1. See Pepys, S., Diary, ed. by Wheatley, H. B. (London, 1919) vii, 186, 229, 235–6, 238, 247, 278–280, 288.Google Scholar

2. For Charles' position on toleration see Simon, W. “The Crown and the Episcopate,” Colorado Studies in History, 06, 1961, 122–128.Google Scholar

3. Wilkins, though nominally Anglican, had married Cromwell's sister and had been promoted during the interregnum. His religious sympathies were openly low church.

4. Reynolds, a conservative noncomformist, was elevated at the time of the restoration when the king was trying to broaden the church through the appointment of noncomformists to the bench. Baxter, Calamy, Manton and Gilpin were also offered bishoprics at the same time. Calamy, E., Mr. Baxter's Life and Times, (London, 1713) ii, 147;Google ScholarGilpin, R., Daemonologia Sacra, ed. by Grosart, A. B. (London, 1867) xxxii;Google ScholarBaxter, R., Reliquiae Baxterianae, ed. by Sylvester, M., (London, 1696), 282.Google Scholar

5. Reynolds, E., A Conformist's Plea (London, 1667), 15.Google Scholar

6. Among others involved, was Wilkins who published a pamphlet which asserted that “the Church is up as a top on the toe, it will not spin or stand longer than it is whipped by penal laws; I would have it stand on the broad base, and then it will stand without whipping.” Henderson, P. A. W., Life and Times of J o h n Wilkins, (London, 1910), 115.Google Scholar

7. For a rather full coverage of both sides of the issue see Corbet, J., Discourse of the Religion of England (London, 1667)Google Scholar and Tomkyns, J., Answer to a Discourse (London, 1667).Google Scholar Tomkyns was chaplain to Sheldon. Sheldon himself seems to have outlined at least one of the pamphlets which was written by Dr. Swadling. The pamphlet outline may be found in Sheldon's papers Add. Mss. c. 307, and Cosin gives the archbishop credit for directing the publication of many “books” which Sheldon had “caused to be so well and so timely set out.” Add. Mss. c. 305.

8. Several Tracts Relating to the Great Acts for Comprehension (London, 1680), iv, v.Google Scholar These tracts were gathered and printed during the popish plot. In the copy in the Bodleian Library is a manuscript introduction by Bishop Barlow. Both the quotes from the Nicholson and the Ironsides letters, as well as Barlow's account of tbe 1667 and 1668 comprehension acts, are a part of this introduction.

9. Articles 20, 34, and 36 which specifically enjoined episcopal government and certain controversial ceremonials were to be left in abeyance.

10. Barlow recounts how closely the words were argued in cases such as “doctrine” and “discipline.” One of the stumbling points concerned the common prayer which Atkins felt should not be mentioned and which was finally resolved by the contained compromise.

11. Birch, a country party man, was under considerable pressure from Atkins and Barlow, but he simply could not be brought to action. For an amusing incident concerning Birch's interest in disestablishment at this time see Pepys, , Diary, vii, 278–280.Google Scholar

12. Public Records Office, State Papers 28/39, 14.

13. Add. Mss. c. 305, 72.

14. Pepys, , Dairy, vii, 268–281.Google Scholar

15. The part played by Richard Baxter and the part claimed by him in these negotiations casts further doubt on his luminesence as a part of the restoration scene. Bosher, Robert, The Making of the Restoration Settlement (New York, 1951)Google Scholar has pointed out how Baxter through his high-handed intransigence with the Anglicans and his bigotry in regard to the less conservative noncomformists played into the hands of the Sheldonians and destroyed all hopes of bringing about a more comprehensive settlement in 1660. During the seventies he played the same role in regard to the negotiations with Bishop Morley of Winchester when the Sheldonians were forced to look for a broader base on being faced with the indulgence. See A Collection of the State Letters of Roger Boyle, ed. by F. Morrice (Dublin, 1743) i, 44–47Google Scholar; Pearson, J., Minor Theological Works ed. by Churton, E. (Oxford, 1844) ii, 23–27Google Scholar as well as Calamy, , Mr. Baxter's Life and Times, iii, 109Google Scholar for further information On this attempt at comprehension. In the 1668 negotiations Baxter played a decidedly secondary role to Manton and Bates. He was not even aware of which Anglicans were concerned with the measure other than Wilkins and possibly Barlow. In his Reliquiae Baxterianae, however, Baxter leads the reader to believe that the scheme was entirely of his own making. Reliquiae, 182; Calamy, E., A Defense of Moderate Nonconformity (London, 1704) ii, 57.Google Scholar In fact, he was almost completely unaware of the breadth of the plan. Because of his ignorance, combined with his pretended management, historians have had a tendency to underrate this attempt. Stoughton, , Religion in England, iii, 372–383Google Scholar and Parker's edition of Thorndike, H., Theological Works (Oxford, 1854), v, 302–308.Google Scholar Most later historians seem to have depended upon Stoughton. Feiling, K., History of the Tory Party, 1640–1617, 132Google Scholar, for instance, mentions only Wilkins among the Anglicans participating in the measure. In this instance, as in others, the over reliance of historians on Baxter has caused considerable misrepresentation of the restoration scene.

16. Barlow mss. xiii.

17. Stoughton, , Religion in England, iii, 374.Google Scholar

18. In the light of the debacle over Prayer Book revision at the time of restoration the nonconformists were understandably suspicious of any such offer.

19. Stoughton, , Religion in England, iii, 376.Google Scholar The close parallel between the specific liturgical modifications o f f e r e d by Wilkins and those demanded by the nonconformists suggests some pre-conference collusion between Wilkins, Bates and Manton, particularly in the light of Baxter's stand on such mothfications at Savoy House in 1661 and in his negotiations with Morley in 1674.

20. Possibly another reason for the enlistment of Barlow was that Wilkins felt he would need considerable support for his rather far-reaching plans when he returned to confer with the Anglicans.

21. Cromwell's act provided for liberty of conscience for all Protestants, with the exception of Anglicans, who believed in the trinity, baptism and the taking of oaths, and specifically excluded both the Socinians and the Quakers, as well as a number of extremist sects.

22. It would be interesting to know what contribution Charles II made to this scheme. He had certainly been, and was to remain, an enthusiast for toleration from Breda to the time of the popish plot.

23. Barlow mss. xxii. Barlow wrote this to Reynolds at the time he and Wilkins were arguing with these men about the form of the indulgence proposition.

24. At this conference which was held in Oxford Blandford, Reynolds, Croft, Fuller, Ironsides, Lloyd and Nicholson represented the clergy and Sir Matthew Hale, who drew up the final form of the act. represented the laity.

25. Obviously, Barlow who took part in the deception, and Reynolds who Barlow informed about the progress of the deception, were not only aware of Wilkins' maneuvers, but participated in them.

26. Barlow mss. xxv.

27. Ward has been advanced principally through the efforts of Sheldon. Add. mss. c. 305, 192, 194–194b, 198. As Bishop of Exeter and then Salisbury, he was a prime persecutor of nonconformists. Ibid., 145, 148, 154, 156, 168, 169, 171, 175, 203, 205, 207. Further, he acted as one of the most effective speakers for the Sheldonian wing of the church in the House of Lords. Stoughton, , Religion in England, iii, 387Google Scholar; Timberland, , History and Proceedings of the House of Lords (London, 1742) i, 165–174.Google Scholar

28. Ward and Wilkins had been friends since the days of the Commonwealth and both were closely involved in the founding of the royal society and were extremely active in the society. Harl. Mss. 7377, 28; Foxcroft, H., Character of a Trimmer (Cambridge, 1946), 52Google Scholar; Birch, T., History of the Royal Society, (London, 1756) i, 121.Google Scholar Through these associations Ward became one of Wilkins' principal sponsors for elevation. Pope, W., Life of Seth Ward (London, 1697).Google Scholar

29. A spate of high church pamphlets attacking comprehension in very general terms were produced in early and middle January of 1668.

30. Thorndike, H., Works, 307–344.Google Scholar

31. Pepys, , Diary, vii, 292.Google Scholar

32. Han Mss. 7377, 143. Hacket, who was unable to attend the session, gave Sheldon cretht for managing the effort. On February 15, 1668, Hacket wrote “I discern your Grace's great prudence and indefatigable industry to prepare the votes of Commons against they met for so noble and happy concurrence.” In his letters of March 4 and March 16, 1668, he further gives credit to Sheldon for managing the lower house. Tanner Mss. 45. Among the fascinating aspects of Sheldon's manipulations during the comprehension fight is his sudden scurrying about to find ecclesiastical favors for friends and relations of members of Commons. See particularly his letters to Sir Martin Lister concerning Mrs. Jennings, to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on behalf of Mrs. Harvey, to Thomas Master, Esq., concerning a charter house pensioners place for a relation that Masters had wished placed two years previously, Add. mss. c. 308.

33. The importance of foreknowledge of tho plan must be stressed for the Sheldonian attack on the measure was dependent on that attack taking place before the royal speech. Had Charles' speech preceded the Anglican attack that attack would, of necessity, have had to be moderated. Certainly Sheldon and Ward would have been forced to take a very c a u t i o u s tone in their speeches in the Lords after the royal speech and, in that the cavalier party had some commitment to reverence for the throne, even the seculars in Commons might have had to find a more compromising line. It is unlikely the measure would have passed surprise or no, but the harshness with which it was rejected, and as a consequence of that harshness, the attitude of homelessness that from that time forward was manifested over comprehension on the part of the liberals, is dependent on Sheldon's knowledge and planning.

34. There were some tennuous explorations of comprehension in the 1670's at the time of Charles's indulgence, and in the 1680's when James attacked the church, but none of these later plans got much beyond the stage of letter writing and wishful thinking.