CARTWRIGHT'S DEFECTS, VIRTUES, AND INFLUENCE 465 the vestments, the next day all but three of the Trinity students appeared without the surplice. This was too much. He was now, being deprived of his fellowship, expelled from the university, and in 1574 fled to the Continent, to escape imprisonment, remaining there until 1585. In later years, when mellowed by time and affected by a long residence in the Netherlands, Cartwright put off much of his early acerbity of speech. But it is probably true that at this period he developed an intolerance equal to that which he encountered. He resented what he thought was persecution, and waged with his persecutors a war of pamphlets, in which the language, according to the custom of the time, was far from apostolic. Heresy he would have punished with death, for the Bible, as he read it, so commanded. Had his system been carried out to its logical conclusions, the country would have groaned under an ecclesiastical instead of a civil tyranny, for he claimed that the Church should rule the State. But his defects were those of his age and race; his earnestness, his purity of life, hatred of wrong-doing, contempt of wealth, and courage of conviction were all his own, and those of the stern men of thought and action who were in time to give a new life to England. The teachings of the eloquent Cambridge professor mark an epoch in the history of English Puritanism; but they were not generally accepted, and, in fact, bore fruit quite slowly. The Reformers still clung to the Established Church, and tried to do their work under its shadows. Expelled from their livings for nonconformity, * Green lays too much stress upon them in excusing the acts of Elizabeth. + Cartwright himself was always opposed to any separation from N they obtained employment as preachers from the regular incumbents, too lazy or too ignorant to preach themselves, or they took refuge in the families of the country squires, where, as teachers, they exercised a powerful and lasting influence. The upper classes among the laity who cared anything about religion were, in the main, divided between the adherents of the old faith and those who, siding with the Puritans, wished the Reformation to be carried further.* Catholics being forbidden by law to sit in the House of Commons, the Puritans had a majority in that body during the whole reign of Elizabeth, and but for the overwhelming influence of the crown would have introduced great reforms in the Established Church. In 1571, they presented an address to the queen, pointing out some of the glaring abuses which ought to be corrected. They said: "Great numbers are admitted ministers that are infamous in their lives, and among those that are of ability their gifts in many places are useless by reason of pluralities and non-residency, whereby infinite numbers of your majesty's subjects are like to perish for lack of knowledge. By means of this, together with the common blasphemy of the Lord's name, the most wicked licentiousness of life, the abuse of excommunication, the commutation of penance, the great number of atheists, schismatics daily springing up, and the increase of papists, the Protestant religion is in imminent peril." But Elizabeth was unmoved. She did not believe in freedom of speech upon any subject. She lectured her Parliaments for discussing religious ques the establishment. He believed in controlling, and not leaving it as the Brownists did. Briggs, p. 43. *Hallam, i. 193. + Neal. FUTILE ATTEMPTS TO EDUCATE THE CLERGY 467 tions, which she, as head of the Church, should alone decide, and usually managed to stifle debate in the Lower House, by imprisoning the recalcitrant members, or to throttle legislation through the lords and bishops. We have seen in the preceding pages something of the ignorance which prevailed among the regular clergy. It is creditable to several of the bishops of the Church that, about 1571, a movement was started to correct this evil. This was a religious exercise called "prophesying." The clergy of a diocese were divided into classes or associations, under a moderator appointed by the bishop, and met once a fortnight to discuss particular texts of Scripture. A sermon was first preached, to which the public were admitted, and after their dispersion the members of the association debated the subject, the moderator finally summing up their arguments and pronouncing his determination. Such an exercise, at a time when books were few and costly and learning was at a very low ebb, might have been productive of much good. It began in Norwich, next to London the foremost stronghold of Puritanism, and rapidly "extended through the kingdom. But Parker, the archbishop, told the queen that these associations, where the chief topics discussed were the errors of papacy and the doctrines of the Reformation, were no better than seminaries of Puritanism. He argued that the more opposed the people were to the papacy the more they would incline to the non-conformists, and that these exercises tended to make them so inquisitive that they would not submit to the orders of their superiors as they should.* These arguments met the cordial approval of the queen, who gave stringent orders that the prophesying should * Neal; Hallam, i. 200. be suppressed. It took several years to put it down completely, for some of the bishops made a stout resistance; but the queen triumphed in the end, her clergy being left as ignorant as she could well desire.* Meantime, the work of weeding out the Puritans went on more vigorously than ever. Their books were suppressed, their preachers silenced, their private meetings broken up, and even plain citizens for listening to their sermons were dragged before the High Commission upon any refusal to conform.† These were the severities practised upon those who, agreeing with the Church authorities in matters of doctrine, differed from them only upon questions of form. For out-and-out heretics, those who denied the doctrines of the Church, a different fate was reserved. We have seen how William of Orange protected the Anabaptists of Holland when some of the men about him would have refused them civil rights. About 1575, twenty-seven of this sect, refugees from the Continent, *Hallami, i. 201, 203; Neal. Even Strype, who attempts to justify everything done by Elizabeth, admits the benefits derived from prophesying. He says: "This was practised, to the great benefit and improvement of the clergy, many of whom in those times were ignorant, both in Scripture and divinity."-Strype's "Anuals of the Reformation," ii. 313. The only excuse which the queen offered for suppressing this educational system was that it had been abused in the diocese of Norwich, by the discussion of ceremonial questions. But the Bishop of Norwich showed that this charge was unfounded. Idem. It is a fact not without interest that Cornwall, the county in which, according to Neal, not a minister could preach a sermon, furnished to Parliament the two brothers Paul and Peter Wentworth, who throughout the reign of Elizabeth stood up, almost alone, for freedom of speech in religious matters. They appreciated fully the results of the royal policy. † Hallam, i. 197. ANABAPTISTS BURNED AT THE STAKE-1575 469 were apprehended in a private house in London, where they had assembled for worship. Tried before the Bishops' Court for heresy, in holding blasphemous opinions as to the nature of Christ's body-believing that he brought it with him from heaven-four recanted, but eleven of the number were convicted and sentenced to be burned. One of these, a woman, gave way and was pardoned, and nine of the others had their sentences commuted to perpetual banishment. The eleventh, with one of the first four who had relapsed, was reserved for the stake. Great efforts were made to save their lives, every one admitting their inoffensiveness. The Dutch congregation interceded for them, and Foxe, the martyrologist, petitioned the queen in their behalf. But Elizabeth had for the time made friends with Spain, and was bent on showing that she had no sympathy with heresy. An example was needed to show her sincerity, and she proved inexorable. On the 22d of July, 1575, the two unhappy foreigners, who had sought England as an asylum from persecution, and whose only imputed crime was an error of theological belief, were publicly burned alive, mingling their ashes with those of the many other martyrs who have made the soil of Smithfield sacred ground.* In the year which witnessed this tragedy, Parker, the persecuting Archbishop of Canterbury, died, and was succeeded by Grindal, a man of a very different type. He was not unfriendly to the Puritans, and was an earnest believer in the education of the clergy, and in supplying the pulpits with men capable of preaching. But his actual rule was very brief. The queen strenuously objected to his encouragement of prophesying, as well as to the number of preaching ministers whom he licensed, *Neal, p. 186; Froude, xi. 43. |