Chapter XXV (3)

[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 c. i., repealed 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, c. viii., ss. 12-20. That Act was repealed by 1 Elizabeth c. i., ss. 1, 2.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.