vigilant jealousy with regard to their sovereign's intentions, which rested not till, in the reign of his son, it broke forth in its strength, and overthrew the monarchy.

[1616.] When the Puritans found, not only no hope of redress, but a constantly increasing severity of treatment, many of them, as has been stated, fled to the continent, and there continued to discharge their sacred duties as they could find opportunity. Embittered somewhat by the persecution which they had suffered, and constrained to minister in congregations not united in any common body, several of them began to adopt the opinions at first taught by Brown, to the extent, at least, of regarding the Congregational or Independent as the best system of Church government, though not, like him, to the extent of denying the lawfulness of any other. Of these Mr. Henry Jacob was one, who, having fled to Holland, became acquainted with Mr. Robinson, pastor of a Congregational church at Leyden, and embraced his system. Returning to England in the year 1616, Mr. Jacob imparted his views to several others of the suffering Puritans, who, considering that there was now no prospect of a thorough national reformation, resolved to separate themselves entirely from the Church of England, to unite in Church fellowship, and to maintain the ordinances of Christ in what they had come to regard as the purest form. They met, and in the most solemn manner declared their faith, pledged themselves in a mutual covenant to each other, and to God, to walk together in all His ordinances, as He had already revealed, or should further reveal them, chose Mr. Jacob to be their pastor, elected deacons, and thus formed the first congregation of English Independents. Such, and so small was the beginning of a body which afterwards became so powerful, and influenced so strongly the movements of the revolutionary period.*

[1618.] The strongly contrasted tendencies of the two contending parties, Prelatists and Puritans, were rendered very apparent in the year 1618, by the publication of the King's Book of Sports. This book was drawn up by Bishop Moreton, at the king's direction, and dated from Greenwich, May 24, 1618. The pretext for producing such a book was, that the strictness of the Puritans in keeping the Sabbath

* Neal, vol. i. pp. 461, 462. -† Fuller, vol. iii. pp. 270–273.

day alienated the people, and left them exposed to the temptations of the Jesuits, who took occasion to seduce them back to Popery. To prevent this, his majesty proposed, not that the people should be more carefully instructed in religion, but that, after divine service, they should be indulged in such recreations as dancing, archery, leaping, May-games, Whitson-ales, morrice dances, setting up of May-poles, and such like amusements. That the people should meditate on their religious duties, and prepare to practise the instructions given them in God's Word, did not seem to his majesty at all a desirable matter, it might have led them to favor Puritanism. Queen Elizabeth disapproved of preaching, lest it should teach the people to think, and perhaps to inquire into matters of state. King James aimed at the same result by making their only leisure day, when they might possibly attempt the dangerous practice of cultivating their minds, a day of mere recreation. The reason is obvious. Thinking men cannot be slaves; and both these sovereigns were desirous of establishing a complete despotism. Religious men must think, and think solemnly and loftily; therefore, to prevent this, religion must give place to giddy mirth, and God's hallowed day must be profaned by every kind of idle recreation. And what must be said of the High Church party, who lent their aid in this fearful desecration and despotic scheme? Were they the friends of pure and holy religion, of rational improvement, of public freedom!

This Book of Sports, however, was at first ordered to be read merely in the parish churches in Lancashire; but one author asserts that it would have been speedily extended over the kingdom, but for the decisive refusal of Abbot, who had recently succeeded Bancroft in the archbishopric of Canterbury. But though a partial enforcement of this desecrating production was all that it could, at that time, obtain, its promulgation gave serious ground of dissatisfaction and dread to all the more decidedly pious persons in the kingdom, both Puritans and Churchmen, and tended not a little to confirm the growing jealousy of High Church measures.

The "king-craft," of which James considered himself so great a master, was perpetually leading him astray, and involving him in dangerous political errors, which, blend

ing with the religious struggles that had so long prevailed, both increased the numbers, and gave intensity to the feel. ings, of those who regarded with jealousy the arbitrary measures of the Court. In one of his wise speeches the king gave a large explanation of his views with regard to Puritanism; from which it appeared, that he considered all to be Puritans who dared to oppose his absolute prero gative, and to maintain the rights and liberties established by law.* At the same time, he discountenanced that system of theology generally termed Calvinism, though he had previously professed to hold it, and had sent divines to the Synod of Dort, where the opposite system, Arminianism, was condemned. But perceiving that the Puritans were Calvinists, he turned the sunshine of his favor towards those of the clergy who had begun to support Arminian tenets. In this manner he most unwisely brought about a combination of two false and dangerous principles on the one side, and of two true and salutary principles on the other ;--the combination of despotism in the State and unsound theology in the Church, against the combination of political liberty and religious purity. The alliances formed on both sides were natural, for there is a strong and essential relationship between the component elements of each; and yet this very combination was the cause of many peculiarities in the struggle which afterwards arose, and of the various aspects which it wore as the one or the other, political or religious, obtained the ascendency.

The combination thus begun in theory, was soon forced into actual existence, when, in 1620, the king, offended with the Parliament for mentioning the subject of griev ances, instead of bestowing money, commanded them to forbear intermeddling with his government; and upon their recording in their journals a remonstrance and protesta tion in defence of their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges, he, in a storm of fury, tore out the protestation with his own hand, dissolved the Parliament, and issued a proclamation forbidding his subjects to talk of State affairs. This was despotism undisguised, and the heart of England understood and felt it. The element of resist ance to political tyranny began to work in the minds of Rapin, vol. ii. pp. 192, 193. † Rapin, vol. ii. p. 212.

men, many of whom had but little regarded the sufferings of the Puritans under an equal tyranny of an ecclesiastical kind. But the storm was delayed, partly by the natural timidity of James, who was incapable of boldly executing what he tyrannically conceived, and partly also in consequence of his death, and the pause which naturally ensued at the commencement of a new reign, till its principles should be ascertained.

[1625.] Charles I., at his ascension to the throne in 1625, found the kingdom in a truly deplorable condition on the point of being convulsed with internal dissension, despised by foreign countries, and its treasury totally exhausted. It would have required a wise and prudent king, and sage and able counsellors, to have rescued the nation from such imminent and formidable perils. But Charles was narrowminded and obstinate, impatient of advice except when it coincided with his own notions, bigoted in religious matters, entertaining the most despotic ideas of his royal prerogative, and so full of dissimulation, that neither his word nor the most solemn treaties could bind him, as subsequent events amply proved; and his most trusted counsellors were his father's recent courtier-race of sycophants and oppressors. His marriage to Henrietta, daughter of the French king, and a zealous Papist, caused an additional ground of jealousy lest persons of that religious persuasion should obtain undue and pernicious influence; and many events tended to strengthen that apprehension. Instead of relaxing the severe and persecuting measures under which the Puritans had so long groaned, Charles, instigated by Laud, Bishop of London, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, continued to oppress that body of excellent men with increasing severity.

A contest arose between Charles and his first Parliament, chiefly on account of their remonstrances respecting the dangerous increase of Popery, and their determination to proceed with the impeachment of his favorite, the profligate Duke of Buckingham. To stop these measures, the king suddenly dissolved the Parliament; and as he had not obtained the supplies which he desired, he proceeded to raise money by forced loans, ship-money, and other arbitrary and illegal exactions.* These violent encroachments Rushworth, vol. i. p. 192; Whitelocke, p. 2.

upon liberty and property increased the spirit of disaffection which was already strong, compelling all who valued freedom to perceive that some decided stand must be made, unless they were prepared to sink into the degradation of utter slavery

[1628.] During the interval which elapsed before the calling of the next Parliament, the clergy were employed to inculcate with all possible earnestness the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance, and to prove that the absolute submission of subjects to the royal will and pleasure, was authoritatively taught in the Holy Scriptures. Eagerly did the courtly divines comply with these directions, vieing with each other who should most strenuously promote the cause of despotism. In this glorious strife Sibthorp and Manwaring were peculiarly distinguished, broadly asserting that the king is not bound to observe the laws of the realm-that the authority of Parliament is not necessary for the imposing of taxes-and that those who refuse obedience transgress the laws of God, insult the king's su preme authority, and are guilty of impiety, disloyalty, and rebellion. When the Parliament again met in 1628, they proceeded against Manwaring for inculcating tenets destructive of the laws and liberties of the kingdom, and sentenced him to fine and imprisonment till he should make his submission. He submitted accordingly; but the king soon afterwards rewarded his services in the cause of tyranny, by raising him first to a deanery, and subsequently to the bishopric of St. David's. The other advocates of passive obedience also received promotion; and the nation was constrained to perceive what were the principles by which the king intended to govern. The controversy between High Churchmen and Puritans, which had so long divided the kingdom, was thus forced to assume the character of one in defence of civil liberty. For it was clearly seen, that the High Church party, who had all along enjoyed exclusively the favor of the reigning monarch, were willing to procure and perpetuate that favor by supporting the royal prerogative in its most arbitrary pretensions, sacrificing without scruple equally the rights of conscience and the civil liberties of the kingdom.

The contest continued in both its converging lines. On the one hand the king strove to obtain supplies without