II

The "prophesyings" were extremely popular. There were no public meetings of any kind in those days, and the mere excitement of hearing a succession of men discuss the meaning of important or perplexing passages of Scripture was very attractive. Every speaker would be likely to speak his best. There was also a keen popular interest in the topics which were certain to occupy the chief place in these discussions. Common people followed with passionate earnestness the great controversy with Rome; they had seen men burnt for denying the doctrines which were now publicly and vehemently assaulted. They followed with equal earnestness the development of the mysterious and tremendous doctrines of the Calvinistic theology. Preaching had not yet become so common as to make the country familiar with the contents of the Christian Gospel, and there was an intellectual as well as a moral interest in the exhibition of the most elementary religious truth.

Not unfrequently there were other elements of excitement. The discussion would drift very near to the questions at issue between the Puritans and the bishops; it would be hard to smite Rome without giving a side blow at the Romanisers. Sometimes an extreme Puritan who had been silenced for Nonconformity would make his appearance and take part in the meeting. Sometimes a layman seems to have risen in the congregation, and not only ventured to speak, but was respectfully heard. The "prophesyings " extended rapidly into many parts of England. Some of the bishops encouraged them. Archbishop Parker, at the instigation of the Queen, tried to put them down; but he did not find his task an easy one, and in spite of the Archbishop they maintained their ground.1

1 For details of the system, see Strype, Annals, ii. (1), 133–140; and for a similar system established at Norwich, J. Browne, History of Congregationalism in Norfolk and Suffolk, 18-20. Lord Bacon, in his essay on The Pacification of the Church (Touching a Preaching Ministry), expresses a strong opinion in favour of the practice, which he describes

as

"the best way to frame and train up preachers to handle the Word of God as it ought to be handled," adding some suggestions for its development and improvement. Works [1778], iii. 157-158. For the suppression of the "prophesyings," see Strype, Parker, ii. 360–362.

III

The movement at Northampton was only a symptom of general and growing dissatisfaction with the settlement of the Church. In the same year (1571) in which the moderate Puritans of Northampton were making their attempt at reformation within the Church and the Congregationalists in London were appealing for a reformation of a still more fundamental kind, Mr. Strickland, who is described as an ancient gentleman of hot zeal," 2 laid a Bill on the table of the House of Commons for the alteration of certain parts of the Book of Common Prayer to which the Puritans objected. The Bill was regarded by the Queen as an invasion of her prerogative as supreme governor of the Church; Mr. Strickland was called before the Privy Council, and was forbidden to take his place in the House of Commons. But just then

the House was too excited to endure this act of tyranny even from Elizabeth. The insurrection of the Catholics in the north of England, the victories and cruelties of the Duke of Alva in the Netherlands, the bull of the Pope excommunicating Elizabeth and releasing her subjects from their allegiance, had heated the temper of English Protestants to a white heat. Mr. Strickland was allowed to return to his seat. When the House met again after Easter, bold speeches were made about the invasion of its liberties; the blood of the House was up, and it went on discussing ecclesiastical affairs in a spirit of hearty sympathy with the Puritans. Parliament was in the same mood when it met in 1572, though its courage was not quite so high. The Queen demanded to see certain Bills touching rites and ceremonies that had been read in the House; and her demand, if resented, was not resisted. But in the ensuing session, which began in February, 1575-6, Mr. Peter Wentworth made a vigorous attack on the encroachments of the Crown, especially protesting against the restrictions set on the liberty of Parliament in discussing questions of religion.

2 Strype, Annals, ii. (1), 93, and see also 93-99. ancient man of great zeal," D'Ewes, Journals, 156.

3 D'Ewes, ibid., 175-176.

66

'A grave and

This was the Parliament which passed the Act described on PP. 75-76.

D'Ewes, ibid., 213-214.

For this offence he was sent to the Tower, and was released only after an abject apology and a severe reprimand.

The strength of Puritanism in the House of Commons throughout the reign of Elizabeth was unquestionably out of all proportion to its strength in the country. One reason may have been that by an Act passed in 1562 members of the House of Commons-but not peers-were required to take the Oath of Supremacy, which definitely repudiated the authority of the Pope. Earnest Roman Catholics would have shrunk from contesting a seat, had the Act never been passed; their safety was in remaining in obscurity. But the Act excluded men of a different kind. An immense number of Englishmen were drifting away from Rome without quite knowing where the stream was carrying them. They continued to worship in the churches where they had worshipped in Queen Mary's time. The service was read in English instead of in Latin, but it was not very unlike the service which used to be celebrated before England quarrelled with the Pope; and the clergy still wore the old vestments. As to the quarrel, they probably thought that there was a great deal to be said on both sides. There had been troubles between kings and popes before. They were not clear that the Queen was altogether in the wrong; they were not clear that the Pope was altogether in the wrong they wanted to see what would happen, and meantime had no disposition to run heavy risks by refusing to go to church and by celebrating mass in secret. But if they were asked to take an oath renouncing the Pope's authority, they felt scruples. As a politician the Pope might go wrong, and Elizabeth might have cause of complaint against him: but he claimed to be the successor of St. Peter and Head of the Church; to deny him all ecclesiastical authority might be perilous. Large numbers of men might have gone into Parliament to help the Queen against the Puritans, if they had not been required to take the oath; the oath excluded them.

The true Anglican party-the party with a clear and strong determination to resist the claims of the Pope, and with an equally strong determination to resist extreme Protestantism-was very weak. The House of Commons was, therefore, largely composed of men who wanted to shelter the Puritans.

• D'Ewes, Journals, 236–244; 258-260.

IV

It was now becoming apparent that the Puritan controversy with the Crown was passing into new and perilous regions. In 1572 appeared an "Admonition to the Parliament "7 of a very startling character, drawn up by Mr. Field, minister of Aldermanbury in the City of London, with the assistance of Mr. Wilcox and other Puritan clergymen. The vestments, the ring in marriage, kneeling at the sacrament-these were, after all, slight matters. The writers of the "Admonition " asked for a complete ecclesiastical revolution. The bishops were at first horror-struck and then indignant. Bishop Cox wrote to a correspondent, Rodolph Gualter :

"You would have learned . . . what confusion has been occasioned in our not ill-constituted church by some factious and heady men, who, in their writings and sermons, and private conversation, condemn and pull in pieces the whole economy of our church, and bring all the bishops and other ministers into incredible disfavour with the people, and also with the magistrates and nobility. Nay, they even reject this order [i.e. the episcopal order] as being of no use to the Church of Christ, and are striving by every means in their power that it may be altogether abolished.

Their object is to revive the ancient presbytery of the primitive church and to establish . . . an equality among ministers.

8

The Puritans were asking for a Presbyterian establishment. And the Puritan assault was bringing the bishops into "incredible disfavour. . . with the magistrates and the nobility." It was not merely the "people," but the more powerful classes in the State that were beginning to think that bishops were" of no use to the Church of Christ," and that it would be well to restore "the ancient presbytery of the primitive Church and to establish an equality among ministers."

When the "Admonition " appeared, the first business of the ecclesiastical authorities was to throw Field and Wilcox into Newgate. Then Whitgift, Master of Trinity, and ViceChancellor of Cambridge, was requested by Archbishop Parker to publish a reply." Whitgift's reply was met with a rejoinder An Admonition to the Parliament: see Note A, pp. 117-119.

8 Zurich Letters: 1558-79 (Parker Society), cix. 284-285; cf. ibid., cvii. 280-281.

9 An Answere to a certen Libel intituled An Admonition to the Parliament, by John Whitgifte, D. of Divinitie, 1572.

under the title of A Second Admonition to Parliament, by the most illustrious of the Puritan leaders, Thomas Cartwright. To this Whitgift issued an answer, and Cartwright again replied. These two controversialists had crossed swords before, and, whatever his success in controversy, Whitgift had succeeded in inflicting severe penalties on his opponent. Cartwright had been a Fellow of Trinity; Whitgift had stripped him of his Fellowship. Cartwright had been Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity; Whitgift had assisted to deprive him of his Professorship. The great Puritan scholar had been reduced to poverty and driven for a time into exile; but his spirit was unbroken and he renewed the conflict with a masculine courage.

The whole substance of the controversy between the Presbyterian Puritans of that age and the Church of England is to be found in the "Admonition" and in the writings of these two men who attacked and defended it. The topics discussed are such as these: Whether Christ forbade rule and supremacy to His ministers-which raised the whole question between Episcopacy in any form and Presbyterianism; Cartwright contending that all pastors have equal rank and that the authority claimed by bishops is illegitimate. The authority of the Church in things indifferent, such as Church Order, Ceremonies, and Discipline-the Presbyterians maintaining that Christ is the King of the Church, that He has given laws for its government, and that the Church has no right to set these aside. The Election of Ministers-that is, who ought to have the power of electing them; the Presbyterians asserting that the people had the right to a voice in the appointment of ministers, and that for the Crown, or the bishops, or private patrons to impose a minister on a congregation without its consent is tyranny. Whether men should be ordained ministers without charge of a particular congregation. Whether men should be ordained ministers who cannot preach. Whether ministers should hold more livings than one. Whether they should hold civil offices. What kind of preaching is most effective. Whether deacons should preach, and what are the true duties of their office. Whether the government of particular congregations should be vested in elders. Who ought to excommunicate. The use of fonts and the cross in baptism. The ceremonies observed at the