Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the RevolutionStoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
By the Corporation Act, everyone holding a municipal office was
required to receive the Lord’s Supper in the Church of England. Sir
John Shorter, a Presbyterian, had by such conformity qualified himself
to act as Lord Mayor of the city of London in the reign of James II.,
and two distinguished Dissenters in the following reign occupied the
same civic post and adopted the same policy. Sir Humphrey Edwin was
Lord Mayor in 1697, and, dressed in a gown of crimson velvet, carried
the city sword before William, as, on his return from the Continent, he
passed through London with the customary pomp of a public procession.
He not only conformed at certain times during his mayoralty, but he
also, on one occasion when he attended Divine Service at Pinners’ Hall
Meeting-house, caused the civic paraphernalia to be carried before him.
I am not aware whether any other Lord Mayor did this. Sir Humphrey
Edwin might be said to bring the State over to Nonconformity, as at
other times, when he knelt at the altars of the Establishment, he
brought Nonconformity over to the State. At all events, his conduct
subjected him to annoying criticism. He was attacked by a clergyman who
preached before the Corporation in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ballads and
lampoons, caricaturing what he had done, were hawked about the streets,
and Swift, in his _Tale of the Tub_, satirized Sir Humphrey in his
well-known reference to Jack’s tatters coming into fashion, and his
getting upon a great horse and eating custard. Tragical exclamations
were uttered in High Church circles, and in a publication of later
date it is declared, that “to the great reproach of the laws, and of
the city magistracy,” the Mayor “carried the sword with him to a nasty
conventicle, that was kept in one of the City Halls, which horrid
crime one of his own party defended by giving this arrogant reason for
it, that by the Act of Parliament by which they have their liberty,
their religion was as much established as ours.”[515] The Lord Mayor’s
proceeding did not meet with the approbation of his co-religionists.
They felt the injustice of the attacks which it had occasioned; it
seemed to them inconsistent and arrogant for Churchmen to speak in the
way they did of a religion which had the same object of worship, the
same rule of faith and life, and the same end and aim as their own; yet
they saw that Sir Humphrey’s conduct had been such as naturally to lead
to misapprehension and to produce annoyance. Calamy lamented that “this
measure drew unhappy consequences after it, both in this reign and in
that which succeeded.”[516]
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
Sir Thomas Abney, a Presbyterian, became Lord Mayor of London in the
year 1701. Prior to that date he had favoured occasional Conformity.
When in office he attended church. This occasioned a controversy
between two Nonconformists, who regarded the conduct of Abney and Edwin
from different points of view.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account