Chapter IV: , VII (3)

ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
Accession of Queen Mary.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
The doubtful conflict of religions.

"Great as was the number of those whom conviction or self
interest enlisted under the Protestant banner, it appears
plain that the Reformation moved on with too precipitate a
step for the majority. The new doctrines prevailed in London,
in many large towns, and in the eastern counties. But in the
north and west of England, the body of the people were
strictly Catholics. The clergy, though not very scrupulous
about conforming to the innovations, were generally averse to
most of them. And, in spite of the church lands, I imagine
that most of the nobility, if not the gentry, inclined to the
same persuasion. … An historian, whose bias was certainly
not unfavourable to Protestantism [Burnet, iii. 190, 196]
confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the
aversion of the people towards reformation, and even intimates
that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the
bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old
superstition. This is somewhat an humiliating admission, that
the protestant faith was imposed upon our ancestors by a
foreign army. … It is certain that the re-establishment of
popery on Mary's accession must have been acceptable to a
large part, or perhaps to the majority, of the nation."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._

"Eight weeks and upwards passed between the proclaiming of
Mary queen and the Parliament by her assembled; during which
time two religions were together set on foot, Protestantism
and Popery; the former hoping to be continued, the latter
labouring to be restored. … No small justling was there
betwixt the zealous promoters of these contrary religions. The
Protestants had possession on their side, and the protection
of the laws lately made by King Edward, and still standing in
free and full force unrepealed. … The Papists put their
ceremonies in execution, presuming on the queen's private
practice and public countenance. … Many which were neuters
before, conceiving to which side the queen inclined, would not
expect, but prevent her authority in alteration: so that
superstition generally got ground in the kingdom. Thus it is
in the evening twilight, wherein light and darkness at first
may seem very equally matched, but the latter within little
time doth solely prevail."

_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 8, section 1, ¶ 5._

ALSO IN:
J. II. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England,
volume 1; chapters 8-9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.
Wyat's Insurrection.

Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain was opposed with
great bitterness of popular feeling, especially in London and
its neighborhood. Risings were undertaken in Kent, Devonshire,
and the Midland counties, intended for the frustration of the
marriage scheme; but they were ill-planned and soon
suppressed. That in Kent, led by Sir Thomas Wyat, threatened
to be formidable at first, and the Queen's troops retreated
before it. Wyat, however, lost his opportunity for securing
London, by delays, and his followers dispersed. He was taken
prisoner and executed. "Four hundred persons are said to have
suffered for this rebellion."

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 36._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
The restoration of Romanism.
The persecution of Protestants by Queen Mary.

"An attempt was made, by authority of King Edward's will, to
set aside both his sisters from the succession, and raise Lady
Jane Grey to the throne, who had lately been married to one of
Northumberland's sons. This was Northumberland's doing; he was
actuated by ambition, and the other members of the government
assented to it, believing, like the late young King, that it
was necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith.
Cranmer opposed the measure, but yielded. … But the
principles of succession were in fact well ascertained at that
time, and, what was of more consequence, they were established
in public opinion. Nor could the intended change be supported
on the ground of religion, for popular feeling was decidedly
against the Reformation. Queen Mary obtained possession of her
rightful throne without the loss of a single life, so
completely did the nation acknowledge her claim; and an after
insurrection, rashly planned and worse conducted, served only
to hasten the destruction of the Lady Jane and her husband.
… If any person may be excused for hating the Reformation,
it was Mary. She regarded it as having arisen in this country
from her mother's wrongs, and enabled the King to complete an
iniquitous and cruel divorce. It had exposed her to
inconvenience, and even danger, under her father's reign, to
vexation and restraint under her brother; and, after having
been bastardized in consequence of it, … an attempt had been
made to deprive her of the inheritance, because she continued
to profess the Roman Catholic faith. … Had the religion of
the country been settled, she might have proved a good and
beneficent, as well as conscientious, queen. But she delivered
her conscience to the direction of cruel men; and, believing
it her duty to act up to the worst principles of a persecuting
Church, boasted that she was a virgin sent by God to ride and
tame the people of England. … The people did not wait till
the laws of King Edward were repealed; the Romish doctrines
were preached, and in some places the Romish clergy took
possession of the churches, turned out the incumbents, and
performed mass in jubilant anticipation of their approaching
triumph. What course the new Queen would pursue had never been
doubtful; and as one of her first acts had been to make
Gardiner Chancellor, it was evident that a fiery persecution
was at hand. Many who were obnoxious withdrew in time, some
into Scotland, and more into Switzerland and the Protestant
parts of Germany. Cranmer advised others to fly; but when his
friends entreated him to preserve himself by the like
precaution, he replied, that it was not fitting for him to
desert his post. … The Protestant Bishops were soon
dispossessed of their sees; the marriages which the Clergy and
Religioners had contracted were declared unlawful, and their
children bastardized.
{835}
The heads of the reformed Clergy, having been brought forth to
hold disputations, for the purpose rather of intimidating than
of convincing them, had been committed to different prisons,
and after these preparatories the fiery process began."

_R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 14._

"The total number of those who suffered in this persecution,
from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September,
1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related,
in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the
relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from
each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general
accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are
estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284.
Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is
probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called
'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of
those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine
and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive
amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years,
it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in
its earliest year."

_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 11._

"Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and
baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious,
although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never
listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was
danger that they would be struck in return. … They took the
weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the
husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and
boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that
which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into
the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the
articles of their creed; and of these they made their
burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and
when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to
rot."

_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 24._

Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary
disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from
Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the
Spanish court so steadily favoured. … Many are said to have
become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the
throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 5._

_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 7, chapter 2-3._

_J. Fox,
Book of Martyrs._

_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata,
volume 2._

_J. Strype,
Memorials of Cranmer,
book 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
Loss of Calais.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558.
Accession of Queen Elizabeth.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
The Age of Elizabeth:
Recovery of Protestantism.

"The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
religion. … Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
published injunctions that all churches should conform
themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
prevailed on to perform the ceremony. … Elizabeth, though
she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
particular which she could desire of them. … The first bill
brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
been exercised by her father and brother. … By this act, the
crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. … A law
was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
chapters. … A solemn and public disputation was held during
this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
{836}
Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
objections."

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 38, pages 375-380 (volume 3)._

"Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a
Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations
would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann
Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to
regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of
Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon,
however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own
despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful
reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or
excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to
choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance
between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently
judged as it is approached from the religious or the political
side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise
come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to
manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming
the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to
the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and
often finding their way to her scaffolds,—what are they but
the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a
proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is
excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to
keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church,
whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to
weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to
make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The
next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic,
and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and
European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the
traitorous subtlety was all Catholic—the keenness of
discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then,
too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself
broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was
still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was
to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom
which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the
instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of
the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to
die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were
peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon
the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all
his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores.
'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did
much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone
to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to
hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more
of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."

_C. Beard,
Hibbert Lectures, 1883: The Reformation,
lecture 9._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
The Age of Elizabeth:
The Queen's chief councillors.

"Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already
officially experienced during three reigns, though still
young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last—that
is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in
that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the
Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began
their work together. He was not long in discovering that there
was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever
brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of
unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two
arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were
pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also
the good sense to select the wisest and most learned
ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and
chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both
of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been
Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary—a position far
from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of
men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which
exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the
persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with
a sublime impartiality. … It was under the advice of Cecil
and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her
famous settlement or Establishment of religion."

_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Parliament.

"The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
power, … there was still a considerable party, sometimes
carrying the house along with them, who with patient
resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
remain.
{837}
The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
in the other."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Literature.

"The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any
other in our history by a number of great men, famous in
different ways, and whose names have come down to us with
unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars,
poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker,
and—high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in
our mouths—Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson,
Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her
long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts,
were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human
nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same
general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark
of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great
Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never
shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than
at this period. Our writers and great men had something in
them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were
not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or
Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of
themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth
and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel,
and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of
affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent
race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with
none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy.
… For such an extraordinary combination and development of
fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek
for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the
circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in
local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned
that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages
placed within their reach. … The first cause I shall
mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the
Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave
a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
throughout Europe. … The translation of the Bible was the
chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret
spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had
been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions
of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers
(such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave
them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt
within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by
giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. … The
immediate use or application that was made of religion to
subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious
ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was
made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about
the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek
and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain
and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown
open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. …
What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this
period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of
voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to
arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery
waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the
dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown
worlds. … Again, the heroic and martial spirit which
breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable
activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was
not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished
forever. … Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a
unity and common direction to all these causes, was the
natural genius of the country, which was strong in these
writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of
islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we
would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to
ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we
have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from
others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets
and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads
and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world,
and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a
battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and
it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it.
Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and
character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of
it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion,
with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think,
and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in
masses. … We may be accused of grossness, but not of
flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want
of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature.
Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal
and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one
uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of
incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of
beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good
indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies
in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which
is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for
French rules and French models."

_W. Hazlitt,
Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
lecture 1._

{838}

"Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had
already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical
erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought.
Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and
translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and
assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means
much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and
dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of
contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of
Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were
introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The
age favoured translation, and English readers before the close
of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan
library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of
ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances
sufficiently account for the richness and variety of
Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points
which must strike every student of that literature—its native
freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan
literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance
of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness
under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its
energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of
the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance.
They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting,
transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating
the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey
and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open
to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the
past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic
revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the
blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to
be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."

_J. A. Symonds,
A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
(Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
High Commission.

"When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559,
Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the
clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded
to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass,
and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities
signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the
constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as
Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the
steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and
Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except
the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a
consultation was ordered between the representatives of both
sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had
been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the
realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist
champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it
took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed
the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her
own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme
Governor,' of the Church of England."

_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17._

This first Parliament of Elizabeth passed two memorable acts
of great importance in English history,—the Act of Supremacy
and the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer. "The former is
entitled 'An act for restoring to the crown the ancient
jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; and
for abolishing foreign power.' It is the same for substance
with the 25th of Henry VIII. … but the commons incorporated
several other bills into it; for besides the title of 'Supreme
Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal,' which is
restored to the Queen, the act revives those laws of King
Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. which had been repealed in the
late reign. It forbids all appeals to Rome, and exonerates the
subjects from all exactions and impositions heretofore paid to
that court; and as it revives King Edward's laws, it repeals a
severe act made in the late reign for punishing heresy. …
'Moreover, all persons in any public employs, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, are obliged to take an oath in recognition of
the Queen's right to the crown, and of her supremacy in all
causes ecclesiastical and civil, on penalty of forfeiting all
their promotions in the church, and of being declared
incapable of holding any public office.' … Further, 'The act
forbids all writing, printing, teaching, or preaching, and all
other deeds or acts whereby any foreign jurisdiction over
these realms is defended, upon pain that they and their
abettors, being thereof convicted, shall for the first offence
forfeit their goods and chattels; … spiritual persons shall
lose their benefices, and all ecclesiastical preferments; for
the second offence they shall incur the penalties of a
præmunire; and the third offence shall be deemed high
treason.' There is a remarkable clause in this act, which gave
rise to a new court, called 'The Court of High Commission.'
The words are these, 'The Queen and her successors shall have
power, by their letters patent under the great seal, to
assign, name, and authorize, as often as they shall think
meet, and for as long a time as they shall please, persons
being natural-born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise,
under her and them, all manner of jurisdiction, privileges,
and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical
jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, &c., to
visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all errors,
heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences and enormities
whatsoever. Provided, that they have no power to determine
anything to be heresy, but what has been adjudged to be so by
the authority of the canonical scripture, or by the first four
general councils, or any of them; or by any other general
council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express
and plain words of canonical scripture; or such as shall
hereafter be declared to be heresy by the high court of
parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation.'
Upon the authority of this clause the Queen appointed a
certain number of 'Commissioners' for ecclesiastical causes,
who exercised the same power that had been lodged in the hands
of one vicegerent in the reign of King Henry VIII. And how
sadly they abused their power in this and the two next reigns
will appear in the sequel of this history. They did not
trouble themselves much with the express words of scripture,
or the four first general councils, but entangled their
prisoners with oaths ex-officio, and the inextricable mazes of
the popish canon law. … The papists being vanquished, the
next point was to unite the reformed among themselves. …
Though all the reformers were of one faith, yet they were far
from agreeing about discipline and ceremonies, each party
being for settling the church according to their own model. …
{839}
The Queen … therefore appointed a committee of divines to
review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular
it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker,
Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas
Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to
strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to
make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of
Christ in the sacraments; but not a word in favour of the
stricter protestants. Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too
far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes
and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old
popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in
reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made
in favour of those who now began to be called Puritans, from
their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than
had yet been established. … The book was presented to the
two houses and passed into a law. … The title of the act is
'An act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the
Church, and administration of the Sacraments.' It was brought
into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third
time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and
took place from the 24th of June 1559."

_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 1, chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of the Reformation of the Church of England.,
volume 2, book 3._

_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth, Anno 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
Puritanism taking form.

"The Church of England was a latitudinarian experiment, a
contrivance to enable men of opposing creeds to live together
without shedding each others' blood. It was not intended, and
it was not possible, that Catholics or Protestants should find
in its formulas all that they required. The services were
deliberately made elastic; comprehending in the form of
positive statement only what all Christians agreed in
believing, while opportunities were left open by the rubric to
vary the ceremonial according to the taste of the
congregations. The management lay with the local authorities
in town or parish: where the people were Catholics the
Catholic aspect could be made prominent; where Popery was a
bugbear, the people were not disturbed by the obtrusion of
doctrines which they had outgrown. In itself it pleased no
party or section. To the heated controversialist its chief
merit was its chief defect. … Where the tendencies to Rome
were strongest, there the extreme Reformers considered
themselves bound to exhibit in the most marked contrast the
unloveliness of the purer creed. It was they who furnished the
noble element in the Church of England. It was they who had
been its martyrs; they who, in their scorn of the world, in
their passionate desire to consociate themselves in life and
death to the Almighty, were able to rival in self-devotion the
Catholic Saints. But they had not the wisdom of the serpent,
and certainly not the harmlessness of the dove. Had they been
let alone—had they been unharassed by perpetual threats of
revolution and a return of the persecutions—they, too, were
not disinclined to reason and good sense. A remarkable
specimen survives, in an account of the Church of Northampton,
of what English Protestantism could become under favouring
conditions. … The fury of the times unhappily forbade the
maintenance of this wise and prudent spirit. As the power of
evil gathered to destroy the Church of England, a fiercer
temper was required to combat with them, and Protestantism
became impatient, like David, of the uniform in which it was
sent to the battle. It would have fared ill with England had
there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish
veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an
enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic
fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of
their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their
harness, it was they, after all, who saved the Church which
attempted to disown them, and with the Church saved also the
stolid mediocrity to which the fates then and ever committed
and commit the government of it."

_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 20._

"The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been
considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for
serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the
Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward VI. the
scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great
difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came
to the throne, those difficulties were much increased.
Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of
Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant
after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who
were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil
days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been
hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate
at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich and
Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more
simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church
government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to
their country, convinced that the reform which had been
effected under King Edward had been far less searching and
extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it
was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from
Elizabeth. Indeed, her system, wherever it differed from her
brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were
little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human
authority. … Since these men could not be convinced, it was
determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution
produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it
made them a faction. … The power of the discontented
sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they
were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and
among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign
of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of
Commons. And doubtless, had our ancestors been then at liberty
to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the
strife between the crown and the Parliament would instantly
have commenced. But that was no season for internal
dissensions. … Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe
were struggling for death or life. … Whatever might be the
faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the
fate of the realm and of all reformed churches was staked on
the security of her person and on the success of her
administration. …
{840}
The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she
had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she
might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion
might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be
victorious by sea and land."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
volume 1, chapter 1._

"Two parties quickly evolved themselves out of the mass of
Englishmen who held Calvinistic opinions; namely those who
were willing to conform to the requirements of the Queen, and
those who were not. To both is often given indiscriminately by
historians the name of Puritan; but it seems more correct, and
certainly is more convenient, to restrict the use of the name
to those who are sometimes called conforming Puritans. … To
the other party fitly belongs the name of Nonconformist. …
It was against the Nonconformist organization that Elizabeth's
efforts were chiefly directed. … The war began in the
enforcement by Archbishop Parker in 1565 of the Advertisements
as containing the minimum of ceremonial that would be
tolerated. In 1566 the clergy of London were required to make
the declaration of Conformity which was appended to the
Advertisements, and thirty-seven were suspended or deprived
for refusal. Some of the deprived ministers continued to
conduct services and preach in spite of their deprivation, and
so were formed the first bodies of Nonconformists, organized
in England."

_H. O. Wakeman,
The Church and the Puritans,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. Tulloch,
English Puritanism and its Leaders,
introduction._

_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 1, chapter 4._

_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapters 8-10 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1562-1567.
Hawkins' slave-trading voyages to America.
First English enterprise in the New World.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
The first naming of the Puritans.

"The English bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by their
canons, began to show their authority in urging the clergy of
their dioceses to subscribe to the Liturgy, ceremonies and
discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same were
branded with the odious name of Puritans. A name which in this
notion first began in this year [A. D. 1564]; and the grief
had not been great if it had ended in the same. The
philosopher banisheth the term, (which is Polysæmon), that is
subject to several senses, out of the predicaments, as
affording too much covert for cavil by the latitude thereof.
On the same account could I wish that the word Puritan were
banished common discourse, because so various in the
acceptations thereof. We need not speak of the ancient Cathari
or primitive Puritans, sufficiently known by their heretical
opinions. Puritan here was taken for the opposers of the
hierarchy and church service, as resenting of superstition.
But profane mouths quickly improved this nickname, therewith
on every occasion to abuse pious people; some of them so far
from opposing the Liturgy, that they endeavoured (according to
the instructions thereof in the preparative to the Confession)
'to accompany the minister with a pure heart,' and laboured
(as it is in the Absolution) 'for a life pure and holy.' We
will, therefore, decline the word to prevent exceptions;
which, if casually slipping from our pen, the reader knoweth
that only nonconformists are thereby intended."

_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 9, section 1._

"For in this year [1565] it was that the Zuinglian or
Calvinian faction began to be first known by the name of
Puritans, if Genebrard, Gualter, and Spondanus (being all of
them right good chronologers) be not mistaken in the time.
Which name hath ever since been appropriate to them, because
of their pretending to a greater purity in the service of God
than was held forth unto them (as they gave out) in the Common
Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the rites and
usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the
constitution of the Church of England."

_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth,
Anno 7, section 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1568.
Detention and imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1569.
Quarrel with the Spanish governor of the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1580.
Drake's piratical warfare with Spain and his famous voyage.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
Queen Elizabeth's treatment of the Roman Catholics.
Persecution of the Seminary Priests and the Jesuits.

"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. … A great majority both of clergy and laity yielded to
the times; and of these temporizing 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. … Priests … 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 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. 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. … It is my
thorough conviction that the persecution, for it can obtain no
better name, carried on against the English Catholics, however
it might serve to delude the government by producing an
apparent conformity, could not but excite a spirit of
disloyalty in many adherents of that faith. Nor would it be
safe to assert that a more conciliating policy would have
altogether disarmed their hostility, much less laid at rest
those busy hopes of the future, which the peculiar
circumstances of Elizabeth's reign had a tendency to produce."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3._

{841}

"The more vehement Catholics had withdrawn from the country,
on account of the dangers which there beset them. They had
taken refuge in the Low Countries, and there Allen, one of the
chief among them, had established a seminary at Douay, for the
purpose of keeping up a supply of priests in England. To Douay
numbers of young Englishmen from Oxford continually flocked.
The establishment had been broken up by Requescens, and
removed to Rheims, and a second college of the same
description was established at Rome. From these two centres of
intrigue numerous enthusiastic young men constantly repaired
to England, and in the disguise of laymen carried on their
priestly work and attempted to revive the Romanist religion.
But abler and better disciplined workmen were now wanted.
Allen and his friends therefore opened negotiations with
Mercuriano, the head of the Jesuit order, in which many
Englishmen had enrolled themselves. In 1580, as part of a
great combined Catholic effort, a regular Jesuit mission,
under two priests, Campion and Parsons, was despatched to
England. … The new missionaries were allowed to say that
that part of the Bull [of excommunication issued against
Elizabeth] which pronounced censures upon those who clung to
their allegiance applied to heretics only, that Catholics
might profess themselves loyal until the time arrived for
carrying the Bull into execution; in other words, they were
permitted to be traitors at heart while declaring themselves
loyal subjects. This explanation of the Bull was of itself
sufficient to justify severity on the part of the government.
It was impossible henceforward to separate Roman Catholicism
from disloyalty. Proclamations were issued requiring English
parents to summon their children from abroad, and declaring
that to harbour Jesuit priests was to support rebels. …
Early in December several priests were apprehended and closely
examined, torture being occasionally used for the purpose. In
view of the danger which these examinations disclosed,
stringent measures were taken. Attendance at church was
rendered peremptorily necessary. Parliament was summoned in
the beginning of 1581 and laws passed against the action of
the Jesuits. … Had Elizabeth been conscious of the full
extent of the plot against her, had she known the intention of
the Guises [then dominant in France] to make a descent upon
England in co-operation with Spain, and the many ramifications
of the plot in her own country, it is reasonable to suppose
that she would have been forced at length to take decided
measures. But in ignorance of the abyss opening before her
feet, she continued for some time longer her old temporizing
policy." At last, in November, 1583, the discovery of a plot
for the assassination of the queen, and the arrest of one
Throgmorton, whose papers and whose confession were of
startling import, brought to light the whole plan and extent
of the conspiracy. "Some of her Council urged her at once to
take a straightforward step, to make common cause with the
Protestants of Scotland and the Netherlands, and to bid
defiance to Spain. To this honest step, she as usual could not
bring herself, but strong measures were taken in England.
Great numbers of Jesuits and seminary priests were apprehended
and executed, suspected magistrates removed, and those
Catholic Lords whose treachery might have been fatal to her
ejected from their places of authority and deprived of
influence."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 546-549._

"That the conspiracy with which these men were charged was a
fiction cannot be doubted. They had come to England under a
prohibition to take any part in secular concerns, and with the
sole view of exercising the spiritual functions of the
priesthood. … At the same time it must be owned that the
answers which six of them gave to the queries were far from
satisfactory. Their hesitation to deny the opposing power (a
power then indeed maintained by the greater number of divines
in Catholic kingdoms) rendered their loyalty very
problematical, in case of an attempt to enforce the bull by
any foreign prince. It furnished sufficient reason to watch
their conduct with an eye of jealousy … but could not
justify their execution for an imaginary offence."

_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 8, chapter 3._

"It is probable that not many more than 200 Catholics were
executed, as such, in Elizabeth's reign, and this was ten
score too many. … 'Dod reckons them at 191; Milner has
raised the list to 204. Fifteen of these, according to him,
suffered for denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising
their ministry, and the rest for being reconciled to the
Romish church. Many others died of hardships in prison, and
many were deprived of their property. There seems,
nevertheless [says Hallam], to be good reason for doubting
whether anyone who was executed might not have saved his life
by explicitly denying the Pope's power to depose the Queen.'"

_J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 17, with foot-note._

ALSO IN:
_J. Foley,
Records of the English Province of the Society of
Jesus._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1574.
Emancipation of villeins on the royal domains.
Practical end of serfdom.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1575.
Sovereignty of Holland and Zealand offered to Queen Elizabeth,
and declined.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1581.
Marriage proposals of the Duke of Anjou declined by Queen
Elizabeth.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1583.
The expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1584-1590.
Raleigh's colonizing attempts in America.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1586.
Leicester in the Low Countries.
Queen Elizabeth's treacherous dealing with the
struggling Netherlanders.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
Mary Queen of Scots and the Catholic conspiracies.
Her trial and execution.