. ecclesiastical government and for the punishment of ecclesiastical offenders. Radically wrong as their theory was, they acted consistently with it and conscientiously. We should therefore consider their passing of this bill for checking and punishing separation, not as an act of heartless "oppression and cruelty," but as a natural result of their mistaken view of Christian duty. But we go further. We justify the Puritans in the passing of this bill. The spiritual lords, as we have stated, were desirous to rid themselves and the secular judges of the odium which attached to the forced construction of the Act 23 Elizabeth. To accomplish this, by substituting a new law which should expose the Puritans to most cruel punishment, they had instigated and carried in the Lords a special bill. This bill had been sent down to the Commons. This bill the Puritans virtually rejected, by so modifying it that it applied only to the Separatists, subjecting them to banishment, but leaving their lives in their own hands. This was a compromise. It spoiled the trap which the bishops had set for the Presbyterian Puritans,1 but it provided penalties for the more obnoxious Independents. The prelates were fain to accept it. It barred all further proceedings against either party upon that construction of 23 Elizabeth which made writing or speaking against the bishops the same as "seditious matter" against the queen.3 But for this special and specific statement future prosecutions of Presbyterians and of Separatists would have been 1 Ante, p. 563. * Ibid., pp. 516, note, 560, 561. 8 Ibid., p. 426. based upon the Act 23 Elizabeth as it had been strangely interpreted by the courts. Thus by the passage of this new bill the Puritans in Parliament only shielded their Presbyterian brethren, and provided a milder punishment for the Separatists. They substituted banishment for a felon's death. They softened the liabilities of their brethren of the Separation as far as they could. In what, then, consisted their "oppression and cruelty"? To a cursory reader it may seem strange and bootless that the Puritans should have persisted in introducing and passing bills in the Commons for ecclesiastical reform, when they were well assured that such bills must fail for lack of the royal assent. The question naturally arises, -What did they accomplish? We answer, "Much." They were accustoming themselves to scrutinize and adjudge religious and civil abuses. They were educating themselves in the mysteries of civil government. They were training themselves to a better and better acquaintance with the principles of civil liberty. They were discovering the true line of demarcation between the rights of the throne and the rights of the people. In short, by all their Parliamentary struggles and debates they were advancing in political knowledge, and were preparing themselves and the people, slowly but surely, for grand results erelong to be developed. These results had their origin in the dispute about linen and woollen, — the cap and the surplice. Persecution had reminded the inferior clergy that there was a Magna Charta. They fell back upon it, and planted themselves upon their rights as Englishmen. Their pleas for religious rights were caught up, reiterated, discussed and urged on the floor of Parliament; and then, by natural consequence, there followed the study, discussion, and assertion of civil rights, the cry against royal oppression and the plea for the rights of the people,beginning with the loud remonstrance against purveyance, and culminating in the remarkable and triumphant struggle against monopolies. We do not claim for the Elizabethan Puritans that they had well-defined and correct ideas of civil liberty. For example, the dispensing power of the sovereign utterly in mockery of all legislation and practically a canker at the root of civil liberty - seems still to have been generally admitted, although by some in Elizabeth's last Parliament we think it was roundly questioned.1 Still the Puritans had progressed in an important degree toward that freedom which is now the glory of their fatherland. Not only had they persistently and "curiously scanned the prerogatives of princes, and greatly advanced the interests of THE PEOPLE," but, against the will and the power of hierarchy and prince, they had advanced principles and assumed positions in Consistory and Parliament which erelong produced momentous results. FREE WORSHIP, FREE THINKING, FREE SPEECH, a FREE PRESS, and FREE TRADE, — such were the aim, and such were destined to be the fruits, of their labor. 1 Ante, pp. 615-618, 624, 625. For the origin and nature of the dispensing power, the reader is referred to Hume's History, Vol. IV. p. 424, Chap. LXX. Bancroft, in Hicks, p. 303. INDEX. A. ABJURING the realm, iii. 564. Acts, of Uniformity, i. 143; of Suprem- - 567. 437, 487; a "second admonition," 448; Altars removed under Edward VI., i. 63. Anjou, Duke of, proposed as Elizabeth's Apocrypha, i. 427, note 4; Puritan ob- contrary to statute, 454, 483. Archbishopric of Canterbury under note. Arden, Edward, executed for plotting 398; subscribed by Popish priests B. Babington, Anthony, iii. 90-101, 109, 119. Ballard, John, iii. 79, 88, 92, 100, 109, 119. Bancroft, Dr. Richard, his sermon at Paul's Cross, iii. 330-334. Baptism, sign of the cross in, i. 193, Barnes, Robert, i. 173, note. tival of, 161, 162; massacre of Prot- Beal, Robert, his remarks upon the Book of Common Prayer, ii. 380, note; Bell, Robert, his protest in Parliament against monopolies, i. 386; roughly Beza, Theodore, deprecates separation Bishops, how appointed, i. 31, note 3, marries the Countess of Leicester, 225. |