NONCONFORMISTS
96
NONCONFORMISTS
by the violence of their laiigua(;e against the queen
and the bisliops stirred up tjie (nieen to tul<e dnvstic
meivsures. Perry and I'dal. antliors of the tracts,
were tried and executed, and Cartwright was impris-
oned; whilst in 1593 an act wa.s passed inflicting the
punishment of imprisonment, to be followed by exile
m ease of a second offence, on all who refused toat-
tend the parish church, or held separatist meetings.
This caused a division ii\ the party; as many, though
secretly retaining their beliefs, preferred mil ward con-
formity to the loss of their henelic<'s, whilst I he ex-
tremists of the party left the country and settled in
Holland. Here 1 hey were for a time called Hrownists,
after one who had been their leader in sejiaratioM, but
later they took the name of Independents, as indicat-
ing their peculiar theory of the governmental inde-
pendence of each separate congregation. From these
Brownists came the "Pilgrim Fathers" who, on 6
December, 11)20, sailed from Plymouth in the "May-
flower", and .settled in New England.
With the death of Elizabeth the hopes of the Puri- tans revived. Their system of doctrine and govern- ment was tlominant in Scotland, and they hoped that the Scottish King James iiiiglit be induced to extend it to England. So they met him on his way to London with their Milli'Uary Petition, so called though the signatories numbered only about eight hundred. In this document they were prudent enough not to raise the question of episcopal government, but contented themselves for the time with a request that the ritual customs which they disliked might be discontinued in the State Church. James promised them a confer- ence which met the next year at Hampton Court to consider their grievances, and in which they were represented by four of their leaders. These had some sharp encounters with the bishops and chief Anglican divines, but, whilst the Puritans were set more on domination than toleration, the king was wholly on the side of the Anglicans, who in this hour of their tri- umph were in no mood for concessions. Accordingly the conference jjroved abortive, and the very same year Archbishop Bancroft, with the king's sanction, carried through Convocation and at once enforced the canons known as those of 1604. The purpose of this campaign was to restore the use of the rites in ques- tion, which, in defiance of the existing law, the Puritan Incumbents had succeeded in putting down in a great number of parishes. This result was eflfected to some extent for the time, but a quarter of a century later, when Laud began his campaign for the restoration of decency and order, in other words, for the enforce- ment of the customs to which the Puritans objected, he was met by an opposition so widespread and deep- rooted that, though ultimately it had lasting results, the immediate efTect was to bring about his own fall and contribute largely to the outbreak of the Rebel- lion, the authors of which were approximately co- extensive with the Puritan party.
During the Civil War and the Commonwealth the Puritan mobs wrecked the churches, the bishops were imprisoned and the primate beheaded, the supremacy over the Church was transferred from the Crown to the Parliament, the Solemn League and Covenant was accepted for the whole nation, and the Westminster Assembly, almost entirely composed of Puritans, was appointed as a permanent committee for the reform of the Church. Next the Anglican clergy were turned out of their benefices to make way for Puritans, in who.se behalf the Presbyterian form of government was introduced by Parliament. But though this was now the authorized settlement, it was found impossi- ble to check the vagaries of individual opinion. A re- ligious frenzy seized the country, and sects holding the most extravagant doctrines sprang up and built themselves conventicles. There was licence for all, save for popery and prelacy, which were now perse- cutod with equal severity. When Cromwell attained
to power a struggle set in between the Parliament
which was predominaiilly Presbyterian, and the army
%which was predcimiiiautly Independent. The disgust
of all .sober minds with thi' rcsidliiig jiandemonium
had much to do with creating the desire for the lies-
toration, anil when this was acc^oiuiilished in KifiO
measures were at once taken to undo the work of
the interregnum. The bishops were restored to their
sees, and the vacancies filled. The Savoy Confer-
enci' was held in accordance with the precedence of
Hampton Comt Conference of lliOl, but proved sim-
ilarly alxirtive. The CoMvoc:ition in 1()()2 revi.sed the
Prayer Hook in an anti-Piuitaii direction, antl, the
Declaration of Hreila notwillistandiiig, it was at once
enforce<l. .VU holding bcnefic-cs in the country were
to u.se this revised Prayer Book on and after the Feast
of St. Bartholomew of that year. It was through
this crisis that the term Nonconformist obtained its
technical meaning. When the feast came round a
large number who refused to conform were evicted.
It is in dispute between Nonconformist and Anglican
writers how many these were, and what were their
characters: the Nonconformist winters (see Calamy,
" Life of Baxter") maintain that they exceeded 2000,
while Kennett and others reduce that number consid-
erably, contending that in the majority of cases the
hardship was not so grave. At least it must be ac-
knowledged that the victims were suffering only what
they, in the tlays of their power, had inflicted on their
opponents, for many of whom the ejection of the
Puritans meant a return to their own. The fact that
they organized themselves outside the Established
Church under the name of Nonconformists, naturally
made them the more offensive to the authorities of
Church and State, and, during the remainder of the
reign of Charles II, they were the victims of several
oppressive measures. In 1661 the Corporation Act
incapacitated from holding office in any corporation
all who did not fii-st (lualify by taking the sacrament
according to the .\nglican Kite; in 16()4 the Conven-
ticle Act inflicted the gravest penalties on all who took
part in any private religious service at which more
than five persons, in addition to the family, were
present; in 1065 the Five Mile Act made liable to
imprisonment any Nonconformist minister who, not
having taken an oath of non-resistance, came within
five miles of a town without obtaining leave; and in
1673 the scope of the Corporation Act was extended
by the Test Act.
In 1672 Charies II attempted to mitigate the lot of the Nonconformists by publishing :\ Declaration of Indulgence in which he used in theii- favoiu- the dis- pensing power, till then recognized as vested in the Crown. But Parliament, meeting the next year, forced him to withdraw this Declaration, and in re- turn passed the Test Act, which extended the scope of the Corporation Act. James II, though despotic and tactless in his methods like all the Stuarts, was, what- ever prejudiced historians have said to the contrary, a serious believer in religious tcjieration for all, and was, in fact, the first who .sought to im|)ress that ideal on the legislature of his country. By his two Declara- tions of Indulgence, in 1687-88, he dispensed Non- conformists just as much as Catholics from their religious disabilities, and his act was received by the former with a spontaneous outburst of gratitude. It was not to their credit that shortly after they should have been induced to cast in their lot with the Revolu- tion on the assurance that it would give them all the liberties promised by King James without the neces- sity of sharing them with the Catholics. This prom- ise was, however, only imperfectly carried out by the Toleration Act of 16S9, which permitted the free exer- cise of their religion to all Trinitarian Protestants, but did not relieve them of their civil disabilities. Some, accordingly, of their number practised what was called Occasional Conformity, that is, received the
