Volume I Part 24 (1/2)
p. 22.
[483] The puritans seem to have flattered themselves that James would favour their sect, on the credit of some strong a.s.sertions he had occasionally made of his adherence to the Scots kirk. Some of these were a good while before; but on quitting the kingdom he had declared that he left it in a state which he did not intend to alter. Neal, 406. James, however, was all his life rather a bold liar than a good dissembler. It seems strange that they should not have attended to his _Basilicon Doron_, printed three years before, though not for general circulation, wherein there is a pa.s.sage quite decisive of his disposition towards the presbyterians and their scheme of polity. The Millenary Pet.i.tion indeed did not go so far as to request anything of that kind.
[484] Strype's _Whitgift_, p. 571; Collier, p. 675; Neal, p. 411; Fuller, part ii. p. 7.; _State Trials_, vol. ii. p. 69; _Phoenix Britannicus_, i. 141; Winwood, ii. 13. All these, except the last, are taken from an account of the conference published by Barlow, and probably more favourable to the king and bishops than they deserved. See what Harrington, an eye-witness, says in _Nugae Antiquae_, i. 181, which I would quote as the best evidence of James's behaviour, were the pa.s.sage quite decent.
[485] Reynolds, the princ.i.p.al disputant on the puritan side, was nearly, if not altogether, the most learned man in England. He was censured by his faction for making a weak defence; but the king's partiality and intemperance plead his apology. He is said to have complained of unfair representation in Barlow's account. _Hist. and Ant. of Oxford_, ii. 293.
James wrote a conceited letter to one Blake, boasting of his own superior logic and learning. Strype's _Whitgift_, Append. 239.
[486] Rymer, xvi. 565.
[487] Strype's _Whitgift_, 587. How desirous men not at all connected in faction with the puritans were of amendments in the church, appears by a tract of Bacon, written, as it seems, about the end of 1603, vol. i. p.
387.--He excepts to several matters of ceremony; the cap and surplice, the ring in marriage, the use of organs, the form of absolution, lay-baptism, etc.; and inveighs against the abuse of excommunication, against non-residence and pluralities, the oath _ex officio_, the sole exercise of ordination and jurisdiction by the bishop, conceiving that the dean and chapter should always a.s.sent, etc. And, in his predominant spirit of improvement, asks, ”Why the civil state should be purged and restored by good and wholesome laws made every three or four years in parliament a.s.sembled, devising remedies as fast as time breedeth mischief; and contrariwise the ecclesiastical state should still continue upon the dregs of time, and receive no alteration now for these forty-five years or more?”
[488] _Id. ibid._
[489] Neal, 432; Winwood, ii. 36.
[490] See one of the _Somers Tracts_, vol. ii. p. 144, ent.i.tled ”Advertis.e.m.e.nts of a Loyal Subject, drawn from the Observation of the People's Speeches.” This appears to have been written before the meeting of parliament. The French amba.s.sadors, Sully and La Boderie, thought most contemptibly of the king. Lingard, vol. ix. p. 107. His own courtiers, as their private letters show, disliked and derided him.
[491] King James's Works, p. 207.
[492] _Parl. Hist._ i. 967.
[493] Commons' Journals, i. 166.
[494] It appears that some of the more eager patriots were dissatisfied at the concession made by vacating Goodwin's seat, and said they had drawn on themselves the reproach of inconstancy and levity. ”But the acclamation of the house was, that it was a testimony of our duty, and no levity.” It was thought expedient, however, to save their honour, that Goodwin should send a letter to the speaker expressing his acquiescence. P. 168.
[495] Commons' Journals, 147, etc.; _Parl. Hist._ 997; Carte, iii. 730, who gives, on this occasion, a review of the earlier cases where the house had entered on matters of election. See also a rather curious letter of Cecil in Winwood's _Memorials_, ii. 18, where he artfully endeavours to treat the matter as of little importance.
[496] Commons' Journals, page 155, etc.; _Parl. Hist._ 1028; Carte, 734.
[497] 1 Jac. i. c. 13.
[498] By one of these canons, all persons affirming any of the thirty-nine articles to be erroneous are excommunicated _ipso facto_; consequently become incapable of being witnesses, of suing for their debts, etc. Neal, 428. But the courts of law disregarded these _ipso facto_ excommunications.
[499] _Somers Tracts_, ii. 14; Journals, 199, 235, 238; _Parl. Hist._ 1067. It is here said, that a bill restraining excommunications pa.s.sed into a law, which does not appear to be true, though James himself had objected to their frequency. I cannot trace such a bill in the journals beyond the committee, nor is it in the statute-book. The fact is, that the king desired the house to confer on the subject with the convocation, which they justly deemed unprecedented, and derogatory to their privileges; but offered to confer with the bishops, as lords of parliament. Journals, 173.
[500] Bacon's Works, i. 624; Journals, 190, 215.
[501] Commons' Journals, 150, etc.
[502] Journals, 246.
[503] Journals, 230.
[504] _Parl. Hist._ 1030, from Petyt's _Jus Parliamentarium_, the earliest book, as far as I know, where this important doc.u.ment is preserved. The entry on the Journals, p. 243, contains only the first paragraph. Hume and Carte have been ignorant of it. It is just alluded to by Rapin.
It is remarked that the attendance of members in this session was more frequent than had ever been known, so that fresh seats were required.
Journals, 141.
[505] ”My faithful 3, such is now my misfortune, as I must be for this time secretary to the devil in answering your letters directed unto him.