Saturday 21 December 1667

At the office all the morning, and at noon home to dinner with my Clerks and Creed, who among other things all alone, after dinner, talking of the times, he tells me that the Nonconformists are mighty high, and their meetings frequented and connived at; and they do expect to have their day now soon; for my Lord of Buckingham is a declared friend to them, and even to the Quakers, who had very good words the other day from the King himself: and, what is more, the Archbishop of Canterbury is called no more to the Cabal, nor, by the way, Sir W. Coventry; which I am sorry for, the Cabal at present being, as he says, the King, and Duke of Buckingham, and Lord Keeper, the Duke of Albemarle, and Privy Seale. The Bishops, differing from the King in the late business in the House of Lords, having caused this and what is like to follow, for every body is encouraged nowadays to speak, and even to preach, as I have heard one of them, as bad things against them as ever in the year 1640; which is a strange change. He gone, I to the office, where busy till late at night, and then home to sit with my wife, who is a little better, and her cheek asswaged. I read to her out of “The History of Algiers,” which is mighty pretty reading, and did discourse alone about my sister Pall’s match, which is now on foot with one Jackson, another nephew of Mr. Phillips’s, to whom he hath left his estate.

29 Annotations

First Reading

Mister Max  •  Link

Don't nonconformists practice religions other than the Church of England? Why does the link define them as "fanatics?" Quakers are hardly fanatic.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Carr

L&M note "William Carr, clerk to Gerard's troop of Life Guards, had petitioned Commons accusing Gerard of embezzling £2000 p.a. over the past six years, at the expense of his troupers' wages. He also complained Gerard's agents had entered Carr's house in his absence, seized and destroyed some of his papers, terrified his wife and children. [ http://india.british-history.ac.u… ]
The House refused to commit the petition on the 17th because it had been printed before being presented. [ http://www.british-history.ac.uk/… ] (Carr, now cast into the King's Bench prison, pleaded it had been done in error and without his authority.) On the 18th the Lords sentenced Carr to the pillory and a fine of £1000 and to imprisonment at the King's pleasure on the ground that his petition had been offensive to both King and Lords in referring to the Commons as the only protection of the subject's right...." [ http://www.british-history.ac.uk/… ]

Robert Gertz  •  Link

Paulina has found her guy at last, no thanks to dear brother Sam. I wonder what "discourse alone" means? Did he rant on to Bess as she lay suffering about headstrong Pall? Though actually he reads almost relieved she may be settled.

Christopher Squire  •  Link

Mister Max: click through to the page on 'fanatics' which 'by 1660 . . acquired new force to characterize (and denigrate) passionate nonconformists, both religious and political, especially the radical Puritan sects.'

‘nonconformist, n. and adj.
 1. a. Usu. with capital initial. Originally (in the early 17th cent.): a person adhering to the doctrine but not the usages of the Church of England (now hist.). Later (esp. after the Act of Uniformity of 1662 and the consequent ejection from their livings of those ministers who refused to conform): a member of a Church which is separated from the Church of England . . ‘ [OED]

cum salis grano  •  Link

A fanatic is just one that overly enthusiastic in disagreeing with a self righteous authoritarian leaders. Thus the likes of 2000 preachers are roaming the streets of London critiquing the Religious leader of his evil ways,Like Thomas Vincent and John Bunyan Pilgrim's Progress was considered the most widely read and ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bunyan -

a. A fanatic person; a visionary; an unreasoning enthusiast. Applied in the latter half of the 17th c. to Nonconformists as a hostile epithet.
1644 J. Maxwell Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas 44 Gratia gratum faciens, Saving Grace, as some fanatickes and fantastickes fondly imagine.
1657 J. Gaule Sapientia Justificata 11 Enthusiasts, Anabaptists, Fanaticks, and Familists.
1660 T. Fuller Mixt Contempl. i. l. 77 A new word Coyned within few moneths called Fanaticks‥seemeth well‥proportioned to signifie‥the Sectaries of our Age.
1660 S. Pepys Diary 15 Apr. (1970) I. 109 The Phanatiques have held up their heads high since Lambert got out of the Tower.
2. Of persons, their actions, attributes, etc.: Characterized, influenced, or prompted by excessive and mistaken enthusiasm, esp. in religious matters.
1659 B. Walton Considerator Considered 169 Papists, Atheists, and fanatic persons.
1659–60 Monk Speech 6 Feb. in A. Wood Life & Times (1891) I. 303 Be careful neither the cavalier nor phanatique party have yet a share in your civil‥power.
a1680 S. Butler Genuine Remains (1759) I. 215 All our lunatic fanatic Sects.

tonyt  •  Link

'A fanatic is just one that is overly enthusiastic in disagreeing with self righteous authoritarian leaders' Just so, but with the important corollary that it is the 'self righteous authoritarian leaders' who usually decide what is 'overly enthusiastic'.

Subject to this corollary, many Quakers today would still be happy to be considered 'fanatics' and the term certainly fits the movement in its early days.

Phoenix  •  Link

Let's not forget that self-righteousness characterizes fanatics as well, perhaps is even a defining characteristic.

Then again I suppose we all are more or less so in our enthusiasms, therefore does it really have any application beyond its pejorative association?

nix  •  Link

"her cheek asswaged" --

Somewhere Beavis and Butthead are snickering.

Second Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"Creed, who among other things all alone, after dinner, talking of the times, he tells me that the Nonconformists are mighty high, and their meetings frequented and connived at; and they do expect to have their day now; ; for my Lord of Buckingham is a declared friend to them, and even to the Quakers, who had very good words the other day from the King himself: "

They had considerable freedom from the fall of Clarendon this autumn until the Second Conventicle Act of 1670, note L&M, who provide us no comment on the rest of Pepys's run-on sentence except to remind us that Creed had been a Puritan himself.

Creed no doubt still has connections with Nonconformists, as would Pepys's faithful clerk Thomas Hayter, who had been arrested for conventicling in 1663.
http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

I retract, L&M have more notes......but....

L&M are shallow: the one general source they cite, The second period of Quakerism by Braithwaite, William C., p. 54 -- pub 1919 -- is of little value for our period: https://archive.org/details/secon…

They do note the Quakers had been the special butt of the authorities, mainly because they had been the only nonconformists to resist en-masse the anti-conventicling legislation. The King, convinced of their peaceableness, had had their leader, Geore Fox released from prison im August 1666: Fox's Journal.

But all this is outside the 1667-1670 period at stake here.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the Archbishop of Canterbury is called no more to the Cabal,...the Cabal at present being, as he says, the King, and Duke of Buckingham, and Lord Keeper, the Duke of Albemarle, and Privy Seale."

L&M note Archbishop Sheldon had, for some months past outspokenly upbraided the King for his loose living. The final break had come over Clarendon's dismissal: http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… (as detailed in the footnote to that entry). The Lord Keeper, Sir Orlando Bridgman, and the Lord Privy Seal, Sir John Robartes (2nd Baron Robartes) had Presbyterian sympathies.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"The Bishops, differing from the King in the late business in the House of Lords"

L&M: The impeachment of Clarendon had precipitated a rupture new in the Restoration that will continue until 1671.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

L&M provide a corrected text:

"for every body is encouraged nowadays to speak, and even to print (as I have one of them) as bad things against them as ever in the year 1640;"

L&M: The pamphlet referred to has not been identified. : none has survived in the PL. Attacks on bishops in 1641-2 had been more radical and of more political significance.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"did discourse alone about my sister Pall’s match, which is now on foot with one Jackson, another nephew of Mr. Phillips’s, to whom he hath left his estate."

L&M: John Jackson was (like Pall's previous suitor Robert Ensum) a nephew of Lewis Phillips, the lawyer. Ensum had died in 1666 and left part of his estate to Jackson. 'Former' here means former suitor.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"They had considerable freedom from the fall of Clarendon this autumn until the Second Conventicle Act of 1670, note L&M, who provide us no comment on the rest of Pepys's run-on sentence except to remind us that Creed had been a Puritan himself."

According to the Cambridge University Press:

"The years between 1667 and 1673 marked a crisis in the English Restoration. This crisis was produced by parliamentary consideration of an act to replace the expiring Conventicle Act of 1664. Hoping for relief from the provisions of the first act, dissenters in London and elsewhere were described by late 1667 as “mighty high and…expect[ing] to have their day now soon.” But having briefly experienced de facto religious freedom, the English nonconformists met with disappointment in 1670 when parliament adopted a second Conventicle Act.

"The act of 1670 reaffirmed the settlement of religion in an established Church protected by a coercive and persecuting state. Indeed, it offered the Church even greater security than the act of 1664. It provided for the distraint of the goods of those convicted of attending conventicles, and it established fines for justices and magistrates who failed to carry out its provisions.

"In renewing the policy of persecution, parliament also repudiated arguments made in public and in the prints, since the fall of the Earl of Clarendon, for such other ecclesiastical options as comprehension, toleration, and indulgence.

"The result of parliament's decision was a crisis — a period of confrontation, throughout the country, between the defenders of conscience and many magistrates charged with the enforcement of religious policy."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jo…

I would add that Charles II over the years consistently tried to make things better for the Quakers, Nonconformists and fanatiques because that also eased things for the Catholics ... and every time his policy backfired because the Church of England folk were terrified of more Bloody Mary/Elizabeth I/Inquisition/Louis XIV/Queen Henrietta Maria/Great Fire of London action.

And exactly what they feared was about to happen, and Charles II could do nothing to stop it: namely the Popish Plot.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

So what are the Bishops losing? The August 9, 2019 Church Times quotes Pepys Diary many times to illustrate the explanation (lightly edited):

THE Act of Uniformity was one of a series of increasingly oppressive laws passed during the 1660s to suppress dissent. These become known as the “Clarendon Code”, but bear the fingerprints of Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London (until 1663, and then Archbishop of Canterbury).

Bishop Sheldon, implacably hostile to dissenters, intended to crush Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers, but this persecution strengthened rather than extinguished their resolve.

A problem for the Church of England was the lack of enforcement of the prohibition of building meeting houses, and the restriction on the number of Nonconformists who could gather for worship. Many responsible for the implementation were either Nonconformists or sympathetic towards them.

After the Act of Uniformity, Samuel Pepys believed “the present clergy will never heartily go down with the generality of the commons of England” (Diary, 9 November 1663).

After the Plague in 1665, support for the clergy fell further, because many of them in the affected areas abandoned their parishioners, whereas Nonconformist ministers largely stayed.

Symon Patrick, the Rector of the society church St. Paul’s in Covent Garden since 1662, was one of the exceptions who remained in his parish.

Against this troubled background, Patrick published a book that formed an apologia for the Established Church. In The Parable of the Pilgrim (1665), written from a different perspective to that of the Puritan John Bunyan's in The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678, 1684), Patrick championed the "via mediocrita", or the middle way, occupied by the re-Established Church between the extremes of Nonconformity on the one hand and Roman Catholicism on the other.

The popularity of his work, and the implicit support for its stance, led to 8 editions by 1687.

By 1667, the confidence of the national Church had further declined, as Charles II was thought to be promoting the comprehension of Presbyterians within it.
Pepys charts the growing Nonconformist ascendancy between June 1667 and March 1669. He refers to “great endeavours of bringing in the Presbyterian interest”, and Nonconformists becoming “mighty high” (17 June and 21 December 1667).

He observes that “there is great presumption that there will be a Toleration granted,’ and “Nonconformists ... are connived at by the King”, who is “forced” to trust “them or nobody” (20 January, 11 August, and 23 December 1668).

Worryingly, Pepys concluded on 16 March 1669: “The Bishops must certainly fall, and their Hierarchy; these people [Nonconformists] have got so much ground upon the King and Kingdom as is not to be got again from them — and the Bishops do well deserve it.”

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 2

Symon Patrick of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, recognized that the survival of the Church of England was at stake. In a withering attack on Nonconformity, he issued a series of polemics, A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Non-Conformist.

This work was a phenomenal success — even more popular than The Parable of the Pilgrim. Written in dialogue form, it explained in simple language the areas of disagreement between two representatives, and used humor to present a convincing argument for conformity.

First appearing late in 1668, within a year it had expanded into a second part, and reached 10 editions.

A third part plus appendix followed in 1670, and months before Charles II died, a “corrected and enlarged” sixth edition appeared.

It can be argued that had Symon Patrick, Rector of St. Paul’s not seen the need for a defense of the Established Church when he did, the increasing strident Nonconformist voices could have persuaded Charles II that, in the interests of domestic peace, the Church of England needed to accommodate the Nonconformists through compromise.

It is difficult to see how this accommodation could have been achieved without the removal of bishops and the adoption of a Presbyterian form of church government, an outcome Pepys believed was inevitable.

The success of Symon Patrick’s Parable of the Pilgrim, and the Friendly Debate series made Charles II recognize the strength of public opposition to such a transformation.

Charles also realized at the time of the Friendly Debate’s publication that an exercise of the royal prerogative by a Declaration of Indulgence would be both unacceptable to the House of Commons and viewed as constitutionally controversial.

When, in 1672, preparatory to launching the third Anglo-Dutch war, Charles II tried to buy the loyalty of Nonconformists by issuing a Declaration that suspended all penal laws against them. Parliament forced him to withdraw it a year later.

After the success of Symond Patrick’s Friendly Debate, Samuel Parker, a former chaplain to Bishop Sheldon, published an exceptionally virulent attack on dissenters in A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie (1670).

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 3

By this time, the Nonconformist threat had receded, as Parliament passed a second Conventicle Act (1670), the apogee of the Clarendon Code.
Famously described by the satirist Andrew Marvell as the “quintessence of arbitrary malice”, it increased the penalties for which Nonconformist ministers were liable, and provided for rewards for those who informed against them.

But in the same parliamentary session, attention began to move to the threat posed by Roman Catholics, and a Bill designed to prevent their holding office was considered.

What is not in doubt is that, virtually single-handedly, Symon Patrick of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden preserved the status of the Church of England so effectively that, although further Bills for comprehension and toleration would be considered and rejected, Charles II made no further attempt to compromise the position and character of his Church.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/art…

Harry R  •  Link

Fascinating background, Sarah. I'd not heard of Symon Patrick before, and from a quick search of the The Diary neither has Sam. I wonder if Patrick got the recognition for his contribution to the preservation of the C of E at the time. Perhaps he wasn't looking for it, more a lifter than a leaner.

Mary K  •  Link

Good to hear that Elizabeth's cheek is somewhat assuaged this morning. Perhaps it was that poultice that did the trick. As late as the 1940s our family GP prescribed a warm Kaolin poultice for relief from a persistent, chesty cough and it appeared to help.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"I'd not heard of Symon Patrick before, and from a quick search of the The Diary neither has Sam."

And nor had I, Harry. I've learned so much about the Diary years by asking Google dumb questions. Last night I googled "1667 Charles II Quakers," and the Church Times was where I landed. I wanted to know what encouragement Charles had given the Nonconformists last week, but that remains a mystery.

As to why Pepys hasn't heard of Symon Patrick, I'm sure he had. This makes me think Pepys was basically more of a Puritan than he lets on, and isn't particularly interested in reading why the Church of England is a good thing. I think he steers clear of religion: just as today we skirt around politics in the USA.

Harry R  •  Link

"This makes me think Pepys was basically more of a Puritan than he lets on,"

My impression of Sam, admittedly only formed over a year of Diary reading, is that he isn't religious and therefore doesn't lean one way or the other. He is careful not to discuss his views because of the times he lives in, his job and his attachment to the Duke of York. In tomorrow's diary he is amused and content to just listen to Hollier's strong and excitable opinions. He attends church most weeks but not all and only tends to comment on the sermons or the fine ladies in the congregation, and he might indulge in some predatory behaviour. His interest in science and astronomy illustrates an open mind.

Gerald Berg  •  Link

Zealot to old fashioned for the times?

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"I wonder if Patrick got the recognition for his contribution to the preservation of the C of E at the time."

Apparently he did well enough from the profits to write some more books.

As for preserving the CofE, I suspect Archbishop Sheldon could not write such a defense without increasing the personal attacks on himself, and it would be ill taken if he tried. But the Bishops collectively would recognize that it needed to be done -- just as "the silent majority" today needs spokespersons, but Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would not be candidates. Maybe they're too extreme examples, but you get the point.

Whether Sheldon/the Bishops commissioned Symon Patrick to write the defense of the CofE, who knows. I doubt he would publish it without some of them looking over the manuscripts for orthodoxy first. This was a time of serious attack on the authority of the Church, so they wouldn't want to debate any unorthodox ideas.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Turns out there is a 2019 biography of Rev. Symon Patrick, which says that Lady Elizabeth Gauden wasn't his only female pen pall:

The blurb says, "History has not been kind to Symon Patrick. His 50 years of ministry spanned the closing years of Cromwell’s rule and the start of Queen Anne’s reign, and ranged from service as a Church of England minister in two fashionable London parishes to appointment as the “latitudinarian” Bishop of Ely.
"He influenced a major change in the character of the Established Church, as it moved from a confrontational fundamentalism to the broad tolerance that exists today.
"Patrick, recognised by his contemporaries as one of the three or four leading clergy of his generation, wrote over 100 books that helped to define his Church, such as his pastoral work The Heart’s Ease, his devotional The Parable of the Pilgrim and his biting polemic against nonconformism, A Friendly Debate.
"This book assesses the significance and quality of Patrick’s contribution to the Church of England, carefully placing it against the background of the history and politics of the time and suggesting why his reputation faded after his death. Puritanism, Latitudinarianism, pilgrimage, women’s religion and spirituality, and prose style are all topics touched on here."

Symon Patrick (1626-1707) and His Contribution to the Post-1660 Restored Church of England -- by Nicholas Fisher
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
ISBN: 1-5275-2838-3
ISBN13: 978-1-5275-2838-3
Release Date: 22 May 2019
Pages: 309
Price: £64.99

https://www.cambridgescholars.com…

Third Reading

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

On my recent trip to London I visited St. Paul's in Covent Garden. Sadly Symon Patrick is forgotten there today as well. I intend to send "Symon Patrick (1626-1707) and His Contribution to the Post-1660 Restored Church of England" to the rector when I've finished it, and suggest they create a memorial to him as I'm sure other Pepys' followers will also make such a pilgrimage. The church and the gardens are lovely, and the outreach to the current inhabitants sincere.

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.