¹ Irenicum, or a Weapon-salve for the Church's Wounds (1661, 1662)Google Scholar. Stilling-fleet (1635–99) wrote variously on the relations of Church and state and took part in the major controversies on this issue; he became Dean of St. Paul's in 1678 and Bishop of Worcester in 1689. Two of his later pieces, The Mischief of Separation (1680)Google Scholar and The Unreasonableness of Separation (1680/1)Google Scholar, reversed the position taken in the Irenicum.

² Hallam, Henry, Constitutional History of England (Everyman ed.), II, 293–94Google Scholar, believed that Charles had no intention of doing anything and therefore the High Church party did not oppose his schemes.

³ 1 Eliz. c. 1 & 2; 23 Eliz. c, 1; 29 Eliz. c. 6; 35 Eliz. c. 1; 3 Jac. I c. 4 & 5; 21 Jac. I c. 4.

⁴ The History and Proceedings of the Souse of Commons from the Restoration to the Present Time (London, 1742), I, 6.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., 171. See also his “Declaration to all His loving Subjects … concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs” on October 25, 1660, wherein he remarked “How much the Peace of the State is concerned in the Peace of the Church,” (Lords Journals, XI, 179–82Google Scholar); and the proclamation of January 10, 1661, “against seditious meetings and conventicles under pretense of religious worship,” in which he repudiated any desire “to restrain tender consciences.” Tudor and Stuart Proclamations (Oxford, 1910), no. 3278.Google Scholar

⁶ Clark, Henry W., History of English Nonconformity (London, 1913), II, 14–16, 23Google Scholar: Stoughton, John, Ecclesiastical History of England: The Church of the Restoration (London, 1870), I, 53, 101–5.Google Scholar

⁷ Barbour, Violet, Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, Secretary of State to Charles II (Washington, 1914), 62–66Google Scholar; Bate, Frank, The Declaration of Indulgence, 1672, A Study in the Eise of Organised Dissent (London, 1908), 36–37Google Scholar; Burnet, Gilbert, History of His Own Time (London, 1724), I, 178–81.Google Scholar

⁸ House of Lords Mss., Hist. Mss. Comm., VII (1879), 167b–168aGoogle Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1663–64, 65Google Scholar. The preamble of the bill recited that “Whereas divers of His Majesty's subjects through error of judgment and misguided consciences (whereunto the licentiousness of the late unhappy times has much contributed) do not conform themselves to the order of divine worship and service established by law, and although His majesty and both Houses of Parliament are satisfied that these scruples of conscience are ill grounded, and the government of the church, with the service therof as now established, is the best that is anywhere extant, and more effectual to the preservation of the Protestant religion, yet hoping that clemency and indulgence may wear out these prejudices and reduce the dissenters to the unity of the church, and considering that this indulgence cannot be dispensed by any rule, but must vary according to the circumstances and principles of those to whom it is to be granted, and that His Majesty is the best judge where and to whom this indulgence is to be dispensed, to the end that His Majesty may be enabled to exersise it with. universal satisfaction, the Bill proposes to enact that the King may by letters patent under the Great Seal, or by such other ways as to His Majesty may seem meet, dispense with the Act of Uniformity, and with any other laws or statutes concerning the same, or requiring oaths or subscriptions, or which do enjoin conformity to the order, discipline, and worship established vn this church, and the penalties in the said laws imposed, or any of them, and may grant licenses to. subjects of the protestant religion, of whose inoffensive and peaceable disposition His Majesty shall be persuaded, to enjoy the use and exercise of their religion and worship, though differing from the public rule. Provided that no such indulgence or dispensation shall extend to the tolerating or permitting the use or exercise of the Popish or Roman Catholic religion, or to enable any person to hold any office; of public trust, who at the beginning of this Parliament was by law disabled thereunto.”

⁹ Tudor and Stuart Proc, I, no. 3383.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bate, , The Declaration, 38–39Google Scholar; Cal. State Payers, Dom., 1664–65, 20.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike (London, 1854), V, 302–3Google Scholar, contains the bill in full.

¹² Ibid., 302–8; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667, 552Google Scholar; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667–68, 68, 88, 97, 165Google Scholar. To the Presbyterians the government offered admission of those ordained by presbyters to the ministerial function by the imposition of the bishop's hands with the injunction to preach the word of God and minister the sacraments in any Church of England congregation when lawfully appointed thereto. Those admitted to any ecclesiastical function or as schoolmasters should subscribe, in addition to oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a declaration approving the doctrine, worship, and government of the Church as containing all things necessary to salvation and swearing never to bring in any contrary or disturbing doctrine. Kneeling at the sacrament, the use of the cross in baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus, were to be left indifferent. In case it became necessary to alter the liturgy, every person admitted to preach should openly declare his assent to its lawfulness. To the Independents the government promised the liberty of exercising their religion in public, provided the names of the persons so tolerated be registered along with their congregations and teachers. They were to be disabled from holding public office, but required to pay a fine for such disability; they were to be exempted from the penalties inflicted for non-attendance at the parish churches, but obliged to pay all public duties to the parish. The indulgence was to continue three years. The Presbyterians accepted the government's proposals with the qualifications that the ministers, when admitted by the bishop, should have leave to state that they were not renouncing their earlier ordination and that the new imposture was a magistrate's license, that they assented to the doctrine of the thirty-nine Articles but excepted the three relating to ceremonies and prelacy, that a suspended minister could appeal from the bishop to the King's courts, and that they desired some liturgical changes allowing discretion in the use of certain ceremonies and phrases. For their part, the Independents proposed that men professing faith in the Trinity and acknowledging the Scriptures as the revealed Word of God, though differing in doctrine, worship, and discipline, from the Establishment, should not be molested, provided this liberty did not extend to disturbers of the peace, Papists, or blasphemers and profaners of Christ's religion. Meeting-places were to be public and authorized by the Quarter Sessions.

¹³ Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the Souse of Commons, from the year 1667 to the year 1694 (London, 1769), I, 104–31Google Scholar; and, at greater length, Caroline Bobbins, The Diary of John Milward, Esq., Member of Parliament for Derbyshire September, 1666 to May, 1668 (Cambridge, 1938), 214–22, 248–50, 325–26.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Tudor and Stuart Proc, IGoogle Scholar, no. 3514; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667–68, 276.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667–68, 418, 546Google Scholar; Ibid., 1668–69, 96, 151, 206, 354.

¹⁶ Grey, , Debates, I, 146Google Scholar. “Liberty has been given for any man to bring in a Bill for union; but no such thing has been done.”

¹⁷ Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1668–69, 408, 412Google Scholar; Tudor and Stuart Proc., I, no. 3529.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Grey, , Debates, I, 160–63.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., I, 220–28; Lords Journals, XII, 260.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bath Mss., II (Hist. Mss. Comm., 1907), 152.Google Scholar

²¹ Bate, , The Declaration, passim.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 87; Clemesha, H. W., A History of Preston in Amounderness (Manchester, 1912), 307–8Google Scholar; Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society, I, II, III (London, 1901–1908)Google Scholar, passim; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1678, 45, 284, 543Google Scholar; Ibid., 1671–72, 217–18. A license issued under the Indulgence reads: “Charles by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. To all Mayors, Bayliffs, Constables, and other our Officers and Ministers, Civil and Military, whom it may concern, Greeting. In pursuance of Our Declaration of the 15th of March, 1671/2. We have allowed, and We do hereby allow of a Roome or Roomes in the house of John Angier of Manchester pish in Laneash. to be a place for the Use of Such as do not conform to the Church of England, who are of the Perswasion commonly called presbyterien to meet and assemble in, in order to their publick Worship and Devotion. And all and singular Our Officers and Ministers, Ecclesiastical, Civil and Military whom it may concern, are to take due notice hereof: And they, and every of them, are hereby strictly, charged and required to hinder any tumult or disturbance, and to protect them in their said Meetings and Assemblies.” Nightingale, B., The Ejected of 1662 in Cumberland and Westmorland, their predecessors and successors, I (Manchester, 1911), 54–55.Google Scholar

²³ Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1672–73, 332–33, 256–57.Google Scholar

²⁴ History and Proceedings of the Commons, I, 169–71Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, II, 55–69Google Scholar; A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England, I, (1741), 42–46.Google Scholar

²⁵ Hist, and Proc. of the Commons, I, 172Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, II, 38–45, 69–82, 89–135, 163–80Google Scholar; Coll. of Debates, I, 46–47Google Scholar. The bill contained many features anticipatory of the Toleration Act of 1689; it provided “1. That ease shall be given his Majesty's Protestant Subjects, Dissenters in matters of Religion, who shall subscribe the Articles of the Doctrine of the Church of England, and shall take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. 2. That the said Protestant Subjects be eas'd from all Pains and Penalties for not coming to Church. 3. That the Clause in the late Act of Uniformity for declaring the Assent and Consent, be taken away by the Bill. 4. That the said Protestant Subjects be eas'd from all Pains and Penalties for not meeting together for Performance of any Religious Exercise. 5. That every Teacher shall first give Notice of the Place where he intends such his Meeting, to the respective Quarter-Sessions; where in open Court he shall first make such Subscription, and take such Oaths as aforesaid, and receive from thence a Certificate thereof, where all such Proceedings shall remain upon Record. 6. That any such Teacher may exercise as aforesaid until the next respective Quarter-Sessions, and no longer, in Case he should not first take the Oaths and make such Subscription before two of the neighbouring Justices of the Peace; and shall first give them Notice of the Place of this intended Meeting, and take the Certificate thereof under the said Justices Hand; a Duplicate whereof they are to return into the next Quarter-Sessions. 7. That the Doors and Passages of all Houses and Places where the said Dissenters do meet, shall be always open and free during the Time of such Exercise. 8. That if any Dissenter refuse to take the Church-Wardens Oaths, that then he shall find them another fit Person, who is no Dissenter, to execute that Office and shall pay him for his Pains.”

²⁶ Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1673, 101.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid., 367–68. At the same time justices of the peace were being severely reprimanded for not enforcing the penal laws. Ibid., 369.

²⁸ Grey, , Debates, II, 197.Google Scholar

²⁹ Bath Mss., II, 155–56.Google Scholar

³⁰ House of Lords Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., IX, 1884), 44bGoogle Scholar. Simultaneously the Commons were preparing a “severe Bill” for distinguishing between Papists and Protestant dissenters. Coll. of Debates. I, 62–63Google Scholar; Fleming Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., 1890), 106–7Google Scholar. Additional evidence of the antipathy against Catholics was the sharp order of January 14, 1674, requiring all, except householders and those licensed by six of the Privy Council, to leave London by January 19, commanding the Quarter Sessions to list Papist householders.

³¹ Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1673–75, 27, 96, 549–54.Google Scholar

³² History and Proceedings of the House of Lords, I (1742), 164–65.Google Scholar

³³ House of Lords Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., IX, pt.ii), 68a–bGoogle Scholar; Braye Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., X, pt. vi, 1887), 183.Google Scholar

³⁴ House of Lords Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., XI, pt. ii, 1887), 201–2Google Scholar; Montagu Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., 1900), 168, 174–75Google Scholar; Mss. in Various Collections (Hist. Mss. Comm., 1901), 151, 153Google Scholar; Portland Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., XIV, pt. ii, 1894), III, 356Google Scholar; Kenyon Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., XIV, pt. iv, 1894), 124Google Scholar; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1675–76, xviii–xix, 23, 61, 129Google Scholar; Ibid., 1676–77, 46, 132, 216, 449, 547; Ibid., 1677–78, 53; Ibid., 1678, 45, 66; Ibid., 1679–80, 514, 519, 526–29; Ibid., 1680–81, 104, 238, 334; Tudor and Stuart Proc., I, no. 3624; Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford, 1857), I, 19Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, V, 250–55.Google Scholar

³⁵ Grey, . Debates, VII, 414, 422–25.Google Scholar

³⁶ It need scarcely be recalled that the Popish Plot had intensified hostility to Catholics and had to a considerable degree distracted public attention from the Protestant dissenters. The Calendars and similar sources are filled with orders and demands for the enforcement of laws against recusants and with reports of their activities, real or imagined.

³⁷ House of Lords Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., XI, pt. ii, 1887), 204Google Scholar. On March 24, 1681, one member inquired about it in vain. Grey, , Debates, VIII, 295.Google Scholar

³⁸ House of Lords Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., XI, pt. ii), 202.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 202–204.

⁴⁰ History and Proceedings of the Commons, II, 42–48Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, VIII, 201–204, 216–18.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Fleming Mss. (Hist. Mss. Comm., XII, pt. vii, 1890), 184Google Scholar; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1680–81, 238, 334, 610Google Scholar; Ibid., 1682, 24, 36–7, 237, 457, 545–46, 571, 608–9; Ibid., 1683 203.

⁴² Cal State Papers, Dom., 1680–81, 45Google Scholar; Ibid., 1682, 238, 456, 602–3.

⁴³ Ibid., 1683, 7–8, 100.

⁴⁴ Portland, Mss., II (Hist. Mss. Comm., XIII, pt. ii, 1893), 159.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Hist. Mss. Comm., IV (1874), 405. On October 6, 1685, the Quarter Sessions of Devon resolved to enforce the laws against the sectaries and fanatics, increased the fines, and insisted that “no more indulgence … be shown till this generation of rebels is cut off.” Tudor and Stuart Proc., I, no. 3821.

⁴⁶ Luttrell, , A Brief Relation, I, 337. 367, 378, 387, 393Google Scholar; Fleming Mss. (loc. cit.), 203Google Scholar; Whiting, C. E., Studies in English Puritanism from the Restoration to the Revolution, 1660–1688 (London. 1931), 182.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Portland Mss., III (loc. cit., XIV, pt. ii, 1894), 402Google Scholar; Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby, Bart. (London, 1904), 290, 296.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Macaulay, , History of England (New York, n.d.), II, 165Google Scholar; The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax (London, 1912), 69, 73, 75–77, 128–41.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Hist. Mss. Comm., Ill, 273, 319. In July, 1688, James ordered the admission of thirty Quakers as freemen of Norwich without the oaths, but the corporation refused, 39 to 8. Whiting, , Studies m English Puritanism, 380.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ SirDuckett, George, Penal Laws and Test Acts. Questions touching their Repeal propounded in 1687–8 by James II (London, 1882), 22–29Google Scholar; Fleming Mss. (loc. cit.), 208Google Scholar. In July, 1687, some London aldermen were displaced for opposing the Declaration. Luttrell, , A Brief Relation, I, 410–11Google Scholar. On the other hand, many groups of dissenters sent addresses of thanks to the King. The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston (Camden Society, London, 1845), 271, 275–76.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby, Bart., 302Google Scholar; Fleming Mss. (loc. cit.), 213, 216; Kenyon Mss. (Hist. Mss., Comm., XIV, pt. iv, 1894), 190.Google Scholar

⁵² History and Proceedings of the Lords, I, 349.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 352.

⁵⁴ Hist. Mss. Comm., V (1876), 376.

⁵⁵ History and Proceedings of the Commons, II, 285.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Clark, , English Nonconformity, II, 114–16, 131–32Google Scholar; Gwatkin, H. M., Church and State in England to the Death of Queen Anne (London, 1917), 378–79.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hist, and Proc. of the Commons, II, 293.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Hist, and Proc. of the Lords, I, 352–57.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Grey, , Debates, IX, 252–54, 258–63Google Scholar; Parliamentary History, V, 263–66.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Calendar to the Sessions Books, Sessions Minute Books and other Sessions Records, 1658 to 1700, I (Hertford, 1930), 426Google Scholar; Kenyan Mss. (loc. cit.). 273, 411Google Scholar; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1697, 467, 484Google Scholar. In 1692 Dr. Humphrey Prideaux lamented the growth of faction; the “Act of Toleration hath added this mischeife, that since the liberty granted by it, a great part of the nation worship God noe way at all, but are degenerated into perfect atheisme.” Hist. Mss. Comm., V, 376.

⁶¹ Mullett, Charles F.. “The Corporation Act and the Election of English Protestant Dissenters to Corporation Offices,” Virginia Law Review, XXI (1935), 661Google Scholar, and, more generally, “The Legal Position of English Protestant Dissenters 1660–1689,” Ibid., XXII (1936), 495–526, and “The Legal Position of English Protestant Dissenters, 1689–1767,” Ibid., XXIII (1937), 389–418, and “The Legal Position of the English Protestant Dissenters, 1767–1812,” Ibid., XXV (1939), 671–97.