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.
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.
Englandalso 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 personsdefamedorsuspectedofpreachingorwritingcontrary 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 saidbishop 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. Nothingbut 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 toa 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-byaccused 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 ofthe 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 lookupon 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 thecivilliberty of their country, withoutany 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 borrowedone million two hundred thousandcrowns,—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 toRome 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, chantedTe Deumin 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 therevivalof 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 hisblessing, and directions how to govern the church; and on the 25th, there was a solemn procession through London, consisting ofeightbishops, andone hundred and sixtypriests, 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, inhis 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 Latimerand 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,thirteenpersons, 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,onearchbishop,fourbishops,twenty-oneclergymen,eightgentlemen,eighty-fourtradesmen,a hundredhusbandmen, labourers and servants,fifty-fivewomen, andfourchildren! 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 anoath 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; theirprinciples, and many of theirpractices, being precisely those of theexecrableRomish 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, andtwenty-sevenof the worshippers were seized and committed to prison.Fourrecanted; 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 thewomanwas induced to recant; whileeightof those who could not be convinced of error were banished, andtwowere sacrificed in the flames asheretics.
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 apositive 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 publishedthreearticles for every clergyman to subscribe, declaring from his heart, his approbation of the whole Common Prayer; besides which, he drew uptwenty-fourarticles to be used in examining those who were brought before the bishops. Through these impositions, great numbers of pious clergymen were deprived; among whom weresixty-fourin Norfolk,sixtyin Suffolk, andthirty-eightin 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 apursuivant,and brought to this place, a distance offiftymiles, 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 whilethe 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 oftwo 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, werehanged 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 shallabjure 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 severitywith 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 suffereddeath 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 meeknessand courage of an apostle. “But the fortitude of the sufferer marred the policy of his oppressors. It brought uponthemthe execrations of the people, and vestedhimwith 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, duringelevenyears, 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 “Actof Toleration,” as a shield against priestly oppression, by the “GLORIOUS REVOLUTION” under William III.
Heretics—Open and secret—Schismatics—Favourers of Heretics—Hinderers of the Inquisition—Suspected persons relapsed—Readers of forbidden books—Priests soliciting confessors—Blasphemers—Diviners—Witches—Polygamists—Jews.
Heretics—Open and secret—Schismatics—Favourers of Heretics—Hinderers of the Inquisition—Suspected persons relapsed—Readers of forbidden books—Priests soliciting confessors—Blasphemers—Diviners—Witches—Polygamists—Jews.
RomanCatholics denominate the tribunal of the InquisitionSanctum Officium, orHoly Office; pretending that it is engaged in the sacred service of God, for the seeking out and extirpation of evil persons from the church of Christ. The inquisitors, therefore, proceed against alleged heretics, blasphemers, apostates, relapsed Jews, Mohammedans, witches, wizards, and all others charged with having violated the canons of the holy Roman Catholic church. These classes of alleged offenders require to be mentioned, as illustrating the intolerant and sanguinary character of the Romish Inquisition.
1.Heretics.—These, in general, are persons who, having been baptised, or professed the Romish faith, hold doctrines condemned by the Pope;—as the denial of the sacrifice of the mass, priestly absolution, the worship of the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation, or purgatory. Some are reckonedmanifest, and others,concealedheretics. All who hold the doctrines of Luther, or of the other reformers, and all Protestants rejecting the pretended ecclesiastical traditions, and taking the Holy Scriptures as the only rule of faith and duty, are thus declaredhereticsby the Papists. Such are punished variously, some being burnt alive.
2.Open and Secret Heretics.—These are described thus, by the Romanists:—“Anopenheretic is one who publicly avows something contrary to the Catholic faith, or who is condemned for it by the judges of the faith. Asecretor concealed heretic is one who errs in his mind concerning the faith, and purposes to be obstinate in his will, but hath not shown it by word or deed. Although an heretic be thus concealed, yet, if he infects others, he is immediately to be discovered by his judges.” These are also calledaffirmativeandnegativeheretics. The latter are those, who, according to the law of the Inquisition, are rightly and justly convicted of some heresy before a judge, but yet profess the Catholic faith. Such were many of those converted from amongst the Jews and Moors in Spain. Obstinate heretics are to be doomed to be burnt alive, delivered over to the fire with their mouths gagged, and their tongues tied, lest, by their speaking, they should induce others to embrace their principles. Some are denominatedarch-heretics, as the inventors or chief teachers of doctrines contrary to those established by the Pope. Among the most distinguished of these,the Papists reckon Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zuingle, Cranmer, Knox, and others, the leaders of the Protestant reformation. Multitudes of these have been burnt alive, especially in France, Spain, and England.
3.Schismatics.—These are described by the Papists as those who depart from the unity of the church, and believe that there may be salvation and true sacraments without the Catholic church, and differ little from heretics; but others are without blame, and err through probable or insuperable ignorance. The punishments of schismatics are privation of ecclesiastical power, if priests, excommunication, and, finally, death.
4.Receivers or Favourers of Heretics.—These are such as, knowing them to be heretics, defend them when persecuted by the church, afford them lodging or shelter, or allow them to read or preach in their houses. Others are favourers of heretics, who omit to discover them to the bishops and inquisitors. Their punishment is excommunication, and banishment for ever, with confiscation of goods.
5.Hinderers of the Office of the Inquisition.—In various ways the Inquisition may be hindered, directly or indirectly; and those who do not aid the inquisitors are held guilty as hinderers. Thus, in a bull of Pope Alexander IV., he requires of the prelates, “Since, therefore, there are certain predicant friars appointed by the apostolic see, inquisitors against heretics, that they may carry on the business of the faith with a fervent mind andconstant heart, through many tribulations and persecutions, we admonish and exhort all of you in our Lord Jesus Christ, strictly commanding you by these apostolical writings, in virtue of your obedience, and enjoining you, that you favourably assist these inquisitors in carrying on this affair; and that, laying aside the fear of man, you effectually give them your counsel and help. But, as for those whom we shall know to be contemners, besides the Divine judgment that hangs over them, they shall not escape the ecclesiastical vengeance.”
6.Suspected Heretics.—Suspicion may belight,vehement, orviolent, as the Papists declare, and great numbers are accused and imprisoned by the Inquisition only on the suspicion of holding opinions contrary to the Romish church. Those who are lightly suspected are enjoined ceremonial purgation; those vehemently suspected are required solemnly to abjure every heresy; and he who is violently suspected is commonly condemned.
7.Persons defamed for Heresy.—Common report, especially if certified before a bishop, renders a person suspected, and liable to a process by the Inquisition; and the punishment is canonical purgation, with some other penalty.
8.Relapsed Persons.—Persons relapsed are those who, after having publicly abjured heresy, are convicted of falling into it again. The punishment of such persons is extreme; they are given over to the secular power to be burnt without mercy.
9.Readers of Prohibited Books.—Nothing can exceed the intolerance of the Papists in relationto the writings of the reformers; and the books of the Waldenses, of Wycliffe, of Luther, and of the other reformers, were sought for with the utmost zeal. Multitudes suffered death, therefore, for reading their writings, especially their translations and commentaries on the Holy Scriptures.
10.Those not Priests administering the Lord’s Supper.—Such persons are declared to approach idolatry, because they teach the faithful to adore the bread and wine, as though it were the body and blood of Jesus Christ. In like manner, he who is not a priest, and yet hears confessions and gives absolution, is said to abuse the sacrament. Such persons are to abjure, as vehemently suspected, and then be delivered over to the secular power to be punished with death.
11.Priests soliciting in Confession.—Incontinent priests, in the sacramental confession, are known, as a common practice, to solicit and provoke women to commit dishonourable actions. Cases of this kind are very common; but it is dangerous to accuse a confessor of such a crime, as the proof is so very difficult, while he possesses the means of immediate revenge by the Inquisition. But the crime itself is seldom punished, even where many nuns, and even abbesses, have had children by their father confessors.
12.Blasphemers.—Blasphemers are of various kinds—some saying, “I deny God; I do not believe in God;” or, “I deny the faith on the cross, or chrism, which I received in my forehead; or I deny the virginity of our Lady.” Heretical blasphemersare punished by their tongues being tied and pinched with an iron or wooden gag; and being exposed in public, wearing each an infamous mitre, they were whipped and banished; but if the offender were a person of rank, his punishment is lighter, though he was required to abjure heresy.
13.Diviners and Fortune-tellers.—Those guilty of divination are supposed to use or to imitate the sacraments, or things sacramental, in the practice of their mysteries; they are, therefore, punished with suspension of dignities, whipping; excommunication, or banishment. And those who practise astrology are punished in the same manner, as offenders against the church.
14.Witches and Wizards.—These were regarded as a sect supposed to hold intercourse with the devil, especially on the eve of Friday, when he was said to appear in a human shape. They are said to deny their holy faith and baptism, the Lord God, and the blessed Virgin Mary. For these imaginary crimes, it is computed that 30,000 persons were burnt to death, in about a century and a half, by the cruelty of the Inquisition, chiefly in Spain and Sicily.
15.Polygamists.—Those who marry two or more wives are suspected of heresy, and of disregarding the sacrament of matrimony. Such are punished with penances, fastings, and slavery in the galleys, for five, seven, or ten years. This crime is but lightly considered in Spain, though it is looked upon as more serious by the inquisitors in Rome.
16.Jews and Jewish Proselytes.—Divine prophecy declares that the Jews shall continue adistinct people, scattered among the Gentiles, until the conversion of Israel to the Messiah, while they yet shall endure persecution. The Roman Catholics, ignorant of the nature of the Gospel, have endeavoured wholly to destroy this people, or to compel them to profess the Christian faith. Edicts, the most severe and cruel, have been published against them, from time to time, by different Popes, in France and Spain. They have been oppressed, fined, and banished, unless they would turn Christians. Thousands of them, in Spain and Portugal, professed the name of Christ to escape punishment, yet, in heart, remaining Jews, abhorring the idolatry of the Papists. The inquisitors proceeded against them, therefore, as heretics and apostates. They are condemned by the inquisitors to endure various punishments, according to the nature or degree of the alleged crimes—as, privation of all intercourse with Jews, penalties, public whipping, and burning at the stake.