learned men, and explored the Scriptures and the patristic writers for themselves. Yet no name was held in higher honor among them than that of the Genevan Reformer.

A controversy of greater moment for the subsequent ecclesiastical as well as political history of England, was that between the Anglicans and Puritans. From the beginning, there were some in England who wished to introduce more radical changes and to conform the English Reformation to the type which it had reached among the Reformed or Calvinistic Churches on the Continent. This disposition gained force through the residence of the foreign divines in England in the time of Edward, and still more by the return of the exiles after the accession of Elizabeth. The great obstacles in the way of obtaining the changes which they desired, were the strength of the Catholic party and the conservatism of Queen Elizabeth. The controversy first had respect to the use of the vestments, especially the cap and surplice, and extended to other peculiarities of the ritual. The ground of the Puritan objection was that these things were identified in the popular mind with the papal notion of a particular priesthood. They were badges of Popery, and for this reason should be discarded. When it was replied, that the surplice, the cross in baptism, kneeling at the Sacrament, are things indifferent in their nature, the rejoinder was made that since they are misleading in their influence, they are not indifferent, in the moral sense; but that if they are indifferent, the magistrate has no right to impose them upon Christian people: it is an infringement of Christian liberty. In this last affirmation was involved an idea with regard to the Supremacy which must lead to a difference of a more radical character. Hooper, who is often styled the father of the Puritans, had spent some time at Zurich while the Adiaphoristic controversy, which related to the same subject of ceremonies, was raging in Germany. Being chosen under

RISE OF PURITANISM.

343

Edward, in 1550, to the bishopric of Gloucester, he refused to wear the vestments at his consecration. Finally, after he had been imprisoned, the difficulty was settled by a compromise. They were, in fact, very much laid aside during this reign. At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign there was a general feeling among her newly appointed bishops, most of whom had been abroad during the persecutions under Mary, in favor of the disuse of the vestments and of the offensive ceremonies. This was the wish of Jewel, of Nowell, of Sandys, afterwards Archbishop of York, of Grindal, who succeeded Parker in the archbishopric of Canterbury. Only Cox, the Bishop of Ely, who, in the church of the exiles at Frankfort, had led the party which clung to the English Liturgy, and Parker, who had remained in England during the late reign, were on the other side; although Parker appears, at the outset, to have looked with doubt or disfavor upon the vestments. Burleigh, Walsingham, Leicester, were in favor of giving them up, or of not making their use compulsory. English prelates, in their correspondence, speak of them in the same terms of derision and contempt as the Puritan leaders afterwards employed. For example, Jewel says in one of his letters to Peter Martyr: "Now that the full light of the Gospel. has shone forth, the very vestiges of error must, as far as possible, be removed, together with the rubbish, and, as the saying is, with the very dust. And I wish we could effect this in respect to that linen surplice." The statements of Macaulay are sustained by the correspondence of the English with the Swiss Reformers, and by other evidence: "The English Reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on the continent. They unanimously condemned as anti-Christian numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly adhered and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt

1 Short, History of the Church of England, p. 250.

a strong repugnance even to things indifferent, which had formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon. Thus Bishop Hooper, who died manfully at Gloucester for his religion, long refused to wear the episcopal vestments. Bishop Ridley, a martyr of still greater renown, pulled down the ancient altars of his diocese, and ordered the Eucharist to be administered in the middle of churches, at tables which the Papists irreverently termed oyster-boards. Bishop Jewel pronounced the clerical garb to be a stage dress, a fool's coat, a relic of the Amorites, and promised that he would spare no labor to extirpate such degrading absurdities. Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre, from dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration. Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community."1 But the Queen, to whom the Royal Supremacy was the most valuable part of Protestantism, was inflexibly opposed to the proposed changes. Not without difficulty did the new bishops succeed in procuring the removal of images from the churches. The great fear of the Protestant leaders was that the Queen would be driven over to the Catholic Church, in case they undertook to withstand

1 History of England. i. 47. Strype says that when Grindal was appointed Bishop of London, he "remained under some scruples of conscience about some things; especially the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. For the Reformed in these times generally went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing of the Church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and custom practiced by that apostate and idolatrous Church should be abolished, and that the service of God should be most simple, stript of all that show, pomp, and appearance, that has been customarily used before, esteeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti-Christian." Life of Grindal, p. 28. In the preceding reign, Martin Bucer, writing under Cranmer's roof at Lambeth, under date of April 26, 1549, speaks of the retention of the vestments, chrism, etc., in the Anglican ritual, and says: "They affirm that there is no superstition in these things, and that they are only to be retained for a time, lest the people, not having yet learned Christ, should be deterred by too extensive innovations from embracing his religion," etc. Original Letters, ii. 535.

DEVELOPMENT OF PURITANISM.

345

her wishes. Most of the eminent foreign divines on the continent, whom they consulted, counseled them to remain in the Church, and not desert their offices, but to labor patiently to effect the reforms to which the Queen would not then consent. But many of the clergy did not conform to the obnoxious parts of the ritual. This occasioned much disorder in worship, and, as the Puritans were not at all disposed to follow their own ways in silence, it gave rise also to much contention. The Queen resolved to enforce uniformity, and required her bishops, especially Parker, to prosecute the delinquents. At length, the Puritans began to organize in separate conventicles, as their meetings were styled by their adversaries, in order to worship according to the method which they approved. They were numerous; their clergy were learned and effective preachers, and both clergy and people were willing to suffer for the sake of conscience. The cruel, but ineffectual, persecution of them, darkens the reign of Elizabeth, especially the latter part of it. Among the other ends for which the Puritans were always zealous, were stricter discipline in the Church, and an educated, earnest ministry, to take the place of the thousands of notoriously incompetent clergymen.1

If Hooper was the parent of Puritanism in its incipient form, a like relation to Puritanism, as a ripe and developed system, belongs to Thomas Cartwright, Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. About the year 1570, he began to set forth the principles respecting the polity of the Church and the proper relation of the Church to the State, which formed the creed of the body of the Puritan party afterwards. The first point in his system is that the Scriptures are not only the rule of faith, but also the rule for the government and discipline of the Church. They present a scheme of polity

1 The objections of the Puritans to the Anglican Ritual are stated and explained by Neal, History of the Puritans, 1. ch. v.

from which the Church is not at liberty to depart. The second point is that the management of Church affairs belongs to the Church itself and its officers, and not to civil magistrates. Cartwright held to the old view of the distinction between ecclesiastical and civil society. While the magistrate may not dictate to the Church in matters pertaining to doctrine and discipline, he still is bound to protect and defend the Church, and see that its decrees are executed. Cartwright was no advocate of toleration. In his system, Church and State are indissolubly linked, and there must be uniformity in religion. But what that system of religion and worship shall be, which it belongs to the magistrate to maintain, it is for the Church in its own assemblies, and not for him to decide. Moreover, Cartwright contended that the system of polity which the Scriptures ordain is the Presbyterian, and that prelacy is, therefore, unlawful.

This was, of course, a blow at the Queen's Supremacy, as it had been understood and exercised. It is true that Elizabeth disclaimed the title of Head of the Church and called herself its Governor. The thirty-seventh Article, which was framed under Elizabeth, expressly denies to the civil magistrate the right to administer the Word or the sacraments. But her visitatorial power had no defined limits. She did not hesitate to prescribe what should be preached and what should not be, and what ites should be practiced and what omitted, in a style which reminds one of the Byzantine emperors in the age of Justinian. She was not satisfied with disposing of ecclesiastical possessions at her will. Sir Christopher Hatton, one of the Queen's favorites, built his house in the garden of Cox, the Bishop of Ely; and when he attempted to prevent the spoliation, she wrote him a laconic note, in which she threatened with an oath to "unfrock" him if he did not instantly comply with her behest. She forbade, in the most peremptory manner, the meetings of clergymen for