What was passing between the Dutch Prince and the Dutch Pensionary, was much like what was taking place between the King of England and his own subjects.  James I. had to touch with a balancing hand the Catholics and the Nonconformists,[A]—­to play them one against another; but there was a distinct end in their views.  “James I.,” says Barnet, “continued always writing and talking against Popery, but acting for it.”  The King and the bishops were probably more tolerant to monarchists and prelatists, than to republicans and presbyters.  When James got nothing but gunpowder and Jesuits from Rome, he was willing enough to banish, or suppress, but the Catholic families were ancient and numerous; and the most determined spirits which ever subverted a government were Catholic.[B] Yet what could the King expect from the party of the Puritans, and their “conceited parity,” as he called it, should he once throw himself into their hands, but the fate his son received from them?

[Footnote A:  James did all he could to weaken the Catholic party by dividing them in opinion.  When Dr. Reynolds, the head of the Nonconformists, complained to the king of the printing and dispersing of Popish pamphlets, the king answered, that this was done by a warrant from the Court, to nourish the schism between the Seculars and Jesuits, which was of great service, “Doctor,” added the king, “you are a better clergyman than statesman.”—­Neale’s “History of the Puritans,” vol. i. p. 416, 4to.]

[Footnote B:  The character and demeanour of the celebrated Guy or Guido Fawkes, who appeared first before the council under the assumed name of Johnson, I find in a MS. letter of the times, which contains some characteristic touches not hitherto published.  This letter is from Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmondes, our ambassador at the court of Brussels—­dated 19th November, 1605.  “One Johnson was found in the vault where the Gunpowder Plot was discovered.  He was asked if he was sorry!  He answered that he was only sorry it had not taken place.  He was threatened that he should die a worse death than he that killed the Prince of Orange; he answered, that he could bear it as well.  When Johnson was brought to the king’s presence, the king asked him how he could conspire so hideous a treason against his children and so many innocent souls who had never offended him?  He answered, that dangerous diseases required a desperate remedy; and he told some of the Scots that his intent was to have blown them back again into Scotland!”—­Mordacious Guy Fawkes!]

In the early stage of the Reformation, the Catholic still entered into the same church with the Reformed; this common union was broken by the impolitical impatience of the court of Rome, who, jealous of the tranquillity of Elizabeth, hoped to weaken her government by disunion;[A] but the Reformed were already separating among themselves by a new race, who, fancying that their religion was still too Catholic, were for reforming the Reformation.  These had most extravagant fancies, and were for modelling the government according to each particular man’s notion.  Were we to bend to the foreign despotism of the Roman Tiara, or that of the republican rabble of the Presbytery of Geneva?