sand ministers, for the actual number was seven hundred and fifty; but because, in the preamble, it is said by the petitioners, "That they, to the number of more than a thousand ministers, groaned under the burden of human rites and ceremonies, and cast themselves at his majesty's feet for relief." That their number was not overstated is evident from the fact that the petition was subscribed by the ministers of no more than twenty-five counties, chiefly those of the northern, westland, and midland parts of the kingdom; so that probably not more than one-half of the Puritan ministers had an opportunity of signing their millenary petition.*

On the other hand, the Prelatic party were at least equally strenuous in their endeavors to secure his majesty's favor; and, as might be expected from their practised courtierarts and ready obsequiousness, were more successful. But as James had given a friendly reception to both parties, and as he was vain of his own acquirements in theology, and of his skill in polemical discussions, which he wished. to exhibit to his new subjects, he thought proper to appoint a conference between the two parties, to be conducted in his own presence, as final judge in all such matters. This gave occasion to the famous Hampton Court Conference, an account of which was afterwards published by Dr. Barlow, Dean of Chester, one of the disputants on the Prelatic side. The Puritans complained that Barlow gave a partial account of this conference, representing the Prelatic arguments in the best manner of which they could admit, and weakening and abridging those of the opposite party. Even from the outline given by Fuller and Collier this is evident; and yet so futile are the arguments of the king and the prelates, that one is ashamed to read them, as reproduced by their own historians. In Barlow's own treatise, which is now lying before me, the mean and abject servility of manner, and the gross and fulsome flattery of language, employed by the prelates towards James, are such as to cause the cheek of every person of generous and manly nature to burn with indignant scorn. A very brief account of this conference is all that can be given here. The place appointed for this conference was the drawing* Fuller, vol. iii. p. 172; Collier, vol. ii. p. 672; Neal, vol. i. pp. 391, 392.

room at Hampton Court. On the high Church side the disputants were, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift; bishops, Bancroft of London, Matthew of Durham, Bilson of Winchester, Babington of Worcester, Rudd of St. David's, Watson of Chichester, Robinson of Carlisle, and Dove of Peterborough; deans, Andrews of the Chapel, Overal of St. Paul's, Barlow of Chester, and Bridges of Salisbury; and Dr. Field and Dr. King. On the part of the Puritans there were only four ministers,-Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Sparks, professors of divinity in Oxford; and Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Knewstubbs of Cambridge. The first day was a conference between the king and the prelates, in which his majesty praised the Church of England, and expressed his wish for satisfaction on a few points in the Prayer-Book, respecting excommunication, and about providing ministers for Ireland. By this an opportunity was given to the king and the prelates to form a mutual understanding before they encountered their opponents. On the second day Dr. Reynolds stated, in the name of the Puritans, and in the briefest possible form, the points on which the controversy chiefly turned, humbly requesting,"1. That the doctrine of the Church might be preserved in purity, according to God's Word. 2. That good pastors might be planted in all churches to preach the same. 3. That the Church government might be sincerely ministered, according to God's Word. 4. That the Book of Common Prayer might be fitted to more increase of piety."*

Had these points been fairly discussed, the whole controversy might have been investigated, and some approximation might have been made towards an agreement, or at least a pacific arrangement, between the contending parties. But the king interrupted, reviled, and stormed; the courtiers laughed and mocked; and the prelates, by insinuations, interruptions, flatteries addressed to the king, and sneers directed against the Puritans, succeeded in preventing such a discussion as would have brought out the great principles of the controversy, and in assisting to overbear the Puritans with insult and ridicule. The king repeated his favorite maxim-" No bishop, no king;" and, at the close of the day, asked Dr. Reynolds if he had anything else to offer. He, perceiving the futility of continuing * Hampton Court Conference, p. 23.

such a discussion, answered, "No more, please your majesty." "Then," said the king, "if this be all your party have to say, I will make them conform, or I will harrie (spoil) them out of the land, or else do worse.'

The greater part of the third day's conference was occupied by the king and the prelates in matters relating to the High Commission, the oath ex officio and the slight alterations proposed in the Prayer-Book. Of all these the king expressed his approbation; and then the Puritan divines were again called into this mock conference. They now knew that no alterations such as they had desired would be obtained; and, therefore, they contented themselves with supplicating some concessions in point of conformity, in behalf of those ministers who could not in conscience submit to the rites and ceremonies of the Church. The king sternly declared that they must conform, and that quickly too, or they should hear of it. Thus ended the Hampton Court Conference, "which," says Dr. Warner, "convinced the Puritans that they were mistaken in depending on the king's protection; which convinced the king that they were not to be won by a few insignificant concessions; and which, if it did not convince the privy council and the bishops that they had got a Solomon for their king, yet they spoke of him as though it did.”* Even this does not fully express the extravagant strain of adulation in which they spoke. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) said "that undoubtedly his majesty spake by the special assistance of God's Spirit." Bancroft, Bishop of London, "upon his knee protested, that his heart melted within him with joy, and made haste to acknowledge to Almighty God the singular mercy we have received at his hands, in giving us such a king, as since Christ his time the like he thought hath not been."† Little wonder that the vain and pedantic monarch was delighted with his bishops.

[1604.] In the Convocation which met in 1604, Bancroft presided, Whitgift having died a short time previously. Soon after they met, Bancroft laid before them a Book of Canons, collected out of the articles, injunctions, and synodical acts passed in the reigns of Edward and * Ecclesiastical History, vol. iii. p. 482. Hampton Court Conference, pp. 93, 94.

Elizabeth, to the number of one hundred and forty-one. To these canons both Houses of Convocation assented, and they were ratified by the king's letters patent, but not confirmed by act of Parliament, so that, though binding on the clergy, they have not the force of statute laws. Of these canons, about three dozen are expressly directed against the Puritan opinions, rendering their junction with the Church impossible without sacrifice of conscience; and one of them requires that no person be ordained, or suffered to preach or catechize, unless he first subscribe willingly, and ex animo, the three articles already mentioned as Whitgift's articles.

Bancroft was promoted to the archbishopric of Canterbury, vacant by Whitgift's decease, and immediately proved how well qualified he was to discharge the function of grand inquisitor. He enforced subscription to canons and articles with the utmost rigor, silencing or deposing those Puritan ministers who refused to comply. Considerable numbers were thus reduced to the greatest distress, and some were driven into foreign countries to escape from persecution in their own. And that the archbishop's persecuting zeal might obtain as full a sanction as could be given to it by a partial and one-sided process, the king summoned the twelve judges to the Star-Chamber, and, in answer to three interrogative propositions, obtained as their legal opinion, That the King having the supreme ecclesiastical power, could, without Parliament, make orders and constitutions for Church government; that the High Commission might enforce them, ex officio, without libel; and that subjects might not frame petitions for relief without being guilty of an offence finable at discretion, and very near to treason and felony."

*

This strange opinion ascribed to the king power in ecclesiastical matters of the most arbitrary and despotic kind, without limitation or redress; and as the enforcement of it necessarily required the exercise of civil power in the infliction of punishment, it deprived one large class of subjects of all liberty, civil and sacred, and if allowed in one class, might naturally introduce an equal exercise of despotism over every other. This may be regarded as perhaps the first distinct intimation to the kingdom at * Neal, vol. i. pp. 416, 417.

large of the peril in which civil liberty was placed by the arbitrary proceedings of the sovereign and the prelates in religious affairs; and it is not undeserving of notice, that it was founded on the opinion of civil judges, who, in their interpretation of law, were the subverters of the constitution, and the destroyers of both civil and religious liberty. In consequence of the authority thus acquired, the prelates urged on their persecuting career with double eagerness and severity; and the Puritans became, in consequence, so much the more determined in their adherence to their principles. Not merely suffering, but calumny of the grossest kind, was their portion; and ambitious churchmen found that the readiest road to preferment in the Church was to pour forth violent invectives and dark aspersions against the detested Puritans. As an answer to these reproaches, and to vindicate their character, the Puritans published a treatise entitled "English Puritanism," which Dr. Ames (better known by his Latinised name Amesius) translated into Latin for the information of foreign Churches. It contains a very, full and impartial statement of the peculiar opinions of the much calumniated Puritans; and ought to be enough to vindicate them in the judgment of every candid and intelligent person.

[1610.] The violent proceedings of the Prelatic party, and the dangerous nature of the principles avowed by them, began to arouse the kingdom to a sense of the danger to which all liberty was exposed; and the Parliament prepared to interpose, and to seek redress of grievances which were becoming intolerable. But the king met all their remonstrances and petitions for redress with the most lofty assertions of his royal prerogative, in the exercise of which he held himself to be accountable to God alone, affirming it to be sedition in a subject to dispute what a king might do in the height of his power. The Parliament repeated the assertion of their own rights, accused the High Commission of illegal and tyrannical conduct, and advocated a more mild and merciful course of procedure towards the Puritans. Offended with the awakening spirit of freedom thus displayed, the king, by the advice of Bancroft, dissolved the Parliament, resolved to govern, if possible, without parliaments in future. This arbitrary conduct on the art of James aroused, in the mind of England, a deep and