^{page 77 note 2} Thomas Cartwright; see Introduction.

^{page 78 note 1} The extreme contrast in tone between this joint and semi-public epistle and the private letter of Chapman's is noticeable. See also another letter, the same to the same, p. 81.

^{page 79 note 1} The translation of the Bible into English by the English Jesuit School at Bheims. This letter was only one of many, from Walsingham and many ministers, urging Cartwright's work. His labours lasted three or four years; it then became known in manuscript (Strype, Whitgift, ii. 21), was disapproved by authority, and not printed until 1618, when it was secretly published, probably abroad. On the character of the Jesuit work and Cartwright's answer see Strype, , Annals, iii. part i. 271, 287–91Google Scholar; Whitgift, i. 484.

^{page 79 note 2} “ him” or “ hir;” the written word may be either.

^{page 81 note 1} Probably one of the most remarkable letters preserved to us of all the Puritan correspondence. It shows us how far from firm in their ideas the leaders themselves were, and how far they were from the ranting and extremes in which their followers indulged. This the following letters show clearly. See also Chapman to Field, p. 95.

^{page 84 note 1} Note how these unctuous utterances are contradicted flatly by the very subject matter of his letter, showing that to the man himself most of this must have been either forms assumed on purpose or forms whose specific meaning he failed to grasp.

^{page 85 note 1} Withers was Archdeacon of Colchester. It was customary on visitation for the clergy of a district (or some of them) with the churchwardens and sidesmen to meet the Archdeacon and his assistants at some parish church, where they made a report to him of the state of their several churches, basing it upon the Articles of Visitation presented to them by the Archdeacon. The order and method of proceeding lay wholly with the Archdeacon, who could have made it, as Teye said, a sort of synod. This would form a kind of local presbytery. The Bishop's visitation could then in like manner be made a provincial synod, and the Archbishop's a national. This was by far the most rational plan under discussion for transforming episcopacy into modified presbytery. See also Sampson's “Book for the Parliament,” for another scheme, Annals, iii. pt. i. 320.

^{page 86 note 1} The courts decided on this point, however, that the statute was affirmative and not restrictive, and that others than doctors of laws might be commissaries. Pratt v. Stocke, 1 Croke's Reports, p. 314 ; cf. Smith v. Clarke, ibid. p. 252, and Paget v. Crumpton, ibid. p. 659.

^{page 86 note 1} Legally this is not well taken. These articles had not in that exact form been passed by royal authority but were in substance contained in others that had been confirmed. Moreover a sufficient amount of the Queen's authority had been delegated to the Bishops to have legalised any such articles.

^{page 87 note 1} George Withers, M.A. of Cambridge, abroad during Mary, 1560, preacher at Bury St. Edmunds; 1562, at Swaffham, co. Cambridge; 1565, deprived for not wearing the cap, but submitted. Rector of Danbury, Essex, 1572–1605; Archdeacon of Colchester from 1570 till his death in 1617. His letter to Burgbley consequent on this petition is given in full in Strype, Annals, iii. part ii. 268, and there are other letters concerning a mission of his to get the aid of Beza and others for Puritanism in 1567 in Zurich Letters, ii. 146, 152, 156; also Davids, Nonconformity in Essex, p. 74.

^{page 89 note 1} For notices of Robert Monke, Robert Searle, William Cocke, Thomas Upcher, Mr. Hawdon, Stephen Beamont, and William Tunstall see Introduction.

^{page 90 note 1} But the Bishops claimed no more than this. Hence the Bishops' deduction: “Seeing they are so greatly offended with this book, what is it they desire themselves? Forsooth, a book they could be contented to have, but it must be of their own making.” Bancroft, Sermon at Paul's Cross.

^{page 91 note 1} 13 EHz. c. 12 ordained that a minister should “ declare his assent and subscribe to all the articles of religion which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments.” This was interpreted by the Puritans as freeing them from assent to any article which savoured of Church government. The Churchmen declared that “only” meant not “merely,” but “ nothing but.”

^{page 91 note 2} Thomas Knevett; see Introduction. Morris, Bounde, and Waltham cannot be traced elsewhere.

^{page 92 note 1} Articles 1–5 of this form are given practically verbatim by Strype, Whitgift, i. 502–3. Neal gives a somewhat fuller form of the same articles, Puritans, i. 470 (1816), and at the end of the “Discipline” another quite different, id. v. 292. Yet neither mentions even the existence of those article following. It is possible that Articles 1–5 were issued by the General Synod to be signed by all classes, and that individual classes then added other articles limiting or adding to the first few. But Bancroft (tract, f. 110) gives the whole, as it here stands, as the general form sent out by the Synod. This should be final.

^{page 93 note 1} Arthur Dent; see Introduction. This section was, of course, an addition to the general form, and was filled in or not by each individual classis as it saw fit.

^{page 93 note 2} The outcome of this agreement was the Marprelate Tracts to try what might be done by ridicule. Everything, however, concerning the origin and purpose of those tracts is too vague to demonstrate this point. Whatever the purpose, it was well thought out, intentional, and far from being any wild demonstration of fanaticism.

^{page 94 note 1} Richard Rogers; see Introduction.

^{page 94 note 2} John Hackle; see Introduction.

^{page 95 note 1} That is, there was to be no more formal presentation of petitions to Parliament as such. Henceforth they should be sent to the Speaker personally. No legal proceedings would then be possible.

^{page 95 note 2} John Field, one of the chief administrators and leaders of this movement, the head with Wilcox of the London Classis, one of the compilers of the “ Admonition to Parl.” of 1571, a very active and prominent man. See Introduction.

^{page 96 note 1} Whitgift, consecrated October 23,1583.

^{page 96 note 1} February probably; the year began March 25, o.s.

^{page 98 note 1} Compare this account of the London Synod with Bancroft, p. 10.

^{page 98 note 2} There follows in the MSS. the letter from Chapman and others declining the request, dated December 5,1587.

^{page 98 note 3} This Classis had its centre in Braintree. See Introduction.

^{page 99 note 1} “to establish” struck out. Compare the rules of the town of Northampton 1571; see p. 14.

^{page 100 note 1} Here is that desire for education of children and public provision for the poor children which later received so great a development in New England.

^{page 101 note 1} Here follows the substance of the above “ Orders.”

^{page 101 note 2} This is in Parker's handwriting; is evidently an original note made at the time and slipped into this book towards the end.

^{page 102 note 1} By “ private men” Parker says he means those outside the hierarchy of the Church.