[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

[321] A comparison of Clarendon's history with the Journals of the two Houses, shows that in almost every paragraph of his narration there are inaccuracies. It would require too much space to point them out. I have abridged his report of the speeches delivered, but with much misgiving as to its correctness; probably, however, the general tenor of the debate was as the Chancellor represents; and in the arguments for the Bill perhaps he gives his own orations.

[322] Clarendon intimates that the former part of the declaration respecting war against the King was most obnoxious to the Presbyterian Lords, yet that they durst not oppose it, because the principle of non-resistance had already been recognized in the Corporation Act. He adds, that they who were most solicitous that the House should concur in this addition, "had field-room enough to expatiate upon the gross iniquity of the Covenant."

[323] On the 7th of April "the Lord Bishop of Worcester" (appointed to Winchester upon the death of Duppa on March 26th) "offered to the consideration of this House an explanation in a paper, of the vote of this House on Saturday last, concerning the words in the Act of Uniformity which declared against the Solemn League and Covenant, which he first opened, and afterwards, by permission of the House read." The question was raised, Whether a debate on the paper was against the orders of the House? and resolved in the negative, whereupon it was ordered, that the paper should be taken into consideration the next morning. A memorandum is entered in connection with this minute, "That, before the putting of the aforesaid question, these Lords, whose names are subscribed, desired leave to enter their dissents if the question was carried in the negative." No names, however, are subscribed. The day following, the House examined the paper which had been brought in for an explanation of the clause in the Act of Uniformity concerning the Covenant; and, after a long debate, the paper was laid aside.—Journals.

[324] The Lords appointed were the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Bristol, the Earl of Anglesey, the Bishop of Worcester, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of Hereford, and the Lords Wharton, Mohun, Lucas, and Holles. The Earl of Anglesey reported the next day, "that the Committee have considered of a proviso, that such persons as are put out of their livings by virtue of the Act of Uniformity, may have such allowances out of their livings for their subsistence as His Majesty shall think fit." After some debate a few alterations were made, and it was resolved that the "proviso, with the alterations, shall stand in the Bill." The Lords having read the Bill a third time, April 9, resolved "to send for a Conference with the House of Commons to-morrow morning, and communicate this Bill with the alterations and amendments to them." The next day they gave direction "to deliver the Book wherein the alterations are made, out of which the other Book was fairly written."

[325] Commons, April 10, 14, and 16.

[326] By 96 to 90.—Journals, April 16.

[327] Ibid.

[328] Dr. Southey in his History of the Church, ii. 467, observes, The ejected "were careful not to remember that the same day, and for the same reason (because the tithes were commonly due at Michaelmas), had been appointed for the former ejectment, when four times as many of the loyal clergy were deprived for fidelity to their sovereign." To say nothing of the latter part, a subject I have fully discussed in a former volume, I would notice Mr. Hallam's question—"Where has Dr. Southey found his precedent?" Not any one Parliamentary ordinance in Husband's collection mentions St. Bartholomew's Day. Dr. Southey has, no doubt, followed Walker in his Sufferings of the Clergy, who makes the statement without any authority. Yet see quotation from Farewell Sermons in this volume, p. 278.

[329] Noticed in conferences with the Lords, May 7.

[330] Commons' Journal, April 21.

[331] Ibid., April 22.

[332] Ibid., April 26. The numbers were 94 to 87. It is curious to notice Hallam's correction of Neal. Referring to the division on the 26th of April, he says, "This may perhaps have given rise to a mistake we find in Neal, that the Act of Uniformity only passed by 186 to 180. There was no division at all upon the Bill, except that I have mentioned."—Constitutional History, ii. 37. Neal is undoubtedly incorrect, for there was no division on the Bill as a whole; but, Mr. Hallam is also mistaken, for as to parts of the Bill there were at least four divisions, according to the Journals. The neglect of the Journals, more or less, by all historians, has been one main cause of the inaccurate and confused accounts found in the best of them.

[333] Lords' Journals, May 7.

[334] Lords' Journals, May 8. Cardwell's Synodalia, 672.

[335] There is an anecdote touching the same rubric related by Kennet (643). "Archbishop Tenison told me, by his bedside, on Monday, February 12, 1710, that the Convocation Book, intended to be the copy confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, had a rash blunder in the rubric after baptism which should have run 'It is certain, by God's word, that children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.' But the words 'which are baptized' were left out till, Sir Cyril Wyche coming to see the Lord Chancellor Hyde, found the Book brought home by His Lordship, and lying in his parlour window, even after it had passed the two Houses, and happening to cast his eye upon that place, told the Lord Chancellor of that gross omission, who supplied it with his own hand." No sign of this particular error occurs in the authorized text attached to the Act. Probably Tenison had heard a story of the alteration which I have noticed, and related it inaccurately.

[336] The entry in the Lords' Journals runs thus—"Whereas it was signified by the House of Commons, at the Conference yesterday, 'that they found one mistake in the rubric of baptism, which they conceived was a mistake of the writer [persons] being put instead of [children,] the Lord Bishop of Durham acquainted the House that himself, and the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, had authority from the Convocation to mend the said word, averring it was only a mistake of the scribe; and accordingly they came to the Clerks' table, and amended the same!" This was on the 8th of May, but on the previous 21st of April the rectification of the error is recorded in the proceedings of Convocation.—Synodalia, 670. That the Commons detected the clerical error in the copy of the Book which they had received and examined, as noticed in their Journals, the 16th of April; and that they called the attention of the Lords to it, appears from a loose paper in the House of Lords, in which it is said—"That the Lords be made acquainted that this House hath observed a mistake in the rubric after public baptism of infants [persons] being inserted instead of [children,] which they take to be but vitium scriptoris, and desire the Lords will consider of a way how the same may be amended."

[337] An account of these books will be found in the Appendix to the next volume.

[338] Lords' Journals, May 19.

[339] It is evident from the 13th of Elizabeth, cap. xii., "An Act for the Ministers of the Church to be of Sound Religion," that a particular form of ordination was not then requisite for ministration in the Establishment. The words of the Act are, "That every person under the degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a priest or minister of God's holy word and sacraments by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament, in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward VI., or now used in the reign of our most gracious Sovereign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity of Christ next following, shall, in the presence of the Bishop or guardian of the spiritualities of some one diocese where he hath or shall have ecclesiastical living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion," &c. This was the law till 1662.

[340] It is not meant that these men actually performed the work of revision, but they were the guiding spirits of the Church; therefore the character of the Book issued at the different periods may be considered as reflecting their opinions.

[341] I have already noticed that the Puritans, in their exceptions against the Prayer Book, at the Savoy Conference, urged on their opponents the comprehensive policy of the Reformers.—Baxter, ii. 317; Cardwell's Conferences, 305.

[342] Clarendon's Continuation, 1078.

[343] This illustration was suggested to me by a distinguished Divine of the Church of England.