ON THE LAWS OF ELIZABETH'S REIGN RESPECTING
PROTESTANT NONCONFORMISTS
The two statutes enacted in the first year of Elizabeth, commonly
called the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, are the main links of the
Anglican church with the temporal constitution, and establish the
subordination and dependency of the former; the first abrogating all
jurisdiction and legislative power of ecclesiastical rulers, except under
the authority of the Crown; and the second prohibiting all changes of
rites and discipline without the approbation of parliament. It was the
constant policy of this queen to maintain her ecclesiastical
prerogative and the laws she had enacted. But in following up this
principle she found herself involved in many troubles, and had to
contend with a religious party, quite opposite to the Romish, less
dangerous indeed and inimical to her government, but full as
vexatious and determined.
Origin of the differences among the English protestants. —I have in
another place slightly mentioned the differences that began to spring
up under Edward VI. between the moderate reformers who
established the new Anglican church, and those who accused them
of proceeding with too much forbearance in casting off superstitions
and abuses. These diversities of opinion were not without some
relation to those which distinguished the two great families of
protestantism in Europe. Luther, intent on his own system of
dogmatic theology, had shown much indifference about retrenching
exterior ceremonies, and had even favoured, especially in the first
years of his preaching, that specious worship which some ardent
reformers were eager to reduce to simplicity.[266] Crucifixes and images, tapers and priestly vestments, even for a time the elevation
of the host and the Latin mass-book, continued in the Lutheran
churches; while the disciples of Zuingle and Calvin were carefully
eradicating them as popish idolatry and superstition. Cranmer and
Ridley, the founders of the English reformation, justly deeming
themselves independent of any foreign master, adopted a middle
163
course between the Lutheran and Calvinistic ritual. The general
tendency however of protestants, even in the reign of Edward VI.,
was towards the simpler forms; whether through the influence of
those foreign divines who co-operated in our reformation, or because
it was natural in the heat of religious animosity to recede as far as
possible, especially in such exterior distinctions, from the opposite
denomination. The death of Edward seems to have prevented a
further approach to the scheme of Geneva in our ceremonies, and
perhaps in our discipline. During the persecution of Mary's reign, the
most eminent protestant clergymen took refuge in various cities of
Germany and Switzerland. They were received by the Calvinists with
hospitality and fraternal kindness; while the Lutheran divines, a
narrow-minded intolerant faction, both neglected and insulted
them.[267] Divisions soon arose among themselves about the use of the English service, in which a pretty considerable party was
disposed to make alterations. The chief scene of these disturbances
was Frankfort, where Knox, the famous reformer of Scotland, headed
the innovators; while Cox, an eminent divine, much concerned in the
establishment of Edward VI., and afterwards Bishop of Ely, stood up
for the original liturgy. Cox succeeded (not quite fairly, if we may rely
on the only narrative we possess) in driving his opponents from the
city; but these disagreements were by no means healed, when the
accession of Elizabeth recalled both parties to their own country,
neither of them very likely to display more mutual charity in their
prosperous hour, than they had been able to exercise in a common
persecution.[268]
Religious inclinations of the queen. —The first mortification these
exiles endured on their return was to find a more dilatory advance
towards public reformation of religion, and more of what they deemed
lukewarmness, than their sanguine zeal had anticipated. Most part of
this delay was owing to the greater prudence of the queen's
counsellors, who felt the pulse of the nation before they ventured on
such essential changes. But there was yet another obstacle, on which
the reformers had not reckoned. Elizabeth, though resolute against
submitting to the
164
papal supremacy, was not so averse to all the tenets abjured by
protestants, and loved also a more splendid worship than had
prevailed in her brother's reign; while many of those returned from the
continent were intent on copying a still simpler model. She reproved a
divine who preached against the real presence, and is even said to
have used prayers to the Virgin.[269] But her great struggle with the reformers was about images, and particularly the crucifix, which she
retained, with lighted tapers before it, in her chapel; though in the
injunctions to the ecclesiastical visitors of 1559, they are directed to
have them taken away from churches.[270] This concession she must have made very reluctantly, for we find proofs the next year of her
inclination to restore them; and the question of their lawfulness was
debated, as Jewel writes word to Peter Martyr, by himself and Grindal
on one side, against Parker and Cox, who had been persuaded to
argue in their favour.[271] But the strenuous opposition of men so distinguished as Jewel, Sandys, and Grindal, of whom the first
declared his intention of resigning his bishopric in case this return
towards superstition should be made, compelled Elizabeth to
relinquish her project.[272] The crucifix was even for a time removed from her own chapel, but replaced about 1570.[273]
165
There was however one other subject of dispute between the old and
new religions, upon which her majesty could not be brought to adopt
the protestant side of the question. This was the marriage of the
clergy, to which she expressed so great an aversion, that she would
never consent to repeal the statute of her sister's reign against it.[274]
Accordingly, the bishops and clergy, though they married by
connivance, or rather by an ungracious permission,[275] saw, with very just dissatisfaction, their children treated by the law as the offspring of
concubinage.[276]
166
This continued, in legal strictness, till the first year of James, when
the statute of Mary was explicitly repealed; though I cannot help
suspecting that clerical marriages had been tacitly recognised, even
in courts of justice, long before that time. Yet it appears less probable
to derive Elizabeth's prejudice in this respect from any deference to
the Roman discipline, than from that strange dislike to the most lawful
union between the sexes, which formed one of the singularities of her
character.
Such a reluctance as the queen displayed to return in every point
even to the system established under Edward, was no slight
disappointment to those who thought that too little had been effected
by it. They had beheld at Zurich and Geneva the simplest, and, as
they conceived, the purest form of worship. They were persuaded
that the vestments still worn by the clergy, as in the days of popery,
though in themselves indifferent, led to erroneous notions among the
people, and kept alive a recollection of former superstitions, which
would render their return to them more easy in the event of another
political revolution.[277] They disliked some other ceremonies for the same reason. These objections were by no means confined, as is
perpetually insinuated, to a few discontented persons. Except
Archbishop Parker, who had remained in England during the late
reign, and Cox, Bishop of Ely, who had taken a strong part at
Frankfort against innovation, all the most eminent churchmen, such
as Jewel, Grindal, Sandys, Nowell, were in favour of leaving off the
surplice and what were called the popish ceremonies.[278] Whether their objections are to be deemed narrow and frivolous or otherwise,
it is inconsistent with veracity to dissemble that the queen alone was
the cause of retaining those observances, to which the great
separation from the Anglican establishment is ascribed. Had her
influence been withdrawn, surplices and square caps would have lost
their steadiest friend; and several other little accommodations to the
prevalent dispositions of protestants would have taken place. Of this
it
167
seems impossible to doubt, when we read the proceedings of the
convocation in 1562, when a proposition to abolish most of the
usages deemed objectionable was lost only by a vote, the numbers
being 59 to 58.[279]
In thus restraining the ardent zeal of reformation, Elizabeth may not
have been guided merely by her own prejudices, without far higher
motives of prudence and even of equity. It is difficult to pronounce in
what proportion the two conflicting religions were blended on her
coming to the throne. The reformed occupied most large towns, and
were no doubt a more active and powerful body than their opponents.
Nor did the ecclesiastical visitors of 1559 complain of any resistance,
or even unwillingness, among the people.[280] Still the Romish party 168
was extremely numerous; it comprehended the far greater portion of
the beneficed clergy, and all those who, having no turn for
controversy, clung with pious reverence to the rites and worship of
their earliest associations. It might be thought perhaps not very
repugnant to wisdom or to charity, that such persons should be won
over to the reformed faith by retaining a few indifferent usages, which
gratified their eyes, and took off the impression, so unpleasing to
simple minds, of religious innovation. It might be urged that, should
even somewhat more of superstition remain awhile than rational men
would approve, the mischief would be far less than to drive the
people back into the arms of popery, or to expose them to the natural
consequences of destroying at once all old landmarks of
reverence,—a dangerous fanaticism, or a careless irreligion. I know
not in what degree these considerations had weight with Elizabeth;
but they were such as it well became her to entertain.
We live however too far from the period of her accession, to pass an
unqualified decision on the course of policy which it was best for the
queen to pursue. The difficulties of effecting a compromise between
two intolerant and exclusive sects were perhaps insuperable. In
maintaining or altering a religious establishment, it may be reckoned
the general duty of governments to respect the wishes of the majority.
But it is also a rule of human policy to favour the more efficient and
determined,
169
which may not always be the more numerous party. I am far from
being convinced that it would not have been practicable, by receding
a little from that uniformity which governors delight to prescribe, to
have palliated in a great measure, if not put an end for a time, to the
discontent that so soon endangered the new establishment. The
frivolous usages, to which so many frivolous objections were raised,
such as the tippet and surplice, the sign of the cross in baptism, the
ring in matrimony, the posture of kneeling at the communion, might
have been left to private discretion, not possibly without some
inconvenience, but with less, as I conceive, than resulted from
rendering their observance indispensable. Nor should we allow
ourselves to be turned aside by the common reply, that no
concessions of this kind would have ultimately prevented the disunion
of the church upon more essential differences than these litigated
ceremonies; since the science of policy, like that of medicine, must
content itself with devising remedies for immediate danger, and can
at best only retard the progress of that intrinsic decay which seems to
be the law of all things human, and through which every institution of
man, like his earthly frame, must one day crumble into ruin.
Unwillingness to comply with the established ceremonies. —The
repugnance felt by a large part of the protestant clergy to the
ceremonies with which Elizabeth would not consent to dispense,
showed itself in irregular transgressions of the uniformity prescribed
by statute. Some continued to wear the habits, others laid them
aside; the communicants received the sacrament sitting, or standing,
or kneeling, according to the minister's taste; some baptized in the
font, others in a basin; some with the sign of the cross, others without
it. The people in London and other towns, siding chiefly with the
malcontents, insulted such of the clergy as observed the prescribed
order.[281] Many of the bishops readily connived at deviations from ceremonies which they disapproved. Some, who felt little objection to
their use, were against imposing them as necessary.[282] And this opinion, which led to very momentous inferences, began so much to
prevail, that we soon find the objections to conformity more grounded
on the unlawfulness of compulsory regulations in the church
prescribed by the civil power, than on any special impropriety
170
in the usages themselves. But this principle, which perhaps the
scrupulous party did not yet very fully avow, was altogether
incompatible with the supremacy vested in the queen, of which fairest
flower of her prerogative she was abundantly tenacious. One thing
was evident, that the puritan malcontents were growing every day
more numerous, more determined, and more likely to win over the
generality of those who sincerely favoured the protestant cause.
There were but two lines to be taken; either to relax and modify the
regulations which gave offence, or to enforce a more punctual
observation of them. It seems to me far more probable that the former
course would have prevented a great deal of that mischief which the
second manifestly aggravated. For in this early stage the advocates
of a simpler ritual had by no means assumed the shape of an
embodied faction, whom concessions, it must be owned, are not apt
to satisfy, but numbered the most learned and distinguished portion
of the hierarchy. Parker stood nearly alone on the other side, but
alone more than an equipoise in the balance, through his high station,
his judgment in matters of policy, and his knowledge of the queen's
disposition. He had possibly reason to apprehend that Elizabeth,
irritated by the prevalent humour for alteration, might burst entirely
away from the protestant side, or stretch her supremacy to reduce the
church into a slavish subjection to her caprice.[283] This might induce a man of his sagacity, who took a far wider view of civil affairs than his
brethren, to exert himself according to her peremptory command for
universal conformity. But it is not easy to reconcile the whole of his
conduct to this supposition; and in the copious memorials of Strype,
we find the archbishop rather exciting the queen to rigorous
measures against the puritans than standing in need of her
admonition.[284]
Conformity enforced by the archbishop against the disposition of
171
others. —The unsettled state of exterior religion which has been
mentioned lasted till 1565. In the beginning of that year a
determination was taken by the queen, or rather perhaps the
archbishop, to put a stop to all irregularities in the public service. He
set forth a book called Advertisements, containing orders and
regulations for the discipline of the clergy. This modest title was taken
in consequence of the queen's withholding her sanction of its
appearance through Leicester's influence.[285] The primate's next step was to summon before the ecclesiastical commission Sampson,
Dean of Christchurch, and Humphrey, President of Magdalen
College, Oxford, men of signal non-conformity, but at the same time
of such eminent reputation that, when the law took its course against
them, no other offender could hope for indulgence. On refusing to
wear the customary habits, Sampson was deprived of his deanery;
but the other seems to have been tolerated.[286] This instance of severity, as commonly happens, rather irritated than intimidated the
puritan clergy, aware of their numbers, their popularity, and their
powerful friends, but above all sustained by their own sincerity and
earnestness. Parker had taken his resolution to proceed in the
vigorous course he had begun. He obtained from the queen a
proclamation, peremptorily requiring conformity in the use of the
clerical vestments and other matters of discipline. The London
ministers, summoned before himself and their bishop, Grindal, who
did not very willingly co-operate with his metropolitan, were called
upon for a promise to comply with the legal ceremonies, which thirty-
seven out of ninety-eight refused to make. They were in consequence
suspended from their ministry, and their livings put in sequestration.
But these unfortunately, as was the case in all this reign, were the
most conspicuous, both for their general character and for their talent
in preaching.[287]
Whatever deviations from uniformity existed within the pale of the
Anglican church, no attempt had hitherto been made to form separate
assemblies; nor could it be deemed necessary, while so much
indulgence had been conceded to the scrupulous clergy. But they
were now reduced to determine whether the
172
imposition of those rites they disliked would justify, or render
necessary, an abandonment of their ministry. The bishops of that
school had so far overcome their repugnance, as not only to observe
the ceremonies of the church, but, in some instances, to employ
compulsion towards others.[288] A more unexceptionable, because more disinterested, judgment was pronounced by some of the Swiss
reformers to whom our own paid great respect—Beza, Gualter, and
Bullinger; who, while they regretted the continuance of a few
superfluous rites, and still more the severity used towards good men,
dissuaded their friends from deserting their vocation on that account.
Several of the most respectable opponents of the ceremonies were
equally adverse to any open schism.[289] But the animosities springing from heated zeal, and the smart of what seemed oppression, would
not suffer the English puritans generally to acquiesce in such
temperate counsels. They began to form separate conventicles in
London, not ostentatiously indeed, but of course without the
possibility of eluding notice. It was doubtless worthy of much
consideration, whether an established church-government could wink
at the systematic disregard of its discipline by those who were subject
to its jurisdiction and partook of its revenues. And yet there were
many important considerations derived from the posture of religion
and of the state, which might induce cool-headed men to doubt the
expediency of too much straightening the reins. But there are few, I
trust, who can hesitate to admit that the puritan clergy, after being
excluded from their benefices, might still claim from a just
government a peaceful toleration of their particular worship. This it
was vain to expect from the queen's arbitrary spirit, the imperious
humour of Parker, and that total disregard of the rights of conscience
which was common to all parties in the sixteenth century. The first
instance of actual punishment
173
inflicted on protestant dissenters was in June 1567, when a company
of more than one hundred were seized during their religious
exercises at Plummer's Hall, which they had hired on pretence of a
wedding, and fourteen or fifteen of them were sent to prison.[290] They behaved on their examination with a rudeness as well as self-sufficiency, that had already begun to characterise the puritan faction.
But this cannot excuse the fatal error of molesting men for the
exercise of their own religion.
These coercive proceedings of the archbishop were feebly seconded,
or directly thwarted, by most leading men both in church and state.
Grindal and Sandys, successively Bishops of London and
Archbishops of York, were naturally reckoned at this time somewhat
favourable to the non-conforming ministers, whose scruples they had
partaken. Parkhurst and Pilkington, Bishops of Norwich and Durham,
were openly on their side.[291] They had still more effectual support in the queen's council. The Earl of Leicester, who possessed more
power than any one to sway her wavering and capricious temper, the
Earls of Bedford, Huntingdon, and Warwick, regarded as the
steadiest protestants among the aristocracy, the wise and grave Lord
Keeper Bacon, the sagacious Walsingham, the experienced Sadler,
the zealous Knollys, considered these objects of Parker's severity,
either as demanding a purer worship than had been established in
the church, or at least as worthy by their virtues and services of more
indulgent treatment.[292] Cecil himself, though on intimate terms with the archbishop, and concurring generally in his measures, was not far
removed from the latter way of thinking, if his natural caution and
extreme dread at this juncture of losing the queen's favour had
permitted him more unequivocally to express it. Those whose
judgment did not incline them towards the puritan notions, respected
the scruples of men in whom the reformed religion could so implicitly
confide. They had regard also to the condition of the church. The far
greater part of its benefices were supplied by conformists of very
doubtful sincerity, who would resume their mass-books with more
alacrity than they had cast them aside.[293]
174
Such a deficiency of protestant clergy had been experienced at the