It is noways surprising, therefore, that these innovations produced tremendous revulsion throughout the country; and they were rendered still more offensive by the mode of their introduction—without the consent of a General Assembly of the Church or of Parliament, but solely by virtue of the royal prerogative, and the authority of the prelates—the advice even of the Privy Council, and some of the elder prelates being entirely contemned. The alarm was sounded from the pulpits by a great majority of the parochial clergy, and pervaded, not merely the common people, but the gentry also, and, with few exceptions, all the ancient nobility of the realm: every man, whether valuing his religious principles, or his political liberty and safety, was appalled by the immediate prospect of an intolerant spiritual domination and civil tyranny being established in the land of his forefathers. “In short,” as Dr Cook emphatically states, “the complete command of the Church was given to the bishops, and the kingdom was thus laid at the foot of the throne.”[13] In this state matters continued from the time that these changes became known, in 1636, till the summer of 1637. At the same time, besides the Court of High Commission, each of the prelates obtained subordinate Commission-courts, which were, in all respects, so many local inquisitions; so that “Black Prelacy” was armed in Scotland with all the powers and terrors of the Popish Church anterior to its abolition. The prelates, however, were at first deterred, by well-grounded apprehensions, from the exercise of their late-sprung power. A general adoption of the Liturgy at Easter had been required by royal proclamation, but the day had elapsed before the publication of it took place; and it was not till May 1637 that a charge was ordered to be given to the clergy, that each of them should “buy and provide” two copies for his parish, under the penalty of escheat of his effects. The Council, however, had omitted in their edict to require the _adoption_ and practice of these formularies, although, doubtless, the conjoint effect of these innovations was held to imply an imperative rule for the clergy. This looseness of phraseology, however, opened a door for the recusant clergy to evade the use of the new ritual, and paved the way for an eventual defeat of the prelates’ schemes.[14]