NON
CIRCULATING
A 58106 4
DIXON'S
HISTORY
OF THE
CHURCH
OF
ENGLAND
VOL.V
BX
5055
D62
1884
--
OXFORD
A65
89

ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
E-PLURIBUS UNUM
SI-QUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAM
CIRCUMSPICE
5634
, D62:
1887-
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
LONDON, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK
HISTORY
OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND
FROM THE ABOLITION
OF
THE ROMAN JURISDICTION.
BY
RICHARD WATSON DIXON, D.D.,
LATE VICAR OF WARKWORTH,
HONORARY CANON OF CARLISLE,
AND HONORARY FELLOW OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, oxford.
VOL. V.
ELIZABETH.—A.D. 1558-1563.
OXFORD:
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS.
1902
[All rights reserved.]
OXFORD
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE Hart, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
2-2.6 - Brune
PREFACE.
CANON DIXON published the fourth volume of his
Church History in 1890. A period of severe illness
followed his completion of the book. He laid aside
his studies for some time, and devoted what health
and strength he had to the discharge of his ordinary
parochial and diocesan duties. These weighed upon
him with increasing force. In 1894 he appears to
have taken up once more the dropped threads of the
History. He worked constantly at the records of the
early years of Elizabeth, until, a few weeks before his
death, he was able to announce the practical comple-
tion of the two volumes which he did not live to
publish. His diary marks regularly the conclusion of
each chapter, with some added note in many cases.
On the last day of November, 1899, he wrote down
these words, "Finished chapter XL and the fifth
volume of my History. How can I thank the Lord of
Mercy, who has granted me to begin this volume in
sore distress and to finish it in peace of mind? How
infinite is His mercy! Glory be to Him for ever."
The task of revision was begun at once. He was now
in good health and spirits, and worked through Decem-
ber and the first half of January, adding many notes
and rewriting certain passages. On the 17th of the
latter month he set down the last entry in his diary,
Finished revising chapter XXXII of my History
for the press: a most severe task." A few days after
vi
Preface.
making this entry a severe attack of influenza seized
him. He was unable to shake it off, and he passed
away peacefully on the 23rd of January, 1900.
His literary work had absorbed Canon Dixon's
interest during the last months of his life, and great
was his joy as he saw it daily nearing completion.
Arrangements had been concluded with the Clarendon
Press for its issue, and all the details of printing it
were settled when the author died. One of Mrs.
Dixon's first cares was to see to the publication of the
nearly completed work. All that was needed was
the service of some friend to put the manuscript in
order, and to supervise its passage through the press.
Accordingly the written sheets and notes were gathered
together and placed in my hands in February, 1900.
I took the manuscript as it was, and altered nothing in
the text save a few obvious slips. The papers were
in fairly continuous order, and beyond the trouble of
reading, arranging, and paging them, my labour at this
stage was not very heavy. The real toil came with
the appearance of the proofs, when it was necessary to
seek out and verify every single quotation from printed
book and manuscript. I have taken nothing on trust.
All the works and documents cited have been sought
out at the British Museum, the Public Record Office,
the library at Lambeth Palace, and at Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge. It is needless to say that this
close investigation occupied much time and involved.
many journeys. I was able to do myself nearly all
that was necessary, and only in a few cases delegated
the task of verification to the competent care of
Miss Ethel Stokes. I have to thank her not only for
the trouble taken in this connexion, but also for the
index, which is due to her practised hand. It has
been modelled on the indexes in previous volumes for
Preface.
vii
the sake of uniformity. My thanks are due to
Mrs. Dixon for notes and information supplied to me;
to my wife, who read aloud to me the proofs of both
volumes; to Mr. C. E. Doble, of the Clarendon Press,
who has bestowed vigilant attention and keen personal
interest on the book as it passed through the press,
and has saved me from error not once or twice only;
to my friend, Mr. J. C. Hodgson of Alnwick, who first
introduced me to Canon Dixon, and has furnished me
with certain biographical details; to Mr. H. C. Beech-
ing, who has allowed me to make use of his account of
Canon Dixon, contributed to the forthcoming supple-
mentary volume of the Dictionary of National Bio-
graphy. I cannot help adding that I am deeply
conscious of the loss that the volumes have sustained
by the death of Bishop Stubbs, to whom the manu-
script was submitted before it went to press, and who
saw some of the earlier proof-sheets. I only trust that
the pains which have been taken may have resulted
in completing the work in a manner not altogether
unworthy of the memory of my dead friend.
To those who knew Canon Dixon only from his
Church History it may prove interesting, if I append
a short account of one who lived a retired life that was
far fuller and wider than might have been suspected.
Richard Watson Dixon was born at Islington in 1833.
He was the son of Dr. James Dixon, a well-known
Wesleyan preacher, whose life he afterwards wrote.
On his mother's side he came of even more distin-
guished Wesleyan ancestry, for his grandfather was
the Rev. Richard Watson, whose names were bestowed
on the infant grandson. Mr. Watson had a deserved
eminence in the Wesleyan body some sixty years ago.
Young Dixon was educated at Birmingham Grammar
School chiefly under Dr. Gifford, and remembered the
viii
Preface.
great trio, Westcott, Lightfoot, and Benson, though he
did not come into close contact with them.* Edwin
Hatch and Edward Burne-Jones were exact contempo-
raries. He was confirmed at the age of fourteen with
his father's express sanction. His progress in learning
was rapid, and he was remembered at Richmond
Wesleyan College, where he stayed as a guest before
he went to Oxford, and was exhibited by the teachers
to the shame of backward students whose knowledge
was far behind that of the schoolboy. Proceeding to
Pembroke College, Oxford, he was brought more and
more under English Church influence, and determined
to take Holy Orders. He was no mean scholar, but
his love for general literature seems to have led him
to take up a wide and desultory course of private
reading, which was fatal to the attainment of high
honours. As the close friend of Burne-Jones and
William Morris he indulged his strong artistic and
poetical tastes. He now painted and wrote verses.
At Oxford, too, he first evinced historical aptitude, and
in 1858, after taking his degree, gained the Arnold
Prize for an essay on "The Close of the Tenth
Century of the Christian Era." This effort has been
described as singularly mature, but it shows little of
the prose poetry which afterwards distinguished him.
* Dr. Gifford has supplied the following interesting note about Canon
Dixon's school career :- "When I went to Birmingham in January, 1848,
Dixon was in one of the lower classes of the Classical School, and left for
College in 1852. In that year we celebrated the Tercentenary of the
foundation of the school, and Dixon won the first prize for an essay on
'The State of Literature in England in the Time of Edward the Sixth,'
the second prize being gained by his friend, E. Burne-Jones, while Edwin
Hatch won a prize for an essay on 'The Social Condition of England in
the Time of Edward the Sixth.' At the same time Dixon also gained
a prize for an English poem on the 'Sicilian Vespers,' which received
some commendation from Goldwin Smith, who adjudged it. These
earliest indications of Dixon's taste for the two chief studies of his life,
History and Poetry, seem to be worthy of notice."
Preface.
ix
Canon Dixon was ordained in the same year, 1858,
to a curacy in Lambeth under the Rev. Robert
Gregory, the present Dean of St. Paul's. His pastime
was still the writing of poetry. He published Christ's
Company in 1861, Historical Odes in 1863, and in the
latter year he gained the Cramer Prize at Oxford for
a religious poem on "St. John in Patmos."
After five years spent as a curate in London,
Canon Dixon turned his attention to teaching, and for
a like period was second master at Carlisle High
School. In 1868 he commenced that connexion with
Carlisle Cathedral which, in one shape or another, he
retained to the day of his death. He was appointed
Minor Canon, and was also constituted honorary
librarian. In the latter capacity he arranged and
catalogued the books belonging to the Dean and
Chapter, and deepened the love for books which he
had imbibed at Oxford. It cannot be doubted that
the laborious way in which he toiled at the Carlisle
Catalogue brought to him an acquaintance with many
of the works which were afterwards to be his very
frequent companions in writing the History. It was
at some forgotten date in the years at Carlisle that
Canon Dixon first turned his attention to the serious
study of the sixteenth century. It came about in this
way: he was asked to contribute an article on the
English Liturgy to some projected encyclopaedia.
He read widely, and was struck by the superficial
character of the histories of the Prayer Book accessible
thirty years ago. Accordingly he entered on the path
of documentary research which engrossed him for so
many years. It appears to be impossible to discover
how long these Prayer Book studies lasted. It was,
however, when he was at Carlisle that he commenced
them, and at Carlisle he produced his first book, the
X
Preface.
biography of his father, which was published in 1874.
In the same year he published an essay on
"The
Maintenance of the Church of England." This essay
marks the transition of his interests from poetry and
literature to English Church History.
It was in 1874, too, that Bishop Harvey Goodwin
marked his appreciation of Canon Dixon's learning by
elevating him to an honorary canonry. In the same
year the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle presented him
to the living of Hayton in Cumberland. Here he
remained for eight years, and here he wrote nearly
half the chapters of his Church History. Some change
of proprietorship in the encyclopaedia brought the
original scheme of publication to nought, and threw
back on his hands the article concerning the Prayer
Book. This disappointment led directly to the larger
History. The material he had acquired was seen to
constitute a large slice of Reformation history. He
therefore determined to expand it, and to write as
complete an account as possible. He fixed on the
year 1530 as the starting-point of his enterprise, and
he never undertook the introductory volume on the
earlier years of Henry VIII, which was as much
needed as the detailed narrative of the years which
followed the abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction. He
was well embarked on his course during the first year
at Hayton, but his speed was slow, and his apparatus
deficient. The difficulty and magnitude of his enter-
prise struck him painfully. He sums up the account
of his first year's work by saying, "An historian may
not plead difficulties, but if he might, I could: want of
books leading to constant corrections and insertions
of newly found matter, remote situation, many inter-
ruptions! But who has a right to expect less than
every possible difficulty?" But he toiled on, and
Preface.
xi
finished his first volume in the spring of 1877, and
brought back a copy of the published work just before
Christmas Day in that year. "Now for the critics,"
he wrote in his diary as he recorded the appearance of
the book.
It is doubtful whether Canon Dixon at first contem-
plated the continuance of his work. The expense of
publication had been a very serious matter, and he
discovered to his dismay that the sale of even the
whole edition would still leave him with an adverse
balance of £20. Nor were the reviews when they
began to appear a very great encouragement. It was
clear to him that some of the writers were not compe-
tent to judge the merits of his work, and that, mean-
while, the general public were forming from them an
erroneous opinion of the new historian. One review,
however, by one highly qualified to speak, appears to
have cheered him greatly. I am inclined to think that
this discriminating notice in the Academy from the pen
of the late Mr. Nicholas Pocock, the editor of Burnet,
spurred him to go on. Stimulated no less by his own
personal interest in the History, he resumed his writing
in the month which followed Mr. Pocock's review.
Much of his material was ready, and he made fairly
rapid progress. At the end of September, 1878, he
wrote, “All this month I have been writing hard. If
I could add a few years to my destined life! I fear
I have begun too late. And yet Gibbon published
his first volume just about the same age that I pub-
lished mine—at 45. His youth was as weakly as mine,
and he too found Oxford an injusta noverca. But
then he had money, and had not to write and preach
two or three sermons a week." The second volume,
which was occupied with the history of ten years, was
finished in eighteen months, so that it was the most
xii
Preface.
1
quickly completed of all the six volumes. When he
received in June, 1880, the first batch of proofs, he
said, "The plague is begun. Why do I say so? From
stupidity; for, as Southey said, correcting proof-sheets
is one of the pleasures of life. If I had a hundred
a year to spend on publication without hesitation, it
would be all I want from fate. . . . I wonder whether
this volume will succeed better than the first. . . . I
cannot but feel some discouragement at the result, so
far, of the first volume.'
""
When the second volume was off his hands Canon
Dixon appears to have again taken up his long
neglected poetry. For a year he touched little or no
history, at least so far as regular writing is concerned.
Mano, the chief poem of this period, was being revised
and corrected, though it was not published until
1883. Its production much exhausted him. By that
date the third volume of the History, begun in 1881,
had been for some time resumed. It was ready for
press in the summer of 1884. The task was
carried to its completion very tardily, as many inter-
ruptions took place to delay it. The appearance
of Mano marks the close of Canon Dixon's Cumber-
land life. Towards the end of 1883 Bishop Harvey
Goodwin presented him to the living of Warkworth in
Northumberland, which was to be his home for the
rest of his life. It was the best piece of preferment
that the Bishop then had at his disposal, and some
satisfaction must be felt that a sphere sufficiently quiet,
but less remote from men and books, was thus found
for one who was no hermit, though shy and retiring.
Two years before he went to Warkworth he wrote,
"The life of utter solitude is telling on my spirits and
manners. Never to speak to a man, unless a villager,
from week to week, and month to month! At best to
Preface.
xiii
see but another clergyman in a formal official sort of
way-this is enough to transform one to a Caliban."
From Warkworth, on the main line of railway, libraries
were more accessible at Alnwick, Bamburgh, and
Newcastle, whilst the choice Cathedral collections at
Durham and York were not too far away. Yet he
left Hayton with real sorrow, and his "Valediction to
Cumberland," written in elegiacs, testifies to the sin-
cerity of this feeling. At Warkworth the third volume
of the History was completed, as has already been
stated, in 1884. Another interval followed its com-
pletion, and once more poetry held Canon Dixon's
interest. He had published his Odes and Eclogues in
the same year, though they had been accumulating for
some time. He published privately the Lyrical Poems
in 1886, and was long at work on Eudocia and her
Brothers, which did not appear in print until 1888.
There are through these years in the diary perpetual
notices of the poems.
The fourth volume of the History, dealing with the
reign of Queen Mary, was commenced in 1886. Ill-
ness, bereavement, and diocesan duties much interfered
with it. The writing of the last page is noted with
a "Laus Deo" at the beginning of the year 1890.
Then came a prolonged tour to the South of France
and Italy, which he greatly enjoyed, and returned with
fresh energy to the proofs which were waiting for him.
How the writing of the History was laid aside for
nearly four years ere the fifth volume was begun has
been told above. And yet it was never entirely laid
aside. Canon Dixon wrote for the English Historical
Review and the Dictionary of National Biography.
He took careful note of all judicious criticism, and
collected, from time to time, any new information that
came before him. Thus additions and corrections
xiv
Preface.
were made, and were sent on to the publisher in order
to be added to the text or notes. In this way the
work underwent continuous revision, although no more
than three editions of volumes I and II, and two of
volumes III and IV, were printed during his lifetime.
The four volumes gradually brought to completion in
a period of some sixteen years, and constantly revised,
formed a work too massive for any save serious stu-
dents of the Reformation to appreciate, and Canon
Dixon began to feel rewarded by the growingly warm
commendation which his labours were now receiving
from such scholars. Reference has been made to
the review of the first volume which came from
Mr. Pocock. It may not be out of place to quote that
sentence from it which so warmed the author's heart,
"We do not hesitate to say that it is the best history
of the Reformation yet written from the Anglican
standpoint." But the best appreciation of Canon
Dixon's work, that ever appeared in print, was written
by his neighbour at Embleton, the late Bishop Creigh-
ton, in 1886, in a review of the third volume con-
tributed to the Academy (Feb. 27, 1886):
"Mr. Dixon's previous volumes have already established his character
for scholarly research and patient investigation. They have also done
much to recover for English literature a style of prose writing which
is admirably adapted for historical purposes. This last characteristic
has met with little recognition. Historical students are rarely heedful
of literary merits. Those who are interested in literature seldom look
into long histories, unless they have the popularity accorded to the
pages of Lord Macaulay. It is indeed a difficult task to write history
and preserve any distinctive features of style. Mr. Dixon retains
throughout his pages a clearly marked individuality, which is never
obtruded, but which speaks in hints. He is serious, sober, even
massive but flashes of dry humour meet us at every turn. More-
over, he has in a way identified himself with the times of which he
writes. His extracts from contemporary papers do not strike the
reader as remote or foreign to the narrative; rather the narrative
Preface.
XV
itself bears the impress of the source from which it came. Mr. Dixon's
account of theological controversies is not a dry summary, but rather
an echo of original voices. All this is done without affectation, or
traces of conscious effort. Sometimes, it must be admitted, latinized
words of unfamiliar form and doubtful advantage seem to show that
Mr. Dixon was thinking too entirely about the past, and had forgotten
the present. But his pages have all the charm that comes from
a feeling of dainty workmanship-so dainty that we fear it is but
slightly perceived by the hasty reader. His diligence and thorough-
ness of workmanship is admirable. He is fair-minded and impartial."
(6
This criticism has caught the three great character-
istics of the History in regard to matter, form, and
spirit, when it draws attention to the original materials,
the Dixonian style, the gentle impartiality of the
writer's judgment. No English Church historian, per-
haps, has succeeded in combining truth and generosity
to so remarkable a degree; and certainly it has been
given to no other to array his narrative in a style
of such dignity. As Professor Beeching has said,
The style of the work is the prose-style of a poet.
To an honest student of the Reformation, however,
the great merit of the History lies in its "echo of
original voices." Canon Dixon strove, and strove
with success, to base his statements upon documentary
evidence. He consulted all previous written histories
with judicious discrimination, but the rock on which he
built was not Burnet, or Strype, or Collier, but the
wide manuscript materials that were accessible to
them, and the wider authorities of the same class that
have been rendered accessible in recent years. No
doubt he has left for others rich gleanings in this path
of research, but he honestly traversed the whole field,
and gathered from every part of it. Perhaps those
only who have tried to do something in the same kind
of work can duly appreciate the immense toil and
xvi
Preface.
industry which the six printed volumes represent.
Frail in body, and remote from the great collections of
manuscripts, Canon Dixon yet found opportunity to
visit them from time to time in order "to stop a hole,”
as he put it. Now and then, but only now and then,
he delegated the task of copying to others. Accom-
panied by Mrs. Dixon, who would act as amanuensis,
he stayed with friends near the British Museum, where
he spent long days. He was a visitor, too, at irregular
intervals in the Public Record Office and the Lam-
beth Library. He spent several days over the Parker
manuscripts at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
It was in the rooms of Mr. C. W. Moule, the Librarian,
that he dictated to his wife the "Protestants' Declara-
tion" which is described in this volume.
With regard to methods of work Canon Dixon
studied, as he wrote, annalistically. It seems to have
been his habit to note down, first of all, on a large
sheet of paper, the main events of each year, and then
by degrees to fill in the interstices with smaller points
in chronological order. The next step, apparently,
was to annex references to all manner of authorities
for the full account of special topics. He would re-
serve in a notebook the heads of all such matters as
required fuller investigation. When the opportunity
for a visit to London came, he carried these notebooks
with him and filled page after page with the result of
his researches. Sometimes he made on paper a study
of some portion of the year, or of some intricate ques-
tion, writing out his judgment on it, or jotting down
a happy phrase or expression. Thus prepared, he
began to write in full the history of the year under
review, but he supplemented or corrected his account
continuously, until the book was sent to the printer.
The rate at which he worked varied much. At first
Preface.
1
xvii
he was very slow, but the pace mended. The first
chapter of all occupied him for nearly a year. The
last two chapters of Mary's reign were completed in
two months and one month respectively. He never
attained the same speed again. It is, I think, true
that he began the fifth volume with greatly impaired
strength. The History became a greater weight to
him in consequence. He had said in 1876, “Well,
I shall never finish [my History], but I hope to do some
part 'to sow some generous seed before I die.'"
What limit to his project was then before his mind
it is impossible to determine. He lived on and worked
on as time and health were given. He told me, how-
ever, a few weeks before he died, that he doubted
whether he should ever resume the work from the
point which he had reached. He was very happy then.
At the instance of Bishop Stubbs, Bishop Creighton,
and Canon Ince, the University of Oxford was about
to bestow on him the honorary degree of Doctor of
Divinity. It was, perhaps, a tardy recognition of his
worth and work, but he received it with much satis-
faction. It was the last great pleasure of his life.
RIPON: September, 1901.
+VOL. V.
b
HENRY GEE.
ERRATA IN VOL. V.
P. 61, line 10, for January 20 read February 16. (See footnote.)
P. 353, line 8 for Lombard read Lambard.
J
CONTENTS
OF
THE FIFTH VOLUME.
CHAPTER XXXI.
ELIZABETH, A. D. 1558.
Elizabeth proclaimed queen, November 17.
First measures
Doctor Bill chosen to preach at Paul's Cross
Cecil made Principal Secretary
•
Elizabeth removes from Hatfield into London
The bishops meet her at Highgate
Rumours that the new Queen will not alter religion
Bishop Christopherson answers Bill at Paul's Cross
The Queen's public entrance into the Tower
She awakens great enthusiasm
Funeral of Pole and of Mary
White's sermon at Mary's funeral
Extraordinary rumours concerning it
White reprimanded by the Council
Sharp measures taken for seditious words
•
•
The adherents of the Reformation show themselves
Proclamation to forbid preaching
The Queen's chapel proposed for the imitation of the realm
The Queen's behaviour during service there
The Romanensians and the Gospellers or reforming party
The Italian Church in London invaded by the Gospellers.
Second Proclamation to forbid preaching
The alteration of religion intended from the first
The Device for the alteration of religion
It strikes many of the Elizabethan notes
PAGE
I
2
3
Ib.
Ib.
Ib.
•
5
Ib.
6
Ib.
7
8
II
12
Ib.
13
14
Ib.
15
1 16
18
•
19
20
Ib.
23
b 2
XX
Contents of the
The English Litany published, as used in the Queen's chapel
Changes in the Privy Council
Certain committees of Council formed for definite purposes
Of one of these the above Device for altering religion may have been
the work
PAGE
•
• 23
24
•
25
Ib.
Also another state paper hitherto unpublished against the Church of
Rome
Ib.
•
Another of these committees was to enquire into the late Queen's
grants
•
29
And of this committee another extant paper may have been the
work
Financial measures taken affecting the Church
Prisoners for religion released
Some of the Romanensian party of the Church imprisoned
The return of the exiles
Some of them stayed abroad for a while longer
•
They sent their tracts and letters into England: especially Fox
They effected a reconcilement among themselves before they started
Doctor Parker, who had remained hidden in England, singled out
for the vacant see of Canterbury
His vain struggles against this
The Spanish ambassador De Feria: his keen but unfriendly letters
King Philip signifies to him that he will become a suitor for the hand
of Elizabeth .
Ib.
•
30
32
•
33
34
Ib.
35
36
•
39
40
•
4I
•
44
CHAPTER XXXII.
A. D. 1559.
The English Litany, Epistles, and Gospels come in, January 1
Splendid progresses of the Queen, January 12 and 14
Coronation, January 15
Why Oglethorpe, Bishop of Carlisle, crowned Elizabeth
The ceremony
•
Parliament, January 25
45
46
↓
47
+
Ib.
•
49
51
The Queen's behaviour in the Abbey.
52
i
The sermon preached by Doctor Cox
Ib:
Bacon's speech in opening the Parliament .
53
The Acts of Elizabeth's first Parliament: it annexes firstfruits and
tenths to the Crown
54
It declares the Queen lawful heir of the throne.
Great Act for the Supremacy
It repealed I and 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8
And specifically revived ten statutes of Henry VIII
It annulled the title of Supreme Head
55
57
•
58
Ib.
•
Ib.
Fifth Volume.
It provided for putting the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Crown in
Commission.
▾ Act for Uniformity. It restores the English Service .
Opposition of the Prelates in the Lords to these two Acts .
xxi
PAGE
Speech of Archbishop Heath against the Act for the Supremacy
Speech of Bishop Scot of Chester against it
60
•
61
65
Ib.
67
•
70
71
74
Ib.
75
·
77
81
85
87
Speech of Feckenham, Abbot of Westminster, against the Act for
Uniformity.
·
Speech of Bishop Scot of Chester against the same
Conference or disputation in Westminster Church before the Council
and the Houses of Parliament
The conditions and arrangements for the disputation
Position and behaviour of the Romanensian disputants
First day's disputation, March 31
Second day's disputation, April 3
The conference broken up
•
Two of the Romanensian disputants, the Bishops of Winchester and
Lincoln, sent to the Tower
Six of them, three bishops and three doctors-Chester, Lichfield,
and Carlisle; Cole, Harpsfield, and Chedsey-put within bounds
and fined
Bill declares at Paul's Cross the cause of their imprisonment
Convocation, January 24
No sermon
•
The clergy present to the bishops some Articles in writing, with a
solemn preface
These they solemnly pray the bishops to present to Parliament
What befel them.
They were five in number: three of them old ones
They were sanctioned by the Universities, all but the last.
They influenced the Lord Keeper in forming the propositions that
were to have been disputed in the Westminster Conference just
considered
•
88
89
Ib.
Ib.
90
•
91
92
Ib.
Ib.
•
93
Parliament dissolved, May 8. Its other church measures .
Bill for thirty-two persons to make ecclesiastical laws
94
Ib.
Bill for consecrating archbishops and bishops. The failure of this left
the English Ordinal unestablished
Ib.
Act annexing to the Crown the refounded religious houses
Curious appearances of various bishops inside the House of Com-
95
mons
Ib.
•
Of White
Ib.
Of Bonner
•
96
Of Pate
Ib.
Of Baines
The new Prayer Book used prematurely in the Queen's chapel, May 12
The Committee that formed it
Their moderate and comprehensive principles
Ib.
97
98
Ib.
xxii
Contents of the
The Prayer Book of Elizabeth
The criticisms of Cecil on the first draft of it, showing that it was
more severe at first than at last
PAGE
The censures of Bishop Scot on it, in his speech against the Act for
Uniformity.
Particularly on the Communion
He points out that there was no Oblation in the Office
The remaining comparison between the Second Book of Edward and
Elizabeth's Book.
The current of events more strong against the Romanensians :
Preachers at Paul's Cross: Corpus Christi .
Declaration of doctrines laid before the Queen by the Evangelic
leaders.
98
•
ΙΟΟ
•
•
103
Ib.
•
104
•
105
•
•
This forms a link in English Confessions between the Forty-two
Articles of Edward and the Thirty-nine
Examination of it (note)
The Oath of the Supremacy began to be offered to the Bishops before
the English Service came in force
The position of the bishops.
Commission, May 23, to minister the Oath: wholly of laymen
106
· 107
Ib.
Ib.
. 116
. Ib.
•
117
The Oath offered to Bonner, who on refusing it is deprived, May 30. 119
Five other bishops, including Baines, Scot, Oglethorpe, and probably
Pate, deprived, June 21
Kitchin of Llandaff makes a partial compliance or acceptance of the
altered religion
Six new bishops elected, June 23
I20
122
•
Ib.
The English Service, the revised Book of Common Prayer, comes in
on St. John Baptist's Day, June 24
124
125
: 127
•
The Evangelic leaders disregarded or comprehended not the extremer
men of their own party, and their foreign advisers
Reception of the Book general but not thorough
Commissions issued for a Visitation of the kingdom, June 24
Their large powers: they were mostly composed of laymen
The Injunctions of Elizabeth, which these Commissioners carried
They were a reprint of Edward's Injunctions, with alterations and
number of added Items
Compared at length with Edward's Injunctions .
The added Items; about priests' marriages
About the use of singing
About the position of the Communion Table
a
128
. Ib.
•
130
•
131
Ib.
134
•
135
•
. 136
About the Sacramental bread
66
About the Oath of Supremacy: this Item known as Elizabeth's
Admonition "
The Articles to be Enquired, which the Commissioners carried
Especially those concerning the late Persecution
The Visitation: the Northern Province: Sandys the chief Visitor
The general way of proceeding .
Ib.
. 138
139
•
140
141
142
Fifth Volume.
The diocese of York: Nottingham, August 22
The diocese of Durham
Bernard Gilpin appointed a Surrogate Commissioner
The diocese of Carlisle
xxiii
PAGE
•
•
143
. 147
•
149
. 151
The diocese of Chester
. 152
The number of persons deprived in the north uncertain
The Southern Province
. 156
. Ib.
•
. 157
158
The resident Commission that was sitting in London
The Visitation of London, Norwich, and Ely
Of the city of London in particular: great destruction of church
furniture
St. Bartholomew's Day
•
162
•
164
The Visitation of Canterbury, Rochester, Chichester, and Winchester 165
Of Salisbury and the south-west: Jewel's observations
Of Lincoln, Peterborough, Lichfield, and Oxford
Of Worcester, Hereford, and Wales
Of the Universities
•
Cases of eminent residents who refused the Oath
The Queen's chapel a comfort to the Romanensians
Some of the Evangelics remonstrate with her about it
Her aim was to keep up the suspense
The Romanensians find comfort also about vestments
Consideration of the number of clergy who suffered deprivation for
refusing the Oath of Supremacy
•
The deprived bishops: their different standings
Those who were imprisoned were not imprisoned for refusing the
Supremacy
Their imprisonment not severe
They are not to be denied the praise of constancy
Their number soon thinned by death.
The last of the long life of Tunstall
His protest against the Visitation
Vigorous spoliation of the vacant sees by forced exchanges under the
Firstfruits Act
Protestation of the five bishops elect
•
The Queen proceeds, issuing Commissions to survey the vacant sees
Further protestations of Cox of Ely.
The Queen issues a Commission to examine the certificates returned
End of the Visitation.
by the other Commissions, September 13
The first High Commission
•
€ 166
. 167
. 168
. 169
171
173
Ib.
•
175
Ib.
. 177
. 181
Ib.
182
•
. 184
Ib.
•
. 185
186
. 187
•
189
Ib.
190
•
· 191
192
Ib.
•
193
Ib.
: 194
Nature of that unfortunate experiment in delegation
It was not at first so bad as afterwards
Lay readers appointed to supply some of the vacancies: not a very
successful expedient
xxiv
Contents of the
CHAPTER XXXIII.
A. D. 1559.
The process of filling the vacant sees .
Elizabeth continues the old system of election, with some alteration
of the congé d'élire
PAGE
198
Ib.
Many of these licenses to elect issued in the summer; among them
were Canterbury, Chichester, and Hereford; Parker, Barlow, Scory 199
First letters patent to confirm Parker to Canterbury, September 9 . Ib.
They were not executed
•
200
Edward's Ordinal had not been established by Elizabeth's Parliament 201
Second letters to confirm Parker.
The "Supplentes" clause which they contained.
Parker confirmed, December 9: and consecrated December 17
Import of this event
Parker the first English archbishop consecrated without the pall
The Romanensian exiles denounce Parker's consecration
Because Rome was set aside
•
The Ultramontane theory as to consecration
Great difference between the early or contemporary Romanensians as
to Parker and the following generation of them
Historical account of the great controversy on English Orders.
It is a humiliating controversy
202
•
203
204
•
205
Ib.
•
206
207
Ib.
•
208
•
209
Ib.
The various allegations made by the later Romanensians and by the
Roman Catholics
1. Nag's Head
•
Its literary history (note)
It first appeared in 1604
Not maintained by all
·
It is still repeated by some Roman Catholics
2. Unconsecrated Barlow
•
That Barlow, who consecrated Parker, had never himself been con-
secrated: also that there were defects in the other consecrators
of Parker
210
•
Ib.
Ib.
Ib.
211
•
. Ib.
. 215
Ib.
This allegation rather later than Nag's Head.
•
217
•
The reason, as to Barlow, is that there is no record of his con-
secration to be found
Ib.
This would be fatal to the claims of undoubted bishops of the age. Ib.
Other reasons advanced to enforce it, particularly in his case
His opinions said to have been very low.
Examination of this.
218
•
219
. 220
•
Real meaning of some expressions such as are imputed to him
His tract against the Lutherans (note)
Other points disposed of: that there was no time for him to have
been consecrated; that he himself said he was not
. Ib.
221
Ib.
Fifth Volume.
XXV
PAGE
Remark that a certificate of consecration was not among the docu-
ments required by Henry's Act concerning the appointment of
bishops.
3. Defective co-operators
Various opinions about the functions of co-operators, showing
disagreement among equally good ritualists (note)
4. Defective Ordinal
•
•
That the English Ordinal is defective in matter and in form.
This objection lies against the English ordination of priests, which
has no porrection of instruments with the accompanying words:
and the omission was designed and deliberate
This is admitted: but it is no heresy
Other points raised against the English Ordinal
5. Lack of Intention
•
Examination of this allegation .
•
•
225
Ib.
Ib.
. 226
227
Ib.
•
229
•
231
233
·
234
The past history of Parker's consecrators brought up against them 238
6. Lack of Jurisdiction in Parker's consecrators.
Examination of this.
7. Forged Register, or at least Register tampered with
Examination of this.
There are two or three contemporary copies of the Register
Curious theories based on this fact.
So much for the controversy
The Papal Court.
It is not true that Paul IV pronounced against Elizabeth, and so lost
England
Karne's recall not in answer to such a sentence.
Death of Paul IV, August 18
Death of Henry II, King of the French
•
240
Ib.
243
Ib.
•
245
Ib.
Ib.
249
•
251
253
. 254
255
Ib.
•
Ib.
•
256
Ib.
·
258
259
260
•
261
Francis II and Mary of Scotland, his wife, assume the Arms of
England
Elizabeth protected by the jealousies of other powers
Beginning of her strife with Mary of Scotland
Obsequies of Henry II. Prayer for the dead
•
The Dirge used came out of the Primer of Henry VIII
The old design of a religious league between England and the Pro-
testants
Elizabeth not disinclined to the Augustan Confession, or something
like it
To this Philip would not have objected
The word Protestant gets vogue in England
Probably from Scotland
Knox and his First Blast
. 262
Ib.
Aylmer answers it
Knox's hatred of the English Book of Common Prayer
Which nevertheless was used in Scotland .
Knox vainly attempts to get into England again
•
264
. 265
•
Ib.
. 266
Ib.
xxvi
Contents of the
He makes a descent on Holy Island
The Dutch or Walloon strangers return to London
Utenhovius.
The French Strangers
PAGE
. 266
267
Ib.
269
•
CHAPTER XXXIV.
A. D. 1560-1562.
Management of foreign affairs
Scotland: Mary and the Reformation
France: the Huguenots: they were schismatics from the first
Hence the failure of the Reformation in France.
Horrible state of Spain under Philip II.
•
•
. 275
. 276
. 277
Ib.
Philip the very opposite of Elizabeth
The new Pope, Pius IV.
His scheme of a Council
•
278
Ib.
. 279
. 280
He reverses the policy of his predecessor in many particulars
His efforts to make his proposed Council general
His Bull about it, double-tongued and unsatisfactory.
Ib.
. 281
Ib.
The Protestants reject it
He tries to send a Nuncio, Parpalia, into England, before the Bull
was written, about March, 1560
•
His simultaneous letters to the Emperor, to the King of Spain, and to
the Queen of England, May 5, 1560
Parpalia's mission
He gives it up in November, 1560
The Pope had offered no terms that could be accepted: nor at all
abated his pretensions.
There is no proof that he offered to confirm the English Prayer
Book
He may possibly have seen it in the Latin version
Elizabeth's Latin Prayer Book, ready in August, 1559, and perhaps
printed then: but usually dated April, 1560
It was executed by Walter Haddon, and was a careful revision of the
previous version by Alexander Aless
•
It was studied on the Continent, especially in France
Where was started the notion that a Latin apology for the Church of
England would be a good thing
Morette, another Papal agent, though an informal one, gets into
England, and sees Elizabeth about the Council, November
1561
282
·
283
Ib.
284
286
•
•
287
Ib.
•
1289
Ib.
•
290
292
Ib.
•
•
293
The Pope tries to send another Nuncio, Martinengo, into England, in
the spring of 1561, with the Bull of the Council .
Quadra, the Spanish ambassador, labours to open the way for his
reception
•
294
Ib.
1
Fifth Volume.
xxvii
Special meeting of the Privy Council on the question, May 1,
1561
Their reasons for refusing the Nuncio
Against one of their reasons the Nuncio in France protests to the
English ambassador there
Martinengo abandons his mission, May, 1561
The Queen had been attracted by the notion of a free and general
Council.
Curious conversations between Quadra and Cecil
The negotiations were badly managed by Rome
There are traces of intrigues about the proposed Council
Parker consecrates new bishops to the empty sees
His opinion of the bishops whom he made
He holds a series of ordinations to fill the vacant benefices
Struggles between the bishops and the old clergy
The Mass secretly said in many places
PAGE
294
•
295
•
296
Ib.
•
Ib.
Ib.
•
299
•
•
· 300
Ib.
•
301
•
· 302
• 304
The six old bishops who were at large get into trouble, and are sent
to the Tower, with some other leading Romanensians, for two
or three years
The Romanensians still hope: the Queen seems inclined against the
alteration of religion
She issues an Injunction against married clergy residing in cathedral
and college precincts
Cox of Ely remonstrates against this
•
Parker's distress about her dislike of married clergy
He remonstrates to Cecil
Cox again protests to the Queen.
The Queen meditates the restoration of roodlofts and images
Agitation among the bishops: a disputation held
• 305
·
306
308
309
• 310
Ib.
• 311
Ib.
Ib.
· 312
Roodlofts however are destroyed
But the Queen retains the cross in her chapel
•
The preachers at Paul's Cross and at Court
• 313
Ib.
• 314
Psalm-singing
1560
·
315
Jewel's challenge to the Romanensians, November, 1559, and March,
Ib.
It is taken up by Cole.
Ib.
Cole however stood on the same ground as at the Westminster Dis-
putation
316
Harding takes up Jewel's challenge differently, in a treatise called an
Answer
· 318
Jewel composes his Reply unto Harding's Answer
Jewel produces his Apologia Ecclesia Anglicana, 1562
Purpose and spirit of that work .
Ib.
•
• 319
Ib.
Harding attacks it in his Confutation; also in a second work called
a Detection
320
Jewel in reply writes his Defence of the Apology of the Church of
England
Ib.
xxviii
Contents of the
V
Method of that work: which involves the Apology
•
Some of the matters in controversy given as specimens
Jewel must be estimated as writing against abuses, not absolute
theology
Fox's Acts and Monuments, published 1563
Great importance of the work
PAGE
· 320
•
•
321
· 325
326
• 327
328
Fox was an honest writer, though prejudiced
The Geneva Bible published, 1560
The Calvinist translators and their notes
The great circulation of this Bible
•
St. Paul's struck by lightning, June 1561
The clergy taxed heavily to repair it.
Pilkington's sermon on the catastrophe attacked anonymously by
Morwen
Pilkington's Burning of St. Paul's, published in 1563
Examination of that treatise, as it illustrates the times
Parker's activity .
He holds a metropolitical Visitation
•
Which he begins in his own church and diocese
Traces of this Visitation in other dioceses.
•
Traces of a royal Visitation in the Summer of 1561; the reports of
Horne, Best, Scory, Pilkington, to Cecil
Parkhurst visits Norwich in 1561
Parker's various measures, as to lessons and calendars
The Eleven Articles, which were a link between the Forty-two and
the Thirty-nine
329
330
• 331
• 332
Ib.
334
•
335
•
. Ib.
340
•
341
Ib.
343
Ib.
·
•
347
Ib.
•
349
Ib.
· 352
· 353
· 356
• 357
Ib.
•
· 358
. Ib.
. Ib.
· 359
Ib.
Other "Resolutions and Orders" of Parker and the bishops
Parker's literary character .
His literary undertakings designed to serve the Church
Foreigners in England: Proclamation against strange opinions
Case of Hamstedius
Parker's enquiries into the state of the strangers in his diocese.
Parkhurst of Norwich slack
Ireland
Apprehended troubles on the alteration of religion
Crossed by Roman emissaries
The whole religious system of Mary repealed, January, 1560
Difficulties in carrying out the Repealing Acts
O'Nial the Great.
His visit to the English Court
•
He burns the cathedral church of Armagh.
Lofthouse, the new Primate of Ireland
•
No resignations and only two deprivations on account of religion
Elizabeth intervenes on behalf of the Huguenots
among the Irish bishops
The English occupy Havre.
Elizabeth's motives
•
€ 361
Ib.
• 362
• 363
Ib.
364
. 365
Ib.
• 366
Fifth Volume.
CHAPTER XXXV.
A. D. 1563.
Meeting of the second Parliament of Elizabeth, January 12
Splendid opening.
Bacon's speech: he complains of the want of discipline
Speech of the Speaker, Williams: his sad description of the times
His allegory of the Fort
xxix
PAGE
•
368
Ib.
•
· 370
•
• 371
372
The Oath of Supremacy ministered to the Commons.
The Queen's marriage urged: anger of the Queen
Cecil's harangue against the King of Spain .
Various Acts affecting the Church
•
· 373
•
Ib.
· 374
• 375
Remarkable Act for execution of the Writ De Excommunicato
capiendo
· 376
377
The two parts of which it consisted
. Ib.
• 379
Great Act for Assurance of the Queen's power over all subjects:
directed against Rome.
Debates upon it: speech of Lord Montague against it
Speech of Mr. Atkinson against it
Close of the Session, April 10: a paper of the Queen's own writing
read, on her marriage .
Convocation, January 13
Parker recommends a Prolocutor
Composition of this Convocation
Projects for discipline .
380
· 381
382
· 383
· 384
•
· 385
Bishop Sandys' scheme
Bishop Alley's scheme
Bishop Grindal's scheme
Archbishop Parker's scheme
It included the old proposal to amend ecclesiastical laws by a com-
mission of thirty-two
•
•
•
Ib.
· 386
· 387
Ib.
388
Ib.
·
389
Proposals by the extremer Evangelics, which were defeated
They included the old proposal of a Commission of thirty-two
Some of the schemes of discipline reached the Court and Parliament Ib.
But without much effect
• 390
Draft De Excommunicato capiendo sent to Parliament probably 391
The Confession of the Church of England: the Thirty-nine Articles. Ib
What was the original manuscript of the Articles?
The Thirty-nine have been already compared with the previous Con-
fessions
Revival in them of Lutheran influence
The English Confession, in the final shape of the Thirty-nine Articles,
on a higher level than the Continental Confessions
Treatment in them of the great contested doctrines: as Justification,
Good Works, and Predestination
The Sacrament of the Eucharist treated in four Articles
• 393
Ib.
•
394
· 396.
•
· 398
• 399
XXX
Contents of the
Explanation offered of this treatment.
That it had become necessary to treat this great subject in two
divisions or parts .
The first of these four Articles altered the stress of the question as
hitherto debated: but left the Presence still confessed
The second of them, now first added, has a curious literary history :
and is a test Article
The third, of receiving in both kinds, now first added
The fourth, "Of the One Oblation," against the Sacrifice of the Mass,
and not merely against "Missarum Sacrificia”
General effect of these Articles
•
Article on the authority of the Church: its literary history
PAGE
• 399
Ib.
•
400
•
401
402
403
404
405
•
406
•
407
It is to be connected with other Articles in which the authority of
the Church was shown, as against Rome
The Thirty-nine Articles not part of the Book of Common Prayer
The Homilies commended in them
Nowell's Catechisms passed by Convocation, but not mentioned in
the Articles
Some account of those Catechisms
Alarm felt in the kingdom as to the new Act assuring the Supremacy,
and enforcing the Oath
Invidious position of the clergy
Moderation of Parker .
•
Ib.
•
408
Ib.
•
412
•
Ib.
•
413
He undertakes on his own responsibility "to stay full execution of
the imperial laws" by forbidding the Oath to be offered the
second time.
The bishops in the Tower
Pathetic modern pictures of their state and of their danger
The Oath not meant for them
They were sent away from the Tower for fear of the plague, Septem-
ber 14
•
Some into free custody, some to live within prescribed limits
Their various conditions and behaviour; Heath, Turberville
Thirlby went to Parker
Watson consigned to Grindal and then to Cox
Feckenham to Horne
Bishops Pate and Scot escaped beyond seas
Bonner only was left in prison, in the Marshalsea
•
Ib.
•
415
Ib.
Ib.
•
• 416
Ib.
•
417
•
418
•
419
Ib.
Ib.
Ib.
•
421
The King of Spain and the Emperor Ferdinand intercede for them
to Elizabeth .
Ferdinand's latter letter, just after their release, proposes that one
church in every town should be granted to the Romanensians
for worship, September 24
Elizabeth's answer
•
A survey of dioceses ordered on the bishops by the Council
Curious nature of the directions given, as if to alienate places exempt
and chapelries
Ib.
•
422
Ib.
•
423
Fifth Volume.
Enquiry concerning hospitals and schools.
Parker's certificate as to those in Canterbury diocese
Troubles of Bishop Quadra, the Spanish ambassador
Curious case of one of his servants
His death, August, 1563
xxxi
PAGE
The third reassembly of the Council of Trent, from January 18, 1562,
to December 4, 1563
English affairs debated in it
•
Philip of Spain warns them from interfering
Goldwell of St. Asaph sat in it
•
•
424
Ib.
•
425
Ib.
426
Ib.
•
427
•
· 428
Ib.
A committee appointed by the Pope to decide whether Romanen-
sians might attend the English Service in their parish churches 429
Curious history of this affair
Ib.
Severe decision: which was kept secret: and which marked the
position of Rome from an earlier date than is generally thought. 431
Reflections.
Elizabeth resolved to send no embassage to Trent
Curious schemes of a combination in opposition
NOTE: Leach's English Schools at the Reformation .
Ib.
·
432
•
·
433
· 434
HISTORY
OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
CHAPTER XXXI.
ELIZABETH.-A.D. 1558.
1
ON Thursday, November 17, about two hours after the
death of Queen Mary,* at nine in the morning, the Peers
assembled themselves in their chamber, and the Lord
Chancellor, Archbishop Heath, announced the vacancy
of the throne. After a brief consultation, the Commons
were summoned to the bar, and Heath rehearsed to
them the mournful tidings, advising them that although
Parliament was dissolved by the event, they could do
no better as the assembly of an estate than join with
the Lords in proclaiming the Lady Elizabeth, whose
right and title the Lords esteemed free from all
quarrel, doubt, and question. His countenance and
voice were composed, as neither sad nor apprehensive:
the Commons consented with alacrity: and before
noon Elizabeth was proclaimed by the heralds at arms
* We have seen that, according to the eyewitness Priuli, Mary died
seven hours after midnight, Vol. IV. p. 728 huj. op. Lingard says that
"Mary expired about noon," in which he must be wrong.
VOL. V.
B
2
[CH. XXXI.
The Queen's Accession.
and by trumpeters at the door of Westminster Palace,
at the Cross in Cheap, and in other places of the
City.*
In the afternoon all the church bells rang: at night
bonfires were lit, tables set in the street, and there was
eating and drinking and merry-making for the new
Queen Elizabeth.†
On the same day the black enamelled ring which
she wore was taken from the inanimate hand of Mary
by the enterprising Sir Nicolas Throckmorton, who
hastened with it to Hatfield. Many of the Court and
Council were there already: among them the man
whom Elizabeth had singled out to be the guide of
her reign, Sir William Cecil, who, like Elizabeth, had
* Hayward's Elizabeth; Heylin; Lingard. Burnet puts into the
mouths of the peers some of Hayward's reflections. It may be worth
notice that the Lords' Journal, on that day, marks none of the Lords as
present in their chamber. Similarly, it marks none on the day of the
announcement of Henry VIII.'s death, which however had been kept
unannounced for two days, the assembly in the interval meeting for
business, and having those present marked.
+ Machyn, 176; Hayward.
‡ Throckmorton lived in privacy during Mary's time, but often stole
over to Hatfield, and was secretly charged by Elizabeth to bring the ring
whenever her sister died: see the curious poem Throckmorton's Ghost,
edited by Nichols, Roxburghe Club, p. 36.
"She said, Sith nought exceedeth woman's fears,
Who still do dread some baits of subtlety,
Sir Nicolas, know a ring my sister wears,
Enamelled black, a pledge of loyalty,
The which the King of Spain in spousals gave :
If it falls out amiss, 'tis this I crave.
"But mark, ope not your lips to any one
In hope it to obtain of courtesy,
Unless you know my sister first be gone,
For grudging minds will soon join treachery :
So shall thyself be safe, and I be sure,
Who takes no hurt, shall need no care of cure."
Throckmorton received the ring from one of Mary's ladies, and galloped
to Hatfield, but the news of Mary's death had already reached Elizabeth
when he arrived.
1558.]
She comes to London.
3
complied and gone to Mass during the persecution.*
Order was taken under the prudent management of
this statesman to do without the least delay all that
was necessary to be done on a change of sovereign:
to print the Proclamation, and post it to the sheriffs; to
write to all the keepers of forts and castles in the
Queen's name; to examine all places of strength
toward France and Scotland; to close the ports; to
renew the commissions of ambassadors, justices, and
sheriffs; to send special messengers to foreign powers,
including the Pope; to arrange for the burial of the
old and the coronation of the new Queen; and, not
least of all things, "to consider the condition of the
preacher of Paul's Cross, that no occasion might be
given by him to stir any dispute touching the govern-
ance of the realm." On Saturday, the Te Deum was
sung and said in all the churches of London: and next
day, Sunday, November 20, the preacher selected for
Paul's Cross was Doctor Bill, Elizabeth's chaplain, who
made a goodly sermon. On the same day the Council
met at Hatfield, when some of the offices of the house-
hold were filled up, and Cecil was appointed principal
Secretary of State.§
On Wednesday, November 23, Elizabeth moved
from Hatfield toward London, attended by more than
a thousand lords, knights, gentlemen, ladies, and
gentlewomen. The bishops met her at Highgate:
a diminished band, for a third part of the sees were
void, or filled by dying incumbents: eight or nine, it
* Cecil's compliance is proved, against the confident denials of his
biographers, by Tytler, Reigns of Edw. and Mary, ii. 435.
+ Strype, Annals, i. 4. The memorial for doing all these things is in
Cecil's hand, of the date of the day of Mary's death.
Machyn, 178.`
§ Acts of the Council, edited by Dasent, p. 1.
|| Machyn.
B 2
4
The Surviving Bishops. [CH. XXXI.
is probable, were as many as presented themselves:
and Bonner of London, White of Winchester, Watson
of Lincoln, Pate of Worcester, Baines of Lichfield,
Goldwell of St. Asaph, Turberville of Exeter, Scot
of Chester, Oglethorpe of Carlisle, Christopherson of
Chichester, any of them may have been of the number
who fell on their knees before the Queen in testimony
of loyalty and affection.* It was still in suspense what
way the religious policy of the coming reign would
incline: the anxious and unusual demonstration of the
prelates was not ill timed if the mind of the Queen
were still undecided. She listened to their address
with complacency, and allowed them to kiss her hand,
excepting only Bonner from the favour, it is said.† She
proceeded to the Charterhouse, Lord North's place,
where she stayed some days, till the Tower should be
fitted for her reception.
It may have been noted, among some other sym-
ptoms hopeful to the Romanensians at this juncture,
that in the Tower, whereas some other prisoners were
huddled together in one lodging to make room for the
royal train, the celebrated Doctor Weston, a prisoner
there, was by order of the Council more mildly allowed
* All these bishops were in London a few days before, on November 16,
as appears from the Lords' Journal, except Watson of Lincoln; and he
was there on November 14. As to the rest of the bishops, Tunstall
of Durham was in his see, Thirlby of Ely was commissioner in France,
Griffin of Rochester, Hopton of Norwich, Holyman of Bristol, died about
this time. The other sees were vacant. Christopherson of Chichester
also died about this time; but he may nevertheless have been among
those who met the Queen, as he preached at St. Paul's Cross a few days
after.
+ Because of his "bloody butcheries": Heylin. Stow is the authority
for this meeting at Highgate. "Being met," he says, "by the bishops at
Highgate, who, kneeling, acknowledged their allegiance, which she very
graciously accepted, giving to every of them her hand to kiss, except
Bishop Bonner, which she omitted for sundry severities in the time of
his authority."-Chron. 634.
1558.]
Prospects of Change.
5
the liberty of the place under surety of good behaviour.*
Many rumours were born of the uncertainty of the
hour: an augury was hung on every incident; but
the expectation grew that Elizabeth would not change
religion. "Before her sister's death," wrote Priuli to
Venice, "the Queen evinced her intention of making
no further changes in religion, and on the second day
after she was proclaimed she published an edict an-
nouncing that she would change nothing that had been
ordained and established by her sister during her reign,
and that she would have all to conform to her will.
She continues to hear Mass, and to have it heard daily
by her whole household. No change is seen in the
churches. No outrage has been offered in London
to any priest or friar. She immediately confirmed in
their posts some of her sister's councillors, and first of
all the Archbishop of York. Other new councillors
she appointed, giving also the principal offices in her
household to her chief favourites: and the Archbishop
of York has not been confirmed in the post of
Chancellor, though it was intimated to him that he
would be. But it is thought universally that the
learned Dean of Canterbury, Wotton, now in Flanders,
will be advanced to the archsee of Canterbury and
receive also the office of Lord Chancellor."† On the
following Sunday, November 27, the dying Christo-
pherson of Chichester delivered at Paul's Cross a
vehement answer to Bill's sermon of the week before,
loudly exclaiming that the new doctrine set forth by
Doctor Bill was not the Gospel, but the invention
of heretical men. Hereupon he was summoned to
Elizabeth's presence, questioned concerning his sermon,
Privy Council Acts, edited by Dasent, p. 6.
+ Venetian Cal., vi. p. 1559, Nov. 27. As to Wotton, see also
vol. vii. pt. 1.
6
[CH. XXXI.
The Queen in London.
and sent to prison.* This was the first severity of the
reign.
On the morning after this ebullition the Queen rode
on horseback to the Tower. The streets were all new
gravelled: she passed through Barbican and Cripple-
gate, by London Wall to Bishopsgate, through Grace-
church Street and Fenchurch Street. The gates were
richly hanged: and thereby the waits of the city
sounded loud music. The mayor rode before her, with
the Garter king at arms carrying a sceptre. The
scholars of Paul's School, one of whom made a short
speech in Latin, the companies standing within their
rails, met her with salutations: a peal of ordnance,
lasting half an hour, gave her the welcome of the
fortress, which she is said to have entered with a moral
reflection on her own vicissitudes. Her grace and
dignity, her beauty and condescension, won all hearts,
and made all honours seem too mean for such worth.†
She remained in the Tower a week, during which time
the unfortunate prisoner Weston was released: then
she went by water to Somerset House in the Strand.
By these easy and well-studied gradations the
daughter of Anne Boleyn entered upon the sovereignty
which has rendered her to posterity the most celebrated
name of regnant queens. With the throne in full
prospect there seemed to shine about her that golden
enchantment which for half an age was to dazzle
the eyes of all, compelling the strong to aid her
strength with their strength, the wise to augment her
wisdom with their wisdom, the brave to spend their
bravery for her bravery. Of that extraordinary
character the charm lay in the feminine quality, which
*
Sandys to Bullinger. From Strasburg, December 20. Zurich Lett.
i. 4. Christopherson died a month after his sermon.
+ Hayward, II; Holinshed, 156; Machyn, 180; Wriothesley, 142.
1558.] Funeral of Mary, and of Pole.
7
met all men with that which seemed the partner of
their several tastes, resembling that which they pre-
ferred, and yet not the double but the counterpart and
completion of it. At the age of twenty-five, in the
fullness of beauty, every gesture, every mood was
praised a people not wanting in generosity was ready
to smile upon the caprices or extravagances of a ruler
whom they knew instinctively not to be separated from
themselves by aims or aspirations above them. The
reputation of freedom and gaiety, mixed with imperious
temper, struck well with the humour of the nation.
If other things were whispered, it was unheeded in the
general exultation.
The funerals of the sister and of the kinsman, whose
dark decline doubled the lustre of her rising, now
proceeded with decent solemnity. The body of
Mary was taken from her chamber to her chapel in
St. James's, with her gentlemen and ladies, her officers
and servants, all in black: and on the same day,
December 10, the body of Pole was removed from
Lambeth in a car with many bannerols, banners of
arms, and four painted banners of saints, and carried
to Canterbury, where he was interred.* At the
request of his executor Priuli, the Bishops of Worcester
and St. Asaph, Pate and Goldwell, his greatest friends
among the bishops, who had adhered to him in his
exile under Henry and Edward, were permitted by the
Queen and Council to attend him to the grave, where
one of them pronounced the Latin, the other the
English oration.† After lying in her chapel three
* Machyn, 181.
"A letter to the Bishops of Wigorn. and St. Asaph, signifying that
the Queen's Majesty is pleased they shall attend upon the funerals of the
late Lord Cardinal, according to Senor Priuli's request."-Acts of Privy
Council, p. 8. The Council was then at the Charterhouse. See also
Strype, i. 37.
8
Bishop White's Sermon [CH. XXXI.
days, the mortal remains of Mary were transported to
Westminster. Her effigy adorned with crimson velvet,
with her crown on the head, surmounted her coffin on
a chariot covered with cloth of gold, the cross silver:
large companies of mourners, mostly on trapped horses,
divided by banners and heralds bearing the ensigns of
royalty, went forward; after the corpse followed the
monks of some of the religious houses which she had
refounded; after them a train of bishops. At the
great door of the abbey she was met by four bishops
and the abbot mitred in copes, incensing the body:
she lay all night under a splendid hearse, and was
watched. The guard bore staff torches, and were in
black and there were a hundred poor men in good
black gowns, with hoods on their heads and long
torches in their hands. The next day, December 14,
the Queen's Mass of requiem was celebrated, with
great solemnity, and offerings were made by the lords,
ladies, knights, gentlewomen, and all the heralds who
bore the insignia: the Bishop of Winchester preached
the sermon the corpse was carried up to the chapel
of Henry the Seventh, and there deposited in earth.*
It seemed to mark the end of a bygone polity when the
same hearse was used a few days later, December 23,
to celebrate the obsequies of the uncle and adviser of
Mary, the friend and rival of Mary's father, the late
Emperor Charles the Fifth.t
The sermon of White at Mary's funeral was some-
what unfortunate. The severe prelate took the
opportunity of asseverating the fears and hopes of
the Romanensian party in a strain that was not
unjustly considered inappropriate. Amid denuncia-
tions and warnings which all in every age might
Machyn, 183.
† Ib., 184.
+
1558.]
((
at Queen Mary's Funeral.
9
well lay to heart, expressed with that precision which
is the only true eloquence,* he mingled unfavourable
reflections on the present prospect, the anticipated
return of the religious exiles, the apprehended altera-
tion of religion; and he was thought to have hinted
a comparison intolerable to the new Queen. "I was
regenerate," said he, putting the example in his own
person, and by a solemn vow became a member
of Christ's Catholic Church, and have since divided
myself from the unity thereof, and I am become
a member of the new Church of Geneva. The
ministers of the Church are appointed to keep watch
and give warning when the enemy cometh. At this
present, I warn you, the wolves be coming out of
Geneva, and other places of Germany, and have sent
their books before, full of pestilent doctrines, blas-
phemy, and heresy, to infect the people." His text
was “I praise the dead more than the living": which
he ingeniously reconciled with the opposite proverb
of the inspired moralist, that "a living dog is better
than a dead lion." It was the text, or texts, rather
than the sermon that seemed offensive, for he said
nothing derogatory to Elizabeth.† On the contrary,
* White's sermon has several passages like these: "To be born in
Christ's Church and not to abide therein: to promise and not to perform :
to promise penance here and not to practise: to hear the truth and not
to believe to be daily taught and never to learn: ever to be warned and
never to beware that is horrible, execrable, cursed, and damnable.”
"Neither have they [the lost] qualification of pain, nor intermission of
time, nor hope of end. Oh! merciful Lord, if this be the condition of
men, the end of worldly glory, riches, and vanity, in what case stand
we?" &c.
+ Some writers seem to think that White hung an insulting comparison
on his proverbs. Miss Strickland makes him say that "Queen Mary had
left a sister, a lady of great worth, whom they were bound to obey; for,"
said he, "melior est canis vivus leone mortuo." Elizabeth was too good
a Latinist not to fire at this elegant simile, which declared that a living
dog was better than a dead lion; nor did the orator content himself with
IO
[CH. XXXI.
Bishop White's Sermon.
he fully acknowledged her title to the crown, and
wished her "a prosperous reign in peace and tran-
quillity." When he spoke of Mary, he fell into such
a fit of weeping that his voice was choked for a time,
and it was with sobs and pauses that he uttered his
pathetic laudation. "However it pleased God to
will her patience to be exercised in this world, she
had in all estates the fear of God in her heart.
I verily believe the poorest creature in all this city
feared not God more than she did. She had the
love, commendation, and admiration of all the world.
In this church she married herself to this realm, and
in token of fidelity did put a ring with a diamond
on her finger; which I understand she never put
off during her life, whatsoever success things had.
She was never unmindful of her promise to her
realm. She used singular mercy toward offenders.
She used much pity and compassion toward the poor
and oppressed. She used clemency among her nobles.
She restored more noble houses decayed than ever
did prince of this realm. She restored to the church
such ornaments as in the time of schism were taken
away and spoiled. She found the realm poisoned
with heresy, and purged it: and remembering herself
to be a member of Christ's Church, refused to write
this currish comparison, for he roundly asserted that "the dead deserved
more praise than the living, for Mary had chosen the better part." She
also thinks that White preached in Latin, whereas he only gave his text
and quotations in Latin; of course, as not accepting any English version.
Now he only used his living dog proverb to point an exhortation to
persons in authority to be alive in their offices, not sleepy or dead asleep.
He carefully showed his meaning as to Mary choosing the better part,
and as to praising the dead more than the living: he meant that Mary
had the happier part in being dead. His words were, "though God
hath mercifully provided for them both, yet Mary optimam partem
elegit: because it is still a conclusion, Laudavi mortuos magis quam
viventes."
1558.]
Fewel's Report of it.
II
herself Head thereof: which title never no prince,
a thousand and five hundred years after Christ,
usurped.* Of the pleasures of this mortal life, the
pleasure she took in the service of God only excepted,
no person, I suppose, took less: of the troubles and
bitterness, none here for his estate takes more. How
she took her sickness and disposed herself against
death: how she committed herself to God, and the
realm to His Providence: what she did, what she
said: how meekly she demanded, and with what
reverence received the Sacraments of Christ's Church,
and especially the Sacrament which Christ has ordained
a passport and safe conduct for a Christian man into
the haven of everlasting rest, and therefore called
Viaticum and after that, extreme unction: all this,
if it were as pithily expressed as she godly and
devoutly did it, should be to you more than ten
sermons. If angels were mortal, I would rather
liken her departure to the death of an angel than
of a mortal creature. Let us dedicate ourselves to
God's service, remaining under His obedience, and
within the unity of His Church: within the which
none can perish, neither without it be saved."†
Extraordinary reports arose forthwith concerning
an effusion so easily liable to be misunderstood.
Jewel at Strasburg was informed that White had
made a violent and furious harangue, charging the
people that they should go to any extremity rather
than allow religion to be altered, and that as for the
* White was wrong in saying that Mary refused to be called Head of
the Church of England: see Vol. IV. p. 74 huj. op. Burnet says that
the contrary is on record in the writs that were sealed for above a year
after she came to the crown.-Pocock's Burnet.
+ White's sermon is given by Strype in his Mem. Eccl. of Mary,
Original, No. 81. Large extracts are given by Tierney in his Dodd,
vol. ii. App. 32.
12
[CH. XXXI.
Treatment of White,
returning exiles, whosoever should kill them would
do a good deed.* The matter was not allowed to
pass without notice. White was ordered to keep
his house, on a charge of sedition which is said to
have been brought by the Marquis of Winchester
and Heath the Lord Chancellor. In about a month,
however, he was called before the Council, reprimanded
"for such offences as he had committed in his sermon,"
and discharged.t
The outbreaks of such high prelates as White and
Christopherson, which began the breach between
Elizabeth and her bishops, could not but serve to
increase an inconvenience which the Tudors held in
especial dread, freedom of speech, seditious words.
The Council about this time investigated several delin-
quencies of the kind. The sexton of Christopherson's
cathedral church of Chichester, John Shory, was
examined of certain lewd words said to have been
spoken by him; and the sheriffs of his county were
directed to set him in the pillory, if they found him
guilty. One Robert Forrest was ordered to be set
in the pillory in the next market town to his dwelling,
with a paper on his head containing in great letters,
“For false and slanderous reports"; and if he showed
himself unrepentant of his fault, to have one of his
ears cut off. John Buke was sent up from Essex
for lewd words, and the sheriff was thanked for his
diligence, and requested to exercise it to find any
* "Whitus tuus, in funere Mariæ, quemadmodum ad te scripsi cum
essem Basileæ, habuit ad populum insanam et turbulentissimam con-
cionem: omnia potius tentanda esse quam ut quicquam de religione
immutaretur: bonum factum, si quis exules reduces interfecerit. Accusa-
tus est seditionis a marchione Vintoniensi thesaurario, et Hetho archi-
episcopo Eboracensi." Jewel to Martyr.—Burnet (Pocock), vol. vi. p. 396
(Rec. No. 44); Zurich Lett. i. 4. (Lat.).
✦ Acts of the Privy Council, p. 45.
1558.]
and of other Persons.
13
others touched in the matter. A lewd malicious
fellow of Ashford, in Kent, was ordered to be sent
up, both his examinations and himself, to be further
examined whether he had uttered the traitorous words
which an informer alleged that he had spoken against
the Queen. Sir Thomas, the priest of St. Michael's,
in Southampton, was charged by some of the inhabi-
tants of the town with lewd words and disorder,
committed along with other persons: all concerned
were committed to the discretion of the
mayor.
Lewd words were said to have been spoken by
Christopher Savory: and the information was trans-
mitted to Sir Richard Edgecombe and Mr. Hogmore.*
On the other hand, the hidden adherents of the
Reformation, the former ministers of religion that had
been under King Edward, began to show themselves,
and to draw assemblies of people, if not in the
churches, in the streets and open places, especially in
London. One of the ministers of a congregation
which had met in secret throughout the late reign was
the leader herein and a single public discourse by
Thomas Bentham was sufficient to throw the people
into the dispute of ceremonies, and transport into
England the troubles of Frankfort.† A Proclama-
* Acts of the Privy Council, pp. 18, 19, 31, 47, 51.
+ "There be certain persons, having in times past the office of ministry
in the Church, which now do purpose to use their former office in preaching
and ministry, and partly have attempted the same: assembling, specially
in the city of London, in sundry places, great number of people: whereby
ariseth among the common sort not only unfruitful dispute in matters of
religion, but also conteņtion, and occasion to break common_quiet.”—
Proclamation to forbid preaching, Dec. 27, 1558, in Strype, Annals, App.
No. 3.
A Latin translation of this Proclamation may be seen in the
Venetian Calendar, p. 3. "The queen has forbidden any person, whether
papist or gospeller (neve papista neve minister Evangelii), to preach to the
people. Some think the reason of this to be, that there was at that time
only one minister of the word in London, namely Bentham, whereas the
number of the papists was very considerable: others think that it is
14
The Queen's Proclamation [CH. XXXI.
tion to forbid preaching, as at the beginning of
Edward, and as at the beginning of Mary, was issued
in the last days of December: it was moderate
and balanced: "to restore universal charity and
concord" was said to be her Majesty's desire: the
services and ceremonies already used and received
by law were ordered to be maintained until the
meeting of Parliament, but the Gospels and Epistles,
the Ten Commandments, the Litany, the Lord's
Prayer, and the Creed were allowed in the mean-
time in English. If the meeting of Parliament
appeared to menace the alteration of religion, the
mention of the three Estates of the realm might
reassure the clergy, and they might perceive that
the consultation of the three Estates was to be con-
fined to the matters moved at present. The model
of the Chapel Royal, where the English parts of the
services above enumerated were mingled with the
Latin, was proposed to universal imitation: and
the example of the sovereign might encourage the
spirit of reconciliation.* On Sunday, January 1, in
most parish churches of the City the Epistle and
Gospel were read in English in the time of the
owing to the circumstance that having heard only one public discourse
of Bentham's, the people began to dispute among themselves about
ceremonies, some declaring for Geneva, and some for Frankfort." Jewel
to Martyr, Strasburg, Jan. 26, 1559.—Zurich Lett. i. 7.
* Ministers were to read the Epistle and Gospel in English "without
exposition or addition of any manner, sense, or meaning to be applied or
added"; and "the common Litany used at this present in her Majesty's
own chapel, and the Lord's Prayer and the Creed in English: until
consultation may be had by her Majesty and her three Estates of the
realm."-Strype, as above. "The affairs of the religion continue as
usual, but I hear that at the court, when the Queen is present, a priest
officiates who says certain prayers with the litanies in English after the
fashion of King Edward. I pray God to grant that worse may not
happen. They then say Vespers and Compline in the old style."- Ven.
Cal., p. 1.
1558.]
to restrain Preaching.
15
Mass, and the English Procession or Litany was
used.*
The inter-religion thus established deprived neither
party of hope, and yet excited the fears of both. The
Romanensians discerned a trembling in the balances.
The behaviour of the Queen in her chapel was ques-
tionable. On Christmas Day, attending the High
Mass, which was celebrated by a bishop, she stayed
no longer than the end of the Gospel, and then with-
drew with her nobles, without offering: which seemed
strange to divers.† Another time she sent orders to
the officiant, who was a bishop, not to elevate the
Host: as he refused to obey, she rose with her atten-
dants and quitted the chapel. As the chapel was
* "Sunday the 1 of January the Lord Mayor and Aldermen gave in
commandment to every ward within the city of London that the parson
or curate in every parish church in London should read the Epistle and
Gospel of the day in the English tongue in the Mass time: and the
English procession now used in the Queen's chapel, according to
a Proclamation sent from her Majesty and her Privy Council, pro-
claimed in the city of London Xxx Decembris, which commandment was
that day observed in most parish churches of the city."-Wriothesley,
143. See also Hayward, 5 and 13, who calls it the first note of the coming
alterations.
+ Sir W. Fitzwilliam, apud Ellis, Orig. Lett., Ser. 2, ii. 262.
This is generally regarded as the same incident with the former; and
it is generally said that Oglethorpe was the bishop. So Camden, Strype,
Cardinal Allen (Answer to Engl. Justice, p. 51), and others. But Dodd
says that the bishop was Heath. This is unlikely if there was only one
incident, and that on Christmas Day, for Heath had resigned the Great
Seal three days before, and would hardly have appeared in the Queen's
chapel so soon afterwards. Heylin says that some said it was a bishop,
and others a priest. Daniel, Dean of Hereford, deposed in the Curia at
Rome in 1570 that on Christmas Day it was Oglethorpe who was forbidden
but persisted and that he himself on St. Stephen's Day was requested to
celebrate, but without elevation, by the dean of the chapel in the Queen's
name: that he refused to obey, whereupon her chaplain Minter celebrated
without elevation.-Raynaldus, sub ann. 1558, or Lewis's Sanders' Angl.
Schism, p. 242. I have ventured to think there was more than one incident,
and more than one bishop concerned. And this is confirmed by the account
sent by the Spanish ambassador, who wrote: "On the Sunday of Christmas-
16
No further Change yet. [CH. XXXI.
J
or
propounded for the model, some forward persons
beheld in her behaviour an example to be followed in
other places of worship at the Elevation.* Such inci-
dents increased the alienation between Elizabeth and
the bishops, who, by their position, more than the
other clergy, were both bound to stand by the old
religion and brought in contact with the new Queen.
Nevertheless, to outward view, the preponderance
seemed to incline very much toward the Romanen-
sians. The face of things. was unchanged. The
Mass was celebrated in all churches, and all ceremonies
were observed. The Queen and her subjects con-
tinued to go to confession. Splendid processions still
perambulated the streets.
streets. To the Evangelics,
Gospellers, or whatever we may name them, the
danger seemed to be that this enforced peace or com-
promise might be permanent through worldly policy.
They saw themselves excluded from the parish
churches, unless they would witness the Mass: and
they asked themselves whether this exclusion would
continue even after the coming consultation of the
realm. Many of them had frequented the churches
and witnessed the Mass, it is probable, under the stress
of the persecution for fear of losing their lives: but,
with the inconsistency of human nature, they regarded
tide the Queen before going to Mass sent for the bishop of Carlisle who
was to officiate, and told him that he need not elevate the Host for
adoration. The bishop answered that she was mistress of his body and
life, but not of his conscience: and so she heard Mass till after the
Gospel, when she arose and left, so as not to be present at the canon, and
adoration of the Host, which the bishop elevated as usual. They tell me
that yesterday she heard Mass said by another bishop who was requested
not to elevate the Host, and acted accordingly: and she heard it to the
end.”—Spanish Calendar, p. 17. So the Venetian Calendar, p. 2.
* At least so Heylin reports: "All other churches being commanded
to conform themselves to the example of the Chapel, the elevation was
forborne also in most other places, to the great discontent and trouble of
the Popish party."
1558.] Disappointment of the Evangelics.
17
*
less the relief than the hardship of their present
position. In reality the advantage lay with them.
To meet them as far as it might be, the Queen now
allowed them to have worship, not indeed in the
streets or public places, but in "open private houses":
thus, in a curious manner, sanctioning meetings that
bore resemblance to those conventicles which it was
always the policy of the Tudors and of the age to
prevent. At these permitted gatherings some touch-
ing scenes had place. Many persons who had com-
plied against their conscience during the persecution
came, when the Lord's Supper was administered, con-
fessing their public offence and seeking reconciliation
with tears. They were received with tears, reconciled,
and admitted to communion.† Nor were all parish
churches denied to the Gospellers. In spite of the
Proclamation the curates of some parishes preached,
or invited known preachers into their pulpits; and
wherever it was known that a sermon was to be had,
the people flocked together. A notable case shewed
* See Lever's important letter to Bullinger, August, 1559, in which he
says, that on the accession of Elizabeth they were permitted by the
Queen to assemble "in open private houses, but in no public churches
(in privatis ædibus apertis, sed in nullis publicis templis permittebantur):
and that "the magistrates connived at their frequent assembling in private
houses."-Zurich Lett., ii. 29.
+ "Large numbers flocked to them, not in the churches, but in private
houses. And when the Lord's Supper was administered among them, no
strangers were admitted except such as were kept pure from papistry and
all notorious sin; or who, ingenuously acknowledging their backsliding
and public offence, humbly sought pardon and reconciliation in the
presence of all. I have frequently been present on such occasions, and
have seen many returning with tears, and some likewise with tears
receiving such into communion; so that nothing could be more delightful
than the mutual tears of all, the one part bewailing their sins, the other
congratulating them on their reconciliation and renewed communion in
Christ Jesus."-Ib.
"Some of us preachers, who had returned from Germany, considering
that the silence imposed for a long and uncertain period was not agreeable
VOL. V.
C
18
[CH. XXXI.
Account of the Riot
a growing boldness, and offered a test of an uncertain
situation. The church of St. Augustine, or of Friars
Austin, was assigned to the Italians in the late reign,
and there they held their worship still. It seemed
good to the Gospellers or Evangelics to storm this
stronghold of the foreign religion. At Christmastide,
some of them, returned exiles among them, sent to
the Italian Consul and demanded the key: were
refused: broke the door in: preached four sermons
there in one day.* The Italians complained vainly
to the Lord High Treasurer, Winchester, who lived.
hard by; for he shrugged his shoulders, and begged
them not to refer the matter to him. The Italian Consul
then went to the Lord Mayor, who referred him to the
to the command and injunction of Paul to preach the word of God in
season and out of season, having been requested to do so, forthwith
preached the Gospel in certain parish churches, to which a numerous.
audience eagerly flocked together. And when we solemnly treated of
conversion to Christ by true repentance, many tears from many persons
bore witness that the preaching of the Gospel is more effectual to true
repentance and wholesome reformation than anything that the whole
world can either imagine or approve. For while this was done among
private persons, without the sanction of public authority, at the very
same time Masses were being celebrated with all the idolatrous supersti-
tion of popery among persons of wealth, influence, and high official
position, with the authority of law, proclamation, and custom.”—Lever's
letter, as above.
* So the Spanish ambassador says: but the Venetian more reasonably
indicates two churches for the sermons. "On Christmas Day in the
church of St. Augustine, assigned to the Italian nation, two individuals,
whom I will not call preachers, for they were mechanics and cobblers,
followed by a very great mob, entered by force, breaking the locks of the
doors. Both of them leaped into the pulpit, and book in hand commenced
reading and preaching to the people, one following the other, uttering
a thousand ribaldries concerning the reign of Queen Mary of blessed
memory and of Cardinal Pole, and vituperating the people for the errors
they had committed in believing their former teachers. A fine meta-
morphosis, two rogues preaching at once in the same pulpit! This was
in the morning: in the afternoon they did the like in the new church of
St. Anthony, which was heretofore assigned to the French nation: and
also on St. Stephen's Day."- Ven. Cal., p. 2. For the Spanish account
see next note.
1558.] at St. Augustine's Church.
19
Council: the Council promised to make enquiry. As
nothing was done, the Spanish ambassador, an astute
and resolute man, intervened, letting the Council know
that they were doing what would be displeasing to his
royal master. To him the Queen sent an indirect and
tardy expression of regret: a second Proclamation, of
which however he approved not, essayed to lock the
pulpits more completely: and Paul's Cross at least
echoed no more to either voice until the following
Easter. *
* The history of this second Proclamation has been somewhat obscure
hitherto. It is not in Burnet, Strype, or Wilkins. The text of it seems
not extant. The authorities for it hitherto are Heylin (p. 271, Robertson)
and Hayward (5), who give a short account of it: that it forbad preaching
without license and authority, and that no licensed one should treat of
controversies, or move dispute touching government in religion, either for
altering or retaining the existing form. One of them says it was issued
about the same time as the other Proclamation; the other, soon after it.
It was issued through the affair of St. Augustine's church: of which the
only record seems to be in the interesting letters of the Spanish and
Venetian ambassadors. The former says that the outrage was on
Christmastide, and that Sir Nicolas Throckmorton, whom he calls
a knave, was present when the church was broken open. As the
Council took no action in the matter, he sent his newly come assistant,
the Bishop of Aquila, to remonstrate with them. The Queen then,
Dec. 27, sent him a message thanking him for what the bishop had said
to them, that the affair had much displeased her, and to prevent the like
she had issued a new proclamation prohibiting preaching. Sir Peter
Carew, who brought the message, offered to bring him a copy, if he
cared to see it. He declined. “I said I thought best to send and speak
to the Council about the St. Augustine's affair, as it seemed to me a very
scandalous business. I had nothing to say about the new Proclamation,
as her Majesty would order it to be printed, and I had no desire to see it,
but it certainly did seem strange to me that only a month ago she should
order a proclamation to be printed providing that no change should be
made in religious affairs, and now to issue another in a contrary sense.
I did not know what would be thought of it. I was reserved in manner,
and expressed great surprise."-Spanish Calendar, pp. 16, 17, 19, 20.
There is no minute of the Spaniard's interference in the Acts of the
Council; nor of the affair at all of St. Augustine's. But there is mention
that on Dec. 28, "ten Proclamations of one tenour," that is, ten copies of
one proclamation, "for the inhibiting of preachers" were sent to the Lord
Mayor to be published next day in the city, "and to be set up where the
people may see and read it."—Dasent's Acts, p. 31. As the St. Augustine's
tr
C 2
20
[CH. XXXI.
The Device for the
These measures, so moderate and reasonable, were
indeed but the first shakings. The alteration of reli-
gion was deliberated from the beginning of Elizabeth
by herself and the men about her: and a notable
Device for the purpose, which is extant in several
copies, exhibits the prudence and resolution with which
they surveyed the situation. By question and answer
they reduced to categorical distinctness the work to be
done and the difficulties to be faced, the method and
way to be taken, the persons, time, and place that best
would serve. When shall the Queen attempt to
reduce the Church of England to the former purity?
it was asked: it was answered, at the next Parliament.
What dangers may ensue? Rome, France, Scotland,
Ireland, home. The Bishop of Rome will excommuni-
cate the Queen, interdict the realm, and stir up all
princes to invade it. The French King will then fight
against us, not only as enemies, but heretics. Scotland
the same. Ireland will be difficultly stayed in obedience,
the clergy there being so addicted to Rome. At home
many will be discontented who were hot and earnest
in the other religion, as bishops* and judges and
affair made such a stir, it is curious that it should not be mentioned among
the contemporaries, such as Machyn. Observe: 1. That there were two
proclamations, issued close on one another, Dec. 27 and 29: that of the
latter the ten copies which the Council made were perhaps all that were
ever made, which will account for its disappearance: that the latter was
not contrary to the former, but was a hasty attempt to make the former
more stringent, and was called forth by the St. Augustine's affair.
2. That when the Spanish ambassador said that the latter was contrary
to the former, and that there was a month between them, he could not
have been thinking of the former of these two, which had only been
issued two days before: for he said this on Dec. 29. He probably had
never seen or heard of it: it was probably one of the many things of
which he was kept ignorant. He was thinking of Elizabeth's Proclama-
tion at her accession, which was issued a month or more before, and
which was contrary to both these new ones, as it forbad any attempt to
alter "any order or usage presently established within the realm."
* "Bishops and all the clergy will see their own ruin: in confession
1
1558.]
alteration of Religion.
21
justices. What remedy for these dangers? Rome is
not much to be feared, from whom nothing but evil
will, cursing, and practising is to be feared. For
France, try for peace; kindle religious controversy.
Scotland the same: augment the hope of them who
incline them to good religion: and fortify Berwick and
get demilances. Ireland wants some money spent on
it. How is the alteration to be done? Dismiss those
of the late Queen's Council who were chosen for being
earnest in the Pope's religion: debase them, and dis-
credit them in their counties; if they seem to bear
with the new alteration, credit them not lightly: search
them by law. On the other hand, advance her High-
ness's old servants who have not shrunk in the late
storm. Get money out of the bishops and clergy
to relieve her Majesty's necessity: for the bishops
and clergy took from the crown and extorted from
private men, and enriched themselves every way in
the late Queen's time. Put them under præmunire,
or any other penal law, and pardon them not till they
abjure the Pope and conform themselves. So of other
offices, such as justices, lieutenants, captains; let no
office be in any discontented man's hands. As a rule,
turn out old men and put in young men, young gentle-
men, which do favour her Highness. Make a sharp
law against assemblies of people without authority.
When is the alteration to be made, is it to tarry?
Let some learned men draw a plot or book, and
bring it to her Majesty, to be then put into the
Parliament house: Bill, Parker, May, Cox, Whitehead,
Pilkington, are meet men; let Sir Thomas Smith call
and preaching and all other ways and means they can, will persuade the
people from it: they will conspire with whosoever will attempt to do God
a sacrifice in letting the alteration, though it be with murder of Christian
men or treason."
22
[CH. XXXI.
Elizabethan Notes
i
them together and be amongst them, and let them
meet at his house.* Let Lords Northampton,
Bedford, Pembroke, and John Grey be made privy
to these proceedings before it be opened to the
whole Council. There must be no innovation until
the book come forth. When it comes forth, it is to be
expected that some will see some old ceremonies left,
and be discontented because all doctrine but their own
is not abolished, and call the alteration a cloaked
papistry and a mingle-mangle. In the interim, for
her Majesty's conscience, there may be some other
devout prayer or memory, and the seldomer Mass:
and when there are several chaplains at the Mass
they should always communicate with the executor
in both kinds."†
!
* This was the body of divines who produced the Elizabethan Book of
Common Prayer. See next chapter, p. 97.
+ Strype, App. iv., printed the Device out of a Cotton MS. Burnet
(Bk. iii. Coll. 1) printed it "out of a Book of Sir Thomas Smith." See
Pocock's remarks in his Burnet (v. 497). Strype thinks it was drawn up
either by the worthy John Hales or by Sir T. Smith. It was reprinted
from Strype in Tierney's Dodd, ii. 123, and App. No. 33. There is an
abstract of it in Stevenson's Foreign Cal. of Eliz., p. 19. Lingard
describes it too much as if it had been an organic scheme rather than
hints and suggestions: "The following plan was submitted to the appro-
bation of the queen: 1. to forbid all manner of sermons, that the
preachers might not excite their hearers to resistance; 2. to intimidate
the clergy by prosecutions under the Statutes of Præmunire and other
penal laws; 3. to debase in the eyes of the people all who had been in
authority under the late queen by rigorous enquiries into their conduct,
and by bringing them whenever it were possible under the lash of the
law; 4. to remove the present magistrates, and appoint others meaner
in substance and younger in years, but better affected to the reformed
doctrines; 5. to name a secret committee of divines, who should revise
and correct the liturgy published by Edward VI." As to the authorship
of the Device, it is not improbable that it belongs to a committee. At the
end of the year, it seems, there were five committees formed by the
Council, consisting of themselves and other persons, for several purposes :
one of which was "For consideration of all things necessary for the
Parliament.”—Acts, p. 28. This particular committee was entirely of
judges and lawyers, among them Sir Thomas Smith and Gooderick.
1558.]
in the Device.
23
Many Elizabethan notes were struck thus early in
this remarkable paper: the young men "of the Queen's
devotion," the unscrupulous politics, the defiance of
Rome, the plunder of the clergy, the religious plat-
form of Edward, the restraint of the extreme Calvinians
and Zwinglians, are among the main forces or prin-
ciples of her reign. In the language there is blunt
accuracy. The Romanensians are "the Papist sect."
The opposition of the bishops and all the clergy which
is anticipated is set down to this, that "they will see
their own ruin." Among the means proposed for
the alteration was the revision of the Book of
Common Prayer, and a new Act for Uniformity: this
it was feared would oppress some who wanted religion
set free from prescription: "but better it were that
they did suffer than that her Highness and the
commonwealth should shake." The study of the
popular will was manifest. The Device was carried
out in the chief particulars, and with the secrecy
that was recommended in it. The divines, who were
enumerated to revise the Prayer Book, set to work
at once, and, before the rest was finished, put forth
the Litany and some other prayers, as "used in the
Queen's Majesty's Chapel, according to the tenor of
the Proclamation." It was in this edition that from
the English Litany the petition against "the tyranny
of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormi-
ties," which was in the Litanies of Henry and Edward,
was expunged. To use it would have been impossible
at the time. But it may be noted that a surreptitious
or accidental issue of the Litany, containing that
petition, appeared at the same moment to heighten
Strype may have been right in assigning the authorship to Smith.
About these five Committees of Council, a very important matter, see
below.
24
[CH. XXXI.
Constitution of
•
the dismay, or fortify the resolution of the Roman-
ensians.*
Secrecy, quietness, rapidity, marked all the state
affairs of the first days and weeks. The Council of
Mary melted imperceptibly into the Council of Eliza-
beth, and yet the changes made were effected in
a month from Mary's death. She had been dead
but three days when Sir Thomas Parry entered the
conclave as Comptroller of the Household, and
Cornwallis appeared no more: Sir Edward Rogers
became Vice-Chamberlain instead of the lightly dis-
* The Parker Society have published two Litanies of this period: one
without title, printer's name, or date, and yet rightly assigned by them to
this year, 1558. It contains the petition to be delivered "from the
tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities”: and
the editor therefore suggests that it was 66 an unauthorised publication of
the Protestants (so he calls them), solicitous to recover their lost ground
after the death of Mary." I am rather inclined to think it a hasty
publication of the Revisers of the Prayer Book (as described above),
inadvertently retaining the offensive clause. This Litany has another
curious feature or two. It uses "dolour" for "sorrows" in the versicle
"Pitifully behold": herein following either the Litany in the Ordinal of
Edward VI of 1549, or else his Primer of 1547, which was a reprint of
Henry's Primer of 1545. But that it was not the Ordinal but the Primer
that was followed appears from this, that this Litany has three collects in
it which are not in the Ordinal and are in the Primer. Edward's Ordinal
then was not the original used for this republication: nor were (of course)
either of his Prayer Books, which have none of these peculiarities. The
point is that Edward's Books must have got scarce, if none could be
had to print from. His first Book and his first Ordinal must have been
largely destroyed under Mary: his second Book had not been widely
spread in the seven months that it existed. As to the other Elizabethan
Litany, published by the Parker Society, it was printed by Jugge, with
the title "The Litany used in the Queen's Majesty's Chapel, according to
the tenor of the Proclamation, Anno Christi, 1559." From this "the
Bishop of Rome and his enormities” disappear, and the other peculiarities
above mentioned. Edward's Second Book was followed in this edition,
and from it were added to the Litany the Special Prayers (for Rain, &c.)
and the Prayer for the Queen, beginning, "O Lord our heavenly
Father." The Creed and Commandments, and a number of Graces for
meals, superadded from the Primer, showed that the other original was
not forgotten.
1558.]
the Privy Council.
25
graced Bedingfield, and was sworn of the Council;
Cecil took the place of Dr. Boxall, Archdeacon of
Ely, as Principal Secretary. The Archbishop of York
made his last appearance at the Board as Keeper
of the Great Seal on the 6th of December: his place
was filled, December 23, by Sir Nicolas Bacon. The
Lord Montague and seven or eight others found
themselves superseded by the Earls of Bedford,
Derby, and Northampton, and by Cave, Sadler,
Sackville.* Of the old Council eight only adorned
the new: Pembroke, Arundel, Howard, Shrewsbury,
Winchester, Clinton, Petre, Mason. The administra-
tion thus formed appear presently to have assigned
some of their number into committees, in conjunction
with other persons of state not of the Council, for
certain definite purposes: of these committees one
was "for the consideration of all things necessary for
the Parliament": of this committee, and of Sir Thomas
Smith, a member of it, the Device for the alteration
of religion, which we have been reviewing, may be
conjectured to have been the work of another
member of the same committee, Gooderick the lawyer,
the intelligence was expressed in another remarkable
paper concerning "Divers Points of Religion contrary
to the Church of Rome."† The royal supremacy was
* Hume says that Elizabeth retained eleven of her sister's councillors,
adding eight others. He seems to have founded this upon Strype's list
in his Mem. of Mary (III. ii. 479), who enumerates thirty-five coun-
cillors of Mary, and marks eleven of them as retained by Elizabeth. The
list is not quite accurate as the newly published Council Acts, carefully
edited by Mr. Dasent, enables us to see. It includes the Earl of Derby
and Sir Ric. Sackville, who were new comers; and Sir Thos. Cheney,
who was just dead. Sackville was probably mistaken for Sir Ric. South-
well, who was among the extruded ones.
These committees of Council were five in number: one was for the
defence of the north, another to regulate payments: the third for Ports-
mouth and the Isle of Wight: the fourth was for the purpose quoted in
the text, to make recommendations before the meeting of Parliament:
26
[CH. XXXI.
An Account given
1
set out in this document according to the ancient
principle that the King ought not to be under man,
but under God and under law: the process of the
appointment of bishops was described: it was denied
that papal excommunication was of value in the realm :
the continual usurpation of the Pope and the grief
of the King and the temporal estates were vigorously
displayed in reciting the ancient statutes providing
remedy: and the author advised search to be made
among the records for further matter.* He esteemed
it to be "like peril" to touch or to abolish the usurpa-
this consisted of the Lord Keeper, the Judges, the Sergeants at law, the
Attorney, the Solicitor, Sir Thomas Smith, and Mr. Gooderick. The
fifth was to enquire into Mary's grants of land: we shall come to that.
The committees were formed Dec. 23.—Dasent's Acts, p. 27. Cf. Strype's
Ann. i. 24.
* "Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et sub
lege, quæ lex facit regem. Attribuat ergo rex legi quod lex attribuit ei,
dominationem et potestatem. Non enim dominatur rex ubi dominatur
voluntas et non lex, et quod lege esse debeat cum sit Dei Vicarius ad sancti-
tudinem Jesu Christi cujus vices gerit in terris (Bracton, cap. 2). Besides
it seemeth both by the Register and by Sir Antony Fitzherbert, one of the
best learned of the law in our time, that Bishops and Abbots which were of
the king's foundation (the sees and places destitute and void) were elected
and chosen by their convents and chapters by virtue of the king's writ
De Licentia eligendi, and, after the election made and certified to the king,
the king by letters patent gave his royal assent to the election, and then of
course went out a writ De restitutione temporalium, and this was of ancient
used without suit to the Pope. Excommengement was ever in the law
a sufficient exception to the person of the plaintiff or demandant so as
he (?) was not answerable: but the Defendant for proof of the same is by
the law forced to shew letters of excommunication from some ordinary
of the realm under his seal: for letters or bulls of the Pope to prove an
excommunication alleged against the plaintiff were never allowed nor
been allowable in any of the king's courts.
"Further to prove the Pope's curse was not of value in this realm. The
Archbishop of Canterbury, with divers other bishops accompanied, in
their Pontificalibus solemnly assembled, by authority of Peter and Paul
and all the Apostles without any mention of the Pope, did pronounce the
great sentence of curse against all them which infringe or put off the
Great Charter or the Charter of the Forest made and granted by King
Henry III. which excommunication or curse is inscribed among the
1558.]
of Gooderick's "Divers Points."
27
1
tion; but advised nothing to be attempted before the
Parliament, but meantime to dissemble: nor at the
Parliament, if it were soon to be holden, to do more
statutes and Acts of Parliament made in the time of the said King
Henry III.
"It appears also from time to time that as well the King as all the
temporal states of the realm were grieved with the continual usurpation
of the Pope and his clergy, and for reformation, as they might, they
provided remedies ever since that time: as, statutes for alienation to
mortmain, præmunire for prevention of benefices, for suits to Rome, or in
any spiritual court for matter determinable in the King's courts by the
laws of the realm. And yet in all those times it is to be considered that
the spiritualty were counsellors about the king, and were for the authority
and not [illegible] the Parliament.
"If search were had amongst the records of the Exchequer of older
time, and in the Tower, I think there would be found more matter against
the said usurpation.
((
My lord Rich hath, I think, old gatherings of records and other
matters for the proof of the Papists, for because he was the King's
Solicitor at the time the Pope was banished with his authority in the 26`
year of King Henry VIII.
"Which matter will be good to stir the nobility and commons to
devotion of the liberty of the realm and against the usurpation of the
Pope.
"Like peril is it, in mine opinion, to touch his authority in part as
utterly to abolish it. Therefore it seemeth very necessary well to consider
of this matter for his weight, and for the danger that may ensue before it
be meddled either by Parliament or otherwise.
"Besides many other examples, King John, of this realm sometime
king, may be a warning: who for his kicking at his authority and dealing
with the state of the clergy, was brought into the peril you know, to the
danger of his state, the only cause thereof the mighty and princely state
of the clergy, which, albeit it be not so strong as it was then, yet con-
sidering the time is more dangerous, and they by time grown more
malicious and their glorious state more tickle, and by more experience
grown more wiser and wiser: without the bridling it may not in mine
opinion be attempted. And before the Parliament nothing against him.
may be attempted, but dissembled withal in the meantime: nor at the
Parliament, if it be holden before or in March next, I think his authority
not to be touched, nor anything to be attempted there of matters in
religion, except the repeal of the Statutes of Henry IV. and V., repealed in
the time of King Henry VIII. and revived by Queen Mary, unrepealed:
all proceedings by the Bishops ex officio shall be thereby taken away,
and thereby all quiet persons may live safely. In the meantime her
Majesty and all her subjects may by license of law use the English
Litany and suffrages used in King Henry's time, and besides her
28
Gooderick's "Points."
[CH. XXXI.
than repeal the persecuting statutes and stop all pro-
ceedings by the bishops ex officio: that for the present
the service used in the Queen's chapel, the English
Litany and suffrages, must suffice all subjects, but that
Homilies in English might be prepared, treating of
necessary things and not of matters of controversy.
He advised that married priests might remain un-
Majesty in her closet may use the Mass without lifting up above the
Host according to the ancient Canons, and may also have at every Mass
some communicants with the ministers to be used in both kinds.
"Her Majesty may also wink at the married priests, so they use their
wives secretly, as some of them did in Queen Mary's time, and suffer them :
nay, rather authorise the learned and discreet sort of them to preach the
Gospel purely without inveighing against any sect except Anabaptists
and Arians.
"It were good also that certain Homilies in English were published,
to be read in every church, treating of most necessary matters of our
religion plainly and simply, not meddling with any matter in controversy.
"I think it most necessary that, before any pardon published after
the old manner at the Coronation, certain of the principal prelates be
committed to the Tower, and some other their addicted friends and late
counsellors to the Queen that dead is, and all the rest commanded to keep
their houses, and that no person other than of the household have any
access to them, so as there be exception comprehending all such out of
the Pardon.
“Item. That all the arms, weapons and horses which they or any of
them have, be taken from them by the most trustiest in every county by
bill indented to serve the Queen's Majesty as occasion shall be ministered
likewise for all persons of all sorts.
"I would also at that time [illegible] the sending to Rome any
message or letters, and if [illegible] be any, I would have letters sent to
the Agent there to continue his residence, and to advertise as occasion
shall be given without desire of any audience, and if he should be sent
for, that he should signify that he understood from hence that there was
a great embassage either already despatched or ready to be despatched
for the affairs: whose despatch I would should be published with the
persons' names, and yet treated so as it should pass the most part of the
next summer: and in the meantime to have good consultation what is to
be done at home, and do it: and thereafter send..."-State Pap. Domes-
tic, Elizabeth, vol. i. No. 68: cf. Turnbull's Cal., p. 119. This paper is
endorsed by Cecil, “Gooderick, Divers Points of Religion contrary to
the Ch. of Ro." It seems not to have been published hitherto. The
original is difficult and imperfect. There is a transcript next after in the
volume: but this also is imperfect where the other is.
1
1558.]
The Financial Scrutiny.
29
troubled, and the more learned of them be authorised
to preach, so that they refrained from inveighing
against any sect except Anabaptists and Arians. It
gives proof of the hostile determination of the govern-
ment against the prelates that he recommended that
some of them should be imprisoned in the Tower
or in their houses, that they might be excepted from
the customary pardon at the coming coronation; that
their retainers should be disarmed. As to Rome he
would dally, keeping the resident there, and through
him, if occasion were, giving expectation of a great
embassy to arrive.
Of the financial scrutiny, which was set on foot
concurrent with the reign, some monuments that
remain may be attributed to another of these com-
mittees of Council, which was "to understand what
lands were granted from the Crown in the late Queen's
time.". The gifts of Mary to religion and to justice
were found to have reached, for a moiety of her reign,
the sum total of fifty thousand pounds:* “all this
* I have ventured to associate with this committee of Council a docu-
ment in the Record Office, Eliz. Domestic, i. No. 64, which Turnbull
calendars as "Names of noblemen and others attainted in the reigns of
H. 8 and Ed. 6, and restored in Queen Mary: of religious houses erected
by Mary, of lands given to Card. Pole and abbey lands, and grants from
the possessions of attainted persons."-Cal. Dom., p. 119. From this it
seems that Bishop White's laudation that "she restored more noble
houses decayed than ever did prince of this realm was well founded;
for twenty-two attainted persons were restored by her, and received lands
to near ten thousand pounds. The paper, which is of some length, is thus
endorsed:
Religious houses restored.
""
£
3,982
Attainted persons restored
9,776
Gifts of abbey lands.
2,794
Gifts of attainted lands
7,456
24,008
Given to Card. Pole:
Parsonages impropriate and other tithes.
Firstfruits and tenths
10,000
15,000
30
Details concerning the State [CH. XXXI.
1
was given in three years," observed the indignant
tellers, dividing it into religious houses refounded
and attainted persons restored, and discovering that
one-fifth of the whole had been granted to Cardinal
Pole to remain to the see of Canterbury, and that one-
half of the whole consisted of firstfruits and tenths.
In remedy active measures were taken. Pole's comp-
troller, Fortescue, was apprehended; * Pole's papers
were seized: Pole's plate, or part of it, was thought
meet by the officers of the Jewel House for the use
of the Queen; and his executor Priuli was requested
to send it thither on sale or return: of Pole's furniture,
horses, bedding, and wardrobe, inventories were taken;
the manor and park of Canterbury were taken in
charge for the Crown.† As to firstfruits and tenths,
Mary's benefactions, however, had drawbacks. As to Pole's portion, the
ten thousand here mentioned, Priuli, his executor, affirmed that it was so
encumbered with pensions as to leave a deficit, until some of the pensioners
died off: when it became possible to levy £8,000 from the property: that
this was collected by the bishops and sent to Pole, and was all that ever
reached him: that Pole gave it to the Queen for the wants of the war, but
that she in compensation made over to the bishops presentations to many
rectories in her gift, which they considered of much greater value.-Ven.
Cal., p. 1557. Mary's generosity, especially in the point of giving back,
I may add, their lands to families that had forfeited them, received a
poetical tribute from Throckmorton's Ghost, p. 34 :
'And sure Queen Mary was most merciful,
Though nursed up in superstition :
Was ever English prince so bountiful
To subjects? Mark her restitution,
Not of their blood alone, but of their lands,
Which thus remained in her princely hands.”
* "A letter to the Earl of Rutland, to cause one Fortescue, late
comptroller to the late Cardinal, to be apprehended and kept in safe
ward in his house, so as to have not conference with any, until he shall
further understand from the Lords."—Nov. 22, 1558, Dasent's Acts, p. 5.
+ These measures were taken partly to help Priuli.-Acts of Council,
p. 31. I do not know that Pole's executor was unfairly dealt with, or that
this has been alleged. "Two days after his death," wrote the Spanish
ambassador to Philip, "the Queen sent Rutland, Throckmorton, and the
uncle of Peter Carew to embargo his goods, and take an inventory of
7
1558.]
of Dioceses and Sees.
31
letters were issued to all the dioceses to make pay-
ment forthwith either to the ministers of the late
Cardinal, or to such as should be appointed by the
Archbishop of York and the rest of the Council.
All rents and other dues that lay at the disposition
of the late Cardinal were ordered by proclamation
to be paid within a week to the Council's collectors.*
In the Queen's necessity, for the mysterious Tudor
disease of beggary was reappearing, an interested eye
was turned on the vacant bishoprics: for "to survey
the office of the Treasurer of the Chamber, and to
assign the order of payment" was the specific object
of another of the committees of Council: and it may
be concluded that it was by that authority that the
Treasurer of the Chamber, Sir John Mason, was
directed to cause process to be made with all speed
for the answering of the temporalities of Canterbury,
Norwich, Rochester, Bristol, Oxford, Chichester,
Hereford, Salisbury, Gloucester, and Bangor.† To
the Treasurer of the Chamber, it was assigned also
to extract from the Proctors of the Arches all sums
them, as he was thought a very wealthy man, and must have been so, if
he received what they say he did. It was a mercy for God to take him,
and I do not think your majesty loses much with him."-Span. Cal., p. 3.
He also says that Pole's papers were seized, and that his long apology to
the Pope fell into Elizabeth's hands.—Ib. pp. 42, 63, 65; cf. Vol. IV. p. 673
huj. op. The pathetic letters of Priuli to his brother confirm all this.
He says that Pole was reported to have hundreds of thousands of crowns,
Ven. Cal., p. 1553; but he shows that on the contrary Pole was poor, ib.
1557. The inventories of Pole's goods are calendared in Domest. Cal.,
pp. 115, 116. The chests and coffers of the late Cardinal were examined
by the Custom House, and suffered to pass beyond the sea.-Dasent's
Acts of Council, p. 72.
Strype has embedded most
in the Record Office a letter
* Dasent, pp. 31, 37, 47; Strype, i. 37.
of the Council Book in his work. There is
from Bonner to the Council, acknowledging their order for payment of
firstfruits of benefices impropriate within his diocese.-Turnbull's Cal.
Dom., p. 120.
+ Acts of Council, p. 28; Strype, i. 13.
32
[CH. XXXI.
Prisoners set free.
of money that had been levied in the late persecution
because of heresy; for though the bodies of heretics.
might be released, it was a different thing with their
fines. For this purpose the Bishop of London was
cited to produce before the Council all the Com-
missions that had been issued for the examination
of heresy in the late reign.*
The enlargement of the surviving prisoners for
religion was not delayed. By order of the Council
eight were released from Colchester Castle, namely,
Richard George, John Pilgrim, James Wilson, Elizabeth
Young, Alice Mitchell, Christian Cramp, John Host,
and Edward Grew: of whom Elizabeth Young was
the most notable.† From the gaol of Salisbury
"certain poor prisoners committed thither by the
Bishop's officers and others" were ordered to be
discharged after enquiry: from Maidstone gaol were
discharged four women, Joan Saunders, Agnes Terre,
་
* "A letter to the Bishop of London to repair hither tomorrow at two
of the clock in the afternoon, and at his coming to resort to Mr. Vice-
chamberlain's chamber, and to bring with him all such Commissions as
were made to him and others for the examination and ordering of heresies
and other misorders in the Church in the time of the late Queen."-Acts,
p. 36, or Strype, i. 58. In a subsequent entry in the Council Book the
Proctors of the Arches, Saye, Warmington, and Babham, are ordered to
pay to Mason, the Treasurer of the Chamber, "all such sums of money
as remain in their hands of such fines as were levied of divers' persons in
the time of the late Queen by order of the Bishop of London and other
Commissioners for examination of heresies and other misdemeanours in
the Church."-Acts, p. 43.
+ Acts, pp. 26 and 44; Strype, i. 38, 39. Fox has given the nine examina-
tions of Elizabeth Young before Bonner and others. She had favour
shown her by her last examiner the Dean, who admitted two women to
be surety for her, telling her that if they had said earnestly for her so had
he; and afterwards discharged her sureties without, apparently, proceeding
with her. Fox also mentions the case of Edward Grew, who was a married
priest, very old, who had gone from place to place "to keep a good
conscience," that is, probably, to avoid hearing Mass, till at last he was
taken and laid in Colchester Castle.
Acts, p. 34; Strype, i. 38, 39.
114
1558.]
Others imprisoned.
33
Joan Valeant, and Margaret Atterbury.* From the
prison of Bury was delivered an ancient matron,
Elizabeth Lawson, who had been there nearly three
years; and, condemned to be burned, had in the
interval endured the burning of her son. A con-
demned person could not be discharged without
sureties: her sureties grew alarmed, and alarmed
her, after her discharge; she was about to undertake
a journey with a supplication to present to Queen
Elizabeth about Christmas, when death broke the
bond and stayed the journey.† In the turn of affairs
several officials who had been active in the late perse-
cution found themselves consigned to the safe keeping
to which they had entrusted others. Francis, the
summoner of the Archdeacon of London, Harpsfield,
was committed to the Gatehouse at Westminster;
Bonner's chaplain, Morwen, was committed to the
Fleet. Mountfort and Sabeste, the Commissary and
Registrar of the Bishop of Lincoln, were served with
letters of appearance. The like befel Harpsfield,
the Archdeacon of Canterbury, whose case was more
serious. Some number of the clergy in different parts
of the country were seized for preaching, contrary to
the Proclamation, probably against the alteration of
religion. The Spanish priests and friars began to
* Acts, p. 37; Strype, i. 39.
+ Fox. His phrase is nobler: "God brake the bond and shortened
her journey; for He took her home to Himself out of this life in peace."
But Francis was only in prison for two days.-Dasent, Acts, pp. 37, 38.
Morwen (rather than Murren or Marren) was only in for three weeks.
He was released on condition of confessing his contempt, in preaching
contrary to the Proclamation, publicly in the church where he committed
it.—Ib. pp. 59, 67.
§ Ib. pp. 50, 51. The well-known Harpsfield, it is said, "hath used
himself of late very disorderly in stirring up the people to sedition as
much as in him lieth." A servant of Christ Church of Canterbury had said
that "religion could not nor should not be altered," &c.-Ib. pp. 53, 54.
|| Such cases are in the Council Book, Dasent or Strype.
VOL. V.
D
34
[CH. XXXI.
Return of the Exiles.
take their departure out of the realm. One of them
was arrested at Bristol for unseemly words uttered
against the Queen.*
་
At the same time the wolves of Bishop White began
to return. The exiles for religion contained the most
weighty names that survived from the persecution :
but Horne, Sandys, Parkhurst, or even Jewel or Grindal
scarcely compensated such heads as had fallen in the
fire. They were of one colour. This colour had
grown deeper in their banishment. But they were
men of holiness and learning, the most of them: and
their early return was welcome to their destitute party
in the Church. Among the first to arrive, Sampson,
Sandys, Horne, Jewel, Grindal, came from Strasburg
by way of Antwerp in midwinter, the frozen Rhine
forbidding a nearer passage.† Lever and the colony
at Arau were not long behind them. Of the church
at Frankfort some came back at once, as Cox and
Whitehead; others a little later, Pilkington and Nowell
among them. From Geneva about the end of the
year came Coverdale, Goodman, and others; and
among the learned laymen who now returned home
from several places may be mentioned Sir Antony
Cook, Sir Francis Knollys, Sir Thomas Wroth, and
John Hales. But some of the exiles tarried still in
their quarters, to wait the process of events, or to finish
the works on which they were engaged. Whittingham,
a layman, stayed in Geneva to edit the new transla-
tion of the Bible, which issued a year later from the
* Dasent's Acts of the Council, p. 63.
+ Zurich Letters, p. 6; Grindal's Rem. 237.
+
‡ 1b. 2nd ser., p. 2. Compare on the subject of the return of the exiles,
Strype's Ann., ch. vii; Burnet, iii. 467 seq. (Pocock). To Burnet belongs
the credit of having first examined the archives of Zurich, where the letters
are which the Parker Society published.
1558.]
Exile Literature.
35
press, and is known as the Genevan Version: Fox
remained in Basil, labouring at the first, the Latin,
publication of his great work: and thus the two books
which sank most deeply into the mind of England
through the next century and a half were fashioned
together. Nor failed the returning wanderers to
herald their coming. As Bishop White remarked,
they sent before them their tracts and letters, pestilent
and horrible. Fox sent a tract in which Germania
addressed her sister Anglia with congratulations on
the happy change, the ending of the woes of the
Church. "I protected your people," Germania said,
'flying to me. I opened to them my houses and my
churches. I could not adorn them with the riches and
splendour that they had at home: but according to
my poverty I succoured them. Now may they return
from servitude to greater amplitude and liberty." He
sent another, a Thanksgiving to Christ, in which, re-
viewing the newborn gladness, he described the suffer-
ings and distress that were passed. He sent a long
epistle to his former pupil, the young Duke of Norfolk,
with regard to the hopeful prospect of religion. All
these were printed at the press of Operinus.* At the
*
Strype, Ann., ch. vii, has given an account of these Latin writings
of Fox, with specimens in English. The very solemn "Ad Christum
Anglorum exulantium Eucharisticon" contains the following fine but
somewhat heated passage: "It was Thy great mercy first, that when we
might not be safe at home, Thou wouldest have some haven of refuge lie
open to us among Thy German people. But it was greater that, in an
unknown tongue, in unknown lands, Thou hast so kindly cherished us
and fed us so liberally: since there hath been none of us all that hath not
experienced the supplies of Thy Providence after a singular and wonderful
manner. But, above all, that is the highest, the chiefest part of our
happiness, that commiserating the condition of our deplorable country
Thy pity hath changed those most sharp flames of persecution, which
otherwise no floods could put out: that Thy merciful Eye knew, saw
and looked upon the unworthy butcheries of good men, and their bitter
torments: some whereof were spoiled of their goods, others of their
D 2
36
Circular Letter of the Exiles [CH. XXXI.
same time, from the same printer there came forth
a tract by another eloquent Latinist, Lawrence Hum-
freys, on the reformation of religion and the supremacy
of kings, addressed to the nobility, clergy, and com-
mons of England, dedicated to the Earl of Bedford:
which fell in with the work prepared for the Parlia-
ment that was soon to meet. To the Queen herself
the Genevan translators of the Bible sent a specimen
of their work in the Book of Psalms, with a pithy
exhortation.*
Before they left their foreign harbours, the exiles
endeavoured a reconcilement among themselves of the
extravagant contests which they had maintained con-
cerning worship, ceremonies, and the Book of Common
Prayer. As they were entering into joy and gladness,
it was desirable not to forfeit the precious advantage
of unity through fastidious conscience, but settle the
grounds of a common conformity, on which they might
accept unanimously the expected alteration of religion,
wherein to bear their part they were hastening home.
They of Geneva, taking the lead, addressed a circular
letter to the communities of Frankfort and Arau, to
Strasburg, Basil, and Worms; proposing a conference
for reconcilement, but at the same time dictating in
a general way the model of the continental churches.
“After that we heard the joyful tidings of God's grace
and favour in the preferment of Queen Elizabeth, we
lifted up our voices to our heavenly Father, who not
lives: many afflicted in prisons with hideous cruelties; not a few wasted
with famine perished: the faces of some were scratched and torn with
the nails of bishops, and their beards half pulled off: some lost their
hands, being at the command of the bishops roasted: and many being
put alive into the flames were reduced to ashes." It was not at the
command of the bishops that Flowers lost his hand, and that is the only
instance of mutilation in Fox's Acts and Monuments.
* Strype, Annals, ch. vii.
1558.]
in favour of Agreement.
37
only nourished us in our banishment, but heard our
prayers and pitied our country. This marvellous
benefit overcomes our judgments how to be able
worthily to receive it, and give thanks, how best to
serve God's glory in this vocation to further the
Gospel. Weighing the matter we thought good to
have your brotherly conference, that all might agree
together, and all together teach and preach that know-
ledge of God's word which we had learned in our
banishment, and have seen in the best reformed
churches."* This letter was signed by Goodman,
Coverdale, Knox, Whittingham, and seven others, in
the name of all. The answer of Arau, which bore the
names of Lever and other ministers, was of implicit
acceptance: that as they had seen and learned sincere
doctrine in the best Reformed Churches, they found
the Genevan advice agreeable to their own purpose.†
But the answer of Frankfort, written by Pilkington
and Nowel among others, was more cautious and
independent, more observant of the situation of
things, exhibiting the original cause of difference still
at work. They told the Genevans that it lay, not with
either of them to appoint what ceremonies should be,
but with them who should be appointed thereto, and
the common assent of Parliament: but that they
trusted to see true religion restored, and not to be
burdened with unprofitable ceremonies: that they
purposed to submit themselves to such orders, not
in themselves wicked, as should be established by
authority, and they advised the same to others that
as all Reformed Churches differed among themselves
in divers ceremonies, and yet agreed in the unity of
doctrine, so they saw no inconvenience if they used
* Dec. 15. Troubles at Frankfort: cf. Strype, Annals, p. 103.
+ Jan. 13. Ib.
38
[CH. XXXI.
Failure of Negotiations.
some ceremonies divers from other Reformed Churches,
so that they agreed with them in the chief points of
religion that nevertheless if they found offensive
ceremonies intruded on them in England, they would
join in brotherly conference and deliberation to be
suitors together for the reforming and abolishing of
the same. They added that, as to the offences given
and taken in time past, there were not more than four
left behind who were dwelling there in the time of
contention, and only one of the learned sort: and they
were sorry that the letter asking for a charitable
reconciliation had not come before their departure.
Nothing came of the efforts of opinionative charity.
No conference was held: and the failure forebodes the
grave and strange events that were to ensue in time
in the history of English religion. For the rest, the
exiles came back very learned. They had applied
themselves to severe studies in their banishment.†
They came back poor; and remained in poverty until
provision could be made for them by degrees. But
the beneficent revolution itself of their estate, uplifting
some of them above the rest to high position, awoke
in many of the others spicery of conscience, not envy,
but unenvious jealousy and under this the original
difference broke out again. They made their presence
felt at once. In their own
the proscript or abscondite; by those who had found
safety in the storm by hiding themselves, by passing
* Jan. 3. Strype, Annals, p. 103.
land they were saluted by
+ Parker's expression is strong: that they were grown so learned as to
blow away the arguments of their adversaries on their return. "Hi se,
tanquam divinitus admoniti, toto illo exitioso et sævo Mariæ regno in
theologiæ studio contriverunt: et ad secunda feliciaque Elizabethæ
tempora reservati, in maximis illis de religione a pontificiis motis contro-
versiis argumenta, quæ pontificii tam nodosa et inexplicabilia putabant,
facillime tanquam Divino Spiritu difflaverunt.”—De Antiq., p. 535.
1558.]
Matthew Parker.
39
from county to county, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Of these the most memorable, Matthew Parker, now
found to his distress that the Queen had not forgotten
her former tutor. Six days before she went to the
Tower, Anne Boleyn had given her little daughter into
her chaplain's hands with a pathetic injunction and
Doctor Parker had not been unmindful of the office of
a counsellor and religious guide. During the reign
of Edward he had been a licensed preacher, and had
received several pieces of preferment; of all which he
was deprived under Mary. He then went into privacy
and poverty, living mostly in a friend's house, with his
wife and two children, near Norwich, not without some
taste of peril, but in great peace, notwithstanding his
low condition. The enforced release from public care
gave leisure for study, and to an exercised man of near
fifty years renewed the happy careless diligence of
youth. "I lived," he said, "so joyful before God in
my conscience, and so neither ashamed nor dejected,
that the most sweet leisure for study, to which the
good Providence of God recalled me, created me much
greater and more solid pleasures than that former
busy and dangerous kind of living ever pleased
me."*
Suddenly the storm ceased: the abscondite
clerk issued from his lurking-place: and at the same
moment was struck with a missive that turned his
gaze to a terrifying prospect. He received a letter
from the new Lord Keeper, Sir Nicolas Bacon, to
come to London at convenient speed. As he made
some delay, a second letter from Cecil, Bacon's brother-
in-law, bade him hasten, the Queen minding to use his
service in matters of importance. A third letter from
Bacon followed: and such importunity in such men
seemed to imply something high. The vacant mitre
* Strype's Parker, vol. i. p. 32.
40
[CH. XXXI.
Parker is sent for.
of Canterbury glittered aloft, afar, though yet un-
named. "My quartan ague forbids me the adventure
of the air," he apprehensively responded; "if you mean
good to me, procure me not anything above the reach
of my ability, to disappoint expectation and cumber
my conscience toward God. Fain would I wear out
my life in a private state: but still I would not thank-
lessly pursue peace and not bestow my very small
talent. My voice is decayed: nothing would I be
better aided than to a small prebend, without charge
or cure, to preach in poor destitute parishes and
dispense God's word among simple strayed sheep,
rather than in great theatrical audiences. Of all places
in England I would rather have such a thing as the
mastership of Bennet College, in Cambridge, a living
of twenty nobles a year, than the deanery of Lincoln of
two hundred which I had before. If a weak member
of the commonwealth I could do service, it might be
there, in that University, now in a state so miserable.
I was once nearly named master of Trinity." He came
to London: Canterbury was indicated to him. It made
him ill. "A dull distemperance set in his head by the
dregs of his quartan," and "displeasant cogitations"
took away the power of reading, and he went back into
the country. "I never intend to be of that order,"
said he, “and in other furnishing I am too far behind.
I had but thirty pounds when I came to London : less
now: I am so hurt and decayed in body, that however
right fain to serve our sovereign lady, my infirmity will
not suffer it. Flying in the night from such as sought
me for my peril, I fell from my horse so dangerously
that I shall never recover it. I am forced at times to
be idle, or to keep my bed." Repeated orders brought
him up again to London. He appealed to the Queen
herself: but could not shake her purpose, though his
1558.] Account of the Spanish Ambassador. 41
brave and pious resistance lasted great part of
a year.* In that interval he was engaged in several
pieces of public business, before he became the elect
of Canterbury.
The Queen and her realm were at this time under
the keen and not very friendly gaze of the resident
ambassador of Spain, whose letters to his master give
an entertaining though bewildered and prejudiced
view of the position of things. To the Count de Feria
all appeared to be confusion and ineptitude. "This
people," said he, "cannot manage their affairs, they
are so headstrong: therefore we must be the more
circumspect. We must treat them with cajolery,
though one would rather deal with them sword in
hand. As soon as they knew that the late Queen was
dying they began to treat the images and the religious
persons disrespectfully. They wag their tongues
against your Highness: that you sent great sums of
money out of the country, that you lost Calais, that
you killed the late Queen by neglect. The men whom
you favoured, as the Controller and Boxal, are as
ungrateful as if you had never given them anything.
As for this new Queen, she is wedded to the people,
thinks as they do, and treats foreigners slightingly.
She is incomparably more feared than her sister was:
she gives her orders and has her way as absolutely as
her father had. Parry the Controller, and Cecil, and
Bedford govern the kingdom. I cannot tell you how
small a party you have here. As for me, they avoid
me as if I were the devil. I am so isolated that I am
embarrassed to devise means of finding out what is
* The ten letters that passed between Bacon, Cecil, and Parker, and
a letter of Parker's to the Queen, are in Burnet's Coll., vol. v. p. 538. The
last of them that has a date is May 28, 1559: the letter to Elizabeth seems
later. The first is Dec. 9, 1558.
;
42
[CH. XXXI.
The Count de Feria
going on. The best thing will be for me to get my
foot into the palace, that I may speak to her oftener,
for she is fond of arguing. I have seen her twice:
once at North's house, and once in that place where
the Duke of Somerset lived. As soon as she saw me
at North's, she began taking off her glove, for me to
kiss her hand. After compliments, I bade her be
careful about religious affairs, as they were first and
foremost with you. She answered that it would indeed
be bad to forget God, who had been so good to her.
This seemed an equivocal reply. She told me that
whenever anything was to be discussed with me, she
would send two of her Council to me. I asked whom.
Parry and Cecil: and further she added Admiral
Clinton; but that was merely because she thought I
was friendly with him. She afterwards said that if I
wanted anything I was to speak to her personally.
I made an appearance of being highly gratified. It is
a feeble foundation, but I was glad nevertheless. I am
trying to get a chamber in the palace: but fear they
will not give me one, they are so suspicious. Heath,
the late Chancellor, told me that not a man dared
speak of me. He is a worthy man, but is not in the
gang."
"All depends on this woman's marriage," continued
the emissary, "and the choice that she may make,
whether a subject, or a foreign prince, or your Highness.
As to the first I must work on her pride, and get at
her Councillors. I fancy I can get at her because it
would make her inferior to her sister: and I can tell
her that one of the reasons why her sister disliked her
was because she feared that she would marry your
Highness when she was dead. And so on. Am I to
set up you or the Archduke Ferdinand? But we must
not have the Pope taking into his head to recall matters
1558.]
is succeeded by Aquila.
43
concerning the divorce of King Henry, and causing
a defect in the succession of this Queen. That would
upset the present state of things. I am afraid, if she
send not her obedience to the Pope, or delay so doing,
it may be so. The Pope should be sounded. I fear
to find this woman married one fine day, and I know
nothing about it."
This representative of Spain was reinforced by
another, the Bishop of Aquila, who arrived on
December 7, bringing a ring for the Queen. "Your
Majesty has done me a favour in sending him,"
remarked De Feria; "he is a man of discretion and
virtue, and may help me much. I sent her the ring,
and I sent her the two rings that your Majesty gave
me belonging to the late Queen: for I know that she
is fond of jewelry. With these and other gifts I never
saw her so carried away as the last time that I spoke
to her. She was full of fine words to me. But I
never have seen her that the presence chamber was
not crammed with people. There are other ambassa-
dors at her besides me, As for getting a room in the
palace (of which I wrote before) I tried to arrange it
in a friendly way with two of them, without bringing it
before the Council; but these people are so villainously
contrary, they must all needs meet and have the
question discussed, and then the Queen sent me a
message by one of them that she was astonished at
my asking such a thing. I sent the Bishop to Cecil
about it, and Cecil said that as the Queen was un-
married, I might be one of her suitors! Later I heard
through the Bishop that she was much pleased with
my message to her, and would give me audience as
often as I would, either alone or with some of her
Council. I advise you to go on paying the pensions
of those who have received hitherto: she has consented
44
[CH. XXXI.
Views of Philip.
to this, though not at the first asking. Pay them to the
end of the year: and afterwards keep on those that
will be useful. Cecil should have a thousand crowns:
Lord Robert Dudley and Bedford the same. Pembroke
should, I think, be paid. Paget and the Admiral,
Clinton, have been told that they shall still receive
their secret pensions. I told the Chamberlain, William
Howard, that you would continue his pension, and that
no one need know of it, and he accepted with his usual
profusion of thanks. He is to be sent out to you, but
for what I know not, so carefully things are concealed
from me. When you send Doctor Wotton home, send
him in good humour with a pension. He is likely to
be made Archbishop of Canterbury."
The King of Spain applauded his diligent envoy.
"I am resolved," said he, "to offer to marry the Queen
of England; but the first condition is that you satisfy
yourself that she will profess the same religion that
I do, which is the same that I shall ever hold: that
she will persevere in it, and uphold it in the country,
and with this end do all that may seem necessary to
me. She will have to obtain secret absolution from
the Pope, and the necessary dispensation, so that when
I marry her she will be a Catholic, which she has not
been hitherto. Thus it will be evident that in marry-
ing her I am serving the Lord, and that she has been
converted by my act." But England had already
experience of papal dispensations of matrimony.*
* The letters which I have combined are in the invaluable Spanish
Calendar of the year, pp. 1-22. De Feria's own marriage with Jane
Dormer took place Dec. 29.
CHAPTER XXXII.
A.D. 1559.
FEASTS, dances, and pageants, of some of which
a whisper was heard, passed the time from the new
year to the coronation of Elizabeth.
The hopes of
The Spanish
the Romanensian party grew fainter.
and Venetian ambassadors sent home dismal relations
of their ceremonial conversations with a woman who
baffled and braved them. To one of them who
expostulated with her for fostering heresy, she calmly
replied, "I am a heretic." Thus she accepted, not with-
out righteous scorn, the name, the abuse of which by
modern Rome is the most tragical thing in history. On
the first day of January the English Service came into
use, so far as the Proclamation allowed; the English
Litany was said in most of the churches in the city,
and the Epistle and Gospel were read in English in
the celebration of Mass. Some days after this the
image of Thomas Becket over the door of Mercers'
Chapel was found cast down and broken, and a writing
on the door defied and depraved those who had set
it up.*
* "You will have heard of the farce performed in the presence of her
Majesty on the day of the Epiphany, and I not having sufficient intellect
to interpret it, nor yet the mummery performed after supper on the same
day, of crows in the habit of cardinals, of asses habited as bishops, and of
wolves representing abbots, I will consign it to silence: as also the new
commencement of ritual made in her Majesty's Chapel with the English
46
[CH. XXXII.
New Year Festivals.
On January 12 the Queen passed from West-
minster to the Tower; from the Tower to Westminster
on the 14th by the river, through the city: in
splendid progresses. The florid imagination of the
age expended itself in pomps, shows, and allegorical
devices. The air rang with shouts, music, and
peals of ordnance; the people crowded upon her
so that her course was at times incommoded. Her
demeanour enchanted them. She took particular notice
of everything," with many witty formalities of speech."
According to the pageants her looks varied. Here
a fair child, on a stage of flowers, pronounced a welcome
in, verse, and "her rejoicing visage declared that the
words took their place in her mind." There Time
and Truth were represented; "Time," said she, "has
brought me here"; and when Truth let down the
Bible by a silken string into her chariot, "she kissed
both her hands, with both her hands she received it:
she kissed it: she applied it to her breast and lastly
held it up, thanking the city especially for that gift,
and promising to be a diligent reader thereof." An
old man wept: "It is for joy," said she. She smiled
when one in the crowd said that he remembered old
Harry the Eighth, and she repeated the words. When
the Recorder asked her to be a gracious mistress to
the city, she replied that she was bound in a natural
obligation so to be, with earnest words. Having passed
a pageant without fully inspecting it, she backed her
horses for better sight and hearing, fairly intreating
Litanies, which omit St. Mary and all the Saints, the Pope, and the
Dead. Nor will I record the levities and unusual licentiousness practised
at the Court in dances and banquets; nor the masquerade of friars in the
streets of London; nor the statue of St. Thomas stoned and beheaded,
which is now thrown down entirely, and the stucco statue of a little girl
placed in its stead.”— Ven. Cal., p. 11. Cf. Wriothesley, 143; Strype,
i. 48, 49.
1559.] The Queen's Coronation.
47
the people to be silent while the allegory expounded
itself. As she passed through Temple Bar she bade
the people farewell with the words, " Be ye well assured
I will stand your good queen. On the next day,
Sunday, January 15, she was crowned in Westminster
Abbey.
"'*
It has been said that it was difficult to find a bishop
to crown her. The bishops, it has been repeatedly
asserted, alarmed by the Queen's proceedings, gathered
themselves in London and unanimously agreed that
they could not officiate at the coronation of a sovereign.
who might be likely to mutilate the service, and either
evade or break the oath which she was to take, so far
as it concerned the Church. The story goes on that
considerable embarrassment was created by their unex-
pected determination: that after many expedients and
suggestions one prelate was at last induced to separate
himself from his brethren, and undertake the office
which they steadfastly refused; but that not even Ogle-
thorpe of Carlisle would have yielded unless the Queen
had been compelled to go through all the rites, and to
take the accustomed oath: and that the rest of the
prelates were absent from the scene where he per-
formed his part. But such conduct, both dangerous
and foolish, is not probable. The selection of Ogle-
thorpe, it is more likely, arose from the poverty of
the bench, and was determined by his familiarity
with the Queen's Chapel. "That accursed Cardinal,"
I quote the language of the Spanish ambassador con-
cerning Pole, "left twelve bishoprics to be filled":†
* Holinshed, iv. 167, ed. 1808; Hayward, 14; Wriothesley, 143;
Strickland. But perhaps the best account is in the Venetian Calendar.
+ Spanish Calend., p. 32. De Feria, when he spoke thus, forgot that
these vacancies befel very shortly before the death of Pole himself. He
inveighs in a following letter against "the disaffection and deceit" of the
Cardinal.—Ib. p. 33. No one who can read character would impute such
48
[CH. XXXII.
Choice of a Bishop.
!
the number of vacant sees had been advanced by
death since his death: of the rest, some of the greatest
were filled by incumbents who were ineligible or out
of favour: to a remote northern bishop the lot seems
to have fallen almost by devolution. As for the rest.
of the story, it is certain that the other bishops were
present in their robes.*
qualities. Pole's defect was not deceit, but incurable weakness. Modern
Romanists write as if his conduct had been unquestioned and admired at
Rome from first to last; but we may say here how bitterly both Rome
and Spain were disappointed in him.
* Lingard gives this story in full (vi. 9). It is one of those passages in
which that conscientious but sometimes hard bestead historian gives no
authority. Dodd and Tierney have the same story, ii. 125. Camden has it.
Heylin, Collier, and Burnet repeat it. The only authority for it, known to
these writers, was Allen, who, in his Answer to English Justice, says that
Heath “worthily, and as became his Excellency, refused to anoint or crown
the Queen's Majesty that now is . . and so did all the rest of the bishops,
till with much ado they obtained the Bishop of Carlisle, the inferior almost
of all the rest, to do that function" (p. 50). He gives for the reason “ that
they had evident probabilities and arguments to doubt that she meant
either not to take the oath, or not to keep the same, which all Christian
kings (and specially ours in England) do make in their coronation, for
maintenance of Holy Church's laws, honours, peace, and privileges, and
other duties due to every state, as in the time and grant of King Edward
the Confessor. They doubted also lest she would refuse, in the very
time of her sacre, the solemn divine ceremony of unction." Allen's book
was written twenty-four years after the event, and, as Twysden remarks
(Hist. Vindication, 127), the motives he imputes to the bishops were
certainly without any colour, and framed since." The story has been
recently repeated by Mr. Bridgett, in his True Story of the Catholic
Hierarchy, p. 17, who says, "Knowing what was coming, the bishops all
refused to perform the ceremony of the coronation." Mr. Bridgett quotes
Allen, and adds to him a letter of 1561, from Sanders to Card. Morone,
from a Vatican MS., in which it is said that Heath refused, because he had
heard that the ceremony was to be done in a schismatical manner: that
many other bishops also refused, and that at last the Bishop of Carlisle
undertook it, not as a favourer of heresy, but to leave the Queen no
excuse for overthrowing religion: things not being at the time so
desperate but that she might be turned from her purpose: that "the rest
of the bishops assisted at the anointing." This goes far to dissolve the
story, which is reduced to this, not that all the bishops but one were
absent from the ceremony; but that one only could be induced to crown
the Queen. It will be seen anon that there is no doubt but that the
1559.]
The Coronation Procession.
49
The Hall was decorated with tapestries, the work
of Raphael, the purchase of Henry the Eighth, repre-
senting on one side the Book of Genesis, on the`other
the Acts of the Apostles. There waited all the bishops
in scarlet, in cope and mitre; there waited the Queen's
Chapel with three crosses. On the arrival of the royal
train the Queen was incensed, the holy water and
the Pax were given her by Archbishop Heath and
another bishop, who received her under a canopy, the
choir singing "Salve festa dies." The splendid pro-
cession-lords and knights bearing swords, sceptres,
crowns, symbolical of the majesty of the English realm;
ladies wondrously apparelled, with their coronets on
their heads-marched thence on purple cloth spread
along the ground to the Abbey, the cloth on which
they walked being cut away, as they passed, by them
bishops, probably all of them, were present. And furthermore it is not
unlikely that the one who crowned the Queen was the first who was
asked to do it; in which case the story vanishes altogether. Soames,
who appears to discredit the story entirely, remarks that, granting that
Heath, who had lately resigned the Great Seal, may have refused under
some disgust, the only other sees that had any right to claim precedence
over any other see were London, Durham, and Winchester: and that
while Bonner and White were too unacceptable, Tunstall was too old
(Reformation, iv. 617). It may have been that Heath was passed over
from the first, to save him the pain of either refusing or complying. He
was not in disgrace or disgust when he resigned the seal, for he has left
a grateful letter about the Queen's personal kindness to him on the
occasion.-Bridgett's True Story, p. 111. He was, in fact, a personal friend
of the Queen. It may be added that the original of Lingard, and of
others, was Sanders, in his De Schismate. That well-known work was
published in 1585, a year or two later than Allen's Answer to English
Justice, but probably written much earlier. He says, like Lingard, that
the bishops were alarmed by the Proclamation to forbid preaching (partly
caused by Christopherson and White), and by the Queen's refusal to
allow elevation in the Mass; that Heath, to whom it pertained in the
vacancy of Canterbury to anoint and consecrate the Queen, refused:
"negarent quoque cæteri episcopi, præter unum, eumque pene ultimum,
omnes." Then he gives a story of his fastidiousness about the smell of
the oil when she was anointed, p. 355 (ed. 1628).
VOL. V.
E
50
The Coronation Ceremony. [CH. XXXII.
that could get it. The Queen on her arrival, all the
bells ringing, ascended a lofty tribune between the
altar and the choir, and as she showed herself to
the people it was demanded whether they would have
her to be their crowned queen. The universal "Yes"
was swallowed in the thunder of organs, fifes, trumpets,
and drums; it seemed that the world was coming to
an end. Descending, the Queen placed herself beneath
her royal canopy, and the Mass was begun.* No
bishop would celebrate without the elevation; the
Mass was therefore chanted, without the elevation, by
the Dean of the Chapel Royal, the Queen's chaplain;
and the Epistle and Gospel were read in English.†
After the Epistle, the Bishop of Carlisle, enrobed in
the pontifical robes which had been borrowed from
Bonner, performed the coronation with the usual
* "All the bishops in scarlet, and the Queen, and the footmen waiting
upon the Queen in Westminster Hall: there met all the bishops and all
the chapel with three crosses, and in their copes, the bishops mitred, and
singing salve festa dies: and all the street laid with gravel and blue cloth
unto the abbey, and railed on every side; and so to the abbey to mass,
and there her grace was crowned.”—Machyn, 187. The other particulars
are from the Venetian Calendar, p. 16.
+ The Venetian Calendar says that it was not only without elevation,
but without consecration, which is incredible. "The bishops not having
chosen to say Mass without elevating the Host or consecrating it, as that
worthy individual did” (p. 17). A letter of the Spanish ambassador, De
Feria, in which he described the coronation, is unfortunately not extant:
but in a subsequent letter he says that Elizabeth did not receive on that
day but he also mentions a very different report. "By last post I
wrote to your Majesty that I had been told that the Queen took the
Holy Sacrament sub utraque specie on the day of the coronation: but it
was all nonsense. She did not take it at all" (p. 25). De Feria, it may
be remarked, was not present, but staying away with indignation. So he
was not an eyewitness.
‡ “A letter to the Bishop of London to lend to the Bishop of Carlisle,
who is appointed to execute the solemnity of the Queen's Majesty's
coronation, universum apparatum pontificium quo uti solent Episcopi in
hujusmodi magnificis illustrissimorum regum inaugurationibus."-Acts
of Privy Council, p. 42.
1559.]
The Queen opens Parliament.
51
ceremonies, and administered the customary oath.*
The Queen and Court then returned to the Hall, the
bishops and clergy remaining in the Abbey. She had
changed her apparel, and issued forth wearing the
ample royal robe of cloth of gold, carrying in her hands
the orb and sceptre. Her smile was universal; she
gave a thousand greetings, and in her demeanour
appeared to the Venetian ambassador to exceed the
bounds of gravity. A stately and protracted banquet
ended that day and began the next.
Ten days after her coronation Elizabeth returned
to Westminster to open her first Parliament. The two
Houses assembled themselves within the Abbey to
hear the accustomed Mass of the Holy Ghost, but
found that the Mass had been sung early that morning,
without the elevation. The Queen arrived at the
* "After the Epistle, the Bishop of Carlisle commenced the coronation
according to the Roman ceremonial, neither altering nor omitting any-
thing but the outward forms, which were not observed as in Italy: the
English having no masters of the ceremonies, except the Kings at arms,
and still less caring about formalities."- Ven. Cal. 17. It is evident from
this that she was crowned according to the old English Latin pontifical,
with nothing particularly Roman or Italian in it. As to the oath, which
she took, containing that she would uphold the rights of the Church, we
cannot suppose the bishops so foolish as to determine their action by their
apprehensions. Compare Strype, Annals, i. 73. They are said, on
Allen's authority, also to have feared that she would have refused to be
anointed. But she did not, though there is a story of her bidding her
ladies run away, when she came near them, because of the smell of the
oil. The anointing was with the chrism, or oil consecrated the same
day, not the oil of catechumens. It conveyed spiritual gifts, rendering
the head of the state capable of ecclesiastical office as a persona mixta.
It is said that the English sovereign and the Czar of Russia are the only
crowned heads that are anointed with the chrism.-See The Times, June
25, 1896. It is probable that the only objection that the bishops had was
to celebrate without elevation. C. Butler, who has repeated Allen's allega-
tions, brings nothing to support them.-Histor. Mem. of Eng. Cath. i. 270.
Cf. Soames, Ref. iv. 618.
+ Ven. Cal. 17.
Perhaps this omission of the Mass, which is recorded in the Ven.
Calendar (p. 23), was not significant. The Houses had been summoned
E 2
52
Sermon of Dr. Cox. [CH. XXXII.
Abbey after a midday dinner in her ordinary open
litter, accompanied by the Court in their coronation
robes. She had been turning and smiling to the
people, with "Gramercy, good people," all the way,
in answer to shouts of "God save and maintain thee."
The bishops were in her train.* At the Abbey door
the Abbot Feckenham, with all his monks in proces-
sion, each having a lighted torch in his hand, received
her with incense and holy water; but when she saw
the torches she exclaimed, “Away with those torches,
for we see very well." Her choristers uplifted the
Litany in English, and she was accompanied to the
high altar under her canopy. Not a bishop, but
a returned exile ascended the pulpit: not an indiffer-
ently chosen returned exile, but he who had been
Dean of Westminster before Feckenham was abbot,
whom Feckenham had displaced: not any other pulpit
ascended he than that from which a little time ago had
sounded from the lips of Bishop White of Winchester
the funeral oration of Mary: and both White and
Feckenham were compelled to abide the eloquence
of Doctor Cox.t The conqueror of Frankfort and of
Knox was equal to himself. For an hour and a half
he held the audience spellbound, denouncing the
iniquities of monks, and the persecution in which so
many innocent persons had been burned under pre-
tence of heresy; praising the Queen and exhorting
her no longer to tolerate the past iniquities, but to put
to meet two days before, on the 23rd, and had been deferred because of
an indisposition of Elizabeth.
* She was "attended by all the gentlemen both of the Court and of other
conditions, and by all the peers in their coronation robes, and including
spiritual and temporal, titled and untitled (they were about 46), in her
ordinary litter," &c.-Ven. Cal., p. 22.
+ As White was in the House of Lords directly afterwards, I venture
to think he was in the Abbey.
f
}
I
1559.] Speech of Chancellor Bacon.
53
down images and monasteries.* At the end of this
sermon, the Queen proceeded to the House of Lords,
and the business of the Session was begun by the new
Lord Chancellor Bacon in an elaborate oration, dealing
with three great matters, the reformation of religion,
the mitigation of the penal laws, the supplies. He
exhorted to uniformity, spoke in a masterly manner
of the imperfection and abuse of laws, and lamented
the necessities of the sovereign whose graces he was
insufficient to extol. To the measures to be taken
for such a settlement he seemed to predict opposition
when he deprecated contumelious words, as heretic,
schismatic, papist, which he termed the nurses of
seditious factions and sects. He seemed to indicate
the sort of opposition to be feared when he exhorted
them in that assembly to avoid "all sophistical, captious,
and frivolous arguments and quiddities, meeter for
ostentation of wit than consultation of weighty matters,
* The Venetian Calendar (p. 23) says that Cox exhorted her "to destroy
the images of the saints, the churches, the monasteries, and all other things
dedicated to divine worship: proving, by his own arguments, that it is
a very great impiety and idolatry to endure them; and saying many
other things against the Christian religion." But this is altogether too
much.
"Having made a reverence to the Queen, he delivered an eloquent
speech, alluding to three essential points: the first, Pro reformanda
religione et tollenda idolatria: the second, Pro mitigandis nonnullis
legibus penalibus: the third, Pro petendo subsidio contra hostes.”—Ven.
Cal. 23. Sir Simonds D'Ewes gives Bacon's speech at length, apparently
from a Cotton MS. But it seems to be trimmed up in some way, as if by
a pen of a later age. According to him, Bacon laid down his three points
thus: The first is of well making of laws for the according and uniting
of these people of the realm into an uniform order of religion, to the honour
and glory of God, the establishing of the Church, and tranquillity of the
realm: the second for the reforming and removing of all enormities and
mischiefs that might hurt or hinder the civil orders and policies of the
realm: the third is, advisedly and deeply to weigh and consider the
estate and condition of the realm, and the losses and decays that have
happened of late to the imperial crown thereof, and to devise the best
remedies."-Parliaments of Eliz., p. II.
54
Act for restoring Firstfruits. [CH. XXXII.
comelier for scholars than counsellors, more beseeming
for schools than for parliament houses." The Parlia-
ment which was opened with this preamble recovered
tenths and firstfruits to the Crown, declared the royal
supremacy in a new statute, expelled the Pope once
more from England, was illustrated by the arguments
of prelates, and was suspended to listen to a theological
debate in Westminster Abbey. It was accompanied
by a remarkable Convocation: it was dissolved in May.
No Tudor House of Commons but was packed:
this was an assembly of nominees of the Crown.*
The first thing that it did was to restore firstfruits
and tenths, and the patronage of all impropriate livings
to the Crown, and to erect again the Courts of First-
fruits and Augmentations, undoing the righteous work
of Mary in a very hypocritical strain. They preluded
that they “conceived at the bottom of their hearts
great sorrow and heaviness when they called to
remembrance the huge, innumerable and inestimable
* "It appears that some violence, at least according to our present
ideas, was used in these elections; five candidates were nominated by
the Court to each borough, and three to each county: and by the sheriff's
authority the members were chosen from among these candidates.”.
Hume. The Returns preserved for this Parliament are very imperfect,
as compared with the Returns preserved of the last Parliament of Mary.
No returns whatever are extant for nine shires: Cornwall, Cumberland,
Derby, Devon, Notts, Rutland, Warwick, Carnarvon, Denbigh. For
five there are only borough returns, not county: Berks, Gloucester, Kent,
Northumberland, Suffolk. Of borough returns there are more than sixty
lacking. But from the extant minutes we may gather that sweeping
changes were made. Of all who sat in Mary's last Parliament about
fifty-three are known to have sat in Elizabeth's first. Among them were
Sir W. Petre, Sir Walt. Mildmay, Sir Jn. Mason, Sir Rog. Cholmeley,
Sir Thos. Wroth, and Sir W. Fitzwilliams. Of those who were not again
seen, were Sir H. Jermingham and Mr. Tyrrell of Essex. Among new
members were Sir Ant. Cook, Sir Thos. Smith, Sir Francis Knowles,
Sir Rd. Sackville, Thomas Sackville the poet, Sir William Cecil, Sir Thos.
Gargrave of York, who was Speaker.-Return of Members of Parliament,
Part I, p. 400.
1559.] Recognition of the Queen's Title.
55
charges of the royal estate and imperial crown of this
realm": that her Majesty's dearest sister the late
Queen had restored goods to the Church " upon
certain zealous and inconvenient respects, not suffi-
ciently nor politicly enough weighing the matter."
All the bishops present and an abbot, Feckenham,
were dissentient from this Act: the puisne Bishop
of Carlisle, and in ascending order the Bishops of
Chester, Exeter, Coventry, Llandaff, Worcester,
London, and York: all lay lords were for it.*
Another Act supplemented or developed it, enabling
the Queen, whose necessities were again deplored,
to take in possession on every avoidance as much
of the lands of the see as the yearly value of her
tenths and impropriate parsonages within the see
came to. This measure is reckoned a great starting-
point in ecclesiastical property. It went through the
Commons with difficulty late in the Session. The
next necessity was the recognition of the Queen's
title, a declaration that she was the heir to the crown,
lawfully descended from the blood royal. In this
neither was the validity of Anne Boleyn's marriage
affirmed, nor the former Act against the legitimacy
of Anne Boleyn's daughter repealed: dignity was
consulted by neither reflecting implicitly in such
a manner on the memory of the father nor on the
birth of the sister of the Queen: the assembly was
spared the pain of censuring the work of predecessors,
and the adhesion of the bishops was secured.‡
*
Ι
I Eliz. c. 4. D'Ewes.
+ I Eliz. c. 19. "With the bill, a hundred and thirty-four, and against
the bill, ninety.”—Ib. In its last section it stopped bishops from granting
lands to any but the Crown, except by leases for three lives, or twenty-
one years. Hitherto they had power to lease or alienate to any extent
otherwise.
‡ Camden remarks that the Act of Henry the Eighth excluding both
56 Annexation of Religious Houses. [CH. XXXII.
Another Act made it treason to depose the Queen;
another extended to freedom of speech against her
the same penalties of pillory, loss of ears, loss of hand,
which had been ordained for the protection of Philip
and Mary.*
Another, a private Act of Elizabeth's first Parliament,
annexing again to the Crown the religious houses
refounded so laboriously by Mary, the inhabitants
began to disperse, and the final dissolution of the
monasteries occupied the summer. Pensions awaited
those who would renounce their profession and accept
the Oath against foreign jurisdiction: but some
departed, some passed the seas, before the application
of the statute. The Spanish ambassador, De Feria,
who quitted the country in May, in his final interview
with the Queen pathetically requested as a parting
gift a passport to carry them all with him to Flanders:‡
but, instead of a train of monks, nuns, and friars, he
bore away a beautiful English bride: and after his
departure the Queen's concession was limited to those
his daughters from the succession, which Mary got repealed so far as it
concerned her, remained unrepealed now: and that this was, in some
men's judgment, a great flaw in Bacon's politics, whom the Queen relied
on as the very oracle of law: though others commended Bacon's wisdom,
who rather referred to the Succession Act, 35 Henry VIII, in which both
his daughters were included. As to the bishops, "Observe that here
the bishops did not dissent.”—Strype, Ann. i. 83.
* 1 Eliz. c. 5 and 6.
+ "Parliament will rise this week, the two Houses having enacted that
all the convents and monasteries of friars, monks, nuns, and Hospitallers
of St. John of Jerusalem are to be suppressed as heretofore, and all these
religious to be expelled. Such of them who will take the oath against
the Pontifical authority, and approve the new laws, abjuring their own
professions, are to receive pensions for their maintenance: but the greater
part of them have left the kingdom in order not to take such oath.".
Ven. Cal. p. 79. The Act is 1 Eliz. c. 20, among the private Acts.
"He asked of her as a special favour, instead of gifts, a passport
for passage to Flanders of all the monks, friars and nuns now here.".
Ib. p. 93.
1559.] Supremacy and Uniformity Bills.
57
religious persons who had been living in the time of
the great suppression of monasteries, of whom but few
were left. The greater part of the rest remained
in the kingdom.* The Black monks of Westminster
were said to have “changed their coats," the most of
them, by the end of May. Their abbot Feckenham,
a man of wealth and benevolence, passed into private
life, spreading benefits wherever he dwelt. The Friars
Observants of Greenwich were discharged in June; in
July the Black Friars of Smithfield, the nuns of Sion,
and the monks of the Charterhouse. So passed
away the last survivors of the religious life in
England.
The great religious enactments of this Parliament,
the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, vast and
permanent, the base of the whole ecclesiastical legisla-
tion of the reign,§ took their beginning in the House
of Commons. The House prepared itself by religious
exercises. On Ash
On Ash Wednesday, February 8, they
adjourned to hear a sermon which was preached
before the Court by the favourite orator Doctor Cox.||
On the following Saturday, the English Litany was
said by the Clerk of the House kneeling, and answered
by the whole House on their knees with divers
* “Since his departure this concession has been limited to those who
were in being at the time of the other schism, and who are very few in
number."— Ven. Cal. 95.
+ Foreign Cal. 288.
‡ Machyn, 204. Some of them seem to have been helped to get abroad
by the Spanish embassy.-Span. Cal. 77.
66
§ The statutes passed in it are remarkable for their comprehensive,
as well as their permanent, character, embracing the whole subject of the
ecclesiastical constitution, and remaining, in all but one important matter,
practically in force until the present century."-Bishop Stubbs, Append.
Ecclesiast. Courts Commission Report, p. 44.
"The House was adjourned because the morrow following, being
Ash Wednesday, there was a sermon to be preached at the Court before
the Queen, at which, as it should seem, the greatest part of the House
desired to be present."-D'Ewes, p. 45. That the preacher was Cox
58 Progress of the Supremacy Bill. [CH. xxxii.
*
prayers. The next time that they met, Monday,
February 13, they had the second reading of the
first draft of a Bill "for annexing the Supremacy to
the Crown." A great debate ensued, and the Bill
was dashed a new Bill was drawn, and after many
arguments passed the House, February 25. This was
the Act which stands among statutes with the title
of "An Act to restore to the Crown the ancient
jurisdiction over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual,
and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the
same." It repealed the great statute of Philip and
Mary which revived the papal jurisdiction; † by which
it said that "the subjects were eftsoons brought under
an usurped foreign power and authority, and did yet
remain in that bondage." It repealed the re-enacted
statutes of heresy of the same reign. It revived ten
great statutes of Henry the Eighth specifically:‡ and
on the other hand it confirmed the repeal of all the
other laws of Henry which had been repealed by
Philip and Mary. The effect of this confirmation of
repeal was to annul the title of Supreme Head, and
appears from Machyn, 189. Well might that exultant divine exclaim :
"We are thundering in pulpits, especially before our Queen Elizabeth,
that the Roman pontiff is truly Antichrist, and that traditions are for the
most part mere blasphemies."-Zurich Letters, i. 27.
* D'Ewes.
† 1 and 2 Phil. and Mar. c. 8.
Acts specifically revived by I Eliz. c. I:
23 Henry VIII. c. 9, Citations (vol. i. 128 huj. op.).
23
24
25
25
25
26
28
32
37
1 1
20, Annates (vol. i. 136 huj. op.).
12, Appeals (vol. i. 145 huj. op.).
19, Submission (vol. i. 189 huj. op.).
20, Consecration (vol. i. 181 huj. op.).
21, Dispensations (vol. i. 183 huj. op.).
14, Suffragans (vol. i. 232 huj. op.).
16, Dispensations (vol. i. 393 huj. op.).
38, Precontracts.
17, That married men might be ecclesiastical
judges (vol. ii. 383 huj. op.).
1559.]
Its main Provisions.
59
at the same time to render necessary some new
machinery to secure the royal supremacy in things
ecclesiastical. Supreme Head died irksomely. Not
having been assumed by the Queen in the writs for
this Parliament, the first question that engaged the
Commons when they met was whether through this
omission the writs had been well issued and the
Parliament were to be held.* They decided it on the
precedent of Mary's own Parliaments, which had been
well summoned, though Mary latterly omitted the title;
and they silently dismissed the tasteless denomina-
tion which has done so much to perplex history.†
They proceeded to abolish all usurped and foreign
* "In the said Writ it is to be noted that the words Supremum Caput
Ecclesiæ Anglicana were wanting, which had been omitted also in the
foregoing Parliament of her sister Mary: which notwithstanding it was
afterwards agreed in the House, on Friday the third day of February
following, that the Writs of Summons were well sent forth and returned,
and that the Parliament ought to hold accordingly.”—D’Ewes, p. 38.
A committee of twenty-four was appointed, Jan. 30, "for the validity
as well of the Parliaments lately had, as this Parliament, lacking in the
Writ of Summons Supremum Caput."-Com. Journ. i. 53. "Mr. Carell
on behalf of the Committee for the validity aforesaid reported them, after
consultation, to agree the lack of these words Supremum Caput not to
hinder anything or let the validity of those of this Parliament.".
Feb. 3, ib.
I
+ It has been denied, or questioned, whether Supreme Head were
ever repealed. It was. The Act for it (26 H. VIII. c. 1) was repealed
by I Phil. and Mary, c. 8, § 12; and as this Act was not among the
statutes of Henry that were specifically revived in 1 Eliz. c. I, the repeal
of it stands confirmed. "All other laws and statutes repealed by the
Act of repeal made in the time of the late King Philip and Queen Mary,
and not in this present Act specially mentioned and revived, shall stand,
remain, and be repealed and void." So said Elizabeth's Parliament in
their Act (§ 13). To the same effect Bishop Stubbs remarks (Appendix
to the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission Report, p. 44) that the repeal
of 1 Phil. and Mary, c. 8, "does not carry the revival of the statutes which
are not specified, and which therefore stand repealed." And again,
"the effect of omitting the revival of 26 H. VIII. c. 1, was the abolition
of the royal claim to the title of Supreme Head as affirmed by Act of
Parliament."—Ibid.
I
60
Court of High Commission. [CH. XXXII.
jurisdiction, to unite to the Crown all jurisdiction visita-
torial or corrective that had been or might lawfully be
exercised by any spiritual power or authority, and
to authorise the Queen to exercise by commissioners,
whom she might assign, the power thus recognised.
The commissioners, who might be appointed, were to
adjudge no matter to be heresy but upon the authority
of the canonical Scriptures, of the first four general
councils, of any other general council acting on the
plain words of the canonical Scriptures, or such matter
as should thereafter be determined to be heresy by
the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the
clergy in Convocation. Such was the origin of the
celebrated Court of High Commission. This statute
was penal; it made maintenance of foreign authority
treason for the third offence. It contained a form
of Oath in which the Queen was acknowledged, more
properly than Supreme Head, Supreme Governor of
the realm as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things
or causes as in temporal. This Oath, which was
presently to play an important part in history, simply
denied the jurisdiction of any foreign power or person,
without mention of the Bishop of Rome.* It may be
added that the Act ended with a provision for a
pending appeal to Rome "from a pretensed sentence
given in consistory in Pauls" by Pole's judges delegate
by legatine authority-a matrimonial cause-which was
characteristically settled thus: If Rome gave answer
•
* "That the Queen's highness is the only Supreme governor of this
realm .. as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as
temporal: and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate,
hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence,
or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm: and therefore
I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers,
superiorities, and authorities," &c. This Oath was inserted in the
Ordinal in Elizabeth's Prayer Book. (See below.)
1559.] Introduction of the Uniformity Bill. 61
within threescore days, Rome's answer should be
allowed to supersede Pole's sentence, and stand good:
but if Rome gave no answer within threescore days,
Richard and Agnes might transfer their appeal against
Pole's sentence to the court of the archbishop within
the realm.
The other main statute of this Parliament, the Act
for Uniformity, restored the English Service of King
Edward the Sixth with a few specified alterations. It
was brought into the Commons January 20, by which
time it may perhaps be concluded that the revision
of the Book of Common Prayer had been finished
in Sir Thomas Smith's house:* it was expedited in
about three months. This Act was made, the most
part, out of the two former Acts for Uniformity. Of
the first of Edward, which was clerical as to penalties
(the reader may be reminded), and trod on the layman
only who openly depraved the English Service by
interludes, ballads, or contemptuous words of the
second of Edward, which extended penalty to all lay
people whatever offending, whether they merely re-
fused to come to their churches, or were present at any
other form of service. Skill, prudence, and severity
marked the combination. As to the clergy, the penal-
ties laid against them remained unaltered, since it was
scarcely possible to increase them: as to the open
depravers, the fines of ten and twenty pounds for
the first and second offences were raised enormously,
to one hundred and four hundred marks; it was
* See last chapter. It may perhaps be concluded that on Feb. 16
the Prayer Book itself of Elizabeth's revision was brought into the House
of Commons, for we read under that date the entry "The Book for
Common Prayer and Ministration of Sacraments."-Commons' Journal, 54.
The Bill concerning it was read for the first time April 18, where we
read "The Bill for the Unity of Service of the Church and Ministration
of Sacraments."-Ib. 60.
62
[CH. XXXII.
Provisions of the
I
scarcely possible to increase the penalty of the third.
But the simple layman who would not go to church
found himself also in harder case than before. By
Edward's second Act for Uniformity he was liable
to ecclesiastical censures: by this Act he was made
liable furthermore to a fine of a shilling a Sunday, an
abominable exaction.* On the other hand he was
not pursued so far by this Act as by Edward's Act
if he chose to frequent some other manner of service;
for such an offence was not named, he was not pursued
to his conventicle, if he had one, but the clauses of
Edward's Act in that behalf were omitted. If the
significancy of this had been perceived, if it had
become known on all sides that the layman might go
where he would on other days, provided that he went
to his church on Sundays and holy days, it might
have made a difference in history. The ordinaries
and the justices were conjoined, as before, in the
execution of these various enactments; and the
solemn adjuration, which Edward's latter Act contains,
of the Queen, the Lords temporal, and the Commons
to the archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries to do
their duty, was repeated.† It has caused some search-
ings of heart: nor less the following clause, also
* Cf. Vol. III. pp. 3 and 432 of this work.
+
And for due execution hereof the Queen's most excellent Maj.,
the lords temporal and all the commons in this present Parliament
assembled, do in God's name earnestly require and charge all the arch-
bishops, bishops, and other ordinaries, that they shall endeavour themselves
to the uttermost of their knowledges that the due and true execution hereof
may be had throughout their dioceses and charges, as they will answer
before God for such evils and plagues wherewith Almighty God may
justly punish His people for neglecting this good and wholesome law.".
1 Eliz. c. 2, § 15, from 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 1, § 2. It would have been more
respectful to the spiritualty, and more usual, for the Queen alone to have
charged them, or in chief. In a former clause of this same Act it is so:
"And be it enacted by the Queen's highness, with the assent of the Lords
and Commons in this present Parliament assembled,” &c., § 3.
1559.]
Uniformity Act.
63
borrowed from Edward, in which the ordinaries were
empowered under the same authority "by this Act
to reform and punish by censures of the Church."*
The purport of the Act was to restore the Second
Prayer Book, the Book that was "Authorised by
Parliament in the fifth and sixth year" of the reign
of Edward. The various services and offices were
ordered to be said and used in the manner and form of
the Second Book: but my reader may remind himself
that if this third Act for Uniformity restored the
Second Book of Edward, the second Act for Uni-
formity authorised his First Book. There has been
but one English Service Book throughout. This Act
restored Edward's revision of the Book, with several
alterations, carefully specified, made doubtless by
Smith and his theologians. They were,
"certain
lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, the
form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two
sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament
to the communicants, and none other or otherwise."
For the rest, some curious points may be noted in
this Act. It omitted all mention of the English
Ordinal, which the second Act for Uniformity had
expressly and formally added to the Prayer Book as
of the same authority, and which had not been in-
cluded in the first Act because it was not ready at
the time. This legislative omission was artfully or
naturally misunderstood, and gave rise in time to no
* "And for their authority in this behalf be it further enacted by the
authority aforesaid, that all ... archbishops, bishops, and all other their
officers exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction ... within their dioceses, shall
have full power and authority by this Act to reform, correct, and punish by
censures of the Church, all and singular persons which shall offend," &c.
On this see some remarks, Vol. III. p. 432 of this work. Collier took too
grave a view. It was not a grant of spiritual jurisdiction that the lay estates
professed to give, it was a warrant or permission to exercise it without
danger of legal pitfalls, such as præmunire.
64
The Ornaments Rubric. [CH. XXXII.
small trouble. The Act ended with two memorable
provisions peculiar to itself. The one was a rubric,
if it may be called so, the first form of the highly
contentious rubric, which now stands in the Prayer
Book, concerning the ornaments of the church and
of the minister. Instead of restoring the rubric of
Edward's Second Book, that the minister should never
wear alb, vestment, or cope, it ordered that all such
ornaments as were in the second year of Edward
should be retained and be in use until other order
should be taken by the Queen's authority with the
advice of the commissioners who were to be appointed,
or of the metropolitan of the realm.* The other was
a reservation which afterwards bore some sorry fruit,
that in case of misuse or irreverence in the ceremonies
or rites of the Church, the Queen with the like advisers
might ordain further rites and ceremonies. These
prospective clauses were the first indication of the
kind of work to be done by these commissioners.
The secondary mention of the metropolitan may be
noted, but at least he was there. St. John's Day,
June 24, was appointed for the inuring of this Act
and of the English Service.
* "Provided always, and be it enacted, that such ornaments of the
church and of the ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use, as
was in the Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second
year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, until other order shall be
therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty with the advice
of her commissioners, appointed and authorised under the Great Seal of
England, for ecclesiastical causes, or of the metropolitan of this realm."
The Act was printed at the beginning of Elizabeth's Prayer Book, and
this clause was referred to in the corresponding rubric there. (See below.)
+ "And also if there shall happen any contempt or irreverence to
be used in the ceremonies or rites of the Church, by the misusing of
the orders appointed in this Book, the Queen's Majesty may, with the
like advice of the said commissioners or metropolitan, ordain and publish
such further ceremonies or rites as may be most for the advancement
of God's glory, the edifying of His Church, and the due reverence of
Christ's holy mysteries and Sacraments."
1559.]
Opposition to the Two Bills.
65
Is
These two great Acts, one of which put out the
Pope and the other the Latin Service, were boldly
opposed by the Romanensian prelates. All dissented
from them, and several spoke against them.
them. Arch-
bishop Heath, whose learning and piety we have so
often admired, gave forth a laborious prelection upon
the former of them, concerning the supremacy, which
was perhaps unequal to his reputation. "You are by
this Bill," said he, "forsaking the See of Rome.
there no inconvenience and danger in that? You are
giving a supremacy, consisting of spiritual government,
to the Queen. Have you authority to grant this: or
has she capacity to receive it? If you meant only
to withdraw obedience from the present Pope Paul
the Fourth, who has shown himself a very austere
stern father to us ever since his entrance into Peter's
chair, then the cause were not of so much importance.
But by relinquishing the See of Rome we must for-
sake all general Councils, all canonical and ecclesiastical
laws of the Church of Christ, the judgment of all
other princes, and the unity of Christ's Church. By
leaping out of Peter's ship we hazard ourselves to be
drowned in the waters of schism, sects, and divisions.
As to the general Councils, the first four, of Nice,+
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, in various
ways acknowledged the Bishop of Rome to be their
chief head: therefore to deny the See Apostolic is
to set at nought their judgments. As to ecclesiastical
laws, they wholly depend on the authority of the See
Apostolic, and cannot bind the universal Church
without it. As to other princes, neither Protestant
nor Catholic agree with these our doings: for none of
them ever took such a title as Henry the Eighth did.
Whether are your wisdoms about to advise the Queen
to follow the example of King Uzziah who burned
VOL. V.
F
66
Speech of Archbishop Heath. [CH. XXXII.
?
1
incense, or of King David who would not touch the
Ark? * We have as humble and godly a mistress
to reign over us as ever had English people, if that
we do not seduce and beguile her by our flattery and
dissimulation. As to the Unity of Christ's Church,
by leaping out of Peter's ship we must, I say, be
overwhelmed with the waters of schism, sects, and
divisions. St. Cyprian says that the unity of Christ's
Church depends upon the unity of Peter's authority,
and that all heresies, sects, and schisms do spring.
for that men will not be obedient to the head bishop
of God.† Fleeing from the unity of the Church of
Rome, we must grant that the Church of Rome is
either of God or else a malignant church. If of God,
where Christ is truly taught and the Sacraments
rightly administered, how can we disburden ourselves
of forsaking that church with which we ought to be
one and not to admit any separation? If you answer
that it is a malignant church, then we of this realm
have never received any benefit of Christ, since we
have received no Gospel, no faith, no sacraments
other than were sent us from Rome. Holy Eleutherius
sent Faganus and Damianus in the time of King
Lucius. Holy Gregory sent Augustine and Mellitus.
And now Paulus Tertius lately sent Cardinal Pole, to
* He speaks of David seeing Uzziah (Ozias) stricken for presumption:
and this evokes a remark from Strype that "the Archbishop forgot that
Ozias was not before David, but many years after him." Strype himself
seems rather to have forgotten it was Uzzah of whom the archbishop was
then speaking, though it was of Uzziah just before. To put Ozias for
Oza was probably the feat of a clerk or printer.
+ The former of these Cyprianic quotations I have been unable to
trace. It may perhaps be among the Cyprianic interpolations, the
ingenious forgeries by which the most constant opponent of the neoteric
Roman theory of the universal see has been transformed into the most
noted witness for it. In the second of them, there is no mention of
head bishop: it is simply bishop (sacerdoti). Heath gives the Latin and
confutes himself.
1
1559.]
Speech of Bishop Scot.
67
restore the faith which Eleutherius and Gregory
planted. If the Church of Rome be a malignant
church, we have been deceived: for the doctrine must
be of the nature of the church whence it comes. Now,
with regard to this Supremacy and spiritual govern-
ment. Have you power to say to the Queen Tibi
dabo claves? Have you power to bid her Pasce, pasce,
pasce? Have you power by Act of Parliament to bid
her Confirma tuos fratres? Can you empower her to
excommunicate and minister spiritual punishment?
Can you make a
make a woman Supreme Head of the
Church?" Thus Heath, arguing as if the title of
Supreme Head had been to be renewed by Parliament
instead of taken away: and as if the Supremacy had
been now wrongfully transferred from a foreign
personage who never had it, and newly given to the
English sovereign; whereas the Act only professed
"to restore to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over
the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual." * Bishop Scot
of Chester also spoke against the Bill, on the third
reading. "I reverence," said he, "the work of the
noblemen to whom this Bill has been committed;
This is the title of the Act. A great part of Heath's speech is fired
against Supreme Head, but Supreme Head was not in the Bill. Hence
near half of Heath's speech was thrown away. Burnet was so surprised
at the line that Heath took on the Supremacy, that he concluded that the
speech was a forgery in Heath's name. "He is made to speak of the
Supremacy as a new and unheard of thing: which he, who had sworn it
so oft in king Henry and king Edward's times, could not have the face to
say."-Vol. ii. p. 612, Pocock. Strype, who first printed it from the Foxii
MSS. and the "Synodalia" in C. C. C., Cambridge, p. 75, has no doubt of
its genuineness.-Strype, App. 6. Nor is there any. The speech has
met with some sharp criticism. Collier says it is "without any great
strength of argument." Soames calls "leaping out of Peter's ship"
a ridiculous representation: and that "he is not much happier in any
of his points, the whole argument merely resting upon misrepresentations
easily refuted, puerile sophisms, assertions that preachers from Rome
have in all ages inculcated the same doctrines, and appeals to the darkest
portions of history."-Ref. iv. 626.
F 2
68
[CH. XXXII.
Speech of Bishop Scot
Treasurer Winchester, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls
of Westmoreland, Shrewsbury, Rutland, Sussex, and
Pembroke, the Marquis Montague, Lords Clinton,
Morley, Rich, Willoughby, and North, and the Bishops
of Exeter and Carlisle :* for there is nothing in the
Bill as to altering the Service in the Church, and the
due administration of the holy Sacraments: they will
not suffer it and they have mitigated the extreme
penalties mentioned in the Bill for gainsayers, for
their charity and pity toward the poor clergy of this
realm. But unity is to be maintained in the Church,
as order and concord in the civil state. Every village
has one constable, every hundred one head constable,
every
shire one sheriff. All the constables are under
the head constable, all the head constables are under
the sheriff, and all the sheriffs are under the prince.
So in the Church. Every village has a priest, every
city has a bishop, every province has a metropolitan.
All the priests are under the bishop, all the bishops
are under the metropolitan, and all the metropolitans
are under the Pope. Head Governor of the Church
Our
cannot be applied to any temporal prince.
Saviour Christ neither gave spiritual authority to
princes nor diminished their temporal authority. It
will be objected against me that the texts that I have
quoted to this end, against the Supremacy of princes,
make nothing for the Primacy of Peter: that the texts
concerning Peter refer to the other Apostles equally:
or refer to him alone and not to his successors. But
consider this, that the succession of Peter alone
continues in the Church, not the succession of any
of the other Apostles: that the same dangers of
infidelity and heresy that were in Peter's days ceased
* Of course he does not enumerate the committee. I have taken them
out of the Lords' Journals.
1559.]
against the Supremacy Bill.
69
not in the days of his successors, so that the places
that refer to Peter refer to his successors, and it was
provided that it should always be known where Peter's
faith was to be sought and found, if it were anywhere
lost. How otherwise shall we stay ourselves wavering
in this our time? At this present there be thirty-
four sects of opinions in Christendom: all differing
from the Catholic Church, and yet all constantly
challenging Christ to be their Foundation by Scripture,
and all confessing Christ to be the Son of the living
God, in the words of Peter's confession. I think then
that by the Stone was meant Peter and his successors,
to whom men may safely cleave; as it has been seen
for fifteen hundred years and odd. By the Evangelical
Voice of our Saviour, and by no Councils or Synods,
was this authority of which we speak given to the
Holy See, as is declared in the Preface of the Council
of Nicea. The Greek Church continued under Rome
eight hundred years: fourteen times has it returned
to Rome: and now that it is departed from Rome,
it is fallen into extreme misery. So Germany, so
Poland, so Denmark: look at the calamities of these
countries, in which however no prince has ever taken
upon him to be called Supreme Head. They are
departed indeed from Rome, but their departure
diminishes not the authority of Rome, more than the
loss of Normandy or France or Scotland takes away
the imperial authority of England, but that it is an
imperial Crown still. It is alleged that it was by
a provincial council or assembly of the clergy of the
realm of England that the authority of the Pope was
abolished, and some inculcate this against us as
a matter of great weight.* But no provincial or
* He means the Convocation of 1534. Just after the time of that very
Convocation Sir Thomas More made use of the same argument as Scot
70
[CH. XXXII.
Speech of Feckenham
particular council can make a determination against
the universal Church of Christ. And the learned
men who were the doers of that, as many as are dead
repented of their act before they died, and those that
live have openly revoked the same. The doctrine
of our adversaries is not yet fifty years old. If a man
should ask them of whom they learned it, they would
say, of the Germans. And of whom learned it the
Germans? Of Luther. And of whom learned it
Luther? He shall answer for himself. In one of his
books he says that such things as he taught against
the Mass and the blessed Sacrament of the altar he
learned of Satan the Devil. At whose hands it is
like that he received the rest of his doctrine. Luther
acknowledges the Devil to be his schoolmaster in
divers points of his doctrine." *
Against the other great measure, the Act for
Uniformity, which restored the English Service, the
oration of Feckenham, the only abbot in this, the last
abbot that sat in any Parliament, repeated with some
emphasis several arguments that had not been unheard
before. King Lucius and his fabulous embassy, and
the Roman emissaries, Damianus and Faganus, came
out again; and the alleged antiquity of the Papal
doctrine. "Here are two kinds of religion propounded,
the one fourteen hundred years old, the other here
set in a Book to be received and established by
authority of this Parliament, and to take effect next
Midsummer. Which of these is the more steadfast
and agreeable with itself? Is it that which has
a new book devised every other year, every new
book according to the sincere word of God, and
here, that "
one realm could not be set against all Christendom besides."
-Vol. I. p. 293 huj. op.
* Strype, App. No. 7.
1559.]
against the Uniformity Bill.
71
never a one of them agreeing in all points with the
other?" He went on to point out, not with extreme
accuracy, the differences between the First and the
Second Book of Edward.* And he ended with a
lamentable description of the disorders, the lawless-
ness, the running before the law, which marked the
new religion. "Which of these religions breeds the
more humble and obedient subjects? In good Mary's
days the people lived in order, and ran not before the
law. There was no spoiling of churches, no pulling
down of altars, and blasphemous treading of Sacra-
ments under foot, and hanging up of the knave of
clubs in the place thereof. There was no scotching
and cutting of the face and legs of the Crucifix and
image of Christ: no flesh eating and shambles kept
in Lent and days prohibited. In Mary's days the
subjects, especially the nobility, knew the way to
churches and chapels, there to begin the day with
prayers but since the coming of Elizabeth our dear
lady and queen, all things are turned upside down
by the preachers and scaffold-players of this new
religion. Obedience is gone, humility is abolished,
chastity and strict living denied." But Feckenham's
recollections were perhaps of more value than his
arguments: he had one or two things to relate which
are not devoid of interest.† Bishop Scot spoke in
* He says that Edward's First Book affirmed the Seven Sacraments,
and receiving in one kind: and he seems to say that his Second Book
dispensed with kneeling. "The First Book affirming the Seven Sacra-
ments and the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy
Eucharist, the other denying the same: the one Book admitting the real
Presence of Christ's Body in the said Sacrament to be received in one
kind with kneeling down, and great reverence done unto it, and that
in unleavened bread; and the other Book would have the Communion
received in both the kinds, and in loaf bread, without any reverence
but only unto the Body of Christ in heaven.”—Strype, App. 9. This is
very erroneous.
† He says that Peter Martyr in his famous disputation at Oxford
72
Speech of Bishop Scot [CH. XXXII.
a stronger strain, indignant that the alteration of
religion, which he had remarked to be unattempted
in the other Bill, should be effected in this. "It is
a Bill," said he, "that should not be suffered to be
read, or any ear given to it. For it breaks charity
in breaking unity, it calls into doubt or flatly denies
divers of the articles and mysteries of our faith, and
sets presumption in the place of hope. The bond
of charity being loosed, we must fall into sects and
parties, as we do at this present. Athanasius said
that it was superfluous to call in question matters
that had been determined by the three hundred or
more bishops of the Nicene Council: and here are we
calling in question matters determined and practised
in the Catholic Church by three hundred thousand
bishops or more! How can our Faith hang upon
an Act of Parliament? Parliament consists for the
(Vol. III. p. 116 of this work) gave a sense to the Words of Institution
which was different from any other interpretation. "In his Book by him
set forth of the Disputation in Oxford with the learned Students there, he
saith, Quod Christus dedit panem Discipulis suis, dicens, Hoc est Corpus
Meum, quasi diceret Corpus Meum per fidem receptum erit vobis pro
pane, vel instar panis. Of whose sense the English is this, That Christ's
Body received by faith shall be unto you as Bread, or instead of the
Bread." He says that he heard Ridley at Paul's Cross set forth the
Real Presence thus, "The devil did believe the Son of God was able
´to make of stones, bread: and we English people will not believe that
He did make of bread His very Body, Flesh, and Blood." None of
Ridley's sermons remain. He relates, about the Second Prayer Book
of Edward, this: “In the last Book that Cranmer and his complices did
set forth of the Communion in King Edward the Sixth his days, these
plain words of Christ, Hoc est Corpus Meum, did so encumber them and
trouble their wits, that they did leave out in the same last Book this verb
substantive est, and made the sense of Christ's words to be there Englished
Take eat this my Body, and left out there This is my Body: which
thing being espied by others, and great fault found withal, then they
were fain to patch up the matter with a little piece of paper clapped over
the foresaid words, wherein was written this verb substantive est." I have
not seen such a thing noticed by the editors of reprints of the book. It
seems an entire blunder.
}
1559.] against the Uniformity Bill.
73
most part of lay and temporal men, not so exercised
in the Scriptures and the doctrines and practices of
the Church as to be competent judges of such matters.
There ought to be certainty in our Faith and Religion:
but look at the uncertainty of statutes of Parliament.
That which is established by Parliament one year is
abrogated the next. One king disallows the statutes
made under the other. Those who have read histories
and know the discourse and order of the Church, can
testify that controversies in matters of religion have
been discussed and determined at all times by the
clergy only, and never by the Temporalty. The
heresy of Arius and the following heresies were con-
demned by councils in the ages of the Emperors.
Those good Emperors never assembled their nobility
and commons to determine such controversies, nor
asked their minds, nor went by the number of voices
therein, as is done in this realm at this time. In the
Acts of the Apostles the infidel judge Gallio declared
that he would be no judge of such matters." Scot
gave a critical examination of the two services, the
Latin and the English, as to the Sacrament of the
altar. He was
He was a vigorous orator, but it may be
observed that the temporal estates were not engaged
in the work of councils or synods of the Church; that
is, they were not engaged in making formularies of
faith or worship, but in confirming or establishing
in the realm by their authority formularies made by
theologians elsewhere, and submitted to them. And
the question between the two services, the Latin or
the English, involved not heresy. To prefer the
English Service was not to be a heretic, because
the English Service was not heretical.*
* Scot's oration is printed in Strype. It was made on April 28. It is
curious that in the printed Journal of the Lords there are several sittings
74 Westminster Disputation arranged. [CH. XXXII.
•
A month before he made this speech Scot had been
engaged in a scene which might have proved to him
that the assemblies of the temporal estates were less
desirous of doing the work proper for ecclesiastical
assemblies than of listening to ecclesiastics defining
the points of variance or difficulty. By order of the
Council, at the end of March, in the church of
Westminster a disputation was set between eight
or nine of the leading Romanensians and eight or
nine of the Evangelics.* Of the former party four
or five were members of the House of Lords, being
bishops; and the House of Lords adjourned, the
House of Commons adjourned, for several days to
profit by the exhibition of polemical learning.† The
arrangements had been made by the Archbishop
of York, at the request of his fellow Councillors,
some time beforehand, and it had been settled that
the disputation was to be in writing for the avoidance
of the tumultuary and accidental character of verbal
omitted, and that no mention is made of the Act for Uniformity. But
in the MS. of the Journal which D'Ewes followed, these sittings were
recorded, and the progress of the measure through the House is given.
Wharton also saw this MS. and has given the like particulars in his
animadversions on Burnet.—Specimen of Errors, p. 196.
* I call the party in the Church of England, which was opposed to the
Romanensian party in the Church of England, the Evangelics. It is
difficult to get for them a word that is free from prejudice. In this
particular disputation Machyn calls them "the new preachers." He calls
their adversaries "the bishops” (p. 192).
+ It is said, in the official account, so to call it, of this conference, that
as soon as it was arranged to be held, "divers of the nobility and states
of the realm 'requested that it might be' in the presence of them of the
nobility and others of the Parliament House, for the better satisfaction
and enabling of their own judgments to entreat and conclude of such laws
as might depend thereon," because they understood that the said
conference would be on certain matters, “whereupon, the Court of
Parliament consequently following, some laws might be grounded." The
design was to instruct the laity before they proceeded to ecclesiastical
legislation. This was the more necessary for that all the bishops were of
one side.
1559.] Obstruction of the Romanensians.
75
disceptations, in English for the instruction of the
audience; that the writings after being read aloud
were to be mutually exchanged between the parties
for further consideration and answer: that the Roman-
ensian party were to begin because of their higher
dignity who had so many bishops among them:
and that the controversy should be upon three articles
or questions propounded by the Council, namely, that
the services of the Church should not be in a tongue
unknown to the people; that every church has authority
in rites and ceremonies; and that in the Mass it cannot
be proved by the word of God that there is a Sacri-
fice propitiatory for the quick and the dead.* These
were well chosen. For the first it may be said that
it was time to end the contest of books and languages
in the Church of England: for the second, it was
necessary to claim or relinquish the right of national
reformation in face of the huge demands of Rome,
which made it heresy to stir without the Pope: for
the third, it was wise to limit the most awful of
controversies to deciding concerning a single momen-
tous assertion whether it were to be maintained or
not. The conditions of the meeting seemed fair,
and likely to have ensured an instructive conference,
and they were thought to have been accepted by
both parties.
But to the Romanensians they were
not acceptable. The Romanensians disliked the terms
of the articles or theses, which affirmed the positions
* The three propositions were:
I. It is against the word of God and the custom of the ancient Church
to use a tongue unknown to the people in common prayer and the
administration of the Sacraments.
2. Every church hath authority to appoint, take away, and change
ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites, so the same be to edification.
3. It cannot be proved by the word of God that there is in the
Mass offered up a Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead.
76
[CH. XXXII.
Objections and Delays.
of their adversaries. They disliked the privilege of
beginning first, which made them assailants, whereas
they claimed to be in possession of the citadel to be
defended. They felt themselves cut off from their
own authorities, if the proof were limited to the word
of God and the primitive Church. They preferred
Latin to English, and they desired to intermingle
with written dissertations something of the freedom
of verbal contest. In the precious interval of ten
days, during which their adversaries were forging
their weapons, the Romanensian champions were
trying to get the conditions of the combat altered.
In the encounter itself their behaviour frustrated a
great occasion, irretrievably damaged their cause, and
exposed themselves to penalty.*
* An account of this conference was published at once by the Queen's
printers, and must be regarded as the official account, although its official
character seems to have escaped the notice of the later historians. There
are three manuscript copies of it in S.P. Elizabeth, Dom. iii. 52, 53, 54,
one of them corrected by Cecil. There is a printed copy, a duodecimo
in blackletter, in the C. C. C., Cambridge, Library, MS. cxxi. 21, entitled
"The Declaration of the proceeding of a Conference begun at Westminster
the last of March, 1559, concerning certain articles of religion, and the
breaking up of the said Conference by default and contempt of certain
Bishops parties of the said Conference: Imprinted at London by Richard
Jugg and John Cawood, printers to the Queen's Majesty. Cum privilegio
Regiæ Majest." It is printed in Fox, Holinshed, and Burnet. In the
same volume of MSS., the well-known "Synodalia" of Corpus Christi,
there is contained a Latin memorial, no doubt addressed to Archbishop
Heath by the Romanensian champions, which was first published, I think,
by Mr. Pocock in his edition of Burnet. This document enables us to
explain the conduct of the Romanensians, which has seemed unaccount-
able hitherto to historians: they acted in exact accordance with it, as may
be seen in the text. It is as follows:
"Ante omnia protestamur, qui filii sumus ecclesiæ et membra corporis
Christi mystici (a cujus veritate discedere non debemus) nos nihil acturos
esse quod decretis et traditionibus ejusdem quoquo modo adversetur.
"Quia nos una cum tota ecclesia catholica uniforme fidei doctrinam et
ceremoniarum professionem tenemus quarumque possessionem habemus :
idcirco postulamus ut adversarii materias et argumenta, si quae habeant
contra proposita dogmata in scriptis primo nobis exhibeant cum sub-
1559.]
The Disputation is begun.
77
Upon the day appointed, Friday, March 31, a place
was prepared in the choir of Westminster Abbey,
where two opposite tables were set for the two parties
of the combatants. At the upper end was a table
across whereat sat the Queen's Council, the chair
of president being taken by Sir Nicolas Bacon, the
Lord Keeper. The nobility and the Commons in
large number occupied the stalls and seats around.
The Romanensians appeared and took their place:
White the Bishop of Winchester, Baines of Lichfield,
Scot of Chester, Oglethorpe of Carlisle, Watson of
Lincoln, Dean Cole of St. Paul's, Archdeacon Harps-
field of Canterbury, Archdeacon Langdale of Lewes,
and Archdeacon Chedsey of Middlesex: with whom
sat also, though not exactly as disputers, Bishop
Turberville of Exeter and Abbot Feckenham of
Westminster itself. At the opposite table were ranged
the Evangelics, Doctor Scory, Doctor Cox, Master
Whitehead, Master Grindal, Horne, Guest, Aylmer,
Sandys, and Jewel.* Such forces had not met since
scriptionibus manuum suarum, quibus nos similiter respondebimus ad
vitandas calumnias et falsificationes.
"Postulamus præterea ut detur refellendi et replicandi facultas utrique
parti quoties fuerit opportunum, idque Latine et omnia in scriptis: nam
contendere verbis, ut inquit Apostolus, ad nihil utile est nisi ad sub-
versionem audientium. Quodsi quando de sensu vel intelligentia
Scripturarum oriatur ambiguitas, interpretatio sit penes ecclesiam et
patres."-Pocock's Burnet, v. 529.
I may add here that the official account has been augmented by Fox,
in his reprint of it, by a vivid narrative, evidently from an eyewitness, of
the second day's proceedings at this conference: and that the official
account, thus augmented, forms the original for the transaction. The
later historians seem not to have perceived the double form of this
original.
* There is some diversity of record as to the number of disputants.
I have followed the official account, which gives nine a side. Fox, Stow,
Holinshed, Burnet, give nine. Jewel in a letter gives nine. The letter
of the Council to Heath, entrusting the business to him, bids him name
eight, nine, or ten a side. It is added, in the official account, that after
78 Romanensians mistake the Order. [CH. XXXII.
the memorable conflict in St. Paul's in the correspond-
ing period of the reign of Mary, and of those who
fought then some were harnessed now; Watson,
Harpsfield, and Chedsey on the one, and on the other
party Aylmer.* As the animated scene of a verbal
disputation was not to be repeated according to the
order arranged, the splendid audience settled them-
selves to listen to the book or writing which it was
expected that the Romanensians, who were to begin,
had prepared. To the surprise of all they announced
that they had no book ready, that they had mistaken
the order: but that they were ready to dispute in
words for that time, agreeing to write their book
and deliver it to their adversaries afterwards.†
This
some days Heath signified to the Council that the bishops had chosen
nine on their part. There are other authorities who only give eight
a side. Some omit Oglethorpe, some Turberville, some Feckenham:
some omit Sandys on the other side. But Oglethorpe was there, for
he was fined for his behaviour; Turberville was there and Feckenham, for
they are incidentally mentioned in the proceedings, but not as officially
present. There are some other variations, but it is not worth while to
remark them.
* See Vol. IV. p. 74 sqq. huj. op.
+ By saying that they had mistaken the order to conduct the disputa-
tion in writing, the Romanensians put themselves in a false position: for
they had accepted that it should be in writing. They had in their
memorial to Archbishop Heath indeed requested that it should be “all
in writing." This is alleged against them in the official account; and
it is in that document furthermore more than once asserted that it had
been fully agreed that the disputation "should be in writing on both
parts, for avoiding of much altercation in words," that they were to begin,
and "first declare their minds and opinions to the matter, with their
reasons in writing," and that the other party "should the same day
declare their opinions in like manner, and so each of them should deliver
their writings to the other, to be considered what were to be improved
therein, and the same to declare again in writing at some other convenient
day, and the like order to be kept in all the rest of the matters." And
that "all this was fully agreed upon with the Archbishop of York, and so
also signified to both parties." Further it is said, that as soon as this was
arranged "the nobility and states of the realm," that is, the Houses of
Parliament, requested that the disputation might be written in English,
1559.]
Dr. Cole's Speech.
79
appeared strange, but it was permitted without great
reprehension, and they were requested to begin to
dispute by word of mouth, upon the first proposition.
They put forward Dean Cole as their spokesman :
and he with great vehemence delivered a long oration,
turning chiefly on the inconvenience of making a
schism by altering the established usage of the
Church. He promised that an answer should be
made to the written arguments of his opponents in
the writing or book that his party were to prepare.
When he had ended, the rest were asked whether they
had any more to say, and they answered, No. The
Evangelics then proceeded to exhibit their writing or
book on the first proposition, about having the service
in the language of the people.* It was read by Horne,
for their better understanding: and that "this was signified to both
parties, and fully agreed upon." The Romanensians acted as if their
requests for alterations in the arranged order had caused alterations
to be made. Their requests, it is probable, received no answer; but
they should not have concluded that they were granted, because they
heard no more of them. We must not suppose that they were not
informed of the arrangements as soon as their adversaries, though this
is asserted in some of the accounts.
* Some have remarked that the other side must have read their paper
before Cole spoke: for that he speaks as if he had just heard it. This
is true, but according to the official "Declaration" the order was as
I have given it: that Cole spoke first. And the official account is con-
firmed by Doctor Cox, an eyewitness, who says in a letter, "it was
decided that the opposite party should first deliver their opinion. One
of them, like Goliath, advances his positions, and applauds himself as
victor. One of ours replies," &c.-Zurich Letters, i. 27. The account
in the Venetian Cal. (p. 64) also confirms the official account. So also
the Spanish Cal. (p. 46). Perhaps Cole's oration, when it was written
out, was touched up, so as to make it seem as if he had spoken after
the Evangelics, and in answer to them. Collier thinks that Cole
spoke twice, once before and once after the Evangelics, and that
we have only his second speech. But there is no indication of this
in the originals. Jewel, one of Cole's opponents, gives a ludicrous
account of his vehemence, and rather burlesques his arguments.-
Zurich Letters, Let. v. One of his arguments is interesting in the
present day of controversy. The famous passage of Irenæus, "Ad
80
[CH. XXXII.
Horne's Speech.
the former Dean of Durham, who prefaced it by
a prayer and a solemn protestation that they stood
to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, although they
understood not by the Catholic Church the Romish
Church, asking that in this disputation they might
have more gentle treatment than formerly, in years
past, when they were "handled most unjustly and
scantly." He also required his adversaries to show
cause why they now opposed the true Catholic
doctrine and faith, to which most of them had sub-
scribed not many years before. He proceeded to
read the prepared paper; which was plain, direct,
and moderate. When he had ended, the bishops
began to exclaim that they had now much more to
*
hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnes
alias ecclesias convenire," is understood by Cole as it is by the
modern Roman Catholics, and "convenire ad" is by him rendered
agree with, not resort to. "It is necessary that all churches do
conform themselves, and agree with the see or church of Rome."-
Burnet (Pocock), v. 517.
* Fox gives this prefatory protestation. It is not in Burnet (Records,
Part ii. Bk. iii. No. 3, Pocock's edition, v. 507), who has printed the paper,
read by Horne, from the C. C.C., Cambridge, MS. cxxi. 21. The Spanish
Calendar gives the following account of the matter, and of the whole
first day's conference: "Although they had been given to understand
that the discussion was to be verbal, and that all could give their vote,
Bacon announced that they had to dispute in writing. The Catholics
could not do this, as they had been deceived; but nevertheless Dr. Cole,
dean of S. Paul's, said something on the matter. As soon as he had
finished speaking, one of the heretics arose, and kneeling down with his
back to the altar, on which was the Sacrament, he prayed that God would
inspire and enlighten those present to understand the truth. When the
prayer was ended, another of them took out a book, and read very diffusely
all that they had prepared and devised on the first point. When this was
done, the bishops wished to follow up the discussion as they expected, and
reply to the heretic's arguments: but Bacon would not allow it. The
Bishop of Winchester said that as no one had spoken on their side but
Cole, and all of them had much to say, they should give them another
day to reduce to writing what they had to say, so as to give them the
same advantage as their opponents: and so with difficulty and bad grace
they gave them till Monday" (p. 46).
1559.]
The Second Point begun.
81
say to that matter. It was determined thereon that
when the two other propositions had been handled
in writing by both parties on the following days of
conference, they should have an opportunity of return-
ing a written answer to the writing read by Horne;
which answer in the meantime they might be pre-
paring. To this both parties assented.
((
On the Monday following the same assembly met
in the same place.* "Begin, my Lords," said the
Lord Keeper to the Episcopal or Romanensian party,
upon the second question, in writing, according to
the order appointed at our last meeting, which I am
sure ye remember." The Romanensians had brought
a paper on the first question, which they had entrusted
to Harpsfield to read. "I am determined," answered
Bishop White, "that now be read what we have on
the first question." Harpsfield rose to read it four
times, amid some disturbance, and as often was made
to desist. "Will you not then proceed in the order
appointed you?” asked the Lord Keeper. "We should
suffer prejudice if we entreated not now of the first,"
answered White, "for that I am provided, all my
brethren are so minded." The rest of the bishops
signified that it was so, and Watson of Lincoln added
that what Cole had spoken at the last meeting was
not prepared to strengthen their cause, but that he
The House of Commons was prorogued to be present. "For that
this day, April 3, was appointed to have disputation before the Council
and Lords in Westminster Choir between the bishops and Mr. Horne,
Mr. Cox, and other Englishmen that came from Geneva; and for that
it was meet that they of this House should be there present to hear, this
Court was continued until the morrow following."-Commons' Journal,
i. 59.
+ Dr. Harpsfield rose four times with the paper in his hand, and was
refused permission each time, Bacon still urging them to pass to the
second article, and they replying that they wished to be heard on the first,
&c.-Spanish Calendar, p. 47.
VOL. V.
G
82
The Romanensian Party [CH. XXXII.
made his oration of himself and ex tempore, that
they were not indifferently treated, if they were not
now allowed to read what they had written on the
first question, and that they were ill used as touching
the time, having been warned only two days before the
last assembly, their adversaries having been warned
long before. This was received with disfavour by the
audience, who remembered that Cole had been assisted
by his party, and the Lord Keeper sternly warned
them to take heed lest they should have it proved
against them that they complained without cause.
(6
Your writing," said he, "which ye would now have
read, should have been heard the first on the first
day, but Cole spoke instead, and we understood that
he said what you would have him and as much: for so
you were asked, and ye granted it. Then the other
part was heard; and upon that ye pretended that you
had more to say." The bishops answered that they
had more to say, if they might be indifferently heard.
"As to indifferent usage," said Bacon, "how would ye
use those other men, if you had your way? Many
who are here present, were not present the other day,
so that they would hear your writing which heard not
theirs. Both sides were warned at one time: but they,
not you, kept the order." He went on to promise that
they should read their first writing when the day came
for answering one another in confirmation of the first
question, and to this the Council agreed. Bishop
Baines of Lichfield objected that there would not be
time for so much reading in one day, if their adver-
saries read one book and they two. Bacon replied
that he for his part would gladly tarry the time to
hear both sides, when the day came, and all the
audience gave a shout, that they would hear gladly.
Bishop Watson declared that they had been ordered
$
1559.]
raise renewed Difficulties.
83
first by the Archbishop to dispute verbally in Latin:
then that there came another commandment to provide
a Latin writing: and at last they were ordered to bring
writings in English. The Lord Keeper totally denied
this. "We so understood the order, my Lords," said
Bishops Baines and Scot. Bacon then invited them
to begin upon the second question, when Baines
audaciously declared that they had been appointed
to bring that day what they had upon the first
question. Bacon appealed to the rest of the Council
whether it were not the second question that was
ordered. "We were willed to bring in this day our
writing for the first day also," said the Bishop of
Lincoln. But this was too much for Archbishop
Heath, who roundly told his brethren that they were
to blame for standing on that issue, that the order was
plain to treat of the second question, and that they
should leave their contention, and begin. "Go to
now, begin, my Lords," said Bacon. Another objection
was then taken. "It is contrary to the order in
disputation that we should begin," said Baines.
"We
have the negative, they the affirmative, therefore they
must begin," said Watson. They must speak first
what they can bring against us: we are the defending
part," said Baines. "So is the school manner, and the
manner in Westminster Hall, the plaintiffs speak
first," said Scot. "We should do against the school
order to begin," said Baines. "We are come hither,"
answered Bacon, "to keep the order of God, and to
set forth His truth: it lies not in me to change the
order that we have taken for this." Oglethorpe of
Carlisle replied, "We are of the Catholic Church, and
in possession of the truth: they must say what they
have against us, and we must defend our cause." So
said the rest, Baines adding that they had heard of no
""
1
G 2
84
Bacon at last breaks up [CH. XXXII.
such order as that they should begin. The Lord
Keeper answered smartly that they had heard the
order, and had obeyed it willingly in the first question
by beginning: why then were they not willing to begin
in the second? Watson said that in the first they had
the affirmative, which now their adversaries had, and
therefore should begin. The Evangelics denied this.
Baines expressed his surprise that the other side
named themselves of the Catholic Church, challenging
"We do so," was
the name as well as they themselves.
the answer of the Evangelics, "and we are of the true
Catholic Church, and maintain the verity thereof."-
"Yet," said Watson, "ye would overthrow all Catholic
order.""I wonder," said Horne, "that ye stand so
much who should begin.”—“You think it requisite
that we should follow your orders, even as we have
taken the questions at your hands," said Watson.
The Lord Keeper remarked that the questions were
not devised by either side, but offered indifferently
to both and Horne added that the questions having
been propounded by the Council, the bishops chose
the negative and yet were willing at first to begin
first, whereas now they would not do the like. This
appearing unanswerable, the Bishop of Lichfield, as if
he were in his own consistory, proposed to examine
whether his party or his adversaries were of the true
Catholic Church. "Now you go from the matter, and
make questions of your own,” said the Lord Keeper.
Baines persisted that this was the first requisite. "We
must needs go to work, and try that first, what Church
they be of: for there are many churches in Germany.
Master Horne, Master Horne, I pray you which of
these churches are you of?" Horne answered that
he was of Christ's Catholic Church. The Lord Keeper
again intervened, and in the further conversation, or
1559.] the Westminster Disputation.
85
wrangle, which followed, Scot of Chester observed that,
if they spoke first, their adversaries would have the
last word, and depart with the applause of the people,
and called on their adversaries to give them place.
Doctor Aylmer answered that they had given them
place, because they were bishops; they had given them
the first place. "A goodly giving of place," said
Bishop Baines, "I assure you: yea, marry, ye gave
place." The Lord Keeper now proposed to break up
the conference. "If," said he, "ye make this assembly
to be gathered in vain, and will not go to the matter,
let us rise and depart."-" Content," answered White
of Winchester, "let us be gone, for in this point we
will not give over." He added that they would not
so hinder their religion, or afford such evil example to
posterity as to give over to their adversaries.
"Let
us break up then," said Bacon, but, as the bishops rose
straightway to depart, he stopped them.
"Let us
see," said he, "whether every one of you be thus
minded. My Lord of Winchester, how say you, will
not you begin to read your writing?"-"No, surely,"
answered White; "I am fully determined, howsoever
my brethren do." The Lord Keeper then asked the
same question of Bishop Watson, of Bishop Baines,
and of Dean Cole and Doctor Chedsey and Arch-
deacon Harpsfield, receiving the same answer from
them all. The sentence of Scot of Chester was that
he would not refuse to read, if they were commanded,
but that they ought not to do it: of Oglethorpe of
Carlisle, that they might read first, if their writing
should alone be read, and so be the last read. But
Feckenham, after some fencing, was of the opposite
opinion, and thought that they should read their paper.
Bacon then broke up the meeting with the final words,
My Lords, since ye refuse to read your writing, and
""
86
The Bishops' Real Motive. [CH. XXXII.
will not that we should hear you, you may perhaps
shortly hear of us.”
The conduct of the Romanensians had another
origin than perversity or misunderstanding. It arose
out of the intolerable assumption that their adversaries
were heretics, and that they themselves were standing
as Catholics against them: it arose in part from clerical
sensitiveness shrinking from having established truth
or usage judged by the laity. It was increased by
the number of bishops among them, who shrank from
displaying their abilities before one another, but vied
with one another in defying without fighting the
common foe. Their arrogant timidity, for such it
seemed, stood in contrast with the meekness and
resolution of their adversaries. The fear of defeat
may have confirmed them in evading the issue, but
defeat would never have prejudiced their cause so
much as that they fled the field.*
* "It cannot be believed how much this conduct has lowered the
bishops in the opinion of the people. They think that as they would
not say anything, they had nothing to say." Jewel to P. Martyr.-Zurich
Letters, i. 16. As to their motives, Sanders seems to be the fountain of some
that have been imputed to them: such as that they felt it inconsistent
with their character to dispute before laymen, with a layman for president,
and to have the faith of the Church called in question.. His account is
curious. He gives not accurately the questions to be discussed; to him
the disputation was between Catholics and heretics; he abuses Lord
Keeper Bacon. He makes the bishops vainly object beforehand to the
whole thing. "Et sane quam primum admonent Episcopos, nomine suæ
majestatis, ut vel ipsi se ad disputationem cum quibusdam Protestantibus
parent, vel alios e suo clero qui hanc provinciam obire velint substituant.
Respondentibus Episcopis æquum non esse ut ea que jam a multis seculis
tot et tam celebribus Pontificum, Conciliorum ac Patrum judiciis definita
sunt in questionem ac disputationem veniant; multoque minus ut ea que
in Academiis certo ordine coram doctis ac judicio valentibus agitari
deberent, coram imperito ac novitatis studioso populo, qui clamoribus
potius quam argumentis rem omnem definire solet, tractentur: denique
asserentibus contra contentiosos et Ecclesiæ judicio non acquiescentes
parum profici disputationibus, nihil egerunt: quia Protestantes omnino
voluerunt ut disputarent, propositis in questionem (ut fit) eis articulis qui
1
1559.]
Two Bishops imprisoned.
87
On the evening of the same day the Bishops of
Winchester and Lincoln were sent to the Tower for
contempt. Their captivity was made as easy as it was
possible, and the jest of one of their late adversaries,
which has seemed the joy of his malice, may rather
have for its point the mildness of the measure meted to
them.* On the next day the rest of their company,
videbantur habere majorem pro hereticis in scripturis probationis speciem :
ut, de Communione sub utraque specie, de publicis precibus habendis in
lingua vulgari, et similia." He proceeds to describe the contest: "Dies
ergo et locus disputationi designati sunt: personæ utrinque selectæ :
judex fit (si Diis placet) Nicolaus Baconus, homo laicus, hereticus, ac rerum
divinarum prorsus imperitus, assistente ad speciem tantum Reverendis-
simo Archiep. Eboracensi. Dies advenit, qui fuit 3 Ap., infiniti con-
fluxerunt: iniquæ disputandi leges ab hereticis tantum præscribuntur ;
nihil ordine et ratione factum, declamationibus hinc inde tempus elabitur:
profanus judex omnis ut volebat moderatur: res ad nihilum redit, heretici
in insania pergunt." He goes on that the magnanimous bishops, despising
their own danger, or some of them, were for excommunicating the Queen
and her advisers, but the more prudent thought that inconvenience might
follow if they did that. (His language seems to intimate that they spoke
of this so as to be heard.)-Sanders, De Schism. 266 (ed. 1628). This
story of threatening to excommunicate the Queen is repeated by Camden,
and others after him; as Heylin. Mr. Bridgett argues against it as
"intrinsically improbable," without seeming to know that it came origi-
nally from his own side.-Eliz. and the Catholic Hierarchy, 161.
* "A letter to the Lieutenant of the Tower, with the bodies of the
Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, whom he is willed to keep in sure
and several ward, suffering them nevertheless to have each of them one
of their own men to ‘tend upon them, and their own stuff for their bedding
and other necessary furniture, and to appoint them to some convenient
lodgings, meet for persons of their sort, using them also otherwise well,
specially the Bishop of Lincoln, for that he is sick; for which respect also,
and because this is his sick night, the said Lieutenant is willed to have
the rather regard unto 'him, and to spare him some of his own lodging
and stuff for this night, and also to suffer his surgeon and such other
as shall be needful for his health to have access unto him from time
to time.' At the same time Cave and Sackville were appointed to take
possession of the houses of the two bishops, and peruse their papers."
Acts of Privy Council, p. 78. Perhaps Jewel did "gloat" over the mis-
fortune of his late adversaries, as Mr. Bridgett says: and perhaps his joke
about “castrametation," in one of his letters, may have had the hidden
meaning that they could walk about the Tower. History records greater
woes.
In a subsequent order of Council the Lieutenant is told to have
88
Bishops bound to appear. [CH. XXXII.
all but Feckenham, were ordered to make their
personal appearance before the Council once every
day, and not to depart from London or Westminster
without license. It was the Bishops of Lichfield, of
Chester, of Carlisle, it was Cole and Harpsfield and
Chedsey who received this stroke: their personal
appearances day after day to the middle of May are
minuted in the Acts of the Council, when a break in
that register, extending over several years, leaves their
case unclosed. The House of Lords however was
not deprived of the three bishops by their appear-
ance daily before the Council: it was ordered that
upon the Parliament days" it should be sufficient for
them to report themselves at the House to the Lord
Keeper, and hence it was that Bishop Scot of Chester
was able to deliver the eloquent speeches, which we
have reviewed, upon the great ecclesiastical measures
of the session. All six of them were moreover heavily
fined.* On the Sunday after the abortive Conference
(6
the Bishop of Lincoln, for his quartan ague, at his own table, and give
him the liberty of the house.—Acts, p. 93.
* The fines in the recognisances were: Baines of Coventry, 2,000 marks;
Scot of Chester, £1,000; Oglethorpe of Carlisle, 500 marks; Dean Cole,
1,000 marks; Harpsfield, 500 marks; Chedsey, £300.-Acts, p. 79.
These were afterwards assessed at: Baines, £333 6s. 8d.; Scot, 200 marks;
Oglethorpe, £250; Cole, 500 marks; Harpsfield, £40; Chedsey, 40 marks.
-Ib. p. 103. Cf. Strype, i. 96. In the Acts of the Council about this
period there are many minutes of the appearances of the three bishops,
and of the three doctors. Thus, April 6, "The Bishops of Coventry,
Chester, and Carlisle came this day, and made their appearance, desiring
it might be so recorded. Doctor Cole, Doctor Chedsey, and Doctor
Harpsfield did also the like” (p. 80). Another time it is, "Doctor Chedsey
and Doctor Harpsfield made this day their appearance, and Doctor Cole
being sick sent his man to record the same" (p. 89). The entry about
"Parliament days" is, "The Lords resolved this day that the Bishops
of Chester, Carlisle, and Coventry and Lichfield, before bounden, shall
from henceforth upon the Parliament days record their appearance there
to the Lord Great Seal: and that notwithstanding their former recogni-
sances it shall be sufficient for them so to do."—April 8 (p. 80).
1559.]
Opening of Convocation.
89
Doctor Bill, the Queen's almoner, was the preacher
chosen for Paul's Cross, where he read a bill or paper
declaring the cause of the imprisonment of the bishops,
their frowardness in disappointing so august an
assembly by refusing the intended disputation.*
see.
Scenes very different from these (to recede toward
the beginning of the year) were presented in the
sessions of the first Convocation of this reign, but
even there the shadows of impending change were
cast. On January 24, a day before the meeting of
Parliament, the Bishop of London, with Pate Bishop of
Worcester, and Baines of Lichfield, entered the chapter
house of St. Paul's, where Dean Cole, Vicar General
of Canterbury, tendered them, and they accepted,
the burden of the commission of the archiepiscopal
Three days later the Commissioners, the Abbot
of Westminster, and the clergy met in the choir of
St. Paul's; the Mass of the Holy Ghost was performed,
but no sermon followed. On their return to the
chapter house, the Bishop of London explained that
the archiepiscopal see being void, the Queen's Council
had ordered no sermons to be had in that church until
the royal assent should have been obtained.† A week
after that, Nicolas Harpsfield, the Archdeacon of
Canterbury, was presented as Prolocutor by Dean
Cole and John Harpsfield Archdeacon of London.
A week after that, February 9, Bonner asked the
lower clergy whether they had anything to exhibit
that day. The Prolocutor, the other Harpsfield,
* Wriothesley, 144; Machyn, 194; cf. Strype, i. 133. This paper, that
Bill read, may have been the official account, or Declaration of the
proceeding," which we have.
+ I know not whence Burnet asserts that the Queen sent to them
to forbid them to make any canons on pain of præmunire, unless it was
from Heylin's remark that at this time the Submission of the Clergy
was void, having been repealed by Mary.
90
The Two Houses confer. [CH. XXXII.
Chedsey, and Thomas Reynolds answered that they
knew neither why nor on what they were to treat,
and requested that some means might be taken to
preserve religion.* The bishops replied that it seemed
advisable for the clergy to petition the Queen that no
burden should be laid on them in that Parliament.
A fortnight later, February 25, a second conference
between the Houses followed, when the Prolocutor
offered some Articles in writing, which he said that the
clergy had composed for the discharge of their
consciences and the declaration of their Faith, at the
same time requesting the bishops to take the lead in
this,† and on the last of February, it is curious to read,
the Bishop of London and the clergy exhibited these
Articles formally, as if they were of their joint com-
posure, to the bishops. They prefixed to them a
solemn address or preface,§ in which they particularly
notified the constitutional validity of their assembly as
* "Ut ratio ineatur quomodo religio posset conservari.”—Wilkins, iv. 179.
+ "Petierunt ut ipsi episcopi sint duces sibi hac in re.”—Ib.
"Episcopus Londin. commisarius &c., et clerus inferioris domus ex-
hibuerunt articulos suos in priori sessione conceptos: quos lectos Episcopi
præsentandos promiserunt superiori domui Parliamenti crastino die.”—Ib.
§ "Reverendi in Christo Patres, ac Domini colendissimi. Quoniam
fama publica referente ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit multa
religionis Christianæ dogmata publico et unanimi gentium Christianarum
consensu hactenus recepta et probata, ac ab Apostolis ad nos usque
concorditer per manus deducta, præsertim articulos infra scriptos, in
dubium vocari: Hinc est quod nos Cantuariensis Provinciæ inferior
secundarius Clerus in uno (Deo sic disponente ac serenissimæ dominæ
nostræ Reginæ, Decani et Capituli Cant. mandato, brevi Parliamenti,
ac monitione ecclesiastica solita declarata id exigente) convenientes,
partium nostrarum esse existimavimus, tum nostræ, tum eorum, quorum
cura nobis committitur, æternæ saluti omnibus quibus poterimus modis
prospicere. Quocirca majorum nostrorum exemplis commoti, qui in similia
sæpe tempora inciderunt, fidem, quam in Articulis infra scriptis, veram
esse credimus, et ex animo profitemur ad Dei laudem, et honorem officiique
et aliarum nostræ curæ commissarum exonerationem, præsentibus
duximus publice inferendam affirmantes, et sicut Deus nos in die judicii
adjuvet asserentes: Primo, &c."-Ib.; cf. Fuller, Book ix, p. 444 (ed. 1837).
1559.]
Protest of Convocation.
91
called by command, mandate, writ, and all due and
wonted ecclesiastical monition; that it was notorious
that many doctrines of the Christian religion, hitherto
received by all Christian nations, and delivered or
handed down from the Apostles, were now called into
question; that they, the inferior and secondary clergy
of the province, conceived it their duty to provide by
all means possible for the salvation of themselves and
such as were committed to their charge, according to
the examples of their predecessors who had fallen
upon like times. The Articles which followed, five
in number, were brief and uncompromising, and the
whole memorial of the clergy was concluded with
a solemn supplication to the bishops to perform the
pious and charitable duty of presenting them to the
higher powers in Parliament, for the health of their
flocks and the deliverance of their own souls.* The
bishops promised to present them to the House of
Lords next day. But no such formal presentation as
was expected appears to have been made. A week
later, March 6, to the question of the clergy, Bonner
said that he had given the Articles to "the common
mouth of all the Lords in the House of Lords,"
meaning the Lord Keeper, who took them graciously,
but made no answer whatever.† The Prolocutor and
* This supplication ran, "Quam nostram assertionem, affirmationem
et fidem nos inferior clerus prædictus ob considerationes prædictas vestris
paternitatibus tenore presentium exhibemus: humiliter supplicantes
ut, quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam et intentionem
aliter illis, quos in hac parte interest, notificandi, vos, qui patres
estis, ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis. Qua in re officium
charitatis ac pietatis (ut arbitramur) præstabitis, et saluti gregis vestri
(ut par est) prospicietis, et vestras ipsi animas liberabitis."-Wilkins,
iv. 180.
+"Qui
Qui erat os commune omnium dominorum illius domus: Qui
articulos prædictos, ut apparebat, gratanter accepit, sed nullum omnino
responsum dedit.”—Ib.
92
[CH. XXXII.
The Several Articles
the clergy requested in reply that they might at their
next meeting be informed of the Lord Keeper's will
in the matter. They met the next day, when Bonner
told them that he had found no opportunity of speaking
with the Lord Keeper about it. Three days after-
wards, March 10, he acquainted them that their
Articles, except the last, were approved by both the
Universities, and subscribed in an instrument attested
by a public notary, which had been sent up. Nothing
further passed about the matter.
These Articles were indeed newly approved by the
Universities but three of them had been approved
by the Universities in former use, and were nearly
word for word the same which had been subscribed by
both bodies in the days of Mary, and propounded to
Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley in their memorable
struggle at Oxford. These were concerning the
Sacrament of the altar, severally affirming the Corporal
Presence, Transubstantiation, and the Propitiatory
Sacrifice in the Mass.* To them were now added two
more, conceived of the present exigency: that the
supreme power of feeding and ruling belongs to the
Holy See; and that Authority in Faith and Discipline
belongs only to the pastors of the Church, not to lay-
men. It was significant of the temper of the age that
* I am indebted to Strype for this remark. These three Articles and
their Marian history may be read in Vol. IV. p. 183 of this work. But
I must add that in this Elizabethan edition there are two or three verbal
differences which show careful revision. 1. In the Marian first Article
for the words "Virtute verbi Domini a sacerdote prolati presens est,” &c.,
the Elizabethan has "Virtute Christi verbo suo a sacerdote debite prolato
assistentis presens est," &c. 2. The second Article is the same in each.
3. The Marian third Article is, "In Missa est vivificum Ecclesiæ sacri-
ficium pro peccatis tam vivorum quam mortuorum propitiabile”; the
Elizabethan of this is, "In Missa offertur verum Christi Corpus, et verus
Ejusdem Sanguis, Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis et defunctis."
+ These other two Articles were:
"Item. Quod Petro Apostolo et ejus legitimis successoribus in sede
1559.]
of the Convocation Protest.
93
the Universities refused to sanction the last.* Having
come into the Lord Keeper's hands, these labours of
the clergy may be thought to have guided his sedulous
mind to the formation of one of the questions or Articles
which, as we have seen, were soon afterwards proposed
to have been disputed in the frustrated Conference of
Westminster. They contained, in their last particular,
that the Universities rejected, the principle which it
may be underlay the conduct of the Romanensian
colleagues on that occasion. For the rest, in this
Convocation the Upper House was not large, ten sees
being vacant, Canterbury, Salisbury, Norwich, Chi-
chester, Hereford, Gloucester, Oxford, Bangor, Bristol,
and Rochester. In their Register there are found
some humble expressions of suiting their hours of
meeting to the hours of Parliament, for the like of which
the records of all the Convocations held throughout
the Reformation would be searched in vain. In their
own assembly the clergy were urgent with them.
Apostolica, tanquam Christi Vicariis, data est suprema potestas pascendi
et regendi Ecclesiam Christi militantem, et fratres suos confirmandi.
66
Item. Quod autoritas tractandi et definiendi de iis quæ spectant ad
Fidem, Sacramenta et Disciplinam ecclesiasticam hactenus semper
spectavit et spectare debet tantum ad pastores Ecclesiæ, quos Spiritus
Sanctus in hoc in Ecclesia Dei posuit, et non ad laicos."-Fuller or
Wilkins.
* It may be that it was to this transaction with the Universities that
Jewel by mistake referred, when he spoke of the Romanensians gathering
their auxiliary forces from Oxford and Cambridge for the Westminster dis-
putation.-Zurich Letters, i. 14. Nothing is known from any other author
of the Universities having any concern with the Westminster disputation.
+ The Bishop of London requested the clergy "ut sibi eligerent pro-
locutorem, et electum presentarent die Veneris proximo inter 9 et 10, si
Parliamentum tunc non habeatur, alioquin ad horam 3 post meridiem."
Again, he prorogued them till next Friday, "si Parliamentum non
habeatur: alioquin inter secundam post meridiem."- Wilkins, iv. 182.
At the beginning of the Reformation, on the contrary, we find the House
of Lords accommodating itself to the sittings of Convocation, and
arranging that the bishops might be there on certain days.
"Hodie
decretum est, quod Domini spirituales in Convocatione diebus Martis et
94
Parliament is dissolved. [CH. XXXII.
Parliament rose on the eighth of May, the Queen
being present. It was a memorable Parliament in
some other respects besides the great measures which
it passed. In the House of Commons great boldness
had been shown: some of the most important Acts,
such as Uniformity, were carried by small majorities.
after long "arguments." The violent speech of Doctor
Story, the noted civilian whom we have met in Oxford
and London in the reign of Mary, who averred that he
gloried in his deeds in the persecution, and wished he
had done more, narrating a faggot flung in the face,
and a thornbush thrust under the feet of an earwig
who was singing a psalm at the stake, showed an
unsubdued spirit,* which many shared. The old pro-
posal for the making of ecclesiastical laws by a com-
mission of thirty-two persons, which had wandered
through the Reformation from the reign of Henry
downwards, was passed by the Commons, sent to the
Lords, read there once, and heard of no more for that
time: whence it would seem that the restoration of
church discipline was more to the mind of the Commons
than of the Lords. Another, an important Bill, "for
the admitting and consecrating of archbishops and
bishops," went through the Commons, and was sent to
the Lords, but never left them, being arrested, it would
seem, through the influence of the prelates. The
failure of this Bill left the English Ordinal still un-
established; and contributed to the great controversy
that arose afterwards upon consecration.† On the
Veneris proxim. sequent. et ex tunc die Veneris tantum, donec melius
secus videtur, versari possint," &c.—Lords' Journal, Anno 1533, p. 59.
But the reason of the change of tone may have been to let the bishops be
able to be in their places in the House of Lords during a most momentous
session.
* Strype, Annals, i. 78.
+ This Bill was one of five that came from the Commons, Mar. 22, and
1559.] Bills dropped or passed.
95
"'*
other hand, another Bill of the Commons passed the
Lords against the resistance of the bishops and of
Abbot Feckenham, annexed to the Crown the religious
houses which Mary had refounded, and opened the gate
to their dissolution. In this Act it might be remarked
that the rules and ceremonies of the religious were
boldly pronounced to be "repugnant to the usage of
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.'
A curious thing in this Session was the repeated
appearance of several of the bishops in the House of
Commons on occasion of transactions concerning them
and their lands. White of Winchester appeared several
times to oppose a Bill for restoring large portions of
the Winchester lands to persons who had got them by
letters patent under Edward the Sixth and had been
turned out of them by Mary. The Bishop came into
the House, and demanded a copy of the Bill: which
was granted: he required a time to be set for him and
his legal counsel to plead: which was granted and on
several days the Bishop and his counsel, the patentees
by their counsel, laid forth their arguments before the
House. It need hardly be said, in a case of property,
what was the result: but an incident in midst exempli-
fied the humility which became a Christian prelate.
Cave, the Chancellor of Lancaster, took the occasion
to complain that the Bishop, whom he called “Mr.
White," perhaps for the preservation of privilege, had
misrepresented him, in his oration against the Act for
no
was read "prima vice."—Lords' Journal, 568. The Journal has no
more about it, but D'Ewes says it was read "secunda vice"
mention is made that it was either ordered to be ingrossed or referred to
committees, because it had been sent from the House of Commons. Soon
after he says it "was read tertia vice et conclusa" (p. 26). He seems to
mean that it was read thrice on the same day. The mischances of the
English Ordinal in this Parliament were curious.
* 1 Eliz. c. 24 (al. 39).
:
96
Dealings with Bishops' Lands. [CH. XXXII.
Uniformity in the House of Lords, as not liking the
Book of Service, whereas he had only said that he
wished the Book to be well considered. The Bishop
stood up, allowed and confirmed the correction, and
asked his forgiveness: and this again the Chancellor
took thankfully from the Bishop.* In like case, in
proper person, came Bonner into the House, when
a Bill was obtained by Wentworth, Rich, Darcy, and
other eminent graspers of the London lands. He
came, he demanded a copy of the Bill, which was
styled for confirmation of Bishop Ridley's grants and
leases: he called Ridley, Doctor Ridley, Usurper of
the Bishopric. He received the copy, with the addi-
tion that the House intended to take Ridley's title as
it stood therein. He and his counsel pleaded their cause,
the other side theirs, some days: the Bill passed the
Commons: went up: was read thrice in the Lords: and,
it was marvellous, rejected: so Bonner prevailed. In
like case, in proper person, came Pate into the House:
demanded a copy of the Bill for assuring to Jobson and
Blunt lands which Mary had reunited to the see of
Worcester, whereas Blunt and Jobson had got them
under Edward: declared that Hooper's grants of these
lands were not good, for that Hooper was not lawful
Bishop of Worcester because of Bishop Heath's appeal
on being deprived under Edward of the bishopric:
appeared again with his counsel: pleaded: prayed the
House to consider it. In like case, in proper person,
came into the House Baines of Lichfield and Coventry,
made the same demand, had a day assigned, returned
* Strype, i. 63. White was accused of cancelling records, and some
articles were devised for his punishment. The fierce Dr. Story got into
some trouble over this matter of the Winchester lands. He went to the
Lords, and offered himself to be one of White's counsel against the
patentees. A member of the Commons took this up as not well done in
a member of that House, and Story had to excuse himself.-D'Ewes, 52.
1
1559.]
The English Service Book.
with his counsel, and argued his cause.
97
Another Bill,
which became law, originated with the Commons, and
went through many changes in their House: that the
Queen by Commission might examine the deprivations
of spiritual persons, and restore them. It passed the
Lords near the last day of the Session. It seems to
have been equally applicable to the deprivations of
Edward and of Mary: but in one early stage of its
existence (unless this were another Bill) it was appa-
rently limited to one reign and four bishops, "to make
lawful the deprivations of the bishops of London,
Winchester, Worcester, and Chichester, in the reign of
Edward."*
The English Service Book, revised by the committee
or company of theologians who met in Sir Thomas
Smith's house, the Book of Common Prayer of the
Elizabethan recension, was used in the Queen's chapel
*
Bonner, Gardiner, Heath, and Day had been respectively deprived
of these sees in Edward's days. The Bill in that shape seems to have
been meant to hit at Bonner. In its final and more general shape it
passed both Houses, but, as Strype remarks, "I do not find it was
enacted, and passed into a law." Strype, Annals, ch. ii., D'Ewes, and
the Journals are the authorities for the anecdotes above given. There is
mention of another Bill, which went through the Commons and up to the
Lords, about the appointment of bishops. It is a curious one. D'Ewes
says: "On Tuesday, 21 March, the Bill that the Queen's Highness shall
collate or appoint bishops in bishoprics being vacant was read the first
and second time, and thereupon ordered to be engrossed.” — “On
Wednesday, 22 March, the Bill for collating of bishops by the Queen's
Highness, and without rites and ceremonies [was] read the third time
and passed the House, and [was] sent up to the Lords by Mr. Comp-
troller." Whereupon "without rites and ceremonies used, I suppose, in
Popish Ordinations," is the pious gloss of Strype. In the Lords' Journal
the only notice of this Bill is on the same day, March 22, where it is
called Bill "for the admitting and consecrating of archbishops and
bishops": and is mentioned as brought from the Commons and read
once. But D'Ewes says it was read three times and passed. It was
long held. On April 30 Sandys wrote to Parker, "The bill is in hand to
restore men to their livings: how it will speed I know not."-Parker's
Corresp. p. 66.
VOL. V.
H
98
Revisers of the Service Book. [CH. XXXII.
six weeks before the day appointed in the new Act for
Uniformity for the general public use of it, on May 12,
the Sunday after the dissolution of Parliament, when
it had been enacted only four days.* Some prepara-
tion had been made for the change three days before,
on the day after the Act passed.† The committee
that put forth the work were Parker, Cox, May, Bill,
Pilkington, Whitehead, and Grindal (those who had
been named for such a work in the Device for the
alteration of religion), along with Sir Thomas Smith
to convene and assist them. To them were added
Sandys and Guest, the latter a learned man, recom-
mended, it is said, by Parker, to supply his own
absence, and soon to become Archdeacon of Canter-
bury: on whom the main part of the work is believed to
have fallen. They professedly presented and restored
the Second Book of Edward: but with this text the
First Book was carefully and advantageously collated;
and the alterations made breathed a comprehensive and
moderate spirit. It need not be said that the Prayer
Book of Elizabeth was not submitted to Convocation.
The body of divines who composed it appears to have
had no written commission, and no mandate or authority
besides the Device, or resolution of the Council, in which
their employment was proposed and their names were
given.§
At the beginning of the Prayer Book of Elizabeth
* "The 12 day of May began the English [Service] in the Queen's
chapel.”—Machyn, 197.
+ "Yesterday they took the Sacrament away from the palace chapel,
and some sort of Mass was performed in English, as they are doing in
many parish churches." The Bp. of Aquila to Alba, May 10.-Span.
Cal. 69.
‡ Guest had been a licensed preacher under Edward the Sixth. See
the list in Vol. II. p. 486 of this work.
§ See above, p. 21.
1559.]
The Ornaments Rubric.
99
the new Act for Uniformity was printed at full length.*
The final clauses of this Act, ordering the ornaments
of church and minister to be such as were in use in
the second year of Edward the Sixth, until other order
should be taken by advice of those high ecclesiastical
commissioners who were to be appointed, or of the
metropolitan of the realm, were repeated, not exactly,
but in a final manner for present direction, in a rubric
which was printed before the Order for Morning
Prayer, that the minister should use such ornaments
in the church as were in use in the second year of
Edward.f This was a surprising direction. The
Book in the first draft, the draft which was laid before
Parliament, as we may conclude with probability, con-
tained the restrictive rubric of Edward's Second Book
as to vestments: while it was Parliament (as we have
seen) that ordered the return to the things of Edward's
second year. This was through the influence of Cecil,
and against the mind of the theologians. Guest
remonstrated against any garment more than the
surplice.‡ The keen Sandys observed the real
intent; the order was preservative, and not likely
to be annoying to his party: "the last Book of
Service is gone through with a proviso to retain the
ornaments which were used in the first and second
"(
It retains its place in the present Prayer Book.
"And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of the
communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such
ornaments in the church as were in use by authority of parliament in the
second year of the reign of king Edward the VI., according to the act of
parliament set in the beginning of this book." Here observe, 1. That
of the church," which is the expression in the Act, is altered to “in the
church" in the rubric: which alteration may be immaterial or may
perhaps limit the ordinance to the minister's person. 2. That the
reference to the Act, which would have explained the rubric, was omitted
at the Restoration, and hence the parliamentary origin of this famous
ordinance has been generally forgotten.
‡ See his paper addressed to Cecil, of which anon.
H 2
Uor M
IOO Censures on the Service Book. [CH. XXXII.
}
year of King Edward, until it please the Queen to
take other order for them: our gloss upon this text
is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that
others in the meantime shall not convey them away,
but that they may remain for the Queen."* The other
introductory rubric varied from Edward's counterpart
in ordering the common prayers to be said in the
accustomed place of the church, not in such place
where the people might best hear.
The Book in passing through Parliament underwent
the careful examination of Cecil in the Commons, and
the minute strictures of Bishop Scot in the Lords.
By extracting their censures the reader may discern
the original features of the severe draft which they
modified, the points that they carried, or failed to
carry. A dialogue between Cecil and Guest has been
conceived out of the explanation of "the causes of the
order taken in the new service," which the theologian
wrote to the minister on the conclusion of the labours
of the committee. "Why," Cecil has been supposed
to have asked, "have you not restored some of the
ceremonies that have been lately taken away, not
being evil in themselves?"-"Because," answered
Guest, "ceremonies once taken away ought not to
be restored: and these ceremonies were devised of
men, or abused to idolatry."-"Why have you not
replaced the Cross in churches?"-"We follow the
example of Epiphanius and of the Emperor Leo in
destroying pictures and images."-"Why have you
* Sandys to Parker, 30 April, Parker's Corresp., p. 65.
+ By Strype, who first published this important paper, Ann. ii. 459,
App. 14, and drew out of it a set of questions, supposed of Cecil, to
which it might be thought to have returned answers.-Ann. i. 120. The
paper is in MS. cvi. No. 137, C.C.C. Cambridge. It is simply Guest's
explanation of what he had done, to the minister by whom he seems to
have been added to the committee.
1559.]
Letter of Guest.
ΙΟΙ
not restored Procession?"-"Procession is super-
fluous; we may pray for the same in church for
which we pray abroad, yea and better too. When
we pray abroad, our mind is not so set upon God, for
sight of things, as when we pray in church."-"Why
should not the minister wear alb, vestment, and
cope at the Communion ?"-" If the surplice is suffi-
cient in baptising, reading, preaching, and praying, it
is sufficient for celebrating the Communion."*"Why
have you divided the Order of the Communion into
two parts, the one to be read to all without distinction,
the other to the communicants only, the rest being
departed?"—"We do but restore the old division of
the Mass of the learners or Catechumens."-" Why
have you ordered the Creed so that it may be said
only by the communicants?"-"Because, according
to Dionysius, Chrysostom, and Basil, the learners
were shut out when the Creed was read; the Creed
was the prayer of the faithful only."-"Why have
you omitted prayer for the dead, which was used in
the Communion in the First Book?"-" Because it
seems to make for the sacrifice of the dead. And
because, as it was used in the First Book, it makes
some of the faithful to be in heaven, and to need
*
Guest's full words on this Article are," Because it is sufficient to use
but a surplice in baptising, reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is
enough also for the celebrating the communion. For if we should use
another garment herein, it should seem to teach us that higher and better
things be given by it than be given by the other service: which we must
not believe. For in baptism we put on Christ: in the word we eat and
drink Christ, as Hierom and Gregory write. And Austin saith, the word
is as precious as this Sacrament, in saying, 'He sinneth as much which
negligently heareth the word as he which willingly letteth Christ's Body
fall to the ground.' And Chrysostom saith, 'He which is not fit to
receive is not fit to pray.' Which were not true, if prayer were not of as
much importance as the communion."-Strype, ii. App. 14.
The draft was altered in this respect.
·∙102
[CH. XXXII.
Letter of Guest.
.
no mercy; and some of them to be in another place,
and to lack help and mercy. "*"Why have you
omitted the prayer O merciful Father in the Con-
secration, which was in the First Book?"-" Because
it is taken to be so necessary for the Consecration
that the Consecration is thought not to be without
it. But petition is no part of consecration. Christ
in ordaining the Sacrament made no petition, but a
thanksgiving.”—“Why have you ordered the Sacra-
ment to be received in the hands of the people?"+-
"Because Christ gave the Sacrament into the hands
of the Apostles. And there is a Constantinopolitan
Decree about it."-"Why have you allowed to receive
standing or kneeling?"§—" It is as old as Justin, who
says that we should rather stand than kneel in praying
on a Sunday, because it is a sign of the Resurrection." ||
* This seems to misrepresent entirely the prayer for the dead in the
Communion of Edward's First Book. And what follows is equally
wrong: "As though they were not all alike redeemed, and brought to
heaven by Christ's merits: but some deserved it, as it is said of martyrs ;
and some for lack of such perfectness were in purgatory, as it is spoken
of the meaner sort." There is nothing at all like this in the First Book.
+ The words "Hear us, O merciful Father," if they were taken out in
the draft, were put back in the Book.
This was not new. It was in the Second Book.
§ If this was in the first draft of Elizabeth's Book, it was taken out.
It may be worth adding that "the great Book of England" (by
which he meant his old friend of Frankfort, the Second Book of Edward)
received about this time the censure of John Knox from Dieppe. "I will
never counsel any man to use one of those diabolical inventions, viz.,
crossing in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's table, mummulling and
singing of the Litany, a fulgure et tempestate, et subitanea et improvisa
morte: Sacraments ministered without the soul, that is without the Word
truly and openly preached, and by those who to our Saviour were no true
ministers, I pray they yet be not so; but they had been mass-mongering
priests: they were newly created singers or sayers of matins and even-
song and of Communion, churching women, burying the dead with
commendo cinerem cineri: whereof I find no point enjoined to Christ's
ministers, but only to preach Christ crucified, and to minister the
Sacraments in such simplicity as they had received them from Him."
Knox to Anna Lock, April 6.—State Pap. For., p. 204.
1559.]
Censures of Bishop Scot.
103
The censures of Bishop Scot are contained in his
speech in Parliament against the Bill for Uniformity,
which we have already considered. They were more
severe, or hostile, toward the new Book; but his
review seems to be extended to all the English
Books; and that with which he compared them was,
as it might be expected, the Latin Service. "The
new Book," exclaimed Scot, "takes away, ex professo,
the institution of Christ for the matter and substance
of the Sacraments; it takes away the ordinances of
the Apostles for the form of the same; and it turns
to nought the additions of the holy Fathers for
adorning and perfecting the administration. As to
the last of these three heads, there are in the Mass
the Confiteor, Misereatur, Kyrie eleison, Sequentes
Preces, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and such other things,
which are all taken away. * As to the second, the
ordinances of the Apostles, as Blessings, Crossings;
and in divers of the Sacraments, Exsufflations, Exor-
cisms, Inunctions, Praying toward the East, Invocation
of Saints, Prayer for the Dead: all taken away,
in part
or clearly. But in the greatest of all, the Institution of
the Lord's Supper by Christ, of which the favourers
of this Book talk so much, there is in this Book neither
Consecration, nor Offering, nor Communication. Not
Consecration; for by the order of this Book the priest
neither takes the Bread in his hand, nor blesses it, nor
* In the Latin Mass the Confiteor and Misereatur, and a number of
other prayers, were in the beginning of the Ordinarium. They were
omitted in the First Book of Edward, and since. The Kyrie and Agnus
Dei were retained in the same First Book: but the latter was omitted in
the Second, and in Elizabeth's Book; the former in Edward's Second
Book, where the Ten Commandments were added to the Communion,
was made into a respond to them, and so remained in Elizabeth's
Book. The Sequentes Preces were divers prayers after the Host was
put into the chalice, omitted in Edward's First Book, and since.
104
Censures of Bishop Scot [CH. XXXII.
breaks it: nor when he rehearses the words of Christ,
'This is my Body,' by which words the Bread is con-
secrated, has he any regard or respect to the Bread,
but repeats them as if he were telling a tale, or
rehearsing a story. Not Offering or Oblation of
the Blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour unto
God the Father: for though the words which Christ
spoke are the same which the priest speaks, and so
the sacrifice is the same; and though the Fathers
manifestly affirm Christ to be offered daily after an
unbloody manner, yet the authors of this Book willingly
take away the Oblation or Sacrifice offered unto God
the Father in the Mass.* If these men understood
what follows in their affirmation, I think they would
leave their rashness, and return to the truth. For
if that they say be true, that there is no external
Sacrifice in the New Testament, then it follows
that there is no priesthood under the same, whose
office is to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin, as
St. Paul saith. And if there be no priesthood, then
there is no religion under the New Testament. Again,
in this Book there is no Communication, no holy Com-
munion: this Communion is holy only in word, not
in deed for the thing is not there that should make
* The Oblation of the Host followed the Offertory in the Mass, and
began with the prayer "Suscipe, Sancte Pater, omnipotens æterne Deus,
hanc immaculatam Hostiam, quam ego indignus famulus tuus offero Tibi
Deo meo vivo et vero, pro innumerabilibus peccatis, offensionibus et
negligentiis meis, et pro omnibus circumstantibus; sed et pro omnibus
fidelibus Christianis, vivis atque defunctis: ut mihi et illis proficiat ad
salutem in vitam æternam." This part of the service disappeared
entirely in the Edwardian and Elizabethan Books. That it was taken
away willingly" or with express design is certain, for it was against
it that the Article 31, Of the one Oblation of Christ, was directed:
in which Article the language of this Prayer is plainly referred to:
"missarum Sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur sacerdotem offerre Christum
in remissionem pœnæ aut culpæ, pro vivis et mortuis," &c. To this it
was that Bishop Scot probably alluded.
66
1559.]
on the Service Book.
105
it holy: I mean the Body and Blood of Christ. There
are in the Mass certain prayers to be said before the
Consecration; and in those prayers are the words
Ut nobis fiat Corpus et Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu
Christi, declaring the intent of the Church and of
the priest who says Mass: in the new Book there
is nothing to declare any such intent, but rather the
contrary, as appears by the words That we receiving
these Thy creatures of Bread and Wine, declaring that
they intend no Consecration at all. Let them glory
in their Communion as much as they will, it is to
no purpose, seeing that the Body of Christ is not
there, which is the thing to be communicated." * It
must be acknowledged that the Bishop's strictures
were so far well founded that in Elizabeth's Prayer
Book, no more than in the Second Book of Edward,
there were no manual acts prescribed in consecration.
To Bishop Scot's strictures may be added the objec-
tion urged by another Romanensian, the excellent
Dean Boxall of Peterborough, one of the Council
of the late Queen, that there was no thanksgiving
in the consecration. To finish the comparison, the
* See Scot's oration in Strype, App. 10 (vol. ii).
+
((
After this Book was passed, Boxall and others quarrelled with it,
that according to the order of the Scripture we had not gratiarum actio :
'for,' saith he, ‘Dominus accepit panem, gratias agit, but in the time of
consecration we give no thanks.' This he put into the Treasurer's head,
and into the Count de Feria's head, and he laboured to alienate the
Queen's Majesty from confirming of the Act, but I trust they cannot
prevail. Mr. Secretary is earnest with the Book; and we have ministered
reasons to maintain that part."-Sandys to Parker, Parker's Corresp.
p. 65. From this it appears that an attempt was made to induce the
Queen to withhold her assent to the Book, after it had gone through
Parliament. Boxall in 1556 had been " sworn and admitted one of the
King and Queen's Majesties' Council at large, and one of the Masters of
Requests and a Councillor of that Court.-Acts of the Privy Council,
v. 359. He seems to have been at Court still. His objection to the Book
was groundless.
106
First Use of the Book. [CH. XXXII.
Declaration of kneeling, known as the Black Rubric,
entirely disappeared in Elizabeth's Book. The Litany
was inserted, as used in the Queen's chapel, with the
Prayer for the Queen that was added to it, when it
was printed for use there. In the Ordinal the old
"Oath of the King's Supremacy" with its Supreme
Head, and its blunt renunciation of the Bishop of
Rome, which is found in both the Books of Edward,
was replaced by that milder "Oath of the Queen's
Sovereignty" which has been already perused in the
Elizabethan Act of Supremacy.
From the day when the new revised Book was
used in the Queen's chapel so long before the time
appointed by the Act for enforcing it, the current of
events began to run more swift against the Roman-
ensians. The chapel was echoed by Paul's Cross,
where, on the same Whitsun Day, a sermon was
preached by Grindal, the Lord Keeper Bacon and
the whole Council being present: and amid the
rejoicing manifestations of the Lords and of the
people the preacher proclaimed the restoration of
the Book of King Edward.* No bishop, no canon
of St. Paul's was present, and the great cathedral
church, with some other churches, still adhered to
the Latin service: but the greater part of the city
went with the stream,† although only two months
before, Mass was still said all over London, and
although only a month before, on St. Mark's Day,
divers parishes went in procession with their banners,
singing in Latin Kyrie eleison after the old fashion.‡
* "The preacher proclaimed the restoring of the Book of King Edward,
whereat the Lords and the people made (or at least pretended) a wonderful
rejoicing. Never a Bishop or Canon of Paul's was present thereat.".
State Pap. Foreign, p. 287, also Churton's Life of Nowell, p. 392. Nowell
knew the value of these rejoicings.
† Ib.
‡ Ven. Cal. p. 47, March 14; Machyn, 196, April 25.
1559.]
Sermons at Paul's Cross.
107
After this, down to the day when the English Book
came in by law, there was a succession of the
strongest Evangelics at the Cross: Horne, Barlow,
Sandys, Jewel, Sunday after Sunday.* It was noticed
by foreigners that the Feast of Corpus Christi, May 25,
was not observed: the shops were open, the people
everywhere at work, and in her chapel on that day
the Queen declined to allow the Holy Communion,
although the new French ambassador desired it.†
It was noticed that on St. George's Day the Queen
accompanied indeed the procession of the knights
through the Court, but it was without the golden
and silvern crosses that were wont to be carried:
on the morrow the annual Mass for the dead of the
Order was celebrated without elevation, and at the last
moment she excused herself from being present
thereat. About this time the Reformers or Evangelics,
or at least those of them who had preached before
her, laid before her a long Declaration of their doctrines
and opinions, which is a document of some value.
This Declaration has escaped the publication which
the authors of it designed for it, and has received little
notice in history. But if it bears the images of the
hammers wherewith it was forged, it forms a link in
the chain of English Confessions, between the Forty-
two Articles and the Thirty-nine. It is professedly
Machyn, 197, or Strype, i. 198.
+ The new French ambassador, with the other ambassadors, went into
the Queen's chapel, and in her presence he took the oaths: "and he
offered to take the Communion, that being Corpus Christi day, which
festival was celebrated all over the world, except in England, but her
Majesty did not wish it: so they were not much edified by this, or by
seeing the people working all over London, and the shops open on that
day."- Ven. Cal. p. 93.
This document is in C.C.C. Cambridge Library, MSS. cxxi, “Syno-
dalia," No. 20. It has never been printed, though from a letter of Sandys
quoted by Strype the authors seem to have designed to publish it as soon
108
[CH. XXXII.
The Declaration
based on the Forty-two, the Edwardian Articles,
which it recapitulates and occasionally expands or
interprets, and which it would have followed numeri-
cally, but that the apologetic purpose, which was to
(6
as Parliament was ended. Strype gives an account of it, and has printed
in full the long introduction and conclusion.-Annals, i. 167. Hardwick
has made some discriminating remarks on it in a note in his History
of the Articles, ch. vi. As it really seems to form a link between the
Forty-two and the Thirty-nine Articles, and is of great apologetic interest,
I offer the following account of it. The document has on it the title,
"A Declaration of doctrine offered and exhibited by the protestants to
the Queen at the first coming over of them." The first four words of this
title, which are on a separate line, are older than the rest, and in a different
ink. The rest is in sixteenth-century writing, but, as might be expected,
later; for Protestant was not an admitted designation at the beginning of
Elizabeth, neither was this Declaration made "at the first coming over
of the Evangelic exiles. The Declaration begins on the next leaf with
the long preface or prologue printed by Strype, to the effect that Satan,
the inventor of all the heresies, often slandered the setters forth of the
doctrines of the Gospel as if they were heretics. It then proceeds to
the statement of doctrine, or Articles, thus: "And first of all, as true
members, &c." (as in text) we do believe in heart and with mouth confess
that there is but one living and true God" (the rest as our Article).
"Item, that the Son" (the rest almost as our Articles 2, 3, 4: but there
is added to Art. 2, "who also in His soul descended into Hell, where
He was not left, according as both David and Peter do witness, but
did truly rise up again the third day from the dead, and took again His
Body with flesh," &c., as in Art. 4). Then, an acceptance of all things
contained in the canonical Scriptures, and of the Three Creeds (part
of our Art. 6 and our Art. 8; 5 and 7 of the Forty-two Articles, giving rise
to the list of canonical books in our present Art. 6). Then (as a second
part of this stated acceptance) a condemnation of "all old heresies" with
the enumeration of them given in text. Then the piece about the Christian
emperors, as in text. Then, "Furthermore we acknowledge that holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation," &c. (our Art. 6,
except the latter part about the canonical books, which that Article did
not then contain, but which was briefly given above in this document).
Then follow other Articles which are numbered, beginning at number one,
and constituting a different part of the document. Now why are those
first seven of the Forty-two Articles (the first eight of the Thirty-nine)
cast together into one confession of faith, while the rest are enumerated?
Because they were doctrines the denial or perversion of which was heresy
properly speaking: doctrines which they who held could not be called
heretics without abuse of language; and on holding which the writers
of the Declaration justly rested their claim to be Catholics, not heretics.
1
1559.]
of the Evangelics.
109
repel the charge of heresy, altered the order in a
remarkable way. In a long preface or prologue the
authors declare that though in the late disputation at
Westminster they had sufficiently set forth a sum of
((
The enumerated Articles which followed were not such that no variation
of opinion on them could be allowed by men of catholic mind. They
were as follows, and they generally followed the Forty-two Articles in
their headings. I. "Of original or birth Sin" (8 of the Forty-two, 9 of
the Thirty-nine). 2. "Of Free-will and Grace" (9 of the Forty-two,
Io of the Thirty-nine). But it adds, "For the Grace of God or the Holy
Ghost by Him given doth take away the stony heart," so as to make
the Article to be of Grace, according to the title. This sentence is the
beginning of Art. 10 of the Forty-two, "Of Grace": which Article is
entirely omitted in the Thirty-nine, which contain no Article "Of Grace."
3. "Of Predestination and Election" (17 of Forty-two and Thirty-nine).
It turns as vessels made to honour" into "that be vessels made to
honour." It adds at end the following apology:-" This Article of God's
predestination and election, as it is most true, so it is a high and weighty
matter and a most deep mystery: and therefore when just cause is offered
to entreat of it either in sermons or otherwise, it is to be done with great
consideration and discernment; and the hearers or readers of books
written in these matters ought to lay apart all carnal curiosity, as it is
aforesaid in the Article. For whosoever gathereth upon the consideration
of God's election or of the weakness of man's nature either encouragement
to carnal and ungodly life, either a dulness or slothfulness to piety and
godly exercises, let him assure himself that he hath no right consideration
neither of himself nor of God's merciful sure goodness promised us in
Christ. For those agitations which proceed from God's Spirit tend
always to the overthrow of the Devil's work and sin, and not contrariwise
to minister provocations unto sin. And although many godly men in
these our days will think that in this our corrupt age, in the which men
are given to all rashness of judgment and dissoluteness of life, and do
not weigh the mysteries of our faith with such Christian humility as they
ought to do, it were best that such Articles should be passed over in
silence (indeed we do think that discreet ministers will speak sparely and
circumspectly of them, and that upon the considerations before rehearsed),
yet notwithstanding, seeing some men of late are risen which do gainsay
and oppugn this truth, we cannot utterly pass over this matter with
silence, both for that the Holy Ghost doth so often make mention of it in
the Scriptures, especially in St. Paul's Epistles, which argues it to be
a thing fruitful and profitable to be known: and also being occasioned by
the same reason which moved St. Augustine to write of this matter of
predestination: whose words are these: Judicatur verum maxime ubi
aliqua quæstio ut dicatur impellit, &c., from De Bono Perseverantiæ
cap. 26. Let the truth therefore, saith St. Augustine, be spoken, especially
110
[CH. XXXII.
The Declaration
doctrine, yet it was necessary to repeat it against the
slanders of those who called them heretics and said that
they who had preached before the Queen differed from
their brethren: "Most untruly reporting of us that our
when any questioning requireth it to be spoken, lest peradventure while it
is kept in silence for their sakes which cannot receive it, they which are
able to receive the truth and thereby avoid falsehood be not only defrauded
or kept back from the truth, but also be caught with falsehood and error.
These and many other like causes, which St. Augustine writeth in the
book aforenamed, wherein he answereth to the objections of them that
are of the contrary mind, have moved us also at this time not to pass over
this Article (and yet not without a charitable admonition), seeing that some
even in these our days (who also pretend the name of the Gospel) do
oppugn this and other Articles touching the doctrines of grace and our
free justification and salvation by Christ, for the which we are right
sorry. Notwithstanding we do not despair but that such are curable;
and through fair and open preaching of the Gospel will be brought to
see and understand the truth better than hitherto they have done. For
truth it is that these and other most grievous errors have increased in
this realm in these late years for want of true preaching. Experience
declareth that even as in other countries, where the preaching of God's
word is not permitted, all horrible heresies and sects do most flow and
abound." 4. Of Justification and Good Works (a new Article
answering to II, 12, 13 of the Forty-two, causing II to be recast, and
a new Article, “ Of good works," to be added in the Thirty-nine).
"It is
a most certain, wholesome, and grounded doctrine set forth in the Holy
Scripture, and most earnestly and diligently maintained of St. Paul, that
a man is justified by faith only without all works of the law. In which
sentence by this word Justification is understanded pardon or remission
of sins, as free acceptation into God's favour and a full and perfect
reconciliation to God for Christ's sake, wherein Christ's righteousness
is imputed. And faith in this place is a certainty and full persuasion
wrought in the heart of man through the Holy Ghost, whereby he is
assured of the mercy of God promised in Christ, that his sins are forgiven
him, that he is made the Child of God, and inheritor of everlasting
salvation, and that freely of God's good will and mercy, without all respect
of works and deserving of our parts. Wherefore no works going before
this Justification, for that they proceed not of the Holy Ghost nor of
faith (without which nothing is acceptable to God), neither do nor can
in any wise deserve, or help to this work of our Justification, but they are
before God unclean and sin. After this reconciliation to God, thus
wrought through the Spirit of God, necessarily follow all kind of good
works. For the Spirit of God in the just is no idle Spirit, but continually
moveth and striveth to work the will of God, acknowledging to that end
they are made just, to exercise and practise the works of justice. And
1559.]
of the Evangelics.
III
doctrine is detestable heresy, that we are fallen from
the doctrine of Christ's Catholic Church, that we be
subtle sectaries, that we dissent among ourselves, and
that every man nourisheth and maintaineth his own
that a Christian man being thus freely saved by grace may not afterward
live according to his fleshly liking, but must remember that he is created
anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which, as St. Paul saith, God hath
prepared for him to walk in: and therefore according to the words of
Scripture he must also call upon God diligently by faithful and fervent
prayer, as being of himself liable to do nothing, but in all his doing
referring him wholly to God the fountain of all goodness, who not only
commandeth us to pray, but also hath made us a promise whensoever we
call upon Him to hear our prayers. He must fast and use sobriety in
meats and drinks to subdue the body and make it obedient to the spirit.
He must distribute liberally and gladly to his poor and needy brethren,
knowing that he that is merciful shall find mercy, and he that soweth
sparingly shall reap thereafter. Finally he must so use himself in all his
life that his works may shine before men, that they may glorify God the
Father which is in Heaven. This both is and ever hath been our manner
of teaching, and that not in corners but before the face of the world.
Wherefore they are the more to blame that wrongfully oppress us with
untrue reports, saying that we utterly condemn fasting, prayer, and all
other good works: for notwithstanding we find fault with superstition
and abuse in prayer, as to use a multitude of vain words without mind,
which thing Christ Himself condemneth in the Gospel, or to pray in
a strange or unknown tongue, which is both against the doctrine of
St. Paul and also against the whole order of the Primitive Church; or
else to pray to saints, which hath no manner of warrant of God's word:
yet we confess and teach that true prayer, which standeth not in the
number of words but in godly affection of mind, and, as Christ saith,
in spirit and truth, is the only comfort that a Christian man can find in all
his adversities, and his only refuge to obtain aid, succour, and strength
at God's hands. And albeit we dislike hypocritical fasting in superstitious
choice of days or meats, in fancying of holiness more in one kind of meat
than another, in neglecting the true fast that standeth in abstaining from
evil doing, which abuse both Christ Himself and St. Paul and also the
prophet Esaie findeth fault withal: yet we withdraw not the people from
the right and Christian fast that is taught us in the Holy Scriptures, joined
with humiliation of the mind and fervent prayer, as in the example of the
Ninevites and other. Nor from the observing of good and politic orders
for the diversity of meats appointed by common authority. Neither are
we teachers of carnal liberty, as some men have reported us to be, but
have at all times allowed and highly commended all such godly exercises
as do tend to the mortification of the flesh or preparation of the mind
to godly contemplation, so that they be done without opinion of merits or
II2
[CH. XXXII.
The Declaration
1
opinion, that we be teachers of carnal liberty, con-
demning fasting, prayer, alms, and like godly exercises."
They then proceed to the declaration of doctrine, or
Articles, "as true members of the Catholic Church of
satisfaction for sins, which is the only office of Christ, and cannot be
attributed to any work of man without blasphemy." 5. No man is
without sin but Christ alone (14 of Forty-two, 15 of Thirty-nine). 6. Of
the Church (20 of Forty-two, 19 of Thirty-nine), the last paragraph differs
as follows: "As the principal Churches of the East have at sundry times
fallen into error touching Arianism and the proceeding of the Holy Ghost,
so the Church of Rome both hath and doth err not only in life and
manners (as is notoriously known to all the world) but also in divers
matters of faith and religion. As in challenging their supremacy by
God's word, in taking away from the lay people the one part of the
Sacrament, in promising to save souls out of purgatory by masses, and
other manifest errors." 7. Of the authority of the Church. (The same
as 21 of the Forty-two, and lacking, like it, the first sentence of 20 of the
Thirty-nine. "The Church hath power to decree controversies of
faith.") 8. Of Purgatory (the same as ours). 9. No man may
minister in the congregation except he be called (the same).
IO. "It
is against the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church to
use a tongue unknown of the people in common prayer and ministration
of the Sacraments." (Altogether different from 25 of the Forty-two,
exactly corresponding to the Latin, and nearly the same as the English
of 24 of the Thirty-nine: of which therefore it is the first appearance.)
II. Of the Sacraments. (The same
(The same as in Forty-two and Thirty-
nine: but omitting “and yet not that of the work wrought, as some men
speak... a very superstitious sense," which is in Forty-two but not
in Thirty-nine.) 12. The wickedness of the Ministers, &c. (the same
13. Of Baptism (the same).
as Forty-two and Thirty-nine).
14. Of
the Lord's Supper. (This is the same as the Forty-two and Thirty-nine
for the first paragraph, down to "the cup of blessing is a communion
of the Blood of Christ.") It then, instead of the following condemnation
of Transubstantiation (and of the Bodily Presence in the Forty-two),
proceeds thus: "So that in the due administration of this holy Supper
we do not deny all manner of Presence of Christ's Body and Blood:
neither do we think or say that this Holy Sacrament is only a naked and
a bare sign or figure, in the which nothing else is to be received of the
faithful but common bread and wine; as our adversaries have at all times
most untruly charged us. And yet we do not allow the corporal, carnal,
and real presence which they teach and maintain, affirming Christ's Body
to be sensibly handled of the priest, and also corporally and substantially
to be received with the mouth as well of the wicked as of the godly. For
that were contrary to the Scripture, both to remove Him out of heaven
where concerning His natural Body He shall continue to the end of the
$
1559.]
of the Evangelics.
113
Christ, that is, of that Church that is founded and
grounded upon the doctrine of the prophets and
apostles" in the course of which they are particular
in enumerating the ancient heresies. "We condemn
world, and also by making His Body bodily present in so many sundry
and several places at once to destroy the proprieties of His human nature.
Neither do we allow the fond error of transubstantiation, or change of the
substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of
Christ, which, as it is repugnant to the words of Scripture and contrary
to the plain assertions of ancient writers, so doth it utterly deny the
nature of a sacrament. But we affirm and confess that as the wicked,
in the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament, eateth and drinketh
his own damnation, so to the believer and worthy receiver is verily given
and exhibited whole Christ, God and man, with the fruits of His passion.
And that in the distribution of this holy Sacrament, as we with our
outward senses receive the sacramental bread and wine; and inwardly
by faith and through the working of God's Spirit we are made partakers
vere et efficaciter of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, and are
spiritually fed therewith unto everlasting life. And we also confess, and
ever have done, that by the celebrating and right receiving of this mystery
and holy Sacrament we enjoy divers and singular comforts and benefits.
For herein we are assured of God's promises of the forgiveness of sins,
of the pacifying of God's wrath, of our resurrection and everlasting life.
Herein also by the secret operation of God's Holy Spirit our faith is
increased and confirmed, we are made one with Christ and He with us,
we abide in Him and He in us, we are stirred up to unity and mutual
charity, to joyfulness of conscience and patient suffering for Christ's sake,
and finally to continual thanksgiving to our merciful heavenly Father for
the wonderful work of our salvation purchased in the death and bloodshed
of our Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ." It will not escape the reader
that this has greatly influenced 28 of the Thirty-nine. It is especially
noticeable that the passage in 29 of the Forty-two, "Forasmuch as the
truth of man's nature . . . in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,"
which is omitted in the Thirty-nine, has no equivalent here.
15. Of
the perfect oblation of Christ made upon the cross. (The same as 30
of the Forty-two: and indeed of 31 of the Thirty-nine, though it has not
blasphema. Also it differs from both in reading "the sacrifice of the
masses" instead of the sacrifices.) There is no doubt about this.
16. The State of single life (equivalent). 17. Traditions of the Church.
(Nearly the same, but shorter than 33 of the Forty-two and 34 of the
Thirty-nine.) "It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in
all places one or utterly like. For at all times they have been diverse
and may be changed not only by General Councils but also by particular
churches, according to the diversities of the countries and men's manners,
so that they be not against God's word, and make to edification.”
VOL. V.
I
114
[CH. XXXII.
The Declaration
!
all old heresies of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Mar-
cionites, Valentinians, Arians, Manichees, Eunomians,
Sabellians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and
all such like, which withstand any article of these
18. Christian men's goods (the same as the Forty-two and Thirty-nine).
19. Christian men may take oath (the same as the Forty-two and
Thirty-nine). Then is added this apology, or further preamble to the
remaining Articles. "Furthermore whereas through the malice of the
evil minded we have been reported to be sowers of sedition and teachers
of disobedience against magistrates, how untruly we have been charged
herewithal we refer us to the judgment of the godly, and we appeal to
the conscience of the indifferent. For as we have at all times most
earnestly taught all due obedience unto magistrates, so have we ever and
most gladly obeyed them ourselves in God, according to His word,
neither have we at any time stood against the ordinary power, but rather
have chosen to suffer than to rebel, to bear injuries than to avenge.
And albeit our doctrine and doings can both bear witness unto
us in this behalf, and also sufficiently clear us, notwithstanding lest
through the evil tongue of such as cannot speak well, the simple should
be abused and our ministry depraved, we have thought it necessary
briefly to declare our mind and judgment concerning the present state
and government of this realm, which is now by the merciful providence of
God most justly descended to our most virtuous and Sovereign lady
Queen Elizabeth, that the world may understand and see how wrongfully
we have been slandered. Therefore with the assurance and persuasion
of good conscience surely grounded upon God's word, we protest, affirm,
and confess as followeth." 20. Of the civil magistrates. (It omits
Supreme Head, with which 36 of the Forty-two begins: it omits the next
clause about the Bishop of Rome: it begins with "The civil magistrate is
ordained and allowed of God, wherefore we must obey him not only for
fear of punishment, but also for conscience sake,” a clause that is in the
Forty-two, but not in the Thirty-nine. It then proceeds, "Some are
born to be Kings or Queens, and so by inheritance come to the kingdoms
as such to whom by the ordinary received laws the imperial crown or
regiment of kingdoms and countries descendeth by inheritance and not
by choice or election. The word of God doth not condemn the govern-
ment or regiment of a woman, but that such women as by succession,
inheritance, or other just title according to the orders and policies of
the realm are placed in such estate, are lawful magistrates, and are no
less in any respect to be obeyed and honoured in all lawful things than if
they were men, kings, princes," &c.) 21. "A tyrant, or evil magistrate,
which by succession or election attaineth to any princely estate or
government, is a power ordained of God, and is also to be honoured and
obeyed of the people in all things not contrary to God, as their magistrate
and governor. It is not lawful for any private person or persons to kill
i
i
1559.]
of the Evangelics.
115
Creeds." These were the heresies proper, to be
distinguished from the modern misuse of the term.
In language not inadequate they claimed the name
which their adversaries denied them: "And therefore
according to the ancient laws of the Christian emperors
Gratianus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius, we do justly
vindicate and challenge to ourselves the name of
Christian Catholics: which emperors decreed that all
they which according to the doctrine of the Apostles
and Evangelists do confess one Godhead of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, under one Godly
or by any means to procure the death of a tyrant or evil person being the
ordinary magistrate. All conspiracies, seditions, and rebellions of private
men against the magistrates, men or women, good governors or evil,
are unlawful and against the will and word of God." 22. "The Queen's
Majesty that now is, Queen Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queen of
England, France, and Ireland, &c. is by most just and true title according
to the laws and policies of this realm of England the lawful Queen and
Supreme Governor of the realms of England and Ireland. And therefore
by God's word ought of all the subjects of the same realms so to be
respected, honoured, and in God most humbly obeyed."
23. Punish-
ment of death, Christian men may wear weapons (the same as 36 of
Forty-two, and 37 of Thirty-nine). 24. "The Bishop of Rome hath no
jurisdiction in this realm of England by the word of God." (So in 36 of
Forty-two, and 37 of Thirty-nine, but the five last words are here only.)
Then follows the epilogue or conclusion, which Strype has printed. It is
interesting to notice that the names of the ancient heresies are written in
large letters, and those of the Christian emperors, mentioned in the first
part of this document, are all in capital letters, for the sake of emphasis.
It is not only in the several additions or alterations, some of them
minute, that the influence of this Declaration is apparent in the Thirty-
nine Articles: but also in the exclusion of some of the Forty-two Articles.
The Declaration and the Thirty-nine Articles alike exclude Art. 10,
"Of Grace": 16, "Of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost": 19," All
men are bound to keep the moral commandments of the law": and the
last four Articles of the Forty-two, of which the very last is extremely
Calvinistic. Altogether the Declaration is more moderate than the
Forty-two Articles, and is written with much quiet dignity. The authors
of it appear to have been the preachers who preached before the Queen,
and the disputants at the Westminster Conference, or some of them.
I have received very great kindness and assistance from Mr. Moule,
the Librarian of Corpus Christi, Cambridge, in examining this important
manuscript.
I 2
116 The Bishops and the Oath. [CH. XXXII.
Majesty and Trinity, should have and enjoy the name
of Christian Catholics." They unmistakingly dis-
avowed the attack which Knox had made on the
Queen: "The word of God doth not condemn the
government or regiment of a woman." Tyrannicide
and conspiracy they pronounced to be forbidden.*
It was begun to offer the Oath of the Queen's
Supremacy, which the Act contained and the Ordinal
rehearsed, to the bishops before the day appointed to
bring in the English Service. As things had taken
the turn that they had, it was better to put the bishops
to the test at once; if they refused it the penalty by the
Act was deprivation. It was better to deprive them
before they felt themselves compelled to resign. If
they refused, and were not deprived, they could scarcely
have continued in their sees, and gone on tendering to
their ordinands an oath which they themselves would
not take. But it is not impossible that some hope was
entertained of their compliance. Some of them, Heath,
Bonner, Tunstall, Thirlby, had taken out in Henry's
reign those curious instruments, or royal licenses for
exercising episcopal jurisdiction, sealed with that seal
for ecclesiastical causes: and had renewed them at the
beginning of Edward.† One of them, Kitchin, had
taken that most explicit denial of the Pope, which may
be distinguished as the Veil-removed-Oath, at his
consecration.‡ There was nothing in the new Oath
* It may be worth notice that this important document was asked for
from Cecil by Archbishop Parker some years after, in 1566.
"I pray
your honour to cause your clerk to seek up the Book of Articles which
were subscribed by all the professors of the Gospel newly arrived from
beyond the sea, which book was presented to the Queen's Majesty.
I would gladly have it for two or three days, and then I would not
fail to return it again.”—Corresp. 290. This may account for it being
among the Parker papers at Cambridge.
+ Vol. II. pp. 167 and 413 of this work.
"I, Anthony, Bishop of Llandaff elect, having now the veil of dark-
1559.]
Letters Patent issued.
117
which they had not accepted already. Even the rest
of them, whose consecration was of the time of Mary,
might be thought willing to obey as a law the Act
which they had opposed as a Bill. But they could not,
if they would. The dreadful memory of the persecu-
tion hung around them, though most of them had
shown marvellous mercy, and though, considering the
reckless baseness of the lay legislature, the wonder was
not that the victims had been so many but that they were
so few. There was the remembrance of disturbing
visitations and citations, of examinations and imprison-
ments, in dioceses where there had been no burnings;
and the reluctance with which the bishops had moved,
under the continual spur of the Court and the laity,
was the more easily forgotten that it was convenient
to make them the butts of the indignation of a self-
excusing remorse. It is difficult to see that they could
have remained with any advantage.
On May 23, in accordance with the Act, letters
patent were issued to certain persons, laymen all, for
ministering the Oath to Bacon, Winchester, North-
ampton, Arundel, Shrewsbury, Derby, Bedford, Pem-
broke, Clinton, Howard of Effingham, Sir Thomas
Parry, Sir Edward Rogers, Sir Francis Knowles, Cecil,
Cave, Sackville, Mason. This was the first Commis-
sion under the Act of Supremacy: but it cannot be
considered the forerunner of the Court of High Com-
mission, which followed soon after. It was a very
extraordinary tribunal, for it consisted of the Privy
Council itself.* It differed from the High Commis-
sion in having no general jurisdiction, and in having
ness of the usurped power, authority, and jurisdiction of the See and
Bishop of Rome clearly taken away from mine eyes," &c.—Strype's
Cranmer, Book i. ch. 29.
*This is the remark of Doctor Gee.
118
Details of the Commission. [CH. XXXII.
no ecclesiastics on it.* The work that it was to do
was specific: it was to take of all high officers of the
realm, ecclesiastical or temporal, of all archbishops,
bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, of all judges,
mayors, and other lay officers, and of all tenants of
the Crown "a certain corporal oath upon the Holy
Gospels." Six of them might act, if Bacon, Win-
chester, Arundel, Parry, Rogers, Knowles, or Cecil
were of the six. The oath was the Oath in the Act.
They sat in London. It was by this Commission that
the Romanensian bishops were deprived. If it was
accidental, it may be regarded as a happy thing, but
perhaps it may be accepted as an order of the courtesy
of the realm, that there were no ecclesiastical heads;
that it was nobles, warriors, lawyers, orators, and poets
who were empowered upon it; the circumstance may
have appeared honourable or consolatory to the cohort
of the hierarchs who endured their sentence, whose
fall may have been the easier from a secular arm, not
enwrapped in the degradation which had been meted
out to their own martyred predecessors in the previous
reign. At all events, when, for more than one reason,
it was necessary to issue a short separate commission
to meet the case of a single bishop, the model of this
* It is remarkable that a commission should have been issued to the
Privy Council. The only ecclesiastic in the Council was Dean Wotton.
He was not included in the Commission. His omission proves that it was
not accidental then that the Commission had no ecclesiastic in it.
+ "Dedimus vobis plenam potestatem et autoritatem recipiendi de
omnibus et singulis Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, et aliis personis eccle-
siasticis, ac aliis Officiariis et Ministris Ecclesiasticis, cujuscunque status,
dignitatis, præeminentiæ seu gradus fuerint, ac de omnibus et singulis
judicibus temporalibus, justiciariis, Majoribus, ac aliis laicis seu tempora-
libus Officiariis et ministris, ac aliis quibuscunque personis habentibus
feoda seu vadia nostra infra regnum nostrum Angliæ, aut aliqua dominia
nostra, quoddam Sacramentum corporale super sacrosancta Evangelia—
declaratum et specificatum in quodam Actu in Parliamento nostro,” &c.—
Rymer, xv. 519.
1559.]
Bonner and the Oath.
119
wider commission was followed, and to Bishop Bourne
of Bath and Wells the Oath of the Act was vainly
tendered by four laymen later in the year.
The first to whom the Oath was tendered was the
Bishop of London. Bonner seems to have been treated
with some contumely from the day when the Queen
refused to let him touch her hand at the beginning of
the reign. He had been ordered by the Council to
appear before them and produce all the commissions
about heresy that had been made to him in the late
reign; and when he came he was requested to repair
to another chamber.† He was nevertheless used for
hospitality by the Court: he received and lodged the
new French ambassador Montmorenci and his suite, to
whom he seems to have given splendid entertainment.‡
It was but a few days after this, May 30, that he, and
with him Cole the Dean of St. Paul's, were summoned
before the Commissioners, refused to take the Oath,
and were deprived. His curious buoyancy deserted
* This commission to receive the corporal oath of Bourne is drawn
up in the same language as the other commission for ministering the
Oath. It is to four laymen, Humfrey Coles, John Horner of Cloford,
Richard Warre, and Wm. Halley, Esq.: dated Oct. 18.-Rymer, xv. 545.
† "A letter to the Bishop of London to repair hither to-morrow at two
of the clock in the afternoon, and at his coming to resort to Mr. Vice-
chamberlain's chamber, and to bring with him all such commissions as
were made to him and others for the examination and ordering of heresies
and other misorders in the Church in the time of the late Queen.”
January 3, 1559.—Privy Council Acts, p. 36; Strype, i. 41. There is no
other entry like that.
"The 23 of May came from beyond the sea out of France and landed
at Tower wharf, and came through London and unto my lord bishop
of London Doctor Bonner, monsieur Montmorenci, two sons and... unto
his palace to lie: and many lords and noblemen brought them to their
lodging. The 24 of May the French were brought from the bishop's
palace by land through Fleet Street unto the Queen's palace to supper,
and there was the hall hanged with rich cloth of arras as ever was seen,
&c. 25 May-they went by water unto Paul's wharf, and landed, and con-
tinently unto their lodging to the Bishop of London's to supper, for there
were gorgeous apparel as hath been seen in these days.”—Machyn, 197–8.
120
Deprivation of some Bishops. [CH. XXXII.
him not in the hour of trial, and he put on record in
the briefest terms, without comment or complaint, his
deprivation and the reason of it.* He
He may have
thought of that former Commission of deprivation,
some seven years before, on which he and Tunstall
and Kitchin sat and deprived half a dozen bishops in
two days. His spiritualties were seized; and he
retired at first, it is said, to the trembling sanctuary of
Westminster.§ Three weeks later, on a single day,
June 21, five other bishops appeared before the Com-
missioners, and refused the Oath: the learned Hebraist
Baines of Coventry and Lichfield, Oglethorpe of
Carlisle, Scot of Chester, and two others, one of
whom may have been Pate of Worcester. They
were sent away, and summoned again in a week,
June 26, before the Commissioners, who sat in Mincing
Lane in the city. This time they were in company
*He wrote in his Eusebius: Litera Dominicali A. an. dom. MDLIX, die
Maii xxx, vocatus ad Concilium recusavi præstare juramentum: et
omnino deprivatus.—Strype, Ann., ch. xi. (p. 205); Wood's Ath. Ox.,
i. 372.
+ See Vol. IV. p. 137 of this work; or Machyn, p. 58.
June 2: Harmer's i. e. Wharton's Specimen, 151.
§ It is said that the Council tried to persuade him to resign, offering
him a pension; and wanted to get the Dean to elect a new bishop; but,
that they both refused, Bonner saying that he preferred death: that he
would get his living by teaching, or resume the study of the law, or by
gardening, which he knew as well as any gardener in the kingdom, or
by begging, if the Queen would grant him to be a mendicant. The
Council then told him, "We have nothing more to do with you for the
present, so her Majesty will provide herself with another bishop." And
he retired to Westminster, to his friend Feckenham.- Venetian Cal.,
PP. 94, 100. He was much in debt, and took sanctuary to avoid his
creditors: fears were entertained also for his personal safety.-Ib.
|| Machyn, 200. "The 21 of June was five bishops deprived: Lichfield,
Carlisle, Westchester, Llandaff, and
It is curious to read of
Kitchin of Llandaff. He is mentioned also in the Venetian Cal. (p. 105)
as deprived. He was not deprived. If at first he would not take the
Oath, he took it at last. I have ventured to suggest that Machyn's other
illegible bishop may have been Pate, because his spiritualties were
seized a few days later, June 30.-Harmer's Specimen, 151.
1559.]
Further Deprivation of Bishops.
*
121
with White and Watson, who came from the Tower,
to which they had been committed after the West-
minster disputation: and it is probable that now all
seven were deprived together. They appeared humbly
habited like simple and poor priests, to the grief of
some who saw them; and followed by a throng of
people with various exclamations, which they took
patiently. They were forbidden to depart from Eng-
land, to preach or exhort, or to write against the orders
and statutes of the Parliament, or give occasion to any
insurrection, on pain of perpetual imprisonment. The
Commissioners are said to have required them to give
security and promise for one another. They sat
again in Friars Austin, Lord Winchester's place, a week
later, July 5, when Heath and Thirlby of Ely were
deprived, the latter having words with Lord Keeper
Bacon, telling him that if the Queen continued to be
governed by those about her, as she had begun, the
kingdom would be ruined. Perhaps it was not uncon-
nected with this altercation with a powerful layman
that Thirlby received from the Queen a few days
afterwards an order to pay "the present bishop of
* Venetian Calendar, p. 104; also Spanish Calendar, p. 79. It is not
unlikely that at this time the bishops were treated with popular injustice.
"They never creep out into public," wrote Parkhurst, "unless they are
compelled to do so, lest perchance a tumult should arise among the
people. Many call them butchers (carnifices) to their face." London,
May 21.-Zurich Letters, i. 31.
"They were greatly insulted and mocked at, and at last were ordered
not to leave London until after September, and to go no further away
than Westminster under pain of £500, and they had to find bail to that
amount. The two were taken back to prison, and both they and the
others deprived of their preferments de facto: since by law the doctors
are still of opinion that they cannot be deprived for swearing to the laws
of the country." Bishop Quadra to King Philip by Machyn, June 27.—
Spanish Cal., p. 79. Only White and Watson are mentioned as deprived at
this session: and he says that while White was sent back to the Tower,
"delivered free." June 26.-Ib. p. 201.
Watson was
1
122
[CH. XXXII.
Six Bishops elected.
Ely" seven hundred pounds, and a further sum for
dilapidations.* They sat again in the same month
and deprived Morgan of St. David's, and Turberville
of Exeter. The deprivation of Tunstall followed in
September. In October, Bourne of Bath and Wells,
Poole of Peterborough in November. Against the
resistance and deprivation of so many may be set the
deferred compliance of one, the Bishop of Llandaff:
who appears to have been allowed a season of reflec-
tion which wrought favourably with him.§
Two days after the deprivation of the first company
of these prelates, six new persons were elected, to
*
"The 5th day of July was deposed of their bishoprics the Archbishop
of York, Doctor Heath, and the Bishop of Ely, Doctor Thirlby, at my
lord Treasurer's place at Friars Augustine."-Machyn, 203; Spanish
Cal. 85.
"They have deprived the bishops of Exeter and St. David's this
week." Aquila to King Philip, July 13.—Spanish Cal. 89. Mr. Bridgett
is unable to fix the date of these two deprivations. This letter brings
it: but the editor of the Spanish Calendar questions whether July 13 be
not a mistake for August 13. It seems likely for the letter speaks of
Tunstall as in London: and Tunstall was not in London before July 20.
‡ “The 28 day of September was Michaelmas Even. The old Bishop
of Durham, Doctor Tunstall, was deposed of his bishopric of Durham,
because he should not receive the rents for that quarter.”—Machyn, 214.
No doubt by the same Commission.
§ Kitchin's acceptance is a curious document, which seems to have the
meaning that I have put on it. "Whereas the Q. Maj. of her bountiful
grace hath differed the rendering of the Oath of her Supremacy to my
further consideration within myself in the expending of God's learning, I do
assure her Grace by these presents subscribed by my hand, that as a true
and faithful subject, I shall for my power, cunning, and ability, set forth
in mine own person, and cause all other under my jurisdiction, to accept
and obey the whole course of religion now approved in the state of her
Grace's realm: and shall also require the said oath of other receiving
office ecclesiastical or temporal, as in the statute thereof provided. In
witness whereof I have subscribed with mine own hand the xviii day of
July in the first year of the reign of our said Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth,
Queen of Engl. France and Irel. Defender of the Faith," &c. Ant.
Landav.-Lamb's Hist. Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. II. We
have seen Kitchin in Parliament. He was among the silent dissentients
to all the great ecclesiastical measures of the Session.
1
7
1559.] Temporal Officers and the Oath.
123
fill their sees or other sees that were vacant, on the
day before the day appointed to bring in the English
Service; and the forbearance or at least the slowness
shown by the Government in dealing with them is
imputed by the modern Roman Catholic writers to
the wish to have some of them to consecrate the elect
Archbishop of Canterbury, Parker. The rest of the
proceedings of this extraordinary Commission, before
it quietly lapsed, were less remarkable. In discharging
the other half of their duty, in ministering the Oath
to the temporal officers of the State, as judges and
justices, their diligence is not known to have been
greatly effective. They met with denials and refusals
when they took the advantage of the term to tender
the Oath, as it was to be expected that they should.
Those high laymen had not the shelter of obscurity.
* "The 23 day of June was elected six new bishops, come from beyond
the sea, Master Parker, bishop of Canterbury, Master Grindal, bishop
of London, doctor Scory, bishop of Hereford, Barlow Chichester, doctor
Bill of Salisbury, doctor Cox Norwich."-Machyn, 201. This, the reader
will easily see, is not altogether correct. They were not all returned exiles.
Bill was not bishop at all, Cox not of Norwich.
In tracing the deprivations of the Romanensian bishops, I omit the
absurd story of their summons to appear before the Queen, of Heath's
haughty admonition to her, and her sublime reply. This story was
imported into history by Strype out of an apocryphal book called The
Hunting of the Roman Fox, of which book Strype thought the author to
be Sir Henry Sidney. It was really by Robert Ware, son of the Irish
Sir James Ware, and belongs to the seventeenth century. See Bridgett's
Hierarchy, p. 49. This story has been repeated by Collier, Lingard,
Soames, and Froude: the spurious source out of which it springs has
infected the works of the sober Strype not inconsiderably. Thus, he
makes the deprived bishops (Heath, Bonner, Poole, Bourne, and Turber-
ville) address a ridiculous petition to the Queen in December of this
year, and receive from her the answer of a pert schoolgirl.—Annals, i. 147.
Next year he makes them send Parker "a terrifying letter," threatening
and cursing the clergy for not acknowledging the Papacy; to which
Parker writes a long reply.-Life of Parker, Bk. ii. ch. ii. p. 67. He also
makes Calvin write to Parker to arrange for a common form of church
government, and Parker lay the "noble offer" before the Council, and by
their request write a courteous reply.—Ib.
124
The Prayer Book in use. [CH. XXXII.
Many of them had been active in the persecution, far
more active than the deprived bishops. But when
they refused, it was not found that their fellow-laymen
were strict in pressing the matter home, and enforcing
penalty.* The doctors of civil law made opposition
to the deprivation of the bishops, as soon as it was
begun, on the ground that they could not be deprived
for disobeying a law whose adoption and promulgation
they had always resisted, and which was made in oppo-
sition to the whole ecclesiastical body.
So Bishop
Quadra, the new Spanish ambassador, reported, and
added that the doctors themselves refused to swear.†
The English Service, the Book of Common Prayer,
for the second time dethroned its Latin rival in the
churches of England on St. John Baptist's Day,
June 24. The first use of it, ten years before, had
been the signal of a religious war. Now it was
received without resistance, beyond some protestations
which awoke no popular response. Indeed, according
to one contemporary authority, the day of adoption
had been anticipated by the general acceptance of it.‡
At this the disappointment of the extreme Evangelics
was as great as of the Romanensians, and the conduct
of the leaders of the returned exiles has been cen-
sured here by the historians of their party. If the
* "The judges of England, as they are called, who have come here for
the terms, have refused to swear, and are gone to their homes, as they
have not dared to press them about it. The same thing will happen to
many others; and it is thought they will not dare to press any one as
they intended." Quadra, Bishop of Aquila, to Philip, June 19.-Span.
Cal., p. 76.
+ Ib. pp. 76 and 79.
I "Liber communium precum, temporibus Edwardi regis usitatus, nunc
iterum per totam Angliam in usu passim est, [et] ubique erit, renitentibus et
reclamantibus pseudepiscopis." Parkhurst to Bullinger, May 21.-Zurich
Lett., p. 17.
§ "They had not the resolution to persevere: had they united counsels
1559.] Position of the Evangelics.
125
most eminent of them, it is urged, had been resolved
to press for a thorough reformation, they might have
obtained it, whereas they were contented with the
Prayer Book revived. But it must be remembered
that the men who now stood forth as leaders, who
were now advanced in honour, and preached before
Queen, Parliament, and city, were the men who in
their exile had stood for the Second Prayer Book
of Edward against the extreme sort, and that the
most violent of their former antagonists, so far from
having the position of leaders, were either not re-
turned, or were afraid to show themselves. Men like
Whittingham were not returned; men like Goodman
dared not show themselves. The ostensible leaders,
such as Jewel, Grindal, Pilkington, to say nothing of
Cox himself, were not likely to oppose the establish-
ment of the same Book which formerly they had
defended, now that it was laid upon the realm after
a revision that might be thought to increase the woe
and anguish of the other side. Nor, if they had
desired, had they the power to interfere in any way
with the course taken by Government, to enquire
into Smith's Committee, or remonstrate with Parlia-
ment. They were at this time no more than spiritual
men without promotion: for as yet, notwithstanding
the honorific distinction with which they were treated,
no provision had been made for any of them. It is
like enough however that in foreign parts some of
them may have been free of their tongues in con-
versing about the Book of England, that they had
said things against it which they were not now ready
to repeat, so that their present behaviour took a good
and stood by one another, they might at this juncture have obtained the
removal of those grievances which afterward occasioned the separation."-
Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 107.
126 Admonition of Foreign Reformers. [CH. XXXII.
deal of explaining to their friends, the pastors of the
churches abroad. In their letters to them they
lamented the slow progress of the settlement of re-
ligion, blaming the Queen and Court: they called
the golden mediocrity which others (not themselves)
were seeking a leaden mediocrity.* They failed not
to receive an admonition to vigour and caution from
some of the most eminent of the Reformed divines.
"Ye who are set in any degree of dignity," cried
Gualter of Zurich, "remember that the charge of
religion and of the Church is laid upon you: and
beware of the arts of those who contrive and obtrude
upon the churches, under pretence of evangelic re-
formation, a mixed, dubious and ambiguous form of
religion, from which the passage back again into
papistical superstition and idolomania is as easy as
can be. We have had enough of men of that sort
in Germany, moderate men, promoting concord, allow-
ing many things to remain, as it were only for a time,
for fear of giving some offence at the beginning, which
things cannot afterwards be ousted without desperate
struggles. I know not if there be any such men
among you, but I fear that there may be."† It was
in vain. Worse yet remained behind. Some of the
most eminent of these conforming exiles, such as
Jewel, Sandys, or Pilkington, in being put on the great
commissions for visiting the kingdom, which were pre-
sently issued this year, perhaps to provide tempo-
rally for their maintenance, went through the drill,
became themselves the disciplinarians, of conformity.
* Look at their letters, especially Jewel's letters, in the first twenty or
thirty pages of Zurich Letters, i.
+ Gualter to Masters, Jan., Zurich Lett. ii. p. 11. Gualter had
the assurance to write a long letter to the Queen containing the same
sentences about the change of religion.—Ib. 3. He also wrote to Lord
Russell in the like strain, p. 8.
·
!
1559.]
Condition of Conformity.
127
Some of them after that refused not the promotion
of the mitre itself, in accordance with their best con-
victions, acting for the welfare of the Church, that in
so doing they were most effectively seeking the good
of their less compliant brethren. And Gualter came
to approve that they did, and to give very different
advice to his friends in England.
It must not however be supposed that the Book
was thoroughly obeyed by all who professed to receive
it. The people were more willing than the priests.
During the following months and years it was but too
plainly brought to light that many of the Evangelics,
whether returned exiles or not, behaved as if they
were carrying out the perfidious advice of Peter
Martyr, which he gave to some of them in his letters,
to conform in part only, to preach, for example, but
to declaim against the ceremonies still retained, and to
refrain from administering the Sacraments.*
As to
the Romanensians, there were those of them who were
men of effective conviction, and refused compliance
from the first, there were those who complied with
secret reluctance, and there were those who were not
particularly addicted to Rome. On the whole, the
great body of the clergy complied: but there were
many churches left destitute for the time, especially
in London, by the resignation of incumbents: some
resigned, or were deprived because of the Oath, some
* “My very dear brother in Christ, I give you two pieces of advice:
first that you still retain the function of preaching, and cease not both in
public and private to defend the truth of doctrine, and to declaim against
rites which are full of offence and occasions of falling. The other is that
you abstain from the administration of the Sacraments, until these
intolerable blemishes be removed. This is not only my advice, but the
opinion of the excellent Bullinger." Martyr to Sampson, July 15.-Zurich
Lett. ii. 27. In another letter he recommends any of them who might
be promoted to bishoprics to bend their efforts to getting vestments
abolished.—Ib. 32.
:
128
[CH. XXXII.
Issue of Commissions
because of the Book: the proportion of dignitaries
was very high. The destitution was so great in
London that the ministers who remained, and those
who were put into the places of the Romanensians,
were obliged to serve three or four churches, and yet
were not sufficient.*
On the same day that the English Service came in
use, June 24, Royal Commissions began to be issued
for the Visitation of the kingdom, a momentous event
which occupied several months. The kingdom was
parcelled into six circuits: London, Norwich, and Ely:
Canterbury, Rochester, Chichester, and Winchester:
Salisbury, Bristol, Bath, Exeter, and Gloucester: Lin-
coln, Peterborough, Lichfield, and Oxford: the whole
Northern Province: the four Welsh sees with Wor-
cester and Hereford. The Commissioners were, on
paper, nearly all noblemen and gentlemen of quality,
with a very small equipage of clergymen and lawyers.
Any two of them might act, and the clergy were not
specified of the quorum. But it was the clergy who
did the work, along with the professors of civil or
common law, the great laymen not concerning them-
selves to go the laborious circuit with them. Their
Strype gives a piece from the Diary of one Earl, a London curate,
who wrote against the 24 June, “O blessed Day," and again, "Saint John
Baptist's Day put the Pope away," and again, "Then was King Edward's
Book restored to all men's comfort. And verily the people were most
willing to receive the Book of Divine Service thus brought to us." Strype
adds, "Yet he makes a note of exception to a few of Calvin's Church:
that is, such as lately came from Geneva, and perhaps from some other
places where his platform was followed. But yet of these he observed
withal that many complied and obeyed.”—Annals, i. 135.
+ Strype has given these circuits and the names of the Commissioners.
Ib. ch. 12. But he only gives five circuits instead of six, making no
mention of the Canterbury one. And in the London one he oddly omits
London, making mention only of Norwich and Ely in that circuit, and
taking London by itself in a way. His lists are stuffed with lay figures.
His deficiencies may be supplied from a list that remains, and was made
1
1559.]
for a Royal Visitation.
129
powers were extensive: and in some respects appeared
to involve clerical character: to visit all churches,
cathedral, collegiate, parochial; and all other ecclesias-
tical places; the clergy and people: to enquire into
their life and conversation: to punish with depriva-
tion, sequestration, or otherwise all offenders, and all
who obstinately refused to subscribe to the religion
now ordered.* The contumacious and rebellious of all
conditions were to be coerced both by ecclesiastical
censures, and by imprisonment or recognisance, and
other legal remedy. Competent pensions were to be
assigned to those who retired or resigned: license to
preach was to be given to apt and able persons: and
the relics of the late persecution were to be swept from
about the end of the Visitation.-State Pap. Dom. vii. No. 79. I will
give this, as it contains only the men who did the work:-
Robt. Horne, D.D.
Thos. Bentham, P.D.
Nevinson,
Lincoln
Peterborough Steph.
London
Norwich
Thos. Huick, L.D.
Ely
Jn. Salvyn, Esq.
Lichfield
L.D.
Oxon.
Wm. Fleetwood.
Canterbury
Ebor.
Thos. Becon.
Rochester
Dunelm.
Edwin Sandys, D.D.
Rt. Weston, L.D.
Chichester
Carlisle
Henry Harvey, D.L.
Robt. Nowell.
1
Winchester
Chester
Sarum
Bristol
John Jewel.
Rowland
Bath
Henry Parry.
Exeter
Thos. Lovelace.
Merrick,
Richd. Pate.
Gloucester
Worcester
Hereford
St. David's
St. Asaph
Bangor
Llandaff
Richd. Davies.
Thos. Young.
L.D.
It is not worth while to give all Strype's full lists: but as a specimen, the
Commissioners for the North were the Earl of Shrewsbury, President of
the Council of the North, the Earl of Derby (who were both on the
resident London Commission for taking the Oath also), the Earl of
Northumberland, Lord Evers, the knights Percy, Gargrave, Crofts, and
Gates, Squires Bowes, Estcot, Browne, Kingsmill, Dr. Sandys, and
Dr. Harvey. The dates of these Commissions may be added: North,
June 24; Wales, July 18; Sarum, July 19; Lincoln, July 22; London,
Aug. 21; Canterbury, unknown.
Susceptæ religioni subscribere obstinate et peremptorie recu-
santes."
VOL. V.
K
130
[CH. XXXII.
Powers of the Visitors.
the gaols by the discharge of all remaining prisoners
for religion after an enquiry of the causes of their
imprisonment and condemnation. To do all this in
ecclesiastical form, synods and chapters, both general
and special, of clergy and people, were to be convoked
in all places.* Complaints were to be carried to some
Commissioners or Delegates residing in London, with
whom an appeal lay, of whom anon.† This itinerary
carried with them Injunctions and Articles to be
enquired in their company, through their instruments
we may survey the kingdom: and then returning to
the capital we may observe the resident Commissioners
concerned with the dismission of those of the hierarchs,
who were not yet deprived.
The Injunctions which the Ambulatory Commis-
sioners carried, the Injunctions of Elizabeth, were the
* Collier has given a somewhat distorted view of this Commission :
that by it any two laymen could exert the highest censures of the
Church: that there was nothing to stop them from dealing excommuni-
cation: that they could convoke synods, and demand synodals and
procurations, excommunicating those who would not pay: that bishops
were not excepted from their scope, and that "their commission takes
in the whole compass of ecclesiastical jurisdiction" (vol. vi. p. 262). This
is far too sweeping. There is no mention of excommunication, or of
bishops: there were, one may say, at the moment no bishops to except.
Burnet's remark is in better temper: that it seemed a great stretch of the
Queen's supremacy to give the Visitors authority to proceed by ecclesias-
tical censures but that "it was thought that the queen might do that as
well as the lay chancellors did it in the ecclesiastical courts: so one abuse
was the excuse for another."-Vol. ii. p. 634 (Pocock).
+ Burnet published the Commission for the North, Collect. No. 7
(vol. v. p. 533). He and others after him have mistaken it for the
first High Commission. "This was the first high Commission that was
given out." These Ambulatory Commissioners were to appeal to the
Commissioners in London. "Personas, offensiones, et querelas com-
missariis nostris Londini residentibus et ad ecclesiasticarum rerum
reformationem delegatis præsentabunt.”—Burnet as above. These Com-
missioners in London were the first High Commissioners, as we shall
Dr. Gee has recently reprinted their Commission of July 19,
Elizabethan Clergy, p. 89.
see.
1559.] The Elizabethan Injunctions.
131
Injunctions of Edward the Sixth,* reprinted with divers
alterations and about twenty new items. The tract of
time rendered some omissions necessary, but the great
part of the numerous variations and substitutions were
made, it is said by Cecil's hand, on the principle of avoid-
ing offence toward the Romanensians.† In the Preface,
in Edward we read of" the suppression of idolatry and
superstition": in Elizabeth of "the suppression of super-
stition." In Edward's Injunction concerning the Supre-
macy, "the Bishop of Rome's pretensed and usurped
power and jurisdiction" is more than once declared to have
been "of most just causes taken away and abolished," as
"having no establishment nor ground by the laws of
God": in the corresponding place in Elizabeth there is
no mention made of Rome, but "all usurped or foreign
power" is said to be "taken away and abolished" for
the said causes: nor is there any allusion to Rome
throughout her code. In Edward there are many severe
reflections on the motives of the clergy, which are
omitted or softened in Elizabeth. In the one they were
forbidden to " extol images, relics or miracles for any
superstition or lucre, or to allure the people by any
enticements to the pilgrimage of any saint or image."
In Edward, but not in Elizabeth, the clergy who had
taught superstitions were required to recant, openly
acknowledging that they had been "led and seduced
by a common error and abuse crept into the Church
through the sufferance and avarice of such as felt
profit by the same." Edward insulted, but Elizabeth
They,
* For Edward's Injunctions, see Vol. II. p. 430 of this work.
again, were a reproduction of the Injunctions of Crumwel and Henry;
see Vols. I. p. 444, and II. p. 81, of this work.
+ Archbishop Parker said in a letter to Cecil long after, in 1575,
"Whatsoever the [queen's] ecclesiastical prerogative is, I fear it is not so
great as your pen hath given it in the Injunctions."—Strype, Ann. i. 159.
Edward's Injunctions, Items I and II. The two sets have been
K 2
132
The Elizabethan Injunctions [CH. XXXII.
not, the old usages by several somewhat contemptuous
expressions: Edward enumerated some customs or
ceremonies which, having ceased, were not rehearsed
by Elizabeth: while Elizabeth repeated Edward's
rebukes of some which may, having ceased, have been
restored by Mary.* It was no longer ordered to take
down abused images: nor was it thought needful to
quench again the two lights upon the high altar of
every church, which had been at first enjoined and
afterwards implicitly abrogated by Edward.† The
numerous vacancies, that were or were about to be,
would have rendered it not so convenient to repeat as
it seemed to be to omit the requirements of Edward
for curates constant in residence, persuasive in charging
parents and children, exemplary in life, diligent in pro-
viding for the due and reverent ministration of the
Sacraments. The quarterly sermon which Edward
exacted from incumbents was not only made monthly,
but an additional quarterly sermon or homily was
compared by J. J. Blunt, in his Sketch of the Reformation: and by Gee,
Eliz. Clergy, 46.
* (6
Images, relics, miracles," are enumerated both in Item 2 of Edward
and in Item 2 of Elizabeth: but "pilgrimage of any saint or image” is
left out in the latter. In Item 3 of Edward "works of faith, mercy and
charity" are set against "wandering to pilgrimages, offering of money,
candles, or tapers to relics or images, or kissing or licking of the same,
praying upon beads, or such like superstition." In the corresponding
Item 3 of Elizabeth, "works of Faith, as mercy and charity " are set
against "wandering of pilgrimages, setting up of candles, praying upon
beads, or such-like superstition."
+ Item 4 of Edward, against abused images, and the candles set before
them, but allowing two lights on the high altar (churches then had many
altars), was entirely omitted by Elizabeth. On the two lights, see Vol. II.
p. 432 of this work. They had been implicitly abrogated in the Articles
of the Visitation of 1549, the first of which ordered the clergy, in the
periodical reading of the Injunctions (of 1547), to omit "all such as made
mention of the papal Mass, of chantries, of candles upon the altar, or any
other such-like thing."
Items 5 and 6 of Edward, which are entirely omitted.
1559.]
compared with the Edwardian.
133
imposed on them that were licensed, by Elizabeth.
The Paternoster, Creed, and Ten Commandments to
be repeated every holiday; the Bible of the largest
volume and the Paraphrase of Erasmus to be had in
churches, the Latin and English New Testament and
the Latin Paraphrase to be procured by parsons, the
synodal and visitatorial examination of the clergy in
the Holy Scriptures by the bishops and ordinaries, the
Homilies to be read every Sunday, were common to
both. But there was nothing in Elizabeth as to the
Paternoster and the rest to be repeated in confessions
in Lent. The Queen's Visitors were added to the
authorities that could give licenses to preachers; * and
in the cognisance of hinderers of God's word and of
maintainers of usurped and foreign power the ordinary
was added to the Council or the nearest justice of the
peace. Common to both was the register to be kept
in every church, but now half of the forfeits of omitted
entries was ordered to go to the repairing of the
church, not the whole to the poor men's box:† the
fortieth part of every benefice of twenty pounds or
more to be devoted by every non-resident parson to
the poor of the parish "that was so fruitful and profit-
able to him" was common to both: still were all
parsons to bestow the fifth of their benefice in repair-
ing their chancels: the education of assistant clergy,
"partners of their patron's cure," was still laid on
incumbents who had above a hundred a year; they
* The licenses granted by Visitors were disliked by the bishops, and
soon afterwards revoked.—Cardwell, i. 204.
+ Item 10 Elizabeth. This alteration has been thought to argue the
increasing decay of churches. There is something to the like in Item 23,
where after repeating Edward's destructive mandate for taking away
shrines, coverings of shrines, painted glass, &c. (Item 28 Edw.), Elizabeth
adds, "preserving nevertheless or repairing both the walls and glass
windows."
134
[CH. XXXII.
New Items
were again commanded, for every hundred that they
had, to give exhibition at the University to one young
man, and thus they would become patrons, and raise
up "partners of their patron's cure," each his own or
the young men might "otherwise profit the common-
weal with counsel and wisdom." The honest pulpit,
the chest of the poor, the distribution of alms, tithes
to be paid faithfully, simony avoided, processions to be
ceased, and other regulations, were common to both:
but in several places alterations might be remarked that
were significant. Especially the substitution of "the
Common Prayer" or of "the Communion" for "High
Mass" indicated the triumph of the English Book or
Use.*
Of the new items in these Injunctions the most
remarkable were on the marriage of ministers, the use
of singing, the position of the Communion Table, and
the fashion of the Sacramental bread; for the dis-
couragement of marriage in the clergy, since some
"Immediately
* "Immediately before High Mass": Item 24 Edw.
before the time of Communion of the Sacrament": Item 18 Eliz. "In
the time of the Litany, of the High Mass, of the Sermon ": Item 24 Edw.
"In the time of the Litany, of the Common Prayer, of the Sermon":
Item 18 Eliz. Observe also the avoidance, in Elizabeth, of the word altar, or
high altar, which never occurs. "Which chest you shall set and fasten near
unto the high altar": Item 30 Edw. "Which chest you shall set and fasten
in a most convenient place": Item 25 Eliz. On the other hand, perhaps,
the restoring spirit of Mary may be traced in the addition of "obits and
dirges" to "torches, lights, tapers, and lamps," the maintenance of which
was to be turned to the maintenance of the poor: Item 25 Eliz.; 30 Edw.
Remark also a bit of ignorant revision in the same item. The words
oblation and devotion, coupled with alms, in Edward, are altered into
oblations and devotions in Elizabeth, evidently because the word alms,
"Their
which is of course the French almesse, was thought plural.
oblations and alms," "their devotions and alms." Perhaps it was from
this source that the plural form, unfortunately it may be thought, got into
the Prayer for the Church Militant in the last revision of the Prayer Book
in 1661: our alms and oblations." It may be added that the word
oblatio is never plural in the Latin Missal.
66
1
1559.]
in the Injunctions.
135
slander and offence had arisen from the choice of wives
or indiscreet behaviour in the allowed state of matri-
mony, it was ordered that no priest or deacon should
marry "any manner of woman" without the allowance
of the bishop and the two nearest justices and the
good will of her parents and friends or of her master
and mistress: no bishop without the approbation of
the metropolitan and of some royal commissioners;
and no dean or head of college without the consent of
the visitors of the house. This regulation fell dead
from the first, and was only meant by way of caution.*
Of singing and music it was ordered that the assign-
ments or stipends for maintaining men and children
to sing, which there were in collegiate and in some
parish churches, should remain unaltered; that "a
modest and distinct song," as plain to be understood
as reading, should be used in all parts of the Common
Prayer: and that, "for comforting that delight in
* So Heylin says. Some of the remarks of Sanders (or Rishton) on
the subject may be looked at. "Ab initio in uxoribus eligendis ita vel
negligentes vel infelices vel nimis præproperi fuerant, ut feminas non adeo
honestæ famæ omnes acceperint, magnumque ex ea re infirmioribus sectæ
suæ scandalum, Catholicis etiam risum moverint: præceptum est illis
Reginæ autoritate ut nullam deinceps feminam in conjugium presbyteri,
nec episcopi quidem admitterent, nisi prius certorum hominum judiciis
de honestate approbatam. . . . Qui autem istis darent filias suas, ne Pro-
testantes quidem fere inveniebantur, nedum Catholici: primum, quia
existimant id esse per se infame, ut sint vel dicantur uxores presby-
terorum," &c. He goes on that the children of such marriages were
illegitimate by the laws of England. As to that, these Injunctions say
that priests' marriages were made lawful by Act of Parliament under
Edward VI., thus founding themselves upon what was done in his reign.
There were two Acts of Edward on the subject: 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 21
and 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 129, which last expressly included legitimisation
of children. Both these Acts were repealed nominatim by I Mary,
Session 2, c. 2. That statute of Mary was not repealed by 1 Eliz. c. 1:
nor was either of the two Acts of Edward revived nominatim in 1 Eliz.
C. I. It therefore follows that the whole subject of priests' marriages was
passed over by Elizabeth's first Parliament: and yet her Injunctions
founded themselves upon the Acts of Edward, which Mary had repealed.
136
[CH. XXXII.
New Items
f
music," a hymn or song of praise, in the best melody
and music that could be devised, might be permitted
at the beginning or end of the Common Prayer,
"having respect that the sentence of the hymn might
be understanded and perceived."* So that plain song
was retained in parish churches: in cathedral and
collegiate churches more artful music was unforbidden.
As to the position of the holy table, the order was that
it should be set where the altar had been, and so stand
save when "the Communion of the Sacrament" (a
phrase that is used more than once in this code) was
administered, at which times it was to be placed in the
chancel so as the ministers might more conveniently
be heard and the communicants more conveniently and
in more number communicate: and after the Com-
munion done, it was to be replaced where it stood
before.† In memory of the woeful waste that had
been witnessed in the demolition of altars in the reign
of Edward it was furthermore ordered that no altar
yet left should be taken down without the oversight of
the curate and the churchwardens. Concerning the
Sacramental bread, the direction of the Prayer Book,
* "No mention here," remarks Heylin, "of singing David's Psalms
in metre, though afterwards they first thrust out the hymns which herein
are mentioned, and by degrees did they the Te Deum, the Magnificat,
and the Nunc Dimittis." Hence we may understand the meaning of
calling the Puritans Psalm-singers.
+ The meaning is, that for Communion the table was to be taken
from its station, where the altar used to be, and brought down into the
chancel, but not into the body of the church, and set longitudinally,
the short ends westward and eastward: the communicants either (I think)
drew round it to receive, or had the elements carried round to them in
their places by the minister. This was a modification of the rubric of the
Prayer Book, that the table should always "stand in the body of the
Church, or in the chancel." Long afterwards, about 1636, by order of
the bishops, the table remained always as now against the east wall,
placed altarwise, and it was railed in, the communicants kneeling at the
rails to receive.-Cardwell, Doc. Ann. ii. 174, 185, 201; also Hole's
Manual of Prayer Book, 153.
1559.]
in the Injunctions.
137
which these Injunctions enforced, that it should be "such
as is usual to be eaten at table with other meats, but
the best and purest wheat bread,” was set aside by an
order of these Injunctions themselves, that it should be
the same as the bread and wafer that served for the
private Mass; but somewhat bigger and thicker.*
These two last orders, about the table and the bread,
were the most remarkable of all Elizabeth's Injunctions
in that they traversed the rubrics of the Book of
Common Prayer, and were acknowledged examples
of the "further order" which she was empowered by
the Act for Uniformity to take in the rites and
ceremonies of the Church, with the advice of the
commissioners or the metropolitan, and perhaps the
only examples.† Several of these new concluding
(6
'Item. Where also it was in the time of King Edward the Sixth used
to have the Sacramental bread of common fine bread; it is ordered for
the more reverence to be given to these holy mysteries, being the sacra-
ments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that the same
Sacramental bread be made and formed plain, without any figure there-
upon, of the same fineness and fashion round, though somewhat bigger
in compass and thickness, as the usual bread and wafer, heretofore named
singing cakes, which served for the use of the private mass." It was these
orders about the table and the bread which drew from Jewel's adver-
sary, Dorman, in 1564, the well-known scoff: "This day your Table
is placed in the midst of the Quire, the next day removed into the Body
of the Church: at the third time placed in the chancel again after the
manner of an Altar (that is upon the coming forth of this before men-
tioned Order), but yet removable as there is a Communion to be had.
Then your Minister's face to be one while turned toward the south, and
another while toward the north; that the weathercock in the steeple was
noted not to have turned so often in a quarter of a year as your Minister
in the church in less than one month. And at your Communion, one
while decreeing that it be ministered in common and leavened Bread;
by and bye revoking that, and bringing it to unleavened."-Dorman's
Proof, quoted by Strype, Ann. i. 163.
+ There was no reference to the Act for Uniformity in these two
Injunctions themselves, but they were early understood to be "further
order" founded on it. Thus Withers the Puritan wrote in 1567 to the
Elector Palatine, "Power was given to the Queen and the Archbishop
to introduce whatever additional ceremonies they might think proper:
138 The Supremacy Oath explained. [CH. XXXII.
items had titles or headings of their own; among them
"The form of bidding the prayers to be used generally
after this uniform sort" differed widely from Edward's
Injunctions, particularly in turning prayer for the dead
into an act of praise.* Another, "An admonition to
simple men deceived by malicious," explained the Oath
of Supremacy to challenge no authority of ministering
divine offices, nor any other authority than that used
lately by Henry and Edward and due anciently to the
imperial crown of the realm, promising to acquit of
penalty any who had scrupled before but would now
accept the Oath on this interpretation. This last item
had an important history.†
and they immediately afterwards discontinued the ordinary bread hitherto
used in the administration of the Lord's Supper, and for the sake of a
newer reformation adopted the round wafer, after the pattern of that used
by the papists."—Zurich Letters, ii. 161. We have the testimony of the
Queen herself, and of Archbishop Parker, upon this point. Parker, in 1571,
related to Cecil that the Queen had talked to him once or twice about it,
and signified that there was a provision in the Act for Uniformity, “that
by law is granted unto her that if there be any contempt or irreverence
used in the ceremonies or rites of the Church by misusing of the orders
appointed in the Book, she may, by the advice of her commissioners
or metropolitan, ordain and publish such further ceremonies or rites"
as should be meet: and that she would not have agreed to some orders
in the Book but for that. He proceeds, "By virtue of which law she
published further order in her Injunctions both for the Communion Bread
and for the placing of the Tables within the choir. They that like not
the Injunctions force much the statute in the Book. I tell them that they
do evil to make odious comparisons betwixt statute and Injunction: and
yet I say and hold that the Injunction hath authority by proviso of the
statute."-Parker's Correspondence, 375.
* See Cardwell's notes, Doc. Ann. i. pp. 21 and 202.
+ Hallam has a note on this Injunction, which he styles "of the nature
of a contemporaneous exposition of the law."-Const. History, i. 112. This
"Admonition" was reprinted in the Somers Tracts, vol. i. Bishop Stubbs
has also reprinted it in Eccles. Commission Report, p. 73. I anticipate
in adding that this explanation was invested with legal authority by
Elizabeth's next Parliament, 5 Eliz. c. 1, § 14; see below. It is known as
"Elizabeth's Admonition."-Butler's Hist. Memoirs, i. 284. The promise
of immunity, which this Admonition (or Injunction) contains, is founded
on a generous provision of 1 Eliz. c. 1, the Act prescribing the Oath, that
I
1
1559.]
Articles to be Enquired.
139
The Articles to be Enquired in this Visitation de-
parted more boldly from the corresponding enquiries
that accompanied the Injunctions of Edward: and yet
one or two of them left Edward's Articles only to fly
to his Injunctions, and thence repeat one or two of the
somewhat contemptuous expressions toward the old
usages which in the Injunctions of this Visitation
Elizabeth had avoided.* But not only was the usurp-
ing Bishop of Rome without mention in them: no
foreign power had mention instead of him: all the
questions were domestic, and refer to the state of the
Church and the country. It may be gathered that
some monuments of the former worship were still left
in churches; that many images, tables, pictures, which
had been in churches, were kept undefaced in houses,
and adored there: that it was not certain that all the
moveable goods or stocks of churches, as cattle, or all
the money that used to find torches and lamps, now
found their way into the poor men's box. It appears
that there were who talked and jangled in church
during the English Service, and others departed with-
out just cause in time of the Litany or "any other
Common Prayer," or when the priest read the
if any temporal man should "obstinately and peremptorily refuse to take
the Oath, and after at any time during his life should willingly require to
take it," he should be relieved from any penalty incurred (§ 26). This
seems to be extended by this Admonition (or Injunction) to ecclesiastics
also. I recur to this point further on. In proof of the importance of the
Admonition I may mention that a separate manuscript copy of it exists,
apart from the rest of the Injunctions, made for some particular purpose:
and probably other such copies were made.—Dom. Pap. of Eliz. vol. xv.
No. 27 (Cal. p. 167). The whole Injunctions of Elizabeth may be seen
in Gee, Eliz. Clergy, 46, in Wilkins, iv., or in Cardwell's Doc. Ann.
i. 178.
* The eleventh Item of Edward's Injunctions, about extolling pilgrim-
ages, relics, and images, and kissing, kneeling, decking of the same, was
omitted in Elizabeth's Injunctions, but appears in her Articles to be
Enquired.
1
140
Articles to be Enquired. [CH. XXXII.
Scriptures to the parishioners:* and on the other
hand that there were priests who moved or counselled
their parishioners rather to pray in an unknown tongue
than in English, and to tell their beads. There were
secret Masses said and heard "in unlawful conven-
ticles." There were "minstrels" who sang "vile and
unclean ditties, especially in derision of any godly
order now set forth and established." Diligence was
to be applied to get a true understanding of the late
persecution under Queen Mary: and here the investi-
gation was grave and mournful. "How many persons,'
it was to be asked in every diocese, “have for religion
died by fire, famine, or otherwise, or have been
imprisoned for the same?" 'What books of Holy
Scripture have you delivered to be burned, or other-
wise destroyed, and to whom delivered you them?"
The ordinaries were required to exhibit to the Visitors
their books "containing the causes why any person was
imprisoned, famished, or put to death for religion."†
To make what restitution could be made it was
enquired, "What goods moveable, lands, fees, offices,
or promotions were wrongfully taken away in the time
of Queen Mary's reign from any person which favoured
the religion now set forth?" But above all there was
a very curious interrogation, unnoticed by writers,
99
(6
* "Any other Common Prayer means any that was ordered to be
in English up to that time; as the Epistle and Gospel and the Com-
mandments were by the Queen's Proclamation. "And when the Priest
readeth the Scriptures to the Parishioners": I venture to think that this
was not meant of the reading of the Lessons in the Order of Prayers, but
of some times when the priest, or minister, had the people together in
church to read the Scriptures to them, and probably with some brief
exposition: a usage long ceased. From this, it seems to me, the question,
still retained, arose in the Ordinal for Deacons: "Will you diligently
read the same (i. e. the Scriptures) unto the people assembled in the
church where you shall be appointed to serve?"
+ This was in the Injunctions, not in these Articles to be Enquired.
{
1559.]
The Visitation begins.
141
which appears to cast light on the remarkable impunity
enjoyed by high or rich suspected laymen in the
Persecution under Mary, an impunity which has been
imputed to the baseness of bishops by the ignorance
of the general historians. 'What bribes the accusers,
promoters, persecutors, Ecclesiastical Judges, and other
the Commissioners appointed within the several dioceses
of this realm have received by themselves or other, of
those persons which were in trouble, apprehended, or
imprisoned for religion?" This question asked solves
one of the problems of history.*
The Visitation, thus furnished, was forthwith set on
foot. Of the large Northern perambulation one of the
Commissioners, Doctor Sandys, recounted to a friend
the labours and success: "I was sent with the Queen's
commission, as inspector and visitor, for removing the
abuses of the Church and restoring the rites of true
religion and piety: in those regions I discharged the
office entrusted to me with exhausting efforts of mind
and body to the beginning of November: then I
returned to London, to find myself called to a greater
weight of care and toil, the bishopric of Worcester."†
In this way a future Primate of England gained
a knowledge of his Province. With him laboured
* It casts a dreadful light on the persecution that it should have been
so notorious that those troubled for religion who could bribe the accusers,
judges, and commissioners could purchase safety, that this should have
been made an Article to be Enquired. Those persecutors were nearly all
laymen, as I have shown in place. It should be observed that bishops
or ordinaries are not here enumerated among those who might have taken
bribes. If it had been possible to have involved any of the Marian bishops
in such a charge, it would have been done here. The poor and humble
condition of the great part of the lay folk, who were burned or otherwise
troubled for religion in that terrible time, has been often remarked: and
by Mr. Froude, and other popular writers, "the bishops" have been
accused of prudently choosing their prey from the defenceless poor.
+ Zurich Letters, i. 72.
142
[CH. XXXII.
The Visitors' Method.
Doctor Harvey, of the civil law, and Sir Henry Gates;
and these were the chief commissioners; but for several
places they appointed plenary deputies, of whom the
most notable were Scambler and the venerable Bernard
Gilpin. Before these persons, with a few others in
various instances, was transacted the bulk of the in-
quisitions, presentments, and matters done.* The
course followed was the same everywhere. The
Visitors sat in a church, cathedral or parochial :
prayers were read, and they opened their commission.
A sermon was preached, or, as they often put it, “the
word of God was plainly and sincerely expounded" by
Sandys or another. The assembled clergy of the
cathedral or collegiate church, and of the adjacent
rural deaneries, were required to exhibit their statutes,
letters of orders, and other muniments: those who
appeared not were pronounced contumacious. The
churchwardens and other laymen of every parish had
been summoned, and were required to answer to the
Articles to be Enquired: and from their answers
presentments were made. To all alike the Oath and
Declaration were tendered for subscription. In many
places the complaints of former incumbents who had
been expelled for marriage were heard: who were
generally restored, and their intruded successors ex-
pelled. Vacant livings were filled, or else sequestrated.
The detections or comperta" that were made at the
* The proceedings of this Visitation of the Province of York are
contained in a large manuscript volume of about 300 pages; State Pap.
Eliz. Domest. vol. x. No writer seems to have seen this original except
Strype, and perhaps Burnet, who have not used it much.-Annals,
ch. xii. It is a nobly written manuscript, probably from the hand of
Thomas Percy, public notary, who attended the Visitors. [Since the
above was written Dr. Gee's extremely valuable volume has been pub-
lished, The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of Religion, in which
this and all other originals of the Visitation have been carefully and
skilfully examined.]
1559.]
Nature of the Returns.
143
point of the Articles are not without interest: that the
church was in decay, that the vicar or rector was
non-resident, that there had been no service for a year
or more, that there was no register kept; in several
parishes that the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer,
the Communion Book, the Paraphrases, or one or other
of them, had been delivered to be burned in the late
reign. Everywhere lamentable presentments were
made of fornicators, adulterers, men who had left
their wives for other women, and bastard children.
It was begun with the diocese of York in the parish
Church of St. Mary, Nottingham, on August 22:*
* The proceedings here may be given as an example. "In Eccles.
parochiali B. Marie ville de Nottingham Ebor. diocesi die Martis, viz. 22 die
mens. Aug. anno Dom. 1559, regno illustr. Dne Eliz. Dei grat. Anglie,
Francie et Hibernie Regine, Fidei Defens. primo. Quibus die et loco,
finitis precibus, expositoque ad populum sacro Dei verbo p. eximium
virum Mag. Edw. Sandys, S.T. D., prefatus Edwinus una cum Th. Gar-
grave, Hen. Gates, militib. et Hen. Harvey, L.D. cancellum ejusd. eccles. ad
loc. decenter ornatum simul adivere: eisdemque ibidem sedentib. literas
commissionales prelibate Illustriss. Dne nost. Regine sigillo magno
communitas, omni cum humilitate, reverentia pariter et obedientia con-
dignis receperunt. Ac easdem p. Thom. Percy notarium publicum
scribam et registrarium antedictum publice legi fecerunt. Et incontinenti
onus executionis earundem ob reverentiam et honorem tante principis
committend. assumpserunt. Et secundum vim formam et effectum
earund. ad omnem juris effectum procedendum fore, proque eorum
jurisdictione judicialiter decreverunt. Deinde personaliter constitutus
quidam Mag. Rob. Cressye Officialis Archm. Nottingham introduxit
mandatum citatorium sibi alias ex parte prefat. Dne Regine pro clero
et populo Decanatuum de Nottingham movend. atque citand. visitationem
Regiam adtunc subitur., una cum certificatorio de executione etc. Et
nominibus et cognitionibus omnium et singulorum in ea parte monitor.
ac desuper facta fide, de jure requisitionis omnes citatos et monitos
nominatim publice preconizari fecerunt commissarii antedicti. Omnes
etiam monitos preconizatos et non comparentes pronunciaverunt con-
tumaces, etc. Subinde intimata habitaque ad populum docta quadam
exhortatione p. percelebratum Mag. Edw. Sandys, omnes laicos, viz. paro-
chianos et iconimos cujuslibet parochie, tactis prius sacrosanctis Dei Evan-
geliis, monuerunt ut hora sexta a prandio detectiones et responsiones suas
super Articulis inquisitionis eis una cum Injunctionibus regiis adtunc lectis
et datis in scriptis exhibeant, etc. Prefati quoque D. Commissarii rectores,
144
The Visitors in the North. [CH. XXXII.
where, after a sermon from the eminent Doctor
Sandys, they proceeded within the chancel, and sat
judicially. Here they pronounced contumacious fifteen
clergy for absence; instituted five, and restored one,
who had been deprived for marriage, with the consent
and good will of his successor. Next day at Southwell
out of sixteen prebendaries eleven were absent, four
of them without proxies; two vicars were instituted,
and one married restored to his living against the will
of his successor. At Blythe, whither next they went,
three were instituted, two restored.* At Pontefract
vicarios, capellanos, curatos et non curatos presentes omnes et singulos
firmiter injungend. monuerunt quod ipsi hora et loco predicto personaliter
compareant, literas ordinum, dispensationes et cetera instrumenta sua,
prout singula singulos concernantia realiter exhibituri ulteriusque facturi
quod justitia et equitatis ratio suadebunt, etc. Hora adveniente iconimi
et parochiani predicti billas detectionum una cum inventoriis bonorum
ecclesiarum suarum exhibuerunt, etc. Deinde de clericorum et ecclesia-
sticarum personarum statu doctrina et conversatione diligentem fecerunt
examinationem unumquemque per se examinandum literis ordinum et
ceteris munimentis p. illos exhibitis etc."-MS. in State Pap. Eliz. Dom. x.
p. 7. The word iconimi, i. e. œconomi, for churchwardens, seems a curious
reminiscence of the former pronunciation of the Greek vowel sounds.
* The arrangement of the book is recursive. After the accounts of the
Visitation, beginning at Nottingham, throughout the four Northern
dioceses, there follow (p. 121) the "Acta et Processus habiti et facti
coram Commissariis," &c., which begin at Nottingham: then follow
"Nomina eorum qui admissi et instituti fuerunt," beginning with Not-
tingham: then the "Detectiones et Comperta," p. 219, in the same
manner. Then "Nomina omnium absentium." Then lastly come,
Recognisances taken to the Q. Maj. use before the Visitors of the
Province of York." In another volume of the Domestic series, vol. vii.
No. 24, is given the "Ordo Visitationis Regiæ Majest. infra Prov. Ebor,”
with the dates. It nearly corresponds with vol. x. I have put the
differences in brackets.
Southwell
وو
Ebor. Dio.
Nottingham
22 Aug.
Ebor.
24
Hull....
Batley (Blythe)...... 26
99
Pontefract
29
Beverley
Malton
""
Halifax
31
Otley
""
4 Sept.
Northallerton.....
(Richmond....………………….
6 Sept.
II
12
""
""
13 ""
16
""
21,,)
1559.]
In the Diocese of York.
J
145
four churches were found vacant; a married vicar
and a married rector were restored, and they were
both the same man. At Halifax, August 31, the
preacher was Pilkington; the congregation listened
with joy: the living of Huddersfield was found to be
vacant. At Otley several parish priests were deprived
and put under recognisances, and committed to custody
for obstinately refusing to subscribe to the altered
religion and utterly denying the royal supremacy."
Dunelm. Dio.
وو
9 Oct.
13 (12)
14 (16)
""
Kendal
Lancaster
Wigan .....
Manchester...... 17 (18)
(Northwich....………………….. 20
Milton....
""
""
20 ""
Auckland
Dunelm.
21 Sept.
22 (23)
""
Newcastle
27
""
Alnwick
30
Carliol. Dio.
Carlisle
3 Oct.
(Tarvin
(not in vol. x.)
24 Oct.)
Penrith
6 99
Eccles, Chest.... 23 (26)
Cistrens. Dio.
Chester St. Oswald's 28 "9
8 Oct.
*
(not in vol. x.)
Richmond
* At Nottingham, Hy. Nicolson was instituted to Twiswell, Alex.
Fossett to Leeds, Edw. Stubbs to Keyworth, Jn. Drury to Lowdham.
In this last-named parish the churchwardens presented that in the late
reign they had "delivered to Mr. Cressye a Paraphrase and two Com-
munion Books to be burned." In Stapleford "their books were burned
in Q. Mary's time." Oliver Columben, deprived for marriage, was
restored to Stainford rectory, with the hearty consent of his successor
Umfrey. At Southwell, Thos. Marsee was instituted to East Markham,
Wm. Abbot to Burythorpe. In Scarrington parish there had been no
curate for two years, and their books had been burned "by the official.”
In Corlenton parish "their Bible, the Communion Book and the Para-
phrase had been delivered to the official, to be burned, as he said": no
curate for twelve months. Christ. Sugden, deprived for marriage, was
restored to Newark; his successor Jn. Taverham, opposing, had articles
ministered to him to answer. Pursglove, Suffragan of Hull, appeared by
proxy. At Blythe, Jacob Rusworth was instituted to Croxishill, Robt.
Rothwood to Grove, Wm. Walton to Wheatley. The former rector of
Claworth, Geo. Monsun, and the actual possessor, Roger Dallison,
contended, and the case was adjourned. At Pontefract, Ant. Blake,
former vicar of Doncaster, laid claim against John Hudson, vicar
(6 pretensed," and had articles ministered to him. "Ad primum art.
fatetur. Ad secundum respondet et dicit: That he doth believe that he
was deprived for that he was married": and to the next, "viz. that he
VOL. V.
L
1
146
The Northern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
1
At York Sandys preached to a vast concourse with
great effect the dean and prebendaries exhibited
articles of submission signed by themselves: but ten
of their body were absent without proctors; four of
them on three successive days refused to subscribe
to their articles, and were deprived, Pursglove, Bishop
Suffragan of Hull, among them: two consented to the
supremacy, but asked for time to consider the rest.
Four married parochs were restored and six vacant
livings were filled. The state of the minster and of
the houses of the prebendaries was found to be very
bad. Many cases of incontinency from all parts were
tried in consistory. The clergy of two of the city
churches absented themselves, and were pronounced
contumacious.*
At Hull, whither thence they went,
should be unjustly deprived, he doth reserve himself unto the law." To
another article he said, "that he kept his wife by all the time deduced,
but he doth deny any such statute to be made." To another, "that he
was called before the judges for his marriage, and that he did always
dissent from them." To another, "that he did dissent from his judges,
and as soon as there was time and place he sought his remedy as the
law would permit." The same Blake laid claim to the rectory of Whiston
against John Atkinson, alleging that he had been deprived, "as he
believed, for that he was married": and that he was married "not
unjustly, neither against the laws and statutes of this realm, as he
believeth." Hamlet Taylor was admitted to Churchsandall, Jn. Dod-
worth to Armethorpe, Ric. Bird to Wathe, Wm. Oglethorpe to Kellington.
At Otley, Robt. Wood, vicar of Otley, Wm. Boyes, rector of Gresley,
Christ. Mygley, vicar of Kildwick, Alex. Jennings, vicar of Bingley, per-
emptorily and obstinately refused "susceptæ religioni subscribere, et
præterea supremitatem illustriss. D. Regine denegaverunt." One of them
was forthwith deprived, the others committed to be taken to York. Miles
Walker, rector of Lachley, was restored against Thos. Helme, "the pretensed
rector." Ant. Holgate, rector of Burnsall, was restored against Ric.
Summerschal. Jas. Best was admitted to Romaldkirk.
At York, Sandys preached "ad consolamen et gaudium Christianam
doctrinam vere complectentium." The Articles of submission are given,
p. 30. Geoffrey Downes, D.D., Bishop Pursglove of Hull, Geo. Palmes,
L.D., and Rog. Marshall, all prebendaries, repeatedly and on several days
refused to subscribe, and were deprived. Rob. Bapthorpe, prebendary,
voluntarily, "ut apparuit," consented to the Supremacy, but asked time to
1559.] In the Diocese of Durham.
At
147
Sandys preached again: two or three livings were
filled: two women were presented as scolds.
Beverley Scambler preached: a living was found desti-
tute. At Malton several vicarages that were vacant
were sequestrated: a vicar who refused to subscribe
to the Articles was deprived. At Northallerton the
preacher was Scambler: three vacant livings were
filled, one of them by a deacon.*
In the diocese of Durham, in Auckland, in the parish
consider the rest. So Geo. Williamson, prebendary. A day was appointed,
and then they willingly subscribed. From the churches of All Saints and
St. Michael no one appeared. Wm. Denman was restored to Ordsall, Wm.
Yokesall to South Kirley, from which Robt. Blunston and Jn. Marshall
were cast out. Robt. Bent was admitted to Dalby, Thos. Britton to
Thorney, Robt. Morres to Bishophill, Wm. Davison to Patrington, Nic.
Pettinger to Westredford, Robt. Morres to Brignall. From Fyslake it was
presented that “
one troubleth the curate in time of common prayer"; that
three men
did despise the common prayer"; and that "the parson did
not keep a convenient time for the common prayer." As to York Minster
itself "it is detected that their altars stand still, all saving the high altar":
that “the gospel and epistle is so read that no man can well understand,
and likewise the homilies": that "there is no chest for the poor": that
66 they have no sermons preached, nor lectures of divinity read": that
"the church is much defiled with pigeons": that "the prebendaries'
house of Rycall is in much ruin and decay": also the house of Friday-
thorpe called Tonge Hall. Wotton the dean "is not resident, neither
feedeth the poor, as he is bound by the statutes of the said church."
There were
“but three or four prebendaries abiding in York.”
* At Hull, Rob. Robinson was admitted to Halsham : Oswald Emerson
to Kirkbyunderdale: the parish of Drypole was found destitute. At
Beverley, Keyingham was found vacant. At Malton, Rog. Thompson,
vicar of Appleford, repeatedly refused to subscribe, and was deprived.
Folkton and Lythe vicarages, and Ellerkar chapel, were found destitute
and were sequestrated. At Northallerton, Christ. Morland was admitted
to Bossall, Thos. Taylor, diaconus, to Langton, Jn. Pearson to Osmotherly.
In some of the parishes in these regions there were interesting detections.
In Bridlington "the images be secretly kept," and some persons had
some of the church goods in their hands. There were seven scolds in
Bridlington. In Edlington the parson had not resided for twenty years,
and no curate for twelve months, and no register was kept. In Beynton
"the image of our Lady hath been used for pilgrimage." In Arkesey
two men do wilfully absent themselves from the church and from the
divine service to the evil example of all the parish."
+
L 2
148
The Northern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
church, the Commissioners opened on September 21:
found the place inconvenient; and Scambler prorogued
it to the great chapel of the palace in the town. There
Sewell was the preacher; Sandys, Gates, and Harvey
sat judicially, and cited the clergy and people of the
archdeaconry of Durham. Three vicars refused to
subscribe, and were deprived in one way or another:
a married rector was restored: a vicarage was
sequestrated.* In the cathedral church of Durham,
September 23, Lord Evers, Sir Henry Percy, Sandys,
Gates, and Harvey sat: Sandys preached. Here the
dean, eight prebendaries, eight canons, of whom three
were not clerics, and the schoolmaster, refused to
subscribe: one prebendary subscribed. † Then the
66
ut
* At Auckland, Thos. Sedgwick, S.T.P., refused to subscribe:
articulis susceptæ religionis ex animo subscribat, obstinate recusavit.”
He was ordered to appear before them again in Durham; appeared there,
was obstinate, bound in recognisances, deprived. Robt. Dalton, S.T.B.,
vicar of Billingham, refused: "et requisitus iterum ut articulis subscribat
peremptorie recusavit, allegans, quoad primam partem articulorum, That
he that sitteth in the seat of Rome hath and ought to have the jurisdiction
ecclesiastical over all Christian realms." He was deprived. Wm. Bennet,
D.D., vicar of Aycliffe, refused: and again as prebendary of Durham
refused in the chapter house there: and was deprived. Wm. Whitehead,
vicar of Highington, was sequestrated (p. 61). The first appearance of
ex animo might be noted by the reader.
+ At Durham cathedral church, Thos. Robertson, dean, refused to
subscribe, saying "that the Bishop of Rome ought to have the jurisdiction
ecclesiastical of this realm"; and was bound over to appear before the
Commissioners sitting in London (p. 64). Roger Watson, prebendary,
subscribed. Jn. Crawford, prebendary, at first refused, then asked for
time, which was granted: then "primo recognovit supremitatem D.
Regine, et deinde religioni subscribere recusavit." He was bound in
£200 to appear in London, and his fruits were sequestrated. The same
course was taken with Steph. Marley and Jn. Tuttyn, prebendaries.
Nicolas Marley, prebendary, said “that he would not answer directly to
the point of Supremacy, but that the Bishop of Rome had some juris-
diction in the realm." The like befel him. Geo. Bullock, prebendary,
D.D., said "that the Bishop of Rome hath and ought to have the jurisdiction
ecclesiastical in this realm of England, and by plain and flat words he
affirmed that the see of that Bishop was the See Apostolic." Ant.
Salwyn, prebendary, D.D., said "that the Bishop of Rome hath jurisdiction
1559.]
At Durham.
149
muniments were examined: Sandys gave an exhor-
tation of religion and loyalty: four parochs were
restored. Here it was, it may be noted, that the
Commissioners formally appointed Roger Watson,
the one compliant prebendary, the celebrated Bernard
Gilpin of Apostolic character, and Edmund Scambler,
afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, to be deputy
commissioners, or surrogates to themselves; in which
capacity they will be found hereafter.* In the parish
within this realm (rather) than otherwise" and refused to subscribe.
Geo. Cliffe, prebendary, B.D., said "that he believed that the Pope hath
and ought to have the jurisdiction ecclesiastical, and not the Queen":
and refused. They were all treated like the rest; to appear in London,
sequestrated. Thos. Spark was sick. Wm. Todd, prebendary, S.T.P.,
appeared not, and all the prebendaries asserted that he had a broken
leg. As he lay within the precincts, the Commissioners substituted for
themselves Bernard Gilpin and Edm. Scambler to go to him, along with
their notary Percy. They went, and he peremptorily refused to subscribe.
He was deprived of the fruits of his prebend, and his vicarage of
Northallerton was sequestrated. Wm. Smith, Jn. Brown, Jn. Bindley,
Thos. Pentland, Robt. Blenkinsop, Jn. Pearson, Wm. Smith, Wm. Ball,
canonici minores, and all clerici but Smith, Brown, and Hall, refused, were
fined, and were ordered to appear in London whenever called. In the
chapter house, Geo. Cliffe was cast out of the rectory of Elwicke in York
diocese, and Thos. Atkinson restored. Jn. Rudd took the prebend of
Geo. Bullock and was also restored to Norton vicarage, Robt. Dalton
being cast out. Wm. Latimer claimed Kirkby rectory against Wm. Bury,
but the case was deferred (p. 144). Wm. Bennet, D.D., who as vicar of
Aycliffe had refused at Auckland, refused again as prebendary of Durham.
Some of these Durham prebendaries, Marley, Tuttyn, Dalton, and Salwyn,
are mentioned in a letter of Horne's in the following February, as still
remaining, and still refusing the Oath. "Three prebendaries of the
Cathedral Church of Durham, Marley, Tuttyn, and Dalton, do refuse the
Oath and I think Ant. Salwyn will do the same: in whose room if there
may be placed through your good means men learned and well affected,
the cathedral church shall have no loss, and the country receive great
gain." Horne to Cecil.—State Pap. Eliz. Dom. xi. 16 (Cal. 149).
* They first appointed Gilpin and Scambler to go to the house of the
broken-legged prebendary Todd: "committentes eis vices eorum ad
examinand. dict. Wm. Todd super articulis susceptæ religionis." The
"predicti substituti" examined Todd "in proprio hospitio" (p. 70).
Afterwards, on Oct. 8, they associated Watson and Gilpin in a formal
commission, which remains in the episcopal Register at Durham. I owe
150
The Northern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
church of St. Nicholas, in the city of Durham, the
Visitation proceeded next with the usual order, when
William Carter, the Archdeacon of Northumberland,
refused and was deprived, though not finally. In
St. Nicholas, the parish church of Newcastle-on-Tyne,
Evers, Percy, Gates, Sandys, Harvey sat, September 27:
Sandys preached with vigour: a vicarage was seques-
trated for vacancy: many cases of incontinency were
tried. At Alnwick, three days later, a deputy com-
the information of this to the Rev. W. H. Frere, who has kindly copied it
for me.
It is as follows: "Edwinus Sandis, S.T.P., Henry Harveye,
LL.D., et Geor. Browne arm. Illustris. in Christo principis et Dne nost.
Dne Elizabeth, D.G. &c., Commissarii inter alios generalis (sic) ad
visitand. tam in capite quam in membris ecclesias Cathedr. civitates, et
dioces. Eborac. Dunelm. Carlisl. et Cestren. clerumque et populum in
eisd. degent. sive resident. legitime delegati etc. suprema auctoritate regia
sufficienter fulciti: Dilectis nobis in Christo Rogero Watson, Barnardo
Gilpin, S.T.P., Salutem. Quascunque personas infra civitatem dioces.
Dunelm. ubilibet constitut. etiam in locis exemptis quam non exemptis in
... visitatione regia detect. vel quovismodo eidem Visitationi subject. aut
subjiciend. conveniend. citand. et evocand. deque vitæ moribus et conversa-
tione ac qualitatibus personas inquirend. et investigand. Criminosos quoq.
et delinquentes in ea parte quoscunque canonice corrigend. et puniend.
Causasque judiciales quascunque in et per civitatem et dioc. predict
etiam illas coram nobis inceptas et incipiend. audiend. finiend. et ter-
minand. Penitentias insuper canonicas aliasq. pœnas convenientes ac de
jure pro factorum qualitatib. requisit. juxta . . . exigentiam limitand.
imponend. et infligend. Necnon testamenta quorumcunq. defunctor.
infra civitat. et dioc. prædict. administrationesque eorum abintestato
decedent. permittend. proband. approband. et informand. Vobis . . . de
quorum doctrina et circumspectionis industria fiduciam habentes vices
nostras committimus plenamque in Domino hanc presentium concedimus
potestatem. . . . Vosque ut presertim auctoritate qua fungimur in
hac potestate surrogatos et deputatos nostros preficimus, deputamus et
surrogamus per partes quousque duxerimus revocandum, desumpto vobis
Christ. Clayton notario publ. in actorum scribam et registrarium deputa-
tum Thomæ Percy visitationis regie registrarium principalis specialiter.
.. Mandamusque de omnib. et singulis per vos gestis et gerendis
certiores nos reddatis cum ad hoc congrue fuerit requisit. una cum feod.
... In cujus rei test. sig. regie majest. ad causas eccles. presentibus
apponi fecimus. Dat. 8 die mens. Oct. anno pred. Dne Reg. primo,” fol.
53; at end of Tunstall's Regist. Dr. Gee has given a reference to this
commission, Eliz. Clergy, 81.
1559.]
At Alnwick.
151
mission sat; Sir John Forster, Harrison a cleric, and
Bernard Gilpin, who preached the sermon, examined
the clergy, and took their subscriptions to the Articles.*
In the diocese of Carlisle, in the chapter house or
fratry there, Sir George Browne, Sandys, and Harvey
opened their commission, October 3. The dean,
Lancelot Salkeld, formerly prior of the Austin house,
a man defamed in the Comperta of Henry the Eighth,
appeared personally, and signed the Articles with great
alacrity. The four prebendaries and seven minor
canons all followed: the statutes were exhibited.
On the next day in the cathedral church Sandys
preached; the commissioners sat judicially in the
choir, and visited the clergy and people of the
deaneries of Carlisle and Allerdale, pronouncing
the absent contumacious. Three rectors or vicars
were restored and their successors cast out.
It was
* As to Dr. Carter, Archdeacon of Northumberland, there is a letter
extant from the Council to Parker to proceed against him and Dr. Sedgwick,
Nov. 9.-C. C. C. Cambridge MSS. cxiv. 16. At Newcastle, the sermon
of Sandys is commended in the Acts of the Visitation : "verbo omni-
potentis Dei ad populum sincere predicato." Hennington vicarage was
sequestrated. There were about ten cases of incontinency: two from
Tynemouth (p. 78). Christ. Parker was admitted to Mansfield. It was
presented that in St. Andrew's parish "they had no register book." At
Alnwick they “receperunt billas presentationum, et prefatus Barnardus
Gilpin examinavit clerum eorundemque subscriptiones ad articulos
religionis suscepit." It was presented that at Rothbury "their images
stand still in the church: there is no register book: there is no poor
man's box."
+ At Carlisle, Lancelot Salkeld, the dean, “personaliter comparuit, et
perlectis sibi susceptæ religionis articulis voluntarie et bono animo
subscripsit." The prebendaries, Edw. Michell, Hugo Sewell, Barnabas
Kirkbride, R. Brandling, and the minor canons, Jn. Thompson, Jn.
Austin, H. Monk, J. Richardson, Thos. Watson, Wm. Hayre, A. Douglas,
all took the oath (p. 87). Thos. Atkinson was restored to Ormside rectory,
and Jn. Yates cast out: Wm. Harrison to Bottell, Rt. Pace cast out:
Percival Wharton to Bridekirk, and Wm. Gray cast out (p. 147). It was
presented that the dean and Michell, Kirkbride and Brandling had not
resided so often as they ought, "nor kept their quarter sermons according
to the Statutes" : and that Sewell had not resided so often as he ought.
152
The Northern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
presented that the dean and two or three of the pre-
bendaries had not been resident so often as they
ought, and, had not kept their quarterly sermons.
according to the statutes. One of these defaulters
was Hugh Sewell. At Penrith, whither next they
went, R. Sewell, whom we have seen preaching
before in this itinerary, preached: the clergy and
people of the deaneries of Cumberland and Westmore-
land underwent the Visitation: a living was seques-
trated.*
In the diocese of Chester they sat in Richmond
parish church, September 28; Sandys preached, and
the deaneries of Richmond, Catterick, and Borough-
bridge came for Visitation: and one or two of the
presentments may be noted that the people came
not well to church; that a man had been burned at
Richmond in the late persecution. At Kendal, ten
days afterwards, Sandys preached; the deaneries of
Kendal, Copeland, and Furness submitted themselves
to examination: disputes between parishes were com-
posed two institutions were made, and four restora-
tions: a town was found to be destitute of curate.
At Lancaster, the next place of session, the sermon
was preached by Gilpin. At Wigan one institution
was made.t At Manchester, in the parish church,
At Penrith they sequestrated the living of Marton "certis rationalibus
causis ipsos moventibus" (p. 91).
† Richmond seems to have been visited several times in this perambu-
lation. On Sept. 21, some of the Visitors were there; who restored Ric.
Baldwin, Master of St. Nicholas Hospital in Richmond, and drove out Wm.
Binny; and restored Rob. Pates to Spennyth to the extradition of Thos.
Plewes and instituted Thos. Bevan to Eddiston, and Rich. Ledbetter to
the chapel of Clegton. On Sept. 18 the main Visitation seems to have
been held, when Sandys preached and preconised the clergy and people
of the deaneries. The vicarage of Rich. Crawford, Myton, was seques-
trated (p. 93). At Richmond itself it was presented that the people
came not well to the church." Also "that Rich. Sewell had been burned
there, being condemned by doctor Dawkyns for religion, 13 Sept., 1556.”
1559.]
In the Diocese of Chester.
153
""
Sandys preached: a case of incontinency was heard:
and a week afterwards the collegiate church was visited,
the commissioners sitting judicially in the chapter
house. The Master appeared by proxy; some of
the fellows appeared not, or refused to subscribe,
and were sentenced accordingly.* The Fellows were
At Kendal, there was presented a dispute between Cockermouth and
Embleton, on which it was decided "that the parishioners of Embleton
should be contributors and pay to the reparations of the church of
Cockermouth, and all other charges of the Church, such duties as they have
been accustomed to pay at any time within the thirty years last past.'
At Cockermouth, "they had neither vicar nor curate to serve the cure
these twelve months." In another dispute between Eversham parish and
the chapel annexed of Crosthwaite, it was settled “That of all corses and
burials within the chapel of Crosthwaite half the money received of the
same shall be contributed and given to Eversham Church: also that
the parishioners of the chapel of Crosbywaite shall contribute and give
quarterly two shillings towards the clerk's wages at Eversham” (p. 96).
Another contest about Eversham concerned no less a man than Sandys
himself. He laid claim to the living as vicar, casting out the pretensed
vicar," Thos. Redman. I do not know whether this is known of Sandys:
perhaps it is the real origin of what the Parker Society sketch of his life
has, that before Mary's reign "he is said to have been vicar of Haversham
in Buckinghamshire." He was a Lancashire man. At Kendal another
contest was between Wm. Soorye, former vicar of Sedbergh, who cast out
Thos. Atkinson, and who also recovered Orswick vicarage from Thos.
Jobson: while the rectory of Bohmer in York diocese was snatched by
Geo. Tayler, the former, from Jn. Jackson, the latter occupier (p. 150).
At Wigan, Oct. 16, Robert Lilly was instituted to Babworth.
CC
* At Manchester collegiate church the master was Laurence Vaux.
Of the Fellows, Copage appeared not; Erlond subscribed: Prestwich
subscribed, but was warned against frequenting taverns on pain of
suspension: Ri. Harte refused to subscribe, was fined thirty pounds, and
put under recognisance to appear in London in a month (p. 101). The
archdeacon of Richmond, Jn. Horleston, was restored against Jn.
Hanson, "pretensed archdeacon": Nic. Hyde, vicar of Mottram, was
restored against Dan. Ethell: Marmaduke Pulleyn, rector of Ripley,
made suit against Robt. Percivall, and the case was referred to London
(p. 155). At Northwich, 20 October, "Domini Commissarii antedicti
ob certas rationabiles causas et precipue ob pestem sevientem tam in
civitate Cistrensi quam in locis circumvicinis et adjacentibus, illos
moventes, ad exercend. et expediend. visitationis Regiæ negotium tam in
prefata civitate Cestrensi quam apud Tarvin secundum monitionem in
ea parte prius emanatam, dilectos sibi in Christo Edw. Fyton mil.
Edm. Scambler S.T.B. Wm. Morton armig. et Thos. Percy gener.
154
The Northern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
required repeatedly to exhibit their muniments, but
they affirmed that they were all in the custody of
their absent master, without their consent. Here an
archdeacon cast out an archdeacon, and a vicar a vicar;
and a rector got himself and another rector referred to
London. All the books in Manchester were reported
burned; and from Bury it was presented that the
curate would not read the Gospel and Epistle, nor the
Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments in English,
notwithstanding the Proclamation. At Northwich the
chief commissioners resigned their labours for fear of
the plague, nominating as their substitutes for the
remaining work Sir Edmund Fyton, two other laymen,
and Scambler. A former rector was restored: there
were two institutions. At Tarvin parish church a few
days afterwards, these surrogate commissaries sat in
form: Scambler preached: presentments of incon-
tinency were made. At Chester in the cathedral
church Scambler preached, and a great investigation
was made. They noted that the see was vacant long :
that the deanery had lain void two years: that there
were but two resident prebendaries: and that the
Surrogatos suos nominaverunt et substituerunt, &c., eisque et eorum
duobus vices suas et auctoritatem committentes" (p. 104). The sitting
at Tarvin church follows, Oct. 24: it was Fyton, Morton, and Scambler.
In Chester cathedral church, two days later, it was Scambler and Percy.
They went into the choir after sermon, and read letters: then all the
neighbouring parochians "tactis Evangeliis juraverunt." They made a
memorandum, Quod sedes episcopalis ibidem diu vacavit, quodque
Decani dignitas per duos annos vacavit: et in eadem ecclesia solummodo
duo sunt prebendarii residentes: dictaque ecclesia Cathedralis tanta est
inopia suppressa, ut pauperibus et ecclesiæ ministris salaria sua satis-
facere et persolvere non possint." A contract of marriage was alleged, in
a case of fornication, to have been made by the words: "I am content to
marry unto you, whensoever I have my living." As the man could give
no reason for not performing this promise, the surrogates ordered him to
do so before the year's end (p. 108). Henry Snapp, curate of St. Mary's,
Chester, was presented as a common haunter of alehouses, and besides
very negligent in reading of the service" (p. 320).
66
1559.]
Absentees from the Visitation.
155
establishment was in such a beggarly state that they
could neither help the poor nor pay the ministers
of the church their salaries. There was a somewhat
curious matrimonial case decided; and a curate was
presented who was a haunter of alehouses.
According to a section in the original survey, which
I have now exhibited to the reader, the total number
of those clergy who absented themselves from Visita-
tion throughout the Northern Province was over three
hundred.* If we were sure that all those who absented
* In the MS. that we have been perusing, there is a section entitled
Sequuntur Nomina omnium absentium qui Regiam Visitationem infra
dioces. Ebor. minime subierunt." It only partially corresponds with the
records themselves of the Visitation, and makes evident that many things
are omitted in them.
York.
Nottingham Deanery..... 15
Warrington .....
Frodsham and Furness
9
ΙΟ
...
(One non-resident, three
stipendiaries, two after-
wards signed.)
(Two non-resident.)
Aynstie
II
Bulmer
6
Halifax
7
Redford and Laneham
...
15
Southwell ..
6
Newark.....
9
Malton
25
Beverley and Hull
26
Otley....
35
155
Nurrall and Bangor Wirrall 15
(Two non-resident.)
Manchester
(One afterwards signed, one
non-resident.)
8
Chester.
Nomina non comparentium
in Visitatione Regia.
Richmond Deanery
24
(One afterwards appeared
and signed: one was not
resident.)
Copeland ...
ΙΟ
(One afterwards signed: one
not resident.)
Allan
4
Medii Vici
7
Layland and Blackburn ...
3
Durham.
Altogether.....
(Four were masters or war-
dens. Three not resident:
one Collinwood of Ford
"nullo modo comparuit,"
i. e. very determined.)
Carlisle.
Altogether......
(Six were non-resident, three
stipendiaries.)
Total
90
36
35
316
The total given nearly agrees with Dr. Gee's list. He has also given
156
The Southern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
themselves were deprived, we should have to increase
very much the computation that is usually given of
those who were deprived for religion at this time in
the whole of England; for this return from only four
dioceses is near double of it. But great deductions
are to be made, if we compare this sum with the
minutes that we have been perusing. According to
those minutes, above thirty were absent because they
were not; they were cases of vacancy. Above twenty
were extruded from livings into which they had been
intruded, and it is like enough that they were absent;
but it was not exactly because of the alteration of
religion that they suffered. As to the remaining
large body of the absent, it is not certain that they
were deprived. If they were not, and the reason of
their absence was recusancy, the government showed
forbearance. If this absence was from other reasons,
an extraordinarily large number of persons were absent
from this Visitation from causes of which nothing is
known. The number who are certainly known from
the minutes to have undergone deprivation for refusing
the Oath and the Articles of the Visitation, in the four
dioceses, was not more than over sixty.
The less perfect memorials of the Visitation of the
Southern Province have not attracted the attention
which they deserve, and yet would sometimes dis-
appoint. As it regarded the city of London, the
the names (p. 83). He remarks (in effect in his notes) that there
were about 1,130 clergy in the whole Province. He has given a list
of restitutions, which agree with those that the reader has seen in my
footnotes, except that I have no T. Whytbee and no Rob. Wisdom, while
he has no Miles Walker and no Wm. Yokesall: and that his J. Rudd is
restored only to a prebend, not to a vicarage as well. Many of the
absences were by reason of vacancy. If with the vacant we may compute
the livings to which the Commission gave institution, the number would
be considerably increased.
1559.] Relation of the High Commission. 157
metropolis itself, this Ambulatory Visitation was
complicated by no less an event than the simultaneous
erection of the celebrated Commission for Ecclesiastical
Causes, commonly entitled the Court of High Com-
mission, by a writ of July 19. Provided for by an
empowering section of the Act of Supremacy, the Act
had not been long passed before it was called into
existence. As it was designed for a standing court
of universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it was headed
by ecclesiastical personages; but, as in that solitude
of deprivation or vacancy there were. no actual
prelates, the nominate Bishop of Canterbury and the
nominate Bishop of London (so were they named
in the writ) were they who took the position; and
Parker and Grindal, long before their ceremonial
birth to office was complete, wellnigh before they
had begun to be, were yoked together in the machine
in which they were ordained to perform the most
irksome and protracted labours of their lives. One
of them, and Smith, Haddon, Sackforde, Gooderick,
or Gerrard, were to be of the quorum of six: and
thirteen other persons, knights, serjeants, and doctors,
composed the total sum of nineteen. They were to
enquire into the working of the new Acts; into
seditious books, heretical opinions, false rumours, or
slanderous words; into disturbance of divine service,
wilful absence from church; to restore unjustly
deprived ministers; to deal such punishments as they
deemed expedient, use such means as they thought
fit, and receive recognisances from offenders or suspect
persons who should be referred to them. Some of
their powers, about vagabonds, were confined to London,
and had the effect of fixing them there, and causing
them not to wander.* They held their sessions in
Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 226; Gee, 147. Dr. Gee's chapter on this
158
The Southern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
the vast edifice which it was the first care of the
Ambulatory Commission also to visit; they were
superior to the Ambulatory Commission, which referred
some cases to them. They sat in the consistory of
St. Paul's, which had so lately echoed with the
sentences of Bonner.
The Ambulatory Commissioners began about the
same time their Visitation in St. Paul's. The proceed-
ings were the same as in the North. The business
was in the hands of three, the well-known Doctor
Horne, a doctor of laws named Huick, and a juris-
perite named Salvyn.* The English Litany was said:
Horne preached sincerely and learnedly the word of
God to a great multitude: then the Commissioners
went to the chapter house, opened their commission,
and sat judicially. The resistance of Bonner's citadel
was bold. Few of the ministers appeared when they
were cited the rest were pronounced contumacious.
John Harpsfield Archdeacon of London, Nicolas
Harpsfield prebendary, and John Willerton, one of
Bonner's chaplains, refused the admonition to obey
the Queen's Injunctions, or to subscribe to the Prayer
Book, or Book of Religion: not of malice, they protested,
but through imperfect knowledge.† They were bidden
to purge the church of images and altars and provide
Commission is very valuable. Remark particularly that it was designed
to be a stationary support to the whole Ambulatory Visitation, North as
well as South and that it is probable that all the cases of recognisances,
North and South alike, were referred to this body. They seem to have
been dealt with very leniently, and most of them silently dropped.
* "The Visitors sat at Pauls, master doctor Horne, and master (Huick)
and master (Salwyn) upon master Harpsfield and divers other." Aug. 11.
-Machyn, 206.
+ "Animis non maliciosis aut obstinatis, sed ex ea tantum causa, quod
conscientiis non salvis adhuc in ea parte non plene instructis in recep-
tionem Injunctionum aut subscriptionem religionis consentire non potue-
runt."-Strype, i. 169, as from Grindal's Register.
1559.]
At St. Paul's Cathedral.
159
a decent table. They refused to do it, under the same
protestation. They were bound under their recog-
nisances in penalty of two hundred pounds apiece. It
must be said that great patience and forbearance was
exercised by the Commissioners in visiting St. Paul's.
They returned and sat there at various intervals from
August to November on four or five days; repeatedly
preconising the absent, granting further delay to the
scrupulous, and uttering warnings of graver measures
to be taken against the contumacious, the contumacy
increasing more. When Bonner's chancellor, the well-
known Doctor Darbyshire, at length appeared, and
demanded further time for the better information of
his soul, they sent him to the resident Commissioner.
When Archdeacon Standish of Colchester at length
sent a proxy to say that he had partially submitted
himself in the North, but that he was not satisfied
in some things, they pronounced him contumacious,
but reserved his punishment. When Westcote, the
master of the choristers, appeared, upon further cry
being made, and desired further deliberation, they
granted him to the next sitting. It was only
when Bonner's chaplain Morwen, and when Richard
Marshall, William Murmer, and John Stopes appeared
not at all, after reiterated calls, that they were pro-
nounced contumacious, and deprived forthwith of their
prebends. In this part of their work the Commissioners
received the subscription of some twenty of the clergy,
including several prebendaries. Among their other
commandments they forbade the tonsure, amice, and
cope to be used in the cathedral church.* It may be
observed that the request for deliberation was not
unreasonable in itself, for certainly there had not been
* "Aliquibus coronis rasis, amisiis aut vestibus vocat. le coopes."-
Strype, as above, p. 170.
160
The Southern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
much time to digest the revised English Service, and
the Injunctions may never have been seen before.*
The Visitors proceeded thence to other city
churches, to the Hospital of the Savoy, the church of
St. Catherine, the church of Clerkenwell, the church
of St. Mary le Bone. They were at St. Bride's, St.
Laurence, Jewry, and St. Michael's, Cornhill, on
successive days. They then perused the rest of the
diocese, citing the clergy and others concerned to the
central points of Weald, Chelmsford, Shotford, Dunmow,
and Colchester. Everywhere they received the sub-
scription of the clergy to a written declaration that the
restoration of the ancient jurisdiction over the State
Ecclesiastical and Temporal of the Realm, the Book
of Common Prayer, and the orders and rules contained
in the Queen's Injunctions, were according to the true
word of God, and the use and doctrine of the primitive
and Apostolic Church. Whether this declaration were
additional to the Oath of the Supremacy, or equivalent
to it, there is perhaps no means of certainly knowing,
but it seems to have been used throughout the king-
dom. They received altogether the adherence of near
four hundred and fifty of the clergy.
* This is remarked by Dr. Gee, speaking of the Northern Visitation.
"The Injunctions had been presumably heard for the first time in their
revised shape when Percy read them out in the morning of the day on
which they were first subscribed.”—Eliz. Clergy, 78.
+ "The 21 day of August the visitors sat at St. Brides, doctor Horne
and two more, for two churchwardens were sworn to bring a true inven-
tory of the Church." "The 22 day of August the visitors sat at
St. Lawrence in the Jewry, doctor Horne and more visitors.”
"The
23 day of August the visitors sat at St. Michael in Cornhill likewise for
the Church goods.”—Machyn, 207.
Strype gives this declaration from the Lambeth Records, mentioning
it only of the London Visitation.—Ann. i. 255. Dr. Gee gives it as used
in York: and offers strong reasons for concluding that it was a summary
form previously drawn up to embrace the three crucial points of the Su-
premacy, the Prayer Book, and the Injunctions.-Eliz. Clergy, 45 and 77.
1559.]
Particulars of its Work.
161
If loyalty and conformity had been the only business
of this party of Visitors, their only monument might
have been the official acts of an episcopal register, and
a long list of names of clergy subscribed beneath the
declaration required of them, which is preserved in
a parchment scroll in a library.* But their scope was
* No one but Strype seems to have seen this important original before
it was consulted by Dr. Gee and by myself. It is in the Lambeth Library,
Charta Miscell. vol. xiii. pt. ii. No. 57. Strype's description of it is very
brief: "This (declaration) was writ at the top of a long scroll of parch-
ment, with the names of the subscribing clergy and their respective
livings, underwritten by themselves.”—Annals, i. 255. It consists of
twelve parchment sheets, having the declaration, as Strype gives it, on
the top of each page, i. e. written twenty-four times in full: the signatures
of the clergy come under this, for the dioceses of London and Norwich
(but not of Ely) in the following order. As to the form used, most write
per me," some "volens subscripsi," one or two otherwise.
(6
Page I.
Signa-
tures
Page 7.
Signa-
tures
Several prebendaries of St.
Paul's and others
Hospital de le Savoy
In Ecclesia S. Katherine
In Ecclesia de Clerkenwell
Page 2.
In Eccl. parochiali de Chelms-
20
forde
47
13
(One "Ore non tantum sed ab
6
intimo corde subscribo.")
18
...
Page 8.
Chelmsford (continued).
Shotford
Clerkenwell (continued)........ 3
32
24
222 22
In Eccl. Beate Marie
25
Page 9.
St. Bride's.........
31
Chelmsford (continued)......... 30
(His omnibus ex animo con-
Page 3.
In Eccl. S. Laurentii in Judais-
imo
sentit R. Columbell qui
jam curam agit gregis
38
Dominici apud Hormeade
Magnam)
Page 4.
Page IO.
St. Michael's, Cornhill
30
Dunmow
44
Page II.
Page 5.
Colchester..
38
St. Michael's, Cornhill (con-
Page 12.
5
tinued)
Page 6.
Apud Wealde
44
VOL. V.
M
Apud Ipswich prima Sessio ... 32
("Wm. Salebank volens sub-
scripsi.")
1
162
The Southern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
wider, and they applied their commands with a vigour
which, in London at least, constituted an era of
purification, and compelled the attention of several
contemporaries. A great part of their business was
taking inventories of church goods at the hand of
wardens, demolishing roods and other emblems,
and removing and burning all such things. At
St. Bride's they took an inventory of the church,
Secunda Sessio ibidem
Page 13.
Secunda Sessio (continued)
Tertia Sessio ibidem
Signa-
tures
16
IO
...
23
Page 14.
Blythborrow
20
Beccles
23
Page 15.
In Eccles.Cathedrali Norvicens. 21
(Eight prebendaries, canons,
and a schoolmaster.)
Prima Sessio in Eccles. Par-
Signa-
("per me Jn. Willoughby
rectorem de Stowing præ-
missa confitentem et ag-
noscentem.")
Page 19.
tures
Prima Sessio apud Walsingham 44
(Mostly "volens," some "per
me.")
Page 20.
Secunda Sessio apud Walsing-
ham
(One "per me.")
26
Apud Lynne Regis.
31
ochiali S. Petri Mancroft,
Norwici
(All "volens.")
35
Page 21.
(Nearly all "volens sub-
scripsi.")
Page 16.
Lynne Regis
3
Apud Swaffham
44
(Mixed)
("per me.")
Secunda Sessio Norwici......... 34
Apud Thetford……………....
Page 22.
21
Page 17.
(Mixed)
Tertia Sessio Norwici
47
Prima Sessio apud Bury
15
(Mostly "volens subscripsi,"
Page 23.
some "per me.")
Page 18.
Bury (continued)…………..
(Mixed)
25
North Walsham
43
Page 24.
(Mostly "volens.")
Secunda Sessio ibid.
50
Apud Walsingham ...
2
(Mixed)
Dr. Gee has given the names and benefices of the subscribing clergy.
He acutely remarks that whereas the Northern returns only give the
absent clergy, these only give the clergy who came and complied.
1
1559.]
Its Work in London.
163
August 21 the next day in St. Lawrence, Jewry, the
same: the same the day following in St. Michael's,
Cornhill. They took the occasion of their repeated
visitations of St. Paul's to purify the mighty church
with absolute fury. The great altar was demolished:
altars, images, and roods were cast forth in Paul's
churchyard, in Cheapside, and with especial solemnity
on the awful plat of Smithfield: to the heaps of material
that were gathered the torch was applied; and on
several successive nights the crowd beheld the sky
illuminated with the flaming utensils of religion.
On St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, "two great
bonfires of roods and of Maries and Johns and other
images" were
were set up by Ironmonger Lane and
St. Thomas of Acres, and "burned with great wonder,"
the Lord Mayor and the civic authorities gracing the
scene by their presence.* Next day near St. Botolph's,
Billingsgate, the rood of the church, the images of
St. Mary, St. John, and St. Botolph made a pile:
a preacher stood within the church wall and made
a sermon, what time "the books of superstition
belonging to the church were thrown into the fire, and
the wooden cross that stood in the churchyard was
taken away. On September 16 a similar conflagration
was made of the rood, the St. John and St. Mary, and
other furniture of St. Magnus, Fish Street. This
cleansing of temples, taking place the most part about
Bartholomew tide; on the eve, the day, the day after
* "The 24 day of August, being St. Bartholomew's day, my lord mayor
came home thro Chepe, and against Ironmonger Lane, and against
St. Thomas of Acres, 2 great bonfires of roods and of Maries and Johns
and other images, there they were burned with great wonder.”—Machyn,
207.
+ "There was a fellow within the church wall made a sermon at the
burning of the church goods," &c.—Ib. 208.
Strype, Annals, i. 171.
M 2
164
The Southern Visitation. [CH. XXXII.
the day of St. Bartholomew, may be said to make
a Bartholomean era in our annals, an era to which the
epithet that denotes the colour of darkness may be
considered inappropriate. * The destruction of roods
and images gave disgust to many, and was greatly
canvassed in foreign parts. So far as it sprang from
revenge it is to be regretted, but it may have been the
outlet that prevented a fiercer retaliation. For the
ashes of Smithfield were not then cold.
This stringent party pursued their circuit through
the dioceses of Norwich and of Ely. In the former
they held several sessions in the cathedral church:
several in Ipswich; others in Walsham, Walsingham,
Lynn Regis, Swaffham, Thetford, Bury, and elsewhere.
About five hundred and sixty clergy with a various
alacrity, discernible it may be in their forms of
* Because it is already appropriated. We all know what "Black
Bartholomew" was. Some of the worthies who were ousted then dis-
tinguished the title-pages of their indignant treatises by the date of “the
Bartholomean era" in addition to the Christian era. The events of
a hundred years previous, which we are considering, shall not be desig-
nated White: but their connexion with St. Bartholomew's Day was
remarked when they happened. "The time afore Bartholomew tide and
after, was all the roods and Maries and Johns, and many other of the
church goods, both copes, crosses, censers, altar cloths, rood cloths,
books, banners, bannerstays, wainscot, and much other gear about
London" destroyed, says Machyn, 208. "The burning of images in
Bartholomew Fair is here much spoken of."-For. Cal., p. 535.
+ Challoner wrote to Cecil from Antwerp that some considered it to be
done in aid of "the Scottish revolt," i. e. the outbreak of Knox's reforma-
tion: others, that it was no wonder, but consequent on the religion
reformed, though it was not necessary, but out of envy that the burning
was public. In particular it was said that the taking down of the rood
of St. Paul's was done in contumely of King Philip. Sept. 2.—Ib. p. 535.
Cecil once told old Lord Paget, who thought that Mary had suc-
ceeded in turning the realm to the Pope, "My lord, you are therein so far
deceived, that I fear rather an inundation of the contrary part, so universal
a boiling and bubbling of stomachs I see, that cannot yet digest the crudity
of that time." Shelley to Cecil.-Strype, i. 176. Sir Rd. Shelley was so
disgusted with the destruction of crosses that he stayed out of England.
Others abroad did the same: others went out.
1
1559.] Proceedings at Winchester, &c.
165
expression, applied their hands to the scroll that
was offered them. The number of near a hundred
gathered in Ely, in Cambridge, and in some other
place of meeting, was the equal proportion of a smaller
diocese.*
The circuit of Canterbury, Rochester, Chichester,
and Winchester was entrusted to the well-known
Thomas Becon, a returned exile, sometime Cranmer's
chaplain, to a doctor of laws named Weston, and to
Robert Nowell. But there is scarce a trace of their
steps in regions where they might perchance have met
with some resistance. All that is known is that in the
city of Winchester the dean and canons left their
service, refusing the new service; and were followed
by the Warden and Fellows of New College, and the
Master of Holy Cross. But this may have been
previous to the Visitation.† Becon was rewarded for
his labours by a stall in Canterbury, but he was not
in it by the beginning of August, when Parker was
elected archbishop by the chapter of Christ Church:
and if the records of the Visitation there be scanty,
the work of the Visitation had been done in the
purging of the chapter a little beforehand upon that
occasion. When Parker was elected, Wotton, the
travelled Dean of Canterbury, on whom the eyes of
the Romanensians had been doubtingly fixed,‡ marked
his adherence to Elizabeth's measures by marching
into the chapter house with four canons. The rest he
preconised; but neither Nicolas Harpsfield, the arch-
deacon, nor the six other canons who constituted the
chapter made their appearance.
He waited long, he
* Gee, pp. 97 and 117.
+ So the Marquis of Winchester wrote to Cecil as early as June 30:
adding that order must be taken about it.-Dom. Cal., p. 133.
There are several notices in the Foreign Calendars of the doubt
whether Wotton would take the Oath or not.
166
The Visitors in the West. [CH. XXXII.
preconised again and again. At length they were
pronounced contumacious, and suffered the penalty.*
Of the Visitation of Salisbury, and the rest of the
south-west, Jewel, who with two others bore the brunt,
has left the chief surviving description. "I am about
to set out," wrote he to Martyr on the first of August,
"on a long and troublesome commission for settling
religion, through Reading, Abingdon, Gloucester,
Bristol, Bath, Wells, Exeter, Cornwall, Dorset, and
Salisbury. The circuit of my journey will be seven
hundred miles, the duration can hardly be less than
four months." In November he wrote again, “I am
returned to London after a most weary expedition.
For three whole months have I been held by this
distant and difficult investigation. And what have
I done in it, you ask? We found the people every-
where well disposed to religion, even in places where
the greatest difficulty was apprehended. But it is
incredible the forest of superstitions that had grown
up in Mary's dark days. Everywhere were votive
relics, nails with which the infatuate people believed
that the Saviour had been pierced, flinders of the
Sacred Cross. The number of witches and sorceresses
had increased enormously. The cathedral churches
were, to say the best and the purest, dens of thieves.
If obstinate malice were found anywhere, it was among
the priests, especially those who once stood on our
side. They, not to seem to have changed their
opinions without reason, disturb all that they can.
Let them disturb. Exturbed them have we, from
* The rest were Hugh Turnbull, Ric. Fawcet, Ralf Jackson, Robt.
Collins, John Knight, Tho. Wood.-Strype's Parker, i. 103. Fawcet,
Collins, and Wood were deprived; Wood was imprisoned; Jackson and
Knight afterwards, in the London Visitation, signed the declaration.
It will be remembered that Canterbury was the place of some of the
greatest horrors of the persecution.
1559.]
Visitation of Lincoln, &c.
167
office and benefice. The ranks of the papists are
fallen almost of their own accord. Oh, if vigour were
not lacking in us, there were hope of religion. But it
is hard to drive the chariot uphill without horses.”*
The official minutes of this circuit have not been pre-
served, but some particulars about it have been brought
to light recently from other sources.†
The Visitation of Lincoln, Peterborough, Lichfield,
and Oxford, was entrusted to the excellent Bentham,
to Nevinson a doctor of laws, and one Fleetwood.
Their official monument, a paper book of nigh forty
pages of clerical autographs, which is extant, indicates
the stations, the days, and, by the total number of
over eight hundred names, the success of their pere-
grination.‡ They fixed their ensigns at Louth, at
* Zurich Letters, i. Epistt. xvi. and xix. For clearness it may be noted
that Jewel describes his road as well as his circuit. He started at Reading
and came out at Salisbury. But he had nothing official to do with
Reading or Abingdon. His Commission names his district the other
way, beginning with Salisbury or Sarum.
+ Gee, p. 100.
This original is in the same Lambeth volume of Chartæ Miscell.
as the other which we have considered: it is next to it, No. 58. It is of
paper, not parchment. [This volume (vol. xiii.) was laid together after
Strype's time.] It is entitled "Liber Subscriptionum Clericorum sub
initium Regni Elizabeth." The first page contains "The Oath for the
clergy," thus: "You shall swear that you shall be faithful and obedient
unto the Queen's Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to the uttermost
of your power, understanding and learning ye shall maintain and set forth
all statutes and laws and the religion received by her grace her heirs and
successors, and the Injunctions at this time exhibited by her grace, her
officers or commissioners, and that you shall make true presentment
of all such things as are to be presented in this Visitation: so help
you God and by the contents of the book." The next page is headed
with the same declaration or acknowledgment that is in the London
Visitation, followed by—
Page
Signa-
tures
Signa-
Page
tures
I
(?)
12
6 At Lincoln, 11 Sept.....
59
3 At Louth, 6 Sept.
42
8
""
12 Sept.
50
4 At Lincoln Cathedral
19
9 At Leicester, 15 Sept.
64
{
168
Visitation of Worcester, &c. [CH. XXXII.
Lincoln, at Leicester: they moved thence to Derby,
to Lichfield, to Shrewsbury: to Coventry thence: and
thence to Woodstock, Thame, and Beaconsfield.
Everywhere they found that they who subscribed
subscribed willingly. Of Peterborough there are no
returns.
Of the remaining circuit of Worcester, Hereford,
and the four Welsh sees, which was taken by Davies,
Young, Merrick, and Richard Pates a lawyer, no
minutes exist; the fortunes of two deans is the only
recorded incident, the subsequent recollections of one
of them the only narrative of the Visitation. Seth
Holland, Dean of Worcester, refused the Oath and was
deprived and Guest made application unsuccessfully
to succeed him.* Edmund Daniel, Dean of Hereford,
refused the Oath and was deprived; years afterwards,
upon a foreign soil, he had occasion to recall and
describe the event. When I was Dean of Hereford,
four delegates came, sent by the Queen, to visit that
church and the whole diocese: and I heard the Com-
mission read. And in that Commission authority was
given them over ecclesiastics, to deprive and imprison
them in particular such as should refuse to subscribe
Page
12 At Leicester, 16 Sept.
<<
Page
Signa-
tures
30 At Woodstock, the 6 Oct.... 35
Signa-
tures
95
15 At Derby, the 17 Sept.
42
31
""
7 Oct.
26
18
the 19 Sept.....
39
32 At Thame, the 9 of Oct.
18
18 At Lichfield, the 22 Sept....
18
""
19
>>
25 Sept....
113
24 At Shrewsbury, 27 Sept. ...
27 At Coventry, 30 Sept.
70
34
35 At Beaconsfield ...
36 At London …………..
the 10 of Oct.
25
13
24
29
828
28
2 Oct.
35
Throughout this book the form is "Ego A. B. volens subscripsi."
On p. 3 occurs the beautiful autograph of Augustinus Benhere, Latimer's
friend. Dr. Gee makes the total of Lincoln, Lichfield, and Oxford, 798.
He gives the names, Eliz. Clergy, p. 124. See his remarks ibid., p. 102.
* Guest to Cecil. Aug. 31.-Dom. Cal. 137.
1559.]
Visitation of the Universities.
169
to certain heretical and schismatical Articles: which
Articles were of this kind: that it had ever been the
prerogative of the English prince to decide ecclesias-
tical causes apart from other potentates, as it was
contained in the Oath; and that every one should
acknowledge to be good and pious the forms which
Parliament had ratified for keeping the Hours and
ministering the Sacraments. These Articles were
exhibited to me before the Oath, that I should put my
name to them: in my presence they were presented
to all the priests of my church, in which I was dean,
and to the whole chapter before my eyes. And I
saw them and I saw upon them the Queen's great
seal."*
The Universities and the college of Eton were
reserved for their own treatment under separate Com-
missions, persons called General Commissioners for
that. Thus Cambridge was given to the hands of her
Chancellor Cecil, to Parker, Bill, Horne, Pilkington,
and May, to Walter Haddon and physician Wendy.
Of these Dean May was present at the Visitation,
which was on September 7, in King's College Chapel :
Pilkington also was present, and he both ministered
the Oath as Visitor, and took it as future Head of a
House. The Heads who refused were six or seven :
Bullock of St. John's, whom Pilkington succeeded in
a month, Young of Pembroke, the Vice-Chancellor of
the reign of Mary, Thomas Redman of Jesus College,
Baker of King's, Taylor of Christ's College, Mowse
and Bailey of Trinity Hall and Clare Hall. The
purgation seems scarcely to have gone lower than
* This occurs in his Latin deposition against the Queen in the Roman
Curia, when the Pope formed a Process against her in 1570.-Raynaldus,
sub anno, p. 158.
་
170
Visitation of the Universities. [CH. XXXII.
Heads.* At Oxford it has been supposed hitherto by
some that the decapitating blow was felt by double
the number of colleges: and that these corporations
suffered amazingly in the fellowship of members. But
recent enquiry has proved that former computations
have included a great number of deprivations, flights,
and expulsions which belong to subsequent years: and
that the mournful procession which was closed by
Friar John de Villa Garcia, the King's Reader of
Divinity, contained no more Heads than were taken off
at Cambridge, and only two more Fellows than Heads.
The Commission which the Visitors bore was rather
to enquire into the state and discipline of the Uni-
versities than to press subscription: and as they
received, we may presume that they deserved the
thanks of Oxford for the moderation which they
showed.†
Strype, i. 167; Dom. Cal. 131. The Commission was dated June
20. Strype, in his Life of Parker (Bk. i. ch. ix.), gives some account of
some obscure previous intrigues, by which the refusing Heads were
thought to be getting ready "peradventure to slide away with a gain.”
He says that he found nothing of the transactions. Nothing seems
extant of deprivations of members and officers; only of the Heads above
given. It is remarkable that no such members or officers are named in
Dodd's "Imperfect Catalogue" of persons who opposed the Reformation
in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Dr. Gee has found none, and it
may be concluded that there were none. Gee's list of deprived Heads
is the same in number, but with three differences in names from that
given above.
+ The Cambridge Commission has been printed by Dr. Gee. No
doubt the Oxford was the same. It is a finely-written piece, which any
University might meditate. It begins with affirming God's glory, the true
end of knowledge, and the objects of a University. "Cum a Deo Patre in
lucem editi omnes et suscepti sumus ut Deum auctorem omnium gloria
afficiamus, prima omnium cura debet esse ut quae sit Dei vera gloria intel-
ligamus, atque eam omnibus officiis et studiis persequamur: e cognitione
enim debet efflorescere actio, quae nisi certa scientia et vera in Deum fide
nitatur, complacita esse Deo nullo modo potest," &c.-Gee, 133. Who
can imagine an official instrument of the present day opening in that
manner? It then proceeds to instruct the Visitors first to enquire into
life and learning, then to enforce subscription, and punish the obstinate.
1559.]
Account by Fewel.
171
The struggles of several of the more eminent of the
Oxford men at this juncture have been annealed by
the pen of Jewel, who exultingly watched the harrow-
ing, in which he bore no share, of the place of his own
former bitter ordeal. "Harding," wrote he to Peter
Martyr, "with unstedfast stedfastness has preferred to
change his abode rather than his opinion. Sidall has
subscribed, but stedfastly, that is with a stedfast
reluctance, which keeps him stedfast in abode. How-
ever friend Sidall studies silence, keeps his opinions to
himself, and is neither among the birds nor the beasts.
But what of Smith, thou wilt say: yea, thou wilt ask
after thine old enemy Smith. Well, he has maintained
his old stedfastness in this way: he has recanted five
times. I assure thee it is so. The blockhead was
prepared to run away into Scotland, but he stuck on
the borders and was brought back. Whereupon this
pillar of religion came over to us, and is the hottest
enemy that the papists have."* In another letter he
Dr. Gee has given abundant reasons for concluding that the long lists of
expelled Heads and Fellows in Wood's Hist. of Oxford and Tierney's
Dodd (vol. ii. App. 44) far exceed the results of this Visitation. From
those lists it appears that fifteen or sixteen Heads were removed, and
thirty-six Fellows; New College losing fifteen Fellows, but keeping its
Head. It is not certain, however, that Wood and Tierney meant their
lists for this Visitation only, and not for the whole beginning of Elizabeth.
The same may be said of Heylin's "fifteen Presidents or Masters of
Colleges" (Ref. ii. 295), which, however, may be the Oxford and Cam-
bridge Heads added together. Dr. Gee considers that on this occasion
there were eight Heads deprived, including the famous Chedsey of
Corpus Christi: and ten Fellows, including R. Smith and Tresham
of Christ Ch. To these he adds John de Villa Garcia, Reg. Prof. Div.,
and J. Smith, Marg. Prof. Div., p. 136, cf. p. 224.
* "Hardingus, homo constans, locum mutare maluit quam sententiam.
Sidallus subscripsit quidem sed constanter, hoc est, perinvitus. Smithæus
autem tuus-quid ille? inquies. ... Mihi crede, ut veterem illam suam
constantiam retineret, nunc tandem etiam quinto recantavit. Fatuus cum
videret religionem esse immutatam, mutata veste, statim fugam ornaverat
in Scotiam: sed cum hæreret in finibus, captus est et retractus ex itinere.
1
[CH. XXXII.
172
Visitation of Oxford.
reports that Smith was gone into Wales, was married,
and keeping a cookshop, "held in contempt by both
sides, by old and young, by known and unknown, by
himself and by every one besides."* But Richard
Smith's course was not so ignominious as this. What-
ever he did before the Visitation, when the Visitation
came, he refused the Oath, and was sent by the Com-
missioners to the Council in London: and by them
remitted to the Elects of Canterbury and London for
persuasion. With them he read the Admonition, or
exposition of the Oath inserted in the Injunctions, and
declared himself ready to take the Oath: subscribing
in token a declaration, which they drew, stipulating
that on his return to Oxford the Commissioners should
not disgrace him by too public a retractation. Other
things then befel him, and in the end he was deprived
and went abroad. Of another of these deprived
residents,† Anthony Atkins, Fellow of Merton, who
refused the Oath, we know that he also was sent by
the Commissioners to London: and he was put in the
Tower.‡
The eyes of both parties, with lingering hope or
Ibi statim homo gravis, et columen atque antistes religionis, accessit ad
nos, reliquit omnes suos, et repente factus est adversarius infestissimus
Papistarum.”—Zurich Lett., i. 26 (Lat.), Nov. 2, 1559. Harding was not
deprived at this time.
66
* "Contemptus a nostris, a suis, a notis, ab ignotis, a senibus, a
pueris, a se ipso, ab omnibus." In the same comprehensive (or exclusive)
spirit he says:
Sidallus noster Harpocratem colit, et tegit sententiam,
itaque nunc nec inter aves nec quadrupedes numeratur."—Ib. p. 47,
June, 1560.
+ Strype gives an account of Smith's affairs, Life of Parker, Bk. i.
ch. x. He behaved rather badly to Parker; he escaped to Paris, got to
Douay, and received preferment there, dying in about four years. The
Letter of Council to Parker and Grindal, to "take such means as they
should think meet" to persuade him, Aug. 24, is C. C. C., Cambridge,
MSS. cxiv. 14.
There is a Letter of Council about him, Sept. 7, in C. C. C., Cam-
bridge, MSS. Ixiv. 22.
1559.]
Ritual in the Royal Chapel.
173
"
reproachful regret, were ever fixed upon the royal
chapel or oratory: for the sacred spot whence had
issued the first hopes of the one now held forth the
last encouragements of the other. There the images
still stood; the crucifix, "the little silver cross,'
maintained its place: and the lights still burned over
the undemolished altar. Comforted by the view, one
of the deprived students of Oxford, John Marshall,
published a treatise on the Cross, which he dedicated
to the Queen because of "her good affection to the
Cross."*
On the other hand the inconsistency of
maintaining such ornaments in a private chapel, when
altars, roods, and images everywhere were going to
the hammer and the flame, was vigorously represented
to the Queen by the Evangelics. Parker and others
of the elect bishops laid before her long and earnest
addresses and remonstrances. † Cox, the admired
orator, being appointed to minister the Holy Com-
munion in her chapel, long refused, and obeyed at
* Marshall's Treatise of the Cross, which he "had the confidence to
dedicate to Queen Elizabeth, emboldened upon her retaining the Image
of the Cross in her chapel," Strype, Ann. i. 176, was answered in 1565
by another Oxford man, Calfhill, whose work is in the Parker Society's
series.
+ The longest of these addresses was partly printed by Burnet, in vol. v.
p. 530; cf. ii. 629 (Pocock's edition). He thought that it was made before
the Injunctions. Strype (Annals, i. 331) also gave it in part: and held it
to be of the following year, 1560. In this he was right. He also gave it
in part in his Life of Parker, Bk. ii. ch. vi. It is in the Corpus College
'Synodalia,' whence it was printed in full by Wilkins, iv. 196: also in
Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 268. In it the bishops refer to former remonstrances
which they had made. "We have heretofore at sundry times made
petition to your majesty concerning the matter of images, but at no time
exhibited any reasons for the removing of the same." They beseech her
"to refer the decision of such controversies to a synod of bishops and
other godly learned men": and “not to blemish the fame of her most
godly brother," who had ordered the removal of images. It would
appear, then, that they had protested at the time of the Injunctions, or
even before.
174 Ritual in the Royal Chapel. [CH. XXXII.
66
length with a trembling conscience, which he discharged
prostrate and with wet eyes" in a submissive letter
and a paper of Considerations.* There was danger
lest the Queen's chapel should become a test applied
to men likely for high preferment. Sampson, who
was contemplated for the see of Norwich, sent Peter
Martyr a lamentable picture of her doings and his own
predicament. "O my father, what can I hope when
the ministry of Christ is banished from the Court, and
the Crucifix allowed with lights burning before it?
Altars and images are removed throughout the
kingdom, and retained at Court alone. The wretched
multitude rejoice at this, and will imitate it willingly.
What can I hope, when three of our new bishops are
to stand at the Lord's Table, as priest, as deacon, as
subdeacon, decked in the papistic vestments all of
gold, in front of the Crucifix, or not far from it, and
thus to celebrate the Lord's Supper without a sermon?
In such dumb relics of idolatry my countrymen seek
religion, and let the living voice of God be silent.
Now tell me your opinion. Suppose the Queen should
require all the bishops and clergy to admit the Crucifix
and lights in churches, or to leave their ministry, ought
we not to quit the ministry? I put it to you. Some
of our friends are inclined to think it indifferent. I
think we should rather suffer deprivation."† The
* He first gives reasons why he "dare not minister in her grace's
chapel, the Cross and lights remaining." He then gives Considerations
why he "cannot yield to have images set up in churches": ending, "I
cannot without offence of God and conscience yield to the setting up of
images in the temple of my God and Creator." Strype has given this
from the Petyt MSS. 173, in his Annals, i. App. No. 22.
† Zurich Lett. i. 63, Jan. 6, 1560. Martyr answered affirmatively,
after weighing the matter carefully. "Will any one who knows religion
behold you, a messenger of Christ and strenuous trumpeter of the
Gospel, standing at an altar dressed in vestments, praying before the
image of the Crucified, reciting holy words and distributing sacraments,
1559.]
The Question of Vestments.
175
anxiety of the clergy was shared by some of the lay-
men: and the Evangelic Sir Francis Knowles wrote to
Parker, wishing him success in his good enterprise
against "the enormities" of the Chapel Royal.* But
the Queen's resolution was not manifested in this
example only. Her aim was neither to elate the one
party intolerably, nor depress the other dangerously;
but, so long as it should be possible, to keep the
balance wavering. It could not but be discovered
that her brother's orders about altars and lights were
not repeated in her Injunctions: that in them there
was no compulsory commandment for the demolition
of altars, although it seemed to be permitted. The
destruction of images appears indeed to have been
general throughout the country. But the matter was
not at an end. They might be restored.
Another piece of consolation was spread before the
high or ceremonial party (if I may so call them) also
in the Injunctions and in the new Service Book. It
was about vestments. Many of the clergy who had
laid aside the ornaments and habits used in the former
reign, now finding them prescribed by authority, re-
sumed them for the sake of obedience. Such men
must have been Evangelics. The other sort, pre-
bendaries in cathedral churches or priests in parishes,
beheld their uncongenial brethren robed like them-
selves, and persuaded themselves and their people that
and not conclude that you not only endure but approve such rites?"
-Zurich Lett. ii. 25, cf. Let. xiv. There is some difficulty about the
dates here. Sampson was relieved of his necessity. The see of Norwich
was not pressed on him.
* This unpublished letter is dated “from the Court, 13 Oct., 1559.”—
Nasmith's Cat. of C. C. C., Cambridge, MSS. p. 159.
Jewel said in January, 1560, "The altars indeed are removed, and
images also throughout the kingdom."-Zurich Lett., p. 63. Sandys said
in April, 1560, “All images of every kind were at our last visitation not
only taken down but also burnt, and that by public authority."-Ib. p. 74.
176
Protest of the Evangelics. [CH. XXXII.
as the outward appearance was the same, the former
doctrines would soon be restored, or perhaps had never
been altered.*
altered.* The severer among the Evangelic
leaders protested in vain, and made no head against
the habits. They were deserted here by their fol-
lowers, and at variance with some of their fellows, and
uncertain of themselves from time to time. They
consulted their oracles, Peter Martyr or Bullinger.
"The papistic vestments remain in our Church, I
mean copes,” said Sandys.† "I wish I could exter-
minate ridiculous garbs," said Jewel: "our rulers think
to recommend by comic vestments the priests whom
they find everywhere to be blockheads without learning
or morals: they would fascinate the people with
ludicrous rubbish." Bullinger held that their scruples
were right: but Martyr bade them yield them, rather
than lose the office of preaching: that habits were less
* "In Injunctionibus a Regina editis post Parliamentum præscribuntur
ministris ecclesiasticis ornatus aliqui, quales sacrificuli olim habuerunt et
adhuc habent. Plurimi ministri, qui omnes tales deposuissent antea, nunc
tamen obedientiæ, ut aiunt, causa iterum similes resumunt et induunt.
Pauci sane sumus qui tales vestes abhorremus, non enim ignoramus quam
inde occasionem papistæ captent ad offensionem infirmorum. Nam in
cathedralibus ecclesiis præbendarii, et in cæteris ecclesiis rurales sacrifi-
culi, externas vestes et internos animos ex papismo retinentes, ita
fascinant aures et oculos multorum, ut non possunt (sic) non credere
papisticam quoque doctrinam adhuc retentam esse, aut saltem brevi
restituendam fore." Lever to Bullinger.-Zurich Lett. i. 50 (Lat.).
+ “Tantum manent in Ecclesia nostra vestimenta illa papistica, copas
intellige, quas diu non duraturas speramus." Sandys to Martyr.-7b.
43.
"De religione quod scribis, et veste scenica, o utinam id impetrari
potuisset! Nos quidem tam bonæ causæ non defuimus. Sed illi quibus
ista tantopere placuerunt, credo, sequuti sunt inscitiam presbyterorum :
quos quoniam nihil aliud videbant esse quam stipites sine ingenio, sine
doctrina, sine moribus, veste saltem comica volebant populo commendari.
Nam ut alantur bonæ literæ, et surrogetur seges aliqua doctorum
hominum, nulla, o Deus bone, nulla hoc tempore cura suscipitur. Itaque
quoniam vera via non possunt, istis ludicris ineptiis tenere volunt oculos
multitudinis." Jewel to Martyr.—Ib. 30.
1559.]
The Deprived Clergy.
177
But
important to withstand than images. Certainly with
hundreds of silent pulpits, with the people everywhere
dying without the word of God, it would have been
unjustifiable to have stood out about vestments.
then Martyr gave the further advice, to keep office
and go on preaching, but abstain from administering
the Sacraments so long as the things scrupled were
retained.†
By the computation of Elizabeth's historian Camden
there were but one hundred and eighty-nine of the
whole clergy of England who refused the Oath of
Supremacy and suffered deprivation. The proportion
of dignitaries to the rest was overwhelming. Fourteen
bishops, six abbots, twelve deans, twelve archdeacons,
fifteen heads of houses, and fifty prebendaries, far out-
weighed eighty parish priests. The modern Roman
Catholic writers of history have laboured, but not with
* "As for wearing the round cap or the habit out of service, there is no
superstition in that, but as for using vestments as sacred in the minis-
tration itself, seeing that they have a resemblance to the Mass, and are
mere relics of papism, Bullinger thinks you should not, lest you confirm
a scandal by example. But for my part, though I have always opposed
such ornaments, yet as I perceived the eminent danger of your depriva-
tion of the office of preaching, and thought it not impossible that this
resemblance of the Mass might be abolished, like altars and images,
provided that you and others, having got bishoprics, bent all your efforts
to that, instead of leaving the road open to others who would defend,
foster and maintain these dregs rather than put them away, I was
cautious in persuading you to refuse a bishopric rather than submit to use.
the vestments. However, perceiving that scandals of that kind must be
altogether avoided, I have easily yielded to his opinion. But as to altars
and images, I absolutely judge, as I have already said in another letter,
that you must not by any means officiate where they are preserved.”-
Zurich Lett. 2, Let. xiv.
+ "A ministerio sacramentorum tantisper abstineas, donec istæ non
ferendæ maculæ auferantur."--Ib. Let. xi.
They who suffered were bishops and archipapistæ, as Lever calls
them. "Qui fuere quondam episcopi et ceteri archipapistæ apud nos,
præponentes primatum papæ auctoritati Reginæ privantur omnibus
honoribus et stipendiis in Anglia." To Bullinger, July, 1560.-Zurich
Lett., p. 50.
VOL. V.
N
178
[CH. XXXII.
The Deprived Clergy.
、
great success, to increase a total sum which certainly
seems insignificant, if the number of the clergy be
accepted as nine thousand four hundred, at which
Camden computes it. Lingard remarks that Camden
was mistaken in the number of the bishops, and may
well be in error as to the rest:* in recent times his
observation has been remonstratively repeated: and
* Camden is indeed somewhat open to Lingard's censure. His number
of fourteen bishops is curiously reached. First, he says there were
fourteen: but he only names twelve, and one of these a dead man,
namely, Christopherson of Chichester. Next he says there were three
who "left the kingdom of their own accord," Scot, Pate, and Goldwell.
Add them to the twelve named, subtract Christopherson, and fourteen
remain. It may be noted that Scot, Pate, and Goldwell were the only
members of the dethroned hierarchy who got abroad: Goldwell was gone
already. It is curious that Baker, in his Chronicle, who closely follows
Camden, turns "left the kingdom of their own accord" into "changed
their religion of their own accord." As to the number fourteen,
Mr. Bridgett is a little plaintive that it is not fifteen, as it really was. He
says that Stow makes it thirteen or fourteen; Strype, "with his followers,"
makes it fourteen; Heylin makes it fourteen; even Wharton says it is
fourteen, though he only enumerates thirteen. And Rishton, by way of
rescuing "these illustrious confessors from oblivion," mentions only twelve
of them. "Has any other important fact of history been treated after
this fashion by so large a number of writers?"-Catholic Hierarchy,
p. 33. Well, well. This dreadful "fourteen bishops" appears also in a
contemporary Sincere modest Defence of English Catholiques, quoted by
Wharton (Specimen, 152): but this offender makes some amends by
adding that there were three bishops-elect deprived. One of these must
have been "priest and elected a bishop" Thomas Wood, who was in the
Fleet a little later; Bridgett's Cath. Hierarchy, 73. Another was Pursglove,
suffragan of Hull. As to Strype, he scarcely deserves Mr. Bridgett's
frown, for he makes the number fifteen, only he divides them into two
lots: six, whom he wrongly thinks to have been deprived for their conduct
in the Westminster disputation; and ten, from whom he virtually in
a marginal note subtracts Morgan, who, he says, was dead. This leaves
fifteen, but then he is wrong about Morgan, who was not dead. Collier,
however, is an offender: he follows Camden, but is too accurate not to detect
his mistake in including the deceased Christopherson: but then, like Cam-
den, he omits Morgan, and so concludes that the whole number of bishops
was fourteen. [Since writing the above I have perused the extraordinarily
careful and exhaustive chapter of Dr. Gee on the Deprived Clergy. He
shows conclusively that the original authority for the number fourteen was
Sanders in the De Visib. Monarchia, published in 1571. Gee, p. 219.]
1559.]
Estimate of their Number.
179
it seems that another diocesan is to be added to the
fourteen, and the list may be lengthened by two or
three other bishops-elect or suffragans. Of the other
dignified ecclesiastics, who refused, "an imperfect
catalogue" has been furnished by a laborious Roman
Catholic, which considerably increases the total given
by Camden, and furthermore, by the omissions that
it indicates, makes it probable that some other of the
superior clergy than those whose names have been
preserved refused the Oath.* But this catalogue
descends not to the humbler level of the parochs,
regarding whom the calculation of the royal historio-
grapher remains unconfuted. All that the catalogue
does to multiply the obscure is to put the monks and
friars at the back of the abbots and priors. Thus not
only Feckenham, but his twenty-eight monks, not only
Chauncey the Carthusian prior of Sheen, but his
* Tierney, in his Dodd, vol. ii. App. 44, gives "an imperfect
catalogue" of deans, archdeacons, and the rest, "who opposed the
Reformation in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign." Compare
him with Camden thus :-
Deans .......
Camden
12
Tierney
7
Archdeacons
12
ΙΟ
...
Chancellors......
0
7
Heads
15
25
Fellows, Oxon...
O
37
35
Superiors.........
Doctors and
Camden
6
Tierney
6
Professors
}
O
55
95
182
Prebendaries ... 50
Tierney gives them all by name. It will be noted (as before) that there
are no Cambridge Fellows. No doubt Tierney's catalogue is also
otherwise imperfect. For instance, his Archdeacons have not Carter,
Archdeacon of Northumberland, among them; whose deprivation is in
the C. C. C. Cambridge MSS., Nasmith, p. 140, and Ath. Cant. i. 397. It
is to be noted that Tierney did not limit himself to this Visitation. For
instance, there is extant a curious list of about a hundred Romanensians
who fell into suspicion two years after, and were written down with charac-
teristic remarks.-Strype, i. 275. Half of these are in Tierney: fifty are
not, and may augment his catalogue. Among them is Carter, who is "not
unlearned, but very stubborn, and to be considered." He was to remain
within ten miles of Thirsk.
N 2
180
[CH. XXXII.
Fate of the Deprived
monks of unknown number, not only Fox the Francis-
can Guardian of Greenwich, but his friars also, refused
the oath. Upon the whole it may be concluded, as it
regards the clergy, that the original reckoning of the
number deprived for religion in the beginning of
Elizabeth, which makes them about two hundred, is
right.*
What became of those of them who were deprived,
particularly of the obscurer persons, who suffered the
loss of their preferments? We have the less need to
ask at present, in this year, because the notion of
a large body of priests flung helpless on the world
may be dismissed, the deprivations being few on this
occasion. But many of them found harbour in the
households of gentlemen of the Old Learning, the
Romanensian justices and sheriffs, who had been active
in the persecution, who favoured the Latin rite: they
were suspected of performing in secret the great
Service, as of old: and gradually became denominated
old priests. These old priests were peaceable old
priests attached to their old ways: not troubled by
any close questioning for many years by a government
that knew very well how to look away: themselves
falling into horrible perturbation when new ways were
<<
* This has now been rendered quite certain by the scientific scrutiny
of all the documents by Dr. Gee. He has carefully examined all the
originals in the national collections which bear on the subject, and com-
pared the former historical writers. More than that, he has searched the
Episcopal Registers throughout England and Wales: so that there is no
more to be said. We have all the evidence. I refer the reader to his work.
It may be observed that, as he points out, Tierney's list, or imperfect
catalogue," of those "who opposed the Reformation in the beginning of
Elizabeth's reign," is ambiguously entitled, and contains men who kept
in their places till her twelfth year. Dr. Gee makes "the beginning"
to consist of her first six years, to 1564. If it be restricted to the year
of this Visitation, then but few of the two hundred were deprived "in the
beginning” of her reign. The Visitation was carried out with the greatest
desire to conciliate.
1559.]
Clergy and Bishops.
181
opened before them by Rome. Some, who were more
resolute in opposition, passed abroad to the foreign
universities and seats of learning. Some, who at first
resisted, afterwards received the alteration of religion.
As to the diocesan bishops all accounts agree. The
Oath, albeit considerately tendered, was refused by
all but Kitchin of Llandaff: * and all but Kitchin were
deprived. It may be remarked that three of these
deprived bishops, Heath, Bonner, Thirlby, along with
Kitchin himself, had sworn to the royal supremacy in
the reign of Henry:† the rest, White, Bourne, Morgan,
Baines, Pate, Turberville, Goldwell, Scot, Watson,
Pole, Oglethorpe, were made in Mary's time, and free
of such obstruction, though how far bound by their
fealties, wherein they renounced all things in Bulls
prejudicial to the sovereign of the realm, and on that
received back their temporalities, they had to deter-
mine. The seizure of their temporalities followed
immediately and not illogically upon their refusal to
acknowledge the Queen's supremacy: but they were
not put in prison on that account, nor was imprison-
ment the penalty assigned in the Act for refusing the
* Camden calls Kitchin "the calamity of his see." Sanders says that
Kitchin was the only bishop who never sought the Papal confirmation
after the reconciliation of the kingdom under Mary; and that therefore
he "
never was a lawful bishop."-Bridgett, p. 31. [From a Vatican MS.]
+ Kitchin at his consecration had sworn in that particularly vigorous
Henrician form which may be distinguished as "The Veil-removed Oath."
It began: "I, Antony Kitchin, Elect Bishop of Llandaff, having now the
veil of darkness, of the usurped Power, authority and jurisdiction of the
See and Bishop of Rome clearly taken away t、、 mine eyes, do utterly
testify and declare in my heart that neither the S. nor the Bishop of
Rome, nor any foreign Potentate," &c., &c.-Strype's Cranmer, bk. i.
ch. 29. Cf. supra, p. 116. If Kitchin had a friend in history, it might
be pleaded for him that he was consistent.
The express clause about this, introduced into the patents for
restoring temporalities after the reconciliation in Mary's time, had been
used in the cases of about seven of these bishops. See Vol. IV. p. 487
of this work.
182
[CH. XXXII.
Fate of the Deprived
Oath. Five or six of them were in prison already,
or confined to bounds, but it was for their contempt
at the Disputation. The rest remained at large for
some months, or a year or so; and if they then got
imprisoned, or put under restraint, it was because they
had in some way fallen under the other branch of the
statute, which made it imprisonment to maintain a
foreign power.* In the meantime they much frequented
the Spanish ambassador, De Quadra, Bishop of Aquila,
who had replaced the bitter Count de Feria. When
they got into prison, their incarceration seems not to
have been more severe than it need have been; indeed
it may be questioned whether political or religious
prisoners have ever been so gently handled. They
* I Eliz. c. 1, § 14. A person maintaining foreign authority forfeited
his goods: but if he had not much goods to forfeit he made up by a year's
imprisonment.
"1
+ Representations have not been wanting to the contrary. Sanders
comes first, with his "de gradu et dignitate sua depositi, ac carceribus
variisque custodiis commissi, unde omnes hodie longo miseriarum tædio
extincti sunt" (p. 268). If by "de gradu" he meant that they were
degraded, no such thing was ever imagined against them. In the present
day an elaborate effort has been made by Mr. Bridgett, in his Catholic
Hierarchy, to show that "these victims of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy
suffered a great deal. It is a plaintive book. He is angry with Hook
and Perry for referring to the Marian persecution, and saying, "There
were no retaliatory burnings." Now I have shown that the common
popular tendency to lay the blame of the Marian terror on the bishops
is wholly unjust. But still Hook and Perry and others who have drawn
the same contrast are not without a foot of right. Mr. Bridgett asks,
"Where is the basis of comparison between two things altogether
different? The treatment of heretics may have been severe or heartless
in the reign of Mary, but what has that to do with the treatment of
bishops, who were neither guilty of heresy nor accused of it, nor
punished for heartlessness towards heretics, nor deposed for any canonical
cause, nor accused of any crime but that of fidelity to what had been
honoured in England for a thousand years?" (p. 10). The basis of
comparison is this: that in the one case a vast number of persons, who
seemed to their adversaries guilty of heresy, but who were not guilty
of heresy, were accused of heresy, and scores of them, including five
bishops, were burnt alive as heretics: in the other case a number of
1559.]
Clergy and Bishops.
183
were doubtless, however, prepared to have suffered
extremity for conscience: they dared something, for
they seem to have expected vindictive treatment.
Those of them who were already in the Tower or the
Fleet awaited mortal execution; and nothing less was
anticipated for them by their admirers: but it is not
easy to see upon what ground.* They are not to be
persons, who seemed to their adversaries guilty of heresy, but who were
not guilty of heresy, were neither accused of heresy, nor burnt alive
as heretics. The abominable crime of Rome in treating difference as
heresy, in charging heresy upon men who held the primitive rule of faith
and the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, was not imitated in this case.
As to the particulars of hardship in imprisonment, which Mr. Bridgett
has put together, we may look at them in place. They amount not
to much.
* The invincible courage of the Romanensian bishops in the face of the
imagined danger of death is extolled in the foreign dispatches.
"All
the Bishops here are determined to die for the faith, and you would be
surprised to see how firm and steadfast they have been and are," wrote
De Feria as early as March (Span. Cal., p. 39). In April, after White
and Watson were sent to the Tower for contempt, he wrote: "They are
very steadfast, and determined to die, if necessary" (p. 50). In May,
"The Bishops and others who are considered Catholics are as firm as on
the first day," and that the Bishop of Ely, who was not much esteemed
among them, had honoured himself by his conduct. Indeed Thirlby had
made an emphatic speech in the Lords in one of the great debates (I have
passed it over), and had declared himself ready to die (pp. 64, 66). The
eminent Doctor Story was as resolute, when he was charged with
depraving the alteration of religion. "Two doctors of laws, a priest and
a layman, were accused of speaking evil of the affairs of the religion:
they bravely and prudently answered the Lords of the Council, especially
Story the layman, who said: 'You need not interrogate me about these
matters. I know better than any of you both the canon laws and the
laws of the kingdom: let my accusers appear and prove what I have said,
for I certainly said nothing at which you could reasonably take offence:
but should her Majesty will otherwise, I do not refuse to die for the
Church.'"-Ven. Cal., February 6, p. 26. Nothing but death was supposed
possible. The horrible spirit of the times, from the other side, is illus-
trated in one of these very letters of De Feria. He says that he has
decided, in concert with Friar John de Villa Garcia and another Spanish
divine, who were with him in London, to try to seize some Spanish heretics
and an Antwerp man, who were expected to arrive in England, hold a secret
trial of them, and throw them into the river, so dexterously and secretly as
to give no cause of complaint to the English.-Span. Cal., p. 39.
184
The Deprived Bishops. [CH. XXXII.
denied the praise of constancy: for by a beneficent
extension in the Queen's Injunctions of a beneficent
clause in the Act, they might, it would seem, at any
time have presented themselves to take the Oath, and
been thereupon forthwith restored to their dignities in
all respects the same as if they had never lost them.*
And their deserted sees remained long time unfilled by
others. Death however, or flight, soon thinned the
insuperable cohort. Goldwell of St. Asaph, a prelate
who had not been summoned to the Parliament because
he was in the midst of his translation to some other
see when Mary died, departed suddenly beyond seas
at the end of June, leaving directions that his own
goods should be sold to pay the large subsidy which
he owed to the Crown.† The venerable Tunstall died
in Lambeth Palace in the middle of November, surviv
ing his deprivation about six weeks. He was honour-
ably buried in Lambeth church, Alexander Nowell
preaching the funeral sermon, and giving him great
* The Act contained a provision for laymen, who were always better
treated than clergy, that any who had obstinately and peremptorily refused
the Oath, and afterwards willingly required to take it, should be thereon
reinstated in any office that he had forfeited by refusal.-1 Eliz. c. 1, § 13.
The Admonition in the Injunctions seems to extend this. "If any person
that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shall
accept the same Oath with this interpretation (the interpretation given in
the Admonition), sense or meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept
every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects, and shall
acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said Act against
such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the said Oath.”
The Admonition refers to those "called to ecclesiastical ministry," and
I therefore venture to think that it extended the benefit of the clause
of the Act to ecclesiastics.
+ Mr. Bridgett has given the letters, from the Domestic series, con-
taining the particulars of Goldwell's departure. They are to his honour.
He held a beggared diocese: he owed the Crown £300, and desired his
brother to sell his goods to make payment, and to make up any deficiency,
promising to repay him. Some attempt seems to have been made to
close the ports against him. He went to Rome, and lived long.—Cath.
Hierarchy, 228.
1559.]
commendation.*
Bishop Tunstall.
185
Baines of Lichfield died three days
after Tunstall, not imprisoned, buried in St. Dunstan's,
Fleet Street. Morgan of St. David's, Oglethorpe of
Carlisle, died in the next month, December, not im-
prisoned; the one near Oxford, the other in London,
buried in St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street. White of Win-
chester died in the next month, January, after three
months in the Tower for his conduct at the West-
minster disputation, released in July, at liberty, living
with his brother-in-law Sir Thomas White in Hamp-
shire, the last six months of his life, buried in his own
cathedral church of Winchester.
The end of the dynastic prelate who lived under
all the Tudors was attended by some touching
circumstances. He came to London, in advanced
age a long journey, in July, and took lodgings in
Southwark. His design was to stay the alteration
of religion by presenting to the Queen some papers,
her father's Will and a treatise on the Holy Communion:
but perhaps he sought not, or gained not her presence.‡
* Mr. Bridgett has some rather mean remarks on Tunstall's end. He
was consigned to Parker, now at Lambeth, and Parker treated him
hospitably to his best ability. "Whether he shared the table of Dr. and
Mrs. Parker we do not know. We should like to think he was spared
the indignity. But even should a prisoner be summoned to dine with his
jailor, he is no guest, but a prisoner still." He seems also to make it
a grievance "that such a man as Nowell" should have preached at
Tunstall's funeral (p. 59).
"The xx day of July the good old bishop of Durham came riding
to London with four score horse, and so to Southwark unto master
Dolman's house, a tallow chandler, and there he lies against the chain
gate.”—Machyn, 204.
"The bishop of Durham, a very aged and learned man, came up from
his diocese solely to tell the Queen what he thought of these affairs. He
showed her documents in the handwriting of King Henry against the
heresies now received, and especially as regards the Sacraments, and
begged her at least to respect the Will of her father if she did not conform
to the decrees of the Church: but it was all of no avail." Quadra to
Phil. II., Aug. 13.—Span. Cal., p. 89. But the writings were found among
186
[CH. XXXII.
Bishop Tunstall.
The sight of the devastating Visitation of London,
which was going on around him, moved him to offer
a protestation against the like in his own diocese,
and he sent it to Cecil and also to Parry, and he
would have seen the Queen at Hampton Court, but
that she was gone thence. "If," said he, "the same
Visitation shall proceed in my diocese of Durham
to such end as I do plainly see to be set forth here
in London, as pulling down of altars, defacing of
churches by taking away of the crucifixes, I cannot
in my conscience consent to it, being pastor there;
because I cannot myself agree to be a sacramentary,
nor to have any new doctrine taught in my diocese.
Not of malice or contempt, but my conscience will not
allow any doctrine in my diocese other than Catholic."*
A month later, on Michaelmas Eve, with Tudor
meanness, the bishop was deprived, in time to prevent
him from receiving the rents that came due on
Michaelmas Day.t He was lodged with Parker, by
order of Council, at Lambeth and Parker hoped
that he would conform, as it was in his power to do at
any time, and remain bishop, and Cecil in no unkind
manner encouraged the hope. But Tunstall remained
steadfast, and in two months reached the end of a noble,
gentle, and holy life.‡
his slender effects after his death. "There is one roll of books which he
purposed to deliver to the Queen, which is nothing else but King Henry's
Testament, and a book Contra Communicationem utriusque Speciei, and
such matter."-Parker, Corresp. (Nov. 18), p. 106.
* Mr. Bridgett has given this from Dom. Papers, vi. 22.
two copies, to Cecil and to Parry, Aug. 19.
There are
+ "The 28 Sept. was Michaelmas Even, the old bishop of Durham was
deposed of his bishopric, because he should not receive the rents for that
quarter."-Machyn, 214.
Mr. Bridgett has given most of the originals for Tunstall's end, but
in a somewhat querulous spirit. It is evident that every effort was made
to show him respect. Walter Haddon wrote his epitaph in Latin verse,
"of no great merit," Mr. Bridgett says; but of unstinted praise. It is
1559.]
The Vacant Sees.
187
As all the sees were vacant (save Llandaff, Bath, and
Peterborough), they were diligently plundered. The
way for this had been prepared after the Tudor fashion
by the late Parliament in a private Act giving
in Cooper's Ath. Cantab. I may add, as to Tunstall's opinions, that
Mr. Bridgett gives the trenchant passages of his correspondence with
Pole in Henry's time, in which he declared himself to go entirely with
that monarch in rejecting the Pope. It is difficult on reading them to
understand on what grounds he refused to comply with the require-
ments of Elizabeth. As to his moderation in doctrine, Canon Ross Lewin,
author of the Life of Bernard Gilpin, in an interesting communication,
has sent me a passage from his De Veritate, published in Mary's reign,
in 1554, the year of the reconciliation with Rome (in Paris, it is true),
which shows how impossible Tunstall thought it to make Transubstantia-
tion the test of heresy. As the work is almost unknown I will give the
passage. "Ab exordio autem nascentis Ecclesiæ nusquam quisquam
Catholicus ad baptismum admissus dubitavit de præsentia Christi in
Eucharistiæ Sacramento: sed omnes antequam ad lavacri fontem admit-
tebantur, ita edocti, se id credere profitebantur, uti Justinus Martyr in sua
Apol. secunda contra Gentes testatur. Cæterum quomodo panis, qui ante
consecrationem erat communis, ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transiret
in Corpus Ejus, veterum doctissimi quique inscrutabile existimaverunt, ne
cum Capernaitis non credentes verbis Christi, sed quomodo id fieret
quærentes, tentarent supra sobrietatem sapere plusquam oportet. Illis
vero satis superque visum est omnipotentiæ ac verbis Christi firmiter
credere, qui fidelis est in omnibus verbis suis, quique mirabilium suorum
operandi modum solus cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto novit. Porro ante Inno-
centium III Romanum Episcopum, qui in Lateranensi Concilio præsedit,
tribus modis id posse fieri curiosius scrutantibus visum est : aliis existiman-
tibus una cum pane, vel in pane, Christi Corpus adesse, velut ignem in
ferri massa, quem modum Lutherus secutus videtur: aliis panem in nihi-
lum redigi vel corrumpi: aliis substantiam panis transmutari in substan-
tiam Corporis Christi, quem modum secutus Innocentius reliquos modos
in eo Concilio rejecit, quamvis miracula non pauciora, immo vero plura
quam in reliquis rejectis ab eo modis, oriri curiosius investigantibus
videantur. Sed Dei omnipotentiæ, cui nihil est impossibile, miracula
cuncta cedere his qui cum Innocentio in eo Concilio interfuerunt visum
est, quod is modus maxime cum verbis hisce Christi Hoc est Corpus meum,
hic est Sanguis meus congruere illis visus est. Nam Johannes Scotus,
Senten. lib. iv, distinc. 11, quæst. 3, recitando Innocentium ait tres fuisse
opiniones: una quod panis manet et tamen cum ipso vere est Corpus
Christi: alia quod panis non manet et tamen non convertitur sed desinit
esse, vel per annihilationem, vel per resolutionem in materiam vel per
corruptionem in aliud: tertia quod panis transubstantiatur in Corpus
et vinum in Sanguinem. Quælibet autem istarum voluit istud commune
188
[CH. XXXII.
Treatment of the
authority to the Queen to take into her hands the
temporal possessions of all vacant bishoprics, and
exchange as much of them as she chose for the
impropriate parsonages of the late monasteries, and
for the tenths, that had been again annexed to the
Crown. The hypocritical pretence for this was that
it would be a good thing for the parsonages and
tenths, though granted to the Crown, to be in the
disposition of the clergy, provided that the Crown
suffered no loss and so the bishops were to be
compelled to exchange their good lands for decayed
chancels, ruinous houses, often burdened with pensions
for vicars and curates, and for tenths that were to be
collected with trouble from the indigent or reluctant
clerical holders.* Against this measure the incorruptible
salvare, quod ibi vere est Corpus Christi, quia istud negare est plane
contra fidem. Expresse enim a principio institutionis Eucharistiæ fuit de
veritate fidei, quod vere ibi et realiter Corpus Christi continetur. Hactenus
Joannes Scotus a Scholasticis ob mirum ingenii acumen Doctoris subtilis
nomine insignitus. An satius autem fuisset curiosis omnibus imposuisse
silentium, ne scrutarentur modum quo id fieret, cum viæ Domini sint
investigabiles, sicut fecerunt prisci illi qui inscrutabilia quærere non tenta-
bant, et facile Deum aliquid efficere posse putabant, cujus nos rationem
investigare non possumus-scribit namque Augustinus ad Volusianum
dicens, Demus Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur investigare non
posse: in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis—an vero
potius de modo quo id fieret, curiosum quemque suæ relinquere conjec-
turæ, sicut liberum fuit ante illud Concilium, modo veritatem Corporis et
Sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia esse fateretur: quæ fuit ab initio ipsa
Ecclesiæ fides?" etc.-De Verit. Corp. et Sang. in Eucharist., p. 46.
I
* This Act, according to Strype, was not printed among the public Acts
of 1 Eliz. It now, in Statutes of the Realm, figures as c. 19, and in the Table
of Contents is named as 17 in the private Acts, with a reference to c. 19.
It originated in the Lords, and was a Court measure: in the Commons
there was a minority of ninety against it. Collier regrets that the names
of these gentlemen cannot be recovered, adding that if their lives corre-
sponded to their conduct herein, they have a better immortality than
human renown. He remarks with keen justice that if such a Bill had
been brought against the Queen's wards, all would have seen the wicked-
ness of it. Dodd admires and repeats this. For Strype's account of the
Act, able and lucid, see his Life of Parker, vol. i. p. 44.
2
1559.]
Vacant Sees.
189
phalanx of York, London, Worcester, Coventry,
Exeter, Chester, Carlisle, and the Abbot of West-
minster, who had protested in April, were all either
dead or gone away, and all the other thrones were
void, when now, in September, lay Commissioners
were appointed to survey and value the episcopal
lands and revenues, and deliver the certificates of
them into the Exchequer, while others were nominated
to consider what of them the Queen should take, and
what parsonages impropriate and tenths she should
grant in exchange for them. The incoming bishops-
elect, Parker, Cox, Barlow, Scory, Grindal, in a
joint memorial represented boldly to her Majesty the
shamefulness of this sacrilegious act, and made large
offers of annual payments to avert it, but in vain.*
The Queen proceeded in the matter, and, as if she
had been doing righteousness, affirmed, what was
indeed true, that the consecration of the five elect
prelates had been delayed because the exchanges
between them and her were not yet effected, ordering
dispatch to be used.† She allowed, however, the
* The Letter of the Five Elects is in Parker's Correspondence (Park.
Soc.), p. 97, followed by the Queen's answer. "For the exoneration of
the exchange” they offered a thousand marks a year each. If that might
not be, they requested under various particulars that reasonable treatment
might be shown in the exchanges: such particulars as that vicarages
received in exchange for their good manors might be made competent
livings for vicars; that the decayed state of chancels and mansions might
be allowed for in the exchanges; that pensions payable yearly might be
"reprised" or withdrawn from parsonages offered in exchange, &c.
+ She wrote as if it had been news to her that these five elects were
unconsecrated: "We be informed the state ecclesiastical in the province
of Canterbury and the rest of the said dioceses remaineth without govern-
ment." She orders the exchange to be proceeded withal, "with the rest
of the bishoprics that be richly endowed, as York, Winchester, Durham,
Bath, Sarum, Norwich, and Worcester," in order that bishops might be
elected and put into them with all speed. Thus she thought that she was
doing a virtuous action in enforcing the Act at once. But as in these
cases the like exchange” was to be made as in the others, it seems that
(6
190
Protest of the Bishops. [CH. XXXII.
memorial to have weight with her in carrying out the
unequal bargain with some regard to reason. She bade
the Exchequer extend nothing against the bishops
contrary to the favourable meaning of the Act of
Parliament not to frustrate the purpose of the Act
by assigning to her so much of the temporalities
as to make it impossible for them to keep their hos-
pitality: to grant them an equal value in spiritualities
for the temporalities received from them: and she
allowed them, "as of her reward," a remission of half
the whole year's revenue of vacancy, which belonged
to her. But still it was a grievous exaction. It was
part of a general racking of the kingdom, which was
going on to supply an extravagant Court, under the
usual pretence of the necessities of the Crown.
Even worse than this was feared or meditated, and
the elects added a petition that the bishoprics founded
by Henry the Eighth out of the monastic spoil might
not be dissolved but continued.* One of them stood
forth further than the rest in the piety of the defence
of the patrimony of the Church: Cox, once the ravager
of Oxford, ventured in more than one private memorial
to expostulate with the Queen, and, to his honour,
based his remonstrances upon higher considerations
than the good and convenience of the realm.
Reminding her that he had heard her say that she
"was not in fear of death whenever it should please
she meant the same favourable meaning to be put on the Act, and the same
reasonable remissions to be made. Eliz. to the Lord Treasurer and Barons
of Exchequer, 26 Oct. 1559.-Parker's Corresp., p. 101. As to the diocese
of Canterbury, this forced exchange was tempered by regard to equity.
She took away temporalities, as manors, sites of priories, lordships, parks,
above £1,200 a year. She redeemed the tenths and impropriations and
rents about the same annual value or a little more.-Ib., p. 103.
* "That it may please your Highness to continue the new erected sees
founded upon great considerations by your noble progenitor King Henry,"
&c.—Ib., p. 100. Cf. Strype, Ann. i. 97.
1559.]
Close of the Visitation.
191
her Heavenly Father to call her," he told her that
"it necessarily followed thereupon that she should
walk uprightly in conscience and in the fear of God."
Then, in other papers, he laid before her most weighty
reasons, from the Scriptures, from former examples,
from the public commodity, against taking away the
temporalities by exchange.* But the Queen stayed not
the course of things. She appointed Commissioners
to survey the vacant bishoprics, and to certify their
value into the Exchequer. Other Commissioners
were appointed, viz. the Lord Treasurer, Sir Richard
Sackville, Sir Walter Mildmay, and Keilway a lawyer,
to consider what lands should be taken and what
equivalents granted.†
The great survey of the kingdom which we have
followed, was stayed before the end of the year per-
emptorily; the active agents of the Queen received her
orders "to surcease from any further intermeddling":
they dropped their tools, and left their work.
At the
* Such a remonstrance is among the things that lift history above itself.
Cox wrote three or four papers to the Queen. The first reminded her of
her duty to Heaven: the others brought before her the other considerations.
Strype gives a full account of these papers, which he has mostly tran-
scribed from the originals in the Petyt Collection.
+ This Commission was issued Sept. 13, 1559. It contained that sundry
Commissions had already been issued to survey the sees vacant, and
certificates had been already returned from some into the Court of
Exchequer, and others were expected daily; and that therefore these four
persons, or two of them, should consider these certificates, and give their
opinion what parcels should be taken, and what impropriations and
tenths should be given in exchange, for the Queen's ultimate decision.—
Wilkins, iv. 198.
"Whereas upon divers urgent considerations us thereto moving we
directed our Commission unto you among others this last summer
authorising you thereby to visit and publish certain our Injunctions in the
diocese of [left blank]: Whereas we are informed you have done accord-
ingly, we now have thought it convenient to will and require you to surcease
from any further intermeddling therein by force of our said commission:
and that ye deliver your acts registered, together with the seal of jurisdic-
tion in that behalf used, to our principal secretary, to be further ordered as
192
[CH. XXXII.
The High Commission.
same time, however, they were directed to determine
all matters arising out of the Visitation that were still
pending, and during the next year or two, in the
general subsidence, there may be discerned some
waves that had the force to break. The Dean of
Durham, Horne, found three or four prebendaries
who refused the Oath. On his representation they
were deprived.* Barlow complained of two "papist
prebendaries" of Chichester, and deprived them.f
Others of the new bishops discovered obstinacy and
disorder in their cathedral bodies: thus, Scory described
Hereford as "a very nursery of blasphemy, naughti-
ness, pride, superstition, and ignorance," that the
justices offered impediments to religion, and that some
of the deprived of Oxford and Exeter had been
received there and feasted in the streets with torch-
lights. In Oxford itself serious disturbances arose,
when the new Head of Queen's, Doctor Francis, took
his place instead of the deprived Hodgson.§
At the same time, when the Ambulatory Visitation
was stopped, the Commission of the sitting Com-
missioners was renewed, in October, by a new writ.
The number and the persons were the same, save that
we shall see cause. Reserving nevertheless unto you power and authority
to examine and determine all such matters only, and no other, as have
been in your progress exhibited for redress of their disorders, determinable
by your commission, as be unto you detected, in as ample and large
a manner as if our said commission had not been revoked."-Domest.
Pap. vii. 79 (Cal. 145). This paper has on the back of it the list of
working Visitors given above. It is undated, but was probably about
October or November.
* See above, p. 148. It may be added that all four, Dalton, Marley,
Tuttyn, and Salvin, are in Dodd's catalogue.
+ Cal. S. P. Dom. 150, Feb. 1560. Their names were Stapleton and
Godsalve. Both are in Tierney's Dodd.
Ib. 177, June, 1561.
§ Ib. 175, May, 1561. These cases may come here, though they may
not all have sprung out of the Visitation.
1559.]
and its Early Sessions.
193
Cox, now Bishop of Ely, took the place of Sir William
Chesters. Parker and Grindal had by this time
attained their full position, and the alteration of their
style was probably the reason of the new writ, which
was in Latin. The quorum was reduced to three, one
to be one of the three bishops.* The Commissioners
met once or twice more in St. Paul's, before they more
consistently made Lambeth their place of meeting.
Such was the first formation of the celebrated High
Commission, a tribunal which has been reviled with
the rarest fury by many leaders of opinion, but of
which the original relics and memorials are too scanty
to yield a decisive opinion. At least, whatever it may
have become afterwards, it seems not to have been
a flagrantly tyrannous organ in the first period of
Elizabeth. It was not created for nothing: there was
need of such a power, if the design of Elizabeth was
to be carried out, to make her Church extensive as the
nation and it maintained a severe struggle for that
purpose. Under the new Primate it may be believed
that the Court was less invidious than it became
afterwards; the office of Parker was adorned by his
justice, albeit Parker had a warlike heart.†
* Rymer, xv. 546; Gee, 152. It was of October 20.
It was,
+ "In quo gerendo negotio Matthæus, ut ordine ac dignitate primus,
ita vigilantissimus ac moderatissimus habebatur, ut neque in tam ancipiti
rerum statu incommodi aliquid accidere posset, quod non præcaveret et
anteverteret, neque quemquam de crimine postulatum nominatim læderet,
aut verborum vel minarum atroci vehementia durius tractaret, aut æstu
unquam aliquo in judiciis ferveret; quin summa temperantia et sedulitate
iudiciario ordine servato et crimine per legitimas probationes exquisito
pœnam tam delicto quam juri congruam graviter constanterque irrogaret.”
-De Antiquit. Brit., p. 540. Bishop Stubbs remarks that "it is difficult
to understand how, except on a plea of vital necessity, prelates like
Parker, Andrewes, or Laud, could have been content to act under such
Commissions.”—Eccl. Courts Commis. Report, App. 50. No doubt this is
true. They saw in it the only safeguard against anarchy. The necessity
under which they acted was the Romanensian reluctance and the Evangelic
VOL. V.
O
194
[CH. XXXII.
Lack of Clergy.
however, from first to last anomalous and invidious.
It was a court of first instance, which swallowed up
every case that came before it, and from which no
appeal ever went. It stood in the way of the High
Court of Delegates, older than itself, Henry's erection,
the court of first appeal. It was out of connection
with the ordinary courts of the Church, always pro-
ducing new business by its own nature. It increased
its powers with the course of time.* It existed for
eighty troublous years, when it was extinguished by
the hands that raised it.
The lack of ministry through deprivation, destitution,
and particularly by reason of the death of many in the
sickness of the last year, was supplied in a measure
by an expedient which had but a moderate success.
Under the oversight of the bishop and by his letters
testimonial, laymen were to be admitted in a church,
the curate being absent, to read the service for the
day under the name of readers. These readers bore
perhaps but a humble resemblance to the ordained
lectors of primitive antiquity, the oldest of the minor
orders; but it was from them that the notion of having
propensity: "Cum pontificii insidias assidue meditarentur, aliique,
Evangelium prætendentes, novas sectas et factiones excitarent.”—De
Antiq. Brit. u. s. [Drake's edition, A.D. 1729].
:
* Hallam remarks that the Oath ex Officio, which perhaps caused more
trouble than anything else, was not inserted in any of the High Commis-
sions that were issued, until 1583.-Const. Hist. i. 201. It was an oath
which a commissioner could require by virtue of his office. Neal violently
says that "they entangled their prisoners with oaths ex officio, and the
inextricable mazes of the popish Canon Law" and appears to speak of
their conduct from the beginning.—Puritans, i. 110. This is wrong.
Faults in the English Reformation lay not commonly in exceeding given
powers, but in having powers given that ought not to have been given.
For the relations of this court and the other courts, I refer my reader to
the admirable work of Bishop Stubbs and Mr. Rothery in the Appendix
to Eccl. Courts Commission.
† This reason is alleged by Heylin.
1559.]
Readers appointed.
195
them may have arisen. They were to be sober,
discreet, and grave laymen; under the survey and
visitation of the bishop, removable by certificate upon
proof of inability or disorder; not to intermeddle to
minister baptism or Holy Communion or marriage,
not to preach, but read a Homily, the Prayers, and
the Litany.* The need was great: in one diocese two-
thirds of the parishes were destitute: another had but
two preachers in it: but laymen of sufficiency, willing
to undertake the office, were rare: men of rank may
have disdained it: and it was found too frequently that
the churches were served, in this capacity, by ignorant
and illiterate mechanics.† The champions of the
deprived clergy presently exulted in the sorry figure
made by their humble substitutes, and the retort was
See Parker's "Order for serving cures now destitute," of this year,
Strype's Parker, Bk. ii. ch. ii.
+ The inconvenience was soon felt, and next year, August, 1560, Parker
directed Grindal and the rest of his bishops to be more careful whom
they admitted. 'Now by experience it was seen that such manner of
men, partly by reason of their former profane arts, partly by their light
behaviour otherwise, and trade of life, were very offensive unto the people :
and unto the wise of this realm they were thought to do a great deal more
hurt than good, the Gospel thereby sustaining slander: these (letters)
therefore were to desire and require them to be more circumspect in
admitting any to the ministry and only to allow such as having good
testimony of their honest conversation, had been traded and exercised in
learning, or at the least had spent their time in teaching of children;
excluding all others which had been brought up and sustained themselves
either, by occupation or other kinds of life alienated from learning. So
that they might stay from collating such Orders unto so unmeet persons,
until such time as in a Convocation they might meet together, and have
further conference thereof."-Ib. ch. iv.
John Martial, or Marshall, one of the deprived Oxford men, wrote
a book (hereafter to be considered) in which he instanced the readers and
their shortcomings: to him in his well-known Answer, of 1565, Calfhill
replies: "They have nothing so rife in their depraving mouths, where-
withal to burden our ministry in England, as heaping together all base
occupations, to shew that the craftsmen thereof be our preachers. I wis
I might answer, and justify the same, that as great a number of learned
as ever were, as ancient in standing and degree as they, supply the
0 2
196
[CH. XXXII.
Readers appointed.
more obvious than effective, that they were no worse
than the dicers, taverners, and lacklatins who were
greatest rooms, and places of most credit. Wherefore they do us wrong to
match the simplest of our side, with the best of theirs. ... But to grant
that the inferior sort of our ministers were such indeed as these men of
spite imagine: such as came from the shops, from the forge, from the
wherry, from the loom; should ye not find more sincerity and learning in
them than in all the rabble of their popish chaplains, their Mass-mongers,
and their soul-priests? I lament that there are not so many good
preachers as parishes. I am sorry that some too unskilful be preferred:
but I never saw that simple Reader admitted in our Church, but in the
time of popery ye should have found in every diocese forty Sir Johns in
every respect worse."-Parker Soc. Edit., p. 51. There was also a set-to
between Dorman and Nowell on the point: see Strype, Ann. i. 179.
Richard Baxter, who was born in 1615, opens his Life with this account of
the state of things around him in boyhood: "We lived in a country that
had but little preaching at all. In the village (near Shrewsbury) where
I was born there were four Readers successively in six years' time, ignorant
men and two of them immoral in their lives, who were all my school-
masters. In the village where my father lived there was a Reader of
about eighty years of age, that never preached, and had two churches
about twenty miles distant: his eyesight failing him he said Common
Prayer without book; but for the reading of the Psalms and Chapters he
got a common thresher and day labourer one year, and a tailor another
year, for the clerk could not read well: And at last he had a kinsman of
his own, the excellentest stageplayer in all the country, and a good gamester
and good fellow, that got Orders and supplied one of his places. After
him another younger kinsman that could write and read got Orders: and
at the same time another neighbour's son, that had been awhile at school,
turned Minister, one who would needs go further than the rest, and
ventured to preach (and after got a living in Staffordshire), and when he
had been a preacher about twelve or sixteen years, he was fain to give
over, it being discovered that his Orders were forged by the first ingenious
stageplayer. After him another neighbour's son took Orders, when he
had been awhile an attorney's clerk and a common drunkard, and tippled
himself into so great poverty that he had no other way to live: It was
feared that he and more of them came by their Orders the same way with
the forementioned person. These were the schoolmasters of my youth
(except two of them) who read Common Prayer on Sunday and Holy
Days, and taught school and tippled on the weekdays, and whipped the
boys when they were drunk, so that we changed them very oft. Within
a few miles about us were near a dozen more ministers, that were near
eighty years old and never preached: poor ignorant Readers, and most
of them of scandalous lives: only three or four constant competent
preachers lived near us, and those, though conformable all save one, were
1559.]
Their Survival.
197
plentiful on the other side. These readers went on
into the next century.
the common marks of the people's obloquy: and any that went to hear
them when he had no preaching at home, was made the derision of the
vulgar rabble, under the odious name of a puritan." But it was not
the business of a reader to preach.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
A. D. 1559.
THE growing scarcity of bishops, as see after see fell
void by death or deprivation, escaped not the appre-
hension of the Queen and her advisers: during the
summer licenses to elect were issued to some of
the chapters: the old process of the congé d'élire,
which had been dropped by Edward the Sixth and
restored by Mary, was continued by Elizabeth; and
the student might remark in Elizabeth's instruments
of appointment a stronger assertion of royal right
than obtained in the forms used by her father and
his predecessors. To the license which she granted
she added the description that it was granted by the
founder of the see: and, if the legal doctrine hold
good that the bishoprics were anciently donatives of
the Crown, she made a plain declaration of English
antiquity.* Licenses to elect, according to this new
* As to this piece of history, observe: 1. That the old form of the
Licentia eligendi or congé d'élire used by Henry the Eighth and the
kings before him ran thus: "Rex dilectis nobis in Christo Decano et
Capitulo Ecclesiæ nostræ Cathedralis (Wigorn.) Salutem. Cum Ecclesia
nostra Cathedralis prædicta ... iam sit Pastoris solatio destituta, nos
alium eligendi in Episcopum et Pastorem Licentiam per presentes duxi-
mus concedendam. Mandantes quod talem vobis eligatis in Episcopum et
Pastorem qui Deo devotus, Ecclesiæ nostræ prædictæ necessarius, nobisque
et Regno nostro utilis et fidelis existat.” 2. That in the two instances
which occurred in the beginning of Edward the Sixth, before the Act of
his first Parliament which abolished the congé d'élire, this form was
retained with the characteristic insertion between qui and Deo of the
1559.]
Election of Parker.
199
form, were sent in June and July to many of the
chapters: among the rest to Hereford, Chichester,
and Canterbury: the ceremony followed quickly in
these cases and on the 1st of August Doctor Parker
became the elect of Canterbury, while at the same
time, perhaps on the same day, Barlow the deprived
Bishop of Bath and Wells was elected to Chichester,
Scory the deprived of Chichester to Hereford.*
It seems to have been intended to proceed without
great delay to Parker's consecration. On the 9th of
September letters patent were issued to six bishops,
three Romanensian, and three of the other sort,
Tunstall, Bourne, and David Pole, Kitchin, Barlow,
and Scory, commissioning them to proceed to the
words "Sacrarum literarum cognitione ad id munus aptus."
3. That
in Mary's numerous licenses the old form was restored and the addition
of Edward was adopted. 4. That in Elizabeth's licenses the old form
was considerably altered, and Edward's addition was dropped. The
license ran: "Regina dilectis de ... Salutem. Ex parte vestra Nobis
est humiliter supplicatum, ut, cum Ecclesia prædicta... jam sit Pastoris
solatio destituta, alium vobis eligendi in Episcopum et Pastorem Licentiam
Nostram Fundatoriam vobis concedere dignaremur: Nos, precibus vestris
in hac parte favorabiliter inclinati, Licentiam illam vobis duximus con-
cedendam: Rogantes quod talem vobis eligatis in Episcopum et Pastorem
qui Deo devotus, nobisque et Regno nostro utilis et fidelis existat." This
was the prevalent form under Elizabeth: but not the sole form: in four
or five cases in her reign the license returns to Mary's form, in one or
two the impressive word fundatoriam was omitted. And there were
other little variations in others.-See Rymer.
* June 5, License to elect to Norwich.-Ib. xv. 528.
June 22, Licenses to elect to Hereford, London, and Chichester.—
Ib. 532.
July 18, Licenses to elect to Canterbury, Ely, Salisbury, and Rochester.—
Ib. 536-7.
August 1, Election of Parker to Canterbury.-Strype, Life of Parker,
Bk. ii. ch. i.
August. Election of Barlow and Scory to Chichester and Hereford.—
Heylin, pp. 98 and 312, Robertson's Edition.
It was on the occasion of Parker's election that Harpsfield and half the
Chapter of Christchurch absented themselves, as related in last chapter.
There were other licenses issued, and elections made, later in the year.
200
[CH. XXXIII.
The Sees
confirmation and consecration of the elect, and to
do all things requisite therein according to the laws
and customs of the realm.* But these first com-
missional letters took not effect, for the reason that
the Queen's transactions in bishoprics, her exchanges
of lands and the like, were still in process, and meantime
it was found convenient to detain the sees.† A delay
*
Strype's Parker, Bk. ii. ch. i. (p. 54); Rymer, xv. 541; Bailey's
Defensio Ordin. Angl., p. 3; Cal. Dom. 138. Strype remarks that he
had seen in the Paper Office the first draft of this patent, with the names
of bishops left blank, save Cuthbert of Durham, which was inserted in
Parker's handwriting.
+ It is asserted by the Roman Catholic writers that the first mandate
to consecrate failed of effect through the refusal of the three Romanensian
prelates, Tunstall, Bourne, and Pole, to be concerned in the business. This
is expressed with vigour by Mr. Estcourt. "It is difficult now to under-
stand how any one could expect that a commission would be executed
which bore so gross an insult on the face of it. Not merely to require them
to consecrate a married priest, notoriously suspected of heresy, but to join
with them two suspended, excommunicated ecclesiastics, calling themselves
bishops, relapsed heretics, and apostate religious."-Quest. of Angl. Ord.,
p. 85. Well, well. There is no proof that the six bishops named in the
mandate were ever required to execute it, or that any of them refused.
Mr. Estcourt indeed allows this. Lingard, who is among those who
affirm that Tunstall, Bourne, and Pole, "all three refused to officiate,” has
no proof to offer. He adds, however, that in consequence of their refusal
the Oath of Supremacy was tendered to them, and that this led to their
deprivation. It is true, as we have already seen, that these bishops, with
the rest of the Romanensians, were deprived soon after this time for
refusing the Oath, but there is nothing to connect their refusal of the
Oath with this mandate to consecrate Parker. Lingard brings forward
a Commission to tender the Oath to one of the three, Bourne, which was
issued on Oct. 18. It is curious that a Commission should have been
issued for the case of a single bishop, but there is nothing to connect this
with any refusal to consecrate Parker.—Lingard, Note H in his History.
We have already found this Commission interesting for another reason.
See last chapter. On the other hand, most Anglican writers admit the
story that the three prelates really refused to consecrate Parker. Bailey
says that it is certain they did so. Mr. Denny says that the mandate to
consecrate was rendered useless by their refusal. Soames more cautiously
observes: Of the failure no reason is certainly known, but it probably
arose from an indisposition to the Oath of Supremacy entertained by three
of the prelates nominated.” —Reform. iv. 685. This is like enough. They
refused the Oath when it was offered them in the course of things: and
1559.]
are kept Vacant.
201
of three months followed, during which the difficulties
that had arisen presented themselves to the authori-
ties; the elect himself was consulted as to the mode
that should be used: and Parker instructed Cecil that
to confirm and consecrate an elect archbishop, an
archbishop and two bishops, or else four bishops,
were requisite by law.* "There is no archbishop,
nor are four bishops to be had," was the annotation
of Cecil. 'The Order of Consecration set forth in
King Edward's Book is to be used," remarked Parker,
((
since no other order was made in the late Session of
Parliament." On which Cecil wrote that Edward's
Ordinal had not been established by Parliament.†
after that they were not asked to execute any royal mandate, which is
a different thing from being required to execute one and refusing so to do.
If they had done the latter, more would be known about it. For the rest,
it has been remarked that this Commission to confirm and consecrate
contained no clause allowing a quorum of four out of the six bishops
named in it: an omission, which, if not careless, was careful. Perhaps, by
leading attention to the number four, it gave rise to the story of three
refusing, and so rendering the Commission useless, since the three who
would have acted were not four. The certainty is that it was convenient
to the Queen and her extravagant Court to delay the consecration. This
was frankly affirmed by herself in a letter of the next month: The
Archbishop-elect of Canterbury, and the Bishops-elect of London, Ely,
Hereford, and Chichester remain unconsecrated by reason that the
exchange between the Crown and them for certain temporalties has not
been effected."-Oct. 26, Cal. Dom., p. 141.
* Parker was referring to King Henry's statute, which said: "The king's
highness by his letters patent under the great seal shall signify the said
election to one archbishop and two other bishops, or else to four bishops
within this realm, commanding them with all speed to confirm the said
election, and to invest and consecrate the said elect person, and give and
use to him such pall, benedictions, ceremonies, and all other things
requisite, without suing any bulls, briefs or other things at the see of
Rome, or by authority thereof in any behalf.”—25 H. VIII. c. 20, § 5. This
was one of the revived statutes. It does not contain that the consecrating
prelates are to be diocesan bishops, or possessed of sees, but bishops
"within the realm."
+ The Edwardian Ordinal, sanctioned by 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 12, had
been abolished by 1 Mary, Sessio 2, c. ii. But though much of that
statute of Mary was repealed by 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, yet as to the Ordinal it
202
[CH. XXXIII.
A New Commission
Such
difficulties were not found to be beyond
remedy. A collection of seven bishops was made:
to Kitchin, Barlow, and Scory, who had been in the
former, the ineffective Commission, were added in
a new Commission the venerable Coverdale, former
Bishop of Exeter; two
two suffragans, Hodgkins of
Bedford, and Salisbury of Thetford, and the eminent
Bale of Ossory: four of whom at least might act.*
As to the order and ceremonies to be used, it was
directed, with some vagueness, that it was to be
"according to the form of the statutes set forth
and provided in that behalf." If no statute had
been made by the last Parliament, yet of the mind
of the last Parliament there was no doubt. A Bill
"for the admitting and consecrating of archbishops
and bishops" had gone through the Commons and
was not repealed. It was "only concerning the said Book," the Prayer
Book and Order of administering the Sacraments, that it was repealed.
Thus Cecil's remark was just: and this was the real position, that no
English Order of consecration or ordination had been authorised by
Parliament. This has been obscured to general apprehension: and
indeed seven years after this time, in 1565, Elizabeth's Parliament
attempted to befog it by affirming, in the long preamble of the retro-
spective statute about consecration which they passed, that Edward's
Ordinal was part of his Prayer Book, was "added and put to the said
Book," and so included in Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity by which his
Prayer Book was again authorised. But in the same retrospective
statute they not only confirmed the Prayer Book, but separately confirmed
the Ordinal of Edward: which would have been needless if it had been held
by them to be included in the Prayer Book.-8 Eliz. c. 1, § 3. See below.
As to Parker's paper of directions, on which Cecil annotated, it is fully
described by Strype, Life of Parker, Bk. i. ch. ix. p. 40. It is wrongly
put in the month of July in Cal. Dom., p. 135, as Mr. Estcourt has observed.
Mr. Estcourt has presented his readers with a facsimile of it.
* Rymer, xv. 549; Strype's Parker, Bk. ii. ch. i. p. 54; Le Courayer,
345.
+ "Juxta formam statutorum in ea editorum et provisorum." The
piety of Strype has turned this into the singular number, "according to
the form of the statute set forth and provided." It was in the singular in
Henry the Eighth's Significavits.
1559.] for Parker's Consecration.
203
been lost in the Lords, as it has been seen, perhaps
through the influence of the Marian bishops." If it
happened, through the failure of this Bill, that the
statute then actually in force was that of Mary, by
which the English Ordinal was abolished, yet little
apprehension was felt that the English Ordinal would
not be used; and the confidence of Jewel was not
misplaced, that the consecration of Parker, and of
others after him, would be without the ceremonies.
which he designated as superstitious and disgusting,
the oil, the chrism, and the tonsure.† To confer
the legal power, which it was felt that Parliament
had left lacking, there was added to the Queen's
Commission or Letters Patent, a special clause, not
found in any other instrument of the sort ever issued,
to supply any defects by her supreme royal authority.‡
* See last chapter.
+"Quod scribis, sperare te episcopos apud nos sine ullis superstitiosis.
et putidis ceremoniis inaugurari, hoc est, opinor, sine oleo, sine chrismate,
sine novacula, nihil falleris. Frustra enim exhausta esset sentina, si istas
reliquias pateremur in fundo residere." To Simler, Nov. 2, 1559.—Zur.
Lett., p. 29 (Epist. xxii.).
I had better give the reader the whole of the Commission for con-
firming and consecrating Parker.
"Regina etc. Reverendis in Christo Patribus, Ant. Llandavensi Episcopo;
Wm. Barlow quondam Bathon. Episcopo, nunc Cicestrensi Electo; Johan.
Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Herefordensi; Miloni
Coverdale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo; Ricardo (mistaken for Joanni)
Bedfordensi Episcopo, Johanni Thetfordensi, Episcopis Suffraganeis :
Johan. Bale Osserensi Episcopo: Salutem.
"Cum vacante nuper sede Archiepiscopali Cantuariensi per mortem natu-
ralem Domini Reginaldi Poli Cardinalis ultimi et immediati Archiepiscopi
et Pastoris ejusdem, ad humilem petitionem Decani et Capituli Ecclesiæ
nostræ Cathedralis et Metropoliticæ Christi Cantuar. eisdem, per Literas
nostras Patentes, Licentiam concessimus alium sibi eligendi in Archiepi-
scopum et Pastorem Sedis prædictæ, ac iidem Decanus et Capitulum vigore
et obtentu Licentiæ nostræ prædictæ, dilectum Nobis in Christo Magi-
strum Mattheum Parker, S.T.P., sibi et Ecclesiæ prædictæ elegerint in
Archiepiscopum et Pastorem, prout per Literas suas Patentes, sigillo
eorum communi sigillatas, nobis inde directas, plenius liquet et apparet.
"Nos Electionem illam acceptantes eidem Electioni Regium nostrum
204
Confirmation of Parker. [CH. XXXIII.
This dispensing clause was submitted to the judgment
of six doctors of both faculties, who affirmed the legal
validity of the Commission "in the form penned."*
Accordingly the confirmation of Parker's election took
Assensum adhibuimus, pariter et favorem ; et hoc vobis tenore Præsentium
significamus :
((
Rogantes, ac in fide et dilectione, quibus Nobis tenemini, firmiter
præcipiendo mandantes, quatenus vos, aut ad minus quatuor vestrum,
eundem Matt. Parker in Archiepiscopum et Pastorem Ecclesiæ Cathedralis
et Metropoliticæ Christi Cantuar. prædictæ sic, ut præfertur, Electum,
Electionemque prædictam confirmare, et eundem Magistrum Matt. Parker
in Archiepiscopum et Pastorem Ecclesiæ prædictæ consecrare, ceteraque
omnia et singula peragere, quæ vestro in hac parte incumbunt officio
pastorali, juxta formam Statutorum in ea parte editorum et provisorum
velitis cum effectu :
"Supplentes nihilominus, suprema Auctoritate nostra Regia, ex mero
motu ac certa scientia nostris, si quid aut in his quæ juxta Mandatum
nostrum prædictum per vos fient, aut in vobis aut vestrum aliquo,
Conditione, Statu, Facultate vestris ad præmissa perficienda, desit aut deerit
eorum, quæ per Statuta hujus Regni, aut per Leges Ecclesiasticas, in hac
parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt, Temporis ratione et Rerum necessi-
tate id postulante.
"In cujus rei etc. Teste Regina ap. Westm. vi Die Decembris."
The last clause, the Supplentes clause, is not in the Significavits for
Worcester, Hereford, Asaph, Bangor, or Ely; which were all issued later
in the same month. It is not in any Significavit at all except Parker's.
Strype is wrong altogether in saying that it was "inserted into all the
Queen's letters patent for making her bishops for the first seven years of
her reign, ad majorem cautelam," until the Act 8 Eliz. c. 1 of 1565, which
declared the legality and sufficiency of all that had been done by her in
this behalf from the beginning.-Parker, Bk. ii. ch. i. p. 55. He may
have been misled by some ambiguous expressions in that retrospective
Act itself. The possibility of defect in legality was stopped once for all
by applying this Supplentes clause, ad majorem cautelam, to Parker's
consecration, which was the cradle of all following consecrations.
* (6 We, whose names be hereunder subscribed, think in our judgments,
that by this Commission in the form penned, as well the Queen's Majesty
may lawfully authorise the persons within named to the effect specified, as
the said persons may exercise the act of confirming and consecrating, in
the same to them committed.
William May
Robert Weston
Edward Leeds
Henry Harvey
Thomas Yale
Nicolas Bullingham."
Strype says they were all civilians: Bailey that they were of both
faculties.
1559.]
Parker's Consecration.
205
place by proxy* in Bow church on December 9: and,
on Sunday, December 17, he was consecrated in
Lambeth chapel, the officiants being Barlow, Scory,
Coverdale, and Hodgkins. In his consecration the
English Ordinal of Edward the Sixth was followed:
but the comparative freedom in which the consecrating
prelates found themselves left, or their anxious caution
to be effective, was marked in this, that not only their
chief Barlow, but all of them, rehearsed the words
of consecration which accompanied the imposition of
hands.
The consecration of Parker was an event of con-
siderable moment. It affirmed in an important branch
the general doctrine of the independence of the Church
and realm: that within the realm was contained every-
thing to confer the highest ecclesiastical degree. This
great principle may be discerned in one circumstance,
partly accidental, which has perhaps escaped the obser-
vation of those who have examined the subject.
Parker was the first archbishop of England who
was consecrated without the pall. The gift of the
pall was, as it is well known, the sign of the Papal
approbation, to be sought and obtained from Rome
only. Cranmer himself, who was consecrated on the
verge of the abolition of the Roman jurisdiction, had
received the pall. So necessary was this ornament
come to be deemed, that when the Roman jurisdiction
was abolished, in one of the great statutes of Henry
that abolished it, provision was made for palls to be
had and used in any consecration without suing to
Rome.† And when it fell to the lot of Cranmer to
* May and Bullingham were his proxies.
+ "Every archbishop and bishop to whose hands any presentment and
nomination (to a vacant archbishopric or bishopric) shall be directed,
shall with all speed and celerity invest and consecrate the person
nominate and presented by the king's highness to the office and
206
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
consecrate an archbishop, he encircled him in a pall,*
in strict obedience to the statute of Henry; thereby
challenging Canterbury to be a source of ecclesiastic
honour equal to Rome. But in the case of Parker,
though he was consecrated under the statute of Henry,
revived by Elizabeth, there was no gift of the pall:
there was no mention of the pall: there was no
reference to the statute concerning it. The lamb-wool
was perceived to be not of the essence of the appoint-
ment of metropolitans; and the necessity was silently
denied of maintaining a homely counterpart of the
ultramontane ceremony.
It was to be expected that such proceedings should
be viewed with hostility by the deprived Roman-
ensians, the learned flight, who from their new settle-
ments beyond the seas began anon to hurl books as
stones on their victorious adversaries: Marshall, Harps-
dignity that such person shall be so presented unto, and shall give
and use to him pall, and all other benefactions, ceremonies, and things
requisite for the same, without suing, procuring, or obtaining hereafter
any bulls or other things at the See of Rome, for any such office or
dignity in any behalf."-25 H. VIII. c. 20, § 4.
* When George Browne was made Archbishop of Dublin in 1536,
Cranmer and the other bishops who consecrated gave him a pall. The
piety of Strype mistakenly omitted this circumstance, though he gives
a particular account of the consecration in his Life of Cranmer: and
no writer has observed it since. The entry in Cranmer's Register is
as follows: "Die Dominica 19 die Mensis Martii secundum cursum et
computationem Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ 1535, in capella manerii reverendis-
simi in Christo Patris et Domini D. Thomæ permissione Divina Can-
tuar. Archiepiscopi,... de Lambeth dictus reverendissimus ac reverendi
patres Nic. Sarum et Johannes Roffens. episcopi... impendebat (sic) munus
consecrationis venerabili et religioso viro Geo. Browne ac deinde
iidem ... reverendi patres tradiderunt ei pallium sive insignium archi-
episcopale" (fol. 186 b). This was the only consecration of a metropo-
litan that had fallen hitherto into the hands of the reforming part: when
Holgate went to York in 1545, it was a case of translation. He probably
had no pall. The other instances of the age, Curwen to Dublin, and
Pole to Canterbury, were of course of the other side: Heath to York was
a translation, but his pall was sent from Rome. See Vol. IV. p. 387 of this
work, and cf. p. 460.
•
•
1559.]
It is assailed.
207
In
field, Stapleton, Dorman, Harding, or Sanders.
their anger these early controversialists often used
expressions which have been misunderstood, and are
deceptive without the key of the real meaning. They
exclaimed that the new bishops had not been ordained
by bishops, that they had been ordained without
imposition of hands, only by the letters patent of
the Queen, by a ridiculous ordination. By such
expressions they only meant one thing: it was their
way of objecting the real point at issue, which was
that in these ordinations or consecrations, Rome
was set at nought. Rome has ever had her grasp
on hierarchs. Before the Reformation broke, her
haughty assumption had grown to be that consecra-
tion made no bishop unless he were also pronounced
at Rome. At the outset of the Reformation, among
his dying expostulations with the spirit of his age, the
venerable Archbishop Warham solemnly protested
that "a man is not made bishop by consecration,
but is pronounced so at Rome in consistory: and
he has no jurisdiction given him by consecration,
but only the rights of his order, namely, consecrating of
children, et cætera.”* Here was the meaning of the
* This occurs in the remarkable draft of a speech apparently intended
to have been delivered in the House of Lords by Warham shortly before
his death, in which he argues that in having consecrated a bishop before
showing his bulls to the King he meant nothing prejudicial to the King.
The bishop was St. Asaph: Warham seems to have been threatened
with a præmunire about it. He pleads that in consecrating the bishop
he acted as the Pope's commissary.—Gairdner's Lett. and Pap. of H.VIII.,
vol. v. p. 541.
He seems to have meant to express the ultramontane
theory about Order and Jurisdiction: of which we shall see more in dis-
cussing this controversy. Such opinions were far from being universal
in his age and before it. A few months after his death, in May, 1533,
Dr. Fox said to the ambassador Chapuys that "to dispute the juris-
diction of the Archbishop of Canterbury would be against the laws, which
neither the King nor the realm would tolerate, even under the presenta-
tion of briefs or bulls from the Pope, who, to speak frankly, had no
208
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
apparently incoherent exclamations of the Roman-
ensian writers: in their style it was the same thing to
say that the new bishops had not been consecrated at
all, or not truly, as that they had been consecrated
without the bulls and mission of the Pope.* The
keen antagonist who entered the field against them,
was not deceived: "The matter that lieth between
us," said Jewel to Harding, "is this: whether, through
the whole Church of Christ, no man may be allowed
for bishop without the confirmation of the Pope."†
It is to be observed that these contemporaneous
writers, on the one side or the other, knew nothing
of the ludicrous assertions about Parker's consecration,
which arose in the next generation.
As the real point in dispute was whether any con-
secration was allowable without the Papal confirmation,
a point absolutely affirmed on the one, and on the
other side absolutely denied, it is evident that con-
troversy on any other issue would be irrelevant or
delusive. But it was not inconvenient to the Papal
authority or jurisdiction here either over temporality or spirituality."-
Gairdner, vol. vi. p. 209. The Romanensian party and the independent
party existed in the Church of England before the Reformation.
* "Stapleton says in many places that those bishops had not been
ordained by other bishops; that they had been ordained without impo-
sition of hands: that they had been made bishops only by the Letters
Patent of the Queen: and lastly, that being made bishops in the
beginning by the sole authority of the prince, they had afterwards made
use of a ridiculous ordination. In the system of Stapleton and others
nothing can be more easy than to explain all those expressions; and
one that is used to their style can be no longer mistaken about them.
In the style of Harding, Stapleton, Bristow, and the other orthodox
writers, not to be truly ordained, or to be ordained out of the Church,
or by bishops who are not Catholic, and according to a ritual different
from that of the Catholic Church, or without the Mission and Bulls
of the Pope, are absolutely synonymous terms."-Courayer, Defence of
Dissertation, i. 203. Cf. Denny's Anglican Orders, 177.
+ Defence of the Apology, Jewel's Works, Portion iii. p. 330,
Parker Soc.
1559.]
Romanist Objections.
209
part to screen the vastness of their assumption by
opening other issues; to attack the consecrations of
Parker and the others in themselves as performances,
and to inveigh against the persons: and upon these
grounds, it is too well known, there has arisen the
longest and on the whole the most humiliating con-
troversy that has ever been waged, a controversy
of three hundred years, not ended, nor like to end.
It is necessary to survey this controversy in some
manner, with a sigh whether of resignation or of
impatience. Gratitude and admiration cannot indeed
be denied to the English churchmen who have with
vast labour and research demolished the charges
invented against Anglican Orders by the modern
Roman Catholics from the first formation of their
body. But they have not awakened candour: they
could not work conviction, when the real position
was masked: they have but caused an implacable
enemy to take new ground, and build new walls
behind those from which he has been driven. Their
work was necessary in the circumstances; and it has
been well done. But they have not been careful
enough to tell their adversaries that they were aware
throughout of the uselessness of the whole engage-
ment, save as mere matter of historical investigation;
and that they knew that even when they were pushed
out of the field, reduced to give up every objec-
tion, and had no more to say, they would never
acknowledge the validity of English Orders. The
defensive posture which has been taken in this con-
troversy is to be regretted, though it may have been
unavoidable. It is the other side that ought to be
on their defence, to justify their extraordinary deser-
tion of antiquity and history. They should have been
made to understand from the first that if English
VOL. V.
P
210
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
churchmen vindicate their independence, it is only
for the sake of argument.
It is degrading to enter the lists with men who hold
the Nag's Head; the earliest of the absurdities which
have obscured the real issue: the story that Parker
was not consecrated in Lambeth chapel, but in a
tavern, and that the consecration was a mockery or
travesty. This fable, which would make Elizabeth
and her statesmen perfect fools, and her ecclesiastics
a pack of blasphemous mountebanks, sprang up nearly
fifty years after the event, when Elizabeth and all
others concerned were dead.* It was received with
:
* The Nag's Head first appeared in 1604, in Holywood's De Investiganda
Vera ac Visib. Christi Eccles., cap. iv. p. 17, which was printed at Antwerp.
The story is said to have rested on the authority of one Neal, who had
been sometime chaplain to Bonner. It was, that Kitchin (who was
appointed in the second Commission about Parker as well as in the first)
was about to consecrate when he was required by Bonner not to give
orders in London diocese, and thereupon refused to proceed on which,
the bishops elect being met in the Nag's Head in Cheapside, Neal
peeped through a hole in the door, and saw them in great disorder,
till Scory bade them all kneel down, laid a Bible on their heads or
shoulders, and said, "Take thou authority to preach the word of God
sincerely"; and so they rose up bishops. The story was repeated by
Doctor Champney, in his Vocation of Bishops, Douay, 1616, p. 195.
He said that he himself had it from one Bluet, "a grave, learned, and
judicious priest," who had it from Neal; and that Neal was the man
whom Bonner sent to inhibit Kitchin: and that Bluet had other means
of information, having been long a prisoner in Wisbech Castle, where
Bishop Watson, Feckenham, and other of the deprived Romanensians.
were confined at one time, men "in whose time and in whose sight,
as a man may say, this matter was done." See Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii.
App. 42. It might possibly be worth while, if there were any doubt,
to remind the reader that Heylin adduces another aged contemporary
witness, in opposition to the grave and judicious Neal and Bluet: that
in 1616, when Nag's Head had got abroad, Admiral Howard protested
that he had seen Parker consecrated in Lambeth chapel, having been
particularly invited to be present as one of Parker's relatives. This is
given by Mason with some humour. The nobilissimus Archithalassius
is interrogated by a friend whether he had been invited to grace the
solemnity of Parker's consecration: "Respondit se quidem impense
rogatum ac invitatum." And where were you asked to? the Nag's
1559.]
The Nag's Head Fable.
211
gratification it long went current without suspicion
among the Roman Catholics, though confuted by
Anglican writers: and it was a severe blow to the
ordinary Romanist when their most learned historian
rejected it.* It still flourishes in their lower world,
((
Head? Quo tandem? ad caput Manni ?” What a question!
"Minime gentium, sed ad Palatium Lambethanum," &c.-De Minist.
Anglic., p. 339. As to Neal, who was professor of Hebrew in Oxford,
and Rector of Thenford, it may be added that no writing of his
concerning Nag's Head has ever been produced, and that it was fourteen
years after his death that he was said to have said what he was said
to have said about it.-Denny, 26.
* Nag's Head. Lingard rejected Nag's Head in his History, see
Note (C) at end of his Elizabeth. In consequence he was involved
in a correspondence, in the course of which he remarked, "I have
travelled... through the Confutation and the Detection of Harding, the
Counterblast and Promptuarium Catholicum of Stapleton, the Motives
of Bristow, and the History of Sanders: and I affirm without the fear
of contradiction from those who have done as much, that not one of
these writers has ever alluded to the supposed consecration at the Nag's
Head."-Birmingham Catholic Magazine, vol.v.p.778: quoted in Denny's
Angl. Orders, 24. These were the contemporary Romanensian writers,
the men who went out in Elizabeth's first year and some others might
be added, as Marshall and Dorman, who are as silent as they. Now
these early Romanensians are entirely to be distinguished from their
successors of the next generation, among whom Nag's Head first
appeared. The difficulty created by their silence is too great to be
overcome: but Le Quien and another foreign antagonist of Courayer
have invented reasons why Sanders may have known of it, but omitted
the relation. A fine way of arguing truly! [See T. Browne's Story of the
Ordination, etc., whose neglected work is the best former contribution
to the controversy. From it I take much that here follows.]
I. As
I have said above, Holywood, or Sacrobosco, whose work was published
at Antwerp in 1603, was the first who related Nag's Head. It is remark-
able that in the same year Peter à Cudsden, of Wesel, a Roman who had
been a Protestant, took his journey into England to inform himself of
the state of the Church and the Universities: a few years after which he
published a treatise De desperata Calvini causa. So far from knowing
anything of Nag's Head or any other defect in English Orders, he
says that the English had "Catholicum in perpetuâ Episcoporum suorum
serie legitimâque Pastorum successione ab Ecclesia acceptâ Ordinem,”
adding "ob cujus honorem Anglos Calvinistas mitiore vocabulo non
hereticos sed schismaticos appellare solemus."-Mason, p. 14. On
account of the validity of Orders he argues that the "Calviniana secta
P 2
212
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
}
though not maintained by their educated writers; and,
as in many cases where the question is whether a thing
in Anglia" might suddenly be changed to Romanism.-Browne, p. 72.
In the same year, 1603, it is again remarkable, Kellison published his
Survey of the New Religion: and, although the fourth book of that
work is on the want of a ministry in England, yet he has nothing about
Nag's Head. [This work, it may be remarked, must have been well
known in the reign next after Elizabeth. It is dedicated "To the most
high and mighty prince, James the First, &c., Defender of the Faith,"
and has a long Preface beginning "You will marvel peradventure, most
dread Sovereign."] The reader may wish to see Holywood's Nag's
Head, the first published one. "Principio regni Elizabethæ creandi
erant episcopi sectarii: candidati convenerunt in quodam hospitio plateæ
Anglice dictæ Cheapside, ad insigne Capitis Manni, et unà ordines colla-
turus Landaffensis Episcopus, homo senex et simplex. Quod ut intellexit
Bonnerus, tunc Decanus Episcoporum in Anglia, misit e turri Londinensi
(ubi religionis causa detinebatur) capellanum suum, qui Landaffensi pro-
posita excommunicationis pœna prohiberet novos candidatos ordinare.
Ea autem denuntiatione territus Landaffensis pedem retulit, multiplici-
que tergiversatione usus sacrilegam vitavit ordinationem. Hic furere
candidati, Landaffensem condemnare, nova quærere consilia. Quid
plura? Scoræus, monachus, post Herefordensis pseudepiscopus, cæteris,
ex cæteris quidam Scoræo, manus imponunt: fiuntque sine patre filii,
et pater a filiis procreatur: res sæculis omnibus inaudita. Hæc D. Thos.
Neal, Hebraicus Oxoniæ lector, qui interfuit antiquis confessoribus, illi
mihi narrarunt: et fidem astruit, quod in Comitiis postea sancitum fuit,
ut pro legitimis episcopis haberentur Parlamentarii isti. Item, quod
supramemoratus Bonnerus, episcopus Londinensis, statuta comitiorum
Elisabethæ flocci, dum viveret, semper fecit, allegans defuisse episcopos,
sine quorum consensu per jura regni nulla sit valida constitutio," cap. iv.
p. 42, 2nd ed. (Antw.), 1619. 2. Whence got Holywood Nag's Head:
what was the germ of it? One Constable, about the beginning of the
seventeenth century, wrote, or is said to have written, a manuscript,
which was not published by him, and has never seen the light. This
was perhaps Holywood's source, as it was of the rest who followed him
in Nag's Head. One of them, Fitzsimon, in his Britannomachia, refers
to this manuscript in the margin, and says that Stow the chronicler knew
of it, but was afraid to print it. Quod etiam J. Stous, Chronologista,
subinde agnovit, propalare tamen in suis Annalibus, ne forte e synagoga
ejiceretur, non est ausus (p. 320). Another of them, Champney,
describes Constable as a person of great parts, judgement, and penetra-
tion, and one that would not be moved by light conjectures.”
3. In
1612 Parsons' Discussion was printed: Discussion of Bishop Barlow's
Answer to a Nameless Catholic. Parsons himself knows nothing of Nag's
Head: but by this time it was beginning to get about: and the unknown
writer of the Preface of Parsons' book gives a ludicrously imperfect
""
66
1559.]
The Nag's Head Fable.
213
happened or not, and no middle line can be taken, there
are weak men who give it up without giving it up,
version of it. 4. It was not Holywood who first referred to Constable's
manuscript as the source of Nag's Head: it was Fitzsimon, in his
Britannomachia Ministrorum, Douay, 1614, as above said. The reader may
wish to see Fitzsimon's Nag's Head. "Ipsi inter se candidati in taberna
ad Caput Mannuli seu Equi in Cheapsid. platea Londini præcipua
conveniunt anno 1559. Non fuit quærendum templum, tali taberna
magis idoneum Reformatæ ordinationi, quæ ventri et ingluviei patefactura
erat arbitrarium aditum, et omnia jejuniorum jura paulo post violatura.
Nihil itaque ad reverentiam solemne, nihil ceremoniale ad pietatem, nihil
mysticum ad representationem in hac ordinatione expectemus: cum
symposiaca sit mentium in ancipiti consultatione quid faciendum esset,
quidve omittendum (res enim nova peragebatur in infantia Reformatæ
Ecclesiæ) turbatarum confusio. Libuit tamen epitasin comediæ aggredi ;
et tandem cæptum opus tumultuario transcursu absolvere. Ex omnibus
igitur Joannem Scorium, apostatam religiosum, deligunt, ut a votifrago,
seu digno totius stemmatis protogene, auspicatior esset exvotata consecratio.
Narrat Junius (Eccl. 2, 6, 4, sed reformata fide) impositionem in Ecclesia
manuum nihil aliud olim fuisse quam familiarem dextræ in dextram,
amicitiæ ergo, injectionem. Ad hanc sententiam respiciens Scorius jubet
omnes procumbere in genua: deinde Parkeri prensa manu ait, Eia
Domine Episcope Cantuariensis, surge! Iterum pari modo Grindallo,
Eia Domine Episcope Londinensis, surge! Itidem Horno, Eia Domine
Episcope Wintoniensis, surge! Dein Sandesio, Eia, Domine Episcope
Worcestrensis, surge! et sic de ceteris" (p. 320). The historical student
will remark, not without surprise, how many patients were included in an
operation which he thought to have been undergone by Parker alone, in
which the operator was, though he thought it was Barlow not Scory,
Scory not Barlow. Browne says as to what Fitzsimon says of the opinion
of Junius on imposition of hands that Fitzsimon "fathers a lie on Junius
(p. 90). 5. Waddesworth, a friend of Bishops Hall and Bedell, who went
over to the Church of Rome and was employed in Spain, wrote thence
from 1615 some letters which Bedell published with his own answers.
He gives a version of Nag's Head, according to which there was an
attempted consecration there with only one consecrating bishop, followed
by the consecration in Lambeth: at which latter there were only three
consecrating bishops, not four. "It is certain that at the Nag's Head in
Cheapside, where consecration of your first bishops was attempted, but
not effected, there was but one bishop: and I am sure there was
such a matter. And although I know and have seen the Records them-
selves, that afterwards there was a consecration of Dr. Parker at Lambeth,
and three bishops named, viz. Miles Coverdale of Exeter, one Hodgkins,
suffragan of Bedford, and another whose name I have forgotten, yet it is
very doubtful that Coverdale being made Bishop of Exeter, in King
Edward's time, when all Councils and Church canons were little
214
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
and think that after all there is something in it, when
in truth there must be either everything in it or
nothing. And if the real issue may ever need to
observed, he was never himself canonically consecrated: and so, if he were
no canonical bishop, he could not make another canonical," &c.-Copies
of Certain Letters, pp. 12, 13, ed. 1624. This variation is curious.
6. Kellison published in Latin his Survey of the New Religion, under
the title Examen Nova Religionis, Douay, 1616. By this time he knows
of Nag's Head, through Parsons' Prefacer whom he follows. His Nag's
Head is full of inconsistency. 7. Doctor Champney, in the same place
and year, Douay, 1616, published his De Vocatione Ministrorum; and
groomed Nag's Head with veterinary skill. "Champney at last takes upon
him to give an account of it somewhat more like a scholar and a divine,
and makes them perform the office with a little solemnity, such as the
haste they were in would admit of. The Doctor of the Sorbonne did not
think it decent for him to make a play of it: or with Fitzsimon, Up, rise
bishop! with the Calvinistical giving of the right hand of fellowship:
but rather makes the consecrator have some regard to the ceremony
in the Roman Pontifical, and the Canon of the Council of Carthage.
Accordingly he makes the matter to be Scory's laying the Bible on each
of their heads and shoulders, and the form to be, suitably to the matter,
giving them authority to preach the word of God sincerely. So it is
plain he sets aside the ceremonial of Parsons' Prefacer and Fitzsimon:
but for what reason, after he has followed Sacrobosco all along before,
he leaves him in that where he seems to speak of the matter of the ordi-
nation, I can give no account but that it was his pleasure.”—Browne, 90.
Champney in fact kept Nag's Head, but not in its former wildness: but
with trappings taken from the real ceremonial of Parker's consecration,
assigning a form and matter which was at once based on what was done
therein, and was as near as he could make it to the Roman porrection of
instruments. Champney, like Kellison, says that Constable gave the
narrative of Nag's Head to Stow, that Stow used to tell it to Catholics of
whom some were yet alive, though he feared to put it in his Annals: and
that there were Catholics of good repute who were eyewitnesses of the
scene in the tavern.-Browne, pp. 7, 8. 8. The inherent absurdity, the
lack of possible motive for such a performance as Nag's Head still
remaining, despite the suggestion of blasphemous levity, it has been
abstrusely propounded in modern times that the consecrators of Parker
were afraid of doing it in a church because the English Service had not
been legalised by Parliament. See an anonymous tract called Anglican
Orders, 1873, written on Estcourt's book, whom the writer charges
with giving up too much.
* For instance, look at Mr. Bridgett's Cath. Hierarchy, p. 31. He
quotes a Vatican MS. by Sanders, to the effect that it was doubtful
whether Kitchin were to be taken for a bishop, because he alone sought
1559.]
Question of Barlow's Orders.
215
be concealed again by the Nag's Head, the Nag's
Head may chance to be brought out again even by
the more reputable writers of the party.
If Nag's Head could have stood, there would have
been no need of unconsecrated Barlow. But, as Nag's
Head could not stand, unconsecrated Barlow was the
next allegation brought against Parker's consecration.
Barlow, indeed, was not in Nag's Head at all: and
those who held by Nag's Head had no need to con-
sider Barlow in any way. But as he was found to be
in the Queen's Commission for consecrating Parker,
and it was he unquestionably who consecrated Parker,
it became necessary to consider him; and not him
only, but also the rest of the prelates who were with
him in actually executing the Queen's Commission.
The next great allegation therefore of the Roman
writers has been that even though Parker was conse-
crated in a decent place and manner, yet that all was
not right with Parker's consecrators: that one of them
had never been consecrated himself, that the rest had
some defect or another. It would have made no
not Papal confirmation when the kingdom was reconciled under Mary;
that it was no wonder if he consecrated bishops outside the Church and
that he never was a lawful bishop. This merely contains the Papal posi-
tion that no one was a bishop without the Papal confirmation, coupled
with an error of fact, that Kitchin consecrated Parker. Mr. Bridgett's
remark on it is, "This clause is very strange. No author, Catholic or
Protestant, now asserts that Kitchin took part in the consecration of
Parker, or of any other member of Elizabeth's hierarchy. Yet the rumour
had reached Sanders that he had done so. The well-known story of the
Nag's Head consecration, derived from the prisoners at Wisbech, has
two parts: (1) that Kitchin was about to consecrate, when deterred by
the threats of Bonner; (2) that Scory thereupon carried out some mock
consecration. Sanders' assertion in the text certainly lends some support
to the first half of the story." It may be worth notice that of the other
chief Roman Catholic historical writers (besides Lingard) Dodd seems
to believe Nag's Head, while his editor, Tierney,
(( owns that after
a careful perusal of all that has been written on the subject he is com-
pelled to adopt the opposite opinion."
216
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
difference if all had been right with them beyond cavil:
English Orders would not be allowed the more for that.
But what has been alleged against Parker's conse-
crators has led to dismal labours. It is lamentable
to see men of learning spend endless pains to prove
that Letters Patent of the Crown cannot easily be
forged, or that the Lambeth Registers were never tam-
pered with, merely because such things have seemed
credible to men whose principles have uprooted literary
and historic common sense from their minds. And
yet Mason, Courayer, Bramhall, Haddan, Bailey, and
others have sweated therein. It is lamentable to see
the monument of Barlow, the piles of his vindication
to be a bishop. For against Barlow, the chief officiant
in Parker's consecration, the most serious part of the
allegation is made: that he himself was no bishop,
having never been consecrated. This has been
gravely maintained, although when he consecrated
Parker, Barlow had been reputed a bishop for a
quarter of a century, and had sat on several sees.
he were not consecrated, it would make Henry the
Eighth, in whose time he came to occupy bishoprics,
as great a fool as Elizabeth would have been, if Parker
had not been consecrated. Henry's whole position
was that consecration within his realm entirely per-
formed by his spiritualty was as good as consecration
with the Papal confirmation.* To have let a man
If
* In the very year that Barlow attained episcopal rank, 1536, which
was the year of the Pilgrimage of Grace, this point, consecration, was
brought forward in the Doncaster Articles of the Pilgrims of Grace:
That "the power of the Supreme Head, touching cura animarum and
the consecrations of bishops, should be reserved to the See of Rome, as
before."―See Vol. I. p. 462 huj. op.; Froude, iii. 157; Gairdner's Lett. and
Pap. xi. 507. They required Henry to give up the claim that he could
have consecrations as valid without the Pope as with him. Is it not too
absurd to suppose that, while making this claim, he should have allowed
a man to take a bishopric without any consecration at all?
1559.]
Question of Barlow's Orders. 217
take a bishopric without being consecrated would have
given his case to his enemies, and made him the
ridicule of Europe. As it might be expected, the
touchstone of date is sufficient to dissolve this foolish
allegation. It was unknown to contemporaries: it is
a little later than Nag's Head; it is first found in
Champney, the second or third of the writers who
started Nag's Head.* Nevertheless it has been put
forward so persistently, and rebutted with such patient
toil, that it is but respectful to look a little at the
arguments about it. The reason, then, of this allega-
tion is that there is no record of Barlow's consecration
to be found along with the rest of the documents con-
cerning his appointment in Cranmer's Register. A
critic in the fine arts would not be heard who argued
that an antique statue had never had the limb that it
lacked when it was exhumed; or that it was not
a statue because it lacked a limb. But when with vast
labour the insignificancy of the objection against
Barlow has been shown: when it has been proved
that the same lack would be fatal to the claims of
many undoubted bishops of that age,† it is answered
* Champney's Treatise of the Vocation of Bishops and other Ecclesias-
tical Ministers, cap. xiv. : "That M. Parker, bearing some time the name
of Archbishop of Canterbury, was not true and lawful bishop. Barlow
was never consecrated bishop himself, as appeareth by that his consecra-
tion is nowhere registered, and therefore is he no more to be numbered
in the rank of Bishops, than they were in the number of priests, who
could not find themselves recorded in their lineage" (l. c. p. 191).
Champney's version of the Nag's Head fable is given on p. 194 of the
same work.
+ There are no records in existence of the consecrations of Rugg of
Norwich, Stokesley of London, White of Lincoln and Winchester, Gold-
well of St. Asaph, Griffith of Rochester, Pate of Worcester.-See R. Hart's
Apostolical Success. of the Engl. Clergy. Of Cranmer's Register in par-
ticular, besides Barlow, there are four other bishops whose consecrations
are not recorded in it, though their confirmations are; viz. Fox of Here-
ford, Sampson of Chichester, Skipp of Hereford, and Day of Chichester.
See Bp. J. Wordsworth's Trois Lettres sur la Position de l'Eglise Angli-
218
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
that it is not merely the loss of a single written
document, but that none of the other documents about
him in the Register make mention of his consecration.
When it is shown by comparison of other such docu-
ments that neither is it to be necessarily expected that
they should,* it is answered that it is not merely the
loss or the silence of documents, but that there are
other peculiarities about the documents concerning
Barlow that are suspicious: for that in one or two he
is called a bishop at a time when he was certainly not
consecrated, and he may have gone on being called
a bishop and not being consecrated to the end of his
life that in another of these documents there is an
odd expression about his removal from one of his
sees: and that, after he had consecrated Parker, he
was ordered in another to be consecrated himself,
a clear proof that he had not been consecrated before.
A Frenchman, whose historical judgment in other
fields has been acknowledged, lent himself to advanc-
cane, 2nd Let. Of these, Fox's consecration has been found at Hereford.
Some of the other omissions above given touch the Registers of Warham
and of Pole. [But see Bp. Stubbs' Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum,1897.]
* One of the modern Roman champions in this field, Mr. Breen, says:
"We have the usual documents about his nomination, viz. his election,
the Royal Assent, his confirmation, his certificate of confirmation, and
his grant of temporalities, all studiously omitting the usual references to
his consecration. On the other hand, all the usual documents relating
to his consecration are missing, viz. the usual significavit of consecration,
the certificate of consecration, and the register of consecration. It is hard
to believe that this is the result of mere accident."-Letter to The
Guardian, Dec. 19, 1894. Any one would suppose from this that there
were two sets of documents in bishops, the one about nomination and the
other about consecration: and that the number of customary documents
was eight in all. Whereas all the documents together were usually four,
or maybe five, of which two only were exclusively concerned with his
"nomination," or rather his election; the rest are concerned with his
nomination or election, and also, usually, but not quite invariably, with
his consecration. In Barlow's case it is no doubt true that no extant
document makes mention of consecration. I return to this point of the
documents.
1559.] Question of Barlow's Orders.
219
ing these inestimable arguments, which another
Frenchman confuted.* Then it is urged that Barlow's
opinion upon consecration was notoriously low: that
Cranmer was as lax as he was: that King Henry
matched them both: so that all three may have agreed
together to perpetrate a wicked deception.† In reply
* The Abbé Renaudot, whose scepticism in the affairs of Egypt is
applauded by Gibbon, brought forward these documentary objections, and
Courayer confuted them. But other writers on both sides have disputed
on them. I. Barlow is called "Bishop of St. David's," and so signs
himself in some documents, before he was consecrated, but not before
he was confirmed: and, by canon law and usage, an elect becomes by
confirmation "bishop and pastor," and receives the right to exercise juris-
diction. Barlow's case was somewhat complicated by his rapid translation.
He was elected Bishop of St. Asaph, Jan. 16, 1536, and confirmed by proxy
February 22, being in Scotland. He was translated to St. David's in
April, being elected on the 10th, confirmed 21st, temporalities restored
26th. He never sat on St. Asaph. Now in the writs concerning his
translation to St. David's he is called "Bishop of St. Asaph's." In the
writs concerning his successor at St. Asaph he is called "late Bishop-
elect of St. Asaph's." This difference seems to indicate official care, and
to show that the officials of the Church well knew that he was not then
consecrated. If they were thus careful, it is not very likely that they
would have allowed him to go on without subsequent consecration, even
if he had wished to perpetrate such an infamous fraud. I do not see
what more can be made of these papers. See them in Bailey; and look
at a remark or two in Brightman's Objections to Engl. Orders. 2. Queen
Mary in her writ to confirm Barlow's successor in Bath used the unusual
word amotio of Barlow: "per deprivationem et amotionem ultimi epi-
scopi." Such a word would not have been used of a consecrated bishop!
I suppose that it was because he was consecrated that remotio, not amotio,
was used of White of Winchester by Elizabeth in a similar writ: "per
legitimam inde remotionem Johannis White" (Rymer, xv. 552): but that
again is an unusual word, and perhaps has a mystery behind it.
Renaudot cites from Rymer (xv. 550) the commission issued to Parker
to confirm Barlow to Chichester, containing the words: "Et eundem Magi-
strum Will. Barlow episcopum et pastorem Ecclesiæ prædictæ consecrare.
If these words had been therein, it would have been because some clerk
copied the ordinary form of these commissions, forgetting that Barlow
was a bishop already. But no such clause is in the originals, either in the
Rolls or in Parker's Register. Courayer got an attested copy without it.
It was Rymer who made the mistake. He had copied several such instru-
ments, and overlooked the proper omission made in the original in Barlow's
He did the same thing with regard to Scory.—Ib.
case.
3.
+ So far from conspiring with them, if Barlow and Cranmer had
220
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
to such a notion it may be sufficient to remind the
reader that this question of consecration in the appoint-
ment of bishops was specifically in debate between
Rome and England at the time. In Romanensian
writers the strong assertion may be found, that con-
secration made not a bishop, but the sanction of Rome:
but no one supposes thereupon that an unconsecrated
man would ever be declared a bishop by the Pope.
It was only the vigorous statement of the popish
theory. In the same way, when we read in the annals
of Henry the Eighth such expressions as that the
King's appointment made a bishop, it is not to be
inferred that an unconsecrated man would ever have
been appointed by the King. It was only the vigorous
statement of the opposite theory. As to Barlow him-
self, the two theories were in violent collision in the
year of his consecration, 1536. If he used the expres-
sion once or twice that the King's appointment was
sufficient to make a bishop, he expressed the opinion
once that consecration was necessary with the King's
appointment. But it is urged further that Barlow
*
behaved as these Roman champions pretend, in order "to give Henry
a flattering testimonial to his theology," as one of them has it, Henry
would have clapped them both under a præmunire. One of these unfor-
tunate champions, to prove that consecration was not esteemed by the
Tudors, triumphantly brings out that in Elizabeth's first Parliament there
was a bill “to authorise the Queen to institute bishops without rites and
ceremonies," referring to D'Ewes. Now D'Ewes has certainly "The
Bill for collating of bishops by the Queen's highness, and without rites
and ceremonies" (p. 52), an imperfect expression which might have led
any ordinary person to think something to be wrong, and search further.
D'Ewes had misread the Commons' Journal, i. p. 58, which has “and with
what rites and ceremonies." These inanities are pursued pretty closely
by Mr. Denny in his Anglican Orders, p. 69.
* Henry once asked his bishops, "How can you prove that Ordering
is only committed to you bishops?" I do not know that he ever went
further than that. In the same paper that contains this question of the
King's is found, from Cranmer and Barlow jointly, the explicit declaration
that "Only appointment is not sufficient, but consecration, that is to say,
1559.]
Question of Barlow's Orders.
221
himself said that he was not consecrated: and that it
is difficult to see on what day of his life Barlow could
imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer, is also required: For so the
apostles used to order them that were appointed, and so have been used
continually: And we have not read the contrary."-Burnet, Collect., Pt. iii.
Bk. iii. No. 71 (Pocock, vi. 247): cf. Vol. II. p. 303 seq. of this work.
This (which seems to have been overlooked) is to be set against the
answer which (on the same occasion) to the question " Whether in the
New Testament be required any consecration of a bishop, or only
appointing to the office be sufficient?" Barlow is reported to have made,
"The bishop of St. David saith, that only the appointing."-Burnet, Coll.,
Pt. i. Bk. iii. No. 21 (Pocock, iv. 480). There he only answered half the
question. There
There is another saying of his that is brought against him,
which I notice further on in a note. As to his opinions I may further
remark that the writers on both sides in this controversy have forgotten
Barlow's book against the Lutherans, which proves him to have held
higher opinions than he is credited with. I notice it more for the sake of
illustrating the period than of adding to the controversy. Barlow then,
in 1531, whilst he was still an Augustinian canon regular, wrote a book
against the Lutherans. As he had previously written some furious
diatribes against the Mass, the Friars, and St. Thomas of Canterbury,
this was surprising: but the book was highly commended by Bishop
Stokesley; the more that in it Barlow explicitly and penitently retracted
his former opinions. Now this book was reprinted in the beginning of
Mary's reign, in 1553, after Barlow's resignation of Bath, with this title,
"A Dialogue describing the original ground of these Lutheran factions,
and many of their abuses. Compiled by Sir William Barlow, chanon,
late Bishop of Bath, Anno 1553." His right to the title of bishop might
be expected to have been denied here, if it had ever been suspected.
The reprint has a violent new preface, apparently not by Barlow, which
says that it was written long ago, but being out of print is republished for
the use of Catholics, and that the author had been long among the
Lutherans, "whose doings and doctrine so much misliked him that for no
hatred to them, nor yet favour to others, but even for the discharge of his
own conscience he thought it necessary plainly to shew the verity
thereof." Then follows: "The Preface of the Author to the Readers,"
containing the same declaration in the same words. The dialogue is
between Nicolas and William, the one a gospeller, the other a returned
traveller, once a gospeller. The latter relates of himself, "After that I
had seen Martin Luther, Pomerane, Melanchthon, and heard their
preachings, perceiving their order there in Saxony, I went into High
Almayne unto the Ecolampadians, and remaining there amongst them
was oftentimes conversant with Anabaptists. In the mean space I saw
many wonderful alterations, in destroying of monasteries, plucking down
of churches, casting out of images, breaking of altars, and carrying of the
consecrate stones to the building of their bulwarks: also marriage of
222
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
have been consecrated, so much was he away in Scot-
land or elsewhere. When it is answered that Barlow
priests, monks, friars, nuns; contempt of holy days, annulling of vigils,
fasting of the Lent, and embring days clean reject; with other laudable
ordinances institute by the Church. All places of Scripture where
mention is made of Antichrist, false prophets, makers of lies, and any
other they applied unto the clergy, naming themselves Christian Brethren,
disciples of Christ, and Apostles of His Gospel. In denying Purgatory
and authority of the pope, if they found in ancient authors so much as a
corrupt title of an Epistle sounding anything to their purpose, altho
the Epistle itself made whole against it, yet would they take it as the
word of God and sure revelation of the Spirit. Contrary wise, if any
alleged Austin, Jerome, Cyprian, or Chrysostom, they would admit their
sentences for none authority, saying they were men, and all men were
liars. In like manner as concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, where
they read in doctors of the spiritual eating and ghostly being, they only
accepted that; and under the colour thereof they would exclude the
corporal eating and bodily Presence of Christ, to the establishing of their
blasphemous errors, which they shadowed under the cover of hypocrisy
and persuasions of perverted Scripture. In such wise that openly seeing
I could not perceive thus, until it pleased God of His inestimable goodness
to bring me out of the land of darkness and region of death into the
clearness of His knowledge and living light of truth, I cannot excuse me
but that among the wicked I endeavoured myself to have done evil: but
God so mercifully prevented me that it came to small effect in doing any
harm. If I have been occasion of any man's fall or cause of slander, I
am sorry for it, and ask forgiveness. Notwithstanding I never defended
my opinion obstinately, neither despised the admonition of any virtuous
person: that I have erred was through ignorance and of no malicious
pertinacity. Where ye be in perplexity of credence giving unto my
words, I am sure that if I spoke according to your appetite, ye would put
no diffidence in me whether I said the verity or lied: for it is a plain case
among the favourers of these new sects that they will refuse no forged
tales making aught for their side, be they never so false. And seeing ye
believed me in error, ye ought not to mistrust me now in my faithful
revocation voluntary and not coacted." Further on he describes the
dubious behaviour of those who forced themselves on the notice of
authorities in religion. "I marvel what conscience those persons have
who are so importune to be examined in presence of rude seculars and
ignorant people, when they answer so doubtfully that the best learned
cannot well construe their meaning. And in principal Articles, whereupon
dependeth our salvation or damnation, some answer so nakedly in blind
shifts, that they be able to bring unlearned people into error of things
whereof they never doubted before, using ever overthwart speech and
quailing sentence of double understanding, with protestations of hypocrisy
after this fashion: 'In good faith I think there is a Purgatory, albeit I
1559.]
Question of Barlow's Orders.
223
himself said that he was consecrated, not that he was
not consecrated,* and that Barlow's life gives times at
which he may have been consecrated:† then the con-
troversy is carried into other regions.
cannot tell whether I may believe it or no.' 'I suppose that confession
made to a priest, and pilgrimages may be well done, but I find them not
in Scripture.' 'I believe in these words of Christ, This is My Body, but
as concerning the Bodily Presence in form of bread to say anything is
above my capacity, I dare not meddle with so diffuse matters.' 'I reckon
that I may believe the doctors of the Church, if they speak not against
the word of God,' &c. To use such ambages in weighty causes, and to
put in question afresh the cases defined by general councils, as tho
we were uncertain of our belief, and new to begin again, I repute it no
spirit of truth. . . . When these sly shifts fail them, they shew no
constancy of their unfaithful doctrine, but falsely forswear themselves and
say they never said so, the whole audience detesting their perjury, all but
their own sect." Since I wrote this note Barlow's book has been brought
into notice in several letters in Church papers by my friend Mr. Lunn.
Barlow, it is right to add, reverted to his Lutheran opinions, to some
extent at least, in his exile: and came back to England armed with
commendations from some of the Lutheran princes and divines. See
further on.
* Barlow said in a sermon of the year 1536: "If the King's grace, being
Supreme Head of the Church of England, did choose, denominate and
elect any layman being learned to be a bishop; that he, so chosen, without
mention made of any orders, should be as good bishop as he is, or the
best in England." Articles against Barlow at St. David's.-Strype's
Eccles. Mem., i. pt. 2, 273. That is, that the King's nominated man, without
any Orders, would be as good a bishop as he was, who had Orders. This
sentence, in which Barlow claims to be an ordered bishop, has, astonish-
ing to relate, been misunderstood by Roman Catholics, who have cited it
as if he had denied in it that he was an ordered, that is a consecrated
bishop.
+ The day of Barlow's consecration is not certain. A learned and
candid writer, Mr. Lunn, maintains that it was February 26, March 5,
March 12, or March 19, 1536, and that he was consecrated to his first
see, St. Asaph.-Letter to The Guardian, Dec. 19, 1894. The more
received and probable day was later, June 11, which is assigned by
Haddan, Preface to Bramhall, vol. iii., and Apos. Succession in Engl.
But against this, two Roman Catholics, Estcourt and Hutton, have brought
a document of the next day, June 12, in which Barlow is called Bishop-
elect of St. David's. Several arguments are brought by the Anglican
writers to take off the force of this, see Denny, 186. These arguments
seem to me sufficient to have settled an uncontested matter: but in con-
tested matter we must go strictly by what we have. If then Barlow was
224
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
But before quitting this part of the narrative of this
strange controversy, I venture to add a stone to the
monumental pile of Barlow, and offer the following
consideration as a kind of explanation, or it may be
éclaircissement, of the vexed question of the missing
register of his consecration. It is around this point
that the strife has gathered, the one party holding it to
have never existed or to have had reason of existence,
the other that it was omitted by accident or negligence.
If we turn to the great statute of Henry the Eighth,
the recently enacted statute under which Barlow was
promoted to his first and second sees, we find the
whole process of the appointment of bishops prescribed
with clearness, and the documents enumerated that
were required to be exhibited. They were four. The
first was the license to elect, with letters missive to the
elective body: the election to be within twelve days.
The second was the certificate that the election had
been made which was to be sent to the King under
the common seal of the elective body within twenty
days after receiving the license to elect. Upon this
the person elected was to be reputed "by name of lord
elect," and was to make his oath of fealty. The third
was the King's signification or Royal Assent, Letters
Patent under the great seal, signifying to the arch-
bishop the election, and requiring him "to confirm the
said election, and to invest and consecrate the said
person," within twenty days after reception of the
Letters Patent. The fourth was the Restitutio tem-
poralium, or “restitution out of the King's hands of all
the possessions and profits, spiritual and temporal,
still only elect on June 12, he must have been consecrated on some day
between June 12 and June 30: for on the latter day he took his seat in
the House of Lords. Well, there were two Sundays and two Feasts on
which he may have been consecrated. [See Stubbs' Registrum Sacrum
Anglicanum, p. 100.]
1559.]
Position of the Co-Consecrators.
225
belonging to the bishopric." The newly confirmed
and consecrated bishop was to sue for this, thus taking
action for the first time himself in the process. The
penalty for not electing, confirming, investing, and
consecrating according to these directions was præ-
munire.* It will be observed that a certificate of the
consecration was not among the documents required.
Perhaps such a certificate was regarded as optional
or superfluous.
To pursue the history of the controversy. It is
exclaimed against the rest of the consecrating bishops,
or co-operators, Scory, Coverdale, Hodgkins; that, if
their head Barlow was no bishop, their co-operation
availed nothing, even if they were bishops: and when
it is answered that rather, if there were such defect in
Barlow, it was supplied by them, it is further exclaimed
that, on the contrary, co-operators are not agents but
only witnesses in consecrations, to observe and attest
that the consecrator does the work rightly which it is
his alone to do. When the opposite opinion is adduced
out of the writings of most reputable ritualists,† another
25 H. VIII. c. 20 (1533).
+ There is diversity of opinion among Roman Catholics on this point.
The tendency to exalt the Pope and lower episcopacy has led to the theory
that one bishop is enough, if he have the Pope's commission, without any
other bishops, although many of the canons of councils require three at
least. This theory has led to the further theory that if there be three at
least, yet only one does the work, and the rest are for show, and hence
they are called "assistentes" in the Roman Pontificale. It is even said
that the Pope might issue a commission for priests to take the place of
assistant bishops at an episcopal consecration.-Dens, Theol. On the
other hand, Hallier says: "Quod in Pontificali Romano unus solum dicatur
consecrator, reliqui vocentur adsistentes, non convincit unicum esse
duntaxat necessarium ministrum qui solus consecrationem peragat: cum
enim librum Evangeliorum omnes super caput ordinandi teneant, omnes
manus imponant, omnes verba consecratoria proferant, omnes quoque
consecratores vere dici possunt, cum in iis solum consecratio substan-
tialiter consistat." As to the word co-operator he argues that it is properly
used, because all contribute to the one operation that is performed.-De
VOL. V.
Q
226
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
issue is raised. It is remarked to have been something
suspicious that not only Barlow but all the consecrators
spoke the words of consecration, whereas the English
Ordinal, according to which it is claimed that Parker
was consecrated, bids the archbishop alone to say the
words. When it is explained that these four prelates
had not an archbishop among them, and all said the
words because they were all alike bishops; and when
it is added that in this they did but follow the Roman
Pontifical, and should not be blamed by Romans:
then it is replied that whether the English Ordinal
were observed in all points or not is of no importance,
because the English Ordinal, which was followed
Sacr.elect.et adiu. ii. 5.2. Martène says, " An vero omnes qui adsunt episcopi
cooperatores sint an testes tantum consecrationis inquiri posset. Verum
non tantum testes sed etiam cooperatores esse citra omnem dubitationis
aleam asserendum est."-De Antiq. Eccles. Ritib., 1. 8, art. 10, § 16. In
the present day the learned canonist Gasparri, pointing out the difference
of rite between the Eastern Church and the Latin Church, that in the
former the assistant bishops are “meri assistentes,” since they only
impose hands without pronouncing the formula of consecration, but in the
latter they both lay hands and pronounce the formula, concludes: "Episcopi
assistentes sunt probabiliter Comministri cum episcopo consecratore.
Sane una simul cum eodem ipsi manus imponunt super caput electi, et
una simul pronuntiant verba Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quibus solis juxta
receptam sententiam episcopalis consecratio valet: unde non est ratio
qua unus magis minister sit consecrationis episcopalis quam ceteri duo,
sed conjunctim omnes sunt unica causa, seu unicus totalis minister
consecrationis."-Tractatus Canonicus De Sacra Ordinat., No. 1088.
He further says that if the laying on of hands were omitted by the
consecrating bishop, an episcopal consecration ought not to be repeated:
evidently holding that, failing the chief, the assistant bishops validly
consecrate.-No. 1112. Thus are opinions divided. However, the
adversaries of England fall back on the authority of Azor, Faganus,
Steyaert, or Fillineius: and when they are demanded why then do the
canons of councils require three bishops at least, they smilingly reply that
the requirement has respect to the legality, not the validity, of consecra-
tions. "Ad canones autem qui plures episcopos exigunt respondent illos
tantum agere de licita non de valida ordinatione."— Dens, Theol. De
Ordine, No. 15, vii. 70, ed. 1832. It is for the sake of legality, then, that
their assistant bishops pronounce the most solemn form of words that can
be uttered by man!
1
1559.]
The English Ordinal.
227
mainly, was essentially defective in matter and form.*
When it is asked in what the defects consisted, it is
answered that, as to the matter, there is not in the
ordination of priests in the English Ordinal any tradi-
tion or porrection of instruments: that porrection of
instruments is the matter of Order, and the words
accompanying porrection are the form: and that the
lack of this rule nullifies all ordinations of priests made
according to the English Ordinal: and so also of
bishops. When it is answered that the same lack
nullifies all the ordinations of the Latin Church for
a thousand years and more from the age of the
* The matter and form of the Sacrament of Order was thus defined by
Pope Eugenius IV. for the instruction of the Armenians at the Council of
Florence: "Sextum Sacramentum est Ordinis, cujus materia est illud
per cujus traditionem confertur Ordo: sicut Presbyteratus traditur per
calicis cum vino et patenæ cum pane traditionem: Diaconatus vero per
libri Evangeliorum dationem: Subdiaconatus vero per calicis vacui cum
patena vacua superimposita traditionem: et similiter de aliis per rerum ad
ministeria sua pertinentium assignationem. Forma Sacerdotii talis est:
Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis et pro mortuis,
in Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti: et sic de aliorum Ordinum
formis, prout in Pontificali Romano late continetur.”—Harduin, ix. 440. By
this decree the Pope Eugenius has been said to have disgraced his infalli-
bility; but though the apparent ignorance displayed by him is astounding
to any historical student, yet it may perhaps be pleaded in mitigation that
he was merely describing for the guidance of the Easterns the rite of the
Roman Pontifical as it had come to be in his day, and so was led to
define as the matter of order a piece of ritual (the tradition of instruments)
which was first introduced in the tenth century, and as the form a sentence
(Accipe, &c.) which cannot be traced beyond the thirteenth. It is curious,
however, that the modern deniers of the validity of English Orders appear
to hold themselves bound by the definition of Pope Eugenius, and that
this is the last ditch in which the most candid of them die. For instance,
the learned Frenchman Portal, who writes under the name of Dalbus,
after giving up Nag's Head, and unconsecrated Barlow, and all such
allegations, pronounces against the validity of English Orders because in
priests there is no tradition of instruments.-La Science Catholique, Jan.
1894. I suppose that tradition of instruments got into the hierarchic
Orders from the lower Orders, in which it is the only matter; and, if so,
that in the Roman rite the matter of the lower Orders (subdiaconate, &c.)
has actually displaced the matter of the higher.
Q 2
228
[Parker's Consecration. [.
CHCH. XXXIII.
Apostles, that the Church of old knew of no other
matter and form of ordaining than imposition of hands
and prayer; it is answered, No: the Pope in the fifteenth
century altered the matter and form from imposition
of hands and prayer to porrection of instruments and
accompanying words, but he still retained imposition of
hands and prayer in full integrity, so that he cannot
have meant to deny their sufficiency.* When it is
replied that, if it be admitted that imposition of hands
with prayer suffices, the English Ordinal, having that
matter and form, cannot be called defective, it is
retorted that, as the Pope saw fit to declare the matter
and form to be porrection and the words appropriate
thereto, the English ought to have followed him in
their modern Ordinal (as they did in their old Latin
Ordinal), and that, because they have not followed
him, they are heretics. When it is asked what sort of
a guardian of the Faith was the Pontiff who displaced
the ancient matter of Order in the hierarchic degrees
for a ceremony which was the only matter in the lower
degrees, and who substituted for the prayer as the
form a formula which was not above a hundred years
older than his own time; it is answered that the con-
duct of the Pontiff was subsequently covered by the
Council of Trent, which decreed that the Church had
power to alter the circumstantials of Sacraments,
which belong to their administration, so long as their
substance is preserved.† When it is enquired whether
* This is the argument mentioned by Benedict XIV. "Si Ecclesia ab
ordinationis ritu ea ablegasset, quæ antiquitus fiebant, cogerentur utique
affirmare ordinationis materiam et formam fuisse Ecclesiæ auctoritate
mutatas, novasque antiquis subrogatas: Sed cum omnia quæ habentur
in antiquis ritualibus perseverent intacta, ac sancte et integre etiam nunc
peragantur, nemo facile credet illa eadem, quæ jampridem satis erant,
nunc ad ordinis sacramentum perficiendum amplius non sufficere.”—De
Synodo, viii. 10. 10, given in Dens, viii. 449, ed. 1832.
+ 66
Præterea declarat Synodus, hanc potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia
1559.]
The English Ordinal.
229
the matter and forms be not of the substance, the
ground is shifted somewhat. It is affirmed that the
English rejection of the matter and form assigned by
the Roman Pontifical in ordering priests is nothing of
chance, nothing of secondary moment, but a deep and
deliberate heresy: that the instruments which the
English refuse to deliver are the paten and the chalice,
and the words which they refuse to speak are, “ Accipe
potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, Missasque cele-
brare tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis": that this
marks an absolute denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass
and of the Sacrificial priesthood: that it was to give
this denial of the great essential doctrine of the Roman
Church that the English excluded the pontifical matter
and form in priests from their Book of Order. To
this the grave answer must be that it is true: the
Church of England in her Ordinal silently denies the
propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, and in denying
the Sacrifice itself, denies that it can be offered by
man, or that priests in ordination obtain the ministry
of offering in a different mode that Sacrifice which was
offered upon the Cross. The doctrine which the
Church of England silently denies by omission in her
Ordinal, she also denies explicitly in an Article, of
which the language plainly points to the rite of the
Roman Pontifical, the matter and form, which she has
rejected.* But this is far from heresy: far from deny-
fuisse, ut in sacramentorum dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, ea
statueret vel mutaret, quæ suscipientium utilitati, seu ipsorum Sacra-
mentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum et locorum varietate, magis
expedire judicaret.”—Sess. xxi. c. ii. (1562). It was argued on this:
"Mutatio materiæ et formæ non ad ritum et dispensationem sed ad
substantiam pertinet."-Bened. XIV., De Synodo, lib. viii. c. 10. 10 (given
in Dens, tom. viii. 448, ed. 1832).
* The well-known declaration in the Thirty-nine Articles: "Missarum
Sacrificia, quibus, vulgo dicebatur, Sacerdotem offerre Christum in remis-
sionem pœnæ aut culpæ, pro vivis et defunctis, blasphema figmenta sunt,
t
230
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
ing the Real Presence, the mystery of the Eucharist,
and the reality of priesthood, of which the whole duty
is not comprehended in the Roman form, but one
function only, while in the English form the whole is
comprehended to be "a faithful dispenser of the word
of God and of His holy Sacraments.”
On the English part it is further to be observed
that after all it is by no means agreed among Roman
Catholics that porrection and the works accompanying
are the matter and form of Order. The Council of
Trent never said so.* Many of their best theologians
look askance on the decree of Pope Eugenius, and
maintain that the matter and form of Order are prayer
and imposition of hands. It is not Christian or honest
et perniciosæ impostura" (Art. xxxi.), seems to me, though I have never
seen it affirmed by any writer, levelled at the Roman Pontifical, and so
at the whole doctrine which is therein implied, not merely at certain
indefinite abuses or accretions, as it is often explained. I cannot see that
any distinction is indicated by the plural, Missarum Sacrificia, from
Sacrificium Missæ, but think that the plural arose out of the plural
Missas in the form of the Pontifical. It is curious, I may add, that the
phrase "tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis" is not used in the Pontifical,
only in the ordering of priests concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass: it
is used also in the ordering of deacons in the porrection of the Gospel:
Accipe potestatem legendi Evangelium in Ecclesia Dei, tam pro vivis
quam pro defunctis": and in subdeacons in the porrection of the Epistles:
"Accipite librum Epistolarum, et habete potestatem legendi eas in
Ecclesia sancta Dei, tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis." The word that
Bishop Bedell applies to this is, "ridiculous."
66
* Hallier indeed asserts that the Council of Trent has intimated in
two passages that imposition of hands is the essential matter where it
anathematises those who say "frustra Episcopos dicere Accipe Spiritum
Sanctum" (Sess. xxiii. c. 4, 1563), which words accompany imposition
later in the service than porrection and Accipe potestatem: and where,
on Extreme Unction, it has, "aut Episcopi aut Sacerdotes ab ipsis rite
ordinati per impositionem manuum Presbyterii” (Ib. xiv. c. 3, 1551).
-Hallier, Pt. ii. § 2, cap. ii. art. I. II.
+ Hallier mentions among the maintainers of porrection Sotus and
Sylvester: others held imposition of hands as well as porrection: as Peter
Soto, Ledesma, Bellarmine, Henriquez, Scotus, also "nonnullos ex anti-
quioribus theologis.”—Pt. ii. § 2, cap. ii. art. 1. 10. He seems himself to have
1559.]
Question of Matter and Form.
231
to allege against adversaries what is not certainly
agreed among themselves. Hereupon we leave priests
and return to bishops. There are some among the
Roman Catholic theologians who, seeming not to limit
the form of Order to the clause "Accipe Spiritum
Sanctum," but to extend it to the prayer that goes
before the clause in the English version, bring another
objection against the English Ordinal, that the prayer
that goes before the clause there makes no explicit
mention of the office of a bishop which the form
should do that it is therefore not part of the form:
that if there is any other part of the service that is
part of the form, it is too far off from the part of the
form which is inseparable from the matter to be
indeed part of the form: that form and matter should
go together. To which it may be answered that the
English are not particularly bound to the distinction
of form and matter, and to the maxims that may
be proper thereto : but they cannot observe much
coherence in the Roman Pontifical: that it is doubtful
whether matter and form go together in the Roman
Pontifical that there are in it, in priests, two or three
layings on of hands: first a silent imposition then
a continued extension of hands over the heads of the
thought that imposition of hands was the matter "saltem partialem."
Peter Dens says that it is doubtful what the matter is in Order. "De
materia hujus Sacramenti dubietas intercedit (de sacerdotio, episcopatu
et diaconatu res est) num in instrumentorum traditione, num vero in
impositione manuum, num tandem in utraque simul consistat.”—Theol.
viii. p. 153, ed. 1832. In modern times Estcourt says that "imposition of
hands and prayer are essential in ordination, and the only essentials, that
is in theory," and that this is the general opinion among Catholic theo-
logians.—p. 171. Mr. Rivington says that the matter of Order is imposition
of hands.-Guardian, Dec. 13, 1893. M. Boudinhon denies that the
nullity of English Orders can be established from the defect of porrection
of instruments in presbyteral ordination.-Étude Théologique sur les
Ordinations Anglicanes.
232
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
ordinands with prayer: as to which their ritualists are
divided whether it is to be reckoned a second imposi-
tion or the first continued:* then porrection of instru-
ments, then a third imposition: so that the rite is an
undigested mass of aggregation, leaving their own
theologians in doubt as to the exact point at which
Order is conferred. When they are further demanded
how it is that while they deny the validity of the English
rite because it has for matter not porrection, but
imposition of hands, they allow the Eastern rite,
which has imposition of hands for matter, not por-
rection: they reply that it is because the English
once had the matter and form of the Pontifical, but
* "Pontifex, nulla oratione nulloque cantu præmissis, imponit simul
utramque manum super caput cujuslibet ordinandi successive, nihil dicens:
Idemque faciunt post eum omnes Sacerdotes qui adsunt. Quo facto, tam
Pontifex quam Sacerdotes tenent manus dexteras extensas super illos:
et Pontifex dicit, Oremus, ut Deus super hos celestia dona multiplicet,
&c." Pope Benedict XIV. observes on this rubric that some held that
there were two impositions: and that the Sacrament was perfected in the
second, which had the prayer for the gifts of grace: but that Martène held,
not without reason, that the second was a continuation of the first.-De
Synodo, viii. 10. 4. After this, a long way on in the service, came the
porrection in which, by the prevalent opinion, the Sacrament was
perfected and then, again a long way on, after the Communion, came
another imposition, with "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" repeated: "Pontifex
imponit ambas manus super capita singulorum coram eo genuflectentium,
dicens cuilibet, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata,
remittuntur ei; et quorum retinueris, retenta sunt." Among their writers
there are two chief opinions: that porrection with the words accompanying
are the only matter and form: and that not only porrection but imposition
with words accompanying are also the matter and form: and some of
their greatest names are among the latter. But again these latter are
divided: some holding that the second imposition completes the Sacra-
ment: others that both the first and second are "accidentalia,” and it is
the third that is "essentialis": and among these is Hallier (Pt. ii. cap. ii.
art. 1 and 2) and Bellarmine himself, De Sacrament. Ordin., lib. unic.
cap. ix. who goes so far as to say that different graces are acquired in
different parts of the rite, and even that a man might be partly ordained
at one time and finished at another. How can this be reconciled with the
fact that the ordinandi are called ordinati immediately after porrection,
long before the final imposition of hands?
:
1559.]
Question of Intention.
233
have wilfully departed from it, whereas the Eastern
Church from the beginning has had no other matter
and form but imposition of hands and prayer. When
they are reminded that they themselves in the begin-
ning had no other matter and form than the Eastern
Church has, and that the English are but returning
to the rite which they left and the East retained: they
reply that they have the sanction of the decree of
a Pope: and that long before Eugenius the schoolmen
had determined that the matter and form of Order
were porrection and the accompanying words.* They
add that if the English rite, matter, and form were
in themselves wholly sufficient, and such as the
Church might have ordained, yet if the Church has
not ordained them, they are null. They mean their
own Church. Thus they reveal again the position
which renders contention nugatory.
The controversy now passes into another region,
which has the name of Intention: and so it returns
to Barlow and the other officiants of Parker's con-
secration. Intention is a scholastic subtlety, which
Rome adopted, and by a decree of the Council of
Trent bound upon her own communion. To apply
* “Antiquiores scholastici, quos Sotus plerique alii Thomistæ sectantur,
aliam non agnoverunt ordinationis materiam, quam porrectionem instru-
mentorum, neque aliam formam, quam verba huic porrectioni adjuncta.”-
Bened. XIV., De Synodo, lib. viii. 2; Dens, u. s. 442.
+ This opinion is frankly affirmed by Boudinhon in his Étude
Théologique.
It was Eugenius IV. who adopted the doctrine of intention, and
applied the definition, "of doing what the Church does." He laid it
down that Sacraments required three things; Matter, Form, and Person
with Intention, "Hæc omnia tribus perficiuntur: viz. rebus, tanquam
Materia; verbis, tanquam Forma; Persona Ministri conferentis Sacra-
mentum cum Intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia: quorum si aliquid
desit, non perficitur Sacramentum."-Concil. Florent. ap. Harduin., tom.
ix. 438. The Council of Trent enforced this in 1547: "Si quis dixerit,
in ministris, dum Sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, non requiri inten-
234
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
it to other communions is part of the same sublime
begging of the question that makes the whole contro-
versy impertinent. However, it is demanded whether
Parker's consecrators had the intention of doing what
the Church does in consecration, when they went through
tionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema sit."-De Sacram.
in genere, Canon xi. Sessio septima. The doctrine is from St. Thomas
Aquinas (Quæst. 64, art. 8 and 10) and is wonderfully elaborated. Intention
is (1) Ex parte subjecti, seu ministri, in whom it is (a) actual, (b) virtual,
(c) habitual, (ɗ) interpretative. Of these actual is the best; but habitual
is sufficient (according to St. Thomas; others mean by virtual what he
means by habitual); which arises when a minister intends to do what
the Church does, but his thoughts wander in the act. (2) Ex parte objecti,
the minister's intention as it regards the Sacrament: this also is fourfold:
external, to do an outward ceremony without any intention of doing what
the Church does : internal, an intention of doing what the Church does,
whatever the minister's opinion about the Church may be: Roman, to do
what the Church of Rome does: to intend to confer the effects of the
Sacrament. (This last is again divided into four parts, but need not be
pursued.) Of these the only one that is necessary is the second. I have
taken this account of St. Thomas' teaching from Dens, Theol. v. 127 seq.
It may be added that Intention has been continually discussed from the
time of its admission into the doctrines of the Roman Church; some
theologians holding strict, others very lax views about it. At Trent
a Dominican, Catharinus, maintained that if a minister ministered a
Sacrament externally, saying within himself that he intended not to do
what the Church did, but not betraying his perversity, the Sacrament was
perfect: Pallavicino, Bellarmine, and others considered that he was not
heretical in which judgment Vasquez and several later writers concur.
The opinion was thought to have been hit hard by Pope Alexander VIII.,
1690, who condemned the proposition that if baptism were performed with
wrong external rite by a minister who said in his heart, "I do not intend to
do what the Church does," it held good: and the followers of Catharinus
set themselves to show that his opinion was not nailed by the Pope's
weapon.-See Bellarmine, Controvers., tom. iii. 134 (1601); Bened. XIV.,
De Synodo, lib. vii. cap. iv., ap. Dens, tom. viii. 311. In our days perhaps
Catharinism prevails among Roman Catholics as to this doctrine. Addis
and Arnold, Dict. of Catholic Doctrine, 1893, p. 811, assert and support
by authorities that it is enough for validity if the minister perform the
outward rite in a serious manner, even if internally he withhold his
intention: i.e. if of pure malice or impiety he say to himself, "I do not
mean to act as the minister of the Church; I do not intend to baptise,
consecrate, or the like, but merely to delude the people." This book has
the sanction of Cardinal Vaughan.
:
1559.]
Question of Intention.
235
Because the
the ceremony of consecrating Parker.
error of Lutherans and Calvinists, such as they are
said to have been, is said to be, as to the efficacy of
Sacraments, that, as they are but signs by which justify-
ing faith is awakened, it is enough for the acts to be
done and the words to be spoken, be the intention of
the minister what it may. Whereas to the validity
of a Sacrament is required the intention of doing what
the Church does. The impugners of English Orders
say smartly that they could not have had the intention
of doing what the Church does, because what the
Church does they did not; since they used a rite
designedly different in matter and form from the rite
prescribed by the Church. But they mean their own
Church. It is therefore of little avail in expounding
their doctrine of Intention for them to adopt a large
and generous manner, and say that it needs not to
speak explicitly of the Church of Rome, so that what
the Church would do be intended to be done; that
it suffices to intend simply and generally to do what
the Church does, whatever opinion be held of the
Church. When these concessions seem to go too far,
as they do when a great controversialist said that it
mattered not whether it were the Church of Rome
or of Geneva, so that what the Church did were
intended to be done, an active recoil is made and
peace vanishes.* When they approach too near the
* "You will ask," says Bellarmine, "what if one intend to do what
some particular church does, a false church which he thinks to be the true
one, a church of the Genevan sort: and intend not to do what the Church
of Rome does? I answer that even that is sufficient." "Nam qui intendit
facere quod facit Ecclesia Genevensis, intendit facere quod facit Ecclesia
universalis. Idem enim ille intendit facere quod facit talis Ecclesia, quia
putat illam esse membrum Ecclesiæ veræ universalis, licet fallatur in
cognitione veræ Ecclesiæ. Non autem tollit efficaciam Sacramenti error
ministri circa Ecclesiam, sed defectus intentionis.”—Controv. De Sacr. in
genere, cap. xxvii. p. 123. It works round in this way: the erring minister
236
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
solid ground of history, as when, the case of heretical
baptism being adduced, it is asked why, if by consent
of antiquity heretics administered the Sacrament of
baptism validly, may not heretics (if for the sake
of arguing the English admit an inappropriate desig-
nation) validly administer the Sacrament of Order;
then it is answered that the English so lightly regard
Order as not to hold it a Sacrament, and are little
likely to intend therein to do what the Church does.
When it is demanded what it may be that the Church
does in Order, it is answered that what the Church
does is what Christ instituted: that in the case of
Sacraments the two expressions are equivalent, because
all the Sacraments were instituted by Christ: and
that this is the doctrine of the Church. To this, when
it is returned that, so far is this from being the doctrine
of the Church universal, it has been the doctrine of the
Roman Church itself only from the time of the Council
of Trent; and that the Church of England, in denying
(6
*
wishes to do what the true Church Catholic does, only he mistakes in
thinking an erroneous church, to which he belongs, to be part of the
Catholic Church: now there is only one true Catholic Church, that is the
Roman: so the erring minister wishes to do what the Roman Church
does: only he knows not that his own intention is what it is. This
doctrine of Intention makes a good weapon against an enemy: but among
themselves the Roman Catholics are Catharinists, and the doctrine as
good as non-existent. Bellarmine calls Luther's opinion about Intention
a new heresy” ("nova heresis nostro tempore exorta"), because Luther
said (in his famous Captivit. Babylonic.) of baptism, "Non dubitem, si
quis in nomine Domini suscipiat, etiam si impius minister non det in
nomine Domini, vere baptizatum esse in nomine Domini: Non enim
in conferentis tantum, quantum in suscipientis fide vel usu sita est virtus
Baptismi." He also said of absolution, "Si sacerdos non serio sed joco
absolveret"; yet if a man believed himself absolved, “verissime est
absolutus." This was condemned by the Council of Trent: but it is
scarce a shade different from Catharinus. Roman Catholics are not High
Churchmen.
* "Si quis dixerit, Sacramenta novæ legis non fuisse omnia a Jesu
Christo, Domino nostro, instituta: aut esse plura vel pauciora quam
septem, viz. Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Poenitentiam,
1559.]
Question of Intention.
237
Order to be a Sacrament of the Gospel, is denying the
equality claimed for it in the point of institution with
the two greater Sacraments, affirming that it is a most
venerable and efficacious ceremony, and conveys a
character which is indelible: then the alternative view
of Intention is held up. It is alleged that even if
Barlow and his colleagues had performed the rite
which the Roman Church still retains, which was
the medieval rite of England, so that no exception
could be taken to what they did, yet their notorious
doings as heretics and schismatics rendered their Inten-
tion doubtful; their past history in the time of the
schism, as it pleases these controversialists to name
it, and in the time of the reconciliation of the kingdom
under Mary, is ransacked to detect their incapacity.
We return by the way of Intention to the college of
Parker's consecrators.
Of Barlow, the canvassed prelate, who had returned
to his native country commended to the Queen by the
praise of Melanchthon,* enough has been said. But
Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, et Matrimonium; aut etiam aliquod
horum septem non esse vere et proprie Sacramentum, anathema sit.”-
Sess. vii. Canon I (1547). Bellarmine, in his chapter "Auctorem Sacra-
mentorum solum esse Christum" (De Sacram., i. ch. xxiii.), admits that
according to this decree Hugo de St. Victore, Peter Lombard, Alexander
Alensis, and St. Bonaventura were in error.
* Melanchthon chose Barlow to be the bearer of his letter to Queen
Elizabeth, commending him as a learned man, one who rightly worshipped
God, and loved ecclesiastical unity.-For. Cal., Eliz., p. 155. He also
brought a letter from Albert Duke of Prussia, to which the Queen replied,
saying that she had appointed William Barlow to be bishop of Chichester,
that she desired to promote such men as he was, men of pure doctrine,
blameless life, and constancy in religion, to the government of churches.—
Ib. 354. The Elector of Brandenburg also sent her a letter by Barlow,
saying that he had entertained him during his exile, recommending him
as a pious and sincere man, attached to the Confession of Augsburg.-
Ib. 109. Alexander Aless, Thomas Crumwel's friend, sent Elizabeth a
long memorial, asking for some benefaction, which might be sent him by
Bale or Barlow.-Ib. 534.
238
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
Scory and Coverdale, two of his co-operators (or in the
Roman phrase assistants) who had been consecrated
according to the English Ordinal of King Edward,
are perused with vigilance and pronounced wanting.
There were six bishops, it is exclaimed, whose Orders
were conferred by the Edwardian Ordinal, and not
one of them was continued in office by Pole.* Indeed
a wondrous deal is made of Pole in this controversy.
He descends, winged with briefs and bulls, flashing
light on miserable darkness, dividing with unerring
wand the clergy of a schismatic realm into various
classes of irregular and invalid, improperly ordained
and not ordained at all, and accordingly dismissing
or reordaining them. Whereas it may be answered
that he did nothing of the sort in reconciling the
realm; that he was very easy; that he handed over
the work to the bishops on the plea of his own lack
of strength, leisure, and opportunity;† and that so
far from being a fearless disciplinarian he was the
weakest of instruments in the hands of a ferocious
* "There is not a single case of any of the six bishops made by the
Edwardian Ordinal being continued in office by Pole."-Smith's Rome's
Witness against Anglican Orders, p. 17. Scory and Coverdale were
consecrated by the Edwardian Ordinal: and their consecration, says the
late Mr. Estcourt (Quest. of Angl. Ord.), depends on the validity of
the rite used. So be it by all means. Hodgkins was consecrated
by Stokesley and Mr. Estcourt asks why he was not employed as
principal or consecrator instead of Barlow; and can supply no reason
but that Barlow had been already elected to a see (and had sat on two
before), the preference of compliance with the law over the validity of
the rite (he complains, p. 117, that his fellow champions so mix up the
question of a legitimate but canonical ordination with that of validity,
that it is difficult to tell what they mean), and "the prevailing idea of
the sufficiency of election without consecration" (p. 95). Perhaps Barlow
was never thought not consecrated. It is in times long after his own
that the prevailing idea has arisen that he was not: and this idea is used
here in argument as if it had existed, and had cause of existence among
his contemporaries.
+ Vol. IV. p. 326 seq. of this work.
1
1559.] Position of Scory and Coverdale.
239
employer, who finally disgraced him on the score of
public incapacity. It is alleged that in his instructions
to the bishops for reconciling their dioceses he inserted
a clause about preserving the form and intention of
the Church, which had the effect of excluding from
his dispensation all those who had been ordained
according to the Anglican Ordinal. To which it
may be answered that such an interpretation gives
a definite meaning to the clause which it was not
intended to have: and that it was not so taken by
the bishops to whom it was addressed. It is added
that though there are no traces of reordination in the
episcopal registers, that is no proof that there were
none reordained, for that it is not the custom of
the Church in recording reordinations to make men-
tion of the previous ceremony. This may be granted :
but we should expect a great many entries of ordina-
tions in the registers, if a large number of men had
been reordained silently: whereas there is no extra-
ordinary number. Of those that there are, moreover,
if they had been ordained before, and now had been
ordained again, we should expect to find the former
ordinations entered in the registers in the proper
years. About a dozen such cases have indeed been
detected by the diligence of Anglicans in the diocese
of the zealous Bonner, but none elsewhere.† What-
ever was done in exturbating the clergy in Mary's
reign, the great part of it was done before the recon-
ciliation, by the ordinary authority of the Queen,
* ((
Quodque irregularitate et aliis præmissis non obstantibus, in suis
Ordinibus, etiam ab hereticis et schismaticis Episcopis, etiam minus
rite, dummodo in eorum collatione Ecclesiæ forma et intentio sit
servata,” &c.—Burnet, Collect., Pt. iii. Bk. v. No. 33. Cf. Vol. IV. p. 328
of this work.
+ Such is the result of Mr. Frere's diligent investigations through the
Episcopal Registers of England in 1896.
240
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
without the intervention of any foreign power. As
for Scory and Coverdale, they were extruded from
their sees before Pole ever set foot in England.*
But, it is further alleged, whatever be their antecedent
history, Scory and Coverdale were not bishops at all,
for they were consecrated by the English Ordinal.
This is the same astounding begging of the question
to which the Roman Catholic controversialists always
fall back.
Jurisdiction is another matter on which objection
has been taken, with more reason at first sight, against
Parker's consecrators. The distinction between Juris-
diction and Order is maintained by theologians of both
sides, though it is in a single act, in the moment of
consecration, that both Order and Jurisdiction are
conferred. In consecration a bishop receives a purely
spiritual authority to govern and feed. He receives,
that is, the episcopate, being admitted into a body
of men each of whom has, to use the celebrated
expression of St. Cyprian, a perfect share of that
which belongs to them all:† each of whom is com-
petent to feed and govern the whole flock of Christ:
each of whom has, in other words, bestowed by the
Divine Head of the Church, a jurisdiction that is
œcumenical. At the same time, however, since he is
consecrated to some particular diocese, his oecumenical
authority is restrained, in actual exercise, within the
limit of a region; he is bishop of this or that place.
Now of what place was Scory bishop, when he con-
secrated Parker? He was the elect of Hereford.
Scory was extruded by Queen Mary between July 13 and August 24,
1553.—Lea's Spiritual Jurisdiction, pp. 33, 75. Coverdale was extruded
by the restoration of Voysey by royal mandate by Queen Mary, Sept. 28,
1553.—Ib. 35. Pole came towards the end of 1554.
+ "Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur."-
St. Cyprian, De Eccl. Unit., sec. 4.
1559.]
Question of Furisdiction.
241
Of what was Coverdale? He was quondam of
Exeter, to which he refused to be restored. What
of Hodgkins, the remaining assistant or co-operator?
He was suffragan of Bedford. What of Barlow himself,
the chief consecrator, as to jurisdiction? He was the
elect of Chichester. Therefore Parker was consecrated
by two elects, a quondam, and a suffragan: and was
that sufficient? It would not have been sufficient if
either of the elects had not been bishops before, but
both of them had. But, it is added, Scory was an
intruder: for, if he was a bishop before, it was inas-
much as he had been intruded into Day's bishopric
of Chichester. Now it is evident that not to be
a diocesan, not to be limited to a see, cannot affect
the gift of universal jurisdiction, received in consecra-
tion. In itself the gift of jurisdiction transcends the
limits of any patrimony; and enables those who
receive it to exercise functions, which none but
bishops can exercise anywhere; the restraint of it
within particular limit being the accident of discipline.
A diocesan bishop, for example, transcends his limit
when he sits in council, and acts as a comprovincial.
On the same principle custom has allowed that
"vacant" bishops, that is, bishops who are informally
attached to a see, or in process of translation to a see,
and also translated intruders, are not debarred from
taking part in such functions as consecration, if so
be that they belong to the province: much less
are suffragans, like Hodgkins of Bedford, debarred.*
* "Concerning the equal authority which suffragan bishops have to
consecrate with others, the practice of the Church of England before the
Reformation will clear all doubts of this nature. For the archbishops,
in taking other bishops to their assistance in the consecration of bishops,
or in giving commissions to other bishops to consecrate in their stead,
made no difference between suffragan and diocesan bishops: so that
I could produce above twenty examples of the consecration of diocesan
VOL. V.
R
242
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration,
They revert to their oecumenical jurisdiction. But
the reasonable consideration of the question is stopped
once more by the gigantic assumption of the Roman
party. It is of no use to enquire, say they, into the
sufficiency or insufficiency of a jurisdiction that comes
not from the Pope: for all spiritual jurisdiction comes
immediately from the Pope, not from the Divine Head
of the Church. That is to say, that of the two gifts
given simultaneously in the act of consecration, the
one, namely Order, comes immediately from Christ,
the other, namely Jurisdiction, comes immediately
from the Pope. To this it can but be answered
that the opinion is very late of the thirteenth or
fourteenth century: first defined at the Council of
Florence by Eugenius the Fourth, in the fifteenth
century: not universally held by Roman theologians :
and that it was most furiously debated, and left uncon-
cluded, in the Council of Trent three years after
Parker's consecration.*
bishops in England within two hundred years before the Reformation,
performed with the assistance of suffragan bishops, and that when the
canonical number of consecrators was not complete without them."-
Harmer, Specimen, 156.
* The definition in the Council of Florence is: "Item, diffinimus
sanctam Apostolicam Sedem, et Romanum pontificem, in universum
orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem
esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum, et verum Christi Vicarium,
totiusque Ecclesiæ Caput, et omnium Christianorum patrem ac doctorem
existere: et ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi, regendi, ac gubernandi univer-
salem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem
traditam esse: quemadmodum etiam in gestis œcumenicorum Conci-
liorum, et in sacris canonibus continetur."-Mansi, xxxi. p. 1031. This
popery was vehemently maintained at Trent in 1562 by the Jesuit Lainez,
as is well known, to the derogation of simple episcopacy: but this has not
been the view of all theologians of his order, much less of all Roman
Catholic theologians. The famous Jesuit Vasquez, of the seventeenth
century, expressed the opposite opinion: "I say that bishops have
received all power of pronouncing judgment, which is called active
jurisdiction, and, as it were, radical jurisdiction, not from the Pope
but immediately from Christ: from the very fact that they have been
1559.]
The Lambeth Register.
243
A great matter in this controversy has been the
record of Parker's consecration in his Register at
Lambeth. When Nag's Head was broached, this
record, which is long and particular, was forthcoming
in refutation. But because Nag's Head was not
broached till forty years were passed, it has been
objected that the record of Parker's consecration was
never produced for forty years, and was not con-
temporaneous, but was forged by the man who then
produced it.* The men who are capable of such
arguments are incapable of receiving an answer. They
have conned the record with unceasing diligence, they
have compared it with other memorials of the same
event, and have built enormous theories on any verbal
differences that they found. Nag's Head has been
at the bottom of their diligence, though most of these
labourers may profess to have given up Nag's Head:
or if not Nag's Head, the shadow of Nag's Head, the
constant assumption, which is found in their writings,
constituted bishops, they have received jure divino the power of making
laws." He holds that the permission to exercise jurisdiction in this or
that diocese belonged to the Pope: not the œcumenical jurisdiction. See
Puller's tract on The Jurisdiction of Bishops.
It was Mason who produced the Register: whereupon Kellison said
he had forged it, using the word contexere: "ait me contexuisse Registra
Kellisonus," says Mason: adding that if he meant by the word that he
had forged registers, it was what some other papistic writers were
not ashamed to say: if it meant that he had collated registers, he
willingly acknowledged that he had. He thinks it necessary to point out
in answer that the Register could not have been forged by him, because
though not produced before, it had been referred to, as e. g. by Parker
himself in his Antiquit., published in 1572 (who refers to his Register book
as containing the consecrations that he had himself performed, the
same volume that contains his own consecration. "Hæ consecrationes
et confirmationes in Registris apparent" (p. 541 of edition 1729). Haddan
says there are two or three other examples in which the Register was
quoted, before it was published.-Haddan's Bramhall, iii. 174. Mason's
account of this charge is in Vindic., Bk. iii. cc. xvi., xvii., xviii. See
especially pp. 400, 413.
R 2
244
[CH. XXXIII.
Parker's Consecration.
1
that the proceedings in Parker were clandestine that
some wickedness was done which it was necessary
to conceal whence that the Register is fraudulent,
or has been tampered with in some way. No one will
seriously combat an absurdity, but it may be related
that the document has been carefully conned in
consequence of these curious allegations, century after
century. It was examined in the seventeenth century
by the invitation of an archbishop, in the presence
of several bishops, by three Jesuits and another
Roman Catholic, who found themselves unable to
confirm their own suspicions. A hundred years later
it was formally examined for the satisfaction of
a foreign enquirer, in the presence of four witnesses,
of whom two were Roman Catholics, with the result
that might be expected. The learned editor of a great
Anglican authority has, in the present age, patiently
pounded the whole question into particles, leaving his
testimony that the genuineness of the Register cannot
be impeached without pure madness. A living prelate
of eminent learning has devoted himself to several
examinations, reaching the same conclusion.*
* Briefly to tell of these researches. 1. A Roman Catholic writer,
Fitzherbert, challenged the production of the Register, that it should be
shown to a number of intelligent Catholics, "qui eodem oculis per-
lustrato et rite perpenso, de ejusdem veritate et validitate sententiam et
testimonium ferant." Whereupon, in 1614, Archbishop Abbot invited the
arch-priest Collinton, two Jesuits, Laithwait and Faircloth, and Leak,
a secular priest, to examine it in the presence of himself and six bishops,
London, Durham, Ely, Lincoln, Bath, and Rochester. They examined
Parker's consecration with the utmost care, and at length allowed it
to be beyond suspicion, “Sibi quidem videri codicem omni exceptione
majorem."- Mason, pp. 415-6. These poor priests were in prison at
the time. They endeavoured afterwards to recede from their acknow-
ledgment, and requested to have the Register in their own keeping
for a while, for further examination. This was refused (p. 417).
2. At
the request of the well-known Courayer, by direction of Archbishop Wake,
in 1722, an inspection of the Register was made before four witnesses,
two being Roman Catholics. The result was the same as before.
1559.]
Contemporary Records.
245
A grave consideration hereabout is that there are
two (maybe three) contemporary copies of the record
inserted in the Lambeth Register concerning Parker's
consecration: one in the library of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, and another in the State Paper
Office. These are assumed to be transcripts of the
Lambeth Register, and as they exhibit several
variations from it, and those variations not common
to both, the one varying from it where the other
agrees with it, the theory is advanced that the
Lambeth Register is not an authentic contemporaneous
record of the consecration. The modern work which
the Roman Catholics commend as their classic of the
controversy, maintains this while it rejects the foolish
allegation of forgery. Thus there are two parties
among them in this part of the controversy: those who
cry forged register, and those who cry suspicious
register. As to the variations, the State Paper Office
manuscript had at first a Latin phrase of three words
which was altered into an equivalent Latin phrase of
two words, to agree with the Lambeth Register: it had
in another place three Latin words recording a fact,
which are not in the Lambeth Register:* and above
3. The great Haddan, in his edition of Bramhall, vol. iii., has left an
amazing monument of industry. He has gone into every corner of the
documentary part of the controversy, and has expressly recorded his
conviction that any one who questions the truth of the account of Parker's
consecration, given in his Register, must be prepared to assert that the
whole Register, of 400 pages, is a forgery; and that the episcopal
Registers of Winchester, Exeter, Lincoln, and half a dozen more are
forgeries and that is to say the least. Look at his Preface. 4. Bishop
Wordsworth of Salisbury, in the present day, has repeatedly inspected
the Register, with the invariable result.—Letter to the Old Catholics,
p. 20.
((
The State Paper Office manuscript had at first consecrationis
curam agerent," which was altered to consecrationi inservirent," so
agreeing with the Lambeth Register. It has "Cicestrensis quædam
præfatus atque populum ad orationem hortatus": and those three words
246
Parker's Consecration.
[CH. XXXIII.
all, it makes the words accompanying the imposition
of hands to have been spoken in Latin, not in English
as in the Lambeth Register. From these differences
it is argued that the Lambeth record was not entered
in the usual course, but was sent first to Cecil for his
approval! The other, the Corpus manuscript, agrees
with the Lambeth Register, not with the State Paper
Office manuscript, as to the three words commemorative
of a fact; and with the State Paper Office manuscript,
not the Lambeth Register, in giving the words
accompanying the imposition of hands in Latin, not in
English. It is inferred on the whole, therefore, that the
State Paper Office manuscript was the draft from which
the Corpus manuscript was taken; and that the Corpus
manuscript was to have formed part of the record
in the Lambeth Register, but that after it was written
it was found that to have Latin for English in the
words accompanying the imposition of hands would
be making the whole account a fiction, and that
therefore this parchment was laid aside, and another
instrument made!*
quædam præfatus atque are not in the Lambeth Register. See the late
Canon Estcourt's Question of Angl. Ordinations, p. 103.
"Manibus Archiepiscopo impositis dixerunt Anglice, viz. Take the
Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which
is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit
of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness [Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,
et gratiam Dei quæ jam per impositionem manuum in te est, excitare
memento. Non enim timoris sed virtutis, dilectionis et sobrietatis Spiritum
dedit nobis Deus. MS. Corpus Christi Coll., Camb.]. His dictis, Biblia
Sacra illi in manibus tradiderunt, hujusmodi apud eum verba habentes :
Give heed unto thy reading, exhortation, and doctrine, think upon these
things contained in this Book: be diligent in them that the increase
coming thereby may be manifest unto all men: Take heed unto thyself
and unto thy teaching, and be diligent in doing them, for by doing this
thou shalt save thyself and them that hear thee through Jesus Christ
our Lord.
[In legendo, hortando, et docendo vide diligens sis, atque
ea meditare assidue quæ in hisce libris scripta sunt: noli in his segnis
esse, quo incrementum inde proveniens omnibus innotescat et palam fiat.
גי
1559.]
Contemporary Records.
247
If the foundation sink beneath this pile, there is
a substructure in another manuscript, if better this
serve not for another, a loftier, edifice. Among the
Harleian manuscripts there is one of Parker's conse-
cration, copied from the Lambeth Register, but differing
therefrom in some respects, notably in that it describes
Barlow as consecrator, the rest of the bishops as
assistants, and in that it distinctly affirms that the
form which they followed was the Ordinal of Edward
the Sixth. Here then, it is exclaimed, we have an
evidence that the present record of the momentous
ceremony, contained in the Lambeth Register, is not
the same that once was in the Lambeth Register.
How wonderful that these notes should survive,
extracted from it as it stood originally, before the
Anglican party under the pressure of the criticism
of their opponents had found out their mistake in
assigning to Barlow the office of consecrator, and had
become aware of the invalidity to be alleged against
the Edwardian Ordinal! How plain it is that the
record was rewritten so as to mask these facts, which
were too damaging and too dangerous to be admitted
in the Register!* This towering structure vanishes
Cura quæ ad te et ad docendi munus spectant diligenter: hoc enim modo
non teipsum solum, sed et reliquos auditores tuos per Jesum Christum
Dominum nostrum salvabis. MS. C. C. C. C.]”—Bailey's Ordin. Anglican.
Defensio, p. 15. I may add, on the Corpus Christi manuscript, on which
Estcourt builds so much, that, as he says "on the same parchment” and
"apparently in the same hand," there comes a commission from Parker
to Walter Haddon to be commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canter-
bury," dated December 27, 1559."—Estcourt, 102. It is not unimportant,
perhaps, as a side issue, to notice that Estcourt, writing in 1873, has
no doubt as to this date. Mr. Lunn has expressed the opinion that this
date has been tampered with, and has asked me to look at it. It seems
to me that an attempt has been made to alter the 5 into 6 and the 9
into 5, yielding 1565. If so, this has been done since Estcourt's time.
* This document is among the Foxii MSS., Harleian, 419, fol. 149.
Estcourt thought it so important that he has given a facsimile of it. He
248
[CH. XXXIII.
The Pope notified
(if it be necessary to do more than look at it) before
the reasonable reflection that all that can be said with
certainty of this Harleian manuscript is that some
unknown contemporary for some unknown reason
examined the Lambeth Register, and has left behind
him notes which in two or three particulars are not
identical in expression with the Register, but relate
what he knew to have happened at Parker's conse-
cration, and that he gives nothing that is inconsistent
with the Register, nothing new, nothing that all men
knew not from the first.*
says it is "widely different" from the Lambeth Register. He raises on
it the structure of theory that I have described, and remarks that it was
probably after Bonner's plea against Horne, some years later, that “the
Anglican party" got alarmed. He adds that the word tunc in "con-
firmatus fuit nono die Dec. tunc proxime sequentis" makes it seem
clear "that the Register was not engrossed during Antony Huse's life-
time." Antony Huse was principal Registrar under Cranmer, Pole,
and Parker; whose Registers are in the same handwriting, which
was probably his. He died June 1, 1560. What has that tunc to do
with him? There is another tunc that has been brought forward on
the other side out of the title of the Canterbury Register during the
vacancy of the see after Pole's death: which title describes the Register
as "incipiens mense Novembri, A.D. 1558, Magistro Antonio Huse tunc
Registrario principali dicti Archiepiscopatus Cantuariensis."-See Denny's
Anglican Orders, 45. According to Roman Catholic argumentation,
then, it might be inferred from this that the Canterbury Register, the
Register of the Dean and Chapter there, was not engrossed," or
written fair, till after Antony Huse's death: that is, the Canterbury
authorities never thought of writing up the transactions during the
vacancy between Pole and Parker till Parker had been archbishop
six or eight months at the least, though, unaccountably, the hand that
wrote them at last was the same that wrote Pole's Register. On this
hypothesis, either Huse was not the writer of any Register at all, or his
ghost came back to write. I have given, in the previous note to this,
Bailey's comparison of the Register and the Corpus MS. I add now
the comparison of the Harleian MS. in the same passage. Qui qui-
dem consecrator et assistentes manibus Archiepiscopo impositis dixerunt
Anglice Take the Holy Ghost, &c., cæteraque omnia descripta per
quendam libellum editum pro consecratione episcoporum auctoritate
per Parliamentum anno v. et vi. Edwardi VI. exercuerunt.” [This
note was left unfinished by Dr. Dixon.]
66
* A few days after I had reached the end of this historical account
1
1559.]
of the Queen's Accession.
249
It may be supposed that Cecil did what he proposed
at the accession of Elizabeth, immediately informing
of the Roman controversy, there was published in the English newspapers,
September 21, 1896, a Papal Bull, in which Pope Leo XIII. pronounced
Anglican Orders to be invalid and null. This sentence appears as the
outcome of an investigation made by a commission which the Pope
appointed at his own instance, and in which England bore no part.
It claims to have been exhaustive: but in reality it was prejudiced and
ignorant. After the commission was appointed, documents were dis-
covered in the archives of the Inquisition which showed that in a case
that occurred in the eighteenth century, known as "the Gordon case,”
a Pope, Clement XI., had decided that English Orders were invalid: and
this previous decision bound the present Pope. So he pleaded in his
Bull, wherein he calls the documents "documenta integræ fidei." After
the commission had concluded its labours, and a week after the Bull
had been published, there was put into the newspapers a statement
of the case; which statement was drawn up by two Roman Catholics
resident in England, one of whom was Canon Moyes, the other, to my
surprise, Dr. Gasquet. It was an unhistorical and utilitarian statement:
it was not laid before the commission: but it would not have been
the cause of the decision if it had been. The investigation could only
have one result consistent with the Roman claims: the manner of its
procedure is of little interest. It may perhaps be worth while to look
at the Bull itself for a moment. The objections brought in the Bull
against the validity of English Orders are not historical but technical.
The Bull indeed flings overboard the whole historical case against
English Orders, all the allegations that have been made and repeated
by the Roman champions for three centuries and a half, which we have
been toilsomely examining. Nag's Head, unconsecrated Barlow, falsified
Register, and the rest, which have been laboured in vain from age to age
by men who have never been recalled from vanity by any Pope, go over
as top-hamper. It need not be said that this is done in entire silence, no
confession of defeat, nothing so handsome as an acknowledgment that
in the historical part of the controversy the victory lies with England.
According to the Bull, the whole case against English Orders hangs
on defects of the English Ordinal. After a long exordium, abundant
in errors, about what Cardinal Pole is said to have done by virtue of
his commission against men ordained according to that Ordinal, the Bull
proceeds to exhibit the technical or theological defects on which it founds.
As might be expected, these are in the three requisites of matter, form,
and intention: requisites laid down (as we have seen) by Pope Eugenius IV.:
whose words are: "Hæc omnia tribus perficiuntur: viz. rebus, tanquam
materia: verbis, tanquam forma; persona ministri conferentis Sacra-
mentum cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia."-Harduin, tom. ix.
438.
Now in the first of these requisites Leo's Bull goes against
250
[CH. Reply of Paul IV.
.
ΧΧΧΠΙXXXIII.
the Papal court of the event through Karne, the
English resident: and to the uncontrollable temper of
Paul the Fourth and the instigation of the French
ambassador has been ascribed a reply which at once
undid the work of Mary in recovering England to the
Eugenius IV.; in the second it contradicts the Council of Trent; in
the third it begs the question. 1. As to matter, the Bull says but
little but decides that it is imposition of hands, and seems to allow
that on this category the English rite is sufficient. But Eugenius said
that it was porrection that was the matter, and the only matter. So that
according to one Pope the English rite is sufficient in matter, according
to another it lacks the only matter that Order can have. It is interesting
to observe that the Bull tries to hedge by saying that imposition of hands
is the matter, "in so far as we have to consider it in this case." 2. As
to form the Bull says that the English rite is defective in that the words
66 Accipe Spiritum Sanctum," which it contains both in priests and bishops,
are not sufficient without a specific addition: that they express not
definitively the sacred Order of Priesthood, or of the Episcopate. Here
it contradicts the Council of Trent: "Si quis dixerit per sacram Ordi-
nationem non dari Spiritum Sanctum, ac proinde frustra Episcopos
dicere Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ... Anathema sit." This is the more
extraordinary in that both in the Roman Office and in the first three
revisions or editions of the English Office, in priests, these solemn words
are continued in the same way: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum
remiseris peccata remittuntur eis," &c.: "Receive the Holy Ghost, whose
sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven," &c. The Bull goes off on the
tack that the priesthood is not conveyed by "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,"
but by "Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium," which comes previously
in the Roman Office. There it may be left to the English answerers;
though it may be further noted that the Bull pays no regard to the
opinion of Morinus and of the more learned Roman theologians that
the form is and always has been precatory, residing in neither of the
imperative sentences, but in the prayer or prayers in the Pontifical.
3. As to intention, the Bull has nothing particular to say: merely that
those who have been ordered by the English rite have not been ordered
by the Roman rite: and that those who ordained them cannot have
meant to ordain them by the Roman rite, because they did not: and
that therefore the intention of doing what the Church does has been
absent, nay designedly abandoned. This last is a stretch. There was
an intention of doing what the Church does: but of not doing it altogether
in the same way as that in which the Church of Rome does it. On the
publication of this portentous instrument, the most learned men of the
Roman communion, whose researches had led them to hold or entertain
the validity of English Orders, dropped their pens, folded their hands,
and bowed their heads.
1559.]
Its Truth questioned.
251
Holy See. Alike by the friends and foes of Rome
it is repeated that Paul's answer to Karne was that
he could neither admit the pretensions of a bastard
nor refuse to sanction the claims of the rightful heir,
of the nearest legitimate descendant of Henry the
Seventh, of the wife of the Dauphin, and the Queen
of Scots.* To which it is added that Elizabeth's
instant rejoinder was the withdrawal of her ambassador
from Rome. But there is no warrant for this story,
which is not borne out by contemporary authorities.
On the contrary it is evident that the Pope was in the
balance of uncertainty concerning Elizabeth from
the beginning of her reign to the day of his death.
The French ambassador laboured him to declare Eliza-
beth illegitimate, and the Scottish Queen the right
successor, but obtained nothing. He himself dis-
Tierney says: "He replied that, as a bastard, Elizabeth was incapable
of succeeding to the English crown: that by ascending the throne without
his sanction she had insulted the authority of the Apostolic See: but
that notwithstanding, if she would consent to submit herself and her
claims to his judgment, he was still desirous of extending to her what-
ever indulgence the justice of the case should allow. Elizabeth, as might
have been expected, instantly ordered Karne to return."-Dodd, ii. 121.
Lingard says: Paul replied, that he was unable to comprehend the
hereditary right of one who was not born in lawful wedlock: that the
Queen of Scots claimed the crown as the nearest legitimate descendant
of Henry VII.; but that, if Elizabeth were willing to submit the con-
troversy to his arbitration, she should receive from him every indulgence
which justice would allow" (vi. 5). Hume says: "He told Karne, that
England was a fief of the Holy See; and it was great temerity in
Elizabeth to have assumed, without his participation, the title and
authority of queen; that being illegitimate, she could not possibly
inherit that kingdom: nor could he annul the sentence pronounced by
Clement VII. and Paul III. with regard to Henry's marriage," &c. (iv. 2).
Heylin says the same. For all this the only authorities given by any
of these writers are the two historians of the Council of Trent, Pallavicino
(ii. 14, 8) and Sarpi (lib. v.).
+ Karne to the Queen, Dec. 31, 1558. For. Cal. 55. "The French
here can obtain nothing at his Holiness' hands against your Majesty: he
hath such respect to your Majesty and your realm that he will attempt
nothing against either, unless the occasion be first given thence. One of
252
Attitude of the Pope [CH. XXXIII.
!
approved of the peace between France and England,
which was concluded now, the peace of Cateau
Cambresis, of which the most prominent article was
the virtual renunciation of Calais to the French, and
it was apprehended that he would proclaim her
a bastard and a heretic, and invite the Most Christian
to invade her but the Most Catholic interposed; for
Philip had his own part in the treaty, and his own
designs for the bestowal of Elizabeth's hand in
marriage he entreated the Holy Father to suspend
his judgment, and assured him that at the end of the
negotiations Elizabeth would remain a Catholic.* As
to Karne, it is true that the Queen wrote to him,
shortly after her accession, to stop him from acting
as ambassador at Rome, particularly in a pending case
of matrimony;† and again to recall him, “in con-
the Cardinals, greatest with his Holiness, shewed me that he and others
mind to move his Holiness to send his Nuncio to your Majesty, but stay till
you do send hither first to him." Karne to the Queen, Feb. 16, 1559.-
For. Cal. 135. Haynes' Cecil Pap., p. 245.
* His Majesty has sent orders to Cardinal Pacheco first of all to
perform every sort of office with the Pope, narrating to him the entire
negotiation of the peace, and giving him the treaty: after which he is to
let him know that on the conclusion of the peace the Queen of England
will remain Catholic.”— Venet. Cal. 72, April 23, 1559. “King Philip
besought the Pope, who is understood to bear the Queen of England very
ill will, and to meditate proceedings against her, to suspend his judg-
ment, and not to issue any act until the result of the negotiation for
her marriage to the Archduke Charles be known."-7b. June 11, 1559.
"The people here are grieved to hear from Italy that if it were not for
your Majesty, the Pope would proceed against the Queen. It is wonderful
how maliciously they stand aloof from any of your Majesty's affairs, and
how they put the worst construction upon everything that is done for
them." The Bishop of Aquila to Philip, June 19, 1559.—Span. Cal. 77.
+ Letter to Karne at Rome, that he should henceforth "forbear to use
his authority in soliciting or procuring of anything in the matter of
matrimony depending between Mr. Chetwood and Mr. Tyrrell." Dec. 1,
1558.—Acts of Privy Council, vii. 11; Strype, ch. i. This was the case
of appeal to Rome from Pole's sentence, which was afterwards so
characteristically provided for in a clause in the Supremacy Act of
Elizabeth's first Parliament, that if the sentence in the appeal should be
}
1559.]
towards Elizabeth.
253
sideration that there was no further cause why he
should make any further abode there": but this was
not in answer to any menace or insult from the Pope,
from whom it appears not that any communication
whatever was received in England. Karne's com-
mission suffered to expire without renewal, and Karne
notified of this, and recalled as a private subject, may
have intimated unwelcomely to the Pope the course
determined by the Queen, but on the other hand the
Pope seems to have clung to such hope as there
might be in Karne's continued presence with him.
He would not indeed let Karne depart, who was old,
frail, poor, and at home in Rome: and he gave him
a small office there for his maintenance: but this was
out of private friendship, without notifying it to
England and on their part the Queen and her Council
took not the least notice of Karne's disobedience in
not returning.* The voice of the Pope was not the
given from Rome in sixty days it should hold good. See above, p. 60. It
deserves notice as the last appeal that ever went to Rome from
England.
"C
* February 1, Acts of Council, p. 50. In this letter Karne is termed
"late ambassador," whence it would seem that, not having his commission
renewed, he was regarded as a private subject (and indeed this is the
meaning of the former letter of the Council, that he was not henceforth to
act in the appeal case). Karne replied, April 1, in a long letter to the
Queen, that when he was obediently preparing to come home, he was
told not to do so without the Pope's knowledge: that thereupon he made
a long remonstrance: that the Pope would not see him on pretence of
sickness that he tried a cardinal or two, one of whom spoke of it to the
Pope, who was sore moved": that he could not get out of the gates of
the city, which were well guarded: that in thirty years of service he had
spent all his substance without any recompense but his diets that he
was an old man with nothing to live on.-For. Cal., p. 193. Two days
later, April 3, he wrote again to the Queen that, though revoked by her,
he could get no access to the Pope or leave to depart: that the Pope had
sent by a cardinal ordering him under pain of excommunication to
remain, since the Queen had revolted from the Holy See: and had given
him the office of head of the Hospital of the English nation for his
maintenance.—Ib. 199. Soon after this it was confirmed that Karne had
254
[CH. XXXIII.
Death of Paul IV.
trumpet that sounded for the duel between the two
most renowned of queens, which nevertheless was now
begun. Paul the Fourth died in August in extreme
age, fierce to the end, commending with his last breath
the Inquisition to the particular countenance of the
cardinals. He was a good man, hated even by good
men, it was said, for he marred his own efforts by an
unhappy temper and manner, bespeaking anger and
choler in his gestures and the motion of his head.
"Hell broke loose at his death,"* for his strictness
had enraged the world. The people ran through the
city, cursing his name and actions; they smashed his
statue in the Capitol, and dragged the head of it
through the filthiest places for three days, then flung
it into the Tiber. They rushed to the House of
Inquisition, let loose the prisoners, burned the prison
and the court of judicature with all the processes,
papers, and records, maltreated the Inquisitors, and
would have burned their lodgings, but for a timely
diversion. The arms of the Caraffas were everywhere
defaced by a decree of the people of Rome, and that
famous family remained thenceforth without an ensign
in the city. The See remained vacant four months
and seven days, to Christmas.
thankfully received the appointment, which Pole had holden before.
Throgmorton to Cecil, May 30.—For. Cal. 292. Karne died in 1561.
* Such is the vigorously adequate expression of Challoner at Antwerp
to Cecil. "All at Rome went on wheels, hell broken loose." The Roman
people, he proceeds, "in their fury, discontented with the terrible
proceedings of the new manner of the Inquisition established by the late
Pope (for the branches thereof extended not only to heresy, but also to
Sodomy and blasphemy, things no less familiar than hard to be touched or
reformed, among them), went in a plump on the news of his death to the
chamber or court of the Inquisition, and there slew (as some letters purport)
the Chief Inquisitor, a friar, or (as other letters) only wounded and very
roughly entreated him and his complices. And not content therewith set
all the prisoners suspectos hereticæ pravitatis at liberty, and some others
for company," &c. He "trusts poor Wilson is of the number."—Ib. 514.
1559.]
Papal Politics reviewed.
255
A few weeks before the death of Paul, the French
King, Henry the Second, who had secretly urged the
Holy See against England, expired of a wound
accidentally received in a tournament at Paris. By
his counsel the Dauphin and his wife had openly
assumed the arms of England, and quartered them in
their liveries: an injury of which the English am-
bassador complained in vain. His death advanced
Elizabeth's rivals to his throne: and Francis the
Second continued to wear her arms and title without
apology. She, on her part, retained the irritating style
which had descended to her, which her sister had kept:
though the designation of Queen of France was
ridiculous by the law excluding females from the
succession, and though the loss of the last English
foothold in France rendered it a bauble. Domination,
indeed, appeared to have crossed the Channel when
Francis and Mary Stuart stood together beneath the
royal canopy. With France in inheritance, Scotland
in dowry, to join England by reversion was a dream
which a Papal excommunication, or a Papal sentence
of bastardy, might have carried into daylight.
the Spanish and imperial interest drew another way.
Philip had not forgotten that he once had been titular
king of a kingdom which he might yet recover by
marriage under a Papal dispensation, or at least attach
to his house by advancing the suit of the elegant
Prince Charles of Styria, the son of the Emperor Fer-
dinand. Thus were the great factions set. The
unwedded state of the Queen represented the state
of her realm itself. Both were independent, both
inexpugnable, and yet both seemed on the point of
capture. If she remained free, she balanced the con-
tending parties against one another, and England
could not be appended to France: if she had yielded
But
256
Obsequies of Henry II. [CH. XXXIII.
England would have been added to the Netherlands
and Spain, or entangled in an untoward alliance. The
turn of events, which by the death of Francis in a year
or two lifted the French crown from the brow of
Mary Stuart, while at the same time Scotland appeared
to be lost to her through the tremendous outbreak of
the Scottish Reformation, gave presage of the final
issue. It left her a widow lamenting her misfortunes,
moving the pity of all who approached her, and yet
sinking inevitably, it seemed, into poverty and depen-
dence. By the suit of the Earl of Arran, the Governor
of Scotland, another aspirant to the hand of Elizabeth,
she beheld her native patrimony not only receding
beyond her reach, but about to be united to England,
when another vicissitude restored partially her fortunes,
Elizabeth rejected Arran. The way to Scotland lay
open to Mary. Another plan, which Cecil had, of
excluding her, and joining the crowns by a marriage
between Elizabeth and some male scion of the house
of Stuart, was quashed by Elizabeth herself. Perhaps
the woman pitied the woman: the queen disdained the
meanness of such a mode of reducing a distressed
adversary and the spirit of the maiden revolted
against a mere matrimonial bargain. Elizabeth's
resolution to remain as she was, though expressed, as
occasion came, like sallies of imperious caprice, was of
higher public wisdom than Cecil's intrigues, or the
clamours of a Parliament imploring her to enter
matrimony.
The obsequies of Henry, King of the French, were
performed according to the custom of the realm in
princes, but with extraordinary solemnity, in St. Paul's,
on September 8 and the day following. The choir
was hung with black, with arms disposed upon it.
A hearse of nine storeys and eight pillars, garnished
1559.]
The Ceremonial used.
257
with cloth of gold and velvet, countless pensiles and
escutcheons, displaying the helmet, the mantle, the
armour, targe, and sword of the deceased, was carried
into the church on the eve of the former day. After
it walked the Lord Treasurer Paulet, as chief mourner,
followed by a company of barons, and three bishops,
Parker, Scory, Barlow, the elects of Canterbury, Here-
ford, and Chichester; the French ambassador, the
Kings at arms, Heralds, Pursuivants, Household,
Wardrobe, and Ushers. In what followed there was
something of the usual balance between the two
religious parties, with the usual not total advantage of
the Reformers. The general frame of the ceremonies
was the same, but there were significant alterations.
When all were placed, the herald whose duty it was to
bid prayer for the departed, standing at the upper
choir door, pronounced instead a solemn thanksgiving
for the translation of the French King from the earthly
to the heavenly kingdom. The old office of the Dirge
followed, but in English not Latin: and there were
prayers or collects from the English Prayer Book
substituted in place of several prayers for the dead
that were in the old office, as if to abolish praying for
the dead from a reformed Dirge and yet it was not
abolished, but retained in two or three places.* Even-
* Strype, who gives by far the fullest printed account of these remark-
able obsequies (Annals, i. 126), seems to deny that the office used was
the Dirge.
"And first certain Psalms of praise were sung for the
departure of the dead in the Faith of Christ, instead, I suppose, of the
Dirige." But it manifestly was the Dirge, done into English, and con-
siderably altered. Machyn, who gives a valuable account, says that they
continently sung dirge" (210). The Dirge which they sang was taken
out of Elizabeth's Primer, which was published this year. It has recently
been reprinted by the Rev. Canon Ross-Lewin in the Revue Anglo-
Romaine, July, 1896. Heylin says it was performed by Parker, Barlow,
and Scory. As compared with the previous English Dirge in the Primer
of Henry VIII., the chief differences were these: 1. Henry's Dirge had
VOL. V.
S
258
[CH. XXXIII.
Elizabeth's Primer.
song in English concluded the function. The next
morning about nine there was a celebration of the
Holy Communion, when Scory preached a sermon in
which he strove to pacify the minds of both parties as
to ceremonies used in burial; that in the primitive
Church the service was to give praise for the removal
of one in the Faith of Christ: that they were now
taking the self-same order: but that other ceremonies,
which were neither beneficial to the deceased nor to
the living, nor yet according to the primitive Church,
were now taken away and abolished.*
This Dirge came out of Elizabeth's Primer, which
was published in this year, 1559. The Primer, the
private prayer book of England, had undergone no
great alteration during the fourteen years that were
passed since the authorised Primer of Henry the
three prayers : “God, to whom it is appropried to be merciful ever and to
spare, be merciful to the souls of Thy servants," &c. "O God, the Lord
of pardon, grant unto the soul of N. Thy servant, the year's mind of whose
death we have in remembrance, a place of rest, the blissful quiet and
clearness of Thy light, through Christ our Lord.” "O God, that art
Creator and Redeemer of all faithful people, grant unto the souls of all
true believers, being dead, remission of all their sins," &c. For the first
was substituted the collect, "O God, whose nature and property is
always to have mercy"; the second was omitted; for the third was
substituted a prayer that we might be delivered from all our sins, and also
from the pains that we have for them deserved. 2. The final supplication
in Henry's Dirge, "that the prayer of Thy suppliants may avail to the
souls of Thy servants, that Thou wilt both purge them of all their sins,
and cause them to be partakers of Thy redemption," was omitted. 3. On
the other hand the anthem, "Deliver not to beasts, O Lord, the souls of
them that confess Thee, and forget not at length the souls of Thy poor
people," was retained. The last prayer but one was retained, "Almighty,
eternal God, to whom there is never any prayer made without hope of
mercy, be merciful to the souls of Thy servants, being departed from this
world in the confession of Thy name, that they may be associate to the
company of Thy saints. Through Christ our Lord."
* Strype gives the expenditure on this costly ceremony, which was
borne by the Queen, to her great credit with all persons. Also For. Cal.
544, 547.
1559.]
Proposed Reform League.
259
Eighth, in 1545. Henry's Primer had been reprinted
several times in the reign of Edward the Sixth, very
much as at first, preserving the old structure and con-
tents, with a few verbal softenings, with the Angelical
Salutation left out, and the Shorter Catechism put in.
In the year 1553, however, a new kind of Primer had
been started, unlike any before, containing neither the
Hours, nor the Dirge, nor the Commendations, nor the
Hymns; neither the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, nor
the Ten Commandments; containing the Catechism,
together with all the Collects out of the Prayer Book,
and consisting besides of prayers for every day of the
week, and sundry occasional prayers. It was not
a Primer, but a book of miscellaneous devotions.
Elizabeth chose the former of these models for her
own Primer, which was but her father's Primer reprinted
with a few such alterations as have been mentioned,
and some parts of the morning prayer of the Book of
Common Prayer very awkwardly inserted: and she
made her choice more emphatic, and perhaps more
acceptable to the Romanensian party, by prefixing to it
the Preface of Henry the Eighth to his Primer, and the
Injunction by which he authorised and established it.*
The old image of a league or religious concord
between England and the Protestants, which had
amused Henry the Eighth and fascinated Cranmer,
was revived at this time with illusory attraction. The
scene, the name, the memory of the first formation of
their association was recovered to the Protestants by
the Diet held at Augsburg: and the sons or survivors
* See Clay's Preface to Private Prayers of Elizabeth, Parker Soc.
He has given, in the notes, the differences between Elizabeth's and
Henry's Primer. They are mostly as to the adoration of the Blessed
Virgin. The Calendar in Elizabeth's is uncommonly bare of saints' days,
of which Henry's is full.
S 2
260
Proposed Reform League. [CH. XXXIII.
of the Augustan Confession were willing enough to
listen to the rumours that their famous platform might
be extended to the English Church, and to exchange
complimentary dispatches with the English Queen.*
The Duke of Prussia and the Landgrave of Hesse
opened proposals and received gracious replies: that
she desired nothing more than that the pure faith and
discipline embodied in the Confession of Augsburg
should be established in her realm: that it was her
intention to follow the express word of God in religion,
and such explanations of the faith and traditional rites
as were contained in the Confession of Augsburg: and
that she valued highly a union with the princes who
agreed in it. Her ambassador, Mundt, recommended
to the Protestants to send an embassy into England:
and a joint letter was written to her by the Elector of
Saxony, the Count Palatine, and the Duke of Wirtem-
burg, that she should follow the example of her brother
Edward, and adhere to the Apostolic religion in accor-
dance with the Confession of Augsburg. About the
same time Cecil wrote to Mundt a proposal for a more
general union of all the states which had "deserted the
Papal superstition and joined the pure doctrine of the
Gospel." Mundt, in answer, pointed out that their own
differences upon the mode of the Presence in the
Lord's Supper would render such a concord difficult.‡
Many in England were in favour of such a concord:
but the dislike of others of the Evangelics was echoed
by the alarm of the foreign Catholics at the notion of
it. Bullinger wrote to Utenhovius, Hiles to Bullinger,
Martyr to Sampson, to express their apprehensions.
If," cried Martyr, "your countrymen determine to
embrace the Augsburg Confession, and to seek an
+ Ib. 361.
<<
* July 2, For. Cal. 354.
‡ Ib. 478, 480. August 15.
1559.]
Discussions about it.
261
alliance with the Protestants, judge you for yourself in
what estimation the epistles that I write, and those of
men like me, will be held."* Nor less some of the
Spanish interest feared lest such a step should be taken
by the Queen. "She has said three or four very bad
things in conversation with me,"reported Feria to Philip;
one was that she wished the Augustan Confession to
be maintained in her realm. When I was much scan-
dalised, she said that it would not be the Augustan
Confession, but something else like it: and that she
differed very little from us, believing in the Divine
Presence in the Eucharist, and only dissenting from
three or four things in the Mass." So she trimmed
her sails, but it needed not. Philip and his directors
preferred the Augsburg Confession to any formulary
devised or likely to be devised among any of the
reformers. The restless Paul Vergerio, Wirtemburg's
agent, made it his business to see Killegrew and Mundt,
the English envoys, and inform them that both the
King of Spain and the Emperor would be satisfied,
since England was not to have the religion of the
Pope, if no other doctrine than the Augsburg Con-
fession were introduced. Vergerio sent his own
nephew Ludovico into England with a letter to the
Queen from the Duke of Wirtemburg to the same
effect: that on the basis of the Augsburg Confession
* "Si, ut dicitur, consilium est vestratum, ut Augustanam Confessionem
amplectantur, et fœdus Protestantium ambiant, ipse cogitare potes quo
loco meæ ac mei similium literæ sint habendæ.”—20 March, Zurich Lett.,
ii. 29, Lat. (Epist. xx.). Cf. pp. 15, 17, 48.
↑ Span. Cal. 61, April. Two years later Bishop Quadra suspected that
negotiations with the Protestants were one of the reasons for refusing to
admit a Nuncio.—Ib. 203.
† This was in agreement with the proposition made at this Diet that
nought but the Catholic Religion and the Augsburg Confession should be
allowed in the Empire.
fessio."—For. Cal. 172.
"Catholica Religio" and "Augustana Con-
262
The Word "Protestant" [CH. XXXIII.
the Spanish and Imperial alliance would stand with
England against the Pope and France. On Ludovico's
return, Vergerio proposed to go into England himself,
either as ambassador, or for himself, and to preach
there.*
The word Protestant, the designation of the powers
that agreed in the Confession of Augsburg, began at
this time to obtain its unfortunate vogue in England.
No term misapplied has been more fruitful of confusion.
It hovered on the confines in the reign of Edward;
it marched to the capital of celebrity, whence it has
never been expelled, now, in Elizabeth's first year.
But I am inclined to think that the victorious invasion
entered the realm that it has subjugated, not from the
land of its nativity, nor in consequence of the renewed
negotiations that have been described, but from the
boreal hills of Scotland, and that it was admitted by
the intelligent facility of Cecil. Scotland was at this
moment in the throes of her own tremendous Reforma-
tion. Cecil intelligently perceived that the frightful
havoc of that revolution was a protestation against
something, against an existing system, of which the
evils were certainly flagrant: and in his correspondence
with the envoy Croft concerning the Lords of the
Congregation and their doings the Protestant appella-
tion was not uncommonly applied: while an explanation
of the novelty, an expository limitation of the term,
may be detected where they add "the Protestants of
* All this was in the first part of 1559: see the letters in Foreign Cal.,
pp. 112, 225, 243, 245, 246. In one of them Vergerio relates that some
English people who had lately arrived in Germany were found to have 27
Articles, differing from the Augsburg Confession: that these had been
written down, and that the Princes were talking about it: that he himself
had endeavoured to excuse or deny this, urging that though two or three
might hold such wild opinions, yet others did not. These Articles may
perhaps have been the "Declaration" laid before the Queen, which we
examined in the last chapter.
1559.]
comes into use.
263
Scotland."* But perhaps, though it is impossible to
tell, the bewildering appellation had already passed
into use: and Cecil may have merely followed the
innovation. Cox, in one of his remonstrances with
the Queen, speaks as if it were both prevalent and
needful of apology: "the Protestants, as they term
them, on the one side, and the Papists on the other."†
* Cecil, in July, endorsed a list of the Congregation, "Protestants of
Scotland."-For. Cal., p. 351. Croft writes to Cecil soon after, "The
Protestants of Scotland do still remain at Edinburgh."-Ib., p. 365,
where "of Scotland" is omitted as superfluous by Stevenson, the editor,
but is found in the original in State Pap. of Scotland, vol. i. p. 55, Rec.
Office. Cecil and Croft, as they got on in using the designation Protes-
tants, dropped the description "of Scotland." On the other hand, it
figures in the French Articles of Agreement between the Congregation
and Mary of Guise, the Queen Regent, of July: "Articles accordez aux
les Protestans de Scosse."-For. Cal. 406; State Pap. of Scotland, i. 69.
I think that traces may be found of a similar apologetic explanation or
limitation when the word began to be accepted in England, and after-
wards. Thus, Aylmer, in his Harborowe.. against the late blown Blast,
published this year, has not the word: it is unknown to him as applied to
England. But when Strype, a hundred and fifty years after, writes
Aylmer's Life, and has to give an account of his book, he perceives on
the one hand that Aylmer has nothing about Protestants, and he knows
on the other that every Englishman who is not a Papist is now called a
Protestant, and he feels himself bound to use the prevalent term (as he
unfortunately does in all his writings concerning this period): so he tries
to reconcile the two positions by describing the Harborowe as “penned
in the name and for the vindication of the English Protestants": and
on this description he founds his whole review of "a work which contains
not the name of the imaginary persons in whose name he thought it was
penned." Aylmer, being out of England, knew nothing of the partial
acceptance which certainly the word had obtained at that time in
England. Again, the Romanensian exile Dorman publishes his Proof
at Antwerp in 1564. He attacks therein the inconsistency of those who
once opposed but now upheld the government of a woman (fol. 119). He
uses not the word Protestant: and yet Strype, when he refers to the
passage, says that Dorman brought this accusation against "all English
Protestants" (Annals, i. 122). Dorman, however, going out of England
in the beginning of Elizabeth, was not so unacquainted with the partial
acceptance of the word here as Aylmer was, and though he will not have
it in his text, he puts it in his margin in another passage, in which he
caricatures the English doctrine of the Presence, and sums it as "A
Protestant's Faith" (fol. 73).
+ Bishop Cox to the Queen, Strype, App. 22.
264
The "Blast" of John Knox. [CH. XXXIII.
A year or two later, one of Pilkington's opponents
speaks of "the new preachers and Protestants."*
John Knox, who was now in the day of his power
in Scotland, had printed in Geneva in the reign of
Mary Tudor a book that would never have seen the
light if he could have foreseen the course of events,
his First Blast against the monstrous Regiment
of Women. He was supported by the violent exile
Goodman in another book, that it was unlawful for
women to reign, forbidden by the word of God. The
consequences of this were various and not fortunate.
The books were brought into England, and read
extensively. Their furious, indeed murderous language
alarmed the Court, and cast suspicion on the returning
exiles, who were kept in poverty longer than they
might have been. The exiles disowned such opinions.
Calvin disowned and regretted them. Notwith-
standing all denials, the exiles, and the Evangelics in
general, incurred the attack of the contemporary
Romanensians, as having defended rebellion and
assassination, when Mary was on the throne, and, when
Elizabeth, submission both in temporal and spiritual
things. As for Knox and Goodman, Cecil declared
them to be abhorred in the eyes of England. Good-
man passed into Scotland, whence in a year or two he
returned to England, and made a full retractation of
his book. Knox, desiring at once on Elizabeth's
accession to revisit England, vainly endeavoured to
obtain permission by a letter to Cecil that he would
* Pilkington's Works, 552 (Park. Soc.).
+ Calvin wrote to Cecil, about January 29, 1559, concerning Knox's book,
which was published without his knowledge, regretting that such subjects
should have been moved by one arrogant and rash person, "ob incon-
sideratum unius hominis fastum."-Zurich Lett. ii. p. 35.
Dorman brought this charge in his Proof, p. 119. See Strype,
ch. ix., who gives a full account of this matter.
1559.]
Knox and the Prayer Book.
265
acknowledge the Queen by means of a distinction:
that she was to be heartily obeyed not by reason of
her right of succession or the laws of the land, but by
an extraordinary divine dispensation: which if she
would confess he would willingly maintain her
authority.* He was indeed conceding more than
Elizabeth or Cecil knew: for he had a second Blast
nearly ready. And he might have blown it. His
First Blast was answered with temperance, dignity, and
learning by one of the returned exiles, Aylmer, a friend
and assistant of Fox in his great work, now Arch-
deacon of Stow.† He never blew his second.
"A
John Knox, while he was thus engaged, wrote to
one of his female correspondents a denunciation of
"the Great Book of England," the Book of Common
Prayer, of the second revision of Edward the Sixth,
the volume which, hurled by the strong hand of Cox,
had expelled him from the city of Frankfort.
portion of the Beast's Marks are left in your Great
Book of England," said he, "the Cross in Baptism,
kneeling at the Lord's Table, mumbling or singing of
the Litany, from lightning and tempest. No jot of
which diabolical invention will I ever counsel any man
The whole Order appears devised more for
the upholding of Massing priests than for good instruc-
* See Strype as above. Knox wrote to the Queen himself in July, to
the same effect.-For. Cal. 398.
to use.
+ Aylmer was Archdeacon of Stow before his exile, and a distinguished
man in Convocation.—Vol. IV. p. 75 huj. op. He soon after his return
became Archdeacon of Lincoln, and eventually Bishop of London. His
Harborowe.. for faithful subjects against the late blown Blast was
printed in Strasburg in this year, 1559, just before his return. He treats
Knox with great consideration, as a good man though mistaken. The
work was out in April.—Cf. For. Cal., p. 287. Strype's Life of Aylmer,
ch. xii. Knox had heard of it but had not read it in the following July,
and hoped that the writer had no less assayed the glory of God and the
commodity of his country, than he in his Blast to utter his conscience. To
Cecil.-For. Cal. 375.
266
Knox and the Prayer Book. [CH. XXXIII.
tion. Their Sacraments were ministered without the
soul: because they were ministered without the word
truly and openly preached. I would not countenance
such superstitious priests in their corrupt, lifeless,
liturgical services."* And yet the Book that he
detested, "the Book set forth by godly King Edward,”
was ordered to be read in the churches of Scotland by
the Lords of the Congregation in place of the Latin
service.† Perhaps the influence of Knox was not so
great as he thought. He seems to have made no
public protestation against the introduction of the
English Book; which was among the measures of
the Congregation for establishing a unity between the
realms but he wrote again to his female correspondent
that he disliked the English Reformation and the
English Acts of Parliament: "If your Reformation be
no better than your Acts express, I repent not of my
absence from England." And yet he persisted in
applying to Cecil and the Queen, four or five times,
for passage into England. In August he made a
descent by sea upon Holy Island, in the character of
a secret ambassador: he was received into Bamburgh
Castle, conversed with Crofts, and departed in a day
or two, having done no more than excite suspicion. §
Strype, ch. ix., Knox to Anna Lock; For. Cal. 204.
"As to the parish churches, they cleanse them of images and all
other monuments of idolatry, and command that no masses be said in
them in place thereof the Book set forth by godly King Edward.”
Kirkaldy to Percy, July 1.—Ib. 350. "The parish churches they
deliver of altars and images, and receive the service of the Church of
England according to King Edward's Book." Cecil to Throckmorton,
July 9.—Ib.
‡ Ib. 344, Knox to Anna Lock.
§ "On 1 Aug. Mr. Knox came by sea to Holy Island, minding to come
to Sir Harry Percy and myself secretly: but at his arrival he was so well
known that his being here is published abroad, which will breed great
suspicion. Howbeit he is so secretly conveyed to this castle, that my
speaking to him can be suspected but not known. He delivered the
1559.]
Dutch Refugees in London.
267
Of the sincerity and holiness of Knox there is no
question. In one of his letters he roundly rebukes
Elizabeth for her compliance under Mary. In another
he sternly reproaches Cecil for the same weakness, his
"horrible defection from the truth": that he had " by
silence consented and subscribed to the suppressing of
Christ's true Evangel, the erecting of idolatry, and the
shedding of the blood of God's dear children." In
another he humbly thanks his Divine Master, who
had employed his tongue for forty days in preaching
the truth. But he was not of capacity and learning to
guide the reformation of a kingdom.
Flying from the horrible persecution to which they
found themselves exposed in their own country, the
Dutch or Low German Strangers, who had been
banished from England by Mary, were not slow to
seek again from Elizabeth the privileges and immunity
which had been granted them under Edward. The
learned Adrian Hamstedius, a man who had suffered
much for religion, came from Zealand in the former
part of the year, gathered a flock of his countrymen,
and was permitted to preach to them in several of the
London churches, as Christ Church and St. Margaret's,
Westminster. But when Utenhovius arrived, a few
months later, who had been an elder in their former
congregation here, they desired a more settled place
of assembly. Utenhovius came with high commenda-
tions, bearing letters to the Queen from Alexander
Aless and John Laski or A Lasco: from the one he
brought the immense burden of reminiscences to which
we have had several occasions of referring, from the
offers and requests of the Protestants, &c." Crofts to Cecil, Aug. 3.-For.
Cal. 445. He arrived "in such unsecret sort, that it is openly known
both in England and Scotland; he has not discreetly used his coming."
Percy to Cecil, Aug. 4.-Ib. 447.
1
268
Dutch Refugees in London. [CH. XXXIII.
other, whose constant associate he had been, a parenetic
effusion against "Parliamentary theology," with the
favourable notice of "a brother in the Lord."* With
him came Peter de Loene or Deloenus, a minister, son
of the Walter de Loene who was one of the ministers
of the Strangers in Edward's days: † and Peter was
admitted to serve the church of the Strangers now as
the colleague of Hamstedius. But when Utenhovius
presented the royal charter of Edward, which he had
brought with him carefully preserved, whereby their
congregation had been incorporated as a body politic
of a superintendent and ministers, with the request
that it might be renewed or confirmed, the Queen
demurred. A corpus corporatum politicum, as the
charter had it, could not be created, with a foreign
superintendent, as Laski had been, without maiming
the jurisdiction of the diocesan. Their petition bore
the restitution of their former "Temple of the Lord,"
which was part of the church of the Friars Austin, with
the houses of their ministers adjacent and this was
* For. Cal. p. 534.
+ Vol. III. p. 234 of this work.
(6
The Supplication of the Ministers, Elders, Deacons, and other
brethren," Lond. Dec. 10, 1559, is in the Record Office, Dom. Eliz.
vol. vii. No. 62 (Cal. 144). They record their former settlement under
Edward VI., whom they call a second Cyrus in the building of the Temple.
They enumerate the benefits which their allowance would bring the
Queen's realm: viz. that Christ rewards kindness done to His members:
that merchants can propagate the Gospel : that dangerous foreigners would
be distinguishable as forming no congregation; that "regnum augetur
bonis civibus ac fidelibus, nimirum cælestibus ac filiis Dei": that daily
prayers would be offered for the Queen: that the foreign poor are
supported by their own people. They add that diversity of ceremonies
was no great obstacle, being adiaphora; and point out that in Mary's
time foreigners allowed the English abroad to keep their worship.
Utenhovius sent next day a petition (Ib. No. 63) relating his troubles
nomine religionis under Charles V., and asking the Queen for restitution
of £400 Flemish, owing to him. These documents are printed in A Lasco
Opera, Kuyper ed., Amst. 1866.
1559.]
A List of their Names.
269
granted, against the opposition of the Marquis of
Winchester, the unscrupulous Powlet, who held the
rest of the site. By the Queen's Purveyor the Temple
was cleared of the casks, vessels, and naval stores with
which it was filled in Queen Mary's days; and the
Strangers entered therein. They sought to take off
the principal objection to their incorporation by accept-
ing the Bishop of London as their superintendent:
and they ineffectively repeated their petition for a
charter. However they long after enjoyed an un-
molested worship and a permitted constitution. As
for the French Strangers, who had formerly been
included in the concern under Superintendent Laski,
they showed no desire to resume that privilege: but
a church in Threadneedle Street, part of St. Antony's
Hospital dissolved, sufficed them for themselves.*
* Strype, Ann., ch. viii. The following alphabetical list of the German
Church in London, specifying their trades and occupations, is in State Pap.
Dom. Eliz. xvii. 33 (Cal. 177). It has not been printed before, and may
interest the reader.
Nomina eorum qui se adjecerunt Ecclesiæ Germanicæ quæ est Londini.
A.
Antonius Ashe, municeps regni,
sericarius, liberos habet 6, quorum
tres sunt Angli.
Ant. Maddan, municeps, textor,
proles ht. 5 quarum duæ hic natæ.
Ant. Elspet, municeps, aurifaber,
proles habet 4 hic natas.
Ant. van Reux, textor, inserviens
cuipiam Anglo, prolem habet.
Ant. Schersliper, proles habet 3,
quarum una hic nata.
Ant. Sadeler, municeps.
Andreas de Swarte, sine liberis
operatur in turri, in opere Reginæ.
Andreas Jansen.
Andreas Blaue, sericarius, sine li-
beris.
Adrianus vanden Doorne, olim
Consul in Breda Brabantiæ, sine
liberis.
Adr. Cornelisoon, sericarius.
Adr. Obri, calcearius, prolem habet
unam.
Adr. Saravius, juvenis studiosus.
Albertus van Huyssen, famulatur
cuidam Anglo.
Adam Kaldermaker, municeps.
Ambrosius
Scherslyper, proles
habet duas.
Alardus Kycke, textor, prolem habet
unam hic natam.
Abraham de Moor, nodifex, proles
habet 3 quarum duæ hic natæ.
Andr. de Beyser, veteramentarius,
prolem habet unam hic natam.
270
The Dutch Congregation. [CH. XXXIII.
B.
Barth. de Witte, textor, prolem
habet unam hic natam.
Burcherus Janson, sportarius, inser-
viens cuipiam Anglo.
Bernhardus Joosens, juvenis.
C.
Cornelius Stevins, vitrearius inser-
viens Anglo, prolem habet unam
hic natam.
Cornel. Varberght, coriarius, proles
habet tres quarum una hic nata.
Cornel. Vonaerts.
Corn. Lancemaker.
Corn. Heyndrix, nauta, sine liberis.
Corn. Voorts.
Carolus Reux.
et
Car. Fermin, pistor, uxorem
liberos habet in Flandria.
Car. Hermans, textor, sine liberis.
Corn. Hendricks, ludimagister,
prolem habet unam.
Christianus Lamoot, agricola, pro-
lem habet unam.
Christ. Janson, pileorum confector,
sine liberis.
Christ. de Vriend, juvenis, operatur
in turre Londin.
Cæsar Anthonii.
Carolus Vanden Ende, faber tigna-
rius, prolem habet unam.
Corn. Plas, confector bombardula-
rum.
Corn. de Reyser, tinctor inserviens
cuidam Anglo, proles habet tres.
Claudius Dottigun, ludimagister,
proles habet quinque.
D.
Dionysius de Haze, coctor cervisia-
rius juvenis alteri inserviens.
Dionysius Dale,compactor librorum,
sine liberis.
Dionysius Scherrier.
Dominicus Bauwens, Antverpiæ
olim, salsamentarius,
habet absentem.
Dionysius Fredericks.
E.
uxorem
Eckbertus van Eschede.
Erasmus Top, textor, prolem habet
unam hic natam.
F.
Franciscus Marquino, caligarius.
Fras. Triapin, senex decrepit. sine
liberis.
Fras. Simonsoon, veteramentarius
sine liberis.
Fras.Bolle, pannifex, liberos habet ix.
Fras. Stale.
Fras. Vanden Bosche, ahenarius
sine liberis.
Fras. de Raed, pannifex, prolem
habet unam hic natam.
Fras. de Hane.
Fras. Martins, municeps, haberdas-
sarius, ut loquitur, sine liberis.
Fred. Conraerts, municeps, sartor,
liberos habet duos Anglos.
G.
Gelius Broeders, municeps, sartor,
liberos habet tres in Anglia natos.
Gelius van Hielie, collarius.
Gelius Bouchhoen, faber ferrarius.
Gelius de Conghe, doleator, proles
habet tres.
Gelius Jansen.
Gel. de Langhe, faber ferrarius,
cælebs.
Gel. Weegstreem, agricola, sine
liberis.
Gel. Lanslot, ludimagister, sine
liberis.
Gerardus Rutgher.
Ger. Peeters, coriarius juvenis.
Ger. Natte, confector pileorum,
proles habet tres, quarum una
hic nata.
Gregorius Prince, municeps, auri-
faber, liberos habet duos.
1559.]
A List of Names.
Ghistenas Olivier, hortularius, sine
liberis.
Ghist. Baerd, agricola, proles habet
sex.
Gerardus Erthus, textor, sine liberis.
Goynardus de Loenmaker.
Ghisbertus Stevins.
Ghisbertus Janson, juvenis peda-
gogum agens apud quendam
Anglum.
Ghisbertus de Wolfe, operatur in
turre Londin. sine liberis.
Gabriel Berts, faber lignarius, proles
habet duas, quarum una est Angla.
H.
I.
271
Joannes Utenhovius, municeps.
Joannes Enghelram, olim apothe-
carius Antverpiæ, prol. habet
unam.
Joannes Maius, compactor libro-
rum, juvenis profectus in Flan-
driam.
Joannes Camphin, textor, sine li-
beris.
Joan. Beaugrand, tinctor, proles
habet duas, quarum una hic est
nata.
Joan. Aelbert, municeps, liberos
habet 4 hic natos.
Joan. Zebedei, sportularius juvenis
inserviens Anglo cuipiam.
Henricus Mareschal, nodifex, sine Joan. Willhems, sportularius inser-
liberis.
Hen. Lieuins, scrutarius, sine liberis.
Hen. Kuyle, aurifaber juvenis.
Hen. Keningk, chyrothecarius,
proles habet duas.
Hen. de Vriese, juvenis.
Hen. Spaen.
Hen. Moreels, tapetarius in opere
Reginæ, proles habet duas.
Hans Bouclier.
Hans Jaes.
Hans Nielands, juvenis inserviens
Anglo cuipiam in serico.
Hans Jacobs.
Hans van Utrecht, sartor, sine liberis.
Hans de Brand, juvenis profectus
in Flandriam.
Hans Clerck.
Hans Ercle, sartor juvenis.
Hermannus van Oog, municeps,
calcearius.
Herm. van Monck, collarius, muni-
ceps, proles habet quattuor.
Hubertus Unghen, juvenis.
Hercules Conghelingk, chyrothe-
carius.
Henricus Nabuer, sartor, famulus.
Hans Fissher, seræ confector,
juvenis famulus.
viens Anglo, sine liberis.
Joan. de Vriend, chyrurgus, proles
habet duas hic natas.
Joan. Celen, municeps, veteramen-
tarius, prolem habet unam.
Joan. Hatron, faber tignarius, proles
habet tres.
Joan. Celot, tapetarius in opere
Reginæ, proles habet 2, una hic
nata.
Joan. Emmens, calcearius juvenis.
Joan. Bromens.
Joan. Hooren.
Joan. Lamoot, nodifex, proles habet
tres.
Joan. Ercle, calcearius, proles
habet 3.
Joan. Cuytman, serarum bombardu-
larumque confector, proles habet
tres.
Joan. Heyseeck, textor, prol.
habet unam.
Joan. van Houe, subsericarius, sine
liberis.
Joan. van de Riuiere, municeps,
sartor, proles habet 4, quarum
una hic nata.
Joan. de Pruet, cacabarius senex,
sine uxore et liberis.
272
The Dutch Congregation. [CH. XXXIII.
•
Joan. Gudschalck, pennifex, proles
habet 4.
Jacobus Claesson, chyrurgus cum
Ludovico famulo, proles habet 3,
quarum una hic nata.
Jacobus Bucerus, concionator, sine
uxore.
Jac. Hendrickson, sportularius in-
serviens Anglo cuipiam.
Jac. van Aerke.
Jac. van Weerd, serarum confector,
juvenis.
Jac. Blanckestein.
Jac. Aerle.
Jac. van Rauestein, sartor, prolem
habet unam Anglam.
Jac. Marcelis, serrator, sine prole.
Jacobus Paulisse.
Jac. Robert.
Jac. de Blocq, textor, liberos habet
4 quorum unus hic natus.
Jac. Beloeez, juvenis convivens et
serviens patri.
Jac. Quaert, municeps, viduus filium
habet unum hic natum.
Jeremias Ackerman, saccararius,
juvenis.
Justus Jaes, candelifex.
Justus Van den Walle.
Justus van der Muelen, sartor,
juvenis.
Justus de Ram, compactor librorum,
sine uxore et liberis.
Justus Broesens.
Jeronimus van Pottelsberghe, ju-
venis.
Jeron. Claes, juvenis.
Jasper Claes.
Jason de Stercke, prolem habet
quinque.
L.
Ludovicus Thiry, municeps, pellis,
proles habet tres, quarum duæ
hic natæ.
Leyn de Muelenars, juvenis.
Lenardus Willhems, juvenis, cocus
apud Stilleardos.
Laurentius Christiaen, sportularius.
Lambertus Petersoon.
Lambertus Ecs.
Laur. van Brese, saccararius apud
Anglum juvenis.
M.
Martinus Janson, horologiarius, sine
liberis.
Matthias Simonsoon, municeps,
veteramentarius, prolem habet
unam.
Mattheus Platenoet, sartor, liberos
habet quatuor, unum hic natum.
Matth. Makereel, textor, liberos
habet duos.
Matth. Swinghedau, agricola.
Moses Jockingk, aurifaber juvenis.
Melchior van Esch.
N.
Nicolas van Wes, municeps, calcea-
rius, liberos habet duos.
Nicolaus Rimme, sericarius, liberos
habet duos hic natos.
Nic. Scherrier, veteramentarius.
Nic. Parmentier.
Nic. de Vriese.
Nic. Muys, sericarius, juvenis.
Nic. Knoeckaert, viduus, molitor,
proles habet 4.
O, P.
Olivarius Moenens, pannitonsor,
sine liberis.
Pet. Deloenus, verbi Minister,
municeps sine liberis.
Petrus von Biloeez, textor, proles
habet 4.
Petrus Triven, pannifex, prolem
habet unam hic natam.
Pet. von Slype, coctor cerevisiæ,
sine liberis.
Petr. de Schoemacker.
Petr. Beeck.
Pet. de Mol, sericarius; pr. ht. 2,
quar. I hic nata.
1559.]
Pet. Michiels.
A List of Names.
Pet. de Turck, textor, sine prole.
Pet. de Visscher, calcearius juvenis.
Pet. de Brugghenan, municeps,
serrator, prol. ht. 4.
Pet. Fenten, faber ferrarius, pr. ht.
I hic natam.
Pet. Waller, pr. ht. unicam hic natam.
Pet. van Rossel.
Pet. Claerbout, hortularius, inservit
D. Will. Picqueri cum uxore et
liberis.
Pet. Hormans, municeps, pilearius,
pr. ht. 3.
Pet. Bosset, pannifex, sine liberis.
Pet. Vander Cleye, agricola, liberos
ht. 2.
Pet. de Meersman, sartor, cujus
uxor hæret in Flandria.
Philippus van Raue.
Phil. Cockuytsaet, inuxoratus.
Phil. Clans, tapetarius, pr. ht. 2,
inservit Anglo cuipiam.
Paulus de Cremere.
Paul. Maes, serrator in opere
Reginæ, sine liberis.
Paul. Scherrier.
Pasquier vander Mote, compactor
librorum, sine liberis.
Rolandus Hale.
R.
Rol. Annoot, textor, sine lib.
Richardus Wervaers.
Robertus Parens, juvenis.
S.
Simon Verwaest, collarius, pr. ht.
2, quarum una hic nata.
Simon Anthonius, juvenis famulatur
cuidam mercatori.
273
Statius Rine, sericarius, sine lib.
Sigerus van Scherburgh, juvenis.
Sebastianus van Meenen, juvenis
chyrurgus.
Stephanus vander Muelen, pictor,
filiam ht. hic natam.
T.
Theodoricus Bertins, duplator fili,
proles ht. 2.
Theodoricus Willhem, pileorum
contextor, convivit Anglo cuidam.
Theodoricus Kistemaker, arcularius.
Theodoricus Nicolas.
U, V, W.
Urbanus Luninck.
Will. Moelens, chyrurgus municeps,
proles ht. 4.
/
Will. Sadeler, municeps, aurifaber,
uxorem ht. extra ecclesiam.
Will. Pirman, municeps, sartor,
proles ht. duas.
Will. Schilder, calcearius, sine lib.
Will. Seys, tormentularius, pr.
ht. 2.
Will. de Havie, aurifaber, sine lib.
Will. van den Walle, viduus, faber
tignarius, pr. ht. 2.
Will. de Brand, sericarius, sine lib.
Will. van Res, calcearius, prol. ht.
unam.
Will. Willhems,
tormentularius,
municeps, pr. ht. 2.
Will. de Huysser, nodifex, sine lib.
Will. Seys.
Vedastus Melnede, candelifex, prol.
ht. 2.
Walterus van Helstmeere, celator,
sine lib.
Omnes qui se Ecclesiæ Germanicæ adjecerunt viri sunt fere 230 sub
Philippo Rege Hispaniarum aut sub Duce Cluvae nati.
Quorum maxima pars Evangelii nomine profugi patriam proscripti bonis
maxima ex parte amissis dira et carceres perpessi huc tanquam ad asylum
quoddam Reginæ fiducia freti confugerunt. Inter eos vero sunt 27
municipes Regni ac supra 50 juvenes qui partim Anglis inserviuant.
Viduæ præterea sunt forte 12 numero, quarum quædam sunt municipes
VOL. V.
T
274 Names of Dutch Congregation. [CH. XXXIII.
.
cum paucis liberis. Puellæ adultiores sunt ad summam 30: quarum
quædam inserviunt Anglis. Uxores Anglorum sunt 3 aut 4. Pueri vero
in tota Ecclesia qui pro Anglis non censentur, sunt circiter 139.
Hæc nos minister ac seniores Ecclesiæ Londinio Germanicæ testamur
vera esse ac ita se habere 22 Junii, 1561.
Petrus Deloenus verbi minister in Ecclesia Londin. Germanica.
Jacobus Buerrus, senior in eadem Ecclesia Germanica.
Joannes Ingelramus, senior ejusdem Ecclesiæ.
Joannes Utinhovius, senior ejusdem Ecclesiæ.
Antonius Ashe, senior ejusdem Ecclesiæ.
!
CHAPTER XXXIV.
A.D. 1560-1562.
ELIZABETH was the only great man in her kingdom.
Her ministers were strenuous men of the second order.
She only had the divining eye in politics. Her annals
are a mass of dead details, teaching no lesson, encum-
bering her historians. Intrigue succeeds intrigue;
with France, with Spain, with Scotland; all cunning,
hardened, and faithless: some of them merely dis-
honest, some criminal: in that age every country pro-
duces the same kind of worthless, cruel, and valiant
leader. It was her art, but not her chief glory, to
balance one mean ambition against another, and thwart
all by aid of her own more dexterous instruments.
At times she drew them right, and stopped some
unscrupulous proposal at her council-board through
magnanimity: but often she was dragged through the
quags of statecraft by their notions of her interests.
Even then she recovered herself by dint of an inherent
consistency.
She would have refused to support the Scottish
Congregation against the Queen Regent, and so
avoided the inglorious little war that followed. When
Mary of Guise died, it was she who supplied English
vessels to carry home the veterans of France, who
then left for ever the land which they had so often
assisted against the arms of England. Thus she
saw her advantage and joined it with humanity.
On
T 2
276
[CH. XXXIV.
State of Religious
the other hand it was she who sent out a fleet to
kidnap Mary of Scotland, when she took her sad
voyage from France to Scotland: or so it was
vehemently suspected: an attempt of turpitude which
wellnigh matches her father's design of kidnapping
Mary's father on his own land. She knew the necessi-
ties of a public height better than her wonderful rival,
whom she excelled in prudence; she never lost her
dignity in her gaiety, and lived temperately amidst the
luxuries of a prodigal court. And yet, so strange is
human nature, Elizabeth may have been inferior in
force of religious conviction to the unhappy Scottish
Queen, who soon began to sink in crime and mis-
fortune. Elizabeth, under Mary of England, sedulously
went to Mass. Mary of Scotland, from the day that
she arrived in her kingdom, braved the rage of the
Congregation, and alienated half her subjects rather
than abandon her Mass. There was some resemblance
between her Mass and the Lady Mary's Mass in the
reign of Edward the Sixth: for it was a woman against
a realm in the latter, and almost the same in the
former. But Mary of England met with the considera-
tion of a brother and the respectful, if firm, expostula-
tions of a Ridley. Mary of Scotland was confronted
by Knox and the Congregation. The vials of Knox
were poured upon her, and it is impossible not to
lament his conduct: but, to do him justice, he was as
unsparing of the vices of his own unscrupulous and
turbulent partisans: and in the terrible years of the
last half of the sixteenth century, if there is anything
that raises the history of Scotland above perfidious
intrigue and public calamity, it is the voice of Knox in
St. Giles, and the dauntless and successful protesta-
tions of Knox's assistant, a priest named Craig, against
some of the villanies of Bothwell.
1560.]
Politics in France.
277
In France the name of Huguenots began now to be
applied to the disciples of Calvin. They had propa-
gated their opinions to a prodigious extent: they had
opened in Paris a place for their public worship, and
a contagious example had been offered to Rouen,
Orleans, and other important towns. They had organ-
ised consistories and held synods: their schism from
the national Church of France assumed the appearance
of a settled institution: a population of near two
million sectaries demanded the attention of wisdom
and patriotism. Unhappily a succession of miserable
kings offered them the persuasions of persecution.
From the first they were in secession: and as they
were patroned by many of the greatest of the nobles,
they were involved from the first in the malignant
rivalries of their leaders with the leaders of the French
Catholics. If the English principle had been adopted,
to labour within for reformation, but never to secede
nor permit secession, inestimable calamity would have
been spared to France. Supported by her most
spiritually-minded children, the Gallican Church might
have maintained and even extended her liberties,
which were in constant jeopardy: she might have
crowned them by rejecting the Papal domination.
There were means for this in the Parliamentary insti-
tutions, if a French king had ever been above the
nobles and had been a man
man of great character.
Attempts in this direction were made in the assemblies
about this time, and so late in the Reformation it is
curious to mark such rudiments as the proposed
abolition of Annates, or of the control of the Pope
over ecclesiastical appointments. When France was
passing into the horror of her religious wars, there
were manifest signs of intelligent independence which
might have altered all her history. But the dread
278
The Counter-Reformation. [CH. XXXIV.
faces of the pretended Peters faded not from her
horizon. They grew more menacing. For their sake
the congregations that met in the woods around Rouen
to sing the Psalms of David were shot down by the
Guisard soldiery, and the priests who preached to
them were burned in the market-place or strangled in
the gaol.
Europe was entering upon the most cruel period of
her Christian annals, the mighty struggle of the Papacy
to repair its losses, to stay them from extending. The
Papacy was backed by the extraordinary complicity of
the King of Spain, who now withdrew his presence
from his northern realms, and, forgetting that the first
duty of a king is to protect his subjects, turned the
Peninsula, which he never again quitted, into one vast
torture-chamber. Amazement filled the world to hear
that this king had resigned his cities and villages to
the uncontrolled domination of the Inquisition: to
hear of his Acts of Faith, where fifty or a hundred at
a time were roasted alive after unutterable previous
torments and insults: that none was too high or too
low to escape that a whisper of two years before was
known to bring to the carbonado. From that parched
region he presently sent the engines of false Catholicity
into his kingdom of the Netherlands, where they
wrought vigorously, but not with the same success,
meeting with armed opposition.
In Philip lay Elizabeth's opposite, rather than in
any nearer rival. His principle, which he carried out
to the ruin of Spain, was the exact contrary of the
principle by which she raised England to greatness.
She avowed at her coronation, in her own words, that
she would be a good queen to her people. She never
swerved from this principle, and her people understood
it. This absolute difference was felt between these
1560.]
Philip of Spain.
279
rulers long before they met to fight it out on the high
seas. Philip was warned again and again by his
ambassadors that it was impossible to make a friend
of Elizabeth. They wrote of her with extreme bitter-
ness and mistrust, perceiving the hollowness of her
affected or whimsical condescensions. "She has a
hundred thousand devils in her body, and yet she talks
to me of becoming a nun,” said one of them. When
a remark was made to her of the very great number
of Flemings who were flocking to her out of the States
on account of religion, she answered that they were all
welcome, and that she, at least, would never fail them,
adding a stinging allusion to the Spaniards, "their
sweltering Indies and burning Spain."* And not to
Philip only, but to every sovereign who manifested
a share of Philip's spirit she showed herself opposed.
One of the household of her ambassador in France
having been demanded by the Inquisition there, she
insisted on his privilege, with the message to the
French King that she was not so void of the obedience
of his subjects as to fear to defend herself, and that
being of the race of lions she could not sustain the
person of a sheep.† She became regarded as the nurse
of the freedom of the world: but the love of her own
country stood first with her, gave her the renown, and
indeed enabled her to discharge, so far as she did, the
duties of the wider obligation.
The new Pope, Pius the Fourth, a Medici, a man of
address and resolution, thought to be addicted to
Spain, had taken the chair with an engagement or
* Quadra to Feria, Spanish Cal., p. 118. Thirty thousand Flemings
are said to have come into England in Elizabeth's reign.
The same
number of persons are said to have been burned alive in Spain, from
first to last I suppose.
+ For. Cal., Dec. 1560, p. 442.
280
[CH. XXXIV.
Pope Pius IV.
'capitulation" to hold a Council. The matter went on
for two years or more before it issued in the reassem-
bling of the Council of Trent. His intention was
doubtful: to wait an opportunity, to hasten, retard, or
even dismiss the project. His language was ambi-
guous: he spoke of the Council, but he might mean
a new one, or a confirmation of that convention which
had already conspired against Christian liberty for
twenty years: and he found no unanimous opinion
among the powers that still remained in his obedience.
It was a crisis in the Papacy: which was to try the
strength of the Ultramontane claims. The new Pope
reversed the policy of his predecessor with happy
results. The late Pope had nearly lost the Empire:
the new Pope secured the adhesion of Ferdinand by
prudence and spirit. The Emperor's son, Maximilian
of Bohemia, was suspected of Lutheranism: the new
Pope told him that the Lutheranism of the day was
further departed from the Roman Church than the
Augsburg Confession;* and reclaimed him by argu-
"I showed him," said Hosius, Bishop of Worms, the Pope's Nuncio,
"a Catechism in which was contained Cana Domini est Sacramentum, seu
Divinum signaculum, quo Christus vere præsens offert ac donat pane et
vino Corpus et Sanguinem suum. Now, said I, the author of this was
puzzled by the variations of the Augsburg Confession: which at first had
sub speciebus panis et vini, then in and sub pane, then cum pane. So he
has omitted all the prepositions, that the reader might add whichever
of them he would. And further, as he could not do this in German,
which requires a preposition, he has, in the German, totally omitted
the sign and writes (in German), Hoc est Cœna Domini, et Sacra-
mentum, et divinum signaculum, in quo Christus vere præsens veraciter
nobis Corpus et Sanguinem suum exhibet. He gives, you see, neither the
Catholic speciem panis et vini, nor the Lutheran panem et vinum: no
description of the sign at all. The king stared. I then remarked that
though it was proposed at the Naumburg gathering that all the Protestant
princes should again subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, yet those
Protestant princes were nearly all departed from the first edition of the
Augsburg Confession in divers points, but especially as it regarded the
Eucharist: for the doctrine therein was plainly Catholic; it was sub
:
1560.]
Meditates a Council.
281
ments not untinged with threats. The Duke of Savoy
requested a religious colloquy to be held between
some Catholic theologians and his Waldensian subjects,
who were lately passed to him from the dominion of
the French: the new Pope offered to send him a Legate,
advising him, and not in vain, that a war would be
better than a colloquy. The Gallican clergy, headed
by Bishop Monluc of Valence, exclaiming : "Are not
Saone and Marne, rivers of France, enough to quench
the flames of Paris that we should fetch the waters of
Tiber?" designed to compose their own affairs by a
national synod: the new Pope sent a messenger among
them, and worked another messenger on them through
Spain, that a national synod would be a schism, that
they should wait for the Council.* The new Pope
sent messengers announcing the design of the Council
to most of the princes in the summer: but it was not
before November that the Bull was actually drafted.
He walked barefoot in procession with all the Cardinals
to pray for unity, promising absolution a pœna et culpa
speciebus panis et vini, not in sub or cum pane et vino. Hence their
doctrine was never impeached by Catholics, nor apologetically defended
by Melanchthon. The king went and fetched his copy of the first edition
of the Augsburg, and found exactly as I said. Now, proceeded I, if these
Protestants now met at Naumburg subscribe to the genuine Augsburg
Confession, which was presented to the Emperor Charles, they must
reject Luther's in pane and sub pane, and Calvin's cum pane, and keep
to the Catholic sub speciebus panis et vini: and I cannot think that they
will do it. Nor I, said the king, for they are nearly all Calvinians."
-Hosius to Card. Borromeo, Raynald. sub an. 1560, xvi. (p. 53). The
reference is to the great meeting of the Protestant princes at Naumburg
in Thuringia, to renew the Augsburg Confession.
66
* It is not uninteresting to observe that Raynaldus calls Monluc
pseudoepiscopus" (p. 74). The Bishop of Valence was one of the cele-
brated ecclesiastics of his age, and about this time greatly employed
in the negotiations between England and Scotland, both of which
countries he visited. Of his Orders there was no question, and yet
he is "pseudoepiscopus," because he stood for the Gallican liberties!
This is the way of them.
282
[CH. XXXIV.
Papal Emissaries
to all who would return to his obedience; and com-
mitted the Bull to the composition of two Cardinals.*
When it reached the princes, to whom it seems to have
been sent by other Nuncios, it gave little satisfaction.
It was a double-tongued Bull, from which it was
difficult to gather whether it were to be a new Council
or not. Philip turned from his holocausts, demanding
why it expressed not clearly that Trent was to be con-
tinued and at first refused to receive or publish it.
The French King replied that the ambiguity must be
corrected before he would receive it,† The Emperor
sent the two Nuncii who brought him the Bull to the
great meeting of the Protestants at Naumburg, saying
that he must be guided to some extent by their decision.
The Protestants, who were gathered at Naumburg for
the solemn renewal of the Augustan Confession,
received the Nuncii with great civility, but returned
them their papers unopened.‡ The Bull was carried
:
* For. Cal., Nov. 23, 1560, p. 402.
+ So Sarpi, but there are various accounts. See e. g. Giannetti of
Venice to Queen Eliz., Aug. 1560, Ib. 211; and his still more important
letter of December, Ib. 430.
The answer of the Protestant princes at Naumburg to the two Nuncii
(or Legates) is in a printed pamphlet in the Record Office, see Ib.
p. 540 (Feb. 7, 1561). It contains the following remarks: That many
good men desired a better condition of the Church: that the Roman
pontiffs should especially endeavour after this, who arrogate to their
church the name of the Church: but that they have done no such
thing. The princes wonder what induced the Pope to obtrude his
summons upon them: "neque enim ipsum Pontificem et vos ignorare
quam Religionem Status Augustanæ Confessionis amplectantur"; and
why they were forced to hold aloof "ab eo Cœtu qui oppressa doctrinæ
celestis veritate, suam potius quam Christi gloriam quærit.” The princes
take it that the Nuncii and the Pope admit that they do not accept the
Pope's authority, and they are sure that he has no right to call a Council.
"Injuste etiam oratione vestra sese taxari Illustr. Principes affirmant,
quod nullam fidei certitudinem habeant, sed tot nunc sint Evangelia quot
Doctores, tot religiones quot voluntates: extat enim non solum de
omnibus fidei Articulis perspicua ipsorum Confessio Carolo V. Augustæ
anno 1530 exhibita, verum etiam variis hactenus editis scriptis celestis
1
1560.]
are dispatched.
283
by a Nuncio to no purpose into Poland, with design to
go even into Muscovy, where the Pope had never been
acknowledged. It travelled to the confines of Den-
mark: but the King of Denmark shut it out. A Papal
emissary went into Scotland, and a Nuncio would have
followed, to invite the Queen of Scots to send repre-
sentatives to the Council: for the revolt of Scotland
was a new calamity which troubled the Pope sorely.*
A Nuncio made his way into Ireland from Brittany.†
For England itself was designated a Nuncio in Vin-
cenzio Parpalia before the Bull was framed: when the
Bull was ready, another agent, named Jerome Mar-
tinengo, was chosen to bring it. England was also
traversed by the papalist emissary Morette, who went
into Scotland.
Parpalia, Abbot of St. Salute, no stranger to
England, formerly of the suite of Pole, had his way
carefully prepared. The Pope wrote previously to
the Spanish ambassador, Quadra, in London to do all
that he could.‡ And on the day that he gave his
letters to his intended Nuncio he wrote to the
Emperor, to the King of Spain, and to the Queen of
England herself. Assist me, Ferdinand, to maintain
in the unity of the Church Catholic a realm so lately
recovered. Write to this queen: send ambassadors
to her, and tell her that she shall have from me what-
ever she may deem requisite to confirm her in her
doctrinæ veritas illustrata et explicata est." They conclude, “Cumque
non errore lapsi, nec temeritate, curiositate, aut pravis cupiditatibus: sed
severissimo Dei mandato, quo præcipitur idola fugienda esse, impulsi
Germani principes a Romana Ecclesia discesserint, constanter in ea
sententia perseveraturi sunt, nec ullas sibi a Pontifice leges præscribi
patientur." Feb. 7, 1561. Cf. For. Cal., p. 540.
* His name was Morette: Parpalia was to have been the Nuncio to
follow him.-Span. Cal. 219, 224, 253. See below.
+ Ib. 210.
‡ March 10, 1560.-Raynald., p. 74.
UorM
284
Letters from Pius IV. [CH. XXXIV.
་
kingdom."*" Philip, how great thy share in the recon-
ciliation of Mary's kingdom is sounded by the praise
of all: indeed, much of it was the work of thy piety.
Now thou art kept free from foreign wars and enemies
that thou mayest devote thyself to exterminating
heresies, and extinguishing that intestine war of the
Church. Add to thy labours the noble task of purging
England from heretical pravity: nothing will better
befit the Catholic king." "Elizabeth, our dearest
daughter, how much we desire to aid thee is known
to Him who searches the heart. Avoid evil coun-
sellors: know the time of thy visitation. We send
thee a man known to thee, to us most trusted, Vincen-
tius Parpalia, will tell thee all our mind. Thou art
promised by us everything that concerns thy soul's
salvation and the confirmation of thy royal dignity,
according to our authority and place.† Return to the
bosom of the Church: bring thy nation with thee:
rejoice the hearts of all our brethren, who are soon to
meet in an œcumenical and general council for the
abolition of heresies. About this matter Vincentius
will tell thee more: receive him, and listen to him, as
if it were to ourself.” ‡
Parpalia began to come from Rome, well equipped
with money, and with high expectation. The Pope
had been led to enter on the project by the discon-
tented English in Rome. Italy believed that the
* "Saluti suæ et regno simul hac occasione oblata consulat, impe-
tratura a nobis quidquid ad stabiliendum regnum suum esse duxerit
postulandum, quod quidem secundum Deum a nobis concedi possit."
-Raynald., p. 74.
+ "Ad dignitatem tuam regiam stabiliendam et confirmandam, pro
auctoritate, pro loco ac munere, quod nobis a Deo commissum fuit."
These three letters were all written May 5, 1560. See them in
Raynaldus as above. The one to Elizabeth is given by Heylin, Collier,
Soames, and Lingard. Versions of them all are given by the late
Mr. Stevenson in For. Cal., p. 42.
1560.]
Parpalia and England.
285
people of Elizabeth "drew not all by one string” in
the alteration of religion. The Pope committed
the question to the consideration of four Cardinals,
of whom one was the surviving friend of Pole, Morone,
whom he had taken out of the prison of St. Angelo,
where Paul had lodged him on charge of heresy, and
whom he had made his chief adviser.* When on
this persuasion he resolved to send a Nuncio, he was
not deterred by the opposition of those who held it
beneath the dignity of the Holy See to send to schis-
matics, nobly replying that it became him to be
humbled for the good of souls. Parpalia's movements
were closely observed and reported in England.† He
went first into France, whence after no long stay he
sailed down the Rhine from Spiers to Cologne, and on
to Louvain and Brussels, by the middle of June. Many
English, friars and others, went to Brussels to meet and
welcome him. But in a month he received a discour-
aging letter from the Spanish ambassador in England,
Quadra; who also informed his master that the Queen
was dissatisfied with the person of the Nuncio.§
* Sheres at Venice to Cecil, May 11, 1560.-For. Cal., p. 43.
Throckmorton in France to the Queen.—Ib. 156. It was Englefield,
the well-known friend of Queen Mary, who is said to have caused the
Pope to think that England might be recovered by sending a Nuncio.-
Span. Cal., p. 162.
+ The old Roman resident Carne wrote to inform the Queen of his
departure from Rome.-For. Cal. 100. Parry told Cecil the same.—Ib.
Gresham at Antwerp told Parry the same.—Ib. 119.
Gresham to Parry.—Ib. 136. At Antwerp the people ridiculed
his errand. Old Lady Dormer, mother of the Countess Feria, refused
to speak to him at Louvain.-Ib. 155.
§ Quadra to Philip, July 25.-Span. Cal. 170. Parpalia was in the
French interest against the Spanish. Philip had tried to have him
discharged, and another Nuncio appointed, before he left Rome: and
put delay in his way at Brussels. Bishop Quadra thought him bad.
"If the Pope is really going to send an envoy here, I wish it were
any one rather than this abbé, who is a staunch Frenchman, and con-
sidered tricky here. He is unpopular, as he was a servant of Cardinal
Pole, and they ought to send a modest learned man.”—Span. Cal. 159.
286
Supposed Offer to sanction [CH. XXXIV.
He stayed three months in Brussels, recreating him-
self with a visit to Antwerp. He then wrote into
England, perhaps to Cecil, a somewhat impertinent
letter that he had little hope of his embassy, seeing
that the Queen was keeping the Catholic bishops in
prison, perhaps out of umbrage at him; but that, as
she had expressed a high opinion of the present Pope,
he still waited to discharge his embassy.* No answer
was returned to this effusion: and the Papal agent,
after lingering some time longer in Brussels, at length,
in November, abandoned his mission, and retiring
towards Rome through France, delivered himself to
the Cardinal of Lorraine at Orleans of "a very lewd
discourse of the Queen, her religion, and proceedings."†
He is said to have been a man of little learning.
It has been affirmed that through Parpalia the Pope
* (6 Quello poi, che sia per seguire della mia andata alla detta Regina,
et del fiatto che possa partorire la mia ambasciata, io ne spero molto
poco, poi ch' io vedo che la detta Regina ha fatto ritenere pregioni tutti
li vescovi et li alteri Theologi Cattolici del suo regno, forse piu per l'ombra
che ha preso di questa mia ambasciata, che non fosse per dare animo
alli Cattolici. Si quali sotto questo favore non fossero per fare alcuna
solevatione, che per altra causa, nondimeno essa Regina dice tuttavia,
che ha molto buona opinione della mente del presente Papa, si che però
non è per negar mai di oldire (udire ?) volentieri quello che novva dirle,
sperando che non vogli da lei, se non cosa che sia giusta, et vide per lei,
et per il suo Regno. Imperò aspetto che mi sia comandato quello, che
haverò da fare, et desidero di potermi sbrigare di questa mia ambasciata
avanci che venga l'invernata se puo sarà possibile di confare.”—For. Pap.
Eliz.; cf. Cal., p. 289. This letter is described by Stevenson as
addressed to the Queen: but it cannot have been so.
The letter goes
on to speak of insignificant affairs no way connected with his embassy,
just as if he had been one of the Queen's own agents. Brussels, Sept. 8,
1560.
+ Throckmorton to the Queen, Nov. 28, 1560.-For. Cal. 409. The
Queen had seen Parpalia's brief, which had been sent to her from Toledo
by her agent Chamberlain.-Ib., p. 418. She is said to have signified
indirectly that she would not be averse to sending a representative to
a general Council; but she would not have Parpalia embroiling the
Romanensians in her kingdom.
}
1560.]
the English Prayer Book.
287
But no
offered to confirm the English Prayer Book, provided
that his authority were acknowledged, and the book
formally accepted from his hand. Of the good will of
the Pope, of his desire to keep England reconciled, of
his zeal for the salvation of souls, there is no question:
his efforts to make the Council which he proposed
general or œcumenical were extraordinary.
good can come from Rome beyond good will. There
is no sign that Pius the Fourth ever proposed terms
that could be debated or arranged between the Papacy
and the churches that had broken from it: that it ever
occurred to him to yield any part of his enormous
pretensions, or suffer any part to be proposed for
question. His very summoning of a Council asserted
his claim to be above princes, and deprived the Council
that he summoned of the character of free and general,
which he would have desired for it. As to the purpose
of such a Council, he frankly said that it was for extir-
pating heresies: that is, for the creation of new
heresies by means of new definitions, to brand more
deeply by that infamously misused name the commu-
nities and kingdoms on which it was already illicitly
stamped. There is no sign that he faltered in the
claim of universal bishop, his own communion the
whole and only Church or that he abandoned
the principle of persecution, if through prudence he
somewhat slackened the practice in his own capital.*
A man of seventy, grown old in official life, he was not
likely to depart from the traditions of his place to
propose terms of accommodation to the heretic Queen
of England at the time when he exhorted her to
* When the chief Inquisitor of his predecessor asked for three months
of absence, "Go away," said the Pope, laughing, "not only for three
months, but for the rest of your life, if you will." Nevertheless he set
up the Inquisition again at Rome, which the populace had destroyed and
scattered.
288
[CH. XXXIV.
Pope Pius IV. and the
absolute surrender. All that he is known to have
said to her was: "Return into the bosom of the Church
and I will say that you are not a bastard: and then
come to my Council for extirpating heresy.": Nor
appears it, though it has been so affirmed, that Parpalia
had any such proposal to make. His own letter to
the Queen is too vague to found anything particular
upon it.t
* This was the meaning of the phrases in his letters about confirming
the kingdom and the dignity of Elizabeth. So Sanders understood them.
"Si quidem esset de quo sibi propter incertos natales ab Ecclesia vel
Pontifice, quoad jus regnandi, metueret, sedis Apostolicæ benignitate.
facile transigi posse diceret (Nuncius)."-Schism, p. 288 (1628).
+ There is no contemporary evidence of such an offer. The earliest
mention of it is eleven years later, in 1571. It occurs in a dispatch from
Walsingham relative to the projected marriage between Elizabeth and
the Duke of Anjou, and the scruples entertained by the mother of the
latter, Catherine de Medici, concerning the English service instead of
the Mass for her son. Walsingham told the Queen-mother that the Duke
would be merely required to forbear his Mass and be content with the
English form, which, as he was informed, the Pope was willing to have
confirmed as Catholic. "I shewed her that sudden change was not
required (the same being referred over to God, whose office it is to
change hearts) but only the forbearing of his Mass, and to content
himself with the form of our prayers; whereof I shewed her I had
delivered a copy unto Mons. de Foix: which form of prayers, madam,
quoth I, the Pope, as I am informed, would have by council confirmed
as Catholic, so the Q. my mistress would have acknowledged the same as
received from him." In the margin there is a note by Walsingham him-
self, "an offer made by the Cardinal of Lorraine, as Sir N. Throckmorton
shewed me" (f. 138). To Burleigh, Louviers, June 21, 1571.-For. Cal., p. 477.
This is indirect: it is what Walsingham said that Throckmorton showed
him that the Cardinal of Lorraine had offered. How, when, where, that
powerful and unscrupulous ecclesiastic made the offer, is left. If it was
at the time of Parpalia's mission, it cannot have been on the Pope's
authority, for Lorraine was not then in the Pope's confidence. And yet
it could scarcely have been later. The next mention of it, often cited by
the older historians, is in Camden, whose History of Elizabeth was published
posthumously in 1618. He mentions it only as a public rumour. "Fama
obtinet Pontificem fidem dedisse sententiam contra matris nuptias tanquam
injustam rescissurum, Liturgiam Anglicam sua auctoritate confirmaturum,
et usum Sacramenti sub utraque specie Anglis permissurum, dummodo
illa Romanæ Ecclesiæ se aggregaret, Romanæque Cathedræ Primatum
agnosceret, imo et hæc curantibus aliquot aureorum millia fuisse promissa.”
1560.]
English Prayer-Book.
289
It is not indeed impossible that Elizabeth's Prayer
Book, in the Latin version, may have been in the
hands of Pope Pius in the first part of the year 1560,
at the beginning of his pontificate and of the agitation
of the Council. The Latin Prayer Book had been
ready in the August before, though the publication
was in April.* If so, he perused a work which may
have pleased him. He beheld a Calendar as full of
saints as his own; and he could not know how widely
p. 73, s. an. 1560. The next is Coke's Norwich Charge, delivered in 1606:
which is usually quoted by the older historians. But this refers not to
the matter at all, but to something subsequent under the following Pope:
though "Pius V." has been explained as a mere slip of the pen for Pius IV.
It can hardly be so. The Charge has it that the Pope, "before the time
of his excommunication against Queen Elizabeth denounced, sent his
letter unto her majesty, in which he did allow the Bible and Book of
Divine Service, as it is now used among us, to be authentic and not
repugnant to truth: but that therein is contained enough necessary to
salvation, though there was not so much in it as reasonably might
be: and that he would allow it unto us without changing any part
so that her majesty would acknowledge to receive it from the Pope and
by his allowance, which her majesty denying to do, was then presently
by the same Pope excommunicated. And this is the truth concerning
Pope Pius V. as I have faith in God and man.
have faith in God and man. I have oftentimes heard
avowed by the late Queen her own words, and I have conferred with
some lords that were of the greatest reckoning in the State, who had seen
and read the letter which the Pope sent to that effect, and have by me
been specified. And this upon my credit, as I am an honest man, is most
true." Coke furiously repudiated the printed version of his Charge, con-
taining this: it was surreptitiously put forth by one Pricket," and
impudently dedicated to the Earl of Exeter, Coke's father-in-law: it
was an erroneous and ill-spelled pamphlet, wherein there is not one
period in that sort and sense that I delivered it": and he hints that it
was done by an enemy.-Reports, Part vii. Preface. After Coke comes Sir
Rog. Twysden, who says that he himself had received the same account
"from persons of nigh relation unto them that were actors in the manage-
ment of the business."-Histor. Vind. of the Ch. of Engl., ch. ix. The
reader can judge for himself the worth of all this as evidence.
<<
tt
* "The Book of Common Service in Latin is now in perfection: would
that Cecil would put his authority to the setting it to the printer." Mason
to Cecil, Aug. 11, 1559.—S. P. For. Cal. 468. Cf. S. P. Dom. Cal. 136. It is
said that Wolf brought out an edition in 1559.—Liturgic Serv., Park. Soc.,
Clay's Pref. xxiv.
VOL. V.
U
290
Haddon's Latin Version, [CH. XXXIV.
herein the version varied from the original.* He
found nothing offensive to himself; no startling rubrics
and denunciations; for several which might have
startled him had been silently dropped, and left no
trace. But it would be ridiculous to suppose that
because the Pope may have read the book, the book
was written for the Pope to read; or that the Queen
besigned, as some say, to exhibit her reformation in
a fair aspect to the foreign world. Her purpose was,
what she said, to provide her Universities and Schools
with a Latin Use: and she employed the fine pen of
Walter Haddon upon the previous version of Alex-
ander Aless. Some redundant or inaccurate expres-
sions in Aless were corrected, and some alterations
were made on principle, and Haddon was thrown upon
himself at times by differences between Elizabeth's
Prayer Book and the First Book of Edward, which was
what Aless rendered. Haddon's chief piece was the
preface "Concerning Ceremonies," which he retrans-
lated.
There was added a brief office for the Com-
* In the Calendar of Elizabeth's Liber Precum Publicarum there is
a saint for every day, or nearly so. But this was not a mere replacement
of the old Calendar. There were some designed changes and omissions.
The Flemish saints, Vedastus, Amondas, and Bavon, were omitted.
St. Thomas of Canterbury was omitted. St. Alphege of Canterbury was
inserted. St. Augustine of Canterbury was substituted for St. Cletus.
The Invention of the Cross was omitted. All the Translations were
either omitted, or the saint only retained: and this caused the greater
part of the few blank days. The Appearing of St. Michael was omitted.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was omitted. The day of St. Petri
ad Vincula was inserted. All Souls was omitted. St. Linus of Rome was
added. O Sapientia was omitted. I have compared this Calendar with
the Calendar in Marshall's Primer.
+ In Haddon's spirited version of De Ceremoniis may be observed
a bold amplification of national independence. "And in those our doings
we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own
people only," is turned, "At dicent aliqui fortasse: Quo sese jactabit haec
audacia? Ecquid prescribetis religionis formas et effigies peregrinis?
Neutiquam. Nam neque consuetas illorum ceremonias reprehendimus,
1560.]
and its Character.
291
mendations of Benefactors, a reformed edition, that is,
of the old office for commending the souls of bene-
factors to the Almighty, which was generally used at
the end of terms. The custom was continued, but
thanks were substituted for prayers. There was
another brief office for the celebration of the Eucha-
rist at funerals, the friends desiring it. This had
a collect taken with some alteration from the Burial
Office.* The Latin Prayer Book was not accepted
with delight at Cambridge.
The wide rumour, which arose after some years, of
the Pope offering to sanction the English Prayer
Book was founded partly upon his overtures concern-
neque inducimus novas, utpote quibuscum nihil nobis commercii est; de
nostris hominibus duntaxat sumus soliciti." Haddon substitutes "mini-
ster" for "sacerdos," or adds it to the "sacerdos" of Aless; "Deinde
Minister dicet" for "Sacerdos deinde addat" in Morning; "Sacerdos
sive Minister dicet" for "Sacerdos oret" in Evening. But he retains
"Sacerdos" when he finds it elsewhere, as in the Communion. In the
Absolution of the Holy Communion Service he deliberately repeats
the audacity of Aless, giving a form that is in no English Book, but
derived from Hermann's Consultatio, and expressed in high sacerdotal
language. See Clay's Preface, and cf. Vol. III. p. 297 of this work. In the
Litany, he restored the full English form of the first solemn Precations,
and altered "Ut omnibus Christianis" into "Ut omnibus Gentibus" in
one of the petitions. Other points to be noted are these. The Ornaments
rubric is omitted in the Latin: in the General Confession rubric "after
the minister" is omitted in the Latin: the rubric "The minister first
pronouncing with a loud voice, The Lord be with you," is omitted in the
Latin. "Unto New Year's Day" is "ad Circumcisionem": in Holy
Communion, "the Table shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the
Chancel, where morning and evening prayer be appointed to be said"
is omitted: "the priest shall proceed saying, Lift up your hearts," is
"Minister cantabit": in the words "Hath instituted and ordained holy
mysteries, as pledges of His love and continual remembrance of His
death, to our great and endless comfort," in one of the Exhortations,
Haddon boldly kept to Aless and to Edward's First Book, "et reliquit
in his sacris mysteriis, quasi pignus amoris et perpetuum monumentum
suum, scilicet proprium Corpus et preciosum Sanguinem, ut ex his spiri-
tualiter pascamur et haberemus aeternam consolationem."
-
* "In generali resurrectione, extremo die, nos cum hoc fratre nostro
resuscitati, et receptis corporibus, regnemus una tecum in vita aeterna.”
•
U 2
292
Haddon's Latin Version. [CH. XXXIV.
ing the Council, partly upon the attention which the
Latin version of the Prayer Book excited upon the
Continent. The formulary of the Church of England
was rendered accessible to learned foreigners for the
first time under her own authority (which the previous
performance of Aless lacked); it was read extensively,
not without admiration, in France, and probably in
other countries: and was perceived to present the
model of more moderate and consistent reformations
than any other. The Gallicans found it less repug-
nant than Geneva, and liked it better than Germany.
A learned Gallican of great reputation told Throck-
morton at Paris that the English clergy should defend
their ceremonies, rites, and observances, retained in
their churches, by the authority of Greek and Latin
antiquity. The remark was that of a man who had
only read one book, the Latin Prayer Book itself, and
knew not how much had been done already in the
way of defence or apology by such men as Cranmer.
A learned man of the religion said to the same keen
and intrepid agent that it would be well for Cecil to
set some of the bishops and doctors to write in Latin
an exposition of the whole English ecclesiastical order,
in modest style, avoiding to irritate: and that there
was a good pattern of this in the Preface of the Book
"Gather out of
of Service now published in Latin.
antiquity," said this adviser, "the places which are for
your ceremonies: put forth an apology: you are not
noted in England as contemners of all antiquity and
ceremonies: you will have more estimation among
the adversaries than the novelties of Geneva. Those
Genevan ministers bring themselves into contempt:
they are noted rather as spoilers than builders: they pull
down the old building, both good and bad stuff, and
leave the world without a covered house, unless it be
1561.]
Mission of Morette.
293
some hovels hastily set up to keep themselves dry.
The ecclesiastical forms retained in England will
therefore have the more allowance when the matter
shall come in question."* Thus in the sixteenth cen-
tury the Church of England had for a moment the
prospect of becoming the mediate link or bond of
reunion among the divisions of Christendom.
Morette, ambassador of the Duke of Savoy to the
Scottish Queen, passing through England, had two
interviews with Elizabeth concerning the Council. He
came indeed at the instance of Cardinal Ferrara to
endeavour to persuade her to send representatives:
induced, it was said, by the Earl of Bedford having
declared in France that she desired the Council to be
held. He met with no encouragement. When he
offered to discuss the question with the Spanish
ambassador, Quadra, she said that there was no need
to speak of it to him or any one else, as it might cause
uneasiness in the country. He handed her a letter
from Ferrara, and she said that she would answer it
through her ambassador Throckmorton. He after-
wards opened the matter to Quadra, in whose presence
he proved that it was true of Bedford: and Bedford
himself affirmed that he spoke by the Queen's instruc-
tions. Bedford even ventured to remind the Queen
of this who merely replied that things were changed
since then. Morette departed, expressing himself
satisfied to have secured his own position; not with-
out anxiety for it was he who had brought Bedford's
sayings to the Pope, and so induced him to try again
to land a Nuncio in England.†
* See the important letter of Throckmorton to Cecil (Paris, Dec. 28,
1561).-For. Cal. 461.
+ See Quadra's Letters, Span. Cal. 218-24. Morette came in Nov.
1561, and left in the following February. Most of that time he was
in Scotland. The Earl of Bedford was sent to France on an embassy
294
[CH. XXXIV.
The Papal Mission
The Abbé Martinengo, this emissary, came into
Flanders bearing the Bull of the Council. Arriving at
Brussels in the spring of 1561, he put himself under
direction of the Bishop of Arras, to whom the cautious
Quadra wrote from London to detain him until
preparation could be made for the better reception
of the mission. Not considering that it would be very
safe for a Nuncio, when he should come, to pass to
and fro along the streets of London, the Spanish ambas-
sador took a lodging for him at Greenwich, whither the
Queen was expected to go, so that he might negotiate
quickly and easily. At this time Bedford's sayings
were in the wind: and it was thought by many that
the Queen would not refuse the Council. Her
favourite, the worthless Robert Dudley, who was in
the Spanish interest, was informed by Quadra, the
Spanish ambassador, of the Pope's renewed effort, of
the name of the Nuncio chosen, of his own hopes of
the speedy coming permitted. Dudley answered that
Cecil was for the Council, and that some of the bishops
were bending, though others were stubborn against it,
adding that if he married the Queen he would go to
the Council himself.* Quadra seems to have thought
that England might be recovered through Robert
Dudley. He now solicited a safe conduct for Marti-
nengo and the question engaged the special attention
of the Privy Council. A meeting was held at Green-
wich, May 1, attended by Bacon, Cecil, and the other
of condolence on the King's death. In debating English affairs with the
Queen-mother and her Council he said that the intention of the Queen his
mistress was to end religious differences in England by sending her theolo-
gians to the General Council, but that it was necessary for security and
freedom that it should meet on this side of the mountains: in which case
she offered to unite with the Most Christian King in a firm alliance, that
the business might be carried out without coercion.-Ib., p. 186.
* Quadra's letters in Span. Cal., pp. 186, 193, 195.
1561.]
debated at Greenwich.
295
great officers, in which every one spoke, some with
"much more earnestness and length of speech" than
appeared in the account put forth, and all agreed
that the Nuncio should not come for reasons given :*
that the Pope had not informed the Queen of the
convocation of the Council, as he had informed other
sovereigns, that the Pope's emissary whom he had
sent into Ireland had caused the great part of the
island to rise in arms, and that a similar insurrection
was to be feared if another were admitted into
* An authorised account of this meeting of the Privy Council was
drawn up; pretty copious. They first gave reasons for refusing the
Nuncio: that by the ancient laws of the land no Legate or Nuncio might
come without license, nor before taking oath on the other side of the sea
to bring nothing, to attempt nothing to the derogation of the crown and
liberties of the realm: that in old time there were examples of the Pope's
messengers imprisoned and his letters burned, as well as of license to
come upon oath given, the last being Friar Peto in Mary's reign: that
it was by colour of the Pope's laws that attempts were made to disprove
the Queen's title: that the mere noise or sound of a Nuncio had caused
great disquiet among the ill-affected subjects. They thus supposed
answers to their reasons, and answered these answers: that if the Nuncio
took the oath he would not keep it," presuming that it is no perjury to break
his promise with such as he is taught to repute as heretics": that there
would be danger of subverting the whole policy of the realm: that it was
absurd to think that no harm was meant by the Pope, when he had already
done as much as in him lay, and at that moment had a Legate in Ireland
stirring a rebellion: that last year, when the other abbot was at Brussels,
it was proposed that he should have done his best to stir rebellion under
colour of religion. Of the proposed Council they spoke at length, to the
effect that the Queen would delight in a good general Council; but that
the one now intended was not so, if it was a continuation of Trent, as
appeared by printed copies of certain Bulls of last November and December:
concluding that in this matter the Queen had not been treated with such
good meaning as was professed; since other princes had been long
consulted, and their opinions requested as to time and place, and their
consents desired beforehand: but that now, when all was appointed,
at last she was to be exhorted "by such a messenger as this " to send
to the Council. There was nothing herein but "a determination to
prejudice her majesty and her realm, and to establish and confirm the
authority of the Pope with all his abuses and errors."-A Note of the
Consultation had at Greenwich, May 1, 1561, &c. Printed in full in
Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii. App. 48. Cf. State Papers, Dom. Cal., p. 175.
296
[CH. XXXIV.
The coming Council.
England. When the first of these reasons was
reported abroad, the Papal Nuncio in Paris went in
the Pope's name to the Queen's ambassador there,
Throckmorton, to tell him that the very cause for
which it was sought to send a Nuncio to England
was to invite the Queen to the Council, as other
Christian princes had been invited. Throckmorton
promised to write with all possible warmth: but his
sincerity was suspected.* The Pope's representation
of this matter was no explanation, and came too late,
if it ever came at all. Martinengo had received his
prohibition, and abandoned his mission, at the begin-
ning of May.
There can be no doubt that Elizabeth had been
dazzled for a moment by the supposed indiction of
a new Council, even though the latter of the Papal
agents fared as the former. She let it go forth that
she was not averse to a Council, if it were both free
and general that she would send her theologians
on equal terms to such a Council: with stipulation
touching the place where it might be held. So she
said to Quadra; so she sent Bedford to say to
France. It may have been because she was thought
to be somewhat committed that Cecil found it neces-
sary to hold high language about the Bull of the
Council, of which he had procured a copy by some
means. In several curious interviews with Quadra he
complained of the style that was used in it; and pro-
tested in general against the insulting words that were
spoken and written about the English, as if they
* Ven. Cal. 315, 318. It is the Venetian ambassador in France who
relates all this to the Doge and Senate: so roundabout was the way
in which English news was conveyed. He adds that Throckmorton was
"the most cruel adversary that the Catholic religion has in that kingdom."
-Ib. 333. Throckmorton in fact was doing all he could to prevent France
from appearing at the Council.
1561.]
Preliminary Questionings.
297
were not Christians or believers in God. He also
put it to the Spanish bishop that there might be
other ways of coming to an accommodation besides
the visit of a Nuncio; but they were ways that were
not likely to be acceptable to Rome. Would it
not be well, he asked, to have some theologians
sent here on the Pope's behalf to confer with the
English theologians upon Christian doctrine? Quadra
answered that he thought it not a wise expedient, or
likely to produce any good: but only to cause greater
offence and obstinacy. Cecil then asked him whether
he would consent to meet the Archbishop of Canter-
bury to open negotiations for reconciliation. "Yes,
if you please," said Quadra. In a following interview,
however, the Secretary told Quadra that the Arch-
bishop feared to meet him, lest it should be noted
as suspicious by the other bishops :* asking at the
same time what could be done about religious affairs.
Quadra replied that if he, or the Queen, or the
Archbishop demanded his opinion, he would tell
them the truth, as he understood it, although he
* Strype gives an account of this proposed conference. Quadra pro-
posed that it should be at Cecil's house rather than that Parker should
come to him or he go to Parker. The Archbishop disliked this, when Cecil
told him of it: saying that Quadra would come prepared, and he himself
would be unprepared and away from his books; but that he would be
willing to hold a conference in writing. He wrote a letter to Cecil to that
effect, asking him to excuse his "cowardliness," and burn his letter. In
fact Parker was unready of speech, and afraid, if he undertook such.
a business, lest he "should work a lack to his promotors and a shame
to himself." He begged Cecil to shield him from all such encounters.
Cecil kept the letter, which came into the hands of Strype, who held it no
dishonour to the Archbishop to print it.-Strype's Parker, Observations
at end of vol. iv. and App. 106. Parker was right on all grounds in refus-
ing, and very honest in putting his refusal on the ground that he did.
He says pathetically that he had “a natural vitiosity of overmuch shame-
fastness." Cecil was at least friendly enough to tell Quadra only of the
other plea that he brought, that "it would be strangely construed among
the light brethren in divers respects."
298
[CH. XXXIV.
The coming Council.
was not in charge of religion in England. He then
went on to give his opinion, that if there were an
earnest desire of peace and union, the points of
difference should be considered first, being the cause
of the schism and division which existed. He defined
these points to be those concerning ecclesiastical
government and polity, namely, the office of Pope
and of bishops, the authority of councils, and the
distinction between spiritual and temporal powers.
In the long conversation which ensued, he claimed
that Cecil conceded three points, which he himself
held as of the utmost importance: that the Queen
would consent to send envoys and theologians to the
Council, even if the Pope convoked it, provided it
were in a place satisfactory to the other princes;
that the Pope, or his Legates, might preside at it,
as head or president, not as ruler; and that questions
of faith might come before it, as well as other ques-
tions, according to Holy Scripture, the consent of
doctors, and the declarations of ancient Councils,
of which ancient Councils, however, only the first
four were to be admitted. He allowed that Cecil
"much twisted these points to the other side." Cecil
told him that his aim was evident: to have a judge
for matters of faith, and to declare the separation
of the spiritual and temporal powers. "As the English
bishops are canonically ordained," proceeded Cecil,
they must have seats in the Council among the
rest.' * That the justice of that claim could be
"(
* The late Mr. Froude, with whom I have been compelled to disagree
very often, gives this, with quotation marks, thus: "That the English
bishops, having been apostolically ordained, and not merely elected by a con-
gregation, like Lutheran or Calvinist heretics, would be admitted to sit with
the rest."-Vol. vii. p. 335. Quadra's letter is at Simancas; but there is no
need to go there to prove that Cecil never held such language. It was
impossible that he should. In another place Mr. Froude remarks that
1561.]
Overtures rejected.
+
299
""
considered afterwards the Spaniard answered, and
went on to another proposal: "Think you that if
this Council fall through, as it well may by the
obstinacy of the Germans, the reconciliation of this
kingdom could be effected by a national council under
the presidency of Papal legates?" Cecil seemed
startled, but replied, negatively in effect, that matters
of faith required to be examined and agreed to by all.
"Then," said Quadra, "you have done wrong in
altering them alone; especially in opposition to the
whole ecclesiastical body in your realm: but if you
seek tranquillity, the same authority which you have
employed to alter religion will suffice to correct it.'
With that they broke off: but Quadra soon afterwards
heard that Cecil put it about that the Queen wished
to send representatives to the Council; that the
Council could not properly judge of questions of
faith; and that the Pope could not preside over it
by right.* So ended the Papal overtures to England.
Besides the insuperable difficulties of the matter itself,
which required the surrender of the Reformation and
the overthrow of all the ecclesiastical arrangements
of the kingdom, it is evident that the Queen and
her Council were decided by other considerations.
The negotiations were badly conducted by Rome.
The Papal envoys were not of befitting rank and
mark. It was thought, rightly or wrongly, that in
the time of the notification of the proposed Council
England had not been treated so ceremoniously as
the Council was obliged "to inflict upon the prelates the disgrace of a
rebuke for neglecting the duties of common probity": and refers to
"Articles for the Bishops' Obligations, 1560: Domestic MSS., Elizabeth.”
I am unable to find such a document. In the same passage he speaks of
the Church of England as having been established for two years in 1560!
* Bishop Quadra to King Philip, London, March 25, 1561.-Span.
Cal. 186.
}
300
Vacant English Sees [CH. XXXIV.
the other Powers. And there remain some curious
traces of intrigues carried on within the country in
connection with it, which fell under the notice of
the vigilant government.*
As soon as he was seated in Canterbury, Parker
applied his diligence to fill the vacant sees. In the
last month of 1559 Grindal was consecrated to London,
Cox to Ely, Sandys to Worcester, Merrick to Bangor.
In the following month Young, the former adversary of
Bishop Ferrar, was promoted to his seat of St. David's;
Davies to St. Asaph, Bullingham to Lincoln, Jewel to
Salisbury. Two months afterwards, in March, 1560,
Berkeley to Bath and Wells, and Bentham to Coventry
and Lichfield, and Guest to Rochester, followed within
the year by Alley to Exeter and Parkhurst to Norwich.
Within another year, 1561, Horne was added to Win-
chester, Scambler to Peterborough, and another Davies
to St. Asaph, the former Davies going to St. David's:
and a little later, in April, 1562, the able and humorous,
but not very happy, Richard Cheyney to Gloucester.
It may be added that, within the same period, Young,
translated from St. David's to the eminence of York,
* There is a paper of “Articles to be ministered to the persons
imprisoned as to the design of calling a General Council" in the Record
Office. The italicised additions are in Cecil's handwriting:—
When heard you first since Christmas of a general Council summoned?
for what cause? where to be holden? who were summoned thither? of
whom have you heard it of, and by what mean?
"What have you heard should be treated of in the Council? what
reformation would follow thereof, as in conference you judged? what order
thought you would be devised and put in use for the reformation of such
as would not come nor send to the Council, nor obey the orders and
decrees thereof?
"What succour or relief in money or otherwise have you received from
any person since your imprisonment? from whom? by whom? where,
and how often?
"What comfort by message, word, or letter have you received, since
your imprisonment, of religion changing? by whom? from whom? where,
and how often?”—State Papers, Dom. xvi. No. 66; Calendar, p. 175.
1561.]
filled by Parker.
301
consecrated three in his province-Best to Carlisle,
Pilkington to Durham, and Downham to Chester.
The Primate might pride himself, not without reason,
on the unequalled achievement of so many lifted to
his own order by his own hand; his chaplain has
reflected with satisfaction on the merits and labours
of the prelates whom he created. Historians," he
says, "have held it memorable for an archbishop to
have consecrated two or three. Antiquity admires
an Anselm who consecrated five, a Phlegmund who
exalted seven, in one day." But Matthew in his first
year consecrated eleven, and confirmed two. In his
first three years he renewed the whole episcopate
in his province, void by the contumacy of the Ponti-
ficians. He was not less happy in the excellence of
those whom he created. There was Grindal, a man
of gravity and prudence, who toiled day and night
on the High Commission, and when gentleness and
clemency failed to bring any to obey God and the
law, who shrank not from severity: and indeed sharp-
ness was necessary, for great was obstinacy. Cox,
a man of universal literature, copiously embellished,
formerly very well known as Chancellor of Oxford.
Sandys, who at Cambridge, both in the disputations
of the schools and in the pulpit, had keenly refuted
the Pontifician traditions, as Bishop of Worcester was
so keen in hunting Pontificians out of his diocese, as
never to be vanquished into tolerating them by the
prayers and intercessions of any man.
Of Jewel,
what shall be said? He exquisitely tracked the
Pontifician allegations urged against the true sense
of the Scriptures: before he was made bishop he
publicly challenged them in St. Paul's to set com-
bat:* afterwards in the ensuing controversy with
* "Ante susceptum Episcopatum pro publica frequentis populi con-
302
[CH. XXXIV.
Further Ordinations
.
their champion Harding he utterly demolished their
principal opinions: he wrote an Apology for the
Church of England of admirable elegance and strength:
a man of gentle manners, he ruled his diocese in peace.
Berkeley, Bentham, Merrick, Young, Davies, returned
exiles, excellent men, learned theologians. Bullingham,
a civilian and canonist, of grave and placable nature,
when Matthew was about to make him his own vicar-
general, was called to a bishopric where once he had
been a vicar-general. Guest, the companion of Matthew
himself in the troublous days of Mary: they two abode
together in England, in the same hiding-places: full
often they changed them, full often they fled from one
to another together. Horne, of great mind and pro-
found genius, sagacious in detecting, skilful in prevent-
ing the arts of the adversaries; diligent in preaching,
prompt and keen in disputing; who wrote on the regal
authority in causes ecclesiastical against Feckenham;
who ruled with the utmost severity, bringing down
the more powerful and fractious Pontificians, and yet
treating the rest with an extraordinary kind of tender-
ness and gentleness. Alley, and Parkhurst, and
Thomas Davies, and Scambler, and Cheyney are to
be added. And besides all these, after two or three
years Kitchin of Llandaff died; and Matthew con-
secrated Hugh Jones.* And Matthew reigned in
Lambeth long enough to add several others to his
chaplet.
To the bishoprics thus filled he supplied the clergy
who were lacking through death, negligence, the late
persecution, or the present alteration of religion, in
cione Londini in cemeterio Paulino pontificios de principalibus suis
dogmatibus in apertum discrimen et aciem postulavit." Jewel's challenge,
in 1559, made a great noise at the time; I mention it a little further on.
* De Antiquitat., p. 541. This part is the work of the continuator.
1561.]
of Clergymen.
303
many of the benefices, by a series of closely successive
ordinations, by himself or his license. More than three
hundred were ordained in the first four months after
the elevation of Parker himself.* Within about a year
from that, there are some two hundred presentations
on record, of which, however, the causes of vacancy
are unspecified, save in one case; and of which
about a fourth were to canonries or prebends or
archdeaconries, not to parochial cures.† The new
bishops found themselves greatly embarrassed by
the poverty and disorder of their sees. The forced
exchanges and the renewed payments of firstfruits
to the Crown, against which they had protested, were
heavy enough, but not so vexatious as the convey-
ances, leases, annuities, reversions upon reversions,
and other entanglements, in which their revenue had
been involved by some of their predecessors, whether
out of dishonesty, or of a set purpose of annoyance.
The most notable example of this was Berkeley, the
successor of Bourne in Bath and Wells. Bourne,
the former of these Gilberts, with the aid and advice
of a justice named Coles, had conveyed away the
lands of the see with incredible art and boldness,
* There were ordained-
Dec. 22, 1559, by the Bp. of Hereford,
Jan. 25, 1560, by the Bp. of London,
by the Bp. of Bangor,
by the Bp. of Lincoln,
Feb.
Mar.
22, Strype's Parker, 65.
60, Machyn, 224.
10, Strype's Parker, 65.
14
by the Bp. of Lincoln,
155
""
by the Bp. of Lincoln,
7
""
Apr. 9,
by the Bp. of Lincoln,
26, Strype's Annals, 207.
June 23,
July 20,
by the Bp. of Bath and Wells, 6
by the Bp. of Bath and Wells, 6
s. d.
by the Bp. of Exeter,
37
""
""
Some were made priests, some deacons; in the account of one ordina-
tion readers are also mentioned. (Bangor ordained "Io deacons and
readers in Bow Church, Cheapside.") In another several persons were
ordained "both deacons and priests" by Exeter (five out of the 37).
+ Rymer, xv. 562, 582, 617.
,
1
304
[CH. XXXIV.
Disaffected Clergy.
leasing three manors to his own brother, another to
Coles, another to another, and to another a meadow,
part of the demesnes of the bishop's house,
"the
brewhouse, the barnyard, a fair green, and a great
garden" and had charged upon the house two heavy
life annuities to the keeper and the steward. Some
of the manors thus leased away were left with their
annual payments to the Crown to be met by the
bishop, not by the lessee.* Such dealing, like the
concealments of some of the religious houses in
the days of King Henry, may have come of a design
to bestow the goods against a better day, when the
former occupants might return, and cancel the con-
tracts with the consent of the parties: and this was
loudly imputed.† But it was dangerous in itself,
and unjustifiable upon any pretext or motive what-
soever.
Between the new diocesans and the incompliant
clergy, who still remained in their cathedral or parish
churches and had rallied themselves in the long vacan-
cies, many battles were fought. Thus Barlow com-
plained of Stapleton and Godsalve, prebendaries of
Chichester; and desired to deprive the latter of his
prebend. Under Grindal all roodlofts in London
were taken down, and writings placed instead, not
without a struggle.§ But it is said that the bishops
were unable to get a hold on many Romanensians, or
""
* Bishop Berkeley's complaints and remonstrances are up and down in
the Domestic Papers of Elizabeth: whence many of them have been
copied by the writer of "Some Troubles of the Elizabethan Episcopate
in the Dublin Review, July, 1897. This writer, a Mr. Birt, glories in
Bourne's doings in a somewhat unseemly manner-that anything was fair
against a "heretic."
+ Pilkington alleged this very bitterly in his Burning of St. Paul's.
See below.
‡ State Papers, Dom. Eliz. Calendar, 150.
§ Machyn, 241.
1560-2.
Illicit Meetings.
305
Pontificians, who complied, took the oath, and used the
English Service; but retained their former opinions,
with the good will of many of their parishioners, and
pulled against the alteration of religion as much as
they could.* This was to be expected. The Mass, it
was suspected, was said secretly in London and in the
country. A priest was taken at a lady's house in
Fetter Lane about to sing Mass; he was carried in
his vestments through London to the Counter, and
thence to the Marshalsea.† A congregation assembled
in Durham Place, and another at St. Mary's Spital, to
hear Mass on Candlemas Day, in devotion to the
Blessed Virgin Mary: many of them were seized by
the guard, probably by the vigilance of the High
Commission, and committed to the Counter. ‡ A
* Strype refers to "part of a register" for a case in which a person,
who was brought before the Ecclesiastical Commission for not going
to his parish church, answered that "the minister of his parish was a very
papist"; whereon the Bishop of London assigned him another church
to attend. Another person declared before the Commissioners that
he knew of one who had been active in the persecution, and yet was now
an allowed minister, though he had never made a recantation. Strype
also quotes the vigorous denunciation which Augustine Bunker, in his
Epistle prefixed to Latimer's Sermons, launched against the hypocrites,
weathercocks, and perjurers who formerly deceived the people openly,
and now secretly whispered in the ears of the simple and dissuaded them
from embracing the truth.-Vol. i. p. 178.
+ Strype, Ann., i. 365. “In the year of our Lord 1562, the 8 day of
September was a priest, whose name was Sir Havard, taken by certain
promoters and my lord of Ely's men for saying of Mass in Fetter lane at
my lady Cary's house: which priest was violently taken and led as ten times
worse than a traitor, through Holborn, Newgate market, and Cheapside to
the Counter, with all his ornaments on him as he was ravished to Mass, with
his Mass-book and his portus borne before him, and the chalice with the
pax and all other things, such as might make rude people to wonder upon
him. And the number of people was exceeding great that followed him,
mocking, deriding, cursing, and wishing evil to him," &c.-Stow's Memo-
randa in Gairdner's Three Chronicles, p. 121 (Camden Soc.). He and
Lady Cary and several other ladies were taken before the Bishop of Ely,
as one of the High Commission, and imprisoned.
Strype, ibid.
VOL. V.
X
306
Nonconformist Clergy [CH. XXXIV.
priest and others were apprehended for the Mass
celebrated in Essex in the houses of Sir Thomas
Warton and Sir Edward Waldegrave, and in a house
in Westminster.* Many persons took advantage of
the Mass permitted to the foreign ambassadors, and
resorted to it at their houses. The Queen ordered
all the English who were found attending Mass at the
French ambassador's on a certain day to be arrested:
and this was done in the presence of a multitude of
spectators collected before the house. The Spanish
ambassador on the same day was alarmed at Mass by
the entrance of an English agent, who took the names
of those who were present, and left with some
threatening words. The old prelates, as many as
were still alive, began to get into trouble, as they saw
their places filled by intruders, and relinquished the
hope of restoration. Bishop Watson of Lincoln and
Bishop Pate of Worcester were sent to the Tower in
May, 1560, together with Abbot Feckenham of West-
minster, and with the renowned Oxford champion
Doctor Chedsey; while on the same day the vigorous
civilian Doctor Story went to the Fleet. Their fault
was their pertinacious refusal to attend the English
Service, and the invections with which they privately
assailed the altered religion. Next month the Tower
received Bishops Thirlby of Ely, the amiable and
learned Heath of York, Bourne and Turberville of
* Cal. Dom., pp. 152, 173.
+ Span. Cal. 126, 128, 156. Quadra charges this to the Queen; it was
probably the High Commission.
Machyn, 235. He mistakenly mentions Cole for Pate. Jewel wrote
to Peter Martyr, two days later, "Bonerus, Fecnamus monachus, Patus,
Storæus jurisperitus, Vatsonus, quod animis obstinatis abstineant a sacro
cœtu, et in omnibus angulis religionem istam, quam nos hodie profitemur,
insectentur et lacerent, conjecti sunt in carcerem."-Zurich Letters, p. 46,
May 22. Bonner, the first mentioned here, was already in the Tower,
as the reader knows.
1560-2.]
are dealt with.
307
Bath and Exeter, and Dean Boxal of Peterborough
and Windsor; and Dean Cole of St. Paul's having
resigned his office to the short-lived May, whom he
had formerly extruded, joined Doctor Story in the
Fleet. The six bishops remained in the Tower three
years, in an incarceration which is variously represented
as very severe and very lenient: but of which the
truth appears to be that it was lenient at first in the
allowance of meeting at meals, but afterwards less
lenient because the opportunity was used too vigorously
of disseminating opinions.† In 1563, on an alarm of
Machyn, 238. In his former entry (235) he mentions Cole as sent
to the Tower: but this is an accidental slip for Pate.
((
+ Pathetic lamentation is made by Mr. Bridgett (Catholic Hierarchy,
37) of the rigours endured by these prisoners, and he gives some docu-
ments. It appears from a return made by the lieutenant of the Tower in
1562 that they were close and severally kept," and were continually
making suit to have more liberty. They petitioned the Council in 1560
for liberty to eat together: and, as they had been committed by the High
Commission, the Council wrote to Archbishop Parker that, if he approved
of it, he might order them to be allowed to sit at two tables, four at each:
but that if he thought not fit, he should signify it to themselves.-Strype's
Parker, Bk. ii. ch. iii. Mr. Bridgett says that if "Dr. Parker" ever
granted this remission it was soon withdrawn, as appears by the lieu-
tenant's return above mentioned. But this by no means appears from
Strype, who says that they petitioned that "though they were kept
asunder, yet they might have the liberty to eat together at meal times."
He seems to be quoting what they said. Some light is thrown on the
matter by the lately published Acts of the Council, where the following
entry is found: "This day Sir Ed. Warner, Kt., lieutenant of the Tower,
had commandment to cause the late Bishops, now prisoners in the
Tower, to be more straitly shut up than they have been accustomed,
so as they may not have such common conference as they have used
to have, whereby much trouble and disquietness might, if their wishes and
practices might take place, grow in the commonwealth, to the great dis-
turbance thereof." July 26, 1562.-Dasent's Acts, 118. The lieutenant's
return, which was of Sept. 4, would be in consequence of this order.
Hence it would appear that "Dr. Parker" granted the remission, which
was enjoyed for two years, till it was thought to be abused. They were
waited on by their own servants, and might purchase what they would,
though, as Mr. Bridgett pathetically conjectures, it may have been "at
exorbitant prices." Their fellow-prisoner Bonner was more severely
treated: but Bonner made no complaints. It may be added that at the
X 2
308
The Queen and the [CH. XXXIV.
the plague, to the rage of the multitude who thought
unthinkingly that their preservation was not necessary,
they were released. Heath and Turberville were set
at large but restricted to localities: Pate escaped
abroad: the rest were quartered on bishops; Thirlby
on Parker, Bourne on Bullingham of Lincoln, Watson
on Cox of Ely. There they may be left at the
present.
And yet hope was not flown: the balances hung
still in air. The Queen from time to time, through
the susceptibility to momentary impressions which
belonged to her character, in her interviews with the
foreign ambassadors let fall some expressions which
savoured of regret or repentance concerning the altera-
tion of religion: as, that she had been compelled by
the people, or that she herself thought otherwise. To
some extent her acts confirmed her words. The
crucifix still stood in her chapel. Six months before
the destruction of roodlofts, she ordered crosses to be
restored in churches.* She treated the clergy, particu-
larly the married clergy, with considerable contumely.
Making a progress through Essex and Suffolk, she
same time the same measures were taken with the prisoners in the Fleet:
"This day the Warden of the Fleet's deputy had commandment given
him to say to his master from their Lordships that he should cause
Dr. Scot, Dr. Cole, the two Harpsfields, Wood, Somerset, and Smyth,
remaining prisoners in his ward, to be kept in close prison, so as they
may not have conference with any, nor be suffered to have such resort
unto them as they have been accustomed." July 28, 1562.—Acts, 119.
There were contemporaries who considered the Romanensian prisoners.
not very cruelly treated. "Let the world judge," fiercely exclaimed
Pilkington, "whether they ever lived more merrily, quietly, fared better,
lay easilier, had more plenty of all things, than they have now. They
are as pale in prison as a butcher's boll, they are as lean as a fat hog,
they lie at ease unto their bones ache with rising early."-Pilkington's
Works, 623.
* At least so Quadra wrote to Philip. "The Queen insists that the
crosses shall be again restored, and the altars placed in the churches."
Feb. 1560.-Span. Cal. 128; cf. ibid. 126.
1561.]
Married Clergy.
((
309
took great disgust at the behaviour of ministers and
readers in the churches, the want of order in the public
services, few wearing the surplice, particularly in the
dominions of the lax disciplinarian Parkhurst of
Norwich.* She observed with anger how many of the
clergy were married; and that the families of heads
and deans, of canons and prebendaries, had abode in
colleges and cathedral churches. In August, I
1561,
she issued a fierce mandate. Keep your wives,
children, and nurses out of colleges, chapels, and
cathedral precincts. Those rooms and buildings were
raised and enclosed for societies of learned men pro-
fessing study and prayer: not for families of women
and children, for whom they are not fit. If you will
not obey, you shall lose your promotions." It would
not have been very bad if this injunction had always
been followed, and married dignitaries had always
found houses for their wives and families outside the
closes. Evidently the Queen's letter was written
whilst the old conventual buildings were still standing,
before it was begun to take them down and build on
their sites and with their bodies commodious edifices,
of which the soul was not their own. Cecil, who sent
the injunction to Parker, thought that "the good
* "I have had a troublesome progress with her Majesty," wrote Cecil
to Parker, "to stay her from daily offence conceived against the clergy
by reason of the indiscreet behaviour of the readers and ministers in
Suffolk and Essex. Surely here be many slender ministers, and such
nakedness of religion as it overthroweth my credit. Her Ma. continueth
very ill-affected to the state of matrimony in the clergy. If I were not
very stiff therein, she would utterly and openly condemn and forbid it. . . .
The Bishop of Norwich is blamed even of the best sort for his remissness
in ordering his clergy. He winketh at Schismatics and Anabaptists, as I am
informed. Surely I see great variety in ministration. A surplice may not
be borne here. And the ministers follow the folly of the people, calling
it charity to feed their fond humour."-Strype's Parker, Bk. ii. ch. viii.
+ Strype gives the Injunction, as above. There are four copies in the
Record Office.-Cal. Dom., p. 182.
310
[CH. XXXIV.
The Married Clergy.
order thereof would do no harm." He himself desired
that it should not become publicly known. He sent
it to the two Archbishops, and to the chancellors of
the two Universities, "so as it shall not be pro-
mulgated to be popular." But Parker, as it was his
duty, dispersed the mandate through his province,
to the perplexity of the bishops: and Cox of Ely
in a strong remonstrance pointed out the evils that
would attend on the observance of it-non-residence,
lack of hospitality. "It is reasonable,” said he, “that
colleges and places of students should not be troubled
with families of women and babes. But in these vast
cathedral churches with their rooms plenty and several,
on what ground should this be ordained? I have but one
prebendary continually resident in Ely Church. Turn
him out, and daws and owls may dwell there for any
continual housekeeping. The adversaries make rejoic-
ing and jeering over this order; the godly ministers
are discouraged." Upon the whole the opinion of
Cox has prevailed.*
The sallies of the Queen caused indeed much in-
quietation, and forced the new bishops to stand resolute.
Her prejudice against the marriage of the clergy
alarmed Archbishop Parker greatly. Upon one of his
visits to her, she told him that she repented that the
present clergy had ever been appointed in office, with
other expressions which filled him with horror:
threatening to follow up with other Injunctions her
thunderbolt about cathedral closes; She talked of
other manner of Injunctions that should follow."
complained not unjustly of the shame to which they
He
* The Queen attempted to enforce her will in Westminster, which
she held to be a place of students. She wrote to the dean of that refounded
foundation to give orders to all the prebendaries and other ministers
to observe the late Injunction for excluding women and children.-Dom.
Cal. of State Papers, p. 187.
1560.]
our sort.
Question of the Cross.
((
311
were brought by her Majesty's speeches, though they
were the mainstay of her throne. Queen Mary's
clergy laugh prettily to see how the clergy of our time
is handled, and what equity of laws be ministered to
We have cause to be utterly discomfited
and discouraged." He added with dignity, "I should
be sorry that the clergy should have cause to shew
disobedience, saying, 'We ought to obey God rather
than men.' There be enough of this contemptible
flock that will not shrink to offer their blood for the
defence of Christ's verity, if it be openly impugned
or secretly suggilled."* Nor less Cox of Ely, in
favour with the Queen, wrote vigorously to her, en-
forcing by the examples of patriarchs and of the
primitive Church that marriage is an honourable
estate not forbidden to priests.†
The other part of the meditated relapse of the
Queen, the restoration of crosses, and, it was feared,
of images, was not opposed by the new bishops with
the same consent. There was a division among them,
which went so far that a formal disputation was held,
February 5, 1560, before lay moderators appointed
by the Council; in which sides were taken by Parker
and Cox against Grindal and Jewel.‡ The question
was the restoration of roodlofts so lately destroyed:
"Whether the image of Christ crucified, together with
St. Mary and St. John, should be placed, as heretofore,
* The Archbishop to Cecil. Strype's Parker, Bk. ii. App. 17. The
curious word "suggilled," for "defamed," is perhaps peculiar to Parker.
+ State Papers, Cal. Dom., p. 187.
"Nunc ardet lis illa crucularia. Vix credas in re fatua quantum
homines, qui aliquid sapere videbantur, insaniant.... Crastino die instituetur
de ea re disputatio. Arbitri erunt ex senatu selecti quidam viri. Actores
inde Cantuariensis et Coxus; hinc Grindallus Londinensis Episcopus et
ego. Eventus ἐν κριτῶν γούνασι κείται. Rideo tamen cum cogito quibus
illi et quam gravibus et solidis rationibus defensuri sint suam cruculam.”
Jewel to Martyr, Feb. 4, 1560.-Zurich Letters, p. 39 (Lett. xxix.).
312
[CH. XXXIV.
Question of the Cross
in some conspicuous part of the church."* It may be
remarked that crosses were silently conceded and
allowed, so far as it appears from the scanty records
of the occasion: and that the disputation may have
been appointed by the Queen in answer to a solemn
petition which was addressed to her by some of the
bishops and other divines that she would cause the
matter to be proposed before a synod of bishops.†
Other bishops besides the leaders bore part in the
controversy: and the vehemence of Sandys, as he said,
ran the risk of deposition and of the Queen's dis-
pleasure. But perhaps the combat was less severe,
the extremity not so great, as he thought: since Cox,
a month later, affirmed that there was no open variance
among them, but not an entire agreement, as to the
setting up of the crucifix in churches. The issue
* "Regia Majestas non alienum esse a verbo Dei, imo in commodum
Ecclesiæ fore putabat, si imago Christi crucifixi una cum Maria et
Johanne, ut solet, in celebriori parte ecclesiæ poneretur, ubi ab omni
populo facillime conspiceretur." Sandys to Martyr, April 1, 1560.-
Zurich Letters, p. 42 (Let. xxxi.).
This weighty and solemn address to the Queen against the use of
images is undated. It was first printed by Burnet, who refers it to the
former year, 1559 (vol. v. p. 530, Pocock's edition). Strype in his Parker
(Bk. ii. ch. vi.) refers it to this year, but connects it not with this disputa-
tion. The petitioners beseech the Queen in this and in all controversies
of religion "to refer the discussion and deciding of them to a synod of the
bishops and other godly learned men, according to the example of Con-
stantinus Magnus and other Christian emperors: that the reasons of both
parties being examined by them, the judgment may be given uprightly
in all doubtful matters." See it also in Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 235, where
there is a useful note.
"Ego quia vehementior eram in ista re, nec ullo modo consentire
poteram, ut lapsus occasio ecclesiæ Christi daretur, non multum aberat
quin ab officio amoverer, et principis indignationem incurrerem.”—To
P. Martyr, as above. The deposition would have been his own resigna-
tion, if anything: we have already seen that the question of resigning
the ministry rather than accept "the relics of the Amorites," especially
the crucifix, lay heavy on the mind of such men as Sampson. See Zur.
Lett., p. 64.
§"Non contentio est, sed neque integra inter nos consensio de imagine
·
1560.]
and the Crucifix.
313
was concord founded on the obliteration of the objects
of contention; and lofts and figures, roods and images,
such remnants as survived the visitations of her first,
were more completely eradicated, by stronger authority,
in the course of Elizabeth's second year.* But the
cross still stood unconquered, the two lights, the table
altarwise, in the chapel of the Queen at least; as
Doctor Bill, the new Dean of Westminster, found,
who preached there at this very juncture: † while the
consciences of Doctor Bill, of Cox, and of any others
were assuaged; and the continual challenge offered
hitherto by the Queen's chapel to every one who
might be called to minister in it was mitigated by the
trial of the matter. They who had contended for
the crucifix, albeit in vain, could not object against
the cross. Their leader Cox, who had done so
formerly, was fortified in his change by the just
opinion of the Lutheran Cassander that there was
crucifixi in templis erigenda, quemadmodum hactenus usurpatum fuit.”
Cox to Cassander of Worms, March 4, 1560.—Zur. Lett. ii. Ep. xviii. He
goes on to say that no images remained: "In hoc statu nunc sumus,
ut nulla (imago) hodie in ecclesiis exstare cernatur": and asks the
opinion of his correspondent. Cassander in reply said that he was
uncertain whether the question were about the cross or the crucifix:
"Non satis intelligo an de crucis tantum nuda figura, an de imagine
Christi cruci quoque appendentis agatur”: and proceeds in a strain of
great learning and piety to show that the former, the cross, was primitive,
allowable, and extremely precious.—Ib. Epist. xix. I suppose, (1) that
both crosses and crucifixes had disappeared at this time from the
churches: (2) that the Queen designed to restore both: (3) that in
the disputation among the bishops crucifixes only were mentioned, or that
perhaps only images were named, under which name both crosses and
crucifixes, or only crucifixes, might be mentally intended by the several
disputants: (4) that it was the cross in the Queen's chapel which caused
the distinction to be drawn and held.
* "The second year of the Queen Elizabeth was all the roodlofts taken
down in London, and writings written in the same place."-Machyn, 241.
+ “The sixth of March did preach at the Court Doctor Bill dean of
Westminster that day in the queen's chapel, the cross and two candles
burning, and the tables standing altarwise."—Ib. 226.
A
314
Paul's Cross Preachers. [CH. XXXIV.
a great difference between the representation of the
cross and all other images or figures, and that to
have the cross was no superstition.* Opposition
to the Queen's chapel appears to have ceased for
several years.
The new Bishop of London, Grindal, preached at
Paul's Cross as soon as he was consecrated: and
again soon after, in rochet and chimere.† The new
Dean of Paul's, Nowell, preached there a notable
sermon on self-defence, in which he remarked that
if any one called him heretic, he would raise his
"buckler hand," and lay it on his face, even if it
had a spike in the middle of it. The promising
Christ Church man, Calfhill, preached there, "with an
excellent tongue and rhetorical tale which ravished
the minds of his hearers."§ Pilkington, being then
the elect of Durham, preached there before the
Queen's Council. Scory preached there in rochet
and chimere; and soon afterwards the venerable
Coverdale. Cox, Sandys, Scambler, preached there.
At Court, in the Queen's chapel, preached Scambler,
Dean Sampson of Christ Church, Bentham, Barlow,
and others. Cox preached there upon the argument
that none but the learned should preach of high
* See a former note, p. 312. Observe further that some confusion has been
caused by writers who have not distinguished between cross and crucifix.
Thus Cardwell says, "The question was soon afterwards set at rest by
the complete removal of crosses," and refers to Sandys' letter to Martyr.
The words of Sandys are "Imago Christi crucifixi," as the reader has
seen. Both he and Cox declare that the disputation turned on the
crucifix. Without this distinction it is not possible to understand the
matter properly.
+ Machyn, 222, 226.
The Romanensians understood him to say that "it would do him
good to raze his buckler upon a papist's face." This was so much talked
of that Dorman afterwards charged Nowell with it in print, and received
an explanation. See Strype, i. 236.
§ Ibid.
1560.]
Practice of Psalm-singing.
315
matters in divinity. Parker himself preached there
"a noble sermon.' "'* In St. Martin's, Ludgate, the
vicar, Veron, introduced psalm-singing, "a psalm in
metre, the tune of Geneva ways": the fashion spread
from church to church: until, to the joy of Bishop
Jewel, at Paul's Cross, after the sermon might be
seen six thousand persons all singing together and
praising God. "The Mass-priests and the devil like it
not; for they see that thereby holy sermons sink deeper,
and at almost every note their kingdom is weakened
and shaken."† Bishop Jewel himself was conspicuous
among the preachers. Preaching at a funeral in
St. Margaret's Moses before the masters of Christ's
Hospital, he said plainly that there was no Purgatory.‡
Preaching at Paul's Cross, before he was made a
bishop, he uttered a formal challenge to the Roman-
ensians to prove their distinct doctrines true by the
Scriptures, by the Doctors, by the old Councils, or
by any primitive example. He repeated this challenge,
with many more doctrines enumerated, in the chapel
before the Queen and Council: and a third time at
Paul's Cross; § drawing upon the second repetition an
answer from Doctor Cole, the displaced Dean of
* These examples are from Machyn and Strype.
✦ Jewell to Martyr, 5 March, 1560.—Zurich Lett. i. 70. Machyn, 228.
When Veron was admitted vicar of St. Martin's, "all the bells of the
church did ring a great peal, and after done all the people did sing the
tune of Geneva with the base of the organs."-Ib. This came from
France and the Huguenots. At this very time one of Cecil's agents there
wrote, "The people in thousands sing every night between nine and ten
o'clock the Psalms of David, and the men at arms dare not touch them."
For. Cal. 493.
Machyn, 224.
§ The challenge was first given at Paul's Cross, Nov. 26, 1559,
before Jewel was made bishop. The sermon, which is in his Works, with
the challenge amplified, was preached at the Court, March 17, 1560: and
next day, March 18, Cole wrote his first letter to Jewel. The sermon and
challenge were repeated at Paul's Cross on Passion Sunday, March 31.
F
316
[CH. XXXIV.
Fewel's Challenge
*
Paul's, which was the beginning of a vast controversy.
Cole observed with some acuteness that Jewel's
challenge was not upon the main matters lying
between the Church of Rome and the Protestants,"
as the Presence in the Sacrament, Justification, Good
Works, the Mass propitiatory, prayers to Saints, prayers
for all Christian souls; but upon four points of less
absolute disagreement, namely, whether there were
any substance of bread and wine after consecration ;
whether the people should receive under one kind;
whether the common service should be in the vulgar
tongue; and whether Mass should be said, the priest
alone receiving. He had not been at the sermon
of course, and the number of points on which Jewel
challenged was near thirty instead of four. But
beyond this the manner or form of the challenge
was altered in Cole's representation. Jewel had pro-
pounded nothing in the way of questioning whether
it were so, or should be so, or not. He had denied
certain things, and called on the other side to prove
any one of them by Scriptures, councils, doctors, or
any other antiquity. As he said, he "stood upon the
negative”: and Cole by representing him to have
propounded questions upon doctrines and customs in
use designed to "stand upon the negative" instead
of him; to deny his doctrine instead of having his
own doctrine denied by him, and to throw it on him
to prove or disprove as the matter might be, and
in either case to be the first to begin to dispute, or
in scholastic language to be the opponent. Thus
Cole repeated the conduct which he and his party
had pursued in the Westminster disputation, as Jewel
failed not to tell him. In a second letter to Jewel he
* Observe this use of the word Protestants. It may be either of the
Protestants proper, or as a more general designation.
1
1560.]
and Cole's Answer.
317
You
maintained the same position: that he and his party
were the defendants, that they were in possession, that
they continued in the faith of their baptism; that it was
for the other side to attack them and put them out.
He added that now they were bound in recognisances
to avoid such reasoning as they were challenged
to; and complained that in sermons they were very
unmercifully dealt with. "Unmercifully?" answered
Jewel; "call you this dealing unmerciful? When
you were in authority you called us nothing but
traitors and heretics, and how you dealt with our
bodies you know.
know. You are not in possession.
were in possession, but now we are in possession. As
for your recognisances, you are not so bound as you
have bound others, though I would that the Queen
would loose you. But when you were at liberty, and
a free disputation was offered you at Westminster
before the whole estate of the realm, which part was
it that gave over? You say that you continue in
the faith in which you were baptised. But you have
forsaken many things that were thought necessary
when you were baptised. For example, who wrote
a book against the supremacy of Rome? Gardiner.
Who commended it with a preface? Bonner.* Who
set it forth with solemn sermons? Tunstall. Who
confirmed it with open oath? Amongst others Doctor
Cole." As to the custom of the schools in disputation,
Jewel added that, supposing he were the opponent,
yet the opponent was often ordered by Aristotle to
require an instance, and so drive the adversary to
avouch the affirmative; which was what Cole's party
would not do for very good reasons. "I hold the
negative: there were many more matters than four.
* As to Bonner's alleged Preface to Gardiner's famous work De Vera
Obedientia, see Vol. I. p. 425 of this work.
318
[CH. XXXIV.
Harding and Fewel.
I send you seven of them now: and look to you how
you will be able to affirm any one of them on sufficient
authority. I ask no great thing. Give me but one
good sentence: vouchsafe but two lines from antiquity
affirming any one of the doctrines that I deny, and
the victory is altogether your own." Cole drew off
under cover of dignity; but he was hotly pursued,
and Jewel brought against him the charge of dis-
ingenuous behaviour.*
The place of Cole was taken by a man of different
temper. Harding, a displaced canon of Jewel's church
of Salisbury, now in exile in Louvain, heard of the
challenge, misliked it may be the retreat without
issue joined, and feared not to attack the negative
theses of Jewel, taking them one by one in a laborious
treatise. The Bishop thereupon composed his Reply
unto Harding's Answer, showing, as he said, "the
weak and unstable grounds of the Roman religion
which of late hath been accounted Catholic." This
was a very exhaustive work. In the manner of many
of the controversies of that age, he takes his adver-
sary sentence by sentence, from preface to peroration,
leaving him breathless at the close. It was a long
combat: for the challenge, out of which all arose,
consisted of twenty-seven negative articles.
Harding was not reduced to silence yet.
but the first part of his bout with Bishop Jewel.
In the midst of these combats Jewel produced his
Howbeit
This was
Jewel complained that Cole in his second letter gave answers to
Jewel's answers to the various arguments in his first letter, without giving
Jewel's answers also. This caused Jewel to write again a reply at greater
length, in which he repeated seriatim those answers to Cole's first letter
which Cole omitted to give in his second: then gave Cole's answers
seriatim to those answers: then answered Cole's answers to those
answers. All the particulars of the whole controversy are at hand in the
Parker Society's Jewel.
1
1562.]
Fewel's "Apology."
319
celebrated Apologia Ecclesia Anglicana. The Latin
language in which the first great Anglican vindication
was written indicated the use which it was to serve,
the instruction of other nations in the position of
England upon the alteration of religion: and it seems
not unlikely that the work was suggested by the desire
of foreign theologians.* The purpose was extensive,
to declare the whole manner of religion in England;
the theological orthodoxy, the purified simplicity of
worship, which was now obtained. The style was
clear, good, and remarkably forcible: the learning
very great. By necessity the Apologia was as much
an attack as a defence. The abuses of the Roman
system were exposed to justify the rejection of it:
and the apologist spoke with an earnestness of horror
which the world has ceased to féel. His abhorrence
was not only the emotion of a sufferer and of a divine,
but of a literary critic and student. He felt the breath
of that stifling region in which there is no literary
sense, no confidence of enquiry, no scholarly honour:
and one of his accusations against the Roman party
was that they had published a mutilated edition of
Origen rather than display the opinion of a Father
contrary to their sacramental doctrine. The work
* Above, p. 292.
+ He says that they published Origen's Commentary on St. John with
the sixth chapter omitted. He was wrong in this accusation: the defect
is in the manuscripts, not the editors, of Origen. The Commentary on
St. John was among the latest of Origen's works that were rendered into
Latin by the great translators of the sixteenth century. Ferrarius first
published it from a Venetian MS. in 1551: who was followed by Perionius
in 1554 from a MS. in the Royal Library of Paris. See Westcott's article
on "Origen ” in Dict. of Christ. Biogr. But these two MSS. are referable
to a MS. at Munich of the thirteenth century, on which we are wholly
dependent for our knowledge of the text of the extant books (or tomi) of
Origen's Commentary on St. John." See the edition by A. E. Brooke, 1896,
Cambr., Introd. ix. and xxi. No Greek edition of any part of Origen was
published before the seventeenth century. Now there can be little doubt
320
[CH. XXXIV.
Fewel's "Apology."
was received with admiration: it raised the author
to the first rank among his fellows; and it has con-
tinued to be numbered among the masterpieces of
his age.
It was translated into English by Anne
Lady Bacon, one of the learned daughters of Sir
Antony Cook, wife of Sir Nicolas, mother of Lord
Bacon: whose performance was pronounced by Arch-
bishop Parker to have enhanced the renown of her
native tongue," shewing it able to contend with a work
originally written in the most praised speech." And
not into English only, it was translated into other
languages; and, as the author with just delight
affirmed, "made common
made common to the most part of all
Europe."
This famous treatise was attacked anon by the
undaunted Harding, who had recovered of his wounds,
as it were, and entered the lists again. He wrote
a Confutation of the Apology, and another book, a
Detection of Sundry Foul Errors to be found in it.
His language was vigorous. He called Jewel many
opprobrious names: liar above all: and claimed to
have detected above a thousand lies in him. Jewel
in return wrote his immense Defence of the Apology
of the Church of England, one of the most complete
pieces of controversy in the world, which occupied him
several years.
He gave his own Apology piecemeal
in this under each piece that piece of Harding's
Confutation which referred thereto : then his own
that it was Ferrarius who excited the suspicion of Jewel. Ferrarius, a
monk of Cassino, dedicated his work to a Pope, Julius III. When he got
to his nineteenth tomus, he drew attention to a lacuna by a marginal note:
"Permulta huic decimi noni tomi principio desunt: imo 5, 6, 7 totum
caput; etiam dimidium octavi capitis: et, ut dicam quod sentio, desunt
plures quam quattuor tomi," &c. He was honestly following his manu-
script but his note drew attention to a remarkable lacuna, which is
found in the Munich MS. also.
1562.]
The Harding Controversy.
*
321
answer to that piece of Harding's Confutation, taking
at the same time anything pertinent that there might
be in Harding's Detection." The reader who peruses
all this may have a complete survey of the controversy
between Rome and England in the sixteenth century:
and it may not be without profit to observe the
Apology under the shield of the Defence, as it
regards a few of the principal contested points. In
the Apology Jewel remarked that Pope Pius should
account those who differed from him as brethren, or
at least as men, and not in his Bull about the Council
have condemned so many nations without showing
cause or hearing them speak. Harding answered
that as he took them for men, so not for brethren,
because they had cut themselves off from the Church :
that their reasons had been considered already: that
when heretics were admitted to reasoning, it was well
known that however thoroughly confuted they yielded
not. Jewel replied that it was no marvel that the
Pope would not have them for brethren, seeing that
his own cardinals would not have him for their father,
but had lately conspired to depose him: that, if no
disputation were to be had with heretics, yet both
the Councils of Basle and of Trent had made con-
cessions to the Bohemians, whom they called heretics.
"That is a manifest lie, and you give no place where
to find wherein those Councils yielded," retorted
Harding in the Detection: and Jewel now added
* This complete reproduction of Harding by Jewel was not by every
one considered to be advantageous. After Jewel's death, Archbishop
Parker wrote to the bishops (at least he wrote to one of them, and it may be
supposed to the rest) commending "the late Bishop of Sarum's last book"
to be had in the parish churches where it had not been already procured.
Parkhurst of Norwich replied that he feared it would "confirm the
adversaries" to do that: for that it would provide them with Harding:
that they would be like spiders sucking only what served their purposes,
and contemning what was most wholesome.-Parker's Corresp. 417.
VOL. V.
Y
322
[CH. XXXIV.
Fewel's "Apology."
that it was in permitting the Bohemians to have
communion under both kinds. In the Apology Jewel,
protesting against the imputation of heresy, termed
heresy "a forsaking of salvation, a renouncing of
God's grace, a departing from the Body and Spirit
of Christ." Harding answered that this definition
was not sufficient, since it would include every deadly
sin: but that heresy was false doctrine stubbornly
maintained by one who professed the faith. Jewel
replied that he was not defining heresy, but declaring
the horror of heresy: and gave examples to show
that Harding's definition touched his own party. In
the Apology Jewel remarked that so foul a charge
as heresy ought to be proved by strong arguments;
that all the sayings of the Popes were no longer
allowed for gospel, but that doctrines could now be
tried by the Scriptures which were abroad in print.
Harding answered that the heresies of the age had
long been proved by strong arguments: Berengarius
confuted by Lanfranc and Guimund, the Petrobrusians
by Peter of Clugny, Wickliffe by Walden, Luther and
Ecolampadius by Fisher: that the Pope's sayings
were received by the Council of Chalcedon as if
Peter the Apostle had spoken: that the Pope was
supreme in the government of the Church, but that
it was not true that Catholics thought all religion
to depend on that. Jewel replied that the doctors
cited were over-young, all within five hundred years:
that Berengarius, Wickliffe, Luther, might be well and
safely compared with Lanfranc, Walden, Fisher, in
learning and judgment: that the Councils which
Harding meant were very new, and many ways con-
trary to the old.
"This talk is like Lucifer, saucy
and malapert," retorted Harding in the Detection;
"wherein are the late Councils so many ways contrary
1562.]
The Harding Controversy.
323
to the new?"
Jewel returned, "He might as well
have demanded, wherein is darkness so many ways
contrary to light?" and gave examples of prerogatives
allowed to Popes by late Councils which earlier Councils
had denied. In the Apology Jewel denied that any
one could have the universal superiority. Harding
answered that every parish had a parson, every diocese
a bishop, therefore there was one chief governor over
the whole Christian people. "Every flock has a
shepherd, therefore all flocks throughout the world
ought to have one general shepherd," replied Jewel.
"I see no absurdity here," retorted Harding, "and the
world was never in better state than when it was
governed by one good emperor."
"What emperor
ever bore rule over the whole world?" remarked Jewel.
"As to the emperors after Augustus, many of them
were monsters only to be matched in horror among
the Popes; forty of them were slain by violence within
four hundred years." In the Apology Jewel protested
against the assertion that there were no Orders in the
Church of England. "In this your new Church,"
answered Harding, “ye have neither bishops, priests,
deacons, subdeacons, nor any inferior order. How
many bishops of Salisbury can you reckon whom
you have succeeded in doctrine as well as in outward
sitting in that chair? Did Bishop Capon teach your
doctrine? did Shaxton? did Campegius? did Bishop
Audley? You have abandoned the external sacrifice
and priesthood of the New Testament, and in your
sect you have no consecrated bishops, nor priests made
with lawful laying on of hands. Whereby hold you
your bishopric? Will you show us the letters patent
of the prince? Bishops have always been consecrated
by three other bishops, with the consent of the metro-
politan and confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. Who
Y 2
324
[CH. XXXIV.
Fewel's "Apology."
gave you your Orders?" Jewel replied that he had
received Orders from the same hands that gave
Harding Orders, in the time of King Edward: that
he and the rest were canonically elected bishops by
their chapters, canonically consecrated by three bishops,
canonically confirmed by the metropolitan : adding that
in his own election Harding had been one of the
chapter personally present and consenting: but, "Who
gave the Pope that singular privilege that no bishops
should be admitted in all the world but only by him?"
As to letters patent of the prince, he remarked that
time had been when the Pope was no Pope without
the letters patent of the Emperor. As to succession,
he replied that if it were certain that religion and
truth passed ever by succession, and none otherwise,
the argument might be substantial. But Annas and
Caiaphas were in succession to Aaron and Eleazar.
And he failed not to enquire whether his adversaries
had their own succession, not as to doctrine but as
matter of fact, in safe record. If Peter were the first,
who was the second Bishop of Rome? As to the
charge of abandoning the external sacrifice and priest-
hood, he denied that the Church of England refused
any that was instituted by our Lord. In the Apology
Jewel pronounced that "in the Lord's Supper there
is truly given unto the believing the Body and Blood
of our Lord": whereto Harding answered, "In your
the Lord's Supper there is not given the Body and
Blood of our Lord, neither to the believing nor to
the unbelieving. At the celebration of your schis-
matical Supper, no consecration being done, nor faith
of the Church, nor right intention had, nor Christ's
institution observed, what deliver you to your com-
municates but a piece of bread and a sip of wine?
In the Catholic Church the Body of the Lord is
1562.]
The Harding Controversy.
325
received, be the receivers believing or not believing."
In his remarks on this Jewel observed that his adver-
saries, who denied the consecration of the English rite,
were not agreed as to their own, in what it consisted
according to the institution of Christ: that according
to one of their doctors Christ might consecrate without
word, or by secretly spoken words, or by the words
"This is My Body"; or that He might consecrate
and then deliver, or deliver and then consecrate;
but that which of them He did appeared not by
the Scriptures: that according to another, consecra-
tion was wrought by the words of Christ in the Latin
Church; in the Greek Church by other prayers that
follow that according to another Christ consecrated
not with the words "This is My Body," which are
used in the Mass for consecration: that according
to another those words were said after consecration:
that according to another the words of Christ were
not sufficient to work consecration without the words
of the canon of the Mass; that another said that to
have the true form of consecration we must seek not
to the Gospel but to the canon: and that others
doubted whether it were possible to determine the
written form of consecration. In this manner the
controversy ranges over the whole of the vast field.
The superiority of Jewel in erudition and keenness
is overwhelming and while his overmatched adver-
sary exclaimed that he must be helped by the note-
books of Germany, the critics of another age have
condescended to admire the strength of his memory.
He defends well against that day: but in estimating
his theology it must be borne in mind that he is
defending. His battle was against abuses. In review-
*
*This is the remark of Hallam in the Literature of Europe, i. 561.
I have also seen it somewhere else.
326 The "Acts and Monuments" [CH. XXXIV.
ing the ages in which those abuses arose he is too
indiscriminate: as if the differences between them
and the previous antiquity had all sprung out of
popery: he draws too strong a line between them
and the previous antiquity. For the same reason he
sometimes uses language upon the great doctrines
which is below what he would have employed in
a treatise of divinity. He was impatient of the
arrogant assumptions of his adversaries. "They
would overwhelm us with the mere name of Church.'
He did a service in establishing that, although there
might be found in the Fathers some colour for the
Roman view of the great doctrines, yet for the many
points on which he challenged it, there was no colour:
and those were the points which showed most what
the Papal Church was become. He struck the true
note when he said, "We have departed not so much
from it as from the errors of it."*
A greater work than even the Apologia of Jewel
stepped at the same moment from the Latin into the
English vesture, when the Acts and Monuments of
John Fox issued from the press of John Day. Those
* Jewel was sorry for himself in the enormous labours of controversy.
After giving Bullinger an account of his original challenge to the Roman-
ensians and the abuse he got for it, he went on thus to describe his
adversaries and his own toils. "Four years after one Harding came
unexpectedly forward, a man who had been not very long before a hearer
and follower of Peter Martyr, and a most active preacher of the Gospel,
now a wretched apostate: and undertook to confute me out of Amphi-
lochius, Abdias, Hippolytus, Clement, Victor, supposed Athanasian books,
Leontius, Cletus, Anacletus, decretal letters, dreams and fables.
answered him last year to my poor ability. But, O heavens, what a life
it is! Oh that strife might cease on earth and come utterly to an end!
Scarce had I finished my task, when out there flies a Confutation of my
Apology: a huge work, an elaborate work, as full as could be of insults,
abuse, lies, and sycophancy. So am I set upon again! What would you
have? He must be answered. By some peculiar fate I am to be for ever
fighting with these monsters."-Zurich Lett. 147.
I
J
1563.]
of John Fox.
327
now neglected researches, on their first appearance,
awoke an emotion in the country which cannot be
conceived. The families, the relations, the friends
and neighbours of the hundreds who had been done
to death by fire in the late persecution, read with
mingled grief and pride the narratives of the trials
of their lost ones, their boldness, constancy, and acute-
ness under examination, their sufferings and death.
The story of divinely strengthened fortitude and of
baffled and mistaken cruelty was carried through the
land. A vast collection of originals, of acts and pro-
cesses, of minutes of examinations taken down by
notaries, of the recollections of eye-witnesses, records
of every kind, brought again before the eyes which
had beheld the terrible scenes which had scarcely
ceased to be enacted; and renewed in certainty the
power of reality. The labours of the historian in
gathering matter had been prodigious: no place or
person had escaped him: he had been largely aided
during his exile by collectors in England, as Grindal;
but the mass was his own, moulded by him, bearing
his stamp.
"The toils, anxieties, vigils, and miseries
that I have endured in bringing this work to com-
pletion," said he, "might have killed an ass, yea, the
best among them that bear fardels.”* The form
which he invented for his work, half biographical, half
historical, was the fittest for his purpose. The history
of a great and critical epoch was never presented to
the world with so little delay. Whatever be said,
one thing is certain, that, if it had not been for Fox,
England would never have known so much as the
names of scores of her own martyrs: he is not without
a claim on the gratitude of his country. No other
country, save France, neither Spain nor the Nether-
* See his Eucharisticon prefixed to his work.
328
[CH. XXXIV.
The "Acts" of Fox.
lands, possesses a martyrology.* No writer has been
more severely treated: for he has been assailed both
by rage and contempt. He was vehemently attacked
by the great party, which he exposed, as soon as his
book appeared. "No English papist almost in all the
realm thought himself a perfect Catholic," said he,
"until he had cast out some word or other to give
that book a blow." But the charges of falsification,
suppression, alteration of documents, which have been
laid against him, amount to little, most often to
nothing. His adversaries of this kind usually know
nothing beyond what they find in him, and all that
they do is that they try to turn his own words against
him.t For the first part of the present age he has
The work of Jean Crespin, Fox's contemporary, is, so far as I know,
the only product of the same kind, and was to the Huguenots what Fox
was to England. It had an immense sale in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries; "preachers quoted it in the pulpit, and in many churches it
was publicly read at the evening service.” As to title it curiously
resembled both the popular and the proper appellations of Fox. The first
edition, published in 1554, is said to have been entitled Le Livre des
Martyrs. There was a Latin translation by Baduellus in 1556 called Acta
Martyrum: and another in 1560 called Actiones et Monimenta Martyrum.
The subsequent French editions were generally entitled Histoire des
Martyrs. Bower's Fourteen of Meaux, p. 57, ed. 1894. Crespin, the author
and printer of the work, wrote not on so large a scale as his English
contemporary, and does not reproduce his documents, as Fox does. He
confines not himself to the French; he begins with Wickliffe and Huss, and
includes many of the martyrs of Switzerland, Piedmont, and Spain. He
writes with candour and clearness, and pathetic piety, as he relates
atrocities and horrors that far exceeded any that were tolerated in
England.
† The remarks of Strype, who came into the possession of Fox's
papers, upon the unscrupulous charges of destroying records, brought by
Parsons, may be consulted.-Annals, i. 251. Fox's great work was first
published in 1563, in one vast blackletter folio, by Day. The first edition
had the woodcuts, which reappeared in subsequent editions with some
modifications and softenings. They were probably at first made in
Germany. The first edition is much fuller in some parts than the rest,
especially about Gardiner. The author himself, who lived to see two or
three editions, excised much about him.
1560.]
The Geneva Bible.
329
suffered much from sham editions and inefficient
editors, the castigation of whom by critics has greatly
involved their author. Irritated by the partiality and
prejudice which are manifest in him, the critics have
denounced him for dishonesty. He was indeed pre-
judiced. In the least valuable part of his book he
has set the persecutions of the emperors against the
persecutions of the Popes, the persecutions "sought
and wrought by heathen emperors, as well as now
lately practised by Romish prelates," as if both had
proceeded from the same motives. He was one of
the first Latinists of the age; his Latin style is fine;
but when he puts it into English, there is at times
a flatness and meanness of expression which is due to
prejudice. But the tendency of modern research is
to rehabilitate his credit. Fox returned to England
broken in health and in great poverty; he was given
some preferment by Cecil; and Jewel took him by
the hand, and presented him to a canonry in Salisbury.
There he nonconformed a little about the surplice
and some other things until he died.
From the city of Calvin, from the pens of English
exiles, some of whom had tarried abroad a year or
two for an adequate cause, from the press of Row-
land Hall in 1560 the first edition, from the press
of the French martyrologist Crespin eight years later
the third edition, was issued of a work that for sixty
years, nay for a hundred years and more, was to
sway England beyond the martyrology of Fox. The
Geneva Bible entered England not in surreptitious
parcels, like the versions of Tyndale, but with the
allowance of primates and bishops; and, if not imme-
diately reprinted here, met with a demand which
foreign printers supplied without let.* The elegance
* The first edition by Hall was 1560; the second in 1562, without
330
[CH. XXXIV.
The Geneva Bible.
1
of Roman type, in which it first appeared, and the con-
venience of the division into verses, which it adopted
and improved from the Dominican Pagninus, recom-
mended this version; but the pithy, pungent, and
voluminous notes which illuminated nearly every
chapter were, as with its less tolerated predecessors,
not the least among its attractions. Whittingham, the
chief editor, the successor of Knox at Frankfort, the
brother-in-law of Calvin, had published in Geneva
two years previously, in 1558, a version of the
New Testament, founded on Tyndale, with profitable
annotations; which, though not identical with the
corresponding portion of the Geneva Bible, consider-
ably resembled it.* Whittingham arrived in England
with the Geneva Bible in his hand, and was promoted
immediately, though a layman, to the deanery of
Durham. Goodman, another of the company, had
printed at Crespin's press in the same year, 1558, the
bitter tract on lawful disobedience, which coupled him
with Knox in the lasting displeasure of the Queen.
The others, Sampson, Gilby, William Cole, were
strong Calvinians, soon promoted by the prevalent
Evangelic party, soon noted in the Puritan section
of the Evangelics.† Their observations on the sacred
text were succulent and frugiferous.
"Promise ought
printer's name; the third by Crespin in 1568. But this third was really
the unsold first with a new title-page.—Dore's Old Bibles, p. 207. The
same device had been adopted before to sell off Coverdale's unsold Bibles.
Seven years later, in 1575, the writer of the Troubles at Frankfort com-
plained that the Geneva Bible had found "so small favour as not to
be printed again." But if this complaint refer to England, it is not
levelled against the English authorities. Perhaps I may remind the
reader that the Geneva Bible is the "Breeches Bible": no great
rarity.
* See Mr. Dore's valuable work, Old Bibles, p. 189.
+ Knox and Coverdale were also on the Geneva Bible.-Strype's
Parker, i. 205.
1560.]
Its Character.
331
not to be kept when God's honour and the preaching
of His truth is hindered." The locusts of the Apo-
calypse "are false teachers, heretics, and worldly subtle
prelates, with monks, friars, cardinals, patriarchs, arch-
bishops, doctors, bachelors, and masters which forsake
Christ to maintain false doctrine." Upon the awful
mystery it was said, "As the only will and purpose
of God is the chief cause of election and reprobation,
so His free mercy in Christ is an inferior cause of
salvation, and the hardening of the heart an inferior
cause of damnation." Of King Asa deposing his
mother for idolatry, "Herein he shewed that he
lacked zeal, for she ought to have died."* This Bible
was dedicated to the Queen by "her poor subjects
of the English Church at Geneva": a royal privilege
for printing it was granted to John Bodley, himself
a returned exile, and again to the well-known printer
Barker. If the sale at first warranted the murmur
of slow, it must soon have quickened, and cannot have
flagged, in a work of which two hundred editions yield
specimens to posterity. The Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners, Parker and Grindal, laid down the noble prin-
ciple of welcoming all things and fearing nothing,
when they declared of the Geneva Bible that “it
should nothing hinder but rather do much good to
have diversity of translations and readings," and sug-
gested to Cecil that the license to print should not
provide that the impression should be submitted to
* I have taken these specimens from Mr. Dore, who gives a good
account of the contents of the whole. The first editions contained an
Epistle to the Queen which was not reprinted in the later ones. Collier
says that the reason why it was not retained was that it exhorted her
to abolish two or three ceremonies. But it mentions no particular
ceremonies: it merely exhorted her "to root out, cut down, and
destroy those weeds and impediments which do not only deface your
building, but utterly endeavour, yea and threaten the ruin thereof.”
332
[CH. XXXIV.
The Burning
This principle was to
their official oversight.*
become more and more characteristic of the English
Church. It is indeed the breath of her being. It
was at this very moment that Rome made the first
formal promulgation of the Index.†
On the fourth of June, 1561, about three in the
afternoon, in a storm, a flash of lightning struck the
spire of the steeple of St. Paul's, and burning down-
wards to the battlements, stonework, and bells, con-
sumed the steeple itself and all the vast roofs of the
church, "which continued terrible and helpless until
night."+ The calamity, which was never entirely
repaired, might have seemed to demand the aid of
the offerings of the whole community. But the Queen
by a letter to the Archbishop laid the greatest of the
burden on the spiritual estate: the Archbishop adver-
tised the bishops to tax the clergy according to their
no
* Bodley the printer applied himself to Cecil for a renewed grant of
a license to reprint his Bible. Cecil referred him to the Archbishop and
the Bishop of London. They willingly furthered his request, and wrote
a frank and generous letter to Cecil, that the book might be printed again
without providing for their inspection, although they promised that “
impression should pass without their direction, consent, and advice.".
Strype's Parker, i. 413, or Parker's Correspondence, 261. This may seem
a matter of no great moment in these days: but it was, so far as I know,
without parallel, in that age, that officials, of such a body as the High
Commission, should have welcomed "diversity of translations and read-
ings," and have excused themselves from the work of official examina-
tion, even though they guarded this with a promise of private diligence
and circumspection.
+ The first list of prohibited books was put forth by the dying hand
of Paul IV. in 1559. "His Index includes all Bibles in modern languages,
enumerating forty-eight editions, chiefly printed in countries still within
the obedience of the Church. Sixty-one printers are put under a general
ban, all works of every description from their presses being forbidden.".
Hallam, Lit. of Europe, ii. 265. The Index had been in existence for
some time, from about 1543.
Pilkington's Burning of Paul's. It is also said that the fire was
caused by a plumber, who confessed as much on his death-bed. There
is a vivid contemporary description in Stow's Memoranda, printed in
Gairdner's Three Chronicles, Camden Soc., p. 116.
1
1561.]
of St. Paul's.
333
preferments, excepting only those who were then in
payment of their firstfruits, informing them also that
the least rate that he thought likely to be accepted would
be the twentieth of their livings for London, and
the thirtieth for the other dioceses.* In the event, the
firstfruits gave no exemption but a diminution of the
impost the London clergy granted the twentieth, and
those who were in firstfruits the thirtieth: the other
dioceses of the province the thirtieth, and those who
were in firstfruits the fortieth. By this means from
eighteen dioceses more than fourteen hundred pounds
was collected: a thousand pounds more was added in
three payments by the Bishop of London " of his own
benevolence":† the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's
contributed one hundred and thirty-six pounds; and
a hundred and seventy pounds was got by selling the
timber that remained from the fire. The grants of
the clergy amounted to more than two thousand six
hundred pounds. The Queen was not behind, pre-
senting a thousand marks in gold, and a thousand loads
of timber to be taken from her woods. The citizens
gave first a large benevolence, and after that three-
fifteenths. The generous emulation spread to the
legal profession; and while the Lord Chief Justice and
the officers of Common Pleas gave thirty-four pounds,
the Lord Chief Justice of King's Bench and the officers
collected seventeen pounds and more. Of contribu-
tions made by the nobility or titled laity nothing is
* The letters are in Strype's Parker, i. 104.
+ The Bishop of London, Grindal, had a notable device for repairing
St. Paul's. The good man knew of an old church in St. Bartholomew's,
which had kept its leaden roof on, strange to say. He proposed to take
this leaden roof off, and put it on St. Paul's. The laymen interested in
that church opposed the scheme: the result was that that church had its
leaden roof taken off, but that roof was not taken off to cover St. Paul's
with.-Strype's Grindal, i. 63.
Stow gives exact tables of the sums contributed.-Survey, Bk. iii. 150.
334
[CH. XXXIV.
Pilkington's Sermon.
known but one of them wrote some Latin verses on
the occasion.* Presently, under the direction of a
committee of citizens and minor canons, the church
was covered with boards and lead, in the manner of
a false roof, against the weather: and before the end
of the year the aisles were all framed with new timber,
the great roofs of the east and west were framed with
new timber brought from Yorkshire to London by sea,
leaded, and fully finished. But further the reparation
went not and the precautions which were to have
been taken against a similar calamity in the future,
the orders of the Queen, the regulations made by the
aldermen after sundry meetings, were penned and
delivered, but never published or put in force: a great
mischance forewarned in vain against a greater.
This flash enkindled another flame, a fierce little
combustion between the Old and the New Learning.
Upon the Sunday following, June 8, the Bishop of
Durham, Pilkington, preaching at Paul's Cross in
sight of the smoking ruins, bade the people take the
fire for a warning of amendment of life; drew a picture
of the profanity that had been practised there, the
talking, buying, selling, fighting, and brawling; and
reflected on the disobedience of those who refused the
alteration of religion.† "The Causes of the Burning of
Paul's Church" was the title of a discourse which has
* Sir Thomas Chaloner wrote a copy of verses on the fire, beginning
“Urbs antiqua situ," &c.: and by-and-by proceeding:
"Donec magna gravi casu domus illa Tonantis,
Illa domus, reliquis, ceu Phoebe, augustior astris,
Quæ cælo caput attollens inferre solebat
Mole sua, minor est toto nunc vertice, sævos
Trajectu horrendo qua passa est fulminis ignes," &c.-Stow, Survey,
Bk. iii. 149. It may be remarked that Stow gives the amount neither of
the "great benevolence" nor of the "three-fifteenths" of the citizens.
+ The sermon is not known to have been printed: but on June 10,
two days after it was preached, a report of the fire was published by
1
1
1561.]
"The Burning of Paul's."
335
not been preserved. It was speedily answered by an
anonymous broadsheet, which was found strewed about
the streets, with a sarcastic heading of "An Addition
to the Causes." The writer of this, who was Bonner's
former chaplain Morwen, not unrenowned in the
disputations of the former reign, propounded the
alteration of religion to be itself the cause of a divine
punishment, and went through the chief matters of the
debate between Rome and England. Him Pilkington
took into his grasp paragraph by paragraph, after
the manner of the time, demolishing his arguments
and turning his authorities against himself, generally
with success, in a long and laborious treatise. Neither
of the two were men of the first order; but so early
a handling of the commonplaces of an endless contro-
versy is not void of interest, and may be examined so
far as it casts light upon any of the features of the age.
Neither of them was to modern eyes very skilful or
exact in his appeal to history; both showed con-
siderable knowledge of the Fathers and Schoolmen,
Pilkington excelling here, as writing on the larger
scale in language, while Morwen was almost always
moderate, Pilkington was abusive and scornful:
"scavenger," "blind Papist," "loud lie," "drunken dotel,"
"rude ass," are of the profusion of his flowers. For the
matter, where Morwen said, curiously enough, that
St. James "said Mass" in the council of the Apostles
and elders at Jerusalem, Pilkington joyously enquired
what Mass, whether the Liturgy that bore St. James'
name: because, if so, the Romanensians "in the late
raging time” of Mary had got hold of some copies
Seres and this report contains an abstract of the bishop's sermon,
which may be seen in Pilkington's Works, Park. Soc., 646. It seems
from this that the preacher "answered by the way such evil-tongued
persons as imputed this token of God's deserved ire to alteration or
rather reformation of religion"; and hence kindled controversy.
336
“Addition” of Morwen. [CH. XXXIV.
of that Liturgy with intent of printing it, but when
they found how unlike it was to their own Mass, they
dropped it. This is an anecdote which is not, perhaps,
related elsewhere. Where Morwen lamented that the
people of the realm were declined from the steps of
Augustine and the blessed saints, who had "Mass and
seven Sacraments in the church every midnight they
had matins, all the forenoon Masses in the church,
with other divine service and continual prayer; and in
the steeple anthems and prayers at certain times,'
Pilkington replied very pertinently as to the Sacra-
ments, that it might be thought that the Sacraments
were disused in England, whereas the controversy was
more about names than things: "We use six of the
seven as well as they, though not without good reason
we forbear to call them all Sacraments": and that the
only controversy in reality was about Extreme Unction.
As to matins at midnight, he asked what holiness was
in an hour when folk were in bed: that in Paul's, and
in the abbeys formerly, there used to be none present
but a few brawling monks, novices, and choristers, the
older sort almost never coming. "It was thought
enough to knoll the bells and make men believe that
they rose to pray." As to the forenoon Masses all
going on together in the same church, he said that
it was true: there was not a pillar without an altar,
and those shameless shavelings, instead of "tarry-
ing one for another" as St. Paul bade, would not
receive together one of another, and allow the people
to have part with them; but crept every one into his
corner to his altar alone, ate and drank up all alone,
sold good pennyworths, and blessed the people with
the empty chalice. As for climbing up to the top of
the steeple to sing anthems, why should they have
done it there rather than on the ground, and why on
*
1561.]
Pilkington's Answer.
337
one day and not on another? he asked. "The religion
now used in the Church was not heard of before
Luther's time, about forty years ago,” said Morwen; “it
is a new-fangled doctrine and schismatical: come back
to the blessed old Fathers." It is not so long ago,
answered Pilkington, that "the Papists added six more
articles to our Creed, which has but twelve.* They
crack of antiquity and the blessed old Fathers, but let
them prove this Portuise to be above three hundred
years old. Pope Paul the Third, not twenty years
ago, was so ashamed of his Portuise that he printed
a new one. The Feast of Corpus Christi was invented
by Pope Urban the Fourth scarce three hundred years
since. Lady-day was invented by Urban the Sixth,
and is not two hundred years old." He gave a picture
of old St. Paul's and the abuses there, which may be
hoped to be overcharged. "Without and within, above
ground and under, over the roof and beneath, on the
top of the steeple and spire down to the low ground,
not one spot was free from wickedness. From the top
of the spire at coronations or other solemn triumphs,
some used to throw themselves by a rope, and so killed
themselves for vainglory. In the top of one of the
pinnacles is Lollards' Tower, where many an innocent
soul has been tormented and murdered.† In the
middle alley was their long censer reaching from the
roof to the ground. On the arches is that court where
innocent Christians have been condemned by Annas
and Caiaphas. On every wall, pillar, and door were
hung their images; and there were their many altars
for their Masses. The south alley was for usury and
popery, the north for simony; the horse fair in the
* He meant the Statute of the Six Articles, which he calls a
stringed scourge."
† See Vol. IV. p. 479 of this work.
VOL. V.
Ꮓ
"six-
338
"The Burning of Paul's." [CH. XXXIV.
midst for bargains, meetings, brawls, and conspiracies;
the font for ordinary payments of money. The chapel
under ground, with the Mass of the Apostles so early
in the morning, was not of good repute. As for
schismatical, he contemptuously remarked that for
a thousand years almost none had been called schis-
matics but Papists themselves: that there had been
two or three Popes going at a time, and their followers
had called one another schismatics: that if it made
a service schismatical to differ from another service,
then all the old uses, York, Sarum, Bangor, and all
the monastic services were schismatical, for they
differed every one from the other. In the fierceness
of Pilkington the anxiety of the conflict and the issue
still uncertain is reflected: he describes his adver-
saries as by no means despondent, but waiting for
a change of affairs, fearing little for themselves because
the late penal laws were repealed,† and in general
better off than his own friends. He is one of the
earliest writers who freely uses the term Protestant.
"For the proud Papist there is nothing good enough:
for the poor Protestant everything is too good. When
the Pope's butchers are aloft, they broil and burn,
imprison, hang, torment the silly gospeller at their
pleasure where the Protestant is at the best, he is
scarce able to live; and the lurking Papist looks for
his day, when he may run loose again." When Morwen
pathetically pointed to the Romanensian prelates in
prison, Pilkington's fury ran boundless in contempt.
Divers of these holy prelates that he cracks of had
so leased out their houses, lands, and parks, that the
* This was Jesus Chapel, which he here very profanely calls Judas'
Chapel. Cf. Vol. IV. p. 704 of this work.
"They need not to fear their recognizance, fire nor fagot, nor any
punishment according as they deserve their bloody laws are laid on
sleep, though their hearts be bloody still" (p. 523).
1561.]
Pilkington's Answer.
339
new bishops had scarce a corner of a house to lie in,
or so much ground as to graze a goose: and yet those
holy fathers have provided that, if they be restored (as
they look for, as many think), that they shall have
all their commodities again.* Those holy bishops in
imprisonment live more at ease and wealthily than
ever they did before, or than Protestants do in their
liberty. Mark how like themselves they be! As long
as King Henry and blessed Edward lived, they taught,
preached, sware, and believed all that they now deny.
Perjury in other men is punished with bearing papers
and loss of ears. He cracks of them that they would
rather die than agree to any part of this religion, which
they taught and ministered before; but I doubt not
but, if they were opposed as they opposed others, they
would as soon eat the fagot as feel it burn them."†
As both parties were intently watchful of the Queen,
the Romanensians still hanging in hope through her
dexterous uncertainty, it was but natural that they
should retort on one another the dangerous accusation
of disobedience. "Where the Queen has given strait
commandment to abstain from flesh in Lent, and other
days commanded by the Church, the new preachers
and Protestants have eaten flesh openly to the great
slander of other," observed Morwen; "there is none
more disobedient than the new bishops and preachers."
Pilkington's answer on this point was more ingenious
than clear but his essay on fasting contains one or
two interesting particulars. "Our wise Popes of late
years have devised a monstrous fast on St. Mark's
* He charges "the malicious popish prelates" with having given away
their lands by leases, patents, and annuities to women, children, horse-
keepers (he said no worse) rather than let their successors enjoy them
(p. 594). I have already referred to the case of Bourne, the Bishop of
Bath and Wells.
† p. 622.
Z 2
340
[CH. XXXIV.
Parker begins a
day all other fasting days are on the holy day even;
only St. Mark must have his day fasted. Tell us
a reason why that will not be laughed at." As to the
observance of St. Thomas of Canterbury, "Tell us
why the one side of Cheapside fasts that day, being in
London diocese, and the other side, being in Canter-
bury diocese, fasts not. Could not Becket's holiness
in
reach over the street?" For the rest, when Morwen
touches on the consecration of the new bishops, it is to
be remarked that he knows nothing of Nag's Head,
unconsecrated Barlow, and the rest of the Roman
inventions belonging to a later period in that contro-
versy. Pilkington maintains apostolical succession, not
every see, but on the whole. "A succession of bishops
or ministers, we grant, has been in the world, rather
than in any one see or country since Christ: which
succession we say we have and follow better than they,
but not after such sort as he says and means." His
treatment of this subject is discriminating and interest-
ing; but would not, it is probable, be accepted by
every one.*
He bears testimony to the high estima-
tion of Cranmer's book on the Sacrament.
"So long
as that book stands unconfuted, they may bark against
the truth as a dog does against the moon."† He also
speaks with admiration of Jewel's answer to Cole.
The activity of Parker in the administration of the
Church was exemplary. He directed all ministers
to begin their daily services at eight in the morning.
He forbad the bishops to admit to the order of readers,
P. 557.
+ He speaks as if Ridley had been known to have written part of it.
"I refer all men to the fifth and last book that the blessed souls now
living with God, bishops Cranmer and Ridley, wrote of the Sacrament,
whose bodies they cruelly tormented therefore. . . . Stout Stephen would
gladly have overthrown that book, but God confounded him, and their
names live for ever” (p. 547; cf. p. 523).
1560.]
Metropolitical Visitation.
341
The
until Convocation should meet and consider.*
inconvenience of mechanical persons in that office
was both felt and acknowledged early. He stopped
an abuse in his own Courts of Arches and Audience,
the officials of which were commonly wont to entertain
appeals from the bishops of the dioceses, and issue
inhibitions to stay their proceedings, particularly in
correction of morals, and having brought the matters
from the bishops to themselves, to go no further in
them, to the great frustration of discipline. Parker
wrote a sharp letter about this to his chancellor and
his Dean of Arches. He was not a Pope, to pamper
a curia. He undertook the great work of a metro-
political visitation, issuing commissions to Visitors for
the dioceses, and inhibiting in the meantime the visita-
tions of the ordinaries. This business extended over
more than a year. He began it by writing round
to his bishops to know the state of their clergy; how
many were neither priests nor deacons, whether resi-
dent, learned, able to preach; whereto the answer
of Cox, alone preserved, spoke sadly of Ely, that of
the total sum of 152 cures there were but a third that
were duly served. He began it in his own church
and diocese, where, in the chapter-house, in September,
1560, the dean, Wotton, the prebendaries, minor
canons, and preachers, among them Becon, Bale,
Nowell, and Goodrick, were assembled and made
mutual presentations: that the prebendaries came not
to the daily services: that the ministers were negli-
gent: that the minor canons were drunkards, railers,
jesters, and disobedient: that of the minor canons.
there were but seven instead of twelve, men out of
* Strype's Parker, Bk. i. 90.
+ Ib. p. 71.
His return is in the British Museum (Add. MSS. 5813, f. 105 (85)).
See Gee, Elizabethan Clergy, p. 239 and note.
342
[CH. XXXIV.
Parker's Visitation.
the town supplying the vacant rooms: and Bale and
Goodrick presented that the arms of Pole and his
cardinal's hat were hung up in the church, which they
thought not decent or tolerable but abominable. The
Articles to be Enquired, which were adhibited here,
were used in other chapter-houses throughout the
province. They turned on residence, attendance,
decency, and efficiency in church and school; par-
ticularly whether priestly garments were worn in
ministrations, whether they who ministered were all
ministers, whether men were discouraged from soberly
reading the Holy Scriptures by the members of the
Church, or were by them persuaded "not to conform
themselves to the order of religion reformed, restored,
and received by public authority in the Church of
England": and whether the members of the Church
maintained or extolled "any superstitious religion,"
such as relics and pilgrimages, lighting of candles,
kissing, kneeling, decking of images, praying in an
unknown tongue rather than English, trusting in a
certain number of paternosters, purgatory, private
masses, or trentals. With equal voice it was enquired
whether any of them said or taught that infants should
not be baptised, that every Article of the Creed was
not to be believed of necessity, that sin after baptism
was not remissible by penance, that any man lived
without sin, that it was lawful to take upon him the
ministry without outward calling, that the word of
God prohibited the regiment of women, and other
errors of that extreme.* Besides these Articles for
the cathedral churches, there were other Articles to
be Enquired, for the use of the dioceses at large, going
over much of the same ground; but in the enquiries
after morals and manners showing the determination
* Strype's Parker, i. 74.
1561.]
A Royal Visitation.
343
of maintaining the discipline of the Church so far as
it was possible.*
Rochester was visited next after Canterbury by the
same Visitors: before whom a returned exile, Richard
Turner, now vicar of Dartford, preached a sermon.†
Lichfield was visited by a doctor of laws: three Welsh
dioceses by their bishops metropolitically: but only
one of their three cathedral churches by its bishop.
The diocese, but not the cathedral church, of Bath
and Wells was visited by the Bishop of Bath and
Wells: the diocese, but not the cathedral church, of
Salisbury by the Bishop of Salisbury. Peterborough
and Gloucester were visited by doctors: Bristol by
Doctor Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury.‡
If the zeal of the newly appointed prelates was with
wisdom restrained from their own episcopal, and yet
by the chief pastor cautiously admitted to a share
of his metropolitical, it may at the same time have
been further enlarged and employed in the service
of a royal visitation. For in the summer of 1561 a
royal visitation appears to have been proceeding and
it was to the minister Cecil that Horne, Best, Scory,
or Pilkington reported their investigations. "I have
laboured to bring the city of Winchester to uniformity
in religion," said Horne, "to have the cures served
that the Common Prayer might be frequented, which
has not been done since the massing time; and also
that good and sound doctrine might be taught, but
I cannot bring it to pass. There are not lacking
priests in the cathedral church to inculcate superstition
and popery. I can see no way but to unite some
* Strype's Parker, App. xi.
+ Ib. i. 75.
‡ Ib. i. 76. The reason why some bishops were not commissioned
to visit their own cathedral churches was to preserve some rights or
immunities claimed by some chapters.
344
A Royal Visitation [CH. XXXIV.
"'*
of these small city livings. The inhabitants are very
stubborn, and in the shire there are sundry which
hinder as much as they can the proceedings in religion."
He added, in another letter, that he had visited a
good part of Surrey, and that so far those who had
appeared before him were not "repugnant to the
ordinances of the realm concerning religion, neither
the ministers dissenting from the same," and that they
had subscribed to the declaration for uniformity of
doctrine. Nevertheless he found
found many
many churches
destitute of incumbents, much more of able men to
perform the charge, many also of such small living
that they could not entertain any minister at all: of
the absent there were some through wilfulness, some
on the pretence of serving noblemen.† In another
he said that people shifted from one diocese to
another, where the dealing was less severe in
another, that in Oxford, where he was Visitor of three
colleges, there was open refusal of the supremacy,
the Prayer Book, and the Injunctions. "My travail
taketh less effect than my zeal desireth," said Best
of Carlisle; "lies and tales are blown about secretly,
that men may look and prepare for a change. The
people do say what they will concerning religion. It
is far worse since the great men came. If you could
see the rule of Cumberland and Westmorland under
the two heads thereof, it would cause you to weep.
Certain evil men will neither acknowledge the Queen's
supremacy nor obey me as ordinary, and these men
* See Horne's letter at large in Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii. App. xlv.
+ State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xvii. 23 (Cal., p. 177).
‡ Ib., xix. 36 (Cal., p. 184).
§ In this letter he says that he endeavoured the due conformity of
religion; but had to deprive Coveney of Magdalen, and the President
of Corpus Christi; and that New College refused to subscribe to the
supremacy, &c., partly through disowning his authority, partly that
their statutes bound them to Mass.-Ib. 56 (Cal., p. 186).
1561.]
in the North.
345
are supported and kept in place, though the contrary
commandment was given by my lord of York and
the Commissioners in these parts."* In another letter
Best says that he had preached three times in the
cathedral church of Carlisle: that the common people
declared that they had been deceived: that the priests
were "wicked imps of Antichrist, for the most part
very ignorant and stubborn, past measure false and
subtle."† Bishop Scory of Hereford remarked great
disorders in his cathedral church, "a very nursery of
blasphemy, incontinence, pride, superstition, and ignor-
ance." He lamented the tenacity with which the
former religion held its ground, through maintenance
of popish justices. "On Thursday no butcher dared
open shop to sell flesh; next day no gospeller or
other durst work at his occupation, so carefully was
the abrogate fast and holiday there kept. Havard,
my Lord Treasurer's man, and Scudamore, justice
of peace, rule mayor and city. The same keeping
of fasts has happened before. I have brought the
county to conformity of the laws herein by punishing
of divers transgressors, yet the city being exempt
from my jurisdiction remaineth as before. Mug,
Blaxton, Arden, Gregory, Ely, Havard, that were
driven out of Exeter, Worcester, and other places,
* Given in full in Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii. App. xlvi.
+ In this letter he says further that the gentry received him kindly,
in particular Lord Wharton and Lady Musgrave: that only fear made
the priests obedient, but that only three absented themselves from his
visitation and fled because they would not subscribe: two of whom
belonged to Lord Dacres and one to the Earl of Cumberland: that he
had assigned days to them under danger of deprivation. Twelve or thirteen
churches under Dacres at Gilsland did not appear, and at Stapleton;
and sundry of the others have yet Mass openly. He was waiting for aid
from the Council of the North. He doubted not by policy to make them
obedient. The Lord Warden of the Marches and Dacres were too great
friends.-State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xviii. 21 (Cal., p. 180).
June 21, 1561.-Cal. of State Papers, Dom., p. 177.
346
A Royal Visitation.
1
·
[CH. XXXIV.
have been so maintained, feasted, and magnified with
bringing them through the streets with torchlight in
the winter, that they could not much more reverently
have entertained Christ Himself. I have had letters
seven or eight weeks from the commissioners in
London for Mug, Blaxton, and Arden for their appear-
ance; but Scudamore kept them, and the letters could
not be delivered. I am in this country a mere
stranger, abhorred for the most part for religion, being
among them not without danger. Among the wor-
shipful of the shire there are not many favourers of
true religion. If it was not for fear of the honourable
House and Council of the Marches, the event would
soon declare my writing herein to be true. Havard
must be got rid of as justice." *" The more I try
the more grief I find," wrote Pilkington of Durham.
"Here is a double jurisdiction; whether is more trou-
blesome. I well know not. Master Fleetwood surely
has done good service for the time: would that I had
such a helper. I can testify to the state of the country.
There need rather power and authority to be given
than taken away. They understand the taking away
of the bishop's living; whereby my power is the less,
and the less am I regarded. Westmorland is non-
resident; Evers of no great power: the worshipful of
the shire set against me: the people rude and heady,
and by these occasions more bold." In another letter
he again refers to his limited power as bishop: “I do
not see that they will be ruled without a great power
and of him whom they fear. They see how small
the bishop's power is, and therefore they contemn it.
I am grown into such displeasure with them, part
for religion, and part for ministering the oath of the
Queen's superiority, that I know not whether they
* Aug. 17, 1561.-State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xix. 24 (Cal., p. 183).
1561.]
The New Calendar.
347
like me worse or I them, so great dissembling, so
poisonful tongues, and malicious minds I have not
seen. Like St. Paul at Ephesus, I have to fight with
wild beasts. The last day of my visitation, a young
priest, being called with his churchwardens to take
his oath as the rest to present such things as were
amiss according to the Queen's injunctions, refused on
the ground that the Injunctions were on authority
that he could not allow. Only the Pope has spiritual
authority. This boldness the people grow into because
they see that such as refuse to acknowledge their due
allegiance not only escape punishment, but are had
in authority and estimation."* At the same time
there are traces of at least one ordinary or episcopal
visitation proceeding along with these metropolitical
and royal enquiries: and if Parkhurst were reputed
slack, yet Parkhurst attempted to ascertain the pre-
valent abuses in Norwich.†
To return to the activity of Parker. He appointed
proper lessons for Sundays to be read in churches,
* State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xx. 5 and 25 (Cal., pp. 187, 188), Oct. and
Nov., 1561.
+ Parkhurst's Injunctions of 1561 are printed in the Appendix of the
Second Ritual Commission Report. Among other things, he requires
men in Orders to say the Morning and Evening Prayers daily in English
or Latin, either openly or privately, that they may be the more ready in
the Scriptures; not to suffer the Lord's table to be hanged and decked
like an altar, nor use any gesture of the popish Mass in time of ministra-
tion: "every week to read and peruse two chapters of the New Testament,
beginning with St. Matthew and St. John." Also, young unmarried folk
not to be married before they can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and
the Ten Commandments: and to go and hear children catechised. He
enquires, “Whether any that took Orders in King Edward's days, not
contented with that, were ordered again in Queen Mary's days?" which
seems to strengthen the conclusion that such cases were rare (cf. Frere's
Marian Reaction, 318). He enquires "Whether any parson or vicar
findeth but a reader under him where he should find a minister?"
and "Whether any reader being admitted but to read, taketh upon
him to baptise, to marry, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, or to distribute
the Lord's Cup?"
348
[CH. XXXIV.
Archbishop Parker
instead of the chapters in course, as heretofore: and
caused new calendars to be printed for the Book of
Common Prayer.* Finding great neglect in many
churches, and especially chancels, of which were so
many in lay impropriation, in keeping them decent
and in good repair, he exerted himself to amend such
disorder under authority of the Queen's letters. As
lawless and incestuous marriages much prevailed, he
set up an Admonition in churches, with the prohibited
degrees.† The Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes,
* Strype, Annals, i. 225, gives rather a confused account of this.
Cf. Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 260. The whole history of the Lessons, or of
the English Lectionary, is complicated and curious. 1. The First
Prayer Book of Edward contained the lessons in course, with proper
lessons for about twelve holy days. 2. The Second Book of Edward
contained proper lessons for eighteen of the holy days, and for three
great Sundays. 3. The first edition of the Elizabethan Book, 1559,
contained proper lessons for all Sundays and holy days. 4. But some
of these being thought such as might with edification be exchanged for
other lessons, the Queen issued letters to Parker, Grindal, Bill, and
Haddon, as Ecclesiastical Commissioners, "to peruse the order of the
said lessons throughout the year, and to cause some new calendars to
be imprinted, whereby such chapters or parcels of less edification may be
removed, and other more profitable may supply their rooms"; Jan. 22,
1560.—Cardwell, 262; Dom. Cal. 170. Hereupon Parker and his fellows
made some alterations in the lessons (look at Collier, vi. 334, ed. 1840): and,
I believe, these were adopted in the next Prayer Book, that of James I.,
1604. Parker's work, the appointment of lessons for every occasion, was
made a grievance by the Evangelics. See Neal's Hist. of the Puritans,
i. 143. The subject will recur.
+ "An Admonition for the necessity of the present time, till a further
consultation, to all such as shall intend hereafter to enter the state of
matrimony," godly and agreeable to laws.-Strype's Parker, i. 87; Card-
well, Doc. Ann. i. 282, and note. Parker's remarks on this subject are
extremely able. The case of marrying a wife's sister is affirmed to
be implicitly decided by Scripture: and in the Articles of Lambeth
(another of these Parkerian codes, to be considered hereafter) is put
thus: "It is agreed, that all such marriages as have been contracted
within the Levitical degrees be dissolved: and namely, those who have
married two sisters one after another; who are by common consent
judged to be within the case."-Strype's Parker, i. 98; Cardwell, 267.
Strype has also printed a long letter to the same purpose, written by
Jewel in answer to an unknown correspondent, and annotated by Parker;
1561.]
and fresh Ordinances.
349
commonly called the High Commission, sat in
Lambeth: their minutes are not known, but it may
be that they gave occasion to the frequent confabula-
tions of bishops there, out of which arose several im-
portant resolutions or regulations, under the guidance
of the Primate. One of these was a meditation on
the Queen's Injunctions: out of which came in time
Nowell's Catechism, which was designed "for the
erudition of simple curates," in distinction to the short
Catechism for all baptised persons; and likewise the
Second Book of Homilies, of which the subjects were
now fixed and divided among the bishops: * out of
which came also a Latin declaration, to be read twice
a year by the clergy, to ensure uniformity and stay the
secretly disaffected from varying, directed against the
old errors, and remarkably clear and learned; and out
of this Latin declaration proceeded an English declara-
tion to the same effect and purpose, often cited as the
Eleven Articles, which was more diffuse and not so
satisfactory. Another was a brief set of " Resolutions
concluding that "When God commands me that I should not marry my
brother's wife, it follows by the same directly that I should not marry
my wife's sister."—App. to Parker's Life, No. xix.
* Strype, Annals, i. 213; Cardwell, i. 204. The subjects or “argu-
ments" prescribed or suggested are the sacrifice of the Mass, the
Common Prayer to be in English, that every particular church may alter
and change the public rites and ceremonies of their church, keeping the
substance of the faith inviolably, with such like." Every bishop was to
have two, and the Bishop of London four to write. Among the other
points that might be noticed in these "Interpretations and further Con-
siderations" of the Injunctions are, that churchwardens were to report
once a month those who "would not readily pay their fines for not coming
to divine service according to the statutes" : that the cope should be used
in ministering the Lord's Supper: that Arians, Pelagians, and Freewillers
should be shut up in a castle in North Wales or Wallingford, to labour
for their livelihood and see no one but their keepers. This notable
device may be compared with the Wisbech experiment on the Roman-
ensians.
† Strype, Ann. i. 216; Cardwell, i. 208. Both these Declarations
350
[CH. XXXIV.
The XI. Articles
and Orders taken by common consent of the bishops,"
until a synod might be had: in which there was
promised a homily to declare the virtue and efficacy of
are founded on the Forty-two Articles, the latter indeed beginning with
the first of those Articles. The latter is distinguished by Hardwick as
the Eleven Articles: a description and summary may be seen in his
Hist. of Articles, ch. vi., and he well observes that the Eleven Articles
avoid all speculative topics. The device of ordering them to be read by
the clergy twice a year was a far severer test than mere subscription, as
he truly observes: it was an ingenious invention. In these Articles may
perhaps be noticed the account given of Private Masses: "Private masses
were never used among the fathers of the primitive church: I mean,
public administration, and receiving of the Sacrament by the priest alone
without a just number of communicants, according to Christ's saying
Take ye and eat ye." The simultaneous Latin set, of twenty-four Articles,
was probably never enforced on the clergy, though so designed. These
by no means avoid speculative topics, and are admirably precise; as in
such a statement as "Scholastica Transubstantiatio probari non potest
ex sacris literis." It runs nearer to the Forty-two Articles than the
English set runs: and may be considered one of the little chains between
the Forty-two and the Thirty-nine. Hardwick, who takes Strype's inci-
dental description to supply the title which they lack, and knows them
as The Articles of the Principal Heads of Religion, has noted the places
where they touch the Forty-two, as follows:-vii. of 42, about the Three
Creeds: hereto the Principal Heads adds, "Qui istis non crediderint
inter veros Catholicos non sunt recipiendi"; xx. of 42, of the Church, is
the same as 39: but here the Principal Heads has, "Ecclesia Christi est
in qua purum Dei verbum prædicatur, et sacramenta juxta Christi ordi-
nationem administrantur: et in qua clavium autoritas retinetur"; xxiv.
of 42, of ministering in the congregation, is the same as 39: but here the
Principal Heads has, "Absque externa et legitima vocatione non licet
cuiquam sese ingerere in aliquod ministerium ecclesiasticum vel seculare” ;
xxv. of 42, on tongue understanded, is not the same as 39: the Principal
Heads is better than either: "Preceptum Dei est ut quæ leguntur in ecclesia
illa lingua proferantur quæ ab ecclesia intellegatur”; xxvi. of 42, on Sacra-
ments, is nearly the same as 39: in Principal Heads it is, "Christus
tantum duo sacramenta expresse nobis commendat, baptisma et euchari-
stiam: quibus gratia confertur rite sumentibus, etiamsi malus sit minister:
et non prosunt indigne sumentibus quantumvis bonus sit minister”; xxix.
of 42, of the Lord's Supper, is the same as 39 on the points located as
follows in Principal Heads: "Cœna Dominica non est tantum symbolum
mutuæ benevolentiæ Christianorum inter se, sed magis symbolum est
nostræ redemptionis per Christi mortem et nostræ conjunctionis cum
Christo. Ubi fidelibus vere datur et exhibetur communio Corporis
et Sanguinis Domini"; xxxi. of 42, on single life, is answered by Principal
1561.]
and other Ordinances.
351
the Sacrament. Another was a short set of Articles,
part approbative of the former devices and of the
Declaration; ordering the readers to be again
reviewed by every ordinary, ordering ministers not
to be allowed to serve without examination, all old
service books, grailes, antiphoners, and other, to be
defaced and abolished in visitations: and, curious to
read," that priests deprived and other private chaplains"
should be commended, by discretion of the ordinary,
in the great necessity that existed, to serve in cures
on pain of excommunication.*
Heads much the same but shorter; xxxiii. of 42, of Traditions of the
Church, is without the declaration, which the 39 has, of particular or
national churches having power to alter ceremonies: Principal Heads
has this declaration with admirable terseness: "Quævis ecclesia par-
ticularis autoritatem instituendi mutandi et abrogandi ceremonias et
ritus ecclesiasticos habet, modo ad decorem, ordinem et ædificationem
fiat"; xxxvi. of 42, about magistrates, has the old Supreme Head:
Principal Heads has "Elizabetha regina Angliæ est unicus et supremus
gubernator hujus regni et omnium dominiorum et regionum suarum
quaruncunque tam in rebus et causis ecclesiasticis quam temporalibus."
In the same article it adds to "Romanus Pontifex nullam habet juris-
dictionem," the words " nec alia quæcunque potestas extranea": and
for the sake of John Knox and his fellows, "Verbum Dei non prohibet
feminarum regimen.” It may be further remarked that the famous
declaration of Art. xxx., both in the 42 and the 39,
both in the 42 and the 39, "Missarum sacrificia,
quibus vulgo dicebatur sacerdotem offerre Christum," &c., has a much
milder and yet decisive counterpart in Principal Heads: Missa, ut
consuevit a sacerdotibus dici, non erat a Christo instituta, sed a multis
Romanis pontificibus consarcinata. Nec est sacrificium propitiatorium
pro vivis et defunctis." In Principal Heads there is an article on
Marriage: excellent; this: "Matrimonium inter Christianos legitime juxta
verbum Dei initum et contractum est indissolubile, nec per traditiones
hominum unquam convellendum."
""
The "Resolutions and Orders" are mentioned by Strype, Parker,
i. 92. The "Articles agreed upon at the Second Session in Lambeth,'
April 12, 1561, are in the same work, i. 97, and in Cardwell, i. 264.
They were signed by Parker, Grindal, and Cox: the Archbishop of
York, Young, was also concerned in them, and probably others of
the bishops. The item about priests deprived is wrongly printed
by Cardwell, who has "commanded by the ordinary's direction" for
"commended by the ordinary's discretion," which Strype gives. The
I
352
[CH. XXXIV.
Archbishop Parker
1
só
If it move, perhaps it may, a sigh that a very
eminent and learned prelate should have renewed the
destructive pursuit of the old service books, so
dangerous considered he them to be, yet it may be
admitted that it was learning that set him against
them; because from his own studies he perceived
how much they varied from the most ancient liturgies
and offices of the Christian Church.* Of the irre-
parable losses which literature sustained in that age
from the ravage of other books of every kind, he was
not insensible, and has spoken with indignation: now
by his own literary undertakings he was greatly con-
firming in the Church of England a character which
she had never wholly lost; of soundness, plainness,
honesty, dignity: and the instincts and pursuits of
Parker were exactly those that were most valuable to
his age.
His point of view was historical. His lives
of the archbishops of Canterbury, which he entitled
De Antiquitate Britannica Ecclesia, is his own
enduring and honourable monument as a writer. He
surrounded himself with antiquaries, and maintained
a constant intercourse with collectors of every kind.
It was his practice to interchange books and manu-
scripts with them: to give and receive suggestions for
mutual improvement and it is his glory, living close
latter reading is intelligible: it means that some of them might be
chosen.
* "He utterly disliked the public offices of the present Roman Church,
because they varied so much from the ancient."-Strype, Parker, ii. 530. His
dislike was indeed bitter, for he wrote in his Register that "If the Bishop
of Rome's laws, decrees, decretals, extravagants . . . had leaped out of
our libraries, and so become coverings for books coming from the foreign
nations, we might well have been therewith contented. But to put our ancient
chronicles, our noble histories, our learned commentaries, and homilies
upon the Scriptures to so homely an office, we have greatly dishonoured
our nation, and shewn ourselves very wicked to posterity."—Quoted by
Strype, Ib., 529.
1561.]
as an Antiquary.
353
under the great religious revolution of the century, to
have done what might be done to gather what was
retrievable from the wreck of the literary past. He
enriched the library of his own college, the libraries of
his own university and of Oxford, by ceaseless and
generous benefactions. His learned friendship with
Bale, the founder of English biography, with Fox the
historian of the English terror, with Lombard the anti-
quary, with the lettered statesman Cecil, is celebrated
by the writer of his life and acts: his interest in books
extended itself to typography and embellishment, and
John Day, the careful and curious printer, found in him
not only a patron but a warm friend and protector.*
Parker may be regarded as the founder of clerical
scholarship in England.
At the same time it must not be supposed that
literature was to Parker no more than the indulgence
of a taste. Infirm health much preventing him from the
exertion of preaching, he engaged in literature to occupy
himself to the profit of the Church.† His main literary
performances bore upon one purpose, to prove the con-
tinuity of the religion of England from antiquity, and to
assert the inherent rights of the English State Ecclesias-
tical. "My meaning was," he said of his great book, "to
note at what time Augustine, my first predecessor, came
into this land, what religion he brought in with him,
how it continued, how it was fortified and increased,
until the days of King Henry the Eighth, when the
religion began to grow better, and more agreeable to
* Look at the supplementary "Observations on Archb. Parker” which
Strype has given at the end of his Life.
+ "Neither my health nor my quiet would suffer me to be a common
preacher, yet I thought it not unfit for me to be otherwise occupied in
some points of religion." Letter to Cecil with his Antiquities.—Corre-
spondence, 425.
VOL. V.
A a
354
[CH. XXXIV.
The Writings
the Gospel." To these ends he directed his great
labours in editing. He edited Matthew Paris, the most
national of the monkish historians. He edited many
other monkish histories with learned prefaces. He
devoted himself to the restoration of the Anglo-Saxon
language, causing types to be struck for exemplifying
the remains of it, especially in theology; and although
he did this to exhibit the agreement between the
primitive English age and the English Reformation
in the disputed doctrines, yet his honesty would not
permit him to follow a pernicious example in suppress-
ing any passages that favoured Rome.† Of his per-
formances in this kind, perhaps, the most notable was
a collection of Saxon homilies, which he entitled The
Testimony of Antiquity, shewing the ancient faith in
the Church of England touching the Sacrament of the
Body and Blood of the Lord. A long preface
described how that "from Worcester, Hereford, and
Exeter divers books (that is, in the Saxon tongue) had
been delivered into the hands of Archbishop Parker;
by whose diligent search for such writings of history,
and other monuments of antiquity, as might reveal
unto us what hath been the state of our Church in
England from time to time, the things which were
there made known to the Christian reader were come
to light." Then followed a declaration, which gave
official importance to the publication, signed by the
two Archbishops, and the Bishops of London, Durham,
Winchester, Chichester, Hereford, Ely, Worcester,
Lincoln, St. David's, Lichfield, Norwich, Carlisle, and
Bangor, that although the sermon following spoke of
the Mass profiting the quick and dead, of the mixture
of water with the wine, and of some miracles, yet these
things "were but by the way touched, but the full and
* Correspondence, 425.
+ See next note.
}
1561.]
of Parker.
355
whole discourse of the sermon is about the under-
standing of the Sacramental bread and wine, how it is
the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour: by which
is revealed and made known what hath been the
common taught doctrine of the Church of England
on this behalf many hundred years ago, contrary to
the unadvised writing of some nowadays." Hereupon
follow Ælfric's sermon on Easter Day, "Of the Paschal
Lamb," several pieces from his Canons, Liber Peniten-
tialis, and Epistles: then the Creed, the Lord's Prayer,
and the Ten Commandments in old English from
various sources, to prove that it was no novel thing to
require them. The Saxon is given with a translation
into common English on the opposite page.*
man who thus laboured to set historical investigation
on the foot of absolute veracity was the first to under-
stand the extraordinary greatness, which has been but
scantily and tardily acknowledged since, of the literary
character of his martyred predecessor: and when
Parker said of Cranmer that "he would as much rejoice
to win some of the lost writings of that prelate as he
would to restore an old chancel to reparation," the
standard of value that he applied bore witness both to
his taste and to his fidelity to that which was the prime
and main business of his life, the care of the Church of
England.
The
*There is a copy of this tract in 16mo in the British Museum, "Imprinted
at London by John Day, dwelling over Aldersgate beneath St. Martin's":
without date, conjectured to be of 1567: with colophon to Elfric's sermon,
"This sermon is found in divers books of sermons written in the old
English or Saxon tongue, whereof two books be now in the hands of the
Most Reverend Father the Archbishop of Canterbury." Elfric's Paschal
Sermon had been previously printed by Fox in his great work and I am
sorry to add, on the testimony of Strype, "He hath left out several
passages which contained some legendary miracles relating to the Sacra-
ment, and some particular passages which look favourably towards the
doctrine of the Church of Rome: which are not omitted in the Arch-
bishop's edition of the book.”—Parker, ii. 531.
A a 2
356
[CH. XXXIV.
Flemish and Dutch
In a conversation with the Queen about the end of
his first year, one of the many which Bishop Quadra
reported, remark being made of the great concourse of
Flemings and Dutchmen, who with their families and
households were flocking into England from the States
on account of religion, she replied "that they were all
welcome, and that she at least would never fail them." *
She fulfilled her promise sufficiently, as she deemed,
in the settlement which she granted them in London,
under the authority of the Bishop of London. But
they still arrived, and the opinions of many among
them were not acceptable to the allowed Congregations,
to whom they sought, but were not permitted to join
themselves. A Proclamation was issued about the
end of her second year, in which the danger of corrup-
tion of the realm, and of the increase of sects contrary
to the unity of the Church established, through the
pernicious opinions of Anabaptists and others coming
from parts beyond the seas, "against the professors of
the Gospel of Christ," was strongly set forth. The
Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and other bishops
of the Ecclesiastical Commission, it would appear,
were ordered to visit severely all towns suspected, and
openly to try and examine all who held fantastic and
heretical opinions: and those who would not by
charitable teaching be reconciled, were ordered to
depart the realm in twenty days.† In consequence of
this enquiries were made, but with a deliberation which
seems at variance with the reputation of the High
Commission in general history. After two years one
* Quadra to Feria, Dec. 18, 1559.-Span. Cal., p. 118.
+ Sept. 22, 1560. This Proclamation touched not only aliens but
"all manner of persons born either in foreign parts or in her majesty's
dominions." This may have been one reason why it was almost inopera-
tive, as it seems to have been. This Proclamation is also printed in
Grindal's Remains, Park. Soc. 297.
t
1561.]
Refugees in London.
357
of the allowed ministers, Hamstedius, was convened
before Bishop Grindal as a favourer of the Ana-
baptists: he was discovered to share their errors : con-
tinuing obstinate, he was excommunicated by the
Bishop, and the excommunication was declared on the
Sunday following in the Dutch church; and Ham-
stedius retired beyond seas.* His final expulsion
was pressed upon the Commissioners by the laymen
of the Privy Council. The contest between his
faction and the rest of the strangers, "professors of the
Gospel," had been so warm, that a few months after
the Queen's Proclamation, Peter Martyr found it
necessary to interpose a persuasive of peace in an
epistle "To the Church of Strangers in the City of
London." Archbishop Parker in the meantime had
also been enquiring into the state of the strangers
within his diocese at Sandwich, whether French or
Dutch. Riding thither one Sunday morning early for
detection's sake, he found them "very godly in the
Sabbath day, and busy in their work on the week-
day," quiet and peaceable with their neighbours. But
though little was espied that came under ecclesias-
tical laws, he deputed their minister, a grave and
learned man, to exercise by his authority ecclesiastical
*
Strype gives some account of the opinions of Hamstedius, Ann.
i. 117. The Articles of recantation proposed to him by Grindal are in the
State Papers of Eliz., Dom., xxiii. 67 (Cal. 203) of July 31, 1562. There
is a letter of Grindal's (Sep. 8, 1562) to Cecil, praising the Queen's kind-
ness to persecuted strangers, and saying that he has required the French
and Dutch ministers to give him a list of their communicants.—Dom.
Cal. 205.
"A letter to the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes to take
order for the avoiding of one Hadrian Hamslede (sic) a Dutchman, out
of the realm, being found obstinate in divers erroneous opinions, according
to the minute remaining in the Council Chest."-Dasent's Acts of the
Privy Council, p. 127. Aug. 19, 1562.
‡ Feb. 15, 1561.-Collier, vi. 332 (ed. 1840).
358
[CH. XXXIV.
Affairs in Ireland.
censures, as he should see cause.* This minister,
with the elders, thereupon, two years afterwards, pro-
ceeded to excommunicate four of the congregation:
with whom the Archbishop dealt tenderly, and appears
to have effected their restoration after penance.† But
some of the disaffected resorted to Norwich, where the
bishop, Parkhurst, was notoriously slack in dealing
with erroneous opinions, incurring the blame both of
Cecil and Parker.‡
Ireland had been retained in peace and regularity in
the reign of Mary by the Earl of Sussex, a meritorious
Deputy, who was continued by Elizabeth. But the
ample commission which renewed his authority seemed
to breathe the spirit of apprehension when it provided
for the extreme punishment of rebels and invaders,
the forfeiture and transference of lands, and the
occasional declaration of martial law. Among the
rest it spoke of vacant ecclesiastical promotions,
vicarages, prebends, chapels, chantries, archdeaconries,
to be filled by meet and proper persons: it spoke of
fealty and of renunciations to be made by archbishops
and bishops. The alteration of religion in England
* Parker to Cecil, Aug. 27, 1563.-Parker's Corres. 189; cf. Strype's
Parker, i. 139.
+ Parkhurst to Parker, Dec. 1565.-Parker's Corres. 247, where see
footnote.
66
"The bishop of Norwich is blamed even of the best sort for his
remissness in ordering his clergy. He winketh at schismatics and
Anabaptists, as I am informed." Cecil to Parker, Aug. 1561.—Ib. 149.
My lord of Norwich hath got him a commission to good purpose,
scilicet. I have sent for him, but if you the Council lay not your helping
hand to it, as ye did once in Hooper's days, all that is done is but to be
laughed at." Parker to Cecil, March, 1565.-16. p. 234.
§ Rymer, xv. 533 (July 3, 1559). This instrument contains an early
indication of the policy of plantation, afterwards much carried out in this
reign. "Dictos Rebelles congrediendum eosque invadendum, vincendum
et castigandum: et, si opus fuerit, terras ipsorum aliis qui Nobis servire
volunt et intendunt... locandum et dimittendum."
1560.]
Religious Alterations.
359
was indeed to be extended once more to the sister
kingdom, and this was to be the cause of new com-
motions. And yet the indifference of the Irish to
speculative opinions, or the ignorance which held them
from the movements of the age, might have acquiesced
in another transformation: an incurious people might
have followed a clergy counselling submission and
conformity, if it had not been that Roman emissaries,
continually arriving from Italy and the Spanish
dominions, infused into their minds the mistaken belief
that they had always loved the Pope. They had
always hitherto detested in him the patron of their
English enemies. Now that the English had broken
with the Pope, however, they passed into oblivious
love and reverence at an instructed whisper: and were
ready at the same instigation to perceive and recoil
from the pollution of heresy and schism.
The Deputy, who had once called a Parliament to
establish the alterations of Mary in religion, now
called another to establish the alterations of Elizabeth.*
In the House of Commons the representatives of ten
counties only, with the burgesses of those towns in
which the royal power was preponderant, made a total
of no more than seventy-six. In the other house, of
the nineteen prelates not more than two, Walsh and
Leverous, of Meath and Kildare, were strenuous
adherents of the existing system: but on the other
hand most of the temporal Lords were those whose
descendants have been in modern days firmly attached
to the Church of the Pope. In a session of a few
weeks in January, 1560, not without opposition, the
* Lingard, to whom I owe it, expresses this observation differently.
"In the last reign he had called a parliament to establish, in this he called
another to abolish, the Catholic worship" (ch. vi. 314). He does not go so
far as to say the Catholic faith.
}
:
360
[CH. XXXIV.
Affairs in Ireland.
whole ecclesiastical arrangement of Mary was repealed
in a series of statutes answerable to Elizabeth's first
Parliament.* The ecclesiastical jurisdiction was re-
stored to the Crown: the new Oath of Supremacy was
prescribed on the kingdom: the new revised Book of
Common Prayer was ordered, and all subjects were
commanded under penalty to attend the public service
in the churches. The firstfruits and twentieths, for it
was not the tenths that was demanded in Ireland, were
restored to the Crown. The old process of the congé
d'élire, in collation of prelates, was abolished for
appointment by letters patent. The Priory of St. John
of Jerusalem was again attached to the Crown, the
prior Messingberd, flying, long suspected of fomenting
insurrection with the Irish, called to surrender within
forty days. But the enaction was easier than the
execution of such laws. Ministers who understood
the English tongue were rare: if an Irish version of
the English Service were meditated, the Irish language
was difficult to print, and few could read the Irish
letters. The clergy who could not or would not
conform to the English use abandoned their cures :
none could be found to fill their places; the people
were left without religious worship. In face of the
difficulty of enforcing the new laws, the Government
* “The Catholic religion has been suppressed in Ireland, though not
without great opposition. I cannot write about this as I should like,
as I am so troubled, and perhaps your Lordship would be more troubled
still, were I to tell you what I suspect about it. If we are content to let
God's cause go by the board, it will not take much to drag us down with
it." Quadra to Feria, Feb. 1560.-Span. Cal. 127. "In Ireland the Parlia-
ment passed the same decree about religion as here, though against great
opposition, in spite of the refusal of the Earl of Desmond and others
to take any part in it. Preachers and books are being sent there."
Quadra to the Duchess of Parma.-7b. 128. “They only passed it with
so much opposition and tumult that five bishops were arrested, &c. The
decree has been carried out in Dublin, and the rest of the country has
been given until May." Quadra to Philip II.—Ib. 132.
1561.]
Shane O'Nial.
361
was obliged to show indulgence; and in the case of
the archsee of Armagh, to permit the chapter to elect,
as if the statute abolishing the congé d'élire had
never been passed.* The fascination of a mysterious
throne and person, which the monarchical form of the
Papacy enables it to exercise, is strongest where
interest and passion are combined with ignorance. Its
faithful agents were successful in their work. The
feuds and friendships of the dynasts and toparchs,
continued or renewed from this juncture, need not
detain the reader: save that the exploits of the
renowned Shane O'Nial, the claimant of Ulster, the
alternate friend and foe of England, the equal ally of
England's Queen, may briefly require his regard.
Shane, eldest son of the Earl of Tyrone, had been
excluded by Henry the Eighth from the succession,
which was granted to his bastard brother: but Shane
was acknowledged by the Irish to be the head of the
family he vigorously assailed the usurping line; and
claimed the sovereignty of all Ulster. He expressed
so stern an hatred of the English as to hang a retainer
for degenerately supporting life on an English biscuit,
and to build a fort with a native title which signified
"Faugh to an Englishman." His turbulence compelled
the Lord Deputy to march against him: but before
hostilities had proceeded far, overtures were made on
both sides for an accommodation. Shane professed
the fairest intentions, Sussex made great concessions:
an equitable treaty was concluded: the Irish chieftain
* T. Leland, Hist. Irel. ii. 225; J. B. Gordon, Hist. Irel. i. 255. Perhaps
it may be worth observing that this Irish Act of 1559 laid down that
letters patent should answer both for election and confirmation. The Act
of 1 Edw. VI. c. 2 was to the same effect, that the king should collate by
letters patent: which letters patent should answer to an election "and the
same confirmed." This Act, the reader will remember, had been repealed
for England by 1 Eliz. c. I.
362
[CH. XXXIV.
Affairs in Ireland.
attended the Lord Deputy to Dublin, swore allegiance,
and undertook to repair to London to visit the Queen
in a manner
manner suited to his princely dignity. He
appeared surrounded by a guard of gallowglasses in
their native habiliments: whose bare heads, flowing
hair, saffron vests, open sleeves, short coats, and hairy
mantles excited the astonishment of those who thought
that they beheld the inhabitants of another quarter of
the globe. He expressed his contrition by howling,
was received with gracious condescension, and departed
content. To Elizabeth the affair appeared the sub-
mission of a rebel: but to O'Nial it was a treaty
between potentates.*
This great chieftain, with a secrecy which eluded not
Cecil's spies, attended Mass in the house of the Spanish
ambassador, with a dozen of his followers, and was
commended to the King of Spain as a valuable auxiliary
in the strong intervention in the English affairs which
Philip was already beginning to contemplate.†
Soon
* This was in 1562. The authority is Camden, who adds that the
English courtiers, noting the haughtiness and barbarity of O'Nial, "devised
his style thus: O'Nial the great; cousin to St. Patrick, friend to the
Queen of England, enemy to all the world besides." According to Cecil,
O'Nial appeared in open presence in the afternoon, and made a sub-
mission, devised both in Irish and English, "which he made upon his
knees, and first prostrate upon his face." Cecil to Sussex.-T. Wright's
Elizabeth and her Times, i. 87.
+ “Shane O'Nial and ten or twelve of his principal followers have
received the Holy Sacrament in my house with the utmost secrecy, as he
refused to receive the Queen's Communion. He has assured me that
he is and will be perfectly steadfast on the question of religion. As to the
rest, if his Majesty should intend to mend matters here radically, as he
writes me from Spain, I think this man will be a most important instru-
ment." Quadra to Cardinal Granvelle, April 3, 1562.—Span. Cal. 235.
The King's letter, to which Quadra refers, contains this grave intimation,
"We have not yet been able to come to a resolution as to the steps to be
taken to remedy the evils, which must be attacked at their roots, and as
the matter is so grave and weighty and difficult it must be deeply considered
jointly with the state of our own affairs." Philip to Quadra, Feb. 9.—
Ib. 228. It is sad to relate that Bishop Quadra calmly denied that O'Nial
1562.]
Diocesan Changes.
363
after his return to his native country he rebelled again:
sent to the King of Spain and the Pope for assistance:
burned several churches;* and among the rest the
cathedral church of Armagh, because the heretical
service was performed there by Lofthouse, the new
primate. The former occupant of Armagh, Dowdal,
restored by Mary, died three months before the end of
Mary's reign.† Adam Lofthouse, his successor, one
of Elizabeth's chaplains, a young man of graceful
address, who had been sent into Ireland in the capacity
of chaplain to the Lord Deputy, was canonically elected
by the Dean and Chapter of Armagh,‡ and consecrated
had taken the Sacrament in his house, when he was taxed with it by the
Council. He answered, and informed the King that he had answered,
"This is not true, although my chaplain gave his chaplain twelve con-
secrated wafers of the Holy Sacrament, for which he had asked him":
adding, “I have denied about John O'Nial absolutely, and asserted that
he never communicated in my house, in order not to injure him, but
I believe they have arrested him already, and that I shall not be able
to get him off, as this traitor (meaning his own secretary) has told all
he knows." To the King, June 20.-Span. Cal. 247.
* "He left neither house nor no kind of corn on that side the river, but
set it all on fire; and as well did spare never church nor sentory, and
moreover he has killed above three hundred persons of poor labourers,"
&c. Shane Macguire to Sussex.-Wright's Elizabeth, i. 101; cf. p. 110.
+ Vol. IV. p. 426 of this work. Allen, in his answer to an English justice,
says wrongly that Dowdal was deprived by Elizabeth, along with other
bishops. "In Ireland the Archbishop of Armagh, and an uncertain
number of other bishops there."-Quoted in Strype's Ann. i. 73.
The election of Lofthouse, after the Act of Parliament abolishing the
congé d'élire, has perplexed historians, who offer several explanations.
Leland thinks that the Act was already forgotten, or could not be exe-
cuted strictly and generally. There is a curious letter about the case
from the Queen to the Irish Council, which seems to imply that the Act
was never noticed either in Ireland or England. It would appear: (1) that
the Irish Council wrote to the Queen that they could not proceed to the
election of Lofthouse by reason of the absence of some of the chapter of
Armagh. They seem to know nothing of the Act for appointing by patent.
(2) The Queen in her answer does not bid them proceed under the Act,
but tells them to make provision for ordering ecclesiastical causes, by
a special Commission, "in the mean season": i.e. till the archbishop
could be elected. She seems to know nothing of the Act.-See T. Leland,
Hist. Irel. ii. 227.
364
[CH. XXXIV.
Irish Sees.
by Curwen, Archbishop of Dublin, who himself had
been consecrated under Mary with the forms of the
Pontifical, in the beginning of March, 1562.* So long
was it before the days of mourning for Dowdal were
accomplished: albeit in this case it may be true that
the place was one " of great charge, in name and title
only to be esteemed, without any worldly endowment
resulting from it,"† so that it was not kept vacant for
robbery. As to the rest of the Hibernian sees, there
was no severity of deprivation, and no magnanimity of
resignation, at the coming of Elizabeth to the throne.
Archbishop Curwen remained in the archsee of Dublin,
till in 1567 he was translated to Oxford. Bishop
Maginnis continued at Down and Connor: Bishop
Thonery, Bale's intruded successor, at Ossory: John
Devereux, a former abbot, abode still in Ferns: a former
Franciscan friar, Field, intruded into Cork under Mary,
stayed in Cork. Archbishop Baron retained Cashel :
Archbishop Bodkin Tuam: Patrick Walsh adhered to
the see of Waterford: O'Brian to Killaloe: Roland
De Burgh to Clonfert: Roland De Burgh to Elphin :
Raymond De Burgh to Emly. In some bishoprics the
records are defective or lacking: Clogher was occupied
in 1557 by O'Cervallan, but how long after is not known:
his successor was not appointed till 1570: a vacancy of
thirteen years is improbable. Of Kilmore, Dromore,
Raphoe, and Derry the incumbents are unknown.
The whole number of the bishoprics of Ireland con-
siderably exceeded the whole number of the English
bishoprics but of the whole number of the bishops of
Ireland not one resigned on account of the alteration
* Mant's Hist. of the Church of Ireland, i. 270. Mant observes that
one of the lines of the Apostolical Succession in the Irish Church was
through Goodacre of Armagh from Browne of Dublin: the other (for
there are two) was through Lofthouse of Armagh from Curwen of Dublin.
† Ib. 269, from Rot. Canc. 6 & 7 Eliz.
1562.]
England and the Huguenots.
365
of religion, and only two were deprived. These were
Walsh of Meath, a former Cistercian, and Leverous of
Kildare. Walsh refused the Oath of Supremacy, and
preached against the Supremacy and the Prayer Book:
Leverous refused the Oath.* There had been no
persecution in the time of Queen Mary in the apathetic
kingdom of Ireland, to compel the heads and dignitaries
of the Church to affirm their consistency under the
penalty of confessing by disgrace the religion which
they had elucidated by force.
It was in the middle of this year, 1562, that Elizabeth
intervened in arms in the north of France on behalf of
the Huguenots. Their leader Condé scrupled not to
purchase her assistance at the price of the important
towns of Havre and Dieppe which were forthwith
occupied by a force of three thousand English under
Sir Edward Poynings, and though Dieppe was relin-
quished as indefensible, Havre was retained. The
Catholics, under Guise, were besieging Rouen at
the time Poynings flung a small reinforcement into
the place, and when it was taken by storm, two hundred
English soldiers perished in the breach. The Queen,
on hearing of the loss, dispatched a second army of
three thousand to Havre under Dudley, Earl of
Warwick, and sent money into Germany to hire
mercenaries. It was expected that Guise would have
invested Havre, which was not in a condition of
defence: but the rapid advance of Condé from Orleans
with a view of opening communications with the
English prevented him he marched after the prince,
and forced him to fight. In the desperate battle of
Dreux, December 19, nearly half the combatants fell,
* I have used the Catalogue of Bishops and the examination of the
Question whether any Bishops resigned at Queen Elizabeth's Accession,"
which are given by Mant, Hist. of the Church of Ireland, vol. i. Appendix.
366
[CH. XXXIV.
The Huguenots.
and most of the leaders on either side were slain or
taken; Condé became the prisoner of Guise, but the
wreck of his army was withdrawn under the Admiral
Coligni, unmolested by his exhausted enemy. The
Huguenots still kept the field in Normandy: and one
of the most atrocious wars recorded in history continued
to be waged.*
In this affair the Queen was guided by her great
maxims, that she should prefer her own interests, that
is the interests of England, to everything beside; and
that it was the duty of a king to protect his subjects.
Nothing could have been more to the former purpose,
in her apprehension, nothing more in agreement with
the popular will, than the possession of Havre, a place
commanding the mouth of the Seine, whether as a
substitute for Calais, or a foothold for regaining Calais.
The same motive made her chary of men and money;
and she has incurred the censure of some writers on
this score, because she stood not forth at all hazards
in supporting with armies and subsidies the reformed
religion on the continent. It may be remarked, how-
ever, that she sent as many men to Condé as Philip
of Spain sent to Guise: and that it was at the same
moment when Philip entered the south of France
through a secret treaty with Guise, that she entered
the north of France through a secret treaty with
Condé. When the agents of the prince, stealing over
to England, brought her his proposals, soliciting
succours three times greater than those that were
eventually sent, she remained unmoved alike by their
importunity, the anxious representations of Cecil, the
alarming letters of Throckmorton, and the entreaties of
Lord Robert Dudley, who agreed in declaring that the
* These events belong to general history. Froude gives a particular
and very interesting account of the expedition to Havre.
1562.]
Policy of Elizabeth.
367
ruin of Condé would be followed by her own. When the
French ambassador in the name of his master protested
against her conduct in making a treaty with a subject
in arms against his sovereign, and required her to
withdraw her forces from Havre, she pretended not
to believe that the message came from Charles, because
that it was the duty of a king to protect his subjects
from oppression, and therefore to welcome any aid for
that purpose. This maxim of government was never
so neglected in Europe as in the age when it was
maintained by Elizabeth. Notwithstanding her par-
simony of life and treasure, she felt the drain of her
resources; and it was under the pressure of this foreign
complication that she summoned her second Parlia-
ment.
7
1
CHAPTER XXXV.
A.D. 1563.
To the second Parliament of Elizabeth, to the House
of Commons, not more than fifty were returned who
had sat in her first: a dozen who had been in the
last Parliament of Edward but not in the first of
Elizabeth revisited Westminster in her second.* Such
change might be a sign of heightened Evangelicism;
but it was not a sign of altered policy. The principles
of the reign for ecclesiastical legislation were already
laid by the Parliament of the first year of it: the
Parliament of the fifth, though important, could do no
more than apply or enforce them.
It was opened with extraordinary splendour, Janu-
ary 12.
The Queen rode on horseback from White-
hall, apparelled in furs, crimson velvet, and ermines,
a collar studded with jewels, and on her head a rich
caul. Her ladies attended in ordinary dresses. The
Council, the great officers, the House of Lords went
before her, among them twenty-two of the recruited
episcopate; Gloucester and St. Asaph, Chester, Car-
lisle and Peterborough, Norwich and Exeter, Lichfield
and Bath, Rochester and St. David's, Salisbury and
Lincoln, Bangor and Worcester, Ely and Hereford,
Llandaff, Chichester and Winchester, Durham and
London: in robes of scarlet and hoods of miniver. At
* I have worked these particulars out of the Blue Book, Members of
Parliament, Part I., which appeared in 1879.
1563.]
Opening of Parliament.
369
the north door of Westminster Abbey they were met
by the Dean and the Dean of the Chapel with the
whole Chapel in copes. The staff of St. Edward was
delivered to her Majesty, whose arm was assisted to
bear it by a bold baron: the weight of her train was
relieved by Lord Robert Dudley and Sir Francis
Knowles, and a canopy was uplifted over her head
by six strong knights. The procession advanced "to
the travers beside the Table of Administration"; on
which the cap and sword of state were laid. Her
place was in the travers, or transepts, whereas usi-
tately it had been in the quire: there all the Lords sat
on forms, the spiritualty on the north, the temporalty
on the south. There was neither Communion nor
offering.* The choir sang the English Litany or
Procession, and a vigorous sermon, fiercely glancing
towards the bishops imprisoned in the Tower, was
preached by Dean Nowell of St. Paul's. At the
end of the sermon a Psalm was sung, another sign of
the time, as the royal pomp passed out by the south
door in march to the Parliament Chamber. There the
Queen took her throne, with the cap, the sword, the
cloth of estate: three or four ladies, "and no more,'
sitting on the ground beside her, and many lords and
sons of lords kneeling behind the cloth of estate.
""
* This account comes from D'Ewes. It seems probable from what he
says that the altar had been removed, and that "the table of administra-
tion" stood in the transepts. There was no Communion: but it must be
remembered that it would have been impossible to have it for the time.
It was a different matter when the Latin Mass was used, and there were
no communicants but the priests.
+ "On Tuesday last the Parliament was opened, and the burden of
the sermons, both in St. Paul's and in the presence of the Queen at
Westminster, was principally to persuade them to 'kill the caged wolves';
by which they meant the Bishops and really it looks as if they would do
something of the sort." Quadra to his servant at Brussels, Jan. 14.—
Span. Cal. 291.
VOL. V.
B b
370
[CH. XXXV.
Bacon's Speech.
The dukes, viscounts, barons, were ranked on forms:
the Archbishop of Canterbury began, and the Bishop
of Gloucester ended, the Bishops' form. When all
was arranged, the Commons were summoned; and the
Lord Keeper Bacon was commanded by the Queen to
open the cause of assembly.
The speech of this approved orator fell not short of
the occasion. Giving the first place to the considera-
tion of religion, " for the setting forth of God's honour
and glory,” he lamented the want of discipline, the
lack of ministers, the small congregations, and bare
services. He encouraged the High Commission in their
work, and suggested that it might be extended by com-
missioners sitting in every diocese. "God's cause," said
he, "being generously weighed and followed bringeth
good success in all affairs; but neglected, how can
anything prosper? The greater the personages who
abuse, the greater the fault is to the damage of the
whole commonwealth. I cannot excuse either the
spiritualty or the laity. As the preachers are not so
diligent in their vocation as they should be, so we of
the laity are neither so diligent in hearing nor in doing.
There is great want of ministers, and insufficiency also:
but this is to be borne, considering the time, and not
doubting the circumspection of the bishops in looking
to the placing of such as shall be appointed hereafter.
The discipline of the Church has not been good here-
tofore: whence have sprung two enormities: that
every man lives as he will, without fear; and that
many ceremonies agreed upon, but the right ornaments
thereof, are either left undone or forgotten.*
For
* I have kept close to his words in this place; where there is an
allusion to the vestiary troubles, which were already felt. The "right
ornaments" that were lacking in ceremonies agreed upon were not using
the prescribed place, gesture, or apparel in performing them: especially
the surplice.
"
1563.]
Speech of the Speaker.
371
want of discipline it is that so few come to service, and
the Church is so unreplenished. The want of dis-
cipline causes obstinacy, contempt, and the growth of
heresy: therefore, in my opinion, the device is good
that in every diocese officers be appointed to sit, as hath
been thought good, for the redress of such-like errors
twice or thrice a year, till they be amended. In which
well-doing the head officers are to be borne withal and
maintained; and laws made for the purpose: the chief
care of which matters pertaineth to you, my lords of
the Spiritualty. Go, Commons; go, nether House;
go, choose your mouth, your aider, your instructor,
your opener, and your Speaker."
The Commons withdrew, and, on the nomination of
the Comptroller, elected their Speaker, the whole house
with one entire voice crying out, "Mr. Williams,
Mr. Williams."*
On the Friday they returned to the
royal presence in the Lords, and the Speaker, a
gentleman of the Inner Temple, delivered an eloquent
oration. "Savage beasts forget not benefactors; neither
may I let pass your Majesty's benefits. Taking upon
you the charge of both the States, as well Spiritual as
Temporal, you have purged this Church of all ill
service, and placed therein service to God's honour;
you have restored again God's doctrine into this realm;
for which your subjects most heartily give thanks unto
God. Throughly to redress abuses, your Majesty must
have knowledge of them; and there are three notable
monsters in the realm, of which I would speak: necessity,
ignorance, and error. No man is contented with his
degree, though he have never so much. How now be
all schools, benefices, and other like rooms furnished!
Schools so few, that I dare say a hundred schools are
wanting in England which before this time have
* D'Ewes, p. 79.
,
B b 2
372
[CH. XXXV.
Speech of the Speaker.
been. If in each of those schools there had been.
but a hundred scholars, that had been ten thousand:
I doubt whether there be so many learned men in
England as the number wants of these scholars.
Want of good schoolmasters bringeth ignorance.
Covetousness hath gotten the livings and preferments,
as by impropriations, which is a decay of learning.
The Universities are decayed; the great market towns
and others are without either school or preacher; the
poor vicar has twenty pounds, the rest is impropriate :
so no preacher there, the people led in blindness and
become obstinate. See to it that impropriations be
redressed. Error is a serpent with many heads, many
evil opinions, and much evil life: Pelagians, Libertines,
Papists, who leave God's commandments to follow
their own traditions. Your realm shall never be well
served of such people, so divided. Weed out this
wickedness and error within these our days. Walking
in the streets I have heard oftentimes more oaths
than words, a pitiful hearing! Having God's word,
and His name in our mouths, yet we live as infidels:
having enough there is scarcity. What, shall there be
no punishment for this among us being Christians and
not infidels? We desire your Highness to see to the
lamentable state of this Commonwealth, that we may
avoid this blasphemy."
"We
The Speaker proceeded in an allegory, not inapt,
if not highflying, which may be called the Fort.
have thought good to move your Majesty to build a
strong Fort, for the surety of this realm, to the
repulsing of your enemies abroad. It must be set upon
firm ground, having two gates, the one commonly open,
the other as a postern, with two watchmen at either of
them, and having one Governor, one Lieutenant, four
soldiers, and no good thing wanting. Name it the
1563.]
First Debates.
373
Fear of God: the Governor whereof to be God, the
Lieutenant your Majesty, the stones the heart of
faithful people, the two watchmen at the open gate
Knowledge and Virtue, of the postern Mercy and
Truth, all being spiritual ministers. This Fort is in-
vincible if every man will fear God, and if you, the
Lieutenant, see Justice with Prudence her sister exe-
cuted. For such as depart out of this Fort, let them
be let out at the postern by Mercy and Truth. First
of all, and continually, vouchsafe to seek God's glory,
and His true honour, and then shall you have this
Fort well built, and by you well governed." *
The Oath of Supremacy was ministered to the
Commons for the first time, with particular solemnity,
by the Lord Steward Arundel. The Queen's marriage
and the succession was the first great anxiety of the
Session on which sage counsels were advanced with
eloquence in either house. The speech of the Speaker,
which is extant, glanced upon the dangers of the times,
the foreign enemies who had sought to transfer the
crown to a stranger, meaning the Queen of Scots, the
plots of subjects unnaturally confederate with foreign
enemies, referring it may be to the foolish plot of the
Poles, which was even then being unravelled: for two
nephews of Pole conspired to proclaim Mary of Scot-
land, one of them to marry her, and the other to be
Duke of Clarence, were detected, arraigned, condemned,
and contemptuously pardoned about this time: but
•
* D'Ewes, p. 65. Mr. Froude first drew attention to this remarkable
speech, of which he speaks glowingly. "All that was most excellent in
English heart and feeling, the spirit which carried England safe at last
through its trials, spoke in these words. . . The clergy cried out for the
blood of the disaffected: the lay Speaker would let them go by the
postern of Mercy and Truth" (vii. 481). This is characteristic: but who
would criticise it now? The death of Mr. Froude has left a gap which is
felt by those of his literary generation.
374
Question of Supply. [CH. XXXV.
་
was most remarkable for a sentence in which the
Romanensians were called heretics, the term which it
pleased them so well to apply to others.* But the
fears of Cecil proved themselves true, that he "could
not see that any effect would come of the earnest suits
made of the three estates to the Queen's Majesty." †
To the eloquence of the Commons she answered that
the matter required consideration, and turned her back
on them: when the Lords waited on her she angrily
told them that if they saw lines in her face they were
not the wrinkles of age but the marks of the small-
pox, from which she had just recovered; so marriage
might wait.
On the question of supply great argument arose in
the Commons; a burgess declaring that the cost of
the Scottish war and of the present intervention in
Normandy might well have been spared. Cecil arose
and delivered a fierce harangue against the King of
Spain, to whom he imputed all the troubles in which
the country had been involved for the last four years;
that he had been ungrateful for the friendship and
alliance of the country from which he had received
so many services, and had left it without support for
the recovery of Calais: that he invariably sided with
the Queen's enemies, and had recently given so much
support to the Guises, that the only thing left was
for him to be called the master of France, since the
Queen of Scots felt already sure of being Queen of
England, and was indeed at times called so by her
"We fear a faction of heretics in your realm, contemptuous and
malicious Papists, lest they most unnaturally against their country, most
madly against their own safety, and most treacherously against your
Highness, not only hope for the woeful day of your death, but also lie
in wait to advance some title, under which they may revive their late
unspeakable cruelty," &c.-D’Ewes, 82.
+ Cecil to Sir T. Smith, Feb. 18.-Strype, Ann. i. 294.
1563.]
Other Questions.
375
household.* The Commons responded with a gene-
rous aid, one subsidy and two fifteenths and tenths.
A Bill against fantastical prophecies and against en-
chantments made it felony to invent and publish fond
predictions against the Queen or other high personages,
and continued the horrible series of laws against witch-
craft, which the Legislature of Henry the Eighth began.†
Another Bill for assuring to the Queen the lands of the
vacant bishoprics, which she had assumed under the
notorious Act of her first Parliament, was read once
or twice, but went no further this Session. Unions
of churches in the city of Winchester and other places; §
St. Katherine's Hospital made into a parish church,
and a school erected; a Bill touching an annuity for
the finding of a school at Guildford; || sanctuary not
to be used to defraud debt, were measures, proposed
or carried, of the kinds not unusual in that age. More
particularly marking the point at which the Reforma-
tion was arrived may be thought the Act for translating
"the Bible and other Divine Service into the Welsh
tongue":¶ and the Welsh Book of Common Prayer,
which appeared in due course, is to be regarded as a
contemporary original. The position of the clergy
may be discerned in a Bill which had but one reading,
"that the Lord Chancellor might direct commissions
* Quadra to the King, Jan. 27.-Span. Cal. 293.
+ 5 Eliz. cc. 15, 16. Comp. Vol. II. p. 281 of this work.
Strype, Ann. i. 294.
(6
§ "The Bill for the uniting and annexing of churches was read prima
vice.”—Lords' Journ., p. 600. "The Bill for uniting of churches in
cities and towns corporate " read second time.-Ib. 602; D'Ewes, 70. In
the Commons' Journal it is more particularly described as a Bill for the
uniting of churches by the bishop, so that the value be not above twenty-
four pounds of the churches united."-D'Ewes, 88. What became of it
seems unknown: but a new Bill for uniting of churches in boroughs or
towns, being under the value of twenty marks," was read for the first time
on the penultimate day of the Session.—Ib. 91.
Ib. 70, 89, 90.
T 16.
5
376
Writ de Excommunicato. [CH. XXXV.
to the bishop for increase of the living of ministers"
of the High Commission the prudence appeared in
a Bill "to avoid fraudulent gifts by any convicted of
præmunire," and the activity in an "Act for the due
execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo."
The ancient writ, it appeared, was not returnable into
any particular court, but was left to the discretion of
sheriffs, through whose negligence and default it was
not for the most part executed upon offenders in
crimes of ecclesiastical cognisance, who were therefore
greatly encouraged in leading sinful and criminous lives.
It was now made returnable into King's Bench, in
a careful statute, which defined that it was not the body
of the person named that was to be returned by the
sheriff, but the writ, with brief declaration how he had
served it, further proceedings lying with the justices:
that they might award another kind of writ, repeatedly,
with increasing penalties, against the person named,
till he appeared before them to answer; that the
bishop, or other, having authority to certify any person
excommunicated, might receive the submission of the
party, and signify it to the court, namely the High
Court of Chancery, from which writs De hæretico
capiendo issued: and that any such writ which con-
tained not the cause of excommunication, “refusing to
have his child baptised, or to receive the Holy Com-
munion as it is now commonly used to be received in
the Church of England, or to come to Divine Service
now commonly used in the said Church of England, or
error in matters of religion or doctrine now received and
allowed in the said Church of England, incontinency,
usury, simony, perjury in the ecclesiastical court, or
idolatry," should be utterly void.* This Act was
* It was an ancient abuse of excommunication for bishops to issue
letters and certificates that the party was excommunicated propter diversas
เ
1563.]
Assurance of Supremacy Bill.
377
somewhat contested. After passing the Lords, it came
back from the Commons "with a proviso annexed
and divers amendments," which were immediately
accepted.
(C
But the chief ecclesiastical measure of the Session
was the "Act for the assurance of the Queen's
royal power over all estates and subjects within her
dominions." In the Commons this was called the
Bill against those that shall extol the Bishop of Rome,
or shall refuse the Oath of Allegiance": and the title
describes the matter. The preamble recited the perils
and dishonours which had befallen the realm in ages
past "by means of the jurisdiction and power of the
See of Rome unjustly claimed and usurped," and the
present "marvellous outrage and licentious boldness
of the fautors of the said usurped power," which was
declared to require now more sharp correction than
hitherto in the Queen's reign. It was therefore made
præmunire to be convicted of maintaining or extolling
the authority, jurisdiction, power, or pre-eminence of
the Bishop of Rome or his see" within the realm of
England. If any justice of assize or peace failed to
certify into King's Bench, there to be heard and
determined, any presentment of such case that had
been made before him, he was made liable to forfeit
a hundred pounds. To maintain the Bishop of Rome
a second time, after conviction, was made high treason.
The other part of the statute, about refusing the
Oath of Allegiance, was more complicated and severe.
The Oath to be tendered was the Oath of the Queen's
contumacias, or some such phrase, without showing any cause in special
of the excommunication. Attempts had been made in former ages to
check this. See some remarks in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts
Commission, 165. The causes now enumerated, viz. any refusal of the
altered religion and the Book of Common Prayer, may be noticed.
ویی
378
[CH. XXXV.
Provisions of the
""
first year, of which we have seen so much, and it was
to be interpreted according to the Queen's Admonition
annexed to her Injunctions,* as attributing to her "no
other authority than that was challenged and lately
used by Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth.
All bishops might tender the Oath to ecclesiastical
persons.† Every member of the House of Commons
was to take it before the High Steward, or be deemed
no knight or burgess of Parliament and be punished
for entering the assembly. But no temporal person
above the degree of baron was under the compulsion
of swearing, her Majesty being "sufficiently assured of
the faith and loyalty of the temporal Lords of Parlia-
ment." As to other persons of the realm, commissions
might be issued by the Lord Chancellor under the Act
to commissioners to tender the Oath to such persons
as should be specified therein, refusals to be certified
into King's Bench. To refuse the Oath a second time
was high treason: but the Oath might not be tendered
a second time to anybody, but only to the clergy, to
officials of ecclesiastical courts, and to "such persons
as wilfully refused to observe the orders and rites for
Divine Service that be authorised to be used and
observed in the Church of England," after being
publicly admonished by the ordinary, to such as openly
depraved the rites and ceremonies of the Church of
* Above, p. 138.
✈ Lingard says that the obligation of taking the Oath was extended
"to all persons who had ever held office in the church, or in any
ecclesiastical court, during the present or the three last reigns"; vi. 206.
He is followed by Mr. Bridgett, Cath. Hierarchy, 29 and 85. There is no
such definition of time in the Act, and it is difficult to imagine whence
Lingard could have got it. The Act was not retrospective: it ordered,
"that all and every archbishop, bishop, and other ecclesiastical person,
and other ecclesiastical officer and minister, of what estate, dignity,
pre-eminence whatsoever they be, or shall be," should take the Oath.
"
1563.]
Assurance of Supremacy Bill.
379
England, and to such as should "hear or say the
private Mass prohibited by the laws of the realm."*
This famous statute, which originated with the
Commons and was sent to the Lords. early in the
Session, February 20, was not passed without debate.†
In the House of Lords a vigorous speech against it
was delivered by Browne, Lord Montague: in the
Commons by Mr. Atkinson, a student of the Inner
Temple. "I seek not to persuade," said Montague,
"that the religion now observed in England is either
false or schismatical: but is it good to command
Papists to confess the doctrine of Protestants to be
true and evangelical, with oath, under pain of death?
This law is not necessary: the Catholics of the realm
disturb not the affairs of the realm; they dispute not,
they preach not, they disobey not the Queen: they
5 Eliz. c. I. It is interesting to observe the Latin Mass designated by
such a body as the Legislature "the private Mass." It shows how deeply
this character of the mediæval service had impressed itself on the age.
Indeed the designation was invented by the age; and was not accepted
by the Romanensians or Old Learning.
The late Mr. Froude has pointed out that a Bill of the sort, whether
this Bill in the first form, or one that was quashed, seems to have been
sent to the Lords before this. Bishop Quadra wrote to King Philip on
January 27 that "the heretics had proposed a penal Act against the
Papists who refused to accept the new religion," and that the Lords having
to vote upon it, "the Earl of Northumberland said that he thought the Act
was neither just nor desirable, and that the heretics should be satisfied to
enjoy the bishoprics and benefits of the others without wishing to cut off
their heads: and that when they had beheaded the clergy, they would
claim to do the same to the lay nobles."-Froude, vii. 484; Span. Cal. 294.
Mr. Froude remarks characteristically that the Bill was "bloody in its
provisions as the preachers desired." However there were no preachers
in the House of Commons: but there was a layman there who spoke
against the Bill, Mr. Atkinson (see above): and he happened to mention
that "he heard the preachers say that though in the old law idolatry was
punished with death, yet since the coming of Christ, who came to win
the world by peace, the greatest punishment taught by the Apostle was
excommunication."-Strype, i. 301. In subsequent letters to the King,
Quadra describes the Act, as it was actually passed, with sufficient
accuracy.-Span. Cal. 302.
380
CH. XXXV.
Speeches on the
have brought into the realm no novelties in doctrine
and religion. It is enough for Protestants to keep
possession of the churches, and the authority to preach
and to excommunicate, not to seek to force men to do
or believe that they believe not; and to make God
witness of their lie. To be condemned to lie and to
swear, or also to die, no man ought to suffer; and it is
to be feared that rather than to die, they will seek
how to defend themselves. Twenty-five bishops and
the greater part of the assembly of the Lords were for
making this law: these bishops have party and interest
in the matter since ipso facto they have dispossessed
the Catholic bishops under colour to bring in better
doctrine. To them it belongs only to declare the
doctrine of the Papists to be false, and to excommuni-
cate such as follow it. It belongs not to them to
appoint the temporal penalties of confiscation, banish-
ment, or death." Montague's arguments were good:
but his plea for gentleness, and his protestation of the
proper functions of bishops, sounded flat and strange
so soon after the days of Mary. Atkinson's speech
was delivered, March 10, in answer to one that is not
He argued with force that to maintain
foreign jurisdiction was never by the laws accounted
treason, to appeal to Rome was never yet treason, but
only præmunire, and only præmunire after Edward
the Third: that therefore, the offence not being so
great, the penalty ought not to be so great either. If,
he represented, every one who scrupled the Oath
should refuse it and be executed thereupon, the realm
would be so weakened as to be defenceless: if all who
misliked it should take it, they would not be better
subjects for being made cowards and hypocrites. He
considered that the great Act of the first Parliament
of the Queen, in which the Oath was first enforced,
extant.
1563.]
Supremacy Bill.
381
This
was strict and ample enough in penalty.*
speech was the occasion, it is evident, of several
safeguards and mitigations that were inserted in the
Bill. Cecil spoke strongly in support of the Bill upon
the view of foreign policy. " "If," said he, "the Queen
finds herself embarrassed, it is because she is defending
her supreme authority, because she is refusing to
admit the authority of the Pope or his Council: for
this reason the King of Spain, having vainly urged
her to send representatives thither, now threatens her
with war.
The Pope has hired the King of Spain with
three millions of gold to make war on those powers
who refuse to send representatives to the Council.
Majesty will die before consenting. I exhort you to
defend the royal authority with this necessary law;
nay more, to serve your Queen with your lives and
property, as it is your duty. You have none to trust
but yourselves. The Germans, who promised great
things, have broken their word and done nothing.
The Emperor and his sons, and the Duke of Bavaria,
are in the pay of the Pope." Vice-Chamberlain
Knowles rose after Cecil, and exclaimed that the
business must be settled sword in hand, not by words:
and that he would be foremost in the struggle.†
*
Her
The Session ended April 10, with orations from the
Strype has given these two speeches from the Foxii MSS., Annals,
ch. xxvi.: where see them at large. Collier gives them, or rather a version -
of them, in his own phraseology, vol. vi. 359. The penalties of the Act
were considerably mitigated, as it stood at last, by provisos: as, that it
should not be lawful to kill any one attainted upon præmunire; that
charitable alms bestowed on an offender under the statute should not be
interpreted into aiding and abetting: no forfeiture or disheriting should
come of any attainder under it. I have not been able to trace these
speeches to the Foxii MSS. As Strype gives them, their language
seems not of their age.
+ Quadra to Philip, Feb. 20.-Span. Cal. 303. Sir Francis Knowles
spoke not naught. He was at Havre de Grace the next week.
382
Convocation of 1563. [CH. XXXV.
Speaker and the Keeper; the Queen present. The
Lord Keeper in the name of the Queen acknowledged
"how wisely they had done for the abolishing of the
Roman power, the common enemy of the realm; and
bade them look well to the execution of the laws"
without more words, lest she should have to issue
commissions to enquire whether they were executed or
not, as she did in her ecclesiastical laws. As to the
delicate question of her marriage and succession, he
read a paper which she had written by his request,
dignified and touching, which may be held certainly of
her own composure."
*
Concurrent with the Parliament, the Convocation of
the Province of Canterbury met in St. Paul's on
January 13; and the deliberations of the assembly
which reduced the English Confession to the final
form, so far forth as they have been preserved, were
marked by dignity and wisdom.† After the Litany
* "Since there can be no duer debt than princes' words, which I would
observe, therefore I answer to the same; thus it is. The two Petitions
which you made unto me do contain two things; my Marriage, and
Succession after me. For the first, If I had let slip too much time, or if
my strength had been decayed, you might the better have spoke therein;
or, if any think I never meant to try that life, they be deceived; but if
I may hereafter bend my mind thereunto, the rather for fulfilling your
request, I shall be therewith very well content. For the second, the
greatness thereof maketh me to say and pray, that I may linger here in
this Vale of Misery for your Comfort, wherein I have witness of my
Study and Travail, for your Surety: And I cannot with Nunc dimittis
end my life, without I see some foundation of your Surety after my
Gravestone."-D'Ewes, 76.
† A directory for the occasion, studied from antiquity, was drawn up
by Parker, or at his command, under the title of "Forma, seu Descriptio
Convocationis celebrandæ, prout ab antiquo observari consuevit": also
another, entitled "Forma eligendi et præsentandi Prolocutorem." They
are the first documents in the "Synodalia," C. C. C., Cambridge MSS.
They were first printed by Atterbury, Rights, Appendix xxiii. Strype
gives a full account of them (Parker, i. 120), and says that the actual
proceedings were exactly according to them. This is borne out by the
Register, Wilkins, iv. 232.
1563.]
Opening Scenes.
383
and the hymn Veni Creator sung in the vulgar
tongue, the Provost of Eton, William Day, preached
the Latin sermon, and the Holy Communion was
celebrated. Then in the chapter-house the clergy
were addressed by the new Most Reverend in a brief
oration animated by the greatness of the occasion.
"Behold," said Parker, "the opportunity come for
reforming the Church of England; the mind of our
most noble Queen, and of the greatest persons of the
realm, prepared to receive such a reformation: choose
then for your prolocutor a man of answerable gravity,
learning, and experience; and discern him in Alexander
Nowell." The recommendation was inusitate but
effective.* Three days later they met again in the
chapter-house: the Most Reverend said the Litany
with high intelligible voice, with the usual collects and
a special prayer for the occasion, the bishops, the
clergy, and the people present responding, and after
an interval the clergy, retiring, returned, and presented
Nowell as their elected person: whom Gabriel Good-
man Dean of Westminster, and Sampson Dean of
Christ Church, led, the former in a brief Latin oration
premissing the gifts and virtues of a considerable and
exemplary man. The Prolocutor modestly and not
inelegantly professed his manifold unfitness: the Most
Reverend and the bishops conferred upon his fitness :
all with one consent pronounced him truly fit and in
a graceful speech the Most Reverend approved and
confirmed the election.† The Lower House, as changed
as the hierarchy from that which met in the first of
Elizabeth under Bonner, showed a notable zeal of
reformation. The fortunate preservation of a larger
* I do not recollect another example of the Most Reverend nominating
a prolocutor. There is nothing of the sort in the "Forma eligendi”
above mentioned.
↑ Wilkins, iv. 232.
•
384
[CH. XXXV.
Provisions for the
་
portion of their Acts than usual has enabled us to
follow their proceedings to some extent; * to ascertain
the names of nigh one hundred and twenty, not far
short of the whole of their number; and to remark
the more characteristic among them. The veteran
preacher Lever sat side by side with the fervid
Calfhill; the versatile Perse, the questionable Mallet,
the former Dominican Dodds promoted the alteration
of religion in the same ranks with the fierce Becon and
the consistent William Latimer.
There were thirty-six meetings of this memorable
synod,† and two main designs that occupied it, the im-
provement of discipline and the condition of the clergy,
* Wilkins takes his extracts " ex reg. Conv." from a book called
Synodus Anglicana, 1702, which contained the remains of the perished
Journals of Convocation from 1529 to this of 1562(3). He supplements this
out of Strype, as regards this Convocation. Strype has written a long
and good account, mainly from some important papers in the Petyt
MSS. collection. These are, "General note of matters to be moved by
the clergy in the next Parliament and Synod," Strype, Ann. ch. xxvii.;
Sandys' paper, "First, that with her Majesty's authority," &c., ib. ch. xxix. ;
Sandys' Orders, ib. ch. xxx.; "Requests and Petitions of the Lower
House," ib. ch. xxx. ; "Articles to be enquired," beginning "Whether the
writ," ib. ch. xxx. He has also used another paper, "Articles drawn out
by some certain," &c., ch. xxxi.: without giving reference. This is in
"Synodalia," C. C. C., Cambridge MSS.
+ The Convocation of 1563 :—
II Nov. 1562. The Queen's Writ.
22 Jan. Articles and reformation.
-Strype's Park. i. 119.
25
27
The Archbishop's mandate.
27
-ib.
29
12 Jan. 1563. First Meeting.
13 Formal opening.
16 -
19
presented:
Prolocutor
bishops to think over
matters for next session.
Bishops confer on Articles:
Articles and reformation.
Articles and reformation.
Articles subscribed; some
bishops chosen to devise
heads for discipline.
3 Feb. Bishops confer secretly: so
for three sessions.
partly signed: catechism
5 -
Articles returned by clergy
clergy ordered to reduce
sheets to chapters, and
considered.
IO
Articles signed by more.
appoint an Article com-
mittee.
13
Subsidy. Voting on rites
20
Bishops consider Articles.
and usages in Lower
House.
1563.]
Improvement of Discipline.
385
and the ultimate revision of the Articles of Religion
of which the former was thwarted by the laity con-
ceiving that their impropriations might be touched;
the latter was sanctioned by the laity, no worldly
interest being involved. Upon the former of them
the fathers entered immediately, being commanded by
the Most Reverend to consider by the next meeting
whatsoever they thought to be most needful of re-
formation in their several dioceses. Many of them
had brought, indeed, ready-prepared projects of dis-
cipline which they had shaped at the invitation of the
Most Reverend, who himself produced a large and
comprehensive scheme. The clergy laboured the same
no less, some of them exhibiting sheets of excogita-
tions concerning reformation, which were committed
to a grave and learned committee of their house to
be reduced to heads or chapters.* Some of these
documents remain, and enable us to perceive that there
were conflicting parties in a Convocation of reformers.
Bishop Sandys of Worcester propounded certain
orders to be observed by the bishops and clergy,
which he desired to receive the consent and sub-
scriptions of the synod: that every bishop should
"by the subscription of his hand" promise not to
lease away his unleased manors beyond his own time:
15 Feb. Subsidy.
19
22
Six questions on the state of
the clergy given to the
Prolocutor by Parker.-
Strype's Ann. i. 348.
Subsidy.
26 Feb. Scheme of 21 heads of disci-
pline brought from Lower
House, and returned ac-
cepted.
3 Mar. Catechism passed by clergy.
14 Ap. End of session.
Quidam de dicta domo exhibuerant quasdam diversas schedas de
rebus reformandis per eos respective excogitatas et in scripta redactas:
quæ quidem schedæ de communi consensu traditæ sunt quibusdam viris
gravioribus et doctioribus de cœtu dictæ domus inferioris ad hoc electis,
perspiciendæ et considerandæ. Quibus sic electis assignatum est ut
hujusmodi schedas in capitula redigant, &c."-Wilkins, iv. 232,
VOL. V.
C C
386
[CH. XXXV.
Proposals of Alley
that no bishop or chapter should grant any advowson:
that no bishop should ordain a minister without the
consent of six learned ministers: that every bishop should
see that every parson catechised every Sunday: that
no bishop or chapter should bestow their benefices but
upon learned and fit men, who would subscribe to
sound religion now by authority set down: that after
two admonitions the bishop should excommunicate
a common swearer. Sandys got no subscriptions.
Bishop Alley of Exeter came with a paper for doctrine
and discipline in several points: that one kind of
doctrine should be preached by all, and not to inveigh
against one another, under special penalties: that some
certainty should be set by the bishops on the doctrine of
the Descent into Hell, because that one set of preachers
held with Erasmus, Calvin, and Bullinger; the other
with all the Greek and Latin fathers and the universal
consent of antiquity: that since many preachers were
inveighing against things indifferent, such as surplices,
rochets, tippets, and caps, and here about round caps,
square caps, or bottomed caps, some way should be
taken, "that either they may go as we go in apparel,
or else that we may go as they do": that if hereafter,
as heretofore, public punishment for incontinency should
be commuted to money payment by letters of correction
by the bishop, this should be done openly before the
congregation that excommunicates should be speedily
pursued in law, and not allowed to take to their heels
and run away, leaving the ordinary to scorn; and
that the writs De Excommunicato capiendo should be
served by sheriffs without delay or favour:* that order
be taken against walking and talking in churches,
* This is one evidence that the clergy had to do with the enforcing of
the writ De Excommunicato capiendo, which was ordered by the present
Parliament. There is further evidence below.
1563.]
and of Grindal.
387
simony, and witches; the last to be sharp and capital.
Alley got no subscriptions if he sought for any, but
his work was not thrown away. Bishop Grindal of
London drew up, or at least annotated, a paper suggest-
ing that a book of articles of doctrine should be drawn
out of Jewel's Apology by the Queen's authority, and
that the ordinaries should punish any who said contrary:
that ministers should wear one grave form of apparel,
or be discharged of their livings after three monitions:
that the penalties against defaulting parishioners as
to frequenting their churches should not be defeated
by a replevy: that the ordinary jurisdiction, standing
now on the Queen's ecclesiastical laws, not on any
foreign authority, should not be hindered by prohibitions
too readily sued out of the Queen's courts, particularly
in the present horrible license of adultery, fornication,
and incest: that the exility of vicarages should be
augmented by impropriators, so that the people might
not be without the common prayer and sacraments,
as many towns were: and that bishops with the aid
of a justice or two might devise by some taxation
of parishioners for the support of a minister to serve
destitute towns.* Grindal attained not his desires.
The Most Reverend annotated, though he composed
not, a more extensive series of proposals, some of
which fell in with the course of the Convocation: but
many found no place. Of these were, that Jewel's
Apology should be printed with the Articles of
Religion, and taught in the universities and grammar
schools, and not depraved under the same heavy
penalties as lay against depraving the Book of
Common Prayer: that vestments, caps, and surplices
* This is the paper entitled “Articles drawn out by some certain, and
were exhibited to be admitted by authority, but not so allowed.”—C. C. C.,
Cambridge MSS. (Synodalia) cxxi. 27.
C C 2
388
Position of the
[CH. XXXV.
should be taken away: that godparents should not
answer to the questions now demanded of them in
the book, but recite the Apostles' Creed instead: that
minor canons and vicars of cathedral churches should
be enjoined to study some part of the Scriptures on
pain of deprivation. Among these Articles, which run
to the number of thirty-four, may be noted once more
the feebly unquiet phantom of legislation which has
so long haunted the Reformation and this history:
"that according to a statute of 25 Henry the Eighth,
thirty-two persons may be appointed to collect and
gather ecclesiastical laws, and to view those that
were gathered by commissioners appointed in King
Edward's time."
The extremer Evangelics had not the prevailing
voice in the Lower House. They set forth their "Re-
quests and Petitions" to the number of twenty-one :
containing that to the Confession in Holy Communion
it might be added that the communicants detested and
abhorred the idolatrous Mass; and that all images
and roods should be utterly destroyed.*
But only
sixty-four persons signed this. They put forward
another set of seven requests: that the Psalms be
sung distinctly by the whole congregation, without
curious playing of the organs: to omit the cross in
baptism, and in no wise allow any to baptise but
ministers to make kneeling in the Communion in-
different to abolish copes and surplices, and use only
a preaching gown, "a grave, comely, and side-gar-
ment,” in the ministry: not to wear "such gowns and
caps as the enemies of Christ's gospel have chosen to
be the special array of their priesthood": to abrogate
all saints' days "bearing the name of a creature.'
Only thirty-three signed this, mostly returned exiles.†
* Strype, Annals, ch. xxx. vol. i. 340.
+ Ib. ch. xxix. p. 335.
"
1563.]
Evangelics in Convocation.
389
The same party made a more determined attempt
to carry the house with a set of six Articles, more
moderate in expression, but almost identical with the
others to abrogate saints' days, omit the cross in
baptism, abolish organs, leave kneeling in Communion
to the discretion of the ordinary, use the surplice only,
and cause the minister to turn his face to the people.
Upon these they raised a great contest throughout one
morning, went to the suffrage in the afternoon, and
lost by one. The narrowness of this escape of the
Church of England from having her remaining cere-
monies and usages stripped from her, so far as it could
be done by the voice of the lower clergy house, was
caused by the absence of twenty-four, who kept away
from the division, neither sent proxies.* Among the
bishops the leader of the party was the vigorous
Sandys. He put forth three propositions: of which
two were consentaneous with his friends below as to
baptism only by ministers and the cross in baptism,
the other was the phantom of ecclesiastical legislation
by thirty-two. Nothing came of them.†
Many of these various petitions and suggestions
were meant to have reached the Court or the Parlia-
ment. Some of them appear to have issued thither,
though without any effect, particularly with regard
to discipline. Vice cared not for restraint: it was
feared to give the clergy power: church robbers held
* The numbers were fifty-nine to fifty-eight. It is curious that there
were eight more present on the losing side than on the winning, and that
the proxies turned the scale. It was 43 who lost and 35 who won. But
of those 43 only 15 were proxies, or counted more than once: of those 35
there were 24 who counted more than once: hence it appears that it was
the greater persons who were averse to the proposed changes. Nowell
the Prolocutor voted for them. Of the large number who stayed away
there was only one clergy proctor, the rest were nearly all deans and
archdeacons. Compare Strype, Ann. i. 336, 338.
† 1b. 335.
390
Convocation Proposals [CH. XXXV.
together. Thus a body of salutary recommendations,
drawn up by some of the prelates it is likely, and
entrusted to the Most Reverend, were superscribed
by his hand, "Articles drawn out by some certain, and
were exhibited to be admitted by authority, but not
so allowed."* The draft of an Act of Parliament for
the relief of poor ministers, that in every parish the
incumbent might have twenty pounds a year, with an
attractive scheme of a commission to provide this by
cessing where it might be most convenient, and a
beautiful preamble beginning, "Forasmuch as before
all things the kingdom of God is to be sought," was
propounded in the clergy house, and came to nothing.†
Enquiry was made of the clergy by the bishops as to
benefices, whether some were not made to pay rates
on too high value, what dilapidations "and other
spoliations" they could remember to have passed upon
their livings; how they had been used in levying
arrears of tenths and subsidies, and for how many
years past; how many benefices they found charged
with the pensions of religious persons, newly imposed.
The condition of the clergy might be deplorable: to
come into livings not only poor in themselves, but
burdened with burdens left undischarged by the former
occupants, and some of them with the pensions of the
surviving religious, which the patrons, who themselves
ought to have paid them, were now turning on to the
clergy. But to refuse the straw and expect the bricks
is old tyranny.
Rather than amend these evils the
danger was of a new survey, to advance the value of
first-fruits and tenths payable to the Crown. Another
draft of an Act, which was sent by the Bishop of London
* Above, p. 387.
+ Strype gives this, ch. xxx. (p. 344), without reference.
‡ Ibid.
1563.]
for Parliament.
391
to the Most Reverend to be recommended to Parlia-
ment, was "for resorting to the church," by which it
was purposed to forbid that fairs and markets should
be openly held on the Sabbath day: that victuallers
or craftsmen should have their shops open before the
end of divine service in their parish churches: and
to order, among other things, that when a lawful
preacher came to a town, the curates of parishes should
be notified, that they might appoint the time of
Common Prayer to be ended that all who would might
go to hear the preacher: and yet that parishioners
were not to make excuses for not coming to their
parish church by any such resorting to the preacher.
This became not any Act of Parliament: but, on the
other hand, some of the provisions in it are found
in the great Act of the Session already considered.*
Another draft was " De Excommunicato capiendo"; and
this was
more fortunate, since it proves that the
first suggestion and form of the formidable measure
of the temporal estates in that behalf proceeded from
the Upper House of Convocation. It had a long and
lamentable preamble, which the laymen exhilarated
in their Act.t
The other main purpose of the synod, to revise the
Confession of the English Church, was carried to an
* Strype, Annals, i. 355.
† "Forasmuch as in these our days divers subjects of this realm, and
others the Queen's majesty's dominions, are grown into such license and
contempt of the laws ecclesiastical and censures of the Church, that unless
it were for fear of the temporal sword and power they would altogether
despise and neglect the same," &c.-Ib. i. 308. A different sound is
heard in the preamble of the Act. "Forasmuch as divers persons
offending in many great crimes and offences appertaining merely to the
jurisdiction and determination of the ecclesiastical courts and judges of
this realm are many times unpunished for lack and want of the good
and due execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo," &c.-
5 Eliz. C. 23.
392
[CH. XXXV.
The Articles revised.
end; and, in the final form, left to the last touches
of a future day. The Forty-two Articles of Edward
were filed, recast, reduced to Thirty-nine, indeed to
Thirty-eight the amended formulary received the
signatures of the greater part, but not of the whole
of the clergy, nor on one day or at one invitation, but
more than one: for traces of warm disputation, the
proper animation of a council, are discernible in their
records, and of the intervention of the fathers.* And
neither were the fathers altogether unanimous, nor all
subscribed.† The Articles were sent to the Convoca-
tion of York, it is probable: for they were signed by
"the archbishops and bishops of both provinces of the
realm in provincial synod lawfully congregate":‡ and
there is, perhaps, a grain of evidence that they were
not only signed by the bishops, but submitted to the
* "The eleventh session the Articles being subscribed by some of the
lower house were brought up by the prolocutor; praying the most
reverend and the reverend fathers, to take order that all that had not
yet subscribed might do it publicly, either in the assembly of the lower
house, or before them in the upper. Whereupon the said fathers decreed
that the names of those of the house that had not subscribed should be
written, and brought to them the next session. By which time some others
had subscribed, though others had not yet."-Strype, i. 329 (ch. xxviii.).
+ Kitchen of Llandaff took no part in the proceedings, "apparently
from want of sympathy."-Hardwick, ch. vi. Cheyney of Gloucester,
though occasionally present, never consented with some of the decisions
of the synod, and his name is not in any of the lists. Guest of Rochester,
according to one of the two original lists, signed the Articles, but not
according to the other.-Ib. Strype however says that Cheyney and
Guest both subscribed, as he found from some extracts from the
Registers of Convocation "penes Atterbury, decan. Carliol." (p. 487).
"Nos archiepiscopi et episcopi utriusque Provinciæ regni Angliæ
in sacra synodo provinciali legitime congregati, recipimus et profitemur,"
&c. This declaration precedes the subscriptions in one of the manuscript
originals, the Parker MS.; see Strype, i. 487. In the other, the one taken
from the Register itself before it perished, there is an equivalent declara-
tion of universality prefixed to the Articles. 'Articuli de quibus convenit
inter archiepiscopos et episcopos utriusque Provinciæ, et clerum universum
in Synodo Londinensi," &c.-Wilkins, iv. 233.
1563.]
Manuscript Authority.
393
clergy, of the north.* It is disputable, it has been
keenly disputed, what manuscript is to be regarded as
the original of the Thirty-nine Articles: whether it be
either of the two English, or either of the two Latin
manuscripts that are extant: and if it be one of the
Latin, as seems likely, then whether it be the manu-
script which Parker used in the Convocation, which
he probably sent to York, and which he finally de-
posited in Cambridge; or another, differing somewhat
therefrom, which was extracted in the following century
under pressure of a curious necessity from the actual
Register of Convocation, before it was burned, by an
archbishop who was beheaded.† The Latin of the
Articles was immediately printed by Wolfe: the English
was not published exactly as we have it now until eight
years later; but an English issue was produced by
Jugge and Cawood soon after the synod. This con-
sists, like our present English, almost wholly of the
previous English of the Forty-two.
In the course of this work I have carefully compared
the Thirty-nine Articles with the Forty-five and the
* Is it possible that the following entry in the York Convocation
Register refers to this: "Concluserunt Reverendissimum Dom. Archi-
episcopum consulendum fore super quibusdam Articulis in quadam
schedula apud registrum remanente conscriptis"?-Wilkins, 243. This
was on February 5. In the Canterbury Convocation all the bishops sub-
scribed by January 29. One of the originals, the Parker MS., contains the
autographic signatures of three of the four northern bishops: York, Dur-
ham, and Chester. On them the claim to universality is based at least.
+ As to Laud's extract from the Register of Convocation, see below.
The second edition of this, of the same year 1563, still survives in
a copy or two. It is in very small octavo. It seems likely that the first
may have been of the same size. In the various attempts made by
Elizabeth's next Parliament, in 1566, to sanction the Articles by the
weight of their own authority, this was probably "the little book" of
which they spoke. Hardwick distinguishes it in his reference as "L. B.":
and has carefully noted the minute particulars in which it varies from
the present accepted English of the Thirty-nine Articles. See his
Appendix iii.
394
Wirtemburg Confession [CH. XXXV.
1
Forty-two Articles of Edward: * and again with the
unedited Declaration of Doctrine of the second year
of Elizabeth, which has been seen to form a link
between them and their Edwardian precedents; between
the several editions, that is, of the oft-revised Confes-
sion of the Church of England.† Going still further
back, the reader is reminded that he has seen the
Thirty-nine, and with them the Forty-two, laid side by
side with the draft of the reign of Henry the Eighth,
and Thirteen Articles; which gave them their com-
plexion, and from which three of them were wholly,
and three of them partly, derived. This constant
reproduction and redaction of a single formulary of
doctrines, very characteristic of the English Church
and nation, stands in contrast with the multiplied and
sporadic Confessions of the Continent, albeit granted
that the Protestants were faithful on the whole to the
masterpiece of Augsburg. In these examinations it
has been seen that the Protestant or Lutheran influence
upon the English Declaration of Faith, which was
strong in the days of Henry, was waning in the days of
Edward. It remains, in still considering the formation
of the Thirty-nine Articles, to point out a remarkable
revival of the Lutheran influence. A Saxon Confes-
sion, of ten years of age, bearing the name of Wir-
temburg, itself a compendium of the Augustan
prototype, became the source of the several amplifica-
tions or elucidations which have given to the English
work the perfection of form which it may not unjustly
claim. To this is owing the completeness of the
majestic declaration of the nature of the Second Person
of the Holy Trinity: to this the entire Article of the
* Vol. III. pp. 480, 519 seq. of this work.
+ Above, p. 349 of this volume.
‡ Vol. II. Note, p. 6, of this work.
1563.]
in relation to the Articles.
395
Third, the Holy Ghost: the explicative halves of the
Articles of Freewill and of Justification are drawn from
this: the new Article, of Good Works, was composed
upon it and the conception of the first clause, greatly
disputed, of the Article of the Authority of the Church,
was formed within it.*
Regarded whether as a symbol or a code, the English
Articles, which had passed thus successively through
the hands of Cranmer and of Parker, can scarcely fail
to move admiration, in comparison with the similar
performances of the age. The Protestant and Re-
Wirtemburg:
* Laurence in his Bampton Lectures, p. 41 and notes, was the first
to point out that the Wirtemburg Confession, 1552, was the source of
the finishing touches above rehearsed. Hardwick follows him, with due
acknowledgment. 2nd Art.: "Ab æterno a Patre genitus, verus et
æternus Deus, ac Patri consubstantialis." Wirtemburg: Credimus.
ab æterno a Patre suo genitum, verum et æternum Deum, Patri suo
consubstantialem." 5th Art.: "Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio pro-
cedens, eiusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiæ, majestatis, et gloriæ,
verus ac æternus Deus."
Credimus et confitemur
Spiritum Sanctum ab æterno procedere a Deo Patre et Filio, et esse
ejusdem cum Patre et Filio essentiæ, majestatis, et gloriæ, verum ac
æternum Deum." 10th Art.: "Ea est hominis post lapsum Adæ conditio,
ut sese naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus ad fidem et invocationem
Dei convertere ac præparare non possit." Wirtemburg: "Nonnulli affir-
mant homini post lapsum tantam animi integritatem relictam, ut possit
sese naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus ad fidem et invocationem
Dei convertere ac præparare." 11th Art.: "Tantum propter meritum
Domini ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera
et merita nostra, justi coram Deo reputamur.” Wirtemburg: "Homo
fit Deo acceptus, et reputatur coram eo justus, propter solum Filium Dei
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, per fidem." 12th Art.: "Bona opera,
quæ sunt fructus fidei et justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata nostra
expiare et divini judicii severitatem ferre non possunt, Deo tamen grata
sunt et accepta in Christo." Wirtemburg: "Non est sentiendum quod
iis bonis operibus quæ per nos faciamus, in judicio Dei, ubi agitur de
expiatione peccatorum, et placatione divinæ iræ, ac merito æternæ salutis,
confidendum sit. Omnia enim bona opera quæ nos facimus, sunt
imperfecta, nec possunt severitatem divini judicii ferre." 20th Art.:
"Habet Ecclesia ritus statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis autoritatem.”
Wirtemburg: "Credimus quod hæc Ecclesia habeat jus judicandi
de omnibus doctrinis, quod hæc Ecclesia habet jus interpretandæ
Scripturæ."
•
396
[CH. XXXV.
Character of the
formed Confessions are controversial, diffuse, and long-
some. They offer proofs of their positions, they
vindicate them by arguments; they are heated with
passion, pleading, taking colour from the occasion.
The militant edicts of Trent, with their preambles of
denunciation, their proclamation of the names and
titles of Popes and legates, their repeated declarations
of purpose and design, their studied claims of divine
inspiration, their systematic anathemas, their constant
note of menace, are as apologetic as those of the
opposite camps. But the English Articles stand on a
higher level. They dogmatise without arguing: they
affirm without offering proof: they deal neither in ex-
postulation nor rebuke. They are not apologetic. Com-
pleteness of form is their character. If they received
any additions, it was to make them more complete:
the excisions which they suffered were to improve their
form. They were narrowed into breadth, and widened
by compression. And yet the same elements of
passion lay around them in the process of composition,
which produced the endless arguings and chidings of
the others. Their authors came from fields of fierce
combat into the synod. But they were made to forget
animosity, and disarmed of holy wrath in the breath
of public freedom, which was found, if anywhere at all
throughout the Reformation, in the assemblies of the
clergy. Bishop Alley of Exeter, for example, himself
a controversial writer, made a strong representation
of the contentions among preachers in his diocese upon
the Descent into Hell, desiring the synod to "get
some certainty concerning this doctrine." The effect
of this was not to lengthen the Third Article, but to
shorten it by half.* It was proposed by the Most
Strype, Ann. i. 348. The 42 Articles had, in Art. 3, a proof offered
from the well-known passage in St. Peter. This was taken out in the 39.
1563.]
English Articles.
397
Reverend himself to append Jewel's Apology to the
Articles or else to draw a set of Articles out of Jewel's
Apology, and add them to the Articles, and enforce
them on the clergy. This, which would have lowered
the Confession to the Continental level, was not done.*
It was not, however, possible or desirable that antago-
nism should not be found in such an instrument as the
Articles. It is found, but usually it is made as abstract
as it can be. There is but one instance in which an
English Article expresses an anathema after the fashion
of Trent: neither in that is it with a dredging "Si
quis" phrase.† Even if the "fond things vainly in-
vented," and the "blasphemous figments and dangerous
* In the General Notes of matters to be moved, which was annotated
by Parker himself, it was proposed that the Articles and Jewel's Apology
"should be joined in one book and by common consent be authorised
as containing true doctrine, and enjoined to be taught to the youth in
the universities and grammar schools throughout the realm."-Strype, i.
317. Another paper, written by his secretary and annotated by him and
Grindal, Certain Articles in substance desired to be granted by the
Queen's Majesty, "proposed to put out one book containing articles of
doctrine, and to be drawn out of the substance of the book of the
Apology," and that any who held contrary should "be punished by the
ordinaries by the Queen's ecclesiastical laws."—Ib. 350.
+ "Sunt illi anathematizandi qui dicere audent unumquemque in lege
aut secta quam profitetur esse servandum.”—Art. 18.
The expositors
have sought the meaning of this Article in the law of Moses, the early
Fathers, the pagan philosophers, and the Koran of Mahomet. I think
it was directed against monks and nuns: and that the law was the rule
which any of these professed, and the sect was the order to which any
of them belonged. Dr. Maclear gets near this simple explanation when
he quotes the Reform. Leg. Eccl. against the audacity of those who held
that salvation lay in "omni religione vel secta quam homines professi
fuerunt." This in fact settles the meaning. The "religio vel secta" was the
order which any regular professed, and for professing was called "religiosus."
But we need go no further than the Homilies to prove this.
and feigned religions," says the Homily of Good Works, "were neither
the fortieth part so many among the Jews, nor more superstitiously and
ungodly abused, than of late days they have been among us: which sects
and religions had so many hypocritical and feigned works in their state.
of religion, as they arrogantly named it, that their lamps, as they said,
ran always over," &c.—Part 3.
"Sects
398
[CH. XXXV.
Changes made
deceits," spoken of Purgatory and of sacrifices of
Masses, or Masses propitiatory, be very strongly
antagonistic, it is antagonism narrowed to points, not
enlarging itself in circles. Against them are to be
set several omissions, made to soften the too great
fierceness that was found in the Forty-two. *
Upon the great contested doctrines there were marks
of very strong and fearless handling. The whole of
the teaching of the Forty-two upon Grace and Justifica-
tion was altered. Of Justification, in an expanded
Article, the substantive cause was declared, and dis-
tinguished from the operative cause, with denial of
other substantive cause; in place of the meagre soli-
fidianism of the Forty-two. Of the Forty-two the
Article "Of Grace," which was in denial of irresponsi-
bility, was omitted: whilst a new and admirable Article
on Good Works was composed and inserted. On
Predestination the caution and reserve of the Article
retained was augmented by several touches. The
Baptism of Infants was not merely said "to be com-
mended" and retained: but to be retained "as most
* For instance, Article 24 simply demurs "to have public prayer in the
Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of
the people." This is in the Forty-two Articles, "that in the congregation
nothing be openly read or spoken in a tongue unknown to the people,
the which thing St. Paul did forbid except some were present that should
declare the same." Where note, besides the more restricted language,
the characteristic omission of a proof offered. Again, in Art. 25, where
the Sacraments are said to benefit only the worthily receiving, a protest
against the theological phrase ex opere operato, which was in the Forty-
two, was cut out “idque non ex opere (ut quidam loquuntur) operato :
quæ vox ut peregrina est et sacris litteris ignota, sic parit sensum minime
pium sed admodum superstitiosum.”—Art. 26.
+ “Tantum propter meritum Domini ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi,
per fidem, non propter merita nostra."-Art. II. Notice the prepositions
here.
"Eos quos elegit ex hominum genere" is modified into "quos elegit
in Christo ex hominum genere." The words "licet predestinationis decreta
sunt nobis ignota" at end are avoided.-Art. 17.
1
1563.]
in the Articles.
399
agreeable with the institution of Christ": at the same
time one or two expressions against Anabaptists
were eliminated, to keep the Article above the con-
troversial level.* The Sacrament of the Eucharist,
which in the Forty-two occupied two Articles, was
treated in four in the Thirty-nine, two new ones being
inserted between the two former ones, which were
repeated with great emendation. Historical reflection
here offers several points for consideration.
In the hands of the schoolman, passing, as it might
perhaps be said, under academic treatment, the great
subject of the Sacrament had long come to be dis-
tinguished into two parts, the Sacrament of the Eucha-
rist and the Sacrifice of the Mass: as it regarded on
the one hand the sanctification of man, and on the
other the worship of God. This division, general in
medieval theology, was followed by Trent with such
deliberate assurance, that between the decrees of the
Council, upon the one part and upon the other, there
intervened eight sessions, or ten years. It was in
reference to this theological distinction, as I think,
that the English Confession upon the great subject
* “Ut fabulantur Pelagiani, et hodie Anabaptistæ repetunt." Art. 9
omits half this. There is another Article in the Forty-two about those
who "Spiritum perpetuo jactant," "boast themselves continually of the
Spirit," which was wholly omitted in the Thirty-nine.
+ Hactenus de Eucharistia quatenus est Sacramentum, seu ut
ordinatur ad hominis Sanctificationem, egimus: nunc de ea quatenus
est Sacrificium, sive quatenus ad Cultum Dei refertur, agendum est,"
are the words with which Peter Dens, e. g., passes from his tract on the
former to his tract on the latter.-Theol. v. 353. Dens reflects the
theology of St. Thomas and Pope Eugenius IV.-the medieval theology.
Transubstantiation was usually treated under the first part. The same
division was, as of course, maintained by Roman Catholic writers after
Trent: for instance two of the greatest works of Bellarmine are De
Sacramento Eucharistia and De Missa. The same consideration explains
the arrangement of Cranmer's book on the Sacrament.
Session 13, in 1551, was De Eucharistiæ Sacramento: Session 21,
in the autumn of 1562, was De Sacrificio Missæ.
400
[CH. XXXV.
The Eucharistic
was cast into two Articles, the one De Coena Domini,
the other De unica Christi Oblatione in Cruce perfecta.
These were the two that were contained both in the
Forty-two Articles and in the Thirty-nine. The two
new Articles, which were interjected between them in
the latter of these formularies, were of the nature of
corollaries drawn from the former of them: they are
therefore in place: and the four may be properly
considered in the order in which they stand.
In the first of these four, "Of the Lord's Supper,"
a long paragraph was withdrawn, which was in it in
the Forty-two, denying that the Real and Corporal
Presence was to be believed or professed by the faith-
ful: the position against Transubstantiation was
strengthened by the important declaration, "It over-
throweth the nature of a sacrament":* and the stress
of definition was turned in a new paragraph, of which
Bishop Guest was the author, from the mystery of the
Presence itself, and from modality, to the manner and
means of the reception. Upon this part of the subject
there remain the signs of great contention in the
synod. In this article there is a tendency shown
* This clause was suggested by the “Declaration of doctrine” of 1559:
see above. Indeed the whole treatment of the Sacrament was strongly
influenced by the Declaration. The same expression, as Mr. E. T. Green
observes in his valuable work on the Thirty-nine Articles, is used by
Calvin: "Evertitur ergo natura sacramenti.”—Inst. iv. 17. 14.
+ Three years later the Evangelics were still lamenting the excision,
in this Article 28, of the paragraph which, in the Forty-two, it contained:
that “a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the
Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it, of Christ's Flesh and Blood
in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." Humphrey and Sampson wrote
a list of Maculæ adhering still to the Church of England: the last of
which was that "the Article composed in the time of Edward the Sixth
respecting the spiritual eating, which expressly oppugned and took away
the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and contained a most clear exposition
of the truth, is now set forth among us mutilated and imperfect." To
Bullinger, July 1566.—Zur. Lett. i. 165. As to the added paragraph at
the end of the Article, concerning the reception by faith only, Mr. E. T.
1563.]
Articles.
401
to avoid the word Eucharist; which occurs twice in
the Latin, not at all in the English.
The next of these Articles, the twenty-ninth of the
Thirty-nine, "De Manducatione," affirming that the
wicked in eating the Sacrament of the Body of Christ
partake not of Christ, struggled into its place with
difficulty, and has been anxiously debated in following
times. Literary investigation detects its absence from
one of the original Latin manuscripts and from all the
early printed copies of the Thirty-nine Articles: and
though present in the English original manuscripts,
yet in one of them it is labelled with a note of caution
or deprecation.* Eight years later, at the time of the
Green has printed (App. v.) a letter from Guest to Cecil, Dec. 22, 1566,
in which Guest relates that Cheyney of Gloucester "found himself
grieved" at the adverb only "because it did take away the Presence of
Christ's Body in the Sacrament": asking Guest to uphold him therein;
and in his absence vouching him as of his opinion. "Whereas I told
him plainly that this word only in the aforesaid Article did not exclude
the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness
and sensibleness of the receiving thereof.” He adds that he told
Cheyney that he would speak against him on the subject, "and the
rather because the Article was of mine own penning." All this sprang
out of some altercation at the time: but it seems to refer to former
variances.
* The original MSS. of the Thirty-nine Articles are— 1) The Parker
Latin, in the volume "Synodalia," No. 26, in C. C. C., Cambridge. This
is the MS. marked with red lead, and annotated by Parker as Strype
describes. It contains the autograph signatures of the bishops of both
provinces, and may reasonably be supposed to have been the copy sent
to York for subscription. It might therefore be taken for the original
that would be transcribed into the perished Acts of Convocation. But
there are reasons for thinking that it was not: the original in the Acts
had no northern signatures: and this was Parker's own property, not the
property of the body that passed the Articles. See Hardwick, ch. vi.
(2) Another Latin MS. in the Record Office, Dom. Eliz. xxvii. 41 A
(accidentally mixed in the Calendar, p. 218). This is in a fine clerkly
Italian hand. It has no signatures. It contains not Art. 29. (3) Two
English MSS. in the same volume, xxvii. in the Record Office, Nos. 40
and 41. The former is on vellum, the latter on paper: both without
signatures: the former has a marginal note on Art. 29-' This is the
VOL. V.
D d
402
[CH. XXXV.
The Eucharistic
final revision, in 1571, the powerful theologian Guest
sought to prevent the ratification of it on the ground
that "it would cause much business.” * The danger of
perverting this Article to denial of the Presence was
perhaps greater than the readiness of the reflection
that the very existence of such an Article implied belief
of the Presence. The third of these Sacramental
original but not passed? If it was not passed, this may account for the
fact that it is not found in any of the early printed editions of the Articles:
indeed never published at all till 1571. The marginal note seems to be
in the same hand as the rest of the MS. No. 40.
* See Gibson on the Articles. As he points out, this opposition on
Guest's part may have led to the interview between Cecil and Parker,
in which the former questioned the authenticity of the quotation from
St. Augustine in the Article. Parker, who had made up the Article out
of St. Augustine, “remained advisedly still in his opinion,” as he wrote
to Cecil on the same day, June 4, 1571.-Corresp., p. 381.
+ The expressions used in the 29th Article, as to their exact force, are
closely examined by Dr. Maclear, by Dr. Gibson, and by Mr. E. T. Green.
They adopt, in their explanations, the theological distinction of the word
Sacrament into the signum and the signum with the res significata, and
again the virtus Sacramenti. This division seems founded on Augustine's
“Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud Virtus Sacramenti” (In Joan. xxvi. 11),
which Dr. Maclear gives. I confess that I have not been able to trace
it very clearly as a well-known theological division. Aquinas divides
thus: "In hoc Sacramento tria considerare possumus, scilicet, id quod
est sacramentum tantum, quod est panis et vinum: et id quod est res et
sacramentum, scilicet Corpus Christi verum: et quod est res tantum,
scilicet effectus huius Sacramenti."- Summa, Tert. Pars, Quest. 73,
Art. 6.
As to the contest about this Article, it may have seemed needless to
make so prominent a position so likely to be misunderstood. Trent had
said: “Quosdam docuerunt [Patres] sacramentaliter duntaxat id sumere, ut
peccatores: alios tantum spiritualiter, illos nimirum, qui voto propositum
illum celestem panem edentes, fide viva, quæ per dilectionem operatur,
fructum eius et utilitatem sentiunt; tertios porro sacramentaliter et
spiritualiter.”—Sess. 13, c. 8. Cranmer had said (as Dr. Gibson, p. 674,
points out): "The diversity is not in the Body but in the eating thereof:
no man eating it actually, but the good eating it both sacramentally and
spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is figuratively."-On the
Lord's Supper, 224. Ridley had said: "Evil men do eat the very true and
natural Body of Christ sacramentally, and no further: but good men do
eat the very true Body, both sacramentally and spiritually, by grace."
-Works, 246 (mentioned by Dr. Gibson, as 'above). So had Aquinas
1563.]
Articles.
403
Articles, which was added by Parker, fixed the usage
of the Church in the reception of the Holy Communion
under the two kinds. The last of them repeated more
strongly the declaration of the Forty-two concerning the
one Oblation of Christ upon the Cross. This im-
portant Article appears designed to deny the scholastic
distinction between the Sacrament of the Eucharist
and the Sacrifice of the Mass: it proceeds in the
latter part to condemn the false teaching and corrupt
practices which attended upon this distinction, de-
nouncing them as blasphemous figments and pernicious
impostures.
said, "Cum Corpus Christi in sacramento semper permanet, donec species
sacramentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi Corpus
manducare consequitur.”—Summa, iii. 80, 3. Why be more explicit,
and seem to join the Sacramentarians, of whom Bellarmine wrote that
there were two differences between him and them: "Illi negant Christum
in Eucharistia adorandum, aut sumi posse ab illis qui non credunt: nos
utrumque concedimus"?-De Eucharist. lib. i. c. 2, Op. iii. 459, ed. 1601.
* Some of the modern expositors hold that this Article was not intended
to deny the Sacrificium Missæ, but only the false doctrine connected with
it: and that this is demonstrated by the use of the plural, "Missarum
Sacrificia," in the latter part. I think that the Article was more
decided than that. Dr. Maclear says, "It affirms that the Eucharistic
Sacrifice neither acquires nor possesses anything propitiatory in itself
independently of that One Sacrifice: that it can only apply what was once
for all merited by that Sacrifice."—Art. 368. But no such affirmations are
made in the Article. It affirms and denies nothing of any sacrifice: the
word is avoided, because the intention was to drop silently the whole of
the medieval theory of the sacrifice of Mass. Another word, Oblation, is
taken for the one only Sin Offering: and this is defined by every other
word except sacrifice. It is termed redemptio, propitiatio, satisfactio, and
expiatio. At this very time Trent was affirming the medieval distinction
in all its fullness: "that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for
the living and the dead." The English Article was silently controversial.
It speaks only of one offering for sin, and knows of no other: the first
part of it is not from its language necessarily a sacramental Article at
all. At the same time it is observable that the terms in which the One
Oblation is described are sacrificial: and if it had been meant to deny
the Eucharist to be a sacramental sacrifice, this would have been said.
Burnet's exposition seems discriminating and wise. "We do not deny
but that the Eucharist may well be called a sacrifice: but still it is
D d 2
404
[CH. XXXV.
Eucharistic Articles.
The general effect of this coalition of Articles was
to preserve the great mystery: to imply without
defining the Presence: to heighten the Catholic tone
of the Confession of England. The great abuses of
doctrine and practice were disallowed: the recent
memory of the terrible agitation of the question of
the nature of the Presence added sternness to their
dismission: the word Presence itself, and the famous
terms Real, Corporal, Essential, Substantial, so familiar
to theology and polemic, were altogether avoided: and,
as I believe, appeared thenceforth no more in any public
formulary of the Church of England.* The interval
a commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory: that is, we do not
distinguish the sacrifice from the sacrament: as if the priest's consecrating
and consuming the elements were in an especial manner a sacrifice any
other way than as the communicating of others with him is one: nor do
we think that the consecrating and consuming the elements is an act that
does reconcile God to the quick and dead."-On Art. 31. It may be added
that the doctrine that the sacrifice of the Cross availed for original sin, and
the sacrifice of the Mass for daily sin, was not popular even, but was part
of the medieval theory. It is found, e. g., in Albertus Magnus (quoted by
Dr. Maclear): “Ut, sicut Corpus Domini semel oblatum est in cruce pro
debito originali, sic offeratur jugiter pro nostris quotidianis delictis in altari.”
—Op. xii. 250, ed. 1651. I cannot agree that the "Missarum Sacrificia”
of the last part of the Article were condemned as things different from the
Missæ Sacrificium. These Sacrifices, private Masses, of which every
church was full, were repetitions of the Sacrificium: which Sacrificium
was implicitly rejected by the Article.
* In the Second Book of Homilies, presently to be noticed, which was
passed in this Convocation, there is a Homily "On the worthy Receiving
of the Sacrament," and in the discourse so significantly entitled there is
no mention of the Presence beyond this, "that in the Supper of the Lord
there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing
absent." It was not meant to deny the Presence, but not to debate it.
The word Substance occurs thus: that "we seek for a ghostly substance
and not carnal.” The positions denied, as we have seen, in the Articles
are thus enumerated: "We must take heed lest of a memory it be made
a sacrifice; lest of a communion it be made a private eating: lest of two
parts we have but one; lest applying it for the dead, we lose the fruit
that be alive." In another of these Homilies, "For repairing of Churches,”
the Presence is similarly implied in the reception or partaking: "The
partaking of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ is there offered
1
1563.]
Article XX.
405
that elapsed between the Forty-two Articles and the
Thirty-nine, an interval which included the reign of
Mary, may be taken for the period in which the
Sacramental question passed into a second phase, when
it was resolved no longer to debate the nature or the
manner of the Presence, save in the denial of Transub-
stantiation, but to turn to the reception or partaking
of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Upon the authority of the Church, the former de-
claration of the Forty-two, regarding the subordination
of all teaching to the written Word, received a cele-
brated addition, in the clause which now begins it,
that "The Church hath power to decree rites or cere-
monies, and authority in controversies of faith." The
literary history of this clause, more curious than im-
portant, may mark a struggle in adopting it, but leaves
the adoption of it beyond doubt.* To assert with
unto us" and on the other hand the abuses, against which one of the
Articles protested so vigorously, were denounced in the same kind of
language: "What dens of thieves the churches of England have been
made by the blasphemous buying and selling the most precious Body and
Blood of Christ in the Mass," &c.
* It is not contained in the Parker Latin manuscript at Cambridge,
nor in the two English manuscripts in the Record Office, nor in the
English Jugge and Cawood of this year, 1563. But it is contained, albeit
with peculiarity, in the Latin manuscript in the Record Office; and it is
printed in the Latin Wolfe of 1563. So that it existed in 1563; and would
not have been printed by the Queen's authority, it may be thought, unless
it had been accepted by Convocation. The peculiarity which it exhibits
in the Latin MS. (Eliz. Dom. xxvii. 41 A) is that the Article seems to have
been written at first without it: but there was room under the title to get
it in, and it was inserted all in one line, with a little close writing, very
skilfully, by the same hand that wrote the rest of the MS. Another
curious thing about this clause was that it was omitted in 1571 in a Latin
and an English Jugge and Cawood, though it is found in two English
editions of the same year and the same printers. See about all this,
Hardwick, ch. vi. Furthermore: Mocket, Archbishop Abbot's chaplain,
omitted it in his edition of the Articles in 1617.-Fuller, Bk. ix. 74. These
varieties stirred Burton, a Puritan clergyman, when the Articles were
republished in 1628 with the clause, to declare in a furious epistle to the
Privy Council that it had never been in existence before, but was now
406
[CH. XXXV.
Article VI.
strength the independence of the Church upon the
decisions of any church claiming to be the whole
Church, nor less the freedom of the Church under the
royal supremacy, nor less the office of the Church to
regulate private judgement, was the extensive purpose
of this clause: but furthermore it may be regarded as
the head not only of one of the Articles, but of several,
which together form a position silently opposite to Rome.
The English Articles which had before declared the
Scriptures to be paramount and sufficient, now added
a list of the Scriptural Books which were to be received
as Canonical, because they had never been doubted in
the Church, and a list of the Books distinguished as
Apocryphal.* They had before declared the Three
Creeds to be throughly to be received: to this they
now made a significant addition.† Seventeen years
forged by the bishops to justify their proceedings, and that it was "brought
from Rome.” It might have been "brought from Rome," if it had been
what he quoted it; for with the vigorous inaccuracy which has always
marked that party, he quoted it as saying that the Church had authority
"in matters of faith," instead of controversies of faith. Archbishop Laud
thereupon caused a copy to be taken from the Register of Convocation in
St. Paul's (before the fire), attested by a public notary, containing the
clause adding further that in the records in his hands he had found the
Book of Articles of 1563 subscribed by all the Lower House of Convocation
in 1571. Collier gives a full account of all this, vol. vi. 374, ed. 1840.
Heylin also (before the fire) declares that he had seen the controverted
clause in the Register, vol. i. xciii. (Robertson). Neal gives an account
of this dispute, Puritans, i. 147. He also thinks it went to matters of
faith." The question of the genuineness of the clause was reopened in
the beginning of the eighteenth century by Anthony Collins, well known
in his day, in a pamphlet entitled Priestcraft in perfection, which led
to a vigorous controversy.
(6
* There is some difference in the lists in the MSS. on Art. vi. which
may perhaps mark a contest in the synod. The MS. Dom. Eliz. xxvii. 40
has the Apocryphal Books thus: 3 and 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Tobias, 1 and
2 Maccabees, Jesus the son of Syrach, Judith. Thus it omits Esther, Baruch,
The Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and The Prayer of
Manasses. Its neighbour, 41, has them all: but, again, has nothing to
say about the Books of the New Testament. So also Hardwick, App. iii.
忄 ​"Omnino recipienda sunt et credenda.”—Art. viii.
}
1
1563.]
Ordinal and Homilies.
407
previously the first blast of the Tridentine trumpet
had stunned the intellect of the human race, and in its
first Decrees the Council had flung antiquity to the
winds by pronouncing tradition to be co-ordinate with
Scripture, by issuing an indiscriminate list of the
Canonical and Apocryphal Books, as all on the same
level, by affirming a Latin version to be incorrigible,
in the presence of the Hebrew and Greek originals,
and by reciting as the Rule of Faith one only of the
Creeds.
The English Confession, in the edition of the Thirty-
nine Articles, was severed from the Book of Common
Prayer. The Forty-two had embraced both the Prayer
Book and the Ordinal of Edward in a common de-
claration to be in no point repugnant to the Gospel.*
For this a new Article was written affirming nothing
of the Prayer Book, but the Ordinal set forth in the
reign and confirmed by the Parliament of Edward to
contain all things necessary, and all persons ordered
according to it to be rightly and lawfully ordered.†
The preponderance of the Evangelics may perhaps be
perceived in this omission, secured it may be by the
willingness of other parties not to foreclose the future,
or by the wisdom of letting things stand for them-
selves. But the Homilies, both First and Second
Books, were commended. Those of the Second Book,
the composure of divines then sitting in the synod,
were enumerated, and the Book itself was published
in the same year. They "contain godly and whole-
some doctrine," and they were "necessary for the
* There was a similar declaration in the Eleven Articles of 1559.
+ Observe that in this Article (xxxvi.) it is not alleged that the Ordinal
had been confirmed by the Parliament, the first Parliament, of Elizabeth.
‡ The Articles therefore form no part of the Prayer Book, and have no
connection with it, though often printed in it. They are not in the
Annexed Book of 1662.
1
408
[CH. XXXV.
Catechisms in
times" but they are not among the most pleasing
performances of the age: the continual attacks upon
the practices and superstitions of the former system
weary the reader of a later day: the same style seems
followed in them all. Nevertheless there are some
noble passages in them. The Second Book is not so
good as the First.
*
A Catechism, or Catechisms, in English and in Latin,
a shorter and a longer, written by the same hand,
gained the votes and completed the doctrinal labours
of this diligent Convocation. The author, Dean
Nowell, the Prolocutor, who presented his own per-
formances, had been entrusted, it seems likely, with
the work of preparing some form or forms of instruction
for the young and for schools, and particularly for the
unlearned clergy whom necessity admitted: for it had
been among the things designed by the bishops some
years before "that young priests or ministers made
or to be made, be so instructed that they be able to
make answer according to the form of some Catechism
to be prescribed": and "that there be some long
Catechism devised and printed for the erudition of
simple curates." The able catechist, if, to accept
a pleasing and probable conjecture, it were two that
he laid before the houses, had undertaken to supply
their
* The remarks of Burnet on the Homilies seem fair: that
design was to mix speculative points with practical matters": that they
are not critically exact, but that, all things considered, "they are two
extraordinary books," &c. Fuller has to say that "they are penned
in a plain style, accommodated to the capacities of the hearers, and (he is
loth to say) of the readers"; that "if they did little good, they did no
harm" in one respect, that they preached not strange doctrine, &c. p. 62.
+ Interpretations of the Queen's Injunctions, 1559, Cardwell's Doc.
Ann. i. 204.
‡ Dr. Groves, of Dublin, is the author of the conjecture that Nowell
offered two Catechisms to Convocation, instead of one, as Strype and
1563.]
English and Latin.
409
the deficiencies or increase the utility of two already
in use and authority, the Catechism of the Prayer
Book, and that long Catechism which bore the name
of the Short Catechism, and was so curiously com-
plicated with the Forty-two Articles of Edward, and
was rightly attributed to Ponet.* In regard to the
Catechism of the Prayer Book, Nowell offered in
English his Small Catechism: for Ponet's Catechism
he produced his largest manual of the kind, entitled
Catechismus sive Prima Institutio, in Latin. In both
he made the manual that he supplemented the ground-
work of his own. His English formulary, perhaps the
more important of the two, followed the Catechism
of the Prayer Book closely, but expanded it in places
so much as to indicate that it was designed for others
than children, and added an exposition of the Sacra-
ments which was the foundation of that which is now
in the Prayer Book.† This book was famous in its
the other earlier writers all supposed. He argues that the entry in the
Register of Convocation, Feb. 5, "aliis episcopis assignatum fuit munus
examinandi librum vocatum The Catechism," must have reference to
a book in English: and the other entry, Mar. 3, to one in Latin :
"prolocutor nomine totius cœtus domus inferioris presentavit Reveren-
dissimo et episcopis suffraganeis librum nuncupatum Catechismus
puerorum, cui, ut asseruit, omnes de cœtu ejusdem domus unanimiter
consenserunt.”—Wilkins, iv. 239. See Groves' Latin Version of Nowell's
Small Catechism, Dublin, 1878. The order of proceeding shown in these
entries confirms this, as it appears to relate to different books. I have
ventured to enlarge Dr. Groves' conjecture of two Catechisms by suggest-
ing that there were two because there were two previous Catechisms
to be auxiliated.
* As to Ponet's Catechismus Brevis, and the Forty-two Articles, see
Vol. III. pp. 513-28 of this work; also Vol. IV. pp. 74, 92, 193, 197.
+ He goes word for word with the Prayer Book Catechism down to the
end of duty to neighbour. Then he expands this into separate questions
and long answers upon the duty of subjects to the prince, of children
to parents, of parishioners to pastors, of servants to masters, of parents
to children, of masters and householders, of husbands to wives and
of wives toward husbands, taking the last two from the exhortation of
the office of Matrimony. In turn his additament on the Sacraments
410
[CH. XXXV.
The Catechisms.
day: was translated into Latin by the author, into
Greek by his learned friend Whitaker, for the use of
higher students; was known as "the Catechism with
additions," and rehearsed in schools and churches; was
demanded of the clergy, willing or unwilling; dared
the anger of the aliens; and fell into oblivion as soon
as the sacramental part was added to the Catechism
of the Prayer Book in the following age. The Largest
Catechism in Latin was for schools and universities:
but it never attained the celebrity of the other; it
remained unpublished for eight years: and in the
interval the author abridged it, and so produced (for
he was the author of three) his Middle Catechism. If
brevity be the excellence of Catechisms, Nowell was
rewarded according to his merits. The Middle Cate-
chism surpassed the Largest in use and fame: it was
translated into English and into Greek by Norton and
by Whitaker. But in the following age it fell into
disuse.* Of Nowell's three Catechisms it was the
Small and the Largest that were before the Convocation
was closely followed by the Sacramental part which was added to the
Catechism of the Prayer Book in the days of Overall and the Hampton
Court Conference. It was however much longer than this, and contained
a good deal of controversial matter; as, e.g., the question whether the
Lord's Supper was instituted that a sacrifice might be offered to God
the Father for the remission of sins: and the assertion that Transubstan-
tiation would overthrow the nature of a Sacrament. Nowell's Catechism
with additions was not used instead of the Prayer Book Catechism,
but as a further instruction for communicants. This appears from the
"Articles agreed upon" at Lambeth, April 12, 1561:
at Lambeth, April 12, 1561: “That besides the
Catechism for children which are to be confirmed, another somewhat
longer may be devised for communicants: and the third in Latin for
Schools.”—Wilkins, iv. 225, or Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 265. The
"Catechism for children " was the Prayer Book Catechism: the other,
for communicants, was Nowell's Small Catechism: the third, in Latin, was
Nowell's Largest Catechism.
* Dr. Groves' Preface. Only a very few copies of any of them exist.
Dr. Jacobson reprinted the Largest Catechism (Ox. 1835), with a valuable
preface.
1563.] An Evangelic Remonstrance.
4II
of this year. It seems to have been designed to
commend them in the Thirty-nine Articles, but this
was not done.*
<<
Accident has preserved one scene, in the last sitting
of this great assembly, which exhibits the chafing of the
Lower House against the bishops, or at least the dis-
quiet of the extremer Evangelics, or perhaps more
generally the discontent of the clergy at the loss of
their former power, under colour of a remonstrance
attempted against that well-known clause of Elizabeth's
first Act for Uniformity by which further powers were
reserved to the Crown and the Primate. The clergy
discuss and ordain," wrote a nonconforming Evangelic
some years after; "they may have as wide cognisance,
and make as many constitutions as they like; but
nothing stands, nothing runs, without the Queen and
the Archbishop. Hence it was that in the last synod
but one many resolutions, of the greatest advantage
to the Church, which were passed by the clergy, were
suppressed, and never came to light. At the last
sitting of that synod our case was brought forward by
a man of great learning of the diocese of Norwich.
A bishop stopped him, asking him, 'What is that to you?
we began this thing, and we will finish it.' The learned
man replied, 'We have always thought that the Queen
was the author of this thing, but now we see it is you.'
And so they would not allow the question to be
raised."†
* In the Latin MS. of the Articles (Eliz. Dom. xxvii. 41 A) there is
after Article 36 a heading Catechismus Latine editus, and then a blank
space followed by Article 37.
+ (6
Cognoscunt et statuunt ministri, sed ita ut nihil firmum ratum-
que habeatur, nisi assentiente Regina, et Archiepiscopo. Unde fiebat ut
multa ad maximam ecclesiæ utilitatem, a penultima synodo conclusa,
supprimerentur, neque in lucem exierunt. Causa vero nostra erat synodo
proposita postremis comitiis a quodam doctissimo viro spectante ad Nordo-
412
The Oath of Supremacy. [CH. xxxv.
Apprehension was felt on more sides than one con-
cerning the application of the new and formidable Act
of the late session of Parliament in the branch of
ministering the Oath of the Supremacy. The House
of Lords had secured themselves from the necessity
of taking, the Commons had taken, the subjects in
general were not required to take, and the law officers
were exempted from rendering as matter of course this
compulsive obligation, of which the second rejection
was high treason. But to the clergy, and to all
persons refusing or depraving the English Service
or frequenting the forbidden Mass, the Oath was to
be ministered by the bishops. Thus, according to the
customary usage of Parliament, the clergy were more
touched than the laity, and an invidious burden was
cast upon the ordinaries. They were to do the work
of the State: large powers were put into their hands:
rigour would be odious, and dangerous to themselves ;
but slackness would be contemptible in men who were
commanded to search for disaffection. A persecution
was expected. "It looks as if they wanted to mimic
the Spanish Inquisition: but really the provisions of
the Act are so severe that they seem impossible of
execution. God be merciful to these poor men that are
in prison," wrote Quadra to Philip. And again, "They
say that on the first of April they will demand the Oath of
the Bishops who are in the Tower, and that those who
will not take it must die: which I doubt not, unless
wicensem episcopum. Sed episcopus quidam interpellabat hominem,
dicens, Quid hæc ad vos? Nos cœpimus hanc rem, nosque ad exitum
perducemus. Respondit ille, Nos Reginam hujus rei auctorem existi-
mavimus: at nunc vos esse perspicimus. Et ita non sunt passi hanc
causam agi." George Withers to Bartholet, Bullinger, and Gualter,
Aug. 1567.-Zurich Lett. ii. 89. At the date of this letter the Convocation
of 1563 would be the "penultima synodus": as there was another
in 1566. It is therefore the one that is referred to.
1563.]
Parker's Moderation.
413
God find some remedy for it. The Bishops are very
joyful, awaiting the Lord's will." *
But wiser and more Christian counsels prevailed,
mainly through one man. Judging, it may be, from
the recollections of her girlhood, the Queen about this
time remarked that Archbishop Parker was "too soft
and easy," giving him little credit for the firmness that
lay beneath a gentle manner. The remark, which
was repeated to him by Cecil, moved him not from
the course of bold moderation which he was resolved
to pursue in this dangerous crisis, when in the case of
religion the safety of the subject had been once more
cast away by the subservience of the lay legislature.
"In our late Convocation," he replied to Cecil, “I found
by experience the qualities of all my brethren. Her
Majesty may be content with her choice of the most of
them (among whom I count not myself), though some may
be unstable or leaky. We did little in that assembly
for our own cause, but our mutual conferences taught
us how to govern the better thereafter. My brethren,
if they were asked, would not count me too easy, but
too sharp and earnest in moderation; which I will use
till mediocrity shall be received among us. To them
that are without I cannot but shew civil affability,
but, I trust, no great cowardliness." He went on to
explain a plan by which he proposed nothing less than
'to stay full execution of the imperial laws," taking
the burden upon himself, without reciting the Queen's
name in it, bearing the brunt of both parties, without
having or requiring any warrant in writing. "If," said
he, "the jeoparding of my private estimation may do
good, that the purpose itself may be performed that
the Queen would have done, it shall suffice."t His
(C
* Quadra to King Philip, Lond. Feb. 15 and 20, 1563.-Span. Cal. 302.
+ Parker to Cecil, Strype's Parker, i. 126, or Parker's Corresp. 173.
414
[CH. XXXV.
The Old Bishops
device was to send letters, written in his own name
alone, to all the bishops, desiring them never to offer
the Oath a second time without his permission in
writing, and never to have it refused for the first time
without immediately informing him.* This he did,
apparently with the sanction of Cecil, to whom he
sent a specimen of the letters. It will enhance the
boldness of Parker to reflect that every bishop, not
less than any lay commissioner who might be specially
appointed, was ordered by the Act to certify any
refusal, first or second, into King's Bench within forty
days. Parker appears to have desired to intervene
before the certificate was sent.
However, as it regarded the insuperable cohort in
In this letter he uses the expression "the honest Protestant" as opposed
to "the adversary." I know not whether by "moderation and
“mediocrity” he means the “via media." This last has always seemed
to me a false and poor expression.
* "To my loving brother, &c. This is to charge you to have a very
grave, prudent, and godly respect in executing the Act of the establish-
ment of the Queen's authority over her ecclesiastical subjects, late passed
in this Parliament. And if your lordship shall be compelled for the
wilfulness of some of that sort to tender the Oath mentioned in the same
Act, the peremptory refusal whereof shall endanger them in Præmunire,
that immediately upon such refusal of any person ye do address your
letters unto me, expressing the disorders of such one who is fallen into
such danger: and that ye proceed not to offer the said Oath a second
time until you have my answer returned unto you in writing," &c.-Strype,
Parker, i. 125, and Parker's Corresp. as above. Lingard ascribes the whole
of this to the Queen. "If this barbarous statute had been strictly carried
into execution, the scaffolds in every part of the kingdom would have
been drenched with the blood of the sufferers: but the Queen was appalled
at the prospect before her: she communicated her sentiments to the
metropolitan: and that prelate, by a circular, but secret, letter, admonished
the bishops, who had been appointed to minister the Oath, to proceed
with lenity and caution," &c.-vi. 83. Perhaps the allusion in Parker's
letter to Cecil to "the purpose that the Queen would have done" may
bear this out. And certainly the minister Cecil read Parker's circular,
to which he added a paragraph before it was sent to the bishops. But
He
on the other hand Parker speaks as if the device had been his own.
has had little credit for it in history.
1563.
and the Oath.
((
An
415
the Tower, and their outposts in the Fleet and the
Marshalsea, the apprehensions of such men as the
Spanish ambassador seemed likely to be fulfilled.
attempt appears to have been made immediately to
demand the Oath from them. This week they
began to demand the Oath from the Catholic bishops
in accordance with the new Act passed in Parliament
recently; and the Bishops of London and Lincoln,
and Doctors Cole and Storey, have been summoned
for Monday next.” * In modern times, by a party
which has no connection with them, pathetic repre-
sentations have been made of the severity exercised
upon these Romanensians: and their condition in
prison has been painted in sad colours. "Educated,
learned, and distinguished men deprived of their
liberty, of social intercourse, and of all the external
consolations of religion."† And now the Oath, which
they had refused in the first year of the Queen,‡ is
said to have been suspended over them again. A
first refusal of the Oath under the new statute, if it
had been carried to a trial, would have led to their
imprisonment during the Queen's pleasure, that is,
their perpetual imprisonment, which was the penalty
of præmunire; a second would have conducted them
to the scaffold. But it was not designed to set the
Oath at them. There was no intention of going to
extremes with them: nor in fact was it with reference
* Quadra to King Philip, April 24, 1563—Span. Cal. 322. He goes on
to fear lest some of them should from faint-heartedness take the Oath.
He lays the blame on Philip, "in whom these good people had placed all
their hope."
+ Bridgett's Catholic Hierarchy, 42. After the delineation of their
woes in the "living death of the Tower," of which this is a mild specimen,
this writer goes on to describe “their heroism" in their easier places of
limitation or detention to which they were presently dispersed.
† Above, ch. xxxii.
416
[CH. XXXV.
Treatment of
to them that the Act was framed. Instead of prison and
death because of the Oath refused, the Oath was not
ministered to them. The Queen refused to sign the
commission to tender it to the Bishops of London and
Lincoln and the two doctors, Cole and Storey.* In
a few months all the prelates in the Tower were set
at large. It was not for death that they left it. Lest
the plague should assail them in their fortress-the
plague raged fearfully in London in the summer and
autumn of this year, the plague drove the English
army out of Havre de Grace this year-they were
dispersed in September to easier prisons, the palaces
of bishops, or the boundaries of allotted spaces. The
gentleness of this treatment, which was responsive to
their own suit made to the Council,† is a happy memorial
in the midst of the dread and bitter struggles of their
age: but there was justice in it as well as mercy.
Why should they have been kept in the Tower any
longer, seeing that not one of them that were then
in the Tower was there for having formerly refused
the Oath, although they had all formerly refused it, but
for other offences and contempts, which they had now
sufficiently purged? There was moreover, it may be
supposed, an instinctive feeling in the general mind
* "Last week a commission was issued to summon for trial four of the
Catholic prisoners: two bishops, of London and Lincoln; and two doctors,
Cole, who was commissioner against the Lutherans in the time of our lady
Queen Mary now in heaven, and Storey. The commission has not yet
been signed by the Queen, as when they took it to her she said she would
sign it another day at her convenience." Quadra to King Philip, May 9,
1563.-Span. Cal. 323.
+ The Council informed Parker that they had acted "upon suit made
unto us by the doctors, prisoners in the Tower, to be removed from thence
to some other convenient place, for their better safeguard from the present
infection of the plague."-Parker's Corresp., p. 192. Mr. Bridgett seems
not to have observed this, though he quotes the same letter; indeed part
of the same sentence.-Cath. Hier. 98.
of
‡ Above, ch. xxxiv.
1563.]
the Old Bishops.
417
that it would have been the height of injustice to have
made these deprived prelates the scapegoats of the
late Persecution, the guilt of which lay really at the
door of the Lords and Commons of Queen Mary, who
had given away by law the lives of their fellow
subjects. It was not beyond remembrance, perchance,
that these men, or most of them, were of those
through whose reluctant mildness that sordid betrayal
had been prevented from being tenfold more bloody.
The bitter memories therefore that still pursued them,
the indignant murmurs of those who had suffered
when they were in power, were not allowed to prevail.
It was to no purpose now, when they were enlarged
from the Tower, that their fiercer adversaries cried
out against them, and that a preacher at Paul's Cross
longed to see a gallows set up in Smithfield and the
old bishops and other papists hanged thereon.* They
departed. Heath of York to the liberty of residence
within prescribed limits, choosing, it would seem, the
places for himself: Turberville of Exeter to the
custody of Grindal,† with whom having remained
* "Anno 1563, in September, the old bishops and divers doctors were
removed out of the Tower into the new bishops' houses, there to remain
prisoners under their custody (the plague being in the city was thought
to be the cause), but their deliverance (or rather change of prison) did
so much offend the people that the preachers at Paul's Cross and in
other places, both of the city and country, preached (as it was thought of
many men) very seditiously, as Baldwin at Paul's Cross wishing a gallows
set up in Smithfield and the old bishops and other papists to be hanged
thereon. Himself died of the plague the next week after."-Stow's
Memoranda, in Three Chronicles, Camden Soc. 126 (quoted by
Mr. Bridgett). The plague in London was appalling in that month.
The week ending Sept. 10, fourteen hundred died of it "and never a parish
in London clear." The bishops were sent away on the fourteenth. In
the week following, ending Sept. 17, sixteen hundred died.—Ib. p. 123.
+ This, which has escaped observation hitherto, is found in a minute
of the Privy Council, Jan. 30, 1565. "A letter to the Bishop of London,
signifying that at his motion the Lords are contented that after he shall
have taken good bonds with sufficient sureties of Dr. Turberville, heretofore
VOL. V.
Ee
418
[CH. XXXV.
Treatment of
a year and a half he was discharged under limitation:
Thirlby announcing himself to Parker as his guest,
and receiving no unkind welcome:* Bourne of Bath
and Wells consigned to the hospitality of Bullingham
committed to his custody, that he shall remain in some certain place in
the city of London, and be forthcoming when his Lordship shall call for
him; that he is willed to suffer him to depart, of whose further custody he
is for this time discharged."-Dasent, Acts, 190.
* Thirlby's letter and Parker's reply are pleasant enough. He called
himself "an unbidden guest who according to the proverb, wotteth not
where to sit," and that he was bringing all his family with him, that was,
his man and his boy," and was in doubt what way to take without danger
of the plague, all the places on the way into Kent being infected. Parker
politely replied that a guest, bidden or unbidden, should deserve the better
welcome, being content with what he should find. "And if you bring your
man and your young chorister too, ye shall not be refused." He gives him
directions how best to reach Bekesbourne, the manor where he was staying.
He also wrote to Cecil that he proposed to put them in another house for
a fortnight “till they were better blown with this fresh air," lest his own
family should be infected. He said that he "would not be thought slack
to gratify his old acquaintance," Thirlby, so far as he could with fidelity:
that for Dr. Boxall, he "did not so well know his nature." See the letters
in the Parker Corresp. 193, or in Bridgett, 98. The latter bestows some
rather unhandsome reflections on Parker. Thirlby's fellow-guest Boxall
afterwards wrote a letter to thank Parker for "his very good entertain-
ment so long time" (Strype's Parker, i. 141): and there is no reason to
think that Parker treated Thirlby worse than Boxall. As for the other
bishops removed from the Tower, Heath went to Chobham, near Windsor,
where he lived many years; and was once reported by a spy to be about
to have a Mass there. Of Turberville it was affirmed by Cecil that “he
was an honest gentleman, but a simple bishop, who lived at his own liberty
to the end of his life."-Burleigh's English Justice. Mr. Bridgett having
nothing to bring against this, remarks that Lord Burleigh was one of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners by whom Turberville was put in the Tower,
so "we may know what to think of his truthfulness." Surely this begs
the question. Bourne was with Bullingham nearly three years, and
then was allowed to reside in his own house. Of his treatment by Bull-
ingham, Mr. Bridgett says "we must remain in ignorance.”—Bridgett,
94. And yet there is a circumstance related of it, that he asked permission
for Bourne to live in his own house in London awhile, rather than in
incommodious lodgings.—Strype's Parker, i. 142. This savours not of
very great cruelty. Of Watson there is more to say. The condition of
these prelates is said to have been "worse than any death in the world.”—
Card. Allen (quoted by Bridgett, 119). It is a sad reflection: but we
may console ourselves that it was made for them and not by them.
1563.]
the Old Bishops.
419
of Lincoln: Watson of Lincoln first to Grindal, but
in about a month to Cox of Ely. With them were
enlarged the several imprisoned doctors, the amiable
Boxall going with Thirlby to Parker, the courteous
Feckenham at first to Goodman, his successor at West-
minster, afterwards to Bishop Horne of Winchester ;
the fiery Storey making his escape abroad;* Dean Cole
on the other hand remained unrelieved in the Fleet.
Bishop Pate of Worcester passed beyond seas, under
circumstances which have not been ascertained.† Of
bishops there were then but two left in London: Scot
of Chester in the Fleet, and Bonner in the Marshalsea.
But Scot was released, either now or soon after, under
a bond to remain within twenty miles of Finchingfield
in Essex. He broke his bond, and followed Pate
beyond seas, leaving his bail to suffer the conse
quences. Bonner then was left alone in London. These
* The Spanish ambassador and his chaplain were considerably im-
plicated in Storey's escape, which was in May. Quadra to Philip.-Span.
Cal. 324.
+ That Pate was sent to Jewel has not hitherto been remarked. It is
found in the next entry in the Council Book to that about Turberville.
"A letter to the Bishop of Salisbury to do ut supra with Dr. Pate, here-
tofore committed unto him, with this enlargement in or about London."
—Dasent's Acts, 190. Whether Pate went abroad of his own free will,
as the great Bishop Andrewes affirmed (in the Tortura Torti, p. 147,
quoted by Bridgett, 77), or "escaped the vigilance of government," as
Mr. Bridgett says, is not known. It may be suggested, as he was put
under sureties, that he escaped by breaking his bond.
Scot's bond, to reside as aforesaid, and to appear before the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners when he might be duly summoned, is in the Record
Office, Eliz. Dom. xxxv. No. 38. In the Calendar, p. 247, it is put
conjecturally in the year 1564: but was probably earlier. Next year,
when Dean Boxall petitioned the Council for release from Parker's
custody, he was refused because Scot "receiving favour upon his own
bond, and the bond of his friends, had withdrawn himself without regard
had either of his own bond or the danger of his friends, and therein had
committed the act of contempt of the Queen's Majesty, a matter much
noted and many ways evil reported." Council to Parker, June 23, 1564.
-Parker's Corresp., p. 217.
E e 2
420
[CH. XXXV.
The Old Bishops
deprived Romanensian prelates, all of them, behaved
admirably to the Church of England, to which they
belonged, in one most important particular. They
never ordained any person after their deprivation,
never attempted to propagate a schism, or set altar
against altar. They sought simply to discharge their
own consciences.
In the "free custody,"* to which they were assigned,
they appear to have made the best of circumstances,
secretly celebrating Mass, as they had any opportunity,
engaging in correspondence, and expressing in their
private conversations with persons of like mind their
detestation of the English Service. The most restless
of them from the first was the powerful Bishop
Watson, of whom Grindal, his first custodian, has
recorded some curious particulars. He refused to
confer with Grindal on any point: that he could enter
into conference with no man, for the reason that he
would not incur penalties of laws: and when he was
reminded that only one law was penal, which might
be forborne or avoided, he still refused. When he
was transferred to Cox of Ely the remark of his new
host to his late host was that he was welcome for the
sake of them that sent him, "but not otherwise":†
and in no great length of time Watson was in trouble
again. By Feckenham, when he found himself in the
abode of Horne, a different course was pursued. He
was "not so precise, but could be contented to confer":
and Horne, who in King Edward's days had "travailed
with him in the Tower," and brought him to subscribe
* I venture to repeat this oxymoron, though Mr. Bridgett mournfully
likens it to "clean dirtiness, or cold warmth" (p. 6). All things are com-
parative in this world.
+ Grindal to Cecil, Oct. 15, 1563.—Remains, Parker Soc. 280. Grindal's
willingness to keep off dangerous ground, and to tell Cecil that he would,
might be remarked.
1563.]
and Foreign Powers.
421
almost all things, was hopeful of his compliance now.*
He was disappointed. They conferred, but parted
asunder in disagreement: Feckenham wrote and dis-
persed a paper concerning their discourses: Horne
vindicated himself thereon at large in print.†
The perils, seen and embellished by the imagination
of the Spanish ambassador and of the Romanensian
exiles, impending over these distinguished prisoners,
engaged the attention of the King of Spain and of
the benevolent Emperor Ferdinand; who sought
simultaneously to avert them in the summer of this
year by letters to the Queen. Two or three months
afterwards the Emperor addressed her in urgent style,
making an important proposition. Pray take no
severe measures against the bishops incarcerated, or
against any other your subjects professing our Catholic
religion, if they cannot with a good conscience accept
what
you and
your Estates have recently promulgated
and ordained by law. Although your Majesty follow
a different religion, be it far from you to persecute,
harass, exterminate, and oppress your Catholic subjects.
Nay, rather grant them one church in every town,
wherein they may worship freely." This was received
a few days after the enlargement of the bishops from
the Tower.
* Grindal's letter, as above.
+ Strype, Ann. i. 497. Mr. Bridgett informs us that there is an account
of this conference in Stapleton's Counterblast.
Philip sent to "Elizabeth a letter of credence in favour of Bishop
Quadra," begging her favour for the imprisoned bishops and other
Catholics, on June 15, 1563.-Span. Cal. 334. I have ventured to assume
that Ferdinand's first letter, which is not extant, but to which he alludes
in his second, was of the same date and import. See next note. Both
monarchs appear to have been set in motion by the Council of Trent,
now sitting, which was much exercised by the position of things in
England: probably through the representations of the one or two exiled
Romanensian prelates who were in it.
422
[CH. XXXV.
Letter of the Queen.
The answer of the Queen was decisive: that it was
much for her to have dealt mildly with men who had
set themselves so insolently against her laws and the
tranquillity of her faithful subjects: men, the chief of
whom, in her father's and her brother's reign, had
maintained publicly in preaching and writing the
doctrine which they now stubbornly rejected: that as
to granting them churches she could do no such thing
with safety, honour, or conscience. "I and my country-
men,” continued she, "follow no new or strange reli-
gions, but that same religion which is approved by the
mind and voice of the greatest Fathers. To allow
churches for diversity of rites would be nothing but
propagating one religion out of another, distracting
the minds of good men, nursing factions, pestering the
commonwealth: a thing of detestable example and
very dangerous. In deference mainly to your request,*
I have connived somewhat at the insolence of these
few men now in private life: I cannot go further in
indulging them and others even more fractious." Good
ground was taken there.
During the summer the bishops were occupied by
order of the Council in a survey of the condition of
their dioceses. In the letters which they received,
the well-known, the indefinite language of the Tudors
* Ferdinand's second letter, in which he alludes to his first, was of
Sept. 24, 1563. It is printed by Strype, with the reply of Elizabeth,
Annals, ii. 97 (Second App. D and E). It is also printed in Raynaldus,
Annales, anno 1563, cap. 117, in the account of the Council of Trent. The
following passage in Elizabeth's reply is finely phrased: "Nos et nostri
(Deo sint gratiae) non novas ullas non alienas sectamur religiones, sed
eam ipsam quam probat illustrissimorum Patrum mens consentiens et vox.
Concedere vero templum diversis ritibus, praeterquam quod aperte pugnat
cum nostri parliamenti legibus, nihil aliud esset quam serere religionem
ex religione, distrahere mentes bonorum, alere studia factiosorum, re-
ligionem et rempublicam perturbare in hoc jam quieto statu nostro," &c.
-Strype, i. 98.
1563.] A Survey of the Dioceses.
423
was employed, and the reason of the investigation was
alleged in "certain good considerations moving the
Queen's Majesty." It was to be made as speedily,
and, it would seem, as secretly, as it was possible: by
the same messengers who brought the letters, or within
two or three days at furthest, the bishops were to
return such answers as they could from their own
knowledge: if there were any particulars which they
could not certify without consulting their chancellors,
archdeacons, deans, and other officers, they were to
procure information without delay of time. The
enquiry, which was said to be only "in some part,"
turned upon the number of archdeaconries and dean-
eries; the names of those who occupied them; the
number of parishes having vicars or curates; of
chapels of ease having or lacking curates or ministers;
of places exempt; the number of households within
every parish or chapelry. Suspicion was aroused by
these curious demands: the alienation of chapelries
and places exempt was thought to be intended; for
it was with regard to these foundations that the in-
quisition was most inquisitive.*
The lack of schools, of good schoolmasters, and of
scholars had long been sorely felt. In the Parliament
of this year it was computed by the Speaker that a
hundred schools were wanting in England, which had
been in former times: that there were even great
* There were six Items or Articles. One was that where the parishes were
so large as to have chapels of ease which had or ought to have curates or
ministers in them, it was to be certified how many there were in every
such parish, with the names of the towns or hamlets. Another was to
certify how many exempt or peculiar places there were, not under the
full jurisdiction of ordinary: their names, their occupiers. Another was
ordering the bishop to copy out these enquiries, so far as they concerned
exempt places, and send them to the persons holding them, commanding
them in the Queen's name to return distinct answers forthwith.-Strype's
Parker, i. 128, or Parker's Corresp. 280, or Wilkins, iv. 244.
424
Commission for Schools. [CH. XXXV.
market towns without schools.* An investigation of
schools and hospitals had been ordered, the year
before, in 1562, by letters royal to the bishops: who
obeyed, enquired, and returned their certificates to the
Court of Exchequer. One only of these documents
has enjoyed the light: and of the diocese of Canter-
bury Archbishop Parker certified that there were four
schools, two of which, Canterbury and Wye, were of
the Queen's foundation, the other two, Maidstone and
Tenterden, were of former and local foundation: that
of hospitals there were thirteen, eleven of which were
in good order, but two were in the hands of laymen,
misused, making no distribution, in lamentable ruin
and decay. Efforts to remedy the defect of schools
were made throughout the reign: some of the more
notable by the generosity of the bishops. Thus
Grindal founded the grammar school of St. Bees in
Cumberland: Whitgift the grammar school of Croydon:
Parker founded or augmented the grammar schools of
Sandwich, Tunbridge, and Rochdale. It was proposed
in Convocation that there should be a grammar school
in every cathedral church. Several schools may have
been refounded by Elizabeth which had been ordered
in the reign of King Edward to be continued, although
the order perhaps had not been carried out before.§
The Spanish ambassador, Bishop Quadra of Aquila
* See the beginning of the chapter.
+ "Certificatorium baronibus scaccarii de hospitalibus et scholis.”—Ex.
Reg. Park., fol. 237 b. In Wilkins, iv. 230; also in Parker's Corresp.,
165-6. I think I may venture to say, after enquiry, that no certificates
of the sort remain among the Exchequer papers in the Record Office.
This was among the "General Notes of matters to be moved,"
prepared in view of the Convocation of this year, which Strype has
printed.-Annals, i. 319.
§ Much light has been thrown recently upon schools in the sixteenth
century by Mr. Leach, author of English Schools at the Reformation,
1896. See note at the end of this chapter.
1
1563.] Action of the Spanish Ambassador. 425
in Naples, had long been uncomfortable in his office.
He hoped to bring back the Pope, or as he termed
it, restore religion, by the futile project of a mar-
riage between the Queen and Lord Robert Dudley,
whom he thought religious: for which purpose he
intrigued in a manner that was not very suitable
to his own dignity. The Mass in his house in the
Strand aroused continual suspicion and irritation
in Cecil and the reforming party. His doors were
watched, and spies hidden in his closets noted those
who were at it, if any English, to report to the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners. His servants were bribed to
divulge his correspondence: and discoveries were
made which were prejudicial to many. His letters
to his master were filled with voluminous narratives
of the indignities to which he was subjected. Nor
may some compassion be refused to an agent so
ungratefully employed, who was exhausting his own
resources in the service of his cause. But on the
other hand the methods of Quadra himself were
highly questionable. He had his own spies among
the servants of the Queen and of Cecil. He was in
secret communication with many of the Queen's
subjects who were ill affected towards her proceedings.
His intercepted letters were filled with injurious re-
flections on the Queen and her people, as upon
one occasion she angrily informed him that she knew.
One notable instance of their mutual bickerings illus-
trated the ineffaceable difference between English and
Neapolitan or Spanish notions of justice. One of the
servants of Quadra killed his fellow servant, and left
his service for the service of the Queen. He was
sent back and replaced in Quadra's household.
*
But
* Two at least of these intercepted letters remain, with Cecil's notes on
them, in the Record Office.-Foreign Pap., Eliz. Cal., p. 645.
426
[CH. XXXV.
The New Ambassador.
:
his master being informed that he was sent back as
a spy, dismissed him, and then went to the Queen and
requested her to expel him from the kingdom. Her
reply was that she could not expel him without en-
quiry and though he begged her to reflect on ill
example and scandal, and assured her that the man
had injured many in his house, he could not move
her. Two days afterwards she sent to tell him that
she had ordered the man to be arrested, and that he
might ask him any questions that he liked. He
answered that he had not requested his arrest but his
expulsion, or else that he should be handed over to
him; that he could not put a servant on trial at any
other tribunal than that of the king his master, or in
his own house. Thereupon she set the man at liberty.*
Thus she refused to punish without trial, to make
herself a Spanish executioner. In the midst of his
struggles and troubles Quadra was struck by death.
The exhausted agent of a hopeless cause, he expired
with the words "I can do no more": and was suc-
ceeded in the beginning of the next year by Don
Guzman de Silva.† His body was treated with
scandalous neglect by Philip, remaining unburied in
London for nearly two years, before it was taken
to Brussels and buried at the instance of the Duchess
of Parma.
The long meditated Council of the Pope was opened
in the first month of the year 1562 with a warm
contest on the question whether it were to be declared
* These particulars are gathered from Quadra's voluminous letters in
the Spanish Calendar. As to the servant, it ought to be added that he
was kept in the palace after his release, to be out of danger and to be
used as an informer.
+ Quadra died in August, 1563.—Span. Cal. 346. His last letter was
to Alva, complaining of the inadequacy of his instructions.-Ib. His
successor came in the following January.
1562.]
Council of Trent opens.
427
The place,
a new Council or the former continued.*
the spirit prevalent, suggested, warranted, the un-
altered name of Trent: and the final sessions,
extended over two years under Pius, were a true
continuation of the convocation that met under Paul
and Julius. An intractable Pope, an artificial majority,
an opposition goaded to fury, liberty oppressed, con-
ciliation refused, were the features that marked the last
of the Tridentine periods from the beginning to the
end. Obscure theologians, whose names are known
only from this occasion, harangued the Fathers, and
dictated the edicts which have cut Christendom in
twain, it may be for ever. Legates, and none but
Legates, propounded the questions to be submitted.†
The Roman doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass,
the Mass a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the
dead, solitary Masses approved, the Apostles ordained
priests by their Master on the night of the in-
stitution of the Sacrament, all these decreed under
anathema, were among the last legacies to the world
of the synod which was closed with the acclamation
of "Anathema to all heretics, Amen. Anathema,
Anathema." To overthrow the Queen of England
by a decree was among the things debated at Trent.
It was argued, in their phrase, that she was crushing
her Catholic subjects under an outrageous yoke: to
excuss which yoke some of them were resolved to
take arms, invoking the arms of foreign Catholics, and
* "The Council was opened on the 18th inst., and the first session was
to begin on the second Thursday in Lent. It has been disputed whether
it shall be termed Continuatio Concilii, or Indictio novi Concilii."-For.
Cal. 505.
+ This novel clause in one of the decrees, proponentibus legatis, was
greatly debated; in another decree, it was indeed explained not to be
intended to make any innovation in the usual method of business in
councils; but it was retained in spite of all remonstrance.
428
England and the
[CH. XXXV.
imploring that she might be smitten with a conciliar
sentence. The Legate who had been induced to bring
this forward, the famous Stanislaus Hosius, Archbishop
of Ermeland in Poland, remarked that, if the bishops
who were in prison were in Trent, the noble English
nation would be present also, and not wholly alienated
from the Church. But it was perceived that the
appeal came only from one quarter: from Louvain,
from the Belgian theologians, who were moved by the
exiled Romanensians. The wisdom of proclaiming
a crusade seemed doubtful. The Legates avoided
a decision by referring the question to the Pope, the
Emperor, and the French King. The Pope and the
Emperor both replied that the attempt was too dan-
gerous, and might end in a general conflagration:*
but France, irritated by the affair of Havre de Grace,
was for proceeding to extremities. Hereupon the King
of Spain, who had remained unconsulted, proffered his
advice through Cardinal Granvelle, and warned the
Council of the danger of interfering with England.
They," said he, "who advise this are ardent and
pious, but no managers of public business. If you
listen to them, you will harden Elizabeth, make her
kill the imprisoned bishops, and entirely upset my
plans for recalling England to the obedience of the
Church. Elizabeth is detested by all her subjects,
heretic and Catholic alike: she knows that Mary of
Scotland has a better right to the kingdom than she:
the Catholic princes will find their own time for re-
ducing her." One of the exiled Romanensian prelates,
Goldwell of St. Asaph, sat in this last continuation of
the Council.t
* It was upon this occasion that the Emperor wrote to Elizabeth the
letter, which has been noticed above, about allowing churches for worship
to the Romanensians.
+ Dodd says that Pate of Worcester was there. Mr. Bridgett says
1563.]
Council of Trent.
429
But although no public decree was made against
England, a sentence or determination was given in
the privacy of a committee of the Council, appointed
by the Pope, upon a question concerning England,
which was momentous enough, for it was the head-
spring and source of the irreconcilable hostility of
the Church of Rome to the Church of England. From
the single account which seems to remain of this affair
it would appear that the question of allowing Catholics
to attend the worship of heretics in England, in other
terms, of permitting Romanensians to frequent their
parish churches to avoid the penalties of the law, was
brought before the open Council, and answered affirm-
atively by the Fathers. A merciful decree might
perhaps have been registered, but for the intervention
of Cardinal Toletus, who protested against it. The
Council then sent to the Pope to enquire in what
manner they should treat the question, advising him,
however, not to let it be put publicly in the Council,
that he finds no confirmation of this, and he is probably right. When
the Council was debating about the clause proponentibus legatis, one
of the proposals was that the various nations, in distinct committees,
should propose subjects, and to this Cardinal Morone objected "quod
æquum videri non potest quod unus aut duo tantum Angliæ aut Hiberniæ
episcopi eandem habeant in Concilio autoritatem quam triginta Hispani
aut Galli, ut de Italis taceam."-Raynaldus, Annales, 1563, cap. 91. The
letters of the time mention only Goldwell. "From England (or rather
from Rome) there is Thomas Goldwell, styled Bishop of St. Asaph."
Giannetti to Cecil.—For. Cal. 555. “It may be that one Goldwell, a very
simple and fond man, who was named in Queen Mary's time to the
bishopric of St. Asaph, but never admitted thereto, fleeing from England
to Rome, and there using a bishop's name, may have gone in some
cardinal's train to Trent, and it is likely that the speech has arisen that
an English bishop is there." Queen Elizabeth to Mundt.-Ib. 563. As
Goldwell was undoubtedly Bishop of St. Asaph, Elizabeth must have
meant to refer to his translation to Oxford, which was left incomplete by
Mary's death. He wrote a letter from Trent to Cecil, offering to serve
his Queen and country there. Getting no answer, he "did his best to
induce the Council to excommunicate the Queen." He was also on a
liturgical committee there. See his life in Bridgett.
430
[CH. XXXV.
The Pope and the
lest the decision should irritate the Protestants. They
sent him the "Catholicorum Postulatio," which had
raised the question, a letter of unknown origin, whether
from England or not, which had no names attached
to it, because, as they remarked, "it concerned all":
though they also remarked that theologians in England
were divided and gave various answers.*
The Pope
wholly agreed with their advice, and nominated a com-
mittee of archbishops, bishops, and doctors for the
business; a committee of eleven, which contained the
formidable Laynez, the General of the Jesuits, and
Peter de Soto, late well known in England; but which
contained not the English Goldwell. He bade the
* The history of this obscure transaction I have given from the Jesuit
Henry More, whose somewhat scarce Historia Missionis Anglicana Soc.
Jesu, published 1660, is the only book that contains it, that I know. It
is not very perspicuous in places, and I may have gone wrong in some
points, but the main purport is what I have given. The "Catholicorum
Postulatio" is given at length, and is as follows: "Religione in Anglia
mutata, et pœna proposita si quis diebus Dominicis et festis a templis
abstineat interim dum Psalmi et ex utroque Testamento lectiones vulgari
lingua recitantur, laici multi et Catholici nobiles et Deum timentes, partim
jam in carcere degentes, partim mox eo conjiciendi, amicorum et consan-
guineorum precibus, admonitionibus, et imminentium periculorum metu
invitantur, ut saltem eatenus se de sententia deduci permittant, ut in
templis Protestantium tantisper interesse velint diebus Dominicis et aliis
festis dum Psalmi eorum more lingua vulgari decantari soliti et lectiones
ex Bibliis lingua item populari depromtæ, necnon Conciones (quæ ad
eorum dogmata approbanda frequentius commemorantur) fiunt. Jam
qui hucusque nullo modo adduci potuerunt ut publicis prædictis precibus
et concionibus interessent, magnopere edoceri postulant quid eis faciendum
censeant viri pii et docti. Nam si nullo animae periculo aut nulla Dei
offensione, publico Regni sui decreto parere et obedire liceat, libenter id
fecerint: Contra vero si quod in hac re periculum sit salutis æternæ
aut læsæ Divinæ Majestatis, quidvis perpeti decreverunt potius quam
quidquam agere aut permittere unde Deum offensum iri aut iratum in-
telligant. Hæc quæstio cum multas pias et religiosas conscientias exer-
ceat et conturbet, rogandi estis omnes per viscera misericordiæ et caritatis,
quam Christus a suis omnibus exigit, ut eam palam et dilucide quam
primum expediatis, qua multi in hoc regno implicati torquentur."—Lib. iii.
cc. v.-x. pp. 64-6.
1563.]
"Catholicorum Postulatio.'
99
431
dis-
Fathers hold the sentence of this body to be equiva-
lent to a decree of the whole Council. The committee
after deliberation gave sentence: "It is unlawful for
you, under peril of the wrath of God, to be present at
the prayers or sermons of heretics; it is far better to
suffer the most atrocious miseries than give the least
sign of consenting to their wicked and abominable
rites." They gave many reasons and exhortations
concerning Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, about the
Maccabees, the scandal that might ensue, and the hope
of a change for the better.* This cold obstruction,
forged in secret, remained in darkness. It was probably
unknown in England: if any rumour of it reached the
Romanensians, it was heard reluctantly, and
regarded nor was it because of this verdict of a jury
of foreigners that any of them in these years left
livings for chaplaincies in gentlemen's houses, or paid
fines for refusing to enter their parish churches.
Nevertheless the thing existed. It was known in
Rome, though it was hidden: and it is important to
note at how early a date the line of Rome was taken.
It was the first step of the process which turned
English Romanensians into English Roman Catholics.
The process was to be completed, so far as it ever
was completed, in a few years: and the writer who
has preserved the transaction has observed with truth
and pride that the Pope who excommunicated Eliza-
beth confirmed thereby the clandestine sentence of the
committee of Trent. This matter has wholly escaped
the notice of historians. If it had been known, it
* It is needless to say that the heresy which is imputed to England in
this document is the rejection of the claims of the Papal See, which is
described as a Christo summus Ecclesiæ suæ vertex in terra præfi-
nita.”—Historia Missionis Anglicana Soc. Jesu, p. 68.
+ "Hæc Toletus his diebus rogatus respondit, et postliminio literis suis
confirmavit Paulus Quintus Pontifex Maximus.”—Ib. 66.
432
[CH. XXXV.
A projected
would have prevented some opinions of the disposition
of Rome toward England which cannot be maintained.
In management, aim, and end it was glorious popery.
It was a legacy to the ages which is worthy to stand
among the choicest benevolences of the testament of
Trent.*
The hesitation of Elizabeth about sending ambassa-
dors to the Council had been ended by the indiction
of it. "As the Council was begun by the Pope's Bull,
and only to be ended by his authority," she said, "she
could not send an ambassade thither, the same being
prejudicial to her Crown and prohibited by the laws
of England." Even if she could have sent without
prejudice, yet “at such a Council, where the Pope was
head, his Legate president, his Cardinals assistants, and
all who had a voice in it under oath to maintain his
authority, no decree could be hoped for other than the
Pope should like." On the other hand, the delusive
project of an alliance with the Protestant Princes for
a concord in religion and the reformation of abuses in
the Church continued to amuse her.† Indeed there
was in conception the project of a Council to be held
on the Rhine, under the auspices of the Emperor and
the French King, to which the French and German
bishops should summon the Pope. There was en-
tertained the project of a united embassy of English
Protestants, and French, to complain at Trent of the
abuses of the Church by the Pope. The project was
entertained of a conference between England and the
Protestants, or adherents of the Augustan Confession,
for a confederacy "for defence of all parts professing the
* Henricus Morus finishes his narrative by fixing the date: "Ita Patres
eo tempore, anno videlicet sexagesimo secundo, censuere.”—Historia
Missionis Anglicana Soc. Jesu, p. 66.
+ Elizabeth to Throckmorton, March, 1562.-For. Cal. 550.
Giannetti to Cecil, March, 1562.-16. 555.
1563.]
*
Protestant Alliance.
433
Gospel." Some steps were taken in this direction.
The agent Christopher Mundt was ordered to com-
municate to the Duke of Wurtemburg that the Queen
had neither sent ambassadors to Trent nor signified
to the world her refusal or the cause thereof, hold-
ing herself bound to abide by the agreement made
at Naumberg the last year, according to which she
had undertaken to do nothing without informing the
Protestants, and they had promised the same: that
she had heard nothing from them for a long time, and
desired to know what they had done or desired to do.
Matters went no further. Prudence or Cecil discerned
that in "the motion, being considered, there was more
peril than was meet to be advertised."+
* Cecil to Mundt, March, 1562.—For. Cal. 561.
+ Cecil to Mundt; the Queen to Mundt, March, 1562.-Ib. 561, 562.
VOL. V.
F f
بیا
*
NOTE.
LEACH'S ENGLISH SCHOOLS AT THE
REFORMATION.
SINCE I wrote my account of the schools founded under Edward the
Sixth, in the third volume of this work, a book has been published, 1896,
containing specimens of the Commissions of Enquiry issued under the
Chantries Acts, and a body of extracts from the Certificates returned
from the countries under these Commissions. The author, Mr. Leach,
has made this publication subservient to the special purpose which he
seems to have put before him, of destroying the reputation of Edward
the Sixth as a founder of schools. This was needless, because it was
treating a posthumous rumour as a primary historical fact. Neither
Edward nor his creatures made any such claim for him. He added not
"Founder of Schools" to his royal titles. As to myself, Mr. Leach
wrongly asserts that I repeat "the common cry" about Edward. On
the contrary, I was the first historian who departed from the general
and almost sacred tradition of his enlightened and generous benefactions
to education.
Mr. Leach has further favoured me with some strictures which are
founded on misquotations of my work. He says that I say that "a
school was now erected at Evesham," referring to Vol. II. (it should be
Vol. III.) p. 460 of this work; where I say that "a school was not
erected at Evesham." He says that I say that "the old college and
sanctuary of St. Martin-le-Grand was now given to the chapter of
Westminster," referring to Vol. II. p. 501 of this work; where I say
that "the old college and sanctuary of St. Martin-le-Grand was given
to the chapter of Westminster." He has however convicted me of
misdating a document; but he has not done this very ingenuously;
ignoring the fact that Burnet first made the mistake, not I, and writing
as if he himself had discovered the right date, not the late Nicolas
Pocock.
END OF VOLUME V.
.
7
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01374 3623