path: root/65334-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 65334 ***

                            ECCLESIASTICAL

                          HISTORY OF ENGLAND.




                            ECCLESIASTICAL

                          HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

                    =The Church of the Restoration.=


                                  BY
                         JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.


                        IN TWO VOLUMES--VOL. I.

  [Illustration]

    =London:=
    HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
    27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
    MDCCCLXX.

  [Illustration:

    UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS,
    BUCKLERSBURY, AND CANNON ST. E.C.
]




                            ADVERTISEMENT.


The object of my former volumes upon the Ecclesiastical History of
England was to state facts and to draw conclusions, without seeking to
gratify any particular party, and by such a method to promote the cause
of Christian truth and charity. Acknowledgments of success to some
extent, expressed by public critics, and by private friends, holding
very different ecclesiastical opinions, encourage me to proceed in my
arduous but agreeable task; and I now venture to lay before the public
another instalment of my work.

To account for its appearance so soon after its predecessor, it
is but fair to my readers and myself to state, that it became the
dream and desire of my life, a quarter of a century ago, to write an
Ecclesiastical History of my own country; and that, ever since, my
reading and my reflections have been directed very much into this
channel. For many years past, I have been engaged in studying the
affairs of the Church from the Commonwealth to the Revolution; and
therefore, whatever may be the imperfections of these volumes, they
are not, at any rate, a hasty compilation, but the result of long and
laborious research.

It may be well to indicate the sources from which my materials are
drawn.

The printed _Journals_ of the Lords and Commons,--the _Parliamentary
History of England_,--_Cardwell's Synodalia_,--_Thurloe's State
Papers_,--and other similar collections, which did not exist in the
days of Kennet, Collier, and Neal,--supply, together with Burnet's
and Baxter's contemporary accounts, the backbone of the following
narrative. Journals, diaries, and biographies of the period, with
newspapers and tracts, of which extraordinarily rich collections are
found in the British Museum and in Dr. Williams' Library, have helped
to clothe the skeleton. But the sources of illustration, upon which I
rest some slight claim to originality, are found in certain unpublished
MSS. which it has been my privilege to examine and employ.

I. Amongst these the first place belongs to the _Collection of Papers
in the Record Office_. Besides the assistance furnished by the
published calendars of Mrs. Green, extending from 1660 to 1667, I have
been favoured with the use of that lady's unpublished notes down to
the close of 1669; these helps have greatly facilitated my inquiries
into the history of the first decade embraced within these volumes.
From that period to the Revolution, I have been left with no other clue
than the Office catalogue of the books and bundles chronologically
arranged; and all the documents which I could find bearing on domestic
affairs--and they amount to many hundreds--I have carefully examined.
Although those which relate to ecclesiastical matters are by no means
so numerous as those which relate to political, commercial, and other
subjects, they are of very great value to the Church historian. They
may be classified as follows:--

_As to the Established Church_--

     i. Note-book of Sir Joseph Williamson.

    ii. Applications for preferments, and correspondence relating to
          them.

   iii. Private letters alluding in various ways to Church
          affairs.

_As to Nonconformists_--

     i. Informations against them, which are very numerous.

    ii. A spy-book, containing many curious particulars of
          suspected persons.

   iii. Correspondence containing a great number of incidental
          allusions to the condition of Nonconformity.

The details are generally of a minute description, and would very
extensively serve the purpose of biographers and local historians; but
they are not without considerable value for a purpose like mine, as my
foot-notes will testify.

Amongst the new historical illustrations thus afforded, are those
connected with the ecclesiastical aspects of the general election of
1661, with the rumoured plots of that and succeeding years, plots in
which Nonconformists were accused of being involved,--the conduct
of Nonconformists under their persecutions,--and the fabrication of
letters with the view of involving Nonconformists in trouble--of which
one striking example occurs in relation to William Baffin, and, as
appears very probable, another referring to certain London ministers.
There are also notices of the Indulgence of 1672, and of the case of
Colledge, the Protestant Joiner, as he was called. It is apparent how
much the antipathies of the two religious parties of that day were
augmented by political considerations; and from the documents are also
obtained many interesting and amusing glimpses of private social life.

II. Next to the State Papers, I may mention a collection of fragmentary
remains in the _Archives of Parliament_, connected with the passing
of the Act of Uniformity,--and especially the Book of Common Prayer
attached to the Act (described in my Appendix), prefixed to which is an
Analysis of the alterations made in the formularies. Accurate copies
of these papers have been furnished for my use by the kindness of Sir
Denis Le Marchant.

III. _The well-known MS. Collections in the British Museum and at
Lambeth._ They have yielded items of information I believe not
published before--particularly the returns made to Episcopal inquiries
as preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library.

IV. _The MSS. in the University Library of Cambridge._ I have found
amongst these some papers which have been of service, especially in
relation to the reign of James II.; one of them, giving an account of
the opening of Parliament, I have printed in my Appendix.

V. _The Morice and other MSS. in Dr. Williams' Library._ This
collection forms a quarry hitherto imperfectly worked. There are three
folio volumes, entitled, _Entering Books, or Historical Register_,
extending over the period between 1676-91. These I have found of great
service in throwing light upon Nonconformist opinions of public events,
in supplying the current rumours of the day, and in recording pieces
of information relating to minor matters illustrative of those times.
And here I may add, not only with regard to this and other diaries, but
also with reference to letters and notes amongst the State Papers, that
I have relied on them only for such purposes as are now indicated, and
that I do not rest my belief of any important historical events simply
upon evidence of this description.

VI. _A curious Diary_, kept at the time of the Restoration, for the
loan of which some years ago I was indebted to Mrs. Green, who copied
it from the original in the Middleshill Collection. I have called it
the _Worcester MSS._ The diarist was Henry Townshend, Esquire, of
Elmley Lovet, Worcestershire, who lies buried in the church of that
parish; and the nature of his impressions of what went on around him
may be inferred from his epitaph.

VII. _A document relative to the death of Charles II._, being one of
the valuable collection of papers entrusted to the Record Commission
for examination. This document solves the curious enigma which puzzled
Lord Macaulay. For a copy of it I am indebted to the kindness of Sir
Thomas Duffus Hardy, who takes an important part in the Commission.

VIII. _A MS. History of the Congregational Churches of Suffolk_, by
the Rev. Thomas Harmer, Author of _Observations on Scripture; a MS.
History of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth_, drawn up from the
Church Book by my late friend Mr. Joseph Davey; and other old _Church
Records_ which I have been permitted to inspect, as will appear from
the foot-notes to these volumes.

IX. _MS. Volumes and Papers in the Archives of Canterbury._ For
the inspection and use of these I am indebted to the kindness and
assistance of the Dean and of Canon Robertson.

X. _Subscription Book_, amongst the records of Chichester Cathedral,
which has been examined by Canon Swainson, who has furnished me with
the results inserted in the Appendix. To him my best thanks are due;
nor can I omit to record my acknowledgments to the Dean of Chichester
also, for all his kind and friendly attention.

With these various materials before me, I have entered much more fully
than previous historians have done into several subjects--especially
the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church by the Act of Uniformity.
In our time, when the question of Establishments has been so
earnestly and so practically taken up, as to work out already the
greatest ecclesiastical change since 1662, surely a full account of
what was accomplished in that memorable year, with its immediate
results,--results far from having spent their influence,--must be
reckoned amongst the most desirable portions of history. It is
remarkable that no State Churchman has ever gone at large into this
subject, supplying the defects of Neal, and correcting the inaccuracies
of Clarendon and Burnet. Whilst I have attempted to supply the
acknowledged desideratum from my own point of view, it has been my aim,
in these as in former volumes, to make my readers acquainted not only
with prominent transactions, but with the social and private religious
life of the period, the personal piety which existed in different
communions, and the identity of that spiritual life which then deeply
struck its roots, as it ever does, under varied forms of doctrinal
belief, of Christian worship, and of ecclesiastical government.

I have also attempted to redeem my promise to furnish a sketch of the
theological opinions entertained in England between the commencement
of the Civil Wars and the fall of James II. It would have been easier
and more attractive to indulge in broad generalizations on the subject,
and to work out my own theological conclusions, through the medium
of historical reflection and argument; but I have preferred the more
useful and trustworthy, as well as the more humble and laborious
method of analyzing and describing the publications of the period in
connection with the authors, and thus indicating some of the extraneous
influences which have wrought upon the minds of eminent thinkers.
Of course I have been compelled to limit myself to those writers
who are best known and most significant, and therefore the student
will perhaps miss in my account some favourite or expected name. But
imperfect as the review will be found, enough will appear to indicate
strong resemblances between currents of opinion then and now; and in
this respect, the true apprehension of the present will be materially
assisted by a knowledge of the past.

As in the course of my researches I have detected in authors of the
highest reputation a number of minute inaccuracies, and some important
errors, I cannot hope to have escaped such evils myself, and I shall be
very thankful to candid critics for kindly pointing them out.

About one half of this volume covers ground traversed by me in _Church
and State two hundred years ago_, published in 1862: but it will be
found, that with the exception of a few sentences here and there, the
account now published is quite new. Facts before passed over are here
described at length, whilst certain trivial details are omitted; my
views on some points have undergone a little modification, and the
entire narrative has been rearranged; but the spirit which I sought at
the beginning I have endeavoured to retain throughout.

It would be ungrateful not to add, that for facilities in research, and
for direct literary aid, I am indebted to many friends. Besides special
obligations which I have acknowledged in the foot-notes and Appendix,
I beg to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. Thoms, Sub-Librarian to
the House of Lords--Mr. Aldis Wright, Librarian of Trinity College,
Cambridge--Mr. Bullen, of the British Museum--and Mr. Hunter, keeper of
Dr. Williams' Library.

Nor can I omit to mention again, my fellow-workers at home, especially
one whose assiduity and care in helping me to correct the press,
deserve the highest praise.

Two literary friends who took much interest in this work,--the Rev.
Joseph Aspland and Mr. John Bruce, F.S.A.,--are now, alas, beyond the
reach of my thanks.

Should my life be spared, I hope in another volume to bring the
Ecclesiastical History down to the Revolution. A history of the
eighteenth century lies amongst the visions of the future.




                               CONTENTS.


                             INTRODUCTION.

    Political Character of Puritanism                                  1

    Ecclesiastical Character of Puritanism                             7

    Spiritual Character of Puritanism                                 11


                              CHAPTER I.

    Richard Cromwell                                                  15

    His Parliament                                                    17

    Petitions from the Army                                           23

    Richard's Resignation of the Protectorate                         26

    Independents                                                      28

    Baptists                                                          31

    Presbyterians                                                     33

    Episcopalians                                                     34


                              CHAPTER II.

    Interregnum                                                       40

    Restoration of Rump Parliament                                    42

    Monk's Military Power                                             44

    Re-establishment of Presbyterianism                               49


                             CHAPTER III.

    Presbyterians and Monk                                            51

    Presbyterians and Episcopalians                                   52

    State of Parties                                                  55

    Convention Parliament                                             57

    Commonwealth Army                                                 58

    Breda Declaration                                                 61

    Proclamation of Charles II.                                       63

    Manner of Restoration                                             65

    Presbyterian Deputation to the King                               68

    Episcopalian Address                                              71


                              CHAPTER IV.

    The King's return                                                 72

    Presbyterian Addresses                                            77

    Independent Addresses                                             79

    Royal Supremacy                                                   80

    Disbanding of the Old Army                                        86

    Ecclesiastical proceedings in Parliament                          88

    Question of the Church's Settlement                               88

    Restoration of Cathedrals                                         92

    Petitions from Universities                                       92

    Changes in the position of Parties in the House of Commons        93

    Church Property                                                   95

    Bishops                                                           97

    Preferments                                                       98


                              CHAPTER V.

    Presbyterian Chaplains                                           100

    Meetings of Presbyterians                                        101

    Presbyterian Proposals                                           102

    Prelates' Answer                                                 105

    Controversy                                                      106

    Meetings at Worcester House                                      114

    The King's Declaration                                           117


                              CHAPTER VI.

    The Regicides                                                    126

    New Bishops                                                      131

    Persecution of Nonconformists                                    134

    Reaction against Puritanism                                      138

    Venner's Insurrection                                            140

    Opening of Suspected Letters                                     145


                             CHAPTER VII.

    Elections for New Parliament                                     147

    Interception of Letters                                          151

    Meeting of Parliament                                            154

    Commission for Savoy Conference                                  155

    Convocation                                                      158

    Savoy Palace                                                     162

    Members of Conference                                            163

    Coronation                                                       166

    Election for Members of Convocation                              168

    Presbyterians' Exceptions to the Liturgy                         170

    Meeting of Convocation                                           173

    Proceedings of Convocation                                       176

    Bishops' Answers to Exceptions                                   179

    Baxter's Liturgy                                                 180

    Presbyterians' Rejoinder to Bishops' Answers                     183

    Last two Meetings of Savoy Conference                            187

    Baxter's Account of Commissioners                                189

    Baxter's Petition                                                191


                             CHAPTER VIII.

    Proceedings of Parliament                                        196

    Burning of Solemn League and Covenant                            196

    Bill for restoring Prelates to the Upper House                   197

    Bill for governing Corporations                                  199

    Bill for Restoration of Ecclesiastical Courts                    200

    Uniformity Bill                                                  202

    State of feeling                                                 206


                              CHAPTER IX.

    Re-assembling of Parliament                                      209

    Pretended Plots                                                  211

    Deliberations of Convocation                                     213

    History of the Prayer Book                                       214

    Revision of the Book                                             219

    Subscription                                                     223

    Consecration of Bishops                                          227


                              CHAPTER X.

    Uniformity Bill                                                  229

    Lords' Amendments                                                231

    Debates on Amendments                                            233

    Commons' Amendments                                              239

    Conference between the two Houses                                241


                              CHAPTER XI.

    Royal Assent to Bill of Uniformity                               245

    Change in the Establishment made by the Act                      246

    Convocation responsible for Changes in the Prayer Book           247

    Bishops' share in Responsibility                                 248

    House of Commons                                                 250

    Clarendon                                                        250

    Roman Catholic Party                                             251

    Omissions in Act                                                 253

    Classes affected by it                                           255


                             CHAPTER XII.

    Sir Henry Vane                                                   256

    Edmund Ludlow                                                    258

    Edward Whalley and Major-General Gough                           259

    Effects of the Act of Uniformity                                 261

    Reports of Disaffection                                          267


                             CHAPTER XIII.

    Bartholomew Ejectment--Farewell Sermons                          271

    Reception of Catherine of Braganza                               275

    Petitions from Quakers                                           275

    St. Bartholomew's Day                                            278

    The Ejected Ministers                                            278


                             CHAPTER XIV.

    Petition from Presbyterians                                      283

    Operation of the Act                                             285

    Clergy who conformed                                             287

    Bishops' Articles of Visitation                                  289

    Ministers who continued in the Establishment without conforming  290

    Clergy who disapproved of the Ejectment                          291

    Rumoured Plots                                                   292


                              CHAPTER XV.

    King's Declaration of Indulgence                                 296

    Baxter and the Independents                                      298

    Parliament                                                       299

    Debate on Indulgence                                             300

    Papists and Nonconformists                                       303

    Deaths of Bishops                                                305

    Proscribed Worship                                               308

    Colonial Policy                                                  310

    Plots and Informers                                              312

    Nonconformist Places of Worship                                  314

    Ejected Ministers                                                316


                             CHAPTER XVI.

    Conventicle Act                                                  322

    Execution of the Act                                             327

    Convocation                                                      329

    Sheldon's Inquiries                                              331


                             CHAPTER XVII.

    The Plague                                                       333

    Ministers who remained in London during the Plague               338

    Usefulness of the Ejected Clergy                                 340

    Mompesson                                                        341

    Stanley and Shaw                                                 342

    Parliament at Oxford                                             343

    Increase of Nonconformity                                        343

    Five Mile Act                                                    345

    Nonconformists who took the Oath of Non-resistance               348

    Those who refused it                                             350

    Dutch War                                                        355


                            CHAPTER XVIII.

    The Fire of London                                               357

    Papists suspected                                                361

    Exertions of Nonconformists after the Fire                       362

    Disturbances in Scotland                                         363

    Fanatics                                                         365

    The Dutch                                                        366

    Empty Exchequer                                                  367

    Impeachment of Clarendon                                         369

    His Character                                                    371

    Comparison between Clarendon and Burleigh                        373

    Extent of Nonconformity                                          375


                             CHAPTER XIX.

    Comprehension                                                    378

    Episcopalian Proposals                                           381

    Presbyterian Modifications                                       383

    Thorndike's Principles                                           385

    New Conventicle Bill                                             387


                              CHAPTER XX.

    Manton and Baxter                                                390

    Conventicles                                                     392

    Sufferings of Quakers                                            398


                             CHAPTER XXI.

    The Cabal                                                        400

    Declaration of Indulgence                                        403

    How regarded by Politicians                                      404

    By Episcopalians and Presbyterians                               406

    By Independents                                                  407

    Nonconformists return thanks for Declaration                     408

    Grants to Nonconformists                                         410

    Charles II. and the Quakers Carver and Moore                     412

    Pardon of Quakers                                                414


                             CHAPTER XXII.

    Opening of Parliament                                            416

    Political parties                                                417

    Debate on the Declaration                                        418

    Measures for Relief                                              421

    Test Act                                                         425

    Cancelling of the Declaration of Indulgence                      428

    State of Nonconformists                                          429


                            CHAPTER XXIII.

    Earl of Danby                                                    434

    New Test                                                         436

    Comprehension                                                    438

    Persecution of Nonconformists                                    441

    Coffee Houses                                                    443

    Comprehension and Toleration                                     444

    Bishop Croft                                                     447


                             CHAPTER XXIV.

    Roman Catholicism                                                450

    The Duke of York                                                 451

    Protestant Opposition                                            455

    St. Germain and Luzancy                                          458

    Parliament                                                       459

    Committal of Four Lords to the Tower                             462

    Bills against Popery                                             463

    Act for Better Observance of the Lord's Day                      465

    Act for Augmentation of Small Livings                            467

    Repeal of the law _De Hæretico Comburendo_                       467

    Bill for Exclusion of Papists from Parliament                    469


                             CHAPTER XXV.

    Bishops--Sheldon                                                 470

      Ward                                                           474

      Morley                                                         477

      Cosin                                                          478

      Hacket                                                         481

      Wilkins                                                        483

      Pearson--Reynolds                                              485

      Croft                                                          487

      Laney                                                          488

      Gunning                                                        489

      Paul--Warner                                                   490

      Earle--Skinner                                                 491

      Nicholson--Henchman                                            492

      Rainbow--Henshaw                                               493

      Ironside                                                       494

      Frewen--Sterne                                                 495

      Dolben                                                         498

      Griffith--Glemham--Barrow                                      499

      Wood                                                           500

      Brideoake                                                      501

      Lloyd                                                          502

      State of the Clergy                                            502

      Their Ignorance                                                507

      Religious and Moral Character                                  510




                             INTRODUCTION.


The knell of the Puritan Commonwealth was rung when Oliver Cromwell
died. The causes of its dissolution may easily be discovered. Some of
them had been in operation for a long time, and had prepared for the
change which now took place.[1]

Puritanism never won a majority of the English people. By some of the
greatest in the nation it was espoused, and their name, example, and
influence, gave it for a time a position which defied assault; but the
multitude stood ranged on the opposite side. Forced to succumb, and
stricken with silence, the disaffected nevertheless abated not a jot of
their bitter antipathy to the party in power. Even amongst those who
wore the livery of the day, who used the forms, who adopted the usages
of their masters, many lacked the slightest sympathy with the system
which, from self-interest or timidity, they had been induced to accept.
The Puritans were not the hypocrites; the hypocrites really were people
of another religion, or of no religion, who pretended to be Puritans.
Besides these, there were numbers who whispered murmurs, or bit their
lips in dumb impatience, as they watched for signs of change in the
political firmament.

A mischievous policy had been pursued by the Puritans towards the old
Church of England. Laud's execution yielded a harvest of revenge. The
extirpation of Episcopacy, and the suppression of the Prayer Book,
kindled an exasperation which kept alive a resentful intolerance down
to the period of the Revolution. I am aware of the excuses made for
Puritan despotism, and am ready to allow some palliation for wrong
done under provoking circumstances, but I must continue to express
indignation at the injustice committed; all the more, because of my
religious sympathy with the men who thus tarnished their fame. It must,
however, be confessed that had Presbyterians and Independents been ever
so merciful in the hour of their might, there is no reason to suppose,
from what is known of their opponents, that they would have shewn any
mercy in return.

In enumerating the causes of the failure of Puritanism as a _political_
institution notice should be taken of the prohibition of ancient
customs. How far the prohibition extended has been pointed out in
former volumes, and I must repeat, that whilst endeavours to suppress
national vice were most praiseworthy, some of the Parliamentary
prohibitions at the time were, to a considerable extent, unjust and
unnatural. Those who chose to celebrate Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide,
and other seasons, had a perfect right so to do; and some, though not
all, of the amusements remorselessly put down, were in themselves
innocent; pleasant, and even venerable in their associations; and in
their tendencies productive of kindly fellowship between class and
class.

Puritan rule in England came as the child of revolution--a revolution
mainly accomplished by civil war. The first battle, indeed, and that
which led to all the others, was fought on the floor of the House of
Commons. The patriots being returned as the representatives of the most
active and influential citizens, many of whom were Puritans, possessed
an immense amount of political power, and, as statesmen, they turned
the scale in favour of revolution; but the revolution had to make
good its ground by force, and the patriots, as soldiers, had to crush
resistance in the field. This was a necessity. The attitude of the
King, the chivalrous spirit of the nobles who rallied round him, under
the circumstances in which Parliament had placed itself, rendered an
appeal to arms inevitable. The wager of battle having been accepted,
the quarrel having been fought out bravely, the relative position
afterwards of the victors and the vanquished could not but embitter
the feelings existing on both sides. The vanquished submitted without
grace to their conquerors. They hated the new political constitution.
When they seemed quiet they were only biding their time, only preparing
for some fresh outbreak. Memories of privation, of imprisonment, of
cruel usage, of houses burnt, of fathers, sons, and brothers slain,
and especially the mortification of defeat, constantly irritated the
Cavalier and goaded him to revenge. The blister was kept open year
after year. The wound never healed. Alienation, or resentment, on
the part of the Royalist provoked new oppression on the part of the
Commonwealths-man. Fresh oppression from the hands of the one produced
fresh resentment in the breast of the other.

A civil war may be needful for the deliverance of a country; but the
recollections of it for a long while must be a misfortune, since those
recollections exhibit the new state of things to the party on the
opposite side as a result of force, not as a result of reason; and the
remembrance of imposition ever involves a sense of wrong. Under this
misfortune the triumphant Puritans laboured throughout the Protectorate.

After the Restoration the misfortune, in some respects, became heavier
than before. The previous eighteen years had been to the Royalists
years in which violence destroyed the Monarchy and the Church. They
were the years of the _Great Rebellion_--so the political Revolution
came to be named--and in that name, specious and plausible, although
untruthful and unjust, lay much of the capital with which political
leaders after the Restoration carried on their trade of oppression
and wrong. The Puritans, they said, were rebels, for they had fought
against the Crown: what they had done once they would do again. A
valid defence was at hand, for the Puritans could show that there was
nothing really inconsistent between their peaceful submission to the
restored monarch, and the course which they had pursued under the Long
Parliament; yet, although they could make out a case satisfactory to
impartial men, over against their logic, however forcible, there stood
some awkward facts of 1642 and the following years, upon which High
Churchmen in the reign of Charles II. were never weary of ringing
changes.

The Long Parliament had rested upon the Army; so had the constitution
of the Protectorate. His Highness's rule had been fortified by his
major-generals and his troops. For its good and for its evil it
depended upon soldiers. A military despotism had become necessary
from the confusion of the times; it alone could bring quiet to the
country after political earthquakes. The regal sway had fallen into
the hands of a great general, a great statesman, and a great patriot,
who, because he combined these three characters, was able to work out
benevolent designs for his country. So long as he held the baton, so
long as he drew the sword, he could maintain his standing, but not a
moment longer. He had immense difficulties to overcome. Episcopalians
were almost all against him; very many Presbyterians stood aloof or
offered opposition; Spiritual Republicans, Fifth Monarchy men were
his torment; even Congregationalists, with whom he felt spiritual
sympathy, wished for a more democratic government than he would allow;
the Quakers neither loved nor feared him. Besides, he had political
colleagues who, as statesmen, appeared in opposition. Also, old
generals were looking after an occasion for making resistance. Vane
and Haselrig, Harrison and Ludlow, disapproved of the policy of their
former friend. They disliked the new Constitution; they were for
placing the keys in the hands of Parliament, not in the hands of a
single person. They regarded the Protector as the Greeks had regarded
a tyrant. Monarchy they detested, Democracy they would enthrone; yet
they saw amongst them a sovereign, mightier than any Stuart, only
called by another name. And it became a germ of weakness in the new
Constitution, that it had to be defended by arguments similar to those
which availed for the support of the ancient monarchy. It could be
said--and truly said--that English traditions, usages, genius, spirit,
and social necessities, demanded a supreme head--the rule "of a single
person." But the rule of a single person was the very thing so hateful
to the Republicans, although connected with the modifying checks of
a Parliament. Many saw that the reasons employed in favour of Oliver
Cromwell's Protectorate might be employed more consistently in favour
of the restoration of Charles Stuart. This circumstance was felt by
numbers who did not confess it.

Moreover, respecting domestic and foreign policy Cromwell had to
meet strong opposition. Finances, and law reform, were matters of
contention. The Dutch war, the French alliance, and the relations
with Spain, also presented points in which he and other distinguished
Commonwealths-men differed. As the political reign of Puritanism
depended upon Cromwell these circumstances could not fail to
undermine its strength. His statesmanship showed consummate ability;
his knowledge of mankind and of individuals amounted to a species
of divination; his control over those about him was irresistible;
his sagacity, vigilance, promptitude, decision, and patience were
unrivalled; his name was a tower of strength at home and abroad; his
foreign policy was successful, and therefore, as long as he lived, the
system which he had inaugurated and administered was sure to last. It
did--but at his death came collapse. There remained no master-mind
to rule the State, and to control the Army. The State soon showed a
disposition to go one way, the Army another. Confusions ensued; and the
latter fell under the command of a soldier who betrayed his trust, and
employed his influence to pull down the entire fabric of Puritan power.

So far, then, as Puritanism had become a political institute it
sunk under the shock of Oliver Cromwell's death. But though as an
institute it crumbled away, the political spirit which it had evoked
and cherished did not die. It would be a repetition of what has been
said a hundred times, to insist here upon the influence of the Puritan
leaders of the Long Parliament, and the influence of the Puritan chiefs
of the Commonwealth Army in preparing for the political liberties of
England, guaranteed at the Revolution. A peaceful change then came as
the consequence and complement of the Civil Wars. It is the destiny of
nations to pass through the waters of conflict and suffering ere they
can reach the shores of freedom. Our Puritan fathers then breasted
the torrent, and made good their landing on the right side, where we,
thanks to their bravery and endurance, have, under God, found a home.
The superstructure they immediately raised was not permanent; but
its strong foundation-stones were too deeply laid to be removed in a
brief period of reaction; and on them we now are building new forms of
political justice, order, and peace. It may take longer time and nobler
labour than we imagine to complete the edifice, but our hope and trust
is that Divine providence will one day bring it to perfection.

Puritanism must be considered under its _ecclesiastical_ as well as
its political aspect. It became political through its ecclesiastical
action, and its ecclesiastical character has been damaged by its
political relations. It was worked up into an elaborate Presbyterian
system, framed not only for the purpose of instructing the nation in
the truths of the Bible, but for the purpose also of constituting
every Englishman a member of the Church, and of subjecting him to
the authority and discipline of its officers. This ecclesiastical
organization its advocates brought, so far as they could, into
union with the civil government to be defended and enforced by the
magistrate. And where Puritanism assumed a Congregational shape, and
claimed the name of freedom, although, as to Church institutes, it
sought, and to some degree attained liberty of operation, yet, in all
cases where its ministers were parochial incumbents, they, by their
identification with the national establishment, exposed themselves to
the political danger which, at certain crises, threaten institutions of
that description. When ecclesiastical arrangements are complicated with
State affairs they must be subject to a common fortune. What endangers
the one endangers the other, and the history of Puritanism offers no
exception to the general rule.

Two ecclesiastical principles are seen at work in connection with the
religious organizations which existed in the middle of the seventeenth
century: Erastianism and Voluntaryism. Erastianism came across the path
of both Presbyterians and Congregationalists. It wrought powerfully
through the ordinances and laws of the Long Parliament, in the way of
checking what it justly deemed the despotic tendencies of uncontrolled
authority in the exercise of discipline. The working of Erastianism is
visible in the legal prevention of the full establishment of parochial
assemblies and provincial synods; and in the interference of the
magistrate with those Independent pastors holding benefices, who would
fain have excluded from the Lord's table persons whom they deemed
morally unfitted for approaching it. In curbing suspected despotism,
Erastianism, as is its wont, paralyzed the hand of a salutary restraint
upon the irregularities of Christian professors. It opened a door for
promiscuous communion. It thwarted the designs, and enfeebled the
energy of ecclesiastical Puritanism; and thus laxity of fellowship
followed as a penalty for seeking State support, on the part of
communities which prized the purity of Christ's Church.

Voluntaryism cannot properly be identified with Puritanism. The
leading Puritans neither advocated nor countenanced that principle;
such as were Episcopalians did not. The Presbyterians, and some of
the Independents, as we have this moment noticed, did not. A few
of the Baptists did not. Oliver Cromwell, who protected them all,
did not. Whilst some Puritans thus stood apart from Voluntaries, and
even opposed _them_, there were some Voluntaries who stood apart from
Puritanism, and even opposed _that_. The Quakers, from the commencement
of their history, protested against the union of Church and State,
and were ever faithful to their convictions in this as well as in
other respects; they also kept aloof from Puritanism altogether, and
even condemned it severely, under several of its aspects. Many of the
Independents, and more of the Baptists, previously to the Civil Wars,
also disapproved strongly of that kind of union which displeased the
Quakers, and contended firmly for the support of Churches by voluntary
contributions; yet they entered into cordial alliance with Puritanism
in other things, promoting certain of its political proceedings, and
sympathizing generally with its spiritual movements and tendencies.
Voluntaryism had strong affinities for the spiritual side of
Puritanism, deriving from it the most vigorous impulses, contributing
towards it the most devoted service; and if it did not win its way
at first amongst the rich, the noble, and the learned, it laid hold
upon the hearts of the humbler classes; and, by widely leavening them
with its power, prepared for subsequently working upwards to that
influence which is exercised by it in the present day. The history of
this principle is the same throughout: as it was with the primitive
Christians,--as it was with so many of the most pious and active men
of the Middle Ages,--as it has been with the Methodists,--so it was
with those of whom I speak. They began their work--"in a great trial of
affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded
unto the riches of their liberality."

Voluntaryism, so far as it affected Puritanism, did not contribute to
its weakness, but to its strength; yet amongst those who professed
Voluntaryism, as amongst those who adopted different views, there
appeared an element which proved injurious to them all. It was
dis-union--it was strife.

If the Crusading knights had been of one mind, it is a question,
whether, in the end, they would have retained mastery over the
Mussulmen; but certainly they stood no chance whilst feuds were rife
in the Camp of the Cross. The same may be said of the Puritans. It
would have been hard enough, with the utmost concentration of force, to
bear down opposition; but amidst their own discords it became simply
impossible. Presbyterians were of different shades of opinion, and
they were not without mutual jealousies. But their hatred of what they
stigmatized as Sectarianism appears scarcely less than their hatred of
Prelacy, or even of Romanism; in some minds abhorrence existed equally
in reference to all three. The sects were not behindhand in their
mutual antipathies, and were by no means gentle in their collisions.
Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, to mention no others--I speak of
them all generally--did anything but keep "the unity of the spirit in
the bonds of peace." The apostolic warning betokened evil to Puritan
Christendom in England--"If ye bite and devour one another, take heed
that ye be not consumed one of another." Yet those whose eyes are open
to discern the defects in principle and temper of the ecclesiastical
organizations of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth, can also see
that Puritanism has bequeathed to English Christendom a precious legacy
of religious freedom. That spirit has not only wrought out modern Free
Churches--which, whatever may be men's opinions on ecclesiastical
questions, must be admitted by everyone to be efficient powers in
spreading Christianity at home and abroad, and in exerting beneficial
influences of many kinds upon society at large--but that spirit has
also leavened, to a large extent, other communities not based upon
what is called the voluntary principle. Toleration, for which the
Independents struggled under Cromwell, won a victory in 1688--an
imperfect victory it is true, but still precious; and the toleration
then established opened the way for the progress now advancing along
the paths of mutual religious justice.

Puritanism presents another--a _spiritual_ aspect--under which it has
exercised an influence more vigorous and salutary than it has done in
any other way.

It laid hold on thousands, not only by simple methods of religious
worship which commended themselves to the plain understanding, and
the unsophisticated taste of Anglo-Saxon people,--but by its emphatic
exhibition of the truths of Christianity as a redemptive system, full
of the love of God to sinful men, commending itself to humble and
sorrow-stricken hearts. In the Gospel of Christ, which Puritanism
prominently exhibited as adapted to the wants of mankind, lay the
secret of its greatest success, and the key to its noblest results. As
a spiritual power it had been strong under Elizabeth and the Stuarts;
but its conflicts in war, its entrance into the Court, its elevation
to the throne, defaced somewhat its spiritual beauty, and impaired
in a measure its spiritual force. The most favourable aspects of
Puritanism are not found in the history of the Civil Wars, and of the
Commonwealth. As with Christianity in general--as with Protestantism at
large, so with the system now under consideration. Not in the palace
of Constantine do we discover the best specimens of Gospel piety; not
in the Courts of English and German sovereigns do we see the workings
of the Reformed Faith to most advantage; and not at Whitehall must we
watch for the fairest visions of Puritan life. Our religion, in its
best forms, is no doubt essentially a genial social power, healing,
constructive, conservative--such we believe it will prove itself to
be in the Church of the future--but in the Church of the past, it has
shown itself purest and strongest when contending against opposition,
when passing through scenes of suffering, when grappling with the
evils of society, and when informing and animating individual souls.
Persecution has been to piety what the furnace is to the potter's clay;
it has burnt in, it has brought out, its richest colours. The Huguenots
appear to much greater advantage in the defeats which they endured
than in the victories which they won; the peasantry in their cottages
are more to be admired than the nobles in their chateaux. The history
of successful battles fought, or of courageous resistance made by the
French Protestants; and the story of Henry of Navarre and his Courtiers
even before his reconciliation with Rome; read not so well as does the
record of men of the same class who were burnt at the stake, or who
were sent to the galleys, or who were exiled from their country. So
also the chief moral charm of Puritanism is found, not in the successes
of statesmen and soldiers; not in Pym's debates and majorities; not
in Cromwell's charges and laurels; but in the deaths of Barrow and
Greenwood, and in the tortures of Leighton and Burton; and, if we
may anticipate, in the ejection, the wanderings and the imprisonment
of Howe, and Heywood, and Baxter. On the same principle the quiet,
earnest, and exemplary lives of the middle-class Puritans did more than
anything else, at the commencement of the Civil Wars to give ascendancy
to their cause; and after the Restoration to recover its character,
and promote its progress. Puritanism, when once more separated from
the State, returned to the old and better paths of confessorship and
humiliation; and thrown back upon itself and upon God, it became, as of
yore, a spiritual agency of the most potent kind. The theological books
it produced, the devoted characters it formed, and the pious memories
it handed to posterity, have created an influence embracing within its
reach both England and America. The effect of its works, examples, and
traditions have never perished in Dissenting Churches and families; but
beyond these circles, it has manifestly told upon the Christian world.
It contributed to the great revival of religion which arose within the
pale of the Establishment during the last century; and from an earlier
period than that, down to the present day, its perpetuated spiritual
power has been deeply felt, and gratefully acknowledged on the other
side of the Atlantic.

Such was the system of Puritanism--politically, ecclesiastically,
spiritually; such were some of the causes which produced changes in it
at the era of the Restoration. What it was, and what it did at that
period and afterwards, remains to be related. We are to consider what,
in its Presbyterian, Congregational, and other forms, it became; what
it endured of direct persecution and of indirect social wrong; and what
it achieved in works of faith, and love, and zeal. We are to trace its
social influence in the retirements of English life; its new political
influence on the side of liberty; the germs of after-thought which it
planted; the stones of reform and improvement which it laid. Also, and
this will occupy a still wider space, we are to mark how the Episcopal
Church of England rose out of her ruins, and the Establishment became
once more Anglican. All this, in the minute grades of the process,
together with the form of the re-edification; the policy of its new
builders; their relations and conduct towards their Nonconformist
brethren; the intermingling of ecclesiastical and political events; the
Church developments; the theological controversies; and the spiritual
life of the period, amongst Conformists and Nonconformists--much of it,
on each side, beautiful, some of it, on both sides, marred--it is my
arduous task faithfully to unfold.




                              CHAPTER I.


Richard Cromwell succeeded his father in the government of the realm,
as if his family had from of old occupied the throne. What renders
this fact the more remarkable is that the new ruler had never been a
public character, except so far as holding offices of honour might
be considered as giving him that appearance. He had spent a quiet
and almost unnoticed life, in the retirement of Hursley Park, in
Hampshire--an inheritance he had acquired by marriage,--and there, in
the society of neighbouring Cavaliers, he had enjoyed the sports of a
country gentleman. Imbued with loyalty to the Stuarts, notwithstanding
his father's position; conforming to the Established religion, without
any sympathy in his father's opinions; indeed, destitute of deep
religious feeling of any kind, as well as of genius, enthusiasm,
and force of will, he stood ill-prepared to sustain the enormous
responsibility which now fell upon his shoulders.

[Sidenote: 1658.]

Instantly after Oliver's death, on the 3rd of September, the Council
assembled and acknowledged Richard's title. All the chief cities and
towns in the dominion were informed that the late Protector--"according
to the petition and advice in his lifetime"--had declared his "noble
and illustrious son to be his successor." The Mayor and Aldermen of
London proceeded to Whitehall with condolences and congratulations;
and the new Protector, in their presence, took the Oath of the
Constitution, administered to him by Fiennes, a Lord Commissioner of
the Great Seal. Manton offered prayer, and blessed His Highness, "his
council, armies, and people."[2]

Proclamation of Richard's accession throughout the country immediately
followed; and, according to a custom which had originated under
the Protectorate, addresses, overflowing with adulation, poured in
from various public bodies. Foreign courts, too, acknowledged the
Protector's title, and honoured his father's memory. "It a sad thing to
say," remarks Cosin, writing from Paris, "but here in the French Court,
they wear mourning apparel for Cromwell; yea, the King of France, and
all do it."[3] Richard's chief councillors were Lord Broghill, the
Royalist, who had been a faithful servant to Oliver; Dr. Wilkins,
Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, married to the late Protector's
sister; and Colonel Philip Jones, one of the Protectorate Lords. The
union between these councillors sufficiently indicates that no extreme
ecclesiastical policy could be contemplated; and, accordingly, in the
month of November, a Declaration appeared, couched in liberal terms,
conceding general toleration, and promising to godly ministers "their
dues and liberties, according to law."[4]

[Sidenote: RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE.]

Richard was tolerant both from disposition and policy; owing to
circumstances, he sympathized more with Presbyterians than with
Independents; perhaps he would not have been adverse to some kind of
modified Episcopacy. Moderate people, of different parties, therefore,
looked kindly upon his sway; but it soon appeared that the embers of
discontent were smouldering still. Scarcely had he worn his title one
month, when his brother, Henry Cromwell, wrote in an alarming tone to
Lord General Fleetwood, who had married Henry's sister. "Remember," he
says, "what has always befallen imposing spirits. Will not the loins
of an imposing Independent or Anabaptist be as heavy as the loins of
an imposing Prelate or Presbyter? And is it a dangerous error, that
dominion is founded in grace when it is held by the Church of Rome, and
a sound principle when it is held by the Fifth Monarchy?" "Let it be
so carried, that all the people of God, though under different forms,
yea, even those whom you count _without_, may enjoy their birthright
and civil liberty, and that no one party may tread upon the neck of
another."[5] Henry Cromwell feared lest certain well-known unquiet
spirits, now that his sire's strong hand had crumbled into dust, should
disturb the peace of the country, and, under pretence of universal
freedom, throw everything into confusion. He had reasons for his fear.

[Sidenote: 1659.]

Richard called a Parliament, which met on the 27th of January, 1659.
Writs were issued to "rotten boroughs;" representatives were summoned
from Scotland and Ireland; means not constitutional, so it is said,
were employed to secure a House of Commons favourable to the Court
party. The majority consisted of Presbyterians, to whom the Protector
chiefly looked for support; but old political Independents also secured
their election, and Sir Henry Vane and Sir Arthur Haselrig, excluded
by the old Protector, now, under the milder sway of the new one,
took their seats in St. Stephen's Chapel.[6] They evaded the oath of
allegiance, and boldly advocated Republicanism.

Parliament opened with a sermon in Westminster Abbey, by Dr. Thomas
Goodwin, the Independent, who preached from Psalm lxxxv. 10, advocating
liberty of conscience, and exhorting to union and peace. To that
venerable edifice, ever identified with our national history, His
Highness, attended by the Privy Council, by the Officers of State,
and by the Gentlemen of the Household, "passed by water in a stately
new-built galley, and landed at the Parliament Stairs." Lord Cleypole,
Master of the Horse, bore the Sword of State before Richard, who
in the Abbey sat surrounded by his Lords, the Commons, much to
their displeasure--afterwards expressed by them--being seated here
and there; "_sparsim_," as a contemporary chronicle discontentedly
states.[7] The Protector concluded his opening speech in the Painted
Chamber, by recommending to the care of Parliament, first, "the people
of God in these nations, with their concernments;" secondly, "the
good and necessary work of reformation, both in manners and in the
administration of justice;" thirdly, the Protestant cause abroad, which
seemed at that time to be in some danger; and lastly, the maintenance
of love and duty among themselves.[8]

[Sidenote: RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE.]

After a rather ill-tempered discussion, Reynolds, Manton, Calamy,
and Owen--three Presbyterians and one Independent--were appointed by
the Commons, "two to preach and two to pray," on the occasion of the
succeeding fast; and it is curious to find that in this instance the
service took place, not at St. Margaret's Church, but within the walls
of the House, to avoid, as alleged, the inconvenience of a promiscuous
auditory, when "good men wanted the liberty, which it was fit they
should have," to rebuke and reprove "the faults and miscarriages
of their superiors." "Ill-affected persons came frequently to such
exercises, not out of any zeal or devotion, but to feel the pulse of
the State, and to steer their counsels and affairs accordingly."[9]
The desirableness of sometimes giving admonition and advice to bodies
of men, unembarrassed by the presence of critical and alienated
spectators, still felt by many, was felt then.

The debates mainly turned upon fundamental questions of government.
In them little appears relative to religion. Complaints were made of
the Commissioners for trying ministers, and of the mismanagement of
funds for the support of the latter. Maynard, and others, affirmed that
souls were starved; that the sheep were committed to the wolf; that
scandalous preachers had scandalous judges; that Welsh Churches were
unsupplied except by "a few grocers, or such persons;" that "dippers
and creepers" were found in the Army; that Jesuits had been in the
House, &c. "See," exclaimed one speaker, "what congregations we had
in '43, and what now! It is questioned whether we have a Church in
England; questioned, I doubt, whether Scripture or rule of life is in
England."[10] In the Grand Committee, a Bill was ordered to be drawn
for revising Acts touching the Prayer Book; and for the suppression of
Quakers, Papists, Socinians, and Jews.[11] Just before, a member named
Nevile had been denounced and threatened with prosecution as an atheist
and blasphemer, for saying that the reading of Cicero affected him more
than the reading of the Bible.[12]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

These proceedings, together with a declaration a few weeks
afterwards, which spoke of blasphemies and heresies against God,
and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures; of the
advocates of an inward light; also of atheism, profaneness, and
Sabbath-breaking,[13]--indicate the revival of Presbyterian influence,
and the renewed activity of Presbyterian zeal. On the other hand, Sir
Henry Vane, who had been so earnest in supporting the Covenant, had
now changed his mind on that subject, maintaining that the compact
had become invalid through what he called the Scotch invasion of
England, meaning by this the invasion which ended in the defeat at
Worcester.[14] In the same spirit exceptions were taken by a Committee
to the harsh treatment of Fifth Monarchy men; and some of that class
were referred to with respect.[15] In these Parliamentary allusions to
religious questions--the chief allusions of the kind which occurred
about this time--we discern the flow of two opposite currents of
feeling.

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.]

Other debates issued in important consequences. Republicans and
the advocates of a mixed Government came into collision upon their
particular points of difference. Sir Arthur Haselrig openly arraigned
the acts of Oliver Cromwell, condemned the dismissal of the Long
Parliament, and most irreverently compared the extinction of Monarchy
and of the Upper House to the effect of the crucifying of our Saviour
on the Cross. Haselrig proclaimed England to be a theocracy. "God,"
said he, "is the King of this Great Island." Haselrig acknowledged no
power under God but that of the Parliament; the Protector he utterly
ignored. Scott and Ludlow also gloried in their regicidal deeds. Vane,
in a calmer strain, upheld Republicanism. On the other side the
friends of the Protectorate contended for the "petition and advice"
as "the Boaz and Jachin of Solomon's temple." The hand of Providence,
they said, had set up the Protector, Richard. He was Protector before
the House assembled; the House had owned him in that capacity, and had
taken an oath of allegiance. A Royalist, amidst the expression of these
opinions, exclaimed, "I am for the Constitution we lived under--for
building up the ancient fabric."[16] Thus early, certain of the
senators of England showed their determination to plunge at once into
the vortex of a new revolution.

[Sidenote: 1659.]

Questions touching foreign affairs, the Army, and finance came under
debate at the same time; the Republicans, led by Vane, deploring, in
a spirit of infatuation, the late peace with Holland, and wishing
that the war had been perpetuated until the Dutch had been conquered,
and forced into union with this country. They contended also that
the control of the military should be placed in the hands of the
Parliament, not in the hands of the Protector; and they inveighed
against the extravagance of the Government, declaring that the
deficiency in the revenue would produce a national debt enough to
sink the country in ruin. But what proved of still more serious
consequence, the Republicans not only canvassed, but set aside certain
acts of the late Protector. Oliver had left behind him many State
prisoners, committed for political offences. They were now liberated.
Major-General Overton, one of these prisoners, appeared before the
House as a martyr, being escorted on his return from imprisonment--like
Burton, Prynne, and others, nearly twenty years before--by "four or
five hundred men on horseback, and a vast crowd bearing branches of
laurel."[17]

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.]

Richard could not be held responsible for the arbitrary proceedings
of Oliver. He had not been privy to his father's deeds; he had not
entered into his father's purposes; he had not adopted his father's
opinions; he had befriended the Royalists, and was still supposed to
have sympathies with them; at the same time also his moderation and
urbanity attracted towards him some of his father's companions and
allies. "Though perhaps you will not believe it," wrote Broderick to
Hyde, "they really are more affectionate to the present than the late
Protector, whose temper so differed from theirs that it was usually
averse to the deliberate caution they advised, running hazards they
trembled to think of upon a sudden violent suggestion, of which
they could give themselves no account, which precipices this young
Prince doth prudently, as well as naturally avoid, and is thereby
rendered more agreeable to those wary statesmen."[18] Yet personal
popularity did not suffice to defend him from the disaffection of
Republicans, and the discontent and intrigues of Army officers. Late
in the month of March, Fleetwood and Desborough reported to Richard
that agitation prevailed amongst the troops; that they complained of
not having received their pay; that they were angry at the conduct
of Parliament towards some of their old generals; and that these
circumstances afforded encouragement to the Cavalier party. The two
officers proceeded to employ these facts for the purpose of enforcing
the advice that His Highness should immediately summon a Council of
Officers to consider the state of affairs. Such a Council was held;
and, after prayer, by Dr. Owen, deliberations commenced. Desborough
recommended the application to the Army of a political test, the test
to be--approval of the execution of Charles I. The proposition shocked
the Lords Howard and Falconbridge. Broghill suggested a different
method--that every one should be turned out of the Army who would
not swear allegiance to the Protectorate, a proposition supported by
Whalley and Goffe. At last it was resolved to separate the command of
the Army from the civil power; a resolution afterwards presented to His
Highness, who forwarded it to the House of Commons. Such discussions
only served to widen the breach between the House and the Army, in
the end diminishing the influence of the former, and leaving it in a
position of weakness, so as to compel its submission to the assumption
of the latter. The resolution sent to the Protector, and by him
forwarded to the Commons, tended to throw the greatest influence into
the hands of the officers, and to promote Desborough's Republican views.

Petitions from the Army followed these proceedings, the soldiers
saying, "Because our consciences bear us witness that we dipped our
hands in blood in that cause; and the blood of many thousands hath
been shed by our immediate hands under your command in that quarrel,
we are amazed to think of the account that we must render at the
great and terrible day of the Lord, if by your silence the freedom
of these nations should be lost, and returned into the hands of that
family, which God hath so eminently appeared against in His many signal
providences little less than miracles."[19]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

The Commons, although weak, assumed the semblance of strength, and upon
the 18th of April resolved that no Council of Officers should be held
without permission of the Protector and the Parliament; and that no one
should have command in the Army or Navy who did not engage to leave the
two Houses uninterrupted in their deliberations. The Protector, still
more feeble than Parliament, proceeded to dissolve the Council; the
officers asserted their authority by continuing to meet for conference.

As it was in the father's days so it was in the son's: when argument
failed violence took its place. Violence, like that which had been
employed by Oliver against the Parliament, was now threatened against
Richard by the Army. The officers, clutching at their old weapons,
seeing how things were likely to proceed, fearing the Presbyterian
ascendancy, and the destruction of their liberties, determined to
put an end to the sitting of the two Houses; and told His Highness
that if he did not dismiss them he might expect to be dismissed
himself. Richard was no soldier, and had not, like Oliver, secured
the attachment of the military, so that resistance by him to martial
chiefs could avail nothing. He, therefore, allowed the Parliament to
be dissolved by Commission, upon the 22nd of April. After this act
had been accomplished, not without opposition from some members, the
party in power summoned to the resumption of their trust, such of the
Long Parliament as had continued to sit until the year 1653. They
amounted in number to ninety-one; out of these forty-two obeyed the
new order, and took their places on the 7th of May. Fourteen of the
old Presbyterians, including Prynne,[20] who had sat in St. Stephen's
before Pride's purge, were refused admittance.

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.]

Upon the 13th of May the heads of the Army presented a petition, in
which they proposed to men whom they addressed as rulers, but who
were in fact servants, that religious liberty should, as in the days
of Oliver, continue to be conceded to all orthodox believers (Papists
and Prelatists being distinctly excepted); that a godly ministry
should be everywhere maintained; and that the universities and schools
of learning should be countenanced and reformed.[21] Gleams of
Presbyterian influence disappeared; the broad ecclesiastical policy of
Oliver again resumed the ascendant.

A new Council of State was formed, and the names of Vane and Haselrig
once more prominently appeared, together with those of Whitelock and
Fleetwood--the one a legal cipher, the other a military tool.

[Sidenote: 1659.]

Fleetwood occupied Wallingford House, which stood on the site of the
present Admiralty, the birthplace of the second Duke of Buckingham, and
the residence of the infamous Countess of Essex. Here it was, from the
roof of the mansion, then occupied by the Earl of Peterborough, that
Archbishop Ussher had swooned at the sight of Charles' execution; and
here Fleetwood, who from his connection with the Cromwells on the one
side, and with the Army on the other, now possessed more power than any
other person, gathered together his brother officers for conference.
Fleetwood was a pious and respectable Independent,[22] a sincere
patriot, a Republican only in a qualified sense, willing to concede
to a Protector large administrative authority. He was not without
ambition, although he had prudence enough to curb it; yet neither by
gifts of nature, force of character, or study and experience, was he
a man fitted to deal with existing emergencies. He had no original
genius, being born to follow, not to lead. He helped to pull down
the Protectorate, and to dethrone his brother-in-law, but he had no
gift for building up any better order of things. He could aid the
destructive movements of Vane and Haselrig; but he had no more of the
faculty of constructiveness than had they.

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.]

John Howe, who, in the month of May, was residing at Whitehall after
an absence of some months, saw and lamented the condition of affairs.
The "army-men," he says, under pretence of zeal for the interests
of religious liberty were seeking their own ends, and were for that
purpose drawing to themselves "wild-headed persons of all sorts."
"Such persons," he adds, "as are now at the head of affairs will
blast religion, if God prevent not." "I know some leading men are not
Christians. Religion is lost out of England, farther than as it can
creep into corners. Those in power, who are friends to it, will no more
suspect these persons than their ownselves."[23] These are not the
words of a party man; and they show that whatever might be the piety of
Fleetwood, and the purity of Vane, there were persons of a different
character who employed them as tools for selfish ends. In the same
letter, Howe speaks in favourable terms of Richard, whom he must have
known well. The disinterestedness, and even patriotism of the Protector
appeared in his resignation of power. "He resolved to venture upon it
himself, rather than suffer it to be taken with more hazard to the
country by others," and he awakens our sympathy by his own truthful
words, that "he was betrayed by those whom he most trusted." He quitted
Whitehall, with trunks full of addresses, which contained, as he
humorously remarked, "the lives and fortunes of all the good people of
England." More at home in the hunting-field than in the cabinet--he,
after residing abroad for a time, spent the rest of his days in his
native land as a country gentleman; and died at Cheshunt, July the
12th, 1712, saying to his daughter, "Live in love; I am going to the
God of love."[24] He lies buried in Hursley Church, where he regularly
worshipped during his residence in the parish. Within the same walls,
by a coincidence which will be often noticed in future days, there now
repose the remains of a holy man and a great poet, whose sympathies
never seem to have reached the fallen Protector during a ministry, in
that place, of thirty years.[25]

The power of the Cromwell family came to an end upon the dissolution
of Richard's Parliament, except that Fleetwood was acknowledged by
the Army as Lieutenant-general. Lord Falconbridge, and also the Lords
Broghill and Howard retired into the country; and, as the Protectorate
had vanished, they prepared to welcome the restoration of Monarchy.

[Sidenote: 1659.]

Leaving Whitehall we return to Wallingford House. Fleetwood, being
an Independent, civil affairs being entangled with such as were
ecclesiastical, and the interests of religion being so completely
involved in the political changes of the day--a fact which justifies
so much being said about them in an Ecclesiastical History--he and
Desborough, who sympathized with him, invited to their councils Dr.
Owen, the Independent, and Dr. Manton, the Presbyterian. A story is
told of the former, to the effect, that, at Wallingford House, he had
prayed for the downfall of Richard, so as to be heard by Manton, who
stood outside the door. It is further stated that Owen had gathered a
Church there; and that in one of its assemblies a determination had
been formed to compel Richard to dissolve his Parliament.[26] The
Independent Divine denied that he had anything to do with the setting
up, or the pulling down of Richard; and it has been also denied that he
gathered a Church in Wallingford House. Whatever might be the extent
of Owen's political interference at that crisis, and whether or not he
gathered a Church there, certainly at the time one existed upon the
spot. The Records of the Congregational Church at Yarmouth indicate
that a religious society assembled at Fleetwood's residence, and
carried on correspondence with other similar bodies.[27] These records
shed light upon a critical and dubious juncture in our history.

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.--INDEPENDENTS.]

A meeting was held at Norwich, and another in London, respecting which
Dr. Owen wrote to Mr. Bridge. The resolutions at which the Yarmouth
Church arrived, as they were probably drawn up by the eminent minister,
who presided over that community, may be regarded as expressing the
opinions of a wider circle than the provincial society which adopted
them.

First--"We judge a Parliament to be the expedient for the preservation
of the peace of these nations; and withal we do desire that all due
care be taken that the Parliament be such as may preserve the interest
of Christ and His people in these nations." Secondly--"As touching the
magistrate's power in matters of faith and worship we have declared
our judgment in our late Confession[28] (by the Savoy Conference);
and though we greatly prize our Christian liberties, yet we profess
our utter dislike and abhorrence of a universal toleration as being
contrary to the mind of God in His word." Thirdly--"We judge that the
taking away of tithes for maintenance of ministers until as full a
maintenance be equally secured, and as legally settled, tend very much
to the destruction of the ministry and the preaching of the Gospel in
these nations." Fourthly--"It is our desire that countenance be not
given, nor trust reposed in the hands of Quakers, they being persons of
such principles as are destructive to the Gospel, and inconsistent with
the peace of civil societies."[29]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

Into a miserable state must England have drifted when a congregation
of Independents, no doubt containing many worthy people, but certainly
not fitted to act as a Council of State, came to be consulted upon the
most important public questions, and to give their opinion after this
fashion.

What the opinions of Dr. Owen were upon two of the points mooted in
these resolutions we learn from a short paper which he wrote at this
time, and which is preserved in his collected works. There are three
questions, and he gives three answers. The first two relate to the
power of the supreme magistrate touching religion and the worship of
God. Notwithstanding the haste with which the replies were furnished,
they must be considered as expressing the writer's mature judgment, for
the interrogatories embody the most pressing questions of the times.
To the first query, whether the supreme magistrate in a Commonwealth
professing the religion of Christ, may exert his legislative and
executive power for furthering the profession of the faith and
worship, and whether he ought to coerce or restrain such principles
and practices as were contrary to them, Owen replied distinctly in
the affirmative. He supported his affirmation by arguments drawn from
the law and the light of nature; from the government of nations; from
God's revealed institutions; from the examples of God's magistrates;
"from the promises of Gospel times;" "from the equity of Gospel rules;"
from the confession of all Protestant Churches; and particularly from
the Savoy declaration. Owen was asked, secondly, whether the supreme
magistrate might "by laws and penalties compel any one who holds the
Head Christ Jesus to subscribe to that confession of faith, and attend
to that way of worship which he esteems incumbent on him to promote
and further." Restricting attention to those described as "holding
the Head," the Independent Divine remarks, that though it cannot be
proved that the magistrate is divinely authorized to take away the
lives of men for their disbelief, "yet it doth not seem to be the
duty of any, professing obedience to Jesus Christ, to make any stated
legal unalterable provision for their immunity who renounce Him." He
decides also that opinions of public scandal ought to be restrained,
and not suffered to be divulged, either by open speech or by the press.
Subsequently, after premising (to use his own words) that "the measure
of doctrinal holding the Head, consists in some few clear fundamental
propositions," and that men are apt to run to extremes, he finally
concludes upon giving a negative answer to their second question. As
to the third, "whether it be convenient that the present way of the
maintenance of ministers or preachers of the Gospel be removed and
taken away, or changed into some other provision;" Owen vindicates the
claim of the ministry to temporal support, and places the payment of
tithes upon a Divine basis. He declares that to take away "the public
maintenance" would be "a contempt of the care and faithfulness of God
towards His Church, and, in plain terms, downright robbery."[30]

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.--BAPTISTS.]

A Church book of the period has thus afforded an insight into certain
political relations sustained by Independents in the year 1659. A
celebrated historian may next be quoted, in reference to alleged
proceedings of a very different nature on the part of Baptists.
Clarendon relates a strange story of overtures made to Charles before
the death of Cromwell by persons of that denomination. He gives a copy
of an address to His Majesty, as Charles is styled, signed by ten such
persons, in which address occur violent lamentations over the troubles
of the times. Attached to it are proposals "in order to an happy,
speedy, and well-grounded peace." The document contains a prayer, that
no anti-Christian Hierarchy, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or otherwise,
should be created, and that every one should be left at liberty to
worship God in such a way and manner as might appear to them to be
agreeable to the mind and will of Christ.[31]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

According to Clarendon--the only authority upon which we have to
depend in reference to the subject--a curious letter accompanied the
address and the proposals; in which letter the correspondent alludes
to a "worthy gentleman" by whose hands it was conveyed, and who being
acquainted with the circumstances, would fully explain the case and
answer objections. He refers to the subscribers as "young proselytes"
to the Royal cause, as needing to be driven "_lento pede_," as being
neither of great families or great estates, but as capable of being
more serviceable to His Majesty than some whose names would "swell much
bigger than theirs."[32]

There is no sufficient reason for pronouncing the story an invention,
or the documents forgeries; at any rate it appears as if Clarendon
believed in them; yet on the other hand, there is not the slightest
evidence that any of the leaders of the Baptist body ever concurred in
any such movement--the names appended to the address are unknown--and
no reference to the affair, that I am aware of, was ever made after
the Restoration, either by Baptists or any other party. On the whole
it is not unlikely that some few people, calling themselves Baptists,
disliking Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate, and differing from
those ministers of their denomination who held parish livings, might
have engaged in a correspondence with a view to the restoration of
Monarchy under certain conditions--especially that of unfettered
toleration. No practical result followed these reported overtures.[33]

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--PRESBYTERIANS.]

The Presbyterians had, for the most part, after the death of Charles
I., preserved a sentiment of loyalty towards the House of Stuart; and
now that Richard had fallen, they were eager for the restoration of
Monarchy in the person of the exiled prince. Presbyterian clergymen
animated and controlled this new movement, of which the extensive
ramifications spread themselves abroad in secrecy and caution. Only in
Cheshire did any military demonstration occur. There, in the month of
August, under Sir George Booth, a popular Presbyterian of the county,
numbers of persons appeared in arms; yet, although the object evidently
was to place Prince Charles on the throne of his fathers, the leaders
professed nothing more than a desire to secure the assembling of a free
Parliament. The Presbyterians rejected the aid of the Roman Catholics,
and but warily accepted the advances of a Presbyterian knight, Sir
Thomas Middleton, because he was known to be a Royalist.[34]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

The rising proved unfortunate. After being hopefully prosecuted a
little while, it then appeared that the Republicans under Lambert
were too strong for these Northern insurgents. The former scoured
the country. Their shots in some places disturbed the Presbyterian
communicants at the Lord's Supper; their advances in the neighbourhood
of Manchester filled that town with alarm. Houses were emptied of
their valuables by the people who were anxious to hide them from
the enemy.[35] Booth was obliged to flee; and to provide against
detection he assumed a female disguise, and rode on a pillion, but his
awkwardness in alighting from his horse betrayed him; and Middleton,
after a brief resistance within the walls of Chirk Castle, capitulated
to the foe.

Fleetwood now seemed the chief man in England; and to him certain
Republicans, who had been desired, or as they interpreted it, commanded
to retire from the Council of Officers, turned as to their last hope,
asking him in a "humble representation" full of religious sentiment,
"to remove the present force upon the Parliament, that it might sit in
safety without interruption."[36] Other persons of more consequence,
including Haselrig, followed up the appeal in a rather different
strain, but with the same object, and charged Fleetwood with destroying
Parliamentary authority, after the example of his father-in-law.[37]
Sir Ashley Cooper subsequently wrote to him in like manner, protesting
against "red-coats and muskets" as a "_non obstante_" to national laws
and public privileges.[38]

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--EPISCOPALIANS.]

Amidst the confusion of the period hope dawned upon the persecuted
Episcopalians.

Whether or not influenced by the death of Cromwell, and the foresight
of coming changes favourable to his own Church, Henry Thorndike, the
able Episcopalian scholar and divine, published in 1659 what he called
_An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England_; a book which,
an admiring critic says, proved to be in spirit a prologue to the
renewed life of a Church more vigorous than ever! The aim of the work
is to promote the welfare of the Episcopal Church of England, not by
any compromise, but by endeavouring to persuade all to unite together
on her behalf. Looking at the claims of the Romish Church to immediate
inspiration (placed no matter where), and to the equally groundless
and more arrogant claims of the fanatics--as Thorndike terms them--to
individual inspiration, he urges that each party should be brought
to admit themselves limited to the sense of Scripture as expounded
by the primitive laws and faith of the Church. Thus, he says, the
ground of their errors is cut away. With this imaginary solution of
the difficulty, which begs the question, this calculation upon what
is impossible, and this triumphant assurance of a conclusion based on
premises, which neither Papist nor Puritan would admit--the high, but
honest Churchman, shows how much he sympathized with the one and how
little with the other.

[Sidenote: 1659.]

He expressly avows his approval of prayers for the dead, of the
invocation of the Spirit on the elements of the Eucharist, and of the
practice of penance; whilst he contends for Episcopacy in the Anglican
sense, and wishes to see Presbyters restored to their ancient position
of a council to be consulted by the bishop. Thorndike's notion was,
in prospect of its restoration, to reform his own Church, by bringing
it back to what he considered primitive usage. Those who most condemn
some of the views which he advocated will be constrained, on reading
his life and works, to acknowledge the guileless simplicity of his
character, as apparent in this very publication at such a crisis. He
says himself--"That I should publish the result of my thoughts to the
world may seem to fall under the historian's censure. '_Frustra autem
niti, neque aliud se fatigando, nisi odium quærere, extremæ dementiæ
est._'" He adds, "If I be like a man with an arrow in his thigh, or
like a woman ready to bring forth,--that is, as Ecclesiasticus saith,
like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart--I am in this, I
hope, no fool of Solomon's, but with St. Paul, 'a fool for Christ's
sake.'"[39]

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--EPISCOPALIANS.]

This straightforward course annoyed those who were seeking to restore
the Church in a different way. "Pray tell me what melancholy hath
possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his
book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever
imparting it, or communicating with them?" Such questions were asked by
Sir Edward Hyde, who wondered that Thorndike should publish his "doubts
to the world in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use
would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them."[40] Hyde's
own method of proceeding at this juncture appears in his correspondence
with Dr. Barwick. He did not trouble himself, like Thorndike, with
theological questions, or attempt any reformation of the Church which
he wished to restore; but he threw himself heartily into efforts for
the preservation of the Episcopal order. For the Bishops were dying
out, only a few survived; in a short time all would be dead, and then
how would the ministerial succession be perpetuated? By repairing to
Rome, or by admitting the validity of Presbyterian ordination? As Hyde
pondered these queries he rebuked the friends of the Church for their
apathy--"The King hath done all that is in his power to do, and if my
Lords the Bishops will not do the rest, what can become of the Church?
The conspiracies to destroy it are very evident; and, if there can
be no combination to preserve it, it must expire. I do assure you,
the names of all the Bishops who are alive and their several ages
are as well known at Rome as in England; and both the Papist and the
Presbyterian value themselves very much upon computing in how few years
the Church of England must expire."[41] While the Prelates generally
came in for his censure, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and Duppa, Bishop of
Salisbury, were exceptionally noticed as active and earnest--the most
lukewarm being Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter, and Skinner, Bishop of
Oxford.[42] It was easier, however, for Hyde, on the Continent, to
write zealously on this subject than for the Bishops in England, under
inimical rulers, and with the fear of penalties before them, to do
anything effective for the consecration of successors. Difficulties
were felt, both in the wandering Court of Charles and in the troubled
homes of ejected Episcopalians. There were no Deans and Chapters
to receive the _congé d'élire_, and to act upon it. Canonical and
constitutional law interposed obstacles in the way of consecration.
Bramhall thought, that as the King had an absolute power of nomination
for Ireland, the best way would be for surviving Bishops to consecrate
persons Royally nominated to Irish sees, and then translate them to
England. The Bishop of Ely objected to this as practically approving
what he considered a defect in the Church of the sister island; and he
would rather, he said, see Ireland conformed to England, than England
to Ireland. His own plan, in which Dr. Cosin concurred, was much the
same as one which Barwick proposed--_i.e._, that the King should grant
a Commission to the Bishops of each province, to elect and consecrate
fit persons for vacant sees, and ratify and confirm the process
afterwards.[43] To this Hyde agreed, and wrote for the form of such a
Commission as the Bishops might judge proper. No further steps appear
to have been taken in that direction.

[Sidenote: 1659.]

Hyde counselled as much privacy as possible in measures for the
preservation of the Episcopal order; and in all affairs relating to
the Church he recommended the utmost prudence and moderation: at
a later period, when Monk was preparing for Charles' return, Hyde
complained of the "unskilful passion and distemper" of some Divines.
The King, he added, was really troubled, and "extremely apprehensive
of inconvenience and mischief to the Church and himself." Still later,
he advised that endeavours should be made to win over those who had
reputation, and desired to merit well of the Church--and that there
should be no compliance "with the pride and passion of those who
propose extravagant things."[44]

As correspondence passed between Hyde and Barwick many Episcopalians
in England gave themselves to fasting and prayer. Evelyn writes in
his diary on the 21st of October: "A private fast was kept by the
Church of England Protestants in town, to beg of God the removal of
His judgments, with devout prayers for His mercy to our calamitous
Church." Other entries appear, of the same kind. The ruling politicians
in England, out of all sympathy with the exiles, were, nevertheless,
promoting their interests by divisions at home.[45]

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--EPISCOPALIANS.]

Money-matters, out of which broods of quarrels are always being
hatched, caused what remained of the Long Parliament to be very
unpopular; and the upshot is seen in the dissolution by General
Lambert, on the 13th of October, of that attenuated but vivacious body,
whose continued, or renewed existence, through an age of revolutions,
presents such a singular phenomenon.




                              CHAPTER II.


After Lambert's imitation of Oliver Cromwell, in dissolving the
House of Commons, England might be said to be without any Government
at all. In contrast with our conscious security twenty years ago,
and our reliance upon the stability of the Constitution at a moment
when political changes were sweeping over Europe, as rapidly as
the shadows of the clouds chase each other over the corn-fields,
our fathers, in the latter part of the year 1659, felt they had no
political constitution whatever in existence, except as it might be
preserved in lawyers' books, and in people's memories. The Republicans
were at sixes and sevens. Some were for a select Senate, and a
Parliamentary representation; some for an Assembly chosen by the
people, and for Councils of State chosen by that Assembly; some for
a couple of Councils, both chosen by the popular voice; and some for
a scheme which seemed like a revival of the Lacedæmonian Ephori.[46]
Amidst distractions of opinion these speculatists were inspired by
personal animosities; and, being mutually jealous, they constantly
misapprehended each other's motives. It was a strange time, and as sad
as it was strange--when, at the Rota Club, which met at the Turk's
Head, in New Palace Yard, where Harrington and his friends were wont
to drink their glasses of water--it had become a _practical_ question,
under what sort of Government they were to live the following year?

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM--CONFUSION.]

London was a Babel of ecclesiastical no less than of political
theories. Presbyterians contended that the Solemn League and Covenant
alone could heal the nation's wounds. Fifth Monarchy men could see no
hope but in the second coming of Christ. Some contended for toleration
to a limited extent, with a national religion exercised according to
Parliamentary law--the legal and ancient provision for a national
ministry being augmented, so as to secure to each clergyman £100 per
annum. Others contended for "the way of old, laid down by Christ," to
bring it about again, and settle it in the world; and such teachers
declared that there needed to be an utter plucking up of all that
was in esteem or desire, or had been for many hundred years.[47] In
the _Modest Plea for an Equal Commonwealth_, published in 1659, it
was proposed to abolish tithes, upon composition being made for them
by landholders; the money so raised to be used for satisfying the
proprietors, and paying the arrears of the Army; also for discharging
public debts, and providing for the dispossessed incumbents during
the remainder of their lives.[48] Causes of discontent and disquiet,
often overlooked, existed at that period. Scarcity always aggravates
when it does not produce political confusion. The price of corn had
singularly fluctuated during the Commonwealth: like the tide it had
gradually ebbed during the first half; like the tide it had gradually
flowed during the second. In 1649, the year of Charles' execution,
wheat had reached eighty shillings a quarter; in 1654, the first year
of Oliver's protectorate, it fell as low as twenty-six shillings--good
harvests coming to bless his new administration. After that year wheat
rose again, till in 1659 it attained the price of sixty-six shillings;
the dearness of bread being, as we might expect, however unjustly, laid
at the door of a Government arrived at the last stage of incompetency
and weakness.[49] The result of combined calamities speedily became
apparent. The military were dissatisfied and divided. Troops lawlessly
prowled about the country; they levied contributions in all quarters,
threatening their enemies, and harassing their friends. Their swords
were warrants for exaction; and when told that their conduct would lead
to the return of Charles Stuart, they answered such an event could
never happen so long as they continued to carry arms. Colonels and
Captains lost command over their men; the latter did what was right in
their own eyes, and nothing else.[50]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

It is startling to find how rapidly change succeeded change in high
places. The remains of the Long Parliament, as it existed at the time
of its dissolution by Oliver Cromwell, were, for want of better rulers,
restored the day after Christmas-day,[51] according to the wishes of
the soldiers, not the Generals. Lenthall, after summoning such members
as could be found, again arrayed himself in his Speaker's robes; again
went in state to the House to reoccupy the old chair; and the soldiers,
who ten weeks before had driven him from the doors of St. Stephen's,
now shouted, at the top of their voices, in honour of his solemn
re-entrance. Prynne, and other gentlemen excluded by Pride's purge,
were once more excepted from the number summoned, and sought in vain
re-admission to their vacant seats. The remnant of legislators upon
assembling anew appointed a Council of State; but never was any form of
Government so unmercifully ridiculed as was this.

[Sidenote: INTERREGNUM.--CONFUSION.]

Something needed to be done. The Royalists throughout all this tumult
had not been asleep. They had increased the miserable confusion, and
even rejoiced in the gloom, because the darker the night the nearer
the dawn. Booth's rising in August had been repressed, but an enormous
flood of disaffection, of which that had been a sort of Geyser outgush,
continued to boil beneath the surface. Secret conferences were held;
plots were laid. The deeply engrained love of Monarchy in the English
mind--only painted over of late years--now that the paint was being
rubbed off, became distinctly visible. The press took the utmost
license. Evelyn in his _Apology for the Royal Party_ denounced the
Rump as a coffin which was yet less empty than the heads of certain
politicians. He boldly demanded the restoration of Charles Stuart,
maintaining that he might be trusted because of his innate love of
justice, and his father's dying injunctions; and because there were
none, however crimson-dyed their crimes, whom he would not pardon in
the abundance of his clemency and mercy. The author of _A Plea for
Limited Monarchy_ adds the sorrows of memory to the pleasures of hope,
as motives for restoring the King; for he dwells upon the decay of
trade, and complains that the oil and honey promised by Oliver had been
turned to bitterness and gall; and that Lambert's free quarterings had
licked up the little which had been left in the people's cruse.[52]

[Sidenote: 1659.]

These appeals fell on willing ears. The nation was weary--weary
of inefficient rulers, weary of ideal Republics. Had there been
some master-spirit equal to the departed one, with a strong and
well-disciplined Army at his back, the Commonwealth might even now at
last have been restored to what it was two years before; but nobody
like the vanished man remained, and the Army fell to pieces.

[Sidenote: MONK.]

General Monk had a large portion of it under his immediate control
in the North. The Committee of Safety had, in the month of November,
appointed him Commander-in-Chief of all the forces, and he now
determined to employ his influence for purposes of his own. The troops
under Lambert, who still cherished Republican ideas and designs, were
ordered by a messenger of Parliament to withdraw to their respective
quarters; consequently that ambitious and turbulent personage retired
into privacy. The soldiers in London, tired of their commanders, had
asked for the restoration of the Rump, and had placed themselves under
its authority. Monk alone possessed much military power. In the month
of January we find him marching up to London. On entering the gates
of York two Presbyterian ministers escorted him to his lodgings; one
of them, the eminent Edward Bowles, "the spring that moved all the
wheels in that city," who "dealt with the General about weighty and
dangerous affairs," keeping him up till midnight, and pressing him
very hard to stay there, and declare for the King. "Have you made any
such promise?" inquired Monk's chaplain. "No, truly, I have not; or, I
have _not yet_," was the reply. After a pause the chaplain remarked,
"When the famous Gustavus entered Germany, he said, 'that if his shirt
knew what he intended to do, he would tear it from his back, and burn
it.'" The speaker applied the story to his master, entreating him
to sleep between York and London; and when he entered the walls of
the Metropolis to open his eyes, and look about him.[53] Perhaps the
chaplain knew that such counsel would be agreeable to his patron; but
it was quite unnecessary to talk in this fashion to one pre-eminently
reticent, and as watchful with his eyes as he was cautious with his
lips.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Monk, at the time, was far from being reputed a Royalist. He, with
his officers, had in the month of June, 1659, expressed Republican
opinions. In the following November the same person corresponding with
Dr. Owen, and other representatives of the Independents in London,
promised that their interests should ever be dear to his heart; and
gave it as his opinion that the laws and rights for which they had been
struggling through eighteen years might be "reduced to a Parliamentary
Government, and the people's consenting to the laws."[54] The General
reached St. Albans on the 28th of January, when Hugh Peters preached
before him a characteristic sermon, little thinking of what the chief
person in the audience was about to accomplish. "As for his sermon,"
says one who heard it, "he managed it with some dexterity at the first
(allowing the cantings of his expressions.) His text was Psalm cvii.
7. 'He led them forth by the right way, that they might go to the city
where they dwelt.'[55] With his fingers on the cushion he measured the
right way from the Red Sea through the wilderness to Canaan; told us
it was not forty days' march, but God led Israel forty years through
the wilderness before they came thither; yet this was still the Lord's
right way, who led his people _crinkledom cum crankledom_; and he
particularly descended into the lives of the patriarchs, how they
journeyed up and down though there were promises of blessing and rest
to them. Then he reviewed our civil wars, our intervals of peace and
fresh distractions, and hopes of rest; but though the Lord's people (he
said) were not yet come to the City of Habitation, He was still leading
them on in the right way, how dark soever His dispensations might
appear to us."[56]

As I am writing an Ecclesiastical, and not a Political History, I
leave untouched the tangled web of incidents occurring in the City
in the councils of the Republicans; and in the relations of Monk to
the conflicting parties, between the 6th and 11th of February. I can
only state, that on the last of these days the martial chief appeared
at Guildhall, and said, "What I have to tell you is this: I have
this morning sent to the Parliament to issue out writs within seven
days, for the filling up of their House, and when filled to sit no
longer than the 6th of May, but then to give place to a full and free
Parliament."[57]

[Sidenote: MONK.]

The joy which this intelligence produced in the City was unbounded,
and it comes before us with the vividness of a present event in the
garrulous _Diary_ of Pepys. As merry peals rolled and fired from the
London steeples, fourteen bonfires were kindled between St. Dunstan's
and Temple Bar; and at Strand Bridge the gossip at the same time
counted thirty-one of those English demonstrations of delight. The
butchers, at the Maypole in the Strand, rang a peal with their knives;
and on Ludgate-hill a man occupied himself with turning a spit, on
which was tied a rump of beef, whilst another man basted it. At one end
of the street there seemed "a whole lane of fire," so hot that people
were fain to keep on the side farthest off.[58]

The excitement following the news in other parts seems to have been not
less intense.

At Nottingham, "as almost all the rest of the island," the town "began
to grow mad." Boys marched about with drums and colours, and offered
insults to Republican soldiers. One night some forty of the latter
class were wounded by stones, thrown at them as they attempted to seize
the obstreperous lads. Two Presbyterians were shot in the scuffle; one
a zealous Royalist, master of the Magazine, at Nottingham Castle. "Upon
the killing of this man," the Presbyterians "were hugely enraged, and
prayed very seditiously in their pulpits, and began openly to desire
the King; not for good will, neither to him, but for destruction to all
the fanatics."[59]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The rabble raved with joy. Milton mourned over the madness in strains
of majestic sorrow. "And what will they at best say of us, and of
the whole English name, but scoffingly, as of that foolish builder
mentioned by our Saviour, who began to build a tower, and was not able
to finish it? Where is this goodly tower of a Commonwealth, which the
English boasted they would build to overshadow kings, and be another
Rome in the West? The foundation indeed they laid gallantly; but fell
into a worse confusion, not of tongues, but of factions, than those
at the tower of Babel; and have left no memorial of their work behind
them remaining, but in the common laughter of Europe! Which must needs
redound the more to our shame, if we but look on our neighbours,
the United Provinces, to us inferior in all outward advantages; who
notwithstanding, in the midst of greater difficulties, courageously,
wisely, constantly went through with the same work, and are settled in
all the happy enjoyments of a potent and flourishing Republic to this
day."[60]

The political importance of the Independents had declined with the
humiliation of Fleetwood, and of the officers who sympathized with him.
Their strength had rested on the Army, and with the dislocation of the
Army came the termination of their ascendancy. On the 21st of February
the surviving members of the Commons House, who had been excluded by
Colonel Pride, were restored to their former seats, a measure which
placed power once more in Presbyterian hands.

[Sidenote: MONK.]

Monk, the author of this revolution, addressed Parliament on that same
day, and gave it as his opinion that the interests of London must
lie in a Commonwealth--that Government only being capable of making
the country, through the Lord's blessing, the metropolis and bank of
trade for all Christendom; "and as to a government in the Church," he
proceeded to say, "the want whereof hath been no small cause of these
nations' distractions; it is most manifest that if it be monarchical
in the State, the Church must follow, and Prelacy must be brought
in, which these nations, I know, cannot bear, and against which they
have so solemnly sworn: and, indeed, moderate not rigid Presbyterian
government, with a sufficient liberty for consciences truly tender,
appears at present to be the most indifferent and acceptable way to the
Church's settlement."[61]

The fortunes of Presbyterianism had been changeful fortunes. It had
been established by the Long Parliament; its power had waned under the
predominant sway of the Army; though adopted more or less throughout
the country, it had been nowhere so fully developed as in Lancashire;
and it had received no special encouragement from Oliver Cromwell.
After his death it received a slight impetus, only to be checked by the
Republican policy of Vane and the Military. But now Presbyterianism
appears reconstituted in the Church of England--re-established as
the national religion; and it is of great importance to remember
this fact throughout the narrative of the Restoration; for it was
with Presbyterianism thus situated, rather than with Independency,
or any other ecclesiastical systems, that Episcopacy came first into
competition and conflict after the King's return.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

It soon became plain to which ecclesiastical party most influence
belonged. On the 2nd of March the Westminster Confession was readopted;
a proclamation was issued for enforcing all existing laws against
popish priests, Jesuits, and recusants; and a bill was introduced to
provide for an authorized approval of ministers previously to their
holding benefices. The Solemn League and Covenant reappeared on the
wall of the House of Commons, and also was ordered to be read in
every church once a year. Upon the 13th, Dr. Owen, the Independent,
was removed from the Deanery of Christ Church, and Dr. Reynolds, the
Presbyterian, appointed in his room.

But appearances were fallacious. The Restoration was inevitable, and
with the Restoration, the Puritan Establishment, which had been the
offspring of the Civil Wars, virtually expired.




                             CHAPTER III.


The Presbyterians were the principal instruments in Charles'
restoration; and in this they acted as the exponents and
instruments of the nation's will. It was not Monk who influenced
the Presbyterians--the Presbyterians influenced Monk. Their leaders
encouraged his bringing back the King, and conveyed to him that
encouragement at a conference which they held with him in the City.[62]
The part played by the Presbyterians in this transaction is admitted by
members of the Royal family; and in the correspondence of the period a
curtain is lifted up, disclosing Court secrets, and illustrating the
manner in which the Presbyterians at that moment were overreached. When
the Queen Dowager saw Lord Aubony she remarked, "My Lord, I hear you
say that the King is to go to England, and that you are glad there is
such a (way) laid open for him. Do not you know that the Presbyterians
are those that are to invite him?" The nobleman answered that he did
not care who they were, but only wished to see His Majesty restored to
his own realm. "But the conditions," rejoined the Queen, "may be such
as they would have pressed upon the King his father." "Madam," replied
his lordship, "a king crowned, and in his own dominions has more reason
to insist upon terms than an exiled prince that hath not been accepted
by them. What would any one have him do, other than receive his
kingdoms by what means soever they were given him? And some better way
than this occurs not, what fault is to be found with that which cannot
be mended?"[63]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Baxter informs us respecting schemes adopted by the Episcopalian
Royalists, with a view to influence their Presbyterian brethren.
Sir Ralph Clare, of Kidderminster, and therefore one of Baxter's
parishioners had, before Booth's rising, spoken to his pastor on
the subject; and he had replied by expressing fears of prelatical
intolerance, and of the danger to the interests of spiritual religion
in case of the restoration of the Stuarts. The Knight said, that
being acquainted with Dr. Hammond, a correspondent of Dr. Morley,
then attending upon His Majesty, he could assure Baxter, the utmost
moderation was intended, and that "any episcopacy, how low soever,
would serve the turn and be accepted." Letters from France were
procured, testifying to the character of the Royal exile. They abounded
in eulogies upon his Protestantism. Monsieur Gaches, a famous preacher
at Charenton, after flattering Baxter, gave "a pompous character of the
King," stating that during his residence in France he never neglected
the public profession of the Protestant religion, not even in those
places where it seemed prejudicial to his affairs.[64] Baxter's pages
bear witness to the fears of others as well as to his own, to lull
which dulcet promises were sung. Presbyterians and Episcopalians, it
was softly said, were not irreconcilable; union was possible; present
incumbents would not be turned out of their livings. Their ordinations
would be valid.[65] Episcopalians were resolved to forgive, to bury the
remains of rancour, malice, and animosity for ever; having been taught
by sufferings from the hand of God, not to cherish violent thoughts
against their brother man.[66] Some Presbyterians were pacified,
expecting that subscription to the Prayer book would be no longer
required. Others, at least, hoped for toleration. Some acted simply
from a conviction that it was a duty to bring back the King; others
regarded that event as at once ruinous but inevitable.[67] A few could
not abandon the idea of restoring Charles on _Covenant terms_; but
only such as lived in a little world of their own dreamt of a thing so
preposterous.[68]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

In coincidence with these circumstances the personal friends of
the exiled Prince revolved in their minds the possibilities of the
future, and employed themselves in framing suggestions to be laid
upon the Royal table. We read in a paper without signature, dated
March 28, 1660, "It is most certainly true that Presbytery is a very
ill foundation to Monarchy, and therefore it must be said with great
care and circumspection. You know what your father suffered by them,
and yourself also in Scotland, whither when you went, though all were
for it, I was absolutely against it, and gave my reasons to one, who
I suppose now attends you, which experience hath proved true." And
again, "'Twill be of great consequence that you mainly insist upon a
toleration for all, as well Roman Catholics as others, or, at least, to
take off the penal statutes against them. There is not anything you can
do will be of more advantage than this, for thereby you will satisfy
all here and abroad. Moreover, by doing this you will secure yourself
against the Presbyterians and Sectaries, by equally poising them with
others of contrary judgments, for you may doubt that the Presbyterians
and Sectaries will at length fall to their first principles again, and
endeavour to make you at the best but a Duke of Venice, if they see
not a visible power to defend you. The like course hath many times
been used by great princes, and never succeeded ill when they saw one
faction rise too high to suffer a quite contrary to grow up to balance
it."[69]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Sir William Killegrew addressing Charles, upon the 8th of April,
shrewdly states the difficulties of his new position: "If your Majesty
do but think on the numerous clergy with their families, and on the
innumerable multitudes of all those that have suffered on your side
that will expect a reparation or recompence; nay, Sir, it is evident
that all the people in general do look that you should bring them peace
and plenty, as well as a pardon for all those who have offended. And
I do fear you will find it a harder matter to satisfy those that call
themselves your friends, and those who really are so than all those who
have been against your Majesty." "Next, Sir, if you come to your crown
as freely as you are born to it, how will you settle Church-government
at first to please the old true Protestants? And how the Presbyterians,
who now call you in, when all other interests have failed to do it?
And how the Papists, who do hope for a toleration? How satisfy the
Independents, the Congregation, and all the several sorts of violent
Sectaries? Whereas if your Majesty be tied up by Articles, none of all
these can blame you for not answering their expectations."[70]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

Two days before the date of this last letter, Secretary Thurloe, at
Whitehall, silently watching what was going on around him, conveyed his
impressions of the state of religious parties to the English minister
at the Hague.

"There are here great thoughts of heart touching the present
constitution of affairs. The Sectarians with the Commonwealth's
men look upon themselves as utterly lost if the King comes in, and
therefore probably will leave no stone unturned to prevent it; but
what they will be able to do, I see not, of themselves, unless the
Presbyterian joins with them, whereto I see no disposition; yet many of
them are alarmed also, and are thinking how to keep him out, and yet
not mingle again with the Sectaries. Others of the Presbyterians are
studying strict conditions to be put upon the King, especially touching
Church-government, hoping to bind him that way; and therein are most
severe against all the King's old party, proscribing them which are
already beyond sea. Not one of them is to return with him if he comes
in upon their terms, and prohibiting his party here to come near him:
he must also confirm all sales whatsoever."[71]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The first decided declaration in favour of the restoration of Charles
on the part of Monk, who for months had perplexed everybody, seems to
have occurred on the 19th of March, when, in answer to Royal overtures
for his assistance, and to Royal promises of high rewards, he said to
Sir John Grenville, about to join the little Court at Breda, "I hope
the King will forgive what is past, both in my words and actions,
according to the contents of his gracious letter, for my heart was ever
faithful to him; but I was never in a condition to do him service till
this present; and you shall assure His Majesty that I am now not only
ready to obey his commands, but to sacrifice my life and fortune in his
service."[72]

Thus, the man who had solemnly declared himself in favour of a
Commonwealth, now suddenly, with open arms, embraced the Royal cause,
as the turn of events began to brighten its fortunes; and, as he
had been first an Independent, and then a Presbyterian, so now he
became not only a Royalist, but an Episcopalian. Most likely Monk
was all the way through a selfish schemer, trimming his sails to the
wind, and ready for King or Commonwealth, as he might see it safe
and advantageous. If that view of his character be not correct, then
the only alternative--one which his admiring biographers adopt, and
which he avowed himself--is, that he had long been promoting Royalist
interests under the disguise of Republican sentiments,--a conclusion
which would justify us in pronouncing him one of the most consummate
hypocrites the world ever saw.[73]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

The dissolution of the Rump had been connected with a determination
to call together a new Parliament to meet on the 25th of
April. The preparatory elections evoked the efforts of all
parties--the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, and the "sects," as
Congregationalists and other Nonconformists were termed. The last
of these three parties--mostly anxious for a Republican form of
government--did what they could to return representatives holding
extreme democratical opinions. The second of them, where they dared to
appear, in some cases, from a too fervent zeal, overshot the mark, and
by their violence alienated the constituences which they canvassed. The
first of these parties, the Presbyterians,--who, after the dissolution
of Parliament, had held the administration of affairs in their own
hands, and with whom, for the time being, Monk, their betrayer in the
end, was in co-operation,--used such methods as their executive powers
afforded, to sway the elections in favour of their own views. The
Presbyterians, including different shades of opinion, uniting with the
more moderate Episcopalians and Cavaliers, succeeded in obtaining a
large majority.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The persons who had been elected members of the Convention began
to assemble in St. Stephen's Chapel upon the 25th of April. The
Presbyterian leaders, Hollis, Pierrepoint, and Lewis, secured
immediately the office of Speaker for Sir Harbottle Grimston, of whose
decided Presbyterianism there could be no doubt. This critical movement
was accomplished in an irregular manner, before even forty members
had taken their seats. The preachers appointed to address the Commons
were Gauden, Calamy, and Baxter,--all three at that time Presbyterian
Conformists. In the House of Peers, where only ten members at first
resumed their places, the Presbyterian Earl of Manchester was chosen to
preside. Two Presbyterian ministers, Reynolds and Hardy, were selected
to preach to their Lordships.

Before proceeding to describe the revived loyalty displayed by the
Convention, we must notice the violent manifestation of opposite
feelings by a portion of the Commonwealth Army. Lambert, one of
Cromwell's officers, escaped on the 9th of April from the Tower, where
he had been imprisoned, and, gathering around him some of his comrades,
marched into the Midland Counties, hoping successfully to raise a
standard in support of Republicanism. Ludlow and Scott had before this
been preparing for such a movement; and, it is said, that despondency
of success alone prevented Haselrig from drawing his sword.[74] The
French Ambassador, writing on the 3rd of May to Cardinal Mazarin, thus
describes the actual outbreak which followed:--[75]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

"Great alarm," he says, "has been felt about an insurrection of
Sectaries in different localities; some had assembled in the
neighbourhood of York, with the intention of taking it by surprise;
and, at the distance of twenty leagues from London, Colonel Lambert
had gathered together a body of cavalry, which the first accounts
stated to consist of three hundred men. Orders were immediately given
to send against him most of the troops which are in London; the levy
of the London militia was directed to hold itself in readiness, and
that of several counties, which has not been set on foot, to be placed
within the hands of persons considered to be too violent Royalists,
was also ordered out. At the same time, some of the most distinguished
Sectaries, both in this city and in the country, were arrested, and
the General was making preparations to go and attack Lambert before he
could increase his forces; but news arrived, at the end of last week,
that he had only two or three hundred men; and, this morning, we were
informed of his defeat by a party of six hundred horse, without much
bloodshed; his troops having abandoned him one after another, he was
taken prisoner with a few others who have been officers in the Army,
and they are on their way to London. The militia were immediately
countermanded, and the universal topic of conversation now is the
punishment of the offenders, whose leader was proclaimed a traitor on
the day before yesterday.

"His capture seems entirely to ruin all his party, against which the
people entertain so great an aversion, that, unless the old troops had
mutinied, it could not have met with better fortune. Some Royalists
could have wished it to hold out a little longer, in the hope that the
present authorities would have been thereby compelled to hasten the
return of the King upon more advantageous conditions, whereas they
will now have entire liberty to act, and will, perhaps, impose harsher
conditions, as they have nothing to fear from the Sectaries."

[Sidenote: 1660.]

It is remarkable that the troops employed by the Council of State
to crush Lambert's outbreak were led by Ingoldsby, one of Oliver
Cromwell's attached officers; and, amongst those acting under him on
this occasion, was the Fifth Monarchist, Colonel Okey. Republicanism,
at that moment, was a house divided against itself; and very different
were the subsequent fortunes of the two men just mentioned. Ingoldsby's
previous support of Cromwell obtained Royal forgiveness on account of
his defeating Lambert; the dark fate which befell Okey will be noticed
hereafter. The rash attempt thus promptly resisted, and speedily
suppressed, was, there can be no doubt, the result of a feeling more
widely diffused than the limited action of the Commonwealth soldiery,
as just described, would by itself indicate. The Civil Wars had
proceeded on the principle that it is justifiable to defend by arms
what is deemed the cause of freedom; and, at this juncture, Charles
had not yet returned, he was not, in fact, King of England; and,
therefore, Republicans might naturally feel all the more satisfied
in resisting his restoration, as that restoration, in their opinion,
would be a revolutionary act, overthrowing the Commonwealth--a form of
English government won by Parliamentary Armies, and established by the
decisions of the Legislature.[76]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

When May-day had arrived--with its vernal memories and hopes stirring
the hearts of Royalists all over the country--Mr. Annesley reported to
the Commons a letter from the King, unopened, directed to "Our trusty
and well-beloved General Monk, to be communicated to the President and
Council of State, and to the Officers of the Armies under his command."
He stated that Sir John Grenville, a Royal messenger, was at the door.
Permitted by a vote to approach the bar, this gentleman proceeded to
announce that he had been commanded by the King, his master, to deliver
a letter directed to "Our trusty and well-beloved the Speaker of the
House of Commons." Inclosed within the letter was a declaration, given
under the King's sign-manual and privy signet, at his Court at Breda.
When the messenger had withdrawn, both communications were read aloud
by Sir Harbottle Grimston. They are entered in the _Journals_; so also
is Monk's letter. Immediately afterwards the same messenger delivered
a letter "To the Speaker of the House of Peers, and the Lords there
assembled;" that letter inclosing the same declaration as had been
communicated to the Commons.[77]

The last-named document, which soon became so famous, states that
Charles had never given up the hope of recovering his rights, that he
did not more desire to enjoy what was his own, than that his subjects
by law might enjoy what was theirs; that he would grant a free pardon
under the Great Seal to all who should lay hold of his grace and favour
within forty days, save those only who should be excepted by Act of
Parliament; and that he desired all notes of discord and separation
should be utterly abolished. Then came the following clause:--"And,
because the passion and uncharitableness of the times have produced
several opinions in religion, by which men are engaged in parties and
animosities against each other, which, when they shall hereafter unite
in a freedom of conversation, will be composed or better understood;
we do declare a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall
be disquieted or called in question, for differences of opinion in
matter of religion which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom, and
that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament, as,
upon mature deliberation, shall be offered to us for the full granting
that indulgence." In conclusion, there appeared a promise to refer to
Parliament all grants and purchases made by officers and soldiers who
might be liable to actions at law, and to pay arrears due to the Army.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

A conference took place the same afternoon between the Lords and
Commons, when it was agreed that, according to the ancient and
fundamental laws of the kingdom, the Government is and ought to be
by King, Lords, and Commons,--a conclusion of the two Houses which
formally re-established Monarchy in England.

Amidst all this haste there were not wanting some who, to use
Clarendon's words, "thought that the guilt of the nation did require
less precipitation than was like to be used, and that the treaty
ought first to be made with the King, and conditions of security
agreed on before His Majesty should be received." The Presbyterians in
Parliament, he further says, were "solicitous that somewhat should be
concluded in veneration of the Covenant; and, at least, that somewhat
should be inserted in their answer to the discountenance of the
Bishops."[78]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

Sir Matthew Hale moved, that a Committee might be appointed to consider
the propositions which had been made to Charles I. at Newport, and
the concessions then allowed by him, as affording materials for
a constitutional compact with the Prince now about to ascend the
throne. But no more attention was paid to the wise lawyer than to the
zealous Presbyterians. Monk assured the House that the nation was now
quiet, but he could not answer for the public tranquillity should the
Restoration be delayed.[79] At the same time, the General was quietly
seeking to accelerate the execution of his plans by pressing Sharp,
the agent in London of the Scotch Presbyterians, to go over to the
King at Breda, "to deal that he might write a letter to Mr. Calamy, to
be communicated to the Presbyterian ministers, showing his resolution
to own the godly, sober party, and to stand for the true Protestant
religion in the power of it."[80]

Upon the 2nd of May the House resolved to send a grateful letter to
His Majesty, together with a grant of £50,000 for his immediate use;
and, at the same time, it was resolved to proclaim King Charles the
following day, a ceremony duly performed in Palace Yard, Westminster,
and at Temple Bar, London.

Sermons were delivered before the Houses, and Richard Baxter preached
in St. Paul's Cathedral, before the Lord Mayor and the Corporation,
one of his most spiritual and earnest discourses, entitled "Right
Rejoicing:" with this discourse, the preacher says, the moderate were
pleased and the fanatics were offended, whilst the diocesan party
thought he did suppress their joy.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Speedily the Proclamation was repeated throughout the kingdom, and
everywhere revived loyalty took a tinge from its ecclesiastical
associations. In cities, where Episcopalians retained ascendancy,
scarlet gowns, scaffolds covered with red cloth, volleys fired by
musqueteers, and cathedral men singing anthems, appeared conspicuously
in the arrangements. A diarist of that period thus describes what he
witnessed:--

"May 12th.--Mem. This day, at the city of Worcester, were placed on
high four scaffolds, one at the Cross, two at the Corn-market, three at
the Knole End, four at or near All-Hallow's Well. The scaffold at the
Cross was encompassed with green, white, and purple colours; the two
first as his own colours, being Prince, the third as King. Mr. Ashby,
the Mayor, a Mercer, and all Aldermen in scarlet, the Sheriff of the
City, the 24 and 48 in their liveries; each trade and free-man marching
with their colours. First went 100 trained city bandmen, after their
captain, Alderman Vernon. Then came the Sheriffs, Thos. Coventry, Esq.,
the Lord Coventry's eldest son, servants; then the two Army companies;
then the several livery companies with their showmen or band; then
the City Officers; then the Mace and Sword-bearers; then the Mayor,
with the High Sheriff and some gentlemen; then all the 24 and 48; then
part of a troop of horse of the Army. The Mayor, mounting the scaffold
with the gentlemen and Aldermen, Mr. John Ashby, reading softly by
degrees the Proclamation of Charles II., to be King of England,
Scotland, France, and Ireland; the Mayor himself spoke it aloud to all
the people; which done, all with a shout said, 'God save the King.'
Then all guns went off, and swords drawn and flourishing over their
heads, drums beating and trumpets blowing, loud music playing before
the Mayor and company, to every scaffold, which was done in the same
manner throughout; and all finished, the Mayor and City gave wine and
biscuits in the chamber liberally. Bonfires made at night throughout
the City, and the King's health with wine was drank freely. Never such
a concourse of people seen upon so short a notice, with high rejoicings
and acclamations for the restoring of the King. God guard him from
his enemies as He ever hath done most miraculously, and send him a
prosperous peaceable reign, and long healthful life, for the happiness
of his subjects, who is their delight."[81]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

In places where Presbyterianism prevailed the ceremony differed. At
Sherborne the Proclamation followed "solemn prayers, praises, and
seasonable premonition in the Church." At Manchester, Henry Newcome
went into the pulpit and prayed about half an hour. At Northampton "Mr.
Ford, the minister, went with several others to a great bonfire in the
Market-place, when, after a suitable exhortation, he joined them in
singing the twenty-first Psalm." At Northenbury, Philip Henry preached
a discourse, congratulatory and thanksgiving, from the words, "The
king's heart is in the hand of the Lord" (Proverbs xxi. 1); but, many
years afterwards, he dated a letter 29th of May, as a day in which the
bitter was mingled with the sweet.[82]

Every lover of peace will rejoice that the Restoration was a bloodless
change; but the mode of deciding upon it suggests grave reflections.
After a long period of strife spent in order to bring within limits
the prerogatives of the Crown; after the desperate remedies which had
been adopted for the cure of evils brought on by Royal aggression;
after all which had been done to resist and overcome the intolerance
of the High Church party,--the nation invited Charles Stuart back
without any condition, and opened the way for the re-establishment of
the old order of things, without any provision against the recurrence
of mischief. Such a proceeding, to say the least, exposed the country
to imminent hazard; and the history of the next eight and twenty years
proves that the fears which were entertained by a few were but too well
founded. The old Stuart disposition and habits reappeared, the old
ecclesiastical intolerance returned, and the Revolution of 1688 was
found necessary to supply the defects of the Restoration of 1660.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

Yet, after all, the mode of the Restoration excites less surprise
than lamentation. For it is easy to understand how natural it was
for the Royalist party, even the more moderate portion of it, to
feel extremely anxious to accomplish the one thing which at that
critical juncture seemed to them so necessary. As in private affairs,
as in the exigencies of domestic and social life, people are apt
precipitately to adopt a certain course, at the moment appearing
indispensable--flattering themselves that afterwards, with proper
care, any seriously unpleasant results may be prevented or cured,
that matters can be made all right in the end: so the leaders of the
English people, at that moment, felt the question to be Restoration or
Ruin; and that, the grand prerequisite for renewed prosperity being
secured, other desirable things could be afterwards shaped according
to pleasure or circumstances. Besides, the Presbyterians clung to the
Breda Declaration as a sheet anchor of hope. It was thought then, and
is still so thought by some, that however theoretically desirable
stipulations might have been, it was practically unwise to insist upon
them at the time; that delay in negotiation with the exiled Prince
tended to involve the country in fresh confusions, and exposed it
to the risk of a military despotism; and that what Parliament could
not then safely wait to do might be subsequently effected. After all
reasonable excuses and palliations for the course adopted, that course
is now seen to have been an enormous mistake. The dangers of a little
delay have been assumed, not proved; there could be no probability
of losing the chance of restoring Charles, had Parliament determined
beforehand to bind him to terms. He would gladly have accepted the
Royalty of England, with such guarantees for public liberty as were
accorded by William III. And as to the Army, from which chiefly alarm
arose, it does not appear how the difficulty of keeping Republican
soldiers quiet for a month or so, whilst pacific men were engaged
in laying foundations for the stability of their liberties, could
be greater than the difficulty of keeping those same soldiers quiet
between the decision for the King's return and his actual arrival.
Possible evils, in the form of political intrigues, the conflict of
parties, the further unsettlement of the country, and the postponement
of the Restoration, might be imagined as the result of delay; but over
against them we are justified in placing the evil which did come as
the consequence of haste. And with regard to expectations resting on
a future Parliament--the Parliament now sitting could not calculate
upon what the character and proceedings of its successor might be.
That which really prevented any conditions from being imposed on the
returning Prince, was the want of a few wise heads and a few stout
hearts. Who can believe that if Pym or Hampden, or even Falkland, had
been members of the Convention, matters would have been managed as they
were? We cannot but think that during the infinitely momentous weeks
which made up that month of May, such men would have little heeded
the voting of jewels to Royal messengers, and decisions respecting
State beds and State coaches--things which occupied the Houses for
some time--but would rather have thrown themselves heart and soul into
the work of building up some safe and sure defence against the return
of arbitrary government and ecclesiastical intolerance. But England
was wanting in great Statesmen. There remained one wise, good man who
proposed a pause for the arrangement of conditions: but another man,
selfish and unprincipled, put him down. It is deplorable to think of a
Parliament in which Monk silenced Hale.[83]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Certain Presbyterian ministers--Reynolds, Calamy, Manton, and
Case--accompanied a deputation from London to express the loyalty
of the citizens. Pepys gives the amusing information, that, as he
was posting in a coach to Scheveling, the wind being very high, he
"saw two boats overset, and the gallants forced to be pulled on
shore by the heels, while their trunks, portmanteaus, hats, and
feathers were swimming in the sea;" the ministers that came with the
Commissioners--Mr. Case amongst the rest--were "sadly dripped."[84]

The King resided at the Hague, and to that pleasant Dutch town the
reverend brethren proceeded without delay; they were graciously
received. They assured Charles, that in obedience to the Covenant,
they had urged upon the people the duty of restoring him; and, after
thanking God for His Majesty's constancy to the Protestant religion,
they declared themselves by no means inimical to moderate Episcopacy;
they only desired that in religion, things held indifferent by those
who used them, should not be imposed upon the consciences of others to
whom they appeared unlawful. The first interview seems to have passed
off pleasantly; another audience was sought by the clergymen for closer
conversation.

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

The Scotch were very earnest for an exclusive Presbyterian
Establishment in England. They had frequent correspondence with Sharp,
now in Holland, and they urged him to remember the great inconvenience
which would ensue if the King used the Prayer Book upon returning
to his dominions.[85] Whether or not Sharp (then believed to be a
zealous Presbyterian) influenced the London ministers, it is certain
they adopted an intolerant policy. Admitted once more to the Royal
presence[86] they told His Majesty that the people were unaccustomed
to the Common Prayer, and it would be much wondered at, if, as soon as
he landed, he should introduce it in his own chapel. They begged, at
all events, that he would not use it entirely, but only some parts of
it, and permit extempore prayers by his chaplains. The King replied,
reasonably enough, and with some warmth, "that whilst _they_ sought
liberty, _he_ wished to enjoy the same himself." He professed his
strong attachment to the Liturgy, and said, although he would not
severely inquire about the use of it elsewhere he would certainly have
it in his own chapel. Then they besought him not to have the surplice
worn: upon which he declared he would not himself be restrained whilst
giving so much liberty to others; a declaration proper enough had he
adhered to both parts of it. Whatever the Presbyterian deputation
might have said, probably it would have made little difference as to
the issue; yet all must see how foolishly they committed themselves at
the very commencement of their negotiations--giving Charles and his
Court too much ground for meeting the charge of Episcopal intolerance
by the accusation of Presbyterian bigotry.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Upon the following Sunday, Mr. Hardy, one of the ministers, preached
before the King at the Hague, when some amusing circumstances occurred.
The place appointed for the service was the French Church, and it was
arranged that the English worship should begin as soon as the French
should end. Crowds came from the neighbouring towns to see the Monarch
and his retinue. Precautions were adopted to prevent their admission
in a way which might inconvenience the illustrious worshippers, and
particular care was taken to reserve for the Court a pew "clothed with
black velvet, and covered with a canopy of the same stuff." But another
contingency had not been contemplated--the difficulty of dismissing
those already in the building before others were admitted. The French
congregation wished to wait and witness the subsequent worship, and
Dutch persons of distinction, occupying the velvet pew, would not
retire. The French ministers urged them to withdraw, but there they
were, and there they would remain. The people in possession outwitted
the rest, and outwitted themselves too; for the church being crammed,
and no more being able to enter, the King gave up the idea of going
into it, and attended Divine service in a private room, with as many
of the Lords as the place would accommodate. Mr. Hardy preached from
Isaiah xxvi. 19, "and made so learned and so pathetic a discourse
that there was not any one there which was not touched and edified
therewith."[87] After the Liturgy and sermon the King, according to a
long and elaborate ceremonial, touched certain persons afflicted with
"the evil."

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF RESTORATION.]

Whilst the Presbyterians were active the Episcopalians were not idle.
The Bishops despatched Mr. Barwick to Breda with a loyal address to
His Majesty, and letter of thanks to Hyde, now Chancellor Clarendon.
Barwick was instructed to report upon ecclesiastical affairs, and to
bring back the Royal commands, particularly as to which of the Bishops
should pay their duty upon their Master's landing; and whether they
should present themselves in their Episcopal habits; and also as to the
appointment of Court Chaplains. Since it had been customary for the
Kings of England to return public thanksgivings at St. Paul's Cathedral
on great occasions, Barwick inquired what was the Royal pleasure as
to the place in which such service should be held, seeing the ruinous
condition of the Metropolitan Church at that time? He met with a
gracious reception, and on the Sunday after his arrival preached before
the King.

The Episcopalians in England very naturally were filled with joy.
As early as the month of March one gave expression to it in violent
language from the pulpit. The prudent Chancellor at Breda, hearing of
these intemperate effusions, had written, in April, begging that the
Episcopalian clergy would restrain their tempers. "And truly I hope,"
he added, "if faults of this kind are not committed that both the
Church and the Kingdom will be better dealt with than is imagined; and
I am confident those good men will be more troubled that the Church
should undergo a new suffering by their indiscretion than for all that
they have suffered hitherto themselves."[88]




                              CHAPTER IV.


[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Charles, on his way to England, had reason for anxious care and steady
forethought. Never had an English Prince come to the throne under such
circumstances. A civil war was just over--the swelling of the storm had
hardly ceased; a party adverse to that which the King regarded as his
own remained still in power; many were expecting at his hand favour for
recent services, notwithstanding former offences; Presbyterians looked
at least for comprehension within the Establishment. Independents,
Baptists, Quakers, asked for toleration, and Roman Catholics, who
had been friends to the beheaded father and the exiled son, thought
themselves entitled to some measure of religious liberty. The Episcopal
Church claimed the new Monarch as her own; her prelates and ministers
were waiting to welcome him--to open in the parish churches once more
the beautiful old Prayer Book, with its litanies and collects for
the King and Royal family. They sought exclusive re-establishment;
they would cast out all Presbyterian intruders--they would tolerate
no Sectaries. Here were perplexing circumstances to be encountered.
The Breda Declaration had bound Charles to be considerate in dealing
with religious matters, to show respect for tender consciences.
_Comprehension_, _toleration_--he stood pledged to promote. But how
were the problems to be solved? He was a Constitutional King. He
was to rule through Parliaments. Should bigotry arise and carry all
before it in the Commons' House, as elsewhere, what was he to do?
Should his Ministers differ from him, how then? Such possibilities
gazed at by a thoughtful man might well have made him anxious, if
not alarmed. Who would not sympathize with any conscientious prince
under such circumstances? Charles possessed certain intellectual
and social qualities which fitted him for the task he had now to
perform; for he had common sense--was keen and clever, with quick
insight into character, made still more so by large acquaintance with
human nature,--he knew how to put unpleasant things in a pleasant
way,--could command considerable powers of persuasion when he liked,
and was courteous, affable, and of winning manners. But he was not
thoughtful--not conscientious; he lacked the two things which alone
could enable him to turn his abilities and experience to good account.
The crown was to him a toy; the throne a chair of pleasure, at best, of
pompous state. The heedless, folly-loving prince takes himself quite
out of the range of our sympathies, and leaves us to condemn the breach
of his plighted faith, and all the intolerance incident to his return.
A useless controversy was once carried on as to whether he was really a
Papist at the time of the Restoration. It is idle to dispute respecting
the theological opinions of a man so utterly destitute of religious
feeling and thoughtfulness. That he was _not_ a Protestant at the
time--meaning by the word a person attached to the Reformed faith--is
plain enough from what is said by those who knew him best. Probably
Buckingham, who calls him a Deist, is nearest the truth.[89] But that
he had sympathies with the Roman Catholic party, and considered
their Church as the most convenient for an easy-living gentleman like
himself, there can be no doubt. Had death stared him in the face just
after his return, he would probably have sought refuge in confession
and priestly absolution, as he did twenty-five years later. Yet he
professed to be a Protestant by solemn kingly acts, and in other ways
when he thought it politic. Charles was a dissembler.[90] He had, with
all his occasional rollicking frankness, an almost equal mastery over
his conversation and his countenance. His face, encompassed by flowing
black locks, illuminated by lustrous eyes, was said to be as little a
blab as most men's: it might tell tales to a good physiognomist, but
it was no prattler to people in general. If he had a wish to conceal
his purpose, he could do it effectually. Lord Halifax apologized for
him by saying, that if he dissembled it is to be remembered "that
dissimulation is a jewel of the crown," and that "it is very hard for a
man not to do sometimes too much of that which he concludeth necessary
for him to practise."[91]

Monk proceeded to Dover May the 22nd.[92] Numbers of the nobility and
gentry wished to follow him, and he arranged that they should march in
companies, in differently-coloured uniforms, under certain noblemen,
who were to act as captains of these loyal bands. They had not fought
any of Monk's battles; they came in now to swell Monk's triumph. As the
General was standing at a window in the City of Canterbury, while they
marched by gaily with green scarfs and feathers, a friend observed:
"You had none of these at Coldstream, General; but grasshoppers and
butterflies never come abroad in frosty weather, and, at the best,
never abound in Scotland."

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

On Friday, the 25th of May, at one o'clock, Charles landed at Dover;
and, notwithstanding his levity, his heart surely must have been
touched as the Castle guns gave him welcome; and another and far more
gladdening demonstration proceeded from the ten thousands of his
subjects, who lined the pebbly beach, or looked down from the old chalk
cliffs, waving their broad-brimmed and feathered hats, and giving the
home-bound exile right hearty cheers such as only Englishmen can give.
General Monk, with all the nobility and gentry present, prostrated
themselves before the Prince as he stepped ashore, with his plumed
beaver in his hand; and some rushed forward to kiss the hem of his
garment, whilst he gracefully raised from his knees, and embraced
the soldier, who whatever might be his character in other respects,
had certainly proved the star of his master's fortune. A canopy was
ready for His Majesty, as he walked to the town; and the Mayor and
Aldermen made obeisance as their chaplain placed in the Royal hands a
gold-clasped Bible. No Bishop was present.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

A State coach stood in waiting, in which the King seated himself, the
Duke of York by his side, and opposite, the Duke of Gloucester; General
Monk and the Duke of Buckingham occupying the boot. Thus they travelled
two miles out of Dover, when they mounted horse, and so proceeded
the rest of the way to Canterbury,--where speeches were made, and a
gold tankard was presented to the King; on the following day several
persons were knighted by him, and Monk, the real hero of the hour,
was invested with the Order of the Garter. All went to the Cathedral
on Sunday, when the Liturgy was used; and on Monday they proceeded to
Rochester, where a basin and ewer, silver-gilt, were loyally given, and
graciously accepted. Between four and five o'clock on Tuesday morning,
they started again, "the militia forces of Kent lining the ways, and
maidens strewing herbs and flowers, and the several towns hanging out
white sheets." At Dartford, certain regiments of cavalry presented an
address, and at Blackheath, the old Army appeared drawn up to meet
the very Monarch against whom so many of them had been fighting. The
vexation felt at this termination of the great change inaugurated by
the Civil Wars must have touched many a Republican to the quick; and
at the moment of their chagrin rapturous feelings filled many a noble
Royalist, like those which inspired the _Nunc dimittas_ of Sir Henry
Lee, so touchingly described on the last page of Scott's _Woodstock_.

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

At St. George's-in-the-Field the Corporation of London waited in a tent
to receive their Sovereign, where the Lord Mayor presented the City
sword, and then the procession slowly moving from Southwark, passed
through the City Gates, crossed the pent-up alley of London Bridge,
and marched on through Cheapside, Fleet-street, and the Strand, the
houses all the way adorned with tapestry;--the train bands lining the
streets on one side, and the livery companies on the other. A troop of
300 men, in cloth of silver doublets, led the van; then came 1200 in
velvet coats, with footmen in purple; followed by another troop in
buff and silver, and rich green scarfs; then 150 in blue and silver,
with six trumpeters and seven footmen in sea-green and silver; then a
troop of 220, with 30 footmen in grey and silver; then other troops
in like splendour. The Sheriff's men in red cloaks, to the number of
fourscore, with half-pikes--and hundreds of the companies on horseback
in black velvet with golden chains followed in due order. Preceded by
kettle-drums and trumpets, came twelve London ministers, their Genevan
gowns and bands looking "sad" amidst the glaring colours. The Life
Guards followed: more trumpeters appeared in satin doublets; and next,
the City Marshal, attended by footmen in French green trimmed with
white and crimson. The City Waits succeeded, and next the Sheriffs and
the Aldermen, with their footmen in scarlet, and with heralds. The Lord
Mayor carried the Sword of State, and close by him rode Monk and the
Duke of Buckingham. Then appeared the King, accompanied by his brothers
York and Gloucester: the Royal eyes, black and keen, looking out with
gracious smiles from a sallow face on the gathered thousands, who, with
awe and delight, returned the gaze. Troops, with white flags, brought
up the rear; and thus the gaudy and imposing pageant filed under the
very window, where fourteen years before had stood the scaffold of
Charles I.[93]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

As soon as Charles II. had taken his seat on the throne addresses
flowed in from all quarters--from the nobility, the gentry, and the
militia of counties; from the Corporations and inhabitants of towns,
and from divers religious bodies. The time had not yet come for
Episcopalians to address His Majesty. Presbyterianism, recognized by
the Convention as the established religion, had not been dethroned
from its supremacy; and it was not quite safe at present for its
great rival ecclesiastical power prominently to show itself. Their
silence just then is very significant. The Roman Catholics, many of
whom had sacrificed much for the sake of the Stuart family, assured
the King of their attachment; and distinctly repudiated the doctrine,
that the Pope can lay any commands upon English Catholic subjects in
civil and temporal matters; also the "damnable and most un-Christian
position,"--these are the very words--"that kings or absolute princes,
of what belief soever, who are excommunicated by the Pope may be
deposed, killed, or murthered by their subjects."[94] Presbyterian
ministers expressed the warmest loyalty. "Such," they said, "of late
days, have been the wonderful appearances of God towards both your
Royal self and the people, that (when we feared our quarrels should be
entailed and bound over to posterity) we hope they all are miraculously
taken up in your Majesty's restoration to your Crown and imperial
dignity. It cannot be denied, but that Providence was eminently exalted
in the work of your protection for many years; but it seems to avail
to the efficacy of that grace, which hath prevented you from putting
forth your hands unto iniquity, and sinful compliances with the enemies
of the Protestant, and in disposing of the hearts of your subjects
to receive you with loyalty and affection." With this expression of
loyalty is combined the utterance of hope. "We beseech you not to give
Him less than He requires by way of gratitude, of which we are the
more confident, when we consider your Majesty's gracious letters to
both Houses of Parliament, with the enclosed Declaration, wherein we
see your zeal for the Protestant religion, with a pitiful heart toward
tender consciences, wherein we have assurance that the hail of your
displeasure shall not fall on any who have (upon the word of Moses)
betaken themselves to yourself as a sanctuary. And now, most gracious
Sovereign, what remains for us to do? We are not fit to advise you, but
give us leave to be your remembrancers before the Lord." They conclude
with devout aspirations for His Majesty's spiritual welfare: "May you
never see the handwriting on the wall that your kingdom is divided,
but let this be your motto--'Not by power, not by might, but by the
Spirit.' May you rejoice in this, that you have better chariots and
horsemen (in the many of your subjects who are faithful, chosen, and
true) than other princes can boast of. And still, may your tenderness
be found, that of a nursing father towards the young and weak of the
flock that cannot pace it with their elder brethren, and yet are God's
anointed, nay, God's jewels, the apple of His eye, His children, they
for whom Christ died, and is now an Intercessor."[95]

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

There was also an address from the Independent ministers of London
and Westminster, in which they referred to the Breda Declaration,
indicating how greatly it sustained their hopes. They did not, they
said, wish for liberty longer than they deserved it. "And it is our
desire," they added, "no longer to sit under the shadow, and to
taste the fruit of this your Majesty's royal favour, than we approve
ourselves followers of peace with all men, seeking the peace of these
kingdoms united under your Majesty's Government, and abiding in our
loyalty to your royal person and submission to your laws."[96]

An address, sent by the ministers of Lancashire at a later period,
shows their desire to wipe out the stigma of disloyalty:--

"Whereas we, or some of us, have been injuriously misrepresented to
your Majesty, or some eminent persons about you, and have also been
prejudiced and molested, as if we denied your Supremacy, or were
disaffected to your Government (which hindered this our application
to your Majesty, although prepared, and which otherwise had been much
earlier, even with the first), we do, in all humility, and with great
earnestness, profess before God and man, that we detest and abhor the
very thoughts of such unworthy principles, behaviour, and expression,
having always, according to occasion, expressed and declared the
contrary."[97]

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

In this address we notice a recognition of the Royal Supremacy. Not
only the civil, but, in some sense, the ecclesiastical Supremacy of the
Crown must, under the circumstances, have been meant. Ecclesiastical
Supremacy would be claimed and exercised by the restored sovereign as
a matter of course. No new Act of Parliament was passed reconferring
it on the Crown, and defining the limits.[98] Henry VIII. had been
declared "_Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ et Hibernicæ Supremum Caput_." That title
had been continued during the reign of Edward VI., but was repealed
in the reign of Queen Mary. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth,
Supremacy was restored to the Crown, the Queen being styled, not
"Supreme _Head_ of the Church," but "Supreme _Governor_, as well in
all spiritual and ecclesiastical causes as in others." Henry's and
Edward's title had never been resumed, but that of Elizabeth, having
belonged to the first two monarchs of the Stuart line, descended to
Charles II.[99] Charles II., then, could not, in legal phrase, be "Head
of the Church;" if he happened to be so designated, it would be in
adulation or in ignorance. But he inherited the ecclesiastical powers
possessed by Queen Elizabeth, except in relation to the High Commission
Court, which had been abolished by Act of Parliament in the reign
of his father. The canons--as well as Acts of Parliament unrepealed
before the Civil Wars--were regarded by Churchmen as remaining in
force, and the second canon required an oath to the effect that "the
King's Majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that
the Godly kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian emperors of the
primitive Church"--whatever might be meant by that vague appeal to
ancient and obscure precedents. The Supremacy of the Crown, however,
as asserted by Anglican lawyers, would be one thing; the Supremacy,
as acknowledged by Puritans, especially any Nonconformist portion of
them, would be quite another. The authority of the temporal ruler
over the temporalities of the Church, all parties probably would
be prepared to allow; those of them who approved of a State Church
would not object to his being invested with ecclesiastical patronage;
Presbyterians, who wished for the establishment of perfect parochial
discipline by the magistrate's aid, could not consistently object to
some kind of Royal Supremacy in reference to that matter; but High
Church Puritans, if I may so term persons holding exalted ideas of
the spiritual, as distinguished from the temporal powers, like High
Church Anglicans, would entertain a reduced and modified conception of
the legitimate interference of the Crown with Christ's Church; whilst
Nonconformists, who embraced the voluntary principle, would (even if
from loyal courtesy they conceded the title of Supreme Governor in
causes ecclesiastical) extract from it almost all which constituted its
signification in the eyes of others.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

It should further be borne in mind, not only here, but throughout this
division of our narrative, indeed onward to the passing of the Act of
Uniformity,--that ecclesiastical affairs were in a transition state,
that scarcely anything could be regarded as perfectly settled. The High
Church party took it for granted, that with the return of the King came
the return of the episcopal constitution, with its laws, ceremonies,
and usages. They assumed that at once, without any new Parliamentary
statute, the stream of affairs would flow back into the old
channel--that all which had been done by the Long Parliament, without
the sanction of the Crown, ought to be treated as if it had never
been done at all. The opposite party also had law on their side; for
some valid Acts, affecting the Establishment, remained unrepealed--for
example, the Act for divesting Bishops of their temporal powers. Under
existing circumstances, much might be said on behalf of other portions
of recent legislation, even where the Royal assent had not been
obtained. And very few people now will deny that the clergy holding
preferment during the Commonwealth had reason and common sense in
their favour when they maintained--that, after nearly twenty years of
change, after a revolution carried on by a _de facto_ Government which
had destroyed old vested rights, and created new ones--things could
not be expected to resume their former position as a matter of course;
that those in possession, and in possession by sanction of Government,
had something to say for themselves, and that the conclusion as to the
Church of the future was not foreclosed. And whatever might be said
to the contrary, this aspect of the question had been, and still was,
tacitly accepted as the true one by Charles and by Clarendon, in their
negotiations with the Presbyterians, for they kept them in suspense for
more than a year, holding out the idea of a compromise, and did not
attempt to carry matters with a high hand until the Presbyterians had
been reduced to a condition in which they could be easily crushed.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The counsellors by whom Charles was surrounded on his return were men
of different characters, and they ought at once to be noticed, since
they had more or less to do with the ecclesiastical affairs, which it
is our business to study. Hyde immediately became Chief Minister. His
round face and double chin, as we see them in his portrait, appear
signs of good nature; but, perhaps, a skilful physiognomist would
discover in his eyes and lips indications of qualities less pleasant.
He was a different man from his master. Like Charles I., he was
sincerely attached to the Episcopal Church of England. That unhappy
Monarch, in one of his published letters, dated Oxford, March 30, 1646,
assures Queen Henrietta that "Ned Hide" was fully of his mind on the
subject of Episcopacy; he was almost, if not altogether (at that time),
the only person in the confidence of the King who concurred with him
on the point of religion.[100] The same year, when matters were even
worse, Hyde expressed himself against "buying a peace at a dearer
price than was offered at Uxbridge," and encouraged the notion that it
was the duty of the Royalists to submit to a kind of martyrdom. "It
may be," he remarked, "God hath resolved we shall perish, and then it
becomes us to perish with those decent and honest circumstances that
our good fame may procure a better peace to those who succeed us, than
we were able to procure for them, and ourselves shall be happier than
any other condition could render us."[101] Looking at the circumstances
under which the letter was written, there can be no doubt of the
sincerity of this confession--a sincerity confirmed in all the years
of his exile under the Commonwealth, and in his active solicitude for
the interests of the Church in the prospect of the Restoration. His
subsequent conduct in reference to ecclesiastical affairs will appear
as we proceed.

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

The Duke of Ormond, who had done and suffered much for the Stuarts,
was, according to Burnet, a courtier of graceful manners, of lively
wit, and of cheerful temper, extravagant in his expenditure, but
decent in his vices; he was a firm Protestant, and always kept up the
forms of religion, even amidst the indulgence of his passions.[102]
The Earl of Southampton, who had faithfully adhered to Charles I. and
his son throughout their troubles, enjoyed a merited reputation for
virtue, for attachment to liberal principles, and for being guiltless
of promoting the arbitrary designs of the restored Monarch; he leaned
towards a favourable treatment of the Presbyterians; but, after
holding the Treasurer's staff he grew weary of business, perhaps from
disapprobation of the Court policy, no less than from disease.[103]
Sir Edward Nicholas appears to have been a mere official perfunctorily
discharging the office of Secretary; and the same may be said of Sir
William Morrice. Nicholas Culpepper, who had served as Master of
the Rolls to Charles I., and who showed himself to be a politician
favourable to the constitutional privileges of the Crown, and no more,
took little interest in ecclesiastical affairs. To these Ministers
is to be added the Earl of Manchester, a man virtuous and beloved,
gentle and obliging, but not marked by any strong individuality of
character. On the side of Parliament in the Civil Wars he had been
a main pillar of Presbyterianism under the Protectorate; yet though
nominated by Oliver, one of his Lords, he had been opposed to Oliver's
government. As a Presbyterian leader he had taken a prominent part in a
meeting held at Northumberland House, with a view to the Restoration,
after which event, upon becoming Lord Chamberlain, he "never failed
being at chapel, and at all the King's devotions with all imaginable
decency."[104] He did not, however, abandon his old associates. Next
to Manchester may be mentioned the Presbyterian Lord Hollis, a man
of sincere religion, who had opposed the Independents in the Long
Parliament, and had resisted Cromwell; he bore the character of a
friend, rough but faithful, and of an enemy violent but just; and he
now espoused with fervour the cause of Charles.[105] Sir Anthony Ashley
Cooper was a different kind of person. He had been a Royalist, and
also a member of the Little Parliament; and if he could be said to be
anything in reference to religion, he might be pronounced a Deist; yet
he mingled with his scepticism the superstition of astrology.[106] For
his position near the King this versatile, inconstant, unprincipled,
yet clever man, was indebted to his friend Monk, now created Duke of
Albemarle, whose character has been already indicated in these pages.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Clarendon, Albemarle, Southampton, and Ormond were the ruling spirits
immediately after the Restoration; and together with them ought to be
mentioned the Earl of Bristol, who, though by having recently declared
himself a Roman Catholic, he had excluded himself from the Privy
Council, yet retained a place at Court; and whilst his religious policy
and general character made him obnoxious to Clarendon, the very same
things made him agreeable to Charles.

Buckingham and Bennet will come upon the stage at a future period.

[Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.]

Soon after the Restoration, which placed these men in power, there
occurred the disbanding of the old Revolutionary Army, which had
throughout the Commonwealth been the main guardian of the Church as
well as of the State. That Army had apparently brought back the
exiled Monarch, or rather it had strengthened the hands of those who
performed that deed; but in consequence of its past history, and the
character of many numbered amongst the troops, it was not a prop upon
which sagacious and far-sighted Royalists could place much reliance.
Indeed, signs of disaffection were already visible. There were veterans
who, whilst formally obeying the command of Royalist officers, in
their hearts retained allegiance to Lambert, and other Republicans.
Whispers about the "good old cause" might be heard in garrisons, and
other military quarters; and, it is said, that even a revolt against
Monk had begun to be planned. Charles sought to win by flattery such of
the soldiers as were of unsettled mind; and his Ministers, at the same
time, employed spies to find out and secure the sowers of sedition, and
so to pluck the tares from amidst the wheat; but the most effectual
method of preventing the apprehended mischief was to dissolve the Army
altogether. That difficult and delicate business received prompt and
careful attention. The Government employed members to represent to
Parliament, first, the uselessness of a military force 60,000 strong
in time of peace; and next, the pecuniary burden which it imposed upon
the State, then encumbered in other ways with pecuniary difficulties.
Consequently motions for a gradual reduction and payment of the Army
were carried; and, gradually the regiments, which had seen so much
service, and had passed through such a memorable history, melted
away. They took home recollections of Marston Moor and Naseby, of the
Dunbar fight, and of Worcester field; and to old age men told their
children, and their children's children, of their marchings and their
defences, especially of the officers under whom they had fought, and
of Old Noll, the greatest of them all. Dispersed over the country,
settled in their former homes, or choosing new localities, they spread
afar the sentiments and traditions of past days; and the religious
amongst them--still very numerous--the Puritan, the Presbyterian, the
Independent, the Baptist, the Fifth Monarchy Millenarian, and the
Spiritual Fanatic of some inexpressible shade, would be each a centre
of influence in his respective circle, stimulating and promoting
Nonconformity. Perhaps the Commonwealth soldiers, whilst prevented by
their being disbanded from shaking the pillars of the State, were by
that very measure placed in circumstances which enabled them quietly
to exert an influence tending to undermine the foundations of the
Church. Officers and soldiers of Cromwell's are often noticed in the
informations laid against Dissenters during the next ten or fifteen
years; and it is because of the religious character of that Army, and
because of the numbers belonging to it, who afterwards appeared in the
ranks of Dissent, that I have stepped aside for a moment to allude to
an event of a military character.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]

Returning to our proper line of history we meet with certain
ecclesiastical results in the proceedings of Parliament. For a time
the Presbyterian element manifested itself in opposing Popery, and
in supporting the existing Church establishment; but signs of change
became apparent in the summer months, and Episcopalians began to
recover their long lost sway over the councils of the nation. The
following consequences ensued:--

I. The Commons debated the question of the Church's settlement,
expressing opinions and using arguments similar to those which had been
heard at the opening of the Long Parliament. Some members extolled
the Thirty-nine Articles, and dwelt upon the merits of Episcopalian
Government; some were opposed to Deans and Chapters, yet dealt
tenderly with Bishops; some were for Prelacy as of old; some advocated
moderate Episcopacy; and some indicated a lingering love for the Solemn
League and Covenant; others thought mere politicians were unfitted to
handle theological topics--that, as was oddly said, the judges had
sent for a falconer to give opinion in a case touching a hawk--so, on
the principle _quilibet in arte sua_, a synod of the Clergy ought to
be called, lest honourable members "should be like little boys, who,
learning to swim, go out of their reach, and are drowned." Twice it was
decided that the King should "convene a select number of Divines to
treat concerning that affair."[107]

Much was thus deferred for the present; nevertheless, an Act speedily
passed, allowing present incumbents with undisputed titles to retain
their livings, yet restoring to his preferment every clergyman who
had been ejected under the Commonwealth, if he claimed re-induction,
provided he had not been implicated in the death of Charles I., and had
not discountenanced infant baptism.[108]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

In consequence of this, many clergymen, including Presbyterians
and Congregationalists, were immediately displaced, and dispersed
Episcopalians came back to their former abodes.[109] It is easier
to imagine than to describe the excitement attending this change. Not
only did sorrow fill the dismissed and joy inspire the reinstated, but
congregations, in many cases, deplored the contrast between the former
and the present occupant of the pulpit; whilst, also, many a squire
and yeoman hailed the reappearance of the Prayer Book, and welcomed
home some genial incumbent after his long and weary exile. Unseemly
contests were renewed in the House of God, such as had been witnessed
at the outbreak of the Civil Wars. As a Presbyterian at Halifax began
worship in his usual manner, the Episcopalian Vicar made his appearance
at the Church door, with the Prayer Book under his arm, and marching up
the aisle, clothed in his surplice, insisted upon entering the desk,
after which he read the Litany and sung the Te Deum. Joyous peals of
bells accompanied the return of the old clergy, and texts were selected
expressive of natural feelings on the occasion. One discoursed upon the
sufferings of himself and his brethren from the words, "The ploughers
ploughed upon my back; they made long their furrows. The Lord is
righteous; he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked." Another, in a
milder spirit, selected this verse, "He that goeth forth and weepeth
bearing precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing,
bringing his sheaves with him." An itinerating lecturer, with an income
of £50 a year, chose as a Restoration motto, "Let him take all;" which,
upon his losing his appointment, gave "occasion for a shrewd taunt
of the adversary."[110] Parish registers contain curious memorials of
the period. Thus one clergyman records his own story:--"Memorandum,
That John Whitford, Rector of Ashen, alias Ashton, in the County of
Northampton, was plundered and sequestered by a Committee of rebels,
sitting at Northampton, for his loyalty to his gracious sovereign,
of blessed memory, Charles I., in the year of our Lord 1645, and was
restored to his said Rectory in the twelfth year of the reign of
Charles II., in the year 1660."[111]

[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]

The Liturgy was reintroduced. It had been used in the service at
Canterbury Cathedral upon the occasion of the King's visit to that
city, on his way to London; and earlier still in the House of Lords,
two days after he had been proclaimed. It appeared in the Royal Chapel
immediately after his taking possession of Whitehall; and Evelyn, on
the 8th of July, records, that the Prayer Book was publicly read in
"churches, whence it had been for so many years banished." In a number
of parishes, however, between the Restoration and Bartholomew's day,
1662, ministers continued to carry on worship as they had done before;
either following the Directory or engaging in prayer as they pleased.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

II. Parliament took up in detail a variety of business connected with
the restoring of Cathedral and parochial edifices, the recovering of
what had been taken away, the reinstating of things in their former
condition, and the removing of alterations made by Nonconformists. For
example: upon a report from the Lords, appointed to compose differences
in the City of Exeter, it was ordered that certain churches, of which
a list is given, should be repaired at the charge of the respective
parishioners, and that all the bells, plate, utensils, and materials,
formerly belonging to those buildings, should be delivered to the
Churchwardens:--that money still unpaid for their purchase should not
be paid; and that bonds for payment should be given up; and that the
Chamber of Exeter should forthwith, at their own charge, take away
the partition wall built in the Cathedral, and the new-built seats in
the Choir, all the materials whereof were to be employed towards "the
making up again the churches which were defaced."[112]

[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]

III. Petitions came from the Universities, and the Upper House ordered
the Chancellors to take care that the Colleges should be governed
according to their statutes, and that persons unjustly ejected
should be restored to office.[113] Commissioners also were Royally
appointed to hear and determine all questions of claim, and they
were engaged through the months of August and September in restoring
such as were eligible to their former position as Fellows and Heads
of Houses. University honours were offered largely to such as
professed attachment to Episcopacy, and a numerous creation in all
faculties ensued.[114] Oxford and Cambridge immediately witnessed
great changes. Restored Episcopalians occupied the places of the
ejected, and the ancient forms of worship were at once resumed. The
use of the surplice in Parish Churches, by the Royal Declaration of
the 25th of October, fully noticed hereafter, was left at the option
of incumbents; but it was enjoined upon those who officiated in the
Royal Chapel, in Cathedrals, in Collegiate Churches, or in Colleges of
the Universities.[115] Yet, we learn from a letter written by Thomas
Smith, at Christ's College, Cambridge, November 2nd, 1660, that the
Puritanical party were still powerful there. "In your College," says
the writer, addressing Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury,
"half the Society are for the Liturgy and half against it; so it is
read one week and the Directory used another; but till the Directory be
laid aside, I believe no surplices will be worn."[116]

During the progress of these measures, signs appeared in the House of
Commons of changes in the relative position of parties which could not
but entail important consequences.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Upon the 30th of June a complaint reached Parliament--that a paper
had been printed, in His Majesty's name, authorizing the uniform
use of the Book of Common Prayer throughout the Realm: that a Form
of Service for the 28th of June, had been published as by Royal
authority: and that there had also appeared in print "a protestation of
the Bishops against proceedings of Parliament in their absence."[117]
This subject the Commons referred to a Committee, to ascertain how such
papers came to be printed, and by what authority. In this proceeding
may be traced the impress of Presbyterian influence, attempting to
preserve Presbyterian rights, and to resist the return of Episcopal
authority. Presently, a Bill was produced "for the maintenance of
the true Reformed Protestant religion, and for the suppression of
Popery, superstition, profaneness, and other disorders and innovations
in worship and ceremonies."[118] But it soon appeared that the
Episcopalian party had gained ground on the Presbyterians.

Sharp, the Scotch agent, in a letter dated July the 7th, remarked:
"Some yesterday spoke in the House for Episcopacy, and Mr. Bampfield,
speaking against it, was hissed down. The English lawyers have given in
papers to show that the Bishops have not been outed by law. The cloud
is more dark than was apprehended. The Presbyterians are like to be
ground betwixt two millstones. The Papists and fanatics are busy."[119]

[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]

The fact is, that in the first instance, many Episcopalians had been
elected members of the Convention, and that their numbers increased
after the King's return as fresh elections occurred. They formed a
compact body, and made a vigorous opposition to the Puritans; an
opposition which, gradually increasing both in power and boldness, was
found by the latter too formidable to be overcome. Consequently, the
irresolute and the selfish amongst them, feeling alarmed, and seeing
which way the wind blew, began to sail on a new tack, and to follow
those who were making towards a safe harbour. Many members became, in
a few months, as staunch in the maintenance of the Episcopal Church as
they had ever been in the cause of the Presbyterian Covenant.

When the ecclesiastical business of the Session had been transacted,
the King, in the month of September, after giving his assent to various
Bills, made a speech to the two Houses, followed by another of great
length from the lips of Clarendon, the Lord Chancellor, who on that, as
well as on other occasions, showed a talent for sermonizing which would
not have disgraced a Bishop.

A large proportion of what had been Church property existed in a very
unsatisfactory state. It had been disposed of by the Long Parliament or
the Commonwealth Government in the form of rewards for service and of
sales for money. Was it now to revert at once to its previous uses? If
so, should not some compensation be made to the present possessors or
occupiers?

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Ecclesiastical claimants argued, that such property had been illegally
secularized, and that those who had received it had taken it with all
the risks of a bad title. In justice to the Convention it should be
remarked, that it passed a resolution favourable to the rights of those
who had purchased Church lands on the faith of the Parliament;[120]
and, in justice to Charles II., that he issued a Commission in
November, 1660, to inquire into the history of such transactions.
This Commission was authorized to compose differences between the
Bishops and the purchasers of estates, the direction being, that
Archbishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons were to accept
such reasonable conditions as should be tendered to them by the
Commissioners on behalf of such purchasers; and that they would do no
act to the prejudice of any purchasers, by granting new or concurrent
leases whereby their existing interest or position might be injured,
while the same was under deliberation, and until His Majesty's pleasure
should be further known.[121] In accordance with the spirit of this
Commission the King dealt leniently with those who had become possessed
of Crown property; and this circumstance, which was creditable to him,
caused the course adopted by the authorities of the Church to appear
the more reprehensible. The Resolution passed by the Convention came
to nothing, upon the dissolution of that Assembly; and the holders
of Church lands, unprotected by Parliament, and left to the mercy of
clerical claimants, experienced severe treatment.[122] Old incumbents,
writhing under the remembrance of wrong, and seeking compensation for
their losses, refused compensation to their enemies, and made the best
bargain they could for themselves.

[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.]

It is convenient in this connection to allude to a change in certain
privileges which indirectly affected, to some extent, the revenues
of the Church. Amongst feudal rights were those of tenures by
Knight's-service, including the benefits of marriages, reliefs, and
wardships. Though the profits derived from the Court of Wards were
casual, they amounted sometimes to a considerable sum, but these
and other contingent revenues were, by a Parliamentary arrangement,
withdrawn from the Sovereign, and in lieu of the income thus forfeited,
one moiety of the excise became settled on the Crown. The Act affected
the revenues of the Church, and of this circumstance a remarkable
illustration is afforded by a paper in the Record Office, in which the
Bishop of Durham complains of a loss of £2,000 through the abolition of
these courts.[123]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

In connection with this reference to Episcopal revenues, it may be
stated that at the Restoration nine Bishops of the old ecclesiastical
_régime_ were still alive. These were--Juxon, Bishop of London; Wren,
of Ely; Piers, of Bath and Wells; Skinner, of Oxford; Roberts, of
Bangor; Warner, of Rochester; King, of Chichester; Duppa, of Salisbury;
and Frewen, of Lichfield and Coventry. They considered themselves, and,
by their own Church they were regarded, as having a title to resume
the episcopates from which they had been ejected. But whilst things
remained in a transition state they seem to have acted with caution.
Without a repeal of the Act of Charles I., which disqualified them for
sitting in the House of Lords, they could not resume their seats. Nor
until the purchasers of their episcopal estates were dispossessed,
could they recover their property; nor, for a while, could they
obtain possession of their palaces, or enter upon the possession
of their sees. Those who were boldest in maintaining the theory,
that the Episcopal Church at the Restoration resumed its rights and
prerogatives, could not at once reduce that theory to practice.

It may be added that new Bishops were appointed to vacant sees; some
account of their consecration, their history, and character, will be
given hereafter.

[Sidenote: PREFERMENTS.]

Throughout the latter half of the year 1660 and onwards, applications
by Episcopalian clergymen to be restored to their benefices, or to be
favoured with higher preferment, were as numerous as they were urgent.
They occur amongst the _State Papers_ of that period, in all sorts of
connections; and one volume of them alone--assigned in the Calendar
to the month of August, 1660--contains no less than 143 documents of
this description. One clergyman beseeches the King to recommend him to
the Dean and Chapter of York, as Vicar-General of the diocese during a
vacancy, the petitioner having suffered by resisting both the Covenant
and the Engagement. A second begs the Deanery of Lichfield, he having
lost a valuable living given him at Oxford by the late King as a reward
for his loyalty. A third applies for the Archdeaconry of Hereford. A
fourth prefers his claim to the Archdeaconry of Chester, on the ground
of having been deprived and plundered for constancy in maintaining the
doctrine and discipline of the Church.

There are many petitions for prebends, one from a clergyman who
appears to have been a wit, for he begs the reversion of the next
stall in Worcester Cathedral; only excepting that connected with the
Margaret Professorship of Divinity--saying, that "though not likely
to receive benefit thereby on account of his age, yet having long
waited, as the cripple at the pool of Bethesda, it will comfort him
to think that he dies cousin-german to some preferment." Another
pleads, with some humour, that having sacrificed liberty to duty, he
must now forfeit it in another way, even for debt, unless aided by
His Majesty's generosity.[124] To most of these forms of application
there are annexed certificates from various persons, particularly Dr.
Sheldon, who seems to have taken a great deal of trouble to promote
the interests of his clerical brethren. The hopes and fears which
at other times agitate two or three candidates are, at a general
election, multiplied by hundreds all over the kingdom; so at the
Restoration,--what commonly is a flutter amongst a few aspirants after
ecclesiastical promotion, was then the experience of multitudes at the
same moment; and perhaps there never were before or since, within the
same compass of time, so many clergymen on the tip-toe of expectation,
doomed of course, in many cases, to utter disappointment.




                              CHAPTER V.


[Sidenote: MEETINGS OF PRESBYTERIANS.]

Soon after the King's return the Earl of Manchester employed his
influence, as Lord Chamberlain, in the appointment of ten or twelve
Presbyterian chaplains at Court; of these only four--Reynolds, Calamy,
Spurstow, and Baxter--ever had the honour of ministering before His
Majesty.[125] Baxter states that there was no profit connected with
the distinction; and that not "a man of them all ever received, or
expected a penny for the salary of their places." But if the office
brought no pay to himself, he was anxious it should bring profit to
the Church; and, therefore, he employed the influence, which his
chaplaincy gave him, to promote such measures as he thought conducive
to the advancement of religion. He suggested to the Earl, and to
Lord Broghill, a conference, for what he called "agreement," or
"coalition;"[126] and as Calamy, Reynolds, and Ash, concurred in his
views, he procured an arrangement in the month of June for himself, and
his brethren in office, to meet their Royal master, with Clarendon, the
Earl of St. Albans, and other noble persons, at the house of the Lord
Chamberlain.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

When they met, Baxter, with characteristic ardour and pathos, delivered
a long address, probably such as Charles had never listened to before,
although he had heard much plain speaking on the other side the Tweed.
The Puritan Divine besought His Majesty's aid in favour of union,
urging, that it would be a blessed work to promote holiness and
concord; and, "whereas there were differences between them and their
brethren about some ceremonies or discipline of the Church," he "craved
His Majesty's favour for the ending of those differences, it being
easy for him to interpose, that so the people might not be deprived of
their faithful pastors, nor [have] ignorant, scandalous, unworthy ones
obtruded on them." Baxter also expressed a hope that the King would
never suffer himself to undo the good which Cromwell, or any other,
had done, because they were usurpers that did it, "but that he would
rather outgo them in doing good." Then, with exquisite simplicity, the
speaker went on to say that common people judged of governors by their
conduct; and took him to be the best who did the most good, and him to
be the worst who did the most harm. He hoped that the freedom of his
expressions might be pardoned, as they were "extracted by the present
necessity;" and he further declared that he was pleading for no one
party in particular, but for the interests of religion at large. In
concluding his address he urged the great advantage which union would
prove to His Majesty, to the people, and to the Bishops; and showed how
easily that blessing might be secured, by insisting only upon necessary
things, by providing for the exercise of Church discipline, and by not
casting out faithful ministers, "nor obtruding unworthy men on the
people."[127] The whole speech was pitched in a key of earnestness
beyond the sympathy of him to whom it was addressed; there was in it,
nevertheless, a charm to which the easy-tempered Charles might not
be insensible, and with his usual politeness, he professed himself
gratified by any approach being made towards agreement. He, at the same
time, remarked that there ought to be abatements on both sides, and a
meeting midway; adding, that he had resolved to see the thing brought
to pass, indeed, that he would himself draw the parties together. Upon
listening to this Royal pledge, Mr. Ash, one of the chaplains, was so
affected that he burst into tears.

[Sidenote: PRESBYTERIAN PROPOSALS.]

Baxter and his associates were requested to draw up proposals for
consideration at a future conference, to which they consented, with
the understanding, that for the present they could only speak for
themselves, and not as representatives of others. They also craved,
that if concessions were granted on one side, concessions should be
granted on the other. To this Charles agreed.

Meetings were accordingly held immediately afterwards at Sion
College--meetings prolonged from day to day. By general invitation
both city and country ministers attended, including Dr. Worth,
afterwards made an Irish Bishop, and Mr. Fulwood, subsequently
appointed Archdeacon of Totness.[128]

Difficulties arose of a nature necessarily accompanying all debates;
for, as Baxter says, that which seemed the most convenient expression
to one, seemed inconvenient to another, and those who agreed as to
matter had much ado in agreeing as to words. The latter might be true
to some extent, but in all probability the discussions at Sion College
resembled others elsewhere, in which men have agreed as to words, in
order to cover some very important difference as to things. At last the
brethren resolved to make the following proposals:--

That their flocks should have liberty of worship; that they should have
godly pastors; that no persons should be admitted to the Lord's table
except upon a credible profession of faith; and that care should be
taken to secure the sanctification of the Lord's Day. For "matters in
difference, viz., Church government, Liturgy, and ceremonies"--they
professed not to dislike Episcopacy, or the true ancient primitive
presidency, as it was balanced and managed, with a due commixture
of Presbyters; yet they omitted not to state what they conceived to
be amiss in the Episcopal government, as practised before the year
1640--specifying the too great extent of the Bishop's diocese, their
employment of officials instead of personal oversight, the absorption
by prelates of the functions of ordination and government, and the
exercise of arbitrary power in spiritual rule. They proposed, as a
remedy, Ussher's scheme of suffragan Bishops and diocesan synods,
the associations not to "be so large as to make the discipline
impossible;" and they requested that no oaths of obedience to Bishops
should be necessary for ordination; and that Bishops should not
exercise authority at their pleasure, but only according to such rules
and canons as should be established by Act of Parliament. They were
satisfied concerning the lawfulness of a Liturgy, but they objected
to the Prayer Book, as having in it many things justly offensive and
needing amendment.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

It may be stated here, that all these proposals took the form of a
direct address to His Majesty; and in reference to ceremonies, the
memorialists heartily acknowledged His Majesty "to be _Custos utriusque
tabulæ_, and to be supreme governor over all persons, and in all things
and causes as well ecclesiastical as civil." After this they besought
him to consider, as a Christian magistrate, whether he felt not
obliged, by the apostle's rule, touching things indifferent, to act so
as not to occasion an offence to weak brethren. They therefore prayed
that kneeling at the sacrament, and such holydays as are of human
institution, might not be imposed; and that the use of the surplice,
the cross in baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus, might be
abolished.[129] Objections to these practices had become traditional.
They had been urged throughout the reign of Queen Elizabeth--they were
specified in the Millenary Petition presented to King James. It should
be added, that neither in this paper, nor in any of the conferences
which followed, did the ministers plead for the establishment of
Presbyterianism. "I leave it here on record," says Baxter, "to the
notice of posterity, that to the best of my knowledge, the Presbyterian
cause was never spoken for, nor were they ever heard to petition for
it at all." All they sought was a reduced Episcopacy.[130]

[Sidenote: THE PRELATES' ANSWER.]

When Baxter and his friends attended the next meeting with the King,
expecting to find the Episcopalians prepared with some concessions,
he "saw not a man of them, nor any papers from them of that nature."
Still Charles showed himself gracious, promising, after all, to bring
the Bishops together, and get them to yield something; at the same time
expressing gratification with the Presbyterians' address, especially
with their expressed willingness to adopt a Liturgy.[131] Instead
of the desired conference being granted, a written answer came from
the prelates, to the chaplains.[132] In this answer we find that the
prelates begin by turning to their own advantage the concessions of
the Presbyterians. The Presbyterians agreed with the Episcopalians
in doctrine. Why should they be so scrupulous about minor matters?
Such is the tone of the paper, and it is the habitual Episcopalian
temper throughout, even in its least unfriendly moods. Professing a
willingness to reform what had been objectionable in time past, or
what might be inconvenient for the future, the Bishops defended the
constitution and usages of their own Church before the Wars, and
treated "Ussher's Reduction," so called, as inconsistent with other
discourses of the learned prelate. After extolling the Liturgy, they
remarked--"nor are ministers denied the use and exercise of their
gifts in praying before and after sermon, although such praying be
but the continuance of a custom of no great antiquity." Had this
sentence meant, that scope should be given for free, as well as for
liturgical, worship--that clergymen should be allowed to pray at Church
_extempore_, as well as _read_ prayers, the concession would have
been most important; subsequent events, however, show that such was
not the meaning, and also that the following passage, which might be
construed as granting much, signified little, or nothing--"If anything
in the established Liturgy shall be made appear to be justly offensive
to sober persons, we are not at all unwilling that the same should be
changed." With regard to ceremonies, they now seemed to concede what
they afterwards refused to allow. "How far forth, in regard of tender
consciences, a liberty may be thought fit to be indulged to any, His
Majesty, according to his great wisdom and goodness, is best able to
judge."

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The Presbyterians were not slow in offering a defence of their own
proposals, and a remonstrance against the replies. Some of Baxter's
companions were for giving up further attempts in despair; but he,
although not sanguine, determined to persevere, for reasons which
deserve to be remembered. After calling to mind that Christians were
commanded, if possible, to live peaceably with all men;--that failure
in the negotiations going on was not inevitable;--and that no political
apprehensions need be entertained respecting Nonconformists, because
even if they were far more numerous than they really were, yet they
abhorred "all thoughts of sedition and rebellion,"--he ended the
vindication of his policy in the following noble words:--"I looked to
the end of all these actions, and the chief things that moved me, next
the pleasing of God and conscience is, that when we are all silenced
and persecuted--and the history of these things shall be delivered to
posterity--it will be a just blot upon us if we suffer as refusing to
sue for peace; and it will be our just vindication, when it shall
appear that we humbly petitioned for and earnestly pursued after peace,
and came as near them for the obtaining it as Scripture and reason will
allow us to do, and were ready to do anything for peace except to sin
and damn our souls."[133] "Let God be judge between you and me," had
been Oliver's words when he dismissed his last intractable Parliament,
thus appealing to Heaven and posterity. To the same tribunal Baxter was
prepared to remit his own controversy with his Anglican brethren.

[Sidenote: THE CONTROVERSY.]

It looked at first as if the Presbyterians had really made some
impression on their opponents; at least Clarendon was willing, that
just then, they should think so. On the 4th of September he sent them
the draft of a Royal Declaration of Indulgence. It did not satisfy
Baxter; and he, therefore, wrote an elaborate reply, which was altered
at the suggestion of some of his friends.[134] The reply took the
shape of a petition to the King; yet it was such an immoderately long
dissertation that the idea of Charles reading it through is perfectly
amusing. No man except a guileless one could have written the paper,
but the paper betrayed an utter want of tact and judgment.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

[Sidenote: THE CONTROVERSY.]

An opportunity had arisen in the history of the Church of England for
healing a wound which had been bleeding ever since the Reformation.
A moment had arrived, calling upon the two great parties, into which
that Church had been so long divided, to look at their differences in
the light of wisdom and charity. But the history of mankind presents
so many misimproved conjunctions of circumstances, that students of
the past become familiar with lost opportunities, and are almost
hardened against the sorrow which they inspire in the bosoms of more
benevolent but less experienced persons. It is useless to speculate
upon the probable issue, at the period under review, if the settlement
of affairs had been approached in another kind of spirit. It is more
practical to endeavour to understand how things really stood; and it
will enable the reader to follow the controversy better, if we here
pause for a moment to look distinctly at deep differences which lay
around narrow discussions, and to show what were some of the salient
points which presented themselves in relation to the larger question.
The Presbyterians, with great confidence, carried their cause before
the tribunal of Scripture, and showed from their own point of view,
that for their fundamental doctrine of the official equality of
all Christian ministers they had on their side the law of the New
Testament; for they maintained that on its pages the terms Bishop and
Presbyter are interchangeably used, and that no traces of a clerical
hierarchy are to be found in the inspired records. Turning to Church
history, from the third century to the seventeenth, they easily
gathered proofs and illustrations of the growth of ecclesiastical
usurpation; of the change of primitive Episcopacy into an elaborate
system of spiritual despotism; of the rise of Archbishops and
Patriarchs; of the pride, the power, the ambition, and the wealth of
prelates; of the tyranny they exercised over civil society; of the
corruptions of all kinds which gathered round the perverted institute;
and of the tendency from bad to worse, which exists in all cases
where men are not careful to preserve the simplicity of Christ. The
state of England in the time of Archbishop Laud was a subject upon
which they were able to dwell with great force. They showed the cruel
oppression endured by holy men, at the hands of prelates, who sought
to revive in this country the ceremonies renounced, and the doctrines
condemned at the Reformation; and they insisted upon the obvious fact
that the Church was then in danger of becoming thoroughly Romanized,
under the pernicious culture of superstitious teachers. The Revolution
accomplished by the Long Parliament, the Presbyterians were prepared
to defend as a political and ecclesiastical necessity, arising out
of previous corruptions; whilst they pointed, with satisfaction
and thankfulness, to the progress of spiritual religion under the
Commonwealth, in spite of sectarianism, and the other evils of the
times,--all of which they condemned, and deplored quite as much as
any of the Episcopalian clergy could do. Ecclesiastical discipline in
the parishes of England--for attempting which they had been so much
blamed--the Presbyterians could show, rested on a principle conceded
by Prelatists; and though it failed to produce all the fruits which
its administrators could wish, yet it had turned many a town and
village from a wilderness into a garden of the Lord. And when they
contended against the Prelacy of former days, and protested against
its restoration they distinctly stated, as we have seen, that they had
no objection to a modified Episcopacy, to the rule of a Bishop, with
his co-Presbyters, over dioceses of such dimensions as would admit
of careful oversight and efficient rule; nor did they condemn all
liturgies--not even the Book of Common Prayer, if certain things in
the formularies and the rubric, which they and their Puritan fathers
had complained of as superstitious, were now altered. The Presbyterian
party, moreover, professed the most affectionate loyalty to the Crown,
and the warmest attachment to the English Constitution; and in support
of that profession could point to valuable services rendered by them
at the Restoration. Lastly, they were in possession of incumbencies,
to which they had been introduced according to the law of the land,
some of them before the late troubles began. They had been educated at
the Universities, had been many of them episcopally ordained, had led
quiet lives in their respective parishes, had preached the Gospel for
many long years, and had gathered round them large and affectionate
congregations. Hence they urged, that for them now to suffer expulsion,
to be turned adrift on the wide world without subsistence, to be
silenced, and to have an end put to their spiritual influence, would
be, in the sight of the world, of the Church, and of God, a burning
shame.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

[Sidenote: THE CONTROVERSY.]

The Episcopalians also, looking at the matter on the other side, had
something to say. They prized the past History of the Church, and
esteemed it of great importance to stand in the relation of successors
to the Christian teachers of antiquity. Their theory was that the
Church of England had not been established in the reign of Elizabeth or
Henry, but had then been only reformed; that it constituted part of the
_Catholic_ Church, of which Rome had unjustly usurped the name, without
possessing the attribute. Their formularies they traced back through
mediæval times. For their doctrines they claimed the support of early
Councils and Fathers. They pointed to the great antiquity of their
orders, to the diocesan Bishops of the second century, and of every
century since; and were prepared to argue, that the early prevalence
of the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters is a presumptive
proof of its having been sanctioned by apostolic authority. As to the
evils flowing from Prelacy, the advocates of it would maintain that
the abuse of a system is one thing, and the system itself another;
that, although in the Middle Ages, in the Church of Rome, Prelacy had
been made the instrument of immense mischief, this fact had nothing
to do with the present controversy, the subject in dispute being not
Popish Episcopalianism, but the Episcopalianism of the Reformed Church
of England--the Episcopalianism of Ridley and Parker. Such Prelacy,
the Bishops and their friends could irresistibly maintain to have been
part and parcel of the law of England since the Reformation down to the
Civil Wars; and, at the same time, they could point to the recognition
of the rights of Spiritual Peers in the Constitution of this country
from the early Saxon period--the legal or constitutional argument
being the great bulwark of the Episcopalian cause, when treated as a
social or political question. The ecclesiastical changes accomplished
by the Long Parliament, were, in the eyes of Royalist and Anglican
Churchmen, perfectly unconstitutional, illegal, and nugatory--for, in
the accomplishment of them, one House had virtually done everything,
the remnant of the Lords being mere ciphers; and the King, so far from
having sanctioned the overthrow of the ancient Church, had protested
against it, even unto death. With the Restoration, it was said again
and again, came back the old Constitution of King, Lords, and Commons;
and with that Constitution the Reformed Episcopacy and Prayer Book of
England. The gravest and most forcible of all the allegations which
the men now claiming their former position could bring against their
opponents was, that they, in their turn, had been as exclusive as it
was possible for any class to be. The Presbyterians, in the day of
their power, had shown no consideration whatever for their Episcopalian
neighbours. They had ruled with a high hand, and those who differed
from them had experienced no mercy. They had proscribed the Prayer
Book, and had vilified it in all kinds of ways--that very Prayer Book
which now, with certain alterations, they would not decline to use.
They had persecuted some of the very persons to whose candour and
generosity they now appealed; also, they had been Commissioners for
casting out scandalous ministers, and had assisted to expel some, from
whom now, they were asking the privilege of continued ministration,
with its emoluments, as an act of strict justice, or, at least, of
reasonable favour. Besides, the Anglicans charged the Puritans with
narrow-mindedness, with sticking at trifles, with making mountains
of mole-hills, with cherishing scruples about points which involved
no principle--in short, with being under the influence of prejudice
and obstinacy. And then, beyond all other things which separated
Episcopalians from their brethren, was a certain element of feeling in
some--not in Sheldon, but in Cosin and Thorndike, and Heylyn,--which
gave a mystical tinge to their views of matter in relation to mind, and
which was the soul of their distinctive sacramental theology.[135]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Such were the religious, theological, and ecclesiastical differences
between the two parties, to which must be added strong political
antagonism for the last twenty years. That antagonism has been
described in my former volumes. It will reappear in these.

Thus the two parties looked upon the question in dispute from their
own point of view, influenced by past circumstances and by personal
prejudices, after the manner of most controversialists.

Both are chargeable with faults of reasoning, and faults of temper.
Each made too much of little things: one in enforcing them for the
sake of order, the other in objecting to them as sins against God.
The strong despised the weak. The weak condemned the strong. Neither
mastered the lessons of St. Paul.[136] Yet the two were by no means
equally blameable. More of Christian consideration and charity is
discernible on the Puritan than on the other side, although even the
Puritans had not attained to the exercise of that rare sympathy by
which one man penetrates into the soul of another, making him as it
were a second self,--by which process alone can a man subdue prejudice
and win his brother over to that which he believes to be the truth.

[Sidenote: THE CONTROVERSY.]

It is necessary also to bear in mind this circumstance, that both
parties were advocates for a national establishment of religion.
Each party fixed its thoughts upon one society in which substantial
uniformity of government and worship should be maintained--one
society engrossing patronage and absorbing emoluments. It requires
some effort for persons familiar only with modern phases of thought,
thoroughly to enter into the ideas of the seventeenth century, and
accurately to apprehend and estimate the views which were then current.
Ecclesiastical controversy has undergone an immense change since that
day; and could those who met together, as about to be described, now
rise from the dead, it would be difficult for them to comprehend
the position into which the Church questions of our age seem to be
drifting.[137]

Remembering all this we proceed with our history.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

[Sidenote: WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.]

There was a house in the Strand known as Worcester House. It had
belonged to the Bishops of Carlisle; it had been bestowed on the
Bedford family; it had been transferred to the author of the _Century
of Inventions_, whose family title of Marquis of Worcester, gave it
its name; and it had been fitted up by the Long Parliament for the
reception of the Scotch Commissioners. By a turn in the wheel of
fortune, which, at the Restoration, brought about so many changes,
this residence had come once more into the possession of the Marquis,
and he had lent it to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, as a residence,
without requiring "one penny rent." The mansion, over which had fallen
such varying shadows--and which had been designed to accommodate the
deputation in 1643 from the Presbyterians of Scotland--now appeared
as the scene of important negotiations between the Court and the
Presbyterians of England.

Clarendon proposed a meeting of the two parties upon the 22nd of
October. It was a time of great excitement in London, for the execution
of the regicides--which will be noticed hereafter--had only just
taken place; and, through the fortitude with which some of them had
suffered, a reaction of feeling had arisen, and people had become
disgusted with such bloody spectacles. His Majesty was present in the
Chancellor's mansion, with the Dukes of Albemarle and Ormond, the Earls
of Manchester and Anglesea, Lord Holles, and the Bishops of London,
Worcester, Salisbury, Durham, Exeter,[138] and Lichfield and Coventry.
Presently were ushered into the apartment--fitted up in the style of
the seventeenth century, with costly furniture and superb decorations,
for Clarendon lived like a prince--the following Presbyterian
Divines--Reynolds, Spurstow, Wallis, Manton, Ash, and Baxter. Their
Puritan habits contrasted obviously with the costume of the Courtiers
and the Bishops, and would be eyed, we imagine, rather oddly by the
pages as they announced their entrance. No disputing was to be allowed;
the Lord Chancellor was simply to read over his revised Declaration,
and as he advanced, the two parties were simply to declare their
approbation or their disapproval. The particulars of the interview are
too long for insertion; but we may observe, that after many comments
upon Clarendon's paper, and after much conversation respecting the
subjects of Episcopal power, and of reordination, the Chancellor drew
out of his pocket another paper, observing, that the King had been
asked by Independents and Anabaptists to grant toleration. He therefore
proposed to insert in the document which had been read, a clause to
the effect, that persons not members of the endowed Church should be
permitted to meet for religious worship, provided they did not disturb
the public peace. A pause followed. "The Presbyterians all perceived,"
says Baxter, "that it would secure the liberty of the Papists." Dr.
Wallis whispered to him to be silent, and to leave the Bishops to give
an answer. But the eager disputant could not hold his tongue. "I only
said this," he reports, "that this reverend brother, Dr. Gunning, even
now speaking against sects, had named the Papists and the Socinians.
For our parts, we desired not favour to ourselves alone, and rigorous
severity we desired against none! As we humbly thanked His Majesty for
his indulgence to ourselves, so we distinguish the tolerable parties
from the intolerable. For the former, we humbly crave just lenity and
favour; but, for the latter, such as the two sorts named before by
that reverend brother, for our parts we cannot make their toleration
our request. To which His Majesty said, that there were laws enough
against the Papists; and I replied, that we understood the question to
be, whether those laws should be executed on them, or not. And so His
Majesty brake up the meeting of that day."[139]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

No doubt Charles looked as grave and as gracious as possible whilst
he talked at Worcester House with Baxter and his brethren; and,
although His Majesty alarmed his auditors by a reference to laws
against Papists, he took care not to betray the utter hollowness of his
professed zeal for Protestantism. So far as he had any sincere desire
to grant an indulgence, it was not on behalf of Protestants, but on
behalf of other persons whom Protestants most disliked. Puritans were
to him troublesome people, whom he had to keep quiet as long as he
could; and, in the meantime, he seems to have wished to use them as
tools for producing the liberty which the Papists craved.

[Sidenote: WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Baxter went home dejected; two or three days afterwards, however, as
he was walking in the City, amidst the din of carts and coaches, and
the confusion of London cries, he heard a boy bawling at the top of
his voice, that he had on sale copies of the King's new Declaration.
He bought one of the sheets, and stepped into a shop to peruse the
contents. The King, he found, commended in the highest terms the Church
of England; and also acknowledged the moderation of the Presbyterians;
he then proceeded to enumerate a series of concessions, which he had
not the least doubt that the present Bishops would think "just and
reasonable," and "very cheerfully conform themselves thereunto:"--That
none should be presented to Bishoprics but men of learning, virtue, and
piety; that suffragans should be appointed in the larger Dioceses; that
the censures of the Church should not be inflicted without the advice
and assistance of Presbyters, who should aid Bishops, Chancellors, and
Archdeacons, in their respective offices; and that Confirmation should
be rightly and solemnly performed:--that no Bishop should exercise any
arbitrary power; that the Liturgy should be revised; but, that until
the revision was effected, the unexceptionable portion of it should
be used; that no existing ceremonies in the Church should be at once
formally abolished; but, to gratify the private consciences of those
who were grieved with the use of some of them, they should be dispensed
with for the present; the final decision being left to a national
Synod, to be duly called after a little time, when mutual conversation
between persons of different persuasions should have mollified those
distempers, abated those sharpnesses, and extinguished those jealousies
which made men unfit for such consultation. The sign of the cross in
baptism, bowing at the name of Jesus, the use of the surplice, and the
oath of canonical obedience, were things not to be enforced, but to be
left to individual opinion and choice. The King concluded, by renewing
his Declaration from Breda, for the liberty of tender consciences,
and by expressing hopes for the unity of the Church, the prosperity
of religion, and the peace and happiness of the nation.[140] This
Declaration went a long way towards meeting the views of moderate
Presbyterians, and seemed at first to supply a basis on which a scheme
of comprehension might have been reared. It is expressed in a tone
utterly different from that adopted by the Bishops. It might well
lead some Presbyterians to believe that the hour of union had come.
Baxter found that suggestions made by himself and his friends, at the
Worcester House Conference, had been adopted in the Declaration; and,
on the whole, he felt pleased with the document. On the day that it
appeared, he received from the Lord Chancellor an offer of a Bishopric.
He replied, that if this offer had come before his seeing the
Declaration, he should have declined it at once; now, however, he said,
"I take myself, for the Churches' sake, exceedingly beholden to his
Lordship for those moderations; and my desire to promote the happiness
of the Church, which that moderation tendeth to, doth make me resolve
to take that course which tendeth most thereto; but whether to take a
Bishopric be the way I was in doubt, and desired some farther time of
consideration; but if His Lordship would procure us the settlement of
the matter of that Declaration, by passing it into a law, I promised
him to take that way in which I might most serve the public peace."
Soon afterwards Baxter made up his mind to decline the proffered
honour, partly on personal, partly on ecclesiastical grounds.[141] He
tells us, indeed, that he disapproved of the "Old Diocesan frame," and
feared that, as a Bishop, he might have work to do contrary to his
conscience; but he also particularly expresses the feeling that the
Episcopal office would draw him aside from those works of theological
authorship, for which he believed he had a special fitness, and a
divine mission.

[Sidenote: WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.]

Reynolds, at the same time, was offered the Bishopric of Norwich, and
accepted it. For this he was then reproached, and has often since
been severely blamed. Yet Baxter persuaded him to take this step,
advising him to declare, that he did so upon the terms of the Royal
Declaration, and that he would resign if these terms were withdrawn.
Reynolds read to his friend a paper which he had prepared for His
Majesty's hands, stating that he believed a Bishop was only a chief
Presbyter, and ought not to ordain or govern but with the assistance
of his co-Presbyters,--such being the doctrine according to which he
was prepared to take his seat on the Bench. Whether he actually did
present such a paper, Baxter could not tell.[142]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The ecclesiastical weather had suddenly changed. The clouds were
breaking. The sun began to shine. Conciliation had become the order of
the day. Calamy was offered the Bishopric, and Bates the Deanery of
Lichfield; Manton the Deanery of Rochester, and Bowles that of York.
Other preferments were left vacant for awhile, professedly with the
hope that they might be accepted by Presbyterians. The see of Carlisle
was intended for Dr. Gilpin;[143] and a fortnight after the Declaration
had been issued, Diplomas were conferred at Cambridge, by Royal
mandate, on Bates, Jacomb, and Wilde.[144]

To reciprocate these friendly approaches, some Presbyterians, but
not those who had met at Worcester House, prepared an address to His
Majesty.[145]

They craved leave to profess, that though all things in the frame
of government were not exactly to their minds, yet His Majesty's
moderation had so great an influence upon them, that they had
determined to use their utmost endeavour to heal the breaches, and to
promote the peace and union of the Church. They begged of His Majesty,
that _reordination_ and the _surplice_ in Colleges might not be
imposed, and they hoped God would incline his heart to gratify their
desires.[146] The Address was presented on the 16th of November by
Samuel Clarke, of St. Bennett Fink. This fair weather was of short
continuance. The sun was soon concealed again. The clouds returned
after the rain. Suspicions respecting the sincerity of the Declaration
increased; from the beginning, some had been dissatisfied with it. The
treatment it finally received from the Commons, under the exercise of
Court influence, shows the real character of the whole affair; we must
therefore enter the House, and watch its proceedings.

[Sidenote: WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.]

Nothing could exceed the gratitude expressed by the Speaker of the
House of Commons, in the name of the members, for His Majesty's
Declaration.[147] Yet, three days before he did so, it had been
significantly proposed that the Book of Common Prayer should be used
in the daily worship of the House, little objection being made to this
proposal. The prevalent opinion appeared to be in favour of a form, and
"the Speaker excused the minister from any more service, till the form
was ordered."[148]

A Bill, founded upon the Declaration, followed upon the 28th of
November. The arguments adduced in its favour were to the effect--that
without a Bill the Declaration would be ineffective; that it was
fitting to alter many things in the Liturgy; that the present business
was of the highest concernment to the glory of God and the peace of the
nation; that the ceremonies of the Church were not of such importance
as to justify another war; that some indulgence ought to be granted
to those who "ventured their lives for the good of all;" and that the
passing of the measure would not vex the Bishops at all, because they
were with the King at the framing of the Declaration. Prynne thought
that it would be astonishing if, after thanking the King for issuing
the document, the House rejected the Bill, which had been founded upon
it. But many, who approved of the Declaration, spoke against the Bill.
They said it was contrary to precedent to turn a Royal Edict into an
Act of Parliament; that it was not the King's desire; and that it
would dissatisfy the Roman Catholics. Secretary Morrice is reported to
have spoken ambiguously, and to have concluded his speech by advising
that the Bill should be laid aside: 183 voted against it, and 157 for
it.[149]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The Declaration, it must be acknowledged, was so obviously a temporary
expedient, and of so provisional a nature, that there seemed room
to oppose a Bill like this, framed "for making the King's Majesty's
Declaration touching ecclesiastical affairs effectual." Preparatory
steps needed to be taken before a complete Church for the future could
be established. Yet, if the leaders of the House had been sincerely
bent upon a conciliatory policy, they might easily have contrived some
measure for that purpose.

[Sidenote: WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The course pursued by the Commons may be explained. Out of doors
a strong feeling was making itself heard in favour of such
Episcopalianism as existed in the days of Elizabeth. At the moment
of the King's return much talk of moderation had been heard from
politic men in the Church. Even Sheldon then spoke of charity when
preaching before the King in the month of June:[150] but now the tone
of the principal clergy altered, and before the end of the year a
specimen of the change occurs in a consecration sermon, in which it
is declared that "the work of the Bishops was not so much to convert
infidels as to confute heretics and schismatics."[151] In addition
to the growing strength and boldness of the Episcopalians, there was
another cause for the defeat of the Bill. Clarendon states that, in
the summer, when the Grand Committee entered upon the settlement of
the question of religion, "_the King desired no more than that they
should do nothing, being sure that in a little time he should himself
do the work best_;"[152] he wished to have the matter under his own
control; and Secretary Nicholas, writing to Sir Henry Bennet, informed
him that Parliament would meet with better hope of success because the
King had "removed the main bone of division, by _taking into his own
hand the great point of Church Government_."[153] It is plain that
Charles felt an aversion to any Act of Parliament whatever upon the
subject; it is also plain that the Commons were in some way induced
to act accordingly. "When the Parliament," says the noble historian,
"came together again after their adjournment they gave the King public
thanks for his Declaration, and never proceeded further in the matter
of religion; of which the King was very glad; only some of the leaders
brought a Bill into the House 'for the making that Declaration a law,'
which was suitable to their other acts of ingenuity, to keep the Church
for ever under the same indulgence, and without any settlement; which,
being quickly perceived, there was no further progress in it."[154] Who
were the instruments commonly employed to influence the House, so as to
bring it into unison with Royal designs, the same authority explains,
when he says, that from the Restoration, he and Lord Southampton,
by desire of the King, "had every day conference with some select
persons of the House of Commons, and with these they consulted in
what method to proceed in disposing the House, sometimes to propose,
sometimes to consent, to what should be most necessary for the public,
and by them to assign parts to other men whom they found disposed and
willing to concur in what was to be desired."[155] There is then no
room for believing otherwise than that the Chancellor, in agreement
with the King, did what he could to influence members to vote against
the Bill for turning the Royal Declaration into law. Consistently
with this inference we find Secretary Morrice speaking against it;
and Secretary Nicholas informing Sir Henry de Vic that the Bill for
passing the King's late Declaration had "happily been thrown out."[156]
The circumstance, at that juncture, of the elevation to the Bench of
Matthew Hale, who had acted on the Committee for framing the Bill,
tallies with other proceedings; and the whole shows that the policy
of the Court was to get rid of the Bill, and with it the obligations
incurred by the Declaration. For, it cannot be said, that the question
before the House was a mere question of form, and that opposing the
Bill did not necessarily imply opposition to the scheme which it
embodied; since all the promises held out in the Declaration were set
at nought by the subsequent proceedings of the King and his Minister.

[Sidenote: WORCESTER HOUSE DECLARATION.]

Charles, there can be no doubt, simply wished to keep the Presbyterians
quiet as long as possible, to get a few of their leaders into the
Episcopal Church, and to employ others, to whom he held out hopes
of toleration, as tools for securing liberty to the Papists.[157]
Clarendon, I believe, sincerely desired, as a staunch Episcopalian,
to restore the Establishment upon its old basis--nor do I see any
reason to question, that he also sincerely desired to bring Baxter
and others within its pale. With the purpose of winning Presbyterians
over to Episcopacy he was willing to make a few concessions. But, of
any genuine wish to base the Church upon the principles laid down in
the Declaration, there is no proof; and such a wish is inconsistent
with his known attachment to Prelacy. He had, it is true, ever since
the return of Royalty became probable, shown great moderation in
his behaviour to the Puritan party; but this circumstance is quite
consistent with the idea of his simply proposing to bring them
over to Episcopalianism. Looking at the opinions of the prelates
already expressed, and afterwards maintained at the Savoy, is it
possible that the Declaration could have been designed as a _bonâ
fide_ basis of a Church settlement? The conclusion is inevitable,
that Clarendon aimed at accomplishing his object by such a method as
statesmen deem to be justifiable diplomacy.[158] After the fate of the
Declaration in Parliament, the aspect of affairs changed in reference
to Presbyterians. Hopes once raised were dashed to the ground. The
overtures of the Court were seen to be hollow, and the preferments
offered were declined. Reynolds, nevertheless, retained the Bishopric
of Norwich.




                              CHAPTER VI.


[Sidenote: THE REGICIDES.]

The treatment of the men who had been foremost in what the Royalists
called the Great Rebellion, affords a further and a critical instance
of the temper of Parliament. At first, and for some little time
afterwards, the majority supported a large measure of oblivion. Not
more than seven persons were excepted from the Act of Indemnity. But
the number speedily increased to twenty-nine.[159] Afterwards it was
proposed that all who sat on the trial of Charles I., and had not
surrendered according to a late Proclamation, were to be excluded from
the Act of Oblivion,--a point carried without any division. The Lords
made the Bill more stringent. They determined to exclude all who had
signed the death-warrant, or were sitting in the court when sentence
was pronounced, whether they had submitted since the Restoration or
not; to these the Lords added the names of Hacker, Vane, Lambert,
Haselrig, and Axtell. Yet they struck out a clause, reserving Lenthall
and others for future punishment. The Commons had been slow with the
Act of Indemnity, notwithstanding the salvation of many of their
old friends was involved in it. The Lords were slower still, and
both had to be spurred on by Royal messages. When the Bill, in its
increased severity, came down from the Lords, the Commons resisted the
sweeping amendment which excluded all the members of the High Court of
Justice from the general amnesty. They pleaded that such an exclusion
would violate the promise from Breda, and the terms of the recent
Proclamation. Repeated conferences took place between the Houses, and
it is visible that the spirit of resistance to the vindictiveness of
the Lords gradually gave way, and that the violent Royalists were
gaining ground amongst them. The Commons entered into a compromise.
Most of the judges were excepted; others were reserved for lesser
penalties. About twenty persons, besides those who had pronounced
sentence in the High Court of Justice, were incapacitated for any civil
or military office.[160]

The regicides being excluded from the Act of Oblivion, some of them
were tried at the Old Bailey, in the month of October, 1660. Amongst
those who then stood at the bar were four persons who have appeared,
more or less conspicuously, in connection with the Ecclesiastical
History of the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Major-General Harrison, the famous Republican, who, in the Little
Parliament had opposed the tithe system, who had plunged deeply into
the study of prophecy, had been for some time expecting the reign of
the saints, and had been involved in the revolutionary schemes of the
Fifth Monarchy men, was arraigned for having sat upon the trial of his
"late Sovereign Lord King Charles I., of ever blessed memory," and for
having signed and sealed the warrant for his execution.[161] He was
found guilty, and condemned to die. With his political fanaticism there
blended other feelings; and the propriety of his demeanour in prison
was such, that the woman, who cleaned his cell, and kindled his fire,
declared she could not conceive how he deserved to be there, for he
was a man "full of God--there was nothing but God in his mouth--and
his discourse and frame of heart would melt the hardest of their
hearts."[162] He died expressing transports of religious joy.

[Sidenote: THE REGICIDES.]

Hugh Peters, the military Divine, who had beat up for recruits
at country market crosses, and carried messages of victory from
the Army to the Commons, was now condemned for stirring up the
soldiery to demand the Monarch's execution, and for giving publicity
to the Proclamation for the High Court of Justice. As he was
going to execution, he replied to a person--who abused him as a
regicide--"Friend, you do not well to trample upon a dying man, you are
greatly mistaken. I had nothing to do with the death of the King."

Peters, although coarse, vulgar, and violent, has been painted in
darker colours than he deserves. It is certain that he approved of
the execution of the King; but whether his complicity in the deed was
legally proved is another question. That he was one of the masked
headsman on the 30th of January, 1649, is an idle tale; and of the
charges against his moral character no adequate proof has ever been
adduced. Without any respect for his memory I wish to do him justice.
He has been commonly represented by Royalists as an unprincipled and
cruel villain, steeped in vice, and laden with crime. The facts of his
history do not support that indictment; they rather show him to have
been a sincere, misguided, and unhappy enthusiast.[163]

Isaac Pennington--who presented to the Long Parliament in 1640 the
famous "Root and Branch" Petition of the London citizens--was at this
time also charged with compassing the Monarch's death. The Lord Chief
Baron alluded to him in merciful terms, and although found guilty,
his life was spared through the intercession of influential friends.
He died a prisoner in the Tower, December the 17th, 1661. His son
Isaac had embraced Quakerism; and a daughter of his wife, by a former
husband, became the wife of William Penn.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

By the side of Isaac Pennington stood another prisoner with whom we are
already acquainted--Henry Marten.[164] Of his Revolutionary opinions,
and of his active part in the Whitehall tragedy, there could be no
question--perhaps he had as much to do with it as any one; yet after
he had been convicted, he threw himself upon the mercy of Parliament.
In the petition which he presented he observed, with the careless wit
which no misfortune could subdue, that he had surrendered himself upon
the Restoration in consequence of the King's "Declaration of Breda,"
and that "since he had never obeyed any Royal proclamation before
this, he hoped that he should not be hanged for taking the King's word
now?"[165] The Commons do not appear to have attempted anything in his
favour; but his cause received warm advocacy when it came before the
Lords. With a dash of invincible humour, the Republican pleaded, that
since the honourable House of Commons, which he before so idolized,
had given him up to death, the honourable House of Peers, which he had
so much opposed, especially in their power of judicature, was now left
as a sanctuary to which he fled for life. He had submitted himself to
His Majesty's gracious Proclamation, he took hold of it, and hoped to
receive pardon through it. He now submitted himself to His Majesty and
to the House for mercy.[166] Marten obtained what was denied to men
more worthy; but although his life was spared, he spent twenty years in
prison, and expired in Chepstow Castle, at the age of 78.[167]

The growth of vindictive loyalty was rapid; it rose to an alarming
height, and assumed a frantic mien, when, after re-assembling in
November, the Commons resolved, that the carcases of Oliver Cromwell,
Henry Ireton, John Bradshaw, and Thomas Pride, whether buried in
Westminster Abbey or elsewhere, should with all expedition be taken up,
drawn upon a hurdle to Tyburn, there hanged up in their coffins for a
time, and afterwards buried under the gallows.[168]

[Sidenote: NEW BISHOPS.]

Leaving this horrid subject, we notice that at the close of the year a
consecration of new Bishops took place. Of the nine prelates remaining
alive at the time, Juxon, who had been Bishop of London, was translated
to Canterbury; Frewen, who had been nominated by Charles I. to the
see of Lichfield and Coventry, was promoted to the Archbishopric of
York; and Duppa, who had held the see of Salisbury, was transferred
to the diocese of Winchester. To the Bishopric of London, vacated
by the translation of Juxon, Sheldon succeeded--a reward considered
due for unceasing vigilance over Episcopalian interests during the
Commonwealth. Morley, who had attended Charles at the Hague, was
appointed Bishop of Worcester; and Henchman, who had aided His
Majesty's escape after the battle near that city, became Bishop of
Salisbury.[169]

Seven new prelates together were consecrated at Westminster on Sunday,
the 2nd of December:--Cosin, the patristic scholar, who had been
chaplain in the household of Queen Henrietta,--as Bishop of Durham; and
Walton, the editor of the _Polyglott_,--as Bishop of Chester. Gauden
also was one of the number. Though he had remained in Cromwell's Broad
Church, it is said that upon all occasions he had taken worthy pains
in the pulpit and by the press to rescue His Majesty and the Church
of England, from all mistaken and heterodox opinions of several and
different factions, as well as from the sacrilegious hands of false
brethren whose scandalous conversation was consummate, in devouring
Churchlands, and in impudently making sacrilege lawful.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

He received for these services the Bishopric of Exeter;[170] and
at the same time there was consecrated with him--as Bishop of
Carlisle--Richard Sterne, who had suffered much from the Presbyterians,
and had attended on the scaffold his friend, Archbishop Laud. Laney
designated to Peterborough, Lloyd to Llandaff, and Lucy to St. David's,
complete the seven.

Sancroft, then domestic chaplain to Bishop Cosin, preached the sermon,
in which he defended diocesan Episcopacy from the words of St. Paul to
Titus: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city,
as I had appointed thee." He who appointed him, said the preacher, was
"not a suffragan of St. Peter," "not a disciple of Gamaliel," "not a
delegate of the civil magistrate," but "an apostle of Jesus Christ."
And he who was appointed was "a single person; not a consistory of
Presbyters, or a bench of elders," and his office was to supply
defects--to correct what might be amiss--and to exercise the power
of ordination; "our most reverend Titus" being "a genuine son and
successor of the apostles." The theological reader will infer at once
what were the arguments under each head, and he may judge of the style
and spirit of the discourse from the following passage--"And blessed be
this day (let God regard it from above, and a more than common light
shine upon it!) in which we see the Phœnix arising from her funeral
pile, and taking wing again; our Holy Mother, the Church, standing up
from the dust and ruins in which she sate so long, taking beauty again
for ashes, and the garments of praise for the spirit of heaviness,
remounting the Episcopal throne, bearing the keys of the kingdom of
heaven with her, and armed (we hope) with the rod of discipline; her
hands spread abroad, to bless and to ordain, to confirm the weak, and
to reconcile the penitent; her breasts flowing with the sincere milk of
the word, and girt with a golden girdle under the paps, tying up all by
a meet limitation and restriction to primitive patterns, and prescripts
apostolical. A sight so venerable and august, that methinks, it
should at once strike love and fear into every beholder, and an awful
veneration. I may confidently say it. It was never well with us, since
we strayed from the due reverence we owed to Heaven and her; and it is
strange we should no sooner observe it, but run a maddening after other
lovers that ruined us, till God hedged in our way with thorns, that we
could no longer find them, and then we said, I will go and return to my
former husband, for then was it better with me than now."[171]

[Sidenote: NEW BISHOPS.]

Eight Bishops of the Irish Church were still living. Bramhall was
translated to the primacy as Archbishop of Armagh. Nominations to
vacant Sees followed; including that of Jeremy Taylor to the diocese
of Down and Conner, upon Henry Lesley being translated to Meath; but
his consecration was delayed until the 27th of January, 1661, when
ten new Bishops, and two old ones promoted to the Archiepiscopate,
were solemnly set apart in Saint Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. The
consecration of so many at one time has been pronounced, "an event
probably without a parallel in the Church."[172]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

We have crossed, almost unconsciously, from England to Ireland. Between
lies the Isle of Man; and this reminds us of what was going on there, a
short time before the remarkable consecration at Dublin. In the autumn
of 1660, Commissioners were engaged in reducing to order ecclesiastical
affairs. They summoned the clergy before them to exhibit their letters
of orders and of presentation; they enforced the use of the Prayer
Book, and of catechizing, the keeping also of feasts and fast days,
including the 30th of January, the day of King Charles' martyrdom, and
the 15th of October, the day of Earl James' martyrdom. The observance
of Lent was afterwards enjoined, with the customary penalties and
with provision for dispensations. Parish discipline was established
according to canon law; and, without any ejectment or any opposition,
the portion of the Church existing in that island submitted at once to
Episcopalian rule.[173]

[Sidenote: PERSECUTION.]

Returning to England, we remark that since certain old laws were deemed
by Churchmen as still in force, notwithstanding the legislature of the
last twenty years, they constituted an arsenal of weapons, with which
magistrates and others could, if they were disposed, grievously disturb
their Puritan neighbours. The _Canon law_ prohibited dissent from the
Church under pain of excommunication. The same penalty was threatened
against all who affirmed that ministers not subscribing to the form of
worship in the Communion Book, might "truly take unto them the name of
another Church not established by law," or that religious assemblies
other than such as by the law of the land were allowed, might
rightly challenge the name of true Churches, or that it was lawful
for any sort of ministers or lay persons, to join together to make
ecclesiastical rules or constitutions without the King's authority.
No minister, without license of the Bishop, could presume to hold
meetings for sermons. As all conventicles were hurtful to the state
of the Church, no ministers or other persons were to assemble in any
private house or elsewhere for ecclesiastical purposes, under pain of
excommunication.[174] As to _Statute law_, the 1 Eliz. c. 2, required
all persons to resort to Church every Sunday and every day ordained a
holiday. The penalty of disobedience was a shilling fine, with Church
censure for every offence. The 23 Eliz. c. 1, made the fine twenty
pounds a month, and the offender who persevered for twelve months had
to be bound to good behaviour with two sureties in two hundred pounds,
until he conformed. To keep a schoolmaster who did not attend Church,
incurred a monthly fine of ten pounds. The 29 Eliz. c. 6, empowered
the Queen, by process out of the Exchequer, to seize the goods and
two parts of the real property of offenders, upon default of paying
their fines. The 35 Eliz. c. 1, made the frequenting of conventicles
punishable by imprisonment. Those who after conviction would not submit
were to abjure the realm. Refusal to abjure was felony, without benefit
of clergy.[175]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

These laws, however, do not suggest a full idea of all the
inconvenience and suffering to which Nonconformists, before the Civil
War, had been exposed. That we may understand fully the circumstances
in which they were placed, we must add the activity of spiritual
courts, the jurisdiction of the High Commission, and the indefinite
powers of the Crown. Nor do these laws, statute and canon, exhibit
all the forces of oppression which continued to exist after the
Restoration, and before the passing of the Act of Uniformity--forces
which could be brought into play at any moment, and in any situation.
Spiritual courts, it is true, had not yet been re-established; the
High Commission no longer existed. The power of the Crown had received
a check; but in addition to laws prohibitory of religious gatherings
outside the Establishment, there stood the law of Royal Supremacy,
which could not be taken by Papists, and was objected to by some
Protestant Dissenters. The statute, which had sent More and Fisher to
the block, brought sorrow upon a large number of unknown persons, who,
on a different principle from that adopted by those sufferers, objected
strongly to Royal Supremacy over causes ecclesiastical as well as
civil. Their resistance and their trouble, together with the perplexity
of magistrates respecting them, are illustrated in the following
extract of a letter written from Bristol, in the autumn of 1660:--"Be
pleased to take notice that no Quaker, or rarely any Anabaptist, will
take these oaths; so that the said oaths are refused by many hundreds
of their judgment, being persons of very dangerous principles, and
great enemies in this city to His Majesty's royal person, government,
and restoration--and some of them [are] petitioners to bring his
martyred Majesty, of blessed memory, to his trial,--and will
undoubtedly fly out again and kick up the heel against his sovereign
authority, should it be in their power, therefore [they] are not worthy
His Majesty's protection, refusing to swear loyalty to him. Besides,
their said refusal, if suspended or connived at, will cause a general
discontent and repining in, by those His Majesty's loyal subjects who
have already taken, or are to take the said oaths; for 'tis already the
language of many of them, and these not a few, 'Why should any oaths be
imposed on or required of us? and the Quakers, Anabaptists, and others,
His Majesty's enemies, be gratified with a suspension thereof.' And
'tis the answer of others, 'If the Quakers, Anabaptists, and others of
dangerous practices and principles do, or are enforced to, take the
said oaths, then will we. In the interim, we want the same liberty
which is to them afforded.'" The writer next asks instructions to guide
him in his perplexity. "Sir," he continues, "these, I had almost said,
monsters of men with us are, yea more numerous than in all the West
of England; and here they all centre and have their meetings, at all
seasons till 9 of the clock at night, and later;--sometimes about 1,000
or 1,200 at a time,--to the great affrightening of this city as to what
will be consequent thereof if not restrained, or should a suspension of
the said oaths be to them given."[176]

[Sidenote: PERSECUTION.]

[Sidenote: 1660.]

Many persons had to suffer severely. In Wales the fire was first
kindled, and burnt most fiercely. Before the King landed at Dover the
Episcopalians in the Principality busied themselves in persecuting
Quakers. Several Nonconformists were imprisoned at Caermarthen, and the
gaol at Montgomery was so filled with them that the gaoler had to pack
them into garrets. Pitiful stories, with some exaggerations perhaps,
are told of sufferers in the May and June of 1660, who were dragged
out of their beds to prison, or like stray cattle driven into parish
pounds, or led in chains to the Quarter Sessions.[177] If violence with
so wide a sweep did not rage on our side the border, the confessors for
conscience' sake in England were nevertheless numerous enough. In that
transitional state of things all sorts of irregular proceedings took
place. Even Philip Henry could not preach in quiet, but was presented
in the month of September, at the Flint assizes, for not reading the
Common Prayer. John Howe also fell into trouble for what he had said
in the pulpit; and it is not generally remembered that long before
the Uniformity, the Conventicle, and the Five Mile Acts were passed,
John Bunyan was cast into Bedford gaol.[178] In England, as well as in
Wales, many Quakers and Anabaptists suffered a loathsome imprisonment.
If, in London, Nonconformity was strong, in the provinces it was
rapidly becoming otherwise. Bishops were busy; Episcopalian Rectors
were being restored, and Loyal Corporations were getting more and more
noisy in their demonstrations of zeal for Church and Crown. Grey-headed
squires, and nobles in Cavalier plumes and doublets, with their courtly
dames in rustling silks, and with their children in bright-coloured
sashes, and attended by servants clothed in gay liveries, sat with joy
before the crackling yule log that merry Christmas; and when the boar's
head and the roast beef had been despatched, they related stories of
their virtuous and devout King,[179] and told their sons and daughters
of the gay doings and merry games of their own young days. The
mistletoe hanging in the hall corresponded with the holly suspended in
the Church; and the service, which members of these merry parties had
heard that Christmas morning for the first time, as they sat in the old
family pew, sustained worthy association with the pleasant festivities
of the afternoon and evening. Puritanism had been to them a religion
of restraint, and now the return of Bishops and Prayer Books brought
freedom and joy. Of course there were sentiments of a far higher order
cherished at that season, but the existence of much of the humbler
feeling now described may be taken for granted.


[Sidenote: REACTION AGAINST PURITANISM.]

Other ceremonies besides those immediately connected with Christmas
time appeared that winter. Newspaper letters from Exeter, dated the
29th of December, 1660, announced the joyful welcome of Dr. Gauden, the
new Bishop of the diocese, who had been met by most of the gentry, to
the number of one hundred and twenty, and escorted by the High Sheriff,
with nearly five times as many horse; the Mayor and Aldermen in scarlet
and fur, waiting on His Lordship, amidst the ringing of bells. A week
later, Londoners saw, in the public prints, a glowing account of a
public Episcopalian christening at Dover--a most significant service
in a town where Anabaptists were numerous. So great a concourse, it
is reported, had seldom been seen, the Mayor being obliged to make
way that the children might reach the font, which had not been used
for nearly twenty years, and had now, by the care and prudence of the
Churchwardens, been set up for this solemnity.

[Sidenote: 1660.]

The reaction against the Puritanism of the Commonwealth, visible in so
many ways, received a fresh impulse from the insurrection of Venner
and his associates. This fanatical wine-cooper had been before laying
plots: in the month of April, 1657, he and his confederates, after
conferring at a Meeting House in Swan Alley, had assembled on Mile End
Green, when Cromwell sent a troop of horse, and seized him, with twenty
other ringleaders. The cause of Fifth Monarchism, during the season of
confusion consequent upon the resignation of the Protector Richard,
reappeared, and made itself heard through its irrepressibly loquacious
advocates, Rogers and Feake. The revival of their tenets, in connection
with a renewal of pure Republicanism under Sir Henry Vane and his
party, was of short duration; and there is nothing noticeable, in
connection with this form of religious sentiment, until Venner's second
outbreak.

Instead of narrating that incident in words of my own, I shall simply
use a letter, written respecting it in the midst of the excitement. The
circumstances mentioned at the close, although below the dignity of
history, are too amusing to be omitted.

[Sidenote: VENNER'S INSURRECTION.]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The writer is Sir John Finch; he directs his letter to Lord
Conway:--"My dearest and best Lord,--As for news, my last acquainted
you with the Duchess of York's coming to Court. I forgot to tell
you that the child was christened Charles, and created Duke of
Cambridge, and that His Majesty in person and the Duke of Albemarle
were godfathers, and my Lady of Ormond personated the Queen for
godmother. Our great news here is, that since His Majesty's departure
to Portsmouth there have been two great alarms. Upon Sunday night
about fifty Fifth Monarchy men, at ten o'clock, came to Mr. Johnson,
a bookseller at the north gate of St. Paul's, and there demanded the
keys of the Church, which he either not having, or refusing, they broke
open the door, and, setting their sentries, examined the passengers
who they were for, and one with a lantern replying that he was for
King Charles, they answered that they were for King Jesus, and shot
him through the head, where he lay as a spectacle all the next day.
This gave the alarm to the mainguard at the Exchange, who sent four
files of musketeers to reduce them. But the Fifth Monarchy men made
them run, which so terrified the City, that the Lord Mayor in person
came with his troop to reduce them. Before he arrived they drew off,
and at Aldersgate forced the constable to open the gate, and so marched
through Whitecross Street, where they killed another constable, and
so went into the woods near Highgate, where being almost famished, on
Wednesday morning, about five of the clock, fell again into the City,
and, with a mad courage, fell upon the guard and beat them, which put
the City into such confusion, that the King's Life and all the City
regiments advanced against them. These forty men beat the Life Guard
and a whole regiment for half an hour's time. They refused all quarter;
but at length, Venner, their captain, a wine-cooper, after he had
received three shots, was taken, and nine more, and twenty slain. Six
got into a house, and refusing quarter, and with their blunderbusses
defending themselves, were slain. The Duke and the Duke of Albemarle,
with 700 horse, fell into the City; but all was over before they came.
This, my Lord, is strange, that all that are alive, being maimed, not
one person will confess anything concerning their accomplices, crying
that they will not betray the servants of the Lord Jesus to the kings
of the earth. Ludlow Major is committed close to the Tower for saying
he would kill the King. These things have produced their effects: that
no man shall have any arms that are not registered; that no man shall
live in the City that takes not the Oath of Allegiance; that no person
of any sect shall, out of his own house, exercise religious duties,
nor admit any into his house under penalty of arrest, which troubles
the Quakers and Anabaptists, who profess they knew not of this last
business. And, besides all this, His Majesty is resolved to raise a
new Army, and the general is not known; but I believe it will be the
Duke of Albemarle, rather than the Duke of York or Prince Rupert, in
regard he hath the office by patent, and in regard of his eminent
services. The Duke took it very unkind of my Lord Chamberlain that upon
information of Prince Rupert's attendants, his Lordship, in the Duke's
absence, searched his cellar for gunpowder, it being under the King's
seat at the Cockpit, and the Duke with his own hands so cudgelled the
informer that he hath almost maimed him; and Prince Rupert assured the
Duke that he so resented it, that he was not content to put away his
servant, but offered to fight any person that set the design on foot.
However, the business is not made up, though my Lord Chamberlain told
the Duke he had done over hastily. The Princess Henrietta is sick of
the measles on shipboard; but out of danger of wind. Dr. Frasier hath
let her blood; I hope with better success than the rest of the royal
blood have had."[180]

[Sidenote: VENNER'S INSURRECTION.]

It may be mentioned, that this insurrection had been hatched at the
same place as the former one; and the conspirators are said to have
marched first to Rogers' old quarters at St. Thomas the Apostle, to
join nine of the party, and thence to Whitecross Street. It came as
the expiring flash of a fanatical creed, which had blended itself with
Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of the latter; and, dying out
rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of Millenarianism,
which, at the present day, we find largely infused into the tenets of a
considerable class of Christians.

Venner's explosion occurred on the 6th of January; but it is
remarkable, that four days before that date, an order was issued from
Council, forbidding the meetings of Anabaptists, Quakers, and other
sectaries, in large numbers, and at unusual times, and restricting
their assembling to their own parishes. Rumours of plots are alleged
as reasons for the decision thus adopted upon the 2nd of January;
but that decision plainly shows, that ere the insane enthusiasts of
Coleman Street had fired a shot, whatever liberty had been conceded
at Worcester House was now to suffer great abridgment. Venner's
insurrection could not be the cause of curtailing the liberty of
the subject at that moment, though it proved a plausible argument
for the Proclamation which followed. The Proclamation appeared four
days after the riot; yet the terms of the document agree so closely
with those employed in the records of Council, as to indicate that,
with the exception of a reference to the disturbance of the peace
by bloodshed and murder, and some mention of Fifth Monarchy men,
little or no alteration could have been made in the phraseology. All
meetings, except those held in parochial churches and chapels, or in
private houses by the inhabitants, were declared seditious, and were
peremptorily forbidden.[181]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Against Venner's insurrection the Independents protested; disowning
"the principles of a Fifth Monarchy, or the personal reign of King
Jesus on earth, as dishonourable to him and prejudicial to His Church,"
and abhorring "the propagating this or any other opinion by force or
blood."[182] The Baptists declared their obedience to Government, and
expressed a hope that they might enjoy what had been granted by His
Majesty's Declaration, and be protected, like other subjects, from
injury and violence.[183] The Quakers also expressed their loyalty;
praying that their meetings might not be broken up, and that their
imprisoned members might be set at liberty. But these addresses neither
blunted the edge of Royal displeasure, nor removed the public suspicion
that many Nonconformists sympathized with the Fifth Monarchists.
Peaceable subjects, therefore, suffered insult and interruption. Horns
were blown at the doors of their houses, and stones were thrown at them
whilst they were at prayer; also, magistrates enforced the Oath of
Allegiance, which many Nonconformists, on different grounds, declined
to take.[184]

[Sidenote: BAXTER.]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Amongst other methods of annoyance was that of opening suspected
letters--a practice of which numerous illustrations will presently
appear. "I wrote a letter at this time," says Richard Baxter, "to
my mother-in-law, containing nothing but our usual matter. Even
encouragements to her in her age and weakness, fetched from the
nearness of her rest, together with the report of the news, and some
sharp and vehement words against the rebels. By the means of Sir John
Packington, or his soldiers, the post was searched, and my letter
intercepted, opened, and revised, and by Sir John sent up to London
to the Bishop and the Lord Chancellor, so that it was a wonder, that
having read it, they were not ashamed to send it up; but joyful would
they have been, could they but have found a word in it which could
possibly have been distorted to an evil sense, that malice might have
had its prey. I went to the Lord Chancellor and complained of this
usage, and that I had not the common liberty of a subject, to converse
by letters with my own family. He disowned it, and blamed men's
rashness, but excused it from the distempers of the times; and he and
the Bishops confessed they had seen the letter, and there was nothing
in it but what was good and pious. And two days after came the Lord
Windsor, Lord-Lieutenant of the County, and Governor of Jamaica, with
Sir Charles Littleton, the King's cupbearer, to bring me my letter
again to my lodgings; and the Lord Windsor told me, the Lord Chancellor
appointed him to do it. After some expression of my sense of the abuse,
I thanked him for his great civility and favour. _But I saw how far
that sort of men were to be trusted._"[185]




                             CHAPTER VII.


The time had arrived for calling a new Parliament, since the Convention
lacked certain constitutional attributes: and it seemed a further
reason for summoning another House of Commons, that the Presbyterians
in the Convention, notwithstanding secessions from their ranks, were
still too numerous, and too troublesome, to be well managed by the
Court.

Writs were issued upon the 9th of March, 1661; and, in ten days, the
whole country was found uproariously busy in the election of Knights
and Burgesses. The City of London took the lead; and, as so much new
and curious information on the subject is afforded by letters in the
State Paper Office, I shall largely make use of them in the present
chapter. It was known that the new Parliament would have important
ecclesiastical questions to settle, and therefore a great deal of
religious feeling became mixed up with the political sentiments of the
electors.

The Guildhall of the City of London, though magnificently restored very
recently, carries back our thoughts to distant days, but it has rarely,
if ever, contained within its walls a throng so densely packed, or been
filled with shouts so dissonant, as on the 19th of March, 1661.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

In confused ways, the Lord Mayor and some of the Aldermen were
proposed as candidates:--Recorder Wylde, Sir John Robinson, Sir
Richard Ford, Sir Thomas Bloworth, Sir Nicholas Crisp, and Alderman
Adams, stood on the Royalist side; on the popular side, appeared
Alderman Thompson and Alderman Love--"godly men, and of good parts,
Congregationalists,"--Captain Jones, a Presbyterian, and Alderman
Foulke, "not much noted for religion, but a countenancer of good
ministers, one who was present at the act for abolishing Kingly
Government," and "deeply engaged in Bishops' lands." Recorder Wylde,
and Sir John Robinson, with Sir Richard Brown, and William Vincent,
had been City Members of the Convention Parliament; but the citizens
disliked them, because they were not sufficiently advanced in political
sentiments, and also because they had not opposed the abolition of
Purveyance, and the Court of Wards, the imposition of the Excise, and
the levying of Poll Money. The tide just then ran strongly in favour
of ultra-dissent. The candidates of the Royalist party, except Ford,
had scarcely a word spoken in their favour. The Recorder's name, Wylde,
awakened rude shouts, amidst which might be heard a feeble pun: "We
have been too WILD already." Episcopacy stood at a discount,
and the old Hall echoed with cries of "No Bishops--no Bishops." Ten
thousand citizens in livery--no doubt an exaggeration--were computed to
be present; but the multitude, whatever the exact number, seemed of one
mind. A shrewd courtier in one corner whispered to an elector, that he
hoped what was going on there would be a warning to the Bishops. The
calling of nicknames, and the outpouring of ridicule, were shared, in
nearly equal portions, by the two parties. The Royalists pelted their
opponents with scurrilous abuse, yet they seemed to have nothing worse
to say of Alderman Thompson than "that he was a rare pedlar; so fond
of smoking, that his breath would poison a whole Committee." Jones
was also reproached for smoking; but the Captain was admitted by an
opponent to be an honest man, if amongst such a party there could be
one.[186] No applause equalled that which his name called forth; and
when the opposite party would have had him omitted, "the Court never
left off crying, 'A Jones! a Jones!' till it was otherwise resolved."
Only a few hands were held up for the Recorder and his friends. The
election was all but unanimous, and no poll was demanded by the
candidates defeated at the hustings.

[Sidenote: NEW PARLIAMENT.]

Some Nonconforming ministers are noticed as interesting themselves
in this election, though "others, like Demas," wounded "their
consciences by complying somewhat." In an election squib, called _A
Dialogue between the two Giants in Guildhall_,--one Congregational
pastor is said "to bring a hundred, another of the holders forth
sixty, to the destruction of the beast." And as Gog and Magog are
represented discussing the matter, one of them--referring to the
union of Presbyterians and Independents in the election--observes, "I
thought these two, like two buckets, could not possibly be weighed up
together." "Yes," says his brother giant, "there is an engine called
Necessity, made with the screws of Interest, that doth it _secundum
artem_." Of course such publications are worth nothing as witnesses to
political facts, but they vividly bring to light the political contest;
and as they repeat the rumours they also reveal the hatred which
influenced the contending factions. Certain persons are mentioned as
taking part in the City strife in other ways than by heading mobs. "Mr.
Carill, and other eminent ministers, held a fast, and prayed heartily,
and God has heard them," writes an Independent to a friend in Norwich;
but Zachary Crofton is most frequently mentioned as a champion on the
side of the anti-episcopalian party. "A subtle, witty man," "bitter
against the Bishops," and "a great vexation to them." He "prosecuted
his argument last Lord's Day, and there were more people than could get
into the Church." "Thank God," says one, "that Mr. Crofton is still at
liberty; he preaches that Bishops are a human institution, and lead to
the Papacy." "Little Crofton," says another, "preaches against Bishop
Gauden every Sunday night, with an infinite auditory, itching, and
applause." Others, like Crofton, won popularity by political harangues.
"All who oppose Prelacy," observes a correspondent, who evidently
opposed it himself, and no doubt went to hear the men, whom he so
admiringly mentions, "are mightily followed as Dr. Seaman and others."
"Mr. Graffen had two thousand in the streets, who could not get into
the Tantling Meeting House, to hear him bang the Bishops, which theme
he doth most exquisitely handle." Crofton is often referred to in these
letters. He was prosecuted for writing inflammatory books with comical
titles, and being imprisoned in the Tower when the election was over,
and before the Coronation took place, he petitioned His Majesty for
release, that he might enjoy the approaching festival in liberty, as
well as with loyalty. This bustling Divine, like many others, pleaded
the sufferings he had endured for his attachment to Monarchy; and
attempted to excuse certain inconsiderate expressions employed by him
on matters beyond his sphere, on the ground that they were not written
with an evil intention.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

[Sidenote: NEW PARLIAMENT.]

The citizens, talking over the great folk-mote of the morning, retired
to their wainscoted parlours in the evening, and putting pen to paper,
wrote to their friends in the country. Some deplored the election of
the fanatics. Some jubilantly proclaimed the Liberal triumph. What
they said, however, mattered little. The letters never reached their
destination.[187] They were pilfered at the post office. In vain people
in the country waited for the arrival of the post-boy in those windy
March days; in vain the Londoners expected answers to their epistles.
Those time-stained, yellowish-looking sheets, of all shapes and sizes,
and of varied and often puzzling caligraphy, are still safe in the
Public Record Office.

The object of the interception was to find out if there were anything
treasonable in the correspondence; or to prevent Liberal citizens
from influencing country constituences. Whether, if the letters had
been delivered, they would have altered the results of the general
election, may be doubted. At all events, the elections were in favour
of the Royalists.[188] Government influence was employed. Corporations
returning members had been purged of disaffected elements;[189]
and no doubt manifold tricks were played. Nor can we believe they
were confined to one side. But, independently of unconstitutional
interference, there were causes which will account for the success of
the Cavaliers. Many old Presbyterian and Independent politicians had
become ineligible through political offences. The zeal of the nobility
and of the Episcopalian clergy told powerfully in favour of old
Royalists. Great in many boroughs and counties was the popularity of
candidates who had fought at Edgehill, at Marston Moor, or at Naseby,
under the banner of Charles I.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

[Sidenote: NEW PARLIAMENT.]

Of the members returned there were four men who in the Long Parliament
had appeared as leaders. John Maynard, who was a manager in the trial
of Laud--who had taken the Covenant, and had been a member of the
Westminster Assembly--represented Beralston;[190] but he had now become
so noted for his loyalty, that, in consideration of it, as well as
his legal eminence, Charles II. made him a serjeant, and conferred
upon him knighthood, in the month of November, 1660. Several notices
of speeches delivered by Maynard may be found in the _Parliamentary
History_; but, except as an opponent of Popery, he does not appear to
have taken any important part in ecclesiastical questions. John Glynne,
who, when Recorder of London, had advocated Presbyterianism, now sat
for Caernarvonshire; and, like his friend Maynard, enjoyed the honour
of serjeantship, and was knighted for his loyalty at the Restoration.
There remains no indication of his having taken any part in the debates
of the House, from which he was removed by death in 1667.[191] William
Prynne--who had suffered so much as a Puritan, had written so much as a
Presbyterian, and had spoken so much as a Royalist--now took his place
on the benches of St. Stephen's as a member for Bath; but no mention
is made of his ever speaking, except once, when he uttered a few words
relative to the impeachment of Lord Clarendon.[192] Sir Harbottle
Grimston--another well-known Presbyterian, who also was Speaker of
the Convention--again appeared as a member of the House of Commons,
representing the town of Colchester. But in his case, as in the others,
Presbyterianism now was absorbed in the return of loyalty; and no
words, that we can find, fell from his lips touching Church subjects,
excepting a few against Roman Catholicism.[193] These men, after all
their zeal in former days, said little or nothing in Parliament on
behalf of religious liberty after the Restoration. Besides these four,
may be mentioned Colonel Birch, a Lancashire Presbyterian, who having
in the Long Parliament and in Cromwell's Parliaments represented
Leominster, was in 1661, returned for the borough of Penryn. This
gentleman frequently spoke on the side of civil and spiritual freedom.
Hugh Boscawen, who had been member for Cornwall and Truro, under the
Protectorate, now sat for Tregony, but scarcely ever opened his lips.
The same may be remarked of Griffith Bodurda, member for Beaumaris.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Presbyterianism or Independency in particular could not be said to be
represented in the new House of Commons; and Puritanism in general
could scarcely be regarded as finding full and decided expression
within those walls, where twenty years before it had been so triumphant.

Parliament assembled on the 8th of May.[194] The Upper House presented
more of its ancient appearance than recently it had done; for although
the Bishops were not yet restored, more than a hundred Peers took their
seats--a striking contrast to the opening of the Convention, when only
five Earls, one Viscount, and four Barons mustered in the Chamber. His
Majesty, crowned and wearing his regal robes, ascended the throne,
attended on each side by Officers of State, including a few who had
favoured Presbyterianism. The Commons took their places below the bar.

The King kept silence on Church matters, unless he may have referred
to the Breda Declaration, when saying that he valued himself much upon
keeping his word, and upon making good whatever he had promised to his
subjects. The Lord Chancellor, after an allusion to the constitution
and disorders of the State--its stomach and appetite, its humour and
fevers--indignantly inquired, "What good Christian can think without
horror of these ministers of the Gospel, who by their function should
be the messengers of peace, and are in their practice the only trumpets
of war, and incendiaries towards rebellion?" Such preaching he
pronounced to be a sin against the Holy Ghost.

[Sidenote: COMMISSION FOR CONFERENCE.]

Sir Edward Turner, a thorough Royalist, was elected Speaker; and, when
presented to the King, he delivered one of those tiresome speeches
which were so characteristic of the age.[195]

The House ordered that the Communion of the Lord's Supper should, on
Sunday, the 26th of January, be celebrated at St. Margaret's Church,
according to the Liturgy of the Church of England; and that no one
who did not partake of this sacrament should be allowed to enter the
House.[196]

We must now leave the transactions of Parliament for awhile, that
we may attend to the proceedings of two ecclesiastical bodies,
contemporaneously engaged in discussing affairs over which Parliament
exercised supreme control.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The Worcester House Declaration had spoken of a revision of the
Liturgy. The King said, he found some exceptions made against several
things therein--and would appoint an equal number of learned Divines of
both persuasions, to review the same; and to make such alterations as
should be thought necessary. In formal agreement with this promise, a
Royal Commission was issued. Twelve Bishops, with nine coadjutors, were
chosen to represent the Episcopalians, and twelve leading Divines, also
with nine coadjutors, were chosen to represent the Presbyterians.[197]
The Chancellor arranged that Dr. Reynolds--already consecrated
Bishop of Norwich, he having accepted that see, with the idea that
the Declaration would be carried out, but who, inconsistent as it may
seem, still bore the name of a Presbyterian,--and Calamy, who remained
a Presbyterian in reality, should nominate the Commissioners on their
side of the question. Baxter expressed a wish to have his name omitted;
for he found he had made himself unacceptable to the opposite party,
but he observes, he could not prevail unless he had "peremptorily
refused it"--words which do not indicate any earnestness in declining
office. Indeed it is impossible to conceive that Baxter could have
endured to hear of such a debate as was now at hand, without taking
a leading part in it himself. Moreover, he had so far recognized
Episcopal authority, as to seek from Sheldon a license publicly to
preach, and as a condition of obtaining it, he gave a written promise
not to speak against the doctrines of the Church or the ceremonies
established by law, a circumstance which certainly showed his
disposition to concede as much as possible.[198]

[Sidenote: COMMISSION FOR CONFERENCE.]

The Royal Commission bore date the 25th of March.[199] It gave the
Commissioners authority to review the Book of Common Prayer--to compare
it with the most ancient Liturgies--to take into consideration all
things which it contained--to consult respecting the exceptions against
it--and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the Church
unity and peace; the instrument appointed "the Master's lodgings in the
Savoy" as the place of meeting.

Sheldon having borne off from all competitors the appointment to
the Mastership of that Hospital,[200] it was under his roof that
the approaching Ecclesiastical Debates were to take place; perhaps
convenience sought by the Master as well as convenience afforded by
the hall in the palace, might influence the selection; and it becomes
a curious coincidence that the scene of these debates--professedly
for the purpose of effecting union between Conformists and
Nonconformists--should be a building under the control of a High
Churchman, and yet one which had witnessed the consultations of
Independents; for they had drawn up a Confession of Faith and Order
within those very walls about eighteen months before. That meeting
had borne some resemblance to the Westminster Assembly, since the
Confession adopted by it, though never an authoritative standard,
remained long in honour amongst Congregationalists; but the Conference
which now took place was not intended to settle points of faith, nor
did it issue in any practical conclusion whatever.[201]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April; but
before that day arrived, arrangements were made for another kind
of Ecclesiastical Assembly, the contemporary existence of which is
often overlooked, although it be of the utmost importance for the
understanding of the one, that we should carefully consider the
contemporary existence of the other.

Hesitancy, if not a deeper feeling, appears in reference to a regular
Convocation of the clergy at that time. If the Breda and Worcester
House Declarations had meant what they said, an assembly gathered on
the principle of former Convocations could not with the least propriety
be held at this juncture: however, now that the old constitution
of national government had resumed its place, some High Churchmen
inferred, and earnestly contended, that ancient ecclesiastical as
well as civil arrangements had become virtually re-established; and
therefore, that Convocation ought to be summoned at the opening
of Parliament. But to summon Convocation would be to nullify the
Conference.

Dr. Peter Heylyn--the admiring biographer of Archbishop Laud--was
aware of the difficulty, at this crisis, of convoking the clergy after
the ancient manner; and at the beginning of the month of March, 1661,
he referred to it as raising sad thoughts in the hearts of those who
wished for the peace and happiness of the English Sion.[202] The matter
came before the Council Board at Whitehall, on the 10th of April; and
it was then ordered, that the Lord Chancellor should direct the Clerk
of the Crown to draw up the writs for Convocation in the usual form.
This occurred more than a fortnight after the date of the Commission,
and five days before the Commissioners were to meet. Clarendon remarks
that at the time when the King "issued out his writs for convening
the Parliament, he had likewise sent summons to the Bishops, for the
meeting of the clergy in Convocation, which is the legal synod in
England; _against the coming together whereof the Liturgy would be
finished, which His Majesty intended to send thither to be examined,
debated, and confirmed_. And then he hoped to provide, with the
assistance of the Parliament, such a settlement in religion, as would
prevent any disorder in the State upon those pretences."[203]

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

Not to dwell upon this instance of carelessness respecting
dates--inasmuch as the writ for calling a Parliament is dated the 9th
of March, and the summons for a Convocation the 11th of April--it is
worth asking, what is meant by the Liturgy being finished against
the coming together of Convocation? It could not mean that in
the Conference the Liturgy was to be finished; for that would be
contradicted by the whole policy of the Bishops. Surely it must mean
that the King and his Minister intended that the Liturgy should be
finished by the Bishops themselves, as it will afterwards appear, it
really was by Cosin and others before Convocation met, without any
regard to the transactions of the Conference; and if such was the case,
the issue of the Conference is seen to have been determined at the
commencement.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

When the 15th of April arrived, the Commissioners came together--and
the Presbyterians must have been as much vexed as the Anglicans would
be pleased, not only with the treatment of the business of the
Worcester House Declaration in the House of Commons, but with the
prospect of Convocation meeting for business at the same time as they
themselves were engaged in the appointed Conference. The Commissioners
met upon unequal terms. All London was astir with the approaching
Convocation; and the Officers of the Crown and of the Herald's College
had just been busy in examining claims and searching precedents
relative to the solemnity.

In the order of procession, and the details of the ceremonial, the
Bishops who now assembled found, together with other Bishops, places
of distinction and functions of importance assigned to them. Sheldon,
Bishop of London, was to officiate, in part, in the room of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Juxon, the latter being now old and full
of years, and incapable of performing the whole duty pertaining to his
office on the occasion. Cosin, Bishop of Durham, was to support the
King on one side beneath the canopy borne by the Barons of the Cinque
Ports, and to assist His Majesty in certain portions of the ceremony.
Warner, Bishop of Rochester, was to deliver the prelates' petition to
the King, praying him to preserve to them all canonical privileges.
King, Bishop of Chichester, was to read the Epistle before the Holy
Communion. Morley, Bishop of Worcester, was to preach the sermon.
Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, was to carry the _patena_. These Bishops,
with the rest of their brethren, besides discharging high offices in
particular, were generally to swell the grandeur of the procession,
and, in doing homage, to kiss the King on the left cheek before any
Marquis or Duke was allowed the privilege. Besides--Earle, Dean of
Westminster, was to assist at the anointing, to put the coif, with the
_colobium sindonis_, or surplice, upon the Royal person. Heylyn was
to carry the sceptre with the cross; while other Doctors of Divinity
were to bear the sceptre with the dove, the orb with the cross, King
Edward's staff, the chalice, the spoon, and the ampulla.[204]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

The ceremony of the Coronation, according to immemorial usage,
was to be an Episcopalian ceremony. Of course no part could be
assigned to Presbyterians, unless--as in the case of the Bishop of
Norwich--Presbyterianism clothed itself in the robes of Prelacy.
Presbyterians, _as such_, had been appointed Chaplains and preached
before the King; but, _as such_, they were passed by in the gorgeous
ceremonies of Westminster. This fact is very significant, and it
bore immediately upon the nature, and on the probable issues of the
Conference. It has often been said, that the Presbyterians were in
the saddle at the time of the Restoration; it is as plain that the
Episcopalians were in the saddle at the time of the Coronation and the
Conference. A meeting at the Savoy, between Divines of the two schools,
to consult respecting a revision of the Prayer Book, in the spring of
1660, would have been a perfectly different affair from such a meeting
in the spring of 1661. Something at least like equal terms might at the
former date have been secured, although Presbyters were then beginning
to give way to Priests; but it is plain that at the later date the men
of Geneva stood no chance with those of Canterbury. Episcopacy and the
Liturgy were in possession. Presbyterianism had no chance of displacing
or even modifying either. According to the terms of the Commission, all
the members stood on an equality, but their positions in point of fact
differed exceedingly.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Nor must it be imagined that the hopelessness of the scheme arose
entirely from the fact of political and social superiority on one side:
it sprung also from causes at work on the other side. Without repeating
what has been already said, I would remark that a gulf had yawned
between them ever since the opening of the Civil Wars. They had been
placed in strong mutual antagonism by the revolutionary ecclesiastical
changes effected by the Long Parliament. Besides this, the doctrinal
differences between the Anglicans and the Puritans so sharply defined,
and so resolutely maintained, still kept them wide asunder. Moreover,
their opposite modes of expressing devotion, the love of litanies with
their responses, and of collects with their brevity, on the one hand,
and the love of prayers vocally offered by the minister, and running
into great length, on the other, served effectually to strengthen and
to heighten the dividing barrier. The results which ensued fulfilled
this reasonable anticipation of failure.

What in those days remained of the old Savoy Palace,--one of the
three most sumptuous edifices[205] erected by the most penurious of
monarchs--presented externally a fine architectural appearance on the
river side; within there existed a very spacious hall, with a ceiling
of timber curiously wrought, "having knobs in due places hanging down,
and images of angels holding before their breasts coats of arms." Under
the shadow of that roof, and within walls of stone and brick, "three
foot broad at least,"[206] representative men of two ecclesiastical
systems, some of them after twenty years of strife, met face to face on
formal terms of truce. Two of the Divines, Calamy, the Presbyterian,
and Hacket, the Episcopalian, had, in 1641, under the presidency of
Archbishop Williams, taken part in a similar conference; several,
on different sides now, had in early days, in the Universities and
elsewhere, been friendly or civil towards each other; but memories of
the Deanery of Westminster augured little of hope for the Savoy Palace,
and the influence of former private intercourse stood little chance of
overcoming the party spirit evoked on this new occasion.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Before we notice any of the papers exchanged, or any of the words
spoken, it is proper to look at the more notable men who appeared
at this meeting. There was Sheldon himself--a chief adviser, yet
taking little share in the _vivâ voce_ discussions, a man as full
of worldly policy, as he was agreeable and pleasant in his manners.
There was Morley, a leader next to Sheldon, and a prominent debater,
genial and witty, but extremely passionate and full of obstinacy.
There was Cosin, bringing with him a high reputation for learning
and devoutness, blended with strong Anglo-Catholic feeling, which
had, however, been somewhat checked of late.[207] There was Gauden,
who had conformed to the state of things under the Commonwealth, and
was still inclined to moderation, yet aiming to bring all within the
ranks of revived Episcopalianism. There was Gunning, an unequalled
textuary, a pre-eminent controversialist in an age of controversy,
a public disputant of singular fame in an age of disputation,
fervent in spirit, eager in speech, zealous for Arminianism and
ritualistic worship, and vehement in his advocacy of "high imposing
principles."[208] And there was Pearson, the most gifted, perhaps,
on the Episcopalian side--enriched with large and varied stores of
divinity, and distinguished by that closeness of thought, and that
judicious selection of proofs which secure eminence to the advocate,
and success at the bar.[209] There was also Reynolds, a Presbyterian
Bishop--by his position marked out to take a leading part in the
Conference, and to be a healing mediator, using his influence to soften
the temper of his more prelatical brethren; but he brought to the work
a feeble character, and had lost rather than gained moral weight by the
acceptance of a mitre.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The Presbyterians were led by Baxter--an acute metaphysician, a keen
debater, subtle and fertile in mind, in character honest, and open
as the day--possessing at all times in abundance the silvern gift of
speech--rarely, if ever, showing the golden gift of silence. He lacked
that sobriety of judgment, that patience under contradiction, that
employment of means for attainable results, and that common-sense
acquaintance with men and things, which are essential to success
in all deliberations. Calamy does not appear as a speaker in the
Conference, but he played an active part in Committees. Proofs of
his general eminence are afforded by his preaching before Parliament
when the King was voted home, by his being one of the deputation sent
to wait on His Majesty, and by the offer made to him of a Bishopric.
Proofs of his fitness to occupy a place in the Commission are supplied
by his reputation for learning, for prudence, for dignity, and for
courtier-like bearing. Moreover, as in early life, he had been moderate
in his views, and had, therefore, been chosen as one of the Committee
in 1641, under the presidency of Williams, so at the Restoration
he wished for a comprehensive ecclesiastical scheme, and would have
accepted the preferment offered him, had the Worcester Declaration
become constitutional law. Bates, a Presbyterian, renowned for candour,
is particularly commended by Baxter for solidity, judiciousness, and
pertinence in debate, but he lacked the vehemence of the pastor of
Kidderminster. Jacomb, Newcomen, and Clarke were active in Committee.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Jacomb is described as a man of superior education, of a staid mind,
of temperate passions, moderate in his counsels, and in the management
of affairs, not vehement and confident, not imposing and overbearing,
but receptive of advice, and yielding to reason. Newcomen, like Calamy,
belonged to the five Divines who wrote _Smectymnuus_, a circumstance
of no favourable omen in the estimation of opponents. Clarke, pious,
charitable, laborious, and fond of biography, is still well-known for
his _Martyrology_ and for his _Lives_.[210]

Frewen, Archbishop of York, opened the proceedings by apologizing for
his ignorance of the business, and by stating that he should leave all
in the hands of the Bishop of London. That prelate proposed at once
that the Presbyterians should reduce their objections to writing, to
which they replied that the meeting was intended to be a conference,
and that free debate would best prepare for an ultimate agreement. The
Bishop adhered to his first proposal, and Baxter falling in with it,
prevailed on his brethren to do the same.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

According to the terms of the Commission, they met together to
"advise" and to "consult," and the professed character and object
of the Commission implied that there was to be friendly conference
and mutual concession. But the Bishops manifested no disposition to
concede anything; they assumed the port and bearing of persons who
were in the ascendant, and who had to do with troublesome people,
asking disagreeable favours. They had made up their minds not to
speak freely,--and as men of business, and as stern conservators bent
upon keeping up the ancient restrictions of their Church, the course
which they pursued could be plausibly defended. Perhaps it would have
mattered little in the end if Baxter's colleagues had persevered in
their objections; yet his falling at once into the trap, and his so
eagerly adopting the method of written communications, especially of
the kind which he contemplated, showed how little he had of the wisdom
of the serpent. The Bishops required the Presbyterian exceptions and
additions to the Prayer Book to be presented at once; but Baxter
succeeded so far as to obtain permission for bringing in exceptions
at one time, and additions at another; and it was arranged that his
brethren should prepare the former, and that he should prepare the
latter. The two parties separated, the Presbyters to prepare for the
future Conference, the Prelates for the Coronation. The Coronation was
very magnificent.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Clarendon informs us:--"The King went early in the morning to the
Tower of London, in his coach, most of the Lords being there before;
and about ten of the clock they set forward towards Whitehall, ranged
in that order as the Heralds had appointed; those of the Long Robe,
the King's Council-at-law, the Masters of the Chancery and Judges
going first; and so the Lords in their order, very splendidly habited,
on rich footcloths; the number of their footmen being limited, to
the Dukes ten, to the Earls eight, and to the Viscounts six, and the
Barons four, all richly clad, as their other servants were. The whole
show was the most glorious in the order and expense that had been ever
seen in England; they who rode first being in Fleet Street when the
King issued out of the Tower, as was known by the discharge of the
ordnance; and it was near three of the clock in the afternoon when
the King alighted at Whitehall. The next morning the King rode in the
same state in his robes, and with his crown on his head, and all the
Lords in their robes, to Westminster Hall, where all the ensigns for
the Coronation were delivered to those who were appointed to carry
them, the Earl of Northumberland being made High Constable, and the
Earl of Suffolk Earl Marshal for the day; and then all the Lords in
their order, and the King himself walked on foot upon blue cloth from
Westminster Hall to the Abbey Church, where, after a sermon preached
by Dr. Morley (then Bishop of Worcester), in Henry VII.'s Chapel, the
King was sworn, crowned, and anointed by Dr. Juxon, Archbishop of
Canterbury, with all the solemnity that in those cases had been used.
All which being done, the King returned in the same manner on foot to
Westminster Hall, which was adorned with rich hangings and statues; and
there the King dined, and the Lords on either side, at tables provided
for them; and all other ceremonies were performed with great order and
magnificence."[211]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

In the beginning of May the elections occurred for members of
Convocation. The two theories already noticed, regarding the Church of
England at that juncture, came into collision in these elections. The
Presbyterians maintained that the existing establishment was the Church
of England, that they were legally members of that Establishment,
that they held their maintenances by a claim as valid as that of any
of their brethren. The new Act of Uniformity had not yet been passed,
and, therefore, there was no flaw in their title to be considered part
of the English clergy. But the High Church party fell back upon their
favourite idea that the Church of England was the Episcopal Church.
Then, as always, they could plead laws, as good arguments when in their
favour; then, as always, they set aside laws when against them. Even
allowing that the Church of England might be exclusively an Episcopal
Church _de jure_, it was not so at that time, _de lege_, or _de facto_.
But the Episcopalian party managed to get the power into their hands,
and to exercise it. Presbyterians accordingly were pronounced unfit to
be elected, and Episcopalians were returned.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

There were Presbyterians who disapproved of the constitution of
Convocation; Baxter, Bates, and Jacomb distinctly said,--not only
many hundreds of their ministerial brethren were displaced or removed
before the meeting of the Convocation and others denied their votes,
because they were not ordained by Diocesans; but there were others
who disapproved of the way in which Convocation was constituted, and,
therefore, would not meddle in the choice of its members; whether
such persons would feel themselves bound by its determination it was
impossible to predict.[212]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Upon the 2nd of May the election of London members for the Lower House
of Convocation took place in Christ Church. The metropolitan ministers,
who were not yet ejected, proved a majority against the diocesan
party, and when Baxter expressed his intention of being present, they
sent to their busy friend not to come, and also begged Calamy to
absent himself; the object being to secure the election of these two
Presbyters, who were accordingly chosen by a majority of three. The
Bishop of London, however, as Baxter remarks, "having the power of
choosing two out of four, or four out of six, that are chosen by the
ministers in a certain circuit, did give us the great use of being both
left out, and so we were excused, and the City of London had no clerk
in the Convocation."[213] Sheldon naturally preferred men of his
own way of thinking, and selected out of the names presented to him,
those of Dr. Haywood and Mr. Thorndike; the latter eminent Divine being
removed as far as possible from all sympathy with Puritans. Hence arose
the result that the Presbyterian portion of the City clergy at the time
holding parish livings, and being therefore, in fact, members of the
Establishment, had no one to represent them in Convocation; and the
passing over by Sheldon of the two Presbyterian Divines, although not
at all surprising under the circumstances, should be borne in mind, in
connection with the meeting held at the Savoy only two days afterwards.
The circumstance would not be forgotten on either side, but would be
regarded by the two parties with very different feelings, when Sheldon
at his lodgings met those who were discarded candidates.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Upon the 4th of May the exceptions were presented. The principal
persons employed in drawing them up were Calamy, Newcomen, Bates,
Clarke, Wallis, and Jacomb, and--which will surprise many readers--Dr.
Reynolds; so that the Bishop of Norwich must be regarded as sharing
in the responsibility of preparing these Presbyterian objections to
the Prayer Book.[214] Baxter, though not at first assisting in this
division of labour, afterwards helped in the work. His objections
were more minute than his brethren approved, but he wished them to
understand he did not, like some, charge the Common Prayer with
idolatry or false worship, he only took its faults to be "disorder and
defectivenesss;" this, he thought, was the mind of all the Presbyterian
Commissioners except one. They pleaded in their paper that as the
first Reformers composed the Liturgy with a view to win over Papists,
the Liturgy ought now to be revised so as to gain upon the judgments
and affections of all substantial Protestants. They suggested that
repetitions, responses, and an alternate reading of psalms and hymns,
which "cause a confused murmur in the congregation," should be omitted;
that the Litany, a great part of which was uttered only by the people,
should be formed into one prayer, to be offered by the minister, who
according to Scripture is the mouth of the people to God--a very
remarkable objection, it may be noticed by the way, coming as it did
from men who professed to hold unpriestly views of worship. They
further requested that neither Lent nor saints' days should be any
longer observed; that free prayer should be allowed; that it should be
permissible for the minister to omit part of the Liturgy as occasion
might require; that King James' translation should alone be used at
Church; that only the Old and New Testament might be read in the daily
lessons; that no part of the Communion Service should take place at the
communion table, except at the administration of the Lord's Supper;
that the word "minister" should be employed instead of "priest," and
the "Lord's Day" instead of "Sunday;" that the version of the psalter
should be amended; that obsolete words should be altered into others
generally received; and that phrases presuming the congregation to
be regenerated and in a state of grace should be revised. These
Commissioners further said, that the Liturgy was defective in praise
and thanksgiving; that the confession and catechism were imperfect; and
that the surplice, the signing of the cross, and kneeling at the Lord's
Supper, were unwarrantable. The objectors took special exception to
certain expressions in the daily service, and to the rubrics. But their
objections related mainly to the forms for the ordinance of baptism;
the celebration of matrimony; the visitation of the sick; and the
burial of the dead.[215]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Parallels may be noticed between the exceptions taken on this occasion,
and those taken in William's Committee of 1641.[216]

The Presbyterians requested that instead of the words in the
prayer before baptism, "May receive remission of sins by spiritual
regeneration," the form might run thus: "May be regenerated and receive
the remission of sins." In reference to the words afterwards, "That it
hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant by Thy Holy Spirit," it is
remarkable, that the objection is couched in cautious terms. "We cannot
in faith say that every child that is baptized is 'regenerated by God's
Holy Spirit,' at least, it is a disputable point, and therefore we
desire it may be otherwise expressed." Confirmation is not condemned,
but it is urged, that for children to repeat _memoriter_ the Apostles'
Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and to answer
some questions of the catechism, is not a sufficient preparation for
the rite; and that it ought, according to His Majesty's declaration,
to be "solemnly performed by the information, and with the consent
of the minister of the place." In relation to the words "who hast
vouchsafed to regenerate these Thy servants by water and the Holy
Ghost, and hast given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins,"
the objectors remark, "This supposeth that all the children who are
brought to be confirmed have the Spirit of Christ and the forgiveness
of all their sins; whereas a great number of children at that age,
having committed many sins since their baptism, do show no evidence of
serious repentance, or of any special saving grace; and therefore this
confirmation (if administered to such) would be a perilous and gross
abuse."[217] It should be added, that the Presbyterians disapproved
of confirmation being made necessary for preparing communicants. With
regard to the solemnization of matrimony, they objected to the use of
the ring, and of the word "worship," and to the rubric which enjoins
receiving the communion; and with respect to the visitation of the
sick, the same persons wished that a form of absolution might be
omitted at the minister's option, or that if used, it might be framed
on a declarative and conditional form. The exceptions taken to the
burial service were the same as those which have been current ever
since.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

On the 8th of May, four days after the Presbyterians had put in
their exceptions, Convocation met for the first time since the year
1640;[218] the Northern Synod assembling at York, the Southern at
London.

Sheldon, Bishop of London, with other Bishops of the province of
Canterbury, together with Deans, Archdeacons, and Priests, also the
Dean of the Arches, with his Advocates and Proctors, repaired to the
house of Dr. Barwick, a physician, in St. Paul's Churchyard. In
that house, during the Civil Wars, he had entertained his brother
John, afterwards Dean of St. Paul's, and allowed him the use of an
oratory--some Gothic chamber, perhaps, with quaint oriel, destroyed in
the London fire. Arrayed in their vestments, the Bishops and clergy
entered in procession through the "little south gate," into the ancient
Gothic edifice, for the restoring of which a deep and wide-spread zeal
had begun to show itself--the Cathedral being, it is said, "a princely
ornament of the Royal city," where was a confluence of foreign princes'
ambassadors, the structure being "injured by the iniquity of the late
times," and its repair being necessary to prevent the dishonour of its
neglect falling upon the whole city.[219]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

There, the Dean, Residentiaries, and the rest of the Canons, were
waiting to receive the procession with due ceremony, and to conduct its
members into the choir. It was a jubilant hour for the Episcopal Church
of England, for it betokened a resurrection after years of death-like
silence, imprisonment, and humiliation; and no doubt, in many a bosom,
sentiments of deepest gratitude and adoration, mingled with feelings of
excusable pride, as the choir fervently sang the Te Deum in English;
and Dr. Thomas Pearce preached a sermon in Latin from Acts xv. 28,
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no
greater burden than these necessary things." The sermon ended, and an
anthem sung, Sheldon, the Bishop of London, who acted as President, in
consequence of the advanced age and infirmities of Juxon, with the rest
of the clergy, went into a Chapter House provided for the occasion,
"the goodly old house being, by the impiety of Oliver Cromwell's Horse
Guards, rendered unfit for use." The King's Writ and the Archbishop's
Commission to the Bishop were formally presented and read; after which
the latter, "in excellent Latin," addressed the Lower House, bidding
them go and choose their Prolocutor.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

On the Thursday following, May the 16th, Dr. John Pearson, Archdeacon
of Surrey, presented Dr. Henry Ferne, Dean of Ely, as the Prolocutor
chosen by the Lower House; and "three elegant Latin speeches were made:
one by the presenter, another by the Prolocutor, and a third by His
Lordship the Bishop of London, in approbation of their election."[220]
This ceremony took place in Henry VII.'s Chapel, Westminster--whither,
from St. Paul's Cathedral, Convocation had adjourned, as to the place
of meeting used by the representatives of the clergy before the Civil
Wars--and that Chapel, many of those who now ascended the stone steps
at the back of the Abbey choir, would consider to have suffered almost
as much desecration from the Presbyterian Assembly of Divines, as other
parts of the sacred edifice had done from the depredations of the
soldiery.

Convocation sat, probably, "in one of the inferior chapels."[221] No
one like Robert Baillie--who so minutely describes the Westminster
Assembly--has bequeathed us a picture of this Episcopalian Synod
twenty years afterwards; but anybody who has witnessed the meetings
of the Lower House--the Deans in their scarlet robes as Doctors, and
other dignitaries in academic costumes, with square caps in their
hands, can picture what a contrast, in these respects, the clergy
convened in 1661, in a side Chapel of the Abbey, must have presented
to the ministers, who assembled in 1643, within the Jerusalem Chamber.
Nor can we find any report of the Debate, like that preserved in
the _Diary_ of Lightfoot; but there can be no doubt that the usual
characteristics of ecclesiastical councils and conferences might be
found on this occasion; that there was much of learning, of eloquence,
and of hair-splitting; that some speeches were logical, and others very
illogical; that the debates were sometimes wearisome, and sometimes
lively; and that, occasionally, irregularities of discussion called for
the interference of the Prolocutor.[222]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

An early act of Convocation, indeed, one on the very day of meeting,
was to deliberate respecting forms of prayer for the two anniversaries
so intimately connected with the Royal family--the anniversary of
Charles II.'s birth, and return; and the anniversary of his father's
death. The Bishop of Ely, one of a Committee appointed for the purpose,
presented the first of these to the Upper House on the 18th, and the
form was confirmed and issued by the King in Council on the 22nd.[223]
On the 18th also, the Bishop of London recommended that a form should
be prepared for the baptism of adults,--it being alleged that many
people, owing to the diffusion of Anabaptist opinions, had not been
baptized in their childhood. That duty was entrusted, like the other,
to four Bishops and eight clergymen, and the result appeared and
received approval on the 31st. A Committee of Prelates and Presbyters
undertook to frame the service for Charles' martyrdom. It is a curious
fact, that there were two offices for the 30th of January, drawn up
in the year 1661, in one of which, referring to Charles and other
martyrs, there occurred the words, "That we may be made worthy to
receive benefit by their prayers, which they, in communion with the
Church Catholic, offer up unto Thee for that part of it here militant."
Such a recognition of the intercession of saints in Heaven, indicating
a strong Romanist tendency, has been made a ground of reproach by
Nonconformist opponents; on the other hand, Episcopalians have denied
the existence of the words in any collect prepared for the occasion.
The contradiction is just, so far as the form adopted by Convocation is
concerned; but there was an earlier one, laid aside on account of its
containing the clause in question.[224] The form in the Prayer Book of
1662 differed from both the forms which made their appearance in 1661.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

Upon the 31st of May, Dr. Pory introduced a prayer for the Parliament,
which was not an entirely new composition, inasmuch as one including
the expression, "our religious and gracious King," had been inserted
in the Prayer Book in the reign of Charles I.[225] It appeared,
for the first time, in its present shape for use, at a general fast,
held on the 12th of June, 1661, special mention of it being made on
the title page; from which form of service it was transferred to the
Book of Common Prayer. For the same fast a general form, suited for
such an occasion, was ordered on the 7th of June, to be prepared by
a Committee; also, a supplication for fair weather was recommended
for consideration. Upon the 18th of June, the King issued his letters
patent, authorizing Convocation to make canons and constitutions; in
which letters occur a formula, to the effect that the clergy had always
promised, "_in verbo sacerdotii_," that they would never promulge, or
execute any new ordinances without legal license:[226] accordingly
the Acts of Convocation, on the following day, notice the receiving
of this Royal license, and record the appointment of certain Bishops
and Presbyters as a Committee for considering the business to which
it relates,--the Committee being appointed to meet at the Savoy
Palace.[227] Upon the 17th of July the Bishop of Salisbury presented a
draft of canons which he had prepared, and which were again referred to
him for further consideration. On the 19th and 22nd the canons still
occupied the attention of the Upper House. On the 27th a benevolence
was voted to His Majesty; on the 31st Convocation adjourned.[228]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Thus far, we have ventured to place the contemporary proceedings of
the Savoy Conference, and those of Convocation, in parallel lines;
there is an advantage in doing so. We see how additions to the Prayer
Book, made at the very time when the Commissioners were engaged in
discussions upon its existing contents, would appear vexatious to the
Puritans: we also clearly notice the peculiar position of Reynolds,
who appeared at the Savoy as a Presbyterian, and in Convocation as a
Prelate--in the one character apparently objecting to the Prayer Book,
in the other, adding to it new forms; and we discover that the Houses
of Convocation refrained, whilst the Commission lasted, from doing more
than supplying certain additional prayers, deferring the business of
revision until the Conference had broken up.

We have seen the Presbyterians at the Conference putting in their
exceptions; we now turn to the answers of the Bishops. They were
written in an discourteous, uncharitable, and captious spirit, not
indicating the slightest disposition to conciliate, but foreclosing the
possibility of removing any Presbyterian objection: for they said, the
alteration asked would be a virtual confession that the Liturgy is an
intolerable burden to tender consciences, a direct cause of schism, a
superstitious usage--it would justify past Nonconformity, and condemn
the conduct of Conformists. The document presents an angry defence of
the Church formulas; and, whilst there is much in the reasoning which
commends itself to admirers of the Liturgy, the temper betrayed is of a
kind which assuredly most of those admirers will condemn.[229]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The discussion upon baptism alone needs particular attention. It
is affirmed that the form in the Prayer Book is "most proper; for
baptism is our spiritual regeneration." That answer indicates that the
Episcopalians in the Conference took the words in the Prayer Book to
express the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. "Seeing," say they,
"that God's sacraments have their effects where the receiver doth not
'_ponere obicem_' put any bar against them (which children cannot
do), we may say in faith, of every child that is baptized, that it
is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to
Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament as nothing worthy,
nor material, whether it be administered to children or no."[230]

It had been arranged, that whilst the rest of the Presbyterian brethren
employed themselves in drawing up _exceptions_ against the Book of
Common Prayer, Baxter should prepare _additions_. In one fortnight he
accomplished his task, and presented his Reformed Liturgy. A Reformed
Liturgy, differing from that of the Church of England, had, in the
sixteenth century, been published in Holland; but it amounts to no
more than a compilation from Calvin's Genevan Service Book. Baxter
determined that his should be original; and, accordingly, setting to
work with his Bible and his Concordance, he drew up a new collection
of devotional offices. They include orders of service for the Lord's
Day, and for the celebration of the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and
Baptism; a discourse upon catechizing, preparatory to the communion; a
form to be used in marriage; directions for the visitation of the sick,
and the burial of the dead; prayers and thanksgiving for extraordinary
occasions, and for particular persons; and a discourse on pastoral
discipline, with forms of public confession, absolution, and exclusion
from the fellowship of the Church. He also prepared an Appendix,
containing a larger litany or general prayer, and a long ascription of
praise for our redemption.[231]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

The author tells us that he compared what he did with the Assembly's
Directory, the Book of Common Prayer, and Hammond L'Estrange; but he
seems to have borrowed little or nothing from these sources, beyond
introducing or allowing the use of the creeds--sometimes the use of
the Athanasian Creed--the Te Deum, and the psalms in order for the
day. The modes of expression employed by Baxter are not founded upon
the study of former liturgies, and are remarkably unlike those of the
Anglican and the ancient Communions. They are carefully drawn from
the Bible, and the margin of the new service book is studded with
innumerable references to Scripture texts. No one who reads the work,
especially considering the short time in which it was executed, but
must acknowledge it to be a very extraordinary performance; and even
Dr. Johnson said of the office for the communion, "that it was one of
the first compositions of the ritual kind he had ever seen."[232] The
comprehension and fervour of all the prayers must excite admiration;
but many of them labour under the Puritan disadvantage of being too
long, and they are frequently at variance with that kind of religious
taste which appreciates the character and tone of the litanies and the
collects of the Church of England.

Baxter candidly admits, that he made "an entire Liturgy, but might not
call it so," because the Commissioners required only "additions to, or
alterations of, the Book of Common Prayer."[233] How a completely new
Liturgy could come under the latter denomination I cannot understand.
As he omitted all reference to the Book of Common Prayer, his new
Directory bore on the face of it the intention of superseding, or of
rivalling that venerable manual of devotion; and wherever the former
might have been adopted, it would virtually have put the latter aside.
Still, as his petition shows, he was willing that it should be left
for ministers to decide which Liturgy they would adopt; and, it may be
concluded, that he would not have objected to a blending of the two,
however incongruous such a thing may appear to many.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

This famous Presbyterian polemic, at the same time that he presented
his reformed formularies, presented with them a petition to the
Bishops, begging them to yield to such terms of peace and concord as
they themselves confessed to be lawful. "For though," as he argued,
"we are equals in the King's Commission, yet we are commanded by the
Holy Ghost, if it be possible, and as much as in us lieth, to live
peaceably with all men;--and if we were denied, it would satisfy our
consciences, and justify us before all the world;"[234]--two points
which that honest theologian ever kept in mind. He craved consent to
read the document; some objected, but, ultimately, the reading of it
was allowed. It consisted chiefly of an appeal to Christian feeling,
founded upon a variety of considerations, especially upon the wrong
which would be done to the Puritan brethren, and the mischief inflicted
on the Church of England if their scruples were disregarded.[235]

The contrast between the pacific, conciliatory, and reasonable strain
of the petition, and the hard and repulsive tone of the prelates'
answers to the exceptions, is very striking.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

A rejoinder to the Bishops' answers, touching the exceptions made to
the Liturgy, followed, on the part of the ministers. A preface to it
was drawn up by Calamy. The rejoinder itself, composed by Baxter,
forming, indeed, a book of 148 pages, and taking up the Episcopal
document, paragraph by paragraph, with a great deal of close reasoning
and scholastic subtilty, is too extensive in its range, and too minute
in its details, to admit of any satisfactory synopsis of its contents
being presented on these pages. But a sharp reference, at the close,
to the concessions offered by the Bishops must be noticed. After
thanking them, Baxter adds, in the name of his brethren, "we must say
in the conclusion, that, if these be all the abatements and amendments
you will admit, you sell your innocency and the Church's peace for
nothing."[236]

Time wore away, and nothing resulted from these long papers. At last
came a session for _vivâ voce_ debate. The Puritans wished the Bishops
to talk freely, but their Lordships maintained a prudent reticence,
and even Reynolds could not persuade his Episcopalian brethren by
"friendly conference to go over the particulars excepted against;" they
resolutely insisted that they had nothing to do until the necessity for
alteration should be proved,--proved that necessity already was, in the
estimation of Puritans, proved it could not be in the estimation of
Anglicans.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

All hope of a _pacifying_ conference being abandoned, the Presbyterian
Divines agreed to a debate; many hours were spent in fixing its order.
The Bishops, according to their policy throughout, maintained that it
belonged to those who were accusers to begin; they were simply on the
defence. No effect was produced by the Presbyterians' rejoinder:--"We
are the defendants against your impositions; you command us to do
certain things under pain of excommunication, imprisonment, and
silence. We defend ourselves against this cruelty, by asking you
to show authority for this." At last it was settled, that there
should be a formal dispute, to be conducted by three persons on each
side. Strangers were allowed to be present, and the room was full
of auditors,--young Tillotson, the eminent preacher and Archbishop
of later days, being amongst them. The debate turned upon vague
abstractions, and upon subtle theological distinctions, occasionally
interrupted by outbursts of temper and uncivil personalities. As might
be expected, the Hall of the Savoy Palace became an arena for logical
gladiatorship, and the object of the meeting a strife for victory.

At one time it seemed as if light were breaking through the clouds.
Bishop Cosin, who on the occasion now referred to, occupied the chair,
laid before the meeting a paper, which, he said, a worthy person had
offered unto his superiors. It put,

I. The question, "Whether there be anything in the Doctrine, or
Discipline, or the Common Prayer, or Ceremonies, contrary to the Word
of God?"

II. It asked, if nothing in the Book was unscriptural, what the
Presbyterians desired in point of expediency?

III. It then suggested that such desires should be submitted to "the
consideration and judgment of the Convocation, who are the proper and
authentic representatives of the Ministry."[237]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Baxter drew up an answer, in which he maintained the principal part of
these proposals "to be rational, regular, and Christianlike." After
going over much of the old ground, and referring to the Convocation in
no unfriendly spirit, he says: "We are resolved faithfully to teach the
people, that the division of the Church is worse than inexpedient:"
and, "We conclude with the repetition of our more earnest request, that
these wise and moderate proposals may be prosecuted, and all things be
abated us, which we have proved or shall prove to be contrary to the
Word of God."[238]

To talk in this way seemed hopeful; but hope in this instance was a
delusion. Each party suspected the other. Mutual confidence did not
exist. Baxter, although he wrote as he did, really looked at the
seemingly friendly proposals, as "a cunning snare."

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The paper warfare recommenced--the disputants on each side, "writing
extempore," withdrawing into another room for that purpose.[239] The
first subject discussed was the "imposition of kneeling," to which
Baxter, although he took the gesture itself as lawful, objected,
because he thought antiquity was against the custom, and because "the
penalty is so immediate and great, to put all that kneel not, from the
communion." With this discussion was connected another, as to whether
there is anything sinful in the Liturgy.[240] The following specimen
in relation to the last question may give some idea of the scholastic
forms which were employed. The Episcopal opponents maintained, "That
command which commandeth only an act, in itself lawful, is not sinful."
The Presbyterian respondents denied this, contending that some unlawful
circumstance might hang in the command, or that the penalty might be
overcharged. The proposition, after revision, was put thus: "That
command which commandeth an act, in itself lawful, and no other act
whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence
directly, or _per accidens_ any sin is consequent, which the commander
ought to provide against, is not sinful." The respondents denied again,
on the ground, that "the first act commanded may be _per accidens_
unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other act
or circumstance be such." The Bishops amended their proposition at
last, making their logical network so fine that even Baxter, subtle as
he might be, could scarcely wriggle through the meshes. "That command
which commandeth an act, in itself lawful, and no other act whereby
any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence directly,
or _per accidens_, any sin is consequent, which the commander ought
to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness
of a command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an act
_per accidens_ unlawful, nor of commanding an act under an unjust
penalty."[241] Thomas Aquinas was not more acute, more ingenious, or
more wearisome. Morley, many years afterwards, urged that denying
such a proposition as the last, was not only false and frivolous, but
"destructive of all authority," and struck the Church out of all power
to make canons for order and discipline.[242] To those who admit that
the Church may, within limits, decree rites and ceremonies--and Baxter
in his arguments did not deny this--Morley's reasoning is forcible.
The manner in which Baxter met the position of his opponents was by no
means satisfactory, and his warmest admirers must acknowledge that his
mode of conducting this part of the controversy was no less injudicious
than honest.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

In drawing to a close our account of the Conference, it is important
to mention that the Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about a
fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of a Royal
Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make alterations for the
satisfaction of tender consciences were, by this premature act, really
treated with mockery--a circumstance which could not but exceedingly
offend and annoy the Puritan members, and especially serve to
embitter the language of Baxter as the end of the fruitless sittings
approached.[243]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The last two meetings are particularly described: The Doctors on the
Episcopalian side, Baxter says, crowded in--not more than two or three
were present on the other side. Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, occupied
the chair--"a very worthy man, but for that great peevishness, which
injuries, partiality, temperature, and age had caused in him." A paper
by Gunning came under discussion. He denied a statement made by Baxter,
Bates, and Jacomb. The latter, on oath, confirmed what Baxter said; but
the Chairman pronounced that Gunning had the best of it. He further
charged Baxter with being contentious. Baxter told him that it was
strange, a man should be prevented from replying to his antagonist.
Gunning advanced citations in proof of his point; upon which Cosin
called upon all the Bishops and Doctors on his side, at that moment a
large majority, to give their votes. They all cried "Aye!" Those who
are familiar with modern committees, and with what occurs when both
parties lose their tempers, and the stronger carries the point, can
understand how the Savoy Conference terminated. "We were all agreed,"
says Baxter, "on the ends for the Church's welfare, unity, and peace,
and His Majesty's happiness and contentment; but after all our debates,
were disagreed of the means, and this was the end of that Assembly and
Commission."[244]

Thus ended the last of the three great Conferences between Anglicans
and Puritans; the two previous ones being held, respectively, at
Hampton Court before King James, and in the Jerusalem Chamber under
Dean Williams. It reminds us of another Conference, the last between
Romanists and Reformers, carried on in Westminster Abbey in the month
of March, 1559. Like the Romanist Bishops on that occasion, the
Anglican Bishops on this, protested, with some reason, that it was not
for them to prove the Church's doctrine to be true; they professed
the old established faith of Christendom; if it was attacked, they
were ready to answer objections. But unlike the Popish, the Anglican
prelates were now in the ascendant, and had their opponents at their
feet. The Puritans, on the other hand, resembled, as to relative
position, the Romanists, of whom it is remarked, they "were but actors
in a play, of which the finale was already arranged."[245]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

It is amusing to read Baxter's account of his brother Commissioners.
Some, he says, rarely attended, and when they did, said very little.
Morley was often there, a chief speaker, with fluent words, and much
earnestness, vehemently going on, and bearing down replies by his
interruptions. Cosin was constant in attendance, talking much, with
little logic, though with abundant learning in canons, councils,
and patristic lore. Henchman was the most grave and comely of the
Bishops, and expressed himself calmly and slowly, with some reticence.
Gauden was almost always present, and though he had a bitter pen, he
was moderate in speech, "and if all had been of his mind," says our
reporter, "we had been reconciled." Reynolds spoke much the first
day, to bring his Episcopal brethren to moderation; a "solid, honest
man, but through mildness and excess of timorous reverence to great
men, altogether unfit to contend with them." Dr. Pearson was a true
logician, disputing "accurately, soberly, and calmly"--"breeding in
us a great respect for him, and a persuasion that if he had been
independent he would have been for peace." Dr. Gunning mixed passionate
invectives with some of his argumentations, though understanding well
what belonged to a disputant, but "so vehement for his high imposing
principles, and so over zealous for Arminianism and formality and
Church pomp."[246] Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle, "looked so honestly
and gravely and soberly," that it seemed, such a face could not have
deceived. Baxter's judgment of physiognomy here, however, proved to
be at fault, for when the prelate once broke silence, it was to
exclaim,--as Baxter used the word, "nation:"--"he will not say kingdom
lest he should own a king."[247] While Baxter thus spoke of his
opponents, they thus spoke of him: "At this Conference in the Savoy,
that reverend and great man, Bishop Morley, tells us, the generality
of the nonconforming Divines showed themselves unwilling to enter
upon dispute, and seemed to like much better another way tending to
an amicable and fair compliance, which was frustrated by a certain
person's furious eagerness to engage in a disputation, meaning Mr.
Baxter."[248] "There was a great submission paid to him by the whole
party. So he persuaded them, that from the words of the Commission
they were bound to offer every thing that they thought might conduce
to the good or peace of the Church, without considering what was like
to be obtained, or what effect their demanding so much might have,
in irritating the minds of those who were then the superior body in
strength and number."[249]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

After the debates were over, the Presbyterians waited on the Lord
Chancellor, to advise with him as to the account to be given of their
doings to the King. At first His Lordship received Baxter "merrily,"
and comparing his spare figure and his thin face with the rotunder form
and plumper cheeks of one of his companions, said, "If you were as fat
as Dr. Manton, we should all do well." To which Baxter--fixing his dark
eyes on Clarendon, replied--"If His Lordship could teach me the art
of growing fat, he should find me not unwilling to learn by any good
means."[250] Becoming serious, the Chancellor charged the Divine with
being severe, strict, and melancholy, making things to be sin which
were not so. The latter simply rejoined, that he had spoken nothing but
what he thought, and nothing but what he had given reasons for thinking.

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

He afterwards drew up a paper in the form of a petition, supplying an
account of the Conference; and it was arranged that Reynolds, Bates,
and Manton should present the document. Baxter accompanied them at
their own request. Manton delivered the paper into the Royal hands;
Reynolds added a few words; and, of course, Baxter could not be silent.
He made, as he represents, "a short speech," in which he informed His
Majesty how far they had agreed with the Bishops, "and wherein the
difference did not lie, as in the points of loyalty, obedience, and
Church order." The King put the commonplace question suggested in all
such disputes, "But who shall be judge?" Baxter seized the opportunity
to say that "Judgment is either _public_ or _private_--_private_
judgment called _discretionis_, which is but the use of my reason to
conduct my actions, belongeth to every private rational man; _public_
judgment is ecclesiastical or civil, and belongeth accordingly to the
ecclesiastical governors (or pastors), and the civil, and not to any
private man." If Charles II. had been like his grandfather, James,
a scholastic discussion had been inevitable; but the gay grandson,
perhaps without heeding what the words meant, passed over Baxter's
remark in silence. The Puritan historian winds up all with the curt
remark, "And this was the end of these affairs."[251]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Much sorrow and trouble sprung out of the Conference.[252] The
Episcopalian Royalists treated their opponents as a vanquished party,
and retorted on their old persecutors by calling them seditious and
disaffected. Young clergymen hoped they were on the road to preferment
if they reviled and calumniated Presbyterians; and Baxter especially
became a butt for malignant marksmen. Even his prayers were heard with
suspicion, and so, as he said, it was a mercy when he was silenced.
Yet his own account of the Conference produced a favourable impression
in quarters where he and his friends had been misapprehended. The
Independents, in the first instance, had been annoyed that the
Presbyterians had not consulted them; some of the latter Divines, too,
had been zealous of their more influential brethren, and both parties
had joined in saying that the Puritan Commissioners were too forward
in meeting the Bishops, and too ready to make concessions; and that
Baxter, although unimpeachable as to his motives, had been too eager
for concord, and too ready for compromise. But now the printed papers
turned the tide; the Independents admitted that the Presbyterian
Commissioners had been faithful to their principles.[253]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

The Independents took no part in the Conference at Worcester House or
in that at the Savoy. They were not consulted by Presbyterians--an
instance of neglect which some of the Independents resented--but
it is plain, from a consideration of the principles of the latter
party during the Civil Wars and Commonwealth, that they could not,
consistently with those principles, harmoniously unite in any scheme
for comprehension. Their methods of Church discipline, felt to be
most important for securing the purity of their Churches, rendered
it impossible that their ecclesiastical institutions should work in
harmony with an Establishment. Why the Independents were overlooked
by the Government at that period, is obvious. At the Restoration they
were thrown into the background. Their previous political influence
had sprung from their connection with the Army, from the favour of
Republican officers, and from the religious sympathies of Oliver
Cromwell. That influence terminated on the eve of the King's return;
and it is easy, without suspecting their loyalty, to understand how
they would, at such a crisis, lose social position as well as political
influence.[254] Their prosperity under the Protectorate necessarily
entailed their adversity at the Restoration. Moreover, although to the
Presbyterians there remained friends at Court in the Earl of Manchester
and other noblemen, the Independents enjoyed no aristocratic patrons.
The Fleetwoods, Desboroughs, and Berrys, so far from being able to
assist their fellow-religionists, had enough to do to take care of
themselves. The Presbyterians, as we have seen, had still, in London,
clergymen of high standing and great activity, but the Independents
could not make any boast of that kind. Dr. Owen, who of them all,
perhaps, possessed the greatest influence, lived in retirement at
Stadham. John Howe, never a party man, and thoroughly averse to the
occupations of public life, quietly pursued his pastoral duties at
Torrington. Dr. Goodwin, it is true, had removed to the metropolis on
his ejectment from Oxford, but he now spent his time in seclusion;
and Caryl, another distinguished member of the Congregational body,
and a City pastor, preferred commenting on the Book of Job, to any
entanglement in political affairs. Philip Nye was, probably, the most
active of the denomination, but he had no power to serve the cause,
forasmuch, as at the time of the Restoration he had narrowly escaped
the fate of Hugh Peters.[255] The Independents, as a party, were not
in a position just then to render it a matter of importance that the
Government should conciliate them; nor did they manifest any desire
to secure for their system the temporal benefits of State endowment.
Their retirement from the stage of public affairs brought them no
disadvantage. Providence had appointed for them a moral discipline,
of which the fruit was to appear in after years. They had embraced
principles eminently conducive to the freedom and spirituality of
Christ's Church, and they were destined to take an important part in
the development of English Christianity through the diffusion of those
principles. Their disconnection with the Establishment harmonized with
that destiny. The Baptists, like the Independents, and for similar
reasons, were unrepresented in the Commission; so indeed, also, if we
except Reynolds, were the moderate Episcopalians, who although not
prepared to go so far as their High Church brethren in the matter of
conformity, were ready to advance in that direction much beyond the
limits marked out by the Presbyterians; but looking at the temper on
the other side, there is no reason to suppose that the presence and
counsels of such men would have altered the results of the discussions.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

[Sidenote: SAVOY CONFERENCE.]

Having described the Savoy Conference, and the contemporary meetings of
Convocation, there remain to be noticed the proceedings of that higher
assembly, with which both the others were coeval.




                             CHAPTER VIII.


The Solemn League and Covenant had been displaced a year, and the
New Parliament now resolved to brand it with fresh indignities.[256]
Accordingly it was, by the common hangman, burnt at Westminster, in
Cheapside, and before the Exchange. The executioner "did his work
perfectly well; for having kindled his fire, he tore the document into
very many pieces, and first burned the preface; and then cast each
parcel solemnly into the fire, lifting up his hands and eyes, not
leaving the least shred, but burnt it root and branch."[257]

Similar spectacles were enacted elsewhere; and at Bury St. Edmunds,
upon the anniversary of the Restoration--amidst floral decorations,
and the adornment of houses with tapestry and pictures, after service
at church, Hugh Peters was gibbeted in effigy, with the Solemn
League grasped in his hand, and the Directory tucked under his arm.
In Southampton, after the firing of culverins, and the marching of
scarlet-robed Aldermen, there followed the burning of the Covenant, "in
a stately frame, taken from the chancel of an Anabaptist Church."[258]

[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]

As a further indication of the temper of the Commons at the
moment, it may be stated, that the Speaker rebuked the Mayor of
Northampton--summoned to the bar of the House for irreverent carriage
in the church, and at the communion table--and that a Bill was read
three times for preventing the mischiefs and dangers, which might arise
from certain persons called Quakers, and others, "refusing to take
lawful oaths."[259]

Ere the House had been sitting two months, Bills were introduced of
such a character as to prove, that, from the beginning of the Session,
measures had been framed for bringing back the Church to the standard
of former days, without making any concessions to Nonconformists. The
Bills now about to be described, did not appear one after another, as
expedients adopted for public safety in consequence of plots, real or
suspected; but they constituted parts of one coherent and comprehensive
method for re-establishing Episcopacy and crushing Dissent. They must
be traced out distinctly.

I. A Bill for restoring the prelates to the Upper House was introduced
to the Commons by "a gentleman of a Presbyterian family," and it
met with little opposition. The ancient constitution of the Upper
House could be successfully pleaded in its favour, but it involved
the principle of a State Establishment of religion; and would, if
discussed by voluntaries on the one hand, and by the advocates of a
nationally-established Church on the other, raise the whole question
as to the Christian legitimacy and the social justice of such an
arrangement. It involved, also, the recognition of Prelacy as the
most expedient, if not the most scriptural form of ecclesiastical
government, and would thus present a momentous subject of controversy
to Presbyterians. But few, if any, decided voluntaries could then be
found in the House of Commons; the number of Presbyterians also was
small, and their influence manifestly on the decline.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Upon the Bill reaching the Lords, some obstruction of a very different
kind from that which, under other circumstances, might have been
expected from the parties just named, arose from the Roman Catholic
Earl of Bristol. He obtained an interview with the King and told him
"that if this Bill should speedily pass, it would absolutely deprive
the Catholics of all those graces and indulgence which he intended
to them; for that the Bishops, when they should sit in the House,
whatever their own opinions or inclinations were, would find themselves
obliged, that they might preserve their reputation with the people, to
contradict and oppose whatsoever should look like favour or connivance
towards the Catholics: and therefore, if His Majesty continued his
former gracious inclination towards the Roman Catholics, he must put
some stop (even for the Bishops' own sakes) to the passing that Bill,
till the other should be more advanced, which he supposed might shortly
be done."[260] Charles listened, and desired the Earl to inform his
friends in the House, that he "would be well pleased, that there
should not be overmuch haste in the presenting that Bill for his Royal
assent." Its progress was accordingly retarded in Committee, until the
Chancellor decided the Monarch, who--veering from point to point, as
influence brought to bear on him by his Courtiers varied, although,
no doubt, he was in his heart more disposed to follow Bristol than
Clarendon--at last consented that the Bill might be despatched. It
passed at the end of the Session; and when the Parliament was adjourned
at the end of July, and the Speaker in his robes, at the summons of
the Black Rod, knelt before the enthroned Sovereign, the measure was
the subject of emphatic reference in a speech filled with quaint
conceits.[261]

[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]

II. Next, in the course of proceedings, bearing upon religion, came
the Bill for the well-governing of Corporations. It was early read,
speedily committed, and largely discussed; and within a month of its
being introduced, it passed the Lower House. The Lords amended it, and,
according to the complaint of the Commons, changed "the whole body
of the Bill." First read on the 19th of June, it did not receive the
Royal assent until the 20th of December.[262] The Act required that all
members of Corporations should, besides taking the Oath of Supremacy,
swear that it is not lawful, under any pretence, to bear arms against
the King, and that the Solemn League and Covenant was illegal. It also
declared every one ineligible for a municipal office, who had not,
within one year, received the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of
the Church of England.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

III. The House, on the 25th of June, appointed a Committee to report,
how far the coercive power of Ecclesiastical Courts had been taken
away, and to prepare a Bill for their restoration. The Bill provided
that, although the High Commission had been abolished, Archbishops,
Bishops, and other persons exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
should have their power restored as before, two provisions being
subjoined--one forbidding the use of the _ex officio_ oath, and another
preserving the Royal Supremacy from abridgment. This Bill involved
the further re-establishment of Episcopalianism. It does not appear
that any debate was raised on that ground. The Bill passed, as if a
matter of course; and together with the Bill, reinstating the Bishops,
received the Royal assent before the end of July.[263] Thus within
a few weeks, three measures were introduced, and two of them were
carried, tending to repress Dissent and consolidate the Episcopalian
Church. The fourth measure, which was central in point of importance,
remains to be considered. Its origin and progress must be patiently
followed.


[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]

IV. Whilst many of the Episcopalian party assumed the existence of a
legal obligation to use the Common Prayer, some Nonconformists adopted
this curious line of argument: "That the Common Prayer Book, 5th and
6th of Edward VI., with some alterations made 1st of Elizabeth, was so
established we know, but what that book was, or where it is, we cannot
tell; it is apparent that the books ordinarily walking up and down
are not so established."[264] It would seem as if this odd kind of
objection secured some respect; for the first step towards a settlement
of the question of worship is found in a resolution, by the House of
Commons, that a Committee of all the members, who were of the Long
Robe,[265] should view the several laws for confirming the Liturgy of
the Church of England, and make search, whether the original Book of
the Liturgy, annexed to the Act passed in the fifth and sixth years
of the reign of King Edward VI., was still extant; they were also "to
bring in a compendious Bill to supply any defect in the former laws,
and to provide for an effectual conformity to the Liturgy of the Church
for the time to come."

It cannot be ascertained how the new measure originated, but we may
be sure that Government would not leave it to be dealt with by any
private person. It formed part of a manifold scheme which must have
had a single origin. The practice of holding Cabinet meetings--long
regarded with jealousy by pedantic Constitutionalists--had commenced in
the reign of Charles I. That businesslike and hard-working Monarch had,
from time to time, drawn around him a few select members of his Privy
Council, whom he assembled in his _Cabinet_, as it was called; and it
appears that sometimes they had been obliged to register his absolute
decrees, rather than by their advice to control his headstrong career.
Charles II., idle and dissolute--in that respect the opposite of his
father--held meetings of the same description, not that he might guide
the helm, but often that he might sit on the quarter-deck, and laugh
and joke with the officers, whilst they managed the ship very much as
they pleased. The proposal of a new Law of Uniformity probably was made
and discussed at one of these private conferences; and it also seems
probable, that the proposal emanated from Lord Clarendon, who was, to
all intents, Prime Minister.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

In connection with the appointment of the Committee, the House
recommended that the preparation of the Bill should be entrusted to the
care of Serjeant Keeling. He had been engaged as Junior Counsel for the
Crown on the trial of the Regicides, in 1660; and for his activity and
zeal on that occasion, had attained to the distinction of the coif.
He was subsequently entrusted with the prosecution of Hacker, Colonel
of the Guard at the execution of Charles I. After the new Bill of
Uniformity had passed, he conducted the prosecution of Sir Henry Vane,
in 1662; and on each of these occasions approved himself to the ruling
party, and especially to Clarendon, as a useful instrument. Created a
puisne Judge in 1663, he subsequently rose to a Chief Justiceship, over
the head of Sir Matthew Hale; and whilst on the bench manifested his
devotedness to the Church, by fining a jury one hundred marks each,
for acquitting a few poor people, who assembled on Sunday with Bibles
without Prayer-books. He was a violent man, and had the character
of being more fit to charge Roundheads under Prince Rupert, than to
charge juries from the bench of justice.[266] When, at length, his
arbitrary proceedings and a contemptuous allusion which he made to
Magna Charta, brought him under the notice of Parliament, he escaped
its condemnation, only by an act of obsequious submission.

The Bill prepared by this lawyer came before the Commons on the 29th
of June, and was read a first time. The second reading followed on the
3rd of July. No account is preserved of the debate. History is as
silent respecting what ensued within the walls of St. Stephen's after
Keeling had expounded his measure, as it is silent relative to any
discussion of the principle and details of the other Bills previously
introduced for the re-institution of the Episcopalian Church. The
Serjeant, perhaps, would deem it unnecessary to enter into a lengthened
argument in favour of imposing some one form of religious worship upon
the nation, since the desirableness of such uniformity was a forgone
conclusion with almost all the members of the House. But would he not
defend his proposal against the objections of Presbyterians? Would not
they have something to advance during the proceedings? The wish to know
what was said on either side seems altogether in vain.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Upon the second reading, the printed Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth,
not that of Edward, in 1552, was attached to the Bill, and a Committee
was named to meet in the Star Chamber. They were directed, if the
original book of Edward before specified, could not be found, to report
upon the printed one of Elizabeth. No reference to the original book
of Edward appears in the subsequent proceedings.[267] On the day when
the Bill was committed, Serjeant Keeling, with Sir John Maynard, and
another member, were ordered to prepare a measure for "calling in all
seditious and schismatical books and pamphlets;" and the names of the
members who had not taken the Lord's Supper were reported. The House
with one hand thus exercised Church discipline, whilst with the other
hand it was making Church law. Upon the 8th of July, Sir Edmond Peirce
reported that several amendments had been agreed to; and upon the 9th,
the "Bill for the Uniformity of Public Prayers and Administration
of Sacraments" was read a third time and passed; and instead of a
Prayer Book, printed in the reign of Elizabeth, another printed in
the reign of King James (1604) "was, at the Clerk's table, annexed
to the said Bill; part of the two prayers inserted therein, before
the Reading Psalms, being first taken out, and the other part thereof
obliterated."[268] This copy of the Prayer Book appears to have been
attached to the Bill chiefly for the sake of form, as the Book had not
yet been examined and revised by Convocation. That important business
was not performed until the close of the year; and in the final stage
of proceedings, before the Act of Uniformity passed, this scarcely
altered volume was superseded by the revised one, which was fastened to
the Bill as passed, and which will be described in the Appendix to this
History.

Thus everything connected with the proceedings showed the utmost
despatch; and upon Wednesday the 10th of July "the Bill for
establishing the Book of Common Prayer was brought up to the Lords by a
very great number of members of the House of Commons, to testify their
great desire for the settlement of the Church of England."[269]

[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT.]

The Bill as it left the Commons differed materially from the Act as it
ultimately passed. Those differences will appear in the sequel.

Although the Bill reached the Upper House on the 10th of July, it
did not come under discussion there for more than five months. This
may be accounted for. Curious as it may seem, the Bill for Uniformity
had passed the Commons before it had been decided what the Uniformity
should be. New prayers were composed by Convocation before it broke up
in July; but the revision of the Prayer Book by Convocation did not
commence until the month of November, four months after the Bill had
been sent up from the Commons. The Bill could not be completely carried
before the revision was settled; and the Convocation did not accomplish
that task until the end of the year. Another cause of delay is seen
in the fact, that the Bishops were not restored to their seats until
the 20th of November; and it was important, if not constitutionally
essential, for them to take part in the decision of a question like
this.

At the time when the new Bill reached the Lords, they were engaged upon
a report concerning the penal laws against Papists. Hoping to share
in any relief which might be extended to the last-named religionists,
certain Anabaptists and "good Christians," as they called themselves,
had presented a petition upon the 5th of July, and were on the 12th
permitted to plead on their own behalf. The Lords finished the report
on the penal laws against Catholics upon the 16th of the month; and
a Committee was then appointed to prepare a Bill to repeal certain
statutes concerning Jesuits, also the clause in the Act of the 35th of
Queen Elizabeth c. i., respecting Nonconformists, together with the
writ _de Hæretico Comburendo_. The reasons of the alterations were to
be set forth, and proper remedies were to be devised for preserving the
Protestant religion from any inconveniences incident upon the repeal
of these ancient enactments. Such proceedings, at first sight, appear
as so much progress towards religious liberty; but there is ground for
believing that the reference to the statute against Nonconformists,
only served to cover some relief designed for the Papists. Whatever
the real intention might be, the whole business soon dropped, and
no further allusion to it is found in the Journals; nor during the
remainder of the year 1661 is any further mention made of the Bill of
Uniformity.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

In those days the transmission of intelligence to the provinces could
not be otherwise than slow, and when it had reached its destination it
often proved inaccurate. The broad-wheeled coach, or the horse laden
with saddle-bags, could only, with measured pace, convey the London
citizen to the house of a country friend. The news which he related
at the supper-table, or which he conveyed in some quaintly-written
epistle, would then be stale indeed, according to the judgment of
such as are familiar with telegrams. The cumbrous stage-waggon, more
heavily laden, would be slower still in its movements, and by the
time it reached the rural inn, the newspapers it carried would be far
advanced in age. Altogether the _Mercuries_ were tardy in their flight,
and the _Public Intelligencers_ were addicted to garbling reports, and
falsifying stories. What had been done in the Session would, therefore,
not be known in distant counties until some time afterwards; and then,
probably, in some instances, reports would be circulated through a town
or a village in erroneous form.

[Sidenote: STATE OF FEELING.]

Tidings of the new Bill, in confused fashion, struggled down to
Worthenbury, seven miles from Wrexham, where lived the eminently pious
Philip Henry. Just before the Bill passed its last stage in the Lower
House, he received news from London of speedy severity intended
against Nonconformists. In daily doubt of what was to happen, he, on
the 7th of July recorded, that "In despite of enemies the Lord hath
granted the liberty of one Sabbath more." Next day he received a letter
from Dr. Bridgeman (the restored Rector), informing him that if he
did not speedily conform, he, Dr. Bridgeman, could no longer protect
him. Henry wrote a "dilatory answer," to the Episcopalian clergyman,
hoping that time might bring some deliverance. The old Incumbent acted
kindly, and showed no sympathy with the ruling powers. On the 24th,
news of the progress of the Bill reached the Flintshire rectory, and
shaped itself into a report, that the Bill had passed both Houses,
and now only waited His Majesty's assent. "Lord, his heart is in Thy
hand," ejaculated the devout Puritan; "if it be Thy will, turn it;
if otherwise, fit Thy people to suffer, and cut short the work in
righteousness."[270]

Means were not wanting for the annoyance of Nonconformist ministers
by those who wished to restore the surplice and the Liturgy; and
on Sunday, the 25th of August, 1661, just a year before the legal
enforcement of Uniformity, Oliver Heywood had the Prayer Book publicly
presented to him in his Church, with a demand that he would use it in
the devotions of the day. It was laid on the pulpit cushion. He quietly
took it down, and placed it on the reading-desk, and then went on with
the service in the accustomed Presbyterian fashion, being "wonderfully
assisted," as he remarks, "that day, in praying and preaching."

[Sidenote: 1661.]

It is difficult, even amidst the strongest excitement of the nineteenth
century, to conceive of the bitter feelings which existed in the middle
of the seventeenth. Our abuse is courtesy, compared with the abuse
which prevailed then. Fierce diatribes were uttered from parish pulpits
by restored Incumbents against Roundheads, Anabaptists, and Quakers.
They were denounced as rebels who had narrowly escaped the gallows.
"Many of you," said Dr. Reeve, in the Abbey Church of Waltham, "have
gotten a pardon for all your exorbitances, but death will seal no
act of indemnity. Ye have escaped the halter of many of your fellow
miscreants, but death hath set up her gibbet for you."[271] The
press also was plied for reducing intractable parishes into a state
of submission. Swarms of pamphlets and broadsides were issued--some
reprints, some originals--with a view to support the Church by
argument, or by satire, or by ridicule.[272] Marvellous stories also
were manufactured about the devil having appeared to fanatics, who,
late at night, were on their way to Conventicles; and sharp, severe,
and unjust things were also said on the other side.[273]




                              CHAPTER IX.


Parliament, which had been adjourned in July, reassembled in November.
Charles, on the 20th of that month, attired in crimson velvet, the
crown on his head, the sceptre in his hand, sat upon the throne of his
fathers, attended by a good number of Earls and Barons, occupying their
benches. It was a proud day for the Church of England; for then, the
first time after a lapse of twenty years, the Spiritual Fathers, in
their scarlet robes, as Peers of the realm, filled their ancient seats;
and His Majesty, it seems, came to the House partly in honour of their
re-instatement. "My Lords and Gentlemen of the House of Commons," he
remarked; "I know the visit I make you this day is not necessary--is
not of course--yet, if there were no more in it, it would not be
strange that I come to see what you and I have so long desired to see,
the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons of England met
together."

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The greater part of the speech from the Throne related to the crying
debts which every day he heard; but before the King ended he said:
"Those [things] which concern matters of religion, I confess to you,
are too hard for me, and therefore I do commend them to your care and
deliberation which can best provide for them."[274] He was no polemic
like his grandfather; but he had himself, in the autumn of 1660,
undertaken to manage the Church question; a year's experience, however,
had taught him a little wisdom, and no wonder that the subject which
had been more than Charles V. could manage in Germany, had proved much
too hard for Charles II. in England.

The Lord Chancellor delivered a message to the House of Peers on the
19th of December, to the effect that, besides the apprehensions and
fears then generally prevalent, His Majesty had received alarming
letters from several parts of the kingdom; and also that from
intercepted letters, it appeared there were many discontented persons
troubling the nation's peace; in consequence of which he sought the
assistance of Parliament.[275] The contents of some of these letters
we know. The object of informers, and of the people who rifled the
post, was to make it appear that Nonconformists were disaffected,
that Dissent was treason; and that measures ought to be adopted for
the utter extinction of the growing evil. Yet the accusers, in many
cases, were forced to acknowledge, that the accused were quiet when let
alone. The letters prove that the nation felt dissatisfied,[276] that
multitudes murmured against the Government, that Republican officers
were unsettled, and that some were watching for a good opportunity to
take up arms. A few fanatics entertained rebellious designs; but that
Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, or Quakers, either generally
or in large numbers, were covering political plots under a veil of
religious worship--the point sought to be established--is an unfounded
surmise, indeed a pure invention.

[Sidenote: PRETENDED PLOTS.]

An example of the method employed to criminate innocent persons may be
adduced, and it will furnish an illustration of some of the evidence to
which Clarendon alluded.

William Kiffin was a rich London merchant, and a famous Baptist
preacher. Whilst held in honour by his fellow-citizens for commercial
integrity, and by his fellow-religionists for fervent zeal, he was the
object of relentless persecution to the party now in the ascendant,
and his steps were tracked by informers with lynx-eyed vigilance, and
wolfish ferocity. When other methods had failed to bring him within the
reach of the law, one of the most abominable schemes which cunning and
malignity ever contrived, was adopted with a view to compass his ruin.

A letter was posted at Taunton bearing the signature of Colonel Basset
of that town, and directed to one Nathaniel Crabb, Silk-thrower, in
London, "residing at his house in Gravel Lane." The letter is preserved
in the State Paper Office. It is written in a spirit of fanaticism,
expressing a desire for the destruction of the sons and daughters of
Belial, and declaring that there were thousands of "dear saints" who
were ready to "lay down their lives to do the work of God." "We do
desire you," it is said, "to be careful to get into your hands powder
and arms; as many as you can between this and Easter, and we will do
what we can to perfect the work." The name of Kiffin is introduced,
together with the names of Jesse and Griffin, as conspirators in
the design. At first sight the letter appears genuine. Nothing is
indicated to the contrary in the _Calendar of State Papers_. When I
read it at first, it startled me; yet this letter is a fabrication.
An autobiography, written by Kiffin, is at hand to expose the fraud.
He was summoned before the Council. The letter was read to him. He
replied that he knew nothing of the matters to which it referred; and
afterwards, before the Chief Justice, by whom he was examined, he
proceeded to show, from certain anachronisms in the document, that
it must be a forgery. His Lordship expressed his satisfaction with
Kiffin's defence, assuring him that the author of the letter, if
discovered, should be punished.[277]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

A Committee of Lords and Commons having been appointed to report
respecting plots, Mr. Waller, on the re-assembling of Parliament, after
the Christmas recess, stated that not less than 160 of the old Army
officers were suspected of being implicated in treasonable schemes.
Some of the regicides, he alleged, were being entertained in France,
Holland, and Germany; arms were being bought by them to accomplish
these designs; many pretended Quakers were riding about at night to the
terror of peaceable subjects, and seditious preachers were plying their
mischievous trade.[278] This report, in some parts obviously absurd,
was followed by no confirmatory evidence, although further information
was promised.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

The day after the re-assembling of Parliament, in the month of
November, the Houses of Convocation resumed their deliberations. To
facilitate the despatch of business in reference to the Prayer Book,
the Convocation of the province of York agreed to unite with the
Convocation of the province of Canterbury, by means of proxies, binding
themselves to submit to the decisions thus obtained.[279] So earnest
was the Northern Archbishop, that he wrote to the Prolocutor of his
Lower House to send up proxies by the next post, and told the Registrar
of his diocese, "if we have not all from you by the end of next week
we are lost."[280] Several clergymen came from the North to town, to
act on behalf of their brethren. The two provinces thus co-operating,
the business of revising the Prayer Book rapidly proceeded. Upon the
10th of October, the King had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
directing His Grace, with the other Bishops and clergy, to discharge
that duty;[281] and, probably, before Convocation met in November,
the Bishops had begun to prepare for the task, although there were
differences of opinion amongst them; for, whilst some pressed for
alterations such as might "silence scruples and satisfy claims," others
were for adopting the Prayer Book as it stood.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Before describing the alterations which were now made, it is proper
to give, at least, a slight sketch of the history of the volume. The
Middle Ages had no Act of Uniformity. There were several rituals,
called _Uses_, of York, Hereford, Exeter, Lincoln, and other dioceses.
These Uses, which did not materially differ from each other, gave place
after the eleventh century, especially in the South of England, to that
of Sarum; Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury, having about the year 1085,
bestowed great pains upon the revision of the ecclesiastical offices in
his Church. The Missal and Breviary contained in Osmund's revision of
the English mediæval formularies, constitute the basis and, indeed, the
substance of the Book of Common Prayer.[282] The first reformed Liturgy
for the use of the Protestant Church in England was set forth under
Edward VI., in the year 1549. A second, which showed a further advance
on the side of the Reformation, appeared in 1552. A primer, or book of
private prayer, containing the catechism, with collects and other forms
of secret devotions, was published in 1553. Elizabeth's Book of Common
Prayer belongs to the year 1559; and afterwards, at different times,
came particular forms of devotion, prepared for particular seasons
and circumstances. The Prayer Book of 1559 underwent some alterations
at the commencement of the reign of James I., after the Hampton
Court Conference, but they were very slight, and were simply called
_Explanations_. The Book prepared in the reign of Elizabeth, thus
altered, was that which the Convocation of 1661-2 had to revise.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

Perhaps I shall best succeed in giving with brevity some idea of
the origin of the Common Prayer, and other offices of the Church of
England, if I take the Morning Service, the Communion, and the Order
for performing Baptism, as they were found in the Book used before
the revision under Charles II., and point out, in a general way, the
sources from which those forms were derived.

Morning prayer is in the main drawn from the Matins, Lauds,
and Prime of the Sarum Breviary. That which may be called the
introduction--extending from the opening sentence to the end of the
Absolution--was a new feature in the Prayer Book of 1552. The materials
of it may be found in mediæval Lent services, the old Office for the
Visitation of the Sick, and certain portions of a homily by Pope
Leo. Some have supposed that some hints for this introduction were
gathered from the reformed Strasburg Liturgy, published by Pollanus
(or Pullain).[283] The idea embodied was that of substituting public
confession, awakened by the reading of Holy Scripture, for private
confession made to a priest; and, on the same principle, the using of
a public form of absolution for a secret one. The object was to make
that congregational and common which had previously been individual or
monastic.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The second portion or main substance of the Morning Service, from
the Lord's Prayer to the three collects, is derived obviously from
different sources. The Versicles are taken from the Sarum Use, and
other old offices. The version of the Psalter is that of Cranmer's
Bible, 1539. The Lessons were substituted for the numerous, but brief
Scripture sections of the Breviary, the Apocrypha being occasionally
used. The Te Deum is an old canticle of Gallic origin;[284] the
Benedicite is the Song of the Three Children, a Greek addition to
the third chapter of Daniel; the Apostles' Creed is taken from the
Anglo-Saxon office of Prime; and, as to the other creeds, we may
add, that the Nicene was sung at Mass, after the Gallican Use; the
Athanasian was sung in the Matin offices.[285]

The Litany may be regarded as a distinct service. It is a very old form
of devotion, differing somewhat in different countries. The Invocation
of Saints was removed by the Reformers; and in the compilation of its
numerous sentences, along with the Sarum ritual, the _Consultation_ of
Hermann, the reforming Archbishop of Cologne (1543), was extensively
employed.[286] The collects and short prayers come from various
sources; many of them from the _Sacramentary_ of Gregory, and some
from that of Gelasius; others were drawn from ancient models, but much
altered; several were new. The few Occasional Prayers in the books
of 1552 and 1559 were, like those added in the revision of 1661-2, new
compositions arising out of existing circumstances.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

The Communion Service, or Liturgy proper, was derived from the Missal,
expurgated of course. The second Prayer Book of Edward, in that
respect, was a decided improvement on the first. It omits even an
implied _oblation of the consecrated elements_, and simply expresses
the _oblation of the worshippers_--the difference of oblation being
one grand difference between the Romish and Protestant Eucharist. The
second Book also omits the commemoration of "the most blessed Virgin
Mary," with the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, contained
in the first. Other alterations were made of a decidedly Protestant
character in the time of Edward. The Prayer Book of 1559 indicates
certain retrograde changes. The omission of the thoroughly Protestant
declaration respecting the Lord's Supper in the Book of 1552, is
very significant. It may be added, however, that Bishops Grindal and
Horn, when writing to Bullinger and Gaulter, assured them that the
declaration "continued to be most diligently declared, published and
impressed upon the people."[287]

The Baptismal Service was founded upon formularies, priestly and
pontificial, in the Sarum offices. Certain idle ceremonies were
omitted, but the order of making catechumens, the blessing of the
font, and the form of baptizing, as constituted in the mediæval Church,
were adopted by the Reformers. There are also in the service plain
traces of the influence of Bucer and Melancthon, through Hermann's
_Consultation_. The first prayer was originally composed by Luther.
The thanksgiving after the rite is a much stronger expression of the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration, than the ancient Gallic form of
words from which it seems to be derived.[288]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

These imperfect notices show how carefully the Reformers retained what
they considered most precious in the ancient records of Christian
devotion; how reverently they looked on words which had been vehicles
for ages, of the service of song and the offering of prayer. This
conservative element--connected with a prudential policy lest offence
should be given to semi-Protestants, when it could by any means be
avoided--appears to many an admirer of the Liturgy in the present day
to have been a snare, betraying the compilers into the retention of
some things which marred the beauty of their work, and really caused it
to narrow "the Communion of Saints" in the kingdom of England. Others
think far otherwise. For my own part I would say that as the sources
whence the Book was compiled are so numerous and so ancient, belonging
to Christendom in the remotest times--as there is in it so little that
is really original, so little that belongs to the Reformed Episcopal
Church in England, any more than to other Churches constrained by
conscience to separate from Rome--the bulk of what the Book contains,
including all that is most beautiful and noble, like hymns which,
by whomsoever written, are sung in Churches of every name, ought to
be regarded as the rightful inheritance of any who believe in the
essential unity of Christ's Catholic Church, and can sympathize in the
devotions of a Chrysostom, a Hilary, and an Ambrose.

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

Such was the Book which Convocation had now to examine and revise,
in connection with necessities which had been felt ever since the
Reformation, and which had greatly increased during the seventeenth
century.

The Upper House appointed on the 21st of November, a Committee
consisting of the Bishops of Durham, Ely, Oxford, Rochester, Sarum,
Worcester, Lincoln, and Gloucester, most of whom had been Commissioners
at the Savoy, to meet in the palace of the Bishop of Ely in Hatton
Garden, at five o'clock in the afternoon of every day, except Sunday,
until their work was finished. But when they had taken their walk
as the evening drew in, they really found little to do. Their work
had been anticipated; materials were ready to hand, The Prayer Book
had been carefully studied and revised for a long time, by eminent
Anglicans. MS. notes existed of great value, made or collected by
Bishop Overall, Bishop Andrewes, and Bishop Cosin.[289] Those by the
last, as we shall see, were largely used.

That the Bishops when they met had much of what they needed provided
for them may be concluded from the fact that, on the 23rd of November,
only the second day after the appointment of the Committee, a portion
of the corrected copy was delivered to the Prolocutor of the Lower
House.[290] Previous labours had almost superseded a discharge of the
duties laid upon the newly-appointed Committee.[291] From day to day
progress was made, until, within a month, the work was completed.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Forms of prayer which had been adopted by Convocation in the summer,
were now inserted in the volume. So also were the General Thanksgiving,
drawn up by Dr. Reynolds, and the Prayer for all sorts and conditions
of men, composed by Dr. Gunning.[292] New collects were introduced,
with occasional prayers in the visitation of the sick.[293] About
600 alterations were made in the body of the volume. Some of these
were in accordance with suggestions made by the Puritans at the Savoy
Conference, but they did not amount to important concessions. Others
of them were adapted to render the Prayer Book more distasteful to
that party than before. The word _Priest_ was substituted for the
word _Minister_ in the Absolution; instead of _Bishops, Pastors, and
Ministers_, were introduced _Bishops, Priests, and Deacons_; and
the words _rebellion and schism_ were added to the petition against
_sedition_; but many of the alterations are unconnected with any
theological or ecclesiastical controversy. There is a volume amongst
the Tennison MSS., Lambeth, which contains _The Differences of the Old
Common Prayer Book and the New_, being a copy of the edition, printed
in 1663, with the variations written upon the margins and upon the
paper interleaved; at the beginning, are the words, "This is the
publique Liturgy revised and rectified. A^o 1662." The notes which had
been collected or composed by Cosin seem to have been largely used
throughout the revision.[294]

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

The Bishops came to an unanimous vote in favour of a form of prayer
before and after sermon; thus cutting off all liberty to introduce
extempore devotion, and extinguishing one of the last hopes of
the Puritan party: but this design was afterwards dropped "upon
prudential reasons."[295] Pell,[296] assisted by Sancroft, revised
the Calendar, and with the Calendar was connected the arrangement of
daily lessons. Should the Apocrypha be read as before in the Church
Service? The Puritans deemed it a profanation to read uninspired and,
in some respects, superstitious books, as if they formed part of Holy
Scripture. A severe battle seems to have been fought on this vital
question. One can imagine how feelings would be excited to the highest
pitch, how the question would be canvassed in different circles, how
people would watch for tidings of the debate, how the History of
Susanna and the Elders would be like a standard wrestled for in the tug
of war; and very probable is Andrew Marvell's story of a jolly doctor,
coming out with a face full of joy, shouting "We have carried it for
Bel and the Dragon!"[297]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

We learn that during the later Sessions of the Convocation, Herbert
Thorndike "constantly attended and had a hand more than ordinary in
the business"--a piece of information which rests upon the authority
of Sancroft. Both Sancroft and his friend were in favour of such
alterations as have been sometimes called _Laudian_, and they were
anxious (especially the latter of these Divines) to proceed further
in that direction. Thorndike, there is reason to believe, regarded as
imperfections the omission of all intercession for departed souls, and
of the prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the elements
used at the communion.[298] Perhaps some others sympathized with these
eminent persons in this respect, but they found their tendencies
checked by the decided Protestantism of the larger portion of the
clergy, and by a regard to expediency in some who had no decided
convictions on the subject.

Upon the 19th of December--a day on which complaints were made to the
House of Lords to the effect that many disaffected persons, both on
political and ecclesiastical grounds, existed in the realm--the Upper
House committed the preparing of a form of subscription to Cosin and
Henchman, Bishops of Durham and Salisbury, who, in the discharge of
this duty, were to receive assistance from Drs. Chaworth and Burrett.
This small Committee met the same afternoon, when they came to an
agreement respecting the mode of expressing approval of the revised
formularies of the Church of England.[299]

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

Convocation has been charged with indecent haste in the management
of this whole business. I do not wonder at such a charge, since a
similar accusation had been brought against the Presbyterians at the
Savoy, especially in reference to Baxter's Prayer Book: and so far as
the _adoption_ of alterations, proposed to the Houses by individuals
or committees, is concerned, there is ground for the complaint. Six
hundred alterations could never have been properly considered by two
large bodies of men in the short time actually devoted to them; and
looking at the matter as one so much affecting their own consciences,
and the consciences of all clergymen in future time, we must regard so
hasty a decision on the part of Convocation as unjustifiable. But, as
it regards _preparing_ the alterations, I see no ground on which to
charge with want of care the persons who performed that duty.[300]

There does not appear to have been any discussion in Convocation
touching the Thirty-nine Articles. No alterations in them were
proposed by the Anglican party, although the Articles have always
been considered as presenting the more thoroughly Protestant or
_Evangelical_ side of the Church formularies.

The two Houses of Convocation adopted and subscribed the Book of Common
Prayer on the 20th of December. As the Act of Uniformity had not then
been passed, as this subscription was intended to prepare for it, and
as no Act of Parliament existed at the time requiring subscription,
it may be instructive and useful to notice the grounds on which this
subscription took place.

[Sidenote: 1661.]

This fact is curious that, although the practice of subscribing to a
creed began so early as the Council of Nicæa, neither the clergy of
the Roman Catholic Church, nor the clergy of the Greek Church have
ever been required, or are now required, by any of their laws, so
to express their belief as to doctrine and their resolution as to
practice. The enforcement of subscription upon Protestant ministers
commenced soon after the Reformation; and, in some cases, the extent
of belief which it was intended to cover seems wide indeed; for in
the Duchy of Brunswick, Duke Julius required from clergymen, from
professors, and from magistrates, "a subscription to all and everything
contained in the Confession of Augsburg, in the apology for the
Confession, in the Smalcaldic Articles, in all the works of Luther,
and in all the works of Chemnitz."[301] The Articles of the Church
of England were not subscribed generally until the twelfth year of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when subscription was ordered for the
special purpose of checking the admission of Papists into the English
Church, and also the admission of those who had taken orders in the
foreign Reformed Churches. The assent required was confined to those
Articles "which only concern the Confession of the true Christian
faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments."[302] The Earl of Leicester
introduced to the University of Oxford, in 1581, subscription to the
Articles, without any precise form of words to be required from all
undergraduates upon matriculation, and from all who took degrees. The
extending of the act of subscription to the entire Liturgy was a step
not taken until 1603, when, by the canons of Convocation of that year,
this form of assent came to be required of all the clergy. Hence it
appears to have been in compliance with a canon law enacted by their
predecessors, and not in compliance with any statute law, that the
members of Convocation, in the year 1661, signed the declaration of
assent and consent to the contents of the Prayer Book.[303]

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

After the Revision had been completed, a copy of the Bill then pending
in Parliament was read and examined in the Upper House of Convocation
upon the 29th of January. Upon the 18th of February, Dr. Barwick was
chosen Prolocutor in the room of Dr. Ferne, promoted to the see of
Chester. The Bishops deputed their brethren of St. Asaph, Carlisle,
and Chester, on the 5th of March, with the concurrence of the Lower
House, to revise alterations in the Book during its progress through
Parliament--a resolution which seems to have had a prospective
reference to alterations anticipated as possible, but which do not
appear to have been ever attempted; for it is known, as will be
hereafter seen, that none were made by the Commons, and it may be
inferred that none were made by the Lords.[304] Upon the 8th of March
Convocation directed Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury,
to superintend the printing of the Book; and Mr. Scattergood and Mr.
Dillingham to correct the proofs. Upon the 22nd of the same month the
subject of a special form for the consecration of churches came under
discussion.[305]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

Convocation accomplished no alterations in the canons, though it took
up the subject repeatedly; nor did it determine anything with regard
to Church discipline. The whole of this question had remained in an
unsettled state ever since the Reformation. In the reign of Henry
VIII. (1534), a Commission had been appointed by statute to revise
the ecclesiastical laws; and enactments respecting them nearly up to
the time of the death of that monarch were repealed. In the reign
of Edward VI. (1551), a renewed Commission for the same purpose was
statutably instituted; and the labours of the Commissioners issued in
the well-known book, entitled _Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum_, a
code strongly imbued with the intolerance of the age.[306] But it never
received the Royal sanction; it never became legally binding. Another
abortive attempt was made in Convocation (1603), when James I. occupied
the throne; and canons were passed declaring the doctrine of passive
obedience, and denouncing a series of opposite opinions.[307] Happily
for the credit of the Church and the peace of the realm, this, like the
previous scheme of ecclesiastical law, failed to obtain constitutional
sanction. The last endeavour at making canons (1640) hastened
the crisis of the Civil Wars. There was little then to encourage
Convocation to proceed with the business of Church discipline, and,
therefore, notwithstanding the earnestness of Thorndike in promoting
it, the subject was allowed to drop.[308]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

The month of December, which saw the revisionary labours of Convocation
completed, also witnessed within the walls of Westminster Abbey two
remarkable solemnities connected with the revival of Episcopacy. Upon
the 12th of December, Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrew's, Fairfull,
Archbishop of Glasgow, Leighton, Bishop of Dunblaine, and Hamilton,
Bishop of Galloway, were consecrated by the Bishops of London and
Worcester;[309] and upon the 20th, the day when the Prayer Book was
being subscribed by the members of the two Houses of Convocation, the
Bishop of Hereford, brother to the Duke of Albemarle, was buried,--a
silver mitre, with his Episcopal robes, being borne by the Herald
before the hearse, which was followed by the Duke, by several noblemen,
and by all the Bishops.[310]

[Sidenote: 1661.]

The Bishops, this year, had other business besides that of Convocation
to occupy time, and to create anxiety. Prior to the passing of the
Act of Uniformity, their dioceses could not but be in a state of
confusion. Many clergymen who were disaffected to the restored system
and its Episcopal administrators, retained incumbencies, and gave
considerable trouble to the ecclesiastical superiors. It was as if,
after the suppression of a long-continued and successful mutiny, and
the re-instatement of old officers in command, a number of soldiers in
the ranks, or of sailors on board ship, should still remain opposed
to the colonel or the captain.[311]




                              CHAPTER X.


As there had been only an adjournment, and not a prorogation in the
summer of 1661, the Bill of Uniformity, carried by the Commons before
that period, remained eligible for consideration from the Lords in the
following January. They read the Bill a first time, on the 14th, the
Spiritual Peers before that date having taken their seats, and the
revision of the Prayer Book by Convocation having also been completed.
The Bill was read a second time, and referred upon the 17th of January
to a Select Committee. Upon the 13th of February, this Committee
requested to know whether they should proceed with the old Prayer
Book sent up to them by the Commons, or wait for the copy revised by
Convocation. That copy had been handed to the King for examination--a
thing not suited to his taste--but whether teased to the performance
of a task, or taking the whole matter on trust, it is certain, that
before the end of the month of February, he formally sanctioned the
alterations.[312]

The volume having been, by the two Archbishops presented to the Lords,
the Earl of Northumberland proposed that the old Prayer Book should be
adopted, in connection with Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity--a
proposition which, however feasible at an earlier period, came now too
late.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The slow progress made by the Lords had dissatisfied the Lower House,
and complaints from that quarter had reached the Royal ears; hence,
when the King gave audience to the Commons at Whitehall, on the 3rd
of March, respecting his revenues, he, having before that time sent
the revised Prayer Book to the Peers, could boldly speak as follows:
"I hear you are very zealous for the Church, and very solicitous,
and even jealous, that there is not expedition enough used in that
affair; I thank you for it, since, I presume, it proceeds from a good
root of piety and devotion; but I must tell you I have the worst luck
in the world, if, after all the reproaches of being a Papist, whilst
I was abroad, I am suspected of being a Presbyterian now I am come
home."[313] This strange kind of talk was followed by a declaration
of zeal for the interests of the Church of England. The Duke of
Buckingham, the Earl of Pembroke, Lord Wharton, and other Peers, were
added to the Committee of the Upper House for considering the contents
of the Bill.[314]

The secrets of that Committee have not been disclosed. It is remarkable
that it included a decided Nonconformist in Lord Wharton, one still
favourable to Nonconformity in the Earl of Manchester, and two Bishops
who had been Presbyterians--Gauden, the Bishop of Exeter,[315] and
Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich,--to say nothing of the Duke of Albemarle,
who had been identified both with Independents and with Presbyterians.
These persons formed but a small minority in a Committee which
consisted altogether of above thirty members; and they formed but a
feeble minority compared with such powerful men as Sheldon, Bishop of
London, Cosin, Bishop of Durham, Morley, then Bishop of Worcester, and
Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln. Was the opposition of the small minority
violently overborne? or did the small minority tamely submit? Wharton
was the only man likely to make much resistance.

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

The Earl of Bridgwater reported on the 13th of March, "divers
amendments and alterations," stating that they related to the Book
recommended by the King, and not to the Book brought up from the House
of Commons. The alterations in the Book were read before reading the
amendments to the Bill.

Two days after the report had been delivered, the business was
completed; the Peers had caught the spirit of Convocation, and, by
their haste now, had made up for lost time. Clarendon took occasion to
thank the Bishops for their revision of the Book in Convocation, and
requested them to thank their clerical brethren of the Lower House.
The preamble to the Bill received approval upon the 17th of March,
when the Minister just mentioned communicated a message from His
Majesty, and read a proviso which he wished to be inserted. The House,
evidently startled at the wish, requested him to read the proviso a
second time. This being done, the matter stood over for consideration
until the following day. The Journals are silent as to the nature of
this proviso; but a despatch by De Wiquefort, the Dutch Minister,
explains the matter. Amongst the gossip which he details to his
Court--how in a chest belonging to Henry Marten, was found a memoir
by the French Ambassador, full of the praises of the Commonwealth;
how the Irish Catholics were getting into trouble because they had
been negotiating with Rome to the King's prejudice; how they were
forbidden to present any request; how their agent was not allowed to
appear at Court; and how the Chancellor had a strong party formed
against him;--the writer communicates an important fact, which solves
the enigma left by the Journals. The Chancellor, says De Wiquefort,
informed the Lords that the King wanted a power to be inserted in the
Act of Uniformity, enabling him to relieve clergymen from an obligation
to wear the surplice and to make the sign of the cross.[316] From this
information it appears that Charles, even at this early period, aimed
at a dispensing power, a power which, before the close of the year,
he eagerly endeavoured to grasp. The Lords, however, were jealous of
the interference of the Crown in sending such a message as had been
delivered by Clarendon; and they questioned whether a resolution ought
not to be entered on the Journals in reference to it, fearing lest
their privileges might be endangered by their going so far as even
to take such a subject into consideration. The 19th of March found
the Bill recommitted, including the Royal proviso and the several
amendments.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The amendments consisted of certain additions to the preamble--of the
connection with the Prayer Book of the Psalms of David, as they were to
be said or sung in churches; of the form of ordaining and consecrating
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;--of the substitution of the feast of
St. Bartholomew for Michaelmas, as the time when the Act should come
in force;--of the insertion of a new form, according to that adopted
by Convocation, declaring "unfeigned assent and consent" not only as
originally prepared to the use of the Book, but to all and everything
it contained and prescribed; and of an additional form, repudiating the
Solemn League and Covenant. Both these forms required subscription. A
further amendment rendered it necessary, that every minister of the
Church of England should be episcopally ordained, and that licenses
from Bishops should be secured by all who undertook the office of
Lecturers.[317]

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

Some of the amendments occasioned little or no debate, a circumstance
which surprises us when we consider the Puritan tendencies of certain
Lords. The points which chiefly occupied attention were--first, the
requirement of Episcopal ordination as a _sine quâ non_; and, secondly,
the imposition of the form which repudiated the Covenant. The debates
on these questions, so far as they can be recovered, will now be given.

I. It was argued by some who retained Puritan sympathies, that the
first of these requirements was not in accordance with what had "been
the opinion of the Church of England,--and that it would lay a great
reproach upon all other Protestant Churches, who had no Bishops; as if
they had no ministers, and, consequently, were no Churches:--for, that
it was well known, the Church of England did not allow reordination,
as the ancient Church never admitted it; insomuch, as if any priest of
the Church of Rome renounces the communion thereof, his ordination is
not questioned, but he is as capable of any preferment in this Church,
as if he had been ordained in it. And, therefore, the not admitting
the ministers of other Protestant Churches, to have the same privilege,
can proceed from no other ground than that they looked not upon them
as ministers, having no ordination; which is a judgment the Church of
England had not ever owned, and that it would be very imprudent to do
it now."

[Sidenote: 1662.]

This argument called forth replies from other members--most likely
from some of the Bishops--to the following effect:--"That the Church
of England judged none but her own children, nor did not determine
that other Protestant Churches were without ordination. It is a thing
without their cognizance; and most of the learned men of those Churches
had made necessity the chief pillar to support that ordination of
theirs. That necessity cannot be pleaded here, where ordination is
given according to the unquestionable practice of the Church of Christ;
if they who pretend foreign ordination are His Majesty's subjects,
they have no excuse of necessity, for they might in all times have
received Episcopal ordination; and so they did upon the matter renounce
their own Church; if they are strangers, and pretend to preferment in
this Church, they ought to conform, and to be subject to the laws of
the kingdom, which concern only those who desire to live under the
protection [thereof.] For the argument of reordination, there is no
such thing required. Rebaptization is not allowed in or by any Church;
yet in all Churches where it is doubted, as it may be often with very
good reason, whether the person hath been baptized or no, or if it
hath been baptized by a midwife or lay person; without determining
the validity or invalidity of such baptism, there is an hypothetical
form--'If thou hast not been already baptized, I do baptize,' &c.
So, in this case of ordination, the form may be the same--'If thou
hast not been already ordained, then I do ordain,' &c. If his former
ordination were good, this is void; if the other was invalid or
defective, he hath reason to be glad that it be thus supplied."[318]
Such a mode of silencing the scruples of ministers on whom the
ceremonies of reordination was imposed, came extensively into fashion
after the passing of the Act.

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

II. When the House resumed their discussions,[319] the point in
consideration was "the clause of ministers declaring against the
Covenant."[320] A form of abjuring both the doctrine of resistance, and
the obligations of the Covenant, had been required by the Corporation
Act. Upon comparing the words in that Act with the words in the Bill
of Uniformity, it will be found that the latter are the same as the
former, with the addition of two short clauses,--first, "that I will
conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law
established;" and, secondly, that the Covenant entailed no obligation
"to endeavour any change or alteration of government in Church or
State." As this form of renouncing the Covenant was only of temporary
use, and was to be abolished in twenty years, it ceased afterwards to
receive much attention; but, at first, it constituted a chief point of
interest both to the upholders and opponents of the Bill, even beyond
the importance attached to the form of subscription and declaration
respecting the Prayer Book. Many of the Peers, who had taken the
Covenant, were not so much concerned that the clergy should be obliged
to make this declaration, as that, when such a clause should be passed
and sanctioned, it might be inserted in other Acts relating to the
functions of other offices, so that, in a short time, what was now only
required of the clergy might be required of themselves.[321]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The Puritan Peers warmly opposed the clause as unnecessary, and as
widening the breach instead of closing up the wounds which had been
made. Many men would believe or fear that this clause might prove a
breach of the Act of Indemnity, which had not only provided against
indictments and suits at law and penalties, but against reproaches
for what was past. As for conformity to the Liturgy, it was provided
for fully in the former subscription prescribed by the Bill. The
Covenant contained many good things, as defending the King's person,
and maintaining the Protestant religion: and to say that it entailed
no obligation would neither be for the service of the King, or the
interest of the Church; especially since it was well known, it had
wrought upon the conscience of many in the late revolution. At any
rate, it was now dead; all were absolved from taking it. If it had at
any time produced any good, that was an excuse for its irregularity:
it could do no mischief for the future; and therefore it was time to
bury it in oblivion.[322]

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

The Court party, Clarendon says, made themselves very merry with the
allegation, that the King's safety and the interest of the Church were
provided for by the Covenant, since it had been entered into, in order
to fight the King and destroy the Church. It contradicted itself; and,
if it were not so, the obligation to loyalty was better provided for
by some other oaths. The Bill was no breach of the Act of Indemnity,
the new Declaration was absolutely necessary, for the safety of the
King's person, and the peace of the kingdom; the Covenant was still
the idol to which the Presbyterians sacrificed: and there must always
be a jealousy of those who had taken it, until they had declared
that it did not bind them. The clergy, of all men, ought to be glad
of the opportunity which was offered, to vindicate their loyalty and
obedience.[323]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The Bill being now in its last stage, the Lords appointed certain of
their number to draw up a clause empowering the King to make such
provision for any of the deprived clergy as he should see fit.[324] As
this clause--like the proviso respecting the cross in baptism--opened
the door for Royal interference--so, probably, like that, it originated
in a Royal suggestion. At all events, these two amendments in contrast
with others which increased the severity of the Bill, indicated the
existence of kindliness towards tender consciences, and impoverished
clergymen,--a disposition which Charles entertained, and in which
certain Lords, including some not puritanically inclined, concurred
with him.

When the Bill had reached a third reading, the amendments were referred
to the Commons for their consideration. The Commons vigorously set
themselves to work; the Committee sitting until eight at night--a late
hour in those days--and meeting early the next morning.[325]

No debate arose upon the alterations made in the Prayer Book by the
Houses of Convocation. The House of Commons, indeed, appointed a
Committee to compare the Book of Common Prayer sent down from the Lords
with the Book sent up by themselves; but the alterations were adopted
at once; or, rather, the Book as a whole was adopted. It is remarkable,
however, to find how then, as almost always, the members showed
themselves jealous of their privileges; for, upon a question being put,
whether the contents of the revised Book should come under debate, and
the question being negatived,[326] lest it should be thought that the
State in this matter submitted to the Church, and allowed the right of
Convocation to control Parliamentary proceedings, another question,
_i.e._, "that the amendments made by the Convocation, and sent down by
the Lords to this House, _might_ by the order of this House, have been
debated," received an affirmative answer, without a single dissentient
voice.

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

Whilst jealous of any interference with their own privileges, the
Commons had no regard for the interests or feelings of the Puritan
clergy; since they accepted the harsh amendments of the Peers, and
added others of their own, so as to render the Bill more intolerable
than it had been before. This circumstance has commonly been
overlooked, and therefore requires particular attention.

The Lords had introduced a reference to "the tenderness of some men's
consciences;" the Commons struck out the words.[327]

When the Lords' substitution of "Bartholomew" for "Michael the
Archangel," a substitution which aggravated the severity of the
measure, came to the vote, there were 87 for the Angel's day, and 96
for the Saint's.[328] The amendments and alterations respecting
ordination, subscription, and the Covenant, all of which had been
conceived in the same spirit of severity, were adopted without division.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

At the same time the Commons extended the operation of the measure so
as to bring within the meshes of their net not only the clergy, but all
who held offices in the Universities, and every kind of teacher down
to the village schoolmaster, and the tutor in a private family. All
such persons, as well as Deans, Canons, and Prebendaries, who had been
mentioned in the original Bill, were obliged, through the amendments of
the Commons, to subscribe the declaration of non-resistance; to conform
to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as now by law established;
to deny that any obligation had been incurred by taking the Covenant;
and to repudiate that oath as altogether unlawful. The addition of a
penalty of three months' imprisonment to meet the case of those men who
had no livings to lose, affords another instance of the harsh spirit
of the Lower House. Likewise these legislators drew within the reach
of the Bill, the case of those who held benefices without cures--for
the reason that the House did not "think fit to leave sinecures to
Nonconformists," nor permit a Nonconformist to hold a Curate's or a
Lecturer's place.[329] An attempt being made in a different direction
to confine preferment to those who should receive Episcopal ordination
"according to the form of the Church of England,"--a restriction which
would have excluded such as were in Romish orders,--the attempt met
with a different fate. It entirely failed.[330] The Lords' tolerant
proviso for dispensing with the cross and surplice was by the Commons
negatived at once;[331] and after an adjourned debate upon the
allowance of a fifth part of the income to ejected Incumbents, the
considerate amendment of the Peers was thrown out by a majority of
seven.[332]

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

When all this had been done, a message reached the Upper House, on the
30th of April, to request a Conference with the Commons relative to the
amendments; but owing to the dilatoriness of the Peers the Conference
did not take place before the 7th of May, when Serjeant Charlton
defended the Bill in the shape in which the Commons had left it.[333]
In an elaborate oration he pointed out, and defended each of their
amendments, dwelling upon the extension of the Act to schoolmasters, as
necessary for the proper education of the young, the neglect of which
amongst the gentry and nobility had been, he said, the root of numerous
mischiefs in the Long Parliament. "It was an oversight," he added,
"in the usurped powers that they took no care in this particular,
whereby many young persons were well seasoned in their judgments as
to the King. This made the Commons take care that schoolmasters, as
well as ministers should subscribe, and rather more." The penalty of
three months' imprisonment, this gentleman ingeniously urged, was
designed to meet the case of those who had no livings to lose: it was
imprisonment in default of paying a fine: whilst the proviso introduced
by the Lords, to dispense with cross and surplice, he contended was
a thing altogether without precedent, which would establish schism,
and yet not satisfy those for whose relief it was intended. The
King's engagement at Breda to respect "tender consciences" had been
noticed by the Lords in support of their amendment; and now, with the
commonplace sophistries always at hand for the use of intolerance,
the manager laughed at the idea of calling schismatical consciences
"tender." "A tender conscience denoted," according to his definition,
"an impression from without received from another, and that upon which
another strikes;" what the definition exactly means I am at a loss to
comprehend. The Serjeant was clearer, and more plausible, although
equally sophistical in his legal reasoning, to the effect that the
Breda Declaration had two limitations: first, its validity depended
upon the sanction of Parliament; and, secondly, the bestowment of
liberty must consist with the kingdom's peace. As to the allowance of
fifths to the ejected ministers, he argued that it would be repugnant
to the idea of uniformity; that, "joined with the pity of their
party" it "would amount to more than the value of the whole living;"
that it would be a reflection on the Act; that it would impoverish
Incumbents; and that it would encourage Dissent. This argument was no
less heartless than contrary to the precedent, which, under similar
circumstances, had been furnished by the Long Parliament. Charlton
further suggested that the Lords should recommend Convocation, to
direct "such decent gestures," to be used during the time of Divine
service, as was fit. It may be stated that the Lords, on the 8th of
May, recommended to the Bishops and the House of Convocation, to
prepare some canon or rule for the purpose; and that the matter was
accordingly brought before Convocation on the 10th and 12th of May,
when the 18th of the canons of James I., relating to the subject,
underwent emendation.[334] Charlton concluded by saying, that he found
one mistake in the rubric of baptism, which he conceived was made
by a copyist, the word _persons_ being written instead of the word
_children_.[335] The amendments and alterations reported to the Lords
were all agreed to, and the clerical error in the Bill pointed out by
Charlton, was formally rectified at the Clerks' table by the Bishops of
Durham, St. Asaph, and Carlisle, under authority from Convocation.[336]

[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The MS. volume, copied from the printed Book of Common Prayer, of the
edition of 1636, and altered according to the decisions of Convocation,
was with the printed Book attached to the Act.[337]




                              CHAPTER XI.


The Bill received the Royal assent upon the 19th of May. Perhaps the
reader will not be wearied with an account of the ceremony, and of the
speeches delivered at the time.

His Majesty occupied the throne in Royal magnificence. The Lord
Chancellor took his place on the woolsack. On the right side, below the
throne, sat the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, and other prelates, including Reynolds of Norwich, who
could scarcely, with comfort, have witnessed the proceedings of that
day. Neither Sheldon nor Morley was present. On the left side, at the
upper end of the Chamber, were the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal,
and three Dukes--Buckingham, Richmond, and Albemarle. The Marquis of
Winchester sat by Albemarle's side, and below came twenty-six Earls,
one Viscount, and thirty-six Barons. The Commons appeared at the bar,
with the Speaker of the House, who delivered a highly rhetorical speech.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The King, after giving his assent, delivered a curious homily upon the
extravagant habits of the people, without saying one word about the
Act of Uniformity--after which Clarendon pronounced a long oration, in
the course of which he observed, "the execution of these sharp laws
depends upon the wisdom of the most discerning, generous, and merciful
Prince, who, having had more experience of the nature and humour of
mankind than any Prince living, can best distinguish between the
tenderness of conscience and the pride of conscience, between the real
effects of conscience and the wicked pretences to conscience--a Prince
of so excellent a nature and tender a conscience himself, that he hath
the highest compassion for all errors of that kind, and will never
suffer the weak to undergo the punishment ordained for the wicked."[338]

This was an extraordinary speech to an English Parliament. It can
bear no construction but that of being a plea for a dispensing power.
The Houses having framed a law, Clarendon would have it left to the
Royal wisdom to temper its administration, and to distinguish between
the _tenderness_ and the _pride_ of conscience,--as if the power of
discerning spirits were a gift to kings. What, in the lips of any
English senator would be inconsistent, appears doubly so in the present
instance, for Clarendon afterwards opposed the exercise of the power
which he now claimed on his master's behalf.

It is necessary here to pause, and inquire what change this famous Act
made in the Establishment of England. The insisting upon Episcopal
ordination, in every case, as essential to the conducting of public
service, and to the preaching of the Gospel, certainly cut off the
English Church, more completely than before, from fellowship with other
reformed Churches;[339] and, in consequence of another provision for
a certain period, the pastoral office became dependent on the taking of
a political oath, to which some, approving of her doctrine and of her
discipline, might conscientiously object. The Church also stood pledged
to the maintenance of civil despotism. Under pretence of reprobating
the course pursued under the Commonwealth, a dogma was imposed upon the
ministers of religion, which, if believed, would effectually prevent
any resistance to the designs of an arbitrary monarch, even if he
should lend himself to the overthrow of the Church itself. Besides,
persons might be found not unfriendly to moderate Episcopacy, who,
nevertheless felt it wrong to use respecting the League and Covenant
the terms which this Act prescribed.

[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]

The Act of Uniformity added the requirement of "unfeigned assent
and consent" to everything contained in the Prayer Book. By such
alterations the Church of England became increasingly exclusive and
Erastian in its principles, and less Protestant and liberal in its
spirit.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

In carrying a great measure, responsibility must be divided. It rarely
happens that a number of persons combining together to effect any
change are influenced by the same views; and in this instance of united
action different degrees of responsibility, and different kinds of
motives, are discoverable, when we look a little below the surface.

I. Convocation must be held responsible for the changes made in the
Prayer Book, its revision being exclusively the work of that assembly;
but, at the same time, it should be remembered, that assembly formed
only a small body, and represented but in part the sentiments of the
clergy. Many of the members felt a strong zeal for order and union;
the feeling assumed different aspects in different instances. Some
in the Upper House, as Cosin, Sanderson, Hacket, Ward, Morley; some
in the Lower, especially Thorndike, sympathized in the sentiments of
Cyprian, as expressed in his _Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ_, confounding
unity with uniformity, and allegiance to Christ with submission to
Bishops. They, like him, might suppose that in their zeal for Episcopal
order, they were working out an answer to our Lord's intercessory
prayer. Such a conception of ecclesiastical oneness had been, by the
Nicene and Mediæval Churches, handed down to the Church of the English
Reformation; and it must be admitted, that desires for uniformity
by means of Episcopal order, were in many cases so interlinked with
submission to Christ, as, even in the estimation of those who differ
from Anglo-Catholics, to have their errors, in a measure, redeemed by
the devoutness of their affections. Desires for uniformity, however, as
they wrought in some, both of the superior and inferior clergy, at the
period of the Restoration, had nothing whatever of nobleness in them.

The Bishops shared in the responsibility of the Upper House of
Parliament, as well as in the responsibility of the Upper House of
Convocation. Sheldon,--to whom must be attributed much influence over
the latter, and also much over the former, so far as the Bishops were
concerned; and who also, from his prominent position and great activity
at the Restoration, could not fail to share in Clarendon's counsels,
respecting the Bill,--was not a man of religious zeal, but a man of
worldly principles; and it is not uncharitable to regard others on
the Bench, and in the Lower House, as closely resembling him in this
respect. Reynolds belonged to a class which, when a crisis arrives,
will always bend to the force of stronger minds, and be carried along
by the current of authority.

[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]

Between the Bishops at the Restoration and the Bishops at the
Reformation, a considerable difference appears. The theology of the
Anglican prelates at the Restoration was not imbued with those elements
of thought, which the early Reformers held in common with Puritan
Divines; hence, in part, arose the dislike which the Fathers of the
re-established Church cherished towards Nonconformists. Sheldon, as
will appear when we fully examine his character, differed from the
ecclesiastical leaders in Queen Elizabeth's time, such as Parker and
Jewel,[340] who had strong religious affections, and were earnestly
bent upon building up Protestantism in England as the great bulwark
of her prosperity; moreover, the Caroline restorers and revisers of
the Prayer Book were utterly deficient in comprehensive policy. The
Elizabethan Divines did avoid, as much as possible, giving offence to
such of the old Roman Catholic party, just dispossessed of power, as
felt at all disposed to join them; but the ecclesiastical leaders of
Charles' day, threw every obstacle they could in the path of those
Nonconformists who showed any disposition to adopt a modified system of
Episcopacy.[341]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

II. In the House of Commons there existed a mad Royalist party,
influenced by strong personal resentment, who identified the Church
with the Throne, who could not forget what they had suffered under the
Commonwealth, and who especially had a keen recollection of estates
sequestered, and of fines imposed. They were bent upon punishing their
foes, and therefore made the Act as rigid as possible. Its severest
provisions are to be ascribed not to any clerical body, nor to the
Lords, nor to the Prelates, but to the Commons. The Commons were more
intolerant and fierce than any of the Bishops, than any of the clergy.
"Every man, according to his passion, thought of adding somewhat" to
the Bill which "might make it more grievous to somebody whom he did
not love."[342] Liberal amendments in the Upper House were resisted in
the Lower; and to the unjust and ungenerous provisions added by the
Lords, were others more unjust and ungenerous added by the Commons. The
Commons, in comparison with the Lords, appear to have been what the
young men, whom Rehoboam consulted and followed, were in comparison
with the old men, who stood before Solomon his father; and the scourge
of whips became a scourge of scorpions.[343] Bad as was the Bill from
the first, it was worse in the end than in the beginning.

III. Clarendon ought to bear a large share of responsibility. His
attachment to an Episcopalian establishment has been repeatedly
noticed. He regarded it as the bulwark of Protestantism, the main
stay of the nation's weal. Burnet reckons him more a friend of the
Bishops than of the Church; certainly he showed anxiety to please them,
and their good opinion and support were of importance to him in many
ways. What induced him to court the Bishops would, in a still stronger
degree, induce him to gratify the Commons. Consequently, supposing
that his better nature, or his wiser judgment, inclined him--which is
probable--towards a more moderate course, other considerations induced
him to adopt the severe line of policy which had been chalked out by
some, and filled up by others.[344] Clarendon, as leader of the Upper
House, does not appear to have used his influence for the purpose of
removing from the Bill any of the most rigorous parts of it; to their
abatement perhaps he might contribute, although this does not appear.
The liberal amendments proposed by certain Peers seem to have been
abandoned without a struggle; and for this surrender surely Clarendon
is mainly answerable.

[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]

IV. Another party concurred in the Act from entirely different motives.
The Roman Catholics had been on the increase since the Restoration.
Somerset House, the residence of the Queen Mother, was the place of
resort for the leaders of the party. There, and at the mansion of
the Earl of Bristol, they consulted upon the interests of their own
Church. Of course, they had no idea of seeking comprehension in the
Establishment: their policy was to procure toleration; with that for
the present they would be satisfied, whatever might be their ulterior
aims. Nothing promised so much advantage to them as the passing of
a stringent measure, which would cast out of the English Church as
many Protestants as possible. Whilst they were aware of the terror
which they inspired in the minds of Nonconformists, they hoped that
fellowship in suffering might soften antipathy, and dispose their
enemies, for their own sakes, to advocate some general indulgence: they
considered that the fact, of a large number of Protestants suffering
from persecuting laws, would at least strengthen the argument in its
favour. It was, I apprehend, on this principle, that the Duke of York
and the Catholic Peers united in supporting all the provisions for
uniformity.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

At the head of this Roman Catholic party the King himself is to be
placed. When he had reluctantly made up his mind to consent to the
measure, it was in accordance with the circuitous policy I have now
pointed out. Besides, he was fond of a dispensing power, liking Royal
Declarations better than Acts of Parliament; almost any statute would
be tolerable to him, if it gave him the prospect of affording relief
to his subjects in the form of sovereign concession. Clarendon,
who subsequently opposed the exercise of this power, now virtually
recognized it, as a prerogative of the King, in the speech just quoted,
and plainly pointed to the Royal intention of employing that assumed
prerogative for mitigating the severities of the present statute.

Policy and passion were stamped upon the face of the measure. It
would be the bitterest of all satires to say that the men principally
concerned in it were influenced by religious conviction--that
conscientiously and in the sight of God, they performed an act which,
though they saw it to be rigorous, they felt to be righteous. Amidst
keenly excited feelings on the side of an exclusive policy, perhaps
there was no impulse of greater force than the very common one of party
feeling.

When we recollect that it was not to the clergy then expressing itself
in Convocation, or in any other way, but to Parliament, that the
Church of England owed the clauses which required the repudiation of
the Covenant, and of the doctrine of non-resistance--clauses which so
galled the Puritans--the Act, to a large extent, appears, not so much
an ecclesiastical measure, as a work executed by a political faction,
bent upon crushing opponents, under pretence of their being unpatriotic
and disloyal. Of the bad spirit in which Parliament framed and passed
this act there remains not the shadow of a doubt; and it is impossible
that any one acquainted with the circumstance, however he may admire
the Church so re-established at the Restoration, can think of the mode
of its re-establishment without shame and sorrow.

[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]

It is very remarkable that the Act omitted to provide for uniformity
in certain important particulars; and it has failed to produce the
uniformity intended in others.[345] Nothing was done in relation to
psalmody; forms of prayer and praise in prose were rigidly set down,
but forms of prayer and praise in verse were left to be composed or
adopted at the pleasure of any one, subject only to the doubtful
authority of the Bishop or Ordinary. The formularies of the Prayer Book
relating to baptism have long received from Episcopalians contradictory
interpretations; and, of late years, liberty in this respect has been
legally conceded, as not inconsistent with the Act of Uniformity. The
obscurity of the rubric on the subject of ornaments renders a decision
of the controversy by ecclesiastical lawyers a difficult matter, and
consequently places Bishops in perplexity as to what is the law, and
how they are to proceed. We are struck with the _unequal pressure_ of
the Act. It made clerical practice in some respects very strict, and
in others very lax: whilst, as to prominent points then in dispute
between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the law is precise; as to
other points, far from unimportant, the same law, through intention
or neglect, opened, or left open, a wide field for difference and for
controversy.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The experience of a hundred years was thrown away upon the authors of
the measure. The first Act of Uniformity under Elizabeth had proved
a failure--the subsequent history of her reign had shown, that this
contrivance to repress the spirit of religious liberty, produced no
more effect than did the green withs which bound Samson. The troubles
of James' reign, the overthrow of Laud's policy, together with his
sufferings and death, illustrated the mischievous consequences of
confounding unity with uniformity, and of seeking the first by means
of the second. Grindal and other prelates had been sick at heart,
through fruitless endeavours made to secure spiritual obedience by
physical force. Lord Bacon had pointed out the difference between unity
and uniformity, and had reproved the persecutor, by saying, that the
silencing of ministers was a punishment that lighteth upon the people,
as well as upon the party;[346] others of humbler name had still more
clearly explained, and still more directly enforced, the lessons of
toleration. But all in vain; the teaching of a whole century had been
wasted on the contrivers and supporters of the second Act of Uniformity.

The Act did not merely eject all Incumbents who scrupled to comply
with its requirement, but it silenced throughout the land all the
preachers of Christianity who were not Conformists.

[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]

All Nonconformist ministers were prohibited from officiating in the
pulpits of the Episcopalian Church established by law; few other places
of worship were in existence, and the operation of the Act, especially
by citing and recognizing the Act of Uniformity under Elizabeth, would
be to prevent Nonconformists from preaching anywhere.

Two classes then were affected: Incumbents, whom the Act ejected; and
ministers, not Incumbents, whom it silenced. Plausible arguments might
be adduced for the uniformity of an establishment; strong reasons
might be urged against a coalition of Episcopacy with Presbyterianism.
The government of Bishops, and the use of a Liturgy, being adopted
in the Church, it may be said that it is only consistent, that there
should be the maintenance of order in the ministry, and of regularity
in the worship. But the Act went much further, and proceeded upon
the theory of one ecclesiastical incorporation of the entire State,
without recognizing outside the existence of any religion whatever. To
Nonconformists there was an utter denial of any spiritual rights. For
them there was to be neither comprehension nor toleration. The germs of
the Conventicle and Five Mile Acts were in the bosom of the Uniformity
Bill.




                             CHAPTER XII.


More victims in the month of April were sacrificed upon the altar of
revenge. Colonel John Okey, a distinguished officer in the Commonwealth
Army, who had adopted Republican and Millenarian views; Miles Corbet, a
member of the Long Parliament, and Recorder of Yarmouth, who had been
connected with the Church under the pastoral care of William Bridge,
in that town; and Colonel John Barkstead, who had been knighted by
Cromwell, and had been appointed to a seat in his House of Lords--all
three, after a brief trial, and a merciless sentence, for the part they
had taken in the High Court of Justice, were executed at Tyburn.

A noble victim perished two months afterwards. It has been with Sir
Henry Vane as with Oliver Cromwell: having disliked each other in life,
they have shared a common fate in the judgment of posterity: for,
after years of odium, the names of both are raised to honour. Vane's
Republicanism rendered him impracticable, and his mysticism, although
undeserving the reproaches of Baxter and Burnet, threw a haze over his
speculations, which makes them somewhat unintelligible; but the piety
and genius of his _Meditations_, and the purity and virtue of his life,
render him an object of reverence and love.

[Sidenote: REPUBLICAN VICTIMS.]

He was tried for compassing the death of the King; yet, whatever he
might be in other respects, he was no regicide. The evidence on his
trial only proved that he had held office under the Commonwealth,
that he had been a member of the Council of State in 1651, and had
belonged to the Committee of Safety in 1659. To make the condemnation
and sentence of Vane the more unrighteous, the King, after solemnly
promising to spare the life of the Republican, had written to
Clarendon, saying--Vane "is too dangerous a man to let live, if we can
honestly put him out of the way."

The spirit of the prisoner appears in a letter which he wrote to his
wife. "This dark night, and black shade," he observes, "which God hath
drawn over His work in the midst of us, may be, for aught we know, the
ground colour to some beautiful piece that He is now exposing to the
light." His execution was an ovation. From the crowded tops and windows
of the houses, people expressed their deep sympathy, crying aloud, "The
Lord go with you, the great God of heaven and earth appear in you and
for you;"--signs of popular feeling which sustained the sufferer, who
gratefully acknowledged them, "putting off his hat and bowing." When
asked how he did, he answered, "Never better in all my life;" and on
the scaffold his noble bearing so affected the spectators that they
could scarcely believe "the gentleman in the black suit and cloak, with
a scarlet silk waistcoat (the victorious colour) showing itself at
the breast, was the prisoner." Frequent interruptions from the sound
of drums drowned his voice, which, as Burnet says, was "a new and
very indecent practice." The officers, as they put their hands in his
pockets, searching for papers, exasperated the populace, whilst Vane's
calmness led a Royalist present to say, "he died like a prince." Before
receiving the last stroke, he exclaimed, "I bless the Lord, who hath
accounted me worthy to suffer for His name. Blessed be the Lord, that
I have kept a conscience void of offence to this day. I bless the Lord
I have not deserted the righteous cause for which I suffer."--"Father,
glorify Thy servant in the sight of men, that he may glorify Thee in
the discharge of his duty to Thee and to his country." One blow did the
work. "It was generally thought," remarks Burnet, "the Government had
lost more than it had gained by his death." Pepys declares the people
counted his constancy "a miracle;" adding, "The King lost more by that
man's death than he will get again for a good while."[347]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

Thus fell one of the triumvirate described in a former volume--thus
fell the noblest mystic of the age, next to George Fox--thus was
devoted to death in the Temple of Expediency, one who had never bowed
at the shrine of that heathen goddess, but had always fervently
worshipped in the Temple of Christian Virtue. Whatever his enemies
might do with his body, they could not prevent his pure soul from
entering that adjacent Temple of Honour, on the walls of which his name
is inscribed for evermore.

Some of the regicides escaped with their lives. Well known is the story
of Edmund Ludlow--how he fled at the Restoration, and went to Geneva,
and settled at Vevay; how he came back to England at the period of
the Revolution, and set sail for Ireland to assist William III. at
the siege of Londonderry, and was compelled to return because that
prince would not allow in his fleet, the presence of one who had been
implicated in his grandfather's execution.[348] But history tells
of another regicide, less known to fame--whose fortunes were less
happy, and more wonderful. Edward Whalley figured amongst Cromwell's
Major-Generals, and was so considerable a person that Richard Baxter
dedicated to him a controversial work, entitled _The Apology_, in which
he says, "Think not that your greatest trials are all over. Prosperity
hath its peculiar temptations, by which it hath foiled many that stood
unshaken in the storms of adversity. The tempter, who hath had you on
the waves, will now assault you in the calm, and hath his last game
to play on the mountain till nature cause you to descend. Stand this
charge, and you win the day."[349]

[Sidenote: REPUBLICAN VICTIMS.]

The Divine little apprehended the fate awaiting the soldier. A few days
before Charles' return, Whalley, with his son-in-law, Major-General
Gough,--who had stood together by Oliver Cromwell's death-bed,--sailed
for America. Landing at Boston, they were protected by the Governor,
until scented out by the Royalists of Barbadoes, they were forced to
renew their flight. Settled at Newhaven, the minister of the place,
named Davenport, pleaded for their security in a sermon from the
ingeniously selected words: "Let mine outcasts dwell with thee,--be
thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler."[350] Rewards
were offered for the fugitives, and this minister was threatened for
his advocacy on their behalf, but he continued to harbour them in his
neighbourhood, where they abode in a cave on the top of a rock, to
which was given the name of _Providence_. This kind of life they spent
for two or three years, when they removed to Hadley, and there, under
the protection of another minister, spent sixteen years more of alarm,
privation, and sorrow. The people in these parts were at war with the
famous Indian Chief, Philip of Pokanoket, who with his tribe one day
surrounded the little town at an hour when the inhabitants were engaged
in public worship. Although the people always carried arms, even at
church, on this occasion the sudden assault filled them with fear,
and, for once unmanned, they would have probably fallen into the hands
of their foes, had not a strange person, in peculiar attire, and of
commanding presence, put himself at their head, skilfully marshalling
the little band, with the words and authority of a general. It was
as when the Romans fought under the leadership of the twin brethren;
and the unknown visitant and deliverer proved to be no other than
Gough, who had learned the arts of war under Oliver Cromwell. He
survived his father-in-law Whalley, who died in the year of the English
Revolution.[351]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The revised edition of the Prayer Book was not ready until the 6th of
August. Then appeared an advertisement announcing that books in folio
were provided for all churches and chapels; the price of each being six
shillings, ready bound. Printed copies, examined and corrected, were
certified under the Great Seal, and the Deans and Chapters of cathedral
and collegiate churches were required to obtain one of these books
annexed to a copy of the Act, before the 25th of December. A similar
copy was to be delivered to the Courts at Westminster, to be placed
amongst the Records in the Tower of London.[352]

[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF THE ACT.]

In those days, when editions were not thrown off in thousands by a
steam press, and there was no book post to convey parcels in one night
to the Land's End, it was slow work to multiply and circulate copies.
Some clergymen, therefore, could not get sight of the alterations
before St. Bartholomew's Day.

It showed indecent haste to date the time for decision so early as the
24th of August; or it showed indecent delay, not to issue the Book
until within three weeks before. It has been asserted that few parishes
received it till a fortnight after the period prescribed, and Burnet
says that he was informed by some of the Bishops, that many clergymen
subscribed before they had seen the volume.[353] One, in the diocese
of Lincoln, pleaded as a proof of the injustice of his being silenced,
that he had never had an opportunity of reading what he was required to
adopt; and he adds, that this was the case with many more. A clergyman,
named Steel, in his farewell sermon, at Hanmer, in Flintshire, declared
"he was silenced and turned out, for not declaring his unfeigned assent
and consent to a Book which he never saw or could see."[354] Certainly
the Book ought to have been in every rectory and vicarage a month or
two previously to the day of ejection; yet, it must be acknowledged,
too much was made of the difficulty at the time, and too much has been
made of it since; for the fifth clause of the Act distinctly provides
for lawful impediments "to be allowed and approved of by the Ordinary
of the place."[355] Upon this clause we have a practical commentary in
a paper issued by the Bishop of Peterborough, expressly providing for
such cases.[356]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The Bishop very properly treated as a lawful impediment, inability to
examine the Book: and in the following year, as we shall see, an Act
passed for the relief of such persons as were disabled from declaring
conformity. Wherever and whenever a prelate felt so disposed, he could
make allowance for such inability; nevertheless, the fact remains,
that it rested entirely with him to determine what was a _lawful
impediment_, and to allow or not, the force of scruples, according to
his own personal pleasure; if the Diocesan chose to decide against
the Incumbent, the patron might at once present another person to the
living.

Richard Baxter made up his mind to leave the Establishment within a
week of the time when the Act of Uniformity received the Royal assent.
He preached on the 25th of May, and then gave as reasons for his early
silence, that he considered the Act at once put an end to the liberty
of his lecturing in parish churches, and that he wished his brethren to
understand he had fully made up his mind not to conform. He thought if
he "stayed to the last day," some might be led to suppose he meant to
submit, and so might be drawn into an imitation of his supposed example.

[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF THE ACT.]

Baxter's course in this respect was peculiar. The Presbyterians
generally remained in the Church, as long as they could, although
they had quite made up their minds as to what they should do when
the decisive feast of St. Bartholomew arrived. Philip Henry spent
days of prayer for Divine direction, and sought advice from friends
at Oxford and Chester. He objected to be ordained, and could not,
after being a Presbyter for years, declare himself moved by the Holy
Ghost to take upon himself the office of Deacon. The difficulty in
his case was increased by the demand of Hall, Bishop of Chester, that
the Presbyterians whom he ordained should explicitly repudiate their
previous orders.[357] Henry could not give his assent and consent to
things in the Prayer Book which to him were not true. He felt the force
of the exceptions taken at the Savoy Conference, and did not believe
in the power of any company of men to impose a yoke of ceremonial
law upon the necks of their brethren. He disapproved of kneeling at
the Lord's table as a practice unwarranted by Scripture; unsuited to
the celebration of a supper; "grossly abused even to idolatry;" the
imposition of which was a violation of Christian liberty. He objected
particularly to kneeling at the rails, as smelling "rank of Popish
superstition:" the indiscriminate Communion of the Episcopalian Church
he could not reconcile with his notions of discipline; and, though
he had never taken the Covenant, he would not condemn those who had
done so. He approved of Archbishop Ussher's scheme of Episcopacy;
and "thought it lawful to join in the Common Prayer in public
assemblies, and practised accordingly, and endeavoured to satisfy
others concerning it."[358] It is curious to learn that he believed
his views of spiritual religion formed the basis of his objections to
conformity: and that when Dr. Busby, to whom as his friend, he owed his
deep evangelic convictions, said once, "Prythee child, what made thee a
Nonconformist?" Henry replied to his much-loved schoolmaster, "Truly,
sir, you made me one; for you taught me those things that hindered me
from conforming."[359]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

In the mind of Philip Henry there existed a strong disposition to
conform, and the case was the same with Joseph Alleine, and others.
Many, who had been episcopally ordained, were prepared to do everything
required, except one thing--giving an unfeigned assent and consent to
all the contents of the Prayer Book.[360]

John Howe felt more difficulties than one; he had not received
Episcopal orders, but had been ordained at Winwick, in Lancashire, by
the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; on which account, he
used to say, that few had so primitive an ordination as himself. After
the Act had passed, Dr. Wilkins expressed his surprise that _a man of
Howe's latitude_ should have stood out; to which he replied, that he
would gladly have remained in the Establishment, but his _latitude_
was the very thing that made him and kept him a Nonconformist. He
said also, "that he could not by any means he fond of a Church, that
in reality had no discipline at all, and that he thought that a very
considerable objection against the Establishment." In these respects
his difficulties were similar to those of Philip Henry. On another
occasion, when asked by Seth Ward, then Bishop of Exeter, "Pray, sir,
what hurt is there in being _twice_ ordained?" he replied, "Hurt, my
lord,--it hurts my understanding; the thought is shocking; it is an
absurdity, since nothing can have two beginnings."[361]

[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF THE ACT.]

We can enter into the struggles which agitated the clergy during the
three months before St. Bartholomew's Day. As the corn ripened, and
the country Rector sat with his wife in their little parlour,--as
they looked out of the latticed window on the children chasing the
butterflies in the garden, or picking up daisies on the glebe,--there
came the alternative--"we _must_ conform, or leave all this next
August;" and, as that necessity stared the Incumbent in the face, it
would require, in some cases, a woman's quieter fortitude to reinforce
a man's louder resolve.[362] Nor can it be denied, that means of
usefulness to some had brighter attractions than home comforts; and
that it proved the hardest wrench of all to break the bond between
the Christian shepherd and his flock. These men had hearts as well as
heads; but in the conflict the victory came from their judgments, not
their affections. I remember visiting Scotland more than a quarter of
a century ago, just on the eve of the great disruption, and spending
an evening at a pleasant manse inhabited by an able minister and his
accomplished wife, both of whom were pondering the question of "going
out," or "remaining in;" and never can I forget the look of anguish
with which they alluded to the impending crisis. The memory of that
visit brings vividly to mind many an English parsonage in the year 1662.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

It required much effort in the minds of Puritan clergymen to brace
themselves up to meet what was at hand. One prepared for the crisis by
preaching to his congregation four successive Sundays from words to
the Hebrews: "Ye took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in
yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance."
Another, who had a wife and ten children--"eleven strong arguments,"
so he said, for conformity--remarked, that his family must live on the
6th of Matthew, "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or
what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on." A
third, when asked what he would do with his family, replied, "Should I
have as many children as that hen has chickens," pointing to one with a
numerous brood, "I should not question but God would provide for them
all."[363]

Several of the ministers conferred or corresponded with each other.
A few came to London to know the opinions of their brethren. Letters
passed to and fro as fast as the post could carry them; and sheets
full of arguments, questions, replies, and rejoinders, were conveyed
from place to place. Stories respecting the treatment of Presbyterian
Chaplains, the conduct of the Bishops at the Savoy, the debates in
Convocation, and the speeches in Parliament, Sheldon's management,
and Clarendon's policy, would be freely told, not always with perfect
accuracy. Ministers conversed with Presbyterian Peers, and other
patrons; and, it is said, that one of the former being asked by
one of the latter whether he would conform, answered, "That such
things were required and enjoined as he could not swallow," and
he was "necessitated to march off, and sound a retreat;" whereupon
His Lordship added, with a sigh, "I wish it had been otherwise;
but they were resolved either to reproach you, or undo you."[364]
With conference and correspondence there existed no organized
confederation; each took his own ground, and pursued his own course.
Many a village Vicar stood alone, and his conduct proceeded from
individual conscientiousness. The ejected had nothing to strengthen and
animate them, like the understanding which preceded the disruption in
Scotland--nothing like the popular applause that welcomed it--nothing
like the _éclat_ of the public procession from the House of Assembly
in the City of Edinburgh; no ovation soothed the cast-out. The feast
of St. Bartholomew became a fast; as in the Valley of Megiddon, so in
Puritan England, "The land mourned, every family apart."

[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF THE ACT.]

As August approached, reports of disaffection increased in gravity.
In July, an idea was current that Cromwell's soldiers were waiting
to learn what the Presbyterians would do, being themselves ready to
rekindle the flames of revolution. From various parts of the country
came news of refractory trained bands, of gunsmiths preparing arms,
and of ministers talking treason. Rumour declared there was to be a
general rising in a few weeks. At all events, within two years of the
Restoration, the joy of seeing a crowned head once more, had given
way. People began, not only to ask what advantage had accrued from the
King's return, but they also began to institute comparisons between
the Long Parliament and that which was now sitting. De Wiquefort,
the Dutch Minister, in a despatch dated the 14th of May, informed
his Government, that the chimney tax could not be levied without much
trouble, and that Parliament, _which had been the idol of the nation,
was now sinking in popular respect_.[365]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

Several sources of discontent can be pointed out. The licentiousness
and extravagance of the Court were passing all bounds; even such of
the Cavaliers as combined with their hatred of Puritan precision,
some regard for outward decency, were shocked at the stories of the
mad revelries and shameless debauchery of Whitehall; many individuals
had been beggared in the Royal service, and now they saw themselves
totally neglected by the Prince in whose cause they had sacrificed
their property and shed their blood. To replenish an empty exchequer,
the Government effected the sale of Dunkirk--a town which had been
won by the valour of Cromwell. It wounded the national honour, and
roused popular indignation, to see the keys of that fortress put into
the hands of Louis XIV. for a sum of money; and also to see Tangier,
a useless possession, part of the dowry of Queen Catherine, carefully
preserved at a large cost. To add to the trouble, Popery was said to
be on the increase, especially through proceedings at Somerset House,
where the Queen Mother Henrietta kept her Court, gathered round her the
English Roman Catholics, and encouraged the intrigues of Jesuits and
priests.

Charles and his Council did not learn the whole truth, they only caught
glimpses of some wild phantasmagoria, with the great Gorgon-head of
insurrection in the midst of all; and, therefore, instead of striving
to see what could be done to re-establish confidence, he and his
Ministers set to work to demolish fortifications at Northampton,
at Gloucester, and at other places, and to issue instructions to
Lieutenants of Counties to take precautions against rebellion.[366]

[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF THE ACT.]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

Numbers of political papers and tracts appeared expressing uneasiness.
Much authority cannot be attached to such a random writer as Roger
L'Estrange; but when he states that not so few as 200,000 copies of
seditious works had been printed "since the blessed return of his
sacred Majesty," and that to these were to be added new editions of
old ones to the amount of millions more,[367] we are justified in
believing that the printers were kept very busy by people of the kind
so much detested by this pamphleteer, nor do I doubt that, as he
says, the publications "were contrived and penned with accurate care
and cunning to catch all humours." On the other side, the Church and
State party did not sit with folded hands--Roger's own fiery pen being
unceasingly employed in the laudation of King, Church, and Bishops, and
in vilifying Roundheads, Republicans, and all Sectaries. Some authors
mingled in the _mêlée_ after a very equivocal fashion, drawing "a
parallel betwixt the ancient and the modern fanatics," so as to place
in company with Anabaptists, Quakers, and Independents, not only the
Lollards, but even Hugh Latimer--thus striking a blow at Nonconformity
through the side of the Reformation.[368] Much more effective than
abuse and satire, were papers, printed ready for Bartholomew's Day,
giving "a brief martyrology and catalogue of the learned, grave,
religious, and painful ministers of the City of London, who were
deprived, imprisoned, and plundered, during the Commonwealth." The
persecution of the Episcopalians afforded a strong point against the
Nonconformists, especially before it could be met by a long list of
ejected Nonconformists. Names of Episcopalians said to have been
reviled, and forced to resign, and "compelled to fly"--"violated,
assaulted, abused in the streets," and imprisoned in "the Compter,
Ely House, Newgate, and the ships"--furnished so many arguments for
severe measures against those who were charged with these indefensible
persecutions.




                             CHAPTER XIII.


No Sunday in England ever exactly resembled that which fell on the
17th of August, 1662--one week before the feast of St. Bartholomew.
There have been "mourning, lamentation, and woe," in particular parish
churches when death, persecution, or some other cause has broken
pastoral ties, and severed from loving congregations, their spiritual
guides; but for many hundreds of ministers on the same day to be
uttering farewells is an unparalleled circumstance. In after years,
Puritan fathers and mothers related to their children the story of
assembled crowds; of aisles, standing-places, and stairs, filled to
suffocation; of people clinging to open windows like swarms of bees;
of overflowing throngs in churchyards and streets; of deep silence or
stifled sobs, as the flock gazed on the shepherd--"sorrowing most of
all that they should see his face no more."

[Sidenote: 1662.]

Pepys--who liked to see and hear everything which was going on--walked
to old St. Dunstan's Church, at seven o'clock in the morning, but found
the doors unopened. He took a turn in the Temple Gardens until eight,
when, on coming back to the church, he saw people crowding in at a side
door, and found the edifice half-filled, ere the principal entrance had
been opened. Dr. Bates, minister of the church, took for his text--
"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,
that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant, make you perfect." "He making a very good sermon," reports
the Secretary, "and very little reflections in it to anything of the
times." After dinner, the gossip went to St. Dunstan's again, to hear
a second sermon from the same preacher upon the same text. Arriving at
the church, about one o'clock, he found it thronged, and had to stand
during the whole of the service. Not until the close of this second
homily, did the preacher make any distinct allusion to his ejectment,
and then it was in terms the most concise and temporate. "I know you
expect I should say something as to my nonconformity. I shall only say
thus much--it is neither fancy, faction, nor humour, that makes me not
to comply, but merely for fear of offending God. And if after the best
means used for my illumination, as prayer to God, discourse, study,
I am not able to be satisfied concerning the lawfulness of what is
required; if it be my unhappiness to be in error, surely men will have
no reason to be angry with me in this world, and I hope God will pardon
me in the next."[369]

Dr. Jacomb occupied his pulpit in St. Martin's, Ludgate. It would seem,
from his remarks, that he did not expect it to be the last pastoral
discourse he would deliver; but I am unable to say whether the hope he
had of preaching to his parishioners again, arose from an idea that
the law would be mitigated. "Let me," he said, "require this of you,
to pass a charitable interpretation upon our laying down the exercise
of our ministry." "I censure none that differ from me, as though they
displease God: but yet, as to myself, should I do thus and thus, I
should certainly violate the peace of my own conscience, and offend
God, which I must not do, no, not to secure my ministry; though that
either is, or ought to be dearer to me than my very life; and how dear
it is, God only knoweth."[370]

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

In the Cambridge University Library[371] is the copy of _A Prayer of
a Nonconformist before his Sermon, which was preached to an eminent
Congregation, August, 1662_. The prayer is long, and consists chiefly
of confession of sin and of supplication for spiritual blessings;
the only passages which seem to refer to existing circumstances
are the two following:--"It is the Spirit that makes ordinances
efficacious--although Thou art pleased to tye us to them, when we may
purely enjoy them, yet Thou dost not tye Thyself to them." "Bring our
hearts to our estates, if not our estates to our hearts. It is the
happiness of the saints in heaven to have their estates brought to
their hearts; but the happiness of the saints on earth to have their
hearts brought to their estates."

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The Fire of London swept away so many of the old City churches that we
are unable to picture the localities where the City ministers preached,
what they called, their own funeral sermons; but it is otherwise in the
provinces. Everyone who has entered the Vale of Taunton, and tarried
in the town from which it takes its name, must have lingered under
the shadow of the noble Church of St. Mary, and longer still within
its spacious nave, sometime since restored with exquisite taste. In
1662 the town had just had its walls razed, as a punishment for what
the inhabitants did in the Civil Wars--the bones of their townsman
Blake had been dug out of his grave in Westminster Abbey; old Puritan
members of the Corporation had been displaced for new ones of Cavalier
sympathies; and now, with bitter recollections, the nonconforming
parishioners entered the Church on the 17th of August, to listen for
the last time to their minister, George Newton--"a noted gospeller,"
and remarkable for his missionary zeal. "As to the particular Divine
providence," he said, "now ending our ministry among you, whatever
happeneth on this account, let it be your exercise to cry out for the
Holy Spirit of Christ, and He will grant you a greater support than you
may expect from any man whatever.... The withdrawing of this present
ministry may be to cause you to pray for this Holy Spirit, day and
night; and Christ promiseth that the Father will give it to them that
ask it.... If I cannot serve God one way, let me not be discouraged,
but be more earnest in another."[372]

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

The quiet little town of Beer Regis, in Dorsetshire, retains its
ancient church, with its square tower and pinnacles, dedicated to St.
John the Baptist. The living, in conjunction with that of Charmouth,
formed the golden prebend of Salisbury Cathedral. How much of the
income of the stall belonged to the Incumbent under the Commonwealth
I do not know, but the Incumbency must have been of a description
strongly to tempt Philip Lamb, who then held it, to comply with the Act
of Uniformity, had he been a worldly-minded man.[373] But his farewell
teaching proves him to have been above the reach of such temptations.
Like other discourses at the same time, his was full of spiritual
instruction and earnest appeal; the following allusion being made to
the event of the day:--"For now I must tell you, that perhaps you
may not see my face, or hear my voice anymore in this place; yet not
out of any peevish humour, or disaffection to the present authority
of the kingdom (I call God and man to witness this day), it being
my own practice and counsel to you all, _to fear God and honour the
King_;--but rather a real dissatisfaction in some particulars imposed,
to which (notwithstanding all endeavours to that purpose) my conscience
cannot yet be espoused."[374]

The week between the 17th and 24th of August proved an eventful one.
Charles had been married in the previous May to Catherine of Braganza;
a match which--though formally approved by the Privy Council and by
Parliament, because of her dowry, and of the possession of Tangier, on
the coast of Africa, and of Bombay, in the East Indies, and of a free
trade with Portugal and its colonies--was, because of the religion of
the bride, hateful to the English people, in proportion as they hated
Popery. The day before her reception, the King issued a Proclamation,
addressed to the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of London. He laid "hold
of this occasion of public joy, on the first coming of the Queen to
the Royal Palace of Westminster, to order the release of Quakers and
others, in gaol, in London and Middlesex, for being present at unlawful
assemblies, who yet profess all obedience and allegiance; provided they
are not indicted for refusing the Oath of Allegiance, nor have been
ringleaders nor preachers at their assemblies, hoping thereby to reduce
them to a better conformity."[375]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The Quakers, George Fox and Richard Hubberthorn, had just before
addressed the King as "Friend," and sent His Majesty a list of "three
thousand one hundred and seventy-three persons" who had suffered for
conscience' sake. "There have been also imprisoned in thy name," add
these plain-spoken memorialists, "three thousand sixty and eight." "Now
this we would have of thee, to set them at liberty that lie in prison,
in the names of the Commonwealth, and of the two Protectors, and them
that lie in thy own name, for speaking the truth."[376] How far this
appeal influenced Charles in his act of grace now performed I cannot
say; nor does it appear how clemency towards a despised sect tended
to gratify the country at large; which on such an occasion he might
naturally wish to do. Perhaps, being fond of exercising a dispensing
power, this proceeding might afford some gratification to himself; and
as to the selection of objects, he had a liking for Quakers, on account
of what he regarded their harmlessness and oddity. He had no fear of
their arming themselves against his throne; and to quiz their dress and
their speech, seemed to his frivolous taste, a piece of real fun.

On Saturday, the 23rd of August, Catherine reached Whitehall; and the
citizens of London, ever prompt in their loyalty on such occasions,
gave "a large demonstration of their duty and affection to the King's
and Queen's Majesty on the River Thames." The Mercers, the Drapers,
the Merchant Taylors, and the Goldsmiths, appeared in stately barges,
their pageantry and that of the Lord Mayor outpeering the rest of the
brilliant regatta. Music floated from bands on deck, and thundering
peals roared from pieces of ordnance on shore. Their Majesties came
in an antique-shaped, open vessel, covered with a cupola-like canopy
of cloth of gold, supported by Corinthian pillars, wreathed with
festoons and garlands of flowers,--the pageant exceeding--as John
Evelyn remarked, who was sailing near--all the _Venetian Bucentoras_,
in which, on Ascension Day, the Doge was wont to wed, with a golden
ring, the fair Adriatic. The spectacle on the water-highway presented
a contrast to the experiences in many parsonages throughout broad
England; and it is remarkable, that just then certain persons were
engaged in solemnities more in accordance with Nonconformist depression.

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

Edward Calamy that very Saturday preached a sermon at St. Austin's
Church, in London, for Father Ash (the old man who shed tears of
joy over Charles' early promises), from the words "The righteous
perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and merciful men are taken
away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil
to come,"--words befitting the interment of a Puritan patriarch on
Bartholomew's eve. Discoursing on his text, the preacher reminded his
audience how Methuselah died, a year before the flood; Austin died a
little before Hippo was taken; and Luther died just as the wars in
Germany were about to begin. He might have added, that Blaise Pascal,
who died the preceding Tuesday, August 19th, had been removed just as
the agony of the crisis came, in the history of the Port Royalists.[377]

By a further coincidence, the same day on which Ash was buried in
London, Edward Bowles, the distinguished Nonconformist, breathed his
last in the City of York. He had just been elected Vicar of Leeds--but
his Nonconformity would have disqualified him from entering on the
benefice, had not his Master called him to a better preferment and a
nobler ministry.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

When St. Bartholomew's Day arrived, the Nonconformist clergy who had
not before taken leave of their flocks, uttered their farewells.
Thomas Lye, Rector of Allhallows, London--whose catechetical lectures
had made him very popular with the youthful members of Puritan
families--preached twice from the words--"Therefore my brethren, dearly
beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my
dearly beloved." Lye mentioned in his morning address, that he had been
ejected on the 24th of August, 1651, because he would not swear against
the King. Now, on the 24th of August, 1662, he was ejected for a very
different reason. But he did not repine. "By way of exhortation," said
the preacher, "I remember good Jacob when he was come into Egypt,
ready to die, calls his children together, and before he dies, he
blesseth his children.--O beloved, I have a few blessings for you,
and, for God's sake, take them as if they dropt from my lips when
dying.--Whatever others think, I am utterly against all irregular ways;
I have (I bless the Lord) never had a hand in any change of Government
in all my life; I am for prayers, tears, quietness, submission, and
meekness, and let God do His work, and that will be best done when He
doth it."[378]

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

Another instance of a second ejectment occurred the same day under
different circumstances. Robert Atkins, in the month of September,
1660, had been dismissed from the choir of Exeter Cathedral--the part
of the edifice appropriated to the Presbyterians--"Church music,"
to use his own words, "jostling out the constant preaching of the
Word; the minister being obliged to give place to the chorister; and
hundreds, yea thousands, to seek where to hear a sermon on the Lord's
Day, rather than singing service should be omitted, or not kept up
in its ancient splendour and glory." Driven at the Restoration from
East Peter's, he found refuge in the parish church of St. John--an
instance which shows that nonconforming clergymen might lose one living
and gain another, between the King's return and the execution of the
Act. From St. John's, he was ejected in August, and then he preached
a sermon in which, rising above all such narrowness as prompted the
depreciation of cathedral music, he caught ennobling inspirations, and
employed only words of loyalty and love. "Let him never be accounted
a sound Christian that doth not both fear God and honour the King. I
beg that you would not interpret our Nonconformity to be an act of
unpeaceableness and disloyalty. We will do anything for His Majesty but
sin. We will hazard anything for him but our souls. We hope we could
die for him, only we dare not be damned for him. We make no question,
however we may be accounted of here, we shall be found loyal and
obedient subjects at our appearance before God's tribunal."[379]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

Another day they had to quit the parsonage.[380] No poet that I am
aware of, has made the Bartholomew Exodus a theme for his muse, but the
well-known lines in Goldsmith's "Deserted Village" may be accommodated
to the incident.

    "Good heaven! what sorrows gloom'd that parting day,
    That call'd them from their native walks away,
    When the poor exiles, every pleasure past,
    Hung round the bowers, and fondly look'd their last.
    With loudest plaints the mother spoke her woes,
    And blest the cot where every pleasure rose,
    And kiss'd her thoughtless babes with many a tear,
    And clasp'd them close, in sorrow doubly dear;
    While her fond husband strove to lend relief,
    In all the silent manliness of grief."

Some persons can allow no excuse for Puritans who conformed. Because
Nonconformity under the circumstances appears to these persons
a plain obligation, they suppose it must have appeared equally
plain to everybody entertaining evangelical views like their own.
But if we exclude all Puritan Conformists from the benefit of
charitable allowance, on the score of temptation; if we dismiss all
thought of the medium through which, owing to circumstances, they
were likely to contemplate their own case,--then we diminish our
estimate of the clear-sighted judgment, the unprejudiced resolves,
and the self-sacrificing heroism of those Puritans who in a crisis
of extraordinary difficulty, pursued the course they did. When
Nonconformists discover considerations which mitigate the censure of
some who conformed, they must all the more admire those who, rising
above motives which spring from self-interest, from example, from
persuasion, and from prejudice, were, through a sense of duty, led to
sacrifice so much which they held dear.

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

The ejected differed from each other in many respects: not more unlike
are cedars and firs, oaks and ashes, the elm and the ivy. Some were
bold and stern, of rugged nature and robust strength; others were
gentle and dependent, relying on friends for counsel and example.
Some were rigid and ascetic; others frank and genial. They included
Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and not a few whom it would
be difficult to reduce entirely under any of those denominations;
also, Calvinists and Arminians, with other Divines scarcely belonging
to either of those schools. As to learning, eloquence, reasoning,
and imagination, the men varied; but under all their peculiarities
lay a common faith--of no ordinary character, a faith of that rare
kind which makes the confessor. They believed in God, in Christ,
in truth, in Heaven; and in the controversy which they carried on,
they regarded themselves as fighting for a Divine cause. People may
think some of these ministers made too much of wearing a surplice,
using the sign of the cross, and bowing at the name of Jesus; but
such things were considered by them as having a significance beyond
themselves. They were, by the ejected, judged to be signs of a
corrupted Christianity--the banners of an adverse army--flags of which
the importance did not consist in the silk, the crimson, and the gold,
but in the import of the emblazoned device. What might seem trifles to
others, were in their estimation the marks of a ceremonial, as opposed
to a spiritual, of a legal as opposed to an evangelical Christianity.
They believed that, in the defence of the Gospel, they were acting
as they did. A strong evangelical faith upheld their ecclesiastical
opinions, like the everlasting rocks which form the ribs and backbone
of this grand old world.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The Church of England suffered no small loss when she lost such
men. So far as extreme Anglo-Catholics on the one hand, and extreme
Presbyterians on the other were concerned, union was impossible; but
it should be remembered that in the conferences at Worcester House and
the Savoy, nothing more was sought by the Puritans than a moderate
Episcopacy; and, as already noticed, Baxter declared, that to the best
of his knowledge the Presbyterian cause was never spoken for, nor were
they ever heard to petition for it at all. There can be no question
that there were amongst the ejected many exemplary ministers, who
would have been perfectly satisfied with such concessions, as moderate
Episcopalians might have conscientiously sanctioned.

The great change having been accomplished, the King commanded
directions to be sent to the clergy respecting their preaching.
They were forbidden to meddle with matters of State, or to discuss
speculative points in theology, but were enjoined to catechize the
young, to read the canons, and to promote the observance of the Lord's
Day.[381]




                             CHAPTER XIV.


When the Act had taken effect, some of the Presbyterians looked for a
mitigation of its severity. Those who lived in London, and were upon
terms of friendship with the Earl of Manchester, and other Puritan
noblemen, trusting to their influence at Court, resolved to make an
effort to obtain redress. Calamy, Manton, and Bates, the leaders of
this forlorn hope, prepared a petition, numerously signed by London
pastors.[382] It spoke of His Majesty's indulgence, and besought him,
in his princely wisdom and compassion, to take some effectual course,
whereby they might be continued in the exercise of their office.[383]
Whatever might be the effect of the petition, Clarendon admits that
the King made a positive promise to do what the ministers desired.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

At this time the nobility had gone down to their country-seats to
enjoy the summer months; the Bishops generally were engaged in their
visitations. Charles, at Hampton Court, was joking with his lords,
toying with his mistresses, rambling in the green alleys, lounging in
the cool saloons, watching games in the tennis-court, and feeding the
ducks in the broad ponds. However unwilling to attend to business, he
found that a Council must be held. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishops of London and Winchester were therefore summoned, together with
Chief Justice Bridgman, and the Attorney-General, the Duke of Ormond,
and the Secretaries of State. The King's promise was communicated to
the Council. "The Bishops were very much troubled that _those fellows_
should still presume to give His Majesty so much vexation, and that
they should have such access to him." As for themselves, they desired
"to be excused for not conniving in any degree at the breach of the
Act of Parliament, either by not presenting a clerk where themselves
were patrons, or deferring to give institution upon the presentation
of others; and that His Majesty's giving such a declaration or
recommendation, would be the greatest wound to the Church, and to the
government thereof, that it could receive."[384]

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

Sheldon vehemently urged, that it was now too late to alter what
had been done; the Sunday before he had ejected those who would not
subscribe; the King had thus provoked them, and that now to admit them
to the Church would be for him to put his head in the lion's mouth. He
further urged that resolutions of Council could not justify contempt
for an Act of Parliament. The argument is thoroughly constitutional,
and so far Sheldon appears right; but before he completed his speech,
he manifested his real spirit by contending, that if the importunity of
disaffected people were a reason for humouring them, neither Church nor
State would ever be free from disturbance.[385]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

The operation of the Act, the petition of ministers, and the
discussions in Council, were soon the topic of newspapers, and the talk
of the country; and great credit was given for the "care and prudence
of the most worthy diocesan" of London, in filling up the numerous
vacancies. It was reported, that at Northampton, "all except two
or three" conformed; that at Gloucester, there was "scarcely a man"
who did not subscribe; and that at Newport, an instance occurred of a
building erected by Nonconformists being seized and appropriated for
Episcopal worship. We find it also stated that in the City of Chester,
Nonconformists preached on the 24th of August, though cautioned against
it by the Bishop; and that the following Sunday they being displaced,
and other ministers being appointed, the Presbyterians still came to
the parish service; and that in Northumberland, there were "only three
disaffected ministers, Scotchmen, who quietly left their livings,
and crossed the Tweed." The High Church party believed the Act to be
popular, and Nonconformity to be an insignificant affair--a mere puff
of smoke, which a moment's wind would blow away. Episcopal visitations
created much enthusiasm. All the gentry went out to meet the Bishop
of Exeter, with one thousand horse, and foot without number, and many
coaches; City music sounded from the top of Guildhall, and the Bishop
drove up to the Deanery amidst volleys of shot. At Chippenham, like
honours saluted the Bishop of Salisbury.[386] Rumours of another kind
floated in other quarters. William Hook, an Independent, who had been
ejected from the Savoy, informed an American correspondent, that after
the Act of Uniformity, there were few communicants at the churches,
"only ten, twenty, or forty, where there were 20,000 persons more than
sixteen years old; and on festival days only the parsons and three or
four at their devotions."[387] It is not to be supposed that Hook, any
more than his contemporaries in newspapers, gave himself much trouble
in sifting evidence, still probably there is truth in what he says.
Beyond idle rumours certain facts are established. For example, St.
Mary's Church, at Taunton, was closed for several weeks successively;
and although we find that afterwards public services were held at
rare intervals, the parish had no resident minister for the next nine
months.[388]

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

The law bound every clergyman to subscribe in the presence of his
Archbishop or Ordinary, and it may be mentioned in illustration, that
the Canons of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, subscribed before the
Dean, he being the Ordinary of the place; some of them, in _majorem
cautionem_, subscribed also before the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet
was it with this proviso--saving the rights and privileges of this free
chapel.[389]

Some clergymen, who ultimately subscribed, did so with hesitation. Sir
Thomas Browne, in his tour through Derbyshire, met with a friend who,
the day before he saw him, which was in the month of September, "had
most manfully led up a train of above twenty parsons, and though they
thought themselves to be great Presbyterians, yet they followed" this
leader to Chesterfield, and by subscribing there "kept themselves in
their livings despite of their own teeth."[390] Some lingered awhile
on neutral ground; others went back to the Establishment. A large
number of cases of this kind may be found in _Calamy's Account_ and
_Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial_.[391] Men of character and worth,
belonging to the Puritan party, overcame their scruples by putting a
general interpretation on a precise declaration, and by pondering the
thought that a superior social influence for good would attend their
remaining as shepherds within the Episcopalian sheep-fold.

[Sidenote: 1662.]

Lightfoot, Wallis, and Horton, who had been Presbyterian Commissioners
at the Savoy, became Conformists. Dr. Fogg, of Chester, joined them at
the end of five years; Dr. Conant at the end of seven.

Gurnal, the devout author of the _Christian Armour_, belongs to the
same class. All such men had to pay the penalty of separating from
old friends.[392] They suffered abuse; being taunted with the use of
"Episcopal eye-salve," and for bowing down to "the whore of Babylon."
All sorts of stories were buzzed abroad to their discredit; it is
related as a Divine judgment that a Conformist crossing a bridge on
his way to the place where he meant to subscribe, was thrown from his
horse and killed. The tale appears in connection with an account of a
clergyman, who, after expressing himself in a sermon bitterly against
the Presbyterians, dreamed that he should die at a certain time, and,
in accordance with this warning, was found dead in his bed.[393] Cases
also occurred in which clergymen at first conformed to the Act, and
afterwards became Dissenters.[394]

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

Soon after the Act had been passed, the Bishops issued articles of
inquiry and visitation, very much of the same comprehensive, minute,
and sifting description, as those which had been issued before the
Civil Wars. In these articles, distinct reference is made to the
conformity required by the new law. The text of the articles for the
dioceses of Bath and Wells, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln,
Llandaff, Oxford, Peterborough, and St. David's is, with slight
exception, the same as that for the diocese of Winchester, of which
Morley was Bishop; and, under the third title, _Concerning Ministers_,
it is asked, whether they had been legally instituted and inducted;
and had, within two months after induction, on some Sunday or holyday,
publicly, in the time of Divine service, read the Thirty-nine Articles
and declared assent to them; also, whether in the daily Morning and
Evening service, Administration of the Holy Sacraments, Celebration of
Marriage, Churching of Women, Visitation of the Sick, Burial of the
Dead, and pronouncing God's Commination against impenitent sinners,
they used the words prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, without
any addition, omission, or alteration of the same? Also whether they
wore the surplice, and such scholastical habit as was suitable to
their degree, and observed holydays, fasts, embers, and the yearly
perambulations in Rogation weeks? Also whether any person had preached
in the parish as a lecturer, and if so, whether he had obtained a
license from the Bishop, and had read the appointed prayers, and was in
all respects conformable to the laws of the Church?[395]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

In some articles, the questions on these points are still more precise
and stringent. Cosin, Bishop of Durham, asks "Do you not know, or
have you not heard, that in his reading, or pretending to read, these
Thirty-nine Articles, he (the minister) omitted or skipped over some
one or more of them? What article was it, or what part thereof that he
left unread?" The same prelate also inquires whether lecturers read
prayers in a surplice.[396] Other Bishops satisfied themselves with
general questions. Griffith, Bishop of St. Asaph, and Henchman, Bishop
of Salisbury, both use these words, "Doth your minister distinctly,
reverently, say Divine service upon Sundays and holydays;" "doth he
duly observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the said
Book of Common Prayer?"[397] Bishop Reynolds asks whether the minister
had been freely presented, and legally instituted and inducted?
whether he had publicly read the Thirty-nine Articles, and given his
assent, and celebrated every office in such form, manner, and habit,
as is prescribed? He inquires as to the right and due observance of
the sacraments, and the notice of holydays: and, like others of his
brethren, inquires respecting the observance of the 5th of November,
the 30th of January, and the 29th of May.[398]

Archdeacons also issued articles touching the manner of celebrating
Divine service.[399]

Notwithstanding all these precautions, a few ministers continued within
the pale of the Establishment without conforming to the Act.

[Sidenote: THE BARTHOLOMEW EJECTMENT.]

John Chandler held the living of Petto in Essex; although he had only
received Presbyterian ordination, he was pronounced by his diocesan,
Bishop Reynolds--thus far true to his old faith--to be as good a
minister as he could make him; and notwithstanding his only partial
use of liturgical worship, he was allowed to retain his incumbency.
Mr. Ashurst, of Arlsey--a poor Bedfordshire vicarage--in the diocese
of Lincoln, in which Laney succeeded Sanderson in 1663, continued to
officiate in the parish church, reading parts of the Common Prayer, and
taking for his support whatever his parishioners chose to contribute.
Nicholas Billingsley, settled at Blakeney, in the parish of Awre, in
the diocese of Gloucester--"lived very peaceably for awhile"--on his
impropriation of £50 per annum, by the permission of Bishop Nicholson.
We also find in the diocese of Chester, under the successive episcopacy
of Hall, Wilkins, and Pearson, that Angier of Denton, continued the
occupancy of the parish pulpit, and the enjoyment of parish emoluments,
notwithstanding his perseverance in Presbyterian worship. Tilsley, the
Presbyterian Vicar of Dean, after losing his vicarage, was, by Wilkins,
permitted to resume his ministry as lecturer in his old parish, the
new Vicar reading prayers. There were other instances in the same
diocese of an evasion of the law. In the diocese of Gloucester, under
Nicholson, Henry Stubbs was allowed the poor living of Horsley; and in
the diocese of Llandaff, under Lloyd, Richard Hawes was permitted to
preach without subscribing. Similar instances of irregularity occurred
in different parts of the country. Some clergymen, after being ejected,
were allowed to become chaplains in hospitals and prisons, and to
officiate occasionally for parochial Incumbents.[400]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

It may be added, that there were clergymen in the Establishment who
disapproved of what had been done. Edward Stillingfleet, however he
might speak and act afterwards, expressed, at that time, liberal
opinions, and acted in a manner consistent with them. He maintained
that Christ's design was to ease men of their former burdens, and not
to lay on more; that the unity of the Church is an unity of love and
affection, and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion; and that
however desirable in a Church the latter might be, as long as there are
men of different ranks and sizes in it, it is hardly attainable.[401]

In accordance with these sentiments, Stillingfleet sheltered at his
rectory of Sutton, in Bedfordshire, one of the ejected ministers, and
took a large house, which he converted into a school for another.

Laymen also deplored the severities of the measure. Hale, Boyle,
and Sir Peter Pett did so; whilst Locke's earliest work, written
in 1660, aimed at reconciling the Puritans to submission in things
indifferent.[402] A strong conviction existed in the minds of
Episcopalians and Royalists that Nonconformity was disloyal and
insurrectionary; and this conviction, then, and long afterwards,
operated as a power in the Church of England, destructive of social
peace and union, far beyond what is generally supposed. The rumours
about plots in the earlier period of the reign of Charles II. have
not much occupied the attention of historians. They are commonly
dismissed as idle tales. No doubt they were such in most instances;
and not in a single instance did any actual insurrection occur. But
in history, it is important to notice, not only what men have done,
but what men have believed to be done. Beliefs, however absurd, have
been to those who entertained them, just the same as facts, and these
beliefs have actually been factors of great power: as such they claim
to be noted by the historian. I have too much faith in the English
spirit of the seventeenth century, in the generosity which mingled
with the High Churchmanship of the best of the Cavaliers, and in the
thorough conscientiousness of many of the Conformists, to believe that
they could have acted towards Dissenters as they did, unless they
had been hood-winked by people who persuaded them, that Dissenters
were not true-hearted Englishmen, but only so many wretched rebels.
It so happens that the _State Papers_, as already indicated, afford
almost innumerable illustrations of the extent and operation of these
prejudices, and I make no apology for employing many of these documents
in subsequent pages as useful contributions to English history.

[Sidenote: RUMOURED PLOTS.]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

In October, 1662, Sir Edward Nicholas was succeeded by Sir Henry
Bennet. Like his predecessor, he gave himself diligently to inquiries
respecting suspected persons. A month before the former retired,
he told Lord Rutherford that there were rumours of disturbances
intended by Presbyterians and Independents, but at present all was
quiet. A month afterwards he confessed to the same person, that
there was no commotion in any part of the kingdom, although factious
sectaries raised reports to frighten people.[403] Frivolous letters
constantly poured in upon the bewildered officials. There came
notes of conversation with Edward Bagshawe,[404] who said London
was discontented; that 1,960[405] ministers were turned out of
their livings; that Dunkirk was sold; that the King only minded his
mistresses; that the Queen and her cabal carried on the Government
at Somerset House; that Popery was coming in; that the people would
not endure these things, but would rise on the ground _that the Long
Parliament was not yet dissolved because they had passed an Act against
any dissolution but by themselves_. A large bundle of examinations
was forwarded to Bennet, about the same time, by the Earl of
Northumberland--an informer conveying them, and adding to the written
secrets, _vivâ voce_ revelations--the papers disclosing such frivolous
circumstances as that three gentlemen and two servants, whom nobody
knew, had been seen somewhere, and that "an ancient grey man," and "a
Jersey Frenchman" were mysteriously moving from place to place. Also,
there arrived a packet promising much information, which, when opened,
was found to contain only religious sentences, and a number of love
verses. Suspicious persons were reported, and it is amusing, amongst
unknown names to find mentioned "Dr. Goodwin and Owen, who now scruple
at the surplice, but used to wear velvet cassocks, and to receive
from five to seven hundred a-year from their Churches."[406] The
letter-bags were robbed; people's houses were broken into, and trunks
full of papers seized and carried off by constables. Spies employed by
the Government were active in collecting reports, and there can be no
doubt that they were quite as active in inventing them. Two informers,
Peter and John Crabb, brought accounts of intended insurrections; but
at the same time they made awkward revelations respecting themselves.
Peter had told the Secretary of State, that he and his brother John
were the Secretary's devoted servants, and wished to be employed in
a certain business; that he had only received a part of the money,
which he understood the Secretary had sent him; and that to cover his
profession as a spy, lest City people should wonder how he lived, he
put out a "bill, advertizing the cure of the rickets in children, in
Red Lion Court, Bishopsgate."[407] After reading the correspondence of
these two brothers, I am not surprised to find depositions charging
one of them with being a liar and a villain. The depositions are met
by cross-swearing; the whole business leaving the impression that
Whitehall was beset by troops of scoundrels.[408] A result of this kind
of espionage, and of the exaggerations and inventions of informers,
may be found in the trial and condemnation of six men in the month of
December for being concerned in an intended rising of "Fifth Monarchy
men, Anabaptists, Independents, and fighting Quakers." The evidence
rested chiefly upon rumours.




                              CHAPTER XV.


[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

After all Clarendon's advice and all Sheldon's opposition, the King,
within four months of the meeting of Council already described,
returned to his favourite expedient. He published, on the 26th of
December, 1662, a Declaration, in which he referred to promises from
Breda, of ease and liberty to tender consciences, and also to malicious
rumours to the effect, that at the time he denied a fitting liberty
to other sects whose consciences would not allow them to conform to
the established religion, he was indulgent to Papists, not only in
exempting them from the penalties of the law, but even to such a degree
as might endanger the Protestant religion.[409] Respecting all this he
asserted, that as he had been zealous to settle the uniformity of
the Church, in discipline, ceremony, and government, and would ever
constantly maintain it--so as for the penalties upon those who, living
peaceably, did not conform, he should make it his special care, so far
as possible, without invading the freedom of Parliament, to incline
their wisdom, the next sessions, to concur in the making some such
Act for that purpose, as might enable him to exercise, with a more
universal satisfaction, that power of dispensing, which he conceived to
be inherent in him as a Sovereign.[410]

[Sidenote: 1662.]

When this Declaration was published, the hopes of ejected ministers
began to revive. Independents took courage; Philip Nye, in spite of age
and poverty, manifested some eagerness to revive public Nonconformist
worship. Although personally under the ban of the law, he, with some
other brethren, found admission to Whitehall, and was graciously
allowed an interview with Charles. We do not exactly know what passed;
but Nye received so much encouragement from His Majesty's conversation,
that he told Baxter, the King had resolved to grant them liberty.
The day after New Year's Day, the Independent diplomatist appeared
at the house of the Presbyterian Divine to discuss the propriety of
acknowledging the King's Declaration and seeking indulgence. Baxter
resolved not to commit himself; nor would other Presbyterians take
a share in the business; they had had enough of it, they said: the
reasons, at the bottom of their policy, being that they dreaded a
toleration which they knew would be extended so as to embrace Roman
Catholics. They looked on the Declaration as a Trojan horse; but Nye,
whose ideas of religious freedom perhaps had grown, so that he might
be willing to concede it to Roman Catholics, and who certainly had
a strong desire after unfettered action for himself and his party,
thought the tactics of the Presbyterians unwise, and he considered
that, through them, he and his brethren "missed of their intended
liberty."[411]

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

Further discussion followed between Baxter and the Independents.
They said that they had heard from the Lord Chancellor, that liberty
had been intended for them, but that the Presbyterians had opposed
the measure. Old sores were re-opened, and Baxter, evidently rather
nettled, records how the Independents became affected towards the
Popish Earl of Bristol, thinking that the King's Declaration had been
obtained by him, and that he and the Papists would contrive a general
toleration. Burnet confirms what Baxter says of the Earl's influence,
by informing us, that just before, there had been a meeting of Papists
at that nobleman's residence, where it had been resolved to make an
effort in favour of the Roman Catholics, and with such a view to help
Dissenters.[412]

Clarendon, who had strong Protestant convictions, felt alarmed at the
brightening prospects of the Romanists, and he resolved to take a leaf
out of their own book--to fight them with their own weapons--and to
adopt their own principle--"Divide and conquer!" Clarendon accordingly
proposed that Roman Catholics should take the Oath of Allegiance,
renouncing the Pope's deposing power--an oath to which some did not
object, but which others would, on no account, accept. He also proposed
the tolerating of secular priests, coupling with it the banishment
of Jesuits and other regular orders--another scheme which he knew
well would breed division. The whole of the Chancellor's policy is
not explained, but it is apparent that he had set his mind upon
extinguishing the hopes of the Papists.[413]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Parliament assembled on the 18th of February, 1663. The King's speech
indicates the unpopularity of the recent Declaration, and he found
it necessary to assure the Houses that he did not intend to favour
Popery at all, and that he would not yield to the Bishops in his zeal
for uniformity; but still he said, with obvious inconsistency, if
Protestant Dissenters would be peaceable and modest, he could heartily
wish that he had such a power of indulgence as might not needlessly
force them out of the kingdom, or give them cause to conspire against
its peace. Five days afterwards, a Bill was brought into the House of
Lords and read the first time, to empower His Majesty to dispense with
the _Act of Uniformity_, and with other laws concerning it.[414] This
Bill came to nothing, being earnestly opposed by Lord Southampton,
by the Bishops, and by Clarendon, who, in spite of a fit of the gout,
delivered a speech on the adjourned debate, full of uncompromising
opposition to the King's favourite measure.[415] It is a singular
example of the difference between a Chief Minister of that day and
a Prime Minister of our own, that Clarendon should in the House of
Lords oppose the measure which had been brought in, according to
wishes expressed in the speech from the Throne; nor can his conduct
respecting the Declaration fail to support against him the charge of
duplicity.[416]

Amongst the mischiefs which, Clarendon says, resulted from what he
calls the unhappy debate on the Indulgence, was the prejudice and
disadvantage which the Bishops experienced in consequence of their
unanimous opposition. "For from that time the King never treated any
of them with that respect as he had done formerly, and often spake of
them too slightly; which easily encouraged others not only to mention
their persons very negligently, but their function and religion itself,
as an invention to impose upon the free judgments and understandings
of men. What was preached in the pulpit was commented upon and derided
in the chamber, and preachers acted, and sermons vilified as laboured
discourses, which the preachers made only to show their own parts and
wit, without any other design than to be commended and preferred."[417]

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

The subject of Indulgence agitated the whole country. It was keenly
discussed in private meetings of Nonconformist ministers, at
archidiaconal visitations and other clerical gatherings--and still
oftener, and with not less heat, by burghers and yeomen around their
firesides. Largely, too, did it enter into the contents of letters,
in one of which, written by William Hook to his late colleague
in New England, we discover copious references to this and other
ecclesiastical topics. Making allowance for the writer's prejudices, we
may learn something from his curious epistle.[418]

"There is a toleration talked of, and expected by many, since the
King's Declaration, which came forth about a month or six weeks since.
The Papists improve the best of their interest to move it; but as for
their being tolerated, there are many of the grandees against it, who
are ready enough to move a motion for toleration of the Protestant
suffering party. The Bishops greatly abhor such a thing, as not being
able to subsist but by rigour and persecution: for had we liberty as to
the exercise of religion, they would be contemned by almost all men;
and whereas few frequent the meeting-places now, they would scarce
have any then. They have therefore striven to strengthen themselves by
moving and writing to Parliament men, before they come up to the City,
to sit again on February 18. And, as I hear, some of their letters
were intercepted and made known to the King, who was offended at some
passages, and their practices. Much to do there has been about this
business, and what will become of it, and the issue be, we are all
waiting for."

[Sidenote: 1663.]

In another part of the same epistle, relating to the same subject,
Hook gives a glimpse of an amusing incident:--"His Majesty sent for
Mr. Calamy, Dr. Bates, and Dr. Manton (and some say, Mr. Baxter also),
on the last of the last week, and took them into his closet, and
promised to restore them to their employments and places again, as
pitying that such men should lie vacant, speaking also against the
Popish religion, as it is said. Before they went in with the King,
some said, 'What do these Presbyterians here?' but when they came out,
they said, 'Your servant, Mr. Calamy, and your servant, Dr. Manton,'
&c. It was told them that a Bill for Liberty should be given in to the
House; but, however it went, they should have their liberty, _i.e._,
upon subscribing (I take it) thirteen articles touching doctrine and
worship, in which there is nothing (as they say) offensive to a tender
conscience. There is a distinction between an act of comprehension and
an act of judgment. Some are for the first, others not. The first is
comprehensive as to all forms in religion (excepting Papist, &c., but I
cannot well tell). The other leaves it to His Majesty to indulge whom
he seeth good. On the last day of the last week, a motion was made in
the Lower House for Liberty, according to the King's Declaration, which
I have sent you. A disaffected spirit to Liberty was much discovered
by very many, and the business was referred to be debated upon the
Wednesday following, which is this present day: what will come of it I
cannot yet tell."[419]

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

The subject of Indulgence was revived in the summer, and again the
Presbyterians and the Independents, as before, are found in controversy
on the point.[420]

Amidst rumours of various sorts, and as the Upper House still occupied
itself upon the offensive Bill, the Lower House showed, as they had
done from the beginning, the most intolerant zeal for the Established
Church. When thanking the King, on the 27th of February, for his
speech, they told him that an indulgence of Dissenters would establish
schism by law--would be inconsistent with the wisdom and gravity of
Parliament--would expose His Majesty to restless importunities--would
increase the number of sectaries--would be altogether contrary to
precedent--and would be far from promoting the peace of the kingdom.

This array of objections alarmed the Monarch; he immediately replied
that he would take time for consideration; and on the 16th of March,
he sent an answer--assuring his faithful Commons that they had
misunderstood his meaning--thanking them for their thanks--and desiring
them to put the kingdom in a state of defence, but not saying one word
about the apple of discord.[421]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Both Houses, on the 31st of March, 1663, presented a Petition to the
King, imploring him to command all Jesuits and Popish Priests, whether
English, Irish, or Scotch, to quit the realm. To him such a Petition
must have been annoying, and after delaying a while, to give any
distinct answer, he replied, that he felt troubled on account of the
resort to England of Jesuits and Priests, that it was so much ill-use
made of his lenity towards many of the Popish persuasion,--that his
feelings in this respect were the natural effects of his generosity and
good disposition, after having lived so many years in the dominions
of Catholic Princes,--that he would now endeavour to check the
evil,--that as his affection for the Protestant religion and the Church
of England had never been concealed, so he was less solicitous for the
settling of his revenue than for the advancement and improvement of
the ecclesiastical establishments, and for the using of all effectual
remedies for hindering the growth of Popery.[422]

The Commons passed Bills against Papists and Nonconformists, but these
Bills were not sanctioned by the Upper House.[423]

From the passing of the Act of Uniformity down to the repeal of the
clause in 1865, touching the declaration of _assent and consent_, the
meaning of those words was a constant subject of controversy, some even
of the Bishops construing them in a very lax and indefinite manner. The
words seem to many persons precise enough; and one might have thought
that no room remained for controversy respecting them, after what took
place in the House of Commons at the time now under review. A Bill
passed in the month of July, to relieve those who by sickness or other
impediment had been disabled from subscribing the required declaration.
The Lords wished to sanction the latitudinarian interpretation, and
adopted as an amendment this position, that "_assent and consent_"
should "be understood only as to the practice and obedience to the said
Act, and not otherwise." Against this construction the Duke of York and
thirteen other Lords entered their protest. The Commons indignantly
rejected the amendment, as having "neither justice nor prudence in
it." Such conduct aroused the anger of the Lords, who resolved to take
up the subject in the following session; but they allowed it to drop,
and so virtually gave way to the Lower House, and left the strict
grammatical meaning as the true construction of the law.[424]

[Sidenote: PAPISTS AND NONCONFORMISTS.]

Upon the 27th of the same month, July, the Speaker of the House of
Commons alluded to a measure for the better observance of the Sabbath;
the legislation of the Commonwealth on that as on all other subjects
having been rendered void. He dwelt in an affected strain upon the
decline of religion, and then returned to the subject of the growth
of Popery, and of Sectarianism. He was commanded, he said, to desire
that His Majesty would issue another proclamation for preventing
profaneness, debauchery, and licentiousness, and for better securing
the peace of the nation against the united counsels of Dissenters.
Charles replied, that he had expected to have had Bills presented to
him against distempers in religion, seditious Conventicles, and the
increase of Popery; but, that not being done, if he lived, he himself
meant to introduce such Bills. Meanwhile, he had charged the Judges
to use all endeavours to disperse the Sectaries, and to convict the
Papists.[425]

Soon after the Restoration death removed several prelates. Brian
Walton died in November, 1661, in a little more than two months after
his installation at Chester, when Dr. George Hall succeeded him.
Nicholas Monk--whose funeral has been noticed--within one year of his
promotion to Hereford, died on the 17th of December, 1661, and was
succeeded by Herbert Croft. Duppa, Bishop of Winchester, died March
25th, 1662, leaving behind him a reputation for munificent charity,
and, just before his departure, bestowing his Episcopal benediction
upon the King, who had been his pupil, and who knelt by the side of his
death-bed. Gauden, who in the beginning of 1662 had been translated
from Exeter to Worcester, expired before the end of twelve months.

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, died in January, 1663. When in his
illness petitions were offered for his recovery, he remarked that "his
friends said their prayers backward for him; and that it was not his
desire to live a useless life, and, by filling up a place, keep another
out of it, that might do God and His Church service." With his dying
breath he exclaimed, "Thou, O God, tookest me out of my mother's womb,
and hast been the powerful protector of me to this present moment of
my life. Thou hast neither forsaken me now I am become grey-headed,
nor suffered me to forsake Thee in the late days of temptation, and
sacrifice my conscience for the preservation of my liberty or estate.
It was by grace that I have stood, when others have fallen under my
trials; and these mercies I now remember with joy and thankfulness,
and my hope and desire is that I may die praising Thee." He had no
taste for funeral parade, and expressly directed in his will, that he
should be buried with as little noise, pomp, and charge as might be--no
escutcheons, gloves, ribbons--no black hangings in the church, only a
pulpit cloth, a hearse cloth, and a mourning gown for the preacher of
the funeral sermon--who was to have five pounds for the service, upon
condition, that he spoke nothing of the deceased, either good or ill,
"other," Sanderson adds, "than I myself shall direct." Nor was any
costly monument to be raised to his memory, "only a fair flat marble
stone."[426]

[Sidenote: PRELATES.]

Juxon, Archbishop of Canterbury, expired at Lambeth Palace, on the
4th of June; and left behind him an honourable renown for meekness,
constancy, fortitude, and liberality. The sums which he contributed to
public objects of charity and religion amounted to no less than £48,000.

Archbishop Bramhall departed this life, in Dublin, on the 25th of the
same month, after three fits of paralysis. To use the words of Jeremy
Taylor in his funeral sermon for the Primate, "As the Apostles in the
vespers of Christ's passion, so he, in the eve of his own dissolution,
was heavy, not to sleep, but heavy unto death; and looked for the last
warning, which seized on him in the midst of business; and though it
was sudden, yet it could not be unexpected or unprovided by surprise,
and therefore could be no other than that εὐθανασία, which Augustus
used to wish unto himself, a civil and well-natured death, without
the amazement of troublesome circumstances, or the great cracks of a
falling house, or the convulsions of impatience."[427]

Through vacancies at the time of the Restoration, and deaths and
translations afterwards, within two years and a half, mitres fell to
the disposal of the Crown more than twenty times.

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Sheldon, as a reward for the great services which he had rendered to
the High Church party during the Commonwealth; at the Restoration, and
after his preferment to London, was translated to the Archiepiscopal
see of Canterbury. The ceremony of his installation was performed with
very great pomp.[428]

[Sidenote: PROSCRIBED WORSHIP.]

In spite of the severity of the law, and the activity of informers,
considerable numbers in different parts of the country met for
religious worship. It is very common, in the informations sent to
Secretary Bennet respecting these assemblies, to find mention made of
them as having a revolutionary object. There were, it is reported,
daily great Conventicles near Canterbury; and on Whit-Tuesday, June
20th, three hundred persons met in the village of Waltham, in a farm
cottage, described as "one Hobday's house." Others heard preaching in
a cherry orchard, sitting under trees then rich with ripening fruit;
upon leaving the enclosure, it is said, they had with them "fifty or
sixty good horses, several portmanteaus," and certain bundles "supposed
to contain arms." Liberty thus exercised, frightened intolerant
people. Sectaries in the City of Chichester were charged with treating
contemptuously the surplice and Prayer Book. Some were imprisoned,
and others bound over to the Sessions. The ringleaders promised to
be quiet, yet afterwards they interrupted the ministers in worship;
in consequence of which, the trained bands marched out to keep guard
for a fortnight, at the expiration of which period another company of
the same kind was to take their place. Like precautions were adopted
at Yarmouth, where two hundred Nonconformists were charged in the
Commissary Court with not taking the sacrament.[429] In the City of
Norwich, the Deputy-Lieutenant hearing of a meeting in a private house,
issued warrants to search for arms. The officers, upon being denied
entrance, broke open the doors, and found two or three hundred persons
engaged in worship, one hundred of whom were strong men. Their teacher
was identified, and all were bound over to the following Sessions.
Complaints were made from Lewes that the Sectaries in that town were
as numerous as ever. One of the "saints" there happening to die, the
clergyman of the parish heard that he was to be buried at night; so
when it grew dark, he began carefully to watch, and as the corpse
arrived at the churchyard, made his appearance to read the burial
service. Upon seeing him, the party retired and took back the body, but
they returned in two hours, and again the Incumbent was discerned in
the dark, standing by the grave, when they treated him so insolently,
that he had to bind several of them over to good behaviour. It was
also reported that shops in the town had been kept open in contempt
of Christmas Day, although the clergyman had sent orders to close the
shutters. "Fair means did no good to these stubborn rascals," said the
irritated informant; and his letter is but one specimen out of a great
number.[430]

Lucy Hutchinson tells a touching story, relating to the same summer
months, to which the earlier of these informations belong. Mr. Palmer,
a Nottingham Nonconformist minister, was apprehended, and some others
with him, at his own house, by the Mayor for preaching on the Lord's
Day, and was put into the town gaol for two or three months. Through
a grated window he and his brethren could be seen by the people in
the street. One Sunday, as the prisoners were singing a psalm, the
passengers stood still by the grated window to listen, and Mr. Palmer
went on to preach to the congregation outside, when the Mayor, a
renegade Parliament officer, came with officers, and beat the people,
and thrust some into confinement.[431]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

The ecclesiastical policy pursued at this time towards the English
colonists on the other side of the Atlantic was very different from
that adopted at home.

In the instructions given to the Governors of Jamaica, whilst they
were enjoined to encourage orthodox ministers of religion, in order
that Christianity and Anglican Protestantism might be reverenced and
exercised, it was commanded that those colonists who were of different
religious opinions should not be obstructed and hindered on such
account; that they should be excused from taking the Oath of Supremacy
according to the terms required in this country, and that some other
mode should be devised for securing their allegiance.[432]

In a Charter granted to the State of Carolina, dated March 24th, 1663,
there is a clause of indulgence to be granted to persons who could not
conform to the Liturgy, upon condition that they should declare their
loyalty, and not scandalize and reproach the Church.[433]

In the Royal Commission granted to the Governor of Virginia, he is
instructed not to suffer any one to be molested in the exercise of his
religion, provided he be content with a quiet and peaceable profession
of it, not giving offence or scandal to the Government.[434]

[Sidenote: COLONIAL POLICY.]

In the Charter granted to Rhode Island, July 8th, 1663, it is
distinctly provided, that no person within the colony should be
disquieted for differences of theological opinion.

Should any one ask, why were these people in the West so differently
treated from Englishmen in His Majesty's home dominions--the answer
is, that the power and the temper of the colonists were such that
it would have been dangerous to the Imperial rule of Great Britain
to have denied them the utmost toleration which they asked. Most
of the emigrants had fled the shores of England, because of their
Nonconformity, to seek a home in the New World, where they might
worship God; and for defence of the refuge which they had gained at
the cost of exile, they were willing to lay down their lives. It
would have been at the risk, nay, with the certainty of losing those
fair possessions, had the Government denied the fullest religious
liberty. Nor did the political fears which blended with the religious
animosities at home exist in relation to those distant settlements.
Neither could the Church be endangered, nor the Throne be shaken, nor
the State be disturbed by Nonconformists thousands of miles away. It is
also a fact that kindness and generosity will often flow in abundant
streams towards objects at a distance, whilst the current is diverted
from objects at the door.

Lastly, we should remember that Charles II. was not of an intolerant
and cruel disposition; that where he could, without trouble or danger,
concede religious liberty, he was ready to do so; and that Clarendon
was not destitute of all good-will towards people of other opinions
than his own when neither policy nor prejudice crossed his better
nature.

[Sidenote: 1663.]

In the month of October, after rumours of imagined outbreaks, something
of the kind actually occurred in Farnley Wood, Yorkshire. What was
going forward the Government knew, and enormously exaggerated reports
of it were conveyed to Whitehall. The wood was narrowly watched.
Twelve armed men met there. Two hundred were seen riding in an open
glade, after which they moved away, four or six together, in different
directions. Entrenchments were thrown up, but there was no fighting.
Several of these persons were arrested, amongst whom were Major
Thomas Greathead and Captain Thomas Oates, trustees of the curious
little Presbyterian chapel at Morley. Oates was tried at York, when
his infamous son Ralph appeared to give evidence against him, but was
refused a hearing by the Judge; the Captain, however, suffered death.
Greathead turned King's evidence, being promised not only his life but
a great reward, if he would confess the whole danger. The Royalist
spies and informers reported, that he was so necessary to the military
part of the business, that nothing could be done without him, and that
he was, therefore, fully trusted by the rebels. This appears in the
documents, touching the affair, preserved in the State Paper Office.
They are very numerous, and amidst much which is vague and confused,
may be discovered some definite proofs that a plot did exist in the
year 1663, with which the Farnley Wood entrenchments were connected.
There seem to have been exiles in Rotterdam, who had correspondence
with parties in England respecting this treasonable business,
especially Dr. Richardson, who surrendered his preferment at Ripon upon
the Restoration of the King, and had gone over to Holland. Among the
implicated persons he mentions Ralph Rymer, father of the Editor of
the _Fœdera_, which Ralph,--like Oates, and several others,--was hanged
for his share in the complicated proceedings of this extensive plot.
Richardson declared that if there had been a good leader the business
would have taken stronger and sooner. Their numbers were small, but
their faith was strong, and they believed miracles would have attended
their godly design. Several distinguished names are mentioned in the
documents, such as Lords Wharton and Fairfax; but the Government did
not meddle with these formidable personages.

[Sidenote: PLOTS AND INFORMERS.]

The sort of agency set to work, first to entrap, and then to convert
unwary Nonconformists, is revealed by a writer who, in the month of
December, bewails the severity of Government towards men deluded and
betrayed by informers; he instances a "Mr. Wakerley, a sober Yorkshire
Quaker, visited by Thomas Denham, a privileged spy, who tried to
persuade him to join the Northern design; he steadily refused, and even
wrote to Sir Thomas Gower an account of what passed, but his letter was
suppressed, and he summoned before the Duke of Buckingham as a plotter,
and only discharged on his letters being searched for and found."[435]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Not more frequent at that time, when old English sports continued to
amuse the nobility and gentry, was the flight of the hawk, freed from
its jess and hood, gliding through the air and striking its quarry,
than was the prowling abroad of the informer, who, freed from all
restraint of justice and humanity, pursued with keenest eye, and
seized with merciless vengeance, the ill-fated Sectary. This favourite
English bird, indeed, is dishonoured by the comparison, for, with
all the hawk's rapacity, the spy had none of its better qualities.
Sprung from the dregs of the people, mean and dastardly to the last
degree, and many of them spending their ill-gotten gains in gambling
and debauchery, creatures of this kind were as much the objects of
abhorrence to the respectable portion of the community, as they were
of terror to the innocent class upon which they pounced. Destitute
of the fear of God, caring not at all for religion, yet professing
themselves zealous Churchmen, they spent the Lord's Day in ferreting
out their fellow-citizens and disturbing them at their devotions. In
coffee-houses and places of public resort, during the week, they were
lying in wait to catch the unwary, or to obtain a clue to the discovery
of Conventicles. Many of them perished in poverty, shame, and despair;
smitten, as their victims thought, by the avenging hand of God. To
informers belonged a low coarse villany, peculiar to themselves; but
their criminality could not but be largely shared by others, and the
responsibility of the system, of which they were the instruments,
attached mainly to the Government which condescended to employ
them.[436]

[Sidenote: NONCONFORMIST PLACES OF WORSHIP.]

At this point in our history we may appropriately answer two questions
which naturally arise respecting the Nonconformists--Where did they
worship? and how were the ejected ministers supported? These questions
lead us into the by-paths of our narrative, and entering them we
cannot avoid wandering a little further than strict chronological order
would allow. But, although we somewhat anticipate subsequent periods,
it will not matter; we shall presently return to the highway by the
gate through which we leave it, and the remembrance of what we pick
up in our short ramble will enable us better to understand much which
follows.

If Nonconformists would adore the Almighty as their consciences
dictated, they had to do so in concealment, and to adopt ingenious
devices to avoid notice, or to elude pursuit. In the old Tudor Mansion,
at Compton Winyates, Warwickshire, there is a chapel in the roof with
secret passages contrived for the safety of Popish recusants; and in
Oxburgh Hall, in Norfolk, there is a recess within a small closet, with
a trap-door concealed in the pavement. These contrivances were imitated
by Protestant Nonconformists in the days of Charles II. An instance
of this kind, not long since, could be shown among the ruins of the
Priory of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, consisting of subterranean ways
and doors in the crypt. The Baptists of Bristol hung up a curtain, and
placed their minister behind it, so that a spy coming in could not
see the speaker. When a suspicious person made his appearance it was
customary for the congregation to begin singing, and for the preacher
to pause. At Andover, it is said, that the Dissenters met for prayer in
a dark room, until a ray of morning light, struggling down the chimney,
announced the hour to depart.[437]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

In the village of Eversden, in the County of Cambridge, stands an old
Manor house, moated round and approached by an ancient bridge. It
is reported that a vehicle might be often seen crossing that bridge
after dark, in the time of persecution, on its way to Cambridge, to
bring back Francis Holcroft, to preach at midnight in the wood, which
skirted the back of the edifice. There was once a Gospel Beech in the
Wolds of Gloucestershire, a Gospel Oak near Kentish Town, and an Oak of
Reformation in Kett the Tanner's Camp, near the City of Norwich, and to
these may be added the Oak at Eversden,--remaining within the memory
of the present generation, called the Pulpit Tree--a sort of Christian
Dodona, from which the minister just named announced the Word of Life.
In the woods near Hitchin, tradition reports, that John Bunyan used,
after nightfall, to gather together great numbers of the neighbouring
peasantry; and at Duckinfield, in Cheshire, people can still point out
the place where the "proscribed ministers were met by their faithful
adherents, when the pious service of prayer, praise, and exhortation
had no other walls to surround it but the oaken thicket, and no other
roof for its protection but the canopy of Heaven."[438]

[Sidenote: EJECTED MINISTERS.]

A few of the ejected ministers lived in comfortable circumstances.
Inheriting a fortune, or acquiring property during their connection
with the Establishment, they were provided against pecuniary
inconvenience after the Restoration.

John Owen must have derived from the Deanery of Christchurch something
considerable, to which additions were made by the bequest of a
relative, if not by the profits of his publications. He had an estate
at Stadham, whither he retired on his removal from Oxford; and, after
his second marriage in 1667, he was enabled to keep his carriage,
and a country house at Ealing in Middlesex.[439] John Tombes, the
Antipædobaptist, married a rich widow at Salisbury, not long before
the King's return, and lived in that city upon her estate, visiting
the Bishop and enjoying the friendship of other dignitaries.[440] Some
of those who were compelled to renounce their incumbencies, adopted
secular employments as a means of livelihood; some became physicians
or lawyers, some established schools, which, however, were liable to
be broken up by the Five Mile Act, and several became chaplains or
tutors in private families.[441] John Howe spent about five years in
Ireland, at Antrim Castle, with its spacious and richly-timbered park,
upon the banks of the charming Lough Neagh, where he administered the
ordinances of religion to the family of Lord Massarene.[442] Dr. Jacomb
enjoyed the friendship of the Countess of Exeter, to whom he had been
chaplain; and, after his resignation of St. Martin's, Ludgate, he found
a comfortable home in her town house, where he made it his constant
care to promote domestic religion. John Flavel lived at Hudscott
Hall, belonging to the family of the Rolles, near South Molton, in
Devonshire. Supported by the liberality, and screened by the influence
of the Lord of the domain, he there, amidst plantations, gardens, and
other rural scenes, gathered together the materials of his _Husbandry
Spiritualized_. There, too, he assembled around him, as best he could,
sometimes at midnight, the members of his former parish flock, and
interested and instructed them by ingenious illustrations adapted to
their rustic habits and tastes.[443]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Those who steadily laboured, with more or less publicity, would receive
such assistance from their hearers as was voluntarily contributed. But
Richard Baxter, as he informs us, pursued a very independent course,
and sought to imitate the Apostle Paul by not being chargeable to
any. Dropping into a gossiping humour he declares, in his _Life and
Times_, that for eleven years he preached for nothing; that he did not
receive a groat but what he returned, unless it were between forty and
fifty pounds given him at different times, partly to defray his prison
charges, and an annuity of ten pounds sent by a friend. Having printed
about seventy books, no one, whether Lord, Knight, or other person
to whom they were dedicated, ever offered him a shilling, except the
Corporation of Coventry, and Lady Rous, each of whom presented him
with a piece of plate of the value of four pounds. The fifteenth copy
of a work was his due from the publisher; but he gave them away to the
amount of many thousands amongst his friends, who, noble or ignoble,
offered him not a sixpence in return.[444]

[Sidenote: EJECTED MINISTERS.]

Some of the ejected, reduced to extremities, were discovered under
the concealments which from poverty they contrived. Mr. Grove, a man
of great opulence, whose seat was in the neighbourhood of Birdbush,
in Wiltshire, in consequence of his wife's dangerous illness, sent
to the minister of the parish. The minister was riding out with the
hounds, when the messenger arrived, and he replied that he would visit
the gentleman when the hunt was over. Mr. Grove, having expressed his
displeasure that the clergyman should follow his diversions rather than
attend to his flock, one of the servants took the liberty of saying,
"Our shepherd, sir, if you will send for him, can pray very well: we
have often heard him in the field." Upon this the shepherd was sent
for, and Mr. Grove asking him whether he could pray, the shepherd
replied, "God forbid, sir, I should live one day without prayer." Upon
being desired to pray with the sick lady, he did it so pertinently,
with such fluency, and with such fervour, as greatly to astonish all
who listened. As they rose from their knees the gentleman observed:
"Your language and manner discover you to be a very different person
from what your appearance indicates. I conjure you to inform me who and
what you are, and what were your views and situation in life before you
came into my service." To this the shepherd rejoined, that he was one
of the ministers who had been lately ejected from the Church, and that,
having nothing left, he was content to adopt the honest employment of
keeping sheep. "Then you shall be my shepherd," rejoined the Squire,
and immediately erected a Meeting-house on his own estate, in which
Mr. Ince (for that was the shepherd's name) preached and gathered a
congregation of Dissenters.[445]

[Sidenote: 1663.]

Numerous anecdotes are recorded by Calamy, and others, of the
remarkable manner in which certain ejected ministers amidst their
privations received assistance. If we believe (and who that accepts the
New Testament can doubt it?) that a special Providence watches over
those who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, we are
prepared to discover special Divine interpositions on behalf of men
distinguished by integrity, faith, devotion, and self-sacrifice.




                             CHAPTER XVI.


Within two years after the passing of the Act of Uniformity, the
clergy exerted themselves to obtain further legislation in favour of
the Church. From a petition which they presented to Parliament in the
year 1664, it appears they were anxious for the enactment of severe
laws against Anabaptists, who were complained of as fraudulently
industrious in making proselytes. They also desired to promote the
observance of the Lord's Day, by increasing the fine of twelve pence
in every case of non-attendance upon Divine service. They wished the
clergy to be assisted in recovering tithes, not exceeding the value
of forty shillings, by less expensive means than law-suits; and they
requested a more equitable method of clerical taxation than that which
then existed. They further asked for an augmentation of the incomes of
Vicars and Curates, and for the enforcement of the payment of Church
rates.[446]

[Sidenote: 1664.]

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLE ACT.]

How far this petition, which points to the alarming increase of the
Anabaptists, might influence certain proceedings of the same year,
it is a fact, that a law for the suppression of Nonconformity soon
afterwards appeared. Charles, when proroguing Parliament in the month
of July, 1663, had promised a further measure against Conventicles.
The recent Act of Uniformity had rendered the Dissenting clergy
liable to three months' imprisonment if they publicly preached; but
it had not directly touched the case of laymen, except so far as
schoolmasters were concerned. Through the application of Elizabeth's
Act of Uniformity, and of other laws for repressing civil disaffection,
laymen, frequenting Conventicles, became liable to penalties; but the
Conventicle Act, now to be described, aimed, by a direct and decisive
blow, at crushing for ever the nests of sedition. It was passed in
the month of May.[447] It recognized the Act of Elizabeth as still
in force; and it provided, that no person of sixteen, or upwards,
should be present at any assembly of five, or more, under colour of
religion "in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy;" and that
every such offender should, for the first offence, be imprisoned for a
period not exceeding three months, or pay five pounds; for the second
offence, be imprisoned not exceeding six months, or pay ten pounds;
and, for a third offence, be transported, for seven years, to any
foreign plantation (Virginia and New England only excepted); the goods
of the offenders to be distrained for the charges of transportation,
or his service made over as a labourer for five years. The payment
of one hundred pounds would discharge from such imprisonment and
transportation; and such a fine was to be appropriated for the repair
of churches and highways. Escape before transportation subjected the
victim to death. Power was given to prevent Conventicles being held,
or, if held, to dissolve them. Any one who allowed a meeting in a house
or outhouse, in woods or grounds, incurred the same penalties as the
attendants. Gaolers were forbidden to allow offenders to remain at
large, or to permit any person to join them. The houses of Peers were
exempted from search, except by Royal warrant, or in the presence of
a Lieutenant, a Deputy-Lieutenant, or two Magistrates. Quakers, for
refusing to take oaths, were to suffer transportation. Noblemen, if
they offended against the law, were, in the first two instances, to pay
double fines--and in the third instance to be tried by their peers.[448]

The Bill proceeded upon the principle, already established by the
Act of Uniformity, that Nonconformist clergymen were incompetent to
preach; and it laid down another principle, a legitimate corollary
of the former, that Nonconformist laymen were, as such, incompetent
to worship. The intolerant measure would seem to have passed the two
Houses with little or no discussion, as not any notice is taken in
the _Parliamentary History_ of speeches delivered upon the occasion;
and Clarendon remarks, that, at this time, there was great order and
unanimity in debates, and Parliament despatched more business of public
importance and consequence than it had done before, in twice the
time.[449]

[Sidenote: 1664.]

As we examine the Act, we cannot help calling to mind the ordinance of
the Long Parliament in 1646, forbidding the use of the Prayer Book "in
any private place or family." Here, as in other cases, are seen the
footsteps of avenging Deities; and, as is their wont, they meted out
penalties exceeding the original offence. In this case, fines of five
pounds and ten pounds, indeed, just equalled the pecuniary mulcts of
Presbyterian law; but the _one_ year's imprisonment, without bail or
mainprise, threatened by the Long Parliament against a third offence,
was now thrown into the shade by the enactment--first, of a penalty of
transportation for seven years, in cases where means did not exist for
paying the sum of one hundred pounds; and next, of capital punishment,
in case of the convicted Conventicler being caught after making his
escape.

The difference in some respects, the similarity in others, between
the principles upon which the Anglican politicians proceeded in
their conduct towards Puritans, and the principles upon which the
Puritan politicians had proceeded in reference to Anglicans, has been
little, if at all, noticed. As to the difference, the Conventicle
Act regarded Conventicles simply as seditious, it punished men for
religious convictions, under pretence of preventing rebellion; on the
other hand the Long Parliament and Oliver Cromwell had forbidden the
use of the Prayer Book, in order to break up assemblies for worship
held by persons who, not without reason, were suspected of political
disaffection. There was a further difference--Clarendon and his party
sought to establish uniformity by the use of the Anglican Liturgy;
the Presbyterians had aimed at their uniformity through a prohibition
of that Liturgy, not by any enforcement, under penalties, of the
Westminster Directory. The Anglican law was prescriptive; the Puritan
prohibitive. But there is involved in all this a general resemblance
between the two. Neither appears thoroughly straightforward; each is
exceedingly intolerant; and both aim at doing one thing, under pretence
of doing something else. Yet let it not be forgotten, that while there
is little to choose between them in point of principle, the extent to
which persecution was carried, under Charles and his brother James,
immensely exceeded anything reached under the Long Parliament, or under
Oliver Cromwell.

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLE ACT.]

The new law was ordained to take effect after the 1st of July;
but formidable difficulties in the way of its execution presented
themselves as the time approached, arising from political disaffection,
from the numbers of Nonconformists, and from the sympathy which their
more tolerant neighbours felt with them in the sufferings which they
endured.

"The Quakers, Anabaptists, and Fifth Monarchy men," it is stated, in
the month of June, "will meet more daringly after the time limited in
the Act, and say they will neither pay money nor be banished. They have
solicited others of different persuasions to join them in opposing
the Act, and they get encouragement, though no promises. If dealt
with severely, a body of 10,000 would rise, and demand fulfilment of
the King's Declaration for liberty of conscience. They say, if their
spirit of suffering be turned into a spirit of action, woe to those
who stand in their way. Other Sectaries resolve to keep to the limits
of the Act, and increase their number as they can safely. The hopes
of a war with the Dutch, fermented by spies at Court, dispose the
desperadoes to dangerous resolutions."[450] This is the representation
of an enemy, and cannot be trusted for accuracy in particulars; but, so
far as a general determination to persevere in worship is concerned,
probably the writer is perfectly correct, and the whole drift of his
communication manifests the difficulty which was felt with regard to
the anticipated execution of the new statute.

The Congregational Churches about Furness were reported as resolved to
meet, notwithstanding the Act; and as wasting their money by rewards,
and by maintaining prisoners, and other people, who absconded in order
that they might not be cited to bear witness.[451]

[Sidenote: 1664.]

After the Conventicle Act came into force the number of offenders
excited attention, and created difficulty. Newgate was so full that it
bred an infectious malignant fever, which sent many to their long home;
and the magistrates, who thought their Nonconformist neighbours "unfit
to breathe their native air when living, buried them as brethren, when
dead." Stress was laid upon the great number of Dissenters, both by
enemies and friends. They were said to exceed "two parts of the common
people;" to have connection with the nobility and gentry; and to be
so numerous that His Majesty could not force them to conformity, by
banishment or death, without endangering the safety of the kingdom. Nor
were there wanting Churchmen, to plead for a lenient treatment of their
persecuted brethren, whilst they themselves complained that rulers
were winding the pin of Government so high as to threaten to crack the
sinews, and that so much formalism and corruption prevailed in the
Establishment as to provoke people to wish for its overthrow.[452]

Of the existence at this time of alarming disaffection amongst persons
of Republican opinions who had served in the Army, there cannot be any
doubt. Abundant indications of it are afforded in contemporary letters.
How, indeed, could disaffection but exist under a Government, which,
whilst denouncing plots and plotters, was, by its own intolerance,
stirring people up to rebellion? No one can be surprised that old
soldiers, who had fought for liberty, felt disposed again to draw
the sword, if any chance of success appeared. Where no signs of
resistance were made, and very many persons, either from worldly
policy, or from Christian patience resolved to be quiet, there
throbbed intense indignation at the infliction of so much wrong--a
temper with which it is dangerous for any Government to trifle. The
suspicion that Nonconformists were engaged in plots contributed to
increase a persecuting spirit. Local attacks might spring from Anglican
fanaticism, from private pique, and revenge, from the vulgar insolence
of mobs, and from the avarice or ambition of informers; but the
assaults which proceeded immediately from headquarters, as the State
Papers distinctly prove, were provoked principally by political fears.

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLE ACT.]

The Conventicle Act was executed with severity. A congregation meeting
at a baker's house in Maryport Street, Bristol, was visited by the
Mayor and Aldermen, who demanded admission; the baker refused, when
an entrance was forced by means of a crowbar, and the people and the
minister escaped through a back door. They were "hunted by the Nimrods,
but the Lord hid them many days." Once, somewhere in Corn Street, a
guard of musketeers came to take people into custody, when, it being
evening, the persecuted escaped through a cellar into Baldwin Street.
At another time, when the Mayor and Aldermen again beset the house,
a brother, sending his companions upstairs, contrived, by means of a
great cupboard, to hide the garret door.[453] Presbyterians at Chester,
disturbed in their worship, hid themselves under beds, and locked
themselves up in closets; and sixty men and women, in a village of
Somersetshire, were apprehended, and, in default of paying fines, were
sent to gaol.[454]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Whilst Nonconformists were suffering from the Conventicle Act, the
King recurred to his scheme for granting indulgences; in favour of
which Lord Arlington, on behalf of the Catholics, and the Lord Privy
Seal, who was interested for the Presbyterians, plied an efficacious
argument. They urged that, frightened by recent laws and the zeal of
Parliament in the cause of the Church, Dissenters would gladly compound
for liberty at a reasonable rate, by which means a good yearly revenue
might be raised, and concord and tranquillity be established throughout
the kingdom. The King caught at this reasoning: a Bill was prepared,
in which Catholics as well as Protestants were included;--a schedule
having been drawn up, computing what they would be willing to pay. The
Bill entrusted the King with a dispensing power,--and the Royal origin
of the measure becoming known to the Peers, they offered no opposition
to the first reading; but afterwards, the Lord Treasurer, and many of
the Bishops, sharply opposed it, and Clarendon threw the weight of his
influence into the same scale. In a courtier-like speech, reported by
himself, he upheld Charles' Protestantism, and cleverly insinuated that
the question was not "whether the King were worthy of that trust, but
whether that trust were worthy of the King,"--that it would inevitably
expose him "to trouble and vexation," and "subject him to daily and
hourly importunities; which must be so much the more uneasy to a nature
of so great bounty and generosity,"--and that nothing was so ungrateful
to him as to be obliged to refuse. Even the Duke of York expressed
dissatisfaction--influenced, as is presumed, by the Lord Chancellor.
Few spoke in favour of the Bill, and it was agreed that there should
be no question as to its being committed--"which was the most civil
way of rejecting it, and left it to be no more called for." The only
results were, the mortification of His Majesty, and the augmentation
of bitterness against the Roman Catholics.[455]

[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

An important change had occurred in the relation of the clergy
to the State at the opening of the year 1665, which we must step
back to notice. In ancient times they had possessed the privilege
of self-taxation, and this privilege survived the Reformation.
Ecclesiastical persons continued to vote subsidies from their own body:
the proportions being assessed by Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The
censures of the Church fell upon those who did not pay; and if Sheriffs
were remiss in executing the writ _de excommunicato capiendo_, Bishops
had their own prisons in which to confine the refractory: and it may be
concluded, that it came within the power of diocesans to sequester the
profits of incumbencies, when the holders of them refused to meet their
assessments. Parliament, in the reign of Henry VIII., had confirmed
such aids; and from that time the clerical tax, after being ratified
by the two Houses, could be levied in the way of distress. The whole
of this system of taxation had disappeared in 1641, when ministers of
religion, in common with other people, became subject to Parliamentary
assessment. A proposition to the effect that ministers should be
exempted from paying tenths and first-fruits had been entertained in
an early part of the Protectorate; and it had even been suggested that
they should be relieved from taxation altogether;[456] but this excess
of liberality bore no fruit, and at the Restoration the clergy fell
back into their old position. After the revision of the Prayer Book had
been completed, in the winter of 1661-2, Convocation did nothing but
grant subsidies,--beyond discussing such matters as the composition of
a school grammar, a petition from poor clergymen in the Isle of Wight,
and the translation of the Prayer Book into Latin.[457] A grant of four
subsidies in the year 1663 was confirmed by Act of Parliament;[458] but
before the close of that year, the Bishops and clergy began to regard
this rating of themselves as troublesome, and they found that both the
Court and the Commons were discontented, unless Convocation fixed their
contributions at a rate beyond all reasonable proportion. The petition
of the clergy, already noticed, looked in that direction, and noticed
the existing mode of Convocational taxation, as an ecclesiastical
hardship. Sheldon, and other prelates, it is supposed under the
influence of considerations of this kind, arranged with the Government
that the ancient custom of voting subsidies should be waived, and that
spiritual as well as secular persons should be included in the Money
Bills of the Commons. In promoting this alteration, the Archbishop
and his Episcopal helpers did not appear in the character of High
Churchmen, the alteration being thoroughly opposed to the ancient canon
law. And to encourage the clergy, it was proposed that two of the last
four clerical subsidies should be remitted, and that a clause should
be inserted in the new Act, for the saving of ancient rights. The Bill
passed on the 9th of February, 1665; and, at the same time, parochial
ministers acquired the privilege of voting for members of Parliament.
Collier remarks,--"that the clergy were gainers by this change is more
than appears."[459] And he is right. No doubt the change struck a fatal
blow at the importance and authority of Convocation; for Convocation,
like Parliament, had been valued by Sovereigns because of its holding
the purse-strings of a portion of the people; and when money no longer
flowed into the exchequer in the form of ecclesiastical subsidies,
Convocation sunk into neglect. It would be very surprising, if it were
a fact, that State Churchmen, desiring to maintain the independence of
the Church, did not foresee the operation of the change, and did not
attempt to prevent it: but the fact is, that Churchmen, just after the
Restoration, zealous for such independence, were neither numerous nor
influential, and that the majority of those in orders were decidedly
Erastian in their tendencies. The change, however, was one which, if it
had not been brought about by such motives of expediency as influenced
Sheldon, must have followed in the wake of advancing civilization--the
anomaly of a particular class left to tax itself not being permissible
in modern times: nor can it be doubted, that it is far better for the
temporal interests of the clergy, as well as of the laity, that they
should stand shoulder to shoulder, bearing together the burdens of
their country.

[Sidenote: SHELDON'S INQUIRIES.]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Five months after this Act had passed, Archbishop Sheldon issued
orders and instructions to the Bishops of his province, concerning
ordinations, pluralists and their curates, lectures and lecturers,
schoolmasters and instructors of youth, practisers of physic, and
Nonconformist ministers. He complained of divers unworthy persons, of
late crept into the ministry, to the scandal of the Church, and the
dissatisfaction of good men; and to remedy these evils, Bishops were
ordered to be very careful what persons they received for ordination.
Inquiries were made touching pluralities, and whether pluralists kept
able, orthodox, and comformable _curates_ upon the benefices where
they did not themselves reside. The word _curates_, it may be remarked
in passing, had now changed from its ancient to its modern meaning;
and having been applied generally to all pastors, it was introduced by
the Archbishop as the title of distinct and subordinate officers.[460]
These orders may be divided into two parts--those which relate to
the internal government of the Church; and those which relate to
Nonconformists. The second part will be noticed in the next Chapter.




                             CHAPTER XVII.


[Sidenote: 1665.]

[Sidenote: THE PLAGUE.]

This year appears as a terrible one in the annals of London.[461] Two
men in Drury Lane had sickened in the previous December. Upon inquiry,
headache, fever, burning sensations, dimness of sight, and livid spots
had indicated that the Plague was in the capital of England. The
intelligence soon spread. The weekly bills of mortality, for the next
four months, exhibited an increase of deaths. The month of May showed
that the disease was extending; and in the first week of July, 1006
persons fell victims to the destroyer. Men fled in terror; vehicles of
all kinds thronged the highways, filled with those whose circumstances
enabled them to change their abode; but multitudes, especially of the
poorer class, remained, and, being crowded together in narrow streets
and alleys, they were soon marked by the Angel of Death. The mortality
reported from week to week rose from hundreds to thousands, until
during the month of September, the terrific number of 10,000 occurred
in one week. In one night, it is said, 4,000 expired. Shop after shop,
and house after house was closed. The long red cross, with the words,
"Lord, have mercy upon us" inscribed upon the door, indicated what
was going on within. Watchmen stood armed with halberds, to prevent
communication between the inmates and their neighbours. Instead of the
crowds which once lined the thoroughfares, only a few persons crept
cautiously in the middle of the road, fearful of contact with each
other. "The highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through
by-ways." A coach was rarely seen, save when, with curtains drawn,
it conveyed some Plague-stricken mortal to the pest-house. Wagons,
laden with timber or stone, had disappeared, for men had no heart to
build; and the half-finished structure sunk into premature decay.
Carts, bringing provision, were not suffered within the gates; markets
were held in the outskirts, where the seller would not touch the
buyer's money, until it had been purified by passing through a vessel
of vinegar. Similar precautions were used at the post office, which
was so fumed morning and evening,--whilst "letters were aired over
vinegar,"--that the people employed in it could hardly see each other;
but, says the writer, who mentions that fact, "had the contagion been
catching by letters, they had been dead long ago."[462] Grass sprung up
in the streets, and a fearful silence brooded over the wide desolation.
London cries, sounds of music, the murmur of cheerful groups, and the
din of business had ceased. The lonely passenger, as he walked along,
shuddered at the shrieks of miserable beings tortured by disease, or at
the still more awful silence. Doors and windows were left open--houses
were empty--the inmates gone.

Some dropped in the streets; others had time to go to the next stall
or porch, "and just sit down and die." Men, who drove the death-carts,
perished on their way to the pit, or fell dead upon the corpses, which
were tumbled into the place of burial. A person went home, hale and
strong--at eventide there was trouble, and before the morning, he was
not. As the mother nursed the babe, a purple spot appeared on her
breast, and, in a short time, the helpless little one was clinging to
its lifeless parent.

The real horrors of the Plague-year were augmented by imagination.
Men saw in the heavens portentous forms, blazing stars, and angels
with flaming swords; on the earth they discerned spectres in menacing
attitudes. Some fancied themselves inspired. One of these fanatics
made the streets ring with his cry, "Yet forty days, and London shall
be destroyed." Another, with nothing but a girdle round his loins, and
bearing a vessel of burning coals upon his head, appeared by night
and by day, exclaiming, "Oh, the great and dreadful God!" There were
individuals, as amidst the plague of Athens, "who spent their days
in merriment and folly--who feared neither the displeasure of God,
nor the laws of men--not the former, because they deemed it the same
thing whether they worshipped or neglected to do so, seeing that all
in common perished--not the latter, because no one expected his life
would last till he received the punishment of his crimes;"[463] but the
greater part of the population looked upon the calamity in the light of
a Divine judgment, and trembled, with inexpressible fear, at the signs
of God's displeasure.

[Sidenote: 1665.]

A Proclamation appeared in July, appointing as a fast-day the 12th of
that month; and, afterwards, the first Wednesday in every succeeding
month, until the Plague should cease. Collections were ordered to be
made on these occasions for relief of the sufferers; and also forms of
morning and evening prayer were published by authority, together with
"an exhortation fit for the time."[464]

It is more humiliating than surprising, to find how far political and
ecclesiastical considerations became mingled with the prevailing alarm.

Charles issued a Proclamation to the Lord-Lieutenants of Counties,
exhorting them to be extraordinarily watchful over all persons of
seditious temper; to imprison those who gave ground for suspicion,
and cause others to give security for good conduct on any jealousy of
a commotion.[465] On the other hand it was affirmed, that at their
meetings Nonconformists expressed a sense of the Lord's displeasure
for the sins of His people, but made no reflections on the Government.
Had the King heard their earnest prayers for God's mercy and favour,
and their contrite confessions of sins, he would not, it was thought,
regard them as unworthy of the indulgence which he seemed disposed to
grant.[466]

[Sidenote: THE PLAGUE.]

Henchman, Bishop of London, wrote to Lord Arlington, expressing thanks
for warnings relative to the disorders which would arise, should
ejected ministers be allowed to occupy the vacant pulpits. The sober
clergy, he says, remained in town, implying by the statement that
others had fled; and he informs His Lordship that he had refused
some who offered to supply destitute churches, suspecting them to be
factious, although they promised to conform. Most of his officers had
deserted him and gone down into the country; but he could not learn
that any Nonconformist minister had invaded the City pulpits. He was
glad that many who had never attended Divine worship before, now
presented themselves at church.[467] The Bishop found it necessary to
threaten with expulsion from their livings those who fled, if they did
not resume their posts;[468] and Sheldon, in the midst of the Plague,
issued a circular commanding the Bishops of his province to return the
names of all ejected ministers; which returns are preserved in the
Lambeth Library.[469] To his credit it should be recorded also, that in
this season of visitation, he exerted himself for the temporal welfare
of his fellow-creatures, though it does not appear that he manifested
any great anxiety about their spiritual well-being.

He directed frequent collections to be made on behalf of those who
were perishing for want of the necessaries of human life, "thousands
of poor artisans being ready to starve." He wrote for help to the
Archbishop of York, and he gave judicious instructions respecting the
probate of wills--the large number of deaths having led to an undue
granting of administrations, to the increase of the infection and the
injury of people's estates. His Grace directed that all surrogations
should be revoked; that the granting of administration and probate
should be suspended for fourteen days at least, and that afterwards
no administration or probate should pass, until the expiration of one
fortnight following the departure of the deceased; an arrangement which
was judged "to be a visible means to hinder the further dispersing of
the pestilence, and to do a right and justice to the interested."[470]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Simon Patrick, who held the livings of Battersea and St. Paul's, Covent
Garden, remained in London throughout the whole period. He studied,
preached, visited the sick, and distributed alms; and upon a review
of the awful season and his own peril, recorded the following words:
"I had many heavenly meditations in my mind, and found the pleasure
wherewith they filled the soul was far beyond all the pleasures of the
flesh. Nor could I fancy anything that would last so long, nor give me
such joy and delight, as those thoughts which I had of the other world,
and the taste which God vouchsafed me of it."[471]

Vacant churches, neglected parishes, and excited multitudes presented
opportunities of usefulness to some of the ejected ministers, of
which, in spite of the Bishop's precautions, they were quick to avail
themselves.

[Sidenote: THE PLAGUE.]

Thomas Vincent had been a student at Christ Church when Dr. Owen was
Dean, and upon leaving the University, became chaplain to the Earl of
Leicester. He succeeded Mr. Case in the living of St. Mary Magdalen,
Milk Street, whence he was ejected by the Act of Uniformity. In his
retirement he devoted himself to the study of the Bible, and committed
to memory large portions of it, observing to his friends, that he did
not know, but that they who had taken from him his pulpit, might,
in time, take from him his Bible. When the Plague broke out he was
residing at Islington; for some time it did not penetrate into that
neighbourhood, but sympathy with sufferers, not far off, proved a
stronger feeling than a regard for his own safety. Contrary to the
advice of some of his friends, he devoted himself to the work of
preaching and visiting, in districts where the pestilence prevailed;
and he states, as remarkable,[472] that pious people "died with such
comfort as Christians do not ordinarily arrive unto, except when
they are called forth to suffer martyrdom for the testimony of Jesus
Christ." So extraordinary was his preaching, that it became a general
inquiry every week, where he would be on the following Sunday--and
amongst the multitudes who crowded to listen to his ministry, many
persons were awakened by his searching discourses. With a total
disregard of the danger of such gatherings at such a time, people
crowded large edifices to suffocation. The broad aisles, as well
as the pews and benches, were packed with one dense mass--anxious
countenances looked up to the Divine in his black cap; the reading of
the Scriptures, the prayer, and the sermon, being listened to amidst a
breathless silence, only broken at intervals by half-suppressed sobs
and supplications.

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Other methods of usefulness were employed. In a volume of broadsheets
in the British Museum may be seen "Short Instructions for the Sick,
especially who, by contagion or otherwise, are deprived of the
presence of a faithful pastor, by Richard Baxter, written in the Great
Plague Year,"--full of characteristic appeals, intended to be pasted on
the cottage-wall, as a faithful monitor to all the inmates.

The malady in London began to decline in the latter part of September,
and at the end of the year it ceased, when the City soon filled again,
resuming its wonted aspect of activity and bustle, and the beneficed
clergy who had fled reappeared in their pulpits. The minister of St.
Olave's, where Pepys attended, was the first to leave, the last to
return; and the minute chronicler informs us, that when he went with
his wife to church, to hear this Divine preach to his long-neglected
flock, he "made but a very poor and short excuse, and a bad
sermon."[473]

The Plague, when it left London, visited, with its horrors, many other
parts of England.

It is curious to find that the Corporation of Norwich gave orders
to the parish clerks, not to toll for the dead, any bell, but one
belonging to the parish in which the person died; because it had become
a practice for the citizens in one parish to have the bells tolled for
deceased friends in another parish, so that all the church steeples
were sometimes ringing out a knell for the same individual.

[Sidenote: THE PLAGUE.]

As in London, so in the country, the ejected clergy[474] watched for
opportunities of usefulness, but they were often thwarted in their
laudable efforts. Owen Stockton, ejected at Colchester, when he saw
many, "even the shepherds of the flock, hastening their flight,"
offered, if the magistrates "would indulge him the liberty of a public
church, to stay and preach,"--"till either God should take him away by
death, or cause the pestilence to cease." The magistrates had no power
to set aside the law, and the privilege asked being denied, the Puritan
confessor, from the study of the words in the Book of Isaiah--"Hide
thyself as it were for a little moment until the indignation be
overpast"--satisfied himself as to the lawfulness of removing from
place to place, in time of peril, and hastened with his family to the
retired village of Chattisham, in Suffolk.[475]

A touching story is told of a clergyman at Eyam, in Derbyshire. A box
of cloth was sent from London to a tailor in the village, who, soon
after he had emptied the package, fell sick, and died. The pestilence
presently swept away all in his house except one. It spread from
cottage to cottage, and a grave-stone remains to tell the story of
seven persons of the name of Hancock, who died within eight days. As
the churchyard did not suffice for the burial of the dead, graves were
dug in the fields and upon the hill-side, where corpses were hastily
interred. The clergyman was Mr. Mompesson, a young man of twenty-eight,
whose wife, alarmed for the safety of her husband and their two
children, besought him to flee, but he would not leave his flock. With
heroic love, whilst seeking his safety, she exposed herself to imminent
danger; and consenting to the removal of the children, resolved to
abide in the parsonage, where they remained for seven months. In
conjunction with the Earl of Devonshire, the patron of the living, the
Incumbent arranged that all communication with neighbouring places
should be cut off, that no one should go beyond a boundary marked by
stones, where people came and left provisions, and where the buyer put
his money in a vessel of water. Combining singular prudence with ardent
zeal, Mompesson provided for the continuance of religious services,
without hazarding the health of his parishioners by bringing them into
a crowded church, and wisely performed Divine service in the open air.
In Cucklet Dale, by the side of a running brook, with a rock for his
pulpit, with craggy hills on one side, and lofty trees on the other for
the walls of his temple, he assembled his flock for worship, and was
wonderfully preserved from contagion; but just as the Plague began to
decline, his noble wife fell a victim to its power.[476]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Nor let Thomas Stanley, a minister who had been ejected from the living
of Eyam, be forgotten. He could not preach to the people whom he loved;
but by visitation, advice, and prayer, he sought to promote their
temporal and spiritual interests. Some looked with jealousy upon his
efforts, and endeavoured to persuade the Earl of Devonshire to remove
him from the place; but, whoever they were, the Earl was his friend,
declaring it much more reasonable that the whole country should testify
their thankfulness to such a spiritual benefactor.

These are instances of activity. There were also examples of
endurance. Samuel Shaw, ejected from the rectory of Long Whatton, in
Leicestershire, retired to the village of Coates, near Loughborough,
and there engaged in agricultural pursuits for the support of his
family. His fields were ripe for the sickle, the valleys were covered
with corn, and the good man shared in Nature's joy, as he looked upon
his quiet homestead, "little dreaming," as he tells us, "of the Plague,
which was almost a hundred miles off." Some friends from London came
down to see him, and brought the infection; soon the Plague-spot
appeared, and touched one after another of his household, until all
were smitten, and the farm-cottage became a pest-house. The master
of the dwelling shut himself up for three months, tending the sick
as far as his own health permitted; for he himself suffered from the
fearful malady. Two of his children died, one of his servants died, two
of his friends from London died: five out of ten were thus cut off.
Yet, although enfeebled by sickness, having no one besides himself to
perform the rites of sepulture, he turned his garden into a grave-yard,
and with his own hands buried the dead.[477]

[Sidenote: THE PLAGUE.]

Driven from London by the Plague, the two Houses held their sittings in
the Great Hall of Christ's Church, Oxford, where Charles I. had met his
mock parliament.

The subject of the continued existence and of the alarming increase
of Nonconformity again came upon the carpet. Instead of disinterested
exertions, put forth by ejected ministers in a Plague-stricken country,
being rewarded by commendation, jealousy was expressed respecting
the manifestations of their zeal. It was odiously represented in
parliamentary circles, that Dissenters in many places, "began to preach
openly, not without reflecting on the sins of the Court, and on the
ill-usage that they themselves had met with."[478] Prejudices were
increased by reports to the effect, that Conventiclers in Scotland were
bold and mutinous, and that they were supposed to have entered into
treasonable correspondence with English Presbyterians;[479] at the
same time, perhaps, circumstances pertaining to a new conflict with
Holland, in which this country was then engaged, served to intensify
these mischievous feelings.

[Sidenote: 1665.]

The Dutch war, though not approved of by the King or by his Chancellor,
found favour at Court with a party headed by the Duke of York, and
was warmly supported by Parliament; besides which, an Act was passed
for attainting the English who should continue to reside in Holland,
or who should engage in the Dutch service.[480] Some of the fanatical
Sectaries, it was alleged, entered that service, and were intending
to take up arms against their King and their country; and, moreover,
it was known that this war against the United Provinces incurred
much unpopularity even with moderate Nonconformists. Influenced by
such considerations, and also by reports, of which we have so many
specimens, Archbishop Sheldon felt anxious to ascertain the numbers and
the strength of these disaffected people--a project which he afterwards
carried out, with results appearing at a later period. He not only
issued orders, that Bishops should be careful what persons they
received into the ministry: that in all things the canons concerning
ordination should be observed: that all pluralists should be reported,
with full particulars respecting their pluralities: that it should be
certified to the Archbishop where lectures were set up, and who were
the lecturers, and how they were "affected to the Government of His
Majesty, and the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England:" but
that information also should be returned respecting all schoolmasters
and instructors of youth, and practisers of physic: and that the
Bishops of his province should inform him what Nonconformist ministers
in their dioceses had been ejected, what was their profession in life,
and how they behaved themselves in relation to the peace and quiet,
as well of the Church, as of the State; and also whether any such had
removed from one diocese into another.[481]

[Sidenote: FIVE MILE ACT.]

Parliament now determined to deal another heavy blow at the obstinacy
and insolence of Dissent. If there were in England people disposed
to conspire against the Government, adequate means for detecting
such persons existed: but, not satisfied with laws against treason,
Parliament, under cover of putting an end to plots, passed a measure
affecting men, against whom no reasonable suspicion whatever could be
entertained.

The Five Mile Act--the measure to which we now refer--was passed in
the month of October, 1665, and was entitled "An Act for restraining
Nonconformists from inhabiting in corporations." It complained of
persons taking upon themselves to preach to unlawful assemblies, under
pretext of religion, in order to instil the poisonous principles of
schism and rebellion into the hearts of His Majesty's subjects; and it
imposed, more stringently than ever, the oath of non-resistance and
passive obedience.

This was the form of the oath:--"I do swear that it is not lawful,
upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the King; and that
I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority
against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him,
in pursuance of such commissions; and that I will not at any time
endeavour any alteration of Government, either in Church or State."

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Failing to take this oath, Nonconformist ministers were forbidden after
the 24th of March following, to come, except as passengers, within
five miles of any corporate town or any place where, since the passing
of the Act of Oblivion, they had been in the habit of officiating. A
payment of forty pounds was prescribed as the penalty for offending
against the Act; and those who refused the oath, and did not attend
Divine service in the Established Church, incurred incapacity for
exercising even the functions of a tutor. Any two county magistrates
were empowered, upon oath to them of a violation of this law, to commit
the transgressor to prison for six months.[482]

The Act of Uniformity had banished Nonconformist ministers from the
parish pulpits; the Conventicle Act had broken up the congregations
which these ministers had secretly gathered since St. Bartholomew's
Day, 1662; and now by the Five Mile Act, these persons were forced into
exile, and perhaps reduced to starvation.[483]

A spirit of retaliation may be traced in the new enactment. When
the Presbyterian visitors, in the year 1646, took possession of the
University, and the students proved rebellious, a military proclamation
threatened that the refractory who tarried _within five miles of the
city_, should be treated as spies.[484] And Cromwell had, by his
ordinance in 1655, forbidden ejected ministers to attempt the business
of education, or to officiate in their religious calling. Archbishop
Sheldon, sitting from day to day in the Hall of Christ Church, as the
Bill was read three times, might experience a gratified resentment
as he called to mind the former _five mile_ proclamation; and as
he thought of his own expulsion from the Wardenship of All Souls',
others might indulge in similar reminiscences and feelings.[485]
But the revenge proceeded far beyond the provocation. What was done
by the Oxford visitors, and those who supported them, was done in a
time of war, or immediately afterwards. What was done by the Oxford
Parliament was done in a time of peace. Moreover, Cromwell, in his
declaration, had prescribed no penalty for disobedience, and had
promised to deal leniently with all persons who were well-disposed
towards his government;[486] but now, men were required to swear to an
abstract proposition which destroyed the last defence of freedom, or
to be mulcted in a large penalty, with the superadded hardship of a
banishment from home.

[Sidenote: FIVE MILE ACT.]

The Bill met with a faint opposition in the Lower House; in the Upper,
not only the Lords Wharton and Ashley--the first a Nonconformist, it
will be remembered, the latter supposed to be inclined that way--but
also the Earl of Southampton, at that time Lord Treasurer, spoke
distinctly against it. The latter declared that no honest man could
take such an oath--he could not do it himself, for however firm might
be his attachment to the Church, as things were managed, he did not
know but that he might himself discover reasons for seeking some
change in its constitution.[487] Dr. Erle, then Bishop of Salisbury,
also disapproved of this assault upon liberty. The Primate Sheldon, and
the Bishop of Exeter, Seth Ward, were zealous in their support of it;
at the same time all who secretly favoured Roman Catholicism, regarded
it with satisfaction;[488] it being in harmony with their policy, to
reduce the Sectaries to such a state of misery, as that they should
be forced to accept toleration from His Majesty on his own terms.
Nearly half the House of Commons now became so infatuated as to support
another Bill, which was founded upon the opposition made by members of
the House of Lords, and which was intended to impose the obnoxious oath
and declaration upon the nation at large.[489] This Bill, however, was
rejected by the votes of three members, "who had the merit of saving
their country from the greatest ignominy which could have befallen it,
that of riveting as well as forging its own chains."[490]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

[Sidenote: FIVE MILE ACT.]

A difference of opinion arose amongst Nonconformists respecting the
course to be pursued in relation to the Five Mile Act. Some were
willing to take the oath in a qualified sense. Bridgeman, Chief Justice
of the Court of Common Plea[491] and other Judges explained the words
in the oath, "I will not at any time _endeavour_ any alteration of
Government, either in Church or State," to mean an _unlawful_
endeavour. With this qualification afforded by high legal authorities,
some distinguished Nonconformists submitted to the statute. About
twenty ministers in the City of London took the oath, including Dr.
Bates; and about twelve in Devonshire, including John Howe. Bates
argued, that the word _endeavour_ might be construed in a qualified
sense, according to the preface of the Act, its congruity with other
laws, the testimony of members of Parliament,[492] and the concurrent
opinion of the Judges. When he, with others, presented himself before
their Lordships, Bridgeman courteously observed, "Gentlemen, I
perceive you are come to take the oath. I am glad of it. The intent
of it is to distinguish between the King's good subjects, and those
who are mentioned in the Act, and to prevent seditious and tumultuous
endeavours to alter the Government." One of the ministers, Mr. Clarke,
replied, "In this sense we take it;" upon which Lord Keeling, the same
who introduced the Bill of Uniformity, said in a hasty tone, "Will you
take the oath as the Parliament has appointed it?" Bates replied, "My
Lord, we are come hither to attest our loyalty, and to declare, we will
not seditiously endeavour to alter the Government." When the oath had
been administered, Keeling proceeded with great vehemence to interpret
what they had done as involving the renunciation of the Covenant, "that
damnable oath," as he politely termed it, "which sticks between the
teeth of so many." He hoped, as there was one King and one faith, so
there would be one Government, and that if these ministers did not now
conform, what they had just done would be considered as meant "to save
a stake."[493] The ministers retired with sadness, without noticing the
insult.

[Sidenote: 1665.]

A certain interpretation being admitted by the Court, there could be no
charge of dishonest evasion against those who, in such a way, publicly
declared their construction of the words. Yet they really substituted
another declaration for that which was required by the law; and those
who allowed the substitution actually set the law aside. The law was no
doubt unjust; and to correct the injustice an unnatural sense was put
upon its terms. But notwithstanding this kind of sophistry--so often
practised even by people who are straightforward in other ways--the
pledge of obedience which the Nonconformists gave, sufficed to show the
intense cruelty of treating such men as if they had been rebels.[494]

The greater number of Nonconformists regarded the subject in a
different light from that in which it was viewed by Bates and Howe;
and not being able, with their convictions, to acquiesce in a forced
construction of the formulary, they refused to adopt it, whilst they
also still resolved to preach the Gospel: thus following the example
of the Apostles, who said, "Whether it be right in the sight of God
to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." The essence of the
whole question as to the explanation of formularies, and the course
which conscience dictates in cases where formularies are felt to be
objectionable, was involved in the controversy raised by the Five Mile
Act; and was a subject of casuistry too tempting for Richard Baxter
not to touch, even if practical considerations and personal interests
had not prompted him to engage in the inquiry. Several closely-printed
folio pages are devoted by him to an examination of the arguments
on both sides--the result of his cogitations being that he himself
records a resolution, not to take the oath at all. He looked upon
the whole proceeding as unrighteous; and pronounced the statute a
"history," adapted to make Nonconformists appear to posterity as if
they were disloyal. He was moved to draw up a defence on their behalf,
but, on reading it to some of his friends, they persuaded him to
throw it aside, and submit in silence. "The wise statesmen," adds the
simple-hearted theologian--and the remark involves a just satire on the
way in which the world often judges--"laughed at me, for thinking that
reason would be regarded by such men as we had to do with,--and would
not exasperate them the more."[495]

[Sidenote: FIVE MILE ACT.]

Those who declined to take the oath were either subject to fine, or
had to dwell in such places only as were allowed by the Act, such
compulsory residence, in a number of cases, rendering necessary an
expensive and inconvenient removal. Baxter and Owen, who were living in
London, repaired, the one to Acton, the other to Ealing. Many in the
Northern part of the country went to Manchester, Bolton, Sheffield,
and Mansfield, which were called "Cities of Refuge"--inasmuch as they
were, at that time, towns without corporations. Oliver Heywood left
Coley, not to go so far as many did, for he only crossed the hills to
Denton--"Yet it was the weariest, most tedious journey," he remarks, "I
have had that way, which I have gone many hundred times, but scarce
ever with so sad a heart, in so sharp a storm of weather."[496]

[Sidenote: 1665.]

Philip Henry refused to take the oath, and his case proved one of
peculiar hardship, for Broad Oak, where he lived, was but four
_reputed_ miles from Worthenbury, where he had preached, although upon
measurement the distance turned out to be above five miles. Reputed
miles were, by the authorities, counted instead of measured miles, and
consequently the good man was compelled to leave his family for a time,
"and to sojourn among his friends, to whom he endeavoured, wherever he
came, to impart some spiritual gift."[497]

Several ministers in the Northern Counties escaped the penalties of
the Conventicle and Five Mile Acts. This anomaly may be accounted for,
in part, by remembering the scanty population in those districts, and
the impossibility, under any circumstances, of maintaining such a
vigilant oversight of the inhabitants as to detect all instances of
disobedience. But the comparative exemption of some neighbourhoods in
the North from the vigorous oppression experienced elsewhere, is also
in part to be attributed to the influence of three noblemen who were
Lord-Lieutenants, respectively, of the Counties of York, of Lancaster,
and of Derby. The Lord-Lieutenant of Yorkshire was no other than the
notorious Duke of Buckingham, who had married Lord Fairfax's daughter.
Vicious and worthless as the Duke was, he had strong opinions in
favour of toleration, if for no higher reason, at least from dislike
to Clarendon's policy, and perhaps, too, from the influence of family
connections.[498] This erratic Peer had engaged a Nonconformist
minister as his chaplain, and when his mother-in-law, Lady Fairfax,
died, he endeavoured to arrange for the funeral sermon being publicly
preached by this gentleman.[499] The Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire was
the Earl of Derby; and of him, Newcome, the Presbyterian minister of
Manchester, tells several stories indicative of his liberality. The
Rector of Walton, a Heywood of Heywood, on one occasion asked the Earl
to put down a Conventicle at Toxteth Park. "What did the people do
there?" he asked. "Preach and pray," was the answer. "If that be all,"
replied the Earl, "why should they be restrained; will you neither
preach nor pray yourselves, nor suffer others to preach and pray?" The
Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Derby was the Earl of Devonshire, and
he also disliked the persecuting measures.

[Sidenote: NONENFORCEMENT OF LAW.]

Where no leniency was intended, the law, in some cases, failed in its
effect. This called forth the lamentation of certain zealots. "I am
bound to say," remarks one of this class, "nothing was prosecuted at
the last quarter sessions against the Quakers, nor the rest of that
diabolical rabble--although several bills of indictment have been
framed and presented at sessions against that viperous brood,--yet
by reason most of the grand jury are fanatics, the bills were not
found, and that they have several places of meeting will manifestly
appear.... The honest souls, especially Church officers and others,
are much afflicted to be reviled and affronted in the performance of
their offices by the bold faction.... The fanatics abound in good
horses, and seem to be ready for mischief; but if half a score such
as might be named were secured in our castles, and made to give good
security for their conformity to the King's Majesty and the Church,
doubtless it would abate their pride, and, it may be, confound their
devices."[500]

[Sidenote: 1666.]

One great reason assigned for the two oppressive Acts just
described, was, as we have seen, the disaffection of Nonconformists;
and--particularly in reference to the Five Mile Act--the allegation
that they were implicated in certain designs of invasion contemplated
by the Dutch was strongly urged. In this, as in former cases, we have
no means of testing the information which abounds in the letters
written at the time by the enemies of the accused. Many of the rumours
are utterly incredible--as for example that it was intended to restore
Richard Cromwell; that it would be easy to secure in some parts the
gentry on his side; that the watchword was to be "Tumble down Dick,
they will declare for a Commonwealth;" and that the Earl of Derby
favoured the disaffected party. We may be confident, too, from what we
know of their characters, that the principal Nonconformist ministers
frowned upon all political plots. Yet no one who has perused the State
Papers can deny, that at the time now under review, enough was reported
at headquarters to make the Government very uncomfortable.[501]

[Sidenote: DUTCH WAR.]

France just then was looking to England for elements of disturbance
which might favour its designs upon our country in aid of Holland,
Louis XIV. being on terms of friendship with the Dutch; and we find the
Grand Monarque, in a letter to the States, proposing to give occupation
to Charles at home by exciting the Presbyterians and Catholics to
revolt.[502]

In the summer of 1665, the Dutch, encouraged by promises of assistance
from the French, had been seen cruising around our coasts, and were
defeated by the English fleet; in 1666 a more important action occurred
on the 5th of June, when our countrymen burnt or disabled between
twenty and thirty of the ninety ships belonging to the enemy; and
another occurred on the 25th of July, which ended, after three days'
fighting, in the defeat of the Dutch.[503]

[Sidenote: 1666.]

It was to one of the engagements at that period that Dryden refers
in his picturesque description: "The noise of the cannon from both
navies reached our ears about the city, so that all men being alarmed
with it and in dreadful suspense of the event, which we knew was then
deciding, every one went following the sound as his fancy led him;
and leaving the town almost empty, some took towards the park, some
cross the river, others down it--all seeking the noise in the depth of
the silence."[504] Such imminent peril alarmed the whole country, as
well as London; and when, for a time, the worst was over, apprehension
remained of further attacks from the great naval power of Holland,
and some persons of Republican sentiments were hoping that their own
objects would be promoted by the war. English refugees in the United
Provinces were corresponding with their friends at home; and much,
it would appear, was said and done to nourish Republican hopes on
English soil. A considerable amount of sympathy with the Dutch existed
in the West of England; and, in consequence of this sympathy and
correspondence, the Government took measures to prevent letters passing
between the two countries. Aphara Behn--an eccentric and notorious
poetess and novelist--was employed upon a semi-official mission to
Antwerp, for the purpose of obtaining information from the English
fugitives respecting any political schemes which they might have in
hand.[505]

A great calamity now requires attention.




                            CHAPTER XVIII.


The Fire of London broke out on the 1st of September, in a baker's shop
in Pudding Lane. It rushed down Fish Street Hill, and soon enveloped
the dwellings by London Bridge and on the banks of the Thames. Fanned
by the winds, the conflagration swept westward and northward. It passed
in leaps from house to house, and flowed in streams from street to
street. Torrents of flame coming over Cornhill met others dashing up
from Walbrook and Bucklersbury. Along Cheapside, Ludgate, the Strand,
the furious element advanced, curling round the edge of Smithfield,
before its frightful circuit was complete. Thatched roofs, timber
walls, cellars of oil, warehouses filled with inflammable material fed
the tremendous pyre. Lead, iron, glass, were melted; water in cisterns
was boiled, adding vapour to smoke; stones were calcined, and the
ground became so hot that people walking over it burnt their shoes.
The libraries of St. Paul's, and Sion College, with large collections
of books and papers, were consumed; half-burnt leaves fell by Baxter's
house at Acton, and were blown even as far as Windsor.[506] Public
buildings shone like palaces of fine gold or burnished brass, and
glowed like coals in a furnace, heated seven times hotter than usual.
Blazing fragments were swept, like flakes in a snow storm, over the
City; whilst the dense conflagration underneath resembled a bow--"a
bow which had God's arrow in it with a flaming point." The cloud of
smoke was so great that travellers at noon-day rode six miles under its
shadow. At night the moon shone from a crimson sky. Young Taswell, a
Westminster boy, stood on Westminster Bridge, with his little pocket
edition of _Terence_ in his hand, which he could see to read plainly by
the light of the burning City.[507]

[Sidenote: 1666.]

[Sidenote: FIRE OF LONDON.]

People were distracted. Everybody endeavoured to remove what he
could--all sorts of things being conveyed away in carts and waggons,
barges and wherries. Poor people near the bridges stayed in their
houses so long that the fire touched them; and then they ran into
boats, or clambered from one pair of stairs, by the waterside, to
another. The pigeons were loath to leave their cots, and hovered
about windows and balconies, until they scorched their wings, and
fell. Churches were filled with furniture and articles of all kinds.
Holes were dug in gardens to receive casks and bottles of wine, boxes
of documents, and other treasures. The sick were carried in litters
to places of safety, and multitudes encamped in the fields beyond
Finsbury, in the village of Islington, and on the slopes of Highgate.
Such was the eagerness to obtain the means of removing goods, that £4
a load for a carter, or 10s. a day for a porter, was counted poor pay.
At the Temple, neither boat, barge, coach, nor cart, could be had for
love or money; all the streets were crowded with appropriated vehicles
of various kinds.

The constables of the respective parishes were required to attend
at Temple Bar, Clifford's Inn Gardens, Fetter Lane, Shoe Lane, and
Bow Lane, with 100 men each; at every post were stationed 130 foot
soldiers, with a good officer; and three gentlemen, empowered to
reward the diligent, by giving them one shilling apiece, whilst five
pounds--in bread, cheese, and beer--were allowed to every party. The
King and the Duke of York were bold and persevering in their endeavours
to extinguish the conflagration, ordering the use of great hooks, kept
in churches and chapels, for pulling down houses--the only means of
stopping the fire being to cut off the fuel. The militia were called
to aid these efforts and to prevent disturbance. They marched out of
Hertfordshire, and other counties, with food for forty-eight hours, and
with carts full of pickaxes, ropes, and buckets. These troops encamped
at Kingsland, near Bishopsgate. Markets were held in Bishopsgate
Street, upon Tower Hill, in Leadenhall Street, and in Smithfield. Bread
and cheese were supplied to the famishing, and means were adopted to
stimulate charity towards the homeless poor. Multitudes having taken
refuge in the houses and fields about Islington, the King requested
that strict watch might be kept in all the ways within the limits of
the town and parish, and charitable and Christian reception, with
lodging and entertainment, given to strangers. He further ordered,
that bread should be brought both to the new and old markets; that all
churches, chapels, schools, and public buildings, should be open to
receive the property of such as were burnt out of house and home; and
that other towns should receive sufferers who fled to them for refuge,
and permit them to exercise their callings--promise being given that
they should afterwards be no burthen.

[Sidenote: 1666.]

Three hundred and seventy-three acres within the walls, and
seventy-three acres three roods without the walls, were left covered
with ruins from the Tower to the Temple, from the North-east gate of
the City wall to Holborn Bridge. Besides Guildhall, and other public
edifices, eighty-nine parish churches, and thirteen thousand two
hundred dwellings were destroyed. The loss of property was estimated at
_eleven millions_ sterling.[508]

The miseries of the fire did not end with its extinction. In
addition to the losses which arose from the destruction of
property--manufacturers at Coventry, for example, being greatly injured
by the burning of goods which they had sent to London for sale--and to
other evils of various kinds incident after such a visitation, there
were certain lamentable consequences of a peculiar nature.

This visitation, as might be expected, was construed as a Divine
judgment for the sins of the City; different parties of course
pointing at the iniquities of their opponents as the cause of the
fiery overthrow. Fanatics believed that it was the vengeance of Heaven
against English barbarity in burning the Islands of Vlie and Schelling,
and against national sins in general. A Quaker, near Windsor, was
reported to have heard a miraculous voice saying, that "they have
had the pestilence, and fire, and other calamities, and yet are not
amended; but a worse plague has yet to come on them and the nation."
"They clearly intimate in their letters," it was said of the same sect,
"no sorrow for the late burning down so many steeple-houses (as they
call them) in all the City."[509]

[Sidenote: FIRE OF LONDON.]

Yet human agency of some kind was, of course, admitted to be at the
bottom. The Republicans, the Dutch, and the French, were suspected;
the opinion most prevalent being that the Papists were authors of the
mischief.

This idea extensively prevailed. Probably it helped to induce the
House of Commons first to present a petition to His Majesty asking
for the banishment of priests and Jesuits, for the enforcement of the
laws against them, and all other Roman Catholics, and for disarming
everybody who refused the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; and
secondly, to resolve that all the members of the House should receive
the Lord's Supper, under penalty of imprisonment for refusal.[510]
Certainly, upon the return of Gunpowder Plot Day, the inculpation of
the Papists kindled anew the eloquence of the clergy, and strengthened
the stock argument that the "Mother of Abominations" remained
unchanged. Yet the evidence adduced to establish the guilt of the
accused was utterly unsatisfactory. The only person convicted was a
Frenchman, and his conviction rested on his own assertion that he had
fired the City--an assertion which must have proceeded from a morbid
love of notoriety, or from some other unaccountable freak--for the
fellow, at the gallows, just before being turned off, acknowledged
that what he had said was altogether a lie. No doubt, the conclusion
reached by the Government is correct,--"That, notwithstanding that many
examinations have been taken, with great care, by the Lords of the
Council and His Majesty's Ministers, yet nothing hath been yet found
to argue it to have been other than the hand of God upon us, a great
wind, and the season so very dry."[511]

[Sidenote: 1666.]

Baxter, speaking of the state of London just before the fire, observes,
that in the larger parishes--for example, St. Martin's, St. Giles'
Cripplegate, and Stepney--there were 60,000 inhabitants each; that
in others, as in St. Giles'-in-the-Fields and St. Sepulchre's, there
were about 30,000, in others about 20,000. For these parishes the
churches afforded insufficient accommodation; indeed, the fourth part
of the people would not have found room in them had such a proportion
been disposed to attend public worship. He speaks of a sixth or a
tenth, as the proportion for which space in the parochial edifices was
available.[512] The fire, by destroying so many buildings, deprived
very many people of instruction and worship in the Establishment; and
little was done immediately towards repairing the evil. Houses were
restored, but churches were neglected. Burnet relates, that in 1669,
"when the City was pretty well rebuilt, they began to take care of the
churches, which had lain in ashes some years;"[513] and Baxter, writing
in the year 1675, affirms that few of the churches burnt in the fire
had been re-edified.[514]

The Nonconformists exerted themselves in this emergency.[515] The
parish Incumbents having left London for want of incomes and of
dwelling-places, the ejected ministers came forward to occupy the
deserted fields of labour, and resolved, that amidst the ruins they
would preach until they were imprisoned. Dr. Manton opened his rooms
in Covent Garden, and there gathered a congregation. Dr. Jacomb,
for that purpose, used an apartment in the house of the Countess of
Exeter. Dr. Annesley, Messrs. Vincent, Doolittle, and Franklin, and
other Presbyterians, either occupied chapels, with pulpits, seats,
and galleries, hastily erected, to supply the deficiency--"churches
of boards," called "tabernacles,"[516]--or large rooms fitted up in
some extempore fashion for a like purpose. What had been before done
covertly was now done openly; and the Independents, allowing for their
numbers, were not behind the Presbyterians in activity. Owen, Goodwin,
Nye, Brooke, Caryl, and Griffiths, to mention no more, publicly engaged
in religious ministrations wherever they were able, at a time when the
parish churches were lying in ruins.

[Sidenote: SCOTLAND.]

Scarcely had the ashes grown cold when tidings came of a religious
rising north of the Tweed. A Proclamation was issued at Edinburgh on
the 11th of October, 1666, enforcing the laws against Papists and
against Protestant Nonconformists, and requiring that masters, who were
all held responsible for their families, and that landlords, who were
all made accountable for their tenants, should abstain from repairing
to Conventicles, and should attend the Established Church. Sir James
Turner was despatched to execute the mandate, and he accomplished its
execution with a severity which provoked most violent opposition.

Declaring for liberty of conscience, and also for what was perhaps
still more popular--freedom from taxation--the insurgents, although
armed, and of formidable appearance, avoided collision with the
soldiers, and employed tactics simply defensive. They cut down
bridges, and destroyed boats to avoid pursuit, and then hastened
towards the Scotch capital, hoping to receive assistance from the
citizens. Disappointed in this respect, they retreated to the Pentland
Hills, where they were attacked by the Royal Army, and completely
routed, after leaving 500 of their comrades dead on the field. Horrid
tortures were inflicted on those who were taken prisoners; sixteen of
them were executed at Edinburgh, and four at Glasgow--all with their
dying breath denouncing Prelacy, laying the shedding of their blood
at the Bishops' doors, praying for the King, and begging the Almighty
to take away the wicked from about the throne. The disgusting details
are related with still more disgusting barbarity by correspondents in
Scotland, who sent to London intelligence upon the subject.[517]

[Sidenote: 1666.]

The report in England of fanaticism on the one hand, and cruelty on
the other, exasperated both Churchmen and Nonconformists. The former
had their suspicions strengthened as to the rebellious intentions
attributed to Presbyterians; and the latter were indignant at the
vengeance wreaked upon men whom they believed to be sufferers for
conscience' sake.

Traces are left of contemporary gossip in letters written at the time.
There is, said one, a general gaping of the Nonconformists as to
the issue of the disturbances in Scotland. There are, said another,
reports of a stir in Hereford, about hearth-money; and an eminent
Presbyterian wrote, that thousands of Scots were up and declaring
for King and Covenant, having Colonel Carr, an old Kirk-man, amongst
them. Other correspondents affirmed they did not wish the Scots for
guides, and then they reported "high differences among great persons
murmuring, and fears of the oath."[518] Churchmen protested that they
had forewarned their sober friends of the other party, and described
how the folly and insolence of Nonconformist guides would provoke the
authorities to check them.[519]

[Sidenote: FANATICS.]

Mormonism was then unknown. There were in existence no agents of that
strangely-compounded system, inviting emigrants to the Western world;
but there were people wandering about England who tried to persuade the
credulous and simple to repair to the Palatinate, saying that there
the kingdom of Christ was to be restored, and that England, whose sins
were so great, was on the edge of destruction. These apostles framed
a covenant,--which they concealed from those who were not likely to
subscribe it,--to renounce such powers and rulers as were contrary to
Christ, and to His Government, to refuse their money, and to separate
themselves entirely from all anti-Christian religions. They promised to
obey God's laws, especially those relating to the Sabbath, and never to
intermarry with strangers--to devote themselves wholly to the service
of the Almighty, and try to find a place where they might become a
distinct people. Explanations were added to the effect, that the powers
renounced were persecuting powers, but that God's laws, if practised
by them, were not to be renounced; that no ruler was to be allowed by
them, who did not enter into communion with themselves; and that coins
bearing images or superscriptions contrary to God's Word should be cast
away.[520]

[Sidenote: 1667.]

The Dutch, who had alarmed the Government in 1666, alarmed them again,
and the whole nation besides, much more, in 1667. One division of the
enemy's fleet swept up the Medway past Sheerness--the other, to divert
attention, sailed up the Thames. The former burst the chain hung across
the stream, fired at the batteries, reduced to ashes three first-rate
men-of-war, and then returned unmolested to join the rest of their own
vessels at the Nore.

The influence produced by this unprecedented invasion is vividly
reflected in the following letter:--"The merchants are undone. Our
great bankers of money have shut up their shops. People are ready to
tear their hair off their heads. Great importunity hath been used
at Whitehall for a Parliament, and more particularly by Sir George
Saville, but nothing will prevail; there is one great gownsman against
it, and all the Bishops and Papists, and all those who have cozened
and cheated the King. News came this day to the King, the French are
come from Brest, and appear before the Isle of Wight; some at Court
give out that they are friends, and not enemies. We expect the Dutch
as far as Woolwich. People are fled from Greenwich and Blackwall with
their families and children. We are betrayed, let it light where it
will."[521] And a few days afterwards the nation, from end to end, was
agitated by the intelligence of the Dutch attack--many Dissenters idly
attributing the success of the daring manœuvre to the teaching of the
Government and to Popish counsels at headquarters.[522]

[Sidenote: EMPTY EXCHEQUER.]

An empty exchequer was the chronic disease of Charles II.'s reign, and
so low did the Royal revenue sink this year that twenty-six footmen in
His Majesty's establishment were forced to petition for wages, which
had been due the previous Michaelmas. To meet the exigences of the
moment, letters were written to the Lord Chancellor, as the head of the
legal profession, to the Lord-Lieutenants of Counties, as representing
the landed interest; and to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to procure
loans and voluntary contributions at that "time of public danger." "We
are the rather," it is observed in the letter to His Grace, "induced
to believe labour herein will be successful, because you are to deal
with a sort of persons endued with discretion and ingenuity, who cannot
forget what tenderness we have for them, what care to protect and
support them, and how much their interest and welfare is involved in
ours; but arguments and motives of this nature we leave to your prudent
management."[523]

The damage actually done by the Dutch fleet was small; and nothing
compared with the dangers threatened by the audacity of its advance.
The treaty of peace, which speedily followed, relieved the nation
from alarm, but it by no means wiped out the disgrace which the nation
had to bear, and which its rulers had incurred.[524]

[Sidenote: 1667.]

Within three months after the booms had been broken by the Dutch in the
Medway, Clarendon's term of power was at an end.

A bad harvest is a bad thing for an English Ministry, especially for
the Chief of the Cabinet. The visitations of Heaven are set down to
his account, and all the weak points of his administration, all the
errors of his policy, all the faults of his character, are brought out
most vividly in the light of adverse circumstances. So it was, that
after the Plague and the Fire of London--with which Clarendon could
have had nothing to do--the eyes of the people were strangely opened
to the defects of his government; and, when the English Lion was
bearded by the insolence of the Hollanders, there fell upon the great
statesman the anger of the whole people. To meet the evil, which he
had failed to prevent, he counselled the King to dissolve Parliament,
and maintain the defences of the country by forced contributions. This
private advice was blown abroad, inspiring indignation in the people,
and bringing discomfiture to the Prime Minister. He did not want
courage, but it was now useless. What he hoped would appear to the King
the firmness of an upright mind, was regarded by His Majesty as the
obstinacy of a stubborn will. In vain the Duke of York pleaded in his
behalf. The Chancellor was forced to resign the Great Seal on the 30th
of August.[525]

[Sidenote: CLARENDON.]

Clarendon, in the impeachment which followed in the month of November,
was charged with unconstitutional acts; but, of all the seventeen heads
under which the charges were arranged, not more than three, seriously
affecting his character as a statesman, contained matters which could
be clearly proved. The first allegation--that he had encouraged the
King to raise a standing army, and to govern the country without
Parliaments--although an exaggerated statement, had some foundation.
Respecting the truth of the fourth article--that he had procured the
imprisonment of divers persons contrary to law--there could be no
doubt whatever. The eleventh charge, touching the sale of Dunkirk to
the French for no greater amount than the worth of the ammunition and
stores, was false with regard to his being content with the price,
but it was true as it respects his promoting the sale. Nor did the
impeachment, so far as it could be established, fix upon the Minister
the guilt of high treason; but, short of that, it proved him to be
a person dangerous to the country, and unfitted to continue in the
office which he had filled. Virtuous and patriotic men might fairly
have insisted upon the degradation of the Chancellor; but it must be
confessed that virtuous and patriotic men were not the prime movers
in his punishment. The intrigues of women, anything but virtuous,
had most to do with it; for Clarendon had unfortunately excited the
wrath of Charles' mistresses, who, by working upon the Monarch's too
easy temper, had implanted in his bosom a dislike to his old friend.
The object of these ladies was promoted by the assistance of Cavalier
gentlemen who never forgave Clarendon for the Act of Indemnity, and
who considered that he had, at the Restoration, largely neglected
the personal interests of the Royalists. Three Bishops were numbered
amongst the Peers who protested against the refusal of the Upper House
to commit the Minister upon the charge of treason.[526] The Catholics
owed him no gratitude, for they knew his dislike to their religion--and
with the nation generally, he had become unpopular for many reasons,
particularly for the part which he had taken in the sale of Dunkirk.
It is a little surprising, that Presbyterians, who, perhaps, had more
reason than any class to complain of his administration, were not
amongst his inveterate adversaries. Colonel Birch, who belonged to
that religious denomination, was, indeed, one of the Tellers on the
side of impeachment; but Baxter notices, as a providence of God, in
reference to Clarendon, that the man who had dealt so cruelly with
the Nonconformists was cast out by his own friends, "while those that
he had persecuted were the most moderate in his cause, and many for
him."[527]

[Sidenote: 1667.]

In writing a letter to his daughter, the Duchess of York, just after
her conversion to Popery, the necessities of Clarendon's argument
forced him to adopt a position, which, if he had sincerely taken it
up at an earlier period, must have diverted him from that persecuting
course, which is one of the greatest blots on his history. "The
common argument," he remarks, "that there is no salvation out of the
Church, and that the Church of Rome is that only Church, is both
irrational and untrue." "There are many Churches in which salvation may
be attained, as well as in any one of them; and were many even in the
apostolic time; otherwise they would not have directed their Epistles
to so many several Churches, in which there were different opinions
received and very different doctrines taught. There is, indeed, but
one faith in which we can be saved--the steadfast belief of the birth,
passion, and resurrection of our Saviour. _And every Church that
receives and embraces that faith is in a state of salvation._"[528]

[Sidenote: CLARENDON.]

[Sidenote: 1667.]

The whole history of the Chancellor must be considered, if we would
form a just estimate of his character. That he was a man of great
ability; that he possessed those talents and accomplishments which
contribute to form distinguished statesmen; that he performed services
valuable to the nation, at a very critical period of its history; that
he had a sense of religion, and was heartily attached to the Episcopal
Church, there can be no doubt. Those who glory in the constitution of
that Church as established upon the Act of Uniformity will praise him
for his wisdom; those who form a different opinion of that Church,
and of its legal basis, must withhold such laudation. But, apart from
all ecclesiastical questions, and also putting aside the motives by
which Clarendon was influenced throughout his career, with all its
lights and shadows--here are two aspects of his conduct, at least, upon
which the historian must pronounce a severe censure. To say nothing
of his pride and avarice--there remain, first, his persecution of
the Nonconformists; and next, the dissimulation which he practised, in
connection with measures professedly intended for their relief. His
persecution of the Nonconformists is a fact which speaks for itself.
Whatever notions he might have of what the Church should be it was a
gratuitous course, and it betrayed revenge and injustice, to treat
Dissenters in the manner which he did: revenge, for he crushed them as
conquered foes; injustice, for he dealt with them all as disaffected
subjects, whilst the loyalty of the vast majority of them was above
suspicion. If his clever diplomacy did not sink into downright
dissimulation in the business of the Worcester House Declaration, the
circumstances of which have been so fully described--if there was not
also much deceptiveness in the promises from Breda, and in the plan of
the Savoy Conference, both of which Clarendon, as Charles' Minister,
must have advised, it is hard to prove that such qualities have ever
belonged to any human being. Many a Jesuit has been a martyr--and I
give the Chancellor credit for such an attachment to the Episcopal
Church as would have led him to suffer on its behalf, but no man
could be more Jesuitical than he was in the course of policy which he
adopted for its establishment. So dark a fate as covered the last days
of Strafford, Laud, and Charles I., did not attend the final destiny
of the great Minister of Charles II.; still, calamities overtook him
after the sunshine of his prosperity--his sun set in a cloud; and thus,
like his predecessors in the defence of the Church, he has secured
from posterity, through sympathy with him in his misfortunes, gentler
treatment than the defects of his character would otherwise have
received.[529]

[Sidenote: CLARENDON.]

[Sidenote: 1667.]

By an obvious association we are led to compare the political
founder of the Church of England in the seventeenth century with his
predecessor in the same capacity a hundred years before. Both Cecil,
Lord Burleigh, and Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, had great difficulties
in securing the stability of the civil government--in dealing with
political discontent and disaffection, in defending the Throne against
perils, and in providing revenues for the Crown. Both statesmen, in
laying the corner stones of their ecclesiastical polity, had to build
in troublous times, and each, "with one of his hands wrought in the
work, and with the other hand held a weapon." Both of them, blind to
the principle of religious liberty, employed persecuting laws in the
service of what they deemed the best form of Christianity; and both
also, together with other crooked means of ruling, employed spies,
wherewith to see what was done at a distance, and agents wherewith to
put in action secret and remote machinery. The contrast between the
two, however, is more striking than the resemblance. If difficulties
encompassed the navigation of the vessel, the helm of which rested in
the hand of Clarendon, far greater difficulties of the same and other
kinds--political and ecclesiastical, Popish and Puritan,--surrounded
the course of Burleigh. Clarendon was not as cautious, not as timid,
as Burleigh. Perhaps neither of them exhibited a lofty order of
genius; but Clarendon appears inferior in originality of plan, and in
consistency of method. Cecil struck out ideas in commerce too wise
for the age in which he lived; and as the fruit of careful meditation
in retirement, he laid down a comprehensive scheme of government on
the accession of Elizabeth, from the fundamental principles of which
he did not deviate in his long administration; but Hyde never showed
himself to be more than an experimentalist, adopting expedients as
circumstances arose. Cecil was more intolerant towards Papists than
towards Puritans. Hyde seemed more averse to Protestant Nonconformists
than to Popish recusants. Cecil had broad Protestant sympathies,
which led him, as far as possible, to promote the cause of the
Reformation abroad; Hyde manifested no zeal for the welfare of the
Reformed Churches on the Continent. Burleigh did not enrich himself
with the spoils of office,--praise which cannot be given to Clarendon.
Yet justice demands the admission that Clarendon did suffer for his
principles, at least the inconvenience of exile, which is more than can
be said of Burleigh. Finally, success attendant upon the policy of the
former lasted long enough to demonstrate the sagacity of the author;
but the policy of the latter failed so early as to show, that he did
not anticipate what was sure almost immediately to arise--that he did
not thoroughly understand the character of his fellow-countrymen.[530]

The illustration of this latter point is required by the conditions of
our History.

[Sidenote: EXTENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]

The Chancellor's object had been not merely to establish the
Episcopal Church, but to crush every form of Dissent. Indeed, his
notion of an establishment was that it should have an exclusive
existence in the country--that Nonconformity should have no place
whatever under its shadow. Yet, at the time of his fall, only five
years after the Act of Uniformity was passed, and within two years of
the passing of the Five Mile Act--not only did Popery continue to lurk
within these dominions, not only did it make its way amongst the upper
classes, but Presbyterianism recovered itself from the blows which it
had received, and Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, secretly or
openly, promoted the spread of their opinions. Of this fact, passages
from contemporaries afford striking proofs.

On the 4th of August, 1666, a correspondent at Chester, stated that
the City swarmed with "cardinal Nonconformists," and that they were so
linked into the Magistracy, by alliance, that it was very difficult to
bring them to punishment;--only a few of them attended Divine service,
and even they were absent during the prayers. Experience proved that
these great pretenders to piety and religion, who would not conform to
the Prince's ecclesiastical power, only submitted to the civil until
they could get power to refuse it.

On the 31st of August, 1667, the day after Clarendon resigned the Great
Seal, a letter reached Sir Joseph Williamson complaining of "crowds of
fanatics," about Bath and Frome. The gentry, as well as the ignorant
and ill-affected classes, helped to beget a jealousy of Popery, and
were apparently fallen back to the spirit of 1642. Even some who looked
big in Court, and in Parliament, had sheltered the unlawful vessels of
the malcontented and the furious within their allotments, and in their
own families, more especially, since the late exigencies had arisen.

[Sidenote: 1667.]

On the 10th of September the same year, another person at Bath declared
that the Nonconformists grew in numbers and insolence, saying they
should have liberty of conscience, and that the Government, which could
not stand much longer, could do no otherwise than allow them their
freedom. They had reached such a degree of insolence as to break open
church doors, and to get into the buildings to vent their sedition
and rebellion. The minister at Marshfield often returned from church
for want of a congregation, even of two or three, whereas, at the
same time, 500 met in a barn within the town. They transformed such
buildings into the likeness of churches, with seats for the convenience
of speaking and hearing. The writer, who was a clergyman, declared that
he had taken all ways imaginable to keep his people within the bounds
of sobriety and obedience, and had preached constantly twice a day to
suit their humour in all things lawful, descending to the plainest
and most practical speaking, and had never used a note, or so much as
wrote a word. Moreover, he had treated the party with all civility and
kindness, and been very pacificatory in public and in private, yet all
seemed in vain, and he saw that a minister must be a martyr.[531]

[Sidenote: EXTENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]

A contemporary author affirms that the Nonconformists everywhere
spread through city and country; they made no small part of all ranks
and sorts of men; by relations and commerce they were so woven into
the nation's interest, that it was not easy to sever them without
unravelling the whole skein. They were not excluded from the nobility,
among the gentry they were not a few, yet none were of more importance
than mere tradesmen, and such as lived by their own industry. To
suppress them would beget a general insecurity, and might help to
drive trade out of the country, and send it to find a home with an
emulous and encroaching nation. If no greater latitude could be
allowed than existed at that time, a race of Nonconformists would,
in all probability, run parallel with Conformists to the end of the
world.[532]




                             CHAPTER XIX.


It was a pamphleteering age; and religion as well as politics fell
under discussion in numerous small publications. Some one published in
the beginning of August, 1667, under the name of "A Lover of Sincerity
and Peace," _A Proposition for the Safety and Happiness of the King
and Kingdom, both in Church and State_, a work in which the writer
advocated comprehension and toleration. In the middle of the month of
October there followed a reply, from the pen of a Mr. Tomkyns, one
of Archbishop Sheldon's chaplains. The same month another pamphlet
appeared anonymously, under the title of _A Discourse of the Religion
of England_, maintaining that Reformed Christianity, settled in its
due latitude, secures the stability and advancement of the kingdom,
of which the author is known to have been John Corbet, an ejected
minister, who lived privately in London, after the passing of the
Bartholomew Act.[533] Corbet was answered by Dr. Perinchief, Prebendary
of Westminster, whereupon Corbet replied, and Perinchief put in a
rejoinder. From August to November the printers and the public seem to
have been busy in producing and reading these controversial tracts.

[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]

Whether or not this circumstance arose from a knowledge of what
was going on in upper circles, it is certain that, now Clarendon
had gone, Sir Robert Atkins--who afterwards became one of the
Justices of the Common Pleas, and ultimately Lord Chief Baron of the
Exchequer,--prepared a Bill of Comprehension. This healing measure,
Colonel Birch, member for Penryn, undertook to introduce in the House
of Commons;[534] and a careful account of it, written by Bishop Barlow,
is preserved at Oxford in the Bodleian Library,[535] from which
document we derive our information. The Bill provided that ordained
ministers--whether Episcopal or Presbyterian--who should within the
next three months subscribe to all the Articles of Religion "which only
concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine
of the sacraments" should be capable of preaching in any church or
chapel in England, of administering the sacraments according to the
Book of Common Prayer, of taking upon them the cure of souls, and of
enjoying any spiritual promotion. After prescribing that the Common
Prayer, according to law, should be read before sermon, there follows
a proviso, that no one should be denied the Lord's Supper, although he
did not kneel in the act of receiving it; and that no minister should
be compelled to wear the surplice, or use the cross in baptism. The
authors of the project, in addition to clauses touching Presbyterian
ordination and ceremonies, wished to have the word "consent" left out
of the form of subscription,--to confine subscription to the doctrine
of the Christian faith,--not to bind ministers to read the Common
Prayer themselves, if they procured others to do it,--and to lay aside
the Oath of Adjuration.

[Sidenote: 1667.]

[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]

The session of Parliament opened upon the 10th of October and ended
just before Christmas; but the Bill, although ready, was never printed,
nor brought into the House. This first scheme of comprehension came
to nothing; but a second scheme, which like the first failed in the
end, proceeded somewhat further. Rumours of it were circulated in
the month of January, and were caught up by Pepys, to whom it seemed
there was a great presumption of a toleration being granted, so that
the Presbyterians held up their heads: ten days later, he heard that
the King approved of it, but that the Bishops were against it: and
the Diarist further states, that his informant, Colonel Birch, did
not doubt but that it would be carried through Parliament; only he
feared some would advocate the toleration of Papists.[536] A few days
afterwards, Pepys heard that an Act was likely to pass for admitting
all persuasions to hold public worship, "but in certain places; and
the persons therein concerned to be listed of this or that church,
which, it is thought, will do more hurt than good, and make them not
own their persuasion."[537] The proposal was made by Sir Orlando
Bridgeman, the Lord Keeper, and supported by Sir Matthew Hale, the Lord
Chief Baron.[538] The Earl of Manchester favoured the plan, and Dr.
Wilkins, on the Episcopal side, entered into negotiations with the
Presbyterians, who were represented by Baxter, Manton, and Bates.

Baxter gives a full account of the scheme, which account is confirmed
substantially by the memoranda of Barlow, at the time Archdeacon of
Oxford, and afterwards Bishop of Lincoln.[539] The basis of the plan
was the King's Declaration from Breda; and the scheme may be considered
under three aspects--as proposed by the Episcopalians,--as modified
by the Presbyterians,--and as it bore relation to the Independents. I
shall quote a few passages from Barlow's MS., as it is important to
convey an exact idea of what was proposed.

[Sidenote: 1667.]

I. In order to comprehension, the Episcopalians proposed,--1. That
such persons as in the late times of disorder had been ordained only
by Presbyters, should be admitted to the exercise of the ministerial
function, by the imposition of the hands of the Bishop, with this or
the like form of words: "Take thou (legal) authority to preach the Word
of God and to administer the sacraments in any congregation of the
Church of England when thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto." 2.
That clergymen and schoolmasters (after taking the Oaths of Allegiance
or Supremacy) should be required to subscribe this or the like form
of words: "I, A. B., do hereby profess and declare that I do approve
the doctrine, worship, and government established in the Church of
England, as containing all things necessary to salvation; and that I
will not endeavour, by myself or any other, directly or indirectly,
to bring in any doctrine contrary to that which is so established:
and I do hereby promise, that I will continue in the communion of
the Church of England, and will not do anything to disturb the peace
thereof." 3. That kneeling at the sacrament, the use of the cross in
baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus might be left indifferent or
be altogether omitted; Barlow being willing to class with these things
the wearing of the surplice. 4. That in case it should be thought
fit to review and alter the Liturgy and canons for the satisfaction
of Dissenters, then every person admitted to preach should--upon
admission--publicly and solemnly read the said Liturgy, openly declare
his assent to the lawfulness of using it, and give a promise that it
should be constantly read at the time and place accustomed. It also was
added, that the Liturgy might be altered by using the reading Psalms
in the new translations;--by appointing some other lessons out of the
canonical Scriptures instead of those taken out of the Apocrypha;--by
not enjoining godfathers and godmothers, when either of the parents
were ready to answer for the child;--by omitting "every clause in the
services connecting regeneration with baptism;"--by omitting in the
Collect after imposition of hands in Confirmation this clause--"After
the example of Thy holy apostles, and to certify them by this sign
of Thy favour and gracious goodness towards them;" and this also in
the office of matrimony--"With my body I thee worship;"--by allowing
ministers some liberty in the visitation of the sick, to use such
other prayers as they might judge expedient;--by so altering the
Burial Service, as to imply nothing respecting the safety of the
deceased person;--by several changes in the services with a view to
abbreviation, omitting all "responsal prayers," and all repetitions,
and throwing separate petitions altogether in one continuous
prayer;--by not reading the Communion Service at such times as are
not communion days, but only repeating the Ten Commandments;--and by
altering the catechism at the question, "How many sacraments hath
Christ ordained?" so that the answer may be, "Two only, Baptism and the
Lord's Supper."

[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]

II. The modifications proposed by the Presbyterians were as
follows:--1. That all ministers ordained by Presbyters should, when
admitted by the Bishop to minister in the Church, "have leave," if
they "desired" it, to "give in their profession, that they renounce
not their ordination nor take it for a nullity, and that they take
this as the magistrate's license and confirmation." 2. That in the
form of subscription they should assent to the truth of all the Holy
Scriptures, to the articles of Creed, and to the doctrine of the Church
of England contained in the Thirty-six Articles; or to the doctrinal
part of the Thirty-nine Articles, excepting only the three articles
touching ceremonies and prelacy. 3. That an appeal be allowed for a
suspended minister from the Bishop to the King's Courts of Justice;
and lastly, that certain rules be enacted for the due enforcement
of discipline, respecting admission to holy communion, and also
respecting meetings for worship. A few additional suggestions were
proposed, relating to alterations in the Liturgy, of which these were
the most remarkable--"the Lord's Prayer should be used entirely with
the Doxologies;" the word "Sabbath" should replace "seventh-day" in
the fourth commandment; holydays should be left indifferent, save only
that all persons be restrained from open labour, and contempt of them;
and "no minister" should "be forced" to "baptize the child of proved
atheists and infidels." The addition of the surplice to the other
ceremonies to be left indifferent; the expression "sacramentally" to
be subjoined to the word "regenerate" in the baptismal service; the
catechism to be altered as regards the doctrine of the sacraments; and
the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick to be made conditional.

[Sidenote: 1667.]

After considerable debate, principally upon the subject of
reordination, a Bill of Comprehension was drawn up by Sir Matthew Hale.
The points comprised were, first, the insertion of the word "legal"
before the word "authority" instead of the demanded liberty to declare
the validity of the previous Presbyterian ordination; and secondly, the
omission of the clause proposed by Baxter and his friends relating to
appeals. Two forms of subscription, framed so as to exclude Romanists,
were likewise adopted respectively for established ministers and for
tolerated persons.

III. The Episcopalian scheme, endorsed and revised by Barlow,
included the indulgence of such orthodox Protestants, as could not be
comprehended within the Establishment. These, upon registering their
names, were to have liberty to worship in public, and to erect edifices
for that purpose. Although disabled from holding public offices, they
were to be fined for not fulfilling them, and also obliged, "according
to their respective qualities," to pay annually for indulgence, a sum
not above forty shillings, nor under ten, for any master of a family;
not above eight, nor under two, for any other individual,--the tribute
to form a fund for church building. Upon producing a certificate,
Nonconformists were to be exempted from legal penalties for
non-attendance at parish worship; but they were to pay church rates,
and it was suggested by Barlow that they should be forbidden to preach
against the Establishment. This arrangement was to be limited to three
years, and to be confined to such Protestants as are described in
Cromwell's Act of Settlement.

These intentions were frustrated. Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, mentioned
the subject to Seth Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, "hoping to have
prevailed for his concurrence in it;" but the latter, availing himself
of the communication, did his utmost to defeat the scheme. The Bishops
generally were against it. The old Clarendon party was against it.[540]

[Sidenote: THORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLES.]

Herbert Thorndike wrote his _True Principle of Comprehension_ in
the year 1667, just at the time when the question had been taken up
by Wilkins and Barlow.[541] He did not at all mince the matter, but
began by saying that Presbyterians could not, any more than Papists,
be good subjects; an assertion which, if true, would of course render
comprehension, in the common meaning of the term, impossible; but it is
not in that meaning that he uses the term, and he proceeds to declare
most distinctly, that "an Act comprehending Presbyterians, as such,
in the Church, would fail of its purpose, and not give satisfaction
or peace in matters of religion." The only cure for disputes, he
maintained, was to authorize the faith and laws of the Catholic
Church, _i.e._, within the first six general Councils, "enacting the
same with competent penalties." This proposal really signified that
Nonconformists were to retract their opinions altogether, or continue
to be persecuted. What the author called the true principle of
comprehension was the false principle of coercion. He would have men
think with him, and if possible force them into the Church; if they
were incorrigible, he would shut them out and punish them. Nor did he
leave any doubt as to what he intended by the enactment of "competent
penalties;" for he laid down the doctrine, that the Church is justified
in having recourse to _the civil power_, to enforce union.

[Sidenote: 1668.]

Parliament met on the 6th of February, and then adjourned to the 10th.
When the Commons had assembled, and before the King had arrived,
reports were made to the House respecting insolent language said to
have been used in Nonconformist Conventicles; and it being known
that in the Royal Speech some notice would be taken of a measure of
Comprehension, about which there had been so much discussion out of
doors, the members did "mightily and generally inveigh against it;"
and they voted that the King should strictly put in force the Act of
Uniformity. It was also moved, "that if any people had a mind to bring
any new laws into the House, about religion, they might come, as a
proposer of new laws did in Athens, with ropes about their necks."[542]
His Majesty, however, in his speech from the throne, recommended the
Houses to adopt some course for securing "a better union and composure
in the minds of my Protestant subjects in matters of religion."[543]
From this it appears that His Majesty felt disposed to favour some
measure pointing in the same direction as did that which had been drawn
up by Barlow.[544]

[Sidenote: NEW CONVENTICLE BILL.]

Colonel Birch told Pepys on the 28th of February, that the House the
same morning had been in a state of madness, in consequence of letters
received respecting fanatics who had come in great numbers to certain
churches, turning people out, "and there preaching themselves, and
pulling the surplice over the parsons' heads;" this excited "the
hectors and bravadoes of the House."[545] The report was utterly
false,[546] but influenced by it, the Commons, on the 4th of March,
resolved to desire His Majesty to issue a Proclamation for enforcing
the laws against Conventicles, and to provide against all unlawful
assemblies of Papists and Nonconformists.[547] When, upon the 11th
of March, the King's Speech respecting the union of his Protestant
subjects came under consideration, all sorts of opinions were expressed
upon all sorts of ecclesiastical topics. One declared that he never
knew a toleration which did not need an army to keep all quiet;
another expressed himself in favour of the reform of Ecclesiastical
Courts, which had become very obnoxious. A third concurred in this
opinion, and also complained that the Bishops had little power in
the Church except authority to ordain. A fourth wished to see the
Act of Uniformity revised, in order to temper its severe provisions,
especially in reference to the Covenant, and assent and consent to the
Common Prayer. A fifth compared the King and clergy to a master having
quarrelsome servants, "One will not stay unless the other goes away." A
theological debater alluded to predestination and free-will as at the
foundation of all the religious disputes in England, and lamented the
growth of Arminianism, affirming that so long as the Church was true to
herself, she need not be in fear of Nonconformity: placing candles on
the communion table greatly displeased him. A Broad Church polemic held
that the Articles were drawn up so that both parties might subscribe,
and that Convocation was a mixed assembly of "both persuasions;" no
canon, he said, enjoined bowing at the altar, and Bishop Morton left
people to use their own liberty as to that practice; this gentleman
was against Conventicles. A more prudent debater wished to veil the
infirmities of his mother rather than proclaim them in Gath and
Askelon; he advocated comprehension, and thought an end would be put to
Nonconformity by making two or three Presbyterians Bishops. These brief
notices of the debate will afford an idea of the diversity of opinion
which was expressed on this occasion.[548]

[Sidenote: 1668.]

[Sidenote: NEW CONVENTICLE BILL.]

Instead of the Bill described by Barlow, or any measure of a similar
kind for comprehension and toleration, a Bill for reviving the
Conventicle Act was submitted to the Commons. The Conventicle Act of
1664 had been limited in its operation to the end of the next session
of Parliament after the expiration of three years, and therefore it
remained no longer in force. Leave was now given to bring in a Bill for
the continuance of it.

The High Church party, by a majority of 176 against 70, negatived the
proposal that His Majesty be desired to send for such persons as he
might think fit, in order to the uniting of his Protestant subjects:
the first instance, as Hallam says, "of a triumph obtained by the
Church over the Crown in the House of Commons."[549] Upon the 28th of
April, the Bill for revising the Conventicle Act was carried by 144
against 78. The new Conventicle Bill, sent up to the Lords, was by them
read a first time on the 29th of April; but it does not appear to have
reached a second reading, as the House, on the 9th of May, adjourned
until August, then again to November, and then again to the following
March, 1669, when Parliament was prorogued. Consequently the Bill fell
through; and the law with regard to Conventicles underwent a change,
through the expiration of the Act of 1664.




                              CHAPTER XX.


[Sidenote: MANTON AND BAXTER.]

The King was by no means disinclined to relieve Dissenters from the
oppression which they experienced, provided he might extend relief on
his own authority, and at his own pleasure. In the autumn of 1688 he
granted an audience, at the Earl of Arlington's lodgings, to a few
Presbyterian clergymen. Of this interview, Dr. Manton gave an account
to his friend Richard Baxter. With characteristic graciousness, which
was the charm of his reign, and which, in spite of his vices, won many
hearts, Charles was pleased once and again to signify how acceptable
was the address presented by the Presbyterians, and how much he was
persuaded of their peaceable disposition; adding that he had known them
to be so ever since his return; and then he promised that he would do
his utmost to get them comprehended within the Establishment, and would
strive to remove all those bars which he could wish had never existed.
Something, however, he proceeded to say, must be done for public peace,
and they could not be ignorant that what he desired was a work of
difficulty, and therefore they must wait until the business was ripe.
In the meanwhile he wished them to use their liberty with moderation.
He observed that the meetings held were too numerous, and that (besides
their being contrary to law) they occasioned clamorous people to
complain, as if the Presbyterian design was to undermine the Church.
He instanced what he called the folly of one who had preached in a
play-house, upon which the ministers informed him they disliked such
conduct, and that they had rebuked the individual for affronting the
Government. The King instanced another case, but with a preface that
he greatly respected the person for his worth and learnings--meaning
Mr. Baxter, of Acton, who drew in all the country round. Manton replied
that Baxter went to church, and then preached himself during the
interval between morning and evening service. His first intention was
simply to benefit his own family; but it was hard to exclude such as in
charity might be supposed to come thirsting for spiritual edification.
Manton further alleged the general need of religious instruction, and
the fact that Nonconformists were not all alike. If people of unsober
principles were permitted to preach, he urged the necessity which lay
upon others to take the same liberty. His Majesty replied that "the
riffle raffle" were apt to run after every new teacher; but people
of quality might be intreated not to assemble, or, at least, not in
such multitudes, lest the scandal thereby raised should obstruct his
generous intentions. Charles seemed pleased when Manton suggested that
his brethren's sobriety of doctrine, and remembrance of His Majesty in
their prayers, were calculated to preserve an esteem for his person
and government in the hearts of his people, and Arlington plucked
his master by the coat, desiring him to note what was said. Manton
remarked, in conclusion, that Baxter would have accompanied them to the
audience, had he not been prevented by illness.[550]

[Sidenote: 1669.]

Sheldon, writing a letter from Lambeth on the 8th of June, 1669,
addressed to the Commissary of the diocese of Canterbury,--after
quoting His Majesty's denial of connivance at Conventicles, his
displeasure at the want of care in the matter manifested by the
Bishops, and his determination that they should have the civil
magistrates' assistance,--proceeds to direct that inquiries should be
made as to unlawful religious assemblies--what were their numbers,
of what sort of people they consisted, and from whom they looked for
impunity. Conventicles were to be made known to Justices, and if
Justices neglected their duty, their neglect was to be certified.
The Primate asked whether the same persons did not meet at several
Conventicles, which might make them seem more numerous than they really
were; and whether the Commissary did not think they might be easily
suppressed, by the assistance of the civil magistrate; the greatest
part of them being, as the Archbishop heard, women, children and
inconsiderable persons.[551]

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]

Charles complied with the wishes of Sheldon so far as to issue a
Proclamation, complaining of the increase, and threatening the
punishment of Nonconformists; but he had no sympathy for the
intolerance in which such wishes originated.[552] He had said--if we
may trust Burnet's report--the clergy were chiefly to blame for the
popularity of Conventicles; for if they had lived as they ought, and
attended to their parish duties, the nation might, by that time, have
been reduced to ecclesiastical order. "But they thought of nothing, but
to get good benefices, and to keep a good table."[553]

Nonconformists naturally availed themselves of the circumstance that
the Conventicle Act had expired; and Baxter now had more hearers at
Acton than he could find room to accommodate. "Almost all the town and
parish, besides abundance from Brentford and the neighbour parishes,
came."[554]

[Sidenote: 1669.]

But though the Conventicle Act had expired, the Five Mile Act, as
Charles indicated in his Proclamation of July, 1669, remained in
force; and therefore, means existed, not only for silencing, but
also for punishing the Presbyterian Divine. Accordingly he was soon
involved in trouble. In a roundabout way, a warrant was procured, in
which Baxter stood charged with keeping an unlawful Conventicle. The
Oxford Oath being tendered he refused to take it, and argued, with his
usual keenness, against its imposition. One of the magistrates only
laughed, and Baxter was sent to prison.

To the inquiries issued by Sheldon in June, returns before the end
of the year were made, and they supply much valuable information
respecting Nonconformity.

A long list is given of Conventicles in the Metropolis. Manton's
congregation at his own house, Covent Garden, and Calamy's, next door
to the "Seven Stars," Aldermanbury, are estimated at 100; Zachary
Crofton's, Tower Hill, and Captain Kiffin's, of Finsbury Court, at 200;
Vincent's of Hand Alley, and Caryl's, at Mr. Knight's house, Leadenhall
Street, at 500; and Dr. Annesley's, in Spitalfields, at a new house for
that purpose with pulpit and seats, at 800; Owen, in White's Alley,
Moorfields, is mentioned without any number of hearers being returned.

It is stated in the report that besides those congregations which
are specified, there were many others at private houses; sometimes
at one house, sometimes at another. The several meetings of the same
persuasion, were composed, for the most part, of the same persons. They
were much increased by stragglers, who walked on Sunday for recreation,
and then went into the Conventicles out of curiosity. The worshippers
consisted of women and persons of mean rank. The meetings had increased
since the execution of the Oxford Act had been relaxed.

In the City of Canterbury, distinguished in the annals of both
Protestantism and Puritanism, Nonconformity took deep root. In the
parishes of St. Paul and St. Peter the Independents amounted to 500 at
least. They met in the morning at St. Peter's, in the afternoon at St.
Paul's. In St. Dunstan's there were Presbyterians, but they were not so
many as the Independents. In St. Mary's, Northgate, the Anabaptists
were few and mean in quality. The Quakers were numerous, but not
considerable for estate.

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]

In the diocese of Chichester, the little market town of Petworth is
mentioned as containing 50 or 60 Nonconformists, some of the middle
sort, others inferior; Largesale as numbering about 40, yeomen and
labourers; Stedham as having sometimes 200, including some of the
gentry.

In the diocese of Ely, at a place called Stetham, mention is made of
about 30 or 40 who assembled by stealth and in the night, mean and
of evil fame, who had arms against the King. Of Doddington, in the
fen country of Cambridgeshire, it is remarked, that there were no
Dissenters in the parish, although there were divers of them in other
places. The promise of indulgence, the remissness of the magistrate,
the rumour of comprehension, the King's connivance, and the sanction of
grandees at Court, encouraged their hopes.

There is manifested throughout these statistics, a disposition on the
part of the reporters, to exaggerate the extent to which Nonconformity
prevailed. As for example, it is said of the _houses_ of Mr. Bond and
Mr. John Chapman, of Chard--"The numbers uncertain but always very
great, sometimes 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and oftentimes 700."

[Sidenote: 1670.]

From these returns, after making abatements on the score of
exaggeration, it appears that Dissent had by no means been crushed
by the violence it had endured. Consequently in the spring of 1670,
a new Bill against Conventicles was introduced: after being amended
and carried by the Commons, it was presented by Sir John Brampston
to the Lords, and it slowly passed through Committee; repeated
debates occurring with regard to its provisions. Seth Ward, Bishop of
Salisbury, supported, but Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, opposed the
measure, although the King, without desiring to see it executed, wished
to see it passed, and used his influence with the last-named prelate
to prevent his taking any part in the business; Wilkins, nevertheless,
courageously insisted upon his right as a Peer, and declined to
withhold either his vote or his voice. The Bill did not pass without a
protest being entered on the Journals.[555]

This Act--so commonly described as a revival of the Conventicle Act of
1664, that it is necessary to point out the fact of its being a new
piece of legislation--differed from the preceding enactment in these
important respects. It did not connect the penalty of imprisonment with
an attendance on Conventicles, nor was the amount of fines fixed on so
high a scale. It specified for the first offence, instead of "a sum not
exceeding five pounds," the reduced fine of five shillings; instead
of imprisonment, or ten pounds for the second offence, it inflicted
a penalty of only ten shillings; and it said nothing whatever of
transportation, or of augmented punishment for a third offence.

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]

Still it advanced beyond the earlier legislation on the subject in
other respects; because preachers were to forfeit £20 for the first,
and £40 for the second breach of the law. Also the Act stimulated
informers, by promising them one-third of the fines levied through
their diligence and industry; it conferred power on officers to break
open houses, except the houses of Peers, where Conventicles were said
to be assembled; it imposed a fine of £5 on any constable, who, being
aware of such meetings, neglected to give information of them, and a
fine of £100 on any Justice of the Peace who should refuse to execute
the law. It declared that all claims should be construed most largely
and beneficially for the suppression of Conventicles.[556]

Sheldon was delighted at the enactment of this statute, and zealously
availed himself of it.[557] Ward and Gunning, at the same time
distinguished themselves in repressing Dissent, and no colouring of
their conduct can hide their intolerance. The former, it is said,
made the diocese of Salisbury too hot for Nonconformists, and drove
many over to Holland to the great detriment of trade in the City of
Salisbury.[558] Gunning, whose propensities for public discussion
remained as strong as ever, sometimes played the part of a magistrate,
and sat upon the bench at quarter sessions, at other times he
challenged Dissenters of all sorts to engage with him in theological
tournaments.[559]

Informers were now let loose upon all kinds of inoffensive citizens,
and the severities of the New Conventicle Act were more than doubled
by connecting with them the execution of earlier statutes. No less a
person than Dr. Manton, after being discovered at a house in the Piazza
of Covent Garden, holding a religious service, had the Oxford Oath
tendered to him, and for refusing to take it, was committed a prisoner
to the Gatehouse.

[Sidenote: 1670.]

Of all sufferers the Quakers suffered most, because they were the
most persistent and resolute in continuing their meetings; because
when officers were on their way to seize them they would not escape;
and further, because they would pay no fines, not even gaol fees, nor
offer any petition to be set at liberty. Such people occasioned the
greatest perplexity to magistrates and the Government, and completely
wore out their patience; thus ultimately gaining their own point by an
invincible resistance under the form of perfect passivity. The famous
trial, in the month of August, 1670, of two friends, William Penn
and William Mead, affords an example of the injustice and oppression
which this remarkable sect had to endure, and also of the sympathy
with them in their wrongs which they inspired in the breasts of
their fellow-subjects. These two gentlemen were accused of holding a
tumultuous assembly in the public streets, simply because they preached
in the open air, and they were fined forty marks each, in consequence
of not pulling off their hats in court. The jury returned a verdict
to which the court objected, and for persistence in their own course,
the jurymen were fined forty marks apiece, and were imprisoned until
they should pay the amount. Afterwards they were discharged by writ
of Habeas Corpus, their commitments being pronounced, in the Court of
Common Pleas, to be totally illegal.[560]

[Sidenote: CONVENTICLES.]

In terminating this chapter it may safely be asserted that, during
the reign of Charles II., after the time when the Act of Uniformity
came into force, except for the short space presently to be described,
there occurred not any period, when persecution, in some form or
other, did not disturb the Nonconformists of this country; yet perhaps
it would not be going too far also to assert, that when persecution
reached its greatest height, there were some of the proscribed who
successfully asserted their liberty, and, either from the ignorance or
from the connivance of the predominant party, escaped the rigours of
the law. Sixteen months after the new statute for the suppression of
Conventicles had been passed, and when in many directions it was being
severely enforced, the Dissenters at Taunton, not only met together for
worship, but boldly celebrated a festival in honour of the deliverance
of the place, in the midst of the Civil Wars, under their illustrious
townsman Robert Blake.[561]




                             CHAPTER XXI.


The fall of Clarendon had been succeeded by a Ministry well known in
history under the name of the CABAL.[562] With the merely
political conduct of the statesmen indicated by that word, we have
nothing to do; their policy in relation to ecclesiastical affairs alone
demands our notice.

A change of feeling in the upper classes towards Nonconformists ensued,
now that Clarendon's influence had been withdrawn, the virtues of
distinguished sufferers became better known, and rumours about plots
were far less frequent. This change prepared for a measure, which,
unconstitutional as to its basis, was liberal in its operation. To
found indulgence upon Royal authority alone, and not upon an Act of
Parliament, was in harmony with a scheme for the exaltation of the
Crown; but there is reason to believe that the measure proceeded, in
part at least, from the better side of the nature of the Ministers, as
well as from the better side of the nature of the Monarch. The previous
history of those Ministers had been such as to dispose them to befriend
oppressed Nonconformists.

[Sidenote: THE CABAL.]

The persons of whose names the initials made up the significant
appellation just mentioned, were Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham,
Ashley, and Lauderdale. The last three had themselves been more or less
connected with Dissenters. Buckingham, notwithstanding his irreligion
and profligacy, had sympathized with them in their sufferings; Ashley
had been a member of the Little Parliament, and a friend of Oliver
Cromwell; and Lauderdale had decidedly professed Presbyterianism.[563]
Memories of the past would dispose these politicians to be favourable
to their old friends. Clifford, who was rough, violent, ambitious,
unscrupulous, and yet brave and generous, and Arlington, formerly known
as Sir Henry Bennet,[564] a man timid and irresolute, had indeed no
such reminiscences as their colleagues, and had begun by this time to
veer towards Rome; yet, kindliness of disposition, which seems to have
belonged to both these statesmen, probably blended itself with some
design for promoting the interests of their adopted Church.

The Cabal Ministry determined upon a new war with Holland, for the
insults and injury inflicted by the invasion in 1666 could not be
forgotten, and the prosperity of a republic not far off, especially a
naval one, appeared odious to such Englishmen as desired alike absolute
monarchy at home, and an undivided sovereignty of the neighbouring
seas. To humble a commercial power like Holland, would also, it was
thought, improve British commerce; and of course a great victory would
strengthen both the Ministry and the Crown. The war with Holland began
in March, 1672, the advantage was on the side of England; and in
February, 1674, Charles informed his Parliament that he had concluded
"a speedy, honourable," and he hoped, "a lasting peace."[565]

[Sidenote: 1672.]

With a prospect of this war, the Cabal felt it expedient to conciliate
the Dissenting portion of the country, that there might be peace at
home whilst there was war abroad; and that the sympathies of those
who had before leaned towards the United Provinces, might be bound to
the interests of their own empire.[566] Prudence of that kind united
itself with whatever there might be of generosity in the Ministers who
supported the King's new measure; but it should be stated that at this
moment, when the Cabinet were looking one way, Archbishop Sheldon was
looking another. Whilst the chief Ministers of State were preparing
to show favour to the sects, the chief Minister of the Church was
thinking only of checking their progress; yet, to his credit it should
be noticed, that he appears, just then, as one who wished to promote
his object by means of education, for he strongly enforced the use of
the catechism;[567] but, to his discredit it must also be remarked,
that he still showed himself wedded to a coercive policy, by urging
proceedings against all nonconforming schoolmasters.

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

Within six weeks of the date of the Archbishop's circular respecting
education upon Church principles, Charles issued his famous Declaration
of Indulgence. Lord Keeper Bridgeman refused to affix the Great Seal
to it, because, in his opinion, it was contrary to the laws of the
constitution; but Ashley, to whom the Great Seal was transferred, as
Lord High Chancellor, under the title of Earl of Shaftesbury, easily
supplied that important deficiency.[568]

"Our care and endeavours for the preservation of the Rights and
Interests of the Church," so ran the document, "have been sufficiently
manifested to the world by the whole course of our Government since
our happy Restoration, and by the many and frequent ways of coercion
that we have used for reducing all erring or dissenting persons, and
for composing the unhappy differences in matters of Religion, which we
found among our subjects upon our return. But it being evident by the
sad experience of twelve years that there is very little fruit of all
those forcible courses, we think ourselves obliged to make use of that
supreme power in ecclesiastical matters which is not only inherent in
us, but hath been declared and recognized to be so by several Statutes
and Acts of Parliament; and therefore we do now accordingly issue
this our Declaration, as well for the quieting the minds of our good
subjects in these points, for inviting strangers in this conjuncture to
come and live under us, and for the better encouragement of all to a
cheerful following of their trade and callings, from whence we hope,
by the blessing of God to have many good and happy advantages to our
Government; as also for preventing for the future the danger that might
otherwise arise from private meetings and seditious Conventicles."[569]

[Sidenote: 1672.]

The Declaration, after recognizing the established religion of the
country, directed the immediate suspension of all penal laws against
Nonconformists, and provided for the allowance of a sufficient number
of places of worship, to be used by such as did not conform. None were
to meet in any building until it should be certified; and until the
teacher of the congregation should be approved by the King. All kinds
of Nonconformists, except recusants of the Roman Catholic religion,
were to share in the indulgence, but the preaching of sedition, or
of anything derogatory to the Church of England was forbidden, under
penalties of extreme severity.[570]

How was the Declaration regarded? Politicians looked at the subject
from their own point of view; and it is curious and instructive to
consult a paper, written some time afterwards, in which answers are
given to legal objections against the measure. It is objected that
the King has not power to suspend the laws of the land, he being,
by his coronation oath, obliged to see the laws duly executed, and
not infringed. The reply is that the King has both an ordinary and
extraordinary power; and that, by the latter, he may mitigate and
suspend the enactments of Parliament, in support of which position
reference is made to the practice of the Roman Emperor, who dispensed
with the Imperial laws by tolerating Arians, Novatians, and Donatists.

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

It is further objected, that the law against Conventicles had a penalty
annexed, which was to be paid, not to the King, but to the informer,
and therefore the King could not dispense with it. To this it is
answered, that the King's ecclesiastical supremacy being reserved by
the Act, such supremacy sufficed to authorize what he did in this
matter. But to give a more particular solution the writer says, "that
the Parliament, in spiritual matters, doth not act directly, as in the
making of temporal decrees, such affairs are not under their proper
cognizance by any law of the land. The Church, being a co-ordinate
branch with the temporality under the King, ruled by a distinct power,
and courts and laws, from the other. The which thing being granted, it
is clear that the Parliament, in ecclesiastical matters, doth act only
by way of corroboration of what is indeed enacted by the ecclesiastical
supremacy. And when the ecclesiastical supremacy doth take away the
subject of the temporal laws, the penalty (to whomsoever due) as an
adjunct, doth cease. Thus, the King is not properly said to dispense
with the penalty, but it ceases of itself, by virtue of the Royal
indulgence, the same power being recognized to be in our King, which
the Popes usurped here." This argument is followed up by a reference
to Papal supremacy, and the exercise of pontifical authority in the
toleration of Jews, Greeks, and Armenians in the Papal territories. The
objection, that such dispensing power is new in England, is disposed
of by the remark that the form is new, but not the thing itself.
Ecclesiastical laws had been frequently changed by proclamation in the
time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. It being alleged lastly, that it
was unbecoming the wisdom of the King to annul his own acts performed
in giving the Royal assent to laws against Conventicles; the rejoinder
is, that the King did not annul, but only suspend his own act; and if
there be anything of weakness therein, His Majesty showed it in common
with Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, Gratian, and Charles V. Such
diversity of counsels appeared in all reigns.[571]

[Sidenote: 1672.]

Some Episcopalians were perplexed, of which signs appear in questions
proposed by Cosin, Bishop of Durham, to the clergy of his diocese.
They asked whether or no a subject was bound to comply with the
pleasure of his Prince in all cases, where he felt himself not bound in
conscience to the contrary: whether he might not comply, in many things
inexpedient, and even prejudicial, if the King pressed the command,
and there seemed no way to avoid it but by disobedience: and whether
he might not consent to the abrogating of penal laws in support of the
Church, rather than provoke the King's displeasure, upon whose favour,
under God, the clergy were dependent?[572]

Toleration did not meet the wishes of the Presbyterians; some of them
had refused it to others, and now they did not care to accept it for
themselves. Desiring comprehension--meaning by that "any tolerable
state of unity with the public ministry,"--they looked on toleration
as opening a way for the advance of Popery; and they believed that
wherever indulgence might begin, in Popery it would end. Further, they
apprehended that it would contribute to the permanence of Protestant
dissensions, whereas comprehension would unite and consolidate
Protestant interests: nor had they ceased to value parish order, and
to believe that such order would be overthrown, if people were allowed
to enjoy separate places of worship wherever they pleased. On this
ground the Presbyterians confessed themselves to be in a dilemma--being
forced either to become Independents in practice, or to remain as they
were, in silence and in suffering.[573] Some also objected to the
unconstitutional character of the King's proceeding, and looked upon it
as pregnant with political, no less than with ecclesiastical, mischief;
others, wearied with long years of persecution, felt glad to avail
themselves of liberty from whatever quarter it arose. It is probable
that some troubled themselves not at all with the constitutional
question; and it is certain that others, who did apprehend the
political bearing of the measure, and who also dreaded the progress of
Popery, considered nevertheless, that to avail themselves of a right
to which they were entitled on grounds of natural justice, was simply
reasonable, and involved no approbation of either the actual manner, or
the suspected design of the bestowment.

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

The Independents, who had long given up hopes of comprehension, who set
no value on parish discipline, and who had only asked for freedom to
worship God according to their consciences, were, for the most part,
prepared to accept what appeared to them as a boon, without feeling any
scruple in relation to its political aspects.[574]

[Sidenote: 1672.]

The Court encouraged an approach to the throne of Nonconformists
disposed to return thanks for the indulgence. The Presbyterians came
in a body, headed by Dr. Manton, who, in their name, expressed hearty
gratitude.[575] Dr. Owen also presented a loyal address, in which he
expressed the joy of the Independents in declaring their loyalty; not
only as that loyalty rested upon grounds common to all his subjects,
but also as it arose from what His Majesty had just done in reference
to liberty of conscience. Owen humbly prayed for the continuance of the
Royal favour, assuring the King of the intercessions of Independents in
his behalf, that God would continue His presence to him, and preserve
him in counsels and thoughts of indulgence.[576]

[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]

Applications poured in, and licenses were granted in abundance. Thomas
Doolittle, an eminent Presbyterian minister, obtained one; and for
years afterwards it might be seen, framed and glazed, hanging in the
vestry of the meeting-house where he preached, in Monkwell Street.[577]
Availing themselves of the Royal permission, several merchants
united in the establishment, at Pinners' Hall, of a Lecture, to be
delivered by select preachers, including Richard Baxter. Buildings
were constructed amidst the ruins left by the London fire, and some
arose on the other side the Thames. In the latter neighbourhood four
Presbyterians were licensed--one was in St. Mary Overy's, another in
Deadman's Place, St. Saviour's. Independents, Baptists, and others,
to the number of six, were registered for Southwark and Lambeth; some
only by name, others for specified places. David Clarkson asked leave
to preach in "a house belonging to John Beamish in Mortlake," to both
Presbyterians and Baptists; and several licenses were granted to other
ministers in Surrey. John Bunyan was allowed to teach a congregation
in the house of Josias Roughed at Bedford; and numerous individuals
and numerous dwellings in the City of Norwich were enrolled on the
certified list, as many as four different houses in one parish, besides
many more in other parishes, being enumerated. Oliver Heywood, "of the
Presbyterian persuasion," received permission to use a room or rooms,
in his own house, in the parish of Halifax, in the County of York;
and Philip Henry, of Malpas, Flintshire, notwithstanding his scruples
on the subject, accepted the same kind of permission.[578] These are
only a few instances, showing the variety and extent of the rescripts
which threw the Royal shield for a time over harassed Nonconformists.
As many as three thousand five hundred licenses are reckoned to have
been granted within the space of ten months. If it be supposed that
the places of worship then licensed were generally at all like chapels
in the present day, a most exaggerated and erroneous idea will be
formed of the extent of Dissent; in point of fact many of the places of
worship were but small rooms in private houses, within a short distance
of each other; nevertheless, there must have been a large number of
people professing Nonconformity, to require so many licenses; and it
should be remembered that a portion of the nonconforming class did not
feel prepared to accept liberty proffered in, what they considered, an
unconstitutional way. So formidable did the number of Free Churches
begin to appear, that one of the Bishops, writing to Sir Joseph
Williamson, exclaimed--"These licensed persons increase strangely. The
orthodox poor clergy are out of heart. Shall nothing be done to support
them against the Presbyterians who grow and multiply faster than the
other?"[579]

[Sidenote: 1672.]

[Sidenote: GRANTS TO NONCONFORMISTS.]

In connection with the indulgence and the thanks returned to the King
by the Presbyterians, Burnet relates that an order was given "to pay a
yearly pension of fifty pounds to most of them, and of a hundred pounds
a year to the chief of the party." He says further, that Baxter "sent
back his pension, and would not touch it, but most of them took it."
Burnet relates this on the authority of Stillingfleet, from whom he
received the story; adding, "in particular he told me that Pool, who
wrote the _Synopsis of the Critics_, confessed to him that he had had
fifty pounds for two years." The historian remarks, "Thus the Court
hired them to be silent, and the greatest part of them were so, and
very compliant."[580] It is remarkable, that though there are several
passages in Baxter's life, in which he mentions the fact of sums of
money being offered to him, and the way in which he treated the offers,
he makes no reference to any overture of pecuniary assistance from
the Court. Some reference to it we might have expected, had such an
overture been made; but that Baxter in that case would have declined to
accept any grant, is quite in accordance with his character, and with
his wish to be entirely independent of the King. Burnet's statements,
given on the authority of conversations held some time before, were
intended by him to be accurate, but they are not always reliable: in
this case, however, whatever doubt may rest on his statement as to
Baxter, there seems no reason for disbelieving what he says respecting
Pool. Dr. Calamy, from his intimate acquaintance with the events
of the period, would, we should infer, have been able to disprove
Burnet's statement, had it been altogether untrue; but Calamy does not
contradict the assertion as to the payment of money--rather he confirms
it. After quoting from Burnet, that "most of them took it," he adds,
"I cannot see why they should not;" he resents, however, Burnet's
remarks about the Presbyterians being silent and compliant;[581] but
he states in the next page that he was not forgetful of Dr. Owen's
having received one thousand guineas from Charles II. to distribute
amongst Dissenters; for the receipt of which he incurred reflections
afterwards, as Calamy thought, very undeservedly.[581]

There seems no reason to doubt that at this time the Crown rendered
pecuniary assistance to Nonconformist ministers, and that some of the
leading brethren acted as the almoners of the Royal bounty to others.
But, however the acceptance of it might be approved by some, it was
condemned by others; and it would, by the latter, be naturally enough
counted as "hush money;" that it really produced that effect, however,
there is not a single tittle of evidence, and in itself it appears
very improbable. Men who had resigned their livings, and all the
honours of the Established Church, for conscience' sake, were not
likely now to be bribed by an occasional remittance of a hundred or of
fifty pounds; in some cases the sum must have been much smaller.

[Sidenote: 1672.]

[Sidenote: QUAKERS.]

To this incident--in connection with the indulgence--may be added an
interesting episode, which in one of its particulars, falls into the
same connection.

After his romantic adventures at Boscobel in 1651, Charles reached the
little town of Brighthelmstone, and there engaged a fisherman to take
him over to the coast of France. The captain and the mate alone were
in the secret that the boat carried, not Cæsar indeed, but the heir of
England's crown, with all his fortunes; and when they reached their
destination, the mate conveyed the Prince ashore upon his shoulders.
The boat, in after days, when the Restoration had changed the destiny
of the Stuarts, lay moored by the stairs at Whitehall--a memento of its
Royal master's deliverance; and the captain, whose name was Nicholas
Tattersall, after having enjoyed an annuity of £100 a year, slept
with his fathers in the churchyard of the town in which he had lived,
and was buried beneath a slab of black marble, still existing, with a
scarcely legible inscription. The mate, who set the King on dry land,
and whose name was Richard Carver, became a member of the Society of
Friends. When nearly twenty years had rolled away, this transformed
mariner made his appearance one day in the month of January, 1670, at
the doors of the palace, and obtained admission to the King's presence.
Time, the rough wear and tear of a seaman's life, and the assumption of
a Quaker garb, had altered the visitor since His Majesty saw him last,
but with that faculty of recognition, which is a princely instinct,
he remembered the man at once, and reminded the sailor of several
occurrences in the vessel during his eventful voyage. Charles had been
annoyed by people who had shown him kindness in adversity, coming or
writing to Whitehall for some substantial acknowledgment of obligation,
and he wondered that Carver had not come before to ask for assistance.
In reply to some expression of that feeling, the Quaker told the King
that "he was satisfied, in that he had peace and satisfaction in
himself, that he _did what he did to relieve a man in distress_, and
now he desired nothing of him but that he would set Friends at liberty
who were great sufferers." Carver then proceeded to inform His Majesty
that he had a paper in his hand containing no names of Quakers, who had
been in prison above six years, and could be released only on Royal
authority. Charles took the paper, and said it was a long list; that
people of that kind, if liberated, would get into prison again in a
month's time; and that country gentlemen had complained to him of their
being so much troubled by Quakers. Touched, however, by the remembrance
of long gone years, whilst a gracious smile played on the flexible
features of his swarthy face, he said to Carver, he would release
him six. Carver, not thinking that the release of six poor Quakers
was equivalent to a King's ransom, determined to approach the Royal
presence again, and now took with him another Friend, Thomas Moore.
"The King was very loving to them. He had a fair and free opportunity
to open his mind to the King, and the King promised to do (more) for
him, but willed him to wait a month or two longer." What became of this
sailor, who nobly looked on the preservation of the King's life simply
as _relieving a man in distress_, we do not know; but Moore, whom
he introduced to the Monarch, continued to make earnest appeals to
Royalty on behalf of imprisoned Friends. In these attempts he received
assistance from George Whitehead--another eminent name in the annals
of Quakerism; and when, two years afterwards, there appeared the Royal
decree, which we have described, there also occurred the following
incident, which forms a notable link in a wonderful chain of Divine
providences.

[Sidenote: 1672.]

The King, who felt now more than ever a special regard for Quakers,
kept his word; and on the 29th of March, 1672, thirteen days after the
date of the Declaration of Indulgence, a circular letter was sent to
the Sheriffs of England and Wales, requiring from them a calendar of
the names, times, and causes of commitment of all the Quakers confined
within their gaols.

The returns from the Sheriffs came in due order before the Privy
Council in reply to the circular, when His Majesty declared that he
would pardon all those persons called Quakers then in prison for any
offence which they had committed against him; and not to the injury of
other persons: 471 names were included in the pardon.[582]

Whitehead, who co-operated with Moore, the friend of Richard Carver--to
whom he owed his introduction to the King--was a large-hearted man,
and when other Dissenters saw what he had done, and solicited his
assistance to procure the liberation of another class of religious
prisoners, he readily assisted, and recommended that they should
petition His Majesty; adding, that their being of different judgments
did not abate his charity towards them. The advice was taken.

[Sidenote: JOHN BUNYAN.]

John Bunyan, with a number of others unknown to fame, encouraged by the
Quakers, asked to be set at liberty. The document, containing this
prayer, came before the Privy Council on the 8th of May, 1672--and
on the 17th, Archbishop Sheldon being present, it was ordered that,
as these persons had been committed "for not conforming to the
rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, and for being at
unlawful meetings," and for no other offence, the Attorney-General be
"authorized and required to insert them into the general pardon to be
passed for the Quakers."

The pardon is dated the 13th of September; and second on the list of
sufferers in Bedford Jail appears the name of "John Bunnion," who
in common with 490 others, received forgiveness for "all, and all
manner of crimes, transgressions, offences of premunire, unlawful
Conventicles, contempts, and ill behaviour whatsoever."[583] Our great
allegorist owed his deliverance to the intervention of Friends; and we
do not wonder to find that afterwards an end came to those unseemly
controversies which had been waged between him and the disciples of
George Fox.




                             CHAPTER XXII.


[Sidenote: POLITICAL PARTIES.]

The Tenth Session of Charles' Second Parliament opened on the 4th of
February, 1673. His Majesty's Speech glanced at the Indulgence, as
having produced a good effect by producing peace at home when there
was war abroad; and as not intended to favour the Papists, inasmuch as
they had freedom of religion only "in their own houses, without any
concourse of others." The oration of Shaftesbury, the Lord Chancellor,
in like manner touched upon the same points, and he endeavoured to
vindicate the measure from misconstruction, and asserted the success
with which it had been attended.[584] But the well-known character
of the Cabal, and the now equally well-known character of the King,
whose leaning towards Popery had become apparent, inspired the Commons
with sentiments which set them in opposition to the Royal policy. As
Tory and Whig, Conservative and Radical are terms now indicating
parties in the State divided upon great questions, so the Court party
and the Country party were corresponding appellations at the period
under review. But as it is now, so it was then--parties, at times,
erratically burst into circles not coincident with their professed
principles; and thus a door was opened for bandying to and fro violent
recriminations, on the score of inconsistency. The Court party, led by
the Cabal, through introducing and supporting a Grant of Indulgence,
seemed to be favouring the very Nonconformity which, in 1662 and in
subsequent years, they had sedulously endeavoured to crush out of
existence; and the Country party, through resistance of an usurped
prerogative, came to look like enemies of that very religious freedom,
whose last hopes had once been thought to lie within their bosoms. But
in fact the inconsistency on both sides is more apparent than real--for
still the one party aimed at the establishment of despotism, and the
other aimed at the advancement of liberty. The ends of the two parties
were still the same as they had ever been; they had only changed
their means. The Court had carried all before it at the time of the
Restoration. It then appeared as the upholder of the Throne, of the
Church, of the Prayer Book, of old English institutions and customs.
In the fervour of reborn loyalty, amidst a flush of feudal enthusiasm,
on the return of an exiled chief, and completely borne away with the
joy attendant on the revival of ancient and endeared customs, the
people had rallied around the King's party, applauding it to the echo.
Now a change came. Admiration of Charles II. had begun to subside;
his character was seen through; his profligacy was notorious; his
irreligion excited the displeasure of the sober-minded; his profusion
touched the pockets of the economical; and his dependence upon France
quickened the jealousy of all true patriots. The Cabal and the Court
were found to be in league with the Crown for purposes inimical to
the Commonwealth; therefore the nation expressed its deep uneasiness;
and the result being, that as seats in Parliament, now in its twelfth
year, fell vacant through the death of members, the candidates elected
to fill the vacancies were such as stood pledged to the Country party.
That party in the House of Commons thus by degrees became predominant;
and the King and Court received unpleasant proofs that they could no
longer carry things as they had done, with a high hand in their own way.

[Sidenote: 1673.]

[Sidenote: POLITICAL PARTIES.]

Under these circumstances, at an early sitting (the 8th of February),
a debate arose upon the subject of the Declaration. Sir Thomas
Lee, Mr. Garroway, and Sir Thomas Meres,--the bellwethers of the
Country party, as they were called, supported by Colonel Birch, the
Commonwealth's-man, and others,[585]--attacked the Royal proceeding,
which was vindicated by members on the other side. The Country party
(on the 10th) argued that the Declaration was unconstitutional;--that,
according to this method, the King might claim the power of changing
the religion of the country; that toleration ought to be granted,
but only by Act of Parliament; and that the document just issued,
in the name of the Monarch, would upset forty Acts of Parliament no
way constitutionally repealable, except by the authority which had
created them. In the course of the debate a member, addressing a
conspicuous Nonconformist in the House, remarked, "Why, Mr. Love, you
are a Dissenter yourself; it is very ungrateful that you who receive
the benefit should object against the manner." "I am a Dissenter,"
he replied, "and thereby unhappily obnoxious to the law; and if you
catch me in the corn you may put me in the pound. The law against the
Dissenters I should be glad to see repealed by the same authority
that made it; but while it is a law, the King cannot repeal it by
proclamation: and I had much rather see the Dissenters suffer by the
rigour of the law, though I suffer with them, than see all the laws
of England trampled under the foot of the prerogative as in this
example."[586] The Court faction stood on its defence. Secretary
Coventry maintained that the King did not intend to violate the laws;
that exceptional circumstances required exceptional proceedings; that
the master of a ship has power in a storm to throw goods overboard,
though no such power belongs to him when the waters are calm. Finch,
the Attorney-General, asserted the dangerous doctrine, that, as the
King was Head of the Church, and as it was the interest of the nation
to have a temporal and not a spiritual Pope, His Majesty might dispense
with the laws for the preservation of the realm; this legal functionary
dared to say, that the King, by his supremacy, might discharge any
cause in the Ecclesiastical Courts, as those Courts were his.[587]

[Sidenote: 1673.]

The subdued tone of expostulation which prevailed on the side of the
Country party is very remarkable, and a disinclination to come into
collision with the Throne was expressed by several of the members; yet
they pursued a decided course, and passed this resolution:--"That
penal statutes, in matters ecclesiastical, cannot be suspended, but
by Act of Parliament,"[588]--a resolution which they carried by 168
against 116. The House afterwards considered an address to the King,
embodying the resolution.

The debate, to which the resolution and the address founded upon
it gave rise, on the 14th of February, exemplified the same spirit
of moderation as had prevailed before. Sir Thomas Meres advocated
"ease fit for tender consciences"--in the words of the Breda
Declaration--"for union of the Protestant subjects;" and others
supported the plan of bringing in a Bill for the purpose. The
exact purpose of such a Bill did not distinctly appear, since some
members were for a wide comprehension, embracing within the Church
all Dissenters, and leaving no liberty for any who would not enter;
whilst others, again, contended for a liberal toleration to those who
remained outside of the established pale. This diversity of opinion and
this indistinctness of view gave considerable advantage to Secretary
Coventry, who retorted upon his opponents the differences which they
manifested, and the indecision which they betrayed. At length, however,
the address was carried without a dissentient voice.[589] It was
couched in terms so contrived as to tide over all difficulty.

[Sidenote: MEASURES OF RELIEF.]

[Sidenote: 1673.]

In the Grand Committee for preparing a Bill two questions arose.[590]
First, who were the persons to be benefited? or, in the quaint
phraseology of the time, "who were to be eased?" Should everybody be
included? Should all Protestants? Should all kinds of Dissenters,
including Levellers, respecting whose existence, however, within a
religious pale, doubts were expressed. Papists were altogether put
out of court. "The Papists," exclaimed Mr. Garroway, "are under an
anathema, and cannot come in under pain of excommunication." Finally,
it was resolved that ease should "be given to His Majesty's Protestant
subjects, that will subscribe to the doctrine of the Church of England,
and take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy." The second question
respected the nature and extent of the relief to be afforded. What
was "the ease" to be? Was it to be in the form of comprehension, or
of toleration, or of both? As to this point, the House seemed to be
in great difficulty. Indistinct ideas of some sort of comprehension
were most common. Even Alderman Love, a Dissenter, veered--if we may
judge from the imperfect report of his speech--now on the side of
liberty outside the Church, and now on the side of a large and liberal
inclusion within it. He confessed no kindness for those who desired
preferment, with conformity to the laws. Those on whose behalf he spoke
did not, he said, desire to be exempted from paying tithes, or from
holding parish offices, except the office of churchwarden, and that
"not without being willing to pay a fine for the contempt." He pleaded
that, after submitting to the test to be agreed upon, Nonconformist
ministers ought to be allowed to preach, "but not without the
magistrates' leave, the doors open, and in the public churches, when
no service is there." "This latter motion," says the report, "he
retracted, being generally decried." Then he rejoined that he used the
words "in the church," because people could not be thought to plot
in such a place. From a second speech by the same person it appears
that he moved _for a general indulgence by way of comprehension_, but
what he meant by that is not explained.[591] Comprehension in some way
was the object chiefly desired, and the terms of such comprehension
were largely and confusedly discussed. Even then a spirit moved over
the waters of debate which prepared for the order to be evolved at
the Revolution; but toleration, in its nature and principle, as it
was enforced by some of the Commonwealths-men, or as it was expounded
by John Locke, or as it is now universally understood, seems not to
have been stated by any who shared in the debate. This remarkable
circumstance indicates that none of the members who now sat on the
benches of St. Stephen's were exactly of the same stamp as some who had
occupied them before the Restoration.[592] Either such men were not
there at all, or they had changed their opinions, or they had become
afraid to utter what they believed. As we anticipate the ground which
was taken, and the sentiments which were prevalent when the Toleration
Act was passed, comparing the state of opinion at the Revolution with
the state of opinion in the year 1673, we must find it instructive to
notice the wonderful advance during the subsequent interval, and to
observe how silently and steadily the principles and the spirit of
justice were making their way. One member who favoured toleration was
so niggardly, that he desired only to "have it penned for such places
as should be appointed by Act of Parliament;" and another thought it
not reasonable that Nonconformists should have their "meeting-houses
out of town." Nor did the advocates of this restricted freedom plead
for more than its temporary concession. The heads of the Bill, as
at last concocted, were, first, in reference to comprehension, that
subscription should be required to the doctrinal Articles of the Church
of England, and that the requirement for declaring "assent and consent"
to the Prayer Book, should be repealed; and next, in reference to
toleration, that pains and penalties for religious meetings with open
doors should be no longer inflicted, and that teachers should subscribe
and take the prescribed oaths at the quarter sessions. The Act should
continue in force for a year, and from thence to the end of the next
session of Parliament.

[Sidenote: MEASURES OF RELIEF.]

These resolutions were adopted on the 27th of February,[593] and a Bill
founded upon them was read a third time on the 17th of March.[594] On
the second of these occasions, Secretary Coventry said he hoped the
measure, which did not fix sufficient limitations, would not destroy
the Church. To attempt such toleration as had never been tried before,
he maintained to be a frivolous expedient, the consequences of which
it would be beyond their power to remedy. One speaker uttered the
oft-repeated charge: "Dissenters grow numerous. If you pass this Act,
you give away the peace of the nation. A Puritan was ever a rebel;
begin with Calvin. These Dissenters made up the whole army against the
King. The destruction of the Church was then aimed at. Pray God it be
not so now!"[595] The Republicanism of Nonconformists appears to have
been a stock argument against granting them any liberty.

[Sidenote: 1673.]

The Bill did pass the Commons, and this fact proves that, however
inadequate might be the enunciation of the principles of civil and
religious liberty, the House departed from the doctrines upheld by it
ten years before. The distinction between articles of discipline and
of doctrine was laid down, burdensome impositions were proposed to be
removed, and a considerable amount of freedom was provided for those
outside the Establishment, in connection with a wider opening of the
door to those disposed to enter in.

Yet, after all, these debates and votes ended in nothing. The Bill
underwent several amendments when it reached the Lords. These
amendments were objected to by the Commons. Time was wasted between
the two Houses, notwithstanding the King's warning against delay; such
delay showing that neither portion of the legislature could have been
thoroughly in earnest about the proposal. Its fate was determined by
the adjournment of Parliament before the Bill had passed the Lords, and
by a prorogation after adjournment.[596]

About the same time another Bill came before the Commons' House,
enjoining the practice of frequent catechising in parochial churches; a
measure resembling that which the Presbyterians, in their day of power,
had so earnestly desired. Its progress, also, was stopped by the Lords.

[Sidenote: TEST ACT.]

[Sidenote: 1673.]

Coincident with the proceedings upon the Belief Bill were two very
important circumstances, namely, the passing of the Test Act and the
cancelling of the Declaration of Indulgence.

The former originated so early as the 28th of February, 1673, when
a motion was made for removing all Popish recusants out of military
office or command. This motion was exceedingly offensive to the King
and to the Court--being aimed at the King's brother, the Duke of York,
who was already generally suspected of having embraced the Romish
faith. There followed the same day a resolution, covering a still
wider ground of prohibition--_i.e._, "that all persons who should
refuse to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and to receive
the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England," should
be "incapable of _all_ public employments, military or _civil_."[597]
This attack on the Catholics was seconded by an address, agreed upon,
the 3rd of March, by the Commons against the growth of Popery. Also,
a Bill appeared in the Lower House, to prevent that growth, by the
method expressed in the above resolution. Strange to say, the idea
of the test so expressed emanated on this occasion from no other
person than Lord Arlington, the reputed Romanist, and a member of the
Cabal--partly, it is said, to gratify personal resentment, and partly
to accomplish objects of personal ambition.[598] In the course of the
debate in the Commons, a member tendered a proviso "for renouncing
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, for a further test to persons
bearing office;"[599] and again, strange to say, this additional
sting in a measure sufficiently irritating to His Majesty, the Duke,
and the whole Court, was introduced by another member of the Cabal,
whose name began with the second vowel in the notorious word--Ashley,
now Earl of Shaftesbury.[600] In this case, too, no less than in the
former, resentment and ambition, it is to be feared, mingled with
those motives which determined this step; for he aimed, by what he was
doing, to drive from power the Romanizing members of the Cabinet, and
to make himself master of the situation--a project, however, in which
he did not succeed. This additional barrier of Protestant defence,
constructed by Shaftesbury's hands, occasioned a polemical debate in
the House of Commons--the members talking much, and very confusedly of
Transubstantiation and of Consubstantiation, and of the Sacramental
doctrine held by the Church of England. The Bill, including the new
provision, passed the Commons on the 12th of March; and to add one more
strange circumstance to this history uniquely strange, the measure
found its most eloquent supporter in the House of Lords in the person
of the Roman Catholic Earl of Bristol, who defended it on the ground
that it would quiet a popular panic, by the simple removal of a few
Catholics from office, without enacting any new penalties against
Catholic worship. This looked like sacrificing personal interests to
patriotism; but the Earl surrendered all pretension to the character
of a confessor or a hero, by procuring the insertion of a clause
which secured to himself and to his wife a Royal pension, with an
exemption from the necessity of taking the test. The King--who at
first seemed as much incensed as his Courtiers--at last reluctantly
gave way; assent to the Bill being the price demanded by the Commons
for the replenishment of His Majesty's bankrupt exchequer. It is said
that three members of the Cabal--Clifford, Buckingham, and Lauderdale,
who supported the arbitrary power of the Crown, professed to despise
such vulgar temptations as had overcome their colleagues--and that
they encouraged the Monarch to imitate his father, by seizing the
obnoxious members of the opposition, by bringing the Army up to town,
and by making himself absolute master of the realm;[601] but Charles
was too indolent and too shrewd to venture on an attempt so bold and
so insane. The Test Act, therefore, passed; and whilst it originated
with one Catholic nobleman, and was advocated by another, it found no
opponent in the House of Commons on the part of the Nonconformists or
their friends. It is very true that the Bill pointed only at Catholics,
that it really proposed an anti-Popish test; yet the construction of
it, although it did not exclude from office such Dissenters as could
occasionally conform, did effectually exclude all who scrupled to do
so. Aimed at the Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear
that had the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have defeated
it; but the first of these classes for the present submitted to the
inconvenience, from the horror which they entertained of Popery,
hoping, at the same time, that some relief would be afforded for this
personal sacrifice in the cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the
passing of an Act, which, until a late period, inflicted a social
wrong upon two large sections of the community, is to be attributed
to the course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers.

[Sidenote: TEST ACT.]

[Sidenote: 1673.]

By the passing of the Test Act, Clifford, now an avowed Catholic,
was excluded from the House of Lords; and, in consequence of this
exclusion, he resigned the White Staff, and retired to the County of
Devon, where he died before the end of the year 1673. "He went off the
stage in great discontent."[602]

The next important circumstance at this period requiring our notice is
the withdrawal of the Declaration of Indulgence. When the address of
the Commons on that subject had been presented to the King he replied,
that he was troubled to find the Declaration had produced so much
disquiet, and had given occasion to the questioning of his authority in
ecclesiastical affairs. He was sure, he said, that he had never thought
of using power except for the peace and establishment of the Church; he
did not wish to suspend laws touching the property, the rights, or the
liberties of his subjects; nor to alter the doctrine or discipline of
the Church; he only wished to take off penalties, which he believed the
Commons did not desire to see inflicted according to the letter of the
law. He had no thought of neglecting the advice of Parliament; and if
any Bill should be offered him more proper to attain the end in view,
he would be ready to concur in it. With this answer the Commons did not
feel satisfied; but the King repeated in the month of March that, if
any scruple remained as to his suspension of penal laws, he faithfully
promised them what had been done should not be drawn into a precedent
for the future.[603]

[Sidenote: STATE OF NONCONFORMISTS.]

At the same time the Lord Chancellor stated that His Majesty had caused
the original declaration, under the Great Seal, to be cancelled in his
presence the previous evening.[604] By the operation of the Test Act,
by the cancelling of the Declaration, and by the dropping of the Bill
of Indulgence, Nonconformists were left in a worse plight than that
in which they had been before, so far as the law was concerned. The
state of the law, however, is not to be taken as an accurate index of
their condition. The pressure of a bad law depends very much upon the
hands employed in its administration. Happily the Declaration, which
ultra-Royalists were disposed to honour, on the very ground that it
was unconstitutional, had wrought a change in their feeling towards
Dissenters; and when the seal attached to it had been broken, still it
left, as it were, a spell upon their minds. The Churchmen's treatment
in many instances of those who were not Churchmen continued for a
while after the year 1672, to be less severe than it had previously
been.[605] The Church, gathered by Dr. Owen, enjoyed much freedom in
the year 1673, and afterwards. His Conventicle, which it would appear
was situated in White's Alley,[606] Moorfields, presented a list of
members including several persons of rank. We are enabled to enter
within the doors of the meeting-house, fitted up, no doubt, with
Puritan decency and comfort, whilst destitute of all beauty, and to
identify, amidst the hearers of the ex-Dean of Christ Church, certain
distinguished persons.

[Sidenote: 1673.]

There was Lord Charles Fleetwood, Cromwell's son-in-law, described in
an earlier portion of this work, whom Milton has eulogized as inferior
to none in humanity, in gentleness, and in benignity of disposition,
and whom Noble admits to have been a man of religion, and a venerator
of liberty. There was Colonel John Desborough, a staunch Republican,
a man of rough manners, whose name, together with that of Fleetwood,
Milton has honoured. There was Major-General Berry, once a friend of
Baxter's, and applauded by him as a man of sincere piety, till he
forfeited that excellent person's favour by becoming an Independent.
There was young Sir John Hartopp, of singular intelligence and
piety. Ladies of distinction also were there: the Lady Tompson, wife
of Sir John Tompson;[607] Lady Vere Wilkinson; Mrs. Abney; and
deserving of notice, more, however, for her eccentricities than her
excellencies--Mrs. Bendish, granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell.[608]

[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]

[Sidenote: 1674.]

Yet about the time that Owen and his congregation remained unmolested,
or just afterwards--and the circumstance should be mentioned as an
illustration of the parti-coloured character of Church history in
those days--Nathaniel Heywood speaks of the persecution he endured.
Before the 9th of April, 1674, he had for four months experienced
more trouble and opposition in his ministerial employment than he
had ever done before in all his life. The archers grieved him, and
shot at him thirty-four _arrows_ (by which he meant _warrants_);
"but our bow," he goes on to say, "abides in strength by the hands
of the mighty God of Jacob. Officers have come eighteen Lord's days
together, but have not as yet scattered us."[609] A year afterwards
(May 1st, 1675) he writes,[610] "all these troubles are nothing to
that I am now mourning under--the loss of public liberty, a closed
mouth, dumb and silent Sabbaths--to be cast out of the vineyard as a
dry and withered branch--and to be laid aside as a broken vessel in
whom there is no pleasure, is a sore burden I know not how to bear--my
heart bleeds under it as a sting and edge added to my other troubles
and afflictions. This exercise of my ministry next to Christ is dearer
to me than anything in the world. It was my heaven till I came home,
even to spend this life in gathering souls to Christ; but I must lay
even that down at Christ's feet, and be dumb and silent before the
Lord, because He has done it, who can do no wrong, and whose judgments
are past finding out. I am sure I have reason to conclude with the
prophet, "I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have
sinned against Him."

In some parts of the country, Nonconformists would not believe that
the King intended to depart from his liberal policy. There was a
busy meddling informer at Yarmouth named Bowen,[611] who frequently
corresponded with Sir Joseph Williamson respecting the conduct of the
Independents in that town. From his letters, preserved in the Record
Office, some curious illustrations belonging to this period may be
drawn. His testimony in matters relative to the character and conduct
of Nonconformists is worth nothing, owing to his prejudices; but there
is enough of what is credible in his correspondence to throw light upon
some of their proceedings.

"The Nonconformists here give out that they are to have a hearing next
Friday before His Majesty's Council, and doubt not but they shall
sufficiently be authorized to meet in public as before. They were
so rude, as I am credibly informed, meeting at one Mr. Brewster's,
near Wrentham, in Suffolk, about twelve miles from hence, that two
informers coming to the House, and inquiring at the door what company
they had within, they within hearing these inquiries came running out,
crying thieves, and fell upon them, knocking of them down, then drew
them through the foul hogstye, and from thence through a pond of
water--one of the two is since dead by their rude handling."

[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]

Wild rumours floated down to Yarmouth respecting an interview, which
Dr. Owen was said to have had with the King, in which the Independent
Divine spoke of the disturbance given to His Majesty's subjects, and
in which His Majesty promised that he would speedily redress their
wrongs. Encouraged by these rumours the Yarmouth Nonconformists paid no
attention to orders in Council, but assembled as before at their usual
place of worship, stating as a reason of the liberty they took, that
the King's mind had altered on the subject.[612] The "lukewarm," says
Bowen, "are here the most numerous; their religion must give way to
interest, and this is so involved within one and the other that the man
is not to be found who dare act. Many wish the work were done, but none
durst do it for fear he should suffer in his trade or calling, they all
having a dependence, little or much, upon one another."




                            CHAPTER XXIII.


The Cabal crumbled to pieces in 1673. It had never been guided by any
common principles; it had never felt any community of interest; it
had never been united by personal sympathies. Our notions of cabinet
councillors bound together by some characteristic policy, do not apply
to the reign of Charles II., when a Ministry included persons of divers
opinions, drawn together simply by the choice of the Sovereign, who
selected them mainly for the discharge of executive duties. The want
of cohesion apparent in all the cabinets of that period was singularly
conspicuous in this instance. Clifford was compelled to resign office
by the operation of the Test Act; Shaftesbury, dismissed from the
office of Chancellor, went over, accompanied by Buckingham, to the
Opposition; and Arlington, threatened with impeachment, relinquished
his Secretaryship of State for a quiet post in the Royal household.
Lauderdale alone retained his seals, thenceforth, however, to be
chiefly employed in the administration of Scotch affairs.

[Sidenote: EARL OF DANBY.]

Sir Thomas Osborne, created Earl of Danby, having taken up the White
Staff which Clifford had laid down, now became principal minister; and
from his business talents and his love for the power and emoluments of
office, he acquired an influence over the Royal councils, like that
of Clarendon in his palmy days. He resembled his great predecessor
in his opposition to Popery, not less than in his abilities and in
his ambition; but he was much more of an Englishman, and thoroughly
detested the idea of truckling to France. In that respect his policy
differed from the policy of the Cabal; but he inherited from that
Ministry the practice of bribing Parliament--carrying corruption even
further than ever the Cabal had done--for, whereas they only bought
speeches, he bought votes as well. His policy was decidedly Protestant
in foreign affairs, as the means of attaining his objects; and also,
from his own predilections, he especially sought to gratify the old
Cavaliers and the High Church party. Clarendon had been accused of
neglecting the friends of the martyred King, and of being indifferent
to his memory: Danby now gave the former encouragement; and he also
did honour to the latter, by recovering the bronze statue of Charles
I., and by setting it up at Charing Cross. He earnestly promoted the
rebuilding of St. Paul's Cathedral, and, at the same time, turned his
attention to the Dissenters; but it was to restrain their liberty and
to check their progress, both of which had received an impetus during
the latter part of the administration of the Cabal. Danby, and Sir
Heneage Finch, now Lord Keeper, called to their councils, relative
to Church affairs, two prelates whom the Nonconformists exceedingly
disliked, and not without reason,--Morley, Bishop of Winchester, and
Ward, Bishop of Salisbury. These prelates, it was inferred, recommended
the King to call in the licenses for worship, which, notwithstanding
the cancelling of the Declaration, had not yet been individually
withdrawn.[613]

[Sidenote: 1673-5.]

The reign of intolerance returned, and the weight of its iron mace
fell upon multitudes. The men who before, rather than countenance an
exercise of illegal power, or share their liberty with the Papist,
had rejected the Indulgence, or supported the Test Act, now felt
how cruelly they were rewarded by Parliament for their zeal against
Absolutism and Popery; whilst others, who had taken no part in their
proceedings, found themselves treated just like their neighbours. The
Court, incensed at being thwarted in their plans respecting Popery,
despatched informers to ferret out Protestant Nonconformists. The drum
ecclesiastic was loudly beaten, and a High Churchman, in his sermon
before the House of Commons, told the honourable members that the
Nonconformists could be cured only by vengeance; and that the best way
was to set "fire to the faggot;" and to teach these obstinate people
"by scourges or scorpions;" and to "open their eyes with gall."[614]

[Sidenote: NEW TEST.]

One of the most vexatious impositions enacted immediately after the
Restoration was the oath presented by the Corporation Act, declaring
that it was unlawful _under any pretence_ to bear arms against the
King. This oath was introduced into the Act of Uniformity, with the
addition that the Covenant entailed no obligation "to endeavour any
change or alteration of Government in Church or State,"--this formulary
repudiating the Covenant being intended only for temporary use, to
expire at the end of twenty years. But now another test was proposed
in the House of Lords, if not by the suggestion, yet with the sanction
of Danby,--a test which went so far as to require the following
declaration: "I do swear that I will not endeavour an alteration of
the Protestant religion now established by law in the Church of
England; nor will I endeavour any alteration in the Government of this
kingdom in Church or State, as it is by law established."[615] Such a
declaration is so utterly opposed to all the sentiments and traditions
of Englishmen, that it fills us with wonder that it could even have
been thought of,--yet it was contrived as a thing to be imposed upon
every member of Parliament, and upon all persons holding office under
the Crown. The King, at that period under an hallucinating desire
for Absolutism, threw himself with so much energy into the conflict,
that he attended constantly on the debate, standing at the fire-side
in the Upper House, day after day for seventeen days, listening to
the oratory of the Peers. Not only the Lord Treasurer Danby, but the
Lord Keeper Finch encouraged this assault upon the liberties of their
country; and it must not be concealed that the two prelates, who had
already signalized themselves by their intolerance, Morley and Ward,
now united with the two temporal Lords in this matricidal attempt.
Their most determined, most able, and eloquent opponent was the Earl
of Shaftesbury. On this occasion certainly he did good service to
the cause of freedom. He prolonged the sittings till he wearied his
enemies, and most unmercifully did he lash the Bishops for the part
which they took in the debate. He asked, what were the boundaries of
the Protestant religion, which the new oath required men to swear they
would never alter? He pointed out defects in the Church of England,
and dwelt upon the conflicting interpretations which her standards had
received from her own Divines; and he inquired, whether it would be
a crime to make an alteration, by bringing back the Liturgy to what
it had been in the days of Elizabeth? One occupant of the Episcopal
Bench, who since his elevation had rarely entered a pulpit, whispered
to a friend, loud enough in the ill-constructed house to be heard by
his neighbours, "I wonder when he will have done preaching!" "When?"
continued Shaftesbury, "when I am made a Bishop, my Lord."

[Sidenote: 1675.]

We cannot follow the discussions upon the Bill: our brief notice of
which is introduced for the purpose of indicating its tendency with
regard to the Church,--by investing it with a fictitious infallibility,
by fostering towards it an admiration as fatal as it was foolish, since
it tended to prevent the increase of its benefits, through the reform
of its abuses. It is enough to add, that, after dragging the country to
the verge of a convulsion, the Government felt compelled to abandon the
Bill.[616]

Comprehension came anew under consideration.

Overtures respecting this point were made in the early part of the year
1673 to Richard Baxter by the Earl of Orrery. He professed that many
influential persons desired such a result, and mentioned the names
of the new Lord Treasurer, and Morley, Bishop of Winchester, "who
vehemently professed his desires of it."[617]

[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]

[Sidenote: 1675.]

Messages and meetings, on the same subject, followed in the spring of
1675--after Morley had, during two or three sessions of Parliament,
"on all occasions, in the company of lords, gentlemen, and divines,
cried out of the danger of Popery, and talkt much for abatements and
taking in the Nonconformists, or else" all were "like to fall into
the Papists' hands." Bates brought to Baxter a message from Tillotson,
to the effect that Tillotson and Stillingfleet wished for a meeting
with himself, Manton, and others. The anxiety of the Presbyterians
for some _accommodation_, as they called it, became notorious; and
Baxter repeatedly showed now, as he had done before, the sincerity
and earnestness of his solicitude in reference to the matter.[618]
Prolonged debate and voluminous correspondence; the discussion of
principles, and the arrangement of details; questions, answers,
strictures, rejoinders could not quench the ardour of the man who
combined in one, the qualities of a theological disputant and an
apostle of union--qualities which in his case served to neutralize each
other. He had faith in some of his Episcopalian brethren, as disposed
to meet him half way. Witchcot, Stillingfleet, Gifford, Tillotson,
Cradock, Outram, he speaks of with honour; declaring he made no doubt,
if the matter could be left in such hands, that differences would be
"healed in a few weeks' time."[619] But in the Bishop of Winchester
he had no faith.[620] The inconsistencies of Morley may perhaps he
understood by examining into what were probably the motives of his
conduct. His main policy was to protect the Establishment, on the basis
of the Act of Uniformity, against Papists on the one hand, and against
Dissenters on the other. He shared in the alarm which conversions to
Rome and the encroachments of that Church inspired throughout England
at the time; and, partly from that cause, he was induced to support
the Bill just described, thinking by the new oath which stereotyped
the Church, to prevent an invasion by the enemy. But now the Bishop
might conceive that it would be desirable to consolidate English
Protestantism. Strength was being wasted by internecine warfare, at
a moment when Episcopalians and Presbyterians stood before a common
foe. It was the story of the Crusaders repeated. Why not gather the
forces of the Church and of the sects, and concentrate them upon the
great enemy of the country's liberty and peace? Such impressions,
under the circumstances, were not unnatural in the mind of a man like
Morley. Thus influenced, he would talk and act, as Baxter, with strong
suspicions of his sincerity, reports him to have done. Yet at the time
Morley might be perfectly sincere, although a reaction of prejudice,
after a time, proved too much for his new-born zeal in behalf of union.
The schemes of 1673 and 1675 met with the same fate as the schemes of
1667 and 1668.[621]

Parliament prorogued in June, reassembled the 13th of October, when
the Lord Keeper, in his opening speech, called renewed attention
to ecclesiastical affairs. He said that His Majesty had so often
recommended the consideration of religion, and so very often expressed
a desire for the assistance of the Houses in his care and protection
of it, that "the Defender of the Faith," had become "the advocate of it
too," and had left those without excuse, who remained under any kind
of doubts or fears--"Would you," asked he, "raise the due estimation
and reverence of the Church of England to its just height?" "All your
petitions of this kind will be grateful to the King."[622]

[Sidenote: PERSECUTION.]

The persecution of Nonconformists continued to depend very much upon
the temper of neighbours and the character of magistrates. In some
cases their meetings were broken up, and they were taken prisoners;
but, in other cases, they were allowed to assemble in their places of
worship without molestation, much to the annoyance of impotent enemies.
A Government correspondent in the town of Lynn reported a private
meeting of about forty of "the Presbyterian gang," discovered by the
Curate and officers of the parish of St. Margaret. These Nonconformists
made their escape, but "enough were taken notice of to make
satisfaction of the rest," and they "were to be presented according to
law."

[Sidenote: 1675.]

The Nonconformists at Yarmouth continued their meetings publicly, and
in as great numbers as ever. This sufferance, it was complained, filled
with impudence people who, when the laws were put in execution, were
as tame as lambs.[623] The same informant who states this, reports
that the "Bishop of Norwich had sent to know how many persons received
the communion at Church, and what was the number of recusants and
Nonconformists; and that the ministers and churchwardens feared if they
should make the Dissenting party so great as they are, it might put
some fear in His Majesty, and discourage him in attempting to reform
them, they judging their number has been the only cause they have been
so favourably dealt with hitherto." "Of the same opinion," he observes,
"they are in other parts as well as here, so that there is likely to be
an imperfect account." Not above 500, it is affirmed, would be found
to be in communion with the Church of England. As to Dissenters, says
this writer, "how many of them were in Church fellowship, as they term
it, or break bread together, I am certain here is not one hundred men
besides the women." He adds, "The greater number of people there, as
elsewhere, were the profane and unstable, who were on the increase,
tending to an unsettlement either in Church or State."[624]

It is curious to notice the changing fortunes of Dissenters--how, after
a lull of peace, they were overtaken again by a storm of trouble. The
copious correspondence of the Yarmouth informer traces the history in
that town time after time. The bailiff was stimulated to interfere,
and he issued his warrant to the constables to assist in dispersing
the illegal worshippers; but it seems to have been difficult to get
these officers to act in the business, since there were three of their
number who "daily frequented" the reprobated place of worship. It being
reported that the Anabaptists were meeting to the number of 80 or 90,
the constables were sent to disperse them, and they took five of the
chief into custody. The correspondent exultingly adds, "Several of the
Nonconformist grandees came yesterday to our Church, and of the common
sort, so many as filled our Church fuller than ever I saw it since the
year 1665."[625]

In the autumn of the same year Dissenting affairs at Yarmouth took
another favourable turn. Their approved friends having recovered
the helm of municipal affairs, Nonconformists were regarded as more
dangerous than ever, for their meetings were held at break of day
within closed doors. For two Sundays the angry correspondent was
awakened out of his sleep, the schismatics kept up such a trampling as
they passed the streets under his window, that he rose out of his bed
to see what could be the matter.[626]

[Sidenote: COFFEE-HOUSES.]

It is sometimes forgotten, but it is worth remark, that other meetings,
besides Conventicles, were at this period proscribed. Coffee-houses
were then such institutions as clubs are now; and Dryden might be
seen at "Wills," in Covent Garden, surrounded by the wits, seated in
"his armed chair, which in the winter had a settled and prescriptive
place by the fire." Some houses of a lower character are described
as exchanges "where haberdashers of political small-wares meet, and
mutually abuse each other and the public with bottomless stories."
Conversation ranged over all kinds of topics--scandalous, literary,
political, and ecclesiastical; and questions touching Papists and
Nonconformists were earnestly discussed within those quaint old
parlours, over cups of coffee and chocolate, sherbet, and tea. These
discussions were reported to the men in power as being often of a
treasonable nature, even as Nonconformist sermons--only with much less
reason--were so represented. Consequently a proclamation appeared
in the month of December, 1675, recalling licenses for the sale of
coffee, and ordering all coffee-houses to be shut up; "because in
such houses, and by the meeting of disaffected persons in them,
divers false, malicious, and scandalous reports were devised and
spread abroad, to the defamation of His Majesty's Government and the
disturbance of the quiet and peace of the realm." But public opinion
was stronger in reference to coffee-houses than it was in reference
to Conventicles--and whilst the latter remained beneath a legal ban,
the former were speedily re-opened, "under a severe admonition to the
keepers, that they should stop the reading of all scandalous books and
papers, and hinder every scandalous report against the Government."[627]

[Sidenote: 1668-1676.]

[Sidenote: SAMUEL PARKER.]

Comprehension and toleration continued to be discussed from the press.
We have noticed publications in the year 1667 bearing upon such
subjects. Between that date and the period to which we are now brought,
a controversy had been going on respecting the fundamental principles
of religious liberty; notorious on the one side for the baseness of the
attack, memorable on the other for the chivalry of the defence. Samuel
Parker had been brought up amongst the Puritans, had distinguished
himself at Oxford during the Commonwealth as one of the _gruellers_
(an ascetic little company of students, whose refection, when they
met together, was oatmeal and water), and was esteemed "one of the
preciousest young men in the University."[628] This man proved recreant
to his principles after Charles' return, and, swinging round with
immense momentum, became as violent in his Episcopalian as he could
ever have been in his Presbyterian zeal. Having come up to London, and
made himself known as "a great droller on the Puritans," he, in the
year 1667, obtained a chaplaincy at Lambeth, and thus found himself on
the high road to preferment. In 1669 he published a book, the title
of which--like so many in those days--fully describes its contents,
and expresses its spirit. He calls it "A discourse of ecclesiastical
polity, wherein the authority of the civil magistrate over the
consciences of subjects in matters of external religion is asserted,
the mischief and inconveniences of toleration are represented, and
all pretences pleaded on behalf of liberty of conscience are fully
answered." The spirit of this book may be seen from the preface,
in which the author justifies the violence of his attacks upon
Nonconformists. "Let any man that is acquainted with the wisdom and
sobriety of true religion," he exclaims indignantly, "tell me how 'tis
possible not to be provoked to scorn and indignation against such
proud, ignorant, and supercilious hypocrites. To lash these morose and
churlish zealots with smart and twinging satires is so far from being
a criminal passion, that 'tis a seal of meekness and charity." Thus he
strikes the key-note of what he continues from page to page, disgusting
every sensible reader; yet it is curious to find him maintaining
unequivocally that the affairs of religion, as they must be subject to
the supreme civil power, so they ought to be to none other, and "that
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of princes [is] not derived from any
grant of our Saviour, but from the natural and antecedent rights of
all sovereign power." His principles are thoroughly Erastian, although
the writer objects to Hobbes' philosophy; and whilst his positions are
often monstrous, his reasonings are contemptible. Dr. Owen wrote in
reply to this assault, his _Truth and Innocence vindicated_; in which,
after repelling the accusations brought forward by Parker, he exposes
and confutes that author's principles.[629] Parker, in his rejoinder,
poured upon Owen the coarsest abuse, calling him "the great bellwether
of disturbance and sedition, and the viper swelled with venom, which
must spit or burst." He also cast upon his old associates more and more
of bitter invective, calling them "the most villanous unsufferable
sort of sanctified fools, knaves, and unquiet rebels, that ever were
in the world;"[630] and having in his first book attacked Dissenters
in general, in the second he assailed Independents in particular,
quoting against Owen divers extracts taken from his sermons. That
Divine made no reply; but another formidable combatant appeared on
his side against the scurrilous accuser. As the High Church party
could boast of Samuel Parker who knew how to lampoon the Puritans, so
the Liberals of that day gloried in Andrew Marvell, who could quite
as cleverly satirize High Churchmen. In his _Rehearsal Transposed_,
he carried the day, and tormented beyond endurance the champions of
despotism. Everybody who could read, from the King to the artizan,
perused with glee the pages of the book, so that the discomfiture of
the Archbishop's Chaplain excited derision through a much wider circle
than was ever reached by his foolish writings. Parker, however, was not
a man easily to be silenced, nor was the cause he undertook easily to
be crushed; and therefore he and his friends returned to the onslaught,
and soon the printers were busy with a number of pamphlets, presenting
a catalogue of most ridiculous titles. Marvell rejoined; and it is
confessed by Parker that, at the end of the literary encounter, the
odds and victory were against him, and lay on Marvell's side: the style
of warfare adopted by the latter can scarcely be approved, but it was
in the fashion of the times, and had been provoked by an unprincipled
assailant, who, it may be hoped--as it is intimated by one sometimes
resembling Parker in virulence--was all the better for the castigation
he received.[631]

[Sidenote: 1668-76.]

[Sidenote: BISHOP CROFT.]

This remarkable controversy lasted from 1669 to 1673; and was in its
first stage when the new Conventicle Act appeared; and reached its
height whilst the debates on the Indulgence, the Relief Bill, and the
Test Act agitated Parliament and the country. High Churchmen read with
sympathy the pages of the assailant of Nonconformists, and they, on the
other hand, suffering from local persecution, or rejoicing in Royal
indulgence, pondered Owen's arguments, or laughed at Marvell's wit.

In the year 1675, Croft, Bishop of Hereford, despatched anonymously
_The Naked Truth_, in which he maintained the sufficiency of the
Apostles' Creed as a standard of faith, and protested against the
refinements of Alexandrian and scholastic philosophy. At the same time
he declined submission to the authority of the Fathers, or of Councils,
although paying respect to them as teachers and guides; and deprecated
the importance attached to ceremonies, pleading for such liberty as St.
Paul, "that great grandfather of the Church, allowed his children."
He would dispense with using the surplice, bowing to the altar, and
kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and also with the cross in baptism, and
the ring in marriage. He advocated a revision of the Prayer Book,
contended that all ministers are of one order, and believed that
confirmation might be administered by priests as well as by prelates.
The tract concludes with a charitable admonition to all Nonconformists,
in which the author, after pleading his own desire for certain changes,
yet confessing he saw no hope of being successful, most inconsistently
proceeds to exhort his Dissenting readers, on grounds of Christian
humility, and the mischiefs of separation, immediately to submit to the
authority of the Church.[632]

[Sidenote: 1668-76.]

[Sidenote: BISHOP CROFT.]

It has often been the fate of moderate men to suffer from condemnation
by zealots in their own Church. Even Popes of Rome, when taking the
side of charity and candour, have been dishonoured by advocates of the
Papacy; and Anastasius II., for his mild behaviour towards the Eastern
Church, has been represented by Cardinal Baronius as the victim of a
Divine judgment. Dante, too, has assigned him to one of the circles
of the damned. In a similar spirit contemporaries assailed the author
of _Naked Truth_. "Not only the Churches, but the coffee-houses rung
against it; they itinerated, like excise spies, from one house to
another, and some of the morning and evening chaplains burnt their
lips with perpetual discoursing it out of reputation, and loading the
author, whoever he were, with all contempt, malice, and obloquy. Nor
could this suffice them, but a lasting pillar of infamy must be erected
to eternize his crime and his punishment. There must be an answer to
him in print, and that not according to the ordinary rules of civility,
or in the sober way of arguing controversy, but with the utmost
extremity of jeer, disdain, and indignation."[633] Gunning, Bishop of
Ely, attacked it in a sermon which he preached before the King; and to
him has been ascribed a pamphlet entitled _The Author of Naked Truth
Stript Naked_. It also met with animadversions from Dr. Turner, Head
of St. John's, Cambridge. Still there were those of another spirit
who appreciated the calm reasoning and the amiable temper of the
Bishop; and Pearse, who is described by Wood as "a certain lukewarm
Conformist," because he could not join in reviling his Nonconformist
brethren, spoke of the book at a later date, in his _Third Plea for the
Nonconformists_, as a Divine manifestation of a primitive Christian
spirit of love. And he proceeds, "certainly, as that pious endeavour
hath increased his (the author's) comforts, so he hath not lost all
his labour; for since that, we have had more overtures of peace than
we heard of in many years before of discord and troubles, from the
learned in the Church of England." Marvell, in his answer to the
animadversions, styled the writer of _Naked Truth_ "judicious, learned,
conscientious, a sincere Protestant, and a true son, if not a father
of the Church of England." Baxter also alludes to it as an excellent
book, "written for the Nonconformists," in favour of "abatements, and
forbearance, and concord."[634]




                             CHAPTER XXIV.


[Sidenote: ROMAN CATHOLICISM.]

The state of the Royal family, as it respects religion, at the period
which we have now reached, constituted the principal foundation in
England, of Roman Catholic hope, and the chief source of Protestant
fear. The Queen, who reached this country in 1662, retained the faith
of her childhood, and, very naturally, would have been glad to see
it restored in the land of her adoption. The King, too careless and
profligate to be affected by any really pious considerations, probably
preferred the Romish to any other kind of worship, and of such a
preference people suspected him at the moment he was declaring the
utmost zeal for Protestantism.[635] Their suspicions were too well
founded. Certainly, as early as the year 1669, he entertained the
idea of uniting himself to the Church of Rome; and in the following
year he signed a secret treaty with the King of France, in which he
pledged himself to avow his conversion, whenever it should appear to
him to be most convenient.[636] The existence and provisions of that
compact, in spite of the utmost endeavours to conceal it, oozed out
at the time;[637] but now that history has revealed it entirely, with
many of its attendant private circumstances, we discover the extreme
shamefulness of the whole affair. For, by the terms of the treaty, the
King of England became a pensioner of France, and promised to make war
upon Holland, with which State, France had entered into friendship and
alliance; the negotiator of this scandalous arrangement being no other
than Charles' sister, Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans, whose reputation
is deeply stained, through her being involved in the licentious
intrigues of Louis XIV's court. After having visited her brother to
accomplish this dishonourable mission, she left behind, as an agent for
preserving French influence over his volatile mind, one of the ladies
of her train, named Querouaille, who became mistress to the licentious
monarch, and is so notorious in the disgraceful history of his reign as
the Duchess of Portsmouth.[638]

[Sidenote: 1662-1673.]

[Sidenote: ROMAN CATHOLICISM.]

The King's brother having, by means of Anglo-Catholic instructors, been
imbued with the ideas of Church authority, of apostolical traditions,
and of the Real Presence, had, after this effective preparation,
taken a further and very natural step, and had been reconciled to
Rome; notwithstanding the fact that up to Easter, 1671, he continued
outwardly to commune with the Established Church in this country.[639]
His first Duchess, Ann Hyde, daughter of Lord Clarendon, had practised
secret confession to Dr. Morley from her youth, and, after her
marriage, in order to retain or to recover the fickle attachment of her
husband, she had entered into close communication with Popish priests,
and had expressed a disposition to renounce Protestantism.[640] She, it
is said, preferred an unmarried clergy, and excused the Roman Catholic
superstitions; and it would appear that, for some months before her
death, she ceased to partake of the Lord's Supper as administered by
the Anglican clergy. Members of her family sought to re-establish her
Protestant belief, but in vain, and in her last illness she received
the Eucharist from the hands of a Franciscan friar.[641] James' second
Duchess, Mary of Modena, was by descent and education a decided Papist;
and his marriage with that lady being extremely unpopular, provoked
the opposition of the English Parliament. Thus, at the time of which
we speak, the three principal members of the Royal house, next to the
King, were Romanists, and he himself was known to sympathize with
them in their religious sentiments. Added to these circumstances was
the fact that several other persons in high estate were sincerely
attached to the same faith; a love to it also lingered amongst the
lower ranks in some parts of England; and, as a consequence, the
Roman Catholics were "bold and busy" in their endeavours to make
converts. What they did they had to do by stealth; persecution met
them everywhere, yet, with a heroism which we cannot but respect, they
steadily persevered. One advocate and missionary in particular, Abraham
Woodhead, who early commenced his work in England, is mentioned with
honour even by the Oxford historian, for he remarks, with regard to
a later period, that the "calm, temperate, and rational discussion
of some of the most weighty and momentous controversies under debate
between the Protestants and Romanists rendered him an author much
famed, and very considerable in the esteem of both."[642] Hugh Paulin
Cressey, one of the Queen's chaplains, was also active in the same
cause, and is praised for the candour, plainness, and decency, with
which he managed controversy;[643] and John Gother, another zealous
polemic on the side of Rome, published, in support of the doctrines of
his Church, seventeen controversial, and twelve spiritual tracts.[644]
That Church has ever acted most systematically, carrying out a ramified
method of operation; and, at the time of which I am now speaking,
the priests in England, whether secular or regular, were all under
effectual guidance and control. The former received their direction
from one whom they called "the head of the clergy," who possessed
a kind of Episcopal power, both he and they being subordinated to
the Papal nuncio in France, and the internuncio in Flanders, to whom
were entrusted the oversight of the missions to England and Ireland.
Regular priests, of the order of St. Benedict, of St. Augustine,
of St. Dominic, of St. Francis, and of the Society of Jesus, were
subject to their superiors respectively, and, in whatever they did,
proceeded obsequiously in obedience to command; not, however, without
mutual jealousy and strife,--after the manner of the Middle Ages,
when seculars and regulars, the two main divisions of the army, kept
up a constant rivalry in the spiritual camp.[645] Even in a lukewarm
Protestant country, the activity and increase of Romanism could not
be regarded without apprehension. But the Protestants of England were
not then lukewarm. The antipathy cherished by an earlier generation
had descended to the present. Nonconformists, after the Restoration,
continued to cherish the old Puritan horror of the Mother of Harlots;
they read _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_; they kept alive the traditions of
their ancestors under Queen Mary; and Gunpowder Treason had not yet
ceased to awaken in their minds the most terrible recollections. Those
persons in the Establishment who cherished Puritan sympathies--and they
were not few--thought of Rome in the same way as the Dissenters did;
and other persons, on different grounds, felt the greatest alarm at the
portents of the times. Even strong Anglican preferences in some cases
were connected with an intense dislike of Romanism; in bosoms where
no better feeling existed, there arose a fear of its return, as of an
enemy which would rob the clergy of their possessions. The prevailing
alarm can be easily explained, for the revival of Popery ever appeared
to Protestants in those days as fraught with disasters; and in the
present instance, to aggravate apprehension, political considerations
were suggested respecting the designs of France, then the ally of Rome
in the worst phases of its despotism.

[Sidenote: 1662-1673.]

[Sidenote: PROTESTANT OPPOSITION.]

The feeling against Popery manifested itself in divers ways. Books were
published exposing the evils of the system, including translations of
_Blaise Pascal's Provincial Letters_, and, I am sorry to say, that
amongst works original, solid, judicious, and convincing, written
to defend the principles of the Reformation, were some of a very
unscrupulous character, full of the most wretched scurrility and
invective.[646] As early as 1667 suggestions were made to His Majesty's
Privy Council to issue processes in the Exchequer against Popish
recusants, to suppress all masses throughout the country, except those
at the chapels of the Queen, and of the foreign ambassadors, to banish
all native priests, and to prevent the education of English children
in Catholic countries. All this was proposed to be done by means of
a Royal declaration, which should "leave some little door of hope to
Dissenting Protestants, of a further degree of ease from Parliament,
which the King would be glad should be found out."[647]

[Sidenote: 1662-1673.]

In the autumn of 1667, there ran a report that the Presbyterian, Mr.
Prynne, in his zeal against Popery, had written to Bath respecting
the Papists resident there; but one of Evelyn's correspondents, who
sympathized with these sufferers, stated that the suspected were only
few--"not above a dozen simple women, and three or four inconsiderable
men"--and then strove to turn the tables upon the accuser, by speaking
of "dangerous fanatics," who "overwhelm the country," defy the
Government, and reproach the King, winding up his communication in
the following strain:--"That all the late firebrands should be set
on horseback, especially those that horsed themselves to join with
the Dutch and French; and that all the late sufferers should complete
their martyrdom. Some men were born in a tempest, can see mountains
through millstones, take alarm at the creeping of a snail, and throw
open the gates to let in the Tartars, and so their end must be like
their beginning. But Mr. P[rynne] cannot hear on that ear, and has
such accurate skill in the laws, that he can find high treason in a
bull-rush, and innocence in a scorpion."[648]

Royal proclamations touching Jesuits and Romanists, extorted from the
King by the representations of his Ministers, of the Bishops, and of
Parliament, reflect correctly the opinions of the nation and of the
Church,[649] but the utter insincerity of them, as proceeding from
Charles, is sufficiently manifest. It was felt at the time by Romanists
themselves that he who sat upon the throne remained, after all, their
fast friend; and, to arguments for the abolition of State penalties
against recusants, it was cleverly replied that they formed "a bow
strung and bended, and an arrow put into it, but none could shoot but
His Majesty."[650]

[Sidenote: PROTESTANT OPPOSITION.]

The storm of public indignation manifestly increased with the advance
of time, and when the Duke of Buckingham traversed Yorkshire, raising
recruits for his regiments, so jealous of Popery were the people there,
that scarcely a man would enlist until he had gone with the recruiting
officer and publicly taken the Holy Sacrament, as an evidence of his
Protestantism. In the autumn, as the period returned for commemorating
the frustration of Gunpowder Plot, the Pope with great solemnity was
burnt in several places within the City of London, a barbarism which
the Roman Catholic who reports the circumstance thought no nation but
the Hollanders could have been guilty of, yet members of Parliament
assisted on the occasion, but whether it proceeded from wine or from
zeal the informant could not say. Bonfires blazed on the fifth of
November all the way from Charing Cross to Whitechapel with a fury
unknown for thirty years.[651]

As the next year opened, Charles consulted with the Bishops touching
the subject of this immense excitement, assuring them of his readiness
to do all in his power for the suppression of Popery, for which
purpose he thought it fit to have the assistance and advice of the
Right Reverend Fathers, and he wished them first to debate upon the
subject amongst themselves, and then to inform him what best could be
done for maintaining the interests of the Church of England, as by law
established.[652]

[Sidenote: 1675.]

Towards the close of the year 1675, the Protestant agitation received
a new impulse from a debate in Parliament relative to an assault by a
priest, named St. Germain, upon one Monsieur Luzancy, who, after being
a French Jesuit, had become a minister of the Church of England. This
zealous convert, preaching at the Savoy, had bitterly attacked the
errors which he had repudiated, and, having printed his controversial
sermon, he stated that he was visited by St. Germain, who, with three
ruffians, forced him to sign a recantation of his faith. This story
was told to Sir John Reresby, who immediately related it to the House
of Commons.[653] Luzancy, examined by a Committee, added further
particulars, inflaming the House to the last degree, by the statement
that two French Protestant merchants, residing in the Metropolis,
had received from their Popish neighbours a threat, that soon the
streets of the City would flow with torrents of Protestant blood.
Some immediate results of the excitement appeared in the House of
Lords, where a Bill was introduced for encouraging monks and friars,
in foreign parts, to forsake their convents; and in an order from
the Commons to the Lord Chief Justice to issue his warrant for the
apprehension of all Catholic priests.[654]

[Sidenote: PROTESTANT OPPOSITION.]

In the following summer, Popish books were seized at Stationers' Hall,
by order of the Privy Council; and in the autumn, authority was given
to watch the doors of the chapels allowed for the use of the Queen,
and of the foreign ambassadors, and to observe such of His Majesty's
subjects, not being in the service of those illustrious personages,
as attended the service which was there performed. Those who watched
were not to stop or question any as they went in, but they were to
apprehend them instantly as they came out, and if that could not be
accomplished, the names of such delinquents were to be ascertained and
returned.[655] It may here be mentioned that, at the time when these
measures were employed, Protestants formed the wildest estimates of
the numbers of Papists. Some one reported that as many as 20,000 or
30,000 of them were living in the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields,
yet in a survey, made by order of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the
year 1676, it is affirmed that, in this much-suspected parish, only 600
Papists could be found, and that not more than 11,870 were discovered
in the whole province.[656]

[Sidenote: 1676.]

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]

Parliament, which in 1676 had been sitting fifteen years, at that
time laboured under a very bad character. It was commonly said, that
one-third of the Commons were dependent upon Government and the Court;
that large bribes were paid for votes and speeches; and that the
Lord Treasurer declared members came about him like so many jackdaws
for cheese at the end of every session. Complaints were rife of the
depression of trade, and of the embarrassment of the country, in
consequence of the prolonged existence of the same House of Commons,
whilst especial stress was laid upon the singular unreasonableness of
a number of men being allowed for such a length of time to engross
the representation of the people, and upon the advantages which would
accrue, both to the Crown and the nation, from the calling of another
Parliament. Some of these arguments were eloquently exhibited by the
Earl of Shaftesbury, who had ends of his own to serve by a dissolution,
since he trusted by means of it to be carried back to power; and in
addition to political reasonings this clever politician held out to
all sorts of religionists, hopes the most inconsistent--and, taken
altogether, perfectly absurd--as bribes to secure their support of
his policy in the approaching struggle. Careful to throw out a bait
to the Church of England, by assuring her that a new Parliament would
preserve her honours, her dignities, and her revenues, would make her
a great protectrix, and asylum of Protestants throughout Europe, and
would increase the maintenance of the Ministry in Corporations and
large towns;--Shaftesbury also, strange to say, encouraged the Roman
Catholics to expect deliverance from the pressure of penal laws under
which they groaned, if they would also be contented, for the sake of
their religion, to forego access to Court, promotion to office, and
employment in arms.[657] Certainly the existing Parliament had shown
an unconquerable hatred to Popery, and perhaps Romanists had more to
fear than to hope from its continuance; and for this reason, amongst
others, the Duke of York advocated a dissolution, and appeared, to
that extent, amongst the supporters of the Earl. The Earl at the same
time threw out his nets so very wide as to aim at catching Dissenters,
telling them that whereas they had suffered so much of late from
persecuting laws, a new House of Commons would procure them "ease,
liberty, and protection." He had, ever since he parted with the Great
Seal in 1673, professed the utmost love for Protestantism, and had
been proclaimed by its zealots as the saviour of the faith; it being
profanely said that wherever the Gospel should be preached that
which he had done should be told as a memorial of him.[658] And now,
influenced by the incredibly high religious reputation of this Protean
statesman, also, in all probability moved by his flatterers, certainly
bound to him by party ties, the virtuous Lord Wharton took his place
amongst the helpers of "the chief engineer," as the Duke of York styled
the Ex-Chancellor. Upon a debate respecting an address to His Majesty
to dissolve Parliament, His Royal Highness and Lord Wharton joined with
the Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Shaftesbury in supporting it,
the non-contents carrying their point only by a majority of two.[659]

[Sidenote: 1677.]

The Parliament was prorogued on the 22nd of November, for fifteen
months; and as soon as it met again, on the 15th of February, 1677,
the party in opposition returned to the charge; but now, deserted
by the Duke of York, the party was led by the Duke of Buckingham,
who delivered a famous speech to prove that Parliament had been
virtually dissolved by so long a prorogation. What the Duke said
was construed into an insult, for which one of the peers moved that
he should be called to the bar, when the motion was resented by the
Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Lord Wharton, all
three supporting the Duke of Buckingham. The Lords, who thus led the
opposition, were told that what they had done was ill-advised; and
they were ordered to beg pardon of the House, and of His Majesty. Upon
which, refusing to comply, they were committed to the Tower. Buckingham
slipped out of the House, but surrendered himself the next day.[660]

The committal produced a great excitement--in which religious people,
especially Nonconformists, largely shared, for they looked up to some
of these noblemen as particular friends; and a fugitive sheet written
at the time, without date or names, has preserved certain memoranda
concerning the prisoners, from which it appears that several Quakers
were at that time in communication with the Duke of Buckingham.[661]

In the month of June, Buckingham, Wharton, and Salisbury--wearied out
with their confinement, and disappointed of their discharge at the
end of the Session, by the adjournment of the Houses, recanted what
they had spoken,--professed repentance of their error, and sought
pardon of His Majesty. They were liberated accordingly; but the Earl
of Shaftesbury, because he refused to make any submission, and applied
to the King's Bench for a writ of _habeas corpus_, was doomed to a
longer captivity; yet at last he obtained his liberty in the month of
February, 1678, only, however, by kneeling down at the bar of the
House, and humbly asking their Lordships' pardon.

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]

[Sidenote: 1677.]

The power of the party, whose leaders had thus for a while been
banished from the House, was by no means crushed. Indeed it was but
little diminished, and, therefore, Danby, the Lord Treasurer, at the
head of the Ministry, wishing to outbid his rival Shaftesbury in a
contest for popularity; and also following his own chosen policy,
which had throughout been anti-Papal, now introduced--and that with
the concurrence of the Bishops--two measures as additional bulwarks
against Papal aggression. The first contemplated the possibility of
a Catholic prince occupying the throne: it provided, in case of his
refusal of a searching test in the form of a denial of the doctrine
of transubstantiation, that the Bishops, upon a vacancy occurring in
their number, should name three persons, one of whom the Sovereign
was at liberty to select for the empty see; but if he did not make
the selection within thirty days, the person first named should take
possession--that the two Archbishops should present to all livings in
the Royal gift--and that the children of the Monarch, from the age of
seven to the age of fourteen, should be under the guardianship of the
two Archbishops, with the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester.
The second measure--under title of an Act for the more effectual
conviction and prosecution of Popish recusants,--provided that such
Popish recusants as might register themselves should pay a yearly fine
of the twentieth part of their incomes to a fund for supporting poor
converts to Protestantism, and should, on that condition, be exempt
from all other penalties, except ineligibility to hold office, civil
or military, or to perform the office of guardians or executors. Lay
perverters of Protestants should have the option of abjuring the
realm; clergymen who had taken Romish orders might, at His Majesty's
pleasure, be imprisoned for life, instead of being made to suffer the
higher penalty for treason--and the children of deceased Catholics
should be brought up in the Reformed Church.[662] But these measures
adopted by the Lords, when submitted to the Lower House, so far from
satisfying the members, aroused their most determined opposition. With
regard to the first measure they affirmed it to be a Bill for Popery,
not a Bill _against_ it. They said its face was covered with spots,
and, therefore, it wore a vizard. "It is an ill thing," remarked Andrew
Marvell, "and let us be rid of it as soon as we can." He compared it to
a private Bill brought into the House, for the ballast-shore at Yarrow
Sleake, regarding which some one said, "the shore will narrow the
river;" another, "it will widen it;" a third observing, people should
not play tricks with navigation. Nor ought they to do so with religion,
he added. For, as it was clear, the Bill for the ballast-shore would
benefit the Dean and Chapter of Durham, so whether this Bill would or
would not prevent Popery, he was sure it would increase the power of
the Bishops.[663] The second measure was pronounced to be virtually a
toleration of Popery, forasmuch as Papists were to have liberty granted
them if they would only pay for it. The object was monstrous. The
scheme could not be mended. It would remain "an unsavoury thing, stuck
with a primrose." They might as well try to "make a good fan out of a
pig's tail." "Is there a man in this house," it was asked, "that dares
to open his mouth in support of such a measure?" So signal was the
defeat of the attempt that we find in the Journals these words, "Upon
the reading of the said Bill, and opening the substance thereof to the
House, it appeared to be much different from the title, and thereupon
the House, _nemine contradicente_, rejected the same."[664]

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]

The Commons the same day read a third time a Bill framed to
prevent the growth of Popery, enacting that a refusal to repudiate
transubstantiation should be deemed a sufficient proof of recusancy,
and should entail all its consequences. This contrivance, said its
advocates, is "firm, strong, and good," whilst that of the Lords is
"slight, and good for nothing,"--it is like David coming out against
Goliath;[665] but the Lords would have nothing to do with the David of
the Commons. The Lower House urged attention to the Bill, but in vain;
the Upper House did not take the slightest notice of what had been sent
to them, and the Bill for suppressing the growth of Popery fell to the
ground. It is worth observing that, at the same period, a Bill which
passed the House of Lords, described on one day as a Bill for "obliging
persons to baptize their children"--on another as "an Act concerning
baptism and catechizing"[666]--met with a like fate, and fell into the
vast limbo of abortive Parliamentary schemes.

But the two Houses during this Session united in three important Acts,
which were passed just before the Easter adjournment.

[Sidenote: 1677.]

The first was for the better observance of the Lord's Day; and the
reader, who perhaps associates all rigid legislation of that kind
with Puritan zealots, will be surprised to find that the Parliament
of the Restoration, embodying in many respects the reactionary spirit
of the times did, in this particular, actually follow the precedents
set by Commonwealth statesmen. The new Statute confirmed existing
Acts for requiring attendance at Church, and ordained "that all,
and every person and persons whatsoever, should, on every Lord's
Day, apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising
themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly
and privately." For exercising their worldly callings everybody above
the age of fourteen was to forfeit five shillings; goods cried in the
streets or publicly exposed for sale were to be forfeited. No one could
travel without special warrant, under a penalty of twenty shillings.
The employment of a boat or wherry incurred a fine of five shillings,
and those who were not able to pay these fines had to sit in the
stocks. No Hundred need answer for a robbery committed on a person
who dared to travel on the Lord's Day without license; no writs were
then to be served except for treason; but both the dressing of meat
in private houses, and the sale of it at inns and cook-shops, were
specially excepted from the operation of the law.

It is true the fines were less in amount than they had been under the
Commonwealth, and the exceptions with regard to inns and cook-shops,
and the dressing of food on the Lord's Day, showed some little
relaxation;--but the prohibition of travelling, as well as of trading,
proves that zeal for the strict observance of Sunday had been inherited
from the Long Parliament by its successor under Charles II.

Acts for uniting parishes, for rebuilding churches, and for the better
maintenance of Metropolitan Incumbents, had been passed in 1670;
and now a general Act received the Royal assent for the improvement
of small livings. Whereas Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and other
ecclesiastical authorities had granted, in obedience to His Majesty,
soon after the Restoration, or might yet grant out of their revenues,
aid towards the augmentation of poor clerical incomes, this Act
confirmed any such grants, and bestowed on Vicars and Curates the means
of securing the augmentations thereby accruing to them.[667]

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]

The last of the three enactments alluded to consisted in the repeal of
the law _de Hæretico Comburendo_, which had kindled so many fires in
the Marian age. That form of punishment was regarded by Protestants
with a natural and salutary horror; the statutory sanction of it was
now swept away, not only with a burst of indignation against it, as
a hateful relic of Popish intolerance, but with a prudent fear lest,
if the law remained unaltered, it might some day, under a Popish
Sovereign--a contingency which was ever looming before the eyes of the
nation--be revived for a rekindling of the Smithfield fires. But the
repeal did not proceed so far as is generally supposed; for the Lords
made some amendments in the Bill, and added a proviso, perpetuating
the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, in cases of atheism,
blasphemy, heresy, or schism; and sanctioning excommunication and other
ecclesiastical penalties, _extending even to death_, in such sort as
they might have done before the making of this new Act. In this form it
was agreed to by the Commons, and received the Royal assent.

[Sidenote: 1678.]

The Houses were adjourned in the month of May, and again in the month
of July; nor did they meet any more for business until the middle of
the month of January, 1678. These adjournments produced in the Lower
House, as might be expected, long and exciting debates. The state of
the nation, the removal of evil counsellors, and an address of advice
to His Majesty that he would declare war with France, also occupied
considerable attention; but if, under these circumstances, there
occurred some little ebb in the tide of opposition to Popery, the
flow of the waters soon followed with redoubled force. For, in the
month of April, we find the Commons engaged in the consideration of a
report,--which it must have taken much time and labour to prepare--a
report containing the names of Popish priests, of those by whom they
were kept, of the chapels and other places where mass was said, in
the County of Monmouth:--also of the names of Justices of the Peace
in Wales and Northumberland who were Papists, or suspected to be
so,--and, lastly, of proceedings which had been carried on in the Court
of Exchequer against Popish recusants. The document whilst, no doubt,
reflecting the fears of Protestants respecting Papists, also records
facts which show that, in spite of persecuting laws, the Roman Catholic
religion retained a strong hold upon many people in certain parts of
the country. For one of the witnesses, whose evidence is reported,
swore--that she had heard a priest say mass forty times, had received
the sacrament from him, had seen him administer it to a hundred people;
and that, at a service which she had attended, "the crowd was so great,
that the loft was forced to be propped, lest it should fall down under
the weight."[668] Immediately afterwards the Commons expressed to the
Lords, in confidence, a strong conviction that the growth of Popery
arose from a laxity in the administration of laws against it.

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.]

After a prorogation, on the 13th of May, the opening of the sixteenth
session of Parliament followed, on the 23rd of the same month, when
Lord Chancellor Finch sought to calm public apprehension by observing,
that it was a scandal upon the Protestant religion, when men so far
distrusted the truth and power of it as to be alarmed about its safety,
after so many laws had been enacted for its protection, and after all
the miraculous deliverances which it had experienced.[669]

The next month saw the Commons again plunged into the old controversy,
whilst they discussed a Bill for the exclusion of Papists from
both Houses, unless they would take the Oaths of Allegiance and of
Supremacy, and accept the test against transubstantiation--in other
words except they would turn Protestants.[670] The usual round of
arguments reappeared, and once more revolved through their orbits; but
this Bill, like some of its predecessors, fell through, in consequence
of further prorogation, after a grant of supplies, upon the 8th of
July.




                             CHAPTER XXV.


Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, died on the 9th of
November, 1677. Illustrations have been afforded of his influence and
activity at the time of the Restoration, of his conduct during the
plague year, of the course which he adopted in relation to the great
ecclesiastical questions of his day, and of the general spirit of his
clerical policy;--but some further notice is requisite of the character
of a man, who took so conspicuous a part in the re-establishment of the
Episcopal Church of England.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Sheldon, according to Burnet, was esteemed a learned man before
the Wars, but he was now engaged so deep in politics, that scarce
any prints of what he had been remained. He was a very dexterous
man in business, had a great quickness of apprehension, and a very
true judgment. He was a generous and charitable man. He had a great
pleasantness of conversation, perhaps too great. He had an art, which
was peculiar to him, of treating all who came to him in a most obliging
manner, but few depended much on his professions of friendship. He
seemed not to have a deep sense of religion, if any at all; and spoke
of it most commonly, as of an engine of Government and a matter of
policy. By this means, the King came to look on him as a wise and
honest clergyman.[671] An admission to the same effect is made
unconsciously by Samuel Parker, the Archbishop's chaplain and friend.
For, after affirming that Sheldon was a man of undoubted piety, he
observes, "that though he was very assiduous at prayers, yet he did
not set so high a value upon them as others did, nor regarded so much
worship, as the use of worship, placing the chief point of religion
in the practice of a good life." The ideas of a man's character
conveyed by language of this sort must be interpreted by our knowledge
of the writer; and, knowing what we do of Parker, we are justified
in regarding what he says as a confirmation of Burnet's opinion. To
use an expression which occurs in a letter from Henry VII. on the
transition of Wareham from London to Canterbury--Sheldon showed himself
to be largely endued with "cunning and worldly wisdom."[672] Genial
and social in his habits he maintained a splendid hospitality,[673]
and in all his intercourse it was apparent that he had seen much of
mankind, thoroughly understood human nature, and knew exactly how to
make himself agreeable to those whom he wished to please. Addicted to
a free-and-easy manner of living, inconsistent with the character of a
clergyman, he is reported as having on particular occasions sanctioned
some very vulgar buffoonery at the expense of the Puritans.[674] Keen,
clever, polite, and politic, knowing well how to compass his ends,
he manifested at the same time his utter destitution of those moral
impulses, noble motives, and spiritual aims, which, above all, ought
to guide men who profess to be the ministers of Jesus Christ. Sheldon
seems to have been fitted to grace a drawing-room, to sustain the
position of a country gentleman, and to take a part in State affairs,
but he was plainly unfit to preside over the Church of England. His
half-recumbent figure, as represented on his monument in the parish
church of Croydon--before the fire--his round face resting on his left
hand, his countenance not of severe expression, but rather genial,
easy, and good-humoured, and his gracefully-flowing robes, are all in
harmony with the idea of a man of luxurious habits, and of pleasant
manners: but the mitre on his head is out of place, and he has no
business with the crozier at his side.[675] His course of life as a
steady, persistent, heartless persecutor of Nonconformists eclipses his
courtesies and charities. He was not a persecutor of the same school
with Laud of Canterbury, or Cyril of Alexandria. No strong convictions
of doctrine, no zeal for discipline, influenced him in his proceedings
against Dissenters, and he must be reckoned as having belonged to that
most odious class of persecutors "who persecute without the excuse
of religious bigotry."[676] He hated Nonconformists mainly on three
grounds. As _a man of the world_, he was averse to their profession
of spiritual religion, being totally unable to understand it, looking
at it, as he did, through the medium of prejudices which caricatured
its noblest qualities; and he was also exasperated at what he deemed
a pharisaical assumption on the part of Christians who advocate what
are called "evangelical" views, and who insist upon what they style
purity of communion. As _a Royalist_, Sheldon identified his opponents
with the cause of Republicanism, and believed, or professed to
believe, that they were all bent upon doing to Charles II. what some
of them, or their predecessors, had done to Charles I. And, lastly,
as _an Episcopalian_, who had himself suffered from Presbyterians and
Independents, he determined to pay back in full what he owed--both
capital and interest.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

It is essential to our forming a correct estimate of the state of
the Church after the Restoration, that we should examine what we can
find respecting the character of others who occupied the Episcopal
Bench, inasmuch as they must have been largely responsible for the
administration of ecclesiastical affairs, and it is convenient for
us here to pause for that purpose. To whatever party an author may
belong, he finds it easy to idealize these dignitaries, and to give
general impressions of them, favourable or unfavourable, according
as his prejudices, working upon slight materials, may influence his
imagination. But I decidedly prefer in what I shall say of the Caroline
prelates, to confine myself to such reliable information as I can
discover, rather than to indulge in generalities; and I lament, that
after the best endeavours to acquaint myself with the subject, the
knowledge I possess with regard to some of these persons is so scanty,
that my accounts of them will afford the historical student but little
satisfaction.

The selection of a principle of arrangement in this portion of our
history is not without difficulties. Perhaps, on the whole, instead of
adopting an alphabetical list of names, or a chronological series of
characters, or a geographical distribution of sees, it will be better
to take the occupants of the Bench according to their importance, and
to select first the most prominent.[677]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Dr. Seth Ward had been President of Trinity College, Oxford, and at
the Restoration had succeeded Reynolds at St. Laurence Jewry, upon
the promotion of the latter Divine to a Bishopric. He was nominated
to the see of Exeter in 1662, as, Pope, his biographer says, upon the
recommendation of his friend Monk, Duke of Albemarle; but a different
story is told by Aubrey. After Gauden, the Bishop of Exeter, had been
translated to Worcester in 1661, Ward, who was then Dean, "was very
well known to the gentry, and his learning, prudence, and comity, had
won them all to be his friends. The news of the death of the Bishop
being brought to them, who were all very merry and rejoicing with good
entertainment, with great alacrity, the gentlemen cried all, '_We will
have Mr. Dean to be our Bishop_.' This was at that critical time when
the House of Commons were the King's darlings. The Dean told them
that, for his part, he had no interest or acquaintance at Court, but
intimated to them how much the King esteemed the members of Parliament
(and a great many Parliament men were then there), and that His Majesty
would deny them nothing. '_If 'tis so, gentlemen_,' said the Dean,
'_that you will needs have me to be your Bishop, if some of you make
your address to His Majesty, 'twill be done_.' With that they drank
the other glass, a health to the King, and another to their wished-for
Bishop; had their horses presently made ready, put foot in stirrup, and
away they rode merrily to London; went to the King, and he immediately
granted them their request. This," adds Aubrey, "is the first time that
ever a Bishop was made by the House of Commons."[678]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Ward speedily became renowned for his diligent discharge of Episcopal
duties. "He kept his constant triennial visitations," says Pope, "in
the first whereof he confirmed many thousands of all ages and different
sexes; he also settled the Ecclesiastical Courts, and, without any
noise or clamour, reduced that _active, subtle, and then factious
people_, to great conformity, not without the approbation even of the
adversaries themselves." During his residence at Exeter, he gained the
love of all the gentry, and had particularly the help and countenance
of the Duke of Albemarle, who, in all things, showed himself most ready
to assist him in the exercise of his jurisdiction.[679] He zealously
advocated the Conventicle Act, and was very severe in his treatment
of Nonconformists, not, it is curiously pleaded, out of enmity to the
Dissenters' persons, as they unjustly suggested, but of love to the
repose and welfare of the Government. We are further informed by this
admiring friend, "that Ward was very much in favour with the King, and
the Duke of York, before the latter declared himself of the Romish
persuasion, whom he treated magnificently at Salisbury; and also with
the Archbishop of Canterbury, who used to entertain him with the
greatest kindness and familiarity imaginable; in his common discourse
to him, he used to call him Old Sarum: and I have heard the Archbishop
speak of him more than once as the person whom he wished might succeed
him." The temper of the prelate in relation to the Church of England,
and the kind of policy which he adopted for the promotion of its
interests, may be inferred from the good opinion of him entertained by
Sheldon, just quoted by Pope, with much satisfaction.[680]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

There is a want of material out of which to draw flesh and blood
portraits of some of the Bishops: many are names and nothing
more--others are but stiff and formal images without life--we can judge
neither of their appearance, nor of their character, but the gossiping
memoir of Ward by Pope affords us a pictorial idea of his mode of
living, of his physical activity, of his fondness for horse exercise,
and of his self-exposure to weather,--going out in wind, rain, and
snow, until forced to seek shelter on the lee side of the nearest
hayrick. He was something of a "muscular Christian,"--a bachelor also,
but genial in his ways, exceedingly hospitable, and scrupulously
punctilious in the discharge of his devotional duties.

This remarkable man distinguished himself as an astronomer, and was
reputed to be the ablest orator of his time; after these proofs of his
intellectual power, in addition to the evidences of his administrative
ability, how affecting it is to turn to the record of his imbecility
in his last days. "He did not," we are told, "know his house, or his
servants; in a word, he knew nothing."[681]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Dr. George Morley may be noticed next. Burnet says that he "was, in
many respects, a very eminent man, very zealous against Popery," and
also very zealous against Dissent; considerably learned, with great
vivacity of thought; soon provoked, and with little mastery over
his own temper.[682] His zeal against the doctrines of Popery is
apparent in his writings, and not less so, his zeal against Dissent;
in connection with his opposition to both, he avows the doctrine of
passive obedience, declaring in terms the most unequivocal, "the
best and safest way for Prince, State, and people, is to profess,
protect, cherish, and allow of that religion, and that only, which
allows of no rising up against, or resisting sovereign power--no,
not in its own defence, nor upon any other account whatsoever."[683]
Indeed, he maintains, again and again, the principle of intolerance
in the government of the Church, and the principle of despotism in
the government of the State; holding the King to be sole sovereign,
whilst the Parliament is only a concurring power in making laws,
and the Bishops the only legitimate ecclesiastical rulers. The
maintenance of these doctrines by a man of "hot spirit" and "ready
tongue"--infirmities which Baxter charges upon him, not without
sufficient reason, and not without Burnet's corroboration--augured
little for the comfort or the peace of the Nonconformists in the
diocese of Winchester, over which he presided from 1662 to 1684. He
had, it is true, provoked Baxter,[684] and signs of the provocation
occasionally appear in the pages of the _Reliquiæ_; in fact, the
Bishop's treatment of the Presbyter was most violent; but the
latter,--after quoting the report that Morley, Ward, and Dolben,
through fear of Popery, had expressed a desire to abate the severity
of the laws against Dissenters, and after stating, that though there
was long talk there was nothing done,--expresses a hope that they
were not so bad as their censurers supposed. Yet, he adds, it was a
strange thing, that persons who had power to make such breaches had
no power to heal them.[685] It is a pleasure to be able to state that
Morley, in his old age, gave signs of better feeling; for it is related
that he stopped proceedings against Mr. Sprint, an ejected minister,
and invited him to dinner, endeavouring to soften down the terms of
Conformity; but, better still, it is said, that in Morley's last
days, he drank to an intermeddling Country Mayor, in a cup of Canary,
advising him to let Dissenters live in quiet, "in many of whom, he was
satisfied, there was the fear of God,"--and he thought they were "not
likely to be gained by rigour or severity."

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Dr. John Cosin had in his younger days been fond of Ritualism,
and had suffered for it under the Long Parliament. Though there
existed ground enough for charging him with the adoption of childish
ceremonies, it is plain, from a complete and fair examination of his
case, and of all which he urged in his own defence, that the charges
against him were considerably exaggerated.[686] As I shall show
hereafter, a considerable change took place in his sentiments during
the latter part of his life. He became more opposed to Romanism than
he had been before. He said once, in the hearing of Dr. Thomas Fuller,
when some one was praising the Pope for certain concessions--"We thank
him not at all for that which God hath always allowed us in His Word."
The Pope "would allow it us, so long as it stood with his policy, and
take it away, so soon as it stood with his power."[687]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Cosin, like Ward and other prelates, acquired renown for hospitality.
Whether at home or not, he took care that the gates of his Castle
should be always open for the entertainment of the Royal Commissioners,
and other Officers of State, as they travelled to and fro between
London and Edinburgh; nor did he forget to give shelter and cheer to
guests of humbler rank. He is described, also, as zealous in restoring
to its former state Divine worship at Durham Cathedral, in reforming
irregularities which had prevailed under the Usurpation, in filling
up the number of the Minor Canons, and of the members of the Choir,
and in restoring discipline throughout his diocese. Further, it is
recorded of him, that he was a man of great reading, and a lover of
books for their own sakes, expending large sums upon his library with
the enthusiasm of a true Bibliophilest. After the ejection of 1662,
he was willing to concede something to scrupulous consciences--and
offered to confer Episcopal orders in his chapel at Auckland upon
Presbyterian ministers disposed to conform, according to a formulary
much recommended at the time--"If thou hast not been ordained, I
ordain thee." Yet, in some cases, he could be very intolerant; for he
wrote, in the year 1663, to the Mayor of Newcastle, telling him to
look sharply after certain Nonconforming ministers of high character,
whom he stigmatized as _Caterpillars_.[688] But, with a fluctuation
of feeling common in impulsive natures, he would sometimes administer
rebuke to those who laughed at Puritans,--and he wrote in his will,
"I take it to be my duty, and that of all the Bishops, and ministers
of the Church, to do our utmost endeavour, that at last an end may be
put to the differences of religion, or, at least, that they may be
lessened."[689] He suffered much from the disease of the stone, yet he
persisted in performing his Episcopal visitations, even when obliged
to be carried over paved roads in a sedan chair. His chaplain, Isaac
Basire, records, that, being so near death, as to be unable to kneel,
he often devoutly repeated the words of King Manasses, "Lord I bow
the knee of my heart;" and having often prayed, "'Lord Jesus, come
quickly,' his last act was the elevation of his hand, with this, his
last ejaculation, 'Lord,'--wherewith he expired without pain, according
to his frequent prayer, that he might not die of a sudden, or painful
death."[690] He filled the see of Durham from 1660 to 1671.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Dr. John Hacket left behind him two well-known monuments of his
Churchmanship. The one is his _Scrinia Reserata_, or memorial of
Archbishop Williams: as strange a piece of biography as was ever
written--full of allusions and disquisitions of all kinds, so that
readers are puzzled to find out links of connection, and lose sight
altogether of the hero amidst the mazes into which they are led by the
biographer. "What it contains of Williams," as Lord Campbell has said,
"is like two grains of wheat in two bushels (not of chaff, but) of
various other grain;" yet the knowledge and the pedantry, the sagacity
and the prejudice, the zeal for the Church and the animosity towards
Dissenters, which mark the book throughout, accurately reflect the
character of its author during his busy episcopate of nine years. The
other monument of this famous Bishop of Lichfield is to be found in
the cathedral of his diocese, to the restoration of which he zealously
devoted himself. He reconsecrated it on Christmas Eve, in the year
1669, and ordered a peal of six bells to be hung in the tower, one of
which was finished during his last illness. "Then he went out of his
bed-chamber into the next room to hear it, seemed well pleased with
the sound, and blessed God, who had favoured him with life to hear it,
but at the same time observed that it would be his own passing bell;
and, retiring into his chamber, he never left it until he was carried
to his grave," an event which occurred in 1670.[691]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Of the two chief monuments of Hacket's fame, the cathedral is the more
honourable,[692] showing as it does his commendable desire for the
beauty of God's house, and the comeliness of its worship; and with it
we may associate the remembrance of his Episcopal activity in reducing
the clergy of his see to order, and what he esteemed efficiency. The
_Scrinia Reserata_ suggests the idea of what he must have been in his
intercourse with the ministers and people who dwelt in his diocese:
learned but verbose, clever but wearisome, equally fond of argument and
gossip, one-sided in opinion, and abounding both in favouritism and in
personal dislikes--not without genial temper and strong affections of
friendship for some who were within the Church, but violent and bitter
to all those who were without. His sermons suggest what he was as a
preacher--fond of ingenious but trifling disquisitions; and, although
a Calvinist, delighting in the Fathers and Schoolmen, and sometimes
talking about the Holy Virgin, after the manner of a believer in the
immaculate conception. From all this it may be inferred how he would
treat Nonconformists, but his biographer leaves no doubt upon that
point, for he distinctly states--"The Bishop was an enemy to all
separation from the Church of England; but their hypocrisy he thought
superlative, that allowed the doctrine and yet would separate for
mislike of the discipline, and therefore he wished that, as of old,
all kings and other Christians subscribed to the conciliary decrees,
so now a law might pass that all Justices of Peace should do so in
England, and then they would be more careful to punish the depravers of
Church orders."[693]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Dr. John Wilkins was a very different man from Hacket. His close
alliance by marriage with the Cromwell family, and his connection
with the Protector Richard, stood for a time in the way of his
preferment after the Restoration, but at length he obtained, through
the influence of his friend Seth Ward, the living of St. Lawrence
Jewry. Not only was he disliked at Whitehall, but there was a strong
prejudice against him at Lambeth, and, to add to his misfortunes, he
lost his library, his furniture, and his parsonage-house, in the fire
of London. But the Duke of Buckingham befriended the sufferer; and,
in spite of Sheldon's opposition, secured for him the Bishopric of
Chester. When this person of varied fortune had reached the Episcopal
bench, the Archbishop became reconciled to his elevation, and formed a
favourable estimate of his character--a circumstance which, like that
of Wilkins' first preferment after the Restoration, was owing to the
esteem in which he was held by Dr. Seth Ward, his old Oxford friend,
whose regard for him, notwithstanding their different opinions upon
ecclesiastical subjects, continued to the end of life.[694] Whilst
Ward was a High Churchman, and harshly treated the Nonconformists,
Wilkins was a very Low Churchman, and showed them great favour. For
this the latter was eulogized by one party,[695] and abused by another.
From the reproaches he incurred he was vindicated by Dr. William
Lloyd, at the time Dean of Bangor, who, in his funeral sermon for the
Bishop, ascribed his liberality to the goodness of his nature, and to
the education which he had received under his grandfather, Mr. Dod, a
truly learned and pious man, although a Dissenter in some things.[696]
Influenced by kindness of heart and catholicity of principle, Wilkins
pursued a course of moderation and charity; and it proved--as such a
course ever must--politic in the end, for Calamy acknowledges that many
ministers were brought within the pale of the Establishment by Wilkins'
soft interpretation of the terms of conformity. The ability and the
attainments of this prelate were only equalled by his moral excellence.
Burnet praises his greatness of mind, and sagacity of judgment, and
says he was the wisest clergyman he ever knew.[697] Sir Peter Pett
celebrated him as an ornament both of the University and the nation;
and the Royal Society eulogized his insight into all parts of learning,
as well as his charity, ingeniousness, and moderation.[698] As these
persons were his friends and associates, their opinion of him might be
charged with partiality; but there is a general concurrence in praise
of his virtues, on the part of persons who were decidedly opposed to
him in their ecclesiastical opinions. He enjoyed his dignity only four
years, and died in 1672.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

He was succeeded by that illustrious theological scholar Dr. John
Pearson--author of the _Exposition of the Creed_--who, from his
studious habits, became easy and remiss in his Episcopal functions, for
some years before the end of his episcopate, in 1686, when he died,
having some time before sunk into a state of second childhood. His
theological opinions will come under our review in the next volume.

The circumstances under which Dr. Edward Reynolds accepted a mitre
have been described already. He did so professedly upon condition that
the Worcester House Declaration should become law, which it never
did; and that the Church of England should be modified, so as to meet
Presbyterian scruples, which it never was. However, it does not appear
that his Presbyterianism had at any time been so extreme as to prevent
his adopting a modified form of Episcopacy; and Baxter does not charge
him with inconsistency in going so far as he actually went. Indeed,
Baxter persuaded him to accept a Bishopric, implying that he did not
discover in his friend that repugnance to the position which he felt
himself. Reynolds' inconsistency appears, not in his first qualified
acceptance, but in his subsequent retention of the office, after the
conditions on which avowedly he had entered upon it were completely
disregarded. But the truth is, he was a man of little firmness, and
the blame of his continued conformity has been ungallantly, but in
accordance with a very ancient precedent, cast on his wife. "It was
verily thought, by his contemporaries, that he would have never been
given to change, had it not been to please a covetous and politic
consort, who put him upon those things he did."[699] Throughout his
episcopate in the diocese of Norwich, which lasted until 1676, he
remained a Puritan, eschewing Court politics, leading a quiet life in
the discharge of the duties of his calling, and in the retirement of
his palace; to which, it may be observed, he added a new chapel on the
ruins of the old one, which had been destroyed by the rabble after
the fall of the Bishops in the year 1643. Affability and meekness
are virtues generally ascribed to Reynolds; his abilities as a
Divine, and his gifts as a preacher--with the drawback of a harsh and
unpleasant voice--were acknowledged by his contemporaries to have been
considerable.

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

An unpublished letter sheds light on the state of the diocese of
Norwich, and the character of the Bishop:--

"Having often complaints made unto me in general of the offensive lives
of some of the clergy, I held it my duty to signify so much unto you,
not thereby myself accusing any of my brethren, but conceiving it very
needful, by occasion of such reports, earnestly to entreat them that
they will be very tender of the credit of religion, of the dignity of
their function, and of the success of their ministry; and endeavour, by
their sober, pious, and prudent conversations, to stop the mouths of
any that watch for their halting, to bear witness to the truth of that
doctrine which they preach, to be guides and examples of holiness of
life to the people over whom they are set, and to lay up for themselves
a comfortable account against the time that we shall appear before the
Great Shepherd and Bishop of Souls. So commending you to the guidance
of God's Holy Spirit, and his gracious protection, &c."[700]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Dr. Herbert Croft--descended from an old English family, distinguished
in the reigns of Edward IV. and Elizabeth--had in his youth been
decoyed into the Church of Rome, whilst a student at St. Omer; but, on
his return from the Continent, he had been reconciled to the Church
of England by Morton, Bishop of Durham. He had held a Canonry in St.
George's Chapel, Windsor, and had been made Dean of Hereford in the
year 1644. His appointment to such a dignity at such a time suggests
the fact that then he was a very Low Churchman, with Presbyterian
tendencies; of course he was afterwards obliged to relinquish both
the office and its revenues. When the King returned, to whose cause
Croft had been attached, he recovered his Deanery, and on the death of
Dr. Monk, in 1661, he succeeded to the Bishopric. His family had long
been settled in Herefordshire, and he cherished a strong attachment to
his native county; in consequence of which he preferred to remain in
this inferior see, with its small revenues, rather than accept richer
preferment at a distance. Weary of Court life he, in the year 1667,
retired from the office of Dean to the Chapel Royal, to live entirely
amongst his own clergy, like a primitive Bishop. Becoming a strict
disciplinarian, he admitted none to stalls in his cathedral who did
not dwell within the diocese, in the centre of which his own country
residence was situated; and there he regularly relieved at his gates
sixty poor people a week, besides assisting the indigent in other
ways. The moderate ecclesiastical views which he expressed in his
_Naked Truth_, he retained to the last, but he did himself no honour by
submitting to the order of James II. in 1688.[701]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Respecting the character of Dr. Matthew Wren, there appears to have
existed little difference of opinion amongst his contemporaries; for
not only did Burton the Puritan say that in all Queen Mary's reign
"there was not so great a havoc made in so short a time of the faithful
ministers of God," as by him, but Archbishop Williams spoke of him as
a "wren mounted on the wings of an eagle," and Lord Clarendon called
him a "man of a severe, sour nature."[702] He filled the see of Ely a
second time, from the fall of the Commonwealth until the year 1667,
when he departed this life; and it is recorded of him, that as an act
of thanksgiving for the King's return and his own restoration, he
built at Pembroke Hall--the College in which he had been educated at
Cambridge--a new chapel, where his remains were interred with unusual
pomp.[703]

Wren was succeeded by Dr. Benjamin Laney, previously Bishop of
Peterborough, who was translated from that place to Lincoln in 1663,
and who died in 1675. Laney seems to have been kind-hearted as well
as able, for in his primary visitation, before Bartholomew's day, he
said very significantly to the assembled clergy, "Not I, but the law;"
and although he had suffered considerably from the Presbyterians at
Cambridge, in the year 1644, he could, to use his own phrase, when
presiding over the see of Lincoln, "look through his fingers;" and he
suffered a worthy Nonconformist to preach publicly very near him, for
some years together.[704]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Laney was followed at Ely by Dr. Peter Gunning. The fondness of the
latter for controversy is attested by the epitaph in his cathedral,
where he was buried in 1684, and receives illustration from the
accounts recorded of theological discussions in which he publicly
engaged with Nonconformists. Blamelessness of private life, and the
Episcopal virtues of generosity to friends,[705] of benefactions to
charitable and religious objects, and of almsgiving to the poor, are
ascribed to him by Wood; Dr. Gower, in his funeral sermon for him,
extols his piety; but Burnet has painted his character in different
colours. "He was a man of great reading, and noted for a special
subtlety of arguing; all the arts of sophistry were made use of by him
on all occasions, in as confident a manner as if they had been sound
reasoning." "He was much set on the reconciling us with Popery in some
points; and because the charge of idolatry seemed a bar to all thoughts
of reconciliation with them, he set himself with very great zeal to
clear the Church of Rome of idolatry. This made many suspect him as
inclining to go over to them; but he was far from it, and was a very
honest, sincere man, but of no sound judgment, and of no prudence in
affairs. He was for our conforming in all things to the rules of the
primitive Church, particularly in praying for the dead, in the use of
oil, with many other rituals."[706]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Dr. William Paul, being possessed of large property, and being also
a man of business, had, through the influence of Sheldon, been
appointed to the see of Oxford, with the hope that he would rebuild the
dilapidated episcopal palace at Cuddesden. He applied himself to that
undertaking, and, that he might be assisted in it, received permission
to hold the valuable Rectory of Chinnor _in commendam_; but, after
he had purchased materials for his intended work, especially a large
quantity of timber, he died in 1665, having held the see for only two
years.

Dr. John Warner is noted chiefly for being well read in scholastic
divinity and patristic literature. It is recorded of him that, when
Prebendary of Canterbury, he built a new font in the cathedral, which,
"whether more curious or more costly," it was difficult to judge.
Made Bishop of Rochester, he, in the earlier sittings of the Long
Parliament, zealously asserted Episcopalian principles, "speaking for
them as long as he had any voice left him," and valiantly defending the
antiquity and justice of an order of spiritual peers.[707] He suffered,
not only like the rest of his brethren, by losing the temporalities of
his see, and by being driven away from the performance of its duties,
but he had to compound for his own estates, which were of considerable
value. During the Protectorate he resided at Bromley, in Kent, and on
the return of Charles II. regained the see of Rochester, which he held
to the time of his death, in 1666. Being a rich man, his benefactions
were large, he contributed liberally to the cathedral of his diocese,
and to the Colleges of Magdalen, and Baliol, at Oxford, the place of
his education; and he also founded a College at Bromley for clergymen's
widows.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Dr. John Earle, after being in exile with the King, first obtained
at the Restoration the Deanery of Westminster, then succeeded Gauden
in the Bishopric of Worcester, 1662, and finally rose to the see of
Salisbury in 1663, upon Henchman becoming Bishop of London. Earle is
described as having been "a very genteel man, a contemner of the world,
religious, and most worthy of the office of a Bishop;" also, he is
spoken of as having the sweetest and most obliging nature, and as being
one than whom, since Hooker's death, God had not blessed any with more
innocent wisdom, more sanctified learning, or a more pious, peaceable,
primitive temper.[708] He was, says another authority, favourable to
Nonconformists, a man that could do good against evil, forgive much,
and of a charitable heart, and died, to the no great sorrow of them who
reckoned his death was just, for labouring all his might against the
Oxford Five Mile Act.[709] Within two years after his death, in 1665,
his successor in the Bishopric, Dr. Alexander Hyde, followed him to the
grave, the latter having owed his promotion to the influence of his
kinsman, Lord Clarendon.

Dr. Robert Skinner, who had been Bishop of Bristol, and had been
translated thence to Oxford before the Civil Wars, regained that
diocese in 1660. Thence he proceeded to the far more desirable see of
Worcester, in 1663. He is reported to have been the sole Bishop who
conferred orders during the Commonwealth; and, after the Restoration,
he ordained no less than 103 persons at one time in Westminster Abbey;
so many others had been made by him deacons and priests, that at his
death, in 1670, it was computed that he had sent more labourers into
the vineyard of the Church than all his survivors had done, he being
the last of the prelates who had received consecration before the time
of the Commonwealth.

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

In pursuing the task of noticing the Bishops after the Restoration,
we now reach several names of less interest, but the few scanty hints
respecting them which I have been able to gather may suggest in some
cases an idea of such Episcopal qualifications as they possessed.

Dr. William Nicholson, Bishop of Gloucester, defended and maintained
the Church of England against its adversaries in the days of its
adversity. His works, it is said, proved him to be a person of
learning, piety, and prudence, particularly his _Apology for the
Discipline of the Ancient Church_, his _Exposition of the Apostles'
Creed_, and his _Exposition of the Church Catechism_, subjects which
indicate his Anglican orthodoxy, and his Episcopalian zeal. He is
spoken of as a great friend of Dr. George Bull, and as much admired by
that distinguished theologian for his knowledge of the Fathers and the
Schoolmen, and for his large stores of critical learning. He died in
1672.[710]

Dr. Humphrey Henchman, it may be remembered, had taken part in the
Savoy Conference, and is described by Baxter as "of the most grave,
comely, reverend aspect," and of "a good insight in the Fathers and
Councils."[711] Consecrated Bishop of Salisbury in 1660, he was
translated from Salisbury to London, upon the translation of Sheldon
to Canterbury, and manifested great alarm when the excitement against
Popery prevailed, earnestly enjoining upon his clergy the duty of
combating its errors and superstitions, although he knew perfectly well
that such a course would be offensive to the King. He edited a book
once of some celebrity, entitled _The Gentleman's Calling_, supposed
to be a production of the author who wrote _The Whole Duty of Man_.
Henchman died October, 1675.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Dr. Edward Rainbow had been a minister in the Establishment throughout
the Commonwealth. Although deprived of the Mastership of Magdalen
College, Cambridge, for refusing to sign a protestation against King
Charles I. he, in the year 1652, obtained the living of Chesterfield,
in Essex, and, in 1659, the Rectory of Benefield, in Northamptonshire.
Restored to his Mastership at Cambridge, and made Dean of Peterborough
soon after the Restoration, he rose to the Bishopric of Carlisle, upon
the translation of Dr. Sterne to the Archbishopric of York. Rainbow
died in 1684; he appears to have possessed an extraordinary talent for
extemporaneous speaking; of which he gave a singular example, when, in
the absence of the appointed orator, he delivered an unpremeditated
discourse before the University, to the great admiration of all who
listened to him. His style is described as florid and pedantic, but
he is represented as a man of learning, of politeness, of devotion,
and of charity. We do not know much respecting Nicholson, Henchman,
and Rainbow, but some things are said respecting them, pointing to
intellectual and moral qualities suitable to their position. That which
can be gathered respecting the following names, contains little or
nothing which is satisfactory.

Dr. Joseph Henshaw, consecrated Bishop of Peterborough in 1663, had
been chaplain to the first Duke of Buckingham, through whose influence
he had obtained a Prebend in the Cathedral of Peterborough. After
suffering for his loyalty during the Civil Wars, and the Commonwealth,
he lived for some time at Chiswick, in the house of Lady Paulet, being
described "as a brand snatched out of the fire."[712] He died in 1678.

[Sidenote: 1662-1678.]

Dr. Gilbert Ironside, who had been Rector of Winterbourn, in
Dorsetshire, was promoted to the see of Bristol immediately after the
Restoration. Wood's chief remark respecting him, and one by no means
satisfactory, is, that although he had not before "enjoyed any dignity
in the Church," or been chaplain to any one of distinction,[713]
he received this promotion to a poor Bishopric because he happened
to be a man of property. His death occurred in the year 1671. Dr.
Walter Blandford, under the Commonwealth, escaped ejectment from
Wadham College, Oxford, by submitting to the Government, and was
admitted Warden before the Restoration. After that event he became
Vice-Chancellor; in the year 1665 he became Bishop of Oxford, and, in
1671, Bishop of Worcester. The following notice of his death occurs in
a letter written at the time:--"It may be you have heard before this,
how upon Friday last, between 9 and 10 in the morning, it pleased God
to put a period to the pains and patience of the good Bishop, who
spent the day before in bemoaning himself unto his God, and sending up
pious ejaculations unto Him; and then, without any reluctancy, quietly
resigned up his soul and departed in peace; and, I doubt not, that
it was welcomed with an _Euge bone serve_! The next day after I came
hither, he called me to his bedside, and asked after the welfare of his
friends at Court, and made frequent mention of his gracious master and
King, prayed most heartily for him, and said nothing laid him so low as
the consideration that he had not been more serviceable to him."[714]
But it is only just,--when noticing the particular reference which is
made to the loyalty of this prelate on his death-bed,--to remember
that such reference occurs in a correspondence in which the writer
was anxious to commend himself to his Royal master, with the hope of
securing promotion.

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

The three Archbishops of York before the Revolution were not men who
exerted much influence. Dr. Accepted Frewen was enthroned on the 11th
of October, 1660, and afterwards enjoyed, for twelve months, the
revenues of the see of Lichfield, during which period it remained
without an occupant. Before his Archiepiscopal career, which proved
equally brief and uneventful--for he died on the 28th of March,
1664--he acquired the reputation of being a good scholar, and a great
orator; but none of his works were ever published, except a Latin
oration, and a few verses on the death of Prince Henry.[715] He was
succeeded by Dr. Sterne, who, though in other respects not a remarkable
person, furnishes, from the accounts given of him, material for a more
extended notice than his predecessor has received. Being educated at
Cambridge, and made Master of Jesus College, he, for his loyalty, and
for conveying the College plate to Charles I. at York, with other
Royalists, was imprisoned, and otherwise treated with great cruelty.
In a letter, which he wrote at the time, he gives an account of his
sufferings, and, as it indicates his temper, as well as expresses the
bitter recollections of Puritanism, which he carried with him into
his Episcopate, it will be well to give an extract from it:--"This
is now the fourteenth month of my imprisonment," he says,--"nineteen
weeks in the Tower, thirty weeks in the Lord Peter's House, ten days
in the ships, and seven weeks here in Ely House. The very dry fees and
rents of these several prisons have amounted to above £100, besides
diet and all other charges, which have been various and excessive, as
in prisons is usual. For the better enabling me to maintain myself
in prison, and my family at home, they have seized upon all my means
which they can lay their hands on. At my living near Cambridge, they
have not only taken the whole crop, that is in a manner the whole
benefit of the living (for the rest is very little), but plundered
and sold whatever goods of mine they found there, even to the poultry
in the yard, allowing me not so much as to pay for his dinner that
served the Cure. They have robbed also the child that is yet unborn,
of the clothes it should be wrapped in. But, upon my wife's address
to the Committee at Cambridge, they had so much humanity as to make
the sequestrators (though with much ado) restore them to her again.
They have also forbidden our College tenants (all within their verge)
to pay us any rents (for the better upholding of learning and the
nurseries thereof). If I have anything else that escapes their fingers,
it is in such fingers out of which I cannot get it; and that also I
owe to the same goodness of the times. So that if my friends' love
had not made my credit better than it deserves to be, and supplied my
occasions, I should have kept but an hungry and cold house both here
and at home. And all this while I have never been so much as spoken
withal, or called either to give or receive an account why I am here.
Nor is anything laid to my charge (not so much as the general crime
of being a malignant), no, not in the warrant for my commitment. What
hath been wanting in human justice, hath been (I praise God) supplied
by Divine mercy. Health of body, and patience and cheerfulness of
mind, I have not wanted, no, not on shipboard, where we lay (the first
night) without anything under, or over us, but the bare decks and the
clothes on our backs; and, after we had some of us got beds, were
not able (when it rained) to lie dry in them; and, when it was fair
weather, were sweltered with heat, and stifled with our own breaths:
there being of us in that one small Ipswich coal-ship (so low built,
too, that we could not walk, nor stand upright in it) within one or
two of threescore; whereof six Knights, and eight Doctors in Divinity,
and divers gentlemen of very good worth, that would have been sorry
to have seen their servants (nay, their dogs) no better accommodated.
Yet, among all that company, I do not remember that I saw one sad or
dejected countenance all the while, so strong is God, when we are
weakest."[716] Having been domestic chaplain to Archbishop Laud, Sterne
attended him to the scaffold, and afterwards lived in obscurity until
the Restoration, after which the King made him Bishop of Carlisle, in
the year 1660, and in 1664 transferred him to York, where he died in
1683.[717]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Burnet represents Sterne as "a sour, ill-tempered man," minding chiefly
the enriching of his family; as being suspected of Popery, "because he
was more than ordinarily compliant in all things to the Court;" and
as very zealous for the Duke of York.[718] Another authority affirms
that Sterne was greatly respected, and generally lamented; that all his
clergy commemorated his sweet condescensions, his free communications,
faithful counsels, exemplary temperance, cheerful hospitality, and
bountiful charity.[719] It may seem difficult to reconcile these
opposite statements; yet, when it is considered, that the first of
these authorities would describe Sterne as he appeared to people whom
he disliked, and the second as he appeared to people whom he loved,
it only follows that the Archbishop showed himself an exceedingly
disagreeable man to such as belonged to the opposite party, and quite
as pleasant a man to those who belonged to his own. I may notice, that
he wrote a Book on Logic, assisted in Walton's Polyglot Bible, and is
one amongst other persons to whom, without satisfactory evidence, has
been ascribed the authorship of the _Whole Duty of Man_.[720]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

Sterne was succeeded in the Northern primacy, by Dr. John Dolben,
Bishop of Rochester, who died at Bishopthorpe in 1686, and whose
consecration sermon was preached by South--scanty pieces of information
to put together; but really there is as little interest in his life,
as there is of importance in his administration. His biography, by
Le Neve, consists in a notice of his being an Ensign in the Royalist
Army at Marston Moor, in an enumeration of his preferments, and of the
Episcopal consecrations in which he took part,--and in the mention
of one or two sermons, which he preached on public occasions.[721]
Burnet describes him as "a man of more spirit than discretion, and an
excellent preacher; but of a free conversation, which laid him open to
much censure in a vicious Court."[722]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

None of the Welsh Bishops require notice, except that of St. Asaph.
This see, after being held by George Griffith, who died in 1668, was
bestowed upon Henry Glemham, who died in 1670, when Dr. Isaac Barrow,
a High Anglican Churchman, was translated to it from the Isle of
Man. Of that singular and inhospitable place he had been consecrated
prelate in 1663, and many works of charity and piety are ascribed to
him during his seven years' episcopate. The people had no chimnies, and
fixed bushes in the entrance to their huts, which they called making a
door; and, amidst all this misery, Barrow strove to introduce temporal
comforts together with spiritual blessings. At St. Asaph he pursued the
same, benevolent career as in the Isle of Man, improving his cathedral
and his palace, and also building almshouses.

Barrow was uncle to the celebrated Divine of the same name, but he
does not appear to have possessed any of the ability, or much of the
learning of his nephew; and it is a singular instance of contrast
between the two, that, whereas the Master of Trinity has obtained
an undying renown for Protestantism by his treatise on the Pope's
supremacy, the prelate has been brought into an equivocal position by
the inscription on his monument in St. Asaph Cathedral, where he was
buried in 1680: "_Orate pro conservo vestro, ut inveniat misericordiam
in die Domini_." He was succeeded by William Lloyd, a distinguished
man, who can be more advantageously described when we reach the story
of the Seven Bishops in 1688.[723]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

The most unworthy Bishop in this reign was Thomas Wood, who, on the
death of Hacket, in 1671, received the see of Lichfield and Coventry.
His elevation is attributed to the interest of the infamous Duchess
of Cleveland, whose favour he secured by contriving a match between
his niece and ward, a rich heiress, and the Duke of Southampton, the
Duchess' son. There appears to have been some hesitation respecting
this exercise of patronage even in the mind of Charles himself;[724]
and the result of it confirmed the worst apprehensions of Wood's
unfitness for the Episcopal office, for he entirely neglected his
duties, and constantly lived out of his diocese. The money which he
received from the heirs of his predecessor to help him in building a
palace, he appropriated to his own purposes; and, under the pretence
of preparing for the erection, cut down a quantity of timber, which
he sold, putting the proceeds of the sale into his own pocket. His
scandalous conduct incurred suspension--a rare circumstance indeed in
the history of the Episcopal bench: and the form of his suspension
is preserved in _Sancroft's Register_, amongst the Lambeth Archives.
From this suspension the delinquent was relieved in 1686, although no
improvement took place in his conduct.[725]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

The prelates whom I have noticed were consecrated a few of them before
the Civil Wars, some of them shortly after the Restoration, all of
them a considerable time before Sheldon's death in 1677. The study of
their characters, therefore, throws light upon the administration of
Church affairs up to the year just mentioned. There are, moreover,
two other Bishops, consecrated within three years before Sheldon's
death, who claim a passing notice. The Episcopal influence of the first
was brief, that of the second lengthened and somewhat peculiar. The
first is Dr. Ralph Brideoake, who had been chaplain in the Earl of
Derby's family, and had witnessed the heroism of the Countess during
the siege of Latham House; but made of different material from her
Ladyship, he submitted to the times, held the Vicarage of Witney in
Oxfordshire, and of St. Bartholomew by the Royal Exchange, under the
Commonwealth. Notwithstanding his having so far complied with the
existing powers as to accept the office of a Commissioner for trial and
approbation of ministers, he obtained at the Restoration, by another
form of subserviency, first, the Living of Standish in Lancashire;
next, the Deanery of Salisbury; and at last, in 1674, the Bishopric
of Chichester, holding with it _in commendam_ a Canonry at Windsor.
There, in 1678, he died and was buried.[726] The second of these two
Bishops was Dr. William Lloyd, who matriculated at Cambridge, and was
successively Vicar of Battersea in Surrey, Chaplain to the English
Merchants' Factory at Portugal, and Prebendary of St. Paul's. He
attained to the Episcopal Bench in 1675, first presiding over the see
of Llandaff; then being translated in 1679 to the see of Peterborough,
and in 1685 being translated to Norwich. All which I can say of his
character is that he is praised by Salmon, the admiring biographer of
the Bishops after the Restoration.[727]

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]

Such is the substance of what I have been able to gather respecting
the lives and characters of the Caroline prelates. They were far from
being all alike. Charges are brought against them as a class, which
individuals amongst them do not deserve. They were not all of the
same disposition, although they all identified themselves with the
same system. The reader will have noticed that facts prove Sheldon,
Ward, Morley, and Cosin to have been more or less what Anglicans
would esteem strict disciplinarians--what Nonconformists, and others
beside them, will more justly pronounce religious persecutors; and
what we know of Hacket, Wren, and Gunning, will show that they
held principles adapted to make them like those of their brethren
who have just been named. It should be remembered, however, that
prelates had no longer the power they once possessed. They could not
do what their predecessors had done before the Restoration; for the
High Commission Court was abolished, the _ex officio_ oath could no
longer be administered, and certain penalties once inflicted could
be repeated no more. All the Bishops now mentioned suffered in the
Civil Wars: yet Hacket retained the living of Cheam throughout the
troubles; Ward took his degree at Oxford, and became president of
Trinity College before the Restoration; and Gunning's ministry as an
Episcopalian was winked at by Oliver Cromwell. Wilkins, Reynolds,
Pearson, Croft, Laney, and Earl were more or less indulgent to Puritan
clergymen within the Church, and not so unfriendly to those outside,
as some others were;--and it may be mentioned, that the first three
held academic or ecclesiastical preferment under the Commonwealth;
and the last three were compelled to sacrifice emolument and endure
hardship. Passing over the worst or the least known of the Bench, what
shall be said of the best and most renowned? They were men of ability,
of learning, of unimpeachable morals, hospitable and kind, orthodox
and devout; but is there one amongst them to whom posterity can point
as possessing, in an eminent degree, the true Episcopal faculty,--the
gift of spiritual overseership, of a deep insight into Christ's truth,
into God's providence, and into men's souls? Is there one who excelled
in folding the sheep which were lost?--one who struck the world's
conscience, making it feel how awful goodness is? Richard Baxter was
far from perfect, nor did he possess qualifications adapted to the
administration of a diocese; but had he accepted the mitre which he
refused, would he have found sitting by his side an equal in spiritual
power?

[Sidenote: 1662-1677.]

We have now reached a point where it is wise to inquire into the state
of the clergy after the Restoration. It is seen what sort of men the
diocesans were; we ought to inquire what sort of men ministered in
their dioceses. Publications of the day bear witness to the fact,
often overlooked, that there were clergy in the Establishment whose
sympathies leaned towards Puritanism.[728] The Bishop of Bristol had
much trouble with a person of this description, a Prebendary of the
cathedral, who describes the conduct of his diocesan in the following
manner:--"He citeth me afresh on pains of suspension; and tells me,
at my appearance, that I was a saucy, proud fellow; of a Presbyterian
hypocritical heart; upbraiding my preaching, praying, speech, face,
and whole ministry, very opprobriously, before all the people."[729]
Complaints occur of conforming Nonconformists, as wearing neither
girdle nor cassock, being _à la mode_ and _in querpo divinus_--as
setting up miserable readers to make the Liturgy contemptible, and
as engaging for an hour in extempore prayer. They preached over, it
is alleged, "the old one's notes," full of cant about "indwelling,
soul-saving, and heart-supporting;" they "affected a mortified
countenance," and "set the Sabbath above holidays," and "a pure heart
above the surplice," and were men "overflowing with the milk and honey
of doctrine, instead of the inculcation of honesty and obedience and
good works."[730]

[Sidenote: CLERGY.]

From these and other circumstances it appears that the Act of
Uniformity did by no means accomplish all its purposes. Some were
Conformists only in name. The fact is, that whilst the Act drove out
all the best and most eminent of the Puritan class, there still were
many, of a pliable nature, who having opposed Episcopacy, and sworn to
the Covenant, and adopted the Directory, were content to nestle under
the wings of the Anglican Church, as soon as she arose, like a Phœnix
out of its ashes.

The miserable condition of some of the clergy holding country
benefices or cures became the subject of satirical remark. In a style
of badinage, which aimed at being clever, one author speaks of a
clergyman as trying to "weather out his melancholy by retiring into
the little hole over the oven, called his study (contrived there, I
suppose, to save firing); a pretty little vatican, the whole furniture
whereof is a German system, a Geneva Bible, and concordance of the
same; a budget of old stitched sermons, some broken girths, with two
or three yards of whipcord behind the door, and a saw and hammer to
prevent dilapidations."[731] Of course no reliance can be placed on
such a trenchant description; but it shows the way in which clergymen
were talked of. With gravity, and apparent truthfulness, it is stated
elsewhere that clergymen sprung from the humbler ranks; and it is
mentioned, as a novelty, and a subject for congratulation, that a few
of aristocratic birth had entered holy orders. At the same time, it is
affirmed, that an attorney, a shopkeeper, and a common artizan would
hardly change their worldly condition with ordinary pastors.[732]

[Sidenote: 1662-1667.]

Many men, episcopally ordained, acted as chaplains. They conducted
family worship, morning and evening; in some cases read and expounded,
and prayed before dinner.[733] The satirist, already quoted, asks,
"Shall we trust them in some good gentlemen's houses, there to perform
holy things? With all my heart, so that they may not be called down
from their studies to say grace to every health; that they may have a
little better wages than the cook or butler; as also, that there be a
groom in the house, besides the chaplain: (for sometimes into the ten
pounds a year they crowd the looking after a couple of geldings); and
that he may not be sent from table picking his teeth, and sighing, with
his hat under his arm, whilst the knight and my lady eat up the tarts
and chickens. It might be also convenient if he were suffered to speak
now and then in the parlour, besides at grace and prayer-time; and that
my cousin Abigail and he sit not too near one another at meals."[734]
The spirit of the writer is apparent; it is not such as to inspire our
sympathy, or secure our confidence; but if some of the clergy at the
time had not been very ignominiously treated, surely no one would have
hazarded the caricature.

[Sidenote: CLERGY.]

The ignorance of the clergy was a topic for abundant abuse. Those, it
is said, who could spout a few Greek and Latin words for the benefit of
the squire, pitched their discourses so as to accommodate themselves
to the fine clothes, and abundance of ribbons, in the highest seats
of the Church, instead of seeking to instruct those who had to mind
the plough and mend the hedge. Cities and Corporations furnished "ten
or twelve-pound-men," whose parts and education were no more than
sufficient for reading the Lessons, after twice conning them over.
"An unlearned rout of contemptible people" rushed into holy orders,
just to read the prayers, although they understood "very little more
than a hollow pipe made of tin or wainscot."[735] Bad taste in the
composition of sermons is also attributed to the clergy, for which
they are unmercifully ridiculed. Many of the examples, however, are
taken from the preaching of the most fanatical amongst the Puritans.

[Sidenote: 1662-1667.]

Men cannot buy books without money; and of the scantiness of clerical
libraries at that time there can be no question. Much more trustworthy,
and deserving of attention than some of the particulars just supplied,
is the anecdote of Tenison,--that he had, in his parish of St.
Martin's-in-the-Fields, "thirty or forty young men in orders, either
governors to young gentlemen, or chaplains to noblemen," who, being
reproved by him "for frequenting taverns or coffee-houses, told him
they would study or employ their time better if they had books." Hence
originated the foundation of the Tenison Library.[736]

[Sidenote: CLERGY.]

Between the poor rural clergy, with equally indigent chaplains and
curates on the one hand, and the richly-beneficed and dignified members
of the order on the other, a broad distinction must be drawn in point
of attainments and eloquence, if not in point of original ability. In
London, in the Universities, and in the high places of the Church,
there were men, especially towards the close of the period under our
review, who for scholastic learning, and ministerial capacity, were
illustrious ornaments of their sacred profession. Many pages of this
history bear witness to that fact. Still, the contempt in which the
clergy were too generally held is admitted by those who, at the time,
sought to make the best of the subject. Writers who vilified the
Church were answered by writers who vindicated it. Paper wars, fierce
and prolonged, were waged in a spirit which leaves little to choose
between the combatants. Those who appeared as defenders of the accused,
denied the unqualified application of the charges which they could not
deny altogether. They triumphantly cited the admissions extorted from
adversaries, that the clergy of the land had considerably improved,
and that it was a "sign of nothing but perfect madness, ignorance,
and stupidity, not to acknowledge that the present Church of England
affords as considerable scholars, and as solid and eloquent preachers,
as are anywhere to be found in the whole Christian world."[737] They
contended that the illiteracy and bad taste complained of were by
no means so common as their assailants alleged; and that, as to the
latter accusation, it fell chiefly upon the Puritan remnant. They
complained, as bitterly as those on the other side, of the poverty
of clergymen, and their inability to purchase books; and then they
urged, as reasons for the contempt in which they were held, not only
straitened circumstances and a humble condition, but the calumnies
of their enemies; the origin of these calumnies being distributed
amongst Libertines, Jesuits, and Nonconformists,[738] and the want of
discipline in the Church being also loudly lamented.[739]

In connection with these illustrations I may observe that Articles of
Visitation in those days throw light on clerical costume, if a word or
two may be added on so trifling a matter. Amongst other things the
78th Canon is recognized as obligatory, and churchwardens are solemnly
asked, "Doth your parson, vicar, or curate usually wear such apparel
as is prescribed by the canon, that is to say, a gown with a standing
collar, and wide sleeves strait at the hands, and a square cap; or
doth he go at any time abroad in his doublet and hose without coat or
cassock, or doth he use to wear any light coloured stockings? doth he
wear any coife, and wrought night-caps, or only plain night-caps of
silk, satin, or velvet? and in his journeying, doth he usually wear a
cloak with sleeves, commonly called the priest's cloak without guards,
welts, long buttons or cuts?"[740]

That which has been said relates to the circumstances, the education,
the preaching, and the habits of clergymen. What estimate is to be
formed of their religious and moral character? It is a common vice
to pass sweeping censures on a whole party. Most people fall into it
when speaking of opponents, and protest against it when speaking of
friends. Wishing to avoid that fault I would first say, undoubtedly
many clergymen might be found at that time who were most exemplary
in their lives, and two distinguished instances of the High Anglican
type may be cited in proof. Ken was successively Incumbent of Little
Easton, Brightstone, and East Woodhay. The purity of his life, the
devoutness of his temper, the eloquence of his preaching, and his
assiduous discharge of ministerial duties, are amongst the cherished
memories of the English Church. With him his neighbour, Isaac Milles,
the simple-hearted Rector of Highclere, is worthy of being associated.
For nine-and-thirty years, on an income of £100 per annum, this worthy
minister of Christ laboured for the welfare of his rural flock. Filled
with the charity which thinketh no evil, "he would often rise up and
leave the company rather than hear even a bad man reproached behind
his back." So hospitable was he, "that he used to be much displeased,
if any poor person was sent from his house without tasting a cup of
his ale;" and "he turned a perfect beggar in order to get from others
something to supply their wants." He walked "every day in the week to
read the service in the parish church," and was "a constant visitant by
the bedside of the sick and dying."[741]

[Sidenote: CLERGY.]

But there is another side to the picture--pamphleteers accused
the clergy not only of ignorance, and of fanaticism, but also of
immorality. This charge is but faintly touched in the particular
controversy just reported; but a writer, at an earlier period, who
fiercely assails the ministers of the Establishment, declares how
the Church resents the scandalous profaneness of many of her sons;
and reproaches the reverend in function, who were shameful in life,
those who were disorderly in holy orders, and who, bound to walk
circumspectly, reel notwithstanding, having their conversation in the
ale-house as well as in heaven. He proceeds in the name of the Church
to complain of unconscionable simony, and of encroaching pluralities;
saying, "Lately you were thought incapable of one living, now three,
four, or five cannot suffice you;" and the whole is wound up by charges
of non-residence, whereupon the writer inveighs, in most violent
terms, against the employment of curates.[742]

[Sidenote: CLERGY.]

Such testimony must be taken only for what it is worth. But it seems
incredible that, without a substratum of facts, any one would make
these bold assertions. Other writers of the period speak of the clergy
in terms which give a mean opinion of their religious character. Philip
Henry states of many who conformed, that, since they did so, from
unblamable, orderly, pious men, they became exceedingly dissolute and
profane.[743] Burnet alludes to the luxury and sloth of dignitaries
"who generally took more care of themselves than of the Church."[744]
Pepys records, that there "was much discourse about the bad state of
the Church," and how the clergy were "come to be men of no worth in
the world."[745] The King himself laid at their door the blame of the
spread of Nonconformity; for "they thought of nothing but to get good
benefices, and to keep a good table."[746] It was deemed necessary
in Articles of Visitation to inquire whether the clergy resorted to
taverns, or gave themselves to drinking, or riot, or played at unlawful
games.[747] The rush of parish ministers out of London during the
plague testifies to a want of devotedness and self-sacrifice; and
the awful dissoluteness of public manners, looked at in connection
with all circumstances, indicates not merely the failure of a
faithful ministry in some cases, but the consequence of a careless and
inefficient one in many more. Poverty and dependence, or even want of
learning, will not account for all the clerical humiliation in the time
of Charles II. A half-starved curé with love for his parishioners, and
a ragged friar of true sanctity, had a far different social standing on
the Continent, from many Protestant curates and chaplains at that time
in England.


                         END OF THIRD VOLUME.




                                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW,
                                                      LONDON, E.C.


                            WORKS PUBLISHED

                                  BY

                         HODDER AND STOUGHTON.


ECCLESIA: or, Church Problems considered by Various Writers. Edited by
H. R. REYNOLDS, D.D., President of Cheshunt College.

THE EDUCATION OF THE HEART: Woman's Best Work. By Mrs. ELLIS, Author of
"The Women of England," &c. Fcap. 8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth.

PICTORIAL SCENES FROM THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS. A Series of Drawings, by
CLAUDE REIGNIER CONDER, with Descriptive Letterpress. In 4to., price
15s., elegantly bound.

THE PROPHECIES OF OUR LORD AND HIS APOSTLES. A Series of Discourses
delivered in the Cathedral Church, Berlin. By W. HOFFMANN, D.D.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the King of Prussia. In crown 8vo., price 7s.
6d. cloth.

THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH DURING THE EIGHTEENTH AND
NINETEENTH CENTURIES. By Dr. K. HAGENBACH, Author of "German
Rationalism." Translated by JOHN F. HURST, D.D. 2 vols. 8vo.

PRIEST AND NUN. A Story of Convent Life. By the Author of "Almost a
Nun," &c., &c. Crown 8vo., price 7s. 6d. cloth.

ANECDOTES OF THE WESLEYS: Illustrative of their Character and Personal
History. By Rev. J. B. WAKELEY. In crown 8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth.

LECTURES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES OF PETER. By the Rev. JOHN
LILLIE, D.D., Author of "Lectures on the Epistles of Paul to the
Thessalonians," &c. 8vo.

CREDO. Crown 8vo., price 5s. cloth.

    Contents:--A Supernatural Book.   Supernatural Life.
               Supernatural Beings.   Supernatural Destiny.

   "A remarkable and valuable vindication to the popular mind of
   the things most surely believed among us."--_British Quarterly
   Review._

JANET AND THE BAIRNS. An Emigrant Story. In One Volume, crown 8vo.

THE STUDENT'S HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. By Rev. BENJAMIN
FIELD. Second and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo.

THE HERITAGE OF PEACE; or, Christ our Life. By T. S. CHILDS,
D.D. Square 16mo.

THE DAILY PRAYER BOOK FOR THE USE OF FAMILIES. Containing Prayers for
Six Weeks. By the Revs. THOMAS BINNEY, R. W. DALE, M.A., Dr. VAUGHAN,
Dr. STOUGHTON, HENRY ALLON, and J. C. HARRISON.

A MEMOIR OF THE REV. DANIEL JAMES DRAPER. With Notices of Methodism in
Australasia, and Chapters on the Aborigines, Education, &c. By the Rev.
J. C. SYMONS. Crown 8vo., with Portrait.

SAINT MARK'S GOSPEL. A New Translation, with Notes and Practical
Lessons. By Professor J. H. GODWIN, New College, London, Author of "The
Apocalypse of St. John," &c.

THE WORLD OF ANECDOTE: an Accumulation of Facts, Incidents, and
Illustrations, Historical and Biographical, from Books and Times,
Recent and Remote. By E. PAXTON HOOD. Crown 8vo., 10s. 6d.
cloth.

LAMPS, PITCHERS, AND TRUMPETS. Lectures on the Vocation of the
Preacher. Illustrated by Anecdotes--Biographical, Historical, and
Elucidatory--of every Order of Pulpit Eloquence, from the Great
Preachers of all Ages. By the same Author. Second Thousand. Crown 8vo,
10s. 6d. cloth.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. Vols. III. and IV., "The Church
of the Restoration." By JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D., Author of "Ages
of Christendom before the Reformation," &c., &c. 8vo.

    [_In the Press._

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. From the Opening of the Long
Parliament to the Death of Oliver Cromwell. By the same Author. In 2
vols., 8vo., 28s. cloth.

          Vol. I.--THE CHURCH OF THE CIVIL WARS.
          Vol. II.--THE CHURCH OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

   "A markedly fair, charitable, large-minded, and
   honestly-written history."--_Guardian._

   "Speaking of the book as a literary work and a history
   which was wanted upon the most important period of the
   ecclesiastical career of the country, it is one which will
   win for its author a permanent place in the increasing
   rank of Church historians, and will repay a careful
   perusal."--_Gentleman's Magazine._

THE SONG OF CHRIST'S FLOCK IN THE TWENTY-THIRD PSALM. By the same
Author. Third Edition. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.


                       BY E. DE. PRESSENSÉ, D.D.

THE EARLY YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY. 8vo., 12s. cloth.

   "This is a sequel to Dr. Pressensé's celebrated book on
   the 'Life, Work, and Times of Jesus Christ.' We may say at
   once that to the bulk of liberal Christians Dr. Pressensé's
   achievement will be very valuable."--_Athenæum._

   "De Pressensé tells the glorious narrative with singular force
   and clearness of expression."--_British Quarterly Review._

   "The great theme on which he has laboured with the utmost
   earnestness and zeal suffers no loss of colour or life. He
   holds his brilliant intellectual gifts and his profound
   learning subordinate to his fervent and absolute faith in the
   divinity of his Lord and Saviour; but he is well entitled
   to our credit when he declares that the feeling which has
   inspired the book has laid no fetters on his freedom of
   examination."--_Daily Telegraph._

JESUS CHRIST: His Times, Life, and Work. Third and Cheaper Edition,
crown 8vo., 9s. cloth.

THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING, and other Discourses. New Edition, in crown
8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth.

THE LAND OF THE GOSPEL: Notes of a Journey in the East. In crown 8vo.,
5s. cloth.

THE CHURCH AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. A History of the Relations of
Church and State from 1789 to 1802. In crown 8vo., 9s. cloth.


                       BY J. BALDWIN BROWN, B.A.

THE DIVINE MYSTERIES; the Divine Treatment of Sin, and the Divine
Mystery of Peace. By J. BALDWIN BROWN, B.A., New Edition. Crown 8vo.,
7s. 6d. cloth.

   "This is a second edition of two deeply interesting volumes,
   which are now embodied in one. This was a wise proceeding,
   and will provoke many to a second perusal of some of the
   strongest, sweetest words of one of the noblest preachers of
   our generation."--_British Quarterly Review._

MISREAD PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. New Edition. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

   "In this volume, which is the production of an earnest and
   vigorous mind, the author impugns, for the most part, with
   a force which carries conviction to the mind, the accuracy
   of some generally received interpretations of Scripture.
   He has carefully studied the subjects handled, and he
   expatiates upon them with no common eloquence, freshness, and
   originality."--_British and Foreign Evangelical Review._

IDOLATRIES, OLD AND NEW: their Cause and Cure. Crown 8vo., 5s. cloth.

THE DIVINE LIFE IN MAN. Second Edition 7s. 6d. cloth.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE FATHERHOOD IN RELATION TO THE ATONEMENT.
Cloth, 1s. 6d.

THE PULPIT ANALYST. Designed for Preachers. Students, and Teachers.
Vol. IV. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d. cloth. The Three previous Volumes may also
be had uniform with Vol. IV., price 7s. 6d. each.


                       BY REV. CHARLES STANFORD.

   "One of the sincerest, manliest, and clearest writers we
   have."--_Christian Work._

   "Mr. Stanford has an order of mind, and has acquired habits
   of study eminently adapting him to be a teacher of wise and
   thoughtful men."--_Evangelical Magazine._

SYMBOLS OF CHRIST. Crown 8vo., 7s. cloth.

CENTRAL TRUTHS. Third Edition. Small crown 8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth.

POWER IN WEAKNESS: Memorials of the Rev. William Rhodes. Cheap Edition,
2s. cloth.

INSTRUMENTAL STRENGTH; Thoughts for Students and Pastors. Crown 8vo.,
price 1s. cloth.

JOSEPH ALLEINE: his Companions and Times. 2nd Thousand. Crown 8vo., 4s.
6d.


                        BY JOSEPH PARKER, D.D.

THE CITY TEMPLE: a Record of Worship, Meditation, and Enterprise.
Conducted by JOSEPH PARKER, D.D. Published every Thursday, price One
Penny, and in Parts, containing Six Numbers, price 6d. each.

ECCE DEUS: Essays on the Life and Doctrine of Jesus Christ. With
Controversial Notes on "Ecce Homo." Third and Cheaper Edition, crown
8vo., cloth, price 6s.

SPRINGDALE ABBEY: Extracts from the Diaries and Letters of an English
Preacher. Cheap Issue, in 8vo., cloth, price 7s. 6d.

    Nearly ready, in 8vo., price 7s. 6d., the First Volume of

A HOMILETIC ANALYSIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Containing an Analysis of
the Gospel by Matthew, and an Essay on the "Ideal Completeness of Jesus
Christ's Life; considered as an argument for the Godhead of our Lord
and the Divine Authority of the Christian Religion."

    _It is expected that the Work will not extend beyond Six Volumes._

THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE IN ENGLAND. By S. R. PATTISON,
F.G.S. Post 8vo., 7s. cloth.

PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS OF ENGLISH ENGINEERS, and of the Introduction of
the Railway System into the United Kingdom. By a CIVIL ENGINEER, Author
of "The Trinity of Italy." 8vo., 12s. cloth.

FRET NOT; and other Poems: including Hymns with Music. By HENRY
BATEMAN, Author of "Sunday Sunshine," "Heart Melodies," &c. In square
crown 8vo., cloth elegant, 7s. 6d., dull gilt edges.

ANCIENT HYMNS AND POEMS; Chiefly from St. Ephraem of Syria, Prudentius,
Pope Gregory the First, and St. Bernard. Translated and imitated by the
Rev. T. G. CRIPPER. In fcap. 8vo., price 2s. cloth, red edges.

SERMONS FROM THE STUDIO. By MARIE SIBREE. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d. cloth,
gilt edges.

ENGLISH MONASTICISM: its Rise and Influence. By O'DELL TRAVERS HILL,
F.R.G.S. 8vo., cloth, 15s.

WHOLESOME WORDS; or, Choice Passages from Old Authors. Selected and
arranged by J. E. RYLAND, M.A. Fcap 8vo., is. 6d. cloth.

THE KING'S DAUGHTERS: Words on Work to Educated Women. By ANNIE
HARWOOD. Fcap. 8vo., 2s. 6d. cloth extra.

REMARKABLE FACTS: Illustrative and Confirmatory of Different Portions
of Holy Scripture. By the late Rev. Dr. LEIFCHILD. New and Cheaper
Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.

SAVONAROLA'S TRIUMPH OF THE CROSS. Translated from the Latin, with
Notes and a Biographical Sketch, by O'DELL TRAVERS HILL, F.R.G.S. Crown
8vo., 5s. cloth.

THE SON OF MAN: Discourses on the Humanity of Jesus Christ. With an
Address on the Teaching of Jesus Christ. By FRANK COULIN, D.D. In fcap.
8vo., 5s. cloth.

PULPIT ELOQUENCE: containing the Masterpieces of Bossuet, Bourdaloue,
Massillon, Fléchier, Isaac Barrow, Jeremy Taylor, Chalmers, Robert
Hall. McLaurin, Christmas Evans, Edwards, John M. Mason, &c. With
Discourses from the Fathers and the Reformers, and the marked men of
all countries and times, from the Apostles to the present century; with
Historical Sketches of Preaching in each of the countries represented,
and Biographical and Critical Notices of the several Preachers and
their Discourses By HENRY C. FISH, D.D. A New Edition. Two large
Volumes, 8vo.

VESTINA'S MARTYRDOM. A Story of the Catacombs. By EMMA RAYMOND PITMAN.
In crown 8vo., price 7s. 6d. cloth.

APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY, and other SERMONS; with a Scripture Study. By
ROBERT AINSLIE REDFORD, M.A., LL. B. In fcap. 8vo., 5s. cloth.

SERMONS PREACHED IN CHRIST CHURCH, BRIGHTON. By Rev. JAMES VAUGHAN,
M.A., Incumbent. First and Second Series. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. each.

LANCASHIRE: Its Puritanism and Nonconformity. By ROBERT HALLEY, D.D. In
2 vols. 8vo., price 30s. cloth.

CHRIST AND MAN; or, God's Answers to Man's Chief Questions. By Rev. W.
BATHGATE. Crown 8vo., 5s. cloth.

A BOOK OF PUBLIC PRAYER. Containing Liturgical Services for Four
Sundays. Royal 32mo., 2s. cloth extra.

A FORM OF MORNING AND EVENING SERVICE. For the Use of Free Churches.
Second Edition, crown 8vo., 2s. cloth.

PUBLIC WORSHIP: the Best Methods of Conducting it. By the Rev. J.
SPENCER PEARSALL. Third Edition enlarged. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

CONSTANCE AYLMER; a Story of the Seventeenth Century. Crown 8vo., price
6s. cloth.


                          BY REV. T. BINNEY.

MICAH THE PRIEST MAKER. A Hand-book on Ritualism. Second Edition
enlarged. In post 8vo., price 5s. cloth.

MONEY; a Popular Exposition in Rough Notes. With Remarks on Stewardship
and Systematic Beneficence. Third Edition, crown 8vo., 5s. cloth.

THE PRACTICAL POWER OF FAITH. Illustrated in a Series of Popular
Discourses on the Eleventh Chapter of Hebrews. Third Edition. In crown
8vo., price 5s. cloth.

LIGHTS AND SHADOWS OF CHURCH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. Including Thoughts on
some Things at Home. To which is added, "Two Hundred Years Ago; Then
and Now." Second Edition, with Additions. In crown 8vo., price 5s.
cloth.

MEMORIALS OF THE CLAYTON FAMILY. With unpublished Letters of the
Countess of Huntingdon, Lady Glenorchy, Rev. John Newton, &c., &c. By
Rev. T. W. AVELING. With Portraits. 8vo., 12s. cloth extra.

THE HISTORY OF THE TRANSMISSION OF ANCIENT BOOKS TO MODERN TIMES.
Together with the Process of Historical Proof. By ISSAC TAYLOR. New
Edition. Post 8vo., 7s. 6d. cloth.

THE FAMILY PEN. Memorials, Biographical and Literary, of the Taylor
Family of Ongar. Edited by the Rev. ISAAC TAYLOR, M.A., Author of
"Words and Places," &c. 2 vols., post 8vo., 15s. cloth.


                      BY THE REV. THOMAS HUGHES.

THE CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Viewed in
connection with the Class-Meeting System of the Methodist Body. Crown
8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

THE HUMAN WILL: its Functions and Freedom. In 8vo., 10s. 6d. cloth.

   "I have perused enough of it to see that it merits and
   will repay a more thorough perusal."--RIGHT HON. W. E.
   GLADSTONE.

KNOWLEDGE, THE FIT AND INTENDED FURNITURE OF THE MIND. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

PRAYER AND THE DIVINE ORDER; or, the Union of the Natural and the
Supernatural in Prayer. Crown 8vo., 4s. 6d. cloth.

THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN, IN NATURE, REVELATION, RELIGION, AND LIFE.
Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.


                       BY REV. R. W. DALE, M.A.

CHRIST, AND THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST. Being the Two Addresses delivered
from the Chair of the Congregational Union in 1869. Crown 8vo, 1s. 6d.
cloth.

THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. A Series of Discourses on
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Second and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo., 6s.
cloth.

    [_Shortly._

DISCOURSES DELIVERED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. In crown 8vo., 6s. cloth.

       *       *       *       *       *

BIBLE-CLASS STUDIES ON SOME OF THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS. By JESSIE
COOMBS. Small crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

THOUGHTS FOR THE INNER LIFE. By the same Author. Crown 8vo., 5s. cloth.

THE BOOK OF PRAISES: being the Book of Psalms according to the
Authorised Version, with Notes, Original and Selected. By W. H.
ALEXANDER. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d. cloth.

REMOTER STARS IN THE CHURCH SKY: a Gallery of Uncelebrated Divines. By
GEORGE GILFILLAN. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

NIGHT: a Poem. By the same Author. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d. cloth.

THE FIRST WEEK OF TIME; or, Scripture in Harmony with Science. By Rev.
CHARLES WILLIAMS. Crown 8vo., 5s. cloth.

THE ELECTION OF GRACE. By the Rev. WILLIAM TAYLOR, of California,
Author of "The Model Preacher," &c., &c. Crown 8vo., 3s. cloth.

CHRISTIAN ADVENTURES IN SOUTH AFRICA. By the same Author. With Portrait
and 15 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. 6d.

CALIFORNIA LIFE ILLUSTRATED. By the same Author. New Edition, with 16
Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 4s. cloth.

PORTRAITS OF THE MIND; or, a Series of Interesting Questions for the
Drawing-room, forming an Album of Thoughts. 4to., cloth elegant, gilt
edges, 4s. 6d.

NOTES ON EPIDEMICS: for the Use of the Public. By FRANCIS EDWARD
ANSTIE, M.D., Senior Assistant Physician to the Westminster Hospital.
Fcap. 8vo., 1s. 6d. cloth.

THE FAMILY: its Duties, Joys, and Sorrows. By COUNT A. DE GASPARIN.
Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d. cloth.

CENTENARY CELEBRATION OF CHESHUNT College, 25th June, 1868. Including
Address by the Very Rev. HENRY ALFORD, D.D., Dean of Canterbury; Sermon
by the Rev. THOMAS BINNEY; Introductory Essay by the Rev. HENRY ALLON;
and Speeches at the Dinner. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. cloth.

ENGLISH NONCONFORMITY. By the late ROBERT VAUGHAN, D.D., Author of
"Revolutions in English History," &c., &c. Second Thousand. 8vo., 7s.
6d. cloth.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. By Prof. TISCHENDORF. Translated under
the Author's sanction, from the Fourth German Edition, by WILLIAM L.
GAGE. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

THE PROGRESS OF BEING. Six Lectures on the True Progress of Man. By
DAVID THOMAS, D.D. Third Edition enlarged. Fcap. 8vo., imitation cloth,
1s. 6d.

CHOSEN WORDS FOR CHRISTIAN WRITERS ON RELIGION: its Evidences,
Trials, Privileges, Obligations. Edited by the Author of "Thoughts on
Devotion," &c., &c. In fcap. 8vo., price 4s. 6d. cloth, red edges.

THE IMPROVEMENT OF TIME. An Essay, with other Literary Remains. By JOHN
FOSTER, author of "Essays on Decision of Character," &c. Edited by J.
E. RYLAND, M.A. Crown 8vo., 6s. cloth.

THE NEW SUNDAY SCHOOL HYMN-BOOK. Edited by EDWIN HODDER. A New and
greatly enlarged Edition. In neat wrapper, 2d., or in cloth, 4d.

JESUS ONLY: a Book for the Anxious and Dying Bed. By Rev. J. O.
JACKSON. 18mo., imitation cloth, 6d.

OUR PRINCIPLES: a Guide for those Holding or Seeking Fellowship in
Congregational Churches. By the Rev. G. B. JOHNSON. New Edition,
greatly enlarged, 1s., cloth.

OLD MERRY'S CHRISTMAS PARTY. With Stories after Supper, by W. H. G.
KINGSTON, R. M. BALLANTYNE, EDWIN HODDER, SIDNEY DARYL, and Others of
the Party. With Illustrations, 1s.

READINGS FOR MOTHERS' MEETINGS. By ANN JANE. Fcap. 8vo., boards, 1s. 6d.

THE PROTESTANT DISSENTER'S CATECHISM. Containing a Brief History of
the Nonconformists, and the Reason of the Dissent from the National
Church. By Rev. S. PALMER. With a Preface by the late Dr. PYE-SMITH.
Twenty-fourth Edition, paper covers, price 6d.

PIETAS PRIVATA. Prayers and Meditations. Chiefly from the Writings of
HANNAH MORE. With an Introductory Essay on Prayer. New and cheaper
editions. Forty-first Thousand. 32mo., bevelled cloth, red edges, 1s.;
roan, gilt edges, 1s. 6d.; calf, gilt edges, 3s.; morocco, gilt edges,
3s. 6d.


                        HODDER AND STOUGHTON'S
                         WORKS FOR THE YOUNG.

     _Suitable for School Prizes and Gift Books, nearly all being
      Illustrated, Handsomely Bound, and printed on Fine Paper._

               PRICE SEVEN SHILLINGS AND SIXPENCE EACH.

PRIEST AND NUN: a Story of Convent Life. By the Author of "Almost a
Nun," &c. With Nine Illustrations. Crown 8vo.

COBBIN'S CHILD'S COMMENTATOR ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Twelve Coloured
Illustrations and many Woodcuts. Square 16mo., embossed cloth, gilt
edges.

VESTINA'S MARTYRDOM: a Story of the Catacombs. By EMMA RAYMOND PITMAN.
Crown 8vo., cloth extra.

SERMONS FROM THE STUDIO. By MARIE SIBREE. Crown 8vo., cloth elegant,
gilt edges.


                      PRICE FIVE SHILLINGS EACH.

TALES OF OLD OCEAN. By LIEUTENANT C. R. LOW, Late of H. M. Indian Navy.
With Four Illustrations. Crown 8vo., cloth.

"A clever and racy narrator, who, in talking about the sea speaks of
a familiar friend, and in touching upon naval matters deals with the
affairs of his original vocation."--_Athenæum._

OLD MERRY'S ANNUAL FOR 1870. Tales, Travels, Sketches, and other
Contributions by the best Writers for the Young. Profusely Illustrated.
Square 16mo,, cloth, richly gilt, and gilt edges.

OLD MERRY'S ANNUAL from the Commencement, in Four Volumes, may also be
had uniform, price 5s. each.

   "Old Merry presents his Annual to the many who relish his
   'wise saws and modern instances,' gorgeous in green and
   gold, well printed, profusely illustrated, and with a
   literary bill of fare suited alike to the tastes of boys and
   girls."--_Morning Post._

THE BEGGARS; or, the Founders of the Dutch Republic. By J. B. DE
LIEFDE. Second and Cheaper Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth elegant.

GEOGRAPHICAL FUN. A Series of Maps, in which the Outlines are
Humorously Treated so as to represent the National Figures and Costumes
of the following Countries:--

    England.
    Scotland.
    Wales.
    Ireland.
    France.
    Spain.
    Italy.
    Prussia.
    Germany.
    Holland & Belgium.
    Denmark.
    Russia.

The Figures Beautifully Coloured by Vincent Brooks. In 4to., handsomely
bound in embossed cloth, richly gilt and enamelled.


               PRICE THREE SHILLINGS AND SIXPENCE EACH.

DAVID LIVINGSTONE; the Weaver Boy who became a Missionary. Being the
Story of Dr. Livingstone's Life and Labours. By H. G. ADAMS. Portrait
and Illustrations. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth.

LOST IN PARIS, and other Tales. By EDWIN HODDER. Illustrations. Square
16mo, cloth elegant.

TOSSED ON THE WAVES: a Story of Young Life. By the same Author. New
Edition. Square fcap. 8vo., cloth elegant.

THE STORY OF JESUS IN VERSE. By the same Author. With Ten full-page
Illustrations. Square 16mo., cloth elegant.

SILVER LAKE; or, Lost in the Snow. By R. M. BALLANTYNE. Illustrations.
Square 16mo., cloth elegant.

OLIVER WYNDHAM: a Tale of the Great Plague. By the Author of "Naomi;
or, the Last Days of Jerusalem," &c. New and Cheaper Edition.
Frontispiece. Fcap. 8vo., cloth elegant.

STORIES FROM GERMANY: 1. Gold seekers and Bread Winners. 2. The
Cobbler, the Clerk, and the Lawyer of Liebstein. Translated by ANNIE
HARWOOD. Illustrations. Square 16mo., cloth elegant.

THE FRANCONIA STORIES:--Stuyvesant--Caroline--Agnes. By JACOB ABBOTT.
Complete in One Volume. With Illustrations. Fcap. 8vo., cloth.

   "Another wholesome and pleasant volume for children. The
   stories are cleverly designed, and so woven together that
   the three narratives possess unity of interest. In style
   and freshness they equal the author's previous performances
   in the same department of art; and their attractiveness
   is increased by an unusual number of creditable pictorial
   embellishments."--_Athenæum._


                       PRICE EIGHTEENPENCE EACH.

THE YOUNG MAN SETTING OUT IN LIFE. By Rev. _W. Guest_, F.G.S. New and
Cheaper Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth.

   "We know of no better volume of counsel for a
   youth."--_Bible-class Magazine._

CHILDHOOD IN INDIA. A Narrative for the Young. Founded on Facts. By the
Wife of an Indian Officer. Illustrations. 18mo., cloth elegant.

HYMNS FOR INFANT MINDS. By ANN and JANE TAYLOR. Forty-seventh Edition.
18mo., cloth elegant. With Frontispiece.

THE JUNIOR CLERK: A Tale of City Life. By EDWIN HODDER. With a
Preface by W. EDWYN SHIPTON, Secretary of the "Young Men's Christian
Association."


                       PRICE HALF-A-CROWN EACH.

RECONCILED; or, the Story of Hawthorn Hall. By EDWIN HODDER, Author
of "Tossed on the Waves," "The Junior Clerk;" &c. With Illustrations.
Square 16mo., cloth elegant.

ADRIFT IN A BOAT. By W. H. G. KINGSTON. With Illustrations. Square
16mo., cloth.

WASHED ASHORE; or, the Tower of Stormount Bay. By the same Author. With
Illustrations. Second and Cheaper Edition. Square 16mo., cloth.

PITS AND FURNACES; or, Life in the Black Country. By Mrs. ALFRED PAYNE,
Author of "Village Science." Square 16mo., cloth.

BENAIAH: a Tale of the Captivity. By the Author of "Naomi; or, the Last
Days of Jerusalem," &c. With Illustrations. New and Cheaper Edition.
Square 16mo., cloth.

TOLD IN THE TWILIGHT. Short Stories for Long Evenings. With
Illustrations. Square 16mo., cloth elegant.

BUSY HANDS AND PATIENT HEARTS; or, the Blind Boy of Dresden and his
Friends. By GUSTAV NIERITZ. Translated by ANNIE HARWOOD. Illustrations.
New and Cheaper Edition, square 16mo., cloth elegant.

OLD MERRY'S FIRESIDE CHATS WITH THE YOUNGSTERS. With Coloured
Frontispiece. Second and Cheaper Edition. Square 16mo., cloth.

OLD MERRY'S QUEER DISCOURSES ON QUEER PROVERBS. With Illustrations.
Square 16mo., cloth elegant.

OLD MERRY'S TRAVELS ON THE CONTINENT. Profusely Illustrated. Fcap. 8vo.
cloth.

   "The mirthful old gentleman whose name is on the title page of
   many a sound and generous volume for boys and girls, and whose
   distinctive qualities cause him to be held in the highest
   possible esteem by all the little people of our acquaintance,
   has been on his travels--accompanied, of course, by a lot of
   youngsters, in France, Switzerland, and Rhineland. Every one
   rejoices in Old Merry. He is such a quaint, cheery, garrulous
   comical old boy, and altogether innocent of 'fogeyism.' We
   almost wish he would die, so that we could render a full
   tribute to his virtues in language that would offend his
   modesty if it were uttered in his lifetime."--_Athenæum._

       *       *       *       *       *

THE CABINET OF THE EARTH UNLOCKED. By E. S. JACKSON, M.A.,
F.G.S. Many Illustrations. Square 16mo., cloth. 2s.


                 _HODDER & STOUGHTON'S SCHOOL BOOKS._

           =First Steps to Latin, French, German and Italian.=

THE ELEMENTS OF LATIN SYNTAX, with short Exercises for the Use of
Schools. By W. H. HARRIS, B.A. Fcap. 8vo., 3s. 6d. cloth.

LE PETIT GRAMMAIRIEN; or, The Young Beginner's First Step to French
Reading. A Sequel to "Le Petit Précepteur." By T. PAGLIARDINI, Head
French Master of St. Paul's School, London. 3s. cloth.

LE PETIT PRÉCEPTEUR; or, First Steps to French Conversation. By F.
GRANDINEAU, formerly French Master to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,
Author of "Conversations Familières," &c. 50 Woodcuts. Thirty-fifth
Edition. 3s. cloth.

DER KLEINE LEHRER; or, First Steps to German Conversation. On the plan
of "Le Petit Précepteur." 3s. cloth.

IL PICCOLO PRECETTORE; or, First Steps to Italian Conversation. Being
a Translation from "Le Petit Précepteur." By F. GRANDINEAU. With
Additional Exercises. 3s. cloth.


                 =Shilling School Books for Beginners.=

FIRST LESSONS IN ANCIENT HISTORY. By Rev. T. WOOLMER, Author of "Child
Training," &c.

FIRST LESSONS IN GEOGRAPHY, in Question and Answer. New Edition,
completing an issue of 261,000 copies.

FIRST LESSONS IN ASTRONOMY, in Question and Answer. On the Plan of
"First Lessons in Geography." New Edition, being the Seventh. Revised
and Corrected to Present Date.

FIRST LESSONS IN THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND, in Question and Answer. On the
Plan of "First Lessons in Geography." Sixteenth Edition.

FIRST LESSONS ON THE EVIDENCES OF Christianity. By B. B. WOODWARD,
B.A., F.S.A., Librarian to the Queen. Second Edition.

FIRST LESSONS ON THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. By the same Author. Second
Edition.


                        =New Illustrated Series.=

THE MOTHER'S FRIEND. The Volume for 1869 now Ready, forming a Handsome
Present, in Stiff Illustrated Cover, 1s. 6d.; or, in Cloth Elegant, 2s.
6d.


                   =The Shilling Presentation Series.=

AROUND THE CROSS. By NEHEMIAH ADAMS, D.D.

AFFLICTION; or, the Refiner Watching the Crucible. By Rev. CHARLES
STAMFORD, Author of "Central Truths."

THE DYING SAVIOUR AND THE GIPSY GIRL. By MARIE SIBREE.

THE SECRET DISCIPLE ENCOURAGED TO AVOW HIS MASTER. By the late Rev. J.
WATSON, of Hackney.

MEDITATIONS ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. By NEHEMIAH ADAMS, D.D.

       *       *       *       *       *

LITTLE BOOKS ON GREAT SUBJECTS. In neat Wrapper, 2d. each, or 12s. per
100, assorted.

   1. PERSONAL RELIGION: A Letter to some Young Friends. By
   JANE TAYLOR.

   2. WHERE SHALL I BE ONE HUNDRED YEARS HENCE? By Rev. J.
   METCALFE WHITE, B.A.

   3. SANDY FOUNDATIONS. By the same Author.

   4. SHIPWRECKS. By the same Author.

   5. SECRET PRAYER. By Rev. CHARLES STANFORD.

   6. FRIENDSHIP WITH GOD. By the same Author.

               ⁂ A Specimen of each, post free, for 1s.

       *       *       *       *       *

TRACTS FOR TO-DAY. Being a series of Twelve New Tracts for the Educated
Classes. Elegantly printed on Toned Paper. In Packets containing 24
Tracts (2 of each), price 1s; and separately, price 6d. per dozen, or
3s. 6d. per 100.

   CONTENTS:--1. A Book of Wonders. 2. The Self-avenging
   Power of Sin. 3. The Last Night of an Ancient Monarchy. 4. The
   Religion of Compromise. 5. The Self-convicted Judge. 6. The
   Simple Remedy. 7. Ecce Homo! 8. A great Revolution. 9. Waiting
   for the Verdict. 10. Insanity. 11. Rejected Light. 12. The
   Closing Scene.


         LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.


        UNWIN BROTHERS, OLD STYLE PRINTERS, BUCKLERSBURY, E.C.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the state of Puritanism during the Civil Wars and the
Commonwealth I must refer the reader to my former Volumes. I take up
the thread of the History where I dropped it, at the death of Oliver
Cromwell.

[2] _Cromwellian Diary_, iii., _Int._ v. viii.

[3] Letter to Hyde, _Cosin's Works_, iv. 465.

[4] _Proclamation for the better Encouraging of Godly Ministers_,
Nov. 25. In the notes of the speech of the Protector to the Officers
of the Army (_Thurloe_, vii. 447), "Liberty of Conscience, as we are
Christians," is one of the heads.

[5] _Thurloe_, vii. 4:4.

[6] _Ludlow_, ii. 618.

[7] _Cromwellian Diary_, iii. 1.

[8] _Ibid._, 10.

[9] _Cromwellian Diary_, iii. 13, Jan. 28.

[10] _Ibid._, 83, 138, Feb. 5.

[11] _Cromwellian Diary_, iii. 403, Feb. 21.

[12] _Guizot's Richard Cromwell, &c._ i. 103.

[13] _Cromwellian Diary_, iv. 328, April 2.

[14] _Ibid._, iii. 177, Feb. 9.

[15] _Ibid._, 448, Feb. 22; 494, Feb. 26.

[16] _Cromwellian Diary_, iii. 87, _et seq._, Feb. 7th and 9th.

[17] _Guizot's Richard Cromwell and the Restoration_, i. 91, March
16. No other historian has so patiently traced the steps by which the
Stuarts were restored as this eminent Frenchman.

[18] _Clarendon's State Papers_, iii. 440, March 18.

[19] This petition to Richard followed the humble representation
presented on the 6th of April.

[20] Prynne got in for a few hours, and had an angry altercation with
Haselrig and Vane.

[21] _Parl. Hist._, iii. 1553.

[22] Of the popularity of Fleetwood amongst "Anabaptists and other
sectaries," and of the importance attributed to him by lookers
on, there are illustrations in the correspondence of the French
ambassador,--_Guizot_, i. 246.

[23] _Howe's Life_, by _Rogers_, 94.

[24] _Rogers_, 91. _Noble's Protectorate House_, i. 172, 180, 176.

[25] Noticed in an article on Keble in _Macmillan's Magazine_ for
March, 1869. Baxter speaks favourably of Richard Cromwell. His wife,
who died in 1676, whilst he was abroad, is spoken of as a prudent,
godly, practical Christian. It appears from one of her letters, that,
after the Protectorate, she "wanted some scholar or godly man to
reside at Hursley, to minister spiritual consolation under her present
sorrows."--_Noble_, i. 343.

[26] Neal (iv. 209) relates this, and thinks the story probable; but
Orme, in his _Life of Owen_, p. 213, disputes it. Respecting what
Baxter says about Owen (_Life and Times_, i. 101) see an _Historical
Account of my own Life_, by _Calamy_, i. 378.

[27] As I am not aware of these important entries having been published
by any one else I introduce them here:--

June 7th--"This day," so runs the record, "the Church received a letter
from the Church at Wallingford House, desiring advice from the Church
what they apprehended was needful for the Commonwealth; the Church
considering it, ordered the elders to write to them, thanking them for
their love and care of them; and also desiring to give the right-hand
of fellowship with them; but concerning civil business the Church, as a
Church, desire not to meddle with."

July 10th--"Ordered by the Church upon the receipt of a letter from the
Church at Wallingford House, that Wednesday, the 13th of July, should
be set apart to humble our souls before the Lord, both in regard of the
sins of the nation, and also for our own sins, as also to seek the Lord
for direction and assistance for the carrying on the Lord's work in the
nation."

[28] This confession will be noticed in the next volume in the account
given of the development of Congregationalism.

[29] _MS. Yarmouth Independent Church Records_, Dec. 28, 1659. As to
the opinions of Independents on these questions during the Commonwealth
see the former volumes of this Ecclesiastical History.

[30] _Owen's Works_, xix. 385-393.

[31] _Hist. of the Rebellion_ (Oxford Edit., 1843), 855-6. The
documents are without date. They are placed by Clarendon under the year
1658.

[32] _Ibid._, 857.

[33] _Neal_ (iv. 195) alludes to this affair, and regards it as an
artifice to get money "out of the poor King's purse." _Crosby_ (ii.
91) speaks of the Baptists as making "overtures to the King for his
restoration," but does not relate any particulars. The modern historian
of the Baptists, Dr. Evans, as far as I can find, says nothing upon the
subject.

[34] _Lingard_, xi. 156.

[35] _Newcome's Autobiography_, i. 117.

[36] Dated November 1st, 1659. _Thurloe_, vii. 771.

[37] December 14th, 1659. _Ibid._, 795.

[38] December 16th, 1659. _Ibid._, 797.

[39] _Thorndike's Works_, vol. ii. part i., preface.

[40] May 4. _Barwick's Life_, 401; _Thorndike_, vi. 219.

[41] _Barwick's Life_, 449.

[42] _Barwick_, 201, 218, 412. Various difficulties felt at the time
by the Bishops are mentioned in the letters printed in the appendix to
_Barwick's Life_.

[43] _Barwick_, 413, 424.

[44] _Ibid._, 517, 519, 525.

[45] 1659, Nov. 9 & 18, Dec. 9. 1660, Feb. 3.

[46] _Ludlow_, ii. 674.

[47] See pamphlets: _The Leveller_; _The Rota; or, Model of a Free
State_; and _Gallicantus seu præcursor Gallicinii Secundus_.

[48] _State Papers, Dom. Interreg._, No. 659.

[49] See prices in _Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations_, B. I. c. II.

[50] _Guizot_, ii. 62.

[51] Price says Christmas-day. _Hist. of the King's Restoration_, 72.

[52] Numerous illustrations of the state of feeling at the time might
be culled from these and other pamphlets of the period. Some of
them are printed in the _Harleian Miscellany_. Some are noticed and
described in _Kennet's Register_. A large collection of them may be
found in the British Museum.

[53] _Price's Mystery and Method of His Majesty's Happy Restoration_,
79, 80.

[54] _Neal_ (iv. 238-242) says that when Monk had joined the
Presbyterians, and the Independents saw that they were betrayed, they
offered to support their friends in Parliament, and to raise four
new regiments for the purpose of resisting the General's designs. He
further states that Owen and Nye consulted with Whitelocke and St.
John, and engaged to procure £100,000 to support the Army, if the Army
would again undertake the defence of religious liberty; but he gives no
authority for what he relates.

[55] _Coverdale's Version._

[56] _Price_, 86, 87.

[57] Quoted in _Guizot_, ii. 122.

[58] _Pepys' Diary_, i. 22, Saturday, Feb. 11.

[59] _Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, 362.

[60] _Milton's Ready and Easy Way, &c. Works_, i. 589.

[61] _Parl. Hist._, iii. 1580.

[62] _Baxter's Life and Times_, i. 105; ii. 214.

[63] 1660, April 8. _Thurloe_, vii. 892. The rest of the letter is
interesting, and shows how much personal feeling was mixed up in court
intrigues.

[64] _Life and Times_, ii. 207, 215. It is curious that as the
Presbyterians suspected the King, so the King suspected the
Presbyterians. See letter by Kingstoun, April 8, just referred to.

[65] See _Valley of Baca_, a pamphlet published about that time.

[66] See a "Declaration," which is worth reading, printed in _Kennet's
Register_, 121 (April 24), with a long list of noble signatures.

[67] All this Baxter describes with great simplicity in his _Life and
Times_, ii. 216.

[68] See correspondence between Sharp and Douglas, in the months of
March and April, _Kennet's Register_, 78-124.

[69] _Thurloe_, vii. 872, 873.

[70] April 8, _Thurloe_, vii. 889.

[71] April 6, _Ibid._, 887.

[72] _Price's Mystery and Method of His Majesty's Happy Restoration_,
136.

[73] See _Lives_ of him by _Gumble_ and by _Price_. Sir Anthony Ashley
Cooper was a confidant of Monk, and Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson tells us that
he assured her husband, even after Monk's designs became apparent, that
there was no intention besides a Commonwealth, and that if the violence
of the people should bring the King in, he would perish body and soul
rather than see a hair of any man's head touched, or a penny of any
man's estate forfeited through the quarrel. Hutchinson held Cooper "for
a more execrable traytor than Monke himselfe."--_Memoirs_, 360.

Aubrey, putting down his recollections of what he heard at the time
from Royalist agents in London, says, "I remember, in the main,
that they were satisfied he no more intended or designed the King's
restoration, when he came into England, or first came to London, than
his horse did." _Letters_ iii. 454. I have no doubt that, in February,
Monk thought of restoring the King; but before that date I am inclined
to believe he was waiting to see which way the wind blew. Whatever
hypothesis may be adopted as to his intentions, it must be admitted
that he acted the part of a thoroughly untruthful man. Guizot, in his
life of Monk, represents him as a Royalist at heart throughout the
whole of the business. Of course Monk, after he openly took the King's
side, would wish to be so regarded.

[74] _Ludlow's Memoirs_, ii. 865.

[75] _Guizot_, ii. 411.

[76] See in Appendix notice of a letter in the State Paper Office
referring to projected insurrections.

[77] See _Journals_ of both Houses, 1st of May. When examining, some
years ago, the papers in the House of Lords, belonging to that period,
I saw the original letter from Charles, but not the Declaration.

[78] _Clarendon's Hist_., 904.

[79] _Burnet's Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 88.

[80] _Kennet's Register_, 129. Sharp afterwards became Archbishop Sharp.

[81] _Worcester MS._

[82] _Public Intelligencer_, No. 20. _Newcome's Diary_, published by
the Cheetham Society, and _Life of Philip Henry_, 59.

[83] Hale's reflections on the crisis may be seen in his _Memoirs_ by
_Williams_, 63-65.

[84] _Pepys' Diary_ (May 15) i. 62.

[85] _Kennet's Register_, 146.

[86] In _The Secret History of the Reign of Charles II. and James
II._, 1690--a book not very trustworthy--we have the original of the
story, often repeated, respecting Mr. Case, "who, with the rest of the
brethren coming where the King lay, and desiring to be admitted into
the King's presence, were carried into the chamber next or very near
to the King's closet, but told withal that the King was busy at his
devotions, and that till he had done they must be contented to stay.
Being thus left alone, by contrivance no doubt, and hearing a sound of
groaning piety, such was the curiosity of Mr. Case, that he would needs
go and lay his ear to the closet door. By heavens, how was the good old
man ravished to hear the pious ejaculations that fell from the King's
lips: 'Lord, since Thou art pleased to restore me to the throne of my
ancestors, grant me a heart constant in the exercise and protection of
thy true Protestant religion. Never may I seek the oppression of those
who out of tenderness to their consciences, are not free to conform to
outward and indifferent ceremonies.'"

[87] _Kennet's Register_ under date May 20th.

[88] _Barwick's Life_, 270, 520.

[89] _Buckingham's Works_, ii. 55. See _Harris's Lives_, v. 52, _et
seq._, for evidence as to his being a Papist.

[90] See what Harris has collected on this subject, v. 13 _et seq._

[91] _Character of Charles II._, 56.

[92] "23rd. General Monk marched from London, with a gallant train
of attendants to meet the King. It is said that several fanatics
intermingled themselves with the troops, but were discovered, whereof
three killed, and some hurt, and three taken, who do confess the design
was to pistol the King. 24th. One to be put to the rack for discovery.
It is said the King escaped a plot of some Frenchmen at the Hague to
pistol the King in his coach, but discovered by one who was in presence
once hearing them, and they suspecting him, shot him as dead, but
recovering to speak, discovered their intentions. From all such or any
other, God ever preserve and protect his pious Majesty!"--_Worcester
MS._

[93] _Kennet_, 160-164.

[94] _Butler's Hist. Memorials of the Catholics_, iii. 23.

[95] From Godly ministers in Exeter and Devonshire.--_State Papers,
Dom. Charles II._, 1660, vol. i. 28.

[96]

  (Signed) Philip Nye
           Joseph Caryl
           Samuel Slater
           Richard Kentish
           George Griffiths
           Matt. Mede
           John Hodges
           William Hook
           Thomas Brookes
           George Cokayn
           Jo. Loder
           Thomas Malony
           Tho. Walley
           William Greenehill
           Matthew Barker
           Edward Pearce
           John Rowe
           Robert Bragg
           Jo. Baker
           Seth Wood

                 --_State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, vol i. _No. 36_.


[97] (Signed) John Angier, Nathaniel Heywood, Henry Newcome, Nathaniel
Baxter, and many others. Peter Aspinwall signs himself "minister of
Formby, where now more people go openly to Mass than to our Church."
_State Papers_ xxiv., 29.

[98] A new Act, touching the Royal Supremacy, was passed in the Scotch
Parliament, January, 1661 (See _Murray's Collection of the Acts_), but
that does not come within the limits of our history.

[99] Stat. 26 Henry VIII. c. i., repealed 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, c.
viii., ss. 12-20. That Act was repealed by 1 Elizabeth c. i., ss. 1, 2.
Except in certain particulars, provision is made for the ecclesiastical
Supremacy of the Crown by 1 Elizabeth c. i., ss. 16-23.--_Digest of
Statutes_ ii., 1387. The doctrine of the Royal Supremacy arose as a
counter-action of the doctrine of Papal Supremacy; and nothing in its
way can be more dignified and noble than the preface to the Statute 24
Henry VIII., c. 12. The conflict between Papal Supremacy and national
English Independence began long before the Reformation.

[100] _Charles I. in 1646_, 30.

[101] _Clarendon's State Papers_, ii. 237.

[102] _Hist. of his own Times_, i. 95.

[103] _Ibid._ Compared with Clarendon (1220), who gives a long
character of Southampton.

[104] _Clarendon_, 1005.

[105] _Burnet_, i. 97.

[106] _Ibid._, 96. Burnet, who knew Ashley, afterwards Lord
Shaftesbury, states the last particular upon the authority of
conversations with him.

[107] July 9, 16. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 79, 84.

[108] 12 Charles II. c. 17.--Upon the 26th of May Mr. Prynne made a
report touching the quiet possession of ministers, schoolmasters,
and other ecclesiastical persons, in sequestered livings, until
they, on order, should be legally convicted; and two days afterwards
allusion was made in a further report from the same member to several
riots which had "been committed, and forcible entries made upon the
possessions of divers persons, ecclesiastical and temporal;" when
an order to prevent such disturbances in future was recommitted, to
be put into the form of a proclamation "to be offered to the King's
Majesty."--_Commons' Journals_, May 26th & 28th, 1660; This was for the
benefit of the Presbyterians, but the current of feeling in the House
was setting in the other direction.

[109] There is an account in _Calamy_ of Abraham Wright, Incumbent
of Cheavely, Cambridgeshire, being turned out of his living, because
it did not appear to the Justices that he was in orders, and of his
commencing an action for the recovery of his tithes: and against Mr.
Deken, who had been substituted in his place, "for the making good his
title to the living."--_Cont. of the Account_, 158, _et seq._

[110] Hunter's _Life of Heywood_, 125.

[111] _Kennet_, 204.--I am indebted for the following note to the
Dean of Westminster, to whom it was communicated by the Rector of
Acton: "Mr. Philip Nye appears to have been made Rector of Acton soon
after the Battle of Brentford, in the room of Dr. Daniel Featley (or
Fairclough), who held Lambeth Rectory as well. There is a curious entry
in the Register, which I append;--'April, 165--, Richard Meredith,
esquire, eldest son of Sr. William Meredith...Baronet, was marryed
unto Mrs. Susanne Skippon, youngest daughter of right honourable Major
General Philip Skippon [_Traytor_] by Sr. John Thoroughgood [_Knave_]
in the publick congregation within the Parish Church at Acton...Mr.
Philip Nye at the same time praying and teaching upon that occasion.'
The interpolations, 'Traytor' and 'Knave,' are, of course, by a
different hand, and are always attributed by me to Dr. Bruno Ryves (one
of Charles the Second's Chaplains?) who was appointed Rector of Acton
at the Restoration. To the same Dr. Ryves is attributed the erasure of
all 'Lord' Francis Rous' titles on a tablet in Acton Church, the said
Lordship being of Cromwell's creation.

E. P."


[112] _Journals of the Lords_, Sept. 1.

[113] _Ibid._, June 4.--The Earl of Manchester was restored to the
Chancellorship, and he immediately issued warrants for the restoration
of ejected Heads and Fellows.

[114] Between the 25th of June, 1660, and the 2nd of March, 1661, no
less than 121 Doctors of Divinity were created by the King's mandate,
and 39 degrees were conferred on other faculties.--_Kennet's Reg._
_Cooper's Cambridge_, iii. 481.

[115] _Kennet's Register_, 293.

[116] _D'Oyley's Life of Sancroft_, i. 123.--A curious story about
Stephen Scanderet, of Trinity College, Cambridge, is related by
_Calamy_, _Account_, 655.

[117] _Journals_ under date.

[118] Read a second time 6th July. _Journals._ It came to nothing.

[119] _Kennet's Register_, 200.

[120] "Resolved, That it be referred to the Grand Committee, to whom
the Bill for Sales is committed, to receive proposals from any of the
purchasers of the estates of Bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons,
and from any the ecclesiastical persons themselves, or from any others;
touching satisfaction to be given to the purchasers of any public
lands; and, on consideration thereof, to report their opinion to the
House."--_Commons' Journals_, August 6th, 1660.

[121] _Kennet_, 312.

[122] _Harris_, iv. 345.--"Almost all the leases of the Church estates
over England were fallen in, there having been no renewal for twenty
years. The leases for years were determined. And the wars had carried
off so many men, that most of the leases for lives were fallen into
the incumbents' hands. So that the Church estates were in them: And
the fines raised by the renewing the leases rose to about a million
and a half. It was an unreasonable thing to let those who were now
promoted carry off so great a treasure. If the half had been applied to
the buying of tithes or glebes for small Vicarages, here a foundation
had been laid down for a great and effectual reformation."--_Burnet_,
i. 186. Burnet's statements on this subject are very general. So are
those made by Clarendon from his point of view. (1047.) No doubt the
ecclesiastical bodies on the one side, and the tenants on the other,
tried to make the best bargain they could. In the Library of Canterbury
Cathedral is a curious collection of letters respecting leases, which
throw light on this point. Persons plead their sufferings under the
Commonwealth, and pray for the renewal of their leases on the most
favourable terms. See in our next vol. (under the year 1677) notice of
an Act for augmenting small incomes.

[123] Amongst the _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, vol. lxxv. 69,
there is an account by John Cosin, Bishop of Durham, of the true
state of the present revenues of his see. They diminished £1,000 a
year, through resumption of lands by Queen Elizabeth, who afterwards
regranted them on a rental of £880; he lost £2,000 by taking away
the Court of Ward and Liveries, the revenues of which in the County
Palatine belonged to the Bishops; he prays that as the King receives
£1,500 a year excise money, as given in lieu of the Court of Wards in
Durham, the rental of £880, paid by the Bishops, should be remitted.

[124] _Calendar Dom._, 1660-1661, 218-236.

[125] _Kennet_, 162. The other names given by Baxter (_Life and Times_,
ii. 229) are Wallis, Bates, Manton, Case, Ash, all of whom accepted;
and Newcomen, who declined the office. _Neal_ (iv. 263) gives the name
of Woodbridge.

[126] _Life and Times_, ii. 229. Amongst the Baxter MSS. in Dr.
Williams' library, I have seen a note, apparently relating to the
period now before us. Baxter said:--The late Archbishop Ussher and he
had in an hour's time agreed on the most easy terms. These words were
printed. Episcopal Divines called on him to know what the terms were,
_i.e._, Dr. Gauden, Dr. Gouldson, Dr. Helen, Dr. Bernard, &c. They
expressed great delight, and were willing to make abatements necessary
thereto. Some men of greater power stept in and frustrated all. Mr.
Calamy thought the best way was to interest and engage the King on
the matter. It was mentioned to him accordingly. Calamy consulted the
London ministers, and it was agreed that Ussher's reduction should be
offered as a ground of union. This was laid before the King with other
proposals, but the Lord Chancellor would not allow the matter to be
taken into consideration.

[127] _Life and Times_, ii. 230.

[128] _Life and Times_, ii. 232.

[129] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 232, et seq. Also in _Cardwell's
Conferences_, 277, corrected from MS. copy amongst the _Tanner MSS.,
Bodleian_.

[130] _Life and Times_, ii. 278.

[131] _Life and Times_, ii. 241. The date of this interview is not
given by Baxter.

[132] This paper is printed in _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 242-247,
and in _Documents relating to the Settlement of the Church of England
by the Act of Uniformity of 1662_, p. 27, but not in _Cardwell's
Conferences_.

[133] _Life and Times_, ii. 258, 259.

[134] _Ibid._, 265, _et seq._

[135] This no doubt had to do with the importance they attached to
the ring and the sign of the cross. If any one would see the modern
expression of this feeling in an intensified form, let him read
_Keble's Tract for the Times_, No. 89, and Preface to _Hooker_, lxxxix.

[136] _Romans_ xiv.

[137] In the foregoing statement I have endeavoured to put myself in
the place of each party successively. My own views of the question in
dispute are very decided; but they do not exactly accord with those of
either party.

[138] Durham and Exeter were vacant sees at the Restoration. Cosin and
Gauden had been nominated to them respectively.

[139] _Baxter_ ii. 277. Clarendon (p. 1034) states that in the draft
of the Declaration a passage occurred professing the King's use of the
Prayer Book, and that "he would take it well from those who used it in
their Churches that the common people might be again acquainted with
the piety, gravity, and devotion of it, and which he thought would
facilitate their living in good neighbourhood together." This clause
Clarendon says was left out at the ministers' request, on the ground
that they were resolved to do what the King wished, and to reconcile
the people to the use of that form by degrees, which would have a
better effect if such a passage were omitted. Then he charges Calamy
with writing a letter which was intercepted and found to contain the
expression of a resolve to persist in the use of the Directory, and
not to admit the Common Prayer Book into their Churches. Upon turning
to _Baxter_ (ii. 263-275), and upon reading the Declaration, one
finds, that all which the ministers promised to do, and all that the
Declaration required of them, was not _totally to lay aside_ the book,
but to read _those parts against which there could be no exception_. It
is incredible, looking at the ground taken throughout by the Puritan
ministers, that they ever could have talked in the way Clarendon
represents. As to the contents of an intercepted letter, no one who
knows anything of the tricks then played will attach importance to what
is said by the same historian on that subject.

[140] _Baxter_, ii. 259-264; also printed in _Wilkins' Concilia_,
_Cardwell's Conferences_, and _Documents relating to the Act of
Uniformity_.

[141] It is curious to find Baxter when he refused a Bishopric,
proposing to Clarendon a number of names from which to choose some
one, instead of himself. Baxter at this time had the reputation of
being "intimate with the Lord Chancellor Hyde," and accordingly his
influence was solicited on behalf of ministers in trouble. Adam
Martindale tells us that when his own name was sent up to the Privy
Council, Baxter, at the solicitation of a friend, spoke on his behalf
to Clarendon, who "did so rattle one of the Deputy Lieutenants and so
expostulate with the Earl of Derby, that Martindale was released."
The account is very amusing, and shows Martindale's exultation at his
enemies being outwitted in their application to the Privy Council.
The story indicates, what may be gathered from several circumstances,
_i.e._, that Clarendon at that time wished to show favour to the
Presbyterians.--_The Life of Adam Martindale_, printed for the Cheetham
Society, p. 153.

[142] _Baxter_, ii. 281-283.

[143] Mr. Grosart has shown this in his interesting memoir prefixed to
Gilpin's _Dæmonologia Sacra_, p. xxxii. It is a curious fact that the
same Bishopric should, within a century or so, have been offered to two
Gilpins, and refused by both.

[144] _Kennet_, 308. There were no less than 121 Doctors of Divinity
made by mandate between 25th of June, 1660, and 2nd of March, 1661.

[145] Those of them, with whom Baxter acted, were not sufficiently
satisfied with the Declaration to offer formal thanks for it. Clarendon
(1035) brings this as a charge against them.

[146] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 284.

[147] Nov. 9. _Kennet,_ 307.

[148] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 142.

[149] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 152-154, and _Commons' Journals_, Wednesday,
28th of November.

[150] "That is the best and most Christian memory," says he, "that, as
Cæsar's, forgets nothing but injuries. Let us all seriously and sadly
look back, consider and bemoan one another, for what we have mutually
done and suffered from each other."--_Harris's Lives_, iv. 385.

[151] Henchman's Sermon, entitled _A Peace Offering in the Temple_.

[152] _Clarendon_, 1034.

[153] _Calendar of State Papers. Dom. Charles II._ Nov. 1, 1660.

[154] _Clarendon_, 1035.

[155] _Lister's Life of Clarendon_, ii. 218.

[156] _State Papers. Dom. Charles II._ December 7, 1660. In a letter on
the previous day he alludes to the Bill as "quashed by the violence" of
its supporters.

[157] This had been Clarendon's policy from the beginning. He wrote
from Breda on the 22nd April, to Dr. Barwick, in these terms: "It would
be no ill expedient" "to assure them of present good preferments in the
Church." "In my own opinion you should rather endeavour to win over
those who being recovered will have both reputation and desire to merit
from the Church, than be over solicitous to comply with the pride and
passion of those who propose extravagant things." _Barwick's Life_, 525.

[158] _Cardwell_ (_Conferences_, 256) says "the King rejoiced when
he found his stratagem had succeeded." The stratagem was more the
Chancellor's than the King's.

[159] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 67, _et seq._ It may here be mentioned that
others besides those named in Parliament were exposed to danger. Lord
Wharton, for example. The circumstance is rather curious--his eldest
daughter, Elizabeth, then the wife of Lord Willoughby d'Eresby, as
she was crossing the Thames, by the ferry at Lambeth, overheard the
boatman mention her father's name as one of the excepted. Her husband
immediately used his influence with the King on his father-in-law's
behalf, and thus prevented the name from being retained in the list
of exceptions. I am indebted for this anecdote to notices of Lord
Wharton's Life, in _Lipscombe's Hist. and Antiq. of the County of
Buckingham_. Lord Wharton lived at Wooburn, near Wycombe; and in the
next volume I shall have to refer to this circumstance.

[160] See the _Commons' Journals_, May 14, June 5, 6, 7, 8, 30. The
_Lords' Journals_, July 20, 27. _Commons' Journals_, Aug. 13, 17, 23,
24. Hallam gives a synopsis of these proceedings, and I have ventured
to adopt one or two of his expressions.--_Constitutional History_, ii.
3. In the Conference on the 23rd of August, Clarendon told the Commons
that His Majesty, who was duly sensible of the great wound he received
on that fatal day (the day of his father's execution) when the news of
it came to the Hague, bore but one part of the tragedy, for the whole
world was sensible of it; and particularly instanced that a woman at
the Hague, hearing of it "fell down dead with astonishment."

[161] _Trial of the Regicides_, 17.

[162] _The Trials of Charles I., and of some of the Regicides_, 330.

[163] See _Brooks's Lives of the Puritans_, iii., 350 & 363.

[164] See _Ecclesiastical Hist._, ii. (_Church of the Commonwealth._)

[165] _Forster's Statesmen of the Commonwealth_, iii. 356.

[166] _Lords' Journals_, February 7th, 1661/2.

[167] For the story of the Regicides see _The Trial_, published at the
time, and of modern publications, _Noble's Regicides_; _Caulfield's
High Court of Justice_; and _The Trials of Charles I. and of some of
the Regicides_.

[168] _Commons' Journals_, December 4th and 8th, 1660.

[169] _Kennet_ observes, "Some of the hottest Divines, though great
sufferers and of great names, were passed by in the designations to
Bishoprics. An instance in Dr. Peter Heylyn, who in 1660, upon His
Majesty's return to his kingdoms, was restored to his spiritualities,
but never rose higher than Sub-dean of Westminster, which was a wonder
to many and a great discontent to him and his; but the reason being
manifest to those that well knew the temper of the person, I shall
forbear to make mention of that matter any further. Such was the
case of Dr. Sibthorpe, who had suffered very great calamities in His
Majesty's cause, yet upon the return of King Charles II. he was only
restored to the small preferments from which he had been violently
ejected."--_Register_, 236.

[170] _Wood's Athen. Oxon._ (_Bliss_), iii. 613. Further notice of
these Bishops will be supplied hereafter.

[171] _D'Oyley's Life of Sancroft_, ii. 346.

[172] _Mant's History of the Church of Ireland_, i. 611. Taylor
preached a sermon on Episcopacy. _Works_, vi. 301.

[173] _Keble's Life of Bishop Wilson_, i. 132.

[174] _Canons_, 9-12, 72, 73.

[175] See also _3 Jac._, 4; _21 Jac._, 4.

[176] The letter is written by R. Ellsworth, "Bristol this 24th of
November, 1660," and is addressed to Sir E. Nicholas. STATE PAPERS,
DOM. CHARLES II.

[177] _Rees' Nonconformity in Wales_, 111. Powell speaks of himself
as if charged with "preaching sedition and rebellion." The specific
charges against these Welshmen do not appear. It seems to me very
probable that they were accused of political disaffection.

[178] _Lives of Philip, Howe, and Bunyan._

[179] It may seem strange to some that Charles II. should excite
so much enthusiasm. But it must be remembered that by letters from
abroad and other means, extraordinary ideas of his excellence had been
diffused throughout the country. Some amusing illustrations of this are
supplied in the _Worcester MS._:--

"June 6th.--Mr. Prinn coming to kiss His Majesty's hands, prayed God to
bless him--'and so also you, Mr. Prinn,' and smiling clapt him on the
shoulder."

"6th.--It is said that Mr. Calamy, a Presbyterian, and one of the
King's chaplains, desired His Majesty that he might not officiate
in these canonical habits, especially in a surplice, for it was
against his conscience, who answered he would not press it on him,
and as he refused to do in the one, so he would spare him in the
other. It is also said when His Majesty was at primal prayers in
his presence-chamber, and seeing all on their knees but the Earl
of Manchester, his chamberlain, who stood by him (a Presbyterian),
His Majesty suddenly took a cushion, and said, 'My Lord, there is a
cushion, you may now kneel;' which for shame he was glad patiently to
do. O meek, O zealous, O pious prince!"

"July.--The King going to swim one night in the Thames, there were
divers ladies and gentlemen looking out of the windows of Whitehall,
which he beholding, sent a message that either they should shut their
windows and pray for his safety, or begone out of court. O chaste and
good prince!"

"Oct. 23rd.--A settling of the King's household according as the book
was 6th Charles I.--wherein His Majesty declares that his officers
should collect out of the same all such wholesome orders, decrees,
and directions as may tend most to the planting, establishing,
and countenancing of virtue and piety in his family, and to the
discountenancing of all manner of disorder, debauchery, and vice in any
person of what degree or quality soever."

[180] _State Papers, Dom._ 1661, January 11th.

[181] The entry in the Council Book, and the subsequent Proclamation,
are printed in _Kennet's Register_, under dates January 2nd & 10th.

[182] _Neal_, iv. 311.

[183] _Crosby_, ii. 108.

[184] Sir John Maynard informed Lord Mordaunt that so many refused to
swear that he did not know what to do: some because they would not
swear at all; others because they would not enter into promissory
obligations; others because, as the King had taken no oath to obey the
laws, they would take no oath to obey the King.--_State Papers, Dom._
1661, January 19th.

[185] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 301. No date is given--it is
only said that the circumstance occurred at the time of Venner's
insurrection.

[186] _Loyal Subject's Lamentation for London's perverseness in the
malignant choice of some rotten Members on Tuesday, 19th March, 1661._

[187] The Government monopoly of letter carrying was sometimes
invaded; and I notice in the Minute Book of Privy Council, 1661-2, a
curious order for taking into custody two persons, who obtained large
quantities of letters under the pretence of conveying them to their
proper destination, but who in fact threw them into the Thames, and
still worse places.

[188] Sir Thomas Browne, in a letter to his son, says--"Two Royalists
gained it here (Norwich) against all opposition that could possibly be
made; the voices in this number--Jaye, 1,070; Corie, 1,001; Barnham,
562; Church, 436. My Lord Richardson and Sir Ralph Hare carried it in
the county without opposition."--_Works_, i. 8.

[189] As instances of such purging, we may mention that on the
25th of February, just before the election, orders of that kind
were sent to Hull and Norwich.--_State Papers, Dom._, under date.
Oldfield's _History of the Original Constitution of Parliament_,
gives a very large number of instances in which members for boroughs
in the seventeenth century were returned by the Corporation. For
example:--Andover, votes 24; Banbury, votes 18; Bath, votes 18;
Beaumaris, votes 24.

[190] County of Devon.

[191] Their former history is remembered in _Hudibras_:--

"Was not the King, by proclamation, Declared a rebel o'er all the
nation? Did not the learned Glynne and Maynard, To make good subjects
traitors, sham hard?"


[192] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 383.

[193] _Ibid._, iv. 862.

[194] May 10th.--"Parliament assembled on the 8th [of May], the King
went on horseback, with a magnificent equipage. After a sermon in
Westminster Abbey, they went in the same order to the House of Peers,
&c."--_State Papers, Dom._ under date.

[195] _Lords' Journals_, 1661, May 8th and 10th.

[196] A Diarist states that Dr. Gunning, who officiated, refused the
bread to Mr. Prynne, because he did not kneel; and that Boscawen took
it standing.--_Lathbury's Convocation_, 297.

[197] _The Presbyterian Divines_ were Edward Reynolds, Bishop of
Norwich; Dr. Tuckney, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge; Dr.
Conant, Reg. Prof. Div. Oxford; Dr. Spurstow; Dr. Wallis, Sav. Prof.
Geom. Oxford; Dr. Manton; Mr. Calamy; Mr. Baxter; Mr. Jackson; Mr.
Case; Mr. Clarke; Mr. Newcomen.

_Coadjutors_:--Dr. Horton; Dr. Jacomb; Dr. Bates; Dr. Cooper; Dr.
Lightfoot; Dr. Collins; Mr. Woodbridge; Mr. Rawlinson; Mr. Drake.

The _Episcopal Divines_ were:--Accepted Frewen, Archbishop of York;
Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London, Master of the Savoy; John Cosin,
Bishop of Durham; John Warner, Bishop of Rochester; Henry King, Bishop
of Chichester; Humphrey Henchman, Bishop of Sarum; George Morley,
Bishop of Worcester; Robert Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln; Benjamin
Laney, Bishop of Peterborough; Bryan Walton, Bishop of Chester; Richard
Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle; John Gauden, Bishop of Exeter.

With the following _Coadjutors_:--Dr. Earle, Dean of Westminster; Dr.
Heylyn; Dr. Hacket; Dr. Barwick; Dr. Gunning; Dr. Pearson; Dr. Pierce;
Dr. Sparrow; Mr. Thorndike.

No distinction is made between the two parties in the terms of the
Commission.

[198] _Life and Times_, ii. 302-304.

[199] _Life and Times_, ii. 305; _Kennet_, 398; _Cardwell Documents_.

[200] Two applicants are mentioned as anxious for the office--Dr.
Warmestry and Richard Braham--the latter writes to John Nicholas asking
his "influence with his father to get him recommended as an additional
Commissioner of the Excise, having relinquished the idea of the
Mastership of the Savoy in favour of Dr. Sheldon."--_State Papers, Cal.
1660-1_, 16, 113.

[201] The Declaration adopted at the Savoy will be noticed in the
next volume. The Independents have no authoritative standards, but a
Declaration of their Faith and Order was issued by the Congregational
Union of England and Wales some years ago.

[202] _Kennet_, 389.

[203] _Clarendon_, 1047.

[204] _Kennet_, 412, _et seq._

[205] The other two, built by Henry VII., were King's College,
Cambridge, and the Chapel, which bears his name at Westminster.

[206] _Strype's Stow_, ii. 103.

[207] See on Cosin and the other Bishops, vol. ii. of _Eccles. Hist._
(_Church of the Commonwealth_), chap. xii.

[208] _Baxter_, ii. 364.

[209] _Hallam's Literature of Europe_, iv. 179.

[210] For fuller notices of the Presbyterian Divines, who figured at
the Savoy, see _Eccles. Hist._ (_Church of the Commonwealth_), chap.
viii.

[211] _Clarendon's Continuation_, 1048. April 23rd. "This day," says
the _Worcester MS._, "was the solemn and most glorious Coronation of
Charles II., at Westminster, when did preach George Morley, Bishop of
Worcester.

"This day all the trained band, horse and foot, were up in arms in
several parts, to prevent insurrections and tumults of seditious
fanatics and schismatics, haters of Monarchy and Episcopacy.

"This morn also, at Worcester, about break of day, was posted up in
several places of the city a base, scurrilous, seditious, and facetious
libel, as followeth:--

"'A seasonable memento, April 23rd, 1661.

"'This day it is sayd the king shall sweare once more, Just contrary to
what he sware before. Great God, and can thy potent eies behold This
height of sin, and can thy vengeance hold? Nipp thou the bud, before
the bloome begins, And save our Sovereyne from presumptious sinns.
Lett him remember, Lord, in mercy grant, That, solemnly, he swore the
Covenant.'"

"May 2nd. The King's Coronation is now over, and was attended with so
many glories that the most curious beholders from foreign parts deem
it inferior in magnificence to none in Europe. The people received all
with loud acclamations and profuse expressions of joy. Twelve Knights
of the Garter, and six of the Bath, six Earls, and six Barons, were
created on the occasion."--_State Papers, Cal. Dom._ May 2, 1661.

[212] _Baxter_, ii. 342.

[213] _Ibid._, ii. 333. The Proctors of Convocation for the diocese of
London, are elected two for each Archdeaconry, the Bishop choosing two
out of the whole number--at that time ten. Baxter, speaking generally
of the Convocation, states that ministers who had not received
Episcopal ordination, "were in many counties denied any voice in the
election of Clerks for the Convocation. By which means, and by the
scruples of abundance of ministers, who thought it unlawful to have
anything to do in the choosing of such a kind of assembly, the diocesan
party wholly carried it in the choice." Burnet, of course dependent
on reports, says: "Such care was taken in the choice and returns of
the members of the Convocation, that everything went among them as was
directed by Sheldon and Morley."--_History of his own Times_, i. 184.
The author of the _Conformists' Plea_, p. 35, perhaps following Baxter,
observes, that men were got in and kept out by undue proceedings; and
"that protestations were made against all Incumbents not ordained by
Bishops."

[214] _Life and Times_, ii. 307. Baxter is our main authority for the
history of the Conference. It is to be regretted that we have no other
full account.

[215] What took place at the Savoy Conference is of great importance
in relation to the vestment controversy. An intelligent clergyman,
the Rev. R. W. Kennison, writing in the _Times_, of July 6th, 1867,
observes:--"In the last days of the Conference, when he (Baxter) summed
up all in a few leading points, he went over again his objections to
the surplice, but said not a word about the other vestments. And I have
looked into every book I have been able to lay my hands on relating
to that period, without being able to find one word more on the
subject. There is much discussion about surplices; but copes, albs, and
tunicles, are never mentioned."

[216] This resemblance is adverted to in the _Conformists' Plea for
Nonconformity_, 22. See _Eccles. Hist._ (_Civil Wars_), 124.

[217] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 321; _Cardwell's Conf._, 303;
_Documents relating to the Act of Uniformity_.

[218] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 334.

[219] _State Papers, Cal. Dom._, 1661, October 26.

[220] _Kennet_, 434.

[221] _Stanley's Memorials of Westminster_, 464.

[222] The following passage is found in one of Sancroft's MSS.:--"May
22nd. _Precibus peractis_, ordered, that each keep his place, that but
one speak at once, and that without interruption; none to use long
speeches; to have a constant verger."--_D'Oyley's Life of Sancroft_, i.
113.

[223] _Kennet_, 450.

[224] _Lathbury's Convocation_, 306; _Cardwell's Synodalia_, April
26th; _Robinson's Review of Liturgies_; _Kennet's Register_, 368-70.
_King Charles' Martyrdom_ was introduced into the Calendar 30th
January:--and it appears, there are six churches in England, named in
his honour, They are in Falmouth, Tonbridge Wells, Peak Forest, Wem,
and Plymouth; in the last town there are two.--_Interleaved Prayer
Book, by Campion and Beamont._

[225] _D'Oyley_ in his _Life of Sancroft_ (i. 114) says, in 1628;
_Procter_ (262) says, in 1625 (in an _Order of Fasting_); and again,
in 1628, Palmer remarks--that "the appellation of 'most religious and
gracious King,' corresponds with those high titles of respect and
veneration which the primitive Church gave to the Christian emperors
and kings"; thus, in the Liturgy of Basil, it is said, "Μνήσθητι κύριε
τῶν εὐσεβεστάτων καὶ πιστοτάτων ἡμῶν βασιλέων."--_Origines Lit._, i.
336.

[226] _Cardwell's Synodalia_, 687.

[227] _Ibid._, 645.

[228] _Ibid._, 649-51.

[229] The paper is not given by Baxter; it is printed in _Cardwell's
Conferences_, 335-363.

[230] The concessions which were offered in reference to the Prayer
Book will be noticed in the Appendix.

[231] The Liturgy is in _Baxter's Works_, vol. xv.

[232] _Life by Boswell_, vol. ix. 141.

[233] _Life and Times_, ii. 306.

[234] _Life and Times_, ii. 334.

[235] The document is not in _Cardwell_ or _Baxter_, but it is printed
in the _Documentary Annals relating to the Act of Uniformity_, 176.

[236] The rejoinder is neither in _Baxter_ nor _Cardwell_, but it is
printed at length in the _Documents relating to the Act of Uniformity_,
201.

[237] _Baxter_, ii. 336, 341.

[238] Given in _Life and Times_, ii. 341, but not in _Cardwell's
Conferences_. It is included in the _Documents relating to the Act of
Uniformity_, 346.

[239] _Life and Times_, ii. 346.

[240] These discussions are reported by _Baxter_, ii. 346. That
which relates to the sinfulness of the Liturgy, is alone included in
_Cardwell's Conferences_, 364. Both may be found in the _Documents
relating to the Act of Uniformity_.

[241] _Life and Times_, ii. 359.

[242] _Letter to a Friend in Vindication of Himself, &c._ (1683), p. 8.
See also _Calamy's Abridgment_, 169.

[243] See _Procter on the Prayer Book_, 136. Compare _Sanderson's
Sermons_, p. 12, with _Orme's Life of Baxter_, p. 589, for a lively
statement of arguments on each side.

[244] _Baxter_, ii. 357. He mixes up the two days together.

[245] _Froude's History of England_, vii. 75.

[246] _Life and Times_, ii. 363, 364. See p. 163 of this vol.

[247] _Life and Times_, ii. 338.

[248] _Protestant Peace Maker, by Bishop Rust_, 1682.

[249] _Burnet_, i. 180.

[250] _Life and Times_, ii. 364. "Aug. 13.--A facetious Divine being
commended to Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Hyde, who loved witty men,
desired to converse with him: being come to him, the Chancellor
asked him his name; he said Bull; he replied he never saw a bull
without horns. It is true (was the answer), for the horns go with the
hide."--_Worcester MS._

[251] _Life and Times_, ii. 365.

[252] After the Act of Uniformity, Baxter shrewdly observes, "This is
worthy the noting by the way, that all that I can speak with of the
conforming party, do now justify only the _using_ and _obeying_, and
not the _imposing_ of these things with the penalty by which they are
imposed. From whence it is evident that most of their own party do now
justify our cause which we maintained at the Savoy, which was against
this imposition (whilst it might have been prevented), and for which
such an intemperate fury hath pursued me to this very day."--_Ibid._,
394.

[253] Baxter observes: men on both extremes were "offended with me, and
I found what enmity, charity, and peace are like to meet with in the
world."--_Life and Times_, 380. His experience in this respect is not
an uncommon one.

[254] _Clarendon_ (1076), says the Independents, at the Restoration,
had as free access to the King as the Presbyterians--"both that he
might hinder any conjunction between the other factions, and because
they seemed wholly to depend upon His Majesty's will and pleasure,
without resorting to the Parliament, in which they had no confidence,
and had rather that Episcopacy should flourish again, than that the
Presbyterians should govern." Clarendon is no authority for the policy
of the Congregationalists, and goes too far in the last remark. Nor
does their access to Court, which I apprehend he greatly exaggerates,
prove that they had anything like the political influence of the
Presbyterians.

[255] He was let off by Parliament with a simple disqualification
for exercising any office, ecclesiastical, military, or civil. In a
petition he humbly tendered in January, 1662, we find him representing
himself as a minister of forty years' standing, now become infirm,
with a wife and three children unprovided for, his present maintenance
depending on voluntary contributions, which if taken away would leave
him penniless and ruined.--_Kennet_, 269, 602.

[256] _Commons' Journals_, May 17.

[257] _Mercurius Publicus_, May 30.

[258] _Public Intelligencer_, June 6-13.

[259] _Commons' Journals_, June 17, 29, July 12, 16, 19. Read first
time in the Lords, July 23; after which no notice of it occurs. The
Lords were less intolerant than the Commons.

[260] _Clarendon's Continuation_, 1070.

[261] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 219. We may here mention, as an illustration
of the spirit for dishonouring the dead--and that too on the
anti-Episcopal as well as the anti-Puritan side--that there are
repeated references in the _Journals_ of the Lords during this Session,
to accusations brought against Matthew Hardy, for taking up the body
of Archbishop Parker, for selling the lead wherein he was wrapped, for
defacing his monument, for turning his tombstone into a table, and
for burying "the bones of that worthy person under a dunghill." The
delinquent was ordered to put the bones again in their old place, and
to restore the monument, but he neglected "the doing of these things."
At last Matthew Hardy "acknowledged his hearty sorrow," obeyed the
order of the House, and was discharged on payment of fees. (_Lords'
Journals_, 1661, July 24, Dec. 9, 13, Jan. 14, 28.

[262] See _Journals_. The Bill was read the first time in the House of
Lords the 17th of July.

[263] See _Journals and Statutes_, _13 Car._ ii., _St._ 1. cxii.

[264] Quoted in _Kennet_, 374.

[265] _Journals_, June 25.--The same Committee as I have just mentioned.

[266] _Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices._

[267] Cardwell says, "It is probable, as the book is not uncommon now,
that a copy of it was produced, and was not found to be sufficiently in
accordance with the higher tone of ordinances, which, since the days
of Elizabeth had more generally prevailed."--_Cardwell's Conferences_,
376. But it is more likely the reason might be that the _original_ or
MS. of the book could not be found. I have sought in vain for some
information to throw light on this circumstance.

[268] See _Journals_ under dates.

[269] _Mercurius Publicus._

[270] _Williams' Life of Philip Henry_, 91, 92.

[271] _The Cedar's sad and solemn fall._

[272] I may mention the _Presbyterian Lash or Noctroft's Maid whipt_--a
piece of coarse and filthy satire--and an _Antidote against Melancholy,
made up in Pills_; compounded of _witty ballads, and jovial and merry
catches_, in which there is the song of the _Hot-headed Zealot_, and
_The Schismatic Rotundos_.

[273] In none of the Nonconformist publications of that day, have
I ever seen anything like the scurrility poured upon them by their
opponents.

[274] _Lords' Journals._

[275] _Ibid._

[276] "At Court things are in a very ill condition, there being so much
emulation, poverty, and the vices of drinking, swearing, and loose
amours, that I know not what will be the end of it but confusion. And
the clergy so high, that all people that I meet with do protest against
their practice."--_Pepys' Diary_, 1661, August 31.

[277] The letter is dated December 25th, 1660. Endorsed by Secretary
Nicholas as received October 9th, 1661.--_State Papers, Dom. Charles
II._

The exposure of the fraud is in _Remarkable Passages in the Life of W.
Kiffin_, 29.

In that age of sham plots the fabrication of letters was common, of
which Captain Yarrington published an exposure in 1681. See _Calamy's
Abridgment_, 178. In the Record Office, under date, 1661, November
16th, in a letter from Sir John Packington to Sec. Nicholas, Yarrington
and Sparry are mentioned as disowning certain intercepted letters.

[278] _Commons' Journals_, January 10.

[279] Though the Lower House at York sent proxies to the Canterbury
Synod, we find the members had some discussion of their own. Dr.
Samwayes, Proctor for the clergy of Chester and Richmond, proposed some
queries, beginning with the question, "Whether, in case any alterations
in the Liturgy should be decided on, a public declaration should not
be made, stating that the grounds of such change are different from
those pretended by schismatics?" The last inquiries he suggested
were, "Whether those who persist in holding possession unjustly
gotten in the late rebellion be meet communicants? and whether some
addition ought not to be made to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance
excluding all evasions?" The spirit of the proposals and the temper
of some in the Northern Convocation may be easily inferred from these
specimens.--_Joyce's Sacred Synods_, 712.

[280] Royal letters were issued to the province of York relative to
reviewing the Prayer Book.

[281] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, vol. xliii. _Entry Book_, vi.
p. 7.

[282] Palmer says, _Origines, Lit._ i. p. vi. preface, "The great
majority of our formularies are actually translated from Latin and
Greek rituals, which have been used for at least fourteen or fifteen
hundred years in the Christian Church; and there is scarcely a portion
of our Prayer Book which cannot in some way be traced to ancient
offices."

[283] He had succeeded Calvin as pastor at Strasburg, and was obliged
afterwards to seek refuge in England with some of his flock. They
settled at Glastonbury and turned a part of the Abbey into a worsted
manufactory, by grant from the Duke of Somerset. In 1552, Pullain
published an order of service in Latin, and dedicated it to Edward VI.

[284] It has been ascribed to Hilary of Poictiers, to Nicetius of
Trèves, and to Hilary of Arles.

[285] In the Sarum Breviary it is appointed to be sung at Prime, after
the psalms and before the prayers.

[286] The title of this book is very extended. It was first published
in German. The Latin copy, a very fine one, used by Cranmer,
printed 1555, is in the library of Chichester Cathedral. An English
translation, printed 1547, runs thus: "A simple and religious
consultation of us, Hermann, by the grace of God, Archbishop of
Cologne, and Prince Elector, etc." Hermann was assisted in his book by
Melancthon and Bucer, who largely used in their contributions, Luther's
service for Brandenburg and Nuremberg; and in Hermann's book may be
found the ground work of the forty-two Articles contained in Edward's
second Prayer Book. They present a close resemblance to the Augsburg
Confession. The influence of Luther on the English Prayer Book is
traceable here.--_Hook's Archbishops_, second series, ii. 289.

[287] See _King Edward's Liturgies_ (Parker Society), 89 and 280; also
compare p. 283, and _Elizabeth's Liturgies_ (Parker Society), p. 198.

I have adopted _Procter's History_ as an authority throughout.

[288] The old Gallic form ran thus: "_Domine Deus Omnipotens, famulos
tuos, quos jussisti renasci ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, conserva in eis
baptismum sanctum quod acceperunt_," _etc._--_Palmer_, ii. 195.

[289] See _Joyce's Sacred Synods_, 714.

[290] _Cardwell's Synodalia_, 653.

[291] _Conferences_, 371.

[292] "In its original shape it is supposed to have been longer, and
to have brought into one prayer the petitions for the King, Royal
Family, Clergy, etc., which are scattered through several collects. The
Convocation, however, retained the collects, and therefore threw out
the corresponding clauses in this general prayer without altering the
word _finally_, which seems to be needlessly introduced in so short a
form."--_Procter_, 262.

[293] The services for January 30, and May 29, were not in the Book
sent to Parliament.

[294] See remarks of editor in _Cosin's Works_, v. p. xxi.

[295] Sess. xl. _Kennet_, 576. Calamy states that when Dr. Allen urged
Sheldon to meet the scruples of the Dissenters, he told him there was
no need to trouble himself about that, they had resolved upon their
measures.

[296] Pell was a singular character, with a continental reputation, and
had been sent by Cromwell as envoy to the Protestant Swiss Cantons.
After his return to England, at the Restoration, he took Holy Orders
and became Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. A deanery was
thought of for the illustrious scholar, "but being not a person of
activity, as others who mind not learning are, could never rise higher
than a Rector. The truth is, he was a shiftless man as to worldly
affairs, and his tenants and relations dealt so unkindly by him, that
they cozened him of the profits of his parsonage and kept him so
indigent, that he wanted necessaries, even paper and ink to his dying
day." Pell was "once or twice cast into prison for debt," and was at
last buried by charity.--_Kennet's Register_, 575. These are curious
biographical associations gathering round the Calendar in the Prayer
Book.

[297] _The Rehearsal Transposed_, 500.

[298] _Thorndike's Works_, vi. 233-235.

[299] The Bishops' form was: "_Unanimi assensu et consensu in
hanc formam redegimus, recepimus et approbavimus, eidemque
subscripsimus_."--_Kennet_, 584.

[300] A statement of the object and nature of the alterations as given
by the revisors themselves, may be found in the preface to the Prayer
Book of 1662.

[301] _Stanley._

[302] _Strype's Annals of the Reformation_, vol. ii. part 1, 105.

[303] These facts are brought together in the _Edinburgh Review_, vol.
cxv., and are presented in Dean Stanley's letter to the Bishop of
London, 1863.

[304] _Cardwell's Conferences_, 372. Cardwell has fallen into an
error in speaking of Walton as Bishop of Chester, in March, 1662. He
died November 29th, 1661. Ferne was consecrated Bishop of Chester in
February, 1662.

[305] _Synodalia_, 668.

[306] The book was republished in 1850, by Cardwell. It reflects the
doctrinal opinions of the period, and is most decidedly Calvinistic--p.
21. It subjects heretics, including persons not believing in
predestination, to the punishment of the civil magistrate--"_ad
extremum ad civiles magistratus ablegetur puniendus_," p. 25.

[307] Published in 1690, under the title of _Bishop Overall's
Convocation Book_. It was printed from a copy belonging to Overall.

[308] Thorndike considered that a Church which could not excommunicate
was no Church, and he pleaded for the revival of the discipline of
penance.

[309] Leighton told Burnet, "he was much struck with the feasting and
jollity of that day. It had not such an appearance of seriousness or
piety as became the new modelling of a Church."--_Own Times_, i. 140.

[310] _Evelyn's Diary._

[311] A letter by Henchman, Bishop of Salisbury, _State Papers, Dom.
Charles II._, 1661, October 17th, gives a long account of the trouble
and vexation he met with in striving to bring his diocese into order.
He says, addressing Secretary Nicholas: "At Wallingford, one Pinckney,
at Malmesbury, one Gowan (?) are busy turbulent men, I cannot with any
skill or power that I have, form these places into good order. In some
private villages irregular and schismatical men do mischief; I take
particular account of them, and know who in my whole diocese conform
not, which I shall report when I attend on your Honour."

[312] _State Papers. Entry Book._ February 24th. See also _Journals_
under dates.

[313] _Journals_, March 3, 1662.

[314] _Lords' Journals_, February 27, March 5, 6, and 7.

[315] There is a letter from Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, to the Earl of
Bristol concerning charity to Quakers, and indulgence to all sober
Dissenters, dated May Day, 1662, amongst the _Gibson MSS._, vol. ii.
177. Lambeth Library.

[316] _State Papers_, March 31, 1662.

[317] The amendments are gathered from papers in the House of Lords,
copies of which I have been permitted to obtain, and from a comparison
of the Journals with the Act as published.

[318] _Clarendon's Continuation_, 1077-1079.

[319] April 6th.

[320] I give a literal copy of a draft of amendment found among the
Papers of the House of Lords, connected with the Act, showing the
fruitless attempts made to modify the abjuration of the Covenant--

"I, A. B., doe declare That I hold that there lyes no obligation upon
mee or any other person from the oath commonly called the Solemn League
and Covenant

              { {otherwise than in such things only whereunto I or any
              { {other person other than what I or they were otherwise
              { {legally oblig'd unto before
              {
    Rejected. { were legally and expressly obliged before the taking of
              {  y^e s^d Covenant, the taking of the Covenant,
              {
              { and that the same was in itselfe an unlawfull oath," &c.

[321] A comparison of Clarendon's history with the Journals of the two
Houses, shows that in almost every paragraph of his narration there are
inaccuracies. It would require too much space to point them out. I have
abridged his report of the speeches delivered, but with much misgiving
as to its correctness; probably, however, the general tenor of the
debate was as the Chancellor represents; and in the arguments for the
Bill perhaps he gives his own orations.

[322] Clarendon intimates that the former part of the declaration
respecting war against the King was most obnoxious to the Presbyterian
Lords, yet that they durst not oppose it, because the principle of
non-resistance had already been recognized in the Corporation Act. He
adds, that they who were most solicitous that the House should concur
in this addition, "had field-room enough to expatiate upon the gross
iniquity of the Covenant."

[323] On the 7th of April "the Lord Bishop of Worcester" (appointed
to Winchester upon the death of Duppa on March 26th) "offered to the
consideration of this House an explanation in a paper, of the vote
of this House on Saturday last, concerning the words in the Act of
Uniformity which declared against the Solemn League and Covenant, which
he first opened, and afterwards, by permission of the House read." The
question was raised, Whether a debate on the paper was against the
orders of the House? and resolved in the negative, whereupon it was
ordered, that the paper should be taken into consideration the next
morning. A memorandum is entered in connection with this minute, "That,
before the putting of the aforesaid question, these Lords, whose names
are subscribed, desired leave to enter their dissents if the question
was carried in the negative." No names, however, are subscribed.
The day following, the House examined the paper which had been
brought in for an explanation of the clause in the Act of Uniformity
concerning the Covenant; and, after a long debate, the paper was laid
aside.--_Journals._

[324] The Lords appointed were the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of
Bristol, the Earl of Anglesey, the Bishop of Worcester, the Bishop of
Exeter, the Bishop of Hereford, and the Lords Wharton, Mohun, Lucas,
and Holles. The Earl of Anglesey reported the next day, "that the
Committee have considered of a proviso, that such persons as are put
out of their livings by virtue of the Act of Uniformity, may have such
allowances out of their livings for their subsistence as His Majesty
shall think fit." After some debate a few alterations were made, and
it was resolved that the "proviso, with the alterations, shall stand
in the Bill." The Lords having read the Bill a third time, April 9,
resolved "to send for a Conference with the House of Commons to-morrow
morning, and communicate this Bill with the alterations and amendments
to them." The next day they gave direction "to deliver the Book wherein
the alterations are made, out of which the other Book was fairly
written."

[325] _Commons_, April 10, 14, and 16.

[326] By 96 to 90.--_Journals_, April 16.

[327] _Ibid._

[328] Dr. Southey in his _History of the Church_, ii. 467, observes,
The ejected "were careful not to remember that the same day, and for
the same reason (because the tithes were commonly due at Michaelmas),
had been appointed for the former ejectment, when four times as many
of the loyal clergy were deprived for fidelity to their sovereign." To
say nothing of the latter part, a subject I have fully discussed in a
former volume, I would notice Mr. Hallam's question--"Where has Dr.
Southey found his precedent?" Not any one Parliamentary ordinance in
Husband's collection mentions St. Bartholomew's Day. Dr. Southey has,
no doubt, followed Walker in his _Sufferings of the Clergy_, who makes
the statement without any authority. Yet see quotation from _Farewell
Sermons_ in this volume, p. 278.

[329] Noticed in conferences with the Lords, May 7.

[330] _Commons' Journal_, April 21.

[331] _Ibid._, April 22.

[332] _Ibid._, April 26. The numbers were 94 to 87. It is curious to
notice Hallam's correction of Neal. Referring to the division on the
26th of April, he says, "This may perhaps have given rise to a mistake
we find in Neal, that the Act of Uniformity only passed by 186 to
180. There was no division at all upon the Bill, except that I have
mentioned."--_Constitutional History_, ii. 37. Neal is undoubtedly
incorrect, for there was no division on the Bill as a whole; but, Mr.
Hallam is also mistaken, for as to parts of the Bill there were at
least four divisions, according to the Journals. The neglect of the
Journals, more or less, by all historians, has been one main cause of
the inaccurate and confused accounts found in the best of them.

[333] _Lords' Journals_, May 7.

[334] _Lords' Journals_, May 8. _Cardwell's Synodalia_, 672.

[335] There is an anecdote touching the same rubric related by _Kennet_
(643). "Archbishop Tenison told me, by his bedside, on Monday, February
12, 1710, that the Convocation Book, intended to be the copy confirmed
by the Act of Uniformity, had a rash blunder in the rubric after
baptism which should have run 'It is certain, by God's word, that
children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin, are
undoubtedly saved.' But the words 'which are baptized' were left out
till, Sir Cyril Wyche coming to see the Lord Chancellor Hyde, found the
Book brought home by His Lordship, and lying in his parlour window,
even after it had passed the two Houses, and happening to cast his
eye upon that place, told the Lord Chancellor of that gross omission,
who supplied it with his own hand." No sign of this particular error
occurs in the authorized text attached to the Act. Probably Tenison had
heard a story of the alteration which I have noticed, and related it
inaccurately.

[336] The entry in the _Lords' Journals_ runs thus--"Whereas it was
signified by the House of Commons, at the Conference yesterday, 'that
they found one mistake in the rubric of baptism, which they conceived
was a mistake of the writer [persons] being put instead of [children,]
the Lord Bishop of Durham acquainted the House that himself, and
the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, had
authority from the Convocation to mend the said word, averring it was
only a mistake of the scribe; and accordingly they came to the Clerks'
table, and amended the same!" This was on the 8th of May, but on the
previous 21st of April the rectification of the error is recorded in
the proceedings of Convocation.--_Synodalia_, 670. That the Commons
detected the clerical error in the copy of the Book which they had
received and examined, as noticed in their Journals, the 16th of April;
and that they called the attention of the Lords to it, appears from
a loose paper in the House of Lords, in which it is said--"That the
Lords be made acquainted that this House hath observed a mistake in the
rubric after public baptism of infants [persons] being inserted instead
of [children,] which they take to be but _vitium scriptoris_, and
desire the Lords will consider of a way how the same may be amended."

[337] An account of these books will be found in the Appendix to the
next volume.

[338] _Lords' Journals_, May 19.

[339] It is evident from the 13th of Elizabeth, cap. xii., "An Act
for the Ministers of the Church to be of Sound Religion," that a
particular form of ordination was not then requisite for ministration
in the Establishment. The words of the Act are, "That every person
under the degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend _to be a
priest or minister of God's holy word and sacraments_ by reason of
any _other form_ of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the
form set forth by Parliament, in the time of the late King of most
worthy memory King Edward VI., or now used in the reign of our most
gracious Sovereign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity of Christ
next following, shall, in the presence of the Bishop or guardian of
the spiritualities of some one diocese where he hath or shall have
ecclesiastical living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the
Articles of Religion," &c. This was the law till 1662.

[340] It is not meant that these men actually performed the work of
revision, but they were the guiding spirits of the Church; therefore
the character of the Book issued at the different periods may be
considered as reflecting their opinions.

[341] I have already noticed that the Puritans, in their exceptions
against the Prayer Book, at the Savoy Conference, urged on their
opponents the comprehensive policy of the Reformers.--_Baxter_, ii.
317; _Cardwell's Conferences_, 305.

[342] _Clarendon's Continuation_, 1078.

[343] This illustration was suggested to me by a distinguished Divine
of the Church of England.

[344] He speaks (1079) of the Upper House expunging some parts of that
subscription which had been annexed to the Bill. I find no trace of
this.

[345] It is curious that in one particular, uniformity exists beyond
the direction of the Prayer Book.

Lathbury says: "Both by _rubrical_ and _canonical_ authority, the table
may be placed in the body of the Church or in the chancel."--_Hist. of
Con._, 303. Yet the practice is to place it near the wall at the east
end.

[346] _Essays._ On _Unity_ and _Of Church Controversies_.

[347] _Forster_, iii., 209-240; _Own Time_, i. 164.

[348] _Noble's Regicides_, ii. 31.

[349] Orme's _Life of Baxter_, 454.

[350] _Isaiah_ xvi. 4.

[351] _Holmes' Annals of America_, and _Orme's Life of Baxter_, 454.

Sir Walter Scott has adopted the romantic story of the Indian War in
his _Peveril of the Peak_, but he has confounded Whalley with Gough.
Cooper has also used the story in one of his novels.

[352] The Book was so hastily printed, that the proofs were not
carefully compared with the written copy attached to the Act. At
Chichester there are two of these uncorrected copies. The _third_
or sealed copy is the one which passed through the hands of the
Commissioners, and is altered by their pens. The alterations are found
to be chiefly corrections of errors arising from a hasty copying of the
MS. Book for the press.

There does not appear to have been much care taken with the reprints,
even after the "Sealed Books" were distributed. An edition dated 1669,
perpetuates most of the errors of the printed copy of 1662. For this
information I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. Dr. Swainson. See
further on this subject in Appendix.

[353] _Own Times_, i. 185.

[354] _Life of Philip Henry_, 100. See also _Calamy's Defence of
Moderate Nonconformists_, vol. ii. 357.

[355] Sir Edward Coke, in his _Institutes_, part ii., says that the
"word _Ordinary_ signifieth a Bishop, or he, or they, that have
ordinary jurisdiction, and is derived _ab ordine_."

[356] Dated the 17th of August, 1662. _Kennets Historical Register_,
743.

[357] In this form--"Ego A. B. prætensas meas ordinationis literas, a
quibusdam Presbyteris olim obtentas iam penitus renuncio, et demitto
pro vanis," &c.--_Life of P. Henry_, 97.

[358] _Life_, 98, _et seq._

[359] _Ibid._, 11.

[360] _Stanford's Life of Alleine_, 199; _Calamy's Account_, 558.

[361] _Rogers' Life of Howe_, 105, 118.

[362] "Some of the hungry expectants were bold enough to anticipate
the period of ejection, relying on the Incumbents' ultimately failing
to qualify: and that even the chicanery of the law was used to prevent
their recovery of profits which had actually accrued during their
incumbency. Mr. Meadows (Incumbent of Ousden), had as his patron one
of kindred opinions, who sympathized with his own feelings; and,
accordingly, it appears by his accounts, that he was allowed to receive
the year's revenue up to Michaelmas, 1662."--_Suffolk Bartholomeans_,
by _Taylor_, 49.

[363] _Calamy's Account_, 557; _Continuation_, 336.

[364] _Calamy's Continuation_, 143.

[365] _State Papers_, May 14th.

[366] _State Papers_, 1661-2.

[367] _Truth and Loyalty Vindicated_, 1662.

[368] _Harl. Misc._, vii. If the author of this tract was not a
Romanist he had strong Romanist sympathies.

[369] _A Compleat Collection of Farewell Sermons_, 142; _Pepys' Diary_,
i. 313.

[370] _Farewell Sermons_, 115.

[371] _Patrick MSS._ xliv. 11.

[372] _Stanford's Joseph Alleine_, 200.

[373] Calamy speaks of his holding this living in conjunction with
Kingston.--_Account_, 279.

[374] _Farewell Sermons_, 447.

[375] _State Papers_, August 22, 1662.

[376] _Fox's Journal_, ii. 7.

[377] "The eight years, from the death of Angélique Arnauld, in
1661, to the peace of the Church in 1669, were the agony of Port
Royal."--_Beard's Port Royal_, i. 344.

[378] _Farewell Sermons, etc._, 174, 187.

[379] _Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial_, i. 366.

[380] "A liberal attention to the convenience of the late Incumbent
must have been shown by Mr. Meadows's successor, as we find so late
as July 8, 1665, 'a note of things yet left at the parsonage.'" Mr.
Meadows was Incumbent of Ousden, Suffolk. _Suffolk Bartholomeans, by
Taylor_, 50.

[381] October, 1662, _Wilkins' Concilia_, iv. 577.

[382] Baxter informs us that he had resolved not to meddle in such
business any more, but says in the margin, "If I should at length
recite the story of this business, and what peremptory promises they
had, and how all was turned to their rebuke and scorn, it would more
increase the reader's astonishment."--_Life and Times_, ii. 429.

[383] Newcome notices the petition in his Diary, as if an unsuccessful
attempt had been made to present it before the 28th. "August 28.--I was
sent for to the ministers to Mr. Greene's. We perused Mr. Heyricke's
letter, whereby we understand that last Lord's Day was a very sad
and doleful day in London, in that ministers preached not; none but
Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Crofton, and Dr. Manton between the Tower and
Westminster, the Bishops having provided readers or preachers for every
place. And the ministers in the dark waited with their petition on
Monday, and could not get it delivered, and came away more dissatisfied
than they went; and what the issue of all this will be the Lord only
knows. I rose afore seven; we despatched duty. And the ministers came
in again, and we discoursed of matters, and got things done about
the petitions. Mr. Alsley dined with me and Mr. Haworth, we having a
venison pasty. After dinner, Mr. James Lightbourne was with me an hour
or more. I wrote letters to London, and then went to bowls; but, as if
it was not a time for me to take recreation in, I had no freedom of
spirit by a little accident about Mr. Constantine."--_Newcome's Diary_,
115.

The following entry indicates the interference of the King with
the operation of the Act:--"Nov., 1662.--The King to the Dean and
Chapter of Christ Church, Oxford. They are to forbear execution of
any sentence against Thomas Severne, for not having subscribed to the
Act of Uniformity before his Bishop, though presented doing so before
the University, until the will of Parliament in such cases is more
distinctly known."--_Ent. Book_ x. 7. _Cal. Dom._, 1661-1662, 578.

[384] _Clarendon's Continuation_, 1081-1082.

[385] It is difficult to harmonize satisfactorily the accounts of
conferences and councils given by Burnet, Clarendon, and Bishop
Parker. The former two speak of the conferences occurring before St.
Bartholomew's Day. The last of these authorities gives a petition from
the ministers presented on the 27th, and a debate upon it in Council
on the 28th, agreeing, to a considerable extent, with Clarendon's
statements. Clarendon says nothing of a petition and a Council after
St. Bartholomew's Day, but leaves us to conclude all thought of
indulgence was dropped beforehand. In this respect we know he is wrong,
probably the matter of indulgence was frequently debated in Council.
Compare _Clarendon_, 1081; _Burnet_, i. 191; with _Parker_ in _Kennet's
Register_, 753.

[386] These illustrations are gathered from the newspapers of the day.

[387] _State Papers._ This letter is dated March 2, 1663. It is
anonymous; the reason for ascribing it to Hook will appear further on.

[388] _Joseph Alleine's Life_, by _Stanford_, 204. There is a glowing
account in the _Mercurius Publicus_, of an Episcopal service at St.
Mary's, on the 25th, when the church was so full that people fainted
with heat, and "the Mayor and Aldermen were all in their formalities,
and not a man in all the church had his hat on, either at service or
sermon."

[389] _Ashmole's Order of the Garter_, 176.

[390] _Tour in Derbyshire_, 1662. _Browne's Works_, i. 30. "At Buxton,"
he says, "we had the luck to meet with a sermon, which we could not
have done in half-a-year before, by relation. I think there is a true
Chapel of Ease indeed here, for they hardly ever go to Church," p. 34.
_Calamy_ gives the name of Mr. John Jackson as ejected from Buxton, but
supplies no account of him.--_Account_, 204.

[391] They occur at the end of the list for each county.

[392] See Ryle's account of Gurnal, prefixed to the new edition of his
works.

[393] _State Papers. Dom._, 1663, March 2. Letter from William Hook.

[394] For instances, see _Palmer_, i. 223, ii. 71.

[395] Appendix to Second Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual, p.
616. The articles of the Bishops there printed are from the collection
in the Bodleian Library.

[396] Appendix to second report of the Royal Commission on Ritual, pp.
601, 602.

[397] _Ibid._, 607, 611.

[398] _Ibid._, 619.

[399] They are published in the same Appendix, 624, _et seq._

[400] The authorities for these statements are _Calamy's Account_ and
_Continuation_, _Kennet's Register_, _Hunter's Life of Heywood_, and
_Aspland's History of Nonconformity in Duckinfield_. I could add more
instances. No doubt there were several which cannot now be ascertained.

[401] _Irenicum_, republished in 1662.

[402] _Lord King's Life of Locke_, 7, 8, 9.

[403] _State Papers, Cal. Dom._ Sept. 14 and Sept. 29, 1662.

[404] _Ibid._, Oct. 31, 1662.

[405] This reported number should be borne in mind in connection with
others already stated.

[406] _State Papers, Cal., Dom._, 1661-1662, 531, 567, 594.

[407] _Cal. Dom._, 1662, Jan. 31.

[408] _Ibid._, 1662, Oct. 10, Nov. 24.

[409] The following illustrations of the extent of persecution in the
autumn of 1662 are extracted from _State Papers_ under date:--

"Committed by Sir J. Robinson, Knt. and Bart., Lord Mayor, being taken
at an unlawful assembly, and denying to take the Oath of Allegiance,
dated 2nd November, 1662." [Names given. All males.]

"Committed by Sir R. Browne, Knt. and Bart., for being unlawfully
assembled together contrary to the laws, etc., the same day." [Other
names.]

"Anabaptists and Quakers, taken at unlawful meetings, and committed by
the Court, for refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance, and some of
them fined."

[Eleven names, all males.]

"Committed by His Grace, the Duke of Albemarle, General of His
Majesty's forces, for assembling unlawfully together, contrary to a
late Act of Parliament, 28th October, 1662."

[Sixty-three names, all males, six under the heading "Quakers."]

"Committed 3rd November, 1662, for refusing to take the Oath of
Allegiance."

[Three males.]

"Committed for being at a private meeting in Wheeler's Street, dated
9th November, 1662."

[Three names.]

"Committed for being at an unlawful assembly in Spitalfields; dated
16th November, 1662."

[Three names.]

"Committed by John Smith, Esq., being taken in the house of the said
Mary Winch, upon pretence of a religious worship, and own no King but
King Jesus and own themselves to be Fifth Monarchy men. Dated 23rd
November, 1662."

These extracts have appeared in the _Baptist Magazine_. In others the
names of females occur.

[410] _Kennet_, 849.

[411] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 430.

[412] _History of his Own Time_, i. 193.

[413] See on this subject, _Burnet's History of his Own Time_, i. 194;
_Lingard_, xi. 220; and _Butler's Memoirs_, iii. 44.

[414] See the _Lords' Journals_, February 23, 25, 27, 28. "After St.
Bartholomew's Day, the Dissenters, seeing both Court and Parliament
was so much set against them, had much consultation together what
to do. Many were for going over to Holland, and settling there
with their ministers; others proposed New England, and the other
plantations."--_Burnet_, i. 193.

[415] Clarendon cannot be relieved from a charge of duplicity in this
business.

[416] See _Lister's Life of Clarendon_, iii. 232, compared with
_Clarendon's Continuation_, 1129. The story is there wrongly dated. So
it is in _Parl. Hist._, iv. 311.

[417] _Continuation_, 1131.

[418] Under date April 21, 1663, there is a petition from Samuel
Wilson, who was seized in the Downs for ignorantly receiving a
seditious letter from Hook, a minister, which came wrapped up in a
bundle of books. This person, Mrs. Green, in the _Calendar of State
Papers_, 1663, suggests, is the writer of the remarkable letter here
referred to. No doubt of it. The letter is dated March 2, 1663,
addressed to Mr. Davenport, who was colleague with Hook at New Haven,
in New England. On Hook's return from America to England he became a
minister at Exmouth, and afterwards Master of the Savoy and Chaplain to
Cromwell.--_Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial._

[419] This writer attributes depression in trade to the Act of
Uniformity, and blames the Presbyterians for being ready to meet the
Prelates half way, and swallow the Liturgy.

[420] _Baxter's Life and Times_, ii. 433.

[421] See _Commons' Journals_, 1663, February 27, March 16.

[422] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 263-5.

[423] The Bill against Papists was committed March 17th; that against
Dissenters May 23rd. Several debates, amendments, and divisions took
place. At the beginning of July the Bills were carried up to the Lords.
The Bill against Sectaries was committed by the Upper House, July 22nd,
and there the matter ended. Parliament was prorogued on the 27th.

[424] _Lords' Journals_, July 25, 27.

[425] _Lords' Journals_, July 27, 1663. A curious incident occurred
during their sittings. The Bill for the better observance of the
Sabbath was lost off the table, and could not be found. The like had
never occurred before, and "every Lord was called by name, and those
present did make their purgation, and the assistants likewise did
particularly clear themselves." It was the last day of the session.
The Bills to receive the Royal assent had been taken out of a bag, and
opened on the table; but this Bill disappeared, and consequently did
not receive _le Roy le veult_.

[426] _Walton's Lives_, 424-427. He had left a list of ministers under
his eye designed for discipline, but when he saw death approaching, he
burnt the paper, and said he would die in peace.--_Conformists' Plea
for Nonconformity_, 35.

[427] _Works_, vi. 443.

[428] 31st August, 1663. _Evelyn's Diary_, i. 399.

[429] _State Papers, Dom., Charles II._, June 20, Sept. 22, Oct. 12.
I may add that a very affecting illustration of the sufferings of
an ejected minister through trial and imprisonment for preaching in
some retired place after the Act of Uniformity, is to be found in
_Stanford's Joseph Alleine_, chapters x. and xi.

[430] _State Papers_, Nov. 9, Dec. 31.

[431] _Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson_, 391.

[432] _Anderson's Hist. of the Colonial Church_, ii. 286.

[433] _Ibid._, 316-318.

[434] _Anderson's Hist. of the Colonial Church_, ii. 342.

[435] The letters in the State Paper Office, from which all these
particulars are taken, are abridged in the _Calendar_ for 1663. Any
one wishing to investigate the subject should study these letters in
connection with _Drake's Eboracum_ and _Whitaker's Loidis and Elmete_.

[436] Amongst the papers which belonged to the Secretary of State, and
which are now preserved in the Record Office, is an informer's notebook
belonging to this period. As it is a curiosity, and as it contains
allusions to well-known characters, I will give a few extracts in the
Appendix.

[437] These are all local traditions.

[438] _Aspland's History of the Old Nonconformists in Duckinfield._
Like stories are told of Bradley Wood near Newton Abbot, and of
Collier's Wood in Gloucestershire. Places of worship erected or
publicly used during times of indulgence or connivance, will be noticed
in the next Volume.

[439] _Life of Owen_ by _Orme_.

[440] _Nelson's Life of Bull_, 253. Other examples of the ejected
having married rich wives may be found in _Kennet_, 910. John Tombes
writing to Williamson, mentions a book on the anvil entitled,
_Theocratia, or a Treatise of the Kingdom of God_, to show that no
claim of coercive jurisdiction, either inferior or co-ordinate to the
King, is warranted by any ecclesiastical rulers, or by any office or
power in the kingdom of Christ in its militant state.... The Bishop of
Winchester, he goes on to say, has put him in hopes of a brotherhood
at the Savoy. Also has had hope from the Lord Keeper of a place at
Rochester in Bishop Warner's Hospital.--_State Papers_, 1668, May 8.
Tombes was a Baptist and therefore could not hold a living, but in
other respects he seems to have been a Conformist.

[441] _Kennet_, 905, 906, 908.

[442] _Life by Rogers_, 130, 140.

[443] _Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial_, i. 352.

[444] _Life and Times_, iii. 142.

[445] _Palmer_, ii. 503.

[446] _Wilkins' Concilia_, iv. 580.

[447] See _Commons' Journals_, April 27, 28; May 12, 14, 16.

[448] 16 _Car. II._, cap. iv.

[449] _Hist._, 1115.

[450] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1664, June 20.

[451] _Ibid._, June 24.

[452] _State Papers_, 1664, Sept. 30, Nov. 18, Sept. 5, June 2.

[453] _Broadmead Records_ (_Hanserd Knollys Society_), 76.

[454] _State Papers_, 1665, July 3 and 15.

[455] _Clarendon_, 1130.

[456] _Eccles. Hist._, ii. 89.

[457] _Cardwell's Synodalia_, ii. 680, _et seq._

[458] _Collier_, ii. 893.

[459] _Parry's Parliaments and Councils_, 551.

[460] Dated July 7, 1665; _Wilkins' Concilia_, iv. 582. Note in
_Cardwell's Documentary Annals_, ii. 321.

[461] In _Notes and Queries_ may be found a curious and interesting
collection of predictions of the Plague and Fire of London. See _Choice
Notes--History_, 236. "In delving among what may be termed the popular
religious literature of the latter end of the Commonwealth, and early
part of the reign of Charles, we become aware of the existence of
a kind of nightmare, which the public of that age were evidently
labouring under--a strong and vivid impression that some terrible
calamity was impending over the metropolis."

[462] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._ London, August 14, 1665. See
also November 11.

[463] _Thucydides_, ii. 54.

[464] _Dom. Charles II._, 1665, July 6. It is interesting to observe
that, as in late visitations of cholera, sanitary regulations were
adopted. Amongst other things it may be noticed that the Bishop of
London would not consecrate any ground unless a perpetuity of the same
might be first obtained--graves were dug deep, and churchyards were
covered with lime.--_Calendar_, 1665-6, Pref. xiii.

[465] _Dom. Charles II._, 1665, August 15.

[466] _Ibid._, July 22.

[467] _Dom. Charles II._, August 19.

[468] "It is said, my Lord of London hath sent to those pastors that
have quitted their flocks, by reason of these times, that if they
return not speedily, others will be put into their places."--_Ellis'
Letters_, vol. iv.

[469] _Neal_, iv. 403. The returns dated 1665 from Exeter, St. David's,
and Bristol, are among the Tenison MSS. (Lambeth); also the Bishop of
Exeter's (Seth Ward's) certificate of the hospitals, and almshouses,
pluralists, lecturers, schoolmasters, physicians, and Nonconformists in
his diocese.

[470] _Wilkins' Concilia_, iv. 583.

[471] _Autobiography of Patrick, Bishop of Ely_, 52.

[472] His book, entitled _God's Terrible Voice in the City_, presents
some most graphic accounts of the effects of the pestilence.

[473] Feb. 4, 1666. Many affecting particulars relative to the Plague
may be found in the notes of this prince of diarists.

[474] _Blomefield's Hist. of Norwich_, i. 410.

[475] _Life of Owen Stockton_, 1681, p. 39.

[476] The story of Mompesson is fully told in _Histories of
Derbyshire_. Most of what is known has been collected in a little work
on the _History of Eyam_, by Mr. Wood, a resident in the village.

[477] For an account of Stanley and of Shaw, see _Calamy_.

[478] _Burnet's Hist._, i. 224.

[479] _Collier_, ii. 893.

[480] Clarendon, in his speech, at the opening of the Parliament in
Oxford, spoke of the horrid murderers of his late Royal master being
received into the secret counsels of Holland; and of other infamous
persons, admitted to a share in the conduct of their affairs. Some
persons, he said, had wantonly put themselves on board the enemy's
fleet, "purely out of appetite and delight to rebel against their
King."--_Parl. Hist._ iv. 326.

Burnet says that Algernon Sidney and others proposed to the United
Provinces that they should invade England.--_Hist._ i. 226.

Sir G. Downing, writing to Clarendon (_Lister's Life_, iii. 144),
remarks: "It is not to be believed what numbers of dissatisfied persons
come daily out of England into this country. They have settled at
Rotterdam, an Independent, an Anabaptist, and Quaker Church, and do
hire the best house, and have great bills of exchange come over from
England."

[481] July 7, 1665. _Wilkins_, iv. 582. See page 331 of this vol.

[482] 17 _Car._ ii. cap. 2.

[483] An anonymous correspondent writes on November 24, 1665 (_State
Papers_), to Lord Arlington, that "all are amazed at the late Act
against Nonconformity, judging it against the law of nature, and
therefore void, but that the Presbyterians will defeat its design, for
some of the chief incline to take the oath."

[484] _Eccles. Hist._, i. 500.

[485] He was present on each occasion of the Bill being read, Oct. 26,
27, and 30. See _Lords' Journals_.

[486] _Eccles. Hist._, ii. 112.

[487] _Burnet_, i. 224.

[488] _Baxter's Life and Times_, iii. 3.

[489] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 328.

[490] _Ralph's Hist. of England._ "The providence by which it was
thrown out was very remarkable, for Mr. Peregrine Bertie, being newly
chosen, was that morning introduced into the house by his brother, the
now Earl of Lindsey, and Sir Thomas Osborne, now Lord Treasurer, who
all three gave their votes against the Bill, and the numbers were so
even upon that division that their three voices carried the question
against it."--_Locke's Letter from a Person of Quality._

[491] He was not made Lord Keeper until 1667.

[492] _Neal_, iv. 401, says it was moved that the word _unlawfully_
might be inserted in the oath, before the word endeavour, but all was
rejected. He refers for authority to _Baxter_, iii. 15, (it should be
13) but I find nothing there to that effect. If it was as Neal states,
it is difficult to understand how Bates could have argued as he did.

[493] This account is given by Bates himself.--_Baxter's Life_, iii. 14.

[494] For those who took the oath see _Baxter_, iii. 13. See also
_Calamy's Abridgment_, note 312.

[495] _Baxter's Life and Times_, iii. 13. His inquiries respecting the
oath went far beyond the meaning of the word _endeavour_.

[496] _Hunter's Life of Heywood_, 173.

[497] _Life of Philip Henry_, 108.

[498] For his character by Burnet see _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 100.

[499] The following story is given in a letter written just after
the Duke's duel with the Earl of Shrewsbury. If the story be true,
it is one of evanescent religious impression, or of unparalleled
hypocrisy:--"The Duke of Buckingham is become a most eminent convert
from all the vanities he hath been reported to have been addicted to;
hath had a solemn day of prayer for the completing and confirming
the great work upon him. Dr. Owen, and others of the like persuasion
(Independents), were the carriers on of the work. He is said to keep
correspondence with the chief of those parties. He grows more and more
in favour and power."--_Hunter's Life of Heywood_, 198.

[500] February 28, _Cal. Dom._, 1665-66, pref. xxx.

[501] In the Record Office--besides many other papers under the year
1665 respecting plots in Yorkshire--there is a long one extending
to eighteen pages, full of minute particulars on the subject, dated
December 24th, entitled _Information given to Mr. Sheriff_.

[502] _James' Life of Louis XIV._, ii. 143.

[503] _State Papers, Cal._ 1665-66, _pref._ xix.-xxv. Historians have
given inaccurate or incomplete accounts of these naval battles. Ample
materials for a full description are afforded in these documents.

[504] _Essay on Dramatic Poesie._

[505] _State Papers, Dom. Cal._, 1666-67, _pref._ xxvii.

[506] The booksellers near St. Paul's conveyed their property to the
crypt for safety, but it was destroyed. The loss in books was estimated
at £150,000.--_Harl. Misc._ vii. 330.

[507] _Autobiography of William Taswell, D.D. Camden Miscellany_,
vol. ii. A bridge at Westminster, extending across the river, was not
erected until the year 1738--opened 1750. By Westminster Bridge is here
meant either a landing pier or a bridge over a creek.

[508] Compiled from _Strype's Stow_, _Pepys_, _Evelyn_, _Baxter_,
_Harl. Misc._, vii., _State Papers_, 1666-7 (see _Calendar_), and
_Notes and Queries_.

[509] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II., Cal._ 1666-67, _pref._ xii., xix.

[510] _Commons' Journal_, October 26, 1666.

[511] _State Papers, Cal._ 1666-67, _pref._ xiii.

[512] _Life_, ii. 396; iii. 165.

[513] _Hist. of his Own Times_, i. 270.

[514] _Life and Times_, iii. 162.

[515] _Ibid._, iii. 19.

[516] _Burnet_, i. 270.

[517] _State Papers, Cal._ 1666-7, _Pref._ xix.-xxiii., and references.

[518] _Dom. Charles II._ 1666, Dec. 3. Richard Browne to Williamson.
Same date, John Allen to Williamson.

[519] Dr. Basire to Williamson, 1666, Dec. 17.

[520] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1666, Dec. 14. A further
allusion is made to these strange people in a letter by Sanderson
to Williamson, Feb. 5, 1667, in which, also, reference is made to
Mr. Cocks, steward to Lady Vane, at Raby Castle, as a very dangerous
person. There is likewise a previous letter on the same subject (1666,
Nov. 6.) In another paper, attached to that of Feb. 5, allusions occur
to persons of quality as engaged in plots. "They will try to get up
Richard Cromwell as the only one who has a right to rule."

[521] _State Papers._ Letter by John Rushworth, 1667, June 15.

[522] "Chester, a stronghold of Nonconformity, was much perplexed.
Some said we were asleep, or should have fortified ourselves, knowing
the enemy near. All concluded there was treachery in the business, and
hoped the contrivers would receive the reward due to those who betray
King and country." Sir Geoffry Shakerley to Williamson, Chester, June
19, 1667.--_State Papers._

"At Yarmouth the Presbyterian party raised the cry of treachery because
there had been an attempt to leave the place in charge of Major
Markham, who was disliked as being a Papist; and because the trained
bands had been sent for to Newmarket, and none others sent in their
room, and, therefore the town left defenceless."--June 21, 1667.

[523] _State Papers._ Same date.

[524] The peace with Holland, which was proclaimed August 24th, 1667,
was very popular. At Weymouth "it, as it were, raised the dead to life,
and made them rich in thought, though their purses are empty. At Lynn
the bells have hardly lain still since the news of peace."--_State
Papers, Cal._, 1667-8, _pref._ lv.

[525] Of the disgrace of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the notes in
the _State Papers_, as Mrs. Green says, are "provokingly few and
unimportant."

[526] _Hallam's Constit. Hist._, ii. 69.

[527] _Baxter_, iii. 26. Holles the Presbyterian protested against
the banishment of Clarendon--_Hallam_, ii. 69. The fall of Clarendon
comes but incidentally within the range of this history. For a legal
and constitutional view of his impeachment, I must refer the reader
to Mr. Hallam, and Lord Campbell. In the _Life of James II._ edited
by _Clarke_, vol. i. 431, it is stated that the Presbyterian party
made overtures to Clarendon, to stand by him, if he would stand by
himself, and join with the Duke in opposing his enemies; hoping thereby
to separate the Duke from his brother, and to "bring low the regal
authority." This is a very improbable story.

[528] _Clarendon's State Papers_, iii. _Sup._ xxxviii. _Lister's Life
of Clarendon_, ii. 483.

[529] _Historical Inquiries respecting the character of Edward Hyde,
Earl of Clarendon, by the Hon. George Agar Ellis_, has just come in my
way. He paints the Chancellor in very dark colours indeed: but adds
nothing to the facts of his history as given by popular historians. I
cannot adopt all Mr. Ellis' condemnatory conclusions.

[530] One great blot on Cecil's character was the perjury involved in
his signing the Device of Edward VI. To say he signed as a witness is a
subterfuge.

The following passage on Nonconformity from Clarendon's pen is equally
deficient in charity and wisdom:--"Their faction is their religion:
nor are those combinations ever entered into upon real and substantial
motives of conscience, how erroneous soever, but consist of many
glutinous materials, of will, and humour, and folly, and knavery,
and ambition, and malice, which make men inseparably cling together,
till they have satisfaction in all their pretences, _or till they are
absolutely broken and subdued, which may always be more easily done
than the other_."--_Life of Clarendon by Lister_, ii. 121.

[531] _State Papers, Dom._, under dates.

[532] _Discourse on the Religion of England_, 1667.

[533] _Wood's Athen. Ox._, iii. 1264.

[534] "It is said that an Act is preparing by some of the House for
the dispensing with the Act of Uniformity, which is clearly against
the Bishops' government,--another for the punishment of such as have
been the occasions of misfortunes befallen this land--as also against
those that counselled the dividing the fleet: so that all that find
themselves guilty do make interest in the Parliament House. Some
have recourse to the Presbyterian party, which they would not do if
they were not brought to the utmost extremity."--_State Papers, News
Letter_, Sept. 2/12, 1667.

[535] It is printed in _Thorndike's Works_, v. 302.

[536] _Pepys_, Jan. 20 and 31, 1668.

[537] _Ibid._, 5th Feb.

[538] The part taken by Hale is described in his _Life, by Burnet_.

[539] Made Bishop in 1675. Barlow's conduct as Bishop did not accord
with the liberality which he showed at this period. See in the next
volume a notice of his conduct in 1684.

[540] It is stated by _Burnet_, _Hist._ i. 259, that Tillotson and
Stillingfleet took part in the scheme, but Baxter does not say so,
though he alludes to them as friendly to the scheme of 1675. Perhaps
Burnet confounded the two attempts.

[541] He did not publish what he wrote, but it is inserted in the
Oxford Edition of his works, v. 309-344.

[542] _Pepys' Diary_, Feb. 10, 1668.

[543] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 404.

[544] Birch, as we have seen, informed Pepys that the King was for
toleration, but the Bishops were against it. The great difficulty was
about tolerating Papists.

[545] _Pepys' Diary_, Feb. 28, 1668.

[546] _Life of Philip Henry_, 112.

[547] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 413.

[548] _Ibid._, 414-422. These speakers were Colonel Sandys, Sir John
Earnly, Sir W. Hickman, Mr. Ratcliffe, Sir Walter Yonge, Sir J.
Littleton, Sir John Birkenhead, and Mr. Seymour.

[549] _Constitutional History_, ii. 70.

[550] _Baxter's Life and Times_, iii. 37.

[551] _Concilia_, iv. 588. The returns are found among the Tenison
MSS., Lambeth, No. 639. They include accounts of Conventicles in the
dioceses of Canterbury, Chichester, Ely, Exeter, Llandaff, Lichfield
and Coventry, Lincoln, London, Norwich, Winchester, Worcester, York,
Chester, Carlisle, and St. Asaph. There were returns from some dioceses
in 1665.

[552] Sheldon complained that he could not obtain the returns that he
wanted. Lambeth MSS., August 16, 1669.

[553] _Own Times_, i. 258. "He told me he had a chaplain, that was a
very honest man, but a very great blockhead, to whom he had given a
living in Suffolk, that was full of that sort of people. He had gone
about among them from house to house, though he could not imagine what
he could say to them, for he said he was a very silly fellow; but that
he believed his nonsense suited their nonsense, for he had brought
them all to church; and in reward of his diligence, he had given him a
bishopric in Ireland." Burnet gives the other report on the authority
of a letter written by Sir Robert Murray. I may observe here, that
party writers on both sides treat Burnet according to their prejudices;
the one party believing implicitly everything he says to the
disadvantage of the Church; the other party rejecting his evidence on
this subject as utterly worthless. It appears to me that,--remembering
Burnet's gossiping habits, and that he was a strong party man, and
also noticing that he often tells his stories in a loose way, and,
like Clarendon, writes down his recollections long after the time when
the incidents he records had occurred--we ought to read him with great
care, and not place implicit reliance upon his unsupported testimony.
Yet, on the whole, Burnet appears to me to have been an honest man. His
character will come under review in a future volume of this history,
should I be permitted to complete it.

[554] _Life and Times_, iii. 46.

[555] _Lords' Journals_, March 26. Referring to a Royal journey at this
period, Dalrymple says:--"It was intended that the King and the Duke
should have gone to Dover together; but by an accident, Charles went
alone. For all the Conventicles were to be shut up in London upon the
ensuing Sunday, and the Duke was left behind to guard the City against
riots, which were dreaded upon that occasion."--_Dalrymple's Memoirs_,
vol. i. 31.

[556] 22 _Car. II._ cap. i. It appears from a letter written by Colbert
to Louis XIV. that Charles had a political end in view in connection
with the Act. "The King designs to make the last Act of Parliament
against the meetings of the sectaries be observed; and he hopes that
their disobedience will give him the easier means of increasing the
force of his troops and coming speedily to the end he proposes." 6th
June, 1670.--_Dalrymple's Memoirs_, vol. iii., App. 60.

[557] See _Wilkins Concilia_, iv. 589.

[558] See _Popes Life of Ward_, 67, 69.

[559] _Calamy_, ii. 333.

[560] The trial is given in _State Trials_; and in _Sewel's History of
Quakers_, ii. 195 _et seq._ There is a draft letter in the State Paper
Office. Entry Book, June 29th, 1670, addressed to Reynolds, Bishop
of Norwich, and another in the Lambeth Library, dated July 6th (No.
DCLXXIV. No. 24), which when brought together and compared show how the
Act of Uniformity was evaded, and how combined efforts were made after
the second Conventicle Act had passed to bring the Church of England
into correspondence with the laws. The letters relate to a case of
irregularity at Bury St. Edmunds, when fanatics were said to make use
of the Church.

[561] _State Papers._ Letter from James Douch, June 10, 1671.

[562] North calls it "a double-visaged Ministry, half Papist and half
Fanatic." _Lives_, i. 178.

[563] Lauderdale had once made a great profession of religion. On the
14th of December, 1658, he wrote to Baxter saying, "I wish I knew any
were fit to translate your books. I am sure they would take hugely
abroad, and I think it were not amiss to begin with the _Call to the
Unconverted_."--_Baxter MS._, Dr. Williams' Library.

[564] Clarendon says of Arlington that he knew no more of English
affairs than of those of China, and believed France the best pattern
in the world.--_Life_, 1095. I cannot enter into the political history
of the Cabal. I would only repeat what Earl Russell says: there were
two methods adopted of dealing with France--a sham treaty, and a
secret negotiation. The part taken by the Cabal in this was not equal.
Clifford and Arlington, the two Catholics, conducted the latter;
Buckingham managed the former, to which Lauderdale gave a ready, Ashley
a reluctant, consent. Clifford and Arlington were alone in the King's
confidence.--_Life of Lord William Russell_, 50.

To Clifford, not to Shaftesbury, as is commonly supposed, belongs
the disgrace of shutting the Exchequer. Evelyn settles the
question.--_Diary_, March 12, 1672.

[565] _Lords' Journal_, Feb. 11, 1674.

[566] The measure was, in Council, moved and seconded by Clifford and
Ashley.--_Lingard_, xii. 10.

[567] The catechism, says Cardwell (_Documentary Annals_, ii. 337) was
probably Dean Nowel's small catechism, which was printed originally
in 1570, and was generally used in schools down to the time of
Strype.--See his _Life of Parker_, ii. 18.

[568] _Burnet_, i. 307.

[569] It is dated March 15, and is printed in _Bunyan's Works_, iii.,
_Introduction_, 21.

[570] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 515.

[571] "An answer unto certain objections formed against the proceedings
of His Majesty to suspend the laws against Conventicles by His
declaration, March 15, 1672."--_State Papers, Dom. 1673, bundle 190,
fol. 164._

[572] These were the Bishop of Durham's queries.--_Cosin's Works_, iv.
384.

[573] _Baxter's Life and Times_, iii. 99. _Life of Philip Henry_, 128.

[574] A short treatise on the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and
the power of the King in ecclesiastical affairs, by Philip Nye, was
published in 1683. Nye died in 1672, and when this treatise was written
does not appear on the title page. He ascribes to the magistrate,
power "to send out preachers, to urge and constrain men to hear....
A coercive power of this nature is placed in no other hand but his."
It is strange indeed to find an Independent writing thus. After
exalting the civil power, and enforcing the duty of submitting to Royal
Supremacy, the author, in a postscript, speaks of His Majesty's most
gracious Declaration; and seemingly, without any idea that it could be
inconsistent to accept the indulgence, maintains that there is nothing
in the opinions of Independents that "should render us, in any sort,
incapable of receiving the fruit and benefit of the King's majesty's
favour and indulgence, promised to tender consciences." Probably
Nye wrote this piece just about the time when the indulgence was
issued--seven months before his death. Nye's tract (with many others,
which I have found very instructive) is preserved in Dr. Williams'
Library.

[575] _Burnet_, i. 308.

[576] _Orme's Life of Owen_, 272.

[577] _Wilson's Hist. of Dissenting Churches_, iii. 187.

[578] Bunyan's license is given in Offor's preface to _Bunyan's Works_.
Numbers of entries from the Register, and copies of applications and
licenses have been printed in local histories of Dissent. The original
documents are preserved in the Record Office.

[579] _State Papers_, 1672.

[580] _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 308.

[581] _Life of Calamy_, ii. 469, 470. I do not observe that Mr. Orme,
in his _Life of Owen_, notices this statement.

In the volume published by the Camden Society entitled _Moneys received
and paid for secret services of Charles II. and James II._, it appears
that a physician who was in the confidence of the Presbyterian party,
and who often represented them, was in the pay of the Court. For this
reference, and other valuable suggestions on the subject, I am indebted
to the Rev. R. B. Aspland.

[582] It is stated that the usual fees to certain officers in
connection with this business were in some cases remitted.

[583] The particulars respecting Carver and Moore are taken from
letters by Ellis Hookes written to the wife of George Fox, dated
January, 1670, and preserved in the Records of the Quakers' Meeting
House, Devonshire Square. The letters, or the substance of them,
with entries in the Council Books, are given by Mr. Offor, in his
introduction to the _Pilgrim's Progress_.

I have rested on the authority of so accurate a copyist without
inspecting the originals. The statement, often repeated, that Bunyan
owed his liberty to Bishop Barlow is quite a mistake.

[584] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 503, 506. The following letter in the State
Paper Office, _Dom. Charles II._, is curious:--

"Yesterday morning we had a very fair choice for a burgess, and Sir
Edward Spragg hath carried the day by 40 votes; but if my father and
the rest of the Jurates and Common Councilmen had not thought to have
made about 50 freemen the day before the election, the fanatic party
had been too much for us; but we hope we have done them down to all
intents and purposes; but still they threaten to have the Jurates up to
London, for making those freemen the day before the election.

"LAWSON CARLILE.

DOVER, _February 2, 1673_."

[585] The Country party consisted chiefly of Lords Russell and
Cavendish, Sir W. Coventry, Colonel Birch, Mr. Powle, and Mr.
Littleton. Lee and Garroway were suspected characters. Marvel says:

"Till Lee and Garroway shall bribes reject."

[586] _Wilson's Life of Defoe_, i. 58.

[587] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 517-526.

[588] _Journals_, February 10, 1672/3.

[589] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 527-533. Colbert, writing to Louis XIV., 9th
of March, 1673, says, "The Chancellor, the Treasurer, and the Dukes of
Buckingham and Lauderdale are of opinion to maintain this Declaration
of the King, their master, in favour of the Nonconformists; and that
if the Parliament persist in their remonstrances, as it is not doubted
they will, to dissolve it, and call another. They do not even want good
reasons to support their opinion. My Lord Arlington, who at present is
single in his sentiments, says, that the King his master, ought not to
do it."--_Dalrymple's Memoirs_, iii. 89.

[590] On the 18th of February the House resolved to go into Committee
on the following day.

[591] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 535-542. Kennet, Rapin, Burnet, and Neal
give very unsatisfactory accounts of the debate. Burnet's account is
inaccurate.

[592] The Commonwealth's-man, Colonel Birch, spoke on the subject, but
it does not appear that he advocated any broad measure of religious
liberty.

[593] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 552-553. The _Journals_ under date contain the
Resolutions.

[594] There are remarks on this Bill written by Mr. John Humphrey in
_Baxter's Life_, iii. 144.

[595] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 571-574.

[596] Parliament was adjourned on the 29th of March, to the 20th of
October; then prorogued to the 27th, and again on the 4th of November
to the 7th of January, 1674.

[597] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 553-6.

[598] _Lingard_ (xii. 27) states the fact on the authority of the
French Ambassador (_Dalrymple_, ii. App. 90), and the motives on the
authority of _Marvell_, i. 494.

[599] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 561, March 12.

[600] _Lord Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors_, iv. 181.

[601] _Burnet_, i. 348.

[602] _Life of Calamy_, i. 102.

[603] _Journals_, Feb. 24, March 8. After the Declaration had been
withdrawn the old licenses gave much trouble. "The present favour which
I beg of you is, your sense about Conventicles and meetings, for I am
in the Commission of Peace for the University and Town of Cambridge,
and am threatened by some busy informers with the penalty of £100,
which you know the Act enjoins, if I grant not warrants upon complaint
against them. Now I beseech you to write by the first post, or let
Mr. Ball, or some of your people write to me what you know to be His
Majesty's sense in this particular, whether we should grant warrants
to suppress them, they having license to preach and meet."--_State
Papers_, April 5, 1673. Mr. Carr to Sir J. Williamson.

The mayor of Weymouth wrote to Sir J. Williamson (Nov. 21, 1674),
informing him that certain persons accused of keeping a Conventicle had
pleaded His Majesty's "License and Warrant." He asks for direction how
"to manage this affair."

[604] Dalrymple (_Memoirs_, iii. 92) remarks: "Charles' Declaration
of Indulgence has been commonly imputed to the intrigues of France
with Charles for the purpose of serving the interest of Popery.
But Colbert's despatches show that France had not the least hand
in it, that it was a scheme of Buckingham and Shaftesbury to gain
the Dissenters, and that France was the cause of Charles' recalling
it." The letters printed in _Dalrymple_ indicate that Buckingham
and Shaftesbury had strongly supported the Declaration, and show
further that Charles wished Louis XIV. to believe that to please him
he withdrew it. "He assured me," says Colbert, "that your Majesty's
sentiments had always more power over him than all the reasonings of
his most faithful Ministers." March 20, 1673.

[605] "All Sectaries," says Reresby (_Memoirs_, 174), "now publicly
repaired to their meetings and Conventicles, nor could all the laws
afterwards, and the most rigorous execution of them, ever suppress
these Separatists, or bring them to due conformity."

[606] Where Owen's Church met has been regarded as uncertain, but
the returns made in 1667 to Sheldon's inquiries specify the place of
meeting at that time as White's Alley.

[607] Afterwards Lord Haversham.

[608] See Anecdotes of Mrs. Bendish in _Noble's Memoirs of the
Protectoral House of Cromwell_, ii. 329.

[609] _Life_, by Sir H. Ashurst, 27.

[610] _Ibid._, 100.

[611] He wished to be made a Justice of the Peace; but his appointment
was opposed by Sir John Petties, a moderate Churchman, who remarks in
a letter dated January 4, 1674-5--there are a "sort of men in this
kingdom so hot and fiery, so active and inexperienced, who labour much
in those things which tend to the disquiet of the kingdom (of whom
we have a great share in our county), and are almost as dangerous as
the other two sorts of Dissenters (Romanists and Nonconformists), for
by their indiscreet and hot endeavours, instead of suppressing those
Dissenters, I dare say that they (though unwittingly and unwillingly)
give them the greatest animation and increase."

[612] There are numerous letters belonging to this period in the
State Paper Office, written by Bowen. Letters dated 1675, Jan. 15;
Feb. 17, 19, 24, furnish what I have said, and a great deal more. It
appears from the following extract, as well as from a former one,
that Nonconformists did not always meekly submit to their oppressors.
In reading the letter, however, it must be remembered that an enemy
writes it. "John Faucet had disturbed the Presbyterians at worship in
the Granary--and, in consequence, was violently assaulted, beaten, and
trodden upon by several rude persons, and in great danger of his life."

(Norwich, Dec. 11, 1674, Thomas Corie.)

A similar complaint is made by Bowen of the treatment of a constable
who disturbed a meeting at Yarmouth.

[613] Sheldon sent letters to the Bishops of his province making fresh
inquiries about Dissenters.--_Neal_, iv. 467.

[614] _Neal_, iv. 464.

[615] Baxter spent an immense amount of subtle casuistry upon the
subject of the declaration, and actually put such a forced meaning upon
it, that he said there was nothing in it to be refused!--_Life and
Times_, iii. 168.

[616] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 714. See Locke's Letter, _Ibid._, Appendix,
xlvii.; _Calamy's Life_, i. 79.

[617] _Life and Times_, iii. 109.

[618] _Life and Times_, 156.

[619] _Ibid._, 110, 131.

[620] _Ibid._, 156. For notices of Morley's character, see p. 477 of
this volume.

[621] The well-known letter of Tillotson to Baxter is an interesting
record of the result of their well-meant endeavours:--"I took the first
opportunity," he says, "after you were with us, to speak to the Bishop
of Salisbury, who promised to keep the matter private, and only to
acquaint the Bishop of Chester with it in order to a meeting; but, upon
some general discourse, I plainly perceived several things could not
be obtained. However, he promised to appoint a time of meeting, but I
have not heard from him since. I am unwilling my name should be used in
this matter; not but that I do most heartily desire an accommodation,
and shall always endeavour it, but I am sure it will be a prejudice
to me, and signify nothing to the effecting of the thing, which as
circumstances are, cannot pass in either House without the concurrence
of a considerable part of the Bishops, and the countenance of His
Majesty, which at present I see little reason to expect." Dated April
11, 1675. _Baxter's Life and Times_, iii. 157.

[622] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 741.

[623] _State Papers_, November 8.

[624] _State Papers_, 1676. Bowen to Williamson. February 21.

[625] _State Papers_, 1676, July 7, 10. The following is a specimen
of the kind of stories which this man sent up to London:--"Last night
the three informers that have put by our meetings here were amongst
several of the passengers in a passage-boat going for Norwich, where
they were no sooner placed but some of our Independents called out to
the passengers and told them they had informing rogues amongst them,
and surely they would not take such rascals with them; upon which the
passengers began to leave the boat. So the boatmen, to keep their
passengers, turned the informers out upon the key [quay]--where, when
they were landed, they began to throw stones at them, but making their
escape, they came to my house, upon which I went down to the key
[quay], and there learned who some of them were, and gave the informers
their names, who are since bound over to the sessions." _State Papers_,
1676, July 12.

[626] _State Papers_, October 9.

[627] _Harl. Misc._, viii. 7. _Lives of the Norths_, i. 316, _et seq._,
see Notes. _Knight's Popular Hist._, iv. 326.

[628] _Wood_, iv. 226.

[629] Owen writes very guardedly in reply to Parker's doctrine of the
magistrates' power.--_Works_, xxi. 209, _et seq._

[630] _Life and Times_, iii. 42.

[631] _Anthony Wood._ There is plenty of satire in the two books by
Marvell; the second is more cutting than the first, but it is sometimes
coarser, and on the whole wearisome to modern readers.

[632] This tract is printed in _Somers' Collection_, iii. 329, 388. My
own judgment of it agrees with Mr. Hallam's:--"It is not written with
extraordinary ability; but it is very candid and well designed, though
conceding so much as to scandalize his brethren."--_Const. Hist._ ii.
93.

Marvell, in his _Mr. Smirke on the Divine in Mode_, speaks of the work
as having been originally printed only for members of Parliament, and
not published, but that a printer got hold of it, and "surreptitiously"
multiplied copies without the author's knowledge. Yet the published
edition, though commencing with the words, "An humble petition to
the Right Honourable the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled,"
contains an address "to the reader" at the beginning, and another to
the Nonconformists at the end.

[633] _Mr. Smirke, or the Divine in Mode._ By Andrew Marvell.

[634] _Marvell's Mr. Smirke_, which was an answer to Turner's
animadversions.--_Baxter's Life and Times_, iii. 175. Three other
books, bearing the title of _Naked Truth_, headed respectively the
second, third, and fourth parts, were published afterwards, but not by
Bishop Croft.

[635] Numerous letters in the Record Office show the prevalence in
1667 of rumours respecting the King's design to bring in Popery. For
example:--

"Fanatics in the North, being disappointed of assistance from abroad by
the peace set up, then rest on their friends' behalf, that the King is
a Papist, and intends to set up the Popish religion, and have so far
possessed not only fanatics, but several of the ignorant common people
with this opinion, that it is publicly discoursed among them, that they
will rise in arms for defence of religion, and oppose the King and the
Popish party. They persuade their disciples that their friends in the
South are ready to appear in arms for defence of religion, and oppose
the King and the Popish party."--Sir P. Musgrave to Williamson, Aug.
22, 1667. _Cal._ 409.

[636] _Life of James II._, i. 441. _Dalrymple's Memoirs_, i. 70; iii.
1-68. The treaty is printed in _Lingard_, xi. 364. Rarely has anything
in diplomacy been so unprincipled and shameful as Article II. of this
document. Charles' pretexts were religious, his object political.

[637] See letters in _Phenix_, i. 566. _Calamy's Life_, i. 119.

[638] _G. P. R. James' Life of Louis XIV._, ii. 171.

[639] _Evelyn_, ii. 88.

[640] _Harris' Charles II._, ii. 81.

[641] _Lingard_, xi. 356. April 10, 1671. Wednesday. "This evening her
royal highness' body was privately conveyed from St. James' Palace,
where she died, to Westminster, where, till things could be put in
order, [she] was deposited in state in the painted chamber; and about
nine in the evening she was most solemnly attended to the Abbey by her
own, the King's, the Queen's, and the Duke's servants. A vast train of
the nobility, gentry, and many members of Parliament, in their blacks,
guarded by two companies of foot, and finally interred in the royal
vault of Henry VII.'s chapel. The ceremony [was] performed by the
Bishop of Rochester, the Dean of Westminster Cathedral, to the extreme
grief and disconsolation of all present. The Court, on this occasion,
are entered into solemn mourning, in which 'tis thought they may
continue for some months."--_State Papers._

[642] _Wood_, _Ath. Ox._, ii. 614. The article on Woodhead is copious
and interesting.

[643] _Chalmer's Biographical Dictionary._

[644] _Butler's English Catholics_, iv. 425.

[645] This account of the working of Roman Catholicism in England
is taken from the _MSS. Travels of Cosmo, the third Grand Duke of
Tuscany_, (1669), printed in Appendix to _Butler's English Cath._, iii.
513.

[646] Five editions of _Pascal_ were published between 1658 and 1688.
The _Protestant Almanack_ for 1668 is a disgraceful publication.

[647] _State Papers, Dom._ 1667, Sept. 6. (_Cal._)

[648] _State Papers, Dom._, 1667. October 28 (_Cal._).

[649] The following letter is addressed to Sir Joseph Williamson,
Whitehall.--"Worthy Sir,--This day came the proclamation against
Papists to Nottingham, being the last assize day. It was received with
so much joy that bells and bonfires rung and flamed at that rate as
they never did since His Majesty's restoration. The fanatics contended
with the conformists who should show most zeal in expressing their joy
for His Majesty's great grace. You may believe without swearing that
neither this news, nor what the King did in the house last Saturday,
was unwelcome to, Sir,

    "Your most humble Servant,

    "P. WHALLEY.

    "_Martij 15, 1672._

"If one of your clerks would take notice on't in the next _Gazette_, it
would gratify the whole corporation."--_State Papers, Dom. Chas. II._

[650] _State Papers, Dom. Chas. II._ Letter from W. Aston, 1676, April
3.

[651] _State Papers_, June 6, Nov. 10-13.

[652] _State Papers_, 1674, Jan. 20. Connected with this communication
are papers containing drafts of advice for suppressing Popery. The
Bishops of Canterbury, Durham, Winchester, Salisbury, Peterborough,
Rochester, Chichester, and Chester, reply "that they observe with
sorrow the growth of profaneness, Romanism, and Dissent;" "that they
do not think any new laws are necessary for the purpose, but only the
removal of such obstructions as have hitherto hindered the execution of
them." What those obstructions were, the authors of this conclusion do
not specify. There is another paper in the same bundle, recommending
the Attorney-General to bestir himself in the matter, and that letters
should be written to the Justices of the Peace; that there be a new
general proclamation; that constables and churchwardens should be
enjoined to search for suspected persons; and that the orders against
priests, Popish seminaries, and resort of Papists to Court, should be
fixed at the Court Gate, St. James's, and Somerset House.

[653] This is Reresby's own account. Ralph follows him, but in the
imperfect reports of the debates in the _Parl. Hist._ (iv. 780), the
statement in the House is said to have been made by Mr. Russel.

[654] _Lingard_, xii. 72.

[655] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1676, Oct. 27.

[656] _Glanvill's Zealous and Impartial Protestant_, p. 46. This and
other instances of exaggeration are given in _The Happy Future State
of England_, p. 140. It should be stated that the author of this last
work endeavours to make out the Roman Catholics to have been as few
as possible. The population of England, and the relative proportion
of different classes of religionists, will be noticed in a subsequent
chapter.

[657] "The debate or arguments for dissolving this present Parliament,"
1675. Written by the Earl of Shaftesbury. _Parl. Hist._, IV. lxxviii.

[658] _Campbell's Lives_, iv. 185.

[659] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 801.

[660] _Life of James II._, i. 505. _Parl. Hist._, iv. 814, 824.

[661] _State Papers_, April, 1677.

[662] _Lingard_, xii. 96, 97. The Resolutions on which these Bills were
founded are contained in the _Lords' Journals_, 1677, February 21 & 22.

[663] March 20, _Parl. Hist._, iv. 853-7. The same History (iv. 858)
takes notice on the 29th of March of Marvell's boxing Sir Philip
Harcourt's ear for stumbling on his foot.

[664] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 862. _Journals_, 1677, April 4.

[665] _Ibid._, 863. _Lords' Journals_, April 13; May 26.

[666] _Lords' Journals_, April 12, 13, 14.

[667] The Act now noticed should be considered in connection with what
is said in a preceding part of this History, p. 96.

[668] _Commons' Journals_, April 29.

[669] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 980.

[670] June 12. _Parl. Hist._, iv. 990.

[671] _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 177.

[672] _Hook's Archbishops._ Second series, i. 173.

[673] Hammond, in 1654, speaks of Sheldon's being "very good company."
_Letter in Harl. MSS._, 21, printed in _Ecclesiastic_, April, 1853.

[674] See Pepys' account of a dinner party at Lambeth, _Diary_, May
14th, 1669. He tells disgraceful stories about Sheldon which were
current at the time; and, it should be remembered, that although
Sheldon at length rebuked Charles for his intimacy with Lady
Castlemaine, it does not appear that he had before broken silence as to
the shameful libertinism of the Court.

[675] Wood says (_Ath. Ox._, iv. 855) that Sheldon was not installed
at Canterbury, and never visited it during the time that he was
Archbishop; nor did he visit Oxford all the time he was Chancellor.

[676] The expression is Milman's, in reference to another character.

[677] In these sketches, I include all the notable members of the
Episcopal body down to the Revolution--but, though I anticipate the
period embraced in our subsequent narrative, the seven Bishops are
omitted, as they will require particular notice hereafter.

[678] _Aubrey's Letters_, iii. 574.

[679] _Pope's Life of Ward_, 57. This book abounds in amusing anecdotes.

[680] There is in the Lambeth Library, in addition to the returns
made to Sheldon, an account of the number and proportions of Popish
recusants, obstinate Separatists, and Conformists, inhabitants of
Wiltshire, and Berkshire, under the immediate jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Sarum, by Seth Ward, 1676. See as to Ward, _Baxter's Life and
Times_, iii. 86.

[681] Seth Ward told Aubrey a queer story respecting a theological
opponent. "One Mr. Hagger, a gentleman, and good mathematician, was
well acquainted with Mr. Th. Hariot, and was wont to say, that he did
not like (or valued it not) the old story of the creation of the world.
He could not believe the old position, he would say, _ex nihilo nihil
fit_. But, said Mr. Hagger, a _nahitú_ killed him at last; for in the
top of his nose came a little red speck (exceeding small), which grew
bigger and bigger, and at last killed him. I suppose it was that which
the chirurgeons call a _noli me tangere_." _Letters_, iii. 368.

[682] _Burnet_, i. 590.

[683] _Morley's Treatises._ Sermon before the King, p. 38.

[684] He had unfairly preached against Baxter, and blazed abroad his
marriage with all the odium he could cast upon it. _Life and Times_,
ii. 375, 384. I have noticed Baxter's opinion of Morley, and the
conduct of the latter, on p. 439 of this volume.

[685] _Life and Times_, iii. 84. The spirit of Morley is manifested in
the following passage, speaking of Kidderminster--"The truth is, that
Mr. Baxter was never either parson, vicar, or curate there, or anywhere
else in my diocese--for he never came in by the door--that is, by any
legal right, or lawful admission into that sheep-fold, but climbed up
some other way, namely, by violence and intrusion, and therefore, by
Christ's own inference, he was a thief and a robber."--_The Bishop of
Winchester's Vindication_, p. 2. At the time of writing the letter,
Morley was Bishop of Worcester, which diocese included Kidderminster.

Salmon, in his _Lives of the English Bishops_, p. 346, says of Morley,
"His strength is attributed to keeping up his College custom of rising
at five in the morning, sitting without a fire, and going to his bed
cold. He did indeed exceed in severity to himself, eating but once a
day, and not going to bed till eleven."

[686] Fuller, in his _Worthies_, i. 483, retracts some things which
he had advanced against Cosin in his _Church History_, and observes,
"It must be confessed, that a sort of fond people surmised, as if he
had once been declining to the Popish persuasion. Thus the dim-sighted
complain of the darkness of the room, when, alas, the fault is in their
own eyes; and the lame of the unevenness of the floor, when, indeed, it
lieth in their unsound legs."

[687] _Ibid._, 484.

[688] Life of Richard Gilpin, prefixed to his _Demonologia Sacra_,
xxxv. Also, I find in the Record Office, a letter from "John Bishop of
Durham" to Williamson, sending "the complaint received from Newcastle
about the seditious meetings of the Congregation of Saints." The
letter is dated November 23rd, 1668. The complaint refers to a public
meeting on the 1st of November, in Barber Surgeon's Hall, of 500 of the
Congregation of Saints, headed and led by Gilpin, notoriously known
to be disaffected to the Government. It is stated, that he caused the
149th Psalm to be sung--and a treasonable construction is put upon
the words. Three persons are named in connection with Gilpin--Durant,
Leaver, and Pringle.--November 23.

[689] _Conformist's Plea_, 35. There is a letter in the Record Office
(Sanderson to Williamson, 1667, Sept. 19), complaining of the laxity
of the Bishop of Durham, in not convicting John Cock, a notorious
Nonconformist--agent for Lady Vane, at Raby Castle, who was brought
before him.

[690] _Basire_, 89.

[691] _Life_, by Plume.

[692] Salmon says "the expense was £20,000, of which the Chapter
contributed £1,000. The rest was his own, or procured by him of other
pious persons."--_Lives_, 296.

[693] _Life_, by Plume. See Coleridge on Hacket's Sermons--_Remains_,
iii. 175.

[694] See notice of Wilkins, in Pope's _Life of Seth Ward_.

[695] Newcome, in his _Diary_, says--"November 22, 1672. I received
the sad news of the death of the learned, worthy, pious, and peaceable
Bishop of Chester, Dr. John Wilkins; he was my worthy friend."
John Angier, the Nonconformist minister at Denton, speaks of his
removal as a great loss.--_Heywood's Life of Angier_, 86. Martindale
(_Autobiography_, 196) also refers to the Bishop's moderation, and
adds--"But the Archbishop of York, by his visitation, took all power
out of his hands for a year, soon after which this honest Bishop
Wilkins died." I may be permitted to add that the good Bishop was a
wit. In reference to his idea of the possibility of a passage to the
moon, the Duchess of Newcastle said to him, "Doctor, where am I to find
a place for waiting in the way up to that planet?" "Madam," replied he,
"of all other people in the world, I never expected that question from
you, who have built so many castles in the air, that you may be every
night at one of your own."--_Stanley's Memorials of Westminster_, 234.

[696] Preached at the Guildhall Chapel, London, 1672, p. 46.

[697] _Own Time_, i. 187.

[698] _Wood_, _Athen. Ox._ iii. 969.

[699] _Wood's Athen. Ox._, iii. 1085.

[700] Norwich, April 13, 1670. Lambeth Library, Tenison MSS. 674.

[701] _Athen. Oxon._ iv. 309-317. There is a letter from Croft amongst
the _State Papers_ (Dec. 30, 1678), relative to his Library, &c.

[702] _Hist._ 42.

[703] He lay in state in a room under the Regent House. Over the hearse
was spread the coat of the King or Herald-at-arms, of crimson satin,
richly embroidered with gold. At the head of the hearse was standing
the Bishop's mitre, which was silver-gilt, the cap, or inpart whereof,
was crimson satin or silk; the mitre was plain, saving some little
flower wrought in the middle on each side thereof, and on the top of
each a little cross of about an inch in length and breadth. On one side
of the top of the hearse lay along the Bishop's crosier of silver,
somewhat in likeness to a shepherd's crook of about an ell long, and in
thickness round above two inches and a half.--_Ald. Newton's Diary_,
quoted in _Annals of Cambridge_, by Cooper, iii. 522.

[704] _Conformist's Plea_, 85.

[705] He allowed a considerable annuity to Dr. Tuckney, whom in the
Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge, and the Mastership of St.
John's College, he succeeded after the Restoration.

[706] _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 181. Temple, in his _Memoirs_,
says, "My election in the University proceeded with the most general
concurrence that could be there, and without any difficulties I could
observe from that side (the Duke of Monmouth's) those which were raised
coming from the Bishop of Ely, who owned the opposing me, from the
chapter of religion, in my _Observations on the Netherlands_, which
gave him an opinion that mine was for such a toleration of religion as
is there described to be in Holland."--_Temple's Works_, i. 433.

[707] _Fuller's Worthies_, ii. 421.

[708] _Athenæ Oxonienses_, iii. 717.

[709] _Conformists' Plea_, 35.

[710] _Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull_, 206.

[711] _Life and Times_, ii. 363.

[712] _Athen. Oxon._, iii. 1195.

[713] _Ibid._, 940. Bliss says he was Canon of York.

[714] The letter is written by Dr. Lampleugh, January 12, 1675. _State
Papers, Dom. Charles II._

[715] _Le Neve_, part ii. 238.

[716] The letter is dated, Ely House, October 9, 1643. _Le Neve's Lives
of the Bishops_, pt. ii. 247.

[717] See anecdote of Sterne in _Baxter_, ii. 338, quoted in the
account of the Savoy Conference in this History.

[718] _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 590.

[719] This corresponds with the eulogium on his tombstone.

[720] _Grainger's Biography_, iii. 232.

[721] _Le Neve's Bishops_, pt. ii. 258.

[722] _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 590. Dolben was Dean of Westminster
at the time of Albemarle's funeral. Ward preached. "The Dean and
prebendaries wore copes. Offerings were made at the altar."--_Stanley's
Westminster_, 228.

The following notice occurs in _Thoresby's Diary_, i. 172:--"I rode
with most of the gentry in the neighbourhood, to meet Archbishop
Dolben, who was much honoured as a preaching bishop. May 1, 1684: he
gave us an excellent sermon at the parish church; see his remarkable
preliminary discourse concerning holydays, their institution, and abuse
in the Romish Church, which makes many good people (his own expression)
averse to them, even as celebrated in the Church of England, though
without superstition. In the whole he showed great temper and
moderation."

[723] In addition to the particular books which I have noticed, I may
state that my chief authorities for these notices of the Bishops are
_Wood_, _Le Neve_, and _Salmon_.

[724] I find amongst the State Papers the following, in a volume on
Ecclesiastical affairs, containing _Congé d'élires_, &c.:--

"Dean and Chapter of Lichfield

"Whereas upon the vacancy of that see by the death of Dr. Hackett the
late Bishop we did by our _Congé d'élire_ and our Great Seal of England
grant you our license to proceed to an election of a fit person to
succeed in the same, and at the same time did by our letter written
recommend to you our trusty &c. Dr. Wood Dean of that our cathedral
church to be by you chosen Bishop of the said see according to the
laws of this our realm. We have now thought fit hereby to signify our
pleasure to you that we do hereby will and require you to forbear to
proceed to the election of the said Dr. Wood until our pleasure shall
be further signified unto you--whereof you may not fail.

"June 11, 1671."

[725] _D'Oyley's Sancroft_, i. 194.

[726] Yet it is said in his epitaph, in St. George's Chapel,
Windsor,--"Exule Carolo II., bonis multatus, reverso, a sacris,
hujus Capellæ Canonicus, Decanus Sarisburiensis, postea Cicestrensis
Episcopus, φιλόξενος φιλάγαθος," &c., &c.

There is a curious account in _Kennet's Hist._ of Brideoake's visit
to Lenthall, the Speaker, when on his death-bed. He owed much to
Lenthall's influence during the Commonwealth. A letter in the State
Paper Office, 1678, Oct. 7, conveys intelligence of his death, and
asks, in consequence, for Church promotion.

[727] This Lloyd is to be distinguished from him of the same name who
was one of the Seven Bishops.

[728] In _Ichabod_; or, _Five Groans of the Church_, mention is made of
1,342 factious clergymen.

[729] _Dom. Chas. II._, 1677, Sept. 12.

[730] _Mystery and Iniquity of Nonconformity_, 1664. A curious tract
entitled _The Ceremony-Monger, his Character, in Six Chapters_,
describes "bowing to the altar, implicit faith, reading dons of the
pulpit, reading the Psalms, &c., alternately, bowing at the name of
Jesus, unlighted candles on the altar, organs, church music, and other
popishlike and foppish ceremonials," all of which are unmercifully
ridiculed. The author is E. Hickeringhill, Rector of the Rectory of
All Saints, in Colchester. There is no date to the publication, but
from abundant internal evidence, it must have been written after the
Act of Uniformity. Hickeringhill is justly described by Chalmers as "a
half crazy kind of writer." He was a pensioner of St. John's, Camb.,
in 1650; junior Bachelor of Gonville and Caius; Lieut. in the English
army in Scotland, and Captain in Fleetwood's Regiment. He took orders
in 1661 or 1662, being ordained by Bishop Sanderson; became Vicar of
Boxted, Essex, in October, 1662, and about the same time, Rector of
All Saints, Colchester. In reference to the Act of Uniformity, he says
it is an unnatural, impossible, irrational, wicked, and vain attempt.
"Go teach God," he says, "to make a new heaven, with uniformity of
stars and skies,--teach Him to make men uniform," &c. Hickeringhill
wrote _The Second Part of Naked Truth_, and _A Vindication_ of it. The
copy of it which I have seen is in the Library of Trinity College,
Cambridge. The Bishop of London brought an action against him, in
March, 1682, for slander. A report of the trial may be found in the
same Library, _Political Tracts_, Y 24. Hickeringhill held his Rectory
until his death in 1708.

[731] Quotation in _Vindication of the Clergy_, 82.

[732] _Chamberlayne_, part 1. 205, 207. The following entries indicate
the poverty of clergymen:--

"1669. Given to a poor minister who preached here, at the church, April
25, 3s. Bestowed on him in ale, 4d.

"Feb. 13, 1669. Collected then, by the churchwardens, in the church,
upon a testimonial, and at the request of the Lord Bishop of York, for
one Mr. Wilmot, a poor minister, 8s. 4d.

"1670, April 10. Given then by the neighbours, to a poor mendicant
minister, one Mr. John Rhodes, who then preached here, and after
the sermon _stood in the middle aisle to receive the charity of the
people_, the sum 12s. 3d.

"1670, July 3. Given then by the neighbours to a poor lame itinerary,
one Mr. Walker, who preached here, and after the sermon stood in the
middle aisle to receive the people's charity, which was 9s. 3d."--See
_History of Morley Old Chapel_, by the Rev. J. Wonnacott.

[733] _Hunter's Life of Heywood_, 336.

[734] _Grounds and Occasions_, 19. It is from this paragraph, and other
similar authorities, that Macaulay draws materials for his humorous
one-sided satire on the clergy--_Hist. of Eng._ i. 340.

[735] _Grounds and Occasions_, 107. North complains of his father's
chaplain being very illiterate.--_Lives_, iii. 312.

[736] _Evelyn's Diary_, 1684, February 23.

[737] _Vindication of the Clergy_ (1672), 122. The author of the
_Grounds and Occasions_ followed up his work by "Some observations upon
the answer."

[738] _Vindication_, 100, _et seq._ See _Answer to the Grounds and
Occasions_ (1671), 14. Another book was published--_Hieragonisticon_,
being an answer to the two books on the _Grounds and Occasions_ (1672).
Five additional letters were published by the author of the _Grounds
and Occasions_, &c. Through the kindness of my friend, Mr. John Rotton,
the whole of this curious collection has been placed at my service.

[739] _Vindication_, 108.

[740] _Appendix to Second Report of Commission on Ritual_, 628.

[741] "An account of the life and conversation of the reverend and
worthy Mr. Isaac Milles," quoted in _Ken's Life by a Layman_, 48-50.

[742] _Ichabod; or Five Groans of the Church_ (1663). Williams,
Bishop of Lincoln, says he "met with three debauched clergymen in
Hertfordshire, whom he shall deprive: the gentry are most kind
wherever he goes. Thinks the principles he goes upon will be
successful."--_State Papers_, July 18, 1668.

[743] _Life of Philip Henry_, 101. He made this remark at the close of
the year 1662. In _Hunter's Life of Oliver Heywood_, p. 149, a wretched
account is given of the six ministers who succeeded him.

[744] _History of his Own Time_, i. 186.

[745] _Diary_, 1668, February 16.

[746] _Burnet_, i. 258.

[747] _Appendix to Second Report of Commission on Ritual_, 628.


Transcriber's Note:

1. Printer's errors have been silently corrected.

2. Obvious spelling and punctuation errors have been silently
corrected. Original spelling and hyphenated words have been retained
where appropriate.

3. Superscripts shown as ^x.

4. Bold script shown as =xxx=.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 65334 ***