Several of

of Commons were disliked by some of the lawyers. them voted with the minority against Strafford's attainder.1 Many more considered that the aim of the House of Commons to take the control over the policy of the state from the king was wholly unconstitutional. Many suspected and disliked the mob violence, which the majority in the House of Commons did not discourage when it was directed to silencing or overawing its opponents. In the third place, the most important of all the causes which broke up the early unanimity of the Parliament was the religious question.

"Another thing," says May, "which seemed to trouble some who were not bad men, was that extreme licence which common people, almost from the very beginning of the Parliament, took to themselves, of reforming, without authority, order, or decency; rudely disturbing church service whilst the common prayer was reading; tearing those books, surplices, and such things: which the Parliament (either too much busied in variety of affairs, or perchance too much fearing the loss of a considerable party, whom they might have need of against a real and potent enemy) did not so far restrain as was expected or desired by those men. To this was added those daily reports of ridiculous conventicles and preachings made by tradesmen, and illiterate people of the lowest rank, to the scandal and offence of many." In fact it was becoming more and more obvious that those who were concerned in these breaches of the law had the sympathy of the majority of the House of Commons. The legislation directed against the bishops and the ecclesiastical courts, the still more radical proposals of those who wished to abolish episcopacy root and branch, and the policy outlined in the Grand Remonstrance, all pointed in the same direction. It was clear therefore that, if the House of Commons succeeded in getting complete control over the policy of the state, sweeping changes would be made in church as well as in state. For this reason those who disliked the new aims of the House of Commons on political and constitutional grounds combined with those who disliked them on religious grounds. A party therefore arose who supported Church and King in opposition to the Puritan majority of the House of Commons.

1 Gardiner, op. cit. ix 338.

2 Ibid x 57-59.

3 The mob in 1641 got into Westminster Hall and attempted to assault the bishops, but the Commons refused to take action-"God forbid," said Pym, "the House of Commons should proceed in any way to dishearten people to obtain their just desires in such a way," ibid 118.

4

* History of the Long Parliament Bk. I c. ix p. 113.

5 Below 135.

As Gardiner puts it, op. cit. x 59, Pym's motion as to the conditions under which the House of Commons would consent to vote money for the suppression of

Eliot had remarked in his Negotium Posterorum 1 that, "It is observable in that House, as their whole storie gives it, that when ever that mention does breake of the fears or dangers in religion, and the increase of poperie, their affections are much stir'd, and whatsoever is obnoxious in the state, it then is reckoned as an incident to that." Religion still had the same power in the House of Commons, and so political agreement disappeared in the face of religious disagreement-everything else became merely "an incident to" that disagreement. But we can understand neither the nature of this disagreement, nor its results upon the political situation, unless we glance briefly at the history of those religious differences between the Stuart kings and a large number of their subjects, which, all through this period, had accompanied and aggravated the political differences.

The Religious Aspect of the Political Controversies

The Elizabethan settlement of the English Church seemed both to the Roman Catholics and to Protestants of the school of Calvin to be an illogical compromise. To the Roman Catholics the Church of England seemed to be an essentially Protestant and heretic church. The royal had been substituted for a papal supremacy, and some of the most distinctive doctrines of the Roman 'church had been discarded.2 To the Calvinists the Church of England seemed to have retained very many of the distinctive marks of Roman Catholicism. Its formularies, its ceremonies, and its episcopal government, seemed to them to be reminiscent of Rome. But the majority of the English people did not belong to either of these two extreme parties; and so the Elizabethan settlement, supported by the crown, stood its ground, and gradually gained popularity amongst the nation at large.

In truth, the fact that the Elizabethan settlement was a compromise, and, like all compromises, not wholly logical, was the chief cause of its success. In many ways it met national needs and harmonized with national prejudices. The fact that it was founded on the royal supremacy made it in that age an essentially national church. It was not subject to any foreign power, and it was subject to the power of the crown, in and through which England had become a compact territorial state of the modern type. The fact that its doctrines were in the most impor

the Irish rebellion (above 118-119) was "the signal for the final conversion of the Episcopalian party into a Royalist party"; below 137-138. 2 Vol. i 593-596; vol. iv 47. 4 Ibid 47.

1i 69.
3 Ibid 47-48.

tant respects distinctively Protestant in character, meant in the sixteenth century, that it was allied with the more progressive ideas of the age; and, at the same time, the fact that it had retained many of the formularies, much of the ritual, and much of the governmental machinery of the past, saved it from the narrowness of the Calvinistic and other Protestant systems which were built up directly and solely upon the inspired words of the Bible. Its composite character preserved for it an element of continuity with the earlier ages of ecclesiastical history and tradition. This element of continuity helped men like Cranmer and Parker, Jewel and Hooker, to make its theology more learned and more literate than the narrower systems which discarded all connection with the great theologians of the past; and, on that account, it has proved to be more adaptable than other Protestant churches to the new needs and the new ideas of future ages. In fact the Tudor settlement of the English church was the counterpart of the Tudor settlement of the English state. In the church, as in the state, the transition from mediæval to modern had been effected with the minimum of change. But necessarily the breach of continuity was more apparent in the church than in the state. The substitution of the royal for the papal supremacy, and the rejection of many of the distinctive dogmas of the Roman church, were changes more violent than any which had occurred in the state. But the formularies of the English church, its ritual, its government, and the machinery of its courts, preserved a good deal of the spirit of the mediæval past, and are closely parallel to that large mediæval element which was retained by the law and institutions of the state.

That such a settlement as this was on the whole popular with the majority of English people is clear from the Millenary Petition presented to James I. in 1603.2 That Petition did not ask, as some reformers earlier in Elizabeth's reign had asked, for the abolition of episcopacy and the substitution of a Presbyterian system. It only asked for a change in certain definite points in the existing system-that certain ceremonies should be disused, certain reforms made in the liturgy, certain abuses removed, some relaxation in the rule that the beneficed clergy and candidates for ordination must subscribe to the whole of the Prayer Book.1 It is probable that if some of these concessions had been made,

1Gardiner, History of England i 38-39; cp. Gardiner, Cromwell's place in History 6, 7.

2 Prothero, Documents 413.

3 Gardiner, History of England i 148; cp. Tanner, Constitutional Documents 166-170.

"That ministers be not urged to subscribe but (according to the law) to the articles of religion and the King's supremacy only."

and if the church had been wisely administered in the spirit of Hooker, the element of religious controversy would not have bulked so large in the constitutional quarrels of the seventeenth century. If that element could have been eliminated the constitutional controversies would have lost a large part of their bitterness; and, even if a revolution had been needed to settle them, that revolution would not have been preceded by a rebellion and a royalist restoration.

But, even in Elizabeth's reign, it was fairly clear that, to attain this result, the supreme governor of the church needed very considerable diplomatic gifts. The long struggle with Spain had left a legacy of fear and hatred of Roman Catholicism. No doubt the execution of Mary Queen of Scots and the defeat of the Armada had removed the dangers of a forcible counterreformation; but intrigue and plot were still active, and the Protestant cause was still fighting for its life on the Continent. Thus the dread of Rome did not diminish; and those who thus dreaded Rome naturally tended to embrace the system which was most definitely opposed to it. As we have seen, the Calvinistic theology and the Presbyterian discipline created the force which saved the Reformation. It is not surprising, therefore, that, though the demand for the establishment of the Presbyterian system had died down, many were attracted by the Calvinistic theology and forms of worship, and desired, if not to get rid of, at least to lay less stress upon, the importance of those doctrines and ceremonies in the church which conflicted with that theology and those forms. Many also were attracted by this theology and these forms of worship, because they felt that it was in and through a church of this kind they could attain to a purer morality, and a more real Christianity. It was these men who formed the backbone of that Parliamentary opposition which had arisen in the later years of Elizabeth's reign. They cemented that alliance between religious and political opposition which was to have so large an effect in the seventeenth century. On the other hand, a party in the Church of England was arising which dissented from the strict theology of Calvin, and laid stress upon the spiritual help afforded by ritual and ceremonies." They naturally insisted upon the strict observance of the Act of Uniformity; and they had the support of the law and the queen.

Two very different systems of theology, two very different conceptions of worship, were beginning to confront one another. The Calvinist theology was harder, more rigid, and less liberal

1 Vol. iv 19; above 7; cp. Gardiner, History of England i 31-32; v 355. 3 Ibid i 39.

2 Ibid iii 241-242.

than the Anglican theology. In the Calvinist scheme of worship the greatest stress was laid upon the preaching of the Word. In the Anglican scheme it was the sacraments and the rites and ceremonies of the church which were emphasized. "Men were to be schooled into piety by habitual attendance upon the services of the church. At these services nothing unseemly or disorderly was to be permitted, by which the mind of the worshipper might be distracted. Uniformity of liturgical forms, and uniformity of ecclesiastical ceremony, would impress upon every Englishman the lessons of devotion, which were to sustain him in the midst of the distractions of the world. This uniformity was to be preserved by the exercise of the authority of the bishops who were divinely appointed for its maintenance." 1 It is doubtful whether even Elizabeth, if she had lived longer, would have dealt wisely with this situation. She was very jealous of the smallest interferences with her royal supremacy. In her eyes the government of the church was not a matter with which Parliament had any right to interfere. Any concession to Protestant nonconformists she regarded as politically dangerous. She had not forgotten Knox's views on the "Regiment of Women"; nor was she blind to the consequences of permitting any approach to the principles of a church which, like the Roman Church, claimed to exercise an authority in opposition to and even over that of the state. The political views expressed by Knox, Buchanan and Melville were, from her point of view, an abundant justification for resisting any attempt to make concessions to the Protestant nonconformists.1 And yet if these men, who were thoroughly loyal to the crown, were not to be driven into permanent opposition, it was clearly politic to make some concessions. If the church of England was to be a really national church, it was necessary to do something to conciliate an important minority. It was clear that no concessions could be expected from Elizabeth or from the bishops; but would not James see the necessity? The whole future of James's dynasty depended upon the manner in which he answered this question.

1 Gardiner, History of England ii 125.

2 See the Queen's speech to Parliament in 1585, D'Ewes 328; vol. iv 89-90. * Elizabeth wrote to James in 1590, "Ther is arisen, bothe in your realme and myne, a secte cf perilous consequence, suche as wold have no kings but a presbitrye, and take our place while the inioy our privilege, with a shade of Godes word, wiche non is juged to follow right without by ther censure the be so demed. . . I pray you stop the mouthes, or make shortar the toungz of such ministars as dare presume to make oraison in ther pulpitz for the persecuted in Ingland for the gospel. Suppose you, my deare brother, that I can tollerat suche scandalz of my sincere gouvernment? No." Letters of Elizabeth and James VI. (C.S.) 63-64.

*See Gooch, Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century 42-48; above 8, II.