THE ACT FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF THE DAY—A SERVICE PREPARED FOR THE
OCCASION—ALTERATIONS IN THE SERVICE TO SUIT THE LANDING OF KING
WILLIAM—REFLECTIONS.
As the Act of Parliament which enjoins the observance of the Fifth of
November is not generally known, or at all events is not within the
reach of ordinary readers, I shall insert in this place. It was couched
in the following terms:—
“Forasmuch as Almighty God hath in all ages shewed his power and mercy,
in the miraculous and gracious deliverance of his Church, and in the
protection of religious kings and states, and that no nation of the
earth hath been blessed with greater benefits than this nation now
enjoyeth, having the true and free profession of the Gospel under our
most gracious Sovereign Lord King James, the most great, learned, and
religious king that ever reigned therein, enriched with a most hopeful
and plentiful progeny, proceeding out of his royal loins, promising
continuance of this happiness and profession to all posterity: the which
many malignant and devilish papists, jesuits, and seminary priests, much
envying and fearing, conspired most horribly when the king’s most
excellent majesty, the queen, the prince, and all the lords spiritual
and temporal, and commons, should have been assembled in the Upper House
of Parliament upon the Fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord
1605, suddenly to have blown up the said whole house with gunpowder: an
invention so inhuman, barbarous, and cruel, as the like was never
before heard of, and was (as some of the principal conspirators thereof
confess) purposely devised and concluded to be done in the said house,
that when sundry necessary and religious laws for preservation of the
church and state were made, which they falsely and slanderously call
cruel laws, enacted against them and their religion, both place and
person should be all destroyed and blown up at once, which would have
turned to the utter ruin of this whole kingdom, had it not pleased
Almighty God, by inspiring the king’s most excellent majesty with a
divine spirit, to interpret some dark phrases of a letter shewed to his
majesty, above and beyond all ordinary construction, thereby
miraculously discovering this hidden treason not many hours before the
appointed time for the execution thereof: therefore the king’s most
excellent majesty, the lords spiritual and temporal, and all his
majesty’s faithful and loving subjects, do most justly acknowledge this
great and infinite blessing to have proceeded merely from God his great
mercy, and to his most holy name do ascribe all honour, glory, and
praise: and to the end this unfeigned thankfulness may never be
forgotten, but be had in a perpetual remembrance, that all ages to come
may yield praises to his Divine Majesty for the same, and have in memory
this joyful day of deliverance:
“Be it therefore enacted, by the king’s most excellent majesty, the
lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons in this present parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all and singular
ministers in every cathedral, and parish-church, or other usual place
for common prayer, within this realm of England, and the dominions of
the same, shall always upon the Fifth day of November say morning
prayer, and give unto Almighty God thanks for this most happy
deliverance: and that all and every person and persons inhabiting within
this realm of England, and the dominions of the same, shall always upon
that day diligently and faithfully resort to the parish-church or chapel
accustomed, or to some usual church or chapel, where the said morning
prayer, preaching, or other service of God, shall be used, and then and
there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of the said prayers,
preaching, or other service of God there to be used and ministered.
“And because all and every person may be put in mind of his duty, and be
there better prepared to the said holy service, be it enacted by the
authority aforesaid, that every minister shall give warning to his
parishioners, publicly in the church at morning prayer, the Sunday
before every such Fifth day of _November_, for the due observation of
the said day. And that after morning prayer or preaching on the said
Fifth day of _November_, they read publicly, distinctly, and plainly,
the present Act[35].”
[Footnote 35: I give the Act entire, because I am not aware that
it is to be found in any popular form; and it is desirable that
the present generation should know how this treason was viewed
by their ancestors.]
A particular service was prepared to be used on the Fifth of November,
and was published in 1606. I have not been able to ascertain whether it
was framed by the convocation; but I am disposed to think that it was
arranged by the bishops, as is still the case in particular prayers on
special occasions, and then set forth by the authority of the crown. In
my copy of the original service printed by Barker and Bill, printers to
the king, the words “Set forth by authority,” stand on the title-page.
The authority of the crown is evidently intended, and not that of
convocation.
The original service was used on this day until the alterations were
effected in 1662, except during the period of the Commonwealth, when
forms of prayer were altogether discarded. It appears, however, from
Fuller, that in his time, the observance of the day was very much
neglected. “If this plot,” says he, “had taken effect, the papists would
have celebrated this day with all solemnity; and it would have taken the
upper hand of all other festivals. The more, therefore, the shame and
pity, that amongst Protestants the keeping of this day (not yet full
fifty years old) begins already to wax weak and decay; so that the red
letters, wherever it is written, seem to grow dimmer and paler in our
English calendar. God forbid that our thankfulness for this great
deliverance, formerly so solemnly observed, should hereafter be like the
_squibs_ which the apprentices in London make on this day; and which
give a great flash and crack at first, but soon go out in a stink[36].”
[Footnote 36: FULLER, book x. 38. From several of the incidental
notices in the works of writers of the times of James I. and
Charles I., we learn that the observance of the day was
gradually neglected. In a curious work of the date of 1618,
there is a notice to the effect that the people were cold in
praising God for their deliverance. See GAREY’S _Amphitheatrum
Scelerum_. 4to. 1618. In the reigns of Charles II. and James
II., when the dread of popery was general, the people
universally observed the Fifth of November as a day of
thanksgiving to God.]
This was written, or, at all events, the work was published, during the
Commonwealth; and it would seem that the various religious parties of
the period, though hostile to popery, did not pay much attention to the
observance of the day, probably because it had been set apart as a holy
day by the church of England. The fact that the day was observed by the
Anglican church, was quite sufficient to induce the presbyterians and
sectaries to disregard it. On no other ground can I account for the
omission or neglect of which Fuller speaks; for the religious parties of
that period, were all animated with feelings of the bitterest hostility
towards the church of Rome.
After the restoration, the day was again solemnly observed in all the
churches of the kingdom; and when the Book of Common Prayer was revised
and set forth, the service for the Fifth of November was revised also,
and published with the Liturgy. The original service was submitted to
the convocation, by whom several alterations were made, which may be
seen by comparing the service published in 1606 with that which is
annexed to the Common Prayer subsequent to 1662, and which continued in
that state until after the Revolution. The title of the original service
is, _“Prayers and Thanksgiving to be used by all the King’s Majestie’s
loving Subjects, for the happy deliverance of his Majesty, the Queen,
Prince, and States of Parliament, from the most traiterous and bloody
intended massacre by gunpowder, the 5 of November, 1605.”_ In the
service as it was revised in 1662, some few alterations were made in the
title. They may be seen by any one, who compares the above with the
title in the service at present in use, for in this particular it has
undergone no change since 1662. In the commencement of the original
service are two verses from 1 Timothy ii. 1, 2: in the revised form of
1662 they are omitted. The rubrics, also, in the service of 1662,
respecting the method to be adopted when the day falls upon a Sunday or
holy-day, are not found in the service of 1606. The psalms appointed to
be read are also different in the two services. In the service as
altered in 1662, and as it stands at present, one of the homilies
against rebellion is appointed to be read, whenever there is no sermon,
while in that of 1606, no mention is made of anything of the kind[37].
[Footnote 37: I notice these alterations, because the original
service is very rare, and consequently accessible only to a
few.]
The service of 1662, like the original, was framed to commemorate one
event only, namely, the deliverance from the gunpowder plot; but when
King William came to the throne, it was deemed desirable, as he had
landed on the same day, to commemorate that event also. It became
necessary, therefore, to alter the service so as to make it suit both
events; _first_, the deliverance from the gunpowder treason; and
_secondly_, the deliverance of the country from popish tyranny and
superstition by the arrival of King William. It has been supposed, that
the service was altered into its present state by the convocation in
1689; but there is no evidence to prove that such was the case. It seems
pretty certain that it was altered by the authority of the crown. A
twofold deliverance, therefore, is commemorated in the present _service_
for the Fifth of November; _first_, from the powder plot, and _next_,
from popery coming in upon the country in a manner more insidious, but
not less dangerous in 1688, when the king on the throne was a papist,
and all possible means were used to establish the papal ascendancy.
It was very natural, that the country should have been struck with the
circumstance of King William’s landing on the Fifth of November,—a day
so remarkable in the calendar of the English church. To the Roman
Catholics the observance of this day is anything but agreeable; but they
can scarcely censure Englishmen for commemorating an event so favourable
to Protestantism. Had such a conspiracy been discovered against the
church of Rome, all papists would regard the day with special reverence.
Protestants are surely to be permitted to enjoy the same liberty, in
celebrating the merciful interposition of Providence in rescuing the
country from destruction.
By some modern writers, the _Revolution_ of 1688 is designated a
_Rebellion_! It is astonishing, that any Protestant should speak of that
event in such terms; since Queen Victoria must be an usurper, if the
revolution was a rebellion. To the principles then established, our
queen is indebted for her crown; and we are indebted to the same
principles, for our civil and religious liberties. The men, who can call
the revolution a rebellion, cannot be members of the church of England;
for had not King James been expelled from the throne, the Anglican
church would have been destroyed. Rebellions can never be lawful; but
revolutions, similar to that in 1688, are perfectly just. Such men can
never read the Service appointed for the _Fifth of November_; at all
events, they cannot read the following passages:—“Accept also, most
gracious God, of our unfeigned thanks, for filling our hearts again with
joy and gladness, after the time that thou hadst afflicted us, and
putting a new song into our mouths, by bringing his majesty King
_William_, upon this day, for the deliverance of our church and nation
from popish tyranny and arbitrary power.” And again, “And didst likewise
upon this day, wonderfully conduct thy servant King _William_, and bring
him safely into _England_, to preserve us from the attempts of our
enemies to bereave us of our religion and laws.” And the following, “We
bless thee for giving his late majesty King _William_ a safe arrival
here, and for making all opposition fall before him, till he became our
king and governor.” It is not possible that the men, who can call the
revolution a rebellion, should concur in those prayers. Had these
individuals lived at the time, they would have quitted the church with
the nonjurors; and with such views, respecting the revolution
settlement, I cannot conceive how they can conscientiously remain in a
church connected with, and supported by a government which owes its very
existence to that event, which they designate a rebellion. Is it not
high time for such men to quit the pale of the Anglican church?
The dangers which threatened the country during the reign of James II.
were very great; and their removal can only be ascribed to Him, in whose
hands are the issues of life. James was determined to reduce the country
into subjection to the papal see, or lose all in the attempt. William
III. was the destined instrument under God, to secure the liberties,
which James laboured with all his might to destroy. The revolution of
1688 was a bloodless one; yet it was complete. It is always dangerous to
alter the succession to the crown; it is a expedient never to be
resorted to except in extreme danger. In 1688, the departure from the
direct line was an act of necessity; for unless such a course had been
adopted, the liberties of England, both temporal and spiritual, would
have been sacrificed. Nor can any one say how long the country would
have been in recovering them from the grasp of the papacy. In such an
emergency the nation looked to the prince of Orange, who responded to
the call, and came to our rescue. When King James quitted the country,
and all hope of his being prevailed upon to govern justly was lost, the
people saw the necessity of departing from the direct line of
succession. Still they were resolved to depart as little as possible.
They looked therefore to the next Protestant heir, being determined to
exclude papists from the throne for ever. That _heir_ was the princess
of Orange, the daughter of King James; and as the prince had been so
instrumental in rescuing the nation from the yoke, he was associated
with her in the government. James, therefore, would not have been
rejected if he had governed righteously; but when he had deserted the
throne, it was determined that it should never again be filled with a
papist. Such were the principles on which the revolution was conducted.
When the prince of Orange set sail from Holland, he was driven back by
contrary winds; and it was feared that the attempt would fail, and that
King James would succeed in his designs. A second time, however, were
the sails unfurled, and a propitious wind bore the fleet to the coast of
Devon, where a landing was effected on the Fifth of November, 1688.
The Fifth of November, 1605, and the Fifth of November, 1688, are
remarkable days in the annals of England—days never to be forgotten by
a grateful people. Had not the prince of Orange arrived, James would
have imposed his yoke upon the English nation. Had he not been resisted,
the laws and liberties of the country must have been prostrated in the
dust, and the church of England sacrificed to popery.
King James, as a papist, felt himself bound to make every effort to
restore popery, and root out Protestantism. All his actions tended to
this point. Motives of policy even did not restrain him in the course
upon which he had entered. His proceedings, therefore, were against the
liberties of the people, and the laws of the land; and on this account
alone was he set aside. The parliament acted as a Protestant parliament,
and enacted a law, that none but a Protestant should ever occupy the
British throne. The parliament of that day well knew that the same
principles would be productive of similar results, and that
Protestantism, and the civil liberties of the nation, would be
endangered by a popish king. Now, had not King William arrived, James
would have been able to execute all his projects respecting the church
and nation; so that every Protestant has reason to be thankful for the
success, which attended the efforts of William III., and to observe the
_Fifth of November_ as a day of thanksgiving to God for his gracious
interposition.
Never was a people less disposed to rise against their sovereign than
were the English against James II. Yet, as he was trampling upon their
liberties, and preparing a yoke of spiritual bondage, what could they
do? Their rights as men and as Christians were at stake; nor could the
danger by which they were threatened, be averted, but by the expulsion
of that sovereign, who had broken his solemn promise, and proved himself
unworthy of being trusted again by his subjects. Our ancestors at the
period of the revolution, acted on the principle of self-defence. It was
necessary to deprive him of his royal power, when that power would have
been employed in depriving the people of their civil and religious
liberties.
It was admitted by an illustrious statesman in France, in the
seventeenth century, that it was the true interest of England to
maintain and defend her Protestant church against popery. As his
observations are so striking, and also so applicable to our present
circumstances, I shall not hesitate to quote them. The book bears this
title, _The Interest of the Princes and States of Christendom_, and
consists of several chapters, in each of which he treats of _The
Interest_ of a particular country. There is a chapter on _The Interest
of England_, from which I quote the following passages: “Queen Elizabeth
(who by her prudent government hath equalled the greatest kings of
Christendom), knowing well the disposition of her state, believed that
the true interest thereof consisted, _first_ in holding a firm union in
itself, deeming (as it is most true) that _England is a mighty animal,
which can never die except it kill itself_. She grounded this
fundamental maxim, _to banish thence the exercise of the Roman
religion_, as the only means to break all the plots of the _Spaniards_,
who under this pretext, did there foment rebellion.” Alluding to some
other particulars of that reign he adds:—“By all these maxims, this
wise princess has made known to her successors that besides the interest
which the king of England has with all princes, he has yet one
_particular_, which is that, _he ought_ thoroughly to acquire the
advancement of the Protestant religion, even with as much zeal as the
King of Spain appears protector of the Catholic.” This was the language
of a statesman. King James, therefore, did not seek the _interest_ of
his country, but _that_ of the papacy[38].
[Footnote 38: See _The Interest of the Princes and States of
Christendom, by the Duke De Rohan, translated into English by H.
H._ Page 53, 12mo. 1641.]
A few words will suffice to shew that King James intended to subvert the
liberties of his subjects, to root out Protestantism, and to
re-establish popery.
In his first speech to his parliament, he promised to support the church
of England as by law established; yet, two days after his accession, he
went publicly to mass. The very same year he appointed several popish
officers to posts in the army, in direct violation of the statute passed
in the late reign on this subject. In 1686, he endeavoured to induce the
twelve judges to declare the legality of the _dispensing power_. While
under the direction of a jesuit, his confessor, a majority of papists
were introduced into his council; and at the same period several popish
bishops were publicly consecrated in St. James’s Chapel, contrary to the
laws of the land. Many of his nobles were removed from their offices of
trust and honour, simply for refusing to embrace popery, while the
clergy were commanded not to introduce controversial topics into their
sermons; and because Sharp, subsequently archbishop of York, refused to
comply with the royal order, he was prosecuted in the courts of justice,
and his diocesan, the bishop of London, was actually suspended for
refusing to censure him contrary to law. In 1687, under the pretence of
relieving the dissenters, he dispensed with the penal laws, in order
that popery might be propagated under cover of a toleration. In 1688,
seven bishops were committed to the Tower, for no other crime than that
of petitioning his majesty in favour of the civil and religious
liberties of the country. At length, when the king’s designs were
obvious to all men, the prince of Orange was applied to by the general
consent of the English nation. That great prince responded to the call,
and, after some little delay at sea, landed on our shores on the Fifth
of November, 1688, and completed the deliverance of the country from the
yoke of bondage. Well, therefore, may this event be coupled with the
deliverance of this nation from the Gunpowder Treason of 1605.
It must strike the reader as very strange, that in matters of religion,
we should not be left at liberty to act for ourselves, without the
interference of the pope and the Roman church. This very fact shows,
that her claim of supremacy is an essential part of her system. The
church of England, the papists allege, has made a departure from the
church of Christ. This would be a grievous charge, if it could be
proved. The church of Christ commands nothing but what is comformable to
the Saviour’s will; nor does she require her children to believe
anything, which is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, or by
evident consequence deduced from those sacred oracles. It is, therefore,
false to assert, that the church of England has made a separation from
the church of Christ. She merely opposes those dogmas, which cannot be
proved from sacred scripture. So far from separating from the church of
Christ, she did not even separate from the church of Rome. The church of
England, in a lawful synod, assembled early in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, declared certain opinions, which were held by some in her
communion, to be contrary to the word of God. This power the church of
England ever possessed; and ages before the Reformation she had often
exercised it. This power had been wrested from the church of England by
force; and at the Reformation she recovered it. William the Conqueror,
and many of his successors, though sons of the Roman church, yet acted
as independently as Queen Elizabeth. For ages our kings did not permit
letters to be received from Rome without being submitted to their
inspection: they did not permit any councils to be held without their
permission; so that ecclesiastical councils were at length termed
convocations, and were always assembled by the authority of the crown.
They did not permit any synodical decree to take effect, but with their
concurrence, and confirmation. Bishops could not excommunicate any baron
or great officer without the royal precept; or if they did, they were
called to account for their conduct in the courts of law. They never
permitted a legate from the pope to enter England, but by express
consent; nor did they suffer appeals to Rome, as was the case when the
encroachments of the papacy were further advanced. Frequently they would
not permit bishops to be confirmed in their sees by the pope, but
commanded the archbishop of Canterbury to give possession to the
individuals appointed to fill them. These are a few instances in which
our kings in ancient times exercised a power in ecclesiastical affairs
independent of the pope; and, therefore, Queen Elizabeth had a full
right to act as her predecessors had done for so many ages. The same
power had been possessed and exercised by every national church from the
earliest times. She proceeded, therefore, to correct abuses; and the
pope and his followers, without even examining the matter, and setting
at nought the ancient privileges of the kingdom, designated this
procedure a departure from the church. The pope wished to impose, as
articles of belief, certain doctrines, which had no foundation in
Scripture: the English church refused to receive them; and the pope
condemned us as schismatics and heretics. Yet, in all reason those who
depart from the Bible, not those who adhere to it, must be the heretics.
To impose these same articles of belief the Gunpowder Treason was
planned! To impose the same, James II. resorted to those means, which
are so well known as having caused him the loss of his crown. To
commemorate our deliverance from such an authority—from such a yoke of
bondage—and from such cruel tyranny, the Fifth of November was ordered
by act of parliament to be for ever kept holy. That act is still in
force; and I am convinced that it will remain in force; for no minister
of the crown, however inclined to favour and conciliate the Papists,
will ever be so rash as to call for a repeal of that act. Such an
attempt would rouse the Protestant feeling of the empire: it would be
viewed as a precursor of the complete ascendency of popery. I am
convinced that the repeal of the act, if such a thing were carried,
would cause the Protestants of England to observe the day with more
solemnity than has ever been practised since the passing of the act. Our
churches would be opened for worship; our pulpits would resound with the
full declaration of the truths of our holy religion against the devices
and the corruptions of popery; and the loud song of praise and
thanksgiving would be offered up from England’s twelve thousand
parishes, with such ardour and devotional zeal, that no attempt to crush
the expression of public feeling would succeed. If, therefore, a
popishly affected ministry should ever venture to repeal the act, they
will be under the necessity, if they would repress the demonstration of
popular feeling, of passing another act to prevent the doors of our
churches from being opened, and the people from assembling together to
praise God on the “Fifth of November.”
In alluding to the observance of the day, Burnet remarks, “Now our Fifth
of November is to be enriched by a second service, since God has
ennobled it so far, as to be the beginning of that which we may justly
hope shall be our complete deliverance from all plots and conspiracies;
and that this second day shall darken, if not quite wear out the
former[39].” To us in the present day both deliverances may be recalled
with equal advantage. Both were wonderful! Both demand a tribute of
gratitude from all who love the religion of the Bible. Burnet observes
in the same sermon, “You who saw the state of things three months ago,
could never have thought that so total a revolution could have been
brought about so easily as if it had been only the shifting of scenes.
These are speaking instances to let you see of what consequence it is to
a nation to have the Lord for its God. We have seen it hitherto in so
eminent a manner, that we are forced to conclude that we are under a
special influence of heaven: and since in God there is no variableness,
nor shadow of turning, we must confess that, if there comes any change
in God’s methods towards us, it arises only out of our ingratitude and
unworthiness.” He then states that, if the advantages so conferred are
not duly appreciated and improved, more dreadful calamities than those
lately expected will overtake the country. When addressing the Commons
on their duties relative to religious matters, he tells them that one
important duty is, “to secure us for ever, as far as human wisdom and
the force of law can do it, from ever falling under the just
apprehensions of the return of idolatry any more amongst us, and the
making the best provision possible against those dangers that lay on us
so lately[40].”
[Footnote 39: BURNET’S _Thanksgiving Sermon before the Commons,
Jan. 31, 1688-1689_.]
[Footnote 40: Ibid. pp. 31, 32.]
I am disposed to think, that the act of parliament by which the
observance of the day is enjoined, is not read, in the present day, in
our churches: some of the clergy have never even seen it. The present
work is intended to call the attention of churchmen, and especially of
the clergy, to this important subject. Should I be assured, that any of
my brethren have been led, by the perusal of this volume, to regard the
day with more solemnity than usual, I shall feel myself amply
recompensed for my labours. At the period of the Revolution, and for
many years after, the act, as we learn from incidental notices of
contemporary writers, was always read by the clergy from the pulpits.
The people were then fully sensible of the deliverance, which had been
completed on that day; while the clergy invariably directed the
attention of their parishioners to the subject; and both clergy and
people presented their tribute of gratitude to that gracious Being from
whom all good things proceed. And why should the present generation be
less mindful of the great deliverance than their ancestors? We have just
as much reason to be thankful as the men of that generation; for if the
papists had succeeded in their designs, not only would the liberties of
that age have been sacrificed, but those also of succeeding periods. May
the Protestants of this kingdom never be forgetful of the glorious Arm
by which our salvation from papal thraldom and error was alone effected!
It is generally allowed that a retrospection into the transactions of
past ages is as a glass, in which the clearest view of future events may
be obtained: for, by comparing things together, we shall arrive at this
conclusion, that men of the same principles will always, either directly
or indirectly, aim at the same ends. The end, which all Romanists have
in view, is the destruction of the church of England as the greatest
bulwark of Protestantism. In past ages this end was sought to be
accomplished directly by treason and murder; in the present day the end
is attempted by secret means, by an affectation of moderation, and by
an avowal of sentiments which are not in reality maintained. Let
Protestants ever bear in mind, that the same causes will generally
produce the same effects, though the means employed may be varied
according to times and circumstances. Ever since the revolution in 1688,
popery, in this country, has worn a mask; but the papal party are now
venturing to cast it aside, and to appear in their real character.
Within the last few years scenes have been exhibited in this Protestant
land, which our ancestors would never for one moment have tolerated.
Many Protestants are lukewarm amid these ominous proceedings. May they
be aroused from their present apathy into a spirit worthy of the men, by
whom our deliverance from papal tyranny was effected in ONE THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHT.
LATELY PUBLISHED.
By the same Author, in One Vol. 12mo. 6s.
THE STATE OF POPERY AND JESUITISM IN ENGLAND, from the Reformation to
the Period of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill in 1829.
“We consider this little book to be exceedingly well timed, and highly
deserving of perusal by all who are willing to understand the machinery
which the Church of Rome puts in motion for the advancement of its
cause.”—_Times._
“A clear and practical development of the subtle workings of
Popery.”—_Church of England Quarterly Review._
“An opportune and very interesting work.”—_Conservative Journal and
Church of England Gazette._
“A useful volume of reference for the series of historical events
connected with the subject.”—_British Critic._
“We do not know a modern work of the same size more opportune or more
valuable.”—_Frazer’s Magazine._
By the same, One Vol. 8vo. Price 12s.
A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH EPISCOPACY, from 1640 to 1662, &c.
“The author has executed his task with very creditable skill, with very
laborious research, and with a moderation and impartiality, which
entitle him to unqualified commendation. Mr. L. has been abused and
misrepresented by one of the organs of that faction which seems to
think, that to subvert the constitution, the shortest and most effectual
method is by beginning with the Established Church; but will any person
of veracity, any person of ordinary decency, say that he has deserved
the accusation which the Edinburgh reviewer, with a want of decency
peculiarly his own, has brought against him?”—_Times._
“A very valuable addition to the ecclesiastical literature of the
day.”—_British Magazine._
“He tells the tale perspicuously and dispassionately.”—_British
Critic._
“A book of much interest, and an important addition to our historical
knowledge.”—_Literary Gazette._
“An admirable and well-digested history.”—_Frazer’s Magazine._
“Mr. L. has our thanks for endeavouring to illustrate in a popular form
a most interesting period of our church annals.”—_Church of England
Magazine._
“The sages of the North have traduced him as a malignant. No higher
encomium can be desired for any work than to say that it is the
production of a writer who has earned such abuse.”—_Dublin Christian
Examiner._
“An interesting and valuable history.”—_Christian Observer._
Also, Price 3d., or 25 for 5s.
PROTESTANTISM THE OLD RELIGION, POPERY THE NEW. (Sixth Thousand).
“An admirable tract.”—_Church of England Quarterly Review._
“It cannot be too widely circulated.”—_Somerset Constitutional and Bath
Post._
“A tract which ought to be distributed in tens of thousands.”—_Felix
Farley’s Bristol Journal._
LONDON:
HARRISON AND CO., ST. MARTIN’S LANE.
Transcriber’s Note: The table below lists all corrections applied to the
original text.
p. 049: [punctuation] on the subject by Catesby, -> Catesby.
p. 059: apparent at Chring-cross -> Charing-cross
p. 075: [added period] proceeded to pronounce judgment.
p. 096: [added period] publicly avowed and defended.
p. 111: were twice overthown -> overthrown
p. 132: I shall fell myself -> feel