« EdellinenJatka »
(92) Page 267. Mary insisted, in a manner offensive to Elizabeth, that instead of descendants of Elizabeth, the words lawful or legitimate descendants should be inserted. Nares, vol. II., p. 538. On this circumstance Elizabeth wrote “although we might make ourself to be herein touched in honor, yet considering she may peradventure measure other folk's dispositions by her own actions—we are content to overpass in silence what we have cause to think hereof, &c.” (93) Page 268. Mary, in her solitude, amused herself with needlework and embroidery; kept for her diversion a number of birds and other animals; and had clothes, head-dresses, ribbons, &c., from Paris. (94) Page 269. His Majesty thynketh it no just cause to be offended with those devices tending to her liberty. Cecil to Shrewsbury for Mary. Lodge, vol. II., p. 76. (95) Page 269. Hallam considers it as unquestionable that Norfolk invited Alba to come to England, and the thorough investigations, in Turner, (pp. 508—534,) prove the guilt of the Duke. (96) Page 271. According to a report of the English ambassador, Smith, dated 22d March, 1572, Charles IX. said of Mary, “Ah, the poor fool will never cease till she lose her head. In faith they will put her to death. I see it is her own fault and folly: I see no remedy to it.” Turner, p. 541.
From the Peace with France to the Death of Elizabeth.
THE events which we have just related were closely connected with the internal affairs of England, and especially with the situation of the Roman Catholics. The Catholic powers and the Pope were naturally enemies to Elizabeth; and while the more prudent Catholics blamed the violent Bull of the latter, because it might lead to a restriction of the toleration which was granted them, others considered that it authorised them to disobedience of the existing government. Elizabeth therefore declared, that in England, where the Roman Catholics formed a political party, the toleration of them was a very different matter from what it was in those countries where there were only theological differences. She confirmed several Bills, which not only seem incompatible with an unlimited toleration, but even led to acts of great oppression. Burghley, however, above all others persisted, even at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, in his con
viction, that clemency and good example were the only means calculated to gain people's minds, and that all persecutions served but to increase the evil.
Hardly less important than the opposition of Roman Catholics and Protestants was the difference which gradually arose among the latter, between the adherents of the church and the puritans. The former recognised the King as supreme head, even in ecclesiastical matters; retained the gradation of spiritual dignities, archbishops, bishops, &c., as well as several formalities and ceremonies which appeared to be similar to the old Catholic forms. The principles of the Puritans, on the contrary, were, on the whole, as follows:—civil government is of human, church government of divine origin, therefore the former is everywhere subordinate, and the supreme decision belongs to the latter. In ecclesiastical matters, only what is absolutely necessary must be prescribed, but the temporal government must not interfere, and especially not order anything respecting the ceremonies, liturgy, &c. Ceremonies, images, altars, crosses, organs, music, a distinguishing dress for the clergy, &c., are condemnable; likewise singing, dancing, fencing, particularly on Sunday, which must be kept strictly holy. All gradations of dignities in the church must cease, and temporal offices and parliamentary rights must be immediately taken from the negligent bishops. Ecclesiastical legislation and jurisdiction belong solely to the congregation and synod; every penalty imposed by laymen is illegal, and the oath of supremacy to be rejected. The appointment to offices in the church shall never be made by kings and patrons, but by the choice of the congregations. Whoever defends the late impure and detestable constitution of the church is not a good subject, but a traitor to God and his word. More violent persons went still further, and said, “the Queen, like every other person, is liable to excommunication by the elders of the church, and an excommunicated person is not to be obeyed, and cannot govern. The ministers are lost atheists, and we must pray to God no longer to suffer the pollution of his sanctuary. All the remains of Popish idolatry must be extirpated, and it is by no means unlawful to put those to death who defend such heathenism. () While the advocates of the puritans praised and extolled their simple, serious course of life, their morality and liberal sentiments; their adversaries blamed the above-mentioned exaggerations, and affirmed, that the majority was by no means composed of innocent, harmless men, but of ambitious persons, who considered their opinions to be alone true; and who, impatient of all control, would willingly dissolve the temporal, as well as spiritual government, and introduce a new one, resembling their own democratic constitution of the church. If we impartially compare the accusation and defence, it appears that, in many puritans, there
was a laudable endeavour at Christian morality, and that they resisted with praiseworthy courage both civil and ecclesiastical tyranny. But, on the other hand, there was in their notions of church and state, too much Jewish strictness and partiality. The cheerful side of life, which is by no means contrary to genuine Christianity, appeared to their gloomy minds to be profane: their too narrow rules paid no regard to the differences which age, sex, property, rank, ability, &c., produce in the world; and while they undervalued much that was of importance, they attached a false value to trifles. Thus, for instance, they gave strange names to their children, “Reformation—From Above— Enough—Free Gift—Rejoice Again—The Lord is Nigh—More Fruit, &c.;” and plainly shewed that if ever the power should come into their hands, they would exercise greater intolerance than they now suffered.(*) Respecting the principles which guided the conduct of Elizabeth towards Roman Catholics and Puritans, Walsingham writes: consciences are not to be forced, but gained by gentle means; but if these things degenerate into party spirit and overt acts, they must be checked and punished. So long as the Puritans declaimed only against abuses and individual ceremonies, they were left alone, and even permitted to discuss questions respecting the best constitution of the church, but