They were soon compelled to supply a test of their sincerity in the sacrifices they made. He who omitted one of the most unimportant of the enjoined ceremonies, was deemed “guilty of all.” The most exemplary ministers were silenced; while the profane and the unprincipled were beneficed, upon the sole ground of their unqualified conformity.
Among many who were suspended in Norfolk and Suffolk, may be mentioned Mr. Lawrence, an eminent divine, who had been beneficed in the latter county. When Mr. Calthorpe, “a gentleman of quality,” interposed in his behalf, urging the great want the church had of such men as Mr. Lawrence, whose fitness for his work, he said, the chief men of credit in the county would certify, the bishop pleaded that the queen required him to allow of no ministers but such as were perfectly conformable. [59a]
Dr. Crick and Mr. Sanderson, two learned and useful ministers in Norfolk, and many others in the diocese of Norwich, refusing conformity, were prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts. [59b]
Some of the bishops, [59c] however, sanctioned their clergy in setting up religious exercises among themselves, for the promotion of discipline and the dissemination of scriptural knowledge. These were called prophesyings, from the apostolic sentiment, “Ye may all prophesy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” [59d] They furnish the original of similar discussions held, at a subsequent period, among the Brownists, and of which some traces are found in the Independent Church at Beccles soon after its formation.
The clergy who attended these meetings spoke in succession upon the interpretation of a given passage of Scripture, and conferred respecting sound doctrine and a good life. Their names were written in a table, and three took part in each exercise. The first opened and closed the meeting with prayer, and gave his explanation of the text. The other two added any further explanation of the subject and stated their objections. At the close of each meeting, the next speaker was appointed and his subject fixed upon. Those who joined in these “prophesyings” signed, on being admitted, a confession, to the effect that they believed the word of God to be a perfect rule of faith and manners; that it ought to be read and known by all; that its authority not only exceeded that of the pope but of the church also; that they condemned, as a tyrannous yoke, such articles of faith and fashions of serving God as men had enjoined without the authority of his word. “And to this word of God (said they) we humbly submit ourselves and all our doings, willing and ready to be judged, reformed, or further instructed thereby in all points of religion.” [60]
The utility of these grave debates early introduced them into the eastern counties, where they were encouraged by Bishop Parkhurst, till he received a reprimand from the queen, who insisted upon their suppression as “no better than seminaries of puritanism.”
Persecution never fails to foster and spread the principles it attempts to exterminate. Instead of ceasing altogether, the conferences of the clergy assumed a more formidable aspect. Not long afterwards there was an assembly at Mr. Knewstub’s church at Cockfield, near Lavenham, in Suffolk, of sixty clergymen of that county, Norfolk, and Cambridgeshire. The subjects for consideration were the Book of Common Prayer, and the extent to which submission to the ecclesiastical authorities was allowable. After repeated adjournments they agreed, that although such of the Articles as contained the sum of Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments might properly be subscribed, neither the Common Prayer Book, nor the rest of the Articles, ought; “no, though a man should be deprived of his ministry for refusing it.” [62a] They were desirous, however, of introducing a reformation into the church, without separating from it.
Archbishop Grindal and some other prelates endeavoured to regulate the “prophesyings,” by enjoining the observance of strict order, and by confining them to the conforming clergy. [62b] But this renewed the displeasure of the despotic woman in whose hand, by a fundamental and fatal error, had been placed the supremacy of the church of England. “By means of these assemblies,” her Majesty observes, writing to the bishop of London, “great numbers of our people, especially of the vulgar sort, meet to be otherwise occupied with some honest labour for their living, are brought to idleness, seduced, and in manners schismatically divided among themselves into a variety of dangerous opinions.” She commanded that these “exercises” should be forthwith put down, adding an order for the imprisonment of such as should refuse compliance, with a threat of severer punishment, and closing her communication by an insolent menace to the bishop himself. [63a]
Meanwhile, continued oppression induced the ministers of Norfolk to present to the privy council a supplication, in which, after many expressions of loyalty to the queen, they add, “Yet we desire that her Majesty will not think us disobedient, seeing we suffer ourselves to be displaced, rather than yield to some things required. Our bodies and goods, and all we have, are in her Majesty’s hands; only our souls we reserve to our God, who alone is able to save us or condemn us.” [63b]
Slaves could not have sued for less; but this was far too extensive a reservation to be allowed. The pacific Bishop Parkhurst having been succeeded by Dr. Freke, a man of very different spirit, seven ministers, in or near Norwich, were soon afterwards suspended. [63c]