penalties or otherwise, but that endeavours be used to win them by sound doctrine, and the example of a good conversation. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, or discipline, publicly held forth, shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in the profession of their faith and exercise of their religion, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts; provided this liberty be not extended to popery, nor prelacy, nor to such as, under a profession of Christ, hold forth and practise licentiousness. That all laws, statutes, and ordinances -contrary to the aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed null and void."*

Thus a legal toleration was granted to all errors, heresies, and sectaries whatever, and was denied to nothing but popery, prelacy, and immorality, which three were put upon a level.† "It was familiar," says Dr. Walker, " with them (as in truth it was with most of the writings, sermons, discourses, orders, and resolves of parliament, and other public acts of these times) to join popery and prelacy together, and sometimes to rank it

* Dugdale, p. 416.

+ Neal says, that in this respect this instrument of government was "undoubtedly faulty." Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iv, p. 80.

with every thing else that was odious or detestable," as particularly when in Jan. 1654, "the parliament debating the point of liberty of conscience, gravely resolved to allow it to all who should not maintain Atheism, Popery, PRELACY, Profaneness, or any damnable heresy."*

Though episcopacy was totally abolished, yet the assembly of the adherents of the church were connived at: it must be allowed that the members of the church of England had at this time much more favor and indulgence than under the parliament. Several of the clergy publicly exercised their ministry, without the fetters of oaths, subscriptions, or engagements. Dr. Robert Hall, the eldest son of Bishop Hall, was permitted to keep the rectory of Clystheydon, Devon. "all the time of the usurpation, and there continued a great patron and supporter of the sequestered clergy." Dr. George Hall, another of Bishop Hall's sons, afterwards bishop of Chester, was allowed to preach towards the end of the usurpation, at St. Bartholomew's Exchange, and at St. Botolph's Aldersgate, London. When he was sequestered from his preferment in Cornwall, he would have kept a small school for his subsistence, but he was not permitted to do it. Dr. George Wilde, during some part of the usurpation, kept up a

religious meeting for the loyalists in Fleet-street, where the whole service of the church of England was constantly and solemnly performed." Dr. John Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester in 1650, was minister of St. Clement's Eastcheap, where he preached the substance of his celebrated Exposition of the Creed.* Several of the bishops, who had been kept from public services by the covenant and the engagement, preached again publicly, as Archbishop Usher, Bishop Brownrigge, and others: Bishop Hall also preached and published some sermons about this time.

Bishop Kennet is pleased to give this testimony to the liberality of Cromwell in this respect: "it is certain that the protector was for liberty, and the utmost latitude to all parties, so far as consisted with the peace and safety of his person and government; and therefore he was never jealous of any cause or sect on the account of heresy and falsehood, but on his wiser accounts of political peace and quiet and even the prejudice he had against the episcopal party was more for their being royalists, than for being of the good old church. Dr. Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, kept a conventicle in London, in as open a manner as dissenters did after the

* Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, part ii, pp. 25, 26, 67, 117.

toleration; and so did several other episcopal divines."*

The time was now arrived, when, by the instrument of government, the protector was obliged to call a parliament; he accordingly issued writs, omitting many of the small boroughs and inserting large towns in their stead, and making more members for counties in proportion to their extent. This was an alteration generally expected as proper to be made with more authority, and in better times. The only restriction laid upon the election of members to this parliament, was, that none who had been in arms on the side of the king, nor their sons, should be capable of being elected. This parliament met with the usual formalities, Sept. 3, 1654; and Cromwell made them a long speech. But the commons no sooner entered upon business, than they took into consideration the form of the present government, and the authority which had convened them. This was warmly debated for eight days together, with many severe reflections upon the person of the protector. All the influence of his party could not divert the debate. Cromwell, mortified and

Conform. Plea, part iv, p. 510. Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iv, p. 137. Warner's Eccles. Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 586. See also Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, part ii, p. 142.

exasperated exceedingly, sent for the commons to the painted chamber; and reprehending them for their freedom in debating on the instrument of government, the fundamentals of which, he said, were never to be called in question, he told them that he found it necessary to appoint a recognition of the authority by which they were made a parliament, before they went any more into the house. So when they returned, they found a guard placed at the door, denying entrance to all who would not subscribe the following recognition: "I do hereby freely promise and engage, to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and will not propose or give my consent to alter the government, as it is settled in one single person, and a parliament."

Though this was signed by about three hundred members, yet they looked upon it as a violation of the privileges of parliament; and were so far from settling his highness in the government, in the way he wished for, that after five months spent in wrangling and ill humour, the time they were required to sit according to the instrument of government, he sent for them again, and in a tedious, embarrassed, angry speech, dissolved them, without confirming any act they had passed.*

See Dugdale's View, pp. 423-429.