HOW DID THEY GET THERE? 
 
 OR, TUB 
 
 NON-CONFORMING MINISTERS OF 1(562. 
 
 A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO WOULD CELEBRATE 
 
 THE BI-CEXTENARY OF 
 
 ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, 1662. 
 
 REV. GEORGE VENABLES, S.C.L., F.R.A.S. 
 
 Incumbent of Christ Church, Friesland, Yorkshire. 
 
 Second Edition.— With Additions and Notes. 
 
 LONDON : 
 WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT, 
 24, Paternoster Row, 
 and 2-3, Hoij.es Street, Cavendish Square. 
 
 Price Twopence. 
 
 L
 
 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 At the present time, when Satan appears to be leading men away from 
 the practice of religion, by tempting them to dispute about it, wo who are 
 members of the Church of England need be very wary lest we become 
 entangled in controversy. 
 
 In this matter of the bi-centenary of St. Bartholomew's day, we are 
 not attacking, or wishing to attack; but are only defending the Church 
 against an effort which savours much of bad taste, of political hostility , 
 and of secularism. 
 
 Churchmen have been quite contented as long as Dissenters were 
 willing to do all the good they were able ; but we must not permit them 
 to do all the harm they can. We have been silent as long as they 
 sought to rival the Church in works of piety ; yea, the Church has 
 patiently borne many a calumny which reflected no credit on the origi- 
 nators; but we must be silent no longer. Many pious Dissenters have 
 joined with men of varied moods; [" Gebal, and Amnion, and Amalel , 
 the Philistin es, with them that dwell at Tyre.'' ] and are hi league aga 
 the Church of their forefathers ; and, therefore, we must be, and we 
 will be stirring ! 
 
 Churchmen must cease from coquetting with dissent, 1 while they en- 
 deavour, in all sincerity and kindness, to win Dissenters. 
 
 Churchmen should acquaint themselves with the history of the 
 Church. Half a dozen lectures on the subject, in every parish in 
 England, would effect great good on the minds of many. 
 
 Dissenters are reported to have raised at least i'00,000 to commemorate 
 this bi-centenary. If this be all, or even if the amount be double this 
 sum, if regarded as an aggregate result of a general effort, I think it 
 must be considered as a failure, since individual instances of liberality 
 lor_ Church purposes have, in many cases, nearly equalled this. 
 
 x Is it not time to do so when such terms as the following (which are only a very 
 few specimens) are used against the Church by leading Dissenters ? — 
 
 " The -Established Church destroys more souls than it saves." — Mr. Binney. 
 
 "The Church of England is an impious pretence." — Mr. Miatt. 
 
 " I wish to God that I had this evening to preach the funeral sermon of that 
 hoary harlot Mother Church, which is a blast and nuisance upon the earth— both 
 black, bloody, and useless." — Vide "Refutation of Nonconformity " p. 402. 
 
 " The National Church, as a means of supporting religion, is destitute even of 
 the semblance of fitness." — Mr. Miatt. 
 
 " Democracy is a reality. A State Church is a mere conventionalism." — 
 Mr. Miatt. 
 
 " 1 lie separation of Church and State, as it is then " [i.e., Dissenting ministers] 
 "real object, so, in my judgment, it is their proper, their right noble mission." — 
 — Mr. Miatt. 
 
 I ask, how is it possible to work with such men ?
 
 -ft 
 
 But, be tli is as it may, such an effort ouglit to stir up the laity of the 
 Church to do far more ! Let them come forward, and by a noble effort 
 this year, give such an impulse to Church extension as shall render 1862 
 memorable for something worthy of being commemorated. The whole 
 question is more one for the laity than the clergy. The Church will last 
 our time; but it is for the laity to resolve that it shall continue to their 
 posterity. 1 Above all, let us endeavour to prove ourselves to be the 
 Church of Christ by doing the work in Christ's way which He has given 
 His Church to do. It is an unspeakable honour to belong to a Church 
 which had existence in England, probably even before the sacred canon 
 of the New Testament was completed ; and which, through many 
 troubles, has been preserved in safety until the present hour. 
 
 For six centuries and upwards did she battle it out against heathen- 
 dom, until heathendom fell before the cross of Christ. For nine cen- 
 turies more did she encounter the subtle entanglements of Rome ; and, 
 although for a while caught in the lap of this Delilah, and thereby 
 shorn of her strength, she at length tore the foul net which discomfited, 
 and at one time nearly destroyed her, and sprang to her feet in all the 
 pristine vigour of her primeval purity. 
 
 And now. in these latter days, when, more than ever, she is watching 
 for her Saviour's second Advent, she is hemmed round by enemies who 
 ouglit to be her dutiful children, and amongst her warmest supporters. 
 Still she looks with sorrow on the many divisions existing amongst those 
 whom she would gladly welcome back to worship God in Christ in the 
 Church of then* ancestors : but, whatever their estrangement, and 
 whatever then* determination, she is strong in Christ. Through even- 
 age she heard it, more or less distinctly, and now, in her time of 
 trouble, the voice seems to speak with unusual power and sweetness, 
 assuring her of far greater triumphs, and saying, as when first it sounded 
 forth on Olivet : — 
 
 "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end" (not of the nineteenth 
 century only, but ) " of the world." 
 
 " God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God 
 
 ,L HELP HER, AND THAT RIGHT EARLY. The LORD OF HOSTS IS 
 
 with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge." 
 
 1 The Eeport of the Education Commission, made to Parliament last year, shows 
 that in supporting schools, out of 1028 subscribers — 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 169 clergymen gave 10 10 each. 
 
 399 landowners ,, 5 6 ,, 
 
 217 occupiers ,, 18 6 ,, 
 
 102 householders „ 1 15 6 „ 
 
 141 other persons,, 1 13 „ 
 
 "Why should the clergy be so heavily burdened in this and similar efforts ? Yet, 
 adds the Eeport, " the heaviness of the burden borne by the clergy is imperfectly 
 indicated even by such figures as these."
 
 HOW DID THEY GET THERE ? 
 
 Many persons of influence amongst Dissenters have determined to 
 render 1862 a celebrated year in their community. Sermons, 
 orations, speeches, lectures, and historical sketches are to he trum- 
 peted throughout England. Enormous funds are to he raised, 
 putting utterly to shame the more niggardly doings of the rich 
 Church of England laity, and from these funds meeting-houses arc 
 to he built in all directions, and at least one gigantic edifice is to be 
 erected to commemorate the mighty achievements of Dissent in 
 1862, and of its endurances in 166*2 ! 
 
 And what is the energizing principle which is to give hie to all 
 this organization? What is the tremendous discovery which is to 
 rouse England into indignation at the mere recital of it, and to hurl 
 down (only it is impossible) the poor old Church of England, alter 
 eighteen centimes of usefulness ? . 
 
 The leaders in this mighty movement have told us in their 
 speeches and proposals. It is, that two hundred years ago, on the 
 next 24th day of August {i.e., the festival of St. Bartholomew), an 
 Act of Parliament (an Act, be it remembered, passed by the House 
 of Commons, as well as by the House of Lords, and which the Com- 
 mons, by special message, urged the House of Lords to hurry on), 
 known as " The Act of Uniformity," came into operation. 
 
 In consequence, a large number of ministers, and some layinen,- 
 of various sects and parties, left the livings of the Church of 
 England, which they had held for several years; and some oi these 
 in consequence suffered very great privations, a few almost perishing 
 through hunger, and those who had families enduring of course the 
 yet more agonizing trial of witnessing the sufferings of their 
 children as they pined away in want. _ .,,-,, 
 
 Doubtless the Dissenters will not forget to describe, with all pos- 
 sible effect, the sufferings of men who left the Church livings ratner 
 than agree to the Act of Uniformity. They will find without 
 difficulty, some cases of distress; and these, well worked up, will 
 through the meeting-houses with exasperating effect, and the 
 
 ring 
 
 » " The Lords vainly attempted to soften some of its clauses."— Piet. Hist, of 
 
 £ ^There\Sno division in the House of Commons on this Bill ^ itself, hut a pro- 
 posal to allow fifths to Nonconforming ministers was lost, vn the Commons, b> Vi 
 
 against 87."— Vide Hallam, vol. u., p. 37. v */.„h +« fir,a naturae 
 
 • "The silencing so many clergy at once madeit very difficult to nnd persons 
 qualified to take their place."— Neal, vol. iii., p. 35.
 
 Church, of England will be roundly abused, in a style with which Dis- 
 senters arc already very much at home. 
 
 But then, one part of the question will probably remain un- 
 touched ; or, if touched upon, may be but obscurely related. I will 
 waive the point as to whether the number of ^Nonconforming 
 ministers was two thousand (as Dissenters assert) or not. 1 I will not 
 enter into arguments tending to shew that the number was smaller 
 by hundreds than this statement declares. I will only remark, that, at 
 most, but three hundred and thirty-one meeting-houses were built for 
 them, almost every one of which has since become a place of meeting 
 for Socinians. 3 Let the number, however, be taken at two thousand, 
 and let it be granted also, and with very deep sorrow, too, that 
 many of them suffered, and some few of them severely. I dis- 
 tinctly state here, my very sincere regret that these men were treated 
 in all respects, as they were treated. I lament that some arrange- 
 ment was not made, whereby their services could have been con- 
 tinued within the Church of England. But still, while candidly 
 owning this, I say the ichole truth ought to be known ; and as these 
 (so-called) two thousand ministers are to be the subject of high 
 laudation (Dissenters, I believe, never canonize, though they do 
 something very similar in Funeral Sermons\ so I must beg to say a 
 few words on this matter as well as Dissenters. 
 
 I plainly grant, then, that by an Act of Parliament, taking effect 
 August 24, 1662, two thousand ministers, of various persuasions- 
 Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Independents, and Puritans, — were 
 turned out from the rectories, vicarages, and parsonages of the Church 
 of England, which they had for some years dwelt in, and were also 
 deprived of the enjoyment of the tithes, endowments, offerings, and 
 fees, which modern Dissenters inform us are such very wicked 
 things, but which these holy men felt no compunction whatever in 
 receiving and enjoying ! 
 
 ISow, before any honest Dissenter lays the charge of cruelty, or 
 injustice in this matter at the door of the Church of England, I 
 want him fairly to enquire about two questions. I want him to 
 ascertain a true verdict on the question — " How did this medley of 
 so-called Dissenters, not a few of whom had not been ordained, in 
 any way whatever, come into possession of the emoluments, and par . 
 
 1 "Near two thousand." — Neat's Purit.. vol. in., p. 35. "About one thousand 
 eight hundred, or two thousand." — Baxter' s Life, p. 385. Small folio edition, 1696. 
 He elsewhere uses the figures 1800 only, — p. 286 — 7. Probably (as liallam hints, 
 "England," vol. ii., p. 38), in the collection of numbers on cither side, there 
 are abundant errors. 
 
 a A very few are still called "Presbyterian," but are in the hands of Indepen- 
 dents or baptists. Thus, e.g., there is one at Chinley, in Glossop, built for 15ag- 
 shawe, who was one of the "ejected." His descendant is Incumbent of u parish 
 ':*tmany miles from Glossop !
 
 onages, of this horrible thing— the Church?" Aud then I want 
 him to fairly ascertain a true answer to a second question, nanielv, 
 " Why not more than two thousand of them became sufferers under 
 the Act?" 1 
 
 To aid the enquiry— and it is one every Dissenter ought in justice 
 fairly to master before he supports this " movement," which his 
 leaders propose— I will endeavour to write a few pages on the real 
 state of the case. 
 m In plain, blunt English then, these two thousand sufferers by 
 ejectment from church livings, had no right to them (unless might 
 give right), and were turned out because they would not conform to 
 the Church whose bread they were eating ! If a man came to you 
 and said, 'You are not living in the right way within your house, 
 and you do not spend your money correctly, I shall turn you out 
 and enjoy your property myself, and use it as I think best,' should 
 you consider that to be just ? And suppose that after he had lived 
 in your house ten years you succeeded in turning him out, and that 
 a few weeks afterwards he was found to be a great sufferer by the 
 losses he had sustained, and was starving in an hovel ! you might 
 pity him, and you might relieve him ; but whether you did or not, 
 would there be any justice in holding you up to contempt, and in 
 accusing you of barbarity, because the invader of your house became 
 a great sufferer by being driven out of it? And yet, in strict 
 truth, there is little difference betwixt such a proceeding and that 
 which we are now told is so cruel. 
 
 Secularists, political adventurers, and infidels may find delight in 
 proclaiming a partial story, but every conscientious man, who ac- 
 quaints himself with the whole history, will see that these two 
 thousand Nonconformists, who after two centuries are to be raised 
 up to aid a cause, which in its present phase I think most of them, 
 would be ashamed of, had no right whatever to that which they 
 gave up on St. Bartholomew's Day. 
 
 Here, too, another observation should be made. Many modern 
 Dissenters seem to claim the Nonconformists of 1662, as though 
 they were of similar opinions with themselves. This was by no 
 means the case. No inconsiderable number of them had been 
 Episcopally ordained, many of them were Presbyterians ; and of those 
 who were not Presbyterians, a considerable portion were not opposed 
 to Liturgies, 8 and many by no means objected to Episcopacy, and 
 
 i " Many complied with the terms of Conformity."— Neal. Bis. Pur. TtmhnMs 
 Edit., vol. iv., p. 339. 
 
 ; "Having already given you our judgement of sovoral tilings in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, and our desires for the altering of some parts of it, leaving the rest 
 unaltered."—"^ Petition for Peace, of the year 1661, presented to the Bishops," and 
 printed 1661, p. 22. 
 
 Notice the following expressions taken from "The Reformation of the Liturgy,"
 
 none of them were unwilling to enforce the payment of tithes, and 
 -all of them were in favour of an establishment. Kichard Baxter l 
 (who was ordained by one of our bishops) for many years after the 
 Act of Uniformity had silenced his ministry in church, regularly 
 attended his parish church of Acton, though it was alleged the 
 minister was very inefficient. Philip Henry did so at Wortheubury, 
 and persuaded others to do the same. Thomas Gouge, after hi> 
 ejection, diligently employed himself in printing and distributing 
 
 being the book for " Ordinary Public Worship on the Lord's Day," prepared by the 
 Nonconformists of 1661, and to which the petition above quoted is attached : 
 
 u At the Lord's Supper. 
 
 " Into this blessed, pardoning, saving- Covenant, we are first entred by baptism." 
 
 " [Here let the bread be brought to the Minister, and received by him and set upon 
 
 ' the table, and then the wine in like manner (or if it be set there before) however 
 
 '■' let him bless them, praying in these or like words] : * * * * Thy creatures of 
 
 " bread and wine which according to Thy Institution and Communion we set apart to 
 
 " this holy use, that they may be sacramentally the Body and Blood of Thy Son Jesus 
 
 " Christ. " Amen." 
 
 ******* 
 
 " Then let the Minister say, 
 " This Bread and Wine being set apart, and consecrated to this holy use by God's 
 " appointment, are now no common bread and wine, but sacramentally the Body and 
 " Blood of Christ." 
 
 ******* 
 
 " Dear brethren, we have been feasted with the Son of God at His table, upon 
 " His Flesh and Blood." 
 
 " In the Service of Baptisme. 
 
 " Is it a small mercy for this child to be accepted into the covenant of God, and 
 " washed from its original sin in the Blood of Christ, which is signified and sealed by 
 " this sacramental washing in water ? " 
 
 "And you must know," (addressing the parents, proparents, or owners of the 
 ; ' child) that your faith, and covenant, and dedication will suffice for your children no 
 "■ longer than till they come of age themselves, and then they must own their Bap- 
 " tismal covenant, and personally renew it." 
 
 ******* 
 
 " We thank Thee that .... Thou hast now received this child into Thy covenant 
 " and Church, as a member of Christ by this sacrament of Regeneration." 
 
 ******* 
 
 " To the People. 
 
 "You have heard, beloved, how great a dignity we were advanced to in [our 
 " Baptism, to how great duty we are aU engaged. 
 
 " Search and try, whether you have kept or broken the covenant which you 
 
 "made And if any of you be atheists, unbelieving, or ungodly, . . . as you love 
 
 "your souls, bewail your perfidious covenant-breaking with God. Trust not the 
 " water of Baptism alone. . . . Baptism wBl not save you, if you have not the answer 
 "of a good conscience unto God. If any have not the Spirit of Christ, the same 
 " is none of His. Much less those wretches that hate sanctification . . . .when they 
 " were by Baptism engaged to the Holy Ghost the Sanctificr. Can you think to be 
 " saved by the covenant, which you keep not ? 
 
 "And if Confirmation be continued, let his Majesty's declaration be observed," 
 {■i.e., that it be rightly performed.) 
 
 i Life, Part iii., Sect. 79, 80, p. 196.
 
 3 
 
 copies of the Bible, the Common Prayer Book, and the Churph. 
 Catechism, and was a regular attendant at church. 1 Many of the 
 ejected ministers brought up their sons to be ministers in the Church 
 of England, which they themselves refused to minister in, only he- 
 cause, haying taken the solemn league and covenant, they did not 
 like to "eat then - own words," by renouncing it. Bishop Fowler 
 of Gloucester, Dean Massey of Christ Church, Benjamin Calamy, 
 and many others, whose names could be given, were sons of the ejected 
 " martyrs" who, nevertheless, encouraged their own sons to con- 
 form. Now modern Dissenters are quite welcome to claim these 
 men if they please. I give them all they can get out of the 
 matter. Only, if these Nonconformists of 1 662 be a specimen of 
 modern Dissenters, why do not modern Dissenters imitate them, 
 and bring up their sons to minister at the Church, and attend 
 there themselves? And if they act so very differently from 
 them, why do they so anxiously claim them? Query — Is not 
 Dissent an ever-shifting, ever-splitting, ever-changing thing? It 
 is difficult to write upon a subject whereon the Dissenters are 
 constantly shifting their ground of argument. At one time they 
 are upholding the Non-conformists as their own originators. Finding 
 themselves driven from this position, they now shelter themselves 
 under the defence that they commemorate the sufferings of men who 
 were persecuted for Non-conformity. The object in writing these 
 pages is to show that the Non-conforming, or Dissenting party of 
 the rebellion, persecuted the Church party most bitterly whenever 
 they could. If this be true, then it is asked, " Why are they to be 
 commemorated more than the sufferers of the Church party ? " The 
 cause is altogether a rotten one. 
 
 The brief history of the Act of Uniformity is as follows ; for, in 
 order to comprehend the case, we must go back about twenty years. 
 
 The great rebellion had reached its height in 1649, when Charles 
 the First, King of England, was executed on the scaffold as a 
 traitor, through the stratagem and counsel of Presbyterians, 
 Puritans, Independents, and other Dissenters. One universal groan 
 of sorrow rose from the multitude as the bloody deed was performed. 2 
 » Probably some of those who urged on the execution of the king 
 believed they were doing right, and the wild fanaticism of his 
 enemies is pretty well attested by the numerous anecdotes told of 
 
 1 Neal mentions that Archbishop Tillotson preached a funeral sermon at his death 
 in 1681.— Vide Purit., vol. iv., p. 475. 
 
 2 " Though the Duke of Kichmond, the Marquis of Hertford, the Earls of South- 
 ampton and Lindsay, and the Bishop of London, sought permission to bury the body 
 of the King with the Service of the Church, they were absolutely refused this tole- 
 ration ! ! "—Works of Charles I., small folio edition, 1687, p. 210,
 
 the Dissenting" preachers thou. Thus, e.g., Hugh Peters, an Inde- 
 p< i drut minister, preached in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, 
 on the perverted text, " Bind your king with chains, and your 
 "'nobles with fetters of iron;" and called Charles, "the great Barab- 
 " ba«, a murtherer, a tyrant, and traitor." [Notice here St. Jude 
 8, 9, 10; and also 2 St. Peter ii. 10, 11, and 13.] Hear the 
 language used in sermons preached before Parliament, and pub- 
 lished by its authority. Alluding to the men who opposed the 
 rebellion, they cried, " Curse ye Meroz, curse ye bitterly the in- 
 ' ' habitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the Lord, to 
 "the help of the Lord against the mighty." " Turn your plough - 
 " shares into swords to light the Lord's battles." " Cursed be he that 
 "keepeth back his sword from blood." "Vex the Midianitcs. 
 " Abolish the Amalekites. Leave not a rag that belongs to Popery. 
 ' ' Away with it, head and tail, hip and thigh. It is better to see the 
 " people lie wallowing in their blood " 'just the argument of Papists 
 lor burning heretics!) "rather than embracing idolatry and super- 
 *' stition." Such is but a small specimen of the blasphemous handling 
 of the "Word of God, by which men were excited to deeds of cruelty 
 and bloodshed, which had better been forgotten. 1 
 
 Some of the " advanced liberals" of the period were known by the 
 term of " Root and Branch" men. They stirred up a great excite- 
 ment in the House of Commons against the Church and Bishops, 
 and determined, if possible, to pluck down the Church " root and 
 "branch." Accordingly, on the 10th Dec, 1641 (about seven years 
 before the death of Charles I.), ten bishops were sent to the tower: 
 early the next year a bill for driving all the bishops out of Parlia- 
 ment was passed, and the ruin of the Church was, as its enemies hoped, 
 secure. Soon after this, a committee of the House of Commons 
 was appointed to enquire into the " scandalous immoralities " of 
 the clergy. No doubt that some among the clergy were evil livers, 
 though it does not appear that the number was, by any means, 
 great. "We cannot expect a perfect Church in this sinful world. 
 The stoiy of the times of Eli and Samuel might convince us of this ; 
 and the wickedness of some of the followers of Christ and of His 
 
 1 General Fairfax sought to persuade Cromwell to spare the life of the king. 
 "And Cromwell kept him (it was said) in praying and consulting till the stroke was 
 given, and it was too late to make resistance." — Baxter* s Life, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 It would be easy to add here, only space forbids, many instructive records of 
 these periods, which show that while many Puritans supported the rebellion by 
 preaching, praying, and fasting, and by every influence they could use, they 
 regretted the king's murder. Yet surely, men who urge others on to deeds of much 
 violence, must not claim to be wholly innocent, if the enactors of these deeds go a 
 little further than they expected or desired. The murder of Charles was no more 
 than this. 
 
 The diary of Isaac Ambrose, iu his " Prima, Media, et Ultima," 16.50, is peculiarly 
 illustrative of this.
 
 10 
 
 apostles confirms this painful admission. It may well be doubted, 
 however, whether the assigned cause for forming this committee of 
 the whole House of Commons were the true cause of their pro- 
 ceedings. 1 One thing, at all events, is very certain, viz., that within 
 two years the Church was cleared, not only of the " immoral " 
 clergy, but also of all those who were not of the same way of 
 thinking on political matters as the committee ! ! ! Scandalous immo- 
 ralities attach also to some of their successors. _ Many of the 
 Eoyalist clergy {i.e. the regularly, episcopally ordained Church of 
 England clergy) were ejected summarily by the Parliament soldiers, 
 who were in open opposition to the King and his army. Mul- 
 titudes of the clergy, left their cures and took sanctuary in the 
 King's armies or garrisons. Others were put in confinement in 
 Lambeth, Winchester, and Ely, and for want of room, twenty, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Walker, were imprisoned on board ships in the 
 river Thames, and shut down under decks, no friend being allowed 
 to come near them. One hundred and ten clergymen wen 
 turned out in the diocese of London alone, in 1642 and 1643, 
 and as many fled to avoid punishment. A scheme was seriously 
 entertained of selling a vast number of the clergy to the Turks as 
 slaves ! and though this plan was not openly carried into effect, 
 there are suspicions whether some were not so got rid of. Several 
 were murdered by the pretended sword of justice, or by the common 
 barbarities of the times. 
 
 But, perhaps, a few particulars may be useful to Dissenters, for I 
 suspect they are not quite aware of the cruelties they have accom- 
 plished in their day. It would not be a difficult matter to supply 
 them with authentic accounts of some hundreds of sufferers under 
 the bitter persecutions of their originators in the middle of the 
 seventeenth century ; but this would be a very lengthy affair, and 
 I must try to be brief. However, there is no doubt of this, that 
 the number of rightly ordained clergy who were driven out of their 
 parishes by the cruelty and excesses of the Dissenting party was 
 very great, even from the evidence of those committees of the 
 House of Commons who expelled them. The whole body of the 
 Cathedral clergy, eminent for learning, was at once swept away ; 
 and, it is firmly believed, that "more men were outed of their 
 livings by the Presbyterians, in the space of three years, than wcrt 
 deprived'by the Papists in the reign of Queen Mary, or had been 
 silenced, suspended, or deprived by the bishops, from the first yea; 
 of Elizabeth to those very times." 2 There appears to be no doubt 
 » In the " Ordinance" of Parliament it is confessed that '_' it is found by expe- 
 rience parishioners are not forward to complain of their ministers" ! ! ! 
 
 * Walker, Parti., p. 198 ; Part ii., p. 180. Pict, Hist. England, p. 491. Heal, 
 vol. iii., p. 22. 
 
 " In London all the bishops' houses were turned to be prisons, and were failed
 
 11 
 
 that six to seven thousand persons, at the lead, were cruelly ejected 
 from their livings, and some make the number much larger. 1 Some 
 calculate the number, including the Fellows of Colleges, to have 
 been ten thousand. Amongst others who were driven out and 
 plundered may be mentioned John Owen, d.d., bishop of St. Asaph, 
 William Roberts, d.d., bishop of Bangor, and, indeed, all the 
 bishops. 
 
 Thomas Howell, d.d., bishop of Bristol, met with much barbarous 
 treatment. The rebels took the lead off the roof of his palace, and 
 he was exposed to the weather day and night. After other in- 
 dignities they pulled and hauled him violently out of the palace, 
 which they turned into a malt-house. Their usage to him was such 
 that he died not long after. Take another specimen, — that of 
 James Usher, d.d., bishop of Carlisle. His residence was pillaged, 
 and the bishop deprived of all his possessions. His extraordinary 
 learning made him superior to all his enemies, and there is reason 
 to believe that when he died, a victim to the trials he endured, in 
 1655, he was buried at the expense of the Protector Cromwell, who 
 could not but respect his character. Dean Reeves and Ms wife and 
 four children were taken out of their beds at midnight, and turned 
 out of doors, and lay all night under a hedge in the wet and cold. 
 John Gregory, one of the most learned men of those times, who 
 spent sixteen hours every day in study, was reduced to such poverty 
 that he was obliged to retire to an obscure alehouse at Kidlington 
 Green, near Oxford, and after some years died in that obscurity. 
 George Benson, being turned out of his rectory, was succeeded by a 
 mere layman, Who never paid him fifths for the subsistence of his icife 
 and family. 
 
 If ever a good man lived, Joseph Hall, 2 bishop of Norwich was one. 
 It was eight o'clock at night, very cold and frosty, when he was 
 seized and sent to prison. After some time he was released on 
 £5000 bail, and returning to Norwich, was harassed, sequestered, 
 and abused in the vilest manner, all his property was seized, and an 
 inventory of his goods taken, except the clothes of his children, 
 which were exempted through special interference ! After many 
 gross insults, he was turned out of his palace, and would have been 
 in the street, but that a worthy man lent his house for himself and 
 family. Some maintenance was voted for himself and family, but 
 before one quarter was due, the payment was prohibited, and he 
 only had the promise of the fifths, of which he never had the full 
 
 with divines that would not take the covenant, or forbear reading Common Prayer, 
 or that were accused for some fault like these." — JSecl. Biography, Bishop San- 
 derson, p. 491. 
 
 1 Gauden, 6,000 to 7,000; Walker, 8,000 to 10,000 ; White, the Chairman of the 
 Committee, 8,000 ; Dr. Hook's " Church Dictionary," Article Puritans, 7000. 
 
 8 See his " Sard measure."
 
 12 
 
 amount. Dr. John Cosm. dean of Peterborough, was imprisoned, 
 fined degraded, deprived, and excommunicated, upon charges which 
 wqSfak/and all of which we connected wittihis rehgxons 
 opinions. The celebrated champion of Protestantism ChiUmgwortlr. 
 was cruelly treated ; and at his burial a certain minister Center,,. 
 Prancis Cneynell, of those times, throwing the works oi the de- 
 ceased into the grave after him, said, « Get thee gone, thou cursed 
 -book; get thee into the place of rottenness, that thou mayest rot 
 « with thv author." x Dr. llobert Sanderson was seized by soldiers, 
 Moving taken, and he, his wife and children reduced to poverty tor 
 some years. Henry Powler, rector of Minchin Hampton wa 
 seized, a sword held to his throat, beaten with poleaxes, railed at 
 for reading Common Prayer, and, though sixty-two years of age, 
 was so beaten as to be unable to move ; then the son was attacked 
 and then the daughter, who was knocked down again and again with 
 rpoleaxe and then the aged mother was kicked knocked down 
 and trampled upon, after which the house was Peered John 
 Hesleheaa was turned out of his Church on Sunday while opting, 
 and a pistol held to his breast, with a teat of death if he did not 
 comply. Then all the family were driven out of the house, m- 
 ffi a married daughter, who was not allowed to remain, though 
 n a rttical condition; and died hi child-birth shortly afterwards 
 Dr. Hammond was another sufferer, being cast into prison for 
 several months; and the celebrated Jeremy Taylor, one of the 
 greatest divines of that or any other age was driven . &om his 
 narish took refuge for a time in Wales, and afterwards in Ireland. 
 P These Teases arc°not by any means selected, but have been taken 
 almost promiscuously from very many hundred cases 
 
 These are the ways by which vacancies were violently made in 
 the livinos of the Church. Into these vacancies Nonconformist, 
 were placed, who, after enjoying them for several years were m 
 1660 Ll 1662, put out of them, an d the origina 1 ^terc oi Mte 
 Church restored, or other ordained Church minis* as put in then 
 nlace » And yet, two centuries afterwards, these men who had held 
 & pLs\vithout any right, are to be held up to the world » 
 mirtvri because they were turned out ot what the> never Had a 
 Sgh^ 'hoiu Hear the testimony of one of the Puritan writers as 
 to the sufferings of some of the Church of England clergy. It u 
 "to be Tamented, that several worthy and pious bishops and other 
 < * ckrgyTn who withdrew from the world, and were desirous to live 
 
 i Walker, Fart ii., p. 63 Clullin^orth's life, g^J^^f fi£ 
 Critical Account of the Life and Writings o : W .^WJ™^ '^ £ olds . 
 
 2&i 32s&xssi2isx:s&3r£si3& ». ^
 
 13 
 
 "peaceably witkout joining either side, suffered afterwards in common 
 ' ' with the rest of their brethren ; their estates and livings being 
 " sequestrated, their houses and goods being plundered by ungovorn- 
 " able soldiers, and themselves reduced to live on the fifths'' (of which 
 I will speak presently), "or a small pension from Parliament, either 
 " because they could not take the covenant" [which pledged them to 
 endeavour the extirpation of popery and prelacy, {i.e., Church 
 government by archbishops, bishops, deans, deans and chapters, 
 etc.)] "or comply with the new Directory for public worship." L 
 
 Xow, I beg all to remember these two causes why the rightful 
 Church ministers were driven into starvation, bondage, imprison- 
 ment, and bitter sufferings. They wotdd not agree to a covenant 
 which forced all who took it to declare opposition to the only form of 
 Church government they believed to be scriptural, or comply with a 
 Directory which set the old Prayer Book at naught, established repub- 
 licanism, and was contrary, as they considered, to the Word of God. 2 
 
 Why then are these things to be forgotten, while contemporaneous 
 events are made much of? We hear of the endurances of the noble 
 John Bmryan, and of other men who suffered for conscience sake, 
 and a very sad story these things tell of human nature ; but I say, 
 let us know all about it ; and do not let the people of England be 
 blinded by a dazzle thrown suddenly in their face, instead of the 
 general light of impartial truth. The committee of which I made 
 mention, and which in fact drove out all, or nearly all, the clergy 
 from their livings, obtained the name of the "Plundering Com- 
 mittee," for in fact they plundered nearly all the clergy of their 
 livings, and put other men in them who were opposed to the Church ! 
 
 Yet though the Church was thus persecuted and brought low, no 
 one was bettered by the change ; and, to endeavour to end the fear- 
 
 » Neal's " Purit.," vol. iii., pp. 22, 23. Toulniin's Edition, 1822: 
 s C. " There were orders in the late times, that no man should pray publicly for 
 King Charles, and they obeyed them. They were required also to keep a Thanks- 
 giving for the victories at Dunbar and "Worcester. That thanksgiving was repeated 
 every year, at Whitehall Why may not the 29th of September as well be ob- 
 served as the 3rd sometime was ? " 
 
 N. 0. "That day is observed for superstitious purposes, to remember the victory 
 of Michael over the Dragon." 
 
 (J. " Suppose it were. Is not that a great deal better than to remember the vic- 
 tory of Cromwell over the king ? " 
 
 ******* 
 
 2T. C. " Tou love to rip up old things, which had better be forgotten." 
 0. " Not I, but you force me to it." Friendly Dialogue between a Con- 
 formist and a Nonconformist, a.d. 1669, pp. 72, 73. 
 
 Jeremy Taylor, [Works, 1657, 9. 59,] speaking of the Directory, says, " I shall 
 have no other character of the whole, but that the public disrelish which I find 
 amongst persons of great piety, of all qualities, not only of great, but even of com - 
 mon understandings, is to me some argument, .... I shall decline to speak of th>- 
 efficient cause of this Directory, nor quarrel at it, that it was composed against the 
 laws both of England and of all ChrLstondome."
 
 14 
 
 ful confusion which ensued, an assembly, called the "Assembly of 
 Divines," met in 1643, at Westminster, to draw up a new ecclesi- 
 astical polity. Here great difficulties arose. The Presbyterians were 
 throughout vigorously opposed by two other parties, who, though they 
 formed but a minority, yet since they acted very much together, ren- 
 dered their opposition very powerful. These were the Independents 
 and the Erastians, with a host of minor sects, who found the Presby- 
 terians as anxious to hold the sway as ever the Church party had 
 been, although they had helped to pull her down ! Those who hoped 
 their own sect was strong enough to supplant the rest wished to 
 establish it instead of The Church ; while the weaker parties, who 
 had no hope of this for themselves, vociferated for equality to all. 
 
 After a severe struggle, although the Presbyterian party held the 
 sway, still the Independent and other sectaries gained great as- 
 cendancy in Parliament and in the army ; so much so, that by 
 about the time of the king's death on the scaffold, they were more 
 powerful in the army than the Presbyterians. On the 5th Sept., 
 1646, the name, style, and dignity of archbishops and bishops had 
 been taken away ; and in June of the same year the Presbyterian 
 form of worship was partially established by way of experiment, 
 and in the year of the king's death (1649) it was declared by the 
 House of Commons that Presbytery should be the established re- 
 ligion. Observe, this was done at a time of open rebellion in Eng- 
 land, not in a regular, national, constitutional way, but amid general 
 excitement, by one estate of the realm alone, who had a powerful 
 army at command, and who had just brought their rightful king to 
 the scaffold ! ! ! These are the men who when they had, as they 
 hoped, pulled down the Church, established Preslytery instead of it ! 
 And yet, be it remembered, that the Confession of Faith drawn up 
 by the "Westminster Divines, though received by the Scottish Kirk, 
 was never sanctioned by any act of English legislature. 
 
 In truth, no one who reads the history of these times but will 
 perceive that, had it not been for Cromwell's determined mode of 
 proceeding, the various sects and parties of Dissenters would have 
 persecuted one another as bitterly as ever the Church of Eome had 
 persecuted the Church of England. Nay, so vigorously were the 
 clergy of the Church persecuted, that at a council, where even 
 Cromwell presided, they were forbidden to earn a living by keeping 
 a school, public or private. 1 Nor does it want any great insight into 
 the practices of dissent in 1 862 to perceive the same intolerant spirit 
 wherever it can show itself now. 
 
 The treatment wliich Dissenting teachers often meet with at the 
 
 1 " Yea many of them were denied to make use of any such plank or rafter, which 
 might serve to buoy them up from utter sinking and starving, though it wero but 
 teaching school in a belfry " ! l—Gauden. Tears, Sighs, and Prayers. 1659.
 
 15 
 
 hands of the people to whom they preach is nothing short of cruelty 
 and persecution, such as men of superior mind and education cannot 
 submit to long. I have seen cases of a refinement of cruelty towards 
 Dissenting teachers from the congregation, which would make one 
 tremble if there were any prospect of such men getting the upper 
 hand in England. Indeed, the cruelties practised by Dissenters on 
 Dissenters at the time of the Eebellion are so numerous as to make 
 me wonder that living in such glass houses as they certainly do, 
 they should venture to pitch stones at the Church ! Probably they 
 have been led away by the garbled stories of their own party, and 
 know not that persecution was far more practised by themselves 
 than by the Church, and would have been carried by their re- 
 ligionists to enormous extravagances but for the inflexible conduct 
 of Cromwell, whom many of them hated. 
 
 Thus, as early as 1646, the llev. Thos. Edwards, a zealous Pres- 
 byterian minister of London, published a work entitled " Gangrena, 
 or a Catalogue and Discovery of many of the Errors, Heresies, and 
 Blasphemies Vented and Acted in England during the last Eour 
 Years." And what were these? Why a list of sixteen various 
 heretical sects : Independents, Millenaries, Seekers, Socinians, and 
 others, all of whom were antagonistic to one another, and who re- 
 garded with dislike the Presbyterian party, not because it had pulled 
 down the Church, but because it had set itself up over the other 
 sectaries, as any other of them would have done had it been able. 
 
 Now, really, before accusing the Church of England of persecuting 
 the two thousand sufferers in 1662, it would have been well for Dis- 
 senters to have considered whether they ought not to lament over the 
 persecutions inflicted by Nonconformists, during the period when these 
 "two thousand" and many other Nonconformists held the Church 
 livings. "Why, what can they allege against us worse than they 
 themselves enacted on the poor Quakers ? In spite of all Cromwell 
 could do, these poor creatures received treatment at the hands of 
 pious Dissenters which is a disgrace to humanity, and all, too, under 
 the semblance of religion. George Fox himself was frequently cast 
 into prison. On one occasion, after nine weeks' confinement, though 
 nothing illegal could be proved against them, he and two friends 
 were fined twenty marks a piece for coming into court with their 
 hats on, and refusing to pay, were committed to a loathsome dungeon 
 for thirty weeks, and were then set free only through Cromwell's in- 
 terference ! (Pretty doings for men who when any of their party suf- 
 fered would make martyrs of them.) Many others were fined, im- 
 prisoned, whipped, or set in the stocks ; and in 1657 (eight years after 
 Charles's death) one hundred and forty Quakers were found in 
 prison, and nineteen hundred had been apprehended and punished 
 during the last six years, of whom twenty-one had died in prison.
 
 16 
 
 Some were most cruelly treated, and in those days Avhen Noncon- 
 formists occupied the Church, and Nonconformity ruled the House 
 of Commons, it was urged in the Commons that it was necessary 
 for the preservation of England that James Xaylor (a notable 
 Quaker) should be put to death. Well, though he was not put to 
 death, Dissenters who commemorate 1662 should recollect that only 
 six years before, and when their own people held the sway entirely 
 throughout England, when there was no long in England (he having 
 been killed by them), no House of Lords or Bishops (these having 
 been put down by them), and only a House of Commons of their 
 own sort; James Nay lor was set in the pillory, in the Palace 
 Yard, "Westminster, for two hours, then whipped by the hangman 
 through the streets from Westminster to the old Exchange, placed in 
 the pillory two hours more two days after, then taken to the old 
 Exchange, where his tongue was bored through with an hot iron, 
 and his forehead marked with the letter B ; then he was sent to 
 Bristol, through the said city on horseback with his face backward, 
 bareridged, and publicly whipped ; then sent to labour hard in 
 prison, till released by Parliament, (Happy days of Democracy and of 
 Dissenters' liberty ! ) to be debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, 
 and to have no relief but what he earned by his daily labours. An 
 eye-witness remarks, "He put out his tongue very willingly, but 
 shrinked a little when the iron came upon his forehead. He was 
 pale when he came out of the pillory, but high-coloured after tongue 
 boring." Dissenters! you would have been "wise to have kept 
 silence about 1662, for from 1646 to 1660 history proves you to 
 have been willing to persecute with greater severity and cruelty 
 than any other men, wherever you had the power. You must not 
 think to persuade England that you are better than other people 
 when such atrocities can be told in vast number of yourselves. 1 
 
 ''Great spoiling there was (in 1655) of Eriends' goods," writes a 
 poor Quaker, "for tithes, by the Independents and Presbyterian 
 priests, and some Baptist priests, that had got the steeple houses." 
 Ho ! ho ! What is this ; I thought tithes were "an abomination" 
 
 1 The pious Nonconformist, Oliver Heywood, (born at Little Lever, near Bolton, 
 in Lancashire) suffered persecution at the hands of the Cromwcllians ; for, refusing 
 to give thanks to God for the defeat of the Royalists at Preston, he was apprehended 
 by some of Cromwell's men, and fined for refusing to do this. I am sorry to know 
 that after the Restoration he was severely persecuted (and the persecution was as 
 impolitic as it was disgraceful), but yet the clergy of Penistone and Holmfirth 
 sometimes invited him to preach in their churches, which he did. I do not know 
 what all his descendants may be, but I can testify of some of them, that they are 
 sound Churchmen, Church builders, Church endowers, and Clnirch supporters upon 
 a scale which deserves to be followed more than it is. As the Independents are 
 fond of claiming Oliver Heywood as the founder of Lancashire Independency, and 
 Oliver Cromwell as one of their great men, it may be well to remember that Oliver 
 Heywood had no sympathy with Oliver Cromwell, but was a Royalist. — Vide tin wer- 
 sal Biography, p. 894.
 
 17 
 
 to Dissenters ? I fancied I had seen pictures ef men being seized in 
 distraint for non-payment of these things to Churchmen ! I fancied 
 Dissenting ministers, weary of preaching the Gospel, indulged their 
 flagging congregations with tales of woe about tithe-collectors. 
 
 Celebrators of 1662, do dig a little deeper, and sec what you did 
 when you had opportunity in 1655. Are you aware that in the 
 ilays of Puritan ascendancy an Act was passed to enforce payment 
 if the Church-rate ? Do you know that during your reign of god- 
 liness and terror combined (the strangest mixture the world ever 
 endured) three thousand one hundred and seventy-three persons were 
 ' imprisoned for Quakerism, of whom thirty-two died in dungeons V 
 
 I do not accuse you of being the only persecutors in those days. 
 Persecution was of the spirit of the age. But I tell you that you 
 quite equalled all others, and showed by your violence that you would 
 have exceeded them in persecution, if the power had been yours but a 
 little longer. Three thousand one hunched and seventy-three persons 
 were imprisoned by you. Six thousand to seven thousand clergy- 
 men, with bishops and archbishops, 1 were driven out from their 
 livings by you, to starve and pine away in misery. You beheaded 
 your king, you drove Archbishop Laud (I defend not all his doings) 
 to the scaffold. Never would I have penned these things against you 
 but for your own proposed proceedings on next St. Bartholomew's 
 Day. You would have been wise to have left the subject untouched. 
 The truth of the matter is, a persecuting spirit was abroad, and you 
 exhibited it as much as any, if not more. 2 You should not have 
 raked this matter out of the ashes of oblivion. 
 
 Hear the sentiments of the Independents declared to Richard 
 Cromwell by Dr. Thomas Goodwin on their behalf: — "And Ave now 
 present to your highness what we have done, and commit to your 
 trust the common faith once delivered to the saints. The Gospel 
 and the saving truths of it being a national endowment bequeathed 
 by Christ Himself at His ascension, and committed to the trust of 
 
 1 Neal endeavours to show that the numbers were far less; but I do not think 
 successfully. And I doubt if he includes in his calculation the Bishops, Deans, ;md 
 Chapters, and "divers clergymen of considerable learning and blameless lives. 
 Bound Protestants and good preachers," (vol. iii., p, 34) turned out, 1643, by "Tin 
 Ordinance." But I am not sure of this. 
 
 * " "When Oliver Cromwell was dead, and his son almost as soon pulled down as set 
 up, the Anabaptists grew insolent in England and Ireland ; and joining with their 
 brethren in the army, were everywhere put in power ; and those of them that before 
 lived in some seeming friendliness near me, at Bewdley, began now to show that 
 they remembered all their former provocations (by my public disputation with Mr. 
 Tonibes, and writing against them, and hindering their increase in those parts). 
 
 And when Sir Henry Vane was in power they laid wait on the road for my 
 
 letters, and intercepting one to Major Blake .... sent for him to London, but after 
 many threatenings, dismissed him. This was the Anabaptist's fidelity."— Baxter's 
 life, Part II. pp. 20G, 207- 
 
 "The extremities on both sides." — Neal, vol. iii., p. 3-3.
 
 18 
 
 some in the nation's behalf, (committed to my trust, saith Paul, in 
 the name of ministers,) and we look at the magistrate as custos 
 utriusque tabulae, and so commit it to your trust, as our chief magis- 
 trate, to countenance and propagate." 
 
 After Eichard's abdication, the ministers and delegates met in 
 London, and passed a series of resolutions of which some are as 
 follows: — "As touching the magistrate's power in matters of faith 
 and worship, we have declared our judgment in our late confession ; 
 and though we greatly prize our Christian liberties, yet we p>^ofess 
 our titter dislike and abhorrence of an universal toleration as being 
 contrary to the mind of God in His tvord." 
 
 The italics are not in the original ; but I entreat attention to the 
 self-complacency of the whole tiling. We can enjoy our liberty, but 
 universal toleration is not to be tolerated. Why, really, what right 
 have they or their successors to complain of the Act of Uniformity ? 
 It did not forbid universal toleration, as these men would have done. 
 It only said, "We will have Chtjkchmex in the Church." 
 
 Hear a little more about these famous resolutions. They say, 
 " We protest against the taking away of tithes, until as full a main- 
 tenance be equallj- secured, and legally settled on the ministry." In 
 other words, we stick to the tithes until you can give us something 
 easier to collect, and equally productive. Now, mark the next decla- 
 ration, "It is our desire that countenance be not given or trust reposed 
 in the hand of Quakers, they being persons of such principles as arc 
 destructive to the Gospel, and inconsistent icith the peace of civil 
 societies." 1 
 
 I now hand over these gentlemen to our Dissenters of 1862, and 
 wish them to make any use they can of them. 
 
 But a time of restoration was at hand, and England was delivered 
 from a period of anarchy, which we trust dissent will not succeed in 
 throwing her into any more. If anything could attest more fully than 
 another, the hearty sickening the people felt of the democratic rule 
 in matters civil and religious after the rebellion began, it is the fact 
 that they joyfully endured such a court, and such a ride as that 
 of Charles II; and that when James II. was found to be a 
 Papist and tyrant, they thought no more about democracy or dis- 
 sent, but sought only for a legitimate Protestant Church of 
 England monarch in his stead. 
 
 1 Collings, (one of the ejected, and a Presbyterian) says, " If the devil were to 
 " ask a courtesie of the State, he would ask no more than (1) Universal Toleration, 
 " and(2) Uncontrolled Libertie in every one to preach and expound Scripture." He 
 denies the right in private persons to preach, and asks, " Had we not more Christians 
 when we had fewer preachers ? " I cannot give the reference, but have no doubt of 
 the genuiness of the quotation. 
 
 For the quotations in inverted commas see Marsdcn's " History of Christian 
 Churches and Sects," Article " Independents." pp. 15, 16, vol. ii.
 
 19 
 
 In 1660 Charles II. returned to England, and the Restoration 
 was completed. It was an anxious time to know how to proceed 
 in regard to those, who though Nonconformists, and though having 
 unjustly obtained them, were holding the livings of Churchmen. 
 Dr. Reynolds, a distinguished Presbyterian minister, accepted 
 the bishopric of Norwich. Others declined the honours offered 
 them, partly from suspicious fears, amongst whom were Calamy, 
 Baxter, and Dr. Bates. I regret they did not accept the offers made 
 to them, but at all events, it cannot be said they were not treated 
 with some manifestation of respect for the sake of their personal 
 character. Meantime a new parliament was returned, which, par- 
 taking of the re-action of the day, was a parliament rather inclined 
 to rush to an extreme, the opposite of what had been pervading 
 England since the beginning of the rebellion. Hence, there was not 
 the disposition to conciliate which ought to have marked their 
 deliberations, particularly those of the House of Commons, but rather 
 to hasten those extreme measures which led to injury to the Church, 
 where the breaches shoidd rather have been healed. But all was done 
 by Parliament, by a House of Commons, and of Lords, and by the King. 
 
 One Act was speedily passed, however, which surely no one will 
 denounce as unjust. It enacted, That every minister of the Church 
 of England who had been turned out of his living, who had not 
 justified the king's murder, or declared against infant baptism, 
 should be restored to his living by December 25th. The result was, 
 that several hundreds, 1 who for many years had pined away in misery 
 and want, who had been thrust out of their parishes, imprisoned, 
 maligned, and persecuted, were restored back to their original cures. 
 Was there any injustice in this ? Yet the result was, that Richard 
 Baxter was obliged to resign Kidderminster to the old vicar, who 
 had been ejected eighteen or twenty years before to make way for 
 Baxter. Now, very likely Baxter was a far more useful and excel- 
 lent man than the other. Let it be granted, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that the one was a very extraordinary man, and the old vicar 
 a very inferior man ! That alters not the question in the least, 
 which is one of simple, plain justice between man and man. 
 
 Nor let it be forgotten, Baxter had been offered the bishopric of 
 Hereford, but scrupled to take it. I can honour his scruples, but 
 not those who say he was persecuted or hardly dealt by. I lament 
 his loss, and think he was wrong, but I cannot see that the 
 
 1 " Seeing some hundreds of able, holy, faithful ministers are of late cast out." — 
 ! Petition for Peace, printed 1661, p. 2, sect. 2. 
 
 "The ejecting of 1,800 ministers at once, and many hundreds before." — Baxter's 
 ife, Part II., p. 286. Baxter here refers to 1,800 as ejected in 1662, and to. 
 many hundreds " in 1660 under the circumstances above described.
 
 20 
 
 Church could iu fairness have done much more. Nothing but per- 
 versity can say that Baxter was ill treated thus far. 
 
 Yery soon after an attempt was made so to revise the Liturgy, as to. 
 make it suitable to all parties of orthodox Christians, in the hope of 
 securing thereby that unity which many longed for, and which we 
 of the Church often pray for and hope for still. It may be questioned 
 how far there was much sincerity of purpose on either side, and the 
 conduct of some Churchmen on the occasion was disastrous, and I 
 think disgraceful : and after much jangling, disputing, and heart- 
 burning, nothing was agreed upon, and the commission was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 I ought, however, to add here, that a conceited act on the part of 
 Richard Baxter did much towards rendering any revision disagree- 
 able to the Church party ; for in fourteen days did this one man 
 draw up a Prayer-book of his own designing, which was to be pre- 
 ferred, in his opinion, to one which was a compilation of all ancient 
 Liturgies, and which had been in use nearly in its present state for 
 upwards of a century. This gave great offence, and certainly exhi- 
 bited an amount of self-complacency which does not add to the 
 character of the noble and pious Richard Baxter, though our Dis- 
 senting friends may add that since Baxter wa3 in favour of a Liturgy, 
 and was episcopally ordained, he was not one of their party ! l 
 
 1 Baxter (tenting in favour of Liturgies) says :— " Some young ministers do 
 
 wrong both Baptisin and the Lord's Supper, by many miscarriages, for want of 
 
 further help. "Wales, aud manv parts of England, must be supplied with Form?. 
 
 or be without, which is worse." — Five Disputations of Church Government and 
 Worship. By Richard Baxter. From a Copy sent by him as a Gift to Lord 
 
 Lauderdale. 
 
 " We are for Bishops in every Church " (probably meaning our u Priests ;") ' l and. 
 
 for order sake, would have one to be the chief." — Third Disputation. 
 
 " An Episcopacy desirable for the Keformation, Preservation and Peace of the 
 
 Churches."— Title of Third Disputation. 
 
 "If it be not our' lawful Governors that command us, but usurpers, we are not 
 
 formally bound to obey them, though the things be lawful which they command." 
 
 — Disputations, p. 454. 
 
 Baxter writes to "Associated Ministers" of County Cumberland :—" I dare not 
 
 refuse to baptize the child of a stranger, as such ; but I will first speak with one of 
 the parents, and be more fully satisfied of their knowledge, and reasons of Dissent, 
 and enquire of their lives; and on the same terms I admit Dissenters also to the 
 Lord's Supper, viz., if there be no charge against then- lives aud they come to me 
 beforehand and satisfie me of their fitness. Still letting them know it is a dan- 
 gerous case to live from under order and discipline, and that I do this to them bur 
 for a time, till they be satisfied, as I would do it to a stranger." This is in reply 
 to a letter, signed by Richard Gilpin and others in 1653, the time when the Church 
 of Eng land was broken down, " so that all they that went by did pluck off her grape-*, 
 " the wild boar out of the woods did root it up, and the wild beast of the field did 
 "devour it." And what is the testimony of these, afterwards Nonconforming Minis- 
 ters ? They write to Baxter and others :— " You are not willing to look upon the 
 "gasping condition of the Church here," (i.e. The Cromwcllian Church) " or a? mer-* 
 " witnesses of her funeral, without trying any remedy at all Her sons, while
 
 21 
 
 i lj.: 4-1, „f Uxr ihc ". Act for the Confirming and 
 dead (for many of them had sunk beneath the cruelties tt^e? 
 
 Swarf f±pawtt ^gg 
 
 ChnTerorS; some regard it as * %»*"»** Th^efot 
 ?- ° h f nuf out ^ S Xon^rnS f^u^tm "gs 
 S£X*l£ tost into! or X must alio, them to *£**££ 
 her communion, in defiance of her declared OE^^^aS 
 
 Scripture's teaching on the subject; or she must ^pj ion 
 for the ordination of those men who though ^^^^ 
 dained, were (under an act of rebellion, be it ^^°2 
 within the Church, and did not scruple to receive ^^ m ^ 
 of these men were of undoubted piety, even as a few ot tnem were 
 Sola" ability and of the highest ^^^'^ 
 when I regard the mischief which ensued upon then ^movai^i j 
 that many 8 of them had been permitted to remain in ^J™g^J 
 hey were, to be succeeded on their demise., by ^episcopal by oidamed 
 men. I grant it would have been a yielding of V™ l f e >™%L. 
 sibly the peculiar circumstances woidd have justified a temporary 
 
 -they have" been consulting to relieve her, have ^XlicKorlnTtVth^ 
 4 7ause they have not been admitted to ^t^ause & ey could noTbe suffered 
 
 sent ! May England profit by the perusal . purpose ; and the oft- 
 
 MattfWHenry's "Commentary on J^^^lS^ which says:- 
 repeated sarcasm of the inspired V^^J^J^^^^ 'that which was 
 « In those days there was no king mlsiacl, but every man J The « riM 
 
 right in his own eyes." (Judges xvu. 6 ; xvunl x x. i x , ^ q{ 
 
 dZinq » consisted of-(a) The introduction of idoU^ . W *>vm* ^ g 
 
 immorality as led to atrocities and mu ^^ n ^ c to X -tribes to supply the 
 (c) The recourse to such connivance on the pa it .at tlie °^er R 
 
 fcenjamitcs with wives as put all mod esty t o s ham. But he ar God>s 
 
 (xvi 6)-" When they were without a king to keep o °d OTdel ^ ^ „ 
 
 house was forsaken, His priests negated and al 1 * nt to ^ 
 
 "Nothing contributes ^T^^^^SX^ magistracy and 
 than the due administration ot tnose ivvo gie»t
 
 departure from strict conformity. Another plan, however, was (I 
 think unhappily) adopted. The Act of Uniformity was passed hy 
 Lords and Commons, which offered to eveiy Nonconformist minister 
 within the Church of England, that if on or before August 24th, 
 16G2, (S. Bartholomew's Day) he received episcopal ordination, de- 
 clared his assent and consent to all and every thing prescribed in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, and abjured the league and covenant, he 
 might continue to hold his living, but otherwise, he must depart 
 from it. They had three months for deliberation. 1 Be it remem- 
 bered, that many of their clerical predecessors had not three hours' 
 notice before they were turned out of their livings by Puritan 
 fanatical elders ! And now then, what happened ? Consultations 
 between these Nonconformist ministers took place, both in town and 
 country, to know each other's sentiments ; some of them persuaded 
 others not to conform, but conformed themselves, and got the other's 
 livings. A large number conformed ; 2 others refused to conform, and of 
 course had to give up their livings. Some few, not many, of these, re- 
 fused to conform, owing to their objections to Episcopacy; others 
 scrupled the declaration renouncing the covenant, because they did not 
 like to unsay what they had said, even though they might regret 
 having taken it ; many could not sign the declaration concerning the 
 Prayer-book; while not a few believed that if only they kept true to 
 their objections, these objections would be removed. Such, however, 
 was not the case, and two thousand men (or less 3 J some of whom 
 had never received any sort of ordination, left the houses where they 
 had lived many years, and the livings they had enjoyed, and the 
 parishes in which the}- had laboured. It was a lamentable business. 
 
 1 Some endeavour to prove that a very short notice was given. The truth seems 
 to be, that in some few instances a copy of the proposed alterations in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer was not put into their hands so soon as it ought to have been. But 
 then, they all knew pretty certainly what was the nature of the proposed alterations, 
 so that practically there was no hardship here ; and Baxter, who held two lecture- 
 ships in London after he was obliged to resign Kidderminster (see p. 19) resigned 
 these. May 26th, amongst other reasons, ' to let all ministers in England understand 
 in time, whether I intended to conform or not.'— Life, p. 384. Philip Henry " used 
 " all possible means to satisfy himself, whether to conform or no, by reading and 
 " discourse." — See Life, p. 217. 
 
 2 "I. The Conformists were of three sorts. Some of the old ministry, called 
 Presbyterians formerly, that conformed at Bartholomewtide, or after." (The word 
 •• after," probably reduces the number of the "ejected," therefore, still more, be- 
 
 ause it intimates that some of these returned and" Conformed). 
 
 "II. A second sort were called Latitudinarians, mostly Cambridge men, Platonics, 
 
 ingenious men and scholars. These two forementioned parties were laudable 
 
 preachers." 
 
 " III. The third sort, such as were heartily such throughout." 
 
 3 Calamy reckons many as silenced who never occupied any Church. He seems 
 also to forget that many who were silenced would have been equally silenced under 
 Presbyterianism, and even by himself.
 
 It was a calamity to all parties, and much I regret it. The suffer- 
 ings of the men were great and bitter, but I honour them much 
 more in their nonconformity than in their quietly taking tithe, tees, 
 and offerings for several years, from a church to which many of them 
 did not belong. 
 
 But while I thus acknowledge in all candour, my regret at the 
 transaction, and heartily wish that milder measures had been 
 adopted, it shall not go forth to the public that these two thousand 
 sufferers were the only sufferers by the fearful troubles of those 
 times, and of the preceding period of rebellion ! " 
 
 Let it be borne in mind that six to seven thousand English 
 clergymen, refusing to take the covenant, had been ejected with 
 greater cruelty and with gross injustice, from their livings. Let it 
 be remembered, that their places were filled by Dissenting ministers, 
 who had no right there, and that of these, some were turned out by 
 the Act of 1660; but a very large number conformed to the Act 
 of Uniformity, and less than two thousand refused to do so. Now, 
 Dissenters may take which view of the case they please ; but if a large 
 number of their own men could conform to the Act, either the 
 Act was not so very unjust, or else the great majority of their own 
 ministers cannot have been the admirable characters which Dissenters 
 represent them to be. 2 
 
 Many of those who withdrew had been episcopally ordained, but 
 preferred to leave the Church livings, rather than renounce the 
 covenant, which (though they might regret it) they had taken. But 
 
 1 This is the unfair and ridiculous thing. These men alone are to be represented 
 as the only sufferers in that age of intolerance, whose chief sufferings consist in 
 being ejected from that which never belonged to them ! 
 
 * " The Nonconformists were of Divers Sorts. 
 
 "I. Some few (of my acquaintance) who are for the old Conformity : for Bishops, 
 Common Prayer Book, . . . . ; but could not assent and consent to all things now im- 
 posed. II. A greater number, of no sect or party, who like Ignatius's Episcopacy, 
 but not the English Diocesan frame ; but cannot* assent or consent to all things re- 
 quired by the Act. III. Presbyterians. IV. The Independents, for the most part 
 a serious, Godly people ; others more raw, and self-conceited, and addicted to sepa- 
 rations and divisions, their zeal being greater than their knowledge ; who have 
 opened the door to Anabaptists first, and then to all the other sects. These sects 
 are- numerous;" (Mark how divisions had multiplied in those fearful eighteen years !) 
 "some tolerable, and some intolerable."— Baxter's Life, p. 387. 
 
 An anecdote is told of oue man, who misinterpreting the words of the Saviour, 
 " Fear not little flock," was ever and again shifting to a new party as the older one 
 became too large for this text ! I cannot give the reference, but the story exists 
 in Baxter's "True Catholic," date, 1660. 
 
 Yet Baxter declares (p. 36, part iii.) that 1400 of the Nonconformable would have 
 yielded to more moderate tonus joyfully ! I lament those terms were not offered ; 
 but I honestly believe that if the 2000 Nonconforming ministers of 1662 were now- 
 obliged to choose between the Church and any of the existing Disseuting bodies, uine 
 tenths of them would be Churchmen. 
 
 Gauden, in "Tears and Sighs," p. 35, describes professing Christians as divided 
 into fragments, chips, and fractions" ! .' !
 
 24 
 
 how did they .act ? They attended the ministrations of their suc- 
 cessors ; friendships often sprung up between the present and the 
 ejected minister, they sometimes lodged at the rectory for the re- 
 mainder of their days, they were in some instances allowed pensions 
 by the free bounty of their (rightful) successors, and even officiated 
 m the Church! 1 Contrast this against the "hard measure" dealt 
 out by the Puritan, Presbyterian, Independent party, towards the 
 bishops and clergy of the Church, in the beginning of the rebellion, 
 and then ponder whether or not, this bi-centenary celebration is just, 
 wise, or pious ? "When, therefore, Dissenters declaim about the cruel 
 persecution of 1662, let them not forget that the majority of their own 
 men conformed, and remained in their livings, and that instead of 
 the six to seven thousand English clergymen, who twenty years 
 before had been driven into misery by the Puritan party, only two 
 thousand, at the most, of their Dissenting ministers were so served ! 
 Do not let them omit this when descanting on the sufferings of the 
 one, that the other party suffered far more unjustly, far more 
 severely, and far more numerously. 
 
 ^ I will here add a few extracts from the Pictorial History of 
 England. I prefer this history on account of its known leaning to 
 the liberal side. It is not, then, likely to speak too favourably of the 
 Church party, though far more fairly than more amusing and fasci- 
 nating historians (so called) of a later period. It remarks of Baxter, 
 that though ejected from Kidderminster by the Act which preceded 
 that of Uniformity, he was allowed to remain a lecturer there at a 
 small stipend, and so continued until 1662, when he left in common 
 with the two thousand. "It must be confessed that the case was 
 "surrounded with difficulties. The different measure dealt out 
 " to the Episcopalian clergymen ejected in the time of the Common- 
 '■' wealth, to whom Parliament made a show of allowing a fifth part 
 " of their former livings for their support, has often been contrasted 
 ' Avith the conduct of the opposite party at the Restoration, but not 
 " much can be founded on the matter. In the first place, the right 
 "acquired by the Presbyterian clergy from a possession of a few 
 "years, cannot in fairness be considered the same with those that 
 " belonged to the ancient clergy. Then," (this is what I hinted at 
 before about 'fifths') " it is admitted on all hands, that the allow- 
 ances which Parliament had professed to make to the ejected 
 " Episcopal ministers were in many, perhaps in most cases, rather 
 " nominal than real. Walker asserts that scarcely one in ten ever 
 " had them without trouble, and to the full value, and nothing is 
 : ' better attested than the severe suffering and oppression which 
 "many of those sequestrated clergymen underwent. The commis- 
 " doners were only empowered, not directed, to suffer them to 
 1 " The Annals of England," pp. 359—36-3. J. H. and J. Parker, Oxford.
 
 25 
 
 " retain a portion of their incomes, and that portion was not to be 
 " in all cases a fifth, but never to exceed a fifth. When we think, 
 " too, of the ejection of the Presbyterian ministers in 1662, by the 
 " Act of Uniformity, we ought not to forget that, even if themselves 
 " had had the framing of the Act, they would most certainly have 
 "made it such as to exclude Independents and the Sectaries. 
 " They could, in truth, expect little forbearance from those to whom 
 " they would have shown none in the same circumstances, whom in 
 " other times they had denounced as unfit to be suffered to live in 
 " the land, and had refused to tolerate in the most modest public 
 " observance of their form of worship, although now so willing and 
 " anxious, if they could have done so Avith decency, to remain asso- 
 " ciated with them in the same national Church establishment, and 
 " to divide with them its loaves and fishes." 
 
 Perhaps some Dissenters may try to argue that the law under 
 which the Puritans held the Church livings, was as good law as that 
 of the Pteformation. 'Well, if it were so, then surely there was a* 
 much justice in driving out the Puritans in 1662, as in driving oiit, 
 the Church clergy some twenty years before. But I distinctly 
 answer, there is not only a difference, but an essential difference 
 betwixt the two events. The Pcfonnation was a gradual work, 
 occupying several years, and was a regular, constitutional, authori- 
 tative" proceeding, in which King, Lords, and Commons participated. 
 It was the reforming and restoring of a Church in accordance with 
 its own ancient model. It was restoration to ancient orthodoxy. 
 Far different the way by which Dissenters obtained the Church 
 livings. This was an act of rebellion, diuing a time when their 
 King was in prison, and just after his murder, and when an army ot 
 fanatics and a House of Commons alone ruled the land. 
 
 And so, again, the Act of 1662 was the act of the majority of the 
 nation, constitutionally assembled, and not of the Church alone, bid 
 of the King, and of the three estates of the realm, viz., the Lords 
 spiritual, the Lords temporal, and the Commons. 1 
 
 I must remind the Dissenters yet further, that they ought to be 
 the last men in England to talk about toleration or persecution! 
 They are fond of pictures and lectures about " run Pilgeim 
 Fathers, " but really, are they aware how they proceeded, when,, 
 having landed in America, they were enabled to develope their 
 own notions about religion in all its full-blown force ? Are 
 they aware of the despotic bigotry which accompanied their doings 
 in America? Do they know that the wearing of uncropped 
 hair was held to be an offence against God, and to put a pipe of to- 
 bacco to the lips was regarded as spiritual destruction ? Have they 
 forgotten the Ordinance, which deprived any man of all civil fran- 
 1 Ulackstone's " Commentaries." lUghts of Power. Book J., c. iii,, 3. 2.
 
 26 
 
 chises who did not communicate with the State Church, which was 
 a species of Independency ? Do they recollect that the Pilgrim 
 Fathers, in 1656 (six years before St. Bartholomew's Day, 1662), 
 persecuted the poor Quakers who landed from England and Bar- 
 badoes, and enacted that after the first conviction a man should lose 
 one ear — if a woman, be severely whipped ; that for the second 
 offence a man should lose the other ear, and the woman have a 
 second whipping ; and for the third offence, man or woman, should 
 have the tongue bored through with a red hot iron ? Bo they re- 
 collect hoto many poor Indians they ensnared and burned to death be- 
 cause they loould not become such Christians as themselves f or, have 
 they forgotten the mournful remark of John Bobinson, when they 
 sent with glee the news of this atrocity to their faithful paster at 
 Leyden ? ' 
 
 I have no pleasure in writing these things. I am truly sorry to 
 do so. I had rather hoped that Churchmen and Dissenters would 
 have gone on, each doing all the good they could, until in mercy 
 unity should again prevail amongst us in all sincerity and love. 
 But since Dissenters will fight, we must prepare for war. " I am 
 for peace, but when I speak to them thereof, the)- make them ready 
 for battle." Yet why rake up from oblivion, after two hundred 
 years, the account of the two thousand Non-Conformists in 1662 V 
 If you tell that part of the story, we will have all the story told, 
 and not allow you to bolster up your (religiously speaking) crazy 
 cause by a distorted chapter of a whole history. If you accuse us 
 of persecuting these two thousand men, we reply, We are sorry 
 milder measures were not used ; but that you cannot with justice 
 allude to the matter, for you were far greater persecutors than we 
 were, and you proved this whenever opportunity was given. We 
 are not ashamed to say, we regret losing two thousand men from 
 the ranks of our ministers ; but we will not have it said, This was 
 an act of persecution. We confess a regret that other measures 
 were not tried ; but we assert that, in strict justice, they met with 
 nothing contrary to justice. We remind you of your own perse- 
 cuting spirit wherever the opportunity was in your power. You 
 are chiefly responsible for the murder of Charles. 2 You drove six 
 thousand to seven thousand clergy and bishops into ruin, hunger, 
 death, to make way for your own ministers. When the hour of 
 
 1 See Appendix. 
 
 * "And thus when the two parts of the House were ejected and imprisoned, this 
 third party, composed of the Vajiists, the Independents, and other sects, with the 
 democratical parly, was left by Cromwell to do his business under the name of the 
 Parliament of England ; but by the people in scorn commonly called, The Bump of 
 the Parliament." — Baxter's Life, p. 63. 
 
 " It will not be asked of ministers of the Gospel at the last account, "Who fought 
 and slew and spoiled ; but, "Who fasted and prayed and mourned for the sins arid 
 judgments on the nation." — Gauden. Hiera»pistes, p. 30.
 
 retribution returned, .the country endured even the cruelties of a 
 Jeffreys, with all his atrocious doings, rather than return to the 
 tender mercies of your unscriptural and impossible system. Of 
 your six to seven thousand ministers the great 1 majority conformed; 
 and the others left after much had been done to meet their 
 wishes. Hold not that up to the country as an act of self-sacrifice 
 and of martyrdom, which was rather (much as I regret it), but an 
 act of recompense and retribution 2 for the cruelties you had inflicted. 
 Two wrongs never make one right ; and the fact of your many and 
 cruel persecutions do not justify our fewer and far less severe 
 punishments on your sufferers ; but how you can dare, in the face of 
 history, to come forth and declare this affair of 1662 as an act of 
 persecution distinct from your own doings beforehand, is to me as 
 mysterious as many of the wonders of the Romish religion ! And 
 why thus press upon us now ? "What has the Church been doing 
 of late to call forth this bitterness and opposition ? Is she so much 
 worse than she used to be ? Are her bishops, priests, and deacons 
 become so idle ? Is the fact of her building and endowing one 
 hundred to two hundred Churches a year not fast enough for 
 you ? Or are you envious at her raising for Missions about half a 
 million a year '? Is your ire excited because the rather unscrupulous 
 method you adopted in the Census of 1851 is now recoiling upon 
 you, as it comes out that the numerous meeting-houses you then 
 professed to possess cannot have one minister among three of them ? 
 Does it annoy you to have such dishonesty exposed as that whereby 
 you count every new meeting house an additional one, whether the 
 old one be pulled down or not ? Does your mode of using the 
 voluntary principle distress you, as you find that while by investing 
 all our voluntary offerings of every age we have seventeen thousand 
 three hundred and twenty ministers to labour in the parish, as well 
 as in the Church, your system sustains but six thousand four hun- 
 dred and five men, most of whom are always passing through the 
 three rapid stages of — the new pastorate and prosperity — the mise- 
 rable quarrels and adversity — and the looking out for another call ? 
 Our system provides for posterity; yours secures preaching and 
 quarrelling for your own generation. You are become a violent 
 political body: religion is not the object of your contention; and if 
 you succeed in your endeavours religion will die out in England. 
 
 And now, one word to the pious portion of the Dissenters, who, 
 I hope will listen to reason. 3 Arc you not falling into the snare, 
 
 1 " Five Thousand Conformed."— _Dr. Hook's "Diet. Puritans." I do not think 
 the number was so great, though it must have been large. 
 
 3 " If the Puritan powers bore hard on the loyalists, in imposing the covenant, 
 the King's elergy were even with them at the Restoration." — Neal's Purit., vol. 
 iii., p. 35. 
 
 3 "lam much more sensible of the evil of sohism, and of the separating humour,
 
 28 
 
 and into the pit of the politician ? Are you not lending an helping 
 hand to Secularism and all its evils ? 
 
 Beware how you aid the political Dissenter. Take care, lest 
 you really thereby aid the Secularist, the Socinian, and the In- 
 fidel. "Where is the primitive personal piety which once won for 
 the Dissenter the respect of those who heartily differed from his 
 opinions ? Is it not rapidly wasting ? Is it not almost gone ? Is 
 true religion the great thing sought and practised in your com- 
 munity ? You find fault witli our patronage. Is your own plan of 
 appointment (to say nothing of the fallacy 1 of your so-called " ordi- 
 nations ") half as good ? Are not your men practically appointed by 
 persons who are not even "members," if only they chance to be 
 "rich supporters?" You talk of persecution — Are not your 
 ministers bullied and persecuted if haply they turn out (as in time 
 is almost always the case) to be "unpopular?" Take heed what 
 you are doing. The political Dissenter and the Secularist are 
 powerless without your influence, small though your number be ! 
 These other men would obtain no moral hold on the people if there 
 was no religious support granted to them. You are giving this. 
 You, unconsciously, are affording them that very influence they are 
 too irreligious to possess, and by which great harm may ensue. 
 Pause, and reflect! Consider, with eternity before you, whether 
 your duty be not rather to return to the Old Church of your fore- 
 fathers, the ancient, Scriptural, Apostolical Church of England. 
 Anyhow, mind how you give support to political Dissenters, Secu- 
 larists, and Infidels. And when the orators pour forth their bitter 
 invectives against the Church of England in reference to the ejected 
 sufferers of 1662, recollect how many Nonconformists ceased their 
 ^Nonconformity, and remained in the Church? what was done to 
 encourage all to remain ? and now they at first got these ? 
 
 and of gathering parties, and making several sects in the Church, than I was here- 
 tofore, lor the effects have shown us more of the mischiefs. 
 
 " I am deeplier afflicted for the disagreements of Christians than when I was a 
 younger Christian."— Baxters Life, pp. 130, 132. 
 
 1 Nonconformists attest this. In Leigh's " Body of Divinity," published in 
 the time of Puritan triumph, 1654, and bearing the significant " Imprimatur, 
 Edmund Calamy, June, I5tn, 1663," I read, p. 4.57, " They of the separation, and 
 if not all, yet sure some Independents place the whole essentiality of' a Minister's 
 calling in election." " We say the power and commission by which he is made of iu> 
 Minister to be a Minister, is not from the Church electing him, but from the lawful 
 ordaining him." "The Brownists" (i.e., Congregationalists) "fail in the maia, 
 which is the imposition of hands by the Presbytery." And at p. 466, " God hath 
 established two distinct powers on earth, the one of the keys committed to the 
 Church That of the keys is ordained to work on the inward man, having imme- 
 diate relation to the remitting or retaining of sin." " There is a twofold minis- 
 terial power. 1 . Potcstas ordinis, which consists merely in preaching the Word an d 
 administering the Sacraments. 2. Jurisdictionis, whereby they govern in th« 
 Churvh, by binding the Impenitent, and losing (loosing) the Peoiteat."
 
 29 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I have alluded (p. 27) to " llw Pilgrim Fathers. 11 The bad taste 
 which Dissenters have shown in raking up this matter at all is 
 entirely responsible for obliging us to display the dark side of the 
 character of men, many of whom were men of personal piety ! The 
 story(to tell it as briefly as possible) is as follows : — Even in the 
 time of Edward VI., a few men were found ''who were 1 willing to 
 " risk the advantages already secured, for the sake of further 
 " changes of inferior moment." They continued to promote their 
 opinions, and, after Mary died and Elizabeth was queen, they be- 
 came a large and active body of men. During Elizabeth's reign, 
 while showing sincerity of purpose, they displayed withal much ob- 
 stinacy, and a disposition to run into great extravagance of opinion ; 
 and no one acquainted with their temper at that period, but will 
 confess that it was extremely difficult to know how best to treat 
 them. 
 
 Eor a considerable period their objections applied to vestments, 
 and hence the term the " Vestiarian controversy." Of course Dis- 
 senters of the present day can feel no sympathy with men who 
 objected to surplices and other robes as " popish," since they have a 
 remarkable love for such things, and even clothe boys in surplices, 
 to sing a few hymns ; and since their ministers seldom appear, even 
 in "photograph," except in "full costume!" 
 
 During Elizabeth's reign, many Puritans were imprisoned, and 
 some few were cruelly and unjustly put to death. I am sorry for 
 it, and regard the act as deplorable, but so it was. At the same 
 time let it be remembered, they were punished for offences which 
 were regarded as against the State, rather than for any wrong done 
 to the Church. Indeed, Grindal, Bishop of London, and afterwards 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, did all in Iris power to persuade the 
 Queen to tolerate them, and was even suspended by her for his 
 leniency, and up to 1572, not one of them (with all their extra- 
 vagancies) had taken the important step of leaving the Church. 
 
 1 Mareden'a " History of the Puritans," p. 2.
 
 30 
 
 After Grindal's death, Whitgift became archbishop, and he unhap- 
 pily, acquiesced too readily in the queen's desire to crush Puri- 
 tanism by persecution. In 1602, when James I., of England (and 
 YI. of Scotland) began his reign, great hopes were entertained bj- 
 either party. James, taught in Presbyterian Scotland, however, 
 disappointed all ; and, undoubtedly, treated the Puritans with con- 
 tempt. In a few years many of them emigrated to the Continent, 
 having a learned and pious man, John Robinson, for their minister. 
 
 It now becomes us to watch the proceedings of these persecuted 
 men when they had left the shores of England. They had com- 
 plained of the want of toleration ; did they show true toleration 
 themselves ? If they did, they deserve all the celebration they meet 
 with from Dissenters ; if otherwise, why are they so often forced 
 before our notice? Settling at Amsterdam they found some fol- 
 lowers of one Robert Brown (the first of the Independents, but who 
 afterwards "conformed," himself) already there; and a quarrel 
 speedily ensuing, 1 Robinson and a portion of the Puritans retired to 
 Leyden. Not liking their circumstances, they resolved, like some 
 Huguenots before them, to emigrate to America. Robinson's 
 parting address was very beautiful and touching. A number 
 of them embarked in the Mayflower, and Speedtvell, but soon put 
 into Plymouth for repairs, when the Speedwell was dismissed, 
 and above one hundred persons crowding into the Mayflower, 
 crossed the ocean, and landed at "Pljmiouth" in North America. 
 Their sufferings were great for some months ; but as success began 
 to promise itself, so too as fierce a spirit of persecution arose as ever 
 marked the doings of any men. The native Indians opposed them. 
 Some of them were beguiled into an apartment, and speedily mur- 
 dered by the Pilgrim Fathers, and the head of one of them placed 
 on a pike outside their' enclosure. With great joy they celebrated 
 the achievement, and sent word to pious John Robinson at Leyden ! 
 He, hearing of the atrocity, mournfully remarked, "How happy a 
 thing had been if you had converted some, before yoir had killed 
 any." 
 
 Eut such murderous work did not end here. The Pilgrim 
 Fathers also determined on the massacre of the whole tribe. The 
 thing itself is horrible ; how much more dreadful when we know 
 the5' did this as a religious people! Religion was mingled in all 
 their* actions. Prayer and fasting preceded this shameful proceeding, 
 and thanksgiving followed its consummation. The scheme was 
 arranged — the attack was made. The poor Indians were shot down, 
 and the whole neighbourhood suddenly set on fire. Men, women, 
 
 Marsdeu's " History of the Puritans," p. 288.
 
 31 
 
 .and children perished by the sword and in the flames, and the whole 
 Pequod Race, six hundred in number, were destroyed by men who 
 believed themselves to be establishing the kingdom of Christ on 
 earth. 
 
 After this, John and Samuel Brown were banished for using the 
 Book of Common Prayer! And yet at that very period did one of 
 these Pilgrim Fathers (Cotton) write home that their state was 
 such that it brought to mind the "new heavens and new earth in 
 " which righteousness dwellcth." Intolerance never was more 
 severe in any Protestant land (except in England during the rule of 
 Cromwell and Independency). All were thrust out who did not 
 conform to the religious views of the Pilgrim Fathers ; and amongst 
 others one Roger Williams was driven out (he settled at Rhode 
 Island), for maintaining that " the doctrine of persecution for causes 
 " of conscience, is contrary to the doctrine of Christ." Such was 
 the toleration of the Pilgrim Fathers, whose doings and whose names 
 are so often held up to admiration ! ! ! 
 
 But Quakerism had reached America, and we must see how these 
 Independents, or Congregationalist Dissenters, treated Quakers. 
 Fines and banishment were the first and second remedies ; and the 
 final measure, if any banished Quaker returned to the State, and 
 continued a Quaker, was Death ! 
 
 Mary Dyer, an interesting young married woman, mother of two 
 children, was banished to Rhode Island. Persuaded, however, that 
 she had a " call" from God to return and preach "the truth,'" she 
 returned to the land where professing Christians, who had left 
 England because they could not find toleration, were now in a position 
 to show 'the true specimen of it themselves! But how did they 
 proceed? Mary Dyer, and two companion Quaker teachers, were 
 condemned to death. The scaffold was prepared. They ascended 
 with a firm step, and calmly awaited their fate. The two men 
 {Robinson and Stevenson) tvere executed/ ! ! Mary Dyer was again 
 banished to Rhode Island ; again the "spirit called her" (as she be- 
 lieved, and no doubt sincerely believed) to return, and at all risks 
 to preach the truth, even upon forbidden land. Again she returned, 
 and again placidly heard the sentence of death. Vainly did her 
 husband plead for her life. She was strangled on the gallows, the 
 minister, Wilson, again preaching at her on the scaffold, after the 
 manner of the Romish preachers when they burnt heretics at the 
 stake ! ! ! ! 
 
 It is most painful to write these things. It is sad to be obliged 
 to show that good men are " compassed with infirmities." 
 
 But since Dissenters try to "make stock" out of the sufferings of 
 certain persons two centuries ago, it becomes absolutely necessary
 
 to show the world that they have no right in so doing. I repeat it 
 again, we do not deny that Churchmen of that age were too often 
 possessed with a spirit of persecution, and we lament it deeply : but 
 it is not fail-, and scarcely honest in Dissenters, to allude to a portion 
 of a subject, which, when the other half is added, proves that tl ■ 
 faults on each side were great, and such as Christian charity ought 
 to have committed to a common grave of forgetfulness. Nothing, 
 in all the history of the Church of England exceeds the atrocious 
 cruelties of these exhibitors of Christian toleration in America. I 
 <lo not think anything can be found to equal it, and for this reason : 
 that whereas many of the persecuting acts committed in England by 
 Churchmen, were for crimes regarded rather by the civil power than 
 the ecclesiastical, whatever was done in America, was done cs o re''- 
 gious deed} 
 
 1 " We shall seek in vain for a parallel to the massacre of the Fequod tndi i i 
 " It brought out the worst point in the Puritan character. When their passi >" 
 " were once inflamed, their religion itself was cruelty. It is horrible to read, 
 " when eities are stormed, of children thrown into the" flames, etc. But thi 
 " worse. Here all was deliberately calm ; all was sanctioned by religion. . ..Th 
 " intolerance with which the Puritans had been treated at home might at least have 
 " taught them a lesson of forbearance to each other. But it had no such effect. "- 
 Marsdeu's "Eistory of the Puritans," pp. 304, 'M5. A work leaning rath 
 the Puritan side than otherwise, but which, for purity of diction, uad for ini i ■ 
 tiality, appears to me without an equal in the English language. 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 564 011 5 
 
 LONDON : TVEUTItCI 
 
 • \-