❝ment under queen Elizabeth; all which were the effects "of God's displeasure on them, for complying with king "Henry in his schism." I shall grow tedious, if I insist on all the falsities that do occur in this period. First, only Gardiner and Bonner were questioned and deprived for their sermons: Tonstal was deprived for misprision of treason; Heath and Day were judged by lay-delegates; so it is like, their offences were also against the state. 2. There was nothing enjoined Bonner or Gardiner to preach, upon which they were censured, but that the king's authority was the same when he was under age that it was afterwards; which is a point that belongs only to the laws and constitution of this government: and so there was just reason to impute their silence in that particular, when they were commanded to touch upon it in their sermons, to an ill design against the state. 3. Three of these bishops did concur in all the changes that were made the first four years of this king's reign, and both preached and wrote for them; and even Bonner and Gardiner did not only give obedience to every law or injunction that came out, but recommended them much in their sermons. 4. These did not suffer perpetual imprisonment under queen Elizabeth; Gardiner and Day died before she reigned, and so were not imprisoned by her. Heath was never put in prison by her, but lived at his own country house; and Tonstal lived at Lambeth in as much ease, and was treated with as much respect, as if it had been his own house: so that Bonner was the only man that was kept in prison; but that was believed to be done in kindness to him, to preserve him from the affronts, which otherwise he might have met with, from the friends of those he had butchered. 24. He says, "The lady Mary never departed from her Page 197. "mother's faith and constancy." It appears, by many of her letters, that she complied with every thing that had been done by her father; so it seems she was dispensed with from Rome, to dissemble in his time; for otherwise her constancy had very likely Page 198. Page 200. Ibid. Page 201. been fatal to her, but she presumed on the mildness of her It was so far otherwise, that when the council, being much pressed by the emperor to connive at her having mass, were resolved to give way to it, the king himself was so averse to it, thinking it a sin in him to consent to the practice of idolatry, that the council employed the bishops to work on him, and they could hardly induce him to tolerate it. 26. He says, "The visitors carried with them over Eng❝land Bibles of a most corrupt translation, which they or"dered to be set up in all the churches of England.” In king Henry's time, it had been ordered, that there should be a Bible in every church; so this was not done by the visitors in this reign, as may appear by the injunctions that were given them, which have been often printed. 27. He says, "The visitors did every where inquire, "whether all the images were broken down; and if the "altars were taken away, and communion tables were put "in their rooms; and if all the old offices were destroyed." Here he confounds in one period what was done in several years. In the first year, the images that had been abused by pilgrimages were ordered to be removed. In the second year, all images were taken down without exception. In the third year, the old books of the former offices were ordered to be destroyed. And in the fourth year, the altars were turned to communion tables; so ignorantly did this author write of our affairs. 28. He says, "The visitors did every where encourage "the priests to marry, and looked on such as did not "marry, as inclined to popery." The marriage of the clergy was not so much as permitted till near the beginning of the third year of this reign; and then it was declared, that an unmarried state was more honourable and decent; so that it was recommended, and the other was only tolerated; and so far were they from sus pecting men to be firm to the reformation that were married, that Ridley and Latimer, the most esteemed next to Cranmer, were never married: nor was any ever vexed for his not being married, as he falsely insinuates. 28. He says, "The protector bore great hatred to Gar- Page 202. "diner and Tonstal, both because they opposed the here"tics, and because they had been made equals to him, if "not preferred before him by king Henry's will, in the "government during the king's being under age." This is another of our author's figures. Gardiner was not mentioned in king Henry's will, neither as an executor, nor so much as a counsellor; and by it none were preferred to another, all being made equal. And for Tonstal, he continued still in a firm friendship with the protector, and was so well satisfied with the first changes that were made, that he was complained of as well as Cranmer, by Gardiner, in the letters which he writ to the protector. 29. He says, "The protector made a speech about reli- Ibid. 66 gion before the king; and thereafter he put, first Gardi"ner, then Tonstal, and at another time the bishops of "London, Chichester, and Worcester, in prison." Gardiner and Bonner were indeed imprisoned some time, during the protector's government; the latter was also deprived while he was protector. But Tonstal was not put in prison till two years after, and it was at the time of the duke of Somerset's total fall, and by the same person's means that wrought his ruin: from which it appears, he was always a firm friend to the duke of Somerset. The bishops of Worcester and Chichester were also brought in trouble long after the government was taken out of the protector's hands. 30. He says, "They were all deposed from their degree." Ibid. They were not deposed from their degree, but deprived of their bishoprics; for they having accepted commissions, by which they held their sees only during the king's pleasure, they might well be deprived by a sentence of the delegates. But had they been to be deposed, and thrust from their order, it must have been done by a synod of bishops. Page 204. Ibid. Page 205. Ibid. They were deprived, as many bishops were under the Christian emperors, by selected synods that sat in the court, and judged of all complaints that were brought before the emperors. 31." He reckons up the judgments of God upon the "heretics; and says, the protector made kill his brother, "and Dudley took him away.” This is a way of writing familiar enough to our author, to represent things in such a manner as might fill the reader with horror; as if these persons had been secretly murdered, whereas the one was condemned in parliament, the other by a judgment of his peers. 32. He says," King Edward died not without suspicion "of being poisoned by Dudley and the duke of Suffolk, "who aspired to the crown." It was never suspected that the duke of Suffolk had any hand in poisoning the king, nor could I ever see any reason to conclude that he was poisoned: but neither of these dukes aspired to the crown; the one resigned any pretension be could ever have, to his daughter; and the other intended only that his fourth son should reign. 33. He says, "The protector's lady claimed the pre"cedence of the queen dowager; and, upon the denial of "it, conspired the ruin of the admiral." All this is a contrivance of the enemies of that family; for as it had been absurd for the duchess of Somerset to have disputed precedence with the queen dowager; so in that whole matter it is plain the admiral began with his brother, and conspired his ruin: and the protector was often reconciled to him, and forgave him many faults, till it appeared that his ambition was incurable. 66 66 34. He says, "There being The articles upon which he was condemned shew what matter there was against him. Latimer did never accuse him of treason, but being a man of great plainness of speech, he reflected on him as ambitious, and not sincere in the profession of religion: and when it was suspected that the duchess of Somerset had set him on to make these reflections, he did vindicate her in a most solemn manner. Nor is there any reason to think, that how indiscreet soever he might be in preaching in such a sort, that he did it to flatter or to aspire by such means, for he refused to accept of any preferment, though the house of commons interposed to have him repossessed of the see of Worcester. 35. He says, "At the same time that he was beheaded, "the queen dowager died." She died in September 1548, and he was beheaded in March following: and one of the articles against him was, that after her death he intended to have married the king's sister Elizabeth; and it was suspected, that, to make for that, he had poisoned her. 36. He says, "The men of Devonshire and Cornwall "did, with one consent, take up arms for the faith." In one thing he says true, that this rebellion was set on by the priests, and made on the account of religion: but the brutal cruelty of those rebels shewed it was not for the faith, but in compliance to their priests and leaders, that they rose. Page 205. Page 206. 37. He says, "The clergy finding that their being mar-Page 209. "ried was generally an ingrateful thing, procured an act "of parliament, declaring that there was no human law "against their marriages; and this was all they were con"cerned in, for they cared little for the law of God." This is a genuine piece of our author's wit. If the parliament meddles in declaring what is the law of God, he accuses them for meddling in things without their sphere: and if they only declare what is the law of the land, he says, they have no regard to the law of God: so he is resolved, do what they will, they shall not escape his censure. But in this he shews his ignorance, as well as his malice. The lawfulness of the marriage of the clergy was inquired into with such exactness, that scarce any thing can be added since, to what was then written on that argument. It was made out, that there was no law of God against it: it was |