vain. Cecil, Burleigh, and Walsingham, had less influence with the queen than Whitgift; because their advice was but accordant with the dictates of prudence and Christianity,-his with those of vanity and despotism. When Parliament met, the House of Commons attempted to stem the tide of persecution; and having received several petitions from the Puritans, they prepared various bills to abridge the power of the bishops, to reform abuses, and to promote discipline. But, with considerable dexterity, Whitgift suggested to the queen, that if the Parliament were to pass any such measures, they could not be repealed by any other authority, whereas, whatsoever she should herself, or by the convocation, enact, her own authority could at any time repeal.* Elizabeth welcomed the suggestion. She reprimanded the Commons for interfering with ecclesiastical matters, which was touching her prerogative, and they were compelled to yield.

[1586.] The Puritans, thus driven from all legislative remedy, yet regarded it as their duty, in their character of Christian teachers, to exert themselves to the utmost for their own improvement, and for the instruction and reformation of the ignorant and neglected people. They accordingly formed a Book of Discipline, for their own direction in the discharge of their ministerial and pastoral duties; and this book was subscribed by above five hundred of the most eminently pious and faithful ministers in the kingdom.t This body was far too numerous and important to be easily or wantonly crushed; and yet, as Neal informs us, it formed, in reality, but a small portion of those over whom the terrors of suspension at that period hung, amounting to not less than a third part of the ministers of England.

[1588.] A new principle was now promulgated for the support of prelatic power, of a more formidable nature than any that had hitherto appeared, and destined to produce the most disastrous results. Dr. Bancroft, the archbishop's chaplain, in a sermon which he preached at Paul's Cross, January 12, 1588, maintained that bishops were a distinct order from priests or presbyters, and had authority over

* Life of Whitgift, p. 198.

† Neal, vol, i. pp. 314, 315.

them jure divino, and directly from God.* This bold assertion created an immense ferment throughout the kingdom. The Puritans saw well, that, if acted upon, this principle would increase their oppression to an incalculable degree, inasmuch as it must subject them to an accusation of heresy, in addition to that of resistance to the queen's supremacy. The greater part of even the prelatic party themselves were startled with the novelty of the doctrine; for none of the English reformers had ever regarded the order of bishops as anything else but a human institution, appointed for the more orderly government of the Church, and they were not prepared at once to condemn as heretical all Churches where that institution did not exist. Whitgift himself, perceiving the use which might be made of such a tenet, said, that the Doctor's sermon had done much good, though, for his own part, he rather wished than believed it to be true. On the other hand, the legal assertors of the queen's supremacy assailed this theory, as subversive of her majesty's prerogative; for, as they reasoned, if the bishops are not under-governors to her majesty of the clergy, but superior governors over their brethren, by God's ordinance, it will then follow that her majesty is not supreme governor over her clergy. Bancroft answered, that this inference was not a necessary consequence of his doctrine; because the sovereign's authority may, and very often does, corroborate that which is primarily from the law of God. This evasive reply seems to have satisfied the queen, aided, perhaps, by her own knowledge of its direct purpose, and of the character of her bishops, who longed for the extirpation of Puritanism, but had no desire to encounter her leonine wrath. The terrific power of this despotic principle did not, indeed, appear till after the lapse of two generations,—when, wielded by Laud, it convulsed the kingdom, and overthrew the monarchy. Its portentous reappearance in modern times may well excite alarm; embodying, as it does, the very essence of despotism, civil and religious, and possessing an energy that nothing human can control without a struggle, wide, wasting, and deadly,-too fearful even to be imagined.

Life of Whitgift, p. 292; Collier, vol. ii. p. 609; Neal, vol. i. pp. 321-323.

[1589.] The struggle assumed a less serious aspect for a short time, in consequence of the publication of the famous Martin Mar-Prelate Tracts. Some of the Puritan party had procured a printing-press, the liberty of the press having been taken away previously, and commenced a s ries of pamphlets, containing attacks of wit, ridicule, mockery, and keen vituperation, against the bishops and their supporters. Many of these tracts displayed very considerable power of sarcasm and invective; and as they were written intentionally for the mass of the nation, they were composed in a style not merely plain, but affectedly rude and vulgar. They were not, however, to be despised. Amidst much coarse vituperation, they contained statements of facts which could not be disputed, set.forth with such home-thrusting vigor as caused every direct and strong-aimed blow to tell upon the assailed prelates. Great was the indignation and dismay of the bishops and their friends, and every exertion was made to detect and seize the hidden armory of this unseen assailant. For a considerable time these efforts were unsuccessful, and the prelatic party were constrained to attempt their own defence in literary warfare. But although they displayed considerable talent and activity in this attempt, they were not able to match their unknown antagonists, whose writings produced a deep and wide-spread impression on the public mind. At length the Martin Mar-Prelate press was seized, with several unfinished tracts, and that aspect of the struggle terminated, but not till the Prelatic cause had sustained very considerable injury.

In the year 1591 the Parliament again met, and the House of Commons once more attempted to rescue the suffering Puritans, by instituting an inquiry into the conduct of the High Commission, in imposing oaths and subscriptions not sanctioned by law. The queen was highly incensed, commanded them not to meddle with matters of state or causes ecclesiastical, and threw several of the members, and even the attorney-general, into prison. The Parliament, with a tameness unworthy of the spirit of free-born Englishmen, not merely yielded, but passed an act for the suppression of conventicles, by which was meant all religious meetings, except such as the queen and the bishops were pleased to permit, on pain of perpetual banishment. The principle of

this act was of the most despotic nature, converting any difference from the religion of the sovereign into a crime against the State, and rendering the mere want of conformity equivalent to a proof of direct opposition. Great numbers were subjected to the most grievous sufferings through this enactment. Some went into voluntary exile, to escape the horrors of imprisonment; some endured a lengthened captivity, and then were banished; and some, chiefly of the Brownists, were condemned to death, and on the scaffold declared their loyalty to their sovereign, while they ceased not to testify against the tyranny of the prelates.

[1595.] The controversy between the High Churchmen and the Puritans obtained the full development of all its main principles in the year 1595. At this time Dr. Bound published a treatise on the Sabbath; in which he maintained its perpetual sanctity, as a day of rest equally from business and recreation, that it might be devoted wholly to the worship of God.* All the Puritans assented to this doctrine, while the Prelatists accused it as both an undue restraint of Christian liberty and an improper exalting of the Sabbath above the other festivals appointed by the Church. About the same time a controversy arose in Cambridge respecting those doctrinal points which form the leading distinctions between the Arminian and the Calvinistic systems of theology. Till this period there had existed no doubt in the minds of any of the English divines that the Thirty-nine Articles were decidedly and intentionally Calvinistic. Indeed they could have no other opinion; because they were perfectly aware how much influence the writings of Calvin exercised over the minds of those by whom these Articles were framed. After the controversy had prevailed in the university a short time, an appeal was made to Whitgift, who, with the aid of other learned divines, prepared nine propositions, commonly called The Lambeth Articles, to which all the scholars in the university were strictly enjoined to conform their judgments. These Lambeth Articles were more strictly Calvinistic than Calvin himself would have desired; and certainly prove that, in its early period, the Church of England was anything but Arminian, whatever it may have since become. But though Whitgift was himself still a thorough Calvinist, considerable numbers of * Fuller, vol. iii. pp. 143–146. † Fuller, vol. iii. pp. 147-150.

the Prelatic party were veering towards Arminianism; so that, partly on that account, and partly on account of their more strict observance of the Sabbath sanctity, the Puritans were now led to a more important field of conflict than that on which they had hitherto striven against their antagonists, and instead of contending about vestments and ceremonies, they now strove respecting great and important doctrines, and began to be termed Doctrinal Puritans. This led to two directly opposite results. It caused the Prelatists to swerve more and more widely from those doctrines which the Puritans maintained; and it impelled the Puritans to prosecute a profound study of those points, which had thus become the elements of controversy. This may account for the remarkable power and accuracy with which the Puritan divines of that and the succeeding generation state and explain the most solemn and profound truths of the Christian revelation.

At length what may be termed a cessation of hostilities ensued. The queen was now evidently sinking under the infirmities of age, and both parties began to speculate on the probable measures which might be adopted by her successor, James VI. of Scotland. The Puritans hoped that his Presbyterian education might predispose him to be favorable to their views; and the Prelatic party were unwilling to exasperate, by continued severity, those who might possibly, ere long, be the ruling body in the Church. Both parties paused, at least in action; but there is no reason to suppose that their feelings of mutual jealousy and dislike were abated. Nor was it consistent with the usual policy, or king-craft of James, to declare his sentiments and intentions, but rather to hold out plausible grounds of expectation to both parties, thereby to secure the support of both, or at least to disarm the direct hostility of either.

[1603.] Queen Elizabeth died on the 24th day of March, 1603, in the seventieth year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign. In the following month James left his native land, commencing his journey to London to take possession of the English throne, to which he was now the direct heir. On his progress southward, the Puritan ministers availed themselves of the opportunity to lay before him what is commonly termed the Millenary Petition. This name it did not receive because it was signed by one thou.