practices towards the civil government between them and the Jesuits, and in consequence she inflicted severe penalties upon them for nonconformity. Many of the authors of that period assert, that the puritans were a sect founded by the Jesuits; many of them, they said, were actually concealed Jesuits, for the purpose of sowing divisions in the church of England. The puritans opposed the decent, sober ceremonies of the established church, and made strenuous efforts to procure their total abolition. To this, queen Elizabeth would never agree. This dispute generated a great deal of disturbance and clamour on the part of the puritans, and severe measures to compel conformity, on the part of the crown. Their opposition to government occasioned harsh measures to be resorted to against them, and severe acts of parliament to be passed. The greater the severity of government, the deeper the prejudice of these men took root, and their peculiar opinions increased, in proportion as they were watched and controlled. "They were called puritans," says Dr Hurd," because they aimed at a purer reformation, but the worst of all was, they wanted to reform the church without reforming themselves." Elizabeth entertained a most thorough hatred at the puritans, and showed little mercy towards them. Grindall, archbishop of Canterbury, a man of great moderation, used all his influence with the queen to soften the rigour of the act of uniformity, but she was inexorable. She inherited all her father's tyrannical temper. She fined and imprisoned these puritans; and even executed such of them as denied her supremacy, as traitors. The first congregation which met separate from the church of England was at Ryegate in Surrey, in the year 1558. They took the new order of church government, then recently established by John Calvin at Geneva, for their model, as all the numerous sects of dissenters have done. It is somewhat curious that no sect of dissenters has chosen the episcopal form of government, but all have followed the presbyterian model, having parity among ministers as the fundamental principle of their government. The rise and increase of the puritans alarmed queen Elizabeth, and she enacted several laws against them, and more were added by her successors. She usually dictated to her parliaments, which merely registered her will without much debate or consultation. 66 Every person not having reasonable excuse, shall resort to their parish church or chapel, on every Sunday and holiday, on pain of punishment by the censures of the church, or of forfeiting for every offence twelve pence.' "Every person above the age of sixteen, who shall not repair to some church, shall forfeit for every month twenty pounds. And if he shall forbear for a whole year, he shall be bound to good behaviour till he conform. Any person keeping a * 1 Eliz. c. ở, 14. schoolmaster who shall not repair to church or be allowed by the bishop, the keeper shall forfeit ten pounds a-month, and the schoolmaster be imprisoned for one year."* "Every offender, having been once couvicted, shall, without any other indictment or conviction, pay half-yearly into the exchequer £20 for every month afterwards until he conform; which if he neglected, the queen might seize all his goods, and two parts of his lands, if he had any."+ At a convocation of the church, held the 26th of March, 1565, the necessity and propriety of the uniform use of clerical habits were pressed. Those agreeing were required to subscribe volo, and dissentients to write nolo. Out of about one hundred puritan clergy present, sixty-one wrote volo, but the remainder declined, exclaiming," we shall be killed in our souls for this pollution." These by order of the queen were suspended, and warned that a failure in compliance within three months would subject them to deprivation. It is to be remarked, that the puritans, up to this period, had not separated from the church, and their historian Neale says, that "the puritans were at a loss how to behave, being unwilling to separate from a church where the word and sacraments were truly administered, though defiled with some popish superstitions. But,” continues the same author, "at length, after waiting about eight weeks to see if the queen would have compassion, several of the deprived ministers held a solemn conference with their friends, in which, after prayer and a serious debate about the lawfulness and necessity of separating from the established church, they came to this conclusion; that since they could not have the word of God preached nor the sacraments administered without idolatrous gear, (meaning the clerical habits,) and since there had been a separate congregation in London, and another in Geneva, in queen Mary's time, which used a book and order of preaching, administration of the sacraments and discipline, of which the great Mr Calvin had approved, and which was free from the superstitions of the English service; that therefore it was their duty, in their present circumstances, to break off from the public churches, and to assemble as they had opportunity in private houses, or elsewhere, to worship God in a manner that might not offend against the light of their consciences." It is sinful terms of communion that can alone justify separation from a true church, and the puritans, in the commencement of their schism, acknowledged the church of England to be a true church. But the puritans being determined to separate from the church, made the wearing the clerical habits a sufficient cause. was," says Neale," the compelling these things (the clerical habits) by law that made them separate." After separation, there seems to have » 23 Eliz. c. 1. † 29 Eliz. c. 6. "It Neale's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. i. 229. § Ibid. been no bond of union nor authority lodged anywhere. 703 A contention After raged as fiercely among themselves about the use of the Liturgy, as it had before been esteemed an intolerable grievance to wear a surplice. much debate, it was determined to adopt the service-book of Geneva compiled by Calvin, but which was eventually laid aside for extemporary prayers. On the 20th November, 1572, a number of the separated puritan divines assembled at the village of Wandsworth near London, and constituted themselves into a presbytery. These were afterwards joined by several others. They likewise chose eight lay elders, and added them to this court to compose a government. The queen getting notice of this new government, and yielding to her cherished dislike of the sect, issued a royal proclamation for putting the act of uniformity in strict execution. She also commanded an act of parliament to be passed, enacting that "if any person refusing to repair to church, shall be present at any assembly, meeting, or conventicle, under pretence of any exercise of religion, he shall be imprisoned till he conform, and if he shall not conform in three months, he shall abjure the realm; which if he shall refuse to do, or, after abjuration shall not go, or shall return without license, he shall be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. And whether he shall abjure or not, he shall forfeit his goods, and shall forfeit his lands during life.' Neale, their historian and eulogist, in speaking of their general principles, says, "that they were not enemies to either the name or functions of a bishop, provided he was no more than a stated president of the college of presbyters in his diocese, and managed its affairs with their assistance. They did not object to set forms of prayer, provided a latitude was allowed to the ministers to alter or vary some expressions, and to use a form of their own conception before and after sermon: neither did they object to such decent and distinct habits for the clergy as were not derived from popery. But, upon the whole, they were the most resolved protestants in the nation, zealous Calvinists, warm and affectionate preachers, and determined enemies to popery, and to everything that had a tendency that way." Readily admitting the truth of Mr Neale's words, yet it seems strange that men professing attachment to episcopacy, should, for the unimportant matter of harmless articles of dress, have broke into an open schism, and established an ecclesiastical discipline in direct opposition to that to which they declared they had no objection, and to a church wherein they also declared that " the word and sacraments were truly administered." But it is to be feared that schisms and divisions in the church are derived from the same source as wars and fightings"* in the body politic. * James iv. 1. On the accession of the illustrious house of Stuart, the puritans formed the most unbounded expectations of relief and support from the new king, who was known to be of a gentle and mild disposition. They met James on his progress to London, and presented the millenary petition. It was so called from its being said to have been signed by one thousand persons: but in fact there were no more than eight hundred names affixed to it. In this petition, they embodied all their former grievances, with many new objections to the Liturgy, and the whole doctrine and discipline of the established church. Their petition gave great offence to the two universities. They resented the attempt of the puritans to forestall the opinions of the sovereign, and prejudice him against the indigenous church, of which he was become the civil governor. They passed resolutions accordingly, depriving such of the puritan clergy as held university degrees, of their honorary titles. The petitioners, however, gained nothing by this petition. James was a mild and tolerant monarch, and, willing to show his moderation, issued a proclamation "touching a meeting for the hearing, and for the determining things pretended to be amiss in the church." This meeting or conference took place at Hampton Court, the 14th, 16th, and 18th January, 1604. Reynolds, a man of good sense and learning, with four other divines, attended on the side of the puritans. All the bishops attended on the other side. This conference, as might be expected, ended unsatisfactorily to all parties, and its conclusions were rejected by the puritans. Neither party had any very clear notions of what is now called toleration. The puritans would yield nothing, but claimed everything. They claimed especially to be exempted from the use of habits and ceremonies. With this the king would not comply. The conference was followed by a proclamation from the crown, for enforcing conformity. And fierce debates ensued among those puritans themselves, who still nominally adhered to the church, and enjoyed livings, whether they should continue in it or entirely separate from it. An act of parliament was frained, to which James gave his consent, that "no recusant, in not repairing to church, being convicted thereof, shall enjoy any public office, or shall practise law or physic, or be executor, administrator, or guardian. And if any person shall send their children over seas for education, they shall forfeit £100, such child be disabled to inherit or take any benefit by gift, conveyance, or devise."* The above regards all protestant dissenters in general, but there are certain other statutes which concern their teachers only. No one can take upon himself to teach or preach, without taking the oath of allegiance, and the declaration against transubstantiation. And if any person shall * 3 James I. take upon him to preach, or teach in any meeting in other manner than according to the practice of the church of England, he shall be liable to a penalty of £20.* No person shall presume to consecrate and administer the sacrament before he be ordained priest according to the form and manner of the church of England.+ Besides these general laws, there are two statutes which affect quakers in particular. If any person shall refuse to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy duly tendered, he shall incur a premunire. ‡ And if any person shall maintain that the taking of an oath is unlawful, and shall refuse an oath duly tendered, he shall incur a penalty of £5 for the first offence, £10 for the second, and be transported for the third. But by the act of toleration, they shall not incur any of these penalties, on their qualifying in the same manner as other dissenters, except that, instead of the oaths at sessions, they make and subscribe a declaration of fidelity, and subscribe a profession of their Christian belief. The Baptists are exempted from signing the 27th article of religion, relating to infant baptism, in order to conciliate their scruples on that head; in other respects they qualify the same as all other dissenting teachers. Besides exemption from penalties, dissenters are, by the act of toleration, entitled to certain privileges. They shall not be prosecuted in any ecclesiastical court, for, or by reason of their not conforming to the church of England. But this does not exempt them from paying tithes, or other parochial duties, or any duties to the church or minister, nor from any prosecution for the same. If any dissenter, on being appointed to the office of high constable, petit constable, churchwarden, overseer of the poor, or any other parochial or ward office, should scruple to execute these offices on account of the oaths, he may execute them by deputy, provided that he takes the oaths, and is otherwise approved of. Every minister, preacher, or teacher who has taken the oaths, and subscribed the declaration against popery, is exempted from serving upon a jury, or the office of a churchwarden or overseer of the poor, or any other parochial or ward office. But the act does not extend to quaker preachers, or teachers, for they are neither in "holy orders, nor pretended holy orders." The laws enacted during the reign of queen Elizabeth were very severe; they are now however mitigated by the act of toleration. But the necessity of supporting an established religion, whose tenets are friendly to the constitution of the state, has been felt in every period of British history. In 1643, an ordinance ! of the long parliament enjoined that the † 14 Char. II. 5 Elizabeth. $13 and 14 Char. II. * 22 Char. IL || The decrees of the parliament, during all the period which it possessed the supreme power, were called ORDINANCES, being enacted and enforced by the authority of the commons alone; in contradistinction to an ACT OF PARLIAMENT, which is enacted by the king, with the advice of the three estates of parliament; the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons. |