From the declaration of Breda of April 1660 to the withdrawal of his declaration of indulgence in 1673, Charles ii is well-known for favouring some measure of indulgence – or toleration – to peaceable Nonconformists and Catholics.Footnote 1 Yet these successive offers of indulgence are often poorly documented and so their importance is not fully understood, particularly for the discussions over religion in 1660–3. The discovery of the text of a royal declaration of November 1661 transforms our knowledge of the king’s proposals for indulgence at a crucial stage in the religious settlement. This declaration was mentioned in the draft of a royal speech and noted by one court observer, but because it was not issued and its contents were unknown it has never featured in accounts of negotiations on religion at the Restoration. The text has come to light in the best-known collection of state papers of the day. It suggests that indulgence was at the centre of the crown’s strategy to establish religious peace and was intended as a necessary complement to the return of the episcopalian Church of England. The declaration provides a retrospective reading of events in 1660–1 surrounding the pursuit of religious peace through offering ‘liberty to tender consciences’, and it rehearses the thinking behind the subsequent attempt in 1662–3 to secure parliamentary approval for grants of indulgence under the prerogative. Although it was withdrawn from publication at the last moment, we will argue that the declaration of November 1661 permits a re-evaluation of the making of the religious settlement of 1660–3, demonstrating three points, all of which involve the revision of established accounts of the settlement: that Charles ii himself played a critical role in the shaping of policy; that he was committed to a narrow episcopalian vision of doctrine and worship within the Church and to indulgence outside it; and that his commitment to these objectives was consistent through the period 1660–3.Footnote 2
The document is headed ‘His Majesties second Declaration to all his loving Subjects of his Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales, Concerning Ecclesiasticall Affaires’, and the newly-discovered text survives among the papers of Charles ii’s chief minister, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon,Footnote 3 held in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. ms Clarendon 130 is a miscellany of unrelated items, described as a ‘collection of English pieces’ dating from c. 1630–61, the second item of which is the ‘second declaration’ (as we shall refer to it hereafter) of 1661.Footnote 4 ms 130 is not included in the five volumes of the Calendar of the Clarendon state papers,Footnote 5 nor is the second declaration itself dated, nor is there any discussion of its preparation in official records or newsletters, all of which may explain why hitherto it has been overlooked.Footnote 6 It is a lengthy document, thirty pages long and running to over 7,000 words, and therefore considerably longer than its precursor on ‘Ecclesiastical Affairs’, the Worcester House declaration published by Charles ii in October 1660.Footnote 7 It is a fairly clean text, with just a handful of minor additions and corrections, two revised passages pasted over the original version and a paragraph of thirteen lines scored out; in short, it looks ready to be sent to the printers.Footnote 8 The second declaration’s authenticity is secure. It is in the clear and recognisable hand of Henry Hyde, Viscount Cornbury, amanuensis to his father the earl of Clarendon in the early 1660s, with one correction by Clarendon himself.Footnote 9 It comes therefore from the heart of Caroline government and from the office of a minister well-versed in composing royal declarations.Footnote 10 Internal evidence suggests it was in finished form by about 15 November, five days before the opening of the second sitting of the Cavalier Parliament. The second declaration refers to the king having authorised commissioners to present to convocation the fruits of the debates at the Savoy conference over revisions to the liturgy; that commission is dated 10 October and convocation got to work on 21 November. Charles expected ‘dayly’ the revised liturgy, which was completed on 20 December 1661.Footnote 11 In early to mid-November, Clarendon had drafted the king’s speech for the new parliamentary sitting on 20 November, which referred directly to ‘my declaration, which is ready to be published, upon a reviewe, of that I formerly sett out touchinge Ecclesiasticall affayres’, namely the Worcester House declaration of October 1660.Footnote 12 However, on 19 November, the day before parliament was to reconvene, a churchman at court reported that ‘the declaration which was comming forth from the King’ had been stopped ‘for great reasons’.Footnote 13 What these might have been we shall discuss below. Accordingly, the final version of the king’s opening speech omitted any reference to the second declaration, and no one, it appears, mentioned it thereafter.Footnote 14
We can be confident that it was Clarendon who drafted the second declaration. He was practised at articulating what might be called the royal voice, and any doubts may be assuaged by its complex syntax, notably the baroque structure of its opening sentence, and turns of phrase which were distinctively Clarendonian. It is tempting, though, to suggest that the sense of peevishness and of grievance at offended honour, that occasionally bubbles to the surface, may reflect the king’s personal interventions in the drafting process.Footnote 15 But was king or minister responsible for the policy of measured indulgence? This question opens up a much bigger one, the relationship between Charles ii and Clarendon who, by the early 1650s, had clearly become his leading advisor. This broader question is beyond the scope of this essay, but a few observations may be made.Footnote 16 The language of ‘liberty to tender consciences’ that was at the heart of the second declaration was drawn clearly from the declaration of Breda, but it had emerged as a core element of any restoration settlement at the court in exile by 1657. As Paul Hardacre has shown, the emergence of this position as a keystone of royal policy and the refinement of the language proceeded alongside Clarendon’s consolidation of his position at court.Footnote 17 It is inconceivable that Charles and Clarendon were not both signed up to that language. But exactly what did ‘Liberty to tender Consciences’ mean – or, indeed, the important qualification that it should apply to those who ‘do not disturbe the Peace of the Kingdom’?Footnote 18 No attempt was made to put flesh on the bones before the king’s return. Part of the attraction of these phrases was, without doubt, their ambiguity and capaciousness. In March 1662 Clarendon admitted as much, and presented himself as the king’s dutiful servant, when he informed the House of Lords that the intention behind the promise of Breda ‘must bee best knowne to his Majestie’.Footnote 19 For all that Clarendon at times deplored his ‘lazynesse and unconcernednesse in businesse’,Footnote 20 the king was deeply committed to, and engaged in, the settlement of religion. Charles invested much time and effort in 1660–3 to achieve religious peace as the prerequisite for political stability, envisaging himself as supreme governor over all religious groups in England. Some form of indulgence, as promised at Breda, was a central part of those efforts, and the second declaration reinforces this point. The king’s commitment to indulgence, of course, extended into the early 1670s, long after Clarendon’s fall in 1667.
The opacity of language was, without doubt, designed to appeal to as many of Charles’s subjects as possible, both before and after his restoration. It may also have papered over differences of emphasis between Clarendon and Charles. It is clear that the king had a specific, and personal, commitment to some form of indulgence for Catholics. Clarendon probably did not share this view. The details of the proposals for indulgence of Catholics in the second declaration, and the terms in which they were expressed, can thus plausibly be attributed to Charles himself. Equally, it is worth noting that the provisions for Presbyterians and the account of the Worcester House declaration are consistent with Clarendon’s approach of making only ‘circumstantial temporary concessions’, allowing time for the healing of wounds but with the clear aim of the reassertion of uniformity.Footnote 21 But we can only speculate about their respective contribution to what was, in effect, the first attempt to articulate explicitly the royal position on indulgence to the other Protestant sects: the Independents, Baptists, Quakers and Fifth Monarchists. Ultimately, it is impossible to know who was more influential in the private discussions between the two, but there can be little doubt that what was agreed was the king’s policy, and that it was fully embraced by Clarendon. As in any successful relationship between a king and his leading minister, the policy was the king’s; the minister helped to shape it and was responsible for driving it forward.
The second declaration demonstrates the king’s unwavering commitment to pursue the ‘liberty to tender consciences’ proclaimed in the declaration of Breda through his prerogative powers as supreme governor, for which he sought not parliament’s authority so much as its approval by statute. It was presented as an update and commentary on the Worcester House declaration, dated 25 October 1660, and entitled His majestie’s declaration to all his loving subjects of his kingdom of England and dominion of Wales concerning ecclesiastical affairs. The second declaration carried exactly the same title, except for the insertion of ‘second’ in front of ‘declaration’. The context and purposes of the two declarations are, however, quite different. The Worcester House declaration emerged from a conference of episcopalian and Presbyterian clergy and laity, over which Charles ii presided, as a latter-day Constantine.Footnote 22 It focused on the king’s moves to offer comprehension to the Presbyterians, in other words drawing them into a broader national Church; it said nothing about Roman Catholics or Independents, still less about ‘sectaries’. It proposed a form of moderated episcopacy and a temporary indulgence from the liturgy and ceremonies of the Church, pending a conference to review the liturgy on which a full settlement would then be based. In as far as it was an enactment of Breda’s promise of ‘liberty to tender consciences’, it was confined to one group, the Presbyterians, who were adamantly opposed to indulgence towards other groups. In contrast, the second declaration arose from unrecorded discussions at court, concentrated not on comprehension but indulgence and proposed a more expansive and inclusive definition of that ‘liberty’ offered at Breda. The second declaration recounted the king’s intentions in issuing the Worcester House declaration, traced its consequences, and considered the case (or not) for offering indulgence to ‘tender consciences’ among six religious groups or ‘interests’, to use that contemporary neologism: not just Presbyterians, but also Catholics, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers and Fifth Monarchists.Footnote 23 This six-fold classification was rigid and was unaccommodating to those – most famously Richard Baxter – who did not identify with any one group. However, the acute comments upon each group indicate knowledge and understanding of their distinctive positions, which no doubt were informed by those numerous audiences granted by Charles and Clarendon to ‘all Persons of the severall Professions, Fancyes, and Humours in Religion’ in the early months of the reign, and underline the seriousness of the royal project for indulgence.Footnote 24
The timing of the second declaration is instructive. As the second sitting of the Cavalier Parliament got underway, the complete reconstruction of the episcopalian Church of England was now in sight. Bishops had been restored to the House of Lords and re-invested with disciplinary authority in their sees, liturgical reform had been discussed at the Savoy conference and preparations were now underway to finalise a lightly revised Book of Common Prayer, with a bill of uniformity into which it would be enfolded having passed the Commons and now before the Lords. The political world had shifted since the Worcester House declaration of a year before. The Cavalier Parliament, which opened on 8 May 1661, was dominated by royalists and episcopalians, and the Presbyterian interest was politically broken, and with it all royal desire for comprehension, so it is unsurprising that the Savoy conference of April–July 1661 proved to be unproductive. Now the final shape of the Caroline settlement of religion could be proposed, built upon two complementary pillars. An episcopalian Church of England re-established by law would be accompanied by some measured indulgence of Protestant Nonconformists and Catholics, exercised through the royal prerogative and endorsed by parliament. Thus, as the second declaration stated, ‘the Church may receive the Countenance and Protection [which] is dew to it by Law … & then We shall most willingly consent to any Indulgence’ by act of parliament.Footnote 25
The second declaration effectively falls into two distinct parts. The first and longer section (pp. 1–19) recounts the difficulties that Charles had faced in 1660–1 as his offer of indulgence was exploited by both Protestant Nonconformists and Catholics, and resented by episcopalian conformists, to royal dismay and frustration. Then the document pivots. In the second and shorter section (pp. 19–30), notwithstanding all these problems, the king reaffirms his objective of religious indulgence and outlines who might be included in, and who excluded from, this dispensation.
Let us examine these two parts in turn. For the first, we should guard against assuming that Charles ii’s views as expressed in November 1661 necessarily matched those he had enunciated in the Worcester House declaration in October 1660. But, in point of fact, there is a broad similarity of outlook, although in two respects the king gave a distorted view of the earlier declaration to suit his present purposes. So the second declaration made much of the failure of clergy to use the ‘temporary Indulgence’ granted in October 1660 to reconcile others to episcopalian government and the Prayer Book, which in fact is nowhere mentioned in the Worcester House declaration.Footnote 26 The second declaration also presented an incomplete account of what had been offered at Worcester House. It drew attention to royal concessions on worship and ritual, and the promise, which had been subsequently fulfilled, to convene a conference to revise the liturgy, but made no mention of undertakings to reform episcopal government, which, it appears, had been permanently shelved by the spring of 1661.Footnote 27
The second declaration reveals much about the ecclesiastical politics of 1660. It stated that the grant of ‘liberty to tender consciences’ at Breda in April 1660 was, in part, an acknowledgement that it already existed amid the religious pluralism and diversity of the later 1650s.Footnote 28 It also confirms, as some historians have surmised, that the indulgence at Breda was intended to embrace Catholics as well as Protestants.Footnote 29 This helps make better sense of the proposal presented by Clarendon, in the final moments of the Worcester House conference on 22 October 1660, to offer indulgence to all peaceable religious groups, including Catholics. This received no support from the assembly of Presbyterians and episcopalians, both lay and clerical, so the matter was dropped – for the time being.Footnote 30
Within the second declaration is also a rather jaundiced account of the Convention Parliament of 1660, reiterating the irritation of Charles and Clarendon at the slow progress towards a religious settlement that can be detected as early as September 1660.Footnote 31 While sharp religious divisions within the parliament were rightly noted, we may question its claim that the crown had ‘entirely’ referred the religious problem to parliament.Footnote 32 In truth, and as the second declaration notes in passing, the king took a very active role within days of his return to England, meeting ‘the severall Partyes in Religion’ and opening negotiations with London Presbyterian ministers to comprehend them within a restructured Church. For the Presbyterians these culminated in late October in the Worcester House conference and the royal declaration on ecclesiastical affairs which followed. Indeed, in the House of Commons that July, amid acrimonious disputes over religious reform, and at the prompting of Anthony Ashley Cooper, a privy councillor, MPs requested the king to convene a group of divines ‘to advise concerning matters of religion’, and in the meanwhile suspended the meeting of the grand committee on religion for the next three months. Given Cooper’s involvement, this pause may have been engineered by the court, but in any case it clearly suited the king since it gave him time to unveil his own proposals for settling the Church. However, rather than sidestepping religion altogether, parliament then proceeded to grasp the nettle of settling the parochial ministry, with the act for confirming and restoring the ministry, a highly controversial but fundamental step towards stabilising the Church, which received the royal assent in September.Footnote 33 The second declaration’s lop-sided view of the Convention Parliament’s record reflects its broader tenor: the king’s sincere search for religious peace was being frustrated on all sides, most particularly (as we shall see) by the Presbyterian interest, which had a major voice in the House of Commons. It may also have been retrospectively coloured by the offence Charles ii took at the Presbyterian response to the Worcester House declaration, which deserves some comment here.
The second declaration acknowledged that the concessions granted by Charles ii first at Breda in April 1660 and then at Worcester House in October 1660 had signally failed to promote greater religious peace. Instead, an ‘unreasonable pretence to Liberty of Conscience’ had been championed by ‘the Frowardnesse and perversenesse of obstinate men’ resulting in ‘uncharitable devisions’, to ‘the shaking the very Ligaments and foundation of Government’.Footnote 34 The king’s anger at ‘so ill an use of Our indulgence’ can be seen as early as 10 January 1661, in the aftermath of Venner’s rising, when he issued a proclamation, directed at Anabaptists, Quakers and Fifth Monarchists, prohibiting seditious meetings and conventicles.Footnote 35 But by November 1661, the principal trouble-makers, for Charles and Clarendon, were clearly Presbyterian clergy and laity. The second declaration highlighted two manoeuvres by the Presbyterian leadership in November 1660 which angered the king. One was the vote of thanks to the king for the Worcester House declaration by London Presbyterian ministers who, nevertheless, tried to re-open two matters debated and, in the king’s view, settled at the conference: namely retaining re-ordination by bishops of ministers already ordained as presbyters who wished to accept livings, and requiring the use of surplices in college chapels at Oxford and Cambridge. Charles rejected what he evidently regarded as an impudent request for ‘new Concessions, and new Libertyes’.Footnote 36 The other was the unsuccessful attempt to convert the Worcester House declaration into parliamentary statute. The second declaration strongly suggests that the king had staunchly opposed this bill in November 1660. The bill wrote off the measured steps laid out in the Worcester House declaration to achieve unity and uniformity and touched his ‘honour’ since it implied mistrust that his promises would be fulfilled. Above all, by making temporary concessions on worship, ceremonies and clerical oaths permanent, Charles held that the Convention’s bill would have prevented rather than promoted religious reconciliation. Clergy and laity would have been able to depart from the ceremonies and liturgy of the Church as they pleased, and as such, the bill deliberately laid ‘the foundation of a perpetuall Schisme in the Church’. A year on, and he feared that they ‘still pursue that Intention’.Footnote 37
More broadly, according to the second declaration, the ‘liberty to tender consciences’ specified in the Worcester House declaration had only encouraged ministers to criticise episcopal government, to put aside the Prayer Book, and to exploit the indulgence ‘as the only ground’ for nonconformity. Official forms of prayer were often disregarded, and ‘some’ had even refused to read the Act for the King’s Safety. This, we may presume, was because it included a condemnation of the Presbyterian Solemn League and Covenant.Footnote 38 Although they were not named, the target of all this criticism can only be Presbyterian ministers. Towards the end of the document, sharp words were used against the ‘unpeaceable Spiritt’ of the preface to The petition of peace, an account by Richard Baxter of the failure of the Savoy conference to reform the Prayer Book.Footnote 39 Moreover, the spectre of radical political Presbyterianism was evoked, with the claim that an ‘immoderate Party’ of Presbyterians were much more interested in ‘a Coordination in the civill Power’, the sharing of authority between king, Lords and Commons, than in religious reform.Footnote 40 The second declaration’s hostility to the conduct of many Presbyterian ministers and MPs in the aftermath of the Worcester House conference is a powerful explanation for Charles ii’s rapidly diminishing support in 1661 for the Presbyterian interest and with it his enthusiasm for a more comprehensive episcopalian Church. The first section ends by demonstrating how each of the six religious interests, the Presbyterians above all, had put their own self-serving spin on the offer of ‘liberty to tender consciences’, most of which were branded as ‘unreasonable’.Footnote 41
At this point, and rather remarkably, the second declaration turns from criticism and recrimination to a more positive message. Despite all the misrepresentation that he had endured, the king was determined to fulfil his promise at Breda to provide ‘our Indulgence towards tender Consciences’ of peaceful subjects in order to achieve ‘the Peace, Quiett and Happinesse of the Nation’. Accordingly, he commended the easing of laws against Catholics to ‘the prudent Consideration of Our Parliament’. Charles also looked to it to help frame an act of indulgence for Protestant Nonconformists, even though he made plain his conviction that he already possessed a lawful dispensing power under the prerogative ‘to reskue any such particular Person … from the execution of the severity of any Law’. So why did the king seek parliamentary recognition of powers he believed he already possessed? To do so would be in line with his expressed wish in the declaration of Breda, and it would be a tacit acknowledgement that he needed the support of the political nation for exercising his dispensing power much more extensively than his predecessors had done. For the second declaration implied that the king would be invested with the considerable authority to determine, individual by individual, who would and who would not qualify for a dispensation. Beyond that, however, we learn little of the proposed act’s character and how it might reconcile law and an unlimited dispensing power under the prerogative, for it merely referred to ‘the wisdome of the Parliament’ to make ‘such provision’.Footnote 42
Nor is it clear how dispensations might be granted, though probably it was to be through the issuing of royal licences such as would be proposed in the bill of indulgence of 1663 and would be used in the declaration of indulgence of 1672.Footnote 43 Only those who had conscientious objections to the ceremonies and liturgy would be eligible. How might they be identified? The golden rule was that ‘a good Conscience, is a quiett Conscience’: quiet in their personal and public life, which links to the intention to dispense only peaceable subjects. Caroline liberty of conscience was quite narrowly circumscribed, with no room for the Puritan conscience, which felt impelled to protest against what it regarded as unlawful ceremonies or liturgy. Instead, the second declaration supposed that individual conscience and public peace were entirely compatible, and that any ‘conscientious’ individual who agitated for change was not conscientious at all, merely a troublemaker.Footnote 44
Taken as a whole the second declaration reveals Charles and Clarendon engaging with, and drawing on, a variety of elements in the contemporary debates about indulgence. The language of scruple and conscience is used repeatedly, revealing a preoccupation with the doubts which were inhibiting conformity and with their legitimacy. References to the association of Protestant dissent with trade hint at a debate of increasing importance through the reign of Charles ii, culminating in the language of James ii’s declaration of indulgence in 1687. But perhaps the most powerful and recurrent argument is the desire to create the conditions for public peace. This is hardly surprising after two decades of civil and religious strife, but it is tempting to speculate how far Charles ii was influenced by the example of France, where Henry iv had brought to an end nearly half a century of civil conflict through a settlement that recognised and reinforced the position of an intolerant Catholicism as the established religion of the kingdom. At the same time the freedom of the Protestant Huguenots to worship according to their conscience outside that Church, an indulgence considerably more extensive that anything envisaged by Charles ii in England, was guaranteed by a ‘politique’ toleration, emanating from royal authority and secured in a permanent law, the Edict of Nantes (1598), which had been crucial in establishing peace.Footnote 45 Charles would have been equally aware of how the gradual erosion of the privileges of the edict under Louis xiii had made French Protestants increasingly dependent for their continued toleration on the person of the king himself, and a similar dependence is anticipated in the second declaration.Footnote 46
The declaration considers in some detail the likelihood of this indulgence being extended to different religious groups. The violence of Fifth Monarchists and the threat posed by Quakers meant they would be excluded; the king needed more information before reaching a decision on the inclusion of Anabaptists and Independents; to Presbyterians he owed a debt for their part, both active and passive, in securing ‘Our Restoration’, and he identified among them many ‘of Learning, Piety, and Virtue’ as well as more fiery spirits. Their response to the forthcoming act of uniformity and revised Book of Common Prayer annexed to it would indicate just how obedient they were to the rule of law.Footnote 47 Most revealing of all is the section on Catholics.Footnote 48 The king expressed his gratitude to English Catholics for their support for his father in the civil wars of the 1640s and their assistance in his escape after the battle of Worcester in 1651,Footnote 49 as well as to foreign Catholic princes for their ‘great Civillitys’ and hospitality during his years in exile. The king took to heart these princes’ condemnation of English legislation containing the death penalty for Catholic priests, and noted that the Church of England no longer needed the protection of such sanctions ‘either to preserve or propagate it’. He proposed a repeal of the sanguinary laws and a reduction in the number of Catholic priests in England by establishing a register of their names and residence, both of which had been discussed in the House of Lords four months earlier, in July 1661, and he desired more lenient treatment of those priests professing loyalty to the crown. Such changes, the king observed, would enable him to induce Catholic princes abroad to abolish similar legislation against Protestants in their dominions.Footnote 50 This passage in the declaration stands out for two reasons. First, it amounts to the single most lengthy statement Charles ii ever made about his attitude towards Catholics. Secondly, it reveals sympathy for the plight of Catholics and outrage at the current sanguinary laws, with no hint of mainstream Protestant anti-popery nor an apprehension that ‘very many’ Catholics might break the peace, in contrast to the sharp remarks elsewhere about Quakers, Fifth Monarchists and some Presbyterians. Whether or not the king was a closet Catholic, his engagement with their predicament is quite patent. The declaration concluded by stressing that indulgence towards Nonconformists was a temporary measure, to allow Protestant dissenters to be coaxed and instructed into conformity after nearly twenty years’ ‘licence & Corruption’, yet it said nothing about Catholics, whose indulgence was evidently intended to be open-ended. This was a significant silence, again indicative of royal sympathies.Footnote 51
The intended audience for the second declaration was the wider political nation, well beyond the confines of Westminster and Whitehall. From exile, Charles ii had perforce used print to justify his actions and demonstrate his paternal concern for his people, and we have not fully appreciated how this continued long after his restoration to the throne.Footnote 52 Thus A collection of his majestie’s gracious letters, speeches, messages and declarations since 4/14 April 1660 was issued at the end of 1660 by the king’s printer, while no fewer than twelve of his parliamentary speeches were published as separates between 1660 and 1663.Footnote 53 Charles ii did not merely contribute to the debate about the religious settlement; he was at the heart of it and, arguably, did much to determine its parameters and content.Footnote 54 It was entirely predictable that, having published the Worcester House declaration in October 1660, Charles planned to do the same with its successor, the second declaration of November 1661. Additionally, as the opening paragraph of the latter made clear, the grant of ‘the liberty to tender consciences’ had been misrepresented, by a ‘froward Liberty of interpreting’, which necessitated the king spelling out the purposes and limits of his indulgence. The same sensitivity to being misconstrued, in politics and religion, appears in the royal declaration of 26 December 1662.Footnote 55
The second declaration was an opportunity to revisit the promise made at Breda and to signal to the wider public what form ‘liberty to tender consciences’ might take. Although the second declaration anticipated parliamentary co-operation over framing an act of indulgence, Charles and Clarendon must both have been aware that this would court controversy, not least from episcopalians at court, in parliament and across the country. The king was stating his commitment to indulge some Catholics and Nonconformist Protestants as a means of securing domestic peace and stability. At the same time, as a counter-balance, he needed to demonstrate an equal commitment to Protestantism and to the Church of England, which was suspect, despite the king’s explicit statements of support for both episcopacy and the Prayer Book, from the moment of his arrival in England, and despite the episcopalian reading of events of 1660–1 contained in the second declaration.Footnote 56 Rhetorically, this task was complicated by the fact that very few episcopalians believed that indulgence was desirable in itself or a political solution to religious division. The king’s sanguine attitude about parliamentary support is somewhat perplexing. If he believed that he would get support from episcopalians because of their strong royalism and gratitude for his restoration of the Church, the events of 1662–3 demonstrated not just his failure to build a coalition in support of indulgence but also, more seriously, a fundamental lack of understanding of the mentality of the cavaliers. But, before characterising Charles’s position as (perhaps implausibly) naive or even deluded, it is worth noting that the conviction that such a coalition could be constructed, that it was practical politics, remained a constant feature of Stuart policy right through to the revolution of 1688.
Let us return to a problem posed earlier: why, days before its intended publication, was the second declaration withheld, and withheld so suddenly? Such a suppression was unpredecented, and all the more remarkable given its length as a self-proclaimed ‘discourse’Footnote 57 and its discursive content. Ultimately, there is no satisfactory answer to this question, but several considerations may have been in play. According to William Fuller, dean of St Patrick’s Dublin but temporarily in London, it was because of fears that the planned introduction of a bill to repeal capital punishment of Catholics might be blamed on the bishops, who were about to take their seats in the House of Lords for the first time since 1642, and might revive accusations from the 1630s and early 1640s that they were popishly-inclined. This argument could well have carried weight with Charles ii, who had expressed great delight in July 1661 at the act readmitting bishops to the Lords.Footnote 58 Fuller was probably well-informed since he was in and around the court and intimate with Charles’s chief clerical advisors, Bishops Sheldon and Morley.Footnote 59 Yet it does not seem an entirely satisfactory explanation, since the proposal to repeal sanguinary laws could have been excised and the rest of the declaration published. A second explanation, deployed by the crown when advocating indulgence in 1662–3, was that it made better sense to establish religious conformity by law before proceeding to agree to offer exemptions from it.Footnote 60 Indeed, at two points the second declaration implies as much,Footnote 61 and it might have been suggested that announcing an indulgence in advance, one which would have extended to the bulk of the Presbyterians, might have derailed debates about the proposed act of uniformity, which in November 1661 was before the house of Lords, and reduced the pressures on Presbyterian ministers to conform. Both of these arguments, however, could have been anticipated long before the imminent reassembling of parliament, so the decision to shelve the declaration at the eleventh hour remains a puzzle. Perhaps the most persuasive explanation, not least given the timing of the decision, is that it was the resolution of a court struggle between opponents and supporters of indulgence to Nonconformists, such as would be evident in 1662–3, of which no visible trace remains. Certainly, leading episcopalians at court would have been firmly opposed to an indulgence, to which they objected on principle, and which they believed would undermine their efforts to re-establish religious uniformity and political stability.
The thinking behind the second declaration, however, was not abandoned. The king failed in the spring and summer of 1662 to soften the harsh terms of the act of uniformity by using the crown’s prerogative powers to offer individual dispensations to Presbyterian ministers.Footnote 62 In the winter of 1662, with the Act of Uniformity now in force, Charles returned to the broader agenda of indulgence. On 26 December 1662 he issued a wide-ranging declaration which included a proposed indulgence for peaceable Protestant Nonconformists and Catholics. Although the context had now altered, with the king having to rebut accusations that he had imposed ‘streighter fetters then ever, and new rocks of scandal to the scrupulous’ under the Act of Uniformity, while being ‘highly indulgent’ to Catholics, the key features of the 1662 declaration drew on those of 1661. So, in a highly abbreviated form, we find the same re-iteration of the king’s promise of a liberty to tender consciences made at Breda; of his own constant commitment to the true Protestant religion while in exile and now in England; of his desire to indulge Catholics, who had given their ‘Lives and Fortunes’ to serve the king and his father in the civil wars and who lived ‘peaceably, modestly and without scandal’; of his wish to remove capital punishment for Catholics; of his rebuke to the Convention Parliament for failing to submit a bill of indulgence; and of his ambition to frame such an act, even though the power of dispensation was ‘inherent’ in the crown. The indulgence proposed in December 1662, in point of fact, was less generous than had been outlined in the second declaration.Footnote 63 Its appearance has often been attributed to the growing influence of favourites and councillors such as Bristol, Bennet and Ashley Cooper in the autumn of 1662, but its derivation from the second declaration suggests that we should backdate their counsel by a year, or confine it to advice on timing rather than on content, or else, most plausibly, see the king driving forward a longstanding objective to secure an act of indulgence and turning to those whom he knew would support it.Footnote 64
The practical difficulties of incorporating into statute the royal dispensing power were exposed in February 1663, as parliament reconvened. The bill of indulgence presented to the Lords excluded toleration to Catholics, a conciliatory move intended to dampen opposition from many peers and MPs, but it proposed allowing the king to dispense individuals not just from the Act of Uniformity but from any religious legislation which imposed oaths or conformity. This clause was struck out by the Lords, and led Clarendon, framer of the second declaration, to castigate it as ‘Ship-Money in religion’, meaning it contained a limitless power of the prerogative over statute law. The Commons’ address to the king rejected indulgence and asserted that the ‘laws of uniformity then in being’ could only be dispensed with by act of parliament, rather than the royal prerogative, a direct rebuttal of the ‘liberty to tender consciences’ granted in the declarations of Breda and Worcester House. Shortly afterwards the bill of indulgence was withdrawn by the crown.Footnote 65 It was a moment of political truth for the king, whose airy assumption in the second declaration that parliament would fall into line and support indulgence had proved to be hopelessly misplaced.
The second declaration not only offers fresh insight into the thinking of the Caroline regime about the settlement of religion at the end of 1661, but it also provides the fullest surviving discussion of the politics of indulgence and what Charles may have envisaged at Breda in April 1660 when he offered ‘liberty to tender consciences’. Our account of the Caroline religious settlement of 1660–3 needs to give due prominence to the king’s dogged pursuit of some religious toleration, from Breda right through to the aftermath of the proposed indulgence in 1663. It was clearly more important to him than comprehension, which would have accommodated only one group of Nonconformists, the Presbyterians, and probably only some of them, a policy which he had effectively abandoned by the summer of 1661. In revising our understanding of ecclesiastical politics in November 1661, we should recognise that indulgence was a priority for the king, though in the event his proposals remained private for another thirteen months; and that too much has been made of the brief statement in his opening speech on 20 November that he was handing over the religious settlement to parliament.Footnote 66 The draft of this speech, hitherto overlooked by historians, together with the second declaration itself, indicate that this remark was originally an invitation to joint action by king and parliament to enact indulgence and repeal sanguinary legislation against Catholics. The draft speech read:Footnote 67
those which concerne matters of religion, I confesse to you are to[o] harde for me, and therfore I have commended them to your care and deliberation, as you will perceave by my declaration, which is ready to be published, upon a reviewe, of that I formerly sett out touchinge Ecclesiasticall affayres,Footnote 68 wee shall I hope togither finde some to satisfy all honest and pyous men.
The sudden decision to shelve the declaration led to a hasty editing of this section of the king’s speech, which now gave a very different and misleading impression of his wishes:Footnote 69
Those which concern Matters of Religion, I confess to you, are too hard for Me; and therefore I do commend them to your Care and Deliberation which can best provide for them.
Of course, in the event, the king did not step back at all: he authorised the approval of revisions to the Prayer Book through convocation, had it signed off by the privy council in February 1662, and then in March fought in the Lords for an indulgence proviso to be added to the uniformity bill. Charles has sometimes been seen as an inconsistent and inattentive supreme governor of the Church, but this second declaration, and much else besides, suggests quite the opposite for 1660–3. He and his critics in the Cavalier Parliament could agree that religious peace was the foundation for political stability, but few MPs embraced his solution of indulgence, as events in the decade after 1663 demonstrated all too clearly.
Despite being withdrawn at the last minute, the second declaration of November 1661 is a key document for our understanding of Caroline religious policy at the Restoration. It offers us the clearest statement by Charles and Clarendon of that policy, the most detailed account of their attitude to the various religious groups in the nation, and the most coherent official justification of royal support for indulgence in the entire reign. It thus contributes to three arguments, all of which are significant revisions of widely accepted interpretations of the religious settlement of 1660–3. First, Charles himself was central to the making of policy through the period. In particular, in November 1661, despite his evident frustration, he did not step back and abdicate his role in the making of the settlement to parliament. Second, royal policy had two objectives: the imposition of a strict settlement in the Church, based on the restoration of government by bishops and conformity to a Book of Common Prayer that had, at most, been minimally revised, together with the provision of a limited indulgence to those conscientiously unable to conform. Third, rather than being vacillating and intermittently disengaged, Charles pursued these objectives consistently through the period 1660–3.
We shall develop these arguments elsewhere. But it is worth drawing out some of the implications of this document for our understanding of its major theme, the policy of indulgence. The second declaration provides the missing link between the declaration of Breda, which held out the promise of an undefined liberty to tender consciences, and the well-known (if mistitled) declaration of indulgence of 26 December 1662. In this context, Charles ii’s later efforts to secure a measure of toleration, seen most fully in the 1672 declaration of indulgence, appear less another tactical shift in the convoluted politics of Caroline England, than the revival of an earlier objective which he had been driven temporarily to abandon only by circumstances. Forced again by parliamentary opposition to withdraw his declaration in 1673, he was content to see his brother acting as an irritant to the administration of the earl of Danby by continuing to promote a tolerationist agenda, for Catholics at least.Footnote 70 When James succeeded to the crown, his own pursuit of toleration, as expressed in his declarations of indulgence of 1687 and 1688, might be portrayed as the culmination of a long-held commitment by the late Stuart monarchy, however maladroit its implementation. Moreover, while significant differences in the detail of successive attempts to achieve indulgence should not be overlooked, the royal brothers both regarded it as an exercise of prerogative rights inherent in the crown, despite, perhaps paradoxically, their repeated and consistent desire to secure parliamentary recognition of that authority.
The nature of and reasoning behind Charles’s commitment to indulgence remain obscure. But perhaps, for once, we should take seriously his own statements. More than a century after the Reformation religious division and conflict were part of the fabric of political and social life across Europe, and Christian rulers were sharply aware of the damage inflicted on the spiritual as much as the civil lives of their subjects. The second declaration makes clear that the indulgence offered was ‘politique’, in that its aim was to secure ‘the Peace, Quiett, and Happinesse of the Nation’. At the same time, the king was equally clear in stating his belief that the state should not disturb ‘tender consciences’ as long as they were peaceable. In the long term, indulgence may have been intended to facilitate the restoration of conformity for all Protestants. But it was still a matter of belief as well as policy, influenced, as Charles said, by ‘naturall reason and Inclinations, as by our naturall Prudence and Discretion’.Footnote 71
APPENDIX
Charles II’s Second Declaration on Ecclesiastical Affairs, 1661Footnote *
[p. 1] His Ma ties second Declaration to all his loving Subjects of his Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales, Concerning Ecclesiasticall Affaires.Footnote 1
It is no new observation, nor are we now to learne, that the most cleere expressions, and the most significant wordes wch men can choose, to make their Minde, Opinions, and Intentions knowne to the world, are often times by the glosses & Interpretations wch other men putt upon them; so perverted, that the words are made to signify nothing lesse, then the sence of them who spake them; And it were well, if this froward Liberty of interpreting, exercised it selfe only upon mens wordes, upon what they say; But the same experience tells us, that the same Licence extends it selfe to the best Actions, and that those Councells wch men weigh most maturely, and the Actions wch they thereupon doe with the greatest deliberation, are lyable to the same unnaturall misconstructions, so that not only men who hear, will suppose men to say, that wch they doe not say, but (wch is more wonderfull) men who see, will declare and publish men to doe, what they doe not, and what is quite contrary to what they doe; and the finding our Selfe to fall under [p. 2] this fate, Our wordes to be applyed to a sence, we thinke they cannot beare, and Our very Actions to admitt what we thinke inconsistant with them, hath putt us to this unwilling trouble of a second Declaration.
As We doe not thanke God Almighty so much for any one blessing in that multitude wch he hath miraculously poured downe upon Us, as that he hath in those violent gusts & Temptations with wch We have been assaulted, preserved Us from being corrupted, or in truth shaken in Our Religion, but on the contrary, that of his grace, he hath thereby strengthned & confirmed Us in the same, Soe, We have not, We thanke God, been so puffed up, with the confidence of our owne being in the right, as to be without a tender pitty and Compassion towards those who differ from Us, We having had too much knowledge of, and even Conversation with, severall Persons, of equall Learning, equall Piety, equall Sincerity, ^yet of very contrary opinions in matters of Religion,^Footnote 2 to beleeve that either of them is out of God’s favour, or that the best of them, may not admitt somewhat in his practice, that may discreditt the truth of his opinion to that degree, and that the worst of them, by the Integrity of what he doeth, may in such a measure recompence for the error of what he thinkes or sayes, that they may both equally have cause to feare his Justice, and to hope for, and be confident of his Mercy; And therefore we were as well by Our [p. 3] naturall reason and Inclinations, as by our naturall Prudence and Discretion, in a Conjuncture when the Nation was indeed possessed of that Liberty,Footnote 3 induced to declare from Breda, a Liberty to tender Consciences, and that no man should be disquieted, or called in question for differences of Opinion in matter of Religion, wch doe not disturbe the Peace of the Kingdome; and that We should be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament, as upon mature deliberation should be offered to Us, for the full granting that Indulgence;Footnote 4 And God knows, We have often wished, and sometimes, We doubt,Footnote 5 unreasonably hoped, that there would be that common Innocence and Simplicity in the natures and lives of men, as that the fullest Liberty to the most tender Consciences might be fully granted, without disquieting, or disturbing, or in truth determining the Happinesse and Peace of the Kingdome.
How farr We have been since Our arrivall in this Kingdome, from exacting the execution of, or obedience to the Laws established in matters relating to Religion,Footnote 6 otherwise then by our owne constant practice, and declaring the high esteeme We have of them,Footnote 7 all men know: That for many Moneths after Our comming hither, We tooke no notice, nor made the least Reflection, upon the universall Liberty that was used in the exercise of Religion, and many great extravagancyes wch had flowed from that Liberty; We had before Our entrance, and indeede to facilitate Our [p. 4] Entrance, recommended and referred that whole Affaire, to the wisdome of the Parliament, who, We presumed, would best compose it to the temper and for the Peace of the Kingdome, and in the meane time We resolved the best We could, to informe Our Selfe, what the severall Partyes in Religion proposed to themselves; what their severall Opinions and practice were, and what the result of those Opinions, and that Practice, was like to be, with reference to the established Laws, and Government of the Kingdome, and in order thereunto, We admitted all Persons of the severall Professions, Fancyes, and Humours in Religion, to Our Presence, heard all that they could say, and received all Overtures and Propositions from them, wch they thought fitt to make, for the advancement of their owne Interest.Footnote 8
We were not long without discerning how inconsistant this Liberty would quickly proove with the Peace and Happinesse of the Kingdome, and that, though some considerable numbers earnestly laboured to obtaine it, the generality of the Nation, at least the most considerable part of it, was soe farr from consenting to it, that they in all places complayned of the mischeives wch did arise, and threaten the Peace of the Kingdome, from the boldnesse and Licence of those People, and that Our gracious Indulgence towards them, had soe obstructed the cource of Justice, and the execution of the Lawes, that the Magistrates and Ministers of Justice found it very [p. 5] difficult to comply with their obligations by the Oathes they had taken, and with that obedience they desired to pay to the signification of Our Pleasure, for their Connivance at the Liberty those Persons assumed to themselves; And We easily discovered We were not without reproch Our Selfe, for the Moderation We had used, as if We wanted Zeale for the Religion We professed,Footnote 9 and Care, to support the established Laws and Government of the Kingdome, few men enough considering the Condition We were in, and that We had entirely referred that settlement to the wisdome of the Parliament, and none more severely censuring Us, or more opposing the Liberty or Indulgence others enjoyed, then they who were most sollicitous and importunate for most Liberty, and most Indulgence for them selves.
The Parliament had upon their hands all the great Affaires of the Kingdome, enough out of frame, the preparing the Act of Indemnity, the disbanding the Army, the paying off the Navy; and though they spent much time in the Consideration of the distempers in Religion; and wch flowed from thence, they could not only not agree upon any proper Remedies to apply thereunto, but the sharpnesse and passion that arose in those Debates, much disturbed and obstructed the other Consultations, and full five moneths passed after Our comming into this Kingdome, without their presenting or preparing any advice for Us, [p. 6] towards that Composure;Footnote 10 In the meane time, We had Our Selfe spent very many houres in Conference with severall learned Divines of severall Persuasions, and heard them togither debate the most materiall points in wch they differed,Footnote 11 and thereupon We published Our Declaration about the end of October, being five Moneths after Our comming into this Kingdome.Footnote 12
It will easily be beleeved, that We were well pleased Our Selfe, with what all other men seemed to be soe well pleased, and for wch the two Houses of Parliament shortly after, solemnely presented their humble thankes and acknowledgements to Us;Footnote 13 and We did beleeve and hope, that such good use would have been made of the Liberty and Indulgence We had granted to tender Consciences, that for Conscience sake men would not have abused that Liberty, that they who were in truth satisfyed in their owne Consciences of the Lawfullnesse of doing that wch is enjoyned by Law, and with the not doing whereof, We had dispensed with others, who were not satisfyed in Conscience, would take paynes to remoove soe inconvenient and weake scruples from the mindes of those, who have reverence for their Judgements and derections [sic], and that the good Correspondence and Conversation betweene the Persons of severall opinions, and their Love and Charity towards each other, according to Our example of Love and Charity to them all, would have soe prepared their Affections, and so allayed their [p. 7] Passions, that they would have now only contended, who should have expressed most obedience to Us, most Sollicitude for the Peace and Quiett of the Kingdome, and whose endeavours should be most signall, in the composing the mindes of the People, from the distraction and uneasinesse of groundlesse feares and Jealousys, and in the disposing them to a just reverence and affection to Our Person, and a dew acknowledgement of, and obedience to our Government; And for the better attaining the full end of that Our Declaration, and according to Our promise in it, We issued out Our Commission under Our great Seale of England, to severall Bishops and other Divines, named by the opposite Interest, for making such alterations in, and additions to the Booke of Common Prayer,Footnote 14 as might reconcile all sober men to the constant usage of it, and soe that the Mindes of all men might be prepared, to submitt to the determinations of a Synod, wch we resolved to call, in all those matters controverted, and in wch We had granted a temporary Indulgence till then.
We are almost ashamed, and are most heartily sorry, that We must confesse, that our Declaration (with what generall expressions soever of joy it was received) hath not produced that good effect, We expected, or wch the Candor of our Intentions deserved, and that the Persons obliged by it, have not done their parts,Footnote 15 and have been soe farr from endeavouring to bind up the wounds wch had been [p. 8] made, or from complying with the end of that Declaration (and wch in truth hath been Our principall end in all that We have done, and in pursuite whereof We have sustained no small trouble wch yet shall never discourage Us) that all names and tearms of distinction may be likewise putt into utter oblivion,Footnote 16 that they have even from thence revived ^their^ former discontinued sharpnesses, from being for a time dispenced with in point of Subscription and taking the Oath of Canonicall Obedience, they have taken the Liberty and the presumption to inveigh against the Bishops, and the intire Discipline and Government of the Church, from their not being positively obliged under the penalty to use the Booke of Common Prayer, (though We very earnestly recommended it to them)Footnote 17 they have assumed the boldnesse of preaching against the Booke of Common Prayer, and almost against all who use it, and by their appearing more sollicitous and importunate to obtaine new Concessions, and new Libertys,Footnote 18 then delighted or pleased with what hath been soe aboundantly granted to them, they give too much Countenance to the common reproach, of their having unnaturall and insatiable Appetites, wch the more they receive, the more they call for: And of this We must confesse, we had an unexpected instance very quickly after the issuing Our Declaration, upon a Representation made to Us by five or six and thirty Ministers of the Citty of London, [p. 9] (as they called themselves)Footnote 19 in wch, after very many dutifull expressions, and great acknowledgements of Our goodnesse towards them, in the Concessions in that Our Declaration, wch they particularly enumerated, they concluded, That they might not be defective in Ingenuity, they craved leave to professe, that all things in that frame of Government, were not exactly suted to their Judgements, and that there were some other things, wch had been already represented to Us, by some of their Reverend Brethren, wch they upon their Knees with all humble Importunity could begg of Us, especially that Reordination, and Surplices in Colleges might not be imposed, and for those they sayd they could not lay aside their hopes, That is, that they who had no Ordination, might be collated to Spirituall Charges without receiving any, for without censuring any forraigne Churches, (wch We doe not take upon Us to doe) in this place, few pretend that Ordination to be sufficient, where they may receive it by Bishops, as all might have done in England; And that the Schollars in the Universitys might not be obliged to weare the Surplice, wch by their severall Statutes they were enjoyned to, and wch We had by a speciall Proviso in Our Declaration, taken care that they should not be exempted from.Footnote 20
But We were more surprized, when We heard that great endeavour was used, to procure that [p. 10] our Declaration to be made a Law, and enacted by Parliament,Footnote 21 wch could have no other end but to keepe the Church and Religion from ever being established in any Unity and Uniformity, and whereas We had expressely declared, that in Consideration of the present distempers, We had taken upon Us, to give some determination Our Selfe to the matters in difference, untill such a Synod might be called, as might without Passion or prejudice, give Us such further assistance towards a perfect Union of Affections, as well as a submission to Authority as is necessary, and that We would leave all decisions and determinations of that kind if they should be thought necessary, for a perfect and entire Unity and Uniformity throughout the Nation, to the advice of a Nationall Synod, wch should be duely called, after a little time, and a mutuall Conversation betweene Persons of different persuasions, had mollified these distempers, abated those sharpnesses, and extinguished those Jealousyes, wch make men unfitt for those Consultations; and that upon such advice, We would use Our best endeavour, that such Laws may be established, as may best provide for the Peace of the Church and State:Footnote 22 We say, Our Purpose and Intention being soe cleerly manifested, and published in that Our Declaration, there could be noe other end or designe in promoting that Act of Parliament, but to keepe the miserable distracted Nation from being reconciled and [p. 11] united under any face of a Church, or any forme of Government, and to make Our charitable Condescentions in order to Unity, the foundation of a perpetuall Schisme in the Church.Footnote 23
We wish from Our heart, that We had not too much cause to beleeve that that was their Intention, or that they doe not still pursue that Intention with more artifice, and lesse regard to Our honour, then We had reason to expect from them; We have in the whole cource of Our Life, and constant practice, and very fully in that Our Declaration,Footnote 24 expressed the great Reverence and Devotion We have for the Church of England, the high Esteeme We have of the Booke of Common Prayer, as the best Lyturgy that ever was compiled, and of all the Ceremonyes of the Church, and did only out of Compassion to those who scruple the use of the Liturgy as now it is, soe farr dispence with them, that We signified Our Pleasure, that none should be punished or troubled for not using it, untill it should be reviewed, and effectually reformed as aforesayd.
Whether from this charitable Indulgence, and Dispensation of Ours to men who have reall scruple of Conscience, they who have no scruple, ought to forbeare and discontinue the practice of that wch the Law requires at their hand, and to wch they have themselves long since subscribed, or whether they ought not earnestly to have laboured to remoove those scruples out of the mindes of [p. 12] their weaker Brethren, We must appeale to their owne Conscience, wch will one day reproach them, for the Liberty they have used; We are informed from all parts of the Kingdome, that they are so farr from having performed this duty, that they have with more Insolence inveighed against the Government of the Church, then ever heretofore;Footnote 25 That they have been soe farr from submitting to the Laws ^formes^ established, wch they confesse they can in Conscience doe, that they have persuaded many, who did use the Booke of Common Prayer, before and since Our Declaration, to discontinue the same upon the Liberty We have givenFootnote 26 and as if it were equally acceptable to Us, by wch they have endeavoured to lessen Our creditt and Reputation with the People, and to alienate the Affections of Our good Subjects from Us, as if We were indifferent in what manner God Almighty is served, or if he be served at all, soe that now, Scruples in Conscience are seldome urged, but Our Declaration as the only ground of their non-Conformity; And soe little Reverence is given to any Authority, that very few of these men, have ever voutsafed to use any forme of Prayer published by Our Authority, for solemne Fast dayes or other occasionall Devotions,Footnote 27 and some of them have expressely refused to reade the Act for the Safety of Our Person,Footnote 28 because they say there are some expressions in it, wch they cannot use with a good Conscience.
They who have taken notice, and well observed [p. 13] how much We Our Selfe have suffered by the licence of these men, how much the Consciences of very pious and worthy men are grieved by it, with reference to the Religion and Peace of the Kingdome, the generall Complaints from the severall parts of the Kingdome, manifested in presentments to the Judges of Assizes, from the severall Grand–JuryesFootnote 29 (the best evidence We can have of the Affection and wishes of Our Subjects, next that of their Representatives in Parliament, and what their sence is, will be quickly manifested by themselves) We say, they who doe take notice of this, cannot blame Us, that We take this paines, to transferr the fault of any thing that have fallen out amisse, from Our Selfe, to putt them in mind of the Condition We were in, and the motives wch prevayled with Us, and that We doe complaine of those, who have deceived Our expectations, at least that men have not done all the good they could, in reducing the mis–ledd People, into the Pathes out of wch they have been miserably seduced; What could We have expected lesse, then that consciencious Preachers, would have sadly recollected themselves how unhappily they had been seduced, how unhappily they had seduced others, that they would have made sober Reflections upon the unwarrantable Actions wch have resulted from those opinions, with wch they continew still soe much in Love, at least that those opinions have been without that Conscience and Piety wch should have restrayned them from those unwarrantable [p. 14] Actions, that after a People’s having been ledd or hurryed into so many desperate Labirinths and Meanders, by multiplyed Perjuryes and contradictory Oathes and Covenants, after such delusions of Conscience, to that degree, that the warrant and obligation of Conscience, hath been made the inducements to the most foule, horridd, and bloody Actions, wch have been ever committed by men who have assumed to themselves the tytle and appellation of Christians; That after all this, and soe many miseryes sustayned from hence by the whole Nation, great care and diligence would have been used, rightly to have informed the Consciences of men, to have awakened them to a horror and detestation of all those wickednesses into wch they have been ledd, under an odious pretence of Conscience, and the more to have awakened them to that horror and detestation, because the loude voyce of Law and Justice, wch would otherwise have awakened them to their Confusion and Ruine, is suppressed and stifled by Our never to be repented of, Grace and Clemency; In a word, that all immaginable Art and Industry would have been used, to have fortified the whole Conscience of the Nation, against any possibility of future revolts, by exposing and demonstrating unto them, the wicked Artifice, the grosse Fallacyes, and the un–Christian Impostures, by and through wch they have been formerly soe ruinously mis–ledd; How little care and vigilance of this kind hath been exercised, appeares too manifestly by the sedicious Sermons of every day, too [p. 15] much to the discreditt and dishonour of the Pulpitt, against the unruly Licence whereof, too much provision cannot be made.Footnote 30
It is a wonderfull thing, with what greedinesse, and Confidence, men of all Opinions, all Principles, all Humours, challenge to themselves a full warrant and security, for whatsoever they thinke, or say, or doe, from that clause in our Declaration, in wch We doe declare a Liberty to tender Consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of Opinion in matter of Religion, wch doe not disturbe the Peace of the Kingdome,Footnote 31 wch We doe from Our heart consent to, in such a sence, as it can be understood by any truly consciencious Person, who hath any reall tendernesse for the Peace of the Kingdome, wch cannot possibly consist, with the unreasonable Interpretation most of the distinct Interests doth putt upon it.
The Roman Catholiques will from hence promise themselves, at least thinke they have some tytle, that they shall enjoy a full Liberty of Conscience, and tollerationFootnote 32 of their Religion, and that giving all kind of ^givingeFootnote 33^ security for their Loyalty to Us, and their entire Affection for the Peace, and quiett, and Happinesse of the Kingdome, they may be disburthened from the heavy Penaltys wch the established Laws have provided for them.Footnote 34
The Presbiterians doe not thinke this a faire Interpretation, or that such a Liberty can be conscientiously given to them, but from the same clause, challenge to themselves, a full dispensation and release from all [p. 16] the obligations wch the Lawes have layd upon them, wch are not agreeable to their owne Judgements, to use noe Liturgy, noe Ceremony, at least till a new Liturgy be framed, and new Ceremonyes invented, they will not have their Ministry restrayned from saying any thing they thinke necessary for the saving of Souls, when God knows how many Souls have been endangered by it, nor be called in question for the exercise of this Ministry, or by what Ordination they tooke that Ministry upon them.Footnote 35
The Independants beleeve that Clause undoubtedly belongs to them, who they say are not free in Conscience to practice in all things according to the common Rule; They doe professe that they doe agree with all the Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad, in the Substantialls of Worship, as also in the Doctrines of Faith, and Sacraments, as comprized in the nine and thirty Articles, and Confessions, respectively as fully as any others doe; That they are in their Consciences Our Loyall Subjects, and that none shall more by all meanes possible endeavour to preserve and promote the Peace of the Kingdome, and thereupon, in their addresse to Us, they doe desire, with more Modesty and Humility then many other men, and as an effect of Our sayd Declaration, the continuance of their Freedome, and Protection for their Congregations, in the Administration of all Ordinances according to their Principles and Practice, of wch they expresse themselves to be ready to give an account to any, whom We shall appoint to receive the same.Footnote 36
[p. 17] The Anabaptists consist of great numbers of men, of severall Vocations, for the most part of Tradesmen, whose Traffique and Manufactures doe sett many poore People on worke, and much advance the Trade and wealth of the Kingdome, they make all immaginable professions of duty and obedience to Us, and acquiescence in Our Government; and are willing that the greatest severity of punishment shall be exercized towards those who in thought, word, or deede, endeavour the least disturbance of the Peace of the Nation, and therefore they thinke Our Declaration signifies nothing, if under that Indulgence they may not worship God their owne way, and meete togither in order to that worship, and constitute amongst themselves, such of themselves to be their Pastors and Teachers, without any Subordination to other Authority.Footnote 37
The very Quakers make a claime to this Liberty of Conscience, and though they will be tryed by no Rule, but of the Light within them, and lesse will not serve their turne, then an abrogation of all formes of Justice, and thereby dissolving the order and Government of the Kingdome, thinke We have broken Our word with them, if they have not Liberty to meete as often as they please togither, and in what numbers they please;Footnote 38 And the Fift–Monarchy men themselves, notwithstanding their knowne and avowed Principles, and their bloody and barbarous Combinations against all Orders and degrees of men, and indeed against all men but themselves, thinke themselves yett hardly dealt with, if they are not suffered [p. 18] to meete togither to propagate their Trayterous Principles, and to reduce their pernicious and detestable Doctrines into practice, to the utter destruction of whatsoever is sacred, or honourable, or honest in the Nation.Footnote 39
We see to what extravagant and exorbitant Immaginations, and even deliberations, if not Conclusions, this unreasonable pretence to Liberty of Conscience, hath seduced very many Persons, and how that Expedient wch in the Integrity of Our heart, We proposed as the best remedy for the present distractions, and the best meanes to provide for the Peace of the Kingdome, is by the Frowardnesse and perversenesse of obstinate men, applyed to the continuance & improovement of all the uncharitable devisions, & to the shaking the very Ligaments & foundation of Government; whereas if men would take the paines to examine & search into the nature and very essence of Conscience, they would find that a good Conscience, is a quiett Conscience, & that in truth a man cannot have a better evidence that he hath a good Conscience, then that it is quiett, quiett from reproaching him within, from any ill he hath purposely & maliciously done, & quiett from importuning him without, to doe any thing to the disturbance of his Neighbour, much lesse to the disturbance of the publique quiett, or indeed from medling further then in the affaires of his Neighbour or the Publique, then either the particular Charity of a good Christian, with reference to his Neighbour, or some publique obligation & qualification with reference to the publique obliges him to; and if men would restraine their [p. 19] Activity, within those limitations, they would better provide for the quiett of their owne Conscience, and for the quiett of the whole Kingdome.
We are soe farr from being discouraged in the exercise of Our Indulgence towards tender Consciences, that We shall continue it to that degree, that as farr as We can releeve him, no Consciencious Person shall ever suffer from any error in opinion, wch proceeds from a tendernesse of Conscience, or even from an erronious Action that naturally flows from such an opinion, provided there appeares that tendernesse of Conscience in that Person, that it restraines him from all such unlawfull Actions, as are not consistant with a good Conscience; And We cannot doubt but We have Authority ^a lawfull power^Footnote 40 to reskue any such particular Person, against whom no more malice can appeare, from the execution of the severity of any Law, wch by the strictnesse of Interpretation he can be made lyable unto; And We are soe farr from excluding the several Classes of men mentioned before, from any benefitt or advantage by that clause in Our Declaration, that We doe willingly Declare, that Our meaning and Intention was, that even every one of them, should receive and enjoy such ease and benefitt by it, as is consistant with the end of that Our Declaration, the Peace, Quiett, and Happinesse of the Nation; Since We doe beleeve that every one of them might contribute all they could to the promoting it, or forbeare doing all they could, to the obstructing it Our Restoration.
[p. 20] We are not unwilling to professe and declare, that We did intend in that clause, that the Roman Catholiques, who had generally served Our Father of blessed Memory (We speake of those of EnglandFootnote 41) with great Affection and Duty, & for doing so had suffered most notoriously, should find themselves at more ease by Our Restoration: We cannot forgett the very signall Services We received from many of that Profession, after the Battle of Worcester, who with great Affection, Fidelity, & Industry, contributed very much to Our escape out of the hands of Our Ennemyes; Nor the great Civillitys and Subsistance We have received abroad from many Catholique Princes, who have made frequent Reflections upon those terrible Lawes in England, by wch men are to be putt to death, as Traytors, without any other crime, but for being Preists, and exercising the office of their Function. We were able to say little upon those Rancounters, but that the necessity of that time, and the security of the Kingdome against Persons who depended so much upon a forraigne power, wch thundred out Excommunications against Prince and People, and absolved all Subjects from their obedience to the Crowne (a Proceeding no Catholique Prince would have endured) and some desperate & wicked attempts by severall Preists, and other eminent Persons of that Profession, made that Severity and Rigour then necessary; & We did not make scruple of professing, that when it should please God to bring Us againe to Our People, and to Our Parliament, [p. 21] We should be very willing to abate the edge of those Lawes, wch are so fatall to all Persons who have received Orders in that Church, without any distinction, of their Opinions and practice; Whereas We are well assured that very many of them detest the least dependance upon any forraigne Power or Authority, that may in the least degree shake their Loyalty to Us, and are willing to give all the Security for their being good Subjects, that the wisdome of Parliament can require, and it is great pitty in Our Judgement, that there should not be a distinction betweene those Persons, & those of contrary Affections & Opinions, in the Charity & Indulgence of the Law; We have throughout the whole course of Our Life, & in those seasons when the doing soe, seemed to be attended with disadvantage enough, manifested Our zeale for the advancement of the Protestant Religion, wch, as often as We have occasion to speake of it, We must say, as it is established in the Church of England, is the most free from errors, the most pure from Superstition, or Profanation, of any profession of Religion, that is now established in any Church of the world,Footnote 42 & if We doe understand it at all, or the obligation of it, it neither needs nor requires the sharpe remedys of such bloody Laws, either to preserve or propagate it; AndFootnote 43 therefore as those Lawes wch extend to life in matters of Religion, had their first Institution in this Kingdome, in the most Catholique times,Footnote 44 & have been executed with the most severity and rigour both in this Kingdome and [p. 22] else where, & are still in other Countreys, under Roman Catholique Princes, We are not affraid of reproach from any Person of a pious & a charitable heart, when We declare, that We are very well content by Our owne Charity & Moderation, to induce other Christian Princes to repeale all such bloody Lawes as extend to life in any matters of Religion, if the wisdome of Our Parliament shall thinke fitt, wch We doubt not will consider how inconvenient & mischeivous a thing it may prove, even to men who are most opposite to the Papists, to keepe Lawes still in force, which few men wish to see executed, and yett the not [sic] executionFootnote 45 whereof may proove soe penall to all, who doe not every day sue out their pardon, if he hath harboured, assisted, or, for ought We know, conversed with, or so much as seene a Roman Catholique Preist; Noe man is soe much ^more^ offended at, or more desires to restraine the Conflux of that People hither, wch We beleeve swarmes in too great numbers throughout the Kingdome, wch (if We understand aright) will be best remedyed and prevented by the repeale of those Lawes, wch being done, We will not suffer one Preist to remaine in England, whose name, Condition, & place of Residence shall not be knowne to Us, so that both the Confessor shall answer for his Penitent, and the Penitent for his [p. 23] Confessor, neither of wch We can exact, whilest it is death for any man to owne his being a Preist, or for any man to owne the harbouring him; all wch We referr to the prudent Consideration of Our Parliament.Footnote 46
For the Presbiterians, We cannot but acknowledge, that many of them contributed very actively to Our Restoration, & others suffered it without any visible opposition, wch hath likewise meritt in it, & We hope all did their parts out of Affection, Conscience, & Duty to Us, & the publique Peace and Happinesse, and not meerely out of Contradiction to others, or for the advancement of some corrupt Interest of their owne, since to all the Addresses We received from them, in our lowest Condition, nor in any the Conferences We have had frequently with them, they had ever the least Insinuation from Us, or the least cause given them to immagine that Our Affection to, & zeale for the Protestant Religion as it is established by Law, was lesse, then We now professe it to be; And it will be a greife and Affliction to Us, if after what they have done for Us, and after what they had not done against Us, they should be disappointed in their just expectation of Our Grace and favour, or if out of their weakenesse or willfullnesse they shall obstinately insist on the enjoying such Liberty as will not be agreeable with the Peace and Security of the Kingdome; We know there are many amongst them, [p. 24] of Learning, Piety, and Virtue, who are, and confesse themselves to be, well satisfyed in their owne Conscience, as to the submitting to all that is enjoyned by the Church, and are only sollicitous for the satisfaction of others, of whome it may be, they have a better opinion, then they ought in Judgement or Charity to have; and of these men, and of all who are truly consciencious, We shall ^alwayes^ have an especiall Care, & tendernesse, to protect, cherish and preferr them upon fitt occasions; But We are not sure there are not, nay We have too much reason to feare, there are too many, who shelter themselves under the stile and tytle of Presbiterians, who are not of soe peaceable Spiritts, or so full of submission to lawfull Authority as the rest of their Brethren, and who indeed are much more vehement against all that is established, then for any forme they have in their thoughts to establish, whose busines it is to raise as many scruples and Jealousys, and apprehensions as they can, and in a worde in the mindes of the People, as is possible, and to leave their Conscience and Understanding to struggle with those scruples and apprehensions as they can, and in a worde, who are much more importunate for a Coordination in the civill Power,Footnote 47 then a Parity in the Ecclesiasticall, or for any thing that concernes Religion, and We are in some doubte that this immoderate Party, is soe much more numerous then the other, that they have unjustly brought the Imputation and reproach upon the [p. 25] whole Body of the Presbiterians, as if they stood more affected to, and engaged in temporall then spirituall ends, and to promote more their worldly and sinister Interest, then to advance true Piety and Godlinesse.
We shall be better able to judge of the Spirits of these men, by their submission and future obedience to what shall be enjoyned by Law, and the Authority of Parliament; We have appointed the Commissioners formally authorized by Us, to present the Liturgy with the Alterations and Additions with wch they have thought fitt to gratify their dissenting Brethren, to Our Convocation,Footnote 48 wch will, We presume, speedily returne it to Us, with their Opinion and Suffrage, after they have considered the weight of those objections, and Alterations wch have been offered against it; of the unwarrantable Communication whereof to the world, and the unpeaceable Spiritt in the Preface of it, under the tytle of a Petition for Peace,Footnote 49 We shall say no more, then that Unity and remooving the markes of distinctionFootnote 50 seemes not to be the principall end thereof, and that the exorbitant licence of the Presse is not yett enough provided for:Footnote 51 As soone as the Liturgy shall be presented to Us, wch We expect dayly, We shall send it to Our Parliament,Footnote 52 that such Provision may be made for the future submission to it, as shall be judged necessary for the Peace and Happinesse of the Kingdome.Footnote 53
[p. 26] For the Independants and Anabaptists, who seeme to be a numerous and an industrious People, make great Professions of Duty and Obedience to Us, and owne noe Principles, but as they say, shall be found very consistant with the Peace, and florishing Condition of the Kingdome, We shall say no more, then that We have not been enough informed of their Opinions, or acquainted with any of their Persons, to satisfy Our Selfe, how farr Our Indulgence may be extended to them, with [sic] the Peace of the Kingdome;Footnote 54 We are not desirous to examine or search into the secrets of mens Consciences, We are satisfied with what men doe, without enquiring what they thinke, and if they behave themselves like good Subjects to Us, and good English men to their Countrey, We shall not be unwilling they receive Protection under Us, & under Our Lawes; if the wisdome of the Parliament shall make such provision, that it may not be dangerous to the Kingdome.Footnote 55
[p. 27] For the Quakers, if the simplicity of their manners, were equall to the simplicity of their Understandings, & their Principles consistant with any forme of Government, or order in the administration of Justice, We should have pitty for them, as a miserable deluded People, & be willing that some Remedyes should be considered proportionable to their diseases, but since We receive from all Countys Complaints of their insolent meetings in such numbers, & such Circumstances, as cannot be controled by the ordinary Ministers of Justice,Footnote 56 who are affronted by them, & since there appeares Industry and Combination amongst them, in a formed Correspondence & Intelligence with each other throughout the Kingdome, wch is no naturall effect of tender Conscience, nor a naturall result from those peaceable Principles, of detesting the endeavour to compasse their owne ends by force, We shall leave them to the Care and vigilance of the Ministers of Justice, and such other provision as the Parliament shall make for them.Footnote 57
For the Fift-Monarchy men, if their Lives were as innocent, as, for ought We know, they might be, notwithstanding the erronious opinion of Our Saviour’s being to raigne a thousand yeares upon Earth, We should not [p. 28] be more severe to them, then other Christian Churches are for that opinion, but since they doe not so much as pretend to be good Subjects, or Lovers of Peace and Quiett, but endeavour by all wayes possible to disturbe the Nation, & to expose it to all the Confusion and Miserys immaginable, & hold the most impious & bloody meanes to be lawfull, by wch they may compasse their owne wicked ends, We must leave them wholy to the Law, & to such further wholesome Remedyes as the wisdome and Jealousy of the Parliament shall provide for such new and unheard of evills.
To conclude this discourse, wch is growne to a greater length then We intended, We must againe, & ever say, that We doe heartily desire all just Liberty, & Indulgence may be granted to tender Consciences, and that We are still ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament, as upon mature deliberation shall be offered to Us, for the full granting that Indulgence;Footnote 58 And we doe heartily recommend it ^to^ them, that by their great wisdome & experience of the generall distemper in the mindes of men, and their observation of the Affection and desires of the People, they will soe provide for the Peace of Church & State, that it may be noe longer doubted of what Religion the Kingdome is; but that the Church may receive the Countenance and Protection is [sic] dew to it by Law,Footnote 59 & wch is most necessary for the support & propagation of the Protestant Religion, wch We wish every body tooke as much to [p. 29] heart as We doe, & then We shall most willingly consent to any Indulgence, to the severall Persons who dissent in their opinions and practice from Us, that is consonant to the publique Peace and Quietnesse, well knowing, that it is not reasonable to expect, that the ill Customes, & unreasonable Fancyes, wch have growne & received Countenance, by the licence & Corruption of neere twenty yeares, can expire or be reformed in a very short time, but that much Condescentions must be used, and all lawfull applications made, to prevaile over the wills, and rectify the Understandings of those who have been mis-ledd, & it may be, were never well informed of, or instructed in those points, they most erre in, and therefore all wholesome lenity should be used towards their Recovery.
In the meane time, as We doe depend upon the wisedome of Our Parliament, for all necessary provisions for the full establishment of Peace & Security in Church and State; Soe We doe as earnestly recommend it to the Piety and Prudence of Our Convocation, that they consult of all fitt wayes & meanes to promote the power of Godlinesse, to encourage the exercises of Religion both publique & private, to take care that the Lord’s day be applyed to holy exercises, without unnecessary divertisements, & that insufficient, negligent and scandelous Ministers be not permitted in the Church;Footnote 60 In a word, We desire them well to weigh & consider our former Declaration concerning Ecclesiasticall Affaires, and from [p. 30] thence, and from what else occurres to them from their owne Wisdome, Piety and Observation, for the Peace and Unity of the Church, and for the honour and propagation of the Protestant Religion, and reconciling as many to it, as is possible, they offer their best advice to Us, for those blessed ends, that all the world may see, how much We take that excellent worke to heart, and all the Protestant Churches abroad may see how much the Protestant Religion depends upon the Countenance and support of the Church of England, and thereupon pay that Reverence and veneration to it, that the State of their severall Conditions can admitt.
Open access
