Chapter XXIII: Sidenote: Presbyterians and Independents (2)

[9] _Strype's Whitgift_, i. 391. Whitgift has been called an Erastian, and Warburton (_Works_, xii. 386), on Selden's authority, attributes to him the publication of the _De excommunicatione_, under fictitious names of the place and printer. I do not know the ground of Selden's statement. The proceedings of Whitgift were inconsistent with Erastianism. The famous work of Erastus will be noticed hereafter.

[10] _Strype's Whitgift_, i. 559. See Sir Francis Knolly's objection to Bancroft's doctrine, reduced to a syllogistic form (560). Knollys had encouraged Parker to oppose the use of burning tapers, and of the cross, in the Queen's chapel.--_Strype's Parker_, i. 92.

[11] Parker was kept up to the mark in enforcing uniformity by the Queen, who in this and some other points was more decidedly Anglo-Catholic than her Protestant prelates. See her letter to him "roundly penned." _Strype's Parker_, ii. 76.

[12] Strype, (in his _Annals_, i. 106,) says 177. He adds "In one of the volumes of the Cotton Library--which volume seemeth once to have belonged to Camden--the whole number of the deprived ecclesiastics is digested in this catalogue: Bishops, 14; Deans, 13; Archdeacons, 14; Heads of Colleges, 15; Prebendaries, 50; Rectors of Churches, 80; Abbots, Priors, and Abbesses, 6; in all, 192. Camden, in his _Annals_, little varies, only reckoning 12 Deans and as many Archdeacons."

[13] Paper endorsed--Dr. Bardesy; "Of my Daughter's Death, 1 April, 1641;" ¼ ho. _ante_ ho. 9, post Mer.--_State Papers. Charles I. Domestic._

[14] _Mr. Bruce's Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1633-4, p. 275; _and Preface_, xviii.

[15] _Lathbury's History of Convocation_, 253.

[16] This is illustrated in the Tractarian movement, as appears in _Dr. Newman's Apologia_.

[17] Roger Ascham's application to Cranmer in the reign of Edward VI., for a dispensation during Lent is very curious. So is the grant of it in the King's name under the Privy Seal, at the Archbishop's suggestion.--See _Strype's Cranmer_, i. 238, 240.

[18] "Many choose to be wanton," it is said, "with flesh at that time, rather than at others." February 13.--_State Papers, Domestic._

[19] See "_The Arminian Nunnery_, or a brief description and relation of the late erected monastical place called the Arminian Nunnery at Little Gidding, in Huntingdonshire." 1641. Compare _Walton's Lives_, 335.

[20] _Rushworth's Historical Collection_, ii. 324. No doubt, sometimes the charge of Popery was unjustly made, and there is force in what Sanderson says in the Preface to his Sermons, p. 74. The passage is too long for quotation.

[21] See _Hale's Precedents and Proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts_. Introductory Essay, xxxiv. Compare _Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 99.

[22] See _New Canons_, iii. to xii., made in 1604.

[23] Whitelocke, when Recorder of Abingdon, was accused and cited before the Council Table because "he did comply with and countenance the Nonconformists there, and refused to punish those who did not bow at the name of Jesus, and to the altar, and refused to receive the sacrament kneeling at the high altar, &c."--_Whitelocke's Memorials_, 23.

[24] _Hale's Precedents in Criminal Causes_, xxxix., xliii.; compare _Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 180. The extracts from Court Books in Hale are my authority for what follows. I may add here that, soon after the accession of Elizabeth, the bishops complained of interference with their office in discipline, and correction of evil manners, by inhibitions obtained from the courts of the Archbishop of Canterbury.--_Strype's Parker_, i. 161.

[25] A clear account of compurgation, transferred from old ecclesiastical courts to the Court of High Commission, is given by Mr. Bruce in his _Preface to the Cal. Dom._ 1635-6, xxxi. A man was restored "to his good name" by swearing to his own innocence when objectors did not appear, and his neighbours, the compurgators, swore that he was to be believed.

[26] It is very remarkable that this Act, the only one which fixes the authority for deciding what heresy is, vests that spiritual power in the secular government, only with clerical "assent."--_Stat. 1 Eliz._, c. 1, s. 36.

[27] 1562, July 20. A commission was issued for ecclesiastical causes in the diocese of Chester.

1576, April 23. A commission was given to Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury, and other bishops, for exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout the nation.--_State Papers_, cviii., No. 7.

The "proceedings of the Archbishop of York" in 1580 are preserved in the State Paper Office, cxli., No. 28. At a private meeting on the 2nd of August, 1580, held in Richmond, "the Court is informed that Robert Wythes, of Copgrave, gentleman, made fast his doors against the messenger; that a little damsel was set to attend at the door, who made answer he was not at home, and refused to receive the process, so the messenger waxed it to the door." Vol. cxli., No. 3.

[28] _Neal_, i. 410, gives a copy of the commission from a MS. I have sought in vain for the original. Mr. Bruce informs me it is not preserved among the _State Papers_.

_Neal_, i. 414, explains "all other means and ways they could devise" as including the rack. Brodie (_British Empire_, i. 197) disputes this, saying, "Besides that, the rack never was attempted; the other clauses distinctly show that it never was contemplated." On carefully examining the commission printed in Neal, it will be found that the qualifying expressions "lawful," &c., are connected with the infliction of _penalty_, not the business of _enquiry_. The penalties were to be according to law, but that restriction would not necessarily apply to the mode of examination. I do not see that Brodie's argument is conclusive; still I do not think that the rack was used. The absence, however, of the word "lawful" in connection with "ways and means" in the first clause is remarkable.

[29] _Brodie_, i. 198. He adds: "Though fines were _imposed_, not one was _levied_ in Elizabeth's time by any judicial process out of the Exchequer, 'nor any subject, in his body, lands, or goods, charged therewith.'"--_Coke's 4th Inst._, 326, 332; _4th Inst._, 331.

In various printed books the legality of the Court was questioned. The _ex officio_ oath was objected to as a sinister practice of the Romish clergy, and contrary to fundamental laws of liberty.--_Burn's High Commission_ (a pamphlet published by J. Russel Smith, 1865), 14.

[30] "To you, or three of you, whereof the Archbishop of Canterbury, or one of the bishops mentioned in the commission, or Sir Francis Walsingham, Sir Gilbert Gerard, or some of the civilians, to be one."--_Neal_, i. 410.

There are subsequent commissions for the diocese of Norwich, 1589; for Manchester, 1596, 1597; for England and Ireland, 1600.--See _Rymer_, Vol. vii. 173, 194; xvi. 291, 400.

A commission was issued, 1629, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c., to exercise all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and pre-eminences, concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm; also to enquire, hear, determine, and punish all incests, adulteries, &c., and disorders in marriage, and all other grievous and great crimes.

[31] Four folio books of proceedings, from 1634 to 1640, are in the State Paper Office. At Norwich there is a book of proceedings from 1595 to 1598, and at Durham two volumes of Acts and Depositions from 1626 to 1639. These are the only records known to exist.--_Burn's High Commission_, 44 & 52.

[32] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, 1634-5. Lady Eleanor Davies alias Douglas, (evidently insane) is mulcted to the extent of £3,000 for certain fanatical pamphlets. Richard Parry has a fine of £2,000 for disturbance of divine service and profane speeches, mitigated to 1,000 marks.--_Cal._ 1634-5, 176. A fine of £1,000, from Theophilus Brabourne, for maintaining and publishing heretical and Judaical opinions touching the Sabbath, is repeatedly mentioned, with notices of respites, suspension of sentence, and mitigation. A silk weaver was committed to the Gate House for fetching a parcel of schismatical books. The most preposterous suspicions were entertained, leading to outrageous injustice, as in the case of "two poor foolish boys, taken amongst others, at Francis Donwell's house, the aleholder, at Stepney," for "sitting at the table with Bibles before them." "They were, by order of the court, discharged," but not till after many days' imprisonment. "They were taken on Sunday last past was fortnight, the 1st of October, 1635."

The following entry occurs relating to Richard Walker Clerk, prisoner in the Gate House: "Defendant having lain a twelvemonth in prison for preaching a scandalous and offensive sermon here in London, and having promised by his subscription to carry himself peaceably and conformably to the orders of the Church of England, he was ordered to be enlarged." _Cal._ 1634-5, p. 544.

[33] _Cal._ 1634-5, p. 177, 118, & 110.

[34] Some strange specimens of puritan "faithfulness" are given; (_Cal._ 1634-5, p. 319,) but the question arises, were the passages we find correctly reported?

[35] Some things appear in the Commission Records strangely illustrating the state of society. Sir Richard Strode and Sir John Strode, near kinsmen, quarrelled about the possession of an aisle in the parish church of Cattistock. Sir Richard came with his lady on Easter-day to receive the sacrament armed with a pistol charged with powder and small shot, and directed his servant to carry a sword. He was also accused of entertaining a degraded minister, who "pronounced prayers extempore, and expounded a passage of scripture. On behalf of Sir Richard, it was proved that he carried the pistol secretly, and that no disturbance ensued."--_Cal._, 1634-5, p. 121.

Since writing this Introduction I have been permitted to peruse the _Rawlinson MS._, A., 128, which affords many new illustrations of the proceedings of the High Commission and of the Star Chamber also. I shall have occasion hereafter to notice some parts of this _MS._ The whole will be published by the Camden Society.

[36] The Court was threatened before the opening of the Long Parliament.

"We are growing here at London into some Edinburgh tumults, for upon Thursday last, the High Commission being kept at St. Paul's, there came in very near 2,000 Brownists, and, at the end of the court made a foul clamour: and tore down all the benches that were in the consistory, crying out they would have no Bishops nor High Commission. I like not this preface to the Parliament, and this day I shall see what the Lords will do concerning this tumult."--_Laud's Letter_, 186. _Works_, vi. 585. Oxford edition. _Diary, Oct. 22, 1640_, iii, 237.

[37] _Rushworth_, i. 423. After Worrall, Laud's chaplain, had signed the Imprimatur to Dr. Sibthorpe's famous sermon, 1627, Selden told him, "When the times shall change, and the late transactions shall be scrutinized, you will gain a halter instead of promotion for this book." Worrall withdrew his signature, but Laud appended his own.--_Life of Selden_, p. 129.

[38] _Rushworth_, i. 594.

[39] See _Hallam's Constitutional History_, i. 456; and _Eliot's Life_, by Forster, i. 246; ii. 398; 409; 450.

[40] In _Rushworth_, ii. 77, is a full account of these ceremonies, with notices of Laud's defence. The latter is found more fully in the history of his _Troubles and Trial_. _Works_, iv. 247. He denied he threw up dust, but leaves it to be inferred that he threw up ashes. He also contradicted other statements made respecting this famous consecration. Whatever exaggeration there might be, enough is proved to show the extraordinary superstitiousness of the proceeding.

[41] Bunsen's _Hippolytus_, iv. 197.

[42] Wearing a cope in cathedrals at the Communion by the principal minister, is, however, prescribed by Canon xxiv.

[43] Southey says of Laud, "Offence was taken because the University of Oxford, to which he was a most munificent and judicious benefactor, addressed him by the titles of His Holiness, and Most Holy Father; and because he publicly declared, that in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, he would, when their merits were equal, prefer the single to the married men."--_Book of the Church_, 448. Laud furnishes an elaborate defence of some of the titles applied to him.--_Works_, iv. 157.

See curious entry in _Laud's Diary_ of a dream he had that he was reconciled to the Church of Rome.--_Works_, iii. 201. He afterwards says (264), "I hope the reader will note my trouble at the dream, as well as the dream."

Zeal in crushing dissent, appears in a letter addressed to justices of the peace, which probably Laud procured from the High Commissioners:--"There remain in divers parts of the kingdom sundry sorts of separatists, novalists [_sic_], and sectaries, as, namely,--Brownists, Anabaptists, Arians, Traskites, Familists, and some other sorts, who, upon Sundays and other festival days, under pretence of repetition of sermons, ordinarily use to meet together in great numbers, in private houses, and other obscure places, and there keep private conventicles and exercises of religion, by law prohibited, to the corrupting of sundry his Majesty's good subjects, manifest contempt of his Highness's laws and disturbance of the Church. For reformation whereof the persons addressed are to enter any house where they shall have intelligence that such conventicles are held, and in every room thereof search for persons assembled, and for all unlicensed books, and bring all such persons and books found before the Ecclesiastical Commission as shall be thought meet."--_Cal._ 1633-4, p. 538.

At an earlier period, Laud says:--"We took another conventicle of separatists in Newington Woods upon Sunday last, in the very brake where the King's stag should have been lodged for his hunting next morning." P.S. to letter of Laud, June 13, 1632.--_State Papers._ Printed in _Laud's Works_, vii. 44.

[44] Articles for Diocese of Winchester. _Laud's Works_, v. 419-435. Numerous visitation articles, injunctions, and orders appear in this volume, highly interesting as illustrations both of the Archbishop's minute superintendence, and of the religious life of the period.

[45] Reprinted in _Laud's Works_, v. 315, 370.

[46] _Laud's Works_, v. 331.

[47] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, and Laud's Annual Accounts of his province just referred to.

[48] There is an extract of a letter in the State Paper Office (dated 1633, March 18, from the ambassador at the Hague) in the handwriting of Laud's secretary, upon the uncanonical proceedings of the English Congregation there.

[49] These points receive abundant illustration in _Mr. Bruce's Calendar_, 1633-4, and in his very interesting preface.

[50] Laud's power extended even to America. In a special commission for the colonies, "the Archbishop of Canterbury and those who were associated with him, received full power over the American plantations, to establish the government and dictate the laws, to regulate the Church, to inflict even the heaviest punishments, and to revoke any charter, which had been surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties prejudicial to the Royal prerogative."--_Bancroft's United States_, i. 407.

[51] _Letter in State Paper Office_, Dec. 19, 1633. Most of Laud's letters found amongst the State records are printed in the last volume of the Oxford edition of his works.

[52] Indications of his wonderful activity are to be seen in his numerous letters, collected in the Oxford edition of his works, to which my references apply. (Vols. vi. and vii.) Laud's enemies have not done justice to his abilities. His diary reveals his mental weaknesses, but his correspondence and theological writings exhibit his mind under a different aspect. Many persons are too prejudiced against Laud to think of looking into his _Conference with Fisher the Jesuit_; but whoever will take the trouble of doing so, whatever he may think of Laud's line of argument at times, must admit the learning and ability displayed in the discussion. No book more clearly shows both the resemblance and the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and Popery.

[53] We are here reminded of what Dunstan's biographer said of him--"Nec quisquam in toto regno Anglorum esset qui absque ejus imperio manum vel pedem moveret."--_Angl. Sac._, ii. 108. Dunstan, too, like Laud, descended to the notice and regulation of trivial matters. There can be little doubt that Laud, as an ecclesiastical and political statesman, was inferior to Dunstan. A man who grasps at such extensive influence is sure to be unpopular in England. Sir John Eliot accused Buckingham of this ambition, and in the memorable peroration to his speech in that nobleman's impeachment, when he instituted a parallel between him and the Bishop of Ely, in Richard II.'s reign, Eliot included this point--"No man's business could be done without his help."--See _Speech in Rushworth_, and _Parliamentary History_, and from his own MS. in _Forster's Life of Eliot_, i. 551.

[54] Diary, Tuesday, April 5, 1625.--_Laud's Works_, iii. 159.

[55] _Strafford's Papers_, i. 365.

[56] _Halliwell's Letters of the Kings of England_, ii. 180.

[57] Coleridge ranks Jackson with Cudworth, More, and Smith as _Plotinist_ rather than _Platonist_ divines.--See Note, _Literary Remains_, iii. 415.

[58] _Life of Southey_, v. 283.

[59] See remarks on this in _Bancroft's United States_, i. 284.

[60] Aylmer is supposed to be represented anagrammatically in the Morell, and Grindal in the Algrind of _Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar_.

[61] _Strype's Parker_, i. 300-345. For measures adopted to enforce conformity, see _Strype's Parker_, i. 420-447. Parker had a hard time of it when engaged in this unpopular business. He did not receive the support he wished. The Puritans condemned him for doing too much, the Queen for doing too little. "An ox," he exclaimed, "can draw no more than he can."--_Ibid._, 451.

[62] It appears from Foxe that some of the early Protestants were very strong believers in predestination.--See the godly letters of John Careless. _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_, viii. 187-192. Catley's edition.

[63] _Neal_, i. 451. For his statement respecting bills for reformation he gives MS. authority. _Strype's Whitgift_, i. 391, contains the letter to the Queen, dated 24th of March, 1584-5. Parry says in _Parliaments and Councils_, 1584, December 14, "three petitions are read touching 'the liberty of godly preachers to exercise and continue their ministry, and for the speedy supply of able and sufficient men into divers places now destitute of the ordinary means of salvation.'" Cobbett supplies a brief account of the debate.--_Parl. Hist._, i. 824.

[64] Dr. Donne preached a sermon at Paul's Cross on the 14th September, 1622, in which he took occasion "for the publication of some reasons which His Sacred Majesty had been pleased to give, of those directions for preachers which he had formerly set forth."--_Works_, vi. 191. The preacher declared the King was "grieved with much bitterness, that any should so pervert his meaning as to think that these directions either restrained the exercise of preaching or abated the number of sermons."--_Ib._ 220. One is sorry to find such a man as Donne excusing James's despotic interference with preaching, and to read the absurd eulogium on his royal master's "books." "Our posterity shall have him for a father--a classic father--such a father as Ambrose, as Austin was."--_Ib._ 221. Such sycophancy on the part of Donne and others greatly tended to prejudice the people against them and their teaching.

[65] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 362.

[66] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 298.

[67] _Cal._ 1633-4, p. 345.--The cases of Samuel Ward, Anthony Lapthorne, and George Burdett, noted Puritan ministers, are largely illustrated in the _Cal. Dom._ 1634-5, 361, 263, 537. Mr. Bruce notices that Ward, who suffered so much from the High Commission Court, appears himself as a complainant against certain persons at Ipswich holding Antinomian opinions, 1635-6, _Pref._ xxxvii.

Illustrations appear amongst the State Papers of the popularity of Puritanism. Dr. John Andrewes writes to the Chancellor of Lincoln, (dated June 5, 1634, Beaconsfield) acknowledging a request to preach a visitation sermon:--"He is contented to show his obedience, howbeit he knows that any other priest in those parts would be better accepted both of laity and the generality of the clergy; and the main reason is, because he is not of the new cut, nor anywise inclining to Puritanism, wherewith the greatest number (both of priests and people) in those parts are foully tainted, insomuch that he is called the most godly who can and will be most disobedient to the orders of the Church. He enumerates things out of order in his own parish. 1. No terrier of Church lands. 2. Elections held in the church. 3. Gadding on Sundays to hear Puritanical sermons in other parishes. 4. Few come to church on holidays. 5. Many sit at service with their hats on, and some lie along in their pews. 6. Many kneel not at prayers, nor bow at the name of Jesus, &c. 7. The churchwardens do not levy the 12d. from those who absent themselves from divine service."--_Cal. Dom._, 1634-5, _June 5_, p. 64.

Complaints were made of people forsaking the parish churches.--_Ibid._, p. 149.

[68] _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 450.

[69] _Heylyn's Life of Laud_, p. 367.

[70] While quite indisposed to attempt defending in the Puritans what is indefensible, I would add, they inherited many of their faults from the early Protestants. On the whole, I should say, the Puritans of the seventeenth century will bear favourable comparison with their fathers of the sixteenth, some of whose worst failings arose from the bad education received in the Church of Rome before they abjured her errors.

[71] Irreverence in worship is often regarded as an offence characteristic of Puritanism. But popish priests, at the time of the Reformation, then loudly complained of irreverence in their congregations--irreverence such as their successors were not guilty of.--_Strype's Memorials_, i. 213

[72] Neal follows Clarendon in this respect.--_History of Puritans_, ii. 362.

[73] This is Rapin's view.--_History of England_, ii. 652, adopted by Godwin, in his _Commonwealth_, i. 64.

[74] _Tanner MS._, quoted by Sanford.--_Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion_, p. 159.

[75] _Strafford's Letters_, Vol. i. 463, quoted in _Forster's Life of Vane_, p. 7, as written to the Lord Deputy. The letter is in the State Paper Office, calendared as if written to Lord Conway.--See _Calendar of Colonial Papers_, 1574-1660, p. 214. In the same Calendar, p. 211, there is notice of a letter by Vane to his father, in which he "requests his father to believe, though as the case stands he is judged a most unworthy son, that however jealous his father may be of circumventions and plots entertained and practised by him, yet he will never do anything that he may not justify or be content to suffer for. Is sure, as there is trust in God, that his innocence and integrity will be cleared to his father before he dies. Protests his father's jealousy of him would break his heart, but as he submits all other things to his good God, so does he his honesty. The intention of his heart is sincere, and hence flows the sweet peace he enjoys amidst his many heavy trials."

[76] _Forster's Statesmen of the Commonwealth_, Vol. iii. 49.

[77] Clarendon (_Hist._ 75) says of Vane's father and mother, "they were neither of them beautiful,"--a statement fully borne out by their portraits.

[78] _Clarendon_ (_Hist._ 454).

[79] _Rushworth_, i. 647.

[80] _Hist._ 74.

[81] Compare _Nugent_ and _Forster_.

[82] Hampden was reported at a Visitation for holding a muster in Beaconsfield Churchyard, and for leaving his parish church. To avoid a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, he applied privately to Sir Nathaniel Brent, and satisfied him by explanation and concession.--_State Papers Cal._, 1634-5, p. 250.

[83] "The Puritan would be judged by the Word of God; if he would speak clearly he means himself; but he is ashamed to say so, and he would have me believe him before a whole church, that has read the Word of God as well as he." _Table Talk_, 160.

Selden, in the same book (p. 13), while denying the divine right of bishops, maintains they "have the same right to sit in Parliament as the best Earls and Barons." Yet he signed the Covenant.

[84] _Life_, 923.

[85] _Life_, 936.

[86] In the State Paper Office is a letter by Laud, July 20, 1634, addressed to the King, in which the writer speaks of two daughters of the late Lord Falkland being reconciled to the Church of Rome, "not without the practice of their mother." He alludes to Lord Newburgh's request that she would forbear working on her daughters' consciences, and suffer them to go to their brother, or any other safe place. The archbishop appears anxious to save them from Popery. The letter is printed in _Laud's Works_, vii. 82, with illustrative notes.

[87] He tells us he was stopped in Westminster Hall, and asked by a root-and-branch man, "Art thou for us or for our adversaries?" but he does not report his answer.

[88] Mr. Bruce's interesting introduction to the volume of _Proceedings, &c._, in connection with the Committee of Religion appointed in 1640, (printed by the Camden Society,) gives a minute history of the baronet's love adventures.

[89] It is stated on the authority of a letter in the possession of the Trevor family, that, "to escape detection the oppositionists resorted to the place of rendezvous with disguised faces." _Johnson's Life of Selden_, 30.

[90] _Clarendon's Hist._, p. 69.

[91] The appointment of a Committee of Religion was debated and delayed in the first Parliament of this reign; One was appointed immediately after the assembling of the second--and also on the meeting of the third.--See _Journals_, June 25, 1625; Feb. 7, 10, 12, 1625-6; March 20, 1627-8.

[92] The sentence on Leighton is given by _Rushworth_, ii. 56.

_Neal_, ii., 218, follows Rushworth and states the particulars of Leighton's punishment as being recorded in Laud's Diary. But in the Diary, 4th November, _Works_ iii. 212, there is nothing beyond a reference to Leighton's degradation in the High Commission Court. Neal adds that Laud pulled off his cap, and thanked God for the sentence.

For this anecdote, authority may be found in a curious book, by Leighton, entitled _An Epitome of the great troubles he has suffered_. In the course of his narration, after defending himself against the charge of being a Conventicle keeper, a libeller, a schismatic, a traitor, and a factious person, he says, in relation to his trial.--"The censure was to cut my ears, slit my nose, to brand me in the face, to whip me at a post, to stand on the pillory, ten thousand pounds fine, and perpetual imprisonment; and all these upon a dying man, by appearance

--instant morientibus ursæ.

The censure thus past, the prelate off with his cap, and holding up his hands, gave thanks to God, who had given him the victory over his enemies."--pp. 69, 70.

"I being put thereafter on the pillory an hour and a half, in frost and snow, they inflicted the rest, and would not let me have a coach of my own to carry me to the Fleet; but I was forced to be carried by water, for I was not able to go. I lay ten weeks under the canopy of heaven, in the dirt and mire of the rubbish, having nothing to shelter me from the rain and snow, in a very cold season."--p. 85.

In connection with Leighton's statement, the following passage from the Rawlinson MS. is worthy of notice:--"In the Court of High Commission, 19 April, 1632, the King's Advocate against Joseph Harrison, Clerk, Vicar of Sustorke, 'the sentence was presently read by the Archbishop of Canterbury, In Dei nomine, Amen, &c., &c., Deum præ oculis preponentes, &c.,' at which words I marked some of the Bishops to look upward, and put off their hats devoutly." From this passage it would appear to have been a practice in the Court, when sentence was passed, to pronounce it in the name of God, and for the Commissioners to take off their hats in token of reverence when these sacred words were uttered. The question arises, did Leighton mistake what was a customary act for a special expression of Laud's feeling in this particular case? or, did Laud really go out of his way to indicate his gratification at the sufferings of Leighton? I must leave the reader to judge for himself, who, however, ought to bear in mind Laud's character. Leighton gives the following account of his sufferings:--

"The aforesaid censure was executed in every particular in a most cruel manner and measure: the executioner was made drunk in the Fleet the night before, and also was hardened the very same day with very strong water, being threatened to do it with all rigour: and so he did, by knife, whip, brand, and fire, insomuch that never a lash he gave with a treble cord, but he brought away the flesh, which I shall feel to my dying day."

[93] Yet, looking at the persecution which the Puritans suffered, the same plea will avail for them that has been urged on behalf of the early Protestants. "It was, as they thought, like exhorting a Caligula and a Nero to clemency, and advising the poor subjects to compliment such tyrants, to remind them gently of their defects, and humbly to entreat that they would be so good and gracious as to condescend to alter their conduct."--_Jortin's Life of Erasmus_, i. 212.

From a _Biographical Narration_, by Burton, it appears he had been Clerk of the Closet to Prince Henry and to Prince Charles. The narration contains many curious particulars. There is an important letter about Burton, by Bishop Hall, in _Forster's Life of Eliot_, ii. 428.

[94] _Hanbury's Historical Memorials_, ii., 52.

[95] _Rushworth_, iv. 207.

[96] _Forster's Life of Eliot_, ii. 84, 562.

[97] _Forster's Life of Pym_, 96.

[98] It was a charge against Burton that he carried the sacred elements to the communicants on their seats.--_Dow's Innovations_, 186. _Lathbury's History of Convocation_, 261.

[99] _Forster's Life of Pym_, 99.

[100] _Rushworth_, iv. 24.

[101] _Quoted in Sanford's Illustrations_, 310.

[102] _Clarendon_, 69. _Sanford's Illustrations_, 310.

[103] Clarendon says Strafford did not come to the House at all that day till after his impeachment. I attach little importance to Clarendon's statements, when inconsistent with what is said by so accurate a man as D'Ewes. From his journal it appears that Strafford _did_ go to the House in the morning. _Sanford's Illustrations_, 310.

[104] _D'Ewes Journal_, _Sanford's Studies and Illustrations_, 312.

[105] _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, published by the Bannatyne Club, 4to, i. 272. Other minute particulars are taken from the same source.

[106] See his _Journal_, 1640, Dec. 18. _Works_, iii. 238.

[107] Burgess and Marshall preached on the occasion from Jeremiah l. 5, and 2. Chron. xv. 2. The sermons were published, and may be found in the library of the British Museum. They relate to covenanting with God, but I do not see that the preachers make any reference to the Scotch covenant, though Nalson charges them with having had their eye on that symbol all the way through.--_Collection_, i. 530.

[108] November 20. See _Commons' Journal_.

[109] See Journals, February 9, 1625-6, and March 10, 1627-8.

[110] It is so regarded by Neal and those who follow him.--_History of Puritans_, ii. 362.

[111] _History of England_, ii. 653.

[112] _Journals_, November 20. A collection was made after the communion, amounting to £78. 16. 2.--_Nalson's Collections_, 1. 700.

[113] _Memorials of English Affairs, Whitelocke_, 38. _Journal of Commons_, Nov. 25, 1640, and pamphlets of the period.

[114] The minister complained of was John Squire, of whom Walker gives an account in his _Sufferings of the Clergy_, Part i. 68.--These illustrations are gathered from _Diurnals and other Tracts_ in the Library of the Brit. Museum.

[115] _Speech of Mr. Rouse in Rushworth_, iv. 211. See also _Speeches of Sir Ed. Dering and Sir John Wray_.

[116] These particulars, and many more, are found in _A Certificate from Northamptonshire_, 1641. Brit. Mus. The "great scarcity of preaching ministers" was early noticed, and a sub-committee appointed to consider it.--See _Journals_, 19th December, 1640. Extracts from the _Register of the Archbishop of Canterbury_, shew that the number of benefices in England was 8,803, whereof 3,277 were impropriations, and that the number of livings under £10 was 4,543; under £40, 8,659; and that only the remainder, being 144, were of the value of £40 and upwards.--_Cal. Dom._ 1634-5, p. 381.

[117] _Lathbury's Hist. of Con._, 246.

[118] _Nalson_, i. 545.

[119] This oath "approved the doctrine and discipline of government established in the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to salvation;" and denied all "consent to alter the government of this Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, &c., as it stands now established."

[120] _Journals of the Commons_, Dec. 16, 1640.--The matter came before the House again on the 7th June, 1641.

[121] The letter is in _Laud's Works_, Vol. vi. 584.

[122] _Laud's Works_, vi. 589.

[123] _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, 267.

[124] See _Letter to Bullinger by Sandys_, 1573.--_Zurich Letters_, 294.

[125] _Fuller_, ii. 504-5.

[126] It frequently appears in the records of that period. There is a curious example in the introduction to the will of Humphrey Fen.--_Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 468.

[127] They claimed as precedents the Protestants in Queen Mary's time, and the exiles at Geneva, that used a book framed by them there.--_Strype's Parker_, i. 480.

There is at Horningsham, in Wiltshire, an old meeting-house, with a large stone in the end wall, bearing date 1566. When the stone was put there is not known, and whence it came I cannot learn, but the Rev. H. M. Gunn, of Warminster, informs me that, according to tradition, some Scotch Presbyterians, disciples of Knox, came over from Scotland to build Longleat House for Sir John Thynne, in 1566. The building went on for thirteen years, when Sir John died. They refused to attend the parish church, and obtained a cottage in which to meet for Divine service, with a piece of land attached for a grave-yard. This house, Mr. Gunn says, turned into a chapel, has been preserved till now. Though originally a Presbyterian, it long since became an Independent place of worship.

[128] Afterwards Mrs. Hazzard.

[129] _Records of the Baptist Church_, Broadmead, Bristol, 10-18. See also _Cal. Dom._, 1634-5, p. 416, for arguments by Dr. Stoughton, on the duty of separation.

As women were active in promoting Puritanism, so they had been a century before in promoting Protestantism.--See numerous examples in _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_.

[130] _Dugdale's Troubles in England_, 36, 62, 65.

_Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses_, ii. 347.

[131] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 674.

[132] Bagshawe's own account, in _Hanbury's Memorials_, ii. 141.

[133] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 33 _et seq._; also _Preface_, viii.

[134] _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i. 211-214.

[135] _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, i. 271.

_The Lords' Journals_, Dec. 10, 14, 1640, shew the sensitiveness of the House upon what concerned the honour of the Scots and the English lords, who favoured them, and in reference to all which indicated popish sympathies.

[136] The first night they tarried at lodgings, "in the Common Garden." Baillie adds: "The city is desirous we should lodge with them, so to-morrow I think we must flit."

[137] Hallam says: (_Const. Hist._, i. 527) The petition was prepared "at the _instigation_ of the Scotch Commissioners." Baillie's letters do not support this statement. The Scots, however, were very early in the field against Laud. _Lords' Journals_, January 2, 1641.

[138] "At London we met with many ministers from most parts of the kingdom; and upon some meetings and debates, it was resolved that a committee should be chosen to draw up a remonstrance of our grievances, and to petition the Parliament for reformation, which was accordingly done."--_Clark's Lives_, page 8.

[139] Cross-grained, twisted. _Baillie's Letters_, &c., i. 286.

[140] _Rushworth_, iv. 135.

[141] The Somersetshire churchmen expressed themselves in moderate terms.--_Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 527.

From Cheshire came two petitions, one signed by Episcopalians, the other by Puritans, calling prelates "mighty enemies and secret underminers" of the church and commonwealth.--_Nonconformity in Cheshire. Introduction_, xiv.

[142] Amongst the petitions of that period was one by Master William Castell, parson of Courtenhall, in the county of Northampton: "for the propagating of the gospel in America and the West Indies." While condemning the proceedings of Spaniards, and lamenting the indifference of English, Scotch, French, and Dutch, the petition expresses the desire of the petitioners, "to enlarge greatly the pale of the Church;" to make the synagogues of Satan temples of the Holy Ghost; "and millions of those silly, seduced Americans, to hear, understand, and practise the mystery of godliness." A large number of names are appended, approving the petition. The learned Edmund Castell, Robert Sanderson (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln), Joseph Caryl, and Edmund Calamy, appear in the list, and it is added that the petition had the approbation of Master Alexander Henderson, and some worthy ministers of Scotland. The union of such different men in this missionary endeavour is worthy of notice.--_Anderson's History of the Colonial Church_, ii. 11.

[143] Abridged from _Rushworth_, iv. 155.--Baillie says that, as to the part about the bishops, there "was no hum; and no applause as to the rest."--_Letters_, i. 292.

[144] No traces of Pym's speech are found in _Rushworth_, _Nalson_, or _Parliamentary Debates_. It is not mentioned in _Forster's Life of the Great Statesmen_, or in _Sanford's Illustrations_. The extract I have given is from _A Just Vindication of the questioned part of the reading of Edward Bagshawe, Esq._, 1660, p. 2-4. The tract states that Pym's speech was delivered when the petition was read and debated in the House. _Hanbury's Memorials_, ii. 141.

[145] _Rushworth_, iv. 170-187.

[146] 9th Feb., 1641.

[147] Quoted in _Studies and Illustrations, by Sanford_, 319.

[148] Mr. Godwin, in his _History of the Commonwealth_, i. 58, interprets the resolution as meaning "we are not yet decided to maintain Episcopacy." The debate, and even the words themselves, seem to me inconsistent with that view.

[149] These particulars are taken from the _Journal of Sir Ralph Verney_, a member of the Committee. Lord Nugent, in his _Life of Hampden_, gives some account of this MS.; but Mr. Bruce has published the entire notes in a volume of the Camden Society, with many valuable remarks.

[150] The following extract from the _Lords' Journals_ is an illustration:

"Mr. Etheridge, minister, and Mr. Carter, the curate, and William Till, clerk of the parish, Ben Parsons, Tho. Chadwick, were examined at the bar, concerning the riot lately committed in the church of Halstead, in the county of Essex; as striking the Book of Common Prayer out of the curate's hand as he was baptizing a child at the fount, and kicking it up and down the church, and for taking the clerk by the throat, forcing him to deliver unto them the hood and surplice, which they immediately rent and tore in pieces; and other misdemeanours and outrages were committed in the said church, on Simon and Jude's day last, in divine service, by Jonathan Poole and Grace his wife." 10th December, 1640.

Certain Nonconformists of St. Saviour's parish were complained of to the House for illegally assembling for worship. The House directed they should be left to the ordinary proceedings of justice, according to the course of law. _Journals of the Lords_, January 16th. See also 19th and 21st.

[151] As the accounts of this committee given by Fuller, Neal, and Cardwell, are incomplete in consequence of the writers having neglected to consult the Journals of the House of Lords, I subjoin the following entries relating to this business:--

_10 die Martii, 1640-1._

After an order that the Communion-table in every church remain where it is accustomed to be, it is ordered, "That these lords following are appointed to take into consideration all innovations in the Church concerning religion:--The Lord Treasurer, the Lord Chamberlain, Earls of Bath, South'ton, Bedford, Hartford, Essex, Dorset, Sarum, Warwick, March, Bristol, Clare, Berks, Dover, and Lord Viscount Say and Sele; Bishops of Winton, Chester, Lincoln, Sarum, Exon, Carlile, Ely, Bristol, Rochester, Chichester; and Ds. (Dominus), Strange, Willoughby de Earseby, North, Kymbolton, Howard de Charlton, Grey de Werk, Robarts, Craven, Pawlett, Howard de Escrick, Goringe, Savill, Dunsemore, and Seymor.

"_6 die Martii._

"That the Committee for Innovations in Religion do meet on Wednesday next, and the committee to have power to send for such learned men as their lordships shall please, to assist them.

"_10 die Martii._

"That the Committee for Religion do meet on Friday next, in the afternoon, and no other committee to sit that afternoon, and their lordships to have power to send for what learned divines their lordships shall please, for their better information: as the Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Warde, Dr. Twiste (Twiss) Dr. Hacket, who are to have intimation given them by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln to attend the Lords' Committees."

The following names, given by Fuller, Collier, and Neal must be taken as a list of the sub-committee. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln; Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh; Morton, Bishop of Durham; and Hall, Bishop of Exeter; Drs. Ward, Prideaux, Twiss, Sanderson, Featley, Brownrigg, Holdsworth, Hacket, Burgess, White, Marshall, Calamy, and Hill. Morton of Durham does not appear on the list of the Lords' Committee. Cardwell places in the list the name of Montague, but I find it mentioned by no one else. He is not a likely person to have had anything to do with the Committee, and he is probably confounded by Cardwell with Hall, who succeeded him in the bishopric of Norwich, being translated, on Montague's death, to that see from Exeter.

[152] Quoted in _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, iii. 187.

[153] _Hacket's Memorial of Williams_, Part ii. 147.

Sir N. Brent, in a paper dated September 9, 1634, gives an account of his "metropolitical visitation" of Williams's diocese. He describes the Communion-table at Lincoln as not decent, and the rail worse; organs old and nought; copes and vestments embezzled; ale-houses, hounds, and swine kept in the churchyard; Hitchin church and churchyard out of order; curate of Stowe accustomed "to marry people with gloves and masks on."--_Cal. Dom._ In another paper, probably pertaining to 1634, Boston seeks to free itself from the suspicions of Puritanism by saying that there were 2,000 communicants at church, who, for want of room to kneel, were compelled to receive the Lord's Supper standing.--_Ibid._ p. 422.

[154] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 415.

[155] _Laud's Works_, iii. 241.

[156] The following letter (without signature) illustrates this point: "A new Committee for Religion was appointed to have sat on Monday in the afternoon last, but there being neither meeting nor adjournment, it was left _sine die_: yet, on Thursday in the afternoon, the Bishops of Lincoln, Durham, Winchester, and Bristol met, where the assistants, attended by some threescore other divines of inferior rank, were present, and many temporal Lords; and many points of doctrine and Church service being questioned, among the rest one Lord said, that it ought to be put out of the creed '_that Christ descended into Hell_,' which he did not believe. Yesterday in the forenoon, without any intimation or notice given to the other committees, the same spiritual Lords and divines met at the Bishop of Lincoln's lodging, where, in less than two hours, they condemned, (as I am informed by the Bishop of Bristol, present), about fifty points in doctrine, what they had met with in several treatises and sermons of late printed amongst us. They had culled out a passage of my Lord of Canterbury in his Star Chamber speech, which they say is, that _Hoc est corpus meum_, is more than _Hoc est verbum meum_: which the Bishop of Lincoln censured, for that _verbum_ did make _corpus_; but would not further hear, because his grace was likely to answer it shortly elsewhere."--April 10, 1641. _State Papers, Chas. I. Dom._

[157] I say _almost_, because the practice of sitting, while singing hymns, which was common in Nonconforming places of worship when I was young, may still linger in some quarters.

[158] The following query appears respecting marriage:--

"Whether none hereafter shall have licences to marry, nor be asked their banns of matrimony, that shall not bring with them a certificate from their Minister that they are instructed in their Catechism."

[159] The specified alterations are: "I give thee power over my body;" "knowing assuredly that the dead shall rise again;" and "I pronounce thee absolved;" instead of the well-known forms so often objected to.

I have gone fully into an account of what was proposed to this Committee, not only because it may have a particular interest for those who are active in promoting a revision of the Prayer Book, but because there are such diversified statements in relation to the subject in our historians. Compare Fuller, Collier, and Neal. Neal presents his condensation of the papers with inverted commas, as if placing before the reader the original documents. (In other cases, too, he gives his own abridgment in this fashion, so as to mislead the student.) An entire copy of the proceedings of the Committee may be found in _Cardwell's Conferences_, p. 270, taken from _Baxter's Life and Times_, Part i. 369.

[160] _Neal_, ii. 465.

[161] See _Journals_ for March 9th, 10th, 11th, and 22nd. _May_ says, "Doctors and parsons of parishes were made everywhere Justices of Peace, to the great grievance of the country, in civil affairs, and depriving them of their spiritual edification."--_Hist. of Long Parliament_, 24.

[162] _Rushworth_, iv. 206. This Bill was under discussion in the Lords, in October, 1641.--_Nalson_, ii. 496.

[163] _Journals._

[164] _Clarendon's Hist._, 94.

[165] July 1.--"The Lords, upon the reasons offered by the Commons, were satisfied to consent to pass the Bill to take away the High Commission Court both here and at York, but argued to have the Star Chamber Court not quite taken away, but bounded, limited, and reduced to what power it had in Henry VII's time."--_Rushworth_, iv. 304. Both Bills received the royal assent, July 5.

[166] The writers were: Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thos. Young, Matt. Newcomen, and Wm. Spurstow.

[167] _The Reduction of Episcopacy_, which bears Ussher's name, was not published till after his death, in 1656. Baxter says in reference to it, "I asked him (Dr. Ussher) whether the paper be his that is called, _A reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodical Government_; which he owned, and Dr. Bernard after witnessed to be his."--_Life and Times_, part ii. 206.

I may here observe that the Archbishop, according to his biographer, Elrington, appears always to have spelt his name with a double s.

[168] _Baillie_, i. 351.

[169] May 3, 1641. _Parl. Hist._, ii. 776.

I have here and elsewhere, in giving the substance of speeches, adhered to the quaint phraseology employed by the speakers.

[170] For the protestation, see _Parl. Hist._, ii. 777. Alterations were made which throw light on the fears of returning popery.--_Verney's Notes_, published by the Camden Society, 67-70.

[171] Instances of the taking of it are numerous. In the _Register Book of Wansted_ it is found with the names of the principal inhabitants.--_Lyson's Environs of London_, iv. 243.

Whitaker, in his _History of Richmondshire_, mentions an endorsement on the Return Roll for the parishes and townships of Bentham, Ingleton, Thornton, Sedberg, Dent, and Garsdale:--"The names of those persons who refused to make protestation within Garsdale parcell of the township of Dent, viz: George Heber Gent, Abraham Nelson, chapman, who publiquely refused before the whole Dale in the Church."--vol. ii. 363.

[172] See _Journals of the Commons_, May 12th.

[173] August 2nd. _Parl. Hist._ ii, 895. Compare _Nalson_, ii. 414-417.

[174] _Baillie_, i. 351. He refers here to the Commons.

[175] _Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 524. The sagacious author justly remarks--"And thus we trace again the calamities of Charles to their two great sources; his want of judgment in affairs, and of good faith towards his people." The Lords passed the Bill on the 8th; the royal assent was given on the 10th.

[176] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 778.

[177] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 783. May 5. D'Ewes gives another amusing version of the story, (under date May 19).--_Sanford's Illustrations_, 373. Baillie's account is somewhat different.

[178] _Maitland's London_, i. 338.

[179] The bitter Presbyterian feeling against Strafford is plain enough in Baillie's letters.

It belongs not to the scope of this ecclesiastical History to enter on the details of the trial, but I cannot resist the temptation to insert in the Appendix two letters found in the State Paper Office, giving an account of the way in which the bill of attainder was introduced.

[180] See Speeches by Lane and St. John (_Rushworth's Trial of Strafford_, 671, _et seq._); then read what follows:

"It certainly does astonish us that men, however they may have condemned the conduct of Strafford, could bring themselves to believe that he was guilty of the crime of high treason; for they could hardly have been deceived by the wicked sophistry of St. John that an attempt to subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom was high treason at common law, and still remains so, or by the base opinion delivered by the judges--that this amounts to high treason under the Statute of Edward III."--_Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, iv. 15.

[181] Ussher of Armagh, Juxon of London, Morton of Durham, Potter of Carlisle, and Williams of Lincoln.

[182] Slightly abridged from _Elrington's Life of Ussher_, 213.

[183] That such a distinction was suggested seems generally admitted. Clarendon attributes it to Williams, (_Rebellion_, 140.) This, considering the historian's prejudice respecting the Archbishop, is not perfectly conclusive against Williams, any more than the silence of Hacket (_Life of Williams_, pt. II., i. 161,)--who only speaks of the advice given in common, founded on the distinction between facts and law--is conclusively in his favour.

Clarendon is corroborated by the circumstance, that Ussher and Juxon were freed from the charge by the King himself (according to the report of Sir Edward Walker), and of the remaining prelates Williams was the most likely to give such advice as Clarendon mentions.

[184] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 421.

The author says he copied what he gives of Hacket's speech out of his own papers. _Nalson's Report_ (ii. 240) seems to be an amplification of what is contained in _Rushworth_, iv. 269. Verney entirely agrees with Fuller (_Verney Papers--Camden Society_, 75), but only in a few particulars with Nalson. Nalson is also wrong in saying Hacket answered Burgess. Hacket spoke first. Burgess answered him.

[185] _Fuller_, iii. 422. According to _Verney's Notes_, Burgess speaks of "Choristers and officers as fellows that are condemned for felons, and keep ale-houses, and so they may still," 77.

[186] _Rushworth_, iv. 276.

[187] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 773.

[188] _Sanford's Illustrations_, 363.

[189] _Nalson_, ii. 248.

[190] _Parry's Parliaments and Councils of England_, 353.

[191] _Sanford's Studies and Illustrations_, 364.

[192] Dering published an apology in 1642.

[193] The following letter by Sydney Bere, secretary to Sir Balthazar Gerbier, afterwards to Sir H. Vane, is preserved in the State Paper Office.

"Whitehall, 17th June, 1641.

"You will surely have heard that the utter abolishing of the bishops and all titular ecclesiastics, with the dependents, hath been agreed upon in the House of Commons, and met with less noes in the debate than the business of the Earl of Strafford had. This day they voted it again, and now it is to be engrossed, a draft of the Act goes herewith.

"The business of the bishops will be of dangerous consequence, they being violent and passionate in their own defence, and having engaged, as it were, the Lords, by their late votes in their favour, to the maintenance of their cause; whereas the Commons seem as resolute to pass the Bill for their utter extirpation, and so transmitting it to the Lords, according to the custom; and then it may be justly inferred the city will prove as turbulent as they were on Strafford's cause."

Sidney Bere became under-secretary upon the appointment of Nicholas, in November, to the chief secretaryship of state.

[194] _Rushworth_, iv. 279.

[195] _Nalson_, ii. 529.

[196] _Journal_, June 7, 1641.

_Verney's Notes_ bear evidence that the same day the feeling of the House was unfavourable to Episcopacy. Monday, 7th June:--"Sir John Griffin, the elder, said, I see it is distasteful to this House to speak for the government of the Church."--_Verney Papers_, 83.

On the same day, in the course of a debate, the subject of ecclesiastical canons came again under consideration. Mr. Maynard "transmitted the votes about the canons." According to _Verney's Notes_, (84) in which this appears, the debate touched generally on the power of the clergy to make canons. No formal resolution or vote is recorded.

[197] _Sanford's Illustrations_, 365.

[198] _Clarendon's Hist._, 110.

[199] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 822-826.

Sir Ralph Verney notices the debate on the 12th, but his notes are unfortunately very brief, and run thus:--

"Actions constant at all times to men of one order, 'tis a great sign of their malignity.

Oil and water may be severed, but oil and wine never.

Pledwell's arguments might have been used for the pope as well as for other bishops.

Vaughan.--Three things considerable in bishops: election, confirmation, consecration.

_Os Episcopi_ is a chancellor.

_Oculus Episcopi_ is the commissary.

_Consilium Episcopi_ is the dean."--_Verney Papers_, 94.

Letters in the State Paper Office show the excitement produced by the Commons' proceedings. Slingsby says, 10th June, "The discourse of all men is they must now strike at root and branch, and not slip this occasion."

[200] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 828. _et seq._

[201] _Rushworth_, iv. 295.

[202] _Nalson_, ii. 245.

[203] White was grandfather of Susannah Annesly, the mother of the Wesleys.

[204] For cases which came before Dering, see "_Proceedings principally in the County of Kent, &c._" Edited by the Rev. L. B. Barking, with preface by John Bruce, Esq. _Camden Soc._

[205] _Rushworth_, iv. 113-123.

[206] _Rushworth_, 194, 195.

See _Laud's Journal_, March 1, p. 240.