[479] English Historical Review for 1904 (January), pp. 98 ff.

[480] This Act, entitled Act against Revilers, and for receiving in both Kinds, is printed in Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 322.

[481] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 328.

[482] Ecclesiastical Memorials, etc. II. i. p. 133. It is printed in The Two Liturgies, with other Documents set forth by Authority in the Reign of King Edward the Sixth (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1844), p. 1.

[483] The book is printed in The Two Liturgies, etc., of the Parker Society, pp. 9 ff.

[484] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. pp. 358 ff.

[485] Mr. Pollard (Cambridge Modern History, ii. pp. 478, 479) thinks that the influence of these foreign divines on the English Reformation has been overrated; and he is probably correct so far as changes in worship and usages go. His idea is that the English Reformers followed the lead of Wiclif, consciously or unconsciously, rather than that of continental divines; but if the root-thought in all Reformation theology be considered, it may be doubted whether Wiclif could supply what the English divines had in common with their continental contemporaries. “Wiclif, with all his desire for Reformation, was essentially a mediæval thinker.” The theological question which separated every mediæval Reformer from the thinkers of the Reformation was, How the benefits won by the atoning work of Christ were to be appropriated by men? The universal mediæval answer was, By an imitation of Christ; while the universal Reformation answer was, By trust in the promises of God (for that is what is meant by Justification by Faith). In their answer to this test question, the English divines are at one with the Reformers on the Continent, and not with Wiclif.

[486] Pollard, England under Protector Somerset (London, 1900).

[487] “Tulchan is a calf skin stuffed with straw to cause the cow to give milk. The Bishop served to cause the bishoprick to yeeld commoditie to my lord who procured it to him.” Scott’s Apologetical Narration of the State and Government of the Kirk of Scotland since the Reformation (Woodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1846), p. 25.

[488] The book is printed in The Two Liturgies, with other Documents, etc. (Parker Society), p. 187.

[489] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 371.

[490] Compare The Two Liturgies, etc. (Parker Society) p. 283.

[491] Ibid. pp. 92, 279.

[492] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 269.

[493] Original Letters relative to the English Reformation (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1847), ii. 566.

[494] Original Letters, etc. (Parker Society) ii. 568, Macronius to Bullinger (August 28th, 1550).

[495] Sources in addition to those on pp. 351: Epistolæ Reginaldi Poli, S. R. E. Cardinalis, 5 vols. (Brixen, 1744-57); Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary, and especially of the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyat, written by a Resident in the Tower of London (Camden Society, London, 1850); Garnett, The Accession of Queen Mary; being the contemporary narrative of Antonio Guaras, etc. (London, 1892).

Later Books: Stone, History of Mary I., Queen of England (London, 1901); Ranke, Die römischen Päpste (Berlin, 1854); Hume, Visit of Philip II. (1554) (English Historical Review, 1892); Leadam, Narrative of the Pursuit of the English Refugees in Germany under Queen Mary (Transactions of Royal Historical Society, 1896); Wiesener, The Youth of Queen Elizabeth, 1533-58 (English translation, London, 1879); Zimmermann, Kardinal Pole sein Leben und seine Schriften (Regensburg, 1893).

[496] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 373.

[497] The Act of Parliament is printed in Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 377.

[498] Philip’s marriages had this peculiarity about them, that his second wife (Mary) had been betrothed to his father, and his third wife had been betrothed to his son.

[499] Strype, Memorials of Queen Mary’s Reign, III. ii. 215.

[500] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 385.

[501] In the days of Henry VIII., Bishop Gardiner had published a book under this title, in which the papal jurisdiction in England was strongly repudiated. Someone, probably Bale, when Gardiner was aiding the Queen to restore that supremacy, had translated the book into English, and had printed at the bottom of the title-page, “A double-minded man is inconstant in all his ways.”

[502] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 384, The Act de hæretico comburendo will be found on p. 133.

[503] Ibid. p. 380.

[504] Bonner’s Articles of Inquiry are printed in Strype’s Historical Memorials, Ecclesiastical and Civil, etc. III. ii. p. 217.

[505] Gairdner’s The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, etc. (London, 1902) p. 339.

[506] Strype, Memorials, Ecclesiastical and Civil, etc. III. i. 221, 223.

[507] Ibid. III. ii. 556.

[508] Strype, Memorials, Ecclesiastical and Civil, etc. III, i. 222, III. ii, 224.

[509] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, 1601-3; with Addenda, 1547-65 (London, 1870), p. 483.

[510] An account of Cranmer’s trial is given in Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1851), iii. 656 ff. The process is in Cranmer’s Miscellaneous Writings and Letters (Parker Society), pp. 541 ff.

[511] Cranmer’s Works, ii. 447 ff.

[512] Works, ii. pp. 445-56.

[513] Miscellaneous Writings, etc. (Parker Society) p. 563.

[514] Pollard, Cranmer, pp. 367-81.

[515] Calendar of State Papers and MSS. existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, 1555-56, p. 386.

[516] Pollard, Cranmer, p. 328.

[517] There are few more pathetic documents among the State Papers than those thus catalogued:

“King Philip and Queen Mary to Cardinal Pole, notifying that the Queen has been delivered of a Prince.”

“Passport signed by the King and Queen for Sir Henry Sydney to go over to the King of the Romans and the King of Bohemia, to announce the Queen’s happy delivery of a Prince.”

There are several such notifications all ready for the birth which never took place. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth, 1547-80 (London, 1856), p. 67.

[518] Sources: Calendar of State Papers, Elizabeth, Foreign (London, 1863, etc.); Calendar of State Papers relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots (Edinburgh, 1898, etc.); Calendar of State Papers, Hatfield MSS. (London, 1883); Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1558-80 (London, 1890); Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, 1558-67 (London, 1892); Weiss, Papiers d’état du Cardinal Granvelle, vols. iv.-vi. (Paris, 1843-46); Bullarium Romanum, for two Bulls—the one of 1559 (i. 840) and the one deposing Elizabeth (ii. 324); A Collection of Original Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1564 (vol. ix. of the Camden Miscellany, London, 1893); Calvin’s Letters (vols. xxxviii.-xlviii. of the Corpus Reformatorum); Zurich Letters (two series) (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853); Liturgies and occasional Forms of Prayer set forth in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1847); Dysen, Queene Elizabeth’s Proclamation (1618).

Later Books: Creighton, Queen Elizabeth (London, 1896); Hume, The Courtships of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1896); and The great Lord Burghley (London, 1898); Philippson, La contre-révolution religieuse (Brussels, 1884); Ruble, Le Traité de Cateau-Cambrésis (Paris, 1889); Gee, The Elizabethan Clergy (Oxford, 1898); and The Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments (London, 1902); Tomlinson, The Prayer-Book, Articles and Homilies (London, 1897); Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion (Cambridge, 1859); Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England (London, 1875); Neal, History of the Puritans (London, 1754); Parker The Ornaments Rubric (Oxford, 1881); Shaw, Elizabethan Presbyterianism (English Historical Review, iii. 655); Cambridge Modern History, ii. 550 ff.; Frere, History of the English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James 1558-1625 (London, 1904).

[519] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved principally in the Archives of Simancas (London, 1892), i. p. 7.

[520] Ibid. p. 89. In the same letter the Bishop blames the instructions of the “Italian heretic friars,” i.e. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Ochino; cf. p. 81.

[521] Ibid. pp. 1, 4, 5, etc.

[522] Ibid. pp. 3, 77.

[523] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, etc. Introduction, p. lv.

[524] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, etc. p. 62.

[525] Ibid. pp. 39, 67; cf. 83.

[526] Cf. Device in Gee’s Elizabethan Prayer-Book, p. 197.

[527] Strype, Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion, etc. (Oxford, 1824) I. ii. 389.

[528] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 416.

[529] Goderick’s Divers Points of Religion contrary to the Church of Rome is printed by Dr. Gee in the appendix to his Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments (London, 1902), pp. 202 ff.; the sentence quoted is on p. 205; the document is also in Dixon’s History of the Church of England, v. 28.

[530] Venetian State Papers, 1558-80, 1.

[531] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved chiefly in the Archives of Simancas, i. 17, 25.

[532] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth (London, 1856), i. 123.

[533] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved chiefly in the Archives of Simancas, i. 25.

[534] Ibid. pp. 7, 12.

[535] English Historical Review for July 1903, pp. 517, ff.; Dublin Review, Jan. 1903; The Church Intelligencer, Sept. 1903, pp. 134, ff.

[536] Cf. Tomlinson, “Elizabethan Prayer-Book: chronological table of its enactment,” in Church Gazette for Oct. 1906, p. 233.

[537] Dublin Review, Jan. 1903, p. 48 n: “Ad quem eundem locum (House of Commons) isti convenerunt (ut communis fertur opinio) ad numerum ducentorum virorum, et non decem catholici inter illos sunt reperti.”

[538] Zurich Letters, i. 10 (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1842); cf. Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved principally in the Archives of Simancas, 1558-67, p. 33: “To-morrow it (the Bill) goes to the Upper House, where the bishops and some others are ready to die rather than consent to it.”

[539] For “Il Schifanoya” and his trustworthiness, cf. Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1558-80, Preface viii.

[540] Ibid. p. 52.

[541] Canon Dixon (History of the Church of England, v. 67) declares that the phrase “Supreme Head” was not in the Bill. He has overlooked the fact that Heath in his speech against it quotes the actual words used in the proposed Act: “I promised to move your honours to consider what this supremacy is which we go about by virtue of this Act to give to the Queen’s Highness, and wherein it doth consist, as whether in spiritual government or in temporal. If in spiritual, like as the words of the Act do import, scilicet: Supreme Head of the Church of England immediate and next under God, then it would be considered whether this House hathe authority to grant them, and Her Highness to receive the same” (Strype, Annals, I. i. 405).

[542] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved chiefly in the Archives of Simancas, 1558-80, pp. 37, 44, 50, 55, 66; Parker’s Correspondence, p. 66; Zurich Letters, i. 33.

[543] The Act is printed in Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 442.

[544] The Acts of Henry VIII. which were revived were:—24 Hen. VIII. c. 12—The Restraint of Appeals, passed in 1533; 23 Hen. VIII. c. 20—The conditional Restraint of Annates; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19—The Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals of 1534; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20—The Ecclesiastical Appointments Act; The absolute Restraint of Annates, Election of Bishops, and Letters Missive Act of 1534; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21—Act forbidding Papal Dispensations and the Payment of Peter’s Pence of 1534; 26 Hen. VIII. c. 14—Suffragan Bishops’ Act of 1534; and 28 Hen. VIII. c. 16—Act for the Release of such as have obtained pretended Dispensations from the See of Rome. These Acts are all, save the last mentioned, printed in Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. pp. 178-232, 253-56.

[545] Ibid. p. 445.

[546] Ibid. p. 447.

[547] Ibid. p. 446.

[548] Ibid. p. 455.

[549] The Act is printed in Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. pp. 458 ff.

[550] Gee and Hardy, Documents, etc. p. 371.

[551] The Device is printed in Strype, Annals, etc. I. ii. 392, and in Gee’s Elizabethan Prayer Book and Ornaments (London, 1902), p. 195.

[552] Gee’s Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments, pp. 76 f.

[553] Zurich Letters, ii. 17.

[554] The Journal of the House of Commons, i. 54: “The Bill for the Order of Service and Ministers in the Church” (Feb. 15th); The Book of Common Prayer and Ministration of Sacraments (Feb. 16th).

[555] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1558-80, p. 45: “a book passed by the Commons”; cf. above, p. 392; cf. also Bishop Scot’s speech on the reading of the Bill which was emasculated by the Lords, in Strype’s Annals, I. ii. 408.

[556] Dr. Gee rejects the idea that Guest’s letter had anything to do with the Book passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords; cf. his Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments, pp. 32 ff.; and for a criticism of Dr. Gee, Tomlinson, The Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments; a Review, p. 12. Guest’s letter is printed by Dr. Gee in his Elizabethan Prayer-Book, etc. p. 152, and more accurately by Mr. Tomlinson in his tract, Why was the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. rejected?

[557] “Il Schifanoya” reports the wrath of the Commons: They “grew angry, and would consent to nothing, but are in very great controversy” (Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1558-80, p. 52); cf. p. 392.

[558] Journal of the House of Commons, i. 57.

[559] Professor Maitland (English Historical Review, July 1903, p. 527 n.) and Father J. H. Pollen (Dublin Review, January 1903) think that this proclamation of the 22nd of March was never issued; but “Il Schifanoya” can hardly refer to any other.

[560] “On Easter Day, Her Majesty appeared in the chapel, where Mass was sung in English, according to the use of her brother, King Edward, and the communion was received in both ‘kinds,’ kneeling, facendoli il sacerdote la credenza del corpo et sangue prima; nor did he wear anything but the mere surplice (la semplice cotta), having divested himself of the vestments (li paramenti) in which he had sung Mass; and thus Her Majesty was followed by many Lords both of the Council and others. Since that day things have returned to their former state, though unless the Almighty stretch forth His arm a relapse is expected. These accursed preachers, who have come from Germany, do not fail to preach in their own fashion, both in public and in private, in such wise that they persuaded certain rogues to forcibly enter the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the middle of Cheapside, and force the shrine of the most Holy Sacrament, breaking the tabernacle, and throwing the most precious consecrated body of Jesus Christ to the ground. They also destroyed the altar and the images, with the pall (palio) and church linen (tovalie), breaking everything into a thousand pieces. This happened this very night, which is the third after Easter.... Many persons have taken the communion in the usual manner, and things continue as usual in the churches” (Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1558-80, p. 57).

[561] The speeches of Abbot Feckenham and Bishop Scot, reprinted in Gee’s Elizabethan Prayer-Book, etc. pp. 228 ff., represent the arguments used in the Lords. Scot’s speech was delivered on the third reading of the Act of Uniformity, quite a month after the Westminster conference, and Feckenham’s may have been made at the same time; still they show the arguments of the Romanists.

[562] Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved principally in the Archives of Simancas, 1558-67, pp. 45, 46-48; Zurich Letters, i. 13ff.; Strype’s Annals, etc. I. i. 128-40, I. ii. 466; Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1558-80, pp. 64, 65.

[563] “King Edward’s reformation satisfieth the godly”: Bullinger to Utenhovius (Zurich Letters, 2nd series, p. 17 n.; Strype, Annals, I. i. 259).

[564] May 20th, Cox to Weidner: “The sincere religion of Christ is therefore established among us in all parts of the kingdom, just in the same manner as it was formerly promulgated under our Edward of blessed memory” (Zurich Letters, i. 28).

May 21st, Parkhurst to Bullinger: “The Book of Common Prayer, set forth in the time of King Edward, is now again in general use throughout England, and will be everywhere, in spite of the struggles and opposition of the pseudo-bishops” (Zurich Letters, i. 29).

May 22nd, Jewel to Bullinger: “Religion is again placed on the same footing on which it stood in King Edward’s time; to which event I doubt not but that your own letters and those of your republic have powerfully contributed” (Zurich Letters, i. 33).

May 23rd, Grindal to Conrad Hubert: “But now at last, by the blessing of God, during the prorogation of Parliament, there has been published a proclamation to banish the Pope and his jurisdiction altogether, and to restore religion to that form which we had in the time of Edward VI.” (Zurich Letters, ii. 19).

Dr. Gee seems to beg an important historical question when he says that these letters must have been written before the writers knew that the Prayer-Book had been actually altered in more than the three points mentioned in the Act of Uniformity. Grindal, writing again to Hubert on July 14th, when he must have known everything, says: “The state of our Church (to come to that subject) is pretty much the same as when I last wrote to you, except only that what had heretofore been settled by proclamations and laws with respect to the reformation of the churches is now daily being carried into effect.” Cf. Gee’s Elizabethan Prayer-Book, etc. p. 104 n., for the actual differences between the Edwardine Book of 1552 and the Elizabethan Book of 1559.

[565] Cambridge Modern History, ii, 570.

[566] The rubric explaining kneeling at the communion had not the authority of Parliament, but only of the Privy Council, and was not included.

The rubric of 1552 regarding ornaments, which had the authority of Parliament and was re-enacted by the Act of Uniformity of 1559, was: “And here is to be noted that the minister at the time of communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet: and being priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.”

This is the real ornaments rubric of the Elizabethan settlement, and appears to be such in the use and wont of the Church of England from 1559 to 1566, save that copes were used occasionally.

The proviso in the Act of Uniformity (1559) was: “Such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use as was in this Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen’s Majesty, with the advice of her commissioners appointed and authorised under the Great Seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm.”

The ornaments in use in the second year of Edward VI. are stated in the rubrics of the first Prayer-Book of King Edward (1549):

“Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say: a white Albe plain, with a vestment or Cope. And where there be many Priests or Deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in the ministration as shall be requisite: and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, Albes with tunicles.” At the end there is another rubric: “Upon Wednesdays and Fridays, the English Litany shall be said or sung in all places after such form as is appointed by the King’s Majesty’s Injunctions; or as is or shall be otherwise appointed by His Highness. And though there be none to communicate with the Priest, yet these days (after the Litany ended) the Priest shall put upon him a plain Albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at the Altar appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, until after the offertory.”

[567] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 65.

[568] The rubric is: “And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of communion and at all other times in his ministrations, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book.”

[569] Dr. Gee (Elizabethan Ornaments, etc. p. 131) thinks that there can be no reasonable doubt that the rubric was recorded on the authority of the Privy Council. “The Privy Council had certainly inserted the Black Rubric in 1552, as their published Acts attest, but all the records of the Privy Council from 13th May 1559 until 28th May 1562 have disappeared.” The precedent cited is scarcely a parallel case. The Black Rubric was an explanation; the Rubric of 1559 is almost a contradiction in terms of the Act which restores the Prayer-Book of 1552. If I may venture to express an opinion, it seems to me most likely that the rubric was added by the Queen herself, and that she inserted it in order to be able to “hedge.” It is too often forgotten that the danger which overshadowed the earlier years of Elizabeth was the issue of a papal Bull proclaiming her a heretic and a bastard, and inviting Henry II. of France to undertake its execution. The Emperor would never permit such a Bull if Elizabeth could show reasonable pretext that she and her kingdom held by the Lutheran type of Protestantism. An excommunication pronounced in such a case would have invalidated his own position, which he owed to the votes of Lutheran Electors. In the middle of the sixteenth century the difference between the different sections of Christianity was always estimated in the popular mind by differences in public worship, and especially in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. All over Germany the Protestant was distinguished from the Romanist by the fact that he partook of the communion in both “kinds.” Elizabeth had definitely ranged herself on the Protestant side from Easter Day 1559; and a more or less ornate ritual could never explain away the significance of this fact. The great difference between the Lutherans and the Calvinists to the popular mind was that the former retained and the latter discarded most of the old ceremonial. Luther says expressly: “Da lassen wyr die Messgewand, altar, liechter noch bleyben” (Daniel, Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiæ, Lutheranæ, p. 105); and crosses, vestments, lights, and an altar appear in regular Lutheran fashion whenever the Queen wished to place herself and her land under the shield of the Augsburg Peace. This rubric was a remarkably good card to play in the diplomatic game.