THE INQUISITION IN ENGLAND.
Spiritual Courts--Henry VIII.--His zeal for Popery--Martyrdom of
Anne Askew--Queen Mary marries Philip of Spain--The Inquisition and
Martyrs--High Commission--Martyrs under Elizabeth--Archbp.
Whitgift’s cruelty--Udall--Archbishop Laud--Sufferings of Dr.
Leighton--Abolition of Spiritual Courts under William III.
England also received the horrid Romish Inquisition. For though the
“Holy Office” was never constituted here, on precisely the same plan as
it was established in the despotic countries of Spain, Portugal, and
Rome, nor completely set up till the gloomy reign of Queen Mary, the
victims of papal bigotry were numerous, as sacrificed on its cruel
altars. Pontifical decrees and statutes were brought into England, and
carried into effect by the prelates, acting under the authority of the
popes. Spiritual courts were organised in many dioceses, where holy men
of God were sought after and punished as heretics, by the bishops and
archbishops, as inquisitors of heresy. Their antichristian spirit may be
learned from the cruel proceedings of the ecclesiastics against the
thirty Germans at Oxford, under Henry II., and against the Wycliffites,
as noticed in Chapter V.
Volumes are required to record the sufferings of the “Lollards,” and
“Gospellers,” in England, as they were called, who read the Scriptures,
or the books of Wycliffe. Many of them became faithful martyrs of
Christ; and though such severity was used, the cause of God continued
and gained strength, especially after Luther arose as the great
reformer, in 1517. The translation of the New Testament by William
Tindal, in 1526, and his labours in completing the entire Bible, aided
by John Frith, William Roye, John Rogers, and Miles Coverdale, greatly
provoked the prelates, and all these, except Coverdale, fell sacrifices
to papal enmity, as martyrs for Christ.
Popery found a worthy supporter in Henry VIII., who, “through the
various stages of his reign, outstripped his predecessors in almost
every act of arrogance and barbarity, making himself inquisitor-general
and grand judge of heretics. When they were condemned to die, he
descended to the office of sitting in judgment upon them.” He even
published a book against Luther, in “defence of the seven sacraments of
the Catholic church;” for which he was rewarded by the Pope with the
title of “Defender of the Faith,” A.D. 1521.
Henry’s vanity being gratified by this favour of the Pope, he entered
more zealously into the designs of the Inquisition, and issued a royal
proclamation, in which he commands that all persons _defamed_ or
_suspected_ of _preaching_ or _writing_ contrary to the Catholic church
should, by the bishops, be arrested and cast into prison. He then adds,
“If any person, by the law of holy church, be convicted before the
bishop or his commissary, that the said _bishop may keep in prison the
said person so convicted, so long as it shall seem best to his
discretion_; and may set a fine to be paid to the king, by the person
convicted, _as it shall be thought convenient to the said bishop_, the
said fine to be levied for the king’s use. And if any person within the
realm of England be convicted of the aforesaid errors and heresies, he
shall be committed to the secular jurisdiction, and shall suffer
execution according to the laws of this realm.”
Sanctioned thus by the king, the bishops, who appear to have been the
authors of this proclamation, proceeded, by vile inquisitors, to search
for victims, whom they imprisoned and grievously fined. Their scandalous
exactions enriched them, as their inquisitorial power rendered them
superior to any law, or screened them from accountability. The temporal
lords, and the commons’ house of parliament, therefore, presented a
petition to the king for relief, declaring the prelates had “_gotten
into their hands more than a third part of all his majesty’s realm_!”
They add, in their appeal to the king against these dreaded
inquisitors,--
“And what do all these greedy, idle, holy thieves do with these yearly
exactions which they take of the people? Truly nothing, but exempt
themselves from the obedience of your grace. Nothing but translate all
rule, power, lordship, authority, obedience, and dignity, from your
grace to themselves. Nothing but that all your subjects should fall into
disobedience and rebellion against your grace, and be under them, as
they did to your noble predecessor, King John; who, because he would
have punished certain traitors that conspired with the French king, to
have deposed him from his crown and dignity, interdicted his land. For
which matter your most noble realm hath wrongfully, alas! stood
tributary, not to any temporal prince, but to _a cruel, devilish
bloodsucker, drunken ever since with the blood of the saints and martyrs
of Christ_!
“What remedy is there? Will you make laws against them? It is doubtful
whether you are able. Are they not stronger in your own parliament-house
than yourself? What a number of bishops, abbots, and priors, are lords
of your parliament! Are not all the learned men in your realm in fee
with them, to speak in your parliament for them, against your crown,
dignity, and realm; a few of your own learned council only excepted?
What law can be made against them that will be available? Who is he,
though he be sorely grieved, that, for murder, ravishment, robbery,
debt, or any other offence, dare lay it to their charge by way of
action? If any one do, he is by-and-by _accused of heresy; yea, they
will so handle him, that except he bear a faggot for their pleasure, he
must be excommunicated, and then all his actions will be quashed_.”
Henry became alarmed by this bold exposure of the wicked deeds of the
prelates, and he appointed a hearing with all the judges and his
temporal council, which resulted in a bill, that soon passed into a law,
altering the statute of Henry IV. against heretics. Though this did not
remove their liability to burning, it disabled the prelates from being
the sole judges in the cause of heresy.
Still the bishops, as inquisitors, continued their proceedings, as they
were able to secure the sanction of the king. But we cannot here trace
their operations in destroying the faithful followers of Christ; yet we
must notice their laying a plan to accomplish the destruction of
Archbishop Cranmer, and Katherine Parr, the queen of Henry VIII., who
favoured the reformation. They proceeded first against Anne Askew, a
celebrated lady of the Court, in hope of inducing her, by torture on the
rack, to accuse the queen of heresy. She was imprisoned and examined by
Bonner, bishop of London, and Gardiner, bishop of Winchester; and, as
she denied transubstantiation, they condemned her to the flames as a
heretic.
Dr. Southey relates her martyrdom as follows, referring to her
examination on the rack by the inquisitors:--“Henry’s heart was
naturally hard, and the age and circumstances in which he was placed had
steeled it against all compassion. Some displeasure, indeed, he
manifested shortly afterwards, when the lieutenant of the Tower, Sir
Anthony Knevet, came to solicit pardon for having disobeyed the
chancellor, by refusing to let the gaoler stretch the lady on the rack a
second time, after she had endured it once without accusing any person
of partaking her opinions. It was concerning the ladies of the court
that she was put to the torture, in the hope of implicating the queen;
and when Knevet would do no more, the Chancellor Wriothesley, and Rich,
who was a creature of Bonner, racked her with their own hands, throwing
off their gowns that they might perform their devilish office the
better. She bore it without uttering cry or groan, though, immediately
upon being loosed, she fainted. Henry readily forgave the lieutenant,
and appeared ill pleased with his chancellor; but he suffered his wicked
ministers to consummate their crime. A scaffold was erected in front of
St. Bartholomew’s church, where Wriothesley, the duke of Norfolk, and
others of the king’s council, sat with the lord mayor, to witness the
execution. Three others were to suffer for the same imaginary offence;
one was a tailor, another a priest, and the third a Nottinghamshire
gentleman, of the Lascelles family, and of the king’s household. The
execution was delayed till darkness closed, that it might appear more
dreadful. Anne Askew was brought in a chair, for they had racked her
until she was unable to stand, and she was held up against the stake by
the chain which fastened her; but her constancy, and cheerful language
of encouragement, brought her companions in martyrdom to the same
invincible fortitude and triumphant hope. After a sermon had been
preached, the king’s pardon was offered to her, if she would recant:
refusing even to look upon it, she made answer, that she came not there
to deny her Lord! The others, in like manner, refused to purchase their
lives at such a price. The reeds were then set on fire--it was in the
month of June--and, at that moment, a few drops of rain fell, and a
thunder-clap was heard, which those in the crowd, who sympathised with
the martyrs, felt as if it were God’s own voice, accepting their
sacrifice, and receiving their spirits into everlasting rest.” June,
1546.
Henry VIII. dying January 28, 1547, was succeeded by his son, Edward
VI., who laboured to forward the reformation. Those who formed the
regency, his protectors, were Protestants, and the persecuting laws were
soon repealed, with other measures for the advancement of the religion
of the Scriptures. But this pious young king died, July 6, 1553, and was
succeeded on the throne by his sister Mary. She was a consistent Papist,
directed entirely by the Romish prelates. They revived all the powers of
the Inquisition, and soon imprisoned Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury,
and the other leaders in the reformation, accusing them of heresy.
Queen Mary accepted the proposal to marry Philip, son of the Emperor
Charles V., though ten years her junior, and a widower. As a bigot
Papist, “all who had espoused the cause of the reformation in England,”
as Bishop Bonner states, “anticipated not only a change of religion, but
the erection of a Spanish government and Inquisition. Those who valued
the _civil_ liberty of their country, without any concern for religion,
concluded that England would become a province of Spain; and they beheld
how the Spaniards ruled in the Netherlands, in Milan, Naples, and
Sicily; but, above all, they heard of their unexampled inhumanities in
the West Indies.”
Philip was a man of great talents; but, as it is said of him, “his
religion was of the most corrupt kind; it served only to increase the
natural depravity of his disposition, and prompted him to commit the
most odious and shocking crimes. Of the triumph of honour and humanity
over the dictates of superstition, there occurs not a single instance in
the whole reign of Philip; who violated the most sacred obligations as
often as religion afforded him a pretence, and exercised, for many
years, the most unrelenting cruelty, without reluctance or remorse. Few
princes have been more dreaded, more abhorred, or have caused more blood
to flow, than Philip II. of Spain.”
Mary, on the 23rd of October, before the altar in her private chapel,
solemnly plighted her troth to Philip; and Bishop Gardiner was
despatched to arrange the marriage settlement with the Emperor Charles
V., who borrowed _one million two hundred thousand_ crowns,--a
prodigious sum at that time,--to enable that prelate to secure an
obsequious parliament.
Philip landed at Southampton, July 20, 1554, and, on the 25th, he was
married to Mary, by Gardiner, in his cathedral at Winchester. On the
29th of November, the formal reconciliation to Rome was solemnised,
with great pomp, in the hall of the palace at Whitehall. The Queen and
the King sat in regal state, with the Pope’s legate, Cardinal Pole, a
prince of the blood. A large number of both houses of the new parliament
being introduced, they presented, on their knees, a humble supplication
on behalf of the whole nation, beseeching their majesties to intercede
with the lord cardinal for their admission within the sacred pale of the
church, and for absolution from their offences of heresy and schism, on
condition of repealing all laws against the Catholic religion, passed in
the season of their delusion. Mary and Philip having made the
intercession, the legate, after a long speech, declaring the paternal
solicitude of his holiness for the welfare of England, in the name of
the Pope granted a full absolution, which the members of parliament
received on their knees; after which, the king, queen, and legate,
together with the whole body of the senators of the nation, chanted _Te
Deum_ in the chapel of the palace, expressive of their joy! The Pope
solemnly ratified the act of his legate, and the news of the whole
transaction was quickly published throughout Europe!
Preparatory for this absolution, an act was passed for the _revival_ of
the statutes of Richard II., Henry II., and Henry V., against heretics.
They were to come into force on the 20th of January, 1555; so that the
year opened with a portentous gloom. Cardinal Pole, on the 23rd of
January, received all the bishops at Lambeth Palace, to give them his
blessing, and directions how to govern the church; and on the 25th,
there was a solemn procession through London, consisting of _eight_
bishops, and _one hundred and sixty_ priests, all in their robes; with
Bonner, the bishop, carrying the host, to return thanks to God for their
reconciliation. After this solemnity, the first measure of the restored
church was for the prelates, as inquisitors, to proceed against the
reformers, many of whom were imprisoned, under the direction of Bishop
Bonner and Bishop Gardiner, who was lord chancellor.
Bishop Burnet remarks, on this cruel policy of the prelates, “Pope Paul
was in the right in one thing, to press the setting up of courts of
inquisition everywhere, as the only sure method to extirpate heresy. And
it is highly probable that the king, or his Spanish ministers, made the
court of England apprehend, that torture and inquisition were the only
sure courses to root out heresy.”
John Rogers, a prebendary of St. Paul’s, London, and a famous preacher,
who had aided Tindal in the translation of the Bible, was the first
victim. He was burnt to ashes in Smithfield, February 4, 1555,
triumphing in Christ.
Laurence Saunders was burnt to death on the 8th of February, where he
had been minister, and highly esteemed, at Coventry.
Dr. Hooper, bishop of Gloucester, was carried to suffer at the stake in
that city, on the 9th of February.
Dr. Taylor was sent to suffer in like manner, in his own parish, at
Hadleigh, in Suffolk, on the 9th of February.
Dr. Farrar, bishop of St. David’s, was carried to seal the truth of the
Gospel with his blood, and he triumphed in martyrdom, March 30th, at
Carmarthen.
Terrible as were these enormities, they did not satisfy the sanguinary
queen nor her bigoted chancellor, Bishop Gardiner. They determined to
extirpate heresy, and therefore employed local inquisitors. Bishop
Burnet states, therefore, “Instructions were given, in March, 1555, to
the justices of peace, to have one or more honest men in every parish,
secretly instructed on oath to give information of the behaviour of the
inhabitants among them. Here was a great step made towards an
Inquisition; this being the settled method of that court, to have sworn
spies and informers every where, upon whose secret advertisements
persons are taken up; and the first step in their examination is to know
of them, for what reason they are brought before them; upon which they
are tortured till they tell, as much as the inquisitors desire to know,
either against themselves or others. But they are not suffered to know,
neither what is informed against them, nor who are the informers.
Arbitrary torture, and now secret informers, seem to be two great steps
made to prepare the nation for an Inquisition.”
John Bradford, a prebendary of St. Paul’s, London, a powerful and
popular preacher, was burnt in Smithfield, July 15th; Bishops Latimer
and Ridley were sacrificed in the flames at Oxford, on the 16th of
October; and Archbishop Cranmer was executed at the stake, in the same
place, March 24, 1556.
Particulars of the sufferings and triumphs of these and the other
martyrs for Christ, during the short reign of Mary, cannot here be
detailed. _Four_, _five_, _six_, _seven_, and on one occasion,
_thirteen_ persons, were seen murdered in one fire! Neither sex nor age,
the lame nor blind, being spared, if they refused conformity to the
imposition of the Romish prelates. Barbarities so shocking terrified the
whole nation. Petitions to the Queen against them were transmitted from
the Protestant exiles abroad; so that even King Philip was so ashamed,
that he caused a Spanish divine, of high celebrity, to preach against
the cruelties, though the same things were transacted under his direct
sanction, in his own dominions in the Netherlands and Spain.
Mary had no child, and Philip spent most of his time in the Netherlands,
being apparently alienated from his queen. She became dejected, through
a sense of his unkindness, and chagrined at the loss of Calais, so that
her health declined; while she was the victim of superstition, and a
prey to remorse for her dreadful cruelties, and she finished her
wretched life, November 7, 1558.
Of the martyrs for Christ in the reign of Mary, victims of the
Inquisition, there were reckoned, _one_ archbishop, _four_ bishops,
_twenty-one_ clergymen, _eight_ gentlemen, _eighty-four_ tradesmen, _a
hundred_ husbandmen, labourers and servants, _fifty-five_ women, and
_four_ children! Cooper estimates the number of those who suffered for
the Gospel, from February, 1555, to September, 1558, at about 290!
According to Bishop Burnet, there were 284. The most accurate account
is, probably, that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called “The
Execution of Justice in England,” reckons the number of those who died
in the reign of Mary by imprisonment, torments, famine, and fire, to be
nearly 400; of whom those who were burnt alive amounted to 290!
Queen Elizabeth succeeded to the throne on the death of her sister Mary.
She was a Protestant in profession, and she restored the reformation in
England; but her prelates were persecutors, and they were allowed to
retain the spirit and power of the Inquisition, but under another name,
“The Court of High Commission.”
This Court of High Commission was created in the name of the queen, for
the express purpose of searching out and punishing the nonconformists.
These commissioners were principally bishops, and they assumed the power
of administering an _oath ex officio_, by which the prisoner was obliged
to answer all questions put to him, and even to accuse himself or his
dearest friend. Many refused to take the oath, choosing rather to suffer
imprisonment, which was determined, not according to any law, but the
will of the commissioners. A detail of the miseries endured by
conscientious clergymen, under the High Commission Court, would require
volumes; their _principles_, and many of their _practices_, being
precisely those of the _execrable_ ROMISH INQUISITION.
Archbishop Parker continued a cruel persecutor of the nonconformists:
and others of the prelates employed the most dishonourable methods to
hunt out and imprison them, hiring unprincipled characters as
inquisitors and informers, and making new articles, contrary to the laws
of England, for the more certain conviction of those brought before the
ecclesiastical courts.
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.”
Udall was condemned, as he would not sign a recantation of his doctrine;
nor could any of the doctors move him in conference from appealing in
its proof to the Scriptures. His fame was great; so that several lords
of the council, and even James VI., afterwards king of England,
interceded for his life. Archbishop Whitgift became afraid of his being
put to death in public, and the Turkey merchants offered to employ him
as one of their chaplains, and at length Whitgift consented to pardon
him on his leaving the country; but while the hard terms were being
arranged with the archbishop, Udall died in prison, from his long
confinement and ill treatment. Dr. Fuller remarks of him, that “his
wisest foes were well contented with his death, lest it should be
charged as an act of cruelty on them who procured it.” He calls him “a
person of worth, a learned man, blameless for his life, powerful in his
praying, and no less profitable than painful in his preaching.”
_Fifty-nine_, in different prisons of London, in 1592, petitioned Lord
Treasurer Burleigh to be brought to trial; complaining that “many had
died in the prisons, that they had been imprisoned contrary to all law
and equity, many of them for the space of _two years and a half_, upon
the bishop’s sole commandment.” Among these was Henry Barrowe, a
barrister of Gray’s Inn, who was apprehended when visiting his relative,
Greenwood, a nonconforming clergyman, who had been in prison a long
time. They were tried on a charge of “writing and publishing sundry
books, tending to the slander of the queen and government.” Mr. Neal
remarks, “They had written only against the church; but this was the
archbishop’s artful contrivance, to throw off the odium of their death
from himself to the civil magistrate. Being condemned, endeavours were
made, but in vain, to induce them to recant. They were exposed under the
famous gallows, at Tyburn, March the 31st; but this produced no effect
on their pious minds, and they were executed, April 6, 1592. John Penry,
a clergyman, and several others, were hanged for dispersing the
writings of the nonconformists.
Dr. Reynolds, the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford, attended some
of these martyrs for the Scriptures; and he reported to her Majesty the
calm piety which they displayed, and how they had blessed and prayed for
her, as their sovereign, and for their enemies; and Elizabeth’s heart
melted; but she was urged forward by the chief-inquisitor, Whitgift, and
she consented to sanction him in his bigotry, by a severer law against
the nonconformists. To this was added a form of recantation; which, if
the offenders refused to subscribe, it was further enacted, “that within
three months they shall _abjure the realm, and go into perpetual
banishment_; and if they do not depart within the time appointed, or if
they ever return without the queen’s licence, _they shall suffer death
without benefit of clergy_!!”
Severities towards the nonconformists increased as the queen and the
archbishop advanced in years. Dr. Aylmer, the persecuting and profane
bishop of London, died in June, 1594. Dr. Fletcher succeeded him, and
was banished by the queen. In 1596, Dr. Bancroft, a haughty, unfeeling
persecutor, was made bishop of London. Elizabeth died, March 24, 1602,
and Archbishop Whitgift, in 1604, when they were called to render up
their awful account to God.
Queen Elizabeth was a great monarch, and she was favoured with statesmen
of extraordinary abilities; but, as Dr. Warner remarks, “the severity
with which she treated her Protestant subjects by her High Commission
Court, was against law, against liberty, and against the rights of human
nature. She understood nothing of the rights of conscience in matters of
religion; and, like the absurd king, her father, she would have no
opinion in religion, acknowledged at least, but her own. She differed
from her sister; and as she had much greater abilities for governing, so
she applied herself more to promote the strength and glory of her
dominion, than Mary did; but she had as much of the bigot and tyrant in
her as her sister.”
Dr. Bancroft was translated from London to Canterbury, on the death of
Whitgift, in 1604; and his severities were sanctioned by the new
sovereign, James I., who became a cruel bigot. Under their government
the nonconformists suffered grievously. The inquisitors prosecuted their
shocking employment, and two men were executed at the stake on the
charge of heresy. One of these, Bartholomew Legate, of Essex, was
condemned as a heretic, and publicly burnt in Smithfield, March 18,
1612; the other was Edward Wightman, of Burton-upon-Trent; he was
condemned by Dr. Neile, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and burnt as a
heretic in Lichfield, April 11, 1612. They were said to be Arians and
Baptists, and charged with many absurd opinions; but it is admitted that
they were exemplary in their morals. They refused to recant, even at the
stake; and popular sympathy being called forth in favour of these
victims of the prelates, they were the last that publicly suffered
death for their religious opinions in England. There were others in
prison under sentence, but they were continued to linger out a miserable
existence in Newgate.
Dr. Abbot succeeded Bancroft, in 1611, as archbishop of Canterbury; but,
being unfitted for political intrigue, he was suspended in 1620, and
Laud, bishop of London, exercised almost unlimited authority in
ecclesiastical affairs. His bigotry would have qualified him for
inquisitor-general in Rome or Spain, and his evil counsels involved both
England and Scotland in most grievous troubles, until his intolerance
became the chief cause of his own execution, and that of his misguided
master, Charles I., to the astonishment of all Europe.
Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln, to whom Laud was under the greatest
obligations as his patron, disapproving of his severities by the High
Commission Court, incurred his displeasure, when “the warmest
professions of friendship were succeeded by the most deadly hatred.”
Laud became his persecutor, and succeeded, in the second attempt, in
obtaining his conviction, on a charge of tampering with the king’s
witnesses. Williams was fined £10,000 to the king, £1,000 to Sir J.
Mounson, and imprisonment in the Tower during the king’s pleasure. All
his property being seized, his private papers were presumed to contain
some reflections on Laud, and he again persecuted him. He was sentenced
to pay £5,000 to the king, and £3,000 to the archbishop. “Laud’s thirst
of revenge outweighed his fear of reproach,” as remarked by Dr.
Vaughan.
Laud’s spirit may be learned more fully from his persecution of Dr.
Leighton, who had written “An Appeal to Parliament; or, Zion’s Plea
against Prelacy.” For this he was condemned in the “Star Chamber,” which
was a political Inquisition; and the archbishop being present, as one of
the judges, while the sentence was being pronounced, removed his cap
from his head, and, with an audible voice, rendered solemn thanks to God
for this decision of the court. The illegal sentence was executed upon
Dr. Leighton; and the archbishop was found to have made a record in his
diary, thus:--“Nov. 6th. 1. He was whipped before he was put in the
pillory. 2. Being set in the pillory, he had one of his ears cut off. 3.
One side of his nose slit. 4. Branded on the cheek with a red-hot iron,
with the letters S.S. On that day seven-night, his sores upon his back,
ear, nose, and face, being not yet cured, he was whipped again at the
pillory in Cheapside, and had the remainder of his sentence executed
upon him, by cutting off the other ear, slitting the other side of the
nose, and branding the other cheek!”
Probably, the diary of no other man, in any age or nation, ever
contained such a record in his private diary, with his approbation. He
must have been a monster; and no language can sufficiently reprobate
such cruelties, illegally exercised, and that in the abused name of the
Prince of Peace!
Leighton bore his sufferings with the meekness and courage of an
apostle. “But the fortitude of the sufferer marred the policy of his
oppressors. It brought upon _them_ the execrations of the people, and
vested _him_ with the honours of martyrdom.”
Prelatical tyranny at length wearied out the nation, and the people
arose, demanding redress of their grievances. “The Long Parliament” was
called in 1640, and they decreed the abolition of the civil and
ecclesiastical Inquisitions,--the High Commission Court and the Star
Chamber. Dr. Leighton, on petitioning Parliament, was set at liberty: as
the reading of his petition, describing a series of his sufferings,
during _eleven_ years, unparalleled, perhaps, in English history,
affected many of the senators to tears; and, when released from prison,
the venerable man could hardly walk, or see, or hear! Parliament allowed
this injured servant of God a pension till his death, in 1644, aged
seventy-six. All who were imprisoned by those courts on account of
religion were liberated. Dr. Burton, Dr. Bastwick, and Mr. Prynne, a
barrister, were met by an immense multitude, and conducted in triumph to
London.
Persecution ceased; religious liberty prevailed, in a great degree,
under the Long Parliament, and during the Commonwealth. But, after the
restoration of Charles II., the principles of the Inquisition, for some
years, enabled the prelates to harass the nonconformists, by the “Act of
Uniformity,” the “Conventicle Act,” and the “Five Mile Act.” Tyranny
triumphed, by these and other shocking statutes, until they were
abolished by the “Act of Toleration,” as a shield against priestly
oppression, by the “GLORIOUS REVOLUTION” under William III.