(1910) The English Puritans: The Origins of Puritans

8/9/2019 (1910) The English Puritans: The Origins of Puritans

1/176


2/176

( LIBRARY U1YIVERSITY LIBRA*YL^J^g^TY|OF CALIFORNIA,

SAN DIEGOCALIFORNIA

i SAN DIEGO from the collection of-^Professor Koppel S. Pinson

LIBRARYOFHOLLYWOOD INN

YON K ERS. N .Y.

ACCESSION


3/176


4/176


5/176

The Cambridge Manuals of Science andLiterature

THEENGLISH PURITANS


6/176

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSILcntlfln: FETTER LANE, E.G.C. F. CLAY, MANAOKE

100, PRINCES STREETBerlin: A. ASHER AND CO.ILtipjtjj: F. A. BROCKHAU8

#tto gorfe: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONSotn&SB anto Tslcutt: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.

All rights reserved


7/176


8/176

(ZCambrfoge:PRINTED BY JOHN OLAY, M.A.AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

With the exception of the coat of arms atthe foot, the design on the title page is areproduction of one used by the earliest knownCambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521


9/176

PREFACETHE work here presented to the reader is intendedto give, within moderate compass and in thelight of recent research, the history of the rise, growthand decline of that puritan movement which, for ahundred years, so vitally affected the course of ournational life. It aims at a middle course. Therehave been historical monographs dealing with separateportions of the movement ; and there have also beenconnected histories of it as a whole ; but the mono-graphs were necessarily sectional and incomplete;and on the other hand the connected histories weretoo elaborate and therefore too lengthy for readerswith only limited time at their disposal, but who yetwished to arrive at a fairly trustworthy knowledge ofthe subject. It is hoped this little book may to someextent meet the needs of readers of this class.

The subject is worthy of attention, for puritanismhad important bearings both upon the religious lifeand the constitutional history of the nation. It wasfirst of all religious in its character. The early


10/176

vi PREFACEpuritans had no political views, yet their religiousopinions worked out to political results. Borgeaudhas shewn that modern democracy is the child ofthe Reformation, not of the reformers. For in theReformation the two levers used to break theauthority of the Holy See were free enquiry andthe priesthood of all believers ; and these twoprinciples contained in them the germs of thepolitical revolution which has come to pass. Forthey made the community the visible centre of theChurch, and the people the principal factor of sociallife. On these grounds the history of the Englishpuritans deserves to be known from within and insuch connected form as the necessary limitations ofspace will allow.

J. B.HAMPSTEAD,

June 20, 1910.


11/176

CONTENTSPAGE

I. THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM . ... 1II. VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 20III. THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY ... 45IV. PRESBYTERY IN EPISCOPACY 72V. ABSOLUTISM AND LIBERTY 101

VI. PURITANISM IN ITS TRIUMPH AND DOWNFALL. . 127AUTHORITIES 166INDEX 158


12/176


13/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISMPURITANISM, as a recognised descriptive term,came into use, Thomas Fuller tells us, about the year

1564. But as there were reformers before theReformation, so there were puritans before thatwhich has come to be regarded as in a specialsense the puritan period. For puritanism was notso much an organised system as a religious temperand a moral force, and being such it could enterinto combinations and alliances of varied kind. Itmay fairly be applied to Wycliffe and the Lollardsas well as to the later protestant reformers ; toHooper and Latimer in the days of Edward VI aswell as to Cartwright and Travers in those ofElizabeth ; to some who remained within the paleof the English Church and to others who separatedfrom it. The name was not confined to presbyteriansand congregationalists, for there were bishops whomay be described as distinctly puritan ; nor was itto be identified with the Calvinistic system of doc-trine, for Archbishop Whitgift, who was the most


14/176

2 THE ENGLISH PURITANSresolute opponent of the puritans, was, as hisLambeth Articles shew, a believer in predestinationin its extremest form. The term came also to havea political as well as an ecclesiastical significance.While in the sixteenth century it was descriptive ofthe men bent on carrying on the protestant Refor-mation to a further point, in the seventeenth centuryit became the recognised name of that party in theState which contended for the constitutional rightsand liberties of the people as against the encroach-ments of the Crown.And even yet we have not enumerated all possibleapplications. What an old writer calls 'this re-proachful word puritan,' was applied scoffingly tomen who were regarded as foolishly precise inthe matter of forms and ceremonies ; it was alsoapplied seriously to some of the greatest names inour history and literature to Cromwell and Milton,to Baxter and Bunyan. Then it was but a step fromthose who were thought to be needlessly precise asto forms of worship, to pass to men who were thoughtto be needlessly strict as to life and morals. RichardBaxter relates that his father was jeered at as apuritan, though a strict conformist to the Churchand the Book of Common Prayer, because he readthe Bible with his family on Sunday afternoons, andrefused to join in the merry-makings then going onround the maypole which stood by the great tree


15/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 3near his door. As was said by a writer of thosedays : ' In the mouth of a drunkard he is a puritanwho refuseth his cups ; in the mouth of a swearer hewhich feareth an oath ; in the mouth of a libertinehe who makes any scruple of common sins.'

Still, while the name thus varied in its appli-cations with time and persons and the course ofevents, we discern at once a common element ofcharacteristic sort running through all the variations.The fundamental idea of puritanism in all its mani-festations was the supreme authority of Scripturebrought to bear upon the conscience as opposed toan unenlightened reliance on the priesthood and theoutward ordinances of the Church. The puritan,whether narrow or broad, mistaken or enlightened,seemed, to himself at least, to be aiming, not atsingularity, but at obedience to that higher spiritualorder prevailing in the universe, which he recognisedas being the expression of the mind of God, andtherefore of more commanding authority than themere arrangements and requirements of man. Underall its forms, reverence for Scripture, and for thesovereign majesty of God, a severe morality, popularsympathies and a fervent attachment to the cause ofcivil freedom have been the signs and tokens of thepuritan spirit.

While saying thus much we are not concerned todeny that there were puritans who did not realise12


16/176

4 THE ENGLISH PURITANSthe greatness of their own idea. There were thoseamong them who had not that wider conception ofthe action of the Spirit of God in human life whichleads a man to regard scholarship, knowledge, artand beauty as sacred things ; they may not havealways heard the voice of God speaking through theforces of history and in the facts of daily life as wellas from the pages of revelation ; and they may nothave sufficiently recognised the developments ofman's richer nature as gifts of God, God's way ofunfolding man himself, enriching his culture andsweetening his life. But this is only true in anarrow and limited sense. Both in the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries the leaders of the puritanswere among the foremost of their age in learningand intellectual force. They were, for the mostpart, university men, and for culture and refine-ment of taste had no need to fear comparison withtheir opponents either in Church or State. It maybe true that there were small men among them,men bitter and narrow and rude, but so there wereamong those on the other side ; and when allabatements have been made, and all has been saidthat can be said in the way of caricature anddepreciation, it still remains true that the sacredcause of liberty owes much to these men, and thatthe puritan strain has entered into much that is bestin our national life and literature.


17/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 5But while there have been manifestations of the

puritan spirit in different ages and in varying form,there was a distinct and definite period in Englishhistory which has come to be recognised as that ofpuritanism proper. This was a period of a hundredyears, from the accession of Queen Elizabeth in1558 to the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658.Previous to the first of these dates the controversywas between Romanist and Protestant, during thecentury referred to it was waged between Anglicanand Puritan, and we can trace puritanism taking, asan historical movement, a definite line including itsrise, development, ascendancy, and ultimate downfall.The accession of Queen Elizabeth brought theEnglish people to what we may call the parting ofthe ways. It was the introduction of a new eraboth for Church and State. Henry VIII came tothe throne in 1509, and Elizabeth a few days beforethe beginning of 1559. During the half centurybetween these two dates England was governed bythree sovereigns of the House of Tudor and passedthrough three revolutions in her national Churchlife. At Henry's accession the Church in Englandwas an organic portion of the Western Church, anextension into England of the one great CatholicChurch of the West. Within this extension thePope was supreme in all ecclesiastical causes ; thehighest Court of Appeal was at Rome ; the highest


18/176

6 THE ENGLISH PURITANSofficers of the Church were appointed by the Pope ;and as far back as the long reign of Henry III thePope appointed Italian ecclesiastics not only toEnglish bishoprics, but also to the ordinary livingsof the Church. Then, in 1534, came the Reforma-tion, and the Church in England became the Churchof England. Various Acts of Parliament, but chieflythe great Act of Supremacy, transferred the papalauthority to the King, and made Henry VIII, ineverything but in name, Pope of England. It onlyremained for Pope Paul III to complete the process,which he did by issuing a Bull of Excommunicationand deposition against the King and his abettors.There was an important difference between theway the Reformation took its rise in England andthe course it took among the protestant nations ofthe Continent. In Switzerland and Germany themovement began with the people ; in England, onthe contrary, it took its rise from the action of theState as a decisive movement and, for the most part,spread among the people afterwards. This accountsfor the fact that when Edward VI came to thethrone in 1547 the externals of worship were butlittle changed from their ancient form. The altarsin the churches stood as of old ; the priests woretheir gorgeous vestments and celebrated their massesas before. And so long as this was the case and theChurch service went on as it had done all their lives


19/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 7and those of their fathers before them, the peoplegenerally troubled their heads very little aboutchanges in legislation. But Edward VI had not longbeen king before new ways came in. In the springof 1548 a service-book hi English instead of in Latinwas prepared, and issued with authority the followingyear. The first English Book of Common Prayer tookthe place of the Mass, which in itself was a momentousfact ; and stone altars gave place to communiontables. Still further, the leaders of the EnglishChurch entered into close and friendly relationswith the ministers of the Reformed Churches of theContinent. So much so, indeed, that Peter Martyrand Martin Bucer came over at Cranmer's requestto assist him in the preparation of the Articles andin the revision of the First Prayer Book of 1549,preparatory to the one of 1552.

It was a revolution again, which came in whenin 1553 Queen Mary ascended the English throne.In her first proclamation of August 18 she expresseda wish that her people should be of the old religion,'the one she had ever professed from her infancyhitherto.' One of the first Acts of her first Parlia-ment was the Act of Repeal which abolished nineActs passed in the reign of Edward VI, and restoredthe Church to the condition in which it was at thedeath of Henry VIII. Her second Act of Repeal,of 1554, abolished eighteen Acts of Henry relating


20/176

8 THE ENGLISH PURITANSto the Church, and one of Edward, thus restoringthe Church to the condition in which it was in 1529before the breach with Rome. England was againreconciled to the Papal See, and received absolutionfor her supposed sin of departure from the truefaith. In meekness and docility she returned to theRoman obedience, and the power of the Catholicclergy became what it had been when the Popeconstituted Henry VIII Defender of the Faith. Butwhile restoring the ancient Church to its formerascendancy she did so in a spirit so ruthless that inthe end it was found to have defeated itself. Sheoutraged the better feeling of the nation by burningworthy men and women at the stake, so that whileshe overthrew the work of her father and herbrother, hers also in turn came to be overthrown.It is but little indeed of the Acts and deeds of hergovernment that took permanent place in the Con-stitution or laws of England. It has been truly saidthat her cruelties, her martyr-fires by 'the loathingwhich they produced in the minds of Englishmendid more to establish the Reformation than any othersingle cause.'At the same time there were other causes at workas well. Even in the earlier days of Henry VIII theNew Learning had begun to influence the minds ofmen and to change their attitude to the old ideas.In its conflict with old institutions and ancient modes


21/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 9of thought, it had with it as a mighty ally thenewly-discovered power of the printing press. Anew world was come to its birth time. It is saidthat most of the young men of brains and energywho grew to manhood during Mary's reign werelapsing from Catholicism and that educated womenwere falling faster and further.

There is one fact connected with the reign ofMary to which special attention must be called asbeing fundamental to the historical development ofpuritanism. Many of the leading men who hadembraced protestantism in the reigns of Henry andEdward found, as soon as the new Queen came tothe throne, that England was no longer a place ofsafety for them. Burnet says that more than athousand of these men sought refuge among theReformed Churches of the Continent. Strype addsthat among these exiles there were five bishops, fivedeans, four archdeacons, and fifty-seven doctors ofdivinity and preachers who had held these officesin the Church under Edward VI. It is to be notedthat these men sought refuge not in the Lutherancities of North Germany but among the Zwinglianand Calvinistic peoples of Switzerland and the UpperRhine. This fact is thought to indicate that theEnglish Church in the time of Edward VI was moreZwinglian than Lutheran in its view of the sacra-ments than is sometimes supposed.


22/176

10 THE ENGLISH PURITANSWhile the exiles found homes in various cities,

in Frankfort, Strasburg, Bale, Zurich and Geneva,Zurich seems to have been their most importantcentre. Here during the five years of Mary's ill-starred reign they remained, forming friendships ofclosest Christian aifection which have their recordin the extensive body of letters preserved in thearchives of the city, and which were written toBullinger and other brethren after their return.But what is more to our purpose they were broughtinto close contact with the doctrines and disciplineof the foreign reformers. They were favourably im-pressed with the simpler Church polity, to whichthey became accustomed, and were attracted to whatseemed to them the more scriptural and spiritualforms of worship. The impressions thus receivedand the opinions they then came to hold had directinfluence upon the course of events in the days nearat hand.

Their time of return came at length when on the17th of November, 1558, Mary passed away and Eliza-beth was proclaimed queen in her stead. Sandys, whowas then at Strasburg, heard the news on the 19th ofDecember, and passed it on to the brethren at Zurichand Geneva. All prepared to return at once. Thewinter was, however, unusually severe, the roads inplaces almost impassable, and, the Rhine being frozenhard, sailing was impracticable. Those who started


23/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 11from Zurich were no less than fifty-seven days onthe return journey. But rough and tedious as thatjourney was it was nevertheless cheered by a risinghope, the hope, as they expressed it, 'that we mayteach and practise the true knowledge of God'sWord which we have learned in this our banish-ment, and by God's merciful providence seen in thebest Reformed Churches.' That is to say, theseprotestant exiles returned to England with foreignideals in their minds which they hoped to be ableto realise in the government and worship of theEnglish Church at home.Meantime Elizabeth had been already welcomedto the throne as the cherished hope of the protestantpart of the nation. Young as she was she had seenstrange sides of life and gone through rough ex-periences. Still, she had embraced the ideas of thelater policy of her father, had entered into the spiritof the New Learning, and had expressed approval ofa reform of the Church in accordance with a fullerunderstanding of Scripture and Christian antiquity.At the service held on Christmas Day, and thereforeonly a few days after her accession, she forbade theelevation of the Host, and on Bishop Oglethorpe,who was the celebrant, refusing to obey, she wentout after the reading of the Gospel. Her feeling wasstill more marked on the more important occasion ofthe Coronation Service held on the 13th of January.


24/176

12 THE ENGLISH PURITANSOglethorpe again officiated, again she commandedhim to celebrate without the elevation, and againhe refused. So she also took her own line of action,and just before the time when elevation would takeplace she retired to her ' traverse ' or dressing-room.On another state occasion, at the opening of Par-liament, when she was met by the last abbot ofWestminster with monks and candles, she uncere-moniously bade him ' Away with those torches ; wecan see well enough ! '

Still, in spite of these manifestations the moreadvanced protestants could not feel quite sure ofher. She had told De Feria, the Spanish am-bassador, that she acknowledged the Real Presencein the sacrament, and did now and then pray to theVirgin Mary. On another occasion also she ex-plained to him that her religion was that of allsensible people who looked upon all the differencesbetween the different versions of Christianity aslittle more than a mere bagatelle. The feeling ofuncertainty concerning her thus created is reflectedin the letters from England preserved in the archivesof Zurich. One of the returned exiles, writing toa friend in that city, says : ' If the Queen herselfwould but banish the Mass from her private chapelthe whole thing might easily be got rid of.' JohnJewell, also, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, writesin much the same strain : ' As to ceremonies and


25/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 13maskings there is a little too much foolery. Thatlittle silver cross of ill-omened origin still maintainsits place in the Queen's Chapel.' In a further letterto Peter Martyr he adds : ' The scenic apparatus ofdivine worship is now under agitation : and thosevery things which you and I have so often laughedat are now seriously and solemnly entertained bycertain persons as if the Christian religion could notexist without something tawdry. We cannot makethese fooleries of much importance.'The first public act of Elizabeth, as it was withMary, was to issue a proclamation forbidding anychange being made in the forms of worship tillParliament met and settled the future order bystatute. This first Parliament of Elizabeth's reignmet on the 25th of January, 1559, and sat till the8th of May, to begin the 'alterations of religion.'After restoring to the Crown the first-fruits andtenths which Mary had returned to the Church, andrepealing such penal laws as had been enacted againstthe service used under Edward VI the Houses passedto the two great memorable Acts of this Parliament,the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity,the two pillars on which the Church of England hasrested down to our own day. The Act of Supremacyrepealed Mary's Act of Repeal, and restored theancient Jurisdictions and pre-eminencies appertainingto the Imperial Crown, but with one important change.


26/176

14 THE ENGLISH PURITANSHenry VIII and Edward VI had each claimed to beSupreme Head of the Church of England. Elizabethwas unwilling to be so described, maintaining as shedid that this honour belongs to Christ and to Christalone. She was therefore entitled Supreme Governor,the oath prescribed to be taken by all and everyecclesiastical person being to the effect that theQueen's Highness is the only supreme governor ofthis realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiasticalthings or causes as temporal, and that no foreignprince or prelate hath any ecclesiastical or spiritualauthority within her dominions. Still while theQueen renounced the Headship of the Church theAct of the Submission of the Clergy was restoredin full so that it was only the mere title that wasrenounced, and the whole power was reserved to theCrown. There was fierce battle round the SupremacyBill for two whole months, from February 9 tillApril 29, but after renewed debates, changes andconcessions it was finally passed. Any person refusingto take the oath prescribed under this Act was toforfeit and lose all and every ecclesiastical andspiritual promotion, benefit and office, and everytemporal and lay promotion and office which heheld at the time of refusal ; his emoluments shouldcease as though he were actually dead.There was one section of the Act of Supremacy(1 Eliz. cap. i., sec. 18) of profound significance for


27/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 15coming time. The Queen and her successors were tohave power, by letters patent under the Great Sealto appoint commissioners to exercise under the Crownall manner of jurisdictions and to visit, reform, re-dress, correct and amend all errors, heresies, andschisms which might come within the scope of spiritualor ecclesiastical power. In other words, while thetwo great Acts referred to revolutionised the ecclesi-astical constitution, this commission was to carry outthe Queen's visitation and enforce her injunctions, andthat too without authority from or reference to anyclerical or ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, exceptthat which pertained to the Crown itself. Thesecommissions were renewed from time to time, de-riving their authority direct from the Crown underthe Great Seal and held responsible not to the Churchin any sense, nor even to Parliament, but to the PrivyCouncil. These commissions, whether temporary, asin the case of the first, which completed its task atthe end of October, 1559, or permanent, as in the caseof the Court of High Commission of 1583, becamethe recognised mode by which the supremacy of thesovereign, with the aid of the Privy Council, wasbrought to bear upon the government of theChurch of England independently alike of Parlia-ment or Convocation. In Tudor times the personalgovernment of the Church by the sovereign wascomplete, and not less complete under Elizabeth


28/176

16 THE ENGLISH PURITANSthan under Henry VIII, Edward VI, or QueenMary.

The first Parliament of Elizabeth is memorable inour history not only for the Act of Supremacy butalso for the Act of Uniformity by which it was ac-companied. The reforming party in the Church wereagreed as to doctrine but not as to discipline andceremonies. This Act was intended to secure uni-formity in both. But it was found then, as oftensince, that the men most resolute in enforcing uni-formity are the men who create the most seriousdivisions. The first thing to secure was the basis orstandard. Before the assembling of Parliamentthere was a private consultation held at the houseof Sir Thomas Smith in Cannon Row to discuss whichPrayer Book, that of 1552 or the one of 1549, shouldbe submitted to Parliament for consideration andwith what suggested changes. The Service Book of1552 being agreed upon, certain changes were madetherein, probably to meet the wishes of the Queen.In the Communion Service the old words of deliverywere prefixed to the new ; the rubric which deniedthe ' real and essential presence ' was left out ; theclause in the Litany which prayed for deliverancefrom the Bishop of Rome and from all his detestableenormities was also omitted. A further change madeat the instance of the Queen, a change most dis-tasteful to the puritans, was the introduction of what


29/176

THE ORIGINS OF PURITANISM 17is now known as the Ornaments rubric, framed forthe retention of the priestly vestments as they hadbeen in 1548 before the issue of the First Prayer Bookof 1549. This was a distinctly reactionary step in theview of the more advanced protestants, setting asideas it did the legislation of 1553 which prohibited theuse of alb, vestment and cope in the prefatory rubricto the Order for Daily Prayer.

The Act of Uniformity, having thus re-establishedthe Second Prayer Book of 1552, with alterations andadditions, as the recognised order of public worship,also made its use imperative under pressure of certainpains and penalties which were certainly not wantingin stringency. It provided that a minister using anyother form of service, or any other manner of cele-brating the Lord's Supper, should for the first offencelose a year's income and be imprisoned for six months ;for a second offence he should suffer deprivation ofbenefice, and for a third imprisonment for life. Sofar as the laity were concerned, absence from publicworship without lawful or reasonable excuse broughtthe offender under pain of the censure of the Church,and subjected him to a fine of twelve pence for theuse of the poor of his parish.Such were some of the provisions of the Act ofUniformity which came into force on the 24th of June,1559, one day after the Act of Supremacy. The linesof legislation being thus laid down by Parliament the

B. 2


30/176

18 THE ENGLISH PURITANSQueen under the powers conferred by the Act ofSupremacy appointed a body of commissioners tomake a general visitation of the kingdom and seethe laws carried out. These commissions were ap-pointed in companies according to districts, eachcompany consisting of several noblemen and gentle-men, a divine, a doctor of civil law and one or morelawyers. For their guidance and common actioncertain instructions were provided which are knownas the Injunctions of Elizabeth. They were based onthe previous injunctions issued by King Edward in1547, and consisted of fifty-three Articles. Theyappear to have been drawn up by the revisers of thePrayer Book and were distinctly protestant in tone,Injunctions 2 and 18, for example, ordering theputting away of all the old paraphernalia associatedwith the ancient forms of worship, and also theabolition of all ecclesiastical processions. They wereintended to regulate the lives of the clergy and thesubjects of their preaching. All ecclesiastical personshaving cure of souls were, to the uttermost of theirwit, knowledge and learning, to declare manifest andopen, at least four times every year, that all foreignpower had been taken away and abolished, and thatthe Queen's power within her realms is the highestpower under God ; they were forbidden to set forthor extol the dignity of any images, relics or miracles ;and on other subjects were to preach a sermon at


31/176


32/176

IIVESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES

THE task assigned to the commissioners, of makingan ecclesiastical visitation through the variouscounties, was proceeded with soon after Parliamentwas dissolved. Jewell, writing to Peter Martyr inthe month of August, says : ' I am on the point ofsetting out upon a long and troublesome commissionfor the establishment of religion through Reading,Abingdon, Gloucester, Bristol, Bath, Wells, Exeter,Cornwall, Dorset and Salisbury, a journey of aboutseven hundred miles, and occupying about fourmonths.' It was theirs to see the two principal Actsof the recent Parliament carried into practical effect.The Act of Supremacy as superseding the authorityof the Pope by that of the Queen bore mainly, ofcourse, upon the Roman Catholics in the nation whowere opposed to the Reformation altogether. TheAct of Uniformity was intended to regulate and bringto one standard the forms of worship of the moreadvanced protestants, whose one desire was to seethe Reformation carried further still


33/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 21The Roman Catholic bishops, at Elizabeth's ac-

cession had been greatly reduced in numbers bydeath ; those who remained, with the single exceptionof Kitchin of Llandaff, resolved to resign theirpositions and refuse the Oath of Supremacy ratherthan accept the Queen as governor of the Church.Their example was followed by an abbot and anabbess, four priors, twelve deans, fourteen arch-deacons, sixty canons or prebendaries, and a hundredof the beneficed clergy, together with fifteen heads ofColleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The majority ofthe unbeneficed clergy took the oath and kept theirplaces as they had done through all the changes ofthe three last reigns. It is calculated that there werethen about 9400 clergy, of whom only 192 refusedthe oath. The vicar of Bray was the type of a class.Anthony Kitchin contrived to retain possession ofthe bishopric of Llandaff from 1545 to 1567, takingall the incongruous oaths required by Henry VIII,Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth Jewell, after tellingPeter Martyr that Dr Smith the Regius Professor ofDivinity had now at last recanted for the fifth time,said to him ' Go now and deny transubstantiation ifyou can ! 'The Act of Uniformity, affecting as it did theRoman Catholics as well as the Puritans, was in theircase carried out somewhat rigorously. In the case ofthe Queen herself but little change was made in the


34/176

22 THE ENGLISH PURITANSritual of her own private chapel. Being fond of pompand magnificence in worship as in everything else,she would not part with the altar or crucifix ; thechoristers and priests still appeared in their copes ;the altar was furnished with rich plate, had giltcandlesticks with lighted candles and a massive silvercrucifix in the midst ; on solemn festivals there wasspecial music ; and the ceremonies observed by theknights of the garter in their adoration towards thealtar ceremonies which had been abolished by KingEdward and restored by Queen Mary were nowretained. So that the service in the Queen's ownchapel, save that it was rendered in English insteadof Latin, was as showy and splendid as in the daysof the Roman ritual.But whatever may have been Elizabeth's ownprivate tastes in worship, there can be no doubt thatin the latter half of 1559 the commissioners em-powered by her made great changes in the Londonchurches generally, and especially in the cathedralchurch of St Paul According to Strype they tookeffectual care to have all the instruments and utensilsof idolatry demolished and destroyed, such as theroods with Mary and John and the images of tutelarysaints. They commanded the prebendaries and arch-deacon to see that St Paul's be stripped of all imagesand idols, and that in place of the altar a decent tableshould be provided for the celebration of the Lord's


35/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 23Supper. The people, too, with the memories ofSmithfield fires strong within them, joined in thecrusade. They attended upon the commissioners,carried into Cheapside, St Paul's Churchyard andSmithfield, roods, crucifixes, the vestments of thepriests, copes and surplices, banners and altar-cloths,books and Good Friday sepulchres ; and all thatcould be burnt they burnt to ashes.

Turning now to the protestants and to the way inwhich the Act of Uniformity affected them, we findthem already dividing themselves into two partieswhich we may describe as court reformers andpuritans. While there was difference between themon some points, on one point there was absoluteagreement. They were both against toleration ; bothbelieved not only in uniformity but also in its en-forcement by the sword of the civil power. Whatthey did differ about was as to what was the standardof uniformity, the one side upholding the Queen'ssupremacy and the law of the land, the other theScriptures and the decrees of provincial and nationalsynods. The court party and the majority of thebishops while admitting that the Scriptures were aperfect rule of faith, contended that they were notalso an authoritative standard of discipline and churchgovernment, these matters being left by our Lordand His Apostles to the discretion of the civil magi-strate. The puritans, on the contrary, maintained


36/176

24 THE ENGLISH PURITANSthat in discipline as well as in doctrine nothingshould be imposed as necessary which could not beproved from Scripture. They held that what Christhas left indifferent man should not insist upon, forwe are bidden to stand fast in the liberty wherewithChrist has made us free. They could not accept asindifferent, but rejected as unlawful, rites and cere-monies which, as experience shewed, tended toidolatry and superstition. Christ, said they, is thesole lawgiver in His Church, and such things as arereally necessary He Himself has enjoined to beobserved to the end of the world. Their own ex-perience of kingly interference in matters religioushad not been without its lessons. They could notforget Henry's Act of Six Articles, the whip of sixstrings, as it was called; the dread memories ofMary's reign, too, were of painfully recent date andthe puritans felt themselves drawn to the forms ofecclesiastical polity prevailing among the ReformedChurches of Switzerland with whom they had sorecently enjoyed Christian fellowship. Thus in pro-testantism there was at this early stage a right and aleft wing, not unlike the differences sometimes foundin a modern political party.While the new Injunctions had made greatchanges in the forms of worship, and that in aprotestant direction, there was a provision in the30th Article which caused great searchings of heart.


37/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 25This required that 'all persons admitted into anyvocation ecclesiastical, or into any society of learningin either of the Universities should use and wearsuch habits and garments and such square caps aswere most commonly or orderly received in the lastyear of the reign of Edward VI.' This was reallya revival of what was called the Vestiarian Contro-versy, which had stirred great feeling ever since theday when Hooper on being made bishop of Gloucesterrefused to wear the vestments usually worn by bishopsat their consecration. He called them the livery ofAntichrist, and even obtained the King's permissionto decline the bishopric on that account, only yieldingat length to the earnest entreaty of other bishopsand on the understanding that he might lay thevestments aside after wearing them at his conse-cration. To him and to men of his mind the garmentsused at mass were a significant symbol of ecclesiasticaltendency as the flag of a nation is a significant symbolof cherished nationality. It was the outward andvisible sign of a system which, in their souls, theyhad cast away from them. This controversy hadnever really altogether died out, as the letters sentto friends in Zurich remain to testify. Jewell, after-wards bishop of Salisbury, tells Peter Martyr thatthe doctrine of the Church is most pure, ' but as toceremonies and maskings there is a little too muchfoolery...God alone knows what will be the issue.


38/176

26 THE ENGLISH PURITANSThe slow-paced horses retard the chariot.' Sampson,afterwards dean of Christ Church, asks the samefriend : ' Should we not rather quit the ministry ofthe Word and Sacraments, than that these relicsof the Amorites should be admitted?' Thomas Lever,master of St John's College, Cambridge, in Edward'stime, writes that the Injunctions ' having prescribedto the clergy some ornaments such as the mass-priestsformerly had and still retain, a great number of theclergy are now resuming similar habits, as they say,for the sake of obedience.' And finally, Edwin Sandys,afterwards bishop of Worcester, wrote to Martyr in1560 telling him, among other things, that 'thepopish vestments remain in our Church, I mean theCopes, which, however, we hope will not last long.'Such was the mental attitude of these menbetween Elizabeth's first Parliament in 1559 and hersecond Parliament which was opened on the 12th ofJanuary, 1563. What is of consequence, however, isthat at the same time with this second Parliamentthere met also a Convocation which was destinedto leave an enduring mark on the Church of England.It met at St Paul's, and under letters of advice fromthe Queen calling for a review of the doctrine anddiscipline of the Church, proceeded first with thesubject of doctrine. Archbishop Parker, somewhatelate with the idea that the time had arrived whenthe Church would be allowed to legislate for herself,


39/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 27opened the proceedings with the buoyant remark'Behold the opportunity come for reforming theChurch of England ! ' The first thing that was donewas the carrying through of a revision of Cranmer'sArticles of 1551, as a theological guide for the clergyin their public teaching. After being reduced to thenumber of thirty-nine at which they still remain,these Articles were sent to the Queen for the requiredauthority under the Great Seal.So far all was plain sailing, for on the matterof doctrine both sides were fairly agreed. But afterthis, Convocation proceeded to the discussion of themore thorny question of rites and ceremonies, and onreopening thus the whole ecclesiastical settlement onits ceremonial side, the relative strength of parties wasplainly made manifest. To begin with, an overturewas presented, bearing thirty-three signatures, in-cluding those of five deans, the provost of Eton, twelvearchdeacons, and fourteen proctors or representatives,and demanding, among other things, that at thecelebration of the Lord's Supper the posture ofkneeling, as suggesting the adoration of the elements,should be left indifferent ; that the sign of the crossin baptism should be disused ; that the wearing ofcopes and surplices be abolished, so that all ministersshould use 'a grave and comely side 1 garment' orpreaching gown ; and that they should not be1 i.e. long.


40/176

28 THE ENGLISH PURITANScompelled to wear such caps and gowns as theRomish clergy.

This overture not being approved, a motion wasthen brought forward to the effect that while Sundaysand the special feasts associated with the events ofour Saviour's life should be religiously observed, allother holidays should be abolished ; that in all parishchurches the minister in common prayer should turnhis face to the people ; that the cross in baptism beomitted ; that kneeling at the sacrament be left tothe discretion of the minister ; and that it shouldsuffice if he wear the surplice once, provided that nominister should say service or minister the sacra-ments but in comely garment or habit. After somediscussion this motion was carried to the vote, whenit appeared there was a majority in its favour byforty-three against thirty-five. But the proxies hadthen to be counted and these reversed the decisionby one vote and only one, there being now fifty-eightfor the motion and fifty-nine against. So that by thevote of one man, who was not present at the debate-that 'odd, shy man' as he has been called, it wasthus determined to make no alteration in the cere-monies, and the Court party, therefore, carried theirpoint in that memorable Convocation.

It remained now to be seen what effect thisdecision would have upon the country at large.There being a visitation of the plague in 1563, there


41/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 29was not much done that year in the way of enforcinguniformity in the matter of the vestments. Many ofthe parochial clergy had an aversion to the prescribedhabits ; sometimes they wore them, but more fre-quently they did not. Occasionally a refractoryminister would be cited before the spiritual courtsand there admonished, and so the matter ended.But at length more peremptory steps were taken.A document bearing date February 14, 1564, was laidbefore the Queen setting forth the irregularitiesprevailing in the order of Church service. She wasgreatly incensed by this report, and especially thatso little heed was paid to her laws, for she regardedthe Church as hers and held that in all matterspertaining to it her will should be paramount. Shetherefore addressed a letter to the two archbishopsdirecting them to inquire as to what diversities indoctrine, rites and ceremonies prevailed among theclergy, and to take effectual methods for securing anexact order and uniformity.

The puritans tried to avert the storm they saw tobe approaching. One of their most trusted leaders,Dr Pilkington, the bishop of Durham, laid their casebefore the Earl of Leicester, seeking his interest withthe Queen on their behalf. He pleaded that com-pulsion should not be used in things of liberty, andurged his lordship to consider how all protestantcountries had cast away popish apparel along with


42/176

30 THE ENGLISH PURITANSthe Pope, while England was resolving to keep toit as a holy relic. He was sure, he said, that manyministers would rather lose their livings than comply,and that, too, at a time when there was great scarcityof teachers, many places having none at all. But allpleas were alike unavailing. The Queen gave com-mand to Archbishop Parker to proceed at once inthe enforcement of uniformity, a command he obeyedwith vigour and resolution. So much excitementprevailed that Bishop Jewell in a sermon preachedat St Paul's Cross endeavoured to throw oil on thetroubled waters. He said he was not there to defendthe prescribed habits ; his purpose was rather toshew that the things prescribed were, after all, onlymatters of indifference. Still they were insistedupon. Under the title of 'Advertisements' Arch-bishop Parker issued certain Articles apparentlywithout the royal sanction or authority. They weredescribed as 'certain orders or rules thought meetand convenient though not prescribed as laws equiva-lent with the eternal Word of God, or as of necessitybinding the conscience, but as temporal orders, mereecclesiastical.'

But though thus mildly described the Advertise-ments were sufficiently imperative. All licenses forpreaching bearing date before March 1, 1564 were tobe regarded as void and of none effect, but would berenewed to those meet for office. In the matter of


43/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 31the vestments it was ordered that in cathedrals andcollegiate churches the officiating minister at theCommunion should use a cope ; that deans andprebends should wear a surplice with a silk hood,in the choir ; every minister saying public prayeror administering sacraments should wear a comelysurplice with sleeves, to be provided at the chargesof the parish. In their common apparel abroad alldeans of cathedral churches, masters of colleges,archdeacons and other dignitaries having any eccle-siastical living were to wear side gowns with sleevesstraight at the band without any falling cape, and towear tippets of sarcenet.To some of the bishops the enforcing of theAdvertisements proved a very unwelcome task.Bishop Jewell writing to his friend Bullinger in 1566,says : ' The contest about the surplice is not yet atrest I wish that all, even the slightest vestige ofpopery might be removed from our churches, andabove all from our minds. But the Queen at thistime is unable to endure the least alteration in thematter of religion.' The nonconforming puritans feltthey were entitled to claim that the bishops inenforcing the orders upon their clergy were doingso only under constraint and not by conviction. Theywere temporising, but for themselves they could nottemporise. They could not look upon these vestmentsas matters of indifference, associated as they had


44/176

32 THE ENGLISH PURITANSbeen with Romanism and the evil days of Mary'sreign. In July, 1566, Humphrey and Sampson writingto Bullinger asked : ' How can that habit be thoughtto be consistent with the simple ministry of Christwhich used to set off the theatrical pomp of theRomish priesthood? Our opponents are the realinnovators. In King Edward's time the Lord'sSupper was celebrated in simplicity in many placeswithout the surplice. The cope was then abrogatedby law and is now being restored after abrogation.This is not to extirpate popery but to replant it ;not to advance in religion but to go backward. Whyshould we borrow anything from popery? Whyshould we not agree in rites as well as in doctrinewith the other Reformed Churches ? It is only sevenyears ago that we regained our liberty, why shouldwe go back to servitude ? There is danger in thesepractices ; they are insidious ; they do not shewthemselves all at once, but creep on little by little.Why cannot the bishops endure us who formerlybore the same cross with them and who now preachthe same Christ ? Why do they cast us into prison ?Why do they persecute us on account of the habits ?Why do they spoil us of our substance and meansof subsistence?' In this urgent manner the presidentof Magdalen College and the dean of Christ Churchput the case on behalf of themselves and their puritanbrethren. Turner, dean of Bath and Wells, a man


45/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 33of versatile learning and still remembered as oneof the early founders of science, when preaching inhis cathedral asked, with a feeling of indignation :1 Who gave the bishops more authority over me thanI over them, either to forbid me or to deprive me,unless they have it from their holy father thePope ? 'The nonconforming clergy claimed that they hadan equal right with the conformist to say the Churchof England was theirs. Indeed they were not withouthope that the future of that Church would be withthem. They remembered that when the decision inConvocation went against them in 1563, it did so byonly one vote, and that a proxy vote ; so that thereat least parties proved to be of nearly even strength.And there were not wanting signs that in the com-munity at large they were increasing in strengthand influence. Among the laity there were not afew who were quite as averse to the habits as theywere themselves. With increasing dislike to poperythere was increasing dislike to the vestments, manyrefusing to go to the churches where they were worn.Even Whitgift recorded that the clergy who didwear them were sometimes rudely assailed in thestreets as time-servers and papists in disguise. Therewere some people at least who could not forget thatonly ten years ago friends and neighbours of theirshad been burnt at the stake in Mary's time. To

B. 3


46/176

34 THE ENGLISH PURITANSthem therefore the vestments seemed almost as ifthey were stained with the blood of the martyrs.And not merely among the common people, thepuritans had reason to know, there was sympathywith them, but also in high places, even in the Courtitself, with men like Secretary Cecil, the Earl ofLeicester, Sir Francis Knollys and the Earls ofBedford and Warwick. Meantime the archbishoppersisted in his policy of coercion. Among thosewhom he cited to Lambeth were Sampson andHumphrey with whom he entered into conferenceon the points at issue. They afterwards appealedto him by letter pleading that conscience is a verytender thing and all men cannot look upon the samethings as being indifferent. They also made theirappeal to antiquity, to the practice of the otherReformed Churches in their own day and even tothe consciences of the bishops themselves. It sohappened that at the very time these conferenceswere going forward, Sampson and Humphrey wereboth selected as the preachers at St Paul's Crossduring Lent, an appointment regarded as a mark ofdistinction. The archbishop was indignant, andwriting to Cecil he said : ' This appointment is notby me ; by whom I know not : either by the Bishopof London or the Lord Mayor.' Being thus incensedhe had the two men before him again and peremptorilycommanded them either to conform or to leave their


47/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 35posts. They merely replied that their conscienceswould not permit them to comply with his injunctions,come what might. Upon this they were then andthere committed to prison ; and as Sampson's deanerywas in the gift of the Crown he was deprived of hisoffice at once. The sameexperience came toHumphreysomewhat later on. When he also was deprived, hesent an earnest remonstrance to the commissionersin which he says : ' Since the mass attires be sostraitly commanded, the mass itself may shortly belooked for. A sword is now put into the hands ofthose that under Queen Mary have drawn it forpopery. The painful preacher for his labour isbeaten, the unpreaching prelate oflending in greaterescapeth scot-free. The learned man without his capis afflicted, the capped man without learning is nottouched. Is not this directly to break the laws ofGod? Is not this to prefer man's will before faith,judgement and mercy, man's traditions before theordinances of God ? We confess one faith of JesusChrist, we preach one doctrine, we acknowledge oneruler in earth over all things. Shall we be used sofor a surplice? Shall brethren persecute brethrenfor a forked cap devised of singularity of him that isour foreign enemy? Oh that ever I saw this day,that ever our adversaries should laugh to see brethrenfall together by the ears ! 'The cases of Sampson and Humphrey, leading32


48/176

36 THE ENGLISH PURITANSOxford men, came to a final issue towards the endof April, 1565. Then about the middle of October ofthat same year the state of things in the sister Uni-versity of Cambridge came under review. There themovement in favour of the Protestant Reformationtook shape early. As far back as 1510 Erasmus,after being at Louvain and Oxford, came to Cam-bridge in search of a new field of labour, taking uphis residence, under Fisher's protection, in Queens'College. Between 1511 and 1515 he there wrotehis Novum Instrumentum which did much to pre-pare the way for protestantism, and the light hekindled was kept burning. Later on a little bandof Cambridge scholars met together by stealth forthe discussion of Martin Luther's earlier treatises,William Tyndale, the ever-memorable translator ofthe English Bible, who was resident in the Universityfrom 1514 to 1521, being one of them. A recent his-torian of the University records that while it wasthe taunt of their adversaries that the members ofthis brotherhood were mostly young men, it is certainthat they were among the most able and diligent ofthe student class of the time, and their influencemade numerous converts. He goes on to say thatthe best scholarship of the University was repre-sented among them, as is proved by the fact thatwhen Cardinal Wolsey was founding his college atOxford, and was for that purpose selecting from


49/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 37Cambridge the most efficient teachers and lecturers,no fewer than six out of the eight thus chosen werenotable supporters of the Reformation doctrine. Theleaven had thus been working for more than ageneration when in the autumn of 1566 the pre-valence of puritanism came to be matter for seriousinquiry. It arose, first of all, as affecting certainlicenses to preach. Pope Alexander VI, during hisoccupancy of the See of Rome (1492 1503) grantedto the University of Cambridge the privilege oflicensing twelve ministers yearly, to preach anywherethroughout England without obtaining license fromany of the bishops. These were licensed under thecommon seal of the University, and this privilege wasrenewed in the letters patent granted by QueenElizabeth, and was retained and made use of tofurther the more advanced forms of Reformation.George Withers, one of the preachers thus licensed,went so far in his protestant zeal as to break certain' superstitious ' painted windows in the college chapelson which the use of prayers for the dead was en-joined. Upon this he was summoned to appearbefore the archbishop at Lambeth where he ' refusedto enter bonds for wearing of the cornered cap.'This led to further inquiry which proved conclusivelythat nonconformity in the matter of the vestmentswas more widely spread in the University than hadbeen supposed. Proceedings were therefore taken


50/176

38 THE ENGLISH PURITANSat once, and, in expectation of a proclamation ofenforcement, a petition was forwarded to Cecil, atthat time chancellor of the University, praying himto use his influence with the Queen that they mightnot be compelled to revive a popish habit which theyhad laid aside. They took leave to assure him, as inthe presence of God, that nothing but reason andthe quiet enjoyment of their consciences had ledthem to take the course they had taken. Many inthe University of piety and learning, they said, wereconvinced of the unlawfulness of the habits, there-fore, if conformity should be insisted upon, theywould be compelled to resign their positions, and so,by rigour and imposition both religion and learningwould suffer. The first of the signatures to thispetition was that of the vice-chancellor, Dr Beaumont,master of Trinity, who had himself been one of theexiles in Zurich in Mary's time. Other signatureswere those of Kelk, master of Magdalene, Button,master of Pembroke, and Longworth, master ofSt John's. Curious to relate there was also attachedto this petition the signature of John Whitgift, fellowof Peterhouse and Lady Margaret professor, who inafter years, as archbishop of Canterbury, was to bethe resolute persecutor of the puritans. This petitionwas ill-taken by the chancellor who wrote to thevice-chancellor requiring him to call together theheads of colleges and let them know that if they


51/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 39valued Christianity, the honour of the University, andthe favour of the Queen they must continue the useof the habits.

It was at St John's college that discontent firstshewed itself in violent outbreak. A young mannamed Fulke had 'lefte of wearing a square cappeand used a hatte,' and both at St Mary's and in thecollege chapel had preached in strong terms againstthe use of the surplice. Upon this the college wasroused to a high pitch of excitement, and ' in finethey waxed so hot that they could abide no suchgarment upon them.' The climax was reached at afestival in October when Longworth, the master, was

it is suggested, intentionally absent from college.On Saturday evening, October 12, at the first tollingof the bell for prayers a number of the youths of thehouse rushed into the chapel without surplices, andmore than that, hissed at those who came after withtheir surplices on. The master on his return onhearing of what had taken place practically rangedhimself and the University on the side of the mal-contents. The other side sent in a set of articlesaccusatory and urged the chancellor to take action,but Cecil was slow and Longworth seemed quiteindifferent, saying that he knew the real mind ofthe chancellor more than most people. However, heand several of the refractory students were sent forto London, but it came to the ears of people in


52/176

40 THE ENGLISH PURITANSCambridge that the master had been very favourablyentertained both by Cecil and the bishop of London.In the end Cecil drew up an easy form of retractionwhich Longworth signed with the promise that itshould be read before the college on his return.But as the outbreak spread to other colleges, andespecially to Trinity, Cecil took up the matter moreseriously. He then wrote to the vice-chancellor de-scribing this nonconformity as

' a wilful breaking ofcommon order, a lewd leprosy of libertines,' and re-quiring him to call together the heads of houses,urging them to unity, and further recommending thatpreachers who had opposed the use of the vestmentsshould be inhibited for a time from preaching andlecturing. ' Nevertheless/ says Neal, ' the Universityof Cambridge was still a sanctuary for puritans.'The colleges having been thus dealt with, thearchbishop began to devise means by which he couldmake London less puritanical. Grindal was at thattime bishop of this important diocese, and though hehad himself been one of the Zurich exiles, and was insympathy with simpler ways of worship, yet irregu-larities prevailing, and the Queen's anger thereat,led him to join the archbishop in his crusade onbehalf of uniformity.At this point, Beaumont, the master of Trinity,put the direct question to Cecil whether, underthe Act, he had power to deprive a man merely


53/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 41because he declined to wear a surplice, seeing thatthat penalty had not been attached to disobediencein the Queen's Injunctions. This point the arch-bishop also was debating in his mind and was notclear upon it. He sought legal advice on this matterof deprivation, but got little guidance: 'I must saythis much more that some lawyers be in opinion thatit is hard to proceed in deprivation having no morewarrant but the Queen's Majesty's word of mouth.'However, after being much tossed to and fro in hismind and consulting with his brother bishops hedetermined to run the risk. He would call beforehimself and the bishop of London all pastors andcurates of the city, would try to win them to con-formity by setting forth the penalty of disobedience ;would then examine them one by one, and obtain, ifpossible, a promise of conformity in ministration,testified by subscription of their hands ; then tosuspend all who should refuse. He felt he wastaking a strong course of action and was not withoutmisgiving. By way of strengthening his own waver-ing resolution he sought the countenance of eminentlaymen to stand by him. 'We trust,' he wrote toCecil, 'that the Queen's Majesty will send somehonourable to join with us two, to authorise therather her commandment and pleasure.' The daybefore the eventful meeting he wrote again hoping forthe presence of Cecil himself, also for that of the Lord


54/176

42 THE ENGLISH PURITANSKeeper Bacon and the Marquess of Northampton,inviting them to dine with him, and asking to becertified of their coming. But they would havenone of it. They agreed that it was the archbishop'swork, not theirs, and they resolved to leave himto it.

Tuesday, March 26, 1566, was the fateful date onwhich the clergy of London were cited to appear beforeParker and the bishop of London at Lambeth. Ashe could prevail upon no layman, or any of thenobility, or members of council to join him, he ob-tained the presence of the dean of Westminster anda few canonists for the occasion. In response to hissummons about a hundred and ten ministers pre-sented themselves, nine or ten being absent. Tosecure that the demand he was about to make shouldbe quite clear and definite there was provided fortheir inspection a clergyman properly dressed accord-ing to the pattern prescribed by the regulations.Robert Cole, the rector of St Mary le Bow, a non-conforming minister who had been brought to com-pliance, consented to stand there to show how theQueen wished them to be attired when dischargingtheir ecclesiastical functions. It is difficult to re-itrain a smile at the narrative, for it reads like apassage of mordant satire from Sartor Resartus.After some preliminary efforts at persuasion thechancellor of the London diocese became the spokes-


55/176

VESTMENTS AND CEREMONIES 43man of the occasion. ' My masters and the ministersof London/ said he, 'the Council's pleasure is thatstrictly ye keep the unity of apparel like to this man,as ye see him : that is, a square cap, a scholar'sgown priestlike, or tippet, and in the Church a linensurplice : and inviolably observe the rubric of theBookof Common Prayer, and the Queen's Majesty's Injunc-tions and the Book of Convocation. Ye that willpresently subscribe, write Volo. Those that will notsubscribe, write Nolo. Be brief: make no words.'Some of them attempted to speak, 'Peace, peace,'said the chancellor. 'Apparitor, call the churches.Masters answer presently sub poena contemptus :and set your names.' The apparitor, or summoner,called the names of the churches ; first of thepeculiars of Canterbury ; then of the incumbents ofSouthwark in Winchester diocese ; then of the Londonclergy. Parker writing to Cecil the same day toldhim that thirty-seven refused to conform ' of whichnumber were the best and some preachers.' The restsubmitted. Of those who refused he says :

' In finewe did suspend them and sequester their fruits andfrom all manner ministry. They showed reasonablequietness and modesty, otherwise than I looked for.I think some of them will come in when they shallfeel their want.' So Archbishop Parker coldly thought,unconsciously measuring himself while measuringthem. There he was wrong. They were resolute


56/176

44 THE ENGLISH PURITANSEnglishmen, had counted the cost and had no thoughtfor a moment of returning on their steps. Not thatthey did not feel the consequences keenly : 'We arekilled in our souls/ said they, 'for that we cannotperform in the singleness of our hearts this ourministry.' It was this and not the mere pinch ofpossible bodily want that touched them. Still allmust be faced. ' We have thought good/ they furthersay, 'to yield ourselves into the hands of men, tosuffer whatsoever God hath appointed us to sufferfor the preferring of the commandments of Godand a clear conscience before the commandmentsof men Not despising men, therefore, but trustingin God only, we seek to serve Him with a clear con-science so long as we shall live here, assuring our-selves that those things we shall suffer for doing soshall be a testimony to the world, that great rewardis laid up for us in heaven, where we doubt not butto rest for ever with them that have before our dayssuffered for the like.'


57/176

IllTHE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY

THE separation made at Lambeth palace betweenthe consenting and non-consenting clergy had moresignificance and farther-reaching consequences thancould be realised at the time. The decided action thentaken by the authorities of the Church led to yetmore resolute advance on the part of the dissentients,so that the question soon came to be one, not merelyof vestments and forms of ritual, but of the wholehierarchical system on which the Church was based.A dividing line, with parties ranged on separatesides, may be traced from that day down to ourown times.

Of the clergy deprived on March 26, 1566, somebetook themselves to the study and practice ofmedicine, others became chaplains in the families ofthe puritan nobility and gentry; some went northand joined the presbyterian Church of Scotland whileothers emigrated to the Low Countries. It is to befeared that not a few were, with their families, reducedto sore straits of poverty. Of the remainder, not


58/176

46 THE ENGLISH PURITANSthus accounted for, five went the length of defyingthe interdict placed upon them, going to theirchurches and preaching as aforetime. For this act ofdisobedience they were summoned before the Queenin Council. They were given eight days wherein tovisit their friends, after which they were committedas prisoners to the private custody of certain bishops,two being sent to the bishop of Winchester, twoto the bishop of Ely, and one to the bishop ofNorwich.

The withdrawal of so many London ministersfrom their parishes naturally led to considerableembarrassment in the conduct of services. Somechurches had to be closed, there being no one toofficiate. To one church on Palm Sunday six hundredpersons came to receive the Communion, only to findthe doors shut against them. The deprived ministerson their part issued a joint manifesto explanatoryof the step they had felt compelled to take. Amongother things they pointed out that neither the pro-phets of the Old Testament nor the apostles of theNew were distinguished by their garments ; that thelinen vestment was the mark of that priesthood ofAaron which had been superseded by Christ and HisChurch. Historically speaking, they maintained thatthe distinction of garments in the Christian Churchcame in when antichrist came in ; for the clergy ofRavenna, writing to the emperor in 876 A.D. said to


59/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 47him: 'We are distinguished from the laity not byour clothes but by our doctrines, not by our habitsbut by our conversation.' It was quite clear, theysaid, that the vestments in question had led toidolatry, had been an offence to weak Christians andan encouragement to the Romanists in the nation;and they contended that supposing these garmentswere indifferent, which they did not admit, that wasa reason why they should not be made obligatory,this being an infringement of the liberty wherewithChrist had made them free. To this manifesto aprinted reply was issued from the other side com-mending the attention of the seceders to those wordsof the apostle: 'Let every soul be subject to thehigher power.'

After waiting for about eight weeks, to see ifthere might be any relenting on the part of theQueen and the archbishop, the ministers, and thoseof the puritan party in the city who were in agree-ment with them, held solemn conference together,in which after prayer and serious debate as to thelawfulness and necessity of separation from theEstablished Church, they came to the followingagreement: 'That since they could not have theWord of God preached, nor the Sacraments ad-ministered without idolatrous gear ; and since therehad been a separate congregation in London, andanother in Geneva in Mary's time, using a book and


60/176

48 THE ENGLISH PURITANSorder of Service approved by Calvin, which was freefrom the superstitions of the English Service : there-fore it was their duty, in their present circum-stances, to break off from the public churches, andto assemble, as they had opportunity, in privatehouses or elsewhere to worship God in a mannerthat might not offend against the light of theirconsciences.' Commenting on the serious step thustaken, Strype, the English Church historian, writesthus : ' Here was the era or date of Separation : amost unhappy event whereby people of the samecountry, of the same religion, and of the same judge-ment in doctrine, parted communions ; one part beingobliged to go aside into secret houses and chambers,to serve God by themselves, which begat strangenessbetween neighbours, Christians and Protestants.'

It soon became known that there were gatheringsfor worship in woods and private buildings withoutthe habits and ceremonies of the Church, whereuponthe Queen sent an urgent message to the commissionto take effectual steps to prevent the people leavingtheir parish churches, and to be careful to warn themof the consequences of frequenting separate conven-ticles. All the same the gatherings continued onthrough the winter till the following summer, when,on the 19th of June, 1567, a congregation of abouta hundred people being met in Plumber's Hall forsermon and communion, the sheriffs of the city


61/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 49broke in upon them, taking many into custody. Thenext day several of these were called to appearbefore Grindal, bishop of London, and the lord mayor.The bishop reminded them that by these proceed-ings of theirs they were in effect condemning theReformed Church of England, and those martyrswho had shed their blood for it. To this one ofthem replied that they condemned not others, butfelt that for themselves they must stand to God'sWord. Another ' the ancientest of them,' added :' So long as we might have the Word freely preachedand the sacraments administered without the pre-ferring of idolatrous gear about it, we never assembledtogether in houses. But when it came to this that allour preachers were displaced by your law, so that wecould hear none of them in any church by the spaceof seven or eight weeks, and were troubled and com-manded by your Courts from day to day for notcoming to our parish churches, then we bethought uswhat were best to do. And now if from the Word ofGod you can prove we are wrong we will yield to youand do open penance at Paul's Cross : if not we willstand to it by the grace of God.' Eventually twenty-four men and seven women were committed toBridewell prison for a twelvemonth and then re-leased.

At this point the scene shifts from London toCambridge and the University becomes the centre


62/176

50 THE ENGLISH PURITANSof interest in the fortunes of puritanism. New sub-jects begin to be debated and new leaders come tothe front. Of these leaders the foremost was ThomasCartwright, a fellow of Trinity, who is described asa man of genius and one who would have been pro-minent in any age. Thomas Fuller spoke of hisfame as that of 'a pure Latinist, accurate Grecian,exact Hebraist/ and Theodore Beza was of opinionthat he was the most learned man he knew. In 1562,when he became a fellow, he was already known in theUniversity as an eloquent preacher and a rising theo-logical scholar. On the occasion of Queen Elizabeth'svisit to Cambridge in 1564 he was elected to takepart in the theological disputation held in her pre-sence, and stories have come down to us of theenthusiasm he created as University preacher, thewindows of St Mary's, it is said, having to be takenout that those might hear without who could not findentrance within. But what we are now more imme-diately concerned with is the fact that when towardsthe end of 1569 Dr Cbaderton resigned the LadyMargaret chair and became Regius Professor ofTheology, Cartwright, at the age of thirty-four, be-came his successor. In the fulfilment of his officeas Lady Margaret professor he gave a series of lectureson the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, inthe course of which he assailed the hierarchical con-stitution of the Church. The position he took was


63/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 51that nothing should be established in the Church butwhat was enjoined in Scripture; that therefore thenames and functions of archbishop and archdeaconshould be abolished, and that the lawful ministers ofthe Church, bishops and deacons, should be reducedto the apostolic institution the bishops to preachthe Word of God and pray, while the deacons hadthe care of the poor. He held further that everychurch ought to be governed by its own ministerand presbyters, not by the bishop's chancellor or theofficial of the archdeacon; and that bishops shouldnot be created by the civil authority, but be freelychosen by the Church. On other points also he con-tended that no man ought to be admitted to theministry unless he was able to preach ; that as equalreverence was due to every part of Scripture and toall the revealed names of God, there is no reasonwhy the people should stand at the reading of thegospel, or bow at the name of Jesus; that at theCommunion it was as lawful to sit as to kneel orstand ; that the sign of the cross in baptism is super-stitious; that it is papistical to forbid marriages atcertain times of the year ; and that the observation ofLent and fasting on Friday is superstitious.

These, of course, were startling opinions to beuttered from a professor's chair, or worse, from theUniversity pulpit, and Dr Whitgift, then master ofTrinity, entered into the lists against Cartwright42


64/176

62 THE ENGLISH PURITANSHe also reported his proceedings to Sir WilliamCecil, the chancellor, and eventually in combinationwith the vice-chancellor and other heads of theUniversity, he obtained a body of new statutesgiving larger powers. This was in the month ofAugust, 1570. That same month Cartwright alsowrote to Cecil, assuring him that he was contendingfor a discipline which not only in England but alsoin foreign nations was accompanied by the dailyprayers of pious men ; that what some men callednovelties were really most ancient, and began withthe Churches of Christ and His Apostles. Cecil,never an extreme churchman, urged on behalf ofCartwright that he spoke as he did, not from arro-gance or ill-will, but as reader of the Scriptures hadmerely given notes by way of comparison betweenthe orders of the ministry in the Apostles' time andthose of the present Church of England. Whitgiftand his party, however, were unwilling to take solenient a view, and under the increased powers ofthe new statutes, Cartwright was first deprived ofhis professorship and fellowship and afterwards ex-pelled the University. In 1573 he went abroad andbecame minister of the Congregation of EnglishMerchants at Antwerp and subsequently at Middel-burg in Zealand.

The third Parliament of Elizabeth, summoned in1571, sat from April 2 to May 29, when ecclesiastical


65/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 53matters were much in debate, and in the House ofCommons there was a resolute and active party insympathy with the puritans. As their spokesman, MrStrickland, ' an ancient gentleman,' brought in a Billon the 6th of April for the further reformation of theChurch. As in a second speech, a week later, he wasenforcing the provisions of this Bill, the treasurer ofthe Queen's household rose and reminded him thatall matters of ceremonies were to be referred to theQueen, and that for the House to meddle with theroyal prerogative was not convenient. Afterwardsalso the Queen herself, to shew her displeasure atStrickland's motion, summoned him before her pre-sence in Council and forbade him the ParliamentHouse. This unconstitutional invasion of the libertiesof the Commons led, however, to so many protestingspeeches that the Queen, having the Tudor instinctof knowing when to retreat from an untenable posi-tion, recalled the prohibition on the 20th of April. Onhis return to the House Strickland proceeded furtherand moved that a Confession of Faith be publishedwith the authority of Parliament, as in other pro-testant countries. This was assented to, and a com-mittee was appointed which drew up certain Articles,which were really those of the Convocation of 1562,with, however, certain omissions. The archbishopasked why they had left out that for the consecrationof bishops and others relating to the hierarchy ;


66/176

54 THE ENGLISH PURITANSPeter Wentworth replied they had done so be-cause they had not yet made up their minds as towhether they were agreeable to the Word of Godor not. ' But surely/ said the archbishop, ' in thesethings you will refer yourselves wholly to us, thebishops.' With some warmth Wentworth repliedthat ' they meant to pass nothing they did not under-stand ; for that would be to make the bishops intopopes : make you popes who list for we will makeyou none.' On the 1st of May a message was receivedfrom the Queen concerning this confirmation of theArticles of 1562: 'The Queen's Majesty ... mindethto publish these and have them executed by thebishops, by direction of her Highness' Regal Autho-rity of Supremacy of the Church of England ; andnot to have them dealt in by Parliament.' Unmovedby this rebuke, the Commons, two days later, sentup to the Lords a ' Bill for the ministers of theChurch to be of sound religion.' This when passedbecame the important Act of 13 Eliz. cap. xii., underwhich subscription to the Articles was first required.Before Christmas next following, every minister underthe degree of a bishop was ' to declare his assent andsubscribe to all the Articles of Religion which onlyconcern the confession of the true Christian faithand the doctrine of the sacraments comprised in thebook of 1562, and bring from the bishop, in writing,under his seal authentic, proof of such assent and


67/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 55subscription.' If he did not comply within the giventime, he ' shall be ipso facto deprived, and all hisecclesiastical promotions shall be void, as if he thenwere naturally dead.'

In addition to the demand for subscription to theArticles, which was a new thing, the CommissionersEcclesiastical,when the parliamentary session was over,issued an order on the 7th ofJune to all churchwardensto the effect that they were in no wise to suffer anyminister to minister any sacrament or say publicprayers other than according to the Book of CommonPrayer, and not thus unless his license to preach isdated after the 1st of May last. In the convocationof this year a Book of Canons was made, one of therequirements of which was that every bishop should,before September next, call before him all the clergyof his diocese, and require of them their facultiesfor preaching under authentic seal, only giving backthese licenses to such ministers as he approved.Before, however, any licenses could be restored theecclesiastical vestments were to be enforced. Uponrefusal a minister was to resign quietly or bedeprived. In pursuance of these orders the arch-bishop, early in June, cited some of the leadingpuritans to Lambeth, Lever, Sampson, Goodman,Walker and Wiborne being among them ; the samemonth Robert Browne, at that time chaplain tothe Duke of Norfolk, and sometimes spoken of since


68/176

56 THE ENGLISH PURITANSas the founder of the Brownists, was also cited. Inthe northern province Whittingham and Gilby cameunder observation. Details of what happened in allcases have not come down to us, but it is said thatthrough the action of the commissioners at this timeabout one hundred ministers suffered deprivation.Browne, Harrison, and others went beyond sea toZealand ; and there is a curious document amongthe State Papers of this period (1566 1573) con-taining a proposal for transplanting the precisians,to the number of 3000 men, to Ireland, assigningthem a portion of Ulster, 'there, as concerningreligion, to live according to the reformation of thebest churches.'

Parliament met again on the 8th of May, 1572, thelord keeper making the opening speech, in which, inthe Queen's name, he recommended the Houses to seethe laws relating to the Church carried into effectand to enact other laws, if needful, for that purpose.Instead, however, of making new laws for the en-forcement of ceremonies, two Bills were introducedfor their regulation, in one of which it was proposedto redress certain grievances complained of by thepuritans. Both these Bills passed the Commons andwere referred to a select committee of both Houses.The Queen again resented this interference, as sheregarded it, and through the speaker informed theCommons that it was her pleasure that no Bills on


69/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 57religion should be received without previous consentfrom the bishops, and she commanded that thetwo Bills concerning rites and ceremonies should bedelivered up. Peter Wentworth again protestedagainst this infringement of the liberty and freespeech of Parliament. ' Her Majesty,' he said, ' hasforbidden us to deal with any matter of religion tillwe first receive it from the bishops. Then there islittle hope of reformation. I have heard an oldParliament man say that the banishment of thepope, and the reforming of the true religion hadits beginning from this House, not from the bishops.'For this outspoken utterance of his Wentworth wassent to the Tower.

It was at this time the puritans entered upon anew and important departure in their line of policy.Having lost all hope of effecting such reformationas they desired by appealing to the Queen or thebishops, they resolved to make their appeal to Par-liament itself. At a meeting of the leaders held inLondon it was resolved to draw up a manifesto, whichis now known as the First Admonition to Parliament.It was published anonymously in 1572, but was ad-mitted to be the work of John Field, the minister ofAlderbury, in conjunction with Thomas Wilcocks ;and Strype records that it was so eagerly read thatit went through four editions before the end of 1573.This manifesto is historically important as being


70/176

58 THE ENGLISH PURITANSa clear and deliberate declaration of what the puri-tans had in view at this stage in the developmentof their scheme of reformation. The Admonitionbegan by asserting in the preface that till therewas a right ministry of God and a right governmentof His Church there could be no right religion.They, therefore, present for the godly considerationof Parliament a true platform of a Church reformed.It would be seen that radical changes were needed,for as yet ' we are scarce come to the outward face ofthe same. Those who were priests under Henry VIIIand Mary ought to be removed, for they are stillthe Romanists at heart they always were. Then,when better men are sought, there ought to be anelection of the minister by the elders with thecommon consent of the whole church. He shouldbe catted by the congregation, not thrust upon themby the bishop, or ordained without a title, and shouldbe admitted to his function by the laying on of thehands of the eldership only. The officers of a churchare chiefly three ministers or pastors, elders anddeacons. As for the elders not only their office buttheir very name has been removed out of the EnglishChurch, and in their stead we yet maintain thelordship of one man over many churches, yea oversundry shires. If you would restore the Church toher ancient officers this you must do : Instead of anarchbishop or lord bishop you must make equality


71/176


72/176

60 THE ENGLISH PURITANSmonition, which produced a great sensation on itsappearance in print. Its authors were at oncecommitted to Newgate, and several of the bishopsassailed the book as foolish as well as dangerous,to which a writer of the time replied that 'foolishit may be, but it is still unanswered, and thoughthere are scarce as many leaves in it as there aremonths past since it came forth, it is fleeing as afirebrand from place to place and setting all thecountry on fire.' At length it was decided to sendforth an answer, which at the request of the primatewas undertaken by Dr Whitgift with the assistanceof two of the bishops. This work has been describedas 'a learned answer,' and an 'excellent book, con-taining a very satisfactory vindication of the Churchof England.' Its two main positions are that we arenot bound of necessity to keep to the same form ofchurch government as obtained in the time of theApostles and that it is unreasonable to maintain thatwe may not retain anything in the English Churchsimply because it was to be found in the RomanChurch previously. This reply by Whitgift waspublished in 1673, and called forth a Second Admo-nition, which is admitted to be from the pen ofThomas Cartwright, and in which he went overWhitgift's argument point by point. The First Ad-monition having set forth what should be reformed,this points out how the work of reformation ought to


73/176

THE PURITANS AND THE HIERARCHY 61be carried out. He suggests that a sufficient main-tenance for the ministry should be provided so thatevery parish may have a preaching pastor ; and thatthe statutes should be repealed which make theministry partly to consist of lords spiritual, makingone minister higher than another. For Christ mostseverely forbade His Apostles and successors allclaims of primacy and dominion and gave

(1910) The English Puritans: The Origins of Puritans

Documents

Transcript of (1910) The English Puritans: The Origins of Puritans