Skip to main content

Full text of "Intolerance in the reign of Elizabeth, queen of England"

See other formats 


CO 


INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 


INTOLERANCE 

IN  THE  REIGN   OF 


§fueen  of  England 


By  ARTHUR  JAY  -KLEIN,!  Professor  of  History 


in  Wheaton  College,  Norton,  Massachusetts. 


BOSTON    &    NEW  TORK 

HOUGHTON    MlFFLIN    COMPANY 

The  Riverside  Press  Cambridge 


COPYRIGHT,   1917,   BY  ARTHUR  JAY  KLEIN 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 

Published  February  iqrj 


P  101965 


^J 


100589? 


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amount  of  published  and  unpublished  source  matter  col 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  — 


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)      .      .  159 

Presbyterian  polity  —  Scriptural  basis  of  the  system  —  Basis 
for  condemnation  of  Catholicism  —  Ecclesiastical  intolerance  of 
the  Presbyterians  —  Presbyterian  doctrinal  intolerance  toward 
Lutheranism  —  Presbyterian  attack  upon  the  Anglican  organiza 
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 
the  relationship  between  Church  and  State  —  Legal  basis  of 
governmental   repression   of   Presbyterianism  —  Opposition   to 
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 
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    .      .      ;r     .      ;      ,      .      .  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  Presbyte 
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       INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

religions  to  exist  side  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  "  Tightness."  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  supernaturally 
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 
*)*  ft**** 


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.  Much  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  different  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 

FNLOVED  and  disheartened,  Mary  Tudor  died  on  the  I7th 
>f  November,  1558.  Her  sincere  struggle  to  establish  the 
>ld  faith  in  England  once  more,  her  pathetic  love  for  Philip 
>f  Spain,  the  loss  of  Calais,  the  knowledge  that  without 
lildren  to  succeed  her  the  work  done  could  not  endure,  — 
[1  these  things  had  made  her  life  a  sad  one.  Our  imagina- 
;ions  have  clothed  her  reign  with  gloom  and  blood,  while 
tat  of  her  successor  has  become  correspondingly  splendid, 
intriguing,  fanciful,  swashbuckler,  profane,  —  a  living  age. 
re  approach  the  study  of  Elizabeth's  reign  with  the  expec- 
ition  of  finding  at  last  a  period  when  life  was  all  dramatic, 
>ut,  as  always,  we  find  that  the  facts  are  less  romantic  than 
>ur  imaginative  pictures. 

Life  to  the  Elizabethan  Englishman  was  not  all  a  joyous 
idventure.  Famine  and  pestilence  ushered  in  the  reign, 
empty  treasury  confronted  the  new  queen.  The  com- 
lercial  and  the  industrial  life  of  the  kingdom  declined. 
rar  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 1  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 
undeserved  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- 

1  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  YorlTas  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  Reformation  in  Eng 
land,  with  an  introduction  by  A.  W.  Hutton  (London  and  New  York,  1899), 
Essays  vi,  no.  ii;  vn,  no.  iii;  vm;  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.1  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  u,  1559. 


io     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-Cambre'sis  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  n 

id  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,1  it  seemed 
to  Elizabeth's  advisers  more  dangerous  to  meddle  with  the 
papal  power  in  England  than  to  abolish  it  altogether.2  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  Liturgy,  allow  the  Lord's  Supper  in  both  kinds,  and  revoke  the 
condemnation  of  the  marriage  of  Henry  and  Anne  is  printed. 

2  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,  1 559,  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  own 
property  restored  to  him."  x  All  preaching  was  prohibited 
until  Parliament  could  meet  to  decide  upon  a  form  of  ec 
clesiastical  settlement.2  The  Queen  herself  received  men  of 
all  parties,  wrote  to  the  Pope,3  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. 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  xx. 

8  H.  N.  Birt,  The  Elizabethan  Religious  Settlement  (London,  1907),  p.  23. 

8  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."  1  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, 
indifferent.  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."  2  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.          a  Nares,  Burghley,  vol.  in,  p.  326. 

rf 


14      INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

ligious  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.1 
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.2  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.3  "For  sake  of  consistency  which  the 

1  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  iv,  Letters,  nos.  viii,  x,  xii;  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  xi,  xiv, 
xv ;  Parker  Correspondence,  no.  xlix. 

2  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  u,  p.  770;  Zurich  Letters,  no.  xlix. 

8  Jewel,  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."  1  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.2  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  Sturmius,  "[The  Queen  has]  exercised 
such  moderation,  that  the  papists  themselves  have  no  com 
plaint  to  make  of  having  been  severely  dealt  with."3 

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.  in,  bk.  vi,  no.  51. 

1  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  iv,  Letters,  no.  Ixi.  Cf.  ibid.,  nos.  xv,  xx,  xxi. 

2  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  ii,  xxvi,  xxxiii. 
8  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.1 

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  Crown, 
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. 

1  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.1  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.2  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,3  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.4 

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.5  Convocation  passed  articles 
asserting  uncompromising  adherence  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
faith.6  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 

1  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.  n,  bk.  in,  no.  I,  p.  497; 
Dodd  (Tierney's  ed.),  vol.  n,  p.  123,  and  App.,  no.  33. 

2  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  iii,  viii. 

3  For  methods  of  influencing  the  elections  cf.  Council  to  Parker  and  Cobham, 
Parker  Correspondence,  no.  cclxxxvii,  Feb.  17,  1570. 

4  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. 

B  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  i,  pt.  I,  App.,  nos.  vi,  vii,  ix,  x,  xi;  D'Ewes,  Journals, 
Elizabeth's  first  Parliament. 

6  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,1  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 

1  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.'*  1 

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."  2  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,3  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- 

1  Jewel,  'Works,  vol.  iv,  Letters,  no.  ix  (Zurich  Letters,  no.  xii;  Burnet,  pt. 
in,  bk.  vi,  no.  49,  p.  407).    Cf.  also  ibid.,  no.  viii;  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  xi,  xix; 

Zf;      1 IIIf   *    V  A  n°'  47'  P>  4°2 ;  S' P"  Dom"  Eliz"  vo1'  m'  no'  5 
Annals,  vol.  i,  pt.  i,  App.,  nos.  xv,  xvi. 

\  £"  ifif^f5;  n0>  Xiii*   Cf'  also  ****"  nos-  xi'  xiv>  xv",  xix,  xlii. 
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  l 
and  Uniformity.2  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  VIII  and  one  of  Edward  were 
revived.  It  dropped  the  title  "  Supreme  Head  of  the 
Church,"  3  although  it  retained  the  substance  and  pro- 

1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  I  Eliz.,  c.  I.  2  Ibid.,  c.  2. 

1  D'Ewes,  Journals,  p.  38;  Stubbs,  in  App.  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,1  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,2  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.3 

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 

1  Cf.  however,  Span.  Co/.,  1558-67,  vol.  I,  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,1  administer  the 
oath  to  the  clergy,  and  inquire  into  certain  articles  of  which 
the  most  interesting  are  those  concerning  the  late  perse 
cutions.2  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.3  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 

1  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.  n,  bk.  m,  no.  7,  p.  533. 

*  Articles  printed  in  Gee,  Elizabethan  Clergy,  pp.  65-70;  Sparrow,  Collec 
tions. 

8  Prothero,  Select  Statutes,  p.  184;  Sparrow,  Collections,  p.  65;  S.  P.,  Dom., 
Eliz.,  vol.  xv,  no.  27;  Burnet,  pt.  n,  bk.  in,  p.  631;  Collier,  n,  433;  Strype, 
Annals,  vol.  i,  pt.  i,  p.  197;  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  iv,  "Defence  of  the  Apology," 
PP-  958-1039;  Whitgift,  Works  (Parker  Society),  vol.  I,  p.  22. 


24     INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

who  were  deposed.1  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  2  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.3 

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 

1  Gee,  Elizabethan  Clergy  (Oxford,  1898);  H.  N.  Birt,  Elizabethan  Religious 
Settlement  (London,  1907). 

8  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  vn,  no.  79;  Gee,  Elizabethan  Clergy,  p.  141;  Birt, 
Elizabethan  Religious  Settlement,  p.  183,  no.  2.  Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  Ixxx. 

»  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  v,  no.  18;  Prothero,  Select  Statutes,  pp.  227-32; 
Card  well,  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,"  1  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."  2  As  a  bishop  his  greed  became  a  common 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  xxxv.   Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  Ixviii,  Ixix;  5.  P.,  Dom., 
Eliz.,  vol.  vin,  no.  19. 

2  Maitland,  Essays  on  Subjects  connected  with  the  Reformation,  p.  1 66;  Strype, 
Annals,  vol.  n,  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.1 

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.2 

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 

1  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."2  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 

1  Parsons,  Memorial  of  the  Reformation  of  England,  printed  in  part  in  Taunton, 
English  Jesuits,  App.,  p.  478. 

2  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.1  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. 
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 

1  D'Ewes,  Journals,  Cecil's  speech  in  the  second  Parliament.    Cf.  Zurich 
Letters,  nos.  Ixix,  Ixxii,  Ixxiii. 


POLITICS  AND  RELIGION  29 

and  Piedmontese  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 
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  sufficient 
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.1 

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- 
communicate  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;  S.  P., 
Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CCLXX,  no.  99;  vol.  CCLXXIV,  no.  25. 

2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  5  Eliz.,  c.  i;  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.1 

In  the  Act  for  the  due  Execution  of  the  Writ  de  Excommu- 
nicato  Capiendo 2  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  Excommunicate  Capiendo, 

1  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.  Strype,  Parker,  126. 

1  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,1  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,2  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: 

Excommunicatyon  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.3  The  acts 
were  framed  because  the  people  were  misled  by  seditious 
persons  dissatisfied  with  the  religious  establishment,  who 

1  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  of  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.1  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  the  peo 
ple  were  unfamiliar  were  created.  The  Queen's  commissions 

1  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.1  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. 

1  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  vi,  no.  22;  vol.  xm,  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 
resum£  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 

turbances  caused  by  the  revolt  of  the  nobles  in  the  north 
and  the  tempests  of  the  vestiarian  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 
majestie's  owne  personne,  and  also  have  by  the  space  of 
twelve  yeares  nowe  past  set  upp  and  mayntayned  a  new 
found  religion  and  heresie  contrary  to  God's  word."  1  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 

1  Lingard,  Hist.  Eng.t  vol.  v,  p.  113.  C/.  Bull  of  Excommunication,  par.  2; 
Jewel,  Works,  vol.  iv,  pp.  1130-31. 


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  February,  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  were  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.1  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- 

1  Wilkins,  Concilia,  vol.  iv,  p.  260;  Cardwell,  Doc.  Annals,  vol.  I,  pp.  328- 
31  i  Burnet,  pt.  n,  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.1 

The  Bull  was  not  popular  with  the  reasonable  English 
Catholics,  nor  with  the  European  princes.2  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  1571.  That  element  in  Parliament  which  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,"  3  attempted  to  counteract  the 
effects  of  the  Bull  by  making  treasonable  the  declaration  in 
any  way  that  the  Queen  was  not,  or  ought  not  to  be,  queen 

1  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  LXXI,  nos.  16  and  34. 

2  Span.  Cal.,  p.  254,  Philip  to  Gueraude  Spes;  For.  Cal.,  p.  291,  Norris  to 
Eliz.;  ibid.,  p.  339;  Raynaldus,  p.  177  (1571). 

8  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.1  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." 3  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    1580  TO    1587 

The  Parliament  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 

1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  13  Eliz.,  c.  2.  »  Ibid.,  c.  3. 

1  Dom.  Cal.,  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.1  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.2 

The  Parliament  of  1581  enacted  in  the  statute  "to  retaine 
the  Queenes  Majesties  Subjects  in  their  due  Obedience" 
that  all  "persons  whatsoever  which  .  .  .  shall  by  any  wayes 
or  means  .  .  .  withdraw  any  of  the  Queenes  Maties  subjects 
from  their  .  .  .  obedience  to  her  Majestic  or  ...  withdraw 
them  .  .  .  from  the  relygion  nowe  by  her  Highnes  aucthori- 
tie  established  ...  to  the  Romyshe  Religion  .  .  .  shalbe  ad- 

1  S.  P,,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  cxxxvn,  no.  28;  vol.  CXLIV,  no.  65;  Strype,  Annals, 
vol.  in,  App.,  no.  vi. 

2  Span.  Cal.,Eliz.,  vol.  in,  nos.  31  and  119;  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CXLII, 
no.  33;  vol.  cxxxvi,  no.  41 ;  vol.  cxxxm,  no.  46. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  CATHOLICS        41 

judged  to  be  Traitors."  1  Any  person  thus  withdrawn  was 
ilso  declared  guilty  of  high  treason.  The  saying  of  mass 
ras  punished  by  a  fine  of  two  hundred  marks ;  and  persons 
lot  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.2 

From  1582  until  1585  the  situation  increased  in  difficul 
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.3  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 
banishing  Jesuits  from  the  realm,4  and  sanctioned  the  as 
sociations  formed  for  the  defense  of  the  Queen.5 

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  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  23  Eliz.,  c.  I ;  Span.  Cat.,  Eliz.,  vol.  in,  no.  57;  S.  P., 
Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  cxxvn,  no.  6;  vol.  cxxxvi,  no.  15;  D'Ewes,  Journals,  pp. 
272,  274,  285-88,  293,  302. 

2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  23  Eliz.,  c.  2. 

*  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  in,  App.,  no.  xxvi. 

4  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  27  Eliz.,  c.  2;  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  ccxvi,  no.  22. 

5  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  27  Eliz.,  c.  I ;  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  II,  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,1  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 
1  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."  1 

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  filii  lucis,  want  our  policies  and 
prudence."  2 

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 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  ccvii;  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccxlix. 
1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccciv,  Parker  to  Burghley,  Sept.  16,  1572;  Strypc, 
Annals,  vol.  II,  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  CeciJ.  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 

>ntent  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  Mary  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.1 
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.2  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   1593 

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.  n,  pp. 
285,  286,  paper  drawn  up  by  Parsons  and  Allen. 

9  Pierce,  Introduction  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.1  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 

1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  35  EHz.,  c.  2. 

1  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.1 

In  1601  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  observation  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 
1  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  Hatfield  MSS.,  pt.  vn,  pp.  363-64. 


48      INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

disclaiming  any  intention  to  permit  a  toleration  in  Eng 
land  :  — 

They  [the  secular  priests]  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.1 

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.2 

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  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CCLXXXV,  no.  55. 

2  Usher,  Reconstruction,  vol.  I,  pp.  132-37,  156-59. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  CATHOLICS       49 

isses  of  Mary's  reign  were  fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
as  a  horrible  example  of  papal  cruelty  which  it  was  the  pride 
>f  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.1  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- 

1  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."  l  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  suffered  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  victims  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  observer  it  seems 
useless  to  try  to  distinguish  in  every  case  between  the 
justly  and  the  unjustly  condemned  upon  the  basis  of  such 

1  W.  S.  Lilly,  "England  since  the  Reformation,"  Catholic  Encyclopedia^ 
vol.  v,  p.  449. 


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  Catholics.  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."1  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  I585,2  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  3  provided  that 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  cxcix;  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CLXXVI,  no.  9;  Strype, 
Annals,  vol.  n,  pt.  I,  p.  495;  pt.  II,  App.,  no.  xl. 

2  27  Eliz.,  c.  ii.  •  35  Eliz.,  c.  n,  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.1  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, 

1  See  R.  B.  Merriman,  "Notes  on  the  Treatment  of  the  English  Catholics 
in  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth,"  American  Historical  Review,  April,  1908,  vol.  xm, 
no.  3,  for  a  project  to  send  poor  Catholics  to  America. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  CATHOLICS        55 


ply  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.1  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.2  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  efforts  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.  cxxvn,  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."  1  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.2  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 
principal!  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.3 

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.4  Further,  the  essential 
defect  of  the  act  was  hardly  more  responsible  for  the  failure 
to  impose  the  large  fine  than  was  Elizabeth's  attitude.6 

1  Span.  CaL,  Eliz.,  vol.  in,  no.  57,  p.  70.  2  Ibid.,  no.  79. 

3  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  cxxxvi,  no.  15. 

4  Span.  CaL,  Eliz.,  vol.  m,  no.  109;  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  cxxxvi,  no. 
17;  vol.  cxiv,  no.  22. 

6  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CLV,  no.  42. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  CATHOLICS        57 

'he  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  was  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.1 
When  the  contributions  of  recusants  2  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.3  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 

1  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CLVII,  no.  51;  vol.  CLI,  nos.  72  and  73. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  CLXXXIII,  nos.  15,  23,  32,  33,  35,  38,  40,  45,  46,  51,  53,  57,  6l, 
62,  71,  72;  vol.  CLXXXIV,  nos.  41,  45,  46,  61. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  CLXXXVI,  nos.  81-83;  vol.  CLXXXVII,  no.  45. 


58      INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

not  yet  satisfied  with  the  returns.1  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  1581  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.2 

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.3  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.4  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 

1  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CLXXXVII,  nos.  45,  48,  49,  64;  vol.  CLXXXIX,  nos.  2, 
17,  47,  48;  vol.  cxc,  no.  n;  vol.  cxciv,  no.  73;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  ill,  pt. 
II,  App.,  no.  xiii. 

1  29  Eliz.,  c.  6;  D'Ewes,  Journals,  pp.  387-88,  415-17. 

1  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  /,  pp. 
214,  264-67,  337;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  iv,  no.  cxxxii;  no.  xxxi. 

4  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,1  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;  S.  P.,  Dom., 
Eliz.,  vol.  xix,  no.  24;  vol.  LXXIV,  no.  22. 


60      INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 


effective  supervision.  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  knoweth  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.1 

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  Justine  such  formes,  as  keep  oyle  still  in 
yt  Lampe.2 

'  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- 

1  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Jac.  /,  vol.  xm,  no.  25.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xii,  no.  28. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  CATHOLICS       61 

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  case.  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.1 

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.1 

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 

1  "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. 

3  Burleigh,  "Execution  of  Justice,"  and  Walsingham's  letter  printed  in 
Burnet,  pt.  n,  bk.  in,  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. 


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.1  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 
1  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CCLXXV,  no.  28,  no.  31. 


68      INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

and  not  entirely  acceptable  to  some  Protestants,1  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,2  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.3  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  offenders."  4  Bancroft  granted  that  her 
authority  was  equal  to  that  of  the  Pope.  Parker  was  more 
cautious.  He  wrote:  "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.  in,  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  [Henricum  VIII]  Summum  Caput  Ecclesiae  sub 
Christo." 

2  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz,,  vol.  xv,  no.  27;  vol.  xxvn,  no.  40;  Thirty-nine  Articles, 
on  the  Civil  Magistrate. 

8  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  cclxx. 

4  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  in,  p.  167.    Cf.  also,  ibid.,  vol.  I,  pp.  396-97,  410-11; 
vol.  in,  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."  l  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."  2 
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."  3 

No  party,  not  even  the  more  radical  Protestants,4  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."  5  But 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  cclxx.  2  Ibid.,  no.  ccclxix. 

3  Zurich  Letters,  no.  clxxvii. 

4  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.  ^  6  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  vm,  chap.  I,  sec.  2. 


70     INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

mediaeval  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  Erastian 
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,1  and  had  given  to  the  Queen 
authority  to  make  ordinances  and  rules  in  churches  col 
legiate,  corporations,  and  schools,2  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.3  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.4  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 

1  Act  of  Supremacy,  par.  vii. 

*  i  Eliz.,  c.  22;  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  cv,  cvii. 

1  The  Act  of  Uniformity,  par.  xiii.   Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  xciv  and  xcv. 

4  Act  of  Uniformity,  par.  viii. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  71 

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.1  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.  cvm, 
nos.  7,  8;  vol.  cxix,  no.  60;  vol.  LXXVII,  no.  81;  vol.  XLVI,  nos.  19,  20,  32;  vol. 
xxni,  no.  56;  vol.  xxvi,  nos.  41,  42;  Prothero,  Select  Statutes,  pp.  241,  240,  237, 
235.  232,  150;  Gee,  Elizabethan  Clergy,  pp.  37-38;  Birt,  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.1  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  2  that  appeals  from  the  Archbishop's 
Court  might  be  made  to  the  king  and  be  determined  by  a 
Royal  Commission.3  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. 

8  25  Henry  VIII,  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.1  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, 2 
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.3  Since  such  commissions  were 
not,  according  to  Blackstone,4  "a  matter  of  right,  which  the 
subject  may  demand,  ex  debito  justitice :  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  Elackstone,  Com.,  vol.  n,  bk.  in,  c.  v,  p.  65;  Phillimore,  Ecc.  Law,  vol.  n, 
p.  970;  W.  F.  Finlason,  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  p.  68;  Brod- 
rick  and  Freemantle,  Collections  of  Judgments,  p.  xlvi. 

8  Brodrick  and  Freemantle,  pp.  xliii-xliv. 

1  Phillimore,  Ecc.  Law,  vol.  n,  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. 

4  Blackstone,  vol.  n,  bk.  in,  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,1  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  itself e 
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." 2  But  Cosin  wrote  in  1593,  in 
defense  of  its  activity,  "the  device  of  the  Commission  Eccle- 
siasticall  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."  3  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, 

1  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. 

3  Richard  Cosin,  Apology  of  and  for  Sundry  Proceedings  by  Jurisdiction  Ec 
clesiastical  (1593),  pt.  i,  p.  in.  Cf.  Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  i,  p.  267;  Calderwood, 
History  of  the  Scottish  Kirk,  vol.  vii,  p.  63. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  75 

md  to  be  exercised  in  such  way,  as  was  consonant  with 
legal  practice  in  ecclesiastical  courts,  although  in  part  cre- 

ited  free  from  restraints  in  order  that  action  might  be  ex- 
lited.  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  preserved, 
however,  by  the  fact  that  the  bishop  might  reserve  such 
particular  cases  as  he  or  the  Crown  desired  for  his  own  hear 
ing.1  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.2 
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 

1  Report  of  the  Ecc.  C-omm.  (1832),  pp.  11-12,  and  for  1883,  pp.  25-26. 

2  Phillimore,  Ecc.  Law,  vol.  II,  p.  970. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  77 

offenses  at  first  instance.  The  justices  held  office  and  exer 
cised  power  by  virtue  of  commission  from  the  Crown,1  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.2  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 

1  Prothero,  Select  Statutes,  pp.  144,  147,  149;   Crompton,  L' Office  et  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  of 
the  Peace  in  England,  New  York,  1904. 

2  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xix,  no.  42;  vol.  xxi,  no.  13. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  no.  29;  vol.  xvi,  no.  49;  vol.  LX,  no.  53;  Acts  of  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.  •  1 , 

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.1 

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  effective  means  of  control  than  that  afforded  her  by 
the  laws  of  the  kingdom.  Various  sections  of  the  country, 
various  cities  and  institutions,2  were  especally  favored  or 

1  Blackstone,  Com.,  bk.  in,  c.  vn,  pp.  108,  in. 

2  The  Universities  were  especially  important  and  very  tenacious  of  their 
charter  rights.  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  cclxiv,  note  3;  5.  P.,  Dom.y  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.1 
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  1 563.2  We  learn  that  out  of  a  total  of  six  hun 
dred  and  forty-one  churches  in  London,  forty-seven  were 

1  Holdsworth,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  vol.  I,  p.  370. 

1  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.1 

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.2 

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 

1  Phillemore,  Ecc.  Law,  pp.  214,  441;  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccxcvi;  Grindal, 
Remains,  p.  150,  item  n. 

2  Coke,  4  Inst.,  p.  205.  Cf.  G.  T.  Lapsley,  County  Palatine  of  Durham;  Holds- 
worth,  Eng.  Law,  vol.  I,  p.  50. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  81 

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.1 

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. 

1  27  H.  VIII,  c.  24;  32  H.  VIII,  c.  50;  34  H.  VIII,  c.  26;  13  Eliz.,  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.1  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.2 

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 

1  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.1  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  observance  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/1 
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.2 

1  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xvm,  no.  21;  vol.  ccvin,  no.  15  and  no.  34. 
8  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,1 
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 

1  Finlason,  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  pp.  16,  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.1  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.2  Probably  none  was  placed  at  the  time.  Whatever 
came  to  their  attention  as  requiring  correction  or  guidance, 

1  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.  in,  pp.  14-16. 

2  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  in,  nos.  52,  54;  vol.  XI,  nos.  16,  25;  vol.  xxi,  no.  7; 
vol.  xxiv,  no.  24;  vol.  xn,  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.1  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.2 

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. 
8  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  I,  pt.  n,  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.1 

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 ;  2  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."3  "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."4  He  felt  that  the  clergy  were 

1  Puritan  Manifestoes,  Second  Admonition,  p.  91. 

8  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  cvii,  clxx,  cclxxiii.  8  Ibid.,  no.  clxxvi.    ' 

4  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."  1  Aylmer  bluntly  said, 
"  I  am  blamed  for  not  taking  upon  me  a  matter  wherein  she 
herself  would  not  be  seen."  2  < 

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  preserved  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- 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  clxxix. 

1  Strype,  Aylmer,  p.  77;  cf.  also  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  cxiv,  cxxvii,  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.1  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 
1  Cf.  Thirty-nine  Articles,  Arts,  xix  and  xxn. 


92      INTOLERANCE  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 

"HE  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  indifferent  to  religious 
interest,  but  primarily  fighting  for  self-preservation;  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  1571, 
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  a  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.1  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.2 

We  find  the  clergy  taking  pride  in  its  "  mediocrity, "  al 
though  there  could  be  little  defense  of  the  Church  from  that 
standpoint.3  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  earnest- 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  cxvi;  cf.  no.  clxiv. 

s  Ibid.,  no.  cxxvii;  cf.  Strype,  Parker,  bk.  i,  p.  126. 

1  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."  1 

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 

1  Puritan  Manifestoes,  Second  Admonition,  p.  89.  Cf.  Burrage,  English 
senters,  vol.  n,  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  way  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,"  1 
1  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."  1  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,2  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 ; 3  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  No  well,  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 

1  Hook,  Lives  of  the  Archbishops,  Parker,  p.  353.  Cf.  Child,  Church  and  State, 
p.  196. 

2  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  ccxxiv,  ccxxv;  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  XLI,  no.  43; 
D'Ewes,  Journals,  pp.  132,  133. 

8  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."  l  "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?  "  2 

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. 
8  Zurich  Letters,  no.  xxxix,  Sampson  to  Martyr. 


ioo    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.1  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  office  than  about  the 
spiritual  duties  connected  therewith.2  Earnest  and  trained 
men  to  take  the  lower,  more  intimate  pastoral  offices  were 

1  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. 

2  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  n,  pt.  I,  pp.  331,  463,  467;  Strype,  Aylmer,  p.  169; 
Froude,  History  of  England,  vol.  xn,  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  Mar  prelate  Tracts,  pp.  101  et  seg_. 


ANGLICANISM  101 

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.1 

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.2 

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.3 

The  greed  of  patrons  enabled  the  unfit  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 
Quare  impedit  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 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  Ixxxvi. 

s  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.  n,  p.  1012;  vol.  iv,  pp.  909,  873;  Zurich  Letters,  no.  Ivi;  Strype, 
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    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

bestowed  since  they  were  bishops,  or  I  think  will  do  while  they 
be  bishops.1 

Political  caution  enabled  disloyal  parish  priests  who  had 
served  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.2 

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; 3  ministerial  office,  of  the  lesser  kind  at  least,  carried 
with  it  no  guarantee  or  expectation  of  respectability.4 
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  inefficient  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?"  5 

1  Cooper,  Admonition,  p.  147,  quoted  in  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  vol.  n,  bk.  vn, 
chap,  xxiv,  sec.  7,  note  87.   Cf.  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  vol.  n,  bk.  vn,  chap,  xxiv, 
sec.  7,  p.  210. 

2  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccxcvii.   Cf.  also  Usher,  Reconstruction,  vol.  I,  pp.  35, 
no,  in;  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  ix,  no.  71;  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  313. 

3  Hall,  Elizabethan  Age,  chap,  vn,  "The  Courtier";  App.,  pp.  242-50. 

4  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.  in,  p.  174;  Usher,  Recon- 


I  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,1  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  with  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.  n,  App.,  p.  104;  Hooker, 
Ecc.  Pol.,bk.  vn,  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;  S.P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  XLI,  no.  44;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  n, 
pt.  II,  App.,  nos.  viii,  ix;  vol.  II,  pt.  I,  App.,  nos.  xxiii,  xxxviii,  xxxix. 


iO4    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. 
Yet  many  men  had  been  by  that  time  educated  under  the 
Elizabethan  Church,1  and  perhaps  there  was  as  much  moral 
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 
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 
Elizabeth's  reign  the  consciousness  in  the  Anglican  Church 
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."  1 
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.2  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.  in,  p.  176. 

2  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,  1123.  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. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  65,  75;  vol.  in,  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.1 

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."  2  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- 

1  Cf.  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.,  Pref.,  chap,  iv,  sec.  4,  p.  137. 

8  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.  vm,  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  service  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 
veloped  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  whose  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  in 

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.1 

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."3  The  attempt  of  Whitgift  to  call  in  question 
the  validity  of  Travers's  Continental  ordination,  and  the 
appeals  made  to  the  case  of  Whittingham,4  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.  n,  p.  102.   Cf.  Cranmer,  Remains  and 
Letters,  p.  305. 

3  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  m,  p.  322.   Cf.  also  ibid,.,  vol.  m,  pp.  103,  104,  106, 
309-10. 

4  Cf.  Maitland,  Essays,  "  Puritan  Politics,"  no.  ii,  pp.  77-98;  Strype,  Annals, 
vol.  II,  pt.  n,  App.,  no.  xiii;  Strype,  Parkert  156,  App.,  nos.  xxvii,  xlvii. 


H2    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  Parliament  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.1 

The  generally  accepted  opinion,  confirmed  by  practice,  was 
that  the  act  admitted  of  Presbyterian  ordination.2  Whit- 
gift's  opponents,  and  some  of  his  friends,  interpreted  his 
attack  as  an  expedient  and  illegal  glorification  of  the 
episcopal  office. 

.  .  .  Let  our  aduersaryes  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.3 

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 

1  13  Eliz.,  c.  12. 

8  Strype,  Grindal,  bk.  vi,  chap,  xm;  Cosin,  Works,  vol.  iv,  pp.  403-07,  449- 
50;  Bacon,  quoted,  p.  147. 

3  Penry's  Answer  to  Fifteen  Slanderous  Articles,  Burrage,  Eng,  Dissenters, 
vol.  n,  p.  67.  Cf.  also,  Travers's  Supplication,  in  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  u,  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.1 

A  theory  of  divine  right  episcopacy  implies  an  independ 
ence  and  freedom  of  action  for  ecclesiastical  officials  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.2 

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.3  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.4 

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."5 

1  Quoted  in  Child,  Church  and  Stale,  p.  293.  Cf.  Lee,  Elizabethan  Church, 
vol.  ii,  p.  124.  2  Cooper,  Admonition  (Arber  ed.),  p.  137. 

3  Quoted  in  Hunt,  Religious  Thought,  vol.  in,  p.  298;  Strype,  Whitgift,  App., 
no.  xlii,  Whitgift  to  Sir  Francis  Knollys. 

4  Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  m,  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. 


ii4    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

Nevertheless,  their  statements  which  showed  the  apos 
tolic  tendency  excited  the  wrath  of  their  opponents  and  the 
condemnation  of  their  friends.  Knollys  wrote  in  anger  and 
excitement  to  Cecil,1  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,2  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.3 

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  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  cccxxxm,  no.  62;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  iv,  no.  iv, 
App.,  no.  v. 

2  Travers,  Supplication  to  the  Council,  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  u,  pp.  329-38; 
Hooker's  answer  to  Travers,  ibid.,  pp.  339-51. 

3  Hooker,  Works,  Ecc.  Pol.,  vol.  in,  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."1 

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 ; 2  some 
have,  because  of  the  contradictions  and  denials,  refused  to 
recognize  its  existence  at  all  at  that  date.3  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  Whitgift  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 

1  Hooker,  ubi  sup.,  bk.  vil,  chap,  xiv,  sec.  2,  p.  175.    Cf.  also  bk.  HI,  chap. 
II,  sec.  2;  Editor's  preface,  p.  xxxiii,  n.  49;  Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  n,  p.  202; 
5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  vu,  no.  46,  for  a  later  falsification  of  the  facts  in 
accordance  with  later  apostolic  theory.    Cf.  Saravia's  treatises. 

2  Hook,  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  (New  Series),  Grindal,  vol.  v,  p.  41. 

3  Child,  Church  and  State,  App.,  no.  vi. 


n6    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."  1 

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  affairs,  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- 
1  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  in,  chap,  xi,  sec.  14. 


ANGLICANISM  117 


ents  of  Whitgift  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- 


n8    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  time  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."1  Jewel 

1  Jewel,  Works,  Def.  of  ApoL,  p.  610.    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,"  1  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.2 

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 

1  Cartwright,  apud  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  37. 

2  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  123,  n.  12,  Christian  Letter.  Cf.  also  ibid.,  vol.  I, 
p.  86. 


I2O    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.1 

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.2 

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 

1  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  n,  chap,  vn,  sec.  6,  p.  213. 

z  Ibid.,  Pref.,  chap,  m,  sec.  2,  p.  130.  Cf.  ibid.,  chap,  iv,  sec.  4;  bk.  n,  chap, 
vn,  sec.  3;  bk.  m,  chap,  vm,  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." 1  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.2 

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.3 

...  It  had  either  divine  appointment  before  hand  or  divine 
approbation  afterwards,  and  is  in  that  respect  to  be  acknowledged 
the  ordinance  of  God.4 

1  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  iv,  pp.  1121-22.   Cf.  ibid.,  pp.  897,  1162-88. 

2  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  vn,  chap,  v,  sec.  10. 

1  Ibid.,  bk.  vn,  chap,  in,  sec.  I.  4  Ibid.,  bk.  vn,  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." l  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.2 

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- 

1  Hooker,  ubi  sup.,  bk.  in,  chap,  n,  sec.  I.  Cf.  also,  ibid.,  bk.  iv,  chap,  xm, 
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.1 

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."  3  "We  give  him  that  prerogative  and  chiefty  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."4  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.  vm,  chap.  I,  sec.  2.    Cf.  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I, 
p.  388. 

2  Hooker,  ubi  sup.,  bk.  vm,  chaps,  vn  and  vm. 

3  Jewel,  Works,  vol.  iv,  "Epistle  to  Scipio."   Cf.  vol.  Ill,  p.  167. 

4  Jewel,  ubi  sup.,  p.  1123. 


124    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

consistent  with  his  ecclesiastical  theory,  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? l 
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.2 

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.   Cf.  ibid.,  no.  cccxiii. 


126    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

which  their  subservience  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  fervor  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  serve  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  men  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.1  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.1 

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.2 

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.  n,  p.  188.    Cf.  also  ibid.,  vol.  I,  pp.  170,  142,  122; 
Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  i,  pp.  229-32;  vol.  in,  pp.  81,  104-07;  Pierce,  Introd.  to 
Mar  prelate  Tracts,  pp.  71,  72. 

2  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  v,  chap,  vm,  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  ; 1  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  Reformation 
or  the  f urtherers  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  use  the  term  "  Puritan"  to  designate  all  who 
wished  reform;  while  others  have  applied  the  name  to  all 
within  the  Church  who  wished  reform,  and  have  called  those 
who  attempted  to  accomplish  their  reforms  outside  the 
Church,  "Separatists."  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."  1  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 
church.  The  use  of  the  term  for  purposes  of  classification  is 
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 

1  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  171.  Cf.  ibid.,  p.  172;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  HI, 
pt.  i,  pp.  264-68. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  133 

time.  At  the  beginning  of  James  Fs  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.1 

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.2 

Further,  the  familiar  division  of  English  dissent  into 
Puritan  and  Separatist  is  inaccurate  and  unsatisfactory  for 
Elizabeth's  reign,  because  it  is  difficult  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 

1  Report  on  the  Rutland  Papers,  vol.  iv,  p.  213. 

2  Cartwright,.a/>ttd  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  HO. 


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 
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."  1  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,  apud  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  102.  Cf.  ibid.,  vol.  I,  pp.  95, 
104;  Theses  Martiniancs,  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.1 

"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."  2  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.  xm,  no.  36;  Strype,  Grindal,  p.  181 ;  Grindal,  Re 
mains,  p.  243;  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  II,  p.  21;  vol.  I,  pp.  64,  66. 

2  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.1  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.2 
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,  Marprelate  Tracts,  Introd.,  p.  xxiii;  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol., Preface, 
chap,  in,  sec.  7;  ibid.,  note  57. 

2  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  n,  p.  61,  note;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  in,  pt.  n,  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.1 


1  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.1 

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  1 563.2  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 : — 

1  Zurich  Letters,  Earl  of  Bedford  to  R.  Gualter,  no.  xli.    Cf.  ibid.,  nos.  ii,  v, 
vii,  Ix;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  in,  pt.  I,  pp.  25  et  seq.;  pt.  II,  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  effect  that  object.1 

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.2 

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.3 

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.4 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  xxxiv,  Jewel  to  Martyr.    Cf.  ibid.,  nos.  xv,  xxxii. 
8  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  xlix,  Sandys  to  Parker.   Cf.  Zurich  Letters,  no.  xlviii. 
1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  cxxi.    Cf.  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  clxxv,  clxxix,  ccxiii, 
ccxviii;  Grindal,  Remains,  pp.  211,  242,  Letters,  no.  Ixix. 

4  Strype,  Parker,  bk.  II,  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.1 

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.2 

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  chief est  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.3 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  cvii.   Cf.  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  Ixv,  cxvii. 

2  Puritan  Manifestoes,  App.,  p.  152. 

3  George  Cranmer's  letter  to  Hooker,  App.  n  to  bk.  v  of  Ecc.  Pol.,  vol.  II, 
p.  64. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  141 

Of  Leicester  Parker  wrote  to  Cecil :  — 

I  am  credibly  informed  that  the  earl  is  unquiet,  and  conferreth 
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.1 

Walsingham  appointed  the  Puritan  Reynolds  to  the  di 
vinity  lecture  at  Oxford  founded  to  discredit  Romanism.2 
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.3  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.4 

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.5  But  in  1565,  under  pres- 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccclxvii.   Cf.  ibid.,  nos.  clxxix,  ccxviii,  ccxix,  cclxxvi, 
cccxi,  cccxii,  cccxxviii. 

2  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  xxx. 

8  Parker  Corresp.,  p.  457,  note  2.    Cf.  also,  nos.  cccl,  cccli,  cccliii. 

4  Ibid.,  nos.  clxxviii,  clxxix,  clxxxiv,  clxxxv,  clxxxvi;  Grindal,  Remains,  Let 
ters,  no.  Ixxvii;  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  CLXXII,  no.  I.  Travers,  Hooker's  oppo 
nent  at  the  Temple  Church,  was  Burghley's  chaplain  and  tutor  to  his  children. 

6  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.1  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. 

1  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?"  1  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  observed.  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.  Humphrey3 
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?4  Many  devout  and 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccclxix.    Cf.  conclusion  of  the  Advertisements. 

2  Grindal,  Remains,  p.  210. 

3  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvi,  no.  64;  vol.  xxxix,  no.  63;  Zurich  Letters, 
nos.  Ixxxv,  ci,  cix,  cii;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  I,  pt.  n,  App.,  no.  xxvii;  Strype, 
Parker,  bk.  n,  App.,  nos.  xxx,  xxxi. 

4  It  seems  curious  to  find  Whitgift's  name  among  those  who  took  this  posi 
tion.    Cf.  Strype,  Parker,  bk.  in,  chap,  in,  p.  125,  and  App.,  no.  xxxix;  S.  P., 
Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvm,  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  otherwise  for  this  matter  than  as  it 
appeareth  openly,  what  the  sequel  will  be  horresco  vel  reminis- 
cendo.1  And  must  I  do  still  all  things  alone?  I  am  not  able,  and 

1  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.1 

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  with  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  would  have  given 
way  as  she  did  in  other  cases,  but  she  sensed  the  situation 
too  well  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  would 
offer  their  goods  and  bodies  to  prison,  rather  than  they 
would  relent,"  Elizabeth  replied  by  ordering  him  to  im 
prison  them  then.2  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  clergy  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.3 


1  Parker  Corresp.,  no.  ccxiii.    Cf.  also,  ibid.,  nos.  cxiv,  clxxvi,  cciii,  cccxxi. 

8  Ibid.,  no.  ccxiii.    Cf.  also,  ibid.,  nos.  clxx,  clxxi,  ccxcii. 

8  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.1  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.2 

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  office, 
you  will  expose  the  churches  to  wolves,  or  at  least  to  teachers  who 

1  Cf.  Elizabeth's  letter  to  Grindal,  Prothero,  Select  Statutes,  pp.  205,  206. 

2  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.1 

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.2 

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,  clxxv,  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  more  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 

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  make  their  whole  direction  against  the  living  of  bishops 
and  other  ecclesiastical  ministers :  that  they  should  have  no  tem 
poral  lands  or  jurisdiction.1 

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  belief 
was  justified  by  the  fact  that  the  acts  of  Parliament  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.1 
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.2  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 

1  D'Ewes,  Journals,  pp.  132,  133;  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  ccxxiv,  ccxxv. 

2  S.  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/' 1 
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.2  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.3 

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,4  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. 

8  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  Fielde  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,  officials 
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  fhat 
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, 

Pand  An ti Christian  rites  in  publique  pulpits  defended."  1 
"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."  2  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  anti- 
aristocratic  and  democratic. 

1  Puritan  Manifestoes,  p.  12. 

2  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.1 

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,2  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 

1  Puritan  Manifestoes,  p.  154.  «  Ibid.,  p.  71. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  155 

ifore,  and  over  substantially  the  same  questions  when 
"artwright  was  Lady  Margaret  Professor  at  the  University 
of  Cambridge  and  Whitgift  Master  of  Trinity  College.1  In 
that  contest  Whitgift  succeeded  in  expelling  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  plainely,  that  you  may 
have  sufficient  light  to  proceede  by.  .  .  .2 

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.  Cartwright's  work  is  less  interesting  than 

1  Grindal,  Remains,  Letters,  no.  Ixv,  and  note  4;  Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  I,  p.  19; 
Strype,  Annals,  vol.  n,  pt.  I,  App.,  nos.  i,  iii;  5.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  LXXI,  no.  II. 

2  "  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.1  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.  clxxxii,  clxxxvi,  cxcii,  cxciii;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  in, 
pt.  ii,  App.,  no.  xlix. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  157 

:ion  based  upon  Scriptural  model  which  the  "First  Admo- 
tition"  suggested. 

By  the  consent  of  all,  evidently,  Cartwright  was  now  re 
garded  as  the  head  of  the  opposition,  and  the  controversy, 

far  as  it  was  a  Presbyterian  controversy,  was  left  pretty 
largely  in  his  hands.  He  wrote  at  once,  "A  Reply  to  an  An- 

rere  made  of  Doctor  Whitgift,"  and  then  escaped  to  the 
Continent  in  time  to  avoid  a  warrant  issued  for  his  arrest 
>y  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners.1  Elizabeth's  procla 
mation  against  the  two  " Admonitions"  2  made  that  a  safe 

tntage-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,  made  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."  3 

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  Discipline  .  .  .  Explicate."  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 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  cciii.    Cf.  Soames,  Elizabethan  History,  p.  141. 

2  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xci,  no.  47;  Zurich  Letters,  no.  cxc;  Puritan  Mani 
festoes,  App.  v;  Strype,  Parker,  vol.  n,  p.  320. 

8  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.1 

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. 

1  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.1  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 

*  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  n,  pp.  6,  60,  195.  259;  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  ill, 
chap,  v,  sec.  I ;  chap,  vn,  sec.  4. 


160    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,2  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." 3  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.  115. 
In  later  editions  "  King  Edward's  priests  "  was  omitted.    Cf.  Cambridge  His 
tory  of  English  Literature,  vol.  in,  p.  403. 

2  Zurich  Letters,  no.  clxxvii;  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  26,  note  3;  pp.  180, 
183;  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  227,  note  61. 

»  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  n,  chap,  vn,  sec.  I. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  161 

lecessity.  In  so  far  as  ecclesiastical  polity  is  brought  into 
forefront  of  religious  propaganda,  it  becomes  narrow 

id  intolerant.  Anglicanism  removed  ecclesiastical  polity 
from  the  list  of  things  religiously  essential;  polity  was  a 

latter  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.1  Anglicanism 
may  have  been  intolerant  of  diversity  in  matters  of  polity 
and  ritual,  but  it  was  an  intolerance  based,  not  upon  a 
theory  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, 

1  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  184. 

2  Cartwright,  Second  Reply,  apud  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  116,  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.1 

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 
Patri?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 

1  Cartwright,  apud  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  270. 

2  Cartwright,  Second  Admonition,  apud  Whitgift,  Works,   vol.   I,  p.  119, 
note  6. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  163 

very  essence.1  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  served  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 

1  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  Anglicanism  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  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine.  Anglicanism  was,  as  we  have  pointed  out 

1  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- 
anism  were  not  relished  by  many  of  the  bishops.  Most  of 
them  classed  together,  "wolves,  Papists,  Lutherans,  Sad- 
ducees  and  Herodians,"1  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  Lutheranism."  2  They  were  for  the  most  part 
Calvinistic  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  Calvinistic  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  exclusiveness,  gave 
occasion  for  some  of  the  most  strikingly  intolerant  utter 
ances  of  Presbyterianism.  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." 3  Undoubtedly  some  men  should  be  damned. 
The  doctrinal  opposition  of  the  Presbyterians  did  not  result 
in  an  increased  hardening  of  Anglican  dogmatic  standards 

1  Zurich  Letters,  no.  cviii. 

8  Ibid.,  no.  cxxx.    Cf.  ibid.,  nos.  cxxiv,  cxi,  cxxi,  ccxv. 
8  Nares,  Burghley,  vol.  m,  p.  348.   Cf.  "First  Admonition,"  Puritan  Mani 
festoes,  p.  29;  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.  n,  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.1  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 
with  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. 


168    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  authentic,  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  majestic  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.1 

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  officers.  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  Martiniana, 
Pierce,  Mar  prelate  Tracts,  p.  309. 

2  But  cf.  the  Act  of  Uniformity  on  this  point. 


170    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

unto  the  church,  to  submit  their  sceptres,  to  throw  down  their 
crowns  before  the  church,  yea,  as  the  prophet  speaketh,  to  lick 
the  dust  off  the  feet  of  the  church."  1 

Rhetorical  as  this  language  undoubtedly  is,  it  is  strikingly 
similar  in  sentiment,  as  well  as  expression,  to  the  language 
of  some  of  those  great  bishops  of  Rome  whom  the  Protestant 
Reformers  denounced  so  heartily.  This  presents  clearly 
enough  the  relationship  which  it  was  proposed  should  exist 
between  Church  and  State  when  Presbyterianism  was 
established.  This  was  essentially  the  true  position  of 
Elizabethan  Presbyterianism,  although  we  find  the  point 
obscured  by  numberless  protestations  of  ministerial  humil 
ity.  They  were  loyal  inasmuch  as  they  were  whole-heartedly 
opponents  of  her  most  dangerous  enemies,  the  Papists. 
They  acknowledged  her  supremacy  in  temporal  things,  and 
over  spiritual  persons  in  temporal  matters. 

If  the  question  be,  whether  princes  and  magistrates  be  neces 
sary  in  the  church,  it  holdeth  that  the  use  of  them  is  more  than  of 
the  sun,  without  the  which  the  world  cannot  stand.  If  it  be  of 
their  honour,  it  holdeth  that,  with  humble  submission  of  mind, 
the  outward  also  of  the  body,  yea  the  body  itself,  and  all  that  it 
hath,  if  need  so  require,  are  to  be  yielded  for  the  defence  of  the 
prince,  and  for  that  service,  for  the  which  the  prince  will  use  them 
unto,  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  maintenance  of  the  common 
wealth.2 

They  were  humble  and  unpretentious  inasmuch  as  they 
were  suppressed  and  felt  their  lack  of  power.  In  spite,  there 
fore,  of  these  protestations  the  Presbyterians  came  into 
conflict  with  the  government  and  were  subject  to  suppres 
sion  by  the  government. 

The  religious  acts  intended  primarily  for  the  suppression 
of  Papists  afforded  the  legal  basis  for  the  prosecution  and 
the  Presbyterians  protested  that "  lawes  that  were  purposely 

^  l  Quoted  in  Madox,  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  122.  Cf.  also, 
"  Second  Admonition,"  Puritan  Manifestoes,  p.  93;  Cartwright,  apud  Whitgift, 
Works,  vol.  i,  p.  390;  ibid.,  pp.  27,  377;  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  clxxxvii,  cxciv. 

2  Cartwright,  apud  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  20.  Cf.  also,  ibid.,  vol.  I,  pp.  21 , 
79,  82,  105. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  171 

made  for  the  wicked,  be  made  snares  by  you  to  catch  the 
godly."  1  Until  the  drastic  legislation  of  1593,  the  provision 
of  the  act,2  which  demanded  that  all  clerics  below  the  dig 
nity  of  bishop  should  subscribe  to  "all  the  articles  of  reli 
gion  which  only  concern  the  confession  of  the  true  Christian 
faith  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments"  comprised  in  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  served  as  the  legal  basis  of  restraint 
upon  the  nonconformists.  The  phrase  was  interpreted  by 
the  bishops  to  mean  that  by  the  act  subscription  was  re 
quired  to  all  the  Articles,  those  relating  to  the  government 
as  well  as  those  relating  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.3 
The  opponents  of  the  bishops  interpreted  it  as  meaning 
that  subscription  was  required  by  the  act  to  the  articles  of 
religion  only.  Under  the  leadership  of  Whitgift  the  Church 
proceeded,  by  means  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Commission  and 
the  oath  ex  officio,  to  subject  the  dissenters  to  great  hard 
ships.  In  this  course  Whitgift  had  the  support  of  the 
Queen,  although  he  was  impeded  sometimes  by  the  oppo 
sition  of  members  of  her  Council.  For  the  most  part,  how 
ever,  this  unofficial  governmental  opposition  was  not 
exercised  because  of  favor  to  Presbyterian  principles,  but 
because  of  dislike  for  the  ecclesiastical  aggrandizement  of 
the  bishops  and  their  harshness.  A  great  deal  of  the  severity 
shown  during  this  period  was  due  to  the  personal  character 
of  the  men  in  charge  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  men  like  Whit 
gift,  Bancroft,  and  Aylmer,  rather  than  to  a  consistent 
regard  for  the  principles  of  the  Establishment.  The  oppo 
sition  to  their  proceedings  by  Cecil  and  other  men  of  influ 
ence  was  excited  by  humanitarian  principles,  rather  than 
by  intellectual  or  religious  sympathy  with  those  who 
suffered  from  the  proceedings  of  the  bishops. 

1  "An  Exhortation  to  the  Byshops  to  deale  Brotherly  with  theyr  brethren," 
Puritan  Manifestoes,  p.  67;  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  Illustrative 
Documents,  p.  21. 

8  13  Eliz.,  c.  12. 

3  D'Ewes,  Journals,  pp.  132,  160,  184;  Strype,  Whitgift,  bk.  in,  App., 
no.  xvi. 


172    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

Convinced  as  they  have  been  of  the  injustice  of  charges 
of  disloyalty  made  against  the  Presbyterians,  defenders  of 
that  system  have  usually  dismissed  the  charges  as  having 
no  other  basis  than  the  vindictiveness  of  the  bishops,  with 
their  cry  of  "Disloyal  to  the  Church,  Disloyal  to  the 
Queen." l  Without  holding  a  brief  for  the  ecclesiastics,  we 
find  more  reasonable  ground  for  the  prevalence  of  these 
charges  on  the  part  of  both  ecclesiastical  and  secular  lead 
ers,  and  for  their  acceptance  by  the  Queen.  Elizabeth  was 
not  so  subject  to  the  influence  of  her  bishops  that  she  would 
permit  them  to  impose  their  merely  ecclesiastical  hatreds 
upon  her.  The  men  supposed  to  have  the  greatest  influence 
upon  her  personal  opinions  were  not  subservient  to  the 
bishops  nor  in  sympathy  with  them  ecclesiastically. 

To  a  man  like  Cecil,  with  his  high  conception  of  the  royal 
prerogative  and  power,  the  ecclesiastical  conditions  in 
Scotland  were  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  Presbyterian- 
ism.  The  Presbyterian  theory  of  the  relation  between 
Church  and  State  would  subordinate  the  Queen  to  the 
clergy.2  That  the  advocates  of  such  theories  should  be  sup 
pressed  and  restrained  by  the  Queen  was  inevitable.  She 
had  a  high  conception  of  her  position  and  she  was  deter 
mined  to  maintain  it.  The  statutes  of  the  realm  gave  her 
the  advantageous  position  in  such  a  contest;  she  could 
legally  suppress  such  variations.  But  had  this  not  been 
true,  it  is  certain  that  she  would  have  used  her  prerogative 
in  spite  of  law ;  interpretation  of  an  ambiguous  phrase  in  the 
statute  of  1571  was  by  no  means  the  full  measure  of  the 
lengths  she  would  have  gone  had  it  been  necessary.  Yet 
there  is  in  her  attitude  little  that  suggests  religious  intoler 
ance.  Such  measures  as  she  took,  or  were  taken  at  her 

1  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  cccxxv,  cccxxvi,  cccxxxi,  cccxxxiii,  ccclxix;  "Second 
Admonition,"  Puritan  Manifestoes,  p.  92;  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  pp.  20,  393, 
423,  466;  vol.  u,  pp.  263,  399;  Usher,  Reconstruction,  vol.  I,  p.  45,  note  2. 

2  Zurich  Letters,  nos.  xxxviii,  note  3;  clxxxv;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  iv,  no.  xciv; 
Hooker,  Works,  App.,  no.  ii  to  bk.  v  of  Ecc.  Pol.',  Cooper,  Admonition,  p.  86; 
Parker  Corresp.,  no.  Ixii. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  173 

direction,  have  in  them  nothing  of  the  spirit  of  religious 
persecution.  Elizabeth  was  influenced  by  no  religious  nar 
rowness  in  her  treatment  of  any  of  the  bodies  of  dissent; 
political  policy  was  the  absolutely  controlling  motive  in 
her  suppression  of  nonconformity  in  all  its  phases.  This 
may  seem  an  extreme  statement  in  view  of  the  measures 
taken  by  her  ecclesiastical  officers,  evidently  at  her  direc 
tion;  but  the  degree  of  coercive  power  she  placed  in  their 
hands  was  -determined  by  the  political  necessity  she  felt 
for  maintaining  her  supremacy  over  the  ecclesiastical 
establishment  of  the  realm,  not  by  the  positive  ecclesias 
tical  intolerance  of  spirit  which  actuated  some  of  the  bishops 
who  administered  that  power.  In  the  case  of  the  Presby 
terians,  rabid  anti-Catholic  propaganda,  appealing  to 
national  sentiments  of  detestation  for  the  Papacy,  threat 
ened  not  only  the  stately  forms  and  ceremonies  which  she 
loved,  but,  more  important  still,  it  endangered  that  policy 
of  conciliation  and  moderation  toward  non-political  Cath 
olics  which  she  felt  compelled  to  maintain  in  the  face  of  its 
unpopularity  with  some  of  her  closest  advisers,  and,  during 
the  last  twenty  years  of  her  reign,  with  a  great  body  of  the 
best  educated  and  most  conscientiously  loyal  of  her  sub 
jects.  The  extreme,  uncompromising  attitude  of  Presby- 
terianism  toward  all  that  savored  of  Catholicism  was  not 
to  her  liking.  She  preferred  the  old  forms.  The  Church 
of  England  was  sufficiently  compliant,  and  there  was  room 
in  its  policy  for  such  winking  at  Catholicism  as  secular 
politics  made  necessary.  Elizabeth  was  willing  to  use  the 
radical  element  as  a  means  of  keeping  political  Catholicism 
in  check,  but  did  not  intend  that  the  extremists  should  so 
gain  the  upper  hand  that  loyal  and  merely  religious  Cath 
olics  should  be  forced  into  opposition  to  her. 

Similarly,  the  exclusive  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  Pres 
byterians  and  their  mathematical  system  of  theology, 
which  carried  with  them  active  condemnation  of  those  Con 
tinental  churches  which  were  not  Genevan  in  form  and 


174    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

doctrine,  might  be  supposed  to  threaten  the  friendship 
which  she  wished  to  maintain  with  all  forms  of  Protestant 
ism,  Lutheran  as  well  as  Calvinistic.  There  is  little  direct 
evidence  to  prove  that  this  aspect  of  Presbyterianism  was 
given  much  consideration,  but  the  conclusion  that  this  may 
have  in  part  influenced  the  attitude  of  the  Queen,  is  at 
least  reasonable,  in  view  of  her  desire  to  be  regarded  as  the 
champion  of  all  anti-papal  movements.  That  repression  of 
Presbyterian  leaders  and  thought  would  alienate  their  Con 
tinental  sympathizers,  may  have  in  part  determined  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  against  Presbyterian  dissent  that  the 
most  severe  and  persistent  repression  was  directed,  but 
against  those  types  of  nonconformity  which  originated  in 
England  itself  and  were,  therefore,  not  representative  of  a 
wing  of  Continental  reform. 

With  the  assistance  of  the  bishops,  Elizabeth  was  made 
to  feel  the  full  force  of  any  possible  arguments  that  could 
be  urged  against  the  Presbyterians  on  the  score  of  disloy 
alty.  Absurd  as  such  charges  were  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  personal  feelings  of  the  representatives  of  the  move 
ment,  there  was,  nevertheless,  that  in  their  theory  and  their 
writings  which  might  easily  be  interpreted  as  more  disloyal 
than  was  mere  condemnation  of  the  Established  Church. 

NON-PRESBYTERIAN  DISSENT 

In  regard  to  the  opinion  and  practice  of  the  nonconform- 
ing  Protestant  movements  which  did  not  ally  themselves 
with  Presbyterianism,  and  have  a  different  development, 
and  other  theories  of  relationship  to  the  Established  Church, 
to  the  State,  and  to  the  other  religious  communions,  it  is 
difficult  to  generalize.  There  developed  from  the  early  op 
position  to  the  Anglican  Establishment  a  variety  of  minor 
movements  and  sects,  other  than  the  Presbyterian.  The 
most  important  of  these,  though  marked  by  the  widest  di 
versity,  belong  to  that  group  of  ecclesiastical  and  religious 
sects  from  which  the  Congregational  theory  and  system  of 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  175 

ecclesiastical  organization  developed.  We  include  under  the 
genetic  name  of  Congregational  the  Barrowists,  the  Brown- 
ists,  the  Anabaptists,  and  with  reservations  the  opinions  of 
Penry,  Greenwood,  Robinson,  and  the  writer  or  writers 
of  the  Martin  "Marprelate  Tracts,"  and  individuals  who 
share  the  essential  characteristic  of  the  group,  but  who  are 
not  to  be  classed  definitely  with  its  main  divisions.  Our 
interest  is  not  primarily  with  the  minutiae  of  the  ecclesias 
tical  or  religious  beliefs  of  individuals,  and  it  is  not  neces 
sary  to  regard  minor  phases  of  dogma  and  practice  in  the 
opinions  of  individuals  which  seem  to  separate  them  from 
the  leaders  of  the  Congregational  movement. 

The  idea  at  the  root  of  all  the  somewhat  heterogeneous 
groups  of  religious  opinion  thus  classified  was  the  idea  that 
the  Church  should  not  be  an  inclusive  body  whose  stand 
ards  of  belief  and  admission  to  membership  were  dictated 
by  state  policy.1  Current  opinion  required  that  all  men 
belong  to  the  Church ;  hence  kindliness  of  heart  and  of  judg 
ment  required  that  all  men  be  admitted  easily  or  even  com 
pelled  to  enter  the  ecclesiastical  body  established  by  law.2 
This  opinion  the  Congregational  groups  rejected.  They 
would  have  no  easy  application  of  the  parable  of  the  wheat 
and  the  tares  so  far  as  church  membership  was  concerned. 
Barrow  in  the  Fleet  Prison  in  1590  wrote:  — 

Never  hath  all  kinds  of  sinne  and  wickedness  more  universally 
raigned  in  any  nation  at  any  time  yet  all  are  received  into  the 
church,  all  made  members  of  Christ.  All  these  people  with  all 
these  manners  were  in  one  daye,  with  the  blast  of  Q.  Elizabeth's 
trumpet  of  ignorant  papistes  and  grosse  idolaters,  made  faithful 
Christians  and  true  professors.3  [The  Church  of  England  is  com 
posed  of]  all  the  profane  and  wicked  of  the  land,  Atheists,  Pa 
pists,  Anabaptists,  and  heretics  of  all  sorts,  gluttons,  rioters,  blas 
phemers,  purgerers,  covetous,  extortioners,  thieves,  whores, 

1  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  pp.  29,  32. 

8  Cardwell,  Doc.  Annals,  vol.  I,  pp.  321,  3^3,  3§7;  Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  in, 
p.  71. 

8  Barrow's  examination,  printed  in  Arber,  Introd.  to  Mar  prelate  Controversy, 
pp.  41-48. 


176    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

witches,  connivers,  etc.,  and  who  not,  that  dwelleth  within  this 
land,  or  is  within  the  Queen's  dominions.1 

Free  from  the  State  and  all  outside  control,  the  local  church 
should  be  made  up  of  individuals  conforming  to,  and  judged 
worthy  by  the  standards  of  belief  and  practice  determined 
upon  by  a  group  already  accepting  and  living  according  to 
those  standards.  Browne  defined  the  church  as 

The  Church  planted  or  gathered  in  a  company  or  number  of 
Christians  or  believers,  which,  by  a  willing  covenant  made  with 
their  God,  are  under  the  government  of  God  and  Christ,  and  keep 
His  laws  in  one  holy  communion.  The  Church  government  is  the 
lordship  of  Christ  in  the  communion  of  His  offices,  whereby  His 
people  obey  His  will,  and  have  mutual  use  of  their  graces  and 
callings  to  further  their  godliness  and  welfare.2 

Thus  their  idea  of  a  church  was  that  of  a  body  of  spiritu 
ally  fit  persons  united  for  worship  together  and  for  com 
munion  with  God.  Because  the  local  church  thus  stood  by 
itself,  self-sufficient  and  with  full  authority  to  create  its 
own  machinery  of  administration,  and  to  formulate  its  own 
doctrinal  standards,  within  the  ranks  of  Congregationally 
organized  churches  we  find  great  diversity  of  opinion  and 
practice. 

The  standards  are  usually  as  narrow  religiously  as  those 
of  Presbyterianism,  for  the  ideal  to  be  reached  was  absolute 
truth  and  holiness  of  life,  and  in  the  pursuit  of  absolute 
truth,  men  of  ability  or  of  spiritually  earnest  zeal,  though 
often  unlearned,  in  that  day  sought  to  express  their  spirit 
in  the  statements  of  dogmatic  theology,  rather  than  in  the 
formulation  of  the  broad  principles  essential  to  the  reli 
gious  life.  They  felt  that  these  religious  truths  might  be 
formulated  by  the  unlearned  as  well  as  by  the  learned  and 

1  Barrow,  Brief  Discovery  of  the  false  Church,  vi,  9.  Cf.  Whitgift,   Works, 
vol.  i,  pp.  382,  385;  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  m,  chap.  I,  sec.  7;   Works,  vol.  n, 
p.  63,  note  1 8. 

2  Cf.  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  pp.  60,  139;  Hooker,  Works,  vol.  n, 
p.  63,  note  1 8. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  177 

attacked  the  Presbyterians  for  emphasis  on  an  educated 
ministry. 

These  Reformists  howsoever  for  fashion  sake  they  give  the 
people  a  little  liberty  to  sweeten  their  mouths  and  make  them 
believe  that  they  should  choose  their  own  ministers,  yet  even  in 
this  pretended  choice  do  they  cozen  and  beguile  them  also,  leaving 
them  nothing  but  the  smoky,  windy  title  of  election  only,  enjoin 
ing  them  to  choose  some  university  clerk,  —  one  of  those  college 
birds  of  their  own  brood,  —  or  else  comes  a  synod  in  the  neck  of 
them,  and  annihilates  the  election  whatsoever  it  be.1 

This  contempt  for  the  aristocracy  of  learning  and  this  demo 
cratic  confidence  in  the  people  may  have  been  promoted  by 
the  fact  that  lay  readers  were  employed  in  the  services  of 
the  Established  Church.  Mechanics  and  artisans  took  part 
in,  and  conducted  parts  of  the  services  of  the  State  Church, 
and  hence  the  people  saw  no  great  incongruity  when  men  in 
humble  circumstances  assumed  independent  leadership.2 

Browne,  who  is  usually  regarded  as  the  father  of  Congre 
gationalism,  had  a  hard  time  to  find  enough  men  to  accept 
his  formulation  of  rules  of  faith  and  practice  to  make  a 
church,  and  parted  with  his  congregation  in  anger  because 
some  would  not  agree  to  the  rules  he  laid  down.  It  is  char 
acteristic  of  the  local  church  principle,  however,  that  each 
local  church  recognizes  the  other  churches,  whatever  their 
polity,  Congregational,  Presbyterian,  or  Episcopalian,  as 
true  churches  of  Christ,  although  Anglicanism  and  Presby- 
terianism  might  be  regarded  as  corrupted  by  mistakes  and 
condemned  for  unchristian  refusal  to  practice  the  principles 
of  religion  as  the  Congregationalist  understood  them. 

And  in  the  meane  tyme  (as  yt  becometh  us  to  iudge)  we  are 
perswaded  that  her  Maiestie  and  many  thowsandes  of  her  Sub- 
iectes  (who  as  yet  differ  in  Judgment  amongst  themselves  and 
from  us  in  many  thinges)  are  the  deare  Children  of  God,  and 
heyres  of  saluation  through  faith  in  Christ  Ihesus,  etc.3 

1  Barrow,  quoted  in  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  p.  239. 

2  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  p.  29. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  69.    Cf.  also  pp.  67,  84,  104. 


178    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

_Congregationalists  make  a  great  deal  of  the  ecclesiastical 
liberalism  of  Congregational  principles,  but  neglect  the  facts 
of  withdrawal  upon  religious  grounds  from  communion  with 
English  and  Continental  Protestants.1  Religiously  Congre- 
gationalists  were  more  precise  and  intolerant  than  either 
Anglicanism  or  Presbyterianism,  but  ecclesiastical  narrow 
ness  and  intolerance  are  foreign  to  the  principles  upon  which 
the  system  of  local  churches  is  based.  Owing  to  the  narrow 
ness  of  accepted  religious  principles  in  almost  all  of  the 
Congregationalist  churches,  this  ecclesiastical  tolerance  did 
not  extend  to  the  individual.  Churches  were  regarded  as 
the  units  and  were  to  be  permitted  a  freedom  and  looseness 
of  cooperation  that  appeared  anarchistic  in  Elizabeth's  day. 
Yet,  as  it  was  thus  more  individualistic  and  democratic,  so 
it  was  a  less  effective  form  of  organization  than  Presby 
terianism  or  Anglicanism. 

Presbyterianism  had  an  orderly  sense  consonant  with  its 
propaganda  to  establish  a  particular  form  of  church  gov 
ernment;  it  attempted,  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  success, 
to  keep  within  the  letter  of  the  law.2  The  groups  of  Congre 
gationalism  were  not  allied  to  any  one  form  of  ecclesiastical 
organization,  strictly  speaking,  nor  indeed  to  any  one  form 
of  theological  doctrine.  They  lacked,  therefore,  the  sense 
of  organization  cohesiveness.  Hooker  summed  it  up  in  the 
statement,  "  Yea,  I  am  persuaded,  that  of  them  with  whom 
in  this  cause  we  strive,  there  are  whose  betters  amongst  men 
would  be  hardly  found,  if  they  did  not  live  amongst  men, 
but  in  some  wilderness  by  themselves."3  Congregationalism 
did  not  undergo  that  institutional  hardening  which  made 
the  Presbyterian  movement  at  least  capable  of  under 
standing  Anglican  concern  at  divergence,  and  patient  to 

1  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  p.  83;  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  v,  App. 
no.  ii,  p.  63,  note  16;  bk.  m,  chap.  I,  sec.  10,  p.  224;  Strype,  Annals,  vol.  iv, 
no.  Ixii. 

2  Cf.  Strype,  Whitgift,  vol.  in,  pp.  262,  283,  284;  vol.  n,  p.  84;  Usher,  Pres 
byterian  Movement,  pp.  92,  93,  31,  36,  38. 

3  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  i,  chap,  xvi,  sec.  6. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  179 

use  intelligent  and  orderly  methods  of  displacing  it.  The 
lack  of  unity,  ecclesiastically  and  dogmatically,  in  Congre 
gationalism,  moreover,  prevented  the  concerted  action 
which  Presbyterianism  was  able  to  bring  to  bear  in  the 
attack  upon  the  Established  Church. 

In  spite  of  the  inadequacy  of  its  ecclesiastical  organiza 
tion,  or  perhaps  because  of  it,  the  whole  group  is  charac 
terized  by  a  religious  enthusiasm  and  intense  religious  fer 
vor  that  are  foreign  to  the  Anglican  Church,  and  in  great 
part  to  Presbyterianism  also.  It  is  this  intensity  of  religious 
feeling,  as  distinct  from  intellectual  conviction  of  the  truth 
of  theological  dogma,  rather  than  the  championship  of  their 
own  Congregational  polity,  that  lies  at  the  basis  of  their 
condemnation  of  others.  Toward  Catholics  this  antagonism 
goes  to  great  lengths.  The  expressions  of  denunciation  and 
invective  reach  a  heat  even  more  fervid  than  that  of  the 
most  enthusiastic  Presbyterian.  "That  most  dreadfull 
Religion  of  Antichrist,  the  great  enemye  of  the  Lord  Ihesus, 
and  the  most  pestilent  adversary  of  the  thrones  of  kinges 
and  Princes"1  was  so  much  an  object  of  horror  that  lan 
guage  seemed  to  fail  to  express  the  depth  of  their  abhorrence. 
Here,  too,  lay  essentially  the  cause  of  their  denunciation 
of  the  Anglican  Church.  Although  their  attacks,  like  the 
attacks  of  Presbyterians,,  are  directed  against  the  cere 
monies,  the  government,  the  officials,  the  courts,  and  the 
abuses  of  the  Church,  there  is  in  their  polemic  a  note  of 
burning  zeal  that  sometimes  almost  reaches  the  height  and 
earnestness  of  the  most  fierce  denunciations  of  the  prophets 
of  Israel. 

This  emotional  intensity  is  interesting.  It  is  the  very 
stuff  from  which  religious  intolerance  is  made.  Curiously 
enough,  and  unusual  in  the  history  of  religion,  it  is  a  fervor, 
however,  which  is  essentially  liberal  and  tolerant  as  com 
pared  with  contemporary  religious  opinion. 

1  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  p.  82;  Waddington,  Penry,  pp.  113,  114. 
Cf.,  however,  the  language  of  the  Second  Scotch  Confession  of  1580  (Schaff, 
Credo  in,  pp.  480  et  seq.).  Luther  too  went  pretty  far  in  this  way. 


i8o    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

...  It  is  to  no  purpose  that  her  Maiesties  subiectes  should  be- 
stowe  their  tyme  in  learning,  in  the  study  and  medytation  of  the 
word,  in  reading  the  wry  tinges  and  doinges  of  learned  men  and 
of  the  holy  Martyrs  that  have  bene  in  former  ages,  especyally 
the  wry  tinges  published  by  her  Maiesties  authorytie,  yf  they 
may  not  without  danger  professe  and  hold  those  truthes  which 
they  learne  out  of  them,  and  that  in  such  sort,  as  they  are  able  to 
convince  all  the  world  that  will  stand  against  them,  by  no  other 
weapons  then  by  the  word  of  God.  .  .  .  Imprysonment,  yndyte- 
mentes  arraignmentes  yea  death  yt  selfe,  are  no  meet  weapons 
to  convince  the  conscyence  grounded  upon  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
accompanied  with  so  many  testimonies  of  his  famous  seruantes 
and  Churches.1 

Whether  one  agrees  with  the  religious  opinions  of  Browne, 
or  indeed  with  Christianity  itself,  one  must  recognize  an 
earnestness  here,  even  in  their  anger  against  other  forms 
of  their  religion,  which  is  comparable  to  the  anger  of  their 
Master  against  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  spirit  of 
Christ's  "Woe  unto  ye  scribes  and  Pharisees"  was  in  the 
utterances  of  those  Congregationalists,  who  denounced  their 
fellow  Christians  as  He  denounced  his  fellow  Jews  for  the 
abandonment  of  the  true  principles  of  religion,  truth,  and 
uprightness,  and  substituted  rites  and  ceremonies  and  the 
incidents  and  unessentials  of  organization.  It  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  tell  whether  Presbyterianism,  Anglicanism,  and 
even  Catholicism  were  most  concerned  about  diversity  from 
the  truths  which  they  believed  religiously  essential  or  about 
diversity  from  their  particular  form  of  worship.  Congrega 
tionalism  was  intolerant  of  such  substitution  of  form  and 
ritual  for  the  truths  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  as  they 
saw  them.  Because  this  was  true,  the  attacks  of  Congrega 
tionalists  were  directed  against  the  ecclesiastical  organiza 
tion  of  Anglicanism,  and  against  the  connection  between 
the  State  and  the  Church  which  had  established  and  main 
tained  the  Anglican  organization;  and  the  grounds  of  that 
attack  were  religious,  not  merely  ecclesiastical,  as  some 

1  Penry's  "Confession  and  Apology,"  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  II, 
p.  87. 


PROTESTANT  DISSENT  181 

writers  maintain.  Congregationalism  was  not  fighting 
essentially  for  the  creation  of  a  new  form  of  ecclesiastical 
organization.  Episcopalianism  and  Presbyterianism  as  we 
know  them  in  the  United  States  would  not  have  been  exter 
minated  by  Congregationalists,  nor  would  Catholicism  it 
self,  except  as  it  claims  to  be  the  only  agent  of  salvation 
upon  earth.  Their  tolerance,  however,  did  not  extend  to 
the  permission  of  life  and  the  protection  of  the  State  for  the 
agnostic  and  the  atheist,  or  those  who  denied  such  essential 
elements  of  the  Christian  faith  as  the  Triune  character  of 
the  Godhead  and  the  everlasting  damnation  of  sinful  men. 
Their  zeal  made  them  more  intolerant  of  such  crimes  against 
traditional  Christianity  than  was  Anglicanism,  for  their 
religious  feeling  was  of  primary  importance  and  had  not 
sunk  into  the  background  of  an  ecclesiastical  system. 

Congregationalists  were  chiefly  subject  to  condemnation 
by  the  government,  the  Establishment,  and  the  Presby 
terians  because  they  attacked  the  current  theory  that  gov 
ernmental  unity  was  dependent  upon  ecclesiastical  and 
religious  unity.  This  position  necessarily  undermined  the 
favorite  doctrine  of  the  age  in  regard  to  the  headship  of  the 
sovereign  over  the  Church.1  Such  tenets  were,  to  the  minds 
of  the  average  Elizabethan  Englishmen  who  occupied  posi 
tions  of  trust  in  Church  and  State,  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  political  loyalty  to  the  Queen  and  to  the  nation.  Prot 
estations  of  submission  and  loyalty  2  could  not  convince 
them.  Further,  the  Congregational  system  of  church  organ 
ization  was  essentially  democratic  and  brought  Congrega 
tionalists  in  for  a  persecution  more  relentless  than  that 
directed  against  the  followers  of  Cartwright ; 3  monarchical 
and  aristocratic  antagonism  to  democratic  sentiments  re 
garded  them  as  more  dangerous.  The  development  of  an 

1  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  vni,  chap,  i,  sec.  2\  Parker  Corresp.,  no  ccl;  Bur- 
rage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  I,  p.  101;  vol.  n,  pp.  28,  63,  64,  78. 

2  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  pp.  78,  79. 

8  Elias  Thacher  and  John  Copping  were  hanged  in  1583  for  "dispersinge  of 
Browne's  bookes." 


1 82    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

economic  and  intellectual  aristocracy,  interested  in  for 
warding  social  and  economic  movements  antagonistic  to 
its  own  supremacy,  is  a  matter  of  comparatively  recent 
growth.  In  Elizabeth's  day  and  for  long  after,  religious 
and  secular  aristocrats  were  opposed  on  grounds  of  eco 
nomic  interest  to  all  movements  which  looked  to  the  pop 
ulace  for  the  creation  of  a  church. 

A  second  fault  is  in  their  manner  of  complaining,  not  only  be 
cause  it  is  for  the  most  part  in  bitter  and  reproachful  terms,  but 
also  because  it  is  unto  the  common  people,  judges  incompetent 
and  insufficient,  both  to  determine  anything  amiss  for  want  of 
skill  and  authority  to  amend  it.1 

Congregationalism  could  hope  to  win  from  the  powers  of 
the  realm  no  such  freedom  of  worship  as  was  granted  to  the 
foreign  congregations  in  London  and  elsewhere,2  for  Con- 
gregationalists  were  not  so  important  commercially,  indus 
trially,  and  politically  as  were  these  refugees;3  and  could 
not,  it  was  thought,  safely  be  allowed  exemption  from  laws 
binding  on  all  Englishmen. 

1  Cranmer's  letter  to  Hooker,  Hooker,  Ecc.  Pol.,  bk.  v,  App.,  no.  ii,  p.  65; 
cf.  Whitgift,  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  467. 

2  S.  P.,  Dom.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxm,  no.  67;  Parker  Corresp.,  nos.  cxli,  cxcvi,  and 
note  i,  ccxlv,  ccxlvii,  cccxxii;  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  n,  p.  118. 

3  Burrage,  English  Dissenters,  vol.  I,  p.  118. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
CONCLUSION 

THE  reign  of  Elizabeth  is  not  altogether  an  encouraging 
field  to  the  idealist  seeking  in  the  past  for  the  first  rays  of 
the  light  of  tolerance.  Catholics  were  fined,  imprisoned, 
suffered  death.  Protestants  who  refused  to  accept  the  ex 
isting  regime  endured  hardships  no  less  severe.  Govern 
ment  compelled  adherence  to  its  own  Church  and  that 
Church  stood  for  no  great  principle  of  religious  freedom. 
In  the  realm  of  religion  no  commanding  personality  stands 
as  the  leader  or  the  embodiment  of  his  age;  still  less  as  a 
beacon  light  to  the  thought  of  succeeding  ages.  Two  ecclesi 
astics  alone,  Fox  and  Hooker,  are  known  to-day  outside  the 
halls  of  theological  learning :  the  one  as  the  author  of  a  work 
which  has  perpetuated  religious  and  theological  bitterness 
founded  upon  falsehood  and  bigotry ;  the  other  remembered 
for  the  literary  style  of  his  prose,  but  for  no  great  contribu 
tion  to  religious  thought  or  feeling.  No  single  voice  was 
raised  to  free  the  minds  of  men  from  the  restraints  of  theo 
logical  and  ecclesiastical  dogma.  The  sovereign  herself 
stood  for  no  heroic  principle  of  power  or  right.  Her  vices 
even  were  not  impressive.  Her  genius  for  deceit  gave  her  a 
certain  distinction  even  in  a  Christendom  skilled  in  lying; 
but  Elizabeth's  accomplishments  were  so  petty  in  positive 
statesmanship  demanding  bold  imagination  and  vision  as 
to  excite  no  wonder  by  their  courage  and  audacity.  No 
statesman  under  her  formulated  a  bold  and  striking  na 
tional  religious  policy  which  left  his  name  impressed  upon 
the  institutions  of  his  creation.  Bickerings  hardly  worthy 
the  name  of  religious  struggles ;  an  expedient  policy  so  ab 
ject  as  almost  to  deny  the  existence  of  principle ;  repression 
without  the  excuse  of  a  burning  faith  in  an  abstract  ideal ; 


f 


1 84    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

these  are  the  superficial  characteristics  of  the  age.  Yet  the 
importance  of  the  Elizabethan  age  in  the  history  of  tolera 
tion  stands  upon  a  sure  foundation. 

When  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne  of  England  more 
than  a  generation  had  passed  since  Luther  had  stirred  the 
souls  of  men  by  his  proclamation  of  revolt.  His  call  to  arms 
as  it  echoed  over  Europe  had  roused  men  of  all  nations  to 
range  themselves  in  fighting  mood  upon  one  side  or  the 
other.   Religious  enthusiasm,  national  feeling,  a  new  vision 
of  moral  and  intellectual  life  had  stirred  Catholicism  and 
Protestantism  alike  to  the  very  depths.    No  longer  were 
ideas  and  ideals  to  be  passively  received  and  held;  they 
became  banners  to  lead  armies  by,  the  standards  for  which 
men  joyfully  flung  away  their  strength.  Hatred,  unreason 
ing  and  unreasonable,  obscured  high  purpose  and  lofty  aim; 
in  the  name  of  religious  faith  both  sides  descended  to  unex 
plored  depths  of  savagery  and  cruelty.    But  such  sacrifice 
could  not  continue.  Here  and  there  in  Europe  evidences  of 
returning  sanity  were  seen.  Vicious  combat  brought  desire 
for  peace,  and  the  realization  that  ultimately  an  adjustment 
of  its  religious  quarrels  must  be  made  if  European  civiliza 
tion  was  to  endure  manifested  itself  in  the  first  vague  grop- 
ings  for  some  basis  of  settlement.    In  Germany  a  certain 
basis  of  toleration  in  a  small  territorial  setting  was  offered 
by  the  Peace  of  Augsburg.  In  France  the  wisdom  of  L'Hopi- 
tal  attempted  to  secure  an  adjustment  upon  humane  prin 
ciples  only  to  be  defeated  by  the  militarist  elements  which 
broke  down  the  first  slight  barriers  of  moderation  and  left 
us  the  memory  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Eve.   In  England  the 
same  groping  took  form  in  a  policy  which  may  appear  petty, 
but  which,  at  least  in  the  maturing  consciousness  of  the 
national  State,  created  a  national  Church.    The  pettiness 
of  England's  compromising  religious  policy  may  be  for 
gotten  and  forgiven  in  the  wider  significance  which  that 
policy  has  as  one  phase  of  a  general  European  adjustment. 
That  the  withdrawal  of  England  from  the  jurisdiction  of 


CONCLUSION  185 

the  Papal  See  afforded  no  occasion  for  dramatic  declaration 
of  principles  makes  no  less  important,  in  the  history  of  reli 
gious  toleration,  the  character  of  that  withdrawal  and  the 
attempted  adjustment  of  the  religious  questions  of  the  age. 
It  is  true  that  the  history  of  intolerance  as  well  as  the  his 
tory  of  tolerance  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  is  largely  the 
story  of  the  problems  raised  by  the  Catholic  question.  It  is 
true  that  all  the  elements  in  the  English  religious  situation 
reflect  in  their  spirit  the  fact  of  the  Catholic  presence.  But 
the  fundamental  fact  that  rises  above  all  confusing  issues  is 
the  unmistakable  one  that  the  government  formulated  and 
proclaimed  a  policy  designed  to  meet  the  dangers  of  papal 
politics,  not  by  more  persecution  but  by  less. 

Primarily  the  complexities  and  difficulties  of  the  political 
situation  at  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign  defined  the 
nature  and  extent  of  governmental  toleration.  The  Queen 
and  her  officials  plainly  declared,  and  their  actions  backed 
up  the  declaration,  that  the  consciences  of  men  should  not 
be  violated  by  interference  with  their  purely  religious  be 
liefs  so  long  as  conscience  was  not  made  the  shield  and  ex 
cuse  for  opinions  so  depraved  as  to  involve  the  Queen's 
subjects  in  acts  of  open  violence  against  the  State.  Such 
was  the  degree  of  toleration  made  possible  by  the  patriotism 
and  the  religious  indifference  of  the  nation  and  by  the  per 
sonal  character  and  convictions  of  the  nation's  leaders. 
The  association  of  English  Catholics  with  the  ambitions  of 
Mary  Stuart,  with  the  schemes  of  Philip  of  Spain,  the  ac 
tivity  of  Jesuits  upon  the  Continent  and  in  England  aroused 
in  the  nation  and  in  many  of  its  leaders  a  sense  of  danger 
and  a  strong  enmity  which  threatened  this  policy.  Presby- 
terianism  advocated  the  extermination  of  all  who  adhered 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  and  although  itself  subject 
to  governmental  restraint,  added  strength  to  that  element 
in  the  kingdom  which  upon  other  grounds  opposed  the 
lenient  attitude  toward  the  most  active  religious  enemies 
of  the  Queen  and  the  nation.  Anglicanism  also,  to  a  lesser 


1 86    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

degree,  as  it  developed  an  independent  ecclesiastical  con 
sciousness  sometimes  displayed  a  desire  to  force  Catholics 
into  the  fold  of  the  English  Establishment  more  insistent 
than  was  compatible  with  the  purposes  of  the  Queen  and 
her  councillors.  The  aggressive  measures  of  the  papacy  com 
pelled  the  abandonment  in  part  of  the  liberality  at  first 
proclaimed  and  maintained.  Yet  the  incentives  to  more 
drastic  measures,  whether  from  Catholic  excess  and  treason 
or  from  Protestant  prejudice,  were  never  so  powerful  as  to 
force  the  government  to  substitute  for  the  policy  it  had  at 
first  assumed  a  policy  of  Catholic  extermination. 

The  fundamental  Defect  in  carrying  out  the  government's 
policy  of  toleration,  however,  was  not  the  opposition  of  the 
Catholics,  not  the  activity  of  the  Presbyterians,  not  the 
ambitions  of  Anglicans,  but  the  retention  of  a  state  ecclesi 
astical  establishment  and  the  idea  that  ecclesiastical  unity 
was  essential  to  political  unity.  It  was  upon  this  basis  that 
the  adjustment  proposed  by  the  Elizabethan  government 
rested  and  it  was  foredoomed  to  ultimate  failure.  The  con 
formity  of  all  men  to  one  ecclesiastical  organization,  how 
ever  liberal  its  doctrinal  standards  and  however  formal  the 
degree  of  conformity  demanded,  implies  a  simplicity  or  a 
hypocrisy  of  which  men  are  not  so  universally  guilty.  Cer 
tainly  such  a  programme  could  not  succeed  in  an  age  that 
had  developed  two  forces  so  antagonistic  as  Catholicism 
and  Protestantism.  But  that  the  government  should  have 
abandoned  the  accepted  belief  of  the  times  and  permitted 
complete  freedom  of  worship  by  no  means  follows.  The 
religious  forces  with  which  it  had  to  deal  were  themselves 
too  intolerant  to  enjoy  freedom  or  to  employ  it  intelli 
gently.  Freedom  would  have  defeated  its  own  ends;  free 
dom  would  have  brought  religious  strife  utterly  beyond  the 
control  of  the  forces  of  order.  Modern  tolerance  may  regret 
the  failure  of  the  Elizabethan  attempt,  it  may  clearly  recog 
nize  the  causes  of  that  failure,  but  only  fanatical  love  of  an 
ideal  not  yet  universally  understood  in  our  own  time  will 


CONCLUSION  187 

refuse  to  do  homage  to  the  measure  of  success  which,  with 
the  material  at  its  disposal,  Elizabethan  England  was  able 
to  attain. 

Elizabethan  ecclesiastical  and  religious  bodies  reacted  to 
the  Catholic  danger  and  to  the  governmental  policy,  but  the 
attitude  of  all  toward  the  spirit  of  tolerance  was  also  de 
termined  by  their  reactions  upon  one  another  and  by  char 
acteristics  peculiar  to  themselves. 

The  Elizabethan  Establishment  was  the  work  of  men 
temperamentally  opposed  to  extreme  theories  of  church 
government  and  was  from  policy  fundamentally  tolerant 
as  well  as  inclusive.  The  doctrinal  standards  which  were 
set  up  and  the  form  of  the  organization  itself  were  such 
as  would  imply  the  least  strain  upon  the  consciences  and 
prejudices  of  the  Englishmen  whose  formal  allegiance  to 
its  Establishment  the  government  demanded.  The  polit 
ical  purposes  of  the  Establishment  were  clear  and  the 
function  of  allegiance  to  the  Church  as  a  test  of  loyalty  to 
the  Crown  most  evident.  Conformity  at  the  first  to  most 
of  Elizabeth's  subjects  meant  little  more  than  this,  but  as 
Catholic  opposition  became  more  uncompromising  and  as 
Protestant  discontent  with  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
features  of  the  State  Establishment  became  more  pro 
nounced  and  clear-cut,  Anglicanism  developed  an  ecclesi 
astical  consciousness  of  its  own  worth  and  excellence  in 
only  a  minor  degree  dependent  upon  its  position  as  an  arm 
of  secular  politics.  The  vigorous  attack  of  Presbyterianism 
upon  the  Establishment  aroused  it  to  defense  of  itself,  not 
by  appeal  to  its  political  and  national  functions  alone,  but 
also  by  championship  of  the  desirability  of  the  Episcopalian 
organization  for  its  own  sake.  More  radical  Protestantism, 
both  in  England  and  upon  the  Continent,  was  regarded 
with  less  brotherly  warmth,  and  arrangements  which  had 
at  first  been  borne  as  mere  expedients  became  the  objects 
of  earnest  defense. 

Presbyterianism,   which  was   the   most  persistent  and 


1 88    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

irritating  Protestant  enemy  Anglicans  had  to  face,  presented 
in  Elizabeth's  reign  few  aspects  of  tolerant  spirit.  Its  lack 
of  power  and  the  necessity,  imposed  upon  it  by  its  weak 
ness,  of  assuming  the  postures  of  petition,  were  responsible 
for  whatever  evidence  of  Presbyterian  tolerance  may  be 
discovered.  The  insistence  upon  a  New  Testament  ecclesi 
astical  polity  and  the  importance  given  by  Presbyterianism 
to  the  form  of  the  ecclesiastical  organization  as  a  part  of 
the  gospel  were  more  mediaeval  in  tendency  than  was  the 
retention  by  Anglicanism  and  by  the  government  of  the 
idea  of  national  conformity  to  a  state  ecclesiastical  estab 
lishment.  Further,  the  close  connection  of  the  Presbyterian 
form  of  organization  with  the  cold  and  precise  theology 
of  Calvin  made  Presbyterianism  dogmatically,  as  well  as 
ecclesiastically,  intolerant  of  all  other  forms  of  the  Chris 
tian  religion.  Anglicanism  developed  its  own  peculiar 
ecclesiastical  organization  and  doctrinal  standards  and 
built  into  them  a  spirit  that  has  at  all  events  the  virtues 
of  humanness  and  practicality.  English  Presbyterianism 
adopted  ready-made  a  system  of  church  government  and 
the  carefully  articulated  process  of  reasoning  or  argument 
upon  which  that  system  rested.  It  adopted,  too,  the  most 
consistent  and  mathematically  exact  system  of  theology 
that  Christianity  has  developed,  —  Calvinism  entire  as  it 
was  laid  down  by  its  creator.  Presbyterianism  was  thus 
furnished  with  an  ecclesiastical  and  dogmatic  pattern  to 
which  it  insisted  that  all  organized  Christianity  must  con 
form.  All  its  direct  influence  was  toward  greater  intoler 
ance. 

Of  the  ecclesiastical  and  religious  movements  developed 
during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  one  which  contained  most 
possibilities  of  adjustment  to  modern  ways  of  thinking  was 
the  Congregationalist,  but  it  was  of  least  influence  upon 
Elizabethan  thought  and  action,  and  in  her  reign  developed 
little  beyond  the  initial  stages.  The  group  was  religiously 
and  morally  fired  by  intense  earnestness  and  inspired  to 


CONCLUSION  189 

righteous  indignation  and  intolerance  of  the  abuses  and 
shame  of  scholastic  Protestant  ecclesiasticism.  It  proposed 
to  destroy  the  strongest  bulwark  of  national  and  ecclesi 
astical  intolerance,  the  connection  between  Church  and 
State,  but,  except  as  a  forerunner  and  a  source  of  later 
development,  the  Congregationalists  are  of  no  importance 
for  the  history  of  tolerance  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth. 

Political  considerations  caused  the  formulation  and  pro 
mulgation  of  the  one  definite  theory  of  religious  toleration 
that  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  offers  us,  and  political  causes 
also  prevented  the  theory  being  carried  to  its  logical  con 
clusion,  but  the  success  of  Elizabethan  politics,  our  judg 
ment  of  the  character  of  Elizabethan  policy,  is  not  to  be 
determined  by  its  religious  effects  alone.  Whatever  the 
success  or  failure  of  the  attempt  at  religious  adjustment  the 
policy  which  dealt  with  the  religious  situation  dealt  also 
with  greater  things.  It  was  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth  that 
the  England  of  to-day  was  taking  shape  in  commerce,  in 
literature,  in  national  policy.  Labor  was  being  faced  as  a 
national  problem,  the  theories  and  the  practice  of  finance 
were  becoming  modern,  England  was  entering  upon  its 
period  of  commercial  expansion.  In  response  to  this  new 
wealth  and  enlarged  outlook  England  was  reveling  in  the 
creations  of  a  released  and  profane  imagination.  Govern 
mental  policy  not  only  for  the  time  freed  England  from  the 
more  savage  manifestations  of  religious  hatreds  and  thus 
released  her  energies  for  development  along  these  lines,  but 
the  religious  aspects  of  governmental  policy  also  directly 
contributed  to  that  development  by  giving  to  the  nation  a 
great  church  in  which  centered  much  of  high  national  pride. 

Society  transforms  itself  slowly,  irrationally,  with  curious 
inconsistencies.  Social  groups  form  alliances  and  antago 
nisms  rationally  impossible.  Tolerance  and  intolerance  exist 
side  by  side.  Tolerance  in  Elizabeth's  reign  did  not  in  the 
ory  keep  pace  with  national  economic,  literary,  and  patriotic 


190    INTOLERANCE  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH 

development.  The  reign  had  weakened  but  not  cast  off  the 
hold  of  Roman  Catholicism  upon  the  nation.  Anglicanism 
had  become  a  great  national  force  with  a  strong  hold  upon 
the  affections  of  Englishmen.  Presbyterianism  had  formed 
a  compact  ecclesiastical  group.  A  few,  ill-organized  cham 
pions  of  church  freedom  and  religious  liberalism  had  begun 
to  make  their  voices  heard  in  the  land.  Greater  bitterness 
and  more  savage  quarrels  would  interfere  with  the  free 
development  of  the  national  spirit,  but  already  was  visible 
the  ultimate  triumph  of  that  sounder  principle  of  national 
unity  which  recognized  the  element  of  variety  in  a  har 
monious  whole  —  a  principle  which  only  the  modern  world 
has  realized.  In  this  field,  therefore,  as  in  others,  the  age  of 
Elizabeth  is  the  threshold  to  our  own. 


THE  END 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL    APPENDIX 

Two  purposes  have  controlled  the  preparation  of  this  biblio 
graphical  appendix:  the  wish  to  lighten  the  foot  notes,  and  the 
desire  to  provide  a  bibliography  that  may  prove  useful  to  other 
American  students.  Completeness  is  impossible;  rigid  selection 
would  have  excluded  many  works  here  mentioned.  The  mention 
of  less  reliable  works  with  critical  comments  will  perhaps  assist 
American  students  who  are  venturing  into  this  field.  The  atten 
tion  given  to  pre-Elizabethan  and  general  works  is  necessary  to 
a  preliminary  understanding  of  the  topic  and  period.  In  this  por 
tion  of  the  bibliography  many  omissions  would  be  serious  were 
the  purpose  other  than  that  of  providing  introductory  material 
for  the  study  of  Elizabethan  ecclesiastical  and  religious  history. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  period  of  Elizabeth  are,  of  course,  not 
available  in  America ;  but  the  American  student  who  has  an  oppor 
tunity  to  spend  some  time  in  England  will  find  great  collections 
opened  to  him  and  every  facility  for  work  offered  at  the  Public 
Record  Office,  the  British  Museum,  and  the  Lambeth  Palace 
Library.  For  the  student  who  is  familiar  with  considerable  detail 
of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  the  best  introduction  to  the  manuscripts 
is  undoubtedly  the  collection  of  Stale  Papers,  Domestic,  Elizabeth, 
in  the  Public  Record  Office.  These  are  conveniently  bound  and 
represent  every  phase  of  the  Elizabethan  age,  so  that  the  student 
who  intends  to  specialize  in  this  field  will  be  abundantly  repaid 
by  reading  the  whole  series.  Other  series  of  papers  have  been 
arranged  and  catalogued  or  calendared  so  that  their  use  presents 
few  difficulties  to  the  beginner.  Unfortunately,  however,  great 
masses  of  manuscript  material  exist,  particularly  those  under  the 
control  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  which  have  never 
been  prepared  for  use  and  are,  furthermore,  not  opened  under 
ordinary  circumstances  to  examination  by  foreign  students. 

Many  great  collections  of  printed  sources  are  available  in 
American  university  libraries.  For  such  material  consult,  E.  C. 
Richardson,  Union  List  of  Collections  on  European  History  in 
American  Libraries  (Princeton  1912;  Supplement:  Copies  Added 
1912-1915,  ibid.,  1915;  A.  H.  Shearer,  Alphabetical  Subject  Index, 
ibid.,  1915). 

The  Calendar  of  the  State  Papers,  Domestic,  for  the  reign  of 


194  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

Elizabeth  has  been  published  by  the  Government  and  may  be 
found  in  several  of  the  larger  American  libraries.  For  the  student 
without  access  to  the  documents  themselves  the  calendars  serve 
as  a  very  fair  substitute,  although  the  Domestic  Calendar  foirthe 
earlier  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  is  too  summary  in  character  to 
be  entirely  satisfactory.  The  later  volumes  are  much  more  com 
plete.  The  Foreign  Calendar,  the  Venetian  Calendar,  the  Calendar 
of  Letters  and  State  Papers  relating  to  English  Affairs  preserved  in 
the  Archives  of  Simancas,  and  the  Calendar  of  the  Carew  Papers 
assist  in  making  access  to  the  documents  themselves  less  impera 
tive.  The  Statutes  of  the  Realme  (printed  by  command  of  His 
Majesty  King  George  the  III,  1819)  is,  of  course,  essential  to 
any  study  of  English  history.  Simonds  D'Ewes,  Journals  of  all 
the  Parliaments  during  the  Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  both  of  the 
House  of  Lords  and  House  of  Commons,  revised  and  published  by 
Paul  Bowes  (London,  1682),  is  necessary  for  the  study  of  Parlia 
mentary  history  during  the  reign.  Tudor  and  Stuart  Proclama 
tions,  1485-1714,  calendared  and  described  by  Robert  Steele,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Earl  of  Crawford  (vol.  I.  England,  vol.  n,  Scot 
land  and  Ireland,  Oxford,  1909),  is  a  work  required  constantly  for 
that  phase  of  Elizabethan  administration,  and  makes  access  to 
H.  Dyson,  Queene  Elizabeth's  Proclamations  (1618),  less  impor 
tant.  J.  R.  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England  (New 
Series),  throws  much  light  on  many  topics  and  is  essential  for  an 
understanding  of  the  activity  and  importance  of  the  Council  in 
Elizabethan  government.  In  the  Reports  from  Commissioners, 
Inspectors  and  Others  (35  vols.,  London),  the  MSS.  of  the  Duke  of 
Rutland  comprise  four  volumes  and  contain  much  of  interest  and 
importance.  Thos.  Rymer,  Foedera  conventiones  liter ae  et  cujusque 
generis  acta  publica  (20  vols.,  London,  1726-35),  is  indispensable. 
Other  collections  of  first-rate  importance  are  Spencer  Hall, 
Documents  from  Simancas  relating  to  the  Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
(London,  1865);  P.  Forbes,  Full  View  of  the  Public  Transactions 
in  the  Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  (2  vols.,  London,  1740-41);  State 
Papers  of  Sir  Ralph  Sadler  (ed.  Clifford,  Edinburgh,  1809);  Sir 
Henry  Ellis,  Original  Letters  Illustrative  of  English  History. 

Several  smaller  but  very  useful  collections  should  be  found  in 
every  college  library.  Prothero,  Select  Statutes  and  Other  Constitu 
tional  Documents  (Oxford,  1898);  A.  F.  Pollard,  Tudor  Tracts, 
1532-1588  (An  English  Garner,  Westminster,  1903);  Pocock, 
Records  of  the  Reformation  (2  vols.,  Oxford,  1870). 

Printed  letters,  papers,  and  writings  of  Elizabethan  statesmen 
available  are,  W.  Murdin,  Burghley  State  Papers  (London,  1759) ; 
Samuel  Haynes,  Collection  of  State  Papers  Relating  to  Affairs  in 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  195 

the  Reigns  of  King  Henry  VIII,  King  Edward  VI,  Queen  Mary 
and  Queen  Elizabeth,  from  the  year  1542  to  1570  ;  transcribed  from 
the  original  letters  left  by  Wm.  Cecil,  Lord  Burghley  (London,  1740) ; 
The  Letters  and  the  Life  of  Francis  Bacon,  Including  all  his  Occa 
sional  Works  (ed.  Spedding,  7  vols.,  London,  1861-74). 

Biographical  works  sometimes  quote  largely  from  the  sources, 
but  are  usually  of  little  assistance  to  the  historical  student  be 
cause  of  inaccuracy  of  quotation  and  the  tendency  to  make  a  hero 
of  the  subject  of  study.  Further,  biographies  are  often  written 
without  a  clear  understanding  of  the  age,  and  tend,  therefore,  to 
produce  distorted  estimates.  These  defects  are  more  usually 
found  in  the  older  books.  Edward  Nares,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and 
Administration  of  the  Right  Honourable,  Wm.  Cecil,  Lord  Burghley 
(3  vols.,  London,  1828-31),  is,  for  instance,  almost  useless.  M.A.S. 
Hume,  The  Great  Lord  Burphley  ;  A  Study  of  Elizabethan  State 
craft  (New  York,  1898),  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  work  of  a  mod- 
ern  scholar  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  sources  for  the  whole 
reign  of  Elizabeth.  Of  similar  importance  is  Karl  Stahlin,  Sir 
Francis  Walsingham  und  seine  Zeit  (Heidelberg,  1908). 

Of  the  great  biographical  collections  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography  is  indispensable  as  a  guide,  but  will,  for  the  special 
student,  serve  as  little  else,  for  its  summary  character  gives  it 
rather  more  than  its  full  measure  of  the  disadvantages  of  all 
biographical  material.  Such  collections  as  Arthur  I.  Dasent, 
Speakers  of  the  House  of  Commons  (London  and  New  York,  1911); 
John  Lord  Campbell,  Lives  of  the  Lord  Chancellors  and  Keepers  of 
the  Great  Seal  of  England  (10  vols.,  London,  1868);  E.  Foss,  A 
Biographical  Dictionary  of  the  Judges  of  England  (9  vols.,  London, 
1848-64),  may  sometimes  prove  helpful  if  used  intelligently. 

For  English  constitutional  and  legal  history  the  classical  his 
tories  remain  useful,  although  extreme  caution  should  be  exer 
cised,  for  statements  of  fact  are  often  wrong  and  theories  anti 
quated.  Henry  Hallam,  The  Constitutional  History  of  England 
from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII  to  the  Death  of  George  II  with  a 
continuation  from  George  III  to  1860,  by  Thos.  Erskine  May  (5 
vols.,  New  York  and  Boston,  1865),  is  a  convenient  edition  of  this 
old  work.  Thomas  Pitt  Taswell-Langmead,  English  Constitu 
tional  History  from  the  Teutonic  Conquest  to  the  Present  Time  (5th 
ed.,  revised  by  Philip  A.  Ashworth,  London  and  Boston,  1896), 
should  be  checked  by  other  histories  and  special  articles.  The 
only  contemporary  account  of  the  English  Constitution  is  that  of 
Sir  T.  Smith,  De  Republica  Anglorum  (London,  1583)-  Sir  W. 
Stanford,  Exposition  of  the  King's  Prerogative  (London,  1567),  is 
well  worth  examining. 


196  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

Of  the  histories  of  the  English  law,  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  A  His 
tory  of  English  Law  (vol.  I,  London,  1903),  is  the  most  readable. 
J.  Fitz james  Stephen,  History  of  the  Criminal  Law  of  England 
(3  vols.,  London,  1883),  is  not  entirely  satisfactory,  but  has  its 
uses.  Sir  Edward  Coke,  Institutes  (many  editions,  the  one  used 
was*  that  of  London,  1809),  and  Sir  William  Blackstone,  Com 
mentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England  in  Four  Books  (ed.  by  Thos.  M. 
Cooley,  2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  Chicago/ 1876),  are  necessary  works. 
James  Dyer,  Reports  of  Cases  (London,  1794),  presents  much  of 
value.  The  student  of  the  working  of  the  law  will  also  find  much 
of  interest  in  The  Middlesex  County  Records,  vol.  I,  Indictments, 
Coroners  Inquests,  Post-mortem  and  Recognizances  from  3rd 
Edward  VI  to  the  end  of  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth  (ed.  John  Cordy 
Jefferson,  published  by  the  Middlesex  County  Records  Society). 
Miscellaneous  special  works  and  articles  of  use  are  D'Jardine, 
Reading  on  the  Use  of  Torture  in  the  Criminal  Law  of  England 
previously  to  the  Commonwealth  (a  pamphlet;  London,  1837); 
Crompton,  L 'Office  et  authorite  de  Justices  de  Peace  (ed.  1583); 
George  Burton  Adams,  "The  Descendants  of  the  Curia  Regis" 
(American  Historical  Review,  vol.  xm,  no.  i);  Dicey,  The  Privy 
Council  (Oxford,  1860);  Conyers  Read,  "  Walsingham  and  Burgh- 
ley  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  Privy  Council"  (English  Historical  Re 
view,  vol.  xxvin,'  p.  42) ;  Record  Commission  Publications,  vols. 
l-m:  Cases  before  the  Star  Chamber  in  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth;  C.  A. 
Beard,  The  Office  of  Justice  of  Peace  in  England  (New  York,  1904). 

For  ecclesiastical  law  and  administration  the  classic  is  probably 
Sir  Robert  Phillimore,  The  Ecclesiastical  Law  of  the  Church  of 
England  (2d  edition  by  his  son  W.  G.  F.  Phillimore,  2  vols., 
London,  1895).  Felix  Makower,  The  Constitutional  History  and 
Constitution  of  the  Church  of  England  (trans.  London,  1895),  is  the 
only  work  covering  that  field,  but  it  is  inadequate  in  many  re 
spects.  Richard  Burn,  The  Ecclesiastical  Law  (8th  ed.  by  R.  P. 
Tyrwhitt,  4  vols.,  London,  1824),  is  an  old  work,  but  for  the  stu 
dent  of  the  Tudor  period,  not  a  specialist  in  the  ecclesiastical  law, 
forms  a  convenient  book  of  reference  for  terms  and  processes.  Of 
primary  importance  is  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Ecclesiastical  Courts  (London,  1883,  2  vols.).  G.  C.  Brodrick  and 
W.  H.  Freeman  tie,  Collections  of  Judgments  of  the  Judicial  Com 
mittee  of  the  Privy  Council  in  Ecclesiastical  Cases  relating  to  Doc 
trine  and  Discipline  (London,  1865),  contains  much  historical 
material  of  value  in  the  introduction,  although  written  in  defense 
of  a  particular  theory.  W.  F.  Finlason,  The  History,  Constitution 
and  Character  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  Con 
sidered  as  a  Judicial  Tribunal;  Especially  in  Ecclesiastical  Cases 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  197 

(London,  187-),  is  representative  of  a  type  of  partisan  discus 
sion. 

For  the  study  of  Parliament  several  works  of  varying  degrees 
of  excellence  exist.  The  old  Parliamentary  History  of  England, 
from  the  earliest  period  to  the  year  1803  (36  vols.,  London,  1806-20, 
vols.  2-12;  William  Cobbett's  Parliamentary  History  from  the 
Norman  Conquest  to  the  year  1803}  will  not  prove  inviting  to  the 
modern  student.  Edward  and  Annie  G.  Porritt,  The  Unreformed 
House  of  Commons,  Parliamentary  Representation  before  1832 
(2  vols.,  Cambridge,  1903),  is  a  modern  work  that  should  not  be 
neglected.  C.  G.  Bayne,  "The  First  House  of  Commons  of  Queen 
Elizabeth"  (English  Historical  Review,  vol.  xxin,  pp.  455-76;  643- 
82),  is  a  special  study  of  an  interesting  Parliament. 

For  the  Council  and  administration,  besides  works  already 
mentioned,  special  studies  should  be  consulted,  such  as  Conyers 
Read,  " Factions  in  the  English  Privy  Council  under  Elizabeth" 
(American  Historical  Association  Annual  Report,  1911,  vol.  I, 
pp.  109-20),  for  a  brief  summary.  Other  articles  will  be  found  in 
the  English  Historical  Review.  Charles  A.  Coulomb,  The  Admin 
istration  of  the  English  Borders  during  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth  (Uni 
versity  of  Pennsylvania  Series) ,  deals  with  one  of  the  most  inter 
esting  phases  of  administration. 

The  political  histories  of  the  Tudors  are  legion,  and  because  of 
the  political  character  of  ecclesiastical  and  religious  history  dur 
ing  the  period,  they  treat  that  phase  in  considerable  detail.  A.  F. 
Pollard,  Political  History  of  England  from  Edward  VI  to  the  Death 
of  Elizabeth  (sixth  volume  in  the  series,  Political  History  of  Eng 
land,  edited  by  W.  Hunt  and  R.  L.  Poole),  is  one  of  the  best 
more  recent  introductions.  The  opinions  and  interpretations 
offered  by  J.  A.  Froude,  History  of  England  from  the  Fall  of  Wolsey 
to  the  Death  of  Elizabeth  (12  vols.,  1863-66),  should  not  be  accepted 
as  authoritative,  but  his  work  remains  the  best  detailed  account 
covering  the  whole  period.  Green,  History  of  England  (many  edi 
tions),  is  interesting  reading.  Some  works  covering  sections  of  the 
Tudor  period  are  more  useful  than  the  general  works.  E.  P. 
Cheyney,  A  History  of  England  from  the  Defeat  of  the  Armada  to 
the  Death  of  Elizabeth  (vol.  I,  New  York,  1913),  deals  with  a  period 
somewhat  neglected  by  historians  and  will  do  much  to  correct 
the  current  impression  that  Elizabethan  history  ended  with  the 
defeat  of  the  Armada. 

For  Henry,  Edward,  and  Mary  the  following  are  of  first-rate 
importance:  Moberly,  The  Early  Tudors  (Epoch  Series);  Pollard, 
Henry  VIII  (London,  1902);  J.  S.  Brewer,  Reign  oj  Henry  VIII, 
from  his  Accession  to  the  Death  of  Wolsey  (ed.  by  J.  Gairdner,  2  vols., 


198  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

London,  1884);  A.  DuBoys,  Catherine  d'Aragon  et  les  Origines  du 
Schisme  Anglican  (Geneva,  1880,  trans,  by  C.  M.  Yonge,  2  vols., 
London,  1881);  N.  Harpsfield,  Treatise  of  the  Pretended  Divorce 
between  Henry  VIII  and  Catherine  of  Aragon  (ed.  N.  Pocock, 
Camden  Society,  1878) ;  Paul  Friedman,  A nne  Boleyn,  a  Chapter  of 
English  History,  1527-1536  (2  vols.,  London,  1884);  Literary 
Remains  of  Edward  VI  (Roxburghe  Club,  ed.  J.  G.  Nichols,  2 
vols.,  London,  1857) ;  Sir  J.  Hayward,  Life  and  Reign  of  Edward 
VI  (London,  1630) ;  P.  F.  Tytler,  England  in  the  Reigns  of  Edward 
VI  and  Mary  (2  vols.,  London,  1839) ;  Chronicle  of  Queen  Jane  and 
Queen  Mary  (Camden  Society,  London,  1850);  J.  M.  Stone,  The 
History  of  Mary  /,  Queen  of  England,  as  found  in  the  Public 
Records,  Despatches  of  Ambassadors,  in  Original  Private  Letters, 
and  Other  Contemporary  Documents  (New  York  and  London, 
1901);  Zimmerman,  Maria  die  Katholische  (Freiburg,  1891); 
Friedman,  "New  Facts  in  the  History  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Eng 
land"  (Macmillan's  Magazine,  vol.  xix,  pp.  1-12). 

For  English  life  and  thought  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth: 
Rye,  England  as  seen  by  Foreigners  in  the  Days  of  Elizabeth  and 
James  (1865);  E.  P.  Cheyney,  Social  Changes  in  England  in  the 
i6th  Century  (Philadelphia,  1895);  Mandell  Creighton,  The  Age 
of  Elizabeth  (Epochs  of  Modern  History,  New  York,  1884) ;  H.  D, 
Traill,  Social  England  (vol.  m,  New  York  and  London,  1895); 
Harrison,  Elizabethan  England  (Camelot  Series);  Hubert  Hall, 
Society  in  the  Elizabethan  Age  (London,  1886),  an  excellent  correc 
tive  for  poetic  views;  Wallace  Notestein,  A  History  of  Witchcraft 
in  England  from  1558-1718  (American  Historical  Association, 
Washington,  1911),  a  remarkable  study;  Payne,  Voyages  of 
Elizabethan  Seamen  (First  Series,  Oxford,  1893);  Saintsbury, 
Elizabethan  Literature;  J.  W.  Burgon,  Life  and  Times  of  Sir 
Thomas  Gresham  (2  vols.,  London,  1839). 

For  economic  history:  W.  J.  Ashley,  Introduction  to  English 
Economic  History  (London,  1892);  W.  Cunningham,  The  Growth 
of  English  Industry  and  Commerce;  David  D.  Macpherson,  An 
nals  of  Commerce  (4  vols.,  London,  1805);  J.  E.  T.  Rogers,  The 
History  of  Agriculture  and  Prices  (vol.  IV,  Oxford,  1882);  W.  A. 
Shaw,  History  of  Currency  (London,  1895);  R.  Ruding,  Annals 
of  the  Coinage  (3d  ed.  by  Aherman,  3  vols.,  London,  1840); 
S.  Dowell,  History  of  Taxation  (2d  ed.,  4  vols.,  London,  1888). 

For  the  life  of  Elizabeth:  Frank  A.  Mumby,  The  Girlhood  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  told  in  Contemporary  Letters  (New  York,  1909); 
Wiesener,  The  Youth  of  Elizabeth,  1533-1558  (English  trans.,  2 
vols.,  London,  1879);  M.  A.  S.  Hume,  The  Courtships  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  (New  York,  1896,  London,  1898);  W7illiam  Camden, 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  199 

The  History  of  the  Most  Renowned  and  Victorious  Princess,  Eliza 
beth,  etc.  (London,  1675);  J.  Stow,  Annales,  continued  to  the  End 
of  1631  by  E.  Howes  (London,  1631);  E.  S.  Beesly,  Queen  Eliza 
beth  (London  and  New  York,  1892;  Twelve  English  Statesmen); 
Mandell  Creighton,  Queen  Elizabeth  (New  York  and  London, 
1900) ;  Thomas  Wright,  Queen  Elizabeth  and  Her  Times,  a  series 
of  letters  of  distinguished  persons  of  the  Period  (London,  1838) ; 
Collins,  Queen  Elizabeth's  Defence. 

For  the  European  situation:  Arthur  Henry  Johnson,  Europe 
in  the  i6th  Century,  1494-15^8  (Periods  of  European  History, 
London,  1900);  M.  Philippson,  Westeuropa  im  Zeitalter  von 
Philipp  II,  Elisabeth  u.  Heinrich  IV  (Oncken  Series,  Berlin, 
1882);  Henri  Forneron,  Les  dues  de  Guise  et  leur  epoque  (2  vols., 
Paris,  1877);  and  by  the  same  author,  Histoire  de  Philippe  II 
(2  vols.,  Paris,  1881-82);  J.  W.  Thompson,  The  Wars  of  Religion 
in  France,  1559—1576-  The  Huguenots.  Catherine  de  Medic,  and 
Philip  II  (Chicago,  1909).  Cf.  also  M.  A.  S.  Hume,  Philip  II  of 
Spain  (Foreign  Statesmen,  ed.  by  J.  B.  Bury,  London,  1897); 
State  Papers  relating  to  the  Defeat  of  the  Spanish  Armada  (ed.  by 
J.  K.  Laugh  ton,  vol.  I,  1894,  Navy  Record  Society  Pub.). 

For  Scotland  and  Mary  Stuart:  David  Calderwood,  The  His 
tory  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  (ed.  by  Thomas  Thomson,  vols.  i-vi, 
Edinburgh,  1842-45),  one  of  the  older  histories  of  considerable 
importance.  J.  Spottiswoode,  History  of  the  Church  and  State  of 
Scotland  (Spottiswoode  Society,  Edinburgh,  1851;  1st  edition, 
London,  1655);  Thomas  Wright,  History  of  Scotland  (3  vols., 
London  and  New  York,  1856);  Peter  Hume  Brown,  History  of 
Scotland  (Cambridge  Historical  Series,  ed.  G.  WT.  Prothero,  3 
vols.,  Cambridge,  1899-1909);  Mathieson,  Politics  and  Religion, 
a  Study  of  Scottish  History  from  the  Reformation  to  the  Revolution 
(2  vols.,  Glasgow,  1902) ;  P.  Lorimer,  John  Knox  and  the  Church  of 
England  (London,  1875);  David  Hay  Fleming,  The  Reformation 
in  Scotland,  Causes,  Characteristics,  Consequences  (Lectures  deliv 
ered  at  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  1907-08,  London,  1910) ;, 
State  Papers  of  Scotland  and  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  Calendar  (vol. 
I,  Edinburgh,  1898);  Antoine  Louis  Paris,  Negotiations,  lettres,  et 
pieces  diverses  relatives  au  rlgne  de  Francois  II  (in  Collections  de 
documents  inedits  sur  Thistoire  de  France,  vol.  19,  Paris,  1841); 
Prince  A.  Labanoff,  Lettres,  instructions  et  memoir es  de  M.  S., 
reine  d'Ecosse  (7  vols.,  London,  1844);  J.  H.  Pollen,  Papal  Nego 
tiations  with  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  (Scottish  History  Society  Pub., 
vol.  xxxvn,  Edinburgh,  1901);  H.  Machyn,  Diary  (Camden 
Society,  London,  1847);  J.  Anderson,  Collections  relating  to  the 
History  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scotland  (4  vols.,  Edinburgh,  1727-28) ; 


200  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

R.  S.  Rait,  Relations  between  England  and  Scotland  (London, 
1901);  Agnes  Strickland,  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  Letters  and  Docu 
ments  connected  with  her  Personal  History  (3  vols.,  London,  1843) ; 
The  Bardon  Papers,  Documents  relating  to  the  Imprisonment  and 
Trial  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  (edited  for  the  Royal  Historical 
Society  by  Conyers  Read  with  a  prefatory  note  by  Charles 
Cotton,  Camden  Society,  3d  Series,  vol.  xvn,  London,  1909). 

Printed  collections  of  sources  for  ecclesiastical  history  are 
numerous.  D.  Wilkins,  Concilia  Magnce  Britannia  (4  vols.,  Lon 
don,  1739),  is  indispensable.  Anthony  Sparrow,  A  Collection  of 
Articles,  Injunctions,  Canons,  Orders,  Ordinances  and  Constitutions 
Ecclesiastical  with  Other  Publick  Records  of  the  Church  of  England 
(4th  impression,  London,  1684),  contains  many  things  of  value. 
Edward  Card  well,  Documentary  Annals  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
England  from  1546-1716  with  notes  historical  and  explanatory 
(2  vols.,  Oxford,  1839),  is  sometimes  inaccurate,  and  the  historical 
notes  are  of  little  value,  but  is  a  convenient  collection.  Gee  and 
Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History  (New 
York  and  London,  1896),  is  the  best  of  the  more  recent  collections. 
W.  H.  Frere,  Visitation  Articles  and  Injunctions  of  the  Period  of  the 
Reformation  (3  vols.,  London,  1910),  has  superseded  all  other  texts. 

Among  the  publications  of  various  societies  will  be  found  prac 
tically  all  the  works  and  writings  of  Anglican  divines.  The  publi 
cations  of  the  Parker  Society  especially  give  easy  access  to  great 
quantities  of  such  material.  Among  the  most  important  works  of 
this  character  published  by  the  Parker  Society  are:  The  Corre 
spondence  of  Matthew  Parker,  comprising  letters  written  by  and  to 
him  from  A.D.  1535  to  Us  Death  A.D.  1572  (edited  by  John  Bruce 
and  Thomas  T.  Perowne,  Cambridge,  1853);  the  Works  of  John 
Jewel  (edited  by  John  Ayre,  2  vols.,  1848-50)  contain  "The 
Apology  of  the  Church  of  England,"  "The  Defence  of  the  Apol 
ogy,"  "The  Epistle  to  Scipio,"  "A  View  of  a  Seditious  Bull," 
"A  Treatise  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  "Letters  and  Miscellaneous 
Pieces";  the  Works  of  Sandys  (London,  1842);  Edmund  Grindal, 
Remains  (edited  by  William  Nicholson,  Cambridge,  1843) ;  Works 
of  Whitgift  (edited  by  John  Ayre,  Cambridge,  1851);  Zurich  Let- 
ters,  or  The  Correspondence  of  Several  English  Bishops  and  Others 
with  some  of  the  Helvetic  Reformers,  during  the  Reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  (trans,  and  edited  by  Rev.  Hastings  Robinson,  2d  edi 
tion  chronologically  arranged  in  one  series,  Cambridge,  1846). 
The  works  of  Cranmer,  Coverdale,  Hooper,  Latimer,  Bale,  Brad 
ford,  Bullinger,  Becon,  Hutchinson,  Ridley,  and  Pilkington  also 
have  been  published  by  the  Society.  For  further  information  see 
the  Parker  Society's  General  Index  (Cambridge,  1855). 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  201 

The  Anglo-Catholic  Library  contains  considerable  material  of 
first-rate  importance,  and  the  Camden  Society  publishes  many 
things  not  easily  procured  elsewhere.  Lists  of  the  publications  of 
these  series  should  be  consulted.  Camden  Society  publications  of 
great  value,  not  conveniently  mentioned  elsewhere,  are:  J.  Fox, 
Narratives  of  the  Reformation  (ed.  J.  G.  Nichols,  1859) ;  John  Hay- 
ward,  Annals  of  the  First  Four  Years  of  Queen  Elizabeth  (edited  by 
Bruce,  1840);  Mary  Bateson,  A  Collection  of  Original  Letters  from 
the  Bishops  to  the  Privy  Council  1564  (Camden  Miscellany,  vol.  ix, 
London,  1893). 

The  older  biographies  are  worth  consulting  for  the  documents 
they  incorporate,  although  their  accuracy  cannot  be  depended 
upon.  The  labors  of  John  Strype  (died  1737)  produced  several 
lives,  published  in  the  Oxford  edition  of  his  works  (other  editions 
are  available  in  some  of  the  larger  libraries),  among  them  the 
lives  of  Parker,  Grindal,  Whitgift,  Aylmer,  Cheke,  Smith,  Cran- 
mer,  all  with  abundant  collections  of  sources. 

Other  collections  of  works  and  biographies  are  Thomas  Cran- 
mer,  Remains  and  Letters  (Jenkyns  ed.,  4  vols.,  Oxford,  1833), 
which  should  be  used  in  connection  with  Pollard,  Thomas  Cran- 
mer  (1903) ;  Henry  Geast  Dugdale,  Life  and  Character  of  Edmund 
Geste  (London,  1840);  the  works  of  Richard  Hooker  have  been 
published  in  whole  or  part  many  times,  but  the  edition  of  Rev. 
John  Keble,  The  Works  of  that  Learned  and  Judicious  Divine,  Mr. 
Richard  Hooker,  with  an  account  of  his  life  and  death  by  Isaac 
Walton  (2  vols.,  3d  American  from  the  last  Oxford  edition,  New 
York,  1857),  contains  much  valuable  supplementary  material. 
The  writings  of  Bancroft  have  not  all  been  reprinted,  but  his 
Dangerous  Positions  and  Proceedings  published  and  practised 
within  this  Island  of  Brytaine  under  Pretence  of  Reformation  and 
for  the  Presbyteriall  Discipline  (London,  1593)  was  reprinted  in 
1640  and  in  1712  and  large  extracts  are  given  in  Roland  G.  Usher, 
Presbyterian  Movement  as  illustrated  by  the  Minute  Book  of  the 
Dedham  Classis  (Camden  Society  Pub.).  Other  works  of  Ban 
croft  are  noted  elsewhere.  Ralph  Churton,  Life  of  Alexander 
Nowell  (Oxford,  1809),  is  a  life  of  one  of  the  less  conspicuous  of 
the  Elizabethan  divines. 

W.  F.  Hook,  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  (New  Series, 
7  vols.,  1868-76),  contains  much  material,  but  is  written  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  vigorous  and  somewhat  narrow  ecclesiastic;  it 
serves  rather  to  throw  light  upon  the  opinions  of  latter-day 
Anglicanism  than  upon  the  period  with  which  it  deals.  F.  O. 
White,  Lives  of  the  Elizabethan  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church 
(London,  1898),  is  another  collection  worth  examining. 


202  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

First  and  early  editions  of  Elizabethan  ecclesiastical  and  reli 
gious  literature  are  not  readily  available  in  America,  but  some 
good  public  collections  exist.  That  of  the  Prince  Library,  now 
incorporated  in  the  Boston  Public  Library,  contains  among  other 
things  three  copies  of  Bancroft's  Dangerous  Positions,  possibly 
the  only  copies  in  America.  The  McAlpin  Collection  in  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City,  is  probably  the 
most  complete  in  this  country  and  contains  much  not  to  be 
found  in  any  other  American  collection,  both  of  the  works  of  the 
Elizabethan  Anglicans  and  of  their  opponents.  The  collection  is 
now  being  catalogued  by  Dr.  Charles  Ripley  Gillett  and  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  the  catalogue  will  soon  be  printed.  In  the  mean 
time  it  is  difficult  to  say  just  what  will  be  found  there;  but  the 
writer  has  seen  A  Brief  Discours  off  the  troubles  begonne  at  Franck- 
ford  in  Germany  Anno  Domini  1554,  in  an  edition  of  1575;  Bucer, 
On  Apparell  (1566);  Coverdale's  Letter  (1564);  Parker,  Advertise 
ments  (1564) ;  The  Judgement  of  the  Reverend  Father  Master  Henry 
Bullinger  (1566);  Grindal's  Visitation  Articles  (1580);  Penry's 
Defence  (1588);  Thomas  Bilson,  Perpetual  Government  of  Christ's 
Church,  etc.  (London,  1593);  [Bancroft]  Conspiracie  for  Pretended 
Reformation,  viz.  Presbyteriall  Discipline;  R.  Cosin,  Racket,  Cop- 
pinger,  etc.  (London,  1593);  Thomas  Cooper,  An  Admonition  to 
the  People  of  England  (London,  1589);  J.  Lily,  Pappe  with  an 
hatchet.  Alias  A  figgefor  my  God  sonne  or  Cracke  me  this  nut  (1589) ; 
Richard  Bancroft,  A  Sermon  Preached  at  Paules  Crosse  the  9  of 
Februarie  anno  1588  (London,  1588);  J.  Udall,  Demonstration  of 
the  truth  of  Discipline  (1589) ;  Whip  for  an  Ape  and  Marline;  John 
Davidson,  D.  Bancrofts  Rashnes  in  Rayling  against  the  Church  of 
Scotland  (Edinburgh,  1590);  The  Execution  of  Justice  in  England 
for  maintenaunce  of  publique  and  Christian  peace,  etc.,  by  William 
Cecil  (London,  1583).  Other  early  editions  available  in  America 
are  Matthew  Sutcliffe,  Treatise  of  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  (1591) ; 
also  Sutcliffe,  De  Presbyterio  (about  1590) ;  Christopher  Goodman, 
How  Superior  Powers  ought  to  be  obeyed  of  their  subjects  (Geneva, 
X558);  John  Bridges,  Defence  of  the  Government  Established  in  the 
Church  of  England  for  Ecclesiastical  Matters  (1587) ;  Richard  Cosin, 
Apology  of  and  for  Sundry  Proceedings  by  Jurisdiction  Ecclesias 
tical  (1593);  Sir  John  Harrington,  Brief  View  of  the  State  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

There  is  some  tendency  on  the  part  of  modern  students  to 
neglect  the  older  historians  on  the  score  of  their  undoubted  preju 
dices  and  inaccuracy;  but  the  student  who  does  so  will  deprive 
himself  of  valuable  assistance.  The  prejudices  of  the  older  histo 
rians  are  by  no  means  craftily  concealed,  and  with  the  number  of 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  203 

printed  sources  and  calendars  available  inaccuracies  can  rather 
easily  be  checked.  With  care  in  regard  to  these  things  the  modern 
student  will  find  much  of  interest  and  profit  in  many  of  the  fol 
lowing:  J.  Strype,  Ecclesiastical  Memorials  .  .  .  of  the  Church  of 
England  (3  vols.,  Oxford,  1822),  and  the  same  author's  Annals  of 
the  Reformation  and  Establishment  of  Religion  and  other  various 
occurrences  in  the  Church  of  England  during  Queen  Elizabeth's 
Happy  Reign  (7  vols.,  Oxford,  1824),  both  abundantly  supplied 
with  collections  of  papers,  records,  and  letters.  Gilbert  Burnet, 
The  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England :  a  new 
edition  carefully  revised  and  the  records  collated  with  the  originals 
by  Nicholas  Pocock  (7  vols.,  Oxford,  1865),  includes  Wharton's 
Specimen  of  Errors.  Both  Strype  and  Burnet  write  from  the 
standpoint  of  Anglicans.  John  Lingard,  A  History  of  England 
from  the  First  Invasion  of  the  Romans  (5th  ed.,  8  vols.,  Paris, 
1840),  is  the  work  of  a  Catholic  of  considerable  breadth.  Jeremy 
Collier,  An  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Great  Britain  Chiefly  of  Eng 
land  from  the  First  Planting  of  Christianity  to  the  End  of  the  Reign 
of  King  Charles  the  Second :  with  a  Brief  Account  of  the  Affairs  of 
Religion  in  Ireland  (ed.  by  Francis  Barham,  9  vols.,  London, 
1840),  from  the  standpoint  of  a  strong  Tory  and  Jacobite  at  the 
period  of  the  Revolution  of  1688.  C.  Dodd  [H.  Tootell],  Church 
History  (ed.  M.  A.  Tierney,  5  vols.,  London,  1839-43),  written 
by  a  Catholic  priest  as  an  antidote  to  Burnet.  Peter  Heylyn, 
Ecclesia  Restaurata,  or  the  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church 
of  England  (ed.  by  James  Craigie  Robertson  and  printed  by  the 
Ecclesiastical  History  Society,  2  vols.,  Cambridge,  1849),  and 
Thomas  Fuller,  Church  History  of  Britain  (ed.  J.  S.  Brewer,  6  vols., 
London,  1837),  were  written  by  clerics  of  the  English  Church  who 
adhered  to  Charles  I  and  to  the  High  Church  Laudian  party. 
W.  Corbett,  Protestant  Reformation  (ed.  F.  A.  Gasquet,  2  vols., 
London,  1896),  with  which  it  may  be  interesting  to  compare 
Charles  Hastings  Collette,  Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  Penal  Laws, 
with  an  Introduction  on  Wm.  Cobbett's  "History  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation.11  Passing  in  review  the  Reigns  of  Henry  VIII,  Ed 
ward  VI  and  Mary  (Protestant  Alliance,  London,  1890).  Henry 
Soames,  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England 
(4  vols.,  London,  1826-28),  and  the  same  writer's  Elizabethan 
Religious  History  (London,  1839),  are  less  interesting  than  the 
older  works. 

The  examination  of  more  recent  writers  on  the  Church,  cover 
ing  the  whole  or  parts  of  the  Tudor  period,  will  convince  the 
careful  American  student,  unprejudiced  by  national  and  ecclesi 
astical  sympathies,  that  in  some  respects  even  greater  care  is 


2O4  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

required  in  their  use  than  is  the  case  of  the  older  historians. 
Documents  and  sources  are  used  more  accurately,  there  is  little 
or  no  conscious  polemic  purpose,  and  prejudices  are  less  obvious, 
but  the  student  who  compares  the  equally  scholarly  work  of  a 
modern  Anglican  cleric,  a  modern  Catholic  priest,  and  a  noncon 
formist  scholar  will  often  find  widely  divergent  conclusions  equally 
honest.  Religious  and  national  prejudices  are  so  difficult  to  escape 
that  the  student  should  be  on  his  guard  constantly,  both  in  his 
own  work  and  in  estimating  the  work  of  even  the  most  conscien 
tious  of  modern  scholars. 

Richard  Watson  Dixon,  History  of  the  Church  of  England 
from  the  Abolition  of  the  Roman  Jurisdiction  (6  vols.,  of  which 
vols.  v  and  vr  were  compiled  from  the  notes  and  papers  of  Canon 
Dixon  by  Henry  Gee) ,  is  one  of  the  fairest  written  by  an  Anglican 
clergyman.  It  is  frankly  stated  that  the  writer's  standpoint  is 
that  of  a  Church  of  England  cleric.  James  Gairdner,  The  English 
Church  in  the  i6th  Century  (1902),  and  the  same  author's  History 
of  the  English  Church  from  Henry  to  the  Death  of  Mary  (1902), 
covering  part  of  the  same  period,  while  not  entirely  free  from 
faults,  are  most  excellent.  W.  H.  Frere,  The  English  Church  in 
the  Reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  7,  1558-1625  (in  the  History  of 
the  English  Church,  edited  by  W.  R.  W.  Stephens  and  W.  Hunt, 
London  and  New  York,  1904),  is  a  scholarly  introduction  to  the 
period,  although  Frere's  patience  with  the  Puritans  is  not  always 
unstrained.  John  Hunt,  Religious  Thought  in  England  from  the 
Reformation  to  the  Last  Century  (3  vols.,  1870),  is  a  somewhat 
older  work  deserving  examination.  To  the  same  class  belongs 
John  Henry  Blunt,  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England  (2  vols., 
New  York,  1882).  Henry  Gee,  Elizabethan  Clergy  and  the  Settle 
ment  of  Religion,  1558-1564  (Oxford,  1898),  is  a  scholarly  treat 
ment  of  one  phase  of  the  subject,  but  this  Anglican  treatment 
should  be  compared  with  the  study  of  the  same  subject  by  a 
Catholic  scholar,  Henry  Norbert  Birt,  The  Elizabethan  Religious 
Settlement ;  A  Study  of  Contemporary  Documents  (London,  1907). 
Gilbert  W.  Child,  Church  and  State  under  the  Tudor s  (London  and 
New  York,  1890),  is  as  clear-sighted  as  any  work  the  student  can 
wish  to  examine.  On  the  same  topic  as  Arthur  Elliot,  The  State 
and  the  Church  (London  and  New  York,  1896),  a  great  deal  of 
literature  of  historical  value  will  be  found  arising  from  the  recent 
attempts  to  bring  about  disestablishment.  Roland  G.  Usher, 
The  Reconstruction  of  the  English  Church  (2  vols.,  New  York  and 
London,  1910),  is  a  brilliant  work  written  by  an  American  scholar. 
S.  F.  Maitland,  Essays  on  Subjects  connected  with  the  Reformation 
in  England  (reprinted  with  an  introduction  by  A.  W.  Hutton, 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  205 

London  and  New  York,  1899),  is  the  work  of  one  of  the  most  able 
of  the  older  English  scholars  and  deals  with  early  and  pre-Eliza- 
bethan  topics.  These  essays  should  be  studied  carefully.  Bishop 
Stubbs,  Seventeen  Lectures  on  the  Study  of  Mediceval  and  Modern 
History  (Oxford,  1900),  is,  naturally,  scholarly  and  suggestive. 

Histories  of  particular  dioceses  are  published  by  the  Society 
for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  in  a  series  called  Diocesan 
Histories.  Of  particular  interest  are  J.  L.  Low,  Durham  (London, 
1881);  R.  H.  Morris,  Chester  (London,  1895);  H.  W.  Phillott, 
Hereford  (London,  1888) ;  R.  S.  Ferguson,  Carlisle  (London,  1889). 
For  the  Universities  consult  J.  B.  Mullinger,  History  of  the  Uni 
versity  of  Cambridge,  and  Anthony  a  Wood,  Historia  et  antiqui- 
tates  universitatis  Oxoniensis  (Oxoniae,  1674).  Thomas  Baker's 
History  of  the  College  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  Cambridge,  has 
been  edited  by  J.  E.  B.  Mayor  (2  vols.,  Cambridge,  1896).  Among 
the  many  local  histories  published  by  local  history  societies  and 
antiquarians  William  Watson,  Historical  Account  of  the  Ancient 
Town  and  Port  of  Wisbeach  (Wisbeach,  1827),  will  be  very  helpful. 

For  Convocation,  T.  Lathbury,  History  of  the  Convocation  of  the 
Church  of  England  (ist  ed.,  London,  1842;  2d  ed.,  London,  1853); 
F.  Atterbury,  Rights  and  Privileges  of  an  English  Convocation  (2d 
ed.,  London,  1701).  G.  Nicholsius,  Defensio  Ecclesice  Anglicance 
(London,  1708),  has  an  interesting  section  on  "homiliarum  in  nas- 
cente  Reformatione  usus"  and  some  material  on  the  same  topic 
will  be  found  in  J.  T.  Tomlinson,  The  Prayer  Book,  Articles  and 
Homilies  (London,  1897). 

On  the  Prayer  Book  there  are  several  works  of  first-rate  im 
portance,  but  the  following  will  prove  particularly  useful:  F. 
Proctor  and  W.  H.  Frere,  New  History  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  (London,  1901);  Nicholas  Pocock,  The  Reformation  and 
the  Prayer  Book  (London,  1879);  F.  A.  Gasquet,  Edward  VI  and 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  (London,  1890);  J.  Parker,  The  First 
Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI  (Oxford,  1877);  N.  Pocock,  Troubles 
connected  with  the  First  Book  of  Common  Prayer  (Papers  from 
the  Petyt  MSS.,  Camden  Society,  London,  1884) ;  L.  Pullan,  His 
tory  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  (London,  1900);  H.  Gee,  The 
Elizabethan  Prayer-book  and  Ornaments  (London,  1902);  E.  C. 
Harrington,  Pope  Pius  IV  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

For  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  cf.  E.  C.  S.  Gibson,  The 3Q  Articles 
(2d  ed.,  London,  1898);  C.  Hardwick,  History  of  the  Articles  of 
Religion  (Cambridge,  1859). 

For  the  liturgies :  Liturgies  of  Edward  VI  (Parker  Society,  edited 
by  J.  Kelley,  Cambridge,  1844) ;  Liturgies  set  forth  in  the  Reign  of 
Elizabeth  (Parker  Society,  edited  by  Clay,  Cambridge,  1847). 


206  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

For  episcopacy  and  the  apostolic  succession  consult:  Bishop 
Hall,  Episcopacy  by  Divine  Right  Asserted ;  E.  E.  Estcourt,  Ques 
tion  of  Anglican  Ordinations  (London,  1873);  Stubbs,  Apostolical 
Succession  in  the  Church  of  England;  John  Bramhall,  On  Apostolic 
Succession  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  Works  (ed.  by  A.  W. 
Haddon,  5  vols.,  Oxford,  1842-45);  Samuel  F.  Hulton,  The  Pri 
macy  of  England  (Oxford  and  London,  1899);  Francis  Johnson, 
A  Treatise  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Church  of  England;  Pierre  Francois 
Courayer,  Dissertation  on  the  Validity  of  the  Ordinations  of  the 
English  and  of  the  Succession  of  the  Bishops  of  the  A  nglican  Church  ; 
with  the  proofs  establishing  the  facts  advanced  in  this  work  (Oxford, 
1844).  The  works  of  Sara  via  should  be  examined,  especially  De 
diver  sis  gradibus  ministrorum  (London,  1590).  He  defended  the 
episcopal  forms  and  the  succession  during  the  last  years  of 
Elizabeth's  reign  and  had  considerable  influence  upon  the 
Anglican  divines.  There  are  long  quotations  from  sixteenth- 
century  Anglican  writers  in  A.  J.  Mason,  The  Church  of  England 
and  Episcopacy  (Cambridge,  1914). 

For  an  understanding  of  what  Erastianism  is,  cf.  J.  N.  Figgis, 
"Erastus  and  Erastianism"  (Journal  t of  Theological  Studies, 
vol.  n,  p.  66). 

The  older  histories  of  the  nonconformists  and  dissenters  are 
many  of  them  prejudiced  in  the  extreme  and  misrepresent  facts 
and  motives,  but  should  be  examined  as  carefully  as  the  Anglican 
histories  of  the  same  class.  Neal,  History  of  the  Puritans,  should  be 
read  in  connection  with  Madox,  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  Eng 
land  against  Neal.  Benjamin  Hanbury,  Historical  Memorials 
Relating  to  the  Independents  (1839-44);  Marsden,  History  of  the 
Early  Puritans;  Samuel  Hopkins,  The  Puritans  or  the  Church, 
Court,  and  Parliament  of  England  during  the  Reigns  of  Edward  VI 
and  Queen  Elizabeth  (3  vols.,  Boston,  1859-61),  a  common  book, 
but  of  little  value;  Benjamin  Brook,  Lives  of  the  Puritans  (3  vols., 
London,  1813),  is  little  more  than  a  series  of  brief  biographical 
sketches,  sometimes  useful  in  locating  particular  men,  but  of  no 
historical  value.  John  Brown,  The  English  Puritans  (Cambridge, 
1912,  Cambridge  Manuals  of  Science  and  Literature),  is  a  good 
recent  introduction  to  the  subject.  Henry  W.  Clark,  History  of 
English  Nonconformity  from  Wiclif  to  the  close  of  the  igth  Century 
(vol.  i,  1911,  deals  with  the  period  up  to  the  early  Stuarts;  vol.  11, 
London,  1913,  The  Restoration).  Champlin  Burrage  has  written 
and  published  much  on  various  phases  of  English  dissent  and  all 
his  work  is  worthy  of  examination,  some  of  it  indispensable.  Of 
his  writings  the  following  are  important :  The  Early  English  Dis 
senters  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Research,  1550-1641  (2  vols.,  Cam- 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  207 

bridge,  1912.  Vol.  I,  History  and  Criticism;  vol.  n,  Illustrative 
Documents,  many  of  them  hitherto  unpublished),  is  a  most  schol 
arly  treatment  from  the  factual  standpoint,  and  the  introduction 
contains  a  valuable  discussion  of  the  literature.  Cf.,  also,  Cham- 
plin  Burrage,  The  True  Story  of  Robert  Browne,  1550-1633,  Father 
of  Congregationalism  (London,  1906);  The  'Retraction1  of  Robert 
Browne,  Father  of  Congregationalism,  being  a  Reproofe  of  certeine 
Schismatical  persons  [i.e.,  Henry  Barrowe,  John  Greenwood  and 
their  Congregation]  and  their  Doctrine,  etc.,  written  probably  about 
1588  (London,  1907);  The  Church  Covenant  Idea;  Its  Origin  and 
its  Development  (American  Baptist  Publication  Society,  Phila 
delphia,  1904);  John  Penry,  the  So-called  Martyr  of  Congregation 
alism  as  revealed  in  the  Original  Record  of  His  Trial  and  in  Docu 
ments  related  thereto  (Oxford  and  London,  1913);  Elizabethan 
Puritanism  and  Separatism.  The  work  of  Henry  M.  Dexter  is  also 
important,  although  of  somewhat  different  character  and  perhaps 
not  so  accurate  as  that  of  Burrage.  Cf.  Dexter,  Congregationalism, 
What  it  is,  Whence  it  is,  How  it  Works,  etc.  (Boston,  1865);  Con 
gregationalism  as  Seen  in  its  Literature  (New  York,  1880);  The 
True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  the  se-baptist  as  told  by  himself  and  his 
contemporaries  (Boston,  1881).  For  the  Congregational  and  Bap 
tist  development:  R.  W.  Dale,  History  of  English  Congregational 
ism  (London,  1907);  John  Clifford,  The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the 
English  Baptists  (London,  1857);  Thomas  Crosby,  A  History  of 
the  English  Baptists  from  the  Reformation  to  the  Beginning  o/  the 
Reign  of  King  George  I  (London,  1738) ;  and  for  the  Anabaptists, 
H.  S.  Burrage,  The  Anabaptists  of  the  i6th  Century  (American 
Society  of  Church  History  Papers,  vol.  in,  pp.  145-64*  1891); 
John  Waddington,  John  Penry,  the  Pilgrim  Martyr,  I559~I593 
(London,  1854),  may  prove  of  some  assistance. 
.  For  the  Martin  Marprelate  controversy:  William  Pierce,  An 
Historical  Introduction  to  the  Marprelate  Tracts,  A  Chapter  in  the 
Evolution  of  Religious  and  Civil  Liberty  in  England  (New  York, 
1909),  and  the  same  writer's  Marprelate  Tracts,  1588,  1589,  with 
notes  historical  and  explanatory  (London,  1911),  are  the  best 
books  on  the  subject.  William  Maskell,  A  History  of  the  Martin 
Marprelate  Controversy;  Edward  Arber,  An  Introductory  Sketch 
to  the  Martin  Marprelate  Controversy  (English  Scholars'  Library) ; 
H.  M.  Dexter,  Martin  Marprelate  Controversy,  present  the  views 
of  older  scholars.  Many  of  the  original  tracts,  and  some  of  the 
replies  as  well,  are  in  the  McAlpin  Collection  in  the  Union  Theo 
logical  Seminary  Library.  For  detailed  literature  see  Pierce, 
Introduction,  and  Tracts. 

Other  writings  of  the  dissenters  and  nonconformists  will  be 


208  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

found  in  various  collections  and  libraries.  W.  H.  Frere  and  C.  E. 
Douglas  have  edited  Puritan  Manifestoes,  A  Study  of  the  Origin  of 
the  Puritan  Revolt.  With  a  reprint  of  the  Admonition  to  the  Parlia 
ment  and  kindred  documents,  1572  (Society  for  Promoting  Chris 
tian  Knowledge,  in  the  Church  History  Society  Publications,  vol. 
LXXII,  London  and  New  York,  1907).  Arber,  English  Scholars' 
Library,  contains  many  things  and  the  list  for  that  series  should 
be  consulted.  It  contains  a  reprint  of  Brief  Discourse  of  the 
Troubles  at  Frankfort ;  J.  Udall,^4  Demonstration  of  the  Truth  of 
Discipline  ;Uda\\,  Diotrephes,  Pappe  with  a  Hatchet,  is  printed  in 
Elizabethan  and  Jacobean  Pamphlets,  edited  by  George  Saintsbury. 

For  the  Presbyterians  and  their  leaders  in  Elizabeth's  time, 
there  is  abundant  source  material,  but  few  works  of  first-rate 
importance.  Benjamin  Brook,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings 
of  Thomas  Cartwright  (London,  1845),  is  still,  so  far  as  the  writer 
knows,  the  only  life  of  that  eminent  and  vigorous  Presbyterian, 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  a  new  one  will  soon  take  the  place  of 
Brook's  work.  Roland  G.  Usher,  The  Presbyterian  Movement  in 
the  Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  as  illustrated  by  the  Minute  Book  of  the 
Dedham  Classis,  1582-1589  (Camden  Society,  1905),  presents 
an  interesting  theory  with  considerable  backing  of  fact.  W.  A. 
Shaw,  "  Elizabethan  Presbyterianism  "  (English  Historical  Review, 
vol.  in),  is  worth  reading. 

Three  works  touching  the  Familists  are  the  chief  source  for  the 
English  group:  Henry  Nickolas,  An  Introduction  to  the  holy  under 
standing  of  the  Glass  of  Righteousness;  J.  Knewstubs,  Confutation 
of  certain  monstrous  and  horrible  heresies  taught  by  H.  N.  1579;  and 
John  Rogers  The  displaying  of  an  horrible  sect  of  gross  and  wicked 
heretics,  naming  themselves,  the  Family  of  Love  ;  with  the  lives  of  the 
Authors  etc.  (London,  1578). 

For  the  Catholics  in  England  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  a 
great  deal  of  material  has  been  published,  much  of  it  unfortu 
nately,  whether  written  by  Anglican,  Catholic,  or  nonconformist, 
not  very  reliable.  Arnold  Oskar  Meyer,  England  u.  die  Katholische 
Kirke  unter  Elisabeth  u.  den  Stuarts  (vol.  I  unter  Elisabeth,  Rom, 
1911;  translated,  St.  Louis,  1916),  is  a  scholarly  work  by  a  Ger 
man  who  has  carefully  studied  the  documents.  Ranke,  Analecte 
in  die  Romische  Papste  (translated  in  the  Bohn  Library)  is  still  a 
very  useful  work.  F.  G.  Lee,  Church  under  Q.  Elizabeth  (2  vols., 
1880),  is  a  work  by  no  means  fair,  but  suggestive  in  many  respects. 
Nicholas  Sander,  Rise  and  Growth  of  the  Anglican  Schism,  pub 
lished  1585  with  a  Continuation  of  the  History  by  the  Rev.  Edward 
Rishton  (translated  with  an  introduction  and  notes  by  David 
Lewis,  London,  1877),  is  an  excellent  example  of  contemporary 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  209 

Catholic  writing.  Catholic  Tractates  of  the  i6th  Century  (ed.  T.  G. 
Law,  Scottish  Text  Society,  Edinburgh,  1901),  gives  further  ma 
terial  of  somewhat  the  same  character.  Raynaldus,  Annales 
Ecclesiastici,  should  most  certainly  be  used  although  on  many 
points  not  to  be  depended  upon.  For  the  Council  of  Trent  the 
old  classical  histories  of  Sarpi  and  Pallavicino  remain  the  best 
works. 

For  the  Popes:  W.  Voss,  Die  Verhandlungen  Pius  IV  mit  den 
katholischen  Machten  (Leipzig,  1887);  an  article  by  Maitland, 
"Queen  Elizabeth  and  Paul  IV"  (English  Historical  Review,  vol. 
xv,  p.  326) ;  Mendham,  Life  and  Pontificate  of  Pius  V  (London, 
1832;  supplement,  1833). 

Works  of  value  in  the  study  of  the  treatment  of  the  English 
Catholics  are:  Phillips,  Extinction  of  the  Ancient  Hierarchy  (Lon 
don,  1905) ;  T.  E.  Bridgett  and  T.  F.  Knox,  The  True  Story  of  the 
Catholic  Hierarchy  deposed  by  Queen  Elizabeth  (London,  1889); 
T.  F.  Knox,  Records  of  Anglican  Catholics  under  the  Penal  Laws 
(London,  1878);  Bishop  Challoner,  Memoirs  of  Missionary  Priests 
and  Other  Catholics  of  Both  Sexes  that  have  suffered  Death  in  England 
on  Religious  Accounts  from  1377-1684  (ed.  T.  G.  Law,  Manches 
ter,  1878) ;  Charles  Buller,  Historical  Memoirs  of  the  English,  Irish 
and  Scottish  Catholics  since  the  Reform  (3d  ed.,  4  vols.,  London, 
1822) ;  Cardinal  Manning,  Calendar  of  Martyrs  of  the  i6th  and  ifth 
Centuries  (London,  1887);  T.  G.  Law,  A  Calendar  of  the  English 
Martyrs  of  the  i6th  and  I'jth  Centuries  (London,  1876) ;  Pollen  and 
Burton,  Lives  of  the  English  Martyrs,  1583-1588  (1914),  is  the 
latest.  All  these  works  must  be  used  with  considerable  cau 
tion. 

The  work  of  J.  H.  Pollen,  a  modern  Catholic  scholar,  deserves 
the  highest  consideration.  Cf.  especially  his  Unpublished  Docu 
ments  relating  to  the  English  Martyrs  (vol.  I,  1584-1603,  Catholic 
Record  Soc.  Pub.  v,  1908);  Acts  of  the  English  Martyrs  hitherto 
unpublished  (London,  1891),  and  various  articles  in  The  Month. 
Especially  "Religious  Terrorism  under  Q.  Elizabeth"  (March, 
I9°5)l  "Politics  of  English  Catholics  during  the  Reign  of  Q. 
Elizabeth"  (1902);  "The  Question  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  Suc 
cessor"  (May,  1903). 

Consult  also  the  following :  F.  A.  Gasquet,  Hampshire  Recusants, 
a  story  of  their  troubles  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth  (London,  1895); 
J.  J.  E.  Proost,  Les  refugies  anglais  et  irlandais  en  Belgique  a  la 
suite  de  la  reforme  religieuse  etablie  sous  Elisabeth  et  Jacques  I; 
Guilday,  English  Catholic  Refugees  on  the  Continent  (vol.  I,  I9I4)'» 
M.  A.  S.  Hume,  Treason  and  Plot,  Struggles  for  Catholic  Supremacy 
in  the  Last  Years  of  Q.  Elizabeth  (new  edition,  London,  1908) ;  the 


210  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 

article  by  R.  B.  Merriman,  "Notes  on  the  Treatment  of  the  Eng 
lish  Catholics  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth"  (American  Historical 
Review,  vol.  xin,  no.  3),  is  by  an  American  scholar  and  exceed 
ingly  fair. 

On  the  Bull  of  Excommunication  two  of  the  most  interesting 
contemporary  pamphlets  are  Bullce  Papistica  ante  brennum  contra 
sereniss.  AnglicB  \Francicz  et  Hibernice  Reginam  Elizabetham  et 
contra  inclytum  Anglice  regnum  promulgate  Refutatio,  orthodoxczque 
RegincB  et  Universi  regni  Anglia  defensio  Henry chi  Bullingeri 
(London,  1572),  and  A  Disclosing  of  the  great  Bull  and  certain 
calves  that  he  hath  gotten  and  specially  the  Monster  Bull  that  roared 
at  my  Lord  Bishops  Gate.  (Imprinted  at  London  by  John  Daye.) 
On  the  same  topic  see  M.  Creighton,  "The  Excommunication  of 
Q.  Elizabeth  "  (English  Historical  Review,  vol.  vu,  p.  81). 

For  the  Jesuits  consult :  Robert  Persons,  The  First  Entrance  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Society  into  England  (ed.  J.  H.  Pollen,  Catholic 
Record  Society,  Miscellanea,  vol.  II,  1906) ;  Henry  Foley,  Records 
of  the  English  Province  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  (8  vols.,  London, 
1877-83) ;  Ethelred  L.  Taunton,  The  History  of  the  Jesuits  in  Eng 
land,  1580-1773  (Philadelphia  and  London,  1901);  T.  G.  Law, 
Historical  Sketch  of  the  Conflicts  between  Jesuits  and  Seculars  in  the 
Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  with  a  Reprint  of  Christopher  Bagshaws1 
4 True  Relation  of  the  Faction  begun  at  Wisbich'  (London,  1889). 
Biographical  material:  Richard  Simpson,  Edmund  Champion,  a 
Biography  (London,  1867);  The  Letters  and  Memorials  of  Wm. 
Cardinal  Allen,  1532-1594  (edited  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Congre 
gation  of  the  London  Oratory,  London,  1882);  Morris,  Life  of 
Father  John  Gerard  (London,  1881). 

For  the  student  particularly  interested  in  the  development  of 
toleration  and  liberty  the  following  books  are  suggested:  James 
Mackinnon,  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty  (3  vols.,  London,  1906- 
08,  vol.  II,  The  Age  of  the  Reformation,  and  vol.  in,  The  Stuarts). 
Sir  Frederick  Pollock,  "The  Theory  of  Persecution,"  in  Essays  on 
Jurisprudence  and  Ethics;  Schaff,  Religious  Liberty  (in  Publica 
tions  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1886-87);  Mandell 
Creighton,  Persecution  and  Tolerance  (Hulsean  Lectures,  1893- 
94,  London  and  New  York,  1895) ;  J.  O.  Bevan,  Birth  and  Growth 
of  Toleration  (London,  1909);  Sir  James  Fitzjames  Stephen, 
Liberty,  Equality  and  Fraternity.  One  of  the  best  studies  is  A.  A. 
Sea  ton,  Theory  of  Toleration  under  the  Later  Stuarts  (Cambridge, 
1911),  and  it  has  an  introduction  of  primary  importance.  Cf., 
also,  C.  Beard,  The  Reformation  of  the  i6th  Century  in  its  relation 
to  modern  Thought  and  Knowledge  (London,  1883).  H.  T.  Buckle, 
History  of  Civilization  in  England  (2  vols.,  New  York,  1891,  from 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX  211 

the  2d  London  ed.),  takes  a  view  now  somewhat  antiquated,  but 
worth  considering.  The  intellectual  aspects  of  the  develop 
ment  are  ably  presented  by  J.  B.  Bury,  A  History  of  Freedom 
of  Thought  (Home  University  Library),  and  in  greater  detail  by 
J.  M.  Robertson,  A  Short  History  of  Freethought  (2  vols.,  New 
York,  1906). 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Act  for  the  Assurance  of  the  Queen's 

Supremacy,  30. 
Act  for  the  Better   Enforcement  of 

the  Writ  de  Excommunicato   Capi- 

endo,  30. 
Act  of  Supremacy,  21-24,  29»  67,  72, 

105. 
Act  of  Uniformity,  21-24,  72,  97,  105, 

142. 
Acts  of  Parliament,  religious,  70,  73, 

80,  82,  97,  150. 
Advertisements,  Parker's,  142. 
Agnostics,    Congregationalists    intol 
erant  of,  181. 

Anabaptists,  69  «.,  131,  134,  175. 
Anglican  Church,  5,  64,  142.  See  also 

Established  Church. 
Anglicanism,  93-130,  161,  180,  187, 

190. 
Answer e  to  a  certen  Libel  intituled  An 

Admonition  to  the  Parliament,  An, 

155- 

Anti-Vestiarians,  159. 
Apostolic  succession  of  bishops,  110- 

15- 

Ascham,  16. 

Atheists,  Congregationalists  intoler 
ant  of,  181. 

Aylmer,  Bishop,  25,  157. 

Bacon,  80,  114,  147. 

Bancroft,  Bishop  of  London,  47,  68, 

H3,  "7; 

Barlow,  Bishop,  43,  no. 

Barrow,  175. 

Barrowists,  131,  134,  175. 

Bell,  Speaker,  151. 

Bible,  publication  of  official,  117;  pri 
vate  interpretation  of,  120. 

Bigotry,  90. 

Bishops,  opposed  religious  changes, 
18;  refused  to  debate  with  reform 
ers,  19;  removal  of  Catholic,  23; 
selection  of  Protestant,  25;  courts 
of,  76;  apostolic  succession  of,  no- 
15. 


Blackstone,  73. 

Book  of  Common  Prayer,  10,  1 1  n.,  70, 

97,  117,  150;  of  Edward  VI,  20. 
Book  of  Discipline,  157. 
Book  of  Homilies,  20. 
Bridges,  Dr.  John,  158  n. 
Browne,  176,  177,  180. 
Brownists,  131,  134,  175. 
Bullinger,  146. 

Calendar  of  English  Martyrs,  50. 

Calvin,  65,  136. 

Calvinism,  10,  99,  165,  188. 

Campion,  Jesuit  missionary,  40,  51. 

Capias,  Writ  of,  32. 

Cartwright,  Thomas,  119,  133,  135, 
154,  160-65,  181. 

Catechism,  Nowell's,  98. 

Catholicism,  Roman,  9,  14,  125,  173, 
1 86. 

Cecil,  Sir  William,  13,  18,  21,  61,  98, 
141,  172;  quoted,  39,  68. 

Ceremonies,  religious,  109,  141;  a 
cause  of  dissent,  135,  138,  152. 

Chancery,  Court  of,  31. 

Church,  a,  Congregationalist  idea  of, 
176. 

Church,  the,  and  the  secular  courts,  76. 

Church  and  State,  64-92,  122,  153, 
168,  172,  180,  189. 

Church  of  England.  See  Established 
Church. 

Clergy,  removal  of  Catholic,  19,  23; 
required  to  take  oath  of  supremacy, 
22;  selection  of  Protestant,  26;  in 
competent,  26,  95,  102;  restraints 
on,  98;  illiterate,  100;  lack  of  mor 
als  of,  102;  opposed  use  of  habits, 
142-45. 

Clerical  offices,  desire  for,  15,  100. 

Commissions,  Ecclesiastical,  70;  of 
Royal  Visitation,  23,  27;  of  Review, 

73- 

Common  Pleas,  Court  of,  78. 
Confiscation  of  property  for  absence 

from  church,  55. 


216 


INDEX 


Conformity,  22,  54. 

Congregationalism,  135,  174-82,  188. 

Congregationalists,  134,  135,  174-82. 

Continental  Protestantism,  15,  115, 
128,  137,  145. 

Convocation,  18,  150. 

Cooper,  Bishop,  101,  113,  149,  151. 

Copping,  John,  181  n. 

Cosin,  74. 

Council,  the,  12,  18,  74,  77,  84-87. 

Court  of  Arches,  80. 

Courts,  84;  ecclesiastical,  71-82;  sec 
ular,  76. 

Covenant,  the,  10. 

Cox,  20,  53. 

Cranmer,  in,  182. 

Crown,  power  of  the,  72-76. 

Defence  of  the  Answere,  157. 

Democracy  of  Presbyterianism,  166. 

Disloyalty,  Presbyterian,  to  Queen, 
172. 

Dissent,  116,  129;  causes  of,  90; 
Protestant,  131-82. 

Doctrinal  standards,  Anglican,  formu 
lation  of,  96-99. 


Ecclesiastic  Discipline  .  .  .  Explicate, 

157- 

Ecclesiastical  apologetic,  117. 

Ecclesiastical  polity,  135,  161,  164. 

Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Hooker's,  164. 

Ecclesiastical  theory,  formulation  of, 
105. 

Edward  VI,  14. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  5,  183;  alleged  ille 
gitimacy  of,  7;  attitude  toward  the 
Pope,  8;  attitude  on  the  religious 
question,  12-16,  33,  57;  her  first 
Parliament,  18-22;  and  the  clergy, 
25,  88,  145,  147;  second  Parliament, 
28-33;  excommunication  of,  37;  the 
royal  prerogative  of,  59,  82  ff.; 
power  over  Church,  59,  67-71,  82, 
92,  165;  opposed  religious  zeal,  98, 
103;  attitude  toward  Presbyterians, 
172-74;  stood  for  no  heroic  prin 
ciple,  183. 

Enchanters,  repression  of,  32. 

Episcopacy,  exaltation  of,  121. 

Erastianism  of  Established  Church, 
70,  93,  108. 

Established  Church,  93-130;  under 
Henry  and  Edward,  14;  inaugura 


tion  of,  22-28;  excommunication 
from,  31;  and  Catholics,  35-63,  185; 
success  of,  33;  compulsory  attend 
ance,  41,  54,  94;  national  character 
of,  65-66,  88;  a  compromise,  94, 
128;  justification  of,  105;  desire  of, 
for  autonomy,  116;  and  Protestant 
dissent,  131  jf.;  and  Presbyterians, 
135,  1  88;  and  Congregationalists, 


. 

Establishment.        See      Established 

Church. 
Excommunication,     30-32,     72;     of 

Elizabeth,  37. 

Executions  of  Catholics,  50. 
Exhortation  to  the  Bishops,  etc.,  152. 
Exiles,  Protestant,  12;  Catholic,  52. 

Familists,  131. 

Family  of  Love,  136. 

Fielde,  149,  151. 

Finlason,  85. 

First  Admonition  to  Parliament,  149, 

155,  159- 
Foreign  dangers  to  England,  8,  9,  28, 

45- 
Forty-two    Articles  of  Edward  VI, 

97- 

Fox,  183. 

Franchises,  78,  8l. 
Frankpledge,  8l. 

Gentry,  influence  of,  59. 

Government,  intolerance  of,  6,  186, 
189,  191;  caution  of,  on  religious 
question,  11-17;  moderation  of,  14, 
29;  and  the  Catholics,  35-63. 

Greenwood,  175. 

Grindal,  Bishop,  79,  103,  139,  142, 
145- 

Habits,  controversy  over  use  of,  138- 

52. 

Hammond,  Dr.,  112. 
Hay  ward,  67. 

Henry  VIII,  14,  67,  72,  80. 
Heresy,  21,  97. 
High  commission,  the,  71,  74. 
High  Court  of  Delegates,  72,  80. 
Historical  apologetic  for  Established 

Church,  106. 
Hook,  157. 
Hooker,  114,  116,  118-24,  164,  178, 

183. 


INDEX 


217 


Horn,  137  ».,  139. 
Huguenots,  28. 
Humphrey,  Dr.,  143,  146. 

Imprisonment  of  Catholics,  54. 

Indifference,  religious,  13. 

Intolerance,  definition  of,  2;  varieties 
of,  3;  religious,  3-4;  checked  by 
religious  indifference,  14;  checked 
by  government,  90;  Elizabeth's  in 
fluence  on,  92 ;  ecclesiastical  theory 
a  cause  of,  109;  Anglican,  124,  128; 
Presbyterian,  154,  159-63;  Congre- 
gationalist,  178. 

James,  King,  117. 

Jesuits,  46,  47,  127,  185;  banishment 

of,  40,  53- 
Jewel,  106,  in,  118-^24,  138;  quoted, 

12,  13,  19,  25,  68,  138. 
Justices  of  the  peace,   religious  acts 

enforced  by,  30,  76. 

King's  Bench,  Court  of,  31,  71,  78. 
Knollys,  Sir  Francis,  60,  114,  141. 
Knox,  John,  10. 

Landaff,  Bishop,  23. 

Laudian  Church  idea,  the,  129. 

Laws  against  Catholics,    39-42,    46; 

administration  of,  48-63;    against 

Protestant  dissenters,  46. 
Leicester,  Earl  of,  141. 
L'Hopital,  184. 

Loyalty  to  the  Queen,  14,  16,  46,  54. 
Luther,  15,  179  «.,  184. 
Lutheranism,  161,  165. 

Marprelate  Tracts,  131  «.,  175. 

Martyr,  19. 

Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  claim  of,   to 

throne,  8-n,  28,  42-45,  185. 
Mary  Tudor,  7,  13.    i^a 
Mass,  saying  of,  prohibited,  41. 
"Mediocrity"  of  Anglican  clergy,  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  form 
of,, 1 36;  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, 
101. 

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,  n. 

"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,  11,28,37. 

Prayer  Book.  See  Book  of  Common 
Prayer. 

Preaching  prohibited,  12;  licenses 
for,  117. 

Precisianists,  125,  132,  134,  138,  159. 

Prerogative  writs,  78,  81. 

Presbyterianism,  and  Anglicanism, 
104,  119,  134,  152,  187;  opposition 
to  Catholics,  126,  159,  185;  intol 
erance  of,  154,  159-63.  168,  181; 
form  of  organization  of,  159;  based 
on  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  160. 

Presbyterians,  5,  47,  I59~64- 


218 


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  Answer e  made  of  Doctor 
Whitgift,  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  Visitation,  Commission  of,  23, 
27,  71. 

Sandys,  93,  101,  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,  72, 

105. 

Taxation  of  Catholics,  53,  57. 

Thacher,  Elias,  181. 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  the,  94,  97,  117, 
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,  1 86;  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  n.',  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. 

Whitgift,  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  .  x 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


SAMTTFL  LIBRARY