j<-i i4/a mrt**M.3t.*im

i,i

''?niwSafraSa?^

't'"»lgi

lat

'4lt '"I'.Mfeilil

'4 ! M'sJjii

jJiS

^51

iwK}'

A-."-.- ^ r ¦¦:¦ h*- r:r, ,v-vji
¦.1. ¦¦¦•"•i«i.tj-.-<..^o\-o-*'

'Y^LIl«¥IMII¥IEI^SIIir¥" - ILHIBI^AIET »

Bought with the income of the
WiUiam C. Egleston Fund
1944

jawsiBtssgr^wv;^^-;^!^

THE PURITANS IN POWER

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
ILonlian:. FETTER LANE, E.G.
C. F. CLAY, Manager

lElllnbutal) : 'oo. PRINCES STREET
JSerlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
Jtetpjifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS
ileiB Botft: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
BombaE anU Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.

All rights reserved

THE PURITANS IN POWER
A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE
ENGLISH CHURCH FROM 1640 TO 1660

by
G. B. TATHAM, M.A.
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge

Cambridge :
at the University Press
1913

CambrtBgt:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE DNIVERSITY PRESS
r I?

PREFACE
I ^HE object of the following sketch is to illustrate
-*- the effect of the Puritan Revolution upon the Church
of England and upon the Universities as institutions
closely connected with the Church. In pursuing this
purpose I have had in mind the immediate and material
results of the revolution rather than the influence exercised
upon religious thought, upon the future history of parties
within the Church, or upon the relations of the Church
to Dissent. I have not attempted, except by way of the
shortest possible introduction, to analyse the development
of the Puritan movement or to trace the steps which
brought it into conflict with the school of Archbishop
Laud — a field which has provided ample material for
independent investigation. My aim has been to collect
evidence descriptive of the methods by means of which
the revolution was accomplished and generally illustrative
of the outward aspects of the Puritan regime. If in the
course of the discussion I have touched upon matters
of polemical interest it has not been with the object of
providing weapons to the armoury of either side in the
dispute.

vi PREFACE
I am very deeply indebted to Professor Firth for
giving me access to some valuable notes and for his
generous assistance at all times. To the Venerable
Archdeacon Cunningham also I wish to express my
sincere thanks for much advice and for his interest in
a work with the conclusions of which he did not always
agree. G. B. T.

Trinity College.
September, 1913

CONTENTS
chap. page
I. The Prelude. .  i
2. The Parochial Clergy  41
3. The Sequestration Committees .... 65
4. The Regulation of Cambridge University . . 93
5. The Puritan Visitation of Oxford University . ij2
6. The Fate of the Ejected Clergy .... 198
7. Religious Freedom under the Puritans . .214
8. Church Property  252
, APPENDIX I. An Inventory of Prestwich Rectory . . . 264
2. The Case of Sylvester Adams .... 268
3. The Seizure of College Plate at Cambridge . 271
Index  273

ERRATA

PAGE

LINE

82

24.

127

25.

184

30-

187

6.

188

30-

247

22.

For "Robert" read "Roger"
" Croydon " read " Croyden '
"Gerald" read "Gerard"
"Heylin" read "Heylyn"
"Acts" read "Arts"
" Duncan " read " Duncon "

CHAPTER I
THE PRELUDE
The brief period of Puritan ascendency which
succeeded the Great Civil War forms the concluding
phase of what has generally been regarded as a distinct
epoch in English ecclesiastical history. But though
a revolution which saw the overthrow of episcopal
government, the abolition of the liturgy of the English
Church, and the deprivation of a third of its ordained
ministers is obviously a subject which cannot be described
without reference to the events which preceded it, yet
the whole history of the Puritan movement is so complex
that an attempt to summarise the causes and tendencies
is a task of no ordinary difficulty.
One is faced at the outset by the question of
terminology. The name " Puritan," by which we are
accustomed to designate the forces which lay at the
back of a great religious and social upheaval, is itself
full of pitfalls, because it was and is used to describe
tendencies of thought, superficially alike, but really
distinct. In the first place, its most common use in
modern language draws attention to that aspect of its
meaning which is historically the least important. To
modern ears the word naturally suggests the dour look
and the sombre habit, familiar in fiction and in art, as
typifying an austere code of morals and a harsh and
narrow outlook upon life. But though this view of
Puritanism as a social and moral force is a direct
t. p. I

2 THE PURITANS IN POWER
inheritance from the sixteenth century and is true, to a
certain degree, of what then came into being, the word
had another and an historically older signification which
is apt to be forgotten. Primarily the Puritans stood for
purity in church life rather than for purity in personal
life or conduct, which was thought of as a corollary.
Their demand was for a complete reformation, for the
abolition, in matters of religious worship and ecclesiastical
government, of all that had been superimposed upon
primitive forms.
So much may be premised of the Puritans, but when
one seeks to define their position more accurately,
generalisation at once becomes hazardous. For Puritanism
was not a creed endowed with defined dogmas and a
constructive ecclesiastical policy ; it was rather an
attitude of mind which expressed itself not in one form
only or with an equal degree of insistence. As a
constructive force, Puritan thought in England was
destined to follow two main lines of development, the
Presbyterian and the Independent, but while it is to
some extent inevitable, in speaking of the earlier phases
of Puritanism, that one should employ these names for
purposes of distinction, it is important to guard against
the error of ascribing to movements in the embryonic
stage the characteristics by which they ultimately came
to be known, and of assuming the existence, from the
beginning, of doctrines which were in fact only gradually
formulated. The end of the sixteenth and the beginning
of the seventeenth centuries was essentially a period
of evolution in religious thought, and it was only by
degrees that opinions began to run in well-defined
channels. Presbyterianism, of course, became at an
early stage a recognised model of ecclesiastical govern
ment, but it would be untrue to say that English
Puritanism, under Elizabeth and James I, was represented

THE PRELUDE 3
by a Presbyterian or an Independent party. The body
of Puritan feeling in the country had not at that time
become identified with any party or parties : it existed
rather as an influence which directed men's minds more
or less forcibly towards a further reformation in the
Church. For the present purpose it will be more
instructive to analyse the fundamental principles which
characterised its two main currents.
The key-note of the Puritan position was the
acceptance of the Bible as the one infallible authority
before which all institutions in the Church must stand or
fall. To some extent this attitude was common to the
whole Reformation movement, but whereas the more
moderate reformers had been content to do away with
all that seemed contrary to Scripture, the Puritans went
further and demanded the abolition of all for which the
Bible offered no positive warrant. In this lies the
explanation of their attitude towards the ecclesiastical
system which was being built up in the English Church.
It explains their dislike of the hierarchy, for even if some
form of Episcopacy could be traced in the New Testament,
the same could not be said of deans and canons ; it
explains also their attitude towards the festivals of the
Church and indeed towards all non-primitive institutions
which the Reformation in England had not finally
abolished. On this, the destructive, side Puritan feeling
was tolerably unanimous and definite. Here, however,
unanimity ended, for it is in their theories of ecclesiastical
government, of the functions of the ministry and of the
relation of the Church to the State that the differences
between the two great Puritan parties become apparent. ^^
On the one hand, Presbyterianism, as the name implies,
rested upon a system of government by presbyters or
elders, under which the congregation is controlled by the
ministers and elders whom it has itself elected, the

4 THE PURITANS IN POWER
collection of congregations in a district by the Presbytery
or Classis composed of ministers and elders, and the
whole country by a General Assembly. It claimed
authority from the constitution of the primitive Church,
as revealed in the books of the New Testament, and it
owed the form in which it was established after the
Reformation chiefly to the work of Calvin. The system
is essentially national ; it recognises the jurisdiction of a
supreme power, and in this lies its fundamental difference
from the Independent theory.
The Independents, like the Presbyterians, sought
their model of Church government in the New Testament,
but while the attention of the Presbyterians had been
directed towards the governmental machinery, they had
been influenced by the example of the self-sufficing and
autonomous churches which sprang up in the wake
of missionary enterprise'. Carrying out the principle
which they perceived in the position of those churches,
they claimed that the individual congregation had full
power to elect its own officers and to manage its own
affairs and that it owed obedience to no authority save
that of its Master.
Intimately connected with these theories of govern
ment within the Church were the respective views of
the relation of the Church to the civil power. The
Presbyterians, with the theocracies of Old Testament
history before their eyes, endeavoured to build up a
polity in which the secular authority should be strictly
subordinated to the Church. In this respect their
teaching resembled that of the Romanists and stood in
marked opposition to the growing Erastianism in the
English Church. The Independents, on the other hand,
in this less faithful to scriptural tradition, while they
' See the Independents' Catechism published by M. C. Burrage :
The Early English Dissenters, ii, 156-7.

THE PRELUDE 5
repudiated State control and the institution of tithes, were
debarred from the assertion of ecclesiastical supremacy
by the absence from their system of any supreme
ecclesiastical authority. With them the ultimate triumph
of right principles would be secured by entrusting the
State to a " rule of the saints," that is to say, government
by men directly inspired by God. The idea of inspiration
was common to both views, with the difference that the
one conceived the gift of the Spirit as flowing mainly
through an ordained ministry while the other held that
it was subject to no such limitation.
A divergence of opinion upon a subject so important
is naturally seen most clearly in the conception of the
ministry. If the Church were the oracle of God, then
the ordained ministers of the Church must be considered
to occupy a position analogous to the Jewish prophets,
and therefore the Presbyterian ministry was accorded a
prestige which was probably greater than that enjoyed
by the ministers of the Anglican Church. It was greater
because in the Presbyterian system the sacraments did
not possess so full a spiritual significance, and therefore
the personal influence of the ministry, as the medium
through which God's purpose was revealed, was relatively
enhanced. With the Independents on the other hand,
the fact of ordination was in comparison unimportant,
and many of the most influential preachers were laymen.
The essential question was whether a man were possessed
of the spiritual gift, and it was the decision of this
question which chiefly engaged the attention of the
Committee appointed by Cromwell in March 1653/4
for the approbation of public preachers. This belief not
only in the existence of direct inspiration, but also in
the possibility of discerning its presence, explains much
in the actions and utterances of Independent preachers
which would otherwise be unmeaning.

6 THE PURITANS IN POWER
These points of difference in religious opinion, which
were destined to become prominent during the consti
tutional and ecclesiastical experiments of the Interregnum,
were dormant in the Puritanism of the years which
preceded the Rebellion. In what relation did Puritan
thought, thus diversified, stand to the system which was
taking shape in the Church of England as by law
established .¦*
If it can be said that no clearly defined position can
be postulated in the case of Puritanism before the
Civil War, the same is to a great extent true of the
Church of England, for it also was in the evolutionary
stage. The Church was indeed established on the basis
of episcopal government and was possessed of a liturgy
and a code of doctrine, but the limits had not been
defined so strictly as to exclude the Puritan altogether
or so clearly as to avoid the possibility of controversy.
It was this circumstance which gave the opportunity, as
it provided the justification, of the Puritan attack. But
the issue was from the beginning complicated by the
fact that the purely religious problems in the conflict did
not stand alone, but were, at all events during the
critical period of the struggle, merged in questions of
secular politics. In the second place, the religious
problems themselves were not the outcome of an orderly
development, but owed their very nature to the action
of a series of opposite and mutually incompatible forces.
The peculiar circumstances in which the Reformation
was inaugurated under Henry VIII, the advance made
under Edward VI, and the subsequent counter-Refor
mation under Mary were of themselves factors well
calculated to render the religious question in England
one of extreme difficulty, nor was the solution for the
moment brought appreciably nearer by that famous
venture in ecclesiastical politics which posterity has

THE PRELUDE 7
agreed to misname the Elizabethan " Settlement." Up
to that point, the broad issue had been the alternative
between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant systems
which had taken root on the Continent. From that
point begins the movement towards the re-establishment
of a Church, which should avoid either alternative and be
national in a sense that one owing allegiance to the
teaching of either Rome or Geneva could never be.
The system was imposed from above and owed its
foundation to the strength of the Government : both then
and later the voluntary acceptance of it by the country as
a whole was hindered by the fact that, while Calvinism
and Lutheranism were recognised models possessed of a
definite programme, the Elizabethan via media appeared
as something new. Accordingly, it was never accepted
by the more advanced Puritans as a final settlement, but
only as an intermediate stage on the road to complete
reform \ and the demands of the Puritan representatives
at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 really amounted
to a claim that the English Church should be modelled
on a Calvinistic basis ^
Such a claim received no more encouragement from
James I than it had from Elizabeth. Elizabeth's attitude
had been dictated principally by motives of public policy ;
James' experience had taught him that the claims of the
Presbyterians accorded ill with his theory of kingship,
but he viewed the question also from the standpoint
of the theologian. At the same time, the position of
the English Church became more clearly defined, and
its anti- Puritan tendency more pronounced, by the
broadening of its field of apologetics. On the one hand,
1 Mandell Creighton : Laud's position in the History of the English
Church (Laud Commemoration Lectures), p. 8 ; H. O. Wakeman : The
Church and the Puritans, p. lo.
2 H. O. Wakeman : The Church and the Puritans, p. 72.

8 THE PURITANS IN POWER
by appealing to the Fathers and the Schoolmen, and by
developing the theory of the historical continuity of the
English Church, its defenders definitely parted company
with those who regarded the Reformation as a break
with the past. On the other hand, the spread of the
doctrine of Arminius among the more advanced divines
of the Church of England set up a barrier against
those who followed Calvin on the subjects of Grace
and Predestination.
Throughout James' reign, nonconformity and separa
tion were discouraged, but the general acceptance of the
" orthodox " liturgy and system of Church government
was due to the fact that the times still allowed a
considerable measure of latitude. Scrupulous compliance
was not rigidly enforced, and many even of the clergy
were really Puritans at heart\ Under these conditions,
open opposition was confined to a minority, and many
who were lukewarm in their affection for Episcopacy and
entirely hostile to extreme views, were prepared to
accept the existing state of things, to set differences
aside, and to turn their attention to a reformation of the
religious life by means of a stricter discipline. But if
separatism were deprecated, it is important to remember
that freedom of thought within the limits of the Church
was not the ideal towards which either party was striving.
In spite of the popular cant about liberty for tender
consciences, of which that age heard so much and
understood so little, true tolerance was as foreign to the
mind of the Puritan as it was to the " Anglo Catholic."
The breaking-point would be reached when the extreme
views of either side came into contact, and the struggle,
when it arose, would be not for toleration, but for
supremacy. The accession of Charles I marked an important
1 S. R. Gardiner: Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, iii, 241-2.

THE PRELUDE 9
point in the development of the ecclesiastical question.
The new King had inherited many of his father's views
on civil and religious policy and his unwillingness to
brook popular opposition in either sphere, but he was in
every way a more attractive figure, and if he possessed
no greater capacity to rule in a difficult age, he yet
brought to the task a real wish for his country's welfare,
a deeply religious mind and the power to play the part
of a king with dignity. His frequent want of judgment
in a crisis was due partly to the fact that he was a man
with no gift for statesmanship and partly to a fatal
tendency to be guided by ill-considered advice and
to select his counsellors rather on grounds of sentiment
than of reason. His arbitrary conduct arose from his
conception of the regal power, a conception which had
been common to his predecessors and had yet to be
proved impracticable. At the same time, it must be
conceded that the problems with which he was called
upon to deal, though identical in kind, had assumed a
more serious aspect than they had presented in the
preceding reign, and to this, rather than to any personal
inferiority, must be attributed the fact that he did not
succeed in avoiding failure where his father had only
missed success.
It was during the first fifteen years of Charles' reign,
and especially during the eleven years during whicli he
governed without a Parliament, that the ground was
prepared for the revolution in Church and State. On
the side of the Church, the policy which the King
sanctioned, and indeed encouraged, will always be
connected with the name of William Laud.
Laud's rise, though he obtained his highest prefer
ments late in life, was characteristic of the age in which
he lived. It was founded in academic surroundings,
and the presidentship of St John's College, Oxford,

ID THE PURITANS IN POWER
was the first step in his upward progress. He became
Dean of Gloucester in 1616, Bishop of St David's in
1 62 1, Dean of the Chapel Royal and Bishop of Bath
and Wells in 1626, Bishop of London in 1628, Chancellor
of Oxford University in 1629, and Archbishop of
Canterbury, on the death of George Abbot, in 1633.
Such, in brief, was his distinguished career, and, from the
accession of Charles, it would not be too much to say
that his was the ruling mind in ecclesiastical affairs. He
was essentially an exponent of the "Anglo Catholic"
school and, in point of doctrine, an Arminian, but the
peculiar importance of his influence on the Church lay in
his character and general attitude of mind.
At the time when he was called upon to assume a
position of authority, there was much that gave cause for
dissatisfaction to one who set a value on conformity and
"decent dignified ceremonialism" in the services of the
Church. Abbot, his predecessor in the see of Canterbury,
was at heart a Puritan, and at the beginning of Charles'
reign a majority certainly of the laity, and probably
also of the clergy, were what may be called Puritan
Episcopalians, that is to say, accepted government by
bishops without sacrificing the Calvinistic opinions of the
earlier post- Reformation period. Conformity, in fact, to
the Church doctrine, as Laud conceived it, did not
exist, and various and contradictory tenets were freely
promulgated by the clergy. In external matters, the
state of affairs was still more displeasing. Reports from
the dioceses revealed that the churches in many places
"lay nastily," the buildings dirty, and even the fabric
in a ruinous condition\ The services were often
performed without any regard to dignity or even
decency, ministers were careless and " insufficient " in
the discharge of their duties ; the communion table not
' G. G, Perry : Hist, of the Church of England, i, 489.

THE PRELUDE ii
infrequently stood in the body of the church, emblematic
of opinions on the sacrament in themselves eminently
distasteful to Laud, and was there treated as a convenient
article of furniture rather than as the centre of the
Church's most solemn service. All this Laud felt to be
a reproach and an offence, likely, if unreformed, to drive
men to the Church of Rome.
"I found," he writes, "that with the contempt of
outward worship of God the inward fell away apace, and
profaneness began boldly to show itself. I could speak
with no conscientious person almost that was wavering
in religion, but the .great motive which wrought upon
them to disaffect or think meanly of the Church of
England, was that the external worship of, God was so
lost, and the churches themselves suffered to lie in
such a base and slovenly fashion in most places of the
kingdom'." To the reform of external worship, accordingly, Laud
addressed himself and, up to a certain point, he would
have received the support of all, irrespective of party,
who cared for the welfare of religion. The bad state
of repair in churches, and still more the want of an
efficient ministry offended Puritans as well as others^
but the line of reform which they favoured differed both
in degree and in kind from that which Laud proposed to
adopt. The outward adornment of churches they did
not desire, and what they wished to cultivate in the
clergy was first and foremost the gift of preaching.
Laud's measures, on the other hand, ran, in many
respects directly counter to this.
The articles in Laud's Metropolitical Visitation of
' Quoted by M. Creighton : Laud's position in the History of the
English Church (Laud Commemoration Lectures), p. i8.
^ See Richard Baxter's account of the clergy in the neighbourhood of his
home in Shropshire. Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), pp. 1-2.

12 THE PURITANS IN POWER
the diocese of Winchester in 1635 do not suggest an
extensive ritualistic movement, and indeed in this respect
are only concerned with the ordinary ecclesiastical
furniture and ornaments. Inquiry is made as to whether
there is a bible and a prayer-book "fairly and sub
stantially bound," a font of stone, a comely pulpit, a
comely large surplice, a fair communion cup, with a
cover of silver, a flagon of silver, tin, or pewter, to put
the wine in, with "all other things and ornaments
necessary for the celebration of divine service, and
administration of the sacraments." The communion
table was to be "convenient and decent... with a carpet
of silk, or some other decent stuff", continually laid upon
the same at time of divine service, and a fair linen
cloth thereon, at the time of the receiving of the
Holy Communion." The clergy were to officiate in
surplice and hopd\ Nor do the Canons of 1640, which
represent the high- water-mark in ofiicial injunctions on
the subject, carry us much further.
— ~ It is expressly stated that "the standing of the
communion table sideway under the east window of
every chancel or chapel, is in its own nature indifferent,"
but in view of the Advertisements of Queen Elizabetft"
and the continuous custom in the royal chapels and
elsewhere, which effectually cleared the practice of any
"just suspicion of popish superstition," it is thought fit
" that all churches and chapels do conform themselves in
this particular to the example of the cathedral or mother
churches, saving always the general liberty left to the
bishop by law, during the time of administration of the
Holy Communion." The declaration, however, went
on to declare that this situation did not imply that the
communion table ought to be esteemed "a true and
proper altar, wherein Christ is again really sacrificed;,
1 Laud's Works, v, 421, 453.

THE PRELUDE 13
but it is and may be called an altar by us in that sense
Jn^ which the primitive Church called it an altar and in
no other." To protect the table so placed from irreverent
treatment and abuse, it should be "decently severed
with rails" from the body of the church.
One other direction there was which caused trouble
in the future. The synod who had drawn up the Canons
declared that it was " very meet and behoveful " that
all persons should do " reverence and obeisance both at
their coming in and going out of the said churches...
according to the most ancient custom of the primitive
Church in the purest times," as an act for the advancement
of God's majesty, but that in the practice or omission
of this the apostle's rule should be observed " which is,
that they which use this rite, despise not them who use
it not, and that they who use it not, condemn not those
that use it'."
In practice, it is probable that a rather more elaborate
ritual obtained in some places ; the use of copes was
enjoined in cathedrals and episcopal chapels in accordance
with the 24th Canon of 1603, and stained-glass windows
were repaired or newly introduced, but the points already
mentioned were sufficient to supply the grounds on
which the Puritan party based their contention that
Laud and his followers were bringing in " Popish
Innovations." In view of the ritualistic developments of modern
times, it comes at first as a surprise that such com
paratively modest measures of reform should raise
such serious opposition. The explanation lies in the
circumstances of the age. On the one hand, hardly
two generations had passed since England had been
under a Roman Catholic Government, and to those who
were unable to take a more than superficial view of the
' Laud's Works, v, 624-6.

14 THE PURITANS IN POWER
tendency of events, it may well have seemed that the
same fate still threatened the country. On the other
hand, the position taken up by the predominant school
of English churchmen was still too novel to be familiar.
A great part of the new policy the Puritans did not
understand, and what they understood they did not
like. For there is no doubt that the divergence of view
between the two parties went much deeper than a mere
question of forms, and that the order prescribed by Laud
represented doctrines which were opposed to those held
by his opponents. To the Puritan who regarded the
Holy Communion merely as a commemorative act, there
was nothing indecent in the old state of affairs, and the
table standing as an ordinary piece of furniture in the
body of the church effectively typified his views. When
the table was removed to the east end of the chancel,
furnished with hangings and ornaments, and separated
from the people by rails, when kneeling at the reception
of the Elements was enjoined, and the act of bowing
encouraged, it was obvious that the inward meaning had
not remained unaffected. Laud might honestly dissociate
hiihself from the eucharistic opinions of the Roman
Church : the doctrinal distinction, though in reality broad
enough, was too subtle to convince Puritan suspicion,
while the outward resemblance to Roman forms was an
argument which struck the eye and was readily accepted.
The charge that Laud inclined towards Roman
Catholicism is effectually refuted by his controversy with
Fisher the Jesuit, but his view of the position and
historical continuity of the Church of England made
him appear to be in closer agreement with Rome than
he actually was, and an age which had been astonished
to hear Sheldon deny that the Pope was Anti-Christ was
not likely to regard favourably one who allowed the
Roman Church to be a true Church. Nor were Laud's

THE PRELUDE 15
measures in a real sense "innovations" — "an unlucky
word," as Clarendon remarks, which "cozened very many
honest men into apprehensions very prejudicial to the
King and to the Church'." That his opponents had
any justification for so regarding them was due to the
fact that the general practice in the matter of Church
services during the two preceding reigns had been much
more Puritan in tone than the precept of authority had
warranted, but hardly any of Laud's directions were
strictly " new^" The position of the communion table
" in the place where the altar stood" could be referred to
Queen EUzabeth's Injunctions of 1559, the use of surplice
and cope to the Advertisements of 1566, the practice
of bowing towards the east could be said to have been
"usual" in the same reign ^ while images, either in stone
or glass, had been allowed even by Calvin, so that they
were used not for idolatrous purpose but " in docendo et
admonendo^" The Puritans might indeed cite the
twenty-third Injunction of 1559 against paintings and
monuments and argue that the spirit of the law was
being contravened ; Laud's appeal was to the letter and
to practice, and on the mere point of novelty his position
was unassailable. Assuming that the Elizabethan statutes
had left the law indefinite, it became a question of
interpretation, and of which of two possible lines of
development should be pursued. The crux of the matter
was that Laud had chosen the anti- Puritan interpretation.
But it was not only in forms and external matters
that Laud's policy conflicted with Puritan sentiment.
We have seen that the attribution of a semi-prophetic
character to the ministry was common among the Puritans
in general, and especially among the Presbyterians, and
» Clarendon : Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), i, 128.
2 Cf. W. Bright : Waymarks in Church History, p. 338.
3 Laud's Works, iv, 201. * Ibid, iv, 199.

i6 THE PURITANS IN POWER
this naturally led them to regard the exercise of preaching
as the primary duty of the minister and the most
important part of their religious service. The pulpit
rather than the press was the mouthpiece of controversial
as well as of pastoral theology, and they demanded a
large liberty in the matter of discussion. With such a
demand Laud had little sympathy. Though by no
means undervaluing the gift of tongues, his own religious
temperament led him to distrust the unbridled language
of somewhat ill-instructed men'.
In a letter to Vossius, written in July 1629, Laud had
said that he had always laboured to prevent the public
discussion of difficult and intricate subjects lest piety and
charity should be dishonoured under the pretext of truth,
and that he had ever counselled moderation lest every
thing should be thrown into confusion by fiery minds to
which religion was not the highest care', and imperfectly
as he may seem to have fulfilled the part of an apostle of
moderation, this description of his life's purpose would
not be an untrue or an unsuitable epitaph. Charles'
declaration of November 1628, which was almost cer
tainly inspired by Laud, breathed the same spirit in
expressing the desire that in those " unhappy differences,
which have for so many hundred years, in different times
and places, exercised the Church of Christ... all further
curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up
1 A somewhat similar attitude was adopted by the Bishop of Winchester
in a speech on the case of a minister named Vicars who was brought before
the High Commission Court. " I will not speake against preaching," he said,
"nor against those that preach twise upon every Sunday... but I would he
would preach lesse and consider what he saith." S. R. Gardiner : Cases in the
Star Chamber and High Commission Court (Camden Soc), p. 234.
^ " Omnem ego semper movi lapidem, ne publice scopulosae illae et
perplexae quaestiones coram populo tractarentur ; ne pietatem et charitatem
sub specie veri violaremus. Moderata semper suasi, ne fervida ingenia, et
quibus religio non est summae curae, turbarent omnia.'' Laud's Works,
vi, 265.

THE PRELUDE 17
in God's promises as they be generally set forth to us in
the Holy Scriptures and the general meaning of the Articles
of the Church of England according to them'." He did
not aim at doctrinal conformity, but his conception of the
function of the Church caused him to dislike all preaching
which did not take place under its supervision and
authority, especially at a time when much of the eloquence
was certain to be directed against his own government.
His object was comprehension, but a comprehension
which was to be achieved by a reverent reserve on con
troversial points and without the sacrifice of outward
conformity. It was this double characteristic which
rendered his purpose impracticable. Though not con
sciously desiring to restrain liberty of thought within the
Church he was compelled to restrain liberty of speech,
while his insistence upon outward conformity to an
unpopular form prevented that mutual consent without
which comprehension is impossible.
But there was another reason for Laud's attitude
towards preaching. The pulpit had also a very consider
able political importance, and though Elizabeth had
contrived to keep its influence chiefly in her own interest,
under James and Charles it had become an instrument of
attack. The danger had lately been increased by the
appearance of a class of irregular preachers who occupied
a position to some extent independent of the ordinary
parochial system. These " lecturers " as they were called,
owed their rise to the eagerness of Puritan congregations
to supplement the official ministrations of the Church,
and were generally appointed by some private person or
corporation which had raised a subscription for their main
tenance. Early in the reign of Charles I, a body of
twelve London Puritans had formed themselves into a
society known as the Feoffees for Impropriations, and
• Quoted by W. H. Mutton : William Laud, p. 59.
T. P. 2

i8 THE PURITANS IN POWER
had raised a fund for buying up tithes which had fallen
into the hands of laymen, and by means of this were
enabled to support a considerable number of lecturers of
their own persuasion. So appointed, the lecturers avoided
the necessity of subscription and were not bound to
perform the service in accordance with the orders of the
Church. They regarded themselves, in fact, as more or
less exempt from the jurisdiction of their ecclesiastical
superiors, and in districts like Northamptonshire, where
there was much Nonconformity, they were a constant
source of trouble'. They were looked upon with pro
found distrust by the King and the Church party as
likely to fill the minds of the people with discontent
against the established order both ecclesiastical and
secular. The general attitude towards liberty of preaching,
therefore, adopted by the Government had been one of
restriction. As early as 1622 a series of "Directions
concerning Preachers " had been issued at the instance
of the King. In a letter to the Archbishop, James
recalled that in former times preaching had been kept
under strict control, and remarked upon the fact that " at
this present divers young students by reading of late
writers, and ungrounded divines, do broach many times
unprofitable, unsound, seditious, and dangerous doctrines,
to the scandall of the Church, and disquiet of the State
and present Government." The directions therefore
proceeded strictly to define the limits which the preacher
was to observe and to prohibit entirely any discussion of
" matters of state, and the differences between Princes
and the People^" Some similar directions, belonging to
the same date, a copy of which is preserved in the Baker
Collection, also allude to the chief defects of the Puritan
* J. E. Bailey : Life of Fuller, pp. 42-3.
2 Rushworth ; Historical Collections, i, 64-5.

THE PRELUDE 19
sermons. Mention is made of " a sowing up in points of
Divinity too deep for the capacity of the people... or an
ignorant meddling with civil matters. ..or a venting of
their own distast or a smoothing up of these idle fancies
which in this blessed time of so long a peace doe boyle
in the braines of an unadvised people'."
On Laud's accession to a position of influence in
Charles' councils, the same policy had been continued.
In a paper containing "considerations for the better
settling of Church government," presented by him to the
King in 1629, the substance of which was afterwards
embodied in a series of official instructions, he recom
mended " that a special care be had over the lecturers in
every diocess, which by reason of their pay are the
people's creatures, and blow the bellows of their sedition I"
As Bishop of London he had come into contact with the
Feoffees for Impropriations, with the result that the
society was . suppressed by an order of the Court of
Exchequer in February I633^ and as Archbishop he
continued his attack on the system as a whole. In the
account of his province, drawn up in the first year of his
archiepiscopate, he de§ires the King "that no layman
whatsoever, and least of all companies or corporations,
may, under any pretence of giving to the Church or other
wise, have power to put in or put out any lecturer or
other minister."
Charles supported him wholeheartedly. " Certainlie, "
he wrote in the margin of the above account, " I cannot
hould fitt that anie Lay Person or Corporation whatso
ever, should have the Power thease Men would take to
themselves^" Accordingly the lecturers were placed
under supervision, and it was ordered that they should
1 Baker Collection, vol. xxvii, Fol. 139. ^ Rushworth, ii, 7.
3 S. R. Gardiner : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, vii, 258-9.
* Laud's Works, v, 321. 2 — 2

20 THE PURITANS IN POWER
read the service according to the liturgy in surplice and
hood, and should be obliged to take upon them livings
with cure of souls'. This enabled the bishops to use
their authority and to suspend offenders for sedition or
unsound doctrine, a power which they saw cause to
exercise with considerable frequency.
These restrictions and orders dictated the lines on
which the Church service was to be conducted, and
assumed a right to control the religious worship of the
people : the publication of what was known as the
" Declaration of Sports " in i6i 8 raised the whole question
of Sunday observance. The issue of this declaration, by
which official approbation was accorded to the time-
honoured practice of indulging in dances and other forms
of recreation after the attendance at divine worship on
Sundays, was caused by the state of affairs observed by
King James during his progress from Scotland. Puritan
influence had been sufficiently strong in some parts of the
country, notably in Lancashire, to suppress what were
generally regarded as " lawful recreations," and from this
were argued two distinct dangers. On the one hand, the
Roman Catholics, who were numerous in Lancashire,
would be deterred from coming over to the Church of
England ; on the other, the " common and meaner sort
of people " would be prevented " from using such exercises
as may make their bodys more able for war." A further
danger would be found in the fact that the place of these
healthy recreations would be taken by "tipling and filthy
(ininkenness " and "idle and discontented speeches in
their ale-houses'." In October 1633, the Declaration
was reissued under Laud's sanction and ordered to be
read in the churches. The Puritans attacked it on the
grounds that such a use of the Lord's Day was not only
unsanctioned, but even directly prohibited in the Bible,
1 Laud's Works, v, 312. 2 Rushworth, ii, 194.

THE PRELUDE

21

and that it tended to encourage immorality and vice.
A considerable number of the clergy declined to read it,
and some suffered suspension for their persistent refusal.
In the history of his trial. Laud maintained that he "ever
laboured" that Sunday should be kept holy, "but yet
free from a superstitious holiness'," and his action may be
taken as a protest against the general attitude of mind
represented in the opposition'.
The cleavage of opinion between Puritans and "Anglo
Catholics" on the subjects alluded to was not a new
factor in the political situation at the time of Laud's
ascendency. The period of his rule, however, brought
the antagonism to the critical point, and therefore a
discussion of the means by which he, in conjunction with
the King, strove to impose his system upon the country
forms a natural corollary to an account of the main points
in dispute. The two measures for enforcing conformity,
which afterwards became the principal objects of the
Puritans' attack, were the Hig^iJDommission Court and
the " Etcetera^Oath."
The High Commission Court, in the form in which
it existed under Charles I, dated from the time of Whit-
gift's campaign against Nonconformity. Its constitution,
and still more its procedure, was open to grave objections
on legal grounds, and on this head its jurisdiction had
always been resented. Under Abbot's influence, how
ever, its action had been tempered by a certain modera
tion', and it was left for Laud to bring out its full power
as an engine of repression.
It was disliked, though not for the same reasons nor
with equal justification, by several widely different classes.
' Laud's Works, iv, 252.
2 Ranke thinks that Laud's object in attacking the religious strictness of
the Puritans, especially in the matter of Sunday observance, was to "attract
the people to his side." Hist, of England, ii, 49.
3 S. R. Gardiner : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, vii, 254.

22 THE PURITANS IN POWER
It was hated by the Puritans because it imposed upon
them a system of worship of which they disapproved ; it
was hated by a certain section of the nobility and geritry
because it was a stern censor of morals : it was hated by
the lawyers because of its rivalry with the civil courts
and because, though an ecclesiastical tribunal, it inflicted
civil penalties'. Clarendon himself condemns it in strong
terms. " It had much overflowed the banks which should
have contained it," he says, " not only in meddling with
things that in truth were not properly within their [i.e.
the bishops'] connusance : but extending their sentences
and judgments in matters triable before them, beyond
that degree that was justifiable," while by over-riding the
common law they had alienated the lawyers and made
" almost a whole profession, if not their enemy, yet very
undevoted to them'."
As to its relations to Nonconformity, it is probable
that the court has been on the whole unjustly condemned',
but it is difficult to speak with certainty on this point on
account of the paucity of first-hand evidence. Those
records of its proceedings which have been published^
extend only from October 1631 to June 1632, a period,
it is important to remember, anterior to Laud's appoint
ment to the archbishopric and therefore to the time of
his greatest influence. But the evidence of these records
shows that, at that time at any rate, though the
ecclesiastical business occupied a considerable proportion
of the commissioners' attention, their activities were by
no means exercised exclusively in that direction.
' W. H. Frere : Hist, of the Eng. Church in the reigns of Elizabeth and
fames I, p. 354.
2 Clarendon : Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), i, 372.
3 W. H. Hutton : Hist, of the English Church from the accession of
Charles I to the death of Anne, p. 69.
* S. R. Gardiner : Cases in the Star Chamber and High Commission Court
(Camden Soc).

THE PRELUDE 23
The general impression gained by a perusal of the
cases connected with Nonconformity is that the sentences
for false doctrine or for holding conventicles were severe,
and that the behaviour of the bishops and the lay
members of the court towards prisoners was usually
ijarsh. The prisoners themselves in many cases could
not be brought to take the oath to give true answers,
maintaining that they dared not or that they knew
not what they should swear to', but the most striking
feature of the examinations is the light thrown on the
kind of opposition that Laud was endeavouring to over
come. " The Lord hath wrought that in me that I need
not to use it," replied one to the question whether he
used the Lord's Prayer'. " I am a minister of the
Gospel of Christ, and the Lord hath qualified me," was
the answer of another, a conventicle preacher named
Latropp, when asked to produce his orders'. These, and
similar replies, though undoubtedly representing extreme
cases, reveal the gulf that separated Laud from the
attainment of his ideal, and the practical impossibility of
reconciling views so hopelessly at variance.
The "Etcetera Oath" was the popular name given
to the oath, prescribed by the sixth Canon of 1640,
against_^alHnnovations in doctrine and government," and
was derived from the fact that the oath required an under
taking not " to alter the government of this Church by
archbishops, bishops, deans, and archdeacons, etc., as it
stands now established'." The insertion of the "etcetera"
in place of a long list of offices and officers was, of
course, dictated by a desire for greater brevity, but never
was disregard of legal accuracy visited with more sudden
» S. R. Gardiner : Cases in the Star Chamber and High Commission
Court (Camden Sop.), p. 285.
2 Ibid. p. 188. ' Ibid. p. 281.
* Laud's Works, v, 623.

24 THE PURITANS IN POWER
judgment. To some extent, it is true that the technical
objection to the wording was a quibble and that the real
opposition was directed against the whole tenor of the
oath'. "Those that were against it," writes Baxter, "said,
I. that Episcopacy was either contra jus divinum, or at
best not jure divino, and therefore mutable when the
King and Parliament pleased. 2. Or at least that it
was undeniable, that Archbishops, and Deans, and
Chapters, and Archdeacons etc., were not all Jure Divino:
nay, that the English frame of Diocesans having many
hundred Parish Churches under one Bishop in fini gradus,
was not only against the word of God, but destructive
of all the Episcopacy which was known in the Church at
least for 200 years'."
But, incredible as it may seem, there was a genuine
distrust of the " blind Et Coetera " and what it might
involve. Nothing, in fact, could have better brought
out the real point at issue as illustrating the Puritan
suspicion, and it is not altogether surprising if, as Baxter
states, an oath, which was or seemed to be imposed " for
the unalterable subjecting " of men to diocesans, should
become a chief means to alienate them from episcopal
government'. In the actual carrying out of his scheme of govern
ment, it is probable that Laud suffered at the hands of
those subordinate officials of the Church to whom the
work of producing conformity was necessarily entrusted,
just as his cause was prejudiced by the indiscretion of
men like Sibthorpe and Mainwaring. It is certain that
the interests of the Church were affected by the close
connection which had sprung up between civil and
' S. R. Gardiner: Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, ix, 146.
''¦ Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), p. 15.
3 Ibid. p. 16.

THE PRELUDE 25
ecclesiastical affairs. Not only had the interests of the
Laudian and Court parties become identical, but Laud
himself and others of the bishops as well occupied an
important place in Court politics and the King's favour,
while Juxon, as Bishop of London, became Lord High
Treasurer. The result was that they incurred the addi
tional odium of being connected with an unpopular
policy in affairs of State. This aspect of the alliance was
from every point of view a mistake, and is responsible
for much of the bitter hostility with which the bishops
were viewed. Even amongst the courtiers considerable
resentment was felt at the undue power conferred upon
4bem, and the animosity extended to the clergy as well.
Men looked upon the Church, says Clarendon, "as the
gulph ready to swallow up all the great offices'."
"^ During the eleven years of Charles' personal govern
ment, then, the opposition to secular and ecclesiastical
policy alike was kept in check, and Puritans were obliged
to contemplate the consolidation of Laud's influence
without the means of active resistance. The observance
of the order and ceremonies of the Church were strictly
enforced and open revolt was crushed with a heavy hand.
The cases of Leighton, Prynne, Bastwick and Burton
revealed at once the strength of the authority and the
bitterness of the opposition, and postponement merely
had the effect of increasing the violence of the inevitable
storm. On April 13, 1640, the Short Parliament met
and, among the long list of grievances to which it
immediately turned its attention, the question of religion
obtained a prominent place. • But even then, though the
tendency of the Commons was to regard the Laudian
party as the " enemies of the Church and Country," the
remarkable point was the comparative moderation of tone
1 History of the Rebellion {eidi. Macray), i, 132. See also C. H. Simpkinson:
Life and Times of William Laud, p. 148.

26 THE PURITANS IN POWER
which was still preserved. The distinguishing note of
Pym's speech, delivered on April 17, was a plea for
liberty and a comprehensive treatment of the questions
at issue', and for the moment nothing was said of the
more radical changes which were fast approaching. The
fatal decision which led Charles to dissolve the Parliament
after it had sat for three weeks, ruined whatever slight
prospects there remained of a peaceful adjustment of
differences, for in the Long Parliament, which met on
the 3rd of the following November, the active opposition
of the country was gathered together in a more powerful
and a more ominous shape.
The actual strength of the several ecclesiastical
parties between the date of the meeting of the Long
Parliament and the outbreak of the war is not easy to
gauge, and the latter event, though it divided the nation
into two distinct camps, did not give any clear indication
of the feeling of the country on the religious difficulty.
Many sacrificed their views on Church questions for their
loyalty to the King, and others sacrificed their loyalty to
the King for their views on Church questions. The
great mass of the people were probably not profoundly
convinced either for or against Episcopacy, and amid
much misrepresentation and misunderstanding "both
sides found such reception generally with the people as
they were inclined to the persons'." It needed, in fact,
outside influence of policy or affection to determine
which party they should support.
The Laudian party, though in some respects the
most powerful force in the State, was not strong
numerically. Even of the clergy not more than half
could be regarded as whole-hearted supporters of his
system, and amongst the laity it was decidedly weak.
' Gardiner: Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, ix, 103-4.
2 Clarendon: Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), i, 124.

THE PRELUDE 27
A section of the Court party and a few of the better
(class families adhered to it, but in Pariiament, in the
House of Lords, as well as in the Commons, and
amongst the middle and lower classes it had found
-Afery little acceptance.
But though the extreme Anglicans were without a
large following. Episcopacy _wa§__ supporXed,^ on less
ambitious grounds, by a considerable proportion of the
nation."" "This section of what maybe called the episcopal
party included many different types, some friendly to
Laud and others openly hostile. It included, for
example, such broad-minded churchmen as Prideaux
and Ussher, who would have favoured some scheme
of comprehension on the basis of a modified Episcopacy :
it included, again, such men as Williams, some time
Archbishop of York, whose churchmanship was tempered
by motives of policy and expediency, one who regarded
the Calvinists as a force in the State to which concessions
must be made'. The real strength of the party lay in
the affection which inspired men's minds' for the
traditional form of worship, and the rooted aversion to
the extravagances of the Puritan teaching. The majority
of the supporters of Episcopacy cared little for the high
pretensions expressed in the views of Laud, Hall' and
others.

1 Dr Gardiner, indeed, thought that " if Williams had been trusted by
Charles instead of Laud, there would have been no civil war" (vi, 340), and
that, but for certain defects in character, he might even have become the
"Burke of the ecclesiastical politics of the seventeenth century" (vii, 18),
but he was before all things an opportunist and his conduct in affairs was to
a great extent dictated by his personal antagonism to Laud.
2 Ranke : Hist, of England, ii, 291-2.
3 Gardiner and Ranke differ as to the nature of Charles' episcopal
appointments in the autumn of 1641. Ranke states that Hall's moderation
had brought him under suspicion of being inclined to Presbyterianism, but
he was the author of Episcopacy by Divine Right, and was one of the
"impeached Bishops." See Ranke, ii, 304, and Gardiner, x, 41.

28 THE PURITANS IN POWER
The balance of power really lay with the moderate
men on the other side, not necessarily militant Puritans,
Hbut men who were opposed to Laud and felt that some
change was needed without knowing what form they
wished it to take. There was a good deal of latent
Presbyterianism amongst the lower and middle classes,
but in the Commons of the Long Parliament it was not
at first a very definite force. How far a distinct purpose
to overthrow Episcopacy is to be traced in the actions
of the popular leaders from the beginning is a question
which has never been conclusively answered, but, in any
case, it must have been confined to a very few. During
the early debates on religion Lords Saye and Brooke in
the Upper House, and Nathaniel Fiennes and Sir Harry
Vane, the younger, in the Lower, were, says Clarendon,
the only men who were believed to be "for root and
branch'." With the majority of the reforming party,
and even with Pym himself, the development of an
ecclesiastical policy was a matter of time. But the
very vagueness of their attitude and their want of a
constructive policy in the end constituted the chief
element of danger to the Church. At the critical
moment in the course of the war, the Commons, so
constituted, were able to accept a ready-made ecclesiastical
system as the price of the much-needed military assistance
of the Scots. Had they at that time been intent on the
establishment of a definite system of their own, the
negotiations with the Scots would probably have fallen
through, for the Scots army would not have taken the
field on any other terms.
In the Long Parliament, representatives of nearly all
shades of opinion confronted one another, but, as the
inevitable result of the circumstances in which the
elections had taken place, the Puritan element was
1 Clarendon : Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), i, 309.

THE PRELUDE 29
relatively stronger there than in the nation as a whole.
But even so, there was no general agreement, even
amongst the avowed opponents of the existing system,
as to the measure of change which was needed, whether,
in fact, it should be a reform or a revolution. Schemes
embodying each of these alternatives were possible and
were actually formulated, but the only one which assumed
any practical importance was one which aimed at the
total overthrow of episcopal government. The fact that
such a line of action was adopted by a Parliament in
which its whole-hearted supporters were at first a minority
was due in the first place to motives of political
expediency, and in the second place to the influence
of external events reacting on the position of the
Parliamentary party. The line of development, therefore,
which it will be necessary to follow here is the one which
shows the steps by which the "Root and Branch" policy,
as it was called, gained acceptance and led finally to the
utter Overthrow of Episcopacy.
As soon as the Long Parliament had assembled, the
antagonism to the bishops made itself heard in the cry
for their abolition. As early as November 18, Baillie
could write that " all here are weary of bishops'," and it
was apparent to all that the question was being hurried
to the front. But the event by which the controversy in
all its aspects was first raised, was the presentation on
December 11, 1640, of a petition against Episcopacy
signed by 15,000 Londoners'. The petition went over
the whole ground in dispute between the supporters of
episcopal government and the extreme Puritans, and
advocated the abolition of bishops as "members of the
Beast " and the entire destruction of that whole system of
ecclesiastical government. The conservative feeling both
1 BaiUie: Utters (1841), i, 274.
2 Printed in Rushworth, iv, 93-6.

30 THE PURITANS IN POWER
in Parliament and in the country was still too strong to
allow the popular leaders to adopt a policy so revolutionary
in character, but their position was complicated by their
dependence upon Puritan support and especially the
support of Puritan London. Parliament, as Ranke has
remarked', "was connected with the disaffection of the
city-through religious ideas," and in order to carry through
their policy of reform in civil affairs, Pym and his followers
saw clearly the necessity of fostering the discontent in
religious matters. Hence, though for the moment
nothing was done, the petitioners were favourably
received.
¦""^But the example set by London proved infectious,
and in the course of January 1641, many numerously
signed petitions breathing a similar spirit were sent up
from various counties. The country, in fact, appeared
more ready to deal with the subject than did the Parlia
ment, and it was only the unwillingness of the House
which delayed the petitions so long'. At the end of the
same month, a petition of rather a different character
was presented in the names of some eight hundred
ministers, which purported to represent the wishes of the
more moderate party among the clergy. Its contents, as
far as it is possible to judge them from the rough notes
taken during its discussion in committee', embodied a
sufficiently large scheme of reform, but it provided,
probably intentionally, a contrast to the more revolutionary
proposals contained in the "Root and Branch" petitions.
Contemporary royalist writers allege that these
petitions were " manufactured " and that they provide no
indication of the state of public opinion. Dr John Walker,
for example, speaking of the hostile petitions as a whole,
' Ranke : Hist, of England, ii, 393.
^ W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, i, p. 19.
3 Ibid, i, p. 24.

THE PRELUDE 31
says' that they were " generally framed by Dr Burgess
and his Junto in London, and from thence transmitted to
their correspondents ; who, by persuasions, and threaten
ings, and all the methods imaginable, procur'd hands to
them," while " great numbers of the subscribers were
poor ignorant fellows, and persons of the meanest
capacities, as well as quality." According to Clarendon'
a petition, "very modest and dutiful," was prepared to
communicate to those who were desired to sign it. Very
few signatures sufficed to fill the paper on which the
petition itself was written, and when this was done, other
sheets were annexed and duly signed. Lastly, the
original petition was cut off", and a new one, " suitable to
the design in hand," substituted, so that " men found
their names subscribed to petitions of which they before
had never heard." A similar method, according to
Walker, was followed in the matter of the Ministers'
petition, which for this reason he describes as a " plain
forgery'." What actually seems to have been done in the case
of the last-mentioned petition, and probably in other
petitions also, was sufficient to give colour to these
reports. The various petitions with their appended
signatures from each district were forwarded to a com
mittee in London, who drafted a fresh petition which
professedly embodied the sense of all, and affixed the
whole mass of signatures to it. Obviously, if this final
draft contained clauses to which any signatory had not
subscribed, the proceeding justifies Clarendon's con
demnation, but, in the case of the Ministers' petition at
least, this does not appear to have been done.
1 John Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 8. His book was
written early in the eighteenth century and was published in 17 14.
2 Clarendon : Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), i, 271.
3 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. IS-

32 THE PURITANS IN POWER
A more convincing argument against the contention
that these petitions represented the sense of the nation
might be found in the existence of an almost equal number
of petitions from the other side, which, while favouring
the reform of abuses, express the desire that the form
of government should be preserved and sectarianism
suppressed. Thus a petition from Cornwall prayed the
Parliament " to continue the reverenc'd office, and punish
the offending persons of Bishops, to have in high account
and eternize... the divine and excellent forms of Common-
Prayer, to correct brain-forg'd doctrine'" etc., and a
similar petition from Chester, while recognising the value
of reforms already made, alludes to the organised attack
on the existing system carried on through the medium of
the press and the pulpit, which led the petitioners to fear
that the desire was " to introduce an absolute innovation
of Presbyterall Government." They conceive that " of
all the distempers that at present threaten the welfare of
this State, there is none more worthy the mature and
grave consideration of this Honourable Assembly, than
to stop the Torrent of such spirits before they swell
beyond the bounds of Government'."
The latter petition was said to be signed by four
noblemen, fourscore and odd knights and esquires,
seventy divines, three hundred and odd gentlemen and
above 6000 freeholders and other inhabitants of the
county, so that the evidence of petitions as illustrating
the weight of public opinion is contradictory and of very
little value.
On February 8, 1641, the actual discussion of the
"Root and Branch" proposals was first broached over
the question of whether the London petition and the
Ministers' petition should be referred to a committee'.
1 Brit. Mus. 669, f. 4, 64. 2 Ibid. f. 4, 16.
3 S. R. Gardiner : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, ix, 276.

THE PRELUDE 33
The debate which took place on this occasion is extremely
interesting as illustrating the point of cleavage between
the two great parties on this, the question of the hour.
It is noticeable that though the division of opinion on the
question of the abolition of Episcopacy and all that it
involved was perfectly clear and well-defined, the hostility
to the bishops was equally marked in almost all the
speeches which were delivered. Finally, the debate ended
in a compromise'. Both petitions were to be committed,
but the discussion of the main point at issue, the main
tenance of Episcopacy, was reserved for a future occasion.
Still, the question was only postponed. During the
spring, both Houses were more or less constantly en
gaged on the question of religion. A committee of the
Commons had been appointed to consider the "Ministers'
Remonstrance," and the fruits of their labours appeared
in a report submitting questions for discussion. As a
result of these recommendations bills were formed early
in March, recommending the prevention of pluralities,
the removal of the Jbishops from the peerage and the
Privy'Council, and th& exchiswin of clergymen generally
from the commission^f the peace'. On March i, the
House of Lords also appointed a committee of thirty lay
peers and ten bishops "to take into consideration all
innovations in the Church concerning religion," and
directed that the committee should " have power to send
for what learned divines their lordships shall please, for
their better information." In accordance with these
directions a sub-committee of divines was formed which
met in the Deanery of Westminster under the presidency
of the Dean, Williams, Bishop of Lincoln '. Laud him
self viewed the appointment of this body with disfavour
1 S. R. Gardiner: Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, ix, 287.
2 Stoughton : The Church of the Civil Wars, p. 126.
3 Ibid. p. 119 and Lord^ fournals, iv, 174, 180.
T. P. 3

34 THE PURITANS IN POWER
as likely to tamper with doctrines as well as ceremonies,
and their proposals certainly represented a considerable
measure of reform, and showed, in some points, a
distinctly Puritan tone. Nothing, however, was destined
to come of the committee's work. By the middle of May,
when its sessions came to an end, more violent counsels
were being adopted.
In the first place, the ground had been cleared by two
acts, which, though constitutional in form, were really of
an equally revolutionary character. On May lo, 1641,
the Parliament secured its own permanence by the
passing of the act to provide against dissolution without
its consent, and two days latter, Strafford, its most
formidable enemy, was executed on Tower Hill.
On the very day of the latter event, the Commons
were sitting to hear Dr John Hacket argue the case for
the cathedral establishments. Rumour of impending
reform had created considerable alarm in the ranks of
the episcopalian clergy, and, as the assistance of counsel
was not admitted, Hacket had been deputed to urge their
claims before the House. He was opposed by Cornelius
Burgess, but, after hearing both speakers, the Parliament
determined to put the matter temporarily aside'. The
attack on the bishops next came under consideration.
A.bilL fiar the exclusion of the clergy from secular offices,
: and for the removal of the bishops frorn the House of
Lords had already passed the Commons and. had been
sent up to the Lords on May i. Here it had not
unnaturally encountered opposition, and theJJpper House
had finally agreed to the exclusion pfthe, dergy ftpm
I seculaufjoffices, but had decided that the bishops should
retain their seats'. This rejection of a measure upon
which they had set their hearts would not have been
^ Stoughton : Church of the Civil Wars, pp. 142-4.
2 Ibid. p. 145, and Gardiftfcr : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, ix, 347.

THE PRELUDE 35
endured by the Commons, and a dead-lock would probably
have been the result had not the issue involved been
unexpectedly raised in another and a more direct form.
On May 27, while the Commons were discussing a
petition from Lincolnshire praying for the abolition of
episcopal government. Sir Edward Dering suddenly and
without previous notice brought forward a bill for the
"utter abolishing and taking away of all Archbishops,
Bishops," and the whole body of the episcopal and
capitular establishment. The motion emanated from the
extreme party of reformers, but Dering's motives in
proposing it are shrouded in some mystery, for he was at
that time regarded as one of the more moderate among
the Puritans. In the short speech in which he introduced
the bill, he announced that if his former hopes of a "full
reformation " could be revived, he would reconsider his
opinion on the present proposal, and his action seems to
have been dictated either by a desire to raise the question
in a definite form or to induce the Lords to accept the
bishops' exclusion'. After some demur, the bill was
proceeded with, and passed its first reading by a majority
of 135 to 108. On June 11, it had reached the com
mittee stage'. On June 21, the younger Vane brought
forward a proposal to replace the authority of the bishops
by a commission, half lay, half clerical, in each diocese'
and on July 17 the substance of his scheme was ac
cepted with the difference that the clerical element was
to be excluded entirely^ On June 15, the Commons
Jbad passed a resolution to the effect that Deans and
Chapters should be abolished, and that their lands should
be devoted to the advancement of learning and piety.
"~^ » Stoughton: Church of the Civil Wars, pp. 146-7, and Gardiner: Hist.
.of Eng. 1603-43, ix, 382.
2 Gardiner : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, ix, 387.
3 Ibid, ix, 390.
* Ibid, ix, 408.
3—2

36 THE PURITANS IN POWER
They also resolved that the forfeited lands should be
entrusted to feoffees and that the bishops' lands should
be given to the King'.
It appeared as if the final abolition of episcopal
government was about to become an accomplished fact,
but at this point the progress was checked. Early in
August, the King set out for Scotland, and the Parlia
mentary leaders, unwilling for the moment to arouse
unnecessary hostility, allowed the "Root and Branch"
bill to drop'. On the reassembling of Parliament in the
following October, it was abandoned, and the question
was for the moment shelved. One solid result of the
debates on Episcopacy was, however, soon to be con
summated. On October 21, a second Bishops' Exclusion
gill was introduced in the Commons. There was still
a strong feeling of opposition in the Lords, but on Feb
ruary 5 it was allowed to pass, and obtained the King's
sanction on February 13, 164 1/2'. For the present
this represented the limits in the progress of the attack
.upon the hierarchy.
— ^ The outbreak of the Civil War at once placed the
matter upon a different footing, and rendered possible
that which had been found impracticable while peace was
outwardly maintained. In the first place, the negotiations
with the Scots obliged the Parliament to declare itself
more unequivocally on the subject of Church government,
for it was clear that the abolition of Episcopacy would be
a necessary preliminary to an understanding. Accordingly
a bill for that purpose was introduced in the Commons
on December 30, 1642, and passed both houses on
January 26, following^ An additional motive, which
may have influenced the initial step, as it certainly served
1 Stoughton : Church of the Civil Wars, p. 156 ; Rushworth, iv, 285.
2 Gardiner : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, x, i.
3 Ibid, x, n, 163, 165.
* Commons' fournals, ii, 906; Lords' fournals, v, 572.

THE PRELUDE 37
ultimately to make it irrevocable, was the necessity of pro
viding for the expenses of the war out of the property
of the Church.
The idea of sequestrating ecclesiastical property for
one purpose or another did not originate with the
outbreak of the war; from 1641 onwards several schemes
with this object had been put forward and discussed.
But during the early years of the war, bishops and the
members of cathedral bodies were treated on the same
footing as other "delinquents," that is to say, their
estates were seized and the revenues were applied "to
the use, and for the maintaining of the army and forces
raised by the Parliament, and such other uses as shall be
directed by both Houses of Parliament'." In the course
of time, however, the march of political events, and
particularly the financial obligations to the Scots,
necessitated the adoption of some more radical methods
with respect to ecclesiastical property. In these circum
stances, a proposal was brought forward in September
1645, that both episcopal and capitular lands should be
sold, and the proceeds devoted to State purposes'.
l^othing came of this measure, but a similar proposal
touching episcopal lands only was brought forward in
the following year, and on October 9, 1646, passed
both Houses. Two years and a half later, on April 30,
! 1649, the lands of the Deans and Chapters met with the
same fate.
In alienating the church property, the Pariiamentary
leaders do not appear to have had the purpose of sealing
the overthrow of Episcopacy more effectively than they
had hitherto done, but such nevertheless was the practical
result of their action. It is necessary to draw a clear
1 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i, io6, 109.
2 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 210.

38 THE PURITANS IN POWER
distinction between this ordinance, which decreed that
the lands should be sold outright, and the earlier
ordinances which had merely sequestrated the revenues.
As long as the revenues only were touched, the bishops
were in the position of other "delinquents," capable
of rehabilitation, but the sale of their lands, by depriving
them of their position and means of subsistence, struck
a blow at the constitution of their order. The King's
assent to the abolition bill of January 26, 1642/3, had
been demanded in the Parliament's propositions at
Oxford in February of the same year, and again at the
treaty of Uxbridge in January 1644/5 ; it had also formed
part of the Newcastle propositions in July 1646. It is
rather remarkable that in the Heads of the Proposals,
put forward in August 1647, after the sale of episcopal
lands had been decreed and partially carried out, the
demand should, for the first time, assume a more
moderate form and require only that an act should be
passed " to take away all coercive power, authority, and
jurisdiction of Bishops," thus tacitly conceding the
continuance of the office. The explanation, of course,
lies in the fact that the last mentioned propositions
emanated from the Army leaders who did not consider
themselves bound by the former policy of the Parliament
any more than they shared their views on Church
government, but in reality the ordinance which authorised
the sales had considerably complicated the whole question.
It had created, in the persons of the buyers, a vested
interest opposed to any settlement which did not con
firm the abolition of Episcopacy, and to such terms
Charles would never agree. The difficulty was to
prove one of the rocks on which the final negotiations
broke down.
The abolition of the liturgy accompanied the over
throw of episcopal government. The Book of Common

THE PRELUDE 39
Prayer had not at first been assailed when the Long
Parliament met ; it was at that time, says Clarendon,
"much reverenced throughout the Kingdom'," and the
attack upon it was gradual and was directed, in the first
instance, against certain forms contained in the book
rather than against the book as a whole. The Lords'
Committee on innovations, appointed on March i,
1 640/ 1, had discussed revision, but their proposals on
this and other subjects came to nothing. The Commons'
resolutions on innovations, passed in September 1641,
while directing that communion-tables should be moved,
rails taken away, chancels levelled, and all ritualistic
accessories abolished, contained no mention of the
Prayer Book, and at one point in the debate Culpeper
was able to carry a resolution that it should remain
without alteration and be observed with all reverence'.
Nor did the subject appear in the Grand Remonstrance,
though a rather more hostile spirit had been evinced in
the preliminary debates. The " declarations on Church
Reform" of April 8, and the "Nineteen Propositions"
of June I, 1642, refer vaguely to a reform of the
liturgy', but no radical change seems to have been
contemplated until the adoption of the Presbyterian
model necessitated the disuse of traditional forms and
the substitution of the Directory for Public Worship.
The ordinance for taking away the Book of Common
Prayer was passed on January 4, 1644/5'. On the
same day the Lords passed the Act of Attainder
against Laud. He had been impeached of high treason
on December 18, 1640, and from that date, although
his trial did not actually begin until 1644, he had
1 Clarendon : Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), i, 383.
2 Ibid, i, 384, note
3 S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents, pp. 247, 252.
4 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i, 582.

40 THE PURITANS IN POWER
been in imprisonment, and had thus been withdrawn
jJEpm the conflict during the years which witnessed the
overthrow of the English Church. His execution took
place on January lo, 1644/5, ^^^ by this act of
injustice, the Long Parliament crowned their work of
-destruction.

CHAPTER II
THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY
Any one who sets out to estimate the general
standard of piety and learning among the clergy of the
seventeenth century, is confronted with the existence
of two apparently quite distinct classes, the one eminent
for the virtues and attainments which the other as
conspicuously lacked. In the high offices of the Church
were men of great parts and holy life, not unfit to be
compared with the English ecclesiastics of any preceding
or succeeding age, men whose characters, as well as their
positions, claimed general respect. In an age when
academic distinction was the surest road to preferment,
the Universities were well-provided with eminent divines,
and many of the London parishes and a certain number
of country cures were no less fortunate. The encomium,
bestowed upon such by Clarendon, is hardly overdrawn
when he speaks of " the Church flourishing with learned
and extraordinary men," and states that "there was not
one Churchman in any degree of favour or acceptance...
of a scandalous insufficiency in learning, or of a more
scandalous condition of life ; but, on the contrary, most
of them of confessed eminent parts in knowledge, and
of virtuous or unblemished lives'." On the other Jhand,
the ordinary^country clergyman and, indeed, the inferior
qlergy taken as a whole, appear as,i)-£lQngLngL, to another
1 Clarendon : Hist, of the RebelliongeiA. Macray), i, 95, 97.

42 THE PURITANS IN POWER
class, lower in social status, in education, and in general
qualifications.
— -- The traditional explanation of this disparity has been
the poverty of benefices, the ranks from which the great
majority of the clergy were drawn and the low estimation
in which the clerical profession was held by the genteel
classes. To some extent this is a correct explanation,
but Macaulay's estimate of the clergy in the latter part
of the seventeenth century', which has been largely
responsible for it, was elaborately answered by Churchill
Babington in 1849 and in some points disproved'. The
controversy between these two writers turned on the use
of authorities, and on how far the country parson of
contemporary satire might be considered as a true
picture. The evidence of seventeenth century writers is not
wanting, but it is somewhat contradictory, and the
popularity of the less favourable view is probably due to
the dramatists whose works are naturally more widely
known than those of preachers or pamphleteers. One or
two of the latter kind may, however, be noticed as giving
a less fanciful sketch.
In an interesting book, published early in the century,
the writer, himself a clergyman, expostulates with the
gentry of his day for contributing towards the contempt
in which the lower ranks of the clergy were held, by
refusing to allow their sons to take orders, and speaks
of the office being entrusted to " the basest of the people
and lowest sort... because the wise men of the world,
men of might, and the noble, hold it derogatorie to their
dignities'." A not dissimilar line was taken in 1670 by
' Macaulay : Hist, of Eng. (popular ed. 1895), i, 158-163.
2 Churchill Babington: Mr Macaulay s Character of the Clergy...
considered. 3 Richard Bernard : The Faithfull Shepheard, p. 5.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 43
John Eachard, the Master of St Catharine's Hall,
Cambridge, in a tract entitled The Grounds and
Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy.
This work is written in a light and satirical vein and
was probably intended to exaggerate the case, but the
main purpose of the author was to draw attention to an
evil and was serious enough. A large part of his tract
is devoted to the inadequate education which the clergy
received and to the consequent absurdities of the common
manner of preaching, but he goes on to describe the
private lives of the country clergy and their extreme
poverty by which "their sacred profession is much
disparaged, and their doctrine undervalued'."
" I am almost confident," he writes, " tbat since the
Reformation, nothing has more hindred people from a
just estimation of a form of prayer, and our holy Liturgy,
than employing a company of boyes or old illiterate
mumblers, to read the service'. "
The chief causes of the evil state of affairs he thought
were the facts that the ministry was overstocked and
underpaid and that the gentry designed " not onely the
weak, the lame, and usually the most ill-favour'd of their
children for the office of the ministry, but also such
as they intend to settle nothing upon for their subsistance ;
leaving them wholly to the bare hopes of Church prefer
ment'." The publication of the tract aroused a considerable
amount of indignation and led to a series of "answers "
and "replies." It is noticeable, however, that Eachard's
critics did not deny that the clergy were poor or that there
were cases of gross ignorance : they quarrel rather with his
method of dealing with the subject and with the reasons
1 Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy (1670), p. 82.
2 Ibid. p. 106.
3 Ibid. pp. Ill, 115, 118.

44 THE PURITANS IN POWER
which he had assigned for the existence of the evil. "It
is a grave subject you enquire into," one of his opponents
told him, " and such as in sober sadness deserves to be
enquired into, but the hianner of your enquiry is too
facetious and jocular." His work, in fact, was calculated
to make the clergy "more obnoxious and contemptible
than yet we are'."
" I freely grant," says the same writer, " among the
many looo clergymen that are in England, divers may
be dull and heavy, but why should this reflect more upon
the whole body of the clergy to their dishonour, than the
learning of some does to their honour'." This ignorance,
however, was due to "want of books, want of time to
make the best use of those few we have, and want of
converse with learned men'," and the contempt in which
they were held was due to the hostility of the Roman
Catholics, the Nonconformists and the young " blades,"
who sought to foster it, rather than to the circumstances
of their own condition. As to that part of Eachard's
tract that dealt with their poverty, he wishes that he
could confute it, "but (though you hyperbolize grievously
in that part of your discourse) there is too much truth
in it to be contradicted^" Another writer, while con
tending that Eachard's account had made the poverty of
the clergy appear " far more extreme and desperate than
in truth it is," also admits the truth of the general state-
ment^ So also Barnabas Oley, in his preface to the edition
of George Herbert's Priest to the Temple, published
in 1671, alludes to their poverty as a well-known fact, "so
far from being a Ground of Contempt, that it is a Cause
'^ An answer to a letter of Enquiry into the Grounds, etc. (1671), p. 78
and preface.
2 Ibid. p. 24. 3 jf^a_ p_ ^5 4 m^ p 82
* A vindication of the Clergy from the contempt imposed upon them, etc.
(1672), p. 28. Quoted by Churchill Babington, p. 60.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 45
of Commiseration and Honour." The low social standing
of the clergy, on the other hand, he seeks to refute by
instancing several cases in which members of noble
families had entered the profession. "Though the
vulgar," he says, "ordinarily do not, yet the Nobility
and Gentry do distinguish and abstract the Errors of the
man, from the Holy Calling, and not think their dear
relation degraded by Receiving Holy Orders'."
There is a general consensus of agreement, then, that
the clergy of the seventeenth century were poor— poorer
probably than in the periods which preceded and
succeeded. The Reformation had impoverished the
revenues of the Church and, at the same time, the
substitution of married clergy, in a system designed for
the support of celibates, had added to the difficulties of
the situation, and rendered the servants of the Church
relatively worse off than they had been in pre-Reforma
tion days. Again, the increased value of land in the
eighteenth century brought with it a corresponding rise
in the value of country livings and may have contributed
to the improvement in the social condition of the clerical
profession in the age which succeeded, but George
Herbert's " Country Parson " is essentially the picture of
a poor man. " The furniture of his house," is described
as " very plain, but clean, whole, and sweet, as sweet as
his garden can make ; for he hath no mony for such
things, charity being his only perfume, which deserves
¦1 See also Hieragonisticon or CoraKs Doom (1672). Eachard published
answers to the three tracts cited above, under the titles Some Observations
upon the Answers to an Enquiry, etc., A letter to T. D. the author of
Hieragonisticon, A letter to B. O. the publisher of Mr Herberts Country
Parson, and A letter to the author of a Vindication of the Clergy. His
answers maintain the same spirit of raillery that had characterised his
original work, but he takes some pains to show that his object had not
been to bring the clergy into contempt. For a short rdsumd of some
of these authorities see Bruce Blaxland : The Struggle with Puritanism,
pp. 151-3.

46 THE PURITANS IN POWER
cost when he can spare it'," and this may probably be
taken as a typical description.
But, in spite of this, it may be doubted whether the
material prosperity of the clergy in the seventeenth
century was on a much lower level than it is at the
present day. The average income of a country clergy
man was undoubtedly very low, but livings which would
even now be considered substantial were not as uncommon
as is generally supposed'. In the second place, incomes
of thirty or forty pounds a year, on which some clergy
men had to subsist, do not represent an equal sum at the
present day, because the standard of living in the middle
and lower classes was on a much more modest scale, and
expenses, especially in the isolation of a country village,
would be fewer and smaller. The economic conditions,
in fact, were entirely different, and the lack of what would
now be regarded as the ordinary accessories of a respect
able household cannot be taken as a necessary indication
of extreme poverty. Even Eachard's picture of a country
clergyman's ill-supplied house and library of a dozen
books and "a boudget of old stitch'd sermons'" is not
so far from the truth as it appears, and this is shown by
an interesting inventory of a contemporary parsonage —
that of Prestwich in Lancashire, the contents of which
were sequestrated from the rector, Isaac Allen, in 1645*.
This was a good living, worth, according to Walker,
;^400 a year", but the total furniture and household stuff
' G. Herbert : A Priest to the Temple (1671), p. 36.
2 The articles of accusation presented against the clergy of Cambridgeshire
before the local Parliamentary Committee, generally give the value of the
living and show that the average income of twenty-four parishes was rougM/
£%^ per ann. (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672), but in Walker's list, in the
second part of the Sufferings of the Clergy, livings of ^£300 and ;^4oo^ and
even more, are not uncommon.
3 Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt, etc. p. 87.
* See Appendix i.
5 John Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. ii. 183.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 47
of what seems to have been a large house, was only
valued at a Httle over sixty-one pounds, and the rector's
modest library ("not prized") contained no more than a
hundred and fifty books. In fact, even though the very
poorest vicarages have now been improved by schemes
for augmentation, so that the average value of livings
has been raised, it must be conceded that the modern
clergyman has a much more difficult position to support.
For there can be very little question but that one of
the principal differences, which distinguish the modern
country clergyman from his predecessor of the seventeenth
century, is that of social status.
The strata of society in the seventeenth century were
set on broader and less complex lines than those of to
day. On the one hand, a wider gap separated the
nobility and landed gentry from what would now be
called the middle classes, but, on the other, below this
main division there were fewer of those subtle grades
which characterise the modern social arrangement. It
was not, therefore, that the clergy were recruited from a
different class, but rather that they were drawn from a
greater number of classes. ThLe_Jiobility_and-_upp£r.
classes did not favour prdgrs j.s a professjon_Jbr_their,
sons. Members of good families were of course, to be
found not infrequently among the clergy, but Barnabas
Oley's instances prove that it was the exception rather
than the rule. The Church no longer offered positions
of such pomp and circumstance as it had in the days of
the great statesmen prelates of pre-Reformation times,
although its high places were still the seats of power and
influence, and the way was left open for men of humbler
extraction who had the ability to attain to it. Laud
himself started with no "family interest" or any advantages
beyond what his own worth gave him, and the famous
Jeremy Taylor was the son of a Cambridge barber. But

48 THE PURITANS IN POWER
though the gulf fixed between the classes was not so
formidable but that merit could overcome it, it was yet
wide enough to make a very real difference between the
people on the opposite sides. The system probably had
the advantage of bringing the most able men to the
front, but it did nothing for those whose lot fell in
humbler stations. The ordinary parish priest had little
prospect of ever becoming anything more, and, as the
"Office was ill-paid and somewhat despised, it required a
considerable measure of self-sacrifice in a man of social
position, like George Herbert, who deliberately chose to
s^Fve the Church in this humble capacity'. There was
no dearth of candidates for orders — indeed Eachard
complains that they were too numerous in his day —
but the conditions of life naturally affected their standard.
The mere fact that the clergy were ill-paid and were
largely drawn from the humbler ranks of society only
touches the question of their efficiency indirectly and in
so far as it deprived them of opportunities and education,
and the fact that a certain number were ill-fitted for the
profession must be attributed partly to the general laxity
of Church discipline which Laud had set himself to
reform. The evil undoubtedly existed, and the ec
clesiastical visitations of the reign of Charles I revealed
many facts which called for redress among the clergy as
well as among the churches. When, for example, in
1625, John Cosin carried out his visitation as archdeacon
of the East Riding of Yorkshire he found a generally
unsatisfactory state of affairs. If the queries contained in
his visitation articles may be accepted as evidence of the
kind of irregularities which he expected to encounter, it
would seem that lack of episcopal ordination and simony
' George Herbert's " Country Parson" is supposed to be likely to bring up
his eldest son to his own profession. His younger children he will probably
bind apprentices to trades. A Priest to the Temple (1671), p. 33.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 49
were not unknown, while there are indications of con
siderable laxity in the performance of the Church services'.
" Well may your Worship terme these tymes of neglect,"
writes one of his correspondents at this time, "for even
in the clergy I fynd great defect in the performance of
reall duties'."
The visitations of 1638 again show the inner work
ings of Laud's system, and give a very fair idea of the
condition of the ordinary parish of the time. As in 1625,
cases of irregularity and neglect are common. At Histon
in Cambridgeshire, for example, it was reported that Mr
Slegg, the vicar, " never served the cure himself, but takes
all the profitts and getts young Scholars to read prayers
and preach, but whether laymen or no will not be known,
because the Churchwardens dare not displease Mr Slegg'."
At S. Mary's in Wisbech, it was stated that Mr Edward
Furnis, the vicar, "receiveth the profits but doth not serve
the cure well, sometimes wee have prayers on Sundays
and sometimes not," various instances of neglect being
cited. More commonly the cause of complaint was
breach of the Canons. At S. Peter's in Wisbech, a
number of witnesses testified to various irregularities.
"We are informed that the Communion hath been re
ceived sitting. Our curate doth not preach in his hood.
Our vicar doth serve 2 cures, the one 2 miles from
the other. No catechising but in Lent. No sermons
in the afternoon... the Sacrament is not performed
according to the 24th article of the 4th Cap. The
26th article altogether neglected," and so forth. In
Streatham it was reported that " the minister turneth his
face towards the west when he kneeleth," and at Elm the
vicar was presented "for not wearing, a hood contrary to
^ Cosin's Correspondence (Surtees Soc), i, pp. xviii, io6.
2 Ibid. p. 82, Letter from Robert Claphamson, notary-public at York.
3 Baker Collection (B.M.), vol. vi, fol. 322.
T. P. 4

50 THE PURITANS IN POWER
the 24th article," for not catechising except in Lent, and
for not observing the orders mentioned in the sixth
article. At Emneth the minister did not catechise and
did not use the form of prayer provided in the book
of articles : at Leverington it was complained that
"Mr Bayley, the incumbent, did not preach in a surplice
and did not read the second service, and that he allowed
his son, who was not in orders, to read prayers.
In many cases, there were, of course, extenuating
circumstances which appear to have been taken as an
excuse. Bayley, for example, explained that his son had
been obliged to read prayers because he himself was ill,
and on account of the "scarcitie of ministers to officiate."
Similarly Edward Furnis of Wisbech was excused on
the ground of sickness.
Of the presentment of parishioners, also, there are
several instances. At Coveney it was reported that
" Many of the hamlet of Maney who ought to bring their
children to this Church to be baptized have carried them
to Doddington." " Roger Beaumont and Thomasine his
wife " were presented " for not repairing to their parish
church att the time of divine service." At Streatham,
Thomas Low was presented for not paying his rate to
the church, and Robert Turner for not receiving the
Communion at Easter, while at Leverington many
parishioners were said to be absent from prayers. There
are also some quaint instances of disagreement between
the clergyman and his parishioners. In the report from
Leverington it was alleged that : "Mr Bayley did strike
one Thomas Laryware in the Church upon a Sunday and
putteth Cattell in the Churchyard." To this Bayley, the
vicar, appears to have replied that " the said Laryware
misbehaveing himselfe by laughing he being neere him
gave the said Laryware with his hand a little stroake
on his head." With regard to the second charge

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 51
" Mr Bayley saith that he hath not putt any cattell into
the Churchyard this 20 years... and further alleageth that
he letteth the Churchyard to the parishioners there, and
the cattell which are putt in are by them'."
From other parts the reports were more serious. In
the diocese of Lincoln, Laud was informed that " in
divers parts of that diocese many both of clergy and
laity are excessively given to drunkenness," and in
Gloucester Bishop Goodman reported that though "to
his knowledge he never gave holy orders to an unworthy
person," yet he was " forced to ordain some very mean
ministers'," while in the diocese of Rochester a clergyman
was sentenced " for drunkenness, profaning of marriages,
and making men live in perpetual adultery, that he is
a briber, a beggar, a drunkard, a Bedlam'." Nor was
this all. " It is certain," says Mr Hutton, " that in many
cases the grossest irreverence prevailed in the use of
parish churches \"
This was the state of affairs reported to the bishops
in 1638. Some two years later, a somewhat similar
picture is revealed in the various petitions, hostile to
Episcopacy and the clergy of the Church of England,
which were presented to the Long Parliament. The
Kent petition against Episcopacy, for example, which
jstas introduced into the House of Commons by Sir
Edward Dering in January 1641, speaks of "the great
increase of idle, lewd, dissolute, ignorant and erronious
men in the ministry, which swarme like locusts of Egypt
over the whole kingdome"," and an equally unfavourable
1 These cases are taken from the Ely Diocese Visitation Book (Ely
Episcopal Register, B. 3).
2 W. H. Hutton : Hist, of the English Church from the accession of
Charles I to the death of Anne, p. 60.
3 Ibid. p. 71.
* Ibid. p. 50 ; see also Stoughton : Church of the Civil Wars, p. 30.
' Proceedings in Kent, ed. by L. B. Larking (Camden Soc. 1861), pp. 31-2.
4—2

52 THE PURITANS IN POWER
spirit permeates other documents of a like nature. A
certain margin must, of course, be allowed for the
exaggeration of avowed enemies to the prevailing system,
while the evidence supplied by the petitions of individual
parishes must, for reasons to be given later, in many
cases be discounted altogether ; but, taken in conjunction
with the bishops' reports, the natural assumption is that
the complaints were not without foundation. Even
amongst the parochial petitions, a few stray facts, gleaned
from the mass of less reliable material, occasionally throw
i additional light upon the character of the clergy, and not
always to their credit'.
Still, Walker himself, who denies the credibility of
the charges brought against the clergy, reasonably admits
that it would be " false, as well as ridiculous, to affirm,
that there were hot in those (or indeed any other times)
among the whole body of the clergy, any men of wicked
lives, and such as were even a reproach and scandal to
their function'." A certain number of such cases were
inevitable at any period, but the available evidence
suggests that the general state of affairs could not be
regarded as either healthy or satisfactory.
The strength of the Laudians and Puritans respect
ively among the clergy was on a very different scale
to that in the lay population. According to the Valor
Beneficiorum, published in 1695, there appear to have
then been, roughly speaking, about eight thousand six
hundred benefices in England and Wales. A rather
later authority' states that there were overjiinejhousand,
but the former is probably the more reliable figure.
Walker's list of parochial sequestrations contained just
1 See, for example, a letter to Sir Edward Dering from a minister named
Nicols, practically admitting faults. Proceedings in Kent, pp. iio-iii.
2 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 72.
3 J. Withers : Remarks on Dr Walker's late Preface to the Attempt, 171 7.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 53
over tWQLlhousand names, from which some reduction
must be made for those cases where the same man is
mentioned more than once. But this list, as we shall see
later on, was incomplete, and the probability is that the
number of ejections was considerably larger than that.
John Withers, one of Walker's critics, seemed prepared
to admit, from the evidence supplied by the printed list
of clergy ejected by the Parliament in Hampshire, that
a third of the total number, that is to say about three
thousand, were ejected'. He shows indeed that the
proportion in Norfolk, Cambridge, and Suffolk, according
to Walker, only worked out at a little under a sixth, but
these counties were essentially Puritan in tone and there
fore not a fair test, especially as the proportion varies
enormously. Practically aU. tbose_wiiQ_were.-sequestered
would be royalists. and_ nearly, all " High ".Chmxlinien,
and yet we must suppose that a certain numberjesjcaped
ejection dthe-c_hii:-X.QnJGarjming^~lF'"'sonie^^^ means.
Altogether, counting those who were ejected and those
who escaped, it does not seem unreasonable to place the
number of Laudian clergy at about four thnn.sat?dt__The
genuine Puritans, on the other hand, wer e_ i n _a _ y er y
distinctrninority. and probably did not number aJthcmsand
jn_all. The balance was with those who ...had not
identifiedLjthemselv€s--wJtb tl^-extreinista.-Qn,either side.
This last fact, as has already been seen, holds good for
_th^ lay population also, but here the similarity ends, for
the Laudians had little or no following amongst the mass
of the people.
But though the lower classes were undoubtedly
hostile to the system in Church as well as in State, the
real influence of mobs is apt to be overestimated, and to
appear proportionate to the disturbance which they
> J. Withers : Remarks on Dr Walker's late Preface to the Attempt, 6th
remark.

54 THE PURITANS IN POWER
create. As a matter of fact, the hostility of this class to
the Established Church cannot have been the result of
enlightened speculation on the respective claims of
Episcopacy and Presbytery to be considered jure divino,
but was rather due to a vague sense of oppression,
coupled with an innate propensity for faction.
In any case, it will be seen that the weight of the
clergy was distributed in precisely opposite proportion to
that of the laity, and that the reforms most popular with
the one were the most disliked by the other. Having
arrived at this point, it is more or less of a platitude to
point out that the clergy were, very often, out of .sympathy
with the views which recommended themselves to their
parishioners. We should, indeed, be led to expect that
the popularity or the reverse of any individual jt»arish
priest was very much a personal matter, and that, ^in
country districts especially, this would have counted for
more than differences on questions of ritual and Church
government. On the whole this impression is borne out
by the general attitude of the parishes during the course
of the sequestrations. It is difficult to imagine that the
underlying Puritanism of the rustic population would, if
left to itself, have taken any very concrete form, had not
external events reacted upon it. One thing, however, all
claJsses seem to have had very clearly in their minds,
namely, an intense dread of anything that savoured of
popery. The orders enforced by the Laudian bishops
were misinterpreted by the Puritans to bear this construc
tion, and therefore, in parishes where the Laudian system
was in vogue, in spite of the opposition of the general
wishes of the parish, strained relations were often created.
The latent discontent which undoubtedly existed in
many parishes under Laud's rdgim^ was soon to receive
an impetus from the course which events were taking.
With the meeting of the Long Parliament in November

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 55
1640, a new complexion was put upon religious affairs.
The supremacy of the Laudian party, which had been all
powerful while Charles' personal rule had lasted, and had
escaped attack by the dissolution of the Short Parlia
ment, was at once successfully assailed. In a very short
space of time. Laud was in prison, and the Puritan spirit
throughout the country was let loose.
At first the hostility to the Established Church, both
in and out of Parliament, was cautiously displayed. The
most noticeable feature of the growing assertion of the
prevalent discontent was evinced in the petitions and
complaints which, side by side with the larger motions
directed against Episcopacy as a whole, now began to be
presented by various parishes throughout the kingdom.
The Commons Journals from 1640 onwards are full of
such petitions, illustrative of the effect produced in the
parishes throughout certain districts by the trend of
events. At first they take the form of complaints or
informations against the clergyman of the parish, usually
on the ground that he was disaffected to the Parliament,
but not infrequently containing more serious charges.
The general tenor of these petitions accorded well
with the spirit which was then animating Parliament,
where antagonism to Laud was rife. One of their
earliest actions had been to appoint a Grand Com
mittee of Religion to deal with ecclesiastical affairs
generally, but the work occasioned by the petitions in
creased so fast that further arrangements had to be
made. On November 23, 1640, a sub-committee of the
Grand Committee was formed with Sir Edward Dering
as chairman'; on December 12, the "Committee for
Scandalous Ministers" was first nominated'.
So ready did the Commons appear to receive these
* Proceedings in Kent, p. 80.
2 W. A. Shaw: Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 177.

56 THE PURITANS IN POWER
indications of feeling that Clarendon and other royalist
writers have accused them of deliberately exploiting the
popular discontent. In support of this contention, for
example. Walker quotes a printed leaflet which, he says,
was unofficially circulated by the leaders of the Puritan
party in the Parliament'. In this the earnest desire and
expectation of the Parliament was expressed that "all
ingenuous persons in every county of the kingdom, will be
very active to improve the present opportunity, by giving
a true information of all the parishes in their several
counties," with the further assurance that the Committee
desired "informations from all parties."
With regard to the petitions themselves which were
presented in response to this appeal, Walker states that
they were generally the work of a body of ignorant
sectaries, often "the meanest and most vicious" in the
parish, and expresses his disgust that "a few of the
rabble, much the least and worst part of their parish (and
sometimes a single person, though a profligate drunken
blasphemer, though a profest enemy to his minister, and
made so either by reproof for his vices, or by prosecution
for his inconformity) should be heard in Parliament
against a clergyman'."
There can be little doubt that, as in the case of the
|:ounty petitions against Episcopacy, a good deal was
done by way of private instigation, to procure signatures
to the petitions, and that they hardly ever represent the
spontaneous action of the parish. It is certain that these
|)arochial movements were attended with a considerable
amount of corrupt practice.
The somewhat precarious position of- the Long
Parliament, during the initial stages of their existence,
rendered them peculiarly suspicious of hostility, and
quick to stamp out what might be regarded as a covert
1 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 64. 2 /^^^ p. 71.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 57
attack. Although, therefore, the parochial petitions dealt
with a variety of subjects, it was chiefly the charges of
" disaffection " which attracted their attention, and it is
evident from cases in the Commons Journals that to be
guilty of this offence was of itself sufficient to condemn
to imprisonment'. At the. same time, it is improbable,
at that date at all events, that the Parliament, though
ready to receive petitions, took any official steps to
promote them.
In connection with the second point, brought forward
by Walker, that is to say the character of the petitioners,
the evidence supplied by the proceedings of Sir Edward
Dering's Committee is extremely instructive'. This was
one of the offshoots of the original Committee for Religion
(already described), and, in the course of its existence, it
dealt with numerous petitions from the county of Kent.
It may be that these were not quite characteristic of the
petitions throughout the country, but the impression
derived from them is not such as to warrant Walker's
violent generalisations. Perhaps the most common
complaints are those of non-residence or neglect of duties,
"innovations in doctrine," and disputes about tithes.
There are very few charges of drunkenness and hardly
any of vice. On the other hand, several of the petitions
dealt with the questions of. the-inaufficient. nurnber of
clergy to serve -the—Gburches in_J;he_ county, and the
insufficient stipends of those who did so, subjects which
might well engage the attention of a committee bent
only upon improving the service of the Church. There
are also a number of petitions in favour of the clergyman,
1 Thus, there is an order of January 22, 1640/1, that "Geo. Preston,
Vicar of Rothersthorpe, for very scandolous speeches, spoken by him against
this House, (the which words are contained in a Petition delivered into this
House, and were all clearly proved...) be forthwith committed to the prison
at the Gatehouse." Commons' Journals, ii, 71.
2 Given in the Proceedings in Kent.

58 THE PURITANS IN POWER
though not so much with a view to rebutting charges, as
Ivith the purpose of obtaining for him some augmentation
^f income. But, at the same time, there is no lack of cases in
which bad feeling and discontent are revealed. These
are usually numerously signed, but one or two instances
which occur in the course of the proceedings show how
little a wealth of signatures may mean. In the case of
Dr Meric Casaubon, vicar of Minster and Monkton, we
have both the petitions of his two parishes and his reply
to the articles of complaint'. He was charged with
observing the innovations, with exQLbitaJit_demand.s in
the matter of tidies, and with neglect of his cure, and
although his replies appear satisfactory, he seems to have
suffered ejection. The next evidence on the subject is
contained in a letter written to Casaubon by six of his
former parishioners in 1 647. The letter has an interest
beyond the mere point at issue as showing into what
hands the sequestered livings sometimes fell, and it is
worth reproducing at length.
" We cannot but let you know," the parishioners
write, "of our great sufferings under Mr Culmer which you
cannot but be sensible of These 3 last sabbaths we have
had tumults in our church between the poor people
and Mr Culmer, the poor people being resolved he shall
not continue there : And we whose names are under sub
scribed, doe fere that the difference if not suddainely
prevented will be the cause of bloodshed. We desire
your worship to be pleased to doe as some other of your
own coate doth at this present, that is to desire your
living againe, and that your parishioners may keepe in
there hands there tithes and to be accountable to your
worship for them, and if you think not fit to come there
your selfe that you would endeavour to get order to send
' Proceedings in Kent, pp. 104- no.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY

59

a curate that he may officiate for you, and we shall ever
remain your humble parishioners'."
This must be read in the light of the fact that six
years previously Casaubon had been ejected on a petition
signed by thirty-three from Minster and four from
Monkton. This in itself throws light on the capricious
feeling of the inhabitants, but the remarkable fact is that
of the six parishioners who signed this letter, asking
Casaubon to return, all but one had also signed the
jpetition urging that he should be supplanted.
It might, of course, be possible to explain this by
merely assuming that the parishioners in question had
learnt wisdom by experience, and had found that
Puritanism in the person of Mr Culmer was even less
to be desired than the ceremonial innovations and other
short-comings of Casaubon, but the case of another Kent
minister named Richard Tray suggests the possibility of
another explanation.
On February 8, 1 640/1, a petition against this
minister was presented to the House of Commons'. It
was attested by eight members of his parish of Lidsing
and Bredhurst, and dealt with several charges, neglect of
his cure, being "very contentious" and "a stirrer up of
suits" and "given to fighting," while he was further
accused of betraying the confidences of a sick man. The
materials for his defence, which Tray sent to an in
fluential friend in London, contained, besides a refutation
of the charges, signed by various witnesses, a testimonial
1 A copy of this letter was sent to Walker by John Lewis, Casaubon's
successor in the living of Minster (MSS. J. Walker, c. 7. fol. 11 1).
Concerning Culmer, Lewis says, "no man was ever more hated than he,
and to this day spoken of by those that remember him with all the dislike
imaginable. He went by the name of 'blew dick' and has left behind him
the character of a very turbulent, unquiet and debauched man." Walker
makes no use of this information, so perhaps it reached him too late for
incorporation in his book. The letter is dated Sept. 23, 1710.
2 Proceedings in Kent, pp. 160-173.

6o THE PURITANS IN POWER
in his favour signed by twenty-three parishioners. They
also included signed confessions from five out of his eight
accusers, admitting that they had been prevailed upon to
give their signatures to the petition by the malpractices
of one Edward Alchorne, whose name had headed the
list. Three of these had signed when " overtaken with
drink," one had been bribed, and another had been
deceived by a misrepresentation of the facts. The
proceedings do not show what reception was given to
this mass of evidence, but Walker states that about this
time Tray was ejected from the living of S. Mary's in
Hoo by the Committee for Plundered Ministers'.
The peculiar circumstances of Tray's case stand alone
as far as the extant records of the proceedings in Kent
are concerned, but, having regard to the times, there is
at all events a presumption that what happened in one
place may have also happened elsewhere. Of the actual
merits of his case it should not be difficult to judge if
signatures to documents mean anything. Certainly, it
would be hazardous to build too much upon the testimony
of men whose signatures could, on their own showing, be
so easily obtained, but the contrast between the certificate
in Tray's favour with its twenty-three names and the
petition against him with its dubious eight, leaiDesJittle
rosmfor doubt that in this case his accusation was^ due
to private animosity.
¦ III I  III' »*»
The conditions under which the petitions were made
rendered it possible for anyone who entertained a private
grudge against his minister to use this most effective
means of satisfying his vengeance, nor would it generally
be difficult to persuade the unthinking rustic that he too
had a grievance. The. .persistent mention of disputes
cpncerning tithes, ^which occur again and again in the
petitions, may go a certain way towardsi accounting for
' Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. ii, 379.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 6i
some at. least of the signatures.- Considerations of this
sort, coupled with the more direct evidence of a few
ascertained cases, make it impossible to regard these
petitions as a reliable criterion of the country's feeling.
Xhey reveal the local effect of political events at times of
YM£IlL-cha,ng^ A ~vei"'y similar tendency is observable
amid the reaction of the Restoration. For example, we
find the inhabitants of the town of Yeldon presenting
a petition to the Lords in June 1660, in which they pray
that their rector, Mr William Dell, may be deprived of
the living for disloyal speeches in reference to the King
and for general neglect of his cure'.
As time went on, the petitions changed somewhat in
character and took the form of requests that "lecturers"
might be appointed to preach at stated times in the
parish church. Accordingly towards the end of 1642
and the beginning of 1643, orders became common
appointing lecturers to preach, and requiring the regular
minister to allow him the use of his pulpit and threatening
punishment in case of refusal'.
The regular parish clergy, upon whom these un
welcome visitors were imposed, very naturally objected
strongly, and consequently often suffered punishment for
1 Hist. MSS. Com. 7th Rep. Appendix, H. of Lords, pp. 101-2.
2 The following are examples :
" Nov. 26, 1642. ' The humble petition of divers of the Inhabitants of
St Ives was this Day read
Ordered, that the Order formerly made, for Mr Tookey to be Lecturer
of S. Ives in the county of Huntingdon, shall be revived, and confirmed.
Resolved, that Mr Downehall, vicar of S. Ives, and Mr Reynolds the
curate there, be forthwith sent for, as delinquents, for their contempt in
refusing to obey the orders of this House, for admitting M. Tookey to be
lecturer there.' " Commons' Journals, ii, 864.
" Dec. 31, 1642. 'Ordered, that Mr George Green, Master of Arts, and in
Orders, be recommended unto the Parish of Sutton, in the Isle of Ely, in the
County of Cambridge, to be their lecturer, to preach there every Thursday in
the week : And the Vicar is hereby required to permit him the free Use of
the Pulpit, to exercise his Function, upon the days aforesaid, accordingly.'"
Comfnon^ Journals, ii, 909.

62 THE PURITANS IN POWER
their behaviour. Dr Shaw, indeed, contends that "to
such action of the Commons there cannot be the slightest
objection from one point of view," inasmuch as the
lecturer did not interfere with the incumbent's stipend or
the regular services' ; but it must be admitted that it was
an action well calculated to arouse animosity. Leaving
out of the question the mere personal annoyance of
having his own ministrations supplemented in this high
handed manner, there was a further very legitimate
grievance. At such a period of active controversy in
matters secular and religious, the sermons of the Puritan
lecturers would necessarily be filled with much hostile
criticism of the opposite party, and if the legitimate
incumbent were a royalist and a " High " Churchman,
as he was tolerably certain to be, he would very properly
resent what he regarded as false and dangerous doctrines
being discharged from his own pulpit into the ears of
his own congregation.
Instances of resistance on the part of the incumbents
are common among the entries in the Commons' Journals.
The vicar of " Andevor," for example, "gave a command
to lock the Church doors," saying that " Rather than Mr
Symonds should preach there, by Order of Parliament, he
would lose his life," and that "the Church was as much
his own, as his own house'." Occasionally other, and
possibly more effective, methods were pursued to thwart
the intention of the Parliament. The inhabitants of
Pinner set forth that " whereas this House did formerly
recommend Mr Philip Goodwyn to be lecturer there, to
preach every Sunday in the afternoon,... the Curate, to
elude this order, does expound every Afternoon, till six of
clock'." The curate in question no doubt felt that the
1 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 183.
2 Common^ fournals, ii, 735, Aug. 24, 1642.
3 Ibid, ii, 723, Aug. 17, 1642.

THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY 63
end justified the means, but in this case, one is almost
led to sympathise with his congregation.
Very few cases are recorded in which the clergyman
of the parish gave his consent, but at Beales in Suffolk,
a certificate was signed by the parson, John Shardelow,
" declaring his consent, that the parishioners should make
choice of Mr Jo. Clerke to be lecturer to the said
parishioners'." The institution of these lectures appealed, as a rule,
to the religious requirements of the people who still
favoured preaching, but, even amongst the people, the
lecturer was not always popular.
A very interesting instance is provided by the case
of S. James at Dover, where the churchwardens and
parishioners complained "of a great disturbance and
interruption in the Church, in the time of Divine Service ;
occasioned by some, who in opposition to an order of the
House, would hinder Mr Vincent, recommended by this
House to be their lecturer'." This instance, taken in
conjunction with somewhat similar demonstrations else-
""where, seems to show that, in some cases at all events,
the lecturers were appointed in opposition to the wishes
of a section of the parish.
1 / But the raison d'itre of the lecturers was not only
religious : they had a political importance as well, and
the influence exercised by them upon public opinion was
undoubtedly very great. Of course, as soon as the war
broke out, self-preservation became the first law, and
questions of public morality could not be too closely
considered ; but even while peace was outwardly main
tained, the Parliament had imprisoned royalist clergy for
no other offence than " 4isaffeGtion." The lecturers
provided the Parliament's antidote to the royalist doctrines
1 Commons' Journals, iii, 17, Mar. 24, 1642/3.
2 Ibid, ii, 673, July 14, 1642.

64 THE PURITANS IN POWER
of the episcopal clergy, and there can be little doubt that
their utility from the Parliamentary point of view was as
much political as religious. On August ii, 1643, an
order was read in the Commons "for sending divers
godly Ministers into divers Counties,... to possess the
people with the truth and justice of the Parliament's
cause in taking up of defensive arms'." In this respect,
the lecturers acted as Parliamentary agents in the
parishes where they gained a foothold', just as the
^'royalist clergy supported the cause of the King. To
' lose sight of the interaction of secular and religious
; affairs, is to miss the true interpretation of events
f throughout the whole struggle.
' Another factor, of an entirely different kind, should
also be borne in mind. Although the interest in the
questions at issue permeated practically every corner of
the land, and caused a revolution in nearly every village,
there were nevertheless some few favoured spots where
the course of the war, as well as the reasons which
promoted it, made little impression. Waterbeach in
Cambridgeshire seems to have been a case in point, for
the seventeenth century " passed over this village very
lightly'." Where the personal affection between the
\ clergyman and his parishioners counted for more than
[ the political relations between the King and his Parliament,
I — ^M^.,where the position or insignificance of a village lent it
a degree of immunity, it is possible that the even tenor
of the village life would not be very greatly disturbed.
Such cases, however, were not very numerous.
1 Commons' Journals, iii, 202.
2 Clarendon : Hist, of the Rebellion, ii, 319.
3 W. K. Clay : History of Waterbeach, p. 16.

CHAPTER III
THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES
It has already been seen that the number of petitions
directed against the parochial clergy had, even in the
first few months of the sitting of the Long Parliament,
necessitated the creation of additional bodies to deal
with the business. At first, the various committees sat
in London, and it is probable that the great majority of
cases with which they dealt came from districts within
more or less easy access of the metropolis. But with the
outbreak of the war, and with the consequent increased
importance of widening the sphere of the Parliamentary
influence, a further delegation of powers was found
expedient. At an early stage of the war the Parliament had
adopted the policy of appointing special committees for
the defence or the administration of counties or districts,
and amongst others a whole series of committees had
been called into being by the ordinance, of March 27,
1 643, "for sequestring notorious _delinqu£a£§l. estates K"
The purpose of the committees created by this ordinance
was purely political and was concerned solely with the
¦spgyf^.-^ij^ation of the property of those who^Jiad_beenJn
arms against the ParUament-^iL-whxx-had-. voluntari]y
assisted or contributed towards the, maintenance,, of Jbe
royalist^ forces. It was not till later that the Parliament
began to entrust the local authorities with a special power
in the case of ecclesiastical offenders, and then it was
only as a part of a more general jurisdiction. One of the
earliest instances of this extension of authority was the
' Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i, 106.
T. P. S

66 THE PURITANS IN POWER
ordinance of January 22, 1643/4 "for regulating the
University of Cambridge, and for removing of Scandalous
Ministers in the seven Associated Counties " of Essex,
Norfolk, Suffolk, Hertford, Cambridge, Huntingdon and
Lincoln. This ordinance began by stating that many com
plaints had been received from the well-affected inhabitants
of the counties that the service of the Parliament was
retarded, the enemy strengthened, and the people's souls
starved by their " idle, ill-affected, and scandalous clergy,"
and that many that would give evidence against such
scandalous ministers were not able to travel to London.
The ordinance therefore directed the Earl of Manchester,
who had been appointed to the command of the army of
the Association on August 10, 1643, to establish one or
more committees in every county to assist him in carrying
out the instructions of the Parliament. The committees
were empowered to call before them "all Provosts,
Masters, and Fellowes of Colledges, all Students, and
Members of the University, and all Ministers in any
County of the Association, and all Schoole-Masters that
are scandalous in their lives, or ill-affected to the
Parliament, or Fomenters of this unnaturall Warre, or
that shall wilfully refuse obedience to the Ordinances of
Parliament, or that have deserted their ordinary places
of residence, not being imployed in the service of the
King and Parliament'." They were further authorised
to summon witnesses and examine evidence for the
purpose of a report to the Earl of Manchester, who was
to eject such as he should judge unfit for their places.
A similar formula was adopted in later ordinances giving
a like power to the committees in other counties and
districts. It will at once be seen that a great deal of
emphasis was laid upon what may be called the " political "
1 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i, 371.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 67
misdemeanours, quite apart from considerations of im
morality or vicious life'.
When the committees in the Eastern Association
were appointed, the Earl of Manchester sent them a
copy of directions which were to guide their actions in
carrying out their orders.
The object of the Parliament in appointing these local
bodies was sufiiciently well indicated in the ordinance
already quoted, but if any doubt remained on this head,
the directions now issued must have set it at rest.
Everything was to be done to encourage the people to
bring forward their complaints, if they had any to bring.
The committees were to sit in such places that "all
parties, by the easiness of access, may be encouraged to
address themselves " to them, and the clerk of the com
mittee was to be salaried so that he should not be led to
discourage the people by demanding fees. Most important
of all was the sixth clause, which ran as follows :
" Because it is found by sad experience, that
parishioners are not forward to complain of their
ministers, although they be very scandalous, but having
this price and power in their hands, yet want hearts to
make use thereof, too many being enemies to that blessed
reformation so much by the Parliament desired, and loth
to come under a powerfull ministry ; and some sparing
their ministers because such ministers to gain the good
opinions of their people do spare them in their tythes
& therefore are esteemed quiet men or the like, you are
therefore required to call unto you some well-affected men
within every hundred, who, having no private engage
ments, but intending to further the publique reformation
' Fuller records that many moderate men of the Parliamentary party
were much grieved at the severity by which " some clergymen, blameless
for life, and orthodox for doctrine, were only ejected on the account of their
faithfulness to the King's cause." Church Hist, xi, p. 207, quoted in
J. E. Bailey's Life of Fuller, p. 237. 5—2

68 THE PURITANS IN POWER
may be required and encouraged by you to inquire after
the doctrines, lives, and conversations of all ministers and
schoolmasters, and to give you information both what can
be deposed, and who can depose the same'."
The existence of these "informers," as they have
with some justice been styled, presents a problem in many
respects analogous to that involved in the consideration
of whether or no the signatures to the earlier petitions
were obtained fraudulently. The question here is
whether the agents or informers appointed by the
sequestrators acted merely in the character of " in
spectors" in the various parishes or as intermediaries
between the discontented parishioners and the committee,
or whether, as Walker' and others have alleged, they
deliberately " got up " the cases against the clergy.
In the first place, it must be considered that the
Eastern counties generally were Puritan in tone, and at
the outbreak of the war had sided with the Parliament.
Also, there are indications that, in some places at any
rate, there was a certain amount of ill-feeling between
the clergy and their parishioners. The ground, therefore,
was not altogether ill-prepared for the work of the
sequestrators. But against this must be set the gratuitous admission
on the part of the Earl of Manchester himself, that
"parishioners were not forward to complain," and that
some were "enemies to the intended reformation."
Coming on the top of these two statements, the appoint
ment of agents to seek the information which the
parishioners themselves had failed to bring, and to
produce the witnesses who had refused to come forward
of their own free will, tends to prove that artificial
* A transcript of these directions, addressed to the Lincolnshire committee,
is in the Walker Collection ; MS. J. Walker, c. 6, fol. 17.
2 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 118.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 69
assistance was needed before the "many complaints of
the well-affected " could be brought to the birth.
Cole, the antiquarian, in a short preface to his MS.
copy of the articles preferred against the clergy before
the Essex committee, reflects upon the probable result
of the directions given by the Earl of Manchester to the
sequestrators. " Of how wicked a tendency," he says,
" such a proceeding must be at that time, when people's
spirits were heated by religious disputes, may easily be
discerned when we reflect what the consequence of such
encouragement would be for informers even at this time.
Everyone," he goes on, " who has had it in his power to
make observations on the nature of country people must
be convinced how easily they are to be influenced,
particularly against their superiors, and more especially
when their interest coincides with encouragement'."
It is, as Cole points out, not a question of party but
of human nature. Some ten years before the time of
the sequestrations of the loyal Episcopalians, an advocate
in the High Commission Court had occasion to indicate
the fallacy of accepting the evidence brought against
Puritan clergy by a section of their parishioners. In the
case of a minister named Vicars who had been summoned
before this court on charges of heretical doctrine,
testimony had been brought to the fact that some of the
witnesses for the prosecution were " capital enemies of
jMr Viccars and... backbiters of their neighbours'" and
pwyn, his advocate, in addressing the court, pointed out
tthat "it was an easy matter for a company joyning
themselves (as his accusers did) to pick holes in any
(man's sermons for three years' space'."
The cases of Casaubon and Tray* are instances to
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 5829, fol. 2.
2 Cases in the Star Chamber and High Commission Court, p. 211.
3 Ibid. p. 220. * See ante, pp. 58-60.

70 THE PURITANS IN POWER
some extent of the unrepresentative character of many
accusations, and various cases of a later date afford
additional evidence of a similar kind.
In 1644, for example, eleven genriemen of Norwich
presented a petition to the Earl of Manchester on behalf
of two ejected clergymen named Williams and Locke'.
The petitioners admitted that the two ministers in
question had been " observant of ceremonies imposed by
coercive power," that there had been some difference
with their neighbours on a question of Church rights,
and that they had " opposed sectaries in their preachinge,"
but although this had been the cause of " the late harsh
and uncharitable persecution against them," the committee
appointed by Manchester had been "too readie and
forward to promote and countenance " it.
The ejected clergymen were said to be " learned and
orthodox divines, sedulous and industrious in their sacred
functions... of honest life and exemplary conversation,"
while it was further asserted that no one denied this
favourable character to them save "some few sectaries
savouringe Independencie."
Again, in 1646, a somewhat similar petition from the
inhabitants of Monk Soham in Suffolk was addressed to
the Committee for Plundered Ministers on behalf of their
minister, Thomas Rogerson'. The petitioners certified
that they had " knowne Thomas Rogerson clarke Mr in
Arts, for many years past, never haueinge given any just
scandall in his life, but orthodox in doctrine, and of an
honest godly conversacon, he haueinge never done any
thinge, to any of our knowledge in opposicon to any
the pliaments ordinances. Wee conceive him," they
proceed, " a very fitt object, for the due consideracon of
the noble committee in restoreinge him to his liveinge
1 Manchester Papers (Record Office), 552.
2 MS. J. Walker, c. 4, fol. 398.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 71
of Muncke Soham ; he being a man of learninge and
ability es and fittinge to discharge the duty of that place."
The petition, which is dated July 9, 1646, is signed by
twenty-two inhabitants of the parish, by eight clergymen
and five others. Even the minister, to whom the
rectory had been sequestrated, offered, on receiving
preferment elsewhere, to vacate the living of Monk
Soham, if the committee would restore it to Rogerson.
" I confesse," he wrote, " that I have beene the willinger
to make this certificate because I have heard some who
were the chief meanes of putting him outjA say that he
was_prosecuted out of Malice_a,nd_Ijdoe, believe it'."
From the fact that one of the clergymen who signs the
petition, John Brinsley of Yarmouth, was a Puritan and
was himself ejected at the Restoration', it would seem
possible that Thomas Rogerson was either a Puritan or
had leanings in that direction. But if this were the case,
by whom and for what offence was Rogerson ejected, for
it is evident that his sequestration was regretted by
some at least in the parish ? It is impossible to avoid
the Conclusion, elsewhere seen to be probable, that in
this case, as in others, the. sequestration was largely dne
vtQJthe agency of a hostile cabal'.
1 MS. J. Walker, fol. 397.
2 Calamy: Abridgment of Mr Baxter's History of his Life and Times
(1713), ii, 477-
3 Another case, taken from the period of the Protectorate, may be cited
in this connection. In November 1657, Thomas Fitch petitioned the
Government for permission to preach. He stated that, eighteen months
previously, he had been ejected from his living of Sutton Courtney by the
committee for Berkshire, but he had the testimony of "divers eminent
ministers " for his " fitness for the service." Commissioners were appointed
to examine his case and confirmed his statement that "the information
(against him) was unduly prosecuted and indirect means used with the
witnesses." They declared that the witnesses were " not of credit," and an
order was subsequently issued allowing him to preach. Cal. of S. P. Dom.
1657-8, p. 150. See also the account of the plots against Martin Blake
of Barnstaple, given in J. F. Chanter's Life of Martin Blake.

72 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Sometimes the feeling in favour of the ejected
clergyman took a less orderly course and manifested itself
in open violence. An example of this is found in a
riot which took place at Soham in Cambridgeshire, as
a result of the appointment of a Parliamentary nominee
in place of the regular incumbent. Exeter, the vicar,
had been deprived of the living in 1644, principally
for drunkenness, innovations, and disaffection to the
Parliament, the charges being attested by nine witnesses'.
A certain John Fenton had then been appointed to the
cure, but at what date it does not appear. On July 9,
1647, the Committee for Plundered Ministers found it
necessary to issue an order requiring the parishioners to
pay tithes to Fenton', but more serious troubles seem to
have followed, and apparently some of the inhabitants
were ordered into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.
At all events, on August 14, " Mr Dalton, Mr Story,
and Mr Clarke, Justices of Peace in the Countie of
Cambridge," certified to the committee that, in view of
the "threats, boldness and insolent carriage of divers
malignants in the said countie questioning the said
justices authoritie to their face, they durst not at
presente... assist the serjeant at Armes of the house of
Comons his deputie in execution of the order of the 29th
of July last for bringing Samuel Thornton and Thomas
Eaton before this Committee in safe custody ; one of them
having assaulted and beaten the Serjeant's deputie and
threatned his death'." Upon the receipt of this in
telligence, the committee repeated the order, and further
required the Sheriff of the county and all deputy
Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace to assist in its
execution, and to see that Fenton was securely settled in
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 21.
2 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,671, fol. 110b.
3 Ibid. fol. 172 b.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES -ji
the possession of his living'. The only result of this
seems to have been an increased disturbance, headed by
Exeter and others, which assumed such serious proportions
that on October 12 the committee decided to write to
Sir Thomas Fairfax to ask for military assistance'.
It would, of course, be possible to regard this riot as
occasioned solely by Exeter and a few confederates, and
not in any sense as a manifestation of the feeling of the
parish, nor is it possible to say what were in reality its
characteristics'. In view of the fact that military assis
tance had to be called in, the presumption is that a
considerable number of men were implicated, and that
the demonstration was at all events tolerably well
supported. The chiefirnportance.oflthe.instance, howeyer,
iies_jiiJj3£LJaSCi5ai-£*©teF™bad"been-5^ a
i:gs,^k„oX, chargeabrought. by nine of his_pa,rishiQnersuand
that if the rising in hisJavmiL represented iheieehng of
the parishTthen obviouslyjhe_attack , upon Jiinxdid-aoL..™
Numerous examples, to prove the corrupt practices
of accusers and the injustice of the Parliamentary
committees, may be found in Walker's Sufferings of
the Clergy. They were largely taken from original
papers, many of which are still preserved in his MS.
Collection, and in view of evidence from other sources,
they acquire an even greater degree of credibility.
Before the question of the justice of the sequestrators'
proceedings can be satisfactorily answered, it is necessary
to consider what motives were really actuating them and
what was the purpose which they had in view. In their
defence it must be said that their object was always
clearly avowed, nor, under the circumstances, was it
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,671, fol. 208. ' Ibid fol. 241.
3 See an ordinance of Aug. 23, 1647, for " Keeping in Godly Ministers,
placed in livings by authority of Parliament." Acts and Ordinances of the
Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait), i, 999. This shows that it was
found necessary to legislate against attempts to dislodge intruders.

74 THE PURITANS IN POWER
unnatural. The pulpit exercised a powerful influence,
not only in religious matters, but also in the realm of
party politics. To capture these outpost positions, left
by the enemy, was a matter of political necessity which
neither party overlooked'. In considering, therefore, the
work of the sequestrators, it must be remembered that
the removal of "scandal" in the fives, and even in the
doctrines, of the clergy was only a part of their avowed
object, and that the eradication of political "disaffection"
always held a prominent place in their minds. That this
was so, is well borne out by the extant records of their
proceedings in Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire'. In
[the articles of accusation preferred against the clergy in
( the former county we find that the charges of refusing
I the Covenant, speaking against the Covenant, refusing to
read the Parliamentary proclamations and the like are
those most commonly brought forward. In twenty-nine
"recorded cases, there are twenty-seven charges of dis
affection or disobedience to the Parliament ; twenty-two
of neglect of cure ; twenty-one of " innovations in
religion " ; eleven of drunkenness or " frequenting of ale
houses " ; six of immorality and six of swearing and
quarrelling. Besides these, there are twelve cases in
which disputes between the clergyman and his parishioners,
cu}_jhe_^ubject_ojLtithg_and._the ^Hke,- take-the form_Qf
a charge against jh^jncumbent'. In one recorded case in
1 Cf a letter from the King to Goring (Nalson Papers, i, 17). "Being
informed that there are yet within our quarters divers ministers, who either
by their doctrine teach or by their behaviour countenance Rebellion, we
command you to make strict enquiry for all such Clergymen within your
quarters, and to apprehend them immediately, and send them to Oxford, if
possible, or otherwise to keep them in custody till further orders." Hist.
MSS. Com. \2,th Rep., Duke of Portland's MSS. App., Pt. i, p. 212.
2 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672 and MS. J. Walker, c 11.
3 It even seems as if the removal of scandal, as part of the work of the
Committee for Plundered Ministers, had been an afterthought. See Common^
Journals, iii, 183, July 27, 1643. "Ordered, That the Committee for

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 75
Devonshire an ejected clergyman obtained a certificate
from the committee stating that he had been deprived
for "disaffection" only'.
It has been affirmed that disaffection and "innovation"
were the genuine causes of ejection, and that the charges
of immorality were only included to strengthen the case
and endow it with an appearance of justification. But
though the former proposition is probably true in the
great majority of cases, the latter contains a fallacy.
The comparatively small number of the charges of
ill-life, if it can be used as an argument at all, would be
in favour of the truth of those particular accusations,
because, if they were false, and included merely for the
sake of appearance, there is no obvious reason why they
should not have been included for a similar purpose
against the rest of the accused clergy. It is rarely
possible now to decide the merits of any individual case.
Walker himself does not deny that there may have been
cases where charges of vice were justified, but the
conditions under which the accusations were brought
make it neqessary to require further corroboration for the
facts with which they deal.
One of the genuine evils vyrhich the Puritans en
deavoured to abolish-was pluralism, and, in certain parts
of the country, cases in which a clergyman was deprived
on that ground are not uncommon. It appears, how
ever, that where no other charge was produced, the
clergyman was allowed to choose which of his benefices
he would retain.
With regard to the actual proceedings of the seques
trators' court there unfortunately only remain incomplete
Plundered Ministers shall have power to consider of the Informations against
scandalous Ministers, though there be no Malignancy proved against him."
1 George Pierce or Pearse of Tiverton, see Sufferings of the Clergy,
Pt. ii, 327. The certificate itself is in the Walker Collection. MS.
J. Walker, c 4, fol. 207.

76 THE PURITANS IN POWER
and partial accounts. The directions to the sequestrators
had instructed them to allow the accused a copy of the
depositions against him, and fourteen days "or there
abouts" in which to make his defence. It is further
evident, from some brief orders prefixed to the articles
exhibited before the sequestrators in Leicestershire', that
these directions were obeyed, and that opportunities were
given for a defence to be made. So far this was fair
enough, although the time allowed to the accused seems
rather short. The directions next ordain that "the
party accused should not be present at the taking the
depositions." This, Neal states', was on account of the
" insolent and unmannerly behaviour of some of the
clergy before the commissioners " when the witnesses
were examined in their presence, but he does not cite
his authority for this statement. Failing this, therefore,
the accused party seems to have been obliged to hand in
a list of " interrogatories " which were to be put to the
witnesses, as well as his more explicit answer to the
charges. The number of witnesses for the prosecution in
individual cases varied, in Cambridgeshire, between
three and twenty, and averaged about ten. Of their
character it is not possible to discover much. In one
case the two churchwardens gave evidence against the
vicar, but in several instances the witness was unable to
sign his name. For the most part, where their callings
are mentioned, they appear to have been local tradesmen.
Thus in the case of Thomas Lee, rector of Newton, the
witnesses were Richard Rose, saddler, John Johnson,
baker, William Nicholas, weaver, Edmund Scotten,
" gent.," and so on'. Jeremy Stephens' papers, quoted by
1 MS. J. Walker, c ii, fol. 4.
2 History of the Puritans (ed. 1822), iii, 108, note.
3 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 14.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES ^^
Walker', give a highly-coloured account of the witnesses
who appeared before the Northampton committee, but
Jeremy Stephens' evidence, as coming from one who
had himself suffered deprivation, must be received with
caution. It would, however, be tolerably safe to assume
that they were almost invariably recruited from the lower
classes'. In the absence, however, of any further in
formation, the mere numbers of the witnesses prove very
little. On the other hand, it is possible to form a clearer
opinion of the evidence which they gave.
As it appears in the records of the Cambridgeshire
sequestrations, it takes the form of depositions with the
names of the deponents annexed. The character of
these attestations thus presented is necessarily varied,
but they included much that was absurd, and a good deal
which could not, properly speaking, have been accepted
as evidence at all. Thus, Nicholas Felton' of Streatham
was charged, amongst other offences, with refusing to
repair his hedges, and the vicar of Foulmire* with "pro
faning the Sabbath day by bowling " ; while in the case
of a charge of swearing brought against Robert Grimer,
vicar of Wicken, three witnesses solemnly deposed "that
they living remote from him, and haueing little converse
with him, haue not heard him sweare as they remember,
but they haue heard divers of the parish afifirme that he
doth often use to sweare," a form of evidence which
merited the well-known comment of Mr Justice Stareleigh.
Other witnesses in the case, brought forward to attest
the fact that certain words hostile to the Parliamentary
cause had been used in a sermon, affirmed that they were,
' Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 92.
2 In the case of Dr Cheney Rowe, rector of Orwell, and Fellow of Trinity,
Cambridge, although a brother Fellow gave evidence against him, the other
witnesses appear to have been of the lower class, for example, a " yeoman,"
and a grocer. (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 48.)
3 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. i. * Ibid. fol. 44.

78 THE PURITANS IN POWER
indeed, present onthe occasion in question, but "perceiving
his (the preacher's) straine to run wholly that way," that
is to say, unfavourably to the Parliament, "they left the
Church before the conclusion of his sermon, wherein it is
affirmed those words were uttered'." These instances
are, of course, more or less exceptional, and we have no
means of knowing whether the type of evidence offered
in the last two examples was accepted by the court as
satisfactory. The Cambridgeshire committee's book gives no
account of any answers given by the accused clergy, and
only mentions that in the one case " Mr Peacock, Vicar
of Swaffham- Prior having time given him to put in his
answer to the articles exhibited against him to this
Comittee until the present Saturday by ten of the clock
in the forenoon hath fayled to appear or return his
answers accordingly'." The Leicestershire book, on the
other hand, contains several answers and interrogatories,
though they are not found by any means in every case.
On the whole, it would seem probable that the accused
clergy for the most part neglected to avail themselves of
such opportunity of defence as was granted to them,
either because they had already fled, or because they
would not recognise the jurisdiction of the court.
In the case of the committees in the Associated
Counties, at any rate, it appears that the witnesses were
heard on oath, but as neither the Cambridgeshire nor the
Leicestershire records give any account of the actual
hearing of the case or the examination of the witnesses,
it is practically impossible to form an opinion of the
justice of the system or the fairness of the judges. The
convictions appear to have been wholesale, for of the
thirty accused clergymen, whose names appear in the
Cambridgeshire book, not one escaped sequestration.
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 40. 2 /^^-^^ f^i j

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 79
A rather fuller record of the proceedings before
these county committees is found in the case of Isaac
Allen, the rector of Prestwich in Lancashire, tried at
Manchester on November 10, 1643, before the local
committee consisting of Colonel Ralph Asheton, John
Bradshaw, Robert Hyde, Rowland Hunt and Thomas
Birche, Esquires. He was indicted on nine charges, the
chief of which were that he had not publicly instructed
his congregation as to which side they ought to take in
the struggle between King and Parliament, that he had
refused at first to read the Covenant in Church, on the
ground that it was contrary to the oath of allegiance
and supremacy, and that when at last he had done
so, he had said that, for his own part, he could not
take it, and had otherwise encouraged his congregation
to follow his example, and that he had been in company
with Lord Strange in Manchester and had assisted him
in the siege with money. There were fifteen witnesses
against him, and all the charges were concerned with
political offences.
His defence reveals him in the pathetic position of
a man who was driven by force of circumstances out of
the attitude of neutrality which he had endeavoured
to adopt. Probably with the view of protecting himself
from possible violence from the royalist soldiers he had
sought and obtained in the previous June a paper under
the hand of the Earl of Derby, the royalist commander
in Lancashire, certifying that he had suffered much from
the enemy and was faithful and loyal to the King'. The
course of the war, however, had not favoured .the., royalist
cajise,and3e. now foimd. himself obliged to explain, his
fhrmer-jcautipn. He admitted that he had not been
satisfied as to the lawfulness of taking up arms, but he
1 MS. J. Walker, c. 5, fol. 292. This js apparently the original
certificate, dated from Lathom.

8o THE PURITANS IN POWER
denied that he had ever encouraged anyone to oppose
the Pariiament, but, on the contrary, had publicly desired
that his example, in not taking the Covenant, "might
not be a president to any." Most of his parish, including
his own servants, had taken it. He denied also that he
had assisted Lord Strange with money, and affirmed that
he had only accompanied him to Manchester in the hope
that a setriement of differences might result from the
visit. For a testimony to his own good life and service
in the parish, he referred to those who had been constant
members of his congregation, and he excepted against
the characters of those who appeared against him.
They had "much perverted and depraved" his words
and actions, and had, as he was informed, formed a
malicious plot to oust him from his living. Some of
them were men of " meane capacity " and others could
liot even write their names. He stated that he had been
present at the examination of only one of the witnesses,
and finding that he was not on oath, he had desired the
commissioners to put some questions which " would have
discovered the untruth of his testimonie." This the
commissioners had refused to do, and Allen had then
left the court voluntarily'. A second hearing of the case
took place on April 2, 1645', and Allen eventually
suffered sequestration, but his subsequent history is not
of immediate interest.
Another full account of a somewhat similar trial is
contained in the narrative written by a clergyman named
Bushnell, describing the process of his cause before one
of Oliver Cromwell's commissions for ejecting scandalous
1 The examination of the witnesses against Allen and his answer, together
with several other papers relating to the case, are to be found in the Walker
Collection, MS. J. Walker, c. 5, fol. 275-297. *
2 The proceedings at the second trial have been printed in the Royalist
Composition Papers, edited by J. H. Stanning (Lancashire and Cheshire
Rec. Soc), p. 18.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 8i
ministers. The times were, of course, different, but the
conditions and the composition of the two tribunals were
not unlike, and the case is instructive up to a certain
point. Bushnell's charges against his judges and accusers
are varied. He asserts that the signatures to the petition
against him were forged, and complains that hearsay
evidence was accepted by the court, that his witnesses
were turned out during the hearing of the case, but
that the witnesses for the prosecution were allowed to
remain and no evidence reflecting on their characters was
admitted. He further charges the commissioners with
being open to bribery'. An answer to some of his charges
was afterwards published by Humphrey Chambers, who
had been one of the commissioners in question, but
as is usual in such cases, it is not easy, between their
conflicting statements, to strike the mean of truth.
Of the character of those who sat on the county
sequestration committees it is difficult to speak with
certainty, for the few accounts of them which have
survived come almost entirely from a hostile point of
view. Walker's description', for example, of the North
amptonshire committee was taken from the manuscript
papers of Jeremy Stephens, who was deprived of his
living of Wootton in that county, and it is impossible to
accept the evidence of such a prejudiced witness without
further corroboration . The composition of the committees
varied no doubt locally, buiLit does not seem thaJLJthe
Ifiading-Euritan. faxnilies. were numerously represented,
and the.JKQrkf- which could hardly have been, congenial to
3 refined Jemperament, was left Jo^the rougher members
of the party. The powers of the committees extended to
' See A narrative of the proceedings of the Commissioners etc. by
Walter Bushnell (London 1660).
2 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, pp. 90-2.
T. P. 6

82 THE PURITANS IN POWER
lay as well as clerical delinquents, and that their characters
as well as their methods of procedure were the objects of
general attack is suggested by a document known as the
" Declaration of the County of Dorset," printed in June
1648. The Declaration asks that the county should no
longer be subjugated "to the boundless lusts and un
limited power of beggarly and broken Committees,
consisting generally of the tail of the. gentry, .men «of
ruinous fortunes and despicable estates, whose Jnsaiiale
desires prompt them to^continual proj.e,cts. of pilling and
stripping," and to their "Emissaries — generally the jnost
shirking and cunning beggars diat can b.e, picked jaul-of
a County'." Their procedure in court has been illustrated already,
and there is evidence that their method of dealing with
confiscated property was equally open to exception.
The Hereford committee not only occupied the seques
trated houses belonging to the Chapter and formerly
inhabited by the Canons and Prebendaries, but in one or
two cases defrayed the cost of repairs, to the amount
of ten pounds, out of the ecclesiastical revenues'. The
committees appear also in some cases to have made use
of the witnesses for the prosecution as their agents in
enforcing the sentence. Thus, in the case of Robert
Exeter, the vicar of Soham in Cambridgeshire, one of
the witnesses delivered the summons, while in the case
of Crosland, the vicar of Bottisham, two of the witnesses,
Robert Brand and Thomas Jolly, were appointed...to
recei^-the. profits of the living during the sequestration'.
An entry in the accounts of the same committee~shows
that an even more unblushing method of rewarding
' Quoted in A. R. Bayley's Civil War in Dorset, p. 352.
2 See Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 90. This is taken from
an abstract of the original proceedings of the committee, supplied to Walker
by a Herefordshire clergyman. See G. B. Tatham, Dr John Walker, p. 97.
3 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 22, 4.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 83
informers was sometimes adopted'. In view of previous
evidence in the same direction, this further indication of
co-operation between judges and witnesses, slight as it
is, has a considerable significance.
The sequestration committees were after all only
subordinate institutions : they were subject to various
higher powers. The Cambridgeshire committee, for
example, was answerable in the first place to the Earl of
Manchester, and, to some extent, to the Committee for
Plundered Ministers in London. This last-mentioned
body, again, was itself answerable to the Parliament.
The Committee for Plundered Ministers, which sat
in the Exchequer Court at Westminster, had been
appointed on December 31, 1642^ and in point of time,
therefore, comes before the county committees, but as
the particular aspect of its work with which we are now
chiefly concerned was subsequent to the actual seques
trations, it has been convenient to postpone the dis
cussion of it. It was by far the most permanent of the
committees appointed by the Parliament to deal with
ecclesiastical affairs, and in course of time it, gradually
absorbed a great part of the duties of other bodies^  Lt
continued ijijexisLencejandLthe jdissfdiotiQajaLj^
Its original purpose, as its name vaguely implies, was
to deal with the cases of those Puritan ministers who
had lost their benefices through adherence to the
Parliamentary cause, but before very long the business
of depriving unfit and "insufficient" clergymen, which had
formerly belonged to the Committee for Scandalous
Ministers, was handed over to it', an enlargement of powers
1 " Paid to Thomas Soper for discovering John Stagg to be a delinquent
...7. o" is an item in "A note of the charges" incurred in connection with
the sequestrations in Cambridge. State Papers Domestic, vol. dxl.
2 Commons' Journals, ii, 909.
3 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 189.
6—2

84 THE PURITANS IN POWER
which led to the royalist taunt that it was a committee,
not for plundered, but for plundering ministers. "The
real design of the faction," says Walker, " in appointing
this Committee, was to erect a standing tribunal for the
ruin of the regular clergy'."
Besides dealing with a certain number of cases for
sequestration which had not come before the county
committees, and occasionally appointing incumbents to
vacant cures, it fell to the lot of this committee to act as
a court of appeal, to decide cases where there were two
claimants for a living, or where the ejected minister en
deavoured to regain what he considered to be his rights.
A series of resolutions and orders entered in their minute
book under date August 1645, show some of the rules
which regulated their actions. It was resolved that,
where a minister was put out of one living for scandal,
he ought also to lose any other preferment of which he
might happen to be possessed. It was ordered that no
man's living should be sequestrated from him until his
cause had been considered, and that, where a cause was
depending, no order should be made until both parties
had been heard'. There are several instances in which
the committee granted to an accused minister facilities
for making his defence', and in the hearing of the case
both sides were not infrequently represented by counsel.
Their procedure, in fact, stands in marked contrast to
that of the local committees, and though they were
regarded by the royalists as the instruments of tyranny,
the count against them is much less strong.
Their task was by no means an easy one amid the
petitions and counter-petitions and general hard swearing
' Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 73.
¦•^ Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 239.
3 See for instance the case of Richard Locksmith (Add. MSS. 15,670,
fol. 103), and that of Dr Holliday (Add. MSS. 15,671, fol. 257).

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 85
which characterised the numerous cases which came
under their view, but they seem to have considered
I grievances, heard what was to be said on each side, and
to have been ready to correct injustice whenever it did
not clash with public policy. Two or three instances
may be cited from the minutes of their proceedings.
John Baker, the vicar of Bartlow in Cambridgeshire,
had been sequestrated from his living in 1644', and
appears to have died not very long afterwards, for on
July 10, 1645', we find an order from the committee
, that " the sequestration is ended and determined by the
death of the said Mr Baker," and that therefore the
patron was justified in presenting Mr Richard Weller to
the living. After this decision had been made, however,
the attention of the committee was drawn to the fact
that, since Baker's ejection, the cure had been served by
one William Hinton, and that, if Weller were appointed,
Hinton would be "deprived of satisfaccon after much
pains by him taken in the cure of the said Church." It
was further suggested that several "exceptions" were
"alleged" against Richard Weller. The proceedings
were therefore stayed "till the said cause be heard and
this Committee's pleasure be further knowne'." On Sep
tember 27, the case was referred to the Committee of
Pariiament for the County of Cambridge', who appear
to have delayed the matter, for they are requested, in
a subsequent order, to make greater "speede and dis-
patch^" On November 25, Hinton having several times
failed to appear, the committee decided that Weller
was regularly presented to the living and all concerned
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 12.
2 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15.669, fol. no.
3 Ibid. fol. \iob.
4 Ibid. fol. 177-
5 Ibid. fol. 204.

86 THE PURITANS IN POWER
were required to yield obedience to this decision'. Hinton
then appears to have petitioned for some " satisfaction "
on account of his past services in Bartlow, for a request of
this nature is referred in turn to the Cambridge committee
who are directed to "examine and determine the same
as to justice shall appertaine'."
In the case of Orwell, in the same county, Dr Cheney
Rowe, the rector, a Fellow of Trinity, had been ejected
in 1644 for drunkenness and non-residence'. On July
12, 1647, an entry in the book of the Committee for
Plundered Ministers mentions a complaint received from
Rowe to the effect that the rectory of Orwell was a
sinecure, and that therefore he was sequestrated for
non-residence unjustly. In view of this complaint, the
sequestrators are required to show cause why he should
not be reinstated\ Delay seems to have been the rule
in all these cases, and two months elapsed before the case
was heard. The sequestrators did not appear, but the
intruding minister. Brooks by name, came forward to
vindicate his right to the living, pointing out that
" scandall " had also formed a part of the charge against
Rowe. This explanation appears to have been accepted
by the committee, for they found in favour of Brooks,
and gave it as their opinion that it was " not proper
for them to intermeddle in the said cause," and they
therefore dismissed it, leaving Dr Rowe "to seeke his
reliefe where else he shall see cause'."

1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 212.
2 Ibid. fol. 235. In considering the justice of the committee in this case,
it is important to notice that Weller was almost certainly a Puritan, or at all
events conformed to the new order. See the note on Bartlow in the
Augmentation Books (Lambeth), " Mr Weller is or very lately was minister
here a very able man."
3 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 48^.
* Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,671, fol. 138 3.
^ Ibid. fol. 204 15, 215.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 87
A third case was that of George Beardhall or
Beardsall, the vicar of Arkesden, whose name appears
:in the Cambridgeshire Sequestration Book as being
brought before that committee on October 23, 1644,
for disaffection to the Parliament and neglect of his
cure'. On October 23, 1645, he complained to the
Committee for Plundered Ministers "that he was ejected
< out of the said vicarage after he had given a satisfactorie
answere and been acquitted," and therefore desired that
"he may be heard by his witnesses." The Cambridgeshire
committee were, upon this, required to give an account
of their proceedings in the case, and to examine Beard-
hall's witnesses, if that had not already been done'. By
the following March, however, the case still remained
unheard, for an order, dated March 7, directs the
Cambridgeshire committee to examine the witnesses
against Beardhall, and to give him notice of the examina
tion " to ye end that hee may be present (if hee will) at ye
sayd heareing'." The case ultimately appears to have
gone against him, and on April 25, it was ordered that
the vicarage should stand sequestrated to Samuel Ball,
"minister of the word^"
In this case, the committee, by referring the case to
the original tribunal, seem to have failed in their function
as a court of appeal, and it is, indeed, unusual to find
instances in which a former verdict was reversed. That
this was sometimes done, however, is proved by the case
of Martin Blake of Barnstaple, who was ultimately rein
stated in his living by the Committee for Plundered
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672, fol. 42.
2 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 199.
3 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,670, fol. 34^.
* Ibid. fol. 72. Failing to regain his living by these means, Beardhall
appears to have resorted to violence. In the course of 1647, he forced his
way into the vicarage and refused to surrender it, so that he came again under
the view of the committee. BM. Add. MSS. 15,671, fol. 1291^, 154^, 168.

8« THE PURITANS IN POWER
Ministers in spite of the machinations of a hostile
party'. The question of the number of Episcopalian clergy
who were deprived of their livings by the Parliamen
tary committees during the period of the Civil War
and Commonwealth is a subject which has often engaged
the attention of historians, but it is one which is likely
to remain an unsolved problem. The wild calculations
which have sometimes been made vary between two
extremes, in accordance with the political bias of the
calculator, and provide no indication of reliable figures.
Walker himself, who attempted a work which few people
would have the patience to emulate, was obliged to
confess failure, and his numbers are manifestly in
complete. His actual list, compiled at the cost of
infinite labour, contains the names of about 2300 parochial
clergy, but his own estimate of the total :g.as 7000 or even
more'. Tories of his day, in fact, regarded the ejections
as practically universal, and it was even suggested that
all had been turned out except 450 — the exact number,
it was observed, of Baal's priests'. On the other hand,
supporters of the Puritan party, both then and afterwards,
were no less assiduous in throwing discredit on the
evidence and reducing the numbers to comparative
insignificance. In modern times, a serious attempt has
been made to arrive at a probable figure in Mr Stoughton's
Church of the Commonwealth.
Mr Stoughton remarks upon the fact that the question.
of numbers has always been treated as a party question,
and says with justice that " the proper subject of in
vestigation would be found, not in numerical statistics,
' A full account of this interesting case will be found in J. F. Chanter's
Life of Martin Blake.
2 Sufferings of the Clergy, p. xviii.
3 See a letter in the Walker Collection, G. B. Tatham, Dr John Walker,
App. i, p. 227.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 89
but in the rules laid down to regulate the sequestrations'."
At the same time, it is an unsound argument of his to say
that the desire of the Episcopalians so to exalt the
numbers is shortsighted, because "the more sequestra
tions there might be, the more open to censure must have
been the conduct of the clergy," for, as we have seen, it
is not altogether " incredible that the enormous number
imagined by some" were "expelled on political or eccle
siastical grounds alone." He rightly rejects Walker's
extreme figures and points out that if such a vast number
had been ejected, one would expect that at the Restora
tion a comparatively large number would have returned
to their livings. On the other hand, he rejects the
wholly untenable view of the Nonconformists that, al
though 2000 were ejected, half of these were allowed to
return during the Commonwealth and Protectorate.
In the attempt to arrive at an approximate figure,
however, he makes a curious slip. He gives the number
contained in Walker's list as 1339, nearly a thousand
below the actual figures, and this error probably threw
out his calculation. He refers to Baillie's letters, to a tract
in the Harleian Miscellany, to British Museuni Add. MSS.
15,669, which he calls "a Hst of sequestrations in Essex',"
and to the computation given by John Withers', and
concludes by giving 2000 or 2500 as the outside limit.
It is, of course, impossible to arrive at anything more
than an approximate figure. The sources from which an
accurate list might have been compiled are no longer
forthcoming, for the minutes of the Committee for
Plundered Ministers are incomplete, and those of the
local sequestration committees have, except in a very few
' Stoughton : The Church of the Commonwealth, p. 540.
2 It is in reality the first of three volumes of proceedings of the Committee
for Plundered Ministers.
3 John Withers : Remarks on Dr Walker's late Preface to the Attempt.

90 THE PURITANS IN POWER
cases, disappeared altogether. Without these valuable
records the field of investigation becomes so vast that the
collection of such details as have survived must be left
to the patient research of local historians.
The documents of which Walker made use can, of
course, be supplemented considerably. For example,
besides the proceedings of the Committee for Plundered
Ministers, there are the records of the Committee for
Compounding, calendared among the State Papers, a
MS. Register giving the names of incumbents of liyings
in 1650', and the House of Lords' Papers, among which
are found numerous petitions for restitution presented by
deprived clergymen in 1660. It happens also that for
the three counties of Cambridge, Dorset and Leicester,
some original record remains of the proceedings of the
local committees. For these three counties, therefore,
it is possible to draw up a list of sequestrations, not
indeed exhaustive, but as complete as we can now hope
-to obtain. Any argument as to the total number in the
country at large must be based on the evidence which
these three cases provide.
-'" The proceedings of the Dorset committee have been
carefully edited by Mr C. H. Mayo. They extend from
September 1646 to May 1650 and consist chiefly of
orders relating to sequestration from and appointment to
livings within the county. They give the fullest and, in
some respects, the most instructive view of the local
machinery in working. There were at that time about
250 livings in the county, and these proceedings, taken
in conjunction with other available sources of information,
give satisfactory evidence of some 74 cases of sequestra
tion or just under 30 per cent.
The Cambridge committee's book', from which several
extracts have been given in the earlier part of this
1 Brit. Mus. Lans. MSS. 459. 2 grit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,672.

THE SEQUESTRATION COMMITTEES 91
chapter, has not been published, but it has been used by
Mr Alfred Kingston in the thorough examination which
he appends to his history of East Anglia during the
Civil War. The entries take the form of depositions
made by witnesses for the prosecution against various
clergymen between September 1643 and the end of 1644,
followed by a few orders of a later date. Mr Kingston's
researches into this and other records, published and
unpublished, ghow that from 68,, put of a total of 155
h^^i^gSjjhgJnciitahenta^were ejected, giving a percentage
of about 44- _
The Leicester committee's book' is similar in form to
the last, except that the answers and "interrogatories"
handed in bythe accused clergy are in some cases included.
The-avaiiaMe-esddenseJn this county gives a list^pf 86,
sequestrations for the twojiundred livin"gs jn_ the county,
or a percentage of 43.
The geographical position of these counties, repre
senting respectively the south-west, the east and the
midlands of England, is fortunate, because, had the
evidence come from one quarter of the country only, it
would have been more hazardous to have argued from
the part to the whole. If, then, we may take them
as being typical of the counties generally — and there is
no reason to suppose that they are not — we find that they
show an average percentage of 39 sequestrations to the
total number of livings. Now there were at that time
roughly 8,6oojiaiigs. in England', whlcE^means b^Jl^^fien'
3,000 and 3,500 sequestrations. If an approximate
number be required, therefore, these are the figures which
the evidence supports and at that we must leave it'.
' The MS. is in the Walker Collection in the Bodleian Library. MS.
J. Walker, c. ii, fol. 4-81. It has not been published.
2 This number is taken from Valor Beneficiorum published in 1695.
3 For a fuller discussion of the subject see G. B. Tatham : Dr fohn
Walker and the Sufferings of the Clergy, pp. 124-32.

92 THE PURITANS IN POWER
From a historical point of view, however, the actual
numbers have little importance, for the reasons for, whifih
the clergy were deprived were so frequently other than
religious_thal-they,. .merely serve to indicate the extent
Qfjthejiphfiaval engendered by the CiviLWar.

CHAPTER IV
THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
As it was the University which educated and trained
men for the ministry of the Church, and set its stamp
upon their religious views and opinions, the regulation
of Oxford and Cambridge was a necessary part of
the ecclesiastical reform which the Puritans set out to
accomplish. "Whilst the Universities continued unre-
form'd," says Walker, "their work was but half done'."
Both had come under the influence of Laud's rdgime,
though not in an equal measure, for Oxford, as the
natural home of his teaching, and later as the head
quarters of the King's cause, had been more thoroughly
permeated with the spirit of his churchmanship and
royalist principles.
On the other hand, it is customary to regard Cambridge
as more under the influence of Puritanism. The past
history of the University lends support to the view, and
it is probable that of the Cambridge men who played
prominent parts in the events of the Civil War and
Interregnum, the greater number were ranged on the
side of the Parliament. But in 1640, though there was
a decided Puritan undercurrent, the new school of thought
had been firnily planted. As early as 1629, Laud, then
Bishop of London, was giving his attention to the matter,
for in a paper containing "considerations for the better
' Sufferings of the Clergy, p. 108.

94 THE PURITANS IN POWER
settling of the Church Government," presented to the
King in that year, he recommends "that Emanuel and
Sydney Colleges in Cambridge, which are the nurseries of
Puritanism, may from time to time be provided of grave
and orthodox men for their governors'."
It has already been remarked that one of the leading
motives of Laud's insistence on a strict observance of
forms and ceremonies was to reclaim the worship of the
Church from the neglect and the slovenly practices into
which it had fallen. In this direction, much remained to
be done at Cambridge. A report drawn up either by
Richard Sterne or John Cosin in 1636, dealing with
" certain disorders " which called for the Archbishop's
notice, reveals the fact that a great measure of neglect
-and" irregularity prevailed throughout the University.
The report dealt with two classes of disorder, the neglect
^of^discipline, and the neglect of religion.
It was not the first time in Charles' reign that the
neglect of discipline in the University had engaged the
attention of the authorities. In the very first year after
his accession, he had had occasion to direct the then
Chancellor of the University, Thomas, Earl of Suffolk,
to write to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses in
order that they might consider " what are, or have been,
the true occasions of this general offence taken at the
government, and what are fit to be remedies thereof"
In the letter which the Chancellor addressed to the
University authorities, in accordance with this direction,
he conjured them to "be all of one minde, as one intire
man, to bring home that long banisht pilgrim, discipHne,
by whose absence the famous nursery of literature and
good manners is in the eye of the state much declined'."
> Rushworth : Historical Collections, ii, p. 7.
2 Heywood and Wright : Cambridge Transactions during the Puritan
Period, ii, 335-7.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 95
The report of 1636 showed that this reformation had
been only imperfectly carried out. Some of the com
plaints were concerned with mere external forms. Notice
was taken of the disuse of academic dress and the
aesthetic tendencies observable in the apparel of the
students, the "light and gay" garments, "with stockings
of diverse colours reversed one upon another." Another
subject of complaint was the neglect of fast days, upon
which. Laud was informed, "are generally the best
^suppers of ye whole week'." ,X)'Ewes, we are told, who
spent a short time at St John's, was glad to get away
from " the_swearing^ drinking, rioting, and hatred of all
piety and virtue abounding generally in Cambridge'."
" "In matters 'connected with religion, the disorders were
of a sufficiently serious kind. In Great St Mary's the
fabric had been very much neglected and the service was
very negligently performed and was "commonly posted
over and cut short at ye pleasure of him that is sent thither
to read it. " It was the same in the college chapels. Trinity
had "been long noted to be very negligent of their
chappell and of their prayers in it." In King's "some of
the Quiremen " could not sing, and were " diverse of them
very negligent " : in Caius unordained persons conducted
the services, and so on. A noticeable allusion is made
to certain Puritan tendencies. The "bidding prayers"
before the sermons were " not only neglected but by most
men also mainly opposed and misliked," and had given
place to " such private fancies and several prayers of every
man's own making (and sometimes sudden conceiving
too)." In "Bennett college" they "use to sing long
psalms of their own appointing," and the same custom
was followed in Emmanuel'. In Laud's report on his
1 C. H. Cooper : Annals of Cambridge, iii, 280.
2 Life of D'Ewes, quoted in Bailey's Life of Fuller, p. 114.
3 C. H. Cooper : Annals of Cambridge, iii, 280-3.

96 THE PURITANS IN POWER
province for the year 1639, he still found "by my Lord
the Bishop's account, that there are divers particulars of
moment, and very fit for redress, presented to him in his
late... visitation, and most of them in the University and
town of Cambridge'." But he exerted himself to effect
a change in the existing state of affairs, and the traces of
his influence are apparent in many directions.
Those who now succeeded to positions of authority
in the University were, in many cases, members of the
new Church party, men who would carry out reforms on
the lines laid down by Laud, and it is significant of the
tendency of the time that of the nine heads of houses
appointed between 1630 and 1640, six were of this stamp'.
Under their auspices, the religious life, in point of doctrine
and of ritual, assumed a form and an appearance more
in accordance with the new school of thought. " The
greatest alteration," says Fuller, "was in their chapels,
most of them being graced with the accession of organs.
...Some," he records, "took great distaste thereat, as
attendancy to superstition'."
Dr John Cosin, who was appointed to the mastership
of Peterhouse on February 8, 1635, is a good example
of the new school. A bill for plate furnished to him for
the college chapel is still extant ^ and provides additional
evidence on the subject of one of the charges afterwards
brought forward at Laud's trial. On that occasion, one
witness deposed that "in Peterhouse Chapel there was
a glorious new altar set up, and mounted on steps, to
1 C. H. Cooper: Annals of Cambridge, iii, 294.
2 Lany of Pembroke (appointed 1630), Martin of Queens' (1631), Comber
of Trinity (1631), Sterne of Jesus (1633), Beale of St John's (1633), and
Cosin of Peterhouse (1635). The remaining three were Love of Corpus
(1632), Brownrig of St Catharine's (1635) and Holdsworth of Emmanuel
(1637). 3 Hist, of Cambridge (1840 ed.), p. 233.
* Printed in Cosiris Correspondence (Surtees Soc), i, 223.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 97
which the Master, Fellowes, Schollers bowed, and were
enjoyned to bow by Doctor Cosens the Master who set it
up, that there were basons, candlestickes, tapers standing
on it, and a great crucifix hanging over it," while another
testified that there was " on the altar a pot which they
.usually called the incense pot'."
In Trinity College extensive alterations were carried
out in the chapel, in accordance with the new ideas', and
in July 1637, the organ was painted and gilded at a cost
of fifty pounds'. Similar alterations and additions were
made in other colleges ^
— Nor was the trend of opinion evinced only in externals.
In June 1632, Nathaniel Barnard had been prosecuted in
the Consistory Court on account of a sermon preached
by him in Great St Mary's on May 6. The principal
exceptions taken to his sermon were that he had con
travened the royal declaration against discussing con
troversial subjects in the pulpit, that he had inveighed
against those who read sermons, instead of preaching,
and those who followed ritualistic innovations. He had
further affirmed that treason against the State was a
worse crime than treason against the King, and he had
' Prynne : Canterburies Doome, p. 73. " For the Sencor 36 ozs. 4 cwts.
at Zs. the ounce, is .£14. gj. dd." is an item in the bill mentioned above, and
this has been adduced as evidence of the use of incense in the chapel, but
the passage from Canterburies Doome, does not suggest Aat the censer
was used except for ornament. It is hardly likely that the burning of
incense, had it actually been practised, would have escaped special mention.
Cf Cosiris Correspondence (Surtees Soc), i, 223.
2 June 15, 1636. "Agreed by ye Mr and ye Seniors to set our
Communion table in our chappell as it is in Cathedrall churches and
chappels at ye upper end and ye ground to be raysed and that ye chappell
be adorned accordingly." Jan. 14, 1636/7. " It was concluded for ye
beautifying of ye chappel and ye decent adorning of ye Communion table
doe authorise and constitute Fra. Kinaston Sen. Bursar of ye Coll. for ye
performance of ye same and doe committ ye contrivance of ye whole worke
forthwith to bee performed by him." Trinity Seniors' Conclusion Book.
3 Ibid.
* See College Hist. Series, Jesus, p. 105 and St John's, p. 113.
T. P. 7

98 THE PURITANS IN POWER
given additional offence by praying that God would
honour the Gospel with the Queen's conversion. Barnard
denied some points contained in the objections and
justified others, and, though he consented to submit, he
refused to accept the form of recantation drawn up by
Dr Comber, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Heads. He
was deprived of his post as lecturer at S. Sepulchre's
and was summoned to appear before the High Com
mission Court'.
In 1637 the attention of the Heads was engaged by
three sermons, which, from the matter contained in them,
as well as from the controversy to which they gave rise,
are of considerable interest. The first two emanated
from the opposite extremes. In July, Anthony Sparrow
of Queens' was questioned by the Vice-Chancellor on
the subject of a sermon in which he was alleged to
have justified the doctrine of auricular confession', and
on August 14, Mr Riley of Trinity was charged by
Dr Martin, President of Queens', for that " in his ordinary
course att Saint Maryes, he did state the cheife and prin-
cipall of the controversyes of predestination in theise words,
1 Pending this, the Consistory committed him, on October 15, to the
safe custody of Thomas Buck, one of the Esquire Bedells, in default of
sufficient sureties for his appearance. Almost immediately afterwards he
escaped, but was recaptured and comraitted to prison in Cambridge.
See a letter from Dr Comber to Mr Lucas, the secretary to the
Chancellor, the Earl of Holland, dated October 21, 1632. He acquaints
him " with the unfortunate escape of Mr Bernard, who this Sunday, whilst
Mr Buck our senior beadle attended upon me to S. Mary's sermon, hath
made a secret escape from the servant that had the charge of him. We
have sent many horsemen after him with hue and cry." Hist. MSS. Com.
\ith Rep., Earl Cowper's MSS., App. I, Vol. i, p. 479. He refused to recant
when brought before the High Commission on Nov. 8, and is said to have
died in prison.
Papers relating to Barnard's case are to be found in the Cambridge
University Library MSS. Mm. vi, 54, ff. 1-24. See also Heywood and
Wright, Transactions in the Puritan Period, ii, 392.
2 Acta Curiae preserved in the University Registry, and Cooper's
Annals of Cambridge, iii, 288.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 99
or to this effecte, non ideo eliguntur quia iusti, sed ideo
iusti quia eliguntur, contrary to His Majesty's declaration,
and did then and there likewyse interpret! a publique
Article of the Church of England in his private sense
and opinion concerning concupiscence in ye regenerate,
expressely likewise against his sacred Majesty's declara
tion'." Both preachers were compelled to produce copies
of their sermons, but no definite action was taken, and
on August 14 Sparrow's case was dismissed'.
Greater interest, however, was attached to the case of
Sylvester Adams of Peterhouse, who on June 25, had
preached a public sermon on the text : " Whose sins ye
remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they
are retained'."
On July 17, the Heads ordered him to appear in
a month's time and to bring in a copy of his sermon, but
the copy produced does not seem to have been satisfactory
and the case dragged on into the winter, Adams being
forbidden, on November 20, to leave the town without
the Vice-Chancellor's permission. On December 4,
Adams was admonished, and ordered to deliver a true
copy of his sermon " as he preached it (without quota
tion)." " Being demanded whether he doth hould that the
Confession of all knowne sinns unto a Priest, is ye
only ordinary revealed meanes for salvacon, he saith that
he doth not hould it. Secondly whether he doth hould
that God doth not ordinarily pardon such knowne sinnes
beforementioned, without such confession as is before
mentioned." No answer is recorded to the second part of the in
terrogation, but on December 16, the Vice-Chancellor
was entreated " to conceave a forme of acknowledgment,
1 Acta Curiae. ' Ibid.
3 S. John XX, 23.
7—2

loo THE PURITANS IN POWER
which should be propounded to Mr Adams to see if he
would voluntarily undertake it."
Two days later, Adams appeared again, and was
charged by the Vice-Chancellor with delivering the
doctrine, "That a speciall confession unto a Priest
actually when time or opportunity presents itselfe or
otherwise in explicite intention and resolution of all our
Sinnes Committed after Baptisme so farre forth as wee
doe remember is necessary unto saluation, not only
necessitate precepti, but also necessitate medii, so that
according to the ordinary and revealed means appoynted
,by Christ there can be noe saluation without the afore-
isaid Confession." To this Adams replied that he had
isaid nothing in his sermon which he believed to be
j contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. A
form of recantation was then read over and the question
was put to the Heads whether it was " a fitt recantation
to be made by Mr Adams in regard of the matter
delivered in his sermon.''
The voting of the thirteen Heads who were present
discovered a considerable divergence of opinion. Only
four gave an unqualified assent. Ward of Sidney, Bainbrigg
of Christ's, Love of Corpus Christi, and Batchcroft of
Gonville and Caius. Five voted against the form of the
recantation, Cosin of Peterhouse, Lany of Pembroke,
Martin of Queens', Sterne of Jesus and Eden of Trinity
Hall. The remaining four, namely Collins of King's,
Smith of Magdalene, Comber of Trinity and Holdsworth
of Emmanuel, were in favour of postponement and their
vote carried the day. On March 2, 1638, the question
was brought up again and the Heads decided, by a
majority of seven to five, counting Brownrig the Vice-
Chancellor's vote as one, that Adams should either
submit to the recantation or be dealt with in accordance
with the University Statute "de concionibus." Adams

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE loi
refused to give way, and it may be assumed that the
sentence was duly enforced.
The four Heads who had previously voted for the
recantation, again supported the Vice-Chancellor's ruling,
and they were joined on this occasion by Holdsworth,
who had previously favoured a postponement, and Paske
of Clare, who had not been present at the earlier vote.
The " non-placets " were weakened by the absence of
Martin and Eden. Collins, however, voted with them
and so did Beale of St John's, another whose vote had
not been recorded on the first division. Comber seems
to have been absent.
It will be observed that the opposition to the Vice-
Chancellor's __sentence came chiefly from those whose
election to the masterships of their colleges has already
been mentioned as a sign of the increasing influence of
Laud's school, and their objections were generally based
on the ground that such a condemnation of the practice of
confession was ^not. in .accordance with the doctrine of
the Church. The one exception was Eden, the only
layman present. Eden was a Puritan and sat in the
Long Parliament, so that his objection must have been
founded on different reasons.
The importance of the case must not be pressed too
far, but it is interesting as illustrating the existence of
two distinct parties amongst the Heads, and the views
which they put forward on what was, to some extent,
a test question. Then as now, there seems to have been
considerable difference of opinion as to what was the
teaching of the Church of England on the question of
Confession, and though it may be doubted whether the
minority were correct in thinking that the wording of the
censure and recantation ran counter to orthodox doctrine,
it was on the Articles and the Liturgy, as they understood
them, that they took their stand. In this, as in other

I02 THE PURITANS IN POWER
points round which controversy was then raging, -the
l^itude and want of strict definition which characterised
the written doctrine of the Church of England, ^enabled
each side to pose as the champions of ^EthodoxjL^with
a fair show of consistency'.
With the summoning of the Short Parliament, the
balance of power began to undergo a change, and the
party which had been slowly making its way towards
supremacy in the University, found itself thrown back by
the advancing tide of Puritan feeling. One of the first
acts of the Short Pariiament was to make an inquiry
into a sermon preached by Dr Beale, the Master of
St John's, in 1635, in which he was said to have
attacked the authority of Parliament', and proceedings
against Dr Cosin were initiated by the Long Parliament
in November 1640. They were instigated by one Peter
Smart, who had been an antagonist of Cosin's at Durham'
and resulted in the passing of a series of resolutions on
January 22, 1641, in which the Commons declared that
the Doctor was "unfit and unworthy to be a governor
in either of the Universities, or to continue any longer
head or Governor of any college, or to hold and enjoy
any ecclesiastical promotions*." On December 7, the
Commons appointed a committee, under Sir Henry
Mildmay, to examine what had been done in violation of
the statutes of Emmanuel", and on the 22nd of the same
month, a committee was appointed to consider the abuses
in matters of religion and civil government, either done
or suffered by the Universities".
On June 4, 1641, the last-mentioned committee was
revived, and was instructed to prepare a bill for regelating
' See Appendix for a fuller accgunt of the voting.
2 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, p. 300. 3 See Diet. Nat. Biog., Cosin, John.
* C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 306, 309-10.
' Ibid. 306, see also Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, p. 108.
' C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 307.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 103
the Universities. Such a bill was accordingly drawn up,
and was read for the first time in the Commons on
August 3 '. For the moment, however, it did not proceed
any further. Three days later articles were exhibited in
Parliament against Dr Beale. They were concerned,
firstly with his political views and his hostility to the
Puritans, and secondly with the part he had taken in the
recent ecclesiastical changes. He was said to have been
"the sole encourager of Dr Cozins in his vice-chancellour-
ship to tyranize in that jesuiticall, popish, and canterburian
religion " and to have insisted on conformity to "papistical
innovations'." The undoing of Laud's work was, in fact,
for the moment the chief concern of the Parliament. On
June 28, 1641, the Commons declared that the "injunction
of doing reverence to the Communion-table" was no
longer to be enforced in either University, and by an
OTderofSeptember 9 following, the University authorities
were directed to remove the communion table from the
east end of all chapels, to take away the rails and to
level the xhancels'.
In the following year, Cambridge was drawn more
directly into the current of political events. On June 29,
the King, moved, as he said, by the warlike preparations
against him, invited the University to furnish him with
money at 8 per cent, interest'. The University of Oxford
sent ;^io,ooo and Cambridge "a fair proportion" in
answer to this appeals Peterhouse sent ;i^200, ;^ioo
from the Master and ;;^joo from the college*; St John's
sent ;!^25o'; Emmanuel and Sidney .i^ 100 each* and from
' C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 313.
2 Heywood and Wright, Cambridge Transactions, ii, 442-4-
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 314, 316. * Ibid, iii, 325.
' Secretary Nicholas to Sir Thos. Roe, July 20, 1642, Cal. of S. P. Dom.
1641-3, p. 359. See also Gardiner : Hist, of Eng. 1603-42, x, 212.
« College Hist. Series, Peterhouse, p. 108. ^ Ibid. St John's, p. 115.
* Ibid. Emmanuel, p. 92 ; Sidney, p. 106.

I04 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Queens', the President, Dr Martin, sent .^loo and Sparrow
;^85'. In some cases no doubt the record of the loan
has been lost, but the above sums, if they may be taken
as proportional, do not represent a very imposing total,
and it is probable that a considerable part of the money
subscribed came from private hands.
Within a month, the King was forced to make a
further claim on the college liberality. Being informed',
he wrote on Jiily 24, " that all or most of the colleges in
Cambridge were ready to deposit their plate in his hands
for the better security and safety thereof," he offered to
receive it, and to grant a dispensation from those statutes
which might prevent the temporary alienation of college
property'. The college authorities can have been
under no misapprehension as to the intention of this
proposal, and must have realised that the surrender of
their plate was much more in the nature of a free gift, or
at best a loan, than that of a deposit for purposes of
safety, and in some colleges there was a noticeable re
luctance to accede to the royal request. St John's, how
ever, sent 2065^ ozs. weight"; Jesus 1201 ozs.°. Queens'
1514 ozs.", and nearly all the colleges contributed in
some measure. Christ's is said to have sent neither
money nor plate''. The first consignment of this valuable
contribution was entrusted to the care of Barnabas Oley
of Clare, and was successfully convoyed by by-paths
past Cromwell's watch to the King at Nottingham. A
certain amount, however, was afterwards seized by
1 College Hist. Series, Queens', pp. 161-2.
2 According to Clarendon, the idea of borrowing college plate emanated
from Gilbert Sheldon : Hist, of Rebell. ii, 330, note.
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 327.
* Heywood and Wright, Cambridge Transactions, ii, 452.
' College Hist. Series, Jesus, p. 107.
^ Ibid. Queens', pp. 161-2.
' Ibid. Christ's, p. 160.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 105
Cromwell in Cambridge, that belonging to Magdalene
and Trinity Hall amongst the rest'.
The action of the University in this matter led to the
first act of violence from the Parliament. Several persons
were sent up to London as prisoners for their complicity
in the affair, and amongst them Drs Beale, Martin and
Sterne, the Masters respectively of St John's, Queens'
and Jesus'.
During the summer and autumn of 1642, the town
and neighbourhood of Cambridge were disturbed by the
alarms and excursions that necessarily attended the out
break of the war. The strategic importance of the place
was fully realised by the Parliamentary leaders, and early
steps were taken to foster the sympathy evinced by the
townsmen. At the instigation of Cromwell, arms were
sent down, and measures taken to train and exercise the
inhabitants for the defence of the district'. On the whole,
the " Town and Gown " stood for the two opposite parties
and collisions between the two must have been frequent*.
An attempt, however, on the part of the colleges to
provide themselves with arms was frustrated by the
vigilance of Cromwell, and a chest of muskets and
ammunition purchased by Trinity Hall was seized.
" The scholars of Trinity College " got possession of five
chests before the Mayor could safeguard them", but the
Parliamentary party was too strong to allow any Royalist
demonstration to succeed. This may partially explain
the fact that early in 1643 the college societies began to
thin as the result of a general exodus. On February 23,
1642/3 the fellows of Jesus agreed to grant leave of
1 Common^ fournals, ii, 731. See Appendix.
2 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 328. 3 /foV. iii, 326.
* The Querela Cantabrigiensis states that the townsmen were in the
habit of firing their muskets at the college windows.
' C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 326-7.

io6 THE PURITANS IN POWER
absence to any of their number till Michaelmas, which
was subsequently extended to Michaelmas 1644, and most
of them availed themselves of the opportunity'. In April,
thirteen fellows of Trinity obtained leave of absence
varying in length from six weeks to twelve months', and
the King's College " Liber Communarum " shows that a
very considerable number of fellows and scholars were
absent from the years 1643 to 1646.
Cambridge in fact had ceased to be a congenial atmo
sphere for men of royalist proclivities, for in February
a strong garrison under Cromwell had been thrown into
the town to resist a threatened attack from the forces
under Lord Capel'.
The presence of a large number of troops was likely
to lead to the violent treatment of person and property,
and accordingly on March 4, the House of Lords issued
an order to protect the University members from
molestation and their buildings from being plundered or
spoiled. Three days later, the Earl of Essex issued
a similar order to the officers under his command, en
joining them to forbear to "offer any damage to the
University of Cambridge " or to any property belonging
to it*. But, according to a contemporary royalist account,
on February 23, preceding Essex's order. Lord Grey of
Wark had already procured a warrant for his officers "to
enter into the houses of all papists, malignants, and other
persons whatsoever that have or shall refuse to appear
at musters," or to contribute to the Parliament, "and to
seize upon all such arms, horses and ammunition, as shall
be found in their custodies, and to apprehend their said
persons." In virtue of this order, the students were

1 College Hist. Series, Jesus, pp. 109-10.
2 Trinity Seniors' Conclusion Book, 1607-75, pp. 17 1-2.
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 337.
* Ibid, iii, 339-40.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 107
examined and the colleges were ransacked and plun
dered'. It is difficult to say how much of substantial truth
there is in contemporary accounts, but it is tolerably clear
that the damage attributed to the wilful violence of the
troops has been very much exaggerated. " Multitudes of
soldiers," says the Querela, "were quartered in the
colleges, and the buildings " which our devout and royal
founders designed for sanctuaries of learning and piety...
were made by them mere spittles, and bawdy-houses for
sick and debauched souldiers, being filled with queans,
drabs, fiddlers, and revels, night and day'." The members
of St John's were driven out of the college "for above
sixteen months together," and eighty soldiers " were
turned loose" into Pembroke, and "charged by their
officers to shift for themselves." In addition to this
they "tore and defac'd the buildings, pull'd down, and
burn'd, the wainscote of the chambers, the bedsteds,
chairs, stools, tables and shelves for books'."
If what is here described had actually taken place, it
might naturally be expected that some record of the
damage could be traced in the contemporary college
account-books, and the comparative silence of these
witnesses tends to discredit the account. The Bursar's
cash-book at Peterhouse shows that a not inconsiderable
sum was spent in the entertainment of soldiers*, and the
" Mundum Books " of King's College prove that a certain
number were billeted there, but the expenses for repairs
do not " indicate anything more than reasonable wear and
tear," nor was any serious damage done to the fabric'.
» Querela Cantabrigiensis, Preface. Cf an order of Pariiament of the
same date, granting power of martial law to Sir William Waller, Common^
Journal, ii, p. 975-
2 Querela Cantabrigiensis, p. 15. 3 Sufferings of the Clergy, p. no.
* College Hist. Series, Peterhouse, p. 1 10.
6 Willis and Clark : Architectural Hist, of Cambridge, i, 511-13.

io8 THE PURITANS IN POWER
The account-books of Jesus College show that the college
suffered a similar imposition, but here again the traces
of damage are inconsiderable. Seven shillings and a
penny were paid for the " soldiers that came to be billeted.
October 20, 1643," and seventeen shillings were paid
"for mending windows, locks, bedsteads, etc., broken by
the souldiers billetted in the College'." The burials of
soldiers, frequently recorded in the registers of several
churches in the town, afford an additional indication of the
military occupation'. The first court of St John's was
converted into a prison, and a considerable amount of
damage was done, but in spite of this the admissions
during the period were not entirely interrupted'.
On the other hand, there are some indications that
the relations between the colleges and the soldiers whom
they were forced to entertain, were not always unfriendly,
and we find that five shillings was paid at Trinity "to
diuerse souldiers at seuerall times that behaved themselves
very deuoutly in the chappell," and another five shillings
to " some of Major Scot's souldiers who defended the
chappell from the rudenesse of the rest*."
Damage and destruction of course there was, but the
most serious at the moment was that carried out for
military purposes. The material intended for the re
building of Clare College was seized for the purpose of
fortifying the Castle, in the neighbourhood of which
about fifteen houses had been demolished^, and some of
the timber in the St John's orchard was felled". Cooper,

' Hist. Series, Jesus, p. i lo.
2 A. Kingston, East Anglia in the Great Civil War, p. 148.
3 Baker's Hist, of St John's (ed. Mayor), p. 633 ; J. E. B. Mayor :
Admissions to St John's College ; Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, p. no.
* Trinity Steward's accounts, 1644, quoted in Willis and Clark, Archi
tectural History, ii, 576.
^ C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 340-1.
8 College Hist Series, St John's, p. 126.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 109
on the authority of the Querela Cantabrigiensis, also
states that the Garret Hostel bridge, and the bridges
belonging to St John's, Trinity, King's and Queens' were
pulled down, but Walker is probably more accurate
in saying that they were "defac'd" of stone and
timber'. Throughout the year, in fact, there was some danger
that Cambridge might become the scene of serious
fighting, and the occasional proximity of the royalist
forces without, combined with a constant hostile element
within the town, gave the Parliamentary party some
cause for anxiety'.
It was natural that in the midst of these unacademic
scenes, the course of the University life should be practi
cally suspended. In a petition presented to the Parliament
on June 5, 1643, the University drew attention to their
"sad dejected estate. . .how our schools daily grow desolate,
mourning the absence of their professours and their
wonted auditories ; how, in our Colleges, our numbers
grow thin, and our revenues short ; and what subsistence
we have abroad, is for the most part involved in the
common miseries: how, frighted by the neighbour noise
of war, our students either quit their gowns, or abandon
their studies ; how our degrees lie disesteemed, and all
1 C.H.Cooper: Annals, iii, 341 ; Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, -p. \io.
The St John's bridge was a wooden structure and may have been completely
destroyed, and the Trinity bridge had to undergo repair in 165 1, but the
King's bridge, which had been built in 1627, remained until the beginning
of the last century. See Willis and Clark, Architectural History, i, 572,
ii, 275, 638.
2 A letter written by one of the Castle garrison on October 7, 1643,
just at the time that detachments of the King's army were raaking
demonstrations towards the Eastern counties, describes the weakness of
the defence and the lack of arms and ammunition. The writer, one
Robert Jordan, anticipated an attack from the "Oxford forces," being
"persuaded they know as well as ourselves what a condition we are in,
we having so many malignant scholars and others." Hist. MSS. Com.
i2th Rep., Duke of Portland's MSS., App., Pt. i, p. 135.

iio THE PURITANS IN POWER
hopes of our Public Commencements are blasted in
the bud'."
Term was ended in the middle of May', and on
June 12, a Grace was passed to forego the solemnities of
Public Commencement on account of the state of affairs'.
Another ceremony to be abandoned was the Latin
sermon, for at the beginning of the Easter Term, the
Lady Margaret Preacher had been "furiously pursued
over the market place by a confused number of soldiers,
who in a barbarous uncivil manner cryed out, a Pope,
a Pope, and vowed high revenge if he offered to go into
the Pulpit." This is the version in the Querela Canta
brigiensis, and its substantial truth is attested by the fact
that in the following term the sermon was suspended by
Grace of the Senate, "for the avoydinge of the like
tumult which threatened some danger to the Preacher in
the beginning of the last term*." In the following year
several Graces were passed to allow men to take their
degrees by proxy, " ob varia in itinerando pericula," and
the like".
The threatened siege of Cambridge never took place,
and as events turned out, the University buildings were
destined to suffer less from the violence of war than from
the work of an authorised agent of destruction. On
August 28, 1643, an ordinance of Parliament had been
issued directing that all the recent ritualistic additions
' Printed in Cooper's Annals, iii, 347.
2 May 15, 1643. There were granted "(there being at that tyme a
cessation of tearme) dayes for all fellowes and scholars untill Michas. next
following." Trinity Seniors' Conclusion Book. Later in the summer, a
periodic outbreak of the plague took place, and we find in the Conclusion
Book strict orders to prevent the carrying of infection "during this time
of the Visitation.''
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 349.
^ Grace Book, Z (University Registry), ff. 455-6. Quoted by Cooper
{Annals, iii, 358) from the Baker MS.
* Grace Book, Z.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE in
to the appearance of churches and chapels should be
demolished, and Heads of Houses were required to see
that the directions were carried out in their own colleges'.
As the colleges showed no readiness to obey the ordinance
more rigorous measures were employed, and in December,
William Dowsing, whose doings among the churches of
the Eastern counties will be described later, arrived at
Cambridge armed with a special commission from the
Earl of Manchester. Some colleges took the precaution
of beginning the required alterations without his assistance,
and the fellows of Jesus had taken down and concealed
their organ', but Dowsing's journal' shows that, in most
chapels, he had ample scope. Robert Masters speaks of
" the enraged rabble " who accompanied and assisted him
in the execution of his work*, and images, pictures, and
inscriptions were cleared away and the raised chancels
levelled in the same ruthless fashion which characterised
the discharge of his commission elsewhere. According
to the Querela, he battered and beat down " all our
painted glasse, not only in the chappels; but... in the
publique schools, colledges, halls, libraries and chambers","
but this again is an exaggeration. Dowsing's journal
mentions the destruction of glass in only three colleges,
Peterhouse, St Catharine's and Clare, and there is no
record of repairs on a scale so extensive as such whole
sale destruction would have necessitated". On the other
hand, there can be no doubt of the thoroughness of the
work.
1 Quoted in Cooper's Annals, iii, 364.
2 College Hist. Series, Jesus, p. 1 10.
3 Printed from the Baker MS. in Cooper's Annals, iii, 364-7.
* History of Corpus, p. 149.
* Querela Cantabrigiensis, p. 17.
' Evelyn, who visited Cambridge in 1654, says nothing about any
indications of Dowsing^s handiwork, though he was in the habit of mentioning
traces of the war when he observed them elsewhere.

112 THE PURITANS IN POWER
"We had 4 Cheribims and Steps levelled" is
Dowsing's note for Trinity, and in the Bursar's accounts
the work is set out more at large : —
To Mr Knuckles for whiting over the figures and for
his paines and his servants  ^¦
To Georg Woodruffe for taking downe the organs and
hangings  •¦•  ^'^^¦
To Mr Jennings for taking downe the organ pipes xlvs.
Given to free Masons, bricklaiers, carpenters, up
holsterers for removing the hangings and railes
in the chappell  xxviiij.
The outbreak of hostilities naturally affected seriously
the material well-being of the University in another
direction. On March 27, 1643, an ordinance had been
issued to sequester the estates of all who had taken up
arms against the Parliament or who had voluntarily con
tributed to the enemy's forces', and in virtue of this order,
the^locaL-sequestrators, always eager to deal a blow, at
the University, _had .begun to. seize college property by
way of reprisal for th.eir contributions to the King.
On October 7, 1643, the University authorities addressed
a petition to Parliament begging protection from a course
which promised to ruin them. They admitted that they
had sent a quantity of plate and money to the King for
the supply of his "present necessities," but disclaimed
the intention " to foment any war, which was not at that
time begun." They prayed the Parliament to grant
them "freedom from this sequestration," and not to allow
the dutiful action of a few men towards their sovereign
to deprive " the members of the several colleges of all
possibility to continue in this University'." A similar
petition was presented on December 5 by the fellows
and scholars of Trinity who complained that the seques
trators had seized their lands, distrained their tenants
' Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i, 106.
2 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 359.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 113
fbr the rents due to the college, and driven away their
cattle'. The action of the sequestrators, indeed, was
likely to have such serious results that the Earl of
Manchester, who both then and afterwards, did much to
protect the interests of the University, addressed a letter on
the subject to the Speaker of the House of Lords, pointing
out the danger of the existing state of things and delicately
suggesting that "your Lordships in your wisdoms will
think it better to endeavour the reforming of the Uni
versity, rather than to hazard the dissolving of it'."
The result of this united agitation was the issue on
January 6, 1643/4 of a declaration by Pariiament to the
effect that the University and college property was " in
no wise sequestrable, or to be seized on, or otherwise
disposed of by vertue or colour " of any of the ordinances
for the sequestration of delinquents' estates. The declara
tion, however, went on to decree that the University and
college treasurers, to whom the revenues were paid, must
be approved by the Earl of Manchester, and that " the
said receivers, and treasurers respectively, shall pay all
and every part, portion, and dividend, which they have,
or shall have respectively, of all and every of the said
rents or revenues, which part, portion, or dividend, shall
be found to be, or to have been due or payable to any
Head, Fellow, Schollar, or Officer of the said University,
or of any of the said colledges or halls, being, or which
shall be a delinquent, within any of the said ordinances
for sequestration, either to the Committee for Sequestra
tions sitting at Cambridge, or otherwise as it shall be
ordered by the said Earle of Manchester'."
The involved wording of this last clause renders the
1 C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 362. 2 if^id. iii, 363.
3 Ibid, iii, 367. It appears from the Senior Bursar's accounts 1644, that
Trinity paid ^21. \os. od. for " expenses for the Ordinance of Parliament to
take off the Sequestration for College rents."
T. P. 8

114 THE PURITANS IN POWER
meaning at first sight somewhat obscure, but the sum
of the matter is that the incomes of delinquent members
of the University were to be paid to the sequestration
committee'. Shortly after the issue of this declaration, the Parlia
ment proceeded to the execution of the work which they
had in view from the beginning of their sessions — the
regulation of the University. A bill for that purpose had
been read the first time in the Commons on August 3, 1641,
but, in the midst of more urgent business, the matter had
been allowed to drop. On June 10, 1643, the subject
had been revived in a debate on the petition from the
University praying for freedomfrom rates and impositions'.
As a result of the debate a committee had been appointed
to consider some means of extending relief to the
University, and "to consider of some effectual means of
reforming it, and jiurging. it-fixim-all- abuses, innovations,
and superstitions'. By the end of the year, through~tKe
agency of Dowsing, an outward reformation had been
thoroughly effected, but the personnel of the University
had as yet undergone no systematic "regulation." To
this the Parliament now turned, and on January 22,
1643/4, an ordinance was issued for " regulating the
University of Cambridge, and for removing of scandalous
ministers in the seven Associated Counties*."
1 Thus ^22. i8j. 4d. was paid to the sequestrators in 1645 for "the
wages and other emoluments of some particular fellowes." Trinity Senior
Bursar's Book ; Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, f. 11 j. Walker, who makes
a mistake in the year and assigns the declaration to January 6, 1642, states
that it ordered the treasurers to "pay the incomes and revenues to the
Committee for Sequestrations," overlooking the fact that this was only so in
the case of the incomes and revenues of delinquents. "By this declaration,"
he concludes, "the whole estates of the masters, fellows, etc., were plainly
put into his [i.e. Lord Manchester's] hands."
2 That of June 5th. See ante, p. 109.
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 347-9.
* Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i, 371.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 115
A description of this ordinance, as far as it affected
the Associated Counties, has already been given', and,
; as the University was included under the same provisions,
it need not be repeated. The committee of seques
trators appointed for Cambridge, were empowered " to
I call before them, all provosts, masters, and fellowes of
colledges, all students, and members of the University...
that are scandalous in their lives, or ill affected to the
Parliament, or fomentors of this unnaturall warre, or that
shall wilfully refuse obedience to the ordinances of
Parliament, or that have deserted their ordinary places
of residence, not being imployed in the service of the
King and Parliament."
Almost immediately after the issue of the ordinance,
the Earl of Manchester, who, as holding the chief
command in the Associated Counties, had been entrusted
with the control of the regulation, arrived in Cambridge,
and took up his quarters, together with the commissioners,
in Trinity'. On February 24, he issued a warrant
requiring Heads of Houses to send him the statutes of
their colleges with the names of the members of their
societies, and to certify who were then present in the
University and who absent'. Two days later, he issued
a second warrant, requiring the Heads "to give speedy
advertisement viis, mediis et modis, to the fellowes,
schollars, and officers " to be resident in their respective
colleges on the loth of March following, "to give an
account wherein they shall be required, to answer such

1 See ante, pp. 66 et seq.
2 See State Papers, Domestic, vol. dxl. "A note of the charges for
goods seized " from delinquent fellows : " Paid 2 porters for carrying goods
to Trin. Coll. for my Lord's use...3.f. od.
" Delivered in beds and bedding to Trin. Coll. for the use of the Com
missioners by my Lord's Order. ..^lo. os. od."
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 371.

ii6 THE PURITANS IN POWER
things as may bee demanded by mee,or such commissioners
as I shall appoint'."
The injustice of this latter order has been severely
criticised by royalist writers, inasmuch as it was plainly
impossible for those members who were far distant to
return to Cambridge within twelve days', but the time
was subsequently extended and it was not until April 3
that summonses were issued, in Manchester's name,
ordering certain members of the several societies to
report themselves at the Bear Inn on pain of expulsion.
As a result of failure to obey this order, about sixty
fellows of colleges were deprived on April 8'.
' C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii. 371.
2 John Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, p. 112. Fuller explains the
apparent injustice of the first order by saying that " because many of them
were suspected to be in the King's army, twelve days were conceived for them
as much as twelve months ; no time being too short for those who were
willing, and none long enough for such who were unwilling." Hist, of
Cambridge, p. 236. Neal also states that "the earl being informed that
this notice was too short, the time was prolonged to the 3rd of April."
Hist, of the Puritans (ed. 1822), iii. 96.
3 Baker MSS. xxvii, ff. 461-2. At this point the Querela Cantabrigiensis
describes what was known as the " Oath of Discovery." It asserts, that
the sequestrators were unable to find other grounds of objection against
those whom they wished to expel for their loyalty, and accordingly framed
an oath which they tendered to all members of the University. This Oath
of Discovery required those who took it to "accuse their nearest and dearest
friends, benefactors, tutors and masters, and betray the members and acts
of their several societies" {Querela Cantabrigiensis, p. 20). In 1654, Fuller,
on reading the account of this oath in the Querela Cantabrigiensis, referred
to Simon Ash, Lord Manchester's chaplain, for corroboration or contradiction,
and Ash denied any knowledge of it, though he admitted that he might " be
under mistakes through forgetfulness.'' Fuller's own view was that such an
oath had been tendered, but unofficially {Hist, of Cambridge, p. 320), and in
this he appears to have been very near the truth. Thomas Baker thought
the so-called Oath of Discovery referred to a clause in the declaration taken
by the Puritan nominees to University and college offices, in which they
swore to procure " reformation by all means." " Either this was the oath
of discovery," he says, " or I believe none such was tendered," and he goes
on to quote Simon Ash's disclaimer (Baker's Hist, of St John's, ed.
J. E. B. Mayor, pp. 225-6). William Cole, the antiquarian, was, however,
able to correct him on this point and to offer a tolerably conclusive solution.
In his transcript of Baker's history in the British Museum, he appends " a

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 117
The ordinance of January 22, 1643/4 had_jdirected
that the Covenant was to be tendered^" to alJL perso,as_in
any of the said Associated Counties, and the Isle of Ely,"
but had not especially mentioned the University. On
February 5, the House of Lords ordered the Earl of
Manchester to take special care that it should be tendered
and taken in the University of Cambridge', and to this
date must be attributed an interesting little tract entitled
The Remonstrance of the Associated Counties to the
University of Cambridge, concerning the late Covenant.
The tract is in the form of a letter addressed " to the Right
Worshipfull the Master and Fellows of  College,"
and calls upon the University to set an example in
refusing the Covenant, but the order of February 5 was
not literally executed. The necessity of signing the
Covenant was not forced upon the University as a whole',
and it is probable that the majority of the members of
King's were especially exempted through the influence
of Whichcote, who became Provost in 1644'. In fact,
although, as will be seen later, a considerable number of
sequestrations were taking place, the Earl of Manchester
was in no hurry to press the Covenant upon the University
generally*. On January 18, the committee for the
MS. note entered into my copy of Fuller's Church History^' which is in the
form of a deposition signed " Ra. Tonstall." This states that "the abovesaid
oath of discovery was tendered by a sub-committee of laymen, where one,
whose name was Ffortune, an haberdasher of hatts, had the chaire : where
I, whose name is here underwritten, being then fellow of Christs col.
Camb. with several others, uppon sumons, did appeare. This oath was
first tendred to Mr Brearly the sen"^ of us, who alledged it to be the oath
ex officio, refused to take it, and argued as above : to which the rest each
excused and refused, and so dismist " {ibid. p. 638).
1 Lords' Journals, vi, 412.
2 Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 113.
3 Neal : Hist, of the Puritans, iii, 97.
* An entry in the records of the Committee of Plundered Ministers, dated
July 3, 1*644, five months after the order to enforce the oath, states that he
" had not at his going hence towards York urged the Covenant in general

1x8 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Association, at Manchester's direction, ordered that.no
person was to be admitted to any college office until -be
had taken the Covenant', but, according to Neal, eyen
this^ rule was not strictly adhered to. The form of
declaration made by Lazarus Seaman on his appointment
to the mastership of Peterhouse, contained a clause to the
effect that he would " faithfully labour to promote learning
and piety... agreeably to the late solemn, national league
and covenant, by me sworn and subscribed." This clause,
Neal says, was "omitted by those who did not take it
[i.e. the Covenant], as in the case of Dr Witchcote and
odjers'." It seems, in fact, that in the case of a good
many moderate men, who evinced no signs of hostility to
the Parliament, the oath and subscription were never
pressed at all'.
'But in spite of this, a considerable number did suffer
the loss of their fellowships and the sequestration of their
property, as a result of thp imposition of the Covenant.
A small book has been preserved, in which was kept a
rough inventory of the property so appropriated by the
commissioners* and "A note of the charges for the
goods seized" shows that the furniture and books, be
longing to the delinquent fellow, were formally valued
and conveyed away to a house especially hired for the
purpose". It seems probable, however, that the owners
were allowed to redeem their property".
upon divers colledges... neither since his going hath the Committee here
by commission from him pressed it upon any save upon some particular men
by him named." Record Office S. P. Dom. Int. F. 3.
' Heywood and Wright : Cambridge Transactions, ii, 463.
2 History of the Puritans (ed. 1822), iii, 106.
3 Walker was informed, in a letter from Sir P. Sydenham, that the
Covenant was never imposed in Emmanuel, the Puritan authorities sup
posing that the members were " all true and right to the rebellious cause "
(MS. J. Walker, c 3, fol. 17).
* State Papers Domestic, vol. DXL.
* " Paid to Mr James Sadler a rate for the house we lay goods in. ..2. 6."
" J. B. MuUinger : The University of Cambridge, iii, 280.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 119
In the absence of reliable records, it is impossible to
indicate the grounds or the occasions on which the bulk
of the sequestrations took place, but it is clear that either
before or after the appointment of the " Regulators," a
complete change was made in the government and
personnel of the various colleges. John Cosin had been
declared unfit for the mastership of Peterhouse as early
as January 1641/2 ; but he seems to have remained in
Cambridge for more than a year, and was finally ejected
on Manchester's warrant on March 13, 1643/4' to
gether with Drs Martin, Sterne, Beale and Lany.
Martin, Sterne and Beale had been committed to prison
in the summer of 1642 for the part they had taken in
sending plate to the King. The first two remained in
confinement : the last named obtained an exchange,
spent some time in attendance on the King, and ulti
mately died in Spain in 1650'. In May 1643,
Dr Holdsworth, Master of Emmanuel and Vice-chan
cellor, had been seized for licensing the publication of
the King's Declaration. He refused to subscribe to the
Covenant and was consequently deprived of his master
ship'. Altogether, Neal reckons that out of sixteen
Heads of Houses ten were ejected by Manchester and
his commissioners*.
The six who complied were, according to him, Bain
brigg of Christ's, Eden of Trinity Hall, Love of Corpus,
Brownrig of St Catharine's, Batchcroft of Gonville and
Caius, and Rainbow of Magdalene. Eden died in 1645
and Bainbrigg in 1646. Three of the remaining four
were afterwards ejected. Brownrig, who maintained a
moderate attitude during the early days of the troubles
1 Cosin's Correspondence, i, xxxii and D.N.B. Cosin, John.
2 Baker's Hist, of Stfohn's, ed. J. E. B. Mayor, pp. 220, 633.
3 Cooper : Annals, iii, 347 ; and D.N.B. Holdsworth, Richard.
* Hist, of the Puritans, iii, 98.

I20 THE PURITANS IN POWER
and received a nomination to the Westminster Assembly
of Divines, was deprived in 1 645 for preaching a royalist
sermon'. Batchcroft was ejected in 1649, and Rainbow
in 1650 : Richard Love was the sole survivor.
The list of ejections from the University, appended
to Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, contains 215
names, not including scholars, and for the present this
must be accepted as a tolerably accurate figure. His
chief source of information was the list printed at the
end of the Querela Cantabrigiensis, which professed to
include " such heads and fellowes of colledges, and
other learned, reverend, and religious gentlemen... as
have been ejected, plundred, imprisoned, or banished,"
but this he was able to supplement by the college lists
with which various friends at Cambridge provided him.
Thus we find in the Walker Collection, a list of the
fellows, etc., ejected at Cambridge from Samuel Dod
of Clare' ; an account of the sequestrations at St John's
from Thomas Baker himself ; a similar account for
Peterhouse taken "ex Registro Veteri Collegii*." Even
with this valuable means of checking the list in the
Querela he was not able to make many deductions or
additions. The number of names contained in that list
was 195, but this was published in 1647, and a few
ejections no doubt took place between then and 1650.
Ejections for refusal of the Engagement Walker did not
profess to include. He himself seems to have thought
that his figures were tolerably complete, and in a sum
mary at the end of the Hst he is content to accept 230 as
a minimum, including masters, fellows and chaplains.
Characteristically, however, he endeavours to swell
the list by a calculation of the probable number of
1 D.N.B. Brownrig, Ralph.
2 MS. J. Walker, c 4, ff. 15-16.
3 Ibid. ff. 42-6. * Ibid, ff 47-50.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 121
ejected scholars, and here he touches on less certain
ground. In the "most perfect accounts" which he had
received from Oxford colleges, he had found that the
percentage of ejected scholars was the same as that of
fellows, and this was also the case at Queens' College in
Cambridge where, according to the Querela, " all of each
kind " were expelled. This, he thought, warranted him
in calculating that, if out of a total of 355 fellows 230
were ejected, out of 700 "scholars, exhibitioners etc."
more than 400 must have been turned out, which would
bring the total number for the University to about
600'. The "Visitation Book," the record of the proceedings
of the "Regulators," is unfortunately lost', and the chief
remaining sources by which Walker's computation can
be checked are stray summonses and orders of ejection
issued by the Parliamentary delegates, the Admission
books in the various colleges, and the records of the
payment of residence allowance to fellows and scholars.
The examination of these gives an approximate idea of
the numbers actually ejected, and it may be instructive
to take the case of one college as an example.
In Trinity, seventy-seven fellows received the "stipen-
dium" or residence allowance in the year 1642. On
April 3, 1644, the Earl of Manchester summoned
seventeen' fellows to report themselves at the Bear Inn
on the following Friday, warning them that he would
"proceed to execute sentence by ejectment or otherwise,'
should they fail to do so. Only two of them would
seem to have obeyed the summons, for on April 8, a
1 Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. ii, pp. 162-3.
2 Zachary Grey, in his Examination of Neal (vol. iii, 145), quotes from
it. It was then (cir. 1737) in the possession of Rev. P. Williams.
3 Drs Roe and Meredith, and Messrs Marshall, West, sen., Chamberlain,
Willis, Barrey, Cooke, Croyden, Cowley, Wheeler, Arundell, Stacy, Sclater,
Cave, Abdy, and Nicholas.

122 THE PURITANS IN POWER
second order was issued sequestering the other fifteen',
all of whom, with a single exception, appear to have left
Cambridge in the course of that or the following year.
In this, however, they were merely sharing the fate of the
great majority of the society, for in 1645 and 1646 there
was a wholesale disappearance of the existing fellows.
Only twenty-two of the " old " fellows were present
throughout the whole of 1645, and twenty-one in 1646.
In the latter year, in fact, the names of all but twenty-four
of the original seventy-seven had disappeared from the
"stipendium" list altogether, all, no doubt, except those
who were content to remain and take office under the new
rdgime. Nor was this the end. Herbert Thorndike and
William Wotton were deprived in 1646, and John Abdy,
the only one of the fifteen fellows who seems temporarily
to have evaded the sentence of April 8, 1644, was struck
out of the buttery-books in October 1647. Five more
fellows, Humphrey Babington, Peter Samways, Theodore
Crosland, William Chamberlain and John Rhodes, were
deprived in 1650 for refusing to take the Engagement'.
Of the seventy-seven fellows who formed the resident
society in 1642 only four, Robert Boreman, Francis
Barton, William Bayly and Charles Rich, weathered all
the storms of the period and were found in possession of
their fellowships in 1660.
The extant records of ejection thus show that twenty-
two fellows lost their places, fourteen in 1644, two in
1646, one in 1647, and five in 1650, but seven others
appear amongst those who returned in 1660' and may
fairly be added to the list, bringing the total to twenty-
nine. ^ i.e., all except Croyden and Sclater. Copies of these orders are in the
Baker MSS. xxvii, ff. 460, 462.
2 Baker MSS. xxxii, ff. 395-9.
3 Sherman, Nevile, Briscoe, Crane, Price, Crawley and Parish. Trinity
College Senior Bursar's accounts and Baker MSS. xxxiii, i. 285.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 123
Walker's list, which contains forty-four names, besides
the Master, Thomas Comber, omits five of those who
were ejected in 1646 and later, and adds twenty others'.
Whether these were formally dispossessed, or whether
they were only "driven from or did otherwise lose" their
fellowships, to use Walker's comprehensive phrase, it is
not possible to say. In any case their names disappear
from the "stipendium" accounts in 1646.
Of the scholars in the various colleges it is more
difficult to speak, for the residence allowance lists afford
no clue as to whether the disappearance of a scholar's
name were due to natural or violent causes. Walker's
computation, based on what took place at Oxford, is
unsound. At Oxford, all members of the University,
and even college servants, were required to give an
explicit submission to the authority of the Visitors on
pain of expulsion, but at Cambridge no such test was
imposed. The assertion, in the Querela Cantabrigiensis,
that neither fellow nor scholar was left at Queens' ', is
contradicted by Simon Patrick, who was a sizar of the
college at the time. "There were about a dozen
schollars," writes Patrick, "and almost half of the old
Fellows, the Visitors at first doing no more than putting
in a majority of new to govern the College. The other
rarely appearing were all turned out for refusing the
Covenant, which was then so zealously pressed, that all
schollars were summon'd to take it at Trin : Coll :
Thither I went and had it tender'd to me, but God so
directed me, that I telling them my age was dismiss'd
and never heard more of it — blessed be God'."
1 The list of fellows given in the Baker MSS. xxxiii, f. 285 agrees with
Walker's list, save that Appleby and Wotton are not entered as among those
who were ejected, while Baldero, Jones and Stacy are omitted entirely.
2 Querela Cantabrigiensis, p. 22.
3 Patrick's MS. Autobiography, quoted by W. G. Searie : Hist, of Queens'
Coll., pp. 541-2-

124 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Patrick's assertion that the. Covenant .wasJ^zealously_
pressed "to siame extent conflicts with other evideace on
the subject, noticed above, but his account suggests that
age was taken into consideration in the case of scholars
and that his own experience was not uncommon. The
evidence, in fact, for the ejection of scholars on the scale
implied by Walker is entirely lacking. Of the four
chaplains at Trinity, three were expelled and one kept
his place.
The abolition of music in the chapel-services threw
the lay-clerks and choristers, where such existed, out
of employment, but those concerned were not always
deprived of their livelihood. Chambers, the Trinity
organ-blower, received his customary fee of forty shillings
in 1643 "for not blowing the organes a whole year," and
again in 1645, "in lieu of his wages." On the other
hand, "Jo. Browne for the Sackbut...xl. s.," which figures
as an item in the chapel accounts from 1637 to 1644, is
discontinued after that date'. The number of choristers
was gradually reduced from ten to two in 1646, and in
that year eight students were, by an order of the Master
and Seniors, appointed to receive the profits of the
vacant places'. From 1650 to 1658 the choristers
disappear from the accounts, but five " clerici " were
maintained until the Restoration. It was very much the
same in King's. Henry Loosmore, the organist, and
the men-choristers continued to receive their stipends.
The boy-choristers, however, were allowed to dwindle
in number from sixteen in 1642 to one in 1651, and in
1655 they had disappeared altogether.
The methods by which the vacant places and fellow
ships were filled were, of course, quite irregular. In
the case of Heads of Houses the " Regulators " were
1 Trinity Senior Bursar's accounts.
2 Trinity Seniors' Conclusion Book.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 125
naturally careful to see that none but men of a strictly
Puritan type were appointed, and the elections made,
under the Earl of Manchester's direction, conformed to
this rule.
In the case of the mastership of Sidney Sussex,
which became vacant by the death of Dr Samuel Ward
in 1643, the election of the Puritan candidate, Richard
Minshull, was achieved while one of the society was
under arrest, and was carried through by an actual
minority of the fellows'. This, however, took place
before the beginning of the Regulation. After that
date the usual method seems to have been for the Earl
of Manchester to issue a mandate to the college requiring
them to elect the person whom he had selected, and in
some cases he carried out the ceremony of installation
himself In the course of the years 1644- 1646 twelve
appointments were made to masterships which had
become vacant either by sequestration or death', and
in no case, except possibly in that of Samuel Bolton, the
1 Two candidates were put forward — Herbert Thorndike and Richard
Minshull. Pope's Life of Bishop Ward states that at the election in the
college chapel, there was a majority of one in favour of Thorndike, nine
voting for him and eight for his rival, " but while they were at the election,
a band of soldiers rusht in upon them, and forcibly carried away Mr Parsons
[Pawson], one of the Fellows who voted for Mr Thorndike, so that the
number of suffrages for Mr MynshuU, his own being accounted for one, was
equall to those Mr Thomdike had. Upon which Mr Mynshull was admitted
Master, the other eight only protesting against it" (Pope's Life of Bishop
Ward, p. 14, quoted in Cooper's Annals, iii, 357). According to the Acta
Collegii, it appears that Pawson's arrest took place before the election, and
that Seth Ward protested against the election because Pawson was unable
to vote. Ten fellows were present, and Seth Ward and three others with
drew and refused to take part in the election. Five of the remaining six
then voted for Minshull, while one " suspended his vote, giveing for nobody "
(Cooper's Annals, iii, 357-8)-
2 Lazarus Seaman (Peterhouse), Ralph Cudworth (Clare), Richard Vines
(Pembroke), John Bond (Trinity Hall), Benjamin Whichcote (King's),
Herbert Palmer (Queens'), William Spurstow (St Catharine's), Thomas
Young (Jesus), Samuel Bolton (Christ's), John Arrowsmith (St John's),
Thomas Hill (Trinity) and Anthony Tuckney (Emmanuel).

126 THE PURITANS IN POWER
new Master of Christ's', could the election have been
described as free.
The men who were thus placed in positions of
authority in the reformed University were divines who
by their attitude and conduct had rendered themselves
acceptable to the Parliamentary party. A majority of
them were members of the newly founded Assembly of
Divines and were in possession of more or less important
benefices, but they did nqt^ as a whole, belong to jhe
more^xtreme schoof of Puritans. The prevaihng^tone
among them was Presbyterian, and two of the number,
Thomas Young and William Spurstow, had been part
authors of the celebrated Smectymnuus. Only in three
cases' had the newly appointed Master been a member
of the college over which he was now called upon to
preside, but, with the exception of Thomas Young, who
was a graduate of St Andrews University, they were
all Cambridge men — six hailed originally from Em
manuel — and eight of them had held college fellowships.
They numbered among them several distinguished men.
Whichcote and Cudworth were prominent among the
Cambridge Platonists and, taken as a whole, the colleges
had no great reason to complain of the appointments
even though they might justly except to the means taken
to effect them.
With regard to fellowships, the action of the Parlia
mentary authorities was hardly less arbitrary. The
committee, which met first at the Bear Inn and afterr
wards in Trinity, under Manchester's rule, took definite
precaution to ensure the election of Parliamentary
supporters. On April lo, 1644, the Earl acquainted the
' College Hist. Series, Christ's, p. i68.
2 Herbert Palmer, appointed President of Queens' in 1644; William
Spurstow, appointed Master of St Catharine's in 1645, and John Arrowsmith
appointed Master of St John's in 1644.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 127
Master of Corpus with the fact that he had ejected
Tunstall and Palgrave from their fellowships in that
i college, and desired him to send in "the names of such
: schollars in your colledge, whom you judge most capable
of fellowships, that they may be examyned and made
fellows, if upon examination, they shall be approved."
After the candidates had been duly examined and
approved, a warrant was issued requiring the society to
elect them. The newly appointed fellow then made a
declaration, similar in form to that read in the case of
masters of colleges', in which he described himself as
appointed by the Earl of Manchester, and approved by
the Assembly of Divines, and promised obedience to the
Solemn League and Covenant'. The unconstitutional
nature of such election was not disguised : exceptional
circumstances necessitated exceptional methods. On the
other hand, it appears that, by 1649 at any rate, if any
exception could justly be taken against any person
nominated as head or fellow of a college, appeal could
be made to the Committee for Reformation of the
Universities'. Occasionally appointments were made in an even more
arbitrary manner. For example, on February 13, 1645/6,
a supplementary edict for regulating the University
ordered that Messrs Harrison, Culverwell, Croydon and
Bradshaw were to be made Seniors in Trinity College,
and empowered them to act as such, besides appointing
eight others to fellowships in the same college*. But
though the Parliamentary authorities assumed this arbi
trary control whilethe need for " reformation "was supposed
to exist, they were ready to allow affairs to resume their
1 See ante, p. ii8.
2 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 379, quoting Masters' Hist, of Corpus
Christi College.
3 Clare College Letters and Documents (ed. J. R. Wardale), p. 11.
* Lord^ fournals, viii, 165, quoted in Cooper's Annals, iii, 398,

128 THE PURITANS IN POWER
natural course as soon as this might safely be done. The
same ordinance of February 13, 1645/6, while directing
the election in Trinity, allowed that "other colleges in
the said University of Cambridge shall choose fellows
into the places now vacant by ejectment, according to
their usual and accustomed manner, as if the fellows so
ejected had been naturally dead, or resigned their fellow
ships'." At the same time Parliament continued to keep the
" reformation " of the University in view, and constant
debates took place on the subject. On October 17, 1645,
on a report from the Grand Committee for Religion, a
commission was appointed " to view the laws and statutes
of the University, and of particular colleges and halls
there ; to consider, what is defective, or fit to be altered,
in them ; and to propound remedies for the same." The
commission was also to discuss the question of vacant
fellowships and scholarships, and "to consider, how
godly and religious preaching may be established, both
in the University Church, and in other parish churches
in the town'." The ordinance of the following February
13, as we have seen, dealt with the first of these two
questions : it also directed that the various Heads of
Houses should " supply the Morning Course every Lord's
Day by preaching at St Marye's" and they should
"maintain a constant course of orthodox and edifying
sermons there." In July 1647, the attention of the
Houses was called to the fact that there was a tendency
on the part of some of the fellows, notably in St John's,
to obstruct the peaceable government of the University'.
From subsequent notices it would appear that the privilege
of free election had been granted somewhat prematurely,
' Lords' Journals, viii, 399.
2 Common^ Journals, iv, 312, quoted in Cooper's Annals, iii, 395.
3 Common^ Journals, v, 235, quoted in Cooper's Annals, iii, 414.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 129
for, on October i^, 1647, a committee was directed "to
examine the information given in concerning malignants
chosen fellows of St John's College, or any other college
in the University of Cambridge ; and the other informa
tion concerning the praying for Bishops, and using the
book of Common Prayer'." About the same time, the
Houses returned to the idea of establishing classical
presbyteries throughout the,£quntry, a project which had
been discussed in August 1645', and o"^ January 29,
1647/8, an ordinance on the subject was issued, in which
the University authorities were required to consider how
the colleges might be brought into such a system'.
But, in spite of this constant care, the University con
tinued to evince a considerable amount of feeling in favour
of the royalist cause, and at one point at any rate partisan
ship broke out into open violence. The date was the
period of the siege of Colchester, in June 1648, and the
occasion "some disgraceful expressions in the Schools
against the Parliament and Army," which led to an open
conflict between the supporters of King and Parliament
respectively, "the Royall Townsmen readily assisting
the schollers of their party." The fight ended in favour
of the Parliament's friends, and Captain Pickering, who
arrived on the scene with a troop of horse at the
conclusion of the disturbance, issued a proclamation
against those who " should presume to raise any insur
rection or tumult" in the town. The Committee for
Cambridge was also directed to " consider of some
effectual course... to prevent the like for the future*."
1 Commons' Journals, v, 331, quoted in C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 417.
2 Lords' Journals, vii, 545, quoted in C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 394.
3 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait),
i, 1062. * C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 423. The account of the fight is given
in the Moderate Intelligencer for June 8-15, 1648, and also in a pamphlet
entitled Another bloudy fight at Colchester: London 1648. Brit. Mus.
T. P. 9

I30 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Hitherto, as the above references show, the affairs of
the University of Cambridge had been under the im
mediate control of the Parliament acting sometimes
through the agency of the local committee. In Oxford,
power had been delegated, as early as July i, 1646, to a
special commission, which was to " consider of, and bring
in, an ordinance for regulating of the University'." On
May 4, 1649, the Commons, moved perhaps by the
apparent need of further "reformation" revealed by
the recent outbreak, ordered that it should be " referred
to the Committee formerly appointed for regulating the
University of Oxon to take care of the regulating of
the University of Cambridge and Winchester College',"
and this body consequently was the supreme authority
until its dissolution on April 21, 1652'.
Of the proceedings of this Committee for the Reforma
tion of the Universities very few traces remain. Only two
books of orders emanating from it are extant, and they
deal almost entirely with the payment of augmentations
to livings, a form of business which, in accordance with the
chaotic system of administration which then obtained, the
committee was at one time called upon to discharge*. It
is clear, however, that the commissioners interfered to
a not inconsiderable extent in the government of the
University and colleges, and that they arrogated to
themselves the power, occasionally claimed by the Crown
in earlier days, of obtaining elections to scholarships
and fellowships by means of a mandate". It was not
E. 448 (2). Another account of the incident is given in a letter from
Thomas Harley to his brother. Hist. MSS. Com. 14th Rep., Duke of Port
land's MSS., App., Pt. ii, p. 162. " The royall sophs were so extravagant in
fearing the Parliament that the other party kicked downe the moderator and
opponent and beat them all out."
1 Common^ Journals, iv, 595. 2 /^^Va?. vi, 200. 3 /^j^-^ ^jj^ j^^.
* See Shaw: Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 217-19.
s Mar. 8, 1649/50. "Whereas the Honourable Committee for Refor
mation of the University of Cambridge Jan. 17th 1649 did think fitt to order

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 131
uncommon either for degrees to be conferred by their
order'. One of the most important duties carried out by the
committee, in connection with the Universities, was the
payment of augmentations to the stipends attached to
masterships of colleges, a proceeding which had not been
necessary in former times owing to the fact that Heads
of Houses were generally in possession of other prefer
ments. By the ordinance, passed on June 8, 1649,
dealing with the maintenance of preaching ministers, an
annual sum of ;^2000 was set aside for this particular
purpose, out of the revenue arising from tenths and first
fruits'. The intention of the committee seems to have
been to raise all masterships to the annual value of ;^200,
and their records show that in the years 1650-1 the
whole of the ;^20oo was granted in an equal proportion
between the two Universities'.
Before the dissolution of the Committee for Reforma
tion, Cambridge was destined to be subjected to art
inquisition of a different kind. On October 1,2, 1649,
Parliament decided that the obligation of. sighing the
_£ngagement tojie faithful to the Commonwealth as then
established, without a King or House of Lords, should
be extended from members of the House of Commons
to all civil officials and to all graduates and officers in the
University as well as to the colleges of Eton, Winchester
that Mr Robert West, and Mr Walter Catstrey have their time allowed them
from their first admittance into the several universities and that they take
their seniority in Trinity College accordingly. We the Masters and Seniors
of the same Colledge do accept this order and submit unto it." (Trinity
Seniors' Conclusion Book.) On Oct. 29, 1650 the Masters and Seniors
accept the order of the committee appointing six fellows in place of those
who had been removed. The "ProtocoUum Books" at King's record similar
instances. 1 Several instances in Grace Book H in University Registry.
2 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait),
ii, 145. 3 The grants are to be found scattered about in the book of orders
9—2

132

THE PURITANS IN POWER

and Westminster'. On December 20 following, it was
accordingly tendered at Cambridge, but a general re
luctance to subscribe was evinced. Only seventy-nine
gave their signatures, and a considerable number of the
remainder, led by Drs Collings, Lane and Rainbow,
joined in presenting a document in which they undertook
to live peaceably, and desired that this might be con
sidered as their submission'. But the Parliament, having
once embarked on their course, pursued it to its logical
conclusion, and on January 2, 1649/50, an ordinance was
passed imposing the Engagement, on the country at
Jarge'. With this before them, the University could
hardly have expected to obtain exemption, but the final
blow was deferred until the middle of the year, when, on
belonging to the Committee for Reformation of the Universities, now among
the Sion College MSS. The payments were as follows :

Cambridge. £
Ralph Cudworth of Clare ... 100
John Arrowsmith of St John's loo
Anthony Tuckney of Emmanuel loo
John Worthington of Jesus ... 90
Samuel Bolton of Christ's ... 50
Thomas Horton of Queens' ... 50
John Bond of Trinity Hall ... 53
William Dell of Gonville and
Caius ...  ... 60
Richard Love of Corpus ... 70
John Sadler of Magdalene ... 47
Sidrach Simpson of Pembroke 70
Richard Minshull of Sidney ... 40
J'ohn Lightfoot of St Catharine's 90
Lazarus Seaman of Peterhouse 80

;^IOOO

Oxford. £ s.
Dr Langbaine of Queen's 63 10
John Saunders of Oriel ... 92 o
Paul Hood of Lincoln ... 63 o
John Wilkins of Wadham 63 10
John Conant of Exeter ... 92 o
ThankfuUOwen of St John's 90 o
[Henry Langley] of Pem
broke  100 o
Tobias Garbrand of Glou
cester Hall  50 o
Daniel Greenwood of B.N. C. 90 o
George Bradshaw of Balliol 92 o
Robert Harris of Trinity ... 20 o
Michael Roberts of Jesus... 92 o
Joshua Hoyle of University 92 o

;^IOOO

The payments were actually made by the Trustees for Maintenance on
the order of the Committee for Reformation of the Universities. See an
order in the Sion College MS. i. 7yi.
¦ Gardiner: Commonwealth and Protectorate, i, 176.
2 Theologian and Ecclesiastic, vii, 283.
3 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait)
ii. 325.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 133
June 21, the Committee for the Reformation of the
Universities was directed to inquire what officers and
members of the various colleges had refused subscription
and to eject those who continued to do so'.
The consternation in Cambridge caused by these
orders is reflected in the correspondence of the time
between William Sancroft and his friends. As a member
of Puritan Emmanuel, Sancroft was one of those who
had hitherto been absolved from the necessity of a
definite statement of their principles. There were at
that time in the University many who, while heartily
disapproving of the Parliamentary government, had
retained their places by means of quiet behaviour and a
politic compliance with the new order ; the majority also
of those who had gained places in the University in the
early years of the Regulation ' were Presbyterians, and
many of them had disapproved of the subsequent course
of political events. Neither of these parties were pre
pared to sign a declaration which not only pledged them
to the support of the existing government, but also
implied approval to its past actions. If the Engagement
were rigidly enforced, therefore, it was clear that either
principles or preferment must be sacrificed. A glimmer
of hope was distinguished by some in the influence of
Cromwell, who was supposed to favour a connivance of
non-subscribers, but Sancroft distrusted his sincerity.
" The Commissioners' sit this week," he writes in a
letter to his brother, dated July 10, 1650, "and what
they will do, I know not. Some assure me, that Mr
Cromwell, when he was here on Saturday was seven
night, (in his passage towards the north), told the vice-
chancellor and doctors, who sneaked to the Bear to wait
upon his mightiness, that there should be no further
' C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 433.
2 The Commissioners for the Reformation of the University.

134 THE PURITANS IN POWER
proceedings against non-subscribers ; that he had desired
the committee of regulation above to petition the house,
in his name, that we might be no further urged. But we
know his method well enough, namely, by courteous
overtures to cajole and charm all parties when he goes
upon a doubtful service ; and as soon as it is over to his
mind, then to crush them'."
Sincere or not, however, Cromwell was unable to
obtain exemption for the University. The committee
sat again on September 1 3 and summoned non-subscribers
to attend. Sancroft disregarded his summons, but learnt
that "the business was to angle for more proselytes  It
seems," he writes, in another letter to his brother, "the
gentlemen think that their victories resolve our cases of
conscience to their advantage ; and that it is but to rout
the coward Scots, and all our arguments are answered.
But 1 hope God will enable us to let them see they are
deceived'." As time went on, and the University re
mained firm, the committee had recourse to severer
methods. On November 17, Sancroft wrote that many
had lately been turned out, " Dr Young of Jesus,
Dr Syms too of Katharine Hall, and Mr Vines of
Pembroke hall, and some fellows of several colleges."
He himself had again been "returned as a refuser,"
but he had been told that he had " some secret friend "
who did him good service'. The penalty of persistent
refusal did not in fact overtake him until the following
year. Shortly afterwards Sancroft left Cambridge, and the
course of events can be traced in a series of letters to him
from Samuel Dillingham of Emmanuel. " The storm
is not yet risen," writes Dillingham in an undated letter,
"all is quiet; and men have time to study how to shift
' H. Cary: Memorials of the Civil War, ii, 224.
2 Ibid, ii, 233. 3 ji,i^_ ii^ 234-6.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 135
not off", but with the subscription : so degenerated are we
from all spirit and courage, which should carry us on to
an unanimous opposing the stream of things, that we
think it bravely done if we can make ourselves believe,
by any manner of evasion, that our consciences are kept
entire, and the Engagement subscribed'." To Dillingham,
the imposition of the Engagement appeared as a divine
judgment on the compliant attitude of the University
towards the Puritan rule. What he anticipated was a
further lapse in the same direction, for he saw "the
generality nearer and nearer every day resolved to shift'."
In December, the committee seems to have made a
more determined onslaught. " Some have subscribed
that were never dreamed on ; others quite contrary,"
wrote Dillingham. Several papers had been handed in
to the committee containing the arguments of those who
refused the Engagement. On the other hand, " Trinity
Hall swallowed it roundly, all but their divine, Mr Owen,
and Mr Clark." He was surprised to find how many
were able to give an equivocal submission, and " thought
themselves only bound negatively, and but so long till a
party should appear against the present power." Such
an attitude he was unable to understand, affirming that
for his part, if he subscribed at all, it would be " to the
full intention of the urgers," or he would think himself
"in the briars, turn things how they will." Yet even
with these mental reservations, the number of subscribers
was but sixty-six, while " there were nearer six hundred
refusers, if they may be so called, who make account they
have not yet given their final answer'."
Several leading men, however, had suffered expulsion.
Rainbow was deprived of the mastership of Magdalene
in August 1650. Richard Vines of Pembroke, William
1 H. Cary : Memorials of the Civil War, ii, 239.
2 Ibid, ii, 242-3. ' Ibid, ii, 244-9.

136 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Spurstow of St Catharine's, and Thomas Young of Jesus,
three of the Presbyterian Masters appointed in 1644 and
1645, ^Iso lost their places'. Even Richard Love was
suspended'. A more significant indication of the chang
ing times was the fact that on November 27, 165 1, the
Earl of Manchester himself was deprived of the. .chan
cellorship for refusing to take the Engagement'.
Sancroft waited on in expectation of the end until
ApriPin that year. On March 23, a friend at St John's,
one Henry Paman, had written to inform him of the
contradictory reports that were current as to his fate.
"The news from London," he told him, "says your
business is treated, and you are given to us now upon a
surer foundation than we could possibly hope to enjoy
you. For when your fellowship was asked, the petitioners
were answered, that they might as well think to remove
a mountain as Mr Sancroft." At the same time, it had
been given out that he had subscribed*. Neither state
ment was true. On April 10, the Committee for the
Reformation of the University issued an order warning
the Senior Fellow of Emmanuel that if Sancroft had not
subscribed the Engagement within a month, the committee
would nominate another to his place", and in the appointed
time, the order took effect.
With the imposition of the Engagement the work of
the Committee for Reformation practically ceased, and
on April 21, 1652, it was formally dissolved". In another
year, almost to a day, the power of the Long Parliament,
its creator, was at an end^ Henceforward, the destinies
of the University were virtually in the hands of Cromwell.
1 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 439. 2 h. Cary: Memorials, ii, 235.
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 448. ^ H. Cary: Memorials, ii, 252.
" Ibid, ii, 269. 0 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 449.
' The Long Parliament was dissolved by Cromwell on April 20, 1653.
Gardiner : Cotnmonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 263.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 137
Cromwell's connection with Cambridge dated from
the time that he had been returned to the Long Parlia
ment as one of the two members for the borough, but
his relations with the members of the University had not
been calculated to win the confidence of those who either
openly or secretly supported the royalist cause. It was
he who had intercepted the college plate destined for the
King, and it was he who, as the commander of the troops
in the district, had been entrusted with the arrest of
offenders. It was even suggested that he had encouraged
the soldiers in their violent behaviour on the occasion of
the Latin sermon in the University Church'. It was
not surprising, therefore, that the promise of his good
offices at the time of the Engagement should have been
misconstrued, or that Samuel Dillingham, in a letter to
Sancroft, should evince his hatred by covering a sheet
with malicious references to Cromwell's personal appear
ance'. In recent years, however, there could be no
doubt that his attitude towards the University had been
favourable. On July i, 1652, he had issued an order to
the officers under his command, charging them not to
quarter any troops in the Cambridge colleges, or to offer
any injury or violence to any of the members of the
University'. His favour was the more valuable because there was
a noticeable tendency among the more violent sectarians
to attack Universities as institutions. The "Barebones"
Pariiament seriously considered .the question of sup
pressing all. places of learning as unnecessary*, and
various wild_ proposals of a similar kind were in the air.
Xheline jaken„jDy_rnost of jhese reformers was _riiat
learning was a hindrajice to tru£ religion. ' Thus a man
1 John Walker: Sufferitigs of the Clergy, p. no.
2 H. Cary: Memorials, ii, 226-7.
3 C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 452- * I^^^. iii, 453.

138 THE PURITANS IN POWER
1 named Samuel Hering proposed that two colleges should
be set apart for those who wished to apply themselves
"to the studdy of attaining and enjoying the spirit of our
Lord Jesus." The Scriptures and " the works of Jacob
Behmen, and such like, who had true revelation from the
true spirit" were to constitute the entire literature, and
provide a course of study which " would confute and
confound the pride and vain-glory of outward humane
learning, stronge reason, and high astrall parts, and
would shew men the true ground and depth of all things'."
Other writers, who were not prepared to go quite as
far as Hering, also advocated changes which amounted
to an entire revolution in the nature of Universities.
Prominent amongst these was William Dell, Master of
Gonville and Caius College, who wrote two or three
pamphlets on the subject of University reform, partly in
answer to Sidrach Simpson, the Master of Pembroke.
It would be a mistake to represent Dell as an enemy
to all forms of learning, though his antagonists were apt
so to regard him. He himself disclaimed such a position.
" I am not against Humane Learning upon all accounts,"
he wrote, " but do allow Humane Learning (so it be sober
and serious) in its own place and Sphear, as well as other
Humane things : but I do oppose it as it is made another
John Baptist, to prepare the way of Christ into the
world, or to prepare the world's way to Christ : And
also, as men make it necessary, for the true knowledge
of the Scriptures ; yea, the very Unction for the
Ministry'." His attack was directed against the existing system
of education, which made the intellect rather than the
spirit the avenue towards a right understanding of the
1 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 454, note.
2 Dell : A Plain and Necessary Confutation of divers gross and Anti
christian errors etc. (1654), Preface.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 139
Christian faith. He attacked also degrees and titles in
the Universities and ecclesiastical orders in the Church,
as the paraphernalia belonging to the same system and
as things by which men " are not able to discerne Anti
christ, but rather are the more ready to be overcome by
him'." It was with this purpose that he "adventured,
through the inspiration of the Almighty, to undertake
openely and plainly against the Clergy and Universities,
which in their present state, are the residue of the hour
and power of darkness upon the Nations'."
In some remarks on " The Right Reformation of
Learning," Dell gives his views on a suitable curriculum
for the Universities. The study of profane classical
authors was to be discouraged, but Physic and Law
should form part of the course, and " the Mathematicks
especially are to be had in good esteem... as Arithmetick,
Geometry, Geography, and the like, which as they carry
no wickedness in them, so are they besides very useful
to humane Society, and the affaires of this present life'."
Another writer who took a similar line was John
Webster, also a Cambridge man. Wood describes him
as a man who " was very well known to be one who
endeavoured to knock down learning and the Ministry
both together*," but he himself, like Dell, posed as a
reformer. " Humane knowledge," he admitted, " is good,
and excellent, and is of manifold and transcendent use,
while moving in its own orb ; but when it will see further
than its own light can lead it, it then becomes blind
and destroys itself"." The Scriptures, he contended,
should not be " torn with the carnal instruments of man's
wit and reason, nor modell'd, or methodized as an humane
1 Dell: The Tryall of Spirits (1653), p. 60.
2 Ibid. Preface.
3 Dell : A Testimony from the Word, etc. p. 27.
* A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, iii, 657.
s John Webster: Examination of Academies, p. 3.

I40 THE PURITANS IN POWER
art or science, but laid aside in Scholastick exercises, as
a sacred and sealed book'."
-Views of this kind were not very uncommon amongst
the more advanced_Independents, and proceeded Jrom a
jealousy of the clergy, whether Episcopalian or Pres
byterian, and from a growing distrust of theological
learning, . bred of a long experience .of . religious jcon-
Jxoyersy. Even Cromwell himself seems to have
sympathised with their desire to encourage the " things
of the spirit " rather than the mere acquisition of know
ledge, when he referred to the " very great seed " for the
ministry "in the youth now in the Universities; who
instead of studying books, study their own hearts'." The
attacks, however, had no concrete result, and the Univer
sities were allowed to continue until the eiyi of the Inter
regnum without undergoing any further '* reformation./
At the same time, the Government was careful to
keep a constant control over the Universities. On
September 2, 1654, the Protector and Council passed an
ordinance appointing visitors for both Universities and
" the schools of Westminster, Winchester, Merchant-
Taylor's School, and Eaton Colledge and school'." On
April 28, 1657, a proposal was brought forward in
Parliament to confirm the ordinance for regulating the
Universities. Some objection was raised on the ground
that such a confirmation would be an invasion of the
rights of the Protector and of the statutable visitors, but
it was finally decided to confirm the ordinance for six
months*.
1 Examination of Academies, p. 97. For a full account of the writings
of Dell and Webster see MuUinger's Hist, of the Univ. vol. iii, pp. 448 et seq.
2 Speech on Sept. 17, 1656. Carlyle's Cromwell's Letters and Speeches
(Centenary Edition, 1902), iii, 296.
3 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum {'E.A.C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait),
ii, 1026. Scobell : Acts and Ordinances, ii, 366.
* C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 467.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 141
Towards the end of the Interregnum, a last attempt
I at reform was made in a scheme to remodel the
Universities on the Dutch system with three colleges
iin each, devoted respectively to divinity, law, and
physic'. The general effect of the Puritan rule upon the
University is not easy to summarise, since the history of
the various colleges was by no means uniform. As a
result of the exodus of some, during the early stages of
the war, and the forcible expulsion of others, the colleges
were deprived of a great number of their former members,
and it was natural that those who took their places should
be chiefly men of a Puritan stamp. In the case of those
who were to hold any office or place of authority, this
was necessarily so, but it was true also, to a less extent,
of those who entered the University in the ordinary
course as undergraduates. With regard to the former,
royalist writers have endeavoured to throw contempt
upon the Puritan nominees, but the general standard was
by no means low, and though there was a certain number
of extremists like William Dell, the Master of Gonville
and Caius, men like Whichcote of King's, Lightfoot of
St Catharine's and Worthington of Jesus were worthy of
the best traditions of their University. With regard to
the rank and file, a good deal depended upon the influence
of the Heads, but several colleges entirely changed their
character during the period. Peterhouse, for example,
which had been essentially royalist in sympathy, attracted,
under the mastership of Lazarus Searnan, a considerable
number of men from the opposite party'. At the same
time, the metamorphosis was neither as complete nor
as marked as has sometimes been represented. The

1 C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 475.
2 College Hist. Series, Peterhouse, p. 123.

142 THE PURITANS IN POWER
royalist connection was not entirely severed, as the
outbreak in 1648 and similar occurrences show, and
the University continued to contain men of widely
divergent views. It is even remarkable that the bitter
party feeling engendered by the Civil War went no
further towards breaking old ties, and that, just as
Oliver Cromwell sent his son to St Catharine's in
1640, in the days of the supremacy of Laud, so in 1649
John Cosin could send his son to the college from which
he had himself been ejected'.
The most noticeable change in the college societies
was the gradual disappearance of clergymen. In 1652
there was only one fellow of King's in orders and in
1653 there were none', and in St John's it was found
necessary, in February 1649/50, to make a decree that
" few of the fellows being in Orders " all M. A.'s should
officiate in chapel in turn " and not only Ministers, as
heretofore, when the Liturgie (now taken away by
publicke authoritie) required the pronouncing of Absolu
tion by them alone'."
In Trinity the statutes required that a certain number
of fellows must be ordained within seven years of election,
a state of affairs which gave rise to some little difficulty.
On June 17, 1650, however, the Seniors gave their
opinion that as bishops had been abolished, and the
ordaining power of Classical Presbyteries discontinued,
no person could legally be ordained and that the statute
was therefore void. Upon this, one William Croyden
made a statement to the effect that he was ready to be
' College Hist. Series, Peterhouse, p. 128.
2 For this and many other details relating to King's I am indebted to
Mr F. L. Clark of the King's College Office, who kindly showed me his
transcripts and extracts of the College Records.
3 From the St John's Plate Book, extracts of which have been published
by Mr R. F. Scott, in the Eagle magazine, under the title " Notes from the
College Records."

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 143
ordained, but since that was not possible, he would " use
the utmost of my guifts and abilities for the Propagation
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Trinity College whilst
fellow there, and for the Outward Call, 1 shall be ready
to seek and embrace it as it shall be held out by
Parliament'." Of the moral welfare of the members of the Univer
sity the Puritans showed themselves very careful, and
there can be no doubt that they endeavoured to introduce
a severer code of manners as well as stricter moral and
religious life. Customs which were regarded as unduly
frivolous and tending towards corruption were suppressed.
Such were the " Salting nights " at Trinity which were
"wholly layd aside" by an order of July 17, 1646, the
Sophisters being directed to "carry themselves in all
civilitie and without any noyse or humminge " on those
occasions'. At the same time the authorities were
careful to remove any evil influences from the town,
and the Acta Curiae contain several references to pro
ceedings against inn-keepers for allowing scholars to
drink or gamble in their houses.
Within the colleges strict attention was paid to the
scholars' moral well-being. Akehurst, tutor of Trinity,
who is described by one of the more distinguished of his
pupils as a "flourishing instrument" and "a gracious
savoury Christian," was solicitous of the company kept
by those under his charge, would "sometimes read
lectures" to them and had prayers "in his chamber
every night'," a practice which seems to have been
general*, and several writers have testified to the measure
1 Trinity Seniors' Conclusion Book. ' Ibid.
3 J. Hunter : Life of Oliver Heywood, p. 45.
* In the St John's Plate Book is an order that all B.A.'s and undergraduates
" shall duly and constantly attend their Tutor's prayers at eight of the clock
every night." Printed by Mr R. F. Scott in "Notes from the College
Records." The Emmanuel " Admonition Book '' contains a record of the

144 THE PURITANS IN POWER
of success which attended the system. Neal, indeed,
says that " vice and profaneness was banished, insomuch
that an oath was not to be heard within the walls of the
university ^" and Thomas Baker, who was by no means
prejudiced in the Puritan's favour, admits that the govern
ment of St John's under Arrowsmith and Tuckney was
" so good and the discipHne... so strict and regular, that
learning then flourished, and it was under them that
some of those great men had their education that were
afterwards the ornaments of the following age'."
At the" same time, it would be a mistake to suppose
that the Puritans introduced an Utopian age in morals
and religion or that all the undergraduates of the time
were like Oliver Heywood. The authorities in the
period which immediately preceded the Civil War, if
their methods were different, were as bent on "reforma
tion " as the Puritans themselves, and edicts directed
towards the improvement of manners were as common
at the one date as at the other. A royal order, for
instance, of March 4, 1628/9, directed against the employ
ment of women in the colleges in contravention of the
statute de modes tia morum. of 1625, condemns those
inn-keepers and others who had women on their premises
and encouraged scholars "to misspend their time, or
otherwise misbehave themselves, or to engage themselves
in marriage without the expresse consent of those that
have the gardiance and tuition of them'." Occasionally
strict measures were employed to check the sporting
proclivities of the lighter-minded students. For ex
ample, in 1634, the Vice-chancellor issued an order to
admonition in 1639 of an undergraduate "for his negligence at chappell
and his Tutor's prayers," which suggests that the custom was not new.
' Hist, of the Puritans (1822), iii, 105.
^ J. B. MuUinger: Hist, of S. John's College, p. 135.
3 Miscellanea Historica MSS. in the University Registry, vol. xiii,
No. 21.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 145
the constables of Chesterton and other neighbouring
villages, requiring them to apprehend and bring before
him any of those scholars who had been in the habit of
resorting "unto your towne and fields about you with
fowling and birdinge peeces, stone bowes and Crosbowes
and doe shoote at fowle and other game contrary to
the Lawes of this Land and the expresse command of
his Majestie'."
As to the second point, there is abundant evidence that
some at least of the undergraduates of the Puritan period
were very much like the undergraduates of any other
period, prone to exuberance of spirits and a disregard of
constituted authority, and it is possible to find many
instances to illustrate the manners of the day. Thus we
find the Proctor charging five members of the University
in the Consistory Court for "that they... att night in
Christ's Greene did plat at footeball and carried themselves
very uncivillie towards him," or again that Thomas
Pearne of Peterhouse was suspended a gradu suscipiendo
for " that contrary to all civilitie and good manners of the
University he did this day blow a horne in the sophisters
schooles when they were hudling and thereby did cause
disturbance and uncivill actions in the said schooles'."
In Emmanuel several scholars were admonished " for
playing at cards in the Colledge'," and the entries in
Worthington's diary show that the intervention of the
Vice-chancellor was still required to suppress immorality*.
But while the Puritan rule was strict in the matter of
morals and religion, it has been the custom to regard the
period as one in which scholarship was almost, if not
1 Miscellanea Historica MSS. in the University Registry,, vol. xii,
No. 46.
2 Acta Curiae in University Registry. Entries for April 17 and
December 19, 1657.
3 Emmanuel College "Admonition Book."
* Heywood and Wright : Cambridge Transactions, ii, 597-603.
T. P. "^

146 THE PURITANS IN POWER
entirely, neglected'. There is substantial truth in this
view, for the whole tendency of the time was to place
profane learning in a position of secondary importance,
but the extreme views of a man like Dell were not
typical of the University as a whole, and it would
probably be more true to say that the character of the
studies was changed than that they were suspended.
While Hey wood's tutor prayed with his pupils "every
night," it was only "sometimes" that he read lectures to
them, and Heywood himself admits that his "time and
thoughts were more employed in practical divinity " and
that "experimental truths were more vital and vivifical "
to his soul', but occasional orders in college records
relating to the better observance of "acts" and "exercises"
and for the prevention of neglect of studies show that the
authorities were not entirely careless of this side of
college life'. An interesting letter, written by Sancroft
on January 17, 1663, after his return to Emmanuel,
illustrates very well the effect of the Puritan period in
this respect as it appeared to him. He rejoices, he tells
his correspondent, Ezeckiel Wright, that there is "a
general outward conformity to what is established by law,
and, I hope, true principles of duty and obedience deep
laid within, and a cheerful readiness to take off all the
instances of that former singularity which rendered us
heretofore so unhappily remarkable."
On the other hand, the state of learning in the college
presented a less satisfactory prospect.
"It would grieve you," he writes, "to hear of our
1 " The former studies of the University would appear, indeed, to have
been almost entirely suspended." J. B. MuUinger: Cambridge in the
Seventeenth Century, p. i8o.
2 J. Hunter : Life of Oliver Heywood, p. 46.
3 For example, orders of January and May 1654 in the S. John's " Plate
Book," printed by Mr R. F. Scott in " Notes from the College Records."
Cf College Hist. Series, Emmanuel, p. 103.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 147
public examinations ; the Hebrew and Greek learning
being out of fashion every where... and the rational learn
ing they pretend to being neither the old philosophy, nor
steadily any one of the new. In fine, though I must do
the present society right, and say, that divers of them
are very good scholars, and orthodox (I believe) and
dutiful both to king and church ; yet methinks I find not
that old genius and spirit of learning generally in the
college that made it once so deservedly famous'."
In one noticeable direction, at all events, the Parlia
ment, as well as the University authorities, showed their
appreciation of academic institutions, and that was in
respect of the new University library which had been
started by the Duke of Buckingham in 1628 when he
held the post of Chancellor'. On March 24, 1647/8, the
Commons voted ;^2000 to the library, and a collection of
books "in the Eastern languages" was bought from
George Thomason for the sum of ;^500 and presented to
the University at the same time'. On October 10, 1646,
a Grace was passed to authorise the expenditure of thirty
or forty pounds on printing Arabic books*, and on
February 20, 1652/3, a scheme was floated "for the
raising of a competent maintenance for the Keepers of
the University Library that soe it may forthwith become
of publicke use"."
On the side of material prosperity, the University did
not suffer as much as at one time seemed probable.
There was a natural falling-off in the number of admissions
during the first three years of the war and practically all
1 D'Oyly: Life of Archbishop Sancroft, i, 126, 128.
2 Heywood and Wright: Cambridge Transactions, ii, 357-61.
3 C. H. Cooper: Annals, iii, 421.
* Grace Book H (University Registry).
5 Acta Curiae (University Registry). Under this scheme every college
was to make a quarterly payment of two shillings and sixpence for the
Master and one shilling for every fellowship.

148 THE PURITANS IN POWER
the coUeges were affected to a greater or less degree'.
In Pembroke the admissions fell from seventeen in 1641
to six in 1642, and for the two following years there is no
record at all, but the numbers in this college seem to have
been subject to mysterious fluctuations throughout the
whole period'. Generally speaking, the number of
admissions began to rise again about 1646, though in
some cases, notably that of Trinity Hall, the recovery
was longer deferred'.
It has already been noticed that the danger to be
anticipated from the sequestration of college property
was averted as soon as it became known, and on April 1 1,
1645, ^^ ^ representation from the University that the
colleges were reduced to necessity through the decrease in
rents. Parliament passed an ordinance granting exemption
from taxation*. The records of revenues are an uncer
tain guide to the actual financial condition of a college at
any given date, since estates were generally let at a low
rack rent, and the income was largely derived fi'om fines
accruing at irregular intervals. The rents themselves also
were commonly paid partly in wheat, partly in malt, and
partly in money, but it is clear that college property, like
other landed property, had suffered very heavily during
the early years of the war. No dividend seems to have
1 See College Hist. Series, Peterhouse, p. 119; Jesus, p. 115; Trin. HaU,
p. 141 ; Christ's, p. 165 ; S. John's, pp. 85, 126.
2 The numbers, as appeaj-s from the college " Admission Book," were as
follows : 1645: 18 1648: 13 1651: 5 1654: 22
1646 : 28 1649 : 9 1652 : 9 1655 : 6
1647 : 13 1650 : 9 1653 : 10 1656 : 16
3 College Hist. Series: Trinity Hall, p. 141. J. B. MuUinger: The
University of Cambridge, iii. Appendix E.
* C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 386. In 1645 the Senior Bursar of Trinity
entered £\2,^. \os. %\d. for "abatements of rents for taxes by ordinance of
Parliament under the hands of Collectors and Tenants, as also the remaynder
of rents, to be demanded of Tennants which the Bursar did take upon him
at the Audit 1644 as appears in the rentall."

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 149
been declared in Trinity from 1644 to 1647, and some of
the colleges were reduced to a position of extreme
difficulty. In King's it was necessary to suggest econo
mies in the style of living, and a paper was drawn up
on December 20, 1644, proposing certain "courses"
"that the college may continue together." All "knacks"
were to be taken away, and all second dishes "except
such as were usuall on Fishdayes, and those onely single,
and the Lyngs exchanged for Haberdine." The diet
was to be " first and chiefly provided for and the College
debts discharged, before any wages, sealing, dirge, lyvery
money, or servitors' money be expected," and the Provost
expressed his readiness to receive .;^35 a quarter in lieu
of the various payments and allowances due to him, " the
rest to abate for the present, and after to receive in
proportion with the fellowes as the Colledge shall be
able." In 1646 the finances of the college began to
recover and some of the junior members of the society
appear to have thought that such rigid economy was no
longer necessary, since they put forward a paper of
" Proposals... for increasing Stipends," dated November 2,
1646. They desired that the officers of the college
should pay " all arrearages, viz; wages, sealing, livery, and
the rest of that kinde, as aJsoe for abatements of commons
and bread and beere, or make it appeare, that they have
not in their hands sufficient monies to doe it." In any
case so much should be paid as the funds could provide,
and in the meantime no money should be disbursed "but
what is deemed necessary by the company and not on
works of ostentation." The uncertainty of the times led
them to attack the idea of future provision, and to adopt
what at any other period would seem an extremely
improvident attitude. They proposed "that there be
noe thought entertained or consented unto, that what we
have for these 3 years pinched out of our bellies should

I50 THE PURITANS IN POWER
he stored up, for we know not whom, nor against what
time, since its very unreasonable to provide for future
debts, and wants, and neglect the present'." Such stray
extracts illustrate to some extent the financial difficulties
and general feeling of insecurity.
In the two previous years, that is to say in 1644 and
1645, it had been found necessary to sell some of the
college plate, and ^5 10. i8s. id. was received in the course
of those years "pro vasis argenteis venditis diversis
temporibus'." Corpus also were obliged to sell plate in
1648 and 1656 and to consider the advisability of keeping
some of their fellowships vacant'.
Here again, however, as in the case of the number of
admissions, the close of the first Civil War generally saw
a marked recovery, and under the Commonwealth and
Protectorate the state of the colleges was usually
prosperous. The price of wheat, which had risen to an
average of fifty-nine shillings a quarter in 1 648, fluctuated
between fifty-four shillings and twenty-one shillings in
the ten years between 1650 and 1660, and the college
revenues generally returned to the level of the years
immediately preceding the war.
Not much is heard of the Universities during the
closing years of the Interregnum. On May 21, 1659,
the Commons resolved that the Universities should be
" so countenanced and jrefbrmed, as that they may become
the nurseries of piety and learning," and on January 23,
1659/60, they issued a declaration in which they under
took to uphold the public universities and schools of the
land*. A similar spirit was evinced in a petition to
^ The originals of these papers are amongst the college records.
2 King's CoUege " Mundum Books."
3 R. Masters: Hist, of Corpus, p. 149. Trinity appears from the Senior
Bursar's accounts to have borrowed money in 1646.
* C. H. Cooper : Annals, iii, 474-5.

THE REGULATION OF CAMBRIDGE 151
Monk on January 30 of the same year by the borough
of Leicester, in which a desire was expressed that the
true Protestant religion might be defended, and the two
Universities preserved'.
1 Cal. of S. P. Dom,. 1659-60, p. 336. See a similar petition from the
county of Oxford, ibid. p. 361.

CHAPTER V
THE PURITAN VISITATION OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY
To the student of the religious controversies in the
first half of the seventeenth century, the history of
Oxford during that period has a peculiar interest. In
the first place, the state of England generally, with regard
to ecclesiastical affairs, was reflected there. The same
parties were represented, and the same questions were
in dispute. In the second place, the academic isolation
of the University enables one to observe those questions
separated to some extent from their political setting.
Again, as a result of Laud's close connection with it,
Oxford had been the centre of the most important
religious movement of the time. Not only do we see the
Laudian school of thought in the place where perhaps it
had the greatest hold, but also we see in full prominence
its relation on the one hand to the Puritanism of men
like Cheynell and Henry Wilkinson, and on the other to
the moderate churchmanship of Abbot and Prideaux.
The same applies, though not quite in the same way
or to the same extent, in regard to the history of the
Puritan Visitation of the University. As before, there
is the partial isolation from political surroundings, and, as
a result, a clearer view is obtained of the characteristics
of those widely differing types which were all included
under the name of Puritan. As before, there is the

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 153
opportunity of observing a system in working. Perhaps
nowhere else had the Presbyterians at first, and Cromwell
later, a better opportunity of showing their principles in
practice, and in this one of the chief points of interest of
the subject may be said to lie.
The state of affairs at Oxford, during Laud's Chan
cellorship', was not unlike that at Cambridge, during the
same period, except that the tendencies of the time were
more clearly marked. The conflict between the old
Protestantism and the new order which Laud was en
deavouring to superimpose upon it, found expression in
the pulpit, and " what one person delivered this, another
would speak to the contrary the next, Sunday. So it
was also in disputations and common discourses," writes
Wood, " meerly occasioned by the Chancellor's favouring
a party in the University, which the generality would
strive to oppose and exasperate'." Proceedings against
preachers for acting in defiance of the King's declaration
of 1628, by indulging in a "curious search" on points of
doctrinal controversy, are frequent during these years —
more frequent, indeed, than at Cambridge, just as the
power of Laud's party to carry their way was stronger.
But though, at the end of the period of Charles'
personal rule, the " Anti- Arminian " party, as Laud's
opponents were sometimes called, was in a state of
comparative subjection, opposition was by no means
dead, even in Oxford. From outside, of course, attacks
began as soon as the Short Parliament was called, and,
according to Wood, a report was soon circulated that the
University was infected with popery. This arose from
the fact that the Mass had been celebrated in the Mitre
Inn, which was kept by one Charles Green, a Roman
Catholic recusant, but the rumour was of sufficient
1 He was elected in 1629-
2 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford {tA. Gutch 1796), ", 382.

154 THE PURITANS IN POWER
importance to cause the Heads to make a formal declara
tion, in December 1640, that they knew of no one in the
University who was that way inclined'. The succeeding
attack on Episcopacy and on the King's power con-
soirdated~the conservative feeling in the_LIn,iY£i:silx..aad
"probably disposed many to take the royalist side who
had been at best lukewarm supporters of Laud's refornis.
On April 24, 1641, Convocation, moved by the revolu
tionary demands of the party of reaction, followed the
example of other bodies in sending up a petition in favour
of Episcopacy and cathedrals', while another was drawn
up by the graduates of the University'. The former
was followed by an "Answer" from the Puritan stand
point, in which the reasons adduced in the petition were
attacked, and the abolition of episcopal government
shown to be justified by the idleness and corruption of the
clergy*. Oxford, however, was soon called upon to give more
practical expression of its loyalty. Like Cambridge it
complied with the King's request for money at the Ije^
ginning of July, T642, a,nd like Cambridge itincurred»4lie
_dispjeasure of the Parliament for sojdoing. On July 12,
Parliament issued an order forbidding the colleges, under
heavy penalties, to pursue the "wicked and unlawfull
course " of sending plate or treasure to the king, and
directing them to deposit such property in "some safe
place, under good security, that it be not employed
against the Parliament." At the same time, four Heads
of Houses, Fell, Prideaux, Frewen, and Potter, were to
be apprehended for their share in the conspiracy, and
especial care taken to " hinder and withstand the carrying
^ A. Wood: Hist, of Oxford, ii, 425.
2 King's Pamphlets (Brit. Mus.), E. 156 (22).
3 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 432 ; Rushworth, iv, 270.
* King's Pamphlets, E. 160 (10).

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 155
away of any such plate and treasure'." Prompt as the
Pariiament had been, they yet failed of their object.
The colleges had not, indeed, despatched their plate, and
probably had not intended to do so, but a "very con
siderable summe of money " found its way to Beverley, for
which the King returned a letter of thanks, dated June 18.
The same letter empowered the University authorities to
refuse obedience to the Parliamentary order for the
arrest of the four Heads'.
In the next month, the course of events carried the
University a step further, for on August 9, Charles
proclaimed the Earl of Essex and his officers as traitors,
and the Civil War was virtually begun. " Imm'ediately
after," says Wood, "the University began to put them
selves in a posture of defence'," and a corps of volunteers
was quickly raised, whose military exercises were per
formed in and around the city to the admiration of the
loyal inhabitants. " Here is every day training of
schollars," says a contemporary news-letter, "so that
now our schollars have exchanged exercising with their
bookes in study, for the practise of their armes in the
field*." The corps numbered about five hundred, composed,
says Wood, of graduates and undergraduates alike.
" There were some divines also, and a Dr of Civil
Law of New College named Thomas Read who served
with a pike'." The writer of the news-letter just quoted,
who viewed these proceedings from a hostile standpoint,
alleges that the martial front of the volunteers was
turned into a panic on the news that the enemy were
^ Common^ Journals, ii, 669.
"^ Printed copy of the letter in King's Pamphlets, E. 108 (36).
3 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 442.
* True Newes from Oxford, London, published Aug. 29, 1642. King's
Pamphlets, E. 114 (31).
6 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 443-

156 THE PURITANS IN POWER
at hand, but the first military force to appear was
a small body of some two hundred royalists, under tihe
command of Sir John Byron, who reached Oxford on
August 28.
The arrival of royalist troops in the city at once
discovered the broad division of opinion between the
townsmen and the University. On the one hand, the
former received the royalist soldiers suUenly, and com
plained of their behaviour in seizing provisions and
offering violence to those who opposed them. Even
some of the University men, according to a contemporary
account, were disgusted "insomuch that some of the
scholars (as it is reported) that trained for them are now
gone to Abington, to combine with those that intend to
oppose them'." It is probable, however, that the presence
of the royalist force caused more embarrassment to the
seniors in the University, the Heads of Houses and
others, than it did to the more lively spirits in the ranks
of the volunteers. It is clear, from the action of the
University authorities, during these early days of the
war, that, however loyal they might be to the King, they
were anxious, as far as possible,_to stand apart from^the_
conflict^and not to. incur, the enmity of the. ..Pariiament
]^^ too close idgntification of themselves with jhe royal
cause. In view of the hostility of the townsmen and the
rumour of an attack from the Parliament's forces, they
" began to think of some other course'," and to desire
that Byron's "protection" might be removed. Partly
for this reason, and partly because of his own weakness
in numbers, Byron accordingly rode out of Oxford on
September 10, taking with him about a hundred volunteers
from among the members of the University. On the
' University Newes, or the unfortunate proceedings of the Cavaliers in
Oxford, London, 1642. King's Pamphlets, E. 116 (27).
2 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 448.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 157
next day', Dr Pink, Warden of New College and Pro.-
Viee-Chancellor, repaired to the ParHamentary force at
Aylesbury, to endeavour to arrest the threatened attack,
and to represent that the royalist forces were gone.
Lord Saye, to whom his mission had been directed, was
not present, and he received rough treatment from the
officers in command and "was clapt there in hold for
being a ring-leader to the Schollers of Oxford in their
exercise of armes, and also entertaining the Cavalliers in
Oxford," and was sent a prisoner to London'.
About the same time', the Vice-Chancellor addressed
a letter to the Earl of Pembroke, who had succeeded
Laud as Chancellor in 1641, and was now engaged on
the side of the Parliament. The letter prays for the Chan
cellor's protection against the forces which threaten the
University, and goes on to excuse what had taken place.
"Sir John Byron," it runs, "with his Regiment of
Troopers (who have been a few dayes here without the
least dammage or grievance that I know of to any man)
we shall (I doubt not) soon prevail withal to withdraw
from us, if he may with his safety return back to His
Majestie, (who of his own gracious care of us sent him
hither)*." But no comfort was forthcoming from this quarter.
In his reply, dated September 13, Pembroke wrote : " If
you had desired my advice and assistance in time I should
willingly have contributed my best endeavours for safety
and protection, but your own unadvised Counsells and
Actions have reduced you to the streights you are now
in, and in discretion you might have foreseen, that the

1 Wood says on Sept. 9, see ibid.
2 A True Relation of the late proceedings of the London Dragoneers,
sent down to Oxford. King's Pamphlets, E. 118 (39); Wood, ut sup.
3 The printed copy of the letter is dated Sept. 12.
* Rushworth, Vol. v, p. 1 1.

158 THE PURITANS IN POWER
admitting of Cavaliers, and Taking up Arms, could not
but make the University a Notorious mark of oppositions
against the Parliament, and therefore to be opposed by
it. If you had contained yourselves within the decent
modest bounds of an University, you might justly have
challenged me, if I had not performed the duty of a
Chancellour." He advised them to dismiss the cavaliers,
surrender the delinquents to the Parliament, and put
themselves "into the right posture of an University'."
A detachment of Parliament troops entered Oxford
on September 1 2, and Lord Saye followed with a larger
force two days later. On the whole, the University
escaped lightly. The barricades and works, which had
been thrown up in the first days of the martial prepara
tion, were destroyed, and a contemporary version
describes how the improvised defences, which some of the
scholars had devised to retard the progress of the enemy,
were demolished, sometimes with accompanying damage
to the fabric of the colleges'. A strict search was made
for arms and ammunition, but the only college plate
which they seized was that belonging to Christ Church
and University, and that apparently only because it had
been hidden. Sqme " Pojpish books and pictures " were
burned, and a shot, was fired at the image of the Virgin
over St Mary's door, but otherwise little damage appears
to have been done'.
' A letter sent from the Provost Vice-Chancellour of Oxford, to
the Right Honourable, the Earle of Pembrooke and Montgomery, with
his answer, Sept. 12, 1642. King's Pamphlets, E. ii6 (38). Printed in
Rushworth, vol. v, p. 13. His failure to protect the University on this
occasion was afterwards one of the charges brought against Pembroke in
October 1643, when the University elected the Marquis of Hertford in his
place. A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 468-9.
2 The Cavallier's Advice to His Majesty, London, Sept. 16, 1642. King's
Pamphlets, E. 117 (15).
3 A True Relation of the late proceedings of the London Dragoneers.
King's Pamphlets, E. 118 (39). A Perfect Diumall of the passages of the

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 159
The important question was whether Oxford should
be garrisoned for the Parliament. The place was of
obvious strategic importance, and the opinion of Lord
Saye's supporters was that it should be held. Bulstrode
Whitelock was spoken of as commander and there was a
promise of a thousand volunteers to be raised in the
district. The townsmen, who were generally favourable
to the Parliament's cause, "were very forward to engage,
so Whitelocke might be governor'."
Saye, however, decided not to garrison the city, partly,
says Wood, because he thought the King would not, as
the Parliamentarians feared, make use of it as his base,
and partly through "favour to the University and
country." The attitude of the former was the main factor
which caused him apprehension. The University men
were not strong enough to offer any violent opposition at
the moment', but their conduct in the past had been
unmistakable, and, before he left Oxford, Saye summoned
the Heads and endeavoured to extract an assurance from
them that they would abstain for the future from acts of
hostility towards the Parliament. The Heads expressed
their desire that the city might be spared from military
occupation by the Parliamentary troops, " since the very
name of a garrison would keepe off" the Schollers that
were gone and drive the rest after'." They assured
him, says Wood, " that the University was enabled well
enough to govern their own body*," but a promise of
neutrality, even if they gave one, would have been an
Souldiers that are under the command of Lord Say in Oxford. King's
Pamphlets, E. 122 (13). Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 450 et seq.
1 Wood: Hist, of Oxford, ii, 453.
2 The Parliament troops nevertheless thought it well to take precautions.
" All the Dragoneers of Captaine Wilson's Company went armed to Church,
because of the enmity they saw in the Towne and Schollers." A True
Relation. King's Pamphlets, E. 118 (39).
3 A Perfect Diumall. King's Pamphlets, E. 122 (13)
* A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 453.

i6o THE PURITANS IN POWER
empty formality, as they must have known and as events
proved. The bulk of the Parliamentary troops departed on
September 28, but soldiers were constantly pouring
through Oxford during the following month, and after
the battle of Edgehill, on October 23, a sudden change
was given to the aspect of affairs in the city by the
arrival of the royalist army. In another month, Oxford
became the King's permanent headquarters, and although
the actual siege did not begin until May 1645, it continued
to be the centre of the royalist cause from that time
forward to its surrender on June 24, 1646.
The details of that period belong rather to the military
and political history of the time ; and its effect on the
University can be soon summarised. The academic life
was, of course, practically suspended. Schools were
turned into arsenals, and colleges into quarters for the
personnel of the Court', and while scholars performed
the soldiers' functions, soldiers occupied the scholars'
rooms, and even proceeded to degrees by mandate from
the King. The latter practice, indeed, became so common
that, on a petition from the University representing its
dangerous consequences, Charles gave order that it
should cease. A large number of the members of the
colleges naturally volunteered for service in the army
and out of a hundred students of Christ Church, twenty
are said to have been officers in the King's service', but
all able-bodied male inhabitants were expected to take
their share in working on the defences, and the colleges'
were called upon, not only for service, but for money.
Early in January 1643, the mint was transferred from
1 Mr H. W. C. Davis in his history of Balliol {Oxford College Hist.
Series) gives an amusing account of the disorganisation which attended the
advent of the ladies and gentlemen of the Court to academic surroundings.
2 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 478.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD i6i
Shrewsbury to Oxford and established at New Inn Hall,
and on January lo, a royal order was published requiring
the colleges to bring in their plate, an order which
was, of course, obeyed. Promise of repayment at a
fixed rate was made, but it is hardly necessary to say
that it was never fulfilled, and the colleges were forced
to be content with formal receipts to be preserved as
testimony to their loyal conduct'.
Loyally as the colleges supported the King, their
generosity cannot be regarded as entirely spontaneous,
and it is probable that the University authorities would
gladly have escaped the honour of having the royal
headquarters in their midst. Naturally, the colleges
suffered in point of material prosperity, even more heavily
than those of the sister University during the course of
the first Civil War. Revenues fell generally, and at
All Souls in September 1645 it was found necessary to
decree " that there should be but one meal a day between
this and next Christmas, and longer if there shall be
occasion'." Admissions literally ceased in some colleges,
and the number of graduations in the whole University
sank to fifty'. When Oxford was surrendered to Fairfax,
little more than the semblance of a University remained.
Under these circumstances it was ihevitable that
some reorganisation should be attempted. It was in
evitable also that the reorganisation should not be left to
the University, but should be carried out by the party
which had seized upon the government of the country.
The Parliamentary leaders, much as the more en
lightened amongst them might wish to restore the
' A list of the college contributions of plate is printed from the Tanner
MSS. in Gutch's Collectanea Curiosa.
2 College Hist. Series, All Souls, p. 120.
3 College Hist. Series, Wadham, pp. 55-6. There were no admissions in
Wadham in 1645. I" Trinity, admissions fell from an average of twenty-five
to three in 1643, and ceased in 1644-5. College Hist. Series, Trinity, p. 130.
T. P. II

i62 THE PURITANS IN POWER
efficient working of the University, were not prepared to
content themselves with a mere restoration, Oxford
had not only been the headquarters of the royalist cause,
it had also been the centre of that new school of religious
thought which had, in the estimation of many, been a
chief, if an indirect, cause of the war. Besides uprooting
the seeds of political disaffection, therefore, the Parlia
ment was concerned,,to attempt, a thorough reformation
of the religious life of the University, and. a . completje
overthrow of that Laudian ri^m^ which had beeii.ia. full
working at the outbreak of the war. But though the
political and religious motives were thus closely connected,
it is important that they should not be confused with
one another. It was inevitable from the nature of the
case that much of the reforming policy of the Visitors,
even when directed to religious ends, should assume a
political aspect, but it is nevertheless true that they
desired to further what they believed to be the proper
form of worship in the University.
It has been the custom among a certain number of
royalist writers to represent the surrender of this great
stronghold of the King's army as premature and un
necessary, but the criticism is unwarranted. Sir Thomas
Glemham, the Governor, would no doubt have maintained
a longer resistance had it not been for the apparent hope
lessness of the cause and the importunities of the royalist
ladies and gentlemen resident within the walls who, says
Clarendon, "bore any kind of alarum very ill'," but the
official narrative in the Clarendon MSS. states that,
when the surrender was made, there were only provisions
for twelve days and not enough powder to resist a storm'.
In any case, the fall of the city was inevitable, and it is
not clear that the King's cause would have been materially
1 Clarendon : History of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), iii, 25.
2 S. R. Gardiner : Civil War, iii, 109.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 163
furthered by so short a postponement as would have
been possible, while the interests of humanity were
served and better terms secured by its taking place when
it did. In spite of Fairfax's avowed wish to soften the lot
of the vanquished', the condition of the conquered city
after the entrance of the Parliamentary army presented an
unhappy picture. Among Fairfax's soldiers there were
many of those rough religious fanatics who were the
special object of detestation to the royalist churchman.
Many of these, if we are to credit Wood's account,
invaded the pulpits and public schools and poured forth
unchecked their attacks on " human learning'."
The fate of the University had been provided for in
the Treaty of Surrender. The " ancient form of govern
ment" was secured to its members "subordinate to the
immediate authority and power of Parliament," and
that authority and power were at once put in force.
Beyond this, the fabric of the colleges was preserved
from spoil, and an indemnity from "sequestration, fines,
taxes, and all other molestations " was granted for
" anything relating to this present war or to the unhappy
differences between his Majesty and the Parliament."
At the end of the article was inserted a proviso that the
foregoing should not extend to "any reformation there
intended by the Parliament," nor give the University
liberty "to intermeddle in the government'."
It will be necessary to revert to these terms later in
connection with the powers of the Visitors. For the
present it is enough to point out that, while the just
rights of the University were apparently safe-guarded,
the vague wording of the final proviso left the Parliament
1 Burrows : Register of the Visitors of the Univ. of Oxford {Camdea Soc), Iv.
2 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 488.
3 Burrows: Register of the Visitors, \vi. II— 2

i64 THE PURITANS IN POWER
complete latitude in any reforms which they might see
fit to enforce.
But though the intended reformation was foreshadowed
in the Treaty of Surrender of June 24, 1646, the actual
Visitation was not ordered until nearly a year afterwards,
that is to say on May i, 1647. The interval was partly
occupied with an attempt to prepare the way for the
contemplated reformation by the appointment of sgyen
Presbyterian Divines whose sermons were intended to
dispose the University to a " reconciliation with the
Parliament and their proceedings'."
That the Parliament should have hoped for any
favourable result from such a course, shows that they had
underestimated the difficulty of the task that was before
them. Far from reducing the hostile portion of the
University to a better temper, the ministrations of these
seven Divines probably did much to inflame its resent
ment, and it is in this light that later royalist writers
seem to have viewed the undertaking. Wood thus
trenchantly sums up the characteristics of the Preachers :
" Cornish and Langley, two fooles : Reynolds and Harrys,
two knaves : Cheynell and rabbi Wilkinson, two mad
men'." They were not, however, such contemptible
characters as this summary suggests. Robert Harris,
afterwards appointed President of Trinity by the Par
liament, Henry Wilkinson, afterwards made Head of
Magdalen Hall by the same authority, and Francis
Cheynell were Puritans of the violent and bigoted type,
but were not devoid of ability. :^jvard Reynolds and
Edward Corbet, on the other hand, were meiToTT more
moderate school, who had been forced into active opposi
tion by Laud's reforms. The former was to be the first
Vice-Chancellor under the Puritan rule, an office which
1 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 125.
2 A. Clark: The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, i, 131.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 165
he lost owing to^h^refusal to accept the Engagement.
His inclinations were towards the Presbyterian form of
government, but he conformed after the Restoration,
and ultimately became Bishop of Norwich. Corbet
found his position 'at Oxford "little to his liking," and
though he was appointed a Visitor, he rarely appeared in
that capacity'. Henry Cornish and Henry Langley, one
afterwards appointed Canon of Christ Church, and the
other Master of Pembroke, do not come to the front in
the subsequent history of the University, and not much
is known of them.
From the first the work of the Presbyterian Divines
was complicated by the interference of other and unofficial
preachers of the " Independent Principle." Foremost
among these was William Erbury, a regimental chaplain
in the Parliament's army' who took upon himself to enter
the lists in opposition to the Presbyterians,
Erbury's discourses were delivered in a meeting-house
opposite Merton, while the official Preachers held their
sessions " in an house in S. Peter's parish in the East,
in the house on the west side of the Inn called the
Saracen's Head vulgarly called the ' Scruple House,'
or ' Scruple Office,' to which all doubting brethren had
liberty to repair for resolution and easement of their
hardned consciences'." The conflict began by Erbury
invading the citadel of his opponents, in company with
a band of his soldier supporters, and openly denying
their right to be considered true ministers of Christ. A
public disputation or conference was agreed upon, and
was accordingly held, before a numerous audience of
1 See the accounts of these five Preachers in the Dictionary of National
Biography. 2 Erbury had been educated at Brasenose, had been ordained, but had
been deprived of his living in Wales on account of his heterodox views. See
the account of him in the Dictionary of National Biography.
3 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, ii, 491.

i66 THE PURITANS IN POWER
University men and others, on November 1 2 and 19. His
attacks were somewhat embarrassing to the Presbyterian
Divines who, according to one account written from a
royalist point of view, were worsted in the encounter
and failed to prove that they had their "commission
from God'." Erbury, at all events, was satisfied of his
victory, and consented to a further disputation, which
took place in the University Church on January 1 1, 1646/7.
On this occasion the discussion was concerned with the
dogmas of the Christian faith, and Francis Cheynell was
the champion on the opposite side.
Erbury's own religious views are difficult to fathom.
His opinions were undoubtedly tinged with mysticism,
but at times they seem to amount to a denial of the
divinity of Christ. At this period, he would have de
scribed himself as a " seeker," and his confession of faith,
as expressed at the conference, besides numerous other
religious pieces, are available for those who are curious
to read them'.
On the other hand the Preachers also claimed to
have prevailed, and in their official report to the Parlia
ment on March 26, 1647, they express satisfaction with
what they had accomplished.
''They found the University and City much cor
rupted," they wrote, " and divers hopefull men in both,
very much unsetled ; they perceived that it was not
possible to instruct, convince, reforme, and settle even
ingenuous men, unlesse there were some private exer
cise allowed in which they might have some friendly

1 A Publicke Conference betwixt the Six Presbyterian Ministers and
Some Indeperuient Commanders. King's Pamphlets, E. 363 (4). A True
Relation of the late Conference. Ibid. E. 363 (6).
2 Nor Truth, nor Errour, Nor Day, nor Night; But in the Evening
There shall be Light. Being the relation of a Publicke Discourse in Maries
Church at Oxford. London, 1647.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 167
conference'." Their object was " to nourish, continue, and
increase communion between the Saints, that there misfht
be a spirituall and happy exchange of gifts, graces and
experiments between Ministers and strong Christians,
that both might be better enabled to bear the heaviest
burthens and the manifold infirmities of weak Chris
tians'." "The Ministers saw it necessary to lay downe the
first principles of the doctrine of Christ, namely the
foundation of repentance from dead works, and faith
towards God, and accordingly they did clearly explain
the doctrins of Justification and Regeneration, they did
set open the treasures of the covenant of Grace, and
shew unto the people by what means they might get an
interest in Christ',"
" The success of our Christian conferences," they
continue, " whether more private or publique, was un
deniably great, .,. Divers Scholars, and some of them
Fellows of Houses, did blesse God that ever they saw
those Ministers in Oxford.. ..Mr Earbury was (as we are
assured) much offended, whether because his Auditory
decreased, as his errors were refuted, we shall not now
examine, and he stirred up the spirit of the Parliament
Soldiers against the Ministers*." A tedious account of
the disputation with Erbury follows, too long even to
epitomise. "We shall not stand to make generall observations
upon all Mr Earbury's dictates," the Divines conclude,
" but the designe is evident, the Magistracy and Ministry
of this Kingdome are both aimed at"."
1 An account given to the Parliament by the Ministers sent by them to
Oxford. King's Pamphlets, E. 382 (i), p. 3.
2 Ibid. p. 6. 3 ijiid. p. 4. 4 Ibid. p. 12-13.
5 Ibid. p. 50. For another account see Truth triumphing over Errour
and Heresie. Or a relation qf a Publick Disputation at Oxford. King's
Pamphlets, E. 371 (7).

i68 THE PURITANS IN POWER
In the end, however, the Divines had found it
necessary to have Erbury removed from Oxford by the
authority of Fairfax, and from a wider point of view it
may be doubted whether the effect of their work had
been as favourable as they imagined. Their contest with
the Independents had excited ridicule amongst the
Royalists, and their ministrations had not tended to
conciliate opposition or to dispose the University to bow
to the authority of Parliament. Nothing had been
gained by the postponement ; and something more than
time had been lost.
At last, on May i, 1647, an ordinance was passed
appointing Visitors and investing them with power'.
The Visitation of Oxford University was conducted
by three separate boards of Visitors'. The first, appointed
on May i, 1647, was Presbyterian in character, though
it included men of very diverse types and opinions.
Reynolds, as the first Vice-Chancellor appointed by the
Parliament, was practically the head of it. The second
board was appointed in June 1652, but was more or less
temporary. It included Goodwin and Owen as its lead
ing members, and its prevailing tone was Independent,
although Conant probably exerted a certain influence in
the way of moderation. The third and last board was ap-
pointedin January 1653/4 and contained members from both
parties. Goodwin, again, was the nominal head, though
Conant, especially after he became Vice-Chancellor, was
the virtual leader. The last two boards were, of course,
appointed under the direct influence of Cromwell, who
had succeeded the Earl of Pembroke as Chancellor of

1 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), i. 925.
2 Walker, who had himself never seen the Register, fails to distinguish
between the three boards in his account of the Visitation. See Sufferings
of the Clergy, Pt. i, 122-144.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 169
the University, and possibly for this reason the presence
jof the more bigoted Independents wa.s.counteracted by a
leaven of broad-minded men. ...Taking the years 1647
to 1660 as a whole, the tendency was, says Professor
Burrows, for the University taJalL. under the moderate
section of the Presbyterians^,
The first board consisted of twenty-four members, of
whom fourteen were laymen and ten clergymen. Five
were to form a quorum, and it was but rarely that a
greater number took part in the business. The work
was, in fact, soon left to the clerical element in the
committee, although Sir Nathaniel Brent, the Warden
of Merton, had been elected chairman. This fact, besides
being calculated to excite particular resentment, was open
to a valid objection at the hands of the University, In
October 1641 the Parliament had passed an act pro
hibiting any person in orders from exercising any
temporal authority by virtue of any commission', and
this enactment was very naturally cited as a bar to the
presence of clergymen amongst the Visitors. The objec
tion, of course, was not insuperable at a time when the
entire constitution of the country was about to undergo a
process of change, but it added to the difficulty of the
Visitors' position.
The powers conferred upon the Visitors should be
considered by the side of the Treaty of Surrender. It
has already been remarked that the studied vagueness of
the terms contained in the latter document gave ample
scope for radical reform, and therefore there was nothing
contrary to the Treaty in authorising the Visitors to inquire
upon oath " concenungi. those jiiat,Jieglec^
Solemn_League...and^Coyeriant and.th£ji[.egaiiveOath,'' or
"oppose the execution of the ordinances of Parliament
1 Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. xxxii.
2 Common^ Journals, ii, 293.

I70 THE PURITANS IN POWER
concerning the Discipline and Directory." The strict
enforcement of the Presbyterian form of worship, had
been the policy followed by the Pariiament throughout
tEr. country, -ajid-Oxfer-d had-no reason -to- expect. Jo
escape it.  Similarly, the interference with University
and college statutes and with elections to college offices
and fellowships could be justified by reference to the
saving clause in the Treaty. On the other hand, in
ordering an inquiry to be made concerning those who
had taken up arms against the Parliament, it is doubtful
whether the Government was acting within the provisions
of the terms of surrender. Professor Burrows, indeed,
explains that "these persons... had not been specified in
the exemptions mentioned in the Treaty of Surrender,
because all such persons had been ipso facto expelled and
granted a safe-conduct out of the city at its capture',"
and this is no doubt true if the intentions of the Parlia
ment extended only to those who were literally in arms
against them. But that a wider application was con
templated is suggested by a supplementary ordinance of
September 24, wherein the Visitors were empowered to
inquire, not only concerning those who had been in arms,
but also concerning those who had been in any way
concerned in the war, either in their own person or by
their advice'. It is hardly possible to suppose that this
additional power referred only to actions subsequent to
the surrender, but if this is not the case, then it was
undoubtedly in contravention of the indemnity clause of
the Treaty, by which members of the University were
guaranteed against sequestration and " all other molesta
tion " in respect of anything connected with the war or
the "unhappy differences" with the King, It might, of
course, be urged on the other side, that, in view of the
unexpected opposition with which it had to deal, the
1 Burrows : Register qfthe Visitors, p. Ixii. 2 /^^-^ p j^^^^.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 171
interests of the Visitation demanded more stringent
measures than had at first been deemed necessary, and
therefore the indemnity clause as hindering the reforma
tion " intended by the Pariiament " could legitimately be
set aside, but, if each specific condition made in the
University's favour could be nullified by one vague
proviso, the practical value of the Treaty was very small.
The exigencies of the case demanded a certain elasticity
in the conditions, but, even when allowance has been
made for this, the fact remains that the advantages
actually obtained by the University bear no very distinct
resemblance to those outlined in the Treaty,
Parliament, at any rate, was determined on carrying
through the work which lay before it. Just as, at an
earlier date, the county sequestration committees had
been urged to activity, so now the London Committee
which was entrusted with the regulation of the University,
in conferring these ample powers upon the Visitors,
expressed the hope that they would "act vigorously'."
This was in September 1647, and from this time
onward the work of the Visitors continued more or less
unchecked. The actual inauguration of their sittings had
taken place in the previous May, but it had been made
inauspiciously. In the first place, a mutiny of the
garrison had alarmed the Visitors and delayed their
arrival in Oxford', and, in the second place, their first
engagement with the University authorities resulted in a
moral victory for the latter.
The Visitors had fixed upon June 4 for a Convocation
to take place. The members of the University assembled
in obedience to the citation, but the Visitors were
detained by a long sermon in the University Church,
and at the hour appointed by them for the meeting had
1 Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. Ixvi.
2 S. R, Gardiner : Civil War, iii, 314.

172 THE PURITANS IN POWER
not yet put in an appearance. Taking advantage of
their unpunctuality, the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Fell, dissolved
the Convocation and dismissed the members before the
Visitors had arrived'.
About the same time, the University passed a series
of resolutions stating their own position with regard to
the Visitation, This work, entitled the "Judgment of
the University," had been drawn up by Robert Sanderson,
afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, and Dr Zouch. The case
for the University was well and moderately defined and
their reasons for refusing the demands of the Visitors
clearly stated'.
So far the Visitors had not appeared to great ad
vantage. Their authority had been openly flouted and
no headway had been made. For the four following
months nothing further was done, but this was not due
to a sense of defeat'. More weighty causes in the
political affairs of the Kingdom at large were at work to
hinder their progress*. On June 4 the King had been
seized at Holmby House, and the chief interest of the
nation became centred in the possibility of a compromise.
When, at length. Parliament was enabled to turn its
attention to Oxford, they saw that, if the Visitors were
to proceed with their work, they must be invested with
larger powers. The result was the passing of the
additional ordinances of September mentioned above.
Reinforced by their new powers and urged on to
"vigorous" action bythe London Committee, the Visitors
at once set about clearing the University of those who
would not submit to the new regime. For this purpose
1 The incident is described in A letter from a Scholar at Oxford to his
fiend in the Country. Pr. 1647.
2 Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. Ixiv. The " reasons " were
repudiated in a petition from the Puritan members of the University.
3 Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 128.
* Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. Ixv.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 173
they sat daily to receive "informations," and, to further
expedite matters, appointed forty-three delegates to
report upon the members of the respective colleges.
These "spies and informers," Walker says, could be
"none but persons of the basest spirits" since no others
would have engaged themselves in " so vile a service,"
and inasmuch as they wfire-aiJterwards.. rewarded J.'jvith
t;heJellowsJbips- of sueh as were ejected," some light may
be thrown on the "characters of those who succeeded the
loyalists'," The assertion that the delegates undertook the work
with a view to succeeding to the places of those whom
they were instrumental in expelling is not, however,
supported by the facts. Of the forty-three delegates,
thirty-four were members of colleges, and nine of halls.
Of the thirty-four members of colleges, only eleven were
not already fellows ; so that the charge can only justly be
applicable to twenty, or less than half of the total number.
As a matter of fact, fifteen of these did afterwards obtain
fellowships'. But the general purpose and character of
the delegates does not seem to justify the term "spies,"
They were intended to act with regard to the individual
colleges as the Visitors themselves acted with regard to
the University as a whole, that is to say, to see that
the conditions demanded by Parliament were fulfilled.
In any case, the method afterwards pursued by the
Visitors in demanding a submission from each individual,
rendered the service of informers unnecessary. There
is no real resemblance between these agents and the
informers engaged by the county committees'. We
find little trace in the Visitors' Register of citation for
1 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 129.
2 These facts about the delegates can be traced in Professor Burrows'
edition of the Register.
3 See ante, pp. 67-8.

174 THE PURITANS IN POWER
specific offences', as a result of information, which is the
characteristic of the proceedings of the sequestration
committees, nor, on the whole, would the character of
the delegates have been consistent with such work.
Two or three of them do not seem to have been more
than luke-warm supporters of the party who appointed
them, and several more, such as Conant, who was
afterwards Vice-Chancellor, and Robert Crosse, were
men of some eminence. On the other hand, it is certain
that spies and informers existed under the rule of the
Visitors, and it is likely enough that there were place-
hunters among the delegates.
The summonses which the Visitors now began to
issue to the Heads of Houses and others drew from the
University further protestations of their inability to
recognise the legality of the Visitation. To settle the
question finally the London Committee found it necessary,
in November, to summon the recalcitrant members before
them to be rated for their obstinacy by the Chancellor,
the Earl of Pembroke. Some of the more violent
members of the committee were in favour of summary
methods, and the Earl of Manchester's proceedings at
Cambridge were cited as an example. Sir Henry
Mildmay gave it as his opinion " that had they at first
took the same course with the University of Oxford which
an honourable person there present... did with Cambridge,
Oxford by this time had been in a good condition as
1 There are, indeed, some instances. See, for example, the case of
Henry Tozer, sub-rector of Exeter, in Burrows' Register of the Visitors, p. 13,
and Walker, Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 131. A further instance is found
in the case of John Greaves of Merton. In this case, another fellow of the
coUege, John French, seems to have claimed the honour of having procured
Greaves' expulsion, for a return on p. 282 of the Register (Burrows' edition)
states in answer to "the humble petition of Mr John French" that Mr Greaves
"was not put out of his fellowship.. .by any articles or voluntary information
exhibited against him by Mr French."

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 175
her sister'." It was principally through the intervention
of Selden that a legal hearing, with the advantage of
counsel to assist them, was granted'. Several well-known
Parliamentarians besides Selden took the part of the
University, but the issue was a foregone conclusion, and
the denial of the Parliamentary authority was decided to
be " high contempt." Following upon this, several of
the chief University authorities were formally deposed,
but inasmuch as the orders of the committee were still
disregarded, the situation remained practically unchanged.
It was not until February 18 that the committee took
the step of appointing its own nominees to the offices
which they had declared to be vacant.
The solemn entrance of the detested Chancellor into
Oxford for the purpose of installing the new officials was
a signal for the effusion of much derision and bitter
satire from the local royalist pamphleteers'. No doubt
there was little to command respect in the person of
the Chancellor or in his manner of proceeding, but his
visit was at least effective from the point of view of the
Visitors, After his departure in April 1648, they at
once began a wholesale citation, not only of Heads of
Houses, but of the whole body of the University also,
with a view to the .summary ejection of those who refused
to^bmi^ to, their jji^^ Yet the decision of each
individual case was not so simple as it would appear, for
it was found that the direct question : " Do you submit
to the authority of Parliament in this present Visitation?"
was capable of many indirect forms of reply.
As early as November, 1647, the Delegates of the
University had held a meeting in Hart Hall for the
1 A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, iii, 543.
2 Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. Ixxi.
3 See for example Lord have mercy upon us, or the Visitation at Oxford;
Pegasus or the Flying Horse from Oxford, by Thomas Bariow; and Halifax
Law translated to Oxford, etc.

176 THE PURITANS IN POWER
purpose of drawing up a paper of "directions," so that
" whosoever was called before the Commissioners might
know how to answer," One of the most striking of these
directions was that the examinee should "be sure to
answer to no question positively yea or no," but should
gain time by questioning the commissioners' authority,
or by referring to the official answers given by the Uni
versity', This procedure was not merely due to vexatious
obstruction, but was justified by the fact that the character
of the Visitors' authority was absolutely unknown to the
University and college statutes. Royalists were, no
doubt, ready to make use of the dilemma, but the dilemma
itself was a real one. "'Tis apparent to us," runs a
published letter of the period, " that as the state of things
now stands, we have an easie, tho' unhappy choice
proposed to us, viz, : Whether we will prefer the preserva
tion of our Estates, or of our Soules by admitting perjury
or ruine'," The evasive replies which the members of the colleges,
acting in accordance with the " directions," returned
caused the Visitors some embarrassment, but on referring
for guidance to the London Committee they were instructed
that the following forms of answers were to be treated as
no submission : " Profession of ignorance," " referring to
the answer of their several Houses," "saying that they
cannot, dare not, or do not, submit without giving a
reason," and "submitting to the authority of the King
and two houses of Parliament'." Many, of course,
scorned to elude the consequences of a flat denial, but it
does not seem that those who gave the bravest answers
were always the steadiest to their principles.
* A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, iii, 532.
2 The case of the University of Oxford.. .in a letter sent from thence to
Mr Selden. Published May 18, 1648. King's Pamphlets, E. 443 (19).
3 Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. Ixxxv.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 177
The six instances of bold replies which Walker
quotes' are at all events unhappily chosen. "Jo.
Pistwich" (probably a mistake for Prestwich), Carrick
and Whitehall all afterwards submitted, and the answers
attributed to the first two are not those which are given
in the Register. The answer of " the young gentleman
of Trinity College " does not appear. Possibly he gave
the common reply that he would submit if the Visitors
could show a commission from the King. Such tactics,
4lbwever, did not have the effect of averting the fate of
those who employed them, unless they were followed by
a full submission, and the sufferers had to content them
selves with the thought that they had at least been true
to the principles of their cause. " Howsoever we may
suffer for it," runs a contemporary letter, " I believe what
we have done will be of some use and advantage to ye
King's whole businesse. Whereas if we had submitted
to them as Visitors being made so by ye 2 houses without
ye King, we had as much as in us lies decided ye maine
question in favour of them against his Majestie'."
The fate of such comparatively unknown persons as
those just mentioned is less interesting than that of the
leading men in the University, the Heads of Houses and
the Professors. Heiia^alsaeL tolerably clean sweep was
made, but a few survived'.. Besides Hood*, the Reetorof
Lincoln, and Langbaine, the Provost of Queen's, who,
according to Walker, were the only Heads spared by the
Visitors, four others, Laurence of Balliol, Hakewill of
1 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 136.
2 Clarendon Papers (Bodleian) 2636.
3 Ibid.
* See passage in a letter from Dr Payne to Sheldon, Feb. 4, 1649/50,
" I suppose you have heard. ..that Dr Hood, though articled against by some
of his own feUows, is yet in possession, the business being referred to the
Oxford visitors, who are his friends." Quoted in Theologian and Ecclesiastic,
vi, 167-8. T. P. '^

178 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Exeter, Saunders of Oriel' and Sir Nathaniel Brent of
Merton submitted sooner or later and retained their
places, though the last-named, as himself a Visitor, need
hardly be reckoned. Of the Professors and Readers,
thirteen were displaced and three submitted, "If this
world goe on," says a contemporary tract, " 'twill bee a
shame to bee out of prison or in a Fellowship'."
Both in the general account of the Visitation in
Part I of his book, as well as in a long note appended to
the "Oxford List" in Part II, Walker gives a con
siderable amount of attention to the question of the
numbers of those who were ejected. Statistics of this
kind are always liable to be deceptive, and in this case,
where no certainty can be attained and much must
necessarily be left to conjecture, little help is to be
derived from them. Still, it may be worth while to
compare Walker's computation with the lists given at
the end of Professor Burrows' edition of the Register.
The impossibility of drawing up an exact list is at
once frankly admitted by Walker, and Professsor Burrows,
though able to attain greater accuracy, has still to be
content with more or less approximate figures. The
actual list in Part II of Walker's book contains 573
names, but about 250 of these Walker admits, either
explicitly or implicitly, to be doubtful, so that we may take
the number of certain expulsions, as given by him, to be
roughly 320. The figure which elsewhere in his book he
himself accepts as probable is 400, and he arrives at this
in the following way'. The total number of those ejected,
as given by Wood, and in the Register and in a tract
1 In the case of Saunders, Walker followed the original Latin edition
of Wood's History of Oxford, which did not mention that Saunders was
afterwards reinstated. This mistake was rectified in Gutch's translated
edition (iii, 588).
2 Pegasus or the Flying Horse from Oxford, p. 6.
3 See Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. ii, 138.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 179
entitled Oxonii Lachrymae, he takes to be roughly 640,
but as he was only concerned with those on the founda
tions, he makes a reduction of a fifth for commoners,
which brings the total to about 500, A further reduction
of 125 is then made on account of those who subsequently
submitted and either retained or were restored to their
places. The total of 375 thus arrived at he then pro
ceeds to check from another source, that is to say from
the number of elections to the foundations. The number
given in the Register is 396, and practically all of
these. Walker thinks, were made to vacancies caused by
expulsion. He makes a reduction of 40, however, for
the few cases in which the election was made to a vacancy
caused "regularly" by death or resignation. But,
inasmuch as the power to make their own elections was^
after a certain time, restored to the colleges, the Register
would only include the elections made before such power
was restored and not the total number. In view of this,
he feels himself justified in adding an extra fifty, so as to
bring the total up again to about 400.
In the Introduction to his edition of the Register,
Professor Burrows accepts this figure as the most satis
factory that it is possible to obtain', but in the explanatory
preface to the index of names he sees reason to reconsider
this'. He shows that the "total number of expulsions...
falls below this figure," and that a large proportion even
of this reduced total were not on the foundation. In his
general summary" of the number of expulsions and
submissions, he divides the names that appear in the
index into four classes, the first composed of those who
were certainly expelled, not only for non-submission but
for any cause, whether connected with the Visitation or
1 Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. xc,
2 Ibid. p. 470.
3 Ibid. p. 571. 12—2

i8o THE PURITANS IN POWER
not, the second of those whose expulsion is doubtful, the
third of those who certainly submitted, either at once or
ultimately, and the fourth of the cases in which there is
a strong probability of expulsion. The numbers in each
class are founded on a careful examination of the Register
and a comparison of the various lists of expulsions and
submissions. According to this classification, 374 certain cases of
expulsion appear and 141 doubtful cases, but this includes
commoners, which Walker's computation did not profess
to do. On the whole, therefore, if we disregard the
doubtful cases in both accounts. Walker's 320 does not
appear very extravagant beside the 374 of Professor
Burrows, even though the latter contains a considerable
proportion of commoners and a certain number of cases
in which the expulsion was the result of irregularity or
misdemeanour unconnected with the particular work of
the Visitors,
The bold front which the University offered at first
in refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Visitors
was not, as we have seen, maintained to the end, and
many of those who had begun with defiance finished with
submission. Walker states that out of 676 who appeared
at the first summons only 128, including college servants,
did not deny the Visitors' authority', while in nine
colleges only fourteen fellows submitted. He admits
that some who had stood out at first afterwards submitted,
but of these, he says, there were " comparatively few."
If taken by itself, this last statement might be misleading,
but elsewhere in the course of his attempt to arrive at a
fair estimate of the number of ejections. Walker allows
that 125, not including commoners, may have ultimately
withdrawn their opposition and retained their places', and
1 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 135, note.
2 Ibid. Pt. ii, 138.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD i8i
this figure again is not very far from that to be obtained
from Burrows' list.
According to the latter authority about 1 50 of those
who, from first to last, tendered their submissions had
been on the foundations of their respective colleges
before the appointment of the Visitors, while the total
number of those who undoubtedly submitted, exclusive
of servants, amounted to 301, besides 103 from the
various halls'.
It will have been seen from the foregoing remarks
that Walker's estimates do not always tally with one
another. The 400 ejections reckoned up in the note
appended to the Oxford list does not bear any very close
relation to the figures revealed by the list itself; the
"comparatively few" submissions mentioned on page
135 of Part I does not coincide with the 125 submissions
which he concedes elsewhere. In view of the fact that
he very properly does not pretend to give more than
approximate figures, these discrepancies are matters of
very slight importance, and merely have the effect of
obscuring his real opinion. When, however, his various
statements are brought into relation with one another,
they do not appear to be very excessive. The general
effect of the examination of Walker's figures and a
comparison with Professor Burrows' lists is to show that
there were fewer expulsions and more submissions than
has been represented.
The sequestrations were, of course, spread over a
considerable period, but nearly all of them took place
under the first board of Visitors and before the year 1652.
The next matter that must claim attention is the general
character of the men who filled the vacant places.
The first care of the Visitors, Walker tells us, was to
1 The haUs were essentially Puritan in tone, see ^uttovis, Register of the
Visitors, p. xxv.

i82 THE PURITANS IN POWER
provide for themselves and for those who had been
associated with them in the work of purging the Univer
sity. Then, quoting Dr Allestry's Life, he states that
the places of the ejected RoyaHsts were filled by "an
illiterate rabble, swept up from the plough tail, from shops,
and grammar schools, and the dreggs of the Neighbour
University'," while the "sacred rewards and titles of
learning," that is to say the honours and degrees, were
"prostituted " to the " lust and ambition of everyone who
was distinguish'd by ignorance, enthusiasm, treason and
rebellion'," He admits, indeed, that the Visitors ap
pointed a standing committee to examine the candidates
from Cambridge and elsewhere, but this examination he
clearly regards as a mere formality, since later on he
suggests, on Wood's authority, that the Visitors were
open to corruption'.
It was almost inevitable that, in order to fill the
vacant places in the colleges and in the University,
recourse should sometimes be had to methods of which
the honesty, as well as the expediency, was at least
doubtful. That certain of the Visitors and of those who
had assisted them in their work should, in some cases,
have taken the places of those whom they had expelled,
was clearly in defiance of a natural conception of justice,
and laid them open to the application of the maxim that
" it is only the hangman's fee to have the dead-man's
clothes." It is unlikely that the action of the Visitors
was influenced to any appreciable extent by this fact,
since the wholesale expulsions which took place were to
a great extent due to outside causes, but such a tribunal
should have been composed of those to whom no charge
of selfish motive could apply.
1 Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 140.
2 Ibid. Pt, i, 141. 3 ji^a. Pt. i, 139.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 183
There is also some truth in the assertion that prefer
ment was given as a reward for past service in the
Parliamentary cause. Successful soldiers, such as Jerome
Zanchy, who received a fellowship at All Souls, formed
a somewhat incongruous element in the reformed Uni
versity, while an unnecessary amount of offence was
given by the lavish grants of honorary degrees to those
who had been closely connected with the King's over
throw and death. There is evidence, too, that interest
could sometimes be made in the case of sons of distressed
Parliamentarians, Thus, on October 23, 1648, we find
the London Committee making a recommendation to the
Visitors on behalf of Sir Robert King, in considera
tion of his "sufferings and services," with a view to
obtaining the next vacant fellowship at All Souls for his
son. And again, on the same date, a recommendation
for a student's place in Christ Church is made in the
case of a son of "Mr Vincent Cupper, whoe hath eight
children, and suffered much for the Parliament',"
The character of the delegates or " informers " as
possible candidates for preferment has already been
discussed. Another class who, according to Walker,
took an important part in the scramble for the vacant
places was "a tribe of ignorant enthusiasts and schis
matics" from Cambridge, not regular members of that
University, but a " colony of Presbyterian or Independent
novices," who had betaken themselves thither "after it
had been reformed into confusion'."
How many there were of these Cambridge immigrants
it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty. In
a list of " Persons appointed by the Visitors or elected
under their sanction " which Professor Burrows appends
to his edition of the Register, the names of sixty-four
1 Burrows' Register of the Visitors, p, 206.
2 Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 139-40.

i84 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Cambridge men appear, but there may have been others
whom it has not been possible to identify. The greater
number of these are unknown to fame, but the list in
cludes such men as John Wallis, a celebrated mathema
tician who became Savilian Professor of Geometry,
Nathaniel Sterry who was made Dean of Bocking after
the Restoration, Stephen Charnocke, a well-known author,
and Seth Ward, afterwards successively Bishop of Exeter
and of Salisbury.
Something may be learnt concerning the general
character of the "intruders" from the regulations which
controlled the admissions. On July 5, 1648, a committee
was appointed for the express purpose of examining
candidates for fellowships, scholarships, or other places
in the University. The names of its members are given
in the order of the above date, and it was, says Professor
Burrows, " a very competent Committee'." Probably a
great part of this " examination " was concerned with the
religious views of the candidates, for this was a point on
which the Visitors always showed themselves to be
exacting. A more explicit order was made in 1653.
On November i in that year the Visitors decreed that
no scholar should be eligible for the place of probationer,
fellow, or chaplain unless he submitted to the Visitors a
testimonial "subscribed by the hands of foure persons at
the least, knowne to the Visitors to be of approved
godliness and integrity'." The impolicy of such regula
tions was severely censured by those who valued learning
above the type of piety which was likely to find favour
with the Visitors. Gerald Langbaine, the Provost of
Queen's, spoke in no uncertain terms on the subject in
a letter to John Selden, written a week after the issue of
the order.
" I was not so much troubled," he wrote, " to hear of
1 Burrows' Register of the Visitors, p. 141. 2 Ibid. p. 368.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 185
that fellow who lately in London maintayned in publick
that learning is a sin, as to see some men (who would be
accounted none of the meanest among ourselves here at
home) under pretence of piety, go about to banish it in
the University. I cannot make any better construction
of a late order made by those we call visitors, upon
occasion of an election last week at All Souls Coll., to
this effect, that for the future no schollar be chosen into
any place in any college, unless he bring a testimony
under the hands of 4 persons at the least (not electors)
known to these Visitors to be truly Godly men, that he
who stands for such place is himself truly Godly, and by
arrogating to themselves this power, they sit judges of
all men's consciences, and have rejected some against
whom they had no other exceptions (being certified by
such to whom their conversations were best known to be
unblamable, and statutably elected after due examination
and approbation of their sufficiency by the Society)
merely upon this account that the persons who testified
in their behalf are not known to the Visitors to be
regenerate, I intend e're long," he concludes, " to have
an election in our College, and have professed that I will
not submit to this order'."
But though the effect of the Visitors' policy would
lead, as Langbaine foresaw, to a considerable amount of
injustice and to the reduction of scholarship to a position
of secondary importance, it is improbable that persons of
gross ignorance, and still less of bad character, would
have gained admission. In Exeter, Mr Boase states
that the Rector's " care in the election of fellows was very
singular'," and even Anthony Wood allows that there
were some "good scholars and well-bred persons'."
1 Tanner MSS. (Bodl.) 52, fol. 60.
2 C. W. Boase: Registrum Collegii ExonicTtsis, p. cxxiii.
3 Hist, of Oxford, iii, 634.

i86 THE PURITANS IN POWER
So much for the rank and file of the "intruders."
Of those who succeeded to official positions it is possible
to speak rather more explicitly. Walker, after a sweeping
condemnation of the manner in which the fellowships
had been filled, proceeds to state that "the first and
highest places of the University " were no better provided
for. In support of this, he instances Dr Hoyle and
Du Moulin, the two new Professors of Divinity and
Ancient History respectively. The former's lectures, he
says, had "neither method nor argument in them, and
seem'd to shew him ignorant, even of the most common
and ordinary rules of logick," The latter he only accuses
of tiring himself " as well as the auditory with the praises
of the Parliament'."
Neither of these men, certainly, were men of any
great eminence, although Hoyle was a man of whom the
University need not have been ashamed. He had been
educated at Magdalen Hall, and had afterwards held the
divinity professorship at Trinity College, Dublin. Of
Du Moulin little is known except that he has been
condemned by Anthony Wood, But neither of these
two are really fair examples of the new occupants of the
various University chairs. Although possibly the most
distinguished men of the time, Sheldon, Sanderson,
Hammond and Morley, were among those who refused to
submit, some men of distinction were left, and the
"intruders" were not all as intellectually contemptible as
royalist historians represented'.
But it was not the condition only of the Puritan
nominees which their adversaries questioned. Two or
three instances are given by Wood to show that the honesty
of the new officialswas notabove reproach. Robert Harris,
the President of Trinity, is charged with appropriating
> Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 141.
2 Burrows' Register of the Visitors, p. Ixxxiii.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 187
two bags of money found in the President's lodgings, and
the President and fellows of Magdalen are said to have
broken open a chest left to the college by Dr Humphrey,
and to have converted the contents to their own use,
although the fund had been bequeathed for the public good
of the society', Heylin and'Fuller both corroborate this
story, the latter adding that "though one must charitably
believe the matter not so bad as it is reported, yet the
most favourable relation thereof gave a general distast'."
Mr Macray also narrates the incident with some ad
ditional facts. Apparently the newly-appointed officials
of the college came across the chest by chance while
searching in the Muniment Room for the original statute
book. They divided the 14 11 gold pieces among the
members of the college and persuaded John Wilkinson
to take his share as President. After his death, the
matter came to the knowledge of the Committee of
Parliament and they instituted an inquiry, with the result
that the money began to be repaid. In 1679 all had
been restored except Wilkinson's 100 pieces and 300
more which were due from ten fellows'. The incident
does not appear capable of any but an unfavourable
construction though an attempt was made to justify it on
the grounds that the college was in debt and that the
fellows misunderstood the character of the fund*.
Dr Reynolds, the Vice-Chancellor, and Ralph Button,
one of the new Canons of Christ Church, are likewise
accused of an intention to rifle the contents of Bodley's
and Saville's chests, but in this case it is not definitely
asserted that their purpose was dishonest, and as officers
of the University they may be allowed to have had the
1 A. Wood : Athenae Oxon. (1692), ii, 748.
2 Heylin : Exam. Hist. (1659), i, 268 ; FuUer : Church Hist. (1655), bk.
'^» 234- 3 Macray: Register of Magdalen College, New Series, iii, 121.
* Oxford College Hist. Series, Magdalen, pp. 169-70.

i88 THE PURITANS IN POWER
right to inspect the University chests'. The Royalists'
practice of concealing public property possibly gave the
Visitors an additional excuse for search.
Another instance of spoliation was the seizure of
Bishop Waynflete's mitre and other " Popish Reliques "
at Magdalen which took place in January 1646/7. After
the Restoration, the college endeavoured to regain the
lost treasures or their money value, and, in the course of
the legal investigations, it transpired that the goods had
been seized by one Michael Baker, described as a
" messenger of the Exchequer," acting " by colour of an
Order " of the House of Lords. According to Baker's
own statement, the mitre and a considerable quantity of
copes and other valuable ecclesiastical vestments, " esti
mated by severall persons which viewed them at Oxford
to be worth two thousand pounds," were taken to London
by the carrier and were there delivered " to Mr Alexander
Thaine then deputy to James Maxwell als. Lord Deirlton,
and sold by him, part to one Mr Wheeler a Goldsmith,
other part kept and disposed of by the said Mr Thaine
to his owne use." Thaine pleaded the Act of Oblivion,
and the Magdalen men, who seem to have met with a
considerable amount of discouragement in the pursuit of
their case, were unable to obtain compensation'.
The work of the Visitors had, naturally enough,
caused satisfaction to those who had succeeded to places
under their auspices. On November 1, 1648, Convocation
addressed a letter of thanks to the Speaker, in which
they expressed their gratitude for the great favours
bestowed on " this Seminary of Piety and A^ts^ by
1 Wood: Athenae Oxon. (1692), ii, 748-9.
2 An account of the proceedings is printed, from the MS. in the Tanner
Collection, in J. R. Bloxam's Register of Magdalen College, ii, 341. A copy
of Baker's statement before the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury is in
the British Museum, Add. MSS. 32,094, fol. 3.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 189
whose goodnesse and bounty they begin now to live and
move againe."
"Wee must ever mention with all thankefulnes," the
letter proceeds, "the care you have had for purginge
these Fountaines and that notwithstanding all your
burdens that lay upon you and publique pressures, you
have devised liberall thinges for the incouragement of
learning : so that were there no other argument, this
place alone were enough to confute that unjust calumny
of perverse men that you intend to bring in darkenesse
and Barbarisme on this knowing Nation'."
The " Fountaines," however, were destined to be
purged still further. A certain amount of interference
with University and college statutes was not only
necessary to the work of "regulation," but was, as we
have seen, practically justified by the wording of the
Treaty of Surrender. It may, indeed, be doubted whether,
in the disordered state in which the University was left
by the war, any reorganisation would have been possible
without occasional alterations in college constitutions.
Though the action of the Visitors in this respect may
have been unduly prolonged, it was not dictated by any
other motive than that of precaution, and in some cases
their interference was justified. As late as November
1657, they conducted an inquiry into the case of All
Souls College, where fellowships had been frequently
bought and sold', A letter of this period which seems,
from internal evidence, to be written from and about
All Souls, suggests that the early work of the Visitors
had not been effectual in restoring order.
"Here is much talk," the letter runs, "of a new
Visitation in September next to enquire how exercise is
perform'd, and coUedg statuts observ'd. Our colledg
» Tanner MSS. (Bodl.) 57, fol. 397-
2 See Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1657-8, pp. 181, 236, 260, 272.

I90 THE PURITANS IN POWER
can give but a poor accompt, wherever ye fault will light,
for wee have had no exercise, discipline, nor respect to
statut since the Reformation'."
As soon as a college was judged to be sufficiently
" reformed " to administer its own affairs without detri
ment to the well-being of the University, full power to
do so was granted and further interference on the part
of the Visitors ceased.
But the public mind did not cease to interest itself in
the Universities, The period of the Commonwealth and
Protectorate was essentially a period of experiment and
of radical ideas in matters constitutional and institutional,
and it was not unnatural that the tendency of the time
should have led men's thoughts in the direction of
University reform. Some reference has already been
made to the attitude of the " Barebones " Parliament and
the writings of William Dell and John Webster',
Another interesting scheme of reform was published in
June 1659 in a pamphlet entitled "Sundry Things from
several hands concerning the University of Oxford',"
The pamphlet, which is republican in tone, begins
with a petition in which Parliament is asked to " enact
freedom of opinions " at the University and to carry out
various reforms in its government. Since degrees had
been improperly conferred, the petition asked that all
which had been bestowed since the surrender should be
" cassated and nulled by some solemn act, as being no
longer characters of merit, but cheats wherewith to amuse
the ignorant." None were to be Heads of Houses but
such as were " entirely affected for a Republique," and if
1 MS. J. Walker (Bodl.) c. 9, fol. 195, printed in G. B. Tatham : Dr John
Walker, p. 332. The letter is addressed tojeremy Stephens and is signed
"M.A."— probably Martin Aylworth, an elderly feUow of AU Souls who had
submitted to the Parliamentary authority. The letter is dated July 26, but
the year is not given.
2 See ante, pp. 137 et seq. 3 Brit. Mus. King's Pamphlets E. 988 (25).

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 191
it should be found impossible to provide a sufficiency of
suitable governors, the number of colleges should be
reduced rather than that they should become " nurseries
for such as may hereafter be as thorns in your sides,"
There was to be no Chancellor and power was not to be
given to any of the clergy, " who have been so notoriously
corrupt, negligent, and malicious " as Visitors, but there
should be " a kind of Censor " with power to punish
offences and "influence all elections for the advantage of
such as are actively obedient and deserving."
The petition is followed by what is described as "a
slight model of a Colledge to be erected and supplied
from Westminster School." The Dean and Canons of
Christ Church were to be abolished and their incomes
devoted to the new college, the supreme control of which
was to be in the hands of the governors of Westminster,
As for the studies, the " model " had several novel
suggestions. The "novices of the foundation" were to
be provided with books, clothes, diet, chambers, furniture,
and " physick in case of indisposition " at the college
charge. The discipline was to be strict, and the course
of study designed to fit men for the several professions.
There were to be two professors in Divinity, one in Civil
Law and Politics whose duty it should be to dispose the
students "to prefer a Commonwealth before Monarchy,"
a professor in the philosophy of Descartes and one in
the philosophy of Gassendi. There was to be a
" School of Experiments in Optiques and Mechaniques
for the instruction of the Gentry," professors of Physick
and Anatomy, a Chemist and a professor of "useful
Logick and civil Rhetorick,"
The body of public opinion, however, at that time,
was sufficiently conservative to preserve the Universities
from the ill-digested schemes of theoretical reformers who,
to use Wood's expression, "made it their business to

192 THE PURITANS IN POWER
scribble books to incite the rabble to lay these antient
fabricks equal with the ground'."
Another scheme of a different kind, of which nothing
came, was that of the conversion of S. Mary's Hall into
a college which should support ten "godly, able men,"
to be engaged in drawing up " a generall synopsis of the
true reformed Protestant Christian Religion professed in
this Commonwealth," It was also to receive "poore
Protestant Ministers and Schollars, being forraigners and
strangers borne'."
In his general summary of the effect of the Visitation
upon Oxford, Clarendon, after accusing the Puritan
rulers of filling the fellowships with incapable Presby
terians and with endeavouring to extinguish all good
literature, explains how the natural disastrous results
of so much "stupidity and negligence" were almost
miraculously averted, and gave place to "a harvest of
extraordinary good and sound knowledge in all parts
of learning," This happy consummation is mainly
attributed to "the goodness and richness of the soil',"
which triumphed over the evil effects of the seed sown
upon it, but such an unconvincing explanation would not
have been needed if the historian had not set himself to
reconcile two contradictory facts. On the one hand there
is the assertion that the natural effect, if not the design,
of the Visitation was to ruin the University, and on the
other, there is the fact that at the Restoration, Oxford was
" abounding in excellent learning and devoted to duty and
obedience," The true solution, it need hardly be said, is
to be sought elsewhere. The Visitation in fact, whatever
its defects, as regards its influence upon the University
was not such as Clarendon and others have described it.
' Wood : Hist, of Oxford, iii, 696.
2 See a draft of the scheme in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 32,093, i. 399.
3 Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. Macray), iv, 259.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 193
The Government, especially during the later years of
the Protectorate, did not show themselves careless of the
interests of the University. The grant of ;^2000 per
annum towards the increase of the stipends of Heads
of Houses has been noticed already'. In the case of
Oxford, some similar grants were made to certain pro
fessorships. ^80 per annum was granted, by way of
augmentation, to Seth Ward as Professor of Mathematics,
by an order of June 29, 1658', and on January 22, 1658/9
Dr Thomas Clayton, Professor of Physic, received an
augmentation of the same amount, to be paid " out of
the revenues of the new Windsor almshouses'." Wood
further records that the Protector ordered ;^ioo per
annum to be paid out of the Exchequer for the en
couragement of a Reader in Divinity, and that he
bestowed " 25 antient MSS." on the Library at his own
expense*. Some attempt has already been made at a comparison
between those who were expelled from the chief offices in
the University and those who took their places, and it
has been seen that, on the question of mere ability, the
change was not always for the worse. Several of the
new Heads, like Conant and Staunton, evinced an amount
of interest in the moral and intellectual well-being of the
undergraduates which had not been common in earlier
times and was certainly not often found in the Oxford of
the Restoration, As to the new fellows, the experience of
the various colleges differed enormously. Lincoln seems
to have been the most unfortunate, but in most cases the
"intruders" adapted themselves to the traditions of the
1 See ante, pp. 131-2,
2 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1658-9, p. 66. On Jan. 6, 1658/9 Ward petitioned for
a continuance of his augmentation, which had been paid for three quarters
and then suspended. Ibid. p. 243.
3 Ibid. p. 263.
* A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, iii, 667.
T. P. -"S

194 THE PURITANS IN POWER
place, and administered the affairs of their colleges
sufficiently well'.
The generality of those who entered the University
during the period of the Commonwealth and Protectorate
were probably drawn from a rather different class from
that which had supplied the colleges at an earlier date,
though a change from an aristocratic to a more plebeian
membership seems to have begun some years before the
outbreak of the war'. It was ceasing to be the fashion
for men of position to send their sons to the University,
and therefore the falling-off in the numbers of the
nobility and gentry, which Wood laments', was not wholly
due to the Puritan ascendency. At the same time,
it is probable, as Wood leads us to believe, that a
class of novi homines, whose fortunes were founded on
the triumph of the Parliamentary party, men, possibly,
who had speculated successfully in confiscated lands,
began to send their sons to the University. In point
of numbers the colleges did well*, and there is evidence
that, far from wishing to ruin the Universities, the
Puritans fully appreciated their value as a training
ground for the ministry. Under the relaxed discipline
of the Restoration, the numbers decreased.
The picture which Wood gives of the manners and
morals of Puritan Oxford is not wholly unfavourable to
those who exercised authority there. It shows, of course,
the strict enforcement of the Puritanical system, a rigid
discipline as regards the conduct, and a severe supervision
as regards the spiritual welfare of the undergraduates.
Expulsion, says Wood, was the ordinary result of
' See Oxford College Hist. -F^riVj, University, p. 120; Balliol, p. 141 ; All
Souls, p. 135 ; Magdalen, p. 168 ; Lincoln, p. 116, etc.
2 D. Macleane: History of Pembroke College, Oxford, p. 241.
3 A. Clark : Life and Times of Anthony Wood, i, 301.
^ See Oxford College Hist. Series, Christ Church, p. 71 ; Merton, p. 92;
Wadham, p. 67.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 195
swearing or cursing'; "public drunkenness" was punished
very severely; May-games, "morrices," and "Whitsun
ales" were discountenanced, and it was only at "Act
times " that the authorities would permit " dancing the
rope, droUes, or monstrous sights to be seen'."
Catechising was frequent and prayers took place
"in most tutors' chambers every night'," but Walker
states that the celebration of the Holy Communion was
entirely neglected by the University and college au
thorities*. On this last point the evidence is conflicting.
" To prepare the citizens and scholars for the Holy
Communion " was one of the professed objects of the
Seven Preachers", and a notice in Wood's Athenae
speaks of Samuel Parker as constantly partaking of the
Sacrament in a Presbyterian meeting-house". On the
other hand, other authors besides Walker have testified
to its neglect. It may be that it was regularly celebrated
in the Presbyterian churches in the city, and for that
reason was deemed unnecessary in the colleges.
The liturgy of the Church of England was, of course,
rigorously suppressed, but services were held in secret
" in the house of Mr Th. Willis, a Physician, against
Merton College Church " and " Prayers and Surplices " f
were "used on all Lord's Days, Holy Days and their
Vigils, as also the Sacrament according to the Church of
England administered'."
Whether the ideals of the governors were reflected
in the conduct of the governed is perhaps doubtful.
1 In Christ Church, members were fined a shiUing for every oath, and on
the third offence were to be proceeded against as scandalous persons. Oxford
College Hist. Series, Christ Church, p. 76.
2 A. Clark: Life and Times of Anthony Wood, i, 299. 3 /^/^ j^ ^oo.
* Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 143.
s Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. lix.
6 A. Wood : Athenae Oxon. (1692), ii, 615.
' A. Wood : Hist, of Oxford, iii, 613. 13—2

/

196 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Dr Fowler, indeed, expresses his suspicion that "this
constant succession of sermons... must have produced
such utter weariness in the minds of many of the students
as to prove a hindrance rather than an incitement to
religious thoughts and a godly life'," and Wood's evidence
points to a similar conclusion. If the undergraduates
might not frequent taverns, they could yet "send for
their commodities to their respective chambers and tiple
and smoake till they were overtaken with the creature " :
if "common players" were not admitted into the Uni
versity and the undergraduates were themselves prohibited
from acting, they still could, and probably did, indulge
therein "by stelth'."
The ordinary studies of the University were not
neglected. At Christ Church the tutors were directed
" to reade constantly to their scholars in approved classicall
authors'," and on July 20, 1649, the Committee for the
Reformation of the University ordered that " either the
Latin or Greeke be stricktly and constantly exercised
and spoken, in their familier discourse within the said
severall Colledges and Halls respectively, and that noe
other language be spoken by any Fellow, Scholar, or
Student whatsoever*." According to Wood, disputations
and lectures were well and frequently performed, besides
the public discussions in the Schools known as " coursing,"
which were carried on with so much spirit that they
ended " alwaies in blowes, and that in the publick streets,
to the great scandall of the gown"."
But speaking generally, the general tone of life, if
1 T. Fowler : Hist, of Corpus College, Oxon. p. 222.
2 A. Clark : Life and Times of Anthony Wood, i, 298-9.
3 Oxford College Hist. Series, Christ Church, p. 74. On the other hand
the system at Balliol was lax. Ibid. Balliol, p. 142.
* Burrows : Register of the Visitors, p. 249.
^ A. Clark : Life and Times of Anthony Wood, i, 300. Boase : Registrum
Collegii Exoniensis, p. ex.

THE VISITATION OF OXFORD 197
not the standard of scholarship, seems to have improved,
and this is no slight justification of the Visitors' work.
The eradication of abuses had been the object of Laud
and his antagonists alike, and the proper method of
attaining that object had been one of the questions
involved in their larger differences. Laud's reforms had
never had a fair trial, and the system which obtained at
Oxford after the Restoration, in its relation to life and
conduct, was far removed from his. The Puritans, on
the other hand, had the opportunity of putting their
system to the test. It is not necessary to speculate as
to whether, quite apart from the doctrinal views involved,
the new order would have been to the ultimate interest
of the University and the nation. Judged by its im
mediate results, the work of the Visitors marks an
improvement in many aspects of the University life, and
to that extent, at all events, must be considered a
success.

CHAPTER VI
THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY
In the foregoing chapters- an account has been given
of the manner in which the Episcopal Church was over
thrown and the Puritan ascendency established. It still
remains to be seen how the clergy of the Church of
England fared during the later years of the Civil War
and under the Commonwealth and Protectorate, when the
government of the country was under the influence of
the new power.
The. ruin o£ the. King's cause left the mass of^the
Joyal clergy in, jl condition .oXj;,^treine destitutioij. The
greater part of the cathedral and parochial sequestrations
had taken place before the close of the war, and a very
large number of ejected clergymen had been cast adrift
upon the country with practically no prospect of employ
ment or means of subsistence. Of these the more
fortunate were able to find a home with relations or
friends, but a considerable proportion had been driven
to take refuge with one or other of the King's garrisons.
The gradual surrender of these fortresses, and the emi
gration of the more powerful Royalists to the Continent,
still further reduced the resources of the unfortunate
clergy, and rendered them almost entirely dependent on
charity. The majority preferred to stay in England
rather than to take refuge abroad, even at the risk of
being committed to prison, as many of the more influ
ential actually were. In a letter to Gilbert Sheldon,

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 199
dated October 29, 1650, Henry Hammond refers to their
melancholy prospect in a tone of resignation.
"What you foresee, as possible, concerning our
common condition," he writes, " may not be far off", yet
truly I have not yet considered of it, being much inclined
to wait God's providence, and to stay here in or out of
prison as long as we may, and when nothing but going
beyond the sea will free us from spiritual imprisonment,
then to prefer banishment as the less evil'."
A certain number, however, who had been closely
associated with the King, repaired to the exiled Court in
France. The Bishop of Galloway, Dr George Morley,
afterwards Bishop of Winchester, Dr John Cosin, Dean
of Peterborough, and Dr Stewart, Dean of St Paul's, are
amongst those whom Evelyn mentions as attending there
during his visit to Paris in 1651'. With a few exceptions
almost all the members of the little Court were ex
ceedingly short of funds, and often in most necessitous
conditions. The Earl of Norwich writes pathetically
to Secretary Nicholas that " since I see noe hope
of mony from your Court, I must retire where I may
mend my ould breeches and put a crust of new bread
in my belly without farther disgrace in soe visible a
place'," and a similar picture is given in a letter from
Lord Hatton during Cosin's illness. " Mr Deane Cosins,"
he writes, " is exceeding ill and I cannot thinke he will
last long.... He is exeeding poore and necessitous, even
to the want of necessityes for his health, and hath not
anything heere coming in*."
In England the royalist clergy were often no better
off The wife of the Dean of Bristol, a correspondent
1 Quoted in Illustrations of the State of the Church during the Great
Rebellion, published in the Theologian and Ecclesiastic, vii, 119,
2 Memoirs off. Evelyn (1819), i, 257.
3 Nicholas Papers (Camden Soc), iii, 15. * Ibid, ii, 102.

200 THE PURITANS IN POWER
informed Nicholas in January 1645/6, was "in a very sad
and miserable condicion," so much so that his maid had
been seen "in the market sellinge of rosemary and bayes to
buy bread'." In view of this general indigence, a fund was
started, largely through the agency of Henry Hammond
and Jeremy Taylor, for the dispensation of charity to the
needy clergy'. Lord Scudamore was one of the leading
contributors', and good work was no doubt achieved by
this organisation, but its effects could only have been felt
by a comparatively small number. The great majority
of the clergy were to a large extent dependent upon
the treatment accorded to them by the Government,
When the county _se£jueatEation--_caminittees-Jbad.
been formed, directions had been given that if _the
ejected minister were married and had , a family, a., sum -ef
money was to be allowed for their support.. In the Earl
of Manchester's commission of January 22, 1643/4, it
was ordained that "the said Earl of Manchester shall
have power to dispose of a fifth part of all such estates
as they shall sequester, for the benefit of the wives and
children of any of the aforesaid persons*." Although
the wording of the ordinance seems to suggest that these
grants were merely at the discretion of the Earl of
Manchester, there is little doubt that either then, or soon
afterwards, it was intended both in the Eastern Associa
tion and elsewhere, that they should be made in every
case where they could fairly be claimed. If, however, it
could be proved that the ejected clergyman had other
sources of income, or was not solely dependent upon his
cure, the money was not granted, and this explains why
1 Nicholas Papers (Camden Soc), i, 68.
2 J. E. Bailey : Life of Fuller, p. 406.
3 Illustrations of the State of the Church during the Great Rebellion
{Theologian and Ecclesiastic, xii, 173).
* Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S.
Rait), i, 372.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 201
the articles of accusation almost invariably conclude with
a deposition by witnesses as to the value of the living
and the private or other means of the accused clergyman.
In the case of Dr Nicholas Grey, who was ejected from the
living of Castle Camps in Cambridgeshire, the Committee
for Plundered Ministers ordered that no " fifths " should
be paid, since Grey was "also schoolmaster of Eaton
Colledge whereby he hath a subsistance," but on being-
informed that this was not the case, they ultimately re
versed the order'.
The good behaviour of the ejected clergyman and of
his wife were also taken into consideration and no allow
ance was made to those who persisted in an open defiance
of the Parliamentary power. The authorities, however,
showed considerable discrimination, and, in one case,
where the petition of a clergyman's wife was refused,
"in regard of the malignancy proved against her," the
Committee for Plundered Ministers saw no ground for
withholding relief from her children'. When the ejected
clergyman had neither wife nor child, no help was given '.
Within these limits, the Parliamentary authorities
were peremptory in enforcing payment, though they
appear to have experienced considerable difficulty in
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 140, 187.
2 " This Committee have taken into consideration the cause returned
ag' Mrs Jacob of Dalingoe in the County of Suff", why hee {sic) should
not have a fift parte of the profittes of the sd rectory sequestred from her
husband and in regard of the malignancy proved against her doe conceive
her wholly unworthy of any allowance notwithstanding which this Committee
see noe cause why the children of the sd Mr Jacob should not have reliefe
out of the sd rectory and doe therefore order that the sd children shall
have the fift parte of the profittes of the sd rectory," etc. The grant was
subsequently questioned on the ground that the children were grown up.
Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 53 b, 64.
3 John Tolly, applying for maintenance out of the rectory of Little
Gransden, was informed that as he had neither wife nor child it was "against
the general course of this Committee to grant any maintenance." Add. MSS.
15,669, fol. 117 b.

202 THE PURITANS IN POWER
doing so. In August 1645, the Committee for Plundered
Ministers, who were frequently invoked as a court of
appeal, ordered that "whosoever shall neglect to pay the
fifth part of the profits of such living as he enjoyeth by
sequestration, contrary to any order in that behalfe, and
shall not upon summons show good cause for his non
payment thereof shall be sequestered'," and there are
several instances, recorded in their minutes, in which they
insisted upon payment being made'. In the case of the
living of Weldrake in Yorkshire, for example, acting
in the spirit of the foregoing decree they threatened to
eject the " intruding " minister, one Henry Bayard, unless
he paid the " fifth " to his predecessor's wife within a
fortnight'. The same policy prevailed even after the
Committee for Plundered Ministers had been dissolved,
for in the instructions issued to the Major-Generals in
1656, it was laid down "that where a fifth has been
allowed to wives and children of sequestered ministers,
and is detained, they shall cause it to be paid, unless they
,-fi«d just cause to the contrary *.
But although the intention of the Government in this
matter was clear, the question was a constant source of
friction between the ejected clergy and their unlawful
successors. At first the intruders endeavoured to evade
"the law on the ground that the original order of 1644
had not specifically included clergymen among other
delinquents, and Fuller, in his Church History, mentions
many other subterfuges to which they had recourse^
The new incumbents complained that the parishioners
1 Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 239.
2 For example, in a dispute between French, the " intruding " minister at
Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, and Mrs Manby, the wife of the ejected rector,
they decided in favour of the latter, though in this case they allowed her
only £(yo, the hving being valued at .£500. Add. MSS. 15,670, fol. 170 b.
3 Add. MSS. 15,670, fol. 220.
* Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1656-7, pp. 45, 144.
' J. E. Bailey : Life of Fuller, p. 378.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 203
were incited to withhold the payment of their tithes, and
consequently refused to pay a fifth part of their income
to their predecessors. Very likely in some cases, they
had reason on their side, and the behaviour attributed
to some of the Episcopalian clergy was hardly creditable.
Cases of incitement to withhold tithes are common among
the entries of the Committee for Plundered Ministers,
and in some cases open violence broke out'.
The difficulties experienced by the ejected clergymen,
however, did not always arise from the intruders only, for
not infrequently it was the local committee which stood
in their way. This was the case with Walter Bushnell,
the ejected minister of Box in Wiltshire who applied for
his fifths in 1658, Bushnell maintained that his living
was worth ;^ioo per annum, and produced tenants who
were prepared to lease it at that rent. This the com
missioners refused to accept, alleging in the first place
that the living was not worth more than ;^90, and, in the
second, that Bushnell himself had removed more fixtures
from his vicarage than he was entitled to, and that his
personal estate amounted to more than ^500, The
result of a long and tedious suit was that the commis
sioners granted him ;^I2 per annum until further notice,
and omitted to pay the arrears which were due to him'.
In some districts it seems to have been the practice of
the local committee to dole out allowances in small sums
rather than to pay a fixed proportion of the value of the
living. Thus the standing committee for Cornwall, in
the years 1646 to 1649, paid out ;^326. 3.?. M. to the
wives of sequestered clergymen. The sum was dis
tributed among nineteen persons in small payments
varying from £^ to ;^24'.
1 See ante, p. 72.
2 A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Commissioners, etc., by Walter
BushneU (1660), pp. 236-248. 3 MS. J. Walker, c. 10, fol. 126 b.

204 THE PURITANS IN POWER
This illustrates the obstacles which the ejected clergy
man frequently had to overcome, juid.eKen_whenJ;h.e,J[iJ;h,
was obtained it was hopelessly insujficientjor^he supporL
^ofjTfemily. For the injustice of the intruders and the
local authorities however, the Government was only
indirectly responsible. That they occasionally acted with
consideration towards those whom they had deprived of
the means of livelihood is evidenced by occasional pay
ments to individual sufferers. For example, on January 2,
1655/6, the Committee for Plundered Ministers ordered
the payment of ;^5 towards the relief of Peter
Warner, " one of the late singing-men " in Chester cathe
dral', and on July 15 of the same year they directed the
treasurer to pay ;^20 to several " members and officers of
the late hierarchy," attached to the cathedral'. Similar
payments of ;^io and £5 were made in subsequent
years'. In the earlier stages of the Puritan ascendency, a
very large number of Episcopalian clergy, a considerable
proportion of whom were drawn from the Universities,
were not only deprived of their benefices but committed
to prison for their enmity to the cause of the Parliament.
The Commons' Journals contain many orders consigning
offenders of this sort to imprisonment.
At first the prisoners were confined in the ordinary
London gaols, but as the number increased, other accom
modation had to be provided, and the Parliament took
the course of converting the London palaces and houses
of the bishops into prisons. This not unnaturally out
raged the Royalists' sense of justice and decency, and
was regarded as an act almost of sacrilege, but from the
point of view of the prisoners there is no doubt that it
1 Plundered Ministers Accounts, Lanes, and Cheshire, ed. W. A. Shaw,
ii, 108. 2 Ibid, ii, 145. 3 ji^i^ ii^ 203, 209, 298.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 205
was a decided change for the better. The conditions of
imprisonment at Lambeth or Ely house, even when the
quarters were full and overcrowded, would be infinitely
more healthy than those to be obtained in a common
gaol of the period, and it is therefore not surprising to
find that Sir Roger Twysden, to whose experiences of
prison life it will be necessary to refer more than once,
used all his interest to get himself transferred from the
" Counter " in Southwark to Lambeth Palace, and that
he was sincerely grateful to the friend through whom his
object was accomplished'.
The formal order by the provisions of which Lambeth
Palace was converted into a place of detention for political
prisoners was not made until January 1642/3', but it
had already been used for that purpose for some months
before, and as early as the previous September Col,
Henry Brooke, a captured Royalist, had been conveyed
thither'. The ordinance of January 1642/3, however, laid
down the regulations under which the new prisons were
to be managed, and these are instructive as showing on
what sort of footing the inmates were to be treated. On
the whole, and having regard to the times, the regulations
do not appear at first sight to be harsh or unreasonable.
The prisoners, indeed,....were compelled to_ pay for the.,
privilege of being lodged at Lambeth. It was decided
that "^' the Keeper,"' for the time being, may receive of
ordinary persons, at entrance, twenty shillings and not
above ; of Esquires and Knights, forty shillings and not
above; and for any of higher degree, five marks, and
not above," It was further laid down that " the Keeper
,for the time being may take of every prisoner, for his
chamber, weekly, a reasonable allowance, according to
1 Tyiysdieiri's Journal {Archaeologia Cantiana, iv, 178).
2 Commons' Journals, ii, 894, 914.
3 J. Cave-Brown, Lambeth Palace, p. 235.

2o6 THE PURITANS IN POWER
the room or rooms he shall desire to make use of: and
for such as shall provide their own furniture, to have so
much abated of their rent, as the same is worth." With
regard to the property of the Archbishop, it was allowed
that furniture might be removed by his servants to any
repository sanctioned by the Parliament, while the gardens,
fishponds, etc, were to be safeguarded from spoliation'.
The next step taken by the Parliament was to
appoint a Keeper, and the person they selected for the
post was the notorious Alexander Leighton, This man
had been a bitter enemy to Episcopacy, and had been
sentenced with cruel severity by the Star Chamber for
the publication of his book, Sions Plea against the
Prelacie. He had lately been liberated by Parliament
and indemnified for his sufferings. He has generally
been looked upon as one of those hot-headed fanatics
who did so much harm to the cause which they espoused,
and, although it is stated that he always spoke of his
enemies with forgiveness, one would naturally suppose
that at this date, he could hardly have regarded the
Episcopalian clergy with anything short of extreme
bitterness. To place such a man in the position of
gaoler over his enemies was an act of such apparent
injustice that the violent condemnation with which it has
sometimes been assailed is at least excusable'. We shall
have occasion below to observe Twysden's description of
him, but in the meantime it may be noted that the only
charge which Nalson brings against him is that of extor
tion and of having made "that persecution which was so
great a crime in others a lawful and gainful calling in
himself."
' Commons' Journals, ii, 913.
2 Thus Mr Cave-Brown {Lambeth Palace, p. 235) asserts that in this
appointment, " the intense malevolence of the triumphant faction proclaimed
itself" 3 J. Nalson: Lnpartial Collection, i, 512.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 207
Mr Cave-Brown, in his history of Lambeth Palace,
states that as a result of the ruthless overcrowding of the
prisoners, a fever broke out amongst them in the summer
of 1645 and caused "an appalling mortality," and to the
same effect Bishop Kennett's Register narrates that of
nearly a hundred ministers who were brought out of the
west and imprisoned at Lambeth " almost all " were
destrdyed. Whether, as Mr Cave- Brown suggests, many
of those who died were removed elsewhere for burial it
is not possible to say, but the burial register of the
Lambeth parish church includes the names of seventeen
prisoners who died between July and December in that
year'. This certainly was a high proportion for such a
short period, but if the fever was as universal in its effects
as Kennett's Register represents, it is at least curious
that Twysden, who was there at the time, makes no
mention of it.
No d,oubt. thaJxeatment which the prisoners received
depended very much on their ability to pay, and it is
probable that amongst the less fortunate in this respect,
both clergy and laity, there was much real hardship and
suffering. Twysden, although his whole estate had been
sequestered, must have belonged to the former class, and
his position cannot have been exceptional, for the ma
jority of the better sort would have been able to pay for
privileges and such comforts as were obtainable, Twys
den, then, on his arrival at Lambeth, was assigned as a
lodging a set of rooms which had been occupied
formeriy by one of the Archbishop's chaplains'. It
comprised three rooms and a study, according, as he
says, "to most of the buildings of that house," and for
this he paid at first a rent of twelve shillings a week.
But finding that his stay at Lambeth was likely to be
1 J. Cave-Brown : Lambeth Palace, pp. 239-40.
2 Archaeologia Cantiana, iv, 176.

2o8 THE PURITANS IN POWER
protracted, he demurred at paying this high rate in
future, and, in company with some other prisoners, he
went to Leighton and told him so. Leighton, however,
or possibly his deputy — for Twysden says that the
Keeper himself " meddled not much with the prisoners' "
— refused to make any reduction, and even threatened
him with "harder usage," but upon Twysden making
an appeal to some influential friends, his case was brought
before the Committee for Prisoners'. Here it was decided
that he should pay forty shillings entrance fee, and eight
shillings a week for his rooms in the future. His rela
tions with Leighton do not appear to have been altogether
unfriendly, in spite of the latter's grasping demands. He
"parted with very great kindnesse from Doctor Leigh
ton "; he says, " the man beeing no ill dispositiond person,
but one who loved the Presbytery, and loved money."
The general impression, in fact, gained from his account,
is that, except for the avarice of the gaolers, the treatment
at Lambeth was not severe and that Dr Gardiner is
justified in saying that their "confinement was made
as easy as was compatible with privation of liberty'."
The next expedient to which the Parliament had
recourse for the disposal of their prisoners is not open to
a similar defence. At the beginning of August in the
year 1643, the order was suddenly given that a certain
number of prisoners should be transferred to two ships
then lying in the Thames. Walker assumes that this
was merely a new method of dealing with the ever-
increasing numbers for whom it was necessary to find
accommodation, but Twysden suggests, far more plausibly,
that it was due to motives of public policy*. At that
date, a series of reverses inflicted upon the Parliamentary
1 Archaeologia Cantiana, iv, 177. 2 jjj^^ jy^ j^g
3 S. R. Gardiner: Commonwealth and Protectorate, iii, 312.
* Archaeologia Cantiana, iii, 149.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 209
armies in almost every direction had left the King free,
if he would, to strike at the capital, and it was generally
believed in London that this was the move which he
would adopt. In this expectation, therefore. Parliament
was anxious to place as many of their prisoners as
possible beyond the reach either of recapture or of
inflicting injury upon the Parliamentary cause. But
whatever the motive, it was ordered on August 7 that
"the Committee for Prisoners shall consider what pri
soners are fit to be put on shipboard ; and shall send them
to the Committee for the Militia, to give order for putting
them on ship-board accordingly : and the masters and
captains of the Ships contracted with by the militia, to
this purpose, are hereby authorised and required to
receive them, and to keep them in safety till further
order'." This was accordingly done, but the scheme
raised great complaints from those who were subjected
to this new form of imprisonment. On August 1 5, barely
a week after the original order had been made, a "humble
petition of divers Knights, Doctors in Divinity, and
Clergymen, Esquires, Gentlemen, Commanders, and
Officers, prisoners in the ship called the Prosperous
Sarah, now riding in the river of Thames " was read,
and referred to the Committee for the Militia. In view
of the complaints contained in this petition, the same
Committee was recommended "to take care, that the
prisoners aboard the two .ships be accommodated ac-
corc[ing;_„ta...:their several quality and conditions ; and
that .the., commoner sort be separated from the better ;
and that they do partioilarly take care of the sick, the
wounded, and such as are upon exchange'." About three
weeks later, that is to say, on September 6, the Commons
1 Common^ Journals, iii, 197. Four days previously to this, i.e. on
August 3, a committee of four had been appointed to treat with the Com
mittee for the MUitia on this subject. 2 jj,id_ jji^ 205.
T. P. 14

210 THE PURITANS IN POWER
decided to abandon the scheme finally, and accordingly
ordered that the prisoners should be removed and re
turned to their former prisons, and that "the ships be
forthwith discharged from any further entertainment of
the State in this kind'."
The short space of time during which the prisoners
were left on board the ships is in favour of Twysden's
theory of the reason for which they were sent thither, for
by the time that the last mentioned order was made, it
had become apparent that the expected advance on
London was not to take place. The fact that only
two ships seem to have been engaged, to some extent
makes against the theory, because a very small pro
portion of the prisoners could have been bestowed on
board them, but the terrible overcrowding of the vessels
gives additional weight to the assumption that their
employment was in the nature of a temporary expedient
to be abandoned when the need for it was past.
The evidence of the order of August 15 seems to
show that the Parliament had not intended that the
confinement on board ship should involve any unneces
sary hardships, but there can be no doubt that the
sufferings of the unfortunate prisoners, during the short
time that they passed there, were very intense. Twysden,
who spent three days on the " Prosperous Sarah,"
graphically describes the "small Colly er's barke where
wee lay, styfled with heat and lack of ayr, pent in an
unhealthy, uneasy, obscure roome'," and his account is
substantiated in an extremely interesting letter written
by Richard Sterne, formerly Master of Jesus College,
Cambridge, describing his prison experiences to a
Mr Sayer, who appears to have been a friend to him
in his affliction and to have advanced him money for
his support.
1 Common^ Journals, iii, 229. 2 Archaeologia Cantiana, iii, 153.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 211
The letter', which is dated from Ely House, October
9> 1643, is largely taken up with expressions of gratitude
for this timely assistance, rendered necessary by the
sequestration of all the writer's property. Speaking of
his imprisonment he says he had already been fourteen
months in confinement, " nineteen weeks in the Tower,
30 weeks in Lord Peter's House, 10 days in the Ship,
and 7 weeks here in Ely House. The very fees and rent
of these several prisons," he goes on, " have amounted
to above ;^ioo besides diet and all other charges, which
have been various and excessive, as in Prisons is usual 
If my friends had not made my credit better than it
deserves to be, and supplyd my occasions, I should have
kept but an hungry and cold house both here and at
home. And all this while," he complains, " I have never
been so much as spoken withal, or called either to give or
receive an accompt why I am here." Describing the
imprisonment on the ships, he says that they "lay (the
first night) without anything under or over us but the
bare decks, and the cloaths on our backs ; and after we
had some of us got beds, were not able (when it rain'd)
to ly dry in them, and when it was fair weather, were
sweltered with heat and stifled with our own breaths ;
there being of us in that one small Ipswich coal-ship (so
low built too, that we coud not walk, nor stand upright
in it) within one or two of threescore; whereof six
Knights, and 8 Doctors in Divinity, and divers Gentle
men of very good worth."
The whole letter is couched in moderate language,
and contains hardly an allusion to or a reflection upon
the Parliamentary authorities. The writer was merely
describing his circumstances to an intimate friend, and
had no particular reason to magnify his sufferings. There
1 The letter is printed in Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. ii, 370.
The original is in the Walker Collection. MS. J. Walker, c 4, fol. 116.
14 — 2

212 THE PURITANS IN POWER
is little reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the
account. But although the hardships of imprisonment, especi
ally to the poor, are by no means to be minimised, the
chief objections to it were the illegality of detaining men
who very often had never been even heard in their own
defence, the length of time during which they were so
detained, paying heavy fees all the while for their main
tenance, and the impossibility in the majority of cases of
getting their petitions answered or their complaints re
dressed. For all or most of this, the Parliament was
primarily responsible, but nevertheless it is not easy to
assign the blame to them in every case. Their general
attitude towards prisoners, but particularly towards pri
soners of war, seems to modern eyes to be entirely cruel
and unjustifiable, for, although the barbarous proposal,
attributed to them by Walker', of selling prisoners as
slaves to the Turks, is not authenticated, the practice of
sending prisoners of war to serve in the plantations_of
Vi£ginia_is_an_ estajilished fact.'. Some of the Scots,
captured at the battle of Dunbar, were so disposed
of They were not slaves in the technical sense, but
rather bound servants, and in Massachusetts, John Cotton
informed Cromwell, the principal buyer allowed the
prisoners to cultivate land for their own advantage and
so to redeem their freedom. At the same time, although
Cotton states that the owners desired "to make their yoke
easy," it cannot be supposed that the fate of the unfortu
nate prisoners was desirable nor can their treatment be
regarded as humane'. But charges of cruelty towards
, — L. Walker, Pt. i, 58.
2 SeeS. R. Gardiner: Civil War, iv, 193, 207; Commonwealth and Pro
tectorate, ii, 63, iii, 309, 338-9.
3 A Collection of original papers relative to the History of the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1769), p. 235, quoted by Carlyle. CromwelVs
Letters and Speeches, iii, 9.

THE FATE OF THE EJECTED CLERGY 213
prisoners of war were made from both sides alike, and
the Parliamentarians complained bitterly of the horrible
places in which their own captured soldiers were confined
at Oxford and of the barbarous conduct of William
Smith, the Provost Marshal'.
. With regard to the political prisoners, the attitude of
the Parliament was, of course, entirely different, yet even
here in a less degree they are blamable, not on account
of the harshness of their orders — for in this respect they
often acted with consideration — but in putting unfit
persons in a position of authority. It was in this
direction that oppression was chiefly experienced. It
was likely enough that in the case of the imprisonments,
as in that of the sequestrations, the subordinate agents
of the Parliament meted out harsh treatment to their
victims, and extracted as much profit from them as they
were able. The masters of the prison ships, for example,
seem to have been reluctant to surrender such profitable
freight, and had to be summoned to show cause why
they did not give up the prisoners in accordance with
the Commons' order'. Such men probably had little
consideration for the persons or the pockets of their
victims'. On the other hand, arbitrary exaction was not
universal amongst those with whom the prisoners came
into contact, and it was not uncommon for the members
of some of the Parliamentary committees to behave with
courtesy and consideration towards the prisoners who
came before them*.
1 See The Prisoners Report or a true Relation of the cruell usage of
the Prisoners in Oxford. King's Pamphlets, E. 93 (23). Ludlow's Memoirs
(ed. Firth), i, 87. ' Commonsi' Journals, iii, 239.
3 See Twysden's Journal: " Beefore wee had anything out of the shippe
which for necessyty wee carryed in, 20 shUlings was to bee payd for our
lodging." Archae. Cant, iii, 153. On the other hand, Henry WoUaston, the
keeper of Newgate, asserted in a petition of Nov, 4, 1656, that he had paid
over ;^7oo towards the maintenance of prisoners who otherwise " must have
perished." Cal. of S. P. Dom, 1656-7, p, 152, * Archae. Cant, iv, 147.

CHAPTER vn
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM UNDER THE PURITANS
The question of the Puritans' consideration for the
consciences of their opponents is of peculiar interest
because the conditions were to a great extent new.
As long as the _.Preiby terians were in power there
could be no question of toleration, .for. it had no place in
their conception of the church pohty, and they occasion
ally used means to suppress other forms of.." heresy "
beside the_ practices ^pf jjoe- Episxiopai-jQhurch'. The
principles of the Independents, on the other hand, if
pursued to their logical conclusion, would have allowed
liberty to individual congregations to use whatever form
of service they pleased within certain broad limits.
Speaking generally, therefore, the issue between tolerance
and intolerance depended upon the ultimate supremacy
/of the Independent or Presbyterian party'.
The Independents had hoped, by overthrowing the
episcopal rule, to find freedom : the Presbyterians, on
the other hand, evinced an inclination to use the oppor
tunity, which their early ascendency gave them, in
enforcing a system more rigid than that which had gone
' On May i, 1645, the Committee for Plundered Ministers committed two
men to the City Marshal "for anabaptisme," They were subsequently dis
charged on bail. Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15,669, fol. 63, 73. ^
2 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 33-54.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 215
before, and it is probable that their policy in this matter
did more than anything else to discover the fundamental
division between the two great forces in the Puritan
movement. The Independents complained that the
Presbyterians gave them worse terms than those which
they could have obtained from the Episcopalians, that
they had endeavoured "to twist their interest with the
Parliament, as the Bishops did with the King'."
The controversy between them, in the imperfect
form in which it appears in the pamphlet literature of
the time, followed familiar lines and concerned itself
mainly with the proper function of the civil power in
affairs of religion. " Either the Civill, or the spirituall
State must be supream : which of these must judge the
other in spirituall matters }" So the root of the question
is stated by one who took the side of toleration'.
On the one side the Independents contended that if
the right to enforce doctrines were allowed to rest with
the civil power, then the canons of orthodoxy would
change with the Government, and Queen Mary must be
justified for having persecuted those who dissented from
the established religion'. They held that the fallacy of
the Presbyterian position, as of that of all persecutors,
lay in the fact that they claimed to be "competent
examiners and judges of other men differing in judge
ment from them," whereas, according to the opposite
theory, every _man_Jiad... an, -.equal, xight,,, tQ,.,„tpleratipn
provided that his principles were not dangerous to the
Stgls,!. Opinions differed as to the limits to liberty
which political expediency should define, but while some
' Truth, still Truth, etc., by Henry Burton, p. 31 ; Tolleration Justified
and Persecution Condemned, p. 2.
2 The Necessity of Toleration in Matters of Religion, by Samuel Richard
son, 1647. Kin^s Pamphlets, E. 407 (18), p. n.
3 Ibid.
* Tolleration Justified and Persecution Condemned, pp. 3, 8.

2i6 THE PURITANS IN POWER
were disposed to make exceptions in the case of Papists
and Episcopalians, others were prepared to include even
Arminians and Adamites'. "Of all sects of men," it
was said, " those deserve least countenance of a State
that would be Persecutors, not because of their consciences
in the practice and exercise of their Religion, wherein
the ground of freedome consists ; but because a perse
cuting spirit is the greatest enemy to humane society'."
The more blasphemous the opinion, the same writer
insists, the more easily should it be suppressed by reason
and argument'.
The case against toleration, on the other hand, was
well put in "A Letter of the Ministers of the City of
London presented the first of January 1645 to the
Reverend Assembly of Divines." As some of the
dangers to the Church which a toleration would involve,
the authors allege that the people's minds would be
subverted, that the life and power of godliness would
"be eaten out by frivolous disputes and janglings," and
that other sects and heresies would be encouraged to
strive for the same liberty. Further, it would be difficult
to discriminate in granting toleration, but to grant it to all
could "scarce be cleared from great impiety*." A letter
purporting to come from the " Ministers about Col
chester," written about the same date, also pleads against
a toleration of Independency on the ground that ex
perience and reason alike proved that it was " The
Mother of Contention, the Root of Schism, the Back-door
of Heresie, the Nullity of Church Government, the
plain Breach of Covenant with God and Man"." The
1 See The Humble petitions of the Brownists, printed in the year 1641.
King's Pamphlets, E. 178 (10).
2 Tolleration Justified, etc. p. 7. 3 jiyij^ p g
* A Letter of the Ministers of the city of London, pp. 3, 4.
^ A True Copy of a Letter from divers Ministers about Colchester in
the County of Essex, to the Assembly of Divines, against a Toleration.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 217
Presbyterians in fact started from the position that it was
impossible that all doctrines should be true and therefore
that a general toleration meant a toleration of error'.
One writer, who showed a certain breadth of view in his
treatment of the subject, while admitting that everyone
ought to examine and judge for himself, urged that
everyone was not intellectually capable of doing so, and
that therefore it was necessary that there should be the
guidance of a clear understanding " expounding according
to the general rules of interpretation laid down in the
Scripture'." It was the duty of Parliament at that
juncture, he proceeded, to bring in a form of Church
government. When that had been done, it would be
time to consider whether other sects should be given
toleration. In the meantime, he pointed out, false
opinions could not be disposed of by argument, because
the subjects under dispute were often matters of faith
rather than of reason, and he was accordingly prepared
to defend persecution, the end of which he saw to be
"neither onely, nor alwayes the good of the party
punished, but of others, that they may either be warned
by his example, or preserved by his restraint'." He
attributed the prevalence of heretical opinion very largely
to " wordly lust, whether it be a content or discontent," and
thought that many adhered to the Independents "rather
out of policy than conscience*." It is interesting to
compare these views with those which inspired Laud's
policy towards dissenters and to observe that men who
had so little else in common were at least agreed in their
distrust of unrestrained religious enthusiam.
Dated February II, 1645/6. King's Pamphlets, 66'),i.io {^2). See also T'fe
Humble Petition of the Ministers of the Counties of Suffolke and Essex
concerning Church Government. King's Pamphlets, E. 339 (n).
1 Anti-Toleration, or a Modest Defence of the Letter of the London
Ministers, etc. p, 28.
2 Ibid. p. 9. ' Ibid. p. 24. * Ibid. pp. 22 -23.

2i8 THE PURITANS IN POWER
During the period of the Presbyterian ascendency
the attitude of the Government towards adherents of the
Episcopal Church found expression in the work of
the committees rather than in the formulation of
Parliamentary ordinances. It was, of course, wholly
unfavourable to their religious liberty, but jt, was „so
Jargely, determined by the pohtical situation that„it_-is_
difficult to form an opinion of the probable effect of the
Presbyterian rule under less complex conditions.
The triumph of the Army meant the triumph of
Independent principles, and there is some evidence that
where the problem was not complicated by secular
politics, the time was not unpropitlous for a broad-
minded venture in the direction of religious freedom.
An instance is provided in the history of the Roman
Catholic colony of Maryland.
After the success of the Puritan cause in England,
Lord Baltimore displaced Greene, the Roman Catholic
governor, in favour of William Stone, a Protestant and
a Parliamentarian, but in the year 1649 he submitted to
the colony a draft of a Toleration Act which was passed
in an assembly largely composed of Romanists, The
preamble of the act is especially interesting. It began
with the admission that " the inforceing of the conscience
in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of
dangerous Consequence in those commonwealthes where
it hath been practiced," and the act went on to decree
that no person "professing to beleive in Jesus Christ"
should be jn any way "troubled, molested or discoun-
tenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor jn
.the free exercise thereof... nor any way compelled to the
beleife or exercise of any other Religion against his or
her consent, soe as they be not unfaithfull to the Lord
Proprietary," This protection to the Roman Catholics
in the enjoyment of religious freedom was withdrawn in

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 219
1654, but the act was revived in 1658 and constitutes a
noticeable landmark in the development of the theory of
toleration'. But in England religious differences were to such a
large extent the badges of political parties that no
Government was prepared to disregard them, and it is
therefore hardly surprising if the liberty in matters of
religion which followed the rise of the Independents was
understood only in a very limited sense, and went very
little way towards a complete scheme of toleration.
The numerous^ proposals in.^ this. d.irection.-.Jwhich were
formulated, jor ...discussed- invariably stopped short at
" Popetx^nd^lldaGyH- atnd tjie. use of the book pf
Cominon Prayer. The nearest approach to a complete
toleration was probably contained in the series of pro
posals drawn up bythe Independent party and submitted
to the King in August 1647. They contemplated a
wide liberty of worship and the abrogation of all acts
and clauses which enjoined the use of the Prayer Book,
Several even of the bishops, to whom, at the King's
direction, Sheldon submitted the proposals, were in favour
of compliance. The Bishop of Oxford (Robert Skinner)
wrote that "in such a strait, such a toleration is... not
only lawful but expedient'" : and Ussher agreed that
"in such exigents" a Christian prince has "a latitude
allowed him'." The Bishop of Rochester (John Warner)
was more guarded, but thought that such a toleration
would be admissible if the tolerated religions "be not
destructive to the catholic faith, or the real settled peace
of the kingdom; or so that he [the King] oblige not

1 Select Charters illustrative of American history, ed. W. Macdonald,
p. 105. 2 Letter from the Bishop of Oxford to Sheldon, printed in H. Gary's
Memorials, i, 329.
3 Ibid, i, 335.

220 THE PURITANS IN POWER
himself to such a toleration for ever, but until he may
regain the power given him by God, whereby to reduce
them, by a Christian and meek way, to one right and
well-grounded religion'."
As the negotiations proceeded, however, the limits
of the proposed liberty became more strictly defined.
Following on the formulation of the " Heads .oLihp
Proposals" by the Army in August 1647, the House of
Commons also took up the subject of toleration, and on
October 13, 1647, passed a series of resolutions. While
allowing for liberty of worship, they distinctly stated that
"their indulgence shall, not extend tQ .tolerate the„use.j3f
the book of common prayer in any place what^oevjgr!,"
The same reservation was made in their proposals
submitted to Charles at Carisbrooke in the following
December'. The subsequent enactments of the Inde
pendents adopted a similar attitude towards Episcopacy
in general. Both the "Agreement of the People," and
the " Instrument ^f. Government," .while allowing for a
toleration^ of ".such^as ,pEoffisa. faith in God by Jfsais
Christ," provided -that it should not necessarily extend.to
"Popery and Prelacy*/'
But although the Prayer Book had been placed under
the ban, its abolition had been a work of time. The
Presbyterians, especially in Scotland, were particularly
bitter against it, but natural opposition of principles
prevented them at first from carrying the Independents
with them. A first step was made in January or
February 1643/4 when both Houses of Parliament
petitioned the Assembly of Divines to provide them
with a minister " to pray to God with them." " By these
' H. Cary: Memorials, i, 346.
2 Commons' Journals, v, 333.
3 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 70.
* S. R. Gardiner : Constitutional Documents, pp. 370, 416.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 221
means," wrote Baillie, " the rehcks of the Service-Book,
which till then were every day used in both Houses,
are at last banished'." On November 21, 1644, the
" Directory for Worship," which was to take the place
of the detested Prayer Book, -was finished ; on January 3
following, it was passed by the Lords, and on February 27,
the Scots Commissioners were able to report that it
had been approved by the Assembly and Parliament of
Scotland. Subsequently some small alterations were
made at the desire of the Scots, but on March 5 the
DiiD^ctory was adopted, together with an ordinance "for
the taking away of the Book of Common Prayer, and
for establishing and observing of this present Directory
throughout the kingdom of England and Dominion of
Wales'."
— , In the Preface to the Directory, it was stated that
" long and sad experience hath made it manifest ; that
the Leiturgie used in the Church of England (notwith
standing all the pains and religious intentions of the
compilers of it) hath proved an offence, not onely to
many of the Godly at home, but also to the Reformed
Churches abroad." Many had been kept from the Lord's
Table and " divers able and faithfull ministers debarred
from the exercise of their ministry," while Papists had
been able to boast that "the Book was a compliance
with them in a great part of their service'. It was
therefore ordered that the Book of Common Prayer
"shall not remain, or be from henceforth used in any
Church, Chappel, or place of public worship."
On August 26, 1645, this was supplemented by the
issue of a further ordinance, providing for the effective
1 Baillie's Letters (1841), ii, 130.
2 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, i, 350, 353, 354.
3 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait),
i, 582 et seq.

222 THE PURITANS IN POWER
distribution and enforcement of the Directory, and
naming the penalties to be incurred by those who
continued to use the Prayer Book. It was ordained that
" if any person or persons whatsoever, shall at any time
or times hereafter, use, or cause the aforesaid book of
Common- Prayer to be used in any Church, Chappel, or
publique place of worship, or in any private place or
family... every such person so offending therein, shall for
the first offence forfeit and pay the sum of five pounds
of lawfull English money, for the second offence the sum
of ten pounds, and for the third offence shall suffer one
whole year's imprisonment without bail or mainprize'."
Two years afterwards, a further blow at the Church
service was dealt by an ordinance making it illegal to
observe the feasts of Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide'.
...According to the letter of the law, then, the Episco
palians and their Prayer Book were to be suppressed
with a heavy hand. How far was this suppression made
a reality by the ruling power ?
On the whole, it would be correct to say that the
Common Prayer was absolutely banished, and that the
Church service could only be performed privately and
by stealth. In December 1647 complaints were made to the
House of Commons to the effect that malignant ministers
were countenanced in some parts of London " where they
preach and use the Common Prayer Book contrary to
the ordinance of Parliament," upon which the House
ordered that the Committee for Plundered Ministers
should be directed to examine and punish any who had
been accessories to such proceedings'. Possibly as a
' Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum {^A. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait)
i, 755 et seq.
2 Ibid, i, 954, June 8, 1647.
3 Rushworth : Historical Collections, vii, 944, quoted in J. E. Bailey's Life
i of Fuller, p. 416.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 223
result of this order. Fuller, who shortly before had been
acting as lecturer at S. Clement's, Eastcheap, ceased to
officiate in that capacity' The Church of England was,
in short, to use Evelyn's words, "reduced to a chamber and
conventicle, so sharp was the persecution'," Writing on
March 18, 1648/9, Evelyn again records that " Mr Owen,
a sequester'd and learned minister, preached in my parlour
and gave us the blessed Sacrament, now wholly out of
use in the Parish Churchs," and again he speaks of the
Sacrament being "administered to me and all my family
in Sayes Court," his London house'. When his second
son was born, the christening was privately performed
by the same Mr Owen " in my library at Sayes Court,...
because the Parish Minister durst not have officiated
according to the forme and usage of the Church of
England*." On Christmas Day in 1657, a celebration
of the Holy Communion in Exeter chapel was interrupted
by a party of soldiers, who took the names of the
offenders and detained some as prisoners. " When I
came before them," writes Evelyn, " they tooke my
name and abode, examin'd me why, contrarie to an
ordinance made that none should any longer observe y"'
superstitious time of the Nativity (so esteem'd by them),
I durst offend, and particularly be at Common Prayers\"
But though this was the case generally, there was
a certain number of churches where the clergyman
continued to use the liturgy of the Church of England,
either with or without the connivance of the ruling
power, Mr Bailey, indeed, states that under the Pro
tectorate " thie country clergy in possession of the
parochial livings were permitted to use the Common
Prayer if the local ecclesiastical boards did not object,
or to use it with modifications," a practice to which we
1 J. E. Bailey : Life of Fuller, /^iS- ' Memoirs off. Evelyn {iSig), i, 302
3 Ibid, i, 236, 269. * Ibid, i, 272. ^ Ibid, i, 308.

224 THE PURITANS IN POWER
shall refer again later, but, in opposition to this, he
quotes the opinion of Mr Lathbury who believed that
" in the country the letter of the declaration against the
Common Prayer was strictly observed'." The available
evidence supports the latter view, but a few cases on
the other side are well authenticated, Robert Skinner,
Bishop of Oxford, held the rectory of Launton during
the whole period of the Commonwealth and read prayers
and conferred orders there' : Heylyn built an oratory in
his house at Abingdon and "had constant prayers and
sacraments for his own family, and some particular
neighbors who had a desire to hear the service and
receive the Sacrament according to the Church of
England'," and other instances are recorded*. In London,
it was reported in May 1658, that at S. Peter's, Paul's
Wharf, " the Common Prayer Book has been many years
used by disaffected persons"," and at S. Bennet's hard
by, the liturgy was constantly used, and the Sacraments
administered during the Commonwealth*.
Under Cromwell, as we shall see presently, there was
a greater measure of connivance, but during the earlier
years of the Puritan ascendency, the Episcopalian, even
when he dared to use the Prayer Book at all, was obliged
to do so with extreme caution, Hacket, while officiating
at S. Andrew's, Holborn, had his life threatened by
a soldier, because he used the Church liturgy, and
Dr Sanderson, while reading prayers at Boothby Pagnell,
1 J. E. Bailey: Life of Fuller, pp. 597-8.
2 Stoughton: Church of the Commonwealth, p. 308.
3 Historical and Miscellaneous Tracts of. .Peter Heylyn (1681), p. xxvi.
* One of John Walker's correspondents told him that John Waltham, the
incumbent of Dodbrooke, "notwithstanding frequent complaints made against
him... still read a considerable part of ye comon prayer as the Rubrick
directed." G. B. Tatham : Dr John Walker and the Sufferings of the
Clergy, p. 194. See also ibid. p. 294.
' Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1658-9, pp. 13-14.
" J. E. Bailey : Life of Fuller, p. 507.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 225
had his book torn from him by a party of soldiers'.
Under these circumstances, it was found necessary to
disguise the fact that they used the obnoxious book.
Sanderson, for example, after the incident just men
tioned, " did vary somewhat from the strict rules of the
rubric'," and Edward Rainbow and Bull compiled prayers
of their own based on those in the Prayer Book'. This
method was adopted by a considerable number of the
Episcopalian clergy who retained their livings and out
wardly conformed to the new rdgime, and many of the
prayers so compiled have been preserved*.
The experience of Hacket and Sanderson"l;eems to
prove that the Prayer Book was as unpopular as ever,
but the attitude of a certain section of the clergy in this
matter suggests the question how far this was really
the case in the country at large. On the one hand, it
appears from an allusion contained in a letter from
Henry Hammond to Sheldon, written on May 23, 1654,
that there was a movement on foot, even amongst the
clergy themselves, in favour of the disuse of the Prayer
Book. Those who took part in the movement very
likely felt that the probability of the restoration of
Episcopacy in its old form was too remote to warrant
them in holding out indefinitely, and therefore began to
contemplate the advisability of some form of compromise.
At the same time they were unwilling to do so without
authority and some of the deprived bishops seem to have
been consulted on the matter".
But though few of the bishops would have viewed
1 J. E. Bailey : Life of Fuller, p. 433.
2 Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, p. 325.
3 Walton's Lives (ed. T. Zouch, 1796), p. 461.
* Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, p. 340. J. E. Bailey : Life
of Fuller, p. 610. J. F. Chanter: Life and Times of Martin Blake, p. 134.
^ See the letter in the Illustrations of the State of the Church {Theologian
and Ecclesiastic, xv, 1 84).
T. P. 15

226 THE PURITANS IN POWER
such a proceeding with favour, there was about this time
a movement from two opposite quarters in the direction
of compromise. Baxter's " Voluntary Associations ' " re
present the beginnings of a more liberal spirit on the
part of the Presbyterians and Independents, while a
corresponding tendency amongst a section of the Epis
copalian party can be traced in some letters written by
Dr John Gauden to Dr Bernard in 1656. The letters
contain the outlines of a scheme of limited Episcopacy,
to which the Doctor had been drawn by the observation
of a movement amongst ministers of very different
opinions towards " a fraternall accord as to the maine'."
He found, he says, that " all sides are content to remitt
of former rigors and distances'," but he was underesti
mating the difficulties of the business. The fact was
that he spoke for the moderate Episcopalians only, men
who had always taken a broader view of the position of
the Church of England, Divines of the Laudian school
were still as much opposed as ever to a relaxation of
principles in deference to Puritan demands, and the
course which political affairs had taken had tended only
to strengthen their uncompromising hostility.
Amongst the people generally, Dr Gardiner states,
there was no trace of any demand for the restoration of
the Prayer Book*, but this is somewhat of an overstate
ment. Besides the evidence contained in Evelyn's
Memoirs, there are several indications of a tendency in
its favour. For example, on a Sunday in September 1649,
the Common Prayer was read in many churches in
London, and a band of soldiers was called out to
interrupt the services". And again, in 1653, there was
a marked increase of the illicit use of the Church liturgy,
1 W. A. Shaw : Hist, of the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 152 et seq.
2 Thurloe : State Papers, v, 598. 3 ji^i^ y^ 50Q
^ Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 84-5. ^ Ibid, i, 173.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 227
synchronising in this case with a wave of royalist
sympathy'. In a petition to the Protector, dated
December 18, 1654, divers Puritan ministers, in praying
for continuance in their cures after the legal incumbent's
death, complain that they were displeasing to their
congregations because they were divided from them
and their party and did not use the service book'. In
November 1657, Sir Thomas Evelyn received a com
plaint from the Council in reference to the behaviour
of Leonard Hudson, whom he had entertained as his
household chaplain. The Council had been informed
that Mr Byfield of Long Ditton "has daily received
great interruption from Leonard Hudson... who, being
prelatical, gathers a concourse of people of like views,
and uses the words of the Book of Common Prayer'."
In May 1658, Thomas Jessop, minister of Luton in
Bedfordshire, complained that he had served the cure
for eight years, " struggling against a malignant and
prelatical party, because 1 was not episcopally ordained,
and they now withdraw the people from my communion
and worship in prelatical form*." As a last piece of
evidence, may be taken a minute of the proceedings in
Council, under date December 22, 1657: "To advise
his Highness to send for Mr Guning and Dr Taylor,
and require an account of the frequent meetings of
multitudes of people held with them, and cause the
ordinance for taking away the Book of Common Prayer
to be enforced"."
The question of the administration of the Holy
Communion "occasion'd great and long debates in the
House of Commons" and "took up at times the debates
1 Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 300.
2 Illustrations of the State of the Church { Theologian and Ecclesiastic,
xvi, 187). The author gives no reference for this.
'3 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1657-8, p. 159. * Ibid. 1658-9, p. 37.
6 Ibid. 1657-8, p. 226. 15—2

228 THE PURITANS IN POWER
of the House for several months'." The principal
change proposed was in the matter of suspension in
cases of "ignorance and scandal," and the scheme which
eventually took shape in an ordinance of Parliament
aimed at investing the " Elders " of the congregation
with a power to decide who were fit persons to be
admitted to the Sacrament. This restriction upon the
right of the individual to take part in the most solemn
service of the Church was severely criticised by Selden
and Whitelock who argued that there was no justification
for the new power of rejection and that the elders were,
in any case, an unsuitable tribunal to exercise it', but
the contrary opinion prevailed and an ordinance was
issued on October 20, 1645'.
General rules were laid down for the guidance of
the elders of the congregation. In the first place
certain fundamental doctrines are stated as necessary
to those who were to be admitted to the Sacrament, and
the ordinance then proceeds to enumerate the various
forms of "scandal" which would justify suspension,
idolatry and sabbath-breaking taking place beside
breaches of the moral and civil law. Appeal was to
be allowed, in the case of any person who felt himself
to be aggrieved, to a series of superior tribunals cul
minating in Pariiament itself.
It was obviously the intention of the Government to
impress upon the minds of ministers and of their congre
gations that the Holy Communion was a solemn and
awful thing and it seems clear that it was so regarded.
The diary of Ralph Josselin, the incumbent of Earl's
Colne, describes fully the careful searchings of heart
' Rushworth : Historical Collections, vol. vi, pp. 203, 205.
2 Ibid. pp. 203-5.
3 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait),
i, 789.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 229
which preluded the "first celebration of the ordinance,"
after an intermission of many years, in February 1649/50.
"Jan: 30, wee mett at priory," he writes, "divers presd
y' persons must make out a worke of true grace on y'^
hearts in order to fellowship and this ordinance." Two
meetings were held at his house "to take names and
admitt by joynt consent." He "admonisht divers," and
admitted others but "divers christians hung backe,"
and then finally the service was performed.
" Wee all sat round and neare ye table ; y' bread
was broken not cutt in blessing it ; y* Lord pourd out a
spirit of mourning over Christ crucified on me and most
of y" company, and my soule eyed him more y" ever, and
God was sweete to mee in y'= worke'."
The liberty to preach stood on a different basis to
the liberty to use the liturgical forms of the Episcopal
Church, The use of the Prayer Book had been con
demned by ordinance, but as long as the Episcopalian
clergy gave an outward conformity to the Puritan dis
cipline, their public preaching could be tolerated without a
breach of the law. It is not to be supposed, however, that
the Puritan Government, as a general rule, was disposed
to grant such toleration, especially if the clergyman in
question had been connected with the royalist cause, and
the cases in which liberty to preach was allowed or
connived at were in the nature of exceptions.
The account of the means by which the Episcopalian
clergy first regained entry to the pulpits of parish churches
reveals the Puritans in a position of being hoist with
their own petard. In 1641, as a blow against the rigouf
of the Laudian system, the Parliament had passed an
ordinance allowing parishioners liberty "to set up a
lecture, and to maintain an orthodox minister at their
' Ralph Josselin's Diary, edited by E. Hockliffe (Camden Series iii,
vol. xv), pp, 82-4.

230 THE PURITANS IN POWER
own charge, to preach every Lord's day where there is
no preaching, and to preach one day in every week
where there is no weekly lecture," It was under the
protection of this ordinance, that Fuller and other
Episcopalian divines began to preach in London in 1647
and 1648'. The Parliament endeavoured to put an end
to this state of things, and Fuller himself, as has been
seen, was obliged temporarily to desist, but the practice
continued to some extent throughout the length of the
Commonwealth period. In view of the antagonism
with which the Episcopalian incumbents had viewed the
Puritan lecturers in earlier times, it is particulariy in
teresting to notice that the Puritans themselves, when
established as parish ministers, frequently were no less
sensitive on the subject of these supplementary sermons,
from whichever party they proceeded'.
A dispute which occurred at S. Botolph's, Aldgate,
provides an interesting example of this, and is worth
describing at length. The parties to the quarrel were
Zachary Crofton, the incumbent, and John Simpson,
who had been authorised by an order in Council, dated
February 10, 1656/7, to lecture in the church on
Sunday afternoons and on one week-day. On July 31,
1657, Crofton wrote to Simpson to inform him that if
the order by which he invaded his church gave him any
power, the late revolution had made it void, since the
Protector had sworn to govern according to law. He
announced his intention of preaching on the afternoon
of Sunday, August 2, between one and two o'clock, and
therefore desired him to cease his "future pains there"
and to signify the same to his friends, in order that there
J J. E. BaUey : Life of Fuller, p. 412.
2 This, however, was not always the case. For example. Fuller seems to
have been on friendly terms with Simon Ash the incumbent of S. Bride's
where he was lecturer in 1655. See Bailey's Life of.Fuller, p. 589.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 231
might be no disturbance. On August 4, a large number
< of " Common Councilmen, Churchwardens and other
well-affected inhabitants" petitioned the Protector on
Simpson's behalf, and Crofton was summoned to answer
for his contempt of the order in Council. On August 14,
the same petitioners complained that on August 9, Crofton
had refused Simpson the pulpit and "kept it, being
guarded by constables of Middlesex, who have no
authority within the liberties of the City of London, and
caused much disturbance, hazarding bloodshed." The
quarrel continued during the succeeding months, and
finally, on information that he preached against the
Government, Crofton was referred to the Committee for
Ejecting Scandalous Ministers'. After the Restoration,
Crofton again got into trouble, though he petitioned for
pardon on the ground that he had been "loyal in the
worst of times and suffered sequestration and imprison
ment." In a contemporary letter, however, he was de
scribed as a "Presbyterian, a subtle, witty man, .,, bitter
against the Bishops and... a great vexation to them'."
A somewhat similar case occurred at Tewkesbury in
August 1658. On the 19th of that month, John Wells,
the minister in possession, wrote to the Council on the
subject of "a malignant lecturer put in upon me  I
appointed Thomas Holtham," he informed them, " to
stop Mr Hopkins at the Church door, whilst he was
coming to preach his lecture on a Tuesday," A dis
turbance followed, and ended in the lecturer's favour.
Hopkins succeeded in preaching, and Holtham was
imprisoned on the Act "for disturbing of ministers on
the Lord's day'."
1 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1657-8, pp, 48, 50, 62, 64, 65, 133.
2 Ibid. 1660-1, pp. 536, 546. A fuU account of Crofton and of the incident
referred to in the text wiU be found in Eng. Hist. Review, vol. x, p. 41.
3 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1658-9, p. 117.

/

232 THE PURITANS IN POWER
But though, in the case of royalist clergy, un
authorised "lecturing" was checked, at the same time,
even during the early years of the Puritan ascendency,
a small number of well-known divines were allowed to
preach unmolested. On December 20, 1647, it was
brought to the notice of the Commons that Archbishop
Ussher was in the habit of preaching in Lincoln's Inn
Chapel, and the House, after a debate, decided that he
might continue to do so, although he had formerly
adhered to the enemy, on condition that he took the
Negative Oath'. Fuller, though silenced about the end
of 1647, w^s preaching again in 1649', and in 1650 not
a few had begun to re-engage in their calling'.
How far Cromwell's views of toleration extended, it
'is difficult to decide. If one may judge from his recorded
utterances, it would seem that he was far in advance of
the great majority of his contemporaries on this im
portant subject, and that he possessed in a remarkable
degree the true spirit of toleration. During the course
of the Civil War when acting as a General in the employ
of a Presbyterian Parliament, he frequently impressed
upon the ruling powers that the triumph of their cause
was being won by men who would not be contained
within the Presbyterian fold, and on one occasion at least
he gave unmistakable expression to his view of the narrow
policy that would force the people into a rigid conformity.
"We look at ministers," he wrote to the Governor
of Edinburgh Castle in September 1650, "as helpers
of, not lords over, God's people. 1 appeal to their
consciences, whether any person trying their doctrines,
and dissenting, shall not incur the censure of Sectary ?
1 Rushworth : Historical Collections, vii, 937-8. The House, however,
proceeded to say that "delinquent rainisters should not take encourage
ment at this" and gave directions that they should be silenced.
2 J. E. Bailey: Life of Fuller, p. 433. a j(^a pp 508-9.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 233
And what is this but to deny Christians their liberty,
and assume the Infallible Chair'?"
Later, when invested with power to formulate his
views with greater authority, he insisted again and again
upon the truth, once forcibly put into words by himself,
that liberty of conscience is a "fundamental," "a
natural right," and that "he that would have it, ought
to give it'."
It is more difficult to say what was the motive force
which induced his attitude of mind. At times, as Lord
Morley has said, his tolerance seems to proceed " from a
rich fountain in his heart of sympathy with men'," but at
times again it is checked, if not definitely coloured, by
the statesman's view of what is expedient. " The State,
in choosing men to serve it," he had once written, " takes
no notice of their opinions ; if they be willing faithfully
to serve it, that satisfies*." Nor is it possible to say
whether his refusal to extend toleration to Papists,
sprung from motives of public policy or from the
common intellectual inability to pursue conclusions to
their logical outcome. " I meddle not with any man's
conscience," he wrote to the Governor of Ross in October
1649, " but if by liberty of conscience, you mean a liberty
to exercise the Mass, I judge it best to use plain
dealing, and to let you know, where the Parliament of
England have power, that will not be allowed of"."
Even here, however, he claimed that his rule was
marked by more lenient treatment, and in his letter to
Cardinal Mazarin on the subject of indulgence for the
Roman Catholics, while refusing to make a public declara
tion for that purpose, he reminded his correspondent
^ Carlyle's Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (Centenary edition, 1902),
ii, 232. 2 Ibid, iii, 147.
3 Morley : Oliver Cromwell (JAdSiroXAdia, 1904), p. 379.
* Carlyle's Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, i, 182. * Ibid', ii, 83.

234 THE PURITANS IN POWER
that, under his government, there was " less reason for
complaint as to rigour upon mens' consciences than under
the Parliament'." Even if he himself had wished for a
wide toleration, he must have realised that men's minds
were not prepared for it and that the time was not ripe.
On the other hand, he was willing to act with some
leniency, where political considerations did not forbid.
Certainly, under his rule, a considerable amount of
freedom was allowed, and the condition of the Episco
palians improved. Ussher was on terms of friendship
with him, and remained unmolested at Lincoln's Inn
Chapel. On his death the Protector contributed ;^200
towards the expenses of a public funeral and permitted
the Church burial service to be used'. Peter Gunning,
to mention another instance, officiated constantly, and in
spite of occasional interruptions, at Exeter Chapel, and
George Wilde preached twice at least in London'. Neal,
indeed, states that several of the clergy at this time
"indulged the public exercise of their ministry without
the fetters of oaths, subscriptions or engagements," and
besides Wilde, he instances Hall, afterwards Bishop of
Chester, Pearson, Ball, Hardy, Griffith and Farringdon*.
This represents the moderate school of Episcopalian
divines. Stricter churchmen, like Henry Hammond
and Herbert Thorndike, deprecated any form of com
pliance, and would not have availed themselves of the
liberty even had it been offered".
On February 15, 1654/5, a proclamation on religious
liberty was issued, which, without specifying the tole
rated sects, promised freedom " to all persons in this
' Carlyle's Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, iv, 5.
2 Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, pp. 304-5.
3 Once on April 15, 1655, at S. Gregory's, and once on Dec. 25 in the
same year. See Memoirs of J. Evelyn (1819), i, 293, 297.
* Hist, of Puritans (1822), iv, 72.
' Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, pp. 332, 335.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 235
Commonwealth fearing God, thoughof differing judgments,
by protecting them in the sober and quiet exercise and
profession of religion and the sincere worship of God'."
In some respects, these provisions represent the high-
water mark of religious toleration during the Interregnum,
but they were destined soon to be curtailed. In thi
following month, a royalist insurrection under Co .
Penruddock broke out in Wiltshire, and, though it was,
all over within a month, it served, in conjunction wkn
the real or supposed assassination plots of the following
summer, to give a new turn to the Protector's ecclesias
tical policy. He now began to treat the Royalists as
a class apart, and this necessarily involved restrictive
measures towards the royalist clergy. On August 24,
the Major-Generals were instructed to inquire into the
execution of the law for the ejection of scandalous
ministers', but a much more serious blow was dealt on
September 21, by the issue of a series of orders for
" securing the peace of the Commonwealth." Two
clauses related to the royalist clergy. The fifth directed
that "From November ist, 1655, none of the party [i.e,
the Royalists] are to keep in their houses chaplains,
schoolmasters, ejected ministers, or fellows of colleges,
nor have their children taught by such " : the sixth
ordered that " none who have been, or shall be, ejected
from any benefice, college, or school, for delinquency or
scandal, are after i. Nov. 1655, to keep any school,
preach, or administer the sacraments, marry persons or
use the Book of Common Prayer, on pain of 3 months
imprisonment ; on a second offence, 6 months ; and on a
third, banishment." A saving clause was added : " unless
1 Gardiner : Commonwealth and Protectorate, iii, 260. The proclamation
excluded the more violent sectaries " under the names of Quakers, Ranters,
and others."
2 Ibid, iii, 321.

236 THE PURITANS IN POWER
their hearts are changed, and they obtain the approval
of the Commissioners for Public Preachers'." It was
found impossible to put the whole of these orders in
force within the time mentioned, and by a subsequent
declaration of November 24, the day by which the royalist
clergy were to lose their chaplaincies was altered to
January i. In this case also, a saving clause was
appended to the effect that to those who had given "a
real testimony of their godliness and good affection to
the present government, so much tenderness shall be
used as may consist with the safety and good of this
nation'." Yet, even with this proviso, the declaration fell like
a thunderbolt amongst the royalist clergy. Under the
milder administration of the laws against delinquents
many had returned to the exercise of their duties', either
in parishes or, more commonly, in private families, but
according to the strict interpretation of the new edict,
they saw themselves not only deprived of their homes at
the present, but also cut off from all hope of maintenance
for the future. Some letters written about this time to
Sancroft by Thomas Holbeach, the rector of Chastleton,
illustrates the consternation that the declaration had
caused. " My state is this," he writes on January 5 ; " I have
hitherto, since I heard the news, continued my course
without the least fayling either of service, sermons, or
communions in their solemnity, and upon the first of this
present [month] I preached for ought I know my last."
In a week or two he hopes to know "what will be done,
1 Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1655, p. 347.
2 Gardiner : Commonwealth and Protectorate, iii, pp. 334-5.
3 Walker states {Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 171) that this was due
to the Act of Oblivion passed on February 24, 1651/2, but this excepted all
guilty of " high treason (other than for words only) " and would not have
covered the case of the great majority of royalist clergy.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 237
and learne what will be the penalty of offenders, or upon
what terms favour may be hoped. For my part," he
continues, " I expect none, but yet have no mind to cast
off my calling and subsistence till I must needs, and
yet shall never regard either so much as to deale un
worthily for the enjoyment of them." He asks, therefore,
for information and advice. " How many are by this
cashiered that you know of? Doe any of perfect
integrity continue on still ? May the administration of
the Sacrament be continued in ritus et leges ecclesiae
Anglican ae' ? "
On January 27, he stands " still at gaze expecting
the issue'," but on February 10, he writes thathe is "still
suspended as before, and the rather because as yet no
Commissions are come into our county by whom that
I should have any restitution." A lady neighbour was
endeavouring to make interest on his behalf with Sir
William Fleetwood, "but against this I have this to
object, that upon what tearmes his allowance would be
granted I am utterly ignorant : the least, I believe, will
be approbation and affection to the present government,
and whether I have such or noe, I would not willingly
be asked." He asks Sancroft to let him know how
matters were tending. " Some say that [it] is the
generall ayme to bring all to such addresse and acknow
ledgment'." In his next letter, dated March 16, he shows that he
has given up hope of a favourable issue of his case. The
contents of Sancroft's last letter "confirme me in myne
opinion at first and make good your judgment that all
this is but dallyance and dissimulation, but ruine, as farre
as can be, is the designe. Accordingly, therefore, 1 am
disposing of myne affaires, having begun to sell both
> Tanner MSS. (Bodl.), 52, fol. 100.
2 Ibid. fol. 104. 3 Ibid. fol. 109.

238 THE PURITANS IN POWER
books and goods, and intending to goe on, that the
proceeds of them may be a subsistence to us. Only I
procure my place till May dale, because by that meanes
I hope the better to induce my Parishioners to pay what
we agreed for for the whole year. You say very right
if my sequestration had not been taken notice of, I might
have adventured to have gone on, but the malice of some
made that knowne soone enough to cut the throat of any
such purpose, and now my forbearance hath published it
farre and wide'."
Holbeach's case was not singular. After January i,
clergymen, who had in the past suffered sequestration,
were frequently deprived of the cures which they held,
or hindered from obtaining livings to which they sought
admission. In practice, however, if a candidate received
the approval of the Commissioners for Approbation, a
license to preach could generally be obtained from the
Protector. For example, on November ii, 1656, per
mission to exercise his ministry was granted on the
petition of William Belke. He had been sequestered
from Wotton in August 1644, but the Committee for
Plundered Ministers had informed him, on December 5,
1645, that "their censure was to be no obstacle" to his
obtaining other employment, as they were satisfied of his
conformity to Parliament, orthodoxy and good life. On
this, he had been presented to the living of Chilham, and
had preached until he was silenced by the Protector's
declaration'. There are also numerous cases, preserved among the
State Papers, where clergymen received licenses to en
able them to enter upon a cure. On March 30, 1658,
John Halke, who had been sequestered in 1646, petitioned
for restoration to the liberty of preaching, and, on a
1 Tanner MSS. (Bodl.), 52, fol. 113.
2 Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1656-7, p. 154.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 239
favourable report from three Puritan divines, he received
an order permitting him to " exercise his gifts " if ap
proved by the Commissioners for Approbation'.
In January 1656/7 Robert Jennings, who had been
ejected from his living at the visitation of the county of
Oxford, was " freed from ejectment " and enabled to
preach, after being approved'. On June 10, 1658, a
license to preach was granted to Michael Jermin, D.D.,
who had been deprived of two benefices, one in London,
and another in Sussex', and other instances of similar
petitions might be given.
The verdict was not always favourable. In October
1658, Henry Beesley, who had been ejected from his
parsonage, petitioned for a reference to Council, that, by
their approbation he might be restored to the ministry.
He submitted a certificate of his fitness, but his petition
was dismissed. It had probably been brought to the
notice of the Council that, in the previous April, he had
been convicted of "public and profane scoffing and
swearing*." On the whole, it does not seem that the severe
declarations of September and November 1655 affected
the general position of the royalist clergy very seriously.
In an interview with some of the leaders of the moderate
Episcopalians in 1656, Cromwell practically undertook
that they should not be molested as long as they caused
no disturbance". Dr Gardiner states that as far as
private chaplains were concerned, there is no evidence
that any ejections took place in consequence of this
order, and that even Walker "did not succeed in
producing a single instance of a chaplain or a school
master reduced to poverty by this action of the Protector^"
1 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1657-8, pp. 35i. 375- ' It^d. 1656-7, p. 231.
3 Ibid. 1658-9, p. 57- * Ibid. pp. 28, 54, i57-
5 Gardiner: Commonwealth and Protectorate, iii, 323, 336. * Ibid. p. 336.

240 THE PURITANS IN POWER
As a matter of fact, this is not quite correct, for Walker,
although he admitted that the ordinance was allowed to
drop, nevertheless states that, through fear of the con
sequences, " a great deal of disturbance " was occasioned
amongst the clergy, and he instances Hales, a former
Canon of Windsor, who was actually led to relinquish his
chaplaincy on that account'. In the main contention,
however, Dr Gardiner is no doubt correct, and here
again instances of dispensation are not wanting. By an
order of July i, 1656, Dr Allestree was allowed to
officiate as chaplain to Sir Anthony Cope', and Arthur
Leonard, chaplain to the Earl of Banbury, petitioned for
a similar license in September following, though in this
case the result is not stated'.
Outwardly, however, there was no relaxation of the
law. The ordinances against "scandalous" ministers,
under which head royalist clergymen would not infre
quently be included, were still enforced, and from time
to time the authorities were even urged to "renewed
diligence" in the work*. In April 1657 a debate took
place on the subject, and was the occasion of some
cornplaints being made against the injustice of the
commissioners. On the other hand, it was considered
that the good work done had justified their existence,
and it was decided that the ordinances should remain in
force for three years, unless Parliament should take
further notice of the subject in the meantime". It was
not until the last months of the Interregnum that the
principle, tacitly recognised by Cromwell, took shape
in a formal statement. On March 16, 1659/60, an Act,
dealing with the question of complaints against undue
^ Walker: Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, 195.
2 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1656-7, p. 3. 3 /^/^ p j^^
* Ibid. 1657-8, pp. 50, 63, 112.
' Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, p. 146.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 241
sequestration, ordered that ejected ministers were to be
capable of holding livings if blameless and of sound
doctrine'. In the appointment of ministers to livings, under the
Puritan rigime, the rights of patrons were recognised,
except in the case of "delinquents." The Long Parlia
ment had not interfered with the existing system and
though patronage was condemned in a resolution of the
Nominated Parliament, it was accepted by the Protector
in 1654'. Where the patron was a delinquent, considerable
concessions were made to the principle of popular election,
subject to the control of the officially appointed authorities.
Under the Long Parliament, the county committees
appointed to livings in the gift of delinquents, but the
wishes of the parishioners were generally consulted, and
nominations to Crown livings were made by the parish
ioners directly'. The work of exarnining_and approving
candidates for preferment was, from November 1647 to its.
dissolutipaJn. March .1652.,,. performed by the Westminster
Assembly of Diyine.§*. On March 20, 1653/4, Cromwell
replaced this system by the institution of a body of Com
missioners for the Approbation of Public Preachers,
better known under their shorter title of " Triers."
This body was composed of ministers and laymen
and met in London, The right_ofpresentation was left
with__the legal patron, provided that the vacant living
was filled up within six months. The candidate was
obliged to procure a certificate testifying to his " holy
and good conversation," signed by at least three persons,
of whom one was to be a minister. So provided, he
presented himself before the commissioners in London, to
1 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), ii, 1469.
2 Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 84, 321 ; iii, 22.
3 Ibid, ii 84. * Camb. Mod. Hist, iv, 362.
T. P. '^

242 THE PURITANS IN POWER
"be judged and approved... to be a person for the Grace
of God in him, his holy and unblameable conversation, as
also for his knowledge and utterance, able and fit to preach
the Gospel'." The power of the commissioners was
retrospective, and they were empowered to examine all
who had been presented to livings since April i, 1653,
The proceedings of this tribunal were bitterly assailed
in the pages of contemporary royalist tracts, one of the
best known of which, Anthony Sadler's Inquisitio Angli-
cana, was written by a clergyman who had himself failed
to obtain approval. Walker condemns the commis
sioners in the strongest terms, and regards their
institution as a blow aimed chiefly at the royalist clergy.
It " was done," he says, " with a particular regard to the
exclusion of the old loyalists, and no doubt, of those
young ones likewise who might have arisen, and been then
ready to offer themselves," And again : " it is undeniable
both from the subsidiary ordinance before mentioned',
and from the whole course of the proceedings of these
Commissioners, that the old Loyalists were excluded
from the benefit of approbation'," He further accuses
them of corruption. They "might not only.,. be well
suspected," he says, " of practising, but are also well
known in fact, to have practised such partialities and
corruptions, under the great temptations of so high a
trust, as, I think, I hardly ever met with, so much as
charged on any bishop, by the worst of his enemies*,"
This view is manifestly one-sided. Walker states
that he had seen some of the records of the commissioners
when he was searching in the Lambeth Palace Library",
1 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Ed. C. H. Firth and
R. S. Rait), ii, 855.
2 Probably Cromwell's "Silencing Edict" of Sept. 21, 1655.
3 John Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, pp. 171, 173.
* Ibid. Pt. i, p. 172.
^ Ibid. Pt. i, p. 173. Probably the two volumes containing certificates
of approbation. Lambeth Palace Library MSS. 996-7.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 243
and he mentions that an answer to the Inquisitio An-
glicana was published under the tide of Mr Sadler
Examined^, but he does not seem to have referred to
the Inquisitio, and he had never seen the answer.
The answer to which he refers was published in the
same year as the Inquisitio, and was probably written
by Philip Nye, one of the commissioners'. Naturally,
it gives a very different version of their proceedings.
The author explains that the delay in hearing cases, one
of the complaints brought by Sadler and others, was
occasioned by the press of applications from those whose
tenure of preferment required confirmation. He declares
that the details of Mr Taylor's case, quoted by Sadler,
are falsely reported, and that approval was withheld
because the commissioners discovered that Taylor's
certificate was forged. This, Nye says, was so plainly
proved that Taylor himself " could not at last but
acknowledge it'," Similarly he accuses Sadler of mis
representation in his own case. Sadler had stated that
the commissioners' minute-book merely recorded that
"such an one was examined, and no more." Nye re
futes this. The entry distinctly stated he was "not
approved*." According to Nye, the ordinary method of procedure
was as follows: " i. Although the certificate do not
satisfie so fully, yet they call in the person, 2. If they
finde him so qualified, as if he had a good certificate, they
might approve, he is no longer necessitated to any
personall attendance, but may by any friend or soUicitor
exhibite his better certificate, and by the same hand
receive the instrument of his admittance. 3. If a man
be in any respect doubtfull, they take the trouble of
1 John Walker : Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i, p. 177.
2 Mr Sadler Re-examined. Brit. Mus. E. 818 (10).
3 Ibid. p. 6. * Ibid. p. 9. 16 — 2

244 THE PURITANS IN POWER
enquiry upon themselves (as in this instance') for
having the advantage of frequent posts in the compasse
of a week or ten dales they can understand from any
part of England, and know of what repute the man is
whencesoever he comes. This Mr Sadler laieth to
their charge, pag. 2., as a crime. ' They have by their
informers (saith he) intelligence from all parts'.'"
The charge of corruption Nye indignantly repudiates.
" I do not beleeve it can be said of any of them, that
ever they have attempted directly or indirectly to
pleasure themselves or any relation or friend of theirs,
with any living that for want of their approbation hath
hitherto become vacant ; much less to disapprove anyone
upon such a vile consideration. ... Many good livings," he
goes on, "that were in his Highnesses gift had been
void... which (for fit men) they might as likely have
procured if their design had been for livings'." He
admits that money was offered : " Twenty, forty pounds
at a time hath been offered me to get a person approved,
but I never heard of a farthing offered to put any man
by..., Ten persons (if of worth) have been put into places
with less trouble, then ordinarily one man is disapproved.
The indulgence of the Commissioners is such, and their
unwillingness to misunderstand of any person's worth,
that liberty is given to those that for present are dis
approved, to return and be examined again even toties
quoties*." At the same time, Nye passes over almost without
comment the verbatim account which Sadler had given
of his own examination. He merely says that he had
heard some of the commissioners " wonder with what
^ i.e. Taylor's case.
2 Mr Sadler Re-examined, p. 5 ; cf Suffetings of the Clergy, Pt. i,
PP- 173-4-
3 Mr Sadler Re-examined, pp. 7-8 ; cf Sufferings of the Clergy, Pt. i,
pp. 172, 174. ¦« Mr Sadler Re-examined, p. 10.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 245
conscience he could offer... to be deposed for the truth of
them'." The minutes of the commissioners' proceedings are
lost, and the only extant records of their work are
contained in one or two volumes of certificates of appro
bation'. Under these circumstances it is difficult to
form an estimate of their character. On the whole it
is reasonable to suppose that the accounts given by
aggrieved persons, and reproduced in Walker's pages, are
considerably overdrawn. Others besides Royalists were
rejected, and, though the natural tendency of the com
missioners would be to exclude any whose opinions were
widely at variance with their own, we have already seen
that not a few royalist clergy did_obtain their. approval'.
On the other hand, the accounts, given by Sadler and
others, though possibly inaccurate as to the details, show
that the actual examination turned largely upon the
question of whether or no the candidate were possessed
of the Grace of God, and at what exact date the work of
regeneration in him began. The result was often a
confused and unedifying discussion on points which
neither the candidate nor the commissioners understood.
The lines upon which the "Triers" proceeded, in fact,
made it inevitable that many worthy men would be
rejected and not a few hypocrites received, but the
highly-coloured accounts by royalist pamphleteers must
be accepted with reserve.
The exclusion of able clergymen was the more to be
regretted, because, in the early years of the Puritan rdgime
at all events, there seems to have been a great dearth of
' Mr Sadler Re-examined, p. 8.
2 Lambeth Palace Library MSS. 996-7. See W. A. Shaw: Hist, of
the Eng. Ch. 1640-60, ii, 472.
3 Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, pp. 105-7. In a few cases,
examination by the " Triers " may have been evaded. It was so in the case
of Edward Rainbow. See Diet. Nat. Biog.

U-

246 THE PURITANS IN POWER
rriinisters to serve the cures throughout the country,
^:aused by the wholesale ejection during the Civil War,
In many cases pulpits were filled by unordained and
uneducated men, Evelyn speaks of the pulpits of the
London churches being "full of novices and novelties,"
and " Independents and Phanatics'." On one occasion,
at Rye, he heard "one of their canters, who dismiss'd
the assembly rudely and without any blessing," and
on another he was surprised to see " a tradesman, a
mechanic " step into the pulpit'. In many cases too the
churches were without regular incumbents. At the
Savoy Conference, Bishop Morley asserted that this had
been so, and instanced the parish of Aylesbury, Baxter
denied this, but the Church Survey of 1650 shows
Morley to have been correct'. The same survey shows
that in 1650, out of the fourteen churches in the town
of Cambridge, only three, S. Peter's, S, Bene't's and
S. Andrew's had settled ministers*.
In the meantime, the exiled church was taking steps
to preserve its continuity. The Bishop of Oxford,
Robert Skinner, and the Bishop of Chichester, Henry
King, both contrived to confer orders in England", and
Evelyn mentions an ordination being held in Sir Richard
Browne's chapel in Paris in June 1650, when " the Bishop
of Galloway officiated with greate gravity',"
A more important question was that of the consecra
tion of bishops. When, after the execution of the King,
and the failure of Charles IPs campaign at Worcester,
the prospect of the ultimate triumph of the royalist cause
1 Memoirs of J. Evelyn (1819), i, 247, 262. 2 jf,i^ \^ 265, 272.
3 Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, p. 434 ; Brit. Mus. Lansdowne
MSS. 459.
* Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS. 459, fol. 152.
^ Stoughton : Church of the Commonwealth, p. 308. Clarendon State
Papers (1786), iii, App. p. c
* Memoirs off. Evelyn (1819), i, 244.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 247
seemed to depend upon the dim and uncertain chances
of the future, the danger that the regular Episcopal
succession might be interrupted became apparent, and
the importance of providing in time against such an
event began to agitate the minds of churchmen and to
find expression in the secret correspondence which was
maintained between the adherents of the Episcopal
Church at home and abroad. In a letter from Henry
Hammond, probably to Bishop Wren, dated October 14,
1 65 1, the writer says that he has been "put in mind by
G[ilbert] S[heldon] to be a remembrancer to some of
those who are concerned, to think of doing somewhat to
preserve a church among us, lest it perish with their
order'," and to the same effect, a correspondent, signing
himself " Belleau," tells Sheldon, in a letter from Paris
on October 4 of the same year, that he hopes shortly
" there will be a course taken to perpetuate that church,
which methinks can never fail'," The main difficulty at
that time was to collect a sufficient number of bishops to
perform the ceremony in proper form, without exciting
the suspicion of the Puritan government', but the project
was not allowed to drop, and we find Dr Duncan writing
to Clarendon in June 1655 in a strain that suggests that
this difficulty was likely to be overcome*. The fateful
year 1659, however, found the Episcopalians still con
sidering ways and means.
The situation had by this time become serious, for the
surviving bishops were in advanced years, and it would
be "almost a Miracle," Clarendon wrote, " if the Winter
1 Quoted in Illustrations of the State of the Church {Theologian and
Ecclesiastic, ix, 294). 2 m^^ x, 328. 3 ibid, vi, 298.
* " I consulted often with those five Bishops, to whom I was directed, viz.,
Ely, Sarum, Rochester, Lichfield, and Chichester ; and they were all very
glad to hear that care was taken for the preservation of their Order : and ready
to advise, and do anything in their power that might further it." Clarendon
State Papers, iii, App. p. c.

248 THE PURITANS IN POWER
doth not take away half the Bishops that are left alive'."
In the event of this gloomy foreboding being fulfilled, those
who were moving in the business foresaw that the con
tinuity of their church was in imminent danger, for the
assistance of a continental church could not be invoked
except at the price of sacrificing the distinctive purity of
their own'. Nor did it seem that the brightening
horizon of the royalist cause, even if it heralded the
restoration of the King, was bringing any certain promise
for the Episcopal Church.
" I will tell you a Phancy of my own," wrote
Clarendon on July 8, 1659. "...The late Revolutions in
England, and the several Humours, and Distempers, and
Jealousies in several factions amongst themselves, make
it a very natural Supposition, that there may fall out
some avowed Treaty with the King ; and then the
Presbyterians will not be over modest, in valuing and
computing their own Power,... If I were a Presbyterian
(and they have many wiser Men, and who know better
how to compass what themselves desire) I would not
propose to the King to do any formed Act to the
Prejudice of the Church ; because I should despair of
prevailing with him ; but I would beseech him to sus
pend the doing any Thing, that should contribute to the
former Establishment, till there might be such a mature
Deliberation, that the best Provision might be made to
compose all Differences : and if I could prevail thus far ;
I should hope by some continued Suggestions (which
would be speciously enough administered by Persons
of very distinct Interests) to spin out the Time, till all
the Bishops were dead'," " Both the Papist and Pres
byterian," he wrote again on September 29, "value
' Life of John Barwick (1724), p. 462.
2 ibid. p. 200.
3 Ibid. pp. 425-6.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 249
themselves very much, upon computing in how few
years the Church of England must expire'."
Such considerations spurred the royalist churchmen
on in the prosecution of their design. In England, one
of the prime movers was John Barwick, sometime Fellow
of S. John's College, Cambridge, and a firm adherent of
the royalist cause, who was in consultation with the
bishops and kept up a correspondence upon that and
other subjects affecting the King's interest with Clarendon
in France. Some time in the earlier half of the year
1659 a list had been drawn up with the King's sanction
containing the names of those whom it was proposed to
present to bishoprics, and this was forwarded to England
and "much facilitated," Barwick wrote, "the work in
several instances."
" The grand Affair of the Church," he says in the
same letter, " is still in motion towards that Happy Con
clusion, which his sacred Majesty is so piously zealous
for, with what speed may reasonably be used in a Matter
of so great Importance and Difficulty'." The question
for the moment was that of procedure. The dispersal of
the members of the cathedral chapters had, of course,
rendered impracticable the regular practice of electing by
means of a cong^ d'ilire, and at an earlier stage of the
deliberations, in 1655, it had been proposed that the
King should send a mandate to three or four of the
bishops to proceed by way of collation, Dr Cosin had
gone so far as to draw out a proper form for this
purpose', and Clarendon seems again to have suggested
this method in 1659. Barwick, however, writing after
a consultation with the Bishop of Ely, urged several
1 Life of fohn Barwick, p. 450.
2 Barwick to Lord Chancellor Hyde, June 21, 1659. Life of John
Barwick, p. 411.
3 Clarendon State Papers, iii, App. p. cii.

250 THE PURITANS IN POWER
objections against this course and advised that the King
should rather grant a commission to the bishops to
consecrate fit persons to definite sees, and this view
seems to have been accepted by the King'. A third
expedient, proposed both in 1655 and 1659, was to
appoint the selected persons to sees in Ireland, where the
method of election was different, with the intention that
they should exercise their functions in England. "The
Bishop of Derry," Clarendon wrote, " is so positive for
the Irish Way... which he thought would clearly elude all
those formalities, which seem to perplex us'." Dr Cosin,
however, had already pointed out that this would be
in effect to adopt the practice of the Roman Church,
which had been so justly condemned by Bishop Jewel,
and that no one would be found willing to accept conse
cration to a bishopric in a place " where he never intends
to come'," Nothing, however, was destined to come of these
anxious consultations, and the fears which had inspired
them were, in the event, proved to be groundless, but it
is a little difficult to discover, from the letters that have
survived, why the project was not put into execution.
The difficulty did not come from the Court in France.
" The King hath done all that is in his Power to do,"
wrote Clarendon on September 29, "and if my Lords
the Bishops will not do the rest; what can become of
the Church* ?" The obstacle, if obstacle there was, must
therefore have come from the churchmen in England,
and yet, with the exception of Skinner of Oxford and
' "We adhered to that Method and Order; much preferring the Bishop
of Ely's Judgment and Advice, in that point, before any Man's : And upon
the same Ground His Majesty is very wiUing to change, and acquiesce in
the Opinion and Resolution now propos'd." Hyde to Barwick, July 8, 1659.
Life of John Barwick, pp. 424-5,
2 Ibid. p. 424. 3 Clarendon State Papers, iii, App. p. cii.
* Life of Barwick, p. 449.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 251
Brownrig of Exeter, who were said to be opposed to
the consecration of new bishops', the rest seem to have
been agreed not only on the principle but also on the
method. Fortunately for the Church, the omission to
provide for the future caused no serious results, and the
hierarchy was peaceably re-established in the midst of the
royalist reaction which accompanied the Restoration,
1 Life of Barwick, p. 218.

CHAPTER VIII
CHURCH PROPERTY
Hitherto we have been discussing the Puritan rule
in its effect upon persons and in its attitude towards the
members of the Episcopal Church of England, It may
not be considered irrelevant to speak in conclusion of
the treatment accorded to the cathedrals and places of
worship in which the services of that Church had been
carried on.
The general confusion into which the country was
plunged by the Civil War naturally rendered a consider
able amount of destruction to the fabric of churches
inevitable, but the damage done may be divided into two
classes ; that which was caused by military operations,
and that which was the result of the unrestrained violence
of soldiers and mobs. The former class of destruction
is evidenced by the appeals for rebuilding funds which
found their way to the Government during the later
years of the Protectorate. For example, there is a
petition presented in July 1657, by the inhabitants of
Oswestry, whose church "was pulled down in the late
war, for the safety of the garrison'." Again, there is a
petition from the inhabitants of Rushall, Staffordshire,
presented in May 1658, to the effect that "during the late
war, Rushall Hall was a garrison for the Parliament, and
Capt, Tothill, the governor, was obliged to demolish the
parish church " ; and a somewhat similar pedtion came
from the inhabitants of Edgbaston',
1 Cal. ofS. P. Dom. 1657-8, p. 32. 2 /^^-^ 1658-9, p. i.

CHURCH PROPERTY 253
Of the damage done by the Parliament's soldiers,
several accounts remain. The letters of one Nehemiah
Wharton, written from the Roundhead army, and pre
served among the State Papers, give a good idea of
the behaviour of the soldiers during the early years
of the war'. When Waller captured Winchester in
March 1644, the town was given over to plunder, " some
of the tombs, images, escutchons, etc., in the cathedral
being barbarously thrown down by the soldiers'." In
1654 Evelyn found Worcester cathedral "much ruin'd
by the late warrs'," and at Lincoln the soldiers had taken
all the brasses from the gravestones.
In some cases no doubt the Parliamentary leaders
endeavoured to check the violence of their troops, but
the party as a whole was anxious to see the work of
destruction carried on. The Commons Journals of the
first few years of the Long Parliament show how deter
mined the Puritans were on a thorough reformation in
respect to ceremonies and innovations, and how far they
were prepared to go in the direction of destroying the
sculptured figures and other marks of "superstition"
which the churches throughout the country contained.
Altars were to be pulled down, superstitious pictures
and stained-glass windows defaced, and vestments de
stroyed* : the directions were wide, and subject to few
reservations. A special commission under Sir Robert Harley was
appointed in April 1643 with the object of furthering the
campaign of destruction, but the work had begun with
the meeting of the Long Parliament, before any ordinance
1 Quoted in Stoughton : Church of the Civil Wars, p. 248 et seq.
2 J. E. Bailey: Life of Fuller, p. 317.
3 Memoirs of J. Evelyn (1819), i, 282.
* A cryptic order of May 31, 1643, directs that the copes at Westminster
Abbey, St Paul's, and Lambeth, are to be "burnt and converted to the relief
of the poor in Ireland ! " Common^ Journals, iii, 1 10.

254 THE PURITANS IN POWER
to that purpose had been issued', and a considerable
reformation must have taken place in those churches
either where the congregation was opposed to the ritual
istic " innovations " or where the authorities thought it
best to anticipate the attentions of the official iconoclasts'.
The Subdean and Prebendaries of Westminster, for
example, presented a certificate to the Committee for
Demolishing Monuments of Superstition in 1643, to the
effect that they had removed the Communion-table to
the body of the Church, taken away all candlesticks and
pictures, defaced crosses and crucifixes and " left off" an
ancient custom of that Church to minister the Communion
in wafers'." Those who took this course acted wisely,
for though the task of destruction in churches was
usually entrusted to the churchwardens, in the Eastern
Association the execution of the Parliament's instructions
acquired an additional terror by the appointment of the
notorious William Dowsing,
Dowsing's commission began with a reference to an
ordinance of August 26, 1643, whereby it had been
decreed that "all Crucifixes, Crosses, and all Images and
pictures of any one or more persons of the Trinity, or of the
Virgin Mary, and all other Images and pictures of Saints,
or superstitious inscriptions in or upon all and every the
said churches," etc, shall be taken away or defaced. In
asmuch, however, as many such superstitious images and
inscriptions still remained in the Associated Counties " in
manifest contempt of the said ordinance," the holder of
" Diary of John Rous (Camden, Soc. 1856), p. 99. Under the date
November 17, 1640, Rous notes that "Many railes \i.e. altar-rails] were
pulled downe before the parliament : at Ippiswich, Sudbury, etc. Marlowe,
Bucks, the organs too."
2 Ralph Josselin's Diary (Caraden Series iii, vol. xv), p. 12. "This
Michaelmas (1641), upon an Order of the House of Commons to that
purpose wee tooke downe all images and pictures and such like glasses."
3 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. on the MSS. of the Duke of Portland, vol. viii,
p. 4-

CHURCH PROPERTY 255
the commission was required to repair to that district
and put the ordinance in execution. It was dated
December 19, 1643, and was addressed "to Willm
Dowsing Gen. and to such as he shall appoint'."
The journal in which Dowsing chronicled his pro
ceedings provides us with a very fair idea of the
thoroughness with which he fulfilled his mission. There
is no attempt to gloss over the facts. The details of
the ruthless destruction seem to be set down in a spirit
of conscious pride at work well done. The following
are a few characteristic extracts taken from the pro
ceedings in Cambridgeshire,
" Bourne. We did downe 2 : Angells, tooke a super
stitious inscription in brasse and one of the Virgin Mary,
and divers other Popish pictures, and gave order to take
downe 2 Crosses in the Steple, and on the Chancell,
" Teversham. Mar : 26 : We brake 2 Crucifixes in
the Chancell, and there was Jesus writen in great
Capitall Letters on six Arches in the Church, and in
1 2 : places in the Chancell, and Steps there y^ pavement
diged up : the 6 Jesus in the Church, I did out, and 6
in ye Chancell, other six I could not reach, but gave
order, to doe them out."
A good example of what came under the head of
" superstitious inscriptions " is found at Hatley S. George,
where Dowsing notes that "there was written over a
coat of armes. Will: St George gave a Hide of Land in
Haslingfield with his Daughter, to be nun in Clerkenwell,
in the tyme of King Henry 2nd w'*" we burnt',"
Altogether Dowsing appears to have visited nearly
sixty churches in Cambridgeshire, and wherever he went
he left a track of ruin behind him. There seems to be
almost a note of disappointment in the report for Ashley,
^ Evelyn- White : The Journal of William Dowsing, pp. 6-7.
2 Baker Collection, xxxviii, fol. 458, 471, 473.

256 THE PURITANS IN POWER
" Only a Crosse, on the top of the Church," but this is
a solitary instance, most churches offering an ample field
for his destructive genius. Pre-Reformation brasses,
which contained "popish" invocations, stained-glass
windows, sculpture of all kinds, organs, almost every
thing of a . decorative character, no matter what its
antiquity, were cleared away or defaced : the churches
which he or his deputies visited were literally stript of
their contents.
As this was the course of action authorised by Par
liament in the case of the ordinary parish churches, one
would have been led to expect that the cathedrals,
as offering a fairer field for their iconoclastic zeal,
would have fared even worse, and at one time this
promised to be the case. In February 1 650/1, a proposal
was brought before the Commons that "all Cathedral
churches, where there are other churches or chapels
sufficient for the people to meet in for the worship of
God, be... pulled down and sold, and be employed for a
stock for the use of the poor." Fortunately, this never
became much more than a proposal, and though a be
ginning was made with Lichfield cathedral, the agents
of the Parliament got no further than taking the lead
from the roof and destroying the great bell'. On July 9,
1652, the project was again broached, but on this occasion
it was proposed that a selected number of cathedrals
should be demolished or sold, and that the proceeds
should be devoted towards making up the deficit in the
state finances. As in the former case, one cathedral,
Canterbury, was actually threatened, but the proposal
again fell to the ground', A certain section of the
Parliament, however, evidently were loath to relinquish
the idea, and it was brought up again in January 1652/3,
^ Gardiner ; Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 23.
2 Ibid. p. 187,

CHURCH PROPERTY 257
"only to be laid aside again'. A rather different proposal,
affecting Rochester, was made in October 1657, when it
was suggested that the cathedral should be sold, to
enable the Government to pay the arrears due to
wounded seamen, but the scheme was frustrated by the
dissolution of Parliament'. In spite, therefore, of these
attempts, the majority of the cathedrals, with the ex
ceptions already mentioned, remained without serious
damage. The cathedral which suffered most from the
ill-usage of the time was undoubtedly S. Paul's,
"One of the first acts... of the Parliament," writes
Dean Milman', "was to seize and appropriate to other
uses the sum remaining out of the subscription for the
repairs of the Church in the chamber of the city of
London. This sum amounted to above ;^i 7,000. The
scaffolding erected around the tower was assigned to
Col. Jephson's regiment for ;^i,746, 15, Sd, due as
arrears of pay. On striking the scaffolding, part of the
south transept, with its roof came down," In 1631
when the repairs, now so rudely interrupted, were
started, complaints had been brought to the notice of
the Government to the effect that the cathedral premises
had been subjected to abuses and had been " used like
a street for carriage through of all burthens, provisions and
necessaries men have to use, or pass from place to place,
whereat good men are much scandalized," A series of
orders had accordingly been issued to check this pro
fanation*, but now the abuses returned in an aggravated
form. The portico itself was let out for shops, and the
body of the building became a cavalry stable". Sir Philip
1 Gardiner : Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 211.
2 Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1657-8, pp. xiv, 121-2. A similar proposal, affecting
Ely cathedral, was made in 1648. See A. Kingston : East Anglia and the
Great Civil War, p. 332. 3 Annals of St PauPs, p. 347.
* Rushworth : Historical Collections, ii, 91.
5 Annals of St Paul's, p. 353.
T. P. 17

258 THE PURITANS IN POWER
Warwick, who had paid a visit to the cathedral "pur
posely to observe," records that the carved work on the
portico was "broken down with axes and hammers, and
the whole sacred edifice made not only a den of thieves,
but a stable of unclean beasts'," In February 1658, it
was reported that the Convocation House, attached to
S. Paul's, "lies on a heap, roof and floor fallen down,
windows broken, iron and lead embezzled, the whole
building ruinous and very dangerous, and the waste
ground spread with soft-stone and rubbish'."
It is clear, then, that the treatment of the cathedral
by the Puritans was not dictated by any artistic apprecia
tion or sentimental respect for the past. In this, as in
Other matters, a practical sense of what was expedient
was the main-spring of their action, and it may be that
motives of this kind indicated another use for the cathe
dral buildings. On August 15, 165 1, about a year before
the scheme for sale or demolition was broached for the
second time. Parliament resolved that "the minster of
Peterborough should be employed for the public worship
of God, if the inhabitants would pay for the maintenance
of the services'," and, a few years later, similar orders
were made in connection with other cathedrals. On
July I, 1656, it was ordered, on the petition of the Mayor
and citizens of Gloucester, " that the late cathedral, with
its utensils, cloisters, churchyards, library and school
masters' and other houses, be henceforth enjoyed by
them, for the preaching of the word, education of
children, and other public uses*," In Wells, a similar
petition from the inhabitants in the same month, led to a
quarrel with the celebrated Dr Cornelius Burgess, who in
1 Sir p. WarwicHs Memoirs, p. 80.
2 Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1657-8, pp. 280-1.
3 Gardiner : Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii, 23.
¦• Cal. of S. P. Dom. 1656-7, p. 3.

CHURCH PROPERTY 259
March 1649 had purchased the manor of Wells from the
Trustees for the sale of Bishops' lands, and had setded
there. The petition had intimated that, as the single
parish church in the town provided insufficient accommo
dation, the cathedral had been made use of but it was
" much in decay," " Many pious people," however, were
disposed to contribute towards its repair, and the peti
tioners therefore asked that the lease of the cathedral
might be continued to them. This was done, but in the
following March, the inhabitants complained that they
were obstructed by Burgess, who had "got possession
of the church without order, threatens those whom
we put in to take care of it, keeps it locked, and
admits none save at his pleasure." On being required
by the Government to deliver up the keys. Burgess
justified his opposition by saying that the petition
was the work of a few men only who sought "to
bring back an old malignant, who took arms against
Parliament'." In Exeter the Puritans were credited, not only with
having built a brick wall in the middle of the cathedral
to divide the building into two, but also with having put
up for sale thirteen out of the seventeen churches in the
city. After the Restoration a number of the freemen of
Exeter presented a petition to Parliament praying that
the offenders might be compelled to make good the
damage which they had done, and our information as to
the circumstances is largely derived from papers drawn
up in connection with their suit.
1 Cal. ofS. p. Dom. 1656-7, p. 23 ; 1657-8, pp. 336, 379. On January n,
1652/3 Burgess had presented a petition to Quarter Sessions stating that he
had been authorised by Parliament to preacji in the Cathedral, and com
plaining that the religious exercises wefe much disturbed " by certen people
who usuaUy come into the Cloisters and there continue walkinge up and
. downe & talkinge aU sermon tyme." Somerset Quarter Sessions Records,
vol. iii, ed. E. H. Bates Harbin (Somerset Record Soc 1912), pp. 198-9.
17 — 2

26o THE PURITANS IN POWER
According to the version of the petitioners, the fifth
article of the treaty, by which Exeter was surrendered
to Sir Thomas Fairfax in 1646, had secured the churches
from being defaced, but the Mayor and others of the
Presbyterian party embarked upon an elaborate con
spiracy to root out Episcopacy from the city. Having
" purged" the city Chamber of fifteen out of its twenty-
four members, and obtained, by means of disfranchising
"most of the cittizens," the election of two men after
their own heart to represent the city in the Parliament
of 1656, they seized and shut up the cathedral and
thirteen parish churches and procured an act entitled
"An Act for promoting and more frequent preaching of
the Gospell and maintenance of Ministers in the City
of Exeter and the uniting of parrishes and parrish
churches in the City,"
" By vertue whereof," continue the petitioners, "they
divided that famous cathedral church, they pull downe
the walls, seats, stalls of the Bishop, Deane, Canons,
prebends, viccars and Choiristers, destroy and melt the
organs of that Church (worth 1500II) ruined the holy
Ghost Chapell, Library, Chapter house, vestery, and
drawne downe the Cloisters and digged up the burying
place within it," and committed other acts of vandalism
and sacrilege.
In August 1657, according to the same account, the
Common Council of the city required an inventory of
church property from the churchwardens of thirteen
churches and sent the city bellman to proclaim that the
materials, sites and grounds were for sale. The church
wardens, supported by a number of the inhabitants,
presented a petition against this proceeding, partly on
the grounds that, if it were carried out, there would be
an insufficient supply of churches. The reply of the
Mayor and his supporters was to indict "for a supposed

CHURCH PROPERTY 261
ryott, ' those of the churchwardens who had refused to
give up their keys, and though the jury returned an
ignoramus, they were bound over.
The churches so seized were disposed of in various
ways. One was "pulled downe and left open to all
uncleanes" and six others were stripped of all their
contents so that "only the bare walls and ruinous
carcases" remained. Two of the churches, S. Mary
Steps and S. Paul's, were sold, apparently to the
parishioners, for .^130 and ;^iio respectively, and others
were disposed of in a similar way and for similar sums.
It was alleged that Trinity church was leased with the
express proviso that it should not be " employed to God's
service." As a final charge against the Mayor and Chamber
the petitioners stated that they had "destroyed the
Byshops, the Deanes and many of the Canons bowses
within the Citty of Exeter, making a Sugar howse of
Byshops Pallace the Deanes dining-roome a meeting-
place for Anabaptist, and his howse into 60 seuerall
dwellings of the baser sort of people. Archdeacon
Cotter's howse puld down and the materialls taken away.
Canon Berry's howse converted to an Inne howse, and
the Treasurers howse made a Bridewell," The petition
contained other complaints not directly concerned with
the cathedral and church buildings'.
The petition was referred by the Lords to a Com
mittee for Petitions', and on September i, 1660, the
House issued an order, on the report of the Committee,
to the effect that the churches and all belonging to them
should be restored to the churchwardens and repaired at
the expense of the parishioners, and that the Chamber
1 The foregoing details are taken from some papers in the Walker
I CoUection (Bodleian Library, MS. J. Walker, c. 4, fol. 253-300).
2 Lord^ fournals, xi, 91.

262 THE PURITANS IN POWER
of Exeter were to remove the wall in the cathedral at
their own charge'.
The above version of the story comes, of course,
from the side of the petitioners, and the only surviving
indication of the line of defence put forward on behalf
of the Mayor and Chamber is contained in a counter
petition addressed by them to the House of Lords on
November 30, 1660, in which they sought to excuse
their failure to obey the order of the House. They
stated that they had already given notice to the church
wardens to fetch away the bells and other materials, but
" as for plate none was taken, and few of the churches
were touched by the petitioners, and those the smallest
and least useful, thirteen out of the eighteen churches of
Exeter being incapable of receiving such a congregation
as could maintain a preaching minister." They contended
that the construction of the offending wall and seats was
made before June 24, 1660, and their action was covered
by the Act of Indemnity. They pointed out that the
cathedral now provided for the accommodation of two
congregations and that if the existing arrangement
were abolished before the other churches were restored
"thousands of people" would have no place to resort to
for the worship of God. They further pleaded that the
removal of the wall by them would constitute a trespass
and could not be carried out without danger to the fabric,
in preserving which "they and others" had "in these
miserable times spent 2,40oli'."
1 Ibid. 152 and Hist. MSS. Com. 7th Rep. Appendix, p. 129. Accord
ing to a copy of the decision of the Lords Referees in the Walker Collection
(MS. J. Walker, c. 4, fol. 288), AUhaUows was excepted from the list of
churches to be restored. The papers in this collection contain various
statements of lawyers' fees in connection with the freemen's case. One
item in Alan Pennye's accounts, ;^46o " dew unto me p. bond from the Lord
Berkeley and diverse other sums from other Lords to wyn them to act for
us," has a sinister appearance. MS. J. Walker, c. 4, fol. 295, 299.
2 Hist. MSS. Com. 7th Rep. Appendix, p. 136.

CHURCH PROPERTY 263
i
This last argument had been anticipated by their oppo
nents. "They will object for the Maior," ran the statement
of the freemen's case, "that they have bestowed 1700U
in erectinge a brickwall and repairinge that Cathedrall
Church without which it would have beene like St Paule's
in London." Their answer was "that then that Church
was in good repaire and that this wall weakned the
Church by the erectinge whereof they did take away the
bazis of the pillers and the tops of the pillars and vaults
over it are broken, that they haue since weakned the
marble pillars in the Quire of the Cathedrall by hewinge
away the bazis thereof makinge many great holes therein
to fasten the beames for their galleries'."
The further history of the case need not detain us.
It will be observed that the defendants did not deny the
main facts alleged against them and only urged a justi
fication which, from the Puritan point of view, would no
doubt have appeared sufficient. The facts, when pre
sented with due allowance for exaggeration on the part
of the loyal citizens, accord sufficiently well with the other
evidences of the attitude of the Puritan party towards
the cathedral and church buildings of the country.
1 MS. J. Walker, c. 4, fol. 273.

APPENDIX I

(Bodleian Lib. MS. J, W. c. 5. fol, 288,)

(See p, 46.)
" An Inventorie of the goods and chattells of Isaack Allen Rector
of Prestwich taken [before] us whose names are here subscribed Jan:
28, 1644, An [ ] bed the 30th of Octob: 1645 by
John Wrigley
Peter Walker. James Wroe
John Scoales
Roger Walwarke.
As foUoweth. Imprimis in the great Parlour.
Three tabells  
one Court Cupboard 
three field Chayres
two formes, five buffett stooles
seaven cushinns
fire shovell and tongues
Item in the Hanging Chamber
one standing bedd with the furniture thereunto
belonging
one table, one Court Cupboard
two field Chayres, two buffett stooles
Item in the Apple Chamber
One Canopie bedd, with two Curtaines
one Chayre
Item in the Studdio
one hundred and fiftye bookes
one chayre

£

s.

d.

I

10

00

0

10

00

I

10

00

0

18

00

0

7

00

0

2

00

5

0

00

0

13

4

I

6

8

I

0

00

0

6

8

APPENDIX I 265
Item in the yellow Chamber ^ '' '^'
one standing bedd with Curtaines, Vallence, a
feather bedd, one blankett, Caddow, and
boulster. Questioned as belonging to Anne
A"en   . 3 6 8
one Chayre and two buffett stooles  o 8 00
one Court Cupboard and a little table ... 066
Item in the Chappell Chamber
two standing bedds, one feather bedd and a
wool bedd, two coverings, and blanketts, two
bolsters and two pillows  8 o 00
one Court Cupboard, one round table ... o 10 00
one Chayre, three buffett stooles  o 8 00
one Cupboard-Cushin, one trunke  o 4 00
Item in the brushing Chamber
one Cupboard and two Coffers  i o 00
foure paire of sheetes  i o 00
six table Cloathes  o 5 00
one pillow beare, and five napkins :  o 2 00
Item in the maides Chamber
three little bedds with furniture for two
Item in the Maisters Chamber
one standing bedd, with Curtaines, Valence,
Caddow, one fether bedd, two blanketts, two
bolsters and, sheetes ... ... ... ... 368
one presse, one twigg Chayre ... ... 168
one little table  ... ... ... 040
Item in the Clossett
two Coffers, seaven Cupboard Cloathes ... o 13 4
two dosen and tenne table napkinns ... i 12 00
six paire of sheets, foure table cloathes ... 3 o 00
Summa totalis jQ^i 16 6
[fol. 288^.]
In the little parlor
one table three chayres [one] stoole... ... o 10 00
one forme, foure Cushens ... ... ... 016
In the servants Chamber
one bedd with its furniture ... ... ... 013 4
In the lowe Celler
foure beefe tubbes ... ... ... ••• o 16 00

3 o 00

2

3

4

O

3

00

I

10

oo

0

7

oo

0

IO

00

o

I

oo

266 APPENDIX I
£ s. d.
one turnell, one hogshea^i ... ... ... o 6 oo
two barrells, and two firkins ... ... ••• o 3 oo
In the lowe parloure
one standing bedd, one canopie bedd, with one
fether bedd, two blanketts, one Caddow one
Coverlett and Curtaines
two tables, one Chayre
In the HaU
three tables
three formes
five Cheeres
five Cushinns
In the Buttery
two cupboards the greater 15s the lesse 5s
eight pewter dishes i6s, two flaggons is 6d
one quart one pint 2s 6d foure pottingers,
two salts, five Saucers 5 s two dosen and a
halfe of trenchers is 6d a napkin presse 2s 1^86
In the Cellor
three hogsheads ... ... ... ... o 2 00
In the Brewhouse
one meltarke, and two malt-arkes ... ... 2 10 00
five brewing vessells ... ... ... ,.. i 10 00
In the Kitchen
eight pewter dishes two chamber potts 13s 4d,
three brasse potts, one brasse morter, one
posnett ^\ 6^ 8"*, two brasse pannes two
skelletts, a frying pan 4s, two dripping pannes,
eight spitts, two chayres ^ I is. ... ... 3 5 00
In the Larder
three Ranges, two Cheeseboards, one coffer,
one tresse ... ... ... ... ... o 5 00
In the day-house
six Ranges for milke 6s, seaven milk basons
4s 8d, seaven Cheesefatts 2s two milke boards
five cheeseboards 7s, one Cheesepresse 4s,
five milke pannes and a butter tub 2s 4d and
a Churne 2s 6d ... ... ... ... 186
^ A mistake for £^.

APPENDIX I 267
£ J. d.
In the Cheese Chamber
One Arke, foure Cheesboards  o 8 00
In the servants Chamber
two bedsteds with Cloathes ...  i o 00
In the outhouses
one baye of heye in the kilne two bayes of
heye for the horses ... ... ... ... 10 o 00
four Cart Chestes  ... ... o 14 00
Summa totalis ;^29 15 2
[fol, 289.]
Item two forkes and two [ ]  .,, 026
two Cole Carts, two [ ] shod wheeles a drug
[ ] Clog wheeles ... ... ,.. ... 400
A Cole waine ...   060
A harvest Cart and a turf Cart and a paire of
Clogwheeles ... ... ... ... ... i 13 4
Two ston trowes ... ,.. ... ... 040
Three kine ... ... ... ... ... 900
Foure sterkes ... ... ... ... ... 6 13 4
One horse and a mare ... ... ... 2 10 o
One paire of iron trese a Cart saddle, three
olde Coilers and two halters ... ... on o
Two plowes, a paire of plow-irons ... ... 050
a spade, a forke, a Hatchett, and a muck-forke 030
Summa totalis £2^^ 8 2
The totall summe of the whole inventorie (the
books being not prized) is ...  ;^96 19 10
The glebe togeather with Mr Ashtons land prizes as foUoweth viz :
Imprimis. In meddowing, six Ackers at 13s 4d an
Acker per ann. ...  ••¦ 400
Item. Plowing ground foureteene Ackers at los an
Aker p. annum ... •¦¦ ••• •¦¦ 700
Item. Pastureing grounde, twenty Ackers at 6s 8d
an Acker p. annum  6 13 4
Sum: total ;£i7 13 4

APPENDIX II
THE CASE OF SYLVESTER ADAMS
(See p, 102.)
The voting of the Heads of Colleges on Dec, i8, is recorded as
follows :
"i, Dr Ward gave his opinion pro aifirmatione.
2. Dr Collins saith, Mr Adams is coming one, and so stay a while
to draw him further on.
3. Dr Smith the like, and desireth to deferre the sentence a while.
4. Dr Comber desireth that Mr Adams may haue time to advise
and consider how farre he voluntarily wiU make satisfaction
before any be enioyned.
5. Dr Bambrigge pro afiirmatione, but for the time when it shal
be done is content when you Mr Vice-ChanceUor and (sic)
next will.
6. Dr Cosen disliketh the recantation propounded in some
particulars.
7. Dr Bachcroft thinketh fitt he shall renounce what is contrary
to the Doctrine of the Church of England according to the
recantation now read.
8. Dr Laney disliketh the recantation propounded in some
particulars.
9. Dr Love approveth the recantation read.
10. Dr Martin doth not yet thinke it fitt the recantation should
be enioyned to Mr Adams nor anie other upon any ground
yet made knowne to him.
II. Dr Sterne doth not assent to the recantation read.
12. Dr Holdsworth approveth the recantation, but liketh that a
longer time be giuen to the deliberate upon it,
13. Dr Eden doth not agree to the recantation read."
Upon this, the Vice-Chancellor warned Adams not to leave the
town without his leave.
At the meeting on March 2, 1638, it is stated that "Mr Vice-
Chancellour did read unto him the foresaid forme of acknowledgement
conceaved in writing, and asked him two severall times whether hee would
voluntarily submitt thereunto ; but hee bothe times expressely refused
to subscribe the same. Whereupon Mr Vice-Chancellour upon the said
recantation deliuered in writinge his sentence and censure of Mr Adams
his said sermons and subscribed the same with his owne hand."

APPENDIX II 269
It is not stated that any alteration had been made in the recantation.
The Vice-Chancellor's sentence ran as foUows: "I having diligently
perused the Sermon of Mr Adams, fellow of Peterhouse in this
University, concerning the necessity of confessing of our sinnes to a
Preist, and having sundry times convented him thereupon, and finding
him still obstinate in his false doctrine, I doe sentence him so farre
forth as is in me to recall his error and giue satisfaction to the Church
by the publiq and audible pronouncing of this forme here underwritten,
" Whereas upon Sunday the 25 of June last, in my publiq Sermon
upon these words S. John 20, 23 'whose sinnes ye remitt they are
remitted, and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained,' I delivered
this Doctrine, That a speciall confession unto a Preist (actually where
time or opportunity presents it selfe, or otherwise in explicit intention
and resolution) of all our sinnes committed after Baptisme, so farre
forth as we doe remember, is necessary unto salvation, not only neces
sitate praecepti butt also necessitate medii, so that according to the
ordinary or revealed meanes appointed by Christ there can be no
salvation without the aforesaid confession; upon more mature thoughts
and better information, I doe finde that this Doctrine then delivered
was both erroneous and dangerous, having no warrant from the word
of God, and crossing the Doctrine of our Church, as may appeare by
her Liturgie in the second exhortation at the Communion, and in the
visitation of the sick, and in the second part of the Homilie of
Repentance ; As therefore in generall I doe acknowledge in the words
of the aforesaid homilie that it is most evident and plaine that this
auricular confession hath not his warrant of God's word, and that
therefore being not ledde with the conscience thereof, if wee with feare
and trembling and with a true contrite heart use that kind of confession
which God doth coinand in his word [namely an unfeigned confession
unto Almighty God himselfe] then doubtlesse (as he is faithfull and true)
he will forgiue us our sinnes and make us cleane from all our wickednes;
so in the case of a troubled or doubtfull conscience, I doe conforme
my opinion unto the direction of our Church, which in her Liturgie
doth exhort and require those whose consciences are troubled with any
weighty matter to a speciall confession, so that they who cannot quiet
their owne consciences are to repaire to their owne or some other
discreet and Learned Minister of God's word, to open to him their
greife, that so they may receiue such ghostly counsell, advise and
comfort, as their consciences may be relieued, and by the ministry of
God's word they may receiue comfort and the benefitt of absolution,
to the quieting of their consciences, and the avoyding of all scruple and
doubtfuUnes : butt it is against true Christian liberty that any man

270 APPENDIX II
should be bound to the numbring of his sinnes as it hath been used
heretofore in the times of Ignorance and blindness. This I do acknow
ledge to be the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning
confession and to it I doe ex animo subscribe and am heartily sorry
for what ever I haue delivered to the contrary.
" And if Mr Adams refuses to make this publiq acknowledgement
of his error, then my sentence is that he shall undergoe the punishment
which the University Statutes cap: 45 de concionibus doe appoint to
be inflicted. And I require the Register to make an act as well of
this my sentence as of the forme of recantation inioyned by me, wherein
he is charged with no other butt his owne words in his sermon, and
appointed to recall his false Doctrine in no other butt the words of
the Liturgie and Homilie of our Church. This I require to be
Registred that so it may appeare, that I haue done my part to assert
and maintaine the Doctrine of our Church. R. Brownrigg, procan : "
Eleven other Heads then signed the document, though rather as
expressing their individual opinions than as giving their consent to the
proceedings. "I do give my consent unto the vice-chancellor's sentence before
specifyed. Samuel Ward.
And so doe I. Tho. Bainbrigg.
I am of opinion that the doctrine dd. [delivered ?] by Mr Addams
in the sermon mentioned was both erroneous and scandalous, and that
it is most fitt hee should make the recantation proposed, unlesse hee
will wilfully crosse his owne doctrine, and refuse to Confesse his faulte
for the obtaining of his absolution. Tho. Paske.
And soe doe I. Tho. Bachcroft.
I doe assent unto the sentence of the Vice-Chancellor. Rich. Love.
I doe conceive the recantation sett by Mr Vice-Chancellor to
Mr Adams to be both aequall and moderate, and the least satisfaction
which Mr Adams can make for the scandalous doctrine he delivered.
Ri. Holdsworth.
The foresaid Recantation is not allowed for that it charges
particular confession to be contrary to the Liturgy and any other part
of the established doctrine of the Church of England by me B. Lany.
I having declared my mind both privately and pubUquely sundry
times to Mr Adams concerning his sermon and refus'd of late his
Questions tending the same way, yet forbeare to enioyne Recantation
becaus'it is not to be layd by our Statutes, but upon that which cleerly
crosses the doctrine of the Church of England whereas our Articles
condemn not Confession at all, S. Collins.

APPENDIX II 271
I desire that this Recantation may be qualified in some particular
expressions thereof before I giue my assent thereunto, which particulars
I haue declared by my suffrage in Court. Jo. Cosin,
Bycause the Church of England in so many places adviseth us
to speciall confession I conceive the recantation praedict., in that it
charges particular confession as contrary to the doctrine of our Church,
is not to be approved, Wm. Beale,
I doe not find that the Church of England hath anywhere deter
mined Confession to a priest to be a thing unnecessary, but that in
divers places it urges the practice of it. And therefore I conceive that
the sermon in question- hath not incurred the punishment mentioned
Cap. 45 of the University Statutes. Rich. Sterne."
"Which done," the record informs us, "Mr Vice-Chancellour did
dismisse the meeting, but not tbe cause," and we are left to assume
that the verdict of the majority was put into execution.
The above account is taken from the entries in the Acta Curiae
preserved in the University Registry. There is another short account
given in Bennet's Register {Emmanuel College Records), p. 182, which
differs in some particulars. According to this account " the following
Heads voted that he should be enjoyned to recant... viz: the Vice-
Chancellor himself, with Dr Love, Master of Benet, Dr Bambridge,
Master of Christ's, Dr Bancroft {sic) of Caius and Dr Holdsworth of
Emmanuel. The Master of Sidney, Dr Ward, had joined in the
complaint, but was not present at the hearing. On the other side he
[Adams] was supported by the High Church Party or Friends of
Archbishop Laud, of whom Dr Cumber, Master of Trinity, Dr Cousins
of Peterhouse, Dr Smith of Magdalene, Dr Martin of Queens' and
Dr Eden of Trinity Hall all voted in his favour, and being thus acquitted
by 8 to 5 he received no censure for his behaviour." From the names
mentioned, this seems to refer to the meeting on December 18.
The version given in Cooper's Annals (iii. 287) is taken from the
Baker MSS., and the account of the voting on December 18 again
does not tally with the record in the Acta Curiae.
APPENDIX III
THE SEIZURE OF COLLEGE PLATE AT CAMBRIDGE
(See p. 105.)
College accounts are a rather uncertain guide to the chronology of
the events which they illustrate, as the record of expenditure on various
occasions is not uncommonly contained in a general statement at the

272 APPENDIX III
end of the year, but two or three stray entries in the accounts of Trinity
College for 1642 suggest a connection with Cromwell's attempt to
intercept the plate which was being sent to the King.
In the Senior Bursar's accounts we find the following entries :
" Given to those that carried the University plate into our.
Tower  ii. s.
Spent at the entertainment of Captain Cromwell and his
gentleman soldiers . , , , , . . ix s. v*
To Chambers and Wright for laying up ye College Plate
when wee were in danger of the Soldiers ... v. s."
And in the Steward's Book :
" Bestowed on the Soldiers and those that watcht the Plate
in the new Court ..,,,.. ;£i. 11, 4."
The allusion to the soldiers seems at first to imply that these
payments belong to February or March 1642/3, i.e. after the occupation
of the town by the Parliamentary troops, and if so, it is clear that some
at least of the University and College plate was not sent to the King,
but was retained and afterwards bestowed in a place of safety when
the danger of plunder seemed imminent. In support of this theory
it may be noticed that it appears from the Bursar's books that in 1648
the authorities at Trinity look up some treasure which had been con
cealed during the troubles^-
But it is also possible that they refer to the previous July, when
Cromwell made a sudden descent upon the town and seized the plate
belonging to some of the colleges as it lay ready for a convenient
opportunity to be despatched to the royalist headquarters. On this
hypothesis, the payments may be connected with a probably unsuccess
ful attempt on the part of the College to save the plate from seizure
at the last moment.
In the Bursar's accounts for the following year appear the following
cryptic entries :
" Spent by William Linkey in his journey to seeke for the
plate  iiilL
Spent by Cooke in a journey to look for the plate . . xiv. s. vi. d.
To John Rooke for a journey about the plate . . ii. s. vi. d."
In the absence of further evidence, it is only possible to hazard the
conjecture that a consignment of the College plate had been despatched,
and had failed to reach its destination, but that the College authorities
were not satisfied of its irrevocable loss,
' Quoted in A. Kingston's £ast Anglia in the G>-eat Civil War, p. 286.

INDEX

Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canter
bury, IO, 21, 152
Abdy, John, 121 n., 122
Abingdon, 156, 224
Adamites, 216
Adams, Sylvester, 99-102, 268-71
Advertisements of 1566, The, 12, 15
Agreement of the People, The, 220
Akehurst, Alexander, 143
Alchorne, Edward, 60
Allen, Anne, 265
Allen, Isaac, 46, 79, 80, 264-7
Allestree, Richard, 240
Andover, 62
Appleby, Thomas, 123 n.
Approbation of Public Preachers, Com
mittee for, s, 236, 238-9, 241-5
Arkesden, 87
Armagh, Archbishop of, see Ussher
Arminians, 216
Arminius, spread of the doctrine of, 8
Arrowsmith, John, Master of S. John's
College, Cambridge, 125 u., 126 n.,
132 n., 144
Arundell, Francis, 121 n.
Ash, Simon, 116 n., 230 n.
Asheton, Col. Ralph, 79
Ashley, 255-6
Ashton,  , 267
Aylesbury, 157, 246
Aylworth, Martin, 190 n.
Babington, Churchill, estimate of the
clergy, 42
Babington, Humphrey, 122
Baillie, Robert, 29, 221
Bainbrigg, Thomas, Master of Christ's
CoUege, Cambridge, 100, 119, 268,
270-1
Baker, John, 85
Baker, Michael, 188
Baker, Thomas, 116 n., 120, 144
Baldero,  , 123 n.
Ball, Samuel, 87
BaU,  , 234
Baltimore, Lord, see Calvert
Banbury, Earl of, see Knollys
Barnard, Nathaniel, 97-8
T. P.

Barnstaple, 71 n., 87
Barrey, George, 121 n.
Bartlow, 85-6
Barton, Francis, 122
Barwick, John, 249-50
Bastwick, John, 25
Batchcroft, Thomas, Master of Gonville
and Caius College, Cambridge, 100,
119, 120, 268, 270-1
Baxter, Richard, 24, 226, 246
Bayard, Henry, 202
Bayley,  , 50-1
Bayly, William, 122
Beale, William, Master of S. John's
College, Cambridge, 96 n., 101-3,
105, ii9> 271
Beales, 63
Beardhall, George, 87
Beaumont, Roger, 50
Beesley, Henry, 239
Belke, William, 238
Belleau, 247
Benefices, number of, 52 ; plurality of
attacked, 33, 75 ; patronage, 241 ;
service of during Interregnum, 246
Berkeley, Lord, 262 n.
Bernard, Nicholas, 226
Bernard, Richard, author of The Faith
full Shepheard, 42
Berry, Canon, 261
Beverley, 155
Birche, Thomas, 79
Bishops, exclusion of from House of
Lords, 33-6 ; proposal to replace
authority of by a commission, 35 ;
consecration of, 246-51
Bishops' lands, sale of, 36-8
Blake, Martin, 71 n., 87
Bocking, 184
Bolton, Samuel, Master of Christ's
College, Cambridge, 125, 132 n.
Bond, John, Master of Trinity Hall,
Cambridge, 125 11., 132 n.
Boothby Pagnell, 224
Boreman, Robert, 122
Bottisham, 82
Bourne, 255
Box, 203
j8

274

INDEX

Bradshaw, George, Master of Balliol
CoUege, Oxford, 132 n.
Bradshaw, John, y<)
Bradshaw, Nathaniel, 127
Bramhall, John, Bishop of Derry, 250
Brand, Robert, 82
Brearly,  , 11 7 n.
Bredhurst, 59
Brent, Sir Nathaniel, Warden of Merton
College, Oxford, 169, 178
Brinsley, John, 71
Briscoe, Thomas, 122 n.
Bristol, Dean of, see Nicholas, Matthew
Brooke, Lord, see Greville
Brooke, Col. Henry, 205
Brooks,  , 86
Brovraie, Jo., 124
Browne, Sir Richard, 246
Brownrig, Ralph, Master of S. Catha
rine's College, Cambridge, and Bishop
of Exeter, 96 n., 100, 119, 251, 268-
71
Buck, Thomas, 98 n.
Buckingham, Duke of, see Villiers
Bull, George, 225
Burgess, Cornelius, 31, 34, 258-9
Burton, Henry, 25
Bushnell, Walter, 80, 81, 203
Button, Ralph, 187
Byfield, ¦  , 227
Byron, Sir John, 156-7
Calvert, Cecil, second Baron Baltimore,
218
Calvin, John, 4, 8, 15
Carabridge, The Bear Inn, 116, 121, 126,
133 ; Castle, 108, 109 n. ; Churches,
246 ; Garret Hostel Bridge, 108 ; S.
Mary the Great, 95, 97-8, 128
 , Parliamentary Committee for, 129
 Platonists, The, 126
 University, ordinance for regu
lation of, 66 ; Laud's relations with,
93-4 ; reports on state of religion in,
95 ; elections to masterships in, 96 ;
controversial sermonsin, 97-102; action
of Parliament towards, 102-3 ! sends
money and plate to the King, 103-5 !
relations of towards town, log ; effect
of military occupation upon, 106-110;
proceedings against ritualistic innova
tions in, 1 10-2; sequestration of the
property of, 11 2-4; ordinances for the
regulation of, 114; arrival of the Earl
of Manchester at, 115; imposition of
the Covenant in, 11 7-8; sequestrations
in, H9-23; Puritan appointments in,
124-8; later acts of reformation of,
128 ; royalist outbreak at, 129 ; estab
lishment of Committee for Reformation
of, 130; augmentation of stipends of

masterships in, 13 1-2; enforcement of
the Engagement in, 131-6; Crom
well's attitude towards, 136-7, 140;
proposals for radical reform of, 137-
141; visitors appointed for, 140; effect
of Puritan rule oa, 141-51; donations
to the Library of, 147 ; emigrants from
to Oxford, 182-4
Cambridge University, Consistory Court,
97. 145
 : Christ s College, 104, 132 n.
 : Clare College, 108, 111,
120, 132 n.
 : Corpus Christi College, 95,
96 n., 127, 132 n., 150
 : Emmanuel College, 94-6,
102, 103, 118 n., 126, 132 n., 133, 136,
145, 146
 : Gonville and Caius CoUege,
95. 132 n.
 : Jesus College, 96 n., 105,
108, III, 132 n., 136
 : King's College, 95, 106,
107, log, 117, 124, 142, 149, 150
 : Magdalene College, 105,
132 n-. 135
 : Pembroke College, 96 n.,
107, 132 n., 135, 148
 : Peterhouse, 96, 97, 99, 103,
107, 111, 118-20, 132 n., 141, 142,
145
 : Queens' College, 96 n. , 98,
104, 109, 121, 123, 132 n.
 : S. Catharine's College, 96
n.. Ill, 132 n., 136, 142
 : S. John's College, 95, 96 n.,
103, 104, 107-9, ¦^°' '''^' ''^9' 132 i^-'
142, 144
 : Sidney Sussex College, 94,
103, 125, 132 n.
 : Trinity College, 77 n., 86,
96-8. 105, 106, 108-11, IIS, 1^1-4.
126, 127, 131 n., 142, 143, 149, 150,
271, 272
 : Trinity HaU, 105, 132 n.,
13s. 148
Cambridgeshire, 49, 53, 61 n., 64, 66, 72,
74, 76-8, 82, 85, 201, 202 n., 255, 256
Cambridgeshire Sequestration Commit
tee, 83, 85-7, 90, 91
Canons (of 1603), 13
Canons (of 1640), 12, 13
Canterbury, Archbishops of, see Abbot
and Laud
Canterbury Cathedral, 256
Capel, Arthur, first Baron, 106
Carisbrooke, 220
Carrick,  , 177
Casaubon, Meric, 58, 59, 69
Castle Camps, 201
Cathedrals, Puritan treatment of, 256-63

INDEX

275

Catstrey, Walter, 131 n.
Cave, Thomas, 121 n.
Chamberlain, WUliam, 122
Chamberlain,  , 121 n.
Chambers, Humphrey, 81
Chambers,  , 124
Chambers,  , 272
Charles I., 9, 16, 36, 38, 74 n., 103, 104,
154. 155. 157. '59. 160, 172, 220
Charnocke, Stephen, 184
Chastleton, 236
Chester petition in favour of Episcopacy,
3^2
Chester Cathedral, 204
Chesterton, 145
Cheynell, Francis, 152, 164, 166
Chichester, Bishop of, see King, Henry
Chilham, 238
Church, public worship : Puritan views
on, 5 ; Laud's reforms of, 10 et seq. ;
committee appointed to consider in
novations in, 33 ; Parliamentary resolu
tions on, 39 ; observance of feasts
prohibited in, 222 ; administration of
Holy Communion, 12-14, 195, 223,
224, 227-9, 237, 254
Church of England, relation of to Puritan
thought, 3 et seq. ; position of before
CivU War, 6 et seq.
Churches, damage to fabric of, 252-6
Claphamson, Robert, 49 n.
Clarendon, Earl of, see Hyde
Clark,  , 135
Clarke, •  ¦, 72
Clayton, Thomas, 193
Clergy, Puritan influence among, 8, 10 ;
exclusion of from secular offices, 33,
34 ; general character of, 41 et seq. ;
petitions against, 51, 52, 55 et seq. ;
party divisions among, 52-4 ; charges
of immorality against, 74, 75 ; number
of ejected, 88-92 ; imprisonment of,
204-13 ; ordination of, 246
Clerke, Jo., 63
Colchester, 129
Cole, William, 69, 1 16 n.
Collings, Dr, 132
CoUins, Samuel, Provost of King's
College, Cambridge, 100, loi, 268,
278
Comber, Thomas, Master of Trinity
College, Cambridge, 96 n., 98, 100,
IOI, 123, 268, 271
Compounding, Committee for, 90
Conant, John, Rector of Exeter College,
Oxford, 132 n., 168, 174, 193
Cooke,  , 121 n.
Cooke,  , 272
Cope, Sir Anthony, 240
Corbet, Edward, 164, 165
Cornish, Henry, 164, 165

Cornwall, 203
Cornwall petition in favour of Episcopacy,
32
Cosm, John, Master of Peterhouse,
Cambridge, 48, 94, 96, 97, loo, 102,
103, 119, 142, 199, 249, 250, 268, 271
Cottenham, 202 n.
"Cotter," Archdeacon, 261
Cotton, John, 212
Counter Prison, The, 205
Covenant, The, 74, 79, 11 7-9, 120, 123,
124, 127, 169
Coveney, 50
Cowley, Abraham, 121 n.
Crane,  , 122 n.
Crawley, Thomas, 122 n.
Crofton, Zachary, 230, 231
Cromwell, Oliver, 5, 104-6, 133, 134,
136. 137, 142, 153. 168. 193. 212,
224, 227, 232-5, 238-41, 272
Crosland, Theodore, 82, 122
Crosse, Robert, 174
Croyden, William, 121 n., 122 n., 127,
142
Cudworth, Ralph, Master of Clare
College, Cambridge, 125 n., 126,
132 n.
Culmer, Richard, 58, 59
Culpeper, John, first Baron, 39
Culverwell, Richard, 127
Cupper, Vincent, 183
Dallinghoe, 201 n.
Dalton,  , 72
Deans and Chapters, attitude of Puritans
towards, 3 ; abolition of, 35 ; sale of
lands of, 37, 38
Declaration of Sports, 20
Dell, William, Master of Gonville and
Caius College, Cambridge, 61, 132 n.,
138. 139. 141. 146. 190
Demolishing Monuments of Superstition,
Committee for, 254
Derby, Earl of, see Stanley
Dering, Sir Edward, 35, 51, 55, 57
Derry, Bishop of, see Bramhall
Devereux, Robert, third Earl of Essex,
106, 155
Devonshire, 75
D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, 95
Dillingham, Samuel, 134, 135, 137
Directory for Public Worship, The, 39,
170, 221, 222
Dirletoun, Earl of, see Maxwell
Ditton, Long, 227
Dod, Samuel, 120
Dodbrooke, 224 n.
Doddington, 50
Dorset, Declaration of the County of, 82
Dorset Sequestration Committee, 90
Dover, 63

276

INDEX

Downhall, Henry, 61 n.
Dowsing, William, iii, 112, 114, 254-6
Dubhn, Trinity College, 186
Du Moulin, Dr, 186
Dunbar, battle of, 212
Duncon, Eleazar, 247
Duppa, Brian, Bishop of Salisbury,
247 n.
Durham, 102
Eachard, John, 43-6, 48
Earl's Colne, 228
Eastern Association, The, 66-8, 78, 114,
115, 117, 200, 254
Eaton, Thomas, 72
Eden, Thomas, Master of Trinity HaU,
Cambridge, 100, loi, 119, 268, 271
Edgbaston, 252
Edgehill, battle of, 160
Edinburgh Castle, Governor of, 232, 233
Edward VI and the Reformation, 6
Elizabeth, Queen, Puritanism in the
reign of, 2, 7
Elizabethan Settlement, The, 7
Elm, 49
Ely, Bishop of, see Wren
Ely Cathedral, 257 n.
Ely House, 205, 211
Ely, Isle of, 117
Emneth, 50
Engagement, The, 120, 122, 131-7, 165
Episcopacy, disliked by Puritarts, 3 ;
feeling in the country regarding, 26,
27, 54; attitude of Long Parliament
towards, 28 et seq. ; petitions for and
against, 29-32, 51, 56; bill for the
total abolition of, 35, 36 ; later negotia
tions concerning, 38 ; excluded from
Independents' scheme of toleration,
219, 220; scheme for a limited form
of, 226
Erbury, William, 165-8
Essex, 66
Essex, Earl of, see Devereux
Etcetera Oath, The, 21, 23, 24
Eton College, 131, 140, 201
Evelyn, John, 223, 246, 253
Evelyn, Sir Thomas, 227
Exchequer Court, The, 83
Exeter, 260-3
Exeter, Bishop of, see Brownrig
Exeter Cathedral, 259-63
Exeter, Roger, 72, 73, 82
Fairfax, Sir Thomas, 73, 161, 163, 168,
260
Farringdon,  , 234
Feasts of the Church, see Church
Fell, Samuel, Dean 9f Christ Church,
Oxford, 154, 172
Felton, Nicholas, 77

Fenton, John, 72
Feoffees for Impropriations, 17, 19
Fiennes, Nathaniel, 28
Fiennes, WiUiam, first Viscount Saye
and Sele, 28, 157-9
" Fifths," pajTnent of to deprived clergy,
200-4
Fisher, John, Laud's controversy with, 14
Fitch, Thomas, 71 n.
Fleetwood, Sir William, 237
Fortune,  , 117
Foulmire, 77
French, John, 174 n.
French,  , 202 n.
Frewen, Accepted, President of Magdalen
College, Oxford, and Bishop of Lich
field, 154, 247 n.
Fuller, Thomas, 96, ii6n., 187, 202,
^23, 230, 232
Furnis, Edward, 49, 50
Galloway, Bishop of, see Sydeserf
Garbrand, Tobias, 132 n.
Gatehouse prison. The, 57 n.
Gauden, John, 226
Glemham, Sir Thomas, 162
Gloucester, Bishop of, see Goodman
Gloucester Cathedral, 258
Gloucester, diocese of, 51
Goodman, Godfrey, Bishop of Gloucester,
51
Goodwin, Thomas, President of Magdalen
College, Oxford, 168
Goodwyn, PhiUp, 62
Goring, George, Baron, 74 n.
Goring, George,first Earl of Norwich, 199
Grand Remonstrance, The, 39
Gransden, little, 201 n.
Greaves, John, 174 n.
Green, Charles, 153
Green, George, 61 n.
Greene,  , Governoi of Maryland, 218
Greenwood, Daniel, Principal of Brase
nose College, Oxford, 132 n.
Greville, Robert, second BaronBrooke,28
Grey of Wark, William, first Baron, 106
Grey, Nicholas, 201
Griffith,  , 234
Grimer, Robert, 77
Gunning, Peter, 234
Gunning,  , 227
Gwyn,  , 69
Hacket, John, 34, 224, 225
Hakewill, George, Rector of Exeter
College, Oxford, 117
Hales, John, 240
Halke, John, 238
Hall, George, 234
Hall, Joseph, successively Bishop of
Exeter and Norwich, 27

INDEX

277

Hammond, Henry, 186, 199, 200, 225,
^34. 247
Hampshire, 53
Hampton Court Conference, 7
Hardy,  , 234
Harley, Sir Robert, 253
Harley, Thomas, 1 30 n.
Harris, Robert, President of Trinity
College, Oxford, 132 n., 164, 186
Harrison, John, 127
Hatley S. George, 255
Hatton, Christopher, first Baron, 199
Heads of the Proposals, The, 38, 220
Henry VIII and the Reformation, 6
Herbert, George, 44, 45, 48
Herbert, PhUip, fourth Earl of Pembroke,
157. 158, 168, 174, 175
Herefordshire Sequestration Committee,
82
Hering, Samuel, 138
Hertford, Marquis of, see Seymour
Hertfordshire, 66
Heylyn, Peter, 187, 224
Heywood, Oliver, 143, 144, 146
High Commission Court, 21-3, 69, 98
HiU, Thomas, Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, 125 n.
Hinton, William, 85, 86
Histon, 49
Holbeach, 236-8
Holdsworth, Richard, Master of Em
manuel CoUege, Cambridge, 96 n., 100,
101, 119, 268, 270, 271
Holland, Earl of, see Rich, Henry
Holliday,  , 84 n.
Holmby House, 172
Holtham, Thomas, 231
Holy Communion, administration of, see
Church
Hood, Paul, Rector of Lincoln College,
Oxford, 132 n., 177
Hopkins,  , 231
Horton, Thomas, President of Queens'
College, Cambridge, 132 n.
Howard, Thomas, first Earl of Suffolk, 94
Hoyle, Joshua, Master of University
College, Oxford, 132 n., 186
Hudson, Leonard, 227
Humphrey, Dr, 187
Hunt, Rowland, 79
Huntingdonshire, 61 n., 66
Hyde, Edward, first Earl of Clarendon,
15, 22, 25, 28, 31, 39, 41, 56, 162, 192,
247, 250
Hyde, Robert, 79
Imprisonment of the Clergy and others,
204-13
Indemnity, Act of (1660), 262
Independents, and Puritan thought, 2 ;
contrasted with Presbyterians, 3-5 ;

views on church government, 4 ; views
on the ministry, 5 ; views on the Uni
versities, 137-40 ; views on toleration,
214-9; ^^^ th^ Voluntary Associa
tions, 226
Injunctions (of 1559), The, 15
Innovations, Lords' Committee on, 33, 39
Instrument of Government, The, 220
Ipswich, 254 n.
Jacob,  , 201 n.
James I, Puritanism in the reign of, 2, 7
Jennings, Robert, 239
Jennings,  , 112
Jephson, Col., 257
Jermin, Michael, 239
Jessop, Thomas, 227
Jewel, John, Bishop of Salisbury, 250
Johnson, John, 76
Jolly, Thomas, 82
Jones,  , 123 n.
Jordan, Robert, 109 n.
Josselin, Ralph, 228, 229, 254 n.
Juxon, William, Bishop of London, .25
Kent, 51, 57, 60
King, Henry, Bishop of Chichester, 246,
247 n.
King, Sir Robert, 183
Knollys, Nicholas, third Earl of Banbury,
240
Knuckles,  , 112
Lambeth Palace, 205-8, 253 n.
Lambeth Palace Library, 242
Lancashire, 46, 79
Lane, Dr, 132
Langbaine, Gerard, Provost of Queen's
College, Oxford, 132 n., 177, 184, 185
Langley, Henry, Master of Pembroke
College, Oxford, 132 n., 164, 165
Lany, Benjamin, Master of Pembroke Col
lege, Cambridge, 96, 100, 119, 268, 270
Laryware, Thomas, 50
Latropp,  , 23
Laud, William, Archbishop of Canter
bury, 9, 10, 21-7, 33, 39, 40, 47-5i»
S3-S. 93-6. IOI. 103. 152-4. 157. 164,
197, 217, 226, 229
Launton, 224
Laurence, Thomas, Master of Balliol
College, Oxford, 177
Lecturers, origin of, 17 ; disliked by
Church party, 18 ; Laud's attitude
towards, 19 ; petitions concerning,
61-4; Episcopalians as, 229, 230, 232
Lee, Thomas, 76
Leicester, 151
Leicestershire, 74, 76, 78
Leicestershire Sequestration Committee,
90, 91
18-3

278

INDEX

Leighton, Alexander, 25, 206, 208
Leonard, Arthur, 240
Leverington, 50
Lichfield, Bishop of, see Frewen
Lichfield Cathedral, 256
Lidsing, 59
Lightfoot, John, Master of S. Catharine's
College, Cambridge, 132 n., 141
Lincoln Cathedral, 253
Lincoln, diocese of, 51
Lincolnshire, 35, 66, 68 <
Linkey, WiUiam, 272
Locke,  , 70
Locksmith, Richard, 84 n.
London, Bishop of, see Juxon
London : Exeter Chapel, 223
 : Lincoln's Inn Chapel, 232, 234
 : S. Andrew's, Holborn, 224
 : S. Bennet's, 224
 : S. Botolph's, Aldgate, 230
 : S. Bride's, 230 n,
 : S. Clement's, Eastcheap, 223
 : S. Peter's, Paul's Wharf, 224
 Committee, The, 171, 172, 174,
176, 183
 petition against Episcopacy, 29,
32, 33
 , Tower of, 211
Loosmore, Henry, 124
Lords' Committee for Petitions, see
Petitions
Love, Richard, Master of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, 96 n., 100, 119,
120, 132 n., 136, 268, 270, 271
Low, Thomas, 50
Lucas,  , 98 n.
Luton, 227
Macaulay, Lord, estimate of the clergy, %
Mainwaring, Roger, Bishop of S. David's,
24
Major-Generals, The, 202, 235
Manby, Mrs, 202 n.
Manchester, 79, 80
Manchester, Earl of, see Montagu,
Edward
Manea, 50
Marlow, 254 n.
MarshaU, Anthony, 121 n.
Martin, Edward, President of Queens'
CoUege, Cambridge, 96 n., 98, 100,
101, 104, 105, 119, 268, 271
Mary, Queen, and the Reformation, 6
Maryland, 218
Massachusetts, prisoners in, 212
Maxwell, James, Earl of Dirletoun, i88
Mazarin, Cardinal, 233
Merchant-Taylors School, 140
Meredith, Dr, 121 n.
Mildmay, Sir Henry, 102, 174
Militia, Committee for the, 209

Ministers' Petition, The, 30-3
Minshull, Richard, Master of Sidney
Sussex College, Cambridge, 125,
132 n.
Minster, 58, 59
Monk, General George, 151
Monk Soham, 70, 71
Monkton, 58, 59
Montagu, Edward, second Earl of Man
chester, 66-70, 83, III, 113, 115-9,
121, I2S-7, 136, 174, 200
Morley, George, afterwards Bishop of
Winchester, 186, 199, 246
Nalson, John, 206
Negative Oath, The, 169, 232
Neile, Richard, Bishop of Winchester, 16
Nevile,  , 122 n.
Newcastle, peace propositions at, 38
Newgate Prison, 213 n.
Newton, 76
Nicholas, Sir Edward, 199, 200
Nicholas, John, 121 n.
Nicholas, Matthew, Dean of Bristol, 199,
200
Nicholas, William, 76
Nineteen Propositions, The, 39
Norfolk, S3, 66
Northamptonshire, 77
Northamptonshire Sequestration Com
mittee, 81
Norwich, 70
Norwich, Earl of, see Goring
Nottingham, 104
Nye, Philip, 243, 244
Oath of Discovery, The, 1 16 n.
Oblivion, Act of (1651/2), 236 n.
Oley, Barnabas, 44-7, 104
Ordinations, see Clergy
Orwell, 77 n., 86
Oswestry, 252
Owen, ThankfuU, President of S. John's
College, Oxford, 132 n., 168
Owen,  , 135
Owen,  , 223
Oxford, Church of S. Mary, 158, 166,
171 ; The Mitre Inn, 153 ; Parlia
mentary prisoners at, 213; peace
propositions at, 38 ; Saracen's Head
Inn, 165
 , Bishop of, see Skinner
 University, sends money and
plate to the King, 103, 154, 155, i6i ;
sequestrations in, 123; Committee for
Reformation of, 130; augmentation of
stipends of Heads of Houses in, 131,
132, 193 ; state of under Laud's regime,
'52. 153 ". sends a petition in fevour of
Episcopacy, 154; raises a corps of
volunteers, 155; effect of outbreak of

INDEX

279

hostilities upon, 156-61 ; fate of under
the Treaty of Surrender, 163 ; intentions
of Parliament towards, 162 ; seven
Preachers sent to, 164-8; appointment
of the Visitors of, 168-71; opening of
the Visitation of, 171; the ' ' Judgment
of the University" issued, 172; ad
ditional powers given to Visitors, 172 ;
delegates appointed, 173, 174; mem-
of University summoned, 174, 17s;
their attitude towards the Visitors, 175,
176; number of ejections, 178-81;
character of the "intruders," 181-6,
193 ; charges of misappropriation,
186-8 ; later action of Parliament,
189 ; proposals for reform, 190-2 ;
general effect of Visitation, 192 ;
augmentation of stipends of professors,
193 ; admissions during the Inter
regnum, 194 ; manners and morals,
194-6 ; ordinary studies, 196, 197
Oxford University : All Souls College,
161, 183, 185, 189, 190
 : Balliol College, 132 n., 177,
196 n.
  : Brasenose College, 132 n.,
165 n.
 : Christ Church, 158, 160,
165, 183, 191, 195 n., 196
 • : Exeter CoUege, 132 n.,
174 n., 178, 185
 : Gloucester Hall, 132 n.
 : Hart HaU, 175
 : Jesus College, 132 n,
 : Lincoln CoUege, 1 32 u. ,
177. 193
 : Magdalen College, 187,
188
 : Magdalen HaU, 164, 186
 : Merton College, 174 n.,
178, 195
 : New CoUege, 155
 : New Inn HaU, 161
 : — : Oriel CoUege, 132 n., 178
 : Pembroke College, 132 n.,
165
 : Queen's CoUege, 132 n.,
177, 184, 185
 : S. John's College, 132 n.
 : S. Mary's Hall, 192
 : Trinity College, 132 n.,
164, 177, 186
 : University CoUege, 132 n.,
158
 : Wadham College, 132 n.
Oxfordshire, 239
Palgrave, Edward, 127
Palmer, Herbert, President of Queens'
College, Cambridge, 125 n., 126 n.
Paman, Henry, 136

Parish, George, 122 n.
Parliament, Army of the, 218
Parliament, the Long : strength of parties
in, 28; attitude towards Episcopacy,
28 et seq. ; dependence on Puritan
support, 30 ; passes bill to provide
against its dissolution, 34 ; passes bill
of Attainder against Laud, 39 ; attitude
towards clergy, 56, 57 ; dissolution of,
83 ; relations with Cambridge Uni
versity, 102, 114, 128, 131, 132, 147;
and with Oxford University, 164, i68,
188, 189; attitude towards church
patronage, 241 ; and ceremonial refor
mation, 253
Parliament, the Nominated or "Bare
bones," attitude towards places of
learning, 137, 190; and church patron
age, 241
Parliament, the Short, and the question
of religion, 25 ; and Cambridge Uni
versity, 102; and Oxford University,
153
Parker, Samuel, 195
Paske, Thomas, Master of Clare College,
Cambridge, loi, 270
Patrick, Simon, 123, 124
Patronage, see Benefices
Pawson,  , 125 n.
Payne, Dr, 177 n.
Peacock, Richard, 78
Pearne, Thomas, 145
Pearson, John, 234
Pembroke, Earl of, see Herbert, Philip
Pennye, Alan, 262 n.
Penruddock, Col. John, 235
Peterborough Cathedral, 258
Petitions, Lords Committee for, 261
Petre, Lord, house used as prison, 211
Pickering, Captain, 129
Pierce, George, 75 n.
Pink, Robert, Warden of New College,
Oxford, 157
Pinner, 62
Plundered Ministers, Committee for, 60,
70, 72, 74 n., 83-7, 89, 90, 117, 201-4,
214 n., 222, 238
Plurality, see Benefices
Potter, Hannibal, President of Trinity
College, Oxford, 154
Prayer-Book, The, 32, 38, 39, 129, 142,
19s, 219-27, 229, 23s -^
Preaching, importance attached to by
Puritans, 16; Laud's views on, 16-20;
" Directions concerning Preachers,"
18; liberty allowed by Puritans, 229-
32
Presbyterians, and Puritan thought, 2 ;
contrasted with Independents, 3-5 ;
views on church government, 3 ; views
on the ministry, 5, 15; strength in

28o

INDEX

the country, 28, 54 ; views on tolera
tion, 214-8; and the Voluntary Asso
ciations, 226 ; and the restoration of
Episcopacy, 248
Presbyterian System, establishment of,
129, 142, 170
Preston, George, 57 n.
Prestwich, 46, 79, 264-7
Prestwich, Jo., 177
Price, John, 122 n.
Prideaux, John, Rector of Exeter College,
Oxford and Bishop of Worcester, 27,
152, 154
Prisoners, Committee for, 208, 209
Prosperous Sarah, 209, 210
Prynne, William, 25
Puritanism, early characteristics of, 1-5 ;
relation of to the Church of England,
6, 54; among the clergy,, 8, 10, 53.
See also Presbyterians and Indepen
dents
Pym, John, 26, 28, 30
Rainbow, Edward, Master of Magdalene
College, Cambridge, 119, 120, 132,
135. 225, 245 n.
Read, Thomas, 155
Religion, Grand Committee for, 55, 57,128
Reynolds, Edward, Dean of Christ
Church, Oxford, 164-5, 168, 187
Rhodes, John, 122
Rich, Charles, 122
Rich, Henry, first Earl of Holland, 98
RUey,  , 98, 99
Roberts, Michael, Principal of Jesus
College, Oxford, 132 n.
Rochester, Bishop of, see Warner, John
Rochester Cathedral, 257
Rochester, diocese of, 51
Roe, Dr, see Rowe
Rogerson, Thomas, 70, 71
Roman Catholics, excluded from tolera
tion by Puritans, 216, 219, 220 ;
Cromwell's treatment of, 233
Rooke, John, 272
Rose, Richard, 76
Ross, Governor of, 233
Rothersthorpe, 57 n.
Rous, John, 254 n.
Rowe, Cheney, 77 n., 86, 121 n.
Rushall, 252
Rye, 246
Sadler, Anthony, 242-5
Sadler, James, 118
Sadler, John, Master of Magdalene
College, Cambridge, 132 n.
S. Ives, 61 n.
S. Mary's in Hoo, 60
S. Paul's Cathedral, 253 n., 257, 258
S. Paul's, Dean of, see Stewart

Salisbury, Bishop of, see Duppa
Samways, Peter, 122
Sancroft, William, 133-7, 146. 147. 236,
237
Sanderson, Robert, 172, 186, 224, 225
Saunders, John, Provost of Oriel College,
Oxford, 132 n., 178
Savoy Conference, The, 246
Saye and Sele, Lord, see Fiennes, William
Sayer,  , 210
Scandalous Ministers, ordinance for re
moval of, 66
Scandalous Ministers, Cbmmittee for,
55, 80, 81, 83, 231
Sclater, Thomas, 121 n., 122 n.
Scotland, Parliament of, 221
Scots, relations with Long Parliament,
28, 36, 37
Scott, Major, 108
Scotten, Edmund, 76
Scudamore, John, first Viscount, 200
Seaman, Lazarus, Master of Peterhouse,
Cambridge, 118, 125 n., 132 n., 141
Selden, John, 175, 184, i8s, 228
Sequestration of delinquents' estates,
ordinance for, 65
Sequestration Committees, 200, 241
Sequestrations, number of, 88-92 ; at
Cambridge, 120-4; s-t Oxford, 178-81
Seymour, WiUiam, first Marquis of Hert
ford, 158 n.
Shardelow, John, 63
Sheldon, Gilbert, Warden of All Souls
College, Oxford, 14, 117 n., 186, 198,
219, 225, 247
Sherman, John, 122 11.
Shrewsbury, 161
Sibthorpe, Robert, 24
Simpson, John, 230, 231
Simpson, Sidrach, Master of Pembroke
CoUege, Cambridge, 132 n., 138
Skinner, Robert, Bishop of Oxford, 219,
224, 246, 250
Slegg,  , 49
Smart, Peter, 102
Smectymnuus, 126
Smith, Henry, Master of Magdalene
College, Cambridge, 100, 268, 271
Smith, William, 213
Soham, 72, 82
Soper, Thomas, 83 n.
Sparrow, Anthony, 98, 99, 104
Spurstow, William, Master of S. Cath
arine's College, Cambridge, 125 11.,
126, 136
Stacy, John, 121 n., 123 n.
Stagg, John, 83 n.
Stanley, James, Lord Strange and
seventh Earl of Derby, 79, 80
Staunton, Edmund, President of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, 193

INDEX

281

Stephens, Jeremy, 76, 77, 81
Sterne, Richard, Master of Jesus CoUege,
Cambridge, 94, 96 n., 100, 105, 119,
210, 211, 268, 271
Sterry, Nathaniel, 184
Stewart, Richard, Dean of S. Paul's, 199
Stone, William, 218
Story,  , 72
Strafford, Earl of, see Wentworth
Strange, Lord, see Stanley
Streafliam, 49, 50, 77
Sudbury, 254 n.
Suffolk, 53, 63, 66, 70, 201 n.
Suffolk, Earl of, see Howard
Sussex, 239
Sutton, 61 n.
Sutton Courtney, 71 n.
Swaffham-Prior, 78
Sydenham, Sir Philip, 118 n.
Sydeserf, Thomas, Bishop of Galloway,
246
Symonds,  , 62
Syms, Dr, 134
Taylor, Jeremy, 47, 200
Taylor, Dr, 227
Taylor,  , 243, 244
Teversham, 255
Tewkesbury, 231
Thaine, Alexander, 188
Thomason, George, 147
Thorndike, Herbert, 122, 125 n., 234
Thornton, Samuel, 72
Tiverton, 75
Toleration, before the Civil War, 8 ;
theory of among Presbyterians and
Independents, 214-9
Tolly, John, 201 n.
Tonstall, Ralph, 117 n.
Tookey,  , 61 n.
Tothill, Captain, 252
Tozer, Henry, 174 n.
Tray, Richard, 59, 60, 69
Tuckney, Anthony, Master of Emmanuel
College, Cambridge, 125 n., 132 n.,
144
TunstaU,  , 127
Turner, Robert, 50
Twysden, Sir Roger, 205-10, 213 n.
Universities, bUl for regulating the, 102,
i°3
Universities, Committee to consider
abuses in, 102
Universities, Committee for Reformation
of, 127, 130-6, 196
Ussher, James, Archbishop of Armagh,
27. 219, 232, 234
Uxbridge, Treaty of, 38
Vane, Sir Henry, the younger, 28, 35

Vicars,  , 69
Villiers, George, first Duke of Bucking
ham, 147
Vincent,  , 63
Vines, Richard, Master of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, 125 n., 134, 135
Virginia, prisoners sent to, 212
Voluntary Associations, The, 226
Vossius, Laud's letter to, 16
Walker, John, author of the Sufferings
of the Clergy, 30-1, 52-3, 56-7, 60,
68, 73, 77, 81, 84, 88-90, 93, 109,
120-1, 173, 177-83, 186, 195, 208, 242,
245
Waller, Sir William, 107 n., 253
Wallis, John, 184
Waltham, John, 224 n.
Ward, Samuel, Master of Sidney Sussex
College, Cambridge, 100, 125, 268,
270, 271
Ward, Seth, 125 n., 184, 193
Warner, John, Bishop of Rochester, 219,
247 n.
Warner, Peter, 204
Warwick, Sir Philip, 258
Waterbeach, 64
Waynflete, Bishop, 188*
Webster, John, 139, 190
Weldrake, 202
Weller, Richard, 85, 86
Wells Cathedral, 258, 259
Wells, John, 231
Wentworth, Thomas, first Earl pf Straf
ford, 34
West, Robert, 131 n.
West,  , 121 n.
Westminster Abbey, 253 n., 254
Westminster Assembly of Divines, 120,
126, 127, 216, 220, 241
Westminster School, 132, 140, 191
Wharton, Nehemiah, 253
Wheeler, Charles, 121 n.
Wheeler,  , 188
Whichcote, Benjamin, Provost of King's
CoUege, Cambridge, 117, 118, 125 n.,
126, 141
WhitehaU,  , 177
Whitelock, Sir Bulstrode, 159, 228
Whitgift, John, Archbishop of Canter
bury, 21
Wicken, 77
Wilde, George, 234
WUkins, John, Warden of Wadham
College, Oxford, 132 n.
Wilkinson, Henry, 152, 164
Wilkinson, John, President of Magdalen
College, Oxford, 187
WiUiams, John, Archbishop of York, 27,
33
Williams, Philip, 121 n.

282

INDEX

Williams,  , 70
WiUis, Nathaniel, 121 n.
Willis, Thomas, 195
Wiltshire, 203, 235
Winchester, 253
Winchester, Bishops of, see Morley and
Neile
Winchester College, 130, 131, 140
Winchester, diocese of, 12
Windsor, 193, 240
Wisbech, 49, 50
WoUaston, Henry, 213 n.
Wood, Anthony, 139, 153, 155, 159,
163-4, 182, 185, 191, 194-6
Woodruffe, George, 112
Wootton, 81
Worcester Cathedral, 253

Worthington, John, Master of Jesus
College, Cambridge, 132 n., 141, 145
Wotton, 238
Wotton, William, 122, 123 n.
Wren, Matthew, Bishop of Ely, 247"
Wright, Ezechiel, 146
Wright,  , 272
Yarmouth, 71
Yelden, 61
York, Archbishop of, see WiUiams, John
Yorkshire, 48, 202
Young, Thomas, Master of Jesus College,
Cambridge, 125 n., 126, 134, 136
Zanchy, Jerome, 183
Zouch, Dr, 172

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Dr J ohn \Valker and The Sufferings of the Clergy. By G. B. Tatham,
M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. Cambridge Historical Essays Series.
' ' Mr Tatham gives a full account of the circumstances in which Walker's book
was written ; he investigates the authorities which Walker had at his command, and
affords us ample means of estimating his value as a historian. He is to be congratulated
on having carried out in a very thorough manner a very useful piece of work. "
Westminster Gazette
The English Puritans. By John Brovs^n, D.D. Royal i6mo.
Price IS net in cloth; in lambskin 2s 6d net. Cambridge Manuals Series.
"Puritanism is here examined in a fair and large-sighted manner... Historically
the essay is an admirable piece of concision ; and the final chapters showing the great
significance of the internal conflict between Presbyterianism and independence are
especially noteworthy." — Manchester Guardian
The Theory of Toleration under the later Stuarts. By
A. A. Seaton, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. Cambridge Historical Essays Series.
"A fresh, learned, and interesting treatise... Well based in a systematic study of
contemporary authorities, it should be read with interest and profit by historical
inquirers curious concerning what may be called the origins of the Nonconformist
conscience in England ; it is a solidly instructive review of the progress between the
years 1660 and 1714 of the intellectual stmggle for religious liberty." — Scotsman
The Theory of Religious Liberty in the Reigns of Charles II
and James II. By H. F. Russell Smith, B.A. Crown 8vo. 4s. Cambridge
Historical Essays Series.
"It is a pleasure to congratulate Mr Russell Smith upon so well-balanced and
skilful a performance. He is convincing in illustration and argument ; in spite of the
demand for condensation, he is thoroughly readable in point of style ; and he shows
a refreshing freedom from prejudice and special pleading, with a. firm grasp of
essentials and considerable power of analysis." — Athenaum
The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings. By J. Neville
Figgis, Litt.D. New edition in preparation.
"The author has related and explained the theory with exceptional skill. He has
presented us with a book of considerable erudition and very lucid argument... This
essay is valuable not only as a clear statement of the theory and all it involved, but
also because Mr Figgis provides us with an exhaustive bibliography on the subject."
Guardian, on the first edition
The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent
Research (1550-1641). By Champlin Burrage, Hon. M.A. (Brown University),
B. Litt. (Oxon.). In 2 volumes. With 10 plates. Demy 8vo. 20s net.
"The whole work is a contribution of the highest value to the study of religion in
England. No student of the period it covers can afford to overlook it. The work is
one which seems not simply to caU for a revision of judgment on individual points,
but to demand something like a reconstruction of our view of a whole period in the
national history." — Westminster Gazette
The Journal of George Fox. Edited from the MSS. by Norman
Penney, F.S.A. With an Introduction by T. Edmund Harvey, M.A. In
two volumes. With two Portraits and three Facsimiles. Royal 8vo. 21s net.
"We find it impossible to indicate a tithe of what there is of interest both for
history and character, now for the first time brought to the Ught. High praise is due
to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press not only for their enterprise m
producing this authoritative edition, but also for the beautiful setting and form of the
¦work. As to Mr Penney's labours, we can truthfully say that, outside classical
ischolarship, we have hardly met such learned and faultless editing."— ^^/5s«««?«

THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SERIES
General Editor, G. W. Prothero, Litt.D., Honorary Fellow of
King's College, Cambridge
Scandinavia, 1513 — 1900. By R. Nisbet Bain. 53 6d net.
Slavonic Europe, 1447 — 1796, By R. Nisbet Bain. 5s 6d net.
Canada under British Rule, 1760— 1905. By Sir John G.
BouRiNOT, K.C.M.G. Revised by G. M. Wrong, M.A. 4s 6d net.
History of Scotland. By P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D. 3 vols.
Crown 8vo. Half Morocco, gilt top, 21s net, or in cloth 13s 6d net.
The United States of America, 1765— 1865. By Edvitard
Channing, Ph.D. 4s 6d net.
Modern Spain, 1815 — 1898. By H. Butler Clarke, M.A. With
a memoir by the Rev. W. H. HuTTON, B.D. 5s 6d net.
An Essay on W^estern Civilization in its Economic Aspects.
(Ancient Times.) By the Ven. W. Cunningham, D.D. 3s 6d net.
An Essay on W^estern Civilization in its Economic Aspects.
(Mediaeval and Modern Times.) By the Ven. W. Cunningham, D.D. 3s 6d net.
Outlines of English Industrial History. By the Ven. W.
Cunningham, D.D. and Ellen A. McArthur. Third edition. 3s net.
Europe and the Far East, 1506 — 1912. By Sir R. K. Douglas.
Revised by Prof. J. H. Longford. 6s 6d net.
The French Monarchy, 1483 — 1789. By A. J. Gr.ant, M.A.
2 vols. 7s net.
Spain, Its greatness and decay, 1479 — 1788. By Martin
A. S. Hume. Third edition, revised by Edward Armstrong, F.B.A. 6s net.
A History of the Australasian Colonies, from their foundation
to the year 1911. By Edward Jenks, M.A. Third edition. 4s 6d net.
A History of the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races. By
Sir Harry H. Johnston, K.C.B. Second and enlarged edition. 8s net.
The Ottoman Empire, 1801 — 1913. By Wm. Miller, M.A.
7s 6d net.
Ireland, 1494 — 1905. By W. O'Connor Morris. Revised by
Robert Dunlop, M.A. 4s 6d net.
The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 1789 — 1815. By
J. Holland Rose, Litt.D. Sixth edition, revised. 3s 6d net.
The Expansion of Russia, 1815 — 1900. By Francis Henry
Skrine, F.S.S. Second edition. 4s 6d net.
The Union of Italy, 1815—1895. By W. J. Stillman, L.H.D.
(Concordia). New edition, revised, with an Epilogue by G. M. Trevelyan.
4s 6d net.
Italy from 1494 to 1790. By Mrs H. M. Vernon (K. Dorothea
Ewart). 5s 6d net. Cambridge University Press
Fetter Lane, London. C. F. Clay, Manager

3 9002 00519 5301