^1 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth INTOLERANCE IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH QUEEN OF ENGLAND BY ARTHUR JAY KLEIN Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. ,' 1 •, 1 ' > COPYRIGHT, I917, BY ARTHUR JAY KLEIK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Published February igiy VITA The writer of this dissertation was born at Sturgis, Mich- igan, in 1884. He studied at Wabash College, graduating in 1906 with the degree of B.A. and with membership in the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He studied at Union Theo- logical Seminary, 1906-09, graduating in 1909 with the degree of B.D., magna cum laude. In 1908 he entered Columbia University, and he received the degree of M.A. in 1909. From 1910 until 1915 he taught history in Towns- end Harris Hall, the academic department of the College of the City of New York. In 191 5 he was appointed pro- fessor of history in Wheaton College, Norton, Massachu- setts. 347241 iMISSiiS? m ^ ^<^ iUSi INTOLERANCE IN THE REIGN OF ^een of England By Arthur Jay Klein, Professor of History in Wheaton College, Norton, Massachusetts. boston & nejv york Houghton Mifflin Company The Riverside Press Cambridge M.DCCCC.XVII COPYRIGHT, 1917, BY ARTHUR JAY KLEIN ALL RIGHTS RESERVBD Published February iqiy PREFACE In the preparation of this study the writer has attempted to make the text interesting and intelligible to the average reader. He has, therefore, relegated the dry bones and paraphernalia of study to the footnotes and a bibliograph- ical appendix. The material for the reign of Elizabeth is so voluminous, however, that footnotes and bibliography are not complete. The footnotes do not represent all the material upon which statements in the text are based, but the writer believes that the authorities given amply sup- port the opinions and conclusions there expressed. In selecting material for the footnotes from the vast amount of published and unpublished source matter col- lected in the preparation of this essay, the author has con- fined the references for the most part to a few representative men and collections of sources. The works of Jewel, Parker, Whitgift, Hooker, and Cartwright, the Zurich Letters and the Domestic State Papers, have, for instance, been chosen as most representative and easily available to the general reader. Unless otherwise noted, however, the author has depended upon the manuscripts in the Record Office and not upon the Calendar of the Domestic State Papers, since the Calendar, especially for the earlier years of Elizabeth's reign, is often so condensed as to give inadequate informa- tion. The representative sources selected have been given so as to make as complete as possible, within the limits of this study, the facts and opinions presented by them. Other sources have been given whenever those chosen as most representative were lacking or were not of sufficient weight. The sources used consist of the laws. Parliamentary debates, acts of Council, proclamations, public and private vi Preface papers, correspondence, sermons, diaries, controversial works, and foreign comment. References in the footnotes to secondary works have been reduced to the minimum for the sake of the appearance of the printed page, but the writer has tried to express his sense of obligation to the work of others in the Bibliographical Appendix. It is hoped that the Appendix will serve the further purpose of assisting the American student, about to enter upon a study of Eliza- bethan ecclesiastical and religious history, to find his way in the somewhat confusing mass of the literature of the period. There remains the pleasant duty of expressing my gratitude to the officials of the Public Record Office and of the British Museum for their courteous and painstaking assistance. To the Reverend Mr. Claude Jenkins, of the Lambeth Palace Library, who took the time to teach an American stranger how to read and handle the documents of the period, I owe one of my most^pleasant memories of England and of Englishmen. To Miss Cornelia T. Hudson, reference assistant in the Library of Union Theological Seminary, I wish to express my thanks for friendly help in excess of the official courtesy with which I have met in all the libraries I have consulted. The mere acknowledg- ment of my debt of gratitude to Professor James T. Shot- well, of Columbia University, and to Professor William Walker Rockwell, of Union Theological Seminary, must nec- essarily express inadequately the value of the encourage- ment, the suggestions, and the hours of labor which they have so freely given. The kindness of Professor Edward P. Cheyney, of the University of Pennsylvania, in reading and criticizing the completed manuscript, and the help in reading the proof given by Professor F. J. Foakes Jackson, of Union Theological Seminary, have assisted materially in making the essay more readable. Arthur J. Klein. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY . Vague conceptions of tolerance — Social nature of intolerance — Intolerance manifested in all kinds of social activity — Intoler- • ance of the larger groups of society — Religion intolerant because its truths are revealed and positive — Historic causes of religious intolerance — Extent of religious intolerance — Non-religious in- tolerance — Tolerance is not negative — This study deals with Elizabethan England — It was a period of the formation of parties — Importance of Protestant dissent for Elizabethan intol- erance. II. POLITICS AND RELIGION .... The death of Mary Tudor — England at the accession of Elizabeth — Elizabeth's alleged illegitimacy — Catholics and Protestants — Paul IV and England — The position of Mary Stuart — The attitude of Philip II — The attitude of Scotland — Importance of securing the Queen's political position — Caution of the government — Religious tastes of Elizabeth — Religious indifference of the nation — Tendencies of the Marian exiles toward compromise — Compromise and the Catholics — Identi- fication of the Sovereign and the State — Catholic opposition — Complication of the domestic with the foreign situation — Plans of the government — The first Parliament — Freedom of dis- cussion — Disputation at Westminster — Employment of mod- erate Protestants — Character of the Parliament — Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity — Other acts of the Parliament — Removal of the Catholic Bishops — The Royal Visitation — High Commission — The choice of the higher clergy — The character of the new clergy — The choice of the lesser clergy — Elements of hope for Catholics — The foreign political situation — Weaknesses of the ecclesiastical system — Act for the Assur- ance of the Queen's Supremacy — Act for execution of Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo — Offenses that incurred excommunica- tion — Acts against prophesyings and conjurers — Similarity of the new establishment to the old. III. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CATHO- LICS 35 The lenient policy of the government — The Rebellion of the North — The old and new nobility — Significance of the revolt — The Bull of Excommunication — Its effect on the religious situation — Elizabeth's reply to the Bull — Need for further viii Contents legislation — Act making further offenses treason — Restraints upon the press — Act against the introduction of papal bulls and instruments — Fugitives beyond the sea — The Jesuit mis- sionaries — Foreign dangers — Statutes to retain the Queen's subjects in obedience — Seditious words and rumors — Spanish resentment and plot — Parliament of 1584-85 — Parliament of 1586-87 — Mary Stuart in England — English policy and Mary Stuart — England, Mary, and Scotland — England, Mary, and Spain — The defeat of the Armada — Continued fear of the Spaniard — Enthusiasm for the Crown — Legislation of 1593 — The government and the Jesuits — Government policy in dealing with the Catholics — The imposition of the death penalty — Exile — Desire to keep Catholics in England — Exception in cases of the Jesuits and the poor — Inability of the government to imprison all Catholics — Fines and confiscations — Resistance of the Catholics — Failure of the fines and confiscations to pro- duce an income — Later imposition of the pecuniary penalties — Lenient administration of the laws against Catholics — Govern- mental influence to prevent execution of letter of the law — Fac- tions in the Council — Moderating proposals of Cecil — Educa- tional value of the government's tolerant attitude. IV. CHURCH AND STATE 64 Formative period of Anglicanism — The Establishment an experiment — Elements of patriotism and of moderation in the Church — Political dominance determined these characteristics — Relations of Church and State before Elizabeth — Causes for po- litical dominance in Elizabeth's reign — The supremacy of the Queen — Erastianism — Legal extent of Crown's Supremacy — Exercise of supremacy by commission — Preservation of regu- lar ecclesiastical jurisdiction — High Court of Delegates and the Royal Supremacy — Commissions of Review and the favor of the Crown — The Council and the High Commission — Change in the nature of High Commission activity — Council and Star Chamber — Court influence and the lower ecclesiastical courts — Justices of peace and the religious acts — Control of the Council over the justices of peace — The logic of secular administration of the Religious Acts — Use of the prerogative writs by King's Bench and Common Pleas — Special privileges — The Peculiars — The Peculiars added confusion to the system — The Palatinates — Lesser franchises — System subject to the interference of the Court at all points — Irregularity, causes and results — The Queen's prerogative and coercive power — Dispensing power of the Crown — Legality of the judicial acts of the Queen and Coun- cil — Extent of the activity of the Council — Need for coordinat- ing power — Inadequacy of the inherited machinery to deal with new conditions — The success of the relationship existing between State and Church — State intolerance imposed upon the Church — Religious and ecclesiastical intolerance restrained by the State — Influence of the union of the Church and State upon the development of dissent — Political dominance and promotion of tolerance — Personal influence of the Queen in this development. Contents ix V. ANGLICANISM 93 Lack of unity in the early Anglican Church — Causes of union and elements of disunion — Ambiguous nature of the standards set up — Religious character of the Church — Caution needed in formulating doctrinal and ecclesiastical standards — The Parlia- mentary doctrinal standards — The Thirty-nine Articles — Further restraint on doctrinal formulation — Religious opposi- tion to the abuses of Roman Catholicism — Controversial char- acter of the period — The character of the clergy — Queen's opposition to religious enthusiasm — Protestantism lightens the responsibility of the ecclesiastical organization for the individual — Non-religious interest of the period — Demands of ecclesiasti- cal controversy — Religious zeal developed by dissent — Need for ecclesiastical apologetic — Basis of apologetic historical — Papacy rejected upon historical grounds — Church not limited by primitive church history — Recognition of the principle of his- torical development — Advantage to Anglicanism of this liberal position — Importance of ecclesiastical theory in the develop- ment of intolerance — Restraints upon Anglican development — Causes for development — English sources of the idea of apos- tolic succession of the bishops — Whitgift and the apostolic suc- cession — Anglican denials of the doctrine — Alarm of the radical Protestants — Hooker and the apostolic succession — Development of Anglican ecclesiastical consciousness — Changed relationship between Anglicans and Continental Protestantism — Anglican desire for autonomy — Jewel and Hooker — Jewel's emphasis upon the unity of Protestantism — Hooker's defense of Anglicanism as an independent entity — Hooker's distrust of bare scripture — Jewel's confidence in the power of the Word — Hooker's belief in the authority of reason and need for experts — Hooker's exaltation of the episcopal organization — Position of the Queen in Hooker's theory — Jewel's idea of the sovereign's power — Hooker's lack of confidence in the secular dominance over the Church — Changed attitude of Anglicanism toward dis- senting opinions — Early uncertainty and liberality — Develop- ment of ecclesiastical consciousness paralleled by hardening of the Anglican spirit — Other causes for hardening — Early Anglican- ism intolerant of papal Catholicism — Changed basis of Anglican strength — Moral condemnation of the Jesuits — Common ideals of Early Anglicanism and other forms of Protestantism — Practical character of the early Church — Development of an- tagonism within the Church. VI. PROTESTANT DISSENT 131 Complexity of dissent — Difficulties of classification — Loose use of the term " Puritan " — Difficulty of distinguishing Puritan from Separatist — Precisianists — Presbyterians — Genetic use of the term ' ' Congregational" — Anabaptists — Cleavage was upon lines of ecclesiastical polity — The Fanatic Sects — Elements of discord in the Church — Indifferent nature of the first questions of dispute — Ceremonial differences — The sympathies of the leaders in State and Church — Variety in the use of ceremonies — i Contents Parker's Advertisements — Legality of the Advertisements — Parker's argument on the habits — The anti-vestiarian argument — The determination of the Queen that the habits be worn — Reasons for her insistence — Results of the vestiarian contro- versy — Bacon on the development of the quarrel between Angli- canism and Dissent — First Admonition to Parliament — Its place in the development of dissent — Disregard of the Queen's position — Circumstances preceding appearance of the First Admonition — Literary controversy over the Admonition — Ob- jects of the Admonition's attack — Protestations of loyalty — \ Danger in the attack — Intolerance shown by the Admonishers — Absolute authority of the New Testament in ecclesiastical or- ganization — The Second Admonition — The purpose of the publication — Spirit of the Second Admonition — Split in the ranks of dissent — Controversy between Cartwright and Whit- gift — The work of Travers. VII. PROTESTANT DISSENT (continued) . . I59 1 Presbyterian polity — Scriptural basis of the system — Basis j for condemnation of Catholicism — Ecclesiastical intolerance of , the Presbyterians — Presbyterian doctrinal intolerance toward j Lutheranism — Presbyterian attack upon the Anglican organiza- i tion — Results upon Anglicanism of the Presbyterian attack — Presbyterian attack upon Anglican doctrinal standards and its results — Presbyterians and the fight for Parliamentary freedom \ — Aristocratic character of Presbyterianism — Presbyterianism \ to be established by the government — Presbyterian theory of j the relationship between Church and State — Legal basis of .' governmental repression of Presbyterianism — Opposition to j repression on the part of officials — Basis of charges of disloyalty | — The attitude of Cecil and Elizabeth — Danger to the govern- | ment's policy of leniency toward Catholics — Danger to cordial i relations with all forms of Continental Protestantism — Dissent- : ing movements other than the Presbyterian — Rejection of necessity of the union of Church and State — Idea of the Church as a body of the spiritually fit — Narrow dogmatic standards — Loose and ineffective form of organization — Religious earnest- ness of the group — Religious basis for condemnation of others — Attempt to transfer basis of disagreement from unessential to essential — Doctrinal and religious intolerance — Causes for Elizabethan condemnation of the Congregationalistic groups. VIII. CONCLUSION 183 Importance of the separation from the Roman Catholic Church — The governmental policy of toleration^ — Modifica- tion of the governmental policy by reason of Catholic activity — Modification of the governmental policy by reason of Presbj-te- rian activity — Modification of the governmental policy by reason of Anglican development — The idea that ecclesiastical unity was essential to political unity — Development of Anglican Contents - xi ecclesiastical intolerance — Presbyterian intolerance — Rejec- tion of the connection between Church and State by the Congre- gational group — The development of three strong religious parties. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX .... 191 INDEX . 213 INTOLERANCE IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY Most of us feel that intolerance is an antiquated evil. We hasten to enroll ourselves in the ranks of the tolerant, and at least in the free world of hypothesis and speculation, we experience, at little cost, the self-congratulatory pleasure of thus reckoning ourselves in the advance guard of civiliza- tion. As a matter of fact, our conception of tolerance is usu- ally so vague as to entail no renunciation of our pet preju- dices : our renunciation is confined to the abandonment of intolerant principles, moribund some centuries before our birth. Men have probably always in this way proclaimed their allegiance to the spirit and principles of toleration without being seriously disturbed by their own intolerances, and without voicing any earnest protest against the intoler- ance of their own time. We easily recognize the inconsist- ency between the utterances and the attitude of Elizabethan Englishmen who insisted by means of prison and banish- ment that the forms of a Prayer Book be strictly observed, and looked with horror upon the Spanish Inquisition. We smile a superior smile over their boasts of tolerance on the score that the number of Catholics killed by Queen Eliza- beth did not equal the number of Protestants killed by Queen Mary, and we may even see the weakness of their modern apologists who point with pride to the fact that Elizabethan England had no St. Bartholomew's Eve. The examples of such inconsistency are amusing and satisfying in direct pro- portion to their antiquity and their distance from our own ruts of thought. When in England it became possible for all 2 iNTOLFPi^NXE IN THE ReIGN OF ELIZABETH ie1I^;ions to exist ?idc by side, and men therefore proclaimed themselves tolerant, there was still attached to Catholicism and to all forms of Protestantism other than the particular form known as Anglicanism the penalty of the curtailment of political rights. Some Englishmen are still unreconciled to the removal of divorce and marriage from the jurisdiction of the Established Church. Some Americans still defend Sabbatarian legislation enacted at the demand of a reli- gious prejudice which saw no intolerance in forcing the ex- treme interpretation of the Mosaic law upon Christian and non-Christian alike. Like our ancestors, we leave suffi- cient leeway for the full play of our own intolerances and with easy carelessness avoid the discomforts of exact definition. Intolerance is essentially a social phenomenon based upon the group conviction of "rightness." When mani- fested by the dominant group, it is both a dynamic and a conservative force. It is occupied with the maintenance of things as they are, and has for its purpose social unity. It exerts itself to bring into line those individuals, or groups of individuals, who are clinging to things as they were, and attempts to restrain the individuals or groups of individuals who are striving toward things as they shall be. Its relations and its sympathies are closer to the past than to the future. It bases its authority on accepted knowledge or opinion. Opposed to it are the groups who cling to opinions already rejected and the groups with opinions not yet accepted. Intolerance is a phase in the development of social conscious- ness, a part of the process of whipping into shape unique or diverse elements of the social group. It is a by-product of the process of social grouping. In so far as the various social groups have conflicting interests or standards, and so long as the existence of one or more groups is theoretically or practically inconsistent with the existence of other groups, antagonism or intolerance results. Since the social relation- Introductory 3 ships of men are practically infinite in variety, intolerance may be displayed upon any subject of sufficient interest or importance to secure the adherence of a group, and may manifest itself in an infinite variety of ways. Medical in- tolerance has shown itself in the persecution of the advo- cates of anaesthetics and antiseptics. National intolerance of the foreigner, legal intolerance of new conceptions of justice, social intolerance of unusual manners, the intoler- ance of the radical for the slower-minded conservative in politics, economics, law, or dress, — these intolerances may vary in extent, nature, and results, and their history is merely the story of the modification of the extent, nature, and results of antagonisms. Necessarily the intolerance displayed by the larger groups of society is most conspicuous and receives the most at- tention, although from the standpoint of the progress of so- ciety such intolerance may not be of the most far-reaching influence. Religion, for instance, which occupies the con- sciousness of groups of international size, has been given so much attention by the writers on intolerance that it has become necessary to resist its claims to a monopoly of the word. Religion, however, is of great importance for the subject of intolerance from other reasons than the mere size of the religious groups. Religion is based upon bodies of opinion that are regarded as more important and as more positive than any of the other facts of human life. Starting with a group of opinions which are positively and supematurally revealed, religion offers the greatest resistance to the at- tacks of critical reason and to the advance of the merely human phases of knowledge. It insists with inflexibility upon the truth of its tenets and the acceptance of them by all men. Historically, also, the religious organization in Western Eu- rope obtained such a dominance over men that it succeeded in subjecting to its religious and ecclesiastical control ele- ments of social activity which, as we view the matter now, 4 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth were only remotely connected with the acceptance of its fundamental body of divinely revealed dogma. It suc- ceeded in adapting to this dogma almost the whole body of scientific and social investigation. Chemistry, anatomy, botany, astronomy, as well as law and government, all felt the restraining force of ecclesiastical conceptions and dogmas. Its supernatural elements were emphasized at the expense of human progress. Claiming to be the most social force, it became anti-social in so far as it made its ideal one of otherworldliness. Obviously the students of intolerance have a rich and important field in religion. The Christian religion has afforded material for studies of pagan intolerance of Christians, and Christian intolerance of pagans. We have volumes upon Catholic intolerance of Protestants and upon Protestant intolerance of Catholics and of other Protestants. The study of religious intolerance, both Catholic and Protestant, in the field of non-religious activities is still rich in unexplored possibilities, so rich that it is perhaps useless to attempt to call the attention of the historians of intolerance to the fact that there is also a field worth investigating in the groups of non-religious intoler- ance. A very interesting book, or series of books, even, more useful than much that has been written about religious in- tolerance, might be compiled by some one who turned his attention to the intolerances of medicine, of law, or of eti- quette. They might even repay the historian by displaying a humorous ridiculousness that the solemn connotations of theology make impossible in that field. It is unfortunate that the study of intolerance has been so largely confined to a record of punishments and penalties, and has concerned itself so little with the development of positive tolerance. The interesting and important thing about intolerance is its decrease. It has usually been taken for granted that decrease of intolerance has meant increase of tolerance ; but this is not always true and tends to make tolerance synonymous with indifference. Tolerance becomes Introductory ' 5 at best easy amiability. Indifference and amiability are negative and afford no basis for the self-congratulatory at- titude we like to associate with tolerance. Tolerance as a force provocative of progress is positive. It implies a def- inite attitude of mind, an open-minded observation of diver- gent opinions, a conscious refraining from the attitude of condemnation, and a willingness to adopt ideas if they prove, or seem likely to prove good. Intolerance of heretical ideas prevents progress. Tolerance welcomes the new, looks to the future, has a supreme confidence in the upward evolu- tion of society. It is the purpose of this essay to examine one very small field of religious intolerance, that in England during the reign of Elizabeth. IMuch has been done already. Catholics and Anglicans alike have devoted volumes to the suffering and disabilities of the Catholics. The subordination of re- ligious to political considerations which marks the step in the direction of religious tolerance that came with the revolt of the nations from the suzerainty of the Papacy and the formation of national churches, has been repeatedly empha- sized. The importance of the period for the developments in the reign of the Stuarts has been pointed out. But un- fortunately attention has been confined too exclusively to the government and the Anglican Establishment. Of almost equal importance are the rise of the dissenting Protestant groups in England, particularly the Presbyterian, and their attitudes and theories of relationship with the Catholics, the Established Church, and the government. Elizabeth's reign was essentially a period of the formation of parties and opinions. During her reign Puritan and Independent came to group consciousness, grew into awareness of themselves as distinct from Anglicanism and from each other; the Anglican Church rose, collected its forces, and transformed itself from a tool of secular government into a militant ec- clesiastical organization. The ground for the later struggle 6 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth was prepared; and if in the seventeenth century we find distinctly difTerent theories at the basis of intolerance, we must seek the origin of the later attitude in Elizabeth's day. Her reign is a time of beginnings, a period of prelimi- nary development, and partakes of the interest and uncer- tainties of all origins of complex social phenomena. The purpose of this essay is to estimate and to call atten- tion not only to the intolerance of the government and the Established Church, but also to the rising Protestant groups of dissent, and to indicate the way they conditioned and influenced the attitude of both the government and the Church and intrenched themselves for the future con- flict. CHAPTER II POLITICS AND RELIGION Unloved and disheartened, Mary Tudor died on the 17th of November, 1558. Her sincere struggle to estabhsh the old faith in England once more, her pathetic love for Philip of Spain, the loss of Calais, the knowledge that without children to succeed her the work done could not endure, — all these things had made her life a sad one. Our imagina- tions have clothed her reign with gloom and blood, while that of her successor has become correspondingly splendid, intriguing, fanciful, swashbuckler, profane, — a living age. We approach the study of Elizabeth's reign with the expec- tation of finding at last a period when life was all dramatic, but, as always, we find that the facts are less romantic than our imaginative pictures. Life to the Elizabethan Englishman was not all a joyous adventure. Famine and pestilence ushered in the reign. An empty treasury confronted the new queen. The com- mercial and the industrial life of the kingdom declined. War with France and Scotland made taxation heavy. The army and navy were riddled by graft, and crumbling for- tresses indicated a lack of national military pride. The officials of Mary's rule still maintained their power in Church and State, objects of hatred to the people, and — the greatest danger to the Queen's peaceable accession — centers around which might gather foreign opposition to the daughter of Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth's alleged illegitimacy In the eyes of her Catholic subjects Elizabeth rested under the shadow of an uncertain title. The charge of ille- gitimacy had stamped its black smudge upon the brow of 8 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth the baby girl, followed her through young womanhood In her uncertain and dangerous position during the reign of Mary, and when death had removed Mary, strode specter- like across the joy of the nation. Upon Elizabeth's entry into the City she was greeted with great demonstrations of joy by the populace, but the councillors whom she had called around her ^ realized that within the kingdom, Cath- olic love for Mother Church and power. Catholic consist- ency, might unite a large party which, resting upon papal condemnation of the marriage of her father and mother, would reject her claims to the throne. Domestic dangers to her position might also threaten from that anti-Catholic party whose members had grown bitter under the persecu- tions of Mary.2 The domestic dangers became menacing and real by reason of their complication with the projects and ambitions of foreign powers. From the fact of Elizabeth's illegitimacy In the eyes of the Catholic world sprang two great foreign dangers, the one to endure throughout the reign, the other to end only with an act which has brought upon Elizabeth's name an undeserv^ed reproach ; the Papal See was hostile and Mary of Scotland set up a claim to England's throne. Neither Elizabeth nor her advisers, probably, expected that a break with the Papacy could be avoided. The Pope's attitude must necessarily be determined In some measure by the pronouncements of his predecessor upon the marriage of which Elizabeth was the fruit. It could hardly be ex- * Cecil, Parry, Cave, Sadler, Rogers, Sackville, and Haddon were summoned to her at Hatfield. The old council was reorganized. Sir Thomas Parry became Comptroller of the Household; Sir Edward Rogers, Vice-Chamberlain; William Cecil, Principal Secretary in the place of Dr. Boxall, Archdeacon of Ely; Sir Nicholas Bacon displaced the Archbishop of York as Keeper of the Great Seal; while the Earls of Bedford, Derby, and Northampton, Cave, Sadler, and Sack- ville took the places of Mary's councillors. Pembroke, Arundel, Howard, Shrewsbury', Winchester, Clinton, Petre, and Mason continued. 2 S. R. Maitland, Essays on Subjects connected with the Refortnation in Eng- land, with an introduction by A. W. Hutton (London and New York, 1899), Essays VI, no. ii; vii, no. iii; viii; IX ; X, quotes from Knox, Goodman, Whitting- ham, Kethe, Becon, Bradford, Ponet. Politics and Religion 9 pected that the most compliant and peace-loving of popes would heartily welcome to the family of Catholic royalty the daughter of Anne Boleyn. Still less could it be expected that Paul IV, energetic and uncompromising, would dis- regard that quarrel which had torn England from the fold of the faithful. Theoretically, at least, — and it was chiefly upon theoretical grounds that those closest to Elizabeth had to base their policy, — Mary of Scotland must have seemed to the Papacy the only logical and legitimate heir to England's throne. Mary recognized her advantage, and she was sufficiently vigorous in her Catholicism and shrewd in her politics to seize every weapon opportunity might offer. Although Elizabeth was seated upon the throne and was supported by the sentiment of the English people, Mary's hope of dis- placing her was by no means based on dreams alone. She had married the Dauphin of France, who succeeded to the crown as Francis II but a few months after Elizabeth's accession, and upon the advice of the Cardinal of Lorraine the new King and Queen at once added to their other titles that of King and Queen of England. With France behind her claim, and the Pope supporting her, Elizabeth might have been crowded off the throne and England forced into Catholicism, had Philip, the autocrat of the Catholic pow- ers, also thrown his weight into the struggle upon the side of Mary. But Philip, with all his Catholic enthusiasm, would never allow France and the Guises to attain that dominance In European affairs which the addition of Eng- land to their power would have meant. Philip did not love England, nor did he wish to see It become Protestant, but at the first he had hopes that the country might still be preserved for Catholicism and be made to serve his own purposes against the aggression of France.^ Elizabeth played with the offer of marriage which Philip made as long as it was possible to avoid a decisive answer, and encouraged -'1 Venetian Calendar, 72, April 23, 1559, June 11, 1559. 10 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth him to believe that the Council of Trent might accomplish something to make reconciliation possible even though she rejected his hand. Philip lent his aid in securing favorable terms for England at the Peace of Cateau-Cambr6sis and relieved her from the embarrassment of his opposition at the time when he could have done most harm to Elizabeth. But Mary's purposes were not balked by the opposition of Philip alone. She did not have the sympathy of her own land, Scotland, either in the alliance with France, in her desire to establish the Catholic religion, or in her opposition to England. In Scotland the Reformation had established itself among all classes, although the motives which inspired them were not exclusively religious; for, in Scotland, as in other countries, a variety of purposes inspired the Protes- tant party. Here, as elsewhere, it was not simply a religious reformation, but a social conflict arising from political, economic, and legal motives. The party formed in Scot- land in 1557 was made up of elements looking for the spoil of the wealthy and corrupt Church, for the expulsion of French influence from the country, the lessening of the royal power, the establishment of Protestant doctrines; and it was from these diverse elements that the signers of the first Covenant were drawn. Nor did the Covenant represent the extreme Calvinism usually associated with the Scotch ; it demanded merely that the English Book of Common Prayer be used, and that preaching be permitted. Not until after the return to Scotland of John Knox in May, 1559, was the stamp of un- compromising Calvinism placed upon the Scottish Church. Mary could look for bitter opposition from her Scottish sub- jects if she tried, with French aid, to establish herself upon the English throne and attempted to impose Catholicism upon the English people and autocratic power upon Scot- land. In spite of these difficulties, however, the danger to England was real. Any change in the situation which might free Mary's hands, or any change in the attitude of Philip which would cause him to abandon his hostility to France Politics and Religion ii and unite with that country in opposition to England, might sweep Elizabeth off the throne and place the nation in danger of foreign dominion. From this situation came that succession of crises calling for the patriotism of Eng- lishmen which ended only with the death of Mary and the defeat of the Armada. THE CAUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT In these circumstances domestic considerations were of primary importance in determining the character of the changes in the religious establishment of England. Of first importance, also, in any changes to be made was the per- sonal and dynastic safety of the Queen. The necessity of making her position as queen secure took precedence over all questions of personal or national religious preference. Could her throne have been secured most certainly by con- tinuing the alliance with the Papacy by means of diplomatic accommodations on both sides, doubtless this would have been the method adopted. The personal attitude and charac- ter of Paul IV, and perhaps also French influence upon the Papal See, the Continental religious and political situation combined with the domestic situation to make such a solu- tion of Elizabeth's difficulties well-nigh impossible. Without voluntary concessions on the part of the Papacy,^ it seemed to Elizabeth's advisers more dangerous to meddle with the papal power in England than to abolish it altogether.^ Yet the wretched condition of the military and economic re- sources and the uncertainty of national support made dangerous a step so radical as complete separation from the Roman Church. 1 Dixon {History of the Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction [Oxford, 1902], vol. v, p. 88) has disposed of the often-repeated assertion that the Pope offered to confirm the English Prayer Book if his authority was acknowledged. But cf. Raynaldus, no. 42 (trans, in E. P. Cheyney, Readings in English History, pp. 373-74). where the offer to sanction the English Liturg>', allow the Lord's Supper in both kinds, and revoke the condemnation of the marriage of Henry and Anne is printed. * State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, vol. i, no. 68. 12 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth The government advanced with caution. The exiles on account of religion were allowed to return in great numbers, but nothing was done for them. In May, 1559, Jewel com- plained to Bullinger, " ... at present we are so living, as scarcely to seem like persons returned from exile; for to say nothing else, not one of us has yet had even his owti property restored to him." ^ All preaching was prohibited until Parliament could meet to decide upon a form of ec- clesiastical settlement.^ The Queen herself received men of all parties, wrote to the Pope,^ kept up her friendship with Philip of Spain. The Council repressed the enthusiasms of Catholics and Protestants alike. The government was anxious to give neither Protestants nor Catholics hopes or fears which would bring matters to a crisis until they had formulated and arranged for the execution of the policy best suited to secure the allegiance of as great a number of all religious parties as was possible. Dictated by the desire to make secure the position of the Queen, this policy must necessarily be one of compromise and moderation, at least until it was safe to disturb the delicate balance of the foreign political situation which made England dependent upon the friendship of Philip and freedom from the active hos- tility of the other Catholic Powers. In entire accord with the moderation thus made neces- sary were the personal tastes and preferences of the Queen. She did not share, she could not understand, the uncom- promising zeal of either Catholic or Protestant. If the political considerations demanded a Protestant or anti- papal establishment, she was willing that it should be set up; yet her love for the pomp and forms of a stately religion and her hatred of the extremes and fanaticism of Protestant en- thusiasm were real, and she stood ready to establish and maintain the policy of moderation which left room for some of the forms she loved. * Zurich Letters, no. xx. * H. N. Birt, The Elizabethan Religious Settlement (London, 1907), p. 23. ' Raynaldus, Ann. Ecc, Ann. 1559, no. 2. Politics and Religion 13 The middle course could make little appeal to enthu- siasm. Zealous Catholics could not be satisfied thus nor could the extreme Protestants be content with halfway measures. "Others are seeking after a golden, or, as it rather seems to me, a leaden mediocrity; and are crying out, that the half is better than the whole." "Whatever is to be, I only wish that our party may not act with too much worldly prudence and policy in the cause of God." ^ But Elizabeth and the men who were in her con- fidence were not extremists, they were not religious enthusi- asts; they represented the national state of mind and were justified in their belief that the Queen could depend upon the nation's support for a reasonable and moderate re- ligious settlement. On the religious question the nation was, on the whole, indififerent. Nor is it strange that this was true at this time. England had been forced through change after change in the religious establishment, beginning with Henry VIII and ending with the proscriptions of Mary. It had been trained for a quarter of a century to adjust itself to a turn-coat policy in religious matters. As Lloyd quaintly says of Cecil, "He saw the interest of this state changed six times, and died an honest man: the crown put upon four heads, yet he continued a faithful subject: religion changed, as to the public constitution of it, five times, yet he kept the faith." ^ During that period the na- tion had seen England sink into insignificance in Conti- nental affairs and watched its internal conditions grow from bad to worse. The extremes of Mary's reign and the growing economic distress of the country repelled English thought from purely religious quarrels and absorbed their attention in more practical matters. Just as at the Res- toration, following a period of political control by the ex- tremists in religion, there was a period during which re- 1 Jewel, Works, vol. IV, Letters, no. xii, Jewel to Martyr; Zurich Letters, no. viii, Jewel to Martyr, Jan. 26, 1559. * Nares, Burghley, vol. lii, p. 326. 14 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Ilgious enthusiasm languished and the country joyfully proceeded to recuperate from the effects of religious re- straints, so now after Mary's persecutions there succeeded a period of that indifference to religion, which, if not a promoter of positive tolerance is a great check on intol- erance. The country needed the help of all in adjusting its home affairs and demanded their loyalty to protect their queen and themselves from another Catholic sovereign. Their enthusiasm found vent in these things, not in religious contentions. The policy of subordinating religious consid- erations to the political safety of the nation enabled the Church of the early part of Elizabeth's reign to survive the attacks from within and without the kingdom; the Church was not itself an object of enthusiastic support, but served as a standard around which Englishmen gathered to defend principles to which they gave their deepest loyalty and purpose, determination and love. Changes which ap- pealed to the loyalty and patriotism of the nation, and which freed it from the wearisome persecutions and dis- tracting turmoil that characterized Mary's reign, were certain of English support. The policy of moderation, the halfway course, which the religious indifference, the political situation, and the Queen's preferences made the logical plan to secure the alle- giance of the kingdom, implied, of course, a departure from Roman Catholicism in the direction of some form of Prot- estantism. The religious and ecclesiastical history of Eng- land under Henry and Edward furnished a precedent for the change which could be made with the least shock to the feelings of Englishmen. The Church developed in the reigns of Elizabeth's father and brother was of a character which of all the forms of Protestantism departed least in belief, form, and organization from Catholicism. Practically all of Elizabeth's mature subjects had been living in the time of Henry and Edward, and there existed a large party Politics and Religion 15 within the kingdom accustomed to, if not partisans of the Church, as it had developed in Edwardian times. The right wing of this party had in Mary's reign become stronger and its leaders had confirmed their predilections by residence on the Continent, where they had associated closely with the prominent figures of Continental Protes- tantism. On the Continent sufficient time had elapsed since Luther's attack upon the Papacy to make less domi- nant the essentially political motives of the revolt from papal control, and Protestantism itself had begun that hardening of dogmatic and ecclesiastical standards which resulted in a more oppressive spirit than had existed in Catholicism itself prior to the Lutheran revolt; but this development had not yet gone so far nor the Protestant parties become so strong that anti-papal principles had sunk into the background of sectarian propaganda. Thus the English who had fled to the Continent during Mary's reign were, with the exception of a few extremists hyp- notized by the Calvinistic system, most influenced by their residence in the Protestant centers toward an anti-papal rather than toward a narrow sectarian policy. These men the government could use in carrying out its plans, though it did not ask their help in making them.^ Many of the most able and practical were ready to make compromises, either for the sake of introducing a modi- fied reform into the Church in England, or for the sake of securing for themselves the exercise and emoluments of clerical office. ^ Papal Catholics could not compromise. The theory of the Church forbade it, although it is perhaps true that shame for the compromises of the past rather than strict regard for the theory of the Church induced many of them to stand firmly now upon the convictions registered during Mary's reign. ^ "For sake of consistency which the ^ Jewel, Works, vol. iv, Letters, nos. viii, x, xii; Zurich Letters, nos. xi, xiv, XV ; Parker Correspondence, no. xlix. * Jewel, Works, vol. ii, p. 770; Zurich Letters, no. xlix. ' ]ev/e\, Works, vol. iv, Letters, no. xiv; Zurich Letters, no. xxvii; Burnet, 1 6 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth miserable knaves now choose to call their conscience, some few of the bishops, who were furious in the late Marian times, cannot as yet in so short a time, for very shame return to their senses." ^ Lukewarm Catholics, however, Catholics from policy. Catholics whose patriotism exceeded their love for the Church, should not be driven into opposition by extreme measures. With regard to the Prot- estants the government occupied the strategic position. Any change from Catholicism could be regarded as a con- cession which, for the present, must perforce satisfy the radicals, and win for the government the great mass of reformers, already prepared to make compromises and to rejoice over gains religious or financial.^ Necessity, not in- clination, may have made the changes in the religious es- tablishment veer toward Protestantism, but the govern- ment had little to fear from a national Protestant party and could safely proceed in the direction made inevitable by the attitude of the Pope and by the political situation. The change was so moderately made, however, that Ascham was able to write to Sturmlus, "[The Queen has] exercised such moderation, that the papists themselves have no com- plaint to make of having been severely dealt with."^ The government, in depending for the success of a com- promise religious policy upon the party of reform and upon the Catholics whose papal traditions were not so strong as their English feelings, was strengthened by the circum- stances which made support of its religious policy clearly essential to the safety of the Queen. Loyalty to the sover- eign was the greatest practical bond of national union in sixteenth-century England, the first principle of national patriotism. That such a spirit existed and would support the Queen's religious policy was comparatively easy of con- History of the Reformation of the Church of England (Pocock edition, Oxford, 1865), pt. Ill, bk. VI, no. 51. 1 Jewel, Works, vol. IV, Letters, no. Ixi. Cf. ibid., nos. xv, xx, xxi. * Zurich Letters, nos. ii, xxvi, xxxiii. ' Ibid., no. Ixiv. Politics and Religion 17 firmation during a time when the opinions of the great mass of the population were negligible or non-existent. The new nobles and gentry were sufficiently numerous and influen- tial to see to it that their dependents made no serious trouble; their own allegiance was secured by conviction, or by pros- pects of place and profit.^ In England the Queen might depend upon practically the united support of the reforming party and upon many luke- warm Catholics. The greatest dangers within the king- dom came from the older Catholic nobility, displeased at the prominence of the new men as well as devoted to the old Church, and from the clerics who had held high office in Church and State during Mary's reign. The latter, alarmed at the uncertainty of the government's policy, reasonably certain that Papal Catholicism would not be established as the religion of the State, and fearful lest the extreme Protestants ultimately have their way and a system of per- secution be inaugurated, formed the party of opposition to governmental plans for an ecclesiastical compromise. Yet for the most part this opposition was passive, and was accompanied by protestations of loyalty to the Cro^\^l, and to the Queen. This party would have been of little importance and helpless in the grip of royal disfavor had not the policy which the foreign complications forced upon the govern- ment been one of compromise and reconciliation of all loyal Catholics. In so far as the clerical party was at one with and in a sense dependent upon foreign, that is papal, poli- tics, it was dangerous to the government; but fear of alli- ance or intrigue with Continental Catholicism had to give way before the more pressing danger that the suppres- sion or harsh treatment of the old leaders of the Church would excite the sympathy, or arouse the antagonism, of men who would otherwise quietly acquiesce in the moderate proposals of the government. ^ Lee, The Church under Elizabeth (2 vols. 1880), vol. i, p. 70. 1 8 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Elizabeth's first parliament The details of the slow and cautious plans of the govern- ment would here occupy too much space and serve only to confuse the purposes of this essay. ^ They are to be found in the histories of the period. Throughout the time between the accession of Elizabeth and the meeting of her first Par- liament the plans for the religious changes were perfected and the country carefully persuaded into an attitude of wait- ing for the settlement of the religious questions to be em- bodied in law by that body.^ In the mean time Cecil and the other leaders arranged for the election to Commons of men who would be amenable to the directions of the Crown,' and the committee of the Council, "for the consideration of all things necessary for the Parliament" drafted the measures thought necessary to be passed by that body when it should assemble."* Parliament was opened on January 25, 1559, with the usual ceremony, and Convocation assembled, as was the custom, at the same time. In the Lords the bishops and one abbot took their usual places and were permitted a free- dom in voicing their opposition to all the proposed religious changes that would hardly have been granted to lay oppo- nents of governmental policy.^ Convocation passed articles asserting uncompromising adherence to the Roman Catholic faith. ^ The fairness of the government and its magnanimity were ostentatious; the pleas of the clerics vivid and im- passioned, in spite of the fact that they knew their case was * State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, vol. I, no. 69; vol. iv, no. 40; Strype, Annals, vol. I, pt. I, pp. 74-76, App., no. iv; Burnet, pt, 11, bk. iii, no. i, p. 497; Dodd (Tierney's ed.), vol. 11, p. 123, and App., no. 33. 2 Zurich Letters, nos. iii, viii. * For methods of influencing the elections cf. Council to Parker and Cobham, Parker Correspondence, no. cclxxxvii, Feb. 17, 1570. * Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. I, App., no. iv; Dodd (Tierney's ed.), II, p. 123, and App., no. 33; Dixon, vol. v, p. 22, note. ' Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. I, App., nos. vi, vii, ix, x, xi; D'Ewes, Journals, Elizabeth's first Parliament. * Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iv, p. 179. Politics and Religion 19 hopeless except as the vigor of their protests in Parliament and through the Convocation might serve to modify or soften for Catholics the terms of the settlement. They knew that the government would go as far as it could to avoid trouble and that it was willing to make as light as was con- sistent with safety the disabilities placed upon the Cath- olics. Elizabeth had shown this, when at her coronation, ten days before the assembling of Parliament, the Catholic bishops, who had, with the exception of Oglethorpe, refused to officiate,^ were allowed to escape any outward evidence of her displeasure. In spite of a perverseness which often drove the even-minded Cecil to distraction, Elizabeth some- times showed, when conditions demanded it, a proper re- gard for practical politics, even at the expense of her per- sonal feelings. After Parliament had been in session for some time and after the points of the settlement had been well mulled over in both houses, the government reached the cul- mination, and at the same time the end, of its previous pol- icy toward Mary's clergy. Arrangements were made for a great disputation, before the members of the Council and the nobility at Westminster, between the representatives of the Catholic and of the reforming parties. Governmental show of fairness in choosing the subjects for the conference and in arranging the method of discussion was perhaps more seeming than real, but the indiscretions of the Catholic divines, before the notable assemblage gathered to listen to the debate, afforded the authorities sufficiently good grounds for placing restraints upon their liberties. The refusal of the Catholics to proceed had, if we may trust Jewel, another effect, doubtless appreciated by the government. Jewel wrote to Martyr immediately after the affair, "It is alto- gether incredible how much this conduct has lessened the opinion that the people entertained of the bishops; for they ^ Dixon (vol. V, pp. 47-51) denies this, but does not seem to me to have \ proved his case. 20 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth all begin to suspect that they refused to say anything, only because they had not anything to say." ^ We have already had occasion to mention the impatience of the Protestants, who had returned from exile or come out of hiding, over their neglected condition and the slowness of the government in making provision for them. Their im- patience was aggravated by governmental permission of dilatory tactics by the Catholic bishops. "It is idly and scurrilously said, by way of joke, that as heretofore Christ was cast out by his enemies, so he is now kept out by his friends." "We manage ... as if God himself could scarce retain his authority without our ordinances and precau- tions." - Since most of them were not admitted to the counsels and purposes of the government in its treatment of Catholics, nor capable of understanding the need for caution and moderation, they were greatly discouraged over their prospects. The moderate men of the reforming party, however, who, like Cox,^ and Parker, were least fanatical, were used by the leaders at court and given assurances of favor, conditional upon cooperation in establishing a church such as the government had in mind. Protestants preached at court and were given employment upon the details of arrangement for the changes contemplated, such as the revision of Edward's Prayer Book and the compilation of the Book of Homilies. With the progress of the work of Parliament the Protestants had less cause for complaint and were allowed greater expression of opinion so long as they did not exceed the limits of discussion set by govern- ment policy. Forced, as the court was, to depend for sup- port of its anti-papal policy upon the reformers, it placed confidence only in those who were in sympathy with its de- * Jewel, Works, vol. iv, Letters, no. ix {Zurich Letters, no. xll; Burnet, pt. ni, bk. VI, no. 49, p. 407). Cf. also ibid., no. viii; Zurich Letters, nos. xi, xix; Burnet, pt. in, bk. vi, no. 47, p. 402; 5. P., Dont., Eliz., vol. iii, no. 52; Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. l, App., nos. xv, xvi. 2 Zurich Letters, no. xiii. Cf. also ibid., nos. xi, xiv, xvii, xix, xHi. * Hall, Elizabethan Age, chap, viii, "The Churchman," pp. 103-18. Politics and Religion 21 sire to make no radical changes, and to conduct all things in order and decency, with proper regard to the secular inter- ests of all concerned. - - , The carefully packed Parliament was significantly enough characterized by the predominance of younger men who had not had previous experience as members of the Commons. They were for the most part of Protestant sym- pathies, but sufficiently in awe of court influence to submit to the management of Cecil and the Crown. We find in this Parliament little of that tendency to take the bit in its teeth and direct its own course which later in the reign gave such opportunity for the exercise of royal authority in restraint of Parliamentary action. No serious obstacles presented themselves in the Commons to the passage of the religious acts determined upon by the government; but nothing was done in haste, and the willingness of the Commons was re- strained by the greater experience of the Lords. Perhaps, too, the government was willing to allow more or less radical talk in the Commons to counteract the effects of Catholic protests in the Upper House. The history of the passage of the acts through Parliament is somewhat tire- some, and significant only as confirming the care and super- vision of the court leaders. It will be sufficient here to name and summarize briefly the provisions of the acts as they finally received the signature of the Queen. The most important of these were the Acts of Supremacy ^ and Uniformity.^ The Act of Supremacy repealed i and 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8, which had revived papal jurisdic- tion, and the statutes concerning heresy made in that reign. Ten statutes of Henry VHI and one of Edward were revived. It dropped the title "Supreme Head of the Church," 3 although it retained the substance and pro- * Statutes of the Realm, i EHz., c. I. ^ Ibid., c. 2. ' D'Ewes, Journals, p. 38; Stubbs, in A pp. Ecc. Courts, Com. Report, Ses- sional Papers, 1883, vol. xxiv, p. 44: "the effect of omitting the revival of 26 H. VIII, c. I, 28 H. VIII, c. 10, 35 H. VIII, c. 3, and 35 H. VIII, c. i, sec. 7, was the abolition of the royal claim to the title of supreme head as affirmed by Act of Parliament." 22 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth vided for the exercise of a supreme royal authority by means of ecclesiastical commissions practically unlimited by law as to composition, number, and duration. The old juris- diction of the ecclesiastical courts was, however, retained. The Act of Uniformity imposed an ambiguous Prayer Book, designed to permit men of all faiths to take part in the serv- ices. Of laymen no declaration of faith was demanded; outward conformity, signified by attendance upon the service, was all that was asked ; and a fine of twelve pence imposed for absence from the new services was intended to secure attendance. Office-holders,^ both lay and clerical, were required to take an oath acknowledging the Queen's supremacy and renouncing all allegiance and obedience to any foreign power, upon pain of loss of, and disqualifica- tion for office. Clerics who took the oath, but refused to use the service and comply with the terms of the act, were subject to increasing penalties culminating in deposition and life imprisonment. Besides the two great measures of establishment, which virtually placed the Queen at the head of the English Church, Parliament annexed the first fruits and tenths to the Crown ; declared Elizabeth lawful heir to the Crown,^ without, how- ever, affirming in so many words the validity of Anne's marriage to Henry; annexed to the Crown the religious houses which Mary had founded; and gave the Queen power, with the ecclesiastical commissioners, to take further order for the regulation of the cathedral and collegiate churches.' inauguration of the establishment After the completion of the work of Elizabeth's first Parliament and its dissolution, the government had yet to put the system devised into operation. Naturally the first » C/. however, Span. Cal., 155S-6T, vol. l, no. 36, p. 76; Parker Corresp., no. Ixxi. » Statutes of the Realm, i Eliz., c. 5. • Ibid., c. 22. Politics and Religion 23 step toward the inauguration of the establishment was the removal of the obstructionist bishops. This the Act of Uni- formity had made legally possible in the paragraphs which provided that from the clerics an oath acknowledging the Queen's supremacy might be demanded by such persons as were authorized by the Queen to receive it. The Council, by virtue of commission dated May 23, offered the oath to the Roman bishops, and, upon their refusal to take it, deposed, during the course of the summer, all except Landaff, who took the oath and was allowed to retain his bishopric. The removal of the lesser Catholic clergy throughout the kingdom was accomplished by means of Commissions of Royal Visitation formed during the summer months. Eng- land was divided into six circuits and commissioners, mostly laymen, appointed to make the rounds,^ administer the oath to the clergy, and inquire into certain articles of which the most interesting are those concerning the late perse- cutions.- The visitors carried with them also a set of royal injunctions for the guidance of the Church. These were copied after the injunctions of Edward VI, with an explana- tion added at the end setting forth the fact that the Queen did not claim spiritual functions and a denial that the gov- ernment attached to the taking of the oath the acknowledg- ment of any such belief.^ Because of the extent of the ter- ritory to be covered by these commissions and because of their limited powers, the results of this visitation are hard to estimate. Anglican and Catholic writers, after careful study of all available statistical information, differ widely in their conclusions as to the number of the clergy » S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. X, no. i; vol. vi, no. 12; Henry Gee, Elizabethan Clergy (Oxford, 1898), pp. 89-93, 133-36; Cardwell, Documentary Annals, vol. I, 249; Burnet, pt. 11, bk. Ill, no. 7, p. 533. * Articles printed in Gee, Elizabethan Clergy, pp. 65-70; Sparrow, Collec- tions. » Prothero, Select Statutes, p. 184; Sparrow, Collections, p. 65; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. XV, no. 27; Burnet, pt. 11, bk. iii, p. 631; Collier, 11, 433; Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. i, p. 197; Jewel, Works, vol. iv, "Defence of the Apolog>'," pp. 958-1039; Whitgift, Works (Parker Society), vol. i, p. 22. 24 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth who were deposed.^ The point is not essential. We know enough to be certain that, while not thorough in its work, the visitation accomplished practically all that the govern- ment hoped for or desired ; the system was inaugurated and its most fanatical enemies removed from the exercise of their offices. The perfection of the system, and the sifting out of enemies whom the visitation had missed and the government desired to find, might safely be left to other more permanent agencies of supervision. The examination of the certificates of the royal visitors and the completion of their work ^ were assigned by com- mission, dated September 13, to the central commission for the exercise of royal supremacy contemplated by the Act of Supremacy. This central or permanent body had already been created and given extensive powers by commission issued on July 19, although it probably did not meet until the practical completion of the work of the royal visitors, as many of its members were also visitors. Besides the busi- ness resulting from the work of the Royal Visitation, the central commission had committed to its care the super- vision of the working of the Acts of Supremacy and Uni- formity throughout the kingdom, repression of seditious books, heretical opinions, false rumors, slanderous words, disturbances of, and absence from, the established services, and was further given jurisdiction over all vagabonds of London and the vicinity.^ ^^ ^ The removal of the Catholic bishops, the work of the Royal Visitation, and the creation of a central commission were in large part merely repressive measures, providing for proper policing of the country. It was essential to the work- ing of the system that the episcopal offices, made vacant by the forced retirement of the Roman Catholic bishops, be * Gee, Elizabethan Clergy (Oxford, 1898); H. N. Birt, Elizabethan Religious Settlement (London, 1907). * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. vil, no. 79; Gee, Elizabethan Clergy, p. 141; Birt, Elizabethan Religious Settlement, p. 183, no. 2. Cf. Parker Corresp., no. Ixxx. * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. v, no. 18; Prothero, Select Statutes, pp. 227-32; Cardwell, Documentary Annals, vol. I, p. 223. Politics and Religion 25 filled. There was no lack of candidates for the positions. Protestants who from conviction regarded the abolition of the papal supremacy as the essential element for the Na- tional Church; Protestants who hoped for further reform, but were willing to take honorable office In the Church for the sake of excluding persons less Protestant than them- selves, and for the sake of working from the Inside for more radical changes; Protestants whose convictions were swayed by the knowledge that high offices in the Church were not likely to be awarded to radicals — all more or less modestly waited for preferment. And men from all of these classes obtained what they waited for, some in positions less high than they had hoped, but better than exile or obscurity. The disagreeable bickerings of the newly chosen clergy with the Queen over the exchange of parson- ages impropriate for bishops' lands, which delayed their installation and consecration for some time, was not entirely due to greed on the part of the bishops. "The bishops are as yet only marked out, and their estates are in the mean time gloriously swelling the exchequer," ^ Jewel wrote to Martyr In November, 1559. Many felt, with Jewel, more concern over the impoverishment of the Church by the Queen's excessive demands than for their own loss of worldly goods. Their greed at this time has probably been considerably magnified because of the avarice of such men as Aylmer, one of the least admirable of the Elizabethan bishops. His conduct was the opposite of that which he had demanded before he became a bishop. Then he had cried, "Come of you Bishoppes, away with your superfluities, yeld up your thousands, be content with hundreds as they be In other reformed Churches, where be as greate learned men as you are. Let your portion be priestlike and not princelike." ^ As a bishop his greed became a common 1 Zurich Letters, no. xxxv. Cf. Parker Corresp., nos. Ixviii, Ixix; S. P., Dont., Eliz., vol. VIII, no. 19. 2 Maitland, Essays on Subjects connected with the Reformation, p. 166; Strj-pe, Annals, vol. ri, pt. i, App., no. xxxi; Strype, Aylmer, passim. 26 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth scandal. But Parker, Jewel, Grindal, Parkhurst, and many of the others were men of relatively high character, al- though better fitted perhaps for scholastic affairs than for the complexities of practical ecclesiastical administration. None of them had ability or training in ecclesiastical ad- ministration comparable to that of Cecil in secular admin- istration. Yet they were earnest and sincere men fitted to give intelligent, if not brilliant, service in the establishment of the Church. The selection of the lesser clergy to fill the places made vacant by the work of the Royal Visitation presented a much more difficult problem. Secular influence in the selection of these men was exerted by local magnates and nobles with more concern for selfish advantage than for the welfare either of Church or of State, and Parker wrote to Lady Bacon : — I was informed the best of the country, not under the degree of knights, were infected with this sore, so far that some one knight had four or five, some other seven or eight benefices clouted together, fleecing them all, defrauding the crown's subjects of their duty of prayers, somewhere setting boys and their serving- men to bear the names of such living.^ The Queen herself did not realize the need for competent preachers and pastors; the higher clergy were in too many cases, even where competent men were available, careless about securing their services, or as greedy as the laity to secure cheap ones. Clerical service gave no dignified or honored position in the community, and the financial rewards were not enticing to men of ability. The tone and character of the lesser clergy reached perhaps its lowest ebb during the first years of Elizabeth's reign. ^ In spite of the setting in motion of the machinery pro- vided by the religious acts, the Roman Catholics were not entirely disheartened. There were elements in the situation ^ Parker Corresp., no. ccxxxix. * Cf. chap, v, p. 131. Politics and Religion 27 which justified them in thinking that their case was not hopeless. Although they had apparently lost power, the ob- vious conciliatory policy of the government gave them prac- tical assurance that they were in little real present danger and led them to hope that a chance for rehabilitation might present itself. That the organization and the services of the establishment were not radically changed by the new order was a subject for congratulation among Catholics. Parsons, the Jesuit, at a later date rejoices "that the sweet and high Providence of Almighty God hath not been small in con- serving and holding together a good portion of the material part of the old English Catholick Church, above all other Nations, that have been over-run with Heresie, for that we have yet on foot many principal Monuments that are de- stroyed, in other countries, as namely we have our Cathe- dral Churches and Bishopricks yet standing, our Deanries, Canonries, Archdeaconries, and other Benefices not de- stroyed, our Colledges and Universities whole, so that there wanteth nothing, but a new form to give them Life and Spirit by putting good and vertuous Men into them. ..." * The work of the Royal Commissioners of Visitation had varied with the character of the visitors and the sentiments of the districts visited, and the institution of the new system was by no means thorough. Catholic clergy were left, in some sections at least, in charge of their old parishes. "... The prebendaries in the cathedrals, and the parish priests in the other churches, retaining the outward habits and inward feeling of popery, so fascinate the ears and eyes of the multitude that they are unable to believe but that either the popish doctrine is still retained, or at least that it will be shortly restored." ^ The most dangerous and rabid of the papal adherents had been removed, but the impres- sion was given that this was all the government wished to • Parsons, Memorial of the Reformation of England, printed in part in Taunton, English Jesuits, App., p. 478. * Zurich Letters, no. liii, Lever to Bullinger, July 10, 1560. 28 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth accomplish. Finally, there was much in the foreign polit- ical situation to give Catholics hope, and cause concern to Elizabeth and her advisers. Elizabeth's second parliament Foreign events during the first four or five years of Eliza- beth's reign served to emphasize the need for the loyalty of Englishmen and for the maintenance of governmental control over the religious question.^ When Parliament met for the second time, January 12, 1563, Philip had given up his hope of regaining England for Catholicism by matrimo- nial alliance. Elizabeth had refused to send representatives to the Council of Trent, and the labors of that body had ended without accomplishing anything which tended toward reconciliation. In 1562 the Pope, Pius IV, issued a brief for- bidding Catholics to attend the English services on pain of being declared schismatic, and thus, in some measure, Eng- lish Catholics had been compelled to withdraw the assent to the new arrangement which the moderate policy of the government had won from them. Mary was back in Scot- land,' forced to make concessions to the Protestants to maintain her throne, but craftily intriguing to gain freedom. I She schemed and waited in the hope that a turn of the wheel might seat her on the English throne and give her the means to suppress the hated preachers. Her hopes were dependent upon her uncles the Guises, and events in France in 1562 seemed to indicate that the time she awaited had come. The year opened with the issue by Catharine of an edict of toleration. Guise replied with the massacre of a Protestant congregation at Vassy. He entered Paris and seized the queen mother and the king. The Huguenot leaders took the field and France was divided into two hostile and destruc- tive religious camps. Philip sent forces to Gascony to aid the Guises. The Pope and the Duke of Savoy hired Italians * D'Ewes, Journals, Cecil's speech in the second Parliament. CJ. Zurich Letters, nos. Ixix, Ixxii, Ixxiii. Politics and Religion 29 and Pledmontese to attack the Huguenots from the south- west. German mercenaries were added to the Catholic forces in the north. The Huguenots seemed enclosed in the net of their foes. Mary negotiated a marriage with the son of J- Philip, strengthened her connections with the Continental Catholics, and plotted the overthrow of Elizabeth and the restoration of both Scotland and England to the jurisdic- tion of the Papal See. Success for the Catholics on the Con- tinent seemed to mean success for Mary in Scotland, per- haps in England also. Then came the battle of Dreux and the virtual defeat of the combined Huguenot forces. That the English Parliament in this situation should strengthen the kingdom's defenses against its religious and political enemies was inevitable; that it proceeded along the lines of the weaknesses found in the system established is evidence of conservatism and moderation not to be expected from a radical Protestant body. There is no question that the system had been proved ineffective in some points by the experience of the past five years. In the first place, under the arrangements made by the Act of Supremacy for administering the oath, many, both clerics and laity, who were in positions to hinder the secure establishment of the system, had been able to escape, either because the means for administering the oath were in- effective, or because they were not included in the classes specified as required to take it. Thus we find disorders both among the clerics and laity, particularly in the north where the great centers of Catholic dissent were situated, and where the need for a united front was especially great from a military standpoint. Compared with the extent of the coun- try, the means of administering the oath to the clergy were few, and where such means should have been sufiicient they were often hindered by the opposition or indiffer- ence of secular officials whose sympathies were with their Catholic neighbors. The ecclesiastics were often forced to make such complaints as Parker's to Cecil : — 30 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth I am here stoutly faced out by that vain official who was de- clared to have slandered Mr. Morris and some justices of the peace, and purpose to examine the foul slander of Morris accord- ing to the request of your letters. The official seemeth to dis- credit my office, for that I am but one of the commission, and have none other assistants here; and therefore it would do good service if the commission I sued for to be renewed were granted. There be stout words muttered for actions of the case, and for dangerous premunires, and specially tossed by his friends, pa- pists only, where the better subjects do universally cry out his abuses. If I had some advice from you I should do the better.^ Complaints of such hindrance were constantly sent to the Council, because the bishops and other ecclesiastics were without the power necessary to enforce their orders. Since the real sting of excommunication lay, for the Catholics, not in exclusion from the Church, but in the temporal pen- alties attached to that condition, failure to impose these penalties took from the hands of the Church the force of its most powerful weapon. Here, then, are at least two impor- tant defects of the system created by the acts of 1559: the right to administer the oath of supremacy and the obligation to take it did not extend far enough to cover all dangers, and the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication could not be rightly enforced because minor officials, particularly the sheriffs and justices of the peace, failed to do their duty and there was no generally applicable means of forcing them to do so. These are obviously defects that needed correc- tion, and we find that Parliament's two most important acts, the Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Supremacy and the Act for the Better Enforcement of the Writ de Ex- commtinicato Capiendo, deal with these very things. The Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Supremacy 2 had for its purpose the most effective administration of the previous legislation concerning the royal supremacy and the 1 Parker Corresp., no. cclxxix; cf. Grindal, Remains, Letters, no. Ixxii; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CCLXX, no. 99; vol. CCLXXIV, no. 25. » Statutes of the Realm, 5 Eliz., c. \; cf. speeches against the bill by Browne, Lord Montague, and Atkinson, Strype, Annals, vol. i, chap. xxvi. Politics and Religion 31 extension of such legislation to persons not previously reached by its requirements, particularly the provision which com- pelled the taking of the oath of supremacy. The punishment for maintenance of the papal power in England was in- creased, and the enforcement of the law was, for the first time, brought under the control of a powerful and efficient secular court. King's Bench. The minor officials to whom the administration of the laws against Catholics had been in great part entrusted, were made directly responsible to it for the performance of their duty. The loopholes left by the Act of Supremacy for escape from taking the oath of supremacy were closed and the application of the require- ment was greatly extended. To those classes of persons formerly required to take it, were added the members of Commons, all lay and clerical graduates of the universi- ties, schoolmasters, public and private teachers, barristers, lawyers, sheriffs, and all "persons whatsoever who have or shall be admitted to any ministry or office belonging to the common law or any other law within the realm." The agents for administering the oath were increased in number. Every archbishop and bishop was given power to administer the oath to all ecclesiastics within his diocese, and the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was authorized to issue commissions to any persons he saw fit, to adminis- ter the oath to such persons as were specified in the com- mission. Refusal to take the oath was punished by more severe penalties.* In the Act for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommu- nicato Capiendo ^ the ecclesiastical censure of excommunica- tion was made stronger. It had long been the custom for the bishop, upon excommunicating an offender, to write to the Court of Chancery for a writ de Excommunicato Capiendo, ' Parker Corresp., nos. cxxvii and cxxviii. Parker, with the approval of Cecil, took measures to see that these penalties were not too severely enforced. Cf. Str>'pe, Parker, 126. » Statutes of the Realm, 5 Eliz., c. 23. History of the act in Strype, Annals, vol. I, pt. I, p. 460. 32 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth or capias. Chancery issued the writ to the sheriff for execu- tion, and that officer was supposed upon its receipt to ar- rest and imprison the person excommunicated. Under the new establishment, however, the sheriff was often in sym- pathy with such offenders and failed to do his duty,^ and there was, in cases of such failure, no way, by means of the ordinary processes of law, to force him to perform his duty because the writ was not returnable to any court. The new act, probably drawn up by Parker and Grindal,^ provided, by means of fines imposed upon the minor officials for fail- ure to do their duty, that the authority of the spiritual censure be effectively enforced and that the personal lean- ings of the sheriffs should not prevent the execution of the penalties involved in excommunication. Incidentally the act specifies the offenses that incur the penalty of Excom- munication: Excommunlcatyon dothe proceede upon some cause or con- tempte of some originall matter of Heresie or refusing to have his or their childe baptysed or to receave the Holy Communion as yt commonlye is now used to be recyved in the churche of Eng- lande, or to come to Dyvine service nowe commonlye used in the said churche of Englande, or errour in matters of religion or doctryne now receyved and alowed in the sayd churche of Eng- lande, incontenencye, usurye, symonye, periurye, in the ecclesias- tical court or Idolatrye. Parliament did not confine its work for the security of the Queen and the realm to the enactment of these two acts. The repression of that class of persons who pretended to fore- cast events, or to exercise magical powers, was looked to in two special acts which imposed penalties upon witches and enchanters. Such persons were regarded as dangerous be- cause of their associations with the old religion.^ The acts were framed because the people were misled by seditious persons dissatisfied with the religious establishment, who * Gee, Elizabethan Clergy, p. 19. * Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. i, p, 460. * Statutes of the Realm, 5 Eliz., c. 15; Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. I, pp. 441, 465-66; Statutes oj the Realm, 5 Eliz., c. 16. Politics and Religion 33 used prophecy and divination as excuses or incentives for bringing about the Queen's death. The belief in magic, possession, witchcraft, and similar supernatural manifesta- tions of power was shared by all classes and by all types of religious faith. This somewhat curious persistence in Chris- tianity of an essentially dual conception of the universe and supernatural forces has extended even to the present time, and though the importance which all men of that time at- tached to such claims seems absurd to-day, the fear was real and the danger imagined particularly hard to meet. THE SUCCESS OF GOVERNMENT POLICY In the establishment thus created by the first Parliament and strengthened by the second, there was little to alarm the great mass of the people. There was no change made that on the surface could not be justified by some act of the past, although, as is usual. Englishman's precedent applied to a new situation might involve consequences utterly for- eign to the substance of past conceptions. The old machin- ery remained; the two provinces, the bishoprics, and in great part the same clergy still conducted the services. The services were not so different as to shock religious sense, or to arouse the opposition of the people, although iso- lated cases of Protestant violence and Catholic stubborn- ness might occur. For a long time the Queen retained, much to the distress of her clergy, elements of the old wor- ship in her private chapel. ^ The supremacy of the Queen was maintained, but the title of "Supreme Head of the Church," so offensive to Catholics, was not assumed, and the national headship over all estates of the realm found support in the patriotic sentiments of all Protestants and a great number of Catholics. In the enforcement of the su- ^ premacy no extraordinary judicial bodies with which thepeo- ' pie were unfamiliar were created. The Queen's commissions ' » Parker Corresp., nos. Ixvi, Ixvii, Ixxii; Zurich Letters, nos. xxv, xl, xxxix, xliv, xlviii, xliii.^ 34 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth were similar to those of Edward and Mary, and the regular and ecclesiastical courts exercised jurisdiction in establish- ing and maintaining the supremacy and ecclesiastical order in much the same way that they had in the past. The pur- poses of the government had been to construct a Church which would enable Elizabeth to retain her throne, which would reconcile Catholics and Protestants, and which might serve as a police force over the outlying districts of the kingdom. The Church as established served as a protection against Catholic dangers and in a minor degree insured the avoidance of Protestant excesses. ^ As a governmental tool it accomplished its objects with as little friction and injus- tice as could be expected. In the hands of Elizabeth and her government it came as near satisfying all parties as any system that could have been devised. The years from 1563 to the end of Elizabeth's reign brought no essential changes in the structure of the Church. Details were adjusted and relationships changed somewhat as new problems arose and as the Church itself developed an independent ecclesiastical consciousness, but essentially the structure given the Church in the first years of Eliza- beth remained unchanged. Of the adjustments and changed relationships, so far as they concern the growth of an inde- pendent Anglican Church, and the development of various phases of Protestant dissent, we shall speak in succeeding chapters. They are phases of English religious and ecclesi- astical history which may be best treated after we have reviewed the course of those events which, to the minds of all Protestant elements in the kingdom, most closely concerned the religious as well as the political integrity of England. * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. vi, no. 22; vol. xiii, no. 32; Strype, Annals, vol. I, pt. I, p. 279; Collier, Ecc. Hist., vol. vi, p. 332. CHAPTER III THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CATHOLICS The Catholic danger was, during the whole reign of Eliza- beth, the one most prominent in English religious politics, yet the lenient policy in the handling of her Catholic sub- jects, inaugurated at the beginning, was maintained by Elizabeth and her government. Repression of disorder and restraint of individuals whose activity might be politically dangerous were in general the only purpose of that policy. Nevertheless, we find considerable diversity in the thorough- ness with which such restraint and repression were exer- cised, and a growing severity in the laws enacted for dealing with Catholic recusants. At times of great national danger or of increased Catholic activity, laws were put in execution with greater vigor and greater legal safeguards were erected. A history of the reign in detail is unnecessary here, but a r6sum6 of the chief events and situations in connection with the Catholic problem will make clear the grounds for politi- cal fear of Catholic disturbance and the incentives afforded for new legislation ; and a description of this legislation will, in conjunction with other sources of information, afford a basis for an analysis of the character and purposes of governmental repression of Catholics. THE REBELLION OF THE NORTHERN EARLS From 1563 until 1570 there is little of striking interest or importance to detain us. They were years of anxiety, it is true, years during which the kingdom was least prepared to meet the Catholic disorders within and attack from Cath- olic powers outside the kingdom, yet the wisdom of the governmental policy of waiting, and the confusion of Con- tinental politics enabled the State to weather the minor dis- 36 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth turbanccs caused by the revolt of the nobles in the north and the tempests of the vestlarlan controversy. We are for the present concerned only with the former. The rebellion of Northumberland and Westmoreland In 1569 was not based exclusively upon dislike of the religious changes made by Elizabeth and a consequent advocacy of the claims of Mary Stuart, but was in part at least founded upon the disgruntled feeling of the old nobility displaced by "new men." The earls, a remnant of the feudal nobil- ity, with many of the views and ideals of family position which belonged to an earlier time, were jealous of the power wielded by Cecil, Bacon, Walsingham, and the new families. In their proclamation the rebels charged that the Queen was surrounded "by divers newe set-upp nobles, who not onlie go aboute to overthrow and put downe the ancient nobilitie of the realme, but also have misused the queen's majestle's owne personne, and also have by the space of twelve yeares now^e past set upp and mayntayned a new- found religion and heresie contrary to God's word." ^ In one sense, the revolt of 1569 was a struggle between the old and the new aristocracy, and it Is easily conceivable that some such strife would have arisen had a political situation other than the religious one made the monarchy as dependent upon the employment and preference of the new men as was Elizabeth In the situation which had been forced upon her. The revolt was easily quelled, and punished with a cruelty in excess of the dangers that might justly have been feared from such a poorly planned attempt upon the throne of Elizabeth. The revolt of the north proved that internal Catholic discontent could not serve as the primary force for the overthrow of existing conditions, although It might, under certain circumstances, form a powerful auxiliary to foreign invasion should the international political situation unite the enemies of Elizabeth against England. The fact » Lingard, Hist. Eng., vol. v, p. 113. Cf. Bull of Excommunication, par. 2; Jewel, Works, vol. iv, pp. 11 30-31. The Government and the Catholics 37 that the parties of opposition were essentially foreign, papal, Scotch, Spanish, won for Elizabeth the support of all who resented outside interference in English affairs, and brought her triumphantly through the succession of crises that con- fronted the kingdom. THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF ELIZABETH In Februarys 1570, the carefully laid and remarkably suc- cessful plans of the government to secure by a broad and inclusive policy the adherence of Catholics to the estab- lishment w^ere rudely disturbed. The question now became whether the government's lenient policy during the years preceding would bear good or evil fruit. Four years before, Pius V, hot-tempered and pious in fact as well as name, had come to the papal throne. In 1570 he issued a Bull of Excommunication against Elizabeth.^ What its conse- quences might be it was hard to estimate. Catholics were compelled to choose definitely whether they should withdraw from the Elizabethan establishment that assent which the leniency of the government had made possible, or remain true to their loyal feelings and incur the censures of Mother Church. Would the leniency of governmental religious pol- icy bear fruit in continued adherence of loyal Catholics at so great cost? Or would they yield obedience to the Pope at the sacrifice of personal comfort and safety, loyalty and home? The Pope demanded the sacrifice of English loyalty to ecclesiastical and religious zeal. Many hesitated, and Elizabeth issued a masterly proclamation in which she dis- claimed a desire to sacrifice religious feeling to patriotic feeling : — Her majesty would have all her loving subjects to understand, that, as long as they shall openly continue in the observation of her laws, and shall not wilfully and manifestly break them by their open actions, her majesty's means is not to have any of them molested by any inquisition or examination of their con- » Wilkins, Concilia, vol. IV, p. 260; Cardwell, Doc. Annals, vol. i, pp. 328- 31 ; Burnet, pt. ii, bk. m, no. 13, p. 579. 38 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth sciences in causes of religion ; but to accept and entreat them as her good and obedient subjects. She meaneth not to enter into the inquisition of any men's consciences as long as they shall observe her laws in their open deeds.' The Bull was not popular with the reasonable English Catholics, nor with the European princes. ^ From this time forth, until the final settlement of the danger to England from foreign aggression, all parties in England felt that however much they differed, there was need for a common front against the enemy. In a sense it aroused the Protes- tants of England to a united loyalty to the Crown which had not been possible before, not even ten years before at the reorganization of the Church. The only point of dis- agreement was as to the severity of the measures that should be taken in retaliation upon the Catholics who sub- mitted to the commands of the Bull. The publication of the Bull of Excommunication was the occasion for the most striking proclamation of governmental determination to adhere to its fundamental policy of ab- staining from active interference with Catholics whose reli- gious beliefs did not involve them in political plots; but the revolt of the northern earls and the dangers attendant upon the imprisonment of Mary Stuart, in conjunction with the publication of the Bull, led the political leaders to favor the passage of more restrictive legislation by the Parliament of 1 57 1. That element in Parliament w^hich wished for a more radically Protestant reformation of the Anglican Establishment was more bitterly anti-Catholic than the government, and heartily lent itself to the framing of severe laws against the Catholics. An act, "whereby certayne offences bee made treason," ^ attempted to counteract the effects of the Bull by making treasonable the declaration in any way that the Queen was not, or.- .ght not to be, queen * S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. Lxxi, nos. i6 and 34. * Span. Cal., p. 254, Philip to Gueraude Spes; For. Cal., p. 291, Norris to Eliz,; ibid., p. 339; Raynaldus, p. 177 (1571). """ » Statutes of the Realm, 13 Eliz., c. I. The Government and the Catholics 39 and the declaration that Elizabeth was a heretic, schismatic, or usurper. By disbarring from the succession any who claimed a greater right to the throne, and making the maintenance of such claims treason, the act struck at Mary of Scotland and her Catholic supporters. Not con- tent with this, severe penalties were attached to the publica- tion of books which, before any act of Parliament was made establishing the succession, maintained the right of any particular person to the succession. Another act made trea- sonable the introduction and putting into execution of Bulls or other instruments from the See of Rome, and subjected the Importers of articles blessed by the Pope to the penalties of Provisors and Premunire.^ Catholics who had fled to the Continent were, by still another act, commanded to return home within six months upon pain of forfeiture of their lands during life. 2 These measures made clear the resolution of the nation to protect itself and its queen. But Cecil wrote, "... there shall be no colour or occasion to shed the blood of any of her Majesty's subjects that shall only profess de- votion in their religion without bending their labours ma- liciously to disturb the common quiet of the realm, and therewith to cause sedition and rebellion to occupy the place of peace against it." ^ Since the severity of the enforcement of the laws rested almost entirely upon the Queen and her councillors, Catholics had little to fear as long as they kept their skirts clear of political Intrigue. LAWS AGAINST CATHOLICS FROM I580 TO 1 587 The Pariiament which reassembled in 1580-81 had to meet a situation more complicated and alarming even than that following the publication of the Bull of Excommunica- tion. The seminary at Douay, founded in 1568 by William Allen to train Catholic priests to fill the vacancies In the English priesthood caused by the death or withdrawal of the » Statutes of the Realm, 13 Eliz., c. 2. * Ibid., c. 3. » Dom. Cat., Eliz., p. 391. 40 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Marian clergy, had prospered, and in 1576 began to send its missionaries into the kingdom. The effect of their pres- ence was made evident by increased activity on the part of the Catholic laity and more general refusal to attend the established services. In 1580 the first of the Jesuit mission- aries, Campion and Parsons, landed in England and passed from one end of the country to the other. ^ Latent enthusi- asm for the old faith was roused by the earnest preaching of Campion, while Parsons sowed the seeds of political discon- tent and gathered together the loose ends of Catholic plot and intrigue. In the Netherlands Don John of Austria had planned a descent upon England by sea, and so pressing was the danger that in 1577 Elizabeth made an alliance with the Netherlands and sent men and money to the assistance of the burghers. In 1578 Philip's forces defeated the Dutch at Gemblours, and the next year the Pacification of Ghent was broken by the defection of the Catholic southern provinces. In Ireland papal soldiers, headed by the Jesuit Sander, landed in 1580 and aroused the Irish to rebellion, and at the same time William Gilbert was sent to England to organize the Catholics for cooperation with the Spanish forces of Philip. Walsingham and his spies were active and success- ful in ferreting out and punishing recusants, yet the dan- gers in the situation and the panic fear of Englishmen demanded that some more severe weapon than any yet in existence be created for use against the Catholics.^ The Parliament of 1581 enacted in the statute " to retalne the Queenes Majesties Subjects In their due Obedience" that all "persons whatsoever which . . . shall by any wayes or means . . . withdraw any of the Queenes Matles subjects from their . . . obedience to her Majestie or . . . withdraw them . . . from the relygion nowe by her Highnes aucthori- tie established ... to the Romyshe Religion . . . shalbe ad- * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. cxxxvii, no. 28; vol. cxLiv, no. 65; Strype, Annals, vol. Ill, App., no. vi. * Span. CaL,Eliz., vol. iii, nos. 31 and 119; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CXLII, no. 33; vol. cxxxvi, no. 41 ; vol. cxxxin, no. 46. The Government and the Catholics 41 judged to be Traitors." ^ Any person thus withdrawn was also declared guilty of high treason. The saying of mass was punished by a fine of two hundred marks ; and persons not going to church, as required by law, were to forfeit to the Queen for every month twenty pounds of lawful English money, and after one year of absence to give bond of at least two hundred pounds for good behavior. An act against se- ditious words and rumors uttered against the Queen pro- vided the penalties of fine for the first, and death for the second offense.^ From 1582 until 1585 the situation Increased In difificul- ties for England, but came to no crisis. Spanish resentment at the exploits of the English freebooters on the seas and over the secret aid and open sympathy of the English for the Netherlands grew in bitterness. Mendoza plotted with Mary and was dismissed from England.^ Philip's fear of French interference disappeared upon the death of Alengon and the outbreak of the war of religion between Henry of Navarre and the Catholics. The assassination of William of Orange freed Spain from Its most able single opponent In the Netherlands and raised a panic of fear for the life of their queen in England. Parliament in 1584-85 passed an act I banishing Jesuits from the realm, ^ and sanctioned the as- sociations formed for the defense of the Queen. ^ Antwerp fell, and in January, 1586, Elizabeth openly broke with Spain and sent an armed force to the aid of the Dutch. James of Scotland was induced, by his desire for rec- ognition as the next In succession, to form an offensive and defensive alliance with Elizabeth. The Parliament of 1586- 87 made effective the law of 1581 levying a fine of twenty 1 StatuUs of the Realm, 23 EHz., c. i ; Span. Cal., Eliz., vol. ill, no. 57; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. cxxvii, no. 6; vol. cxxxvi, no. 15; D'Ewes, Journals, pp. 272, 274, 285-88, 293, 302. » Statutes of the Realm, 23 Eliz., c. 2. * Strype, Annals, vol. Ill, App., no. xx\-i. * Statutes of the Realm, 27 Eliz., c. 2; S. P., Dam., Eliz., vol. ccxvi, no. 22. ' Statutes of the Realm, 27 Eliz., c. i ; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. ll, nos. 6 and 7; vol. CLXXiii, no. 81; D'Ewes, Journals, 285. 42 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth pounds upon Catholic recusants, by authorizing the seizure of the goods and two thirds of the lands of such as evaded or refused payment,^ and vigorously addressed itself to the removal of Mary Stuart from the situation. The complicity of Mary in the Babington Plot gave to Walsingham and the statesmen who had long urged her death, grounds for insistence, and the more decisive stand of England inter- nationally made the elimination of Mary a consistent and logical step. After nineteen years of imprisonment Mary Stuart was beheaded on February 8, 1587. MARY STUART The importance of this step as indicative of the new de- termination of English policy in meeting the dangers which had confronted the realm from the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, will be made more evident, perhaps, by a summary showing the position which Mary occupied in national and international affairs during the period of her captivity. We have already spoken of her title to the throne of England and its bearing upon the Catholic problem during the first years of Elizabeth's reign, but until Elizabeth was definitely excluded from the Catholic communion Mary of Scotland must have felt that her claims to England's throne, in so far as they were dependent upon Catholic rejection of Eliza- beth's legitimacy, had not received adequate support from papal power. When the Bull of Excommunication was finally issued by Pius V (1570), however, Mary was not free to push her claims with vigor, nor had her course of action during the years immediately preceding her con- finement in England tended to make real the political pur- poses by which she should have regulated her personal and political action. We shall not here review the familiar story of Mary, Queen of Scots, her difficulties at home, the flight to England, her imprisonment and death. English treat- ment of the Scottish queen and Elizabeth's attitude toward * Statutes of the Realm, 28 and 29 Eliz., c. 6. The Government and the Catholics 43 her, points which concern us closely, have been the sub- jects of bitter historical controversy and partisanship. The motives which governed the English in their treatment of Mary have always provided a rich field for disagreement to the controversialists. With the details of that discussion we shall not meddle. We shall present briefly the considera- tions which to us seem to have determined England's atti- tude toward Mary. In the eyes of the English political leaders of the time the detention of the queen for nineteen years was not wise. Barlow, Bishop of Chichester, wrote in 1575: "We have nothing new here, unless it be a new thing to hold a wolf by the ears, to cherish a snake in one's bosom ; which things have ceased to be novelties in this country: for the queen of the north, the plague of Britain, the prince of darkness in the form of a she wolf, is still kept in custody among us." ^ They clamored for her death: "If that only desperate person were away, as by justice soon it might be, the Queen's Majesty's good subjects would be in better hope, and the papists daily expectation vanquished. . . . There be many worldings, many counterfeits, many ambidexters, many neutrals, strong themselves in all their doings, and yet we which ought to be jilii lucis, want our policies and prudence." ^ That they did not have their way was undoubtedly due to the stubbornness of the Queen, her absolute refusal to make a decision to do as they wished. For this conduct on her part we have been offered the explanation that she was unwilling that the blood of her cousin should rest upon her head. Perhaps Elizabeth did have some such scruple, but it may be as reasonable to believe that the delay which she caused was due to a truly statesmanlike realization of the consequences of Mary's death. It must be remembered that * Zurich Letters, no. ccvii; Parker Corresp., no. ccxlix. * Parker Corresp., no. ccciv, Parker to Burghley, Sept. l6, 1572; Strype, Annals, vol. li, App., no. xiv. 44 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth the years until the death of Mary were years of political balancing and caution for England, years of inaction where inaction was possible, careful and parsimonious decision only when decision became inevitable, not alone in regard to the fate of Mary of Scotland, but in foreign and domestic policy in all other lines. Elizabeth with the men about her realized that Mary alive must be the nucleus of multitudi- nous plots. Would Mary dead give greater safety to Eng- land? Probably not. Mary's plots with English factions, papal emissaries, Scotch Catholics, and Spanish interests were dangerous only if they could be developed in secret, and it appears that nothing was hidden from the crafty spies of Walsingham and Cecil. In Scotland the Protestant party evidently joined with the radical English in demand- ing Mary's death. Elizabeth could have surrendered Mary and got rid of her easily had there appeared to her no good reason for keeping her cousin under her own control. Most of us find it difficult to think of the Scotch as anything other than Presbyterian, but it must not be forgotten that to Englishmen of Elizabeth's time it was by no means cer- tain that Catholicism would not once more gain the upper hand in Scotland. Release of Mary might be the occasion for an outburst of Catholic zeal and fury there. As long as Mary was in English hands, England could count on Scot- land's friendship and dependence. If Scotland became Cath- olic once more, Mary alive in English custody was worth more to England than Mary dead in the grave. Never- theless, Mary's life was more important to England from the standpoint of her influence upon the question of the Spanish attitude than of the Scotch. Many Catholics did not see, Mary herself did not realize, but Elizabeth may have understood perfectly that the interest of Philip of Spain in the restoration of England to Catholicism had in it a very large element of selfishness. Philip entered into plots with Mary, he promised great aids, he sheltered and pensioned expatriated English Catholics, he stirred up dis- The Government and the Catholics 45 content in the country. But he would not invade England to set Mary Stuart, a niece of Guise, upon England's throne — not even for love of Catholicism, He waited as Elizabeth hoped he would wait. He waited until Mary died at odds with her Protestant son. He waited until those who had been children at the accession of Elizabeth had grown to manhood under her rule and under the influence of the Church she had established. When Alary was killed Philip was ready to act. He received as a legacy from the Scotch queen the bequest of her claims on the English throne.^ Action by Philip now, if successful, would bring him the selfish rewards which had always been essential to secure his action. He sent the Armada. The Spanish party, which for years before Mary's death he had tried to build up in England with the help of the Jesuit Parsons, proved to have no substantial body. All England, Catholic and Protestant alike, rallied to repel the invader. ^ Elizabeth's policy had proved successful. That Elizabeth foresaw all this is incredible; that she may and probably did believe that the selfishness of Philip would keep him out of England as long as Mary Stuart was alive, is not difficult to believe; and it Is easier to believe that this, rather than Elizabeth's fear of the blood of her cousin, was the reason why Mary's life was preserved for so many years In the face of English opposition. THE LAWS OF 1 593 The defeat of the Armada did not for the Elizabethan, as it does for us, mark the end of the Spanish danger. It seemed a great victory, a national and providential deliver- ance from the hands of Antichrist and the hated foreigner; 1 Cal. State Papers {Simancas), vol. in, pp. 581, 590, 645; Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, vol. vi, p. 453; Record of the English Catholics, vol. II, pp. 285, 286, paper drawn up by Parsons and Allen. ' Pierce, Introdtiction to the Mar prelate Tracts, p. 146; Cal. State Papers, Dom., Add. 1580-1625, vol. xxxi, p. 14; Strype, Annals, vol. in, App., no. Ixv, a paper drawn up to show the Catholics how they may assist in repelling the Spaniard. 46 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth but the name and the prestige of Spain were still great, the forces of the Papacy insidious and persistent; the throne of the Queen and the independence of England not yet safe. Partly as a result of the national panic over contin- ued dangers from the Spaniard and his "devils" the Jesu- its, partly as a result of her thirty-five years' reign, dedi- cated, as the nation felt, to the spiritual as well as the political welfare and safety of England, enthusiasm for the Queen burst into flame and loyalty to the Crown assumed an importance that threatened to give to the monarchy a power and authority equal to that exercised by Henry VIII. Prot- estant extremists as well as Catholic, all whose opinions in the least threatened the safety of the State or the disturbance of the established system, were dangerous and should be crushed. In 1593 Parliament passed the most severe anti-Catholic legislation of the reign. ^ But it also enacted statutes against Protestant dissenters hardly less rigorous. 2 At no time in the reign, however, would depend- ence upon the formal letter of the law give a more mislead- ing conception of the true spirit of governmental religious policy. The obvious inference from the legislation of 1593, that the Queen was taking advantage of a wave of national feeling to inaugurate a system of relentless repression of Catholics would be far from the truth. National loyalty won victories and wrote statutes which gave the Queen the mastery and might have supported a relentless perse- cution had the government desired it ; but the government did not. Elizabeth used her supremacy in more tolerant fashion. After the harsh laws of 1593 a system of horrible perse- cution would have been set up in England had the will to punish been as angry as the tone of the law. Fortunately those who led, both in Church and State, directed their efforts not to crushing either Jesuits or Catholics, but to • Statutes of the Realm, 35 Eliz., c. 2. * Ibid., c. I, "An Acte to retayne the Quenes subjectes in obedience." The Government and the Catholics 47 providing insurance against treasonable outbursts of their enthusiasm. We find Bancroft, Bishop of London, with the consent of Elizabeth and the written absolution of the Council, going so far as to furnish the secular priests of Rome with printers and protecting them in the distribution of their books in order that the influence of the dangerous Jesuits might be counteracted. He and the Court hoped to win all loyal Catholics to peace by this practical evi- dence of immunity for those who confined their Catholi- cism to belief in the doctrines of the Mother Church and kept their skirts clear of political intrigue. Catholics were even led to hope for toleration of their religion. A Catholic wrote to Cecil : — England, I know, standeth in most dangerous terms to be a spoil to all the world, and to be brought into perpetual bondage, and that, I fear, your lordships and the rest of the Council will see when it is too late. Would to God, therefore, Her Majesty would grant toleration of religion, whereby men's minds would be ap- peased and join all in one for the defence of our country. We see what safety it hath been to France, how peaceable the king- dom of Polonia is where no man's conscience is forced, how the Germans live, being contrary in religion, without giving offence one to another. Why might not we do the like in England, seeing everyman must answer for his own soul at the Latter Day, and that religion is the gift of God and cannot be beaten into a man's head with a hammer? Well may men's bodies be forced but not their minds, and where force is used, love is lost, and the prince and state endangered.^ In 1 601 Bancroft went so far in that direction as to pre- sent a petition for Catholic toleration to Elizabeth and his reproof was no more severe than the observ^ation from the Queen, "These men perceiving my lenity and clemency toward them, are not content, but demand everything, and wish to have it at once." To quiet the alarm of Presbyterians and radical church- men who were frightened at the seeming kindness to the Catholics, Elizabeth was forced to issue a proclamation » Historical MSS. Commission, Hatfield MSS., pt. Vli, pp. 363-64- 48 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth disclaiming any intention to permit a toleration in Eng- land : — They [the secular priestsl do almost insinuate into the minds of all sorts of people (as well the good that grieve at it, as the bad that thirst after it) that we have some purpose to grant a tol- eration of two religions within our realm, where God (we thank Him for it who seeth into the secret corners of all hearts) doth not only know our innocency from such imagination, but how far it hath been from any about us to offer to our ears the per- suasion of such a course, as would not only disturb the peace of the church, but bring this our State into confusion.^ But the leaders dominated the situation and had no in- tention of abandoning the consistent policy of reconciliation and moderation which the Queen had found so effective during the period preceding the Armada. Bancroft did not succeed, as he had hoped, in transferring from Jesuits to seculars the influence over the Catholic laity, but he so intensified the bitter dissension in the ranks of English Catholicism that the danger of Catholic plot was for the time reduced to a negligible factor, and the persecuting spirit of the acts of 1593 grew cold during the last ten- years of Elizabeth's reign. ^ administration of laws against catholics The penalties imposed by the statutes ran through the whole range of punishments designed to discourage crime against the State. Fine, imprisonment, segregation, exile, or death, might legally result from failure to conform to the established ecclesiastical requirements, but Eliza- beth and her government in the imposition of these penal- ties assumed pretty definite policies which modified con- siderably the purposes of the statutes imposing them. The authorities were exceedingly reluctant to apply the extreme penalty to all those who might clearly and easily have been brought under the terms of the statutes. The ex- 1 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. ccLXXXV, no. 55. * Usher, Reconstruction, vol. i, pp. 132-37. 156-59- The Government and the Catholics 49 cesses of Mary's reign were fresh in the minds of the people as a horrible example of papal cruelty which it was the pride of the English to avoid. Elizabeth's hope of securing the peaceable acquiescence of the nation to the new ecclesias- tical establishment was dependent upon abstinence, so far as possible, from any action which would incite the fears of Catholics or range the nation definitely upon the side of the radical Protestants. Ecclesiastical censures, fines, short terms of imprisonment, even if applied pretty generally, would necessarily afford less ground for the development of Catholic desperation than would even one death for adherence to the old faith. Patience, care that pressure was not applied to those persons who might, if pressed, persist in opinions and actions which would subject them to the extreme penalties of the law, a certain clear-sighted blind- ness to the violation of the law, enabled Elizabeth to rule for ten years unsmirched by the blood of any Catholic subject. When armed rebellion, papal absolution from obedience to her rule, and treasonable plots against her throne and life made it clear that some Catholics, at least, would not rest content with the passive resistance which Elizabeth had been well content to overlook, the policy of the government in dealing with such persons was carefully formulated and given the widest publicity. The public utterances of governmental officials, the state papers and writings of Burleigh, the proclamations of Eliza- beth in reply to the Bull of Excommunication, made the strongest possible declaration of the government's purpose to abstain from interference with the religious opinions and conscientious scruples of Englishmen, so long as those opinions and scruples did not involve the commission of open acts in direct violation of the law and dangerous to the safety of the State. To be sure, such a statement might mean little, since, under a less liberal interpretation, almost any manifestation of Catholic faith could, without incon- sistency with the avowed policy, be treated as inimical to 50 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth the welfare of the commonwealth. But with few exceptions Elizabeth and her government were careful to seek and to find evidence of clearly menacing purpose before proceeding to the imposition of the death penalty. ^ Legally much was treasonable that was not punished as such, and the knowl- edge of Catholic activity in the hands of the government at all times was used only when it seemed that a warning was needed, or that the activity of some individual was actu- ally dangerous to the State. Perhaps no closer comparison of the English govern- mental attitude toward Catholics can be made than with the attitude of established government toward anarchistic opinion in our own time. The attitude is distinctly one of suspicion and supervision, but also one of tolerance and abstinence from active interference, except when the ex- pression of opinion becomes clearly destructive of exist- ing institutions or manifests itself in acts of violence. The comparison is also susceptible of extension to the opportunity afforded in both cases for the manifesta- tion by minor officials, because of individual feeling or desire for personal advantage, of an attitude less tolerant than the one assumed by the government. The zeal of the police in our own country sometimes oversteps the law, and in Elizabeth's day it sometimes became necessary for the government to restrain excessive zeal in the repression of Catholics on the part of government officials. The central- ized authority of the Privy Council enabled the govern- ment to dismiss quietly harmless Catholics whom the zeal of local officials had involved in difficulties. ' "The total number of Catholics who suffered under her [Elizabeth] was 189; 128 of them being priests, 58 laymen and 3 women." To them should be added — as Law remarks in his "Calendar of English Martyrs" — thirty-two Fran- * Strype, Annals, vol. in, App., no. xlvii, "That such papists as of late times have been executed were by a statute of Edward III lawfully executed as traitors. A treatise." The Government and the Catholics 51 ciscans "who were starved to death." ^ This is one of the most recent Catholic statements. If the figures given are ac- cepted without question, one who is uninterested in proving the diabolic activity of the Elizabethan government will be impressed by the comparative smallness of the number who suffered death during the forty-five years of Elizabeth's rule. In this number are included Catholics who suffered because of clearly treasonable activity as well as those who suffered because of too great caution on the part of the government. The number, therefore, who sufTered death without having been involved in what, to-day even, would be regarded as treason, must have been relatively small; so small as to af- ford little ground for the argument that the action of the government against Catholics was inspired by a theory of its ^ duty to crush out that type of personal religious faith. It is undoubtedly true that some Catholics were condemned to death and executed who were personally guiltless of more than adherence to their religious faith, but they were the innocent \'ictims of the treasonable activity of their fellow Catholics, rather than of governmental religious intolerance. The case of Campion is in point. Campion was himself sin- gularly free from political guile and suffered death, not for his own intrigues, but for those of his brother Jesuit Parsons. Many Catholic writers have either included in their lists of martyrs every Catholic who died, no matter what the cause, or have, with more seeming fairness, made the most of every case where the evidence of treasonable complicity is not clear. Anglicans have endeavored often to establish presumption of criminal complicity in practically all the cases, or have satisfied themselves by glossing over the facts by vague, general statements about differences of times and the cruelty of the age. To an impartial observ^er it seems useless to try to distinguish in every case between the justly and the unjustly condemned upon the basis of such > W. S. Lilly, "England since the Reformation," Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. V, p. 449. >J 52 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth remnants of evidence as remain to us. The important thing is not the establishment of the justice or injustice of indi- vidual cases, but the determination of whether the policy proclaimed by the government was the one which was in fact adhered to in its treatment of Catholics. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that it was. The cases in which the death penalty was imposed without definite political reason are so few that, though they may excite compassion and regret, they are not of sufficient weight to counterbalance the evidence which establishes the unwillingness of the government to proceed to the death penalty in its dealings with Roman Catholics. Elizabeth created and maintained an illegal toleration of Catholics of such extent that in the later years of her reign the Catho- lics were encouraged to hope that freedom of worship would be granted them, and Elizabeth was compelled, by the fears and bigotry of her radical Protestant subjects, to issue a proclamation denying that she had any such purpose. Per- haps nothing more clearly indicates the success of the gov- ernment's Catholic policy. The most important hindrance to it during the last ten years of the reign came, not from the excesses of the Catholics, but from the opposition of the radical Protestant groups that had, during the first thirty years of Elizabeth's rule, developed into parties of consistent antagonism to the middle course in ecclesiastical matters. Of these bodies and their attitude we shall speak in a succeeding chapter. Theoretically, the purpose of the death penalty is the final removal of those subjected to it from the community to whose peace and existence their presence is a menace. From the standpoint of the State, the more merciful penalty of exile is less effective than death, only because of the pos- sibility of a secret return to the community. Because of the unwillingness of the English authorities to stir up the emotional horror of the nation by condemning Catholics to death, the policy of exiling them would have been an ob- The Government and the Catholics 53 vious one for the government to adopt had it desired to rid the commonwealth of CathoHcs. But the circumstances were such that the detention of Catholics in England was less dangerous than forcing them into, or permitting them to seek, exile. In 1574 Cox wrote, "Certain of our nobility, pupils of the Roman pontiff, either weary of their happiness or impatient of the long continued progress of the gospel, have taken flight, some into France, some into Spain, others into differ- ent places, with the view of plotting some mischief against the professors of godliness."^ The aid which exiles might give to foreign enemies was more to be feared than their activity at home under the eye of the government. We have noted the laws which attempted, by means of confiscation of property, to secure the return to England of such persons as fled overseas. Probably such laws were not very effective in inducing those to return who had already fled to the safety of the Continent, but they were perhaps of use in causing Catholics who were still in Eng- land to remain in the enjoyment of their property even at the expense of occasional fines, a regular tax, or short terms of imprisonment; and this unwillingness to subject them- selves to the hardships of property loss and exile was en- couraged by practical assurance of the inability and un- willingness of the government to impose upon Catholics who remained peacefully in England, penalties involving hardships equal to those of exile. There are but two exceptions to the consistent purpose of the State to keep the Catholics at home. The statute against Jesuits and seminary priests, passed in 1585,^ pro- vided for the expulsion of such persons from the kingdom within forty days after the close of Parliament, and the act passed in 1593 against Popish Recusants ^ provided that » Zurich Letters, no. cxcix; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CLXXVi, no. 9; Strype, Annals, vol. 11, pt. I, p. 495; pt. II, App., no. xl. » 27 Eliz., c. II. '35 Eliz., c. II, sec. v. 54 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth those who because of poverty lived better in prison than they could if "abrode at their own libertie," should be com- pelled to adjure the realm. The provision of the act against the Jesuits and seminary priests which required them to leave the realm applied, however, only to a small and, in a sense, non-resident class, whose activity in England was more dangerous than upon the Continent, and is no very large exception to the general rule. Further the provision which allowed Jesuits and priests to remain for forty days after the close of Parliament was a merciful and politic measure, for the laws already upon the statute books were sufficient to condemn to death any Jesuit or priest caught in England, and it was probable that the dread of Jesuit machinations felt by the nation would have left no other al- ternative. The opportunity to leave, thus offered Jesuits and priests, gave no such cause for Catholic alarm as would the enforcement of previous law against those already virtually in the power of the government. The other exception was merely the logical consequence of the chief purpose of the government in dealing with the Catholics, the purpose to make them pay the expenses of supervision and, if possible, a profit for the treasury. The class affected by the order to leave the kingdom did not have and could not pay any money toward its own support. The order to leave the realm was in fact about equivalent to the expulsion of a pauper class. ^ Without money they could work little harm on the Continent. The imprisonment of Catholics who refused to submit to ^ the formal requirements of the law in regard to church at- tendance and outward conformity was not persecution in- spired by religious principle. The conformity which the gov- ernment demanded was little more than a pledge of political loyalty to the Crown, and at first did not, to most Catholics, * See R. B. Merriman, "Notes on the Treatment of the English Catholics in the Reign of Elizabeth," /I wmcan Historical Review, April, 1908, vol. xill, no. 3, for a project to send poor Catholics to America. The Government and the Catholics 55 imply any renunciation of their religious faith. Imprisonment was resorted to because it was felt that persons who would not grant the easy pledge of loyalty demanded were danger- ously hostile and should be shut up until they were no longer dangerous; that is, until they would submit them- selves and conform. The difficulty encountered, however, in this method of dealing with Catholics was that there were too many of them, — there were not enough prisons to hold them all. Several methods of confinement were tried. Cath- olics were committed to prison at their own expense, they were released on bond, they were confined to their houses or neighborhoods, or placed in the easy custody of responsible individuals.^ Segregation in such places as Ely and Wis- beach was tried. But there was an embarrassingly large number of Catholics, and to imprison them all, even by these expedients, involved a great deal of expense that the government did not like to incur. Fines and confiscations of property were the penalties that appealed most to the parsimony of Elizabeth, and best fitted in with the purposes of the government to avoid plac- ing excessive burdens upon loyal Catholics. ^ The fine of one shilling for absence from church brought in little money, however, and contributed practically nothing toward the expense of supervision. In the early eighties, when Catho- lic activity became alarming, Walsingham found that his vigorous eff'orts to cope with the danger were costing more than the sum furnished by confiscations, the fine of one hundred marks imposed upon those who depraved the serv- ices, and the fine of one shilling for absence from church. The act passed by Parliament in 1581, "to reteine the Queenes Majesties Subjectes in their due Obedience," en- deavored to make up the deficit by providing that absentees from church be fined twenty pounds a month. In Decem- ber, 1580, Mendoza had written to Philip, "The Queen has ordered an inquiry into the incomes of the imprisoned 1 S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. cxxvii, no. 6. * Ibid., no. 7. 56 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Catholics, which cannot fail to be considerable as their number is large. It is understood that the object is to pass an Act in Parliament confiscating their property if they do not go to church. Their punishment hitherto has only been imprisonment." ^ The statute was not so severe as they had feared, however, and perhaps nothing so well serves to em- phasize the previous want of hardship imposed upon Cath- olics as their efforts to prevent the passage of this law. They offered Elizabeth a hundred and fifty thousand crowns in a lump sum as evidence of their loyalty and willingness to contribute to her expenses, and their unwillingness to pay such a tax.^ But, curiously enough, the act had neglected to provide a means of levying upon the lands and property of those subject to the penalties, and the first alarm of the Catholics subsided as soon as it became evident that the law would become inoperative if passive resistance and eva- sion were resorted to. A curious paper drawn up by a Catholic to furnish directions on how to meet the law is headed : — • A briefe advertisement howe to answere unto the statute for not cominge to church both in law and conscience conteyning three principall pointes. The first what is to be said in law to that common demand. Doe you or will you goe to the Church, The second whether the matter of the statute for not cominge to Church can be found by inquisition of a Jury. Thirdly, if any person beinge denied the advantage of all exceptions by lawe how to answere with most safety according to the duty of a catholique,' To many, Imprisonment or the easy custody in which they found themselves, was far preferable to the payment of such a sum for their freedom.^ Further, the essential defect of the act was hardly more responsible for the failure to impose the large fine than was Elizabeth's attitude.^ 1 Span. Cat., Eliz., vol. in, no. 57, p. 70. * Ibid., no. 79. ' S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. cxxxvi, no. 15. * Span. Cal., Eliz., vol. ni, no. 109; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. cxxxvi, no. 17; vol. cxiv, no. 22. * S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. clv, no. 42. The Government and the Catholics 57 The passage of the act had raised such alarm among Catho- lics and the crisis of 1581 had passed so easily that, dearly as she loved money, Elizabeth felt it wa^dangerous to her policy of compromise to permit its rigid enforcement. There is no evidence that the government secured the regular in- come from the fines which might have been expected and which actually did accrue, when, in 1587, the threatening danger of Spanish invasion made the Court willing that the defects of the act be corrected, and removed Elizabeth's personal opposition to its enforcement. Walsingham was dissatisfied with the act and with the attitude of Elizabeth, for he well knew that had the Court wished the law enforced, the minor defects of statement in the law would have presented no insurmountable obstacle.^ When the contributions of recusants ^ in 1585-86, toward the force raised for the assistance of the Netherlands, showed that the failure of the act of 1581 was not entirely due to the poverty of the Catholics, but to their unwilling- ness to submit themselves to such an excessive tax as the law demanded, Walsingham seized upon this idea and se- cured a letter from the Privy Council to the sheriffs and justices of peace, which had for its purpose such ease and alleviation of the penalties imposed by the laws as would enable the government to secure a reasonable tax from all recusants.^ The proposal was that the local officials should require the recusants "to make offer and sett downe every man accordinge to his particular value what yearly sume he cane be contented of his owne disposition to allowe . . . to be discharged of the perill and penalties of the lawe whereunto they may stand subjecte and liable by reason of their recusancye." The income promised as a result of this modification of the act was more than had been obtained during the four years since its passage, but Walsingham was * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CLVii, no. 51; vol. CLi, nos. 72 and 73. « Ibid., vol. CLxxxiii, nos. 15, 23, 32, 33, 35, 38, 40, 45, 46, 51, 53, 57, 61, 62, 71, 72; vol. CLXXXiv, nos. 41, 45, 46, 61. ' Ibid., ^'ol. CLXXXVi, nos. 81-83; vol. CLXXxvii, no. 45. 58 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth not yet satisfied with the returns.^ The recusants had just made what they felt was a generous contribution to the ex- penses of the Dutch expedition, and did not wish to part with any more money. The law of 158 1 had been a dead letter so long that its perils and penalties did not inspire them with much fear. It would have been well for them had their response been more enthusiastic and liberal, for the fears inspired by the foreign political situation in 1586-87 led Parliament in 1587 to provide for the enforcement of the penalty by authorizing the seizure of two thirds of the lands and all the goods of recusants who evaded or refused to pay the fine.^ The administration of this phase of the law was now taken out of the hands of the local officials, often incompe- tent or parties to its evasion, and placed in the hands of court appointees, and the results were gratifying both to the government and to those who shared with the government the revenues forced from the Catholics.' During the last years of the reign, this method of taxation had become so regular and dependable that the recusants' fines were farmed out. Curiously enough, in the face of statutes which made the Catholic faith a crime, we find Catholics occupying offices of trust in the kingdom, rich and powerful, giving whole- heartedly of their loyal service against the Spanish invader. Their presence, in the face of the laws on the statute books, would have been impossible had laws been consistently enforced.'* Needless to say they were not. Within limits the laws were consistently annulled. Loyal Catholics from whom money could be extracted were left in comparative » 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CLXXxvii, nos. 45, 48, 49, 64; vol. clxxxix, nos. 2, 17, 47, 48; vol. cxc, no. 11; vol. cxciv, no. 73; Strype, Annals, vol, in, pt. II, App., no. xiii. * 29 Eliz., c. 6; D'Ewes, Journals, pp. 387-88, 415-17. * S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. ccxxix, no. 68; vol. ccxLi, no. 66; vol. CLVii, no. 77; vol. CCLI, no. 53; W. H. Frere, English Church under Elizabeth and James I, pp. 214, 264-67, 337; Strype, Annals, vol. iv, no. cxxxii; no. xxxi. * Parker Corresp., no. cccv, Parker to Burghley, Oct. 6, 1572. The Government and the Catholics 59 peace. The laws stood on the books, witnesses to the world of the loyalty and patriotism of the English people; warn- ings against disloyalty; harsh correctors of treason when need required. They were little more. They were intended by the government to be little more. However truly they may stand to-day, and stood then, as the expression of an intolerant religious spirit in the people of England, that was not the purpose of the government in allowing their enact- ment, nor is it evident in the government's use of the laws enacted. Had the rulers wished to use the laws in the spirit of repression, persecution would have been more severe than we find it, and the existence within the kingdom of any con- siderable body of Catholic believers impossible. The gov- ernment was not, however, seeking the extermination of Catholics; it was seeking the safest policy for itself; it might use the intolerance of religious fanatics to make its laws, but it would use its own judgment in enforcing them. It is hard for us to conceive of the innumerable influences the Court could bring to bear, without coming into open con- flict with the statutes of Parliament, to annul the effects of the legislation therein embodied, if such statutes interfered with, or were contrary to, the policy upon which the govern- ment had determined. The Queen's prerogative was great. The Council was practically unlimited by existing law or public opinion In what it could do. The law itself placed in the Queen's hands the means to make of little effect any procedure of which she disapproved. The Church was abso- lutely under her thumb, and could not move to do its share in enforcing these acts without her consent or even direct order. The local officials were under the influence of the gentry,^ and upon the local officials depended the enforce- ment of the acts to an extent little realized to-day ; and their responsibility to the superior power, while undisputed, was not backed by an efficient series of connecting links or an » Parker Corresp., no. cc, Parker to Cecil, Feb. 12, 1565-66; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. XIX, no. 24; vol. Lxxiv, no. 22. 6o Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth effective superv^Ision. Further, the influence of the gentry in protecting their retainers in office was greatly increased during a time when the government feared to antagonize any of their class because of the immense influence they had upon their immediate neighbors, and the mass of unintelli- gent and otherwise negligible persons who took their opin- ions and orders from the gentry. Your Lordship knowcth that the people are comonly carried away by gentlemen Recusants, landlords, and some other ring- leaders of that sorte: so as the winninge or the punishinge of one or two of them is a reclayminge or a kind of bridlinge of many that doe depend upon them.^ I would plainly prove this, that neither ye Papists number equall their report, nor ye Puritans would euer fill up a long register, if ye ministers and Recusants were not backed, flattered and en- couraged by Gentlemen in countries that make a good reason for it, if private evil may justifie such formes, as keep oyle still in yt Lampe.2 i All these influences combined to make the acts of Parlia- ment less severe in practice than they were in letter. Nor must it be lost sight of that the Parliaments from 1570 to 1585 were Parliaments containing a large anti-Catholic ele- ment which the Queen and the Church of England men were anxious to keep under control because they were rep- resentative of a class which desired definitely to abandon the government policy of leniency in religious matters. Their statutes served as a means to keep down dangerous conspiracies and as a testimonial to the Catholic powers that the Queen was backed by the nation in her position of independence. That they should be rigidly enforced, Eliza- beth did not desire. This view is not entirely supported by the utterances of those who surrounded Elizabeth and were supposed to be in her confidence. But there were in her Court and Council at least two factions, the one headed by Leicester and Sir Francis Knollys, who represented the rabid Puritan oppo- ^ 5. P., Dom., Jac. I, vol. xui, no. 25. * Ibid., vol. xn, no. 28. The Government and the Catholics 6i sition to all things Romish, in part from conviction, per- haps, but chiefly from desire to humiliate the second and leading faction headed by Cecil and Bacon. The utterances of the former may be dismissed for the present by classing them with that radical element in Parliament whose pro- gramme of legislation served the useful purpose of warning against conspiracy and foreign interference. The latter fac- tion felt that the Queen proceeded too moderately and agreed, in part at least, with the anti-Catholic Parliamen- tary programme of the radical reformers. Their motives were, however, entirely political and loyal, and not, as it seems, personal or religious, and they agreed, that, if pos- sible, the policy of reconciliation was best. Cecil seems to have continually entertained plans for preserving and mak- ing more effective Elizabeth's determination to make state policy and not religious opinion the test of Catholic repres- sion. As late as 1583 we find him proposing that the oath of supremacy be so modified that Catholics could swear their allegiance without violating their religious convictions. Therefore considering that the urging of the oath of suprem- acy must needs, in some degree, beget despair, since in the taking of it, he must either think he doth an unlawful act, (as without the special grace of God he cannot think otherwise,) or else, by refusing it, must become a traitor, which before some hurt done seemeth hard: I humbly submit this to your excellent considera- tion. Whether, with as much security of your majesty's person and state, and more satisfaction for them, it were not better to leave the oath to this sense, That whosoever, would not bear arms against all foreign princes, and namely the pope, that should any way invade your majesty's dominions, he should be a traitor? For hereof this commodity will ensue, that those papists (as I think most papists would, that should take this oath) would be divided from the great mutual confidence which is now between the pope and them by reason of their afflictions for him; and such priests as would refuse that oath, then no tongue could say, for shame, that they suffer for religion, if they did suffer. But here it may be objected they would dissemble and equivo- cate with this oath, and that the pope would dispense with them in that ease. Even so may they with the present oath, both 62 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth dissemble and equivocate, and also have the pope's dispensation for the present oath, as well as the other.^ The number of Catholics in the country was great and it is somewhat astonishing and difficult of explanation, if one believes that the government had deliberately set out to suppress all Catholics, to find Cecil saying, " I wish no les- sening of their number but by preaching and by education of the younger under schoolmasters." His proposal that tenants be protected from popish landlords to the extent " that they be not put out of their living" for embracing the established religion, neither argues any general suppression of Catholics nor any desire on the part of Cecil that they be absolutely suppressed.^ It is clear that the anti-Catholic legislation, passed in part because of dangers from Catholic enemies, in part be- cause of the influence of growing anti-Catholic sects, was modified in the letter of its enforcement, primarily by the conciliatory and positively tolerant purposes of government politics, and secondarily by the unavoidable inadequacy of the machinery of enforcement. We have in this chapter traced briefly the course of Eliza- bethan religious and ecclesiastical politics, with especial reference to the relations that existed between the Catholics and the English government. We have shown that political motives dominated the government in its organization of the Church and in its repression of Roman Catholicism. We have endeavored to make clear the fact that in spite of penal legislation, in spite of pressure from within and with- out the kingdom, considerations of national safety made the policy of the government throughout the reign one of con- ciliation toward Catholics. This conciliatory attitude marks » "A Tract of Lord Burleigh to the Queen," Somers Tracts, by Sir Walter Scott, vol. I, p. 165 (13 vols. London, 1809). Quoted in Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. I, p. 157. ' Burleigh, "Execution of Justice," and Walsingham's letter printed in Burnet, pt. 11, bk. iii, p. 661. Also Queen's proclamation after the issue of the Bull of Excommunication. Spedding, Life and Letters of Bacon, vol. I, p. 97 » cf. for the Catholic view, J. H. Pollen in The Month, Nov., 1904. The Government and the Catholics 63 a perceptible advance in the direction of toleration by its educational influence upon the people of England toward the acceptance of the principle that state safety, preserva- tion of national political integrity, and not championship of a particular form of salvation, was the reason for restraint on men's religious practices, and that such restraint should be exercised only when open and overt acts, or the expressed determination to commit actual acts of hostility, arising from such opinions, endanger the safety of the common- wealth. Unfortunately the acceptance of these principles was not complete. The government had erected and main- tained a National Church that had yet to learn to apply these ideas to all, and Puritanism had during the period developed into complex groups of fanatical intolerance. It is to the examination of the Anglican Church and the sects of Protestantism that we must now turn. CHAPTER IV CHURCH AND STATE It would be an interesting study in religious life and ideals and in religious psychology to attempt to draw a diagram of the complex motives which actuated the men who once more set in motion the machinery of the Church of Henry VIII. It would be an interesting and perhaps profitable study to examine the mechanism they set in motion at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, when the Church was in its formative period, and when the structural features of its organization were in greatest evidence, and their character of greatest importance in determining the nature of the English Estab- lishment. But motives and mechanics are closely connected. The Anglican Church, like every other great institution drawing its support from the love and emotion of a people, never existed in mechanical form alone. The Church was always a living body, not a structure artificially constructed from the blue-prints of mere governmental politics. Men built into the Church their motives, loves, hatreds, their delusions and ambitions. Yet the Church of that time was not the Anglican Church we know, with its great body of traditions, its long history and distinctive personality. Anglicanism had not yet won for itself an allegiance which in devotion and in loyalty — and occasionally in bigotry — has rivaled the feeling of Catholics for Mother Church. The Church had not come to look upon itself as an institution whose form and doctrine had been determined by the ordinance of Deity. It had not yet returned in search of apostolic authorization to the dim infancy of a primitive church history of questionable authenticity. At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign the Church did not demand from Englishmen their adherence Church and State 65 upon these grounds; its appeal was to expediency and to loyalty, rather than to divine right. The new church system was an experiment, a part of that general experimentation to find a modus vivendi and to meet the untried difficulties by which Protestantism was every- where confronted. It was an experiment connected with, and founded upon, the experience and organization of the past, but an experiment nevertheless. Many who sup- ported it recognized its experimental character and hoped that it would be but temporary, the vestibule to that better and more truly Christian building whose plan they had learned from John Calvin in the days of their exile. Many failed to see that it was an experiment and felt surprise when later experience proved this governmental tool unable to cope with changed conditions. None believed possible, few desired, a complete break with past ecclesiastical his- tory; but neither did any recognize the inadequacy of that organization and that past experience for the new condi- tions. Between the elements which made up the new Church conflict arose. Yet, as we search for the qualities which have held for centuries the allegiance of Englishmen, we find two still maintaining their sway, which lay at the basis of the Church even in its foundation, the elements of patriotism and of moderation. THE NATIONAL CHARACTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT How great has been the Influence of these two factors during the history of the Church, how important the role they have played during its later development, we shall not inquire; it is impossible, however, to comprehend the Church of Elizabeth's day without understanding how there was breathed into it a spirit which has made Englishmen feel that the Anglican Church is peculiarly English, noble and worthy the devotion and love of Englishmen, and that it is neither rabid with the unreasonable and unreasoning love of change, nor, on the other hand, cold and inflexible 66 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth and dead. We must understand the Englishman's loyalty to the Church as a national institution and the English- man's pride in the safe, sane character of the Church's government and doctrine, if we would understand the structure which was given to the Church when England's greatest sovereign sat upon the throne. Fundamental in the creation and maintenance of that moderation and inclusiveness, which have come to be the particular pride of the Anglican Establishment, were the close connection between Church and State at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, and the dominance of political interests in that union throughout the forty-odd years of her rule. The identification of the ecclesiastical and the religious es- tablishment of the kingdom with the political integrity of England gave to the support of the Church a patriotic im- portance which has persisted through times when national welfare demanded rejection of the claims of the Church. To the dominance of State over Church in Elizabeth's time, the Anglican Establishment owes those elements of character and form which have made it an institution so distinc- tively national, and through which it still retains the alle- giance of the vast mass of Englishmen. THE ROYAL HEADSHIP In England the subordination of the Church to the will of the sovereign was no new thing. From the time when Wil- liam the Norman had refused to render homage to Gregory VII, and resisted all attempts to sink his power and the Eng- lish Church, into absolute subservience to the dominance of the Roman See, kings of England had struggled to keep a grip on the National Church, and Parliament had enacted laws to maintain the independence which they believed an essential characteristic of the Church in England. Conti- nental theory and practice supported the assumption that the religion of the people should follow the religion of the prince. The ecclesiastical changes undertaken by Henry Church and State 67 had rested fundamentally upon this principle and, at a time when the popular absolutism of the first Tudors had so closely identified loyalty to the sovereign with loyalty to the nation, the people of the kingdom accepted the theory al- most without question, and a book, written by Hayward, which asserted that allegiance was due to the State and not to the person of the sovereign raised a great stir because of the novelty of the idea.^ The reigns of Edward and Mary and the ecclesiastical changes which accompanied them confirm the fact of submission to the idea, in spite of the persistence during Mary's reign of a Protestant opposition developed under Edward. As long as national life and loy- alty to the Crown were so closely identified, the connection between Church and State would persist if the personal safety or the dynastic claims of the sovereign made neces- sary the championship of any particular religious or ecclesi- astical establishment against the claims of foreign power. The hostility of Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic powers to Elizabeth made it necessary for the Queen to call upon the nation for support of her ecclesiastical policy in order that her right to rule, established by the Parliament of Henry, might be maintained. An ecclesiastical establishment, on any basis other than that of the supremacy of the Queen over the Church as well as State, was, to the Tudor Elizabeth, inconceivable. Eng- lish history and Continental practice made it familiar. The political situation made it necessary. Elizabeth's desire for the power which she believed essential to her dignity made impossible any other arrangement. On such practical considerations was based the royal headship, still one of the distinctive characteristics of the English Establish- ment. Although Elizabeth's first Parliament had, in the Act of Supremacy, dropped the title used by Henry, "Supreme Head of the Church in England," so offensive to Catholics » S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CCLXXV, no. 28, no. 31. 68 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth and not entirely acceptable to some Protestants,^ the essen- tial fact remained. It is somewhat difficult to define just what this headship involved, just what were its limits. The act does not clearly define it. The men of Elizabeth's time set few bounds. Elizabeth herself disclaimed the right to exercise spiritual functions,^ yet it is difficult to see how powers she undoubtedly did exercise are to be distinguished from supreme pastoral office. The act, 8 Elizabeth, c. i, declares that the Queen, "by her supreme power and au- thority, hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any imperfection or disability that can or may in any way be objected" against the validity of the consecrations of the archbishops and bishops already made. She sometimes as- serted powers equal to those of the Pope, and the leaders of the kingdom, both in Church and State, were equally gen- erous. Cecil said that the Queen might do as much as the Pope and that she certainly could exercise powers equal to those of Archbishop Parker. ^ Jewel asserted that the Eng- lish give to the sovereign "that prerogatve and chief ty that evermore hath been due unto him by the ordinance and word of God; that is to say, to be the nurse of God's reli- gion ; to make laws for the church ; to hear and take up cases and questions of the faith if he be able; or otherwise to com- mit them over by his authority unto the learned ; to com- mand the bishops and priests to do their duties and to pun- ish such as be ofifenders." * Bancroft granted that her authority was equal to that of the Pope. Parker was more cautious. He wTote: "It Is one thing to discuss what is done, in order or out of order, and commonly hand over 1 Jewel, Works, vol. iv, Letters, no. xii; Def. of Apol., pp. 974-76; Zurich Letters, nos. xvii, xviii; Burnet, vol. Ill, bk. VI, no. 52; Parker Corresp., no. xlix; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Amos, chap. vii. v. 13, "Erant enim blasphemi qui vocarent eum [llenricum VI 11] Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo." « S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. xv, no. 27; vol. xxvii, no. 40; Thirty-nine Articles, on the Civil Magistrate. 3 Parker Corresp., no. cclxx. < Jewel, Works, vol. ill, p. 167. Cf. also, ihid., vol. I, pp. 396-97. ^io-\\\ vol. Ill, p. 98; vol. IV, pp. 976, 959, 903, 1036. Church and State 69 head, and what Is safely and surely done by warrant of law. During the prince's life who will doubt of anything that may pass from that authority? But the question is, what will stand sure in all times, by the judgment of the best learned? And here I am offended with some lawyers, who make the Injunctions of the prince in her own life not to be of such force as they make a Roman law written in the same or like case." ^ And to Cecil: "Whatsoever the ecclesiastical pre- rogative is, I fear it is not so great as your pen hath given it her in the Injunction, and yet her governance is of more prerogative than the head papists would grant unto her." ^ Pilkington. who represented the more Protestant group within the Establishment wrote: "We endure, I must con- fess, many things against our inclinations, and groan under them, which if we wished ever so much, no entreaty can remove. We are under authority, and cannot make any innovation without the sanction of the queen, or abrogate any thing without the authority of the laws: and the only alternative now allowed us is, whether we will bear with these things or disturb the peace of the church." ' No party, not even the more radical Protestants,^ whether Calvinist, Lutheran, or Zwinglian, questioned the necessity of the union of Church and State, and a certain supremacy of the sovereign over the Church. The difficulties were en- tirely over the extent of that supremacy and the nature of that union. Theoretically, perhaps, the Established Church of Elizabeth was founded upon a difference in kind of se- cular and spiritual matters, of government and church. "A church and a commonwealth, we grant, are things in na- ture the one distinguished from the other. A church is one way, and a commonwealth another way defined." ^ But * Parker Corresp., no. cclxx. * Ibid., no. ccclxix. ' Zurich Letters, no. clxxvii. * The Anabaptists would have questioned the necessity for such union be- tween the Church and State, but it is very doubtful whether there were Ana- baptists in England during the early years of Elizabeth's reign. There were certainly not enough to merit the name of party. Cf. Burrage, Early English Dissenters, passim. . ' Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. vni, chap, i, sec. 2. /O Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth medloeval history had long before proved untenable the the- ory that supreme spiritual authority and supreme temporal power could move each in its own distinct sphere. The theory of the equality of the two powers had given way to two opposing theories: that the secular power was inferior in kind to spiritual power and therefore subject to it in all matters over which the spiritual power chose to assert its authority; that the secular power was divinely instituted and therefore had control to a great extent within the spirit- ual realm. The political necessity for a strong secular ad- ministration in England and the complications of secular with religious politics necessitated the negation of the theo- retical separation of the two powers. To all intents the Church was founded and conducted upon purely Erastlan principles. This was the view of the Queen and was con- firmed by the action of the government, and in great part also, by the statements of churchmen, however much they kicked against the pricks of governmental domination in individual cases. The religious acts passed by Elizabeth's first Parliament had vested in the Imperial Crown of the realm all spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of visitation, reformation, and correction of the Church,^ and had given to the Queen authority to make ordinances and rules in churches col- legiate, corporations, and schools, ^ and with the advice of the Metropolitan to make changes in the order appointed in the Book of Common Prayer or in the ornaments of the church and ministers.^ Here certainly is extensive power, and the means for its practical exercise were provided by the authorization of commissions to be issued under the Great Seal.^ The power of the Queen was not limited, by the terms of the act, as to the time for which such commissions should continue their existence, the number of persons in * Act of Supremacy, par. vii. ' I Eliz., c. 22; Parker Corresp., nos. cv, cvii. ' The Act of Uniformity, par. xiii. CJ. Parker Corresp., nos. xciv and xcv. * Act of Uniformity, par. viii. Church and State 71 r the commission, nor the number of commissions existent at any one time. The only limitation placed upon her in their appointment was that such persons as were appointed be natural-born subjects of the realm. In actual practice the Queen took full advantage of this broad privilege to an extent usually given little weight in the treatment of the ecclesiastical commissions during her reign. Emphasis has most usually been placed upon the central, more permanent ecclesiastical commission at Lon- don, commonly called the High Commission, but other commissions of wide jurisdiction and extensive powers were created; commissions of royal visitation, provincial com- missions, diocesan commissions, and temporary or local commissions were issued for special purposes, all exercising according to the particular terms of the letters patent, as provided by the act, a more or less extensive degree of the power involved in the royal supremacy.^ It should be noted, in passing, that the lesser and local commissions, the commissions other than the High Commission, enabled the Queen to keep a closer rein on ecclesiastical affairs than would have been possible had she vested her authority in one High Commission, which might have developed a ten- dency to become an independent body, exercising her pow- ers without reference to the Queen, in somewhat the same way that the King's Court outgrew the control of royal power. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS The extensive power involved in the royal supremacy thus placed in the hands of the Queen, is by the acts appar- ently limited by the clause which saves the jurisdiction of the regular ecclesiastical officers and courts, but this limita- 1 S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. cxLi, nos. 3, 28; vol. Lxxiv, no. 37; vol. cviir, nos. 7, 8; vol. cxix, no. 60; vol. Lxxvir, no. 81; vol. XLVi, nos. 19, 20, 32; vol. XXIII, no. 56; vol. XXVI, nos. 41, 42; Prothero, Select Statutes, pp. 241, 240, 237, 235. 232, 150; Gee, Elizabethan Clergy, pp. 37-38; Bkt, Elizabethan Settlement, p. 222. 72 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth tion Is more seeming than real. The regular jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts extended over matrimonial and testamentary cases and offenses such as perjury, sacrilege, heresy, and immorality. The censures they might Impose were penitential In their nature, culminating in exclusion from the church — excommunication. Excommunication was followed by the imposition of further punishment, — fine. Imprisonment, or death at the hands of the temporal power. By the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy their jurisdiction was extended, and the censures placed in the hands of ecclesiastical officials were increased in severity. Yet their relation to the temporal power was In general one of subordination, subordination to the temporal courts and to the Crown. This subordination to the Crown, so far as the orderly system Is concerned. Is best Illustrated by the fact that the highest court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases was a body appointed by the temporal power and largely made up of the laity. In theory ecclesiastical causes passed by a regu- lar system of appeals from the Archdeacons' or Bishops' Courts, to final settlement, so far as the Church had con- trol, In the Archbishop's Court. ^ But when the abolition of papal power made necessary some substitute for appeal from the national ecclesiastical courts to papal ones, Henry VIII had provided ^ that appeals from the Archbishop's Court might be made to the king and be determined by a Royal Commission.^ Owing to the fact that these commis- sions were chosen from a regular list kept by the Secretary of Appeal to the Lord Chancellor, it became In a sense a permanent court and thus received the name of High Court of Delegates, although a new commission was appointed for 1 The Archbishop's Courts were sources of confusion and corruption. Cf. Grindal, Remains, p. 361, Letter no. Ixxxiii. 2 25 Henry VHL c. 19, repealed by i and 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8, but revived by the Act of Supremacy. 8 Brodrick and Freemantle, p. Ivii, n. 2, for a case which went through the whole system. Church and State 73 the hearing of each case.^ During Elizabeth's reign the Court of Delegates was of little importance, for there was one notable exception to the general rule that all ecclesias- tical appeals lay to this court. Because the High Commis- sioners were the Queen's delegates, with authority, by vir- tue of their commission, finally to hear and determine cases, no appeal lay from their decision to the Court of Delegates, ^ and litigants preferred to have their cases tried by the High Commission rather than by the slower and more involved process of the High Court of Delegates. The supremacy of the Crown is further marked by the fact that although the High Court of Delegates and the High Commissioners were thus final and definitive courts, it was possible, following the analogy of papal practice, to secure further hearing by petitioning the Queen in Council for a Commission of Review.' Since such commissions were not, according to Blackstone,^ " a matter of right, which the subject may demand, ex debito justitm : but merely a matter of favour," the power of the sovereign, at a time when sub- servient commissioners were always available, enabled the Crown to enforce its personal will upon the Church by perfectly legal process. The dominance of the Crown over the system of ecclesias- tical courts was not, however, maintained by its position at the apex of the system alone. Interference and dictation from the Queen and Council extended down the line from the highest to the lowest courts having to do with the eccle- siastical causes and the enforcement of the religious acts passed during Elizabeth's reign, which so closely concerned the political interests and purposes of the government. 1 Blackstone, Com., vol. li, bk. in, c. v, p. 65; Phillimore, Ecc. Law, vol. 11, p. 970; VV. F. Finlason, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, p. 68; Brod- rick and Freemantle, Collections of Judgments, p. xlvi. * Brodrick and Freemantle, pp. xliii-xliv. » Phillimore, Ecc. Law, vol. 11, p. 971; Coke, 4 Inst., 341. Example of such commission, Brodrick and Freemantle, p. xlii; cf. Justice Williams, Law of Executors, vol. i, p. 437 (3d ed.); Commission for Ecc. Courts (1832), p. 701. * Blackstone, vol. 11, bk. iii, c. 5, p. 67. 74 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth The chief of these courts, the High Commission, may be regarded as somewhat out of the line of regular ecclesiastical courts, in spite of its use as a final court of appeal, for its most important regular function was the handling of busi- ness arising from the enforcement of the statutes passed in Elizabeth's reign, both in an appellate capacity and as a court of original jurisdiction. During the early part of the reign it acted as a sort of committee of the Council for con- sideration of cases committed to it by the Council,^ re- ceived its orders from the Council, and registered its deci- sions according to the wishes of that body. Toward the end of the reign, however, it was becoming increasingly a body of ecclesiastical administration. "The commission itselfe was ordained for very good purposes, but it is most horriblie abused by you, and turned cleane contrarie to the ende wherefore it was ordayned."^ But Cosin wrote in 1593, in defense of its activity, " the device of the Commission Eccle- siastical! was for assistance and ayde of Ordinary Jurisdic- tion Ecclesiasticall, and for rounder proceeding and more greuious punishment at least (in these dissolute times) more feared: then can or may by Ordinarie Jurisdiction be in- flicted." ^ As the Commission was used more extensively for purposes more purely administrative, the Council or Star Chamber attended to religious or ecclesiastical cases which were of political importance. At no time, however, was it free from the control of the Queen and her secular officers. Such control, of course, was natural and intended, since the Commission acted merely as the Queen's represen- tative, yet it was doubtless intended by the acts that the jurisdiction exercised by the commissions was to be such, * Parker Corresp., nos. Ivii, Iviii, lix, Ix, Ixii, Ixiii, Ixx, Ixxi, Ixxiii; Privy Council Register (New Series), xi, 315-435; xviii, 362; xxiv, 317; xxv, 113, 211, 505; xxvi, 179; xi, 137, 149, 174, 182, 212, 322, 362, 386; vii, 145; xi, 322; xii, 336; xiii, 72; viii, 395; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. XLVI, no. 12. 2 Marprelate Tracts, Epistle, conclusion. ' Richard Cosin, Apology of and for Sundry Proceedings by Jurisdiction Ec- clesiastical (1593)- pt. I, p. III. Cf. Strype, Whitgift, vol. i, p. 267; Calderwood, History of the Scottish Kirk, vol. vii, p. 63. Church and State 75 and to be exercised In such way, as was consonant with legal practice in ecclesiastical courts, although In part cre- ated free from restraints in order that action might be ex- pedited. The illegality of some of the High Commission's activity during the early part of the reign was made possible by the pressing dangers which threatened and by the sub- servience to the will of the Queen of its members, who, in other capacities, owed their preferment to their sovereign. The increasing opposition to it by the secular courts toward the end of the reign was due to the greater security of the kingdom and to the fact that the Council and the Council in Star Chamber gradually removed from It business of a reli- gious or ecclesiastical character which concerned the safety of the State; although, on the other hand, the Council and Star Chamber may have been compelled to assume charge of such business because of the legal opposition to the High Commission. The Star Chamber and the Council were not so subject to legal restraints as was the Commission and could deal summarily with cases which the Queen or her advisers felt should be thus handled. The legal powers of the Star Chamber were extensive and Its close connection with the Crown gave it power to exercise extra-legal juris- diction which at a later time the nation resented fiercely. The activity of this court is, however, so Intimately con- nected with the exercise of royal prerogative and a subject of such dispute that we shall defer its consideration until we have occasion to speak of that phase of the Queen's pre- rogative which partook of the character of administration of justice. Royal and secular influence upon the regular ecclesiastical courts was hardly less direct and dominant. The Bishop's Court, regularly a consistory court presided over by the official of the bishop, had jurisdiction over all ecclesiastical matters within the limits of the diocese. This official origi- nally held office at the pleasure of the bishop and ceased to exercise jurisdiction upon the removal or death of the bishop 76 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth to whom he owed his appointment; but by Elizabeth's time he had become entirely independent of the bishop for his tenure of office. The control of the bishop was preser\^ed, however, by the fact that the bishop might reser\^e such particular cases as he or the Crown desired for his own hear- ing.^ Further the diocesan court was inhibited from exer- cising jurisdiction during episcopal visitation of the diocese. Appeal lay from the bishop to the Metropolitan Court.^ Although interference of the Crown with the courts of the diocese, by means of its influence upon the bishop, was per- haps of little importance in actual practice, the dependence of the bishop upon royalty for place and preferment sub- jected his episcopal jurisdiction to the constant influence, if not the direction, of the Queen and those who surrounded her. The courts of the bishops and the archbishops were subject to interference by the Queen and Council chiefly by admonition to try cases, or by reproof and punishment of ecclesiastical officials who failed to do their duty, although cases are not lacking in which their officials were ordered by the Council to render particular decisions or punishments in cases that came to the notice of the Council, or ordered to send offenders, already before the ecclesiastical court, up to London for examination by the Council. Such cases were then usually committed by the Lords of the Council to set- tlement by the High Commission with directions to exam- ine further and report to the Council, or to proceed to such penalty as seemed to them good, or to inflict punishment according to the directions of the Council given with the commitment. THE SECULAR COURTS AND THE CHURCH The justices of peace, to whom were committed certain phases of the enforcement of the religious acts, came most closely in contact with the people and dealt with minor * Report of the Ecc. Cvmm. (1832), pp. 11-12, and for 1883, pp. 25-26. ' Phillimore, Ecc. Law, vol. 11, p. 970. Church and State 'j'] offenses at first instance. The justices held office and exer- cised power by virtue of commission from the Crown, ^ and were compelled to take the oath acknowledging the Queen's supremacy besides the regular oath promising uprightness in the discharge of the duties of office. Their jurisdiction over offenses coming under the terms of the religious acts formed the most intimate contact between the people and the superior agents of ecclesiastical and religious control. Cases too difficult, or too serious for settlement in general sessions, were committed to the ecclesiastical commissioners or reported to the Council. Subject as they were to the supervision and the orders of the Council and the Star Chamber, the justices of peace served in many capacities. Because of their humble position and because of the fact that they were not usually trained in legal lore, they came in for a great deal of supervision. Failure of the justices to do their duty, either of office or by conceding that degree of religious conformity and zeal which were regarded as essen- tial, was reported to the Council.^ The justices of peace were ordered to seize persons whom the Council wished sent to them in London, and they were directed by the Council to enforce the Queen's proclamations. Justices who refused the oath of supremacy were looked after and the loyal ones directed how to proceed in regard to offering the oath to the others. They were sometimes required to determine cases of religious offense without "further troubling the Council of any such matters." The Council sent the justices to ex- amine Papists and directed them where to send the exami- nations already taken. There is hardly a point at which their activities did not come in for the guidance of the powers above. 3 * Prothero, Select Statutes, pp. 144, 147, 149; Crompton, L' Office el Au- thorite de Justices de Peace, p. 3. (ed. 1583); Middlesex County Records, vol. I, p. xxiv (Middlesex County Record Society); Beard, The Office of Justice oj the Peace in England, New York, 1904. * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. xix, no. 42; vol. xxi, no. 13. * 7^., vol. VI, no. 29; vol. XVI, no. 49; vol. LX, no. 53; Acts oJ Privy Coun- cil, passim. 78 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth The placing of the administration of the ecclesiastical law in the hands of justices of peace is not consistent with the conception of the Church as a body having exclusive juris- diction over spiritual and ecclesiastical questions, but the offenses with which the justices dealt were statutory of- fenses against the royal power; and their jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the other secular courts over such eccle- siastical questions, is entirely consistent with the idea of the Church as one means of securing the sovereign's supremacy over all the subjects of the realm. i . The chief points of contact between secular and ecclesi- astical courts, however, aside from such statutory relation- ships as were created by the religious acts are found in the attempts of the secular courts, notably King's Bench and Common Pleas, to preserve the common law from encroach- ment by the ecclesiastical courts and High Commissioners. Such restraint was most usually exercised by means of pre- rogative writs. ^ IRREGULARITY OF THE SYSTEM It was characteristic of the time that certain rights, acquired originally by way of grant from the Crown, or possessed by virtue of long custom, were private property. Thus there were a variety of jurisdictions, franchises, and patronages which were treated as private property, and gave the holders the power to hinder In many ways the regu- lar execution of justice and the enforcement of the laws for religious uniformity. In the hands of the Queen were some such rights which she held as private property Independent of her sovereignty over the realm, and In such cases she had a more efifective means of control than that afforded her by the laws of the kingdom. Various sections of the country, various cities and institutions,^ were especally favored or * Blackstone, Com., bk. ill, c. vii, pp. lo8, iii. * The Universities were especially important and very tenacious of their charter rights. Parker Corresp., no. cclxiv, note 3; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. XLIX, no. 29; vol. XIX, no. 56. Church and State" 79 had, by right of custom, charter, or special grant, exemption from the control of the regular courts to greater or less ex- tent; or were given special local courts to deal with matters which ordinarily fell under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. This characteristic of Tudor times is, in the ecclesi- astical courts, exemplified by the "peculiars"; those in the realm of secular judicature may be grouped as the palati- nates and lesser franchises. During papal times, as marks of exceptional favor or for the purpose of curtailing the power of great ecclesiastics, the Papal See had granted to various churches and districts exemption from the jurisdiction of the regular ecclesiastical superior. This irregularity was entirely in line with the prevalence of special franchises and privileges in the secular administration and continued until long after our period. The churches or districts which held such exemptions from the control of the regular ecclesiastical system are called "peculiars." The subject is particularly intricate and irreg- ular, but wherever we find a peculiar court it means that certain extraordinary rights of exemption from local juris- diction, or rights to exercise an independent jurisdiction out of harmony with the regular system, have been granted as special privileges, just as in feudal society it was usual for large landholders to exercise a franchise jurisdiction which displaced or paralleled the jurisdiction of the king's courts.^ The Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1832 shows that there were many kinds of these peculiars, archiepis- copal, episcopal, diaconal, prebendal, rectorial, and vicarial. The way in which they curtailed the jurisdiction of the diocesan courts — the privilege was often granted for this purpose — may be seen from a report in the Episcopal Reg- ister of the Bishop of London, Grindal, made to the Privy Council in 1563.2 We learn that out of a total of six hun- dred and forty-one churches in London, forty-seven were * Holdsworth, Hist. Eng. Law, vol. i, p. 370. ■ * Phillemore, Ecc. Law, p. 927; Birt, Elizabethan Settlement, p. 443. 8o Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth peculiars, exempt from his jurisdiction. Of these, thirteen, including Bow Church whose dean was judge of the Court of Arches, belonged to the peculiar jurisdiction of the arch- bishop, but some were exempt both from the jurisdiction of the bishop and of the archbishop. Henry VIII provided that appeals from peculiars, whose privileges exempted them from the jurisdiction of the higher ecclesiastical courts, lay directly to the King in Chancery, the High Court of Delegates. It would be a somewhat profitless study to attempt to determine how far the existence of these peculiars affected the regular and appellate jurisdiction of the Bishops' and Archbishops' Courts, but that they con- tributed to the intricacy and confusion of the administra- tion of ecclesiastical law is evident.^ The palatinates were sections which were in a sense sepa- rate from the rest of the country and in which the king's writ did not run. They had a local independence. The power and authority of those that had counties Palatine was king-like for they might pardon treasons, murders, felonies, and outlawries thereupon. They might also make justices of eyre, justices of assize, or gaol delivery, and of the peace. And all original and judicial writs, and all manner of indictments of treasons and felony, and the process thereupon was made in the name of the persons having such county Palatine. And in every writ and indictment within any County Palatine it was sup- posed to be contra pacem of him that had the county Palatine.^ They were subject, however, to the acts of Parliament, and, owing to the nature of English government and to the development of royal power, they did not continue an in- dependent development. Their legal system closely followed that of the English system and English common law was applied in their courts. Often the same officer acted as royal judge and judge of the palatinate. Bacon describes the judicial system of the palatinate as "a small model of * Phillemore, Ecc. Law, pp. 214, 441; Parker Corresp., no. ccxcvi; Grindal, Remains, p. 150, item 11. * Coke, 4 Inst., p. 205. Cf. G. T. Lapsley, County Palatine of Durham; Holds- worth, Eng. Law, vol. I, p. 50. Church and State 8i the great government of the kingdom," but the establish- ment of the Councils of the North and of Wales and the work of Henry VIII extended the control of the Crown and reduced their independence.^ The lesser franchises were of varying degrees of impor- tance and gave the holder different degrees of immunity from the interference of the royal officials. Thus, some, like the frankpledge, prevented the sheriff from inquiring into the affairs of the neighborhood, and by this means the nobles were often able to defeat, or delay, the purposes of the Crown by preventing royal officials from carrying out their directions within the liberties. We have seen that, in the ecclesiastical court system, the final appeal lay to a court dominated by secular interest and directly dependent for its existence and power upon the will of the sovereign. According to the strict system of ecclesias- tical court procedure, it would seem that there should be little interference with the ecclesiastical courts until by regular process litigation had brought matters to the point where appeal was made to the Queen for the appointment of Delegates. The strict system was not, however, the real one, and still less was the independent working of the sys- tem so complete as it would seem. In fact, the ecclesiastical court system did not exist independently, but was subject to interference from the secular courts, and the Queen, and the Queen's Council at all points. Secular courts had in some cases original jurisdiction concurrent with that of the ecclesiastical courts; the secular courts could by means of the prerogative writs restrain the ecclesiastical courts from hearing or proceeding to judgment. The Queen exercised her authority directly by virtue of her prerogative, and by means of the direct dependence of the ecclesiastical courts upon her for existence and authority, or indirectly through the identical interests of the court officials and the aristo- cratic class. » 27 H. Vni, c. 24; 32 H. Vni, c. 50; 34 H. VIII, c. 26; 13 EHz., c. 12. Ely and Durham retained their own jurisdiction, however, until 1835. 82 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth The confusion of the system, the inextricable mixture of secular and ecclesiastical power, must certainly be evident. It is possible to take any one phase of the system and make it appear fairly consistent and regular, but the overlappings and cross-currents make the arrangement of the whole scheme a somewhat chaotic one. This was, of course, due in great part to the necessity of meeting emergencies, the habit of using the commission, the undeveloped state of the best established courts and their uncertain relations with one another. The machinery for the enforcement of the law was by its very complexity made inefficient and wasteful of effort for accomplishing the purposes of the government, administering the affairs of the Church, and coordinating the activities of the government and Church.^ It was a makeshift system, wheels and cogs were added, flexible couplings inserted, power applied to meet temporary or extraordinary emergencies until the least degree of efficiency was dependent upon an arbitrary disregard of machinery and the direct application of royal power to the task in hand. Elizabeth wrote to Parker: — If any superior officers shall be found hereto disagreeable, if otherwise your discretion or authority shall not serve to reform them, We will that you shall duly inform us thereof, to the end we may give indelayed order for the same; for we intend to have no dissension or variety grow by suffering of persons which maintain dissension to remain in authority; for so the sovereign authority which we have under Almighty God should be violate and made frustrate, and we might be well thought to bear the sword in vain.^ The sovereign did not lack the power, nor did Elizabeth lack the will to use it. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE The extensive legal powers given by the acts were not interpreted conservatively by the Queen or the men around her. The extent of her rightful prerogative was not defined * Parker Corresp., nos. ccxxxix, cclxxxiii, cccvi, cccviii, cccxvii, cccxxxiv, cccli, cccliii, App. ii, p. 485; Cheyney, History of England from the Armada, vol. I, p. 130. ' Parker Corresp., no. clxx. Church and State 83 or limited. The temper of the Queen, the legal machinery which was at her service in accomplishing illegal objects, the political dangers which made men desire to avoid the delays and complexities of legal procedure, united in procuring from the nation assent to proceedings to which, at a later time, it could no longer be induced to submit. The will of the sovereign was absolute within the field where previously delegated agents had not by consent or custom removed power from her hands, and her influence over such dele- gated agents was so great that in a case of contest, not in- volving national feeling, she was practically certain of vic- tory.^ The control by the sovereign, whether directly, or through her Council, may be classified as that which par- took of the character of legislation and that which partook of the character of administration of justice. The extensive control exercised by the Queen personally, by means of letters and proclamations was in part based upon the prerogative right, claimed and generally allowed in Tudor times, that the sovereign could issue edicts having the force of law concerning matters not contrary to the statutes of the realm or the common law; and in part founded upon the act of Parliament which gave the Queen the ecclesiastical supremacy. It would be difficult, and is unnecessary, to attempt to determine upon which of these rights the various acts of Elizabeth were based. Sufficient to know that her letters and proclamations were treated by secular and ecclesiastical officials as having the force of law and that the Council Insisted upon the obsen,^ance of her proclamations as though they were statutory enactments. "... The queen by her royal prerogative has power to pro- vide remedies for the punishment or otherwise of exorbitant offenses as the case and time require, without Parliament," and such proclamations be firm and forcible law and of the like force as the common law or an act of Parliament, de- clared the Council In Star Chamber.^ ^ S. P., Dam., Eliz., vol. xviii, no. 21; vol. ccviii, no. 15 and no. 34. ' Quoted in Cheyney, Hist. Eng. from Armada, vol. i, p. 92. 84 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Of somewhat different character from this power of posi- tive enactment, is the dispensing power exercised by the Queen, although it, too, is based upon the royal prerogative. The dispensing power is a survival of that absolutism which existed at a time when monarchy had not become consti- tutionally limited. Founded upon a similar basis, also, was the interference of the Queen in the action of Parliament; although it is true that in religious matters the Queen might claim that until her ecclesiastical supremacy had been repealed by the body which established it, if she would admit the power of that body to establish it, Parlia- ment could have no right to exercise any part of the func- tions involved in the supremacy without her express consent. It is not difficult to see how the power of legislative enact- ment was based upon the royal prerogative, but many writ- ers have hesitated or failed to recognize that the same prin- ciple is involved when the administration of justice by the Queen and Council is concerned. Because this branch of the royal power was so largely exercised by the Council, which in turn was so closely connected with a court, the Star Chamber, which at a later time was declared illegal, the legal categories of a later period have been applied to this phase of royal activity, and the true situation confused. That the administration of justice was at one time a fun- damental duty of the sovereign is clear from the fact that from this royal obligation arose the whole judicial and court system of England. That the growth of the courts rendered them to a great degree independent of the sovereign, and limited the sovereign in the exercise of his administrative duty, in so far as it concerned the administration of justice, is equally clear from the history of English law. But that in Elizabeth's time this growth of the courts had deprived the sovereign of all, or nearly all, of these functions is an unwarranted assumption and contradicted by the facts. The facts show that to the sovereign still remained a con- Church and State 85 siderable portion of the king's original right and duty to see that justice was administered and enforced. Under the Tudors this right was exercised extensively, and was not confined to matters not cognizable in the established courts, nor to the supervision of these courts, but included juris- dictions concurrent with those of both the secular and the ecclesiastical courts. No one, so far as we know, denies that the Queen or the Council actually attended to mat- ters which it was the regular duty of the established courts to look after, but the foundation of these acts has been often misinterpreted. Though Finlason attempts to show that the Council never had any "direct judicial power or jurisdiction original or appellate, as to causes arising within the realm," and main- tains that the actual exercise of such power was an "abusive and usurped jurisdiction" during the reign of Elizabeth,^ he admits that it did have the legal right to deal with cases arising in dependencies without the realm — that is, Guern- sey, Jersey, and the colonies — by virtue of the "duty of the sovereign to see that justice was administered in all his dominions and to prevent a failure of justice." He admits here, in other words, that the Council was the Queen's rep- resentative, in these cases to exercise the royal function of administering justice. And he admits also that such func- tion was still held by the sovereign until a time much later than that which we are considering. But he denies that the function was legally operative in England where royal courts regularly exercised the jurisdiction involved in such royal power. The very fact that the Council did exercise such powers in England refutes his argument, even though it were not for the further fact that it was not until eighty years after our period that the exercise of such powers by the Star Chamber was abolished by act of Parliament, at a time when the royal power was undergoing a violent curtail- ment. That the restraint of royal power in this direction ^ Finlason, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, pp. i6, 187, 690. 86 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth was one of the greatest benefits conferred by the contest between the Stuart kings and the people, may perhaps be admitted, but that this result of that contest has anything to do with the legality of the royal prerogative during the first years of Elizabeth's reign can be maintained only by imposing on an earlier time the legal conceptions of a period over eighty years subsequent. We must return to what we actually find during the early years of Elizabeth's reign and the only conclusion possible from those facts is that the sovereign did, at this time, exercise, personally or by means of her Council, a control which involved both the right of legislative action and of administration of justice. It is not necessary for us, perhaps, to distinguish the legal from the illegal, or extra-legal exercise of royal power, since our interest lies in the fact rather than in its basis. By vir- tue of her prerogative, her legal rights, or extra-legal powers the Queen issued injunctions and orders for the regulation of the Church, prescribed regulations for the press, issued proclamations, maintained a close supervision over her officials ecclesiastical and lay, enforced or created penalties against offenders.^ The Council, as representative of the Queen or on its own legal authority, handled much of this business without attempting to distinguish carefully upon what authority Its action was based. It supervised both secular and ecclesiastical courts, received petitions and appeals, dealt with offenders directly, or gave orders how they should be dealt with by other agents. It is difficult to place any definite limits to their jurisdiction and their activ- ity.^ Probably none was placed at the time. Whatever came to their attention as requiring correction or guidance, * Sparrow, Collections, p. 65; Cardwell, Documentary Annals, vol. i, p. 178; Strype, Parker, vol. i, p. 442 ; Strype, Whitgift, App. iii, no. xxiv ; Prothero, Select Statutes, pp. 168-72; Grindal, Remains, pp. 404-35; Camden, Annals, (1625), bk. Ill, pp. 14-16. 2 S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. ill, nos. 52, 54; vol. XI, nos. 16, 25; vol. xxi, no. 7; vol. XXIV, no. 24; vol. XII, no. 13; vol. xvi, nos. 49, 60; Acts of the Privy Coun- cil, vol. vii, pp. 127, 145; Strype, Annals, vol. I, pt. I, p. 139; Cheyney, History of England from the Armada, vol. i, p. 80. Church and State 87 they attended to in one way or another, directly or indi- rectly, and during this period we find no instance of protest against their powers, certainly not from the ecclesiastical officials. On the contrary, Parker's appeal to the Council, "if you lay not your helping hand to it . . . all that is done is but to be laughed at," was by no means rare.^ The feeling was probably pretty general that the times were not settled, that the new establishment was uncertain and in need of support from all sources; no one cared to question the au- thority of the body which was so closely connected with the safety of the Queen and with the exercise of her broad and poorly defined prerogative, especially since the actual force which the Council could wield, legally or illegally, made opposition dangerous. To the exercise of royal power and the activity of the Council was due whatever of unity or efficiency there was in the workings of the complex ma- chinery. If it had not been for some overriding or directing force which could solve problems without unnecessary ref- erence to the complex instruments provided by law, the confusion would have been far greater than it actually was. Strype has preserved for us a somewhat whimsical note, made by an Elizabethan cleric, recording what "every man that hath cure of souls is Infolded by his oath to keep and obey" ; I. The sacred canonical word of God. II. The statutes of the realm. III. The queen's majesty's injunctions, and formal letters pat- ent. IV. The letters of the lords of the Privy Council. V. The Metropolitan his injunctions and articles. VI. The articles and mandates of his bishop. VII. The articles and mandates of Mr. Archdeacon. VIII. The mandates of chancellors or com- missaries, sompners, receivers, etc. IX. The comptrolment of all men with patience.^ The opponents of the bishops expressed their conscious- ness of restraint with somewhat less patience : — ... No preachers may withoute greate danger of the lawes, 1 Parker Corresp., nos. clxxvi, ccv, ccvi, ccxix. ---- * Strype, Annals, vol. I, pt. ii, p. 132. 88 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth utter all truthe comprised in the book of God. It is so circum- scribed and wrapt within the compasse of suche statutes, suche penalties, suche injunctions, suche advertisements, suche ar- ticles, suche canons, suche sober caveats, and suche manifolde pamphlets, that in manner it doth but peepe out from behinde the screene. The lawes of the lande, the booke of common prayer, the Queenes Injunctions, the Commissioners advertisements, the bishops late Canons, Lindwoodes Provincials every bishops Ar- ticles in his diocese, my Lord of Canterburies sober caveates in his licenses to preachers, and his highe courte of prerogative or grave fatherly faculties, these together, or the worste of them (as some of them be too badde) may not be broken or offended against, but with more daunger than to offende against the Bible.^ THE EFFECTS OF THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE The Queen seems to have believed at first that all that was necessary for the establishment of the Church and the accomplishment of the government's objects, was the pas- sage of the laws and the installation of the officers of the system to do their complex duty. She displayed an angry impatience with her clergy, and charged them with neglect and failure to do their duty when the Establishment failed of itself to accomplish what she desired ; ^ yet her own will- fulness and greed were as responsible as more fundamental causes in the failure of the ecclesiastical machinery. Parker was moved to protest bitterly that all he could do amounted to nothing unsupported by the Queen, or, what was worse, that he was actually hindered in his work by her perverse- ness and her willingness to lend her ear to the plaints of the enemies he made in doing her will. " If this ball shall be tossed unto us, and then have no authority by the Queen's Majesty's hand, we will set still." ^ "And where the Queen's Highness will needs have me assay with mine own authority what I can do for order, I trust I shall not be stayed hereafter."^ He felt that the clergy were 1 Puritan Manifestoes, Second Admonition, p. 91. * Parker Corresp., nos. cvii, clxx, cclxxiii. ' Ibid., no. clxxvi. * Ibid., no. ccix; cf. also, nos. cxiv, clxxviii, cciii; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. clxxv, no. 2. Church and State 89 being used by the Queen to shield herself from the unpopu- larity which might result from the work she wished done. "The talk, as I am informed, is much increased, and un- restful they be, and I alone they say am in fault. For as for the Queen's Majesty's part, in my expostulation with many of them I signify their disobedience, wherein, because they see the danger they cease to impute it to her Majesty, for they say, but for my calling on, she is indifferent." " If this matter shall be overturned with all these great hopes, etc., I am at a point to be used and abused: nam scio nos episcopos in hunc usum positos esse.'' ^ Aylmer bluntly said, " I am blamed for not taking upon me a matter wherein she herself would not be seen." ^ '■ Yet, in spite of hindrances, in spite of the uncertainties of royal temper and the discouragement of the clergy at times, the results desired by the government were obtained. The nation was won to regard for the Anglican Establishment as a patriotic duty, the Church itself preser\'-ed from the narrow sectarianism of the Continent. Of the lesser effects of the connection of Church and State upon the spirit of Anglican- ism, of the compromise spirit of its standards, and the practical character of its leaders, we shall have occasion to refer in the following chapter. The union of Church and State was of primary impor- tance in determining the degree of tolerance possible in England during Elizabeth's reign. It is obvious that the political purposes of the government were such as made certain forms of Catholic and Protestant activity equally intolerable. In so far as the desire of the government was to repress such activity, its attitude was by its dominance over the Church forced upon the ecclesiastical establish- ment. The Church reflected the intolerance of the State. Yet this was of little importance as a factor in the promo- * Parker Corresp., no. clxxix. * Strype, Aylmer, p. 77; cf. also Parker Corresp., nos. cxlv, cxxvli, clxxviii, cciii. 90 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth tion of ecclesiastical intolerance, for moderate and reason- able as was the spirit of the personnel of the Establishment, ecclesiastics, by virtue of their narrow interests and per- spective, were more inclined to repress the religious ene- mies of the government than was the government itself. The policy of the government acted rather as a check than an incentive to intolerance on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities. We find the Church and its officers prevented by their subjection to the will of the secular power from exercising the force which they conceived their position gave them, and which they felt should, from the standpoint of the Church, be exercised. The instruments of the law, however, were not in their control, and their own courts and officials were so restrained at every point by the in- fluence of the Queen, the Council, and the secular officials, that there was little opportunity to display that spirit of compulsion which many of them would have liked to ex- ercise toward both Catholics and Protestants. The mod- erate and conciliatory policy of the State prevented the development of doctrinal and ecclesiastical bigotry in a Church which, unrestrained, would doubtless have devel- oped both. In the union of the two, and the consequent mould in which the Church was cast, lay also one of the principal causes for the growth of dissent. The union between State and Church determined the early character of this dissent. Individuals found the restraints imposed upon them too confining, and without daring to break the mould itself, without daring to direct their energies against the funda- mental structure of a Church backed by government pat- ronage, sought a greater freedom within the system itself. Thus the vestiarian controversy was significant, not as a protest against the system, but as a protest against one of the small features within the system which it was felt could be safely attacked without coming in conflict with the government. That this controversy later developed into Church and State 91 what amounted to a direct attack upon the particular type of ecclesiastical organization, was due to influences of which we shall speak when we come to deal with the development of dissent. There is no question that there is in the general lenient policy of the government to let live in comparative peace any who would take the essential vows of loyalty to the Crown, and attend the services of the Church as pre- scribed by law, an advance in tolerance over the spirit of the time. Government restraint prevented the Church from demanding subscription to a particular set of doctrinal the- ories, and when subscription to a formula was demanded it was subscription to no such system as that embodied in the Augsburg Confession, but to a somewhat spineless collection of polemic statements, that in only the slightest degree in- volved religious intolerance.^ It was the fault of the ar- rangement which so subjugated the Church to the State, and the temporary character of the advance in tolerance was due to this, that the peculiar form of ecclesiastical organization made it inevitable that once established firmly the organization would no longer be content to be so inclu- sive and so colorless. The good of the relationship, from the standpoint of the permanent advance of tolerance, lay in the opportunity it gave for dissenting opinion to become powerful enough to resist with strength all later attempts at complete suppression, so that in the end it became neces- sary to arrange some peaceable method for the existence of varied phases of Christianity side by side. To carry to its logical consequence the dominance of the Queen over both State and Church, would lead to the con- clusion that whatever tolerance or intolerance we discover manifested by either, was based, not on group consciousness and prejudice, but upon the personal will of the sovereign. Undoubtedly Elizabeth's personal prejudices modified pro- foundly the groups which are for us the only index to » C/. Thirty-nine Articles, Arts, xix and xxil. 92 lNTOLERi\NCE IN THE ReIGN OF ELIZABETH national feeling, but it would be absurd to ascribe an all- powerful influence to the Queen. Intolerance of any im- portance is always the manifestation of a social attitude of greater or less extent, however great may be the influence of an individual in determining that attitude. In England neither national, religious, nor ecclesiastical unity of feeling had reached a high development, and as intolerance is the outward manifestation of variant groups striving for social cohesion the time was ripe in England for an outburst of religious and political intolerance. Around the person and the throne of Elizabeth centered the development of Eng- lish national unity, and it is to her glory that her great influ- ence made religion and the Church subservient to that development, and was directed toward the moderation and elimination of religious differences. She made mistakes, she was unwise, but to her, and to a few men around her, is due the fact that the tone of the government in religious matters was more sane and reasonable than the spirit of the men she used to establish and serve in her Church. CHAPTER V ANGLICANISM The men who made up the early Church of Elizabeth were drawn from three parties, those to whom the compromise Church was agreeable because of temperamental or intel- lectual convictions, Catholics who were loyal and felt that the governmental Establishment was sufficiently right to excuse the outward show of adherence which the govern- ment demanded, and the more radical Protestants who were ready to make compromises and concessions for the sake of securing an anti-Roman Church, and perhaps for the sake of securing for themselves the advantages of position and hoped-for power. Naturally those who would now be called the Erastians were most acceptable to the Queen and secured the most important positions. The direct- ing heads were not extremists, not religious enthusiasts. They were reasonable men. They were cautious men. Temperament and the desire to keep their positions made them so. The antiquarian interests of Parker, and his dry- as-dust researches, so far removed from definitely religious views, are characteristic of the men who had the Church in charge at the first of the reign. Parker, Grindal, Sandys, and the rest were eminently practical men in a worldly sense, good men also, but not religious enthusiasts, not unreasonably pious. They were not men fitted to assume a rousing captaincy of militant religion. The govern- ment was perhaps not utterly indifTerent to religious interest, but primarily fighting for self-preser\'ation; the Church itself was inspired by the same fears as the govern- ment and well satisfied with the alliance of the two. The Protestant party also hated the common enemy with a bit- ter hatred and felt that for the present it could give up 94 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth cherished notions in order to present a united front to the foe. Any institution thus founded on the alliance of essen- tially different ideas in opposition to a common foe, or even in love of a common object, is liable to rupture when the danger disappears or the common object is obtained. Color- less and political as the Church was in the beginning, founded upon compromise, there lay within it the seeds and the causes for the growth of divergent opinions of well- founded character, should the country once become free from external danger. the establishment as a compromise The desire of the Church to compromise comes out clearly in the standards which it set up, or attempted to set up. Judging from these standards alone, the Church, apart from its obtrusive patriotism, emphasized few aspects of religious conviction. The only legal standard was for years the tak- ing of a purely political oath of loyalty to the Crown by the clerics, and, on the part of the laymen, a purely formal ex- pression of allegiance to the established government by attendance on the Church services. True there was an at- tempt by the Church to secure the adoption of a standard of belief in 1563, but government policy secured the delay in the necessary enactment of that standard into law until 1 57 1 , when the political situation had been so changed by the pro- nouncements of Papacy that the government was willing to permit the Thirty-nine Articles to be incorporated into the body of ecclesiastical standards. But the Articles are them- selves so indefinite in statement, so merely anti-Roman, that they but serve to emphasize further the compromise and political character of the English Establishment. The fact that the Church was established at, and according to, the dictates of government policy resulted in a Church that was a compromise. It was not simply a compromise be- tween Catholicism and Protestantism, but, more important still, it was a compromise with itself. It was & conscious Anglicanism 95 attempt to abstain from making definite statements of its own position and justification of its position as a compro- mise Church. You may see how he [Jewel] would mingle policy and religion together. Surely he is wise and a good servant in this time.^ And where the Queen's Highness doth note me to be too soft and easy, I think divers of my brethren will rather note me, if they were asked, too sharp and too earnest in moderation, which towards them I have used, and will still do, till mediocrity shall be re- ceived amongst us.^ We find the clergy taking pride in its "mediocrity," al- though there could be little defense of the Church from that standpoint.^ This was a condition which was bound to van- ish as soon as the dangers from foreign aggression disap- peared and the Church had acquired the sanction of age. At first, however, the only clear thing about its position was that it was not papal and that it was English, things, which, in themselves, do not define a Church any more than they define industrial or philosophical systems. That the Church finally escaped from colorless compromise, and has, in gen- eral, become a deliberately tolerant and inclusive body, was due to the men who directed its affairs in later years, to the struggle with enthusiasts through which it passed, to the essentially patriotic and national stamp placed upon it in the beginning. Yet the Church established by the government, Erastian in form and conception, would have failed to become the great Church we know, it could not have played the role it has in the development of England, it could not have held the allegiance of Englishmen, had it not been something greater than a tool of secular politics. In the face of sincere religious feeling, before the enthusiasm of Puritan eamest- ^ Parker Corresp., no. cxvi; cf. no. clxiv. * Ibid., no. cxxvii; cf. Strype, Parker, bk. I, p. 126. • J. H. Newman's early defense of the via media would have been impossible for one who lived in Elizabeth's day and adhered to the Establishment during her first years of rule. 96 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth ness and inexorable piety, it would have failed even to serve the political purpose for which it was created, it could not have continued its life and remained for centuries the Church to which Englishmen have given their allegiance, had it not been from the first something more than Erastian, something more than expedient. It was religious. During the time when its officers and its polity were most subservi- ent to governmental dictation, the English Church had, and was conscious of the fact that it had, a function other than that of serving merely as a cog in the governmental ma- chinery. Yet the connection between Church and State, the essential subordination of ecclesiastical to secular policy, was during Elizabeth's reign never repudiated by the Es- tablished Church ; and the development of its religious life, as well as the development of ecclesiastical and doctrinal theory, was necessarily limited by that relationship. Oppo- nents charged that "common experience dothe prove, that they doe for the most parte apply them selves to the time and seeke rather to please and followe worldly pollicie, then sincerely to promote Gods cause, and to publish his truth." * FORMULATION OF DOCTRINAL STANDARDS The moderate and conciliatory purposes of secular poli- tics made the formulation of an independent ecclesiastical or doctrinal apologetic a delicate task. Any theory of the ecclesiastical Establishment which too vigorously con- demned Catholicism would defeat the desire of the govern- ment to procure the allegiance of Catholics, and would not be permitted. Any theory which antagonized the Conti- nental reformers would be equally distasteful to the gov- ernment. In doctrine and in religion, therefore, we find little development during Elizabeth's reign over what had existed from the first, largely because of the restraints placed upon such development by royal taste and policy. By ^ Puritan Manifestoes, Second Admonition, p. 89. Cf. Burrage, English Dis- senters, vol. II, p. 98. Anglicanism 97 the acts of Parliament which erected the Elizabethan Estab- lishment, there was, appropriately enough, considering the secular character of the parliamentary bodies, little empha- sis placed upon the doctrinal features of the new Church. In the Act of Uniformity we find a limitation placed upon doctrinal formulation, in entire accord with the historical grounds upon which the repudiation of papal claims had been made, and entirely in harmony with the essentially political interest of the act establishing the form of ecclesi- astical service and government. The Apostles' and Atha- nasian Creeds, the pronouncements of the first four General Councils, and the Scriptures, are to serve as the standards upon which charges of heresy are to be based. These are indefinite standards, the interpretation of which may vary with changed conditions of thought and government; nor can they be regarded as furnishing a proper doctrinal state- ment of the position of the English Church ; they are rather the traditional inheritance of all Christians, Catholic as well as Protestant, and are in no w^ay distinctive or to be ranked in the same class with the doctrinal formularies of the Con- tinental Reformed and Lutheran Churches. The first real attempt to give to the Establishment a defi- nite statement of its doctrinal and ecclesiastical belief, was that of the Convocation of 1563 when it passed the Thirty- nine Articles. A detailed history of the Articles, or an anal- ysis of their contents even, would be out of place here, and would require a treatment far beyond the limits of this study. Essentially they were the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI, modified in the spirit of compromise. They were essentially polemic, in so far as ecclesiastical theory is concerned, and conciliatory in regard to doctrine. "The papists mislike of the book of common prayers for nothing else, but because it swerveth from their mass-book, and is not in all points like unto it. And these men mislike it for nothing else, but that it hath too much likelihood unto it," ^ ^ Whitgift, Works, vol. i, p. 120. Cf. also, Zurich Letters, nos. cix, cxii, cxx. 98 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth wrote Whitgift, and the same might have been said of the Articles. They so far fail to embody what came to be dis- tinctively Anglican that a later English ecclesiastic could say of them that they "are no more part of the Church of England than the limpet which clings to the rock is the rock itself." ^ Doctrinally there is nothing in them which could not, by judicious interpretation, be accepted by any Prot- estant, or even by any Catholic. Yet so great was the Queen's aversion to definite statement of the position of the Church, apart from its Erastianism, or so anxious her con- cern that the way be left open for any move which the fu- ture political situation might make necessary, that even this seemed dangerous and she refused the royal signature necessary to give the Articles authoritative position. It was not until nine years later, ^ when all hope of reconcilation with the Papacy was past, at a time when it might be sup- posed that the Church could afford to take a more decisive stand than in 1563, that the Articles received Parliamentary sanction and the assent of the Queen ; ^ and then in a form whose interpretation, in so far as the ecclesiastical features were concerned, was debatable. The catechism, in both the longer and shorter forms pre- pared by Nowell, similarly avoided debatable doctrinal statements and never received governmental sanction. The Church, for the most part, gave the government hearty support in repressing doctrinal discussion. The homilies were prepared for this purpose, as well as for supplying homiletic material for use by those incapable of preparing their own sermons. Elizabeth and Cecil discouraged such doctrinal debates as Parker and Jewel and the early prel- ates were inclined to enter upon, and so great were the restraints imposed upon the clergy that many of them * Hook, Lives of the Archbishops, Parker, p. 353. Cf. Child, Church and State, p. 196. 2 Parker Corresp., nos. ccxxiv, ccxxv; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. XLI, no. 43; D'Ewes, Journals, pp. 132, 133. * 13 Eliz., c. 2. Anglicanism 99 thought caution was being carried too far. "To be pre- scribed in preaching, to have no matter in controversy in religion spoken of, is thought far unreasonable, specially seeing so many adversaries as by their books plentifully had in the court from beyond the sea, do impugn the verity of our religion." ^ "What can I hope, when injunctions are laid upon those appointed to preach, not to handle vice with too much severity; when the preachers are deemed intolerable, if they say anything that is displeasing? " ^ When Whitgift, in his zeal for the doctrines of Calvinism and for the suppression of dissent, endeavored to impose the Calvinistic Lambeth Articles upon the Church, the Queen, through Cecil, promptly quashed both the attempt to give Anglican doctrine a Calvinistic stamp, and the seeming assertion of archiepiscopal authority in the realm of reli- gious dogma. THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF THE CHURCH Quite apart from any ecclesiastical theory or formulation of doctrine, however, the Church looked upon itself as the opponent of Roman Catholicism. This, of course, was in part due to the trend of secular politics in opposition to Rome, but the presence within the Church of influential and sincere men whose political fear of the menace of Rome was equaled by their moral and religious horror of the abuses within that Church, gave to this opposition a strength and determination which no mere loyalty to the Crown could have done. In England, as on the Continent, the purely secular motives of opposition to the papal and ecclesiastical control enabled those whose religious or moral motives led them to protest against abuses which shocked and repulsed them, to express their opinions and to resist suppression. In England, as on the Continent also, the secular revolt, however, would have been immensely more 1 Parker Corresp., no. clxxv, Parker to Cecil. * Zurich Letters, no. xxxix, Sampson to Martyr. 100 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth complicated and have resulted in more distress and insta- bility than was actually the case, had it not been for ideal- istic notions of religion and the Church which afforded the necessary emotional grounds of opposition.^ Following the usual habit of men the English Church and its leaders found at hand the material for the construction of an ecclesiastical theory which allowed full play for their emo- tional condemnation of Roman Catholicism, but the emo- tional rather than the intellectual motive, determined the spirit and attitude of the Church. A superficial reading of the writings of the time would lead one to believe that the only possible concern felt for the souls of Englishmen was lest they be damned through adherence to Romanism, and that the ecclesiastics believed Rome the only religious danger which the Church had to combat. Yet there were not lacking within the Church men who felt that, independently of ecclesiastical or doctrinal theory, independently of opposition to Rome even, the Church had laid upon it the duty of proclaiming the gospel of God's forgiving love to common men. The controversial character of the period is, of course, much more patent than this idealistic concern for the souls of men, and it often con- cealed the religious earnestness which really existed. The pressing political aggression of the Papacy gave to the age an essentially controversial stamp and many causes com- bined to prevent the development of Anglican religious spirit. Within the Church were men more concerned over the dignity and remuneration of clerical ofifice than about the spiritual duties connected therewith.^ Earnest and trained men to take the lower, more intimate pastoral offices were ^ Fox's Martyrology, probably the most widely known of Elizabethan re- ligious productions, was little more than an emotional campaign document intended to arouse the feeling of the English against Roman Catholicism. * Strype, Annals, vol. ii, pt. I, pp. 331, 463, 467; Strype, Aylmer, p. 169; Froude, History of England, vol. xii, pp. 4-7, 543; Dixon, History of the Church, vol. V, p. 23; Parker Corresp., no. ccxxxiv; Usher, Reconstruction, vol. I, pp. 209-11; Pierce, Introd. to Marprelate Tracts, pp. loi et seq. Anglicanism ioi lacking. Ignorant and illiterate artisans were, of necessity, employed to perform the services. Parker admitted the fact. . . . We and you both, for tolerable supply thereof, have here- tofore admitted unto the ministry sundry artificers and others, not traded and brought up in learning, and, as it happened in a multitude, some that were of base occupations.^ There was truth in the charge made, that the bishops have made priests of the basest of the people, not only for their occupations and trades whence they have taken them as shoemakers, barbers, tailors, waterbearers, shepherds, and horse keepers, but also for their want of good learning and honesty.^ Sandys wrote : — The disease spreadeth for patrons gape for gain, and hungry fel- lows utterly destitute of all good learning and godly zeal, yea scarcely clothed with common honesty, having money, find ready entrance to the Church.^ The greed of patrons enabled the unfiit to secure places. Bishop Cooper could write truthfully: — As for the corruption in bestowing other meaner livings, the chief fault thereof is in patrons themselves. For it is the usual manner of the most part of these (I speak of too good experience) though they may have good store of able men in the Universities, yet if an ambitious or greedy minister come not unto them to sue for the benefice, if there be an insufficient man or a corrupt person within two shires of them, whom they think they can draw to any composition for their own benefit, they will by one means or other find him out, and if the bishop shall make courtesy to ad- mit him, some such shift shall be found by the law, either by Qiiare ijnpedit or otherwise, that whether the bishop will or no, he shall be shifted into the benefice. I know some bishops unto whom such suits against the patrons have been more chargeable in one year, than they have gained by all the benefices they have ^ Parker Corresp., no. Ixxxvi. ' Supplication of Puritan Ministers to Parliament in 1586, quoted in Neal, vol. I, p. 317. Cf. also Parker Corresp., nos. ccxi, ccxxxix, cclxxxii; Jewel, Works, vol. II, p. 1012; vol. IV, pp. 909, 873; Zurich Letters, no. Ivi; Sto-pe, Whitgift, vol. I, pp. 328-30; Grindal, Remains, p. 130; Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 316. ' Quoted in Hunt, Relig. Thought, vol. I, p. 77. 102 iNTCLFkANeE IN THE ReIGN OF ELIZABETH bestowed since they were bishops, or I think will do while they be bishops.^ Political caution enabled disloyal parish priests who had serv-ed under the Catholic regime to retain their livings, much to the discouragement of the ecclesiastical officials. This Machiavel government is strange to me, for it bringeth forth strange fruits. As soon is the papist favoured as is the true Protestant. And yet forsooth my levity doth mar all. When the true subject is not regarded but overthwarted, when the rebel Is borne with, a good commonwealth, scilicet. When the faithful subject and officer hath spent his wit to search, to find, to indict, to arraign, and to condemn, yet must they be kept still for a fair day to cut our own throats.^ All of these conditions combined to give to the lower clergy, and too often to the higher also, a character little provocative of spiritual life in the Church. A great part of the nation was dead to the emotions that give religion vital- ity. Ideas of morality were loose among both clergy and laity; ^ ministerial ofifice, of the lesser kind at least, carried with It no guarantee or expectation of respectability.^ There was little hope of immediate or rapid improvement. The changing value of money, due to the increased supply of gold from the New World, the changed agricultural and commercial conditions, so reduced the already insufficient remuneration of clerical office, that only the inefificlent and untrained were attracted to the ministry in its more humble aspects. "For what man of reason will think that eight pounds yearly is able to maintain a learned divine? When as every scull in a kitchen and groom in a stable is better provided for?" ^ 1 Cooper, Admonition, p. 147, quoted in Hooker, Ecc. Pol., vol. ll, bk. vil, chap. XXIV, sec. 7, note 87. Cf. Hooker, Ecc. Pol., vol. n, bk. vii, chap, xxiv, sec. 7, p. 210. 2 Parker Corresp., no. ccxcvii. Cf. also Usher, Reconstruction, vol. i, pp. 35, no, in; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. ix, no. 71; Whitgift, Works, vol. i, p. 313. 3 Hall, Elizabethan Age, chap, vii, "The Courtier"; App., pp. 242-50. * Cf. Spenser, Shepheard's Calendar and Mother Hubbard's Tale; Parker Corresp., no. cc. 6 Strype, Whitgift, vol. I, p. 534. Cf. also ibid., vol. lii, p. 174; Usher, Recon- Anglicanism 103 The Queen did not like the idea of religious zeal, she could not understand the stern and unyielding religious convic- tions of either Catholic or Protestant. She feared the effects of both. The growth within the Church of any great enthu- siasm for any kind of religious belief seemed to her danger- ous. She dreaded the effects upon the people of popular and soul-stirring preachers. She preferred that the Church slum- ber a little. When Grindal, one of the most sincere of the clergy and most deeply imbued with the spirit of piety, at- tempted to regulate the prophesyings in the interests of an educated ministry, she absolutely commanded him to put them down. He refused. His unwillingness to allow the political fears, or personal dislike of the Queen, to interfere with what he regarded as his spiritual duty,^ stirred the Queen to wrath and she promptly suspended him from the exercise of his office of Archbishop of Canterbury. When one whom she personally had held in high regard, one of such eminence in the organization which she had built up, was thus suppressed for attempting to encourage a purely spiritual exercise, it was not likely that less favored persons and less eminent ones would meet w^ith much consideration at her hands. The growth of any considerable body within the Church which attempted to place in the forefront the belief that the Church was the repository of God's truth, and had, as such, a duty transcending its duty of obedience to the commands of royalty, could not exist during Eliza- beth's reign. In so far as Protestantism asserted the power and neces- sity of direct communion between man and his God, the pressure upon the corporate Church to regard itself as re- sponsible for the individual was lightened, and, upon reli- struction, vol. i, pp. 219-39; Collier., Ecc. Hist., vol. II, App., p. 104; Hooker, Ecc. Pol., hk. VII, chap, xxiv; Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iv, p. 283; E. F. Gay, Royal Historical Society's Transactions (New Series), vol. xiv, pp. 258-62. 1 Strype, Grindal, pp. 327, 328, App., p. 558; Grindal, Remains, pp. 373, 374, 376-90, 467, 468, Letters, nos. xc-xcix, App., nos. ii, iii; Prothero, Select Stat- utes, pp. 202-06; 5. P., Dotn., Eliz., vol. XLi, no. 44; Strype, Annals, vol. il, pt. n, App., nos. viii, ix; vol. II, pt. I, App., nos. xxiii, xxxviii, xxxix. 104 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth gious grounds, the demand of the Church that the individ- ual submit his soul to the Church lost force. Anglicanism was under the necessity of securing universal allegiance because the political situation demanded the adherence of all Englishmen to the State Church ; this need, and the in- fluence of the Protestant idea of individual capability and responsibility in the sphere of religion, weakened ecclesias- tical insistence upon, and concern for, the salvation of men. Nevertheless, imbued as were many of its clergy with the moral and religious ideas and feelings of a Protestantism kept sane by governmental regulation and cool-headedness, it was inevitable that they should have the spiritual welfare of their charges thrust upon their consciousness. We find them striving constantly to raise the standards, morally and educationally, of both clergy and people. But with the death of the clerics who survived from the reign of Mary, and with the dying-out of such men as Parker, Jewel, Sandys, and Grindal, when Whitgift and Bancroft, with their talent for organization, took the places of the first clerics, the Church was absorbed in the conflict with Presbyterianism and with religiously earnest dissent ; there were difficulties in the way of the cultivation of the religious life of the Church. j Yet many men had been by that time educated under the j Elizabethan Church,^ and perhaps there was as much moral I earnestness and truly religious propaganda as exists in any Church when men are busy with concerns more immediate and practical than the salvation of their souls. Religious i enthusiasm sometimes serves as a substitute for other intel- \ lectual and emotional excitement, but seldom makes much headway at a time so crowded with political, literary, and commercial interest as was the reign of Elizabeth. During j Elizabeth's reign the consciousness in the Anglican Church j of its function as God's messenger of salvation never de- ; veloped into any great spiritual or religious movement. ! There was too much need for the establishment of the 1 At Cambridge in 1568, 28 men proceeded B.A.; in 1583, 277. Anglicanism 105 machinery of the Church, too great necessity for caution in every pronouncement upon religious questions; there was not, in the stress of papal controversy, time for the devel- opment of non-controversial religious earnestness. The Church was, as was the rest of the nation, religiously quies- cent, until stirred into life by the agitation of a group of emotionally religious men whose convictions, borrowed or adapted from Continental Protestantism, brought them into conflict with the constituted church authorities and the government. FORMULATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL THEORY Justification of the Establishment as an organization was an immediate need, more pressing than the formulation of its doctrinal theory or the development of its religious life. The formulation of an ecclesiastical theory for the Church, was, of necessity, one of the first considerations of the men who took office in the new Establishment. Obviously the real political motives behind the organization of the Church, the bare assertion of the Erastian principle, could not serve as adequate apology for the Church in the minds of many Englishmen, nor could it serve as a defense against the attacks of its enemies. The historical claims of Henry, reiterated by the Eliza- bethan religious acts, served as the basis for the develop- ment of a theory of the Church such as was required. His- torically, the preface to Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy asserted, the jurisdiction of the Papacy in England was a usurped and abused jurisdiction. The Act of Uniformity asserted that the doctrinal standards of the Church were primitive, pre-Roman. Thus the language of the acts indi- cates the justification of the Church which was in the minds of the leaders in the separation movement. That the Eliza- bethan Church should continue the development of the ecclesiastical apologetic chosen by Henry was natural. It gave to the Church of Elizabeth a direct connection with io6 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth the Church of her father under which most of her subjects had been born. It was a return, beyond the unpopular reign of Mary, to the golden times of her predecessors. The justi- fication of the Establishment upon historical grounds was also entirely in line with the attempts of the Continent to find historical basis for their separation from the Church of Rome. Englishmen who during Mary's reign had retired into private life or fled to the Continent, men like Jewel and Parker, had imbibed their ideas from the separatist apolo- gists of Henry's and Edward's reigns; those who spent their time on the Continent had used the opportunity for associa- tion with Continental reformers, to perfect their studies in primitive church history; a study based, it is true, upon un- critical use of the sources, but nevertheless adequate for their purposes in spite of the Catholic charge, "Your own opinion is the rule to esteeme them or despise them." ^ Parker the Archbishop was an antiquarian. His interests and his tastes combined to make agreeable the defense upon historical grounds of the Church of which he was the head. Jewel, the first apologist of the English Church, was an om- nivorous student who sought and found, in his study of the primitive fathers, abundant authority for the Establish- ment. Nowhere is the essential unity of thought upon the Continent and in England shown more strikingly than in the importance given to historical investigation of the first four centuries of Christianity. The historical apologetic had for its fundamental article the idea emphasized by the preface to the Act of Supremacy, the idea that the jurisdiction of the Papacy historically did not reach back to the beginnings of Christianity.^ The primitive Church knew no such papal power; it contem- plated no such hierarchy and universal dominion as was maintained by the Romans. A natural corollary to this 1 Jewel, Works, vol. Ill, p. 176. ' Ibid., pp. 192, 233, 267; vol. II, pp. 106, 85; vol. IV, pp. 1062-68, 1072; vol. I, pp. 338, 444, 3-25; Parker Corresp., no. Ixxvii. Anglicanism 107 fundamental rejection upon historical grounds, of papal claims, was the rejection also of many of the rites and cere- monies and observances of the Roman Catholic Church. Extreme unction, administration of the sacrament in one kind only, the excessive use of saints' days, were rejected, practically, because of the objections of the extremer Prot- estants; theoretically, because no authority was found for their use in primitive times. "As for us, we have planted no new religion, but only have renewed the old, that was undoubtedly founded and used by the apostles of Christ, and other holy fathers in the primitive church, and of this long late time, by means of the multitude of your traditions and vanities, hath been drowned." ^ Yet the association of the Church with the government in the particularly close relations which conciliatory politics made necessary, pre- vented the maintenance of primitive practice as the exclu- sive touchstone for organization and ceremony in the Eng- lish Church. 2 The subservience of the Church to the will of the Queen made necessary the retention of ceremonies and forms of organization whose persistence in the English Es- tablishment would have been hard to justify on the grounds of apostolic precedent. A theory permitting a more liberal practice than that laid down even by liberal interpretation of the primitive history of the Christian Church was neces- sary. In essence, the basis for this theory, so far as it had a Scriptural basis, was Paul's command to render obedience unto superior powers. The leaders of the Church also showed a common sense in their recognition of historical development and change in external ecclesiastical organiza- tion hardly to be expected in the sixteenth century. No doubt their contention that the form of the organization and the ceremonies to be used in the Church were to be 1 Jewel. Works, vol. IV, pp. 777, 1 123. The economic argument that such profusion of saints' days interfered with labor was advanced, but during the first years of Elizabeth's rule received little emphasis. It was a favorite argu- ment with the Presbyterians. * Ibid.,yq\. i, pp. 65, 75; vol. ill, p. 177. io8 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth determined by the needs of time and place, was inspired in great part by the necessity of finding a justification for cer- tain features of the English Establishment which could not be defended upon purely historical grounds, but that this defense took the general ground of reasonableness, rather than some more narrow ground, such as the divine character of the kingship, was due, in some cases at least, to a truly liberal realization of the fact rather than to polemic difficul- ties.^ Practical common sense and practical needs produced this liberal sense of historical development. There was in this position room for the necessary Erastianism of the Church and no difficulty to reconcile with the acts of Par- liament and the headship of the Queen. The contention that the external form of ecclesiastical establishment was a matter of indifference and might, therefore, be changed and accommodated to the needs of different peoples at different times, served in a measure to blunt the reproaches of the Catholics that Elizabeth's Church existed merely by virtue of secular, that is, Parliamentary, enactment. To this charge the reply was not a direct denial, but a counter- charge that Parliament had always debated concerning ecclesiastical changes and that under Mary the Catholics had a "Parliament faith, a Parliament mass, and a Parlia- ment Pope." ^ The refusal to claim for the English Estab- lishment any particular sanctity, or divinely given plan, enabled the Church to avoid condemning Continental Prot- estantism and permitted the most cordial relations with the most important forms of anti-Romanism. At the same time, Parker's claim that the English Church was the truly Catholic Church was given its full force in reconciling those Catholics who could be brought to renounce the ecclesias- > C/. the rather amusing instance, "In the Apostles' times that was harmless, which being now revived would be scandalous; as their oscula sancta." Hooker, Ecc. Pol., Pre/., chap, iv, sec. 4, p. 137. 2 Jewel, Works, vol. iv, p. 904. Cf. ibid., vol. IV, pp. 903, 898, 902, 264, 166, 906; Whitgift, Works, vol. i, p. 185; Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. viii, chap. vi. Anglicanism 109 tical headship of the Pope. Hardly less important was the fact that, with such a theory for the basis of an ecclesiastical structure, there was not inevitably bound the acceptance of any set of semi-religious ecclesiastical dogma. And finally, such a basis gave encouragement to a great number of radi- cal Protestants to believe that entire freedom was left to the Church to develop an organization and a serv^ice more in accord with their extreme ideas than was the Establishment already erected. This particularly was true as regards the ceremonies of the Church, and led directly to the attacks made upon the vestments and certain other ceremonies which Parker was hard put to it to defend upon the grounds of expediency. We have indicated how few were the steps taken in the doctrinal and religious development of the Established Church during the reign of Elizabeth, and have shown some of the causes which prevented further growth in those lines. The same causes were, for the most part, operative in pre- venting development of ecclesiastical theory also, but there was, nevertheless, a tendency here toward the formation of a particular system. The development of ecclesiastical theory is most important for the theory of intolerance in Elizabeth's reign, for, contrary to the accepted belief, it is in the realm of ecclesiastical, rather than purely religious, divergence, that the greatest field for intolerance lies. The emotional reactions which lead to intolerance may be de- v^eloped from any kind of divergence in views, even those which often seem the most immaterial are capable of pro- ducing as strong reactions as those bearing directly on daily life. But where belief is the foundation of social institutions it is most likely to secure the defense of lasting intolerance. It is the necessity for defense of the social organization for religious purposes, rather than the necessity for the defense of a particular type of strictly religious dogma, that affords the greatest occasion for a display of intolerance. The dogma which the organization has made official may serve no Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth as the charge on which Intolerance manifests itself, but the supposed danger to the organization implied in the rejection of the dogma of the organization, inspires the charges. Nothing illustrates this more strikingly than the latitude allowed to scholars by the Catholic Church in their specula- tions, so long as they did not so express or publish their private opinions as to threaten the safety of the hierarchy. In England the differences between dissenting Protestant groups and the Establishment, which caused the greatest friction, were differences of organization and ceremony rather than those of religion. The political connection be- tween the Church and State accentuated the danger in every dissenting tendency which attacked the form of the religious social system established by the secular govern- ment. It was not the political danger to the monarchy, but the ecclesiastical danger to the Establishment which led to the development of ecclesiastical theory in the English Establishment. It was in opposition to hostile champion- ship of the Presbyterian form of ecclesiastical organization that the most important tendency to development of a new Anglican ecclesiastical theory arose. This tendency was toward the development of the dogma of the apostolic succession of the bishops.' The immediate sources of the Idea of the apostolic succes- sion in England are difficult to determine, primarily because the development in Elizabeth's reign did not become a clear and consistent championship of the theory. The dignity of episcopal, as opposed to the claims of papal, power was an old subject of controversy, and it was but natural that it should assert itself in the English Church, whose foundation was opposition to the Papacy and w^hose episcopal adminis- tration was a survival from the old Church. The substitu- tion by Henry of his own authority for that of the Pope, and the very personal exercise of that power by him, were not conducive to the development of an independent episcopal theory. Barlow, Bishop of St. Asaph's, said: — Anglicanism hi If the King's grace being supreme head of the Church of Eng- land, did choose, denominate, and elect any layman (being learned) to be a bishop, that be so chosen (without mention being made of any orders) should be as good a bishop as he is or the best in England.^ Cranmer said he valued his episcopal title no more than he did " the paring of an apple," and that " there is no more promise of God that grace is given in the committing of the ecclesiastical office than it is in the committing of the civil office." 2 An ambiguous statement in the ordinal of Edward VI suggests, but does not assert, the necessity for episcopal ordination, and practice during his reign destroys whatever force might be given to this seeming assertion of episcopal dignity. Jewel, at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, con- fused the question of an apostolic episcopal succession with the succession of apostolic doctrine in the Church. He re- fused to be definite, and certainly no apostolic succession of bishops was asserted as essential. He implies that it was not. " If it were certain that the religion and truth of God passeth evermore orderly by succession and none otherwise, then were succession a very good substantial argument of the truth." ^ The attempt of Whitgift to call in question the validity of Travers's Continental ordination, and the appeals made to the case of Whittingham,"* which concerned the same question, indicate a tendency to interpret the act, "that ministers be of sound doctrine," as excluding all who had not been ordained according to the legal forms of the Anglican Church, which, of course, required episcopal participation. The act itself states that Every person under the degree of a bishop, which doth or shall 1 Quoted in J. Gregory, Puritanism, p. 50. 2 Cranmer, Works (Jenkins ed.). vol. 11, p. 102. Cf. Cranmer, Remains and Letters, p. 305. ' Jewel, Works, vol. in, p. 322. Cf. also ibid., vol. ni, pp. 103, 104, 106, 309-10. * Cf. Maitland, Essays, " Puritan Politics," no. ii, pp. 77-98; Strype, Annals, vol. u, pt. II, App., no. xiii; Strype, Parker, 156, App., nos. xxvii, xlvii. 112 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth pretend to be a priest or minister of God's holy word and sacra- ments, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering than the form set forth by ParHament in the time of the late king Edward VI or now used; shall in the presence of the bishop or guardian of the spiritualities of some one diocese where he hath or shall have ecclesiastical living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the articles of religion, which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments.^ The generally accepted opinion, confirmed by practice, was that the act admitted of Presbyterian ordination.^ \\'hit- gift's opponents, and some of his friends, interpreted his attack as an expedient and illegal glorification of the episcopal office. . . . Let our aduersary^es looke unto yt how they account of the refourmed Churches abroad seing they have denyed such to be suffycyent and lawfull Ministers of the Ghospell of Christ, who have bene of those Churches allowed and ordayned thereunto.^ But there is little indication here of a theory of apostolic episcopal succession. Whitgift undoubtedly desired a more independent and autocratic episcopal authority, but the most superficial thought discovered the obvious antagonism of the theory of a divinely ordained episcopal ministry, to that subservience to the political dominance which was the essential characteristic of the Elizabethan foundation. . Dr. Hammond wrote to Burghley in 1588: — The bishops of our realm do not (so far as I ever yet heard), nor may not, claim to themselves any other authority than is given them by the statute of the 25th of King Henry the Eighth, re- cited in the first year of Her Majesty's reign, or by other statutes of the land; neither is it reasonable they should make other claims, for if it had pleased Her Majesty with the wisdom of the realm, to have used no bishops at all, we could not have com- plained justly of any defect in our church: or if it had liked them to limit the authority of bishops to shorter terms, they might not ^ 13 Eliz., c. 12. * Strype, Grindal, bk. VI, chap, xni; Cosin, Works, vol. iv, pp. 403-07, 449- 50; Bacon, quoted, p. 147. ' Penry's Answer to Fifteen Slanderous Articles, Burrage, Eng. Dissenters, vol. II, p. 67. Cf. also, Travers's Supplication, in Hooker, Works, vol. 11, p. 331. Anglicanism 113 have said they had any wrong. But sith it hath pleased Her Majesty to use the ministry of bishops, and to assign them this authority, it must be to me, that am a subject, as God's ordi- nance, and therefore to be obeyed according to St. Paul's rule.^ A theory of divine right episcopacy implies an independ- ence and freedom of action for ecclesiastical ofificials far beyond that contemplated by the ecclesiastical or secular founders of the system, and Elizabeth could admit no such theory, whatever its polemic advantages against Catholics or dissentient Protestants. Whitgift and the others, on whom is usually laid the charge of having introduced the idea, made statements and used arguments which may be interpreted as tending toward some such doctrine, but fear of the consequences led them to disclaim hastily and em- phatically that they held such opinions. Bishop Cooper said : — That our Bishops and ministers do not challenge to holde by succession, it is most evident: their whole doctrine and preaching is contrary.^ Whitgift goes to great lengths in his denials : — If it had pleased her majesty with the wisdom of the realm, to have used no bishops at all, we could not have complained justly of any defect in our church.^ If it had pleased her Majesty to have assigned the imposition of hands to the deans of every cathe- dral church, or some other numbers of ministers, which in no sort were bishops, but as they be pastors, there had been no wrong done to their persons that I can conceive.^ Bancroft, in the sermon in which it is claimed he sug- gested the divine character of bishops, proclaimed that to the Queen belonged "all the authority and jurisdiction which by usurpation at any time did appertain to the Pope."^ ^ Quoted in Child, Church and State, p. 293. Cf. Lee, Elizabethan Church, vol. n, p. 124. 2 Cooper, Admonition (Arber ed.), p. 137. 3 Quoted in Hunt, Religious Thought, vol. Ill, p. 298; Strype, Whitgift, App., no. xlii, Whitgift to Sir Francis Knollys. * Strype, Whitgift, vol. in, pp. 222-23. 6 Child, Church and State, pp. 237-38. On the Other side. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops, vol. v, pp. 194-95. 114 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Nevertheless, their statements which showed the apos- toHc tendency excited the wrath of their opponents and the condemnation of their friends. Knollys wrote in anger and excitement to Cecil, ^ that the superiority and authority of the bishops rested upon the royal authority alone and that Dr. Whitgift had, he believed, incurred the penalty of praemunire by claiming for the bishops a divine right. Bacon strongly disapproved of the implied condemnation of their Continental brethren, and the clerics, who pro- pounded the theory in opposition to the claims of Pres- byterian dissent, themselves felt that it was a dangerous doctrine whose implications they did not care to accept. Hooker, who marks the most just and able presentation of the Anglican view, and who had been foremost in con- tention with Travers,^ heartily defends the episcopalian system of organization upon grounds of history and expedi- ency, and even hints that it might be strongly defended upon a Scriptural basis. If we did seek to maintain that which most advantageth our own cause, the very best way for us, and the strongest against them were to hold even as they do, that there must needs be found in Scripture some particular form of church polity which God hath instituted, and which for that very cause belongeth to all churches, to all times. But with any such partial eye to respect ourselves, and by coming to make those things seem the truest which are the fittest to serve our purpose, is a thing which we neither like nor mean to follow. Wherefore that which we take to be generally true concerning the mutability of laws, the same we have plainly delivered.^ He carefully abstains from asserting for bishops any apos- tolic authority not dependent upon the will of the sovereign and the parliamentary establishment of the episcopal or- ganization, and admits that "we are not simply without 1 S. p., Dom., Eliz., vol. cccxxxni, no. 62; Strype, Annals, vol. iv, no. iv, App., no. V. "^ Travers, Supplication to the Council, Hooker, Works, vol. II, pp. 329-38; Hooker's answer to Travers, ibid., pp. 339-51- » Hooker, Works, Ecc. Pol., vol. ill, chap, x, sec. 8. Cf. ibid., sees., 14, 18. Anglicanism 115 exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apos- tles by continued succession of bishops in every effective ordination." ^ Apostolic succession of bishops was not a consistently worked-out and defended system, however rich in argumen- tative material Elizabeth's reign may have proved to later defenders of the theory. There are too many contradictions and denials of logical conclusions, yet those who recognize the illogical existence of contradictory opinions, side by side in the minds of men, can understand that the idea was not wholly absent. Because of assertions made by Eliza- bethan clerics, some have discovered a theory of episcopal succession in the Elizabethan Church from the first ;^ some have, because of the contradictions and denials, refused to recognize its existence at all at that date.^ Both are wrong. The germs from which the theory was to develop and the causes for the development of the theory did exist. A devel- opment did take place, but not a development which en- ables us to predicate an apostolic episcopal succession in the reign of Elizabeth. It was a development of ecclesi- astical consciousness and dignity. Its nature is most strik- ingly shown in the changed attitude toward Continental Protestantism, and the attempts of Whitglft and Bancroft to strengthen the administrative machinery of the Church. Considerations of personal friendship and of similar ideals for the Church, and common enmity to papal power, made the early Anglican Church tolerant and friendly to Continental Protestantism, and in a sense dependent upon it. But with the death of the Marian exiles there were no longer influences of such importance and strength to hold the two together. The Zurich letters present a somewhat pathetic picture as the Continental and English friends » Hooker, ubi sup., bk. vii, chap, xiv, sec. 2, p. 175. Cf. also bk. iii, chap. 11, sec. 2; Editor's preface, p. xxxiii, n. 49; Strype, Whitgift, vol. II, p. 202; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. vii, no. 46, for a later falsification of the facts in accordance with later apostolic theory. Cf. Saravia's treatises. ' Hook, Lives of the Archbishops (New Series), Grindal, vol. v, p. 41. ' Child, Church and Stale, App., no. vi. ii6 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth exchange letters telling of the death of former associates, until, at last, the correspondence is taken up by a second generation whose friendship is traditional rather than real. The personnel of both the Continental and English churches had changed. There was not that intimate personal inter- course and sympathy of the first years of Elizabeth's reign. Naturally, as the Protestants within the English Church had been disappointed in their attempts to make more radical changes, the sympathy of the Continent shifted from the Anglican Church to that body within the Anglican Church which set itself squarely for dissent. And in the same way, the Anglican Church, while prevented by politi- cal considerations and pressure by the Crown from con- demning or breaking with the Continent entirely, as it passed through the dangers of Catholic opposition, and resisted the attacks of Protestant radicals at home, devel- oped a consciousness of unity and homogeneity which made it less anxious for the approval of Continental Protestantism and more confident of its own self-sufficiency. One would hardly have found the early Elizabethan clerics writing as did Hooker, "... for mine own part, although I see that certain reformed churches, the Scottish especially and French, have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scripture, I mean the government that is by bishops . . . this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament in such case than exagitate, considering that men oftentimes, without any fault of their own may be driven to want that kind of polity or regiment which is best." ^ As the Church gained this feeling of social unity and ecclesiastical solidity, there was a tendency to resent the too active interference of secular power in its afi"airs, a desire for more complete autonomy. The hold of the State was too strong to permit the development of an ecclesiastical theory which would free the Church from the chains of temporal politics and secular greed, but the practical tal- * Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. iii, chap, xi, sec. 14. Anglicanism 117 ents of Whitglft and Bancroft saw opportunity for permis- sible and necessary work in the reconstruction of the admin- istrative machinery of the Church. Whitgift, upon becom- ing archbishop, set vigorously to work. He enforced the laws against recusants; caused the press censorship to be vested in himself and the Bishop of London, and allowed the publication of none but the official Bible. He saw to it that the prescribed apparel was worn and that only priests and deacons and those with special license were allowed to preach. He would license no preachers without subscription to the famous "Three Articles," acceptance of the Royal Supremacy, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Prayer-Book with the Pontifical prescribed. The Ecclesiastical Com- mission gave him the most effective means of working the administrative machinery, and the oath ex officio mero, the most hated and feared method of procedure in the Com- mission, was used by Whitgift persistently. When legal opposition made necessary some other means of proceed- ing with the work he had undertaken, the Archbishop turned to the Star Chamber and thus added his quota to the burdens and sins of that court. Whitgift was in ear- nest, but royal jealousy and the inertness of an established order prevented during Elizabeth's reign more than the beginning of the reform needed in the ecclesiastical admin- istration. At the accession of James, however, with that monarch's hearty cooperation, Bancroft was enabled to bring about the changes which his experience in Elizabeth's reign had shown him were desirable from the standpoint of the ecclesiastical body. It was not, then, in religious life, In religious or ecclesi- astical dogma, that the Church of Elizabeth made Its most important development, but In the creation of a church per- sonality. Starting with a fundamentally Erastian concep- tion of itself, yet with large elements of truly religious feel- ing also, the Church failed to develop much beyond the initial stages either doctrinally or religiously. EcclesiastI- ii8 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth cally there was a tendency to give to the Church, as a de- fense against Catholic and Protestant, and, to a certain extent, perhaps, as a means of freeing itself from the bur- densome restraints of royal control, an ecclesiastical apolo- getic which contained the germs of the dogma of apostolic episcopal succession. This tendency, however, was re- strained by the subservient position in which the Church found itself as a result of the peculiar facts of its creation and the circumstances of its continued existence. A COMPARISON OF THE FIRST AND THE LAST APOLOGISTS OF ELIZABETH'S REIGN Perhaps no more illuminating summary of the change in the Church could be made than a comparison of Jewel, the first, with Hooker, the last, apologist of the reign. Jewel defended the Church from the attacks of the Catholics, Hooker from the Protestants. This difference of purpose might seem to make a comparison of the two somewhat difficult, but the very fact that the object of fear and an- tagonism had changed, is of great significance. Jewel felt no need for defending the Church from Protestants, for the bond between the English Church and the other varieties of Protestant faith was close, and their dislike of the com- mon foe outweighed the unimportant differences among themselves. By Hooker's tim.e this unity of feeling had broken down before the attacks of dissent and the develop- ment of Anglican ecclesiastical consciousness. In the Eng- lish Church itself the differences of opinion which Jewel recognized as real were minimized and sunk from sight in the unity of faith and hatred which existed among all Eng- lish Protestants. "Touching the dissensions in Religion which ye imagine to be amongst us in the church of Eng- land, I will say nothing. It grieveth you full sore to see that in all the articles of the faith, and in the whole sub- stance of doctrine we do so quietly join together."^ Jewel 1 Jewel, Works, Def. of ApoL, p. 6l0. Cf. ibid., p. 623; Zurich Letters, no. clxxvii. Anglicanism 119 was in somewhat the same position, in relation to the Catholics, that the Presbyterians occupied in relation to Hooker and the Anglican Establishment. There is a striking similarity between the reproaches Jewel cast upon the Romanists, and the attacks of the Presbyterians which Hooker had to repel. Inconsistency, greed, secularization of spiritual office, retention of superstitious ceremonies, aggrandizement of ecclesiastical office, charges which the Church of Hooker's day had to meet from the dissenters, were the old charges that Jewel had used as his chief justi- fication for the break of the Church in England from the Papal Establishment. Cartwright's demand, "that they remember their former times, and correct themselves by themselves," ^ had in it the sting of truth. The fact that during Elizabeth's reign the allies of her early Establish- ment had become the chief danger, to be feared more than the Catholics, indicates a change in circumstances, and necessitated a development of Anglican apologetic that Jewel would never have dreamed of. Hooker was com- pelled to make a defense of the Church as an independent entity, distinct from all other churches both Catholic and Protestant. Jewel's doctrines and arguments would have served as well for any of the Protestant churches as for the Church of England. Because of this changed standpoint, forced upon the Anglicans by the growth and attacks of English dissenters, the attitude toward the Catholic Church was different. In a sense it was more friendly. The Church of Rome favourablie admitted to be of the house of God; Calvin with the reformed Churches full of faults, and most of all they which endevoured to be most removed from conformitie with the Church of Rome.^ Instead of justifying the English Church upon the merely anti-papal grounds of an experimental organization. Hooker rested his case upon the dignity and worth of the Anglican ^ Cartwright, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 37, * Hooker, Works, vol. i, p. 123, n. 12, Christian Letter. Cf. also ihid.,\o\. I, p. 86. 120 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Ecclesiastical Establishment. He raised the Church above the attacks of Catholic and Protestant by glorifying its polity, and tried to make its position impregnable, by means of an articulated system of reasoning. Where Jewel had emphasized the authority of truth and the Scripture, Hooker was convinced of the incompetence of both in the hands of the common man. Thus much we see, it hath already made thousands so head- strong even in gross and palpable errors, that a man whose capac- ity will scarce serve him to utter five words in sensible manner blusheth not in any doubt concerning matter of Scripture to think his own bare Yea as good as the Nay of all the wise, grave, and learned judgments that are in the whole world: which inso- lency must be repressed or it will be the very bane of Christian religion.^ The truth and the Scripture must be predigested by clerical and ecclesiastical learning and be accepted by the general- ity upon that authority. For In our doubtful cases of law, what man is there who seeth not how requisite it is that professors of skill in that faculty be our directors? So it is in all other kinds of knowledge. And even in this kind likewise the Lord hath himself appointed, that the priests lips should preserve knowledge, and that other men should seek the truth at his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. ^ Reason must interpret and organize, the reason of a class expert and competent in religion. Jewel, clinging to what has been sometimes regarded as the fundamental principle of the Protestant Reformation, would have asserted the sufficient ability of all men to learn the truth from the Scriptures, and proclaimed the uselessness of interposing between them and the Bible the authority of experts. " In human conceits it is the part of a wise man to wait for judg- ment and consent of men; but in matters divine God's word ' Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. ii, chap, vii, sec. 6, p. 213. ^ Ibid., Pref., chap, in, sec. 2, p. 130. C/. ibid., chap, iv, sec. 4; bk. n, chap. vn, sec. 3; bk. ni, chap, vui, sec. 13. Anglicanism 121 is all in all: the which as soon as a godly man hath received, he presently yields and submits himself; he is not wavering nor does he wait for any other." ^ Jewel believed that the Scriptures were sufficient to bring all men to unity in mat- ters of faith. Hooker knew this was untrue, and solved the difficulty by interposing the authority or reason of the Anglican Church, as Jewel's opponents interposed the Cath- olic. Hooker, however, based the authority of the Angli- can Church, not upon a theory of living divinity in the Church with Scriptural authority to rule and interpret, but upon the authority of reason. He, therefore, had a basis for rejecting Catholic claims which Jewel had not had. This was merely a development, it is true, of the idea of "order and decency" and "fitness for time and place" which Jewel and Parker had proclaimed, but it went further. In Hooker's apologetic this order and fitness, the system devised by ecclesiastical reason from the basis of the Scriptures, had become static, solidified. Hooker did not deny the possibil- ity, or even some future desirability, of change, but he so carefully legalized the process by which such change could be brought about, that it became difficult, and remote, and the field of change definitely narrowed. Nowhere is this more evident than in his exaltation of episcopacy. Let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any- thing in the Church's government, surely the first institution of Bishops was from heaven, was even of God; the Holy Ghost was the author of it.^ This we boldly therefore set down as a most infallible truth, that the Church of Christ is at this day lawfully, and so hath been sithence the first beginning, governed by Bishops having per- manent superiority, and ruling power over other ministers of the word and sacraments.' ... It had either divine appointment before hand or divine approbation afterv^ards, and is in that respect to be acknowledged the ordinance of God.'' 1 Jewel, Works, vol. iv, pp. 1 121-22. Cf. ibid., pp. 897, 1162-88. * Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. vn, chap, v, sec. 10. » Ibid., hk, vn, chap, in, sec. i. * Ibid., bk. vii, chap. V, sec. 2. 122 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth He comes as near as he dares to the assertion of Scriptural authority for that form of organization; in fact he has no doubt but that it was established and maintained by divine approval, but he avoids breaking with the previous Anglican position in regard to the Continental churches, for " the necessity of polity and regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all." ^ He escapes the consequences of denying royal authority over the Church, by admitting that, although there is a divine authority for the episcopal organization, there is no divine guarantee of its permanence. On the other side bishops, albeit they may avouch with con- formity of truth that their authority hath thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlast- ing continuance of it they cannot say that any commandment of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away.^ The Church and the bishops are given an authority which makes it somewhat difficult for Hooker to admit the royal authority which Elizabeth insisted upon. Because of the power actually possessed by the sovereign, he recognized that the sovereign must be given a prominent and decisive place in the system, but he wished to do so, also, because he saw that by making the sovereign the ultimate author- ity, hence ultimately responsible, the attacks of the dis- senters upon the Church would be given an aspect of dis- loyalty which no previous charges had been able to bring home to the Queen and to the dissenters themselves. He identified the State and the Church by making them differ- ent aspects of the same national group. We hold, that seeing there is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the common- ' Hooker, ubi sup., bk. iii, chap, ii, sec. I. Cf. also, ibid., bk. iv, chap, xni, sec. 7; Whitgift, Works, vol. i, p. 369. 2 Hooker, ubi sup., bk, vn, chap, v, sec. 8. Anglicanism 123 wealth; nor any man a member of the commonwealth, which is not also of the Church of England; therefore as in a figure tri- angular the base doth differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the selfsame line is both a base and also a side; a side simply, a base if it chance to be at the bottom and underlie the rest; so, albeit properties and actions of one kind do cause the name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of a Church to be given unto a multitude, yet one and the self- same multitude may in such sort be both, and is so with us, that no person appertaining to the one can be denied to be also of the other. ^ At the head of this group was the Queen with authority over secular and ecclesiastical affairs by virtue of irrevocable cession by the people. Hence, the sovereign was superior to the officers of the Church In legislation, jurisdiction, and nomination to office, and changes could come only through the will of the sovereign. 2 Jewel had also given the sovereign an extensive authority. He was fond of asserting "that since the strength of the Empire is lessened, and kingdoms have succeeded to the imperial power, that right, [formerly held by the emperor In matters of religion] is common to Christian kings and princes." ^ "We give him that prerogative and chief ty that evermore hath been due him by the ordinance and word of God; that is to say, to be the nurse of God's religion to make laws for the church; to hear and take up cases and questions of the faith, if he be able; or otherwise to commit them over by his authority unto the learned ; to command the bishops and priests to do their duties, and to punish such as be offenders."^ But the power of the Emperor was itself a debatable question and Jewel did not go further In justification of the royal power over the Church. Although Hooker proposed a theory of sovereign power 1 Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. vni, chap, i, sec. 2. Cf. Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 388. 2 Hooker, ubi sup., bk. vm, chaps, vii and vni. 2 Jewel, Works, vol. IV, " Epistle to Scipio." Cf. vol. m, p. 167. * Jewel, ubi sup., p. 1123. 124 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth consistent with his ecclesiastical theor>% it is evident that he had less confidence in the beneficence of the connection of the Establishment with the monarchy than did Jewel, and was anxious to save for the Church and her officials a dignified position. He would have preferred to allow the Anglican Episcopacy to stand upon its own feet. CHANGE IN the ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARD CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT DISSENTERS The changed viewpoint and attitude of the English Church, thus indicated by a comparison of the first and the last apologists of the reign, was, in its development, paral- leled by changing attitudes toward those religious and eccle- siastical groups within the kingdom which diverged from the Anglican Church in doctrine and polity. The basis for governmental intolerance of dissent, both Catholic and Protestant, did not change; the severity of its laws and its actions increased until 1593; but the grounds upon which such laws were passed and upon which governmental repres- sion of dissent was exercised, remained the same throughout the reign. In the beginning, the Church, as a religious organization, had little basis of intolerance apart from, or other than, the basis of governmental intolerance, state safety. This was, of course, due to the fact that it had not yet developed a life and organization consciousness apart from its life as an arm of secular politics. Its earliest de- mands, even as an ecclesiastical body, went little beyond adherence to the Queen's supremacy and attendance upon the services established, not by ecclesiastical or spiritual authority, but by a purely temporal and only theoretically representative national body. There was little concern ex- pressed or felt, at first, in the spiritual welfare or salvation of the members of this Church, nor could there be much emphasis upon this point when all parties agreed that the form of organization of the Church, even the greater part of the ill-defined doctrines of the Church, were not essen- Anglicanism 125 tials of salvation, but were expedients, or the best conclu- sions of men, at the most, only human and likely to err. Thus they felt that, while certain doctrines were better and that all men ought to believe them, the Roman Catholic even might be saved, believing as he did; there could be no great harm in demanding this state conformity from Catholics. However, as the Church of England, with its organization and ritual, was found to inspire love, and men learned to respect the theory on which it rested and to value its historical associations, Anglicans began to regret the ties which an earlier policy had imposed upon it, and to demand that the Church should be adhered to, not as a political necessity, but for the sake of its own merits. Not that they repudiated the pleas and the arguments in- herent in the political connection, but they regretted more the restraints it placed upon them from punishing those who did not like the forms and rites grown dear to themselves. Her Majesty told me that I had supreme government ecclesi- astical; but what is it to govern cumbered with such subtlety? ^ It is (by too much sufferance) past my reach and my brethren. The comfort that these puritans have, and their continuance, is marvellous; and therefore, if her Highness with her council step not to it, I see the likelihood of a pitiful commonwealth to follow.'^ And their transition to this position was induced from both sides by powerful irritants. The Pope had excommunicated their Queen, for, and by whom, their Church had been reestablished; loyalty demanded that they expel, for safe- ty's sake, from the body of the new organization all who retained their love for Roman Catholicism. The law of the land reflected this loyal feeling and placed in their hands the means of accomplishing their desire. The Protestants whom Parker had called Precisianist, developed an ecclesi- astical theory antagonistic to the established organization, and angrily hurled at the heads of Anglicanism reproaches 1 Parker Corresp., no. ccclxix. Cf. S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. XCin, no. 8. » Ibid., no. cccxxi. C/. ibid., no. cccxiii. 126 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth which their subsen'ience to the government made it diffi- cult to escape. In the beginning the Church was in a de- fensive position ecclesiastically against Catholics only, and the defense was not ecclesiastically intolerant, but moderate. Religiously, in so far as the Church had any aggressive religious consciousness, it regarded itself as the enemy of the abuses of Roman Catholicism. This enmity afforded, perhaps, something of the emotional ferv^or which is so necessary to intolerance, and might have helped to make more vigorously hostile the intolerance of the Anglican Church, had it not been restrained by the necessity, im- posed upon it by its subjection to the State, of reconciling Catholics to itself. The Church had not yet an authorita- tive and accepted apologetic upon which to base theories of intolerance. Governmentally, and as a tool of secular politics, its position was strong and well defined ; religiously and ecclesiastically its position was indefinite, and the state- ment of its justification as an organization was not yet crystallized into definite form. In so far as the apologetic of Jewel and Parker was a justification for the Church's existence, it did not serv^e as a basis for intolerance of Catholics, but of the Papacy. The distinction is one that is essentially superficial in view of Roman Catholic history and theory, but to such m^en as Parker and Jewel, to Eliz- abeth and many leaders in England, the distinction was a true one, and their hope of maintaining the government's position was dependent, they believed, upon the recognition by Catholics that it was a legitimate distinction. In so far, then, as the primitive Church idea afforded a ground for intolerance, it was the basis for intolerance of papal author- ity alone. And it was intended to be no more. This theory was a defensive rather than an aggressive one. Had it be- come aggressive, or had it carried with it definite state- ments, or dogmatic definitions of the exact form of primi- tive, pre-Catholic doctrine, as did Presbyterianism, it might Anglicanism 127 have served as the basis for Intolerance of Catholic or Protestant, according to the nature of the Church or belief thus defined. Politics, if not the convictions of the early leaders, prevented such definitions, however, and ecclesi- astically the Church was liberal. The religious intolerance of the Church manifested toward Catholics increased in intensity as it became a national Institution, dependent no longer for sustenance upon gov- ernmental strength, but upon the love of the English na- tion. Its religious intolerance was. In other words, the result of Its ecclesiastical development, from a hastily gathered army for the defense of the sovereign, Into a true social religious group. Aside from the Increased love of the organization which afforded in later Elizabethan days a basis for condemnation and intolerance of Catholics, there was a practical reason for development of intolerance of Catholics which had close connection with, and in part was due to, the older Erastian standpoint, but which was, at the same time, distinct from and Independent of that view. The Increased activity of the Jesuits in England, the foundation of Jesuit communities, and the underground organizations of Jesuit missionaries, the multiplication of plots against the Queen and nation, filled Englishmen with terror; not alone because they feared for the safety of the State, but because they gave credit to reports of, and fully believed in, the extreme Protestant conception of the Jesuit teachings. They believed that the Jesuits stopped at no immoral, treacherous, or traitorous act to accomplish their purposes. They believed thoroughly that papal absolution, particularly In the case of the Jesuits, was at hand to relieve from spiritual penalties any crime or dastardly deed which was intended to promote the rule of the Roman See. The Church, with other Englishmen, heartily condemned both the Jesuits and the Church of which they were a part, upon what they believed to be, and what were In fact, high moral grounds. 128 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth The development during Elizabeth's reign of Anglican intolerance of Protestantism may well afford food for cynical comment to those who test the spirit of ecclesiasti- cism by the life of the great teacher of Galilee. The clerics of the early Establishment were the Puritans of the previous reign, strivers for religious and ecclesiastical freedom.^ They were the pupils and friends of Continental Protestants. They disclaimed any particular sanctity for their Church. Their Calvinistic and Lutheran friends were the champions of a new temple of freedom where God might be worshiped in the spirit of holiness and simple love. The new Estab- lishment was but one more added to the brotherhood of the free churches of God in Europe. So the idealists of the new English Church proclaimed. Unfortunately, or fortunately, perhaps, the Church was not exclusively idealistic. It was a practical compromise between men who were half-heartedly Catholic in doctrine but anti-papal, and men who were Protestant but moder- ate, distinctly anti-papal, and willing to accept compromise in ecclesiastical organization and ceremony because, in the situation, it was the best that could be obtained. The Church defended itself by the assertion that the form of the ecclesiastical organization was a matter of indifference. Justification of itself against the claim of the Catholics that theirs was the only divinely instituted Church, as we have pointed out, compelled that, and at the same time this apologetic secured the allegiance of those who wished a more distinctively Protestant form of organization, for upon such a theory changes could be made when opportunity offered. It is here that the influence of the Queen is most striking. She did not wish, she would not permit, the radical swing to be made, and she was able, by virtue of the power given her by the Parliamentary acts, and by virtue of her assumed or justly claimed prerogative, to carry out her will, 1 Maitland, Essays, "Puritan Veracity," no. ii, p. 17; Grindal, Remains, p. 203. Anglicanism 129 and also to prevent any modification of the power originally- placed in her hands. Political danger and the common opposition to papal claims won the allegiance to the Church of those more radical in doctrine and ecclesiastical theory than the Establishment; political necessity and the compos- ite character of the personnel of the Church made it neces- sary, during the first decade of Elizabeth's reign, to deal tenderly with such persons. The party which intended that the Church should not change toward Continental Protes- tant forms of doctrine or ritual, but should continue its life as the embodiment of "mediocrity," or, as they preferred to put it, in the ideal form for England which events had given it at the first, was strong and destined to survive. By the time of Whitgift, however, dissent had become more impatient, and consequently the tone of the Establishment more brusque and insistent. . . . Such insolent audacity against states and lawful regiment is rather to be corrected with due punishment than confuted by argument.^ Surely the Church of God in this business is neither of capacity, I trust, so weak, nor so unstrengthened, I know, with authority from above, but that her laws may exact obedience at the hands of her own children and enjoin gainsayers silence, giving them roundly to understand that where our duty is submission weak oppositions betoken pride. ^ It was dissent within the Church that aroused the loyal party of moderation to begin that formulation of a theory of church government which later developed into the Laud- ian Church idea. Where both sections of the Church had formerly agreed that its particular polity was a matter of indifference, they now advanced diverse theories of gov- ernment, and each maintained its preference as though it alone were right. Opposition developed on each side, until, 1 Whitgift, Works, vol. Ii, p. l88. Cf. also ibid., vol. I, pp. 170, 142, 122; Strype, Whitgift, vol. i, pp. 229-32; vol. HI, pp. 81, 104-07; Pierce, Introd. to Marprelate Tracts, pp. 71, 72. 2 Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. v, chap, viii, sec. 4, p. 304. 130 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth instead of discussing mere preferences and degrees of ex- pediency, each was violently defending a form of church government as alone divine, right, and acceptable to God. It is of this development that we shall speak in the next chapter. CHAPTER VI PROTESTANT DISSENT Dissent in the days of Elizabeth is of particular interest because many of those great religious organizations, which have taken such a prominent part in English religious and political life during the last three hundred years, trace their English sources to her reign. It was a period of the forma- tion of churches and church parties, and has the peculiar fascination and at the same time the uncertainties of all peri- ods of beginnings. Dislike of the Establishment manifested itself in almost every degree, from a simple, mild disap- proval of the ceremonies of the Established Church, to a scathing denunciation of its forms, and a relentless deter- mination to destroy it. Because organizations had not yet fully developed, because ideas were not yet crystallized and embodied in ecclesiastical standards, the classification of dissent during this period is difficult. The names we apply to ecclesiastical bodies or religious opinions which began their growth in Elizabeth's reign, cannot be applied safely, in many cases, to the groups from which they developed. Contemporary names are inaccurate and have, by later development and association, taken on meanings utterly foreign to the thought of Elizabeth's time. Puritan, Anabaptist, Barrowist, Brownist, Seeker, Familist, were terms used variously, and inaccurately, to designate men whose opinions were condemned by constituted author- ity;^ but will not serve for purposes of classification, even in the cases where they represented more or less definite 1 Pierce, Marprelate Tracts, "The Epistle," p. 80. One of the conditions of peace with the bishops is "that they never slander the cause of Reforrnation or the furtherers thereof in terming the cause by the name of Anabaptistery, schism, etc., and the men Puritans and enemies of the State." 132 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth types of opinion in Elizabethan usage. Many historians have been accustomed, when speaking of dissent in Eliza- beth's reign, to i ise the term " Puritan" to designate all who , wished reform: while others have applied the name to all within th e Chu rch who wished reform, and have called those / who attempted to accomplish their reforms outside th e rhnrrh, " Sopnraf i^t^ " This classification, however, is in- accurate and unsatisfactory. Elizabethan usage of the term " Puritan" does not sanction such a classification. We find that Elizabethans applied the name to types of thought and policy that are clearly Separatist. It was a loose term, at- tached in scorn or dislike to a variety of religious and eccle- siastical opinions, usually implying, at first, merely a desire to change the rites and ceremonies of the English Estab- lishment, without implying attack upon its fundamental organization or character. It was in this sense applied to those whom Archbishop Parker preferred, more accurately, to call "Precisianists," quibblers over minor points of wor- ship and ceremony, and was particularly distasteful to those accused of Puritanism because it had for them all the odium of an ancient heresy. "This name is very aptly given to these men ; not because they be pure, no more than were the heretics called Cathari; but because they think them- selves to be mundioris ceteris, more pure than others as Cathari did." ^ Yet, with the development of organized dis- sent, it was with increasing frequency applied to all, except Catholics, who differed from the Established Church in their opinions as to the organization and character of a true cliurch^The use of the term for purposes of classificationTs^t also confusing because we ordinarily use the name to desig- nate a type of thought, rather than a religious or ecclesi- astical party ; and the type of thought which we think of as Puritan was a development of the seventeenth century, and did not characterize any group of dissent in Elizabeth's/ ' Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 171. CJ. ibid., p. 172; Strype, Annals, vol. m, pt. I, pp. 264-68. Protestant Dissent 133 time. At the beginning of James I's reign the term was taking on its later meaning. The imputation of the name of Puritan is now growne so odious and reproachfull that many men for feare thereof are rather will- ing to be thought to favour some vice or superstition than to undergoe the scandall of that name, and seeing many who both do approve and are verie desirous to obey his Majesties lawes and government, (as well ecclesiastical as temporal,) yet only for absteyning from or not approving grosse vices or profaneness or for due frequenting publique exercises of religion or practicing the private duties thereof in their owne familyes, are branded with that opprobrious name.^ In Elizabethan usage, however, the name " Puritan" was ap- plied impartially to any and all who condemned the theory or practice of the Established Church, and had no reference to those qualities of character and mind which seventeenth- century history attached to the name. Cartwright wrote, in protesting against the application of the term to the Presbyterians : — What is our "straitness of life" any other than is required in all Christians? We bring in, I am sure, no monachism or anchor- ism, we eat and drink as other men, we live as other men, we are apparelled as other men, we lie as other men, we use those honest recreations that other men do; and we think that there is no good thing or commodity of life in the world, but that in sobriety we may be partakers of, so far as our degree and calling will suffer us, and as God maketh us able to have it.^ Further, the familiar division of English dissent into Puritan and Separatist is inaccurate and unsatisfactory for Elizabeth's reign, because it is difificult and sometimes im- possible to distinguish between the two. The degrees of separation were so varied that what may by one be regarded as merely Puritan, may by another with equal reason be classed as Separatist. 'The sources of Separatism are so. clearly Puritan, and the development from one to the other ^ Report on the Rutland Papers, vol. iv, p. 213. _-* Cartwright, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. i, p. no. 134 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth so gradual, that it is impossible to discover definitely a line of demarcation between the two; a great part of the dis- satisfied can be placed definitely in neither class. The advo- cates of Presbyterianism, for instance, were recruited from Precisianists or Puritans, were called "Puritans," and, even after a long period of development, regarded themselves as,j part of the Anglican Establishment. "We make no separa- tion from the church; we go about to separate all those things that offend in the church, to the end that we, being all knit to the sincere truth of the Gospel, might afterwards in the same bond of truth be more nearly and closely joined together." ^ Yet they condemned the fundamental structure of the Anglican Church as it existed, and set up their own unauthorized classes and synods which constituted a sepa- rate organization whose Scriptural character was proclaimed. It may be possible to call some particular sections of the Presbyterian movement "Puritan," but the term has no meaning for the movement as a whole. Because of these difficulties we shall avoid so far as pos- sible the familiar classification. We shall apply the term (^ "Precisianists," following Archbishop's Parker's usage, to the quibblers who did not ally themselves with any of the distinct groups of dissent in attack upon the fundamental structure of the Establishment. Those who advocated the ' Presbyterian form of church government are easily placed in a class by themselves, and form the most important dis- tinct group within the ranks of dissent. To those bodies which did not adhere to the Presbyterian polity, we shall apply the contemporary names so far as possible, and group them, with two exceptions, upon the basis of polity, under the genetic name of " Congregationalists," although some- what inaccurately in some cases. To this group belong the Brownists, Barrowists, and Anabaptists. Of these the Anabaptists are least important, although 1 Cartwright, aptid Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 102. Cf. ibid., vol. I, pp. 95, 104; Theses Martinianoe, Pierce, Marprelate Tracts, pp. 314-21. Protestant Dissent 135 the term is frequently used in the literature of the period. It was not, however, strictly applied, but, because of Ana- baptist radical, social, and economic theories and the excesses at Munster, served as a term to cast reproach on all who were irregular or fanatical in their religious opinions. It is more than I thought could have happened unto you, once to admit into your mind this opinion of anabaptism of your brethren, which have always had it in as great detestation as yourself, preached against it as much as yourself, hated of the followers and favourers of it as much as yourself. And it is yet more strange, that you have not doubted to give out such slan- derous reports of them, but dare to present such accusations to the holy and sacred seat of justice, and thereby (so much as in you lieth) to corrupt it, and to call for the sword upon the inno- cent, (which is given for their maintenance and safety,) that, as it is a boldness untolerable, so could I hardly have thought that it could have fallen into any that had carried but the countenance and name of a professor of the gospel, much less of a doctor of divinity.^ "Anabaptist " was used by Elizabethan Englishmen in some- what the same sense that highly respectable members of modern society have used the term "anarchist," and, until recently, the term " socialist." ^ Radical Presbyterians, Bar- rowists, Brownists, Seekers, and Familists are all called by the offensive name; but Anabaptism proper was of little importance during our period and may be disregarded, ex- cept as other types of dissent, most numerous among the Congregational group, represented, or were supposed to represent, phases of Anabaptist opinion. It is characteristic of those groups of dissent from which the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches originated, that their chief disagreement with the Established Church concerned matters of ceremony and of ecclesiastical polity, 1 Cartwright, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 77. Cf. ibid., vol. i, pp. 125- 36, 105; S.P.,Dom.,Eliz., vol. xni, no. 36; Strype, Grindal,p. iSi; Grindal,i?e- mains, p. 243; Burrage, English Dissenters, vol. n, p. 21; vol. I, pp. 64, 66. * Parker Corresp., no. cccxxv; Strype, Parker, bk. iv, chap, xxiv; Grindal, Remains, pp, 297, 298. 136 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth rather than of doctrine or essential matters of faith. ^ The Presbyterian adhered to the particular form of church organization and theological dogma promulgated by Calvin; but, of these tenets, the distinguishing one was the ecclesi- astical polity, not Calvinistic theological dogma, for the Calvinistic theology was the accepted theology of the great- est number of loyal Church of England men, and of many of the other groups of dissent. As Presbyterianism meant the advocacy of the presbyterial organization, so Congre- gationalism was merely championship of a particular form of church organization, one made up of independent local groups controlling their own affairs and determining what doctrines should be taught in particular Congregational churches. Within Congregationalism, therefore, we find the widest diversity of religious belief and management. Of the minor sects that fall neither under the classifica- tion of Presbyterian nor Congregational, the most impor- tant was the Family of Love. These belong to a class by themselves, to that peculiarly fanatic religious type which bases group consciousness on a recently living leader, sup- posedly endowed with a new, divinely given revelation. ^ Since this adherence to a divine message, given in the life- time of the believer, is a matter of actually controlling faith and emotion, these sects afford some of the most interesting phenomena of religious psychology; but, because of their connection with the life of one or two prophets, they are not usually of long duration nor of particular influence on the thought of the time. In Elizabeth's reign they afford the most striking example of persecution from religious and social motives. This classification of dissent, into Presbyterian, Congre- gational, and "fanatic," affords a basis for our treatment of 1 Grindal, Remains, Letters, no. Ixix; Dean Bridges, Defence, Preface, p. 43, quoted in Pierce, Mar prelate Tracts, Introd., p. xxiii; Hooker, Ecc. Pol., Preface, chap. Ill, sec. 7; ibid., note 57. * Hooker, Works, vol. 11, p. 61, note; Stvype, Annals, vol. in, pt. ll, App., nos. XXV, xlviii, xlix. Protestant Dissent 137 Elizabethan dissent. After tracing their common sources, we shall speak of their opinions and their relations to the Established Church, to each other, and to the government. THE BEGINNINGS OF DIVISION As we have pointed out in a previous chapter, the com- promise character of the English Establishment, and the composite personnel of the Anglican clergy, were sources of disunion. Many of the clergy had spent their exile during the reign of Mary in close association with the Reformers of the Continent where they had imbibed Continental no- tions of ecclesiastical independence and hatred of the Papacy. They took service in an Establishment which was pledged to peaceable and friendly relations with the Conti- nental Reformers by little except common enmity to the Papacy. Thus, within the Establishment, were men at heart more extremely Protestant than the Church under which they took service and office, and to which they ten- dered conformity. Some of them frankly told their Conti- nental friends, and were approved by them for so determin- ing, that, in accepting the Elizabethan Establishment and employment under it, they were doing so in order to pre- vent less Protestant persons securing the direction of affairs, and with the fixed determination to exert all their official influence to bring about changes of a more radical nature. It was enjoined us (who had not then any authority either to make laws or repeal them) either to wear the caps and surplices, or to give place to others. We complied with this injunction, lest our enemies should take possession of the places deserted by our- selves. We certainly hope to repeal this clause of the act next session; but if this cannot be effected, since the papists are form- ing a secret and powerful opposition, I nevertheless am of opinion that we ought to continue in the ministry, lest, if we desert and reject it upon such grounds, they insinuate themselves.^ * Zurich Letters, Horn to Gualter, no. xcvi. Cf. ibid., nos. xxvi, xxxiii, xlii, Ixvii. ~ "~ 138 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth The lukewarm character of the government policy in reli- gious matters logically led, therefore, under the shelter of the compromise, to the development of a large body which wished to go to greater lengths in reform, and to give to the Church a character more in accord with its own extreme views. . . . Our religion . . . will strike its roots yet deeper and deeper; and that which is now creeping on and advancing by little and little, will grow up with greater fruitfulness and verdure. As far as I can, I am exerting myself in this matter to the utmost of my poor abilities: others too are labouring for the same object, to which especially is directed the godly diligence of certain preachers, and particularly Jewel, now elected a bishop, and your friend Park- hurst.^ Yet the questions which gave ground for the first dispute were questions which both sides united in calling matters of indifference. The most prominent of these, and the earliest to come into dispute in any wide way, were questions of ceremony. Differences in regard to rites and external observances early manifested themselves, nowhere more strikingly than in the Convocation of 1563.^ Proposals were there made in the lower house, that saints' days be abolished, that the use of the cross in baptism be omitted, that kneeling at the communion be left to the ordinary's discretion, that organs be removed from the churches, and that the minister use the surplice only in saying service and at the sacraments. These proposals were rejected by a scant majority of one, and those voting in their favor were by no means of the less able clergy. Many of the bishops themselves were num- bered in the party of those who were called Precisianists. Jewel expressed his opinion of the habits in no uncertain tone: — ^ Zurich Letters, Earl of Bedford to R. Gualter, no. xli, Cf. ibid., nos. ii, v, vii, Ix; Strype, Annals, vol. iii, pt. i, pp. 25 et seq.; pt. 11, App., no. iii. 2 Prothero, Select Statutes, p. 190; Strype, Annals, chaps, xxix, xxx. Protestant Dissent 139 As to what you write respecting religion, and the theatrical habits, I heartily wish it could be accomplished. We on our parts have not been wanting to so good a cause. But those persons who have taken such delight in these matters, have followed, I believe, the ignorance of the priests; whom, when they found them to be no better than mere logs of wood, without talent, or learning, or morality, they were willing at least to commend to the people by that comical dress. For in these times, alas! no care whatever is taken for the encouragement of literature and the due succession of learned men. And accordingly since they cannot obtain influence in a proper way, they seek to occupy the eyes of the multitude with these ridiculous trifles. These are, indeed, as you very properly observe, the relics of the Amorites. For who can deny it? And I wish that sometime or other they may be taken away, and extirpated even to the lowest roots: neither my voice nor my exertions shall be wanting to efTect that object.^ Sandys also hoped that the habits would not be retained. The last book of service is gone through with a proviso to retain the ornaments which were used in the first and second year of King Edward, until it please the Queen to take other order for them. Our gloss upon this text is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that others in the meantime shall not convey them away, but that they may remain for the Queen.^ Grindal and Horn wrote: — Nor is it owing to us that vestments of this kind have not been altogether done away with: so far from it, that we most solemnly make oath that we have hitherto laboured with all earnestness, fidelity, and diligence, to effect what our brethren require, and what we ourselves wish.^ Pilkington and Parkhurst openly espoused the cause of the radicals. Pilkington wrote to Leicester: — It is necessary in apparel to show how a Protestant is to be known from a Papist. Popery is beggarly; patched up of all sorts of ceremonies. The white rochets of bishops began with a Novatian heretic; and these other things, the cap and the rest, have the like foundation.'* 1 Zurich Letters, no. xxxiv, Jewel to Martyr. Cf. ibid., nos. xv, xxxii. » Parker Corresp., no. xlix, Sandys to Parker. Cf. Zurich Letters, no. xlviii. ■» Zurich Letters, no. cxxi. Cf. Parker Corresp., nos. clxxv, clxxix, ccxiii, ccxviii; Grindal, Remains, pp. 2il, 242, Letters, no. Ixix. * Str>-pe, Parker, bk. 11, App., no. xxv. Cf. Parker Corresp., no. clxxix. 140 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Parker complained of Parkhurst: — The bishop of Norwich is blamed even of the best sort for his remissness in ordering his clergy. He winketh at schismatics and anabaptists, as I am informed. Surely I see great variety in min- istration. A surplice may not be borne here. And the ministers follow the folly of the people, calling it charity to feed their fond humour. Oh, my Lord, what shall become of this time.^ Nor was it in the Church alone that the differences between the radicals and the conformists became the subject of seri- ous difference of opinion. Sandys wrote to Burghley: — • Surely they will make a division not only among the people but also amongst the Nobilite, yea, and I feare among men of highest calling and greatest authorite except spedy order be taken therein. ^ The nobles were actuated, not only by conviction, but by motives of policy and even of greed. Another sort of men there is, which have been content to run on with the reformers for a time, and to make them poor instru- ments of their own designs. . . . Those things which under this colour they have effected to their own good are, i. By maintain- ing a contrary faction, they have kept the clergy always in awe, and thereby made them more pliable and willing to buy their peace. 2. By maintaining an opinion of equality among ministers, they have made way to their own purposes for devouring cathe- dral churches and bishops livings. 3. By exclaiming against abuses in the Church they have carried their own corrupt deal- ings in the civil state more covertly. For such is the nature of the multitude they are not able to apprehend many things at once, so as being possessed with dislike or liking of any one thing, many other in the meantime may escape them without being perceived. 4. They have sought to disgrace the clergy in entertaining a con- ceit in men's minds, and confirming it by continual practice, that men of learning, and specially of the clergy, which are employed in the chiefest kind of learning, are not to be admitted, or spar- ingly admitted to matters of state; contrary to the practice of all well governed commonwealths, and of our own till these late years. ^ * Parker Corresp., no. cvii. Cf. Zurich Letters, nos. Ixv, cxvii. * Puritan Manifestoes, App., p. 152. ' George Cranmer's letter to Hooker, App. ii to bk. v of Ecc. Pol., vol. 11, p. 64. Protestant Dissent 141 Of Leicester Parker wrote to Cecil : — I am credibly informed that the earl is unquiet, and conferrcth by help of some of the examiners to use the counsel of certain pre- cisians I fear, and purposeth to undo me, etc. Yet I care not for him. Yet I will reverence him because her Majesty hath so placed him, as I do all others toward her. And if you do not pro- vide in time to dull this attempt, there will be few in authority to care greatly for your danger, and for such others. They will provide for themself, and will learn by me in my case how to do.^ Walsingham appointed the Puritan Reynolds to the di- vinity lecture at Oxford founded to discredit Romanism.^ Knollys, Sir Thomas Smith, and Sir Walter Mildmay wrote an extraordinary letter to Parkhurst desiring him to allow the exercises called "prophesyings" to continue, although Parker was at the time making vigorous attempts to sup- press these training schools for Puritanism.^ Even Cecil, who headed the opposite faction in the Council, was not altogether favorable to Parker's procedure, and took care in many cases that those affected by the orders in regard to the ceremonies and vestments suffer a minimum of incon- venience.* As a result the ceremonies were not everywhere observed. The minister's taste often dictated whether he should wear the habits or not, and determined the posture of the con- gregation during communion. Forms of baptism varied. The sign of the cross was sometimes used, sometimes not. Many of the clergy held the prescribed habits up to ridicule. The Dean of Wells, Turner, even made a man do penance for adultery in a square priest's cap, much to the scandal of his more dignified brethren.^ But in 1565, under pres- 1 Parker Corresp., no. ccclxvii. Cf. ibid., nos. clxxix, ccxviii, ccxix, cclxxvi, cccxi, cccxii, cccxxviii. 2 Hooker, Works, vol. l, p. xxx. » Parker Corresp., p. 457, note 2. Cf. also, nos. cccl, cccli, cccliii. « Ibid., nos. clxxviii, clxxix, clxxxiv, clxxxv, clxxxvi; Grindal, Remains, Let- ters, no. l.xxvii; 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. CLXXn, no. i. Travers, Hooker's oppo- nent at the Temple Church, was Burghley's chaplain and tutor to his children. s Parker Corresp., no. clxxxii; Zurich Letters, no. cviii. 142 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth sure from Elizabeth, Parker issued his famous "Advertise- ments," which were designed to do away with all such irreg- ularities, and proceeded to enforce conformity to the habits. There was some uncertainty whether he could legally proceed to the deprivation of ministers who refused the test he intended to offer, and neither the court, nor the great lay lawyers, would back him up; some of them through sympathy for the views of the dissenters, some through question as to the legality of such procedure. The test was made by Parker and Grindal on the London clergy and most of them submitted. The rest were suspended at once and given three months to consider before the bishops proceeded to deprivation. Grindal did not like the work nor did some of the other commissioners. Parker had printed his articles without the Queen's authorization, although on the title-page, he had endeavored to create the impression that they had that sanction by proclaiming that they were issued "by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's letters" com- manding the same.^ Had Elizabeth given them her sanction, they would have had the authority of law as provided by the Act of Uniformity empowering the Queen, with the advice of the Metropolitan, to take further order for the ceremonies and ornaments of the Church, as was the im- pression conveyed by Parker's clever title-page. The "Ad- vertisements," however, did not settle the question as Parker hoped, but aroused much alarm at the prospect of compulsion, and occasioned much of the opposition to the bishops and the Establishment which now began to develop everywhere. Parker's proceedings mark the real beginning of the split in the Anglican Church. We may regard Parker as most clearly representing the official Anglican position; and even Parker did not hesitate to say that these were matters of indifference in themselves. ' Parker Corresp., nos. clxxv, clxxvi, clxxviii, cciii, ccix, ccx; Wilkins, Con- cilia, vol. IV, p. 247; Cardwell, Annals, vol. I, p. 287; Prothero, Select Statutes, p. 191; Gee and Hardy, Documents ; Sparrow, Collections; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. xxxix, no. 14. Protestant Dissent 143 " Does your Lordship think that I care either for cap, tippet, surplice, or wafer-bread, or any such?" ^ He argued that the habits and the ritual were not essential matters, in the sense that the Catholic Church made them essential, but, because of the order and decency lent by them to the church service and the ministerial person, were worthy of observa- tion, even had the law of Parliament and the will of the sovereign not ordained that within the English Church such habits and ritual should be observ^ed. In no sense were other Protestant churches condemned for not using them, for there was nothing sacred in their use or character. "The Queen hath not established these garments and things for any holiness' sake or religion, but only for a civil order and comeliness: because she would have the ministers known from other men, as the aldermen are known by their tip- pets," etc. 2 Why should Christians squabble about such matters and give to Catholics opportunity for reproaching the Protestants for their lack of unity, and, at the same time, by such quarrels make Continental friends believe that the English Church tacitly condemned them because they did not use the habits? The law commanded all to use the habits — what was the profit in fighting about them? On the other hand, those who objected to the habits pro- claimed with equal certainty that they were matters of indifference. Few made the actual wearing of the hab- its a matter of conscience. Such men as Dr. Humphrey ^ argued: in this indifferent matter of the wearing of the habits why give the wearing or not wearing of them such importance that refusal or dislike of them entails dismis- sal from the ministry of the Church?^ Many devout and ^ Parker Corresp., no. ccclxix. Cf. conclusion of the Advertisements. ' Grindal, Remains, p. 2io. 3 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. xxxvi, no. 64; vol. xxxix, no. 63; Zurich Letters, nos. Ixxxv, ci, cix, cii; Strype, Annals, vol. I, pt. 11, App., no. xxvii; Strype, Parker, bk. 11, App., nos. xxx, xxxi. *■ It seems curious to find Whitgift's name among those who took this posi- tion. Cf. Strype, Parker, bk. iii, chap, iii, p. 125, and App., no. xxxix; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. xxxviii, no. 10; Strype, Whitgift, App., no, iv. 144 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth serious young men, who are heartily loyal to the Queen and deeply attached to the Church now established, feel that they cannot take service under her because they are obliged to wear a costume which they look upon as a badge of Romanism. Why not leave it, in the present dangerous, unsettled, poverty-stricken, and preacherless condition of the Church, to individual conscience? We shall thus secure the whole-hearted service of the able men whom we need so much. They agree on all else, why exclude them from be- coming one of us, or eject devout and worthy preachers who are already within the service of the Church, because an indifferent matter is made into one of vital importance? If we insist on the outward observances of Catholicism, we give our Continental friends the idea that we are not truly Protestant, but still cling, or will soon return, to images, crosses, and tapers. Humphrey held that there was nothing wrong in the habits themselves, but that insistence upon them was a restraint of Christian liberty ill fitted for a Church in the position and of the character of the Anglican Establishment. He held up the threat that if the habits were insisted upon, the Church would lose the support and service of many who would otherwise give hearty allegiance. At root the differences were largely temperamental and matters of taste. Parker would have been glad to give in ; he grew tired of insisting. The Queen's Majesty willed my lord of York to declare her pleasure determinately to have the order to go forward. I trust her Highness hath devised how it may be performed. I utterly despair therein as of myself, and therefore must sit still, as I have now done, alway waiting either her toleration, or else further aid. Mr. Secretary, can it be thought, that I alone, having sun and moon against me, can compass this difficulty? If you of her Majesty's council provide no otherv\dse for this matter than as it appeareth openly, what the sequel will be horresco vel reminis- cendo} And must I do still all things alone? I am not able, and * Parker Corresp., no. ccxv. Protestant Dissent 145 must refuse to promise to do that I cannot, and is another man's charge. All other men must win honour and defence, and I only- shame to be so vilely reported. And yet I am not weary to bear, to do service to God and to my prince; but an ox can draw no more than he can.^ But neither the opposition of a great part of her clergy, nor the influence of councillors could secure changes which the Queen did not desire. And she did not desire these, although she would not come out openly wdth support for her clergy in enforcing the things she wished. She did not like the barrenness and extremes of Continental Protestantism, and she did like form and pomp. Had there been any real, imme- diate danger to the Church, and hence to the government, from the dispute, it is probable that she w^ould have given way as she did in other cases, but she sensed the situation too w^ell to feel that It was necessary to give way. She felt that she might continue to maintain her absolute sway over the Church in this respect In spite of some factious Individ- uals. To Parker's objection "that these precise folks w^ould ofTer their goods and bodies to prison, rather than they would relent," Elizabeth replied by ordering him to im- prison them then.^ Several considerations In the situation made her Insist that the habits and ritual be strictly ob- served. In the first place. It was the law, and the law must be enforced. In the second place, she felt that the question was not of enough importance to alienate any large body of the clergy. And her opinion was correct. Grindal wrote to Bullinger: — Many of the more learned clerg>^ seemed to be on the point of forsaking their ministry. Many of the people also had it in con- templation to withdraw from us, and set up private meetings; but however most of them, through the mercy of the Lord, have now returned to a better mind.' ^ Parker Corresp., no. ccxiii. Cf. also, ibid., nos. cxiv, clxxvi, cciii, cccxxi. ' Ibid., no. ccxiii. Cf. also, ibid., nos. clxx, clxxi, ccxcii. ' Zurich Letters, no. cxi. Cf. also, ibid., no. cxxi; Parker Corresp., no. ccvii. 146 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth They would not give up their lately won places because of the mere wearing of a habit. Further, she was not so keen for preachers, devout and able, as was Humphrey.^ She preferred that the Church slumber a little. A large body in the Church liked the habits and the forms; they did not desire, and some realized the inexpediency of making such radical changes that the service would seem unfamiliar to the people as a whole. Few of the Protestant officers of the Church felt it worth while to make any vigorous protest against their use in opposition to the wish of the Queen, and many condemned the agitators for stirring up discus- sion and controversy over the question. Nor did the Conti- nental Reformers stand back of the extremists or take the view they were expected to take. They felt that opposition to the government Church was not worth while on such matters when the government was apparently so whole- heartedly opposing the Papacy. Bullinger wrote to Horn: — I approve the zeal of those persons who would have the church purged from all the dregs of popery. ... On the other hand, I also commend your prudence, who do not think that churches are to be forsaken because of the vestments. . . . But, as far as I can form an opinion, your common adversaries are only aiming at this, that on your removal they may put in your places either papists, or else Lutheran doctors and presidents, who are not very much unlike them.^ And to Humphrey and Sampson the same divine wrote: — It appears indeed most extraordinary to me, (if I may be al- lowed, most accomplished and very dear brethren, to speak my sentiments without offence,) that you can persuade yourselves that you cannot, with a safe conscience subject yourselves and churches to vestiarian bondage; and that you do not rather con- sider, to what kind of bondage you will subject yourselves and churches, if you refuse to comply with a civil ordinance, which is a matter of indifference, and are perpetually contending in this troublesome way; because by the relinquishment of your ofifice, you will expose the churches to wolves, or at least to teachers who * Cf. Elizabeth's letter to Grindal, Prothero, Select Statutes, pp. 205, 206. * Zurich Letters, no. xcviii. Protestant Dissent 147 are far from competent, and who are not equally fitted with yourselves for the instruction of the people.* Elizabeth had her way. A few men lost their preferments, but the habits were worn. In itself the vestiarian contro- versy is an exceedingly dry, and, like so many of the discus- sions which have engaged the controversial genius of Chris- tianity, silly, discussion; but its significance, as one of the breaking-points between the two wings of the Church, can- not be overemphasized. This controversy lies at the root of the matter. Added to the natural temperamental differ- ences of taste, the discussion about the vestments dug up arguments, and stirred up feelings, and prepared the way for opinions, which, when developed, made continuous union impossible. But for a time the question slumbered. It never died out entirely; and the arguments used in this controversy lay at hand when the increasingly radical opinions of the discontented compelled them to diverge still more widely from the Established Church. ^ That there should develop a more positive opposition was inevitable. That antagonism between the Church Established and Church Militant should grow sharp and bitter was in part the result of controversy and in part the result of the character of the men who carried on the work of the Anglican Establishment and of the opposition to the Establishment. It was a growing quarrel, increasing from these small beginnings to irreconcilable differences. Bacon has well described the nature of the development of this antagonism. It maybe remembered, that on their part which call for refor- mation, was first propounded some dislike of certain ceremonies supposed to be superstitious; some complaint of dumb ministers who possessed rich benefices; and some invectives against the idle 1 Zurich Letters, no. civ. Cf. also, ibid., nos. xlii, xlvi, clvii, clviii; Strype, Annals, vol. i, pt. I, App., nos. xxiv-xxvii. 2 Parker Corresp., no. ccxii; Zurich Letters, nos. cix, cxii, cxxii, cxxix, clxxiii, clxxiv, clxxVi clxxvii. 148 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth and monastical continuance within the Universities, by those who had livings to be resident upon ; and such like abuses. Thence they went on to condemn the government of bishops as an hier- archy remaining to us of the corruptions of the Roman church, and to except to sundry institutions as not sufficiently delivered from the pollutions of the former times. And lastly, they ad- vanced to define of an only and perpetual form of policy in the church ; which (without consideration of possibility or foresight of peril or perturbation of the church and state) must be erected and planted by the magistrate. Here they stay. Others, (not able to keep footing in so steep ground) descend further; That the same must be entered into and accepted of the people, at their peril, without the attending of the establishment of authority: and so in the meantime they refuse to communicate with us, re- puting us to have no church. This hath been the progression of that side: — I mean of the generality. For I know, some persons (being of the nature, not only to love extremities, but also to fall to them without degrees,) were at the highest strain at the first. The other part which maintaineth the present government of the church, hath not kept to one tenor neither. First, those cere- monies which were pretended to be corrupt they maintained to be things indifferent, and opposed the examples of the good times of the church to the challenge which was made unto them, be- cause they were used in the later superstitious times. Then were they also content mildly to acknowledge many imperfections in the church : as tares come up amongst the corn ; which yet (ac- cording to the wisdom taught by our Saviour) were not with strife to be pulled up, lest it might spoil and supplant the good corn, but to grow on together until the harvest. After, they grew to a m.ore absolute defence and maintenance of all the orders of the church, and stiffly to hold that nothing was to be innovated ; partly because it needed not, partly because it would make a breach upon the rest. Thence (Exasperate through con- tentions) they are fallen to a direct condemnation of the contrary part, as of a sect. Yea and some indiscreet persons have been bold in open preaching to use dishonourable and derogative speech and censure of the churches abroad; and that so far, as some of our men (as I have heard) ordained in foreign parts have been pronounced to be no lawful ministers. Thus we see the beginnings were modest, but the extremes are violent; so as there is almost as great a distance now of either side from itself, as was at the first of one from the other. ^ 1 Bacon, Letters and Life (Spedding ed.), vol. I, pp. 86-87. Protestant Dissent 149 Bishop Cooper's statement is more explicit, but essen- tially the same: — At the beginning, some learned and godly preachers, for private respects in themselves, made strange to wear the surplice, cap, or tippet: but yet so that they declared themselves to think the thing indifferent, and not to judge evil of such as did use them [Grindal, Sandys, Parkhurst, Nowel, 1562]. Shortly after rose up other [Sampson, Humphrey, Lever, Whittingham] defending that they were not things indifferent, but distained with anti- christian idolatry, and therefore not to be suffered in the Church. Not long after came another sort [Cartwright, Travers, Field] affirming that those matters touching apparel were but trifles, and not worthy contention in the Church, but that there were greater things far of more weight and importance, and indeed touching faith and religion, and therefore meet to be altered in a church rightly reformed. As the Book of Common Prayer, the administration of the Sacraments, the government of the Church, the election of ministers, and a number of other like. Fourthly, now break out another sort [Brownists], earnestly affirming and teaching, that we have no church, no bishops, no ministers, no sacraments; and therefore that all that love Jesus Christ ought with all speed to separate themselves from our congregations, because our assemblies are profane, wicked, and antichristian. Thus have you heard of four degrees for the overthrow of the state of the Church of England. Now lastly of all come in these men, that m.ake their whole direction against the living of bishops and other ecclesiastical ministers: that they should have no tem.- poral lands or jurisdiction.^ It is characteristic of the first stages of this development that the leaders of the opposition tried to bring about the desired changes by what they conceived to be regular and lawful methods. The first Important literary effort to secure the adoption of changes advocated took the form of an appeal to Parliament. The "First Admonition to Parlia- ment," written by two ministers, Fielde and Wilcox, was not a proclamation of Independence in religious and ecclesi- astical matters, but an appeal to civil authority to correct the abuses within the Church, and to change It In accord- ance with Scriptural models. Its authors believed that the 1 Cooper, Admonition, p. 16, quoted in Hooker, Works, vol. i, p. 129, note 40. 150 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth national representative body had the right to alter the fun- damental structure of the Church by statute. Their behef was justified by the fact that the acts of ParHament had undoubtedly created and given legal form to the Estab- lishment which existed. They had not been able to carry their reforms in Convocation by the regular and ordinary means created by statute for ecclesiastical lawmaking and they, therefore, went behind Convocation to Parliament. In this belief and appeal, however, they disregarded the position of the Queen in the system and her determination to maintain it. She looked upon such appeal to Parliament as an infringement of her rights of supremacy over the Church. Parliament had vested the control of ecclesiastical affairs in her. She was determined to keep that control, and throughout the reign insisted, with more or less success, that Parliament keep its hands off ecclesiastical matters, even when the proposals were not those of malcontents.^ Such an attitude on the part of the Queen was not calcu- lated to satisfy the appellants, nor did it soothe the dignity of the Commons, but the fact remains that Elizabeth was able to make good her position and that the appeal of the "First Admonition" was punished as seditious. The circumstances immediately preceding its publication made it doubly obnoxious to the Queen. In the Parliament of 1572 a bill was introduced in the Commons which pro- vided that the penalties imposed by the existing religious acts for not using the prescribed rites and ceremonies should be in force "against such persons onely as do or shall use anie maner of papisticall service, rites or Ceremonyes," or who "use the same forme so prescribed more supersti- ciouslie" than authorized. ^ It also provided that, by per- mission of the bishop, any minister might be free to omit all, or any part, of the Prayer Book, or to use the service of the French or Dutch congregations. These drastic changes ^ D'Ewes, Journals, pp. 132, 133; Parker Corresp., nos. ccxxiv, ccxxv. * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. Lxxxvi, nos. 45, 46, 48; Puritan Manifestoes, App. i. Protestant Dissent 151 were disliked by many, and a committee was appointed to frame another bill. The second bill restricted the penalties to those uses of the book which were Popish or superstitious, and gave some further liberty to the preacher. Speaker Bell stopped proceedings, however, by signifying "her Highness' pleasure, that from henceforth no more bills concerning religion shall be preferred or received into this House unless the same should be first considered and liked by the clergy." ^ It was immediately after this session of Parliament that the "Admonition" appeared. They did not only propound it out of time (after the parliament was ended), but out of order also, that is, in the manner of a libel, with false allegations and applications of the scriptures, oppro- brious speeches, and slanders.- For if you ask of the time; the Admonition was published after the parliament, to the which it was dedicated, was ended. If you speak of the place; it was not exhibited in parliament (as it ought to have been), but spread abroad in corners, and sent into the country. If you inquire of the persons; it came first to their hands who had least to do in reforming. 2 It was not strange that Elizabeth, already annoyed by the attitude of the Commons, should regard it as an attack upon^her authority, and believe that it partook more of the nature of a seditious appeal to the people than an appeal to Parliament. Wilcox and Fielde were lodged in prison, but that did not prevent the "Admonition" from becoming popular and widely circulated. A lively literary contest resulted. Bishop Cooper of Lincoln refuted the pamphlet in a sermon at Paul's Cross a week after Parliament closed. An anony- mous reply to Cooper appeared almost immediately, and. in spite of the efforts of Archbishop Parker to discover the secret press,'* within three months after its first appearance, 1 D'Ewes, Journals, p. 213; S. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. Lxxxvi, no. 47. 2 Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 39. ' Ibid., p. 80. Cf. also, D'Ewes, Journals, pp. 160, 161; Zurich Letters, no. clxxxii. * Parker Corresp., nos. ccciii, cccxiii; Sandys to Burghley, Aug. 28, 1573; Puritan Manifestoes, App. vi. 152 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth the "Admonition" was twice printed in a second edition, while Ficlde and Wilcox were still in prison. Closely con- nected with the "Admonition" were two treatises which appeared as one publication in September or October of the same year, "An Exhortation to the Byshops to deal bro- therly with theyr Brethern," and, "An exhortation to the Bishops and their clergie to aunswer a little booke that came forthe the last Parliament." Shortly after the appear- ance of the "Admonition," its opponents compiled "A Viewe of the Churche that the Authors of the late published Admonition would have planted within this realme of England, containing such Positions as they now hold against the state of the said Church, as it is nowe." We have no copy of this tract, but its contents are made clear by an answer which appeared not earlier than September, 1572, under the title, " Certaine Articles collected and taken (as it is thought) by the Byshops out of a litle Boke entituled An Admonition to the Parliament with an answere to the same." This series of attacks upon the Establishment represents the first stage of the Presbyterian movement. This stage is midway between the early Precisianist attacks upon the ceremonies and habits of the Church, and the active propa- ganda to establish the distinctive ecclesiastical organization of Presbyterianism. As in the case of the opponents of the vestments any resemblance to the practices of the Roman Church is sufficient basis for condemnation. But there is an advance from the early vestiarian position. The chief object of attack is not the ritual, but the organization and the spirit of the Church and the clergy. While the "Ad- monition" does not minimize the importance of abandoning the ceremonies which are copied from the ceremonies of the old Church, the chief and most telling part of its attack is directed against the church organization itself, because it Is similar to the hierarchy of Rome, with its grades of rank, its ecclesiastical nobility, its courts, and faculties, ofhcials and commissioners, its dispensations and licenses. The Protestant Dissent 153 likeness to Roman organization inevitably stamps its organi- zation as wrong; the fact that it does not follow the New Testament pattern irretrievably damns it. They find in the proceedings of the bishops and other clerics who exercised secular functions, not simply, however, the externals of Ro- man, non-Scriptural organization, but the very spirit of papal episcopal rule and anti-Christian superiority. The Church deals more hardly with true Protestants like themselves, who are loyal to the Queen and to Christ's holy religion, than with the traitorous and anti-Christian Romanists. In spite of the fact that they must have recognized that such arguments were covert attacks upon the connection between Church and State, they proclaimed their loyalty to the Queen and the government. They warned the Queen that such resemblance to Rome, such a Roman hierarchy within the kingdom, afforded the greatest encouragement to her Papist enemies. They pleaded that they were more truly her loyal subjects than the bishops who maintained such a state of affairs. Yet there is a note of rebellion against the secular dictation as represented by the Queen. In ancient times "nothing was taught but God's work and now Princes pleasures, mennes devices, popish ceremonies, and Antichristian rites in publique pulpits defended." ^ "The pope's canon law and the will of the prince must have the first place, and be preferred before the word and ordi- nance of Christ." - The Queen could not have relished the demand that Parliament see to it that "the statute may more prevaile than an Injunction." The appeal that poor men may study the matters In dis- pute is a return to what Is traditionally regarded as a funda- mental principle of the Protestant revolt, the right of every man to judge his own soul's problems. To such a liberal as Sandys even, their position seems dangerously antl- arlstocratic and democratic. * Puritan Manifestoes, p. 12. _,.J Cf. "Parte of a Register," Grindal, Remains, p. 205. 154 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth It may easely appeare what boldenesse and disobedience theis new writers have alredy wrought in the mynds of the people and that agaynst the Civill Magistrate whome in words they seme to extoll but whose authoritie in very dede they labor to caste downe. For he seeth litill that doth not perceyve how that their whole proceedinges tend to a mere popularitie.^ ' In spite of a seeming democracy and love of liberty, in spite of the fact that they enter the plea which is now recog- nized as one of the greatest arguments against intolerance, the plea that persecution does no good,^ these writers were not tolerant even within the narrow limits of Protestantism. If divergent, they would have all opinions suppressed ex- cept their own. They would substitute for the authority of the early Church fathers and antiquity, in matters of eccle- siastical organization and discipline, the authority of the New Testament. And when they said New Testament, they meant the verbally inspired text. Inasmuch as this is an absolute and more restricted authority, it necessarily implies a greater intolerance of all divergences. Yet as the New Testament does not cover so much ground as "antiq- uity," — that is, tradition, — they freed the Church from many "precepts of men," thus seemingly increasing the sphere of freedom. This greater freedom was, however, largely neutralized by their insisting that nothing should be done in the Church for which there was not a clear com- mand of God. In the autumn of the year in which the "First Admoni- tion" appeared, Thomas Cartwright wrote and published the "Second Admonition to Parliament." Led by Cart- wright, Presbyterianism now entered upon that long and wearisome literary conflict with the Anglican Establishment, which, even to-day, has not entirely fallen into the desue- tude it deserves. Although a cluster of lesser lights sur- rounded them, the controversy centers about the works of Cartwright and Dr. John Whitgift. The two had clashed * Puritan Manifestoes, p. 154. * Ibid., p. 71. Protestant Dissent 155 before, and over substantially the same questions when Cartwright was Lady Margaret Professor at the University of Cambridge and Whitgift Master of Trinity College.^ In that contest Whitgift succeeded in expelUng Cartwright from the University, and Cartwright had gone to Geneva, where he had been confirmed in his opinions by his associ- ations with the fountain-heads of Presbyterianism. He re- turned in 1572 at an opportune moment to take up his old quarrel with Whitgift. Excitement over the "First Admonition" was great. It was read on all sides. Whitgift had under way the construction of the official reply, "An Answere to a certen Libel intituled An Admonition to the Parliament," and Cartwright brought out the "Second Admonition" in time to receive his share of the worthy doctor's condemnation. The " Second Admonition " may be regarded as marking a new stage in the controversy between dissent and Angli- canism ; It marks the transfer in essential interest from con- demnation of abuses to advocacy of a particular form of church polity, the Presbyterian. The other bokes are shorte (as it was requisite to present to you), and therefore they have not so muche tolde you how to Reforme, as what to Reforme. They have tolde you of many things amisse, and that very truely, they have tolde you in gen- erall, what were to be restored, but howe to doe these things, as it is the hardest pointe, so It requireth, as themselves saye, a larger discourse. I meane therfore to supplie . . . something that may make to the expressing of the matter, so plalnely, that you may have sufficient light to proceede by. . . .^ Unfortunately for those who are compelled to wade through the vast mass of literary polemic that resulted, the method of procedure presented in the ' ' Second Admonition was not so clear that the force of truth compelled its Imme- diate acceptance. Cartwrlght's work Is less interesting than * Grindal, Remains, Letters, no. Ixv, and note 4: Stn-pe, Whitgift, vol. i, p. 19; Strype, Annals, vol. u, pt. I, App., nos. i, iii; 5. P., Dom., Eiiz., vol. LXXI, no. II. ^ " Second Admonition," Puritan Manifestoes, p. 90. 156 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth the "First Admonition." Its tone is less earnest in that it is an intellectual, rather than an emotional, attack. In it we find the narrowing and hardening that almost inevitably accompany attempts to give practical organization to idealistic or moral theories. The emphasis shifts from moral and religious indignation, on a relatively high plane, to an intellectual presentation of a definite ecclesiastical polity. The "Second Admonition" and the development of the propaganda under Cartwright's leadership mark a distinct departure from the ground of the "First Admoni- tion," as that work marks a breaking-away from those who merely desired reforms in the English ceremonial. The "Second Admonition" marks out the lines of development for a distinct and peculiar form of dissent, the Presbyterian. Not all dissenters followed that line of development. Cart- wright succeeded in causing or forcing a division in the ranks of the reformers. Many who were most ardent in the struggle still further to modify the English Establishment toward Protestantism, particularly in regard to ceremonies, refused to follow Cartwright's extreme statements and posi- tions.^ Some of these contented themselves with remaining in the Church as churchmen with Precisianist tendencies, some withdrew in time to form churches more consonant with the spirit of Christianity than that proposed by Cart- wright. Of these we shall speak more in detail after we have presented the course and the results of the Presbyterian development. The "Second Admonition" and the Presbyterian move- ment logically developed from the opposition to Roman Catholicism manifested by the Vestiarians and the authors of the "First Admonition," but, more Important, the "Second Admonition" developed the attack upon the Established Church organization and created the form and machinery for putting into operation the church organiza- 1 Zurich Letters, nos. clxxxli, clxxxvi, cxcii, cxciii; Strype, Annals, vol. ill, pt. II, App., no. xlix. Protestant Dissent 157 tion based upon Scriptural model which the "First Admo- nition" suggested. By the consent of all, evidently, Cartwright was now re- garded as the head of the opposition, and the controversy, so far as it was a Presbyterian controversy, was left pretty largely in his hands. He wrote at once, "A Reply to an An- swere made of Doctor Whitgift," and then escaped to the Continent in time to avoid a warrant issued for his arrest by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.^ Elizabeth's procla- mation against the two "Admonitions" ^ made that a safe vantage-ground to occupy. Whitgift followed him with a "Defence of the Answere," and at long range Cartwright discharged two more shots, "The Second Replie" in 1575, and "The Rest of the Second Replie" in 1577. To these Whitgift did not reply, evidently considering that his mas- sive work, m.ade available to the modern reader by the Parker Society, had said all that was desirable. He now trusted to less intellectual means to suppress his opponents. As Hook expresses it, "It is not necessary to pursue this controversy further, especially as it passed from the hands of Whitgift to those of Bishop Aylmer, by whom Cart- wright was several times committed to prison," ^ In the mean time another Presbyterian work, of more real importance than a great deal of the work of Cartwright, had appeared. Walter Travers, whom we have met before in connection with the question of ordinations, wrote, while on the Continent, a Latin presentation of the Presbyte- rian system, " Ecclesiastiae Disciplinse . . . ExpHcato." This Cartwright translated and published as, "A full and plaine declaration of Ecclesiasticall Discipline owt of the word of God and off the declininge off the church of England from the same." The " Book of Discipline," as it is familiarly ^ Zurich Letters, no. cciii. Cf. Soames, Elizabethan History, p. 141. * 5. P., Dom., Eliz., vol. xci, no. 47; Zurich Letters, no. cxc; Puritan Mani- festoes, App. v; Strype, Parker, vol. Ii, p. 320. * Hook, Lives of the Archbishops, vol. v, p. 152 (New Series). 158 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth known, is a consistent and logical presentation of the Pres- byterian system, and formed the party platform. ^ From this series of works, and from minor, incidental tracts and letters, we derive the essentials of Presbyterian ecclesiastical polity in England, its attitude toward Catho- lics and Continental Protestantism, its relations with the Anglican Establishment and the government. We shall examine these things in the order mentioned. * Dr. John Bridges answered Travers's book in Defence of the Government Established in the Church of England for Ecclesiastical Matters. Aylmer had been offered the task, but declined. Parker Corresp., no. ccclxviii; Grindal, Remains, Letters, no. Ixxviii. CHAPTER VII PROTESTANT DISSENT (continued) The familiar Presbyterian form of church organization is midway between the aristocratic Episcopalian and the democratic Congregational forms of ecclesiastical polity. The unit of the organization is the presbytery, made up of the ministers and elders of the local churches. Presbytery appoints and inducts the ministers and is the court of appeal for the local congregations. Local management is vested in a consistory session made up of the ministers and elders, subject in some respects to the wishes of the congregation, but, in effect, exercising practically its own discretion. The English system contemplated, also, provincial and national synods to serve for the consideration and settlement of church problems with which the local presbyteries were not competent to deal finally. For this organization Scriptural authority was claimed. The pattern thus found in the Scriptures was the only right pattern for a Church of Christ; the New Testament made necessary the acceptance and the use of this particular organization.^ There was no place for any other form, no authority equal to the Scriptures for the use of any other ecclesiastical organization. Presbyterian adherence to a particular form of organization, and assertion of a binding Scriptural obligation for its use, resulted in important con- sequences for the theory of relationship between various churches already existing. Sharing with the Anti-Vestiarians, the Precisianists, and the authors of the " First Admonition," a hatred for all that was Roman Catholic in ritual and form, this theory, that 1 Whitgift, Works, vol. II, pp. 6, 6o, 195, 259; Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. iii, chap. V, sec i; chap, vii, sec. 4. i6o Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth" , the New Testament commanded the use of the Presbyterian organization and condemned all others, gave to the adher- ents of this party a basis for condemnation of papal organi- zation and Catholic ritual which the Anglican Church and the predecessors of the Presbyterians in discontent in Eng- land had lacked. The papal organization and the rites of the Roman Church were damnable and anti-Christian, not simply because of corruption and abuses, but because Christ had established another form of organization and other rites. They applied the test to the Church of England and found it base metal, for the Church of England likes "well of popish mass-mongers, men for all seasons, king Henry's priests. King Edward's priests, queen Mary's priests, who of a truth, if God's word were precisely followed, should from the same be utterly removed." ^ It thus gave ground for a more thorough-going opposition to, and a more utterly irreconcilable intolerance of, all that pertained to Catholi- cism. There was no need for Presbyterianism to appeal to political policy and national patriotism in justification of its opposition to Rome. Inasmuch as the command of the New Testament to them entailed a religious duty or implied one,^ since anything not there authorized was, to the Presbyterian mind, unsavory in the nostrils of the Lord, Presbyterianism became the advocate of an intolerant and exclusive theory. It substi- tuted, within the sphere of ecclesiastical organization, the authority of the Scriptures for the authority of reason, drew "all things unto the determination of bare and naked Scripture." ^ The sphere of religious tolerance narrows and expands directly in proportion to the number of things that are added to, or removed from, the sphere of religious 1 Cartwright, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 317- Cf. ibid., vol. I, p. 1 15. In later editions " King Edward's priests" was omitted. Cf. Cambridge His- tory of English Literature, vol. iii, p. 403. * Zurich Letters, no. clxxvii; Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 26, note 3; pp. 180, 183; Hooicer, Works, vol. i, p. 227, note 61. * Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk. 11, chap, vii, sec. i. Protestant Dissent i6i necessity. In so far as ecclesiastical polity is brought into the forefront of religious propaganda, it becomes narrow and intolerant. Anglicanism removed ecclesiastical polity from the list of things religiously essential; polity was a matter of indifference to be regulated and changed in accordance with the needs and circumstances of time and place. "... That any kind of government is so necessary that without it the church cannot be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny," wrote Whitgift.^ Anglicanism may have been intolerant of diversity in matters of polity and ritual, but it was an intolerance based, not upon a theor>' that these things were religiously important, but upon the belief that the legal establishment of certain forms by national legislation and the safety of the kingdom neces- sitated their observance. Apart from the religious question, reason may well decide that enactments by a national as- sembly based on political necessity are more justifiably insisted on than any dogmatic consideration. By this test Presbyterianism represents a backward tendency in the development of toleration. The results of this theory of a divinely originated pres- bytery were not confined to the additional basis given for condemnation of Catholics. All forms of Protestantism not following the New Testament model were open to the same condemnation as the Catholic Church. Lutheranism and Anglicanism were equally detestable. Cartwright went so far as to say, "Heretics" — and by heretics he meant those not Calvinistic — " ought to be put to death now," and he backed his extreme statement by the assertion that, "If this be bloody and extreme I am content to be so counted with the Holy Ghost." 2 ... To say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphem- ers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, ^ Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 184. » Cartwright, Second Reply, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. I16, note I. Cf. also ibid., vol. i, p. 386. 1 62 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question, and therefore, although the judicial laws are permitted to the discretion of the prince and magistrate, yet not so generally as you seem to affirm, and as I have oftentimes said, that not only must it not be done against the word but according to the word and by it.^ It is, however, in connection with the condemnation of Anglicanism that the results of the Presbyterian ecclesias- tical polity are most significant. The Anglican Church did not claim that it followed apostolic practice in church organ- ization; it admitted that it did not. It said the form of organization was not an essential matter. Cartwright's older contemporaries in dissatisfaction were in substantial agree- ment with the Anglican Establishment upon the essential indifference of ecclesiastical polity, but in so far as they attacked the organization at all, maintained that the Angli- can organization was inexpedient. Cartwright united with them in attack upon the resemblance of Anglicanism to Rome. Remove homilies, articles, injunctions, and that prescript order of service made out of the mass-book. . . . We must needs say as followeth, that this book is an unperfect book, culled and picked out of that popish dung hill, the portuise and mass-book full of all abominations. ... It is wicked, to say no worse of it, so to attribute to a book, indeed culled out of the vile popish service-book, with some certain rubrics and gloses of their own device, such authority, as only is due to God in his book. . . . Again, when learned they to multiply up many prayers of one effect, so many times Glory be to the Father, so many times The Lord be with you, so many times Let us Pray? Whence learned they all these needless repetitions? is it not the popish Gloria Patn?2 He attacked the wealth and pomp of the Anglican ecclesi- astics, but departed from the position of the Admonishers by maintaining that the Anglican Church was wrong in its * Cartwright, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. I, p. 270. * Cartwright, Second Admonition, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. i, p. II9i note 6. Protestant Dissent 163 very essence.^ New Testament authority necessitated an- other form of organization, and for the establishment of the new, the Church already established must give way. Theo- cratic, exclusive Calvinism must be substituted for the merely expedient and comprehensive Episcopalian Estab- lishment. The Anglican Church was an attempt to nation- alize the religious organization, with loyalty to the Queen as its fundamental article. The Presbyterian programme was an attempt to create a narrow, national, sectarianism founded upon exclusively Biblical authority. Political needs were a secondary consideration, although it is true that their antagonism to the Papacy serv^ed as a strong argu- ment for the observance of that political policy which they deemed most wise for the nation and royal safety — abso- lute suppression of all Catholics. From the Presbyterian opposition to Anglicanism, thus based upon Scriptural authority, resulted important con- sequences in Anglicanism Itself. Anglicanism began the formulation, as we have pointed out in a previous chapter, of a divine right theory of episcopacy to meet the claims of Presbyterianism. It abandoned the old basis of its apolo- getic, expediency and antiquity, and substituted other argu- ments. This shift took two directions. First, a return, with the Presbyterians, to an exclusively Scriptural authority where authorization of the Episcopal form was found ; and second, the development of an entirely new line of argu- ment which based the authority of Scriptures and of religion itself upon reason. The Scriptures could be used by An- glicans in defense of their peculiar organization as force- fully as in defense of the Presbyterian. This appeal was made at first with desire simply to refute the Presbyterian argument that Anglicanism had no Scriptural basis, without implying that, when found, Scriptural authority should be used to maintain an exclusively Episcopalian polity as the * Cartwright himself did not believe in, or practice, separation from the Anglican communion, however. 164 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Presbyterians maintained an exclusively Presbyterian one; but it was perhaps inevitable, in the face of Presbyterian attack and argument, that AngHcanism should make, with Presbyterians, but in opposition to them, the logical step to maintenance of a divinely instituted and exclusive form of ecclesiastical polity. This logical advance was not made decisively in Elizabeth's reign. A theory of divinely ap- pointed Presbyterianism or Episcopalianism was antago- nistic to the political dominance which the Queen insisted upon maintaining, 1 and to which, for the sake of self- preservation, the Church was compelled to assent. Angli- canism, however, was turned toward the theory of an apos- tolical episcopal succession, and as soon as governmental opposition was withdrawn by the death of Elizabeth, it proceeded to develop within its ranks a sectarianism as contracted as that of its enemies. The suggestion of Hooker In his "Ecclesiastical Polity," that reason had to rule in all cases even though arguing from a basis of verbally inspired Scripture, served as better ground for the apologetic of a Church so subservient to royal power and political policy as was the Anglican Es- tablishment. That the rule of reason was, however, as op- posed to Episcopalianism as to Presbyterianism, was a fact which neither Hooker and his party, nor the party of opposition, recognized until many years after our pe- riod, when men began to ascribe their conversion to Ro- man Catholicism to the teachings of the "Ecclesiastical Polity." Of less real Importance than the advocacy of a particular form of church polity by the Presbyterians, was their oppo- sition to Anglicanism upon doctrinal grounds. Presbyterian polity was Inseparably linked with the extremes of Calvln- istlc doctrine. Anglicanism was, as we have pointed out » Had Elizabeth set up claims to rule by divine right, as did her successor and the French monarchs, there would have been no necessary antagonism between a divinely appointed Episcopal organization and her dominance. But Eliza- beth's power was not based on "a divine right" theory. Protestant Dissent 165 above, tied to no articulated system of dogma; Its stand- ards were indefinite and theologically inclusive. This gave adequate grounds to Presbyterians for condemnation of Anglican belief, independently of their condemnation of Anglicanism on the score of polity. Accusations of Luther- anlsm were not relished by many of the bishops. Most of them classed together, "wolves, Papists, Lutherans, Sad- ducees and Herodians," ^ and asserted that, "as he [the Devil] is unable to restore popery altogether, he is endeav- ouring, but imperceptibly and by degrees, to bring us back to Lutheranlsm." 2 They were for the most part Calvinlstic themselves, but, from the standpoint of tolera- tion, it is fortunate that their Calvinism did not express itself decisively in the creeds and articles of the Establish- ment. Whitgift's attempt to impose the Calvlnistic Lam- beth Articles upon Anglicanism fortunately failed. We have Elizabeth to thank for this, however great be the reproach we may feel justified In casting upon her for less beneficent exercise of her royal power. The liberality re- sulting from this freedom from dogmatic excluslveness, gave occasion for some of the most strikingly intolerant utter- ances of Presbyterianlsm. They felt that the Church was too generous, too broad, its charity too closely allied to lack of zeal In the Lord. They objected that some of the prayers of the English Service were too charitable in view of what could properly be asked of the justice of God. "They," the Radicals said, "pray that all men may be saved with- out exception ; and that all travelling by sea and land may be preserved, Turks and traitors not excepted ... in all their service there is no edification, they pray that all men may be saved." ^ Undoubtedly some men should be damned. The doctrinal opposition of the Presbyterians did not result in an increased hardening of Anglican dogmatic standards * Zurich Letters, no. cviii. * Ibid., no. cxxx. Cf. ibid., nos. cxxiv, cxi, cxxi, ccxv. » Nares, Burghley, vol. in, p. 348. Cf. "First Admonition," Puritan Mani- festoes, p. 39; Hooker, Ecc. Pol., bk, v, chap, xxvn, sec. i, p. 346. 1 66 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth comparable to the increased rigidity of its ecclesiastical polity. We even find in Hooker statements which indicate that the prevalent Calvinism was too uncompromising for the Anglican Establishment. Incidental to Presbyterian defense of an exclusive New Testament ecclesiastical polity, insistence upon Calvinistic theology, and attack upon Anglicanism, Presbyterianism has some points of interest deserving of mention. One of the most insistent and important claims made for Presby- terianism is that it is in general, and was in particular dur- ing the reign of Elizabeth, the champion of liberty and democracy. Were this true, minor considerations of narrow theology and polity would sink into oblivion, when com- pared to the great service thus rendered to the cause of toleration. The justification for these claims is found, ordinarily, in the fact that in Parliament the chief defenders of the liberties of Parliament in opposition to the absolutism of Elizabeth were also found in opposition to the Estab- lished Church. 1 The questions which gave rise to the greatest assertion of Parliamentary right were, during the time when the Presbyterian controversy was at its height, questions of ecclesiastical polity and reform. The union of the question of national liberty with the question of eccle- siastical dissent was natural. Further, it is obvious that during this period the champions of national liberty were champions also of ecclesiastical dissent. But the obvious fact does not state the truth quite accurately. The greatest champions of the liberties of Parliament took occasion to voice their claims as questions of any sort gave them occa- sion to do so. During this period the questions of Church abuses, and the right to consider them, were the ques- tions about which the conflict with the government and the Queen centered. At a later time these topics had sunk into the background, and the fight for Parliamentary liberties went on over the question of patents and monopolies. In so 1 Whitgift, Works, vol. i, pp. 42, 262; vol. ll, pp. 264, 398. Protestant Dissent 167 far as ecclesiastical dissenters were the champions of liberty, we would not deny to Presbyterians their fair share in any glory that may be derived therefrom. But they have no exclusive claims. Alongside of Presbyterians in this oppo- sition were those within the Church itself, by no means advocates of Presbyterian doctrines, those whom we call Precisians, those actuated merely by desire to embarrass the bishops, lovers of liberty to whom the religious questions merely gave occasion for opposition to encroachments upon it by the sovereign, other types of dissent more truly demo- cratic in their religious and ecclesiastical theory than the Presbyterian.^ Presbyterians were allied with these oppo- nents of royal absolutism ; that was the only possible escape from the consequences of their religious and ecclesiasti- cal principles; but their championship did not arise from the liberal character of those religious and ecclesiastical opinions. Presbyterian principles of ecclesiastical organization were not democratic, but aristocratic. Appeals to fears of Eng- lishmen that the bishops were seizing, or would seize, excessive power similar to that possessed by the Catholic bishops might touch a real danger, but were not consistent w^ith proposals to set up a governing ministry like that of Scotland or Geneva. Arguments against concentration of wealth In religious men's hands, to the deprivation of the poor, arguments against religious rank and lordship, as contrary to Scriptural example, have in themselves nothing to do with championship of democracy and came with bad grace from those who proposed to establish such an aristo- cratic and exclusive system as the Presbyterian. An eccle- siastical system of standards which would limit church membership to those who accepted a dogmatic theological doctrine so precise as that of Calvin, Is, In the last analysis, as undemocratic as its theology. However aristocratic is the 1 Parker Corresp., no. cccxxi; Cartwright, apud Whitgift, Works, vol. I, P- 390. - - 1 68 Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth Episcopalian form of government, it was one of the glories of Anglicanism that it was inclusive and liberal in its theo- logical requirements. Outward conformity to established forms it may have demanded; submission of the private judgment to the confines of a theological system it did not. Even subscription to the doctrinal articles which it asked was made liberal by the indefinite character of those articles, an indefiniteness which admitted of interpretation conso- nant with a whole range of theological opinion. Presby- terian Calvinism certainly fails to satisfy one of the most important requisites of any democratic system, individual freedom. To one unprejudiced by adherence to any sect it must be hard to see the justice in Presbyterian claims to cham- pionship of civil and religious liberty. Presbyterianism was not tolerant; it was not democratic in ecclesiastical or theological theory. Its purpose was the substitution on a national scale of theocratic, exclusive Calvinism for po- litical inclusive Episcopalianism. Ecclesiastically it was exclusive, theologically it was intolerant. Nor can we see in its theory of the relationship between Church and State any great contribution to the principles of liberty and tol- eration. Condemning as they did all other forms and all other doctrines, upon the basis of Scriptural truth, it might have been expected that Presbyterians would advance the toler- ant suggestion that such obvious Scriptural authority be left to work conformity and uniformity by its simple pres- entation in preaching and teaching. As we have seen, how- ever, they felt that the force of truth works but slowly, and that the need for acceptance of Presbyterian ecclesiastical and theological dogma was urgent. They proposed that the government compel the acceptance of both at once. The relations, therefore, between Church and State were not to be severed, but to be made closer, in order, not that political needs might be served by the Church, but that political Protestant Dissent 169 power might do the will of God as interpreted by the Presbyterians. They would beare men in hand that we despise authoritie, and contemne lawes, but they shamefully slaunder us to you, that so say. For it is her majesties authoritie we flye to, as the supreme governour in all causes, and over all persones within her domin- ions appointed by God, and we flie to the lawes of this realme, the bonds of all peace and good orders in this land. And we beseche her majestic to have the hearing of this matter of Gods, and to take the defence of it upon her. And to fortifie it by law, that it may be received by common order through out her dominions. For though the orders be, and ought to be drawne out of the booke of God, yet it is hir majestie that by hir princely authoritie shuld see every of these things put in practise, and punish those that neglect them, making lawes therfore, for the churche maye keepe these orders, but never in peace, except the comfortable and blessed assistance of the states and governors linke in to see them accepted in their countreys, and used.^ The Queen was not to dictate to the new Establishment as she dictated to the Episcopalian one. No civil magistrate in councils or assemblies for church matters can either be chief moderator, overruler, judge, or determineer, nor has such authority as that, without his consent, it should not be lawful for ecclesiastical persons to make any church orders or ceremonies. 2 Church matters ought ordinarily to be handled by church ofhcers. The principal direction of them is by God's ordinance committed to the ministers of the church and to the ecclesiastical governors. As these meddle not with the making civil laws, so the civil magistrate ought not to ordain ceremonies, or determine controversies in the church, as long as they do not intrench upon his temporal authority. 'T is the princes province to protect and defend the councils of his clergy, to keep the peace; to see their decrees executed: and to punish the contemners of them: but to exercise no spiritual jurisdiction. "It must be remembered that civil magistrates must govern the church ac- cording to the rules of God prescribed in his word ; and that as they are nurses so they be servants unto the church; and as they rule in the church, so they must remember to submit themselves 1 "Second Admonition," Puritan Manifestoes, p. 130. Cf. Theses Martinian', 95; of Anglican Church, 129. Mildmay, Sir Walter, 141. Ministry, educated, opposed by Con- gregationalists, 177. Moderation of Anglican Church, 65. National character of Establishment, 65- New Testament, authority for Pres- byterian organization in, 153, 159- 63, 188. Nonconformists, 171. Northumberland, Earl of, 36. Nowell's catechism, 98. Oath ex officio mero, 117, 171. Oath of supremacy, 23, 29-31, 61, 77. Oglethorpe, 19. Organization, church, Anglican form of, no, 128; Congregationalist forni of, 136; Presbyterian form of, 159. Palatinates, 79, 80. Papacy, attitude toward Elizabeth, 8, II, 98; historical claims of, re- jected by Protestants, 106; Protes- tant opposition to, no, 126, 137, 146. Parker, Archbishop, 31 «., 88, 93, 106, 140-45, 151; quoted, 26, 29, 68, loi. Parkhurst, 139. Parliament, 40, 67, 70, 83, 150; Eliz- abeth's first, 18-22; Elizabeth's sec- ond, 28-33. Parsons, the Jesuit, 27, 40, 51. Patriotism at basis of Anglican Church, 65. Paul IV, Pope, 9, II. "Peculiars," 79. Penalties, 41, 48, 55, 72. Penry, 175, 180. Philip of Spain, 9, 12, 28, 44, 185. Pilkington, 69, 139. Pius IV, Pope, 28. Pius V, Pope, excommunicated Eliz- abeth, 37. Politics and religion, 8-34. Pope, attitude of, toward Elizabeth, 8, II, 28, 37. Prayer Book. See Book of Common Prayer. Preaching prohibited, 12; licenses ' for, 117. j Precisianists, 125, 132, 134, 138, 159. Prerogative writs, 78, 81. ! Presbyterianism, and Anglicanism, j 104, 119, 134. 152, 187; opposition I to Catholics, 126, 159, 185; intol- i erance of, 154, 159-63. 168, 181: form of organization of, 159; based on authority of the Scriptures, 160. Presbyterians, 5. 47. 159-64. 2l8 Index Press censorship, 117. Priests, 27, 53, 102. Prophesyings, 141. Protestant dissent, 131-82. Protestant dissenters, attitude of Anglicanism toward, 124. Protestantism, 14, 103, 186. Protestants, 20, 38, 93, 118; return of exiled, 12; Elizabeth's attitude to- ward, 12; impatience of, with gov- ernment, 12, 20; candidates for clerical offices, 25; in Scotland, 44; did not oppose union of Church and State, 69; Anglican intolerance of, 128. Provincial commissions, 71. Puritans, 60, 125, 128, 131-34. Reason, the rule of, in Anglicanism, 163. Rebellion of the Northern Earls, 35- Recusants, 42, 53, 57, 117. Reformation, the, 10. Religion, intolerance in, 3-4; and politics, 8-34; of England, changes in, 13; indifference in, 14. Religious houses annexed to Crown, 22. Religious liberty, 166. Reply to an Answere made of Doctor Whit gift, A, 157. Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1832, 79. Rest of the Second Replie, The, 157. Reynolds, 141. Rights, special, 78. Rites and ceremonies, 107, 150. Robinson, 175. Roman Catholics. See Catholics. Royal Commission, 72; of Visita- tion, 23, 27, 71. Royal headship of Church, 66-71, 122. Royal prerogative, the, 82. Royal \'isitation. Commission of, 23, 27, 71. Sandys, 93, loi, 139, 153. Scotland, 10, 44, 172. Scripture, authority of, 120; for Pres- byterian form of organization, 159; for Episcopal form of organiza- tion, 163. Second Admonition to Parliament, 154-56, 169. Second Replie, The, 157. Second Scotch Confession, 179 n. Secular courts and the Church, 76. "Seekers," 131. Segregation of Catholics, 55. "Separatists," 132. Smith, Sir Thomas, 141. Spiritual life of the Church, 99-105. Star Chamber, the, 74-77, 84, 117. State and Church. See Church and State. Strype, 87. Sturmius, 16. Supremacy, Act of, 21-24, 29, 67, 72f Taxation of Catholics, 53, 57. Thacher, Elias, 181. Thirty-nine Articles, the, 94, 97, II7, 171. "Three Articles," 117. Tolerance, hope of Catholics for, 47; advance of England toward, 63, 91; effect of union of Church and State on, 89; defects in govern- ment's policy of, 183, 186; success of government's policy of, 189. Travers, Walter, in, 114, 157. Turner, Dean of Wells, 141. Uniformity, Act of, 21-24, 72, 97, 105, 142. Universities, 78 «.; graduates of, re- quired to take oath, 31. Vestiarian controversy, 90, 141-47, 156. Vestments. See Habits. Viewe of the Churche that the Authors of the late published Admonition would have planted, etc., 152. Visitation, Commission of Royal, 23, 27, 71. Walsingham, 40, 45, 57, 141. Westmoreland, Earl of, 36. Whitglft, Dr. John, 98, 113, 117, 129, 143 n., 165; controversy with Cart- wright, 154-57- Wilcox, 149, 151. Witches, laws against, 32. Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo, 31. CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS U . S . A THIS BOOK ^' ^i^ I ! 1 4 DAY USE LOAN DEPT. the .ne last date stamped below, or Renewed books are subjeato'" TT> 21A-60t71-3,'65 %336sl0)476B General Library .