In 1594, Elizabeth escaped the attempt of her physician, Roderigo Lopez, to poison her on behalf of Philip II. The plot was almost certainly manufactured by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, who was angry with Lopez for apparently sharing that the Earl was undergoing treatment for venereal diseases. Both Burghley and Elizabeth seemed to think the accusation ludicrous, and the Queen's three-month delay in signing the death warrant is—correctly, I think—often read as evidence that the Queen was unconvinced of Lopez's guilt. The propaganda-like benefit that the regime could garner from the foiling of Lopez's attempt was evidently too good of an opportunity to pass up, however, and sometime in 1594, Burghley prepared a speech for Elizabeth that touched on the various providential deliveries England, and Elizabeth in particular, had received. While the speech does not appear to have been delivered, the two versions of it that exist do suggest it was seriously considered. In the speech, Elizabeth would have focused on the “singularitie of gods favor towarde us above all other prynces,” reminding her audience how “It hath pleased god to cause the same attempte to be revealed.” She acknowledged that everything was ordered “by his providence, without any further meanes in mans power,” before concluding:

Whether or not she truly believed that Lopez had attempted to kill her, Elizabeth was in no doubt that God deserved manifold praise for the many deliverances He had granted to her.

That the concept of providence pervaded Elizabethan political thought is not a surprise. As is well established, providentialism was a constant thread throughout the period's discourse. What is often missing from scholarly discussions of providentialism, however, is the way that biblical analogies routinely engage with the doctrine, both explicitly and implicitly. The providential deliveries granted to England were all the more important in the aftermath of the failure of the English Armada in 1589. God, it seems, approved of the status quo.