ON THE LAWS OF ELIZABETH'S REIGN RESPECTING THE
ROMAN CATHOLICS
Change of religion on the queen's accession. —The accession of
Elizabeth, gratifying to the whole nation on account of the late
queen's extreme unpopularity, infused peculiar joy into the hearts of
all well-wishers to the Reformation. Child of that famous marriage
which had severed the connection of England with the Roman see,
and trained betimes in the learned and reasoning discipline of
protestant theology, suspected and oppressed for that very reason by
a sister's jealousy, and scarcely preserved from the death which at
one time threatened her, there was every ground to be confident,
that, notwithstanding her forced compliance with the catholic rites
during the late reign, her inclinations had continued steadfast to the
opposite side.[155] Nor was she long in manifesting this disposition sufficiently
106
to alarm one party, though not entirely to satisfy the other. Her great
prudence, and that of her advisers, which taught her to move slowly,
while the temper of the nation was still uncertain, and her government
still embarrassed with a French war and a Spanish alliance, joined
with a certain tendency in her religious sentiments not so thoroughly
protestant as had been expected, produced some complaints of delay
from the ardent reformers just returned from exile. She directed Sir
Edward Karn, her sister's ambassador at Rome, to notify her
accession to Paul IV. Several catholic writers have laid stress on this
circumstance as indicative of a desire to remain in his communion;
and have attributed her separation from it to his arrogant reply,
commanding her to lay down the title of royalty, and to submit her
pretentions to his decision. But she had begun to make alterations,
though not very essential, in the church service, before the pope's
behaviour could have become known to her; and the bishops must
have been well aware of the course she designed to pursue, when
they adopted the violent and impolitic resolution of refusing to officiate
at her coronation.[156] Her council was formed of a very few catholics, of several pliant conformists with all changes, and of some known
friends to the protestant interest. But two of these, Cecil and Bacon,
were so much higher in her confidence, and so
107
incomparably superior in talents to the other counsellors, that it was
evident which way she must incline.[157] The parliament met about two months after her accession. The creed of parliament from the time of
Henry VIII. had been always that of the court; whether it were that
elections had constantly been influenced, as we know was
sometimes the case, or that men of adverse principles, yielding to the
torrent, had left the way clear to the partisans of power. This first, like
all subsequent parliaments, was to the full as favourable to
protestantism as the queen could desire: the first fruits of benefices,
and, what was far more important, the supremacy in ecclesiastical
affairs, were restored to the Crown; the laws made concerning
religion in Edward's time were re-enacted. These acts did not pass
without considerable opposition among the lords; nine temporal
peers, besides all the bishops, having protested against the bill of
uniformity establishing the Anglican liturgy, though some pains had
been taken to soften the passages most obnoxious to catholics.[158]
But the act restoring the royal supremacy met with less resistance;
whether it were that the system of Henry retained its hold over some
minds, or that it did not encroach, like the former, on the liberty of
conscience, or that men not over-scrupulous were satisfied with the
interpretation which the queen caused to be put upon the oath.
Several of the bishops had submitted to the Reformation under
Edward VI. But they had acted, in general, so conspicuous a part in
the late restoration of popery, that, even amidst so many examples of
false profession, shame restrained them from a second apostasy.
Their number happened not to exceed sixteen, one of whom was
prevailed on to conform; while the rest, refusing the oath of
supremacy, were deprived of their bishoprics by the court of
ecclesiastical high commission. In the summer of 1559, the queen
appointed a general ecclesiastical visitation, to compel the
observance of the protestant
108
formularies. It appears from their reports that only about one hundred
dignitaries, and eighty parochial priests, resigned their benefices, or
were deprived.[159] Men eminent for their zeal in the protestant cause, and most of them exiles during the persecution, occupied the vacant
sees. And thus, before the end of 1559, the English church, so long
contended for as a prize by the two religions, was lost for ever to that
of Rome.
Acts of supremacy and uniformity. —These two statutes, commonly
denominated the acts of supremacy and uniformity, form the basis of
that restrictive code of laws, deemed by some one of the fundamental
bulwarks, by others the reproach of our constitution, which pressed
so heavily for more than two centuries upon the adherents to the
Romish church. By the former all beneficed ecclesiastics, and all
laymen holding office under the Crown, were obliged to take the oath
of supremacy, renouncing the spiritual as well as temporal jurisdiction
of every foreign prince or prelate, on pain of forfeiting their office or
benefice; and it was rendered highly penal, and for the third offence
treasonable, to maintain such supremacy by writing or advised
speaking.[160] The latter statute trenched 109
more on the natural rights of conscience; prohibiting, under pain of
forfeiting goods and chattels for the first offence, of a year's
imprisonment for the second, and of imprisonment during life for the
third, the use by a minister, whether beneficed or not, of any but the
established liturgy; and imposed a fine of one shilling on all who
should absent themselves from church on Sundays and holidays.[161]
Restraint of Roman catholic worship in the first years of Elizabeth. —
This act operated as an absolute interdiction of the catholic rites,
however privately celebrated. It has frequently been asserted that the
government connived at the domestic
110
exercise of that religion during these first years of Elizabeth's reign.
This may possibly have been the case with respect to some persons
of very high rank whom it was inexpedient to irritate. But we find
instances of severity towards catholics, even in that early period; and
it is evident that their solemn rites were only performed by stealth,
and at much hazard. Thus Sir Edward Waldgrave and his lady were
sent to the Tower in 1561, for hearing mass and having a priest in
their house. Many others about the same time were punished for the
like offence.[162] Two bishops, one of whom, I regret to say, was Grindal, write to the council in 1562, concerning a priest apprehended
in a lady's house, that neither he nor the servants would be sworn to
answer to articles, saying they would not accuse themselves; and,
after a wise remark on this, that "papistry is like to end in
anabaptistry," proceed to hint, that "some think that if this priest might
be put to some kind of torment, and so driven to confess what he
knoweth, he might gain the queen's majesty a good mass of money
by the masses that he hath said; but this we refer to your lordship's
wisdom."[163] This commencement of persecution induced many catholics to fly beyond sea, and gave rise to those reunions of
disaffected exiles, which never ceased to endanger the throne of
Elizabeth.
It cannot, as far as appears, be truly alleged that any greater
provocation had as yet been given by the catholics, than that of
pertinaciously continuing to believe and worship as their fathers had
done before them. I request those who may hesitate about this, to
pay some attention to the order of time, before they form their
opinions. The master mover, that became afterwards so busy, had
not yet put his wires into action. Every prudent man at Rome (and we
shall not at least deny that there were such) condemned the
precipitate and insolent behaviour of Paul IV. towards Elizabeth, as
they did most other parts of his administration. Pius IV., the
successor of that injudicious old man, aware of the inestimable
importance of reconciliation, and suspecting probably that the
queen's turn of thinking did not exclude all hope of it, despatched a
nuncio to England, with an invitation to send ambassadors to the
council at Trent, and with powers, as is said, to confirm the English
liturgy, and to permit double communion; one of the
111
few concessions which the more indulgent Romanists of that age
were not very reluctant to make.[164] But Elizabeth had taken her line as to the court of Rome; the nuncio received a message at Brussels,
that he must not enter the kingdom; and she was too wise to
countenance the impartial fathers of Trent, whose labours had nearly
drawn to a close, and whose decisions on the controverted points it
had never been very difficult to foretell. I have not found that Pius IV.,
more moderate than most other pontiffs of the sixteenth century, took
any measures hostile to the temporal government of this realm; but
the deprived ecclesiastics were not unfairly anxious to keep alive the
faith of their former hearers, and to prevent them from sliding into
conformity, through indifference and disuse of their ancient rites.[165]
The means taken were chiefly the same as had been adopted against
themselves, the dispersion of small papers either in a serious or lively
strain; but, the remarkable position in which the queen was placed
rendering her death a most important contingency, the popish party
made use of pretended conjurations and prophecies of that event, in
order to unsettle the people's minds, and dispose them to anticipate
another re-action.[166] Partly through these political circumstances, but far more from the hard usage they experienced for professing their
religion, there seems to have been an increasing restlessness among
the catholics about 1562, which was met with new rigour by the
parliament of that year.[167]
112
Statute of 1562. —The act entitled, "for the assurance of the queen's
royal power over all estates and subjects within her dominions,"
enacts, with an iniquitous and sanguinary retrospect, that all persons,
who had ever taken holy orders or any degree in the universities, or
had been admitted to the practice of the laws, or held any office in
their execution, should be bound to take the oath of supremacy, when
tendered to them by a bishop, or by commissioners appointed under
the great seal. The penalty for the first refusal of this oath was that of
a præmunire; but any person, who after the space of three months
from the first tender should again refuse it when in like manner
tendered, incurred the pains of high treason. The oath of supremacy
was imposed by this statute on every member of the House of
Commons, but could not be tendered to a peer; the queen declaring
her full confidence in those hereditary counsellors. Several peers of
great weight and dignity were still catholics.[168]
Speech of Lord Montague against it. —This harsh statute did not pass
without opposition. Two speeches against it have been preserved;
one by Lord Montagu in the House of Lords, the other by Mr.
Atkinson in the Commons, breathing such generous abhorrence of
persecution as some erroneously imagine to have been unknown to
that age, because we rarely meet with it in theological writings. "This
law," said Lord Montagu, "is not necessary; forasmuch as the
catholics of this realm disturb not, nor hinder the public affairs of the
realms, neither spiritual nor temporal. They dispute not, they preach
not, they disobey not the queen; they cause no trouble nor tumults
among the people; so that no man can say that thereby the realm
doth receive any hurt or damage by them. They have brought into the
realm no novelties in doctrine and religion. This being true and
evident, as it is indeed, there is no necessity why any new law should
be made against them. And where there is no sore nor grief,
medicines are superfluous, and also hurtful and dangerous. I do
entreat," he says afterwards, "whether it be just to make this penal
statute to force the subjects of this realm to receive and believe the
religion of protestants on pain of death. This I say to be a thing most
unjust; for that it is repugnant to the natural liberty of men's
understanding. For understanding may be persuaded, but not
forced." And further on: "It is an easy thing to understand that a thing
so unjust, and so contrary to all reason and
113
liberty of man, cannot be put in execution but with great incommodity
and difficulty. For what man is there so without courage and stomach,
or void of all honour, that can consent or agree to receive an opinion
and new religion by force and compulsion; or will swear that he
thinketh the contrary to what he thinketh? To be still, or dissemble,
may be borne and suffered for a time—to keep his reckoning with
God alone; but to be compelled to lie and to swear, or else to die
therefore, are things that no man ought to suffer and endure. And it is
to be feared rather than to die they will seek how to defend
themselves; whereby should ensue the contrary of what every good
prince and well advised commonwealth ought to seek and pretend,
that is, to keep their kingdom and government in peace."[169]
Statute of 1562 not fully enforced. —I am never very willing to admit
as an apology for unjust or cruel enactments, that they are not
designed to be generally executed; a pretext often insidious, always
insecure, and tending to mask the approaches of arbitrary
government. But it is certain that Elizabeth did not wish this act to be
enforced in its full severity. And Archbishop Parker, by far the most
prudent churchman of the time, judging some of the bishops too little
moderate in their dealings with the papists, warned them privately to
use great caution in tendering the oath of supremacy according to the
act, and never to do so the second time, on which the penalty of
treason might attach, without his previous approbation.[170] The temper of some of his colleagues was more narrow and vindictive.
Several of the deprived prelates had been detained in a sort of
honourable custody in the palaces of their successors.[171] Bonner, the most justly obnoxious of them all, was confined in the
114
Marshalsea. Upon the occasion of this new statute, Horn, Bishop of
Winchester, indignant at the impunity of such a man, proceeded to
tender him the oath of supremacy, with an evident intention of driving
him to high treason. Bonner, however, instead of evading this attack,
intrepidly denied the other to be a lawful bishop; and, strange as it
may seem, not only escaped all farther molestation, but had the
pleasure of seeing his adversaries reduced to pass an act of
parliament, declaring the present bishops to have been legally
consecrated.[172] This statute, and especially its preamble, might lead a hasty reader to suspect that the celebrated story of an irregular
consecration of the first protestant bishops at the Nag's-head tavern
was not wholly undeserving of credit. That tale, however, has been
satisfactorily refuted: the only irregularity which gave rise to this
statute consisted in the use of an ordinal, which had not been legally
re-established.[173]
Application of the emperor in behalf of the English catholics. —It was
not long after the act imposing such heavy penalties on catholic
priests for refusing the oath of supremacy, that the Emperor
Ferdinand addressed two letters to Elizabeth, interceding for the
adherents to that religion, both with respect to those new severities to
which they might become liable by conscientiously declining that
oath, and to the prohibition of the free exercise of their rites. He
suggested that it might be reasonable to allow them the use of one
church in every city. And he concluded with an expression, which
might possibly be designed to intimate that his own conduct towards
the protestants in his dominions would be influenced by her
concurrence in his request.[174] Such considerations were not without great importance. The protestant religion was gaining ground in
Austria, where a large proportion of the nobility as well as citizens
had for some years earnestly claimed its public toleration. Ferdinand,
prudent and averse from bigoted counsels,
115
and for every reason solicitous to heal the wounds which religious
differences had made in the empire, while he was endeavouring, not
absolutely without hope of success, to obtain some concessions from
the pope, had shown a disposition to grant further indulgences to his
protestant subjects. His son, Maximilian, not only through his
moderate temper, but some real inclination towards the new
doctrines, bade fair to carry much farther the liberal policy of the
reigning emperor.[175] It was consulting very little the general interests of protestantism, to disgust persons so capable and so well disposed
to befriend it. But our queen, although free from the fanatical spirit of
persecution which actuated part of her subjects, was too deeply
imbued with arbitrary principles to endure any public deviation from
the mode of worship she should prescribe. And it must perhaps be
admitted that experience alone could fully demonstrate the safety of
toleration, and show the fallacy of apprehensions that unprejudiced
men might have entertained. In her answer to Ferdinand, the queen
declares that she cannot grant churches to those who disagree from
her religion, being against the laws of her parliament, and highly
dangerous to the state of her kingdom; as it would sow various
opinions in the nation to distract the minds of honest men, and would
cherish parties and factions that might disturb the present tranquillity
of the commonwealth. Yet enough had already occurred in France to
lead observing men to suspect that severities and restrictions are by
no means an infallible specific to prevent or subdue religious factions.
Camden and many others have asserted that by systematic
connivance the Roman catholics enjoyed a pretty free use of their
religion for the first fourteen years of Elizabeth's reign. But this is not
reconcilable to many passages in Strype's collections. We find
abundance of persons harassed for recusancy, that is, for not
attending the protestant church, and driven to insincere promises of
conformity. Others were dragged before ecclesiastical commissions
for harbouring priests, or for sending money to those who had fled
beyond sea.[176] Students of the inns of court, where popery had a strong hold at this time, were examined in the star-chamber as to
their religion, and on not giving satisfactory answers were committed
116
to the Fleet.[177] The catholic party were not always scrupulous about the usual artifices of an oppressed people, meeting force by fraud,
and concealing their heartfelt wishes under the mask of ready
submission, or even of zealous attachment. A great majority both of
clergy and laity yielded to the times; and of these temporising
conformists it cannot be doubted that many lost by degrees all
thought of returning to their ancient fold. But others, while they
complied with exterior ceremonies, retained in their private devotions
their accustomed mode of worship. It is an admitted fact, that the
catholics generally attended the church, till it came to be reckoned a
distinctive sign of their having renounced their own religion. They
persuaded themselves (and the English priests, uninstructed and
accustomed to a temporising conduct, did not discourage the notion)
that the private observance of their own rites would excuse a formal
obedience to the civil power.[178] The Romish scheme of worship, though it attaches more importance to ceremonial rites, has one
remarkable difference from the protestant, that it is far less social;
and consequently the prevention of its open exercise has far less
tendency to weaken men's religious associations, so long as their
individual intercourse with a priest, its essential requisite, can be
preserved. Priests therefore travelled the country in various
disguises, to keep alive a flame which the practice of outward
conformity was calculated to extinguish. There was not a county
throughout
117
England, says a catholic historian, where several of Mary's clergy did
not reside, and were commonly called the old priests. They served as
chaplains in private families.[179] By stealth, at the dead of night, in private chambers, in the secret lurking-places of an ill-peopled
country, with all the mystery that subdues the imagination, with all the
mutual trust that invigorates constancy, these proscribed
ecclesiastics celebrated their solemn rites, more impressive in such
concealment than if surrounded by all their former splendour. The
strong predilection indeed of mankind for mystery, which has
probably led many to tamper in political conspiracies without much
further motive, will suffice to preserve secret associations, even
where their purposes are far less interesting than those of religion.
Many of these itinerant priests assumed the character of protestant
preachers; and it has been said, with some truth, though not probably
without exaggeration, that, under the directions of their crafty court,
they fomented the division then springing up, and mingled with the
anabaptists and other sectaries, in the hope both of exciting dislike to
the establishment, and of instilling their own tenets, slightly disguised,