BETH. ton's Brief her conduct was altogether so happy. She restored the Re- ELIZAformation, it is true, but in many places left little provision to maintain it. She drew back the patrimony of the Church restored by her sister queen Mary, and reached somewhat unkindly into the remainder. To give an instance or two farther of the depredations during this reign: the bishopric of Ely, after Cox's death, was kept vacant near twenty years, and the people almost left "like sheep without a shepherd." It is said the ejected king of Portugal was subsisted with the rents. And, when the see was filled, the next successor, Heaton, found most of the manors wrested from it. Sir John Har- Harringrington confesses this kind of management was reckoned one View. of the blemishes of her reign. The taking away the bishops' lands, and returning the lamentable exchange of impropriations, was a great blow to the Church: for, not to mention these impropriations were part of the consecrated revenues,-not to mention the exchange was far short of an equivalent,—not to mention this,—the forcing the bishops to subsist on these parochial endowments put them out of capacity of relieving the poor vicars, which in many places were very despicably provided for. To give some modern proof of this matter: when White, bishop of Peterborough, visited the diocese of Lincoln, I received in the reign of king James II., part of this prelate's report to from a reverend clergyhis majesty was this: "That, for about thirty miles together man, who beyond Lincoln, many of the livings were worth but five the bishop pounds per annum, and none more than ten." And, to set this matter in a fuller light, I shall give the reader a computation of the livings in England, and subjoin an authentic account of the slender value of most of them. This account had it from himself. 670. See Records, num. 99. nation. To return if it is said queen Elizabeth had an act of parliament to justify her taking away the bishops' lands, I grant she had so; but then it must be considered her majesty had solemnly sworn to maintain the clergy in their rights and privi- At her coroleges. The difficulty, therefore, will be to reconcile her passing this bill with the coronation-oath. However, the knot was cut, and the scruple mastered; and, which is more, the act was driven home in the execution,-insomuch, that Wickham, bishop of Winchester, had the bold honesty to tell the queen, was preachin a sermon, that, if the temporalties of the bishops should ed before the suffer the next thirty years as much as they had done for year 1595, VOL. VII. S This sermon queen in the GIFT, WHIT- thirty years last past, there would scarcely be enough remaining on any see to keep the cathedral in repair. Abp. Cant. Harrington's Brief View, &c. p. 66. 1 Kings xii. 10, 11. These things considered, if this queen's usage of the clergy was compared with what they met with in the reign of Henry VIII., it is to be feared it might be said, "Her little finger was thicker than her father's loins ;" and that he "disciplined them with whips," but she "chastised them with scorpions." And, as to the parallel between this princess and her sister queen Mary, may it not be affirmed, that the one made martyrs in the Church, and the other beggars?—the one executed the men, and the other the estates? And therefore, reserving the honour of the Reformation to queen Elizabeth, the question will be, whether the resuming the first-fruits and tenths, putting many of the vicarages in this deplorable condition, and settling a perpetuity of poverty upon the Church, was not much more prejudicial than fire and fagot? Whether destroying bishoprics is not a much greater hardship than destroying bishops?-because this severity affects succession, and reaches down to future ages. And, lastly, whether, as the world goes, it is not more easy to recruit bishops, than the revenues to support them? But this only by way of query: and so much for queen Elizabeth's reign. At the conclusion of Elizabeth's illustrious reign, which was so much disturbed by the proceedings of the Puritans, the readers of Collier will be pleased to see Hallam's admirable remarks on the controversies they occasioned. "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. 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. 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 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. 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. "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 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. 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. 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. 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. The crucifix was even for a time removed from her own chapel, but replaced about 1570. "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. Accordingly, the bishops and clergy, though they married by connivance, or rather by an ungracious permission, saw, with very just dissatisfaction, their children treated by the law as the offspring of concubinage. 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 ELIZA BETH. WHITGIFT, Abp. Cant. to the most lawful union between the sexes, which formed one of the singularities of her character. same reason. "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. They disliked some other ceremonies for the 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. 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 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 581. "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. Still the Romish party 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, 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 “It was proposed on this occasion to abolish all saints' days, to omit the cross in baptism, to leave kneeling at the communion to the ordinary's discretion, to take away organs, and one or two more of the ceremonies then chiefly in dispute. 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. "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. 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. 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 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. 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 opposition; 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. "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 by 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. The primate's next step was to summon before the ecclesiastical commission, Sampson, dean of Christ-church, and Humphrey, president of Magdalen-college, Oxford, men of signal nonconformity, 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 tole ELIZA- |