« ZurückWeiter »
Cranmer and others, to persuade him to sign it; but he still refusing it (as the council-book has it) obstinately, he was on the 4th of March sent to the Fleet. He was in September called again before the council, and required to subscribe the book: and divers learned men argued to persuade him, that the book was expedient and allowable: his obstinacy was charged on him, for which they said he had deserved a longer imprisonment: but he might still recover the king's favour it he would subscribe it. He acknowledged he had been very gently used, rather like a son than a subject. be insisted on what ile had formerly said, that he would not disobey the order set forth in the book : every one in the council took pains on him ; for it seemed a contradiction to say he would obey it, and not subscribe it. He was offered more time for conferences. He said, he knew he could never be of another mind ; adding, that there were other things to which he would not consent, as to take down altars, and to set up instead of them tables. The matter ended with a charge given him to subscribe under the pain of deprivation. At ihis time two entries made in the councilbooks, show the good effects of Latimer's zealous preaching. On the 10th of March he brought in 1041, recovered of one who had concealed it from the king: and a little after 3631. of the king's money: of which, for his attendance in Lent, 501. was allowed to him. I find there was in this reign, as in the former, a peculiar seal for ecclesiastical matters, which was in Secretary Petre's keeping: many took out licences under this seal, for eating meat in Lent; some only for a man and his wife; and some for four, six, or ten, that did eat with them; and some for as many as should come to their house. Licences of another nature I find were often taken out for keeping a number of retainers above what was allowed by the statute.
All endeavours were too weak to overcome the aversion that the people had to the steps that were made towards a reformation. Dr. Cox, the king's almoner and preceptor, was sent to Sussex, to preach and instruct the people there, who were much disturbed (as the council-book has it) by the seditious preaching of Day, bishop of Chichester, and others. Day denied this: so an order was made in council, that he should bring in writing that which he had preached. The duke of Somerset reported to the council, that Day had been with him, and owned that he had received the order that the council had made for the taking down of altars, and setting tables in their stead: but answered, that he could not in conscience obey it: this seemed indeed unaccountable ; but he insisted that he could not in conscience
obey it, and prayed to be excused. Upon that he was summoned to appear before the council, and there he said, he could not conform himself to their order : for he thought he followed in that both the Scriptures, and the doctors, and fathers of the church : and that he did not perceive any strength in the six reasons, given by the bishop of London, to justify the change. He quoted a passage in Isaiah, which the archbishop, with the bishop of London, and the rest of the council, thought not at all to the purpose: so he was ordered to confer with the archbishop, and the bishops of Ely and London, and to appear before them on the 4th of December. When he was before the council, he entered into a dispute with the archbishop and the bishop of Ely. They pressed him to give his reasons for being so positive; he insisted on those words in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “ We have an altar:” and though they thought it was clear, that by the altar Christ himself was meant, yet that did not satisfy him : they also showed him from Origen, that the Christians in those days had no altars : he might call the table an altar if he pleased : so the ancient writers did; but all this had no effect on him. A few more days were given him to consider of the matter : he positively answered, he could not obey their order with a good conscience : and, rather than do it, he was resolved to suffer the loss of all he had. Two days more were given him : but he was still firm. So on the 1lth of December, 1550, he was sent to the Fleet. Further proceedings against him were stopped for many months ; in which time it is said that the king himself wrote to him: but all was in vain. So in September, 1551, a commission was given to judge him ; and on the 14th of October it seems both Heath and he were deprived: for then an order passed in council for seizing the temporalities of both their bishoprics. Letters were written in June 1552 concerning them, to the bishops of Ely and London: the former was to receive Day, and the latter Heath, and to use them as in Christian charity should be most seemly. It seems that both Heath and Day saw the change of doctrine that was preparing, with relation to the sacrament: so they were willing to lay hold on the first colour to break off from any further compliances: for the points they stood upon did not seem of such importance as to suffer deprivation and imprisonment for them.
There was at that time a very scandalous venality of all offices and employments, which was so much talked of at the court of France, that the ambassador whom the king had there wrote over an account of it; and it was said, that whereas King Henry had by his endowments made some restitution, yet, for all the wealth they had seized on in
chantries and collegiate churches, no schools nor hospitals were yet endowed. Here a very memorable passage in Ridley's lite deserves to be remembered : He wrote to Cheek, that he being to give Grindal a prebend in St. Paul's, had received a letter from the council to stop collation: for the king was to keep that prebend for the furniture of his stable. Alas! Sir (he writes), this is a heavy hearing. ls this the fruit of the gospel ? Speak, Mr. Cheek, speak, for God's sake, in God's cause, unto whomsoever you think you may do any good withal: and if you will not speak, then I beseech
let this my letter speak.” There was nothing that opened all men's mouths more than a complaint entered in the council-book, made by one Norman, against the archbishop of York, that he took his wife and kept her from him. The council gave such credit to this, that as a letter was written to that archbishop not to come to parliament, so they ordered a letter to be written to Sir Thomas Gargrave and Mr. Chaloner to examine the matter. What they did, or what report they made, does not appear to me.
Hola gate, during all the time he was archbishop of York, was more set on enriching himself than on any thing else. He seemed heartily to concur in the Reformation, but he was looked on as a reproach to it, rather than a prometer of it. This might have a share in the censure, that, as was reported, King Henry passed on the bishops in that time ;
some for sloth, some for ignorance, some for luxury, and some for popery, are unfit for discipline and government.” At this time the anabaptists were again inquired after, and a commission was granted to Cranmer, Thirleby, Cox, and Sir Thomas Smith, to inquire after them, and to judge them.
Now Gardiner's business was brought to a conclusion. On the 23d of November, a committee of the council was appointed to consider how to proceed further against him : on the 14th of December an order was sent to the lieutenant of the Tower to carry him to Lambeth on the 16th, and after that as often as they required him. The commission to try him was directed to Cranmer, and others : he desired counsel ; it was granted ; and his lawyers had free access to him. On the 19th of January his servants moved in council, that some of that board might be sworn as his witnesses : they said they would answer upon their honour, but would not be sworn : and on the 15th of February, the last mention made of him in the council-book is in these words: “Forasmuch as the bishop had at all times, before the judges of his cause, used himself unreverently to the king's majesty, and very slanderously towards his council; and especially yesterday, being the day of the judgment given against him, he called
the judges heretics and sacramentaries; these being there as the king's commissioners, and of his highness's council, it was ordered that he should be removed from his present lodging into a meaner one in the Tower, and have but one servant to wait on him : that his books and papers should be taken from him, and that from henceforth he should have neither pen, ink, nor paper given bim, but be sequestered from all conference, and from all means that may serve him to practise any ways.” Here was severity upon severity, which, as it raised him to be depended on as the head of the popish party, so it must have recommended him to the compassions of all equitable people.
Whether these hard orders were rigorously executed or not, does not appear to me. I find in a letter of Hooper's to Bullinger, one circumstance relating to Gardiner: it is without date. In it, as he tells him that Crome did with zeal oppose their doctrine concerning the sacrament; but commends him as a person of great learning, and a man of a most holy life; he tells him also, that Gardiner had a month before sent him a challenge to a public disputation upon that head ; promising, that if be did not clearly carry away the victory, he would submit himself to the laws, and would willingly suffer the cruellest hardships. Hooper accepted the challenge, and a day was set for them to dispute ; but when the day came near, Gardiner said, he must be first set at liberty: so all this show of a readiness to maintain the old doctrine vanished to nothing Concerning the king, Hooper writes in that same letter, that these thousand years, there had not been any person of his age, who had such a mixture both of piety and learning, with so true a judgment, as appeared in him. If he lived, and went on suitably to these beginnings, he would be the wonder and terror of the world. He took notes of all the sermons he heard ; and after dinner he asked the young persons that were bred up with him, an account of what they remembered of the sermon; and went over the whole matter with them. He wrote further in this letter, that then they were every day expecting that the duke of Somerset should be again called to sit in the council.
Poinet, bishop of Rochester, was translated to Winchester, being noininated to it the 8th of March : and on the 5th of April he took his oath of homage. While he was bishop of Rochester he had no house to live in, so he kept his benefice in London. But it is entered in the council-book, that no bishop after him was to have any benefice besides his bishopric.
A new scene of contention was at this time very un
happily opened. Hooper, a zealous, a pious, and a learned man, had gone out of England in the latter years of King Henry's reign ; and had lived at Zurick, at a time when all Germany was in a flame on the account of the Interim. Upon that a great question arose among the Germans concerning the use of things in themselves indifferent. For a great part of the design of the Interim was, to keep up the exterior face of things, as it had been in popery, with the softenings of some other senses put on them. It was said, “If things were indifferent in themselves, it was lawful, and that it became the subjects' duty to obey them when commanded.” Many thought that Melancthon himself went in that matter too far. It was visible, the design in it was, to make the people think the difference was not great between that and popery: so the rites were ordered to be kept up on purpose to make it easy to draw the people over to popery. Out of this another question arose ; Whether it was lawful to obey in indifferent things, when it was certain they were enjoined with an ill design ? Some said, the designs of legislators were not to be inquired into, nor judged : and whatever they were, the subjects were still bound to obey. This created a vast distraction in Germany, while some obeyed the Interim, but many more were firm to their principles, and were turned out of all for their disobedience. Those who submitted were for the most part Lutherans, and carried the name of Adiaphorists, from the Greek word that signifies things indifferent. The reformed were generally firmer.
Those of Switzerland, particularly at Zurick, had at this time great apprehensions of a design of introducing popery, by keeping up an exterior that resembled it. Of this I find a very late instance, the year before this, in a letter that Mount wrote from Strasburg, on the 18th of February 1548, to Musculus, which will be found in the Collection (No. iii).
“ When he left Augsburg, there were no changes then begun there ; but they expected every day when the new superstitious practices were to be set up. One of the ministers told him, that the magistrates had desired the ministers not to forsake them in that time of distress. They prömised that they would give them timely notice when those rites were to be brought in among them. They prayed them likewise to recommend the Interim in the softest manner, and with the best colours they could. This was refused by the greater number of them; who said, they could never approve that which was by an unanimous consent condemned. He did not doubt, but they had heard what was done in Saxony. He wishes the German courage and firm