Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:07:16.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697-1711

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

John Flaningam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The occasional conformity controversy has been the subject of considerable study by historians, both contemporary and modern. However, recent research has tended to concentrate on the parliamentary and electoral aspects of the issue, with somewhat less attention given to its importance as an ideological question. Nevertheless, the latter aspect of the controversy is well worth examining, for aside from its impact upon the struggle for office and power, occasional conformity was also the subject of heated debate on the theoretical and philosophical level. And although this debate often degenerated into partisan diatribes and rhetoric, it also raised questions that transcended the political ploy on the one hand, and the theologian's quibble and the propagandist's stalking horse on the other. The arguments used by both sides during the controversy revealed the basic philosophical differences that lay at the heart of the rivalry between the Whig and Tory parties. Occasional conformity's role as an expression of, and its relation to, this struggle is the subject of this article.

The ideological debate over occasional conformity was necessarily stimulated by the parliamentary struggles during the first decade of the eighteenth century over the various bills which were designed to discourage the practice, and many of the tracts on the subject were written in response to these and other political maneuvers. But the pamphlet war had its own distinct existence, and the writers involved fought with their pens a battle that was parallel to the one that the politicians were fighting with votes and influence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Fall 1977 , pp. 38 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See especially Holmes, Geoffrey, British Politics in the Age of Anne (New York, 1967)Google Scholar, and Snyder, Henry, “The Defeat of the Occasional Conformity Bill and the Tack,” BIHR, XLI (1968)Google Scholar.

2. Sykes, Norman, From Sheldon to Secker (Cambridge, 1959), p. 96Google Scholar.

3. See Lacey, Douglas R., Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1660-1688 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969), pp. 15–28Google Scholar for a discussion of occasional conformity during the Restoration period.

4. For discussions of comprehension and why it ultimately failed, see Bennett, G. V., “King William III and the Episcopate,” in Essays in Modern Church History, eds. Bennett, G. V. and Walsh, J. D. (London, 1966)Google Scholar, and Thomas, Roger, “Comprehension and Indulgence,” in From Uniformity to Unity, 1662-1962, eds. Nuttall, G. and Chadwick, O. (London, 1962)Google Scholar.

5. Baxter, Richard, The Search for the English Schismatick (London, 1681), p. 44Google Scholar.

6. Tenison, Thomas (later Archbishop of Canterbury), An Argument for Union, Taken from the True Interest of Those Dissenters in England Who Call Themselves Protestants (London, 1683), pp. 42–43Google Scholar.

7. But it was not entirely unprecedented. See Tenison, , Argument for Union, p. 42Google Scholar. The question of exactly what proportion of the total population the Dissenters constituted, and whether that proportion increased or decreased after 1688 was much debated at the time, and has been the subject of discussion by present day historians as well. High Church Anglicans were convinced that the Toleration Act had opened the floodgates to schism and irreligion, while Latitudinarians argued that because of it, the Dissenters' fears would decline to the point where they could be won back to the Church voluntarily. While precise and complete data are lacking, a figure of one half million Dissenters of all sects in England and Wales at the accession of Anne (or 8-10% of the total population) is not an unreasonable estimate. But while Holmes, , The Trial of Dr. Sacheverell (London, 1973), p. 37Google Scholar, argues that the Dissenting population grew by 20% during the reigns of William and Mary, Judith Hurwich, in a recent article, “Dissenters and Catholics in English Society: A Study of Warwickshire, 1660-1720” JBS, XVI (Fall, 1976)Google Scholar, asserts that Dissent experienced a decline during the same period, in particular strict Dissenters, in rural areas, and among the nobility and gentry. It seems beyond debate, however, that Dissent during the early eighteenth century was becoming increasingly concentrated in its traditional bases of power, the mercantile classes, the towns — notably Bristol, Sheffield, Coventry, and most importantly, London and its suburbs — and certain counties, such as Kent, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire. See also Bebb, E. D., Nonconformists and Social and Economic Life (London, 1935)Google Scholar. The key issue here, however, is the High Church perception that Dissent was increasing rapidly.

8. Indeed, occasional conformity, insofar as it was an effort by the Dissenters to demonstrate their links with the Church and refute the charge of schism, was an effort at self-protection.

9. This influence was bitterly resented by the Tory squires, whose land taxes went to repay the financiers for war loans and contracts.

10. In his effort to create a middle party, Harley tried to wean the Dissenters away from the Whigs. However, neither his arguments nor the prospects of his coalition were ever convincing enough to make the Dissenters do anything more than waver.

11. At least he was in the eyes of the High Churchmen, who were well aware of William's strongly held Calvinist beliefs which (notwithstanding his coronation oath to uphold “the Protestant Reformed Religion”) they regarded as inconsistent with the monarch's role as protector and defender of the Church. To most High Churchmen, moreover, his accession to the throne was a usurpation, and his oath and outward adherence to the practices of the Church were, like the occasional conformist taking the Sacrament in the Church (which William did), hypocritical gestures performed in order to gain and hold office. See Baxter, Stephen, William III (New York, 1966), pp. 59, 154, 186, 227, 322Google Scholar.

12. Bennet, Thomas, An Answer to the Dissenters' Plea for Schism (Cambridge, 1701), pp. 18, 241Google Scholar.

13. The bill introduced actually consisted of two parts. Its primary objective was to restrict William's use of clerical patronage by prohibiting the translation of bishops from one see to another.

14. Defoe, Daniel, An Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters (London, 1697), p. 15Google Scholar.

15. Ibid., p. 13.

16. Ibid., p. 17.

17. And when Defoe got into trouble with the High Churchmen a few years later for writing The Shortest Way with Dissenters, few of his coreligionists came to his defense.

18. Astell, Mary, Moderation Truly Stated (London, 1704), p. 34Google Scholar.

19. Wagstaffe, Thomas, The Case of Moderation and Occasional Conformity, Represented by Way of Caution to the True Sons of the Church (London, 1705), pp. 38–39Google Scholar.

20. Bennet, , Answer to the Dissenters' Plea, p. 18Google Scholar.

21. Wagstaffe, , The Case of Moderation, pp. 26, 36Google Scholar.

22. Ibid., pp. 34-36.

23. Cobbett, VI, 153–55Google Scholar.

24. At the same time, they denied the legitimacy of the Dissenters' use of precedents on the grounds that the latter's evidence was either irrelevant or a perversion of Scripture or history. See Astell, , Moderation, p. 13Google Scholar.

25. Dodwell, Henry, Occasional Conformity Fundamentally Destructive of the Discipline of the Primitive Church (London, 1705), pp. 127–28; a ponderous work, laboriously written and destined to be published only after the most important parliamentary phase of the controversy was overGoogle Scholar.

26. Sacheverell, Henry, The Political Union (London, 1702), p. 59. The first major work by the fiery Doctor, this pamphlet was apparently written in conjunction with the election of Anne's first parliament.Google Scholar

27. Hooke, John, Catholicism without Popery (London, 1704), Pt. 2, p. 7Google Scholar. Hooke was one of the few writers of the period with the optimism (or the temerity) to advocate comprehension seriously. Perhaps the best concise exposition of the Catholic communion defense was John Howe's Letter to a Person of Honour, written in response to a reissue of Defoe's Enquiry in 1701, but not printed until it was included in Calamy's Abridgement of Baxter's Life (London, 1713), I, 579–82Google Scholar.

28. Owen, John, Moderation a Virtue (London, 1703), p. 11Google Scholar.

29. Humfrey, John, Letters to Parliament-Men (London, 1701), p. 6Google Scholar, written in response to the translation bill (see n. 13).

30. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

31. Toland, John, The Memorial of the State of England (London, 1705), p. 57Google Scholar. This tract was written in rebuttal of James Drake's The Memorial of the Church of England, and is noteworthy for its extreme Whig erastianism.

32. Robinson, Benjamin, A Letter to a Peer, Concerning the Bill against Occasional Conformity (London, 1702), p. 8Google Scholar.

33. Humfrey, , Letters to Parliament-Men, p. 2Google Scholar.

34. Anon., preface to Bradshaw's, WilliamTreatise of Divine Worship (London, 1703), xix–xxGoogle Scholar. On one occasion Swift reported that Bolingbroke had gone to Communion, “not for piety but for employments, according to act of parliament.” Journal to Stella, November 25, 1711.

35. Humfrey, John, On the Sacramental Test (London, 1709), p. 2Google Scholar. He conceded something of the High Church position by remarking, “the whole advantage that the Church gets by this Sacramental Test, may be put into your eye when you see how few are kept out of any office by it.” p. 1.

36. Nichols, J. (ed.), Correspondence of Francis Atterbury (London, 1783), II, 93Google Scholar.

37. Anon., Occasional Thoughts Concerning Our Present Divisions and Their Remedies (London, 1704), p. 10Google Scholar; and Shute, John, Barrington, Lord, The Rights of Protestant Dissenters Reviewed (London, 1705), Pt 2, p. 48Google Scholar.

38. One was allowed Dissenting services in the home, according to the various bills, if no more than five persons not of the household were present.

39. Anon., The True Catholick (London, 1704), p. 3Google Scholar.

40. Toland, , Memorial of the State, p. 197Google Scholar.

41. See Humfrey, , Letters to Parliament-Men, p. 5Google Scholar, for a tendentious account of the difference between locally (physically) and mentally (intellectually or spiritually) separating from a church.

42. Higdon, William, Whether the Dissenters … Ought to be Admitted to the Holy Communion before They Renounce Their Schism (London, 1705), p. 8Google Scholar.

43. Higdon, , Occasional Conformity a Most Unjustifiable Practice (London, 1705), p. 27Google Scholar.

44. Higdon, , Whether the Dissenters, p. 28Google Scholar.

45. Anon., A Letter from a Country Justice of the Peace to an Alderman of the City of London upon the Bishop of Salisbury's Speech … on the Occasional Conformity Bill (London, 1704), p. 14Google Scholar.

46. Wagstaffe, , The Case of Moderation, p. 4Google Scholar.

47. Astell, , Moderation Truly Stated, p. 61Google Scholar; Sherwill, Thomas, The Degeneracy of the Present Age as to Principles (Cambridge, 1704), p. 14Google Scholar.

48. Dodwell, , Occasional Conformity Fundamentally Destructive, pp. 79–80Google Scholar.

49. Grascombe, Samuel, Moderation in Fashion (London, 1705), p. 187Google Scholar, sneered, “O Rare! What a blessing it is to be stocked with schismaticks!”

50. Humfrey, , Letters to Parliament-Men, p. 2Google Scholar.

51. See Peace without Union (London, 1703), p. 19Google Scholar, where he remarked “‘tis not the Question whether a Dissenter can justify occasional conformity to himself, but whether he can justify it to the law.”

52. Toland, , Memorial of the State, p. 10Google Scholar.

53. Gandy, Henry, An Answer to Some Queries Concerning Schism, Toleration, etc., in a Letter to a Friend (London, 1700), p. 28Google Scholar.

54. Grascombe, Samuel, The Mask of Moderation Pull'd off the Foul Face of Occasional Conformity (London, 1704), p. 12Google Scholar.

55. Drake, James, The Memorial of the Church of England (London, 1705), p. 13Google Scholar. This extremely controversial manifesto of the High Church Tory philosophy was apparently intended as an election pamphlet, but appeared too late.

56. However, some Low Churchmen, notably Benjamin Hoadly, adopted the familiar argument (albeit with sweet, if slippery, reason rather than threats and bullying) that if the Dissenters found nothing fundamentally wrong with the Church, they should conform constantly. The Reasonableness of Conformity to the Church of England (London, 1703), Pt. 2, p. 189Google Scholar.

57. Cobbett, VI, 162–64Google Scholar.

58. During the controversy, the term “moderation” became a catchword (possibly as a partial result of Owen's Moderation a Virtue and the replies to it) for both sides, but with predictably opposite connotations for each.

59. Anon., A Dialogue between a Member of Parliament, a Divine, a Lawyer, a Freeholder, a Shopkeeper, and a Country Farmer (London 1703), p. 44Google Scholar.

60. Davenant, Charles, Essays upon Peace at Home, and War Abroad (London, 1704), p. 246Google Scholar.

61. Drake, James, Some Necessary Considerations Relating to All Future Elections of Members to Serve in Parliament (London, 1702), p. 4Google Scholar.

62. Grascombe, , Mask of Moderation, p. 12Google Scholar.

63. Drake, , Memorial of the Church, p. 3Google Scholar.

64. Anon., The Distinction of High Church and Low Church Distinctly Considered and Fairly Stated (London, 1705), p. 27Google Scholar.

65. According to constitutional usage, the Lords could not amend a revenue bill, only pass or reiect it. Bv attaching, or “tacking,” the occasional conformity bill to the land tax bill, the High Church Tories hoped to force the Whig-dominated Lords to accept it, for rejecting the land tax bill would have led to financial chaos and would have paralyzed the war effort. Because of these probable consequences, and because tacking in general was considered to be constitutionally unsound, the Whigs and moderate Tories such as Harley bitterly opposed it. See Snyder, , “Defeat of the Occasional Conformity Bill,” BIHR, XLIGoogle Scholar.

66. Anon., The Tackers Vindicated, or an Answer to the Whigs' New BlackList (London, 1705), p. 2Google Scholar. The tackers were those who voted for the tack.

67. Anon., Letter from a Country J.P., p. 6.

68. Grascombe, , Moderation in Fashion, p. 185Google Scholar.

69. John Hancock, A Rejoinder to a book Intituld to the Wigbs New Black List London, 1705), p. 80. The title is illustrative of the tit-for-tat nature of much of the writing on occasional conformity.

70. See Hancock's rather plaintive assertion that “Low Churchmen are as far from being Dissenters as the High Churchmen, and perhaps may not be the first to betray the Church.” The Low Churchmen Vindicated from the Unjust Imputation of Being No-Church-Men (London, 1705), p. 32Google Scholar.

71. Bishop Blackall of Exeter preached a sermon on this text, thereby starting a controversy with Hoadly and others that lasted for several years.

72. The High Churchmen were alarmed not only by what they perceived as the rapid growth of Dissent, but also by the increasing numbers of erstwhile parishioners who failed to participate in any form of organized religion. See Bennett, G. V., The Tory Crisis in Church and State (New York, 1975), pp. 9–20Google Scholar.

73. Anon., The Establishment of the Church, the Preservation of the State (London, 1702), p. 19Google Scholar. The title is indicative of High Church attitudes.

74. Atterbury, Francis, A Continuation of the Mitre and the Crown, in the Somers Tracts, XII, 309Google Scholar.

75. Sacheverell, Henry, In Perils of False Brethren (London, 1709), p. 10Google Scholar: the famous sermon, for which he was impeached.

76. See Leslie, Charles, The New Association (London, 1702)Google Scholar. This election pamohlet, written by one of the most prolific Jacobite writers, is a classic exposition of this conspiracy theory.

77. Dennis, John, The Danger of Priestcraft to Government (London, 1702), p. 9Google Scholar.

78. Ibid., p. 10.

79. Anon., Occasional Thoughts Concerning Our Present Divisions and Their Remedies (London, 1704), p. 14Google Scholar.

80. See Tindal, Matthew, The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted (London, 1706)Google Scholar. Tindal envisaged the Church as a sort of government department of religion and public morals.

81. Humfrey, John, After-Considerations for Some Members of Parliament (London, 1704), p. 25Google Scholar.

82. Toland, , Memorial of the State, p. 6Google Scholar.

83. Anon., Reflections upon the Present State of Affairs (London, 1712), p. 30Google Scholar.

84. Burnet, Gilbert, History of My Own Time (Oxford, 1823), VI, 78Google Scholar

85. Calamy, Edmund, An Historical Account of My Own Life (London, 1829), II, 246Google Scholar.

86. Leslie, Charles, Salt for the Leach, or Reflections upon Reflections (London, 1712), p. 16Google Scholar. A reply to the pamphlet referred to in n. 83.