Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

V.

of Canter

in the va

Canterbury being now without an Archbishop, the Dean, CHAP. Dr. Wotton, acted in that station, according to his office, in the vacancy of the see. So he sent out many commissions. Anno 1553. There was a commission from him to John Cotterel and The Dean William Bowerman, to exercise jurisdiction in the see of bury acts Wells, by the resignation of Barlow, Bishop there. Another cancy. commission to the see of Bristol, upon the resignation of Ex Reg. Bush. Another for the see of Lichfield, upon the death Eccl. Cant. of Richard Sampson: which commission was directed to David Fool, LL.D. dated 1554. September ult. Another to exercise jurisdiction in the see of Exon, vacant by the death of Veysy, February 9, 1554. Another for the consecration of Gilbert Bourn Bishop of Bath and Wells, John White Bishop of Lincoln, Morice Griffith of Rochester, John Cotes of Chester, Henry Morgan of St. David's, James Brook of Glocester: who were all consecrated together in the church of St. Saviour's, Southwark, April 1, 1554. This commission, I suppose, was to the Bishop of Winchester. Another commission for the consecration of Hopton Bishop of Norwich, dated October 6, 1554, consecrated October 28. following. Another commission to consecrate Holiman Bishop of Bristol, and Bayn Bishop of Lichfield, dated November 16, 1554, consecrated November 18. following. Another commission to consecrate James Turbervil Bishop of Exon, who was consecrated September 8, 1555. And for William Glin, Bishop of Bangor, the same date. All these five last named were consecrated in a chapel of the Bishop of London in London.

bishop sues

of treason.

321

The poor Archbishop most instantly sued to the Queen for The Archhis pardon, acknowledging his fault in the most submissive for pardon manner that could be. But though she had granted pardons to divers others that had signed King Edward's will, and made no such boggle to do it as the Archbishop did, yet the Archbishop remained unpardoned. He sent divers humble petitionary letters to the Queen and her council for the obtaining this favour. In one letter to her, he called it his "hainous folly and offence:" and said, "that he never "liked it; nor that any thing that the Queen's brother ever did, grieved him so much: and that if it had been in his 'power, he would have letted the doing of it: that divers

66

[ocr errors]

BOOK

III.

[ocr errors]

"of the Queen's council knew what he had said to the King and the council against proceeding in it: and that Anno 1553. he endeavoured to talk to the King alone about it, but "was not permitted: and that when he could not dissuade "him from this will, he was hardly brought to sign it, not

Num.

66

[ocr errors]

withstanding what the judges told him, to satisfy him in point of law. And that at last it was the King's earnest "request to him, that he would not be the only man that "refused it which, with the judgment of the lawyers, "overcame him to set his hand." But I refer the reader to the Appendix to weigh this whole letter, as it is there tranLXXIV. scribed. Another petition the next year, 1554, he sent up from Oxon, by Dr. Weston, to the council. And therein he begged them to intercede with the Queen for his pardon. But Weston, carrying it half way to London, and then opening it, and seeing the contents of it, sent it back again to the Archbishop, and refused to be the messenger.

Obtains it.

He desires

mind to the

This at length was the resolution that was taken concerning him in this matter: (because for shame they could not deny him a pardon, when others, far more guilty, and deeper in the business, had it:) that he should be pardoned the treason as an act of the Queen's grace, and then he should be proceeded against for heresy; for die they were resolved he should. When this pardon was at length obtained, he was right glad; being very gladly ready to undergo afflictions for the doctrine that he had taught, and the reformation he had set on foot, because this he reckoned to be suffering for God's cause, and not as an evil-doer.

The Archbishop looked now with weeping eyes upon the to open his present sad condition of religion, and the miserable apostasy Queen con- of the church, lapsed into all the formerly rejected supercerning re- stitions. Nor could he now procure any redress. Yet he felt ligion.

a pressure upon his spirit to do something towards it. So he attempted, in a letter to the Queen, to get liberty from her freely to open to her his mind about the state of religion: hoping that when she heard plainly and truly the reasons that moved her father and brother to do what they did, (a thing studiously concealed from her,) she might be better inclined. He told her, "that indeed it lay not in him, nor in "any private subject, to reform things, but only in her Ma

[ocr errors]

V.

jesty, but quietly to suffer what they could not amend; CHAP. "yet he thought it his duty, considering what place he once "bore, and knowing what he did, and bearing a great part Anno 1553. “in all the alterations made in religion, to shew the Queen "his mind. And when he had done this, then he should "think himself discharged. "sued to her for her leave." he obtained it.

And therefore he earnestly

But I do not find that ever

[blocks in formation]

cation.

THERE was now a convocation; which was so packed, or A Convoso compliant, that six only of the whole house publicly owned King Edward's reformation: Haddon, Dean of Exon; Philips, Dean of Rochester; Young, Chanter of St. David's ; Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester; Elmer, Archdeacon of Stow; and Cheiny, Archdeacon of Hereford; which last owned the presence with the Papists, but denied the transubstantiation. The Queen commanded this convocation to hold a public disputation, at St. Paul's church, concerning the natural presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar: which, how well it was opposed by four or five of the six, (for Young went away,) in the presence of abundance of noblemen and others, recourse is to be had to Fox. There was a true report of the disputation of these men at this convocation, which Philpot, one of the disputants, wrote, and had it printed which he owned at one of his examinations before the Bishop of London and others; and perhaps may be the same we have extant in Fox's Monuments.

But because both Fox and Bishop Burnet are brief concerning the opening of this convocation, therein I shall be more large and particular. The Bishop of London's chaplain, Harpsfield, began in a sermon at Paul's to the clergy then assembled. That finished, those of the upper House advised those of the lower to choose a Prolocutor. And they

How it

opened.

BOOK
III.

chose Weston, Dean of Westminster: who by Py, Dean of Chichester, and Wymbesly, Archdeacon of London, was preAnno 1553. sented by speeches to the bishops. At which time Weston made his gra u atory oration to the House, and the Bishop of London answered him. Which sermon and four orations were put together in a book, printed in December 1553, by Cawood. Harpsfield's text was, Attendite vobis, et universo gregi, &c. Act. xx. Whence he took occasion to treat of three things: "I. How well Paul took heed to himself and "his flock. II. How ill the pastors of late regarded each. “III. What way was to be used, that they might take "heed to themselves and their flocks. Under the first head "he shewed how St. Paul took heed to himself by keeping "under his body, and bringing it into subjection: by taking heed of three pests of an ecclesiastical life, flattery, ava"rice, and vainglory and that he might in all things propound himself a pattern to believers. And, secondly, as "he thus took heed to himself, so he took heed to the "flock in three particulars: in the doctrine which he

66

66

46

preached; in his diligence to preserve his flock from "wolves; and in his imposition of hands, whereby he pro"vided fit ministers for the church." And then, when he came unto the second head in the division of his discourse, he took occasion at large to vent his malice against the reformed ministers in King Edward's days; shewing how they failed in all the particulars before said: "That they were "belly-gods; gave themselves over to junketings and pam322" pering of their carcases: that they were unchaste, taking "to themselves wives, some that had lived threescore years

66

single. That they were flatterers, insinuating themselves "into the favour of the courtiers: covetous also, keeping "no hospitality; vainglorious, vaunting themselves to under"stand the holy Scripture as well as any of the ancients,

[ocr errors]

daring to compare themselves with Hierom, Augustin, "Ambrose, &c. And some of them from a shop, endued "with no liberal discipline, not so much as grammar, would "mount the pulpit, and there give out themselves for "learned men, if they did but rail against whatsoever was holy, and boast that they had the Spirit. No vice of the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

"neglect of the flock, their doctrine was such, as they CHAP.

66

might well repent and be ashamed of. How did they tear

IV.

"the Lord's flock, and how many souls send to hell, and Anno 1553. "what pernicious doctrines bring into the kingdom! That

66

they brought into the ministry, and to preach God's word, "coblers, dyers, weavers, fullers, barbers, apothecaries, "beggars, jesters, fitter for the plough-tail than the ministry "of the word." And with a great deal more of such railing stuff were the minds of the clergy to be prepared vigorously to overthrow all the reformation, and to bring back Popery again.

three more

the Tower.

The Tower, as well as the fleet and Marshalsea, was The Archcrowded with prisoners: all that were supposed to favour bishop and religion, or that made any whisper against the popish reli- crowded togion, or that had any the least hand in Queen Jane's busi-gether in ness, being taken up and committed. The Tower being so full, our Archbishop Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Bradford, were all thrust together into one chamber: which however inconvenient it were, yet they were very glad to be together; that they might have the opportunity of conferring with one another, and establishing one another. There they read over the New Testament together with great deliberation and study; on purpose to see if there were any thing that might favour that popish doctrine of a corporal presence. But, after all, they could find no presence but a spiritual: nor that the mass was any sacrifice for sin. But they found in that holy book that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was perfect, holy, and good; and that God did require none other, nor that it should be ever done again as Latimer, one of the four, related in his protestation given to Weston.

« ZurückWeiter »