User:Arcorann/Historical Notice of the attempt made by the English Government to rectify the Calendar

SIR HARRIS NICOLAS was the first of our historical writers to point out^[1] that the government of Queen Elizabeth made an unsuccessful attempt, in the year 1584-5, to adopt the changes introduced into the calendar by Pope Gregory XIII. Sir Harris discovered the fact of the attempt, but not the grounds upon which it was abandoned, The subject is a curious and interesting one. It is desirable to ascertain what that influence was which compelled our lion-hearted queen to abandon a once formed intention; who were the men, and what the reasons which were powerful enough to stay the adoption of a mere demonstrable scientific truth for nearly two centuries. Some hitherto undisclosed information upon this subject is contained in a MS. of Anstis's, purchased a few years ago for the British Museum, and we now propose to place it before our readers.

On the 28th Feb. 1582, Pope Gregory XIII. published his authentication of that alteration of the Calendar which goes by his name, and by which the civil year was brought into conformity with the solar year, that is, with the earth's actual position in reference to the great regulator of its seasons. The alteration was one which depended entirely upon the application to the subject of the principles and calculations of mathematical science. The results when thus worked out were, as far as they went, unquestionable; but the practical object to be accomplished, the rectification of the existing calendar by the omission of a certain number of days, might be arrived at in many various ways. A day, or several days, might be dropped at any stated period, every month, or every quarter, or every year, or every fifty years, until the required number had been got rid of; or, the whole might be dropped at one time. In the new papal calendar all the days were directed to be dropped at once, in the month of October following. The Pope, as a temporal sovereign, had no authority to enforce his new calendar upon any but his own subjects—even if he had such authority over them. But the question, although in principle and calculation altogether one of mathematical science, touched upon ecclesiastical matters in its interference with some of the accustomed days of holding various feasts and festivals of the Church. Upon this ground it was seized hold of by the Pope as if it were altogether an ecclesiastical business. The new calendar was put forth by him as an ecclesiastical superior, and with all the unchristian arrogance which would seem necessarily to appertain to his doings in that character. He exhorted and commanded all kings, princes, and republics, religiously to accept that his calendar, and to take care that it was observed inviolably

-

by all their subjects, declaring that it should not be lawful for any man to infringe or disregard that his command, and that if any one presumed to do so, the indignation of God Almighty, and the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, would fall upon him.^[2]

The conduct of the English government upon this occasion seems to have been wise and manly. They were not forward to receive the pope's calendar; but, having procured the matter to be investigated and having found the papal calculations to be to a certain extent accurate, they did not pause to consider whence the truth came, or in what manner it was promulgated. They regarded the papal bull simply as putting forth a scientific truth, and prepared to adopt the truth, although not under the authority of the bull. Soon after the bull had come into operation in Roman Catholic countries, Dr. John Dee, whose subsequent reputation as aspiritseer has made us almost forget that as an astronomer and mathematician he was one of the most eminent of his day, was consulted upon the subject by Sir Francis Walsingham, and was directed by the Queen's authority, and perhaps even by her majesty herself, to make such calculations as would be necessary for the adoption of the new calendar in England. The "Boke," as Dee terms it, which he compiled in consequence was delivered by him to Lord Treasurer Burghley on the 26th February, 1582-3.^[3] It is entitled "A playne discourse and humble advise for our gratious Queen Elizabeth her most excellent Majestie to peruse and consider, as concerning the needful reformation of the vulgar Kalendar for the civile years and daies accompting or verifyeng according to the tyme truely spent." Besides a rhyming dedication to Lord Burghley which has been printed by Mr. Halliwell,^[4] the following explanatory lines occur on one of the fly-leaves of this curious volume :—

As Cæsar and Sosigines
 The Vulgar Kalendar did make,
So Cæsar's pere, our true Empress,
 To Dee this work she did betake.^[5]

Dee's "boke," which still exists and is one of the curiosities of the Ashmolean collection of MSS. at Oxford,^[6] agrees in the accuracy of the papal calculations, provided their basis, or radix as it was then termed, were accepted. But Dee was anxious to deduce his calculations from another "radix." The Gregorian "radix" was the time of holding the Council of Nice. With the powerful voice of an œcumenical assembly of the Church that Council had declared what was to be the future chronological basis on which the calculations of Easter, the great centre of the Christian festivals, was to rest. The Church of Rome now amended the calendar on the assumption that all that was done at the Council of Nice was strictly correct. Dee would have gone further back. He desired to ascertain the actual position of the earth in relation to the sun at the birth of Christ, and to rectify the calendar on that basis, and not on that of the assumed accuracy of the Council of Nice. This difference in the starting point gave a difference of one day. The calendars were one day wrong at the date of the Council of Nice. To make the new papal alteration entirely right, that one day should have been added to the ten it was now proposed to drop, and eleven omitted instead of ten. Still, rather than continue in a condition of non-conformity with the rest of the world upon such a point, Dee advised the reformation of the English calendar in accordance with the papal scheme, "only so as the truth be denounced to the world that it ought to be eleven days; hoping that the truth will draw the Romanists and other parts of Christiandom to take out of their calendar hereafter the same odd day."^[7] The grave Lord Treasurer studied the astronomer's lucubrations, although not versed, he says, "in the theoricks to discern the points and minutes." He afterwards conferred with him "at good length thereon," and finally, with commendable prudence, submitted the calculations to three celebrated mathematical scholars of the time—Thomas Digges, son of Leonard

-

Digges, a mathematician of Kent, and father of Sir Dudley Digges the statesman and Master of the Rolls; Henry, afterwards Sir Henry, Savile, provost of Eton and editor of Chrysostom; and "Mr. Chambers," whose name is less familiar to us. Their report is printed in the Biographia Britannica, but as it is not long, and we can correct some inaccuracies in the former imprint, it will not be deemed improper to print it again. We do so from a copy in the MS. in the British Museum to which we have already alluded.^[8]

"xxvº Martii, 1582.

"It was agreed by Mr. Digges, Mr. Savell, and Mr. Chambers, that upon their several perusal of the booke written by Mr. Dee, at^[9] a discourse upon the reformation of the vulgar callendar for the civill year, that they doe allow of his opinions, that where in the late Romaine Callendar reformed there are ten days cutt off to reduce the civill year to the state it was established by the councell of Nice, the better reformation had been, to have cutt off eleven days to have reduced the civill year according to the state the sun was in at the birth of Christ; and so they all accord with Mr. Dee, that such a reformation had been more agreeable to the accompt of Christians, but yet they doe also assent that having regard to the counsell of Nice the substracting of ten days are agreeable to trueth, and therefore to accord the better with all the countries adjacent that have received that reformation of substracting of ten days only, they think it may be assented unto, without any manifest error, having regard to observe certen rules hereafter for omitting sum leape years in sum hundred years.

"Then for substracting of ten days Mr. Dee hath compiled a forme of a callendar beginning at May and ending with August, wherein everie of these four moneths, that is May, June, July, and August, shall have in the end of them sum daies taken away without changing of any feast or holiday moveable or fixed, or without altering of the course of Trinity Term, that is to say, May to consist upon 28 days, taking from that 3 dayes; June to have 29 dayes, taking from that but one day; July to consist upon 28 dayes, taking from that but 3 dayes; August to consist of 28 days, taking from that 3 days; all which days substracted make ten days; in which four moneths no festival day is changed, but continue upon the accustomed days of their moneths.

"And because the Roman Callender hath joined to that a great multitude of rules which only are capable of your skilful computistes or astronomers, it is thought good to make a short table like an Ephemerides^[10] to continue the certentie of all your feasts moveable depending only upon Easter and agreeing with the [Roman] callendar, which may serve for an hundred or two years, and so easily renewed (if the sins of the world doe not hasten its^[11] dissolution) as we see every year^[12] almanacks are.

"Whereupon her Majesty may be please[d] upon this report to committ it to consideration of [her] councell whether she will have this Reformation published, which if she will, it were expedient that it were done by proclamacion from her Majesty as thereto advised and allowed by the Archbishops and Bishops, to whose office it hath allways belonged to determine and stablish the causes belonging to ecclesiasticall government."

The report of the mathematicians, although dated on the 25th March, 1582, (i. e. 1583,) was delivered (probably verbally) some days before; for on the 22nd of the same March we find Walsingham addressing Archbishop Grindal upon the subject in urgent terms as follows. This letter has never been published, therefore we shall not hesitate to print it.

> "Mr. Secretaries letter to the ArchBp. of Cant. tuching the alteration of the Calendar.

"It may please your grace. Uppon the setting furth latelie of a new Calendar in forren parts, called Calendarium Gregorianum, for the reformation of the ould received course of the year, wherebie there are now ten days cutt off in the new year, her majestie thinking it meet that the like reformation of the yere should be so receaved, and have his course in these her majesties realms and dominions, thereby to avoid diverse inconveniences that might otherwise follow, between her own and other princes her neighbours' subjects, by reason of the diversity of computations, hath caused this bearer, Mr. Dee, to set down a new calculation to be here published, to the said intended reformation of the yere, which my Lord Treasurer being directed by her majestie to [refer] to the consideration of Mr. Digges and two or three other very skilfull in the

-

mathematicks, his Lordship hath returned answer that the said calculation is well lyked of as grounded upon good knowledge and probable reasons. Now, for that things of this nature ought in course to be referred to the considerations of the Archbishops and Bishops of the church, my lords of the councell doe therefore think meet that your grace, calling unto you such bishops as are about London, as the Bishops of London and Salisbury, and him of Lincoln if he be not departed, should consider of the said new calendar, and thereupon return your opinion what you think of the same, and whether it be meet to be passed as it is set down, which it may please you to doe with all convenient speed, for that it is meant the said callendar shall be published by proclamation before the first of May next; and so I humbly take my leave of your grace. Att Richmond, the 18th of March, 1582.

> "Your graces to command,

>> "Fra. Walsyngham."

The bishops, whom the poor harassed archbishop Grindal, just on the eve of his contemplated resignation of the archiepiscopate, was directed to consult, were Aylmer Bishop of London, and Piers Bishop of Salisbury, whilst "he of Lincoln" was Thomas Cooper the defender of the church against Martin Marprelate.

Up to this time, it is evident that everything had gone on pretty smoothly. Probably the draft was already prepared of the proclamation for the publication of the new calendar, alluded to at the close of Walsingham's letter. But church-work is slow work always. An answer did not come immediately. The impetuous Queen, in no good humour with her Archbishop of Canterbury, became annoyed at the delay, and at the end of eleven days, no long time one would think, for the due investigation of calculations which affected the universe, Walsingham again addressed his grace of Canterbury as follows.

"It may please your grace to understand that whereas I did of late send to you a reformation of the ould almanack set down by Mr. Dee and certain other learned in the mathematicks, which her majesty's pleasure was, should be considered of by yourself, and such other of the bishops as might be then about London before yt were published, her majesty doth now find some fault that [she] doth yet hear nothing of the reports thereof that she looked to have received from your grace. Whereas you shall doe well [if] that there be nothing don yet in the matter to call the said bishops presence unto you, and to consider of the said callendar with the assistance of Mr. Dee and such others as have been imployed in the setting down of the same; to the end you may thereupon deliver your opinion thereof according to her majesty's expectance, wherein you are to use the more speed so that the said kallendar is meant to be published by the first of May next. Andso I committ your grace to God. At Richmond, the xxix. of Marche, 1583.^[13]

> "Your graces to command,

>> "Fra. Walsyngham."

> "To my L. Gr. the calender, &c.

>> "29 March, 1783."^[14]

Thus urged, the archbishop, assisted by his brethren of London and Salisbury, and by bishop Young of Rochester (not Cooper of Lincoln), and having procured also the opinion of "some godly learned in the mathematicalls," forwarded various papers to Mr. Secretary Walsingham, with the following letter.

> "Archbishop Gryndall's letter concerning a reformation of the calendar.

"After our hearty commendations unto your honour, may it please you to understand, that upon receipt of your letters in her Majesty's name, and the view of Mr. Dee's resolutions touchinge the admittinge of the callender of Pope Gregorie, we have upon good conference and deliberation thought good to signifie unto your honor our opynion in that behalfe; namely, that we love not to deale with or in anye wise to admitt it, before mature and deliberate consultation had, nott only with our principall assemblie of the clergie and convocation of this realme, but also with other reformed Churches which profess the same religion that we doe, without whose consent if we should herein proceed we should offer juste occasion of schisme, and so by allowinge, though not openly yet indirectly, the Pope's dewyse and the [Tridentine] counsayle, [cause] some to swerve from all other Churches of our profession, illis inconsultis, which in conscience and respect of our profession we cannot yielde to doe, as by certen reasons for this short time by us collected and here inclosed her Majesty and your honour may understande, wherewith you shall

-

also receive the judgment of some godly learned in the mathematicalls. Thus we take our leave, prayenge God to blesse your honour with his heavenly favour to the benefitte of his Churche and the promotinge of his gospell and eternall glory. From Lambeth this iiijth of Aprill, 1583.

> "Y^rs in Christ.

>> "E. Cant.

"John Lond.

"John Sarum.

"John Roffens."

The archbishop and bishops, it will be seen, at once set themselves in deadly array against the proposed alteration. They will have nothing to do with it. They claim a right for convocation to be consulted in the matter, and they bring forth also a ground of objection in reference to foreign Protestant churches, which ought to prove to our High Church brethren, that their present estimate of the validity of the orders of those foreign churches does not quite accord with that entertained by the Elizabethan bishops. But the principal objections of the bishops appear more clearly in the "certain reasons by them collected," which are contained in three explanatory papers, copies of which are preserved in the Anstis MS. These papers are pervaded from first to last by a most sturdy spirit of opposition to Rome and all its belongings. The Pope, it should be remembered, was then held to be really and in truth the capital enemy of our nation and our faith; he was the insolent excommunicator of our Queen, and was believed to be the foretold Antichrist, the deadly adversary of all light and truth. The bishops thought it foul scorn to receive anything from such hands. In the judgment of reason it would have been better if the churchmen had followed the moderation of the statesmen; if they had shewn less of their customary professional spirit; if they had thought more about the truth and not quite so much about the Pope; but still one cannot help admiring even a misdirected opposition which was founded upon such obvious patriotism, and was excited by the unquestioned insolence of the recent papal bull.

The papers in which the episcopal reasons are embodied probably proceeded one from each of the three bishops; the archbishop's blindness and infirmities almost precluding him from taking his share in the preparation of such documents. One of these papers is in Latin, the others in English. Not having room for them all at present, we shall print the two English ones, that in Latin not differing materially from the others. To the two episcopal papers we shall add the one which contains the judgment of the unnamed "godly learned in the mathematicalls."

The objections stated by the prelates are divisible into three classes. They are professional, political, and religious. Under the first class falls their adoption of the Pope's view of the calendar as a subject of ecclesiastical regulation. They think it to be a matter "ecclesiastical or mixed, because it toucheth festival days, and so the service of the Church." They contend that as the old calendar came from the Nicene Council neither the Pope nor Mr. Secretary Walsingham ought to alter it without the authority of another similar body; adding further, that (as we suppose) even after a general council if the new calendar were to be established in England it must be done by convocation. For the further consolation of the Secretary of State, they suggest to him that over and above a general council and a convocation there is another body that ought to have a voice in the matter—the parliament—without whose consent an alteration could not be made in the calendar in the Prayer Book.

The arguments which touch upon public policy are comparatively slight, and principally relate to the confusion which would result from the partial adoption of a new rule, inasmuch as many persons besides English people would not accept it. They further insist upon the scandal which it would be in the sight of the world, for Englishmen, and especially for the English clergy, to obey the Pope, and that it would be said, if we did so, that we feared his threatened excommunication.

The religious arguments are by far the most curious. They are principally these.

1. That, inasmuch as all the reformed churches hold the Pope to be Antichrist, we may not (under the authority of 2 Cor. vi.) receive anything from him.

-

2. That to establish the alteration in this country would breed a schism between our Church and the foreign reformed churches, similar to that between the East and West about the Passover, &c.

3. That the matter was of no great importance, because the latter day approaching there could not be much greater change in the course of the year than existed already, wherefore the Pope might very well have spared his labour.

The principal additional argument of the godly learned in the mathematicals is one which, although of little weight in itself, is peculiar in this respect, that it is the only one in which the question of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the papal alteration is at all regarded. It is this, that the Pope did not make the alteration out of any desire after the truth, or he would not have omitted the one day which was wrong at the time of the Nicene Council.

This brief notice of the contents of these papers ought not to prevent any one from reading them entire, as they are really very curious. 'The first paper we shall print runs as follows:—

"Reasons touching the Pope's Callendar.

"1. First, it is to be considered whether the altering of our usual callendar be a matter meer civil or ecclesiasticall or mixte; if it be meer civill then it belongeth not to us to deale in it, but if it be meer ecclesiastical or mixte, as we think it is indeed, because it toucheth festival days, and so the service of the church, then our opinions are as followeth;—

"2. Seeing the old callendar which is in use came from the Nicene counsell, as they say in their preface, therefore it is convenient that if it be changed, it be done by like authority of a general and [œcumenical] counsell, gathered together in all the churches in Europe, which the Trydentyne counsell was not, because the greater part of the Churches being reformed were excluded and yielded no consent unto the matter.

"3. If it should be established here in England, it must be done (being a matter concerning the first table) by a synod provinciall assembled in convocation, otherwise a few of the bishops, namely three or four dealing in it, should prejudice all the rest being absent.

"4. Item, if it should be stablished here by a synod without the consent of other Churches reformed it would breed a schisme as was betwixt the east and west Churches about the passover, sweet bread, &c.

"5. Item, our opinion is that it cannot be altered here in Englande by the cutting of of days from certen months, but the book of common prayer established by acte of parliament must^[15] be altered, which is against the statute.

"6. Item, seeing all the reformed Churches in Europe for the most part doe hold affirme and preach that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, therefore we may not communicate with him in any thing as receaved from him, according to the Apostle, 2 Co. 6. What society can be betwixt Christ and Bellial? which Œcumenius and others doe interpret Antichrist.

"7. Item, if the west Church about the matter of the passover did condemn the Churches of Asia, because they would have nothing common with the Jews, therefore we ought not to communicate with the Church of Rome in this pointe, because it is now known to be the Church of Antichrist.

"8. Item, if it be objected that we communicate with them now in some sort of prayers, ceremonies, festivals, and fasting days, &c. we aunswere that these things which we retain came from the Church before it was corrupted, and especially before the Roman Church was by experience found to be according to the Scriptures the seat of Antichrist.

"9. Item, we think that concerning civill traffik and contracts there should grow no more confusion by divers computations of countrys than doth alreadie by the computation of the year of the Lord from the beginning of January in other places and from our Lady Day in England.

"10. Item, we think that it will be scandalous and offensive to all the world to yeald herein to the Pope, for it will be thought that we of the Clergie will be as ready to yeald unto them in other things.

"11. Item, because the Pope in his preface doth use these words, 'præcipimus,' 'mandamus,' 'under payne of excommunication,' if we should admitt it, we should seem to fear his excommunication who hath most presumptuously excommunicated the Queen, and so confirme the Papists and offend the weak brethren.

"12. Item, if it were to be done for policie it had been more convenient to have done it before the coming forth of his bull or long after, and not in the heat of his edict, for so it will be taken to come from him, because the ground of it came

-

from him, what pretence soever be made to the contrary.

"13. Item, the matter being of no great importance or necessity (as we thinke), especially because that the latter day approching, as by all conjectures in the opinion of many godly learned wryters and divines, it is to be presumed there cannot happen or grow anye much greater alteration in the order and course of the year than is already, we doe think that the Pope might very well have spared his labour in this matter, as the Church hath done from Christ's time hitherto.

"14, Item, we think it to be not of necessity, because both our religion in all points and our policy may stand without observing the old usages before.

"If the Prince of Aurenge and other magistrates of the Low Country have receaved it, we are not to be carryed by their example, because they have admitted the publick exercise of antichristian religion, by grauntinge the masse in diverse churches, and they are driven to yeald some things for the better quieting that state, as the exercise of masse aforesaid. They have turbatam rempublicam, which God be praised we have not, having not hitherto received any thing sent by that Church.

"To receive decrees from the Trydentine Counsell, being condemned by all the reformed Churches, as not lawfull counsell, and so many protestations being made by all the reformed Churches against it, is but tacito consensu prodere causam nostram et religionis et illi concilio adherere.

"Trenius held that Victor the Bishop of Rome did evill to^[16] compell the East Church to follow them of the West in a thing that Churches may differ in, as in all ceremonies, and specially of the Lent fast, without any danger of……"^[17]

The other episcopal paper which we propose to print stands as follows:—

>> "Certen reasons alleged to shewe why that, though it be a thing indifferent to alter the kalendar according to that which is called Kalendarium Gregorianum, yet it is net expedient.

"1. First, it is likely to ingendre a new schisme at home among us, where there are so many that myslike of things allreadie established being of smaller importance.

"2. It would breed great offence abrode in other reformed Churches which have not as yet receaved it, but written against it, as it appeareth in some of their bookes: alleging that the Bishop of Rome hath altered it only in respect of religion, as it is manifest in the preface of the said kalender.

"We should seeme to some, not duly considering the cause of the alteration, nor well staid in religion, that we doe it for fear of the Pope's curse and excommunication, because he doth command it under payne of excommunication to be observed by all men.

>> "To prove that it is not necessary in respect of policy these reasons are used:—

"1. First, we differ from all other contrees one whole quarter in accompt of the yere without any inconvenience: we may by the like reason differ from them in accompt of days.

"2. Notwithstanding the kalendar were so reformed, yet should we differ in accompt of days from all other contrees and churches not receiving the said kalendar, which would breed a great confusion and doubtfulness in reconing.

"3. A kalendar in columnes may be drawn where the days of the newe moneth may so answer the days of the old, that any man may perceave at the first viewe what day it is, both by the one and by the other, which may serve for trafficke with foreign contreys as well as if the kalendar were altered.

"4. Mutations and alterations in commonwelthes are not to be allowed (as diverse learned and wise authors do write), unless necessitee inforce thereunto, but there is no such necessitee in alteration of the kalendar, no not in respect of traffique. For it is affirmed that diverse marchants of best experience inhabiting within the citee of London do think and offer to prove, that they may use their trafficke as well without that alteration as with it.

>> "And that it is inconvenient in policie to receave the said kalendar these reasons following seem to prove:

"1, The alteration will ease but a few, viz.—such as have traffick with foreyn nations; but to the rest of the realm it will be troublesome. For the old rules of the compound manuel of the Golden number, of the epact and cycle of the sonne, &c.. whereby generally the people of this realme doe find out the course of the year, the change of the moon, and consequently the tides and the Dominical letter, &c. (which hitherto have served them) will be wholly out of use, and hardly shall they

-

learn new, which peradventure also will be more uncertain.

"2, As this alteration will only ease such as traffik, so will it not ease them all, nor the most part, but unto many will bring as great trouble as it will be unto others if it be not altered, viz. To such as have occasion to traffik with the north and north-east parts (who have not receaved this alteration), for that with them they must be driven to use the old kalendar still.

"3. The best way, therefore, and sufficient for all needful purposes, seemeth to be this, viz. To suffer the old to stand in common use, and to add the new in some almanack, in diverse columns, with every day answerable to the old, as is aforesaid.^[18]

>> "The opinion of some godlie learned mathematicians.

"In this reformation we cannot allege a desire of the trueth, for that the Bishop of Rome, whome we shall folow in it, had no respect tothe trueth at [all], for by that one odd day, which grew in 300 years from Christ till the councell, it may fall out that our Easters will square as much as bye these [new rules], although not so oft; moreover, the reformer himself, Lilius, confesseth, as indeed he needs must, that by his cycle of Epacts it will come some time to pass that Easter day shall fall after the 21st of the moon, which is most absurd, for that then it shall not fall upon the next Sunday after the full moon, which is [clean] against the Nicene councell.

"If the celebrating of Easter and Christmas move us, for Easter we may reform it without this great alteration of the whole calendar, so that our Easter, as this year it hath, so ever shall hereafter, agree with the Nicene councell without this taking away of ten days; for Christmas the thing is more indifferent, as being a thing uncertain when it should be.

"As we now differ from our neighbours' account in the moneth, so we ever did in the account of our year, and yet we never thought of changing, although this difference in year was much greater than the other, in which we differ not from so many.

"It wear good to see the Bishop of Rome's book before we procede to any alteration.

"It wear good that we applied ourselves somewhat hearin to the reformed churches.

"For traffick with forren countries a calendar in columnes may be drawen, whereat the days of the new moneth may answer to the days of the old, that any man perceave at the first view what day it is, both by the new moneth and the old.

"The councell of Nice, although they saw the ods of one day in their time, yet they toke no order farther then might serve to sever them from the Jews and Quartadecimani.

"The same reason as move[d] the Nicene councell to differ from the Jewes and Quartadecimani may move us to differ from the Bishop of Rome.

"By subducting ten days one or more Sundays after Trinity must be omitted, which will breed confusion in the manner of prayers.

"The thing which indeed moved the Bishop of Rome to this alteration, was the manner of his Popish service, as the reformers themselves do testify."^[19]

What effect such reasons produced upon Elizabeth, and her advisers, we have not discovered. They would be weighed not in proportion to their wisdom but to the power of the objectors, and Elizabeth's government seems to have under-estimated that power. In a few months Grindal rested from his labours, leaving the work of calendar-making to a successor who was little likely to bate one jot of ecclesiastical power. What communication Elizabeth's government had with Whitgift upon the subject does not appear. Grindal's suggestion of a general council Walsingham no doubt declined. Even to consult the convocation upon such a point was advice not likely to be adopted by him. He preferred an attempt upon the last of the three deliberative bodies suggested by Grindal, and had he succeeded in parliament would probably have rested under the shadow of its supposed omnipotence. Parliament met in 1584, and on the 16th March, 1584-5, a bill was brought into the House of Lords, and read a first time, entitled, "An Act giving Her Majesty authority to alter and new make a Calendar according to the Calendar used in other countries." An imperfect entry on the Journals records that this bill was read a second time on the 18th of the same March. From whom opposition to it came, or what was the immediate effect of the opposition, does not appear, but from that time the bill disappears. There is no further

-

entry about it, or notice of it upon the Journals. When the papers of the House of Lords are duly arranged in their new place of deposit probably the abandoned bill may yet be found, with some explanatory indorsement. This opposition stayed a great public reform for no less a period than 170 years. Many intermediate attempts were made to rouse attention to the subject, and whenever that was the case the labours of Dee were honourably referred to. Incalculable was the amount of confusion and mistake which resulted from the long delay; and even at last, in 1751, when the theological prejudice had probably died out, Lord Chesterfield, who proposed and carried the alteration, had to combat an amount of ignorant opposition, in all classes of society, which is almost inconceivable. His fellow ministers would have had him let what they called "well" alone, and a rabble followed him through the streets, after the bill was passed, hooting and exclaiming "Give us back our eleven days!" The result is humiliating, and yet encouraging. If the Pope had put forth the alteration in any other way than that which suited the character of his ecclesiastical despotism, it would probably have been adopted at once. But in spite of all the prejudice with which his insolence surrounded the question, we see in this narrative an example of that great fact which history so clearly teaches; the absolute certainty of the ultimate triumph of truth. its entrance may be opposed by prejudice, it may be driven out by power, its return may be barred by mountains upon mountains of ignorance, bigotry, and falsehood;—it matters not. Be faithful, you who uphold its cause; succeed it must!

1. Chronology of History, p. 34.
2. Mag. Bullar. ii. 489. Luxemb. 1738.
3. Dee's Diary, ed. by Halliwell, p. 19.
4. Ibid. p. 19 n.
5. Black's Cat. of Ashmolean MSS.
6. MS. 1789, art. 1.
7. This is Lord Burghley's account of the matter. See Strype's Annals, ii, 355.
8. Addit, MS. 14,291, fo. 174.
9. as, in MS.
10. Epheremidoes, in MS.
11. &, in MS.
12. yearly, in MS.
13. 1584 in MS.
14. 1783 in MS.
15. must not, in MS,
16. the, in MS.
17. Addit. MS. 14,291, fo. 175.
18. Addit. MS. 14,291, fo. 172.
19. Ibid. 14,921, fo. 174.