ing all sympathy with rebellion, sets forth the principles of the Congregationalists, shewing that they enforce loyalty and obedience to the civil power, and by way of confirmation, quoting the twenty-fourth chapter of the Savoy confession agreed to in 1658.

That everything was then in a state of inextricable confusion will appear by reference to any history of the time. Kennet records among others the following circumstances, which we throw together here. Dr. Manton was episcopally instituted to the living of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, in January, 1661, whereupon the inhabitants petitioned the Bishop of London for the exercise of religion as by law established, so Dr. Manton admitted the use of the Book of Common Prayer. A bishopric was offered to Baxter, who declined it. Gauden published his counsels to priests and deacons ordained by him, urging the defence of the Prayer Book, and thus concludes: "Nor is it to be doubted but we shall at length, by God's help, get a sure and complete victory over all these Amalekites, that so, after various hazards and adventures, we may arrive at heaven, and bring many spiritual sons with us to the high and holy inheritance of eternal glory purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ." We know who the Amalekites were. In some places many children were found unbaptized, as at Dover, where the font had not been used for twenty years. The Quakers presented a petition to Charles II., in which they say that above four hundred men and women were in prison in and about London, and above a thousand more in the country. They ask for a fair trial. The Baptists presented an address to the king about the same time as the Independents. At Edinburgh a proclamation was issued, January 22, 1661, against the Quakers, Anabaptists, and Fifth Monarchy men. A few days later the king ordered the release of the Quakers in prison in London, if not ringleaders, preachers, or particular offenders. The Scotch parliament issued a declaration for annulling the solemn League and Covenant. In Ireland a declaration was sent out against assemblies of Papists, Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, and other fanatical persons. Vast numbers of Quakers were imprisoned. A proclamation went forth against killing, dressing, and eating flesh in Lent and on fast days, etc.; but licenses were allowed. There had been much arbitrary government in the Church, says Kennet, and many bishops and ministers had been ejected, whose places were filled in some cases by itinerant preachers; in others they had been left vacant. A service was appointed for the 30th January. Many pamphlets, tracts, and sermons were published, and controversy and discussion prevailed in all forms. The public mind was very unsettled. The Quakers could obtain no release except

by taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, which of course they could not do. Some persons were prosecuted for not reading the Book of Common Prayer. The advocates of the League and Covenant were sent to prison. Sir Roger L'Estrange and others were urgent in their demands for severity. The Quakers published an account of their persecutions.

Thus we might go on, filling pages with the bare enumeration of facts which shew that a deadly struggle had commenced, and that whatever provocation the sects had formerly given, or whatever rashness some among them might display, they were now the sufferers. It is beyond question that the dominant party contained many wise and good men, who could not approve of severe, arbitrary, and violent measures. It is equally certain, that there were those who, smarting under the remembrance of what they had borne during the Commonwealth, or anxious to reduce the existing chaos to something like order, or resolved to bring about uniformity of religion, cared little what measures were adopted, provided they were suited to the attainment of cherished objects. No one can read the annals of the time without perceiving that this was the case. But we cannot condemn all alike.

Sundry negociations were entered into with the Presbyterians and others, for amicably settling the discipline and ceremonies of the Church of England. On March 25, 1661, the King issued a commission by which he appointed an equal number of divines and learned men on both sides, to consider and revise the Liturgy, and to consider all other matters of dispute, and to report upon them. On the episcopal side were eleven bishops, and the Archbishop of York, and eleven Dissenters on the other. To these were added nine episcopal divines and nine dissenters as substitutes for such of the first class as were unable to attend. So far, all seemed fair and equal, except that the president was an archbishop. Probably it was intended that all should proceed on just and honourable principles, but the reports shew that, from the first, there was no prospect of impartiality from men like Sheldon and others. Submission was required, and not agreement. Consequently, shame and defeat were the portion of the Dissenters, who could not cope. with this violent spirit, and the determination to retaliate, which was opposed to them. Regarded by the light of authentic records, the whole affair looks like a farce, a solemn mockery. Apart from the wretched manner in which this business was conducted, there are features which we approve. It was right and proper to attempt to restore harmony to a distracted church. It was right and proper to introduce something like agreement

and uniformity by the common consent of those in possession of the pulpits. This agreement did not exist, but it was none the less desirable; and if men of different opinions could have been brought to make mutual concessions, and to follow one uniform practice, there would have been consolidated a peaceful and powerful ecclesiastical community. Elements in both parties forbade this, but posterity has cast upon the episcopal commissioners the obloquy of refusing concession, and of demanding obedience. At this time there was abroad a spirit of vindictiveness, which can easily be accounted for, but which we can well afford to blame. The high churchmen had, some of them, suffered much within the preceding nine or ten years. Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy is not altogether a fictitious book; it is partial, it is violent, it is in many points very inexact, but it still represents real sufferings and indignities. This was the canker which fretted some men's hearts, and nothing could atone for the violence of the republican party but reprisals; they must be humbled and crushed. The day of power had now dawned upon the men who had been wronged and outraged, and with the accession of power appeared the resolution to have revenge. Of course some may have been moved by better motives, but those we describe were predominant in the councils of the time. We repeat our approval of the desire for general agreement and of uniformity, so far as was possible, because a church cannot truly prosper in which all forms of doctrine and ecclesiastical custom prevail. At that time, there were men in parish pulpits who had never been ordained at all. Of John Wesley, of Whitchurch, for example, Adam Clarke says, "That he was a laypreacher," and "that he was an itinerant evangelist." He adds, "That he was not ordained, either by bishop or presbyters, by the imposition of hands, is fully evident." And again, that although called by the people, appointed by the trustees, and approved by the triers, "he had not instituted any code of discipline for their (his people's) regulation; and probably did not administer the sacraments among them, especially the sacrament of the Lord's Supper." This John Wesley was ejected by the Act of Uniformity. His case speaks for itself, and it is not for a moment to be imagined that it stands alone. In a few of the pulpits, ministers holding congregational views of church polity officiated; in many, those who followed the Presbyterian order; and in others, those who were Episcopalians. To call this confusion is to use a mild word, and to say that it was an inconsistency, will probably not be questioned. If parish churches are national property, they were yet never intended for indiscriminate use. The Government always claimed the power to

control them, so far at least as to determine who should and who should not minister in them. We see this not merely in the conduct of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, but in that of the Long Parliament itself, who pronounced all ministers ineligible who would not comply with the League and Covenant, etc. The occupants of these pulpits have often changed with the changes of the constitution of the Church in these realms. Interference has gone beyond this, and the civil power has restrained or deposed such teachers as were either heretical or evil livers; if it has not always done so, it has always claimed the right. The parliamentary government both asserted and exercised the right. The clergy whom it ejected, were ejected for all these reasons; they refused to conform to the state enactments respecting the League and Covenant, etc.; or they were heretics; or they were men of evil lives. All the clergy who suffered under the authority of the parliamentary party were not saints, though some of them were; others were idle, incompetent, irregular, or otherwise unfit for their holy office. Whether all who suffered by the Act of Uniformity in 1662 were really confessors or martyrs, is fairly open to question. In both cases there was enormous injustice and oppression; but the amount of these ingredients is more apparent in the latter, where there lacked nothing of bitterness and rigour, and where no element of mercy or consideration is to be found. No doubt the two thousand were a motley host. In church government, in doctrine, in manners, in zeal, in learning, in godliness, they exhibited far greater variety than we should find at this day. No doubt too they were impelled by different motives to refuse subscription. Some refused because they had not seen the book they were required to pledge themselves to; some because they regarded the proceeding as intolerable and tyrannical; some because they objected to certain doctrines; some because they could not consent to use certain formulas; some because they were not Episcopalians; and some on other accounts. Whatever their reasons, they were so far honest and sincere, that they sacrificed everything rather than say or do what they did not believe. Their consciences, it ought to be admitted, had the principal voice in the matter, because if they had made the requisite declaration, and surrendered to authority, they might have remained. The conditions offered were offered to all, and all were required to accept them. But this was rather in appearance than reality. The Church had been divided and at At length one party gets into power, and dictates the terms on which alone the other shall continue in possession of what it holds. These terms are in fact the Act of Uniformity,

war.

which viewed in this light was neither more nor less than a notice to quit, or a summons to surrender. It was perfectly well known that some would surrender, and equally well known that others would refuse. Not only was this foreseen, but it was desired, and the Act was constructed in view of it. The Prayer Book itself was altered in the same spirit and expectation. It was made more offensive than its predecessor, by the insertions which were resolved upon. To serve a temporary purpose changes were effected in the liturgical standards which are a sore and a bone of contention to this day. Let the reader compare the Book of Common Prayer as it appeared before and after 1662. We pronounce no opinion as to the character of the alterations, but only as to the motive by which some of them found acceptance. Not only was the book rendered more unpalatable, intentionally to aggravate the humiliation and increase the difficulty of subscription; but the treatment to which many were subjected by way of foretaste was uncalled for. We can afford to own this also. Men who pray, "Remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the offences of our forefathers," can admit that their forefathers sometimes did wrong. Here then were three things; there was the haughty and vindictive bearing of the men in power; there was the alteration effected in the Prayer Book; and there was the Act of Uniformity. All these contributed to the catastrophe of August the 24th, 1662; or rather, perhaps, the third of these merely hastened the denouement. Possibly, a different view may be taken by others, who see no fault in the party they espouse, whichever it may happen to be.

We spoke of the haughty and overbearing behaviour of some of the Episcopal party, and we would illustrate this by numerous cases if it were necessary. But even this to some extent finds its counterpart in preceding events. What we may call the Genevan, more commonly termed the Puritan party in the Church, had always been opposed to and by the thorough-going Episcopalians. Under Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., men of the Genevan school were often called to suffer. During the civil wars they, whether Presbyterian or Episcopalian, gained the upper hand, and then they too exerted their power upon their opponents. We have already hinted at the measures by which the Church constitution was altered. Not only was the Prayer Book abolished, but episcopacy itself, and the Presbyterian Directory and its concomitants substituted for them. Then too were many excluded from their benefices. It may be enough to quote on this point a passage from one of the suffering party. If we quote from those who suffered by the Act of Uni