formity, we must also hear those who suffered by the acts of the republican parliament. The author to whom we refer is Isaac Basire, who, in The History of the English and Scotch Presbytery, said to have been printed in French in 1650, and published in English in 1659, says :

"In the ninety-seven parishes within the walls of London, there were found upon account, that there were fourscore and five ministers driven by violence from their churches and houses; and to number the suburbs and parishes adjoining to London, the number of the ministers were a hundred and fifteen, without comprising those of St. Paul's and Westminster, where the deans and prebends ran the same fortune; of this number, twenty were imprisoned, and of those who are dead by distress and anguish in divers prisons, in the holds of ships, and banishment, they reckoned five years since (i.e., 1655) twenty-two; but this number is almost doubled since, and the others dispersed and fled into strange countries, or otherwise oppressed and ruined. . . . In the other parts of the kingdom, many faithful ministers to the king had the like usage, especially those who possessed the fairest and best benefices; for this was an unpardonable crime, and some of them were massacred by the furious Anabaptists as a sacrifice well pleasing to God."

Into the minute accuracy of this statement we shall not go; but that it contains truth, we have no doubt. Heylin, another writer of the same school, abundantly confirms it, and so do Walker and many more. But if this were wrong under one government it was wrong under another. Even such men as the John Wesley, already alluded to, ought not to have been vexed without lawful enquiry. Yet many were, and that before the Act of Uniformity was passed. We have referred to Baxter and Manton, and it is but fair to say, that when Episcopacy was restored, ecclesiastical benefices were offered to the leading Presbyterians; to Baxter and Manton may be added Calamy, Bates, Bowles, and Reynolds. The last only was prevailed upon to accept the see of Norwich.

At that time, Charles does not seem himself to have had any strong personal feeling against the Presbyterians. His declaration proves this. It is entitled, "His Majesties Declaration to all his loving subjects of his kingdom of England, and dominion of Wales, concerning ecclesiastical affairs."a It com

mences :

"How much the peace of the state is concerned in the peace of the Church, and how difficult a thing it is to preserve order and government in civil, whilst there is no order or government in ecclesiastical affairs, is evident to the world; and this little part of the world, our own domi

London: printed by John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the King's most excellent Majesty, 1660.

nions, hath had so late experience of it, that we may very well acquiesce in the conclusion, without enlarging ourselves in discourse upon it, it being a subject we have had frequent occasion to contemplate upon, and to lament, abroad as well as at home."

After alluding to the letter from Breda, the promises therein made and the opinions entertained respecting the state of religion in England, by the Reformed Churches in France, the Low Countries, and Germany, it proceeds :

"When we were in Holland, we were attended by many grave and learned ministers from hence, who were looked upon as the most able and principal asserters of the Presbyterian opinions, with whom we had as much conference as the multitude of affairs, which were then upon us, would permit us to have; and to our great satisfaction and comfort found them persons full of affection to us, of zeal for the peace of the Church and State, and neither enemies (as they have been given out to be) to episcopacy, or liturgy, but modestly to desire such alterations in either, as without shaking foundations, might best allay the present distempers, which the indisposition of the time, and the tenderness of some men's consciences, had contracted; for the better doing whereof, we did intend, upon our first arrival in this kingdom, to call a synod of divines, as the most proper expedient to provide a proper remedy for all those differences and dissatisfactions which had or should arise in matters of religion; and in the meantime, we published in our declaration from Breda, a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man should be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matter of religion, which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom, and that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament, as upon mature deliberation shall be offered to us, for the full granting of that indulgence."

All this sounds well enough, but the king goes on to complain of the restless and discontented among the over zealous, who had found fault with him, and among other things published that the doctrine of the Church ought to be reformed as well as the discipline. In consequence of these things the king resolves to invert the method he had proposed, and to pronounce some decision which should suffice until a synod could be called. Prevailing discord is attributed to "the passion and appetite, and interest of particular persons." But, says the king:

"We must for the honour of all those of either persuasion, with whom we have conferred, declare that the professions and desires of all for the advancement of piety and true godliness are the same; their professions of zeal for the peace of the Church the same; of affection and duty to us the same; they all approve episcopacy; they all approve a set form of liturgy; and they all disprove and dislike the sin of sacrilege, and the alienation of the revenue of the church," etc.

The king repeats his declaration of attachment to the Church

of England as it is established by law, and thinks this is not disproved by his forbearing to insist peremptorily "on some particulars of ceremony, which, however introduced by the piety, and devotion, and order of former times, may not be so agreeable to the present, but may even lessen that piety and devotion for the improvement whereof they might happily be first introduced, and consequently may well be dispensed with." Such concessions, it is hoped, will not be lost, and that the episcopal authority will be acknowledged to be the best support of religion; but then, in the primitive times, even the ecclesiastical power was always subordinate and subject to the civil. Still, the primitive bishops had more authority than would be desirable in such a government as that of England. Meantime, the State must support the government in the Church which is established by law. Eight articles follow, the subjects of which

are:

1. That the king will encourage true godliness; that the Lord's Day be applied to holy exercises without unnecessary divertisements; that insufficient, negligent, and scandalous ministers be not permitted in the Church; that proper ministers be appointed; and that the bishops be frequent preachers. 2. That suffragan bishops shall be appointed.

3. The jurisdiction of bishops, etc., is limited and controlled. 4. Refers to ordinations and other appointments.

5. Regulates discipline. This contains some remarkable language: "We will take care that confirmation be rightly and solemnly performed, by the information and with the consent of the minister of the place; who shall admit none to the Lord's Supper, till they have made a credible profession of their faith, and promised obedience to the will of God; according as is expressed in the considerations of the rubrick before the catechism," etc. This article provides for a monthly meeting of the rural dean, and three or four ministers of every deanery, to hear and consider complaints. Rural deans are to see that the ministers carefully instruct the young of their parishes in the grounds of the Christian religion, etc.

6. Bishops not to exercise arbitrary powers.

7. "We are very glad to find that all with whom we have conferred, do in their judgment approve a liturgy or set form of public worship to be lawful; which in our judgment, for the preservation of unity and uniformity, we conceive to be very necessary; and though we do esteem the Liturgy of the Church of England, contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and by law established, to be the best we have seen; and we believe we have seen all that are extant and used in this part of the world,

and well know what reverence most of the Reformed Churches, or at least the most learned men in those Churches have for it; yet since we find some exceptions made against several things therein, we will appoint an equal number of learned divines of both persuasions, to review the same, and to make such alterations as shall be thought most necessary; and some additional forms (in the Scripture phrase as near as may be) suited unto the several parts of worship, and that it be left to the minister's choice to use one or other at his discretion. In the meantime, and till this be done, although we do heartily wish and desire that the ministers in their several churches, because they dislike some clauses and expressions, would not totally lay aside the use of the Book of Common Prayer, but read those parts against which there can be no exception; which would be the best instance of declining those marks of distinction, which we so much labour and desire to remove; yet in compassion to divers of our good subjects, who scruple the use of it as now it is, our will and pleasure is, that none be punished or troubled for not using it, until it be reviewed and effectually reformed, as aforesaid."

8. Concerning ceremonies, which are important, and although in themselves indifferent, cease to be indifferent when once established by law. Dispensation is promised in regard to some. Kneeling at the Sacrament is preferred, but left to the decision of a national Synod, but liberty is allowed in the meantime. Ministers to be compelled to make the sign of the cross in baptism. No man to be compelled to bow at the name of Jesus. The use of the surplice to be left optional, except in the king's chapel, in cathedral, or collegiate churches, or in university colleges. The subscription required by the canon, and the oath of canonical obedience not to be enforced, but the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to be necessary to ordination, induction, etc. "In a word, we do again renew what we have formerly said in our declaration from Breda, for the liberty of tender consciences, that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion, which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom; and if any have been disturbed in that kind since our arrival here, it hath not proceeded from any direction of ours."

This important document concludes with an exhortation to acquiescence and forbearance. "Given at our court at Whitehall, this 25th day of October, 1660." Some historians, as Rapin, who refers to Kennet, say that by this proclamation, scrupulous persons were not to be punished or troubled for not using the Liturgy at present, according to the seventh article;

and that concerning ceremonies, no person was to be obliged to conform for the present. This may be implied; but the original document does not contain any such words. Of course the regulations were provisional, and more need not be said. No one ought to find fault with them, considering the unsettled state of affairs at the time. Even the proclamation of January 10th, 1661, issued against the Fifth Monarchy men for their insane attempt, and unfortunately so worded as to prohibit all dissenting meetings, really leaves untouched the parish minister in his parish church.

A change was at hand, however, and when the king met his parliament, on May 8th, 1661, the Lord Chancellor employed language which clearly indicated that the royal mind was soured and vexed by what he had heard of seditious preachers. After describing them, the speaker says, "If you do not provide for the thorough quenching these firebrands, king, lords, and commons shall be their meanest subjects, and the whole kingdom kindled into one general flame." In his speech on July 8th of the same year, the king does not breathe one word upon the subject, but refers more than once to his declaration from Breda, and his resolution to stand by it. On the 20th November, 1661, the first day of meeting after adjournment, the king made another speech in parliament, in which he tells them: “It would not be strange that I come to see what you and I have so long desired to see, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons of England, met together to consult for the peace and safety of Church and State." He says also, "Let us not be discouraged; if we help one another, we shall with God's blessing master all our difficulties; those which concern matters of religion, I confess to you, are too hard for me, and therefore I do commend them to your care and deliberation, which can best provide for them."

We pass on to his Majesty's speech, on May 19th, 1662, but we find nothing in his own words bearing upon the subject. It was left to the Lord Chancellor, who followed, to complain of the refractoriness and ingratitude of some of the clergy, and to praise the Parliament for adopting stringent measures. He said:

:

"You have, my lords and gentlemen, like wise patriots, upon your observation that the most signal indulgence and condescensions, the temporary suspension of the rigour of former laws, hath not produced that effect which was expected; that the humours and spirits of men are too rough and boisterous for those soft remedies; you have prepared sharper laws and penalties to contend with those refractory persons, and to break that stubbornness which will not bend to gentler applications; and it is