rooted and general opposition between them and the Church. Elizabeth, convinced that religious conferences more frequently widened breaches than produced peace, had always prevented them; James, however, on account of circumstantial complaints of the Puritans, encouraged them, partly because he hoped to promote truth, partly because he wished to shew himself as a divine and an orator. At the opening of a religious conference, between members of the established Church and Puritans at Hampton Court, in January, 1605, the King declared his respect for the existing constitution of the Church, and his aversion to alter it. Yet abuses might have gradually arisen which required correction, and the discussion was besides of use to stop the declamations of the discontented. But when the Puritans persevered in their opinions, though the King himself often interfered in the conversation, his ideas were manifested more decidedly; he would not increase the number of the laws and ecclesiastical ordinances, or fill the prayer books with theological subtleties; Royalty and Presbyterianism were as much at variance as God and the devil, for the common people came together according to this doctrine, and ignorantly criticised every King and every government; he knew how the Presbyterians had treated him and his mother, and how true the saying was, No Bishop, no, King. In reference to these expressions, Archbishop

Whitgift said, he was convinced that the spirit of God spoke through the King, and Bishop Bancroft added, I can testify that my breast overflowed with joy, because Almighty God has, in special mercy, given us such a King as there has not been since the time of Christ. Lastly, it was declared in an official statement, that the episcopal Church had been found pure and blameless in all essential points, and, with the exception of some trifling changes in the prayer book, every thing must remain as it was. It was ordered, subsequently, that nobody should preach on things that were not mentioned in the thirty-nine articles; nor on predestination, election, the spiritual rights of the King, &c.

The Puritans universally complained that the question had been decided against them, partially, and without the assent of Parliament, merely by royal proclamations; but they were not agreed whether they might submit to the ordinances, and consider the English as a real Church, or whether they ought to look upon it as a member of Antichrist. Many of the more rigid emigrated to the Netherlands and America, and those who remained behind and refused compliance, were punished, or removed from their posts. But on the whole, the Church gained very little by this exclusion, and the Puritans in Scotland opposed it still more decidedly.

These latter aimed at establishing a Church

wholly independent of all temporal jurisdiction, without any gradation of dignities, and divine service entirely destitute of art and ceremonies. Their austerity and gloomy views of life degenerated in some into fanatic enthusiasm; in others into dark melancholy. Even the more moderate clergy looked upon it as their duty to judge, without forbearance, of the conduct of the King and Queen and their favorites, of ministers, and of the administration of public affairs, and to address the people on these subjects from the pulpit. They extended their jurisdiction, added to the severity of their decrees of excommunication, which the temporal power was obliged to acknowledge, and dared not to take off even if it was unjust. Thus, in the year 1593, a synod excommunicated all the Roman Catholic Lords, without regard to the King's interference, and left them only the choice of being converted or of quitting the country.

All this was diametrically opposed to the principles of James. He therefore endeavoured to bring over the inferior clergy to his side, partly by concessions, partly by threats; gained many of the lower Barons, who, since the year 1584, had represented the counties in Parliament, as well as those Lords who wished to obtain possession of Church lands, or were afraid lest they should be compelled to resign them.

At this time the clergy obtained, in some measure,

representatives in Parliament; the General Assembly proposed for each place six persons, out of whom the King chose one. But these representatives were to propose nothing without a special commission, and approve nothing that might be injurious to the Church. They retained their office only for one year, and were responsible to the General Assembly of the Clergy. While many considered this Parliamentary attendance as a gain for the Church, others vehemently reprehended all participation in temporal assemblies, saying that it led, if not to the subjection of the Church to the State, yet, in the end, to the restoration of the Bishops. Almost all assented to Buchan's principle, that Princes, like the meanest subject, are amenable for their crimes to the tribunals, and, in case of resistance, may be compelled by arms and deposed.

James, till he ascended the throne of England, found himself under the necessity of proceeding with uncommon caution and moderation towards the Presbyterians, but in the subsequent years his plans relative to the Church became more manifest, and were promoted by means of every kind; praise, rewards, bribery, threats, deprivation, and banishment, often with violation of many legal forms. The Church was to be subordinate to the State, and no religious assembly convoked without the royal assent. The Bishops recovered (1606 to 1610)

most of their estates, and their seats in Parliament, and became the heads of the assemblies; every priest was to swear obedience to them, and nobody to preach on the constitution of the Church, and these new ordinances.

In the year 1617 the King effected many other changes, and resolved that what he ordered, by the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and a sufficient number of clergymen, should be law. At the same time he introduced into his chapel the choir, the organ, and many other things that had been before abolished; and on the 25th of August, 1618, prevailed on the assembly of the clergy to adopt the five articles of Perth. These were, 1. The Sacrament is received kneeling. 2. It may be administered to sick persons in their own houses. 3. Private Baptism is allowed. 4. Children eight years of age may be confirmed. And, 5, certain holydays shall be observed.

These points appeared to many persons the more objectionable, as several difficult and disputed doctrines were merely indicated, or implied in them; such, for instance, as the real presence; the necessity of baptism for salvation, the authority of the bishops, &c. These articles were, however, confirmed by the Parliament in the year 1621, by a majority of twenty-seven, after the royal commissioner had declared that no further innovations should be made. From that time, the power of the