purpose of obtaining a crown, thought it lawful to lie and dissemble, to swear and to forswear, she took the usual oath of Christian kings, prescribed by tradition and by law, in the most solemn way, to defend the Catholic faith, and to guard the rights and immunities of the Church. That was done in order that at a later time her possession of the crown might not be called in question. She was also anointed, but she disliked the ceremony and ridiculed it; for when she withdrew, according to the custom, to put on the royal garments, it is reported that she said to the noble ladies in attendance upon her, "Away with you, the oil is stinking!"

There were certain men about her either of the new religion or of none, and among these was William Cecil,1 one of the councillors of Edward VI., a man supple in mind, counsel, and conscience. Shortly before this he had assumed the appearance of a Catholic with so much cunning as to offer his services, not without the expectation of reward, to queen Mary and to Cardinal Pole. They refused to have anything to do with him, and so he went over to Elizabeth, and now, on her accession, hoped to rise to the highest honours in the state, especially if she abolished the old religion, declined the counsels of the old nobility and the prelates, and listened to him and his friends. The unhappy queen yielded, and so he enriched himself and his friends, and embroiled the kingdom more and more, so that there was

66

or

secrated bishop of Carlisle on the feast of the Assumption, 1557. Under Edward VI. he had professed heresy. Burnet, v. 312, ed. Pocock: "I did never preach," he says, teach openly anything contrary to the doctrine and religion set forth by the king's majesty. The foolish and lately-received doctrine concerning the sacraments, and namely the attribute of transubstantiation, I do not like, and I think it

not consonant to the Scriptures and ancient writers."

1 Cecil was in the service of the duke of Somerset originally as master of requests, being the first, according to Camden (Annales rerum Anglicarum, p. 774, ed. Hearne), on the authority of Cecil himself, who bore that title in England; others say that he was simply the duke's secretary. He was made Lord Burghley, Feb. 25, 1571.

no hope of good left, and brought himself and the queen and the country into such misery by his greed that there is no way of escape.

1

Soon afterwards, chiefly by the advice of Cecil, she, being a woman, would have herself styled, by an act of the Parliament then assembled, the supreme governor of the Church of these realms, even in things spiritual. With the exception of the lay peers, all persons were bound to acknowledge her title upon oath. It was not thought proper to call her the head of the Church, because Calvin had disapproved of the assumption of that title by her father Henry VIII. These are the words of the accursed oath :

2

“I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities."3

1 Sandys, writing to Parker, April 30, 1559 (Burnet, Hist. Reform., v. 505, ed. Pocock), thus speaks: "The bill of supreme government of both the temporalty and clergy passeth with a proviso that nothing shall be judged heresy which is not condemned by the canonical Scriptures and four general councils. Mr. Lever wisely put such a scruple in the queen's head, that she would not take the title of supreme head. The bishops, as it is said, will not swear unto it as it is, but rather lose their livings." Parkhurst writes to Bullinger, May 21, 1559 (Zurich Letters, i.

Beside others who are to take this oath, all archbishops, bishops, ecclesiastical officers, and the whole of the clergy, are expressly bound. If any one refuses, he forfeits, at the first refusal, his benefices, all his goods and chattels, and is to be kept in prison for the rest of his life. If the oath be refused the second time, the penalty of the recusant is death after the manner of traitors.1

Now, when the less instructed in these matters found that the word "head" which was in the first act of Parliament had not been inserted in the oath, they in their simplicity rejoiced that people had not gone to such lengths as to give to a woman that which they thought might be honourably yielded-as they thought formerly to Henry and Edward, who were men. Thereupon very many persons, not Calvinists only, but some Catholics also, somehow imagined that the taking of this oath was more excusable.

Others, seeing more clearly, discerned the trick, or, may one say, the blundering of the lawmakers, and pointed out that the meaning was the same whether the queen was called head or governor, that there was no difference of sense in the difference of words: that the terms of the oath carried the impiety, and the usurpation of the sovereign ecclesiastical jurisdiction, much farther than the mere title of head given to the two kings. It is necessary, they said, to admit and swear, according

Imise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this book."

1 5 Eliz. c. 1, s. 8. "Shall suffer and incur the dangers, penalties, pains, and forfeitures ordained and provided by the statute of provision and Præmunire," &c.

S. II. "For the same second offence and offences shall forfeit, lose, and suffer suchlike and the same pains, forfeitures, judgment, and execution as is used in cases of high treason."

to this oath, that the queen's power in spiritual and ecclesiastical things is not less than her power in the temporal affairs of the realm; indeed, many thought that, according to the act of Parliament, the queen might have claimed the priestly power, even that of administering sacraments.

The queen, learning that some people had this scruple against taking the oath, ordered the publication of a certain exposition or correction of it, in her first visitation of the clergy, namely, that she neither desired nor claimed any authority greater than that granted by Parliament to her father and her brother with the title of head of the Church, so that the title, head of the Church-the giving of which to a woman seemed not long ago to be dishonourable and unreasonable—was more modest and less offensive than its present substitute. Thus politicians, when they presume to meddle with sacred things, show that they understand neither the words nor the matter of their discourse.

1 Injunctions given by the queen's majesty, A.D. 1559 (Wilkins, Con., iv. 188): "The queen's majesty being informed that in certain places of the realm, sundry of her majesty's subjects being called to ecclesiastical ministry of the Church, be, by sinister persuasion and perverse construction, induced to find some scruple in the form of an oath which by an act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for their recognition of their allegiance to her majesty, which certainly never

was ever meant.

"And further, her majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to

give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects how, by words of the said oath, it may be collected that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine service in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons. For certainly her majesty never doth or will challenge any authority than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry VIII, and Edward VI."

CHAPTER II.

THE ROYAL SUPREMACY-LEGISLATION OF ELIZABETH.

In order that foreigners unversed in our affairs may understand the present condition of the state, I shall now show in a few words wherein, according to the acts of Parliament, this spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy, given to this woman, and to the two kings her predecessors, chiefly consists.

In the first place, here are the words of the act of Parliament:1

"Such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and preeminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be, exercised or used, for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, shall for ever, by authority of this present Parliament, be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm."

"And that your highness, your heirs and successors, kings or queens of this realm, shall have full power and authority to assign, name, and authorise

as your majesty . . . shall

...

under your highness