own authority under Christ, and its own ruler among men-no, but because they petitioned her gracious Majesty to take into royal consideration certain things which it would be desirable to alter in the observances and in the forms of the church of England. This is all the length Cartwright went, and he states why they were put into prison and continued prisoners. Their repeated letters to Lord Burleigh declared that they never. thought of doing this or that; all they ventured was to supplicate her Majesty that such and such things should be reviewed and revised. Therefore were they cast into gloomy dungeons, separated from their families, and left to lie rotting in the most horrid and confined cells where they were imprisoned for conscience sake.

They acknowledged the church established by her “Highness's laws and authority,” with its creed and ritual,“ notwithstanding anything that may need to be revised and further reformed” to be a true, visible church of Christ, from the holy communion of which by way of schism it is not lawful to depart. To procure reformation of anything they desired “ to be redressed in the state of our church,” they never intended to use any other means than only prayer to Almighty God, and “most humble suit to your excellent Majesty." To seek redress by any violent means, they judged most unlawful and damnable by the word of God. They acknowledged the Queen's sovereignty and supremacy, next and immediately under God, over all persons and in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil, in as large and ample a manner as was recognized by the High Court of Parliament in the statute of recognition and oath of supremacy. They admitted, therefore, that her Majesty was invested with the whole spiritual power to repress all heresies, establish or repeal all canons, alter every point of discipline ; and ordain and establish any rites or ceremonies she pleased; and sustained the office of supreme governor of the church of England.

No wonder that while struggling hard to resist copes and crucifixes, square caps and white vestments, and yet subscribing such declarations, they should suffer the dungeon, the rack, and the stake; and that those in authority should enforce an act of uniformity which provided, that every clergyman refusing to conform in all things to the public service, should suffer for the first offence the forfeiture of all his spiritual benefices and six months' imprisonment; for the second offence one year's imprisonment, and be deprived of all spiritual promotion ; and for the third offence be doomed to imprisonment for life. And that if any person wrote or spoke against the prayer-book, or induced any minister to practice nonconformity, he should forfeit “for the first offence, one hundred marks ; for the second offence, four hundred marks; and for the third, all his goods and chattels, and suffer imprisonment during life.” It was farther commanded, that every person inhabiting her Majesty's dominions should diligently and faithfully resort to his parish church every Sunday, and other days. ordained as holy days, upon pain of the censures of the church; and that every person so offending should forfeit twelve pence, to be levied by the churchwardens by way of distress.

It is most instructive to notice how this royal supre. macy was enforced. In 1565 the ministers of London were summoned to appear before commissioners at Lambeth, and were thus addressed by the bishop's chancellor : “My masters and the ministers of London, the council'spleasure is, that ye keep the unity of apparel like to this man (a model renegade) as you see him ; that is, a square cap, a scholar's gown priestlike, a tippet, and, in the church, a linen surplice; and inviolably observe the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and the queen's majesty's injunctions, and the Book of Convocation. Ye that will presently subscribe, write volo. Those that will not subscribe, write nolo. Be. brief; make no words."



[ocr errors]

To some who would speak, his answer was, peace, peace. Apparitor, call the churches. Masters, answer presently, subpæna contemptus ; and set your names." This was in Elizabeth's time.

Principle was then germinating in the English mind; symbols were used for the development of thought; and vestments came to signify truths or to test conscience, and stimulate to a free and scrupulous exhibition of obedience to God.

I cannot concur in the popular admiration expressed towards Elizabeth, implied in the phrase "glorious Queen Bess." Her conduct to the queen of Scotland alone would aggravate the reputation of Caligula himself. Her treatment of the puritans of her reign would sanction the policy of Nero. Aye! if it were possible for our beloved monarch queen Victoria to treat those that are the puritans of to-day, as queen Elizabeth dealt with the puritans of her day, I should say that the fate of her throne would not long be disputed. Queen Elizabeth sought, as she thought, to bring into subjection Ireland. Ireland has always been England's difficulty. Queen Elizabeth thought she would settle the difficulty, not by sending Indian meal to the Irish people, but by sending her dragoons, and driving them from the province of Ulster to the province of Connaught; and the words which they used in those times were To Hell or to Connaught !" The province of Ulster was depopulated, and she attempted to people it by a more resistless and active persecution of puritans in England ; she sought to entice such parties, obnoxious though they were at home, and commission them as her political emissaries, in subduing and restraining the rebel Irish; that at the same time she might remove from her immediate presence the troublers that threatened her own court.




a crown.

ELIZABETH was succeeded by a countryman of mine. James the Sixth of Scotland became James the First of England, as heir to Elizabeth. He had been trained in Scotland, with the design he should prove a steady-going presbyterian. He had been under the instructions of one of the most learned men of his time, George Buchanan, who exercised a little of the austere discipline of pedagogue, even towards his royal pupil, for we find he sometimes used the birch, if not the Scottish“ tause;" the prince did not relish it; but still he was made to read, learn, and mark, if not inwardly to digest. A greater pedant, and a greater — I was going to use a harsh word, concerning a king--a greater pretender never wore

There was some readiness about king Jamessome of the benefit of Scotch training after all. His tutor did not much care whether he was to be a prince or a minor, but he must obey while under discipline; the elders of the church of Scotland were that sort of simple old-fashioned people, that they thought a prince ought to be obedient as well as a subject, to the laws of God; and James did not like such severity. The eldership was too oligarchial, too democratic, too plebeian, too people-like altogether, for him to admire. But when he came to the sunny south-0 what an enchanting country England is to Scotchmen !—he never saw such a beautiful scene, though a king, as the high road to England. When he came he was not a child, though he was not then a wise man. He was feeble and effeminate, as a

[blocks in formation]


man; yet he was the rising sun,not exactly the morning star; but one in whose light those who were at the head of the church were willing to bask; and the consequence was that they indulged the humours of James. He was welcomed by the bishops. They were lordsright reverend lords—and knew how to treat a king.

Your presbyterian parsons knew nothing about such exalted engagements. “Oh,” he said, “ no bishop no king -no king in Scotland at all. Here kings can live and reign.” He found his most indulgent friends from among those that held prelatic power, wore the lawn, and occupied the bench.

James I. used to avow it as his creed, and adopted the motto “ No bishop, no king.” His purpose was to bring Scotland, as well as England, into subjection to episcopal authority. He was, of course, relieved from trammels by its discipline; but he knew not what his country would suffer, under the domination of what the people afterwards called “Black Prelacy." James I. may be said to have sown the dragon's teeth, which grew up into an army to destroy his son Charles, and to distract the country in all its civil and political relations. His parasites told him he was a second Solomon, and he was such a Solomon as to believe them. They assured him his most illustrious predecessor had been an occidental star, and that they had been sitting under her declining rays, waiting till he, the sun, should rise and shine. He literally credited their fulsome flattery, and thought there could not be any light that he did not diffuse. There could not be a clerical conference at Whitehall, nor a question of theology discussed, nor a translation ordered to be made of the scriptures, without James's royal opinion being asked upon the subject. And I am almost afraid we are guilty of hypocrisy in circulating the panegyrical sort of dedication to the second Solomon which accompanies our Bibles. I do not think it ought to be

« ElőzőTovább »