^{page 201 note 2} Lecler, J., Toleration and the Reformation, trans. Westow, T. L., London 1960, ii. 493.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 3} From Uniformity to Unity, ed. Nuttall, G. F. and Chadwick, Owen, London 1962, 9Google Scholar. See also Chadwick, Owen, The Reformation, London 1964, 404Google Scholar and Sutherland, N. M., Catherine de Medici, Historical Association 1966, 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 4} Prynne, , Canterburies Doome, London 1646, 342.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 5} The admission that force could not create faith was compatible with a defence of persecution. See Brown, P. R. L., ‘St. Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion’, Journal of Roman Studies, liv (1964), 111–12Google Scholar. I would like to thank Mr. Brown for a number of helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Sandys, Bishop (Works, London 1841, 46)Google Scholar, faithfully following Augustine, quotes Ep. 204: ‘he that is constrained is driven whither he would not go willingly: but when he is entered by constraint, then he feedeth with a good will’. But Augustine's struggles with the problem of the freedom of the will were too subtle for most people, and the commoner position is Hooper's, that though force cannot create faith, it can prevent false doctrine from breaking forth in public: Hooper, John, A Godly Confession and Protestation of the Christian Faith, Later Writings of Bishop Hooper, ed. Society, Parker (hereafter referred to as P.S.), Cambridge 1852. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} On the arguments for toleration see Jordan, W. K., History of Religious Toleration, London 1932–40Google Scholar, and J. Lecler, op. cit. and bibliography.

^{page 202 note 2} Sermon 6 (1628), in Works, Oxford 1847, i. 163.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 3} Whitgift, Sermon on the Queen's Accession Day, 1583, in Works; P.S., iii. 595.

^{page 203 note 1} Raab, Felix, The English Face of Machiavelli, London 1964, 109Google Scholar, 123, 125, 131 n. 2, 162, 209 n. 2.

^{page 203 note 2} Newes from Hell, Rome and the Inns of Court (Thomason E. 133), London 1642, 1–12Google Scholar. For a more serious ascription of a desire for division to the Devil, see Stephen Marshall, Meroz Cursed, London 1642, 37. Calamy quoted Cyprian to the effect that it was worse to divide the church than to sacrifice to an idol: An Indictment against England Because of her Self-Murdering Divisions, London 1645, Title Page.

^{page 203 note 3} Sermon Against Contention, Sermons or Homilies, London 1638, 142. Since the Church was the bride of Christ, for its members to commit spiritual infidelity was spiritual whoredom and adultery.

^{page 203 note 4} Dod, John, A Remedy Against Private Contentions, London 1610, 10, 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} See, for example, Gardiner, Stephen, De Vera Obedientia, ed. Janelle, P., Cambridge 1930, 117.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, viii, i. 2. On the influence of the Old Testament, first as a source, and then as a means of making old ideas both more literal and more national, see P. R. L. Brown, op. cit., 114, and J. Lecler, op. cit., i. 7, 31, 70. One of the Scottish canons of 1635 threatened excommunication to those who denied that the king had the same authority in ecclesiastical causes that godly kings had among the Jews: Heylin, , Cyprianus Anglicanus, Dublin 1719, iv. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} Negotium Posterorum, ed. Grosart, A. B., London 1881, i. 70Google Scholar. He also said division in religion ‘wrongs divinity’, and ‘dissolves all ties and obligations, civil and natural’.

^{page 204 note 4} D'Avaux, The French Ambassador to the United Provinces, claimed in 1644 that ‘the names of Catholic and Hollander can go together. It is possible to be an enemy of the King of Spain without being a Protestant’: Geyl, P., The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century, London 1961, i. 143.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 5} Dickens, A. G., ‘Writers of Tudor Yorkshire’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (5th series 13, 1963), 72–3Google Scholar: Basilikon Doron, Political Works of James I, ed. MacIlwain, C. H., Cambridge Mass. 1918, 51Google Scholar: Baillie, R., Letters and Journals, ed. Laing, , Edinburgh 1841, i. 278Google Scholar. These passages do not say quite the same thing, but the variation is probably due to difference in dates.

^{page 204 note 6} Thompson, Faith, Magna Carta, Minneapolis 1948, 260Google Scholar. For many Puritans, this sense of being the chosen people, that, as Job Throckmorton put it, ‘the Lord hath vowed himself to be English’ (Neale, J. E., Queen Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, London 1957, ii. 170Google Scholar) was a profound source of comfort. One of their persistent fears was that if they corrupted their worship. God would deprive them of their status as chosen people, as he had deprived the Jews. This is the meaning of the frequent allusions to the danger of the golden candlestick being removed. See Calamy, E., Eli Trembling for Fear of the Ark, Oxford 1663, 15Google Scholar; Perkins, W., The Idolatry of the Last Times, Works, Cambridge 1605, 811Google Scholar; Smart, Peter, The Vanity and Downfall, Edinburgh 1628, 38Google Scholar; and Sir John Wray, in Rushworth, Historical Collections, iii, i. 240–1.

^{page 205 note 1} Chadwick, Owen, The Reformation, London 1964, 391Google Scholar. Figgis was discussing ‘the divine right of kings in its completest form’, which is not the same subject as divine right: see Figgis, J. N., The Divine Right of Kings, Cambridge 1914, 4Google Scholar. Whitgift, Works, iii. 588; Rutherford, S., Lex, Rex, London 1644, 21Google Scholar; Manwaring, R., Religion and Allegiance, London 1627, i, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} Hooker, op. cit., v. ii. 3. On oaths, see Hill, Christopher, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionaty England, London 1964, 382–419Google Scholar. It may be doubted whether the growth of cynicism about oaths (as distinct from objection on grounds of content to any individual oath) had any particular connexion with Puritanism.

^{page 205 note 3} Haller, W., Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution, New York 1955, 66Google Scholar. The statement is from a private letter to Henrietta Maria in 1646. On preachers as a means of controlling the Elizabethan north, see Hill, C., ‘Puritans and the Dark Corners of the Land’, T.R.H.S. (5th Series, no, 13, 1963), 79.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Gouge, W., Domestical Duties, London 1626Google Scholar, Ep. Ded. Authority in the family and in the State were supposed to be essentially of the same type, and division in either caused alarm. Calamy asked the City, ‘Would it not be a sad thing to see twelve in a family, one of them a Presbyterian, another an Independent, another a Brownist, another an antinomian, another an Anabaptist, another a Familist, another for the Prelatical Government, another a Seeker, and the tenth it may be an atheist, the eleventh a Jew, and the twelfth a Turk?’: The Great Danger of Covenant-Refusing and Covenant-Breaking, London 1645, 37Google Scholar. The State, moreover, regarded heads of households, as well as local officials, as subordinate ministers of its authority. See the instructions about Paul's churchyard in 1631 in Rushworth, Historical Collections, iii, i. 91.

^{page 206 note 2} Works, iii. 590.

^{page 206 note 3} Religion and Allegiance, London 1627, ii. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 4} Edwards, T., Gangraena, London 1646, i. 156Google Scholar. The significance of the marginal hand is that Edwards thought this should be selected by preachers as one of the arguments likely to persuade their hearers.

^{page 206 note 5} John Ponet, A Short Treatise of Politike Power, 1566, Sig. C. 5.

^{page 206 note 6} Russell, Conrad, ‘The Theory of Treason in the Trial of Strafford’, English Historical Review, lxxx (1965), 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 206 note 7} Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer, ed. Willson, D. H., Minneapolis 1932, App. 380.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Bagshaw, E., Two Arguments, London 1641, 25Google Scholar. He said that ‘matters of religion, and of our laws … like Hippocrates' twins, they live and die together’: Rushworth, Historical Collections, iii, i. 26–7.

^{page 207 note 2} Hill, C., Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution, Oxford 1965, 255Google Scholar: Coke, 7th Report 17 (Calvin's Case).

^{page 207 note 3} Hooker, op. cit., 1, Conclusion 8.

^{page 207 note 4} Gauden, John, The Love of Truth and Peace, London 1641, 41Google Scholar; Edwards, , Gangraena, London 1646, i. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 5} An Indictment, London 1645, 32. He said the only way to end divisions was to find God again.

^{page 207 note 6} Hooker, op. cit., viii, ii. 6; Allen, J. W., English Political Thought 1603–60, London 1938, i. 491Google Scholar. Neither legal nor contractual theories of obligation were common before 1640: almost all ideas of obligation were based on Rom. xiii, either directly or through the Great Chain of Being.

^{page 208 note 1} Lovejoy, A. O., The Great Chain of Being, Cambridge, Mass. 1936Google Scholar; Tillyard, E. W. M., The Elizabethan World Picture, London 1943Google Scholar; Greenleaf, W. H., Order, Empiricism and Politics, London 1964.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 2} Dr. Greenleaf suggests that these ideas were identified with the cult of royal authority. They could be so identified, but they could also be used for very different purposes, as when Pym, addressing the Lords in January 1642, drew from a standard Great Chain comparison between the body politic and the human body the conclusion that ‘diseases of the brain are most dangerous’: Rushworth, Historical Collections, iii. i. 510.

^{page 208 note 3} Gouge, W., Domestical Duties, London 1626, 3Google Scholar. He said that ‘even the highest governor on earth is called a minister, for the good of such as are under him’.

^{page 208 note 4} Marshall, Stephen, Meroz Cursed, London 1642, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 5} Cawdrey, Robert, A Godly Forme of Household Government, London 1600, 13Google Scholar and Ep. Ded., Sig. A. 2. To those who thought such instruction too much effort, Cawdrey offered the argument that they would, therefore, have more honest and diligent servants, and more obedient children. He said it was the solution for all those who complained of bad servants, since servants did not do their duties well unless they did them for God's sake: ibid., Sig. A. 4, pp. 39–40.

^{page 209 note 1} Bossy, John, ‘The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism’, Crisis in Europe, ed. Aston, Trevor, London 1965, 225.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} An Indictment, London 1645, 38.

^{page 209 note 3} Op. cit., ii. 8.

^{page 209 note 4} Sandys, , Works, London 1841, Sermon xx, 392Google Scholar; Sermon v, 97. He continues: ‘for there can be no agreement between Christ and Belial, the light of one and the other's darkness … such as are not of one true religion with us, their profession may be friendship, but their practice is deceit’.

^{page 209 note 5} The Judges' Resolution: Abo the Manner of Judge Berkeley's Being Enlarged out of Prison, London 1642, 3.

^{page 210 note 1} Hurstfield, J., ‘Church and State: the Task of the Cecils’, in Studies in Church History, ed. Cuming, G. J., London 1965, ii. 124Google Scholar. I would like to thank Professor Hurtsfield for a number of helpful comments.

^{page 210 note 2} One of the interesting problems is why there was so much concern with obligation during this period, but it is a problem which has more possible solutions than can usefully be discussed here.

^{page 210 note 3} Hooker, op. cit., 1, x. i.

^{page 210 note 4} ‘The New Life’, Sermons Preached Before His Majestry, London 1630, 28.

^{page 210 note 5} Rushworth, Historical Collections, ii, i. 99; Edwards, op. cit., ix. 120. Edwards listed a Sodom alongside a Münster. Sodomy was one of the curses which smote the Israelites when they forsook God.

^{page 210 note 6} ‘An Answer to the Lord of Falkland's Discourse of Infallibility’, 10–11, in Lucius Cary, Lord Falkland, Discourse of Infallibility, ed. Triplet, London 1651.

^{page 211 note 1} J. Lecler, op. cit., i. 486.

^{page 211 note 2} Faculty of Theology. In Vesp. Thompson, Aegidii: ‘an quisquis possit esse simpliciter atheos' -neg’. Register of the University of Oxford, ed. Clark, Andrew, Oxford 1887, ii, i. 203Google Scholar. I would like to thank my wife for this reference.

^{page 211 note 3} Locke, , Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Gough, , Oxford 1946, 154Google Scholar. Locke is here speaking for his contemporaries.

^{page 211 note 4} Hacket, , Scrinia Reserata, London 1693 i. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 5} Charity Maintained, 1638, Preface. Knott continued: ‘So must they also believe we cannot be saved, if they judge their own religion to be true, and ours to be false’.

^{page 212 note 1} McAdoo, H. R., The Spirit of Anglicanism, London 1965, 69.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} Jordan, W. K., History of Religious Toleration, London 1936, ii. 405–6.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Perkins, W., A Golden Chaine, Works, Cambridge 1605, 106 (sic.) sc. 109Google Scholar. He added: ‘man not regenerated hath freewill to do only that which is evil, none to do good’. On will-worship and idolatry, see ibid., 814. He said those who set up a devised worship set up also a devised God.

^{page 212 note 4} Englands Looking Glasse, London 1642, 28.

^{page 213 note 1} Exhortation to the Reading of Holy Scriptures, ii. in Sermons or Homilies, London 1938, 7Google Scholar; Rutherford, S., A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, London 1649, 24Google Scholar; Prynne, , Canterburies Doome, London 1646, 244Google Scholar; Edwards, op. cit., i. 19. Rutherford said that ‘we must judge false spirits to be false spirits, not because they agree not with ours (that is the calumny of libertines) but because they swerve from the word of truth, though we be not infallible, as the Apostles were’. He thought the alternative was that we must ‘die in no belief at all’: op. cit., 119–20.

^{page 213 note 2} Edwards, op. cit., i. 4; Rushworth, Historical Collections, iii, i. 201.

^{page 213 note 3} Prynne, , Canterburies Doome, London 1646, 64Google Scholar. In 1637, Prynne himself had been taken pro confesso as a result of a similar refusal to admit that the crucial points could be open to dispute.

^{page 213 note 4} The powers of the Old Testament kings were frequently quoted in support of the royal supremacy, but if the kings were Old Testament kings, the preachers could claim to be Old Testament prophets. Marshall told the Commons that ‘my duty this day is to do that which Jeremy did’: Reformation and Desolation, or the Symptoms of a Kingdom To Which God will by No Means be Reconciled, London 1642, 18.

^{page 213 note 5} For a vivid definition by Luther of conscience as submission to Scripture, see J. Lecler, op. cit., i. 149–50 and 157–8.

^{page 214 note 1} Sermon iv (1625), in Works, Oxford 1847, i. 112.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Op. cit., v. i. 3.

^{page 214 note 3} A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, London 1649, 133–5. He said (Preface) that if this doctrine of liberty of conscience were given play, ‘the mind, an absolute sovereign princess, can no more incur guiltiness in its operations about an infinite sovereign God, and his revealed will, by this lawless way, than fire can in burning … be arraigned of any breach of the law’. He thought (104) that heretics were ‘willingly ignorant’ and quoted the Epistle to Titus that they were ‘self-condemned by their own heart’ (107). ‘When any in ill blood deny such truths, as that there is a God, and parents are not to be loved we all say, such do sin, and offer violence to their conscience … such go near to put off humanity’.

^{page 214 note 4} A Discourse of Conscience, ed. Merrill, Thomas F., Nieuwkoop 1966, 42, 68Google Scholar. Perkins thought conscience a part of the understanding, but regarded it also as the direct judgment of God: Works, Cambridge 1605, 617, 619. He also thought of conscience as a set of innate ideas: ibid., 620, 622.

^{page 215 note 1} Edwards, op. cit., i. 79.

^{page 215 note 2} Francis Marbury, in Maclure, M., The Paul's Cross Sermons, Toronto 1958, 79Google Scholar; Mews From Ipswich, 1637, 2. For a discussion of the authorship of News From Ipswich, see Lamont, W. M., Marginal Prynne, London 1963, 38Google Scholar. The question is probably still open.

^{page 215 note 3} Journal of Sir Symonds D'Ewes, i (ed. Notestein, ), New Haven 1923, 458.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} Heylin, , Cyprianus Anglicanus, Dublin 1719, 6Google Scholar. For an amusing example of the same process applied by papists to Protestants, ibid., 71.

^{page 215 note 5} For one of the more hilarious examples of this process, see [Calfine, Giles,] A Fresh Bit of Mutton for those Fleshly-Minded Cannibals that Cannot Endure Pottage, London 1642 (Thomason E. 149).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} Journal of Sir Symonds D'Ewes, ii (ed. Coates, ) New Haven 1942, 14.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 2} Rushworth, Historical Collections, ii, i. 398, Laud to Traquiir, 11 September 1637.

^{page 216 note 3} Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, ed. Cattley, S. R., London 1839, viii. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 4} Parker, Henry, The Altar Dispute, London 1641, 33Google Scholar. I would like to thank Mr. N. J. Tyacke for this reference.

^{page 216 note 5} Basilikon Dorm, Political Works of James I, ed. MacIlwain, C. H., Cambridge, Mass. 1918, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 6} Edwin Sandys, Sermons, P.S., 325.

^{page 217 note 1} Prynne, , Hidden Workes of Darkeness, London 1645, 1Google Scholar. Prynne did not invent this argument: see Cawdrey, op. cit., 315.

^{page 217 note 2} The Idolatry of the Last Times, Works, Cambridge 1605, 839; A Golden Chaine, ibid., 33.

^{page 217 note 3} A Sermon, London 1641, 27.

^{page 217 note 4} Sermon Against Contention, Sermons or Homilies, London 1938, 141.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 5} Op. cit., v. Dedication 5.

^{page 217 note 6} Trew Law of Free Monarchies, Political Works, ed. MacIlwain, C. H., Cambridge, Mass. 1918, 61.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 7} Cobbett, State Trials, iv. 374.

^{page 218 note 1} Prynne was sincere in his repeated protestations that he believed in nothing more than passive resistance. See W. M. Lamont, Marginal Prynne, London 1963, passim.

^{page 218 note 2} Sibthorpe, R., Apostolike Obedience, London 1627, 13Google Scholar. This could be an ever acuter dilemma in families. John Brinsley maintained that ‘for a woman to engage herself to a church without her husband's consent was an infringement of her divinely ordained duty of submission’, but a woman who refrained from attending a meeting because her husband restrained her was told that there were limits to a husband's authority, and she must come unless restrained by force. So long as both beliefs were current, families without religious unity might become unmanageable: Thomas, K. V., ‘Women and the Civil War Sects’, in Crisis in Europe, ed. Aston, Trevor, London 1965, 332–3.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} Lancelot Gobbo's is probably a typical sample of the type of behaviour expected in this situation: ‘and in my conscience, my conscience is but a hard kind of conscience, to counsel me to stay with the Jew. The fiend gives the more friendly counsel: I will run, fiend: my heels are at your commandment’: Merchant of Venice, 11. i. 30–2.

^{page 218 note 4} Works, Oxford 1847, vi. i. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 5} Babbage, S. Barton, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, London 1962, 121Google Scholar. On the theory of treason involved, see Russell, Conrad, ‘The Theory of Treason in the Trial of Strafford’, E.H.R., lxxx (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 218 note 6} Cal. S.P. Dom. 1635–7, 332. Sir Kenelm Digby, who was in the process of conversion to Catholicism, ended his account: ‘you see how prone men are by nature to reverence the relics of martyrs’. Garrard to Strafford; Strafford to Laud: Knowler, , Strafford Letters, London 1739, ii. 85, 119.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Rushworth, Trial of Strafford, 667.

^{page 219 note 2} Hooker, op. cit., Viii. i. 4; Sermon of Charity, ii, in Sermons or Homilies, London 1938, 69Google Scholar. The Homilies argue that if rulers do not try to bring their subjects to salvation, they love neither God nor those whom they govern, ‘as every loving father correcteth his natural son when he doeth amiss, or eke he loveth him not’.

^{page 219 note 3} Sermons, P.S., 333.

^{page 219 note 4} See above, n. 2.

^{page 219 note 5} Gauden, John, The Love of Truth and Peace, London 1641, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 6} Ashurst, W., Reasons Against Agreement with a late printed Paper, London 1648, 5Google Scholar. The paper in question is the Agreement of the People.

^{page 219 note 7} Surian to the Doge, Cal. S.P. Ven. 1558–1580, nos. 228, 272. I would like to thank my wife for these references.

^{page 220 note 1} Strafford to the king, 31 March 1637, 15 August 1637; Coke to Strafford, 5 September 1637: Knowler, op. cit., ii. 60, 92, 103.

^{page 220 note 2} Heylin, Cyprianus Anglicanus, Dublin 1719, v. 57. This reads remarkably like an admission of Parliament's main charge against Laud, that he had been trying to alter religion.

^{page 220 note 3} It was often supposed that any ruler of false religion must be a tyrant. This position was reached in a number of ways, but the chief appears to be the normal Jesuit syllogism: tyrannies and monarchies are to be distinguished in terms of the end for which they use their powers: a chief end of government is to enforce true religion: ergo a ruler whose religion is false is acting against his proper ends, and is a tyrant. And the common picture of a tyrant was far less moderate than Aristotle's: he was supposed to be likely to commit all possible vices. For an example of this syllogism, see SirEliot, John, The Monarchy of Man, ed. Grosart, A. B., Chiswick 1879, 14, 21–2 and 79.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 4} Hidden Workes of Darkenes, London 1645, 196.

^{page 220 note 6} Later Writings of Bishop Hooper, P.S., 84.

^{page 220 note 7} J. Lecler, op. cit., ii. 169.

^{page 220 note 8} Lord Rea's appeal of treason against David Ramsey: Rushworth, Historical Collections, 11. i. 114–15. The point was made more generally by Hooker (op. cit., v. Dedication, 7): ‘there are hereby so fit occasions ministered for men to purchase to themselves well-willers by the colour under which they oftentimes prosecute quarrels of envy or inveterate malice’.

^{page 221 note 1} Rous, in Old Parliamentary History, ix. 197, and Rudyerd, in Rushworth, Historical Collections, in. i. 25. The Long Parliament's fears of alteration of religion and of arbitrary government were closely interconnected, and the interconnection may help to make both more intelligible.

^{page 221 note 2} See Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, London 1964, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} ‘It is the antichristian voice of the Pope, sic volo, sue jubeo’. Grindal's refusal to suppress the prophesyings: Strype, Grindal, 572.

^{page 221 note 4} A Short Treatise of Politike Power, 1556, Sig. A. 3.

^{page 221 note 5} Stoye, J. W., English Travellers Abroad, London 1952, 172, 96–7.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 6} Sandys, Sermons, P.S., 47, 61.

^{page 222 note 1} The point is not whether the Thirty Years' War was a religious war, but whether Englishmen thought it was, which they did. See Holies, in Rushworth, Historical Collections, II. i. 370. There was certainly awareness of the devastation the war had caused: Calamy chose the inauspicious time of February 1642 to thank God that ‘England hath been like Noah's Ark, safe and secure, when all other nations round have been drowned with a sea of blood’. But, at the same time, he warned the Commons that ‘the nature of man is prone to censure Germany and Ireland as horrible sinners above others’, and warned them that if they did not reform religion, God's love might be withdrawn from them, and England would share the same fate: God's Free Mercy, London 1642, 17–18.

^{page 222 note 2} On the idea of arbitrary government in France, see Conrad Russell, art. cit., 43. On Holland, Marchamont Nedham, in Frank, Joseph, The Beginning of the English Newspaper, Cambridge, Mass. 1961, 195.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} Later Writings of Bishop Hooper, P.S., 79, 166.

^{page 222 note 4} Sermon iv (1625), in Works, Oxford 1847, i. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 5} Rutherford, A Free Disputation, 176; Sandys, Sermons, 266. Sandys referred to ‘such as are of no religion, of no church, godless people, some papists, some Arians, some libertines’.

^{page 222 note 6} The New Life, Sermons Before His Majesty, London 1630, 50.

^{page 223 note 1} Reformation and Desolation, London 1642, 40. This sermon was preached at a fast: fasts were the normal way of averting such divine punishment by humiliation, and one of the government's perpetual concerns was to stop the organisation of unofficial fasts by private men, carrying the suggestion that members of the kingdom must humiliate themselves to avoid punishment for the sins of the government. See Bancroft's visitation articles at Wells, S. Barton Babbage, op. cit., 333, the case (or rather one of the cases), of Charles Chauncey, Cal. S.P. Dom. 1635–7, ccclxi, no. 67; Laud's complaints to the bishop of Aberdeen, in 1635, Rushworth, Historical Collections, 11. i. 315; the Scottish canons in 1635 and the Kentish Petition of 1642 in Heylin, Cyprianus Anglicanus, Dublin, 1719, iv. 35 and v. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Letters of Lady Brilliana Harley, Camden Soc. 1st Series, no. lviii, ed. Lewis, T. T., London 1853, 47Google Scholar, These ideas also influenced the type of inquest which was held after a disaster. See Newcomen, Matthew, A Sermon Tending To Set Forth the Right Use of Disasters, London 1644Google Scholar, passim. He preached on the story of Achan in Joshua vii.

^{page 223 note 3} Sermon of the Right Use of the Church, i. in Sermons or Homilies, London 1938, 169–70Google Scholar. In this case, the disasters are threatened for the sin of not going to church.

^{page 223 note 4} Letters of Sir Dudley Carleton, ed. Hardwicke, , London 1757, 113Google Scholar. These attitudes shed a somewhat different light on some of the passages identifying Puritanism and prosperity: the identification was often made simply because Puritanism was thought to be right, rather than because it was then supposed to be a doctrine with any specific commercial content.

^{page 224 note 1} Op. cit., iii. i. 4.

^{page 224 note 2} Register of the University of Oxford, ed. Clark, Andrew, Oxford 1887, ii. i. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} A Free Disputation, 81–3. He said such a doctrine would lay a blasphemous charge on the Holy Ghost, as having written the Scriptures in such a way that we could gain no certainty from them.

^{page 225 note 1} Perkins, W., A Discourse of Conscience, ed. Merrill, Thomas F., Nieuwkoop 1966, 19–20Google Scholar; Register of the University of Oxford, 11. i. 198, 199, 201 and 205.

^{page 225 note 2} Rutherford (A Free Disputation, 13–14) thought the doctrine that there were no distinctive marks of saving grace ‘subverts the faith’.

^{page 225 note 3} Calamy argued that division encouraged the king's supporters, and that as the willingness to divide the child showed the false mother, so the willingness to divide the church showed its fake child: An Indictment, 14, 18.

^{page 225 note 4} 28 Hen. VIII cap. 10.

^{page 225 note 5} Jewel, Works, P.S., ii. 608, 622–3.

^{page 225 note 6} Edwards, op. cit., 63–4.

^{page 225 note 7} Jewel, op. cit., ii. 623.

^{page 225 note 8} Heylin, op. cit., iv. 17; Whitgift, Works, P.S., iii. 603.