the Church of England. The violent addresses of the Tory churchmen were eagerly listened to. Every sort of treachery and villany was imputed to the Whigs by these violent preachers, and the country, smarting under a ruinous taxation for the war, and the decay of trade, accepted all their accusations. Under these circumstances, the Whig ministers of the queen determined to try the effect of terror, and by making an example of one of these dangerous Tory ecclesiastics, to deter others from such attacks. § 26. The person selected for assault was Dr. Henry Sacheverell, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and chaplain of St. Saviour's. This divine had preached before the Lord Mayor and aldermen on November 5, 1709, a sermon which seemed excellently well suited for the purposes of a prosecution. It was a violent and scurrilous rhapsody, full of bitter and scandalous reflections, conveyed in language of uncommon vigour and power. Sacheverell, though not an able man, had great gifts as a preacher. He had a fine person and an admirable delivery. He was bold enough to write the most violent statements, and able to set them forth when written with most telling effect. His sermon was at once published, and in a few days 40,000 copies of it were sold. It was on the text 2 Cor. xi. 26, "In perils among false brethren." It described with bitter irony and elaborate invective those who were entrusted with the management of public affairs as the false brethren, who now furnished the greatest peril to the Church," who let her worst adversaries into her bowels under the holy umbrage of sons, who neither believe her faith, own her mission, submit to her discipline, nor comply with her liturgy. To admit this religious Trojan horse big with arms and ruin, into our holy city, the strait gate must be laid quite open, her walls and inclosures pulled down, an high road made in upon her communion, and the pure spouse of Christ prostituted to more adulterers than the scarlet whore in the Revelation. Since this model of an universal liberty and coalition failed, and these false brethren could not carry the conventicle into the Church, they are now resolved to bring the Church into the conventicle, which will more probably and ably effect her ruin. What could not be gained by comprehension and toleration must be brought about by moderation and occasional conformity; that is, what they could not do by open violence, they will not fail by secret treachery to accomplish." "And our false brethren are as destructive of our civil as of ecclesiastical rights." "In what moving characters does the holy Psalmist point out the crafty insidiousness of such modern volpones." 2 1 Somerville's Queen Anne, p. 374. "2 The use of this nickname, taken from one of Ben Jonson's plays, § 27 On December 13 (1709), Mr. Dolben, in the House of Commons, complained against two sermons preached and published by Dr. Sacheverell, as treasonable and dangerous-viz., an assize sermon preached at Derby, and the sermon lately preached before the Lord Mayor. Extracts from the sermons were read at the table. The printer and Dr. Sacheverell were sent for. The doctor at once owned the sermons, and the House voted that he should be impeached before the House of Lords for high crimes and misdemeanours. § 28. On February 27 (1710) the trial took place in Westminster Hall. The Commons exhibited four articles against the preacher, charging him-1. With asserting that the means used for bringing about the Revolution were odious and unjustifiable. 2. With condemning the toleration granted by law. 3. With asserting that the Church was in danger. 4. With maliciously asserting that her Majesty's present advisers were false brethren, and traitors to the constitution in Church and State. The managers for the Commons took four days in endeavouring to establish these articles. On the fifth day the defence was commenced by the able counsel retained by the doctor. It was maintained by them that the doctrines on civil government, advocated by the preacher, had been taught, in almost identical language, by all the great divines of the Church of England; that there was, in fact, no toleration granted by the law of England, but only an indulgence; that the Church recognised the sin of schism, and it was therefore lawful for a minister to condemn it and all schismatics; that there was a sense in which it could not be denied that the Church was in danger, as blasphemous and infidel publications abounded; that the doctor was truly loyal and devoted to the queen, and therefore could not have intended anything to disparage her ministers unduly. The defence was concluded by a speech from Dr. Sacheverell himself, which is generally thought to have been written by Dr. Atterbury. On March 16 the House of Lords took into consideration whether the Commons had established their articles. Some very able speeches were delivered, especially one by Dr. Wake, Bishop of Lincoln, who gave an interesting account of the negotiations as to comprehension in Archbishop Sancroft's time which had not before been made known. On March 20 the Peers again appeared in Westminster Hall, and Dr. Sacheverell was voted guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanours charged against him, which Lord Godolphin specially appropriated to himself, is said to have been the chief cause of the prosecution of the serinon.-Examiner, No. 26; Swift's Works (ed. Roscoe), 279. Parliamentary Hist. vi. 860-73. by 69 Peers against 52. Seven bishops voted against him and five for him. § 29. The doctor was thus condemned, but now the absurdity of the whole proceeding began to reveal itself. What was to be his sentence? Popular feeling had become strong and menacing. The queen was known to be on the side of the doctor. The ministers had indeed a most awkward criminal to deal with. After various attempts to arrive at a rational sentence, the House voted that Dr. Sacheverell should be suspended from preaching for three years. This was a virtual acquittal, as the proviso that he should be incapable of preferment for three years was defeated. The sermon, however, was to be burnt by the common hangman, together with the decree passed in 1683 by the University of Oxford as to government. With this impotent conclusion the trial came to an end, but not so the effects of it. § 30. During the whole duration of the trial the excitement and demonstration of popular feeling had been most remarkable. Vast crowds surrounded the doctor's coach as he drove in triumphal procession to Westminster Hall. Every passer-by was forced, at peril of his life, to shout for High Church and Dr. Sacheverell. Even the queen in her sedan-chair was surrounded and called upon to join in the prevailing formula. Meeting-houses were pulled down. The Guards called out to quell the riot showed unmistakable sympathy with the disturbers. The mild sentence was no sooner known than the whole country became the scene of rejoicing similar to that which had celebrated the acquittal of the seven bishops. Bonfires and illuminations were seen all round London, and as the news penetrated through the land the same demonstrations of joy were exhibited. Addresses were voted magnifying the queen's absolute power, and denouncing republican and antimonarchical principle. Dr. Sacheverell was embarrassed with congratulations and loaded with preferment. The queen gave him the rich living of St. Andrew's, Holborn. The living of Salatin, in Shropshire, was next conferred on him, and his journey to take possession of this benefice was like a royal progress. He held receptions and gave audiences, and for the moment was the most important power in the State. Neither was the effect transient. The queen dissolved the Parliament. A general election began. The clergy threw themselves into the strife with earnest vigour. A House of Commons was returned containing a vast majority of Tories and High Churchmen.1 1 Burnet's Own Time, pp. 846, 857; Kennett's Life, p. 102; Swift's Works, i. 279, 281, 442; Somerville's Queen Anne, chap. xv.; State Trials, vol. xv. NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. (A) THE FIRST-FRUITS AND TENTHS. The first fruits, primitia or annates, were the first year's entire profit of a benefice, claimed by the popes, according to a valuation. The first valuation for the purpose of this assessment was made under the direction of Pope Innocent V., by Walter, Bishop of Norwich, in 1254. The benefices were revalued under Nicholas III. in 1292. This valuation prevailed till the time of Henry VIII., when the Parliament having granted the firstfruits to the king (1535), the benefices were revalued. Divers attempts were made in the time of Elizabeth to bring about an- | other valuation, but the value, as it stood in "the king's books," is still the value which determines the amount due from a benefice for first-fruits and tenths. This latter implies a payment not of one year only, but a continual charge upon the living of a tenth part of its value. The tax which the Pope thus levied on all English benefices was frequently objected to by Parliament. An Act passed 6 Henry IV. calls it "a horrible mischief and a damnable custom." Under Henry VIII. the Convocation petitioned the king to relieve them of it, and the Act to take away the payment of first-fruits and tenths to Rome was passed. But the clergy did not escape the impost. It was merely transferred from the Pope to the King. For a year they remained free, but by one of the Acts of the Reformation Parliament (26 Henry VIII., c. 3) the tax formerly paid to the Pope was given to the King. The tenths then amounted to about £11,000 a year, and the first-fruits --one year with another-to £5000. Queen Mary remitted this tax to the Church, but Elizabeth again procured its imposition, and, in fact, endeavoured to increase it largely. Queen Anne finally surrendered it for clerical purposes, for which it has proved a most valuable help. (B) BENJAMIN HOADLY. Benjamin Hoadly, the son of a Kentish clergyman, Fellow of Catherine Hall, afterwards lecturer of St. Mildred's, Poultry, and in 1702 Rector of St. Peter-lePoor, was already well known in the literary world by his defence of conformity to the Church of England against Mr. Calamy's tenth chapter of Baxter's life. In 1705 he was appointed by the Lord Mayor to preach before him, and the sermon which he then delivered was censured by Bishop Compton, and afterwards by the Lower House of Convocation. It was a bold and thorough-going attack on the principles of passive obedience, maintaining that the sole end and business of all governing power is to consult the good of human society, that there are no sort of governors endowed with any special privileges, and that all officers exist for this purpose only; that if they neglect their duties it is incumbent on all good citizens to resist them; and that passive obedience is a sin, inasmuch as it is a tacit consent to the ruin and misery of mankind. A reply was at once written to this sermon, which produced a reprint of the sermon with a preface defending its doctrine. Hoadly's powers as a controversialist were very great. He wielded a keen unsparing logic, but he was by no means superior to the use of manifest fallacies when it served his purpose. CHAPTER XXXIX. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT ITS HIGHEST POINT OF INFLUENCE. 1710-1717. § 1. Church at its highest point of political influence. § 2. External devotion. § 3. Social condition of the Clergy. § 4. Able writers. § 5. Dean Swift. § 6. Humphrey Prideaux, William Wall, Joseph Bingham. § 7. Bishops Bull and Beveridge. § 8. The sermons of the period. § 9. Frequent services. § 10. Negotiations for a union with the German Protestants. § 11. Convocation ordered to discuss certain points. § 12. The case of William Whiston. § 13. Atterbury interrupts the proceedings of Convocation. § 14. The Declaration as to Lay Baptism. § 15. Zeal of the House of Commons for High Church views. § 16. The new Parliament passes the Schism Bill. § 17. Progress in Convocation. § 18. Interrupted by the case of Dr. Samuel Clarke. § 19. Death of the Queen; serious loss to the Church. § 20. Feeling of the Church at the accession of George I. § 21. Hoadly's attack upon Church principles. § 22. The censure of the Convocation of Canterbury. § 23. Prorogation and silencing of Convocation. § 1. In the year 1710 the Church of England was at the height of its power and influence. It had controlled the elections, and returned a Parliament devoted to its interests. The queen was its zealous friend and supporter. Its popularity among all classes was unbounded. The Nonconformists saw that their cause was hopeless. "So far are we," writes Dr. Calamy, "from any hopes of a coalition, that nothing will do but an entire submission." 1 Parliament voted the erection of fifty new churches out of public funds. The House of Commons declared that it would receive the recommendations of the Lower House of Convocation "with particular regard;" and the clergy, with the exception of the bishops, became the ruling power in the State. § 2. And as the political influence of the Church grew, so did also its influence on the devotional feelings of the people. A strong development of external observance was everywhere to be seen. "Some would not go to their seats in church until they had kneeled and prayed at the rails of the communion-table. They would not be content to receive the sacrament there kneeling, but with prostration and striking of the breast and kissing of the ground, as if there were an Host to be adored." Services with 1 Calamy's Baxter, i. 725. 2 The duty of one shilling per chaldron on coals, which had been employed for building St. Paul's, was given for three years to provide £350,000 for these churches. |