Notwithstanding the harmless and Christian character of these poor men and their meetings, Mr. Strype tells us: "Yet such were the times now, that even these commendable courses were strictly and jealously looked into by special order from the archbishop." Or, in other words, the rulers of the church of England thought it a less evil for men to spend their time on holy-days in drinking and gaming, than in "unauthorized" meetings for reading the Scriptures, prayer, and conference!

In May, 1575, that arch- persecutor, Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, was called to his final account, having pursued the puritans with relentless rigor to the very close of his threescore and twelve years. He was a man of moderate abilities, a narrow mind, and a hard, unsympathizing nature, and possessed an unusual amount of dogged perseverance, mixed largely with petulant impatience when crossed in his persecuting plans, or not duly supported.

Edmund Grindal, archbishop of York, was elected to the vacant throne of Canterbury, on the queen's nomination, and entered on the duties, responsibilities, and trials of the office, February 15th, 1575-76. But not proving a sufficiently pliable instrument in the hands of the arbitrary queen -being in fact too conscientious and good a man to occupy the metropolitan's seat in times like those in which he lived he was soon laid aside, and ultimately gave place to John Whitgift, a worthy successor of Matthew Parker.

The work of persecution for conscience' sake was carried on with unremitting activity during the years 1576-80. Many faithful ministers were shut up in prison; others were silenced or suspended for the most trivial deviations from canonical conformity, such as not using the surplice when officiating, neglecting to make the sign of the cross in baptism, not using the ring in the marriage - service, or omitting some part of the common prayer in public worship. For these and such like offences, numbers of learned and pious men were indicted at the assizes, and subjected to cruel and humiliating punishments."

Among the sufferers of this period were the Rev. John Nash, who was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, William Drewet, who was sent to Newgate, and Rev. Mr. Harvey, a learned and zealous minister of Norwich, who was suspended. This good man, in a letter to his bishop, on his suspension, uttered some plain, bold truths. He told his lordship, among other things: "We find in the Scriptures of truth, that when Christ ruled and reigned in his church, his officers were bishops or pastors, and elders and deacons. But when the pope set aside this government, he appointed new governors in the church, as cardinals, archbishops, lordships, deans, chancellors, commissioners, and many others. The government of the church is much the same as it was under popery. The pope's officers,

*Neal, 1. 373; Brook's Puritans, 1. 37-43, 278, 449; 111. 507.

you know, still bear rule; and therefore the reins of government are not in the hands of Christ, but in the hands of antichrist. Moreover, as Jesus Christ is the only lawgiver in his church, and he alone has power and authority to appoint its officers, if any king or prince in the world appoint other officers in the church than Christ hath already allowed and appointed, we will lay down our necks upon the block rather than consent to them.”

Nine ministers of Norwich or its immediate vicinity were suspended about this time, besides numbers in other parts of the kingdom.

These violent proceedings called forth remonstrances from gentlemen of influence in different quarters. One from Suffolk, addressed to the lords of the council, holds the following language: "The painful pastors and ministers of the word-by what justice we know not – are now of late brought to the bar at every assize, marshalled with the worst malefactors, indicted, arraigned, and condemned for matters, as we presume, of very slender moment: some for singing the hymn Nunc Dimittis in the morning; some for turning the question in baptism from the infants to the godfathers, which is only you for thou; some for leaving out the cross in baptism; some for leaving out the ring in marriage; whereunto neither the law nor the law-makers, in our judgment, had ever any regard." +

*Brook, 1. 192.

↑ Parte of a Register, p. 128, in Brook, 1. 43.

But the queen and many of her bishops and counsellors thought otherwise. They insisted on tithing the mint, and the cummin, and the anise; they demanded an exact and punctilious regard to every external rite, ceremony, and usage of the lawestablished church; while the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith, they recklessly disregarded.

A striking illustration of the sensitive bigotry of the queen is furnished by her treatment of the parliament of 1579-80. Early in the session, the commons passed a vote to this effect: "That as many of their members as conveniently could, should, on the Sunday fortnight, assemble and meet together in the Temple church, there to have preaching, and to join together in prayer, with humiliation and fasting, for the assistance of God's Spirit in all their consultations during the parliament; and for the preservation of the queen's majesty and her realms." No sooner, however, was this modest and pious resolution known to her majesty, than she took the alarm, and scenting danger, if not treason, in the measure, ordered her vice - chamberlain, Sir Christopher Hatton, to inform the commons that "she did much admire at so great a rashness in that house as to put in execution such an innovation, without her privity and pleasure first made known unto them." Sir Christopher then moved the house "to make humble submission to her majesty, acknowledging said offence and contempt, craving the remission of the

same, with a full purpose to forbear the committing of the like hereafter." This was done, and so the matter ended.*

But this movement of the commons furnished a pretence for the queen to exact additional parliamentary protection for her royal prerogative, in the form of a new statute, entitled: "An Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience." The fifth section of this act provides "that every person above the age of sixteen years, which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, shall forfeit to the queen's majesty for every month after the end of this session of parliament, which he or she shall so forbear, twenty pounds of lawful English money; and that, over and besides the said forfeitures, every person so forbearing by the space of twelve months, as aforesaid, shall, for his or her obstinacy, be bound with two sufficient sureties, in the sum of two hundred pounds at least, to good behavior; and so to continue bound until such time as the persons so bound do conform themselves and come to the church." Another section provides that "if any person shall devise, write, print, or set forth, any book, rhyme, ballad, letter, or writing, containing any false, seditious, and slanderous matter, to the defamation of the queen, or to the stirring or moving of any rebellion, or shall cause any such book, rhyme, writing, etc., to be

* Heylyn's Hist. Preb., p. 249; Neal, 1. 371.