profanation."

There is no mention of harm done at Bristol, Durham, Chester, and York. Throughout England, tradition is constant in her story, that the violation of churches was the work of soldiers.

The excess to which ceremonial worship had been carried by the Laudian clergy, and the almost Popish reverence with which images and pictures had been regarded by some of them, inspired an intense Protestant indignation in numbers of Englishmen. They prized the Reformation, and thought they saw in the Anglo-Catholicism of their day a national defection from the faith of their fathers, like setting up the calves in Bethel and Dan, or the idolatrous service of Baal in Samaria. And whilst fearing the return of Romanism, with Romanism they identified things which have no necessary connection with it. Their zeal, though religious and disinterested, lacked wisdom, and had mixed up with it such alloy as commonly adheres to that passion in the breasts of mortals. It resembled the fierceness and fury of a noted reformer of Israel, who "brought forth the images out of the house of Baal and burned them;" nor was it untouched by a spirit of proud self-complacency like his when he cried: "Come see my zeal for the Lord of Hosts." Again and again, as we mark Puritan doings in cathedrals and churches, we are ready to exclaim: "The driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi, for he driveth furiously."2

'It appears from the following entry that when the wars were over, the cathedral was desecrated by being made a prison. "That a letter be written to the Mayor of Salisbury, to let him know that the Council are informed that the Dutch prisoners who were lately sent to the town, to be kept there, have done much spoil upon the pillars of

the cloisters, and to the windows of the library there, being committed to custody in that place, and also that by reason that due care hath not been had over them, some of them have escaped, &c." October 10, 1653-State Papers, Order Book of Council.

2

Again we may remark that like excesses had been committed in Roman

A broad construction was given to the meaning of orders for suppressing superstition and idolatry. In the month of January, 1644, when Oliver Cromwell was Governor of Ely, a Mr. Hitch officiated in the cathedral in the usual way. No express law, as yet, had been made against the Prayer Book or choral worship. But, interpreting the latter as "superstitious," and apprehending that its continuance would irritate his soldiers, Cromwell wrote to this clergyman and required him to forbear a service which he styled "unedifying and offensive." The clergyman persisted. The Governor,-wearing his hat according to custom, with his men, entered the church, and found Mr. Hitch chaunting in the choir. "I am a man under authority," said Oliver, "and am commanded to dismiss this assembly "-the only authority, in fact, being the order about superstition, backed by the probability of a disturbance in case the service was continued. When Hitch determinately went on, Cromwell's words, "Leave off your fooling and come down, sir," broke up the cathedral worship, and shewed the sort of man the clergy had to deal with.

While crosses, images, and choral services were put down, the Solemn League and Covenant was set up. The zeal with which the Parliament attempted the last, scarcely fell below that with which they accomplished

61

Catholic times. In the annals of Rochester, 1264, we find: Porta, siquidem, ejus circumquque exustæ sunt, chorus ejus in luctum, et organa ejus in vocem flentium sunt concitata. Quid pluras, loca sacra, utpote oratoria, claustra, capitulum infirmaria, et oracula quæque divina, stabula equorum sunt effecta; et animalium immunditiis spurcitiisque cadaverum ubique sunt repleta."-Anglia Sacra, i. 351.

After the Reformation Ridley was prevented from giving Grindal a prebend in St. Paul's by the King's Council, who had bestowed it on the King, for the furniture of his stable-Blunt's History of the Reformation, 244.

In 1561, according to Strype, the south aisle of the cathedral was used for a horse fair.

the first. An exhortation on the subject by the Divines at Westminster publicly appeared. It contains no threatenings of penalty in case of refusal, but only an abundance of argument and rhetorical persuasion. Various objections are answered-one especially, which, read in connexion with the events of the Restoration, is rather curious:

"As for those clergymen who pretend that they, above all others, cannot covenant to extirpate that Government because they have, as they say, taken a solemn oath to obey the bishops in licitis et honestis, they can tell, if they please, that they that have sworn obedience to the laws of the land, are not thereby prohibited from endeavouring by all lawful means the abolition of those laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous; and if yet there should any oath be found into which any ministers or others have entered, not warranted by the laws of God and the land, in this case they must teach themselves and others that such oaths call for repentance, not pertinacity in them."1

Though no threats are found in the exhortation, Parliament sent instructions to commanders-in-chief and governors of towns and garrisons, that the Covenant should be taken by all soldiers under their command. The committees of the several counties had to see that

1 Rushworth, v. 476.

Instructions were given for thetaking of the Covenant throughout the kingdom, "the manner of the taking it to be thus :-The minister to read the whole Covenant distinctly and audibly in the pulpit, and during the time of the reading thereof the whole congregation to be uncovered; and at the end of his reading thereof, all to take it standing, lifting up

their right hands bare, and then afterwards to subscribe it severally by writing their names (or their marks, to which their names are to be added) in a parchment roll or a book, whereinto the Covenant is to be inserted, purposely provided for that end, and kept as a record in the parish."-Husband's Collection,

421.

copies were dispersed over the country, its contents read in the churches, and the oath tendered to ministers, churchwardens, and constables. Law officers under the Crown were subjected to loss of office, and lawyers to restraint from practising in the Courts, if they did not submit to the new test. If a minister refused to present it to his parishioners, the committee was to appoint another minister to do so in his place.2 It was ordered, at an earlier date, that no one who declined the Solemn League should be elected a common-councilman of London, or have a vote in such election, or hold any office of trust in the City.3 Every congregation was to obtain a copy of the document fairly printed in large letters, fit to be hung up in the place of worship. 4

Sermons were preached and published, containing numerous scriptural quotations, pertinent and impertinent, in favour of covenanting. The Presbyterians regarded it as a symbol of their Church, and made it a bulwark of their system; and others, who had no sym

Husband's Coll., 416.

2 Neal, iii. 81.

3 Husband's Coll., 404.

In the State Paper Office are additional instructions, (dated March 6th, 1643-4,) to the Earl of Rutland, Sir W. Armyn, Bart., Sir H. Vane, and others, to declare to our brethren of Scotland that the Parliament have settled a course for taking the late Solemn League and Covenant throughout this kingdom and dominion of Wales, "we do hereby give you full power and authority by yourselves, or such as you shall appoint, to cause the said League and Covenant to be taken throughout the several places and counties where you shall come."

Y

66

Vane, on the scaffold, said, respecting the Covenant: The holy ends therein contained I fully assent to, and have been as desirous to observe; but the rigid way of prosecuting it and the oppressing uniformity that hath been endeavoured by it, I never approved."

Wood states, (Ath. Ox., ii. 84), that Strode made a motion to the effect, "that all those that refused the Covenant, (being certain ill-wishers to the laws and liberties of this kingdom,) might, therefore, have no benefit of those laws and liberties." He adds, "that motion being somewhat too desperate, was waived for the present, and took no effect."

pathy with them, and who afterwards opposed their proceedings, were, at first, scarcely less extravagant Fin extolling its merits.1 The devices of the engraver came under contribution, and there may be seen a curious series of plates executed at that period, one representing the Divines swearing to the Covenant with uplifted hands; and another exhibiting Prelatists in gowns and caps coming out of Church, whilst a Puritan is shutting the door upon them, saying, "Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up. "2 Copies

At

of the instrument, with a long array of names appended to it, sometimes present themselves amongst corporation records and parish archives, suggestive of scenes once enacted in church-porches and chancels.3 Other written vows belong to that covenanting age. Nottingham, the governor and garrison took between them a mutual oath to be faithful to each other, and to hold out until death, without listening to any parley, or accepting any terms from their enemies. Lucy Hutchinson describes how women as well as men entered into such pledges; and an instance of a female adherent to the famous bond is found in a MS. life of Mrs. Stockton, preserved in Dr. Williams' library.

1 See Sermon on Solemn League and Covenant, by Saltmarsh.-Tracts in Brit. Mus., vol. 253.

2 These also are in the British Museum; I think in the same volume as the former.

3 Bishop Hall went on ordaining Episcopal clergymen in spite of the Covenant. He says: "The synodals both in Norfolk and Suffolk, and all the spiritual profits of the diocese were also kept back, only ordinations and institutions continued awhile. But after the Covenant was appointed to be taken, and was generally