he criminal should
be tried within a year after committing the offence, he could not be
indicted for his printed books. He was therefore tried for some papers
found in his pocket, as if he had thereby scattered sedition.[*] It
was also imputed to him, by the lord keeper, Puckering, that in some
of these papers, "he had only acknowledged her majesty's royal power to
establish laws ecclesiastical and civil; but had avoided the usual terms
of making, enacting, decreeing, and ordaining laws; which imply,"
says the lord keeper, "a most absolute authority."[**] Penry for these
offences was condemned and executed.

Thus we have seen, that the "most absolute" authority of the sovereign,
to make use of the lord keeper's expression was established on above
twenty branches of prerogative, which are now abolished, and which were,
every one of them totally incompatible with the liberty of the subject.
But what insured more effectually the slavery of the people, than even
these branches of prerogative, was, the established principles of the
times, which attributed to the prince such an unlimited and indefeasible
power, as was supposed to be the origin of all law, and could be
circumscribed by none. The homilies published for the use of the clergy,
and which they were enjoined to read every Sunday in all the churches,
inculcate every where a blind and unlimited passive obedience to the
prince, which on no account, and under no pretence, is it ever lawful
for subjects in the smallest article to depart from or infringe. Much
noise has been made because some court chaplains, during the succeeding
reigns, were permitted to preach such doctrines; but there is a great
difference between these sermons, and discourses published by authority,
avowed by the prince and council, and promulgated to the whole
nation.[***]

* Strype's Life of Whitgift, book iv. chap. 11. Neal, vol.
i. p. 564.

** Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 177.

*** Gifford, a clergyman, was suspended in the year 1584,
for preaching up a limited obedience to the civil
magistrate, Neal, vol. i. p. 435.

So thoroughly were these principles imbibed by the people, during the
reigns of Elizabeth and her predecessors, that opposition to them was
regarded as the most flagrant sedition; and was not even rewarded by
that public praise and approbation, which can alone support men under
such dangers and difficulties as attend the resistance of tyrannical