to the convocation as proctor for the diocese of Bristol. He gave an account of the proceedings in his 'Church History' and his 'Appeal.' Fuller's sympathies were always in favour of moderation. He objected to the severity of a proposed 'Canon for the restraint of Sectaries.' After the dissolution of parliament, the convocation was continued as a synod. Fuller says that it was only by an oversight that he and others did not formally protest against the prolongation of their sittings. The minority, however, submitted; a benevolence was voted, and canons were passed. Heylyn states that 'one of the clerks for the diocese of Bristol' (Life of Laud, pp. 405-6; see Bailey, p. 191), probably meaning Fuller, proposed in committee a canon upon enforcing uniformity in ritual drawn up in 'such a commanding and imperious style' that every one disliked it except himself. The statement was made after Fuller's death. Fuller felt bound to subscribe the canons, in spite of his disapproval of some parts of them, and they received the royal assent.
Fuller was probably not in the convocation which met with the Long parliament (3 Nov. 1640). The House of Commons passed a bill, which fell through in the House of Lords, imposing fines upon those who had subscribed the canons. Fuller was set down for 200l. His uncle, the bishop, died 21 April 1641. A son, John, who survived him, was baptised at Broadwindsor 6 June 1641; and his wife died towards the end of the year. He abandoned both his living and his prebend about the same time. He says that he was 'never formally sequestered,' but he ceased to officiate or to receive the income. He settled in London, where he preached for a time at the Inns of Court, and soon afterwards became curate of the Savoy. He had finished the 'Holy and Profane State,' the most popular and characteristic of all his books at the beginning of 1641. After being at press for a year it appeared in 1642. It was transcribed by the members of the community at Little Gidding [see Ferrar, Nicholas], The discovery of one such copy led Dr. Peckard to attribute the authorship to Ferrar (see Bailey, p. 229). Fuller was exceedingly popular as a preacher. His biographer says that he had two congregations, one in the church, the other listening through the windows. His hearers were chiefly royalists, and he fell under the suspicion of the parliamentary party. His position is indicated by the sermons published at the time. On 28 Dec. 1642, one of the fast-days appointed by the king to commemorate the Irish massacre, Fuller preached a sermon strongly exhorting both sides to peace, and proposed petitions to the king and to parliament. He states (Appeal, pt. ii. p. 46) that he was one of six who tried to carry a petition from Westminster to the king at Oxford. It is not quite certain whether this is to be identified with a petition (printed in Bailey, p. 267) presented to the king at Oxford by a 'Dr. Fuller' and others 18 Jan. 1643-4. Fuller was not then 'doctor,' and there were others of the name. On 27 March 1643, the anniversary of the king's accession, Fuller preached another sermon, expressing hopes of peace from the negotiations then just renewed. On 17 June, after the discovery of Waller's plot, parliament ordered that an oath should be generally tendered expressing abhorrence of the plot, and containing a promise not to join the royal forces. Fuller took the oath with certain reservations. On another fast-day, at the end of July, he preached a sermon upon 'Reformation,' condemning, among other things, Milton's tract of 1641 on the same topic in the 'Smectymnuus' controversy. He sufficiently showed his discontent with the zealots of the puritan side, and it was possibly at this time that he undertook the position above mentioned. He incurred fresh suspicion, and was ordered to take the oath, without reservation, 'in the face of the church,' whereupon he withdrew to Oxford about August 1643.
Fuller settled at Lincoln College. He complains that 'seventeen weeks' at Oxford cost him more than seventeen years at Cambridge, even all that he had (Church History, bk. iv. 43). This, though it has been differently understood, seems clearly to refer to the losses consequent upon his flight, not to the actual expense of living. He lost many of his books, and was deprived of his income. He was welcomed by the royalists, and preached before the king. But his position was not agreeable. His sermons on reformation produced a smart controversy with John Saltmarsh, who accused him of popish tendencies. Fuller replied in 'Truth Maintained,' published at Oxford, with supplementary letters to several persons, and to his 'dear parish, St. Mary Savoy.' Though Fuller was opposed to the puritans, he was regarded as lukewarm by the passionate loyalists of Oxford. Isolated and impoverished, he accepted (about December 1643) a chaplaincy to Sir Ralph Hopton, one of the most moderate and religious of the king's generals. Fuller followed the general's movements for a few months, amusing himself, it is said, even in the midst of campaigning, by antiquarian researches; but he was at Basing
