"punishment of those who do not in all things conform to "the public order about ceremonies, may be mitigated."That all the saints' days, festivals, and holidays, bearing "the name of a creature, may be abrogated."-This paper was subscribed by one provost, five deans, twelve archdeacons, and fourteen proctors, many of whom were eminent for learning and ability; but their requests were rejected.*

In the above convocation, there was a great difference of sentiment among the learned reformers, which occasioned many warm debates upon points of great importance, especially upon this, "Whether it was most proper to retain the outward appearance of things, as near as possible to what had been practised in times of popery." While the one party maintained the affirmative, the other asserted, that this outward resemblance of the Romish church, would encourage the people in their former practices, nourish in them the old root of popery, and make them a more easy prey to their popish adversaries. Therefore they recommended that every thing might be removed as far as possible from the church of Rome. In the conclusion, the contrary party prevailed: and the bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by the canons of this convocation, began to exercise their authority by requiring the clergy of their respective dioceses to subscribe to the liturgy, the ceremonies, and the discipline of the church; when such as refused, were branded with the odious name of PURITANS. This was a term of reproach given, them by their enemies, because they wished to serve and worship God with greater purity than was allowed and established in the church of England. All were stigmatized by this name, who distinguished themselves in the cause of religious liberty, and who could not in all points conform to the ecclesiastical establishment.

In the year 1564, Archbishop Parker, with the assistance of several of the bishops, published the Advertisements, with a view to secure a due conformity among ecclesiastical persons. By the first of these advertisements, all preachers throughout the province of Canterbury were at once disqualified; and by the last, they were required to subscribe, and promise not to preach or expound the scriptures, without a license from the bishop, which could not be obtained

Strype's Annals, p. 298. vol. ii. Adden. p. 15.

+ Burnet's Hist. of Refor. vol. iii. p. 302. Fuller's Church Hist, b. ix. p. 76.

without a protestation and promise under their hand of an absolute conformity to the ceremonies. No less than eight protestations were also required to be made and subscribed by all who should be admitted to any office or cure in the church. Though the archbishop and his brethren at first met with some difficulties in carrying them into effect, (the queen refusing to sanction them,) yet afterwards, presuming upon her majesty's favour, they succeeded according to their wishes. Upon the approach of these severities, Mr. Whittingham wrote a long and pressing letter to the Earl of Leicester, warmly urging him to interpose with the queen, to hinder their execution. In the conclusion of this most pathetic epistle, he says, "I need not appeal to the word of God, to the history of the primitive church, and to the just judgments of God poured out upon the nations for lack of true reformation. Judge ye betwixt us and our enemies. And if we seek the glory of God alone, the enjoyment of true christian liberty, the overthrow of all idolatry and superstition, and to win souls to Christ; I beseech your honour to pity our case, and use your utmost endeavours to secure our liberty."+

Many of the clergy in both the universities, and in the country, but especially in the city of London, refused to wear the square cap, the tippet, and the surplice. "And it is marvellous," says Mr. Strype, "how much these habits were abhorred by many honest, well-meaning men; who styled them antichristian ceremonies, and by no means fit to be used in a true christian church." But Archbishop Parker and other high commissioners being resolved to reduce the church to one uniform order, cited many of the clergy before them, admonishing some, and threatening others. Among those who appeared, were Dr. Sampson, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, and Dr. Humphrey, president of Magdalen college, in the same university. They were divines of great renown throughout the kingdom, for learning, piety, and zeal for the reformation, but were cast into prison for nonconformity. The famous Mr. Whitehead, with several others, was cited at the same

* Sparrow's Collec. p. 123-128. + Strype's Parker, p. 151-161. See Art. Whittingham.

Strype's Parker, p. 151.

It is proper here to observe, that throughout the Introduction, no authority will be given where the same things are treated more at large in the body of the work. Therefore, in order to examine the evidence of what the author has asserted, as well as a more circumstantial detail of facts, the reader, in all such instances, is directed to the respective articles.

time, and, refusing to subscribe, was immediately suspended. Mr. Becon, another celebrated reformer, being cited, and refusing to subscribe, was immediately sequestered and deprived. Mr. Allen was cited, and received the like censure. Many others were suspended and deprived, who, having wives and children, laboured under great poverty and want. Being driven from their ministerial employment, some, to procure a livelihood, betook themselves to trades, some to husbandry, and some went to sea.* The principal reasons of these and other learned divines now refusing conformity, were-1. Because those things which the prelates required, were unsupported by scripture and primitive antiquity.-2. They were not received by other reformed churches.-And, 3. They savoured very much of the errors and superstitions of popery. On these grounds, they disapproved of some things in the Book of Common Prayer, and forbore the use of the habits and

ceremonies.

In the year 1565, the archbishop and his brethren in commission, not content with exercising all their own authority to its fullest extent, sought the favourable assistance of the council, and enforced an exact conformity to the ecclesiastical establishment with still greater rigour. They convened the London ministers before them; and when they appeared in court, Mr. Robert Cole, a clergyman,‡ being placed by the side of the commissioners in priestly apparel, they were addressed in these words:"My masters, and ye ministers of London, the council's pleasure is, that strictly ye keep the unity of apparel, like this man who stands here canonically habited with a square cap, a scholar's gown, priest-like, a tippet, and, in the church, a linen surplice. Ye that will subscribe, write Volo; those that will not subscribe, write Nolo. Be brief: make no words." When some of the ministers offered to speak, they were immediately interrupted with the command, "Peace, peace; and apparitor, call over the churches: ye masters, answer presently under the penalty of contempt." In the conclusion, sixty-one promised conformity, but thirty-seven absolutely refused, being, as the archbishop acknowledged, the best among them. These

Strype's Grindal, p. 99.

+ MS. Remarks, p. 161. This Mr. Cole, for his subscription and conformity, was preferred by the archbishop to the benefice of Bow and Allhallows, London.-Baker's MS. Collec. vol. xxvii. p. 387.

Strype's Grindal, p. 98.-Annals, vol. i. p. 463.

were immediately suspended, and told, that if they did not conform within three months, they should be deprived of all their spiritual promotions.* Among those who received the ecclesiastical censure, was Mr. Crowley, who was afterwards deprived and imprisoned. Mr. Brokelsby was sequestered, and afterwards deprived, being the first who was thus censured for refusing to wear the surplice. Dr. Turner, dean of Wells, was sequestered and deprived for refusing to wear the surplice, and to use the Book of Common Prayer. The venerable Miles Coverdale was driven from his flock, and obliged to relinquish his benefice. In consequence of these proceedings, many of the churches in London were shut up, for want of ministers. "This," says the archbishop," was no more than he foresaw before he began; and that when the queen put him upon doing what he had done, he told her, that these precise folks," as in contempt he calls them, "would offer their goods and bodies to prison, rather than they would relent."+

Notwithstanding these proceedings, the nonconformists greatly multiplied, and they were much esteemed and countenanced by persons of quality and influence. God raised them up many friends in both houses of parliament, and in her majesty's privy council: as, the Earls of Bedford, Warwick, and Leicester, Sir Francis Knollys, Sir William Cecil, and many others. All these were the constant friends of the puritans, and used their power and influence to obtain a further reformation. Though in the latter they utterly failed of success, they often protected the persecuted ministers, or procured their release from suspension, deprivation, and imprisonment.

The principal persons for learning and piety, in the university of Cambridge, not only opposed the above severities, but refused conformity. The fellows and scholars of St. John's college, to the number of nearly three hundred, threw away their surplices with one consent; and many in other colleges followed their example. This, indeed, presently roused the zeal of the jealous archbishop. He looked upon Cambridge as becoming the very nursery of puritanism; and, therefore, to crush the evil in the bud, he warmly recommended the chancellor to enforce an exact conformity throughout that fountain of learning. In the mean time, the heads of colleges being dissatisfied with these proceedings, wrote a pressing letter to the chancellor,

*Strype's Parker, p. 211, 215. MS. Remarks, p. 111, 193.

+ Ibid. p. 225.
§ Strype's Annals, vol. i. p.

441.

wishing him to put a stop to such severe measures. They observe that multitudes of pious and learned men thought in their consciences, that the use of the garments was utterly unlawful; and that the imposition of them upon all in the university, would compel these worthy persons to forsake the place, which would leave the university very destitute. Such an imposition of conformity, say they, will prove exceedingly detrimental to the preaching of the gospel, as well as to good learning. The chancellor being a man of great prudence and circumspection, and loath to give offence by using severities, made some demur, with which the archbishop was displeased. Those who refused conformity reminded the chancellor, that they had cast away the cere monies, not out of malice, for vain glory, an affection for popularity, contempt of laws, or any desire of innovation, but out of love to the truth. They could call the Searcher of Hearts to witness, that in what they had done, they had sought to enjoy peace of conscience, and the true worship of God. They prayed, therefore, that their consciences might not be brought into a state of most grievous bondage and exquisite torment, by being forced to observe the ceremonies.+

The proceedings of the prelates in censuring so many ministers of high reputation, was very afflictive to the foreign reformed churches. Therefore the famous Beza wrote a letter this year to Bishop Grindal, exposing the evils attending the imposition of conformity. He observes, that "if they do offend, who choose to leave their churches, rather than conform to rites and vestments against their consciences; a greater guilt is contracted by those who choose to spoil these flocks of able pastors, rather than suffer those pastors to make choice of their own apparel; or, choose to rob the people of the food of their souls, rather than suffer them to receive it otherwise than on their knees."‡ He observes also, that this intended conformity designed "to admit again, not only those garments which are the signs of Baal's priests, but also certain rites, which are degenerated into the worst of superstitions: as the signing with the cross, kneeling at the communion, and such like." The church of Scotland wrote, at the same time, a most

* Among those who subscribed this letter was even Dr. John Whitgift, afterwards the celebrated archbishop. This man was now a zealous friend of the nonconformists; but soon after as zealous a persecutor of them. -Strype's Parker, p. 194. + Ibid. p. 192, 194, 196. Strype's Grindal, p. 113.

Heylin's Hist. of Pres. p. 39.