had been pushed from point to point until they had come, as we have shown, to plant themselves upon the broad platform of the English constitution, and to claim their rights boldly as English freemen. In this position we shall henceforth find them. But Puritanism had not only taken higher ground, proclaimed indefeasible doctrine, and appealed to law for protection from law, but it had made rapid progress through the land. So early as 1573, it had acquired such strength in the diocese of Londonthe headquarters of loyalty - that Bishop Sandys had confessed to an utter inability on the part of himself and his brethren to withstand it. Nor were his antagonists the Puritan clergy only; for he distinctly avowed that, "in the eyes of the basest sort of the people," the prelates had "become contemptible, their estimation little, their authority less."1 We have also seen how, in the year 1581, in the single county of Suffolk, Puritanism had made such progress not among not among "the basest sort of people only, but among the gentry and the magistrates that prelatic authority was baffled and almost neutralized.2 But the increase of Puritanism, both in its relig ious and in its political forms, its increase among the electors throughout the realm, is most distinctly indicated by the spirit of the popular branch of the Parliament. In the year 1575, the Commons, though respectful, had been distinctly restive under the arbitrary pretensions of the Crown; and “for five years afterwards the queen did not convoke Ante, Vol. II. 282, 283, 291. 1 1 Ante, Vol. I. 455. 2 Parliament, of which her dislike to their Puritani cal temper might in all probability be the chief reason";1 and after the session of the year 1580-1, it was dissolved. Yet the new Parliament of 1584-5 had, in its House of Commons, a more resolute, manly, and daring Puritan representation than any previous one; not excepting that of the year 1566. Of this, we think our sketch of its proceedings is sufficient proof. But this is not all. While the character of this House indicates fairly the growing prevalence and intensity of "the Puritanical temper," the same fact is avowed- inadvertently, we think in the answer of the bishops to the eleventh article of the Petition for reformation in the Church. We say so, because in that answer it is distinctly stated that the people- gentry as well as "the basest sort" must have been included, to make the point good-had become so infused with the Puritan element that they would not complain of their ministers, although they clean alter the order of service and administration of the sacraments." From this admitted fact, the prelates emphatically argued the necessity of enforcing the oath ex officio mero, as the only means, in most cases, of detecting nonconformity.2 66 As it was no part of Archbishop Whitgift's policy to concede anything to those who struggled for ecclesiastical reform, so it was no part of his policy to mingle forbearance with a mild exercise of authority in his dealings with those who swerved 1 Hallam, 127. Ante, Vol. II. 2 Ante, Vol. II. 472, 473. 179. from the prescript forms of the Church, or who contravened his discipline. This he had distinctly avowed in a letter to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, "a mild kind of proceeding with them doth them rather harm than good." The late action of the House of Commons had roused his apprehensions; for the ecclesiastical courts had been attacked, and the bishops, particularly, had been charged with violating the common law of England. In such bold and public proceedings he saw the rising of that tide of manly thought which he had impotently striven to suppress. Unless he had a larger measure of meekness than we can credit him with, he was not only roused, but irritated by such attacks; and the more, because conscious of their justness. Under this excitement, and true to his contempt of lenity, he summoned anew the power of the Church, not only for discipline, but for retaliation. It has been generously said that "Whitgift, though severe, was not vindictive."2 Possibly; yet his first action after the dispersion of the last Parliament has at least a vindictive aspect. His controversy with Robert Beal, Clerk of the Privy Council, will be remembered. It had been personal, sharp. The Puritan had been bold, unsparing, perhaps disrespectful. The Primate had been stung, and out of temper. Mr. Beal had afterwards taken his seat in the House of Commons, had served on the committee to arrange the Petition for ecclesiastical reform, and had distinguished himself by discussing, in the House, and in 1 Strype's Whitgift, 155. Marsden, 169. 3 Ante, Vol. II. Chap. XV. face of her Majesty's express command, matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.1 For this freedom of speech he had been "committed"; whether at the Archbishop's instigation or not we can only conjecture. But immediately after the prorogation of Parliament, "some of the busy men in it against the Church's present constitution, and the furtherance of those bills, were taken notice. of"; and his Grace made a special and vigorous attempt to crush his personal adversary. "The Archbishop thought it a convenient time to lay against him certain grave charges, and "drew up his schedule thereof" in the form of an accusation, "that so dangerous a zealot might be called to account." 3 4 2 It has been supposed, and not without reason, that this accusation was laid before the Privy Council, for the purpose of bringing Mr. Beal to trial in the Star-Chamber. The charges were, that he had spoken in Parliament contrary to her Majesty's command; that he had written and published books against the hierarchy and the queen's power in spirituals, against oaths ministered in the courts ecclesiastical, against the right of the Court of the High Commission to imprison, to fine, and to enforce the oath of inquisition; and what deserves special notice that "he condemned (without exception of any cause) racking of grievous offenders as being cruel, barbarous, contrary to law and the liberty of English subjects."5 We cannot but ask, Who was in advance of his 1 Strype's Whitgift, 212. 2 Ibid., 211. 3 Ibid. 4 Neal, I. 166. 5 Strype's Whitgift, 212. age, who was nearer to the light of mercy, justice, human rights, and Christianity, the mitred Churchman or the intrepid Puritan? Who manifested the greatest moral courage, the prelate who feared all investigation of moral and civil questions or the Puritan who denounced the tyrannous usages of the day, and threw himself into collision with the royal prerogative of such a queen? But We have no further trace of this transaction. the Clerk retained his position and the confidence of his queen. The incident, trifling in itself, has no little historical interest, because the Archbishop's failure to chastise this writer of "seditious books," so called, shows that the Council were in advance of the prelate on the scale of liberal principles and on that of humanity. It indicates that they were less willing to punish free speech in Parliament, had less reverence for the unlawful, oppressive proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts, and less liking for ques tioning by the rack. It confirms what we have already said, that Whitgift was below the level of his age. 1 But the books of the "dangerous zealot," Beal, had suggested to his Grace another mode of proceeding. In his opinion, it was at the peril of the Church established "that so many disaffected books were daily published and dispersed against its religious worship and episcopal jurisdiction. They were scurrilous libels," so every book was esteemed which did not square with every ordinance ecclesiastical," whereby many men became prejudiced against conformity, and their minds blown up with 1 Ante, Vol. II. 440. |