from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September,
1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related,
in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the
relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from
each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general
accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are
estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284.
Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is
probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called
'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of
those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine
and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive
amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years,
it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in
its earliest year."
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 11._
"Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and
baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious,
although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never
listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was
danger that they would be struck in return. ... They took the
weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the
husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and
boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that
which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into
the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the
articles of their creed; and of these they made their
burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and
when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to
rot."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 24._
Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary
disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from
Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the
Spanish court so steadily favoured. ... Many are said to have
become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the
throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 5._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 7, chapter 2-3._
_J. Fox,
Book of Martyrs._
_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata,
volume 2._
_J. Strype,
Memorials of Cranmer,
book 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
Loss of Calais.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558.
Accession of Queen Elizabeth.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
The Age of Elizabeth:
Recovery of Protestantism.
"The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
religion. ... Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
published injunctions that all churches should conform
themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
prevailed on to perform the ceremony. ... Elizabeth, though
she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
particular which she could desire of them. ... The first bill
brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
been exercised by her father and brother. ... By this act, the
crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. ... A law
was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
chapters. ... A solemn and public disputation was held during
this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
{836}
Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
objections."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 38, pages 375-380 (volume 3)._
"Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a
Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations
would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann
Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to
regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of
Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon,
however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own
despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful
reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or
excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to
choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance
between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently
judged as it is approached from the religious or the political
side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise
come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to
manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming
the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to
the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and
often finding their way to her scaffolds,--what are they but
the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a
proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is
excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to
keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church,
whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to
weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to
make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The
next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic,
and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and
European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the
traitorous subtlety was all Catholic--the keenness of
discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then,
too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself
broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was
still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was
to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom
which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the
instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of
the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to
die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were
peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon
the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all
his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores.
'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did
much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone
to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to
hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more
of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."
_C. Beard,
Hibbert Lectures, 1883: The Reformation,
lecture 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
The Age of Elizabeth:
The Queen's chief councillors.
"Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already
officially experienced during three reigns, though still
young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last--that
is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in
that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the
Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began
their work together. He was not long in discovering that there
was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever
brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of
unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two
arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were
pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also
the good sense to select the wisest and most learned
ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and
chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both
of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been
Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary--a position far
from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of
men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which
exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the
persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with
a sublime impartiality. ... It was under the advice of Cecil
and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her
famous settlement or Establishment of religion."
_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Parliament.
"The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
power, ... there was still a considerable party, sometimes
carrying the house along with them, who with patient
resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
remain.
{837}
The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
in the other."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Literature.
"The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any
other in our history by a number of great men, famous in
different ways, and whose names have come down to us with
unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars,
poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker,
and--high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in
our mouths--Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson,
Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her
long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts,
were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human
nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same
general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark
of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great
Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never
shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than
at this period. Our writers and great men had something in
them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were
not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or
Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of
themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth
and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel,
and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of
affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent
race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with
none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy.
... For such an extraordinary combination and development of
fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek
for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the
circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in
local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned
that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages
placed within their reach. ... The first cause I shall
mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the
Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave
a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
throughout Europe. ... The translation of the Bible was the
chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret
spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had
been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions
of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers
(such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave
them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt
within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by
giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. ... The
immediate use or application that was made of religion to
subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious
ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was
made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about
the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek
and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain
and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown
open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. ...
What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this
period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of
voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to
arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery
waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the
dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown
worlds. ... Again, the heroic and martial spirit which
breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable
activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was
not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished
forever. ... Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a
unity and common direction to all these causes, was the
natural genius of the country, which was strong in these
writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of
islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we
would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to
ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we
have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from
others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets
and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads
and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world,
and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a
battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and
it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it.
Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and
character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of
it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion,
with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think,
and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in
masses. ... We may be accused of grossness, but not of
flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want
of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature.
Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal
and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one
uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of
incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of
beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good
indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies
in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which
is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for
French rules and French models."
_W. Hazlitt,
Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
lecture 1._
{838}
"Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had
already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical
erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought.
Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and
translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and
assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means
much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and
dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of
contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of
Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were
introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The
age favoured translation, and English readers before the close
of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan
library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of
ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances
sufficiently account for the richness and variety of
Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points
which must strike every student of that literature--its native
freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan
literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance
of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness
under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its
energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of
the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance.
They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting,
transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating
the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey
and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open
to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the
past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic
revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the
blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to
be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."
_J. A. Symonds,
A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
(Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
High Commission.
"When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559,
Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the
clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded
to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass,
and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities
signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the
constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as
Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the
steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and
Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except
the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a
consultation was ordered between the representatives of both
sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had
been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the
realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist
champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it
took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed
the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her
own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme
Governor,' of the Church of England."
_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17._