Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

ministration in the most bitter terms, and boldly advocated the Geneva platform. Nothing like it had yet appeared. The book was eagerly sought for, and in spite of the utmost efforts to repress it was printed with alarming rapidity. All that the Primate could do was to procure an answer to be written. For this work he employed Dr. John Whitgift, Dean of Lincoln, and now prolocutor of the Canterbury Convocation, an old antagonist of Cartwright's at Cambridge. Parker himself furnished the topics on

which the answer to the apology should turn.

§ 29. But while the bishops were arguing, the queen determined to act. Convinced at last that some extraordinary legal measures were needed to put down nonconformity, and that this end could not be effected by the ordinary exercise of Church discipline, she resolved to adopt more vigorous measures. But she would not practically admit the truth of the representations made to her by the Primate and the bishops, without inflicting upon them a final castigation for their inefficiency, which had made these things necessary. In a proclamation, issued October 20, 1573, she openly charges the bishops with negligence, and in a letter addressed to them by the Council she allows them to be deliberately and publicly insulted :-"The fault is in you, to whom the special care of ecclesiastical matters doth appertain, and who have your visitations, episcopal and archidiaconal, and your synods, and such other meetings of the clergy, first and chiefly ordained for that purpose, to keep all churches in your diocese in one uniform and godly order, which now is, as is commonly said (the more's the pity), to be only used of you and your officers to get money, or for some other purposes." The proclamation appointed a special commission of Oyer and Terminer, and nominated certain lay commissioners for each diocese, who, together with the bishops and their officials, were to make a strict search for nonconformists, and bring them before the judges.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

§ 30. The bishops, not unnaturally, murmured at the somewhat degrading part they were made to play in this business. "The late proclamation," writes Grindal, seems to lay a very heavy burden on our shoulders, and that, generally and equally, without respect of differences, whereas, indeed, there is not like occasion given of all." 'If I, your grace, and some more were gone," writes Bishop Cox, "indeed there would be cheer."2 Bishop Parkhurst of Norwich, an old favourer of the Puritans, finds himself at last, much to his annoyance, constrained to act vigorously against them. "The matter is of importance, and toucheth me so near," he writes to one who remonstrated against the increase of 1 Strype's Parker, iv. 38 2 Ib. u.s.

66

strictness, as less than this I cannot do if I will avoid extreme danger. I do heartily pray you to assist me in this behalf, and not contrariwise to persuade, since this purpose is necessary, and looked for at both our hands."1 So vigorously did the work proceed in the diocese of Norwich that not less than 300 clergy are said to have been suspended. 2

§31. The suspected clergy were required to subscribe a declaration approving of the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles, and the supremacy, and, in addition, making a sort of recantation as follows:-" And whereas I have in public prayer and administration of the sacraments neglected and omitted the order by public authority set down, following my own fancy in altering, adding, and omitting of the same, not using such rites as by law and order are appointed, I acknowledge my fault therein, and am sorry for it, and humbly pray pardon for that disorder. And here I do submit myself to the order and rites set down, and I do promise that I will henceforth, in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, use and observe the same." For the laity who had been unconformable, in place of the last paragraph this was substituted :-"And whereas I have absented myself from my parish church, and have refused to join with the congregation in public prayer and in receiving the sacrament, according to the public order set down and my duty in that behalf, I am right sorry for it, and pray that this my fault may be pardoned; and I do promise that from henceforth I will frequent my parish church, and join with the congregation there as well in prayer as in administration of the sacraments, according to such order as by public authority is set down and established."3 The queen having thus taken into her own hands the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, continued to regard with disfavour the bishops, whose slackness in her view had made this necessary. Parker himself was out of favour at court, probably through the acts and misrepresentations of Leicester, and all the great and valuable work which he had done for the Church of England was forgotten.

§ 32. In the spring of 1575 the acute disease, to which he had long been subject, overcame him, and he passed away to his rest (May 17). On his death-bed he wrote to the queen a plainspoken and much needed reproof for the way in which she had robbed the Church of its revenues, and suffered her courtiers to enrich themselves from its spoils. Unfortunately, two of the greatest of them (Cecil, now Lord Burleigh, and Bacon) were mentioned by name. Both these men had been the archbishop's 1 Strype, Annals, iii. 390.

2 Neal's Puritans, i. 242.

3 Ib. i. 248.

friends and supporters, and though what he said of them was true, yet it seemed to come somewhat hardly from him. On these grounds some of those who were cognisant of the contents of the letter, informed Lord Burleigh of it, and it never reached the queen. Archbishop Parker was buried with much solemnity in Lambeth Church, June 6, 1575. It may be said of him that he was a thorough "Church of England man." Moderate in his views, but firmly opposed to both Romanism and Puritanism, he desired to enforce the laws, not because "he cared for cap, tippet, surplice, wafer-bread, or such, but for the laws established."1 He was valuable as a fair-judging, temperate, earnest man, at a time of great excitement and difficulty. He was also especially valuable to the Church as an organiser at a time of change and confusion. The articles which he drew up for his visitation formed the models for all the other prelates.2 As an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, he settled the procedure of the court. As a visitor of colleges, he gave new statutes to several colleges, and to the University of Cambridge. As Metropolitan he set out statutes for the cathedrals of the new foundation. The table of the prohibited degrees in matrimony was drawn by him. He was principally concerned in arranging the calendar for Sunday lessons, and in the revision and settling of the Thirty-nine Articles. The revision of the Bible was brought to a successful issue under his care, and published in 1568, while many learned works of more or less value proceeded from his pen. Such a primate was a great boon to the Church of England in the difficult period at which he was called to administer his high functions, and his loss was unfeignedly and justly lamented.

1 Parker Correspondence, p. 479. 2 Strype's Parker, ii. 2, Appendix ii. xi.

NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

(A) THE "ADVERTISEMENTS" NEVER SANCTIONED BY THE QUEEN.

There has been much controversy on this head. It is not pretended that the Advertisements were ever published under the Great Seal, but it is said that they were adopted by a royal proclamation afterwards. There is no trace of such a proclamation. On the contrary, the way in which the Advertisements were always described plainly shows that they were not adopted by the queen. This is proved

by Parker's language quoted in the text, and also by the expressions which he uses to Grindal, charging him to see "her Majesty's laws and orders duly observed, and also these our convenient orders, described in these books at this present sent unto your lordship." In the canons of 1571 the Advertisements are simply called Libellus admonitionum, without having any royal authority attributed to them. In the canons of 1576 an allusion to them was struck out by the queen, apparently for no other reason than lest she might be thought in ratifying the canons to give the Advertisements her authority.

(B) THE BILL FOR SUBSCRIPTION, II. The 29th Article

AND THE FINAL SETTLEMENT
OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES
-AN EPISCOPAL NONCONFORM-
IST.

NOT FOUND IN

1. Latin edition of 1563. (Ratified.)
2. English do., 1563.

FOUND IN

1. Convocation copy of 1563. (Parker
MSS.)

2. Latin and English, 1571.
3. Convocation copy, 1571.
MSS.)

All subsequent editions.

(Parker

Great doubt has been felt as to the exact nature of the enactment of subscription to the Articles. The copy of the Articles referred to by the Act was not the Latin copy ratified by the queen, but (Cardwell, Synodalia, i. 62, note). the English unauthorised copy published at the same time. This did not contain With respect to subscription to the Arthe clause of the 20th Article-"The ticles, it was most rigidly enforced on the Church hath power to decree rites and Convocation in 1571. Those who had not ceremonies," etc. The statute law did not subscribed in 1563 were now, if members therefore compel any one to subscribe to of the House, to be called on peremptorily this. Secondly, the statute specifying to do so, or to be expelled.1 One bishop the Articles describes them as "those who refused to subscribe incurred a still which only concern the confession of the heavier sentence. This was Richard Cheytrue faith and the doctrine of the sacra- ney, Bishop of Gloucester, who for refus. ments." From these words it was after-ing to subscribe was excommunicated, wards inferred by the Puritans that they but afterwards absolved. were only called upon to subscribe the doctrinal Articles, and not such as related to ceremonies, etc. But the fact that the word only is put after which instead of before it, seems to show that this expression does not mean to divide the Articles, but to describe the whole of them as belonging to faith and doctrine. This was the judgment of Sir E. Coke (Collier, Ch. Hist. vi. 489). The clerical subscription, which was enforced by canon and royal prerogative, applied to the copy of the Articles finally subscribed and accepted by Convocation, that is the Latin copy of 1571 which contains the controverted clauses. As so much confusion prevails as to the different copies of the Articles, the following Table may help to make things clearer :-

I. The Clause of the 20th Article-"The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith"-is

NOT FOUND IN

1. Convocation copy of 1563 (Lat.) (Parker MSS.)

2. English edition of 1563. The "Little Book" of the Act of Parliament.

3. Latin edition of 1571.

IS FOUND IN

In 1570 he

(C) THOMAS CARTWRIGHT was born in Hertfordshire about 1535, was much distinguished in Cambridge, and chosen Fellow of St. John's, and afterwards removed to Trinity. He dis puted before Queen Elizabeth in her visit to Cambridge in 1564, when he was eclipsed by Dr. Preston, and it is said much of his bitterness against the Church afterwards is to be traced to this cause. was chosen Margaret Professor of Divinity, and began to give utterance to his peculiar tenets on Church discipline. He was complained of by Dr. Whitgift to the chancellor, Lord Burleigh, and when in 1571 Whitgift became vice-chancellor, he was deprived of his professorship and fellowship, and expelled the University. He then retired to Antwerp, acting as English minister to the merchants there, and from this place he directed the drawing up of the Admonition to Parliament by Field, Wilcox, and others, and himself wrote a Second Admonition, which was published with the first. When Whitgift answered the Admonition, Cartwright replied to it, and on Whitgift publishing a defence of his answer, Cartwright after some interval again replied. He was appointed Master of the Hospital at Warwick, but as Whitgift refused to license him as preacher he again quitted the kingdom. On his return

1. Latin edition, 1563. (Ratified by he was involved in the troubles which bequeen.)

2. English editions (several, 1571).
3. Convocation copy of 1571 (Lat.)
(Parker MSS.)

All subsequent editions.

fell the Puritans at that time, and imprisoned. Finally he was liberated, and died at his hospital in Warwick, 1603.

1 Cardwell, Synodalia, ii. 529.

CHAPTER XVIII.

ARCHBISHOP GRINDAL'S PRIMACY-THE PROPHESYINGS.

1575-1583.

§1. Grindal the new Primate; his previous work in the north. § 2. Increasing boldness of the Puritans. § 3. They are supported by the Courtiers. § 4. The Queen's urgent dealing in the matter of Church property. § 5. Grindal brings the Fifteen Articles before Convocation. § 6. The Queen makes alterations in them before ratifying. § 7. Points touched by the Articles. § 8. Grindal observes the want of Preachers. $9. He proposes to encourage and regulate the "Prophesyings." § 10. Nature and previous history of these exercises. § 11. The Queen angrily reproves the Archbishop, and bids him stop the Prophesyings. § 12. Grindal's letter in reply. § 13. He is suspended. § 14. Queen's letter to the Bishops. § 15. Action and opinions of the Bishops in the matter. § 16. The Primate's suspension confirmed. § 17. Nature of this suspension. § 18. The letter of the Convocation in his favour. § 19. Convocation occupied with disciplinary matters. § 20. The Archbishop licenses a Presbyterian divine. § 21. Grindal partially submits, and his suspension is removed. § 22. The Prophesyings recommended by the Council. § 23. The Archbishop prepares to resign, but is prevented by death. § 24. His character.

§ 1. ARCHBISHOP PARKER was succeeded in the primacy by Edmund Grindal, Archbishop of York, and previously Bishop of London. Grindal was a man of a different school from Parker, having been one of the Marian exiles. He had learned abroad to undervalue the distinctive teaching of the Church in comparison with what he considered vital truths, and as Bishop of London he showed at first a slackness in discipline which drew upon him the censure of the Primate. Afterwards he appears to have taken a distinct stand against the Puritans, and in Yorkshire to have been successful in repressing what little of Puritanism had penetrated into the north. "In very deed," he writes in 1573, in my diocese that uniform order allowed by the book is universally observed." 1 Again, in 1574, he writes: "We are in good quietness, God be thanked, both for the civil and ecclesiastical state."2 The tendency in the north was towards the old superstitions, and not towards Puritanism, so that the archbishop obtained, cheaply enough, the reputation of a disciplinarian. Grindal had also displayed a be

A

'Strype's Parker, iv. 36.

2 Strype's Grindal, ii. 4.

« НазадПродовжити »