Persecution and cruelty, in character only in accordance with the popish Inquisition, continued even in London. The year 1575 is distinguished by a transaction, which reflects imperishable dishonour on the prelates and the queen. A congregation of Dutch Baptists being discovered on Easter-day, near Aldgate, their house was entered by the bishop’s officers, and twenty-seven of the worshippers were seized and committed to prison. Four recanted; and, according to the popish custom, they were required to bear faggots during sermon at Paul’s Cross, as a token of their deserving the flames! Ten of the men and one woman were condemned to the stake by the ecclesiastical consistory: but the woman was induced to recant; while eight of those who could not be convinced of error were banished, and two were sacrificed in the flames as heretics.
On this occasion, the Dutch residents in London, who were allowed to hold their meetings for religious worship, interceded with the queen for their mistaken countrymen; but she gave them a positive refusal to their request. John Fox, who was in favour with her majesty, on account of his “Acts and Monuments of the Church,” made an application to her on their behalf, in an elegant Latin letter; but though his arguments appear sufficient to convince the most perverted judgment, and his appeals to her compassion, as a woman, calculated to melt the hardest heart, they availed nothing with the virgin queen! A clergyman of our time asks, “What are we to think of those evangelical prelates, who sat in the High Commission Court, and at the council-table, a part of whose office it was to advise the queen? Alas! that none could be found, who, on such an emergency, would give her correct information respecting the will of Christ, and assure her, ‘He, the Son of Man, was not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them!’ A death-like silence reigned, and the law took its course.”
Queen Elizabeth’s intolerance, in the spirit of an inquisitor-general, extended even to Dr. Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury. Having enjoyed that high dignity two years, he was suspended by the queen, for refusing to suppress the “prophesyings,” which were meetings of the evangelical clergy to promote scriptural knowledge by preaching. He appeals to the queen, “Alas! madam, is the Scripture more plain in anything, than that the Gospel of Christ should be plentifully preached? If the Holy Ghost prescribeth, especially, that preachers should be placed in every town, how can it well be that three or four preachers may suffice for a shire? [This was the declared opinion of the queen.] Public and continual preaching of God’s Word is the ordinary means of salvation to mankind.
“Concerning the learned exercises and conferences amongst the ministers of the church—the time appointed for this exercise is once a month; the time of this exercise is two hours—some text of Scripture, before appointed to be spoken, is interpreted in this order—prayer, and a psalm follow. I am enforced with all humility, and yet plainly, to profess that I cannot, with safe conscience, and without the offence of the majesty of God, give mine assent to the suppressing of the said exercises; much less can I send out any instruction for the utter and universal subversion of the same. If it be your majesty’s pleasure for this, or any other cause, to remove me out of this place, I will, with all humility, yield thereunto. Remember, that in God’s cause, the will of God, and not the will of any earthly creature, is to take place; it is the antichristian voice of the Pope, ‘Thus I will—thus I order—my will is reason sufficient!’”
Grindal’s mode of arguing was precisely that of the Protestants against the Papists, and of the apostles against the rulers of the Jews. But this appeal to the Scriptures availed nothing with the royal inquisitor; the prelate continued in disgrace with his sovereign, though he was permitted till his death, in 1583, to retain his dignity as archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr. Whitgift succeeded as archbishop of Canterbury, and he was a severe inquisitor and persecutor. He published three articles for every clergyman to subscribe, declaring from his heart, his approbation of the whole Common Prayer; besides which, he drew up twenty-four articles to be used in examining those who were brought before the bishops. Through these impositions, great numbers of pious clergymen were deprived; among whom were sixty-four in Norfolk, sixty in Suffolk, and thirty-eight in Essex; besides those in other counties.
These inquisitorial proceedings induced Lord Burleigh, the earls of Leicester, Shrewsbury, and Warwick, Lord Charles Howard, Sir James Crofts, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, to sign a letter, September 20, 1584, to the archbishop, and the bishop of London, complaining of such intolerant inquisition. But Whitgift disregarded their appeal, sustained in his pernicious course by the queen.
Among the numerous cases of oppression by the prelates, that of Giles Wigginton, the vicar of Sedburgh, Yorkshire, will serve as an example. After having suffered many hardships in prison for his nonconformity, his health being impaired, he was deprived of his living. But, with liberty, his improved health enabled him to visit his beloved flock, to whom he preached, from house to house, the Gospel of Christ. For this he was again imprisoned in Lancaster Castle; from which he wrote to his patron, Sir Walter Mildmay, one of the privy council, to procure his release. He says, “I was arrested at Burroughbridge by a pursuivant, and brought to this place, a distance of fifty miles, in this cold winter. I am here within an iron gate, in a cold room, among felons and condemned prisoners, and, in various ways, worse used than they, or recusant Papists.”
Several efforts were made in parliament to impose a check on these oppressions, which were yet illegal; but the bishops prevailed, especially in the House of Lords.
John Udall, in 1591, was tried for publishing a book—“A Demonstration of the Discipline which Christ hath prescribed in his Word”—and condemned. The judge offered him his life, if he would recant; adding, that he was now ready to pronounce sentence of death. “And I am ready to receive it,” cried the magnanimous confessor; “for, I protest before God, not knowing that I shall live another hour, that the cause is good, and I am contented to receive sentence, so that I may leave it to posterity how I have suffered for His cause.”