« 이전계속 »
and from the public recognition of their authority, could in any case be controlled by expressions found in a correspondence of this character. As, however, much of the argument against the authority of the Advertisements was founded on this correspondence, their Lordships think it right to say that they draw from the correspondence, as a whole, a conclusion opposite to that in support of which it was referred to.
History of the Book of Advertisements.
The first draft of the Book of Advertisements was prepared by the Archbishop and his colleagues very soon after the receipt of the Queen's letter of the 25th January, 1564-5, in the form of an order running in the Queen's name; and it appears, from passages in several letters, that they wished the civil power to undertake as much as possible of the formal responsibility of promulgating and enforcing the proposed new order, and that they anticipated very great difficulty if, without that support, the principal share of the burden should be thrown upon the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. An opposite view, however, prevailed at Court, where some of the Queen's Ministers and courtiers were more favourable than she was herself to the views of the Puritans, and where it was as well understood as it was by the Archbishop that the measure would encounter much unpopularity and opposition, so far as it was contrary to those views.
It further appears that in the first draft of the book (which is printed at length in the Appendix to Strype's 'Life of Parker,' No. 28, p. 84) there were several doctrinal articles, and other articles (about the temporalities of Bishops, the employment of schoolmasters, and the dissolution of marriages within the prohibited degrees), which were afterwards omitted, and the legality of all or some of which, under any powers then vested in the Crown, might have been more than doubtful.
That the Archbishop knew that no new " Order" could legally be taken by the sole authority of himself and his brother Commissioners is abundantly clear.
When, on the 8th of March, 1564-6, he sent the first draft to Secretary Cecil to be submitted to the Queen, he wrote:
"If the Queen's Majesty will not authorise them, the most part "be like to lie in the dust for execution of our parts; laws be so "much against our private doings."
That draft was not approved; he sent it again a year afterwards (12th March, 1565-6), with a letter containing this passage :
"And where once, this last year, certain of us consulted and "agreed upon some particularities in apparel (when the Queen's "Majesty's letters were very general), and for that by statute 66 we be inhibited to set out any constitutions without licence
"obtained of the Queen, I sent them to your Honour to be pre"sented. They could not be allowed then, I cannot tell of what "meaning; which I now send again, humbly praying that, if "not all, yet so many as be thought good may be returned with 66 some authority, at the least way for particular apparel; or "else we shall not be able to do so much as the Queen's Majesty expecteth for us to be done."
That the Archbishop, both from his communications (in every stage of this business) with the Secretary of State (whose answers to him do not appear in the correspondence), and also from personal interviews with the Queen, must have had the Queen's pleasure distinctly made known to him, is no less
In a letter dated the 12th April, 1566, he gives an account of an audience which he had on the 10th of March preceding (exactly two days before his letter of the 12th March to Cecil), when he had explained to the Queen the difficulty of enforcing the uniformity desired by her Majesty. "I answered, that these precise folk would offer their goods and bodies to prison rather "than they would relent, and her Highness willed me to 66 imprison them."
In his official letter to Grindal, dated the 28th March, 1566, inclosing the Book of Advertisements, he refers to another interview which they had both then recently had with the Queen by her own command, in which she charged them "to see her "laws executed, and good orders decreed and observed."
In the letter which he wrote on the same 28th March to the Secretary of State, submitting the Advertisements in their final form (together with the draft of the letter to Grindal) for approval, he says:
"I pray your Honour to peruse this draft of letter and the "Book of Advertisements, with your pen, which I mean to send "to my Lord of London. This form is but newly printed, "and yet stayed till I may hear your advice. I am now "fully bent to prosecute this order and to delay no longer, ana "I have weeded out of these Articles all such of doctrine, &c., which, peradventure, stayed the Book from her Majesty's approbation, and have put in but things advouchable, and, as "I take them, against no law of the realm."
They could only be "against no law of the realm" if they were issued by the Queen's authority. For what purpose were they sent to Cecil, except to obtain that authority for their promulgation, in the form and manner proposed? It is true that the words follow (which were relied upon by the appellant's counsel) : "And where the Queen's Majesty will needs have me assay "with mine own authority what I can do for order, I trust I "shall not be stayed hereafter, saving that I would pray your "Honour to have your advice to do that more prudently, in this
common cause, which must needs be done." Their Lordships understand. by this that the Queen had determined that the new order, made with her authority and approbation, should be enforced by the Metropolitan, through the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without aid from the Privy Council or the secular power; not that the new order itself was to be without warrant, except from the sole authority of the Metropolitan, to whom, without the authorisation of the Crown, the law had given no power to make any such order.
The facts that this duty was undertaken by the Archbishop reluctantly, and possibly against his own judgment, that his wishes and opinions were on several points overruled, and that the Book of Advertisements was promulgated, not in the form which he would have preferred, but in that imposed upon it by the Royal will, all tend to prove that it was promulgated in that form, with, and. not without, the Queen's authority.
If, indeed, the legal effect of the Advertisements were to be judged of (as their Lordships do not think it ought to be) by the private opinion of Archbishop Parker, there is in the correspondence distinct evidence that Parker, after the Advertisements were issued, considered them to be an execution of the statutory power. Writing to the Lord Treasurer, November 15, 1573,* seven years after the Advertisements were issued, he says:"The world is much given to innovations, never content to 66 stay to live well. In London our fonts must go down. I do but marvel what some men mean. with such "alteration, when order hath been taken publicly this seven "years by Commissioners, according to the statute, that fonts "should not be removed."
The Advertisements had ordered† "that the fonte be not " removed," and this circumstance, and the expressions "order "taken," "this seven years," and "Commissioners" (the Advertisements having been signed by the Bishops as Commissioners), make it clear that Parker was referring to the Advertisements. But the Advertisements could not have been a "taking of order "publicly "" according to the statute" unless they had the direct authority of the Queen.
The Advertisements on Vestments.
Their Lordships now turn to the part of the Book of Adver- . tisements which deals with the vestures of the ministers. in these words :
"In the ministration of the Holy Communion in cathedral "and collegiate churches, the principal minister shall wear a cope, with gospeller and epistoller agreeably; and, at all other
*Correspondence, p. 450.
+ Card. Doc. Ann. p. 326.
Card. Doc. Ann.
prayers to be said at that communion-table, to use no copes, “but surplices.
"That the Dean and Prebendaries wear a surplice with a silk "hood in the choir; and, when they preach, to use their hoods. "Item―That every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the Sacraments, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish."
It was not seriously contended that albs or chasubles could, in any reasonable or practical sense, or according to any known usage, be worn, or could be meant to be worn, concurrently with the surplice. If, therefore, the use of the surplice, at the administration of the Holy Communion, was rendered lawful and obligatory by these "Advertisements," the use of albs or chasubles, at that administration, was thereby rendered unlawful. Their Lordships do not forget that the Book of Advertisements also contains orders upon other distinct subjects not within the 25th section of the statute; as to some of which it was suggested in argument that the Queen had no legislative power. But this, whether the suggestion be well or ill founded, is, for the present purpose, immaterial.
The proof of the subsequent reception and enforcement as law of the order established by the Book of Advertisements as to the vestures of the ministers of the Church in the administration of the Holy Communion throughout the Church of England from 1566 to the Great Rebellion, and again between the Restoration and St. Bartholomew's Day in 1662, is complete.
After 1566, vestments, albs, and tunicles (copes also, in parish and non-collegiate churches) are mentioned in the official acts of the Bishops and others, performed in the public exercise of their legal jurisdiction, only as things associated with superstition, and to be defaced and destroyed. They were so treated by a Royal Commission sent to Oxford by Queen Elizabeth in 1573, and by the Visitation Articles of Archbishops Grindal and Sandys (York, 1571 and 1578); and Abbot and Laud (1611 and 1637); of Bishops Aylmer, Bancroft, and King (London, 1577, 1601, and 1612), and others. The surplice, on the other hand, in a long series of Visitation Articles (sometimes accompanied by Injunctions) of not less than thirty-two Archbishops and Bishops, of sixteen dioceses in England, commencing with Archbishop Parker in 1567,* and ending with Bishop Juxon in 1640,† besides those of various Archdeacons, is consistently treated as the vesture required by law to be used by all ministers of the Church, not only in their other ministrations, but expressly in the administration of both sacraments. Among the most stringent in this respect are the Articles of Bishop Andrewes, Overall, and Wren. After the Restoration (if, as seems probable, the Visitations of 1 Card. Doc. Ann. p. 330. +2 Rep. Rit. Com. p. 589.
Cosin and other Bishops in 1662, whose Articles of that year do not expressly refer to the Act 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4, were held under the state of the law prior to that Act), we have not only Bishop Cosin* but Bishops Ironside of Bristol, Morley of Winchester, and eight others of as many dioceses (whose Articles of 1662 are stated, in the Appendix to the Second Report of the 'Ritual Commissioners,' to have been the same on this point with those of Morley), all administering strict inquiries to the same effect.
The Advertisements accepted as Law up to 1662.
This, however, is not all. There is direct proof in the same class of documents, and in others of a still more public and authoritative kind, that the Advertisements were accepted as law, as having the Queen's authority.
In a Visitation held in 1569, Bishop Parkhurst, of Norwich, inquired (not expressly mentioning the surplice), "whether your "divine service be said or sung in due time and reverently, and "the sacraments duly and reverently ministered in such decent "apparel as is appointed by the laws, the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and other orders set forth by public authority in "that behalf." That he was referring to the Advertisements, and "by public authority" meant the authority of the Queen, seems clear from one of his "Injunctions to the Clergy" (the fourth), at the same Visitation, about perambulations, where he orders the clergy, on those occasions, not to use surplices or superstitious ceremonies," but only give good thanks, and use "such good order of prayers and homilies as be appointed by "the Queen's Majesty's authority in that behalf." The use of homilies at perambulatious was prescribed, not by the Injunctions of 1559, but by the Advertisements.
Bishop Cox, of Ely, in his "Injunctions" issued between 1570 and 1574, directed "that every parson, vicar, and curate shall use in the time of the celebration of divine service to wear a surplice, prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions and "the Book of Common Prayer; and shall keep and observe all "other rites and orders prescribed in the same Book of Common "Prayer, as well about the celebration of the Sacraments, as also "in their comely and priestly apparel, to be worn according to "the precepts set forth in the book called 'Advertisements.' And, in his accompanying 'Articles,' he inquired, "Whether any, licensed to serve any cure, do not wear at the celebration "of the divine service and Sacraments a comely surplice, and "observeth_all other rites and orders prescribed in the Book of "Common Prayer and the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and in "the Book of Advertisements?"
* Works, vol. iv. pp. 509, 510.