Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]

by John Stoughton

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Burnet, Rapin, Hume, and Lingard, give numerous particulars, but the account I have presented is drawn from A True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy of the Popish Party against the Life of His Majesty, the Government, and the Protestant Religion, by Titus Oates himself, published 1679.

In the Dedication there is a sentiment expressed worthy of a better man. “It is a false suggestion,” says Oates, “which such tempters use, that a King that rules by will is more great and glorious than a King that rules by law:—the quality of the retinue best proves the state of the lord; the one being but a king of slaves, while the other, like God, is a king of kings and hearts.”

I have before me a narrative of “the horrid Popish plot,” by Capt. W. Bedloe, 1679; another by Miles Prance, 1679; and a collection of letters relating to it published by order of the House of Commons, 1681. Oates’ narrative, which, though dated the 27th of September, 1678, was not published until the following April, contains a digested statement, in eighty-one items, of all the particulars which he had alleged.

[2] The letters are published in the collection just named. Some are in Rapin, iii. 171.

[3] History of his Own Time, i. 434.

[4] Life of Calamy, i. 83.

[5] Defoe quoted in Knight’s Hist. of England, iv. 335.

[6] Stayley was executed November 26th, Coleman December 3rd.

[7] In the Moneys for Secret Services, published by the Camden Society, are numerous entries of sums paid to Oates and others. Curious references to Oates’ character as an impostor, may be found in Reresby’s Memoirs, 239, and North’s Lives, i. 325.

[8] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1678, November 1, December (without further date), and December 28. It would divert attention from the main current of this history to go fully into Oates’ plot. The historical student will find a bundle of papers bearing on the subject under date 1678, and further papers on the same subject under 1679, January to June.

[9] Lord Keeper North “was of opinion that the fiction of the Popish Plot did not arise from the accident of Tongue’s and Oates’ informations, but from a preconcerted design.” The reasons are given in a MS. of North’s, printed in Dalrymple’s Memoirs, ii. app. 320. That the plot was invented by Shaftesbury there seems no sufficient ground for believing. See Campbell’s Lives of Lord Chancellors, iv. 197.

[10] Rapin, iii. 172. Evelyn says, “For my part I look on Oates as a vain insolent man, puffed up with the favour of the Commons, for having discovered something really true, more especially as detecting the dangerous intrigue of Coleman, proved out of his own letters, and of a general design which the Jesuited party of the Papists ever had and still have, to ruin the Church of England.”—Diary, ii. 140.

[11] Commons’ Journals, October 28. “The Oath of Supremacy was already taken by the Commons, though not by the Lords; and it is a great mistake to imagine that Catholics were legally capable of sitting in the Lower House before the Act of 1679” (1678).—Hallam’s Const. Hist., ii. 121.

[12] Burnet, Hist. of his Own Times, i. 436.

[13] Journals, Nov. 21 and 30; Lingard, xii. 151, 152. Reresby says, (Memoirs, 230), “In April, 1680, I went to London to solicit some business at Court, but the application of all men being to the Duke, who quite engrossed the King to himself, His Highness had but little leisure to give ear to, or assist his friends.”

[14] North’s Lives, i. 340.

[15] Sir Thomas Browne’s Works, i. 241. This relates to a second election for Norwich in the month of May, the first having been set aside. It illustrates both the excitement and the custom of the times. The general election took place in February.

[16] Evelyn’s Diary, ii. 136.

[17] Quoted in D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 165–176.

[18] Life of James II., i. 539.

[19] Wilkins, iv. 606.

[20] Ibid., iv. 600.

[21] Wilkins, iv. 605; Sancroft’s Life by D’Oyley, i. 186.

[22] Wilkins, iv. 607.

[23] Tanner MSS., 32, 208; Life of Sancroft, i. 204. D’Oyley conjecturally assigns this document to the reign of Charles, but he is not sure it may not belong to the reign of James.

[24] Sir W. Temple, in his Memoirs, part iii., gives an account of the plan and working of this Council. His object was to enable the Crown to manage the Commons, by making the Crown, as far as possible, independent of the Commons. After noticing the wealth of the Council in revenues of land or offices as amounting to £300,000 per annum, whilst that of the House of Commons seldom exceeded £400,000, he adds, “And authority is observed much to follow land, and, at the worst, such a Council might, out of their own stock, and upon a pinch, furnish the King so far as to relieve some great necessity of the Crown.”—Temple’s Works, vol. i. 414. He says (436) he told the Duke of York, “he might always reckon upon me as a legal man, and one that would always follow the Crown as became me.” These passages seem to be overlooked by some historians, in estimating the nature and objects of Temple’s scheme.

[25] April 30, 1679.—Parl. Hist. iv. 1128.

[26] The Habeas Corpus Act was passed during the spring of 1679.

[27] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time, i. 475.

[28] “The information of Dangerfield, delivered at the bar of the Commons, the 26th of October, 1680.” Lords’ Journals, Nov. 15, 1680. State Trials. Burnet, i. 475 and 637. Lingard, xii. 227, et seq. Dangerfield died from a blow, struck whilst he was being whipped.

[29] Dated August 25. Received September 1.—State Papers.

[30] Parl. Hist. iv. 1162, et seq. Again let me refer the reader to Fox, Hist. of James ii., p. 311, for some admirable remarks on this whole question, politically considered.

[31] Sommers’ Tracts i. 97.

[32] Parl. Hist. iv. 1197, et seq.; Rapin, iii. 198, et seq.

[33] Reresby’s Memoirs, 234. He says that the speech of Halifax, “so all confessed, influenced the House, and persuaded them to throw out the Bill.” The debate took place on the 15th of November.

[34] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 181.

[35] Calamy’s Life of Baxter, 354.

[36] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 183.

[37] Ibid., 187.

[38] “Tillotson’s conduct on this occasion places his amiable character in the fairest light. One can hardly regret that he committed a fault for which he so nobly atoned, and which has furnished us with so impressive an example of ingenuousness, candour, and humility.”—Rogers’ Life of Howe, 190.

[39] There were two Bishop Lloyds at the time; one of Norwich, the other of St. Asaph, consecrated October 3, 1680. It was most likely the latter. We shall meet with him as one of the seven Bishops committed to the Tower in 1688.

[40] Life of Howe, 191, 192.

[41] Kennet quoted in Neal, iv. 496.

[42] Dec. 30, 1680. “The Commons have before them a Bill of comprehension and a Bill for indulgence. The latter is proposed very full and clear, requiring nothing but subscription to Thirty-six Articles, and taking a test against Popery. This hath been read twice, and is before the Committee. The former moreover requires the use of Common Prayer, and, I think, as proposed even relapses almost all other things that almost anybody scruples. This has been read twice and passed the Committee. Opinions about these Bills are various. All that I have heard of, who desire comprehension, desire indulgence also for others, though multitudes desire indulgence that most fervently oppose comprehension. This begets great misunderstandings.”—Entring Book, Morice MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library.

On the 24th of December a clergyman was charged before the House of Commons with saying that the Presbyterians were such as the very devil blushed at, and were as bad as Jesuits, and otherwise denying the Popish plot, throwing the same on Protestants. It was resolved that he should be impeached.—Journals.

[43] Both read the first time Dec. 16.—Journals. The Bill for toleration was read a second time Dec. 24.

[44] The Lords desired the concurrence of the Commons in the amendments which they had made to this relief Bill Jan. 3. See Journals of both Houses.

[45] Burnet (i. 495) says the Clerk of the Crown withdrew it from the table by the King’s particular order.

[46] Journals, Jan. 10, 1681. Eachard, Rapin, Burnet, and Calamy quote or mention two resolutions on this subject, as passed at the same time by the Commons—the first, that the Act of Elizabeth and James against Popish recusants ought not to be extended against Protestant Dissenters—the second, that which has just been noticed. It is the only one respecting toleration, recorded in the Journals for that day.

[47] I have, in the history of this whole affair, followed the Journals; and they show the inaccuracy, more or less of Burnet, Eachard, and Neal. Even what Sir William Jones says in his Vindication (Parl. Hist. iv. Appendix) is scarcely consistent with the records of the Houses.

[48] “The Court was at Christ Church, and the Commons sat in the schools, but were very much straitened for room, there being a very great concourse of members.” “Many of the discontented members, of both Houses, came armed, and more than usually attended; and it was affirmed there was a design to have seized the King, and to have restrained him till he had granted their petitions.”—Reresby’s Memoirs, 243, 245.

[49] March 24, Parl. Hist. iv. 1308.

[50] Lords’ Journals, March 26.

[51] Reresby’s Memoirs, 290.

[52] Lingard, xii. 281.

[53] Burnet, i. 500; D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 252. The King’s letter to Sancroft is dated April 11, 1681.

[54] Address from the University of Cambridge. Wilkins, iv. 607; State Papers, Charles II. Dom. 1681, May 16. I have pretty closely adhered to the words used in the addresses.

[55] Bishop of Winchester’s Vindication, 394, 410. This work was published in 1683, but the author says that it was written a year before. Probably the above passage may belong to 1681.

[56] Preface to The Happy Future State of England, published 1688.

[57] The Conformist’s Plea for Nonconformists, 7.

[58] The Conformist’s Plea for the Nonconformists, 34. The Life of Julian the Apostate also made a great noise at that time.

[59] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1677.

[60] There is a remarkable absence of information in Sir Joseph Williamson’s papers of this date, preserved in the Record Office. Several letters, written at this time by the informer Bowen, of Yarmouth, upon local matters, contain no allusion to the Nonconformists there. The Histories of Nonconformists silently bear witness to this fact. Neal, Crosby, and Sewel, under these years, say little or nothing of persecution. It must not, however, be inferred that it was then unknown, for it is stated in the Church Book of Guildhall-street Chapel, Canterbury, that Mr. Durant, the pastor, and some of his congregation, in 1679, “fled for refuge to Holland, and some forsook the Church and fell off—Timpson’s Church Hist. of Kent, 307.

[61] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 180.

[62] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Times, i. 267, 268, 476.

[63] Earl Russell’s Life of Lord William Russell, 159.

[64] Macaulay describes the manner in which Halifax endeavoured to vindicate his trimming. Hist., i. 254. The following quotation from Halifax is characteristic:—

“Why,” he asks, “after we have played the fool with throwing Whig and Tory at one another, as boys do snowballs, should we grow angry at a new name, which by its signification might do as much to put us into our wits, as the other has done to put us out of them. This innocent word Trimmer signifies no more than this, that if men are together in a boat, and one part of the company would weigh it down on one side, another would make it lean as much the contrary; it happens that there is a third opinion of those who conceive it would do as well if the boat went even, without endangering the passengers. Now ’tis hard to imagine by what figure in language, or by what rule in sense, this comes to be a fault, and it is much more a wonder it should be thought a heresy.” By a common fallacy, Halifax applies what is true of one thing to another thing very different. Too many miserably act respecting religion on the same principle as Halifax adopted in relation to politics.

[65] Burnet, i. 266.

[66] Memoirs of Count de Grammont, vol. ii. 112; Clarendon, 503.

[67] Lives, ii. 57.

[68] Burnet, i. 482.

[69] Printed document. State Papers, Dom., 1681, Sept. 2.

[70] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1681, Aug. 25, Sept. 2. There are several very curious papers relative to Oates, which I have copied, but have not space to insert.

The Prevaricator at Cambridge at the commencement of 1680, referred to the plot. The reference seems to have been very brief and unimportant, but it gave concern in high quarters. A letter was written to the Vice-Chancellor, by direction of the Bishop of London, complaining of the Prevaricator turning the plot into ridicule, that it would be brought before Parliament “to the reproach of the government of the Universities, if not to strike at the Universities themselves, unless it be timely prevented by a severe animadversion.”—Cambridge Portfolio, 242.

[71] Life of Baxter, 349. The book is dated 1680, and the author, Lewis du Moulin, recanted his reflections on the Divines of the Church of England, the same year.

[72] Burnet, i. 461.

[73] There is a letter from the Lieutenant of the Tower in the Record Office, Dom. Charles II., August 5, 1681, in which the writer describes how the prisoner was to be conveyed to Oxford “in a coach with ten or twelve of the warders on horseback, with carabines.”

[74] Burnet, i. 505. Colledge was tried on the 17th and 18th of August. The trial is reported at full length in a folio pamphlet of 102 pages published by authority, 1681. Colledge defended himself, examined witnesses and made speeches. It is plain that under the circumstances, with such judges, the poor fellow stood no chance.

[75] September 1, 1681, Oxon. Letter from Thomas Hyde states that just before the execution of Colledge, he had denied having written certain letters, but that when he heard these letters had been intercepted, he acknowledged them.

There are several letters respecting Colledge; amongst other papers is the following:—September 30, 1681. “Deposition of Benjamin Wyche of the parish of Saint Andrew’s, Holborn, London, Apothecary. This deponent saith that being in Richards’ coffee-house near Temple Bar, soon after His Majesty had dissolved the Parliament sitting at Westminster, amongst other company in the room, Mr. Colledge was one whom (upon discourse of the Parliament being then dissolved) he this deponent, heard uttering these words, ‘Well I see what it will come to, we must e’en draw our swords, and fight it out again,’ or words to that effect.—Ben Wyche.”

“Jurat coram me.—L. Jenkins.”

[76] The first letter is dated Sept. 21. In the second letter, in the same bundle, the day of the month is not given. The letter is numbered 164. Another paper in the Record Office, dated August 20, 1681, reports that the Countess of Rochester said “Colledge was a Papist to her knowledge, and had been so for a long time.” There are other statements to the same effect. Thomas Hyde (September 1, 1681) writing from Oxford, says that Colledge would not acknowledge what religion he was of, but that “he was of the Anabaptists.”

[77] It is added “this fanatic’s name was formerly Bishop, but being a hater of bishops changed his name into Marten; and because he is by that name known for a notorious villain he hath changed it again.”—Dom. Charles II.

[78] Ibid., August 27, 24.

[79] The confession, of which a portion is missing, bears date August 24, 1681. State Papers, Dom. Charles II. The dying speech is in MS. in the same collection dated August 31. It was published as a distinct tract, 1681; also it is printed in The Dying Speeches and Behaviour of several State Prisoners. Ed. 1720. The reason for his being called the Protestant Joiner he thus describes:—“The Duke of Monmouth called me to him, and told me he had heard a good report of me, and that I was an honest man, and one that may be trusted: and they did not know but their enemies, the Papists, might have some design to serve them as they did in King James’s time by gunpowder, or any other way; and the Duke with several Lords and Commons did desire me to use my utmost skill in searching all places suspected by them, which I did perform: and from thence I had as I think, the popular name of The Protestant Joiner, because they had entrusted me, before any man in England to do that office.”—Dying Speeches, 387.

[80] There is amongst the State Papers, one dated November 26, 1681, Dom. Charles II., by George Evans, who complains that there was a bonfire on Cornhill, and that gentlemen were stopped in their coaches and required to drink Lord Shaftesbury’s health. This was on the occasion of the Grand Jury ignoring the bill against him. There are a number of documents relating to Shaftesbury under the year 1681.

[81] Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors, iv. 229. Lord Campbell has not done justice to Shaftesbury. It should be remarked to Shaftesbury’s honour, Earl Russell says, “that though in the secret of every party, he never betrayed any one: and that the purity of his administration of justice is allowed even by his enemies.”—Life of Lord William Russell, 61.

[82] From a mass of illustrations I select the following in reference to the last point:—

Dom. Charles II., 1681, Sept. 9. “I was interrupted,” says the Archdeacon of Durham, “in the execution of my office, as I was officiating in my own church, by a very bold and insolent fanatic, who though indicted at our last assizes, escaped punishment—to the great contempt, I hear, of God’s house and service—I am sure to the great trouble of the clergy, who fear it may go very hard with them, in the execution of their offices, when so great a violence offered to the Archdeacon should go unpunished. Since a Churchman can expect to meet with no more favour from a lay judicatory, I am forced to fly to the ecclesiastical courts, where this person stands presented, for disturbing the minister in time of Divine service, and I think no ecclesiastical judge can be of the same mind with the jury, that what was done between the Nicene Creed and the sermon, was not done in time of Divine service, upon which point he was found not guilty, to the admiration [wonder] of those that understood the rubric.”

John Strode, of Rye, writes, September 13, “that the new Mayor chosen by the fanatics refused to grant warrants according to the Act of Parliament, pretending some frivolous thing.”

[83] November 7, 1681.

[84] Dom. Charles II., 1681, November 15. I find, dated November 25, “The names of such Nonconformists who being presented in the Attorney-General’s name, are actually served with subpœnas returnable on Monday last:—

• “John Collins, D.D.
• “John Owen, D.D.
• “Samuel Annesley, D.D.
• “Thomas Jacomb, D.D.
• “Thomas Watson.
• “Matthew Meade.
• “Robert Fergusson.
• “Edmund Calamy.
• “Thomas Doolittle.
• “Samuel Slater.
• “Nicholas Blackley.

“Sir,

“There are two informations filed against every one of the above-named Nonconformist ministers, i.e., one on the Statute for not repairing to Church, upon which they forfeit £20 per mensem. This information is laid for twenty months. The other is on the Oxford Act, prohibiting Nonconformist ministers, &c., to reside within five miles of any corporation, upon the penalty of £40. So that the penalties against the persons above-named, if recovered, and not remitted, will amount to the sum of £4,840.

“Yours,

“Wm. Shermar”

[85] The Minutes of Council show that the Mayors of Plymouth and Reading were directed to put the Oxford Act in execution against the preachers in Conventicles.—December 2. The constables of the East Riding of Yorkshire refused to disturb meetings.—State Papers, bundle 260, No. 474. The magistrates at Hickes’ Hall complain that the laws respecting Conventicles had been long silent.—December 10.

[86] Echard, Neal, iv. 507.

[87] Calamy’s Continuation, 137.

[88] State Papers, Dec. 19.

[89] State Papers, 1682, February 15.

[90] Calamy’s Continuation, 139.

[91] I copied these extracts many years ago from the old Church books, now unfortunately lost. In the State Paper Office, under date of the 2nd February, 1682, there is a long report of the political sentiments of people in different parts of Norfolk, in which report,—besides mention of the Anabaptists and the Quakers worshipping under one roof, and of a clergyman in the Commission of the Peace, an itinerant Justice, “who rides all the circuit, and makes disturbances wherever he comes by his pragmaticalness and unskilfulness in the laws”—a reference is made to Dr. Collinges, a very respectable Presbyterian minister at Norwich, and it is suggested, “were he removed, it is probable many of that sect would fall off.”

[92] Morice MSS., Entring Book, i., 1682, November 21.

[93] December 30.

[94] December 14.

[95] November 30, December 7.

[96] December 14, February 6, 1682–3. “On Monday, in the Common Pleas, some citizens were cited, because they did not receive the sacrament at Easter by their minister, the Churchwardens saying they believed that they did not receive it then. But because the process saith not what Easter it was, and because there was no sacrament at their church the last Easter; and further, because the Churchwardens do but believe they did not receive it, therefore a prohibition was granted unless cause be shown to the contrary.”

The Countess of Aylesbury was informed against for being at a Conventicle.—March 15, 1684.

[97] December 14, 1682; March, 1683.

[98] Much trouble and suffering arose from fear; and many congregations, after apprehending disturbance, were allowed to worship in peace. This I learn from the Entring Book, 1683, January, in the Morice MSS. (in Dr. Williams’ Library,) from which the passage in the text is taken.

[99] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., February 21, 1682.

[100] The Presbyterians are reckoned altogether at 5,420; the Baptists, &c., at 4,250.

[101] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1682, June 2, 16, 20. On the 9th of December, the following queries were submitted to Secretary Jenkins:—

“Whether, at a time when the Dissenters in shoals transport themselves beyond sea, to the apparent throwing up of many farms throughout England, and a dearth of servants, it may not be thought reasonable to prohibit such a transportation occasioned by a sullen humour?

“2. Whether, at this time, when the Dissenters calumniate the Government with a connivance at debaucheries, while themselves are vigorously prosecuted about matters of religion, it may not be thought reasonable to revive His Majesty’s proclamation against profane cursing and swearing and other debaucheries?

“3. Whether the prosecution against Dissenters ought not to be prosecuted to excommunication, for not coming to church and receiving the Sacrament, in Corporations especially,—thereby to incapacitate them from being elected, or electors of, members of Parliament?”

[102] There are many documents connected with this subject amongst the State Papers, 1680, January to June.

[103] State Papers, Dom., 1682, September 11, 13, 16. There is also a letter describing the Duke’s visit to Chichester, and the insults offered to the Bishop’s chaplain. February 24, 1683.

[104] It is said (Sept. 18) the Duke had not the encouragement which Dissenters expected.

[105] L’Estrange was a censor of the press. In the Record Office, Dom. Charles II., may be found Williamson’s authority to “Roger L’Estrange, surveyor of the press, to act as one of his deputies in the licensing of books,” dated Whitehall, February 5, 1674–5.

In 1684 L’Estrange commenced a periodical entitled The Observator, which he carried on until 1687. He there upholds the Royal dispensing power, and ridicules Protestant excitements, the right to liberty of conscience, the Long Parliament, and Nonconformists of all kinds, pronouncing Dissent a political schism. He published the paper irregularly, sometimes twice, sometimes thrice a week. It is written after the manner of a dialogue between The Observator and its opponents. I have met with three or four large volumes of the publication, in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. They justify the strong language I have used.

[106] State Trials, 1683. The judgment was that the franchise and liberty of the City of London should be taken and seized into the King’s hands.

[107] The Act for annulling Russell’s attainder, in the first year of William and Mary, justly declared that “he was, by undue and illegal return of jurors, having been refused his lawful challenge to the said jurors, for want of freehold, and by partial and unjust constructions of law, wrongfully convicted, attainted, and executed for high treason.”

[108] The charges against Russell and Sidney, of being engaged in negotiations with the French Court, and of the latter receiving pay from that quarter, belong to the political history of England. I must refer the reader to Hallam, Mackintosh, and especially to Earl Russell’s Life of Lord William Russell. Supposing that Sidney accepted money from France, I am not at all disposed to regard his conduct so leniently as do the first two of the above-named writers; but, after pondering what Earl Russell says, I feel some doubt respecting the truth of Barillon’s reports, and the accuracy of his accounts. As to Lord William Russell’s conduct, his biographer says it “was not criminal, but it would be difficult to acquit him of the charge of imprudence.”—p. 107.

[109] “Much discourse hath been about the apparition of Lord William Russell’s ghost in Southampton square, July 27 (1683), about twelve o’clock at night.”—Entring Book, Morice MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library. The above notice of Russell’s execution is almost entirely drawn up from Earl Russell’s life of this illustrious person, 337, et seq.

[110] Tillotson’s Life, 109.

[111] Collier, ii. 903. Filmer’s writings were most in vogue with the partisans of despotism. See Hallam’s Const. Hist., ii. 156, on the subject.

[112] Orme’s Life of Owen.

[113] Howe’s Case of Protestant Dissenters; Life, 247. In a letter which Howe wrote in the year 1685 from the Continent, when he was travelling with Philip Lord Wharton, to escape the persecution of the times, he uses the following words, which indicate, more than any laboured description, the reign of terror he had left behind him in England:—“The anger and jealousies of such as I never had a disposition to offend, have of later times occasioned persons of my circumstances very seldom to walk the streets.”—Life by Rogers, 225.

[114] The trial is published in a volume edited by Samuel Rosewell, 1718. The trial took place in the months of October and November, 1684. In the Memoir there is an account of his apprehension and first appearance before Jeffreys at his house in Aldermanbury. Rosewell, lest he should commit himself before witnesses, answered Jeffreys in Latin. The Judge flew into a passion, and told him, he supposed he could not utter another sentence in the same language to save his neck. Rosewell did not give him the lie, but thought it better to give his next answer in Greek. “The Judge seemed to be thunderstruck upon this.”—p. 47.

[115] Trial of Rosewell, p. 52, et seq. Speaking of the latter part of the reign of Charles II. Mrs. Mary Churchman says, “Persecution now came on apace, the Dissenters could have no meetings but in woods and corners. I, myself, have seen our companies often alarmed with drums and soldiers; every one was fined five pounds a month for being in their company.”—Abstract of the Gracious Dealings of God, &c., by Samuel James, 74.

[116] I have gathered this account entirely from Delaune’s pamphlets on the subject, which were collected and published in a volume in the year 1704. The controversy had been mixed up with a reference to Calamy’s invitation to private Christians, to consult their pastors in their religious difficulties; and to Nonconformists also to hear both sides; which—by a wide stretch of interpretation—Delaune construed into a public challenge to an answer in print. It had been further complicated with reproaches, because Calamy did not intercede for the sufferer, or visit him in prison. Defoe says, “It was very hard such a man, such a Christian, and such a scholar, and on such an occasion should starve in a dungeon; and the whole body of Dissenters in England, whose cause he died for defending, should not raise him £66 13s. 4d. to save his life.” A modern Baptist historian justly says, “We would not mitigate this crime an atom; but it is right to suggest that Mr. Delaune may have interdicted the payment of the fine.”—Evans’ English Baptists, ii. 337. Delaune, I suspect, was one of those men who, in the judgment of an opposite class, are said to court martyrdom.

[117] Neal, iv. 521.

[118] De Felice, Hist. of the Protestants of France, 261.

[119] “The King of France uses the Huguenots with inexpressible severity, takes away very many of their children by force, and puts them into Popish convents, and has published an edict for taking away one half of their churches that remain throughout all the provinces, and has actually begun to execute it in Normandy.”—Morice’s Diary, December 2, 1679. For a minute record of proceedings against the French Protestants, see Histoire Chronologique de L’Eglise Protestante de France, par C. Drion, ii.

[120] Elie Benoit Hist. de L’Edit de Nantes, iv. 479.

[121] Hist. des Réfugiés Protestants, par Weiss, i. 265–267.

[122] Hist. des Réfugiés Protestants, par Weiss, i. 268.

[123] Coxe’s House of Austria, ii. 352.

[124] State Papers, 1682, quoted in Smiles’ Huguenots. I have found several other documents on the same subject in the Record Office. The Mayor and Aldermen of Bristol, on the 2nd of January 1682, oddly enough, proposed that fines levied on Dissenters should be applied to the relief of French Protestants.—State Papers, Dom. Charles II.

[125] Life of Tillotson, by Birch, 131.

[126] I find an illustration of the number of refugees who arrived in London, in a curious book I have elsewhere cited, The Happy Future State of England, published in 1688. It is there noticed (p. 122), that they had lately come, and filled 800 of the empty new-built houses of London.

[127] The letter is dated January 2, 1684.—Life of Sancroft, i. 197.

[128] Reresby’s Memoirs, 290.

[129] North’s Lives, ii. 70.

[130] Abridged from North’s Lives, ii. 72.

[131] Palmer’s Nonconformist Memorial, i. 100; Observator, January 29 and 31, 1685; Macaulay, i. 407.

[132] By Ward.

[133] James’ Memoirs, by Clarke, i. 747–9. See Macaulay, ii. 13, for authorities respecting the death of Charles. In the appendix to this volume will be found a copy of the recently discovered MS., which solves a riddle referred to by Macaulay.

[134] Gazette, 2006.

[135] James’ Memoirs, by Clarke, ii. 4.

[136] Ibid., ii. 6.

[137] Dalrymple’s Memoirs, i. 109. I do not find that this circumstance is referred to by D’Oyley in his Life of Sancroft.

[138] As to the coronation, it is observed in a Diary amongst the Morice MSS. in Dr. Williams’ library, under date April 25, “Far above one-half of the nobility made excuses, for one reason or another, and were absent.” “The noblemen were rather more than the ladies.”

Amongst the Baker MSS., Cambridge University Library, marked 40–2, are notes concerning the Coronation Office by Archbishops Laud and Sancroft, with the Coronation Office at large, used by Archbishop Sancroft.

“During the coronation of James, the crown not being properly fitted to his head, tottered. Henry Sidney, Keeper of the Robes, afterwards so famous for the mischiefs he brought upon James, kept it once from falling off, and said, with pleasantry to him, ‘This is not the first time our family has supported the Crown.’ This trifle was much remarked and talked of at the time; a sure mark that the minds of the people were under unusual agitations.”—Dalrymple’s Memoirs, i. 112.

[139] Evelyn. 1685, May 10, 22.

[140] From a MS. in the University Library, Cambridge. See Appendix to this volume.

[141] It was proposed in Committee that the word Reformed religion should be inserted in the address, for the word Protestant was excepted against. Sir Thomas Meres said, “The word Protestant had been used in a good sense by well-meaning persons, but time and use change the nature of words. As knave formerly was an honourable title, but now signified a very ill man.”—Entring Book, June 4.—Morice MSS.

[142] Compare Eachard, Kennet, Reresby, Barillon, and Fox.

[143] See Commons’ Journals, May 27; Parl. Hist., iv. 1358.

“Lest the last words of this resolution should not make sufficient impression on James, the Speaker, when he presented the Revenue Bill, remarked, that the Commons had passed that Bill, without joining any Bill to it for the security of their religion, though that was dearer to them than their lives.”—Dalrymple’s Memoirs, i. 133.

[144] Orme’s Life of Baxter, 359.

[145] The appearance of Sharp and Moore is mentioned in the Morice MSS.

[146] Baxter MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library. Quoted by Orme, Life of Baxter, 363–366.

[147] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time, i. 649. For a report of the proceedings against Alicia Lisle and Elizabeth Gaunt, see State Trials, iv. 105, et esq.

[148] Hist. of the Revolution, 31.

[149] Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution, 159, where authorities are given.

[150] Ibid., 160; Neal, iv. 552, 554.

[151] The story told about White’s MS. in Neal, iv. 555, does not appear to me at all probable.

When persecution was at its height, extraordinary cases of escape occurred. Many a wonderful story is told of deliverances vouchsafed to suffering Dissenters, of which the following anecdote is a conspicuous example. Henry Havers, of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, had been ejected from the Rectory of Stambourne in Essex. Receiving friendly warning of an attempt to apprehend him, and finding the pursuers on his track, he sought refuge in a malt-house, and crept into the kiln. Immediately afterwards, he observed a spider fixing the first line of a large and beautiful web, across the narrow entrance. The web being placed directly between him and the light, he was so much struck with the skill of the insect weaver, that, for a while, he forgot his own imminent danger; but, by the time the network had crossed and re-crossed the mouth of the kiln in every direction, the pursuers came to search for their victim. He listened as they approached, and distinctly overheard one of them say, “It’s no use to look in there, the old villain can never be there. Look at that spider’s web, he could never have got in there without breaking it.” Giving up further search, they went to seek him elsewhere, and he escaped out of their hands.

A similar narrative I find related in reference to Du Moulin, the French Protestant. It is impossible, after the lapse of two centuries, to ascertain the exact truth of such accounts. That incidents of the kind occurred I have no doubt; but whether they are attributed to the right persons, and are quite accurate in minute details, may admit of question.

[152] Castlemaine wrote an apology for the Catholics.—Butler’s English Cath., iii. 47.

[153] I must refer to the pages of Macaulay and others, for the politics of the period. Of the theological debates in the presence of the King and the Earl of Rochester, there is a curious account in Patrick’s Autobiography, 107.

[154] Entring Book, 1686, July 17, Morice MSS.

[155] Abridgment, 374.

[156] Entring Book, 1686, June 26, Morice MSS.

[157] Ibid., 1687, Jan. 1.

[158] Compare, as to James’ designs, Fox’s Hist. of James II., 332; Hallam’s Const. Hist. ii. 212; and Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution, chap. v.

[159] Articles were exhibited against them “too scandalous to be repeated.” Burnet’s Own Time, i. 696; D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 237. Sancroft consecrated these two worthless men at Lambeth Palace, the 17th October, 1686, from fear of a premunire.

[160] Clarendon’s Correspondence, i. 258.

[161] “At Tonbridge Wells, this last summer, some company of condition, dining with Dr. Sherlock, amongst others the Doctor himself, talking of the great changes that had been in men and things these late years, even in his time, who was not old. Saith Mrs. Sherlock, his wife (who is a very brisk, sharp gentlewoman), ‘a greater instance thereof cannot be given, than yourself Doctor, for I have known you set up for a Sectary, a Presbyterian, a Papist, a Church of England man, but you never nickt your time right, nor turned seasonably, but when those respective interests were falling, and what you will turn to next, no man living knows. If ever I become a Papist, call me a knave,’ whereupon the company smiled.”—Entring Book, 1686, August 9, Morice MSS.

[162] Printed in State Trials, iv. 243.

[163] See Evelyn’s Diary, December 29, 1686.

[164] The last of these facts comes to light in the State Papers, Dom. 1687, August 21.

[165] Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution, 207.

[166] Ibid., 209. Mackintosh cites proofs from letters written by the King, the Queen, the Nuncio, and the French Minister.

In the Entring Book, Morice MSS., it is remarked, under date 1686, November 7—“The King told the Archbishop of York he depended upon his vote to take off the Test, and other penal laws from the Papists, for he remembered his lordship was against the making of the Test. The Archbishop answered, he hoped His Majesty would excuse him in that, and leave him to give his vote according to his judgment. It was true he was against the imposing of the Test, but the case was altered; for then the Papists’ interest was so little, that he thought it not (as others did) then necessary, but now the Papists’ interest did so preponderate, that he thought it necessary to keep it on.”

[167] Dalrymple’s Memoirs, ii. 175.

[168] Ibid., i. 166.

[169] Ibid., 157.

[170] Entring Book, January 9, Morice MSS.

[171] Macaulay, ii. 337, 453; Secretan’s Life of Nelson, 24.

[172] Concilia, iv. 612.

[173] Abridgment, 373.

[174] April 19/29, 1686. Quoted in Macaulay, ii. 375.

[175] October 4, 1685. Dalrymple, ii. 177.

[176] Lingard, xiii. 105. In the Entring Book, Morice MSS., under date 1687, January 8, there are allusions to the anti-Jesuitical Papists, as uneasy at present proceedings—fearing lest by an ill-understanding between the King and the Prince of Orange, there should come a revolution, and Roman Catholics should be destroyed. It was still treason to be reconciled to the Church of Rome; and Papists might be convicted now by law, though twenty years after the fact. It was asked, if the King pardoned their past conversion, would not the continuance of their fellowship with the Romish Church be a continuance of treason?

[177] All this information I gather from the Morice MSS., Entring Book, 1687, April 30; May 14, 28.

[178] Transcripts of Digby MSS., D.d., iii. 64, 57.

[179] London Gazette, April 14.

[180] Ibid., April 28.

[181] Ibid., April 30.

[182] London Gazette, June 11.

Lord Macaulay is very severe upon Lobb. He certainly disgraced himself; but Wilson, in his Dissenting Churches (iii. 436), puts the whole case so as to modify the reader’s judgment. What may be said in palliation of Alsop’s conduct may be seen in Calamy (Account, ii. 488); but really Alsop’s address to James (see Somers’ Tracts, i. 236) is inexcusable. Alsop accepted an Alderman’s gown, and was called Alderman Alsop. His Lordship mentions also Henry Care and Thomas Rosewell amongst the tools of the Court. As to Henry Care, I cannot find that he was a Nonconformist minister; and as to Thomas Rosewell, there is not one word in the State Trials, or in his Life by his son, or in Calamy’s Account (the references made in his Lordship’s notes), to justify his statement in the text about Rosewell’s services being “secured.” No doubt much was done to court the Dissenters at this time, but the picture in Macaulay’s Hist. (ii. 474), is too highly coloured.

[183] London Gazette, July 9.

[184] Ibid., August 18.

[185] Dalrymple, i. 169.

[186] Diary, April 10, 1687.

[187] It appears to me that no impartial person, who reads Macaulay’s defence of his own charges against Penn, in the last edition of the History of England, can fail to see how unsatisfactory are the arguments which he employs. The subject has been discussed afresh in the Spring number of the Quarterly Review for 1868.

[188] When the sister of these youths presented a petition on their behalf, while waiting in the ante-chamber for admission to the Royal presence, Lord Churchill, standing near the chimney-piece, said, “Madam, I dare not flatter you with any such hopes, for that marble is as capable of feeling compassion as the King’s heart.”—Kiffin’s Life, quoted in Wilson.

[189] Wilson’s Dissenting Churches, i. 403–31.

[190] Clarendon’s Correspondence, ii. 506.

[191] Autobiography of Sir John Bramston.—Camden Society, p. 280.

[192] Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, and A Full and True Relation of the Entry, reprinted in Somers’ Tracts, 2nd Edition.

[193] State Trials, iv. 250.

[194] State Trials, 258, et seq. “Dr. Fairfax is a very modest, quiet-tempered man, of very few words, loves to be concerned in no public business, and offered great violence to his own temper, to appear now; but he has other apprehensions of the danger the Church and State are in, than formerly he had, and so is far more tender to the Dissenters for these last ten or twelve years than he was before.”—Entring Book, June 11. Morice MSS.

[195] Vol. iv. 265, et seq.

[196] State Papers, Dom. James II. 1867, Sept. 9.

[197] Life of James II., ii. 120.

[198] “Penn went the progress with His Majesty, and earnestly pressed the King to let the business of Oxford fall; for, he said, it would prejudice his designs and purposes more than his Declaration had advanced them.”—Entring Book, Sept. 3, Morice MSS.

[199] Neal, iv. 588.

[200] Mackintosh, 246.

[201] See notice of Fowler’s writings in a subsequent chapter.

[202] Salmon, in his Lives, p. 212, states that Lake was useful in the Church in maintaining order and decency, and tells a story of what he did on a Shrove Tuesday, when Archdeacon of Cleveland. He went from his seat in the choir, and pulled off the hats of a noisy mob, who afterwards insulted him, and attacked his house.

[203] Granger, iv. 290.

[204] Life of Ken, by a Layman, 142. An entry appears in the list of contributors to the rebuilding of St. Paul’s. “January 26, 1684/5. Dr. Thomas Ken, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, in lieu of his consecration dinner and gloves, £100.” Ibid., 148.

[205] Diary, 1687, March 20; 1688, April 1. This sermon for its circumstances, ingenuity, eloquence, and power was one of the most remarkable ever preached.

[206] Hawkins’ Life of Ken, 17, 99.

[207] Life of Ken, by a Layman, 62, 207.

[208] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time, i. 424, 429, 434, 446.

[209] See Burnet’s account of Lloyd’s conduct in reference to Turbervill’s evidence against Lord Stafford. Hist. of his Own Time, i. 488. Neither Lloyd nor Burnet appear to advantage in this business.

[210] Philip Henry’s Life, by Matthew Henry. Edited by Williams, p. 152. For particulars and remarks respecting Lloyd see Wood, Burnet, Salmon, Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution, Wharton’s Life in Appendix to D’Oyley’s Sancroft, and Rees’ Nonconformity in Wales. There were two other Bishops of the same name. The following extract in the Entring Book, 1686, September 25, Morice MSS., refers to Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich: “He, at his first going down thither, gave great encouragement to religion, and set up evening exercises in his family upon the Lord’s Days, in the evening, and explained The Whole Duty of Man, and prayed and carried himself very respectfully to all. But of late, he has set a day for all Dissenters to come to the Sacrament, and if they do not come, then he will proceed against them with all severity. Many of his own way always had and still have bad thoughts of him.” The other Lloyd was Bishop of St. David’s, 1686–7.

[211] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 263.

[212] Calamy’s Life, i. 198.

[213] Perry’s Hist. of the Church of England, ii. 510.

[214] State Papers, 1682/3, Feb. 23.

[215] The significant Articles which he sent out to the clergy in July, 1688, will be considered in the next volume in connection with the ecclesiastical history of the Revolution.

[216] State Trials, iv. 362. Gutch Collect. Curiosa, i. 335.

[217] Patrick’s Autobiography, 134.

[218] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 265–268.

[219] Evelyn, ii. 285, May 20, 1688.

[220] Mackintosh, 252. He observes, “perhaps the smaller number refers to parochial clergy and the larger to those of every denomination.” We are not aware that other denominations did read it.

[221] Buckden, May 29, 1688, Baker MSS., Cambridge University Library.

[222] In James’s Memoirs, ii. 158, the foolish step of committing the Bishops is attributed to Jeffrey’s influence, and it is added, “When the veil was taken off,” the King “owned it to have been a fatal counsel.”

[223] Reresby’s Memoirs, 347.

“Sir Edward Hales, Lieutenant of the Tower, invited the Bishops to dine on Lord’s Day; but being to receive the sacrament that day, they desired to be excused. He sent them half a buck, and knowing that they would be at church on Lord’s Day, being now sufferers, he, on Saturday night, told Dr. Hawkins he had an express command to deliver to him from the King, to read the Declaration in the Tower Church the next Lord’s Day following. Hawkins, after expressing the most abject kind of loyalty, refused.”—Entring Book, 1688, June 9, Morice MSS.

[224] Entring Book, 1688, June 9, Morice MSS.

[225] Gazette, May 3.

[226] Mackintosh’s Hist. of the Revolution, 253; also, Ibid., D’Adda, 1/11 June.

[227] D’Adda, 15/22 June; Mackintosh, 262.

[228] State Trials, iv; D’Oyley, i. 297. The first part of the defence was entrusted to Sawyer. That part which related to the dispensing power was in the hands of Finch.

[229] Reresby, 348. A letter of Barillon (12 Juillet) leaves no room for doubt as to the reason of their discharge.

[230] Hunter’s Life of Oliver Heywood, 163, 187, 219.

[231] Life of Oliver Heywood, 235.

[232] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 244.

[233] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 285–6.

[234] Neal, iii. 600.

[235] For preparations made in Oliver’s lifetime with a view to this meeting, see Church of the Commonwealth, 514. For a notice of the place of meeting, see the third volume of this history (Church of the Restoration, i.).

[236] The Savoy Declaration is printed in Hanbury’s Memorials. Most of the passages I have given are abridged.

[237] Mather remarks, “There is no Congregational man, but he reports to the Church something of what the person desiring communion with them has related to him, which the Presbyterian does not, only declares his own satisfaction, and giveth the brethren a liberty to object against the conversation of the admittendi.”—Magnalia, ii. 61. Such reports may be found in the Choice Experience of Mrs. Rebecca Combe, and Mrs. Gertrude Clarkson, printed in An Abstract of the Gracious Dealings of God, &c., by Samuel James.

[238] Life of Heywood, 238.

[239] Works, xxi. 547.

[240] Works, v. 46.

[241] Works, xi. 452.

[242] Some very high views and strong expressions may be found in Jacomb’s Dedication, 136.

[243] Baillie’s Letters and Journals. Gould’s Introduction to the Report of St. Mary’s Norwich Chapel Case cxiv. et seq.

[244] I refer to what Crosby says of Mr. Spilsbury’s Church (i. 148; iii. 41). A number seceded from Mr. Jessy’s Church in 1638, 1641, and 1643, and became Baptists before he did.—Crosby, i. 310.

[245] Gould, xxviii.

[246] See generally upon this subject Underhill’s Confessions of Faith, and Gould’s Introduction to St. Mary’s Case. The latter writer, who has carefully studied the subject, says, “The history of the Baptists in England has yet to be written.”

[247] See p. 75 of this vol.

[248] State Papers, 1676, April 8. Appended to this document is an unsigned letter, addressed to the same person, whose name was Warner, expostulating with him for absenting himself from communion, because he was dissatisfied with the writer.

[249] The history of the controversy is itself a subject of controversy. I cannot notice it. The question is ably argued on both sides in the Report of St. Mary’s Norwich Chapel Case. The character and limits of this work prevent me from entering more fully into Baptist affairs. The most learned representatives of that denomination seem to be dissatisfied with all the books which relate their own history.

[250] Broadmead Records, 189–221, 458, 459.

[251] Hist. of Friends, ii. 448 and 442.

[252] Pope’s Life of Ward.

[253] North’s Lives, i. 296, 279.

[254] Barwick’s Life, 302. I find the following in the Cambridge University Library:—“Negotium Consecrationis Sacelli palatio Episcopali Norw. pertinentis.”

“May 16, 1672. The chapel was built and adorned at Bp. Reynolds’ expense, having been demolished in the Civil War. Consecration of the reading-desk, pulpit, and altar. Sermon by Jno. Conant, D.D., the Bishop’s son-in-law, the Bishop being disabled by illness.”—Baker MSS., 40, 5. Cat. v. 478.

[255] D’Oyley’s Life, i. 145. Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich, zealously assisted.—Blomefield, i. 585.

[256] Webster’s Poetical and Dramatic Works, i. 274. Duchess of Malfey, a tragedy published in 1623.

[257] John Evelyn’s Diary. 1684, Dec. 7.

[258] Entring Book, March 3, 1681, Morice MSS.

[259] State Papers, Dom. Charles II. Entry of Ecclesiastical business. 1670, July 27.

[260] Evelyn. 1677, Sept. 10.

[261] Cosin’s Works, iv. 381.

[262] Articles of Visitation, in Appendix to Report of the Commission on Ritual. Most of these requirements were in compliance with the Canons of 1603.

[263] Naked Truth. Somers’ Tracts, iii. 346.

[264] Lives of North, i. 279.

[265] State Papers. Osborne to Williamson, March 27, 1675.

[266] Lathbury’s Convocation, 309.

[267] Blomefield’s Norwich, i. 413.

[268] Ashmole’s Order of the Garter, 357, 542.

[269] Sandford’s Funeral of Monk.

[270] Evelyn. 1684, March 30.

In Sancroft’s form of “Dedication and Consecration of a Church or Chapel, 1685,” this direction is found:—“So likewise, when a censer is presented and received, they say, ‘While the King sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof,’” &c. In the MS. Life of Ashmole, Ashmole Museum, Oxford, he says—1675, Jan. 6—“I wore the chain of gold sent me from the King of Denmark before the King in his proceeding to the chapel to offer gold, frankincense, and myrrh.”

[271] North’s Lives, i. 296.

[272] Wilkins’ Concilia, iv. 590. June 4, 1670.

[273] Naked Truth. Somers’ Tracts, iii. 347.

[274] From an autograph letter addressed to Sancroft, shown in 1862 at an exhibition of autographs in the Institution of the Incorporated Law Society. See Catalogue.

[275] Articles of Fuller, Bishop of Lincoln, 1671. Appendix to Second Report of Commission on Ritual, 641.

[276] They are computed by the writer of The Future Happy State of England (109) as having amounted, in 1660, to between £300,000 and £500,000 a year. The annual revenue of the whole nation he puts down at eight millions.

[277] Stowe.

[278] Chamberlayne’s Angliæ Notitia.

[279] Wood, iv. 311. There is in the Record Office (1678, May) a petition from Croft, Bishop of Hereford, in which he says the bishopric is not worth, in rents, £700 a year. In sixteen years he had not raised £2,000 in fines. There is also a letter from Bishop Barlow (Oxford, May 29, 1675), in which he writes, “Fees, first-fruits, &c., will cost me £2,000 or £1,500 before I shall receive a penny from the bishopric.”

[280] Granger’s Lives, iii. 235.

[281] Notice of Morley in Life of Ken, 138, and Le Neve, 192. According to another computation, Sheldon gave away £72,000.

[282] Life, by Pope, 57–63.

[283] Life of Sancroft, i. 147. State Papers—Entring Book. Ecclesiastical business, 1670–4. 1670, 13th June.

[284] State Papers, Dom. Charles II. 1678, May.

[285] North’s Lives, i. 289.

[286] State Papers, Dom. Charles II. 1667, Sept. 30.

[287] Dec. 18, 1669.

[288] March 12, 1672.

[289] State Papers, April 27, 1675.

[290] Dom. Charles II. April, 1675.

[291] State Papers, Dom. Charles II. Wood says (Ath. Ox. iv. 334), “On the 22nd of April, 1675, being the very day that Dr. Fuller, Bishop of Lincoln, died, after several discussions that passed between His Majesty, and certain persons of honour then present, concerning the person to be preferred, Dr. Barlow was introduced into the presence of His Majesty, and had the grant of that see, and forthwith kissed His Majesty’s hand for the same.” Coventry and Williamson were his friends.

[292] Parliamentary Return on Ecclesiastical Appeals, ordered by the House of Commons April 3, 1868, p. xxviii.—Oughton’s Ordo Judiciorum, vol. i. 219, et seq.

[293] Act of 25th Henry VIII., c. 19, 1533.—Parl. Return, p. iii.

[294] Parl. Return, p. xxx.

[295] There were two Commissions on this case: the first contained four Bishops and ten laymen—the second, five Bishops and ten laymen.

[296] There are papers relating to him in the Record Office.—Dom. Charles II., 1673, October.

[297] The cases are given in the Parliamentary Return; they are numbered:—53, William Duncke; 74, Edward Hirst (there are three other cases for not resorting to parish church, 53, 70, and 76;) 78, Catherine Gounter; 82, Jonathan Rutter. Duncke and Rutter were excommunicated.

[298] Return, p. viii.

[299] Salmon’s Lives of the Bishops, 310.

[300] I am not sure of the date in the 17th century when the Hall was so used. A fine copy of Baxter’s Christian Directory is preserved in Dr. Williams’ Library, and is said to have been chained to some part of the porch of the great meeting-house in the City of Coventry.

[301] Offor’s Life of Bunyan, Works, iii. lxix.

[302] Thoresby.

[303] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1674, Nov. 4.

[304] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1674, Feb. 12.

[305] I find these anecdotes in a MS. History of the Suffolk Churches, by the Rev. T. Harmer, author of Observations on Scripture.

[306] History of England, i. 294.

[307] The author, however, considers that the Bishops’ survey came far below the mark,—he mentions a conjectural estimate of eight millions.—Happy Future, &c., 116.

[308] Happy Future, &c., 281.

[309] Dalrymple’s Memoirs, Appendix, ii. 12.

[310] Happy Future, &c., 150.

[311] Pope’s Life of Ward, 148.

[312] Pope’s Life of Ward, 148.

[313] James II. said at Oxford, “he heard many of them used notes in their sermons, but none of his Church ever did.”—Wood, quoted in Southey’s Common-Place Book, iii. 496. The early Puritans greatly disliked read sermons. See Hooker (Keble), ii. 107.

[314] Howe’s Works, vi. 295.

[315] Life, 419. This was Bull’s advice after he became a Bishop in 1705.

[316] Wood, Ath. Ox.—Ed. Bliss. iv. 619.—See at the end of chapter xii. the Chancellor’s injunctions.

[317] Worcester MS. 1660, May 14. State Papers, 1666, Jan. 30.

[318] Williams’ Life of Hale, 106.

[319] Kennet’s Register, 154.

[320] These instances are gathered from the State Papers and the works of Sir Thomas Browne.

[321] Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington, i. 360, August 20, 1661. Samuel Hartlib was the son of a Polish refugee who lived in Prussia. He came to England in 1630, and devoted his time and fortune to the promotion of literature and science. Milton speaks highly of him in his Treatise on Education. Hartlib was reduced to poverty soon after the Restoration.

[322] Worthington’s Reply, ii., Sept. 12, 1661.

[323] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 162.

[324] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 219, 252, 204.

[325] Ibid., 254.

[326] Ibid., 192.

[327] Ibid., 277.

[328] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 276.

[329] Dean Stanley informs me, that his father, the Bishop of Norwich, delighted to relate this anecdote of the connection between his ancestors and Oliver Heywood.

[330] Life of Philip Henry, 120.

[331] Turner’s Hist. of Remarkable Providences, ch. lxv. p. 80.

[332] Life of Heywood, 215, 331.

[333] For the knowledge of this tradition, I am indebted to Mr. Parker, of Wycombe.

[334] Howe’s Works, ii. 362, 369.

[335] Ibid., iv. 3, 47.

[336] Life of Heywood, 290.

[337] From an account entitled The Singular Experience and Great Sufferings of Mrs. Agnes Beaumont, printed in An Abstract of the Gracious Dealings of God, &c. Edited by Samuel James. 4th Edit., 1774, p. 83.

[338] Life by Dr. Pope.

[339] Pope’s Life of Ward.

[340] North’s Lives, iii. 323, 324.

[341] Ibid., i. 275.

[342] North’s Lives, i. 242.

[343] Heneage Finch to his sister.—State Papers, Feb. 10, 1671/2.

[344] Sabbatum Redivivum, ii. 37.

[345] Works, iii. 102. Baxter’s doctrine was that the Jewish Sabbath was abrogated, and that the Lord’s Day was instituted by Divine authority.—Works, xiii. 369, et seq. According to Orme, there is only another writer of the same period with Baxter who takes just the same view of the subject, and almost the same ground. He alludes to Warren’s Jews’ Sabbath Antiquated, 1659.

[346] Exposition of the Hebrews, ii. 453.

[347] Taylor’s Works, xii. 437.

[348] Thorndike’s Works, vi. 73; iv. 483–507.

[349] Cases of Conscience, Sanderson’s Works, v. 15.

[350] Cosin’s Works, i. 188.

[351] Annals of Windsor, ii. 404.

[352] Hooker paints the sacred year in magnificent colours.—Book V., c. lxx., s. 8.

[353] Newcome’s Diary.

[354] Reeve’s Charity at Windsor is an example.—Annals of Windsor, ii. 370.

[355] Blomefield, i. 412.

[356] Faulkener’s History of Chelsea, 153.

[357] Tillotson’s funeral sermon for Mr. Gouge, 62–64.

[358] Life of Thomas Firman, late Citizen of London, 1698.

Wesley prefaces the life of Firman in the Arminian Magazine with these words: “I was exceedingly struck at reading the following life, having long settled it in my mind that the entertaining wrong notions concerning the Trinity was inconsistent with real piety. But I cannot argue against matter of fact. I dare not deny that Mr. Firman was a pious man, although his notions of the Trinity were quite erroneous.”—Southey’s Life of Wesley, ii. 68.

[359] Life and Times, pt. ii. 296–7.

[360] Birch’s Life of Boyle, Appendix. The New England Company is still in existence. I hope to be able to give some account of its proceedings in a future volume.

[361] The College referred to was Emmanuel.—D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft i. 128.

[362] “The gradual exclusion of mental by physical science from the circle of ‘philosophy’ as defined in the Cambridge Schools, belongs to the first half of the 18th, not of the 17th century,” says the author of Thorndike’s Life, but he justly adds that in the 17th century ancient philosophy and languages were yielding “to the continually-increasing influence of mathematics and natural philosophy.”—Works, vi. 166.

[363] State Papers, Dom., 1667, Cal. 301.

[364] North’s Lives, iii. 362–367.

[365] Cooper’s Annals, iii. 549.

[366] Dated Oct. 8, 1674.—Wilkins’ Concilia, iv. 594. Letters referring to Monmouth’s election as Chancellor, may be found amongst the State Papers, (1674,) and a characteristic one from the Duke, accepting this office in Lambeth Library, Tenison MSS. 674, fol. 5.

[367] Printed Copy of the programme in Latin:—“Quod se unusquisque, post sex hebdomodas abhinc numerandas, coram Academicis Concionem, sive Anglice, sive Latine habiturus, Illam, more majorum, a principio ad finem, memoriter recitare tenebitur; ita ut, vel non omnino, vel saltem perraro, nec nisi carptim, et stringente oculo, librum consulere opus habeat.”—State Papers, Dom., 1674, Nov. 24.

[368] Dom. Charles II. 1666, Aug. 16, 17. There is a curious letter, dated 1677, July 23, written by Joseph Addison’s father, Launcelot Addison, begging preferment.

[369] Autobiography of A. Wood, quoted Oxoniana, ii. 23.

[370] Ibid., 89.

[371] Letter from Dr. Wallis, July, 1669, Neal, iv. 423.

[372] State Papers.

[373] The letters are dated 1684, Nov. 6, 8, 12, 16, Oxoniana, ii. 205–210.

[374] See the Writings of William Penn.

[375] Life, Works, vi. 176, et seq.

[376] Works, ii. 15.

[377] Ibid., ii. 88–100.

[378] Ibid., v. 488.

[379] Works, i. 118; iii. 246.

[380] Vol. ii. 424, 409, 471, 564.

[381] Vol. iii. 68, 80, 128. It is well to recollect, all through this account of the Anglo-Catholic view of faith, what is the doctrine of Roman Catholics upon the subject—“Jam vero Catholici agnoscunt quidem vocabulum fidei, in divinis literis non semper uno, et eodem modo sumi ... tamen fidem historicam, et miraculorum, et promissionum, unam et eandem esse docent, atque illam unam non esse proprie notitiam, aut fiduciam, sed assensum certum, atque firmissimum, ob auctoritatem primæ veritatis; et hanc unam esse fidem justificantem.”—Bellarmin, De Justificatione, c. iv.

[382] Vol. iii. 173, 355.

[383] Vol. iii. 313.

[384] Ibid., 393, 496.

[385] Vol. iii. 541-547; chap. xxviii.–xxx.

[386] Ibid., 649.

[387] Ibid., 660.

[388] Any one who wishes to verify this may do so by consulting the useful index to the Oxford Edition of Thorndike’s Works. It is interesting and instructive, in connection with the study of Thorndike, to read the deeply thoughtful sermon on Justification by Hooker (Works, iii.). The divergence between them is manifest. Thorndike could not consistently hold Hooker’s clear view of justification, as distinguished from holiness. It may not be amiss here to observe that the doctrine of justification by faith, though tenaciously held by the Puritans, was not held by them alone. It was maintained by Reformers who opposed Puritanism, and by some Roman Catholics before the Council of Trent. There were anti-Lutherans who so far agreed with Luther. Whether they were consistent is another question.

[389] Vol. iii. 695.

[390] Life of Thorndike, 224, 253.

[391] Nelson’s Life of Bull, 24.

[392] Harmonia Apostolica, 10.

[393] Harmonia Apostolica, 21, 22.

[394] Harmonia Apostolica, 58, 71, 76, 87–166.

[395] This quotation is taken from the Tracts for the Times, iv. 63. The words in Bull’s Apology, sect. i., are not closely followed.

[396] Nelson’s Life of Bull, 191.

[397] Bull’s Exam. Cens., &c., Oxford Edit., 38–91.

[398] Ibid., 228.

[399] Preface to Exam. Cens.

[400] See for example his defence of Origen, Def. Fid., i. 190, 196, 200. Notice, also, what Hallam says of Bull, Introduction to Lit., iv. 152. Hooker (in the Eccl. Polity, book v. s. 42) speaks of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ—the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father—as contained but not opened in the former Creed (the Apostles’). I would call attention to a pregnant remark of that great Divine:—“Howbeit, because this Divine mystery is more true than plain, divers having framed the same to their own conceits and fancies, are found in their expositions thereof more plain than true.”—Ibid., s. 52. May I add, that he seems to forget his own remarks in s. 56.

[401] Bull’s State of Man, ii. 96; Jackson, iii. 117; Ellicott’s Destiny of the Creature, 172.

[402] Theologia Veterum, 407.

[403] The word being is used by Pearson and Heylyn in the same way as we use the word since. The quotation is from p. 251, in the 12th fol. edit. of Pearson’s Exposition. For Heylyn’s opinions, see Theol. Vet., 255. The contrast between the tone of Pearson and Heylyn is very striking.

[404] Works, ii. 241-255.—Life of Christ, first published in 1649, afterwards “with additionals,” 1653.

[405] Taylor’s Works, ix. 424.—Real Presence, 1654.

[406] See Sect. iii. iv. v. vi. of the Real Presence, ix. 436, et seq.

[407] Taylor’s Works, i., p. ccxxviii.

[408] Taylor’s Works, vi. 271. Sermons.

[409] Taylor’s Works, ii. 323.—Life of Christ.

[410] Ibid., vi. 279.—Sermons.

[411] Taylor’s Works, vii. 444.—Liberty of Prophesying, 1647.

[412] Ibid., 445.

[413] Works, i. ccxi.

[414] Life, clxxxiii.

[415] Hooker’s Works, book iii., sect. 3.

[416] Life, clxxxv.

[417] Cosin’s Works, vol. v., pref. xix.

[418] Bingham, in his Antiquities (v. 358, et seq.), expends much learning upon proofs that the Fathers believed in the continued substantial presence of bread and wine. In Hooker, there is a clear description of the Anglican view as distinguished from other views.—Eccl. Polity, v.c. lv., &c.

[419] “Nam multi ex antiquissimis patribus, ut Justinus Martyr, Tertullianus, Clemens Romanus, Lanctantius, Victorinus Martyr, et alii, non putabant animas justorum hinc recta ad cœlos ire: sed in sinu Abrahæ, vel in aliquo alio refrigerii loco usque ad ultimi judicii diem detineri; adeoque interea Beatificæ visionis, seu perfectæ felicitatis, ex Dei promissione et Christi merito illis debitæ, expertes esse. Quare cum sic judicarent non abs re erat Deum illorum nomine orare, ut maturaret illum diem, quem coronandis Sanctis suis in plenitudine Redemptionis destinâsset.”—Epistolaris Dissertatio, &c., 18.—Compare Tracts for the Times, No. 72.

[420] Works, Oxford Edit., iv. 507.—Preface to the “Catching of Leviathan,”—this preface is very clever and amusing.

[421] Walton’s Lives: Pierce’s Letter. For an account of Sublapsarianism, &c., see Burnet on the Articles, xvii.

[422] Walton’s Lives: Pierce’s letter, 52.

[423] Sermons, 60.

[424] Some account has been given of Hammond in the Church of the Commonwealth. A letter, from which a quotation is inserted on p. 333, has been incorrectly supposed to refer to him. Hammond was unmarried.

[425] Practical Catechism (published in 1662), p. 78. Oxford Edit., 1847.

[426] Practical Catechism, 34, 79, 25. His minor Theological Works are controversial.

[427] Exposition, 337, 345.

[428] Exposition, 348, 364, 365, 366.

[429] Works, ii. 85, 117, 131.

[430] Works, ii. 113.

[431] Ibid., 128.

[432] Works, ii. 337.

[433] Ibid., 13, 15.

[434] Ibid., 16.

[435] Works, ii. 533.

[436] Thorndike’s Works, ii. 4; iv. 910.

[437] Bull’s Works, ii. 187.

[438] Theologia Veterum, 450.

[439] Theologia Veterum, 417.

[440] Preface to Dissuasive from Popery.—Works, x., cxviii.

[441] Works, i. 72.

[442] Bramhall’s Vindication of Grotius, quoted in Tracts for the Times, No. 74.

[443] Cosin’s Latin Confession.—Works, iv. 525.

[444] Treatises. Answer to Father Cressy, 31.

[445] Thorndike’s Works, v. 20; i. 622, 530.

[446] Works, iv. 923, 173.

[447] Cosin’s Works, iv. 527.

[448] Hallam speaks of the testimony brought forward as consisting of “vague and self-contradictory stories, which gossiping compilers of literary anecdote can easily accumulate.”—Const. Hist., i. 216.

[449] Compare this with what I have said in vol. iii., p. 81.

[450] Register, 386.

[451] Thoresby’s Diary, i. 61.

[452] I have before me the 20th edition of the New Whole Duty of Man, authorized by the King’s most excellent Majesty, in which there is a decided attack made upon the old Whole Duty of Man. Some of the author’s criticisms are scarcely fair.

[453] The first edition was published 1659. In Aubrey’s Letters, ii. 125–134 there is an interesting discussion respecting the authorship of the book. It has been ascribed to Lady Packington, to Archbishop Frewen, to Archbishop Sancroft, and to Woodhead, who, after the Restoration, became a Roman Catholic.

[454] He is to be distinguished from Samuel Clarke, the Puritan. Walton’s Polyglott is noticed in Ecclesiastical Hist., vol. ii.

[455] Hallam, Introduction, &c., iv. 149. See note to this chapter in the Appendix. It is too long for insertion here.

[456] See vol. i. of this history for particulars in Chillingworth’s life.

[457] Chap. iv.

[458] John Smith’s Select Works, 333.

[459] John Smith’s Select Works, 344, 349.

[460] Golden Remains, 157.

[461] Ibid., 95.

[462] Ibid., 257.

[463] Ibid., 114.

[464] Farindon’s Sermons, iii. 171.

[465] Farindon’s Sermons, iii. 285, 286.

[466] Ibid., 562.

[467] Farindon’s Sermons, i. 71.

[468] Phenix, ii. 505.

[469] Life and Times, ii. 386.

[470] Hist. of his Own Times, i. 188.

[471] Works, v. 316.

[472] The Principles and Practices of Certain Moderate Divines of the Church of England, by Edward Fowler, 89.

[473] Ibid., 114.

[474] The Principles and Practices of Certain Moderate Divines of the Church of England, 126, 161.

[475] The Principles and Practices of Certain Moderate Divines of the Church of England, 213, 228.—Compare with this extract what is said hereafter respecting the opinions of Richard Baxter.

[476] A Discourse of Christian Liberty, Sect. II. chap. viii.

[477] Sect. III., chap. xv.; see also chap. xiii. Fowler’s Discourse on the Principles of certain Moderate Divines, &c., was published 1679. In 1671, he published The Design of Christianity, in which he dwelt upon the restoration of righteousness in man as the chief purpose of the Gospel. He was answered in the following year by John Bunyan. The reply is entitled, “A defence of the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ Jesus; showing true Gospel holiness flows from thence; or Mr. Fowler’s pretended Design of Christianity, proved to be nothing more, than to trample under foot the blood of the Son of God; and the idolizing of man’s own righteousness: as also how while he pretends to be a minister of the Church of England, he overthroweth the wholesome doctrine contained in the 10th, 11th, and 13th of the Thirty-nine Articles of the same, and that he falleth in with the Quaker and Romanist against them.” The bad temper of the book is indicated in this long title. Bunyan points out Fowler’s defects, and defends important doctrines which Fowler impugns; but he deals in a good deal of fierce and coarse invective. In this respect, Fowler equalled him, when he published a rejoinder.

[478] Intellectual System, 61, 597, 619.

[479] Ibid., 191.

[480] Intellectual System, 676.—We may gather from the passage, how Cudworth would have treated the Darwinian hypotheses of natural selection and struggle for life.

[481] Burnet, i. 189, includes him when describing the Latitudinarians.

[482] Origines Sacræ, 539.

[483] Kitto’s Cycl., Art. Patrick.—It is many years ago since I consulted Patrick, but my impressions are of the kind stated above. Of Lightfoot’s learning I am not a competent judge, but I follow the current of opinion as I find it in the best critics.

[484] Whewell’s Inductive Sciences, ii. 112.

[485] See Letters by Stubbe, in Birch’s Life of Boyle, 189–200.

[486] See his Lex Orientalis, Sadducismus Triumphans, and Vanity of Dogmatizing, Ed. 1661.

[487] Plus Ultra, 88.—Glanvill answered Stubbe’s attack. No love was lost between them; most bitterly did they abuse one another.

[488] In the Plus Ultra, p. 141, is a passage which might have been written by a modern controversialist.

[489] Philosophia Pia, particularly pp. 81 and 119. This treatise and others, published under new titles, may be found in his volume of Essays, published in 1676. He was addicted to the habit of reprinting old treatises under new titles. There is, in Dr. Williams’ Library, a good collection of Glanvill’s works, including the first and second editions of The Vanity of Dogmatizing, now very scarce.

[490] Joshua de la Place (Placæus) died 1655; Claude Pagon, 1685. They were leaders in this direction.

[491] Spener commenced his ministry in 1662, and died in 1705.

[492] See Andrew Rivet, Isagoge, &c., 1627, xx. “Nullum esse hominum cœtum, nullum hominem quantacunque dignitate polleat, qui sensus Scripturæ aut controversiarum fidei, sit judex supremus et judici infallibalis.”

[493] Descartes died 1650; Spinoza, 1677.

[494] Christian Doctrine, translated by Sumner, 85–89, 135.

[495] Chap. xiv.-xxiii. One of the most extraordinary charges which party spirit ever created was that of Milton being a Papist.

[496] Biddle’s Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity.

[497] Works, viii. 83, et seq. In the Lambeth Library, Tenison MSS., 673, is a curious volume containing “Original papers, which a cabal of Socinians in London offered to present to the Ambassadors of the King of Fez and Morocco, when he was taking leave of England in 1682.” The agent of the Socinians is said to have been Monsieur de Verze.

[498] De Carne Christo.—Adv. Prax., c. vii.

[499] Quoted in Bancroft’s Hist. of the United States, ii. 373.

[500] Works, i. 150, 151, 157, 167, 209, 215, 231.

[501] A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practice.—Works, i. 294.

[502] Works, i. 310.

[503] See his Sandy Foundation.—Works, i.

[504] Works, i. 62, 262, 267.

[505] See Penn’s Great Case of Liberty of Conscience, published 1670.—Works, iii.

[506] See Truth Exalted.—Works, i.

[507] Third Proposition concerning the Scriptures. See pp. 142–146, 204.

[508] Apology, 204 (abridged).

[509] Ibid., 207, 226, 241.

[510] Sparkles of Glory, 145, 200.

[511] Sterry’s Sermons, 17.

[512] Gale insists upon the sense of religion in barbarous nations.—Part iv., 238.

[513] Howe’s Works, iii. 37. He refers to Cudworth. See remarks on the argument in Rogers’ Life of Howe, 368.

[514] Works, iv. 416, et seq.

[515] Works, ii. 144, et. seq.—I have, in speaking of Thorndike, mentioned the distinction which he makes between degrees of inspirations. But that was a turn of thought which seems to have been rarely taken in those days. I have searched Pearson, and Taylor, and Goodwin, and even Baxter, besides others, in vain for any indication of their having contemplated any such controversy on the subject as exists in our day. The complete inspiration of the Bible was believed. The Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century maintained the inspiration of every word, and also that the Hebrew vowel points are original.—Hagenbach Hist. of Doctrine, ii. 231.

[516] Herbert’s De Veritate was published in 1624.

[517] For the doctrine of the Eternal Generation, see Goodwin’s Works, v. 547; Owen’s Works, viii. 112, 291. For the doctrine of the Trinity: Goodwin, iv. 231; Owen, ii. 64, 175; Orme’s Life of Baxter, 470.

[518] See Howe’s mode of speaking about the covenant in contrast with Thorndike’s.—Works, iii. 448.

[519] Works, viii. 4, 257, 459, 546; ii. 234; viii. 288.

[520] Works, ix. Discourse of Election.

[521] See Ibid., 154, 160, 344. He mentions a good woman, who said to her wicked son, “Well, I shall one day rejoice that thou shalt be damned, and take part with the glory of God therein.” The conviction of so high a grace in her soul he declares was the means of breaking the man’s heart, and converting him.

Such things had been said by the schoolmen. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa (pt. iii. sup. quest. 94, art. i.), alludes to the bliss of the saved being increased by the sight of the lost.

[522] Works, iii. 15.

[523] Ibid., iii. 15; iv. 64, 9.

[524] Vol. VI. bk. ii.

[525] Owen’s Works, xi. 203, 209.

[526] Owen’s Works, ix. 198.

[527] Works, v. 325 et seq. They are sixteen in number, and are stated in such a way that it is impossible to condense them satisfactorily.

[528] Ibid., 267, 308, 318.

[529] Imputatio Fidei (1642), pp. 7, 17. Nothing can exceed the clearness and precision with which the whole case is stated at the beginning of the Treatise.

[530] Redemption Redeemed, (1651), 433.—This point he pursues at great length in chapters v., viii., xvi., xx. He argues, that if Christ died sufficiently for all, He died intentionally for all.—p. 95. Although I agree with Goodwin, so far as to believe that Christ died for all men, I may observe that sometimes his reasonings against the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as for instance in chap. xviii. sec. 4 and 7, are as unsatisfactory as they are intricate. He frequently attributes to his opponents implications in argument, and consequences of doctrine, which they would indignantly repudiate. It is a common vice in controversy.

[531] Ibid. Preface.

[532] Calamy’s Account, 484. Cont. 632.

[533] Ibid., 35.

[534] Baxter’s Life and Times, i. 107.

[535] Ath. Ox. iv. 784. Even Wood seems to have been a little touched by this beautiful statement, for after calling Baxter the late pride of the Presbyterians, he remarks, “he very civilly returned me this answer.”

[536] Works, vii. 312, 315.—Treatise on Conversion, 1657. The first chapter of the Saint’s Everlasting Rest, published in 1649, is Calvinistic.

[537] Ibid., viii. 119. He says, however, in his End of Doctrinal Controversies, published in 1691 (p. 160): “Christ died for all, but not for all alike, or equally; that is, He intended good to all, but not an equal good, with an equal intention.” See also extracts from his Catholic Theology (1675), Orme’s Life of Baxter, p. 477. In the Appendix to Baxter’s Aphorisms (1649), there are Animadversions on Owen’s views of Redemption.

[538] Polano’s History of the Council of Trent, 212.

[539] See p. 347 of this volume.

[540] Aphorisms of Justification, 44.

[541] Works, xviii. 503.

[542] It is interesting here to observe, that as the Anglicans differed from the Romanists, so did the later Puritans from the Reformers, as to the nature of faith. “Quid est fides? Est non tantum notitia qua firmiter assentior omnibus, quæ Deus nobis in verbo suo patefecit, sed etiam certa fiducia, a Spiritu Sancto, per Evangelium in corde meo accensa, qua in Deo acquiesco, certò statuens, non solum aliis, sed mihi quoque remissionem peccatorum, eternam justitiam et vitam, donatam esse, idque gratis ex Dei misericordia propter unius Christi meritum.”—Cat. Rel. Christ. quæ in Eccl. et Scholis Palitinatus, p. 8. Bull, in his Harmonia Ap., Diss. I., cap. iv. s. 6, attributes this doctrine of personal assurance as the essence of faith, to the Reformers generally. Owen admits, “Many great Divines at the first Reformation, did (as the Lutherans generally yet do) thus make the mercy of God in Christ, and thereby the forgiveness of our own sins, to be the proper object of justifying faith, as such.”—Justification by Faith.—Works, xi. 104. Owen’s idea of justifying faith did not include assurance. As we have noticed already, Goodwin’s, at any rate, was much more comprehensive. The Romanists regarded faith as Credence; the Reformers as Assurance; the Anglicans and the Latitudinarians as Obedience; the Puritans as Reliance.

[543] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 21.

[544] The new edition of Howe’s Works, published by the Tract Society, has done much, not only to make them accessible to the public, but to make the reading of them more easy and pleasant. Professor Rogers, by an improved punctuation and arrangement of paragraph, has provided the latter advantage. The work of an Editor is too often in the present day mere pretence, but in this case there has been an amount of painstaking, which renders these volumes, in point of accuracy, worthy of a place by the side of Keble’s Hooker.

[545] Works, i. 30, et seq. The Blessedness of the Righteous was published in 1668.

[546] Howe’s Works, iv. 322.

[547] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 389.

[548] Life of Arnold, ii. 67.

[549] The remark, I believe, was made by the late Bishop of Lichfield.

[550] Goodwin’s Works, iv. 41; ix. 82, 362. Owen’s Works, ii. 247, 513.

[551] Works, v. 364.

[552] Ibid., v. 46; Christian Directory, 1673.

[553] Works, v. 346.

[554] Ibid., vii. 517.

[555] Howe’s Works, iii. 460.

[556] Goodwin’s Works, vii. 311.

[557] Baxter’s Works, iv. (Christian Directory), 315.

[558] Works, xviii. 301.

[559] Baxter’s Works, v. 346. Compare Origen, cont. Celsum; Hooker, Eccl. Polity, ii. 310; and Thorndike’s Works, iv. 39.

[560] Baxter’s Works, v. 287, et seq., 400.

[561] Compare this with what has been said at p. 117.

[562] Orme’s Life of Baxter, 659.

[563] Sermons, 12.

[564] Orme’s Life of Baxter, 589. These passages I have before referred to.

[565] Orme’s Life of Owen, 234.

[566] Works, xx. 74, 113.

[567] Works, xvi. 256.

[568] I confine myself here to books published before the Revolution, and of course must omit numbers worthy of mention.

[569] Orme’s Baxter, 552.

[570] Brook gives an account of the book in his Lives of the Puritans, iii. 213.

[571] It is a significant fact that John Goodwin’s work on The Spirit is included in Nicholl’s series of Puritan Divines.

[572] I cannot but refer, and that with sincere pleasure, to a Sunday evening spent at Pontresina, in the Engadine, the summer before last, when, together with a Nonconformist friend, I united in such a service, with representatives of different sections of the Establishment.

[573] The Christian Poet.

[574] Himself and his brothers.

[575] Diary, i. 15.

[576] Memoir prefixed to Diary, p. xviii.

[577] Memoir prefixed to Silva, i. 15.

[578] My rule has been to select characters who died before the Revolution, but it is necessary to notice Evelyn’s life in connection with Margaret Godolphin; and although he survived the Revolution so many years, he may fairly be taken as a type of religious life before that period. A MS. by him was published in the year 1850, in two volumes, entitled, A Rational Account of the True Religion. The first volume treats of natural theology. In the second, besides a description of Judaism, primitive Christianity, and the decadence and corruption of religion, Evelyn “professes to explain the true doctrines of Holy Scripture and of the Church of England.” The chief interest attaching to the work will be found to consist in its value “as an impartial interpretation of her Articles and her Liturgy; conveyed too in a manner which shows he was not propounding new views, but merely stating them as understood by her members in his time.”—p. xi. In other words, Evelyn explains the doctrines of the Church of England from an Anglo-Catholic point of view. The book indicates the intelligence and devoutness of the author.

[579] One of the Blagge family was Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Henry VIII., and a great favourite with the King, who, for some reason, called him his pig. “He was a Sacramentarian; and when Wriothesley and Gardiner, in 1546, commenced their persecution on the Statute of the Six Articles, Blagge was clapped up in Newgate, and, after a hurried trial, condemned to be burnt. But the moment the King heard of it, he rated the Chancellor for coming so near him, even to his privy chamber, and commanded him instantly to draw out a pardon. On his release, Blagge flew to thank his master, who, seeing him, cried out, ‘Ah, my pig, are you here safe again?’ ‘Yes, Sire,’ said he, ‘and if your Majesty had not been better than your Bishops, your pig had been roasted ere this time.’”—Tytler’s England under Edward VI. and Mary, i. 146.

[580] The Life of Mrs. Godolphin, by Evelyn, edited by the Bishop of Oxford. p. 104. The year of the marriage is not given.

[581] Ibid., 106.

[582] The Life of Mrs. Godolphin, 176.

[583] Paley.

[584] These quotations from Hale’s writings are found in his Life by Sir J. B. Williams. See also Life by Burnet.

[585] These passages are taken from a work entitled Mastix.

[586] Campbell’s Essay on Poetry, 245.

[587] More’s Dialogues.

[588] Ward’s Life of More gives a full account of this excellent man. See also Willmot’s Lives of the Poets.

[589] See the thought expanded in More’s Letters on Several Subjects.

[590] Sir T. Browne’s Works, i. liv.

[591] Ibid., iv. 420.

[592] Ibid., ii. 6.

[593] Sir T. Browne’s Works, ii. 12.

[594] Ibid., ii. 27, 81, 82; i. xlvii.

[595] Sir T. Browne’s Works, ii. 117.

[596] Lives, ii. 172.

[597] Aubrey’s Letters, ii. 255.

[598] Birch’s Tillotson, 75.

[599] Morice MSS., Ent. Book.

[600] Clarendon, Hist., 493.

[601] Tomkins’ Piety Promoted, quoted in Pattison’s Rise and Progress of Religious Life in England, 248.

[602] See Stanford’s Life of Alleine.

[603] Broadmead Records, 97.

[604] Stockton MSS., Diary, Dr. Williams’ Library.

[605] Life, 43.

[606] Life, 24, 26, 59, 147. Stockton bequeathed £500 and his valuable library to Gonville and Caius College.

[607] Calamy.

[608] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time, i. 381.

[609] Such illustrations occur in Dr. Swainson’s valuable Hulsean Lectures on The Creeds of the Church, 58.

[610] There is, in Glamorganshire, an extra-parochial district called Llan-vethin.

[611] At was first struck out, and on written over it, then on was altered into at.

[612] Appears as if midst had been altered into body.

[613] On altered into at.

[614] I examined the books once with Dr. Swainson, and once with the Dean of Westminster.

[615] Documents, 177.

[616] I find this stated by Dr. Vaughan, and I have no doubt of its correctness; but in looking over the Rejoinder, I cannot lay my finger on the passage.

[617] Father Huddlestone.

[618] The Queen’s Priests.

[619] Petre, Bath, and Feversham.

[620] In the Somers’ copy it is “‘the Duke and Lords’ withdrew into the closet for the space of an hour and a half.”

Transcriber’s Note:
1. Obvious printer’s, spelling and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.
2. Where appropriate, original spelling has been retained.
3. The INDEX has been added to the Table of Contents.
4. Where necessary the sidenotes have been placed inside the text of the paragraph. In other places the page header text has been turned into sidenotes.