pastors, and many of the most efficient ministers silenced and deprived for various shades of non-conformity; what with a lack or dearth of preachers-not a single one in Cornwall, according to Neal, and only two in the whole diocese of Bangor, while Bishop Sandys, of Worcester, in preaching before the Queen, says, "Many there are that hear not a sermon in seven years, I might say in seventeen," there was room and call enough for such services as the Prophesyings. Whatever possible dangers or mischiefs may have lurked under their operation, it seems to be allowed, even by their most adverse critics, that they had in them elements of the highest value. That they were successful while they lasted in whetting the national intellect, and stirring the religious susceptibilities of multitudes; that they roused the clergy to study Scripture and add to their efficiency as public instructors; and that they were bulwarks against Papal corruptions and were loosening the hold of the old superstitions upon the people, is readily admitted on all hands. For, as Froude observes:

"It would have fared ill with England had there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their harness, it was they after all who saved the Church which attempted to disown them." 2

Among the many charges with which the Prophesyings, both then and since, have been assailed-it has been alleged they were nurseries of party spirit, or apt to become so by gendering strife, or making religion a matter of debate and encouraging variety of opinion. The one main objection to them was doubtless their being of Puritan origin and their tendency to promote Presbyterian methods. Two things especially drew down upon them the watchful eyes and at last, as we shall see, the heavy hand of jealous authority—their

1 Lee, in his Church under Elizabeth (vol. i. chapter iv.), furnishes from State Papers and other contemporary sources abundant and painful evidence of the religious condition of the country.

2 History, vol. ix. ch. 55.

mode of introducing the lay element into the Church, and their tendency to promote the Church's own self-government in spiritual affairs.

For, as one has shrewdly observed,—

"The future character of the Church of England was the real question at issue. Should the Reformed Church of England expand itself and generously, or rashly it might be, cast itself on the affections of the people, and adapt itself to the growing passion for religious teachinga passion which it might hope to lead and which it was equally wicked and insane to attempt to quench? This was one alternative. On the other hand, Should it risk all hazards, resist every innovation, and, subdue by authority rather than conciliate by gentleness and love? In a word, Should the Church be made more popular or more imperious?" 1

Marsden's Early Puritans, p. 109.

IV.

PARLIAMENT AND THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN MANIFESTO, 1572.

WHILE the sceptre of ecclesiastical supremacy lay, as we have seen, with the Crown, a certain key of Church-jurisdiction had been lodged with Parliament. For according to the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity it was PARLIAMENT that was to judge and determine all changes of rites, discipline, and worship within the Church; and there were those, especially in the Commons, who were not disposed to let this privilege go to sleep-men of a bold and steady patriotism like Strickland, the Wentworths, Yelverton, Cope, Morrice, and the like-outspoken, God-fearing Englishmen, tenacious of their rights and liberties for the nation's weal.

The Parliament which met in April, 1571, affords striking evidence of the power and prevalence of Church-Puritanism throughout the country, with a desire for further reformation. Mr. Strickland, "a grave and ancient man," was an earnest exponent of these views: and so ably did he represent the case, that notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of the Queen's officers and ministers, the House of Commons appointed a committee of fourteen of their number to confer with the Bishops on further reformation in the Church. In order to under

1 D'Ewes, Journals of Parliament, pp. 157-176. The chief authority here is the valuable Journals of all the Parliaments in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, by the Presbyterian, SIR SIMONDS D'EwEs, who lived 1602-50. This work, though completed in 1629, was not issued till 1682, by his nephew, Paul Bowes. It has been amply drawn upon by later writers. D'Ewes sat for Sudbury in the Long Parlia ment, receiving a baronetcy in 1641; and belonging to the Presbyterian party, he was among those excluded from the House of Commons under "Pride's Purge," 1648. His collection and transcription of historical records,-especially his five vols. of MS. Notes on the Long Parliament, 1640-45,-constitute an important part of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, and have been largely utilized by historical inquirers. It may be proper to note, that the Harleian MSS., Library, and Miscellany derive their name from a Presbyterian family; their original possessor, the Robert Harley (Lord Oxford) of Queen Anne's reign, having been a Presbyterian like his ancestors.

K

stand the spirit and aims of this Parliament, we must keep in view some facts and features in it which many have overlooked. It had been called together at a time when hatred and dread of Popery were prevailing, and when suspicion and disgust had been created against the Bishops by their acts of oppression towards distinguished preachers and their sycophancy towards the Queen and Court. Moreover, as (by the Act of the fifth year of Elizabeth) Roman Catholics were penally excluded from the House of Commons, the Puritan party had acquired a decided preponderance. For the prelatic party (meaning by this, the party averse to any further modification in the ecclesiastical settlement) was at this time the least numerous of the three parties in the country that were really in earnest for their faith: though it must be admitted that the neutrals or religiously indifferent, who constituted a vast body, would belong to the dominant form of religion.1

The Church Puritans were not only the popular and intelligent party, but they commanded a preponderance of votes in the Commons, so that it required all the energy of the Queen and all the influence she could exert to retain her ecclesiastical mastery. She never scrupled to interfere, as far as she could with safety, whenever the Commons began to deal with Church matters. She was more jealous of her ecclesiastical supremacy and valued it more than any other part of her prerogative. Next to the question of the succession to the Crown, she was most lynx-eyed when any point was raised that might touch this sacred claim; and often when it was not in any measure

1 Hallam's weighty remarks, though, as he says, they "may startle some readers," are worth considering in this connection. He frankly avows, "that the Puritans, or at least those who rather favoured them, had a majority among the Protestant gentry in the Queen's days. It is agreed on all hands and is quite manifest that they predominated in the House of Commons. But that House was composed, as it has ever been, of the principal landed proprietors, and as much represented the general wish of the community when it demanded a further reform in religious matters, as on any other subject. One would imagine by the manner in which some express themselves, that the discontented were a small faction who by some unaccountable means, in despite of the Government and nation, formed a majority of all Parliaments under Elizabeth and her two successors."-Hallam's Constitu tional History, footnote of chap. iv. And in another footnote at the close of same chapter, he pointedly declares, that "Elizabeth and James were personally the great support of the High Church interest: it had few real friends among their counsellors.¡'

threatened, she took decisive measures. Thus, when good old Mr. Strickland introduced his Church Reform Bill, and supported it with a speech illustrating how the Book of Common Prayer could advantageously be altered, without endangering any foundation principles, she so resented his action that she cited him before the Council, and even suspended him from sitting in the House--a step, however, which she quickly retraced on seeing the commotion it had produced. The House called Strickland to its bar, and required of him the reason why he had been absenting himself from his duties. He explained very readily how he had been forbidden by the Queen and her Council from attending; whereupon the House proceeded to declare that its privileges had been violated; that such an invasion of its rights by the Crown could not be submitted to without the guilt of betraying its trust and the liberties of the people; that the Queen could neither make nor break laws; and that the House which had authority to determine the right to the Crown itself, was certainly competent to treat of all matters concerning the Church, its Discipline and Ceremonies.

As soon as it became evident that the Commons would address to her a remonstrance and a firm petition for restoring Strickland to his place, the Queen prudently anticipated their wish by permitting him to resume his seat; though she at the same time intimated that instead of having reformation of ecclesiastical abuses dealt with by Parliament, she would attend to it through the Bishops under the royal supremacy. The Commons still persisted, however, in introducing Bills relating to the Church, though they failed to pass the Upper House. But one Act of great moment was carried this session in the teeth of a direct message from the Queen not to meddle with it. This Act1 is one of peculiar interest, because when the Queen gave it her royal assent, on 29 May, 1571, the Church of England implicitly acknowledged the validity of ordination by Pres

1 Commonly known as An Act for Ministers of the Church to be of Sound Religion: or, For Reformation of Disorders in the Ministers of the Church.-Eliz. c. 12 of her thirteenth year.