peculiarity of his situation for his liberal principles, nothing is more clear, than that the popularity of his government was on this very account endangered, and that in the eyes of the Presbyterians, his latitudinarian notions of Toleration constituted an inexpiable crime.

It is certain,' says Bishop Kennet, that the Protector was for liberty and the utmost latitude to all parties, so far as consisted with the peace and safety of his government; therefore he was never jealous of any cause or sect on account of heresy or falsehood, but on his wiser accounts of political peace and quiet. And even the prejudice he had against the episcopal party, was more for their being royalists, than for being of the good old church. Hence, when he was urged to suppress the episcopal assemblies by force, he refused, saying, "To disturb them is contrary to that liberty of conscience which he and his friends always acknowledged and defended.” '

Vol. I. p. 527.

The account of religious liberty during the Protectorate, closes Mr. Brook's first volume. The reigns of Charles II. and James II. occupy a hundred and sixty pages of the second volume; in which there is by far too large a proportion of argumentation and remark. Of some of the remarks, however, we cannot but entirely approve, since we recognise them as having already appeared in the Eclectic Review; (e. g. pp. 47, 8 comp. with E. R. Vol. VI. pp. 579, 581;) although Mr. B. has been at the unnecessary pains of occasionally improving our phraseology. His account of the circumstances attendant on the passing of the Test Act, is very imperfect. Mr. Brook is, through

but bis work, sadly negligent of dates, and not always observant of strict chronological order.

The design of the Test Act was, as stated in the preamble, for preventing of dangers which may happen from popish recusants, and quieting the minds of his majesty's good sub'jects.' It is certain that it had not for its object, to exclude the Nonconformists, since it originated with the country party in the House of Commons, who were disposed to favour the Protestant Dissenters, and the Dissenting members in the House concurred in the measure. When, during the debate, it was observed that the Bill was so drawn as to comprehend Protestant Dissenters, the court party endeavouring to avail themselves of this circumstance in order to defeat the Bill, Alderman Love, (one of the members for the city, and one of the very few Dissenters who scrupled to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church,) declared, that it was his wish, that an effectual security might be found against Popery, and that nothing might interpose till that was done: when that was over, the Dissenters would try to deserve some favour, but at present, they were willing to be under the severity of the laws, rather than clog a more necessary work with their concerns? Whether the Dissenters on this occasion acted wisely,' it has been remarked, may be disputed; but that they acted generously, no one can deny.' The Test Act was read the first time on the 5th of March, 1673, a second time the next day, and was passed and sent up to the Lords on the 12th of the same month. In order to secure the Bill, the supply was delayed till it should *have received the Royal assent, which was obtained on the 29th of March. The event shewed that the precaution was not unnecessary, for the Bill for the ease of Protestant Dissenters,' which was brought on before the Test Act, (a Committee of the whole House having reported the heads of it, February 27th,) being postponed till the King had got a supply, was thereby lost. It had passed the Commons, had been sent up to the Lords, and had come down with some amendments, upon which the House were debating, when the Parliament was suddenly prorogued, and the intended favour to the Dissenters prevented. After a long adjournment, the House of Commons met again on the 20th of October, 1673; and on the 30th, a Bill was ordered in, for a General Test to distinguish between 'Protestants and Papists:' its object was, to repeal the Test Act so far as it affected Protestant Dissenters. But the King, on discovering the hostile temper of the House towards the Roman

See Furneaux's Letters to Blackstone. Also, a Tract entitled, "The Right of Protestant Dissenters to a complete Toleration as"serted. By a Layman." London. 1789.

Catholics, and its favourable disposition towards the Dissenters, put an end to the session by prorogation on the 4th of November, the House having sat only fifteen days. In January, 1674, the Parliament being again assembled, a Bill was introduced for a Test to distinguish between Protestants and Papists. It was read twice, and committed, but was lost by a prorogation od the very day appointed for receiving the report of the Committee. In the year 1680, a Bill in favour of the Dissenters, repealing the xxxv. Eliz. c. 1., passed both Houses, and lay ready for the Royal assent, when the Court ventured on the very. extraordinary expedient of directing the clerk of the Crown to convey away the Bill, and it was never afterwards to be found. The House was prorogued almost immediately after, but not before it had been resolved, nem. con. That it is the opinion of this House, that the prosecution of Protestant Dissenters upon the penal laws, is at this time grievous to the subject, a weakening of the Protestant interest, an encouragement to 'Popery, and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom.'

Although the Test Act is, both in a religious and a political view, highly exceptionable, as involving the principle of perse cution, as well as a scandalous abuse of a sacred institution, yet, Mr. Brook is clearly wrong in representing that the opposition to it proceeded from the friends of liberty, or, that the better part of the nation found it an encroachment on their civil rights.' Its object was, notoriously, to protect those civil rights under circumstances of peculiar exigency. As a penal statute, it was mild and tolerant in comparison with those which then disgraced the Statute-book. Its present penal operation as regards Protestant Dissenters, formed no part of its original design, and is not, therefore, chargeable on its first promoters. Its continuance now that all pretence for it has ceased, in contempt of all the religious objections which lie against it as the occasion of innumerable perjuries and profanations, while its injustice and uselessness is annually proclaimed by a Bill of Indemnity, must be considered as the greater wrong.

It has been remarked by Mr. Conder, that the clergy opposed the Reformation itself; that they opposed the Toleration; and that they opposed the Comprehension.' A High-Church Reviewer, the only one who has ventured to notice this work, after insinuating that not the smallest reliance is to be placed on the Author's statements, and that his work is an accumulation of calumnies, thus attempts to invalidate the above statement. In reply to the first assertion, he contents himself with remarking, that Archbishop Cranmer was the principal promoter of the Re

*Christian Remembrancer, June 1820.

6

We

formation, and that several bishops and other clergymen suffered martyrdom in the reign of Queen Mary. This mode of disproving the Author's statement, requires no comment. On their opposition to the Toleration, the Reviewer is judiciously silent. Their opposition to the Comprehension is attempted to be disproved by the remark, that the Act for that measure' passed the Lords when the bishops had influence; and when it was failing in the Commons, Archbishop Tillotson proposed that it should be referred to the Convocation, and a commission was made < out, addressed to several bishops and other divines, who laboured but too earnestly in promoting the measure." know not what weight or credibility this learned Reviewer attaches to the statements of the two episcopal writers cited by Mr. Brook; viz. Bishops Burnet and Kennet. Before, however, he ventured to tax Mr. Conder with calumny, he would have done well to consult those authorities. The former prelate explicitly states, that, owing to the machinations of the Jacobites, the Universities took fire' upon the idea of offering concessions, and began to declare against it and against all that promoted it, as men that intended to undermine the Church.' Severe reflections were cast on the King as being in an interest contrary to the Church.'-The Lower House of Convocation expressed a resolution not to enter into any debates with relation to alterations; so that they would take no notice of (that) ' part of the King's message; and it was not without difficulty carried to make a decent address to the King, thanking him for his promise of protection.' The supremacy of the Head of the Church was thus lightly treated by the very sticklers for rights Divine. Whether the opposition of the two Universities and of the Convocation is, or is not, properly styled the opposition of the clergy, notwithstanding the honourable exception of the royal commissioners, we leave our readers to judge. For further illustrations of the progress of religious liberty in this reign, we refer our readers to the work before us. Mr. Brook fully substantiates his assertion, that the Toleration Act did not at all emanate from the Church,'-' that it was the State, not the Church, that became tolerant.' The far greater part of the ' clergy,' says Bishop Burnet,' studied to blow up the fire, which 'seemed only to be covered with ashes.' The truth of this remark was but too plainly manifested by the events of the latter part of the ensuing reign.

Our limits will not permit us to pursue the narrative any further, and we must now take leave of Mr. Brook with cordially recommending his work to our readers. We cannot, however, but earnestly recommend very large excisions, in the event of a new edition. His Conclusion,' consisting of desultory remarks extendingover sixty pages, is a very heavy rider on the

1

« PreviousContinue »