Church, after conviction, to banishment, and, in case of return, to death, without benefit of clergy!

It enacts, further, that "any person, above the age of sixteen, who, after the 1st of July, 1664, shall be present at any meeting, under colour or pretence of any exercise of religion, in other manner than is allowed by the liturgy or practice of the Church of England, where shall be five, or more persons, than the household, shall, for the first offence, suffer three months' imprisonment, upon record made upon oath, under the hand and seal of a justice of peace, or pay a sum not exceeding five pounds; for the second offence, six months' imprisonment, or ten pounds; and for the third offence, the offender to be banished to some of the American plantations for seven years, excepting New England, or Virginia, or pay one hundred pounds; and, in case they return, or make their escape, such persons are to be adjudged felons, and suffer death without benefit of clergy. Sheriffs, or justices of peace, or others commissioned by them, are empowered to dissolve, dissipate, and break up all unlawful conventicles, and to take into custody such of their number as they think fit. They who suffer such conventicles in their houses, or barns, are liable to the same forfeitures as other offenders. The prosecution is to be within three months. Married women taken at conventicles, are to be imprisoned for twelve months, unless their husbands pay forty shillings for their redemption. This act to continue in force for three years after the next session of Parliament."

The object of this act was to bring home to the laity the provisions of the Act of Uniformity, which affected only the clergy; and how effectually it answered this purpose, will presently appear. But still greater severities awaited the clergy, by an act which had the royal assent, October 31, 1665. It was entitled, "An Act to restrain Nonconformists from inhabiting Corporations;" the preamble to which sets forth, That divers persons, and others in holy orders, not having subscribed the Act of Uniformity, have taken upon them to preach in unlawful assemblies,

and to instil the poisonous principles of schism and rebellion into the hearts of his Majesty's subjects, to the great danger of the church and kingdom. Be it therefore enacted, That all such Nonconformist ministers shall take the following oath:I, A B, do swear, that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the King, and that I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms, by his authority, against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him, in pursuance of such commissions; and that I will not, at any time, endeavour any alteration of government, either in Church or State. And all such Nonconformist ministers shall not, after the 24th of March 1665, unless in passing the road, come or be within five miles of any city, town corporate, or borough, that sends burgesses to Parliament; or within five miles of any parish, town, or place, wherein they have, since the Act of Oblivion, been parson, vicar, or lecturer, or where they have preached in any conventicle, on any pretence whatsoever, before they have taken and subscribed the aforesaid oath, before the Justices of Peace, at their quarter-sessions for the county, in open court, upon forfeiture, for every such offence, of the sum of £40, one-third to the King, another third to the poor, and a third to him that shall sue for it. And it is further enacted, That such as shall refuse the oath aforesaid, shall be incapable of teaching any public or private schools, or of taking any boarders or tablers, to be taught or instructed, under pain of £40, to be distributed as above. Any two Justices of Peace, upon oath made before them of any offence committed against this act, are empowered to commit the offender to prison for six months, without bail or mainprize."

This brings up the history of the Church of England, so far as the documentary evidence is concerned, to the memorable year of 1666, or to the prophetical year of six hundred and three score and six. Let us now examine the operation of these several acts of Parliament, as recorded by some of our most unexceptionable historians of this period, that, according as it is written, "In * see what has been said & about this date in page 31.

the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established." We will begin with Bishop Burnet.

state.

"England," says he, "was at this time (1665) in a dismal The plague continued for the most part of the summer, in and about London, and began to spread over the country.. The Earl of Clarendon moved the King to go to Salisbury; but the plague broke out there. So the Court went to Oxford, where another session of Parliament was held; and though the conduct at sea was severely reflected on, yet all that was necessary for carrying on the war another year was given. The House of Commons kept up the ill humour they were in against the Nonconformists very high. A great many of the ministers of London were driven away by the plague, though some few stayed. Many churches being shut up, when the inhabitants were in a more than ordinary disposition to profit by good sermons, some of the Nonconformists, upon that, went into the empty pulpits, and preached, and, it was given out, with very good success; and in many other places, they began to preach openly, not without reflecting on the sins of the court, and on the ill usage that they themselves had met with. This was represented very odiously at Oxford. So a severe bill was brought in, requiring all the silenced ministers to take an oath, declaring it was not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the King, or any commissioned by him; and that they would not, at any time, endeavour an alteration in the government of the Church or State. Such as refused this, were not to come within five miles of any city, or parliament borough, or of the church, where they had served. This was much opposed in both Houses, but more faintly in the House of ComThe Earl of Southampton spoke vehemently against it in the house of Lords; he said, he could take no such oath himself, for, how firm soever he had always been to the Church, yet, as things were managed, he did not know but he himself might see cause to endeavour an alteration.... .All that were the

mons.

secret favourers of Popery, promoted it: their constant maxim being, to bring all the sectaries into so desperate a state, that they should be at mercy, and forced to desire a toleration on such terms as the King should think fit to grant it on. Few of the Nonconformists took this oath; many more refused it, who were put to hard shifts to live, being so far separated from the places from which they drew their chief subsistence. Yet, as all this severity, in a time of war, and of such a public calamity, drew very hard censures on the promoters of it, so it raised the compassions of their party so much, that I have been told they were supplied more plentifully at that time than ever."

and

If such were the dismal state of affairs in England, they were, according to the same author, much more dismal in Scotland, for, "wherever the people had generally forsaken their churches, the guards were quartered through the country. Sir James Turner, that commanded them, was naturally fierce, but was mad when he was drunk, and that was very often. So he was ordered by the Lord Rothes to act according to such directions as Burnet (a bishop, but not the author) should send him ; he went about the country, and received such lists as the ministers brought him, of those who came not to church; and without any other proof, or any legal conviction, he set such a fine on them as he thought they could pay; and sent soldiers to lie on them, till it was paid. I knew him well afterward, when he came to himself, being out of employment. He was a learned man, but had been always in armies, and knew no other rule but to obey orders; he told me he had no regard to any law, but acted, as he was commanded, in a military way. He confessed it went often against the grain with him to serve such a debauched and worthless company as the clergy generally were, and that sometimes he did not act up to the rigour of his orders, for which he was often chid, both by Lord Rothes and Sharpe, but was never checked for his illegal and violent proceedings; and though the complaints of him were very high, so that, when he was afterwards seized on by the party, they intended to

make a sacrifice of him, yet, when they looked into his orders, and found that his proceedings, how fierce so ever, fell short of these, they spared him, as a man that had merited, by being so gentle among them."

Such were the proceedings in 1665. Let us turn to those in 1667, immediately after the Pentland rising. "Thus, this rebellion (says Burnet), that might have been so turned, in the conclusion of it, that the clergy might have gained reputation and honour, by a wise and merciful conduct, did now exasperate the country more than ever against the Church. The forces were ordered to lie in the west, where Dalziel (another of the emissaries of the bishops) acted the Muscovite too grossly. He threatened to spit men, and to roast them, and he killed some in cold blood, or rather in hot blood, for he was then drunk when he ordered one to be hanged, because he would not tell where his father was for whom he was in search. When he heard of any that did not go to church, he did not trouble himself to set a fine upon him, but he set as many soldiers upon him, as should eat him up in a night. By this means, all people were struck with such a terror, that they came regularly to church, and the clergy were so delighted with it, that they used to speak of that time, as the poets do of the golden age. They never interceded for any compassion to their people, nor did they take care to live more regularly, or to labour more carefully. They looked on the soldiery as their patrons: they were ever in their company, complying with them in their excesses, and, if they were not much wronged, they rather led them into them than checked them for them. Dalziel, himself, and his officers, were so disgusted with them, that they increased the complaints, that had now more credit from them, than from those of the country, who were looked on as their enemies. Things of so strange a pitch in vice were told of them, that they seemed quite incredible."-History of his Own Times, vol. i. pp. 314, 317, 296, 333.

Such is the account which this Bishop gives of the conduct of his own Church and clergy in Scotland. I now return to the