[49] Notices of these persons may be found in Noble's Lives of the Regicides—not, however, a trustworthy book. The account of Tomlinson is very meagre.
[50] The Act was passed August 24th, 1653.—Scobell, 236. Mr. Forster, in his Statesmen, v. 195, informs us on the authority of the compilers of the Parliamentary History, that in the debates on this marriage law, it was proposed but not passed, "That if any person then married or to be married according to this Act, should make proof by one or more credible witness upon oath, that either the husband or wife had committed the detestable sin of adultery during such marriage, then the said parties might be divorced by the sentence of three justices of the peace." In Cobbett's Parliamentary History, iii. 1413, however, no notice is taken of this circumstance.
[51] Baxter mentions that Mr. Tallents, of Shrewsbury, and other clergymen, married persons in the presence of a magistrate, the magistrate only declaring that it was a legal union.—Calamy's Life of Baxter, 67.
[52] See Commons' Journals, under dates.
There is, under date 26th of August, 1653, in the Council Order Book, the following entry:—"That the draft of the Act for the abolishing of all rural prebends, which was in the hands of F. Chas. Wolseley to be reported to the Parliament, be humbly reported to the Parliament by Mr. Laurence." No such Act appears in Scobell.
[53] See Exact Relation and New Narrative of the Dissolution, and Forster's Statesmen of the Commonwealth, v. 218.
Thurloe's State Papers furnish illustrations of the difference of opinion in the Short Parliament, i. 368, 386, 387, 393.
[54] Commons' Journal, December 2, 1653.
[55] Exact Relation.
[56] We have endeavoured impartially to set down such facts as can be ascertained in reference to these important proceedings. What was done by the Little Parliament, or any other Parliament, in no wise affects the question as to the Scriptural mode of supporting religion. Many readers will have reached their own conclusions on that point. Some may believe the Bible favours the civil establishment of the Church; others that an establishment of this kind is inconsistent with the teaching and spirit of primitive Christianity. The author does not scruple to say that the latter is his opinion, though he has jealously watched lest the fact should prejudice any of his statements.