A History of the Reformation Volume II Part 21

said the Bishop of Aquila.[520] The common people had been showing their hatred of Romanism, and "images and religious persons were treated disrespectfully." It was observed that Elizabeth "was very much wedded to the people and thinks as they do," and that "her att.i.tude was much more gracious to the common people than to others."[521] The burnings of the Protestant martyrs, and especially the execution of Cranmer, had stirred the indignation of the populace of London and the south counties against Romanism, and the feelings were spreading throughout the country. All cla.s.ses of the people hated the entire subjugation of English interests to those of Spain during the late reign, just as the people of Scotland at the same time were growing weary of French domination under Mary of Lorraine, and Elizabeth shared the feeling of her people.[522]

Yet there was so much in the political condition of the times to make both Elizabeth and Cecil pause before committing themselves to the Reformation, that it is necessary to believe that religious conviction had a great influence in determining their action. England was not the powerful nation in 1558-60 which it became after twenty years under the rule of the great Queen. The agrarian troubles which had disturbed the three reigns of Henry VIII., Edward, and Mary had not died out. The coinage was still as debased as it had been in the closing years of Henry VIII. Trade was stagnant, and the country was suffering from a two years' visitation of the plague. The war with France, into which England had been dragged by Spain, had not merely drained the country of men and money, but was bringing nothing save loss of territory and damage to prestige. Nor was there much to be hoped from foreign aid. The Romanist reaction was in full swing throughout Europe, and the fortunes of the continental Protestants were at their lowest ebb. It was part of the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (April 1559) that France and Spain should unite to crush the Protestantism of the whole of Europe, and the secret treaty between Philip II. and Catherine de' Medici in 1565[523] showed that such a design was thought possible of accomplishment during the earlier years of Elizabeth. It was never wholly abandoned until the defeat of the Armada in 1588. Cecil's maxim, that the Reformation could not be crushed until England had been conquered, had for its corollary that the conquest of England must be the prime object of the Romanist sovereigns who were bent on bringing Europe back to the obedience of Rome. The determination to take the Protestant side added to the insecurity of Elizabeth's position in the earlier years of her reign.

She was, in the opinion of the Pope and probably of all the European Powers, Romanist and Protestant, illegitimate; and heresy combined with b.a.s.t.a.r.dy was a terrible weapon in the hands of Henry II. of France, who meant to support the claims of his daughter-in-law, the young Queen of Scots,--undoubtedly the lawful heir in the eyes of all who believed that Henry VIII. had been lawfully married to Catharine of Aragon. The Spanish Amba.s.sador, Count de Feria, tried to frighten Elizabeth by reminding her how, in consequence of a papal excommunication, Navarre had been seized by the King of Spain.[524] His statement to his master, that at her accession two-thirds of the English people were Romanists,[525] may be questioned (he made many miscalculations), but it is certain that England was anything but a united Protestant nation.

Still, who knew what trouble Philip might have in the Netherlands, and the Lords of the Congregation might be encouraged enough to check French designs on England through Scotland.[526] At the worst, Philip of Spain would not like to see England wholly in the grip of France. The Queen and Cecil made up their minds to take the risk, and England was to be Protestant and defy the Pope, from "whom nothing was to be feared but evil will, cursing, and practising."

Paul IV., it was said, was prepared to receive the news of Elizabeth's succession favourably, perhaps under conditions to guarantee her legitimacy; but partly to his astonishment, and certainly to his wrath, he was not even officially informed of her accession, and the young Queen's amba.s.sador at Rome was told that she had no need for him there.

The changes at home, however, were made with all due caution. In Elizabeth's first proclamation an "et cetera" veiled any claim to be the Head of the Church,[527] and her earliest meddling with ecclesiastical matters was to forbid all contentious preaching.[528] The statutory religion (Romanist) was to be maintained for the meantime. No official proclamation was made foreshadowing coming changes.

Elizabeth, however, did not need to depend on proclamations to indicate to her people the path she meant to tread. She graciously accepted the Bible presented to her on her entry into London, clasped it to her bosom, and pressed it to her lips. Her hand ostentatiously shrank from the kiss of Bonner the persecutor. The great lawyer, G.o.derick, pointed out ways in which Protestant feeling might find vent in a legal manner:

"In the meantime Her Majesty and all her subjects may by licence of law use the _English Litany_ and suffrages used in King Henry's time, and besides Her Majesty in her closet may use the Ma.s.s without lifting up the Host according to the ancient canons, and may also have at every Ma.s.s some communicants with the ministers to be used in both kinds."[529]

The advice was acted upon, improved upon. "The affairs of religion continue as usual," says the Venetian agent (Dec. 17th, 1558), "but I hear that at Court when the Queen is present a priest officiates, who says certain prayers with the Litanies in English, after the fas.h.i.+on of King Edward."[530] She went to Ma.s.s, but asked the Bishop officiating not to elevate the Host for adoration; and when he refused to comply, she and her ladies swept out of church immediately after the Gospel was read.[531] Parliament was opened in the usual manner with the performance of Ma.s.s, but the Queen did not appear until it was over; and then her procession was preceded by a choir which sang hymns in English.

When the Abbot of Westminster met her in ecclesiastical procession with the usual candles sputtering in the hands of his clergy, the Queen shouted, "Away with these torches, we have light enough."[532]

She was crowned on January 15th, 1559; but whether with _all_ the customary ceremonies, it is impossible to say; it is most likely that she did not communicate.[533] The Bishops swore fealty in the usual way, but were chary of taking any official part in the coronation of one so plainly a heretic. Later in the day, Dr. c.o.x, who had been King Edward's tutor, and was one of the returned refugees, preached before the Queen.

As early as Dec. 14th (1558) the Spanish Amba.s.sador could report that the Queen "is every day standing up against religion (Romanism) more openly," and that "all the heretics who had escaped are beginning to flock back again from Germany."[534]

When Convocation met it became manifest that the clergy would not help the Government in the proposed changes. They declared in favour of transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Ma.s.s, and against the royal supremacy. The Reformation, it was seen, must be carried through by the civil power exclusively; and it was somewhat difficult to forecast what Parliament would consent to do.

What was actually done is still matter of debate, but it seems probable that the Government presented at least three Bills. The first was withdrawn; the second was wrecked by the Queen withholding her Royal a.s.sent; the third resulted in the Act of Supremacy and in the Act of Uniformity. It is most likely that the first and second Bills, which did not become law, included in _one_ proposed Act of legislation the proposals of the Government about the Queen's Supremacy and about Uniformity of Public Wors.h.i.+p.[535] The first was introduced into the House of Commons on Feb. 9th (1559), was discussed there Feb. 13th to 16th, and then withdrawn. A "new" Bill "for the supremacy annexed to the Crown" was introduced in the Commons on Feb. 21st, pa.s.sed the third reading on the 25th, and was sent to the Lords on the 27th.[536]

The majority in the House of Commons was Protestant;[537] but the Marian Bishops had great influence in the House of Lords, and it was there that the Government proposals met with strong opposition. Dr. Jewel describes the situation in a letter to Peter Martyr (March 20th):

"The bishops are a great hindrance to us; for being, as you know, among the n.o.bility and leading men in the Upper House, and having none there on our side to expose their artifices and confute their falsehoods, they reign as sole monarchs in the midst of ignorant and weak men, and easily overreach our little party, either by their numbers or their reputation for learning. The Queen, meanwhile, though she openly favours our cause, yet is wonderfully afraid of allowing any innovations."[538]

The Bill (Bill No. 2--the "new" Bill), which had pa.s.sed the Commons on the 25th, was read for the first time in the Lords on the 28th, pa.s.sed the second reading on March 13th, and was referred to a Committee consisting of the Duke of Norfolk, the Bishops of Exeter and Carlisle, and Lords Winchester, Westmoreland, Shrewsbury, Rutland, Suss.e.x, Pembroke, Montagu, Clinton, Morley, Rich, Willoughby, and North. They evidently made such alterations on the Bill as to make that part of it at least which enforced a radical change in public wors.h.i.+p useless for the purpose of the Government. The clearest account of what the Lords did is contained in a letter of a person who signs himself "Il Schifanoya," which is preserved in the State Archives in Mantua.[539] He says:

"Parliament, which ought to have ended last Sat.u.r.day, was prolonged till next Wednesday in Pa.s.sion Week, and according to report they will return a week after Easter (March 26, 1559); which report I believe, because of the three princ.i.p.al articles the first alone pa.s.sed, viz. to give the supremacy of the Anglican Church to the Queen ... notwithstanding the opposition of the bishops, and of the chief lords and barons of this kingdom; but the Earls of Arundel and Derby, who are very good Christians, absented themselves from indisposition, feigned, as some think, to avoid consulting about such ruin of this realm.

"The Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Viscount Montague and Lord Hastings did not fail in their duty, like true soldiers of Christ, to resist the Commons, whom they compelled to modify _a book pa.s.sed by the Commons forbidding the Ma.s.s to be said or the Communion to be administered (ne se communica.s.sero) except at the table in the manner of Edward VI._; nor were the Divine offices to be performed in church; priests likewise being allowed to marry, and the Christian religion and the Sacraments being absolutely abolished; adding thereto many extraordinary penalties against delinquents. By a majority of votes they have decided that the aforesaid things shall be expunged from the book, and that the Ma.s.ses, Sacraments, and the rest of the Divine offices shall be performed as. .h.i.therto.... The members of the Lower House, seeing that the Lords pa.s.sed this article of the Queen's supremacy of the Church, but not as the Commons drew it up,--the Lords cancelling the aforesaid clauses and modifying some others,--grew angry, and would consent to nothing, but are in very great controversy."[540]

The Lords, induced by the Marian Bishops, had wrecked the Government's plan for an alteration of religion.

The Queen then intervened. She refused her a.s.sent to the Bill, on the dexterous pretext that she had doubts about the t.i.tle which it proposed to confer upon her--_Supreme Head of the Church_.[541] She knew that Romanists and Calvinists both disliked it, and she adroitly managed to make both parties think that she had yielded to the arguments which each had brought forward. The Spanish Amba.s.sador took all the credit to himself; and Sandys was convinced that Elizabeth had been persuaded by Mr. Lever, who "had put a scruple into the Queen's head that she would not take the t.i.tle of Supreme Head."[542]

The refusal of Royal a.s.sent enabled the Government to start afresh. They no longer attempted to put everything in one Bill. A new Act of Supremacy,[543] in which the Queen was declared to be "the only supreme governor of this realm ... as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal," was introduced into the Commons on April 10th, and was read for a third time on the 13th. Brought into the Lords on April 14th, it was read for a second time on the 17th, and finally pa.s.sed on April 29th. If the obnoxious t.i.tle was omitted, all the drastic powers claimed by Henry VIII. were given to Elizabeth. The Elizabethan Act revived no less than nine of the Acts of Henry VIII.,[544] and among them the statute concerning doctors of civil law,[545] which contained these sentences: "Most royal majesty is and hath always been, by the Word of G.o.d, Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, and hath full power and authority to correct, punish, and repress all manner of heresies ... and to exercise all other manner of jurisdiction commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction"; and his majesty is "the only and undoubted Supreme Head of the Church of England, and also of Ireland, to whom by Holy Scripture all authority and power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of causes ecclesiastical." Thus the very t.i.tle Supreme Head of the Church of England was revived and bestowed on Elizabeth by this Parliament of 1559. It may even be said that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction bestowed upon Elizabeth was more extensive than that given to her father, for _schisms_ were added to the list of matters subject to the Queen's correction, and she was empowered to delegate her authority to commissioners--a provision which enabled her to exercise her supreme governors.h.i.+p in a way to be felt in every corner of the land.[546] This Act of Supremacy revived an Act of King Edward VI., enjoining that the communion should be given in both "kinds," and declared that the revived Act should take effect from the last day of Parliament.[547] It contained an interesting proviso that nothing should be judged to be heresy which was not condemned by canonical Scripture, or by the first four General Councils "or any of them."[548]

The same Parliament, after briefer debate (April 18th to 28th), pa.s.sed an Act of Uniformity which took an interesting form.[549] The Act began by declaring that at the death of King Edward VI. there "remained one uniform order of common service and prayer, and of the administration of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies in the Church of England, which was set forth in one Book, ent.i.tled _The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England_." This Book had been authorised by Act of Parliament held in the fifth and sixth years of King Edward VI., and this Act had been repealed by an Act of Parliament in the first year of the reign of Queen Mary "to the great decay of the due honour of G.o.d, and discomfort of the professors of the truth of Christ's religion." This Act of Queen Mary was solemnly repealed, and the Act of King Edward VI., with some trifling alterations, was restored. In consequence, "all and singular ministers in any cathedral or parish church" were ordered "to say and use the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord's Supper, and administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book, so authorised by Parliament in the said fifth and sixth years of the reign of King Edward VI., with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise." This meant that while there might be the fullest freedom of thought in the country and a good deal of liberty of expression, there was to be no freedom of public wors.h.i.+p. All Englishmen, of whatever creed, were to be compelled by law to join in one common public wors.h.i.+p according to the ritual prescribed. The Act of Parliament which compelled them to this had no specific Book of Common Prayer annexed to it and incorporated in it. It simply replaced on the Statute Book the Act of King Edward VI., and with it the Second Prayer-Book of King Edward, which with its rubrics had been "annexed and joined" to that Act[550]--certain specified alterations in the Book being notified in the Elizabethan Act.

The history of the Elizabethan Prayer-Book is confessedly obscure. If an important paper called the _Device_,[551] probably drafted by Cecil, embodied the intentions of the Government, their procedure may be guessed with some probability. It enumerates carefully, after the manner of the great Elizabethan statesman, the dangers involved in any "alteration of religion," and shows how they can be met or averted.

France and Scotland can be treated diplomatically. Rome may be left unheeded--it is far away, and its opposition will not go beyond "evil will and cursing." The important dangers were at home. They would come from two sides--from the Romanists backed by most of the higher clergy; and from the advanced Reformers, who would scoff at the alteration which is alone possible in the condition of the kingdom, and would call it a "cloaked papistry and a mingle-mangle." Yet both may be overcome by judicious firmness. The Romanists may be coerced by penal laws. The danger from the advanced Reformers may be got over by a carefully drafted Prayer-Book, _made as far as possible to their liking_, and enforced by such penalties as would minimise all objections. There is great hope that such penalties would "touch but few." "And better it were that they did suffer than Her Highness or Commonwealth should shake or be in danger." The _Device_ suggested that a small committee of seven divines--all of them well-known Reformers, and most of them refugees--should prepare a Book "which, being approved by Her Majesty,"

might be laid before Parliament. It was evidently believed that the preparation of the Book would take some time, for suggestion is made that food, drink, wood, and coals should be provided for their sustenance and comfort. There is no direct evidence to show that the suggested committee met or was even appointed; but evidence has been brought forward to show that most of the theologians named were in London, and were in a position to meet together and consult during the period when such a Book would naturally be prepared.[552] The whole matter is shrouded in mystery, and secrecy was probably necessary in the circ.u.mstances. No one knew exactly what was to take place; but some change was universally expected. "There is a general expectation that all rites and ceremonies will shortly be reformed," said Richard Hilles, writing to Bullinger in the end of February (1559), "by our faithful citizens and other G.o.dly men in the afore-mentioned Parliament, either after the pattern which was lately in use in the time of King Edward the Sixth, or which is set forth by the Protestant Princes of Germany in the afore-mentioned Confession of Augsburg."[553]

The authorities kept their own counsel, and nothing definite was known to outsiders. A Book was presented to the Commons--_The Book of Common Prayer and Ministration of the Sacraments_--on Feb. 16th, at the time when the first draft of the Supremacy Bill was being discussed.[554] It must have been withdrawn along with that Bill. The second attempt at a Supremacy Act was probably accompanied with a Prayer-Book annexed to the Bill; and this Prayer-Book was vehemently opposed in the Lords, who struck out all the clauses relating to it.[555] What this Book of Common Prayer was, cannot be exactly known. Many competent liturgist scholars are inclined to believe that it was something more drastic than the Edwardine Prayer-Book of 1552, and that it was proposed to enforce it by penalties more drastic than those enacted by the Act of Uniformity which finally pa.s.sed. They find the characteristic features of the Book in the well-known letter of Guest (Geste) to Cecil.[556] Such suggestions are mere conjectures. The Book may have been the Edwardine Prayer-Book of 1552.

The Government had made slow progress with their proposed "alteration of religion," and the Protestant party were chafing at the delay. Easter was approaching, and its nearness made them more impatient. Canon law required everyone to communicate on Easter Day, which in 1559 fell on the 26th of March, and by a long established custom the laity of England had gone to the Lord's Table on that one day of the year. Men were asking whether it was possible that a whole year was to elapse before they could partake of the communion in a Protestant fas.h.i.+on. The House of Commons was full of this Protestant sentiment. The reactionary proceedings in the House of Lords urged them to some protest.[557] A Bill was introduced into the Lower House declaring that "no person shall be punished for now using the religion used in King Edward's _last_ year." It was read twice and engrossed in one day (March 15th), and was read a third time and pa.s.sed on March 18th.[558] It does not appear to have been before the Lords; but it was acted on in a curious way. A proclamation, dated March 22nd, declares that the Queen, "with the a.s.sent of Lords and Commons," in the "present last session," has revived the Act of King Edward VI. touching the reception of the Communion in both "kinds," and explains that the Act cannot be ready for Easter. It proceeds: "And because the time of Easter is so at hand, and that great numbers, not only of the n.o.blemen and gentry, but also of the common people of this realm, be certainly persuaded in conscience in such sort as they cannot be induced in any wise to communicate or receive the said holy Sacrament but under both kinds, according to the first inst.i.tution, and to the common use both of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church ... it is thought necessary to Her Majesty, by the advice of sundry of her n.o.bility and commons lately a.s.sembled in Parliament," to declare that the statute of Edward is in force, and all and sundry are commanded to observe the provisions of the statute.[559]

What is more, the Queen acted upon her proclamation. The well-informed "Schifanoya," writing on March 28th, says that the Government "during this interval" (i.e. between March 22nd and March 28th) had ordered and printed a proclamation for every one to take the communion in both "kinds" (_sub utraque specie_). He goes on to say that on Easter Day "Her Majesty appeared in chapel, where Ma.s.s was sung in English, _according to the use of her brother, King Edward_, and the communion received in both 'kinds,' kneeling." The chaplain wore nothing "but the mere surplice" (_la semplice cotta_).[560] The news went the round of Europe. Elizabeth had at last declared herself unmistakably on the Protestant side.

Easter had come and gone, and the religious question had not received final settlement. The authorities felt that something must be done to counteract the speeches of the Romanist partisans in the Lords.[561] So, while Parliament was sitting, a conference was arranged between Roman Catholic and Protestant divines. It seems to have been welcomed by both parties. Count Feria, the Spanish Amba.s.sador, declared that he had something to do with it. He was anxious that the disputation should be in Latin, that the arguments should be reduced to writing, and that each disputant should sign his paper. He was overruled so far as the language was concerned. The authorities meant that the laity should hear and understand. The three questions debated were:--Whether a "particular Church can change rites and ceremonies; Whether the services of public wors.h.i.+p must be conducted in Latin; Whether the Ma.s.s is a propitiatory sacrifice." The conference was held at Westminster on March 31st, in presence of the Privy Council, the Lords and Commons, and the "mult.i.tude." Great expectations were cherished by both parties in antic.i.p.ation, and when the Romanist divines withdrew on points of procedure, their cause suffered in the popular estimation. Two of the Bishops were sent to the Tower "for open contempt and contumacy"; and others seem to have been threatened.[562]

Parliament rea.s.sembled after the Easter recess and pa.s.sed the Act of Supremacy in its third form, and the Act of Uniformity, which re-enacted, as has been said, the revised Prayer-Book--that is, the Second Book of King Edward VI. with the distinctly specified alterations. The most important of these changes were the two sentences added to the words to be used by the officiating minister when giving the communion. The clauses had been in the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI.

While in the Second Prayer-Book of King Edward the officiating minister was commanded to say while giving the Bread:

_"Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving,"_

and while giving the Cup, to say:

_"Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful;"_

the words were altered in the Elizabethan book to:

_"The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving;"_

"_The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful._"

The additions in no way detracted from the Evangelical doctrine of the Sacrament. They rather brought the underlying thought, into greater harmony with the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. But they have had the effect of enabling men who hold different views about the nature of the rite to join in its common use.

When the Act of Uniformity was pa.s.sed by Parliament, the advanced Reformers, who had chafed at what appeared to them to be a long delay, were contented. They, one and all, believed that the Church of England had been restored to what it had been during the last year of the reign of Edward VI.; and this was the end for which they had been striving, the goal placed before them by their friend and adviser, Henry Bullinger of Zurich.[563] Their letters are full of jubilation.[564]

Yet there were some things about this Elizabethan settlement which, _if_ interpreted as they have been by some ecclesiastical historians, make it very difficult to understand the contentment of such men as Grindal, Jewel, and Sandys. "Of what was done in the matter of _ornaments_," says Professor Maitland, "by statute, by the rubrics of the Book, and by _Injunctions_ that the Queen promptly issued, it would be impossible to speak fairly without lengthy quotation of doc.u.ments, the import of which became in the nineteenth century a theme of prolonged and inconclusive disputation."[565] All that can be attempted here is to mention the princ.i.p.al doc.u.ments involved in the later controversy, and to show how they were interpreted in the life and conduct of contemporaries.

The Act of Uniformity had restored, with some trifling differences clearly and definitely stated, Edward VI.'s Prayer-Book of 1552, and therefore its rubrics.[566] It had at the same time contained a proviso saying that the _ornaments_ sanctioned by the authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI. were "to be retained and be in use" "until further order shall therein be taken."

Men like Grindal and Jewel took no exception to this proviso, which they certainly would have done had they believed that it ordained the actual use in time of public wors.h.i.+p, of the ornaments used in the second year of King Edward. The interpretation they gave to the proviso is seen from a letter from Sandys to Parker (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), written two days after the Act of Uniformity had pa.s.sed the Lords. He says:

"The last book of service has 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 the text is that we shall not be enforced to use them, but that others in the meantime shall not convey them away, but that they may remain for the Queen."[567]

Sandys and others understood the proviso to mean that recalcitrant clergy like the Warden of Manchester, who carried his consecrated vestments to Ireland, were not to make off with the ornaments, and that churchwardens or patrons were not to confiscate them for their private use. They were property belonging to the Queen, and to be retained until her Majesty's pleasure was known. The whole history of the visitations goes to prove that Sandys' interpretation of the proviso was that of its framers.

When the Prayer-Book was actually printed it was found to contain some differences from the Edwardine Book of 1552 besides those mentioned in the Act as the only ones to be admitted; and early editions have not always the same changes. But the one thing of importance was a rubric which, on what seems to be the only possible interpretation, enjoins the use in public wors.h.i.+p of the ornaments (_i.e._ the vestments) in use in the second year of King Edward.[568] How this rubric got into the Prayer-Book it is impossible to say. It certainly was not enacted by the Queen "with a.s.sent of Lords and Commons." We have no proof that it was issued by the Privy Council.[569] The use and wont of the Church of England during the period of the Elizabethan settlement was as if this rubric had never existed. It is directly contradicted by the thirtieth Injunction issued for the Royal Visitation of 1559.[570] It was not merely contemptuously ignored by the Elizabethan Bishops; they compelled their clergy, if compulsion was needed, to act in defiance of it.

Contemporary sources abundantly testify that in the earlier years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the English clergy in their ministrations scarcely ever wore any ecclesiastical garment but the surplice; and sometimes not even that. The _Advertis.e.m.e.nts_[571] of 1566, which almost all contemporary notices speak of as prescribing what had been enjoined in the Injunctions of 1559, were drafted for the purpose of coercing clergymen who were in the habit of refusing to wear even the surplice, and they enjoined the surplice only, and the cope[572] in cathedrals. In the Visitation carried out in accordance with the directions in the Injunctions, a clean sweep was made of almost all the _ornaments_ which were not merely permitted but ordered in the proviso of the Act of Uniformity and the Rubric of 1559 on the ordinary ritualistic interpretation of these clauses. The visitors proceeded on a uniform plan, and what we hear was done in one place may be inferred as the common practice. The Spanish Amba.s.sador (July or August 1559) wrote to his master: "They are now carrying out the law of Parliament respecting religion with great rigour, and have appointed six visitors.... They have just taken the crosses, images, and altars from St. Paul's and all the other London churches."[573] A citizen of London noted in his diary: "The time before Bartholomew tide and after, were all the roods and Maries and Johns, and many other of the church goods, both copes, crosses, censers, altar cloth, rood cloths, books, banners, banner stays, wainscot and much other gear about London, burnt in Smithfield."[574] What took place in London was done in the provinces.

At Grantham, "the vestments, copes, albs, tunicles, and all other such baggages were defaced and openly sold by the general consent of the whole corporation, and the money employed in setting up desks in the church, and making of a decent communion table, and the remnant to the poor."[575]

It is true that we find complaints on the part of men like Jewel of ritualistic practices which they do not like; but these in almost every case refer to wors.h.i.+p in the royal chapel. The services there were well known, and both friends and foes of the Reformation seemed to take it for granted that what was the fas.h.i.+on in the royal chapel would soon extend to the rest of the realm.[576] Historians have usually attributed the presence of crosses, vestments, lights on the altar, to the desire of the Queen to conciliate her Romanist subjects, or to stand well with the great Roman Catholic Powers of Europe. It is quite likely that the Queen had this thought in her mind. Elizabeth was a thrifty lady, and liked to bring down many birds with the one stone. But the one abiding thought in the mind of the astute Queen was to stand well with the Lutherans, and to be able, when threatened with papal excommunication, to take shelter under the aegis of the Peace of Augsburg.

When the Government had secured the pa.s.sing of the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, they were in a position to deal with the recalcitrant clergy. Eleven of the English Episcopal Sees had been vacant at the accession of Elizabeth, among them that of the Primate; for Cardinal Pole had died a few hours after Mary, In the summer and autumn of 1559 the sixteen Bishops were called upon to sign the Oath of Supremacy, in which the papal rule over the Church of England was abjured, and the Queen declared to be the Supreme Governor of the Church. All the Bishops, more or less definitely, refused to take the oath; although three were at first doubtful. They were deprived, and the English Church was practically without Bishops.[577] Some of the deprived Bishops of King Edward's time survived, and they were restored. Then came discussion about the manner of appointing new ones. Some would have preferred a simple royal nomination, as in Edward's time; but in the end it was resolved that the appointment should be nominally in the hands of the Deans and Chapters according to mediaeval rule, with the proviso, however, that the royal permission to elect had first to be given, and that the person named in the "leave to elect" should be chosen. Then the question of consecration gave rise to some difficulties; but these were got over in ways which were deemed to be sufficient. Matthew Parker, after more than one refusal, was nominated and consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. Lists of clerical persons suitable for promotion were prepared for the Queen,[578] and the other Sees were gradually filled.

The Elizabethan episcopate, with the exception of the few Edwardine Bishops, was an entirely new creation. A large number of the Deans and members of the Cathedral Chapters had also refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy; they were deprived, and others who were on the lists were appointed in their place. The inferior clergy proved to be much more amenable, and only about two hundred were in the end deprived. The others all accepted the "alteration of religion"; and the change was brought about quietly and without the riotings which had accompanied the alterations made in the days of Edward, or the wholesale deprivations which had followed upon those made by Queen Mary--when almost one-third of the beneficed clergy of the Church of England had been removed from their benefices. A similar pa.s.sive acquiescence was seen in the introduction of the new Book of Common Prayer, and in the fulfilment of the various orders for the removal of images, etc. The great altars and crucifixes were taken away, and the pictures covered with whitewash, without any disturbances to speak of.

The comparative ease with which the "alteration of religion" was effected was no doubt largely due to the increased Protestant feeling of the country; but the tact and forbearance of those who were appointed to see the changes carried out counted for something; and perhaps the acquiescence of the Roman Catholics was due to the fact that they had no great leader, that they did not expect the Elizabethan settlement to last long, and that they waited in expectation that one or other of the two Romanist Powers, France or Spain, would interfere in their behalf.

The religious revolution in Scotland in 1560 saved the Elizabethan settlement for the time; and Philip of Spain trifled away his opportunities until a united England overthrew his Armada, which came thirty years too late.

The change was given effect to by a Royal Visitation. England was divided into six districts, and lists of visitors were drawn up which included the Lords Lieutenants of the counties, the chief men of the districts, and some lawyers and clergymen known to be well affected to the Reformation. They had to a.s.sist them a set of Injunctions, modelled largely, not entirely, on those of Edward VI., drafted and issued by royal command.[579] The members of the clergy were dealt with very patiently, and explanations, public and private, were given of the Act of Supremacy which made it easier for them to accept it. The Elizabethan Bishops were also evidently warned to deal tenderly with stubborn parish clergymen; they would have been less patient with them if left to themselves. One, Bishop Best, Bishop of Carlisle, is found writing to Cecil about his clergy, that "the priests are wicked impes of Antichrist," for the most part very ignorant and stubborn; another, Pilkington, the Bishop of Durham, in describing the disordered state of his diocese, declared that "like St. Paul, he has to fight with beasts at Ephesus"; and a third, Scory, Bishop of Winchester, wrote that he was much hindered by justices of the peace who were Roman Catholics, and that when certain priests who had refused to take the oath were driven out of Exeter and elsewhere, they were received and feasted in the streets with torch-lights.[580]

Elizabeth's second Parliament was very much more Protestant than the first, and insisted that the Oath of Supremacy must be taken by all the members of the House of Commons, by all lawyers, and by all schoolmasters. The Convocation of 1563 proved that the clergy desired to go much further in the path of Reformation than the Queen thought desirable.