"princes fhall perform this business (meaning "a reformation) by halves, and leave any

root of this clergy or priestcraft, as it now "is amongst us; or if that famous reformer "fled fome years fince out of Picardy to Gene"va, who is of fo great renown for learning "and parts, fhall not in his model wholly ex

tirpate this fort of men; then, I fay, I muft "foretel, that as well the magiftrate, as this "workman, will find themfelves deceived in "their expectation, and that the least fibra of "this plant will over-run again the whole "vineyard of the Lord, and turn to a diffusive papacy in every diocefe, perhaps in every ❝ parish."

Whoever impartially confiders the reign of James I. cannot but difcover, that the arbitrary notions which that weak and felf-fufficient prince had got into his head, were greatly promoted by the difcourfes and exceffive flattery of the clergy: and it was from those principles, all the miferies this kingdom foon afterwards felt, have entirely proceeded.

The doctrine of unlimited paffive obedience to princes is a plant purely of proteftant growth; I mean, of proteftant priest-craft: or at least if it had ever a being before in the brain of any enthusiastical or interested priest,

priest, the clergy of the reformed church of England may claim the fole honour of having cherished, and brought it to perfection. How much foever the clergy had hitherto contributed towards the oppreffions of the people, yet we never find they had the impudence to maintain it was a part of religion and their duty to fubmit to them, till thefe times I am speaking of.

The first use they made of this disposition in king James I. was to render the puritans more obnoxious to him; towards whom already he was far from being well inclined, though he had formerly declared quite the contrary in Scotland. Their different opinions in regard to the hierarchy rendered them extremely odious to the bishops, and they dreaded the growth of their opinions more than those of popery itself, as appears by their conduct throughout this reign. The bishops therefore reprefented the puritans as men, whose principles were destructive to monarchy, no less than to the government of the church by bishops; a charge, that could not fail confirming a prince of his fentiments in his averfion towards them.

In a conference* appointed at this time for form's fake between the bishops and puritan

*Rapin, vol. 2. p. 162.

minifters, the archbishop of Canterburg (a moderate man reckoned, as times went) did not fcruple to make use of an expreffion of flattery to the king fo high-strained, as to be almost blafphemous; for, upon the king's replying himself to the objections of the minifters, he cried out, he verily believed it was by the fpirit of God, the king fpoke what he then did.

But it was not by words alone, that the bishops flattered the king, and fhewed their approbation of his arbitrary principles. Archbishop Bancroft, like a true high-flying churchman, was refolved to lead the way in an attempt to make the laws depend on the fle will of the king. He therefore in the name of all the clergy exhibited to the king in council articles containing twenty-five pretended grievances, which he defired might be reformed in granting prohibitions from the civil courts. The archbishop could not but know, that in fuch cafes the judges acted according to the fixed laws of the land; and that if there was any hardship in their proceedings, they could not be reformed but by authority of parliament. But the archbishop's drift in this conduct was to point out a method to others of applying immediately to the

See Cake's articuli cleri, zd inft.

king, without regarding the parliament, in things, that were undeniably within their jurifdiction; which opportunity, he imagined, king James would readily have embraced, by which also the clergy would have gained a point, they could not have expected from the juftice and wisdom of the whole legislature. It is not improbable, but the king might have been gained to their caufe, had it not been for the unanimous and ftrenuous oppofition of the judges, who reprefented the illegality of the archbishop's requeft, and the dangerous confequences, that might happen from

it.

Soon afterwards two books were publicly licensed; the one wrote by Dr. Cowel, profellor of civil law at Cambridge, and vicargeneral to archbishop Bancroft; the other by one Dr. Blackwood, a clergyman, in which were paffages in favour of the most extravagant maxims of arbitrary power. The first laid down these three principles.

*

1, That the king was not bound by laws, or his coronation-oath.

*Rapin, vol. 2. p. 176.

2dly, That the king was not obliged to call a parliament to make laws, but might do it alone by his absolute power.

3dly, That it was a great favour to admit the consent of the subjects in giving fubfidies.

Thefe principles were fo grofs, that even the king found himself obliged to forbid the reading those books, by proclamation, in order to prevent the juftice of parliament upon the authors.

The fucceffor of the archbishop just mentioned, indeed proved a man of more moderation in his principles, than is ufually met with in church-men: but as fuch a temper made him unfit for promoting the designs of his brethren, we find him always hated and branded by them. He could not approve of the rigour used to diffenting proteftants, at the fame time that the Roman catholics were openly tolerated by the king, and winked at by the clergy, contrary to the declared laws of the realm: his letter to the king on this occafion, and the freedom he ufes in condemning the difpenfing by proclamation with the

* Ruh. vol. 8. p. 85.

esta

4