[This article is No. 25 in the series entitled "A Review of Sunday Legislation in Century Nineteen," but it will be of equal interest to those who have not read preceding numbers. —ED. S. OF T.]
It was my unpleasant duty in the last number of this serial to outline briefly the persecutions perpetrated by the Church of England during her infancy. It will be in the province of this paper to sketch her malpractices during later days.
The votaries and apologists of the Church of England have endeavored to extenuate the measure of her guilt in persecuting the Roman Catholics during those early days, on the ground that their presence in British territory was a menace to the political stability of the throne. There may be a shadow of a truth to this, but as long as we lay claim to veracity we would not dare to state the case more strongly.
Doubtless there was many a jolly popish priest in the old manor houses of the northern countries [of England] who would have admitted, in theory, the deposing power of the pope, but who would not have been ambitious to be stretched on the rack, even though it were to be used, according to the benevolent proviso of Lord Burleigh, "as charitably as such a thing can be," or to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, even though by that rare indulgence which the queen, of her special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, sometimes extended to very mitigated cases, he were allowed a fair time to choke before the hangman began to grabble in his entrails.
But the Church of England was also the persecutor of the Puritans. And the Puritans were certainly not political foes of the throne of England. When the Church of England persecuted the Puritans, she did it out of pure, unadulterated, narrow-minded bigotry. It is true that the Papists were a faction. But the Puritans were only a sect. They were a small and an inoffensive sect. The Church of England persecuted them, and they became a faction. Says Macaulay:—
By no artifice of ingenuity can the stigma of persecution, the worst blemish of the English Church, be effaced or patched over. Her doctrines we well know do not tend to intolerance. She admits the possibility of salvation out of her own pale, but this circumstance, in itself honorable to her, aggravates the sin and the shame of those who persecuted in her name. Dominic and De Monfort did not, at least, murder and torture for difference of opinion which they considered as trifling. It was to stop an infection which, as they believed, hurried to certain perdition every soul which it seized, that they employed their fire and steel. The measures of the English Government with respect to the Papists and Puritans sprang from a widely different principle.
We most certainly agree with England's historian laureate that the "doctrines" of the Church of England "do not tend to intolerance." But this can only be urged in allegation of the fact that published creeds are of no value in guiding the steps of polemical ministers, armed with civil power. Indeed the position of very many clergymen of the Church of England seems to be tersely stated by one of them, Steele, who in a dedication tells the pope "that the only difference between our churches, in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines, is that the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong."
It was during the memorable days of king Charles I. that the Puritans were treated the worst. They were indeed followed by a persecution as cruel and relentless as that of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. They were forced to leave their native land as exiles. They were cast in dungeons damp and dark. They were mercilessly whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit. With red-hot irons their cheeks were branded. And all of this by the Church of England! But in vain did their oppressor endeavor to wear out their fortitude. They were truly mutilated defenders of liberty. Forsake the cause of freedom and the post of duty?—Never. Again and again they defied the vengeance of the Star Chamber. With undiminished resolution they came back "to the place of their glorious infamy, and manfully presented the stumps of their ears to be grubbed out by the hangman's knife. The hardy sect grew up and flourished in spite of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots deep into a barren soil, and spread its branches wide open to an inclement sky. The multitude thronged around Prynne in the pillory with more respect than they paid to Mainwaring in the pulpit, and treasured up the rags which the blood of Burton had soaked, with a veneration such as miters and surplices had ceased to inspire."
Nor has the Church of England always been consistent on one of its own pet theories. I refer to the doctrine of Passive Obedience and Divine Right. When the reigning sovereign professed the Church of England doctrines, the clergy advocated this doctrine vigorously; but when a papist sat upon the throne they maintained as far as possible a discreet silence. Here is their belief on the matter, as stated by one of their number:—
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 honor, 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. . . . The church [of England] with one uniform, unhesitating voice, has proclaimed the duty of "passive obedience."
In view of such a statement of this Fox can hardly be blamed for telling the House of Commons that, "by being a good churchman, a person might become a bad citizen."
Charles II., the ignoble hero of the restoration, came after the Commonwealth, which had taken the place of his unhappy father, Charles I. He seems to have done all in his power to humble the bishops, and for this they hated him cordially. Nevertheless, he does not appear to have manifested any marked affinity for the dissenters. During his reign the famous Five Mile Act was passed, which forbade nonconformist teachers, who refused to take the non-resistance oath, to come within five miles of any corporation where they had preached since the Act of Oblivion (unless they were traveling), under penalty of £40.
He in turn was succeeded by James II. (1685). This man was a papist; but, strange to relate, the bishops struck an alliance with him forthwith. It would appear that they hoped to convert him. Be that as it may, the extraordinary union ended in a quarrel. And the ground of the quarrel was this: The king made an attempt to repeal the celebrated Test and Corporation Acts. By these it had been enacted that all persons in government employ should be compelled, under a heavy penalty, to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. On the 18th of March, 1686-87, the king informed the Privy Council that he had determined to grant "entire liberty of conscience to all his subjects." This from a Catholic prince was a marvel. But it was too much for the bishops.
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 favorable 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 [the Puritans] who worshiped God in a manner different from themselves. 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. They saw Jefferies and Kirke torturing their fellow-subjects; they saw the jails crowded with prisoners, and the scaffolds streaming with blood. 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 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. 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 honors which the bishops had long secured to 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. 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 favor those who differed from the national church? They soon determined on the line of conduct it behooved 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. Nor did they stop there.
What came next is best told by Macaulay:—
Then followed an auction, the strangest that history has recorded. On one side the king, on the other the church, began to bid eagerly against each other for the favor of those whom up to that time king and church had combined to oppress. The Protestant dissenters, who only a few months before had been a despised and proscribed class, now held the balance of power. The harshness with which they had been treated was universally condemned. The court tried to throw all the blame on the hierarchy. The hierarchy flung it back on the court. The king declared that he had unwillingly persecuted the Separatists only because his affairs had been in such a state that he could not venture to disoblige the clergy. The established clergy protested that they had borne a part in severity uncongenial to their feelings only from deference to the authority of the king. . . . Those who had lately been designated as schismatics and fanatics were now dear fellow-Protestants, weak brethren; it might be, but still brethren, whose scruples were entitled to tender regard. If they would but be true at this crisis to the cause of the English Constitution, and to the reformed religion, their generosity should be speedily and largely rewarded. They should have, instead of an indulgence which was of no legal486validity, a real indulgence, secured by Act of Parliament.
The Puritans joined with the bishops, and this coalition drove James II. from his throne. And it is a fact never to be forgotten that the first and only time that 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.