King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page

Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:
  • Visit Our Store


    SECTION 1.

    Queen Elizabeth proclaimed. The present ill condition of the kingdom. What presently to be done. Counsels taken. A fleet set out. A plot already against the queen. Conjurers. Dangers from France and Scotland. The queen makes warlike preparations. She removes from Hatfield. France intends a conquest of England. FOR entrance into this present undertaking, of shewing the happy steps queen Elizabeth made for bringing in and settling religion reformed from popery in her kingdom, it is necessary to see with what policy and counsel she began her reign. Without which, and a wonderful success attending her affairs, it had been impossible she should so soon have attempted, and so fortunately proceeded in this great work. And I shall the rather do this, because our printed historians are so silent, or so short and superficial in these matters, which were the very basis of her succeeding prosperous government; and have been all taken by me, partly out of a book of the minutes of the council, sometime belonging to this queen’s secretary, and partly out of divers other authentic MSS. either in the king’s paperhouse, the Cotton library, or elsewhere.

    Queen Mary deceased the 17th day of November anno 1558, and about eleven or twelve o’clock aforenoon, the lady Elizabeth was proclaimed queen by divers heralds of arms, trumpets sounding, and many of the chiefest of the nobility present, as the duke of Norfolk, the lord treasurer, the earls of Shrewsbury and Bedford; also the lord mayor and his brethren the aldermen, with many others. In the afternoon the bells in all the churches in London rung in token of joy; and at night bonfires were made, and tables set out in the streets, where was plentiful eating and drinking, and making merry. The next day being Friday, it was not thought decent to make any public rejoicings, out of respect, I suppose, to the day, being a fasting-day. But on the next, viz. Saturday, November 19, Te Deum laudamus was sung and said in the churches of London. Thus the satisfaction generally conceived by the people for this new queen superseded all outward appearances of sorrow for the loss of the old one.

    And no wonder, since the nation was not pleased with her administration, having left the kingdom in as low and miserable an ebb as ever it was known to have been in, in any former times: embroiled in war with France and Scotland, the exchequer very low, that queen having contracted great debts. By this means Elizabeth had formidable enemies before her and behind her: but illy guarded at Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight, Dover, against France: so that an invasion was feared on that side. And on the Scotch quarters, Berwick was in a woful condition, wanting both fortifications and men. Thus the new queen’s hands were now full, to secure herself and kingdom.

    And indeed what to think of the queen at this time, as to her religion, one might hesitate somewhat: who in her sister’s reign went to mass, and complied outwardly with her practice; as John Knox told her in a letter dated from Edinburgh; though indeed (as he added) it was for fear of her life, that she declined from religion, and bowed to idolatry. And sir Richard Shelly, called lord prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, but living beyond sea under this queen, in a private letter to her, speaking of what he had lost for his diversity of conscience in religion, disagreeable to the law established, “Whereunto,” saith he, “your majesty’s self at the first was not easily brought to condescend;” and mentioning the schism, as he called the religion reformed, “whereof,” said he, “your majesty was not the cause efficient, but one without which it could not take effect.” She protested also to count Feria, whom king Philip had lately sent into England,) that she acknowledged the real presence in the sacrament. Which he signified to the said Philip in a letter dated in November, but the day before queen Mary died. The same also she protested to the lord Lamac; and also that she did now and then pray to the virgin Mary.

    And moreover, to see in what ill case the kingdom was when queen Elizabeth came to the crown, hear what one at that time spake. “She received it at the hand of her sister entangled (I will not say oppressed) with foreign wars: the French on the one side, and the Scots on the other: which sucking out of their ancestors’ poisoned breasts immortal and deadly hatred against this realm, lay in wait like thieves to invade and spoil it. The French, though in truce, when he heard of queen Mary’s death, kept still his Germans about him, upon hope, that if there had been any stirs in England, he might have set in a foot. And for that purpose had willed the cardinal of Lorrain to confer with our churchmen to see what might be done. Whether he did so or no, God knoweth: but it was certain that the cardinal had such commission. And besides that she was thus left, who saw not the realm not philipped, but fleeced for Philip’s sake, by maintaining all the last summer such a navy on the seas, and an army on the land; besides some tokens of love [money and provisions sent over] that past, I am sure, from the queen to her spouse, to shew that she was a loving wife?”

    This was well known and observed by the wise men in those days.

    Insomuch that the lord keeper Bacon in his speech, at the opening of her first parliament, spared not to call it the ragged and torn estate of her kingdom by misgovernance: and noted “the great decays and losses of honour, strength, and treasure, and the peril that happened to this imperial crown of late time, the marvellous waste of the revenue of the crown, the inestimable consumption of the treasure, levied both of the crown and of the subject, the exceeding loss of munition and artillery, the great loss of divers valiant gentlemen of very good service, the incredible sums of money owing at that present, and in honour due to be paid, and the biting interest that was to be answered for forbearance of this debt.”

    These evils the said statesman, under the commendation of the present queen, laid to the charge of the former, saying, “that she [the present queen] was a princess, that was not so wedded to her own will and fantasy, that for the satisfaction thereof she would do any thing that were likely to bring servitude or bondage to her people; or give any just occasion to them of any inward grudge, whereby any tumults or stirs might arise, as had been done of late days, [by the Spanish match.] Things most pernicious and pesthent to the commonwealth: a princess that never meant nor intended, for any private affection, to advance the cause or quarrel [of another] with any foreign prince or potentate, [as Mary did with France for her affection to king Philip,] to the destruction of her own subjects, to the loss of any of her dominions, or to the impoverishing of her realm.”

    Of this queen’s first course she took in her government, this account was given by one who had opportunity of knowing well the court, and lived at that time: “That whereas the former queen did all in haste in the beginning of her reign, her sister did every thing with more advisement and less trust. For she knew,” said he, “that to be true which Seneca saith, Velox consilium sequitur paenitentia , i.e. Repentance follows that counsel that is taken too speedily. Whereas she, being God’s chosen instrument to represent here among us his majesty, walked wisely in the steps of him that called her; and studied diligently to represent a lively image in her mortality of the incomparable and infinite Majesty, by using correction without severity, by seeking the lost with clemency, by governing wisely without fury, by weighing and judging without rashness, by purging evil humours with deliberation; and to conclude, in doing her duty without affection.”

    The choice of her counsellors bespake also her wariness and great discretion, and contributed much to her first successes. For such she picked out to serve her (as the former observing man related) as were neither of common wit nor common experience. Of whom some by travel in strange countries, some by learning, some by practice, and like authority in other rulers’ days, some by affliction, either one way or other, for their gifts and graces which they had received at God’s hand, were men meet to be called to such rooms.

    Add, that this wisdom and caution wherewith she managed herself and her affairs, took place in her in a great measure by occasion of the hardships and misusages she underwent before: whereof she had a greater share than commonly falls to the lot of princes born; but out of which dangers God miraculously delivered her. She was taught by afflictions. I think (saith the person before mentioned) no Englishman is ignorant, that her afflictions were far above the condition of a king’s daughter; for there was no more behind to make a very Iphigenia of her, but her offering up upon the altar of the scaffold. How she behaved herself in those storms and tempests, let them witness, who, being her adversaries, had the muying of her: of which he would say nothing, though he could say much. But this he must say, that then she must be in her afflictions marvellous patient, who shewed herself now in her prosperity to be utterly without desire of revenge, or else she would have given some token, ere this day, of remembrance how she was handled. And then he descends to some particulars of her unjust sufferings; “Was it no wrong, think you, that she sustained to be first a prisoner, and guarded with a sort of cut-throats, which ever gaped for the spoil of her house, that they might have been fingering of somewhat? Then with great solemnity, with bands of harnessed hangmen (happy was he that might have the carrying of her) to be fetched up as the greatest traitor in the world; hoisted into the Tower; there kept, not like a king’s daughter, nor a queen’s sister, but as one that had come out of Turkey to betray England. What assemblies and councils, what examinations and wrackings of poor men were there, to find out the knife that should cut her throat!

    What gaping arming many lords of the clergy to see the day wherein they might wash their goodly white ratchets in her innocent blood!”

    But through all these difficulties the divine Providence brought Elizabeth safe to the government; which nevertheless ended not her dangers, beginning her reign at so great disadvantage, as was shewn before. But she, by taking other measures than her sister did, and using more moderate counsels, and favouring a reformation of religion, was as prosperous to this church and nation, and retrieved again its ancient splendour and glory.

    Insomuch that within four or five years after her accession to the crown, by means of her wise and careful administration, she was extolled among her people for a princess, “worthily to be compared with the most noble, most peaceable, most honourable, most merciful, and most godly governors that ever reigned in the world.”

    And what methods she took we may perceive by a paper or memorial drawn by her great counsellor, sir William Cecyll, November the 17th, (that is, on the very day of the former queen’s decease,) the Cotton library, viz.

    I. “To consider the proclamation, and to proclaim it; and to send the same to all manner of places, and sheriffs, with speed, and to put it in print.

    II. “To prepare the Tower, and to appoint the custody thereof to trusty persons: and to write to all the keepers of forts and castles in the queen’s name.

    III. “To consider for removing to the Tower: and the queen there to settle her officers and council,

    IV. “To make a stay of passages to all the ports, until a certain day. And to consider the safety of all places dangerous toward France and Scotland; especially in this change.

    V. “To send special messengers to the pope, emperor, the kings of Spain and Denmark, and to the state of Venice.

    VI. “To send new commissioners to the earl of Arundel, and the bishop of Ely, (who were treating a peace at Cambray.) And to send one into Ireland with a new commission, and letters under the queen’s hand, to all ambassadors with foreign princes, to authorize them therein.

    VII. “To appoint commissioners for the interment of the late queen.

    VIII. “To appoint commissioners for the coronation; and the day.

    IX. “To make a continuance of the term, with patents to the chief justice, to the lord treasurer, justices of each bench, barons, and masters of the rolls; with inhibition, quod non conferant aliquod officium.

    X. “To appoint new sheriffs and justices of peace, or continue the old, by a proclamation to be sent to the sheriffs under the great seal.

    XI. “To inhibit by proclamation the making over of any money by exchange, without knowledge given to the queen’s majesty; and to charge all manner of persons, that either have made any, or have been privy to any exchange made by the space of one month before the 17th of this month.

    XII. “To consider the condition of the preacher of Paul’s Cross, that no occasion be given by him to stir any dispute touching the governance of the realm.”

    As to the first of these articles, she took care with speed to have her right and title proclaimed to the imperial crown of this realm, “as the only right heir by blood and lawful succession to the kingdoms: giving knowledge by the same proclamation to all her subjects, that from the beginning of the seventeenth day of November, at which time her sister departed this life, they were discharged of all bonds and duties of subjection towards her, and bound only to Ehzaheth, as their only lady and queen. And then professing on her part no less love and care towards their preservation, than had been in any of her progenitors. And lastly, straitly charging all her subjects to keep themselves in peace. And [as though she meant the better to conceal her intention of altering religion] not to “attempt upon any pretence the breach or alteration of any order or usage at that time established in the realm. The proclamation may be read in the Repository.”

    The lady Elizabeth was at her seat at Hatfield when queen Mary died.

    Thither some great persons forthwith repaired to her, namely, the earl of Pembroke; lord Clinton, lord admiral; the earl of Arundel, lord chamberlain: which three, with sir Thomas Parry, sir William Cecil, sir Ambrose Cave, sir Ralph Sadleir, (who was sent from the lords at London,) and sir Richard Sackvile, sat at Hatfield in council with her, being the first privy council she held. (Yet the lords of the deceased queen’s council sat at London.) The chief matters then done were, that sir Thomas Parry, knt. aforesaid, who had been a servant much about her, was by her command, and in her presence, declared the comptroller of her household, and sworn of her privy council; sir Edward Rogers, knt. her vicechamberlain and captain of her guard, and one of her privy council; sir William Cecil, knt. her principal secretary, and one of her privy council.

    And letters were despatched by this present council to Dr. Walter Haddon to repair thither: and in like manner to John Norris, esq. late gentleman usher of the deceased queen’s privy chamber.

    The next day, viz. November 21, the earl of Bedford came to Hatfield, and sat in council with the rest before named.

    And whereas robberies were now very rife, the robbers expecting their pardon of course upon the coronation; this occasioned the drawing up of a proclamation touching such as robbed on these hopes: which was sent to the lords of the council at London by sir Ralph Sadleir; who also carried letters to the said lords.

    The late queen’s commissioners were now treating beyond sea about Calais, lately lost. And now at this council, November 21, a letter was dated from Hatfield, sent by the queen and her council there to Malyn, vice-admiral of the narrow seas, to equip the ships in his charge to the seas, to keep the passage, and to hinder as much as he might the victualling of Calais, and to see good wafting of such as should come from the commissioners; and to set none over, except he had a passport from hence.

    And this order was so strict to Malyn, that not so much as fishermen or coasters were allowed to go out. But the inconvenience arising hence made the lords of the council soon after, viz. November 24, to send a letter to the lord admiral, that he would take order, “that fishermen and other coastmen, that crossed not the seas, should be suffered to go to sea about their occupations and business, notwithstanding the former restraint: yet foreseeing that such as had charge of the ports should have good eye unto them that were so suffered, that they carried not out any of the commodities of the realm, or any persons not having licence; and to stay all persons that should be found suspicious herein.”

    And on the same November 24, this restraint was taken off in a great measure by another order to the lord warden of the cinque ports, to set the passages at liberty, and to suffer all men that were not otherwise prohibited by the law to pass thereby. And the lord admiral was required to suffer such lords as had been stayed, to pass to the seas.

    The queen and council, still at Hatfield, are taking care of her remove to London; and considering what noble persons to have present. Whereof the marquis of Winchester, and the earls of Shrewsbury and Darby were sent for by a letter; in which were enclosed the names of such other noblemen as her highness thought good to attend upon her to London; and the archbishop of York, with sir William Petre and sir John Mason, appointed in the interim to transact any urgent business emerging. The letter may be consulted in the Repository.

    There were some already of the popish faction contriving mischief against the queen, by setting up the Scotch queen’s title, and by getting assistance from the Guises in France to carry on their designs in her behalf, and by dealing with some conjurers, to cast their figures to calculate the queen’s life, and the duration of her government, and the like. In this plot cardinal Pole’s brothers were concerned. The knowledge of this coming to the queen and her council, it was ordered at council, November 22d, that Anthony Fortescue, who had been comptroller to the cardinal, should be apprehended; a letter being sent for that purpose to the earl of Rutland; and that he should have conference with nobody. Sir John Mason had the bodies of two more charged in the said accusation, viz. Kele and Prestal.

    He was willed to examine them diligently upon such points as the said Kele should open unto him, and to keep Kele in safe custody in his house; so as none should have conference with him. Accordingly examinations were taken by Mason and the earl of Rutland: which examinations the lords perused November 25, and resolved, they should be forthwith set at liberty; bonds being first taken of each of them for their forthcoming, when they should be called by the lords of the council.

    One named Thirkel, a tailor, was now also in hold for conjuring about the matters aforesaid, and in the custody of John March, esq. who was ordered, November 24, to examine him, and to keep him in safe custody without conference with any. And Richard Parlaben was another of these conjurers, taken up, and in custody of Thomas Sackford of Greys-inn, esq.

    Thus early did this excellent lady’s enemies plot, and continue their devices of mischief against her, and combine to dethrone her, when she had been scarcely possessed of her crown.

    Divers other conjurers were now also in custody, of the same design and purpose, I suppose, with the former; and were examined. And December 18, the lords sent their letters to the bishop of London, viz. Boner, with certain examinations, sent withal by Mr. Attorney: and he was willed to proceed by such severe punishments against them that should be proved culpable herein, according to the order of the ecclesiastical law, as he should think meet; and to signify back what he did herein.

    It is strange to consider, how these sorceries prevailed about this time, and so on for some of the first years of the queen’s reign, and the mischiefs they did, and the fears many good and sober men had of their bewitching the queen herself. This is evident from a passage in a sermon of bishop Jewel’s before the queen: wherein he thus addresseth himself to her: “By the way to touch but a word or two of this matter, for that the horrible using of your poor subjects enforceth thereunto. It may please your grace to understand, that this kind of people, I mean witches and sorcerers, within these few last years are marvellously increased within your grace’s realm. These eyes have seen most evident and manifest marks of their wickedness. Your grace’s subjects pine away even unto the death, their colour fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their senses are bereft.

    Wherefore your poor subject’s most humble petition unto your highness is, that the laws touching such malefactors may be put in due execution. For the shoal of them is great, their doings horrible, their malice intolerable, the examples most miserable: and I pray God they never practise further than upon the subject.”

    This I make no doubt was the occasion of bringing in a bill the next parliament, for making enchantments and witchcraft felony.

    And now because this Scotch business falls thus in our way` we shall relate what the acts and practices of the friends of that party were; from whence we may conclude, what just jealousies were raised in the queen’s mind hereby. Mary queen of Scotland, and the dauphin of France, to whom she was married, gave broad signs of their pretences to the crown of England, by the coat of arms that they gave: whereby the queen became in danger at this time of two nations invading her. It was borne baron and femme: in the first was the coat of the dauphin of France, which took up the upper half of the shield; the lower half contained the arms of Scotland. This impaled quarterly. 1. The arms of Scotland. 2. The arms of England.

    The third as the second. The fourth as the first. Over all, half an escutcheon of pretence of England, the sinister half being as it were obscured or cut off: perhaps so given to denote that another (and who should that be but queen Elizabeth?) had gotten possession of the crown in her prejudice.

    Under the arms were writ these rhymes in the Scottish dialect: The arms of Mary queen dolphiness of Fraunce, The noblest lady in earth, for till advaunce:

    Of Scotland queen, and of England, also Of Fraunce, as God hath providit so.

    This escutcheon being lately brought out of France, was delivered to the duke of Norfolk, earl marshal of England; who sent it to the office of heralds for their judgment upon it, June the 13th, 1559. Their answer was to this tenor: “Hyt may please your grace, that upon good delibera tion, we, garter and clarencieux, with others of the office, have perused this escutcheon of arms, delivered by your grace; and we find the same prejudicial unto the queen’s majesty, her state and dignity; and that hyt doth not appertain to any foreign prince, what marriage soever he hath made with England, to quarter, bear, or use the arms of England otherwise than in pale, as in token of marriage. And albeit James, late Scottish king, grandfather to the Scottish queen that now is, married with one of the daughters of king Henry VII. And the said Scottish queen, being but one of the collaterals, cannot nor ought not to bear any escutcheon of the arms of England: nor yet the dolphin her husband in the right of her, or otherwise. “Furthermore, we find the said escutcheon falsely marshalled, contrary to all law and order of arms.”

    But that the French king might keep his pretence to England, he would not forego usurping the title, and quartering the arms of England and Ireland with Scotland. July the 27th. The arms of the Scotch queen, with the arms of England, were set up at the marriage solemnized for the king of Spain with the French king’s daughter, and those verses written, The arms of Mary queen dolphiness of France, &c. as before. And in November, the queen of Scots made her entry into the Castle Heraut, where her style was published as queen of England. And four verses were made upon her; whereof the two last were, Nunc Gallos totoque remotos orbe Britannos, Unum dos Mariae cogit in imperium.

    But queen Elizabeth in the treaty did require Francis of France, and Mary of Scotland, to leave off this usurping title and arms. To which they gave no direct answer, but solicited pope Paul IV. to declare the queen’s title not good.

    And this was long after, viz. anno 1572, laid to the Scotch queen’s charge, when she was detained in England, (among other articles drawn up against her,) namely, “her claim to the crown of England in possession, with refusal and delay to remove the same: giving the arms of England without difference, in escutcheons, coat-arms, plate, altar-cloths, which were openly seen at the triumph; writing of the style of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, in letters patents during her coverture; and of her pedigree, conveying her three ways to the crown: first, as descending from the eldest daughter of king Henry VII. another, from the Duke of Somerset: the third, from a daughter of Edmund before the conquest.”

    To which may be added, that there was a grant, dated Jan. 16, 1558, of certain things made to the lord Fleming, by the dauphin of France, and his wife the queen of Scots, by the style of king and queen of Scotland, England, and France, and Ireland.

    And the queen had still more reason to be jealous of the Scotch title, since her sister, the late queen Mary, used to taunt her by telling her often, that the queen of Scots was the certain and undoubted heir of the crown of England, next after herself. Add to this, that the cardinal of Lorrain in a conference with some delegates from Spain at Cambray about this time asserted, that his niece, the said queen of Scots, was most just queen of England.

    Which consideration might well be the reason of the queen’s and council’s forementioned order to the vice-admiral, forthwith to set out a fleet to guard the narrow seas: and that in the beginning of December strict inquiry was made what ammunition was in the Tower, in order to a supply thereof.

    For December 6th, the council sent a letter to sir Richard Southwel, master of the ordnance and armory, to make his repair to the lords, and to bring with him a perfect declaration of the state of his office, as well touching the provisions, expenses, and remains, as also of the present wants of the same.

    Care was also taken about Portsmouth and the strong places on that coast.

    For at the same council Richard Worsely, esq. was ordered to repair to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, and the forts, castles, and bulwarks thereabouts; and consider the state of the same.

    Now these were the several removes of the queen before she came to the palace at Westminster. And she sat in council every day, except her days of travelling. She sat first in council at Hatfield, (where she was saluted queen,) November the 20, 21, 22. The next day, being the 23d, she removed towards London, attended with a thousand or more of lords, knights, gentlemen, ladies, and gentlewomen, and came to the Charterhouse, then the lord North’s place; where the archbishop of York and the earls of Shrewsbury and Darby came to her. Here she remained six days, and sat in council November the 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Her next remove thence was to the Tower, which was on the 28th day of November. All the streets she was to pass, even to the Tower, were new gravelled. And so she rid through Barbican and Cripplegate, and along London-wall unto Bishopsgate, and thence up to Leaden-hall, and so through Grasschurchstreet and Fanchurch-street, turning down Mark-lane into Tower-street, and so to the Tower. Before her rode many gentlemen, knights, and nobles; after them came the trumpeters blowing; then all the heralds in array, my lord mayor holding the queen’s sceptre, riding with garter: my lord of Pembroke bare the queen’s sword. Then came her grace on horseback, apparelled in purple velvet, with a scarf about her neck: the sergeants of arms being about her person. Next after her rode sir Robert Dudley, (afterwards earl of Leicester,) master of her horse: and so the guard with halberds. There was great shooting of guns, the like was never heard before. In certain places stood children, who made speeches to her as she passed; and in other places was singing and playing with regals. Here at the Tower she lay until the 5th of December, which was the eve of St. Nicolas.

    The 1st, 2d, and 4th of which month, with the last day of the month preceding, were council days there.

    Then, December the 5th, she removed a little nearer to Westminster; viz. to the Strand-house, or Somerset-house, going by water, and shooting the bridge, trumpets sounding, much melody accompanying, and universal expressions of joy among the people. Here she sat also in council daily, viz.

    December the 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. And now at last she came to Westminster; that is, the 23d day of December; where she kept her Christmas, and continued all the ensuing winter; her first parliament then sitting there; and where she was in April 1559.

    And now having brought the queen to her palace, let us proceed in shewing her present cares. It was concluded at court, and taken for granted, that the French meant to endeavour the conquest of this realm, by reason of the prefence of title which they made thereto, in these four regards; their open challenge at the treaty of Cambresey; the beating of the arms; the using of the style, and the making commissions under the seal, and with the style of England and Ireland. It was likewise concluded, that the French would attempt this conquest this present year; and that upon these grounds which secretary Cecil drew up. “First, they would not defer it, because of the doubt of the queen [of Scots] life. Secondly, they had now got an occasion to conquer Scotland, and had already men of war there, and prepared a great army, both out of France and Almain. Their captains were appointed; their victums provided, their ships in rigging. Thirdly, they reckoned within a month to have their wills in Scotland.

    Fourthly, that done, it seemed most likely they would prosecute their pretence against England; which had no fort but Berwick to stay them: and that was unperfect, and would be these two years day. Fifthly, if they offered battle with Almains, there was great doubt how England would be able to sustain it; both for lack of good generals and great captains; and principally for lack of people, considering the waste that had lately been by sickness and death these three last years. Again, if it were defended with strangers, the entertainment would be so chargeable in respect of money, and so hurtful to the realm, as it could not be borne.”

    Hence these questions were propounded by the said secretary. First, what to do. Next, whether it were better to impeach the enemy in Scotland now in the beginning, before their army were come; and so to take away their landing places: or to permit them therein, and to provide for the defence of the realm?

    Upon the question, it was to be considered, as convenient to be done: “First, that the queen’s majesty did with speed send to king Philip to understand his mind, and to obtain his friendship. Item, That one be sent to the king of Denmark, to stay him, and to cause him to doubt of the French. Item, To send to the princes of Almain. Item, To provide all manner of ways for money, armour, &c. Item, To send with all speed to the French king, to declare to him what occasions the queen hath to doubt his proceedings: and therefore to let him know her purpose of defence. And that if his proceedings increased as they were begun, her majesty must needs provide to prevent the dangers. Item, That in the mean season, the ships lie in the Frith of Edenburgh, and to pike as many quarrels as they might of themselves, to impeach any more succours to come out of France to Lethe. And this to be done by them upon their own heads, without notice of a commandment so to do; and so to use the matter as the cause might come of the French. Item, That if the French armed any greater navy to the seas, which by appearance should annoy ours in the Frith; then also the like to be armed by the queen’s majesty. Item, The duke of Norfolk, lord lieutenant of the north, to have a power of horse and foot ready upon the borders, both to defend, and invade, or offend, if cause were given.”

    And upon this it was moved that sir Nicolas Throgmorton should be despatched to France; and the lord Mountague and sir Thomas Chamberlain to Spain. And so they were.

    SECTION 2.

    The queen procures money diligently. She calls in her debts. She requires her myzes from Wales. She looks to her forts and castles.

    Betwick: orders for that place, and for Newcastle; and the east and middle marches. Letters to the lord warden. The assured Scots.

    Peace with Scotland. FURTHERMORE the queen, for the better strengthening herself, and providing against her enemies, besides what she had already done, saw that money was with all speed to be procured. Presently therefore she employed her merchant and agent, sir Thomas Gresham, knight, to take up at Antwerp divers sums of money; and the city of London gave their bonds for payment; a letter having been sent from the queen’s council to the lord mayor; aldermen, and common-council, for sealing bonds for that end: which service towards her they readily shewed their goodwill by doing.

    She was diligent also in calling for the remainders of the fifteens and tenths given by act of parliament to her sister, which had not. yet been brought into her exchequer. And because several of the collectors were behindhand in their accounts, letters from the lords of the council, dated in December 1558, were sent forth to the sheriffs of the several counties of Bucks, York, Gloucester, Nottingham, Oxon, Berks, Stafford, and Warwick; and to the mayors of the towns of Northampton, Darby, King’s Lyn, and Southampton, to apprehend the collectors of the fifteens and tenths, in the said shires and towns behind of their collections; and to bind them into good bands in treble the sums, to make payment of all that was by them due in the Exchequer, within fifteen days after the bands taken. Again, letters were sent to John Aylworth, receiver of the counties of Somerset, &c. and to the sheriffs of the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Darby, and Chester, to make payment forthwith into the receipt of the exchequer, of all such sums as were by them due in their several collections at Michaelmas last, as they would answer for the contrary at their utmost peril. And when it was understood, that some of her own household were behind in their payments of the subsidy, a letter proceeded from the council to the tellers of the Exchequer, to send them a perfect book of the names of all such as were behind, within the queen’s house, of the payment of the last subsidy granted to the late queen.

    And for the better understanding of the debts, the lord Paget, with others, having been appointed commissioners in the time of the late queen, for the taking knowledge of what was owing to her, was prayed to give a particular note of what he had found touching the same matter.

    The queen began thus early to look intently also into her own revenue, and unto all such as were the chief farmers of it. And in this business sir Walter Mildmay, one well versed in accounts, (having a great while belonged to the Augmentations,) was chiefly to be employed. And a letter was directed to him from the lords, to send to all the auditors, and such others as he thought good for his better instructions in the matter, for the names of all the head farmers, within the realm, of the queen’s majesty’s revenue; and especially of all the copyholders westward; requiring him thereof to make a book out of hand, and to send the same to court with all convenient speed.

    And the next council-day, the lord treasurer (who was the marquis of Winchester) was ordered to cause process to be made with all speed out of the exchequer, for the answering of the temporalities of these bishoprics now void, viz. Canterbury, Norwich, Rochester, Bristol, Oxon, Chichester, Hereford, Sarum, Gloucester, and Bangor; signilying also unto his lordship, that the queen’s pleasure was, that sir John Mason, treasurer of her chamber, should have the care of seeing this prosecuted with speed.

    And that she might know the true state of her purse, Mr. Damsel was sent to certify all manner of debts due in the in the court of wards: and so was sir Ambrose Cave, chancellor of the duchy, to do the like in the court of the duchy. And the lord treasurer at the same time, namely December 24 to cause speedy certificate to be made to the queen, of all manner of debts due in the exchequer; to the intent, the same being known, order might be given by such as she had appointed in commission, to see the same answered with all expedition.

    To this may be added, that she appointed a commission A to understand what lands had been granted from the crown in the late queen’s reign. The commissioners whereof were the marquis of Winchester, the lord Rich, the lord North, Mildmay, &c.

    In the same month she also took her advantage against certain Italian merchants for bringing in commodities from the enemy: ordering her customers of London to levy and get into their hands the sum of 2542l . 7s. 4d. [by way of fines and forfeiture] due to her from Germin Ciol, Alexander Bonvice, Augustin de Sexto, and John Heath, for the impost of certain wines and other French wares. And also laid Ciol in prison.

    Nor did she forget her myzes; that is, what was due to her from the people of Wales, by ancient custom due to the princes of Wales, and to all the princes of the realm at their first entrance upon the supreme government.

    Which thing was anciently an honorary present to the prince, of corn and wine from each county towards the expense of his family: but afterwards paid in money. For the receiving of this she appointed a commission, which, in February 1558, met with some opposition in the town of Carmarthen, chiefly by one Thomas Lloid, of Llan Stephan, gent. and certain others his complices, making a disorder against her commissioners in that county; who were therefore committed to ward; and a letter was sent to the lord president and council of Wales, to send for them to the marches, and to take such order at their coming thither, as to send up forthwith unto the queen’s council, under safe custody, the said Lloid, and two or three other most faulty; and to commit to ward the rest there, to remain till the principals had been brought up and received condign punishment for their said disorders. The names of the others sent up with Lloid, were David ap Gorwared, John Palmer, and William Jack: all which were presently committed to the Tower. But it being for a contempt only, and for the terror and example of others, the letter from the council had instructed the lieutenant to use them honestly; but to keep it to himself.

    They were committed March 18, 1558, and discharged April the 8th following. And of this the lords of the council advertised the lord president of Wales; and mentioned withal, how they alleged, that after the death of king Henry VIII. and king Edward VI. greater sums were levied for the myzes in the county of Carmarthen, than was answered to the prince. The said president therefore was willed to hear what the said Thomas Lloid could say herein: and to call for such before him as should, be found faulty in this matter; and to cause them to repay to the queen’s use what they had detained; and further to punish them as the quality of their default should demerit.

    Let me here add one passage more in transitu concerning this custom. In the month of March the inhabitants of Wales, and of the county palatine of Chester, presented the queen a supplication for their ancient liberties and customs to be allowed, m respect of their myzes, of certain debts, felonies, &c. Which business the queen committed to the lord president and council of the marches of Wales.

    And upon another petition of theirs, an order was made in the queen’s first parliament, by the queen with the consent of the Lords, that in this year wherein a subsidy was to. be paid the queen, they should not be charged with the payment of the myzes: nor at any other time that she received them, her subsidies should not be paid that year.

    But to return a little backward, to observe further this part of the new queen’s state-wisdom, in her care of her treasure: she also called upon Sir Anthony St. Leger, late lord deputy of Ireland, and Andrew Wise, of Baigtiss in the kingdom of Ireland, esq. vice-treasurer of that kingdom, requiring their accounts, (as well as she had done others,) especially being in considerable arrears with her. The former she wrote to, to this purport, “that being indebted to her in great sums of money, he was willed to make payment thereof forthwith to her use; and to signify with speed to the lords what he minded to do.” And in February certain soldiers of Ireland claimed their wages for one and twenty months, due in the time that he was deputy there, and he ought to have paid; which made the lords write to him another letter. And a third was sent him in March, with order to pay the poor soldiers of Ireland such sums of money as were due to them: and if it should be found that he ought not to pay the same, it should be defalked out of such sums as he owed to the queen. As for Wise, he was put into the Fleet: and a little after, viz. about the middle of January, a bond of 12,000l . was taken of him, with two sureties, to discharge all such sums of money with which he stood charged and indebted to the queen. And the lords appointed sir William Petre, sir John Mason, sir Richard Sackvile, and sir Walter Mildmay, to audit his account. But it seems he was not able to give up his accounts to the satisfaction of the queen, and so his bond was forfeited, and he committed again to the Fleet, April l2th, 1559.

    Nor would the queen release the merchant adventurers of a new impost laid by queen Mary upon cloth and other commodities: which the said merchants did earnestly sue to the council to be released of: refusing a good while to answer such sums as were by them due upon the same account. Whereupon, in January 30, they were summoned before the lords, where they declared they would stand to such end as should be ordered by law: and this they subscribed to in a bill, which was delivered to the lord great seal. But after divers appearances before the privy council, they were finally answered, March the 30th, that the queen’s majesty could by no means (her great charges considered) either undo or mitigate the same.

    Nevertheless they gave the merchants further day to be again before them; who were pleased both to hear what they could further say in this matter, and also to consider certain licences which they claimed of the grant of the late queen, for the carrying out of cloths.

    Thus did the queen play the good husband, that she might have treasure, for the better providing for the charges of her royal estate: for she saw round about her vast expenses necessary to be laid out, for the defence of herself in this state of hostility, wherein she found the kingdom involved.

    She was to pay off her sister’s debts, besides her funerals; the garrisons and army were behind in their wages; the strength and fortifications on the frontiers, both against France and Scotland, very defective; her number of soldiers too few, and her forces to be increased.

    And that the queen might the more effectually look to herself, a letter was wrote in the beginning of January to the lord treasurer, to send thither a perfect book of all the castles, forts, and bulwarks of the realm; and what captains and soldiers were placed in the same, and what entertainment each of them had. Which letter was in order to what was agreed to by the board, a day or two before, viz. that the lord admiral should have the consideration of all the forts and bulwarks of the realm, and to understand the present state of the same.

    And now let us see what care was taken for Berwick, whereof the lord Eure was captain. The place was found to be in great danger of being taken by the Scots, wanting both men and strength. Some fortifications had been begun under that lord; and a letter, dated in November 1558, was sent to him, that he should go forward as the season of the year would suffer; so as at the least, so much might be done as should have been done by the late queen, had she lived. Ordnance and munition was also hastened thither, and the lord admiral had instructions to give order for the wafting of it.

    And in the same month a letter was sent to the lord Eure for the garrisons at Berwick; requiring him, for the better meeting with such fraud as was used at musters, and for that it appeared that the numbers appointed to serve were not full, and divers wanting, to cause on a sudden, without warning given, musters to be taken by some fitting persons, and to observe what defects were in their numbers and in their arms. The queen also encouraged the said lord, captain of Berwick, upon his suit, granting him 20s. a day, by way of her majesty’s relief, towards the entertainment of an hundred horsemen serving there under him, though not as captain of Berwick: but whereas he sued to come up, and leave his charge for a time with Mr. Bowes, the marshal there, he was by the lords required to forbear, until a more convenient time hereafter, that her highness might be moved, and her pleasure therein signified unto him.

    Abyngton, the surveyor of victuals for Berwick, had bought up at Hull, for the better furniture of that place, an hundred quarters of wheat, and as many of malt. And a letter was despatched to Alrede, customer of Hull, requiring him to suffer it to pass unto Berwick; yet to keep a perfect docket of the very quantity that passed.

    And because the soldiers in those parts were too apt to be absent from their quarters, (a thing of very dangerous import, while invasion was daily expected,) therefore the queen caused a proclamation to be made for Berwick, as also for the frontiers governed by the earl of Northumberland, that all captains and soldiers that were absent from their charge should repair thither upon pain of forfeiture of all such wages as were due unto them, from the last pay unto the first of January next, if they were not found there at that day. She also confirmed the liberties and corporation of this town of Berwick.

    Newcastle was now in great danger of being surprised by the French, who intended that way to invade England: but some secret intelligence thereof coming to the queen, she endeavoured timely to prevent the danger by fortifying the place, and supplying it with sufficient forces, to be sent from the neighbouring parts, the duke of Norfolk being lord lieutenant of the north. This present danger she signified to the earl of Shrewsbury, lord lieutenant (as it seems) of Derbyshire: and by her letters in December, committed a special charge to him for the defence of the realm, against these attempts of the French that had been lately discovered (as the lords of the council wrote to him) though not disclosed, to levy certain horsemen, both demilances and corselets: and she sent also her letters to divers persons of good livelihood within that county, to will them with all speed to make ready certain horse, and to send them to Newcastle by the 25th of January. The council gave the earl particular instructions in this emergence, as to send for the sheriff, and for other of the principal in every quarter of the shire, and to confer with them how this charge and service might best be performed. The queen also at this time ordered the said earl to levy certain numbers of footmen to be raised in Yorkshire, to be sent to Berwick. And secretary Cecyl in a letter shewed him, that the French had pressed fifteen thousand Almains in Germany, and were arming all their ships to the seas.

    On Thursday the latter end of December, the abovesaid lord Eure, governor of this place, did some service against Scotland, (for which he received a letter of thanks from above,) namely, in annoying the enemy, and burning the mill, the kill, and other houses near unto Aymouth: but he was required utterly to forbear to embrace any Frenchman’s offer (of which nation several supplies were already sent to Scotland) that should run away from Scotland, if they might be suffered to pass through the realm; nor other wise to use any one of them during the wars, than to procure intelligence at their hands, and to learn somewhat that might advance the service of the queen.

    Care was also taken to send treasure to Sir William Engolby, treasurer of Berwick; that is, so much as should make the full pay for the old ordinary garrison there; and for what should be due February 14. And the same month a thousand ton of timber was bought by the queen’s order of sir Richard Lee, at 10s. the ton, to be sent to Berwick, and delivered at Hull.

    For which the queen’s council sent order to Richard Whalley, esq. to go forward in the bargain: and the said sir Richard Lee not to make. sale of any wood that he should fell, but to keep the same for the queen’s majesty’s use at the said price. And in March they were very busy in making strong the fortifications there. And Abyngton, surveyor of the victuals, received a letter from the council, signifying unto him, that the queen’s highness might be the better answered of such money as should be due by the labourers and workmen of the fortifications there, for their victuals; her highness’ pleasure was, that he should appoint certain particular victuallers under him, to take upon them the care and charge of the victualling of the same labourers from time to time; and to be present also themselves at every pay, and to defalk so much of their wages as should be due by them for the said victuals so received at their hands.

    And finally, Sir James Croft, knt. who had been employed by the queen in overlooking, and examining, and ordering of all matters relating to Berwick, by many particular letters wrote to him from the council, at length in March had a commission under the great seal of the captainship of the town and castle of that place, in the room of the lord Eure. Crofts had desired a continuance of a benevolence for the increase of the wages of the old garrison (which was 3d. a day) granted the last year: but it was answered him, that forasmuch as this was a new charge, the lords did not think meet the same should be continued. And therefore he was required to persuade the soldiers to be contented with their ordinary entertainment, until her highness should be of better ability to consider them. The sick and unserviceable men he was ordered to cass, by taking up money of the merchants at Newcastle, which should be repaid them at the coming down of the treasure, that should be shortly.

    And this was the provision and care the queen took for Berwick, for the restoring it to its pristine condition and strength, to be able to maintain itself against Scotland.

    The like also she took for the frontiers of the east and middle marches, which were under the government of the earl of Northumberland, lord warden thereof. There was an evil practice among the soldiers for these borders, which was of very dangerous consequence: it was, that their numbers being not full, but divers of them wanting, at the musters persons were procured to appear then only, that it might seem as though none were wanting. Therefore for the better meeting with this fraud, as sir Henry Percy had reported it, the lord warden was appointed to cause forthwith, in most secret manner, certain discreet gentlemen, not being Northumberland men, or borderers, to repair at one instant time to all the several places where any numbers were set, and to take musters of them, to see how many were wanting, how many were Northumberland men, and how many inland men; how they that remained were appointed and furnished with arms; and to signify the same up to council: and what other device he thought meet for redress hereof: as order was also given for the like purpose to the lord Eure aforesaid for his government. This was done in November. And sir Henry Percy, (who was the carl’s son,) as he had been lately despatched out of the north from the earl to the court, so he was sent back again to him with these instructions.

    Orders were also given to the said earl to see the bands diligently furnished. An hundred hagbutters were sent to the frontiers from the lord Dacres, lord deputy of the west marches: and the earl was required to be careful in mustering the bands; to have espials in Scotland; to keep the fords and watches: and as the queen added 3d. a day to the pay of the soldiers, so it was to be publicly declared, for the better encouragement of the soldiers in their duty.

    And to secure the loyalty of sir Ralph Grey in those parts, who had before the grant of leading an hundred men, in consideration of his losses upon the borders, and his good forwardness in service, she caused a letter to be wrote to him, signifying her good pleasure that he should be continued in his place, and that he should also have an augmentation, by way of reward, for the said number; and so was required to shew himself answerable to her majesty’s expectation in service, as she might think this charge to be well bestowed: otherwise it was plainly told him, she would not fail to place another in that charge.

    There was a proclamation to be issued out for these east and middle marches, to be published in those parts, viz. that all captains and soldiers having charge upon the frontiers, being absent from it, should repair thither, upon pain of forfeiture of all their wages that would be due the first of January. The lord deputy was required accordingly to put this proclamation in execution upon all such as should not accomplish the contents thereof. And all this care was taken for these borders in the month of December.

    According to a late order, the earl of Northumberland sent up the musterbook of garrisons under his charge, together with his letters for instruction in certain points. It was signified to him from above, “that as the lords did very well like his diligence and secrecy in taking of the musters upon the frontiers, so it could not but much mislike them that there were such deficiencies in the numbers. And whereas he wrote that the garrison of the enemy was increased, the lords thought, that if the numbers under his charge and the garrison of Berwick were reduced into one number, the same would far exceed the power of the enemy: and considering that the enemy’s force was for the most part placed in forts, and that they would not leave the same in danger to come to the frontiers; yet nevertheless his lordship’s request was allowed, to have some further relief, wherein order should be taken.”

    In the mean time the lord Eure was writ to, to help the lord warden in time of necessity only, with some horsemen out of Berwick, in the day time, so as they might return to Berwiek before night, for the guarding of that piece: for it was thought the enemy would attempt nothing before the next light night.

    Orders also were sent to the bishop of Durham, to send men from the bishopric in case of necessity. And finally the earl was desired to stand upon his guard.

    And when, toward the beginning of January, Leonard Dacres, the lord Dacres’ son, had by his valour and conduct done some considerable service against the Scots, the lords of the council sent him the queen’s thanks; and required him to thank captain Tutty, and the rest that served with him. And that as the lords did very well like his forwardness, so they would have wished he had forborne the annoying of them, and stood only upon his own guard, considering that they would seek to revenge it: and indeed so it proved; for the Scots soon after did some exploit upon the English, and increased their former forces upon the frontiers.

    Whereat the queen determined to send forthwith to the borders a thousand men: and for that purpose, as she had addressed her letters to the bishop of Durham, January 7, to put the force of the bishopric in such readiness as they might, upon any sudden warning, be ready to serve under sir George Conyers: so four days after, by another letter, he was enjoined to levy in the bishopric five hundred footmen; and that he should confer with sir J.

    Croft concerning fit gentlemen to have the leading them; and to have special foresight, that none of the officers used any frauds for the sparing of any man from this service; a disorder which as it had been practised in the south, so the lords would be sorry it should creep into the north.

    Letters were also written to certain gentlemen of the north riding of Yorkshire, to levy two hundred men in that part of the shire; and to the earl of Northumberland, to levy three hundred men in Richmondshire, where he was steward. And he was also willed to confer with sir James Croft, who was newly sent down there, touching the placing the same numbers upon the borders in such sort as might most annoy the enemy; and that he should always have good espials.

    The queen also now took occasion to let the earl know of the notice she took of his son sir Henry Percie’s activity and forwardness, commending it; but adding, that she would not in any case he should hazard himself, otherwise than that he should be at all times ready to make his party good.

    And lastly, she advised, that the lord Dacres (which now came from her) and he, the earl, should confer, for the better annoying of the enemy: which the lords thought would be best done, if they agreed upon some enterprise against them at one time. These were the transactions of January and February.

    In March, the lord deputy of the east and middle marches discharged the garrison of the Northumberland men; and orders were sent to him to discharge and cass many others, as by reason of sickness, or any other respect, should be thought unfit or superfluous for their present service: yet so, that his doings tended not to the weakening or danger of his charge.

    Now about the middle of March there was a cessation of arms between the English and Scots; and instructions were sent to the lord Dacres, upon his letter, how to use the assured Scots during the abstinence from war: he was willed to signify their names and behaviours, and to send a copy of the articles of their assurance; to the end some order might be taken for them upon the conclusion of the peace: and in the mean time give them in charge to forbear to make any incursions into Scotland, but to use themselves quietly as the subjects of this realm, as they minded the preservation of their security.

    Now there being a fair prospect of peace, the earl of Northumberland was ordered to proceed in casting the number of horsemen ors the frontiers, for the abridging of the queen’s charges, so far forth as he should perceive the same might be done without any danger to the frontiers; and to cass all such as might conveniently be spared, especially Northumberland men, and those that joined upon them. And for the better understanding what he was to do in this matter, to have good espial of the Scots doings. And a mass of money was soon after sent down.

    And in the beginning of April 1559 peace was concluded with the Scots: which occasioned another letter from the council to the earl of Northumberland, signifying the same; and therefore requiring him to give order, that none serving under him should annoy the Scots, but to use them as friends. And he was willed to stay the publishing of this by proclamation, until he should further understand from the queen. And the like was sent from sir James Croft, now captain of Berwick.

    The queen’s commissioners for Scotland were, the earl of Northumberland, the bishop of Durham, the lord Dacres, and sir James Croft; (whereof the bishop was of the quorum;) these met the commissioners of Scotland: and in July 1559 they fully concluded the articles of peace with the Scots accordingly. And the 14th of the said month the said bishop was at Doncaster, onward of his journey to court, to make a full relation of the said commission: taking small journeys, though they were great to him; “carrying his old carcass with him,” as he wrote from Doncaster to the earl of Shrewsbury.

    Now the English forces were revoked from the marches of Scotland; but as for the French, the queen’s other neighbour enemy, their army’ continued still in Scotland, and increased by secret supplies out of France. The galleys were appointed to be brought from Marseilles: a great navy prepared in France for the marquis D’Albeuf, to pass into Scotland with wonderful preparation. Monsieur Martiques assembled the nobility of Scotland, moving them to invade England: but they, after deliberation, answered, that the success would never be good. Captains were sent into tho east parts of Germany for soldiers, and put aboard two men of war, not signifying where they should be employed. Hereupon the queen amassed some numbers of men both by sea and land, and sent them into Scotland: where an accord was made, that the French should avoid.

    This was two or three years afterwards urged by the queen’s ambassador to France, for the restoration of Calais; viz. upon the breach of an article agreed upon at the treaty at Chasteau, in Cambresis: her ambassador (sir Thomss Smith, if I mistake not) arguing from these aforesaid attempts, that the French thereby had lost their pretended right to Calais, according to the orders of that treaty; since this evidently was attentare, armis innovate et moliri vel directe vel indirecte, as the article ran: and had also thereby forfeited 500,000 crowns, nomine poenoe.

    SECTION 3.

    Provision for Portsmouth; and the Isle of Wight; and Dover; and the cinque ports; and for Wales; and Guernsey; and Ireland. The condition of the ordnance. Commissioners appointed for the care of the kingdom. Treaty with France. The queen inquires into the loss of Calais. Embassy from Sweden. Her respect to Spain.

    Preparations for the coronation. A call of sergeants; and some to be ennobled. The queen comes to the Tower. Goes through London triumphantly. A Bible presented her there. Crowned. Queen Mary’s funeral celebrated. Letters to the sheriffs for elections.

    Other miscellaneous matters.

    AND as the queen took this care of her northern confines against her enemies the Scots, so she had the like caution for her southern quarters, against her other enemies the French. For this purpose provision was made for Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight especially. To that intent an hundred soldiers were commanded from Guernsey, left there September last, to be conveyed to Portsmouth: and the lord Chidiock Poulet, who had the charge of the government there, was instructed to receive them, or so many of them as should be thought necessary. And Rich. Worsely, esq. was ordered to repair to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, and the forts, castles, and bulwarks thereabouts; and to view and consider the state of the same. The said Worsey, and one Peter Smith joined with him, were appointed to muster the garrison at Portsmouth: and the lord Chidiock Poulet was sent to, to be aiding unto them therein, and in such other things as they had commission to do there.

    And the lord marquis of Winchester, lord treasurer, had a note sent to him of such provisions as were thought re quisite to be made for the fortifications there, and at the Isle of Wight; which note sir Richard Lee brought him. And the said marquis was desired by the queen’s council to confer with the said sir Richard herein; and if he thought it needful, to appoint some trusty and skilful person for the providing of the same. The queen also ordered the garrisons here should be paid by Peter Smith, by the money brought down with him, according to certain instructions; and to use the advice of the foresaid lord Poulet herein. And that being done, to proceed to the viewing of the forts and munition at Portsmouth and thereabouts, according to former directions, and to make Worsely privy to his doings; who was then indisposed in his health. And that no unjust embezzlement of powder and munition might be concealed, the lord Poulet, the governor of Portsmouth, was sent to, to signify with speed, how much powder was spent the last year, and for what purpose, and what remained of that quantity that was sent thither, that order might be taken therein. And all this was done in the month of December.

    In the beginning of March, the queen made the said Rich. Worsely captain of the Isle of Wight; as about the same time sir James Croft was made captain of Berwick, as is before said.

    The like care was taken for Dover: the soldiers whereof were behind of their pay now, in March 1558, for seven months; of which they complained to the council. Order was taken for the looking carefully into that piece, lying also against France. And Tho. Wotton, esq. (who, if I mistake not, was now high sheriff of Kent,) was required, either by himself in person, or to appoint one Rudston, or some other trusty gentleman, to repair thither, to take the muster of the soldiers on the sudden; and to learn whether any of them were wanting; how long they had served there; and what money they had already received; and what armour and weapon they had. And soon after, the queen sent them their full pay.

    There was a decay of the pier and black bulwark there: a complaint of which the mayor and jurats of Dover made to the queen. Therefore the said Wotton was willed to cause the same to be viewed, and to signify what should be done therein. And in April following, she sent thither sir Will.

    Woodhouse, knt. to view and consider the state of the said pier and black bulwark; and to take order for the repair of the same, according as was prescribed him. And a letter was now also sent to the said mayor and jurats, and such other to whom it did appertain, to attend upon the said Wood-house, and to shew him what they thought meet to be known for the redress thereof.

    The lord warden of the cinque ports, sir Thomas Cheyne, Order, eat being lately deceased, the queen well considered those places, to the and caused five several letters to be writ to the said five ports, Jan. ports; willing all the officers and inhabitants to continue the accustomed good order, in keeping of peace, justice, and quietness, until she would appoint a lord warden there. And in the mean time, if any wreck or other casualty should happen in any of the ports or members of the same, to signify it up to her; and to take care that the thing were kept to the queen’s majesty’s use, or such as her highness should appoint.

    Wales was another of her extreme borders that she found needful to be looked after: here being a government constituted, called the president and council of the marches of Wales, was signified unto them, in November, the queen’s pleasure for their continuance in their commission; and that the instructions they had already they were to follow, until the contrary should be signified unto them. And if they thought any thing necessary to be added to their instructions, when they should be signed anew by the queen, they were willed to put the same in articles, and to send them up for that purpose.

    In April 1559, the council sent down sir Hugh Poulet to be vice-president there in the absence of the lord Williams, who was appointed president.

    Sir Leonard Chamberlain was captain of Guernsey. He now wrote to the queen for greater forces to be sent thither; and licence to be granted him to repair to her: which he had accordingly.

    In Ireland also things were but in ill case: for sir Anthony St. Leger, lord deputy there, and Andrew Wise, treasurer, consulting their own profit more than the good of that kingdom, had left great debts upon the queen, and the soldiers unpaid, notwithstanding the sums they had received for public uses. The queen therefore called them to account, as was shewed before. And the lords set apart a day on purpose, about the beginning of February, to bestow it wholly, forenoon and afternoon, for the considering the state of that kingdom, and taking order therein.

    For the better strengthening herself in the midst of her dangers round about her, she had a careful regard to her arms and ammunition. In order to which, in December, sir Richard Southwel, master of the ordnance and armory, was ordered to make his repair to the council; and to bring with him a perfect declaration of his office, as well touching the provisions, expenses, and remains, as also of the present wants of the same. And on the 17th of December, the said sir Richard made suit to the lords, to make a declaration before them of the state of his office: when it was resolved, the earl of Bedford, the lord admiral, Mr. Vice-chamberlain, and sir Ambrose Cave, should hear the same, and make report thereof.

    The like care the queen took about her ammunition in the north; whereof Thomas Gower was master. For in this month of December he was ordered by the council’s letter to set all things in his charge in good order; and thereupon to repair up with speed, bringing with him all such books and writings, for declaration of the state of his office, And in the beginning of February, the council sent a letter to sir James Croft and sir Will. Engleby, to consider what proportion of munition, ordnance, and other things the said master had issued out of his office for the queen’s service at Berwick; and to comptrol his books from time to time. And when they would have any thing out of the said office for the service and furniture of the town, they were required to address their warrant to the said Gower, signed with the hands of both of them.

    Information was someways brought, that certain pieces of ordnance were delivered by John Benet, late master of the ordnance in the north, and were concealed by certain inhabitants of Newcastle; and that they had caused the queen’s into. arms and mark to be defaced and taken out of the said ordnance: whereupon a letter was sent from the council to the mayor of Newcastle, to Bartram Anderson,.and to the said Tho. Gower, to examine diligently where and in whose hands any of those pieces remained, and to cause the same to be returned to the office of the ordnance; and to signify what they had found therein.

    Thus exactly and pensively did the queen mind her business at home. And in short, December 23, to put the cares of her kingdom into a method, she distributed them into several commissions.

    First , for the care of the north parts towards Scotland and Berwick, the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Bedford, and Pembroke, the lord admiral, and sir Ambrose Cave were commissioners.

    Secondly , to survey the office of the treasury of the chamber, and to assign orders of payment, lord chamberlain, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary, and sir Walter Mildmay.

    Thirdly , for Portsmouth, Mr. Worsely and Mr. Smith.

    Fourthly , for consideration of all things necessary for the parliament now suddenly to meet, the keeper of the great seal, the judges, sergeants, attorney, solicitor, sir Thomas Smith, and Mr. Goodrike.

    Fifthly , to understand what lands have been granted from the crown in the last queen’s time, marquis of Winchester, keeper of the seal, lord Rich, lord North, Mr. Mildmay.

    Only I may insert here a note of this early care that was taken for staying the further persecution of the professors of the gospel, by an order from the queen’s privy council to sir Ambrose Jermin, (a justice, as I think, in Suffolk,) dated Nov. 28 this year: on this occasion: commissions were given out under queen Mary to certain persons in the countries, for the giving information of all such, which the commissioners made their privy use and benefit of; by getting money out of such as they found of that sort, to prevent any prosecution of them: or by virtue of some order given, to lay a pecuniary punishment upon them. But now sir Ambrose Jermin, upon this change of government, put a stop to the practice of these men and their doings: which the queen’s council being made acquainted with, sent him their letters of approbation of what he had done, and gave him some further instructions to deliver to the other justices in those parts in this matter; and of requiring an account of those in the aforesaid commission, viz.

    The council then sitting at the Charter-house, sent their letter of thanks to him, “for his discreet doings, touching the stay of that commission, granted to John Shepherd and his fellows. Whereof he was both required by them to warn the justices of peace his neighbours in those parts to do the like; and also to certify thither to them, what sums of money had been extorted, or otherwise received, by any colour of the said commission, of the queen’s subjects there; with such further particularites, as he could by examination learn of that matter. To the end the same being objected there [at court] to the parties, they might be further proceeded withal as should be thought convenient.”

    And as became a prince that intended not to rule with rigour, but with justice and clemency, one of her earliest actions was to relieve the captives, and to restore liberty to those that were freeborn; especially if their faults were pardonable, or none at all. Of this matter we shall have the particulars hereafter.

    These were the queen’s cares at home for her own security and her kingdoms. Now to look abroad, and to see what was to be depended upon from France, as she had brought herself to good terms with Scotland, as was shewed before. Thirleby, bishop of Ely, and Dr. Wotton, dean of Canterbury, were queen Mary’s commissioners to treat with France, about the restoration of Calais, and for making peace. To them queen Elizabeth sent a new commission, and in January 1558, by her council, writ to them to proceed according to that commission; sending now the earl of Arundel, lord chamberlain, to join with them: for she was much disposed to be at peace with her neighbours, having great matters to do at home, and in no very good condition to go to war.

    The pains of these her commissioners succeeded. For in the beginning of April, the council sent a letter to the lord mayor, declaring the peace concluded between the queen and the French and Scots: which he was willed to cause to be proclaimed in such places within the city, and in such decent manner, as had been accustomed. And letters were likewise sent the same day to the customers, comptrollers, and searchers of the five ports, Southampton, Pool, Bristol, Plymouth, and Dartmouth, to have special care, that now, upon the publishing of the peace, no bullion or money be suffered by them to be transported out of the realm.

    Several Frenchmen, prisoners, were in hold at Rie, that expected now to be set at liberty freely, without paying their ransom. But the lords of the council let the mayor and jurats of the town understand, that it was not meant otherwise by the conclusion of the peace, but that such French as were taken and remained in the town should pay their ransoms to their takers, notwithstanding the peace: which they were willed to declare unto them; and upon the payment of their ransoms to set them at liberty.

    And now peace being effected, but Calais still in the hands of the French, and a great question whether it were ever like to go out thence again, the queen thought it convenient to look into the causes of the loss of it. And if any of the captains or officers had not done their duty, she resolved to frown upon them, and call them to a strict trial for their lives, in case she found any want of trust and faithfulness in their respective charges; though perhaps this was more for a cover, to satisfy the angry people in a loss so dishonourable to the English nation. Therefore several of them were indicted of high treason. And among the rest Harleston, captain of Ricebank, one of the forts of Calais: which Harleston, now in the beginning of April 1559, being come over, was retired among his friends in Essex.

    But this coming to the ears of the queen and her council, a letter was speedily despatched to Tho. Mildmay, esq. high sheriff of the county, importing, that it could not but seem very strange, that he, the said Harleston, being indicted of high treason, and being come over, and presently remaining in Essex, was suffered to go at liberty. He was therefore commanded in the queen’s name to cause search to be made for him; and to apprehend him, and send him to the lords under safe custody.

    He was soon brought up: for in two or three days after, he was by the order of the lords sent to the Tower; and by a letter to the lieutenant he was willed to keep him in ward, without conference with any, until he were examined. And within a few days after, the lord Wentworth, the late governor of Calais, was also committed by the council’s letter to the said lieutenant to receive him, and to keep him in safe ward without having conference with any, until he should receive order from the lord marquis of Northampton, appointed high steward of England for the time. But he was acquitted by his peers. Harleston nevertheless, and another captain, called Chamberlain, were cast; but pardoned. I was willing to lay these French matters together, though this last mentioned belong to the beginning of the year following.

    It was not least in the wise queen’s thoughts and endedvours to carry all fair abroad, and to express all obliging behaviour towards the states and princes her neighbours. The king of Sweden had already sent an ambassador to her, as well to court her for a wife, as to congratulate her accession to the throne of England. But upon some disgust to the ambassador, occasioned I know not how, a great uproar was made at his house by the common people, December 16, at night, against the ambassador, and certain of his servants. But the very next day the queen caused a letter to be sent to the lord mayor, willing him to send some discreet persons to the said ambassador, to learn the circumstances of this matter, and the doers thereof: and thereupon to cause them to be committed to ward, and further punished according to the quality of the fault. And that the said ambassador might understand, that it was not otherwise meant, but that he and his should be courteously treated here.

    The said mayor was also ordered to signify to the ambassador the time, when the mayor minded to proceed to the punishment of the offenders, to the end, the ambassador might send some one that he trusted, to see the doing thereof.

    She was also very respectful towards Spain, being loath to give any offence to king Philip: as appeared by these two or three passages. John Galarzo and John de Sarausse, servants to certain officers of the king of Spain, were going in December by ship from Rie to Spain: but they were arrested, by occasion, I suppose, of the order of the council to stop all passengers from going over sea, especially carrying bullion with them. But a letter was sent from above to the mayor of Rie, and all the queen’s officers of that port, requiring them to suffer those two to pass in their intended voyage to Spain, with their provision of wax, rosin, and 1300 ducats in money, which they had in their pinnace, for the furniture of the king of Spain’s army: commanding the said officers further in her majesty’s name, friendly to aid them with victuals, and all other things necessary to their voyage, for their reasonable money.

    And some days before this, certain merchants of Finnders complained to Dassolevile, the king of Spain’s ambassador, concerning wrongs and delays of justice done them here The king laid this before the queen’s council.

    Whereupon, December 18, they sent a letter to Dr. Lewis, judge of the admiralty, with a note of these complaints, willing him to consider them, and to signify to them the state of the same suits in the court of the admiralty, the sooner to give them justice and despatch.

    Again, the king of Spain had coined money in the Tower: but his implements of coinage were for some time stopped by some officers, supposing they might belong to the queen’s mint. But upon Mr. Stanley, comptroller of the mint, his certificate to the council, a letter was directed to the lieutenant of the Tower, to suffer seignior Frauncis de Lixaide, treasurer of the king of Spain, to carry and convey out of the Tower at his pleasure certain iron tools and other instruments belonging to the said king, and not to the queen’s majesty, as did appear by letters addressed in the matter to Mr. Secretary.Cecil from Stanley.

    Having seen these trarisactions of the queen for the security of herself and kingdoms, let us proceed to relate another of her first cares, which was for her coronation. Which that it might be done with the greater magnificence, the customers of London were appointed in November last, to stay all crimson-coloured silk as should arrive within their ports, until the queen should first have her choice towards the furniture of her coronation; and to give warning to the lords of the council, if any such should arrive there: but nevertheless to keep the matter secret. And perhaps that was the reason of another order of council the next day by letters to sir Nicolas Throgmorton, and sir Gawen Carew, to desire seignior Prioli, executor to cardinal Pole lately deceased, to suffer certain parcels of that cardinal’s plate, which were thought meetest by the officers of the jewel-house for the service of the queen, to be bought; and that some of his own folks might bring them. That the same being viewed he might receive the value thereof, or of so much of it as should be thought meet for her highness’s use; and the rest to be safely returned back to him again; which, as the letters ran, they might be bold in her majesty’s name to assure him.

    Another provision was also thought fit by the council to be made respecting the coronation. The hopes of pardon and grace, usually accompanying it, occasioned many enormities, and especially robberies, to be committed. Therefore, for the preventing of it as much as might be, a copy of a proclamation was sent, November 21, from Hatfield, to the lords of the council at London, wherein public warning was given, that such violators of peace and good order should expect but little favour by any such acts of grace.

    In order to this inauguration, preparation was making for Preparation the queen’s coming up to London, and reception at me queen’s Tower.

    Therefore, November 21, those of the nobility and coming to council that were with her at Hatfield, wrote to the marquis of Winchester, and the earls of Shrewsbury and Darby, to attend upon her to London, with a schedule enclosed of the names of certain other noblemen, whose company she thought good to have at that time. And letters soon after were sent to sir Tho. Cavarden and others at the Tower, willing them, for the making room against the queen’s being there, to take order for the removing of certain persons out of their lodgings there: and particularly Dr. Weston, late dean of Windsor, committed in the last reign [not for his goodness,] of him to take sureties, such as he had in a readiness, for his good behaviour; and to suffer him thereupon to have the liberty of the Tower, until such time as his cause might be further considered. He was, for sickness, soon after removed to one Wintour, a friend’s house in Fleet-street, where he died, December 8, and was buried at the Savoy.

    And as for certain others, namely, Dudley, Bowyer, Mylford, Pollard, and Flabell, (persons, I suppose, or some of them, concerned in a late insurrection, headed by stafford, wherein Scarborough castle was taken,) they were all to be appointed to one lodging; there to remain, till upon further examination of their several cases the same might be further ordered. Of these, Bowyer soon after had the queen’s pardon.

    One Henry Middlemore was sent beyond sea, December the 13th, into Flanders, to provide things necessary against the coronation: for which he had a passport to the mayor and jurats of Dover, to suffer him to pass without search, for that reason.

    Now the queen also made a call of sergeants, accustom ably practised at such times: and December 11 commanded Martin, clerk of the crown, to make writs after the usual manner to the persons following, being appointed to be sergeants at the law, viz. to Who. Carus, Reignold, Corbet, John Welsh, and John Southcote, of the Middle Temple; William Symonds, George Walle, Richard Harper, of the Inner Temple; Randolph Cholmely, of Lincoln’s Inn; Nicholas Powtrel and John Birch, of Gray’s Inn. And to Oliver St. Johns, esq. the lords wrote, that the queen’s highness, for his worthiness and estate, was determined to advance him to the degree of a baron at her coronation. And therefore that he was required both to put himself in readiness, and to repair to the court to receive the same accordingly. With him also she raised to honour sir Will. Par, Edward Seymour, lord Thomas Howard, and Henry Cary; and no more.

    Let me add one particular more, as preparatory to the queen’s coronation.

    The lords sent to Boner, bishop of London, to send to the bishop of Carlisle, who was appointed (as they writ) to execute the solemnity of the queen’s majesty’s coronation, universam apparatum pontificium, quo uti solent episcopi in hujusmodi magnificis illustrissimorum regum inaugurationibus, i.e. ali the pontifical habit that bishops were wont to use in such glorious inaugurations of most illustrious kings.

    In Christmas week scaffolds began to be made in divers places of the city, for pageants against the day the queen was to pass through to her coronation, which was to be January 14, and the conduits to be new painted and beautified On the 12th day, the queen took barge at Whitehall, and shooting the bridge went to the Tower; the lord mayor and all the crafts waiting upon her in their barges, adorned with streamers and banners of their arms.

    On the l3th day the queen made knights of the bath within the Tower.

    On the 14th she came in a chariot from the Tower, with Rides all the lords and ladies, all in crimson velvet, and their horses the city. trapped with the same; and trumpeters in scarlet gowns blowing their trumpets, and all the heralds in their coat armour; the streets every where laid over with gravel.

    The city was at very great charge to express their love and joy, in the magnificent scaffolds and pageants they had erected, in adoming the conduits, appointing music, preparing speeches and verses to be said to her; which the queen took very well, and promised to remember it: besides the present of a purse of a thousand marks in gold, which they presented her at the lit fie conduit in Cheap, where the aldermen sat; and the recorder, in the name of the city, made a speechto her. But for a full relation of all the splendour of this day, recourse may be had to Holinshed’s Chronicle.

    Yet let me mention one particular, as having some more special respect to religion. In a pageant erected near the said little conduit in the upper end of Cheapside, an old man with a scythe and wings, representing Time, appeared, coming out of a hollow place or cave, leading another person all clad in white silk, gracefully apparelled, who represented Truth, (the daughter of Time,) which lady had a book in her hand, on which was written, Verbum veritatis, i.e. the word of truth. It was the Bible in English: which, after a speech made to the queen, Truth reached down towards her, which was taken and brought by a gentleman attending, to her hands. As soon as she received it, she kissed it, and with both her hands held it up: and then laid it upon her breast, greatly thanking the city for that present; and said, she would often read over that book. Which passage shews as well how the citizens stood affected to religion, (notwithstanding the persecution that had raged among them for some years before,) as what hopes the kingdom might entertain of the queen’s favour towards it.

    On the 15th day she was crowned with the usual ceremonies at Westminster-abbey. She first came to Westminster-hall. There went before her trumpets, knights, and lords, heralds of arms in their rich coats: then the nobles in their scarlet, and all the bishops in scarlet: then the queen and all the footmen waiting upon her to the hall. There her grace’s apparel was changed. In the hall they met the bishop that was to perform the ceremony, and all the chapel, with three crosses borne before them, in their copes, the bishop mitred; and singing as they passed, Salve festa dies. All the streets new laid with gravel and blue cloth, and railed in on each side. And so to the abbey to mass: and there her grace was crowned. Thence, the ceremony ended, the queen and her retinue went to Westminster-hall to dinner; and every officer took his office at service upon their lands; and so did the lord mayor of London, and the aldermen.

    On the 16th day, in honour of the queen’s coronation, were great justings at the tilt; there being four challengers, whereof the duke of Norfolk was the first.

    And on the 17th was tourneying at the barriers at Whitehall.

    Now, to set down a few more historical collections of less moment, yet not fit to be lost, of things that happened between the queen’s first taking the sceptre, and the conclusion of this year 1558.

    November the 20th, Maurice Griffin, bishop of Rochester, and parson of St. Magnus on London-bridge, died. November 30, he was carried from his place in Southwark unto the said church; and had a hearse of wax, and five dozen of pensils, and the quire hung with black, and with his arms; two white branches, and two dozen of torches, and two heralds of arms, attending: sir William Petre chief mourner, sir William Garret, Mr. Low, and divers others, mourners. Twelve poor men with black gowns, and twelve of his men bearing torches, waited. White, lord bishop of Winchester, preached his funeral sermon. The funeral was adorned with a great banner of arms, and four banners of saints, and eight dozen of escutcheons. And after he was buried, they all repaired to his place to dinner.

    December the 10th, the late queen Mary was brought Queen out of her chapel, (where her corpse had been laid,) with all the heralds, lords, and ladies, gentlemen and gentlewomen, attending, and all her officers and servants in black; and brought to St. James’s. On the 13th day she was brought from St. James’s in great state in a chariot, with an image resembling her, covered with crimson velvet, her crown on her head, and sceptre in her hand, and many goodly rings on her fingers. And so she was attended along Charing-cross to Westminster-abbey. December the lath was the queen’s mass said, and all offered on the high-altar. The bishop of Winchester preached her funeral sermon.

    About this time of this queen’s death and burial, being a very sickly season, many other men and women of quality, and eminent churchmen, died, and had honourable burials, as attendants of her into another world. November the 22d, Robert Johnson, gentleman to the bishop of London, was buried in Jesus’ chapel, [a chapel, I suppose, in St. Paul’s,] with many mourners accompanying, and the masters of [the fraternity of] Jesus, with their black satin hoods. November 26, Basset, esq. one of queen Mary’s privychamber, was buried in the friars’ church in Smithfield. November 30, the bishop of Rochester, as is above mentioned. December 7, lady Cholmely, wife of sir Roger Cholmely, knt. late lord chief baron of the Exchequer, buried in St. Martin’s, Ludgate. December 8, Dr. Weston, dean of Westminster, and after of Windsor, buried at the Savoy. December 9, Dr. Gabriel Dun, buried honourably at St. Paul’s. December 10, Cardinal Pole was removed and carried forth to his burial, from Lambeth towards Canterbury, being the same day the queen’s funerals began. Ditto 12, sir George Harper, knt. buried at St. Martin’s, Ludgate. And the same day, Verney, master of the jewel-house, buried within the Tower. At or near the same day, was the lady Windebank (late of Calais) buried in St. Edmund’s, Lombard-street. The 16th, the lady Rich, wife of the Lord Rich, was carried in a chariot from St. Bartholomew the Great, into Essex, to the place where she dwelt there; [which was either Lees or Rochford;] and on the 18th she was buried in the parish church in great state. The 23d, was performed at Westminster the solemnity of the obsequies of Charles V. emperor of Germany. The 28th, Christopherson, bishop of Chichester, was buried at Christ-church, London, with all the popish ceremonies. A great banner was carried of the arms of the see of Chichester, and his own arms; and four banners of saints. Five bishops did offer at the mass, and two sung mass. And after, all retiring from the place of burial, were entertained at a great dinner. In January, the lord Cheyne, (who died December the 8th,) master treasurer to the late queen, lord warden of the cinque ports, and knight of the order of the garter, was buried in great state in the Isle of Shepey. The same month also was sir John Baker, knt. sometime chancellor of the augmentations, buried with much state in Kent. Finally, in the beginning of February, was the marchioness of Winchester carried down in a chariot to Basing to be buried: and sir Thomas Pope, knt. a great man with the former queen, buried with much magnificence in Clerkenwell.

    But now to some other remarks.

    The lord chief justice of the queen’s bench, sir Edward Saunders, had made out an attachment against the judge of the admiralty, Dr. Lewis; upon pretence that he had intermeddled within his jurisdiction, in a matter depending between one Adam Wintrop, of London, and John Combes, a frenchman. The lords of the council, December 3, upon the hearing of both the said judges, and what either of them could allege for himself, ordered that the process awarded against the said judge, and the said matter in controversy between Wintrop and Combes be stayed, until their lordships should take some further order therein, upon consideration of what should be alleged on both sides, for the maintenance of their several jurisdictions.

    For the better doing whereof, they were commanded to bring to then lords of the council a note in writing, of the causes wherein they have contended, or may contend, for their said jurisdictions: that thereupon the lords might determine some stay and order between them, according to equity and justice.

    December the 9th, Gilbert Gerard, esq. was sworn in the council-chamber the queen’s attorney general; and Thomas Sackford, esq. was also in the same day and place sworn one of the masters of requests in ordinary.

    December 25, the marquis of Northampton, queen Katharine Parr’s brother, condemned, but pardoned in the late reign, was by the queen’s command declared by Mr. Secretary to be sworn one of her privy council.

    December ult. the council wrote to Sir John Mason and Clement Throgmorton, to examine diligently a complaint made to the queen’s highness, by certain near kinsmen of Dr. Ridley, late bishop of London, for divers parcels of his goods, that came into the hands of the bishop of London that now is, [viz. Boner,] and to signify to them what they should find out therein.

    January the 7th, letters were despatched from the council to Thomas Mildmay, esq. high sheriff of Essex, touching the choosing of knights of that shire at the next county court, according to the minutes in the councilchest.

    Such letters to the high sheriffs, instructive of the persons to be elected parliament-men for the shires, were not unusual in former times. At least, so it was done by queen Mary, this queen’s immediate predecessor. There be extant her letters, which I have seen, to the sheriffs, for choosing such parliament-men “as were of the wise, grave, and catholic sort, such as indeed meant the true honour of God, with the prosperity of the commonwealth: the advance-meat whereof she and her dear husband, the king, did chiefly profess and intend, without alteration of any particular man’s possessions, as, among other false rumours, was spread abroad to hinder her godly purpose, by such as would have their heresies return, and the realm by the just wrath of God to be brought to confusion. From which she had seen the same marvellously delivered; and minded, by God’s help, and the advice of her counsellors and estates of that parliament, to uphold and continue:” as she wrote in the said letters.

    The same day Robert Gascoyn, John Foster, John Winter, Tho. Clark, John Man, and Robert Kicheman, messengers, being sent with letters, [to the high sheriffs, I suppose, for the purpose abovesaid,] sir John Mason, treasurer of the chamber, was ordered to pay them such sums as he should think necessary.

    Against the time of this election, the lord Rich (who was a great man in the county) had taken up one Scot’s house in Chelmsford. Afterwards the said Scot let his house to sir John Rainesford: but upon this, Hainesford was ordered to appear before the council: and, January the 5th, a letter was writ to him from thence, requiring him to give place to the said lord Rich, considering it was first appointed for him, and for avoiding all inconvenience that might otherwise arise.

    Thomas Nele, bachelor of divinity, had the reading of the Hebrew lecture in Oxford, according to the foundation of king Henry VIII. The council, January 16, wrote to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, to pay to him all such money as was due to him for the reading of the said lecture, and to continue the payment thereof, until they should receive further order from thence. They writ again to the same dean and chapter, February 20, to the same purpose, requiring them to pay the said Hebrew reader, whose salary they had detained without just cause. This Nele was of New college, chaplain to bishop Boner, and rerosined reader to the year 1569.

    January the 19th. This day the bishop of Winton, who had been before commanded to keep his house for such offences as he had committed in his sermon at the funeral of the late queen, was called before the lords of the council; and after a good admonition given him, he was set at liberty, and discharged of his said commandment of keeping his house.

    Ditto, a letter was sent from the council to Thirleby, bishop of Ely, and Dr. Wotton, commissioners now abroad, for settling terms of peace with France and Scotland, signifying the queen’s determination to send the lord chamberlain, lord Arundel, to join with them: and that they should in the mean time proceed according to their commission now sent. And John Malyn, admiral of the float in the narrow seas, received an order the same day, to waft John Sommers presently sent with these letters to the commissioners; and to provide shipping for six geldings of the lord chamberlain’s to be transported over.


    CHAPTER 1.

    Prohibition to Carne, resident with the pope. Cardinal Pole’s burial. Letters in favour of his executor. The queen dismisseth prisoners for religion. Orders from the council for that purpose. A late commission against Lollards looked into. Preaching prohibited. Notwithstanding papists preach; and protestants.

    Slanderous words of papists. Pulling down images in churches.

    The council’s letter to the city about it. WHAT with more special regard to religion was transacted or fell out upon queen Elizabeth’s first assumption of the crown, we shall now proceed to declare.

    According to the twelfth article of the memorial given to the queen by Cecyl the first day of her government, the next Sunday after, being the 20th of November, Dr. Bill, her chaplain and almoner, a prudent and learned man, preached at St. Paul’s Cross, and made a pious sermon.

    Whereas the late queen had an old civilian, viz. sir Edward Carne, resident at the court of Rome, the present queen intending to have little correspondence with that Roman prelate, gave him a check very early, not to meddle in the transferring of any causes within her dominions to that court. And there being now a controversy about a matter of matrimony, depending between Mr. Chetwood and Mr. Tyrrel, a letter was despatched to him from her council; requiring him, that forasmuch as he was heretofore placedthere as a public person by reason of his ambassade, he should therefore from henceforth forbear to use his authority in soliciting or procuring of any thing in the said busihess. And so he abode there privately till February following, when it was signified unto him by the council, that the queen was pleased, in consideration there was no further cause why he should make any longer abode there, to command that he put himself in order to return home, at such time and with such speed as he should think most meet. But March ult. the pope, hearing that the queen had received the discipline of protestants, required this knight, by virtue of his command by the oracle from his own mouth, under pain of the great excommunication, and forfeiture of all his goods, that he should not stir out of the city of Rome, and take upon him the English hospital near St. Hierom’s church.

    But before the year came about he dies, viz. January the 18th. And though the aforesaid command of the pope was pretended for his not coming home, yet in truth it was his own choice to remain where he was: as appears by his monumental inscription, which was as followeth; giving some account of him, and the time of his death, though not a word of his being rector of that English hospital.

    EDWARDO CARNO, Britanno, equiti aurato, jurisconsulto, oratori, summisque de rebus Britanniae regum ad imperatores, ad reges, bisque ad Romanam et apostolicam sedem, quarum in altera legatione a Philippo Mariaque piis regibus, misso. Oborto deiude post mortem Marias in Britannia schismate, sponte patria carens ob catholicam fidem, cum magna integritate, veroeque pietatis existimatione decessit.

    Hoc monumentum Galfrid. Vachanus et Thomas Freemannus amici ex testamento pos. Obiit MDLXI. 14 cal. Febr.

    The above said cause, being an appeal depending at Rome, (which this Carne solicited there,) had it seems obtained so much favour in the queen’s first parliament, that in the of Rome diction over the state ecclesiastical, wherein the pope’s pretended authority was extinguished over all the queen’s subjects; there was notwithstanding a clause, that if the sentence in the said appeal should be given at the court of Rome before the end of threescore days after the session of that parliament, then it should be judged and taken good and effectual in the law. The matter was thus: one Richard Chetwood, esq. and Agnes his wife, by the name of Agnes Woodhull, in a case of matrimony solemnized between them, at the suit of Charles Tyrrell, gent. were brought into the consistory at St. Paul’s, before certain judges delegate, by the authority legatine of cardinal Pole; and a sentence was obtained against them, as it seems, to annul the marriage, in favour of Tyrrel. From this sentence they, the said Chetwood and Agnes, appealed to the court of Rome: which appeal depended there till queen Elizabeth came to the crown; and yet while the parliament was sitting was undetermined. Perhaps it stopped by the council’s letter to Carne abovementioned. But now in favour of the said Chetwood the cause was Permitted to go on, and the sentence in that court to stand good in law, if it could be obtained in sixty days, for the reversing of the pretended sentence given against him by cardinal Pole’s delegates. But if not, then the said Richard and Agues, and either of them, at any time hereafter might commence, take, sue, and prosecute the said appeal from the said pretenced sentence, within the realm, as was used to be done at any time since the 24th year of king Henry VIII. upon sentences given in the court or courts of any archbishop within the realm; and the sentence therein to be judged good and effectual in law.

    Cardinal Pole, who died at his palace at Lambeth, November 17, between five and six in the morning, (or about three, according to the author of the British Antiquities,) lay there till the council gave order for his burial, both as to the time and place. And his corpse being intended and allowed to be interred at Canterbury, seignior Prioli, his executor, requested the queen and council, that two bishops, of the cardinal’s great acquaintance, and who formerly had adhered to him, when he was an exile, might attend his funerals; namely, Pate, bishop of Worcester, and Goldwell, (who had been his chaplain,) bishop of St. Asaph. Whereupon a letter, dated the latter end of November, was directed from the council, then at the Charter-house, to the said bishops, signifying that it was the queen’s pleasure they should attend upon the said funerals, according to seignior Prioli’s request; which two bishops perhaps performed, the one the Latin, the other the English oration pronounced at his funeral, The council sent another letter in December to Sir Tho. Finch, (to whom was committed the keeping of the park at Canterbury after the cardinal’s death,) to deliver to the said executor all such cattle, hay, and wood felled in that park, belonging to the said cardinal, and in the house of St. Augustin’s; and six or eight does, and one hundred couple of conics, for the furnishing of the funeral of the cardinal.

    The said executor was courteously assisted by the council for the better recovery of debts and arrears due to the cardinal; there being an open letter, dated in December, from the council to all the receivers, bailiffs, and tenants of the late cardinal, to pay all such rents as were by them due at the feast of St. Michael the archangel last, of the revenues of the archbishop of Canterbury, to Mr. Pynning, for the use of the said cardinal’s executor.

    And whereas by the act of the 2 and 3 of Philippians and Mary, the tenths, impropriations, and other spiritual rents and pensions due to the crown, were given for augmentation of small livings and better maintenance of the clergy; and the payments of them to be made to the cardinal, who was to dispose thereof according to his discretion; (and of these were many arrears;) the queen and her council were so obliging to this executor, that, in the beginning of January, letters were sent to all the bishops of the realm, and where bishops wanted, to the deans and chapters of the cathedral churches, to make payment in the city of London, by the last of January next, such sums of money due of the revenues arising of the firstfruits, and tenths, and benefices, impropriate within every several diocese; either to the ministers of the late lord cardinal, that were appointed for this purpose, or to such as should be appointed by the archbishop of York, and the rest of the council.

    Another letter was written the same month by the council to the same purpose, to the mayor of Chichester, and the bailiff of Lewes; to make several proclamations in the same towns where they had charge, upon the next market-days, that all and singular persons, as well spiritual as temporal, that had not yet paid such rents as were by act of parliament granted to the disposition of the late cardinal, within the diocese of Chichester, should make payment of the same within six or seven days after the publishing of the proclamation, at the bishop’s palace in Chichester, to Peter Adished, appointed collector for this purpose: or else to, repair forthwith to the council, to make payment of the same there to such as the same collector should appoint. This gives me occasion to suspect, that a great share of these tenths and pensions, designed for augmentations, were converted to Pole’s own use, and went partly to maintain that cardinal’s port and family, and partly distributed among his retinue.

    And this is the last tidings we hear of the cardinal and his concerns here in England. For the Italian his executor, as soon as he could pick up the cardinal’s debts, and had distributed his legacies, which were chiefly to Italians, retired into Italy.

    The queen was not backward upon her first coming to the crown, to shew her merciful nature (so different therein from her late sister) towards the afflicted professors of the gospel in bonds and imprisonment; and for putting a speedy stop to the cruel methods used before, for the detecting them in all places, and taking them up by a kind of Spanish inquisition; so as became a prince that intended not to rule with rigour, but with justice and clemency. One of her earliest actions was to release the captives, and to restore liberty to the freeborn. Therefore order from above was sent to the keepers of the prisons, wheresoever these honest and pious people were detained, that they should set them at liberty, taking their own bonds for their appearance, whensoever they should be called to answer.

    In the queen’s bench were detained John Morice, Henry Burgess, Robert Seulthroppe, Henry London, committed, I make no doubt, for heresy.

    Concerning whom an order was despatched from the council to Richard Mallory and Henry Fallowfield, officers of that prison, to take bonds of these persons to be forthcoming when they should be called, and so to dismiss them, and set them at liberty. “For that they, the lords, by such examination as they the said Mallory and Fallowfield had taken, found no great cause of stay for them there:” as they expressed it in this their order, which bore date December 7.

    John Tother, priest, was delivered out of the Tower by a special order from the lords to Sir Edward Warner, lieutenant there, December 12. And four days after, the sheriffs of London were sent unto to set at liberty the bodies of one Mather Mainard, remaining in Newgate; and one Burden in one of the counters; taking their own bonds to be forthcoming, when they should be called for to answer to what should be objected against them. And also one Gilbert Gennings, remaining in one of the counters for the like cause, to be in like manner discharged of his imprisonment.

    If we look out of London, in Colchester gaol were detained Richard George, John Pilgrym, James Wilson, Elizabeth Yong, and three others.

    Concerning whom, December 21, a letter from above was directed to John Taye and William Carnal, (or Cardinal,) esquires, justices of the peace of Essex, to call unto them the bailiffs of Colchester, and to examine for what causes these were committed to their castle, and to certify the same.

    In Salisbury gaol lay certain prisoners committed thither by the bishop’s officers, and others; and there still remaining. Concerning whom the lords sent a letter, December ult. to the lord Montjoy, Sir Will. Keylway, and Sir John Zouch; willing them to examine what the cause of their committing was. And if they found that there was no cause by law to detain them, then to set them at liberty; taking first their own bonds to be forthcoming, when they should be called to answer that which should be objected against them.

    In Maidstone gaol now remained Joan Saunders, Agnes Terre, Joan Valeant, and Margaret Atterbury. For the setting of whom at liberty, Mr. Wotton, high sheriff of Kent, was sent to, January the 4th, by special letters from the lords; taking first their several bonds to be of good behaviour and quietness. And no doubt many more such letters from the council were despatched to other prisons in the realm on the same account.

    For those in Colchester castle mentioned before, (who it seems refused to give their bonds, standing upon their own innocency, and their unjust imprisonment, which was certified up by the two justices, January 14,) another order came to the said justices; requiring them to take order with the bailiffs of Colchester, for the enlarging and setting at liberty those that remained in the castle there, committed thither in the late queen Mary’s time, as persons suspected in religion; naming the four abovesaid, and four more, viz. Alice Michel, Christian Crampe, John Hoste, and Edward Grewe: taking nevertheless their own several bonds, to be of quiet behaviour, and forthcoming when they should be called. Which if they should refuse, then to cause them to be sent up to the lords of the council, with whom further order should be taken.

    To give account next of a commission for inquisition after such persons as had any inclination towards the gospel; by means of which those above mentioned, and many others, had been laid up: this commission was so disliked by the queen, a lady of a more mild and merciful disposition, that it was presently taken notice of. But to fetch this commission from its first beginning. It was made anno 1556. against the Lollards, (as the professors of the gospel were called,) for the more effectual extirpating them; and went forth from the king and queen. The commissioners were the lords of the council, and many bishops and others. And besides this general commission, there were many other commissions more particular; as one for Norfolk and Suffolk, another for Essex. This last was directed to the earl of Oxon, the lord Darcy, Terryl, and other gentlemen of Essex: who were empowered to impose an oath upon whomsoever they called, to answer to what should be demanded of them. Whereby they were to swear in effect to accuse themselves and all their friends that were of the same opinion, and held the same doctrine with themselves. And these commissioners might seize the lands, tenements, and goods of such as fled from their houses: which by inventories taken were to remain in safe keeping. This was an effectual way to ruin infinite numbers of persons, and reduce poor widows and children to beggary, in case the fathers fled for their lives from the tyranny that pursued them. And by this means great numbers of men and women were clapt up every where, or skulked in woods and by-places from their houses. And yet the names of those that fled were brought and given in, as persons suspected for treason, or fugitives, or disobedient to law. These commissioners, and those under them, had scraped together much money and goods of Poor honest people by these means; and the queen had thoughts of calling them to account for them.

    For London and other parts adjacent were three chief commissions: wherein the bishop of London, and sir Roger Cholmely, a judge, but a turncoat and a covetous man, among others were concerned. And these commissions had registers appointed them. To those three commissions aforesaid, William Say, Robert Warrington, (or Warnington,) and Will.

    Babham, proctors of the arches, were registers. To these three, three private letters were sent from the lords of the council, ordering them to make a particular and perfect note of all such matters as had been brought before the bishop of London and the said Cholmely and other commissioners, appointed to call before them certain persons of this realm: and to signify withal, what judgments had been passed against them, and what fines were cessed and levied of them; and to whom the same were paid. And in the mean time they were commanded, as they would answer for the contrary, to keep this matter close to themselves, and that they were written unto herein; because they were registers attendant upon the said commissioners. These letters were dated December the 18th. Present at this council, the marquis of Winchester, the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Bedford, Pembroke; the lord admiral, i.e. lord Clinton; the lord chamberlain, i.e. lord Howard of Effingham; Mr. Vice-chamberlain, i.e. sir Edward Rogers, who was also captain of the queen’s guard; secretary Cecil; sir Ambrose Cave, (chancellor of the duchy;) sir John Mason, (treasurer of the chamber;) and sir Richard Sackvile.

    Likewise, the council wrote in the beginning of the next month to Boner, bishop of London, to repair thither on the morrow at two of the clock afternoon: and at his coming to resort to Mr. Vice-chamberlain: and to bring with him all such commissions as were made to him and others, for the examination and ordering of heresies and other misorders in the church, in the time of the late queen.

    Again, to those three registers aforesaid were three several letters directed in January following, from the privy council, to pay to Mason, treasurer of the chamber, all such sums of money as remained in their hands, of such fines as had been levied of divers persons in the time of the late queen, by order of the bishop of London, and other commissioners for the examination of heretics, and other misdemeanours in the church.

    Now did both the evangelics and the papalins bestir themselves for their parties. The former were afraid the queen would not set upon the work of reforming religion, or make too much delay in so necessary a work: the latter were very jealous of her, by the little she had already done towards a reformation, that she would in the end throw down the late new raised structure of their religion. Therefore on the one hand, many of the gospellers, without authority, abhorring the superstitions and idolatry remaining in the churches, were guilty of great disorders in pulling down images and such other relics there. The others spared not for lewd words poured out against the queen, without measure or modesty. And both took their occasions to speak freely their minds in the pulpits.

    Of which last the queen being aware, forbad all preaching, and especially in London. And the latter end of December, a letter was sent to the lord mayor of London, with ten proclamations of one tenor, for the inhibition of preachers; which he was required to cause to be published the day after in divers parts of the city, and to be set up where the people might see and read. By virtue of which proclamation, not only all preaching was forbidden for a time, but all hearing and giving audience to any doctrine or preaching. And nothing else was allowed to be heard in the churches, but the epistle and gospel for the day, and the ten commandments in the vulgar tongue; but without any manner of exposition, or addition of the sense or meaning thereof. And no other manner of prayer or rite to be used than was already used, and by law received, except the litany used then in the queen’s chapel, and the Lord’s prayer and creed in English. And so to last till consultation might be had by parliament, for the accord of matters and ceremonies of religion. This proclamation may be found in the Repository.

    But it happened that on the very day that this proclamation was given forth, at Worcester-house was an assembly got together for this purpose: which occasioned an order to be sent the same day to the said lord mayor, with the body of one Thomas Parrys; whom he was willed to commit to ward in one of the counters, to remain there, until further order should be taken by the council; for suffering, contrary to the queen’s proclamation, assemblies of people to be at the said house, whereof he had the keeping.

    For though these gospellers could not yet get the churches, yet, instead of them, they held congregations in other places, convenient for the capacity and largeness of them.

    Yet, although preaching was thus inhibited, in the Lent following sermons were preached at court, however not so much as allowed at Paul’s Cross.

    Some of these court preachers I can name. On Ash-Wednesday, or the first day of Lent, February 8, Dr. Cox, sometime dean of Westminster, preached before the queen. Friday after, preached:Dr. Matthew Parker, who was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. Sunday following, Skory, late bishop of Chichester: and the Wednesday following, Mr. Whitehead.

    The rest of the preachers axe not mentioned in my MS. till February the 22d, when Grindall preached. And on the 25th, Sandys, and next, Cox again.

    The next month, when the prohibition against preaching seems to have been taken off, the preachers of the Spiral sermons were, March 27, Dr. Bill; the 28th, Dr. Cox; and the 29th, Mr. Horn. And April 2, being Low Sunday, Mr. Sampson preached at Paul’s Cross. Where, by observing what sort of learned men were put up to preach at court, might be gathered how the queen stood affected to religion, however at present she concealed herself. But to return back again.

    Now also, but especially a while after, when the parlia ment came together, and by their authority, a common form of prayers in the vulgar tongue was like to be brought in, instead of the old mass; the popish priests that could preach, bestirred themselves every where in the churches, to prejudice the people against receiving it. Thus in February, John Murren, [Morwen perhaps,] chaplain to the bishop of London and parson of Ludgate, was summoned before the lords of the council, for preaching contrary to the queen’s proclamation, and expounding the gospel in the church: which, when he was before them, he could not well deny. Wherefore he was committed to the Fleet, there to be kept without conference with any, until he were examined.

    On which day the said bishop of London, Boner, was ordered to be before the council; perhaps to be present when this chaplain of his made his appearance, and to understand whether what he had done was by the bishop’s knowledge, suggestion, or connivance. But this contempt Murren some time after being content to declare and confess in the same church, according to a bill thereof subscribed by him, remaining in the council chest, the lords therefore sent an order in March to the warden of the Fleet to set him at liberty.

    About the same time, Henry Cumberford, one of the canons of Litchfield, had also preached lewdly, and misdemeaned himself; (those are the words in the minutes of the council-book;) of which the lords had information sent them by the bailiffs of Litchfield. Which occasioned the said lords to send the said Cumberford a letter to appear before them, and another to the bailiffs and burgesses of Litchfield, to send some one sufficiently instructed at the time of the appearance of the said Cumberford, to object such matters against him as he was to be charged with. But Cumberford, pretending sickness, stayed fourteen or fifteen days: when the lords sent another letter to the said bailiffs and burgesses, to signify to them, that if it were so indeed, that he had been sick, then when he should be able to travel, to command him in the queen’s name to repair up; and then they to send one sufficiently instructed to charge him. This matter (whatever it was)proving so lewd on Cumberford’s part, when he appeared before the council, on the 20th of March, the lords thought fit, that the disorder committed by him, and complained of by the bailiffs, should be referred to the hearing and examination of the lord chief justice of England, and master solicitor. This man was detained in prison unto April the 17th, 1559, when he was bound in a recognisance to the queen of an hundred mark, to make his personal appearance before the lords of the council about Michaelmas next; and then not to depart before he should have licence so to do; and further to stand to such order as should be taken with him for such matter as was objected to him. The last I find of this man was, that he was discharged the 2d of December, until the town of Litchfield began their suit again, having reasonable warning.

    Likewise in Canterbury, a zealot there, namely the curate of St. George’s, the first Sunday in Lent had given such offence, that the mayor gave in a declaration thereof to the council. Him they willed the said mayor, by their letter wrote the beginning of March, to commit to ward, and there to keep him, till he could be content to resort to the place where he offended; and there in humble sort to acknowledge his folly, and recant the same. Which if he should refuse to do, and continue his obstinacy, to signify it up; that he might receive further order how to proceed with him.

    Here was also another priest, named sir Loye, curate of All Saints, who had also now transgressed in the same nature. Concerning which the lords ordered the said mayor to call unto him two of the next justices of the peace, and having substantially examined him, to give such order for his punishment, as the quality of his offence should seem to him and the said justices to have deserved. And to observe the like order henceforth towards such offenders, without further troubling or molesting the council with any such matters. The very words or matters spoken by these priests are not expressed in the council-book; but very probably they were such as tended to charge the queen as a promoter of heresy, or some reflections upon her mother’s marriage, and the like.

    In Devon and Cornwall also the priests were very officious now in seditious preaching: insomuch that letters were sent to the sheriffs of those two counties, “that where the lords were given to understand, that notwithstanding the queen’s majesty’s proclamation, certain within that county had taken upon them without authority to preach; they were required to call such of the justices unto them as they knew to be serviceable to her highness; and upon conference with them to take order, that all such as should so attempt to preach, might be apprehended and committed to ward: and to signify up from time to time what they should do therein.”

    The queen herein shewed herself impartial. For on which side soever they were, she punished the breach of her proclamation: which evidently appeared in that two protestant preachers, viz. Mr. Pullen and Mr. Dodman in Colchester, were commanded to be sent up to the lords under safe and sure custody: a letter to that intent being sent from the council to Thomas Mildmay, high sheriff of the county of Essex, the bailiffs of Colchester, and other justices of the peace thereabouts. And a few days after, another letter was wrote from the council to the said sheriff of Essex, and to the rest of the justices, to give order for the apprehending, and committing to ward, such preachers as used to preach in that shire [noted to be well affected in religion] as was informed, without a licence, and against tho queen’s late proclamation in that behalf. And thereupon to signify their names, and further proceedings herein, together with the faults of the said preachers.

    But the popish priests and other zealots took frequent occasion not only to preach (as was said before) but to speak very untoward words against the queen, reflecting (as it seems) upon queen Ann Bolen, her mother, and her own legitimacy and title to the succession, and in favour of the queen of Scots. For they had a great eye upon her as the next heir (at least) to the crown: and reckoned queen Elizabeth, being accounted no better than an heretic, was to be put by. Which they imagined and suggested would come to pass either by the French’s invading England, (whereof indeed there were great preparations,) or by the shortness of her life; wizards and conjurers prognosticating that she should not live out a year. Many were the complaints of this nature that were brought to the council. Thus, beside what was mentioned before, one Robert Forrest in Lincolnshire, had spoken slanderous words. Which caused the council in December to send order to sir Edward Dimock, knt. to commit him to ward, there to remain for a month: and then to be set on the pillory in the market-town next to the place of his dwelling, with a paper on his head containing in great letters these words, For false and slander ous reports. And in case he should not shew himself repentant for his fault, then to cause one of his ears to be cut off.

    John Shory also, sacristan of the cathedral church of Chichester, in the said month of December spoke lewd words; whom the council directed to be punished by pillory, or otherwise, as should seem good to sir Thomas Palmer, John Palmer, and John Appesly, esquires.

    There was also one John Buke, in Surrey or Sussex, that had also spoken lewd words, whom sir Edward Gage had apprehended, and certified the same to the council: who sent to the said knight, and thanked him for his diligence therein; willing him to send unto them the said Buke under safe custody, that the matter objected against him might be further examined.

    And he was willed to do the like with all others, whom he should find touched in that matter.

    In the same month of December, a lewd malicious fellow of Ashford in Kent spake treasonable words against the queen. Sir Thomas Moyle, sir Thomas Kempe, sir Thomas Finch, knights, and Thomas Wotton, esq. were sent unto by the council, to call this man before them; and to examine him of his misdemeanours. And if the matter should upon sufficient testimony be found true, to send up the examination and the person himself, to be further ordered according to the laws.

    In the month of January from Southampton a supplication was brought to the lords of the council, exhibited by certain inhabitants of that place, touching a disorder, and certain lewd words uttered by sir Thomas, priest of St. Michael’s in the said town, and others. Whereupon the lords sent their letter to the mayor of Southampton, Thomas Pacy, and other magistrates there, to consider of the same. And if they should find the matter so as was represented in the said supplication, to cause the party culpable to be apprehended, and committed to safe ward: and to signify what they should find in the matter; that order might be taken in the same, agreeable to equity, and the quality of the offence.

    In the same month, the council wrote to the archdeacon of London upon a complaint against Geffrey Frauncis, sumner, some forward man against the professors of the gospel; and by their order he, the said Frauncis, was committed to the Gatehouse in Westminster. And one sir Edward Clypsham, priest, was, by the like order to the mayor of London, committed to one of the counters. But both soon dismissed again.

    In February, Mountford, commissary to the bishop Lincoln, and one Sabcots, scribe, were, by virtue of a letter to the alderman of Stamford, and two of his brethren, to give to the said two persons letters of appearance before the lords, upon an information of the said nature against them.

    John Gregyl, of Barking in Essex, had spoken maliciously. Wherefore the lords directed their letters to sir Anthony Cook and sir Thomas Wroth, with the information exhibited against him by one Thomas Pierson: which they were willed to examine; and to send for the parties: and to signify what they should find. Afterwards he was committed to the Fleet without having conference with any. But after he had been in hold about two months, he promised to make a public recantation. The lords hereupon sent to sir Anthony Cook and sir Peter Mewtas, requiring them, for that they were neighbours, to be present (at least one of them) at the said vicar’s acknowledging his late offences before his parishioners; and referring it to their discretions to appoint the time and place.

    Information was also brought against one Christopher Savery, living, as it seems, in the west. The lords sent to sir Rich. Edgecomb, Mr. Hogmore, and Mr. Reignolds, to examine diligently the said information touching lewd words by him spoken, and to signify what they should find therein.

    To Dr. Harpsfield, archdeacon of Canterbury, a letter of appearance was sent upon the like account. For in February information had been brought against him, that he used himself of late very disorderly, in stirring up the people, as much as in him lay, to sedition. And that it was reported by some of the servants of the college of Christ’s church, Canterbury, that religion could not nor should not be so altered. And that one man of the college had well near an hundred harnesses. So a letter, dated February 11, came from the lords to sir Thomas Finch, and George May, an alderman of that city, to examine this matter diligently; and to call before them all such, whom they should think meet, to be examined herein, or culpable touching the same. And thereupon to cause such as were faulty to be committed to ward; and to signify what they should find. And also to search what armour was in the said college; and what had been delivered out; and by whom; and for what purpose; and to whose hands. And to write their knowledge in these particulars.

    Thomas Malet wrote a lewd and untrue letter to his uncle Dr. Malet: for which he was by the lords committed to the Gatehouse; and there to remain without conference with any. And soon after was bound in a recognisance of an 100l . to be of good abearing; and personally to appear, and make his attendance upon the lords of the council every council day betwixt that and Easter, and not to depart without licence.

    One Thomas Hall, of Huntington, spake certain lewd words also: which the justices of assize in that county were wished to consider: and finding them culpable, to commit him to ward, and to see him further punished according to the quality of his offence, to the terror of others.

    One William Bassenden, parson of St. George’s in Canterbury, had also spoken lewd words: whose body the mayor of Canterbury was ordered to send up under safe custody, with some one that was present when he spake the same.

    In the month of March, a Spanish priest in Bristow, called Francisco del Gado, used much unseemly talk of the queen’s highness. Whereupon the mayor and aldermen stayed him: and took an examination of him; which they sent up to the council. Who in a letter thanked them for what they had done, and gave. order to keep him still in prison, till he could be content to be sorry and acknowledge his fault. In which case he should be suffered to depart; or otherwise remaining stubborn and without repentance, the same to be signified to the lords, and to receive further order thereupon.

    Thomas Pain, of Castle Acre in Norfolk, was sent up for upon the same account. Thomas Birch, vicar of Witley, and John Deuton, parson of Spelhurst in Kent, for the like ill behaviour, were ordered to be committed to ward. Sir Raphe Backhouse, parish priest of Little Wenham in Suffolk, had spoken lewd and seditious words; whereof sir Henry Doyle, and Christopher Goldingham informed the council. Who in answer required them, if they knew the accusers to be of honesty and credit, to cause the said priest, upon the next market-day to be holden at Ipswich, to be set on the pillory, and one of his ears to be cut off, and after committed to prison, there to remain until the justices of assize shall come next into the country: and then to be brought before them, and further ordered.

    One sir Peter Walker, priest, living in Colchester, uttered certain lewd and untrue reports. For which the bailiffs of Colchester were by the lords ordered to put him in the pillory the next market-day in Colchester, with a paper on his head, having these words written in great letters, For false seditious tales: and after, if he can find sureties for his good behaviour, to be set at liberty, or otherwise to be committed to gaol. The vicar of Hoo in Kent was also by order of the lords to be apprehended, and sent up in safe custody. All these in the month of March.

    I will add but one more of these delinquents, namely, Robert Forster, parson of Over-Watton; against whom matter had been exhibited. The lords sent to Hercules Rainsford and Thomas Gibbons, esquires, to examine him upon the same: and in the mean time to keep him in safe ward. This was in April 1559. But I intend to stop here; because I will not step over the present year.

    One would admire the new good queen should have so many ill-willers every where, as appeared by these slanders and false reports given out and spread against her, to breed disaffection in her subjects towards her from her first coming to the crown, and to shake her title to it. Hence no question it came to pass, that one, two, or three of the first bills brought into the queen’s parliament, that sat in January, were designed to meet with these defamatory reports and libels: as the bill for the recognition of the queen’s title to the imperial crown of this realm; and the bill, wherein certain offences be declared treason; and that against slanderous and seditious words. These bills ripened into acts before the parliament ended.

    That entitled, An act whereby certain offences be made treason, was but the renewing of the like act made in queen Mary’s reign. But that act extended no further than to that queen’s person: so that if the like offences mentioned and contained in that statute happened to be committed against the queen that now was, viz. queen Elizabeth, there was no due remedy or condign punishment provided. This statute therefore was now made and declared to be in force in behalf of the present queen. It was made against such as should maliciously compass or imagine to deprive the queen’s majesty and her heirs of her body from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm, or to destroy her or any of her heirs, or to levy war within the realm; or to utter by open preaching or express words the same compasses or imaginations.

    Ecclesiastical persons for every such offence, immediately upon such attainder, to be deprived of all their benefices and promotions. This act also reached to such as affirmed by writing or printing, or some overt act, that the queen ought not to have the style, honour, and kingly name of this realm: or that any other person beside the queen ought to have and enjoy the said style: or that the queen that then was ought not to be queen of this realm during her life. This was made high treason.

    That other bill against slanderous words, when it became an act, was entitled, An act for the explanation of the statute of seditious words and rumours: which was also a former act, made 1 and 2 of Philip and Mary.

    This act the same parliament thought most convenient to revive and reenforce, rather than to frame a new one. Wherein they made every branch, article, word, and sentence to be expounded and judged to extend to the queen’s highness, as fully to all intents and constructions as it had to the former queen. And that all persons that should maliciously speak or utter any false, seditious, or slanderous news, rumours, sayings, or tales of the queen or of her heirs, being kings or queens of this realm, should incur such pains and penalties as in the said act [of queen Mary] was limited and appointed. Which punishment was the pillory, and the cutting off both ears, or the payment of an hundred pounds, and imprisonment three months, for him that of his own imagination spoke false, seditious, or slanderous rumours of the king or queen. And the reporting thereof from any other was the pillory, and cutting off one ear, or 100 mark, and imprisonment one month.

    And for malicious writing or printing, and setting forth any book, rhyme, or ballad, containing false matter, clause, or sentence of slander of the king or queen, or to the stirring or moving of sedition or insurrection; his right hand that had so done was to be stricken off, for the first time; and for the second, imprisonment during life, and forfeiture of all his goods and chattels.

    And surely these severe laws afterwards terrified and restrained these malecontents and ill-willers to the queen, and bigots for popery, which appeared already so numerous.

    There was also in this beginning of the queen’s reign much zeal shewn on their side that desired reformation of corrupt religion. Who not being able to away with the superstitions practised, and the images in the churches, commitred great disorders by their own hands, pulling them down without any public authority, and defacing the churches where they were. Of this I shall give some instances; coming to the ears of the queen’s council. It was but about the beginning of December, that one Thomas Pike committed some such disorder in the church of Sholisbury, (Shobury in Essex perhaps,) of which the parson of the said church sent up a complaint to the council. Who listening to it, sent it back enclosed in a letter to the lord Rich, living in those parts, and no very good friend to protestants: willing him to send for the said Pike; and if, upon examination of the matter, he should find the same true, then to cause him to be punished according to the quality of his offence.

    What acts of this nature happened afterwards I do not find (only that on the 8th or 9th of January the image of St. Thomas, that is, Thomas Becket, the patron of the mercers, that stood over their chapel door, was thrown down and broken) until the beginning of March; when a notable disturbance was made in the churches of Dover. Upon which the lords of the council sent to Thomas Keyes, sergeant porter, and Edward Boys, esq. to examine it diligently; and to cause such as they should find faulty there, to be apprehended, and bound in good bonds to appear at the council to answer their doings. Which if they refused to do, then to commit them to ward; and to signify what they had done herein. The next month I find John Castle of Dover, mariner, Tho. Ramsden of the same town, shoemaker, and John West of the same town, butcher, were each bound in’ recognisances of 20l . on condition that every of them should henceforth be of good abearing; and should also on the Sunday next, each of them in the parish church of Dover, whereof he was a parishioner, declare openly in the time of service, that he did very ill, and without order, to pluck down the images of that church, before a law did authorize him so to do.

    And in the latter end of March, the parish church of Halylesham in Sussex was spoiled, and that by the inhabitants of the said town: whereof Tho.

    Busshop and John Thatcher, justices of the peace, made complaint to sir Rich. Sackvile, one of the council. This (whatsoever it was they had done) the council styled a heinous disorder; and by their letters to the said justices willed them, for the better punishment thereof, to call for the assistance of sir Nicholas Pelham and sir Edward Gage, and other justices dwelling nigh unto them: and having found out who were the authors and ringleaders of that matter, to commit them to ward; and to put them to such fines for their offence, as by their discretions should be thought most meet, and agreeable to the laws.

    In Bow church, London, also about this very time, several got together privately and undiscovered, and pulled down the images and the sacrament, and defaced the vestments and books: which notwithstanding was so well liked by many, that no complaint was preferred thereof to the council. But some information coming to them, they sent a letter to sir Thomas Lee, lord mayor, calling it an outrageous disorder; and not hearing of any order by him taken for redress thereof, they found it very strange. He was therefore put in remembrance of an exhortation made by the queen’s majesty unto him on Candlemas-day last past, and straitly commanded to use the best means he could to bolt out the doers hereof, and to cause them to be apprehended and committed to ward; and to signify unto them [the council] what he should find therein. Thus even and impartially did the state carry it toward both parties, until some further law should be made to direct the subjects in their public worship and service of God.

    CHAPTER 2.

    Cardinal Poles message to the lady Elizabeth before his death.

    The carriage of the bishops to the queen. The posture of rely.

    Secret counsels for restoring it. parliament; and convocation: what was done there; and in the parliament. The act of supremacy; and uniformity. Private acts. Manet bishoprics become void by the act of supremacy; and other ecclesiastical preferments. EARLY interest was made with Elizabeth for the continuance of the old religion. For, when the papalins saw their power was unequal to put her by from reigning after her sister, they laboured to persuade her to let religion remain as she found it. There was a secret message sent from cardinal Pole but three or four days before his death, to her, being now but lady Elizabeth, together with a letter; whereof Seth Holland, dean of Worcester, his chaplain, was the bringer. The letter was as follows: “It may please your grace to understand, that albeit the long continuance and vehemency of my sickness be such as justly might move me, casting away all cares of this world, only to think of that to come; yet not being convenient for me to determine of life or death, which is only in the hand of God, I thought it my duty, before I should depart, so nigh as I could, to leave all persons satisfied of me, and especially your grace, being of that honour and dignity that the providence of God hath called you unto. For which purpose I do send you at this present mine faithful chaplain, the dean of Worcester; to whom may it please your grace to give credit in that he shall say unto you in my behalf. I doubt not but that your grace shall remain satisfied thereby. Whom Almighty God long prosper to his honour, your comfort, and the wealth of the realm.”

    By your grace’s orator, Reg. Car. Cantuarien .”

    From Lambehith, the 14th of November, 1558.

    By this letter and message, as it seems to me, he drove at two things: the one, to satisfy the lady Elizabeth, that he was in none of the faction against her life and reign; and thereby to recommend himself and his friends unto her, when she should come to the crown, which he saw was not far off, the present queen being past hopes. The second, to leave with her certain counsels and instructions for her future government and behaviour of herself, especially in regard of the Roman religion, that then ‘was in place, and to continue it: importing this in point of Policy to be her safest course; and the extraordinary danger hanging over her head, should she attempt the alteration of it. Which no question the cardinal’s chaplain set as home upon the queen as possible, Yet surely it tended not a little to disaffect the queen towards that religion, that the clergy and bishops from the very first shewed themselves so very wayward and disobliging. Many instances of this in the inferior clergy we have related already: now some passages concerning the bishops, which I take from a Roman author of great fame. Oglethorp, bishop of Carlisle, standing ready to say mass before the queen, she commanded him not to elevate the consecrated host, to prevent the idolatry that the people were wont then to commit; but to omit the ceremony, because she liked it not.

    Which the said bishop nevertheless (to his great honour, said the writer) constantly refused to obey. When she was to be consecrated by some bishop at her coronation, they all refused, till with much ado the foresaid bishop was prevailed upon to do it, who was the inferior almost of all the rest. For his former refusal he never repented it, but for the doing the other office towards her, when he saw the issue of the matter, and both himself and all the rest of that order deprived, and the church’s holy laws and faith, (as that writer expresseth himself,) against the condition of her consecration, violated, he sore repented him all the days of his life; which were, for that special cause, both short and wearisome afterward to him.

    And the reason those bishops refused to crown her, (as that Romanist relates,) and that they durst not invest her, was, for that they had evident probabilities and arguments to doubt, that she meant either not to take the oath, or not to keep the same, which all Christian kings, and especially ours in England, did make in their coronation, for maintenance of holy church’s laws, honours, peace, and privileges, and other duties due to every state, as in the time and grant of king Edward the confessor. They doubted also, lest she would refuse, in the very time of her sacre, the solemn divine ceremony of unction, through the evil advices of certain young counsellors, being then in the heat, prime, and pride of their heresy; whereby great scandal might arise, and hurt to the realm. Upon this surmise of her future misgovernment, they did, what in them lay, reject her from being their queen. These carriages might well estrange her mind from them.

    But whether she were determined in her mind before or no, certain it is, that the affairs of the church continued for a while in the same posture and condition they were in before, abating persecution for religion: mass celebrated in the churches; the ejected and exiled clergy not restored to their former places and preferments; the popish priests keeping Possession; orders, that things in the church should for the present continue as they were; such punished as innovated any thing in the church or public worship: which put the favourers of the gospel under great fears and jealousies; and they began to suspect the queen intended to make none, or very little amendment in religion.

    But as certain it is, (and we may believe the queen privy to it,) that, at the very beginning of her reign, some there were of considerable rank engaged in a deep and very secret deliberation about the method and way of restoring religion again; and what was to be done in matter of Policy for securing the inconveniencies that might arise at home and abroad, from the reformation of religion; who of the queen’s council were first to be made acquainted with the design; what learned men to be employed in making the alterations; and concerning the appointments of time and place. There was about the beginning of December such a device drawn up by some notable hand, and offered to secretary Cecyl; and which, by the steps that afterward were taken, appeared to have been followed. By whose pen it was writ doth not appear. I suspect it to have been either John Hales, a man of a politic and working head, and a zealous protestant, and clerk of the hanaper to this queen, as he had been to king Edward VI. or sir Thomas Smith, a very wise man, and secretary of state to king Edward: and I am rather inclined to think it the latter.

    In which device are these questions, with practical, apt answers to them.

    I. When the alteration shall be first attempted? The answer to which is, At the next parliament.

    II. What danger may ensue upon the alteration? The answer to which weighs the danger from the bishop of Rome, from the French king, from Scotland, from Ireland, and from many people here at home.

    III. What remedy for these matters? Answer to which is given particularly and distinctly, as to France, Rome, Scotland, Ireland, and at home.

    IV. What the manner of doing it? The answer to which propounds certain learned men to contrive and bring in a book, or platform of religion ready drawn, to the queen; and having her approbation, to be put into the parliament-house. The men named for the drawing this up, are Bill, late master of Trinity college, Cambridge; Parker, late dean of Lincoln; May, late dean of St. Paul’s, doctors in divinity; all under king Edward heads of the university of Cambridge, but cashiered by queen Mary, and remaining obscurely in England in her reign: and beside these, Cox, Whitehead, Grindal, and Pilkington, who were exiles, and newly come home; and sir Thomas Smith, a learned knight, and doctor of the civil law, was to call them together, and assist with them in the work. And before this, it was thought necessary that all innovation should be strictly forbidden, until such time as the book should come forth.

    By the sequel it appears, that this advice was taken, whosoever was the giver of it; those being the persons appointed for the revising king Edward’s book of common prayer: and a proclamation being issued out in the latter end of the month of December to the effect aforesaid, as shall be told by and by.

    But proceed we to the other questions.

    V. What might be done of the queen, for her own conscience, openly, before the whole alteration? Or, if the alteration must tarry longer, what order is fit to be in the whole realm, as an interim? The resolution was, to make no further alteration than the queen had already done: except, to receive the communion as she pleased on high feasts; (that is, whether in one or both kinds;) and ‘that the chaplains at mass receive in both kinds; and that some devout sort of prayers be framed and used for a while, and mass said more seldom.

    VI. What noblemen might be thought to be most fit to be made privy to these proceedings, before the privy council should have it propounded? To which four are mentioned, Northampton, Bedford, Pembroke, and Grey.

    VII. What allowance should be assigned to the learned men, while they were reviewing the book of common prayer; and where to meet?

    The answer to which is, Sir Thomas Smith’s lodgings in Chanon-row; and sufficient provision to be made of meat and other things. This excellent paper is summed up by Camden in his History of Queen Elizabeth, but first saw the light by the means of the right reverend the bishop of Sarum, who hath printed it in his History of the Reformation, from the MSS. of the lord Grey of Ruthen, now lord viscount Longuevil. But there being another MS. of it in the Cotton library, somewhat different from that used by him, and explanatory of it in some places, and more correct, I am therefore tempted to put it into the Repository from that MS.

    A difficult work this was now taking in hand: the reformation of corrupt religion being the harder to bring to pass, because there was not only in this juncture a formidable popish party to struggle with, but a Lutheran party also. For there was not a few now that, in the alteration of religion, would endearour to have it settled according to the Augustan Confession: whereby a real and substantial presence might be acknowledged in the eucharist; crucifixes and images might be retained in the churches; the wafer put into the receiver’s mouth, and such like. And of this the learned men of the foreign reformed churches were much afraid. I find a letter written anno 1559, from Bullinger, chief pastor in Zurich, to Utenhovius, another learned man, now at Frankford, (but under king Edward VI. belonging to the Dutch church in London,) signifying, how many strove to have the Augustan Confession received I see,” saith he, “no little disturbances like to arise even in England, if, as some do require, the Confession of Augsburg be there received; a thing unsuitable in “many respects.” He went on, and shewed how this confession had caused vexation in all the sincerer churches, and laboured to infect all with its leaven. That Utenhovius knew what it had done in Poland; and bade him take heed, and give his assistance that it took not place. And that king Edward’s reformation satisfied the godly, But notwithstanding this stay of religion enjoined by the queen, as was said before, divers of those that were ministers in king Edward’s days now soon returning home from abroad, and others concealed within the realm, began to shew themselves, and exercise their ministry, especially in London, after the order of the reformation in that reign; great numbers of people assembling at those times. And this the queen shewing herself displeased at, upon pretence of the occasion it gave to unfruitful disputes and contentions, declared the same by a proclamation sent out December 27, from Westminster: wherein she charged all, as well such as were called to the ministry, as others; the one to forbear to preach or teach, and the other to hear any doctrine or preaching, than the gospel and epistle for the day, and the ten commandments in English, without exposition or addition of any manner of sense or meaning to be applied. Nor any manner of public prayer to be used in the church, but what then was used, and by law received; except the litany, the Lord’s prayer, and the creed in English, as she used in her own chapel. Yet this order of the queen’s was somewhat mitigated, by adding, that it was to last only till she and her three estates in parliament should meet, and consult for some reconciliation of matters as were then moved in point of religion: withal promising, that she meant, by all means possible, to procure and restore the advancement of religion among her people; but threatening severe punishment to those that should disobey this her proclamation. Which proclamation I have also placed in the Repository. And accordingly, Jan. 1, the litany, epistle, and gospel in English, began to be said in London, by virtue of that proclamation of the queen, according as was used in her chapel.

    But the day of the parliament’s meeting now drawing on, being January the 23d, we shall proceed to look upon their transactions, especially in the matters of religion, wherein so much was to be done. As we must also look into the con vocation-house, where the clergy sat at the same time upon the same business.

    The sitting of the parliament this day, by reason of the queen’s bodily indisposition, was prorogued till January the 25th, when the lord keeper, sir Nicolas Bacon, opened it with a long and eloquent speech: and that branched into three general matters: which the queen, he said, had called the parliament together for. The first whereof was, for the well making of laws for the according and uniting of the people into an uniform order of religion. This he touched tenderly and wisely, as representing the queen not inclinable to one side or other, but only aiming to settle the religion, to be professed among her subjects, upon true principles. The sum of what he said relating to this point was, “that the queen had God before her eyes, and was not unmindful of precepts and divine counsels; and therefore meant chiefly in this conference, that the advancement of God’s honour and glory should be sought, as the sure and infallible foundation whereupon the policies of every good commonwealth were to be erected; and was as the straight line, whereby it was wholly to be directed and governed; and as the chief pillar and buttress, wherewith it was continually to be sustained. And as the well and perfect doing of this could not but make good success in all the rest, so the remiss ‘and loose dealing in it could not but make the rest full of imperfection and doubtfulness: which must needs bring with them continual change and alteration; a thing to be eschewed in all good governances, but most of all in matters of faith and religion. That the queen therefore principally required them, for the duty they bore to God, and their service to her and their country, that in this consultation they would, with all humbleness, singleness, and pureness of mind, use their whole endeavor and diligence to establish that which by their wisdoms should be thought most meet for the well preserving of this godly purpose: and this without respect of honour, rule, or sovereignty, profit, pleasure, or ease; or of any thing that might touch any person in estimation or opinion of wit, learning, or knowledge; and without all regard of other affection. “And that in their conference about this, they should wholly forbear, as a great enemy to good counsel, all manner of contention, reasonings, disputes, and sophistical, captious, and frivolous arguments and quiddities, matters for ostentation of wit, rather than consultation of weighty matters; comelier for scholars than counsellors. And because commonly they were causes of much expense of time, and bred few good resolutions. “He advised, that by counsel provision should be made, that no contentious and contumelious words, as heretic, schismatic, papist, and such like, being nurses of seditious factions and sects, should be used, but banished out of men’s mouths, as the causers, continuers, and increasers of displeasure, hate, and malice; and as utter enemies of all concord and unity, and the very marks they were now come to shoot at. And that as nothing should be advised or done, that might any way breed or nourish any kind of idolatry or superstition, so heed was to be taken, that by licentious or loose handling, any occasion were given, whereby contempt or irreverent behaviour towards God and godly things might creep in. “That the examples of fearful punishments that followed these four extremities, that is to say, idolatry, superstition, contempt, and irreligion, in all ages and times, were more than he could declare: and yet not so many as the blessings and benefits of God to those that had forsaken them, and embraced their contraries. That for their better encouragement to run this right and straight course, he thought he might affirm, that the good king Hezekiah had no greater desire to amend what was amiss in his time, nor the noble queen Hester a better heart to overthrow the mighty enemies of God’s elect, than their sovereign lady and mistress had to do that which might be just and acceptable in God’s sight. And so forced to this by their duties to God, feared thereto by his punishments, provoked by his benefits, and drawn by their love to their country and their wives, and lastly, encouraged by so princely a patroness, he exhorted them in God’s name to go about this work.”

    Now before we observe what impression this speech had upon the parliament, let us first see a little what was done among the members of the convocation.

    Herein the popish clergy did notably bestir themselves. It began the 24th day of the said month; that is, the next day after the parliament were called together, Nicolas Harpsfield, archdeacon of Canterbury, being prolocutor: when, by the order of the bishop of London, president, the lower house drew up articles, and desired the bishops of the upper house to present them to the parliament. The history of it was thus; as I take it from archbishop Parker’s volume, entitled Synodalia.

    In the fourth session, the bishop of London asked the clergy of the lower house, whether they had thought of anything which they would explain that day? When the prolocutor, with Thomas Reynold, John Harpfield, and William Chedsey answered, that they knew not for what cause, and concerning what things they were to treat; and they prayed, that a way might be considered of, how religion might be preserved. To which the bishops answered, that it seemed expedient, that the clergy should make a supplication to the queen, that no burden might be imposed upon the clergy in that parliament; and that then they should consider about the supply of a subsidy, and the way of raising it.

    Session 6. The prolocutor and the clergy offered to the bishops certain articles in writing, which the said clergy had devised, for the disburdening of their consciences, as they said, and the protestation of their faith: and petitioned the bishops, that they would head them in the same.

    Session 7. Febr. ult. They exhibited their articles conceived in the former session; which were read, and the bishops promised to present them to the upper house of parliament the next day. The articles were these:

    I. That in the sacrament of the altar, by virtue of the words of Christ, duly spoken by the priest, is present realiter, under the kinds of bread and wine, the natural body of Christ, conceived of the virgin Mary, and also his natural blood.

    II. That after the consecration there remains not the substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of God and man.

    III. That in the mass is offered the true body of Christ, and his true blood, a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead.

    IV. That to Peter the apostle, and his lawful successors in the apostolic see, as Christ’s vicars, is given the supreme power of feeding and ruling the church of Christ militant, and confirming their brethren.

    V. That the authority of handling and defining concerning the things belonging to faith, sacraments, and discipline ecclesiastical, hath hitherto ever belonged, and ought to belong only to the pastors of the church; whom the Holy Ghost for this purpose hath set in the church; and not to laymen.

    The three former of these were solemnly disputed at Oxford, the first year of queen Mary, as the great krith>rion of popery, against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer.

    The next session, the prolocutor and clergy asked the bishops, whether they had presented the articles? The bishop of London said, he had presented them to the lord keeper of the great seal; and that he received them, as appeared, gratefully; but gave no answer. They desired the upper house, that they would before the next session inquire the good pleasure of the keeper concerning them.

    In a session following, the bishop of London told them, that the articles under the hand of a public notary were exhibited, (one only article, viz. the last, excepted,) being before approved by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

    Nothing more followed, but adjournments, until the middle of May 1559, when, I suppose, this convocation was concluded, the parliament being dissolved a little before, viz. the eighth day of the said month.

    All this while the clergy that favoured sincere religion clergy not were but private standers by, and were not consulted with: which put them into some disturbance, fearing the issue; their hearts trembling, as old Eli’s did, for the ark of God: and well they might, there being neither any order taken for the restoration of the old protestant bishops to their sees, whereof there were four surviving; nor of the inferior clergy, that married wives under king Edward, and were deprived under queen Mary, to their former dignities and benefices.

    But now let us look into the parliament, and see what was done there about religion, and for the establishment of the queen upon her throne.

    First, Richard Cox, D.D. (sometime dean of Westminster, and of Christ church, Oxon, but that had lived abroad all the late reign, and now lately come home,) preached before the parliament at the opening of it. But queen Mary’s bishops and prelates only sat in the house, from whom was to be expected all the opposition that could be against casting off the pope’s usurpation, and restoring of true religion. They were indeed few, some being newly dead, as Canterbury, Salisbury, Norwich, Chichester, Rochester, and some others; several absent, who had sent their proxies, as Durham, Peterborough, Ely, (now abroad in an embassy,) Bath and Wells, St. David’s: to which add, one prior, sir Tho. Tresham, lord prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, who also sent his proxy. Those that appeared were, Heath, archbishop of York, that had been lord chancellor, Boner, bishop of London, White of Winton, Pate of Worcester, Kitchin of Landaft, Bayne of Coventry and Litchfield, Turbervile of Exeter, Scot of Chester, and Oglethorp of Carlisle, with Feckenham, lord abbot of Westminster.

    The chief bills brought in, which this present history especially requireth our taking notice of, shall follow. The most whereof passed into act, (but some were rejected,) to all which, the bishops that sat in the house, generally, one and all dissented and protested.

    The first bill preferred in the upper house was read on Monday, January the 30th. The substance was, for the restitution and annexation of the firstfruits, tenths, &c. to the imperial crown of this realm. Which, by reason of the present impoverished state of the revenues, was thought highly necessary to be restored again to the crown, to help to uphold the “huge, innumerable, and inestimable charges” of the royal estate, as the bill expresseth it; mentioning how these first-fruits, tenths, yearly rents of impropriations, rectorles, &c. had been given away by queen Mary from the crown, which they accounted a great disherison and decay done to the crown and royal estate of the realm, and the succession thereof. This bill was read the third time, and passed Saturday, February 4. To this bill all the bishops present, which were eight, dissented, viz. York, London, Worcester, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exeter, Chester, Carlisle. But all the temporal lords consented nemine contradicente: as appeared easily by the standing up, first of the temporal lords, who voted in the affirmative, and then of the spiritual lords, who voted the negative: in respect of the apparent inequality of their voices.

    The second and next bill brought in, and read in the lords’ house, was on Wednesday, February the 1st, which was still in order to uphold the queen’s estate, being for recognition of her title to the imperial crown of this realm. This bill was finished February the 9th, and by universal consent concluded. Observe that here the bishops did not dissent. This bill was conform to the practice of queen Mary’s first parliament, wherein such a bill was brought in and passed, declaring and recognising her to have been born in a most just and lawful matrimony; and so consequently their rightful queen.

    The third bill that was read in the said house was on the said 9th of February, still relating more nearly to the queen, By this bill certain offences were declared treason.

    And the fourth bill was read the same day, against slanderous and seditious words. What need there was of such a bill to restrain the tongues of many against the queen and her proceedings, is evident from what hath been related before.

    The next (being the fifth bill proper here to be taken notice of) was read February the 10th, wherein the queen was made inheritable to the late queen Anne, her majesty’s mother. And it is remarked by the author of the history of the journal of this parliament, concerning this bill, that after the reading two other bills the same day, it was read again, and ordered to be engrossed. Which speed, he saith, the house took for the passing of this bill, to express their zeal and affection to her majesty. February the 13th, this bill was read the third time, whereby the queen was restored in blood to the late queen Anne, her mother, and concluded with the common consent of all the lords: neither is there any mention in the journal of the house, of the bishops dissenting to this: which because it is a private act, and unprinted, I exemplify it in the Appendix.

    February the 27th came a very material bill from the house of commons, where it had been despatched; it was for the restoring the supremacy to the imperial crown of this realm; and for repealing divers acts made to the contrary. This bill was tossed about in both houses, and many alterations made, and many provisoes added. Once it was entitled, “A bill to avoid the usurped power claimed by any foreign potentate in this realm; and for the oath to be taken for spiritual and temporal officers.” This was the reason it was read so often in the upper house, as the 27th and 28th of February: again the 13th, 15th, 18th of March: on which day it is said in the journal to be concluded; these two temporal lords dissenting, viz. the earl of Shrewsbury and viscount Mountague; and these spiritual, being nine bishops and one abbot, that is, I suppose, all that were in the house, viz.

    York, London, Winton, Wigorn, Landaft, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the abbot of Westminster. And after, March the 18th, by reason of some additions, provisions, and reviews of so weighty a bill, it came into this house again several times before it was finished.

    March the 20th, fourteen bills were brought up from the commons to the house of lords: whereof one was to take away all pains and penalties for religion in queen Mary’s time; and another for making ecclesiastical laws by thirtytwo persons. The rest of the fourteen were about temporal matters. The former was taken into the bill of the supremacy. The latter bill, being for an emendation of the civil and ecclesiastical laws, (wherein infinite pains had been taken by archbishop Cranmer, and divers of the learnedest men in king Edward’s reign,) had been often brought into that king’s parliaments, and had found difficulty to pass, though earnestly desired by the best men: nor had it better fortune in this reign. Men did not then care to be restrained by church discipline.

    March the 22d, the bill for the restitution of the firstfruits and tenths was returned from the lower house, and concluded by the lords. And likewise the bill for restoring the supremacy to the imperial crown, with a new proviso added by the commons; which was read the first, second, and third time, and concluded; the bishops of York, London, Winton, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the abbot of Westminster, dissenting.

    The same day, the bill for admitting and consecrating archbishops and bishops was sent from the lower house, and was read then, and read again the second time: and the next day, viz. March the 23d, was read the third time, and concluded. This bill also was put into the bill for the supremacy.

    April the 4th, 1559, the bill, that the queen, upon the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, might exchange the temporal possessions thereof with parsonages impropriate, was read now the first time. April the 5th, the same bill was read again, but worded thus; “That the queen, upon the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, may resume the temporal possessions thereof into her hands; recompensing the value thereof with parsonages impropriate,” &c. The next day the same bill was read the third time, and concluded; the bishops of York, London, Wigorn, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the aforesaid abbot, dissenting.

    April 14, Friday, four bills were brought from the commons: whereof one was to review the act 5 Edw. VI. for keeping of holydays and fasting-days.

    This bill either came to nothing, or was taken into the bill of Uniformity.

    And another, for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and for abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same: both which were read. Here this important bill of the Supremacy came into the upper house again, and received the title wherewith it stands in the statute: but by reason of other provisoes added yet unto it, it was not fully completed until the 29th day of April; as will appear in the sequel.

    April the 17th, the bishop of Ely was in the house; being now returned home from his embassy abroad with Dr. Wotton. For this day, to him and some other bishops and peers was committed the bill for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction; now having been read the second time.

    April the 25th, nine bills were brought from the commons to the lords.

    Those concerning religion were, first, touching uniformity of common prayer, and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments: which passed in the commons’ house April the 20th. Secondly, To make good the leases and grants of offices and copyholds, made by Nicolas Ridley, late bishop of London. This bill, May the 1st, was rejected after a third reading.

    The case was this, (as I have it from an authentic paper:) Boner, bishop of London, was deprived by two several commissions, dated the eighth and seventeenth days of September, in the third year of Edward VI. The commissions and sentence of deprivation both of record.

    From which sentence of deprivation Boner appealed, as appeareth by record.

    The privy council examined and rejected the appeal by sentence definitive.

    Which sentence is of record: but the commission whereby they did it cannot as yet be found, Upon the rejectment of the appeal, Dr. Ridley was translated to be bishop of London, and made leases of certain lands, parcel of the said bishopric. Primo Mariae, Boner was restored: who made leases of the same lands unto others; supposing Ridley to be but an usurper.

    So that upon the validity or invalidity of their two leases, the question was, whether Ridley were lawfully bishop of London in the reign of king Edward VI. or no.

    The inconveniences that might grow thereof were reserved to the considerations of the good and godly: for that many titles did depend thereon.

    April the 26th, Wednesday, again the bill for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, &c. with a proviso added thereunto by the lords, read a third time, and concluded; the bishops of York, London, Ely, Wigorn, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the foresaid abbot of Westminster, dissenting, with viscount Mountague only of the lords temporal. It was yet read again the 28th of April, because of a new proviso added by the commons. And April 29 read a third time, and concluded.

    This 26th day, the bill for uniformity of common prayer, and service in the church, sent the day before from the commons, was read the first time in the lords’ house. April the 27th, the same bill was read the second time:

    April the 28th, read the third time, and concluded; the bishops (as before) of York, London, Ely, Wigorn, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, dissenting; (the abbot is not mentioned here in the Journal among the dissenters: I suppose he was now absent.) The dissenting temporal lords were nine, viz. the marquis of Winchester, the earl of Shrewsbury, viscount Mountague, barons Morly, Stafford, Dudley, Wharton, Rich, and North.

    The 27th day likewise were three bills brought from the lower house; of one I will take notice, having been twice read, though it passed not into an act this session; but in the next parliament it did: by this bill the use and practice of enchantments, witchcraft, and sorcery, was made felony. The reason of bringing in this bill was, because conjurers and charmers, and such as invoked evil spirits, were so frequent and busy upon the queen’s first coming to the crown, and perhaps before: who meddled in matters of state, and endeavoured by sorcery and the black art to deprive the queen of her kingdom. Besides, that many people nowadays were strangely taken, deprived of their speech, bereft of their senses, pined away, their flesh rotting; which were justly supposed to be the effects of conjurations and enchantments: and so the preamble of that act doth set forth.

    Another of these three bills, for the security of the queen’s in her proceedings, and to prevent popular tumults, did pass the lords’ house April the 29th, confirming all act made in the first of queen Mary, against unlawful and rebellious assemblies. Which as it served that queen, so it was like to prove very serviceable now to this, in the present alteration of religion. For by this act were stopped any intents or attempts to alter or change, by force of arms, any laws made or established for religion; if any persons to the number of twelve or above, of their own authority, should meet together for such purpose.

    April the 29th, (i.e. the same day,) another proviso annexed by the commons to the bill for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, was read the third time, and concluded.

    May the 2d, several bills came from the commons to the lords: whereof one was, that the queen by commission might examine the causes of deprivation of spiritual persons, and restore them again. This was in favour of such of king Edward’s clergy, (whereof were great numbers,) that in the beginning of queen Mary’s reign were thrown out of their ecclesiastical preferments and places, and others clapt in their rooms, (either because they were married, or for that they favoured the gospel,) without, or contrary to law. But this bill, for some political reasons, I suppose, passed not, being not found among the printed acts.

    Another of these bills was, to annex to the crown certain religious houses, and to reform certain abuses in chantries. These bills were this day read; and read again the next day: and May the 5th, both read the third time, and concluded: but the bishops and abbot dissenting to the bill for annexing to the crown religious houses; to which three provisoes were added. This also is not among the printed acts.

    Let me add the mention of one temporal bill, and that was for the subsidy and two fifteens and tenths; to shew in what low circumstances the crown now was, and how sensible the nation was of it. This bill was first read in the house of commons, February the 3d, and brought up to the lords February the 11th. This subsidy was extremely free, and readily granted without any special labour or desire of the queen, but out of most necessary consideration had by the court of parliament for the wealth and public affairs of the realm. For the parliament in their consultations well saw what great’debts had been left to the queen’s majesty to pay on the other side of the seas, (which yet remained and grew intolerable to the realm,) and what other great charges and debts had been left to her, by reason of the wars as well towards Scotland as in Ireland: a great part whereof, with no small care, pains, and consideration, had been defrayed; together with other charges lying now upon her since the late queen’s death, for her funerals, and for her own coronation.

    The queen, soon after the parliament’s breaking up, sent forth her commissions for the levying this subsidy throughout England: and the lords of the council backed the said commissions with their letters for the more effectual and true assessing and collecting of it. In their letter to the lord president of the north, (whence I have taken what is above written,) they write further, “that they could not but lamentably report, that the burdens, debts, and charges had been and were intolerable, which daily did appear.

    And they prayed him and the rest of the commissioners in those northern parts, (as they should have occasion offered them in the execution of this commission,) by their earnestness and diligence to further this subsidy, which was so frankly given, as with more good-will and fuller accord never was any granted: and that they would shew themselves to have respect to this time. And so to use the demands and assessment of this subsidy, that it might appear (as true it was) nothing to the particular benefit of her majesty, but only towards the discharge and alleviating of some part of that burden wherewith her majesty found her imperial crown overcharged by the late queen’s great debts.” This was written from Westminster, May the 22d. But to return a little back again.

    Let me now shew several things transacted in the lower house (as I have hitherto chiefly done in the upper) concerning bishops and spiritual persons, and their deprivations, and the alienations of their lands, or other matters respecting religion.

    February the 15th, a bill was brought into the commons’ house for the restoring of the patentees of the bishop of Winchester’s lands. Of which lands they had been thrown out in queen Mary’s reign, and their patents from king Edward evacuated; and the said lands procured back to Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and his successors: this bill was, February 18, read again the second time. And again, ten days after, (viz. February 28,) the bill was amended, or rather renewed, and now entitled, A bill for assurance of lands, late parcel of the bishopric of Winchester, granted to king Edward VI. and by his letters patents granted to the earl of Pembroke, sir Will. Fitzwilliams, sir Philip Hobby, sir John Mason, sir Henry Seymour, sir Henry Nevil, and sir Richard Sackvile. This bill was now read the first time.

    One of these patentees (though not mentioned in the Journal among the rest above named) seems to be the marquis of Northampton, whose authority now might give some speed to the passing this bill. He had, in the year 1552, made an exchange with the king; and had of him the lordship and manor of Southwark, sometime belonging to the bishop of Winchester, for the chief and capital mess of Lambeth, sometimes parcel of the estate of the duke of Norfolk, attain ted with treason; as I find in the book of grants, passed under the bishop of Ely, lord chancellor: unless perhaps the marquis having been attainted under queen Mary, this lordship with the rest of his lands were forfeited to the crown; and so not mentioned among the patentees.

    But to see further how this bill proceeded. March the 1st, being Wednesday, White, the bishop of Winton, in proper person came, and required the copy of the bill exhibited here, touching his lands; which was granted: and further, it was allowed him to bring in his answer and counsel on Saturday next at nine of the clock. March the 2d, Mason required that the counsel of the patentees for the bishop of Winchester’s lands might be there the, to hear what the bishop and his counsel would say: which request was granted by the house.

    March the 4th, Saturday, the bishop of Winchester in proper person opened his title to his manors, [taken away by king Edward, and given to his patentees,] saying they had been parcel of the bishopric for a thousand three hundred years, and required justice of this house. The queen’s attorney, hearing the talk of the bishop, required that he might be heard for the queen touching these lands. And day was given as well to Mr. Attorney as to the bishop, to be heard on Monday next, at half an hour before nine.

    Master chancellor of the duchy, who was sir Ambrose Cave, took this opportunity (the bishop being now in the house of commons) to complain, that Mr. White [so he termed the said bishop] had called him a witness, not to like the book of service, [which the bishop, it seems, had said while he was arguing against the said book in the lords’ house.] But the bishop answered, in excuse, or for the rectifying the report, “That Mr. Chancellor said, he wished the book to be well considered of. But since the house did take it, that he [the bishop] did misrepresent him, therefore he standing up asked him forgiveness: which Mr. Chancellor again took thankfully from the bishop.”

    March the 6th, Monday, the bishop of Winchester brought learned counsel with him; and divers arguments were had about the late bishop’s lands.

    Then the queen’s attorney desired, that he and the rest might say their minds, whereby they might fully answer. The bishop now seemed to delay the cause, saying, that his counsel was not yet instructed. Notwithstanding Mr. Attorney answered at large. The effect of his speech was, that the appeal made by bishop Gardiner in the last reign, when he was deprived, [which appeal seemed most to be insisted upon,] was not of effect. For that in the commission at his deprivation was contained, cum omni appellatione remota. And so the appeal made to king Edward VI. by that bishop n’ay point d’effect. Mr. Noel and Mr. Bell, of counsel with the patentees, declared in effect for the patentees, as Mr. ‘Attorney had shewn for the queen.

    The next time we hear of this business was March 9. Then the bill to assure lands late of the bishopric of Winton, to the queen and certain patentees of Edward VI. was read the second time.

    The bishop of Winchester had, it seems, in this cause took upon him to cancel records; which the house was informed of. And thereupon, March 14, articles were devised for the punishment of the bishop: and it was ordered that a bill should be thereof drawn by Mr. Keilway. And March 21, a new bill was read against cancelling of records by warrant or otherwise.

    March 16, the bill for the assurance to king Edward’s patentees of the lands late parcel of the bishopric of Winchester was read the second time.

    And March 18, the third time: and upon the question passed the house.

    To the rest this may be worthy noting, that on March the 23d, it was reported to the house by one of the burgesses, that Mr. [or Dr.] Story (who was a very hot papist) had not well used himself, being a member of this house, in going before the lords, and being of counsel with the bishop of Winchester, against the patentees. Which by the house was taken to be a fault, [in so open a disallowance and opposition of that which had passed the house whereof he was a member,] and, it seems, to the breach of some order of the house in such cases. Whereupon Story excused himself by ignorance of any such order: and nevertheless that he had since considered it, and did acknowledge it not to be well done; and therefore required the house to remit it: which accordingly by the house was remitted.

    The foresaid bill was, with several other bills, brought up to the house of lords March the 20th, and March the 22d read the third time, and passed; yet the archbishop of York, and the bishops of London, Winton, Wigorn, Landaft, Coventry, Exon, Chester, and Carlisle, and the abbot of Westminster, and these temporal lords, Winchester, Stafford, Dudley, and North, dissenting.

    There were other bishops’ lands alienated from the bishoptics under king Edward VI. and given away to particular persons after the deprivation of the said bishops, and the bishoprics being then vacant; which lands were restored again under queen Mary. And in this parliament endcavour was made to recover them back again: as appears by these bills following.

    March the 1st, a bill was read the second time in behalf of the lord Wentworth, and others, who had got much of the lands of the bishop of London in king Edward’s reign, and now endeavoured to obtain a bill for the holding them. It was entitled, A bill for the assurance of certain lands, parcel of the bishopric of London, to the lord Wentworth, the lord Rich, and the lord Darcy. And the next day, another bill was read the first time in the house of commons, (where the former was ,read,) for confirmation of the bishopric of London to the now bishop of London, [viz. Boner.] Which seems to be put in, in opposition to the bill read before, craftily framed by the said bishop.

    March the 11th, a bill to confirm bishop Ridley’s leases and grants was read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed. Two days after, viz.

    Monday, March the 13th, Boner, bishop of London, in proper person came, and required a copy of a bill put in for confirmation of leases granted by Dr. Ridley, usurper of the bishopric, as he styled him. Which copy was granted him; with addition, that the house did intend to take Ridley’s title in the bishopric as it was: and that he should make his answer by words on Wednesday next peremptory at nine of the clock. Accordingly, on Wednesday March 15, the bishop of London in his proper person came, and shewed the untruth of the bill, as, he said, he took it; and concluded, that the king’s commissioners for his deprivation did not according to their commission. And yet by his appeal then, and by his letters patents from queen Mary, he affirmed, that he stood still bishop. And therefore finally, that the grants made by Dr. Ridley were void.

    But notwithstanding, April the 15th, the bill for confirmation of these leases, grants of offices, and copyholds, made by Ridley, late bishop of London, had its third reading, and passed the house.

    This bill set forth, “How the said Edmond Boner, bishop of London, was upon good and just causes and considerations, by just sentence, and order of the law of the realm, deprived, deposed, and put from his said bishopric, and all other his spiritual promotions, for his contumacy; and that afterwards the said bishopric was justly collated and giver, to Nicolas Ridley, D.D. by letters patents of King Edward VI. with all the lands and tenements thereunto belonging. And that he being placed and possessed in the said bishopric, did make divers leases of manors, lordships, meses, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, &c. by his several deeds under the seal and confirmation of the dean and chapter of Paul’s, for term of years and term of lives: and also divers demises of his lands, tenements, &c. customary by copy of court-roll; and took and received divers fines for the same; and granted also to divers persons divers offices, as stewardships, bailiffwicks, &c. That the said farmers had been at great cost and charges in and about reparations and buildings upon their farms, or otherwise: that afterwards the said Boner was restored in the time of queen Mary, by colour of a certain appeal, and other surmised causes; whereas indeed, by right, he could have had none: since which the said leases, grants, copyholders and customary tenants had been, and daily were, with great cruelty, expulsed, and put out of their said farms, offices, and copy-holds by the said Boner: surmising the same leases, grants, offices, and copies of court-rolls to be void; for that the said Nic. Ridley did not, as he surmised, lawfully possess, occupy, and enjoy the said bishopric of London, by reason of the said appeal, or other causes, by the said Edmond Boner untruly and insufficiently alleged: “That therefore it might be ordained, published, and enacted, that all leases, demises, and grants, &c. offices, bailiffwicks, and stewardships to any one, lawfully made by the said Ridley, during the time of his possession of the bishopric, should be judged, expounded, deemed, construed, &c. as good and effectual in the law, to. all intents and constructions, against the said Nicolas and Edmond, and the successors of them, &c. as the same should have been, if the said Edmond Boner had been dead at the time of his said deprivation, or had never made any kind of appeal, &c. And that the said leases and demises of any of the said lands, &c. and their executors, administrators, &c should and might have such like benefit, commodity, and advantage by all ways and means, &c. against the bishop of London, or hereafter for the time being, and their successors, and every other person, persons, bodies politic or corporate, to whom the reversion of the same lands, tenements, &c. so demised shall belong, as the said leases or demises, &c. might or should have had against the leasor or leasors.”

    But, whatever was the reason, it was rejected in the lords’ house, May the 1st, after a third reading that day, as was mentioned before.

    Such another bill for the confirmation of lands taken from the bishopric of Worcester, under king Edward, was brought into the lower house, March 4, viz. for the assurance of Hartlebury and Wickenford, late the bishop of Worcester’s lands, to sir Francis Jobson and Walter Blount, severally: and March the 7th, read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed. The next day Pate, the present bishop of that see, in proper person came and required the copy of a bill exhibited against the bishopric, (to which it seems those lands were reunited under queen Mary,)and that a day might be appointed him to make answer in writing, or otherwise.

    The bishop of Coventry and Litchfield (being belike in the like case) the same day made the same petition. And it was ordered, that the bishop of Worcester should have the said copy, and make his answer upon Saturday next; and the bishop of Coventry on Monday following: and it was likewise granted, that the other parties should then and there have their counsel, to hear the bishops.

    Here D’Ewes, the publisher of the Journals, interposeth this observation, “That these and other bishops, notwithstanding their stiff opposition against the reformation of religion moved in this parliament, had free liberty to de fend their own cause, either in person or by counsel: which shewed the queen’s incomparable clemency and moderation, who so impartially dealt with them, and so patiently suffered their opposition, and gave way to their allegations.”

    March the 11th, Saturday, the bishop of Worcester came with his counsel, and declared that Hooper (late bishop of Worcester) was not lawful bishop, by reason of the appeal of bishop Hethe, when he was deprived under king Edward VI. and so his grants not good. And so prayed the house to consider of it.

    Upon the appointed day, Bain, bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, came also with his counsel, and declared, that, for the fine levied, Mr. Fisher had no cause to complain. To which Mr. Fisher’s counsel alleged, that the fine was made by compulsion.

    Now we go on to take notice of some other bills of remark, relating to bishops or spiritual persons.

    March the 15th, a bill was brought in to restore bishops and spiritual persons, that had been deprived in the time of queen Mary: which was read again April the 6th. This bill went, it seems, but heavily, considering how long the space was between the first reading and the second: but surely it was a necessary bill, since so many ecclesiastical persons of unblameable life were most injuriously deprived of their livings and livelihoods, most of them for being married, which the law expressly allowed. This bill passed, and went to the upper house, and there failed, (whatever the reason was,) as was said before.

    The next day, viz. March 16, a bill was brought in to make lawful the deprivation of bishops and spiritual persons. This bill is somewhat obscure, not mentioning in what reign these deprivations happened. If by it be meant the deprivations under king Edward VI. Boner and other bishops then deprived seemed to give the occasion thereof, who had insisted in the house, that their deprivations were unlawful; as, the day before, the said Boner had the confidence to urge to them in the house of commons. And so the grants to be void, which were made by Dr. Ridley, as he called him, his immediate predecessor in the see of London, not vouchsafing him the name of bishop. And it appeared by the reading of this bill the next time, viz. March 21, to be meant in the foresaid sense, when the bill ran, to make lawful the deprivation of the bishops of Loft, Winchester, Worcester, and Chichester.

    March the 17th, a bill was brought in, that no person should be punished for exercising the religion used in King Edward’s last year: read the first and second time, and ordered to be engrossed. This bill seems to be grounded upon this good intention, to free all such as were put in prison under queen Mary, for the exercise and profession of the gospel.

    March 21, a bill was read now the second time, that the queen shall collate or appoint bishops in bishoprics being vacant, and that without rites and ceremonies, [used, I suppose, in popish ordinations,] and ordered to be engrossed. And the next day the bill was read the third time, and passed the house, and sent to the lords.

    March the 24h, Friday, for weighty affairs to be done in this parliament, according to the example of the upper house, the house of commons, according to former precedents, adjourned until Monday the 3d of April next. And in the mean time I find in the minutes of the council, that on the 27th of March, letters were sent from the queen’s privy council to the sheriffs of the several counties, to admonish and give warning to the knights and burgesses of their several counties, that were departed from this parliament without licence, that in no wise they fail to be there on Monday next, being the 3d of April, as they would answer for the contrary.

    D’Ewes saith, that it did not appear upon what occasion that adjournment was, but he conjectureth it was by reason of a disputation held that day in the forenoon, between the popish bishops and some learned men of the protestant religion, lately returned from exile; (of which, account will be given hereafter.) At which the lords of the upper house, and the knights, citizens, and burgesses of the house of commons, some did desire, and some were desired, as it should seem, to be present.

    April the 17th, 1559, a bill that the queen should have divers temporal lands of the archbishops and bishops, in recompence of tenths and parsonages impropriate, (to be settied upon the bishops instead thereof,) was read in the commons’ house the third time, and passed, upon the question and division of the house: with the bill were 104; against the bill 90. We shall hear more also of this bill in the process of this history.

    April 18, the bill for uniformity of common prayer in the church was read the first time. April 19, read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed.

    April 20, read the third time, and passed the house. So current, it seems, this bill went.

    This bill was sent up with nine others to the house of lords, and brought by sir Anthony Cook, knt. a man of great learning and abilities, who was, no doubt, a great dealer in this bill.

    April 27, a bill was read, that the queen by commission may examine and restore spiritual persons deprived: read the first time. It seems the old bill of the same import, that had been twice read, was thrown by, and this new one brought in, in the place of it. April 29, the said bill to restore such persons to their benefices, as had been unlawfully deprived, was read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed. May the 2d, it was read the third time, and passed the house, and sent up to the lords, being brought by Mr. Sadleir and others, with some other bills. May the 5th, this bill was read a third time in the upper house, and concluded. Yet I do not find it was enacted and passed into a law.

    April 29, a bill for abbeys, priories, nunneries, hospitals, and chantries, founded since the reign of queen Mary, to be annexed to the crown, was read the third time, and passed the house upon the question; and was sent up to the lords, who concluded it the 5th of May, the bishops and abbot, and one temporal lord, viz. viscount Mountague, dissenting.

    This parliament was dissolved May the 8th, after the queen had given her royal consent to the bills. Immediately before the doing of which, the lord keeper Bacon made a speech to the parliament: the sum of that part of it that concerned religion was, “that as to the observation of the uniform order in religion, they of the parliament, in their several places, should endeavour, to the best of their powers, to further and set forth the same: which by great and deliberate advice in that parliament had been established. That watch should be had of the withdrawers and hinderers thereof; especially of those that subtilly and by indirect means sought to procure the contrary. Among these he comprehended as well those that were too swift, as those that were too slow; those that went before the law, or behind the law, as those that would not follow.

    For good government could not be, where obedience failed, and both these alike broke the rule of obedience. That these were they that in all likelihood would be the beginners and maintainers of factions and sects, the very mothers and nurses of all seditions and tumults. Of these therefore great heed would be taken: and upon them being found, sharp and severe corrections should be imposed, according to the order of law: and that in the beginning, without respect of persons, as upon the greatest adversaries that could be to unity and concord; without which no commonwealth, he said, could long endure.”

    The public acts passed this first parliament are well known, being printed in the statute book: yet those that settled the supremacy, and the public service of God, may have some short account given of them, for enlightening the rest of the history. By the act of supremacy, called, An act for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing foreign power, no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, should use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of Power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence, &c. within this realm, or any of her majesty’s dominions: but from henceforth the said Power, jurisdiction, &c. to be clearly abolished out of the realm; and that all jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, preeminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority have been lawfully exercised in the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for the reformation, order, and correction of the same; and of all manner of errors, heresies, abuses, offences, &c. should for ever be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm: and that the queen and her successors should have power by their letters patents under the great seal, to assign, name, and authorize, and as often as they should think meet, and for so long time as they should please, persons, being natural born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise under her and them all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm of England and Ireland, &c. to visit, reform, redress, order, correct, and amend all errors, heresics, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities whatsoever.

    And further by this act, for the better observation and maintenance of it, all archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, and ecclesiastical officers and ministers, and every temporal judge, justice, mayor, and other lay and temporal officer, and other person having the queen’s fee or wages, should take a corporal oath upon the evangelists, utterly to testify and declare in their consciences, that the queen’s highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and all other her highness’s dominions and countries, as well in spiritual and ecclesiastical causes as temporal: and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, &c. within this realm. And therefore utterly to renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, &c. and to promise to bear faith and true allegiange to the queen and her heirs and lawful successors; and to their power to assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen’s highness, her heirs and successors, as united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. The penalty of the refusal to take this oath was the losing, during life, all ecclesiastical promotions, benefices, and offices, and every temporal and lay promotion and office. And the same oath was to be taken of all that should hereafter be preferred to any such spiritual or temporal benefice or office.

    Further, this act did restrain all writing, printing, teaching, preaching, express words, deeds, or acts, whereby any did affirm, hold, or stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority or preeminence of any foreign prince, prelate, Person, state, &c. whatsoever, heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or the putting in ure or exercise of any thing for the extolling, advancing, setting forth, or defence of any such pretended jurisdiction. They that should so do, as also their abettors and alders, being thereof convicted, to forfeit all their goods and chattels. And if they had not, or were not worth to the value of 20l . then, besides the forfeiture of their goods, to suffer imprisonment by the space of one whole year. And spiritual persons so offending, to lose also their benefices, prebends, or other ecclesiastical preferments. And for the second offence, every such offender to incur the dangers, penalties, and forfeitures, ordained and provided by the statute of provision and premunire, made the 16th year of Richard II. And for the third time, such offences to be deemed and adjudged high treason, and the offender being thereof lawfully convicted and attainted, to suffer the pains of death; and other penalties, forfeitures, &c. as in cases of high treason.

    One ground of this act was, as is mentioned in the preamble, the great intolerable charges and exactions formerly unlawfully taken and exacted by such foreign power and authority. Of which therefore king Henry VIII. by divers good laws and statutes had disburdened his subjects: but which had been laid oh them again by the late queen Mary.

    This act was thought very rigorous by some in those times, especially for some of the penalties. But in answer to this, see what is said in a little book long since set forth and dedicated to Robert earl of Leicester: Queen Elizabeth following the steps of her father and brother, had it enacted in her first parliament, that the authority of the bishop of Rome, and of all other foreign powers and potentates, spiritual and temporal, should be utterly driven away, and removed out of her majesty’s territories and dominions: and that upon such penalties unto all her subjects, that to uphold, maintain, or set forth any such foreign authority within this realm, is in some points and degrees high treason. So, that they lose and forfeit their lives, lands, and goods, who are guilty of it. A statute that may seem severe, and perhaps accounted of some over-rigorous. But they who mark it wisely, cannot choose but see how sharp tools were necessary to root out this weed; which many godly princes before king HenryVIII. did endeavour to nip off by sundry good laws; but it budded still again, and brought forth such blossoms, or rather fruits of rebellion, ambition, covetousness, hypocrisy, and wicked superstition, as it was to be feared would have poisoned the whole land, had not our gracious prince used such sharp instruments to root it out utterly.” So that author.

    But beside these things aforesaid contained in the said act, there was another notable branch of it, that renewed and revived a great many good laws of king Henry and king Edward, that had been repealed by queen Mary, viz. first, an act that no person shall be cited out of the diocese where he or she dwelleth, except in certain cases. Another act, that appeals in such cases as have been used to be pursued in the see of Rome, shall not be from henceforth had nor used but within the realm. Another, for the restraints of payments of annates and first-fruits of archbishoprics and bishoprics to the see of Rome. Another, concerning the submission of the clergy to the king’s majesty. Another, restraining the payment of annates and first-fruits to the bishop of Rome, and of the electing and consecrating of archbishops and bishops within the realm. Another, concerning the exoneration of the king’s subjects from exactions and impositions, heretofore paid to the see of Rome; and for having licences and dispensations within this realm. Another, for nomination and consecration of suffragans within the realm. Another, for the release of such as have obtained pretended licences and dispensations from the see of Rome. Also, so much of another act as concerned precontracts of marriage, and touching degrees of consanguinity, as in the time of king Edward VI. by another act or statute was not repealed. Also another, that doctors of the civil law being married, may exercise ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Besides these acts made in king Henry the eighth’s reign, was revived an act made in the reign of king Edward VI. (which likewise had been repealed by queen Mary,) viz. against such persons as should irreverently speak against the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; and for the receiving thereof in both kinds. And lastly, as this act for the supremacy revived all the foresaid good acts that had been repealed by queen Mary, so it repealed a severe act made by her, for the reviving of three statutes made for the punishment of heresies: and the three statutes mentioned in the said act, abrogated by the same.

    So that by this single act of the supremacy, a great and notable step was made towards the restoring of religion, and bringing it on in effect as far, as with much pain and great opposition it had gotten in many years before under the two kings of most noble memory, viz. king Henry and king Edward.

    Especially if we join to this, one other act made this parliament, viz.for the uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments. By which act king Edward’s Book of Common Prayer, that had been abolished in the first of queen Mary, was established again, and enjoined to be used with the order and service, and the administration of the sacraments, and rites and ceremonies; with certain alterations and additions therein added and appointed: and to stand and be, from and after the feast of the nativity of St. John Baptist, in full force and effect. Those additions mentioned before were certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year: and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants: and the alterations were in the form of the litany. In this act are penalties appointed for aleprayers of the said book, and such as should speak in derogation of any thing contained In it.

    This for the public acts: the private ones were these that follow, as they were taken out of the clerk of the parliament’s book.

    An act for assuring lands to the lord Wentworth, lord Rich, and others.

    An act for assuring lands, parcel of the bishopric of Winchester, to king Edward’s patentees. An act giving authority to the queen’s majesty, upon the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, to take into her hands certain of the temporal possessions thereof, recompensing the same with parsonages impropriate and tithes.

    An act to annex to the crown several religious houses, &c. those, I suppose, as had been lately refounded by queen Mary.

    By the laws made this first parliament of the queen, the ancient supreme authority of the kings of this realm was vindicated from the papal encroachments and usurpations upon it, popery overthrown, true religion, founded upon the word of God, brought in again and established, notwithstanding all the policy, laws, commissions, inquisitions, and rigours made and used in the former reign, to prevent its taking footing for ever after. And all this work done within little more than three months; and that even while all the bishops, zealous creatures of Rome, and many other popish lords, sat in the parliament house, and had free votes there, and bestirred themselves as much as they could. So averse did the universality of the nation stand against popery.

    By virtue of one of these acts, viz. that of the supremacy, the bishops and the clergy, as well as others of the laity, that enjoyed places and offices under the queen, were bound to take an oath (as was shewn before) to renounce all foreign jurisdiction and power: which those that obstinately refused to do, did forfeit and lose all their preferments. Whereby the abbot of Westminster, and some other abbots and abbesses, were deprived some time after the end of the parliament. And in the month of July (according to Stow) the bishops, some archdeacons, prebendaries, and others of the clergy, were summoned and required by certain of the council, or other commissioners, to take the said oath; which they wilfully refusing, lost their bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries, prebends, or other ecclesiastical benefices. And that was all the penalty they suffered for the said refusal.

    But if some of them were imprisoned, (as Camden and others write,) it was for another breach of this act, viz. either for teaching, preaching, or by express words or deeds affirming, holding, or defending the authority of the foreign prelate, the pope, or for other misdemeanours, as we shall read afterwards.

    This voidance of so many bishoprics happened well for the furthering of the reformation of religion; that their places being vacant, men of other principles, and such as favoured true religion, might succeed therein: but by a calculation then taken of all the clergy in the land, of 9,400 ecclesiastical persons, settled in their several promotions, but 177 left their livings, rather than to renounce the pope, and change their idolatrous mass for the use of the English liturgy.

    In one of the volumes of the Cotton library, (which volume seemeth once to have belonged to Camden,)the whole number of the deprived ecclesiastics is digested in this catalogue.

    Bishops — Prebendaries — Deans — Rectors of churches — Archdeacons — Abbots, priors, and abbesses — Heads of colleges — In all — Camden, in his Annals, little varies; only reckoning 12 deans, and as many archdeacons.

    The answerer to the English Justice (supposed to be cardinal Allen) mentions the deprived after this reckoning: viz. fourteen bishops; (and in Ireland the archbishop of Armagh, and an uncertain number of other bishops there;) three elects; one abbot; four priors, or superiors of religious convents; a dozen deans; fourteen archdeacons; above threescore canons of cathedral churches; not so few as an hundred priests; fifteen heads or rectors of colleges in Oxford and Cambridge; and above twenty doctors of divers faculties, that fled the realm, or were in the realm imprisoned.

    CHAPTER 3.

    Some bishops and the abbot of Westminster their speeches in the house against the bill for the supremacy, and the English common prayer book. The two religions compared by Harpsfield. Remarks upon some other bills. Dr. Story’s impudent speech in parliament.

    Two private acts. Bill for marriage of priests. The English litrugy of king Edward established. HAVING shewn before briefly what was brought to pass in the parliament for the regulating of religion, and extinguishing the pope’s power in this kingdom; (a thing which no doubt met with great opposition, especially from the bishops and the Romish party;) I shall look back and observe the endeavours of these men to stop these proceedings, and especially what discourses they made in the house to preserve the pope’s authority in England, and to hinder the abolishing of the mass.

    When, February the 21st, the bill for giving the queen the supremacy, and restoring that ancient jurisdiction to the crown of this realm, was read, and the matter agitated in the house, Hethe, archbishop of York, stood up, and made a long solemn speech against it. Which speech the right reverend author of the History of the Reformation saith, he had seen, but did believe it forged, because it spake of the supremacy “as a new and unheard of thing;” so undoubtedly it was in the copy he saw. But there is a copy of it in the Bene’t college library; and another among the Foxian papers; wherein there is no such expression: and I, having perused both, do find so much learning, and such strokes therein, that we need not, I think, misdoubt but that it is his under whose name it goes. Herein he speaketh of two points: “The former, that by this act they must forsake the see of Rome, and the weight and force, danger and inconvenience thereof. And the latter, to consider what this supremacy, to be given the queen, was; whether it consisted in spiritual government or temporal. If in spiritual, then to consider in what points that spiritual government consisted: and then, whether the house could grant such a government to the queen; and whether her highness were an apt person to receive it. These things he went over. And as to the first, he said, that, by forsaking and fleeing from the see of Rome, they must first forsake and flee from all general councils; secondly, all canonical and ecclesiastical laws; thirdly, the judgment of all other Christian princes; fourthly, the unity of Christ’s church; and by falling out of Peter’s ship hazard themselves to be drowned in the waters of schisms, sects, and divisions. And then. as to the second head, wherein the spiritual government consisted, it he made to stand in four things: 1. In binding and loosing; 2. In those words, pasce, pasce, pasce, that is, in feeding the flock of Christ; 3. In confirming the brethren, and ratifying them by wholesome doctrine and administration of the sacraments; 4. In excommunication and spiritual punishment: these things, as the scripture allowed them not to a woman, so it was not, he said, in the parliament’s power to grant them to the queen.”

    But I refer the reader to the whole speech, as I have diligently transcribed it into the Repository.

    Scot, bishop of Chester, also, after the second reading of this bill, which was February 28, stood up, and pronounced an oration against it at sufficient length, which I have placed also before the reader’s eye: wherein that bishop made answer to somebody in the house, that had questioned, whether ever the Greek church had acknowledged the pope of Rome.

    Whereat, he said, he marvelled, seeing that church remained eight hundred years in obedience to the Roman church; and since her falling off, had fourteen times returned with submission again unto it.

    Herein the bishop laboured also to answer other matters, which some lords had urged for abolishing the pope’s authority, and restoring the supremacy to the imperial crown of this realm: as, namely, that this had been done before at a solemn provincial council and assembly of the bishops and clergy of the land. And whereas some of these had afterwards revoked what they had done, it was said by one, that he would never trust those men again which once denied the pope’s authority, and now stood in defence of the same. It was urged also, that the spiritual supreme power must be in the prince, otherwise he could not confer authority in spiritual matters upon others. For no man could give that to another which he had not himself.

    By this speech of the bishop of Chester also we gather, that several other speeches were made in the house against this bill: and that the lords, to whom this bill was committed, to be weighed and considered by them, were such as favoured the popish religion. For it appeared they would not suffer the old service of the church and administration of the sacraments to be altered, but to be still retained; as they mitigated the rigour of the punishment mentioned in the bill, as it was, it seems, at first drawn up against such of the clergy as refused to comply with the supremacy.

    I know not any more that was said in the house in behalf of the supremacy, there being no protestant bishops yet made, and so none sitting there; but I meet with the heads of a notable discourse, or rather a treatise, designed to vindicate the queen’s right to the supremacy, and to display the usurpations of popes; calculated, I suppose, for this matter and purpose.

    See it in the Repository.

    February 15, a bill was brought in for casting away the old service, and bringing in the English liturgy; but this was laid aside; and in April another bill was brought in, for uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments. This also the Roman prelates in the house did tooth and nail stickle against. And Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, made a set speech against it in the best manner he could, which I suppose was at the second reading, April 26th. This speech the right reverend the author of the History of the Reformation makes the aforesaid Hethe to be the speaker of, finding in the Bene’t college volume, where this speech is, these words, (writ by somebody as his conjecture:) That Dr. Hethe was thought to be the penner of the said speech, and that it was spoken to the queen’s council. But it appears that he that wrote this was but an ignorant or heedless conjecturer, in that he makes this to be a discourse exhibited to the queen’s council, whereas it is plain it was spoken to the house of lords. But I have met with the same oration in a Cotton volume, where it is expressly entitled thus: The oration of Dr. Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, made in the parliament house, anno 1559. In this oration he makes a boast in the beginning, “that they and their fathers had been in possession of the old religion for the space of 1400 years. Then he propounded their honours three rules, whereby they should be able to put a difference between the true religion and the counterfeit.

    The first rule was, to see which of the two had been most observed in the church, of all men, and at all times.

    Secondly , which of them both is the most staid religion, and always agreeable to itself.

    Thirdly , which of the two did breed the more humble and obedient subjects unto God and unto the queen.”

    In the prosecution of this his speech, he made very unworthy and unbecoming reflections upon the foreign protestants of greatest eminence, as Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Martyr, for their different sentiments about the sacrament; and especially upon two of our own bishops, Cranmer and Ridley. Cranmer he makes to contradict himself in two books, which he set forth in one year, viz. the catechism in the English tongue, dedicated to king Edward, wherein he affirmed the real presence: and another book which he shortly after set forth, “wherein” (to use Feckenham’s own expression)” he did shamefully deny the same, falsifying both scriptures and doctors.” This charge he did but take up from others of his persuasion; as bishop Gardiner and Dr. Rich. Smith in their books against archbishop Cranmer’s admirable book of the sacrament. But Feckenham thought fit to take no notice of the answer that the said archbishop in his last excellent book gave to this accusation: which was, that he then, when he put out the catechism, and when he put out his other book after that, did hold and teach the same thing; namely, that we receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament truly; and he that received it spiritually received it truly.

    But he no where writ really and substantially: which were the papists’ terms to express their carnal presence. So that it was not fairly done of Feckenham, to urge that in such an audience against him, which he had so publicly and sufficiently cleared himself of; and especially to belie a man whom they had cruelly burnt to ashes before. Of bishop Ridley, whom he called the notablest learned man of that opinion, he said, that he did in a sermon at Paul’s Cross publicly set forth the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament; repeating certain words, which, he said, he heard him speak; and that shortly after, at the same Paul’s Cross, he did deny the same. This was also a calumny; and a calumny which before now he had cast upon him, namely, in a sermon which he preached at Paul’s, in the beginning of queen Mary’s reign. And Feckenham had heard Ridley vindicating himself soon after against this slander of his; telling him to his face in the Tower, before the lieutenant, secretary Bourn, Cholmely, late lord chief justice, and divers others, that speaking in his sermon of the sacrament, he inveighed against them that esteemed it no better than a piece of bread, and bade them depart, as unworthy to hear the mystery: and that then he quoted Cyprian, that he should tell how it was that Christ called it, viz. “the bread is the body, meat, drink, flesh. Because unto this material substance is given the property of the thing whereof it bears the name.” And then Ridley added, that he took this place to maintain that the material substance of bread did remain. At this clear vindication which Ridley then made of himself, (which was in the year 1553,) it was observed, that Feckenham, as privy to his false report made of Ridley, was as red as scarlet in the face, and answered him never a word. And yet now again, five years after, did he lay the same thing to his charge in the parliament house,, now he was dead; though before, being alive, he had so sufficiently refuted it to his face. This was not fair, to say no worse. But I must remember I am not now writing an apology, but an history: and therefore I forbear to add any thing more on this subject. This speech of Feckenham aforesaid I have placed in the Repository with the rest; that it may be seen what the learnedest men of that persuasion could then say for the retaining of the old religion.

    Dr. Scot, bishop of Chester, also made another long speech upon the third reading of the foresaid bill, which was April 28; and according to his hot temper began after this manner: “That the bill was such as it was much to be lamented, that from so honourable an assembly it should be suffered to be read, or any ear to be given to it of Christians: for it called into doubt such things as ought to be reverenced without any doubt; [meaning the mass:] and, which was more, made earnest request for alteration, nay, for the abolishing of the same. He proceeded upon these heads: that their religion consisted of certain inward things, faith, hope, and charity; and certain outward, the common prayer and holy sacraments. Now he laboured to shew how this motion did extinguish those outward things, and put in their place he could not tell what. And it shook those inward things, and left them very bare and feeble. That by this bill Christian charity was taken away, which consisted in unity. And it was evident, that divers of the articles and mysteries of faith were not only called into doubt, but partly openly, and partly obscurely denied. And faith and charity being gone, hope was left alone, or presumptuously set in higher place: whereupon, for the most part, desperation followed. He dwelt much upon the unlawfulness of calling into doubt the matters of faith which had been decreed. And if Athanasius did think that a man ought not to doubt of matters determined in the council of Nice, where were present but 308 bishops, how much less ought we to doubt of matters determined in the catholic church by 300,000 bishops, and how many more he could not tell. And that if the certainty of faith should hang upon an act of parliament, we had but a weak staff to lean to. For, for matters of religion, he doubted not, that it ought not to meddle with them, because of the certainty which ought to be in faith, and the uncertainty of statutes and acts of parliament. But that the parliament consisted partly of noblemen, and partly of commoners, which were laymen; and so not studied or exercised in scriptures, nor doctors, nor practice of the church, so as to be accounted judges in such matters. And then, the better to convince them that these matters belonged not to them, he enlarged upon these things: the weightiness of the matter of this bill; the darkness of the cause; and the difficulty in trying out the truth; and the danger, if they took the wrong way. And under each of these heads occasionally, he shewed the defectiveness of the new book, so much extolled, as he said. He spake of a certain lord, that in a speech the day before did say, that he believed that Christ was received in the communion set out by that book. And being asked, if he did worship him there, he said, No, nor never would, so long as he lived. Which, this bishop said, was a strange opinion, that Christ should be any where, and not be worshipped. Some had said, they would worship him in heaven, but not in the sacrament: which the bishop compared to a man that should say, he would honour the emperor in cloth of gold, and under his cloth of state, but not in a frieze-coat in the street.”

    His speech went on to a good length; and what it was, from the beginning to the end, is set down in the Repository. But notwithstanding these speeches, the bill for uniformity of common prayer passed April 28, all the prelates dissenting, viz. the archbishop of York, the bishops of London, Ely, Wigorn, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exeter, Chester, Carlisle; as was shewn before.

    There was also about this very time some man of learning, (whether it were Harpsfield, or somebody else,) procured to write a discourse, whereby the two religions should be compared, viz. the Roman catholic, and that now endeavoured to be established. “Which discourse, he said, he wrote upon short warning, without meditation or help of books: yet he esteemed it so well grounded, that it could not well be answered: which by God’s grace, he said, should be tried, when he should see a direct answer made.” This paper consisted of several notes of the church, which he accommodated to the Roman church, and made the protestants to fail in. As, “that the church is one; that it is apostolic; that it is holy ; that it is catholic; that there is but one sheepfold, and one shepherd, John 18:And that one sheepfold is no where, but that which he is head of. But all other churches distinct from that of Rome have so many shepherds as there be divers realms. The cities of Germany each of them one, Geneva another, England another, &c. But all that be now called papists have but one head: and therefore they are so much the nearer to the unity of the church. Again, that church is apostolic that can shew her descent from the apostles: no church can do that so well as the papists. We can, saith he, in Canterbury, and in every other see, shew you, how our bishops came from the apostles. Because they could by chronicle go up from William Warham, the apostolic last before Cranmer, to the first, who was sent by pope Gregory. And then they could bring Gregory up to St. Peter. But in Canterbury, Cranmer disagreed from all his predecessors; and in Exeter, Miles Coverdale, and so forth. Now it was not enough for these bishops to leap up from these present days unto the apostles’ times, by saying, they agree with them; but they who challenge the see apostolic must bring their pedigree by lineal descent unto the apostles, as we do. He proceeded, that their church was catholic; that is, spread abroad through all places, times, and persons. And apostolic, because they shewed the succession from the apostles downward, and could go upward lineally to the apostles. Therefore the church, called papistical, having one head, the pope; being holy , [that is, as he interpreted it,] having benefits of God by flourishing miracles; ca tholic, that is, spread in all times, in all places, through all persons universally; that is to say, for the most part being able to shew their pedigree, even to the apostles, without any interruption; that church, I say, is only the true church.” This discourse in full is placed in the Appendix, with the rest of the same nature.

    And as these hot and earnest speeches before mentioned happened in the upper house, so the house of commons had some popish members as hot, or hotter. Dr. Story was one of these, who had been one of queen Mary’s trusty commissioners, for the taking up, imprisoning, and burning the gospellers. This man made a bold and bitter speech in the house, justifying himself in his doings under that queen, when so many by his sentence were burnt. “He wished, be said, he had done more than he did, and that he and others had been more vehement in executing the laws; and impudently told the house, how he threw a fagot into the face of one, (an earwig, as he styled him,) at the stake at Uxbridge, as he was singing a psalm, and set a bush of thorns under his feet: and that it was his counsel to pluck down men of eminency that were heretics, as well as the more ordinary sort; and mentioned two such, brought into trouble by his means; Sir Philip Hoby, and another knight of Kent. And that he saw nothing to be ashamed of, nor sorry for: and that it grieved him, that they laboured only about the young and little twigs, whereas they should have struck at the root.”

    By which words it was well enough known he meant the queen herself.

    This man afterwards left England, and became an officer under the king of Spain at Antwerp. Whence divers years after he was craftily seized on board an English vessel, and brought into England, and being found guilty of treason, died the death of a traitor.

    This man, and his impudent speech this parliament concerning the queen, was not soon forgotten. A book was writ in the year 1569, entitled, A warning, against the dangerous practice of papists, &c. wherein he and such as he are glanced at: viz. “Other some are such, as one of them, even openly in her majesty’s high court of parliament, made such moan that his counsel was not followed in queen Mary’s time, to hew up the root, as all men plainly saw and understood his grief, that the queen’s majesty was not in her sister’s time despatched. And it is said, that some others made grave motions for her disinheritance.”

    But that it was not their consciences that led these zealous men (as we related before) thus to stickle against the queen’s supremacy and the English liturgy, but rather some other politic ends, is evident, by what they and other such chief papists did in cool blood declare in king Edward’s days: which convinced Bernard Gilpin, a diligent inquirer, and contemporary with them, of the unsoundness of the papal religion. Of which matter we have this notable relation, in his own letter to his brother George Gilpin, 1575: “That in his desires to search out truth, he repaired to [Tonstal] the bishop of Durham, that he might be further instructed: who told him, that in the matter of transubstantiation, Innocentius, pope the third of that name, had done unadvisedly, in making it an article of faith. And further confessed, that the pope committed a great fault in the business touching indulgences, and other things. That in conferring with Dr. Redman, a man of eminent virtues and great scholarship, he affirmed to him, that the Book of Common Prayer, [then newly composed,] was an holy book, and agreeable to the gospel. That afterwards one of the fellows of Queen’s college told him, that he heard Dr. Chedsey say among his friends, that it must come to this point, that the protestants must grant unto them [papists] a real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and they likewise give way unto the protestants in the opinion of transubstantiation. Dr. Weston [another chief papist in Oxford] made a long oration touching the supper of the Lord, to be administered under both kinds. Mr. Morgan [another great disputant] told him, [Gilpin,] that Dr. Ware, a man most famous for life and learning, affirmed unto him, that the principal sacrifice of the church of God was the sacrifice of thanksgiving. This was his answer, when Gilpin demanded of him, what could be said for the sacrifice of the mass. And lastly, that the bishops in this kingdom, at that time, confuted the primacy of the pope both in words and writing.”

    Among other acts passed this session, there were two private ones; one concerning cardinal Pole, and the other concerning cathedral and collegiate churches; which must have some mention here.

    That relating to the late cardinal was, that whereas a parliament in the first and second of king Philip and queen Mary had repealed and taken off his attaint, that lay upon him by act of parliament in the 31st of king Henry VIII. and had cleared him of every branch and article of that act, and also of all indictments and processes of outlawry procured against him, many questions had been moved upon some words in the said act of repeal: as, from what time that act should extend or take effect; it was declared by this present act, that it should take effect, as touching any estate, right, or title, from the time of making the said act. And that the act made under king Henry should be of force and effect, for all the mean acts and things, happening or done before the making of the said act of repeal: which was a prudent act for the stopping or ending many contentious lawsuits that might be, or probahly had been commenced, for the recovery of any estates or lands belonging to the said cardinal, and disposed of by king Henry unto others.

    The act concerning cathedral and collegiate churches, was to empower the queen to make statutes for divers such ecclesiastical foundations and schools erected either by king Henry VIII. king Edward, queen Mary, or cardinal Pole, in case of some defect of good rules, orders, and constitutions thereunto appointed. And that she might, at her pleasure, alter or change, augment or diminish those statutes and ordinances of the foresaid churches, schools, and corporations. And that all such statutes, which the queen should appoint under her great seal of England, should be kept and observed, notwithstanding any former rule or constitution whatsoever: and that they should remain good and effectual to all intents and purposes. This was an act of great use and service for the intended reformation. Both these private acts I have thought not unworthy a room in my Repository.

    But among the good acts made by this parliament, one was wanting, though, as it seems, laboured by the protestant divines to be brought about.

    It was, to revive king Edward’s act for the marriage of priests, which queen Mary had repealed. But the queen would not be brought so far to countenance the conjugal state of her clergy. This troubled not a little the divines, especially such as were married, as was Dr. Sandys, and Dr. Parker, and Mr. Lever now very lately, and divers more. Of this matter Sandys speaks in a letter, dated April ult. to Parker, then in the country; telling him, “that no law was made concerning the marriage of priests, but that it was left, as it were, in medio; and that the queen would wink at it, but not establish it by law: which is nothing else, said he, but to bastard our children.” The inconvenience hereof was, that the clergy was fain to get their children legitimated So I find did Parker his son Matthew.

    But to return to the English liturgy: notwithstanding this opposition of speeches and arguments made by popish bishops and others against this bill for the Book of Common Prayer, it passed, as was said before, into an act of uniformity: and was to begin to take effect at St. John Baptist’s day ensuing. This was but the reestablishment of king Edward’s book, set forth in the fifth and sixth year of his reign, with these few changes, as they are mentioned in the said act; one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year; the form of the litany altered and corrected; and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants. But besides these mentioned in the act, there were some others, as shall be shewn by and by.

    CHAPTER 4.

    Divines review the Common Prayer Book. Secretary Cecil’s influence therein. Guest, a very learned man, his labours about it.

    Posture of receiving. King Edward’s ornaments. An objection of Dr. Boxal against the communion office: wherein the present book varied from king Edward’s book. Dr. Haddon’s account of the English service. Foreign churches rejoice at it: but some English dislike it. BUT great pains had been used in reviewing of the old Common Prayer Book, and weighing all things in it; to render it fit to be presented to the parliament, to confirm it by an act. In this business the divines, Dr. Sandys, Dr. Bill, and the rest above mentioned, were diligently employed at sir Thomas Smith’s house in Westminster. And in this affair, sir William Cecil, the queen’s secretary, was a great dealer and director; and was very earnest about the book. Here let me insert what Dr. Sampson, the great puritan, in the year 1574, wrote to him, being then lord Burghley, when the said doctor urged him to reform the established government in the church, and to alter the episcopacy for Calvin’s discipline, which he was too wise and too knowing to do. He called to mind what he did in the beginning of the queen’s reign in repairing of religion. “What your authority,” said he, “credit, and doing then was, you know, God knows, and there are witnesses of it.” And when Edward Dering, another great labouter for the abolishing of episcopal government, had charged him with neglect of religion, and unhandsomely and untruly told him, “that he [the lord Burghley] had for many years looked upon religion eminus, and now scarcely loved it;” he, in a concern to be charged so unjustly, answered Dering’s letter with another, shewing him therein, “how active he was above others in propagating religion in the beginning of the queen, ‘and that he underwent many and great labours in anxieties and disquiets of mind: and that he did cominus dimicare in establishing it, enduring great contestation in it.” And he said true; for there was indeed great opposition now made to the reformation of religion by many men at court. And had it not been for Cecil’s wisdom, diligence, and interest with the queen, in all likelihood it had not proceeded with that roundness it did. This I set down here, as a debt of gratitude owing from this church to his memory.

    But to go no further in this place in discourse concerning him, than as to his influence in the English liturgy; he appointed Guest, a very learned man, (afterwards archdeacon of Canterbury, the queen’s almoner, and bishop of Rochester,) to be joined ,with the rest of the revisers of the book; and, as I conjecture, substituted him in the room of Dr. Parker, being absent, at least some part of the time, by reason of sickness. Him the secretary required diligently to compare both king Edward’s communion books together; and from them both to frame a book for the use of the church of England, by correcting and amending, altering and adding, or taking away, according to his judgment, and the ancient liturgies: which when he had done, and a new service book being finished by him and the others appointed thereunto, the said Guest conveyed it unto the secretary, together with a letter to him containing his reasons for his own emendations and alterations; and therein particular satisfaction given unto divers things, many whereof seem to have been hints and questions of the secretary’s, pursuant to the settlement of the liturgy.

    As first , Whether such ceremonies as were lately taken away by king Edward’s book might not be resumed, not being evil in themselves?

    II. Whether the image of the cross were not to be retained?

    III. Whether processions should not be used?

    IV. Whether in the celebration of the communion, priests should not use a cope beside a surplice?

    V. Whether the communion should be divided into two parts? [that is, the office or book of the communion.] And whether a part thereof should be read to all without distinction, and another to the communicants only, the rest being departed?

    VI. Whether the creed is rightly placed in the communion office; as though it were to be repeated by the communicants only?

    VII. Whether it be not convenient to continue the use of praying for the dead in the communion?

    VIII. Whether the prayer of consecration in the first communion book should be left out?

    IX. Whether the sacrament were, according to the first book, to be received into the communicant’s mouth, or to be delivered into his hand?

    X. Whether the sacrament were to be received standing or kneeling?

    To all these Guest gave learned answers: and thereby vindicated what alterations were newly made in the book prepared to be laid before the parliament. And by this writing it appears, that the main care of the revisal and preparation of the book lay upon that reverend divine, whom I suppose Parker recommended to the secretary to supply his absence. And for his pains was soon after by him, when archbishop, rewarded with the archdeaconry of Canterbury. But thus Guest having shewed good cause, as he thought, why the service was set forth by him and his company as it was, he concluded his paper, “beseeching God, for his mercy in Christ, to cause the parliament with one voice to enact it, and the realm with true heart to use it.” This discourse of Guest, shewing him to have been a solid and well-read man, I have transcribed from the original, and put in among the monuments in the end of the book.

    What the original draught of the service book was, as it came from the divines’ hands, and was presented to the house, would be worth knowing:

    I suppose very little was altered by the parliament; yet something, it seems, was. For it appears, by Guest’s paper, that the posture of receiving the sacrament, either kneeling or standing, was left indifferent in the book by the divines, and that every one might follow the one way or the other: for this reason, to teach men that it was lawful to receive either way. But the parliament, I suppose, made a change here, enjoining the ancient posture of kneeling, as was in the old book.

    April was almost spent before the divines had finished this new service book; wherein was a proviso to retain the ornaments which were used in the church in the first and second years of king Edward VI. until it pleased the queen to take order for them. “Our gloss upon this text,” saith Dr. Sandys in a letter to Dr. Parker, “is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that others, in the mean time, shall not convey them away; but that they may remain for the queen.” But this.must be looked upon as the conjecture of a private man.

    The particular exceptions that were made to this book, when it lay before the parliament, I cannot tell; but I find Boxal, who was dean of Windsor, and had been secretary to queen Mary, and still it seems at court, found much fault with one passage in the communion office; namely, that in the consecration of the elements there was not a thanksgiving: for Christ, said he, took bread, and gave thanks; and in the consecration here they give not thanks. This he put into the lord treasurer’s head, and endeavoured, according to the interest he had with the queen, to alienate her from passing the act. The divines gave their reasons for what they did; and their particular reason for this may be seen in Guest’s paper beforesaid. But by the means of secretary Cecil, and the great esteem the queen had for him and his advice, the divines were in good hope their enemies should not prevail; and their hopes were not deceived.

    The book came out with small variation from the second book of king Edward. I will set down a note of the differences verbatim, as archbishop Whitgift afterwards, upon some reasons, sent them to the lord treasurer Burghley. Which note was thus endorsed by that lord’s own hand:

    Archbishop of Canterbury; Differences betwixt the Book of Prayers of K.

    Edward and of Q. Elizabeth.” “ First , King Edward his second book differeth from her majesty’s book in the first rubric, set down in the beginning of the book: for king Edward’s second book hath it thus; “The morning and evening prayer shall be used in such place of the church, chapel, or chancel; and the minister shall turn him, as the people may best hear. And if there be any controversy therein, the matter shall be referred to the ordinary, and he or his deputy shall appoint the place. And the, &c. “Whereas the queen’s book hath it thus; “The morning and evening prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the ordinary of the place. And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past. “Again, King Edward’s second book hath it thus; “Again, here is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope. But being archbishop or bishop, shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only. “The queen’s book hath it; “And here is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church, as were in use by authority of parliament in the second year of the reign of king Edward the sixth, according to the act of parliament set forth in the beginning of this book. “ Secondly , In king Edward’s second book, in the litany there are these words; From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities; which are not in her majesty’s book. “ Thirdly , In the litany, her majesty’s book hath these words more than are in king Edward’s second book, viz. Strengthen in the true worshipping of thee in righteous ness and true holiness of life, &c. “ Fourthly , In the end of the litany there is no prayer in king Edward’s second book for the king, nor for the state of the clergy. And the last collect set in her majesty’s book next before the first Sunday in Advent, and beginning, O God, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy, is not in king Edward’s second book. Further, there are two collects appointed for the time of dearth and famine, whereas her majesty’s book hath but one. And in king Edward’s second book this note is given of the prayer of St. Chrysostom, The litany shall ever end with this collect following; which note is not in her majesty’s book. Fifthly, King Edward’s second book appointeth only these words to be used, when the bread is delivered at the communion, Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving. And when the cup is delivered, Drink this in remembrance that Christs blood was shed for thee, and be thankful. [Whereas in her majesty’s book, at the delivering of the bread, these words must be said, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this, &c. And at the delivery of the cup these words, The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto ever lasting life. Drink this,” &c.] And thus the pure worship of God was again happily established in this nation. It highly indeed offended papists abroad, as well as at home: and they represented it to the world, as though hereby all religion were abandoned in England. Thus did Hieronymus Osorius, a Portuguese bishop, (a man famed in those times for eloquence,) in an epistle which he took the confidence to write to queen Elizabeth about the year 1562: that” all rites and sacraments and sacred things were overthrown to the very foundations.” But Dr. Haddon, master of requests to the queen, a grave and wise civilian, and who very well knew what was done in this reformation of the church of England, took occasion hence, in his epistle responsory to this foreigner, (in no less eloquent a style,) briefly to give him and the world this account of our rites of religion now reformed. “ First , Because faith,” said he, “cometh by hearing, we send teachers of the holy scriptures to all the coasts and corners of our country, to instruct the people in all the duties of piety, and to inform them in the true worship of God. Then, we have a public form of prayers, collected out of the sacred scriptures, ratified by authority of parliament as we call the assent of the three estates of the commonwealth; from whence we do not suffer any to stray or vary. Providing in both, as much as we can, that the precept of the Holy Ghost be obeyed, that proclaimeth, He that speaketh in the church must use the oracle or word of God in it; and then, that all be of one mind. The sacrament we do, as near as possible, take care to administer according to the prescript of scripture and the example of the ancient church, as our Lord Jesus Christ first instituted it with his disciples. All this is set forth in our mother tongue: inasmuch as it is a great folly to utter that before God which we know not what it is; and it manifestly impugneth the sound doctrine of St. Paul, together with all ancient examples of the apostolical churches.

    We perform the imposition of hands, the celebration of matrimony, the bringing to church women after childbirth, and the burial of the dead, with solemn and public offices: that all things may be done in the churches conveniently and in order, as we know well we are admonished to do in the New Testament. As for times, places, days, and other circumstances, there is in effect no change made among us: nor in all our religion is any thing new, unless what had either evident absurdity in it, or express impiety.” Thus Haddon.

    And indeed concerning our holy service thus settled, to be used in the public worship, it was commonly urged by the friends of the reformation in those times, how agreeable it was to the holy scripture; that some part of it was the very word of God, and the rest was framed according to that word. And as to that part of it that consisted of the catechism, it was also a great part of it God’s express words, (as the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer,) and that it taught young people so much of the knowledge of scripture, that is, God’s word, that children hereby knew more of Christian religion, than the oldest before, bred up in the former superstition. For thus did another great divine and bishop (sometime an exile) speak to these offended papists: “Our service hath nothing in it but what is written in God’s book, the holy Bible, (where no lie can be found,) saving Te Deum, and a few collects and prayers; which, although they be not contained in the scripture, yet, differing in words, they agree in sense and meaning with the articles of the faith, and the whole body of the scripture. None is so ignorant, but he sees the popish service and doctrine to agree little with the scriptures, and ours to contain nothing else but scriptures....... Is that newfangled and schismatical, [as they had charged it,] that containeth nothing but the doctrine of the prophets and apostles?”

    And then again, to prove that our faith is right, as well as our worship, he added, “that the faith of a Christian man is generally contained in the creed, and particularly declared in the scripture at large.” And then he proceeded, “that we do esteem these articles of the Christian faith so much, with the Lord’s prayer and the ten commandments of Almighty God, that by common order it is appointed (and good ministers practise it) that children might learn them, not in a tongue they understand not, as the pope would have them, but in their mother tongue; with such a short declaration of it by a catechism, that now a young child of ten years old can tell more of his duty towards God and man, than an old man of their bringing up can do of sixty or eighty years old.”

    The great and good archbishop Cranmer’s judgment of king Edward’s Book of Common Prayer may deserve here to have a place. When bishop Gardiner would have fortified his corrupt doctrine of the sacrament out of that book, and asserted that the receiving of the body and blood of Christ into our mouths was a teaching set forth there, and there catholicly spoken of, the said archbishop thus answered: “That the Book of Common Prayer neither used any such speech, nor taught any such doctrine; and that he [the archbishop] did not in any point improve [i.e. disprove] that godly book, nor vary from it; and that no man could mislike it, that had any godliness in him, joined with knowledge.”

    To which passages let me add, that, as in the beginning of this settlement of religion by this Book of Common Prayer, the papists were the chief persons that were disgusted, and opposed it, so afterwards divers protestants among ourselves found great fault with it: the vindication of which Dr. Bancroft (another archbishop of Canterbury afterwards) undertook, in a sermon at St. Paul’s, February 1588. Wherein he told his auditory, how glad all the churches of Europe were at this establishment of religion in the beginning of this queen’s reign. Then he shewed what pains were taken in reforming the book; and brought divers testimonies of godly learned men, to prove that the book was in a manner void of all reprehension.

    Yet it is true, that divers of our English, in the time of their exile, living and conversing in some of the reformed churches abroad, had imbibed a better opinion of the model of their church-worship than this at home now established, and were very desirous to bring it in, and use it instead of our liturgy; and certain eminent members of those foreign churches had applied to the queen, for an indulgence to these her subjects in this matter. But she, resolving firmly to adhere to her laws, would not permit of this variety of public worship; and wrote thus courteously, but steadfastly, in answer to them: “That it was not with her safety, honour, and credit, to permit diversity of opinions in a kingdom where none but she and her council governed; not owning either imperial or papal powers, as several of the princes and states there did, and were glad to compound with them.” And thereby she satisfied several of them.

    CHAPTER 5.

    A disputation at Westminster in parliament time, between some papists and protestants, before a great assembly of the nobility.

    The questions. The papists decline the dispute. The argument of the protestants. Jewel’s wish for a disputation. The popish disputants punished. DURING this session of parliament, there be two or three other things that must be remembered, relating to religion. The first is concerning a conference between some popish bishops and other learned men of that communion, and certain protestant divines, held in the month of March, by order of the queen’s privy council, to be performed in their presence: eight on one side, and eight on the other.

    For whereas it is said by the fight reverend the author of the History of the Reformation, that there were nine and nine on a side, according as Holinshed indeed sets it down, it is an error; as appears by a letter of Dr. Richard Cox, one of the disputants on the protestants’ side, written to Weidner, a learned man at Wormes, therein giving a relation of this conference, mentioning but eight; as likewise by the account thereof kept in the paper office, and transcribed thence into the Collections of the said History of the Reformation, that speaks of four bishops and four doctors only appointed to dispute. And these were White, Watson, Baine, and Scot, bishops of Winchester, Lincoln, Coventry and Litchfield, and Chester; and the doctors Cole, dean of St. Paul’s; Langdale, Harpsfield, and Chedsey, archdeacons of Lewes, Canterbury, and Middlesex: and on the protestants’ side were these eight only; John Scory, late bishop of Chichester, David Whitehead, John Jewel, John Aelmer, Richard Cox, Edmund Grindal, Robert Horne, and Edmund Guest; as they are set down by Dr. Matthew Parker’s own hand, at the end of his MS. paper, conmining the protestants’ discourse upon the first proposition. So the bishop of Carlisle on the papists’ side, and Sandys on that of the protestants’, are misadded to the aforesaid disputants, though probably they were present at the conference: and we find that the bishop of Carlisle was present the second day; and so was Turbervile, bishop of Exeter, too, and abbot Fecknam.

    But because the bishop of Sarum in his History, and Mr. Fox before him, have set down at large the transactions of this conference, therefore I shall pass it over with more brevity, only relating somewhat perhaps by them omitted, and rectifying somewhat mistaken. Hethe, archbishop of York, did make the motion, that this dispute should be managed especially by writing: which way was most acceptable also to the protestants; and was once propounded by Hoper, and some other divines in prison under queen Mary, after they saw how unfairly the disputation was carded (all by noise and confusion) with Cranmer and Ridley at Oxford. Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, approved and required such a way of disputing with some papists that he had to do with. Conferences,” saith he, “in words do often engender heat, or produce extravagancies and mistakes: writing is a way more calm, more certain, and such as a man cannot depart from:” in his letter to Mrs. Cheubien, in the nunnery. And, according to this motion, the queen ordered it should be managed in writing on both parties, for avoiding of much altercation in words: and she ordered likewise, that the papist bishops should first declare their minds, with their reasons, in writing; and then the others, if they had any thing to say to the contrary, should the same day declare their opinions. And so each of them should deliver their writings to the other, to be considered what were to be disproved therein; and the same to declare in writing at some other convenient day.

    All this was fully agreed upon. And hereupon divers of the nobility and estates of the realm, understanding that such a meeting should be, made earnest means to her majesty, that the bishops and divines might put their assertions into English, and read them in that tongue, for their better satisfaction and understanding, and for enabling their own judgments to treat and conclude of such laws as might depend thereupon. And so both parts met at Westminster abbey: the lords and others of the privy council were present, and a great part of the nobility and of the commons. But while all were in expectation to hear these learned men and their arguments, the bishop of Winchester, Dr. White, said, they were mistaken, that their assertions and reasons should be written, and so only recited out of a book: adding, that their book was not then ready written; but that they were ready to argue and dispute: and therefore that they would only at that time repeat in speech what they had to say to the first proposition. This, with some words, was passed off: and then the bishop of Winchester and his colleagues appointed Dr. Cole, dean of St. Paul’s, to be the utterer of their minds: who, partly by speech, and partly by reading authorities written, and at certain times being informed by the colleagues what to say, made a declaration of their meanings, and their reasons to their first proposition.

    Which being ended, they were asked by the privy council, if any of them had any more to say. They said, No. Then the other part was licensed to shew their minds, which they did according to the first order; exhibiting all that they meant to propound, in a book written: which, after a prayer and invocation made to Almighty God, and a protestation to stand to the doctrine of the catholic church built upon scripture, was distinctly read by Dr. Horn (who was the penner of the same) upon the first proposition. And so the assembly was quietly dismissed. This was on Friday, the last day of March. The question then disputed was, That it was against the word of God, and the custom of the primitive church, to use a tongue unknown to the people in common prayer and administration ode sacraments.

    When Monday, the second day of conference, came, and all the grave assembly were set, White, bishop of Winchester, and the rest of that side, refused to proceed on the second question, but would by all means insist still upon the first, argued the last day; and, pretending they had more to say of it, were resolved to read upon that argument only: urging much, that they and their cause should suffer prejudice, if they should not treat of the first. And Watson, bishop of Lincoln, striving to have his turn of speaking, hotly said, that they were not used indifferently, that they might not be allowed to declare in writing what they had to say of the first question; and added, that what Dr. Cole spake in the last assembly was extempore, and of himself, and with no forestudied talk, and that it was not prepared to strengthen their cause. These sayings made the nobility and others the auditors frown, knowing that Cole spake out of a paper which he held in his hand, and read in the same: and that according to the instruction of the bishops, who pointed unto several places in his paper with their fingers, for his direction. Watson also complained that their adversaries had longer warning than they: and that they themselves had notice of it but two days before, and were fain to set up the whole last night. But Bacon, the lord keeper, told them, that at the last conference, when Cole had done, he asked them, the bishops, whether what he had spoken was what they would have him say, and they granted it: and whether he should say any more ha the matter, and they answered, No. But for their satisfaction the lord keeper added, that they should at present, according to the order agreed upon, discourse upon the second question; and at another meeting, when the day came for them both to confirm their first question, they should have liberty to read what they had further to say upon the first. To which all the council there present willingly condescended: but this also the bishops would not be contented with. At last Hethe, archbishop of York, told them they were to blame, for that there was a plain decreed order for them to treat at this time of the second question, and bade them leave their contention. Then the bishops started another matter of quarrel, and said, it was contrary to the order in disputations that they should begin; for that their side had the negative, said the bishop of Chester: and therefore they that were on the affirmative should begin: that they were the defending party: and that it was the school manner, and likewise the manner in Westminster hall, that the plaintiff should speak first, and then the accused party answer. To which the keeper told them, they began willingly on the first question; and the protestants told them, that they had the negative then. Horne wondered that they should so much stand upon it, who should begin. Then the bishops charged the protestants to have been the propounders of the questions. But the keeper told them, that the questions were of neither of their propounding, but offered from the council indifferently to them both. Then Bayne, bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, minding to run from the matter, began to question with the protestants, what church they were of? saying, that they must needs try that first: for there were many churches in Germany; and he demanded of Horn, which of those churches he was of? who prudently answered, that he was of Christ’s catholic church. The keeper told them, they ought not to run into voluntary talk of their own inventing. The bishop of Litchfield said, that they, on their part, had no doubt, but assuredly stood in the truth. But those other men pretended to be doubtful. Therefore they should first bring what they had to impugn them, the bishops, withal. And the bishop of Chester told the lords plainly, if themselves began first, and the others spake after, then they speaking last should have the advantage to come off with applause of the people, and the verity on their side not be so well marked. And therein indeed he spake out the true cause of all this jangling.

    And hereupon Winchester in short said, he was resolved, except they began, he would say nothing. When the lord keeper could not persuade them, he spoke of departing. And Winchester, as though this were the issue he desired, presently cried, Contented, and offered to go. But the keeper first asked them man by man, to know their resolution, and they all, save one, Fecknam, abbot of Westminster, utterly denied to read, without the other party began; and some so very disorderly and irreverently as had not been seen in so honourable an assembly of the two estates of the realm, nobility and commons then assembled, besides the presence of the queen’s council.

    And so, without any more dispute, all was dismissed. But the lord keeper at parting said these words to them; “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us.” And so they did; for, for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the Tower of London; and the rest, saving the abbot of Westminster, were bound to make their personal appearance before the council, and not to depart the cities of London and Westminster till their order. A brief account of this which I have set down is given in a small book, printed long since by Jug and Cawood, by the queen’s authority. The original copy whereof is in the Paperoffice; and published from thence by the bishop of Sarum in his History. It is also extant in Holinshed’s History of Queen Elizabeth, and at the end of Fox’s Acts.

    Dr. Cole’s paper upon the first question, together with that of Dr. Horn, remains among archbishop Parker’s MSS. in the volume entitled Synodalia: whence they are both published in the History of the Reformation. But I observe Horn’s excellent preface omitted there, as indeed it is in the MS. the author made use of; which I have therefore supplied in the Appendix. And a great part of Horn’s discourse, about the middle thereof, is also left out; consisting of authorities out of St. Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Dionysius, Cyprian, and a Constitution of Justinian: which may be supplied out of Fox’s Acts, towards the conclusion, where the same learned discourse is preserved. And let it be marked, that that discourse which the right reverend author of the History of the Reformation sets down, as that which Cole first read, must be mistaken: for it plainly appears not to be read before Horn’s discourse, but after it, being a reply to him. For thus Cole begins; “Most honourable, Whereas these men here present have declared openly, it is repugnant and contrary to the word of God to have the common prayer and ministration of sacraments in the Latin tongue; ye shall understand, that, to prove this their assertion, they have brought in as yet only one place of scripture, taken out of St. Paul his first epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 14:with certain other places of holy doctors, whereunto answer is not now to be made; but when the book which they read shall be delivered unto us according to the appointment made in that behalf, God willing, we shall make answer,” &c. as it follows in Colds paper. By this preface it is undeniably evident, that this cannot be the paper that Cole first began with.

    And I conclude it was that which the bishops had prepared, and made all that ado to have read at the second meeting, but would not then be permitted.

    The second question which was to be disputed, but was not, by reason of the refusal of the popish side, as is above said, was, That every particular church hath authority to institute, change, and abrogate ceremonies and rites of the church, so that it be to edification. A learned discourse in writing was prepared by the protestant side for the proof of this; which follows in the said MS. where the other discourses are. And because little account is given of this in the bishop of Sarum’s History, only what we find thereof a page or two after, I will here shew briefly the arguments. The method was, to prove this assertion by God’s word, by ancient writings, and by examples. The proof from the word of God consisted in these six particulars following:

    I. All ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies are things that appertain to order and decency. But St. Paul committed to the church of Corinth the disposition of all such things: and committing that authority to that particular church, he consequently committed it to all other particular churches.

    II. That the principal foundation, whereupon may be gathered, that any council or assembly hath authority to change or institute rites and ceremonies, stood upon those words of Christ, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name. But in a particular church, not only two or three, but also great numbers may be met together in the name of Christ.

    III. The authority of the church, both universal and particular, to institute, abrogate, and change rites and ceremonies, dependeth only upon obedience to Christ and his word, in directing of all things to the edification of faith and charity.

    IV. Ceremonies, that were profitable at first, may grow by continuance to abuse, and be hurtful. And as for general councils, they come together but seldom; nor can do other, by reason of wars and troubles in the world. So that if particular churches may not remove rites tending to idolatry, great numbers of souls may perish before general councils can come together.

    V. Look what authority the seven several pastors and churches in Asia had to reform the things that were amiss among every of them; the same authority now have the several pastors and churches in all kingdoms and provinces.

    VI. If a particular church were bound to retain and exercise, and might not abrogate evil rites and customs instituted by men, then were the same church also bound to obey men more than God; who hath commanded, that all things should be done in the church to edify.

    But because their adversaries stayed themselves most upon old councils, and the writings of doctors and fathers, therefore, to match them with their own weapon, the rest of the discourse consisted partly in the proof of their allegations from thence, (which is very large,) and partly in examples in ancient times. Lastly, they proceeded to answer objections, which they promised to consider more at large, when their adversaries’ book should be exhibited. This, though long, is an excellent learned discourse, but by whom composed I know not, perhaps by Jewel or Guest, though I make no doubt the whole club was concerned in it, and contributed their assistance.

    The whole is recommended to the reader’s perusal in the Appendix.

    Therein they said, “that the old councils thought it a thing commodious for the church to have variety in ceremonies. That such uniformity of rites and ceremonies as was then seen in the popish churches, was not in the church when it was most pure, but was brought in after, when the bishop of Rome had unjustly aspired to the primacy, and was continued in those churches rather for a public recognition of his monarchy, than for any edification. That it was more for the profit of the church to have some variety of ceremonies in divers places, than to have all one; that the liberty of the church might remain, that in indifferent things every church might abound in their own sense; and that ceremonies might not be too much esteemed, and be made equal with God’s word. That late experience in this our country shewed, that the abrogation of many ceremonies established by general authority was lawful and profitable. For that in king Henry’s time many superstitious observations and idolatrous rites were abolished; and that by the consent of many of them which now were, or lately had been, adversaries; as pilgrimages, pardons, superstitious opinions of purgatory, holy water, masses for cattle, scala coeli, &c. And that even in that late time of queen Mary it appeared that they were ashamed to restore the same again.

    Then they proceeded to instance in several superstitious fables out of the Festival Book, which in time past were propounded to the people for wholesome doctrines, but indeed were occasions of dissolute life and sin. One whereof was, of a woman which never did good deed, but only that she had continually kept a candle burning before our lady; and of a candle that by our lady’s appointment was kept burning before her when she was in hell; which light the devils could not abide: and by reason thereof she was rescued from hell, and restored to life again; and then became a good woman. They demanded whether, when in the late days there was so much preaching against reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, there was ,any inveighing against this Festival, or such like superstitious books; and when strait inquisition had been made for English Bibles and Testaments, to have them burned, they left others to judge whether the like diligence had been used for abolishing those books.”

    They ended this their learned argument with some brief consideration of their adversaries’ reasons concerning “the authority of general councils, the continuance of time, and their possession in the church. As to the two last, they bade their adversaries prove their things true, and then allege time. For against the eternal truth of God’s word, no continuance of time can make prescription. And that they should never be able to prove the bishop of Rome head of the universal church by the scriptures, (by which title he claimed his authority,) nor that under his obedience all Christians ought to live, under pain of damnation: this they should never be able to do, as had been often proved in the realm and elsewhere: and that therefore the authority of their church was nothing, and their possession unjust.”

    Great pity it was this disputation ended so abruptly, and proceeded not as was designed, that this discourse beforementioned might have been read to that grave, honourable, and numerous audience; and that this argument might have been further pursued, by considering and answering the adversaries’ papers, as the protestant side were prepared to do. But the popish disputants thought it their wisest course to forbear, lest they might have been too closely pinched in their cause, if they had gone on; and therefore warily declined entering further into this contest, lest the weakness of their arguments might more openly appear to all.

    It was Jewel’s desire that this disputation had gone on; and his wish that some such public conference might have been appointed, for the full satisfying men’s minds in these controversies, and for making the truth more evidently appear to all. Thus in one of his sermons, reflecting upon this last disputation, he hath these words: “That however it might not become him to set order in these things, yet, if it were lawful, he would wish that once again, as time would serve, there might be had a quiet and a sober disputation; and that each part might be required to shew their grounds, without selfwill, and without affection, not to maintain or breed contention; (for he trusted it should be the way to take away all contention;) but only that the truth might be known, many consciences quieted, and the right stone tried by comparison of the counterfeit. For at the last disputation that should have been, every one knew which part gave over, and would not meddle. And whereas some would say, the judge would not be indifferent; alas! said he, what man that doubted his own matter would ever think the judges indifferent?

    But, he added, [none should be appointed judges; but] let the whole world, let our adversaries themselves be judges here, (affection put apart.) What can we offer more? Let them call for their doctors and councils. If they come, said he, but with one sufficient doctor or council, they may have the field. That he spake not this to boast himself of any learning, but that the goodness of the cause made him the bolder. Neither would he have said so much as he had in this behalf, saving that the matter itself, and very necessity, forced him so to do: since it were great pity that God’s truth should be defaced with privy whisperings, that whole houses should be overthrown, men’s consciences wounded, the people deceived.”

    The resentments of the court, for this sullen and refractory behaviour of the popish disputants, appeared soon after, by these orders of the council against them. April the 3d, the lords sent a letter to the lieutenant of the Tower, with the bodies of the bishops of Winton and Lincoln, (who had given most offence,) and willed him to keep them in sure and several wards: suffering them nevertheless to have each of them one of their own men to attend upon them, and their own stuff for their bedding, and other necessary furniture; and to appoint them to some convenient lodging meet for persons of their sort: using them also otherwise well, especially the bishop of Lincoln, for that he was sick. For which respects also, and because this was his sick night, the said lieutenant was willed the rather to have regard unto him, and to spare him some of his own lodging and stuff for this night: and also to surlier his chirurgeon, and such other as should be needful for his health, to have access to him from time to time. And the same day the lords of the council did appoint sir Ambrose Cave and sir Richard Sackvile, [two of the council,] to repair to the houses of the foresaid bishops here in London, and both to peruse their studies and writings, and also to take order with their officers for the surety and stay of their goods.

    And the next day, being April 4, this order passed upon the rest of these offenders, that Rare, bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, Cuthbert, bishop of Chester, and Owin, bishop of Carlisle, Henry Cole, LL. D. John Harpsfield, S. T. P. and William Chedsey, S. T. P. should all (and accordingly did) enter into bonds severally to make their personal appearances before the lords of the council as often as they sat, and not to depart the cities of London and Westminster, and the suburbs, until they should have licence so to do: and further to stand unto and pay such fines as should be by the lords of the council assessed upon them, for their contempt committed against the queen’s majesty’s order, as the obligation ran. The first of these bishops was bound in 2000 marks sterling, the second in 1000l . the third in 500 mark, Dr. Cole in 1000 mark, Dr. Harpsfield in 500 mark, and Dr. Chedsey in 300l .

    And so accordingly they all, both bishops and doctors, did from day to day come personally and wait upon the council from the 5th of April till the 12th of May next, desiring daily their appearances to be recorded. The day before, viz. May the 11th, the council came to assess the lines which each of them were bound to stand to for their contempt, and were as follows: the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, 333l . 6s. 8d.; the bishop of Carlisle, 250l .; the bishop of Chester, 200 mark; Dr. Cole, 500 mark; Dr. Harpsfield, 40l .; and Dr. Chedsey, 40 mark. The next day, May the 12th, when they came to make their personal appearances, Dr. Harpsfield paid his 40l . into the hands of William Smith, clerk of the council; and Dr. Chedsey his 40 mark. And so they were discharged, recognisances of their good abesring being first taken of them. How and when the greater fines were paid by the rest, I know not, only I find these favourable orders of council for the two bishops in the Tower.

    April 27, letters were sent from the lords to the lieutenant of the Tower, to suffer the bishop of Lincoln, presently remaining in his ward, to come at such times as he by his discretion should think meet to his table, for the better relief of his quartan ague: and also to have the liberty of the house, as prisoners heretofore, having the liberty of the Tower, have used: the ordering whereof was referred to his discretion. And May the 10th, the lords sent to the lieutenant their letters, to suffer the bishop of Winchester’s cook from time to time to attend upon him, for the dressing of his meat; so as he spake only with him in his presence, or such as he should appoint. And in like sort to suffer the lady White, his sister, to repair unto him at such times as he should think meet. Thus gently did these bishops and divines feel the displeasure of the lords of the council.

    CHAPTER 6.

    The queen’s marriage motioned. Exchange of bishops’ lands.

    Bishop Cox’s letter to the queen. The bishops elect, their secret app1ication to the queen about it. Considerations about bishops’ temporalities. Commissions for the exchanges. THE parliament had a great desire to see the queen well married, that there might be an heir to the crown: nor did she want suitors in the very entrance upon her kingdom. Philip, king of Spain, late husband to her sister queen Mary, was one of the first. And almost as soon as he, did the emperor make a motion for either of his sons, as I find by some papers among the Burghleian MSS. George Van Helfenstein, baron of Gundelfingen, was in England with the queen, soon after her first coming to the crown, in quality of agent or ambassador from the emperor: then there happened communication between him and sir Thomas Chaloner about the queen’s marriage, which Chaloner and all good men then had their thoughts much bent upon: they talked together of the emperor’s son, the archduke of Austria. And now Van Helfenstein being departed, and at Brussels, wrote March 21, 1558, to Chaloner, and sent him the picture of that duke, which he might shew as he should think most convenient: this representation of him shewed him to be a most comely person, but his mind and inward abilities exceeded his person, as the noble German told Chaloner in his letter; “That if the most excellent virtues and gallant endowments of his soul were known as well to him, as they were to himself and others, he would soon acknowledge they did by many degrees surpass the beauty of his body.” But that picture receiving some damage by the wagons in which it was brought, he promised to send Chaloner another of the duke’s whole body, and of his brother also; wishing that he might have a sight of them both alive, without the help of paint and colour. He told him all the report at Brussels was, that the king of Spain was to marry the queen; although, as he subjoined, men of great authority, when he was in England, seemed not a little to misdoubt it. But he prayed Chaloner, out of their great friendship, to give some account of that whole matter. For that indeed was the very reason why the emperor, who intended to offer to the queen either of his sons, did forbear at present to do it; because he would not any ways disoblige one so nearly related. But if the king’s suit succeeded not, he then requested his friend, the said sir Tho. Chaloner, to give him with all silence an account of it: and then would the emperor put in strongly for one of his sons. And so he did afterwards. But the queen, though she would sometimes retain suitors, yet was not minded to wed herself, but to her kingdom only. How this affair proceeded, and what hand the papists had in it, hoping to effect some benefit to themselves hereby, we shall see hereafter.

    In this parliament was a bill (mentioned before) for exchange of bishops’ lands, and it passed into an act, remaining among the private and unprinted acts of parliament. By virtue whereof authority was given to the queen, on the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, to take into her hands certain of the temporal possessions thereof, recompensing the same with parsonages impropriate and tenths. And soon after this time, there being an avoidance of all, or almost all, the bishoprics, the queen and her courtiers had a fair opportunity to pick and choose what houses, lands, and revenues they pleased, belonging to the episcopal sees throughout England, that were the fairest and the best, and that had no incumbrances upon them; which, no question, was now done; and in lieu thereof were made over to those sees certain parsonages formerly belonging to the monasteries. To many of which parsonages appertained decayed chancels and ruinous houses, and sometimes pensions to be paid out for the maintaining of vicars and curates. And for the tenths, which were also to go in exchange for the bishops’ good lands, these were and would be but ill paid, being to be collected from the clergy, many whereof were indigent, and some obstinate, and so could not or would not pay them without great trouble.

    And, which was worse than this, the tenths being so peculiarly settled upon the crown, the bishops could not have a fight to receive them, unless some law were made in that case, and provided. These and many other inconveniences arising from this act, and well perceived by the clergy, and especially Parker, and other bishops elect, made them sad.

    But to help the matter as well as they could, they put up an address to the queen, suing to her” to stay and remit this exchange, and not to use this liberty which the parliament had given her. And that if they could not obtain that, (to make the best terms they could for themselves,) that the exchanges might be even and equal, and that consideration might be had of the expenses of parsonages, and the ill payment of tenths, and of the advantages and benefits of their lordships and manors. In this address they signified, how much this, if it came to pass, would endanger the decay of hospitality and of learning, and discourage men from serving the church in the ministry.” And to incline the queen to grant this their suit, and lest they should not appear to consider the queen’s great charges daily sustained, (which, it seems, was one of the pretences for this bill,) Parker and the other four elects, who made the address in the name of the province of Canterbury, did offer to give unto her yearly a thousand marks during their lives and continuance in their bishoprics, for and in consideration of the exoneration of the said exchange.

    They took this opportunity also to pray the queen in their own behalf, that they might be discharged of all arrearages of subsidies and tenths past in the days of their predecessors, and in times of vacation; and to be discharged of their own subsidies the first year of their fruits-paying; and that in consideration of their necessary expenses, as in furniture of their houses, and the payment of great fees, to suffer them to enjoy the half year’s rent last past, and that their first-fruits might be abated somewhat, and distributed unto more years, and that she would take their own bonds for payment. In the behalf also of the new bishoprics erected by king Henry, they besought her for their continuance: and that the bishops thereof might nominate and appoint the prebendaries, as other bishops did, for the maintaining of learned men and preachers; and that Cliff might be joined to the see of Rochester; and that from the see of Chester the benefice lately annexed might not be dismembered, in consideration of the smallness of the revenues of those bishoprics. And here let me add, that Cox, bishop of Ely, an ancient and very learned man, and in great esteem both with the queen’s father and brother, and likewise with her, privately on this occasion addressed himself to her, against taking away the bishops’ temporalities by exchanges; in some papers of arguments sent her, shewing the inconvenience and evil, not to say unlawfulness of them. “Forasmuch” (writeth he in one paper to her) “as I am fully persuaded, that God’s Holy Spirit hath adorned your majesty with three excellent graces; first, that you are well instructed in God’s sincere and true religion; secondly, because I have heard you say, that you are not in fear of death, whensoever it shall please our heavenly Father to call you; thirdly, necessarily to follow upon this former, that you work uprightly in conscience and in the fear of God; I am the more bold to become an humble petitioner to your highness, and that alone, without the knowledge or consent of others; to the intent that, if your highness incline to my petition, the grant may come only of your own bountifulness; or if your grace grant not my petition, it may pass in silence, as though never motion had been made thereof. “Mine humble request unto your Majesty is, that it might stand with your highness’ pleasure, to command your officers not to proceed any further in the exchange appertaining to your grace’s bishoprics: which will be as noble and as famous an act as the like hath seldom been seen. The causes which move me to sue unto your majesty are these.”

    This paper goes no further: but in anther paper of the same bishop, in the name of the rest, there be divers considerations urged to her, all writ with his own hand. But whether it was actually delivered her, or only prepared for her, I cannot tell. It begins with apt arguments, taken from scripture, viz.

    I. Genesis 47:Joseph brought all the lands of the kingdom of Egypt unto the possession of king Pharaoh in the extremity of famine; but the lands of the priests remained untouched.

    II. 1 Esdras 7:King Artaxerxes, sending great riches m the building of God’s temple in Jerusalem, commanded all the Jews to be contributors to the same; the priests and Levites being excepted from all impositions and contributions. These examples are written by the Holy Ghost not in vain, but to admonish princes liberally to use God’s ministers, and not withdraw things from them.

    III. Agg. 1:God threatened sore plagues to his people, because they were negligent in building up of the earthly temple. If now then the builders of Christ’s heavenly church be diminished of their wages, God cannot be well pleased.

    IV. Malachi 1:God was mightily angered with his people, because they offered unto God the blind, lame, and worried sacrifice; which therefore was counted Polluted and foul. And God was very angry with his priests, because they would receive such things to be sacrificed.

    Wherefore, if the best be taken from his ministry, and worse put in the place, God will be displeased, both with the takers away, and with his ministers, which agree to the same.

    V. Galatians 3:St. Paul alloweth not that the will of the testator should be altered, by putting to or taking away; especially when the bequests are needfully and godly bestowed. Godly men have bestowed livings and lands upon the ministry of Christ’s gospel, and godly and needful functions in Christ’s church: with what conscience can their godly wills be broken?

    VI. God saith, Malachi 3:that the whole people were cursed with penury, because they defrauded the payment of tithes and first-fruits: and we fear God will not bear it well, that the stipend of his holy ministry should be diminished or impaired.

    VII. Esa. 49:Thus God saith to his church, Erunt reges nutrii tui, et reginae nutrices, Kings and queens shall be patrons and nurses [not spoilers and stepdames] of his church and people. Therefore great kings and princes have not only submitted themselves to Christ’s yoke, but with gifts and Possessions have maintained and conserved the ministry of Christ’s church. Kings and queens of this realm having but a dim knowledge of Christ’s faith, in comparison of your grace, have shewed themselves in all ages honourably beneficial toward the ministry of Christ’s gospel. God forbid that your grace’s affection should in this behalf swerve from the godly examples of your noble progenitors, to the rejoicing of the adversaries to God’s truth and your highness, and to the dismaying of God’s faithful ministers, beside the slanderous talk of the world, which cannot possibly be stayed.

    VIII. Your grace’s father and brother, of honourable memory, took away the foully abused lands and possessions of monks, friars, nuns, &c. But they touched not the possessions of the ministry of God’s holy word and sacraments. Insomuch that when the colleges of the universities were given by act of parliament to your majesty’s father, to change their lands and possessions, he would by no means meddle with them. We most humbly beseech your majesty, of your bountiful goodness and Christian affection toward the ministry of Christ our Saviour, now to do the like, the cause being not unlike. And forasmuch as your godly zeal doth so fervently tender God’s heavenly and true religion, we trust that your highness will tender and encourage by all means the ministers of the same.

    IX. Concerning exchange of lands for impropriations; it will be unto us a grievous burden to take benefices impropered: because we are persuaded in conscience, that the parishes ought to enjoy them, in such sort, and for such godly end, as they were appointed for at the beginning.

    X. We do not disallow the zeal of the honourable parliament, which hath travailed to relieve your grace’s necessity in this miserable time, (yet God knoweth what relief it will be to your majesty in the end,) but under your majesty’s reformation, we put you in remembrance, according to our bounden duty and discharge of our conscience, to weigh this matter by yourself, as God’s holy Spirit shall direct your godly heart in his fear and love towards his heavenly word and sacraments, and the ministry of the same. Finally, We, bearing your majesty like good heart and zeal as your honourable parliament hath expressed, do offer towards the relief of your majesty’s necessity the sums fol lowing, yearly to be paid out of the lands of our bishoprics; making therewith humble requests, that your majesty and your successors will graciously hereafter restore them again, when God of his goodness shall enrich and plentifully furnish the crown of this realm.

    On the other side of the paper stand the names of certain sees, with sums annexed, agreed to be paid to the queen annually by the respective bishops; with intent no doubt, as other bishops should be consecrated to the vacant sees, to have their subscriptions also added, for competent sums of money to be yielded by them.

    Canterbury 200l .

    Hereford 100 mark.

    Ely 200l .

    Chichester 100 mark.

    London100l .

    This paper was thus concluded: “God we call to witness in the last and great day, we say thus much, without any corrupt or sinister affection, for the maintenance of learning in this your realm, for the continuance and increase of true religion, and for the establishing of your majesty’s honour and godly report throughout whole Christendom.”

    There was another paper drawn up by the same bishop’s hand, and prepared for the queen, consisting of more arguments, to dissuade her from these exchanges, which bore this title, Considerations why bishops’ temporalities should not be taken away.

    Bishops heretofore have brought up to be learned, a great number of scholars in the universities, which they shall not be able hereafter belike to do. Bishops heretofore have builded colleges in the universities, for the increase of learning; which hereafter they shall not be able to do. Men are men, and have not always a spiritual eye: and when they see the reward of learning decay, they will not set forth their children to that kind of learning.

    And thus shall learning decay in this realm; and shortly Christ Jesus be utterly forgotten, and darked as much, or more, as in the time of papistry.

    To break the will of the testator, when the will is made to a godly use, it may appear against nature and godliness.

    King Henry VIII. of noble memory erected new bishoprics and new colleges, and endowed them, and never took any land from any of them: to alter his godly will cannot be good.

    Queen Mary restored again to the bishoprics such lands as were taken from them in king Edward’s time: because she thought such taking away to be sacrilege. Reason would, that the true ministers of the church should find as much favour at your highness’s hand, as the false ministers found at the hand of your grace’s predecessor.

    Further, the fact will be ill spoken of through Europe. For the like example hath not been seen: for in Germany, though the bishops have been dispossessed of their lands, but princes, who set forth the gospel, have given to those ministers, but not taken from other bishops. This fact will be slanderous to the gospel: for all men will say, that the gospel is set forth to this end, that the bishops should lose their lands.

    When the bishops’ lands are gone, the kings and queens of this realm shall never have such present relief any where else, as they may have of the bishops, if need should require. Your highness, for the present necessity, may take such sums of them as they may be most able to give; and so likewise at other times.

    Your highness’s ancestors and noble progenitors, yea, your father and brother of most noble memory, have maintained honourably the ministers of God’s holy word; we trust your highness will do the same. The fame of the contrary all true Christians would be sorry to hear. Forasmuch as your majesty doth so fervently tender God’s holy word and true religion, we hope assuredly, that your highness will by all means tender and encourage all godly ministers of the same. It is evident what came to king Balthazzer, because he did bring forth the holy plates and vessels, and used them in banqueting; which Nabuchodonozer had taken out of God’s temple. He was slain the same day. Whereby it may appear, that God willeth not that things appointed to a godly use should be otherwise ordered.

    But notwithstanding all these endeavours of the bishops to the contrary, the queen proceeded roundly in this business. And soon after the parliament was broken up, in order to these exchanges, she appointed commissioners to survey the several vacant bishoprics, (which were now about fourteen, vacant either by death or deprivation,) and to send in their certificates into the exchequer, of the values of all the lands, revenues, &c. pertaining to the respective vacant bishoprics. And besides, she appointed by her letters bearing date in September, other commissioners, viz. the lord treasurer, sir Richard Sackvile, sir Walter Mildmay, and Mr. Keilway, a lawyer, to consider which of these lands she should take into her hands, and what impropriations and tenths it should be convenient to grant instead thereof, The reason of this commission might be, that both the queen might receive congruous benefit and convenience to her royal state hereby, and likewise that the bishoprics might receive no damage, but a just proportion and equal value in the exchanges to be made.

    The queen’s said letter to the lord treasurer and the other commissioners was to this purport: it mentioned an act passed in her late parliament, which, among other things, granted unto her, that upon vacation of every archbishopric or bishopric within the realm, it should be lawful for her to take into her hands and possession as much, and so many, of any of the honours, castles, manors, lands, and tenements, parcel of the possessions of such archbishoprics and bishoprics, as the clear yearly value of all her parsonages impropriate and yearly tenths, within every such bishopric, should yearly amount unto; and for the trial of the very value of such honours, castles, &c. it should be lawful for her to appoint commissioners to survey the same: and thereupon to certify the very clear yearly value, over all charges, to her court of exchequer by such time as should be to the same commissioners appointed, with such other matter, as in the said act thereon made more fully was contained.

    Forasmuch as sithen she had, according to the said act, addressed forth sundry her commissions for the survey of the lands, tenements, &c. of certain archbishoprics and bishoprics presently vacant, the certificates of which commission were in part already returned into the court of exchequer, and the rest looked for daily; she let them wit, that for the proceeding to the end in the said matters, according to the meaning of the said act, knowing their approved wisdoms, diligences, and dexterities in such cases, she had authorized them, four, three, or two of them, to consider diligently, as well the certificates of such lands of such as were already returned, as such others as should hereafter be returned, and certified in the said court: and likewise to consider what parcel of the said lands, &c. should be meetest for her to take into her hands and possessions; and what impropriations or yearly tenths she should in recompence depart withal again; with such further matter in and about the premises, as their wisdoms should think meet for her knowledge: willing them, after the deliberated and advised consideration of the premises, to certify her of their opinion in writing: to the intent she might resolve her determinate pleasure touching the same, as should be thought good unto her.

    CHAPTER 7.

    The behaviour of the English professors and exiles; and of the popish clergy towards them. Consultation about admitting the pope’s nuncio. NOW it is time to look a little back upon the professors of the gospel, who had been so harassed in the late reign; and to observe their present condition and circumstances in this juncture: both how they have behaved themselves, and how the papists behaved themselves with respect to them.

    Some of them who lay close and concealed in the late evil times, and hidden in secret retirements, now crept forth; among these was Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards made archbishop of Canterbury, and sir Thomas Smith: others were exiles abroad, who now basted home, to partake of the blessings they expected under this queen, and to assist in the work of the reformation of religion, which they had, it seems, some secret intimations of. Of these were Cox, Sandys, Grindal, Jewel, Horne, &c.: and many persons of quality and learning, as sir Ant. Cook, Knollys, Wroth, Hales, &c. of the laity. Others chose to stay somewhat longer in their quarters where they were, in Germany, Switzerland, Geneva, or other places; to see first, how things would go in England in this critical time; and to follow and finish works they had in hand.

    Those at Geneva were busy in finishing a more correct English translation of the Bible, and of the Psalms in verse and prose: having the assistance of learned men and other helps, they tarried some time in that place. John Fox was at Basil; (where was a good printing press, the master of which was Oporinus, a learned and able man;) here the said laborious Englishman was detailled in printing, or preparing to print, in the same house, the History of the English Martyrs, in Latin. And Grindal and Sampson were just now coining from Strasburgh to him, to bring him informations from England, and to assist him in the work: but were prevented therein, being urged (as Grindal in a letter, dated December 19, 1558, to Fox, wrote) by friends to take their journey into England, upon this happy change of government.

    But something was done by the aforesaid English congregation of Geneva, (which seems to have been intended to prepare the minds of all the exiles to peace, against their return home,) moving them for an amicable understanding, before they came into England, in respect of the contentions about some church matters, which had been among them at Geneva and Frankford, and other places; yet resolving to follow the best reformed churches they had seen abroad. But other churches of the English exiles resolved not to contend about ceremonies when they should return into England, but submit to the decrees of their superiors. To relate this matter more at large.

    The English church at Geneva, upon the tidings of queen Mary’s death, and the lady Elizabeth’s coming to the crown, thinking now of their coming home, consulted among themselves, and concluded, that it was expedient and necessary, that an unfeigned reconciliation should be betwixt all the churches of the exiles, whatever contests there had been among them before about the Book of Common Prayer and Ceremonies: and that they should so join together in matters of religion and ceremonies, that no papist or other enemy should take hold or make advantage by any furtiler dissension, when they came into their own country; which might arise in time to come, if it were not seasonably foreseen and prevented. Whereupon they wrote a circular letter to the English congregations at Arrow, Basil, Strasburgh, Wormes, Frankford, &c. and sent it by the hand of William Kethe, their messenger, and one of their members. The said letter bore date December 15, 1558, and is extant in the book called, The Troubles of Frankford. Wherein, “to cut off all occasions from papists, and other cavillers, they declared a reconcilement; and desired that they might all teach and practise unanimously that knowledge of God’s word, which they had learned in this their banishment, and seen in the best reformed churches.”

    This letter was signed by Christopher Goodman, Miles Coverdale, John Knox, John Bodleigh, William Williams, Anthony Gilby, William Whittingham, John Pullein, Francis Withers, William Fuller, and William Bevoies, in the name of the whole church.

    The effect of the answers of the church of Frankford and of Arrow to the former letter, as the same Kethe brought them back, was as follows. The letter from Frankford was dated January the 3d, which imported, “That it would not lie in either of their hands to appoint what ceremonies should be, but in such men’s wisdoms as should be appointed to the devising of the same; and which should be received by common consent of parliament: and therefore it would be to small purpose to contend about them. Wherefore as they, [viz. of the church at Frankford,] trusting they should not be burdened with unprofitable ceremonies, purposed to submit themselves to such orders as should be established by authority, (not being of themselves wicked,) so they would wish them [of Geneva] to do the same. And that whereas all reformed churches differed among themselves in divers ceremonies, and yet agreed in the unity of doctrine, they saw no inconvenience, if they used some ceremonies diverse from them; so that they agreed in the chief points of their religion. Notwithstanding, that if any should be intruded that should be offensive, they, [of Frankford,] upon just conference and deliberation upon the same at their meeting with them in England, (which they trusted by God’s grace would be shortly,) would brotherly join with them, to be suitors for the reforming and abolishing of the same.”

    The subscribers to this, in the name of the rest of the church, [many being already departed for England,] were James Pilkington, Francis Wilford, Edmond Isaac, John Gray, Henry Knolles, Henry Carew, Richard Beesley, Christopher Brickbate, John Mullins, Alexander Nowel, John Browne.

    The answer from the exiles at Arrow in Switzerland, dated January 13, imported, “That they of that church desired, that as oft as they might find occasion hereafter to consult or confer by word or writing, that they both might so take and seek the same, as might be most to their unity in minds, and diligence to do good in the Lord’s work.

    And for preaching and professing of sincere doctrine, so as they had seen and learned in the best reformed churches, they did gladly hear the church at Geneva’s advice to be so agreeable to their own purpose.”

    They that subscribed hereunto, being of the ministry, in the name and consent of the whole church, were Thomas Lever, their minister, Robert Pownal, Richard Langhorne, and Thomas Turpin. These things may not be amiss to have specified, concerning those of the exiles that yet remained abroad.

    As for the popish clergy, they looked with a very angry and displeasant eye upon them; and of all things dreaded these learned men, lest they should take their places, and occupy room in the churches. And they seemed to make it one point of their policy, to keep the protestant ministers (as much as they could) from officiating there: and for that purpose counselled the priests and curates then in possession of ecclesiastical preferments and benefices, to comply with the constitution of religion that should be set up, that they might retain their parishes and places, and in the mean time, as opportunity served, exhort the people to hold and think well of their old superstitions.

    There is a passage sounding to this tenor in the sermon preached at Westminster by White, bishop of Winton, at the funeral of queen Mary. “If they who by God are placed to keep watch and ward upon the walls, and give warning when the enemy cometh, see the wolf come toward the flock, as at this present, I warn you, the wolves be coming out of Geneva, and other places of Germany, and have sent their books before, full of pestilent doctrines, blasphemy, and heresy, to infect the people; if the bishops, I say, and ministers in this case should not give warning, neither withstand and resist, but, for fear or flattery with the world, forsake their places, and thereby give occasion to the wolves to enter and devour the flock; then should the more mighty be more mightily scourged, and the blood of the people be required at their hands.”

    The popish bishops and clergy however entertained a conceit now, that the number of learned divines and ministers of the gospel (after so many of them put to death, and such great discouragements to study or profess pure doctrine) was so very small and inconsiderable, that if they themselves held together, and remained incompliant with the steps that were taking, the queen must be forced to keep them in the church, lest otherwise it should be wholly unsupplied: but they were much deceived. This is declared fully in the British Antiquities, set forth by some that lived in those times, and were well acquainted with the affairs thereof. “They resolved among themselves not to comply to take the oath of supremacy to the queen, nor to renounce all foreign jurisdiction: going upon this policy, that the queen could not displace them, there being none else to supply the rooms and places in the church, whether dioceses or parishes. In which crafty counsel, while they seemed to be wise, and please themselves, they were, as by a judgment and revenge from Heaven, deceived and infatuated. For a great many very learned and godly men, in all that tyranny of the papists, which lasted almost six years, were either abroad in banishment, or skulking so closely here, that these their enemies, searching never so diligently for them, could not find them. And they, as it were by inspiration, in all that dreadful and cruel time of queen Mary, followed close the study of divinity. And being reserved to the prosperous and happy time of queen Elizabeth, did as it were blow away the popish arguments which themselves thought so mighty knotty and unanswerable. Men who coming forth of affliction and exile were looked upon with contempt by the Romanists; simple men without pontifical ornaments to set them out, but eminent for the integrity of their lives, the gravity of their behaviour, and the greatness of their spirits; and finally, for their diligent search and accurate knowledge of scripture, councils, orthodox fathers, and all ecclesiastical antiquity. And the papists could not equal them in strength of reason and written authorities, but were fain to endeavour to overcome them by calumnies.”

    The English protestants abroad soon expressed their public joyful congratulation to the queen upon her advancement to the crown. And this they did sundry ways, according to their present abilities: as, in a prosopopceia of the nation of Germany, addressing her speech to England in a very elegant Latin style, done in the name of the rest by John Fox; wherein they take opportunity, in the person of another, to express their own minds at large, and the gladsome sense they had of this happy change.

    It was entitled, Germaniae ad Angliam restituta Evangelii luce, Gratulatio; and was printed at Basil by Oporinus, anno 1559. Beginning thus: Facit divinae erga te clementiae magnitudo (germana in Christo soror Anglia) atque immensitas, ut merito impia sim, &c. To this tenor in English: “It might justly be imputed to me as a piece of impiety, (O England! mine own sister in Christ,) if, upon this great and unmeasurable mercy of God towards you, I should not, in your name, render to God, in the first place, (as is fit,) most hearty thanks; from whom alone all must acknowledge all good things to come: and in the next place, it might in like manner be esteemed a piece of ingratitude in me, should I not, on account of our old friendship and neighbourhood, congratulate you this so great happiness in the Lord, befallen you; who hath granted you strength to struggle out of so many difficulties, and now at last, as it were, out of the grave to breathe again the more joyful air of liberty.”

    It goeth on in a very handsome style, expressing, “how she, [Germany,] not in her own name only, but in the name of other nations, that loved Christ, and that had any sense of godliness, did, as well as she, congratulate England her felicity and her queen. By whose most desired influence there was no question but that the British state, if heretofore it had lost something of its former splendour and glory, should recover it again with much advantage, and restore itself to its ancient, yea, and greater, both civil and religious tranquillity. Some surer and more certain hopes whereof did also those noble beginnings give, as some tokens and arguments of vindicating the church of England from a long servitude into greater amplitude and liberty. If therefore the liberty of human nature were so sweet, which was only outward, how much more reason was there to congratulate her this spiritual and Christian freedom, which not only took off from her shoulders the yoke of outward affliction, but freed the soul and conscience from base idolatry, false worship, manifest impiety, and forced dissimulation?

    And although the divine goodness had at no time been wanting to the afflictions and sufferings of the church, yet never did it more on a sudden, or (certainly) more in season, stretch forth its help; whether we consider the greatness of the evils it endured, or the dreadfulness of them which it expected. For why (as she goes on) should I here mention the gibbets, fires, poison, famine, sword, banishment, or the numbers of those that died, or the sharpness of the punishments? What good man in the whole kingdom was there, whom either the storm of the persecution took not away, or the fear of danger did not shake, or religion dissembled, contrary to his conscience, did not afflict more grievously than any death? in short, whom affliction did not render miserable, or dissimulation had rendered (I had almost said) wicked?”

    Then Germany comes to shew her own hospitality to her sister England’s natives: “In what one respect of friendly duty might I help your English people flying to me, but I did it; and out of love to you, with ready embraces, received, cherished, protected, and brought on their way.

    Nor opened I only my houses, but my churches to them. In a word, I made no other difference in my harbouring of them than I did of mine own Germans. And although I did not adorn you with the same splendour, riches, and plenty you had at home, yet, according to my poverty, I took care that none might justly complain against me of unkindness; that in the mean time I say nothing of the supplies of money, and secret benefits. And I think I may testify this both truly, and for my credit, that however they were with me in a mean condition, yet in safety, and preserved from all danger and fear of their enemies within my walls, while they could not be safe at home. And now, when all is safe at home, and they may return securely, and do so much desire it, I send them back again safe and sound to you, and I hope better, and more improved in learning.”

    Then she proceeds to give good counsel to the queen and her court, and excellent advice to the preachers.

    And in conclusion she congratulates also Scotland, and the restoration of religion there.

    Another tract the exiles set forth at this time was, their thanksgiving to Christ, in like elegant Latin; which I believe was done with the same pen, namely, that of John Fox. It was entitled, Ad Christum Anglorum exulantium eujcaristiko>n . It began, Postulat privata officii nostri ratio, communis erga patriam charitas, tum in utrosque pariter nostrum cumulatissima tua beneficentia, pietatisque ineffabilis magnitudo, summe ac omnipotens redemptor noster, &c. i.e. “As well our own private duty, and our common love to our country, as thy abundant kindness, and unspeakably great affection towards us both, O Lord Jesus Christ, our highest and almighty redeemer, require us to set forth perpetual panegyrics of praise and thanks to thee. Who, besides that eternal indulgence of thine towards us, whereby thou hast spent thy sacred blood to redeem us, hast exercised at this time that clemency to us in vouchsafing to restore us again to our country, and our country to us. Oh! that now that same pity of thine, which joineth us into one body, who have been separated far from one another, would vouchsafe to retain us thus joined. That being all sodered together in mutual peace and good will, we may never cease to trumpet forth the glory of thy name with one voice, one spirit, and one faith. Let thy same pity grant to the French, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Flemings, and the Scots, a return in common with us to their own countries.

    That as we have all one and the same cause, so the same good success may in like manner by thy favour unite us all together in gladness. We know it is thy gift and goodness, if it be well at any time with thy people; without whose eye not a hair or a sparrow falleth to the ground: and we know again, that it is thy justice, if any thing happening otherwise grieveth us. Whereby we are the more confounded with a secret shame, in the enjoyment of this mercy, that when we have deserved heavier judgments, yet that we now less rejoice for them than for ourselves. But thy dispensing wisdom knoweth what is expedient for every one, and not less wisely disposest all things in their seasons. “Therefore as our good success teacheth us, that we distrust not the manifestation of thy mercy towards them; so for thy present favours towards us, as it is fit, with most joyful minds, and on most ample accounts, we render all possible thanks to thy benignity: to whom, our sad banishment being at an end, thou hast mercifully opened so glad a return to our own country seats. It was thy great mercy first, that when we might not be safe at home, thou wouldest have some haven of refuge lie open for us among thy German people: but it was greater, that in an unknown tongue, in unknown lands, thou hast so kindly cherished us, and fed us so liberally; since there hath been none of us all that hath not experienced the supplies of thy providence after a singular and wonderful manner. But above all, that is the highest, the chiefest part of our happiness, that, commiserating the condition of our most deplorable country, thy pity hath changed those most sharp flames of persecution, which otherwise no floods could put out: that thy merciful eye knew, saw, and looked upon the unworthy butcheries of God men, and their bitter torments; some whereof were spoiled of all their goods, others of their lives; many afflicted in prisons with hideous cruelties; not a few, wasted miserably with famine, perished; the faces of some were scratched and torn with the nails of bishops, and their beards half pulled off; some lost their hands, being, at the command of the bishops, roasted; and many, being put alive into the flames, were reduced to ashes. “These and other torments of thy people, thou, I say, O Lord Jesus, hast sufficiently beheld: nor hast thou beheld only, but hast in a manner suffered the same thyself in thy members. And moreover, how bitter these things are to flesh, thou art not ignorant, who hast partook of our flesh. And indeed our wickedness deserved sharper sufferings than these; but thy pity surpassed our impieties; thy grace overcame thy justice. Therefore thou sawest the torments of thine in thine own cause, and broughtest help. Thou knewest the groans of thy sighing ones; thou sawest their prayers, and heardest them: thou sawest the evil days, and shortenedst them: thou sawest their tears, and wipedst them off. Grant now, most merciful Jesu, in like manner, their tears being wiped off, that they degenerate not into the undecent and mad mirth of this world. Grant to the queen and nobility, that they, ruling rightly and mercifully, may long rule and reign. Give to the people, and thy poor sheep, shepherds endued with learning mixed with meekness, and diligent without pride: grant again to the shepherds a flock that may be ready to follow, and be obedient; and while they teach them rightly, shewing themselves willing to obey. Grant both to the highest and to the lowest, that, being endued with thy Spirit, they may know thee, and the free salvation that is in thee alone. “Vouchsafe to those that are, whether in a private or public capacity, that, piously governing, and modestly obeying, they may mutually defend peace, and each serve in his vocation in thy fear.

    Lastly, vouchsafe, most merciful Jesus, even to our enemies, or thine rather, a better mind, without obstinacy, and an humble desire of truth. “In a word, for our German nurses and harbourers, according to their kindness to us, we pray for a mutual return of kindness from thee upon them: whom, in the saving knowledge of thy gospel, let thy almighty goodness confirm more and more, and replenish with all thy blessings. Amen.” John Fox also at this time, on this occasion, writ and printed a pretty large epistle to Thomas duke of Norfolk, a young nobleman of great hopes, whom formerly the said Box had under his care and tuition, and instruction in his learning. The said epistle bears this title, Nobilitate ac. indole ornatissimo et praepotenti Domino Thomae Norfolciae duci, &c. Joan.

    Foxus veram in Christo et aeternam cum salute nobilitatem. It is full of excellent counsel and advice, with relation to the present hopeful prospect of religion; congratulating him, both on the public account of the flourishing again of religion, and likewise on occasion of his own private good fortune in the late recovery of his ancient style and title.

    Another learned exile, and of an eloquent pen, viz. Lawrence Humphreys, (afterward president of Magdalen college, Oxon,) took also this opportunity to write a seasonable tract; which was also printed at Basil, as Fox’s writings were, and by the same printer, Oporinus, and in the same year 1559.

    The said tract bore this title, De religionis conservatione et reformatione vera, &c. i.e. Of the true preservation and reformation of religion: and of the supremacy of kings and magistrates; and of the yielding obedience to them, as the highest ministers of Christ here on earth. Dedicated to the nobility, clergy, and people of England. This little book seemed to be written on purpose to prepare the great work designed in parliament, viz. for the restoring of the supremacy, and reforming of religion from popery.

    It begins in this tenor; In illa superiorum temporum tristitia, honorandi partes, et colendi fratres, neminem bonum civem, tam ab omni humanitatis sensu alienum &c. i.e. “In that sad state of the times foregoing, honoured fathers and respected brethren, I suppose, no good citizen is so alienated from all sense of humanity, and so enslaved to irreligion, whom the late common grief of godly men, and the woful disturbance and confusion of all things, have not moved. For all saw the present hand of an angry God, and expected his future hand too. They felt wax, the sword, and many dangers, their thoughts were disturbed with the fears of more. The banishments of many innocent persons, their prisons, and most unworthy deaths, were before all men’s eyes. They underwent a slavery laid upon their shoulders and their consciences too; and especially they experienced a famine of God’s word, miserably slaying the souls of men. All which things would force some tears from a man that had not altogether put off humanity; yea, I think, though he had put it off, although he were a stone or a flint. “But when God and our heavenly Father had pardoned us his children, adopted in grace and mercy by Christ, when now those evils do not any more press nor lie upon us, nor hang over us, in this time, in this your and our public joy, I would not be wanting to my duty, not so much to express my affection, who have hitherto been concealed, as that I might fully persuade all, and myself too, that the best and greatest cause of congratulation is now come: that we may not seem to be without the sense of the benefit of our God in this change of things, and the felicity of this time, which would be great stupidity; or not to have regarded it, which would be dissolute negligence; or not to have acknowledged it, which would be the part of the highest ingratitude.”

    The design of this his discourse was, first, to make all men sensible of this mercy, and to refresh the memory thereof; and then to treat, 1. concerning true and perfect reformation; 2. concerning the refonning of religion; and, 3. of the primacy of kings against the papacy, and of obedience to be yielded to magistrates.

    And in the conclusion of his book stands his dedication of it to Francis, earl of Bedford, president of the queen’s privy council, dated from Basil.

    After this manner did the exiles in Germany and Switzerland express their joys and congratulations. The English church at Geneva, consisting also of other of her majesty’s exiled subjects, signified to her their welcome of her to her kingdom, by presenting her in February with the book of Psalms in English, printed there in a little volume, with notes in the margin; being a part of the good work which the learned of this church set themselves about, viz. O translate the whole Bible more correctly according to the Hebrew: wherein they had proceeded a good way already; and resolved to tarry still at Geneva, till it was completed.

    In the dedication, they seasonably exhorted her now, in her entrance on her government, to go on with resolution in reforming religion from the corruptions of papistry; thus addressing themselves unto her: “That as the famous queen of Saba obtained most worthy renown, for her great desire to hear the wisdom of Solomon; so queen Elizabeth’s noble fame should remain for ever, not only upon earth, in perpetual memory, but also registered in heaven, among the holy angels of God, if with earnest zeal and hearty affection she sought after and set forth the heavenly wisdom of the true Solomon, (even Christ Jesus:) who had opened and offered the rich treasures of his divine wisdom in such abundance at this present to all nations, but especially to her noble realm of England by her means: which other realms and nations set before their eyes as a pattern of true religion and Christian life, to imitate. That they could look for no greater blessings to come, but only that this king should right shortly appear with his mighty angels, to execute his judgments for the deliverance of his servants, and the punishment of his enemies. “That in the mean season, they her humble subjects, according to the talents that God had given them, thought it their duty with the most convenient speed to further, even with the utmost of their power, her godly proceedings and most worthy enterprises. And albeit they had begun more than a year ago, for the comfort of the church, then most grievously afflicted by the cruel rage and horrible tyranny of the papists, to peruse the English translation of the sacred Bible, and to bring it to the pure simplicity and true meaning of the Spirit of God, as far as they were able to attain unto the same by the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, the conference of most perfect translations in other languages, and by the judgment of the best learned in those parts; yet when they heard that the almighty and most merciful God had no less miraculously preserved her to that most excellent dignity, than he had, above all men’s expectations, preserved her from the fury of such as sought her blood; with most joyful minds and great diligence they endeavoured themselves to set forth this most excellent book of the Psalms unto her grace, as a special token of their service and good will, till the rest of the Bible, which, they praised God, was in good readiness, should be accomplished, and presented. “They supposed, in their judgments, that no part of the whole scripture was more necessary for her grace than that little book of Psalms, if it were well weighed and practised. For here she should see painted, as in a most lively table, in the person of king David, such things as she had felt, and should continually feel in herself; that is, the perils and persecutions that he sustained before he came to his royal dignity, and also the assistance of God in the same; and moreover, the sharp storms and rough tempests raised against him, when he was entered into his kingdom, as well by foreign enemies as by the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Amalekites, as by his own subjects; yea, even by them of his own house; as by Achitophel his counsellor, and Absalom his son: and how God never forsook him, but was present with him in his greatest afflictions, and delivered him from all danger; because he put his whole trust in him alone. “That as he had mercifully preferred her to this high honour, so should she be zealous of his glory, obedient to his will, and diligent to suppress all papistry, vice, and heresy, and to cause the light of God’s holy word speedily to shine through all her dominions. That if she honoured God, and advanced his kingdom, he would honour her, and make her kingdom stable; he would bless her with godly posterity, and maintain her in perfect peace and quietness. If she were apprehensive of any weakness, that she should remember what promise the Lord, in the person of Joshua, maketh to all them that faithfully execute their vocation, saying, I will not leave thee, nor forsake thee. If the outward enemy threatened or invaded, she should remember also how God preserved his servant David, and enlarged his kingdom. If the inconstant multitude murmured against her, she should call to her mind God’s appointment, who had set her up to execute his will, and not the fantasies of the ignorant multitude. For though infinite thousands pitched against her, yet she ought not to fear, because God was on her side,” &c. Dated from Geneva the 10th of February, 1559. [anno ineunte. ] I omit the Latin poem which Walter Haddon, LL. D. the great orator and poet in those times, made to the queen upon her accession to the crown, (to whom he was after master of the requests) beginning, Anglia, tolle caput, saevis jactata procellis, Exagitata malis, Anglia, tolle caput.

    Aurea virgo venit, roseo venerabilis ore, Plena Deo, princeps Elizabetha venit, &c.

    That the queen stood not much affected to the divines in vogue in the former reign, appeared, that the public preachers, at court or at St. Paul’s, were such learned protestants as were newly returned from exile, or that had privately concealed themselves at home. Two of the first public sermons were preached by Dr. Bill (who was the queen’s almoner) and Dr. Cox; the former preached at St. Paul’s the very next Sunday after the queen was proclaimed; and the latter at Westminster before her first parliament, at the opening of it. All preaching was soon prohibited for some time, (as hath been observed already;) but when it was allowed, I find the preachers appointed to preach before the queen, and at St. Paul’s, were generally the learned professors and confessors of the gospel; as hath been partly shewn before.

    One important point of policy this first year of the queen was adjusted, tending much to the establishment of religion: which was a consultation held at Greenwich, whether it were for the good of the commonwealth to grant, that the abbot of Martinego, [or Martinengo,] the pope’s nuncio, should come into England, who, it seems, was now in election to be sent hither by the pope. This matter, duly deliberated, came to this conclusion, that it was against the ancient and late laws of this realm, that any nuncio from the pope should enter into this realm. That in ancient time the nuncio could never enter but by licence, and by a solemn oath on the other side the sea, not to attempt any thing to the derogation of the king or the liberties of the realm. That he could not come without great peril to the realm, as the time stood, and that his coming would be a preparation to animate discontented minds in the cause of religion.

    The next year notwithstanding, viz. 1560, or 1561, the said Martinengo came to Brussels, requesting licence to come into the realm; but it was denied him.

    CHAPTER 8.

    The protestants’ declaration of their doctrine, in vindication of themselves against the slanders of papists. The Dutch strangers return to their church in London. Bishop Grindal their superintendent. Dutch anabaptists. THE papists at this time spared not to cast reproaches and defamations upon the professors and profession of the gospel with all their might; and that, no doubt, openly in parliament: and many of these accused them to the queen, (before whom some of them had lately preached,) as men that were inconsistent to themselves, and that they had no agreement of doctrines among them; as well as that more common charge, that their doctrine was nothing but heresy, and they a company of sectaries and schismatics, disturbers of commonwealths, and persuaders of rebellion.

    Therefore Dr. Sandys, and the rest of the divines, concerned now about preparing of the Book of Common Prayer, and in the late conference at Westminster, among themselves, in the month of April, drew up a declaration of their faith, intending to publish it in their own vindication. Of this, Sandys, April ult. wrote to Dr. Parker, not yet come up from London, telling him, “how they were forced through the vain bruits of the lying papists to give up a confession of their faith, to shew forth the sum of that doctrine which they professed, and to declare, that they dissented not among themselves. That this labour they had then in hand on purpose to publish, as soon as the parliament was ended; wishing they had his hand to it, as it was subscribed by the rest.” Meeting with this declaration among the said Parker’s papers, I shall here set it down.

    A DECLARATION OF DOCTRINE, OFFERED AND EXHIBITED BIT THE PROTESTANTS TO THE QUEEN. “As our ancient enemy Satan hath ever, and at all times, hated and persecuted the truth of God’s word, with the ministers and professors of the same; so in these our evil and latter days, as one let loose for the trial of God’s elect, and subversion of unbelievers, he hath wonderfully raged, labouring by all possible power, like a subtile serpent, to deceive. And how much in these few years past, God so permitting, and our sins so deserving, he hath prevailed, the world can bear witness. What old heresy hath he not revived? What strange and new doctrine hath he not invented? What idolatry and superstition hath he not planted? What ignorance and blindness hath he not brought in? What truth hath he not obstructed and darkened? Not only abusing the power of princes by all means to persecute Christ in his members, and by unlawful laws to stop the free course and passage of the gospel; but also using practices of his false prophets, in whose mouth he hath ever been a lying spirit, by all subtile persuasions to bring into hatred, and to slander for heresy, the infallible truth of God’s written word; falsely defaming, slandering, and misreporting the ministers of the same, as a ready way to deface their doctrine. Of this practice all ages can report, as may easily appear to all such as have travelled in ancient writers and histories. “Yet at no time hath the subtile serpent been more strong in his wicked members and deceitful workers, to deface the doctrine of the gospel, and to slander the setters forth of the same, than he hath shewed himself at this time; and namely, against us who have of late preached before the queen’s majesty, as against our brethren, teachers of the same truth: most untruly reporting of us, that our doctrine is detestable heresy; that we are fallen from the doctrine of Christ’s catholic church; that we be subtile sectaries; that we dissent among ourselves; and that every man nourisheth and maintaineth his peculiar opinion; and that we be the teachers of carnal liberty, condemning fasting, praying, alms, and like godly exercises; that we be disordered persons, disturbers of the commonwealth, persuaders of rebellion, and teachers of disobedience, against magistrates, and what not. “But it is no marvel if [these] children be like unto their father, who hath been a liar from the beginning, and the author thereof. Neither can it be strange to the teachers of God’s truth to be untruly reported. Elias the prophet was burdened with false doctrine, and to be a disturber of the commonwealth of Israel. And the Son of God, the author of truth, was not only charged to work by the power of Beelzebub, to seduce the people, and leave them to carnal liberty; but also to be a transgressor of the laws, a glution, a drunkard, and a companion with publicans and sinners. The apostles of Christ were reported to be sectaries, and teachers of new doctrine, disordered men, and stirrers up of sedition and tumults. The learned and godly of the primitive church were slandered with horrible incest, and the unnatural eating of man’s flesh. The good bishop of Jerusalem, Narcissus, was untruly defamed of incontinency. The learned and godly bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, was most falsely accused, not only of incontinency, but also of murder. And who hath lived so purely, or taught so sincerely, which hath not either been charged with evil life, error, or heresy? And although a clear conscience can easily bear this burden, neither ought the servant to grudge, if he be used like his master: and, as St. Paul saith, we ought to behave ourselves in all things as the ministers of God, so confirmed in true piety and sincere doctrine, that we can patiently bear all manner of reports, and constantly go forward in the oilice of our vocation, whether we be defamed or well spoken of; as hitherto, through the grace of God, (his name be praised,) we have gladly and joyfully done; contemning, for the truth’s sake, the slanderous reports of the wicked world. “Yet notwithstanding, lest we should seem utterly to neglect our good name, and through silence in this behalf not only suffer the truth to be slandered, and our innocency defamed, but also false reports to be credited for true, to the great hinderance of the gospel, and abusing of the simple; we have thought it good and necessary to publish and set forth to the world a brief sum and confession of that our faith and doctrine, which we have heretofore professed and taught; which presently we do profess, and, as time shall serve, intend to teach; purposing, through the grace of God, and assistance of the Holy Spirit, constantly to remain in the selfsame until our life’s end: that thereby it may appear how untruly we have been charged, and how falsely we have been slandered. “And although, in our last protestation made before the honourable auditory at Westminster, we sufficiently set forth in few words the sum of our faith, whereunto we all fully consent, yet, to confound all lying lips, and to stop all such vain rumours as are bruited abroad, we shall more at large set forth the chief and most necessary articles of the doctrine which we believe and teach, as hereafter shall follow: most humbly beseeching the Almighty God for his mercy sake, and for the merits of his Son Christ, to pardon and forgive our persecutors and evil reporters, to turn the hearts of the wicked, to illuminate the ignorant with the knowledge of his truth, and to give us all the grace, that we may consent together in the unity of the uniform truth, and live in brotherly love and charity, to the praise of his name, and our everlasting comfort in Christ.


    And then they proceed unto the confession of their faith in divers articles, agreeing much with the articles concluded in convocation under king Edward, anno 1552, but more large, as explanatory of them. And then, having declared their articles, they make this conclusion. “And thus both to satisfy the godly minded, and also to stop the mouths of evil and slanderous reporters, which have laboured by all means to defame our doctrine and doings; we, for our just purgation in the defence of our innocency, have with one uniform consent set forth this short declaration concerning the principal points of our religion, and chief articles of our faith. Wherein we have neither swerved from the infallible truth of God’s written word, neither yet from the doctrine and confession of Christ’s catholic church; as we by God’s grace shall be able and ready at all times evidently to shew unto all men. “And although in this our declaration and confession we do not precisely observe the words, sentences, and orders of certain godly articles by authority set forth in the time of king Edward of most famous memory, (for the malice of our adversaries hath occasioned us otherwise, to whose wrongful defamation we must of necessity make answer otherwise,) yet in altering, augmenting, or diminishing, adding, or omitting, we do neither improve, nor yet recede from any of the said articles, but fully consent unto the whole, as to a most true and sound doctrine, grounded upon God’s word, and do refer ourselves unto such articles there as in our confession, for shortness sake, we have omitted. “And for so much as the sum of this our doctrine is to set forth Christ crucified to be the only Lord and Redeemer, giving all glory unto God, the only worker of our salvation, and removing all merit from man; and that we commend and teach such good works of all men diligently to be done, as God in his word hath prescribed, only reproving such vain and superstitious works, as man of himself hath invented; moving all men to believe and live according to the rules and statutes given forth by a God, and not according to the devices and traditions set by man; (for God will be served as he biddeth, not as man willeth;) and that in all the course of our doctrine and doings, as we call God, who seeth and searcheth the secrets of our hearts, to record, we seek not our own praise, but the increase of Christ’s heavenly kingdom; having our chief care, how we may set forth faithfully the office of our vocation; ever considering with ourselves, that Christ is ready to come and call us to account, and that they shall be judged worthy of eternal damnation, which through false doctrine infect and se duce the people of God: “We trust, the godly, setting these considerations in their sight, cannot so ill conceive of us, that wittingly and will ingly we would either east ourselves headlong into hell, either yet through offence kill our brethren, whom to save, Christ the Son of God hath willingly suffered; and so consequently, to the utter wounding of our conscience, procure God’s hot wrath upon this realm, our natural country. “Seeing therefore that we teach none other doctrine than that which is warranted by God’s word, and that we seek nothing else but the glory of God, the promoting of his gospel, and the edifying of his church and people, (as we trust, through God’s grace, the contrary shall never appear in us,) we exhort and beseech the godly, for the merits of Jesus Christ, charitably to judge of us, esteeming us the servants of Christ, and ministers of his word; and that they will with all reverence and humbleness of heart, in one spirit with us, hear the voice of their true shepherd Christ, and refuse hereafter to give ear unto a stranger, and thankfully receive and embrace the wholesome doctrine of salvation: that we all together bringing forth the fruit of faith, may testify ourselves to be the children of God, to the eternal praise of his name, and our everlasting salvation in Christ. Amen.” On the backside of this paper are writ these words by Grindal’s hand, as it seems, Articuli subscripti anno primo reginae nunc, i.e. “Articles subscribed the first year of the present queen.”

    Though I have omitted, for brevity sake, transcribing all the articles of this confession, yet, to satisfy curious readers for a taste of them, I will hereunder set down somewhat said under two of them.

    I. Under the article of predestination, they have these words. “And although there are many godly men in these our days will think, that in this our corrupt age, in the which men are given to all rashness of judgment and dissoluteness of life, and do not weigh the mysteries of faith with such Christian humility as they ought to do, it were best that such articles should be passed over in silence: indeed we do think that discreet ministers will speak sparely and circumspectly of them, and that upon the consideration before rehearsed: yet notwithstanding, seeing some men of late are risen, which do gainsay and oppugn this truth, we cannot utterly pass over this matter with silence, both for that the Holy Ghost doth so often make mention of it in the scriptures, especially in St. Paul’s epistles: which argueth it to be a thing both fruitful and profitable to be known. And also being occasioned by the same reason which moved St. Austin to write of this matter of predestination, &c.

    Notwithstanding we do not despair, but that such as are curable, through free and open preaching of the gospel, will be brought to see and understand the truth better than hitherto they have done: for true it is, that these and other most grievous errors have increased in these realms, in these late years, for want of true preaching.”

    II. Under the title of the Civil Magistrate, here they took occasion to shew their loyalty to government, and their utter disallowance of Christopher Goodman’s and Knox’s books against the regiment of woman. “Some are born to be kings or queens, and so by inheritance come to kingdoms, &c. The word of God doth not condemn the governance or regiment of women, but that such women as by succession, inheritance, or other just title, according to the orders and policies of the realm, are placed in such esteem, are lawful magistrates, and are no less in any respect to be obeyed and honoured in all lawful things, than if they were men, kings, princes, &c. “A tyrant, or evil magistrate, which by succession or election attaineth to a princely state or government, is a power ordained of God; and is also to be honoured and obeyed of the people in all things, not contrary to God, as their magistrate and governor. “It is not lawful for any private person or persons to kill, or by any means to procure the death of a tyrant or evil person, being their ordinary magistrate. “All conspiracies, seditions, and rebellions of private men against their magistrates, men or women, good governors or evil, are unlawful, and against the will and word of God.”

    This new face of things, and the countenance given to pure religion under queen Elizabeth, rejoiced the poor persecuted protestants abroad, especially in Flanders, and those that had under king Edward quiet and safe harbour here, and the liberty of religion. Many of these were already come into England; and one Adrian Hamstedius, a learned preacher, and one that had clone and suffered much under the cross, came from Zealand hither, and gathered a congregation of his countrymen. He was chosen their minister, and got liberty to perform his function of preaching God’s word to them: which he did sometimes in Christ Church, and sometimes at St. Margaret’s, and sometimes in other places. These strangers, who consisted chiefly of Low Dutch and Germans, had once the west part of the church of the Augustine friars in Broadstreet granted to them by king Edward VI. and his royal letters patents, directing and confirming the constitution of this congregation; whereof Joannes a Lasco, a noble Polonian, was their minister, with the title of superintendent. But under queen Mary they were dissolved, and glad to flee into foreign parts. And the members of this church settled themselves, some in Poland, others in Friezeland. But upon this happy change, these strangers bent their minds fully to return again into England, and take possession of their former church and liberty.

    Shortly after, Johannes Utenhovius, a person of learning and quality, and who had been a chief member of this congregation under king Edward, arrived at Frankford, Aug. 24, 1559. Here he received letters of commendation from Henry Bullinger, chief minister of Zurick, (under whom the English exiles had received great favour,) to the queen’s majesty. And with these letters he proceeded in his voyage to Friezeland; and thence to England, taking with him Peter de Loene, a minister, son of Walter: who being arrived here, was admitted to serve the church of strangers aforesaid with Hamstedius. It must be known, that these worthy men, Utenhovius and De Loene, brought over with them king Edward’s charter to this church; and soon took their occasion humbly to petition the queen to establish it, and to grant them their church in St. Augustine’s, and the privileges, as they had before under her royal brother of blessed memory. But the matter being referred to her most honourable council and the bishops, it was refused at first for certain reasons. As, because the queen thought it not convenient in her kingdom to have another to be superintendent over a church, and that a stranger, besides the bishop of the diocese.

    But to take off this objection, this church soon after chose Grindal, bishop of London, their superintendent: who did shew himself on all occasions a true patron to them, and concerned himself tenderly in their affairs. But after him, I think they had no other superintendent.

    Further, the queen did not like that clause in the patent, of their being called corpus corporatum politicum. And lastly, it was thought worthy some further consideration, before all the ground whereon the church and churchyard, and the ministers’ houses stood, (which king Edward gave them,) should be granted away. This seemed to be the counsel of the marquis of Winchester, lord treasurer, who had obtained from that king all the situation of St. Augustine friars, except this church and premises, and had his house upon part of it; and so laboured, that as little of that monastery as might be should escape his hands: for of religion he had little or none.

    But yet thus far the queen readily gratified them, and yielded to their petition; that she gave them a letter, for her purveyor to empty the said church or temple of all casks and vessels, and other stuff wherewith it was filled in queen Mary’s days, (laying up there her naval stores and such like things,) and to restore the said strangers to the possession of the said temple. The next year, on the 29th of January, the same congregation did again renew their petition to the queen for the confirmation of king Edward’s grant. But what success they then had, I cannot tell; but ever since, throughout all the succeeding kings’ reigns, they have quietly enjoyed their temple and original constitution.

    The French protestants at this time did not concern themselves in this matter with the Dutch; though they were formerly included as members of this church of strangers; but contented themselves now with another church in Threadneedle-street, which they had either borrowed or hired, belonging to the dean and chapter of Windsor, and which they have to this day; being part of St. Anthony’s hospital dissolved.

    But the registers of this Dutch church do shew (and gratefully confess it) that their main assistance now was from bishop Grindal aforesaid; and whom therefore they submitted unto as their superintendent. I find a case or two wherein he exercised his superintendency and authority in this church. In the year 1560, one of their ministers, namely Hamstedius, was convened before the said bishop judicially, for favouring some Dutch anabaptists, that desired to be received into this church, and had supplicated the bishop to be admitted. He had asserted in their behalf concerning that heresy of theirs, (viz. that Christ took not his flesh of the virgin Mary, but brought it from heaven,) that the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ, and his partaking of our nature, was not a foundation, [i.e . a fundamental doctrine,] but a circumstance only of the foundation: and that children and distracted persons were saved without faith. But the bishop required him to renounce these and other like errors; which he refused to do, and continuing obstinately in them, was excommunicated by the bishop. And so was declared the next Sunday in the said Dutch church. Soon after, Hamstedius retired beyond the sea. And in the year 1564 there happened again an earnest contention in that church concerning baptizing infants: which was finally referred to the bishop of London, as their superintendent, to decide.

    CHAPTER 9.

    The reformation in Scotland. Knox’s book against women’s government: answered by an English divine. Christopher Goodman’s book of that argument. Some account of that book. His recantation thereof. Knox’s letter to John Fox concerning his book. The principles of these books entertained. The French king’s funerals solemnized at St. Paul’s. THE reformation was now carrying on in the neighbouring kingdom of Scotland, as well as here: and May the 2d, John Knox the Scotchman, being fifty-four years of age, arrived at Edinburgh from France. From whence, anno 1557, he had earnestly wrote to the Scotch nobility, who had taken upon them the public reformation: telling them, that “he had the judgment of the most godly and learned in Europe,” (meaning, no doubt, the ministers of Geneva where he sojourned,) “to warrant his and their consciences, for their present enterprise.” The position maintained by them was this, That if kings and princes refuse to reform religion, the inferior magistrates and people, being directed and instructed in the truth before by their preachers, might lawfully reform within their own bounds themselves: and if all, or the far greater part be enlightened, they might make a public reformation.

    In 1559, while he tarried at Dieppe, he wrote thus to one Mrs. Anne Lock, an English woman, from a mind sufficiently embittered against the English reformation: “A portion of his [the beast’s] mark are these dregs of papistry, which are left in your great book of England; crossing in baptism, kneeling at the Lord’s table, mumbling or singing of the Litany, A fulgure et tempestate, &c. any jot of which diabolical invention will I never counsel any man to use. The whole order of their book appeareth rather to be devised for the upholding of massing priests, than for any good instruction which the simple people can receive thereof. Their sacraments were ministered for the most part without the soul, and by these who to Christ Jesus are no true ministers; and God grant that so they be not yet. Without the soul, I say, they were ministered, because they were ministered without the word truly and openly preached. And your ministers before, for the most part, were none of Christ’s ministers, but massmonging priests.”

    And therefore towards the end of his letter he dissuaded this gentlewoman from countenancing of such superstitious priests in their corrupt, lifeless, liturgical services; and affirming with great fervency, that all things should be judged abominable, yea, execrable and accursed, which God by his word hath not sanctified in his religion.”

    This is enough to shew the hot spirit of this man, and the prejudice he had, for some cause or other, conceived against this church and kingdom; where he had once been kindly harboured.

    About this time were two books dispersed abroad, and in the hands of people, set forth by certain protestant authors, and found many approvers: which did the protestants very ill service, in making the court jealous of a reformation. In one of these books was asserted, that a woman could not by the law of God be queen, nor sway the sceptre, and govern over men; to whom they ought to be in subjection, by the scripture. The other allowed a private subject in some cases to rebel against, nay, to do to death the sovereign, supposing him a tyrant. Dr. Parker, and many other of the learned and sober divines of the church, were extremely nettled and offended with these books, and declared publicly against them.

    But to inquire into the authors of these books, and the particular arguments of them. Whosoever was the author of the latter, the former was composed by John Knox, the famous Scotch divine above mentioned, and printed at Geneva about the year 1556 or 1557, and entitled, The first Blast against the monstrous regiment and empire of women. Wherein he endeavoured to prove, that it was altogether unlawful for women to reign. This book was exceedingly ill taken, and ill-timed, being now fresh in the hands of the English people; many whereof began to doubt whether they should obey the queen, and when at this time she had France a powerful enemy. This treatise therefore by all the sober protestants of the church of England was much cried out against, and styled, a treasonous book; and the queen was most highly disgusted with Knox for writing it; though indeed he wrote it in spite to queen Mary, rather than levelled it at her. And when by certain messengers he desired leave of the queen to pass from France through England into his country, and to visit in the way the north parts of England, where he had formerly preached, there would no licence be granted him; nay, and the messengers he sent had like to have been taken up nay further, the English exiles that were newly returned from Geneva (to whom Knox had been preacher there) felt the effects of it here at home, being frowned upon, and having no favour shewn them. However this book Knox stoutly stood to in a letter to secretary Cecyl, saying, “he did no more doubt of the truth of the proposition, than he doubted this was the voice of God, which first did pronounce this penalty against women, In dolour shalt thou bear thy children.” And threatened to reply to whomsoever should answer his book, as there was then much talk that it was to be answered. But notwithstanding his book, Knox was willing, by the help of a distinction, to own heartily queen Elizabeth and her government, though it were a woman’s government: “because, as he said, he reckoned her to be set up by God’s extraordinary providence in the behalf of religion. Her he acknowledged God had promoted for his miraculous work; comforting his afflicted by an infirm vessel. He acknowledged and would obey his power, and his most potent hand in raising up whom best pleaseth his mercy, to suppress such as fight against his gospel; albeit that nature and God’s most perfect ordinance repugn to such regiment.” And by this way only he would allow the queen to be obeyed, and not by virtue of her right by succession or the laws of the land. For so he told the secretary, and charged him, in the name of the eternal God, to acquaint the queen therewith, [in these words;] “That if queen Elizabeth would confess, that the extraordinary dispensation of God’s great mercy made that lawful unto her, which both nature and God’s laws did deny unto all other women besides, then should none in England be more willing to maintain her authority than he. But if, God’s wondrous work set aside, she grounded the justness of her title upon consuetude laws and ordinances of men, then, as he was assured that such foolish presumption did highly offend God’s supreme majesty, so he greatly feared, that her ingratitude should not long lack punishment.”

    And to the queen also he wrote a letter to the same purpose, in the month of July, 1559, telling her, “that it was God’s peculiar and extraordinary providence that brought her to the kingdom, and that she was not to plead her right by descent or law; and plainly said, that if she began to brag of her birth, and to build her authority and regiment upon her own law, her felicity would be short, flatter her whoso listed.” This was written from Edinburgh. Thus he took upon him to play the prophet, to uphold his own conceit.

    The truth is, the main reason of Knox’s writing this book, that made such a stir in these days, was the anger he conceived against two zealous popish queens that reigned at that very time he wrote it; Mary of Lorain, queen regent of Scotland, and Mary queen of England. And so he hinted politicly in one of his letters to Cecyl: “We ought rather to bring to pass Christ’s reign over us, than vainly to travail for the maintenance of that whereof already we have seen the danger and feel the smart. If the most part of women be wicked, and such as willingly we would not should reign over us, and if the most godly, and such as have rare graces, be yet mortal, we ought to take heed, lest, in establishing one godly and profitable to her country, we make an interest and title to many, by whom not only will the truth be impugned, but also will the country be brought into bondage.”

    Therein meaning the Scotch queen regent, who at that time oppressed the gospellers.

    Two more blasts of Knox’s trumpet were designed to have been blown by him, but queen Mary ending her days so soon, he blew his trumpet no more. Yet the second blast was almost ready; and that would have been a terrible one indeed, as Anth. Gilby, at the end of his Admonition to England and Scotland, sets it down; viz.

    I. That it was not birth only, nor propinquity of blood, that made a king lawfully to reign over a people professing Christ Jesus and his eternal verity, but in his election, the ordinance which God had established in the election of inferior judges must be observed.

    II. That no manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God’s holy precepts, ought to be promoted to any public regiment, honour, or dignity, in any realm, province, or city, that had subjected themselves to Jesus Christ and his blessed evangile.

    III. That neither promise nor oath could bind any such people to obey and maintain tyrants against God and against his truth known.

    IV. That if they had rashly promoted a manifestly wicked person, or yet ignorantly had chosen such an one, as after declared himself unworthy of regiment over the people of God, (and such were all idolaters and cruel persecutors,) most justly might the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they had nominated, appointed, and elected.

    Papists took occasion hence (and not without cause) to slander the protestants in general as false to their princes. So Dorman to Alex. Noel in the name of all English protestants; “When it served your turn, you defended stoutly, with tooth and nail, that a woman might not govern a realm lawfully descended to her, no, not in civil and politic matters. Within how few years, yea months after, taught ye, that a woman may rule, not only a realm in temporal things, but the church too in spiritual?” But this was all popish calumny, Knox’s doctrine being absolutely disowned by the church and chief churchmen of England; as shall appear by what follows.

    As Knox had heard, so it was true: for a notable and full answer in April 1559 came out against his book: which answer was printed at Strasburgh; the author (a witty as well as learned man) was John Aelmer, an exile, formerly archdeacon of Stow, who gave his book this title: A Harborough for faithful and true subjects against the late blown Blast concerning the government of women: wherein were confuted all such reasons as a stranger of late made in that behalf: with a brief exhortation to obedience: and printed an. Dom. 1559 at Strasburgh. Dedicated to Francis earl of Bedford, and the lord Rob. Duddely, master of the queen’s horses. And all little enough to reconcile the queen to the exiles.

    It was not long after Knox’s book, that Christopher Goodman, or Gudman, (formerly a public reader of divinity at Oxford,) one of the exiles at Geneva, printed a book to the like tenor with that of Knox’s, while queen Mary was alive; instigating her subjects to rise up against her, and to take away her authority from her, because of her idolatry, cruelty, overthrowing the good laws of the land, misgovernment, and betraying the nation by the Spanish match. But to give some more particular account of this so remarkable a book, and the rather, it being now so rarely to be seen. It was a little tract in decimo sexto, and bare this title; How superior powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and wherein they may lawfully be disobeyed and rejected. Wherein also is declared the cause of all this present misery in England, and the only way to remedy the same. By Chr. Goodman. Printed at Geneva, by John Crispin, MDLVIII. A preface commendatory of the man and his work was wrote by Will. Whittingham; beginning thus, W. Whittingham, to all them that love and know the truth, and follow it; grace and peace. In this preface he speaks of the occasion of Goodman’s writing the book, in these words: “When Mr. Chr. Goodman, one of our ministers, according to the course of the text, expounded both faithfully and comfortably this place of the Acts of the Apostles, Judge, whether it be just before God, to obey you rather than God, Acts 4:19, certain learned and godly men most instantly and at sundry times required him to dilate more at large that his sermon, and to suffer it to be printed, that not only we here present but our brethren in England and other places, might be persuaded in the truth of that doctrine concerning obedience to the magistrate, and so glorify God with it. Which request he admitted not easily; till at length, well weighing how many perished in their ignorance for lack of means to attain to the knowledge of the truth; and also conferring the articles and chief propositions with the best learned in these parts, who approved them; he consented to enlarge the same, and so to print it, as a token of his duty and affection towards the church of God; and then, if it were thought good to the judgment of the godly, to translate the same into other languages, that the profit thereof might be more universals” &c. Dated from Geneva, Jan. 1558.

    Then follows Goodman’s own preface; wherein are these expressions, which shew the design of his ensuing book: “And yet these men, in the middle of their fury, without all obedience and order, subverting the laws of God and of nature, will be called, notwithstanding, defenders of the faith, maintainers of true religion, authors of peace, teachers of obedience, and most discreet governors of commonwealths and policies. To the intent therefore that these disguised persons, which abuse the whole world, may appear in their own lively shapes, and be known as they are indeed, I have thought it good, having occasion by this worthy answer of Peter and John, and being hereto of divers godly persons provoked, somewhat to write of true obedience, to wit, what God himself requires of us, and what he commands to be given also to men; whereby, God willing, the disguised cloaks and crafty pretences of obedience, used and practised by the ungodly worldlings, shall be discovered; who have sought always, and yet do seek, under the pleasant name of obedience, only to maintain their ambition, pride, and liberty. Whereby we shall learn also, how in times past we have been shamefully abused in yielding to the wilful will of man, in obeying his ungodly commandments, and fearing man more than God,” &c.

    In his book he bitterly inveighs against those protestants, clergy, and counsellors, that set up queen Mary; and that upon many reasons: as first, because she was a woman; the anointing of whom, if Moses and his ceremonies were in full authority, would not have been lawful for him to do: it being never appointed to be ministered to any but only priests, kings, and prophets. Again, because the government of a woman the law forbade, and nature abhorred; and whose reign was never counted lawful by the word of God, but was an express sign of his wrath and notable plague for the sins of the people; as was the reign of cruel Jezebel and ungodly Athaliah, special instruments of Satan, and whips to the people of Israel.

    Thirdly, she was an idolatress, and a wicked woman. Nay, fourthly, he calls her a woman begot in adultery, a bastard by birth: it being contrary to the word of God, and the English laws, that such should reign. And that she was adjudged as a bastard by all the universities in England, France, and Italy, as well of civilians as divines. And all bastards are deprived of all honour: insomuch as by the law of Moses they were prohibited to have entrance into the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation.

    Deuteronomy 23:And therefore he reproved those that set her up, preferring her to the lawfully begotten daughter.”

    To instigate the people further, he added, “That if without fear princes transgressed God’s laws themselves, and commanded others to do the like, then they had lost that honour and obedience which otherwise their subjects did owe unto them; and ought no more to be taken for magistrates, but punished as private transgressors.” Much more might be added; but this is enough to shew the man and his dangerous doctrines. If you would see more, you may have recourse to Tho. Rogers’s Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England, where he hath preserved another taste of Goodman’s book.

    Dr. Sutclift, in his Brief Reply to a certain odious and scandalous libel by N. D. [that is, Robert Parsons,] who therein had laid to the charge of protestants their rebellion against their princes, and mentioned Goodman’s book; Dr. Sutcliff, I say, answered, “That Goodman did not like rebellion, but misliked women’s government: and that this opinion he himself had since retracted.” Which remarkable retraction I have met with among certain MSS. made, as it seems, before the lords of the council, with Goodman’s name subscribed by himself; and these are the very words: “For so much as the extremity of the time, wherein I did write my book, brought forth alteration of religion, setting up of idolatry, banishment of good men, murdering of saints, and violation of all promises made to the godly; I was, upon consideration of the present grief, moved to write many things therein, which may be, and be, offensively taken, and which also I do mislike, and would wish had not been writtell. And notwithstanding the which book so by me written, I do protest and confess, that good and godly women may lawfully govern whole realms and nations: and do from the bottom of my heart allow the queen’s majesty’s most lawful government, and daily pray for the long continuance of the same.

    Neither did I ever mean to affirm, that any person or persons of their own private authority ought or might lawfully have punished queen Mary with death: nor that the people of their own authority may lawfully punish their magistrates, transgressing the Lord’s precepts: nor that ordinarily God is become head of the people, and giveth the sword into their hands, though they do seek the accomplishment of his laws. “Wherefore, as many of these assertions as may be rightly collected out of my said book, them I do utterly renounce and revoke, as none of mine; promising never to write, teach, nor preach any such offensive doctrine: humbly desiring, that it may please your lordships to give me your good and favourable allowance; whereby I shall, by God’s grace, endeavour to labour in furthering the true service of God, and obedience to her majesty, to the utmost of my power, during my whole life; to the satisfaction of all good men, and to the contentation of her majesty and your good lordships. Christopher Goodman.” This recantation was made either before the queen’s privy council, or her bishops of the ecclesiastical commission: who in all probability had summoned Goodman before them for his book, that contained such principles as they could not but take notice of; and gave Dr. Matthew Parker no small offence, as also many others.

    Though some of the English at Geneva allowed of these books of Knox and Goodman, yet generally the English exiles in all places utterly disliked them: neither did Beza himself approve of either; being published, though in Geneva, yet without his knowledge. But as to the English exiles, John Fox, one of them, then at Basil, expostulated with Knox in a letter about this his principle. To which Knox, in a letter dated in May 1558, from Geneva, thus justified his book: “That in the writing of it he neither sought himself, nor yet the vain praise of men: that his rude vehemency and inconsiderate affirmations, (as he rightly styled them,) which might appear rather to proceed from choler, than of zeal and reason, he did not excuse; that it was enough for him to say, that black was not white, and man’s tyranny and foolishness was not God’s perfect ordinance.

    That he writ not so much to corrupt commonwealths, as to deliver his own conscience, and to instruct the conscience of some simple.”

    But this whole letter I have put in the Repository, to be read by those that please.

    These books seem to have been studiously conveyed into England under queen Mary, to disaffect the people from her government: but with whomsoever they were taken, they incurred treason ipso facto. One Lithal, of South-wark, was taken up for religion in the year 1558, by Avales the promoter, and Cluny the keeper; who brought him to Dr. Darbishire, bishop Boner’s chancellor. Avales had seized upon Lithal’s books in his house; where, among the rest, was one of these books against the regiment of women: which when Darbishire saw, he told Lithal’s friends, that he had in his keeping a book by which he could make him guilty of treason, and have him hanged, drawn, and quartered. But the queen’s sickness at that time saved him, and the chancellor took bonds for his appearance, and so dismissed him.

    These principles against women’s government seemed not to be buried many years after, but to be secretly entertained, and that by papists as well as protestants: as may well be conjectured from some passages in those sermons in the homily book, framed by occasion of the popish rebellion, ann. Dom. 1569. Where, in the first part, having quoted the two places for subjection to government, Romans 13:and 1 Peter 2:immediately it follows, “By these two places of holy scriptures it is most evident, that kings,QUEENS, and other princes (for he speaks of authority and power, be it in men or women) are ordained of God, are to be obeyed and honoured of their subjects.” And, again, “Rebels are ever ready to rebel against princes, especially if they be young, [having herein respect to king Edward,] women in sex.”

    And so throughout these sermons, whensoever there is occasion to mention kings, queens are commonly joined. “It comes neither of chance nor fortune, nor of ambition, that there be kings,QUEENS, princes.... But all kings,QUEENS, and other governors are specially appointed by the ordinance of God.”

    If we desire to know what became of Goodman afterwards; in the year 1560 (after the wars and troubles in Scotland were over, and religion established there)he was appointed to be preacher at St. Andrew’s, when John Knox was appointed at Edinburgh, having returned during these commotions to Ayre. For so we read in the History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, of one Christopher Goodman; who, I suppose, was the same with Christopher Goodman whom we have been speaking of.

    He afterwards was in England: and when sir Henry Sidney, lord deputy of Ireland, went against the popish rebels there, Goodman was his chaplain.

    He lived long in the city of Chester; where, in the year 1602, being very ancient, Dr. Usher, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, saw him, and had discourse with him, as he related in one of his own letters lately printed.

    Henry II. of France departed this life at Paris in the month of July; and the queen, according to the custom of princes, in shewing honour to each other even at their deaths, appointed his obsequies to be solemnly observed in the chief church of her realm, the cathedral of St. Paul’s, London: which was done the 8th and 9th days of September; beginning the funeral pomp, according to the usage of those times, on the eve of one day, and continuing and finishing it on the morning of the day ensuing.

    The attendants on these obsequies were, sir William Paulet, marquis of Winchester, and lord treasurer, chief mourner, who walked alone; then the lord Will. Howard, baron of Effingham, lord chamberlain, and Henry lord of Burgavenny; then the lord Dacres of the south, and Henry Cary, baron of Hunsdon; next, Will. Brook, lord Cobham, and Henry lord Scrope; then the lord Darcy, lord Chiche, and sir Rich. Sackvile; after them, Charles son and heir to the lord Will. Howard, and sir Edward Warner, lieutenant of the Tower, two and two: four bishops, all elects, namely, Dr. Matthew Parker, archbishop elect of Canterbury; Grindal, bishop elect of London; (but he by reason of sickness was absent;) Scory, of Hereford; and Barlow, of Chichester; [the bishops had black gowns given them, and eight black coats apiece for their servants:] then the French ambassador; two gentlemen ushers; the kings of arms, heralds and pursuivants; officers of the household, of the wardrobe, and others.

    The garnishment of the hearse came to. 80 13 The majesty 97 18 The helmet, mantlets, sword, &c.. 14 0 The carpet of velvet for the communion table 16 13 Banners and pensils 168 8 Hangings, covering the ground in the chancel 48 4 Duties of St. Paul’s church 13 6 The charge of black cloth for all the mourners and other officers 251 13 Charges of dinner. 38 3 Hire of the hearse 6 0 Reward to the clerk of the wardrobe.. 5 0 Offerings 0 17 The dole 10 0 The whole expense was the queen’s; which in all, with some other charges not here set down, cost her 789l . 10s. 10d. But to give some account of the funeral ceremonies; and the rather, because now they were not such as were lately used under popery, (the religion being now reformed,) but altered, and the grosser superstitions, customarily observed before, were now omitted. On Friday, Sept. 8, when the hearse was solemnly brought into the church, and every man placed, whereas the ancient custom was for one of the heralds to bid aloud the prayer for the soul of the party departed, saying, “Pray for the soul of,” &c. now there was an alteration in the words: for York herald, standing at the upper choir door, bade the prayer, (as it used to be called, but now more properly the praise,) first in English, and after in French, Benoist soit eternel, &c. “Blessed be the King of eternal glory, who through his divine mercy hath translated the most high, puissant, and victorious prince Henry II. late the French king, from this earthly to his heavenly kingdom.” Which words he used again at the end of Benedictus, and at the end of the service: and again on the morrow, at the times accustomed. The archbishop of Canterbury, in his surplice and doctor’s hood on his shoulders, who did execute, began the service, assisted by the bishops of Chichester and Hereford, appareled as the archbishop, and by two of the prebendaries in their grey amices. And first, certain psalms of praise were sung for the departure of the dead in the faith of Christ, instead, I suppose, of the Dirige: after that, one chapter of the book of Job, (perhaps taken out of the Dirige,) and then certain like psalms: after that was read the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians: which ended, Magnificat was sung: and lastly, the latter part of the evening prayer.

    All things ended, they returned in like order as they came, (except the banner left in the church,) to the great chamber within the bishop’s palace, where they had a void of wine and spices and other things: and after they had taken order to meet there again by eight of the clock in the morning, they shifted them, and departed.

    Saturday the 9th of September, about the hour assigned, they met together at the said bishop’s palace. And about nine of the clock they proceeded up to the hearse, as the day before; and all being placed as before, the three bishops elect in copes, and the two prebendaries in grey amices, came forth of the vestry unto the table of administration, and then York herald bade the prayer as before. Then the communion-office began, and proceeded forward until the offering; when the chief mourner proceeded, the officer of arms and gentleman usher before him, with his train borne, the rest of the mourners following him; but he alone offered, being a piece of gold for the headpenny; and he and others returned to the end of the service. Then the said chief mourner, with Clarencieux before him, again proceeded up without any state, and offered for himself, and returned to his place. Then the lord chamberlain and the lord of Burgaveny, with two heralds before them, proceeded up, and offered, and returned and took their places: in which like order offered all the other eight mourners, two after two; the money for them to offer had been before delivered to them by Tanner, gentleman usher. Then offered the ambassador of the french king. Then the lord mayor, with his brethren, followed him, but offered not. Then sir William St. Low, with Rouge Dragon before him, offered the banner to Clarencieux, &c.

    The offering finished, the sermon began by the elect of Hereford; (the elect of London, who should have preached, being sick;) his anthem, [that is, his text,] being Veniet hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem Filii Dei, &c. The hour shall come, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Whereupon he declared and proved the last day not to be far off: and therefore persuaded amendment of life, and to live well. And further he endeavoured to pacify both parties of the people; that it seems now freely uttered their minds according as they stood affected to religion: the one party thinking and saying, how the ceremonies used for burial were too many; yea, rather, that none at all ought to be used for the dead: the other thinking them to be too few. Hence he took occasion to shew out of divers ancient authors the order of the burial of the dead in the primitive church, and how the service at the same was to give praise to God for taking away their brother in the faith of Christ: which selfsame order they had now observed, and were about to fulfil and observe. As for the rest of the ceremonies there used, which were but few, seeing they were not contrary to the faith of Christ, nor yet contrary to brotherly and Christian charity, but for the maintenance thereof, the rather to continue amity betwixt both princes, which charity Christ especially doth command; therefore ought to be observed, and not gainsaid. But for the other ceremonies, for that they were neither beneficial to those which were alive, nor yet to the parties deceased, nor yet according to the order of the old fathers and primitive church, they Were therefore now taken away and abolished. After this, commending the royal person departed, for his worthy and noble chivalry and valiant heart, as well in prosperity as adversity, together with great commendation of his chaste life, keeping himself only to his own wife, (being a rare thing, he said, in princes,) he made an end.

    After the sermon concluded, they went forward to the communion. At the time of the reception thereof, the lord chamberlain, the lord Dacres, and sir Edward Warner rose up and went to the table, where, kneeling together with the three bishops, they all six received the communion; the rest, it seems, of the nobility here present were not yet so well reconciled to the new way of receiving the sacrament, as to partake at this time of it. All which ended with the other service: which finished, York again bade the prayer, as before. This done, the mourners and others returned to the bishop’s palace in order: where the said lords and ambassadors, and all other which had attended these exequies, were treated with a goodly dinner, and so departed at pleasure.

    CHAPTER 10.

    The poor neglected condition of the protestants, being returned home: and the state of religion. Jewel’s and Cox’s letters thereof to Bullinger and Weigher. BUT now to make a few notes how religion stood at this time. As for the exiles returned from Germany, Helvetia, and other countries, whither they had fled for their consciences, and preserving of their lives, in the last hard reign, they were much discouraged, having little notice or regard taken of them, nor any orders given for the restoration of them to their former preferments and benefices. And though they came threadbare home, yet they brought back along with them from the foreign churches and universities much experience, as well as learning. John Jewel, upon his return home into England, was harboured about three months with Nicolas Culverwel, a citizen, living (unless I mistake) in Thames-street: then the lord Williams, of Thame, being sick, sent for him; and with him he abode some time. Another of these was Tho. Lever, a very grave man, and formerly master of St. John’s college in Cambridge; who had taken this opportunity of his exile to travel into all the chief protestant towns and cities; as Argentine, alias Strasburgh, Basil, Zuric, Berne, Lausane, and Geneva; noted the doctrines and discipline in those places, and talked with their learned men. And thence had experience of their sincere doctrine, and godly order, and great learning: and especially of much virtuous learning, diligence, and charity, in Bullinger at Zuric, and Calvin at Geneva, as did greatly advance God’s glory, unto the edifying of Christ’s church with the same religion for the which you be now in prison,” as the said Lever wrote to John Bradford, the holy martyr.

    But this learned divine, with the rest of his fellows, at their first coming over, lay by, not much regarded, as was said before, the state then being so full of other employment. About October, 1559, John Box, the laborious compiler of the church’s history, chiefly as to her persecution, was in London, but very poor; and had sent a letter to the duke of Norfolk, to whom he had been tutor, and of whom he was dearly loved, to afford him relief, and supply his want, being newly come over. In the close of which letter he had these expressions: “That as to religion, he needed not to admonish him where the truth stood, but prayed God that he would manfully stand on truth’s side; and [fearing his interest for religion was not great enough] he advised him, that he should above all take heed, that if he could not help Christ at this juncture, at least that no mortal creature should ever prevail so far with him, as to be an adversary against him in any thing: for, saith he, Christ will overcome, in spite of all men.

    And for a conclusion, exhorted him to bestow that time in reading the holy scriptures, which other nobles did in the pomps and pastimes of the court.”

    But as to Fox’s own present condition, it appears by his letter that this was not the first petition he had made to the duke, his great patron; and that not having answer, and yet knowing the forwardness of the duke’s nature, and his great propensity towards him, he attributed the cause of this seenling neglect to the present time, wherein it seemed not safe for him to take notice or shew compassion to Fox, or that sort of men. As for himself, his nature was such as the duke knew, and so averse from importunate craving, that he should first almost perish with hunger before he could do it. In this letter he also excused himself, that he had not of late dedicated any thing by him written to his most illustrious name, and that it was out of a care of his grace’s safety, well knowing what danger might ensue to him in the late reign, if it should have been known that he had any favour for such a man as Fox was; and that this was the true reason thereof he should soon know: he meant he should know it by his Latin Martyrology, which he had dedicated to him, newly finished, and printed beyond sea, and now brought over with him. This was the substance of Fox’s letter, in an elegant Latin style, to his noble pupil. To which he, on the 30th of October, gave him as elegant an answer in the same language, full of kindness, and expressive of his care for him, and of the order he had given his servants to provide for him all things that he needed upon his first coming over. In which letter, as he calls Fox optime praeceptor, so Fox, in his, had called him mi Thoma. All this may be seen more fully in their letters, which I cannot forbear placing in the Appendix.

    This their neglected condition the learned exiles took not a little to heart.

    Dr. Edwin Sandys, one of them, being then at Westminster, in a letter to Dr. Parker in the country, spake of this with some concern; as, “That they never asked them in what state they stood, nor considered what they wanted: so that, as he protested, in the time of their exile they were not so bare as they were now brought.”

    These words of Sandys were occasioned by a kind letter of Dr. Parker to him, together with some gratuity sent at the same time, as it seems: which moved him to what he wrote before, and to add, “That he rightly considered, that these times were given to taking, and not to giving; and that he had stretched forth his hand [in liberality] further than all the rest.”

    Yet the exiles of the most eminency and learning were sometimes about the queen’s person, and preached often before her. Lever had so much of her ear, as to dissuade her from taking the title of supreme head; which Sandys, in his forementioned letter to Parker, blamed him for; and for wisely [as he seemed ironically to speak] putting such a scruple into the queen’s head.

    But to represent yet further how it fared now with our English refugees, and withal what the state of religion now was, I shall take it from the pen of two others of the same rank, Jewel and Cox, in their letters to their friends abroad.

    Bullinger, the great divine and superintendent of Zuric, had lately sent a letter to Jewel and Parkhurst, exhorting them in this juncture to carry themselves stoutly and boldly in the cause of religion, which was now upon its critical point. Which Jewel, in a letter dated in May, said, “was an admonition almost absolutely necessary. And that because they were to oppose, not only their old popish adversaries, but even their late friends, who had now revolted from them, and were turned against them, and sided with the adversaries, and did much more stubbornly resist them than any of their enemies. And, which was most troublesome of all, they were to wrestle with the relies of the Spaniards, [that is, what they left behind them,] their most filthy vices, pride, luxury, and lust. They did as much as they could, but at that present they lived after that sort, as though they scarce were returned from their banishment. For, to say no worse, their livings and preferments were not yet restored to them. But they were in good hope their expectations should not be frustrate, having a queen both wise and godly, and favourable to them. That religion was restored on that foot on which it stood in king Edward’s time.

    To which, he told Bullinger, his letter to the queen much contributed: but that the queen would not be styled head of the church of England, giving this grave reason thereof, that that was a title due to Christ only, and to no mortal creature besides; and that those titles had been so foully stained by Antichrist, that they might no more be piously used by any.” Then he spake of the present state of the university of Oxford: “That whatsoever had been planted there by Peter Martyr was, by the means of one friar Soto, and another Spanish monk, so wholly rooted out, that the Lord’s vineyard was turned into a wilderness: so that there were scarce two to be found in that university of their judgment. And therefore, he told Bullinger, he could not advise any of their youths yet to be sent to Oxford, unless they would have them sent back thence wicked and barbarous. That the lord Russel did what lay in him to forward the religion, and used the best skill and art he had to bring it about: and that he was so sensible of the kindness of those of Zurick to the poor English there, that he had seriously inquired of Jewel what might be acceptable to them to send them, as a grateful acknowledgment. Jewel told him, he was sure nothing would be more acceptable to them, than for his lordship studiously to propagate Christ’s religion. Which he promised he would do.” This was the substance of Jewel’s letter.

    Cox, in his letter this year to Weidnerus, the chief pastor of the church at Wormes, gave this account of the present state of religion here: “That the papists were so hardened in popery under queen Mary’s five years’ government, that it was exceeding difficult for the queen, and those that stood for the truth, to get room for the sincere reli gion of Christ; and in the parliament, the bishops, the scribes and pharisees, as he called them, opposed it. And they seemed to have the victory on their side; and that none did then scarce speak to the contrary, because of the great place and authority they bare. That the exiles in the mean time (which was all they could do) preached before the queen, and in their sermons shewed the Roman bishop to be Antichrist, and his traditions for the most part to be mere blasphemy. And that at length many of the nobility, and multitudes of the common people, fell off from popery: but of the clergy none at all; standing as stiff as a rock. “Then he informed his correspondent of the disputation that was lately held at Westminster, eight against eight. That the popish eight were the chief of their bishops and other learned men. The protestant eight were some of the poor exiles, [whereof himself was one.] That it was agreed to manage the dispute by writing, for avoiding many words. That the queen’s council and almost all the nobility were present. That the disputants on the popish side looked and spake big, and applauded themselves as victors. One on the other side answered, depending on the truth, not with great words, but in the fear of God. But having ended, the auditory declared their great satisfaction by the applause they gave the cause, to the great perturbation and confusion of the adverse party. How that another day they came prepared for another dispute. Then they were required to begin as they had done before, and the protestant side should follow. But that they refused to do it, being, as it seems, sensible of the last day’s ill success: they cried out, that it was unjust that they should begin, who had so many years continued in the possession of the catholic faith; and that if they [the protestants] had any thing against them, they should propose it, that they by their authority might confute it, and silence them as degenerate children, that had departed from the unity of the church.

    But while they thus stood out, further disputation was stopped, and they lost their cause.”

    He added, “That soon after this, Christ’s sincere religion was planted every where, and that after the same manner it was professed under king Edward.” This letter was writ May the 20th: at which time, as he wrote, “they were breaking down the popish hedge, and restoring the Lord’s vineyard. And that they were then in the work, but the harvest was great, and the labourers few.” This letter of Cox’s, together with the former of Jewel’s, worth gold to a lover of these antiquities, I have put into the Appendix: having been transcribed out of the originals, kept yet in the great church at Zuric, by the hand of John Daille’, late minister of the church at Charenton, but then a refugee at Zuric: which were kindly communicated to me by Mr. Roger Morice, lately deceased; whose name I here mention in gratitude.

    CHAPTER 11.

    Preachers at St. Paul’s Cross. The beginning of the use of common prayer. The deprivation of the old bishops. Their practices. Their condition afterwards ; and other popish churchmen. Their letter to the queen; and her answer. The emperor’s letter to the queen..A match propounded with the archduke of Austria. The vacant churches supplied. Articles to be declared; and a protestation to be subscribed by the clergy. Subscription for readers.

    Now, after the dissolution of the parliament, which was on the 8th day of May, let us see how the summer and the remaining part of the year was spent. Great care was taken, while this important work of the change of religion and rejection of the papal power was in hand, to have good preaching at St. Paul’s; and that none but men of good wisdom and learning should come up at the Cross, the better to reconcile the people to the work that was doing. And such preachers were put up as were afterwards made bishops, and advanced to eminent places in the church.

    April the 9th, Dr. Bil, the queen’s almoner, then or soon after dean of Westminster, preached at the Cross: where he declared wherefore the bishops were sent to the Tower; namely, those who carried themselves so frowardly in the intended disputation at Westminster, disappointing such an august assembly as came to hear and to be satisfied in the controverted matters of religion.

    May the 15th, Grindal (afterwards bishop of London) preached at Paul’s: where were present the queen’s council, and the great men of the court and kingdom; as the duke of Norfolk, the lord keeper of the great seal, the lord high treasurer, the earl of Arundel, the lord marquis of Northampton, the lord admiral, the earls of Sussex, Westmorland, Rutland, Bedford, and many more lords and knights, together with the lord mayor and aldermen.

    After sermon they went to dine with the lord mayor.

    The 22d, preached Mr. Horn, (afterwards bishop of Winchester,) present the judges and sergeants at law.

    The 28th, Barlow, late bishop of St. David’s, and soon after of Chichester, preached.

    June the 11th, Sandys (soon after bishop of Worcester) preached. That day being St. Barnabas feast, the apostles’ mass ceased to be said any more: and no mass said that day. Then the new dean took possession of his church. And the same night was no evensong at St. Paul’s.

    The 18th, Jewel (soon after bishop of Sarum) preached: now was sir Edward Rogers, comptroller of the queen’s household, and other noblemen, present.

    The 25th, Bentham (afterwards bishop of Litchfield) preached. These were all exiles in the late reign; and this year appointed the queen’s visitors, and soon after preferred to bishoprics.

    But to go on with the preachers, as I can collect them from the foresaid MS. diary, though somewhat imperfect.

    Aug. the l8th, Skory, new bishop of Hereford, preached at St. Paul’s, while the visitation of that church was in hand. Two days after, the rood there, with the altar, was pulled down.

    Let me insert here, that on the 30th of August one Mr. Edmund Allen, who in the said manuscript is said to be elect bishop of Rochester, was buried in the body of the church of St. Thomas Apostle’s, London; a few clerks attending; and his funeral sermon preached by Mr. Huntington the preacher. This Allen, the diary writer notes to have a wife and eight children. And Guest was consecrated bishop of that see. This Allen was an ancient, eminent protestant divine.

    Sept. the 3d, Mr. Makebray, a Scot, and an eminent exile, preached at St. Paul’s.

    The 10th, preached Dr. Turner, [William Turner, I suppose, who was formerly the duke of Somerset’s chaplain, and dean of Wells ;] his audience was very great, (perhaps increased by his fame,) consisting both of court, city, and country.

    Sept, the 17th, Mr. Veron, a Frenchman by birth, a new preacher, (as they termed the favourers of the reformation,) preached at the Cross. He was soon after minister of St. Martin’s, Ludgate, and St. Sepulchre’s. In his sermon he had these words, “Where are the bishops, and the old “preachers? Now they hide their heads.” Spoken in some joy and triumph, being now laid aside, and deposed; who had made themselves odious to the people for late rigours and cruel persecution of them and their relations.

    My diary observes, that on the day of this month of September, began the new morning prayer at St. Antholin’s, London, the bell beginning to ring at five; when a psalm was sung after the Geneva fashion; all the congregation, men, women, and boys, singing together. Sept. the 24th, Huntington the preacher officiated at Paul’s Cross before a great audience, together with the mayor and aldermen.

    October the 8th, Veron the abovementioned preached before the queen at Whitehall. He was a bold as well as eloquent man. In this his sermon he advised, that the new bishops should have lands and fair incomes, as the old bishops had: and that otherwise they would not be able to maintain hospitality, and keep such good houses as they ought, and was expected at their hands.

    The 15th of October Mr. Crowley preached at Paul’s Cross. He was once a printer, then an exile, but a learned and zealous man, and a writer.

    I insert here a sermon preached November the 4th, at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, at the wedding of a priest to a priest’s widow of Ware, by one West, a new doctor: who took occasion to speak freely and earnestly against the roodlofts; and that those godly ministers that fled for the word of God were to be helped, and to be presented to livings for their subsistence. Which it seems hitherto was more sparingly done.

    November the 12th, old Miles Coverdale preached at the Cross.

    The 19th, Mr. Bentham (ere long to be bishop of Coventry and Litchfield) preached there. And so did, The 26th, Jewel, bishop of Salisbury. Where, upon the fame of that learned man, was a very great confluence of auditors as had been ever seen at the Cross; and where, besides the mayor and aldermen, were many of the court. But now to look a little back into the transactions of this summer.

    The 24th day of June, being the festival of St. John Baptist, made a great alteration; that being the day appointed by the late parliament, from which the new service-book was to be only used in all the churches throughout England. Hitherto the Latin mass-book remained, and the priests celebrated service, for the most part, as they did before; that is, from November 1558 to this month of June 1559. During which time were great and earnest disputes and arguments held among the clergy, both protestants and papists, concerning the English book for public prayers. But when that day came, the protestants generally received the book with great joy, finding it to consist of the same divine service with that in godly king Edward’s days.

    Let me set down the words of one Earl, a curate in London in these days, in a diary he kept. Against the 24th day of June he wrote, O blessed day!

    And again, Saint John Baptist’s day, Put the pope away.

    Then was king, Edward’s book restored to all men’s comfort. And verily the people were most willing to receive the book of divine service thus brought to us. Yet he makes a note of exception to a few of Calvin’s church; that is, such as lately came from Geneva, and perhaps from some other places where his platform was followed, and where it was their lot to reside, who fled abroad in the Marian days. But yet of these he observed withal, that many complied and obeyed.

    But the popish priests, that is, the majority of them, utterly refused. Whose peevish obstinacy, he writes, was patiently suffered seven months, in conferences and open disputations.

    They objected against the legality of the use of the communion-book; and clamoured against the law that established it, as defective: as they declared in a paper of questions, that was a little after privately dispersed. Which Pilkinton, bishop of Durham, printed and answered. Herein they say, that this manner of ministering of the sacrament, set forth in the book of common prayer, was never allowed nor agreed upon by the universal church of Christ in a general council; no, not by the clergy of England at the last parliament. But that it was only agreed upon by the laity, who had nothing to do in spiritual matters; meaning, in respect of the bishops then in parliament disagreeing to the act of uniformity; and that nothing could be concluded as a law in parliament, but by consent of the clergy there present. To which the said answerer replied, “That this was done but just as queen Mary had done before; who by her statute took away one religion, and brought in another. And no more was done now. Nor was all the clergy of the realm comprehended in a few popish bishops. Was there (replied he) no clergy in the universities, nor other parts of the realm, besides these few bishops that consented not? Many in the universities, and abroad in the realm, had used this service openly and commonly in their churches afore it was received or enacted by parliament: which was an evidence that many of the clergy approved it. Nor did the parliament (said he) set forth a new religion, but restored that which was before defaced; restored that which was godly begun under good king Edward, confirmed by his parliament and clergy then; but suddenly by violence trodden under feet by bloody papists a little after.”

    He further shewed, “That it was not to be granted as true, that no laws at all could be made without consent of the bishops. For that the old statutes of parliament, when bishops were highest, afore king Edward III. we read, passed by consent of the lords temporal and commons, without any mention of the lords spiritual; which statutes, many of them, stood in force at that day. And that it was as necessary to have abbots in the parliament; for they were present of old time; and their consent was required as well as the bishops.”

    Further, “That the practice of the lawyers, judges, and justices evinced this and the rest to be good laws; for they all executed them: and that their doings might be a suffi cient reason to lead the unlearned in their opinion of these laws for religion; that they would not have executed them, had they not the strength and nature of laws.” Thus Pilkinton.

    Soon after St. John Baptist’s day, commissioners were sent forth to visit the universities, the dioceses of bishops, cathedral churches, head cities and boroughs, to administer to them the oath of supremacy, and to see the order of parliament for uniformity in the use of the book set on foot, and observed.

    Now also, since many churches were left destitute, the ministers that remained, and that were put into the places of the popish priests, especially in London, were fain to serve three or four churches on Sundays and holydays, in reading the prayers, and administering the sacraments to the people. And yet they sufficed not. So that in this year, and some years following, until the year 1564 inclusive, many of the laity, who were competently learned, and of sobriety and good religion, were appointed to read the service in the churches, by letters of toleration from the bishops, some as deacons, some as helpers of the ministers in the word and sacraments: and divers having been made deacons, after long and good trial of their doctrine and conversation, were admitted into priest’s orders, and beneficed. As we shall hear more of these matters hereafter.

    By the way, I cannot but here bring to mind, that in this course of procuring readers, the present bishops seemed to follow the direction of some great divines that suffered under queen Mary, and foresaw the havoc and destruction would be made of the ministers of the church of England reformed. John Rogers, the first that suffered under queen Mary, in a prophetical spirit told Day the printer, (who was then a prisoner in Newgate with him for religion,) that he would live to see the alteration of religion, and the gospel to be freely professed and preached again; and bade him recommend him to his brethren, as well in exile as others; and that when they came in place, they should be circumspect in displacing the papists, and putting good ministers into the churches. And because there would be a lack of such at the first restoration of religion, his advice to them was, (and bishop Hooper also agreed to the same,) that for every ten churches some one good and learned superintendent should be appointed; who should have under him faithful readers, such as might well be got: and the bishops once a year to oversee the profiting of the parishes. And if these reading ministers did not their duty, as well in profiting themselves in their books, as the parishioners in good instruction, so that they might be trained by little and little to give a reckoning how they did profit, then to be expelled, and others put in their rooms: and the bishops to do the like with the superintendents. But to pursue our history.

    Fourteen of queen Mary’s bishops, now alive, were all deprived. These, besides their carriage in the parliament-house, had doubly disobliged the queen. I. In that they had conspired among themselves, that none of them would set the crown upon her head: which all refused to do, till it came to one of the last of them, namely, Oglethorp, bishop of Carlisle. II. When some heads of religion were to be handled between them and the protestant party, for the satisfaction of the noblemen, the counsellors, and the members of the parliament, they declined it, nor would be concerned in it: as appeared plain enough by their manner of coming to the dispute; and having heard what their adversaries urged, altogether refused, in the face of the honourable company assembled, to engage in further dissertation with them; as hath been told before.

    But seeing the obstinate refusal of the bishops to acknowledge the queen’s supremacy, and how they scarcely owned her government, they were to be deprived, and others, that would comply, to be placed in their rooms. For the effecting this, was that ecclesiastical commission intended, (as we learn from a wise and knowing man of the law that lived near those times,) enacted in the first of queen Elizabeth, (in the act entitled, An Act restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction, &c.) For herein was a power granted for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons. This branch was enacted of necessity: for that all the bishops and state of the clergy of England being then popish, it was necessary to raise a commission to deprive them that would not deprive themselves.

    This first commission upon the statute aforesaid, whereby the popish bishops were deprived, and many other of the clergy, is said to be lost: and enrolled it is not, saith my lord Coke, as it ought to have been. But there were some, he added, that had seen it, and affirmed, that it passed not above twenty sheets of paper copy wise: whereas afterwards the high commission contained usually three hundred sheets of paper. It was affirmed likewise, that never any high commissions were enrolled, as they ought to have been, until the lord chancellor Egerton’s time. The papists themselves, in former times, did acknowledge the popish bishops were deprived, though the instruments thereof are lost. So Champney; “The bishoprics now vacant, either by death, as was that of Canterbury only; [yes, besides Canterbury, Salisbury, Chichester, Rochester, Bangor, and Norwich;] or, per injustam depositionem; i.e. by unjust deprivation, as were all the rest.” And the papists did not so much as dispute of that deprivation, viz. whether there was a deprivation of the popish bishops, as whether it were justly done. Which Mason, in his learned book of the English Ministry, hath a chapter to prove. And Saunders, in his book of the English Schism, writing of this deprivation, saith thus; Praeter unum omnes [episcopi reginae Mariae ] paulo post de gradu et dignitate sua depositi, ac carceribus variisque custodiis commissi, &c. That is, “All queen Mary’s bishops but one, a little after, [that is, after Midsummer-day, 1559,] were deposed from their degree and dignity, and committed to prisons and various custodies.”

    Bishop Boner was sent for before the council May the 30th, (and so, I suppose, were some other bishops with him, and the rest at times,) and there tendered the oath of supremacy: which he refused to take, and thereby lost his bishopric. This remaineth under his own hand writ, in rei memoriam, in his own Eusebius, (which fell into the hands of the late antiquarian Anthony a Wood,) in these precise words; Litera dominicali A. an. Dom. MDLIX. die Maii 30:vocatus ad concilium recusavi praestare juramentum: et omnino deprivatus. Yet the sentence of deprivation was not pronounced till next month by the queen’s commissioners.

    So then he and all the rest of the bishops (excepting the bishop of Landaft, who took the oath) were deprived, or rather deprived themselves, for refusing to swear the supremacy. But that they were also committed to prisons, (as our historians commonly write, perhaps taking up upon credit what popish authors write,) I doubt much; since that act of supremacy maketh their punishment that refuse the oath, to be only forfeiture of their spiritual promotions and benefices. And Boner himself, in his memorandum before specified, with his own pen, mentions only his deprivation, and no imprisonment. And Stow, who lived in those times, and was a careful observer of matters that passed, relateth only, how they were deprived after they were called and examined by certain of the queen’s council: adding, so were other spiritual persons deprived also; and some indeed committed to prison. But that was for another transgression of the same act, viz. by some word or deed extolling a foreign jurisdiction superior to the queen, or within her dominions. Which to do was forfeiture of goods and chattels. And if such person were not worth 20l . then, besides the said forfeiture, it was imprisonment for a year. Whereby it seems several, both of the bishops as well as of others of the popish clergy, were committed to the Fleet, Marshalsea, or Tower of London.

    But to represent this business more certainly and exactly, out of a valuable memorial of sir Henry Sidney, transcribed among the MSS. of archbishop Usher, we learn more particularly, that these fourteen bishops, (which were all that were alive, excepting the bishop of Landaft,) viz. Hethe, archbishop of York, Boner, bishop of London, Thirleby of Ely, Watson of Lincoln, White of Winchester, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Turbervil of Exon, Bayne of Litchfield and Coventry, Pool of Peterborough, Gouldwell of St. Asaph, Pate of Worcester, Scot of Chester, Tunstal of Durham, Oglethorp of Carlisle, on the 15th of May, (the parliament being that day sevennight dissolved,) were by the queen called together, with other clergy: (perhaps it was the body of the convocation then assembled:) and she told them, that in pursuance of the laws lately made for religion, and restoring the ancient right of the supremacy to the crown, they would take into their serious consideration the affairs of the church, and expulse out of it all schisms, and the superstitious worship of the church of Rome.

    Whereupon the archbishop of York, in the name of the rest, made this incompliant and peremptory declaration to the queen; “That in the behalf of the catholic church here planted within her grace’s dominions, he was entreated by several of the reverend fathers of the mother church, the bishops of several dioceses within the realm, to move her majesty, that she would seriously recollect to memory her gracious sister’s zeal unto the holy see of St. Peter at Rome, as also the covenants between her and that holy see made soon after her coronation: wherein she had promised to depress heresies and all heretical tenets; binding both her gracious majesty, her successors, and this realm, under perpetual ignominy and curse, if not perfected by them. And that upon these conditions that holy see would be pleased once more to take her and the realm into her bosom, after so long a heresy increasing within this isle.”

    The queen hearing this, and regarding well how these bishops stood affected, (notwithstanding they had been thus fairly and candidly dealt withal, nor were arbitrarily thrust out of their bishoprics and livelihoods, as king Edward’s bishops and clergy were under queen Mary, but might have remained in their places, had they owned the queen’s supremacy, and the act for uniformity, whatever their former miscarriages were, and the constant opposition they made in parliament to the good bills brought in about religion,) she made this resolute and brave reply to Hethe and the rest. “That as Joshua declared, saying, I and my house will serve the Lord; so she and her realm were resolved to serve him. For which cause she had there assemble her clergy; and was resolved to imitate Josiah; who assembled the ancients of Judea and Jerusalem purposely to make a covenant with the Lord. Thus had she assembled her parliament together, with them of the clergy, for the same intent, to contract with God, and not with the bishop of Rome. And that it lay not in her sister’s power to bind her, her successors, or her realms, unto the authority which was usurped.

    That therefore she, with her predecessors, who had (as our records justified) ejected that usurped and pretended power, (which for future times would be precedents for her heirs and successors to imitate and to dive into,) did absolutely renounce all foreign jurisdiction: as her crown was no way either subject to, or to be drawn under any power whatsoever, saving under Christ, the King of kings. That the bishop of Rome’s usurpation over monarchy shewed his desire of primacy over the whole earth: which to him and his successors would prove confusion. And that, finally, she should therefore esteem all those her subjects, both ecclesiastical and civil, as enemies to God, to her, and her heirs and successors, who should henceforth own his usurped, or any foreign power whatsoever.”

    This noble declaration of the queen, as it somewhat quelled the Romish zeal of these popish fathers, so it much encouraged the hearts of those who were affected to the reformation.

    The queen’s council were displeased at this stubborn and disloyal behaviour of the bishops. And hereupon some of their former intrigues and unlawful practices under king Edward were brought to light; concerning some private transactions with Rome, in laying plots against some of that king’s best friends: of which matters queen Mary, when princess, was privy. And of these things divers letters and papers remained in her closet at her death. Which closet, upon her decease, (as is customary,) was sealed up by order of her privy council, for the use of her present majesty, her successor. Here were several bundles of letters from cardinal Pole, and from this archbishop Hethe, (who then, being bishop of Worcester, was disaffected to the said king Edward and his proceedings,) and likewise from most of the foresaid popish bishops, written unto queen Mary, both before and during her reign. The earl of Sussex was the person that sealed up the said closet, and took this occasion to acquaint the queen therewith: whose words caused her to send him to search for them. And being found, they were brought to the council, and therein much was discovered of these secret practices in those times: as, how to order affairs to strengthen the interest of the bishop of Rome, and the Romish religion, in case king Edward should miscarry: also, all the intrigues that were carried on by the bishops of London and Winchester; and letters thereupon sent from them to Rome, and from Rome hither. The sum of which was, how to lay plots to cut off the protector, and most of the wisest of the king’s council: hoping hereby to procure the settlement of the Romish religion, and to weaken the interest of the crown.

    Had these projects been but discovered during king Edward’s days, it was thought it would have hindered queen Mary’s reign. For when they were read at council, those privy counsellors who were instrumental for her coming to the crown before the lady Jane Grey, were much amazed, having never heard of these things till now.

    May the 18th, the council met the second time upon the bishops’ business; and having taken these doings of theirs aforesaid into further consideration, it was generally declared, that these acts, being committed partly in king Edward’s reign and partly in queen Mary’s, and nothing since laid to their charge, saving their zeal to the see of Rome, her majesty’s sister’s pardon, and her own at her entrance to the crown, would clear them. Yet the council advised the queen to tender them the oath of supremacy and allegiance. Which was accordingly now, or some time afterwards, tendered them: and they refusing, were all expulsed their bishoprics within a short time after, as was shewn before. These bishops, in this round dealing with them, as well as others of the popish clergy, seemed to be much mistaken; deeming that the present state of the church was such, as there would be a necessity of continuing them in their places, for want of ministers to supply their rooms. And afterwards, finding that good shift was made without them, they repented themselves for their incompliance. Thus one that lived in these times tells them: “That a great many of them by this time, he believed, beshrewed their own heads, that they so at once gave over their bishoprics and livings, upon a false hope of leaving the realm utterly destitute of ecclesiastical ministry: and so, by troubling all, trusting that themselves should shortly with more honour be called again. Which not coming to pass according to their expectation, a great many of them took penance enough upon them, that they gave not place in some points colourable, as they did in king Henry and king dward’s days; and so to have retained their livings and authorities still: whereby they might have pinched the hearty protestants somewhat more shrewdly than now they could do.”

    Take this more particular account of these popish bishops, together with the conclusion of some monasteries lately erected, as I have collected it out of a certain diary in the Cotton library, kept by some diligent observers of matters in those times, especially in and about London.

    June the 12th, 1559, the friars of Greenwich were discharged, and went away.

    June the 21st, the bishops of Litchfield and Coventry, of Carlisle, Westchester, and two bishops more, were deprived, [by the queen’s commissioners that came now into the city to tender the oath.] The 25th, the bishops of Lincoln and Winchester were brought to Mr. Haws the sheriff’s house in Mincing-lane, [where some commissioners assembled,] and there were deprived. Winchester went to the Tower again; Lincoln was delivered, that is, set at liberty.

    The 29th, bishop Boner was deprived finally [by the commissioners.] July the 5th, archbishop Hethe and bishop Thirlby were deposed at the lord treasurer’s place in St. Augustine’s; that is, in Broadstreet, where he had a house situate upon part of the Augustine friars, [and where the queen’s commissioners or visitors seem now to have met.] July the 7th, (being St. Thomas of Canterbury’s day,) White, bishop of Winchester, was brought from the Tower by sir Edward Warner, lieutenant, by six in the morning, unto the lord keeper’s; from whom he was dismissed to Mr. John [Thomas] White, alderman, living near Bartholomew-lane, to sojourn with him, [for he was not well.] The 12th, the Black friars in Smithfield went away; as the 4th day, the priests and nuns of Sion did, as also the monks of the Charter-house; and the abbot of Westminster and his monks were deprived.

    The 20th, the bishop of Durham came riding on horseback to London, with about threescore horse; and so to Southwark, unto one Dolman’s house, where he remained.

    The 25th, being St. James’s day, the warden of Winchester, and other doctors and priests, were delivered out of the Tower, Marshalsea, and other prisons, in honour of king Philip, on this Spanish saint’s day.

    September 29, the bishop of Durham was deprived.

    If we desire to know what became of these bishops afterwards, they, or some of them, were under some confinement for some time in the year following, viz. 1560; for then I find six of them, together with an abbot and a dean, in the Tower: who had been committed thither by the archbishop of Canterbury, and others, I suppose, of the ecclesiastical commission. These were now permitted to come together at their meals, by virtue of a letter of the council to the archbishop, if he approved of it: namely, Dr. Hethe, Dr. Boxal, Dr. Pate, and Dr. Feckenham, to be admitted to one company for one of the tables: and for the other table, Dr. Thirleby, Dr. Bourne, Dr. Watson, and Dr. Turbervile. But after a little time they were all committed to easier restraints, and some restored to their perfect liberty.

    Yet they did not escape all spiritual censures; for I find excommunication inflicted upon some of them: as upon Boner, July 28, 1560, denounced at Paul’s Cross by the preacher. In the month of February, 1560, Hethe, while he remained in the Tower, was excommunicated: and the 25th of the same month, Thirleby also being there, underwent the same censure, declared at Bow church. And this was the utmost severity from the church they endured: which was far short of what they had used when they were in power.

    Hethe, late archbishop of York, having been lord chancellor of England, and having in parliament declared the death of queen Mary, and the just title of the lady Elizabeth, her sister, to succeed; for this duty towards his prince, he lived (after a little trouble) quietly and nobly in his own lordship of Chobham, situate in Surrey; yet giving security not to interrupt the laws of church or state, or meddle with the affairs of the realm. And, being old and full of days, he made his last will, and gave away his said estate to his kinsman and heir. He was always honourably esteemed by the queen, and sometimes had the honour to be visited by her majesty. And differing manifestly in religion, yet was he not restrained of his liberty, nor deprived of his proper lands and goods, but enjoyed all his purchases, living discreetly in his own house, during his natural life, until by very age he departed this life; and then left his house and livings to his friends, as he thought good. An example of gentleness never matched in queen Mary’s days.

    Tunstal was committed to the gentle custody of the archbishop elect at Lambeth, where he was treated with much respect, and lived contentedly; and it was said (but that he thought it some disgrace, and that his bishopric was like to be elsewhere disposed) he would have complied with the queen’s laws. For the archbishop assured the queen, that he complied during his life in several points of the reformation. “Bishop Tunstal’s judgment in the point of transub stantiation, and his dislike of pope Innocent’s making it an article of faith, shewed him a wise man. The bishop [meaning bishop Tunstal] was of the mind (said Bernard Gilpin) that we ought to speak reverently of the holy supper, as did the ancient fathers; but that the opinion of transubstantiation might well be let alone. This thing also the same bishop was wont to affirm, both in words and writings; that Innocent III. knew not what he did, when he put transubstantiation among the articles of faith; and said, that Innocent wanted learned men about him. And indeed, added the bishop, if I had been of his council, I make no doubt but I might have been able to have dissuaded him from that resolution.”

    But Tunstal soon died, [viz. November 18,] having lived to the age of eighty-five or eighty-six years; and was buried in the chancel of the parish church of Lambeth, with a funeral decency becoming his rank and quality, and the offices he had borne in church and state; and had a fair stone, with an honourable inscription laid over him.

    Thirlby (a person of nature affable) was also committed to the care of the same archbishop. He at first had his liberty, till he began to preach against the reformation: but being pardoned, afterwards was in custody of the archbishop, and living in much ease and credit with him for ten years, was buried in the same church with the like decency, and a stone laid over him.

    White died in liberty, saith bishop Andrews: he, although he had the liberty to walk abroad, would not be quiet, but would needs preach; which he did seditiously in his Romish pontifical vestments. For which he was committed to prison; but upon his acknowledgment of his misdemeanours he was set free. This bishop, with bishop Watson, had the presumption to threaten to excommunicate the queen. He died of an ague, January 12, 1559, at Sir Thomas White’s place in Hampshire; and the 15th, was carried and buried at Winchester.

    Bourne was harboured chiefly with Dr. Carew, dean of Exeter, his old friend: and after eleven years died, and was buried at Silverton, in Devon.

    Turbervile, an honest gentleman, but a simple bishop, lived many years a private life, and in full liberty deceased. David Poole, an ancient grave person, and quiet subject, was used with all kindness by his prince, and living in his own house, died in a mature age, and left his estate to his friends.

    Oglethorp, who had the honour to consecrate and crown the queen, died of an apoplexy the year after, and was buried the 4th of January, 1559; to whom the queen, had he lived, would have shewn some particular kindness. He was privately buried, with half a dozen escutcheons of arms, at St. Dunstan’s in the West. And Bayne soon after him, the same month, (having lived with the bishop of London,) died of the stone, and was buried near the beginning of January in the same church of St. Dunstan’s.

    Watson, altogether a sour and morose man, lived twenty-four years after his deprivation, some time with the bishop of Rochester, and some time with the bishop of Ely. But afterwards, when certain Roman emissaries came into the realm, and began to disturb the church, he (being too conversant with them) was committed to Wisbich castle a close prisoner.

    As for Boner, I find he was committed to the Marshalsea, in April, 1560, and seems to have been at liberty till then. It is true he was kept in the prison of the Marshalsea: and that turned to his own safety; being so hated by the people, that it would not have been safe for him to have walked in public, lest he should have been stoned or knocked on the head by some of the enraged friends and acquaintance of those whom he had but a little before so barbarously beaten or butchered. He grew old in prison, and died a natural death in the year 1569, not suffering any want, or hunger, or cold.

    For he lived daintily, had the use of the garden and orchards when he was minded to walk abroad, and take the air: suffering nothing like imprisonment, unless that he was circumscribed within certain bounds.

    Nay, he had his liberty to go abroad, but dared not venture: for the people retained in their hearts his late bloody actions.

    Scot, a rigid man, detained in the Fleet for some time; and Goldwell: these went privately away beyond sea. And so did Pate, after some confinement in the Tower.

    Gold well lived afterwards at Rome twenty-six years, and there died. Pate, I tlnd afterwards a prisoner in the Tower, anno 1563, perhaps for presuming to sit in the council of Trent.

    Of some of these, more a great deal might be said, if need were; some things shall be read of them in the process of this history.

    So little cause had Saunders to write, (and such little truth was in it,) “that all the bishops but one were deposed from their degree and dignity, and committed to prisons and divers restraints. And so hereby at this day all of them, by long and tedious misery, are come to their ends.”

    Other dignified men suffered also some favourable restraints: as Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, first in the Tower, and then with the bishop of London, and the bishop of Winchester; being a man of quiet and courteous behaviour for a great while, though afterwards not so: behaving himself so ill towards his host bishop Horn, that he was fain to vindicate himself against the said Feckenham, in a book printed, as we shall hear further in its place. Dr. Boxal, dean of Windsor, a person of great modesty, learning, and knowledge; Dr. Cole, dean of St. Paul’s, a person more earnest than wise; Dr. Reynolds, dean of Exeter, not unlearned, and many others; having borne offices and dignities in the church, and who had made profession against the pope, which profession they begun in queen Mary’s time to change, yet were they never burdened with any capital pains, nor yet deprived of any of their goods or proper livelihoods, but only removed from their ecclesiastical offices, which they would not exercise according to the laws. And most of them, and many others of their sort, for a great time were retained in bishops’ houses, in very civil and courteous manner, without charge to themselves or their friends, until the time that the pope began by his bulls and messages to offer trouble to the realm by stirring of rebellion. About which time only, some of these aforenamed, being found buffer in matters of state, tending to stir troubles, than was meet for the common quiet of the realm, were removed to other more private places, where such other wanderers, as were men known to move sedition, might be restrained from common resorting to them to increase trouble, as the pope’s bulls gave manifest occasions to doubt. And yet without charging them in their consciences, or otherwise, by any inquisition, to bring them into danger of any capital law. So as no one was called to any capital or bloody question upon matter of religion, but all enjoyed their lives as the course of nature would: as a peron of honour wrote who lived in those times, and had occasion to know perfectly all that was then done.

    But it is here to be remarked, that all or most of these, both bishops and other dignified men of the clergy, (however they were now zealous for the pope, even to the parting with their preferments for his sake,) had in the time of king Henry VIII. and king Edward VI. either by preaching, writing, reading, or arguing, taught all people to condemn, yea, to abhor the authority of the pope. For which purpose they had many times given their oath publicly against the pope’s authority: and had also yielded to both the said kings the title of supreme head of the church of England, next under Christ. And many of their books and sermons against the pope’s authority remained, printed in English and Latin, to be seen long after, to their great shame and reproof, to change so often, but especially in persecuting such as themselves had taught and established to hold the contrary.

    But these bishops, thus discharged from their public ministration in the church, ceased not to solicit the queen in the behalf of the old religion. For the change among the clergy being effected by her, several of them in the beginning of December sent this message to her majesty, with their names subscribed. “Most royal queen, we entreat your gracious majesty to listen unto us of the catholic clergy within your realm, as well as unto others, lest that your gracious majesty and subjects be led astray through the inventions of those evil counsellors, who are persuading your ladyship to embrace schisms and heresies in lieu of the ancient catholic faith, which hath been long since planted within this realm, by the motherly care of the church of Rome. Which your ancestors duly and reverently observed and confessed, until by heretical and schismatical advisers your father was withdrawn; and after him your brother prince Edward. After whose decease, your virtuous sister queen Mary of happy memory succeeded. Who, being troubled in conscience with what her father’s and her brother’s advisers had caused them to do, most piously restored the catholic faith, by establishing the same again in this realm: as also by extinguishing the schisms and heresies which at that time began to flame over her territories. For which God poured out his wrath upon most of the malefactors and misleaders of the nation. “We further entreat your ladyship to consider the supremacy of the church of Rome. And histories yet make mention, that Athanasius was expulsed by her and her council in Liberius his time; the emperor also speaking against him for withstanding the head of the church. These ancient things we lay before your majesty, hoping God will turn your heart; and, in fine, make your majesty’s evil advisers ashamed; and to repent their heresies. God preserve your majesty. Which be the prayers of Nicolas Hethe, James Turberville, Edmond Boner, David Poole.”

    Gilbert Bourne, At this letter, so boldly charging king Henry and king Edward, monarchs of noble memory, and both so nearly related unto the queen, and likewise so rudely reflecting upon her and their counsellors, whom they called their advisers, she was angry, and so were several of her council. And she returned them this answer before she rose from the council. “E. R. Sirs, As to your entreaty, for us to listen to you, we wave it: yet do return you this our answer. Our realm and subjects have been long wanderers, walking astray, whilst they were under the tuition of Romish pastors, who advised them to own a wolf for their head, (in lieu of a careful shepherd,) whose inventions, heresies, and schisms be so numerous, that the flock of Christ have fed on poisonous shrubs for want of wholesome pastures. And whereas you hit us and our subjects in the teeth, that the Romish church first planted the catholic faith within our realms, the records and chronicles of our realms testify the contrary; and your own Romish idolatry maketh you liars: witness the ancient monument of Gildas; unto which both foreign and domestic have gone in pilgrimage there to offer. This author testifieth Joseph of Arimathea to be the first preacher of the word of God within our realms. Long after that, when Austin came from Rome, this our realm had bishops and priests therein, as is well known to the wise and learned of our realm by woful experience, how your church entered therein by blood; they being martyrs for Christ, and put to death, because they denied Rome’s usurped authority. “As for our father being withdrawn from the supremacy of Rome by schismatical and heretical counsels and advisers; who, we pray, advised him more, or flattered him, than you, good Mr. Hethe, when you were bishop of Rochester? And than you, Mr. Boner, when you were archdeacon ? And you, Mr. Turberville? Nay further, who was more an adviser of our father, than your great Stephen Gardiner, when he lived? Are not ye then those schismatics and heretics? If so, suspend, your evil censures. Recollect, was it our sisters conscience made her so averse to our father’s and brother’s actions, as to undo what they had perfected? Or was it not you, or such like advisers, that dissuaded her, and stirred her up against us and other of the subjects? “And whereas you would frighten us, by telling how emperors, kings, and princes have owned the bishop of Rome’s authority; it was contrary in the beginning. For our Saviour Christ paid his tribute unto Caesar, as the chief superior; which shews your Romish supremacy is usurped. “As touching the excommunication of St. Athanasius by Liberius and that council, and how the emperor consented thereunto; consider the heresies that at that time had crept into the church of Rome, and how courageously Athanasius withstood them, and how he got the victory. Do ye not acknowledge his creed to this day?

    Dare any of you say, he is a schismatic? Surely ye be not so audacious. Therefore as ye acknowledge his creed, it shews he was no schismatic. If Athanasius withstood Rome for her then heresies, then others may safely separate themselves from your church, and not be schismatics. “We give you warning, that for the future we hear no more of this kind, lest you provoke us to execute those penalties enacted for the punishing of our resisters: which out of our clemency we have forborne.

    From Greenwich, December 6, anno secundo regn.” This was the mild way of this protestant princess, to argue thus at large with her dissenting subjects, and to convince them by authorities, and evidence of reason; though several of her council moved her to punish these men for their insolency; and especially Boner, since he had been so inveterate against the protestants in the late reign. But she with much clemency and Christianity replied, “Let us not follow our sister’s example, but rather shew that our reformation tendeth to peace, and not to cruelty.”

    Yet she took her council’s advice at the same time, which they gave her at least to secure these bishops from sowing future seditions or factions among the people, since divers flocked after them, and visited them: and sometimes they would take their opportunity of preaching. Thus White preached sedition, and that in his Romish pontifical vestments. For which he was committed to prison; but upon acknowledgment of his misdemeanours, he was set at liberty, as we heard before. And Thirleby had his liberty too, till he began to preach against the reformation. But being pardoned, he was afterwards appointed to sojourn with the archbishop of Canterbury.

    It is certain the papists were now very bold and stirring; as may appear from the preamble of an act made the next parliament for the further establishment of the queen’s supremacy: where it is set forth, that the favourers of the pope’s usurped power were grown to marvellous outrage and licentious boldness, and required more sharp restraints and correction of laws.” This may suggest the reasons of the commitments following.

    April 20, 1560, Boner, late bishop of London, was carried to the Marshalsea. May the 20th, the same year, Feckenham, late abbot of Westminster, Watson, late bishop of Lincoln, Cole, late dean of St. Paul’s, Chedsey, late archdeacon of Middlesex, at liberty, as it seems, before, were all sent to the Tower. And the same day, at eight o’clock at night, Dr. Story, the civilian, was sent to the Fleet. June the 3d following, Thirleby, late bishop of Ely, was sent also to the Tower. June the 10th, Hethe, late archbishop of York, was sent to the Tower; and Cole (who had been in the Tower) to the Fleet.

    June the 18th, Boxal, late dean of Windsor, (if I mistake not,) and secretary to queen Mary; and Bourne, late bishop of Bath and Wells, and Troublefield, (as he is sometimes writ,) or Turberville, late bishop of Exeter, were sent to the Tower.

    The next endeavour of the bishops deprived and others of the popish clergy, was to get the free exercise of their religion, contrary to the law established. And for this, in this second year of the queen’s reign, the emperor Ferdinand, and several other of the Romish catholic princes, wrote to her majesty, making earnest suit, that those Romish bishops, and other of that clergy who were displaced for refusing the oath of supremacy, might be mercifully dealt withal; and that churches might be allowed to the papists in all the cities and chief towns of the realm.

    The answer the queen made to these desires of the emperor and princes was to this purpose: “That although the popish bishops had insolently and openly opposed the laws and the peace of the realm, and did still wilfully reject that doctrine which many of them had publicly owned and declared in their sermons, during king Henry VIII. and king Edward VI. their reigns; yet she would, for so great princes’ sakes, deal favourably with them, though not without some offence to her subjects; because they had been so cruel to the poor reformed protestants in her sister’s reign. But to grant them churches, wherein they might celebrate mass, and have congregations and public assemblies, she could not with the safety of her realm, and without wrong to her own honour and conscience: neither did she see cause, why she should grant it, seeing England embraced not new or strange doctrine, but the same which Christ commanded, and what the primitive and catholic church had received, and was approved by the ancient fathers, as might be testified by their writings. Therefore for her to allow churches which contradicted the truth and the gospel, were not only to repeal the laws established by act of parliament, but to sow religion out of religion, to distract good people’s minds, to cherish factions, to disturb religion and the commonwealth, and to mingle divine and human things: a thing evil in itself, but in example worst of all: to her own good subjects hurtful, and unto them to whom it is granted neither greatly commodious nor safe. That therefore, in fine, she determined, out of her natural clemency, and especially at their requests she was willing, to bear the private insolency of a few by much connivance; yet so as she might not encourage their obstinate minds by her indulgence.”

    The papistical religion was in danger of getting footing again by another endeavour of papists, namely, by the match that was in hand between the queen and the archduke of Austria, which the emperor earnestly promoted; of which we heard something before. The earl of Sussex was then the queen’s ambassador at that court, and managed this business on the queen’s part. The matter came to certain propositions offered on the emperor’s part. That about religion was, that a public church might be allowed, wherein mass might be celebrated to him and his. But this was denied at the English court. Then it was proposed, that the archduke might peaceably hear mass in some private place in the court, as was permitted to catholic princes’ ambassadors in their houses. And that with these conditions: that no Englishman should be admitted thereunto; and that neither he nor his servants should speak against the protestant reformation revived in England, or favour those that should speak against it. That if any displeasure should arise in respect of religion, he should be present with the queen at divine service to be celebrated after the church of England. Thus far the emperor and archduke Charles went; straining a point, out of great hopes conceived by himself and the papists, that the Romish religion should by this means be celebrated for the present, and within some space of time perhaps be thereby established again. But the queen dashed all, by returning this answer, That in case she should adhere to these proposals, and grant them, she should offend her conscience, and openly break the public laws of her realm, not without great peril both of her dignity and safety.

    So that by all these tokens already shewn, sufficient assurance was given by her, that, however wavering some might think the queen before, she was well confirmed against popery. And that she was thus, one of her first bishops, viz. Sandys, in a great audience, afterwards gave this account of her: “She is the very patroness of true religion, rightly termed the defender of his faith; one that before all other things seeketh the kingdom of God. If the threatenings of men could have terrified her, or their allurements enticed her, or any crafty persuasions have prevailed with her, she had revolted long ere this, so fiercely by great potentates her constancy hath been assaulted. But God hath strengthened his royal handmaid: the fear of God hath put to flight the fear of man. Her religious heart is accepted of the Lord, and glorious it is also in the eyes of the world. A princess zealous for God’s house; so firmly settled in his truth, that she hath constantly determined and oftentimes vowed, rather to suffer all torments, than one jot to relent in matter of religion.”

    And this, that most reverend man said, he spake not of flattery, but in an upright conscience; not of guess, but of knowledge.

    Thus from the queen’s first entrance to the crown, she feared not all the potentates of the world, nor the backwardness of her own subjects, nor the combining almost of all her own clergy; but that in the name of God, (I repeat the words of a great observer of those times,) and in undaunted confidence of his maintaining of his own truth, she did spread the banner of the gospel. And [so she continued steady all along her government] without discouragement, persisting in that resolution till the day of her death; the English fugitives and the Irish malecontents, yea the pope and Spaniard, contriving to the utmost to impeach it.

    Now care was taken by those in commission for religion to supply vacant churches, and that fit men might be provided to officiate in them.

    And for that purpose those that were admitted to curacies were bound to subscribe certain articles of doctrine, and other articles for their behaviour and obedience in the discharge of their ministry.

    The former articles were printed by Richard Jug, the queen’s printer; and reprinted by the right reverend author of the History of the Reformation, and remain among archbishop Parker’s MSS. in Bene’t college library.

    They bore a title very expressive of what was required, in regard of those articles, from all that had curacies; and likewise of the reason of urging them at that time. Namely, “for unity of doctrine to be taught and holden of all parsons, vicars, and curates; and to testify their common consent in the said doctrine, to the stopping of the mouths of them that went about to slander the ministers of the church for diversity of judgment.” And the said parsons, vicars, and curates were to read this declaration at their possession-taking, or first entry into their cures: and also, after that, yearly, at two several times; that is to say, the Sundays next following Easter-day and St. Michael the archangel, or on some other Sunday, within one month after those feasts, immediately after the gospel. This declaration will be found in chap. xvii.

    The articles of the latter sort were as follow:

    A PROTESTATION TO BE SUBSCRIBED UNTO BY THE MINISTERS. “I promise in mine own person to use and exercise the ministry, and my Christian office in my rank and place, chiefly and before all things, unto the honour of Almighty God, and our only Saviour Jesus Christ; with loyal obedience to our sovereign the queen’s majesty, for the salvation and best quiet of her highness’ subjects within my charge: and thus teaching and living in true concord and unity. “Again, I protest to observe, keep, and maintain all such orders with uniformity in all extern policy, rites, and ceremonies of the church, as by the law, good usages, and orders are already established and provided. “I shall not preach without special licence of the bishop under his seal. “I shall read or sing divine service audibly, plainly, and distinctly, that all the people may hear and understand. “I shall use sobriety in my apparel, both in the church, and in my going abroad. “I shall faithfully keep the Register Book and the Queen’s Injunctions. “I shall read every day one chapter of the bible at least. “I shall not covetously use open mechanical labour or occupation, if my living be twenty nobles a year. “I shall move and keep the parochians to peace; and labour to make peace to the uttermost of my power, in doctrine and conversation.”

    To which I will subjoin the subscription of readers, the lowest sort of ministers in the church, yet very needful now to be made use of, for supply of the churches, that would otherwise have been shut up upon this turn of religion: for many livings, now become vacant, were sequestered; and a portion thereof allowed to the respective readers. And by observing these articles, to be by them subscribed, we may the better understand what their office was.

    INJUNCTIONS, TO BE CONFESSED AND SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THAT SHALL BE ADMITTED READERS. “I shall not preach or interpret, but only read that which is appointed by public authority. “I shall read the service appointed plainly, distinctly, and audibly, that all the place may hear and understand. “I shall not minister the sacraments, nor other rites of the church, but bury the dead, and purify women after their childbirth. “I shall keep the Register Book according to the Injunctions. “I shall use sobriety in apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer. “I shall move men to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence. “I shall bring in to mine ordinary a testimony of my behaviour from the honest men of the parish where I dwell, within one half year next following. “I shall give place upon convenient warning to me by the ordinary, if any learned minister shall be placed there at the suit of the prime of the parish. “I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure whcre I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of the ordinary. “I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old Testament, and another of the New, with good advisement, to the increase of my knowledge. “I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of mine absence or sickness, any other man, but shall leave it to the suit of the parish or the ordinary, for assigning some able man. “I shall not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in time of sickness, or for some other good considerations to be allowed by the ordinary. “I shall not intermeddle with any artificers’ occupations, as covetously to seek gain thereby, having in ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.

    CHAPTER 12.

    Bishoprics and dignities in the church void. Persons designed for preferments. Dr. Parker made archbishop of Canterbury.

    Consecrations and ordinations. The vacant sees filled. A table thereof. The queen’s Injunctions. Holy table and bread. Altars.

    Book of Articles of Inquiry. A royal visitation. The visitors. The effect of this visitation. THE popish bishops being deprived, as before was shewn, and put out of their respective churches, and other bishops dead, and many dignities and preferments besides void by death or deprivation; one main care of the state was for the filling up those sees and the chief places in the church with able and honest men. An eye was cast upon Matthew Parker, D. D. and divers other learned and godly men for that purpose; who for the most part had been exiles or great sufferers in the last reign: and so had given sufficient proof of their abhorrence of popery.

    And that both the places vacant and the persons to be preferred might lie in view to be considered, I find among secretary Cecil’s papers certain rough lists of both: which it may not be amiss here to lay before the reader. And first of the bishoprics, wherein, when this list was made, (which was soon after the parliament was up,) are shewn, who were (lead, who deprived, and who were yet alive and undeprived; together with the current reputed values of each bishopric at that time.


    Canterbury , — 2900l .

    Salisbury , — 1000l .

    Norwich , — 600l .

    Rochester , — 207l .

    Chichester , — 590l .

    Gloucester , — 300l .

    Hereford , — 500l.

    Bangor , — 66l .

    To which may be added the bishoprics of Oxon and Bristol, now void also.


    Winton , — 3700l .

    Carlisle , — 268l.

    Lincoln , Chester , Litchf . and Cov. — 600l .

    Worcester , — 920l .

    The popish bishops that held these sees were first deprived: displeasure (as it seems) being taken against the five first, for breaking off the public disputation at Westminster, mentioned before: and Worcester being a very obnoxious man.


    London , — 1000l .

    St. Davids, — 300l .

    St. Asaph, — 10l .

    Landaft , — 126l . 177l . spiritual.

    Peterburgh , — 300l .

    Ely , — 2000l .

    York , — 1000l .

    Bath and Wells , — 500l.

    Durham , — 2700l .


    The deanery of Chest. 100 0 Three prebends in Windsor, each in value, 51 1 A prebend in Norwich, A prebend in Canterbury, A prebend in Rochester, Ruscomb preb. in Sarum, 6 13 Burrow preb. in Chiches 13 6 Two preb. in Hereford, A commissary’s place to the archbishop of Canterbury, for granting of faculties. Dr. Cook had it.

    A clerkship to the same. Dr. Lyel had it.

    Another clerkship for the faculties; which Vaughan had.


    Benefice. County. l s d Cliff rectory, Kent, 51 0 NorthCreak, Norw. 34 6 Sutton, Warw. 33 9 Stokesly, York, 30 6 SouthHill, Cornub. 38 0 Beer vicar. Dors. 25 5 Felfham with a vicar. 19 15 StokeBrewen, Nor. 30 0 St. Christ. Lond. 14 0 Passenham in Prest. 14 0 0 Then was a list of the names of persons fit to be preferred, bearing this title, viz.


    Mr. Barlow, — Sampson, — Latymer, — Scory, — Ghest, — Banks, — Coverdale, — Horn, — Stokes, Col. — Dr. Cox, — Wilshaw, — Regin. — Parker, — Parry, — Thoulwel, — Mey, — Peddar, — Newman, — Sandys, — Herman, — Nowel, — Mr. Cheney, — Hide, — Waites, — Whitehead, — Blake, — Hewet.

    There was yet another list of names of persons of eminent character, out of which some were already pitched upon for the chief preferments, viz. such as had (*) prefixed before their names; as follow: *Parker, — *Jewel, — Wisdom, — *Bill, — *Bentham, — Ghest, — *Whitehead, — *Nowel, — Peddar, — *Pilkinton, — *Becon, — Lever, — *Sandys, — Pullan, — *Allen — *Horne, — *Davis, — *Sampson, — Aylmer, As several in these catalogues were afterwards preferred to bishoprics, deaneries, or other chief dignities in the church, so several others were preferred, whose names are not here specified, who were not yet, though afterwards, better known: and several others here set down, yet attained not the chief preferments, choosing rather perhaps to serve God and his church in some privater capacity.

    But now let us proceed to take notice how the vacant sees were all filled, (which was the work of two years before the church was completely full,) and who they were on whom this weighty charge was laid.

    Their names, dioceses, countries, ages, degrees of school, universities, orders, and dates of their respective consecrations and confirmations, this ensuing table will shew, taken out of the Antiquities of Canterbury. For more particular characters of these reverend fathers, and for relation of their preferments and appointment to their sees, I refer the reader to a book that may ere long see the light, concerning the life and acts of Matthew Parker, queen Elizabeth’s first archbishop of Canterbury.

    IN THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY Diocese.— Name. — Country. — Age. — Degree of School. — University. — Order. — Date of consecration Canterbury — Matth. Parker — Norwich — L.V. — Dr. of divinty — Cambridge — Secular priest — Decemb. 17, 1559.

    Chichester — William Barlowe — Essex — LX. — Dr. of divinity — Oxon — Regular priest — Confirm. Dec. 20, 1559.

    Hereford — John Scory — Norfolk — XLVII — Bach. in divinity — Cambridge — Regular priest — Confirm. Dec. 20, 1559.

    London — Edmund Grindal — Cumberland — XL. — Bach. in divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — Decemb. 21, 1559.

    Ely — Richard Cox — Bucks — LX. — Dr. of divinity — Cambridge and Oxon — Secular priest — Decemb. 21, 1559.

    Worcester — Edwin Sandys — Lancaster — XLIII. — Dr. of divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — Decemb. 21, 1559.

    Bangor — Rowland Merick — Wales — LIV. — Dr. of laws — Oxon — Secular priest — Decemb. 21, 1559.

    St. David’s — Thomas Younge — Wales — LII. — Dr. of laws — Oxon — Secular priest — Jan. 21, 1559.

    Lincoln — Nicolas Bolingham Worcester — XLVIII — Dr. of laws — Oxon and Cambridge — Secular minist. — Jan. 21, 1559.

    Sarum — John Jewel — Devon XL — L — Bach. in divinity — Oxon — Secular priest — Jan. 21, 1559.

    St. Asaph — Richard Davis — Wales — — Master of arts — Oxon — Secular priest — Jan. 21, 1559.

    Rochester — Edmund Guest — Yorkshire — LI. — Bach. in divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — Jan. 21, 1559.

    Bath and Wells — Gilbert Berkley — Lincolnshire — LII. — Bach. in divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — March 24, 1559.

    Litchfield and Cov . — John Bentham — Yorkshire — XLVI. — Master of arts — Oxon — Secular priest — March 24, 1559.

    Exon — William Alley — Barkshire — L. — Master of arts — Cambridge — Regular priest — Jnly 14, 1560.

    Norwich — John Parkhurst — Somerset L. — — Master of arts — Oxon — Secular priest — Sept. 1, 1560.

    Peterborough — Edmund Scambler — Lancaster — XLII. — Dr. in divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — Febr. 16, 1560.

    Winton — Robert Horne — Cumberland — XLVI. — Dr. in divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — Febr. 16, 1560.

    Gloucester — Richard Cheiney — London — XLIX. — Bach. in divinity — Cambridge — Secular priest — April 19, 1562.

    Bristol — The same, holding it in commendam.


    York — William May , elect Thomas Young translated from St. David’s — Suffolk — LIII. — Dr. of laws — Cambridge — Secular priest — Died before consecrat. Confirm. Feb. 25, 1561.

    Durham — James Pilkington — Lancashire — XLV. — Bach in divinity — Cambridge — Secular minist. — March 2, 1560.

    Ca r lisle — John Best — Yorkshire — XLVIII. — Oxon — Secular priest — March 2, 1560.

    Chester — Wilham Downham — Hereford — L. — Oxon — Priest regular — May 4, 1561.

    And now, after the sight of this scheme, one would wonder at the liberty some disaffected people took in king Charles I. his time, in the books they published, and the stories they set abroad. In one pamphlet, (which I have,) printed anno 1642, it is expressly said, that at the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign, the better half of the protestant bishops were those that but a little before had been popish prelates in queen Mary’s time: and so were very indifferent men for their religion.

    Of all the divines in the kingdom, for his learning, wisdom, gravity, and piety, the foresaid Dr. Parker was pitched upon by the queen, to fill the metropolitical see of Canterbury. He had been chaplain first to queen Anne Bolen, then to king Henry VIII. master of Bene’t college, Cambridge, and in king Edward’s reign dean of Lincoln; but lost all his preferments under queen Mary, for his marriage, and for the gospel: and during those times lived obscurely and in great danger. He was elected by the dean and chapter of Christ’s Church Canterbury, August the 1st. His election confirmed in the church of St. Mary le Bow, London, December the 9th.

    And consecrated in the chapel of the palace at Lambhith, December the 17th, by the reverend fathers, Barlow, late bishop of Bath and Wells, Scory, late bishop of Chichester, Coverdale, formerly bishop of Exeter, and Hodgeskin, suffragan bishop of Bedford. All things were rightly and canonically performed; as may be seen at large in the register of Canterbury yet extant; and in certain transcripts exactly taken thence, and out of the archives of Bene’t college, Cambridge, and published at the end of archbishop Bramhal’s works, printed at Dublin 1677, and in the collection of records in the second volume of the History of the Reformation, by Dr. Burnet, late lord bishop of Sarum. Which abundantly confutes that idle story of the archbishop’s ordination at the Nag’s Head Tavern in Cheapside: which some papists had impudently invented, and spread abroad.

    After the archbishop’s consecration was despatched and finished, and he seated by the queen in the care and government of the church, many other bishops were consecrated by him; that the sees might be furnished with sound and able divines. As Grindal bishop of London, Cox bishop of Ely, Sandys bishop of Worcester, and Merick of Bangor: who were all consecrated together by the archbishop at Lambhith, in the month of December, a few days after his own consecration. In January following he consecrated five bishops more; Young to the see of St. David’s, Bolingham to Lincoln, Jewel to Sarum, Davis to St. Asaph, and Ghest to Rochester.

    The next month were two bishops more consecrated by him, viz. Barkley bishop of Bath and Wells, and Bentham of Litchfield and Coventry. And the consecration of other bishops followed soon after in the next year.

    But though the church was replenished with gospel bishops, yet none had any cause to envy their wealth or greatness. For the revenues and incomes of the bishoprics had been so stript by their immediate popish predecessors, that the present bishops were in want even of convenience and necessaries for housekeeping; especially some of them. Their lands, houses, and parks were so few, and so reduced, that they had scarce enough to keep them out of debt, and to maintain that hospitality that was looked for at their hands.

    It is true, some of their lands and parks were against their wills exchanged, by virtue of a late law, mentioned before, but, for the most part, the malicious popish prelates that were their predecessors, (I have this from one that was a bishop himself, and well acquainted with the transactions of this time,) seeing their kingdom decay, and that professors of God’s gospel should fill their places, would rather give them to women, children, housekeepers, (to say no worse,) by lease, patents, annuities, than that any that loved God should enjoy them. Many bishoprics of the realm had they impoverished by these means. So that they who now succeeded were not able to relieve themselves, nor the poor as they would and should. The multitude indeed cried out of the protestants, that they kept not houses like the papists, nor entertained such a number of idle servants; but they considered not how barely they came to their livings; what pensions they paid, and annuities, which they that held the sees before them had granted away; and how all commodities were leased away from them: what charges they were at for first-fruits, and subsidies, and tenths, and how they lacked all householdstuff and furniture at their entrance: so that for three years’ space they were not able, as he said, to live out of debt, and get themselves necessaries.

    Whereas the popish prelates under queen Mary, after they became bishops, had divers fat benefices and prebends: they were stored of necessaries of household. After they entered, they had no first-fruits: so that they might do on the first day more than the others could do in seven years. So did the foresaid writer set forth this matter. Nay, he said further, concerning these Marian prelates, that they had so leased out their houses, lands, and parks, that some of the new bishops had scarce a corner of an house to lie in; and divers not so much ground as to graze a goose or a sheep, so that some were compelled to tether their horses in their orchard. And yet had these fathers provided, that if they should have been restored (which they looked for, as many thought) they should have had all their commodities again.

    But to come again to our matter.

    After the church was thus furnished with some protestant bishops, it was necessary to supply it with inferior clergy, for the filling of many parishes that were already and would be vacant; and for providing honest and conscientious men to officiate and preach to the people. Therefore the day next after the ordination of the four first consecrated bishops, was an ordination of priests and deacons, viz. December the 22d. Then Scory, now bishop of Hereford, by order and authority from the archbishop of Canterbury, ordained in the chapel at Lambith eleven deacons, and ten priests and deacons together, conferring both orders upon the said ten; and one who was deacon before was made priest. These were of several dioceses. And among the rest I observe one whose name was John Hooper, of the diocese of Gloucester; who perhaps might be the late bishop Hooper’s son.

    January the 7th following, Roland bishop of Bangor, by order and authority from the said archbishop, ordained in Bow church, London, five, giving them deacon’s and priest’s orders together; and five readers. For the church standing in need now of sober persons to serve in it, the bishops were fain to take many laymen that had little more learning than ability of reading well, and of good lives and conversations; and to ordain them only to read the service and the homilies to the people in the church, till others could be procured. And what order was taken about them by the archbishop, we shall hear by and by.

    February the 11th the archbishop commissionated Nicolas bishop of Lincoln, to ordain ten deacons and four priests: which was performed in a certain low chamber within the archbishop’s manor at Lambhith.

    March the 3d following was another ordination at Lambrith by the archbishop himself.

    Then a notification was published of orders to be celebrated, to this tenor: “Be it known to all Christian people by these presents, that upon Sunday, being the 3d day of March next ensuing, the most reverend father in God, Matthew, by God’s sufferance archbishop of Canterbury, in his chapel within his manor of Lambeth, by the grace and help of Almighty God, intendeth to celebrate holy orders of deacon and priesthood generally, to all such as shall be found thereunto apt and meet for their learning and godly conversation; bringing with them sufficient letters testimonial, as well of their virtuous living and honest demeanour in those places where they now dwell, and have dwelled by the space of three years last past; as also other things by the laws in this behalf requisite to be had and shewed. And likewise be it known, that the Thursday and Friday next before the said Sunday, being the 3d of March ensuing, at Lambhith aforesaid, the aforesaid most reverend father in God, and his officers, intend also to set upon the appositions and examinations of them that shall come to be admitted in the said orders.”

    Again, March the 10th, in a certain inner chamber within the manor of the archbishop at Lambhith, called the chamber of presence, the archbishop committed to Nicolas bishop of Lincoln the ordination of such as were approved by his examiners. Then were ordained one hundred and twenty deacons, thirty-seven priests, and seven took deacon’s and priest’s orders together.

    Again, March the 17th, the same bishop of Lincoln ordained in the chapel at Lambhith seven priests of such as had been ordained March the 10th last past. And more of these ordinations will follow the next year. In this plenty did well-disposed people come and offer themselves to labour in God’s harvest in this newly reformed church; many of whom, I suppose, were such students as remained abroad, and followed their studies in foreign universities, while queen Mary reigned.

    Now also injunctions for the ordering of matters of the church and religion were framed and set forth, to the number of fifty-three, called the queen’s injunctions, by virtue of her supremacy in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil: which were to be ministered unto her subjects. Which injunctions, printed this year 1559, had this preface. “That her majesty, by the advice of her honourable council, intending the advancement of the true honour of Almighty God, the suppression of superstition throughout all her highness’s realms and dominions, and to plant true religion, to the extirpation of all heresy, enormities, and abuses, as to her duty appertained, did minister to her loving subjects these godly injunctions. All which her highness willed and commanded her loving subjects obediently to receive, and truly to observe and keep, every man in their offices, degrees, and states, as they would avoid her highness’s displeasure, and the pains of the same hereafter expressed.” These injunctions may be read in bishop Sparrow’s Collection.

    Who the compiler or compilers were, I cannot say assuredly, but I make little doubt they were that select company of divines at Westminster, who had been employed in Sir Thomas Smith’s house in Chanonrow about king Edward s book, and other church-matters; as Cox, Sandys, Grindal, &c. and most probably Parker among the rest, after his coming up to London.

    And to this business of the injunctions I am apt to think Cox had respect in that passage of his letter to the divine at Wormes, “That they were then breaking down the popish hedge, and restoring the lord’s vineyard: and that they were then in the work; but the harvest was great, and the labourers few.” To be sure in these injunctions Sir William Cecyl the secretary had a great hand; who, as his office was, after the copy of them was brought to his hand, reviewed, considered, and worded them according to his discretion; as appeareth by a passage in a letter of archbishop Parker to him, April 11, 1575. “Whatsoever the [queen’s] ecclesiastical prerogative is, I fear it is not so great as your pen hath given it in the injunctions.”

    At the end of these injunctions there was an admonition to any such of the clergy as scrupled the form of the oath, which by the late act of parliament was required to be taken by divers persons for the recognition of their allegiance to the queen. For some of the papists, to withdraw and dissuade the inferior ministers from taking that oath, gave out that the kings and queens of the realm, by virtue of the words of the said oath, might challenge authority and power of ministering divine service in the church.

    Which by this admonition the queen declared the falsehood of: “That it was never meant, nor by any equity of words or good sense could be thereof gathered. And that she would have all her loving subjects to understand, that nothing was by that oath intended, but only to have the duty and alleglance, that was acknowledged to be due to the noble kings, king Henry and king Edward, and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm; that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within her realms, either ecclesiastical or temporal, whatsoever they be. So as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them.”

    There was also at the conclusion of these injunctions an order for the tables in the churches, and another for the sacramental bread.And here, before we relate the order for the table, let me first shew what labour was used by the divines aforesaid, (as I suppose,) that assembled and sat for reformation, to persuade the queen to suffer the popish altars to be taken away, and tables to be placed in the room of them: which altars, in many places taken away, the queen had some inclination to have set up again. I have seen their reasons drawn up to be offered to the queen’s majesty’s consideration, why it was not convenient that the communion should be ministered at an altar. Take them verbatim, as I found them in an authentic manuscript. “ First , The form of a table is most agreeable to Christ’s example, who instituted the sacrament of his body and blood at a table, and not at an altar. Secondly, The form of an altar was convenient for the Old Testament, to be a figure of Christ’s bloody sacrifice upon the cross: but in the time of the New Testament, Christ is not to be sacrificed, but his body and blood spiritually to be eaten and drunken in the ministration of the holy supper. For representation whereof, the form of a table is more convenient than an altar. “ Thirdly , The Holy Ghost in the New Testament, speaking of the Lord’s supper, doth make mention of a table, I Cor. 10, mensa Domini, i.e. the table of the Lord: but in no place nameth it an altar. “ Fourthly , The old writers do use also the name of a table: for Augustine oftentimes calleth it mensam Domi ni, i.e. the Lord’s table.

    And in the canons of the Nicene council it is divers times called divina mensa. And Chrysostom saith, Baptismus unus est, et mensa una, i.e.

    There is one baptism, and one table. And although the same writers do sometimes term it an altar, yet are they to be expounded to speak abusive et improprie. For like as they expound themselves, when they term the Lord’s supper a sacrifice, that they mean by this word sacrificium, i.e. a sacrifice, recordationem sacrificii, i. e. the remembrance of a sacrifice; or similitudinem sacrificii, i.e. the likeness of a sacrifice, and not properly a sacrifice: so the same reason enforceth us to think, that when they term it an altar, they mean a representation or remembrance of the altar of the cross; and not of the form of a material altar of stone. And when they name it a table, they express the form then commonly in the church used according to Christ’s example. “ Fifthly , Furthermore, an altar hath relation to a sacrifice: for they be correlativa. So that of necessity, if we allow an altar, we must grant a sacrifice: like as if there be a father, there is also a son; and if there be a master, there is also a servant. Whereupon divers of the learned adversaries themselves have spoken of late, that there is no reason to take away the sacrifice of the mass, and to leave the altar standing; seeing the one was ordained for the other. “ Sixthly , Moreover, if the communion be ministered at an altar, the godly prayers, &c. spoken by the minister cannot be heard of the people; especially in great churches. And so the people should receive no fruit of this part of English service. For it was all one to be in Latin and to be in English, not heard nor understood of the people. “And admitting that it were a thing which in some time might be tolerated, yet at this time the continuance of altars would bring marvellous inconveniences. “ First , The adversaries will object unto us (as they have accustomed) inconstancy, in that the order established by king Edward of famous memory, with the assent of so many learned men, is now again reversed and altered. “ Secondly , Moreover, the most part, or almost all the preachers of this realm, which do heartily favour this your majesty’s reformation in religion, have oftentimes in their several sermons (and that upon the ground of God’s word before rehearsed, and other) spoken and preached against altars, both in king Edward’s days and sithence; and therefore cannot with good conscience, and without confession of a fault committed before, speak now in defence of them. For, as St. Paul saith, Si quae destruxi ea rursum aedifico, transgressorem meipsum constituo; i.e. If I build up again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. “ Thirdly , Furthermore, whereas your majesty’s principal purpose is utterly to abolish all the errors and abuses used about the Lord’s supper, especially to root out the popish mass, and all superstitious opinions concerning the same, the altar is a means to work the contrary, as appeareth manifestly by experience. For in all places the mass-priests (which declare by evident signs that they conform themselves to the order received, not for conscience, but for their bellies’ sake) are most glad of the hope of retaining the altar, &c.: meaning thereby to make the communion as like a mass as they can, and so to continue the simple in their former errors. “ Fourthly , And on the other side, the consciences of many thousands, which from their hearts embrace the gospel, and do most earnestly pray to God for your grace, shall be wounded, by continuance of altars; and great numbers will abstain from receiving the communion at an altar: which in the end may grow to occasion of great schism and division among the people. And the rather, because that in a great number of places altars are removed, and a table set up already, according to the rites of the book now published. “ Fifthly , And whereas her majesty hath hitherto declared herself very loath to break ecclesiastical laws established by parliament, till they were repealed by like authority, it will be much mused at, if any commandment should come forth now for the reedification of altars, seeing there be special words in the Book of Service allowed by parliament, and having force of a law, for the placing and using of a table at the ministration of the communion. Which special words cannot be taken away by general terms. “ Sixthly , Moreover, the altars are none of those things which were established by act of parliament in the second year of king Edward, of famous memory. For Dr. Ridley, late bishop of London, procured taking down of altars in his diocese about the third year of the said king; and defendeth his doings by the king’s first book, set forth anno 2d Edw. VI. And immediately after, the king’s majesty and his council gave a general command throughout the whole realm to do the like before the second book was made. And Dr. Day, bishop of Chichester, was committed to prison, because he would not obey the said order.

    Which thing they would not have done, if altars had been established by authority of the said parliament. “ Seventhly , It may please your grace also to call to remembrance, that the greatest learned men of the world, as Bucer, OEcolampadius, Zuinglius, Bullinger, Calvin, Martyr, Joannes a Laseo, Hedio, Capito, and many more, have in their reformed churches in Sabandia, Helvetia, Basil, Geneva, Argentine, Wormes, Frankford, and other places, always taken away the altars; only Luther and his churches have retained them.

    In the which churches be some other more imperfections; as gilding of images, the service of the church half Latin, half Dutch, and elevation of the sacrament of the altar. All which things Melancthon, when he is called to counsel for a reformation to be had in other places, doth utterly remove. And in Saxony they are tolerated hitherto only because of Luther’s fame; but are thought that they will not long continue, being so much misliked of the best learned. “ Eighthly , It may also please your majesty to join hereunto the judgment of the learned and godly martyrs of this realm, who of late have given their lives for the testimony of the truth; as of Dr. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, who protested in writing, (whereupon he was first apprehended,) that the order appointed by the last book of king Edward was most agreeable to the scriptures, and the use of the primitive church. And also of Dr. Ridley, bishop of London, who travailed especially in this matter of altars; and put certain reasons of his doing in print; which remain to this day: of Mr. Latimer, Mr. Hooper, Mr. Bradford, and all the rest, who to the end did stand in defence of that book. So that by reedifying of altars, we shall also seem to join with the adversaries that burnt those good men, in condemning some part of their doctrine. “And last of all, it may please your majesty to tender the consent of your preachers and learned men, as now do remain alive, and do earnestly, and of conscience, and not for livings’ sake, desire a godly reformation: which if they were required to utter their minds, or thought it necessary to make petition to your grace, would with one mind and one mouth (as may be reasonably gathered) be most humble suitors to your majesty; that they might not be enforced to return unto such ordinances and devices of men, not commanded in God’s word: being also once abrogated, and known by experience to be things hurtful, and only serving either to nourish the superstitious opinion of the propitiatory mass in the minds of the simple, or else to minister an occasion of offence and division among the godly minded.”

    From this notable paper of address to the queen, she yielded to the taking away the altars, as by the effect it appeared. For the order for the table in the aforesaid Injunctions was added upon occasion of the removal of the altars in many churches, and tables placed in their rooms; though in other places they were not yet removed, upon opinion of some order to be taken therein by the visitors. The order therefore was, “That no altar should be taken down but by the oversight of the curate and churchwardens, or one of them at the least, and without any Hot or disorder. And that the table be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood; and so to stand, but when the communion should be celebrated. And then it should be so placed within the chancel, as the minister might more conveniently be heard of the communicants, and the communicants in more conveniency and number communicate with the minister.” Thus much for the holy table.

    The order for the bread was, “That whereas the sacramental bread in the time of king Edward used to be common fine bread, now, for the giving the more reverence to the holy mysteries, this bread was to be made and formed plain, without any figure impressed on it,” [as the popish wafer had the figure of the crucifix,] “and to be of the same fineness and round fashion, but somewhat bigger, as was the usual bread or wafer, heretofore named singing-cakes, which served for the use of the private mass.”

    This order for the table and the bread was occasioned from the variety used in both, for some time, until these Injunctions came forth. For indeed in the beginning of the queens reign the protestants were much divided in their opinion and practice about them; which was the cause of some disturbance.

    And the papists made their advantage of it; laying to the charge of the protestants their mutability and inconstancy. Thus did Thomas Dorman, in his book called Proof. “This day your table is placed in the midst of the quire; the next day removed into the body of the church; at the third time placed in the chancel again after the manner of an altar,” [that is, upon the coming forth of this beforementioned order,] “but yet removable as there is a communion to be had. Then, your minister’s face one while to be turned toward the south, and another while toward the north; that the weathercock in the steeple was noted not to have turned so often in a quarter of a year, as your minister in the church in less than one month.

    And at your communion, one while decreeing, that it be ministered in common and leavened bread; by and by revoking that, and bringing it to unleavened.”

    There was also now, beside these Injunctions, a book of Articles prepared, to the number of fifty-six, to be inquired of in the queen’s visitation, which was held this year, pursuant to her Injunctions. These Articles were reprinted anno 1600; and again in Sparrow’s Collections, 1671; and in Rogers’s Catholic Doctrine. From them we may learn somewhat of the state of the church and the churchmen in these days: as, that the religious service now commonly performed in the church, (before June 24, when the new book commenced,) was, the singing of the old popish prayers, and the litany or general supplication, and repeating the epistle and gospel in English. And besides these, on holydays the curate went up into the pulpit, and recited openly the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in English; and sermons preached rarely. That there were many of the parsons, vicars, and curates carelessly absented themselves from their cures, and left them supplied by rude and unlearned persons.

    That many of them discouraged their parishioners from reading the Bible either in Latin or English. They haunted taverns and alehouses, and gave themselves to drinking, rioting, and playing at unlawful games. They would extol vain and superstitious religion; as pilgrimages, relics and images, lighting of candles, kissing and kneeling to, and decking the same. They would counsel their parishioners to pray in a tongue unknown, rather than in English, and to trust in a certain number of prayers, and in saying over a number of beads. Many of them bought their benefices, and came into them by fraud and deceit. And as to the laity, many of them were open adulterers, and some had two wives living within the same parish. Many were letters or hinderers of the word of God to be read in English, or sincerely preached, and in the time of litany, or of sermon or homily, or while the scriptures were reading in English, would depart out of the church, and sometimes disturb the ministers, and sometimes contemn and abuse them; and sometimes jangle and talk in the church in the time of prayer, or reading and declaring of the scriptures: and sometimes, to avoid the hearing of God’s word read by their own minister, they would resort to other churches. And some procured minstrels, to sing or say songs in derision of godly order set forth; some kept in their houses images, tables, pictures, and paintings, and other monuments of feigned and false miracles, (many of which had been set up in churches, and taken thence,) and did adore them. Many did use enchantments, invocations, circles, witchcraft, soothsaying; and especially in the time of women’s travails.

    Besides, by some of these articles of inquiry it appeared what diligence was used to get a true understanding of the late persecution under queen Mary; what wrongs were done, what blood was shed, and who were the persecutors. To this purpose tended the 46th, 47th, 48th, and 49th articles; the substance whereof was, “What books of the scriptures were delivered to be burnt, or otherwise destroyed, and to whom they were delivered. What bribes the accusers, promoters, persecutors, and ecclesiastical judges, and other the commissioners appointed within the several dioceses of the realm, received by themselves or others, from such persons as were in trouble, apprehended or imprisoned for religion.

    Also what goods, lands, fees, offices, or promotions, were wrongfully taken away, in those times of queen Mary, from any person which favoured the religion. How many persons for religion had died by fire, famine, or otherwise, or had been imprisoned for the same.” And there was an injunction among the queen’s Injunctions to this import, viz. Injunct. 45,” That the ordinaries should exhibit to the visitors their books, for a true copy to be taken of the same, containing the causes why any person was imprisoned, famished, or put to death for religion.”

    This book of Articles, when first printed, was entitled, Articles to be enquyred in the visitation, in the fyrste yeare of the raygne of our moost drad soveraygne lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God of Englande, Fraunce, and Irelande, quene, defender of the fayth, &c. anno 1559. At the end of the Articles it is said to be imprinted at London in Poules Churchyarde, by Rich. Jugge and John Cawoode, printers to the quene’s majestie. Anno M.D. LIX.

    Joined to this book of Articles was another little book, entitled Interrogatories. At. the end is set the printer’s name, viz. Imprynted at London in Foster-lane by Jhon Waley. These were inquiries of some ordinary at his visitation, instituted soon after the year the Articles aforegoing were set forth. And what they were, see in the Appendix.

    The Injunctions and book of Articles being thus finished, the queen set on foot her royal visitation throughout England, touched before; and divers commissions were issued out from her unto divers persons: some to visit some dioceses, and some to visit others. And all these were to deliver the Injunctions, and to make inquisition upon the Articles abovesaid, and to minister the oath of recognition, and to enjoin the use of the new book of service, which was to commence and come in force at the festival of John the Baptist, i.e. June 24. One of these commissions the bishop of Sarum met with, and published in his History; which was for the visitation of the cathedral churches, cities, and dioceses of York, Durham, Chester, and Carlisle, and bore, date at Westminster June 24. And among the rest of the matters committed to them to do, one was to examine such as were imprisoned and in bonds for religion, though they had been condemned before; and the causes of their imprisonment and condemnation first known, and fully discussed, to deliver such out of prison, and set them at liberty, justice requiring it so to be done. Other business incumbent on these commissioners to do, was to examine the causes of deprivations of ministers from their livings, and to restore such as were deprived contrary to the statutes and ordinances of this realm, or the order of the ecclesiastical law: which, I suppose, was in favour of such who were deprived of their preferments and benefices for being married, or favouring the gospel. These commissioners were Francis earl of Shrewsbury, president of the council in the north, Edward earl of Darby, Thomas earl of Northumberland, lord warden of the east and middle marches, Thomas lord Evers, Henry Percy, Thomas Gargrave, James Crofts, Henry Gates, knts.

    Edwin Sandys, D.D. Henry Harvey, LL. D. Richard Bowes, George Brown, Christopher Escot, and Richard Kingsmel, esqrs. This commission I saw in the queens Paperhouse, bound up in a volume in folio, containing all the inquisitions and matters done and found in this large northern visitation. It began at St. Mary, Nottingham, August the 22d, 1559, die Martis. The visitors took the complaints of many clergymen that had been turned out of their livings under queen Mary, for being married, whom they restored. And among the rest was one remarkable known learned man, and an exile, namely, Robert Wisdom; who brought a complaint against one Thorneton, for coming into his benefice, viz. the church of Setterington, in the county of York. The presentments were most frequent (almost in every parish) about fornication, and keeping other women besides their wives, and for having bastard children.

    These visitors of the northern parts came to Aukland; where they sent for the clergy of that diocese to appear before them; and among other things gave them a declaration to subscribe. Dr. Sandys, one of the visitors, preached. They sent to Bernard Gilpin, of the bishopric of Durham, and required him to preach at Durham; and gave him his subject, which was against the primacy [of the pope.] Because the oath of supremacy being to be required of all the clergy, they might be the better prepared to take it.

    Sandys himself had preached the day before; and his subject was a suitable subject too, viz. against the real presence in the sacrament. But he so handled this argument, that he seemed to deny utterly any real presence: which so offended Gilpin, and many others, no doubt, (who were used to the contrary doctrine,) that he could not sleep all the next night, as he declared himself.

    The next day after Gilpin had preached, all the ministers of that diocese were met to subscribe; and he, as a leading man, was called first. But there was a point or two of the Articles, wherein his conscience was not so well resolved; which made him willing to have forborne. But he straightway thus thought with himself, that his greatest confidence was reposed in this religion; because it gave glory to God, and authority to the word of God, for rooting out of superstition and human doctrine: and his heart only doubting in certain points of smaller consequence, which God, he hoped, in time would reveal unto him. He considered further, that if he should refuse, he should be a means to make many others refuse; and so consequently hinder the course of the word of God. Therefore on these Christian and prudential rules he came to a resolution, and subscribed. But the night following, he sent to Dr. Sandys his protestation touching those two points that troubled him; and the doctor being nothing offended, took his protestation very courteously. And then his curate also, who had made some stop too, subscribed.

    But it happened that the day after, the curate fell sick; and while Gilpin went along with the visitors to Kendal and Lancaster, he died before his return, having not been sick a whole week. This gave occasion to some disaffected, to suppose that his subscription had killed him. But others said, that his sickness proceeded from excessive drinking. In process of time Gilpin grew more and more strengthened and resolved.

    I find also the visitations were commonly committed to the lords lieutenants of the divers shires within the said dioceses, and certain other gentlemen of quality known in those parts; and also to some divines, and other professors of the civil and common laws.

    The commissioners appointed by the queen to visit the dioceses of Oxford, Lincoln, Peterborough, Coventry and Litchfield, were William marquis of Northampton, the earl of Rutland, the earl of Huntington, besides divers other nobles; sir Will. Cecyl, sir Ambrose Cave, and divers other knights and esquires; Tho. Bentham, Alex. Nowel, S. Theol. PP. William Fleetwood, a lawyer, and Stephen Nevynson, LL. D. Their commission was dated July the 22d, 1559.

    The commissioners appointed to visit the dioceses of Landaff, St. David’s, Bangor, St. Asaph, Hereford, Wigorn, were John lord Williams, president of the council within the principality of Wales, and divers others of the laity; of the clergy were Richard Davids, S. Th. P. Tho. Yong, Roland Meyrick, LL. PP. and Rich. Pates, lawyer. The commission dated July the 18th, 1559.

    The commissioners for visiting Sarum, Bristol, Exon, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester dioceses, were William earl of Pembroke, &c. John Jewel, S.

    Th. P. Henry Parry, licentiate in laws, and Will. Lovelace, lawyer. The commission dated July 19, 1559.

    The commissioners for the dioceses of Norwich and Ely, were Nic. lord Bacon, lord keeper, Thomas duke of Norfolk, &c. Rafe Sadleir, Anthony Cook, Thomas Wroth, Thomas Smith, &c. knts. Robert Horne, S. Th. P.

    Thomas Huick, LL. D. and John Salvyn, lawyer, not Savage, as is erroneously writ in Holinshed. The commission dated Aug. 21, 1559.

    There were commissioners appointed likewise to visit Eaton college, and the university of Cambridge, and to take their oath of allegiance to the queen, and of her supremacy. These were sir Will. Cecyl, chancellor of the said university, Matthew Parker, S. Th. P. Will. Bill, S. Th. P. and the queen’s great almoner, Walter Haddoll, esq. master of the requests, Will.

    May, LL. D. and dean of St. Paul’s, Tho. Wendy, esq. physician to the queen, Rob. Horne, S. Th. P. and James Pilkinton, S. Th. P. This commission bore date at Westminster the 20th of June, in the first year of the queen.

    To rehearse a few things concerning the visitation in London. The visitors sat at several times, and adjourned themselves according to their discretion.

    Here the popish bishops and clergy in the prisons and parts in and about London and Southwark were summoned before them; and received, as it seems, their sentences of deprivation from them; as was in part related before. The first time I meet with the queen’s visitors in London was June the 18th, when they sat at the bishop of London’s palace; and Dr. Boxal, bishop Bourne; and some others were sent to the Tower. Other days of their sessions were June the 21st; and the 25th at sheriff Hawes in Mincinglane; and the 29th; and July the 5th at Winchester-place; and August the 11th, at St. Paul’s, when Dr. Horne and the other visitors sat upon Dr. Harspfield, archdeacon of London, and divers other members of that church, to tender them the oath. August 21, they sat at St. Bride’s, where two churchwardens and two more were sworn to bring in an inventory of that church. The 22d, they sat at St. Lawrence, Jury. The 23d, at St. Michael’s, Cornhill. October 23d, they sat again at St. Paul’s; when Harpsfield and divers other prebendaries and vicars of that church were deposed.

    But a true copy at large, taken from the original register of this visitation at St. Paul’s, follows: Visitatio illustrissimae in Christo principis et dominae nostrae dominae Elizabethae Dei gra. Angliae, &c. Pervenerabiles viros, magistros Robertum Horne, sacrae theologiae professorem, Tho. Huyche, legum doctorem, et Johannem Salvyn, juris peritum, commissarios, &c.

    Commissaries general of the same most illustrious. To visit, as well in capite as in membris, the cathedral churches of the cities and dioceses of London, Norwich, and Ely; and the clergy and people dwelling or abiding therein; by the supreme authority lawfully constituted and confirmed.

    Begun and celebrated in the chapter-house of the cathedral church of St. Paul’s, London, the 11th day of August, and in the first year of the said queen.

    Aug. 11, these three visitors came into the church of St. Paul in order to visit. And first, the prayer, that is, the English litany, was said. Then Mr. Horne then and there preached, sincerely and learnedly, the word of God, a great multitude gathered together, and expounded; taking it for his subject, Who is then that faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their meat in due season? Matth. 24:This sermon done, the venerable commissaries went to the chapter-house of the said cathedral, and there sat judicially. The queen’s letters commissional, signed by her own hand and seal, were read by Peter Lylly, principal register of the queen in that behalf. And the said commissioners, for the honour and reverence of so illustrious a queen, took on them the burden of the execution of the same. John Incent, notary public on the part of the dean and chapter of the said church, produced an original mandate, together with certain names and surnames of all and singular of the said church cited; and they were called: but very few appeared. The absent were pronounced to incur the pain of contumacy.

    Then the articles of inquisition were publicly read: and then the commissaries nominated and deputed the masters, Saxy, Whitebroke, Sebastian, Westcote, Wakelyn, Robert Saye, for inquisitors; for declaring and relating all and singular matters as well upon the said articles, as other matters worthy reformation in the said church. And they delivered them the Articles, and gave them a corporal oath to speak and declare the truth, touching the holy gospels: and admonishing the inquisitors to exhibit in writing the next day a full and faithful answer to those articles.

    Then, that is to say the next day, in the same place, Mr. John Harpsfield exhibited a certain book of statutes, and of divers ordinances of the church, and a certain final instrument sealed, viz. of agreement betwixt the dean and chapter: which the said commissioners received, and committed to the register; and ifssigned him a further term to exhibit before them the original foundation of the said church tomorrow in this place, and also a full and faithful inventory of all and singular the jewels, ornaments, and whatsoever books, belonging to the said church, in the parochial church of Cornhill, of the city of London; to be held there in the eve of St. Bartholomew next.

    And offering to them, viz. John Harpsfield, archdeacon of London, and Nic. Harpsfield, prebendary, and John Wilierton, as well the book of the queen’s Injunctions, with admonition inviolably to observe them, and to take care they were observed by other ministers of the said church; as also the book of religion received, to subscribe the same. The same John and Nic. Harpsfield and J. Willerton did altogether refuse those Injunctions, or to subscribe to the said religion; protesting nevertheless, that they refused them animis non maliciosis aut obstinatis, sed ex ea tantum causa, quod conscientiis non salvis ad hunc [adhuc] in ea parte non plene instructis in receptionem Injunctionum, aut subscriptionem religionis, &c. consentire non potuerunt: i.e. not with malicious or obstinate minds; but for this cause only, that they could not consent, their consciences not safe, nor as yet fully instructed for the receiving the injunctions, or for subscribing to the religion, &c.

    The visitors also enjoined them, that they should take care, that the cathedral church should be purged and freed from all and singular their images, idols, and altars: et in loco ipsorum altarium ad providend, mensam decentem in ecclesia pro celebratione caenae Domini ordinaria; i.e. and in the place of those altars, to provide a decent table in the church, for the ordinary celebration of the Lord’s supper. And present this notice as soon as possibly might be. The said Harpsfield, Harpsfield, and Wilierton refused, under the protestation before mentioned.

    Whereupon the commissaries delivered the queen’s Injunctions to Mr. Saxy and Mr. Whitebroke, firmly enjoining them, (who humbly received them;) and gave them in commandment, with other ministers of the said church, to abolish all the images, idols, &c. as above: which they took upon them to perform speedily, and to do other things, &c. And finally, offering them the book of religion received, to subscribe, the said Saxy, Whitebroke, together with John Watson, with others, subscribed the said book of religion. One Sebastian Westcote, master of the choristers, being required thereunto, refused; making the same protestation as Harpsfield, &c. before.

    Lastly, the commissaries, by reason of the manifest contumacies of Harpsfield, Harpsfield, and Wilierton, (refusing to receive the Injunctions, and to subscribe to the religion,) bound them in penalty of 200l . to the queen in their respective recognisances, as in their recognisances more fully appears.

    Then they continued their visitation to the next day, in the same place, between the hours of one and three after Sabbati, 12 Aug. in the chapterhouse aforesaid, Mr. Will. Saxy, with others, appeared; and exhibited the original foundation of the said cathedral church of St. Paul: which, ere they looked over, they decreed to be delivered back again; and saving to themselves a power of examining again those instruments, if it were found needful.

    Then Saxy and the others that were sworn brought in their answers to the articles of inquiry; and the commissioners received them. Then they ministered their Injunctions in writing, and delivered them to Saxy, humbly receiving them, as well in his own name, as in the name of the dean and chapter, and the rest of the ministers of the church: commanding and firmly enjoining him to observe those Injunctions as much as in him lay; and that he should procure them to be observed, as was fit. And they further enjoined and gave in command, that none in the said cathedral church henceforth use aliquibus coronis rasis, amisiis ant vestibus, vocat. le coopes; i.e. any shaven crowns, amices, or clothes, called copes; under penalty. And then those that had been summoned in this visitation, and not appearing, they pronounced contumacious, and incurring penalties: and for penalty of their contumacies they decreed their fruits, rents, incomes, &c. of their promotions ecclesiastical, to be respectively sequestered, until they thought fit to release them, or otherwise.

    And lastly, they required all and singular that had been cited, to appear before them in that place the 12th day of October next; to do and receive further such things, as to the visitors should be thought good to exact and require. And the contumacious then to give reasonable and lawful cause, (the contumacy increasing more,) why the commissioners should not proceed ad graviora, i.e. to some heavier courses against them and every of them; and to deprive them respectively of their canonical dignities, &c.

    And so the commissioners continued their royal visitation to the 12th of October.

    November the 3d, the commissioners sat at St. Paul’s again. [For I find nothing in this instrument of their meeting October 12, so I suppose it was adjourned.] Then they decreed to proceed further concerning the matters formerly done.

    Then preconization being made of all and singular persons cited, Mr. Thomas Darbishire personally appeared: and being required by the judges [meaning the commissioners] to subscribe the articles of religion received, (to which hitherto he had refused to subscribe,)he desired a further time to be appointed him, for better information of his soul in that behalf.

    Whereupon domini, i.e. the lords, [meaning the commissioners,] assigned to him to appear before the commissioners residing at London on Wednesday next; and then to hear their wills upon the same.

    Then further cry being made, Tho. Millet appeared, and exhibited a proxy in writing for one John Standish, archdeacon of Colchester; and alleged that the same, his master, personally had appeared before that honourable man, the commissary of the queen in the parts of Yorkshire, and had subscribed to the articles of religion received, as by the acts under the hand of the register in those parts appeared. Yet because he satisfied not in other things to be objected to him, according as was required by the tenor of the monitions, they decreed him contumacious; reserving his punishment to a certain day.

    Then Richard Marshal, prebendary de Medston, Will. Murmere, John Murren, John Stopes, not appearing, and not satisfying the royal visitation, they pronounced them contumacious, and deprived them of their prebends by sentence definitive.

    Upon a further preconization made of Edmund Stubbes, Christopher Hawks, and Tho. Wynyver, minor canons, being cited to appear on this day, and long expected, and not appearing, they were pronounced contumacious: and for punishment of their contumacy deprived by sentence definitive.

    Sebastian Westcote personally appeared; and being required to subscribe to the religion received, as he had been otherwise required by the commissioners, desired a further delay or deliberation to be appointed him; and they of their abundant graces granted him to the next sitting.

    Another cry made for those that were cited, and appeared not, nor duly satisfied the visitation: them they pronounced contumacious, and to incur the penalty; referring it to their next meeting, next Monday.

    The same day, viz. the 3d of November, 1559, a preconization was made of all and singular rectors, vicars, and curates or chaplains, not duly appearing in the royal visitation, exercised and celebrated within the city and diocese of London, nor undergoing the said visitation; the punishment of whose contumacy respectively was reserved to that day, and none of them appearing to undergo it, nor to satisfy the said visitation, the commissioners pronounced them and all of them contumacious; the punishment reserved to Monday next, ad quindenam: and then, if they appeared not, them and every one of them to be declared [deprived. ] That which was further done in this visitation in London was the pulling down and demolishing the roods, and taking away other things used for superstition in the churches. August the 15th, the roods in St. Paul’s were pulled down, and the high altar, and other things pertaining, spoiled. The 24th day, being St. Bartholomew’s day, in Cheapside, against Ironmongerlane and St. Thomas of Acres, as the lord mayor came home from Smithfield that fair-day, and from the accustomed sports and wrestlings in Clerkenwell, were two great fires made of roods and images of Mary and John and other saints, where they were burnt with great wonder of the people. The 25th day, at St. Botolph’s, Billingsgate, the rood and the images of Mary and John, and of the patron of that church, were burnt, with books of superstition: where at the same time a preacher standing within the church wall made a sermon; and while he was preaching, the books were thrown into the fire. They then also took away a cross of wood that stood in the churchyard. Sept. 16, at St. Magnus, at the corner of Fishstreet, the rood, and Mary, and John were burnt, and several other things of superstition belonging to that church. This visitation did much good, and brought forward the religion very considerably throughout the nation. And of the clergy, (i.e. bishops, abbots, heads of colleges, prebendaries, and rectors,) the commissioners brought in but one hundred and eighty-nine, throughout the whole nation, that refused compliance. In this visitation it was, that all the beneficed clergymen were required to make a subscription with their hands to what the parliament, anno 1558, had enacted, concerning restoring the supremacy to the queen, and the book of divine service, to be according to the word of God: and that was done in this form, as I found it in the MS. library at the palace in Lambhith. “We do confess and acknowledge, the restoration again of the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and temporal of this realm of England, and abolishing of all foreign power repugnant to the same, according to an act thereof made in the last parliament, begun at Westminster, January the 23d, in the first year of our sovereign lady queen Elizabeth, and there continuing and kept to the 8th day of May then next ensuing; the administration of the sacraments, the use and order of the divine service, in manner and form as it is set forth in a book commonly called The Book of Commnon Prayer, &c. established by the same act; and the orders and rules contained in the Injunctions given by the queen’s majesty, and exhibited in this present visitation, to be according to the true word of God, and agreeable with the doctrine and use of the primitive and apostolic church. In witness whereof hereunto we have subscribed our names.”

    This was writ at the top of a long scroll of parchment, with the names of the subscribing clergy, and their respective livings underwritten by themselves.

    Several learned and dignified papists relenting, made their submissions and acknowledgments by their subscriptions before these visitors. Among which I met with this of Robert Raynolds, who before had been an opposer of the queen’s proceedings; which ran in these words: “I, Robert Raynolds, clerk, do in my most humble ways desire the queen’s most excellent majesty to take these my former doings not to be of disobedience or contempt, but of the persuading and leading of my poor and simple conscience: and yet do I in the like humble manner require and ask her most gracious pardon and remission for the same. And I shall be most willing to embrace, advance, and set forth all such good and godly laws and ordinances as be made and provided by her high court of parliament. And will from henceforth be ready, with all obedience, to take and receive the oath of me required; and will use the service of the church, which is by the said laws provided, as to me shall appertain. For the testimony whereof I have made this my humble submission, and thereunto set my hand the 16th of August, 1559. “Robert Raynold.” This Robert, it is like, was a brother or relation of Thomas, head of Merton college and dean of Exon, or of Hierom, William, and John Raynolds, eminent men of Oxford about this time, and several of them zealous of popery.

    CHAPTER 13.

    Ecclesiastical habits and other matters scrupled. P. Martyr applied to for his judgment thereof. The roods and crucifixes in churches. A crucifix in the queen’s chapel. The bishop of Ely excuseth his ministering in the chapel by reason thereof.

    Ceremonies established. Complying popish priests. Readers. Some hinderers of the reformation. A slackness in discipline. Preaching useful. NOW let us take up some other matters before we pass to the next year.

    One of the new made bishops, whose name occurs not, (but one of the exiles, I make no doubt,) being nominated and elected, scrupled the habits and the cap so far, that he was in doubt of accepting the preferment: but for the better satisfying of himself, he wrote a letter, dated Aug. 27, to Peter Martyr, then at Zurick, for his advice and judgment what he should do. To whom also the same divine wrote two other letters, in the months of October and December, upon the same inquiry. The sum of Martyr’s reply to his first letter was, “That indeed when himself was at Oxon, and a canon of Christchurch there, he never wore the surplice in the choir: but his reason for it was, not that it was unlawful in itself, but because, if he had done it, he should, being such a public professor, seem to have confirmed that which his conscience approved not of. But as to the round cap and garments, to be worn extra sacra, he thought there ought not to be much contention: for superstition seemed not properly to have any place there. But of garments, as holy, to be used in the ministry, when they carry the resemblance of the mass, and are mere relics of popery, of these, he said, it was Bullinger’s opinion that they were not to be used, lest by his example that should wear them, things that were scandalous might be confirmed.”

    But P. Martyr himself told this English divine that writ to him, “that his judgment was something differing from that of Bullinger; namely, that though he was always averse to the use of these ornaments, yet because he saw the present danger, lest they that refused them might be deprived of the liberty of preaching; and because haply, as altars and images were taken away, so these appurtenances of the mass might in time be taken away also, if he [whom he now wrote to] and others that had taken bishoprics would be intent upon it; (which matter perhaps might not so well proceed, if another should succeed in his place, who would not only not care that those relics might be abolished, but rather would defend and cherish them;) therefore, to keep out papists and Lutherans, as he said, he was not so forward to persuade him rather to forego the bishopric than to use the garments. But because he saw scandals of that sort were by all means to be avoided, therefore he easily gave his consent to that opinion.”

    In another letter he tells the same divine, “That he thought it not worth much disputing of the square cap, and the external garments of bishops, when it was without superstition, and might have a civil reason for it, in this kingdom especially. He wished all things might be most simply performed: but that if peace might be obtained between the Saxon churches and theirs, [of Helvetia,] there should be no separation for such kind of garments: for although we should not at all approve them, yet we would bear them. Therefore you may,” said he, “use those garments either in preaching or administering the Lord’s supper; yet so as to speak and teach against the superstitious use of them.

    And finally, he advised him not to withdraw himself from the ministerial function, because of the great need of ministers: whence if he, and such as he, who were, as it were, pillars, should decline to take ecclesiastical offices on them, they would give way to wolves and antichrists.”

    But beside the habits, this divine (whether it were Grindal, or Parkhurst, or some one else) had made his observation of other things which he disliked in that degree, as to doubt the taking of the episcopal office upon him, lest in so doing he might seem to approve, and uphold, and countenance those things. And they were these:

    I. The spoils of the church, and impropriations. And he and others apprehended, that the queen intended to take away the whole revenue of bishoprics and parish ministers, and settle what livelihood and stipend she thought convenient upon them.

    II. The immunity of those that were papistical persecutors, or such as had turned from protestants to be papists. The good man did judge, that such ought not to have an indemnity granted them, but to be imprisoned, or enjoined penance, or the like.

    III. The enjoining unleavened bread to be used in the sacrament.

    IV. The processions in Rogation-week; which seemed to have been derived from the processions of the heathen, and the superstitions attending thereon.

    V. The image of the crucifix on the communiontable in the administration of the supper.

    VI. There were thoughts now of receiving the Augastan Confession; the better to join in league with the German protestants.

    Of these two last scruples I have something further to observe. As to the Augustan Confession, and how willing many were here to entertain it, Bullinger wrote thus to Utenhovius, a learned man, that had lived in England in king Edward’s reign, an assistant to John a Lasco in the German church in London, but now with him in Poland: “I see,” said he, “no small disturbances like to rise in England also, if the Augustan Confession be received, which some would have; a thing very unworthy in many regards. This gives vexation to all the purer churches, and would infect them all with its leaven. I pray God restrain men otherwise pious, but sufficiently troublesome to godly men and the purer religion. And you know what was done in Poland. Beware, and lay to your helping hand, that it be not received. King Edward’s reformation satisfieth the godly.”

    Concerning the use of the crucifix to be still retained in the churches, the divine before mentioned was so offended at it, (and such offence was taken at it by many more,) that in his letter to Dr. Martyr, he desired him and Bullinger and Bernardin [Ochin] to write to the queen against it. But Martyr excused himself by reason of his great business. Yet, as he said, he had wrote already certain public letters into England. But his own judgment was, that he could never approve of having the image of the crucifix upon the table in preaching or administration of the sacrament.

    The queen indeed being used to these things, that is, crosses and saints’ images in churches, where she and her nobles that resorted thither used to give honour to them, had them at first in her own chapel. But she seemed to have laid them aside, and that upon the earnest addresses that were made to her by her bishops, that in her Injunctions it might be enjoined, that all images should be removed out of the churches; wherein they did prevail. But it seems not long after the queen resumed burning lights and the image of the crucifix again upon the altar in her oratory. For March 24, Barlow, formerly bishop of St. David’s, in Lent time preached at court, in his chimer and rochet: when the cross stood on the altar, and two candlesticks and two tapers burning.” Whereupon the archbishop of Canterbury performed his part, by applying himself honestly to the queen, for divers reasons to remove them. And so much these furnitures of her chapel disgusted some good men, that one of her chief bishops, (viz. Cox, bishop of Ely,) being appointed to minister the sacrament before her there, made it a matter of conscience to do it in a place which he thought so dishonoured by images; and could scarce be brought to officiate there, denying it a great while; and when he did it, it was with a trembling conscience, as he said. And to plead for himself, and to give his humble advice to the queen, he wrote her a letter in a most submissive manner; acquainting her both with his conscience, that would not a great while permit him to minister in her chapel, namely, because the lights and cross remained; though he believed she meant not the use to any evil end; and likewise shewing the reasons moving him herein: which letter and reasons I cast into the Appendix.

    I add here, that not long from the beginning of the queen’s entrance upon her government, crucifixes were so distasteful to the people, that they brought many of them into Smithfield, and there broke them to pieces and burnt them; as it were to make atonement for the many holy men and women that were not long before roasted to death there. By Which it did plainly appear, that however queen Mary by a strong hand had brought in the Roman religion again, yet the people’s minds were generally prejudiced against it, and the superstitions thereof: and they shewed it openly, as soon as they might safely do so. And this was no more than was ordered to be done by the queen’s visitors and by her injunctions: which was executed about Bartholomew tide, when, in Paul’s churchyard and Cheapside, as well as Smithfield, the roods (as they called the crosses) were burnt to ashes, and, together with them, in some places, copes also, vestments, altar-cloths, books, banners, sepulchres, and such like occasions of superstition in churches, as was mentioned before.

    But this violence, especially exercised towards crosses and crucifixes, gave great disgust to zealous papists. And for this very thing some of that sort, that were then abroad in foreign parts about their business, chose rather to tarry abroad than to return home. Sir Rich. Shelly, who was now titular lord prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, (and superior of that new priory founded by queen Mary, near St. John’s-street, London,) being at Antwerp, to recover a debt, and so to return home, because he had promised all obedience and allegiance to queen Elizabeth, altered his purpose, and resolved to stay abroad; hearing what work was made with the crosses in England. And of this occasion of his not coming home, he remembered the lord Burghley many years after in a letter he wrote to him, in these words: “There came news, that the crucifix, being honoured (as the abridgment of all Christian faith) in the queen’s chapel and closet by her most excellent majesty, and by your lordships of her most honourable council, was nevertheless in Smithfield broken to pieces and burned in bonfires: which made me call to remembrance that which I had beard your lordship say to the old lord Paget, (that God forgive,) to whom, pretending that queen Mary, of famous memory, had returned the realm wholly catholic, your lordship answered, ‘My lord, you are therein so far deceived, that I fear rather an inundation of the contrary part, so universal a boiling and bubbling I see of stomachs that cannot yet digest the crudity of that time.’ That saying of your lordship, upon the news of burning the crucifix, I called to remembrance. And albeit I was encouraged to come home with the remembrance of my service done to her majesty in the time of her adversity, whereof the king of Spain is witness, and with her most gracious accepting of me at my coming out of Flanders; and with the favour, that you, my good lord, both then and always had ever shewed me; yet finally, I was feared with that fury of the people; and then saw, that your lordship foresaw the wind and tide so strong that way, that I determined never to leave her majesty’s service, but secedere aliquo, dum illae silescerent turbae; and to keep my service in store, till a more seasonable time.”

    And thus ill affected stood the people at this time to crucifixes.

    It is certain, however these crucifixes and roods were taken down by authority in all the churches, yet the crucifix remained in the queen’s chapel afterwards. For about the year 1564, one John Marshal, an English papist in Lovain, wrote a treatise of the Cross, and had the confidence to dedicate his book to her: and that on this account, (as he expressed it in his epistle dedicatory,) that her good affection to the cross moved him to adventure to recommend his treatise to her highness. But this book was learnedly answered anno 1565, by Mr. Calfhil; and the queen defended; as we shall see in due place. But it is true, this gave offence to many of her subjects, as we have heard, and may hear hereafter.

    And as for the other ceremonies used in the Roman church, these our divines could have been contented at this juncture to have been without, observing what jealousies were taken at them; and that there might not be the least compliance with the popish devotions. Bishop Jewel, in a letter dated in February 1559, to Bullinger, said, “The surplice moved weak minds, and that for his part he wished that the very slightest footsteps of popery might be taken away, both out of the church and out of the minds of men. But the queen, he said, could at that time bear no change in religion, [other than what was already done and established.”] But the pacific purpose of the exiled professors of the gospel, concerning their observation of the ceremonies that should be established, is worthy marking. Those that had in queen Mary’s reign placed themselves in Frankford, and were yet there, wrote to those exiles their countrymen, that were at Geneva, a letter dated Jan. 3, 1559. By which it appears, that they were now in much fear of ceremonies; yet knew not what particularly would be established. But they said, the better to prepare themselves and their brethren in Geneva, for taking the ministry upon them, when they came into England, or conforming, if they were of the laity, “that it would not lie in either of their hands to establish the ceremonies, but in certain men’s who were appointed thereunto.

    And then they would be received by common consent of parliament. They trusted that both true religion would be restored, and that they should not be burdened with unprofitable ceremonies.

    And that they purposed to submit to such orders as should be established by authority, being not of themselves wicked. Because the reformed churches differed among themselves in divers ceremonies, and yet agreed in the unity of doctrine. They saw no inconvenience, if they observed some ceremonies, so they agreed in the chief points of religion. But that if any should be intruded that were offensive, they, upon conference and deliberation with their brethren then at Geneva, whom they should soon meet in England, would brotherly join with them to be suitors for the reformation and abolishing of the same.”

    They who signed this peaceable letter were these, in the name of the rest of the church of Frankford. James Pilkington, Richard Beesly, Francis Wilford, Christopher Brickbate, Edmond Isaac, John Mullins, John Grey, Alexander Nowel, Henry Knolles, John Browne.

    Henry Carew, And the first bishops that were made, and who were but newly returned out of their exiles, as Cox, Grindal, Horne, Sandys, Jewel, Parkhurst, Bentham, upon their first returns, before they entered upon their ministry, laboured all they could against receiving into the church the papistical habits, and that all the ceremonies should be clean laid aside. But they could not obtain it from the queen and parliament. And the habits were enacted. Then they consulted together what to do, being in some doubt whether to enter into their functions. But they concluded unanimously not to desert their ministry, for some rites, that, as they considered, were but a few, and not evil in themselves, especially since the doctrine of the gospel remained pure and entire. And in this counsel which they had at first taken, they continued still well satisfied; and also upon the considerations, that by filling these rooms in the church, they might keep out Lutherans, and such as were suspected papists: which was an argument the learned foreigners, their friends, suggested to them.

    The church now being so slenderly provided of curates, and persons to officiate in the parishes, the bishops were forced to allow of many who had been popish priests, but now complying with the present proceedings: which indeed gave great distaste to many who considered not the necessity of the thing. So one of those that were brought before the commissioners ecclesiastical in the year 1567, to answer for their not going to the parish churches, said, the minister of his parish was a very papist. Whereat the bishop of London told him, he might then go to another place, and mentioned particularly St. Laurence. And another of them said, he knew one that persecuted God’s saints in queen Mary’s time, and brought them before Boner; and now he was a minister allowed of, and never made recantation. Indeed a great sort of these were men of little conscience, and though they outwardly complied with the present ecclesiastical orders, and read the common prayer, and subscribed to the doctrine now professed; yet inwardly they favoured popery, and, as much as they durst, would encourage their parishioners to do the same. Therefore Augustin Beruher, once old father Latymer’s trusty friend and servant, declaimed against them, for their complying in all the times; but that when they complied under queen Elizabeth, a great many of them privately set the people against the queen and the religion. “Whereas before,” said he, “in the time of antichrist, boldly and openly you did deceive the people of their salvation by Christ, now in the light of the gospel secretly you whisper in the ears of the simple, and dissuade them from embracing the truth. The spirit of the Lord is departed from you. This is more evident in your manifold and manifest perjuries in king Henry’s time, in king Edward’s time, in queen Mary’s time. And what may be said of you at this time, but that you be false, perjured hypocrites, bearing two faces under one hood, being ready like weathercocks to turn at all seasons as the wind doth carry you?”

    Another inconvenience the want of clergymen now brought, was the ordination of illiterate men to be readers: which likewise many were offended at. These readers had been tradesmen, or other honest, welldisposed men; and they were admitted into inferior orders, to serve the church in the present necessity, by reading the common prayer and the homilies, and orders unto the people: whereof something hath been said before.

    This was cast upon the present governors of the church as a reproach, both by papists and by some protestants themselves. The former had nothing so rife in their mouths whereby to burden the present ministry in England, as their heaping together the mention of a great many base occupations; and then to shew how such craftsmen were become our preachers [or readers rather.] Which Calfhil, in his book against Marshal, thus apologizeth for: “Grant,” saith he, “that the inferior sort of our ministers were such indeed as these men in spite imagine; such as came from the shop, from the forge, from the wherry, from the loom; should ye not think you find more sincerity and learning in them, than in all the rabble of popish chaplains, their mass-mongers, and their soulpriests?

    I lament that there are not so many good preachers as parishes. I am sorry that some so unskilful be preferred; but I never saw the simple reader admitted into our church, but in the time of popery ye should have found in every diocese forty sir Johns in every respect worse.”

    Another of this tribe of writers, viz. Dorman, had most despitefully, not only laid the same charge upon this church, of ordaining tradesmen, but hinted them to be of the very meanest and most contemptible trades and occupations of all others: saying, “Of late, tinkers, cobblers, cowherds, fiddlers, broommen, and such like, were created divines; and disputed upon the ale-bench for their degree.” To which calumniation Nowel, dean of St. Paul’s, made this discreet and home answer: “That indeed the papists’ cruel murdering of so many learned men had forced them of mere necessity to supply some small cures with honest artificers, exercised in the scriptures: not in place of divines, bachelors, or doctors, but instead of popish sir Johns Lack-Latin, learning, and all honesty; instead of Dr. Dicer, bachelor Bench-Whistler, and Mr. Card-player, the usual sciences of their popish priests; who were the true disputers pro et contra for their forms upon the ale-bench; where you should not miss of them in all towns and villages.

    Instead of such chaplains of trust, more meet to be tinkers, cobblers, cowherds, yea, bearwards and swineherds than ministers in Christ’s church, that some honest artificers, who (instead of such popish books as dice and cards) have travelled in the scriptures, and have succeeded, is more against Mr. Dorman’s stomach, than St. Paul’s or St. Peter’s either doctrine or example; who being artificers themselves, and in the highest place of Christ’s church, using sometime their art, would not disdain other honest artificers to be in the meanest places.”

    A great many of another sort quarrelled with them, as no ministers, because they could not preach: and. extraordinarily displeased they were with the bishops for ordaining such. But they did not consider exigences, nor the advice of John Rogers, that learned and wise man, and first martyr under queen Mary; when Day, the famous printer, was fellow prisoner with him, and afterwards fled over sea. To him Rogers had said, that he should live to see the alteration of, religion, and the gospel freely preached again; and bade him recommend him to his brethren in exile and others, and that they should be circumspect in displacing the papists, when that time should come. And for lack of good ministers then to furnish the churches, he advised, (and so did bishop Hooper at the same time,) that for every ten churches one good and learned superintendent should be appointed, which should have under him faithful readers, such as might be got; so that the popish priests should be clean put out. And the bishop once a year should oversee the profiting of his parishes; and if the minister did not his duty, as well in profiting himself in his book, as his parishioners in good instructions, and so to be trained by little and little, then he to be turned out, and another put in his place; and the bishop to do the like with the superintendents. This advice in part was now followed by the guides of the church, by appointing readers for the churches; but the method they thought too violent to turn out all the former priests, especially being willing to conform themselves. For this would make too great a devastation in the church. And they hoped by time, and better information, even these priests might come to be hearty embracers of the reformation, and serviceable to it. And as for the readers whom they ordained, they were only tolerated, and to serve for the present necessity: hoping in time that the universities might produce men of learning to occupy places in the church.

    Yet these whom the bishop appointed to be readers were often men of some tolerable learning in Latin, bred up in their youth in schools; and some of them designed for the universities, had not the discouragement of the times interposed. And so these scholars were put to trades and callings.

    And even then studious in the scripture and good books, and sometimes sufferers for religion. Such an one was Tho. Earl, a reader in London in these times; and afterwards raised to a higher degree in the church, and obtained a parish church. This man (as I find in a journal of his own writing) was the son of a citizen and draper of London, and put to school there in Henry VIII. his reign, with one friar Appleyard, belonging to the college of St. Thomas of Acars, and afterwards to the college of Corpus Christi. From this Appleyard he was removed to St. Anthony’s school: his masters there were Archer and one Field, a martyr; who, it is like, infused good principles into him. Twice he writes, he was hindered, as it seems, from going to Oxford. And then he was forced to become an apprentice for ten years to William Gardiner, painter stainer of London, in the time of king Edward and his sister queen Mary. His master and mistress were both very great Romanists. Who laid many labours and hardships, and many beatings too upon him, for reading of books, and for denying to consent to them to be a papist. And many were the complaints and clamours they put up against him. “But O! Jesus Christ,” saith he, “thou wert always my helper.” One Robert Asky, his schoolfellow, was his true friend in these his troubles. But he went afterwards to Lisbon and Spain, (whither he would have had Earl also to have gone with him,) and there he was suspected and imprisoned: but God’s wonderful grace delivered him, and he returned into England in 1558, when queen Mary died and queen Elizabeth received the crown, and the grief of the godly was turned into the greatest joy. Soon after, he assisted at divine services in some places: afterwards he was ordained deacon; and anno 1564 got Mildred, Breadstreet, having been curate there the year before, as he writes in his journal.

    But concerning these popishly affected priests, and some of these tolerated readers, and others newly ordained, for their untoward way of reading, and the scandalous behaviour of some of them, there was much complaint, as we said before. Thus we find in a book printed not long after these times:

    The church, said the author, did most consist then of popish priests and tolerated readers, and many new made ministers, who read so, that the people could not be edified thereby; and one of these tolerated to serve two or three churches. And when they read, they turned their backs to the people, [that they might stand after the old way, with their faces to the altar.] In many places, preachings they had none. Some were commissionated to preach therefore, who went about as itineraries: but even many of these were ruffianly rakehells, nay common cozeners: by whose preaching the word of truth was become odious in the eyes of the people. Nay, and even in the city of London, the preachers there, being many of them such as had been in exile, wanted discretion and learning, either in overvaluing the foreign churches’ discipline, or betraying too much heat, or in making too severe reflections, or in discoursing weakly and inconsistently. Which the prudenter sort did then observe with no little discontent: of whom Mr. Whitehead was one, a very grave man, and whom archbishop Cranmer had once recommended to a bishopric. “That learned and ancient father,” said Dr. Whitgift, “hath sundry times lamented in my hearing (and other of his friends he thought had heard the same) the loose, frivolous, and unprofitable preaching of divers ministers in London.”

    Many other things were now complained of and lamented in the beginning of the queen’s reign. As the delay for some time of reforming the superstitions and disorders in the church. Many there were that fain would have continued the old papal religion, and hindered the reformation that was now on foot; who pretended, upon politic accounts, that it was not yet a season to do it, and that it would be dangerous at present to go about it, for fear of some rebellion among the people; especially in some parts of the nation, which were much addicted to the old religion. Which made an eminent man, soon after bishop of Durham, speak after this manner, in a book about this time published: “Are not we guilty of the like fault as they in Haggai, that said, It is not time yet to build the temple? When God stirred up our kings as chief in the realm, and Tho. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, with others, for matters in religion, to drive the buyers and sellers of masses, pardons, trentals, &c. out of God’s house, which they had made a den of thieves; was not this in all our mouths, It is not yet time to build God’s house, the people cannot bear it; we fear strange princes and rebellions? As though God were content to suffer idolatry for a time, and would not or could not promote his own matters without our politic devices.”

    And again elsewhere the same pious man hath these words; “Let us think, that God speaks thus by his prophets, saying, This people of England, to whom I have given so plentiful a land, delivered them so often, and sent them my preachers, and whom, when they forgot me and their duty, I punished; sometimes sharply of fatherly love, and sometimes gently, that they might turn to me: yet they say, It is not time to build God’s house, for fear of their own shadows. They would lie loitering. still. Be waked out of this sleep. Let us consider what benefits we have received daily of our good God, and see what a grief it is to be unthankful, and have our unkindness thus cast in our teeth. Poor cities in Germany, compassed about with their enemies, reform religion thoroughly without any fear, and God prospereth them. And yet this noble realm, which all princes have feared, dare not. We will do it by our own politics, and not by committing the success to God; and so we shall overthrow all.”

    Others there were, that, being magistrates and officers both in church and state, however well affected they were to a reformation, pretended they saw so much out of order, that they began to despair to attempt it; and so left the reins of discipline loose, and the people might come to church, or go to mass, or the alehouse, without restraint. And of this the same writer thus; “Worldly wise men see so many things out of order, and so little hope of redress, that they cannot tell which to correct or amend first; and therefore let the whip lie still, [alluding unto the whip that Christ used, to whip the buyers and sellers out of the temple,] and every one to do what him list, and sin to be unpunished. The world is come to such a dissolute liberty and negligent forgetfulness of God, that men sleeping in sin need not so much a whip to drive any out of the church, so few come there, but they need a great sort of whips to drive some few thitherward. For come into a church the sabbath-day, and ye shall see but few, though there be a sermon; but the alehouse is ever full. Well worth the papists therefore in this kingdom; for they be earnest, zealous, and painful in their doings: they will build their kingdom more in one year with fire and fagot, than the old gospellers will do in seven. A popish summoner, spy, or promoter, will drive more to the church with a word, to hear a Latin mass, than seven preachers will bring in a week’s preaching to hear a godly sermon. Oh! what a condemnation shall this be? To see the wicked so diligent and earnest in their doings to set up antichrist, and Christian rulers and officers of all sorts, having the whip of correction in their hands, by God’s law and the prince’s, have so coldly behaved themselves in setting up the kingdom of Christ, that neither they give good examples themselves, in diligent praying and resorting to the church, nor by the whip of discipline drive others thitherward.”

    This made the sober and earnest bishops and divines press preaching. And as they preached much themselves for the instruction of the people, so they did what they could to promote it every where. “Hence we learn,” saith Pilkington,” the necessity of preaching, and what inconvenience followeth, where it is not used. Where preaching fails, saith Solomon, the people perish. Therefore let every man keep himself in God’s school-house, and learn his lesson diligently. For as the body is nourished with meat, so is the soul with the word of God: as St. Matthew saith, A man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that cometh from the mouth of God. This is then the ordinary way to keep us in the fear of God and continual remembrance of the last day; often diligently to read, and hear God’s word preached unto us: for that is it which doth and will kill sin in us. Faith is kept and increased by the same means that it is given. What is the cause that the papists lie so sound on sleep in their abominations, but that they care not for preaching, nor think it so necessary; and because that they would not be told of their faults, that they might amend them.”

    In these words this reverend divine had his eye upon several people, instructed secretly by papists to despise preaching, and to absent themselves as much as they could from sermons. For it was commonly said even in these times, but chiefly by the enemies of the gospel, “What should I do at a sermon? I know as much before I go as I shall learn there. I can read the scripture at home, and comfort myself sufficiently.” These are better than hey that will neither hear nor read, but say, “I know there is no more but Do well and have well. I know that this is all that can be said, Love God above all things, and thy neighbour as thyself. I can say my Pater noster and my Creed, as well as he: and further I know, that in the one is contained all things necessary to be asked at God’s hand, and in the other all that is to be believed; and what can or should a man have more than this? These sayings, albeit they be true, yet are they most brutish, and nothing else in very deed but naughty expositions to cloak our slothful wickedness withal: and that we would not in any wise have preaching, because we would not have our faults rebuked, nor yet our minds exercised in meditation of God and his goodness, and of our own sin and misery.”

    Moreover, concerning this preaching, thus would the papists also say, “that it is not necessary to preach often, by the example of Pambo, which when he had heard one lesson, would hear no more till he had in many years learned to practise that one. Which example proveth rather,” said my foresaid author,” that we should diligently learn, than seldom preach.” They were desperately afraid the people should have too much knowledge. “It was never a good world, they say, since every shoemaker could teach the priest his duty. They were ashamed of their faults,” said my author, “and therefore would have the people in blindness still, that they should see neither their own faults, nor tell them of theirs. For that especially they could not abide.” And be sure those that were under these priests should have learning little enough. “For how can they be learned,” said he, “having none to teach them but sir John Mumblemattins?”

    And here I cannot but insert the mention of a popish archdeacon, that never preached; and the witty reason which he gave why he did not; as we have it related by a good author that lived in those times. “An archdeacon, asked a young scholar once in discourse, whether he [the archdeacon] had a good wit, or no? Yes, sir, said he, your wit is good enough, if you keep it still, and use it not: for every thing, as you know, is the worse for wearing. Thou sayest even truth, said the archdeacon, for that is the matter that I never use preaching: for it is nothing but the wasting of wit, and a spending of wind. And yet if I would preach, I think I could do it as well as the best of them. Yea, sir, said the other, I would not you should prove it, for fear of straining yourself too much. Why dost thou fear that? replied the archdeacon. Nay, thou mayest be assured I will never preach so long as I live, God being my good Lord. There are overmany heresies for good-meaning men to speak any thing nowadays.” [Meaning preaching to be the cause of heresy.] And as these men would in these days speak their mind against preaching, so would they do also against the common use of the holy scriptures. “It was never good world, would they say, since the word of God came abroad: and that it was not meet for the people to have it or read it, but they must receive it at the priest’s mouth. For they were, they said, the nurses that must chew the meat afore the children eat it.” But the said learned man sharply replied, “It is so poisoned in their filthy mouths and stinking breaths, that it poisoneth, but feedeth not the hearer.”

    CHAPTER 14.

    The progress of the reformation. Orders for cures vacant. The foreigners’ joy in behalf of England. A proclamation for preserving monuments, &c. in churches. Another for apparel. YET did the reformation silently and surely go on, though slowly, and with great opposition, as the walls of Jerusalem were built: and, by the diligence of some about the queen, many abuses were already despatched and laid aside. And if we went now into the churches, you might see all the former superstitions, that used to appear there, removed and gone; purged of images and relics: which exceedingly grieved the papists. “The papists weep to see our churches so bare, saying, they were like barns; and that there was nothing in them to make courtesy unto; neither saints, nor yet their little old god, [meaning the pix hanging over the altar.”] And a little before, “The pope’s church hath all things pleasantly in it to delight the people withal: as for their eyes, their god hangs in a rope: images gilded, painted, carved most finely: copes, chalices, crosses of gold and silver, with relics and altars. For the ear, singing, ringing, and organs piping. For the nose, frankincense, sweet perfumes. To wash away sin, as they say, holy water of their own hallowing and making. Priests an infinite sort, masses, trentals, dirges, pardons, &c. But where the gospel is preached, they, knowing that God is not pleased but with a pure heart, are content with an honest place appointed to resort together in, &c. with bare walls, or else written with scriptures.”

    But as for the archbishop, he was not idle in doing his service at this time to the church. For the performing of God’s service purely and profitably in the many vacant churches, he drew up and gave out rules, orders, and directions,for serving of the cures now destitute: as there were not a few; some priests going away, and departing from their benefices, and others non-resident, and many livings of so mean income, that none would take them up. This order was as followeth:

    First , That the bishop of the diocese take special care to foresee such men to be presented to their benefices of their collations, or of others, which will promise to be resident upon their cures, and which also will take to their care and oversight some other vicarages and parsonages next adjoining to their principal place of residence, more in number or fewer, as the bishop by his discretion shall think meet for the worthiness of the person, and for the convenient unition of the said cures.

    Item, Order to be taken for faculty of pluralities, &c. Item, At the receiving of his principal benefice he shall also compound for the rest, as they shall fall vacant, having favourable days of payment of those said united benefices, which few men will be induced singularly to take upon them, and answer other charges ordinary and extraordinary depending upon the same, until such time as some one able clerk or minister will offer to take upon him to serve any of the said united benefices. In which case thesaid principal incumbent to be discharged, or to be otherwise appointed as the ordinary and patron shall conveniently agree thereunto, with convenient contentation of the ministers between themselves.

    Item, That the lay patrons of such benefices may be advertised by authority of parliament, or otherwise, to suffer the cures of their presentations and collations so to be united for the time in this case of necessity, without hurt of their rights, as may be conveniently agreed on by the ordinary and the said patrons. Provided that this uniting of benefices of the patronage of any ecclesiastical or lay person, with any promotion of the queen’s majesty’s gift and collation, shall not be prejudicial to the right, interest, and title of the said subjects’ patronage, ecclesiastical or lay, as afore, except for lack of presentation within six months by the lay patron, the benefice failing into the lapse. The bishop then for that turn to dispose it agreeably to such device as here is Item, That the said principal incumbent shall depute in every such parish committed to his care, one able minister within orders of deacon, if it may be, or else some honest, sober, and grave layman, who, as a lector or reader, shall give his attendance to read the order of service appointed; except, that he shall not, being only a reader, intermeddle with christening, marrying, or ministering the holy communion, or with any voluntary preaching or prophesying; but read the service of the day with the litany and homily, agreeable as shall be prescribed in the absence of the principal pastor, or some one pastor chanceable coming to that parish for the time.

    Item, That the said principal incumbent and pastor shall in course resort in circuit to every his peculiars, as well to preach the word of God, as to minister the holy communion to them that shall be thereto disposed, as to marry and baptize the childer, born sithence the day of his last being with them. Provided, that the people be taught by an homily made therefore, that they need not to stand in any scrupulosity for the delay of baptism, if they depart before they be presented to the minister in the church; considering that in the primitive church, the fathers used but two principal feasts, Easter and Pentecost, to admit the childer to the holy font of regeneration. Not forbidding yet the minister and pastor aforesaid, if he may conveniently minister the said sacrament of baptism on the week day, being required thereunto, without pact or covenant of reward, but of charity and zeal which he ought to bear to the reasonable requests of his people; and as they again of their charitable considerations may request the same in respect of the time, weather, or distance of place, not to molest the said pastor more than need.

    Item, That the said pastor shall have special care at his repair to such of his circuits, to know how the youth do profit in the catechism taught them by the lector or minister, weekly attending upon them: and to see that the elder and ancient folk do prepare themselves three times of the year at the least, to receive the holy communion in love and charity. Which pastor shall refer all causes of great importance to the bishop, or his chancel.or, as the case shall require, and as is provided by injunction.

    Item, That the pastor being presented to such churches compatible, over and above his principal cure, shall not, before some receipt of his possession, pay to the ordinaries for his institution and induction more than for the fees of the register only, for all such benefices as shall be thought to be of an exile portion of living, and chargeable to the first-fruits.

    Item, That the lectors or readers shall not be appointed but with the oversight of the bishop, or his chancellor, to have his convenient instruction and advertisement, with some letters testimonial of his admission, how to order themselves in the said charge. Which said lectors shall be always removable upon certificate and proof of their disability and disorder.

    Item, That there be a convenient rate made by the bishop and his counsel, with the consent of the patron of such benefices to be united, what portion shall be appointed in stipend to the principal pastor, what to the reader, what to the bearing of ordinary and extraordinary payments, what to the reparation of the chancel and mansion houses, and what may remain to be distributed to the poor in such parish united.

    Item, That the principal pastor shall not let to ferme over one year, and ever at Annunciation of our Lady, any one such benefice united, but with the consent of the ordinary and patrons of the same. To whom above three years it shall not be lawful to let them forth to ferme.

    Item, That those fermors shall be aided and assisted as well by the laws and diligence of the ordinary, as by the aid of the divers justices next dwelling to such benefices: that the rights, tithes, and all other ecclesiastical emoluments be duly contented and paid: whereby the charges and persons aforesaid may have their due relief and stipend according to law, equity, and good conscience. This was the prudent course taken in the present distress to supply the church with ministers.

    In fine, there was great joy abroad among the eminent heads of the reformers, for the good progress of religion in England; and likewise in Scotland too, and in Poland, and other places. For thus Peter Martyr writ to Utenhoven in Poland, January 7, signifying his great joy conceived for the good successes of religion in Poland. “If there was joy among the angels of God for one poor sheep lost and found again, what pleasure is it fit we should take for so many provinces, and so great a kingdom as Poland is, if, as you give hope to believe, it be converted to the true religion of Christ. God seems, at this time especially, to have a mind to reveal his kingdom.

    Concerning England, Martyr said, he had writ before to Masco: and for the good news thereof, he knew they would both rejoice and congratulate Christ these accessions to his kingdom, because both of them so greatly favoured it.”

    Then he descended to mention the work he was upon, of giving an answer to bishop Gardiner’s book, in vindication of his great patron archbishop Cranmer. “That he had sent a part of it to Alasco and him, praying him that he would deal with the booksellers in Poland to take off some of the copies the next Frankford mart, and to disperse them in that realm, for the better increase of religion there. And the book, when finished, he intended to dedicate to the present queen of England.”

    Of the realm of Scotland he wrote, “That the people there had the gospel also, and that public sermons were preached there, and that there was a just ministry of the sacrament. But that these were not favours given them by the public laws, or the will of the queen, but that the people by a great consent usurped them to themselves. And that when on the first of September there had been a solemn procession in Edinburgh of the chief idol of the city, one Giles, and the queen herself accompanied, and some noblemen, the people rose, and dissolved the shew, and threw the idol into the public sink of the city. The queen and nobles withdrew themselves into the castle. And the people caused it to be writ to the French king, exhorting him to follow the pure religion; and that if he would grant it them, they would be quiet, otherwise they would join themselves to the English.”

    For the conclusion of this year, I will take notice of two proclamations the queen issued out. The one, bearing date September 19, from Windsor, was against defacing monuments in churches, and taking away bells and lead. In which I do guess the archbishop had a great hand, being so great a lover of antiquity, and so sore an enemy against the spoil of the monuments of our forefathers and of the churches; and the proclamation itself being so excellently and fully expressed, as though it were done by his pen or direction: it was entitled, A proclamation against breaking or defacing of monuments of antiquity; being set up in churches or other public places for memory, and not for superstition. It set forth, “How the ancient monuments of metal and stone in churches and other public places had been lately spoiled and broken: which were set up only for the memory of persons there buried, or that had been benefactors to the buildings or dotations of the churches. The mischief of demolishing these monuments are reckoned to be, 1. That those churches and places were spoiled, broken, and minated. 2. The honourable and good memory of virtuous and noble persons extinguished. 3. The true understanding of divers families in the realm, who have descended of the blood of the same persons, darkened. 4. The true course of their inheritance hereby might hereafter be interrupted, contrary to justice. 5. Such as gave or had charge in times past only to deface monuments of idolatry, and reigned images in churches and abbeys, slandered.

    The queen therefore commanded all such breaking of monuments hereafter to be forborne and forbad, without consent of the ordinary, to break an image of kings, princes, or noble states of the realm, or any other in times past set up for the only remembrance of them to posterity, and not for any religious honour; nor to break and deface any image in any glass windows: and that upon pain to be committed to the next gaol: and at the next coming of the justices to be further punished by fine or imprisonment, besides the restitution and reedification of what was broken; using therein the advice of the ordinary. “And for the restoration of such as be already spoiled, she charged all archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries, to inquire by presentments of the curates and churchwardens, what manner of spoils have been made since the beginning of her reign, and by whom: and to enjoin them, under pain of excommunication, to repair the same by a convenient day; or to notify the same to her majesty’s council in the star-chamber: and if they were not able to repair the same, then to be enjoined open penance in the church two or three times, according to the quality of the crime. ‘And if the party offending be dead, then the ordinary was to enjoin the executors of the deceased to repair and reedify. And when the offender could not be presented, if it were in any cathedral or collegiate church, which had revenues belonging to it, remaining in the discretion of the governors thereof to bestow, the queen required them to employ such parcels of the said sums of money as might be spared, upon the speedy repair of such defaced monuments, as agreeable to the original as might be. “And whereas some patrons or impropriators, upon pretence of their being owners of the parsonages impro-priate, did persuade with the parson and parishioners to throw down the bells of the churches and chapels, and the lead of the same, converting the same to their private gain, and thereby sought a slanderous desolation of the places of prayer; the queen, to whom in the right of the crown the defence and protection of the church belonged, expressly forbade any person to take away the bells or lead, under pain of imprisonment during her pleasure, and further fine for the contempt. And she commanded all bishops and ordinaries to inquire of such contempts done from the beginning of her majesty’s reign; and to enjoin the persons offending to repair the same within a convenient time. And to certify her majesty’s privy council, or the council in the star-chamber, that order might be taken therein.”

    He that is minded to see this proclamation at length, may find it preserved in Fuller’s Church History. Another proclamation, dated from Westminster, October 21, was against the excess of apparel, which grew on apace, and gave great offence to pious people: who thought it consisted not with the gravity and seriousness of a nation professing true religion, to lash out so excessivelythat way; and many spending upon their backs more than they could well spare, to the impoverishing of themselves and family, and to the decay of charity. Therefore the queen in this proclamation made a declaration of her purpose; “To take the penalty of sundry former laws for wearing excessive and inordinate apparel. As particularly that act in the first and second of Philip and Mary; and certain branches of another statute, made the 24th of Henry VIII. against excessive apparel. The mulcts were, by order of council, to be put in execution in the queen’s court and in their own houses. And in the countries, the mayors and governors of cities and towns corporate, sheriffs, and justices of the peace, noblemen, heads of societies, either ecclesiastical or temporal, within twelve days were to take order for the execution of the foresaid statutes. And she charged and commanded, that there should be no toleration or excuse after the goth of December next, touching the contents of the statute in the first and second of Philip and Mary; nor after the last of January, touching the branches of the other statute. Yet allowance was given for the wearing of certain costly furs, and rich embroideries, bought and made by sundry gentlemen before this proclamation, to their great costs, with which the queen dispensed.”

    What these vanities in apparel now were, may be the better understood, if we observe what one of the prelates about this time writ, reproving them. “These finefingured rufflers with their sables about their necks, corked slippers, trimmed buskins, and warm mittens, furred stomachers, long gowns. These tender parnels must have one gown for the day, another for the night: one long, another short: one for winter, another for summer: one furred through, and another but faced: one for the workday, another for the holyday: one of this colour, another of that: one of cloth, another of silk or damask.

    Change of apparel; one afore dinner, another at after: one of Spanish fashion, another of Turkey. And to be brief, never content with enough, but always devising new fashions and strange. Yea, a ruffian will have more in his ruff and his hose, than he should spend in a year. He which ought to go in a russet coat, spends as much on apparel for him and his wife, as his father would have kept a good house with.”

    CHAPTER 15.

    A collection of various historical matters falling, out within this year, 1559.

    Now, lest I should let slip many other historical matters, both religious and secular, private as well as public, that fell out within the compass of this year, 1559, being miscellaneous, and not so easy to be brought into a due method; I shall here set them down by way of diary as I have met with them in manuscript letters or memorials.

    April the 7th, a gentlewoman was buried at St. Thomas of Acre: whose funeral being performed after a different way from the then common superstitious and ceremonial custom, my journalist sets it down as a matter worthy his noting; and writes, that she was brought from St. Bartholomew’s besides Lothbury, with a great company of people, walking two and two, and neither priests nor clerks present, [who used ever to be present (and that in considerable numbers) at the burials of persons of any note, going before, and singing for the soul of the departed.] But instead of them went the new preachers in their gowns; and they neither singing nor saying, till they came to the church. And then, before the corpse was put into the grave, a collect was said in English, [whereas beforetime all was said in Latin.] And the body being laid in the grave, one took earth and cast it on the corpse, and read something that belonged to the same; and incontinently they covered it with the earth. And then was read the epistle out of St. Paul to the Thessalonians for the occasion. [Perhaps that place where it begins, But I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning, them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as others, which have no hope, &c. 1 Thessalonians 4:13.

    Unless here be a mistake, and the Thessalonians put for the Corinthians; the epistle that is appointed in our Common Prayer Book to be read at funerals.] And after this they sung the Paternoster in English, as well preachers as all the company, women not excepted, after a new fashion.

    And after all, one went into the pulpit and made a sermon. This was accounted strange at this time: but it seems to be partly the office of burial used in king Edward’s time, and some other additions to it. And this was somewhat boldly done, when as yet the old religion was in force.

    April the 8th, peace was proclaimed between the queen and Henry the French king, the dolphin of France, and Scotland, for ever; and all hostilities to cease both by land and sea. It was proclaimed with six trumpeters, five heralds of arms, Garter, Clarenceux, Lancaster, Rouge- Cross, and Blewmantle, and the lord mayor and aldermen in their scarlet.

    A proclamation was also made the same day against players, that they should play no more till a certain time, to whomsoever they belonged. And if they did, the mayor, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, or other officers were to apprehend them, and carry them to prison.

    April the 12th, the corpse of sir Rice Mansfield, knight, was brought from Clerkenwell unto the Blackfriars, with two heralds, and the rest of the ceremonies usual: twenty-four priests and clerks singing before him, all in Latin. The friars’ church was hung with black and coats of arms. The dirige was sung both in the parish where he died, and likewise where he was buried. There were carried along with him four banners of saints, and many other banners. The morrow masses were said in both churches.

    Afterward was his standard, coat, helmet, target, offered up at the high altar. And all this being performed, the company retired to his place to dinner. This was the common way of funerals of persons of quality in the popish times.

    The day of April, the queen’s ambassadors, viz. the lord chamberlain, the lord bishop of Ely, and Dr. Wootton, dean of Canterbury, returned from France.

    The 22d day of the said month the lord Wentworth, the late and last lord deputy of Calais was brought from the Tower to Westminster, to be arraigned for losing of that place. Several were his accusers; but he acquitted himself, and was cleared by his peers: and went thence unto Whittington college, where he afterwards lived.

    April the 23d, being St. George’s day, the queen went about the hall, and all the knights of the garter, and about the court, singing in procession. The same day in the afternoon were four knights elected, viz. the duke of Norfolk, the marquis of Northampton, the earl of Rutland, and the lord Robert Dudley, master of the queen’s horse.

    The 25th, St. Mark’s day, was a procession in divers parishes of London, and the citizens went with their banners abroad in their respective parishes, singing in Latin the Kyrie deeson after the old fashion.

    The same day the queen in the afternoon went to Bainard’s castle, the earl of Pembroke’s place, and supped with him, and after supper she took a boat, and was rowed up and down in the river Thames; hundreds of boats and barges rowing about her; and thousands of people thronging at the water side to look upon her majesty; rejoicing to see her, and partaking of the music and sights on the Thames: for the trumpets blew, drums beat, flutes played, guns were discharged, squibs hurled up into the air, as the queen moved from place to place. And this continued till ten of the crock at night, when the queen departed home. By these means shewing herself so freely and condescendingly unto her people, she made herself dear and acceptable unto them. May the 12th, Sunday, the English service began at the queen’s chapel: which was but four days after the use of it was enacted, and before it was enjoined to take place in the nation by the act of parliament: which was at St. John Baptist’s day. May the 22d, the bishop of London’s palace, and the dean of Paul’s house, with several other houses of the canons and prebendaries of the said church, were taken up for the French ambassadors, monsieur Montmorency, &c. and their retinue.

    The 23d, they came and landed at Tower wharf, where many lords and nobles came to meet them, and conducted them to their said lodgings.

    The 24th, they were brought from the bishop’s palace through Fleet-street by the greatest nobles about the court, to the queen’s palace to supper. The hall and the great chamber of presence was hung with very rich cloth of arras, and cloth of state. There was extraordinary cheer at supper, and after that, as goodly a banquet as had been seen; with all manner of music and entertainment till midnight.

    The 25th, they were brought to court with music to dinner. And after a splendid dinner, they were entertained with the baiting of bears and bulls with English dogs. The queen’s grace herself and the ambassadors stood in the gallery looking on the pastime till six at night. After that, they went by water unto Paul’s wharf, and landed there, to go to their lodgings at the bishop’s palace to supper. It was observed of these ambassadors, that they were most gorgeously apparelled.

    The 26th day they took barge at Paul’s wharf, and so to Paris Garden; where was to be another baiting of bulls and bears. And the captain with an hundred of the guard kept room for them against they came, that they might have place to see the sport.

    The same day was proclamation made of five acts of parliament lately passed and made: which I conclude to be the five first acts in the statute book primo Eliz. viz.

    I. For restoring to the queen the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and for abolishing all foreign power.

    II. For the uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments.

    III. For recognition of the queen’s title to the imperial crown of this realm.

    IV. For restitution of first-fruits and tenths, &c. and parsonages impropriate to the crown.

    V. An act whereby certain offences are made treason: all which were so necessary to be proclaimed and known, for the universal concern and import of them to all the queen’s subjects.

    The 28th, the French ambassadors went away, taking their barge towards Gravesend; and carried with them many mastiffs, given them for hunting their wolves.

    June the 2d, was buried in Little St. Bartholomew’s, the lady Barnes, late wife of sir George Barnes, knight, sometime lord mayor of London. She gave to many poor men and women good russet gowns; and to the poor men and women of Calais, [who now, being driven out thence from their habitations, trades, and estates, into England, and that in great numbers, were no doubt in great straits,] she gave so much apiece in money, and an hundred black gowns and coats. There attended the funeral Mr. Clarenceux, and twenty clerks singing afore her to the church, all in English. All the place, [i.e. her house,] and the streets through which they passed, and the church, all hung in black and coats of arms. Being come to the church, and the English procession sung, Mr. Horne made a sermon.

    After that, the clerks sung Te Deum in English. Then the corpse was buried with something sung. I suppose it was the versicles, beginning, Man that is born of a wo man, &c.

    June the 6th, St. George’s feast was kept at Windsor. The earl of Pembroke was the queen’s substitute. There were stalled at that time the four noblemen that were lately elected into the order. There was great feasting. And that day the communion and English service began to be celebrated there.

    June the 11th, being St. Barnabas-day, the apostle’s mass ceased, and no mass was said any more at St. Paul’s: and on that day Dr. Sandys preached, the lord mayor and aldermen, the earl of Bedford and many of the court present. And now Dr. May, sometime dean of St. Paul’s, but deposed, took possession of his place in the church as dean. And that afternoon was none of the old evensong there, and so abolished.

    The same day, about eight of the clock at night, the queen took her barge at Whitehall, and many more barges attended her; rowing for her pleasure along the bank-side, by the bishop of Winchester’s: and so crossing over to London side; with drums beating and trumpets sounding. And so to Whitehall again.

    July the 2d, the city of London entertained the queen at Greenwich with a muster; each company sending out a certain number of men at arms; [1400 in all, saith Stow;] to her great delight and satisfaction: whose satisfaction satisfied the citizens as much; and this created mutual love and affection.

    On the first of July they marched out of London in coats of velvet and chains of gold, with guns, morris-pikes, halberds, and flags: and so over London-bridge unto the duke of Suffolk’s park in Southwark; where they all mustered before the lord mayor, and lay abroad in St. George’s fields all that night. The next morning they removed towards Greenwich, to the court there; and thence into Greenwich park: here they tarried till eight of the clock: then they marched clown into the lawn, and mustered in their arms: all the gunners in shirts of mail. At five of the clock at night the queen came into the gallery over the park gate, with the ambassadors, lords, and ladies, to a great number. The lord marquis, lord admiral, lord Dudley, and divers other lords and knights, rode to and fro, to view them; and to set the two battles in array to skirmish before the queen. Then came the trumpets to blow on each part, the drums beating and the flutes playing. There were given three onsets in every battle. The guns discharged on one another; the morris-pikes encountered together with great alarm.

    Each ran to their weapons again, and then they fell together as fast as they could, in imitation of close fight. All this while the queen, with the rest of the nobles about her, beheld the skirmishings; and after, they recluded back again. After all this, Mr. Chamberlain, and divers of the commons of the city, and the whifflers, came before her grace; who thanked them heartily and all the city. Whereupon immediately was given the greatest shout as ever was heard, with hurling up of caps. And the queen shewed herself very merry. After this was a running at tilt. And lastly, all departed home to London.

    The next day, being July the 3d, the queen went to Woolwich, to the launching of a fine ship newly built, and called by her own name Elizabeth.

    The 10th of the same month, the queen, being still at Greenwich, well knew how pomps and shews, especially military, with her own presence thereat, delighted her subjects, and perhaps herself too: now therefore was set up in Greenwich park a goodly banquetinghouse for her grace, made with fir-poles, and decked with birch-branches, and all manner of flowers both of the field and garden, as roses, July-flowers, lavender, marigolds, and all manner of strewing herbs and rushes. There were also set up tents for the kitchen, and for the officers, against tomorrow, with provisions laid in of wine, ale, and beer. There was also made up a place for the queen’s pensioners, who were to run with spears. The challengers were three, the earl of Ormond, sir John Perrot, and Mr. North: and there were likewise defendants of equal valour with lances and swords. About five in the afternoon came the queen with the ambassadors and divers lords and ladies, and stood over the park gate to see the exercise. And after, the combatants ran, chasing one the other. After this the queen came down into the park, and took her horse, and rode up to the banqueting-house, and the three ambassadors; and so to supper. After was a mask; and then a great banquet. And then followed great casting of fire and shooting of guns till twelve at night. This was undoubtedly the queen’s policy, to accustom her nobles and subjects to arms, and to give all countenance to the exercise of warfare, having such a prospect of enemies round about her, as well as to entertain the ambassadors.

    July the 17th, the queen removed from Greenwich in her progress, and goes to Dartford in Kent. And the next day she came to Cobham, the lord Cobham’s place: and there her grace was welcomed with great cheer.

    July the 20th, king Philip of Spain was married unto the French king’s daughter Elizabeth. And great justs were made: the French king himself justing; but fatally: for one of his eyes were struck out in this exercise by a piece of the spear; whereof he died. Whose funerals were honourably kept at St. Paul’s, as was shewn before. But no great loss for England.

    The same day the old bishop of Durham came riding to London out of the north, with threescore horse, and so to Southwark, unto the house of one Dolman a tallowchandler, where he laid: [having seen two houses at least belonging to him, viz. Durham-place and Cold-harbour, taken from his bishopric.] The 26th, tidings came to London, that the young’ French king had proclaimed himself king of France, Scotland, and England.

    August the 5th, the queen being now at Eltham in Kent, one of the ancient houses of the kings, removed thence unto Nonsuch, another of her houses; of which the noble earl of Arundel seems to be now housekeeper. There the queen had great entertainment with banquets, especially on Sunday night, made by the said earl; together with a mask; and the warlike sounds of drums and flutes and all kinds of music, till midnight. On Monday was a great supper made for her: but before night she stood at her standing in the further park; and there she saw a course. At night was a play of the children of Paul’s, and there [music] master Sebastian. After that, a costly banquet, accompanied with drums and flutes. The dishes were extraordinary rich, gilt.

    This entertainment lasted till three in the morning. And the earl presented her majesty a cupboard of plate.

    The 10th of August, being St. Laurence day, she removed from Nonsuch to Hampton-court.

    And the same day was brought to the Tower Strangways, the great searover, and others. And the 14th day there landed at the bridge-house fourscore rovers and mariners taken with Strangways; and were sent unto the Marshalsea, and King’s Bench, and their trumpeters; and immediately fettered.

    The 17th, the queen removed from Hampton-court to the lord admiral’s place: and there she had great cheer. The said lord had built a goodly banqueting-house for her grace: it was richly gilded and painted; that lord having for that end kept a great many painters for a good while there in the country.

    The 20th, died at Nonsuch, sir Tho. Chardin, deviser of all the banquets and banqueting-houses, master of the revels, and sergeant of the tents. He was buried September 5, at Bletchingly.

    The 24h, being St. Bartholomew’s day, and the day before and after, were burnt all the roods of St. Mary and St. John, and many other church goods, with copes, crosses, censers, altar-cloths, rood-cloths, books, banners, banner-staves, wainscot, with much other such gear, in London.

    September the 5th, at Alhallows, Breadstreet, betwixt twelve and one at noon, was a dreadful thunderclap. It killed a water-spaniel at the churchwall side; felled one of the beadmen of the Salters’ company, and the sexton of the said church; cracked the steeple above the battlements, which was all of stone, that some of it flew out in divers pieces: so that the month after, October the 5th, they began to take down the top of the steeple.

    The same day, viz. September 5, was a frame set up in St. Paul’s quire of nine stories for the late French king deceased, with valance of sarcenet and black fine fringe, and pensils: and round about the hearse a piece of velvet.

    All the eight pillars and all the quire hung with black and arms. His hearse garnished with thirty dozen of pensils and fifteen dozen of arms.

    The 8th day began the obsequies; which was performed very honourably, as hath been already described.

    The 15th, the hearse was taken down by the heralds; who, as their fees, had all that was about it; both cloth, velvet, sarcenet, banners, escutcheons of arms, banner-staves, rails, &c.

    The 22d, Strangways and his crew, being above eighty persons in number, were arraigned at Southwark; and all cast to suffer death. Strangways and five more, October 2, were brought from the Tower to the Marshalsea.

    And the day after, two new pair of gallows set up, one at St. Thomas of Waterings, the other at low water mark at Wapping. The 4th of October was the day that Strangways and all his men should have suffered death: but there came tidings, that they should stay till it pleased the queen and her council.

    The 27th of September, tidings came to London that the prince of Swethen was landed at Harwich.

    October the 5th, the prince of. Swethen, (whose title was duke of Finland,) having been conducted from Colchester by the earl of Oxford and the lord Robert Dudley, master of the queen’s horse, came to London, entering at Aldgate, and so to Leadenhall, and down to Gracechurch-street corner, where he was received by the lord marquis of Northampton, and the lord Ambrose Dudley, and other gentlemen and ladies. The trumpets blew, and a great number of gentlemen with gold chains rode before and after them, and about two hundred yeomen riding also: and so over the bridge unto the bishop of Winchester’s place; which was hung with rich cloth of arras, wrought with gold and silver and silks: and there he remained.

    The 12th, the said prince went by water to the court with his guard. He was honourably received by many noble personages at the hall door; where the guard stood in their rich coats, reaching unto the queen’s chamber. The queen’s grace received him there: and after, he was welcomed with great cheer.

    The 19th, he went to court again, and was treated at a great banquet by the lord Robert.

    The 27th, he and the lord Robert, and the lady marchioness Northampton, stood sureties at the christening of sir Tho. Chamberlayne’s son: who was baptized at St. Bene’t church at Paul’s-wharf. The church was hung with cloth of arras. And after the christening were brought wafers, comfits, and divers banqueting dishes, and hypocras and muscadine wine, to entertain the guests.

    November the 5th were great justs at the queen’s palace. The lord Robert and the lord Hunsdon were the challengers; who wore scarfs of white and black: and they had their heralds and trumpets attending on them. The defendants were the lord Ambrose Dudley and others. They and their footmen in scarfs of red and yellow sarcenet. And had also their heralds and trumpeters.

    November the 8th, sir Robert Southwel, knt. master of the rolls, and one of queen Mary’s privy counsellors, was buried in Kent.

    The 15th, the lord Williams of Thame was buried at Thame.

    December the 5th, the duchess of Suffolk, Frances, sometime wife of Henry, late duke of Suffolk, was buried in Westminster-abbey. Mr. Jewel (who was afterwards bishop of Satum) was called to the honourable office to preach at her funerals, being a very great and illustrious princess of the blood; whose father was Brandon, duke of Suffolk, and her mother Mary, sometime wife of the French king, and sister to king Henry VIII. She, the said Frances, departed this life November the 20th, in the second year of the reign of queen Elizabeth; not in the sixth of her reign, as Mr. Camden hath put it; led into that mistake, I suppose, by the date on her monument; which indeed shewed not the year of her death, but of the erection of that monument to her memory, by her last husband Mr. Stokes. She was buried in a chapel on the south side of the choir, where Valens, one of the earls of Pembroke, was buried. The corpse being brought and set under the hearse, and the mourners placed, the chief at the head, and the rest on each side, Clarenceux king of arms with a loud voice said these words; “Laud and praise be given to Almighty God, that it hath pleased him to call out of this transitory life unto his eternal glory the most noble and excellent princess the lady Frances, late duchess of Suffolk, daughter to the right high and mighty prince Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, and of the most noble and excellent princess Mary, the French queen, daughter to the most illustrious prince king Henry VII.” This said, the dean began the service in English for the communion, reciting the ten commandments, and answered by the choir in prick song. After that and other prayers said, the epistle and gospel was read by the two assistants of the dean. After the gospel, the offering began after this manner: first, the mourners that were kneeling stood up: then a cushion was laid and a carpet for the chief mourners to kneel on before the altar: then the two assistants came to the hearse, and took the chief mourner, and led her by the arm, her train being borne and assisted by other mourners following. And after the offering finished, Mr. Jewel began his sermon; which was very much commended by them that heard it. After sermon, the dean proceeded to the communion; at which were participant, with the said dean, the lady Catharine and the lady Mary, her daughters, among others. When all was over, they came to the Charter-house in their chariot.

    December the 9th, proclamation was made for settling the prices of fowls, capons, conies, geese, and all manner of flesh, eggs, and other things.

    December the 20th, Hodelston, or Hurleston, late keeper of Ricebank, a hold of Calais, who had been committed to the Tower the l3th day of May last, and Mr. Chamberlain, keeper of Calais castle, were both brought to Guildhall, London, where they were arraigned, and cast to suffer death for their negligence.

    Ult. December was a play at the court before the queen: but they acted something so distasteful, that they were commanded to leave off. And immediately the mask came in, and dancing.

    January the 1st, the prince of Swethen rode to court gorgeously and rich attired; and his guard in velvet jerkins, carrying halberds in their hands, accompanied with many gentlemen with chains of gold.

    The 6th, being Twelfth-day, in the afternoon, the lord mayor and aldermen, and all the crafts of London, and the bachelors of the mayor’s company, went in procession to St. Paul’s, after the old custom, and there did hear a sermon. The same day was a scaffold set up in the hall for a play. And after the play was over, was a fine mask; and after, a great banquet, that lasted till midnight.

    January the 30th, viscount Montacute and sir Tho. Chamberlain, knt. took their journey towards the king of Spain.

    The design of this embassy was to keep all fair with that king; which so much concerned the queen to do, being at this time in no good understanding neither with Scotland nor France. Therefore she sent that viscount, named sir Anthony Brown, one of the former queen’s privy council, and a zealous Romanist, that he might have the better countenance with the king. And by the instructions given him he was to acquaint the king with her particular circumstances at that time, both as to her dealing in Scottish matters, as concerning her matching herself in marriage. The instructions were to this import: “That the queen of Scotland was sickly, married to a sickly stranger, a second person to the crown: that his life was sought in Scotland, and his son’s in France. The purpose driving on was, to knit the crown of Scotland to France, and not to that queen. That the proceedings of the lords of Scotland was no rebellion, but a dutiful preservation of their kingdom for their queen and her lawful successors. That the matters of faith in the land were consonant to the fathers. That the superiority of Scotland belonged to the crown of England: and the right of her majesty was touched by the practice of the French in Scotland. That notwithstanding divers motions of marriage had been made to her, as well in her late dear sister’s time, as some also lately, whereof none was more honourable than the metion late made for the emperor’s majesty’s son Don Carole, the archduke, [related to king Philip;] yet hitherto, as she found no manner of disposition in her own nature towards marriage, so she would not presume to make a peremptory answer, utterly to refuse marriage for ever; but as God should please to direct her mind and affections hereafter, so she trusted his goodness would govern her to the best: to whom she referred herself and all her doings: beseeching the king to continue his good affection towards her, notwithstanding her answer at this present. That the Scots had requested her to take the realm into her protection, and to preserve the same from conquest: offering on that condition not to invade England by the procurement of France: and offering twelve hostages for performance.”

    February the 2d, being Candlemas-day, at the dean of St. Paul’s house, where now was lodged the French ambassador, were taken at mass divers men and women, who were brought to the lord mayor’s, and by him sent to the counter.

    The same day in the afternoon, according to old custom, the mayor and aldermen, and all the crafts, went to St. Paul’s, and there heard a sermon, [instead of going in procession about Paul’s, and visiting the tomb of bishop William, and such like superstitions, used beforetime.] March the 8th, eleven persons, malefactors, rode to hanging; seven men and four women. One of these men was a priest; his crime was for cutting a purse, wherein was three shillings. But he was burnt in the hand before, or else the book would have saved him. He was observed to be fifty-four years old. [Such loose persons were some of the sir Johns in those popish times.] March the 14th, one Duncomb, gent. and his company had committed a great robbery down in Bedfordshire. They were examined before the council. After, being found guilty, they were carried down thither by the sheriff of the county, and were hanged in a place where the said Duncomb might see two or three lordships that should have been his, had he behaved himself as he ought· [Which stirred him, no doubt, to repentance, but, alas! too late.] March the 28th, 1560, the duke of Holstein, who was lately come into England, went by water in the afternoon to Somerset-place, appointed for his residence. He was nephew to the king of Denmark, who sent him to be a suitor to the queen, to obtain her for his wife. And this the rather to intercept the Sweed his neighbour, endeavouring the same at this time.

    This duke came also (as did the other prince before mentioned) blown up with great hopes to marry queen Elizabeth. But she went no further with him than to oblige him by her honourable recepuon of him, and giving him the honour of the garter, and a yearly pension.

    CHAPTER 16.

    Lent sermons at St. Paul’s and at court. Bishop Jewel’s public challenge there. The church and kingdom happily restored. More bishops and in, riot clergy ordained. Dr. May, dean of St. Paul’s, elect of York, dies. Succeeded in the deanery by Nowel. John Fox at Norwich, promoting religion there. His character. THIS Lent divers of the most eminent protestant clergy, confessors and sufferers for religion under queen Mary, were put up to preach at the court and at Paul’s Cross; where, no question, they took their opportunity to recommend the religion newly established. It may not be amiss to record. their names.

    I shall begin with those that preached a little before Lent came on, and so go on with them; (though but imperfectly;) and withal take in some other proper notices, as they fall in my way.

    January the 8th, Grindal, now bishop of London, preached at the Cross.

    February the 10th, Nowel, dean of St. Paul’s, preached there. Then one did penance for marrying another wife, having one before.

    March the 1st. Now against Lent a proclamation was set forth by the queen and council, that no manner of person, nor any keepers of tables or eatinghouses, should eat, or set forth flesh to be eaten, in Lent, nor other times in the year, commanded by the church to forbear eating it. And that no butcher should kill flesh, upon pain of a great fine, or to stand six hours on the pillory, and imprisonment ten days.

    March the 3d, Grindal, the new bishop of London, preached at St. Paul’s Cross in his rochet and chimere, the mayor and aldermen present, and a great auditory. And after sermon a psalm was sung, (which was the common practice of the reformed churches abroad,) wherein the people also joined their voices.

    The same day, in the afternoon, Scory, one of king Edward’s bishops, and an exile, now bishop of Hereford, preached at court in his rochet and chimere, before a great and noble audience.

    March the 6th, Dr. Bill, dean of Westminster, preached in the queen’s chapel: where on the table, standing altar-wise, was placed a cross and two candlesticks, with two tapers in them burning.

    Ditto the 8th, in the afternoon, Dr. Pilkington, bishop elect of Durham, preached at court. And as he was master of St. John’s in Cambridge, his discourse tended much to the maintenance of the scholars of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford; and that the clergy might have better livelihoods.

    Ditto the 10th, bishop Story preached at St. Paul’s Cross in his rochet and chimere, the lord mayor and aldermen present, with a great audience: for the people now flocked to sermons, and to hear the exiles.

    And the same day Dr. Sandys, bishop of Worcester, an eloquent man, preached at court.

    The 13th and 15th were also sermons at court preached by eminent men, whose names are not mentioned: [perhaps Cox and Parkhurst, men of as great fame as any of the rest.] To one of these the queen herself gave thanks for his pains: however some were offended at him. What his subject was, it appears not; it may be, the supremacy.

    Ditto the 17th, Mr. Veron, a Frenchman by birth, but a learned protestant, and parson of St. Martin’s, Ludgate, preached at St. Paul’s Cross before the mayor and aldermen. And after sermon done, they sung all in common a psalm in metre, as it seems now was frequently done, the custom being brought in from abroad by the exiles.

    At court the same day, in the afternoon, Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, preached in his habit.

    The 20th, Bentham of London-bridge, (so styled in my MS.) where at St. Magnus he seems to have been preacher, now bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, preached at St. Paul’s.

    The 22d, the same preached at court.

    The 24th, being Midlent Sunday, Dr. Sandys, bishop of Worcester, preached at St. Paul’s Cross in his habit; the mayor and aldermen present, with the earl of Bedford, and divers other persons of quality: as was customary in these times for the nobility and court to resort to these sermons.

    The same day, in the afternoon, bishop Barlow, one of king Edward’s bishops, now bishop of Chichester, preached in his habit before the queen.

    His sermon ended at five of the clock: and presently after her chapel went to evening song: the cross, as before standing on the altar, and two candlesticks, and two tapers burning in them: and, service concluded, a good anthem was sung.

    The 27th, Mr. Wisdom, (now the year 1560 entering,) an ancient learned preacher in king Henry and king Edward’s reigns, and an exile afterwards, preached at court.

    The same day peace with France and Scotland was proclaimed at the Cross in Cheap, and divers other places, (trumpets blowing,) by Clarenceux king at arms, in his rich coat, and a sergeant at arms with his mace attending, and the two sheriffs on horseback.

    The 31st, Mr. Crowley, another exile, and a learned writer, afterwards minister of St. Giles, Cripplegate, preached at St. Paul’s Cross.

    April the 2d, Alley, bishop elect of Exeter, (and late reader at St. Paul’s,) preached at court. His discourse was levelled against immorality; as blasphemy, playing at dice, converse with lewd women, drunkenness, &c.

    Friday before Palm Sunday, Mr. Cheney, sometime archdeacon of Hereford, afterwards bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, preached at court.

    Palm Sunday Mr. Wisdom preached at Paul’s Cross.

    The same day Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, preached at court with great commendation.

    Maundy-Thursday, the queen kept her maundy in her hall at the court in the afternoon: and then gave unto twenty women so many gowns; and one woman had her best gown. And her grace washed their feet: and in a new white cup she drank unto every woman, and then they had the cup. The same afternoon she gave unto poor men, women, and children, whole and laine, in St. James’s park, being two thousand people and upwards, 2d. apiece.

    Let me add the Spiral sermons, and the preachers of them. Easter Monday, preached Bentham; Easter Tuesday, Cole, another exile; Easter Wednesday, Jewel. The rehearsal sermon was preached at Paul’s Cross by Tho. Sampson, an exile also, and soon after made dean of Christ-chruch, Oxon; who abridged the said three sermons, before a very numerous auditory. April the 28th, father Coverdale [the ancient confessor, and translator of the Bible] preached at Paul’s Cross.

    May the 5th, Mullins, another exile, now archdeacon of London, preached at the Cross.

    The 19th, at the same place preached Cox, bishop of Ely.

    The 26th, Skamler, the archbishop’s chaplain, sometime after bishop of Peterburgh, preached there.

    And June 2, bishop Grindal took his course, and preached above in St. Paul’s.

    These sermons, so well and learnedly performed, at which assembled such vast confluences of auditors, countenanced also by the presence of the queen and nobility, reconciled great respect to the new religion, (as it was called,) and to the persons of this clergy, newly appearing out of their banishment and recesses, shining with clear consciences, and holy zeal for the truth and gospel.

    As bishop Jewel had preached at court this Lent, so he had his day at the Cross, which was the second Sunday before Easter. In both places he preached that famous sermon wherein he openly challenged the papists.

    And Dr. Cole, late dean of St. Paul’s, for saving the credit of popery, took him up, as we shall hear. The challenge the bishop made was, as it appears in his sermon printed in his works, “That it could not appear by any authority, either of scripture, or of the old doctors, or of the ancient councils, that there was any private mass in the whole church of Christ at that time; or, that there was then any communion ministered in the church to the people under one kind only; or, that the common prayers were then pronounced in a strange tongue, that the people understood not; or, that the bishop of Rome was then called universalis episcopus, or caput universalis ecclesiae; universal bishop of the whole world, or else, the head of the universal church; or, that the people were then taught to believe, that in the sacrament after the consecration the substance of bread and wine departed away, and that there remained nothing else but only the accidents of bread and wine; or, that then it was thought lawful to say ten, twenty, or thirty masses in one church in one day; or, that then the people were forbidden to pray or read the scripture in their mother tongue ;” together with many other articles of doctrine and practice in the present Roman church, which he then reckoned up. The bishop’s open offer then was, “That if any one of all these things he then had rehearsed could be proved on the popish side by any sufficient authority, either of the scripture, or of the old doctors, or of the ancient councils, or by any one allowed example of the primitive church, and as they had borne the people in hand they could prove them by, he would be contented to yield to them, and to subscribe.”

    The sermon of Jewel, wherein he made that challenge to the papists at Paul’s Cross, was preached before he was bishop. For so it is asserted in the book of the Antiquities of the British Church: viz. Johannes Juell ante susceptum episcopatum pro publica frequentis populi conclone Londini in coeraiterio Paulino, pontifici ex principalibus suis dogmatibus in apertum discrimen et aciem postulavit, eaque asseruit, neque scripturarum, nec patrum orthodoxorum, neque conciliorum, quingentis post Domini ascensionem annis celebratorum, authoritate, stare posse.

    Dr. Cole, aforesaid, upon this wrote a letter to him, March the 18th, offering to dispute the matter with him by letters. And some letters passed between him and Jewel: wherein it is evident how Cole shuffled and shifted off the main business, and nibbled at other by-matters. But at length he privately, among his own party, scattered several copies of an answer, (as he called it,) by way of letter to the said bishop. To which the bishop made and printed his reply.

    But Dr. Harding of Lovain afterwards undertook the bishop’s challenge more briskly, giving his answer, as well as he could, to the twenty-seven articles distinctly, of which the challenge consisted. The bishop made answer again to Harding in the year 1565. And Harding wrote a rejoinder.

    And the bishop again made a most learned reply thereunto in the year 1567, shewing abundantly how good he made his challenge: which may be read in his works, an impregnable bulwark of the church of England.

    A learned writer in those days observed how Harding shuffled in his writing against the bishop: that he in his reply printed fairly Harding’s whole book, [that the reader might see and judge the strength of each writer’s reason, having both under his eye.] But Harding, when he put forth his rejoinder to the bishop’s reply, (besides, that it meddled only with one of the twenty-seven articles in controversy,) he laid not that one article wholly before the reader: but after he had at the first related little more than one half leaf of the beginning of the bishop’s book, as it lay, (which he might seem to have done to blear the reader’s eye with a false shew of sincere dealing,) continually after interrupted the process of the said treatise, and snatched here and there at certain parcels of the book, being discontinued and dismembered from the rest.

    Besides Harding and Cole, several others zealously rose up against the bishop’s book: as Dormer, Harding’s scholar, wrote a Proof of some of the popish articles, denied in the bishop’s challenge. Rastal also snatched at certain parcels of the book, and thereby patched up two new books.

    Dr. Saunders discoursed likewise upon some fragments of the same book, and a few lines of Nowel’s book: and thence published an huge volume.

    Lastly, Stapleton wrote another great volume upon the bishop of Salisbury’s marginal notes. By violent plucking of the which, from the continuance of the process whereupon they depended, and whereby they were made plain, he both blinded the reader, and depraved and corrupted the notes, contrary to the true sense and meaning of them; as Nowel above mentioned related and observed.

    Let me add, that there was not long after an Apology set forth,’ (mentioned hereafter,) writ by the said Jewel, bishop of Sarum, for the church now reformed and estabhshed, and for the departing thereof from the Roman communion; wherein it is at large justified. Therein are these words: “We have departed from that church, wherein neither the word of God could be heard purely, nor the sacraments rightly administered, nor the name of God, as it ought to be, called upon. And which they themselves confess to be corrupted in many things: and wherein, to say the truth, there was nothing that could stay any man that was wise, and that had any consideration of his own salvation.

    To conclude, we have departed from that church that was in time past: and we have departed in such sort as Daniel did out of the den of lions, and as the three children out of the fire. Yea, rather cast out by them with their cursings and bannings, than departed of ourselves. “Again; we have adjoined ourselves unto that church, wherein they themselves, in case they will speak truly, and according to their own consciences, cannot deny, but all things are soberly and reverendly handled, and so far forth as we were able to attain, most nearly unto the order of the old time. For let them compare their churches and ours together, they shall see, that both they most shamefastly have departed from the apostles, and we most justly have forsaken them. For we, after the example of Christ, of the apostles, and of the holy fathers, do give the whole sacrament to the people. These men, contrary to all the fathers, contrary to all the apostles, contrary to Christ himself, nor without (as Gelasius spake) high sacrilege, do divide the sacrament, and pluck the one part away from the people. We have restored the Lord’s supper according to the institution of Christ; and desire to have it, as much as may be, and to as many as may be, most common; and as it is called, so to be in very deed, a corareunion. These men have changed all things from the institution of Christ; and of the holy communion they have made a private mass. So that we present unto the people a holy supper, they a vain pageant to gaze upon.

    We do affirm with the most ancient fathers, that the body of Christ is eaten of none but of godly and faithful men, and such as are endued with the spirit of Christ. These fellows do teach, that the very body of Christ may in very deed, and, as they term it, really and substantially, be eaten, not only of wicked and unfaithful men, but also (it is horrible to speak it) of mice and dogs. We do pray in our churches after such sort, that, according as St. Paul doth admonish us, the people may know what we do pray, and with one mind answer, Amen. These men pour out in the churches unknown and strange words, like unto the noise of sounding brass, without any understanding, without sense, without judgment. And this is their only endeavour, that the people should not be able to understand at all. “And because we will not rehearse all the differences between us and them, (for they are in a manner infinite,) we translate the scriptures into all languages; these men will scarce suffer them to be abroad in any tongue. We do exhort the people to hear and read the word of God; these men drive them from it. We would have our cause heard before all the world; these men fly all judgment and trial. We lean unto knowledge; they unto ignorance. We trust unto the light; they unto darkness. We have in reverence, as reason is, the