§ 729. The evil tendency of such schismatic notions, joined with much of disaffection towards the crown, which continued to increase during the whole of this reign, naturally produced a contrary feeling on the part of the church; and many churchmen, in their zeal to controvert what was wrong in these opinions, ran into the extremes of passive obedience and non-resistance, a doctrine which, during the later years of the life of Charles II., seemed equally espoused by the court and the pulpit, the bench and the bar. (1683.) Under the impulse of this increasing zeal, the university of Oxford made a solemn decree, which passed in the convocation there on the same day as the execution of Lord Russell took place, and presented it to the king, under this title,2 The judgment and decree of the university of Oxford, passed in their convocation on July 21, 1683, against certain pernicious books and damnable doctrines, destructive of the sacred persons of princes, their state and government, and of all human society;' in which decree they formally condemned twenty-seven propositions collected out of several modern authors. This decree is attributed to Dr Jane, regius professor of divinity, who was in consequence made dean of Gloucester, and who, upon the Revolution, again sought for preferment by changing his sentiments. The declaration was placed in the college-halls, and remained there till, in 1688, it was displaced by those who had framed it, on the arrival of the new government. (*) § 730. In reviewing the history of the reign, if it were attempted to describe the characters of all those who took a prominent part in the affairs of it, the task would require a volume for itself; but there is one man who must not be overlooked. Lord Clarendon showed so much wisdom in the treatment of the republicans, whose services he accepted, that it is difficult to understand why the same minister should have adopted a contrary policy with regard to the affairs of the church. Burnet's account of this matter, therefore, may possibly contain some truth, where he states that the chancellor would have fallen into more moderate counsels towards the nonconformists, had he not been unwilling to disoblige the bishops, who had been very kind to him in the affair wherein his daughter's honour was concerned; and that (a) These proceedings were so justly offensive to some of the younger students, who in those days published their satire in Latin verses, that many epigrams were written on him. Among the rest Cum fronti sit nulla fides, ut carmina dicunt, Decretum figis solenne, Decanus ut esses: And again 1 Echard, 1036. 2 Rapin, ii. 730; Kennet, iii. 419. 3 Own Times, i. 305. his friend Lord Southampton was disposed to have been very moderate. In the transactions connected with the Savoy conference, Lord Clarendon does not appear to have been adverse to the nonconformists; but the real state of the question, as it was gradually developed to those who were engaged in the government, may fully account for this difference in his conduct. At first he seems to have been equally ready to conciliate the enemies of the monarchy both in church and state; but when he came to act, he found the characters of the parties so dissimilar, that he was led to pursue a very different line of treatment towards them. The republican statesmen were possessed of enlarged views, and were in many cases willing to fall in with the measures which the altered state of the kingdom required. The presbyterian churchmen were men of contracted notions, who would make no allowance for the opinions of others, or concessions from their own decisions. No one can examine the Savoy conference without being convinced that men of such tempers were unable to govern, or to legislate for any church. A wiser policy might probably have broken the party, and greater concessions would perhaps have conciliated many; but mankind had not then learnt, nor could they foresee and know, the benefits which toleration was likely to produce. Lord Clarendon therefore thought, with others, that nothing but severity could give security to the church; and this idea predominated till the course of events convinced every one that divisions among Protestants could neither give safety to the church, or advance the cause of religion, § 731. The fate of the lord chancellor was such as might have been naturally anticipated; his misfortune seems to have been, that he did not retire from his pre-eminent station sufficiently early. He had been raised too high for a subject, and he could not hope to govern or to guide a man so vicious as the king. When he found that his power of acting rightly had ceased, he should have withdrawn from the scene; but he esteemed himself bound to support the measures of the court, though he did not approve of them, and his high station compelled him to take a share in whatever was done; so that, though he concurred in the treatment of the nonconformists, we can hardly be sure that he might not have adopted a more enlightened policy had he been able to direct the government in all its details. The general feeling of the country was probably the real cause of whatever was now done in this respect. Baxter, in his own Life, is often violent in the blame which he throws on the bishops, with persecuting, with all the severity of the law, their nonconforming brethren; and particularizes Sheldon and Ward. These men were both of them 1 iii. 3. very influential persons in the concerns of the church, and therefore the policy which was adopted must in some measure be referred to them but Baxter himself seems never to have possessed those extended views which could comprehend that men, who differed entirely from himself in their opinions, might still be sincere and conscientious in their proceedings. These bishops were probably never guilty of any acts of severity, to which those who approved of their line of policy would honestly object. They tried to reduce the nonconformists by force of law, and not by conciliation; and many persons may even now think that they were right, and that their principles were sound. Persecution of every sort is unchristian, but he must be very ignorant of human nature who presumes to assert that every one who wishes to persecute must be entirely unchristian. What would have been the fate of churchmen if the nonconformists had predominated? And yet there were many very good men among them. A spirit of toleration is one which his own heart will never teach to any one: and it is only by degrees that nations learn the virtue of moderation. In looking at this point during the usurpation, and at the Restoration, it would be useless and invidious to draw comparisons. Severity and injustice might have been expected from rebels, even though driven into rebellion by oppression; but where a legitimate government throws off the fostering care which it should exhibit towards all its children collectively, and tries to uphold its own selfish power by balancing against each other those whom it should endeavour to unite; when the church, which we admire and love, takes part in this disgraceful struggle; it cannot but point out to us the insufficiency of the best of human policy and human institutions, and make us look up to that power which has preserved us, and which can alone vouchsafe to continue our existence. § 732. Charles himself sought rather to escape from the trouble of governing, than was anxious to tyrannize over others; his wish for arbitrary power arose from the delusive hope that it would free him from those disturbances to which he found himself continually exposed: he did not desire1 to be like a grand seignior, but he did not think himself a king while a company of fellows were looking into all his actions, and examining his ministers as well as his accounts; and he expected that, by balancing the church party against the dissenters, he might be able to hold the reins in his own hands; he was rapacious in seeking money, for the sake of squandering it on his favourites; and if the opinion of Coleman, secretary to his brother, may be trusted, there was nothing which he would not do for the sake of obtaining it. He conformed, in religious matters, outwardly with the church of Burnet's Own Time, ii. 1. England; and it may be a question whether he did not join the church of Rome rather for the sake of that fallacious ease which that sect could impart to his troubled and wavering conscience, than for any better reason. He treated his wife as kindly as any man of his vicious habits could do, and he was the slave of his mistresses. His natural talents are described as being considerable, and he was possibly a better politician than any of his ministers; but he was disgusted with business by Lord Clarendon, and latterly gave himself up to the guidance of his brother, who being, perhaps, at that time as bad a man, was certainly a much worse monarch. The circumstance which must load Charles and his brother with a political infamy which nothing can wipe away, was the manner in which they separated their own supposed interests from that of their country. Because they could not govern England according to their own wishes, they were ready to become themselves the pensionaries of France, and to sell the interest of Britain, that they might obtain the means of enslaving it. This project seems to have flowed from James rather than from Charles; but it is shameless enough even to have entertained the idea. § 733. The natural tendency of such a reign was to create a most stupendous degree of profligacy, moral and political; and this fruit was produced in abundance. Perhaps there never was a more disgraceful public act than the stoppage of the treasury, and certainly all authors agree that this country was never more degraded in its morality than while Charles II. was king. Religion, instead of reforming these evils, was itself the most fertile cause of contention, and fostered every evil passion with which human nature is corrupted: gross profligacy will easily taint the breasts of the thoughtless and the worldly; but religious discord takes away the savour from that salt which should season the whole; at once infects whatever is most valuable in the community, and renders even the expectation of amendment distant and uncertain. Fanaticism and a false discipline had promoted the cause of hypocrisy and irreligion, and debauchery and vice followed in their train; but party feeling seemed likely to have destroyed whatever portion of Christianity remained, had not God in mercy raised up a body of men, whom the very dangers and difficulties of the times tended to educate; and whose virtues and experience were matured by the opposition which they were obliged to encounter. 1 Welwood, 148. 441 APPENDIX E. TO CHAPTER XVI. HISTORY OF THE COMMON PRAYER BOOK. (•) § 741. 1545. The King's Primer printed by authority. 743. 1549. First Liturgy of Edward VI. published. 745. 1550. Second Liturgy of Edward VI. Second Ordination Service. 746. 1560. Liturgy of Elizabeth. 747. 1604. Alterations introduced by James I. 748. 1633. and Charles I. 749. 1661. Last revision. Authorized Liturgy. 750. Service for the Consecration of Churches; political services. § 741. IN giving an account of the Common Prayer Book, it will be more correct to describe it as a work compiled from the services of the church of Rome, or rather as a translation of such portions of them as were free from all objection, than as an original composition. The use of prayers in a language unintelligible to the mass of the congregation is an evil so obvious, that whenever men begin to judge for themselves, they must necessarily reject it; and the first step which was taken by the church of England is, I believe, now generally adopted in that of Rome; I mean a translation of those portions of the service which are most frequently used. The book denominated the King's Primer was, I believe, first published by authority early in the spring of 1545.(b) The (a) Few references are here given, for most of the observations are made from collating the original editions. There is a nice tract on the subject in Sparrow's Rationale of the Common Prayer, drawn up by Downes. Wheatley and Nicholls may be consulted. A complete documentary history of the Common Prayer has been published by my friend Dr Cardwell at Oxford, History of the Conferences, &c., connected with the Common Prayer, by E. Cardwell, D. D., Oxford, 1840. See also, Liturgia Britannica, by Keeling, which furnishes a complete History of the Changes in the Prayer Book. (b) Before this, about 1535, a book called by the same name, and written, or rather compiled, by Cuthbert Marshall, archdeacon of Nottingham, was published, probably with Cranmer's approbation, but without 1539 In the preface which he has given there is all the information on the |