this, and innumerable others might be cited. They constantly refer to themselves as of the same religion with their Swiss correspondents, and as constantly speak of the Pope as antichrist, and even sometimes use the phrase ' Christian religion of Protestantism,' in a way which, by implication, excludes Romanism from the name. Indeed, it must be evident to any candid reader of the English divines of the sixteenth century,[1] that it was a doubtful point with them whether the Roman Church were within the pale of salvation. With regard to ritual also, and whatever is implied by it, it should be observed that Hooker,[2] in his answer to Travers, refers incidentally to the fact that in the Temple Church in his time the practice was to receive the Communion sitting, and that Travers had introduced the use of the standing position. Hooker refers to it as in itself a matter of indifference.
Perhaps the most perfect instance of Elizabeth's personal government of the Church is to be found in her treatment of Archbishop Grindal,[3] who had succeeded Parker at Canterbury in 1576. The clergy, in several places, had adopted a habit of meeting together from time to time to explain and discuss the Scriptures, one being elected as Moderator, and each member of the assembly taking his own part in the discussion. These meetings, it appears, were more or less of a public character, taking place in the principal church of the town in which they were held, and not excluding the laity as spectators and hearers. Grindal, who was shocked at the ignorance of many of the clergy, encouraged these meetings as likely
