rulers of the church. ii. 390, 406.
Burnet; Strype's Annals, 169. Pensions were reserved for those who
quitted their benefices on account of religion. Burnet, ii. 398. This was a
very liberal measure, and at the same time a politic check on their conduct.
Lingard thinks the number must have been much greater; but the visitors'
reports seem the best authority. It is however highly probable that others
resigned their preferments afterwards, when the casuistry of their church
grew more scrupulous. It may be added, that the visitors restored the
married clergy who had been dispossessed in the preceding reign; which
would of course considerably augment the number of sufferers for popery.
1 Eliz. c. i. The oath of supremacy was expressed as follows: "I, A. B., do
utterly testify and declare, that the queen's highness is the only supreme
governor of this realm, and all other her highness's dominions and
countries, as well in all spiritual and 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, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and
true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs and lawful successors,
and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences,
privileges, and authorities, granted or belonging to the queen's highness,
her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial crown of
this realm."
A remarkable passage in the injunctions to the ecclesiastical visitors of
1559, which may be reckoned in the nature of a contemporaneous
exposition of the law, restrains the royal supremacy established by this act,
and asserted in the above oath, in the following words: "Her majesty
forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse
and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to
notify to her loving subjects, how by words of the said oath it may be
collected, that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown,
may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine service in the
church; wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed
persons. For certainly her majesty neither doth, nor ever will, challenge
any other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the said
noble kings of famous memory, King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI.,
which is, and was of ancient time, due to the imperial crown of this realm;
that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of
persons born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what
estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other
foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them. And if any
person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said oath
shall accept the same with this interpretation, 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
take the same oath." 1 Somers Tracts, edit. Scott, 73.
This interpretation was afterwards given in one of the thirty-nine articles,
which having been confirmed by parliament, it is undoubtedly to be
reckoned the true sense of the oath. Mr. Butler, in his Memoirs of English
Catholics, vol. i. p. 157, enters into a discussion of the question, whether
Roman catholics might conscientiously take the oath of supremacy in this
sense. It appears that in the seventeenth century some contended for the
affirmative; and this seems to explain the fact, that several persons of that
persuasion, besides peers from whom the oath was not exacted, did
actually hold offices under the Stuarts, and even enter into parliament, and
that the test act and declaration against transubstantiation were thus
rendered necessary to make their exclusion certain. Mr. B. decides against
taking the oath, but on grounds by no means sufficient; and oddly
overlooks the decisive objection, that it denies in toto the jurisdiction and
ecclesiastical authority of the pope. No writer, as far as my slender
knowledge extends, of the Gallican or German school of discipline, has
gone to this length; certainly not Mr. Butler himself, who in a modern
publication ( Book of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 120), seems to
consider even the appellant jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes as vested
in the holy see by divine right.
As to the exposition before given of the oath of supremacy, I conceive that
it was intended not only to relieve the scruples of catholics, but of those
who had imbibed from the school of Calvin an apprehension of what is
sometimes, though rather improperly, called Erastianism—the merging of
all spiritual powers, even those of ordination and of preaching, in the
paramount authority of the state, towards which the despotism of Henry,
and obsequiousness of Cranmer, had seemed to bring the church of
England.
1 Eliz. c. 2.
Strype's Annals, i. 233, 241.
Haynes, 395. The penalty for causing mass to be said, by the Act of
Uniformity, was only 100 marks for the first offence. These imprisonments
were probably in many cases illegal, and only sustained by the arbitrary
power of the high commission court.
Strype, 220.
Questions of conscience were circulated, with answers, all tending to show
the unlawfulness of conformity. Strype, 228. There was nothing more in
this than the catholic clergy were bound in consistency with their principles
to do, though it seemed very atrocious to bigots. Mr. Butler says, that some
theologians at Trent were consulted as to the lawfulness of occasional
conformity to the Anglican rites, who pronounced against it. Mem. of
Catholics, i. 171.
The trick of conjuration about the queen's death began very early in her
reign (Strype, i. 7), and led to a penal statute against "fond and fantastical
prophecies." 5 Eliz. c. 15.
I know not how to charge the catholics with the conspiracy of the two
Poles, nephews of the cardinal, and some others, to obtain five thousand
troops from the Duke of Guise, and proclaim Mary queen. This seems,
however, to have been the immediate provocation for the statute 5 Eliz.;
and it may be thought to indicate a good deal of discontent in that party
upon which the conspirators relied. But as Elizabeth spared the lives of all
who were arraigned, and we know no details of the case, it may be
doubted whether their intentions were altogether so criminal as was
charged. Strype, i. 333; Camden, 388 (in Kennet).
Strype tells us (i. 374) of resolutions adopted against the queen in a
consistory held by Pius IV. in 1563; one of these is a pardon to any cook,
brewer, vintner, or other, that would poison her. But this is so unlikely, and
so little in that pope's character, that it makes us suspect the rest, as false
information of a spy.
5 Eliz. c. 1.
Strype, Collier, Parliamentary History. The original source is the
manuscript collections of Fox the martyrologist, a very unsuspicious
authority; so that there seems every reason to consider this speech, as
well as Mr. Atkinson's, authentic. The following is a specimen of the sort of
answer given to these arguments: "They say it touches conscience, and it
is a thing wherein a man ought to have a scruple; but if any hath a
conscience in it, these four years' space might have settled it. Also, after
his first refusal, he hath three months' respite for conference and settling of
his conscience." Strype, 270.
Strype's Life of Parker, 125.
Strype's Annals, 149. Tunstall was treated in a very handsome manner by
Parker, whose guest he was. But Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, met
with rather unkind usage, though he had been active in saving the lives of
protestants under Mary, from Bishops Horn and Cox (the latter of whom
seems to have been an honest, but narrow-spirited and peevish man), and
at last was sent to Wisbeach gaol for refusing the oath of supremacy.
Strype, i. 457, ii. 526; Fuller's Church History, 178.
8 Eliz. c. 1. Eleven peers dissented, all noted catholics, except the Earl of
Sussex. Strype, i. 492.
Even Dr. Lingard admits that Parker was consecrated at Lambeth, on
December 19, 1559; but conjectures that there may have been some
previous meeting at the Nag's Head, which gave rise to the story. This
means that any absurdity may be presumed, rather than acknowledge
good catholics to have propagated a lie.
Nobis vero factura est rem adeo gratam, ut omnem simus daturi operam,
quo possimus eam rem serenitati vestræ mutuis benevolentiæ et fraterni
animi studiis cumulatissimè compensare. See the letter in the additions to
the first volume of Strype's Annals, prefixed to the second, p. 67. It has
been erroneously referred by Camden, whom many have followed, to the
year 1559, but bears date 24th September 1563.
For the dispositions of Ferdinand and Maximilian towards religious
toleration in Austria, which indeed for a time existed, see F. Paul, Concile
de Trente (par Courayer), ii. 72, 197, 220, etc.; Schmidt, Hist. des
Allemands, viii. 120, 179, etc.; Flechier, Vie de Commendom, 388; or
Coxe's House of Austria.
Strype, 513, et alibi.
Strype, 522. He says the lawyers in most eminent places were generally
favourers of popery. P. 269. But, if he means the judges, they did not long
continue so.
Cum regina Maria moreretur, et religio in Angliâ mutaret, post episcopos et
prælatos catholicos captos et fugatos, populus velut ovium grex sine
pastore in magnis tenebris et caligine animarum suarum oberravit. Unde
etiam factum est multi ut catholicorum superstitionibus impiis
dissimulationibus et gravibus juramentis contra sanctæ sedis apostolicæ
auctoritatem, cum admodum parvo aut plane nullo conscientiarum suarum
scrupulo assuescerent. Frequentabant ergo hæreticorum synagogas,
intererant eorum concionibus, atque ad easdem etiam audiendas filios et
familiam suam compellabant. Videbatur illis ut catholici essent, sufficere
una cum hæreticis eorum templa non adire, ferri autem posse si ante vel
post illos eadem intrassent. Communicabatur de sacrilegâ Calvini cœnâ,
vel secreto et clanculum intra privatos parietes. Missam qui audiverant, ac
postea Calvinianos se haberi volebant, sic se de præcepto satisfecisse
existimabant. Deferebantur filii catholicorum ad baptisteria hæreticorum, ac
inter illorum manus matrimonia contrahebant. Atque hæc omnia sine omni
scrupulo fiebant, facta propter catholicorum sacerdotum ignorantiam, qui
talia vel licere credebant, vel timore quodam præpediti dissimulabant.
Nunc autem per Dei misericordiam omnes catholici intelligunt, ut salventur
non satis esse corde fidem catholicam credere, sed eandem etiam ore
oportere confiteri. Ribadeneira de Schismate, p. 53. See also Butler's
English Catholics, vol. iii. p. 156.
Dodd's Church His. vol. ii. p. 8.
Thomas Heath, brother to the late Archbishop of York, was seized at
Rochester about 1570, well provided with anabaptist and Arian tracts for
circulation. Strype, i. 521. For other instances, see p. 281, 484; Life of
Parker, 244; Nalson's Collections, vol. i.; Introduction, p. 39, etc., from a
pamphlet written also by Nalson, entitled, Foxes and Firebrands. It was
surmised that one Henry Nicolas, chief of a set of fanatics, called the
Family of Love, of whom we read a great deal in this reign, and who
sprouted up again about the time of Cromwell, was secretly employed by
the popish party. Strype, ii. 37, 589, 595. But these conjectures were very
often ill-founded, and possibly so in this instance, though the passages
quoted by Strype (589) are suspicious. Brandt however ( Hist. of
Reformation in Low Countries, vol. i. p. 105) does not suspect Nicolas of
being other than a fanatic. His sect appeared in the Netherlands about
1555.
"That church [of England] and the queen, its re-founder, are clear of
persecution, as regards the catholics. No church, no sect, no individual
even, had yet professed the principle of toleration." Southey's Book of the
Church, vol. ii. p. 285. If the second of these sentences is intended as a
proof of the first, I must say, it is little to the purpose. But it is not true in
this broad way of assertion. Nor to mention Sir Thomas More's Utopia, the
principle of toleration had been avowed by the Chancellor l'Hospital, and
many others in France. I mention him as on the stronger side; for in fact
the weaker had always professed the general principle, and could demand
toleration from those of different sentiments on no other plea. And as to
capital inflictions for heresy, which Mr. S. seems chiefly to have in his
mind, there is reason to believe that many protestants never approved
them. Sleidan intimates (vol. iii. p. 263) that Calvin incurred odium by the
death of Servetus. And Melancthon says expressly the same thing, in the
letter which he unfortunately wrote to the reformer of Geneva, declaring his
own approbation of the crime; and which I am willing to ascribe rather to
his constitutional fear of giving offence than to sincere conviction.
The address of the House of Commons, begging the queen to marry, was
on February 6, 1559.
Haynes, 233.
See particularly two letters in the Hardwicke State Papers, i. 122 and 163,
dated in October and November 1560, which show the alarm excited by
the queen's ill-placed partiality.
Cecil's earnestness for the Austrian marriage appears plainly (Haynes,
430), and still more in a remarkable minute, where he has drawn up, in
parallel columns, according to a rather formal, but perspicuous, method he
much used, his reasons in favour of the archduke, and against the Earl of
Leicester. The former chiefly relate to foreign politics, and may be
conjectured by those acquainted with history. The latter are as follows: 1.
Nothing is increased by marriage of him, either in riches, estimation, or
power. 2. It will be thought that the slanderous speeches of the queen with
the earl have been true. 3. He shall study nothing but to enhance his own
particular friends to wealth, to offices, to lands, and to offend others. 4. He
is infamed by death of his wife. 5. He is far in debt. 6. He is likely to be
unkind, and jealous of the queen's majesty. Id. 444. These suggestions,
and especially the second, if actually laid before the queen, show the
plainness and freedom which this great statesman ventured to use towards
her. The allusion to the death of Leicester's wife, which had occurred in a
very suspicious manner, at Cumnor, near Oxford, and is well known as the
foundation of the novel of Kenilworth, though related there with great
anachronism and confusion of persons, may be frequently met with in
contemporary documents. By the above quoted letters in the Hardwicke
Papers, it appears that those who disliked Leicester had spoken freely of
this report to the queen.
Elizabeth carried her dissimulation so far as to propose marriage articles,
which were formally laid before the imperial ambassador. These, though
copied from what had been agreed on Mary's marriage with Philip, now
seemed highly ridiculous, when exacted from a younger brother without
territories or revenues. Jura et leges regni conserventur, neque quicquam
mutetur in religione aut in statu publico. Officia et magistratus exerceantur
per naturales. Neque regina, neque liberi sui educantur ex regno sine
consensu regni, etc. Haynes, 438.
Cecil was not too wise a man to give some credit to astrology. The stars
were consulted about the queen's marriage; and those veracious oracles
gave response, that she should be married in the thirty-first year of her age
to a foreigner, and have one son, who would be a great prince, and a
daughter, etc., etc. Strype, ii. 16, and Appendix 4, where the nonsense
may be read at full length. Perhaps, however, the wily minister was no
dupe, but meant that his mistress should be.
The council appear in general to have been as resolute against tolerating
the exercise of the catholic religion in any husband the queen might
choose, as herself. We find, however, that several divines were consulted
on two questions: 1. Whether it were lawful to marry a papist. 2. Whether
the queen might permit mass to be said. To which answers were given, not
agreeing with each other. Strype, ii. 150, and Appendix 31, 33. When the
Earl of Worcester was sent over to Paris in 1571, as proxy for the queen,
who had been made sponsor for Charles IX.'s infant daughter, she would
not permit him, though himself a catholic, to be present at the mass on that
occasion. ii. 171.
"The people," Camden says, "cursed Huic, the queen's physician, as
having dissuaded the queen from marrying on account of some
impediment and defect in her." Many will recollect the allusion to this in
Mary's scandalous letter to Elizabeth, wherein, under pretence of repeating
what the Countess of Shrewsbury had said, she utters everything that
female spite and mistrust could dictate. But in the long and confidential
correspondence of Cecil, Walsingham, and Sir Thomas Smith, about the
queen's marriage with the Duke of Anjou, in 1571, for which they were
evidently most anxious, I do not perceive the slightest intimation that the
prospect of her bearing children was at all less favourable than in any
other case. The council seem, indeed, in the subsequent treaty with the
other Duke of Anjou, in 1579, when she was forty-six, to have reckoned on
something rather beyond the usual laws of nature in this respect; for in a
minute by Cecil of the reasons for and against this marriage, he sets down
the probability of issue on the favourable side. "By marriage with Monsieur
she is likely to have children, because of his youth;" as if her age were no
objection.
Camden, after telling us that the queen's disinclination to marry raised
great clamours, and that the Earls of Pembroke and Leicester had
professed their opinion that she ought to be obliged to take a husband, or
that a successor should be declared by act of parliament even against her
will, asserts some time after, as inconsistently as improperly, that "very few
but malcontents and traitors appeared very solicitous in the business of a
successor."—P. 401 (in Kennet's Complete Hist. of England, vol. ii.). This,
however, from Camden's known proneness to flatter James, seems to
indicate that the Suffolk party were more active than the Scots upon this
occasion. Their strength lay in the House of Commons, which was wholly
protestant, and rather puritan.
At the end of Murden's State Papers is a short journal kept by Cecil,
containing a succinct and authentic summary of events in Elizabeth's reign.
I extract as a specimen such passages as bear on the present subject.
October 6, 1566. Certain lewd bills thrown abroad against the queen's
majesty for not assenting to have the matter of succession proved in
parliament; and bills also to charge Sir W. Cecil, the secretary, with the
occasion thereof.
27. Certain lords, viz., the Earls of Pembroke and Leicester, were excluded
the presence-chamber for furthering the proposition of the succession to
be declared by parliament without the queen's allowance.
November 12. Messrs. Bell and Monson moved trouble in the parliament
about the succession.
14. The queen had before her thirty lords and thirty commoners, to receive
her answer concerning their petition for the succession and for marriage.
Dalton was blamed for speaking in the Commons' house.
24. Command given to the parliament not to treat of the succession.
Nota: in this parliament time the queen's majesty did remit a part of the
offer of a subsidy to the Commons, who offered largely, to the end to have
had the succession established. P. 762.