rsi-iCt

-. '-_ - -¦'¦''-:^:i- -J ^^^^gSdlfi i-:
, ,¦¦ t-;;- , ^t I.- iS°rri-==™=a-j-'- , ,."¦
U L/"^ thrfiiumiiag of a. Co

College »tiS^|Jp&2i>«g!

'YALIl«¥]MI[¥]EI^SIir¥«'

BOUGHT "WITH THE INCOME

Class of 1896 Fund

By JAMES GAIRDNER, C.B., LL.D., D.Litt.
LOLLARDY AND THE
REFORMATION IN ENGLAND
AN HISTORICAL SURVEY
Vols. I. and II. 8vo. 2is. net.
THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN
THE i6th CENTURY
FROM THE ACCESSION OF HENRY VIII.
TO THE DEATH OF MARY
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.

LoUardy and the Reformation in England

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
LONDON . BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

LoUardy and the
Reformation in England
An Historical Survey

BY

JAMES GAIRDNER, C.B.
LL.D., D.LITT.

VOL. Ill

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
191 1

Mhf

'5

¦/

CONTENTS

PAQE
INTRODUCTION ...... vii

BOOK V
JUVENILE SUPREMACY
CHAPTER I
Beqinninq op the Protectorate . . . 3
CHAPTER II
The Progress of Innovation . . . .64
CHAPTER III
Enqland, Trent, and the 'Interim' . . .106
BOOK VI
LOLLARDY IS POWER
CHAPTER I
Warwick, Gardiner, and Cranmer . . .169

vi LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
CHAPTER II
PAGE
The Episcopal Ebvolution and Bishop Hooper . 246
CHAPTER III
Destrotinq 'The Altars op Baal' . . 292
CHAPTER IV
The Great Conspiracy . .357

INDEX

403

INTKODUCTION
In continuing this Work on LoUardy and the
Reformation I feel that its scope and object now
deserve fuller explanation, first of all — though there
are other reasons — because we seldom hear historians
speak of LoUardy after Henry VIII.'s time. And
they are right in not using a term which was no
longer much used by contemporaries ; for, as I have
shown already, it was unbecoming to talk of Lollards,
or LoUardy, when the spirit of LoUardy had grown
so influential and so useful to those in power. A
new name had been invented for what was essentially
an old thing. " The New Learning," indeed, was a
name that even its votaries did not at first accept
quite readUy ; -^ but they soon acquiesced in the use
^ "Who is there," said George Constantyne in 1539, "who is there,
almost, that will have a Bible but he must be compelled thereto ? How
loth be our priests to teach the Commandments, the Articles of the Faith
and the Paternoster in English ? Again, how unwilling be the people to
learn it ! Yea, they jest at it, calling it the new Paternoster and the New
Learning" (L. P., xiv. ii. p. 140). So, also, Latimer resents the expres
sion: "But ye say it is new learning. Now I tell you it is the old
learning. Ye say, it is old heresy new scoured. Nay, I tell you, it is
old truth, long rusted with your canker, and now new made bright and
scoured." — Latimer's /Scrjnons (Parker Soc), p. 30. Many other examples
of the expression might be given. But perhaps the most significant are
those which occur in Cranmer's letter of reproof to an influential justice of
Kent (perhaps Sir Thomas Cheyney, Warden of the Cinque Ports) who dis
liked the new school, and claimed the newly published Institution of a
Christian Man as a rebuke to the innovators. Cranmer had heard that he
had said of it, " It alloweth all the old fashion and putteth all the knaves
of the new learning to silence." He had thus, Cranmer tells him, dis
couraged "the teachers of the New Testament," and had led his servant to
say to them, "My master and divers other could have favored you much
better, saving that you smelled of the new learning." — Cranmer's Letters
(Parker Soc), pp. 360-51. vii

viii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
of a term which Cranmer himself could not help
employing to denote what were both his principles
and theirs. Old LoUardy, in short, having helped
Henry VIII. to put down the Pope, and having been
unmuzzled for that very purpose, could not but get
its own way in some things with the King's powerful
protection. But it must not be called LoUardy or
heresy any longer ; it was a New Learning, difi"erent
from that of the Schools, for which the King and
Cranmer bespoke a fair hearing. Under Edward VI.,
therefore, and also under Elizabeth, we have to see
how this New Learning comported itself, having
authority so much in its favour.
To make this apparent is the task that lies before
me ; and I must own it is a formidable one, for the
demands it makes upon my poor energies. More
over, when I look back on the work already accom
plished, I am almost disheartened by a sense of its
defects. Of these, indeed, in some ways, I felt con
scious beforehand. But I must frankly own that —
detached and fragmentary as its very plan was —
there is a good deal in the execution of my work
that requires apology. Not only are large subjects
slightly treated, but there is a larger crop of errors
than I like the look of. Nor am I desirous that
what I have already written should be more highly
esteemed than it deserves. For I find that my very
errors, when pointed out — as some of them have
been — were real hindrances to my general aim ;
while, on the other hand, there are popular but
misdirected criticisms which require a word or two
in explanation. If, indeed, any one were to accuse me of great
presumption in having attempted to grapple with so
large a subject at all, I might well feel at a loss to
answer him ; for I knew from the first that I laboured
under no small disadvantage for one who would fain
have treated as a whole a subject of such magnitude

INTRODUCTION ix
with so many ramifications. I was a mere retired
archivist, most of whose official time had been occu
pied in endeavouring to chronologise and arrange
matter for real historians to utilise. But T felt, at
the same time, that my somewhat special experience,
not due to my own particular choice, had given me
the command of what I certainly consider the most
important aspect of that great political and religious
crisis which we are in the habit of calling the Reforma
tion ; and that to estimate its historical significance
aright requires a good deal more than the whole
hearted devotion which many can give to a very good
cause, even when that devotion is animated by the
utmost desire to be impartial. For it requires, first,
a clearer apprehension than it is easy to form in these
days of the political status of the Church in pre-
Reformation times ; and, secondly, a no less clear
appreciation of the political legacy of thoughts and
feelings bequeathed to both parties by the pre-
Reformation philosophy. From these factors, indeed,
emerged that contest between High and Low Church
principles, and ultimately with the principles of Dis
sent, which have troubled the Church of England from
the Reformation to the present day. A full treat
ment of all this vast subject is, I confess, altogether
beyond me. Indeed, I never pretended to consider,
or wished the reader to consider, my "Historical
Survey" as a full Church History of any period.
But I have done what I could hitherto, merely in
the way of sketches, to illuminate the main con
ditions under which the Reformation was evolved ;
and I am anxious, if possible, to continue the story
stUl in the same fashion, to the time when something
like a settled basis was attained — that is to say,
when, liberated from serious external danger, the
Reformed Church had really become the Church of
the people at large.
Now, what is the problem to be faced ? Let any

X LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
intelligent man ask himself one question. Is there
not something yet to be explained as to the actual
cause, or causes, of the Reformation ? Of its signifi
cance no one can entertain a doubt. Whether looked
upon as a good or evil thing for religion, all must
confess that it was a very great thing. Some mighty-
power shook the heavens and the earth, and it is
hardly possible for us now to picture to our imagina
tions the heavens and the earth that passed away
centuries ago. History has become vivid since then :
before the sixteenth century we see it as in a glass
darkly. Surely this is a problem for an historian —
if, indeed, any of us who have all our ingrained
prejudices can but lift himself, even for a moment,
out of the narrowing tendencies of the school in which
he has been brought up. Yet the world is so divided
now into difierent schools and different communions
that it is no wonder if some great thinkers, and even
historians, have sought impartiality in unbelief and
rejected Christianity altogether from inability to see
it as a whole. For no doubt there is a sort of im
partiality in paganism, though it persecuted Chris
tianity itself in days of old. But it is a strange
thing to make oneself a pagan now after centuries
of Christian teaching. It does not help us to
understand what life is that a man should have an
intellect cold as a glacier. We are affiected by Chris
tianity whether we will or no. There is no resisting
the power which carries on the work of civilisation.
Yet we do not to this day see it clearly, and cold
intellects are no great help. Often where there is
least of dogma, there is most of heart, and the heart
is wiser than the head.
For my own part, if I have my prejudices, I do
not think they are such as some of my readers
imagine. I have never felt the least personal inclina
tion towards the Church of Rome, though I confess
I have always desired to understand it. But I have

INTRODUCTION xi
always desired to understand other religions also.
For I myself was brought up outside of all the
orthodoxies, and for half my life, what I now feel to
be the vital doctrines of Christianity, acknowledged
all the world over, were certainly quite unintelligible
to me, and accordingly incredible. Moreover, when
in former days I read discussions between orthodox
Protestants and Romanists, I must confess that, as
one outside either community, I almost always felt
that the Romanist had the better of his antagonist
in point of logic. Nevertheless, Rome was further
removed from me a great deal than Protestantism ;
and if, as some critics have pointed out to me, I
have done the Roman cause, historically, rather more
than justice, it has really arisen from a desire to be
fair in matters easily exaggerated by our modern
prejudices. But on this subject I will say a few words by and
by. For criticisms of another kind must first be
disposed of, especially as they are criticisms which
have a deeper root in popular feeling. Indeed, they
are founded on views so specious that they com
pletely obscure, to my mind, the real story of the
EngUsh Reformation ; and it is the one great object
which I proposed to myself when I began the present
work, to ascertain, as far as possible, the essential
principles of that mighty movement which has
given it such permanence and strength. Of course,
many will say that these were theological principles,
such as justification by faith, or the negation of
purgatory and transubstantiation. I am the last
man to deny the importance — the supreme import
ance, I would say, to each one of us — of having a
true, and not a false, theology to guide him, with
out which the individual soul must inevitably be
" perishing everlastingly." But the individual is not
a Church to himself — when it comes to that, of
course, he can do without any Church at all in a

xii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
land of perfect toleration ; for, in fact, he has then
no real religion whatever, and does not want any.
Real religion should draw men into social unity —
how can it otherwise when men feel that they have
one common Master ? And the question always has
been, both before the Reformation and since, how to
preserve that social unity — formed not by political or
human power, but by God's own Spirit in our hearts
— with all due, but not overdue, submission to " the
powers that be."
Opinions differ. No doubt they wiU, as they
always have done. But if there be anything in one's
opinion at all, is it the better for being segregated or
confined to a few who claim the right of worshipping
by themselves ? Whatever the errors of our ancestors,
and their ways were certainly too forcible, they never
imagined that. The individual, or the sect, must be
unfruitful in the nature of things until he or they
take part somehow in the spiritual life of those about
them ; and how far the prejudices of Society will
admit of that is doubtless a troublesome question.
Far easier it seems to most of us to say, " Leave me
alone and I will leave you alone." Nay, if the prin
ciple of division is held sacred, we must say so some
times in our own defence. But is it not a miserable
thing that Christianity should be walled up in com
partments thus ? We are very liberal in these days
towards sects — not merely to the men who belong to
sects but to the sects themselves. Churchmen are
often anxious to recognise these bodies as separate
bodies from themselves, having just as much a right
to exist — not merely a legal right, which is conceded,
but a moral and spiritual right, to be separate com
munities. But this claim is fatal to the essence of
Christianity itself We are liberal enough, in a sort of
way. Among our intimate friends we have Churchmen,
Roman Catholics, Dissenters, Agnostics, Jews and
perhaps Mohammedans. We walk with them, talk

INTRODUCTION xiii
with them, eat with them, drink with them. There
is only one common table to which we cannot come,
even those of us who profess Christianity, and that is
the Lord's table. We must tolerate differences, and
I do not deny that we are right in doing so. But
how do differences come ? Surely because we are, as
St. Paul said, " carnal," that is to say, not entirely
Christian ; otherwise we might confer together on
these matters in a spirit of unity, just as we do in
secular matters.
But present-day problems do not appeal to us here.
The question is how to look at matters of the six
teenth century. The late Canon Bigg, in his Wayside-
Sketches in Ecclesiastical History, expresses his regret
that I and the late Canon Dixon agree in the use of the
word " heretic " in its strictly historical sense ; that is
to say, we call those persons heretics who were called
heretics by their contemporaries. Well, I should say,
for my part, that if we wish to understand past ages
we must learn a little of the language of past ages,
and try and understand what it means. We shall
never appreciate truly the ideas of our ancestors if we
do not weigh their words ; and I do not see how we
are to understand their words if we presume that
they continually misapplied them. They surely had
some reason for calling heresy that which they did
call heresy. And though, of course, as compared with
ourselves they were very ignorant in many things,
yet on the whole they knew what they meant by the
words they used just as well as we do. But it is true
that a great change of feeling has taken place with
regard to heresy, and that we regard it now as some
thing very harmless. This is sufficiently manifest in
the way that Canon Bigg condemns my use of the
language of ancient times. " If everybody is to bear
the name which his contemporaries give him," he
remarks, " Canon Dixon was, and Mr. Gairdner is, a
heretic, anathematised as such by the majority of the

xiv LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
Christian world. They would have found themselves
burnt alive by the same men who sent Thomas BUney
to the stake. . . . These early English Protestants
did not hold one single belief which is not held or
regarded as tenable amongst us at the present day.
Further, it is not the wont of history to fix upon
parties the nicknames by which they have been
branded by theological or political hatred." ^
Nicknames ! The word heretic occurs in the New
Testament. Did St. Paul use it as a nickname ? "A
man that is an heretic, after the first and second
admonition reject " (Titus iii. 10). Perhaps the
meaning is rather better expressed in the Vulgate in
which the text was read long ago: "Haereticum
hominem post unam et secundam correptionem
devita." After two separate admonitions to the
heretic, avoid his company, says St. Paul, giving a
reason for this advice in the next verse : " knowing
that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being
condemned of himself" (i.e. he is a perverse man and
stands self-condemned as a wrong-doer). Now this is
just what heretics were considered to be in the Middle
Ages ; and even if popular opinion was to some
extent affected by prejudice, mediaeval Christians
acted just as St. Paul advised. They avoided the
company of men marked as heretics whenever it was
found that they could not be affected by admonitions;
and the Church, when it failed to reconcUe them, cast
them off by excommunication that they might not
contaminate others. That was the utmost that the
Church could do to them ; and no one could treat
another as an irreclaimable heretic until the Church
had pronounced judgment upon him to that effect.
UnhappUy, matters did not stop there, and it is
difficult to see in rough times how they could have
stopped there. No one wUl think of justifying now
adays such a penalty as burning for heresy ; and
' Wayside Sketches, pp. 157-8.

INTRODUCTION xv
certainly it was a most objectionable thing. But it
is easy to be censorious when we have lost all sense
that the maintenance of social order depends on
respect being paid to Church authority, no less than
on loyalty to the laws of the land. Tell a man now
that sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion, in the
secular world, are but the offspring and the counter
parts of false doctrine, heresy, and schism in the
spiritual, and he will not believe you. The secular
order of things is sacred to most of us, the spiritual
order is not sacred at all. No one can call another to
account for false doctrine or heresy, and therefore it
is supposed that they do no mischief. If they do, at
all events, the evil must be allowed to cure itself.
Yet surely it was something in the rough ages long
ago that there was a spiritual authority generally
respected in all countries much more than that of the
secular prince, who might be, in fact, a tyrant, or
the laws of any particular kingdom, which might be,
in fact, very barbarous.
For it should be remembered that this higher
spiritual authority was recognised by the laws of all
Christian countries that were under the Roman
obedience ; and when once, after much forbearance
(which was always shown as regards mere speculative
error, or what was so considered, affecting the doctrines
of the Church), a Church tribunal had definitely pro
nounced a man a heretic, and he refused to recant or
bow to the opinion of trained judges, who presumably
understood such questions better than himself — what
was this but contempt of court ? We do not now
recognise the decisions of any Church court amenable
to Rome, and the most of us are not greatly interested
in the decisions of other Church courts. But is con
tempt of any jurisdiction to be tolerated while we
still profess to accept that jurisdiction as right ? In
matter of mere secular law, contempt of court cannot
be suffered without injury to all law and order what-
VOL. Ill i

xvi LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
ever. And it was the same in those ages when
temporal law itself was held of inferior dignity to the
law of the Universal Church. Therefore I think we
really have some justification historically for calling
mediaeval heretics heretics, seeing that they were
found to be so by law, and were so, indeed, as a
matter of fact.
As to the penalty inflicted, that is a different
; question. Heresy being accounted a social danger,
I the penalty was a question that concerned civil order
rather than ecclesiastical. Burning for heresy, in
truth, was not instituted by the Church, though the
odium of it, in later times, was generally thrown
upon the bishops. Bishops may, no doubt, have
approved of it as a painful necessity, just as at the
present day they may approve of capital punishment
for murder. In the twelfth century it would seem
that bishops sometimes protected heretics from popu
lar fury, and sometimes were unable to protect them."^
But while Bishops certainly always did regard heresy
as a crime against Society, the Church could do
nothing more than excommunicate a very perverse
heretic. What was to be done with him if the Church
declared him a man whose company was by all means
to be avoided was naturally a difficult question ; and
burning was generally agreed upon. As to the origin
of the fiery penalty, writers differ. One modern scholar
contends that till the end of the tenth century
heretics were subject only to ecclesiastical jurisdiction
and ecclesiastical penalties. But when the world did
not come to its expected end in the year 1000 there
was much religious excitement. The heresy of the
Cathari made its appearance in the West, and was not
easily kept within bounds. Afterwards a policy of
coercion sprang up, and was even urged upon princes
by a CouncU held at Toulouse in 1119. Such is the
^ See Tanon's Histoire des Tribunaux de V Inquisition en France,
p. 15.

INTRODUCTION xvii
view of the late M. Julien Havet.^ Since his day I
rather think burning for heresy has been traced
further back. Yet tUl the thirteenth century it
seems to have prevailed little in some countries, and
the late Mr. H. C. Lea, who has devoted so much
labour to the investigation of this and cognate sub
jects, expresses his conviction " that the number of
victims who actually perished at the stake is con
siderably less than has ordinarily been imagined."^
Minor penalties at first were generally found sufficient.
In Germany the practice arose without any legal sanc
tion, and what sort of sanction it obtained in England
before Henry IV. 's time it is not easy to ascertain.
Apparently at common law heretics had no more
claim to toleration than vermin, and men could
be burned at once whenever they were judged to
be heretics. But burning was not always the rule.
Under Henry II. some thirty heretics who came from
Germany were judged by a Council at Oxford in 1166,
but were not condemned to be burned. The King
ordered that they should be branded in the face
(their leader both in the face and chin) and whipped
out of the town in the bitterness of winter, further
orders being added that no man should offer them
food or shelter. And this severity was said at the
time to have purged England completely of that alien
pest.^ Then we have in 1222 the famous case of the
Deacon and the Jewess which is the subject of
one of Maitland's essays.* But at the end of the
thirteenth century, even in England, we hear of
inquiry touching felonies to be punished by burning,
including the practices of sorcerers, Sodomites, and
^ See his article in the Bihliothique de I'ilcole des Charles, entitled
" L'H&6sie et le bras seculier au moyen age jusqu'au treizieme siecle " (Paris,
1881). ^ A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, p. 549.
^ See William of Newburgh's "History" in Chronicles, edited by
R. Hewlett (Rolls Series), i. 131-4.
¦" Canon Law in the Church of England, chap. vi.

xviii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
unbelievers " openly attainted." Yet of actual burn
ings in England during the next century we have
no record at all ; and quite lately it was commonly
believed that there were none till the statute de
haeretico comburendo was passed. It is remarkable,
however, that William Sawtr^,, or Chatrys, the first
heretic in England known to have undergone such
a fate since a.d. 1222, was burned by an order of
the King in Council, issued just before the Act in
question was passed. And it seems further beyond
doubt that although no positive case of it was known,
burning for heresy had been put in practice in Eng
land before then, or at all events was looked upon as
something perfectly warrantable.^
Wycliffe himself was not burned as a heretic ; but
then he was not found to be one by any conclusive
judgment till long after his death. In his day a new
state of matters had arisen ; and to men not versed in
theology the case was very confusing. Great persons,
like John of Gaunt and Sir Henry Percy, only sought
to secure a fair trial to one who was undoubtedly
a learned doctor. The power of his followers was
much diminished when they were no longer sup
ported by knights with armed retinues ; and few
among them had scholastic minds or training equal
to his. The later LoUardy consequently was unable
to hold its ground ; it had neither much learning nor
critical acumen to support it. Resting only on crude
inferences from Scripture, it was arrogant and offensive;
and its adherents truly deserved the name of heretics,
opprobrious though that name was.
But Canon Bigg, who objects to the use of this
word as applied to them, suggests that I myself am a
• This was shown by Thomas Arnold in his Introduction to his Select Eng
lish Works of J. Wyclif, pp. viii-xi. I called the attention of the late Prof.
Maitland to these evidences, and he confessed that he did not see by what
authority the execution could have been done. There could have been no
civil process, but burning a proved heretic must have been considered
justifiable by common law. No actual cases, however, are known. See
Stuhhs, iii. 381-2.

INTRODUCTION xix
heretic by the same rule that Thomas Bilney^ and
others were called heretics in the sixteenth century.
Who is it that thinks me so ? If any one, I suppose
it should be a sound Roman Catholic, especially a
Roman Catholic divine. Well, I am happy to say, I
know several Roman Catholics, some of them even
divines of high standing, who, I think, value my
friendship as I do theirs. They do not avoid my
company as they ought to do if they considered me
a heretic in the same sense as Bilney was. But
am I really so ? Or is it only laxity of principle on
their part not to shun me ? I am inclined to think
that they feel no compunction about it, and that
there is no protest raised within the Church of Rome
itself against such intercourse of Romanists with
Protestants, except in the case of mixed marriages —
a thing which, I daresay, we too think unadvisable
for the most part. My Roman Catholic friends may
indeed consider my opinions heretical ; that is to
say, sectarian, or such as would tend to split up the
Church into sects if it were not split up already.
But that is something different from looking upon
me as a heretic, which I trust I am not. For I
protest that in mind I am not at all sectarian, if I
know myself truly. And if my sole object is to seek
for truth so far as my limitations permit me, then I
am not a heretic at all but a real Catholic, refusing to
be bound by any school. I do not reject absolutely
even the doctrine of Transubstantiation if it can be
shown to be reasonable. But as yet I cannot say
that I see it in that light; and if I am asked to
subject my own reason to the Church, I am ready to
do so — to a Church that is really universal.
Mere opinions, in truth, do not constitute heresy
^ Canon Bigg, of course, takes the ordinary view of Bilney, that he was
a Protestant heretic, which I have shown is not the case. See Vol. I. 393,
400. Bilney believed in the mass all his life, and got leave to partake in
it before he suffered, penitently acknowledging that he had been a great
offender in other ways. In fact, he was a real haereticus homo in St. Paul's
sense without being very much of a heretic in point of doctrine.

XX LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
in any man ; and it is even true that the heresies
of the Middle Ages are not heresies now, just be
cause they do not tend in honest men to break
up further the unity and social life of Christianity.
The heretical spirit now is nothing like what it used
to be. Truth, no doubt, is eternal. What is true
now was true always, and what was true in the Middle
Ages is true now in matters of faith. But is any
tribunal on earth infallible? That is the question
between us and Rome. There is one sense in which
I myself would confess that the Church cannot err.
For if there be a divine Revelation at all — if our
Lord Himself was right in saying that He came to
bring Truth into the world, and that after His death
the Holy Spirit would guide His followers into the
whole Truth — then, undoubtedly, His followers
do possess among them, taken as a whole, a fund
of truth which cannot possibly be diminished or
weakened as we go on. But that Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church must embrace all real Christians
whatsoever. Sects here and there may err ; but
surely it cannot be that whole nations, calling them
selves Christians, and accepting expressly, or even by
implication, all that is written in the three Catholic
Creeds, can deviate, otherwise than accidentally and
for a time, from the original deposit of the Faith.
Here, however, comes in the question of authority;
for we are bound to admit and respect authority of
some sort. Those who believe in no revelation find
the only " seat of authority " in these matters in their
own individual judgments, which, of course, tend
naturally to diversity, just because there is no ex
ternal guidance. In science individual judgments
tend towards unity because there is such guidance ;
but in religion, if you shut out the light of revelation
and historical experience you have none. Such an
individual position was maintained in his latest book
by one of the most sincere and greatest thinkers of

INTRODUCTION xxi
the last generation, the late Dr. Martineau. But
independence like this is not really possible. For
such is human nature that we are none of us
entirely satisfied with our own individual judgments
until we have compared notes with others ; and I
doubt if Dr. Martineau himself was as little influenced
by judgments differing from his own as his theory
would naturally imply. Moreover, I am sure that
there are many Rationalists among us who lean on
Dr. Martineau himself as an authority more than they
trust their own individual judgments.
The real question is how much deference we ought
in reason to pay to an alien authority from whom we
can learn something that we could not have found out
ourselves. I think we can only receive the views of
others in a tentative way. If we accept truth upon
authority it will grow within us by further thought
and experience, and we know that our authority has
been a true guide, for it has helped us on our path.
Our eyesight has been gradually educated to see
plainly what was at one time dark to us. But if we
accept error on an authority which is merely plaus
ible, it also grows within us, bringing on results
which we shall find ultimately to be pernicious —
unless we go on "perishing everlastingly" in new
sophistries ; for error has no life in itself, and can
only maintain itself by more and more negations.
Is it not well, then, that they who believe in a
Revelation should feel themselves to be one body,
giving strength and life to each other in that belief
which is common to them all 1 For they are indeed
one body, working out a common harmony.
But it was necessary for the Christian world for a
long time, if the truth of Christian Revelation, with
the careful inferences drawn from it by divines and
schoolmen, was not to be eternally persecuted, that
the faith should be protected by princes and rulers
who professed Christianity themselves. Christian

xxii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
truth, therefore, having been laid down by authority,
disturbers, or heretics, had to be removed, somehow
or other, after repeated unavailing admonitions. No
one really disputed the necessity — not even heretics
themselves, who generally maintained that they were
not heretics, and that it was their own dogmas that
ought to be supported against assailants. But they
seldom really had the courage of their opinions ; for
they were not straightforward. They would deny
their own words, change their names, recant with
deliberate purpose to preach again what they re
canted, and escape from diocese to diocese, so that
they should not be recognised in new places as men
who had been convicted and done penance for trying
to shake the faith of their neighbours.
It cost some trouble to deal with such men, even
before the days of printing, and before they received
underhand encouragement from a King who had his
own reasons for making the Church's task as difficult
as possible. But when the printing press came to
the aid of heresy, as we have seen already, the task
of suppressing poisonous literature was particularly
embarrassing, and the encouragement given to it by
the King made it naturally much more so. At last
his open breach with Rome made Henry himself a
heretic in the eyes of all Europe,
But when it came to this, an entirely new chapter
was opened up in the history of Christianity. How
was it possible now to shun the company of heretics
when the King himself was one? His subjects be
wailed the fact, and were glad when an Act like that
of the Six Articles seemed likely to put down irrever
ence and blasphemy. But irreverence and blasphemy
went on, and good men avoided the Court, as Sir
Thomas More, even in earlier days when he wrote
his Utopia, had sought to avoid it as much as pos
sible. That was all that could be done even by the
best of Henry's subjects. Some check might still

INTRODUCTION xxiii
have been put upon royal wickedness if foreign
princes could only have been persuaded to stop com
mercial intercourse with a country governed by such
a king. But this the two most powerful foreign
princes declined to do. Each, indeed, would have
been willing enough to do it if supported by the
other, for Henry was loved by neither of them ; but
if either had acted alone, he knew well that the other
would have been glad of England's assistance against
himself And then, as to heresy, Henry himself
always denied the imputation. He had only rejected
the Pope's jurisdiction and treated him as a foreign
bishop. In religion he professed to keep what was
strictly lawful, and to be governed by the best advice
that he could get from his own clergy.
Nevertheless LoUardy had gained no small hold
on the kingdom, even in his day, and it affected the
Church more and more after his death. For as soon
as Lollard opinions obtained favour at Court, and
especially when any such opinions were definitely
recognised, they were supported by that Royal
Supremacy which was, as I have shown, the first
moving cause of the Reformation. And yet there
was no real gain for the principle of religious tolera
tion. How could there be when Heresy insisted that
old Orthodoxy was wrong and only desired to take
her place ? While papal authority was still upheld,
heretics had been maintaining that their principles
were those of the true Church, and that the "Visible
Church " was an usurper.^ Under Edward VI. there
was a good deal of consultation with foreign divines
as to what the principles of the true Church were ;
but a solution independent of Rome was very much
faciUtated by shutting up in prison, one after another,
every bishop who showed himself at all favourable
to Roman doctrine ; and at the close of the reign no
1 See More's Dialogue, book ii. ch. i., of which an abstract will be found
in this work, Vol. I. p. 567. Foxe's contention was the same all through.

xxiv LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
less than five were in custody under the most pitiful
pretence of law.
Coercion and deposition of bishops were carried
even further under Elizabeth. Yet undoubtedly
those conferences of foreign and English divines
within the kingdom had already led to the lay
ing of very broad foundations, and the faith of all
Christendom was cleared of doctrines which were
merely scholastic and nowise essential to the Gospel
set forth from the beginning. Unhappily the broad
basis gave little satisfaction for a long time. Roman
Catholics were persecuted, and Lollards or Puritans
were anxious to persecute them even more. But these
latter Lollards were revolting from the Reformed
Church with as great or greater vehemence than their
predecessors had done from the Church of Rome.
There was a spirit of revolt in other nations as well,
and a uniform national religion could not be estab
lished anywhere. Adherents of the old Faith were
disturbed by Huguenots in France not less than by
Lutherans in Germany and Calvinists almost every
where. Civil war broke out in France as it had done
in Germany. The Netherlands revolted from Spanish
rule. No theory of religion suggested toleration,
because the civil ruler must have a religion of his
own to go by, and must therefore impose it upon all
his subjects.^ The theory that Protestantism was
more tolerant than Romanism will not bear investiga
tion.^ It was policy, rather than humanity or even
Christian feeling, that first suggested the necessity of
toleration. The tolerant party in France M'ere actually
called Politiques — men who felt that it had become
a political necessity in Government to allow some
^ That was the principle even of the peace of Westphalia in 1648.
^ Even the Middle Ages can hardly show a case of persecution so
atrocious as that of the young man Aikenhead, who, having rashly denied
the Trinity and repented it, was done to death at the end of the seven
teenth century to please the Edinburgh clergy. See Macaulay, iv. 781-4.

INTRODUCTION xxv
indulgence to heresy. But in England the battle had
to be fought out, heresy actually taking the place of
orthodoxy under Oliver Cromwell, and suppressing
the Church of England for a time. Then, when
after the Restoration the Church of England had its
own again, those who could not agree with it seceded.
The theory that Government and people should be
of one religion could no longer be maintained intact,
and it was certainly time to arrive at some under
standing with the malcontents. Religious toleration,
in fact, was first attempted, as a matter of sheer
policy, by the last Stuart kings, Charles II. and
James II. , and they each met with a severe rebuke for
attempting it. Yet it was under James II. that the
first Dissenting chapels were built. For it was natural
enough that a convinced Roman Catholic king should
consider other heresies really less dangerous than the
heresy of a State Church independent of Rome ; and
he probably believed that equal tolerance for all
would eventually win the day for his own religion.
But he was not allowed to carry the experiment very
far ; for the nation at large was far more opposed
to a return to Rome than inclined to indulgence,
even of Protestant Dissent.
A great change, however, has taken place since the
days of the Revolution, and the spirit of tolerance
is now so general that the present generation is at
a loss to understand the principles really at stake !
when nations were first cut off", or shook themselves
free, from the spiritual dominion of Rome. Old
things have passed away completely, and we really
cannot picture to ourselves nations under such tutelage
at all. Least of all can we think of the question as
one vitally affecting spiritual and social order. But
Henry VIII. put the matter plainly when it first
suited him to make known what he was driving
at. On the 11th May 1532 he caUed before him
the Speaker and twelve members of the House of

xxvi LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
Commons, and, having eight Lords with him, he said
to them : " We thought that the clergy of our Realm
had been our subjects wholly ; but now we have
well perceived that they be but half our subjects.
For all the prelates, at their consecration, make an
oath to the Pope clean contrary to the oath that
they make to us ; so that they seem to be his sub
jects and not ours." ^ As a matter of fact, the bishops
swore obedience to the Pope on receiving their
spiritual charges, and then swore allegiance to the
King that their temporalities might be restored to
them, declaring in the latter oath that nothing in
the former would interfere with perfect loyalty to
their Sovereign, from whom alone they could hold the
lands of their bishoprics, to enable them to discharge
their secular duties. This arrangement had been
understood for centuries, and it was mere affectation
on Henry's part to pretend that he had not been
aware of it. For it was nothing but a natural and
essential part of the twofold government in Church
and State with which all the world was then familiar.
The clergy, indeed, were no subjects of the King in
spiritual matters — nay, the humblest sexton or church
officer was not subject to the King's law but to the
law of the Church, as regards his performance of his
duty. And even the laity were amenable to Church
law, as I have already shown. It was, in truth, a
jurisdiction to which the King himself was amenable,
and he would willingly have remained so if the Church,
as he at first hoped, would only have released him
from the bondage of a marriage of which he had
grown tired. Thwarted of his aim at Rome, he at
once set agoing a revolution of which even he could
not foresee the ultimate results.
So far, then, I consider that some criticisms on
my past writings are unfounded. But I now proceed
to the confession of errors in the present work, the
1 Hall's Chronicle, p. 788.

INTRODUCTION xxvii
chief of which relate to the condition of the monas
teries. As long ago as the year 1887, when editing the
Tenth Volume of the Letters and Papers of Henry
VIII. , I felt it incumbent upon me to investigate and
form as careful a judgment as I could upon the dread
ful reports of the state of the monasteries drawn up
by the King's visitors in 1536. As editor of a
Government publication I would gladly have avoided
expressing any opinion whatever on a subject which
afforded so much room for controversy ; and, in point
of fact, I did not in my Preface so much express an
opinion as simply set forth the kind of evidence which
a critical examination of details, where possible,
together with a general survey of facts, brought to
bear on the credibility of those reports. Nor do I
think, looking back on that Preface, that there is any
thing stated there as a matter of opinion that can
not be justified. But the impression which I then
received as to the utter worthlessness of the testi
mony of the Royal Visitors, true as I think it still,
has, I fear, since inclined me too much to minimise
other evidences of monastic depravity, especially in
certain cases where the things insinuated were not
exactly clear. I never, certainly, intended to suggest
that impurity did not exist in some monasteries.
There had even been gross and notorious 'cases like
that of St. Albans in the days of Henry VII., which
it was impossible to overlook. That abuses in mon
asteries — especially in a house exempt from episcopal
jurisdiction — should have become serious in times of
civil war and disorder seemed to me not unnatural ;
but I saw no reason to doubt that in quieter times of
energetic rule they were considerably abated. So I
was prepared to believe that under Henry VIII.,
although there was no doubt stUl much laxity of
discipline in some Orders and in some houses, good
rule prevailed on the whole.

xxviii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
With this impression the episcopal visitations of
Norwich diocese, published by Dr. Jessopp, seemed to
me to harmonise pretty well. But evidences, even
from such a source, may be liable to misinterpreta
tion, and I confess in some points the accounts of
those visitations, given in Vol II. of this work (Book
III., Appendix to Chapter ii.), are not so accurate as
could be wished. Thus in describing the visitation of
Norwich priory at p. 103, I have said briefly " One
monk was a dandy, and another played cards," etc.
But the charge against John Sail amounted to some
thing more serious than dandyism. It appears to
have been as follows : —
The said John SaU sometimes wears shoes closed ¦with red
silk points, sometimes slippers in the day time, and long hose
made with a doublet audaciously (insolenter) after the fashion
of laymen, to the mischievous example of the young brethren,
especially as the same John, even in the prior's presence, does
not blush to show every one his manner of walk erectis
vestibus.^ The original Latin of this passage was a puzzle
to the Editor ; but Mr. Coulton has thrown some
light upon it. First of all, I think that there can be
little doubt, as he suggests, that trepidis should be
crepidis, slippers, as I have translated it here ; also
that caligae mean hose, not boots as several trans
lators of sixteenth- century documents besides myself
have supposed them to mean ; ^ and finally, that
what is denounced as particularly disgraceful in John
Sail is that being clad in lay attire, with doublet and
hose,^ he does not blush even in the Prior's presence
to raise his outer garment and show his indecent
^ Norwich Visitations, p. 201.
2 The word is also mistranslated "boots" at p. 97, 1. 19. On the
same page, 1. 7, "keys" should have been "looks."
^ " Doublet and hose " were ordinary male attire, as we see in Shake
speare, and when there was no cloak over all they were light attire for
indoor wear. See Merry Wives of Windsor, Act iii. Sc. 1 : — "And youth
ful still in your doublet and hose this raw rheumatic day ! "

INTRODUCTION xxix
manner of walking. What is meant by this we may
interpret as we please. Clearly the manners observed
in the Cathedral priory of Norwich were not such as
speak well for the ordinary discipline, especially as it
is only the culminating offence with which John Sail
is charged ; for the same deponent complains that he
absents himself from matins, mass and hours, and
neglects his duties as precentor, which required him
at the beginning of every week to see that the whole
convent was instructed how to perform the week's
offices. Moreover, he was believed to be in debt and
did not pay his brethren their pensions regularly.
Yet he was favoured by the Prior who was remiss in
punishing his manifest offences.
Thus it would seem that the inside of a cathedral
priory was not always a place for cultivating decorum.
But as I had already remarked in reference to this
house (Vol. II. p. 102), a cathedral priory was really
more apt to get out of hand than an ordinary
monastery. As to the monastery of Westacre I regret to say
that I have made a worse misstatement, which I
really cannot excuse ; and how it came about I do not
know. At p. 106 I said that the only charges of im
purity in this monastery were in the visitation of 1514
and in that of 1532. But the worst and grossest
charge of all was brought against one of the monks in
the visitation of 1526, and though erased in the MS.
1 fear it must have been true ; for not only does the
cancelled passage say that the offender was frequently
caught in the act, but another deponent says he is
accused of crime ut praemittitur. It appears that
there were irregularities in this house from the first,
and in 1494 the gentry were not paying for their
chUdren's board. Then the house got into debt, an
exhibition at Cambridge was not paid, a lad whom the
monastery had been accustomed to send to the univer
sity was not allowed to go, the house could no longer

XXX LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
keep a schoolmaster, and things went on from bad to
worse. As to the notorious case of St. Albans referred to
above, I have this to say. Although I never cast a
doubt upon the painful reality of the statements, I
find that I was misled on one point, on which I have
been corrected by Abbot Gasquet. Trusting too much
to Dugdale, I supposed that the Abbot then at St.
Albans could not have been Wallingford, who was stated
to have died in 1484, though there was no record of any
successor to him before 1492. Following Newcome
in his History of St. Albans, Dugdale supposed that
the monastery had been left without a head for eight
years — rather a strange occurrence ; and as these
eight years included the time when Morton called
an Abbot of St. Albans to answer for his scandalous
misgovernment, I supposed that it was some unknown
Abbot whose name was not in the list. It appears,
however, from the conge d'elire issued after his
death that Abbot Wallingford only died in 1492 ; so
that it was undoubtedly he to whom Morton's grave
admonition was addressed. On this point I am glad
to be set right by Abbot Gasquet, who has, moreover,
since the publication of my first volume, made some
important investigations touching the case (with
results of which I shall speak presently) in the
Vatican Archives. But first of all, I am bound to
say that the identification of Abbot Wallingford as
the person to whom Morton's severe letter was
addressed does nothing to improve the very un
pleasant aspect of the story. Abbot Wallingford is
indeed praised by the monks as one who, besides
paying off in fourteen years the heavy debts of his
predecessor, did a number of munificent things in
behalf of the Abbey — among others, presented it
with a splendid altar screen which exists there even
now. But if it be true, as stated in Archbishop
Morton's letter, that he cut down the woods of the

INTRODUCTION xxxi
monastery to the value of 8000 marks, the explana
tion seems to be that he paid the debts of the house
out of capital and reduced the value of a magnificent
property to make things comfortable for the existing
generation of monks. In that case he grossly abused
his official trust ; and unfortunately there are records
of his previous history as a monk which agree only
too well with this hypothesis. For he was a trustee
of Abbot Stoke, a covetous man who, against the rules
of the Order, had accumulated a private hoard, and
after Stoke's death he was called to account by Abbot
Whethamstede for attempted embezzlement. Abbot
Whethamstede, indeed, once charged him to his face
with perjury, and was only persuaded not to dismiss
him from various offices of trust by the intercession
of influential noblemen, whose friendship the culprit
had cultivated like a man of the world.^
Yet after Abbot Whethamstede and his successor
William Albon had passed away, this William Walling
ford was actually elected Abbot himself, with what
results to the monastery Archbishop Morton's letter
shows too clearly. And the further information which
Abbot Gasquet has obtained for us from the Vatican
Archives — though he appears not to have seen it in
that Ught — helps, I think, rather to set forth a
crowning triumph of worldliness over religion. Abbot
Wallingford knew beforehand what efforts not only
Archbishop Morton but King Henry VII. were
making at Rome to punish his misconduct ; and he
actually succeeded in frustrating them. He knew
the ways of Rome at least as well as they did, and he
set himself from the first to preserve inviolate the
exemption of the Abbey from all episcopal jurisdic
tion. As early as the 6th February 1490 he had
procured from Innocent VIII. a brief addressed
to the Archbishop desiring him to protect the
Abbot and monks from all interference with their
1 Registrum Ahbatiae J. Whethamstede, i. 102-35 (Rolls Series).
VOL. Ill c

xxxii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
privUeges. On the 5th July, however, Morton
having already obtained a bull empowering him to
visit exempt monasteries (though it was chiefly those
with foreign heads), addressed that letter to the
Abbot in which the charges against him are expressed.
But the Abbot had his proctor at Rome and appealed
against the right of the Archbishop to hold a visita
tion. On the 30th July, however, the Pope, at the
King of England's earnest solicitation, granted the
Archbishop special faculties to override objections
raised to his visitation both by the Abbey of St.
Albans and by the priory of Northampton.^ But
there must have been one more move upon the chess
board, of which Abbot Gasquet does not seem to
have come upon any notice at Rome. For the victory
remained at last with St. Albans, which Wallingford
succeeded by great efforts in preserving from the
dreaded visitation.
No worse account could well be given of the Court
of Rome than is implied by such a termination to the
case ; and surely no worse account could be given of
the Abbey of St. Albans than the way the result was
recorded. Here are the words, translated from the
original Latin of the St. Albans obit book : —
" Moreover, we ought not to be unmindful how many and
how great most serious expenses and heaviest charges " — the
translator must endeavour to do justice to the redundance of
the original language — " he sustained in his old age, when he
diligently took action against the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Great Chancellor of England, for the defence of the liberties
and immunities of this monastery, and when he bravely and
manfully resisted his power and great strength (ilius potentiae
et magnis viribus). He appealed even to Rome; sent his
monk, John Thortun, to wit, to Rome ; valiantly cited the
Archbishop himself and his dean of the Arches; and at
length our excellent and most reverend father and most
worthy Abbot obtained a most just victory, and also — to our
great honor and immense utility — preserved all our privileges
1 The EngUsh Historical Beview, xxiv. 320-21.

INTRODUCTION xxxiii
unharmed and inviolate, thanks be to God and St. Alban,
ever here and everywhere our patron." i
Such was the actual working, in this particular
instance, of an old, complicated, and corrupt system.
As many zealous reformers who, like Dean Colet,
were stUl loyal to that system, said about the state
of the Church in their day, there was no lack of good
laws to correct abuses if they were only properly
enforced. But then, how were they to be enforced
when there was so much corruption ? Good men did
not see their way to a remedy. In this case the zeal
of the highest prelate in England, aided by all the
influence of England's King at the Court of Rome —
which was always very considerable, though the
Church's freedom from State control was theoretically
absolute — could do nothing to avert the triumph of
a powerful and wealthy abbot, who had shamefully
misgoverned the community over which he presided,
and made it a source of moral contagion to the neigh
bourhood. Having from his early years as a monk
studied carefully the power of money and courted
the influence of the great, and having, probably,
been elected to his high post as the best man of busi
ness in the community, he distinguished his paternal
rule by a good deal of cost bestowed in beautifying
the Abbey and making things comfortable. He also
set up there one of the earUest printing presses, to
supersede the old painstaking art of the monkish
copyist. He understood, even too well, the times in
which he lived, and had he been a mere layman of a
later age, might have made an able head of some
commercial undertaking, influenced, if not by the
fear of God, at least by some fear of the law of the
land. But Church authority was entirely exempt
from the law of the land, and a great and wealthy
abbot was exempt even from an Archbishop's juris-
1 Registrum J. Whethamstede, i. (App.) 478.

xxxiv LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
diction, being dependent only on Rome where pro
verbially aU was venal.
The corrupt system was at length broken up, not
by good men zealous for reform, but by a strong and
wilful king determined to have his own way, and the
general results I believe have been for good. But to
conclude what I have here to say about the monas
teries, I cannot believe what we are sometimes told
that such shameful licentiousness and breach of all
rules as prevailed at St. Albans were characteristic of
monasteries in general. To say the least, they could
not all have been bad; and, seeing how much
Henry VIII. himself was interested in making the
most of monastic scandals, I should almost be inclined
to think that there had been some improvement in
the tone of monastic life since the days of Cardinal
Morton. For Henry VIII.'s Visitors themselves seem
to have found nothing serious in a good number of the
houses they examined ; and the very Act by which
the smaller monasteries were suppressed in 1536, on
the ground that they were the abodes of " manifest
sin, vicious, carnal, and abominable living," acknow
ledges that there were also " divers great and solemn
monasteries of this realm, wherein (thanks be to
God) religion is right well kept and observed." I
do not say that the preamble to such an Act of
Parliament was animated by a spirit of truthfulness,
either in the one case or the other. But such state
ments are naturally built as much as possible on
things plausible and generally credited. And if we
want further evidence that virtue was the rule in
some houses, let us merely ask ourselves what sort
of houses could have trained for martyrdom the
Bridgettine and Carthusian monks, who were the first
victims of Henry VIII.'s tyranny ? We know, in
fact, that Sebastian Newdigate purposely relinquished
the Court in order, by becoming a Carthusian, to
escape the general demoralisation that prevailed

INTRODUCTION xxxv
there, and he became one of that noble band of
sufferers. And we also know that the good, wise,
and upright Sir Thomas More at one time thought of
becoming a Carthusian. Surely the houses of this
Order, at least, were not impure.
Monastic life, indeed, had greatly decayed by the
beginning of the sixteenth century, and individual
monasteries had at times been suppressed as no longer
wanted. Literature no longer flourished in such
abodes in the way it had done in previous ages, and
discipline, no doubt, was lax. So the general
suppression under Henry VIII., much as it was
resented, especially in the north of England, where
the population was sparse and the maintenance of
hospitality more important than elsewhere, did not
affect the community at large as the elimination of
an element absolutely essential to civilised life. Yet
it affected the west of England so much that the
rebels of 1549 insisted on the restoration of at least
two monasteries in every county, and they certainly
felt that the hearts of the English people generally
would sympathise ¦with their demands. We know
also how Mary, when she came to the throne, strove
to re-establish some monasteries at her own private
expense, when there was no hope that her nobility
would give up the monastic spoils. And it is not
likely that she would have made such an eff'ort if
monasteries in the past had been generally ill-regu
lated houses.
As to the pre-Reformation Church generally, my
chief critic, Mr. Coulton, is strong against those who
take rosy views of it ; and surely rosy views are not
maintainable. That there were many things amiss
in that Church was confessed all along by its own
devout members, and was further confessed officially
by the Church of Rome herself, when she took
counsel in 1538 to reform her own discipline, as she
afterwards did reform it by the CouncU of Trent. The

xxxvi LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
results have been permanent. It was too late, indeed,
for a general Reformation which should include all
the Churches which had already fallen away, and the
decrees of that Council could not be accepted by the
whole Christian world. But the very fact that it was
held, and that it did pass decrees which, doctrine
apart, were highly beneficial in improving the moral
tone of the Church, testifies surely to this, that there
was and had always been within that great community
a Spirit of godliness fighting an unequal combat with
prevailing infiuences of a worldly, sensual, nay, at
times utterly devilish character, which had enslaved
the Church herself. And it is no part of my design
either to vindicate or extenuate abuses which were
confessed by aU good men. I am sorry, therefore,
that I missed some rather significant points in monastic
visitations. But I am still more sorry that, in my desire to give
ordinary readers a brief summary of a book of Sir
Thomas More's, which they cannot very easily procure,
even on loan, to read in their own homes, I have
slurred over, nay, maltreated, his argument in one
passage,^ bearing upon the far too common impurity
of priests. More virtually admits the fact, and he
thinks that the evil would be "more than half
amended " if there were fewer priests ordained. That
was the ideal of good men who wished well to the
Church, in accordance with the Church's own prin
ciples. No man was allowed to take priest's orders tUl
he was in his twenty -fifth year, an age when he might
judge for himself whether he felt strong enough to
maintain his chastity in a celibate condition. More
himself, apparently, from what his friend Erasmus
says of him,^ was doubtful whether he could stand
' More's Dialogue, Book III. ch. xii. See Vol. I. p. 571 of this work.
' " Maluit maritus esse castus quam sacerdos impurus." — Erasmi Epp.
lib. X. No. 30, col. 536. I have already noted elsewhere {Paston Letters,
Introd. p. 279, edition 1904) that this sort of expression must have been a
common one, as Margaret Paston said of her son Walter -. "I will love him

INTRODUCTION xxxvii
such a trial, and therefore remained a layman instead
of becoming a Carthusian monk. In earlier times
priests were few ; for their special functions not many
priests were required in proportion to the population,
and they were held in peculiar honour. They were
part of a great system, having laws of its own apart
from and independent of the laws of the country
they inhabited. But the special honour given to
them became a coveted thing. Priests became too
numerous, worldly, and corrupt ; and, not being sub
ject to the tribunals of the land like other citizens,
they even committed great crimes which were ab
solved by easy penances under an ill-administered
ecclesiastical system.
On this subject I may as well quote the imaginary
Dialogue between Pole and Lupset, written apparently
in the early part of the year 1535, and undoubtedly
written for the satisfaction of Henry VIII., though
plausibly representing what two distinguished scholars
might have been supposed to think and say.^ The
following extract may be pondered with profit : —
Pole. And what think you by the law and common ordi
nance which permitteth priests, in such number as they are
now, to be made at twenty-five years of age — an office of so
great dignity to be given to youth so full of frailty ? This
appeareth to me nothing convenient, and contrary to the
ordinance of the Church at the first institution.
Lupset. Sir, that is truth, and that is the cause that at
that time priests were of perfect virtue, as now, contrary,
they be full of vanity.
better to be a good secular man than a lewd priest.'' Yet Margaret Paston
wished him to be a priest if he felt sure of himself on arriving at th e right age.
1 This Dialogue was edited for the Early English Text Society by Mr.
Herrtage in 1878. In his biographical Introduction to the work (p.
Ixxiii) the Editor is quite astray about the date, and has followed a mis
leading suggestion of Strype, who was not aware that Lupset died in 1532.
The Dialogue, indeed, was written some years after Lupset's death ; but
the date suggested, 1538, is quite out of the question. Starkey's letter to
Henry VIII. (L. P., viii. 217), explaining the object of the book, could only
have been written before Pole's own expected book had come to England,
as Starkey was anxious to assure Henry that Pole would sympathise with
his ideas about things which needed reform in Church and State.

i

xxxviii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
Pole. And how think you by the law which admitteth to
religion i of all sorts youth of all age almost ; insomuch, that
you shall see some freres whom you would judge to be born
in the habit, they are so little and young admitted thereto ?
Lupset. Surely of this, after my mind, springeth the
destruction of all good and perfect religion. For what
thing may be more contrary to reason than to see him pro
fess religion which nothing knoweth what religion meaneth ?
This is undoubtedly a great error in all order of religion.
Pole. And what think you by the law which bindeth
priests to chastity ? Is not this, of all other, most unreason
able, specially in such a multitude as there is now ?
Lupset. Sir, in this many things may be said ; but, because
I will not repugn against my conscience, I will say as Pope
Pius did, that great reason in the beginning of the Church
brought that law into the order of the Church; but now
greater reason should take the same away again.^
It would be decidedly interesting to know, if we
could safely presume upon it, how far these senti
ments were really in the minds either of Pole or
or Lupset. I think it very probable that they were
so. Starkey undoubtedly had conversed with Pole
in Italy, where he had resided in his house as his
chaplain during the year 1534.^ He must have
returned to England by the end of that year, and
entered the household of Pole's mother, the Countess
of Salisbury, at Dowgate.* He soon left her service
for the King's, and wrote letters to Pole, insidiously
urging him to satisfy the King with a frank opinion
as to the validity of marriage with a deceased brother's
wife, while at the same time he was trying to remove
the King's very just suspicions that Pole's answer
would not please him. It was in this effort that he
wrote the ingenious imaginary Dialogue between Pole
and Lupset, of which the above passage is an extract.^
^ "Religion," when spoken of thus, always meant monastic life. Having
just discussed (in part) the case of priests, the two proceed to discuss that
of the regular Orders.
2 England in the Reign of Renry VIII, Part I. (E.E.T.S.), pp. 127-8.
3 See L. P., VII. 900, 945, 1016, 1292. ^ L. P., viii. 117.
^ See the references to Starkey in L. P., vm.

INTRODUCTION xxxix
No doubt I might have said much more about
the abuses of the pre - Reformation Church ; but
their exposure was not my principal object. Indeed,
I think any one may fairly be satisfied with the con
temporary comments of Dr. Gascoigne on this subject,
which I have quoted pretty largely in the first volume
of this work.^. But the fact that there was a painful
mass of moral evil within the Church before the Refor
mation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
the Reformation in England — or, indeed, anywhere
else — was due to moral indignation on that account.
There is absolutely no appearance that this was the
case. Not even Luther had any idea of revolting
against the papal system for seven years after he had
been shocked at what he saw of the moral condition
of Rome itself ; nor would he have done so at all but
that he was disappointed in his expectation of fair
treatment in his controversy with Tetzel. As to
the Reformation in England, it was due really to the
King's action against the Pope, by which papal juris
diction was entirely abrogated ; and many of the
anti-papal clergy were not the sort of men who could
cast stones at the papal clerics. General morality
was undoubtedly worse in the days of Edward VL
than it had been before, and perhaps it really im
proved somewhat under Mary. Yet I have no doubt
that at the end of a long struggle afterwards, the
Reformation came out victorious, and that it was
better, even from a moral point of view, that the
nation should acquiesce in Royal Supremacy rather
than bow to a foreign power considered spiritual,
which claimed more than rightful authority over the
lives and actions of men. For many ages Rome
fulfilled a function of high importance to all Europe.
There was no other recognised guide in high questions,
either of Christian faith or of personal, social, and inter
national morality. But the tribunal could no longer
1 Pp. 247-65.

xl LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
secure for itself that universal respect which was
necessary to its effectiveness ; and nations had to
form their own standards of right and wrong. Enough
that in so doing they could not maintain themselves
without some respect for justice and the eternal
truth of Christianity. Hence what is called the
Established Church principle, by which the life of
the Church and the life of the nation depend upon
each other. Not that the Church is established
by the State, for it existed long before; but that
the State recognises the Church and upholds her
principles, while the Church submits to such con
ditions in secular matters as the State may think fit
to impose. And this is what really constituted the essence of
! the English Reformation — secular power, indeed secu
lar tyranny from which there was no escape, gradually
mollified by the recognition of vital truths in the
' keeping of that Church which it oppressed, but never
could disown. The attempt to maintain in England
a foreign authority in matters ecclesiastical was found
ultimately impossible ; but while that authority
existed it was right that it should be defended. It
is here that some readers seem unable to grasp my
meaning, and think that I am making Eternal Truth
subject to the caprice of tyranny and secular law.
How can a mere human authority, it will be said,
make a doctrine false if it is true, or true if it is
false ? That, undoubtedly, is beyond the power of all
, human law. But a truly spiritual authority may exist
I within the limits of a single kingdom, obey the laws
I of that kingdom, and receive protection in return for
its obedience. After all, wherever Christianity is
I allowed to live in peace it is always protected by
' secular power. Even Roman jurisdiction while it
lasted was so protected, and it was still more just that
national religion should be. Yet we are beginning to
think nowadays that national religion is unimportant

INTRODUCTION xii
and sectarianism much better. The past should
surely teach us otherwise.
With regard to doctrine, it must be remembered
that whatever is accepted as Orthodoxy in any Com
munion is really the fruit of ages of discussion which
may be supposed to have settled the matter, just as
the scientific doctrines of gravitation, of evolution, or
of what else soever the scientific world is agreed upon,
must be considered settled and entitled to the respect
of all educated men. Acquiescence of this sort does
not exclude the conceivable possibility of some new
and more comprehensive theory hereafter setting
matters in a clearer light, or even proving that the
reasonings of past ages have been founded to some
extent on questionable axioms. If, for instance, we
discard an axiom once received in physics, such as
that " Nature abhors a vacuum," it is simply because
we have found other principles, amply warranted by
experience, which sufficiently account for all known
phenomena without it. And further, we have a larger
knowledge of phenomena than we once had, requiring
simpler and more capacious theories to take in all
the facts. The very same principle may be applied
to theology — only, it must be applied justly. The
realm of theology is not built on physical phenomena
but on a spiritual interpretation of historical facts.
We have the records of a divine revelation — all point
ing clearly to one great essential truth to which all
other truths are subordinate. We can build without
fear upon this essential truth and all that it really
involves. We cannot be wrong in trusting the
Creeds, which are verified from age to age by new
and fresh experience. But we may be wrong even in
logical inferences from the most trustworthy records.
Not that logic should mislead us if we use it aright.
But even the mathematician knows that it is quite ^
unsafe to apply to the Infinite rules which are in- 1
faUible as regards finite quantities ; and it is no less

xlii LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION
unsafe to import into the realm of theology a
phUosophy of material things, their " substance " and
their "accidents," which might have seemed satis
factory to Aristotle, but is useless to the physical
philosopher of our days.
I need not enlarge on the bearing of this considera
tion on one particular doctrine of mediaeval Catholic
ism. As to other doctrines, it may suffice to say
that the old tribunal at Rome had lost its high
authority and could no longer count upon that
universal deference which had been paid to it for
ages. The progress of the world — and of evils incon-
troUable by mere system — forbade that this should
continue. Even episcopal authority was paralysed in
England by despotic power; and old methods of
dealing with heresy and error were becoming difficult
enough already. The printing press alone must in
any case have done much to weaken the hold of mere
scholastic doctrines, and the policy.of for ever burning
heretical literature was bound to come to an end,
even as that of burning heretics themselves was.
Some wheat was undoubtedly burned along with
tares ; and freedom of publication, allowed at first for
bad reasons, was eventually the best cure for its own
evils. Popular religion, indeed, was guilty of wild
excesses at times ; but the effect of the Reformation
on the whole has surely been to strengthen the
Christian faith wherever it has prevailed, and to free
it from the burden of doctrines to which the heart
can make no satisfactory response.
Doctrines do not really divide Christians so much
as they appear to do. I wonder how many Roman
Catholics have really a heartfelt belief in Transub
stantiation ! Perhaps many have a heartfelt belief
in the Real Presence, which is not exactly the same
thing. On the other hand, I believe few Protestants
have a heartfelt belief in that dogma which, above all
others, is the distinctive dogma of the Reformation —

INTRODUCTION xliii
Justification by faith. I am pretty sure that very
many are quite ready, even now, to repudiate it over
their wine-glasses with superficial levity in the way
described by Cowper : —
" Adieu," Vinoso cries, ere yet he sips
The purple bumper trembling at his lips,
" Adieu to all morality, if Grace
Make works a vain ingredient in the case,'' etc.
Plausible arguments can easily be confessed, and the
most thoughtful of us can be misled at times. Just
suppose, to begin with, that there is no revelation, and
that it has all to be proved ! You could destroy the
most assured conquests of science by objecting at
every turn, "You are buUding on mere hypotheses."
So you are. But the hypotheses have justified them
selves by experience ; and that is everything.
With these comments I leave my work to the
reader. I am well aware that what I have written
can only be valuable in the end as far as it carries
conviction, and where I have erred I am myself
anxious that the dross should be purged away. But
where I have not erred I sincerely hope that my
words may have contributed something towards a
clearer and healthier view of the Reformation.
Yet I must not end here without again acknowledg
ing with gratitude the kind assistance of my friend
Dr. Hunt while passing these proofs through the
press ; for he has not only read them carefully but
favoured me with criticisms which in some cases
have saved me from positive error, and even enabled
me once to bring in new matter of importance.

LoUardy and the Reformation in England

BOOK V
JUVENILE SUPREMACY

VOL. Ill

CHAPTER I
BEGINNING OE THE PROTECTORATE
That the death of Henry VIII. would produce Momentous
results more than ordinarily momentous must have !f "®,' *";
T , . mi . '"^ death
been obvious to every man. ihe merest tyro m of Henry
politics knew well enough what an extraordinary ^^^'
change he had made, first in the relations of Church
and State within his own kingdom, and secondly in the
relations of the kingdom itself to all Christian nations
besides. And the real politician knew, or should
have known, that it was an abnormal condition of
things which had only been maintained so far by the
most astute vigilance on the part of a great ruler,
balancing himself between opposing factions even
within his own realm, and adjusting himself continu
ally to the different phases of the conflict between
powerful rivals outside. The King himself, apart from
declining physical health, was probably worn out
before he died by the constant strain put upon him
by circumstances which were largely of his own
creation. He was Head of the Church, and must
settle judicially in the last instance all religious
questions which arose within the kingdom. He must
keep out the jurisdiction of " the Bishop of Rome,"
and even the use of the name by which other Chris
tians called him. Yet he must have friends on the
Continent among great princes who still acknow
ledged papal authority ; or, if there was the least

4 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
danger of a coalition against him, he must make
common cause with the Protestants of Germany to
weaken one or both of the principal allies. He had
lost the respect of all foreign princes, but he had
made them feel to the last that they could not do
without him. He had lost the respect of the Pro
testants, though they had been driven to think once
more that he might be useful to them as a political
ally. But he had not lost the respect of his own
subjects, who felt, in addition to the ties of natural
allegiance, that they were under one who understood
thoroughly how to rule, and of whom they must
stand in awe.
Did the disappearance of such a power as this
imperil the great revolution which that power had
effected ? Would royal supremacy now hide its
diminished head, and the Church of England come
once more under the old papal sovereignty ? Some,
no doubt, must have thought so. Nothing kept
out the Pope's jurisdiction even now but royal
supremacy ; and the transfer of the Headship of the
Church from a man of powerful intellect, versed in
theology as well as politics, to a boy little more than
nine years of age — notwithstanding that his education
had been reallyforced and overdone — was a tremendous
fall. Of course, the Headship of the Church would
have to be exercised by advice, just like the Head
ship of the Realm. But in both cases there must be
a certain divinity in the King himself to give effect
to his authority ; for deputed authority could not
command respect if the ultimate source of it was
weak.
state of And that was the real weakness, even in politics.
parties. rpj^g qucstiou was not what the boy King would do,
but what power would get about the boy King. The
death of Henry VIII. had been anticipated for some
time, and the different parties at Court had been very
naturally thinking each what was to become of itself

cH.i BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 5
under an altered state of matters. Of the powerful
nobility the Seymours, of course, were the nearest in
blood to the heir-apparent. The only other great
families, apart from the royal line of Scotland, which
could claim affinity to Henry VIII., were the Howards
and the Parrs ; and neither of these was related in
blood to his son. The Howards were older and
higher in nobility, but their relations to the King
had been unfortunate. Both those Queens of
Henry VIII. whom he had caused to be beheaded
were nieces of the Duke of Norfolk ; and, notwith
standing the glory he and his father had gained early
in the reign at Flodden, and the fact that his
daughter had been married to the King's bastard
son, the Earl of Richmond, he was only able to main
tain his influence with Henry by a servility unbe
coming his rank and station. Great as his experience
was in war and practical matters, his master leant
more to the counsels of other advisers, and both the
Seymours and the Parrs had eclipsed him in the
royal favour. Then his son, the Earl of Surrey, as
if to complete the ruin of the family, had given
symptoms of a dangerous ambition which he paid
for by the loss of his head ; and he himself would
have undergone a similar fate if the Act of Attainder
passed against him had been carried into effect. But
the King's own death saved him, and he only re
mained a prisoner in the Tower during the whole of
Edward's reign.
So political power fell naturally to the Seymours,
and chiefly to Edward, Earl of Hertford, the elder of
two brothers, the new King's uncles. For several
months, indeed, before the old King's death political
observers had noted that he and Sir John Dudley
(Lord Lisle, the Lord Admiral) had been very much
at Court, and that the Council often met at Hert
ford's house. So the old ambassador Chapuys, then
living in retirement at Louvain, gave it as his opinion

6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
that if the King were to die, the Earl of Hertford
and Lord Lisle would probably have the principal
management of affairs. That was not a pleasing
prospect to men in the Emperor's service ; for it
was manifest that these two noblemen sympathised
with the German Protestants against the Emperor.
Moreover, about the time they came to Court the
persecution of heretics in England had ceased, and
their wives, along with the Dowager -Duchess of
Suffolk, were allies of Queen Katharine Parr in pro
moting heresy whenever it was safe. The two lords
themselves hated bishops, whose power they wished
entirely to destroy, and they used abusive language
towards leading Catholics like Bishop Gardiner and
the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley.^
Thus there was no great prospect of impartial
government during the minority. Even pacific govern
ment was not assured, and for that reason it was deter
mined before the young King came to London that
he should take up his residence in the Tower.* It
Hertford as was natural, however, that Hertford's claims should
Protector, ^g generally recognised to fill the office of Protector ;
and he had the advantage of possessing a very
useful tool in the late King's secretary, Paget, who
well knew how to manage things. They arranged
between them to keep the old King's death secret a
day or two, while the Earl repaired to young Edward
at Hertford and brought him up to London. The
Earl had received from the late King himself the
keeping of his will and sent Paget the key of it,
agreeing to a suggestion made by him that it "should
be opened till a further consultation," with a view to
considering " how much thereof were necessary to be
published," which " for divers respects " he thought
not convenient.^
' Spanish Calendar, vol. viii. pp. 464, 533-4, 555-7.
^ Gorrespondance politique d'Odet de Selve, p. 96.
' Tytler's England under Edward VI. and Mary, i. 15.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 7
MeanwhUe all was kept quiet till the morning of
Monday, Slst January, the third day after Henry's
death, when the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley, scarcely
refraining from tears, announced the event to Parlia
ment.^ The Lord Mayor and Aldermen were sent
for ; the accession of Edward VI. was proclaimed in
the city that forenoon, and in the afternoon Edward
himself arrived and took up his quarters, as arranged,
in the Tower. ^ There next day the executors as
sembled, heard the will read, and took oath to the
faithful observance of its provisions.* What were
those provisions ?
The wUl of Henry VIII. was dated on the 30th win of
December 1546, just four weeks before his death.'' ym'
It contains a long preamble, from which, if from any
source, we may judge of the religious feelings and
purposes which animated him at the close of a most
extraordinary life. Let the following extracts stand
as examples : —
And considering further also with ourselves that we be, as
all mankind is, mortal and born in sin, believing nevertheless
and hoping that every Christian creature living here in this
transitory and wretched world under God, dying in steadfast
and perfect faith, endeavouring and exercising himself to exe
cute in his life time, if he have leisure, such good deeds and
charitable works as Scripture demandeth, and as may be to
the honor and pleasure of God, is ordained by Christ's Passion
to be saved and to attain eternal hfe ; of which number we
verily trust by His grace to be one, . . .
We also, calling to our remembrance the dignity, estate,
honor, rule and governance that Almighty God hath called
us unto in this world, and that neither we nor other creature
mortal, knoweth the time, place, when ne where, it shall
please Almighty God to call him out of this transitory and
miserable world ; willing, therefore and minding with God's
grace before our passage out of the same to dispose and order
our latter mind, will and testament in that sort as we trust
^ Lords' Journals. ^ Wriothesley's Chronicle, i. 178-9.
' Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council, ii. 7.
¦• The entire text of it is printed in Eymer, iv. 110-17.

8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
it shall be acceptable to Almighty God, our only Saviour
Jesus Christ, and all the whole Company of Heaven, and
the due satisfaction of all godly brethren in earth, have
therefore, now being of whole and perfect mind, adhering
wholly to the right faith of Christ and His doctrine, repent
ing also of our old and detestable life, and being in perfect
will and mind by His grace never to return to the same
nor such like, and minding by God's grace never to vary
therefro as long as any remembrance, breath, or inward
knowledge doth or may remain within this mortal body,
most humbly and heartily do commend and bequeath our soul
to Almighty God, who in person of the Son redeemed the
same with His most precious Blood in time of His Passion,
and, for our better remembrance thereof, hath left here with
us in His Church Militant the consecration and administra
tion of His precious Body and Blood to our no little con
solation and comfort, if we as thankfully accept the same as
He, lovingly and undeserved of Man's behalf, hath ordained it
for our only benefit and not His.
Also we do instantly require and desire the Blessed Virgin
Mary his Mother, with all the Holy Company of Heaven,
continually to pray for us and with us while we live in this
world and iu the time of passing out of the same, that we
may the sooner attain everlasting life, etc.
Such sentiments were not quite in accordance with
the spirit of the times that were at hand.
The will then goes on to make provision for the
King's burial at Windsor, and for making "more
princely " the tombs of Henry VI. and Edward IV.
As soon as convenient after his death, "all divine
service accustomed for dead folk to be celebrate for us."
His body was to be brought to Windsor next day.
Placebo and Dirige, with a sermon and Mass devoutly
to be done, and then to be interred. Then comes a
bequest of alms to poor people of 1000 marks. The
Dean and Canons of Windsor were to have lands
and spiritual promotions to the yearly value of £600
over all charges made sure to them, they being bound
to find two priests to say Masses " at the altar to be
made where we have before appointed our tomb to
be made," and to keep four solemn obits, giving

succession.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 9
£10 in alms to poor people; also to give twelve
pence a day to thirteen poor men to be called " Poor
Knights," and once a year a long gown of white cloth,
with the Garter upon the breast, embroidered with
a shield and cross of St. George within the Garter,
and £3:6:8 a year to one of them who shall be
appointed their head and governor ; also to have
a sermon preached at Windsor every Sunday in the
year. Thus Henry VIII., we see, believed to the end
of his days that Masses for his soul would be beneficial
to him. Then came provisions for the succession to the Piovision,s
throne in accordance with two Acts of Parliament J°L*!!„
which allowed him the extraordinary power to devise
it by will. The King certainly took advantage of
the powers conferred on him to tie up the succession
to quite an extraordinary degree. The Imperial
Crown and realm, with his title to France, and so
forth, were first to go to his son Edward and the heirs
of his body. In default of such issue they were to
remain to the heirs of his own body by his present
Queen, Katharine. For lack of such issue again they
were to go to his daughter Mary, on condition that
she did not marry without the consent of the Privy
Councillors appointed by himself and his son Edward,
or the most of them then alive. If she, as well as
Edward, died without lawful issue, they were to go to
his daughter Elizabeth and the heirs of her body, she
likewise being bound not to marry without the con
sent of the majority of the same Privy Councillors.
If she, too, died without lawful issue the great estate
was to remain to the heirs of the body of Lady
Frances, Henry's niece, daughter of his sister, the
French Queen ; with remainder, in like case, to the
heirs of the body of Lady Eleanor, second daughter
of the French Queen, and on failure of lawful issue
from her, to the next rightful heirs. If either Mary
or Elizabeth were to marry without the consent of

executors.

lo LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
the majority of her father's and her brother's surviv
ing Councillors, she was to forfeit her place in the
succession.
The The will next appointed as executors sixteen
persons, namely. Archbishop Cranmer ; the Lord
Chancellor Wriothesley ; Lord St. John, Great Master
of the Household ; the Earl of Hertford, Great
Chamberlain of England ; Lord Russell, Lord Privy
Seal; Viscount Lisle, High Admiral of England;
Bishop Tunstall of Durham ; Sir Anthony Browne,
Master of the Horse ; Sir Edward Montague, Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas ; Justice Bromley ; Sir
Edward North, Chancellor of the Augmentations ;
Sir William Paget, the King's Chief Secretary ; Sir
Anthony Denny and Sir William Harbard, Chief
Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber ; Sir Edward Wotton,
and Dr. Wotton his brother. These executors were
to manage both the private affairs of the King and
the public affairs of the realm during young Edward's
minority (which was to be till he should complete
his eighteenth year), nothing being done by one of
them without the consent of the greater number of
his co-executors.
As regards the future of religion and government,
it does not appear that the dying King, however
penitent for his past evil ways, had any thought of
giving up royal supremacy for his son, or of anything
that looked like going backwards. The wiU, it is
true, is silent upon this subject, but sUence could
only mean continuance of an existing rule. All the
executors were already committed to the repudiation
of papal supremacy, and the only man who would
have brought it back was purposely left out of the
King's will. It is not likely, indeed, that even
Bishop Gardiner would have dared to suggest a
movement in that direction in the face of statutes
which made it treason ; but he had once, as we have
already seen, been used as an instrument for such

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE ii
proposals, and though he stood high, even to the last,
in the opinion of his master as a wise and politic
counsellor, it is evident that Henry did not think
him a fit man to take part with colleagues who did
not share his views in responsibility for affairs in the
coming reign. It is said, indeed, and seems not un
likely to be true, that Henry himself, when questioned
about the omission of the Bishop of Winchester's omission of
name in the will, replied that he could control him Gardiner's
but no one else could.-' For in point of fact, as we "'""'''
have seen already, it was the influence of Gardiner
at foreign courts, that of Charles V. especially, that had
warded off dangers from abroad, against which no
other diplomatist could have obtained effectual security
for such a king as Henry. But his value in this way
arose from the very fact that his heart was entirely
Catholic, and that he could hold sympathetic con
ferences with sovereigns and statesmen who were
endeavouring to preserve the traditions of Catholicism
from dangerous enemies in Europe, as he himself
would have done in England.
The day after the date of Henry's will an English
man at Strassburg, having heard of the arrest of the
Duke of Norfolk and his son, which he was informed was
owing to " a secret attempt to restore the dominion
of the Pope and the monks," wrote to BuUinger of
the event as a great deliverance. " Nor is any one
wanting," he added, " but Winchester alone, and
' Toxe says tliat the King on going over to Boulogne made a new \vill, in
which he left the Bishop of Winchester out among the list of his executors ;
and that Sir Anthony Browne, thinking it was an accident of the clerk,
called the King's attention to the omission, saying that his services would
surely be most important to his co-executors. " 'Hold your peace,' quotii
the King, ' I remembered him well enough, and of good purpose have left
him out ; for surely if he were iu my testament and one of you, he would
cumber you all, and you should never rule him, he is of so troublesome a
nature. Marry, ' quoth the King, ' I myself could use him and rule him to
all manner of purposes as seemed good unto me ; but so shall you never do ;
and therefore, talk no more of him to me in this behalf.' " It is added that
Sir Anthony "perceiving the King somewhat stiflf herein," forbore to press
the matter then, but met with a further rebuff when he spoke of it another
time. Foxe, v. 691-2.

12 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
unless he also be caught the evangelical truth cannot
be restored."^ The words are important as showing
that even whUe Henry was still alive a much further
development of " evangelical truth " was eagerly looked
for by the votaries of that religion, and we have seen
already how much foundation there was for such a
belief Gardiner stood firm upon the ancient ways,
so far as those ways were not abrogated by a power
to which he was compelled to be submissive. But
who else went so far as Gardiner ? Of the sixteen
executors only Lord Chancellor Wriothesley and
Bishop Tunstall were distinctly conservative ; to
whom may perhaps be added Justice Bromley,
though, of course, religion was not his particular
province. Sir Edward Montague, Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, was perhaps conservative enough
of things accomplished, being a holder of monastic
lands ; but that, of course, would make him unwilling
to remonstrate too strongly against any further stretch
of authority. William Paulet, Lord St. John (whom
John Knox afterwards called Shebna), was subservient
and remarkably urbane. Sir Anthony Browne, the
new owner of Battle Abbey and of considerable
monastic property besides, might have felt for the
old religion, but, though he had the blood of the
Nevills in his veins, could scarcely be relied on to
resist new changes. As for the two Wottons, both were
well disposed towards politic innovations, especially
the younger, Nicholas, a most able diplomatist,
who comfortably held the deaneries of Canterbury
and York together as part of the reward for his well
appreciated services.
Treason laws apart, there was far too much vested
interest in a new state of things to allow practical
statesmen to look back upon old principles which had
been rudely thrust aside. Gardiner would have been
quite out of place in such a Council. Useful as he
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 639.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 13
was to Henry VIII., he had not been popular among
Henry VIII.'s councillors, and during the autumn
before the King's death the Lord Admiral, Dudley,
Viscount Lisle, had fallen out with him in the council
chamber itself, and forgot himself so far as to give
the Bishop a blow. The outrage was one that no
doubt might have been visited with very severe
punishment, but perhaps it was not expedient to
disgrace a Lord Admiral who had already done
very important service upon the seas ; and Lisle
only kept away from Court for a month or so, until
he was wanted again in the beginning of November,
apparently either for counsel or action to succour the
murderers of Cardinal Beton, besieged in the castle
of St. Andrews.^
But of course if a public man could not be
restrained from an unseemly exhibition of spite
towards Gardiner, even whUe the old King was alive,
there was still less restraint after his death. " No
man could do me hurt during his life," ^ said Gardiner
himself a little later, as we shall see presently. But
now before the grave had closed on Henry VIII. the
little respect for him, or even for his dead master in
some quarters, appears strangely in the following
passages of a letter which he wrote to Secretary Paget Gardiner's.
on the 5th February, from his house in Southwark : — p^et.*" '
To-morrow the parishioners of this parish and I have
agreed to have a solemn dirge for our late Sovereign lord and
master, in earnest, as becometh us. And to-morrow certain
players of my lord of Oxford's, as they say, intend on the
other side, within this borough of Southwark, to have a
solemn play, to try who shall have most resort, they in game
or I in earnest ; which meseemeth a marvellous contention,
wherein some shall profess, in the name of the commonwealth,
mirth, and some sorrow, at one time.
Herein I follow the common determination to sorrow till
our late master be buried ; but what the lewd fellows should
1 Negociations de M. de Selve, p. 51. ^ Foxe, vi. 36.

14 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
mean in the contrary I cannot teU, nor cannot reform it, and
therefore write unto you who, by means of my lord Protector,
may procure an uniformity in the commonwealth ; all the
body to do one thing, — in the interring of our old master to
lament together, and in the crowning of our new master to
rejoice together : after which foUoweth constantly a time_ of
lamentation for sin,i which is not to be neglected, and which
I doubt not ye will, without me, consider your charge.^
What came of this appeal to Mr. Secretary Paget
we do not know. He was certainly a busy man at
this time, but if any one had a claim upon his friend
ship, even apart from the question of simple decency
here involved, Gardiner was that man ; for Gardiner
had been his tutor at Cambridge, and he had gained
much of his education in Gardiner's household.^ Such
claims, however, weighed but lightly upon Paget, as
we shall very soon see. In fact, he had not been very
friendly to the Bishop, even during the last few weeks
of Henry's reign ; * and five years later, when proceed
ings were taken against Gardiner for his deprivation,
he gave such a highly suspicious account of the way
in which Gardiner's name was put out of the King's
will that the reader may be rather inclined to suspect
this may have been done at Paget's own suggestion.
During those proceedings Paget declined to be sworn
on the ground that " honourable personages being of
dignity as he was " were privileged not to be put upon
' Lent was at hand, beginning this year on the 23rd February.
2 Tytler, i. 21, 22.
* This appears from Leland's poetical address to Paget, which shows also
how Gardiner sought to foster literary talent and rhetoric : —
" Tu Gardineri petiisti tecta diserti,
Eloquii sedem, Pieriique chori."
* Perhaps Maitland puts the matter rather strongly {Essays on the Refor
mation, p. 254) in saying that at this time he "was undoubtedly the bitter
enemy of Gardiner," though he immediately explains this to mean that "he
was one of the persons most fully determined to put Gardiner down and
Erevent him from being troublesome." He probably did not "bitterly"
ate Gardiner, who evidently did not expect his gross ingratitude ; but,
being a politician all over, he knew well that the Bishop was not the sort of
shifty man that the times required. For the story of Gardiner, and Paget,
see Maitland, Essay XVI.

CH. I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 15
oath ; but he made a declaration in reply to " a long
matter proposed by the Bishop of Winchester," which
seems no less evasive than the Bishop's statements
were explicit. Gardiner expressly said, among other
things, that he had remained a member of Henry's
Privy Council to the last, and that his abilities were
so much esteemed that, about a fortnight before the
King's death, he was deputed to confer in the Council's
name with ambassadors of Scotland, France, and the
Emperor.^ These positive facts, of course, could not
be denied ; but interrogations were addressed by the
Council to a number of witnesses to gain credence for
various things, among others for a report that King
Henry had expressly desired that the Bishop should
not be of the Privy Council to his son, and that
shortly before his death he had caused his name to
be removed from the list of his executors. On this
subject the most specious answer came from Paget,
who gave the particulars as follows : —
And touching the putting of the said Bishop out of his
testament, it is true that upon St. Stephen's day ^ at night,
four years now past, his Majesty, having been very sick and
in some peril, after his recovery forthwith called for the Duke
of Somerset's Grace, for the Lord Privy Seal,^ for my Lord of
Warwick,* for the late Master of the Horse,^ for Master
Denny ,^ for the Master of the Horse that now is,^ and for the
said Lord Paget, at that time his Secretary ; and then willed
Master Denny to fetch his testament. Who bringeth forth
first a form of testament which his Majesty liked not after he
had heard, saying that was not it, but there was another of a
later making, written with the hand of the Lord Wriothesley
being Secretary ; which when Master Denny had fetched and
' Maitland (citing Foxe), p. 261.
2 St. Stephen's Day is the 26th December. Henry VIII.'s will was dated
30th December 1546.
' Lord Russell, who had become Earl of Bedford at the date of the
deposition. •• Dudley, who was only Lord Lisle in Henry VIII.'s time.
^ Sir Anthony Browne. ^ Sir Anthony Denny.
' Sir William Herbert, who was made Earl of Pembroke a few months
after the date of this deposition.

i6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
he heard it, he seemed to marvel that some were left out
unnamed in it whom he said he meant to have, in and some
in whom he meant to have out ; and so bade the said Lord
Paget, in the presence of the foresaid Lords, to put in some
that were not named before, and to put out the Bishop of
Winchester's name, which was done.^
At this time, however, as I have said, Paget was
undoubtedly very busy. On the 6th February — the
day after Gardiner wrote to him about the Earl of
Oxford's players — a Council was held in the Tower at
which Paget informed those present what intentions
the late King had entertained as to the bestowal of
titles to recruit the ranks of the decayed nobUity, and
of lands and emoluments to them and others.* The
list of grantees was read out, and the Council acted,
to a large extent, on the report of the dead King's
intentions. Hertford became Duke of Somerset ; his
New brother Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley ; the Earl
of Essex (Katharine Parr's brother), Marquis of North
ampton ; and the Viscount Lisle (Dudley, the Lord
Admiral), Earl of Warwick. There were also other
creations, among which Lord Chancellor Wriothesley
was made Earl of Southampton.
But, even before this important business, some other
things had been agreed upon at the same meeting of
the Council. First of all, orders were given for pay
ment of pensions to the murderers of Cardinal Beton,
and for the wages of eighty men inside the castle of
St. Andrews, and forty horsemen outside, to defend
it more effectually against the Scottish Government.
Then — a matter of more domestic concern — as the
bishops, ever since the establishment of royal
supremacy, had exercised their spiritual authority
by virtue of " instruments under the Seal appointed
ad res ecclesiasticas," of which Paget had the keep
ing, it was thought proper that they should receive
new licences under the same form as before, as their
1 Maitland (from Foxe), p. 263. ^ Daseut, ii. 16.

creations.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 17
authority had come to an end by the death of their
late Sovereign ; and Paget was instructed to affix the
seal to each licence so applied for. There was other
business also, among which it is recorded that the
Protector conferred knighthood on the young King.^
Out of the determination about the bishops Further
apparently arose a rather unpleasant correspondence spondence
between Paget and Gardiner. It would seem that of Gardiner
Gardiner, though he had acknowledged, and even ""'' ^*°**'
defended royal supremacy in the late reign, did not
think it right that bishops should be called upon
now to renew their licences. At all events he wrote
to Paget in a way that made the latter reply in a tone
of querulous self- vindication. Whatever some persons
reported of him, he said, he was not the man to " nip
or snatch any person," or usurp a greater power than
he possessed. He had not done all that he might
have done with the favour of his dead master. He
had never loved extremes or hindered any man's
access to the King, except notable malefactors. " And
in public causes," he added, " I will say and do as I
have done always since I have been in the place,
according to my conscience, without lending the same,
either to life, honor, wife, children, lands or goods ;
and yet not with such a forwardness or wilfulness, but
that a good man or a better conscience may lead and
rule me." We should note Tytler's comment, how
ever, on this display of conscientiousness : " Good set
words these of Master Secretary Paget's, and yet in
1552 he was deprived of his office and fined £2000
for peculation."
" I maUgn not bishops," Paget continues, " but
would that both they and all others were in such
order as might be most to the glory of God and
the benefit of this realm ; and much less I malign
your lordship, but wish you well. And if the estate
of bishops is or shall be thought meet to be reformed,
1 Dasent, ii. 12-14.
VOL. Ill C

1 8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
I wish either that you were no bishop, or that you
could have such a pliable will as could bear the
reformation that should be thought meet for the
quiet of the realm. Your lordship shall have your
commission in as ample manner as I have authority
to make out the same, and in an ampler manner than
you had it before ; which I think you may execute
now with less fear of danger than you have had
cause hitherto to do. No man wisheth you better
than I do, which is as weU as to myself If you
wish me not like [? the like] you are in the wrong.
And thus I take my leave of your lordship." ^
This letter is dated from Westminster on the 2nd
March. As early as the 6th February Paget had
received authority to give licences to bishops to
exercise their functions in the new reign ; and it
may be inferred from his own words that this step
was intended as the prelude to a great reform of the
episcopal order, while as yet there seemed no ade
quate authority to bring any such change about, and
no security whatever that it could be kept within
bounds. How could Gardiner have relished such
intelligence ? The new reign was to be ushered
in with a renewed assertion of royal supremacy,
stronger, if anything, than before. Bishops were
not to Ije even bishops for life, or at least were
not to exercise their spiritual jurisdiction under
a new sovereign without fresh royal licences, and
their renewed authority, which could be revoked at
pleasure,^ was to be derived from a boy. All this
foreboded a revolution. And Archbishop Cranmer
had led the way by procuring a fresh Ucence for
' Tytler, i. 24-6.
2 Cranmer's own licence bears the words : ' ' Lioentiamus per prassentes ad
nostrum beneplacitum duntaxat duraturas.'' In the preamble, moreover,
it is expressly declared that all jurisdiction, secular or spiritual, proceeds
from the royal power as from a supreme head, and that it was the duty of
those who had hitherto exercised such functions precariously to acknowledge
that they owed them entirely to the King's liberality and that they would
surrender them again to the King whenever required.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 19
himself, no doubt with the most perfect wUlingness ;
for it was issued on the 7th February,^ the very
earliest date at which it could have been granted.
The stability of the new Government might No sure
possibly have been, even from the first, a matter of o^Gwern"
speculation ; and if it had depended very much on ment.
constitutional theories and the correct interpretation
of legal documents, it would certainly have been
somewhat precarious. Two guiding principles had
been laid down — royal supremacy and the late King's
will — which no one ventured to dispute. But how
to make either of these principles effective, or not
to assert the one at the expense of the other, was a
problem from the first. The very appointment of a
Protector seemed almost a violation of the will,
which gave no precedence to any one executor or
councillor over his fellows. This objection, indeed, is
said to have been actually made by Lord Chancellor
Wriothesley ; and though I know not the original
authority for the statement, I am not prepared
to question it, for it was only reasonable that a
Lord Chancellor should suggest the doubt. But
too much has certainly been built upon this fact,
if fact it be, as it is quite clear that the Lord
Chancellor did not insist upon the objection ; for
he not only acquiesced in the general agreement
come to, but even announced it in the name of the
executors to the Council. And the need of the
CouncU having a head or leader, who could take
upon himself special responsibility for acts of State
and intimate the decisions of the King's Government
to other Powers, was so obvious that the act could
not well be questioned.^
^ Cardwell's Documentary Annals, i. 1. On the 18th August following
Sir William Petre had the custody of the Seal ad causas ecclesiasticas, and
was empowered to append it without special warrant to all instruments
brought to him in due course for enabling bishops or other dignitaries to
use their accustomed spiritual jurisdiction. Dasent's Acts of the Privy
Council, ii. 114, 115.
2 Comp. the Acts of the Privy Council (Dasent, ii. 1-8) with evidences

20 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
Somerset But, reasonable as the appointment itself may have
totecurr' been, Somerset felt that for his own security and that
his of the Council also, in case the King chose, when he
position. g]jQyi(j gQjj^g q£ age, to call any of them to account
for what they had done in his minority, it was
necessary to obtain a commission bearing the young
King's sign manual, which was duly passed under
the Great Seal, confirming his own authority as
Protector and that of the Council in their respective
offices ; and this was determined on Sunday the 13th
March.^ A certified copy of the commission was
also ordered, that it might be delivered next day
to the French envoy, the Baron de la Garde, then
on the point of returning to his master, Francis I.,
with two new treaties concluded on the 11th,
which had been rendered necessary by the death of
Henry VIII.^ But apparently Somerset had already
taken action in advance of the CouncU, and had got
the commission passed under the Great Seal on the
12th, the day before it was authorised.^ So, to
make everything right, on the 21st the obedient
Council " did further agree and determine that the
whole tenor of the said commission " should likewise
be exemplified in their records. And there, accord
ingly, it is still to be found — a most remarkable
commission, which certainly amounted to much more
than a confirmation of things that had been already
sanctioned. For it virtually placed both the care of
the young King's person and education, and the whole
government of the realm till he should be eighteen
years of age, in the hands of his uncle, the Protector,
who was to be at liberty to add new members to the
produced by Nichols in Archceologia, xxx. 466 sq. The objection proposed
by the Lord Chancellor is stated as a fact by Burnet, perhaps correctly ;
but the story is amplified by Froude (vol. v. p. 4), without any apparent
warrant. 1 Dasent, ii. 63.
^ Rymer, xv. 135, 139. Comp. Neg. de M. de Selve, p. 115 ; and Dasent,
ii. 66.
3 Dasent, ii. 67-74 ; Burnet, v. 140-46.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 21
Council, according to his own judgment. Thus should
Somerset have been secure against displacement till
the year 1555, though, in fact, he was supplanted
six years earlier. Of this, however, enough will be
said in due time. For the present we have to note
how the state of religion was affected by the new-
formed Government.
At the very first we find a positive discourage- st.
ment of novelties ; for a case of unauthorised innova- Martin's,
, . » x T -! 1 Ironmonger
tion in the city 01 London was put down at the Lane.
instance of Bishop Bonner and the Lord Mayor.
The incumbent and churchwardens of St. Martin's,
Ironmonger Lane, had in the preceding year ventured
to remove the images and crucifix, setting up the
King's arms in place of the latter, and inscribing
not only them but the walls with various texts of
Scripture " whereof some were perversely translated."
This matter was brought to the notice of the King's
Council on the 10 th February. The excuse given
was that the roof, which was in great decay, had to
be taken down in March of the preceding year, and
that the crucifix and other images were so rotten
that they could not be set up again. The incumbent
and churchwardens, however, owned that they had
taken down images sometimes because they considered
that parishioners had committed idolatry before them.
But they were sorry if they had done amiss, and
instead of being committed to the Tower, as was at
first intended, they were ordered immediately, under
sureties, to set up a new crucifix, to be ready by the
first Sunday in Lent at the furthest.^
But in Lent those appointed to preach before
the King were all of the new school, and their
sermons greatly disquieted Gardiner. One of them
was Barlow, Bishop of St. David's, who took occasion Bishop
in -his sermon to point at several abuses in religion ^^^^"7^
and lay down a " platform " of reformation. On this, reforms.
' Dasent, ii. 25, 26.

22 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
Gardiner wrote to the Protector of the danger of
allowing innovations at a time when there was
enough to do otherwise. " There was never attempt
of alteration made in England," he wrote, " but upon
comfort of discord at home ; and woe to them that
mind it ! If my lord of St. David's and such others
have their heads encumbered with any new platform,
I would wish they were commanded between this
and the King's full age to draw the plat diligently,
to hew the stones, dig the sand, and chop the chalk
in the unseasonable time of building ; and when the
King cometh to full age, to present their labors to
him, and in the meantime not to disturb the state of
the realm, whereof your Grace is Protector." ^
This admonition to Somerset is noteworthy as
proceeding from one of the most consistent politicians
and churchmen of the day. Gardiner had accepted
royal supremacy under Henry VIII. as a virtual
necessity, and had even defended it to an extent
which he afterwards regretted ; for, being required
to write, he had gone the length of palliating, if not
actually vindicating, the executions of saintly men
like Fisher and More. No doubt he was conscious
even now that he had gone too far ; but to the
doctrine of the supremacy itself, as he had given his
adhesion to it, he remained at this time quite as
loyal as Cranmer. In fact, he was even more loyal
to the principles to which he was already committed.
For however fully the late King's will had provided
for the conduct of secular affairs during the minority,
the doctrines and principles of the Church were a very
different matter. A mere boy could not be an in
sular pope, such as Henry had virtually made him
self; and Henry's will neither did nor could dispose
of the stewardship of things spiritual in the way in
which it had laid down methods of administration in
things temporal. Henry himself had always main-
' Foxe, vi. 25.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 23
tained that he and his realm were true to Catholic
principles ; and any change in vital matters now
would have a most disturbing effect.
But it was only too clear that the door of innova- court
tion was to be thrust open in the way that Gardiner ^g^^'J,''®''^
dreaded, and he was compelled to address a remon- images and
strance to Dr. Ridley, another of the Lenten Court '^*^*'"'^'
preachers, for expressing himself too freely about
images in churches, holy water, and other ceremonies.
What Ridley had said we do not exactly know, but
its tendency seems to have been towards the abolition
of all images, treating them as idols after the favourite
philosophy of the new school, whereas all that was to
be avoided, Gardiner wrote, was excess in worshipping,
"wherein," he pointed out, "the Church of Rome
hath been very precise." But Ridley was outdone
by a Dr. Glasier who, preaching at Paul's Cross,
affirmed " that the Lent was not ordained of God to
be fasted, neither the eating of flesh to be forborne,
but that the same was a politic ordinance of men, and
might therefore be broken by men at their pleasures." ^
And Archbishop Cranmer himself, it would seem,
" this year did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall
of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since
England was a Christian country."^
No doubt the hands of the Council were The coro-
strengthened for a progressive policy by the Corona- °''*"'°-
tion which had taken place at Westminster on Quin-
quagesima Sunday, the 20th February ; for the rite
was always considered to invest the Sovereign with
a personal authority which was lacking before it.
And just a fortnight later an indiscretion of Lord
Chancellor Wriothesley enabled them to get rid of
the only layman among them who was likely to offer
1 Stowe's Annals, p. 194. This was in April according to Stowe, and if
during Lent it must have been before the 10th, which was Easter Sunday.
2 The words are quoted by Froude (v. 34) from "a MS. contemporary
diary by some unknown writer." It is a pity that Froude has not given us
a specific reference to the MS.

Lord ;
Chancellor.

24 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
much opposition to their designs. He had delegated
his powers to a commission which the common law
judges declared to be unauthorised and injurious to
their jurisdiction. On the 6th March ^ the case was
heard before the Council, and on the 7th he was
deprived of the Great Seal, which was given to the
keeping of the Lord St. John until a Chancellor could
be appointed. Wriothesley was further punished by
fine and imprisonment and removal for a time from
the Council.
A new It was uot for some months that a new Chancellor
was found, and the man appointed then could not
well be called a man of higher character than
Wriothesley ; for he was no other than Lord Riche —
that very Richard Riche who, when he was Solicitor-
General, had been accused to his face of perjury by
Sir Thomas More in open court. Such an appoint
ment does not indicate a very high standard of
morals in' Edward VI. 's CouncU. Neither does their
policy in matters of religion commend itself to the
plain dealer. On the Thursday (lOth March) after
Wriothesley was deprived of the ChanceUorship they
agreed to lend, in strict secrecy, a sum of 50,000
crowns to the Protestants of Germany to support
them in their war against the Emperor. Their
ambassadors were then in England petitioning for
aid, and Paget was authorised to promise them, " as
of himself," to procure a loan for them to that
amount ; ^ but it must not appear to be the doing of
the English Government at all. That was a kind of
diplomacy of which we see much in the sixteenth
century.
Gardiner's Nor was tlicrc Icss dupHcity in dealing with re-
strance Ugious matters at home. Bishop Gardiner was dis-
against ill- trcsscd at somc disorders within his diocese which he
ofTm^es. '^^s at a loss how to deal with. On the 3rd May he
' Dasent, ii. 48 sq. "Sonday the vth of Marche'' is a mistake, as the
fifth was a Saturday. 2 jj_ go_

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 25
wrote to Captain Vaughan at Portsmouth that he
had been informed of " a great and detestable innova
tion " in that town, where the images of Christ and
the saints had been pulled down and otherwise mal
treated. He had written, he said, to him and the
mayor as the King's chief ministers there, to know
the exact truth and take counsel with them for re
formation of matters. If things were not very bad
he would send a preacher there for next Sunday, but
to a multitude bent on the destruction of images he
would never preach; "for, as scripture willeth us,
we should cast no precious stones before hogs."
Those infected with that opinion, he said, were hogs
and worse than hogs. " In England they were called
Lollards, who, denying images, thought there withal
the crafts of painting and graving to be generally
superfluous and naught, and against God's laws."
In Germany those who maintained that opinion were
accounted the dregs of Luther's brewings, and Luther
himself had written a book against them. Gardiner,
when in Germany, had seen with his own eyes the
images standing in all churches where Luther was
held in estimation. And he added some further
remarks in defence of images as documents which all
could read, while books could only be read by the
educated.^ Captain Vaughan forwarded the letter to the Pro
tector, to whom also the Bishop had written upon
the subject himself; and after a time the Protector The
sent Gardiner an elaborate answer, which, it may be
fairly surmised, was not drawn up without careful
consultation with Cranmer. At the outset he sug
gested that Gardiner was too much afraid of innova
tion and disturbance, and that too much outcry was
likely to bring on both. The late King's order about
images did not intend the general destruction of all
images, but only of such as "did adulterate God's
1 Foxe, vi. 26-8.

Protector s
answer.

26 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
glory." Yet in the Protector's opinion it would be
better (for a time) to abolish them all, rather than
that dead images should create variance among the
King's loving subjects. As to the comparison of
images with books, why should a man be more
grieved at the burning of an image of wood, though
it were of St. Anne or St. Margaret, than that the
Bible, which comprised the undoubted word of God,
should be torn in pieces, burned, or made paste of?
Yet this was daily done, and sometimes commanded,
because the translator displeased people ; while the
burning of one image, either because it was old, or
worm-eaten, or foolishly abused, shocked some men
as much as if a true saint of flesh and bone were cast
into the fire. Gardiner had made an allusion in his
argument to the images on the Great Seal carried by
a king's pursuivant. Even a man who could not
read the inscriptions, he said, would take off his cap
when he saw the image of " St. George on horse
back" on the one side of the Seal and the King
sitting in his majesty on the other ; and nobody
would call the Seal only a piece of wax or wilfully
break it to make a candle of That Gardiner in this
made a positive blunder, would have been strange in
a man of his experience ; he only adopted popular
language in calling the figure of the King on horse
back on the obverse of the Seal St. George. But the
Protector seized upon the point in connection with
the argument that images were books, and told him
that he had misread a very common image. For it
was the King who was represented on both sides of
the Seal — as a commander in war on horseback and as
a ruler in peace, sitting in the seat of justice. And
some had thought that by a simUar mistake the
image of Bellerophon or Perseus had been turned
into one of St. George, and the image of Polyphemus,
Hercules, or some other Colossus, into St. Christopher,
because there was no authentic evidence about them.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 27
But whether these originated in fact or fable was
really no great matter.
Then, after some inquiry as to what Gardiner
meant by true and false images, came a rather signifi
cant passage : "It may be thought in times past
and, peradventure, at this time, in some places, the
images not only of St. John and St. Anne, but of our
Lady and Christ, be false images, representing to
foolish, blind and ignorant men's hearts and thoughts
that which was not in them, and they ought not to be
made for. The which were by you, my Lord, to have
been removed sooner and before that the captain
there should have need to have done it. But if your
Lordship be slack in such matters, he that removeth
false images and idols abused doth not a thing worthy
of blame." In the end the Protector said that there
were some who thought every attempt to reform old
abuses a capital enterprise against all religion and
good order, while others were rash and inconsiderate.
The magistrate's duty was between these two, to
" provide that old doting should not take further or
deeper rust in the commonwealth," and yet to reform
with gentleness, and, if possible, without contention.^
It was easy to see beneath a form (scarcely even a Encourage-
show) of judicial impartiality in such a letter that J^^"ess-
the crusade against images, which had begun long ness.
ago by illegal acts like that at Dovercourt in 1532,^
and had been afterwards encouraged by authority,
was now to be carried further than before. The law
and practice of the Church were to be revolutionised,
and bishops were to be kept in a strange subordina
tion. Not only had they been compelled to take out
new licences for the discharge of their spiritual duties,
but by a recent order they were forbidden to preach
anywhere but in their own cathedrals.^ What was
1 Foxe, vi. 28-30. ^ See Vol. I. pp. 338-9.
^ "And even as now, at this time, bishops be restrained by a special
policy to preach only in their cathedral churches (the like whereof hath not

with De
Selve.

28 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
to become of the episcopal government of the Church
if it was to be bound and shackled in this way by
the sole authority, apparently, of Cranmer and the
Protector Somerset?
The I interrupt for the present the account of this
Protector's correspondence between Gardiner and the Protector,
communi- ± 1 -r-k • i i "n i
cations to take uote of what the Protector said to the J^ rench
ambassador just two days after it began. M. de
Selve wrote from London to Henry II. on the 6th
May of an interview that he had had with Somerset
the day preceding, in which he had complained of
some incursions by the English into French territory
at Guisnes. The Protector professed to have no
knowledge of the subject and promised inquiry
through the Deputy of Calais. In further con
versation he insinuated that the real object of
the late King Francis I., in the recent mission to
England of M. de la Garde, was to see if England
would give assistance to the German Protestants.
This the ambassador denied, and Somerset then
told him he had received news of the defeat and
capture of John Frederic of Saxony at Miihlberg.
Somerset next made some complaints on points of
diplomacy in connection with the accession of the
new King of France, but declared himself quite
satisfied with the reply made by De Selve. After
reporting these things the despatch goes on to say: —
• ' Sire, I have not failed to speak to the Protector of the
safe-conduct of which you were pleased to write to me, but
I could not get any other answer from him than that the
late King of England at his death had very expressly com
manded both him and all others of his Council to keep not
only the laws, but all else in the state of the realm in
such condition as he had left them, without changing
anything, and that there was nothing that the whole people
been known in my time), so, upon another occasion your Grace may percase
think expedient to restrain (further than the Parliament hath already done)
the common reading of the scripture, as is now restrained the bishops'
liberty of preachipg. " — Gardiner to the Protector, in Foxe, vi. 37.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 29
of this country had so much at heart as being exempt from
the power of the Pope ; and if safe conduct were granted for
some of his ministers to come hither, the people would think
some change was intended, and might rise or create disturb
ance in consequence. At last he said that to grant the
said safe-conduct was a thing that he could not do, and that
he thanked you greatly on the part of the King his master,
for having made the request in such a gracious and moderate
manner.i Thus it appears that the new King of France,
Henry IL, a strong upholder of the Church of Rome,
had ventured to suggest through his ambassador the
admission of a papal envoy into England ; that he
was met with the reply, first of all, that Henry VIII.
had strictly charged the Council to allow no change
whatever in the principles of religion and government
such as he left them at his death ; and further, that
anything which might suggest a return to Rome
would be so unpopular as to endanger the public
peace. We may attach what value we please to
these pretences ; but it remains surely a fact that the
CouncU of Edward VI. was commonly understood
to have no authority to make changes in religion
such as they were actuaUy making at that very time.
And the public were not without good warrant for
this opinion, as wUl be seen hereafter. As for the
anti-papal feeling among the populace, there was
probably a good deal of it by this time, seeing that
it had been so sedulously cultivated by the Court for
about seventeen years past. ,
Now let us return to the correspondence of
Gardiner with the Protector. The last letter
noticed was one of Somerset's written on the 27th
May. But before receiving it Gardiner had written
to him again on the 21st a very long letter, first on
the subject of "two books set forth in EngUsh by
Bale, very pernicious, seditious, and slanderous." He
1 Negociations de M. de Selve, pp. 139, 140.

30 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
Bale's pub- was gricvcd to see, published so soon after the late
rwAnne ^^^g'^ death, a book so much to his dishonour as to
Askew. ™%et forth a woman who suffered under his laws as
a saint and martyr, when it appeared by Bale's own
" Elucidation," as he called it, that she was a sacra-
mentary, and as such justly and legally condemned.
Of course this was the Examination of Anne Askew.
And yet Bale's other book was on the death of
Luther, whom he likewise commended as a saint —
Luther who, with all his faults, so strongly affirmed
what Anne Askew denied, the real presence of
Christ's natural body in the Sacrament. So that
Bale's saints might vary in heaven, if they did not
fall out by the way ! Nor was this the only trouble.
The Protector had already promised to Gardiner that
he would allow no innovation, and he hoped he would
deliver the realm up to the King, when he came of
age, as his father left it. But " certain printers,
players, and preachers, make a wonderment as
though we knew not yet how to be justified, nor
what sacraments we should have " ; and if they
despised the religious settlement made in Henry
VIII.'s time, what stability could there be for any
new agreement? Every man would be his own
master. " And one thing is marvellous," adds
Gardiner, in a passage to be explained presently,
" that at the same time it is taught that all men
be liars, at the self-same time almost every man
would be believed ; and amongst them Bale, when
his untruth appeareth evidently in setting forth
the examination of Anne Askew, which is utterly
misreported." He goes on to mention a curious prayer set forth
by Bale for John, Duke of Saxony (John Frederic),
who had since been taken prisoner at the battle of
Miihlberg. The Duke had desired God, if his cause
was not good, to order him to be taken and spoiled
of his possessions. This he had been ; and there was

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 31
a marvellous appearance of the sun at the time of his
capture, such as had never been seen, though whether
the one event " were a token ordered to concur with
the other," man could not define. But Germany with
her new religion could never have stood, even if the
Emperor had let the Protestants alone. " Many
commonwealths have continued without the Bishop
of Rome's jurisdiction ; but without true religion,
and with such opinions as Germany maintained no
estate hath continued," wrote Gardiner.
Turning again to home affairs he laments that
rhymes were set forth to deprave the Lent, which
were bought readily, though they could only teach
people to rail and not to make provision for next
year's fast. Fishmongers would never hope to have
good sale ; " and fish is the great treasure of this
realm and food inestimable. And these good
words I give," wrote Gardiner, " although I love
it not myself; for such as love not fish, should
nevertheless commend it to others, to the intent,
the flesh by them forborne, might be, to such as
love it, only the more plenty." Interesting this,
as showing Gardiner's opinion that though there
were lovers of fish, fishmongers could hardly depend
on the mere natural demand for it ; and he adds
that the public defamation of Lent would give
England a bad repute among the nations.^
To this letter the Protector replied, observing
that it was another evidence of the Bishop's great
dread of innovation, which he did not blame. But
the world was never so quiet or united that
printers, players, and preachers would not set forth
somewhat of their own heads of which the magis
trates were unaware. Gardiner had seen more than
he had of those foolish and objectionable rhymes ;
but he must not lay them to the Protector's charge.
Even under the tyranny of Rome, Pasquin spoke
1 Foxe, vi. 30-32.

32 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
freely, and during the late reign in England many
such things were unpunished. It seemed Gardiner
had been very much dissatisfied with the recent
Dr. Smith's recautatiou of Dr. Richard Smith, to which he made
recanta- g^-^^j.^ aUusiou in onc passage, for it began with
the words Omnis homo mendax. But Smith was
a learned man and his recantation was quite unforced.
As to Lent, there was no intention to abolish it till
the King with his Council took some other order.
Quiet might be broken just as easily by jealousy
as by negligence.^ Such was the Protector's answer.
Some other letters passed on both sides which,
owing to Gardiner's secretary having been robbed,
do not appear to be extant. But after them he wrote
another long letter to the Protector, explaining various
things, especially what he had done about the Ports
mouth outrages ; for he had visited the place himself
and was very well received by the captain, but the
offenders could not be discovered. One eye of an
image of Christ crucified had been deliberately bored
out, and the side pierced — a thing all the more
scandalous, " for it is a very persecution beyond the
sea, used in that form where the person cannot be
apprehended." This was what made him write to
the captain in the way he had done.
Gardiaer But the most interesting part of this letter is a
yjjj^™'"'' passage at the beginning, in which he was led to speak
of his relations with the late King. He said he had
" digested easily " the main contents of the Protector's
budget, having been accustomed to that fashion of
writing in King Henry's days. His Majesty himself
called it " whetting," and Gardiner confessed it was
not always very pleasant to him. " Yet," he goes
on to say, " when I saw in my doings was no hurt,
and sometimes, by the occasion thereof, the matter
amended, I was not so coy as always to reverse my
argument; nor, so that his affairs went well, did
1 Op. cit. 34-6.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 33
I ever trouble myself whether he made me a wanton
or not. And when such as were privy to his letters
directed unto me were afraid I had been in high
displeasure (for the terms of the letters sounded so),
yet I myself feared it nothing at all. I esteemed
him, as he was, a wise prince ; and whatsoever he
wrote or said for the present, he would after consider
the matter as wisely as any man, and neither hurt
nor inwardly disfavor him that had been bold with
him ; whereof I serve for a proof, for no man could
do me hurt during his life. And when he gave me
the bishopric of Winchester, he said he had often
squared with me, but he loved me never the worse ;
and for a token thereof gave me the bishopric.
And once, when he had been vehement with me
in the presence of the Earl of Wiltshire, and saw
me dismayed with it, he took me apart into his
bed-chamber, and comforted me, and said that his
displeasure was not so much to me as I did take it ;
but he misliked the matter, and he durst more
boldly direct his speech to me than to the Earl
of Wiltshire. And from that day forward he could
not put me out of courage, but if any displeasant
words passed from him, as they did sometimes, I
folded them up in ' the matter ' ; which hindered
me a little. For I was reported unto him that I
stooped not and was stubborn, and he had commended
unto me certain men's gentle nature (as he called
it) that wept at every of his words ; and methought
that my nature was as gentle as theirs, for I was
sorry when he was moved. But else I know when
the displeasure was not justly grounded in me, I
had no cause to take thought, nor was I at any
time in all my Ufe miscontent or grudging at
anything done by him, I thank God for it." ^
These are evidently not boastful words, and they
give us a very remarkable picture of two great char-
1 Foxe, vi. 36.
VOL. Ill D

34 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
acters — a faithful servant and a discriminating master.
It is something to be able to see a good point in
Henry VIII, and there really was much that was
good in him as a ruler, when his passions had not
committed him to an unworthy course, and his
obstinacy had not blinded him for a time ; no king
under such circumstances was ever more judicious and
impartial. But though even Wolsey knew that he
could not turn him aside from a wilful policy, Gar
diner found that he could endure a frank remonstrance
without being really displeased — or that if he was
put out for the moment it was only a passing cloud,
and did not really weaken the regard in which he
habitually held him. That Gardiner never yielded
what he ought not to have done to the imperious
despot it would be too much to say ; he knew that he
had done so, and expressed his repentance openly in
later years, when it was safe to express it. But it is
remarkable that in days when Henry himseU did not
like to offend Anne Boleyn's father, the Earl of WUt-
shire, he was careful to let Gardiner know that it was
mainly on account of the Earl's presence that he
had spoken to him so sharply.
Further, it appears by the same letter that the
question of images had once been debated between
Gardiner and Archbishop Cranmer before Henry VIII.
himself at his palace of Newhall in Essex, when the
whole subject was very thoroughly discussed, and the
King had answered some of the arguments now
advanced by the Protector. "And when he had
himself," Gardiner continued, " specially commanded
divers images to be abolished, yet, as your Grace
knoweth, he both ordered, and himself put in execu
tion, the kneeling and creeping before the image of
the Cross, and established agreement in that truth
through all this realm, whereby all arguments to the
contrary be assoiled at once." He adds that he only
wished such use of images preserved as was prescribed

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 35
in " the King's Book." In reply to further arguments,
it might be enough for him to say, like St. Paul, " We
have no such custom in the Church." When the King-
came of age God would doubtless reveal what was
necessary for his people in religion. Edward himself,
as Gardiner understood, had lately expressed approval
of the " procession" which men foUowed in his father's
time (this was a litany chanted in procession). " Upon
which the King's Majesty's saying, the procession, as
I heard, was well furnished afterwards by your Grace's
commandment." This speech of young Edward's
might be a warning that if the bishops and clergy
should agree to any alteration in religion derogatory
to what had been settled by his father (thereby sug
gesting that his father had been wanting either in
knowledge or in zeal for truth), he might, perhaps, say
something very unpleasant against the bishops. The
Protector's plea was that, as representing the King,
he only desired truth according to the Scriptures,
and Gardiner was afraid that the Bishops would be
accused of " fashioning the matter as they lusted "
during a minority. On which some young man
who wanted a portion of the Bishops' lands would
say, "The beastly bishops have always done so;
and when they can no longer maintain one of
their pleasures of rule and superiority, then they
take another way and let that go, and, for the time
they be here, spend up what they have"; and so
forth. Nothing would serve the policy of the Bishop
of Rome better than an alteration of religion during
the King's minority, suggesting that whenever his
authority was abolished, religion would be changed
with every change of government. It would also give
rise to unpleasant remark if the Archbishop of Canter
bury, who was so much in the late King's confidence,
and the Bishop of Durham (Tunstall), a man so re
nowned for learning, both of whom were put in trust
by Henry for counsel in the order of the realm,

36 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
" should so soon forget their old knowledge in Scrip
ture set forth by His Majesty's Book," and advise
such alteration. This, however, he could not believe,
and, though there had been rumours to that effect, the
Protector had stayed them by proclamation.^
But from two further letters to the Protector, both
written, apparently, in June, it appeared that Arch
bishop Cranmer was reviving a proposal for the use
of certain homilies which had been the subject of
discussion in Convocation five years before (in 1542).
Nothing had been done about them then, and Gardiner
did not think it advisable, or even legitimate, to take
action upon them now. It might even revive the
" vain rumors " that had been stopped by the Pro
tector's proclamation.^ The Archbishop's authority,
Cranmer howcvcr, prevailed, and the First Book of Homilies
Homilies. ^^^ issucd ou the 31st July. The royal injunctions of
Edward VI. were also issued on the same day. The
Protector and the Archbishop had resolved to make
some alterations in the King's name, even during his
minority. And thus began a new stage of the infant Reforma
tion. A policy of innovation had triumphed, and
royal supremacy was now to be the warrant even for
acts done in a minority. Royal supremacy ! Many
men had been ill enough reconciled to that principle
even in the days of Henry VIII. But it had been
established in his days, not only by extraordinary
skill and diplomacy in the first place, bringing
about the Submission of the Clergy and the Act of
Supremacy itself, but also by the ruthless way it was
enforced against two or three small bands of martyrs,
who could not be persuaded to give up allegiance to
Rome. A few victims, brutally executed, were natur
ally quite enough ; very few cared to follow them and
merit death for the Pope's sake ; and when Rome's
1 Foxe, vi. 36-41. 2 iS. p. 41, 42.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 37
authority was abolished there was no other authority
in spiritual matters but the King's. Besides, in such
things the majority of his subjects would naturally
find it easier to trust a King who seemed so well
versed in questions alike of Church and State. If
this great, powerful, diplomatic Sovereign knew his
own ground in a controversy with the Pope, even
though he did carry matters somewhat further than
any of his predecessors had done, who among all his
faithful liegemen was likely to take exception to his
acts ? But the authority of a boy stood quite on a
different footing ; and even in ordinary matters of
government his father had attempted to guard against
serious changes being made during any minority which
might occur after his own day. For just after his
marriage with Jane Seymour in 1536, the year before
young Edward was born, Henry VIII. had procured
an Act of Parliament to be passed, giving any of his
successors who should come to the throne under age
power to annul by letters patent any Acts of Parlia
ment that had been passed during his earlier years as
soon as he should reach the age of twenty-four.^ This
statute, if it were allowed to remain in force, could
not but act as a very serious restraint on unnecessary
legislation during the minority ; and it certainly
seems to have been regarded by those who knew it as
a provision that ought to have been respected. But
of course no Act of Parliament could bind a future
legislature, and as Somerset found it inconvenient he
very soon got it repealed, as will presently be shown.
MeanwhUe, however, he was not to be restrained from
doing precisely as he intended to do, even in matters
concerning the Church.
No attempt, indeed, was made to carry things
^ statute 28 Hen. VIII. c. 51. This Act is very notable as showing how
completely the personal authority of the Sovereign was in Henry's opinion,
and probably to a large extent in the opinion of his subjects also, necessary
to the validity of any law whatever. I have therefore thought it well to
give the actual text of this Act in an appendix to the present chapter.

38 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
with a rush. It was enough, when not encouraging
isolated Lollard outbreaks, to build upon principles
A general already laid down. A general Visitation of the whole
Visitation. ]ji]ig(jojQ ^a,s resolvcd on, which began in the autumn
just before the Protector's return from his successful
campaign in Scotland ; and the Bishops, whose visit
ing powers were thus for a time superseded, were
expected to receive with submission the injunctions
and homilies drawn up.^ The Bishops had, of course,
learned submission to some extent when they were
obliged to take out licences, and they had known
what royal injunctions were in the time of Cromwell.
But, though Thirlby and others made no remonstrance,
Bishop Bonner at St. Paul's met the royal visitors
with a sort of modified submission. He would ob
serve the injunctions and homilies, he said, if they
were not contrary to God's law and the ordinances
of the Church. Even he, however, reconsidered the
matter on being called before the Council, and desired
to recall his protest as unreasonable and of bad
example ; notwithstanding which submission, the
Bonuer CouucU thought it wcU to commit him for a time to
tothe'"'^'^ the Fleet prison. The injunctions were then carried
Fleet, out in St. Paul's and throughout the diocese. Images
were taken out of the churches and destroyed, the
walls were whitewashed, and the Ten Commandments
written up.
and Gardiner was committed to the Fleet also very
Sso!^"""^ soon after Bonner, not for resisting the visitors, for
they had not yet reached his diocese, but for express
ing doubts about the legality of the visitation. He
told the Council he was willing to consider the question
if they would let him go to Oxford and dispute it
first ; but this was not allowed. He gave reasons for
his opinion, but was arbitrarily sent to prison, and
remained there for weeks in bad air and in ill-health,
without being even allowed a physician for some time,
^ See special injunctions to the Bishops in Wilkins, iv. 9.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 39
though the Protector sent him one at last.^ On Friday,
7th October, indeed, he was sent for by Cranmer to a
conference at the house of the Dean of St. Paul's to
discuss the HomUy on Salvation; but he could not
accept the Archbishop's arguments. "Where Scrip
ture and doctors want," he wrote to Somerset, " my
lord of Canterbury would fall to arguing and over
come me, that am called the sophister, by sophistry.
... I am also charged," he added a little later, " that
all the realm hath received these homilies without
contradiction, save I ; whereunto I answer, I think
they have not read what I have read in these books."
There was absolutely no justification for his cruel
imprisonment except that he had an opinion of his
own, for which he was prepared to give reasons. He
was quite ready to yield to weightier reasons if they
could be produced, and he had not been guilty of one
act of disobedience. He pointed out that Cranmer's
teaching on justification was, even by his own words,
" We be justified by faith without all works of the
law : charity is a work of the law : ergo, we are
justified without charity " — a conclusion which, even
as a scholastic exercise, it would be difficult to
defend ; and Gardiner was ready to produce an
answer made twelve hundred years before. But it
was not necessary to import scholastic questions into
"the use and practice" of the Church of England.^
" And it was a terrible matter to think on," he adds,
" to see such a contention to rise upon a matter
not necessary to be spoken of Wherein, if my lord
of Canterbury will needs travaU, my judgment is that
' His letters to the Protector, written from the Fleet, wiU be found in
Foxe, vi. 42-55, 140-42. The order in which they are printed is not chrono
logical, and there are probably one or two whole letters omitted. In the
first, at p. 42, some very telling passages have been omitted by Foxe, which
will be found supplied iu the Supplement to Strype's Cranmer, No. xxxvi.
^ I have given here concisely the drift of Gardiner's argument as set forth
on p. 49 of Foxe. But I hope the reader will appreciate the comment made
upon it by Foxe himself : " Hereby it is evident that this insensible ass had
no feeling of God's Spirit in the matter of justification."

40 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
he shall never persuade that faith excludeth charity in
justification, unless he borrow of your Grace's authority
prisons ; and then he shall percase have some agree
unto it, as poor men kneel at Rome when the Bishop ^
there goeth by — that is to say, are knocked on the
head with a halbert if they kneel not ; for that is one
piece of the office of the Bishop of Rome's guard."
Suffering much pain from his confinement,
Gardiner ended this particular letter with some mUd
sarcasms. " I have things more to say," he wrote,
" but this matter is over long already, and methinks
I have been over long here ; and, showing myself so
humble a scholar as I have done, it is much to be
beaten because I do not learn where no man teacheth
me, and so willing to learn as I ask but one Scripture,
or, Scripture failing (as it doth for my lord of Canter
bury's purpose), I ask but one ancient doctor. This
is my case ; for as touching any act of disobedience,
my lords of the Council did foresee that I should not
faU in that danger, and therefore would not trust my
frailty to be in the country when the Visitors should
be there, but made me sure here lest I might have
offended."^
Erasmus's Another thing which Gardiner felt that he could
phrase. ^^t but criticisc was a translation of Erasmus's
Paraphrase on the New Testam,ent, which was issued
along with the injunctions for the use of priests. As
Bishop he could not accept these without remon
strance. Indeed, the Paraphrase and the injunctions,
he showed, were directly opposed to each other. The
homilies excluded charity in the office of justifica
tion ; the Paraphrase required charity to be joined
with faith ; and other contradictions were pointed
out. But as to the Paraphrase, it contained some
special faults of Erasmus's own, and others that
were due to the translator, who had, sometimes by
' "The Bishop" means the Pope, whom it was still unlawful to call by
that name. 2 j-Qxe, vi. 49, 50.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 41
ignorance, sometimes evidently of set purpose, put in,
left out, and changed as he thought fit, never for the
better but always for the worse. And the ample time
that he had to criticise the work in prison, Gardiner
said, only enabled him to discover new demerits every
day. The work, he declared, was, in one word,
an " abomination." Yet it was authorised by the
King, and would cost purchasers throughout the realm
£20,000 to procure it.'
MeanwhUe the Protector's policy about images was
so ambiguous that the Council seem to have been
almost at a loss what directions to give about it in his
absence. For in the autumn he had led an invading
army into Scotland and won the battle of Pinkie
on the 10th September, adding, no doubt, to his
influence with the Council by this additional proof
of his skiU as a general. He only returned south
in October. Now, the ostensible policy of the
Government about images was still what it had been Changeable
under Henry VIII., still what even the Protector ^^^"^J"
pretended while conniving at the outrages at Ports- images.
mouth. Some images, no doubt, had been " abused "
with pilgrimages and other superstitions, but as
yet the Government had not declared against all
images in churches whatever. There had been dis
turbances in the country, and some images had
undoubtedly been removed without authority. The
Council, in fact, had decreed that the Lord Great
Master - should, when he came to London, or perhaps
on his way thither, take steps to punish those who
had been guilty in this matter, and have the images
that were taken down set up again. But on the
26 th September they came to a contrary determina
tion, as appears by a minute of that date, which it is
' Foxe, vi. 42, 47, 52, 53 ; Strype's Cranmer, App. xxx.
^ William Paulet, Lord St. John, was the nobleman who held this office,
and must have been absent at the date of the decree in question, though he
was with the rest of the Council on the 12th August, and on the 20th, 25th,
and 30th September. The decree was probably made in the beginning of
September, or at least after the 12th August.

42 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
only right to quote verbatim that the reader may
form his own opinion of the state of mind which
at this time prevailed among the rulers of England.
It is in these words : —
26 September. To the lord Admiral,i that where it
was resolved that the lord Great Master, at his next repair
to London should take order for punishing of those that had
taken down images, having none authority so to do, and
cause those so taken down [not ?] having been abused, to be
erected again'; that, forasmuch it is now considered that if
those should be erected again it might endanger contention
among the people upon the point whether they were abused
or no, that the said Admiral, now repairing to London, should
declare to the said lord Great Master it were best not to
meddle in the erection of those taken down until the return
of the lord Protector ; and yet that it should be proceeded
to the punishment of the takers down without authority, as
it was ordered.^
So men had done illegal, or at least unauthorised
things, and were to be punished for having done them
(whether this order also was recalled by some secret
instruction may be a matter of speculation) ; but the
Lord Great Master must forbear from acting on his
former orders to set right again what the malefactors
had set wrong. At least he must defer doing so till
the Protector's return southwards ; for it was really
so very difficult to judge whether particular images
had been " abused " or not. And we may take it as
practically certain that the Protector, when he did
come back, gave no orders for the " erection " of those
images again ; though whether a general taking down
of them all or a partial setting up again of some
would give most satisfaction to the country is a
question that may admit, perhaps, of two opinions.
At least, if there be any doubt about this, the
evidences are rather against the supposition that
people in the country were pleased. For on the
' Lord Seymour of Sudeley, the Protector's brother,
^ Dasent, ii. 518.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 43
28rd October, sometime after the Protector's return,
he and the Council had to decide on the complaint of
a Mr. Dowve "and certain others," who are not
named, of St. Neot's in Huntingdonshire, for redress
against " Sir Laurence Taylard knight and Oliver
Leder esquire." Dowve and his companions had
already " exhibited a supplication " to the Protector
in person on his return through Huntingdonshire,
showing that they had, according to the injunctions,
" taken out of the church at St. Neot's certain images
of abuse, which when they would not erect again at
the motion thereunto of the said Sir Laurence and
Oliver, and certain of the parish, [they] were therefore
menaced and ill-treated " and a " certain tumult "
had arisen. The Protector, at the time, had " amicably
composed " the matter, giving charge to Sir Laurence
and to Oliver Leder to molest Dowve and the others
no further ; but after his departure they continued
to give them trouble. Of course it was necessary to
protect those who had carried out the King's injunc
tions ; and so Taylard and Leder, having been sent
for, received peremptory orders to ' surcease ' acts of
malice towards the complainants on pain of severe
punishment at the Council's discretion." ^
The Council, indeed, were not prepared to endorse
every kind of sacrilegious outrage. On the 8th
November they agreed to send an order "to Simon
Aunsell, Mayor of Feversham, to deliver, all excuses
set apart, into the hands of Thomas Arderne, warden
of the church of Feversham, the pix of silver by him
of late taken from the church, which was given
thither by one Hache, deceased, and had there con
tinued by the space of twelve years and more." ^
Moreover they seem to have felt that even priests
deserved a toleration that was not always accorded
to them. And here again we must take the facts
of the case from their own records. For on the
1 Dasent, ii. 140. ^ lb. p. 520.

44 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
12th November a proclamation^ was ordered as
follows : —
ni-usage of " Forasmuch as the misorders of the serving men
priests. g^^^j other young and light persons and apprentices in
London towards priests and those that go in scholars'
gowns like priests hath of late, both in Westminster
Hall and in other places of the City of London, been
so great that not only it hath offended many men,
but also [might?] have given great occasion, if on the
parts of the said priests more wisdom and discretion
had not been showed than of the other, of sedition
and murder, or, at the least, of such other incon
veniences as are not to be suffered in a common
wealth ; as to the King's Highness and his most
entirely beloved uncle, the Duke of Somerset,
Governor of his most Royal Person, and Protector
of all his realms, dominions and subjects, and the
rest of his Majesty's Council, hath been credibly and
certainly reported and showed : For reformation whereof
the King's Majesty, by the advice of his said most
dear uncle and other his Majesty's Council, willeth
and straitly commandeth that no serving man nor
apprentice or any other person, whatsoever he or
they be, shall use hereafter such insolency and evil
demeanor towards priests as revelling, tossing of them,
taking violently their caps and tippets from them
without just title or cause, nor otherwise to use them
than as becometh the King's most loving subjects,
one to do towards another, upon pain that whosoever
shall do the contrary, and be upon the same taken
with the manner, or if he shall appear upon com
plaint made by sufficient trial of witness or otherwise
before the King's Highness's Council, or the mayor,
sheriffs, or other sufficient judges to whom the com
plaint shall be made, the person thereof to be guilty ;
that then such offender or offenders, according to the
¦* Dasent, ii. 521.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 45
quality of the fact for the time and place where it
was committed, to suffer pain of imprisonment or
other corporal pain to the example of all others, as to
the discretion of the said Lord Protector, the King's
Majesty's CouncU, or of the judges before whom the
same is proved, seem convenient, which shall be
such that by the punishment of a few all others
may be afraid to use such insolency, violency, and
Ul demeanor, against any of the King's Majesty's
subjects. "God Save the King."
By this time Edward's first Parliament had Pariia-
assembled ; for it met on the 4th November. That "^"*'
either House should be a true representative of the
nation's feelings was hardly to be expected ; that was
not the state of matters under the Tudors generally,
and certainly not in the minority of Edward VI. ^
Yet the Council could bear, in some quarters at least,
a little mild expostulation, as the following minute of
the 28th September serves to show : —
To the Sheriff of Kent, that when the Lords wrote to
him afore to the end to make his friends for the election of
Sir John Baker to be Knight of the Shire, understanding
that he did abuse towards those of the Shire their request into
a commandment, their Lordships advertise him that as they
meant not, nor mean to deprive the Shire by any their
commandment of their liberty of election (? electing) whom
they should think meet, so nevertheless if they would, in
satisfaction of their Lordships' request, grant their voices to
Mr. Baker, they would take it thankfully.
' "The cards," says Heylin, " were so well packed by Sir Ralph Sadler
that there was no need of any more shnfl[ling till the end of the game ; this
very Parliament without any sensible alteration of the members of it, being
continued by prorogation from session to session, until at last it ended by the
death of the King." Heylin is here guilty of a slight inaccuracy. One
Parliament did, indeed, suffice for the purposes of those who ruled in
Edward's name for nearly five years ; but it was dissolved the year before
his death and a new one assembled afterwards. For the rest I have no doubt
Heylin had good authority for the statement that Sadler packed the Parlia
ment. That was an art he had naturally learned from his old master,
Thomas Cromwell.

46 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
A like letter to the lord Warden of the Cinque Ports
with this addition, that being informed he should abuse their
request to menace them of the Shire of Kent, as they would
not beUeve it, so they advised him to use things in such sort
as the Shire might have the free election." ^
Kent, however, as had been found in former days,
was a difficult county either to cajole or to overawe,
and Sir John Baker, though he became Speaker of the
new Parliament, had to apply to the electors of Hunt
ingdonshire to give him a seat.^
The House of Lords was not generally so sub
servient as the Commons. But it was now largely
composed of appropriators of Church lands, who
oppressed and rackrented the peasantry. Such
lords very naturaUy were staunch upholders of a
new religion, which justified the confiscations by
which they so greatly profited. And as for the bishops,
who had once been the most independent members of
that House, most of them owed their appointments
to the fact that they had been very pliant to
Henry VIII.'s despotism, as even Gardiner himself
had been. But Gardiner was still in prison, and
could not take his place in that assembly, nor even
in the Convocation, which met the day after Parlia
ment, and there were undoubtedly things done by
both these bodies which would not have had his
approval. In fact, it was clearly a matter of policy to keep
Gardiner still in prison ; and just at this time also the
venerable Bishop Tunstall, who certainly was the very
reverse of a factious prelate, was deprived of his seat
at the council table. So we are told by Heylin,'^ who
must have had good authority for the statement. His
name, indeed, disappears from the record of the
Council after the 21st March, when he is distinctly
named as a councillor,* but his signature has been found
^ Dasent, ii. 518, 519.
^ Return of the names of Members, i. 175.
^ Ecclesia Restaurata, i. 96. ¦¦ Dasent, ii. 70.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 47
on privy seals with those of other councillors, once in
May and twice in June this year.^ From the Acts of
the Privy Council, it would seem that he was only
readmitted after the fall of Somerset in 1549, when
we find him attending again on the 11th December.
But now everything was ready for the Parliament,
Lord Riche was made Chancellor on the 24th October,
and Sir John Baker, having obtained a seat, was ready
to be made Speaker of the House of Commons.
Parliament was opened by the young King in
person on Friday the 4th November, and the Con
vocation of Canterbury met the next day at St. Paul's.
Even the Secular Legislature had very soon much
business thrown upon it bearing on religion; for
indeed the aid of Parliament was requisite that
Convocation might do some of the things expected
of it. But we must first see what Convocation for
its own sake desired to be done.
Having chosen a prolocutor, the Lower House soon convoca-
presented to the President and prelates of the Upper, ''**'°°-
four petitions which are of strong significance, as
showing how eager the lower clergy were that the
Church should recover as much as possible of the
liberties which it had lost under Henry VIII. These
petitions were as follows : —
" First, that Ecclesiastical Laws may be made and
established in this Realm by thirty-two persons, or so
many as shaU please the King's Majesty to name or
appoint, according to the effect of a late Statute made
in the 35th year of the most noble King, and of the
most famous memory. King Henry VIII., so that aU
judges ecclesiastical, proceeding after those laws, may
be without danger and peril.
" Also, that according to the ancient customs of this
realm, and the tenor of the King's writs for the sum
moning of the Parliament, which be now, and ever
1 Gasquet and Bishop's Edward VI. and ihe Book of Common Prayer,
pp. 43, 44 note.

48 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
have been, directed to the Bishops of every diocese,
the Clergy of the Lower House of Convocation may
be adjoined and associated with the Lower House of
Parliament ; or else that all such statutes and ordin
ances as shall be made concerning all matters of
religion and causes ecclesiastical, may not pass with
out the sight and assent of the said clergy.
"Also that whereas, by the commandment of
King Henry VIII., certain prelates and other learned
men were appointed to alter the service in the Church,
and to devise other convenient and uniform order
therein, who according to the same appointment,
did make certain books, as they be informed ; their
request is that the said books may be seen and
perused by them, for a better expedition of divine
service to be set forth accordingly.
" Also, that men being called to spiritual pro
motions or benefices may have some allowance for
their necessary living and other charges, to be sus
tained and borne, concerning the said benefices, in
the first year wherein they pay the first-fruits." ^
The first of these demands refers to an Act of
the 35th year of Henry VIII., but a commission of
thirty-two persons to revise the Canon Law had been
promised ten years earlier (1534) by an Act of the
25th year, chapter 19. This was the Act which gave
effect to the submission of the clergy, who agreed not
to enact new canons without the King's consent, and
also to submit their existing canons to thirty-two
persons, one-half laymen of the two Houses of Parlia
ment, and one-half clergymen, all to be elected by
the King, to consider how much of the clerical
legislation should be abrogated, and how much
retained as valid. Till this commission was consti
tuted, the clergy really did not know how to act to
avoid the danger of the King's laws ; yet, though a
• Wilkins, iv. 15, 16.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 49
new Act was passed on the subject in 1536 (27
Hen. VIII. c. 49), and this third Act again in 1544
(35 Hen. VIII. c. 16), the commission of thirty-two
had not been issued all King Henry's days, and the
position of the clergy remained still insecure.
The second demand is remarkably interesting from
a constitutional point of view. The inferior clergy
had, in the days of Edward I., been indirectly sum
moned to Parliament under the writs addressed to
their superiors, which required these not only to
attend personally in the House of Lords, but to
warn cathedral chapters and archdeacons to cause
one proctor to appear for each chapter in the House
of Commons, and two for the clergy of every diocese.
But the attendance of the clergy in the House of
Commons, though always required by the writs,
ceased after a time to be given in fact, as they
were allowed to tax themselves for the King in their
own Convocations. Now, however, by the establish
ment of royal supremacy there was a change of
times. Parliament was invading the province of the
spiritual legislature, and the Lower House of Convo
cation not unreasonably asked that if the clergy were
not readmitted to the House of Commons, there
should at least be no Acts passed touching religion
or the Church without their knowledge and approval.
The third demand requires a little explanation.
When Parliament met in April 1540, Cromwell, who
was still in favour, though his career came soon after
to an end, announced to it that the King had chosen
certain bishops and divines to promote religious con
cord. He had divided this committee into two sets,
one to treat of doctrine, the other of ceremonies. The
Act of Parliament which followed (32 Hen. VIII.
c. 26) clearly intended these to be standing com
mittees to advise the King and enable him to define
principles in both matters by letters patent. The
Committee of Doctrine then appointed consisted of
VOL. Ill E

50 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. ^
twenty members, with the two archbishops at their
head ; the Committee of Ceremonies of six bishops
only, Clerk of Bath, Goodrich of Ely, Capon of Salis
bury, Sampson of Chichester, Bell of Worcester, and
Holgate of Llandaff.^ Of course, doctrine was the
most important thing, especially as the three years
for which " The Institution of a Christian Man " had
been licensed were then just expiring, so that the
decisions of divines were needed to prevent people
reviling each other as " papists " and heretics as they
continually did. But the final result seems to have
been that three years later the Institution appeared
in a revised form as the Necessary Doctrine, which
held its place all Henry's days, while the " Book
of Ceremonies " drawn up by the other committee
remained unpublished,^ and there appeared to be
no definite directions in matters ceremonial. It was
this want that Convocation now wished to see
supplied. The fourth demand requires no particular comment.
These demands were formulated at the second
session of the Convocation, viz. 22nd November, and
solicitors were appointed on the 9th December to
urge them, but nothing came of them.
Cranmer was not on the Committee of Ceremonies,
and their recommendations were evidently far too
conservative for him. Nor did he, it may be suspected,
feel very great sympathy with the other demands.
All the efforts made in this Convocation to recover
the lost liberties of the clergy seem to have proceeded
from the Lower House, and to have been utterly
fruitless. But Cranmer having, as President, at the
opening of the Synod urged in the Upper House
a reform of the Church which should eradicate any
remaining papal abuses, the divines were terrified
at the suggestion. The Act of the Six Articles,
' Lords' Journals, i. 129.
^ It has been published quite recently by the Alcuin Club under the title,
The Rationale of Ceremonial, 151fl-15Ji3, edited by Mr. Cyril S. Cobb.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 51
besides other statutes, stood in the way, and the
Primate had first to obtain the King's licence to
discuss such matters freely.^ Then Parliament
came to the help of the spiritual assembly, and for
its very first work, repealed not only that Act, but
all the penal statutes against heresy from the days of
Richard II. It also repealed some special Acts of
the late reign in which new treasons and felonies had
been constituted, and poisoners had been punished
with a particularly horrible death. Humanity was,
no doubt, the gainer by such legislation, but whether
the rights of conscience benefited to the same extent
is not so clear. For the object of repealing the heresy
laws was only to set forth a new religion under royal
supremacy, and denial of royal supremacy was still
to be treason under a new statute — at least on a third
offence. Humanity, indeed, was not a gainer by all the Legisia-
legislation at this time. On the 30th November a *^''°'
bUl for the punishment of vagabonds was read a first
time in the House of Lords, and was referred, with
two others for the same object, to two judges and two
serjeants-at-law. On the 6th December the punish
ment of vagabonds and the relief of the poor and
impotent were treated together, and the bill passed
its second and third readings on the 7th and 8th. It
then went down to the Commons, where it finally
passed on the 19 th. It appears on the Statute Book
as an Act alike for the punishment of vagabonds and
for relief of the poor. But the punitive part is
certainly most merciless, enforcing slavery and chains
on runaways. Its severity, apparently, made it
unworkable, and it was repealed two years later.
Many other measures seem to have been presented
to Parliament, both about religion and about the
Church, besides those actually passed ; and the exact
' This we learn from Parker in his book, de Antiquitate Britannicae
Ecelesiae (ed. 1605), p. 339.

52 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
history of those which became law cannot be traced
with perfect certainty from the meagre notices in the
Journals of the House of Lords. As early as the 1 2th
November a bUl " for the Sacrament of the Altar "
was read in that House for the first time, and it
obtained a second reading on the 15 th. Moreover,
on the 17th it was again read twice; but whether
this particular bill Avent further is not clear. On the
26th a bill for receiving the Sacrament under both
kinds was read a first time. This was singular, for
the proposal was not laid before Convocation till four
days later. Then on the 3rd December a bill was
introduced " for the Sacrament of the Body and
Blood of Christ," which was committed to the Judges,
Marvin and Portman. On the 7th it seems to have
been read a second time, and on the 10th it passed,
notwithstanding the opposition of Bishops Bonner of
London, Thirlby of Norwich, Skyp of Hereford, Heath
of Worcester, and Day of Chichester. It then went
down into the Commons, where it received four succes
sive readings and passed on the 1 7th. How to inter
pret all these facts precisely we do not know; but the
Act touch- definite issue was an Act of Parliament (1 Edw. VI.
Sacrament. ^^P' l) puuishiug rcvilcrs of the Sacrament and
ordering that it should be hereafter administered in
both kinds. And the reasons by which the former
part of the Act was justified may undoubtedly be
pondered with some profit historically. For in the
preamble, among other things, we read as follows : —
"The said Sacrament . . . has been of late
marvellously abused by such manner of men before
rehearsed, who of wickedness, or else of ignorance
and want of learning, for certain abuses heretofore
committed of some in misusing thereof, having con
demned in their hearts and speech the whole thing,
and contemptuously depraved, despised, or reviled
the same most holy and blessed Sacrament, and not
only disputed and reasoned unreverently and ungodly

CH. I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 53
of that most high mystery, but also, in their sermons,
preachings, readings, lectures, communications, argu
ments, talks, rhymes, songs, plays or jests, name or
call it by such vile and unseemly words as Christian
ears do abhor to hear rehearsed."
Irreverence in pulpits with ribaldry in the streets,
rhymes, songs, plays, and jests directed against the
highest act of religion, — these things were confessedly
rife. We know some of the vile words used — a
favourite nickname for the Host was " Jack-in-the-
box." ^ That an Act of Parliament should be passed
to punish such offences by fine and imprisonment
seemed not unnatural. But it has been surmised
with great appearance of probability that the statute
actually passed was the result of a compromise, one
party being anxious to put down irreverence and the
other eager for communion in both kinds. ^ And it is
certainly curious that the first part of the Act — that
against reviling the Sacrament — was only to come
into operation some months after it was passed. For
the words are " that whatsoever person or persons,
from and after the first day of May next coming,
shall deprave, despise, or contemn the said most
blessed Sacrament," etc., as if the Legislature in
tended to give a positive licence for such conduct to
all and sundry for nearly half a year !
In the Lords some manoeuvring seems to have
been used to pass this bill; for on the 10th December,
when it was despatched, there were no less than eleven
bishops of the old school (including Gardiner, who was
in prison) absent without proxies, so that the five
whose dissent to it is recorded by no means repre
sented the strength of the feeling against it enter
tained by the Bench. ^ On the other hand, the fact
that there was a serious conflict over the bill in
Parliament not only accounts for its having been read
1 Grev Friars' Chronicle, p. 55. ^ Gasquet and "Bishop, pp. 69-71.
¦' > Ih.p. 71.

54 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
four times in the Commons before it passed, but
comes out clearly in a letter written a year and a half
later by Richard Hilles to BuUinger at Zurich, in
which he says of Bartholomew Traheron : " He
endeavoured as far as he could (for he was one of
the burgesses in the last Parliament) that there
should be no ambiguity in the reformation of the
Lord's Supper ; but it was not in his power to bring
over his old fellow citizens to his views. Therefore
... we have an uniform celebration of the Eucharist
throughout the whole kingdom, but after the manner
of the Nuremberg churches and some of those in
Saxony ; for they do not yet feel inclined to adopt
your rites respecting the administration of the Sacra
ments." ^ The ritual was not brought down to the
level of Swiss Reformers as their admirers in England
fain would have had it. Possibly Traheron would
have done the Government some service if he had
been allowed, not only as to the bill itself, but as to
a proviso they had intended to add to it. For after
the bill had been passed by the Lords and was down
in the Commons, a proviso was sent thither on the
17th December to be annexed to it; "the which the
Commons would not receive because the Lords had
not given their consent to the same." There was to
be no further manipulating of that bill. But after
ParUament was prorogued it could be subjected, as
we shall see, to a little explanation.
Legisia- Amoug Other religious subjects which engaged the
uZlr^ Lords' attention there was in November a bill " for
andEc- the admission of bishops by the King's Majesty
jurtdi^*^ only." This was introduced on the 13th and com-
tion. mitted to Cranmer. It was read a second time on the
16th, when it was committed to Bishops Tunstall and
Thirlby, the Chief Baron, and the King's Attorney.
It had a third reading on the 28th. Then a bUl "for
election of bishops " was brought forward on the 3rd
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 266.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 55
December and read a second time on the 5th. In
November also there had been a bill " for the reading
of Scripture," another "for the exercising of the
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction " (a subject of which more
was heard later), another " for benefices with cure,
common preachers and residence," another " for the
erection of a new Court of Chancery for Ecclesiastical
Causes." Not all these projects took effect. A law
did pass for making bishops by letters patent without
a conge d'elire ^ — to the further degradation doubtless
of the episcopal dignity. But we are not concerned
here with much of the actual legislation, of which
only two or three points deserve particularly to be
noted. First the Protector and his friends easily procured other legis-
the repeal of the Act 28 Henry VIII. cap. 17, which ^^"™-
would have enabled the King, when he attained the
age of twenty-four, to annul all Acts of Parliament
passed in his minority simply by letters patent. For
a Government such as that which now existed, this
was simply necessary for the security of those who
belonged to it. Nevertheless it had a bad effect on
the minds of many who disliked revolutionary tend
encies, alike in religion and affairs of State, and saw
that those who now held sway were removing every
security for the permanence of such a settlement as
Henry VIII.'s wisdom had laid down. And for this
very reason, as we shall find hereafter, the Council
were particularly anxious, even after they had got
their Act, that preachers of the old school, like Bonner
and Gardiner, should, when they preached in public,
expressly set forth that the King's authority, even in
his juvenile years, was quite as great as if he had
attained to mature age.
Further, a long and wordy statute, passed after
great opposition in both Houses, completed the con
fiscation of all endowments hitherto given to chantries,
1 Stat. 1 Edw. VI. c. 2.

56 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
brotherhoods, and colleges for the maintenance of
priests to pray for the souls of their founders. These
foundations had already been dissolved by an Act of
the last Parliament of Henry VIII. ; but that Act had
only taken partial effect, and a more thorough measure
was required for the relief of an embarrassed treasury.
The pretence, indeed, was to divert funds from super
stitious uses and apply them to the erection of grammar
schools, augmentation of the universities, and relief of
the poor. But the Acts of the Privy Council speak
without disguise as to the real object. For on the
17th April 1548, four months after this Act was
passed, commissions were issued under it for the sale
of Chantry lands, the minutes of Council declaring
that they were granted " specially for the relief of
the King's Majesty's charges and expenses, which do
daily grow and increase by reason of divers and
sundry fortifications, garrisons, levying of men and
soldiers," etc. And it is further stated that " the
King's most loving subjects were induced the rather
and franklier to grant those said coUeges and free
chapels, chantries and other things . . . that they
might thereby be relieved of the continual charge of
taxes, contributions, loans, and subsidies." ^
This is extremely candid as explaining the in
fluences which carried the Act through Parliament.
But the motive expressed in the preamble to the Act
itself was "considering that a great part of super
stition and errors in Christian religion has been
brought into the minds and estimations of men by
reason of the ignorance of their very true and perfect
salvation through the death of Jesus Christ, and by
devising and phantasing vain opinions of purgatory
and masses satisfactory to be done for them which be
departed," etc. Thus Parliament, inspired by such
motives as the Council so frankly declared afterwards,
invoked theology in aid of the Act of Confiscation.
' Dasent, ii. 184-5.

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 57
And it was a theology in advance even of that of the
Church at this time ; for " masses satisfactory," as we
have seen,^ had been arranged for by Henry VIII. in
his will not a twelvemonth before, and the Church
had said nothing yet against them. The bill, indeed,
was so objectionable that it was not only opposed in
the Commons on secular grounds as affecting some
local interests in matters of public importance, but it
was also opposed in the House of Lords by most of
the bishops, and even by Cranmer, who was anxious
to preserve Chantry lands for better uses when the
King in his more mature age should be able to
consider some scheme for the relief of impoverished
livings and other good objects. In the end, however,
the bill passed both Houses, its many and compli
cated provisions being evidently required to meet
numerous practical objections. But the good inten
tions about grammar schools and other matters had
to wait.^ On the 1 7th December a resolution had been convoca-
passed in Convocation that all laws and canons ^^^^^^^^ ^^
against the marriage of the clergy should be declared the clergy.
void. The historian passes by at times with little
comment facts of very high significance, especially
where it is supposed that the reader can draw the true
moral for himself " A decidedly good reform," says
the modern Protestant with entire conviction, and I
am not going to deny that he is right. But the
mere suggestion, at this time, was revolutionary, and
the higher clergy for the most part voted for it most
unwillingly, under pressure from the Government —
that is to say, of Somerset, influenced by Cranmer.
Such is the positive statement of one whose opinion
in this matter should be weighty — that, namely, of
John Rogers, the first of the Marian martyrs.^ And
' See pp. 8, 9.
^ Statute 1 Edw. VI. c. 14. See Leach's English Schools at the Reforma
tion. ^ "Even so, in King Edward's days, did the most part of the learned of

58 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
it is to be feared that contemporaries did not look
upon it so much in the light of a reform as of a kind
of legitimising of women hitherto in an ambiguous
position. Indeed, the prejudice against them remained
long after. Queen EUzabeth's objection to a married
clergy is well known ; and it must be said that there
were clerical and even episcopal wives in her time
whose characters were painfully notorious.
Now Convocation having come to this resolution,
a bill was carried through the House of Commons
" that lay and married men may be priests and
have benefices." But it only reached the House of
Lords on the 20th December, when it was too late
to be made a statute that year ; for Parliament was
prorogued on Christmas Eve, and it was more than a
twelvemonth before the Act could pass.
But just after the prorogation there was published
(27th December) a proclamation, in which the hand
of Cranmer can be pretty clearly discerned, explaining
the Act about the Sacrament in a way in which it
was not explained in the statute itself. The King,
it was said, had made a good and godly Act against
contemners of the Sacrament ; yet some of his
subjects, as he was informed, " not contented with
such words and terms as Scripture doth declare
thereof, nor with that doctrine which the Holy Ghost
by the Evangelists of St. Paul had taught us," still
raised " contentions and superfluous questions " about
it, entering rashly into high mysteries in their sermons
the Clergy (against their wills, as it doth now appear) set their hands to
the marriage of priests (as deans and archdeacons, doctors and masters of
colleges, to the number of seventy or thereabouts, and the most part of the
Bishops), to the alteration of the service into English, and to the taking away
of the positive laws which before had prohibited the said marriage. This,
I say, they did for the Duke of Somerset's and others of the King's
executors' pleasure." — Chester's John Rogers, p. 320. Colonel Chester
remarks on the above passage that it contains "an important historical
fact entirely omitted by Foxe, and, it is believed, to be found originally
nowhere else." Strype, indeed, has an allusion to it {Eccl. Mem. II. pt. i.
209), which altogether puzzled inquirers till Colonel Chester unearthed and
published for the first time, in 1861, Rogers's "intended speech to the lord
Chancellor."

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 59
and conversation with irreverent inquiries whether vuigar
the body and blood of Christ was there, "really or '^r'^'".,'"
iiguratively, locally or circumscriptly, and having sacr^i-
quantity and greatness, or but substantially and by '"^"*'
substance only, or else but in a figure and manner
of speaking ; whether His blessed body be there,
head, legs, arms, toes and nails, or any other ways,
shape or manner, naked or clothed ; whether He is
broken or chewed, or He is always whole ; whether the
bread there remaineth as we see, or how it departeth ;
whether the flesh be there alone, and the blood, or
part, or each in other, or in the one both, in the
other but only blood. And what blood ? That only
which did flow out of the side, or that which
remained ? With other such irreverent, superfluous
and curious questions," aiming at things " to which
our human imbecility cannot attain." The King,
therefore, by advice of the Protector and Council,
commanded that no one should henceforth openly
argue on such questions " affirming any more terms
of the said blessed Sacrament than be expressly taught
in the Holy Scripture and mentioned in the foresaid
Act, nor deny none that be therein contained and
mentioned until such time as the King's Majesty, by
the advice of his Highness' Council and the Clergy
of this realm, shall define, declare, and set forth an
open doctrine thereof, and what terms and words
may justly be spoken thereby, other than be expressly
in the Scripture contained in the Act before rehearsed."
Meanwhile good subjects were to " devoutly and
reverently affirm and take that holy bread to be
Christ's body and that cup to be the cup of His
holy blood, according to the purport and effect
of the Holy Scripture contained in the Act before
expressed." Yet the King did not wish to discourage
those ignorant and willing to learn from inquiring
further on the subject from those whom he considered
qualified to teach. But contentious debaters, who

6o LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
called the Sacrament an idol, or by any such vile
name, would incur the King's indignation and suffer
imprisonment.^
Removal of The Royal Visitation itself was a pretty effective
stTaufs iiieans of bringing on a religious revolution. On the
night of the 16th November, as a contemporary
chronicler^ teUs us, the King's Visitors began "to
take down the rood with all the images in Paul's
church, which were clean taken away, and by
negligence of the laborers certain persons were hurt
and one slain in the falling down of the great Cross
in the rood loft, which the popish priests said was
the will of God for the pulling down of the said idols.
Likewise, all images in every parish church in London
were pulled down and broken by commandment of
the said Visitors." The walls of the churches were
whitewashed, and biblical texts in English substituted
for the images.*
On the 27 th of the same month, the first Sunday
of Advent, Bishop Barlow preached at St. Paul's and
gave further effect to the crusade against " idolatry "
by exhibiting " a picture (image) of the Resurrection
of our Lord made with vices which put out his legs
of sepulchre and blessed with his hand, and turned
his head, and there stood afore the pulpit the image
of our Lady, which they of St. Paul's had lapped in
cerecloth, which was laid in a corner of Paul's
church and found by the Visitors in their Visita
tion." The clergy had been hiding things that they
had once shown openly ; but they were to learn
to obey a new order now. Bishop Barlow in his
sermon denounced strongly " the great abomination
of idolatry," and " after the sermon the boys broke
the idols in pieces." *
Two days later (29th November) we have a minute
of Council as follows : —
1 Wilkins, iv. 18, 19.
' Wriothesley's Chronicle, ii. 1 ; so also Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 55.
' Negociations de M. de Selve, p. 241. * Wriothesley's Chronicle, ii. 1-

CH.I BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 6i
" John Bisse of Wycombe have (sic) spoken and
done inconveniently against the taking down of
images abused in the church of Wycombe, and
therefore having been committed a certain time
to the Fleet, was delivered and enjoined to make
open and solemn declaration at Wycombe of his
fault." ^
We hear nothing more about "erecting" again
images found not to have been " abused." Changes
began to be made with considerable facility. On the
27th January 1548 Cranmer intimated to Bishop
Bonner that " my lord Protector's Grace, with advice
of the King's Majesty's Council, for certain considera
tions them thereunto moving," had resolved that no
candles should be borne on Candlemas Day, nor ashes
nor palms used henceforth any longer. And this he
was to cause to be notified in all parish churches,
and to other bishops that they might do the like ; so
that the change might be complete by Ash Wednes
day.^ On the 6th February, however, came out a
proclamation against any person omitting, changing
or innovating any rites or ceremonies in the Church
by his own authority. On the 21st, a mandate to
the bishops was issued from Somerset Place for the
complete removal from churches of all images what
ever. The reason given for this order is that though
the injunction to take down images that had been
"abused with pilgrimages, offerings, or censings "
had been quietly obeyed in many parts, yet else
where it had led. to much discussion whether images
had been " abused " or not. Some images which had
been "manifestly abused" had been set up again
after being taken down ; and there was " no sure
quietness" without their complete removal. Such
was the justification put forward ; and Cranmer, of
^ Dasent, ii. 147.
^ Cardwell's Documentary Annals, i. 45. This document, No. VIII. of
Cardwell's Series, is really ten days earlier in date than No. VII., the
proclamation against making innovations by private authority.

Com-

62 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
course, very readily obeyed the mandate and sent
orders to his suffragans for its enforcement.^
Order of Ncxt camc out, ou the 8th March, an " Order of
Communion" prefaced by a royal proclamation to
give it validity. This was natural, as communion
in both kinds had been agreed to both by Convoca
tion and Parliament ; and it was, of course, right to
have the form authorised and ready for use before
Easter Sunday, which was the 1st April. The new
ritual was contained in a pamphlet of ten leaves ;
and it really was hardly so much a change as an
addition to the existing service. The Latin mass
was to go on as before, without any variation except
that when the laity were to communicate, the cele
brant was not to drink up all the wine he consecrated,
and the " Order " was simply an English form for
administering to them after the priest's mass. It
contained, however, some prefatory exhortations and
a general confession to be used by the congregation
to obviate the necessity of private confession and
shrift for those who preferred to do without them.
It was a service on the model of one laid down in a
notable book lately translated into English — the
Consultation of Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of
Cologne.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I
Statute 28 Hen. VIIL Cap. 17
Forasmuch as laws and statutes may happen hereafter to
be made within this realm at Parliaments holden at such
time as the Kings of the same happen to be within age,
having small knowledge and experience of their affairs, to
the great hindrance and derogation of the Imperial Crown
of this Realm, and to the universal damage of the Common
wealth of the subjects of the same : Be it therefore enacted
' Cardwell's Doc. Ann. No. IX.

CH. . BEGINNING OF THE PROTECTORATE 63
by authority of this present Parliament that if the Imperial
Crown of this Realm after the decease of the King's most
Royal Majesty, whose life our lord long preserve, descend,
come, or remain, to the heirs of our said Sovereign Lord or to
any person to be limited by his Highness, as of very right it
must and ought to do according to the laws of this Realm
established for the same, the said heirs or such person, being
within the age of xxiiij years, and that then any Act or
Acts of Parliament shall happen to be made and established
in any Parliament that then shall be holden before such heir
or heirs, person or persons then being in possession of the
said Crown shall be of their full ages of xxiiij years, that
then every such heir or heirs of our said Sovereign Lord, or
such persons so possessed of the Crown, and being within the
same age of xxiiij years, shall have full power and authority
at all times, after they shall come to their said full ages of
xxiiij years by then letters patents under the Great Seal
of England, to revoke, annul and repeal all and singular such
Acts made and established by their royal assents, in any
Parliament holden during the time that they were within
their said age of xxiiij years ; their royal assents had to
the same during the time that they were within the said age
of xxiiij years, or any Act or Acts hereafter to be made to
the contrary notwithstanding.
And be it also enacted by authority aforesaid that every
such appeal, adnullation and revocation of any Act or Acts
that shall be made and estabhshed in any Parliament holden
before the time that such heirs or person possessed of the
Crown shall be of the said age of xxuij years shall be as
good and effectual to all intents and purposes as though it
had been done by authority of Parliament.

Cornwall.

CHAPTER II
THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION
So far had religious alterations been effected in little
more than a year after the accession of King Edward.
But the complete removal of images did not by any
means produce that " sure quietness " which was the
pretext of the order. On the contrary, it was the
Revolt in principal cause of a revolt in Cornwall in April, in
which was slain William Body, once a servant of the
unscrupulous Thomas Cromwell, engaged on the
work by the Council. And there is reason to suspect
that the doings of the Government were by no means
well taken generally. Restraints were placed upon
preaching lest it should create disaffection throughout
the country ; but licensed preachers who had no dis
like of innovation were allowed to transgress even
Thomas royal proclamations in their zeal. Thomas Hancock,
^reachin'^ a native of Christchurch in Hampshire, preached
there that the Host could not be God because God
was invisible and to kneel to it was idolatry. Using
the same argument at Salisbury, he was brought
before the assizes and compelled to find sureties for
his future obedience to the law. But he at once
repaired to the Protector at Sion and procured an
order for the discharge of his sureties ; which having
shown to the Chief Justice at Southampton, he was
prepared to repeat the offence once more, but was
persuaded by the Mayor to let another preach in his
place. Little, however, was gained by this, for the
64

BK. vcH.nTHE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 65
other preacher, whose name was Griffith, pursued the
same line, and challenged the Chief Justice to his
face for allowing images in the church, and the Host,
which he called " the idol," to hang in the old fashion
by a string over the altar. ^
How beautifully Hancock could evade the force of
royal proclamations was shown when the Mayor of
Southampton charged him with contravening that
which had been issued on the 27th December against
giving nicknames to the Sacrament, such as calling
it Round Robin or Jack-in-the-box. He answered
simply that it was no sacrament but an idol as they
used it — so he was not reviling the Sacrament. And
probably a good many others found the same argu
ment handy ; for the nicknames continued to be used
both by preachers and others in spite of the proclama
tion (though by Parliament they were still virtually
licensed tUl the 1st May !), and the Sacrament of
the Altar was put down in various places.^ As for
Hancock, he was called the same year to be minister
at the town of Poole, in Dorsetshire, " which town,"
he wrote some years later, " was at the time wealthy,
for' they embraced God's word. They were in favor
with the rulers and governors of the realm. They
were the first that in that part of England were
called Protestants. . . . But now " (he writes after the
accession of Elizabeth), " I am sorry to set my pen to
write it, they have become poor, they have no love
to God's word ; they lack the favor and friendship
of the godly rulers and governors to defend them."
It would be interesting to know whether it was not
the opulence of the townsmen of Poole that made
them " godly," and the decay of their prosperity that
made them otherwise; but Hancock certainly seems
to think that godliness was to them great gain. He
was minister at Poole all the days of Edward VI. ^

' The story of Hancock is derived from his own account of himself in
"lols's Narra - - _ -
Grey Friar
VOL. Ill

Nichols's Narratives of the Reformation, p. 72 sq.
^ Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 55. ¦" Nichols's Narratives, pp. 77, 79,

66 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
We understand honest zealots, and the reader
should have no difficulty, by this time, in under-
Doubie- standing a double-dealing Government. Heresy was
GOTCTn-°^ supported underhand, as in the days of Henry VIIL,
ment. and carried further than it suited him to carry it.
That was the remarkable thing about the times, that
while Henry, with all his defiance of the Pope, and his
war against images, pilgrimages, and superstitions,
still took his stand on high sacramental orthodoxy,
and claimed to be a very defender, not a persecutor,
of the faith of Christendom, the Government of his
son, without waiting till he came to manhood,
advanced with such temerity into further change.
Innovations went on, some legal, or at least authori
tative, and others quite illegal and ostensibly against
authority, but secretly connived at by the ruling
powers. That these things stirred up trouble within
the kingdom was not wonderful. But even if the
Government had misgivings at times (as it possibly
may have had), a course of innovation in reUgion,
once entered on, was not easUy kept within bounds.
If images were put down in some cases because
they led to idolatry in the shape of pUgrimages
and offerings, it was only a concession to fanatics
who considered every image an idol. Then, if
reverence to images was idolatry, reverence to the
Host must be idolatry as well, at least in the eyes of
the many who scouted and sneered at the doctrine of
the Real Presence. Forbid ribald mockery of the
Sacrament by proclamation, — it was to no purpose.
The ribalds were the stoutest opponents of "the
Bishop of Rome," and their help was useful to the
Government. Yet it was to some of them a sacred
duty to put down, even by mockery, what they
considered superstition. In short, there was war in
the land between two opposite religious tendencies,
and the Government continually favoured the lower.
The Government, however, had found the value

CH. II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION ey
of an honest man ; for Latimer was honest, however Latimer.
unduly swayed at times by men in power. After
nine years of silence he had been set to preach at
Paul's Cross on Sunday, the 1st of January, in this
year 1548, and he continued preaching in public, and
afterwards before the King in Lent. He was strong
against " unpreaching prelates," and declared the
Devil to be the most industrious preacher in England.
But he was no less vehement against the widespread
corruption and pecuniary dishonesty, the greed and
inhumanity that had followed the great spoliation ;
and even he could not help contrasting times past
with times present, to the disadvantage of the present.
His preaching, however, gave moral support to the
Government, which was seriously hindered in its
work by official peculation.
There was an appearance also, just at that time, Gardiner.
but only for a time, of more favourable treatment
being meted out to Gardiner ; for he was sent for
out of the Fleet on the 8th January, and brought
before the Protector and Council, who informed
him that his offences were remitted by the General
Pardon just passed in Parliament. They then,
"having ministered to him a good lesson and admoni
tion," ordered his discharge from imprisonment, and
asked if he would conform himself now to the injunc
tions and homilies, " and such other doctrine as should
be set forth from time to time by the King's Highness
and Clergy of this realm, articles of part whereof,
touching Justification, were then exhibited to him to
declare in the same his opinion." ^ Such are the
words of the official record of the Privy CouncU ; and
no doubt his imprisonment had even strengthened his
loyal desire to be as submissive as possible. " He
made answer that he would conform himself accord
ingly as other bishops did, and, touching the articles
delivered to him, he desired respite of answer for four
1 Dasent, ii. 157-8.

68 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
or five days, which was accorded to him." I do not
propose to go into much detail about his case at
present, as there is more to be said about it later.
Briefly, the Council were not satisfied with his answer,
and bade him keep to his own house, but afterwards
allowed him to return to his diocese, where they were
next informed that he had not complied with all that
was expected of him. Finally, he was required to
preach before the King to make his position clear;
and he did so on the 29th June, St. Peter's Day,
having taken much pains beforehand to avoid offence
while doing justice to his own sacramental belief as
that of the Church at large. He thought he had given
satisfaction ; but next day he was arrested and taken
to the Tower, where he remained till the accession
of Queen Mary. Nor was this imprisonment all
the injustice done to him ; but it was not the Pro
tector Somerset who ultimately deprived him of his
bishopric. From this time, however, the foremost champion
of the Old Learning among the bishops was unable to
speak his mind ; and the fact, no doubt, gave freer
scope to the policy of innovation. As yet Cranmer's
action had been comparatively moderate, too much so
for zealous men of the New Learning, who looked for
Cranmer a reformation such as would please Swiss divines.
saTsfy"* "T^.^ ^^^^ know," says Bartholomew Traheron,
zealots. writing from London to BuUinger at Zurich, " that
all our countrymen who are sincerely favorable to
the restoration of truth entertain in all respects like
opinions with you ; and not only such as are placed
at the summit of honor, but those who are ranked
in the number of men of learning. I except the
Archbishop of Canterbury and Latimer, and a very few
learned men besides ; for from among the nobility I
know not one whose opinions are otherwise than they
ought to be. As to Canterbury, he conducts himself
in such a way, I know not how, as that people do not

cH.ii THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 69
think much of him, and the nobility regard him as
lukewarm. In other respects he is a kind and good-
natured man. As to Latimer, though he does not
clearly understand the true doctrine of the Eucharist,
he is nevertheless more favorable than either Luther
or even Bucer. I am quite sure that he will never
be a hindrance to this cause. For being a man of
admirable talent, he sees more clearly into the subject
than the others, and is desirous to come into our
sentiments, but is slow to decide, and cannot without
much difficulty, and even timidity, renounce an
opinion which he has once imbibed. But there is
good hope that he will some time or other come over
to our side altogether. For he is so far from avoid
ing any of our friends that he rather seeks their
company, and most anxiously listens to them while
discoursing upon this subject, as one who is beyond
measure desirous that the whole truth may be laid
open to him, and even that he may be thoroughly
convinced." ^
This was written on the 1st August 1548, and
is most interesting for what it tells of the mental
condition or outward profession at that date, both
of Latimer and of Archbishop Cranmer. Years
had passed away since Cranmer, in acknowledging a
presentation copy sent to him by the Swiss scholar
Joachim Vadianus of his Aphorisms, written against
the Corporeal Presence in the Eucharist, was obliged
to tell him that he entirely disapproved of the con
tents.^ And through the whole of the late reign
he was supposed to uphold, as might have been
expected, a doctrine so strongly enforced by the
Act of the Six Articles. Nor had he ever yet ad
mitted that he had changed his mind, but was
ranked in this matter among the supporters of the
old theology.
A judgment much like Traheron's was passed upon
» Original Letters (Parker Soe.), p. 320. ^ /*. p. 13.

•JO LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
him about the same time by a young Swiss in London
who was about to go to Oxford to study; and his
words also throw a curious light on the deference paid
to the Zurich divine by the most exalted dignitary
of the Church of England. In a postscript to a
letter of the 18th August John ab Ulmis writes to
BuUinger : —
After I had written this very short letter, lo! your
letter was dehvered to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which
I fully understand from Master Peter Martyr that you had
written to him with the greatest courtesy and respect. The
first part, if I remember right, was a grave and learned
admonition as to his episcopal duties ; the remainder was a
subtle transition to the Eucharist. But to tell you all in a
few words, although your letter (for it was constantly being
copied) afforded pleasure to everyone, and to the bishop him
self a full and gratifying exhortation to his duty; yet I
would have you know this for certain that this Thomas has
fallen into so heavy a slumber that we entertain but a very
cold hope that he will be aroused even by your most learned
letter. For he has lately pubhshed a Catechism, in which
he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious tran
substantiation of the papists in the Holy Supper of our
Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently
well grounded, perspicuous and lucid.^
So also writes an Englishman at Strassburg who
had good information about this Catechism and
about its effects when published. Writing from
thence to BuUinger on the 29th October, John
Burcher says : —
The condition of our England is such as I can neither
much commend nor find fault with. A more sincere and
pure feeling of religion has begun to flourish with success ;
but Satan, through his hatred of this, has been endeavouring
to throw everything into confusion by means of dissension.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, moved, no doubt, by the
advice of Peter Martyr and other Lutherans, has ordered a
Catechism of some Lutheran opinions to be translated and
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 380-81.

CH. II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 71
published in our language. This httle book has occasioned
no little discord; so that fightings have frequently taken
place among the common people, on account of their diversity
of opinion, even during the sermons. The Government, roused
by this contention, have convoked a Synod of the Bishops to
consult about religion.^
Surely it was time to do something when churches
were constantly desecrated by fighting during sermon
time ! For what John Burcher says on this point is
amply confirmed from other quarters. And it was
also time, in matters of doctrine and ritual, that
the Primate of England should make up his mind
how much was to be tolerated and how much to be
put down. But was there any authority to guide the
Primate? He appears to have been seeking guid
ance himself as to what was safe and true. For he
had for a long time been corresponding with foreign
reformers, and had already, in past years, invited He invites
several of them to England — among others, Peter ^"j^^^^
Alexander of Aries, who had been chaplain to Mary England.
of Hungary in the Netherlands ; the Italian Vermigli,
better known by his first two names Peter Martyr ;
and his countryman Bernardin Ochino, once a
Capuchin friar. Peter Martyr was made Regius
Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Ochino was
provided with a prebend in Canterbury Cathedral.
More warmly and more repeatedly had the Arch
bishop invited Melancthon to England, as appears
by letters which he wrote in July this year to John
a Lasco the Pole and to his friend Albert Harden-
berg, to whom he extended a like invitation.^ The
object of his asking them to England he himself
explains in these words : —
We are desirous of setting forth in our churches the true
1 lb. pp. 642-3.
^ Cranmer's Remains (Parker Soc), pp. 420-23, 425. A Lasco actually was
in England in October following {Grig. Letters, p. 644).

72 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
doctrine of God, and have no wish to be shifting and un
stable, or to deal in ambiguities ; but laying aside aU carnal
considerations, to transmit to posterity a true and explicit
form of doctrine, agreeable to the rule of the Sacred Writings;
so that there may not only be set forth among aU nations an
illustrious testimony respecting our doctrine, dehvered by
the grave authority of learned and godly men, but that all
posterity may have a pattern to imitate. For the purpose
of carrying this important design into execution we have
thought it necessary to have the assistance of learned men,
who, having compared their opinions together with us, may
do away with doctrinal controversies, and build up an entire
system of true doctrine.
Cranmer, it is evident, believed that by such con
sultations with learned foreigners in England, it
would be possible to set forth a scheme of theology
no less weighty than that of the CouncU of Trent,
and that its claims would be acknowledged by
posterity. Nor was he, perhaps, so much mistaken
as the friends of Rome would have us believe. For
while undoubtedly it is impossible to justify the
tyrannical methods used to silence the advocates
of the old religion, the fact remains that the first
and second English Prayer Books issued in this
reign — especially the latter — constitute what has
ever since been, with but little modification, the
recognised exponent of the religion of Englishmen
at large.^ The Interim, in Germany (of which more hereafter)
contributed not a little to promote Cranmer's design.
His sympathy with German Protestantism became
naturally warmer still than it had been ; and on the
2nd October he sent an invitation to Bucer, who next
year came over with the eminent Hebrew scholar
Fagius. The Spaniard Dryander, too, came over
¦ ' Cranmer no doubt was mistaken if lie ever dreamed that a Council
sitting in England would have been recognised as ecumenical. But he
certainly could not have per.suaded himself that in his day the idea had
advanced far towards realisation.

CH. II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 73
from Germany even this year, and was rewarded with
a Greek professorship at Cambridge ; ^ and many
others from various countries, Germans, Swiss, and
Dutch, followed later on and shared the hospitality of
Lambeth. The mental history of Archbishop Cranmer seems His mental
never yet to have been accurately delineated. And ^'^'°'¦^•
there are really some difficulties in tracing it pre
cisely. At one time, presumably, he believed in
Transubstantiation as others did ; indeed, he said so
himself at his examination in 1556.^ But for a long
time he was, no doubt, supposed to believe in it after
he had reaUy lost that belief. In the summer of
1538 a complaint was received from Calais of one
Adam DampUp, a preacher licensed by the Arch
bishop's commissary there, who, preaching at the
White Friars, was said to have " denied the Holy
Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood." * The
matter naturaUy came before the Archbishop him
self, who, in a letter to Cromwell about it in August,
protected the licensee of his commissary. " As con
cerning Adam Damplip of Calais," he writes, "he
utterly denieth that ever he taught or said that the
very Body and Blood of Christ was not presently in
the Sacrament of the Altar, and confesseth the same
to be there really. But he saith that the controversy
between him and the Prior was because he confuted
the opinion of the Transubstantiation ; and therein I
think he taught but the truth." So at this time, at
least, Cranmer had ceased to hold that doctrine. But
he still held by the Real Corporeal Presence, which
he maintained strongly not many years later in
opposition to Vadianus,* and could thereby shield
himself sufficiently against any imputation of being
what was called a " Sacramentarian." His inter
course with Lutherans abroad had probably led him
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 19, 348, 652. ^ Foxe, viii. 55.
3 L. P., XIII. i. 1219, 1386-88. * L. P., xv. 137.

74 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
to a view not unUke that of Luther himself, though he
afterwards said that he had never held more than two
" contrary doctrines " on this subject.^ And though
the King must have been aware of the sentiments
which he avowed to Cromwell, he compeUed him,
just three months later, to take his part as Arch
bishop in the prosecution of the unhappy Lambert ;
in which he, at least plausibly, did all that could be
expected of an orthodox primate in the way of argu
ment to change the mind of the accused. But
perhaps this may have been a matter of arrangement.
If Lambert, like Cranmer himself, had only ques
tioned Transubstantiation, the Archbishop would
have had a most unenviable task ; but he not only
questioned, he plainly denied even the Corporeal
Presence which Cranmer at this time upheld. And
the prosecution was so managed that Cranmer, we
may believe, was able to do his part without arguing
against his own principles, either professed or real.^
Now if Cranmer, even early in his career as Arch
bishop, really doubted or disbelieved in Transub
stantiation, a good many things become more
intelligible. We are told, for instance, that as early
as 1533 "a gentleman" of the Archbishop sent to
fetch Frith out of the Tower to be examined by the
Primate himself at Croydon, told the prisoner that he
might escape through the woods near Brixton Cause
way and so get on to Kent among his friends, whUe
those responsible for his custody would pretend to
be looking for him about Wandsworth. The Arch
bishop's " gentleman," no doubt, knew very well that
^ Foxe, ubi supra.
¦¦* Note the account of the trial in Foxe, v. 230 sq. The King began pro
ceedings by calling upon Lambert to say without evasion whether the
Sacrament was the Body of Christ, and he denied it. The Archbishop was
then called to refute Lambert's argument that the Body of Christ could not
be in two places at once. According to Foxe he got rather "entangled"
with the arguments he was called on to confute, and Gardiner, with what
Foxe calls "hasty impudence," rushed in before his set time to speak, with
further texts of Scripture in support of the Archbishop's contention, while
the other bishops present had each their allotted share in the discussion.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 75
his master did not like the business of examining
such a prisoner.^
Then we may take it as due to Cranmer that not
a word was said about Transubstantiation, either in
the Articles of 1536 or in The Institution of a
Christian Man. In both these formulas the doctrine
of " the Sacrament of the Altar " is expressed in the
very same words, viz. : " that under the form and
figure of bread and wine which we there presently
do see and perceive by outward senses, is verily,
substantially and really contained and comprehended
the very self-same body and blood of our Saviour,
Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and
suffered upon the Cross for our redemption ; And
that under the same form and figure of bread and
wine the very self-same body and blood of Christ is
corporally, really, and in the very substance, exhibited,
distributed, and received of all them which receive
the said Sacrament." This was certainly orthodox
enough according to Catholic standards ; but it was
a form of orthodoxy that suited Luther as well as
Rome, and which seems to have been drawn up
artfully to allow a safe place for Consubstantiation
if any one preferred that theory to Transubstantiation.
But then came the Act of the Six Articles in 1539,
followed by the Book of Necessary Doctrine in 1543,
neither of which allowed any such subterfuge. To
deny Transubstantiation was death under the Six
Articles; and in the Book of 1543 the doctrine was
very expressly laid down by the King's authority.
How the Primate of All England could have retained
his own Lutheran theology after those dates may
^ Foxe, Acts and Mon., viii. 695-9 (App.). The reader should also note
what is said at pp. 695-6 about Frith's imprisonment in the Tower. A
sermon preached before the King in Lent 1533 was, it is said, devised to
"put the King in remembrance that the said Frith was in the 'Tower, there
staid rather for his safeguard than for his punishment by such as favored
him. " This, it will be seen, is quite in accordance with what I have said
myself in Vol. I. p. 415, though the passage was not before me when I
wrote.

76 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
very well seem astonishing. In point of fact he
apparently did not, but this does not make his
position less extraordinary ; for, from what we hear,
he does not seem to have kept up even to the
Lutheran standard. But he preserved a freedom of
judgment for himself which was certainly not a little
remarkable. The Six Articles, as we know, had been
carried in spite of his opposition in Parliament by the
King's personal intervention. The Necessary Doc
trine was " the King's Book," but Cranmer declared
at a later date that it never had expressed his own
views. That it did not would also appear manifest
by what was stated in that very year; for it was
one of the things elicited by the complaints of his
prebendaries that he had shocked them by reading
a lecture on the Sacrament of the Altar, " saying it
was but a similitude." -^
Such an utterance after the passing of the
Act of the Six Articles would not have been
safe for any one except the Primate, and in the
beginning of that year, 1543, men had been en
couraged to complain of heresy, even in the highest
quarters. Later in the year tongues seem to have
been tolerably free. But after that date Cranmer
Hisreti- appears to have kept very quiet upon the subject
c^enceunder ^-y ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ jj^^^^ YIll.'s death. His
VIII. name is no way connected with the tragedy of poor
Anne Askew, and if he wished to save her he was
not allowed to do so. Under Edward VI. , when
the Act of the Six Articles was repealed, he was for
some time still held to be a Lutheran, and disappointed
the expectation of the more ardent Reformers in
England by his reticence on this great subject. But
he was moving cautiously and preparing to avow
a change of opinion which, as we learn from him
self, was the result of conferences with his chaplain
Ridley, the future Bishop.^ At a time which, as it
1 See Vol. II. p. 374. 2 Foxe, viii. 57.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION "jj
has been shown with almost definite certitude, must
lie between the narrow limits of the end of December
1547 and the beginning of February 1548,' he sub
mitted three sets of questions concerning the Mass
to the bishops of both provinces (or the greater
number of them), and to at least two divines besides,
whose answers enabled him to see the amount of
sympathy that he might expect in the policy which
he had now in view, of changing the Mass into a
Communion Service. Reception by the laity in both
kinds had already been authorised, and "the Order
of Communion" came out on the 8th March 1548.
Sometime in the course of that year he published
what is often called his "Catechism" — really a
translation from the Latin of a Lutheran treatise,
originally composed in German and for some years
in use at Nuremberg, when it was turned into Latin
by Justus Jonas. It was not in the ordinary form
of a catechism — questions and answers — but simply
a book of elementary instruction ; and the Eucharistic
doctrine it set forth was entirely Lutheran. This
again was a great disappointment to forward minds,
and no one who reads the book will wonder that it
was so.^
^ Gasquet and Bishop's Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer,
p. 84. The questions may be seen in Cranmer's Remains (Parker Soc),
pp. 150-53.
^ It insists that we ought to believe by Christ's own words that " we
receive truly the body and blood of Christ. For God is Almighty, as ye
heard in the Creed. He is able, therefore, to do all things what He will.
And, as St. Paul writeth, He calleth those things which be not, as if
they were. Wherefore, when Christ taketh bread and sayeth, 'Take,
eat, this is my body,' we ought not to doubt but we eat his very
body. And when he taketh the cup and sayeth, 'Take, drink, this
is my blood,' we ought to think assuredly that we drink his very
blood. And this we must believe if we will be counted Christian men.
And whereas in this perilous time, certain deceitful persons be found
in many places, who of very frowardness will not grant that there is
the body and blood of Christ, but deny the same for none other cause
but that they cannot compass by man's blind reason how this thing
should be brought to pass, ye, good children, shall with all diligence
beware of such persons that ye suffer not yourselves to be deceived by
them. For such men, surely, are not true Christians." A Short
Instruction into Christian Religion, being a Catechism set forth by
' Archbishop Cranmer in 1548 (Oxford, 1829), p. 208.

78 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
No doubt he was still greatly perplexed in his own
mind. It was not a question of mere private opinion.
The individual view of Thomas Cranmer was one
question, and even that, perhaps, not a view as to
which he had arrived at clear and absolute conviction.
He was considering the German view, whether it
could possibly be upheld. But he was Archbishop
of Canterbury, Primate of All England, and any
clear pronouncement on his part must affect the
liberty of individual thinking within the whole
Church of England. His period of suspense came to
an end this same year which saw " the Order of
Communion " issued by authority and the Lutheran
" Catechism " published by himself On the 28th
September Bartholomew Traheron, writing from
London, tells BuUinger that both Latimer and
Cranmer had come over to their opinions, along
with other bishops who had before held Lutheran
views.-* On the 27th November John ab Ulmis
writes also to BuUinger from Oxford : " The bishops
entertain right and excellent opinions respecting the
Holy Supper of Jesus Christ. That abominable error
and silly opinion of a carnal eating has been long since
banished and entirely done away with. Even that
His change Thomas (Craumcr) himself, about whom I wrote to
dectoed. y°^ y^^en I was in London, by the goodness of God
and the instrumentality of that most upright and
judicious man, John a Lasco, is in a great measure
recovered from his dangerous lethargy. " ^ And finally,
at a disputation held in London on the 14th
December, as Traheron once more writes to BuUinger
at the end of the year — the " disputation " in question
being a debate in the House of Lords — "the
Archbishop of Canterbury, contrary to the general
expectation, most openly, firmly, and learnedly
maintained your opinion on this subject." He
then gives a brief account of the Archbishop's
1 Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 322. ' lb. p. 383.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 79
argument, and says he was followed by Ridley,
Bishop of Rochester, " who handled the subject with
so much eloquence, perspicuity, erudition and power,
as to stop the mouth of that most zealous papist,
the Bishop of Worcester (Heath). The truth never
obtained a more brilliant victory among us. I
perceive that it is aU over with Lutheranism, now
that those who were considered its principal and
almost only supporters, have altogether come over
to our side." And in a postscript he adds : " The
foolish bishops have made a marvellous recantation." ^
The effect of a declared change of mind by the
Archbishop of Canterbury on such a cardinal point of
doctrine was, of course, of a very marked description.
The new school were vastly encouraged, and it is thus
that John ab Ulmis writes to BuUinger on the 2nd
March 1549 :—
As to what they have reported respecting rehgion,
namely, that there are great differences of opinion, I admit
that such has been the case to a considerable extent. But I
can now assert that by the goodness of God the minds of all
good men are disposed to harmony and peace. For the cause
of these dissensions is removed in this present parhament, —
namely, the babbhng and dogmas of anti-Christ, which are
now positively and effectually banished. I would here write
you word what has been done and determined respecting the
Lord's Supper, only that your most excellent and loving friend,
Master Traheron, has already acquainted you with every
particular. From him, therefore, you will learn the whole
matter more completely, and from me these few things very
briefly. The Archbishop of Canterbury, a man of singular
worth and learning, has, contrary to the general expectation,
dehvered his opinion upon this subject learnedly, correctly,
orderly, and clearly ; and, by the weight of his character and
the dignity of his language and sentiments, easily drew over
aU his hearers to our way of thinking. His opponent was
that lying and subtle Cerberus, the Bishop of Winchester,^
1 Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 322-3.
^ Apparently this must be a mistake for "the Bishop of Worcester"
(Heath), as Gardiner was not in the House of Lords but in the Tower. As
to Heath's opposition, see Traheron's statement in Original Letters, p. 332.

8o LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
together with a number of other babblers who were brought
in, men who knew nothing else beyond a few quiddities, and
those silly and false.i
That Cranmer's declaration in the end of the year
1548 really tended to sUence discord among bishops
and clergymen may be true. It was unquestionably
favourable to the noisy party, and the opposite school
were bound to show some respect for an Archbishop,
however much they differed from him. But it was
certainly high time to do something, not only to
remedy disorder, but if possible to get rid of its causes.
In a contemporary chronicle^ we read as follows : —
At this time was much preaching through all England
against the Sacrament of the Altar, save only Mr. Laygton,^
and he preached, in every place that he preached, against
them all. And so was much controversy and much business
in Paul's every Sunday, and fighting* in the church, and of
none that were honest persons but boys and persons of httle
reputation ; and would have made much more if there had
not a way been taken. And at the last, the 28th day of
September^ following, there was a proclamation that none of
both parties should preach unto such time as the Council had
determined such things as they were in hand withal ; for at
that time divers of the bishops sat at Chertsey Abbey for
divers matters of the King and the Council.
The same facts are also recorded by Odet de Selve,
the French ambassador, writing on the 30th Sep
tember, viz. : " that there are daily fights in the
London churches whether there shall be mass or not";
and that to put an end to the disorder some bishops
and divines were assembled at a place near the Court
^ Original Letters, p. 388.
'•^ The Grey Friars' Chronicle (Camden Soc. ), p. 56.
^ Apparently William Layton, brother of the notorious Richard, who was
now deceased.
* The editor has made this "syttyng in the Churche," but the word in the
MS. is distinctly "fyttyng," which, of course, means fighting. I regret to
find the same misreading in Mr. Hewlett's edition of " The Grey Friars'
Chronicle " in vol. ii. of the Monumenta Franciscana (Rolls Series).
' The editor reads the month " December," though he says it is erased in
the MS. and the marginal correction burnt away. The 23rd September
appears to be the true date. The text of the proclamation will be found in
Cardwell's Documentary Armals, i. 70.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 8i
named " Chelsey " (a mistake, for the place was
Chertsey), who were to determine what should be
held true doctrine in England as to the Sacrament of
the Altar.-' But fighting in churches seems to have
continued all through the reign, till at the last an Act
of Parliament (5 and 6 Edw. VI. cap. 4) was passed
against it, by which the ordinary was empowered to
suspend for such offences any layman from the right
of entering a church and any clerk from his ministra
tions, with the further penalty of loss of an ear.
We may as well hear also what another foreigner — Peter
a Protestant this time — says about the matter. Peter afsfate^of
Martyr, writing to Bucer on the 26th December, tells religion in
him that the prospects of religion in England are "^*'"''
really very encouraging, notwithstanding " the un
happy events in Germany." Yet he is greatly alarmed
about two things : the first is the obstinate pertinacity
of the friends of popery, who argued with wonderful
cunning and sophistry. They were very numerous,
and included a number of bishops and doctors who
drew a multitude of ignorant persons along with them.
Then he goes on to say : —
The other matter which distresses me not a little is this,
that there is so much contention among our people [those
who were not papists] about the eucharist, that every corner
is full of it. And even in the Supreme Council of the State,
in which matters relating to religion are daily brought for
ward, there is so much disputing of the bishops among them
selves and with others, as I think was never heard before.
Whence those who are in the Lower House, as it is called,
that is, men of inferior rank, go up every day into the higher
court of parliament, not, indeed, for the purpose of voting (for
that they do in the Lower House), but only that they may be
able to hear these sharp and fervent disputations. Hitherto
the popish party has been defeated, and the palm rests with
our friends, but especially with the Archbishop of Canterbury,
whom they till now were wont to traduce as a man ignorant
' Negociations de M. de Selve, p. 453.
VOL. Ill G

82 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
of theology, and as being only conversant with matters of
government.^ Parliament, which had not met for business since
the preceding December, and had been prorogued
twice, had assembled once more on the 24th Novem
ber, and such were its proceedings. The young King
himself notes in his journal : " A Parliament was
called, where an uniform order of prayer was institute,
before made by a number of bishops and learned men
gathered together in Windsor. There was granted a
subsidy, and there was a notable disputation of the
Sacrament in the Parliament House." ^
This subsidy was granted on the 12th March, and
on the 14th the Parliament was again prorogued. But
the religious questions had come on much earlier in
the session, as everybody expected they would con
stitute the leading business.^ A tract by Peter
Martyr, Of the Sacrament of Thanksgiving, was
translated from the Latin and published on the 1st
December, with a dedication to the Protector.* Mean
while the bishops and divines who met at Chertsey,
and afterwards transferred themselves to Windsor, had
been preparing a manual of public worship in English,
to be submitted to the legislature. The time about
which the work was begun may be divined from the
proclamation of the 23rd September, intimating that
the King was determined shortly to provide a uniform
order (of divine service), so as to put an end to all
controversies, and that certain bishops and learned
men were assembled by his Highness's command for
that purpose.^ The result of their labours was the
The first compilation of a Prayer Book, which was submitted to
^y^"" the House of Lords on the 14th December, and was
1 Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 469, 470.
^ Nichols's Literary Remains of King Edward VI. , vol. ii. pp. 223-4.
^ Nigoc. de M. de Selve, p. 473.
* Gasquet and Bishop, p. 158.
= Wilkins, iv. 30, cited by Gasquet and Bishop, p. 145. The same pro
clamation has been cited above from Cardwell's Documentary Annals, i. 70.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 83
the subject of those " sharp and fervent disputations"
mentioned by Peter Martyr. Bishop Tunstall objected
that " the adoration was left out of the book." Those
who drew it up, he said, considered that there was
nothing in the Sacrament but bread and wine. His
speech drew forth comments from Cranmer and from
Heath of Worcester; and at the end of the day Bishop
Thirlby made a rather disconcerting remark that the
book, as touching the doctrine of the Supper, was not
agreed upon among the bishops, but was only in
disputation. The Protector next day endeavoured to
make out that the doctrine had been settled by a
majority of votes ; but Thirlby replied that things
were not agreed upon till they were conceded. It was
a duty to set forth God's truth in plain terms, and as
this had not been done he could not agree to the
doctrine. The Protector was seriously put out, and
said Thirlby 's words implied wilfulness and obstinacy.
But Bonner brought a far more serious battery to bear.
The doctrine of the proposed Prayer Book, he said, was
not decent, because it had been condemned as heresy,
not only abroad, but in England also, in the case of
Lambert ; and, proceeding further to show how the
book countenanced heresy, he provoked Somerset
more than ever. But it is needless to go into the
whole controversy. The discussion lasted five days,
and was closed by Cranmer on Wednesday, 19th
December, when the book was sent down to the
Commons, who at once returned it. The bill to
authorise the new Prayer Book passed finally through
the Lords in January 1549, when ten bishops voted
for it and eight against.^
In the Commons it passed its third reading on The Fust
the 21st, and it was to become operative from ^^*^°^^ "''
Whitsunday following. The measure thus became
law, and is commonly known as the First Act of
Uniformity.
1 Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 160-171, 397 sq.

84 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
Lordsey- Just thrcc days before it passed, the Protector's
Sudeley brother. Lord Seymour of Sudeley, was committed to
beheaded, the Towcr, and in March following he was beheaded
under an Act of attainder. This is not an event in
the history of religion, but the story has much to do
with the debased morals of the time and the factious
ness of men in high position. The Protector himself
was pulling down churches without remorse to build
his palace of Somerset House, and appropriating
other Church property as freely as might have been
expected. In the summer, commotions became general
in England. Kett's rebellion in Norfolk arose out
of the enclosure of commons and other economic
conditions created by the greed of nobles and the
enormous forfeitures during the late reign ; but it
was one of the faults found with Somerset by his
rivals, that he sympathised too much with the men
who suffered and rebelled in this way. In Devon
shire there was a rising of a different kind occasioned
by the new Prayer Book. A stout resistance was
made to authority. Exeter was besieged, and when
the complaints of the insurgents were demanded, it
appeared that they totally objected to all the
religious innovations, thought the new service little
better than " a Christmas game," desired the Six
Articles revived, the English Bible called in again,
and Cardinal Pole sent for from Eome to take a
leading part in the King's Council.
The rising I forbcar to spcak in detail of this great rising,
as it is sufficient for my purpose to exhibit the
main facts, though I think a complete study ^ of
these would show that it was a much more
formidable movement than historians generally have
supposed. There is no doubt, indeed, of the
serious alarm that it gave to the Government not
withstanding all their efforts to hide its gravity.
^ I am glad to know that a full account of this movement, written by a
lady who has made such a complete study of it, is now on the eve of
publication.

in the
We.st.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 85
From the time the first spark was kindled at Samp-
ford Courtenay, where the villagers compelled their
parson, after beginning the use of the new service on
Whitsunday, to revert to the old usage, the state
of matters became more and more formidable. How
an Ul-armed peasantry blockaded the roads against the
forces sent to disperse them ; how they were driven
out of their refuge by the burning of the barns at
Crediton, but went on to Exeter, which they almost
starved into surrender in a five-weeks' siege before
Lord Eussell could relieve it ; and how Lord Russell
was only able to approach the city after much fight
ing with another detachment of the malcontents and
a fearful massacre of prisoners, — all this is for other
pens than mine to relate minutely. At a time when
there were disturbances all over the country about
enclosures, this western rising was mainly, if not
solely, for religion ; and the forces sent to quell it
were at first inadequate even to cope with peasantry
in Devonshire lanes.
But undoubtedly the religious rising might have
spread far into England, for it found much sympathy
in other counties besides Devon and Cornwall. The
demands of the insurgents at first were simply for a
return to old usages in religion as they were in force
in the reign of Henry VIIL, and among them was
that requirement for the revival of the Act of the Six
Articles which may well seem strange to those who
have been accustomed to look upon that Act as a
great engine of religious persecution. But further
articles were added to the catalogue of things
demanded, some of which were so bold as to be
almost unaccountable, except as proceeding from a
firm belief on the part of the malcontents that the
sense of the nation was with them against an
oligarchy which was seeking to impose a new religion
on the people. They actually required that four
lords, eight knights, twelve esquires, and twenty

86 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
yeomen should be delivered to them as pledges tiU
their demands were conceded in Parliament. That
the Council rebuked their presumption in this par
ticular was no more than was to be expected if the
Council deigned to reason with such petitioners at all.
Yet the fact that they did deign to answer every one
of the articles, sometimes with really good reasons,
at other times with the best that they were capable of
offering in their own justification, speaks volumes as to
the necessity felt by the Government of not offending
too deeply the conservative feelings of the people.
Cardinal The demand made for the restitution of Cardinal
Pole. Pole is extremely interesting. That people in the
West country, where the influence of the Courtneys
was great, strongly sympathised with another family
belonging to the blood royal, and especially with one
member of it so long kept an exile by the iniquity of
the laws, is not in itself surprising. But it was not a
mere personal question. From the day that he was
made a cardinal, Pole had ceased to be the servant of
any English ruler. Even in the year 1542 he had
been designated by Pope Paul III. as one of the three
legates who were to open the Council of Trent. The
project of such a Council was delayed for three years
by the outbreak of war between Francis I. and the
Emperor, and a commencement was only made in
December 1545. But in June 1546 Pole was obliged
to leave Trent for Padua on account of his health,
and in October the Pope sanctioned his return to
Rome, where news of the death of Henry VIII.
reached him early next year, and he eagerly hoped
that an opportunity would now present itself to re-
His corre- claim his couutry from schism. He wrote to the Privy
^thttiT* Council before he knew who were to bear sway, warn-
councii. ing them that they could establish no solid ground
for government without reconciliation with Rome,
and that the Pope, to whom the interests of the nation
were very dear, was willing to send him as legate to

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 87
redress past evils. But the Privy CouncU refused even
to receive the messenger. Pole was one of six persons
excepted by name from the general pardon proclaimed
at the coronation, and the way to reconciliation with
Rome had been barred from the very first.
In spite of this affront, Pole next year (1548) sent
his servant, Throgmorton, to England to remonstrate
on the incivility, and further to warn the Council
of the danger they would incur if they alienated
the Emperor by changes in religion. Throgmorton
was not allowed an audience any more than the
former messenger, but he received an indirect answer
from the Protector that any letters which his master
chose to write privately would be fully considered,
and any emissary he might send into France or
Flanders to speak for him would have a passport sent
him to come to England.^ On this, Pole on the 9th
April 1549 despatched two special messengers to the
Protector and a letter to Dudley, Earl of Warwick,
offering, if they would not allow him to return to
England, to repair to some neutral place near the
English Channel to discuss points of difference. This
time his messengers, at least, were received with
courtesy, and dismissed with a written answer, though
they knew it was unfavourable ; but both they and
Pole himself, when he read it, were astounded at the
incivility of its tone. The Protector, writing appar
ently in the name of the Council, said that they
regretted he had not yet discovered the abuses of
Rome and did not show more regard for his own
country and duty to his sovereign. Neither did he
seem to recognise the light of Christ's word as it was
truly taught in England. They had hoped, in the
lenity of the times, he would have sought the King's
pardon and licence to come home ; but he wrote like
a foreign prince and offered his King a place where
he might confer with him or his commissioners. It
^ state Papers, Domestic, Edward VI., vol. v. No. 9.

88 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
was so long since they had forsaken Rome that it was
strange to hear such language. They had no need
of the Pope, and they made little of the dangers
of foreign war and internal dissensions during the
minority. If Pole wished to return to his country
they would mediate for his pardon ; and to show him
the true state of matters there as regards religion,
they sent him a copy of the new Prayer Book
approved by Parliament, which they submitted to
his criticism.^
Such a letter as this at first seemed to make reply
impossible. But considering that his envoys had
been well received, Pole affected to treat its rudeness
as due to a secretary rather than to the Protector
himself, and sent once more two messengers to
England (perhaps the same as before) with a long
letter to Somerset, in which he observed that the
refusal to send any one to meet him, if it really came
from the Council, saved him a long and laborious
journey, which he would only have undertaken for
the good of his country, and that as for demanding
the King's pardon to enable him to return home, he
was guilty of no offence, either to Edward or even
to his father, for which he should require a pardon.
Let the young King rather undo his father's injustice
towards him, as Henry VIII. himself at the com
mencement of his reign had besought forgiveness of
Pole's mother for his father's act in putting her
brother the Earl of Warwick to death. If Edward
were to act in like manner it would be for the benefit
of his father's soul. Pole admitted, indeed, that as
Cardinal, and especially if made Legate, he was no
longer subject to his own natural sovereign ; but
they might command him still in all things for the
weal of his country. As to their proceedings in
religion, he was not convinced of their sincerity.
They had repealed the Act of the Six Articles, of
' State Papers, Dom.estic, Edward VI., vol. vii. No. 28.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 89
which he approved, and confirmed the worst enact
ments of the preceding reign. He had not desired a
conference with the King, who was but a boy, but
with any of his responsible ministers, and he had
desired it on their account to prevent the enforce
ment of ecclesiastical censures against them. He not
only suggested the probability of the Emperor's inter
ference, but confessed that he himself had even urged
it if matters did not improve. And he went on at
very great length to justify his past warnings, when,
as he was concluding, news reached him of the
rebellions in Norfolk and the West of England, which
seemed in themselves a sufficient commentary on all
that he had said.^
This letter, which was dated 7th September 1549,
was the last letter of Pole to the Protector, who was,
as we shall see presently, now on the eve of his fall.
The way the kingdom was convulsed, east and west,
and in various parts besides, was in itself in the
highest degree alarming. Martial law had been
proclaimed in London itself on the 18th July; and
on Sunday, the 21st, Archbishop Cranmer came
"suddenly" to St. Paul's, as one authority tells us,^
but not without ceremony, as we learn from the
fuller account given by another ; ^ for " there in the
choir after matins, in a cope with an alb under it,
and his cross borne afore him, with two priests of
Paul's for deacon and subdeacon, with albs and
tunicles, the dean following him in his surplice," he
made an exhortation to the people to pray to God for
mercy, giving a narrative of the risings which had come
upon them for their sins. The Lord Mayor and most
of the Aldermen sat in the choir along with him.
The Utany was sung kneeling, according to the King's
book, with a special prayer for the occasion ; and
then the Archbishop "did the office himself in a cope
1 strype's Cranmer, p. 835 (App.). ^ Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 60.
' Wriothesley's Chro'iiicle, ii. 16.

go LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
and no vestment, nor mitre nor cross, but a cross staff ;
and so did all the office, and his satin cap on his
head all the time of the office; and so gave the
communion himself unto eight persons of the said
church." He again preached at St. Paul's on Saturday
the 10th August for a victory won over the rebels
in Devonshire, and on the 31st, after the Norfolk
rebels were subdued, he sent his chaplain, Joseph, to
preach there for him.
But before these disturbances the forward policy
in religion had met with a serious obstacle in one
ThePrin- important quarter. The Princess, or, as she was
T^heT^ officially called, the Lady Mary, continued her Mass,
Mass. and ignored the new Prayer Book and Order of
Communion altogether. It was difficult to pass this
over, as it would naturally encourage others. On
Sunday the 16th June 1549, as appears by the Acts
of the Privy Council, the Lords wrote to her, "giving
to her advice to be conformable and obedient to the
observation of his Majesty's laws, to give order that
the mass should be no more used in her house, that
she would embrace and cause to be celebrate in her
said house the communion and other divine services
set forth by his Majesty, and that her Grace would
send to the said Lord Protector and Council her
Comptroller, and Dr. Hopton her chaplain, by whom
her Grace should be advertised from their Lordships
more amply of their minds, to both her contentation
and honour."^
Mary was at this time at Kenninghall in Norfolk,
from which place she answered them six days later
in the following terms : —
To my Lord Protector and the rest of the King's Majesty's
Council.
My Lord, I perceive by the letters which I late received
from you and other of the King's Majesty's Council, that ye
' Acts of Privy Council, ii. 291-2.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 91
be all sorry to find so httle conformity in me touching the ob- Her reply
servation of his Majesty's laws; who am well assured that I *° ''"'
have offended no law, unless it be a law of your own making °""'" '
for the altering of matters in religion ; which, in my conscience,
is not worthy to have the name of a law, both for the King's
honour's sake, the wealth of the realm, and giving an
occasion of an evil bruit through all Christendom, besides
the partiahty used in the same, and (as my said conscience
is very well persuaded) the offending of God, which passeth
all the rest. But I am well assured that the King his
father's laws were all allowed and consented to without com
pulsion by the whole realm, both spiritual and temporal, and
all the executors sworn upon a book to fulfil the same, so
that it was an authorized law ; and that I have obeyed, and
win do, with the grace of God, till the King's Majesty, my
brother, shall have sufficient years to be a judge in these
matters himself. Wherein, my Lords, I was plain to you at
my last being in the Court, declaring unto you, at that time,
whereunto I would stand, and now do assure you all, that
the only occasion of my stay from altering mine opinion is
for two causes — one principally for my conscience' sake, the
other that the King my brother shall not hereafter charge
me to be one of those that were agreeable to such alterations
in his tender years. And what fruits daily grow by such
changes since the death of the King my father, to every
indifferent person it well appeareth, both to the displeasure
of God and unquietness of the realm. Notwithstanding, I
assure you aU, I would be as loth to see his Highness take
hurt, or that any evil should come to this his realm, as the
best of you aU ; and none of you have the hke cause, consider
ing how I am compelled by nature, being his Majesty's poor
and humble sister, most tenderly to love and pray for him,
and unto this his realm (being born within the same) wish
all health and prosperity, to God's honor. And if any judge
of me the contrary for mine opinion's sake (as I trust none
doth), I doubt not in the end, with God's help, to prove my
self as true a natural and humble sister as they of the
contrary opinion, with all their devices and altering of laws,
shall prove themselves true subjects ; praying you, my Lord
and the rest of the Council, no more to trouble and unquiet
me with matters touching my conscience, wherein I am at a
fuU point, with God's help, whatsoever shall happen to me ;
intending, with His grace, to trouble you httle with any
worldly suits, but to bestow the short time I think to hve in

92 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
quietness, and pray for the King's Majesty and all you;
heartily wishing that your proceedings may be to God's
honor, the safeguard of the King's person, and quietness to
the whole realm.
Moreover, whereas your desire is that I should send my
Comptroller and Dr. Hopton unto you, by whom you would
signify your minds more amply to my contentation and
honor, it is not unknown to you all that the chief charge of my
house resteth only upon the travails of my said Comptroller,
who hath not been absent from my house three whole days
since the setting up of the same, unless it were for my letters
patent ; so that if it were not for his continual diligence I
think my little portion would not have stretched so far. And
my chaplain, by occasion of sickness, hath been long absent,
and is not yet able to ride. Therefore, like as I cannot for
bear my Comptroller, and my priest is not able to journey, so
shall I desire you, my Lord, and all the rest of the Council,
that, having anything to be declared to me, except matters
of religion, ye will either write your minds or send some
trusty person, with whom I shall be contented to talk and
make answer as the case shall require ; assuring you that if
any servant of mine, either man, or woman, or chaplain,
should move me to the contrary of my conscience, I would
not give ear to them, nor suffer the hke to be used within
my house. And thus, my Lord, with my hearty commenda
tions, I wish unto you and the rest as well to do as myself.
From my house at Kenninghall, the 22d of June 1549.
Your assured friend to my power, Maky.i
That the Council did not relish this answer is
intelligible enough, but, at least, they might have
shown some consideration for the royal lady with
whom they were in correspondence, and not have
They again forccd her to part, even for a time, with a chaplain
ii°r sendmg '^^^ ^^^ ^o unwcU, and a servant who was so necessary
up her for the affairs of her household. This, however, was
s rvan s. .^j^g^^ ^^^^ iusistcd ou doiug, Sending down into
Norfolk a summons, not only to her ComptroUer
and her chaplain, but also to another of her servants,
named Englefield, on their allegiance to come up and
appear before the Council. On receipt of this Mary
' Foxe, vi. 7.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 93
wrote again on the 27th, saying that Mr. Englefield
was ready to have gone up without any summons at
all as soon as he could, his horses being a long way
off. But as to the other two, she was surprised, if
they had received her letter, that they did not weigh
what she had said, and, if not, that they had not
waited for her answer. Notwithstanding the incon
venience to herself and her two dependents, since
they insisted on their coming up under " extreme
words of peril," she had felt it necessary to allow
them, though she feared her poor sick priest's life
would be in real danger from the journey, and she had
commanded her Comptroller to return immediately,
as she could not spare him.^
The CouncU, it may be, did allow her Comptroller
to return without delay, but Dr. Hopton was detained
till the 7th July, when he was despatched again to
her,^ with a message in reply to her first letter. This
had been drawn, up, apparently, in anticipation of his
coming, in the form of memoranda, dated at Rich
mond, 14th June, which no doubt is a mistake for
the 24th ^ — the day they would naturally have
received Mary's letter of the 22nd. But Dr. Hopton
did not leave Norfolk before the 27th, and the heads
of what he was to say to his mistress were already
formulated before he came. The first of these
memoranda was as follows : —
Her Grace writeth " that the law made by Parhament is
not worthy the name of law," meaning the statute for the
communion, etc.
You shall say thereto : " The fault is great in any subject Points of
to disallow a law of the King, a law of the realm, by long *'^®'''
study, free disputation and uniform determination of the j^er.
whole clergy consulted, debated, and concluded ; but the
greater fault is in Her Grace, being next of any subject in
blood and estate to the King's Majesty, her brother and good
1 Foxe, vi. 10.
^ Pooock's Troubles connected unth the Prayer-book of 1649, p. 20.
3 Foxe, vi. 8.

94 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
lord, to give example of disobedience, being a subject, or of
unnaturalness, being His Majesty's sister, or of neglecting the
power of the Crown, she being by hmitation of law next to
the same. The example of disobedience is most perilous in
this time as she can well understand. Her unkindness
resteth on the King's own acceptation. The neglecting
of the power before God is answerable, and in the world
toucheth her honor.
In reply to the remark that the executors were
sworn to Henry VIII.'s laws, the Council admit the
fact, but observe " that it is no law which is dissolved
by a law," and she must not do the King, her brother,
such an injury as to deny his authority by consent of
Parliament, to " alter unprofitable laws." And so on,
the memoranda answer her letter, point by point, and
answer also some things which are not in the letter,
but probably were contained in a private message
sent along with it.
Of course the contention of the CouncU was indis
putable, that one law can repeal another law ; but still
the question of authority remained. That statute
law could regulate religion at all was an idea which
had never been entertained before the preceding
reign ; yet, if it could at other times, it was felt
that, during a minority at least, so high a matter
ought not to be further disturbed. For when special
precautions had been taken to guard against serious
innovations even by Parliament, till the King should
be fully twenty-four years old, how could he be thought
competent now in his twelfth year to discharge
adequately the extraordinary functions of a " Supreme
Head " of the Church of England ? If anything in
Mary's letter was really open to question, it was the
assertion that her father's laws were agreed to
" without compulsion by the whole realm." That
was certainly not the case, but it was a statement
which it hardly became the Council to challenge.
Nevertheless the Protector actually did note the

CH. II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 95
weak point and answered her upon that among other
things, after a fashion of his own. Mary, however,
had no answer from the Council, even to her first
letter of the 22nd, till Dr. Hopton's return ; and she
felt it necessary to address to them a still stronger Mary
remonstrance as follows : — makes a
stronger

remon-

It is no small grief to me to perceive that they whom the strance.
King's Majesty, my father (whose soul God pardon), made in
this world of nothing in respect of that they be come to now,
and at his last end put in trust to see his will performed,
whereunto they were all sworn upon a book — it grieveth me,
I say, for the love I bear to them, to see both how they
break his will and what usurped power they take upon them
in making (as they call it) laws, both clean contrary to his
proceedings and will, and also against the custom of all
Christendom, and (in my conscience) against the law of God
and His Church, which passeth all the rest. But though
you among you have forgotten the King, my father, yet both
God's commandment and nature will not suffer me to do so.
Wherefore, with God's help, I will remain an obedient child
to his laws as he left them, till such time as the King's
Majesty, my brother, shah have perfect years of discretion to
order the power that God hath sent him, and to be a judge
in these matters himseh ; and I doubt not but he shall then
accept my so doing better than theirs which have taken a piece
of his power upon them in his minority.
I do not a httle marvel that you can find fault with me
for observing of that law which was allowed by him that was
a King, not only of power but also of knowledge how to
order his power, — to which law all you consented, and seemed
at that time, to the outward appearance, very well to hke the
same, — and that you could find no fault ^ all this while with
some amongst yourselves for running half-a-year before that
which you now call a law, — yea, and before the bishops came
together ; wherein, methinketh, you do me very much wrong
if I should not have as much pre-eminence to continue in
keeping a fuU authorised law made without partiality, as
they had both to break the law which at that time, your
selves must needs confess, was of full power and strength, and
1 Here occurs a caret with a mark referring to one or two sentences
written in the margin for insertion, but these are so mutilated that they
cannot be made out.

96 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
to use alterations of their own invention, contrary both to
that ye (sic), and to your new law as you call it.^
The original MS. from which the above is printed
is a rough draft in Mary's own handwriting. The
letter must have been dated the 2nd July ; and on
receipt of it the Protector at length set himself to
answer her first letter, which he did in the following
terms :¦ —
The Madam, my humble commendations to your Grace pre-
Tn.swe'i^to' mised.
Mary. These may be to signify unto the same that I have
received your letters of the 2d of this present by Jent
your servant, reknowledging myself thereby much bounden
unto your Grace. Nevertheless I am very sorry to perceive
that your Grace should have or conceive any sinister or
wrong opinion in me and others which were by the King,
your late father and our most gracious master, put in trust
as executors of his will. Albeit, the truth of our doings being
knowen to your Grace, as it seemeth by your said letter not
to be, I trust there shall be no such fault found in us as in
the same your Grace hath alleged ; and for my part I know
none of us that will wilhngly neglect the full execution of
every jot of his said will as far as shall and may stand with
the King our master's honor and surety that now is ; other
wise I am sure that your Grace, nor none other his faithful
subjects would have it take place. Not doubting but our
doings and proceedings therein, and in all things committed
to our charge, shall be such as shall be able to answer the
whole world, both in honor and discharge of our duties.
And where your Grace writeth that the most part of the
Realm, thorough a naughty liberty and presumption, are now
brought into such a division as, if we executors go not about
to bring them to that stay that our late master left them,
they will forsake all obedience unless they have their own
wills and fantazies ; and then it must follow that the King
shall not be well served, and that aU other realms shaU have
us in an obloquy and derision, and not without just cause : —
Madam, as these words written or spoken by you soundeth
not well, so can I not persuade myself that they have pro-
' MS. Lansdowne, 1236, f. 28. The document has been printed in Ellis's
Original Letters (First Series), ii. 161.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 97
ceeded from the sincere mind of so virtuous and wise a lady,
but rather by the setting on and procurement of some un
charitable and mahcious persons, of which sort there are too
many in these days, the more pity. But yet we must not be
so simple so to weigh and regard the sayings of ill disposed
people, and the doings of other realms and countries as for
that respect we should neglect our duty to God and to our
Sovereign Lord and native country, for then we might be
justly called evil servants and ministers. And thanks be
given unto the Lord, such hath been the King's Majesty's
proceedings, our young noble master that now is, that all his
faithful subjects have more cause to render their hearty
thanks for the manifest benefits showed unto his Grace and
to his people and realm sithence the first day of his reign
until this hour than to be offended with it, and thereby
rather to judge and think that God, who knoweth the hearts
of all men, is contented and pleased with his ministers, who
seeketh nothing but the true glory of God and the surety of the
King's person, with the quietness and wealth of his subjects.
And where your Grace writeth also that there was a
godly order and quietness left by the King our late
master, your Grace's father, in this realm at the time of his
death, and that the spiritualty and the temporalty of the
whole realm did not only without compulsion fully assent to
his doings and proceedings, specially in matters of religion,
but also in aU kmd of talk, whereof, as your Grace wrote, ye
can partly be witness yourself : At which your Grace's sayings
I do something marvel For, if it may please you to call to
your remembrance what great labors, travails and pains his
Grace had before he could reform some of those stiffnecked
Romanists or papists — yea, and did not they cause his sub
jects to rise and rebel against him and constrained him to
take the sword in his hand, not without danger to his person
and reahn ! Alas, why should your Grace so shortly forget
that great outrage done by those generations of vipers unto
his noble person, only for God's cause ? Did not some of the
same ill kind also — I mean that Romanist sect, as well within
his own realm as without — conspire oftentimes his death,
which was manifestly and oftentimes proved, to the con
fusion of some of their privy assisters? Then was it not
that aU the spiritualty nor yet the temporalty did so fuUy
assent to his godly orders as your Grace writeth of. Did
not his Grace also depart from this Ufe before he had fuUy
finished such godly orders as he minded to have estabhshed
VOL. Ill H

98 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
to aU his people if death had not prevented him ? Is it not
most true that no kind of rehgion was perfited at his death,
but left ah uncertain, most hke to have brought us in parties
and divisions if God had not only helped us? And doth
your Grace think it convenient it should so remain ? God
forbid ! What regret and sorrow our late master had, the
time he saw he must depart, for that he knew the rehgion
was not estabhshed as he purposed to have done, I and
others can be witness and testify. And what he would have
done further in it if he had hved a great many knoweth, and
also I can testify. .And doth your Grace, who is learned and
should know God's Word, esteem true rehgion and the verity
of the Scriptures to be newfangleness and fantasie ? For the
Lord's sake, turn the leaf and look another while upon the other
side. I mean, with another judgment, which must pass (?)
by an humble spirit thorough the grace of the hving God,
who of His infinite goodness and mercy grant unto your
Grace plenty thereof, to the satisfying of your conscience and
your most noble heart's continual desire.^
In writing thus the Protector was simply taking
up a defensive attitude to vindicate his own and the
Council's proceedings. They had already urged the
Princess to show herself conformable to the new
services and give up the Mass, and they must have
been convinced that it was no use pressing her more
strongly. At the same time, Mary's view that they
had no authority to make changes in religion was all
the more dangerous, because it was undoubtedly
shared by many, especially by the insurgents in the
West; and they had actually heard rumours con
necting some of her servants with the disturbances.
These seem to have been ill founded ; but the Council
were at least justified in asking for some explanations.
In fact they could not afford to let matters rest, and
on the 18th July they sent Mary the following
letter ' :—
' From a draft in Somerset's own hand in MS. Cott., Faustina, C ii, 64.
This letter is printed in Burnet's Collections.
* Printed here (I think for the first time) from the State Papers,
Domestic, Edward VI., vol. viii. No. 30. The MS. is a corrected draft,
endorsed "M. to my lady Mry, xviiith of July 1549."

CH. II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 99
After our due commendations unto your Grace, the same
doth imderstand, we doubt not, the seditious assemblies,
tumults, and other unlawful doings of many lewd persons
in sundry places of the realm, directly against God, against
their allegiance to the King's Majesty and the commonwealth
of the realm. For the stay whereof, hke as we have done,
and from time to time will, by the aid of God, [do] all that
in us may be ; so, nothing doubting [but that] your Grace is
of the same good- will and disposition, we could not but The
advertise you of that [which] we have heard of certain <^°™fii
servants of yours, who, being reported unto us to be chief implicate
stirrers, procurators, and doers in these commotions, whereof Mary's
one is a priest and chaplain of your Grace's now being at ^^'^™°^'' ^'^
Sandford Courtney in Devonshire, and one other servant
of yours in Suffolk, called Pooley, late a receiver, who is
reported to be not only a captain of the worst sort of them
that be assembled in Suffolk, but also to be of such credit
amongst the assembhes of these rebels in all other places as
his passport only may give good security to go and come as
they wiU, even to Devonshire. We hear also of one other
household servant of yours called Lyonel [who is a^] . . .
and of great hke credit amongst the rebels. And albeit we
think your Grace hath no certain knowledge of these your
servants' doings, yet for that your proceedings in matters of
rehgion be such as are openly known to be against the pro
ceedings of the King's Majesty and the whole realm, and
such as [we fear] have given no small courage to many of
these men to require and do as they do, we thought necessary
not only to give your Grace notice of the premises, and that
in many places they seem to take both example and great
courage of your doings, but also to pray you to give order for
the ... y of your servants, so as the world have no occasion
to judge that any towards you should be doers in these things
against His Majesty.
This letter Mary received on the 20th and replied
to it the same day, the substance of what she wrote
being condensed for us by Strype ^ as follows : —
She showed how she had not one chaplain in those parts ; Her reply.
that Pooley remained continuously in her house and was
never doer among the Commons, nor came into their com-
^ Crossed out. ^ Eccl. Memorials, II. i. 277.

ICO LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
pany. It is true she had another servant of that name
dweUing in Suffolk ; and whether the Commons had taken
him or no she could not tell ; but by report they had taken
by force many gentlemen in those quarters, and used them
very cruelly, and perhaps so he might be served. That as
for the third, she could not but marvel at the bruit of him ;
especiaUy because he dwelt within two miles of London, and
was not acquainted with the shires of Suffolk or Norfolk,
nor at any time came into those parts but when he waited
upon her at her house, and was then at London, about her
business ; being also a man not at aU apt or meet for such
purposes, but given to as much quietness as any within her
house. She added, it troubled her to hear such reports of
any of hers, and especially where no cause was given, trusting
that her household should try themselves true subjects to
the King's Majesty, and honest quiet persons, or else she
would be loth.
And as for herself, she assured the Protector that these
stirs did not less oifend her than him and the rest of the
Council. And for Devonshhe, no indifferent person could
lay their doings to her charge, for she had neither land nor
acquaintance in that country. And whereas they charged
her that her proceedings in matters of religion should have
given no small courage to many of those men to require and
to do as they did ; that, she said, appeared to be most untrue,
for that all the rising about the parts where she was was touch
ing no part of rehgion. But even as they ungently and without
desert charged her, so she omitted so fully to answer it as the
cause required, and would pray God that their new altera
tions and unlawful hberties were not rather the occasions of
these assembhes than her doings, who was, God she took to
witness, inquieted therewith.
Before matters had gone much further, the necessity
of some compromise seems to have occurred strongly
to the minds of the Council ; for among the State
Papers there is a draft letter to Mary from the King
her brother, regretting her refusal of the new Order of
Common Prayer, but allowing her a dispensation for
herself and her household to have private service in
her own chamber; and forms for that dispensation
are in the same collection.* So Mary's mass was in
1 See Dixon's Hist, of the Ch. of England, iii. 148, note.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION loi
this way tolerated, — but only, as we shall see, for
a time. Of course, when even a princess was told that
she must obey a new authority in religious matters,
it was most important to keep the bishops in com
plete subjection, whatever their feelings might be.
Gardiner was secure in prison ; but the Council did
not feel comfortable about Bonner. His submission Bishop
to the royal visitation had been somewhat forced ; ^™'=''-
but, apparently, it had been perfectly loyal, and he
had even complied with orders affecting ritual which
could scarcely have agreed with his own judgment.
Nevertheless, the Council addressed to him a letter
on the 2nd August, telling him that through his evil
example and his slackness in preaching and instruct
ing the people, they absented themselves from prayer
and the Holy Communion. They frequented foreign
rites and masses such as were not allowed by the
orders of the realm. Moreover adultery and fornica
tion abounded. The bishop had been admonished of
these things, but had made no redress. They therefore
peremptorily commanded him to reform that neglect ;
and they also required him to preach a sermon at St.
Paul's against the sin of rebellion, the heads of which
sermon they prescribed for him, adding some further
directions in consequence of the defeat of the rebels.'
He accordingly preached at Paul's Cross on the ms sermon
1st September, and apparently meant to do hisc*j,^g"'^
duty, even as regards the Government. He did
declare in his sermon the unlawfulness of rebellion,
but he was no less anxious to set forth that old
sacramental doctrine in which he still believed, and
which he felt was now being imperilled by irreverence
and fanaticism. He perhaps did not like to be
dictated to as to the exact line that he should take,
but he honestly tried to do all that he was asked to
do, especially in declaring the sinfulness of rebellion.
1 state Papers, Domestic, Edw. VI., vol. viii. Nos. 36, 37.

102 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
There were, however, among his hearers two men
who were very ready to inform against him for any
omission, and there was one thing which he omitted
by sheer inadvertence. Among four articles that he
was enjoined to set forth one was that the King's
authority was quite as great, and what he did quite
as valid, as if he had been thirty or forty years
old ; and this he unfortunately did not do. It was
really an additional article subjoined to the other
three at the last moment, and he had overlooked it
when he was in the pulpit, though even in this
matter he had really intended to do what was re
quired of him. He had, in fact, made a number of
notes of historical precedents, which he had acci
dentally dropped ; and being also required, the day
before, to declare the victories gained over the rebels
in Devonshire, CornwaU, and Norfolk, he had for
gotten the matter of the King's nonage. For this
he was denounced by John Hooper (of whom much
was to be heard by and by) and William Latimer,
both known to him as heretical clergymen who
had despised his authority ; Hooper, indeed, having
preached within his diocese on the very day of his
sermon in flat contradiction to him. It was clear
the tables were to be turned on orthodoxy, and what
bnce was heresy was to be supported by authority.
The commission appointed to examine him consisted
of Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley (at this time
of Rochester), Mr. Secretary Petre, and Bonner's own
dean, Dr. May ; in addition to whom, on the second
day, Sir Thomas Smith, the King's other secretary,
took his seat upon the bench. Bonner protested to
no purpose against this and other irregularities —
declaring, indeed, that the whole of the proceedings
He is were invalid. Sentence of deprivation was ulti-
deprived. lately passed upon him, and he, like Gardiner,
passed the remainder of the reign in prison.''
' The proceedings against him will be found in Foxe, v. 750-800.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 103
How shamefully unjust and one-sided the proceed
ings were may be judged by one fact pointed out by
Bonner himself The suggestion of disloyalty being
involved in his omission to set forth the fulness of
authority that resided in a king under age was but a
weak insinuation in comparison with some things for
which one of his accusers could vouch against others.
For WiUiam Latimer had heard with his own ears
" divers persons at sundry and divers times " use
language to this effect. "Tush!" they would say,
" the King is but a babe or child. What laws can
he make, or what can he do in his minority ? Let
him have a toast and butter, or bread and milk ; and
that is more meet for him than to make laws or
statutes to bind us to obey them. We are not bound
to obey till he be past his minority and come to his
full and perfect age." ^ This was the very sentiment
that the Council was most anxious to discourage, and
Bonner had never gone the length of such utterances.
And yet Latimer was never asked to bring in the
persons he had heard use such language, as he was
bound to do, and the Council showed no desire to pro
secute them. Most probably such persons were too
numerous to be prosecuted ; and instead of attempt
ing to put them down by law, the Council got Lati
mer's namesake, the quondam bishop of Worcester,
to preach them down, which he did in the king's
presence, early in this very year.^
1 Foxe, V. 777.
^ See his second sermon before King Edward where he says : "And when
had the King's Majesty a Council that took more pain both night and day
for the setting forth of God's Word and profit of the Commonwealth ? And
yet there be some wicked people that will say ' Tush, this gear will not
tarry ; it is but my lord Protector's and my lord of Canterbury's doing.
The King is a child and he knoweth not of it.' Jesu mercy ! How like are
we Englishmen to the Jews, ever stubborn, stifif-necked, and walking in
byways ! Yea, I think no Jew would at any time say ' This gear wiU not
tarry.' I never heard nor read at any time that they said ' These laws were
made in such a king's days, when he was but a child ; let us alter them.'
O Lord what pity is this, that we should be worse than the Jews ! " —
Latimer's Sermons, pp. 117-18 (Parker Soc). If this was the best answer
to the insinuation that could be given before royalty itself, it was certainly
not a very strong one.

I04 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
Position of But now a great change was impending in the
ftXctor!^ body politic — a change due, apparently, to personal
jealousies and envy as much as to any other cause.
Although the Council had agreed from the very
first that Somerset should be Protector, and had even
put him over their own heads more unreservedly
by the commission of the 12th March 1547, dis
like of his ascendancy must certainly have been
growing. Just before his Scottish campaign he
obtained, under date the 11th August,^ a commission
as the King's Lieutenant and Captain- General of wars
both by land and sea ; and, of course, his victory at
Pinkie Cleuch in September covered him with glory.
At the opening of Parliament in November following,
a special place was assigned to him by writ of Privy
Seal where he should always sit apart, whether the
King was present or not, and he was given all the privi
leges ever enjoyed by any previous Protector during
a minority, notwithstanding a statute of 31 Hen. VIII.
about the placing of the Lords in the Parliament
Chamber. He was then at the height of his power.
Yet at the end of that session on Christmas Eve, he
was persuaded to surrender those two patents of 12th
March and 11th August for a fuller grant from the
Crown which was witnessed by the signatures, both of
King Edward himself at the head, and of all the Lords
present in Parliament that day. In this document he
is appointed " to be our chief and principal counsellor,
and chiefest and highest of our Privy Council " ; and,
for the rest, it was almost in every point an ample con
firmation of the contents of the two patents surrendered.
But there was one important exception. The office of
Protector was not to be held absolutely during the
whole time of the minority, but was by this grant to
be terminable at the King's pleasure. So a well con-
• certed cabal could easily unseat him at any time.
' Misplaced by Rymer in the year 1548, as pointed out by Nichols in
Archaiologia, xxx. 470, note o.

CH.II THE PROGRESS OF INNOVATION 105
Now the kingdom had been seriously weakened by
the many rebellions in different places, and was further
threatened by a foreign enemy. At the very time
when the Norfolk rebellion was at its height the
French had taken and fortified Sark, and the French
King himself was in the field with an army which
took several places near Boulogne, and seemed in a fair
way to recover that much-prized conquest of Henry
VIII.^ Then the Earl of Warwick, having subdued
the Norfolk rebels, came up to London, where many
of the Council, disaffected towards the Protector's
government, had withdrawn from Court. He held a
consultation with them at Ely Place, Holborn. They
proclaimed Somerset a traitor on the 8th October, He is com-
and by the 14th had him separated from the King^gTo^i.
and lodged him in the Tower. Articles were drawn
up accusing him of manifold offences, which he
confessed to save his life. The Protectorate was
at an end, and a new government was to take
its place. What was that new government likely
to be ?
^ Pocock's Troubles (Camden Soc), pp. 60, 67-8. TurubuU's Calendar,
p. 46.

CHAPTER III
ENGLAND, TRENT, AND THE ' INTERIM '
Causes of It was uot Very wonderful that the Protectorship
faT"'^''^*'' of Somerset came to a sudden end. We have just
seen that he himself had consented to some changes
being made in his position by letters patent, which,
whUe apparently maintaining and even enhancing
his dignity so long as it lasted, made him more
easily removable. And even if he had been, what
he really was not, one of the most sagacious and
thoughtful of possible statesmen, there was never a
time when English statesmanship could have been
more severely tried. The fall of the monasteries in
the preceding reign had led to an enormous redistri
bution of property. The spoils had been absorbed by
greedy courtiers who became hard landlords. The
crushing out of superstition was ill compensated by
unbridled covetousness and peculation, even in high
places. The reign of pious uses had given way to the
reign of selfishness, and the debased currency was
accompanied by a debased commercial morality. The
influence of a new religion is known to have caused
one case of "conscience money" being sent in to the
Exchequer, but we hear of no other. The new land
lords raised the rents of their tenants, and also
encroached upon their rights by enclosures in the
common fields. Prices rose inordinately, and the poor
labourers hardly knew how to live.
1 06

CH. Ill ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 107
Somerset himself was undoubtedly sensible of the
evils of the time — at least of many of them — if his
knowledge of them had been equalled by firmness
in attempting to grapple with them, and some things
that he did were highly meritorious. On the 1st June
1548 he issued a commission^ in the King's name to ms com-
six very worthy men for redress of the great injustice ^uching
of enclosures. Taking note in the preamble of a good enclosures.
deal of legislation in the two preceding reigns against
" pulling down of towns for enclosures and converting
of arable land into pastures," also for limiting the
number of sheep to be kept by one man at a time,
and for maintaining "hospitality, housekeeping, and
tillage" on the sites of the smaller monasteries
suppressed by Parliament in 1536, it goes on to
observe that those statutes " have not wrought that
[which] was hoped should follow, partly for that the
same, for fear of displeasure and chiefly through the
corruption and infection of private lucre grown
universally among our subjects, were not put in
execution." The word " partly " in this quotation is
delightful. But what follows is of painful significance :
"By reason whereof the force and puissance of this
our realm, which was wont to be greatly feared of all
foreign powers, is very much decayed, our people
wonderfully abated, and those that remain grievously
oppressed, the price of all things exceedingly increased,
and the common sort of our subjects brought to and
kept in extreme misery and poverty."
A Government which declares the evils of the time
so plainly condemns itself if it do not find adequate
remedies. The facts require no deeper colouring or
further setting forth than the confession thus made
by Somerset himself. Yet it may not be unprofitable
to show how they were forced upon his attention
from outside ; and we have in a contemporary poem,
' Printed in full in Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, II. ii. 348
(Appendix P).

io8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
A political entitled Vox Populi vox Dei,^ addressed to the young
poem. ^Ya.g himself, such a vivid picture of the state of the
country during the Protectorship that a few snatches
from it, even retaining occasional rhymes in a prose
epitome, will do more to bring before the reader the
sad realities than the words of any historian.
The writer professes in one place to be a poor shepherd.
He begs the King to be not wroth for telhng of the troth.
Lordships and lands are now in few men's hands. The poor
commons can scarce feed a horse ; they can scant keep even a
sow as the world is now, while those of late made rich have too,
too myche. They have grown so " by grazing and regrating,
by prowling and debating, by rolhng and by dating, by cheke
and chekemating," and various irregular practices. " So that
your poor men say, they stiU pay, pay, pay." They are in such
penury that they can neither sell nor buy. " For grasiers
and regraters with so many sheep masters that of arable
ground make pastures " will undo this land if they continue.
Every "drawing day" the butcher more must pay for his
fatting ware. Prices continually rise, and the butcher cannot
sell a carcase under 12 shilhngs or a mark, besides the offal
and the fleece. What poor man now is able to have meat on
his table ? An ox at five pound if he be anything round !
My Lords, you know as well as I, this makes the commons cry.
Yet not long ago were preachers one or two, who insisted
that it was high time to repent this covetousness. " From
Scotland into Kent this preaching was besprent ; and from
the East front unto St. Michael's Mount " ; it reached aU
men's ears that from pillar to post the poor man he was lost.
Not merely the labouring man, but the good yeoman that
used to have plenty of cows and cream, butter, eggs and
cheese, honey, wax and bees. Now, alack ! alack ! AU these
men go to wrack. And if these men fail you when you want
to resist enemies from abroad, what then ?
Look at these upstart gentlemen who of late did sup out
of an ashen cup, but whose table is now covered with plate
well worth two hundred pound ! These are they that devour
the goods of the poor. And merchant men are undoing most
part of your gentlemen, getting them to give bonds till they
have all their lands. Nor have you ten merchants out of a
^ Printed in Furnivall's Ballads from Manuscripts, vol. i. part i. pp. 124-6,
with an admirable introduction beginning at p. 108.

cH.iii ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 109
hundred that venture further than into Flanders or France,
for fear of some mischance. They lie at home, purchasing
lands by mortgage out of all gentlemen's hands. But which
way doth the wind blow ? Our covetous lords are occupied
with fines for farms, surveys and surrenders, inclosures and
extenders. Hawl in your main sheet. The tempest is too
great. The poor daily see how officers take their fees, " some
ill, and some yet worse. As good right as to pick their purse."
Then, the coin is scanty and much too base. Merchants say
they find it difficult to exchange beyond sea. Our pound was
once better than theirs by nine, but now it is no better than
theirs, scarce so good.
Poor men's rents are daily deferred. The rich man comes
in and is sure to win. The poor man waits at the door hke
an Iceland cur and dare not once stir, except to go away and
come another day, when he finds it agreed by my lady
Mistress Meed that he must leave his farm and take to
something else. The landlord wiU get it all to himself, and
make the utmost of it, stocking it with sheep and cattle, and
ploughing the ground no more, except the farmer will give a
higher rent and a fine. Few make good cheer. The farmer
must sell his gosse (goose ?) as he may be able, to pay for his
house, or be turned out for non-payment at Lady day. " And
then he and his wife, with their children, all their life, doth
cry out and ban upon this cursed covetous man."
But God's Word is weU set forth ! It never was so hallowed,
or so httle followed. We have banished superstition, but we
stiU have ambition. We have taken monks' lands for their
abuse, but have put them to a worse use.
How can such men as compound for an office of two
thousand pound do justice to the poor? Never was such
misery and such usury. The infinite number of poor men
hope to get redress from my lord Protector. But to keep his
good name he must put aside all excuses and punish these
great abuses, these fines and new uses, suppressing this shame
ful usury commonly called husbandry.
The poem is in eleven sections, each ending with
words like these, a little varied : —
Your commons thus do say.
If they had it they would pay.
Vox populi, vox Dei.i
' The Latin pronunciation of the time would certainly have made " Dei "
rhyme with "pay."

no LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
0 most noble King,
Consider well this thing.
This is not a complete abstract of the whole poem,
but it gives the most material points. And the
reader will no doubt observe that the poet, deeply
conscious of the social evUs of the time, says very
little about religion ; moreover, that which he does
say about it is ironical. This is quite as might have
been expected in a poem addressed in form to the
King, but mainly to the Lord Protector and to the
Council. Religion as " by law established," or as
established by the ruling powers for the time being,
was already a settled principle. The rulers of the
State took the full responsibUity for religion as a
matter of public concern affecting the common weal ;
and who was to impugn what they had done as
regards that ? Not, certainly, a humble petitioner
like our poet, a shepherd (or one who professed to be
such), who was appealing in this very poem to my
Lord Protector to correct social abuses. Whoever
would quarrel with the Government on a matter of
religion was a friend of the Church of Rome ; for in
such a matter, if the rulers of the land were not
ordering things aright, no other authority could be
appealed to but the Pope. Hence the very insurrec
tions that disturbed the Protector's rule were not,
for the most part, on account of religious change, al
though they were so in Devonshire. Even Kett and
his followers on Mousehold Hill accepted the new
services just set forth by authority, and had a priest
to pray for them in English, morning and evening,
according to the prescribed forms.
But as regards the positive dangers that were
growing up — danger of insurrection within the
country and from enemies outside — how did the case
lie ¦? Let us look at another proclamation, issued on
the 6th April 1549, "for the reformation of light
horsemen." Here we read that the light horsemen

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' in
retained in the Northern counties for the defence of
the Borders had lost all sense of discipline. The
captains cheated the King as to the number of
their soldiers, getting unserviceable men to make a
show on muster day, when a third of the force paid
for was not ready. The soldiers, following the bad
example of their captains, neglected to provide suit
able horses and harness, and only half their number
repaired to the accustomed places. Sometimes more
than half returned home by small companies without
leave, or, when an encounter with the enemy was
imminent, they began to fly, betraying their comrades.
If they remained to fight it was only in the hope of
pillage, and they would pillage the King's friends,
"the assured Scots," as much as the enemy.)
In spite of his mUitary successes against the Scots,
Somerset was rather a weak man — too weak, at least,
for the times.^ Sir John Hay ward's judgment of
him is rather paradoxical, that " he was a man little
esteemed either for wisdom, or personage, or courage
in arms." For in courage of that sort he was surely
not deficient, and his exploits were merciless enough.
Yet he was a man better at obeying orders than at
striking out or pursuing a clear policy of government.
He owed his position as Protector mainly to his near
relationship to the King, and not a little to a compact
between himself and Secretary Paget just before the
death of Henry VIII. ; so that when things were be
ginning to go wrong, Paget, then at Brussels, did not
scruple to admonish him pretty freely. " Remember," paget's
he wrote to him, "what you promised me in thCo"®''*"
gaUery of Westminster before the breath was out of
the body of the King that dead is ; remember what
you promised immediately after devising with me
^ Procla7nations of Edward VI., published 1550. See also Steele's Royal
Proclamations, vol. i. No. 346. An Act of Parliament was passed against
these abuses, 2 & 3 Edw. VI. cap. 2.
^ His portrait in the National Portrait Gallery seems to me to exhibit
a trace of weakness in the face.

112 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
concerning the place which you now occupy — I trust
in the end to good purpose, howsoever things thwart*
now. And that was, to follow mine advice in all
your proceedings more than any other man's. Which
promise I wish your Grace had kept ; for then I am
sure that things had not gone altogether as they go
now. ... I told your Grace the truth and was not
believed. Well, now your Grace seeth it. What
seeth your Grace? Marry, the King's subjects out
of all discipline, out of obedience, caring neither for
Protector nor King, and much less for any other
mean oflicer. And what is the cause ? Your own
lenity, your softness, your opinion to be good to the
poor; the opinion of such as saith to your Grace,
' Oh, Sir ! there was never man had the hearts of the
poor as you have. Oh, the commons pray for you,
Sir ; they say, God save your life ! ' I know your
gentle heart right well, and that your meaning is
good and godly, howsoever some evil men list to
prate here that you have some greater enterprise in
your head that lean so much to the multitude. I
know, I say, your good meaning and honest nature.
But I say. Sir, it is great pity (as the common
proverb goeth in a warm summer) that ever warm
weather should do harm. It is pity that your too
much gentleness should be an occasion of so great
an evil as is now chanced in England by these rebels ;
and that, saving your Grace's honor, knaves say, as
a knave Spaniard coming now very lately out of
England, that he saw your Grace ride upon a fair
goodly horse, but he stumbled. Marry, he was so
strong and big made, he said, that he carried both
your Grace and all the King's Council with you at
once at a burthen upon his back. . . .
" Consider, I beseech you most humbly with all
my heart, that Society in a realm doth consist and
is maintained by means of religion and laws. And,
these two, or one, wanting, farewell all just Society,

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 113
fareweU King, government, justice and all other
virtue. And in come the commonalty, sensuality,
iniquity, ravine, and all other kinds of vice and
mischief. Look well whether you have either law or
reUgion at home, and I fear you shaU find neither.
The use of the old religion is forbidden by a law, and
the use of the new is not yet printed in the stomachs
of the eleven of twelve parts in the realm, what
countenance soever men make outwardly to please
them in whom they see the power resteth. Now,
Sir, for the law, where is it used in England at
liberty ? Almost nowhere. The foot taketh upon
him the part of the head, and commons is become
a King, appointing conditions and laws to the
governors, saying, ' Grant this and that, and we
wUl go home.' Alas ! alas ! that ever this day
should be seen in this time. I would to God that
at the first stir you had followed the matter hotly
and caused justice to have been ministered in solemn
fashion to the terror of others, and then to have
granted a pardon. But to grant pardons out of
course (I beseech your Grace bear with my zeal) they
did ever as much good to the purpose which you
meant as the Bishop of Rome's pardons were wont
to do ; which rather, upon hope of a pardon, gave
men occasion and courage to sin than to amend
their faults." '
That was the candid advice given by Paget to the
Protector soon after the beginning of troubles in the
summer of 1549. People were plucking down pales,
hedges, and ditches, thereby giving dreadful offence
to the lordly enclosers of common lands, and the
Protector had actually issued a proclamation^ to
pardon those who were penitent ! It was certainly
^ state Papers, Domestic, Edward VI., vol. viii. No. 4. The letter
seems to be a copy made by or for Paget, dated 7th July 1549. It is
printed entire, but with some inaccuracies, by Strype in Eccl. Memorials,
vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 429. The copy in the Cottonian MS., Titus, F iii. 276, is
not contemporary.
2 Issued on the 14th June. Steele's Royal Proclamations, vol. 1. No. 356.
VOL. Ill 1^

114 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
not like Henry VIII.'s policy, or the traditions of
wise government to pardon prematurely, whether the
people had anything just to complain about or not.
Cranmer As to rcUgion, Somcrsct was guided by Cranmer,
fOTd^ who, as we have seen, was seeking guidance himself
divines to from foreign Reformers, and asking them to come to
°^*" ¦ England to aid in a religious settlement. The call
was readily responded to, especially after the Interim.
Bucer and Fagius arrived and wrote on the 26th
April 1549, from Cranmer's hospitable abode at
Lambeth, where they already found a goodly company
of other refugees, that it was a grand time for promot
ing important reforms in England. Already doctrine
and ritual had been established on a very satisfactory
basis, but suitable ministers were wanted to give
effect to the improved religion. " For," they write,
"as is the case in France or Italy, so it is also in
this country, that the pastors of the churches have
hitherto confined their duties chiefly to ceremonies,
and have very rarely preached and never catechised.
Hence the people are labouring under a very great
scarcity of teachers. But if the Lord be pleased to
continue, as He has begun, the manifestations of His
mercy in this Kingdom, that lack of persons to
instruct the Lord's flock will shortly be suppKed.
For there are numerous and liberal stipends assigned
to students in theology ; for which reason very many
young men apply themselves to sacred learning." ^
Perhaps Bucer and Fagius would discover after a
while that the numerous and liberal stipends were
not all of them applied to such teaching as they
themselves would have preferred. But of this by
and by. They had reached England while a native
Englishman, John Hooper, a quondam monk, who had
married at Strassburg, and had been with BuUinger
at Zurich, was on his way back to his own country.
He arrived in London in May and very soon won the
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 535.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 115
favour of the Protector, of whom he speaks as his
patron.^ Had he too been invited by Cranmer to
come home ? We cannot say. Great things were
intended for him by and by, more than he had any
desire for ; but for the present he was content to be
only Somerset's chaplain, and to assist, as we have
seen, with William Latimer, a London clergyman, in
giving that information against Bishop Bonner on Conner
which he was deprived. Poor Bonner, beina; a '''"^ ^^^
bishop, very naturally objected to being denounced
and called into court by heretics whom it was his
business rather to condemn. "As for this merchant,
Latimer," he said, " I know him very well, and have
borne with him, and winked at his doings a great
while ; but I have more to say to him hereafter.
But as touching this other merchant, Hooper, I have
not seen him before ; howbeit I have heard much
of his naughty preaching." ^ It was a little too much
that this new Act of Parliament religion — or rather,
this new LoUardy, countenanced by the secular
rulers — should put the judges in the dock and accept
evidence against them from men disaffected to
legitimate authority in spiritual things. But a great
revolution was in the air, affecting the minds of
men, more or less, everywhere, as to the boundaries
between spiritual and temporal rule. The power of
the civU ruler was felt to be indisputable ; in fact,
it was divine, for as Scripture itself shows us, " the
powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. xiii. 1).
And that the temporal ruler was responsible also for
the reUgious condition of his kingdom was a pro
position that Romanists themselves strongly main
tained. So the question really was, how far the
temporal ruler had a right to go, what counsel had
he a right to take, and to what decisions had the
individual Christian a right to submit. It is certain
that the answers to these questions returned by
^ Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 69. ^ Foxe, v. 752.

ii6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
different minds were very various ; and from the
first recognition of royal supremacy, even to the
present hour, there has been nothing like a general
agreement. John Hooper, at least, was honest and fervent in
the new position that he had taken up, inconveniently
so for those who wished to use his services, as they
afterwards discovered. But I forbear to say more
about him here, as I purpose to speak of him more
fully in a later chapter.
Bucer and Buccr and Fagius had some reason to speak of the
Fagius. liberal stipends assigned to the promotion of theology
in England. " We foreigners," he wrote in AprU in
that same letter from which an extract has been
already given, "as far as we can learn, are to be
incorporated in the university, and probably in that
of Cambridge, since Peter Martyr is at Oxford." And
so it was. " We are to go to Cambridge at Michael
mas," writes Bucer to Albert Hardenberg from
London on the 14th August, "and there to begin
to lecture somewhat in theology, if the Lord per
mit." And he adds further on: "It is fallow
ground here, such as the devastation of Antichrist
is wont to leave ; for, as in Italy, very few sermons
have been preached here, nor are they even now very
frequent, neither is there any catechetical instruction
whatever. For those who preside over the parishes
are for the most part neither very learned nor zealous
in matters appertaining to Christ's kingdom. Among
the nobility and persons of rank there are many
individuals endued with singular godliness and learn
ing, but these are unable so speedily to supply the
want of teachers. Meanwhile Satan is raising much
disturbance, both from the common people and
from France." This, of course, was at the time
of the insurrections and the French attack on the
Boulonnais.* ' Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 536, 539.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 117
Both Bucer and Fagius went to Cambridge, where
Fagius died on the 13th November; and Bucer, who
outlived him scarce two and a half years, died there
too, early in 1551. His health seems to have been
delicate all along, and the English diet and mode of
Ufe did not suit him ; but he had been made Regius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, a post held by
Peter Martyr at Oxford.
Bucer and Fagius, however, were both Lutherans,
and their sacramental doctrine was highi Not so
was that of Peter Martyr, who had held a disputation
at Oxford in May 1549, maintaining these three
conclusions : —
1. " In the Sacrament of thanksgiving there is no
transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body
and blood of Christ."
2. " The body and blood of Christ be not carnally
or corporally in the bread and wine, nor, as others
use to say, under the kinds of bread and wine."
3. " The body and blood of Christ be united to
bread and wine sacramen tally. "^
When this disputation was published by Peter
Martyr himself a year later, Bucer expressed great
regret.^ So it did not altogether look as if the influx
of foreign divines tended greatly to uniformity of
opinion. Bucer, however, prevailed on him to insert
passages in the preface more distinctly expressing his
belief in the presence of Christ. The desire for union
among Reformers was a ruling motive with Bucer at
aU times ; but the attainment was always beset with
difficulties. When driven from Strassburg he might
have found refuge with Melancthon, Myconius, or
Calvin, or in a professorship at Copenhagen. But Eng
land suited him better, and Cranmer was, on the whole,
like-minded with himself But in England too he
found the same contest as abroad between principles
incompatible with each other ; and though he gladly
^ Foxe, vi. 298-9. ^ Original Letters, p. 544.

ii8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
aided Cranmer in a policy of conciliation the embers
of strife were only buried for a while, to break out
afterwards with the greater vehemence.
Public It does not seem as if the Government of the
morals. Ppo^ector had done much for public morality. Writ
ing to BuUinger from Strassburg on the 18 th June
1548, RichardHilles reports as follows : —
The last news I have received from England is to this
effect, namely, that some persons had presumed to marry a
second wife while the first was hving, but divorced, and even
to have two wives at once. This hberty has been prohibited,
as it ought to be, by a pubhc proclamation of the King and
Council. The Chancellor, too, as they call him, of the king
dom in a speech delivered in the King's name before the
judges of the whole realm, warned them to take serious
cognisance of the hke offenders.^
And in January 1549 the same Richard Hilles,
according to a letter received from him by his friend
John Burcher, while looking hopefully for what he
expected would be some improvement in religion, con
fessed that " in the meantime those very persons who
wish to be, so to speak, the most evangelical, imitate
carnal licentiousness under the pretext of religion and
liberty. Every kind of vice, alas ! is rife among
them, and especially that of adultery and fornication,
which, he tells me, they do not consider a sin.
Unless this evil be corrected, we are undone." ^
Caivm's rj^Y^Q jjg^g ^f ^j^e Protcctor's fall had not yet
iPTiGl' to
Somerset, rcachcd Gcncva when, on the 22nd October,' Calvin,
who had been watching from thence the progress of
the Reformed Religion in England, wrote him a long
letter of sympathy and advice. Put in a few brief
words it was to this effect : —
1 Original Letters, p. 263. 2 jj_ p_ g^^^
^ The date is "1548," but the year appears to me to be undoubtedly
1549, after the issue of the first Prayer Book and the commotions which
followed. Collier also {Eccl. Hist. v. 363, Barham's edition) gives further
evidence to the same effect. There is no date of year to the English trans
lation of this letter in the State Papers, Dom. Edv;. VI., vol. v. No. 8.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 119
" We have all occasion to thank God that He has
made use of you in a work so excellent as the restora
tion of a pure rule in His service in England. But as
Satan always stirs new conflicts, and men addicted
to lying wiU not be governed, and the old rooted
superstitions of Antichrist cannot easily be eradicated
from men's hearts, I think you must need to be
strengthened by holy exhortations, as, no doubt, you
yourself feel. I am sure the great turmoils (turbae
illae ingentes) you have had for some time past have
been hard to bear — the more so as they have been
moved partly on the pretext of a change in religion.
The report of them from a distance has given me
great anguish. If they be not appeased, or be re
newed, you must remember how the good King
Hezekiah, after he had abolished superstitions in
Judaea, was so oppressed by his enemies that he
seemed wholly lost. If most men resist the Gospel
and try to stop its progress, we should not think it
strange. And though the malice and sedition of men
cause mutiny against the Gospel, yet we must look
to ourselves and consider that through them God
chastises our faults. It was an old complaint that
the Gospel caused calamities, but when we are remiss
Satan sows thorns which prick us. You have two
kinds of mutineers, the one fantastic men who, under
colour of the Gospel, would throw everything into
confusion ; the other, obstinate adherents to the
superstitions of the Ajatichrist of Rome. Both
deserve to be repressed by the sword, which is
committed to you, seeing that they are against both
God and the King. But the great thing is to get
those who relish Gospel teaching to receive it with
such humility as to deny themselves for the service
of God. " I beg you therefore, as one to whom the estate
of your nephew is dear, to make it your principal
care that the truth of (jod be preached effectually.

I20 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
And I will put the matter under three heads : — first,
the mode in which to teach the people ; second, the
extirpation of abuses ; third, the correction of vice
and prevention of scandals getting into vogue. As
to the first, you have restored the purity of the faith.
God's law is the only rule, and He will be served in
the spirit. Our own souls are a whirlpool of iniquity,
but we doubt not to find grace through the Passion of
Christ, and become conquerors of Satan. I touch
briefly on these points as I fear you have not much
vivid preaching in your realm, but mostly such as is
read. I see your difficulties in this, but the defect
should be suppUed. Preaching ought not to be dead,
but fantastical spirits ought to be repressed. A
summary of doctrine ought to be agreed on, which
all the clergy should be sworn to follow. Have
children instructed in a good catechism. As to the
form of prayers and services of the Church, I quite
approve that there should be such a thing, from which
the pastors should not be allowed to depart in their
functions, not only out of consideration for the
simplicity and ignorance of some, but also that the
agreement of all the churches among themselves may
be manifest ; and lastly to curb extravagance, as the
Catechism itself should do. But you must not, for
the sake of this politic order in the Church allow the
native vigor of preaching to grow dull. Good
preachers with sonorous voices are desirable, who
wUl touch the hearts of their hearers.
" On the second head, we know that under the
Pope is a bastard Christianity. St. Paul said to the
Corinthians ' I have received of the Lord what I have
delivered to you ' ; and we, too, must return to the
simple commandment of God, and clear away all
additions which turn us from that holy usage given
us. To lop off abuses only in part will be ineffectual;
for the seed of lies is fertile. Holy Scripture blames
kings who having overthrown idolatries did not root

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 121
them out. Be such a restorer of the Temple that
your nephew's time may be compared to that of
Josiah. Let me point out some corruptions. There
is used among you a prayer for the dead at Com
munion. I know it is not to favor the Pope's
purgatory, and that ancient custom may be alleged
for making remembrance of the dead, to unite together
all the members of the body. But the supper of
Jesus is so holy an act that it ought not to be tainted
with men's inventions. We must keep St. Paul's rule
and be grounded on God's word merely. There are
other things, perhaps less reprehensible, which never
theless cannot be excused, such as the ceremonies of
chrism and unction. Chrism is a vain invention of
those who would not content themselves with Christ's
institution. Extreme unction comes of the incon
siderate zeal of men who would foUow the Apostles
but have not their gift of healing. As the miracle
has ceased, the figure of it should no longer be used.
" No doubt many have a fear of over great change
and desire to cherish amity with their neighbours.
But the spiritual world must be ordained according to
the word of God. If we would not displease God we
must not have regard to men. The power of God
wiU be on our side if we follow simply what He teUs
us. I would not put aside prudence in the use of
arguments, so as to gain the whole world for God if
possible ; but it should be prudence in which the
Spirit rules, not the flesh, and which seeks guidance
of God. If we so conduct ourselves it wiU be easy to
cut off the handle to many temptations which might
delay us in mid journey. So, my Lord, as you have
begun to restore Christianity to its purity in Eng
land, not trusting in yourself but in God's support,
doubt not that He will be with you to the end.
" I come now to the last article, the punishment
of vice and suppression of scandals. No doubt you
have good laws to promote honest living. But the

122 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
great disorders I see throughout the world compel
me to appeal to you in this also, to promote good
discipline. Thefts, murders and rapine, no doubt
are severely punished, because they injure men, while
fornication, adultery, drunkenness are winked at.
God will not leave such scandals unpunished. Is it
not shameful to us Christians that the very heathen
show themselves more in earnest to punish adultery
than we, and that men even make such wickedness a
joke ? I beg you to hold the bridle tight, and make
those who profess themselves Christians prove them
selves to be so in truth by purity of life."
These were the words of a man of strong sincerity,
whose position in the religious world was absolutely
unique, and whose influence in after times, though
decreasing as the centuries rolled by, has been
absolutely unique also. Never did Pope in this
world urge so strongly on secular princes the duty
of obedience to Rome as Calvin did the duty of
enforcing by authority the principles of a true Gospel.
This letter of his, indeed, missed its immediate aim,
for the person to whom it was addressed had ceased
to be a ruler of men and of religion in England,
even at the time that it was written. But it was
doubtless perused by his successor Warwick, who
gave full consideration to the matter in its political
aspect — the only aspect which he greatly regarded.
We must now, however, take notice of the immediate
results in England of the Protector's fall.
It is evident from what we have already seen that
during the Protectorate the Reforming party did not
rely much for support on the spontaneous feeling
of the people of England, but were seeking to staff
the universities with foreigners full of anti- papal
sentiment like themselves. Hence it was that the
termination of the Protectorate was at first believed
by many to be the natural prelude to a great reU
gious reaction. Nor was there wanting some slight

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 123
indication of this even in the imputations cast upon
Somerset by the combined Lords in their letter to
the two royal ladies, Mary and Elizabeth, written
in defence of their own conduct the very day after
they had proclaimed the Protector a traitor. In
justification of themselves they represent their pro
ceedings hitherto as entirely innocent. They had
only urged upon the Protector counsels which he
contemptuously rejected while national dangers were
increasing, and they had done their utmost not to
proceed to extremity.
" But," they write, " we had not, a few of us. The Lords
dined above twice together but immediately he took Mary and
the Tower and raised the country about Hampton Elizabeth
Court, bruiting and crying out that certain lords had Protector's
determined to repair to the Court to destroy the ™°<J'i'it-
King's Majesty, whom we pray to God on our knees
to keep and make as old a king as ever was any of his
progenitors. And when he had thus gathered the
people and commons together at Hampton Court,
then he brought his Majesty into the base-court there,
and so after to the gate to them that were without ;
and after he had caused his Highness, good prince, to
say, ' I pray you be good to us and our uncle,' then
began he his oration ; and among many his untrue
and evU sayings, declared that one special cause of
our displeasure to him was for that we would have
him removed from his office, and that we minded to
have your Grace [Mary] to be Regent of the Realm,
and also to have the rule and government of the King's
Majesty's person : dilating what danger it should be
to his Majesty to have your Grace, next in succession
and title to the Crown, to be in that place ; and that
therein was meant a great treason, which, as God
knoweth, we never intended, considering all laws
to provide touching government to the contrary ;
neither any of us all at any time, by word or
writing hath opened any such matter to your Grace,

124 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
as your honor knoweth ; [and] concluded, like a most
irreverent and unkind subject, that if we should
attempt anything against him, the said Duke, ' here
he is,' quoth he, pointing to the King's Majesty, ' that
shall die before me ! ' Which was the most abominable
saying that ever passed the mouth of a subject
towards his Prince and Sovereign Lord." '
It is easy to see that the charges against the Pro
tector are here aggravated to an extreme degree. Yet
prudence, apparently, prevented them from being
more highly coloured still ; for the last sentence in
this extract originally stood in the draft : " Conclud
ing in the end, like an irreverent and unkind subject,
that, or he would be destroyed, his Majesty should die
before him. Oh, what abomination ! " But, without
committing our sympathies deeply to one side or other,
we can always find in a party statement like this
something that lets a little truth out of the bag. It
was safe for Dudley and his friends to tell the King's
sisters whether it was true or not that Somerset had
accused them of wishing to make Mary Regent ; for
that was a position that Mary herself had not the
faintest wish to hold, as she was entirely loyal to her
brother, and, even when Queen, felt herself quite
unequal to the responsibilities of government. So
the statement was calculated to create a prejudice,
even in her mind, as it naturally would in Elizabeth's
also, against Somerset for attributing to his adver
saries a policy which Mary herself would have detested.
At the same time, party statements are never made
unless they contain a degree of plausibility. What
specious grounds were there for Somerset to have
accused the confederate lords — if he really did accuse
them — of any such design ? Simply these, that the
government of Somerset was unpopular, for religious
or other reasons, with a large part of the community,
'• Tytler's England under Edward VI. and Mary, i. 249, 250. The extract
has been corrected by the MS. in the Public Record Office.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 125
and that if the heiress presumptive to the throne were
admitted as Regent during the minority iu place of the
Protector, both religion and civil justice would receive
better treatment. That a good many people felt this
there is every reason to believe, and especially the
many who were still so strongly attached to the old
religion. And the mere deposition of the Protector, even Eeiigionu
without setting up any Regent at all, was certainly exptoted
expected to herald a religious reaction — at least on ws fail.
towards the state of matters which had existed under
Henry VIIL, and which alone was looked upon by
many as constitutional, though to many others the
Henrician religion now seemed little better than
popery. To these last, of course, the prospect of
such a reaction now was seriously alarming. " The
Papists," wrote Hooper on the 7th November, " are
hoping and earnestly struggling for their kingdom " ;
and he was afraid if Bishop Bonner, whom he had de
nounced, was restored to liberty, that he himself would
be restored — so he put it — to his Father in Heaven.^
Bonner and Gardiner, indeed, both hoped now for
liberty and justice. The mass was actually revived
at Oxford. The Earl of Southampton, who had been
banished the Court ever since he had been deprived
of the Lord Chancellorship, was in favour once more.
He was lodged next the King with his Countess and
his son, and suitors repaired to him in shoals. For a
month or two it looked like a decided change of
times. ^
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 69, 70.
^ A very graphic account of the change is given by Bishop Ponet in a
work which he published in exile some years later, when he could speak about
certain things a little more freely. It is thus he writes in his Short Treatise
of Politique Power : —
"When Wriothesley, Arundel [i.e. Sir Thomas] and Southwell conspired
with the ambitious and subtle Alcibiades of England, the Earl of Warwick,
afterwards Duke of Northumberland, to pull the good Duke of Somerset,
King Edward's uncle and Protector, out of his authority, and by forging a
great meany of false letters and lies to make the Protector hated, brought to
pass Warwick's purpose, who then, for a while, but they three ? Wriothesley,
that before was banished the Court, is lodged, with his wife and son, next

the Mass
at Oxford.

126 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
The distress of the Gospel-men at the late
Protector's imprisonment is painfully described by
Stumphius, a young man from Zurich, who came to
England with Hooper and was sent by him to study
at Oxford. "For the very Romanists," he writes
a few months later when the alarm was over, " those
cruel beasts, with which Oxford abounds, were now
beginning to triumph about the ruin of our Duke,
the death of our Gospel, now at its last gasp, and
Revival of the restoration of their darling, the mass, as though
" they had already obtained a complete victory. They
had begun to revive the celebration of their abominable
Mass in their conventicles, to practise their ancient
mummeries at funerals and other offices of that kind,
and to inundate themselves all with wine, as became
the champions of a religion such as theirs. And their
furious rage had gone so far as to threaten, in their
most shameless discourses, the faithful servants of
Christ with exile, fire and sword, and all kinds of evU,
unless they should gain wisdom by the extreme danger
of this nobleman, and come back to their party. But
oh ! the audacious and insane act ! For all the
wisdom they had they wasted when they had nothing
to oppose them, and completely betrayed to everyone
their malicious disposition. For, contrary to all
expectation, not only was the Duke set at liberty,
to the King. Every man repaireth to Wriothesley, honoreth Wriothesley,
sueth unto Wriothesley as the Assyrians did to Haman, and all things be
done by his advice, and who but Wriothesley ? Arundel is promised to be
next to the King, groom of his stole, or comptroller of his house at the least.
Southwell, for his whisking and double diligence, must be a great Councillor
in any wise. But what was the end ? The Earl, as crafty as the best, see
ing that his desire should not take place if these men might have that they
hoped for, so handleth the matter that Wriothesley is fain in the night to
get him out of the Court to his own house, where, upon narrow examination,
fearing lest he should come to some open shameful end, he poisoned himself,
or pined away for thought. Southwell is committed to the Fleet, where,
being examined, he confessed enough to be hanged for, and had gone very
near it, had not his examiners, upon hope of his amendment — breaking out
of his eye, but not out of his heart, obtained the Earl's favor. And at the
Earl's suit Arundel hath his head with the axe divided from the shoulders."
There seems to have been but one opinion of the craft and double dealing
of Warwick, by which he usurped authority.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 127
but religion was established by common assent of the
whole Council." ^
Somerset, in fact, was released from the Tower on somerset
the 6th February 1550, and even before his release ™''''*^'^'^'-
there were symptoms that things were not going
the way that the Catholic party expected. But
just after his arrest their expectations might have
appeared reasonable enough. Indeed it was to them
that his imprisonment was afterwards attributed, and
the Gospellers considered that a great conspiracy was
broken when he was liberated by the intercession of
the Marquis of Dorset and Warwick with the King.^
But Pole's warning as to the national dangers
naturally resulting from schism and religious isola
tion had already received some justification in the
Western insurrection, and it seemed at first not un
warrantable to expect that arbitrary government had
met with a salutary check. But it is easier carrying
on a revolution than going back ; and the master
spirit of the new government, John Dudley, Earl of
Warwick, knew well enough what sort of religion
would give him most support. In fact it is pretty
certain that even from the first he never contem
plated a religious reaction, for it must have been with
his approval that the young King wrote on the 20th
October to the Senate of Zurich, and probably on the
same date to the Council of Berne, with a view to
keep up the old confederacy with Protestant States
abroad through his emissary Christopher Mont.'
It may seem strange, perhaps, that the royal
supremacy of a boy like Edward VI. could do more
to promote religious change than the tyranny of his
strong-willed and clear-sighted father. It is very
doubtful, indeed, whether Henry VIII. himself could
ever have ventured to go so far, even in matters purely
^ Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 464-5. Cp. the Latin in Epistolae
Tigurinae, p. 307.
2 Original Letters, p. 399. ^ lb. pp. 1, 717-18.

128 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
ecclesiastical, as the bold and reckless advisers of his
son. That Henry, even after his breach with Rome,
was always seeking to preserve a Catholic face towards
Europe, while encouraging at home and in his own
Court the grossest contempt of the doctrines that he
himself had so speciously upheld by penal laws —
this we have already seen. But already in the
second year of his son's reign those high sacramental
doctrines had been plainly repudiated by the Arch
bishop of Canterbury himself, and there was a general
preaching against the Sacrament which was so re
sented that it led, as we have seen, to actual fight
ing inside St. Paul's every Sunday ; ^ tUl at length
a proclamation was issued forbidding preaching on
either side till the Council should make further order
on report of the bishops and divines who were then
met at Chertsey. It would be seen then what sort
of preaching might be allowed.
That was the way a new religious settlement had
been engineered under Somerset. But instead of
being seriously checked at his fall, it was yet to go
much further. Not that the people at large were
anxious for a change ; for to all appearance they were
not so. Those regular Sunday fights in St. Paul's
could not have taken place if the new religion
which was being forced upon the people had been
really acceptable. And yet the actual fighters could
not have been those who felt matters most deeply.
There were good reasons, indeed, why many who felt
deeply should have avoided showing what they felt.
The country, even during the last years of Henry
VIIL, had been burdened with the presence of foreign
mercenaries, whose pay was a serious charge on an
almost bankrupt exchequer. By their aid the Scottish
Borders were defended, Calais and Boulogne garrisoned
(though Boulogne was now about to be surrendered) ;
and the people of England knew well enough that if
^ See page 80.

cH.ni ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 129
they were unruly there were still enough of well-paid
foreigners at command of the Government to keep
them down. So on the whole the domestic problem
was comparatively easy. But how was England safe
from that foreign interference which Cardinal Pole
expected, and indeed was himself willing to promote
for the good of his own country ?
The truth is that the Emperor Charles V., whochariesv.
alone could have effected anything, was never in a ^te^fere"
worse position to interfere gratuitously in the affairs
of other countries. Luther was dead about a year
before Henry VIII. ; but his death was very far from
giving religious peace to Germany. On the contrary
it occurred at the very moment of that supreme
crisis which brought on the Schmalkaldie war. How
that came about we cannot show in detail, but a
reminder of prominent facts may be useful.
That Germany was the first home of the Reforma- The
tion was natural enough. Of all countries in Europe, ^0^°™^"
none was so hard to bring under one uniform govern- Germany.
ment, either in spiritual matters or in temporal ; and
when once papal authority was shaken in such a land
of separate jurisdictions, long years of trouble were
manifestly in prospect. But very few, not even
Luther himself at first, counted on an actual and
abiding schism. His attack upon indulgences, how
ever, almost thirty years before the date we are now
considering, kindled a fire which the Cardinal ^ com
missioned to deal with it thought he could put out
by simply requiring him to retract. Luther wanted a
refutation of his errors first ; but it was enough for
the Cardinal that the indulgences were authorised
by the Pope. Luther appealed to the Pope "better
informed " ; but afterwards, better informed or advised
himself, to a future General Council. And the
further progress of events made men talk of a
' Cardinal Thomas de Vio, commonly called Cajetan as he was born near
Gaeta.
VOL. Ill K

1 30 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
General Council more and more. New controversies
arose out of the first. Luther went on to question
the divine authority of the papacy itself, and his
prolific pen very naturally brought down upon him
papal excommunication. Of what followed the reader
requires little reminder — his appearance before the
Diet of Worms ; his disappearance after it, arranged
by the friendly Elector of Saxony ; his seclusion at
the Wartburg, and so on. In the Wartburg he wrote
on the abuses of the Mass and on monastic vows,
and began translating the New Testament. He came
back to Wittenburg really to restrain too great an
opposition to old usages ; and he found enough to do
in that way. But the abuses of the papacy were
still the chief matter of contention. Good honest
Pope Adrian VI., who had just succeeded, admitted
that the Church required reformation in head and
members ; but the movement under Luther, he con
sidered, must be put down. Unfortunately Rome
did not understand Germany, and Adrian was not
the man to cope with the evils of the time. When
his legate appeared before the Diet of Nuremberg in
the winter of 1522-1523, the German princes replied
with a complaint of the venality and corruption of
papal administration in Germany and the many dis
graceful practices connected with it, which they set
forth in their celebrated manifesto of the Centum
Gravamina.^
A few years later (1529) came the decree of the
Diet of Spires, and the historical Protest from which
the Protestants took their name. It was next year
(1530) that they laid their Confession of Faith before
the Emperor at Augsburg and formed the league of
Schmalkalden. Negotiations between them and the Catholics were
necessary, and resulted in the pacification of Nurem
berg in 1532. This accorded religious liberty to the
1 The text of whieh may be read in Brown's Fasciculus, i. 354 sq.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 131
Protestants, who became from that day a power to
be reckoned with — a power which an Emperor such
as Charles V. could never understand. To him the
Protestant princes were mere rebellious vassals, to be
put down as soon as he could manage it. He felt,
no doubt, as every one did, that religion was the
only guarantee for order, either in Church or State ;
and he had no misgivings at all about old received
theology. The Protestants, however, had got a sure
footing, and they made the most of it. Moreover,
they were not alone ; for it generally suited France to
encourage them as a means of weakening the Empire,
and it also suited Henry VIII. to dangle before their
eyes the prospect of an Evangelical alliance which
would make them doubly strong. Fortified in this
way they refused, as we have seen, to recognise
the Council summoned to meet at Mantua. They
repudiated also the jurisdiction of the Imperial
"Chamber." There were conferences with them
at Hagenau, at Worms, and at length at Ratis-
bon in 1541, where for a moment there really
seemed some little hope of reuniting the Church in
Germany — for agreement was actually found even
on the great subject of Justification by faith. But a
formula of agreement, of course, was of little value
if it was liable to different interpretations. Even
Luther was not satisfied, and a religious settlement
apart from Pope and Council could not be taken as
any settlement at all.
The need of a Council was thus more felt than Need for a
ever, and the Pope at length summoned one to meet council.
at Trent in November 1542. But owing to the war *
between Francis I. and the Emperor, so few prelates
came that nothing could be done, and a bull was
issued for the suspension of the Council in the follow
ing July. In that year, 1543, there were strange things
seen. The French disgusted even the Protestants
of Germany by their shameless alliance with the Turk.

132 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
when the Turkish naval commander, Barbarossa, co
operated with a French land force in an attack on
Nice. Yet to Pope Paul III. the alliance of France
with the Turk seems to have been less objectionable
than that of the Emperor with the excommunicated
King of England; and when Barbarossa sailed
round Italy on his way to Nice he spared the
papal states out of consideration for the Pope's
ally. True enough, as Clement VII. had found to
his cost, the occupant of the See of Rome had
much to dread from a sovereign like Charles V.,
who was supreme alike in the north of Italy and
in Naples. But the situation was extraordinary,
none the less. In 1544, while still at war with
France, the Emperor bought the aid of his Protestant
subjects against the Turk by promising them at the
Diet of Spires " a general free Christian Council," and
undertaking, if there were any obstacle to its meet
ing, to commit the whole question of religion in
Germany to a German Diet next year.^
Religion Thus was cvcu Charlcs v., of all the sovereigns of
TOusider Europc the most utterly opposed to new-fangled
nationality, doctrincs and heresy, driven to foreshadow a policy
which tended no less than the despotism of Henry
VIII. to what we call in England the State Church
principle. It was a policy which Catholic opinion
could not possibly approve, and the way in which
it was approached did not tend to conciliate Catholic
feeling. What ! Negotiate with heretics and attempt
to settle matters of religion in Germany by a Diet,
apart from the Holy See? Paul III. rebuked the
Emperor in a very grave tone. He was warned,
he said, by the example of Eli the priest not to treat
lightly the violation of sacred principles by a dis
obedient son. The poor Emperor could only plead
that it was not his fault — he had made a virtue of
^ Ranke's Deutsche Geschichte, iv. 240-42. Maurenbrecher's Karl V. und
die deutschen Protestanten, p, 61.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 133
necessity ; and the Pope himself, no doubt, was
conscious of the fact.^ No one could have done more
than Charles, in his own way, to prevent disunion in
Christendom and support the authority of the Holy
See ; and he protested that if every other prince had
done as much, the evils so greatly regretted would
never have attained such magnitude.
The Emperor's pledge, in truth, had to be redeemed,
and the Pope himself must help him in some measure
to redeem it. In September of that same year 1544,
within a month after the Pope's rebuke to the
Emperor, the peace of Cr^py between the Emperor
and Francis at length opened the way for the pro
posed General Council, which was again summoned
to meet at Trent in March 1545. But though three Futile
distinguished legates, Cardinals Monte, Cervini, and^**^^*
Pole, were appointed to open it, and the two proceed-
former actually arrived at the place, business could J^^^f
not even then be begun. Everything, indeed, was in
a state of unreadiness. No order of procedure had
been laid down, and many preliminary matters had
to be referred to Rome. But what arrested proceed
ings more than anything was, that while the great
object was to settle the religious controversies in
Germany, that very subject was at the same time
occupying the attention of a Diet in Germany itself,
and the Protestants were as determined as ever not to
acknowledge any Council summoned by the Pope.
In view of the Emperor's promise, when the Diet of Diets in
Spires ended its sitting in June 1544, another Diet^'™™^'
had been at once appointed to meet at Worms on the
1st October following ; but it only began on the 15th
December.^ The Emperor had fully intended pre
siding, but was laid up in the Low Countries by his
inveterate enemy the gout, and was obliged ultimately
to send Granvelle in his place. His brother Ferdi-
' See the Pope's brief in Raynaldus, xxxiii. 70 ; comp. Pallavicino, lib. v.
capp. 6, 7.
2 L. P. XIX. ii. 784.

134 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
nand. King of the Romans, afterwards arrived in
March 1545 and conducted the proceedings. But the
main result was that, in opposition to the Protestants,
all matters of religion were referred to the Council
then sitting (or, one might say, trying to sit), at
Trent. ^ Something more, however, had to be done,
even on this subject, and the Emperor at length
arrived at Worms on the 16th May. Two days
later the Pope's grandson, Cardinal Farnese, came to
and papal him from Trent, bringing an aid of 100,000 ducats
Emperor.^ from the Pope to the Emperor for his Turkish war,
with the promise of more to come, to make him inde
pendent, if possible, of the contributions of the
Diet. Deep consultations then ensued, not only with
the Emperor and his ministers, but with King
Ferdinand also, with the result that if the Protestants
could not be brought to acknowledge and obey the
Council, war against them was no longer to be
avoided.^ Meanwhile at Trent,' though bishops and clergy
did arrive, the Council seemed no nearer making a
commencement. To begin without the consent of
Christian princes generally would impair its authority
and only strengthen schism. The Emperor himself
was against its being opened prematurely, while the
Lutherans obstinately refused to acknowledge it.
Cardinal Cervini was for a whUe unwell ; provision
had to be made for the maintenance of bishops absent
from their sees ; suggestions were even put forward in
the Council itself for transferring it to Italy — a thing
which would have completely thwarted the whole
object of the Emperor in procuring its assembly.
But even if it remained at Trent, the state of matters
was uncomfortable. The Emperor wished to lull the
1 L. P. XX. i. 486.
^ L. P. XX. i. 805-8 ; Maurenbreoher, Karl V. und die deutschen Pro
testanten, p. 64.
' Where I do not cite other authorities in this chapter the facts relating to
the progress of the Council of Trent are derived from Mendham, and can
easily be verified.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 135
suspicions of the Protestants until he was ready to
crush them. But indefinite delay would have been
injurious to the authority of the Holy See.
Some worldly policy was necessary to smooth
matters. In July more definite arrangements were
made between the Pope and the Emperor. The Pope
promised to set in the field an army of 12,000 foot
and 500 horse, with 300,000 ducats of gold to be
levied on the spiritual taxation of Spain. ^ But of
course all this would take time to realise, and there
were many hindrances ; so active operations against
the Protestants must be deferred till the beginning
of next year. In August things did not look so well.
Some years before, the Emperor, to abate the natural
jealousy with which the Pope viewed his power as
a supreme ruler alike in the north and south of
Italy, had consented to the marriage of his bastard The
daughter Margaret, widow of the murdered Alexander ^ii™^^^
de Medici, duke of Florence, with Ottavio Farnese,
the Pope's grandson. At the same time the Pope's
son, Pierluigi Farnese, father of the bridegroom, a
dissolute soldier, was flattered with hopes of an
Italian dukedom — perhaps even that of Milan, which,
of course, would have secured him all the more firmly
in the Emperor's interest to keep the French out
of Italy. The hope, however, had been only dangled
before the eyes of the ambitious Pierluigi, who
received nothing from the Emperor, and whom the
Pope himself had to gratify with the title of Duke of
Castro. And now in August the Pope used his
personal influence in the Consistory to endow him with
the duchies of Parma and Piacenza, the sovereignty
of which was a disputed claim between the Emperor
and the Holy See. Charles himself, however, winked
at the transaction, though he would have preferred
considerably the endowment of Pierluigi's second son
^ Spanish Calendar, viii. No. 99. See also Maurenbreoher, on whom I
generally rely for what was done in Germany. Where I know his statements
to have been challenged I have tried to avoid matter of controversy.

136 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
and his own daughter to that of Pierluigi himself
Elsewhere the thing was universally disapproved
The At last the CouncU was actually opened on the
ope"nTat 13th December 1545, there being present, besides the
Trent. three legates, four archbishops, twenty bishops, five
generals of religious orders, and the ambassadors of
Ferdinand, King of the Romans. Some authorities
give a slightly larger number of bishops — there were
certainly twenty-seven at the third session, and two
more cardinals. The causes for which the CouncU was
summoned were declared to be : first, the extirpation
of heresy ; second, the restoration of discipline in
the Church ; and third, peace in Christendom. For
heresy had grown up by the neglect of the clergy ;
the general corruption of morals required no demon
stration, and the punishments which had ensued were
obvious — war from without, moved by the Turk, and
from within among Christians themselves. The
second session was then fixed for the morrow of
the Epiphany, 7th January 1546. Meanwhile, the
legates required further instructions from Rome upon
many points, among which the chief were whether to
begin the business by discussing heresies, and if so,
whether first to attack heresies in general or particular
heresies ; whether, when the subject of a reformation
of discipline was started, doctrine should be considered
along with it. And what was to be done if it was
proposed to begin with the Court of Rome, as all the
world was clamouring after " this blessed reforma
tion " ? There were further questions also as to how
the Council should be announced to the different
sovereigns, and other matters of form. But — this
was added in a postscript to their letter — they
required direction if any proposal were made to take
votes by nations as at Constance, or if the old question
were raised whether the Council were above the Pope
or the Pope above the Council.
In fact the legates required instructions on many

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM" 137
things to put matters on a business footing at all;
and this necessity made it, from the very beginning,
essentially a papal Council, which would never have EssentiaUy
satisfied the Germans. It is true, even this Council, !,p^p^}
111 ¦ V 1 T 1 Council.
moved by the apparent necessity 01 the case, did some
things without consulting the Pope, and one very
significant thing, as we shall see presently, which
his Holiness strongly disapproved, but felt it neces
sary to condone. None the less it was a papal
Council, in which the presiding legates continually
referred to Rome for instructions about procedure.
Their private correspondence, indeed, is not a little
interesting, as showing, among other things, how even
at the first they had granted indulgences by their
own authority in the Pope's name, which they re
quested his Holiness to ratify ; and how, though they
themselves wished to begin with matters of faith, the
majority would fain begin with reformation of dis
cipline, as heresies arose mainly from abuses and
transgression of laws. This was serious, for reforma
tion was certainly one subject laid down, and they
must not incur the odium of seeming to oppose it.
But even the formal matters were of very high
importance ; for the questions how the Council should
be announced to the different sovereigns, and what
should be its form or seal, suggested the still higher
question — the great constitutional question, in fact,
which had never been fully settled yet — whether a
General CouncU was above the Pope, or the Pope
above the Council. Practically, as we have seen
already,^ General Councils had been fighting a losing
battle with the Popes ; but they had not quite given
up the game even yet. For, if ever it were once
fairly settled that a General Council derived all its
authority whatever from the Holy See, the function
• of General Councils was manifestly at an end. The
occupant of St. Peter's chair could take what advice
' See Book I. Ch. ii.

138 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
he liked, and it would be no great step, even to make
further definitions of doctrine ex cathedrd, which, as
it came to be admitted three hundred years later, lies
clearly within his power. So this CouncU, papal
though it was, and many of its members only able to
attend by being subsidised from Rome, had naturaUy
some little thought about the nature of its own
authority ; and nearly all wished to emphasise this
by adding to the words "general and ecumenical" in
the style by which it described itself the further
words, "representing the Universal Church." But
they were overruled by the legates on the ground
that the words were redundant and had never been
used in the ancient Councils. They had been made
use of, indeed, by the Councils of Constance and of
Basel ; but there were special reasons for adopting
them at Constance, and the Council of Basel was a bad
example, as that Council had ended in schism. More
over, the words would give unnecessary offence, even
at the outset, to the German Protestants.^ The sug
gestion, nevertheless, was repeatedly revived during
the progress of the CouncU.
The mode of voting, also, was a most important
matter, whether votes were to be taken by nations,
as at Constance and Basel, and whether proxies were
to be allowed. The reply from Rome on both of
these subjects was announced at the second session,
held on the 7th January 1546, as appointed. Votes
were not to be taken by nations, and absent bishops
were not to vote by proxies. Before another session
was held there were several congregations, and much
communication was had with Rome. The legates
wished the Pope to send ten or twelve trustworthy
prelates to the Council to counteract the votes of the
" ul tramontanes," especially from Spain, among whom,
though the fact might be doubted, six or eight were
secretly reported to be Lutherans. The question
' Waterworth's Council of Trent, pp. ixxvi. Ixxvii.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 139
about order of subjects came up in three successive
congregations — Should doctrine or discipline come
first, or should both be taken together ? At last it
was settled that doctrine and reformation of discipline
should proceed simultaneously. One great argument,
it seems, for not postponing doctrine was that if the
Council made no progress, that subject, and the reform
of abuses also, might be taken out of their hands and
settled by a Diet in Germany. The Pope, however,
was extremely displeased with their resolution, which
was much complained of at Rome, and wished them
to confine themselves to dogma. Nevertheless, he
would not ask them to rescind their vote, but desired
them not to include the Curia in their reforms. The
third session was held on the 4th February, but no
further advance was made than solemnly to declare
the Faith in terms of the Nicene Creed, a fuller attend
ance of bishops being expected at the next session,
which had been arranged for Thursday after the fourth
Sunday in Lent, i.e. the 8th April.
Meanwhile, on the 18th February, Luther had died
at Eisleben ; but Lutheranism was rapidly on the
increase in Germany. The Elector Palatine, Frederic
II. , who had only succeeded to that dignity two years
before, was on the point of joining openly the Schmal
kaldie league. The Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann
von Wied, another of the Electors, had done even
more ; for he had actually made, by his archiepiscopal
authority, a reformation on Lutheran lines within his
diocese, which brought him into collision with his own
chapter. And this was all the more serious, because
it led the Emperor himself to interfere in spiritual
things by inhibiting the archbishop to make changes
and citing him to appear before himself at Brussels.^
The poor Emperor had a hard time of it. The The
problem of governing so many kingdoms in Europe amcuities.
was most perplexing, and some years later he gave it
1 L. P. XX. ii. 384, 526, 528, 628, 1063.

I40 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
up as hopeless. But the discords in Germany were
past endurance, and it is evident enough why to him
a Council was of infinitely more importance than it
was to any other sovereign. Such insubordination as
that of the German princes could only be curbed by
an authority that the whole Church was bound to
recognise ; and he was resolved that even the Pro
testants now should recognise it at last. He and the
Pope, as we have seen, were agreed upon ulterior
measures. But unluckily their immediate objects
were entirely different, and, indeed, quite opposed to
each other. For the Pope, as we have seen, was
anxious that the Council should consider dogma first,
while to Charles the great matter was discipline. To
him new definitions of dogma seemed entirely un
necessary ; but to put an end to the crying complaints
of the Church's discipline would strengthen his hands
against unruly subjects, to whom he thought he had
made every possible concession by procuring a General
Council to sit within the bounds of Germany.
A Diet had been appointed at Ratisbon in the hope
of at length obtaining the acquiescence even of the
Lutherans to this Council ; but, long before the
Emperor reached the place, they had withdrawn
from the previous colloquy, distrusting aUke him
and the Pope. Strange to say, the Pope himself
was delighted at the failure of this Diet, and hoped
it might lead to the failure of the CouncU also !
Both the Council and the Emperor, however, were
making better progress than he looked for.
Beginnmgs The Fathers at Trent were at length entering on
Coundi. serious business. They were relieved that the Pope
did not ask them to recall their resolution to proceed
simultaneously with doctrine and reformation, but
they postponed acting upon it tUl the session after
next. They were now going to establish doctrine;
and first of all it was necessary to determine the
books of Scripture which should be considered

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 141
canonical. For it was not merely the traditions of
the Church that were impugned by heretics. The
authority of some of the books themselves had been
called in question by Luther and his disciples ; and
even among the faithful questions had been raised
about the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
In this fourth session, accordingly, the Council set
forth the list of the canonical books of Scripture,
approved the old Vulgate edition, and forbade pre
sumptuous interpretations at variance with the sense
of the Church. By the correspondence of the Legates
it would appear that they purposely, and no doubt
wisely, avoided any attempt to distinguish degrees of
authority in the books of the Old Testament or in
the deutero-canonical writings. We also find that in
the congregations the Cardinal of Trent (Madruzzi)
was in favour of vernacular translations, and feared
that if they were prohibited in Germany it would
occasion much scandal. But it was agreed that
nothing should be said about vernacular translations
in the decree. Church traditions were more im
portant to the Council, and they were recognised in
the preamble to the decree, which declares that all
saving truth and discipline are contained in the books
of Scripture and in "the unwritten traditions, which,
received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ
himself, or of the Apostles themselves, the Holy
Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, trans
mitted, as it were, from hand to hand."
The date of the next session (the fifth) was fixed
for Thursday after Pentecost, i.e. the l7th June,
which allowed plenty of time for preparation. A
decree was that day passed on Original Sin, its com
plete remission by baptism, and so forth, with a
remarkably guarded statement in the end that the
Council did not mean to include in that decree the
immaculate Virgin Mary.^ Then followed a decree
^ The words as originally drafted were : "As regards the Blessed Virgin,

142 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
" on reformation," for the institution of lectureships
to expound Scripture, and requiring bishops to preach
in person or appoint competent preachers in their
stead. This last sitting of the CouncU was held in that
same month of June when in England poor Anne
Askew was tried and sentenced and tortured, prior to
her being burned in July. The reader will thus
understand the better what has been already pointed
Political out — how the political importance of Orthodoxy, even
results of ^ England, had risen with the fact that a General
the tact o ' n ^ i i i
that the CouucU, much mockcd at at first by some, had by
Sd really *^is time made such progress, and appeared weU on
begun. its Way to make positive definitions of doctrine. But
there was now some months' pause, and the CouncU
did not sit again that year, though the congregations
were busy all the time preparing a very important
decree to be passed at their next session. Meanwhile,
there were momentous things taking place in Germany
which affected at one time the security of the Council
itself The failure of the Diet at Ratisbon was nothing
Germany, to occasiou Surprise. The German princes on either
side could not trust each other. In the year im
mediately preceding (1545) Duke Henry of Brunswick,
the chief Catholic prince in the North, who had been
deprived of his duchy by the Elector of Saxony,
endeavoured to recover it, and was taken prisoner.
The conditions of conference laid down for them at
Ratisbon did not satisfy the Protestants, and the
Emperor's preparations against them were a little too
manifest. They broke away from the Diet, then took
up arms, and were put to the ban of the Empire.
Their armies entered the Tyrol while the congregations
the Council does not intend to define anything ; although it is piously
believed that she was conceived without original sin. " Opinion was divided
on the subject then, and a strong minority, including the Dominicans, took
exception to the words, as to say that one view was ' ' piously " held seemed
an indirect condemnation of the opposite view.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 143
of the Council were sitting at Trent. Execution of
the sentence against them was committed to Duke
Maurice of Saxony, the Elector's cousin, who, though
he had promised to defend the territories of the Con
federates, invaded them while the Emperor was gain
ing victories in Swabia. Notwithstanding the strong
feeling of the German people against Pope and
Emperor alike, the Protestant cause had sunk very
low at the beginning of the year 1547. The Elector,
indeed, not only recovered his lands, but laid siege to
Leipzig ; but after three weeks' furious bombardment
he was obliged to retire. The Emperor had already
made Maurice Elector in his place. So matters stood
in Germany when young King Edward VI. succeeded
his father Henry VIII. in England ; and the mis
fortunes of the Protestants were completed on the
24th April following at the battle of Muhlberg, where The battle
the quondam Elector of Saxony was taken prisoner, ^''^'ii'i-
The Landgrave Philip of Hesse soon afterwards found
it necessary to submit also.
Now let us return to Trent, where the Fathers
reassembled for their sixth session on the 13th January
1547. Original sin having been disposed of at the
last sitting, the critical subject now to be decided was
Justification — and this at a time when Protestantism "Justifiea-
in Germany had already met with overwhelming ^^^t "*
defeat at the hands of the Emperor's forces — Justi
fication, the leading doctrine of Luther, on which he
had taken so firm a stand, fortified by the authority
of St. Paul. A thorny subject to handle, and one
which had not been brought before any General
CouncU hitherto ; and yet the Germans, who upheld
Luther's view, were not present to defend it, as they
would not recognise a CouncU called by the Pope at
aU. Luther's teaching, however, had many sympa
thisers, even among those who had not fallen off from
Rome. Contarini, the legate to the German Diet of
1541, had shown himself on this point not a little

144 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
favourable to the Protestant view. He was now
dead, but there were other Italians, even in this
Council, of whom the same might be said. Nay,
Pole himself, though he was now no longer at the
Council (having been obliged by ill-health to with
draw from Trent in June), held views in this matter not
wholly unlike those of Luther and Melancthon.^ The
great doctrine of St. Paul and St. Augustine had, in
fact, wakened up again from the sleep of ages ; and a
determination upon it was expected from an assembly
of bishops, mainly Spanish and Italian (fifty-seven
was the number at the decisive sitting), met together
in a small city in the Tyrol, while Germany was still
convulsed with civil war.
" The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence
it cometh and whither it goeth." Such is the work
of the Spirit in all ages. The most worldly men saw
the danger, though they cared not about theology.
The Emperor was wise in his generation, and would
have kept the Council from discussing dogma till he
was able to drive the Lutherans by force to appear
among them. The French, on the other hand, were
particularly anxious that Justification should be
defined, just because they knew well enough that
the decision was likely to keep alive disaffection to
the Emperor in Germany.^ And what shall we say
of the Pope himself? His policy, too, as we have
seen, was always that the Council should define dogma
first of all, and there is no doubt whatever that the
condemnation of Lutheran doctrine in this cardinal
point was specially agreeable to him, even for political
reasons. The Council had felt truly enough that the question
was momentous, and the congregations, as I have
already said, had been carefully considering the
^ A Treatise of Justification, by Pole, was published in 1569, from his
posthumous papers. When it was written does not appear.
^ Spanish Calendar, viii. p. 504.

CH. Ill ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 145
subject ever since the last session in June. They
had had stormy debates among themselves, personal stormy de-
reproach for ignorance by one bishop against another co„,^„\°"'^
being answered on one occasion by personal assault.
Nay, there had been violent altercations between
Cardinal del Monte, the President, and two other
cardinals, and suggestions were privately made to
the Pope to remove the Council from Trent as a
place which was neither free nor safe. On the
27th October, Pole, not having recovered his health
even at Padua, resigned his legation, and, by the
Pope's leave, returned to Rome. On the 16th
November, Cardinal Farnese, lately returned from
Germany, writes to the Pope, his grandfather, how,
in order to understand their proceedings, he had
assembled the two legates with the Cardinal of Trent
and Don Diego de Mendoza, the Emperor's special
envoy to the Council, and, finding the decree on
Justification nearly ready, had urged that it should
be postponed for reference to universities. That
suggestion had been already made by Cardinal
Pacheco in congregation, where it was received
with very natural indignation as derogatory to the
authority of the Council. Yet arguments for delay
were weighty. Publication of the decree would
certainly not have a healing effect, seeing that the
CouncU was called principally on account of the
heresies of Germany, and not one divine of that nation
was present to discuss the matter ; moreover, the
Emperor was putting down the Lutherans at that
very time by war and not by argument. But how
could the Council stultify itself by not passing a
decree at aU after half a year's deliberation ? All
the world was looking to it for guidance in
matters necessary to salvation. Here was a per
plexing question, whatever decision was come to.
And this small deliberative company of five came to
the conclusion that the less objectionable alternative
VOL. Ill Ii

146 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
was to settle the decree, but postpone its publication
for a while.
Another rather inconvenient question which would
have to be decided at the coming session was the
decree "on reformation," which was to accompany
the decree on faith; and the subject of reforma
tion was already settled — the residence of bishops.
On this matter, too, the same policy was suggested,
and if the translation of the Council could not be
effected, its suspension for six months was recom
mended. Events, however, were too strong for
hesitating policies. Some draft of the proposed
decree on Justification — not the form of decree
ultimately adopted — had got into Protestant hands,
and was actually published in Germany with severe
comments before the end of the year 1546; which
made it all the more necessary to publish the true
decree to counteract the effect of the false. And so,
on that 13th January 1547, was the great decree on
Justification passed, which was immediately pub
lished, and with it the decree for residence of the
clergy, and forbidding bishops to exercise then-
functions in any dioceses but their own. Thus the
Lutheran doctrine was condemned in the Council at
the very time when Lutheranism had been practically
put down in Germany by the victorious arms of the
Emperor. But a very strange thing was immediately apparent.
• The opposite policies of the Pope and the Emperor
actually made his Holiness the best friend that the
Change of Protcstauts could havc. For just at this time, when
the' Pope™ it appeared that the Emperor was in the fair way to
towards becomc complete master of Germany, the Pope with-
Emperor. drcw the troops and subsidies he had sent to aid in
putting down the heretics. It seemed as if Paul III.,
a notorious trimmer all his days, whose interest, no
doubt, was to maintain a balance of power in Europe,
had somehow managed to back out of his engage-

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 147
ments. This was not strictly the case, for the
capitulation expired at the end of the year 1546,
and the Pope only declined to renew it. But his
agreement with the Emperor had been hoUow from
the first, and he withdrew himself from entangling
obligations as soon as he conveniently could. Family
considerations, no doubt, and Pierluigi's disappoint
ment of a dukedom at the Emperor's hands added
bitterness to a growing estrangement. But the
European situation was changing. France had made
peace with England in June, and was at her old
tricks again, encouraging the downcast Protestants.
She was intriguing also in Genoa, where, with her
encouragement and Pierluigi's, the abortive conspiracy
of the Fieschi broke out in this month of January.
That the Pope himself was implicated in this does not
appear, but as he cooled towards the Emperor he was
certainly getting more and more cordial with France.
Nor did he show himself at all anxious for the
Emperor's success, even in putting down the Lutherans.
At the end of 1546 we find him inculcating on the
Imperial Ambassador at Rome the great desirability
of his master making peace with his enemies. He
and the ambassador had had many disputes about
the stipulated aid, tiU he withheld it altogether. He
himself said he had always desired peace, which the
Emperor would find more necessary now than ever ;
for the Turks were arming, and the French King was
only too likely to join the Lutherans against him.^
He did not add, as to his own position in the matter,
that the papal treasury could not well stand the
double strain of a Council at Trent and a war in
Germany. But this we know was a pretext alleged
in his behalf elsewhere with something more than
plausibility. And in fact his efforts were now bent,
not only on controlling the Emperor, but even on
removing or suspending the Council.
1 Spanish Calendar, viii. pp. 539, 540.

148 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
The Council, however, for the present was pro
ceeding, and, having settled Justification, was just
about to enter on the great subject of the Sacraments.
At its seventh session, on the 3rd March, canons were
laid down, both touching sacraments in general, and
specially touching baptism and confirmation, with
further decrees " on reformation." Only eight days
later, on the 11th March, was held the eighth session,
at which nothing was done but to pass a decree in
accordance with a papal bull which empowered the
Removal of legates to rcmovc the Council on the ground that
the Council ^jj^gj,g was danger to the health of those attending, a
Bologna, number of whom had already withdrawn just after the
last session, and the 21st April having been appointed
as the day for the next session, Bologna was arranged
to be the place of meeting. But the alarm about the
health of those attending was declared to be unreal.
One bishop had died, and suggestions had been raised
of an infectious disease. The Imperialists protested
against the transference, and thirteen of them insisted
on remaining at Trent ; indeed, on inquiry, the alarm
of contagion did look rather like a mere pretence.
Nevertheless, the rest departed with the legates to
Bologna, where they arrived on the 20th March ; but
on the day appointed for the ninth session (21st April),
it was declared that the numbers were so small that
it was inadvisable to proceed. Many of the Fathers
who had been serving their own churches in Passion-
tide and at Easter had not yet returned, and the
Synod was prorogued to Thursday within the octave
of Pentecost — that is to say, to the 2nd June, when
the tenth session was held. But even then, although
an ambassador had come from Henry II., the new
King of France, and some French bishops also, a new
prorogation was found necessary, and it might have
been foreseen that a suspension of the Council was
at hand. Was it wonderful that the Emperor was provoked

CH. Ill ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 149
extremely ? The failure of aid from papal troops, and
even from papal subsidies, would not have grieved
him much. The ill discipline and bad pay of the
troops made them almost worse than useless. But
the translation of the Council stultified his whole
policy. It was really at his instigation solely that
it had been summoned, and he had desired it particu
larly to lighten his task in Germany. He was making
war with the Lutherans for no other end than to
compel them to go to it, and to remove one chief
objection to it in their eyes he had got the place fixed
within the limits of Germany. Yet now it was trans
ferred to Bologna within the papal states ! He might
conquer Lutherans in the field, but to expect them
to recognise a Council in papal territory, when he
himself had promised them a free Council in Germany,
was simply out of the question. He insisted that the
Council must be brought back to Trent, for he himself
would not recognise anything done at Bologna.
He had been grieved enough at Pope Paul's secret
communications with France, and had told the papal
ambassador, with a bitter double meaning, that he
knew very well all about his HoUness's French malady.
But Francis I. died just after the translation of the
Council to Bologna, and a change came over the
situation. For the new King of France, Henry II.,
recalled to Court the disgraced minister, Montmorency,
who had of old sought a good understanding with the
Emperor ; and for several months of the new reign,
untU the Guises recovered their ascendancy, there was
little hope that the French would continue their anti-
Imperial policy. So the Pope felt it all the more
necessary to deal gently with the Sovereign of whose
power he was so much afraid. And the Emperor, for
his part, whatever personal grievance he might feel
against the occupant of the Holy See, was always
anxious to avoid a breach with the spiritual head of
Christendom.

ISO LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
To the Pope, at this time, the recovery of England
to the Faith seemed naturaUy the most important
object — far more important than that of Germany,
where the Sovereign could be depended on to main
tain old Church authority. He had determined, even
before the death of Francis I., on sending three legates,
one to Germany, one to France, and one to England,
to assist in the great object. To the Emperor in
Germany he sent Cardinal Sfondrato, to France
Cardinal Capo di Ferro, while to England he intended
to send Cardinal Pole, though the nomination was
reserved in petto. After the death of Francis, the
two legates who had been actually named received
renewed instructions, as it was now more hopeful to
promote cordial relations between the Emperor and
the new King of France, which would aid greatly to
get the Council out of the existing standstill.-' And
possibly both these Sovereigns might be able to influ
ence the new Government in England, though, in the
present temper of the' Emperor, the prospect of his
bestirring himself in that matter for the Pope's sake
must have been more than doubtful.
In fact he had already replied on this subject in
terms sufficiently emphatic. Writing to Don Diego
de Mendoza on the 17th March he expressed himself as
The follows : " Not Only will we not take up arms against
refees°to *^^* ^^^^g for the sakc of his Holiness, but we will not
make war do it agaiust the worst man alive, as we see his ways
for thf ^"^ of going on (sus andamientos), and that having per-
Pope. suaded us to undertake this enterprise he left us
thus at such a time." ^ But if the appeal to the
Emperor was futile, it was not likely that France
single-handed would venture to make England her
enemy ^ ; and as a matter of fact, it appears that both
1 Pallavicino, bk. ix., ch. 18.
^ Maynier's Etude historique sur le Coneile de Trente, p. 457.
' See Druffel's "Die Sendung des Cardinals Sfondrato an den Hof
Karls v.," p. 313, in Ahhandlungen der Historischen Classe der Koniglich.
Bayerisehen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. xx. (1893).

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 151
the Emperor and Henry II. were anxious for politic
reasons to cultivate good relations with the new
government of that country ; which was therefore in
no such danger as Pole at that time supposed. The
thoughts of practical statesmen were occupied with
other questions.
At Viterbo, on his way to Germany, Cardinal
Sfondrato met Don Diego de Mendoza, the Emperor's
ambassador to the Holy See, a man of remarkable
insight in political affairs, both civil and ecclesiastical,
and the two diplomatists endeavoured to ascertain
between them the possibility of some solution of the
points in dispute between their masters. One thing
was felt on both sides as of the first importance, that
nothing should be done at Bologna to make matters
worse. Business there, accordingly, came to a stand
still. But neither Sfondrato's mission to the Emperor,
nor Mendoza's to the Pope, was successful in bringing
about better relations between them. The Emperor
insisted absolutely on the return of the Council to
Trent, maintaining that the translation was altogether
unjustifiable, while the Pope found himself quite unable
to retrace his steps, or agree to any compromise which
did not recognise what had been already done. The
differences between the two potentates were embittered
by personal grievances, and the Emperor could not
forgive the participation of the Farnesi in the con
spiracy of the Fieschi at Genoa. The ministers of both
Powers, Granvelle and Sfondrato, were alike anxious
that some compromise should be arrived at, but the
terms of such an understanding could not be found.
There was, however, to be a Diet in Germany, and
tUl that Diet had met, the Court at Rome was not
anxious to commit itself The Council at Bologna
was prorogued, and seemed likely to be prorogued
indefinitely, for even at Rome the opinion prevailed
that the first step towards a settlement must be the
reduction of the German heretics.

152 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
"The The Diet met, and was opened by the Emperor
Die't-'^at himself at Augsburg on the 1st September. It was
Augsburg, called " the Armed Diet," as he was attended thither
by some of his victorious troops. And here he
certainly had an advantage over the Pope, for if
the Pope had thwarted his plans in the moment -of
victory, he himself, in spite of this discouragement,
had completely humbled the Protestant princes, and
could call upon them, not altogether ineffectually, to
support his remonstrances with the Holy See against
the removal of the Council. German feeling was with
him here, and the prelates at the Diet wrote to the
Pope as he desired. They said that they saw no
other remedy for the dangerous state of Germany
than the recall of the Council to Trent, or to some
place within German territory. As for the German
princes, they were less able now to insist that the
Council should be independent of the Pope. The
towns were rather more troublesome. But, in the
end, the Diet entrusted its cause to the Emperor,
who pledged himself to secure a fair hearing to
the Lutherans.
But in less than a fortnight after this Diet had
opened in Germany a most serious thing had taken
place in Northern Italy. The adjourned sitting of
the Council at Bologna was to have taken place on
the 15th September. On the 10th, the Pope's son,
Pierluigi Farnese, created by his father Duke of
Parma and Piacenza, though he could not obtain
Murder of invcstiturc from the Emperor, was murdered in his
Farnesf °^^^ palace at Piacenza, and Imperial troops took
possession of the Duchy. The Imperial troops, in
deed, had begun the business, for they were under
the command of Gonzaga, Governor of Milan, and
the Emperor had fully authorised their employment
in order effectually to drive Pierluigi out of the
duchy of Piacenza ; but his assassination was due to
the hatred of the nobles whom he was building a

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 153
fortress to overawe. It was a frightful blow to
Paul III., both in his private feelings and in the
overthrow of his worldly policy. But these things,
of course, did not affect the Council. What did
affect it was the crime, which, bad as is the argument
from violence, showed clearly that another sitting in
the papal states ought by no means to take place,
at least until quieter times. So, a special congrega
tion being summoned on the 14th, the session which
had been arranged for the day following was prorogued
during the pleasure of the Council. Congregations
continued to be held, but no further session was held
at Bologna, nor at Trent either, for nearly four years
after. Violence is decidedly a bad argument in spiritual
matters, and so it was shown to be here. The Pope's
obstinacy rose in defiance to the Emperor. It was
the Cardinal of Trent who conveyed to Paul III. the
remonstrance of the German nation, urging the
restoration of the Council to its original place of
meeting. He delivered his address to the Pope
and Cardinals on the 9th December, but he soon
saw that they were not likely to be persuaded. The
Pope and Cardinals would not come to a decision on
the subject without referring to the Council — that
very Council at Bologna,^ whose existence, even, the
Emperor decUned to acknowledge ! And the answer
from Bologna came and was exactly what might have
been expected. Before they decided on the expediency
of a return to Trent, the divines remaining at Trent
must first come to them at Bologna, and acknowledge
the validity of the translation. In short, the Germans
must give up the very point that they had specifically
urged, and must submit to all the decisions already
passed by the Council without reserve. Assurances
' The Pope's own words in reference to this Council hardly admit of its
being considered ecumenical: "More majorum nostrorum, ipsius Sanctae
Syuodi fratrea nostros Episcopos et Praelatos qui ex omnibus fere nationibus
isthic sunt, consulendos esse decrevimus." — Raynaldus, xxxiii. 259.

154 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
must also be given that what was said about some
new kind of conciliar discussion in Germany was
against the Emperor's mind ; and finally, that no one
in Trent should use coercion to compel the prelates
to remain there. If these conditions were fulfilled,
the question of a return to Trent might be con
sidered. This utter disregard of the Emperor's solicitations
showed that French influence at Rome was again in
the ascendant. Young Cardinal Guise was now at
Rome beginning to give a new turn to affairs. But
there were spiritual arms in store even on the
Emperor's side. From the moment he had heard
of the translation of the Council he had commissioned
his ministers to draw up a strong and well-considered
An Im- protestation against it ; and only the fact that nothing
testation." ^^^ heen douc at Bologna had hitherto caused them
to keep this power in reserve. But now Mendoza
threatened to employ it if he heard of the smallest
synodal act being done there. And such a protesta
tion was at length made in the Emperor's name at
Bologna, on the 16th January 1548, by his ministers
Vargas and Velasco. A week later, on the 23rd,
it was repeated at Rome by Mendoza, who had
a lively word -fight on the occasion with the Pope
himself But the Pope made full reply to him
in Consistory on the 1st February, not only main
taining that the Council at Bologna was a true
Council, but offering to open a disputation at Rome
on the subject, and thereafter to announce to all the
world the judgment given which of the two assemblies
was the valid one. Of course no one could have
a doubt which way the judgment would go if the
disputation was to be at Rome.
The Emperor communicated the decisions of the
Roman Curia to the Diet on the 14th January,
showing them how little sympathy their remon
strances had met with, and how he had protested

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 155
to the very utmost. But as these proceedings would
necessarily be very protracted, he proposed to the
assembled estates the formation of some general
rule of guidance in the meantime. By the circula
tion of a set of formal questions, a religious agreement
might be attained to which they could conform under
his protection. This had been repeatedly suggested
by the Emperor's brother Ferdinand, even before the
Diet, and at Rome itself some idea was entertained
that a separate understanding with the German
Protestants might lead in the end to their entire
reconciliation with the Church. Indeed, it was now
the only thread by which Pope and Emperor were
held together, and with all his threats to the Pope
Charles had no mind to create a schism. He pro
posed to get the approval of Rome beforehand to
the religious edict which was to be enacted. And
the Pope, for his part, promised to send legates to
Germany, as the Emperor himself desired, with full
powers to make obedience easier by some concessions.
We are told by Sleidan, the contemporary Pro- origin
testant historian, that the Diet of Augsburg, at the °jJ^^X^
Emperor's suggestion, delegated to a select body of
learned men the task of drawing up the terms of a
temporary reUgious peace in conjunction with others
whom he proposed to name himself ; but as the dele
gates could not agree among themselves, the whole
task was remitted to the Emperor. He accordingly
selected three eminent scholars of different views :
Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumburg, one of the most
able and at the same time moderate of Catholic
theologians ; Michael Sidonius,^ suffragan of Albert
of Brandenburg, Cardinal Archbishop of Mainz ;
and Luther's friend John Agricola of Eisleben, to
draw up some formulary of religion that might com
mand general assent. The document was drafted
^ His proper name was Holding, but he was made by Pope Paul III.
bishop of Sidon in partibus infidelium, when he was appointed suffragan to
the Cardinal Archbishop. He had been at the Council of Trent.

156 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
and corrected over and over again. It was circulated
among other divines and learned men, to whom it
was submitted by the Emperor, even among some
of the chief Protestant ministers. It was altered,
added to, cut down, but at last reduced to the
form of a compromise such as, it was hoped, would
satisfy men of both schools ; and the Legate, at the
Emperor's request, sent a copy to Rome, as the
greater number of the prelates desired to know the
Pope's opinion of it.^
Such was the origin of the famous Interim. The
Pope received it and laid it before the Council at
Bologna. Both at Rome and at Bologna it met with
a certain amount of approval, although objections
were raised to some points as ambiguous and to
others as tending to heresy. For it condoned the
marriages of priests and allowed the cup to the laity.
No doubt it was only intended as a temporary arrang-
ment, and not even sacerdotal marriages, indulged
for a time, touched any vital principle. In such
matters the Pope could exercise a dispensing power.
In Germany, moreover, many of the Catholic clergy
considered that there was a positive necessity for
such concessions. So it was really a question of
Church policy rather than of high principle whether
it should be authorised or not. But, on the other
hand, there were doctrines still insisted on, such as
works of supererogation, which Protestants generally
could not accept. And the Papal policy, it is to be
feared, was not unaffected by considerations of this
world. The French were trying to keep Paul III.
from making too great concessions to the Emperor,
and his hope of getting Piacenza, or a compensation
for it, had rather too much to do with his course of
action. He put off sending the promised legate to
the Emperor, and at last sent a simple nuncio ; and
1 Sleidan, bk. xx. ; Sarpi, bk. iii. The statement of Onuphrius cited by
Sarpi in a marginal note that the Pope received the writing as an insult
from the Emperor seems to be quite unwarranted.

CH. Ill ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 157
even this nuncio brought no news of a decision, but
only announced that one was about to be taken at
Rome. But when this nuncio arrived, the Emperor
had taken his own decision ; and the nuncio had his
first audience after the Interim was already published.
For the Emperor felt that he had no occasion to wait
longer. He had already obtained from the Pope a
promise of such concessions, and all that was needed
now was to give them a more definitive sanction.
The bishops must be empowered to institute married
priests and authorise communion in both kinds. And
it was much to be desired that some prelates should
be deputed to arrange with the Emperor about Church
goods. The edict was proclaimed at the Diet on the 1 5th its pro-
May. The Elector of Mainz expressed the grati- ''^^'"^"''"•
tude of the assembly for the trouble the Emperor
had taken, and said that pending the decision of the
General Council, it was only fit that they should all
obey the decree. There seemed really to be a general
acquiescence ; but it was soon found that out of doors
nobody Uked it at all. The Catholic princes would
have nothing to do with it, and Charles never meant
to force it on them ; but it was not much more popu
lar with the humiliated Protestants. The quondam
Elector, John Frederic, though a prisoner, was dead
against it. The landgrave of Hesse, indeed, assured
the Emperor that he would be glad to enforce it.
But this was only to obtain release from imprison
ment ; for he was anxious also to assure the Hessian
preachers that if he once got home they would have
every reason to be pleased with him. The chief re
sistance came from the Protestant towns ; and though
they were threatened with force to make them sub
missive, that did not prevent an outburst of seditious
preaching, lampoons, and virulent satire.^
' Janssen's History of the German People (translated by Christie), vi.
403-20.

158 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
The Interim, however, concerns us mainly as
regards its effects on the English Reformation; for
these were very considerable. One of its most
obvious results was, as we have partly seen already,
to drive several German preachers to seek refuge in
England. But this was only a minor matter. The
main thing was that the spiritual and temporal rulers
of England felt themselves relieved from all immediate
apprehension of such a state of matters as Cardinal
Pole had suggested — in which England would be made
to appear as the spiritual enemy of Christendom, and
the aid of the Emperor might be successfully invoked
to put down a heretical and really unconstitutional
Government. Whether anything like this could ever
have rgally taken place may no doubt be a question ;
but it was a question that could not have been free
from anxiety till events furnished the answer. The
Emperor had always enough to do with his own
Lutheran subjects in Germany, and now when he had
subdued them by force of arms he was deserted by
the Pope, and they were really more troublesome
than ever. He might keep them down, of course,
as vanquished enemies, and enforce his own terms
upon them as far as he dared. But it was virtually
his own terms merely, not fully ratified, as yet, by
the supreme authority of the Church, to which their
obedience was insisted on. And what was the
spiritual value of a mere " Interim " Imperial religion,
authorised by neither Pope nor Council ?
Shows the The Interim, in fact, announced, not merely to
down of Grermany but to aU Europe, that the General CouncU,
conciliar brought together after so many delays and with so
me^nt™' much pains and labour, had been ineffective as to its
main object, and for the present had utterly broken
down. Of course it was recognised that the break
down was merely temporary, as in fact it proved to
be ; but a real breakdown, nevertheless, it was.
And the fact might have suggested doubts to thinking

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 159
minds whether conciliar government of the Church
was much longer possible. Indeed, the government
of the Church could scarcely be called conciliar, even
while this Council lasted. For conciliar government
was a principle which had long since been on the
wane. If the traditions of Constance could by any
means have been preserved in later Councils, a real
deUberative body gathered at short intervals from all
nations, of Western Christendom at least, would
have sat from time to time to discuss and settle the
highest questions which affected the government and
theology of the Church at large. The authority of
such a tribunal of opinion would have been greater
than that of the Pope himself, and the Pope would
have been, like a constitutional sovereign, always
bound to give effect to its determinations.
If such a condition of things had been possible,
the Germans themselves could hardly have raised an
objection. But it was not possible in the age which
succeeded the Council of Constance. For one thing,
notions of what we call constitutional government
were not making progress even in the political world,
and it was still more difficult to carry them out in a
community which extended through so many nations.
In the Church, as in the different kingdoms of
Europe during the fifteenth century, the monarchic
principle was growing continually stronger. We
have seen this already to some extent in the triumph
of Eugenius IV. over the Council of Basel. But
when the monarchic principle in the Church tended
to become autocratic, as the monarchic principle in
the kingdoms of the world at that time did, some
dangerous colUsions between temporal and spiritual
authority were absolutely certain to ensue.
Now, the Empire of Truth undoubtedly extends
over all nations, and it was to define this Catholic
or universal Truth that a small company of bishops
and theologians of different countries had met

i6o LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
together within a valley in the Tyrol. To define
universal Truth and to lay down laws for the correc
tion of abuses in the universal Church — was this a
hopeful way to set about the matter ? A good deal
of information from different countries was no doubt
desirable — nay, very necessary indeed, in order to
come to a satisfactory result ; for, though truth is
one, its manifestations are controlled by local and
temporary conditions, and a very large amount of
local discussion should have been requisite before the
different nations could agree in a General Council.
As a matter of fact, they did not agree. Charles V.
wanted the Council merely as a means to promote
order and discipline, that he might restrain the Pro
testants and govern Germany in peace. The Pope and
the Curialists at Rome wanted the Council — as there
must be one — to preserve the system of the Church
and stamp with their authority a conventional
orthodoxy which had as yet been too loosely defined
or not defined at all. Other potentates were not
so warm upon the subject, but simply looked on to
see how matters would affect their interests.
And so the Council of Trent became altogether a
papal Council, in which, while the nations were
not fully represented, methods of procedure were
dictated from Rome as the case required. The
order about voting, too — that it should not be
by nations, as at Constance — whUe proxies also
were disallowed, — was by no means calculated to
promote real impartiality. For German bishops
were necessarily absent — not merely those of
Lutheran tendencies, but also those engaged in
putting down Lutheranism in Germany. French
bishops were there, but comparatively few, and
even the Spaniards were not numerous. So the
real business of the Council was mainly in the hands
of Italians and Curialists ; and the great spiritual
monarchy of Europe thought still to rule the nations

CH. Ill ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' i6i
without understanding the wants or weaknesses of
each separate nationality.
What the Council had done so far, instead of Results of
doing anything to win over heretics, was to condemn so^f£°"°"^
all Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine, excommuni
cating every one who would not renounce such
opinions, and thus securing the permanence of
schisms, which indeed have remained to our own
times. In another field, doubtless, something had
been done for the reform of abuses. But even in
this matter we must not attribute too much merit to
the Council, so far as it had yet gone. For the
motive power of reform really lay outside the
Council, and outside the papacy itself Indeed, it is
scarcely an exaggeration to say that the iniquities
of Henry VIII. did more to stir up a righteous zeal
for reformation in the Church at large than any
formal agency whatever. Before that shameful day
when the English King outraged the moral sense of
the whole Christian world — the Lutherans not ex
cepted — by his unblushing demands, and threw off
allegiance to Rome when these were not conceded,
compelling all his subjects by the most brutal legisla
tion and relentless executions to join with him in
renouncing that old spiritual allegiance which they
almost all in their hearts still sincerely cherished, —
before that day the papal court was by no means an ex
ample of high morality. But when these things took
place it was evident that an entirely novel problem
had forced itself upon thinkers who valued a common
Christianity at all. How was tyranny so awful to be
met ? That it could not be condoned was manifest.
Within England itself it had been met by the brave
spirit of submissive martyrdom. The sanctity of
matrimony and the universal jurisdiction of the See
of Rome seemed for the time to be absolutely one
cause ; and the Pope, had he been ever so vile a man
personally, had the positive duty thrust upon him to
VOL. Ill M

i62 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v
denounce and punish as he could such daring defiance
of all public morality. At the first news of those
revolting judicial murders, several of the cardinals
had envied the death of the victims ; ^ to be slain for
such a cause was surely to win heaven by suffering.
Project for And the new zeal for righteousness did not end
mat[on°of ^Ith empty wishes. In 1536 Paul III. himself had
the Roman taken a step of great importance. After some con-
^''™' sultation with Cardinal Contarini he called a council
or committee of nine eminent and zealous Churchmen
to draw up a scheme for a general reform of discipline.
To Contarini himself, only raised to the purple in
1535, half a year after Pope Paul's accession, was
given the general direction of the scheme, and his
particular friend Reginald Pole, just made a cardinal
then at the end of 1536, was also placed on the
commission. Pole, indeed, was its most active
member. There were four cardinals among the nine
members ; the other two were Gian Pietro Caraffa,
of whom we shall hear much hereafter when he
became Pope Paul IV., and James Sadolet, who had
been papal secretary under two pontiffs, but loved
the retirement of his bishopric at Carpentras better
than the court of Rome. Of the other five members
four were afterwards made cardinals likewise, the
only exception being Giovanni Matteo Giberti,
Bishop of Verona, a character not unlike that of
Sadolet, as it might be said of both that they were
warm friends of letters, of purity, and of Cardinal
Pole. They were to report on the abuses, even in
the papal court, which in their opinion needed re
formation, and to suggest the remedies. And in the
end they did publish a report, which was printed at
Rome in 1538, detailing twenty-four abuses in the
administration of the Church, and four particular
ones in the government of the Roman Curia itself^
1 See Bk. II. ch. vi.
^ Consilium delectorum Cardinalium et aliorum praelatorum de emen
danda Ecclesia. [Without date. ]

CH. Ill ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 163
The Pope actually proposed this scheme of
reformation to the cardinals in full consistory ; but
there were easily found reasons, which at least were
plausible, for not adopting it. Nicholas Schomberg,
Cardinal of Capua, said that evil-doers would not be
at a loss for means to circumvent such well-intended
regulations, and existing abuses would cause less
scandal than new ones, which would attract more
attention from their very novelty. Moreover, they
would give the Lutherans occasion to boast that
they had forced the Pope to institute a Reformation ;
and the fact itself would be treated as a justification
of Lutheranism, and thus increase their obstinacy.
On the other hand, Gian Pietro Caraffa, the Theatine
Cardinal, as he was called, insisted strongly that
there should be no temporising. The proposed
reform was necessary, and could not be delayed
without offence to God. It was not justifiable to
do evil that good might ensue ; nor was it right to
forbear from doing a positive duty on account of
the evil that might arise from it. Nevertheless it
was determined to put the matter off to another
time, and to keep the whole consultation secret.
Schomberg, however, sent a copy into Germany,
where it soon became public enough, and was the
subject of much criticism both favourable and un
favourable.^ New reUgious Orders had been forming in Italy New
for many years in the spirit of old austerity. The religious
Capuchins were a reformed body of Franciscans who
^ Sarpi, bk. i. Pallavicino's statements on this subject (bk. iv. c. 5) do
not conflict vrith Sarpi's. The report was not only republished soon after
in Germany, both by Protestant and by Roman Catholic editors, but another
edition of it was published so late as 1555 with a bitter preface by Vergerius
under the title ' ' Concilium de emendanda Ecclesia. Authore J. P. Carapha. "
The object was to show that Gian Pietro Caraffa, when he became Pope
Paul IV., turned his back upon the reforms which he had so strongly
advocated when a cardinal. But the imputation was really unjust ; for no
Pope ever entered on his office with so much reforming zeal. The misfortune
was that his very indignation against wrong turned him into a partizan, and
he fell into the methods of an evil world, which he was unable to control.

1 64 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
went back to the original ideal. The Theatine Order
was founded by Caraffa and a few others, who re
nounced the world and agreed to live at first in
poverty and seclusion, with special spiritual exer
cises, but afterwards descended into the city to
preach and to establish a seminary for education to
the priesthood. It turned out, however, to be a
rather select seminary, not for priests, but for
bishops, as it was made a rule that all new members
should be of noble birth, who should show their zeal
by self-sacrifice, living on alms and yet refusing to
beg. Caraffa himself had resigned the bishopric of
Chieti and the archbishopric of Brindisi before he
and his friend Gaetano first instituted the Order and
bound themselves by the same obligation.^ Then in
1540 the zeal of Loyola obtained papal sanction for
the foundation of the Society of Jesus, which re
ceived fuller liberties from the Pope three years
later.^ And further, in 1542, with the strong
approval of Loyola, Caraffa and John Alvarez de
Toledo, Cardinal of Burgos, prevailed on Paul III. to
set up a supreme tribunal of the Inquisition at Rome
on the model of the Spanish Inquisition, to which all
other such tribunals should be subordinate.^
Whatever we may think of all these movements,
they showed fervent zeal for righteousness. It is
easy to note the crimes and wickedness of the world
in any age, especially in an age which yielded such
an abundant harvest of evil. But good was fighting
with evil beneath the surface, though it attracted
comparatively little observation even from contem
poraries, and still less from posterity. There was
now exemplified, in fact, what that great philosopher
of Christianity, the Apostle ofthe Gentiles, pointed out
in the first age, that the weak things of the world over
come the strong, and the things that are not bring
' Ranke's Hist, of the Popes, bk. ii. ch. 3.
» lb. ch. 4. 8 lb. oh. 6.

CH.III ENGLAND, TRENT, AND 'INTERIM' 165
to nought the things that are. Popes and CouncUs
might have done much in the past, but the world was
growing too big for them, and the unseen leaven was
working in a way that was sure now to become mani
fest. The progress of the world was not delayed
by a misunderstanding between its temporal and
spiritual head ; for indeed both Pope and Emperor
were getting worn out, and a new age was sure to
bring with it new men, new methods, and in the end
altogether new ideas.
Paul III. died on the 10th November 1549 at the Death of
age of eighty-three. Amid the distractions of the^*'^'"^-
Church and discords in his own family, his stout
heart had faUed him at length. Custom allowed
nine days for a pope's funeral, and the tenth should
have been the day for entering the conclave. But
owing to the absence of several cardinals this was
put off till the 28th of the month; and Cardinal
Pacheco, who had felt bound not to leave Trent
without orders from the Emperor, arrived some days
later still — that is to say, on the 4th December,
when the cardinals were aU closed in. Nor was even
he the last to come and be admitted, though men
at first hoped so. The election was awaited outside
with more than usual anxiety ; for the coming year,
1550, was to be a year of Jubilee, and none but a
pope was qualified to open the Sacred Door, which
he was expected to do on Christmas Eve. But
divided interests and feelings prolonged the matter
over the new year. Some cardinals', were imperialist,
some favoured the French, others were PauUne,
that is to say, alUes of the Farnesi. At first the
betting at bankers' shops in Rome was all in favour
of the English cardinal, Pole, being made Pope.
But a number of French cardinals were later in
coming than Pacheco, and Pole was imperialist.
On the 9th December he made " a most eloquent
speech" in the congregation, thanking not only his

1 66 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. v
supporters, but his opponents also, and, confessing
himself too weak for such a burden, urged them to
propose another candidate rather than delay the
election further. The French cardinals arrived on
the 11th, and the issue became more doubtful.
Pole's twenty-three adherents stood by him stead
fastly, and only two left him at a later stage. The
air of the conclave was foul, and several cardinals
had to be carried out sick. Yet the disagreement of
the different parties was so strong, owing to instruc
tions received from their princes, that the election
seemed further off than ever, till, as the result of
some negotiation between Cardinals Guise and
Farnese, the French and Imperialists both agreed in
Election of the elcctiou of Cardinal del Monte, who had been
Julius III. gj.g.^ president of the Council of Trent. Early in the
morning on the 8th February he was elected accord
ingly, and took the name of Julius III.^
The new Pope was crowned on the 23rd February,
and opened the Sacred Door two days after. As to
the Council, he was quite ready to gratify the
Emperor by restoring it to Trent. There were,
indeed, difficulties as to the mode of bringing this
about ; but after some months these were arranged,
and a bull was issued on the 14th November for
the resumption of the Council at its first place of
meeting, on the 1st May 1551.
But it is time to return to England ; for the
death of Paul III. occurred within a month after the
fall of the Protector Somerset, and by the time that
the Council reassembled at Trent, two-thirds of the
brief reign of Edward VI. had already passed away.
1 Sarpi, bk. iii. ; Venetian Calendar, v. pp. 274-309.

BOOK VI
LOLLARDY IN POWER

CHAPTER I
WARWICK, GARDINER, AND CRANMER
The world has generally been aware that the govern
ment of Henry VIII. was a real despotism. But it
has been somewhat slow to recognise, what I trust
my readers have seen with greater clearness, that the
climax of that despotism was attained when it broke
down the ancient hberties and independence of the
Church. And one thing further requires to be taken
into account, which is easily lost sight of — that a
despotism, once established, is apt to remain a
despotism even when the original despot has passed
away. For if an old constitution has been weakened
in every part except its head, there is manifestly no
power of action left under the new conditions, even
when the king is a minor, except in those who are
strong enough to mould the royal will. The des- Despotic
potic character given to the constitution by the^J„™on.
Tudors remained even under the Stuarts, and was tinues after
such as could only be got rid of through the longvinj
and painful struggle of the seventeenth century. It
is no question as to the severity of the despotism in
each particular reign. A despotism may be mild or
it may be ferocious ; but once a constitution becomes
despotic, so it must remain tiU war and statesman
ship, and the stUl small voice of Christianity amid
the tumult, have succeeded in turning the despotism
into a more genial form of government. And even
when this is effiected, historic origins remain ; for to
169

I70 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
this day it is a power behind the throne, namely, the
Cabinet, that wields the destinies of England, however
much we please to talk about a democracy.
So, whatever course might be taken by Warwick,
the new minister who had thus risen to the command
of affairs, that course could not but be despotic. In
Warwick fact, he had to be more despotic than Somerset, even
d'espotic if lie did not wish to be so. He thoroughly under-
than stood the man he had supplanted, having been his
Somerset, qqj^^^^^q ^ud rival in high commands during the late
reign. He knew his weaknesses, and he also knew
the machine of government and the sources of
political power. As a military commander Somer
set, no doubt, well understood his business and
the policy of keeping Scotland in subjection. But
Warwick was experienced in warfare both by land
and sea, and was a far greater master of policy.
He had been Henry VIIL's Lord Admiral for a
time, but, having been made Somerset's successor
as Lord Great Chamberlain at the commencement
of the new reign, his former post was given to
Somerset's brother. Lord Seymour, whose dangerous
ambitions and malpractices brought him speedily to
the block. The power of the Protector himself was
weakened by this, and Warwick saw his advantage
when, having just put down the Norfolk rebels in
1549, he had the Council at his command and got
Somerset proclaimed a traitor and lodged in the
Tower. His trial, and the charges against him, do
Parliament not conccm US here. Parliament met again in Novem-
™^g^*^^ ber, within a month of his arrest, and it was very
Nov. 1549. soon seen that the new Government was to be fully
more severe, and also more inimical to traditional
religion, than that which it had superseded.
On the 9th November, a bill for the suppression
of riots and unlawful assemblies, such as those which
had lately given so much trouble, was read a first
time in the House of Lords. It evidently gave rise

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 171
to very much discussion, and was only passed ulti
mately on the 19th, after no less than six readings.
It then went down to the House of Commons, where
it had a first reading the same day, and a second on
the 23rd. Difficulties had apparently arisen here
too, and in the Journals of the House, after mention
of the second reading, it is added, " Committed to
Mr. Chancellor." The result was that it was with
drawn, and a " new bill for suppressing of rebellions "
was read a first time on the 5th December. But
even this new bill's progress was not an easy one, for
it had to be read no less than eight times before it
was finally passed on the 23rd, just before Christmas.
Next day it was sent up to the Lords with the old
bill which their Lordships had already passed, and on
the 26th it was read a first time by the Peers. On
the 27th and 28th it was read a second and a third
time, when it was at length despatched and became
law. In that form it was certainly severe enough,
and it is clear that, whatever may have been the
points contested in those numerous discussions in
both Houses, the Lower House felt itself unable after
all to do much to protect the liberties of the poor
commons. For the statute made it treason for an
assembly, even of twelve persons seeking to alter the
laws passed by ParUament, not to disperse when
ordered, and also made it felony to destroy hedges
and ditches, or other fences about enclosures.^
Now let us see what was done as regards religion. Legislation
On the 9th November, the very same day on which ^^j-^^^
the Lords read a first time the bill to put down com
motions, they had also read a first time a bill for the
modification of the Uniformity Act passed in the last
session (2 and 3 Edward VI. c. 1). This bill was read
a second time on the 11th, and committed to the
Bishops of Ely, Westminster, Rochester, the Lord
1 statutes 3 and 4 Edw. VI. .;. 5. The progress of the bills may be traced
in the Journals of the two Houses.

172 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
(i.e. Justice) Montague, and Mr. Hales. After which
nothing more is heard of it, and its precise object
must be a matter of speculation. It was called a bill
" for the repeal of a certain branch within the Act
made for a uniform order of service."
The appeal But ou the 14th occurrcd something of much
bishops, greater significance. The bishops made an appeal to
the House on the position to which they had now for
some time been reduced. Their authority, they said,
was despised by the people, and their jurisdiction
absolutely annulled by proclamations. They durst
not call any man before their tribunals, or compel
him to go to church. They could punish no crime,
and discharge no episcopal duty. The Lords pro
fessed to be very sorry, and directed the bishops to
draw up a bill themselves to correct the evil, so that,
if approved by the Council and all the orders, the
measure might be made law. The bishops were
evidently animated by a hope that the recent change
of Government would lead to better things ; but if
they expected much reUef they were doomed to
be disappointed. When they had drawn their bill,
the Lords objected to it as giving them too great
power. The subject was accordingly referred to a
mixed commission of bishops and lay Lords; and
apparently while this was sitting a good deal of
legislation, not much in accordance with episcopal
views, was discussed in both Houses, the different
projects commonly originating in the House of
Commons.
Schemes Ou the vcry day, indeed, when the bishops made
i^ eMtei- ^^^^^ complaint in the Upper House, the Commons
asticai were moved to consider a bill " for administration of
^*"^- the Ecclesiastical Laws by students of the University
admitted by the Archbishop, Bishop, etc." So the
project is described at the first reading. The students,
as appears later, were to be of four years' standing.
It was a plausible attempt to rescue ecclesiastical

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 173
law from its long suspense, ever since " the Sub
mission of the Clergy" in 1532. But such a scheme
could scarcely have commended itself to the heads of
the Church, and its introduction, in the first instance,
in the Lower House of the Legislature, must have
seemed to mark an advance in LoUardy or Secularism.
It passed through three readings in the Commons,
and two in the Lords, where it disappeared, it would
seem, after the second reading on the 10th December,
and gave place to another bill introduced on the 11th,
" touching the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction." This bill,
too, seems to have been superseded by a new one on
the same subject on the 17th, which, after a first
reading, was committed to the King's attorney, then
went through a second and third reading just before
Christmas, and was sent down to the Commons. The
Commons recognised it as a "new bill," and gave it
three readings. But it was not finally passed.
There was, however, one piece of very effective
legislation, the origin of which, to all appearance,
gave but Uttle evidence of what the scheme would
ultimately become. On the 19th November the
Commons read a first time a " Bill against fond,
phantastical Prophecies," which only received a
second reading on the 18th December, nearly a
month later, and a third on the 26th, when it was
apparently passed.^ Yet on the 2nd January 1550
they read a first time a new bill, which probably
incorporated the substance of the bill just mentioned
and gave it a new direction. This was called " The
bill to avoid and burn divers Papistic books and siii for
books of prophecies " ; but the title given to it was ^^^^l°J^lf
altered in subsequent stages. It became " the bill of books and
divers Church books of the old Service " (a marginal ™»g«5-
note calls them "Papists' books"), and finally "the
¦' The word ' ' Judicium " is written after the notice of the third reading,
and this word generally means that the bill is passed. But it may mean
only that a decision was come to about it ; which iu this case, to judge by
what follows, may have been that a new bill should be drawn up.

174 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
Bill for the defacing of images and bringing in of
books of old Service in the Church." This was read
not only a third but a fourth time in the Commons
on the 20th January. It evidently encountered not
a little discussion, as indeed it was clear that the
object now went far beyond the suppression of " fond,
fantastical prophecies." It was read a first time in
the Lords on the 23rd January, passed its second
reading next day, and its third on the 25th, notwith
standing the protests of the Earl of Derby, Bishops
Tunstall, Sampson, Aldrich, Heath, Thirlby, and
Day, and Lords Morley, Stourton, Windsor, and
Wharton. The reader will not wonder at their protests when
he grasps the full meaning of this portentous Act.
And we may perhaps discover at the same time why
a bill against "fond, fantastical prophecies" was
changed at the new year into one with a scope so
very much enlarged. The fact is that Warwick had
been endeavouring to effect no small part of the
object he had in view without any Act of ParUament
at all ; and on Christmas Day he addressed, in the
King's name, a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
which must have put an end to all doubt as to the
attitude of the new Government towards rehgion.
But, though doubtless immediately pubUshed, it must
have been rather unsafe to press the demands made
in such a letter without an Act of ParUament to
back them up. So the bill against fantastical
prophecies was given up, and a larger measure took
its place, of which we shall speak more fully presently.
Meanwhile it is desirable to note the terms of the
The King's royal letter written to Cranmer on Christmas Day,
letter to -which wcrc as follows : —
Cranmer. By THE King.
Right Reverend Father in God, right trusty and weU-
beloved, we greet you well. And whereas the book entitled
" The Book of Common Prayers and administration of the

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 175
Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church after
the use of the Church of England " was agreed upon and set
forth by Act of Parhament, and by the same Act commanded
to be used of all persons within this our realm ; yet neverthe
less we are informed that divers unquiet and evil disposed
persons, sithence the apprehension of the Duke of Somerset,
have noised and bruited abroad that they should have again
their old Latin service, their conjured bread and water, with
suchlike vain and superstitious ceremonies, as though the set
ting forth of the said Book had been the only act of the said
Duke ; We, therefore, by the advice of the body and state of
our Privy Council, not only considering the said Book to be
our act, and the act of the whole state of our realm
assembled together in Parhament, but also the same to
be grounded upon Holy Scripture, agreeable to the order of
the primitive Church, and much to the re-edifying of our
subjects, to put away all such vain expectation of having the
pubhc service, the administration of the Sacraments and
other rites and ceremonies again in the Latin tongue, which
were but a preferment of ignorance to knowledge and dark
ness to hght, and a preparation to bring in papistry and
superstition again, have thought good, by the advice afore
said, to require, and nevertheless straitly to command and
charge you, that, immediately upon the receipt hereof, you do
command the dean and prebendaries of the Cathedral Church,
the parson, vicar or curate and churchwardens of every
parish within your diocese, to bring and dehver unto you or
your deputy, every 1 of them for their church and parish,
at such convenient place as you shaU appoint, all antiphoners,
missals, grayles, processionals, manuals, legends, pies,
portasies, jornalles and ordinals, after the use of Sarum,
Lincoln, York, or any other private use, and aU other books old service
of service, the keeping whereof should be a let to the usage of books to be
the said Book of Common Prayers, and that you take the '^^ ^°^^ '
same books into your hands, or into the hands of your
deputy, and them so deface and abohsh that they never after
may serve, either to any such use as they were provided for,
or be at any time a let to that godly and uniform order which
by a common consent is now set forth : and if you shall find
any persons stubborn or disobedient in not bringing in the
said books, according to the tenor of these our letters, that
then ye commit the said person to ward, unto such time as
^ Printed by Card well "eny " which is evidently a misreading.

176 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
you have certified us of his misbehaviour. And we will and
command you that you also search or cause search to be
made from time to time, whether any book be withdrawn or
hid, contrary to the tenor of these our letters, and the same
book to receive into your hands, and to use as in these
our letters we have appointed.
And furthermore, whereas it has come to our knowledge
that divers froward and obstinate persons do refuse to pay to
wards the finding of bread and wine for the holy communion,
according to the order prescribed by the said Book, by reason
whereof the holy communion is many times omitted upon
the Sunday ; these are to whl and command you to convent
such obstinate persons before you, and them to admonish and
command to keep the order prescribed in the said Book ; and
if any shall refuse so to do, to punish them by suspension,
excommunication, or other censures of the Church. Fail you
not thus to do as you whl avoid our displeasure.
Given under our Signet at our palace of Westminster the
25th of December, the 3rd year of our reign.^
This was a rude shock to old conservatism when
the bishops had been hoping to recover some of their
lost power, even to correct immorality. Nor could
they have derived very much comfort from the other
ecclesiastical measures still before ParUament. One
of these, touching the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, was
still going through its stages but never received
the royal assent. Another, which did become law,
assuredly did not please them at all. For it was
only presented in the Commons as late as the 21st
January, when it was read twice that day ; and after
a third reading on the 22nd, it went up to the
Lords. There also it received two readings in one
day (the 25th), and a third on the 31st, when it was
passed with serious protests. But it must have been
materially altered in discussion, for it had to go back
to the House of Commons, and receive three readings
there again, the first on the very day it left the
House of Lords (31st January), the second and third
' Cited at full length in Cranmer's letter -to his Archdeacon on the sub
ject in Cardwell's Documentary Annals, i. 73-7.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 177
the day after (1st February) just in time to pass
before Parliament was adjourned.
The Act in question had this merit at least, that
it aimed at a real settlement of a long-standing
question. For the Commission of Thirty-two^ on
ecclesiastical laws had never yet been appointed ; so
that the questions what clerical ordinances touched the
prerogative or were against statute law, and what others
might be considered valid, remained still without an
answer. But now, the project of administering such
laws by university students having been evidently
given up, one more statute (3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 1 1 ) was
passed for the revision of the existing canons, giving Act to con-
the King power to nominate during three years sixteen commig*^
of the clergy, of whom four should be bishops, and sion of
sixteen laymen, of whom four should be common twJf'
lawyers, on a commission for the purpose. Notwith
standing the haste with which this bill was rushed
through the two Houses of Parliament, it evidently
had undergone some changes in the Lords, and among
others this, that whereas when it first went through
the Commons the number of Commissioners it author
ised was to be only sixteen in all, the Lords restored
the full number of thirty -two, which had always been
contemplated in Henry VIII.'s time ; and this was
no doubt the reason why it had to be submitted again
to the Commons like a new bUl. Nevertheless, it
passed the Lords only with strong protests, not merely
from Bishops Tunstall of Durham, Aldrich of Carlisle,
Heath of Worcester, Thirlby of Westminster, and
Day of Chichester, but even from Archbishop Cranmer
himself, and from Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, Holbeach
of Lincoln, Ridley of Rochester, and Ferrar of St.
David's, all of the new school. Probably the objec
tions of either party were different from those of the
other ; but all were of no avail. The bill went down
again to the Commons and was passed.
1 See pp. 47, 48.
VOL. Ill N

a new
Ordinal.

178 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
A very important subject was now approached,
Act for on which, notwithstanding the interest which it has
excited, what was done has never yet been quite
accurately set forth. The following statement of the
case, however, is very nearly correct : —
A bill for a new Orduial was introduced into the House
of Peers on 8th January 1550. It seems to have given rise
to considerable discussion, for it only passed its first reading
on the 23rd of the month, and was finally voted two days
later (25th January 1550). Thirteen bishops were absent
from the House. Of the fourteen present, five dissented.^
This statement only requires a little ampUfication,
even to make it strictly accurate ; for the bUl was
not " finally voted," even in the House of Lords, on
25th January. It had, in the first place, naturally
to be referred to another Chamber, and it was delivered
to the Commons on the 29th. On the following day
it was read a first, second, and third time there, and
passed, apparently with some alteration. For on the
31st it was again before the Lords, who read it a
first time in the morning, and a second and third
time in the afternoon. And so it became law in spite
of the protests of the five bishops who objected to it
on the 25th. These were Bishops Tunstall, Aldrich,
Heath, Thirlby, and Day ; and Heath's opposition
did not end with that protest, as we shall see
presently. The Act was a very short one, and may as well
be quoted here verbatim : — ^
Forasmuch as, concord and unity to be had within the
King's Majesty's dominions, it is requisite to have one
uniform fashion and manner for making and consecrating of
bishops, priests, deacons, or ministers of the Church : Be it
therefore enacted by the King's Highness, with the assent of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this
1 Gasquet and Bishop's Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer,
p. 261.
= Statute 3 and 4 Edward VI. c. 12.

CH. I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 179
present Parhament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, that such form and manner of making and consecrating
of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, deacons, and other ministers
of the Church, as by six prelates and six other men of this
Reahn, learned in God's law, by the King's Majesty to be
appointed and assigned, or bythe most number of them, shall
be devised for that purpose, and set forth under the Great
Seal of England before the first day April next coming,
shall by virtue of this present Act be lawfully exercised and
used, and none other, any Statute or law or usage to the
contrary in anywise notwithstandiag.
On the 2nd February the Privy Council took the
first step towards carrying out the purpose of this
statute, as shown by the register of their Acts, which
under that date bears the following entry : —
The Bishop[s] and learned whose names be underwritten
[were] appointed by the Lords to devise orders for the creation
of bishops and priests.^
But unfortunately the names are not " under
written," and we have no information who " the
Bishops and learned " appointed actually were, except
that one of them, it appears, was Bishop Heath, who Bishop
was chosen to sit upon this Committee actually ^^^*^^ ^.^
against his will. Accordingly we read in the same the book,
records six days later, i.e. on the 8th February : —
Bishop of Worcester convented before the Lords for that
he would not assent to the book made by the rest of the
bishops and of the clergy appointed to devise a form for the
creation of the bishops and priests.^
After nearly three weeks' deUberation the follow
ing resolution was come to on the last day of the
month : —
It is thought convenient by the Lords that, seeing the rest
appointed to devise the form for consecrating of priests have
agreed upon the book, and set their hands to the same, that
^ Dasent's Acts ofthe Privy Council, ii. 379. ^ Dasent, u.s. 388.

1 80 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
the Bishop of Worcester shall also do the hke, specially for
that he cannot deny but all that is contained in the book is
good and godly.^
We can imagine from words like these with what
sweet reasonableness documents were sometimes
signed at the bidding of a Council, when the signa
tory was not bold enough to deny that all contained
in them was "good and godly." But Bishop Heath,
it appears, was not to be thus coerced, and the next
notice of him, four days later, is as follows : —
and is im- Bishop of Worcester committed to the Fleet for that
prisoned, obstinately he denied to subscribe to the book devised for
the consecration and making of bishops and priests.^
Thus it is clear that the ordinal by which bishops
and priests were afterwards consecrated in England
was objected to from the first by several of the
bishops, and that one of those appointed to the
task of drawing it up absolutely refused to act,
and was imprisoned for so refusing. In view of
this I fear that, as to a recent controversy with
Rome, truth compels us to confess that the sufficiency
of Anglican Orders was by no means generally
admitted when the new form of consecration was
first composed. The new ordinal was thrust upon
the Church much as the Great Bible was thrust
upon the Church, not because it was approved by
the bishops, but because it suited the higher powers
to have it so. Whether what was done was fatal
to the validity of Anglican Orders, as the Romanists
contend, I do not feel called upon to discuss. Those
who think so, of course, may transfer their allegiance
to Rome. My humble part is only to declare what
actually was done. And as to what was done in the
positive change of form, I may content myself with
the brief account given of it by Collier.^
1 Dasent, u.s. p. 403. 2 2J p. 405.
^ Ecclesiastical Hist., v. 376.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER i8i
The Committee appointed for compiling the Ordination-
book struck off the additions of later ages, and governed
themselves by the forms of the ancient Church. Thus, in the
consecration of Bishops, the gloves and sandals, the mitre, ring
and croiser, were omitted : neither in the ordaining of priests
was there any anointing, or delivering the consecrated plate.
Collier, I may say, follows up this brief paragraph
with a few pages on the sufficiency of these diminished
rites, which the reader may consult for himself It
was certainly the intention of the Government that
no other ordinal should henceforth be used, and the
policy of the royal letter of Christmas Day was now
embodied in an Act passed by Parliament, making it
penal to possess any one of the old service books.
And though we have already seen the pretext for this
policy set forth in the royal letter, we may under
stand it still better as set forth in the preamble to
the Act itself,^ which is as follows : —
Where the King's most excellent Majesty hath of late Act against
set forth and estabhshed by the authority of Parliament an °'^^ service
uniform, quiet, and godly order for common and open prayer "^ ^'
in a book intituled, "The Book of Common Prayer and
Administration of the Sacraments and other rites and
ceremonies of the Church after the Church of England," to
be used and observed in the said Church of England, agreeable
to the order of the primitive Church, much more conformable
unto his loving subjects than other diversity of service as
heretofore of long time hath been used, being in the said book
ordained nothing to be read but the very pure Word of God, or
which is evidently grounded upon the same, and in the other
things corrupt, untrue, vain, and superstitious, and as it were
a preparation to superstition; which, for that they be not called
in but permitted to remain undefaced, do not only give occasion
to such perverse persons as do impugn the order and godly
meaning of the King's said Book of Common Prayer, to
continue in their old accustomed superstitious service, but
also minister great occasion to diversity of opinions, rites,
ceremonies and services : — Be it therefore enacted (etc.)
1 statute 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 10.

1 82 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
that all books called antiphoners, missals, scrayles, pro
cessionals, manuals, legends, pyes, portuyses, primers in Latin
or English, cowchers, journals, or other books or writings
whatsoever, heretofore used for the service of the Church,
written or printed in the Enghsh or Latin tongue, other than
such as are or shall be set forth by the King's Majesty, shaU be,
by authority of this present Act, clearly and utterly abohshed,
extinguished and forbidden for ever to be used or kept ia
this reahn or elsewhere within any the King's dominions.
What a catalogue of prohibited service books !
The English Reformation under Warwick was almost
in advance of Rome in publishing an Index Ex-
purgatorius.^ But then, of course, it was "super
stitious" services used in church that had to be
done away with ; and what was more, they were
service books with local variations — use of Sarum,
use of Hereford, use of York, of Lincoln, and so
forth. To investigate the superstitions of each was
unnecessary. The nation had now one service book
" agreeable to the order of the Primitive Church,"
and all others might well be got rid of ! Uniformity
was a great thing — one " uniform, quiet and godly
order," though it was not very quietly received
even then, and the revolt against uniformity since
that day has filled the land with hundreds of bodies
of Dissenters. It would almost seem that the pre-
Reformation Church was the Church of liberty, and
that we have been ever struggling since that day to
recover something of that liberty and variety which
the Government of Edward VI. first denied us. But
if we value that liberty so much in these days, we
must take our choice among the sects, for even the
Church of Rome has her Act of Uniformity now, and
has the same services everywhere all the world over.
1 The first Index of prohibited books published at Rome seems to have
been in the year 1559, though others had already been issued at Venice
(1543), at Louvain (1546), and at Paris (1551). But of course the policy
of the Church of Rome everywhere had always been to suppress heretical
literature ; and at Rome itself nothing was allowed to be printed without
permission. See Mendham's Literary Policy ofthe Church of Rome.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 183
But this Act of Edward VI. had to do with other
things besides books, and we must quote again : —
And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid and against
that if any person or persons, of what estate, degree, or con- images.
dition soever he, she, or they be, body politic or corporate,
that now have or hereafter shall have in his, her, or their
custody any of the books or writings of the sorts aforesaid,
or any images of stone, timber, alabaster or earth, graven,
carved or painted, which heretofore have been taken out
of any church or chapel or yet stand in any church or
chapel, and do not, before the last day of June next ensuing,
deface and destroy, or cause to be defaced and destroyed the
same images and every of them, and deliver or cause to be
dehvered, aU and every the same books, to the mayor, bayliff,
constable or churchwardens of the town where such books
then shall be, to be by them dehvered over openly within
three months next following after the said delivery, to the
Archbishop, Bishop, Chancellor, or Commissary of the same
diocese, to the intent the said Archbishop, Bishop, ChanceUor,
or Commissary and every of them, cause them immediately
to be openly burnt, or otherwise defaced and destroyed, shall,
for every such book or books wilhngly retained in his, her,
or their hands, or custody, within this realm or elsewhere
within any the King's dominions, and not delivered, as is
aforesaid, after the said last day of June, and be thereof
lawfully convict, forfeit and lose to the King our Sovereign
Lord, for the first offence twenty shillings, and for the second
offence shall forfeit and lose, being thereof lawfully convict,
four pounds, and for the third offence shall suffer imprison
ment at the King's will.

¦*& '

The grammar limps wofuUy, but the meaning of the
Act is clear. Mayors and bishops neglecting to destroy
such books were to incur a penalty of £40. But there
were two important exceptions in the scope of this
Act. First, any primers of Henry VIII. might still
be used if only the sentences of invocation or prayer
to saints were blotted out or erased. Second, the
Act was not to apply to " any image or picture set
or graven upon any tomb in any church, chapel
or churchyard, only for a monument of any king,
prince, nobleman or other dead person which hath

1 84 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
not been commonly reputed and taken for a saint."
The entire absence of saintliness in a deceased person
might be pleaded as a reason for his image bemg
preserved in church ! So ancestral tombs of ancient
barons and gentry remained unviolated.
Was it wonderful that six bishops of the old
school, and five temporal lords besides, protested
against an Act like this ? We can worship without
images now ; we do not want them. They were
books to the unlearned, and now every one knows
how to read. But the spirit in which they were
destroyed long ago is quite another matter. Even
now in Roman Catholic countries the crucifix speaks
to the eye on pulpits, in roodlofts and by the way
side, reminding every one of the patient suffering
which the One sinless Man endured for the love of
man. It is rude art very frequently ; but it touches
the heart. On the eve of the Reformation a savage
fanaticism cried out that it was idolatry. Sermons
were more edifying than contemplation, even by
such aids, of the great act of human Redemption.
And heartless statesmanship found its policy ui
supporting the cause of a no less heartless fanaticism,
which clung to the letter of the command : " Thou
shalt not make thee any graven image."
For a striking example of the operation of this
Act, let us dip once more into the records of the
Privy Council, which show that a year later it was
applied to the royal library itself so as not only to
get rid of superstition but to yield some treasure.
On the 25th February (1550-51) we read : —
The King's Majesty's letter — for the purging of his
Highness's Library at Westminster of aU superstitious books,
legends and such hke, and to dehver the garniture of the
same books, being either of gold or silver, to Sir Anthony
Aucher, in the presence of Sir Thomas Darcie, etc.
Let us come back, however, to the year we are
considering (1549-50), in which some entries from

CH. I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 185
the same source deserve attention. Under date
Sunday, 2nd February, we read : —
Letters to the Chancellor, Receiver, Auditors of the
Tenths, to allow to the Bishop of Durham in his tenths and
subsidies due or to be due to the King's Majesty, the loan of
£500 lent by him to the King's Majesty departed, until the
said £500 be so acquitted.
That is only a small matter of justice to the
aged Bishop Tunstall.^ He had advanced money for
the King's service in the late reign, and though he
was a bishop of the old school, there was no intention
of dealing unfairly with him in that matter. Later
in the same day we also find : —
Letters several to the Bishops of Durham and Ely to
appoint in their several dioceses their chaplains and such
persons, vicars and curates, within the same dioceses, to
preach as by their discretions they shall think meet, the
proclamations and restraints notwithstanding.
This also has an impartial look, for Bishop Good
rich of Ely was as much of the new school as Bishop
Tunstall was of the old. Preaching generally had
been inhibited under Somerset, though men like
Hancock, as we have seen, had liberty to preach as
they pleased, and they pleased to preach against
" idolatry." Bishop Goodrich would certainly let
loose many tongues of the kind favoured now. But
Tunstall, though of the old school, was above all
things timid and discreet. In his northern diocese
men did not love change, and he himself did not
love it either ; nevertheless he would doubtless
strive not to offend the ruling powers by permitting
preachers to be too outspoken.
On the 3rd February we have this entry relating
to Bishop Bonner : —
The said Councillors [they are named at the head of the
^ A similar allowance was made next day to Bishop Goodrich for a loan
to the same amount.

1 86 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
day's proceedings] accompanied with Justice Hales, Doctors
Olyver and Lyson, and Mr. Gosnalde, did peruse the process
of the matter for which the Bishop of London was imprisoned
and deprived.
Of course, " the process " had a show of judicial
authority. But Bonner had all along protested
against the Court which had tried him in September,
and after sentence of deprivation had been passed
upon him on the 1st October, had repeatedly appealed
against it to the Lord Chancellor and the Privy
CouncU.^ He was aUowed, however, to remain four
months in the Marshalsea prison before the least
Bonner's consideration was shown to his appeal, and there
dismissed, was uo intention even now, apparently, to hear his
case over again ; which, in point of fact, was not
done. We accordingly read on the 7th February : —
Dr. Bonner, late Bishop of London, being sent for to
appear before the Lords in the dining chamber next to the
Star Chamber, it was by the Lord ChanceUor declared unto
him that the King's Majesty, having appointed eight of his
Highness's Privy Council, four of the lawyers of the realm
and four civilians, to consider whether his appeal should be
allowed, did, after long and mature debating of the same,
conclude that it might not be received; whereupon his
Highness wiUed them to declare unto the said Dr. Bonner
that the sentence pronounced against him by the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the rest of the Commissioners stood in
force, and thereby he deprived of his bishopric.
Ridley On the 24th February the Council determined
Ksho of *^^* Ridley, Bishop of Rochester, should fill Bonner's
London, placc as Bishop of London, and should also succeed
Thirlby, whose removal to Norwich was intended, hi
the See of Westminster, the words of the entry
being : —
The Bishop of Rochester to be Bishop of London and
Westminster, and to have lands of £1000 per annum, to be
appointed by the King's Majesty.
^ See the whole proceedings and the appeals iu Foxe, v. 750-800.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 187
The bishopric of Westminster, however, was only
reunited to London on the 1st April following, when
Thirlby's translation actually took place.
Meanwhile, on 6th February, Somerset was Somerset
released from the Tower on giving surety that ]ie '^'''''^*"'''-
would not seek the royal presence again until he
was sent for. For the present he stood no longer in
Warwick's way. He was even readmitted to the
CouncU on the 10th April, and in June he and
Warwick seemed so completely reconciled that his
daughter Anne was married to Warwick's eldest son,
Lord Lisle. It was fair weather everywhere for
friends of the New Learning, while Bishops Bonner
and Gardiner, and Heath also, were in jail. Further
changes in the episcopate were coming ; but of them
by and by. Meanwhile, the Earl had been engineer
ing a great change in foreign policy by arranging a
peace with France and the restoration of Boulogne.
The peace was settled by commissioners at Boulogne
on the 24th March, and the town was surrendered
on the 12th April. At the same time, the English
agreed to withdraw their troops from Scotland and
demolish their strongholds there. So England was
reUeved at once from two wars which were particu
larly troublesome. As for Somerset's grand idea of
subjugating Scotland, or bringing about a union of
two countries by the marriage of Edward VI. with
Mary Stuart, it had become manifestly futile. Mary
Stuart had been carried over to France, and was now
betrothed to the Dauphin, afterwards Francis II.
France and Scotland, moreover, acted together in
war, and England would have been harassed for
years alike from North and South if this politic
peace had not been made.
By making friends with France, therefore, Warwick
was free to attend to the internal affairs of the
kingdom, and the settlement of religion on the lines
which he found convenient. And not only had he

1 88 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
the bishops practically at his command, with power
to turn out any that displeased him and to put in
any that were favourable to his views, but much had
been done already to promote a new theology at the
universities by advancing the two German theologians,
Bucer and Fagius, to professorships at Cambridge, and
by encouraging the various other foreign divines
whom Cranmer had been inviting to England to
aid in a new religious settlement.^ There was
no Council of Trent at this time, and no fear of a
combination against a heretical nation.
Warwick's So Warwick had it all his own way ; there was no
policy. Qj^g vsdthin the kingdom to oppose him. And in the
settlement of religion he simply followed the course
of things begun and the Une of least resistance.
Bonner had been already deprived under Somerset ;
Ridley was made Bishop of London in his place.
Joan Joan Bocher was burned in Smithfield, under a
burned, scntencc already passed a year before, for upholding
a very peculiar heresy. But the Calvinistic preach
ing of John Hooper rose into favour ; and notwith
standing that he objected to the new ordinal and to
Hooper cpiscopal vestmcuts, he was made Bishop of Glouce-
Kshop of ^*®^ ^J patent, under the new statute,^ without
Gloucester, any conge d'elire. A strange situation ; for it took
nearly a year to remove his objections and get him
to allow himself to be consecrated in a form which
could be considered valid, even under the new
ordinal. Meanwhile, Ridley was making radical
changes in the diocese of London, forbidding a
multitude of " popish " ceremonies, taking down
altars and setting up "the Lord's board after the
form of an honest table." Old LoUardy had now
become Calvinistic severity, and was asserting itself
in a way it could not have done hitherto without the
aid of Calvinistic bishops. For the Bench of Bishops
itself was becoming rapidly altered ; and those who
' See pp. 71-3, 112 sq. 2 ggg p_ 55_

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 189
refused to carry out a new policy could easily be
imprisoned and deprived. Bishops Gardiner, Bonner,
and Heath were already in unjust confinement ; and
Bonner had been deprived. Another bishop was now
to go to prison — Day of Chichester — who refused to
take down altars, and whose preaching was stigma
tised as seditious because he would not accept new
forms laid down by a new authority.^ Old John
Voysey, Bishop of Exeter, too, was driven by menaces
to resign to make way for Miles Coverdale.
There was one quarter, no doubt, in which Warwick The
and the Council did meet with opposition of a some- ^y"**
what dangerous kind. But he must have laid his
account with this from the first, as it was not a new
thing ; and assuredly what determined his policy was
not bigotry. That his religion, so far as he had any,
was of the old school and not of the new, we may
judge from his dying confession. But his conduct at
this time, as was not unnatural in one who had
cUmbed to a perilous position by art, was entirely
governed by motives of poUcy.
" This Earl," said one who knew him weU and was a very
competent judge, " this Earl had such a head that he seldom
went about anything but he conceived first three or four
purposes beforehand. They thought he was afraid of the
Emperor ; but he had concluded with the Vid§,me [of Chartres]
to help the French King, his master, into as great an amity
as he could with the Emperor and the realm ; and to cause
our noble Edward, of nature no friend to the Emperor, to be
ready to mislike him when any safe occasion of falhng out
should be offered, he meant to seem a friend to the Lady
Mary, to be taken for Imperial ; that so, owing his friendship
to France, and winning credit with the Emperor, he might,
as time should teach him, abuse whether of them he hsted,
and fall in with him that might best serve his practices." ^
These are the words of Sir Richard Morysine, who
1 Dasent's Acts of Privy Council, iii. 137, 154, 168-70, 172-3, 176, 178.
2 From Morysine's "Discourse," in Nichols's Biographical Memoir
prefixed to Literary Remains of Edward VI. , p. ccxxvii.

The

190 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
at this time was ambassador with the Emperor in
Germany ; and they have special reference to the
case of that one distinguished personage, " the lady
Mary," whose insistance on having mass kept up in
her household was as great a stumbling-block to the
Council now as it had been in the Protector's days.
Morysine's general account of the matter, slightly
condensed, is this : —
The Emperor, finding aU his proceedings against the
Germans " much stained " by things done in England, was
afraid to fall out with the French King, as he knew England
would be thereby " at greatest rest," and have time to settle
things of religion. But, as the Devil keeps no hohdays,
d' Arras, the Emperor's Holy Ghost, put it in the Emperor's
Emperor's head to be a suitor by his ambassador hdger in England to
inter- Edward VI. that the lady Mary, now Queen, " might have
ference in ]jgp conscience free and think all laws made since her father's
^^ ^ ^ ¦ death as concerning religion to touch her no whit at all"
The Councillors, to show themselves stout men, wrote to
Morysine " to show a will in the King and Council to gratify
the Emperor where he and they might," and regret that he
should seek at their hands a thing they must refuse. " The
Emperor, seeing he could not get it by his ambassador's suit,
willed him yet to press the Lords for a promise which the
lord Paget at Brussels had made to him " — that though the
statutes for rehgion affected all other persons, the King's whl
was not that they should affect Mary. The lord Paget, being
asked if this was true, denied it to the Council, and took oath
before the Imperial ambassador, who was specially sent for,
that he had no commission from the King or Council to say
any such thing or ever did. And Morysine was coromissioned
not only to pray his Majesty to cease entreating for this but
to ask for an Imperial command to the Regent [of the Nether
lands] to allow Chamberlain 1 to use the English service at
Brussels. The Emperor was very angry at this, and wrote a
hot letter to the King against Morysine, " which letter and
talk of the Emperor's ambassador when he dehvered it, put
our stout councillors in such a fear as they now meant to
piexlng move the King's Highness in any wise to agree to the
question. Empcror's request ; and that the matter might take place
they sent for the Archbishop of Canterbury and Ridley
1 Sir Thomas Chamberlain, the English ambassador there.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 191
Bishop of London to know of them whether the King might
with a safe conscience grant such hcence to the lady Mary
or no." The Council had to consider the perh of the realm if the
Emperor would take no nay or the King would give no yea,
and the two Bishops were put in such fear that they asked a
day to weigh the matter. Next day they said that the King,
to save his country, might dispense with her. " The Duke
of Northumberland, then Earl of Warwick, was very glad
he had won these thus far, knowing that now, if they could
not persuade the King to hcense his sister to have her mass,
yet the whole fault should be laid on the two Bishops ; so
should the Emperor hear the Counsel (? Council) meant to
gratify him, yea where they should not."
At this point comes in the passage already quoted
about Warwick's subtlety as a politician ; after which
the " Discourse" proceeds to say of him : —
Canterbury he had no mind to ; he saw he was plain,
tractable, gentle, mild, loth to displease, and so loved the
King as, if anything could draw him aside, it was his desire
to see the King safe, or fear to think him nigh any hurt. But,
to the matter. The Treasurer (the Marquis of Winchester),^
who hath a tongue fit for all times with an obedience ready
for as many new masters as can happen in his days, must
first take instructions as they were given him, and say but
what Northumberland would. To the King they came,
or rather, because the Duke would have it so, t^e lord Darcy
went for the King and brought him in to the Council Chamber
— the King might not know why, lest such as were about
him might have furnished him for the matter. It happened
weh, for that the King for the most part was so well able
of himself to stand with the most of his Council that they
still charged men of his Chamber as though the King
had learned things of others. Yea, because his talk was
always above some of their capacities, they therefore thought
it rather stirred up in him by gentlemen of his Privy
Chamber than grown in himself. There were good causes on
both sides, the plentiful graces that God had poured on him,
and the dry and barren years that some of them had spent in
giving bad counsel to his father and in keeping no good
to serve his son's turn withal. The Treasurer thought it
^ As yet he was only Lord St. John.

192 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
always no shame to be slave to a chief councillor, of what
side soever he were, no villany to help to betray his master,
so he might thereby please his feUow councillor.
One seems to get at the inside of things when such
vivid portraits are drawn for us by a diplomatist of
contemporary statesmen, and apparently without the
slightest malice, but rather admiration of their acute-
ness. We may note also the shrewd estimates of
the precocious young King and the " tractable "
Archbishop Cranmer. The narrative goes on : —
The King was now come into the Council Chamber, sent
for and fetched in such haste as though his realm had been
aheady upon the sacking. Down is the Treasurer upon his
knees. And then might the King guess the matter was bad ;
for when it had either profit to the realm or pleasure to the
King, the Treasurer was not put to the pain. Down go the
rest. Was not this beginning able to bid a King beware of
sleights, and to tell him there was some practice in hand ? I
would devise my lord's oration, but that he could never skiU
of learned talk, or of plain simphcity. The King was borne
in hand [i.e. given to understand], he, they, his realm and all
would be nought if he did not all he mought and more to
keep in with the Emperor. It is possible, some of these wise
Councillors thought as the Treasurer was bidden to say, for
that as yet the Emperor and the French King were not
entered into the wars.
From this point I will condense the report. The
King asking about the matter, the Lord Treasurer
explained the circumstances. The reply was that the
Emperor was angry with Morysine, who would have
to be replaced and the lady Mary allowed her mass.
The young The King, though he thought the demand touched
Sion li™self not a little, agreed to Morysine's recall, but
not to allow Mary to use "idolatry." The two
bishops were sent to persuade him. They said, good
kings in the Old Testament had sufi"ered hill altars.
But Edward pointed out that there were many things
recorded in Scripture of Abraham, David, and Solo
mon, which should not be examples but warnings.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 193
They must show by Scripture that the thing was
lawftil ; otherwise he would dare any peril rather
than sUght God's will, even to please an Emperor.
And he enlarged a good deal upon one of the Psalms,
in which God complains of His people that they had
broken His covenants; and made a long further
discourse justifying his high view even in face of the
poUtical situation. " ' The Emperor,' saith he, ' is a
man Uker to die himself every day than to do us any
harm, how much soever he mean it ; but if he live
and mean us never so much, we must wait upon God's
will, and commit the event of things to His wisdom
and mercy.' " The bishops who came to persuade
him " saw he had learned more than to be led by and
by," and were fain to give up the suit.^
As Morysine was abroad at the time of these
doings in Council, and his object was to magnify the
character and abiUties of the precocious young King,
we may make what aUowance we please for exaggera
tion in this matter. But the general state of the
case was clearly such as he put it. In the summer
of 1549, when England was convulsed with insur
rections, Paget, being then ambassador at Brussels,
certainly had given the Emperor to understand
that the Lady Mary would be allowed peacefully
to have her mass. The Council now denied that any
such promise had been given, " except to this extent
that the King was content to bear with her infirmity
that she should for a season hear the mass in her
closet or privy chamber only, whereat there should
be present no more than they of her chamber, and no
time appointed, but left to the King's pleasure."
Such was the oflBcial explanation given of the
promise in a dispatch to Morysine of the 22nd
February 1551 ;^ and it certainly looks Uke a mere
prevarication, fortified by Paget's oath made before
' See the whole "Discourse," printed by Nichols as above, pp. cczxiv.-
ccxxxiv. ^ Turnbull's Foreign Calendar, vol. i. pp. 74, 75.
VOL. Ill 0

194 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
the Imperial ambassador. In 1549 there had been
trouble enough at home to make the Council very
unwilling to ofiend the Emperor. But since they
had secured peace with France, and France was again
doing its best to weaken the empire by encouraging
the Lutherans, Warwick did not stand in so much
awe of his Imperial Majesty as Cranmer and Ridley
did. So he simply left them and the King to take up
whatever attitude they thought fit, perhaps with
a little prompting of his young Majesty beforehand,
that he for his part was ready to face the worst.
Undoubtedly he had. been doing his best to en
courage hatred of the Emperor ever since he saw
that it was a sentiment to be safely indulged.
The episode related by Morysine is, however, but
a part of a more considerable story of which we have
already seen the first beginnings. The Protector
Somerset had not pushed matters with Mary to quite
the same extremity as Warwick, for the reasons just
explained, was now prepared to do. But the case
of his cousin Mary really concerned the Emperor's
honour ; and he felt it would be hard indeed if he
could not procure her so much as mere toleration for
the exercise of that old religion in which he himself
firmly believed. Even in the summer or autumn of
Piaufor 1550 it was said that he and his sister, Mary of
^^^g'f^gj,^ Hungary, the Regent of the Netherlands, had ar-
Engiand. ranged to send a special messenger to sea to carry
her ofi" out of the way of English tyranny. '^ Such a
project was not altogether a novelty, for a very similar
plan had once been devised with Mary's own approval
to rescue her from the tyranny of her own father.^
But of course the difficulties of carrying it into effect
were enormous, and this time it was a faUure as
it had been before.
Towards the close of this year Mary was subjected
1 TurnbuU's Foreign Calendar, vol. i. p. 53.
' L. P., X. 14i (see Preface, p. viii).

CH. 1 WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 195
to new ill-treatment. The Council wrote to her that
two of her chaplains, Dr. Mallet and Dr. Barkley, Her
were indicted for ofiences against the law, and that ?'^?^.pi'*'"«
111 IT- 1 ITT indicted.
process had been awarded against them and delivered
to the Sheriflf of Essex. ^ She wrote back on the 4th ^
that she was much surprised, as the ofiience was only
that they had used mass in her house. She had
always intended to have mass said in her house, and
some of the Council themselves could bear witness to
the promise that had been given to the Emperor that
she should not be disturbed on that account ; for last
year she had had an interview with her brother on
the subject, when they admitted it to be a fact. In
any case, she said, she would not vary from her faith,
and if molested for it she must trust to God's mercy.
Then noticing some points of excessive rigour used
to each of her two chaplains, she added : " I see and
hear of divers that do not obey your statutes and
proclamations and nevertheless escape without punish
ment. Be ye judges if I be well used, to have mine
punished by rigour of a law, besides all the false
bruits that ye have sufi'ered to be spoken of me." ^
This letter was read by the Council at their meet
ing on the 7th, " and because the replying thereunto
required deliberation," they despatched the messenger
to her again " with their hearty commendations, pro
mising to send her an answer when they could find
leisure within two or three days." * It took them,
however, no less than eighteen days, and the reply
which they made, a very lengthy one, was dated on
Christmas Day. They told Mary that she was mis
taken about the promise ; it had, they admitted, been
three times repeated, but yet it was only one promise.
' In the Acts ofthe Privy Council there is au entry under the ist Decem
ber, ordering "Letters to the Lady Mary's Grace to induce her to suffer the
Sheriff in the quietest manner, and so as might be most convenient for her
honor, to serve the process upon her chaplain." Dasent, iii. 171. The
letter was apparently made out next day.
2 Foxe, vi. 13. ^ /j. 13^ 14. 4 Dasent, iii. 177.

196 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
"The The Emperor had, indeed, made request to the King
e:^^u to *^*^ ^^^ might be allowed to have mass, and though
her the he was showu that it was very inconvenient, yet for
^>eTto ^is sake and hers it was winked at that she might
the have private mass in her own closet for a season until
''^™'^' she might be "better informed, whereof there was
some hope," under the condition that she had with
her only a few of her own chamber, so that for the
rest of her household the service of the realm should
be used, " and none other." The late Imperial am
bassador, they said, had pressed to have the promise
made under patent, or at least in writing. " But
that was ever denied, not because we meant to break
the promise, as it was made, but because there was
daUy hope of your reformation." Such was the re
spectful language addressed to her by the Council !
The letter went on to explain that very good
reasons had been given to the Imperial ambassador
for denying his request. " It was told him, m
reducing that which was commonly called the Mass
to the order of the primitive Church and the institu
tion of Christ, the King's Majesty and his whole
realm had their consciences weU quieted ; against the
which if anything should be wUlingly committed, the
same should be taken as an ofi"ence to God, and a
very sin against a truth known. Wherefore, to
license by open act such a deed, in the conscience of
the King's Majesty and his realm, were even a sin
against God. The most that might herein be borne
was that the King's Majesty might, on hope of your
Grace's reconciUation, suspend the execution of his
law, so that you would use the Ucence as it was first
granted. Whatsoever the ambassador hath said to
others, he had no other manner of grant from us."
The ambassador was conveniently dead, else we
might have had another version of the pledge. But
the Council went on to give the Princess some
very important admonition on the subject of loyalty.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 197
" The greater personage your Grace is, the nigher to
the King, so much more ought your example to further and rc-
his laws ; for which cause it hath been called a good !!l:Ti"*''„
111 T IT TTT
commonwealth where the people obeyed the higher her insub-
estates, and they obeyed the laws." And so forth, "'^"i""*'"'^-
with a little touch of how natural afi'ection should in
her case come to enforce duty. It would be tedious
to rehearse even the general tenor of all the rest,
pointing out the bad influence of her Grace's " singu
larity in opinion," and how her " evil example "
hindered the good weal of the realm. But a passage
like the following does seem to justify one more
quotation : —
We hear say, your Grace refuseth to hear anything
reasoned contrary to your old determination ; wherein you
may make your opinion suspicious as that you are afraid to
be dissuaded. If your faith in things be of God, it may
abide any storm or weather; if it be but of sand, you do
best to eschew the weather. That which we profess hath the
foundation in Scriptures, upon plain texts and no glosses,
the confirmation thereof by the use in the primitive Church,
not in this latter corrupted. And indeed our greatest change
is not in the substance of our faith ; no, nor in any one article
of our creed; only the difference is that we use the cere
monies, observations, and sacraments of our religion as the
Apostles and first Fathers in the primitive Church did. You
use the same that corruption of time brought in, and very
barbarousness and ignorance nourished ; and seem to hold for
custom against the truth, and we for truth against custom.^
On the 24th January following (1551),^ Edward Edward
was inspired to write to his sister himself as the good ^^r Sm-
advice of his CouncU had not prevailed with her. self.
" The whole matter, we perceive," he tells her, " rests
in this, that you, being our next sister, in whom above
aU other our subjects, nature should place the most
1 Foxe, vi. 14-18.
^ Foxe's date " 1550 " must be understood by the old computation as the
historical year 1551 beginning on the Ist January, though the arrangement
of this letter with the others would lead the reader to think otherwise.
Acts and Mon., vi. 11.

198 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
estimation of us, would, wittingly and purposely, not
only break our laws yourself, but also have others
maintained to do the same. Truly, howsoever the
matter may have other terms, other sense it hath not ;
and although by your letter it seemeth you challenge
a promise made, that so you may do, yet surely we
know the promise had no such meaning, neither to
maintain nor to continue your fault." This is fine
lecturing from a lad just over thirteen to a sister
near the close of her thirty -fifth year ! And it goes
on in the same strain till we come to this wonderful
piece of condescension. After suggesting a little
conference the writer adds : —
In this point, you see, I pretermit my estate, and talk
with you as your brother rather than your supreme lord and
King. Thus should you, being as well content to hear of
your opinions as you are content to hold them, in the end
thank us as much for bringing you to hght, as now, before
you learn, you are loth to see it.
Hitherto her conduct has been suffered in hope of
her amendment. But if there be no hope of this, what
is to be done ? A long exhortation follows, and near
the end the King tells her that if she objects to his
altering things not altered by his father she does
him great injury. " We take ourself," says the royal
youth, " for the administration of this our common
wealth to have the same authority which our father
had, diminished in no part, neither by example of
Scripture, nor by universal laws."
Mary wrote in answer, from Beaulieu in Essex, on
the .3rd February : —
Her I have received your letters by Master Throgmorton, this
answer. bearer ; the contents whereof do more trouble me than any
bodily sickness, though it were even to the death ; and the
rather for that your Highness doth charge me to be both a
breaker of your laws and an encourager of others to do the
like. I most humbly beseech your Majesty to think that I
never intended towards you otherwise than my duty com-

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 199
pelleth me unto : that is, to wish your Highness all honour
and prosperity, for the which I do and daily shall pray.
And whereas it pleaseth your Majesty to write that I make
a challenge of a promise made otherwise than it was meant,
the truth is, the promise could not be denied before your
Majesty's presence at my last waiting upon the same. And
although, I confess, the ground of faith (whereunto I take
reason to be but an handmaid), and my conscience also, hath
and do agree with the same, yet, touching that promise, for
so much as it hath pleased your Majesty (God knoweth by
whose persuasion) to write, " it was not so meant," I shall
most humbly deshe your Highness to examine the truth
thereof indifferently, and either wiU your Majesty's ambas
sador now being vrith the Emperor, to inquire of the same, if
it be your pleasure to have him move it, or else to cause it to
be demanded of the Emperor's ambassador here, although he
were not within this realm at that time. And thereby it
shall appear that in this point I have not offended your
Majesty, if it may please you so to accept it. And albeit
your Majesty (God be praised) hath at these years as much
understanding and more than is commonly seen in that age,
yet, considering you do hear but one part (your Highness not
offended), I would be a suitor to the same that till you were
grown to more perfect years it might stand with your pleasure
to stay in matters touching the soul. So, undoubtedly, should
your Majesty know more, and hear others, and nevertheless
be at your hberty, and do your will and pleasure. And
whatsoever your Majesty hath conceived of me, either by
letters to your Council or by then report, I trust in the end
to prove myself as true to you as any subject within your
realm ; and will by no means stand in argument with your
Majesty, but in most humble wise beseech you, even for
God's sake, to suffer me as your Highness hath done hitherto.
It is for no worldly respect I desire it, God is my judge ; but
rather than to offend my conscience I would desire of God to
lose aU that I have, and also my life, and nevertheless live
and die your humble sister and true subject. Thus, after
pardon craved of your Majesty, etc.
I have felt myself unable to abridge, except in
mere formalities, this very earnest letter of a woman
cruelly wounded in her most sacred feelings through
the instrumentality of a young brother educated in
unkindness by a political faction. Needless to say.

o-

200 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
her pleading was of no avail. .And so it was that
the Emperor's ambassador felt bound to put in a
word for the ill-used Princess. It was on the 16th
February, within a fortnight of the date of her
letter to the King, that he obtained access to the
Council and told them he had express commands
from the Emperor to remind them of their promise
to her. And as it is recorded, he had answer " that
the Council would be advised upon the matter, and
within three or four days give him an answer." ^
Meanwhile, in January, another difference had
arisen with the Emperor on the subject of religion.
The This was the complaint of Sir Thomas Chamberlain,
Tmw noticed above, that he as ambassador was not allowed
sador at to usc the EugUsh scrvice at Brussels ; upon which
nrtaUowed ^^^ Couucil notified to the Imperial ambassador in
to use the England that he must obtain liberty for him to do so,
se^ice. otherwise he himself would be put under restraint.^
We need not wonder that the Emperor was very
angry when Morysine, according to his instructions,
actually demanded at one and the same time full
religious liberty for the English envoy at Brussels
and forbearance of the Emperor's request for religious
liberty to his cousin Mary ! Yet it was no lise giving
vent to his indignation — Charles knew that very
well, as he had known it often before when he was
checkmated by Henry VIII. or Wolsey. He was
obliged to temper his wrath and leave his cousin
unprotected. In March she left Beaulieu for London,
having received a summons to come up. She entered
the city on the 15th, riding through Smithfield and
Cheapside from her place at St. John's, Clerkenwell,
preceded by fifty knights and gentlemen in velvet
coats wearing gold chains, and followed by a company
of fourscore gentlemen and ladies, each having a pair
of black beads. On the 17th she rode from St. John's
through Fleet Street to the Court at Westminster
1 Dasent, iii. 215. = TurnbuU, i. 67, 75, 84.

CH.1 WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 201
with a great train. She was received at the Court
gate by Sir Anthony Wingfield, Controller of the
King's Household, and many lords and knights, and
conducted through the hall into the presence chamber,
where she had " a goodly banquet " and continued
two hours. ^
During this time she had an interview with her Mary's
brother, which Edward himself records in his Journal, interview
- Wltll 1161'
misdating it 18th. But the following entries are of brother.
interest in connection with what we have already
read : —
18th [17^^]. — The lady Mary my sister came to me to
Westminster ; where, after salutations she was called, with
my Council, into a chamber ; where was declared how long
I had suffered her mass [against my wiU was added at first
hut struck out afterwards'] in hope of her reconciliation, and
how, now being no hope, which I perceived by her letters,
except I saw some short amendment I could not bear it.
She answered that her soul was God's, and her faith she
would not change, nor dissemble her opinion with contrary
doings. It was said, I constrained not her faith but willed
her [not as a King to rtde, but] ^ as a subject to obey ; and
that her example might breed too much inconvenience.
l%th [should be ISth]. — The Emperor's ambassador came
with short message from his master, of war if I would not
suffer the Princess to use her mass. To this was no answer
given at this time.
What foUowed we know already. Nevertheless it
is good to read it also in the words of the royal
youth himself, so early disciplined in affairs of
state : —
The Bishops of Canterbury, London, Rochester, did con
clude, to give hcence to sin was sin ; to suffer and wink at it
for a time might be borne, so all haste possible might be
used. Then, immediately after : —
2Zrd. — The Council having the bishops' answers, seeing
' Machyn's Diary, pp. 4, 5. ''¦ Struck out by the King.

202 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.v.
my subjects' lacking their vent in Flanders might put the
whole realm in danger — the Flemings had cloth enough for
a year in their hand, and were kept far under, the danger of
the Papists, the 1500 cinqtales of powder I had in Flanders
[bought, as it seems by an earlier entry, as consideration
money to merchants for payment of a debt being deferred],
the harness they had for the gendarmerie, the goods my
merchants had there at the wool fleet, — .decreed to send an
ambassador to the Emperor, Mr. Wotton, to deny the matter
wholly and persuade the Emperor in it, thinking by his
going to win some time for a preparation of a mart, convey
ance of powder, harness, etc., and for the surety of the realm.
In the mean season, to punish the offenders, first of my
servants that heard mass, next of hers.
This royal boy of thirteen has been painfully well
instructed in the foreign politics of his time and the
conditions which might make it safe, on the whole,
to continue persecuting his sister's reUgion. Let
us continue : —
22nd.'^ — Sir Anthony Browne sent to the Fleet for hearing
mass, with Serjeant Morgan. Sir Clement Smith, which a
year before heard mass, chidden.
It appears by the Acts ofthe Privy Council that
Serjeant Morgan was committed to the Fleet on the
19th, having heard mass at St. John's two or three
days before, " in the Lady Mary's house," as he
could not excuse himself " because that, being a
learned man, he should give so ill an example to
others." Also that Sir Anthony Browne was com
mitted on the 22nd for having given an equally ill
example. Being examined by the Council whether
he had of late heard any mass or not, he replied " that
indeed twice or thrice at the Newhall [this was
Beaulieu where the Princess sojourned], and once at
Romford, now as my Lady Mary was coming hither
about ten days past, he had heard mass."
' The dates in the Journal are not quite consecutive as this follows the
entry of the 23rd.

CH. I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 203
Once more let us resume the Journal : —
25th. — The ambassador of the Emperor came to have his
answer, but had none, saving that one should go to the
Emperor within a month or two to declare this matter.
Dr. Wotton was accordingly despatched in the
middle of April to replace Morysine at the Emperor's
court. ^
And here we leave, for the present, the painful
story of coercion applied to a princess, to examine
a Uttle further the way it was applied to a bishop.
The spiritual despotism which oppressed the King's
sister and defied the Emperor's menaces had, as
might well be supposed, a comparatively easy task in
completing its injustice to Bishop Gardiner. We
have seen already how cruelly that very honest-
minded prelate suffered under the Government of
Somerset ; and yet we have passed by details which
are important to the proper understanding of his
position now. Anxious as he had been from the first
to comply as far as he conscientiously could with what
was really a new government even in Church matters,
he had agreed to preach a sermon before the King on Gardiner
St. Peter's Day, the 29th June 1548, and make his^^t,''^*"
own position clear as to recent acts of authority and before the
how far they affected religion. He resisted, indeed, a {^™f.'"
demand that he should submit a written copy of his
sermon to the Government before delivering it, or
even give very definite pledges as to what he would
say. But the day before his sermon he received an
urgent letter from Somerset, ordering him to forbear
speaking of "those principal points" which he was
told were still under question among learned men of
the realm about " the Sacrament of the Altar and
the Mass," although he had expressly told Cecil that
he could not leave those subjects untouched. Indeed,
1 TurnbuU, i. p. 87.

204 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
when Cecil discussed the matter with him he had
frankly said he thought it would be unadvisable for
the Protector to interfere in matters of religion, the
responsibility of which, he considered, should be com
mitted to the bishops. But in answer to this the
Protector wrote to him in words significant of im
pending change. " For our intermeddling with these
causes of religion, understand you that we account it
no small part of our charge, under the King's Majesty,
to bring his people from ignorance to knowledge, and
from superstition to true religion, esteeming that the
chiefest foundation to build obedience upon ; and
where there is a full consent of other the bishops and
learned men in a truth, not to suffer you, or a few
other wilful heads, to disorder all the rest." ^
So the Protector was bent on remodelling religion
by the advice of "other bishops and learned men"
without interference of "wilful heads" like Gardiner
and Bonner, and others, perhaps, who, whatever their
renown in matters concerning their own profession,
could not be expected to fall in with the views of
those who were in Somerset's confidence. Gardiner
received the letter between three and four o'clock in
the afternoon, and it put him in great perplexity.
It was not written in the name of the Council, but
signed by Somerset only ; and the message it contained
was a command of doubtful obligation. He regretted
indeed that such an order should have come from one
"in that estate and degree in the commonwealth."
But it set him to recast the sermon that he proposed
to deliver ; and his chief care, as he himself stated
afterwards at his trial, " was how to utter the
Catholic faith of the Sacrament of the Altar, which
might not be omitted, and yet so as the words of the
letter, although it were of no force, might be avoided,
for the avoiding of all quarrel and contention." ^
' Foxe, vi. 86, 87.
^ lb. 69, 109, 110. Canon Dixon (ii. 520) seems strangely to have
misread the meaning of this passage, when he says " Gardiner considered

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 205
So after receiving the Protector's letter, the Bishop
" forgot to refresh his body," and neither ate, drank,
nor slept till next day at five o'clock in the afternoon,
when he had finished the composition of his sermon.
He had given the Duke no reason to suppose that he
had altered his expressed intention to speak about the
Sacrament, and he intended stUl to do so, but he
beheved he had got the matter of his sermon into
such a form that he could not be justly charged with
disobeying even Somerset's letter. For he was only
enjoined in that letter to refrain "from treating
of any matter in controversy concerning the said
sacrament and the mass " ; and as yet there was no
matter in controversy on that subject that he knew
of He was reaUy seeking to keep clear of anything
that could reasonably be called in question. In point
of fact, the sermon itself — a very long one, which
may be read to this day in Foxe's book ^ — fully bears
out what Gardiner himself declares as to his anxiety
to avoid matter of offence. The greater part might
almost have been written by a Protestant.
It begins, indeed, with what is no doubt a subtle
test of Catholicity of doctrine ; but this is given in a
way to which no one could take exception. The text
was Matt. xvi. 13, from the Gospel of the day contain- His
ing St. Peter's confession " Thou art the Christ," etc., sermon.
and the preacher noted first, the diversity of opinions
among the people brought out by our Lord's question
" Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? "
He remarked that Peter spoke for all the Apostles,
and they all agreed with him. Yet the opinions of
others were honourable and not slanderous. They
thought Him Elijah or John the Baptist, Jeremiah or
one of the Prophets. But there were some who spoke
evil of Him, saying that He was a glutton and a wine-
this letter [of Somerset] to be a positive prohibition ; but he resolved to
disobey it. " Clearly the meaning is that the Bishop studied carefully how
not to infringe a command which he nevertheless thought unwarrantable.
' Acts and Mon., vi. 87-93.

206 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
bibber, that He had a devil, that He deceived the
people, and so forth. But He did not ask any
questions of these persons, for no one of them agreed
with another. All who were not of Christ's school
erred somehow or other, even when they meant well.
Pride is a hindrance to docility and leads men into
sects. But all who confessed Jesus as the Christ,
whatever words they used, confessed Him as the Son
of the living God, and agreed entirely with each other.
Further on the preacher distinctly commended the
recent changes so far as they had gone, and admits the
abuses at which they were aimed. And notwith
standing the words of his text, " Thou art the Christ,"
he distinctly denied that our Lord's words immedi
ately following gave any good ground for papal
supremacy. Peter was only the first that made this
confession, and the first man in a quest is not always
the best man in it. Christ had even addressed Peter
as Satan once. The preacher confessed it was a great
alteration to renounce the Bishop of Rome's authority,
but he agreed in that renunciation. It was a great
alteration when abbeys were dissolved, and another
when images were pulled down. But to these things
too he had consented. " And yet," he said, " I have
been counted a maintainer of superstition." He
had promised to declare his conscience, and he would
do so. About ceremonies he had never been of any
other opinion than he was then — that they were good
while they helped to move men to serve God ; but
when men were in bondage to them it was an abuse.
The monastic orders had fallen away from the good
object for which they were first instituted, and they
had been dissolved. "But one thing King Henry
would not take away ; that was the vow of chastity."
There were things in the Church which the ruler
might order as he saw fit. And there were things
like baptism and preaching in which abuses might
be reformed, but the things themselves could not be

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 207
taken away. Images, pilgrimages, and shrines had
been abolished on account of their abuses, and when
they did not serve their original purpose but promoted
idolatry, it was right to take them away. Gardiner
might be told that he had defended images, and it was
true he had preached against such as despised them,
holding that images might be suffered in church
as laymen's books. " But now that men be waxed
wanton, they are clean taken away," and this is no
injury to reUgion any more than taking away books
when they are abused.
Towards the close, he tells his audience plainly
what he Ukes and dislikes. " I like well the com
munion," he says, " because it provoketh men more
and more to devotion. I like well the proclamation,
because it stoppeth the mouths of all such as un
reverently speak or rail against the Sacrament. I
like well the rest of the King's Majesty's proceedings
concerning the Sacrament." But he will be equally
explicit about what he dislikes. " I mislike that
preachers which preach by the King's licence, and
those readers which, by the King's permission and
sufferance, do read open lectures, do openly and
blasphemously talk against the mass and against the
Sacrament. ... To speak so against the Sacrament,
it is the most marveUous matter that ever I saw or
heard of" He disliked also " that priests and men
that vowed chastity should openly marry and avow
it openly ; which is a thing that since the beginning
of the Church hath not been seen in any time, that
men that have been admitted to any ecclesiastical
administration should marry. We read of married
priests, that is to say, of married men chosen to be
priests and ministers in the Church ; and in Epi-
phanius we read that some such, for necessity, were
winked at. But that men, being priests already,
should marry was never seen in Christ's Church from
the beginning of the Apostles' time."

2o8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
Surely a sermon like this deserved somewhat more
respect than to be treated afterwards by a triumphant
faction as mere evidence " of the corrupt and blind
ignorance of this bishop, with his dissembUng and
double-face doings in matters of reUgion " ! ^ It may
be that, under the strain put upon him, Gardiner
carried compUance a slight degree further than in his
heart he altogether relished ; but he was guUty here
of no deviation from rectitude — none, at least, that
his enemies had any right to make ground of accusa
tion against him. He himself believed, and his
friends believed also, that no exception could be
taken to his sermon, and that he was now out of his
trouble. He had a quiet and attentive hearing.^
Nevertheless, Sir Anthony Wingfield arrived next
day with the guard at the Bishop's stairs, and conveyed
him to the Tower, Sir Ralph Sadler, who came with
Sir Anthony, explaining that it was for disobedience
to the Protector's letter.^
steps taken But uow, two ycars after this sermon, the object
for his de- ^^g gi^piy to deprive him of his bishopric of
privation. ± •/ x x
Winchester and fill up his place with one of the New
Learning. It was felt necessary, however, to proceed
with some appearance of legality. Gardiner was one
of the best lawyers and casuists of his time ; and
though after his deprivation they could easily keep
him in prison, as they did, and cut him off from
intercourse with the world outside, they must take
care that he should have such a trial as might seem
to afford a sufficient pretext. The first steps taken
with this end in view appear clearly from the Privy
Council Register, and the entries are actually quoted
in Foxe's " Book of Martyrs " as if they were the most
righteous proceedings possible. That the reader may
form his own judgment upon that matter I shall be
equally careful to lay the exact text of these entries
before him : —
1 Foxe, vi. 93. 2 /j_ 129. ' lb. 111.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 209
At Greenwich, the 8th of June 1550. [Here follow the
names of the Councillors present, viz.]
The Duke of Somerset, the Archbishop of Canterbury
[i.e. Cranmer], the Lord Treasurer [Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire],
the Lord Privy Seal [Russell, Earl of Bedford], the Lord
Great Chamberlain [Lord Wentworth], the Lord Admiral
[Chnton], the Bishop of Ely [Goodrich], the Lord Cobham,
Mr. Comptroller [i.e. of the Household, Sir Anthony Wing
field], Master of the Horses [Sir Wilham Herbert, made Earl
of Pembroke next year], Mr. Secretary Petre, Sir Edward
North. Considering the long imprisonment that the Bishop of
Winchester hath sustained, it was now thought time he
should be spoken withal, and agreed that if he repented his
former obstinacy and would henceforth apply himself to
advance the King's Majesty's proceedings, his Highness in
this case would be his good lord to remit all his errors past.
Otherwise his Majesty was resolved to proceed against him
as his obstinacy and contempt required. For the declaration
whereof the Duke of Somerset, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord
Privy Seal, the Lord Great Chamberlain, and Mr. Secretary
Petre were appointed the next day to repair unto him.^
At this date the situation is plain enough. To
reclaim, even now, from " his obstinacy " such a one as
Bishop Gardiner would clearly be a great thing for the
Government, if his long experience of imprisonment
would only induce him to " repent " and approve the He is asked
King's Majesty's proceedings. The Earl of Warwick jj^g'^PP™™
was behind the scenes and does not appear to have King's pro-
been present at this meeting of the Council, nor at '^^^•^"s^ '
any other of those about to be mentioned except
that of the 8th July ; but there is little doubt they
were carrying out his policy. I shall not quote the
list of councillors present in these further minutes.
At Greenwich, the 10th of June 1550.
Report was made by the Duke of Somerset and the rest
sent to the Bishop of Winchester, that he desired to see the
King's Book of Proceedings; upon the sight whereof he
^ See here and elsewhere Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council (vol. iii.)
under date.
VOL. Ill P

2 10 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
would make a full answer, seeming to be wiUing in all things
to conform himself thereunto, and promising that in case
anything offended his conscience he would open it to none
but to the Council. Whereupon it was agreed the Book
should be sent him, to see his answer, that his case might be
resolved upon ; and that for the meantime he should have
the liberty of the gaUery and garden in the Tower when the
Duke of Norfolk were absent.
A slight relief to the poor prisoner, who will now
be able to take a little airing when his fellow-prisoner,
the Duke of Norfolk, is not doing so. Gardiner, it
will be seen, has made the utmost concession that he
reasonably can under the circumstances. Three days
later, when he had seen the book, his answer is
reported as follows : —
At Greenwich, the 13th of June 1550.
This day the heutenant of the Tower, who before was
appointed to dehver the King's Book unto the Bishop of
Winchester, declared unto the Council that the Bishop,
but can having perused it, said unto him he could make no direct
make no auswer unlcss he were at liberty, and so being he would say
answer till ^^^ conscience. Whereupon the Lords and other that had
he is free, been with him the other day were appointed to go to him
again to receive a direct answer, that the Council thereupon
might determine further order for him.
What an inconvenient conscience this Bishop has !
But, of course, it is sheer obstinacy ; for whoever
would say a good thing of Bishop Gardiner? Not
the Government of that day certainly, nor Foxe the
Martyrologist, nor the Protestant historians who have
followed Foxe. Yet he seems to have been anxious
to satisfy the Government if he could, and he could
hardly have relished continued imprisonment. But
the result was as follows : —
At Westminster, the 8th of July 1550.
This day the Bishop of Winchester's case was renewed
upon the report of the Lords that had been with him, that his
answers were ever doubtful, refusing while he were in prison

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 211
to make any direct answer. Wherefore it was determined
he should be directly examined whether he would sincerely
conform himself unto the King's Majesty's proceedings or
not ; for which purpose it was agreed that particular Articles
should be drawn to see whether he would subscribe them or
not; and a letter also directed unto him from the King's
Highness, with the which the lord Treasurer, the lord Great
Master [Earl of Warwick], the Master of the Horses, and the
Secretary Petre should repair unto him, the tenor of which
letter hereafter ensueth : —
By the King.
It is not, we think, unknown unto you with what clemency
and favor We, by the advice of our Council, caused you
to be heard and used, upon those sundry complaints and
informations that were made to us and our said Council of
your disordered doings and words, both at the time of our
late Visitation and otherwise. Which notwithstanding, con
sidering that the favor, both then and many other times
ministered unto you wrought rather an insolent wilfulness
in yourself than any obedient conformity, such as would have
beseemed a man of your vocation. We could not but use
some demonstration of justice towards you, as well for such
notorious and apparent contempt and other inobediences as
after and contrary to our commandment were openly known
in you, as also for some example and terror of such others
as by your example seemed to take courage to mutter and
grudge against our most godly proceedings, whereof great
discord and inconvenience, at that time, might have ensued.
For the avoiding whereof, and for your just deservings, you
were by our said Council committed to ward ; where albeit
We have suffered you to remain a long space, sending unto
you the mean time, at sundry times, divers of the noblemen
and others of our Privy Council, and travaihng by them
with clemency and favor to have reduced you to the know
ledge of your duty; yet in all this time have you neither
[acjknowledged your faults nor made any such submission
as might have beseemed you, nor yet showed any appearance,
either of repentance or of any good conformity to our godly
proceedings. Wherewith albeit We both have good cause
to be offended, and might also justly by the order of our
laws cause your former doings to be reformed and punished
to the example of others ; yet for that We would both the
world and yourself also should know that We dehght more

212 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
in clemency than in the strait administration of justice, We
have vouchsafed not only to address unto you these our
letters, but also to send eftsoons unto you four of our Privy
Council with certain Articles, which being by us with the
advice of our said Council, considered, We think requisite,
for sundry considerations, to be subscribed by you ; and
therefore will and command you to subscribe the said Articles,
upon pain of incurring such punishments and penalties as
by our laws may be put upon you for not doing the same.
Given at our Palace of Westminster, the 8th day of July,
the fourth year of our reign,
And subscribed by
E. SOMEESET ; W. WiLTESH. ; J. Waewyk ;
J. Bedfoed ; W. NoETHT ; E. Clynton ;
G. CoBHAM ; William Pagett ; A. Wingfeld ;
W. Heebeet ; William Petee ; Edwaed Noethe.
Gardiner must have fully appreciated the painful
irony of this letter. It was " not unknown " to him,
indeed, "with what clemency and favor" he had
been sent to prison and kept in prison, for even ex
pressing a doubt about a Royal Visitation which he
was ready to have obeyed if it had only been found
legal. And now it was to be seen whether he had
yet been schooled into full and implicit obedience.
sixArticies On the 9th July, the day after the date of this royal
are brought letter, he was visited by the four lords of the CouncU
sign, referred to, of whom Warwick, " the Great Master,"
was one, who brought him six Articles for signature
in the following terms : —

-'to

I. That by the law of God and the authority of Scripture,
the King's Majesty and his successors are the Supreme
Heads of the Churches of England, and also of Ireland.
II. Item, that the appointing of holy days and fasting
days, as Lent, Ember days, or any such like, or to dispense
therewith, is in the King's Majesty's authority and power ;
and his Highness as Supreme Head of the said Churches of
England and Ireland, and Governor thereof, may appoint
the manner and time of the holy days and fasting, or dispense

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 213
therewith, as to his wisdom shall seem most convenient, for
the honor of God and the wealth of this Realm.
III. That the King's Majesty hath most Christianly
and godly set forth, by and with the consent of the whole
Parhament, a devout and Christian book of service of the
Church, to be frequented in the Church, which book is to be
accepted and allowed of all bishops, pastors, curates, and all
ministers ecclesiastical of the realm of England, and so of
them to be declared and commended in all places where they
shall fortune to preach or speak to the people of it, that it is
a godly and Christian book and order, and to be allowed,
accepted and observed of all the King's Majesty's true
subjects. IV. I do acknowledge that the King's Majesty that now is
(whose life God long preserve !) to be my Sovereign and Lord
and Supreme Head under Christ to me, as a bishop of this
reahn, and natural subject to his Majesty, and now in this
his young and tender age, to be my full and entire King ;
and that I, and all other his Highness's subjects, are bound
to obey all his Majesty's proclamations, statutes, laws, and
commandments, made, promulgated and set forth in this his
Highness's young age, as well as though his Highness were
at this present thirty or forty years old.
V. Item, I confess and acknowledge that the Statute,
commonly called the Statute of the Six Articles, for just
causes and grounds is, by authority of Parliament, repealed
and disannulled.
VI. Item, that his Majesty and his successors have autho
rity in the said Churches of England and also of Ireland, to
alter, reform, correct, and amend all errors and abuses, and
all rites and ceremonies ecclesiastical, as shall seem from time
to time to his Highness and his successors most convenient
for the edification of his people ; so that the same alteration
be not contrary or repugnant to the Scripture and law of
God. To the text of these articles as they stand in Foxe
are added the words, " Subscribed by Stephen Win
chester, with the testimonial hands of the Council to
the same," which would certainly suggest that the
Articles were thus prepared for signature, with a
clause at the end to say that they were actually
signed by Gardiner, and his signature witnessed by

214 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
the Council, meaning, presumably, by the four Lords
deputed to procure it from him. This, however, was
not exactly the case, though it does appear that
Gardiner really signed them, in a manner to be seen
presently. But we must note in the first place that
with n there was a preamble to these articles which we have
wS'he ^^^ y^* quoted, drawn up expressly in his own name,
could not and containing weightier matter than all the rest,
^^^' which they expected Gardiner to sign along with
them. It was in these words : —
Whereas I, Stephen, Bishop of Winchester, have been
suspected as one too much favoring the Bishop of Rome's
authority, decrees and ordinances, and as one that did not
approve or allow the King's Majesty's proceedings in altera
tion of certain rites of rehgion, and was convented before
the King's Highness's Council and admonished thereof; and
having certain things appointed for me to do and preach for
my declaration, have not done that as I ought to do, although
I promised to do the same; whereby I have not only in
curred the King's Majesty's indignation, but also divers of his
Highness's subjects, have by mine example taken encourage
ment (as His Grace's Council is certainly informed) to repine
at his Majesty's most godly proceedings, 1 am right sorry there
for and acknowledge myself condignly to have been punished,
and do most heartily thank his Majesty that of his great
clemency it hath pleased his Highness to deal with me, not
according to rigor but mercy. And to the intent it may
appear to the world how httle I do repine at his Highness's
doings, which be in rehgion most godly and to the common
wealth most prudent, I do af&rm and say freely, of mine
own win without any compulsion, as ensueth.
This Gardiner could not conscientiously sign. The
four lords visited him in the Tower, and gave him
the King's letters, which he received upon his knees
and kissed as duty required him. He continued on
his knees while he read them, although they urged
him " to go apart with them and consider them."
Having finished reading them, he himself says, "I
much lamented that I should be commanded to say of
myself as was there written, and to say otherwise

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 215
of myself than my conscience will suffer me, and
where I trust my deeds will not condemn me, there
to condemn myself with my tongue. I should sooner,
quoth I to them, by commandment, I think, if ye
would bid me, tumble myself desperately into the
Thames." '
Seeing him " in that agony " Warwick asked what
he said to the other articles. " I answered," continues
the Bishop, " that I was loth to disobey where I might
obey and not wrest my conscience, destroying the
comfort of it, as to say untruly of myself ' Well,'
quoth my Lord of Warwick, ' will ye subscribe to
the other articles ? ' I told him I would ; ' but then,' He agrees,
quoth I, ' the article which toucheth me must be put g^'^'^thT *°
out.' I was answered, that needeth not, for I might Articles
write on the side what I would say unto it. And noting^ hfs^'
then my Lord of Warwick entertained me very gently, objection
and would needs, whiles I should write, have me sit preamble ;
down by him. And when he saw me make somewhat
strange so to do, he pulled me nearer him, and said
we had or this sat together, and trusted we should do
so again. And then, having pen and ink given me, I
wrote, as I remember, on the article that touched me
these words : ' I cannot with my conscience say this of
myself,' or such like words. And there followed an
article of the King's Majesty's primacy, and I began
to write on the side of that, and had made an ' I '
onward, as may appear by the articles. And they
would not have me do so, but write only my name but is for-
after their articles ; which I did. Whereat, because ^akrany
they showed themselves pleased and content, I was comment
bold to tell them merrily that by this means I had °"
placed my subscription above them all. And there
upon it pleased them to entertain me, much to my
comfort." The Councillors had gained their point. What
with coercion of imprisonment, what with appeal to
1 Foxe, vi. 73, 80-81, 115, 178.

2i6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
his sense of the duty of obedience in all things lawful,
what with Warwick's wheedUng and insinuating
manner, they had succeeded in obtaining Gardiner's
signature to the articles, though not to the preamble,
and they would not allow him to qualify his assent
to the articles. As to the preamble, what he wrote in
the margin, following Warwick's suggestion, was, " I
cannot in my conscience confess the preface, knowing
myself to be of that sort I am indeed and ever have
been." ^ But we must let the Bishop continue his
tale : —
And I was bold to recount unto them merry tales of my
misery in prison, which they seemed content to hear. And
then I told them also (desiring them not to be miscontent
with that 1 should say) when I remembered each of them
alone, I could not think otherwise but they were my good
lords ; and yet, when they met together, I feel no remedy at
their hands. " I looked," quoth I, " when my lord of Somerset
was here, to go out within two days, and made my farewell
feast in the Tower and all ; since which time there is a month
passed, or thereabout ; and I agreed with them, and now agree
with you, and I may fortune to be forgotten." My Lord
Treasurer said. Nay, I should hear from them the next day ;
and so, by their special commandment, I came out of the
chamber after them, that they might be seen to depart as my
good lords. And so was done. By which process appeareth
how there was in me no contempt, as is said, in this article,
but such a subscription made as they were content to suffer
me to make. Which I took in my conscience for a whole
satisfaction of the King's Majesty's letters ; which I deshe
may be deemed accordingly. And one thing was said unto
me further : — that other[s] would have put in many more
articles ; but they would have no more than those. ^
Surely this gives us a very different notion of
Bishop Gardiner from that which we have learned
from the descriptions of his enemies, too readily
believed by historians ! Here is no turlaulent prelate
and senseless bigot, but an ill-used bishop, remarkably
' See Ads of ihe Privy Coundi, iii. 67.
¦^ Foxe, vi. 73, 74, 116.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 217
patient in adversity, and mild in his language. The
most consistent politician of the day, even he refuses
to contest a point to the utmost, but subscribes even
more than he likes. Under Henry VIII.'s tyranny
he had certainly yielded too much, and things were
bad enough now, for even concession did not mitigate
his lot. But he would not at least accuse himself
unjustly to please Edward's Council.
His answer was reported next day, 10th July, to
the CouncU; and on the 11th we find the following
minute : —
This day the Bishop of Winchester's case was debated. The
And because it appeareth that he sticketh upon the submis- C""""^'' ,
opmfl.no of
sion, which is the principallest point, considering his defences ^^^ ^^y.^
that he now goeth about to defend, to the intent he should complete
have no iust cause to say that he was not mercifully handled, ^".^¦.
• *" inission
it was agreed that the Master of the Horses and Mr. Secre
tary Petre should repair unto him again with the same sub
mission, exhorting him to look better upon it, and in case
the words seem too sore, then to refer it unto himself in what
sort and with what words he should devise to submit him,
that upon the acknowledging of his fault the King's Highness
might extend his mercy and liberahty towards him as it was
determined. The result of this appears in a minute of the 1 3th
as follows : —
The Master of the Horses and Mr. Secretary Petre made
report that they had been with the Bishop of Winchester,
who stood precisely in justification of himself that he had
never offended the King's Majesty, wherefore he utterly
refused to make any submission at all.^ For the more surety
^ In his own account ofthe matter "the Bishop answered that he knew
himself innocent, and for him to do anything therein by his words or writing
it could have no policy in it ; for if he did more esteem liberty of body than
defamation of himself, he said, yet, when he had so done with them, he was
not assured by them to come out ; for and he were by his own pen made a
naughty man, yet then he were not the more sure to come out, but had
locked himself the more surely in ; and a small pleasure it were for him to
have his body at liberty by their procurement, and to have his conscience
in a perpetual prison by his own act. And after divers other words and
persuasions made by the said Sir William Harbert and Sir William Peter,
the said Bishop, having just cause, required them for the Passion of God
that his matter might take end by justice." — Foxe, vi. 116.

2i8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
of which denial it was agreed that a new book of Articles
should be devised, wherewith the said Master of the Horses
and Mr. Secretary should repair unto him again, and for the
more authentic proceeding with him, they to have with them
a divine and a temporal lawyer, which were the Bishop of
London [Ridley] and Mr. Goderick.
Gardiner was undeniably right when he told the
councillors sent to him four days before, that though
he had then, as on previous occasions, come to an
understanding with them, he might again " fortune
to be forgotten." And as to the intimation made to
him then, that some councillors would have put in
more articles, but they had restricted them to the six
actually administered, , he was now, it seems, to get
the benefit of all the others. His assent was required
Twenty to a sct of UO Icss than twenty articles, with almost
more ^^ ^^^ samc objcctionablc preamble as before. In sub-
required of stauce they amounted to nothing less than a com
plete and cordial acceptance of a great religious
revolution in which he had never been consulted.
They included, indeed, some things done in the
last reign to which he had agreed, such as the sup
pression of the monasteries, the abolition of super
stitious rights and vows, pilgrimages, chantries, and
so forth ; and with these the foolish " counterfeiting of
St. Nicholas " and other saints by children. But he
was also to approve of the reading of the whole Bible
in English by every man. The Mass was justly taken
away and the Communion Service substituted. All
Christians should partake in both kinds, and the
Sacrament should not be lifted up or showed to the
people. All the old service books should be "abol
ished and defaced." Bishops, priests, and deacons
should be free to marry, and all canons against their
doing so abolished. The homilies lately put forth by
the King were godly and wholesome. The new ordinal
for consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons was in
" no point contrary to the wholesome doctrine of the

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 219
Gospel." The minor orders were unnecessary. Holy
Scripture contained all doctrine necessary for salva
tion. The Paraphrase of Erasmus in English had
been, " on good and godly considerations," ordered to
be set up in churches for general reading. And as
these matters had been set forth by the Council for
the general good, the Bishop was to affirm them by
his subscription, and declare himself willing to publish
and preach them as required.^
Now to us moderns a good many of these articles
will naturaUy seem right enough. But the question
is. Had they who thought so a right to force a new
religion — for such it virtually was — on those who dis
approved them ? One of the saddest things about
this persecution was that it was after all not very
sincere on the part of some ofthe agents — at all events
upon that of Dudley. This was seen three years
later, when there was a wonderful change of places.
Dudley, who had become Duke of Northumberland,
lay under sentence of death ; and Bishop Gardiner,
being high in the new Sovereign's favour, and forget
ting old injuries, was his most compassionate and
kindly friend. Then, in those last moments, Dudley,
when he knew that there was nothing for him but
death by the axe, asked forgiveness of all whom he
had offended, confessed that for sixteen years he had
been misled by false preachers, and called every one
to bear witness that he looked upon the Sacrament
as his Saviour. In fact, we have other evidences,
and very marked testimony in the words of Rogers,
the first Protestant martyr,^ that the establishment
1 Foxe, vi. 82-4.
^ Of the examinations of this very honest martyr taken in January 1556
he left an account written in his own hand, which Foxe has very imperfectly
followed. But one of the most interesting things in tliis statement is not
so much what he actually did say, as what he intended to say ; for he had
written out beforehand a whole speech which he was not allowed to deliver.
Of this speech which he was prepared to have addressed to his judges an
extract has already been given on a, previous page. But a larger extract,
including the same passage, may here be appreciated : —
"As in Henry the Eighth's days ye in your Parliaments followed only

220 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
of the new religion was against the real feeling, even
of the Parliaments that authorised it. No doubt
it suited some of the Court circle, as, for example,
Marbeck the musician, who in Henry VIII.'s time
had spoken strongly against the mass in defiance of
existing law.^ But it was not the religion of the
people generally, and still less was it that of most
learned divines.
No one, indeed, will imagine that a mere political
plotter like Dudley was the author of a new religion.
On that subject we may give him the benefit of his
own words, that for sixteen years before his death he
had been led, or misled, by preachers of the new
school. The real author of the theology which it was
now sought to enforce was undoubtedly Cranmer, the
Metropolitan of Canterbury ; and he naturally felt it
incumbent on his office to set up a standard of doctrine
which all his suffragans should accept without demur.
That among them he would find in Gardiner a most
formidable opponent was evident from the first ; and
this was shown more clearly than ever before the
close of the year.
The twenty articles were presented to Gardiner on
the 14th, and on the 15th we again read in the Privy
Council Register : —
his will and pleasure, even to grant the Queen's Majesty [Mary] to be a
bastard (God it well knoweth, against your wills, and as ye well know,
against the wills of the whole realm for the most part, and that of all states,
rich and poor, spiritual and temporal, gentle and ungentle, etc.), likewise
the taking away of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, with other mo
things not a few ; even so in King Edward's days did the most part of the
learned of the clergy (against their wills, as it doth now appear) set their
hands to the marriage of priests (as deans and archdeacons, doctors and
masters of colleges, to the number of seventy or thereabouts, and the most
part of the bishops), to the alteration of the service into English, and to
the taking away of the positive laws which before had prohibited the said
marriage ; this, I say, they did for the Duke of Somerset's and others of
the King's executors' pleasure. Likewise, when the Duke of Somerset was
beheaded, and the Duke of Northumberland began to rule the roast, look
what he would desire, that he had, specially in his last Parliament. So
that what his will was to be enacted, that was enacted." — Chester's JoJtn
Rogers, pp. 319, 320.
1 See Vol. II. 886.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 221
Report was made by the Master of the Horses and As to one
Mr. Secretary Petre that they, with the Bishop of London "f^'''"'*'"*
and Mr. Goderick, had been with the Bishop of Winchester ^ffales to
and offered him the foresaid Articles, according to the Coun- criminate
oil's order. Whereunto the same Bishop of Winchester made himself
answer that, first, to the article, of submission he would in mission •
nowise consent, affirming, as he had done before, that he had the others
never offended the King's Majesty in any sort as should give ^'^ ^'^^
him cause thus to submit himself ; praying earnestly to be wherit*"
brought unto his trial, wherein he refused the King's mercy, liberty.
and desired nothing but justice.^ And for the rest of the
articles, he answered that after he were past his trial in this
first point and were at liberty, then it should appear what he
would do in them ; not being, as he said, reasonable he should
subscribe them in prison.
Whereupon it was agreed that he should be sent for before
the whole Council, and peremptorily examined once again
whether he would stand at this point or no ; which if he did,
then to denounce unto him the sequestration of his benefice,
and consequently the intimation, in case he were not reformed
within three months, as in the day of his appearance shall
appear. Tilings were now coming to a crisis ; but before
the last steps were taken the Council thought it
necessary to seek the royal presence and strengthen
themselves with the boy King's authority for what
they were going to do. We accordingly read
further : —
^ To quote his own account again : — " Whereupon the said Bishop most
instantly required them that the matter might be tried by justice, which,
although it were some time more grievous, yet it hath a commodity with it
that it endeth certainly the matter. And because he could come to no
assured state, he was loth to meddle with any more articles, or trouble him
self with them ; and yet because they desired him so instantly, he was
content to read them : and so did read them, and (to show still his perfect
obedience and obedient mind) offered that,' incontinently upon his deliver
ance out of prison, he would make answer to them all, such as he would
abide by and suffer pain for if he deserved it. Finally, his request was,
that they would in this form make his answer to the Lords of the Council
in effect as foUoweth, namely, That the said Bishop most humbly thanketh
them for their good will to deliver him by way of mercy ; but because of
respect of his innocent conscience he had rather have justice. He desired
them (seeing both were in the King's Majesty's hands) that he might have
it which, if it happened to be more grievous unto him, he would impute it
to himself, and evermore thank them for their good will." — Foxe, vi. 116.

222 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
At Westminster, the 19th July 1550.
This day the Council had access unto the King's Majesty
for divers causes, but specially for the Bishop of Winchester's
matter, who this day was therefore appointed to be before
the Council; and there having declared unto his Highness
the circumstance of their proceedings with the Bishop, his
Majesty commanded that if he would this day also stand to
his wonted obstinacy, the Council should then proceed to the
immediate sequestration of his Bishopric, and consequently
to the intimation.
Upon this the Bishop of Winchester was brought before
the Council, and there the Articles before mentioned read
unto him distinctly and with good deliberation ; whereunto
he refused either to subscribe or consent,^ and thereupon was
both the sequestration and intimation read unto him.
Sequestra- Then foUows the exact form of " the sequestration
tion of his and intimation " read to him, in which the act is
ordered, justified by his disobedience to the King's command
to subscribe the articles sent to him and express his
willingness to publish and preach them whenever and
wherever he should be required. The Council in
formed him that they had a special commission from
the King to hear and determine his " manifold con
tempts and disobediences." They therefore asked him
once more whether he would obey the King or not.
He replied that he would gladly obey in all things
lawful, but there were divers things required of him
^ Such was the official record, — simply that he refused either to subscribe
or consent. His own account of the matter was, however, that he was asked
whether he would subscribe or no ; and that "making humble answer on
his knees," he replied: "For the Passion of God I require you to be my
good lords, and let me be tried by justice, whether I be in fault or no ; and
as for these articles, as soon as you deliver me to liberty I will make answer
to them, and abide such pain as the answer deserveth, if it deserve any."
Further pressed, he said they were articles of divers natures, some of them
"laws which he might not qualify," some "no laws, but learning and fact,
which might have divers understandings, and that a subscription to them
without tolling and declaring what he meant were over dangerous ; and that
therefore he required a copy of the said articles, and offered for the more
evident declaration of his obedience to all their requests— in effect, that
although he were a prisoner and not at liberty, yet if they would deliver
him the articles to have into prison with him, he would shortly make them
particular answers, and suffer the pains of the law that by his answer he
should incur, if the same were worthy of any pain." But this offer they
would not accept, and treated it as a point blank refusal. — Foxe, vi. 117.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 223
that his conscience would not bear. On this they
told him that they were commissioned to sequester
the fruits of his bishopric for one month from the first
monition, one month from the second monition, and
one month from the third and peremptory monition ;
within which he might still declare his conformity
by writing, otherwise he would be deprived of his
bishopric as an incorrigible person.
A significant note was made upon this by the
Council : —
Nevertheless, upon divers good considerations, and
specially in hope he might within his time be yet reconciled,
it was agreed that the said Bishop's house and servants
should be maintained in their present estate until the time
of this intimation should expire, and the matter for the mean
time to be Tcept secret.
Men armed even with despotic power did not wish
the public to learn too soon that they were resolved
to deprive a bishop merely for not making an untrue
confession against himself, and renouncing principles
which he and his contemporaries had hitherto held
sacred. And they did not even venture to adhere to
their determination to take further proceedings at the
end of three months ; for they were stopped by an
appeal from the prisoner, and nothing more was done
tUl December, when a commission was issued for his
trial and deprivation. And all those months he in
vain solicited his jailors to obtain for him a further
hearing till the day and hour he was summoned
for the final process.^ Meanwhile he and Cranmer
^ Faith, apparently, was not kept with him even as to the terms of his
sequestration. For at the end of each of the three months he was to have
been offered pen and ink with freedom to consult with other learned men
on his position. But he was kept fast in prison without being offered pen
and ink or any such opportunity for nearly six months. The eighth day
after the decree he protested its nullity before his own servants, and
declared, if it were law, he would intimate an appeal at the first oppor
tunity. This protest and appeal, moreover, he succeeded in getting
intimated to Cranmer and the other Commissioners at Lambeth. (Foxe,
vi. 76, 117, 118.) Elsewhere (ib. p. 132) he says, "which time of three
months ran not, because it was suspended by his appellation made from the
sequestration."

224 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
— representing respectively the spirit of religious
conservatism and religious revolution — had come
into collision in literature.
As we have seen already, Cranmer had clearly
declared in the House of Lords his change of view on
the Eucharist as early as the end of the year 1548 ;
and theologians of the new school were delighted.
Bishop Hooper, indeed, was not altogether satisfied
with him even in this matter ; for a year and a half
later, in June 1550, he expressed himself to BuUinger
in words which seem so to imply. " Canterbury," he
wrote, " has relaxed much of his Lutheranism —
whether all of it, I cannot say. He is not so decided
as I could wish, and dares not, I fear, assert his
opinion in all respects." ^ But Hooper was at that
time doing all he could, and with some success,
through the medium of earls, marquises and dukes,
on whom he waited for the purpose, to bring the King
under the influence of his beloved Swiss divine ; and
apparently he found the Primate not so warm as he
could wish. Nor was this at all surprising ; for at
this time he was disgusted that Cranmer declined to
consecrate him as bishop without what he called
superstition.^ Hooper was certainly not the man to
form an impartial estimate of the mind of Cranmer.
Cranmer's In poiut of fact, just at the time Hooper wrote,
book on Cranmer's great work in justification of his sacramental
ment. doctriuc was either published or was on the eve of
publication, for it appeared in this year 1550. It
was entitled, " A Defence of the true and Catholic
Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
our Saviour Christ, with a confutation of sundry
errors concerning the same ; grounded and stablished
upon God's Holy Word, and approved by the consent
of the most ancient Doctors of the Church. Made
by the Most Reverend Father in God, Thomas, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and
' Original Letters, p. 89. " Ib. p. 567.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 225
Metropolitan." Underneath this title was a woodcut
of the Last Supper, and below that was the text
(here copied literatim) : " Yt ys the spirite that
giveth lyfe, the fleshe profiteth nothinge. loannis 6."
On the obverse of the title-page it is stated that
the book is divided into five parts : 1. " Of the
true Catholic doctrine and use of the Sacrament " ;
2. " Against the error of Transubstantiation " ; 3.
" The manner how Christ is present in his Holy
Supper " ; 4. " Of the eating and drinking of the
Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ" ; 5. " Of the
oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ."
It is scarcely necessary to say more of the contents
of the book. In the preface it is rather ofiiensively
said that the Romish Antichrist taught that Christ's
sacrifice on the Cross was not sufficient without
another sacrifice " devised by him and made by the
priest, or else without indulgences, beads, pardons,
pUgrimages, and such other pelfray, to supply Christ's
imperfection ; and that Christian people cannot apply
to themselves the benefits of Christ's Passion, but
that the same is in the distribution of the Bishop
of Rome ; or else that by Christ we have no full
remission, but be delivered only from sin, and yet
remaineth temporal pain in Purgatory due for the
same, to be remitted after this life by the Romish
Antichrist and his ministers, who take upon them to
do for us that thing which Christ either would not or
could not do." The writer goes on to show that in
England the face of religion has been happily changed
by the King and his father. Monks and friars are
clean taken away, the Scripture restored, and so
forth. But two chief roots of corruption remain not
yet pulled up — the Popish doctrine of Transubstan
tiation — of the real presence of Christ's flesh and
blood in the Sacrament, " and of the sacrifice and
oblation of Christ made by the priest for the salvation
of the quick and dead." These, if sufi'ered to grow
VOL. Ill Q

cence m
the past,

226 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
again, would cover the whole ground once more with
the old errors and superstitions, and the writer, not
knowing else how to excuse himself at the last day,
has set to with axe to cut down the Tree of super
stition and root out the weeds.
Hisreti- No ouc wUl doubt for a moment that Cranmer
was giving free utterance to the belief which he had
long entertained, but had felt it necessary for years
to suppress. Nor was his suppression of it in past
times altogether dishonest. From our Reformers'
point of view, Henry VIII. was Head of the Church,
and had the ultimate decision on points of doctrine
so long as he lived. Cranmer himself, as we have
seen,* even when asked his opinion on questions of
theology, gave it with great deference, not presuming
that his own view must be considered authoritative.
But when the old Head of the Church was dead, and
his functions had descended to a boy with councillors
both in secular and spiritual matters, who could
doubt that in spiritual matters the Archbishop of
Canterbury took the lead ? The theory that there
was to be no innovation in spiritual things during the
minority had little to say for itself in a revolutionary
time ; and Cranmer doubtless did the best he could
do. Moreover, in justice to his own sincere belief,
he could not mince matters. Conversations with
Ridley and with John a Lasco had only led him to
the conviction that his own natural belief was shared
so largely by English and foreign divines who rejected
the papacy, that it was the true Catholic belief on a
subject of high importance ; and the answers of leading
English divines to his questions at least did nothing
to shake him in that opinion.
None the less was it an amazing thing for an
Archbishop of Canterbury to condemn outright in
this fashion the eucharistic doctrine of a long line
of predecessors. Very naturally, it was not thought
' Vol. II. pp. 343-4.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 227
decent ; and Bishop Gardiner, though in prison, oardinei
found means to write, and even to publish, a very ^^^J^^
energetic protest. The outrage, indeed, came home
to him personally in a way it did to no one else, as
he could not but feel that it was nothing but his
sacramental belief that had troubled the Council
when he preached before the King on St. Peter's Day
1548. They had, at that time, used every effort to
deter him from touching upon the subject in his
sermon ; and he had seen evidences, even then, that
the old sacramental belief was treated by the Council
as doubtful. Moreover, he was actually pointed at
by name in Cranmer's book. But in answering it he
thinks it unnecessary to treat the work as really that
of the Archbishop, whose name may possibly, he
suggests, have been abused, "being a thing greatly
to be marvelled at that such matter should now be
published out of my lord of Canterbury's pen" — a
man of such dignity and authority in the common
wealth. Irony like this was no more than natural
from a respectful adherent of the old faith ; but it
could have done nothing to conciliate the prelate
against whom it was directed.''
Transubstantiation was a scholastic doctrine which
had grown up by degrees. The name, perhaps in use
some time before, was employed to fix the doctrine
by Innocent III. at the fourth Council of the Lateran
in A.D. 1215. Yet the name, it may be, was better
fixed than the doctrine ; for though the Schoolmen,
following suit after the Council, knew pretty well
what was the correct language in which to clothe a
mystery, the high mystery itself naturally defied
explanation and even illustration. It was a high
mystery, and there the mind must leave it. In
^ Without irony. Bishop Tunstall said the very same thing in the course
of Gardiner's trial. His words were " that he hath known no man that is
learned that openly defended or maintained the said error, saving that now
lately he hath seen a book for the defence of the said error, which is
entitled to be made by the lord of Canterbury ; but whether it be his or
no, he cannot tell." — Foxe, vi. 241.

228 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
this it seems to differ from other great mysteries
generally accepted as essential to the Christian faith.
For even the high truths of the Trinity and the
Incarnation are not so totally incapable of apprehen
sion that they do not supply manifest wants in our
spiritual nature ; so that the Christian world has
invariably felt that it cannot possibly do without
them. But a large part of the Christian world has
felt for ages that the doctrine of Transubstantiation
is paradoxical in a way that makes it to the average
man unthinkable ; and even its phUosophic defenders
know that it can only be apprehended at all by the
acceptance of that Aristotelian philosophy on which
it was founded. Any attempt to illustrate it other
wise seems doomed to failure. Gardiner made one of
his best points against Cranmer, who would have set
forth his own view of the Sacrament by the analogy
of the sun ; " which sun," Cranmer had remarked, " is
ever corporally in Heaven and nowhere else, and yet
by operation and virtue is here on earth. So Christ
is corporally in Heaven," etc.* Gardiner almost turns
this argument against its author by showing how
Bucer, no more a friend to the Pope than Cranmer
himself, used the very same example of the sun in
illustration of the Real Presence — a doctrine which he
had continually upheld, as he did still at Cambridge.
But what was meant by "truly and substantially
present " ? The heat and light of the sun are here
on earth undoubtedly, but these are not its corporal
substance in the language of the Schoolmen. Cranmer
could accept Bucer's application of the argument
very well. " I am glad," he tells Gardiner, " that at
the last we be come so near together; for you be
almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you
let us shake hands together. For we be agreed, as
meseemeth, that Christ's Body is present, and the
same body that suffered; and we be agreed also of
' Cranmer's Works (Parker Soc), i. 89.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 229
the manner of his presence. For you say that the
body of Christ is not present, but after a spiritual
manner, and so say I also." *
This extract from Cranmer's voluminous rejoinder
may serve for a specimen of its very best quality. It
was issued next year, and its general tone, though
powerful, is not altogether so pleasing. The title it
bore was "An .Answer by the Reverend Father in
God, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of
AU England and Metropolitan, unto a crafty and
sophistical CaviUation, devised by Stephen Gardiner,
doctor of law, late Bishop of Winchester, against
the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacra
ment of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, Jesu
Christ." Bishop Gardiner had by that time been
deprived, and in answering him Cranmer also made
some reply to another antagonist, Dr. Richard Smyth,
then a refugee abroad, who had contrived to publish
" in a strange country, without quietness, books, help
of learned men, sufficient leisure and time, and with
out also many other necessaries that are required
unto such an enterprise " (so the author himself says),
a little volume of 166 pages, entitled A Confutation
of a certain Book called " A Defence ofthe true and
Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament." '^ Smyth's
argument, however, so entirely rests upon authority
that we need not give it further notice.
Authority was really the question at stake. Authority
Scholasticism, as a living force, had virtually spent ^gg^ou ^t
itself in Wycliffe, whose enormous Uterary energy stake.
tried to set up a new Scholasticism opposed to that
of previous Schoolmen. His teaching, no doubt,
appealed strongly to popular thinking outside the
Schools in a way that makes us recognise in him the
dawn of modern ideas ; but being in itself really
another Scholasticism, it did not capture men half so
^ Cranmer's Works (Parker Soc), i. 91.
'^ See Appendix to this Chapter.

230 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
much by its arguments as by its denials. Wycliffe
has had many followers to this day in repudiating
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and their number
is not decreasing ; but how many educated Christians
could reproduce his arguments and make them their
own ? Cranmer did so, because he was a real
theologian and a man of learning ; and if we needed
now an old scholastic argument against a scholastic
doctrine, it certainly could not be more clearly put
than by the leader of the English Reformation. In
the seventeenth chapter of his first treatise on the
Sacrament, the matter is stated thus : —
First, the papists say that in the Supper of the Lord,
after the words of consecration (as they call it), there is none
other substance remaining but the substance of Christ's flesh
and blood, so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten
nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour
of bread and wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the
fashion and all other (as they call them) accidents, or
quahties and quantities of bread and wine, yet, say they,
there is no very bread nor wine, but they be turned into
the flesh and blood of Christ. And this conversion they call
" Transubstantiation," that is to say, " turning of one substance
into another substance." And although all the accidents,
both of the bread and wine, remain stiU, yet, say they, the
same accidents be in no manner of thing, but hang alone in
the air, without anything to stay them upon. For in the
body and blood of Christ, say they, these accidents cannot
be, nor yet in the air ; for the body and blood of Christ, and
the air, be neither of that bigness, fashion, smell, nor colour
that the bread and wine be. Nor in the bread and wine,
say they, these accidents cannot be; for the substance of bread
and wine, as they affirm, be clean gone. And so there
remaineth whiteness, but nothing is white ; there remaineth
colours, but nothing is coloured therewith ; there remaineth
roundness, but nothing is round ; and there is bigness, and yet
nothing is big ; there is sweetness, without any sweet thing ;
softness without any soft thing ; breaking, without anything
broken; division, without anything divided; and so other
quahties and quantities, without anything to receive them.
And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 231
The effect of such a passage as this is almost
weakened to the modern reader by the paragraph
which immediately follows, tending to show historic
ally that "it is not the doctrine of Christ but the
subtle invention of Anti-Christ, first decreed by
Innocent III.," etc. The strength of Cranmer
appeared in the fact that while he stood alone
against the learned divines of his day, he had taken
the full measure of the ground on which they rested
their case, and, after Gardiner's answer came out, he
quoted again in his reply the whole passage in his
first treatise from which the above is an extract.^
A commission for Gardiner's trial was issued on commis-
the 12th December 1550, directed to Archbishop ^°°^^°^^^,^
Cranmer and Bishops Ridley of London, Goodrich of trial.
Ely, and Holbeach of Lincoln ; Sir William Petre, one
of the King's two principal secretaries ; Sir James
Hales, one of the Justices of the Common Pleas ;
Griffith Leyson and John Oliver, doctors of law ; and
two other lawyers, designated simply as " esquires,"
Richard Goodrick and John Gosnold. The names of
these Commissioners are partizan names, and the
words of the commission itself are an indictment,
declaring the disobedience of the accused, first when
he was ordered not to speak of certain matters in
his sermon before the King, and afterwards his con
tinued disobedience ever since, by which he declares
himself "to be a person incorrigible, without any
hope of recovery." As the King's clemency and
long-suffering had only increased his wilfulness and
encouraged others " to follow like disobedience," his
misdemeanours and contempts must not pass further
unreformed. But if all this was ascertained already,
what was to be tried by the Commissioners ? Only,
it would seem, whether he would conform at last or
be deprived, and the Commissioners were empowered
to take that last step accordingly.^
^ See his answer, Works, i. at p. 45 (Parker Soc). ^ Foxe, vi. 93-5.

232 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
He refuses Gardiner was summoned before them,^ and made
ledgfthT"^ protest in the first place that he did not by his
tribunal, appearance intend to acknowledge their jurisdiction.
But the Archbishop " did onerate the said Bishop of
Winchester with a corporal oath upon the Holy
Evangelists by him touched and kissed, to make a
true and faithful answer to the said positions and
articles, and every part of them, in writing, by the
Thursday next following, between the hours of nine
and ten before noon, in that place," etc. The Court
certainly " did onerate " the Bishop with a good many
things for which he ought not to have been called in
question, and when he wrote answers to the best of
his recollection (under protest that he was not bound
to answer at all), he was pestered with demands for
fuller replies. At the very first sitting of the Court
he declared that the proceedings against him seemed
to be extraordinary, as he understood that the King
" had made a full end with him at the Tower for
all the matters for which he was committed" — a
declaration which called forth an express denial from
the Council, read at the second session on Thursday
the 18th.
And so began a very lengthened inquiry which
extended to no less than twenty -two sittings, ranging
from the 15th December 1550 to the 14th February
1551. A detailed account of what was done at every
sitting was printed in the first edition of Foxe's
Acts and Monum,ents, with texts of the evidences
produced on both sides. But these records of the
trial were suppressed in later editions, and the readers
were spared from wading through a great mass of
documents, consisting of articles against Gardiner,
articles proposed by Gardiner to others, additional
articles exhibited, pleas urged by him against the
' The lieutenant of the Tower had orders to produce him before the
Commissioners at Lambeth on Monday, 15th December, and that must
have been the date of the first session. — Dasent, iii. 179.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 233
exhibits, interrogatories on behalf of the Crown, and
interrogatories ministered by himself, all printed, we
may believe, with general accuracy as regards the
text, but in no sort of order, and without proper
references from the different sets of articles to the
particular answers given to each by a number of
different deponents.^ The perusal is certainly con
fusing. Nevertheless a good deal of important
information was elicited, which is all the more valu
able in view of the manifest object of the whole
proceedings. The main subject on which he was questioned Questioued
was his sermon before the King two years pre- ¦'''°"* ^¥
- 11" 11 sermon m
Viously, and the circumstances connected with it ; 1548.
on all which he returned pretty copious answers to
the best of his recollection, but was pursued with
stUl further inquiries, like a man who had been pre
varicating. To this unworthy treatment he could
only reply, as he did, with perfect respect and dignity,
by showing generally that law itself could not bind
a man to answer more precisely than his memory and
conscience would allow, that his use of "ifs" in his
previous answer was not contemptuous, and so forth.
He had given very full particulars of the messages
sent him by Somerset through Cecil before he preached,
but he was told that he had answered nothing to the
point that he was commanded and inhibited " on the
King's Majesty's behalf" He thought his own plain
statement of the facts ought to have been sufficient ;
and whether there was any commandment or inhibi
tion in law was a point he had no occasion to enter
on. But the worst persecution of this sort to which
he was subjected was in the last article of his in
dictment (the 19th): "That you have not hitherto,
^ In one case, pp. 125-7, there is a set of nine additional Articles put in
by Gardiner, and they are not numbered, though the answers given to some
of them by five deponents are (pp. 240-41). At p. 133 is a set of six num
bered interrogatories which are really seven, as the first contains a second
item, and only by rectifying the numbers can Lord Paget's answer at pp.
164-5 be made appropriate.

234 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
according to the said intimation and monition, sub
mitted, reconciled, or reformed yourself, but contemptu
ously yet still remain in your first disobedience."
His reply was that he had been all the while shut up
in prison, and had no means of communicating with
any man or prosecuting, as he desired leave to do,
his appeal to the King. He was not conscious of any
fault ; but if any offence done in ignorance could be
objected to him, he hoped it would not be held pre
judicial to his present answer. He did not mean to
touch his Sovereign's honour when he spoke of not
offending God's law, which his Sovereign, if he knew
his conscience, would not command him to do." This,
he was told, was no answer " concerning submission,
reconcilement and reformation " ; and he replied that
as he repudiated any sentiment of contempt, he really
ought not to be pressed for a declaration to the
prejudice of his own innocence ; " because, being an
honest man, he is somewhat worth to the King his
Sovereign Lord ; and having cast his innocency will
ingly away by the untrue testimony of himself, he is
nothing worth to the world nor himself either." ^
Absurdity The prosccutiou sought to estabUsh against
charges Gardiner charges of disobedience, disloyalty, and
ofdis- even treason. But in any just examination of his
obedience, qq^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Edward VI.'s CouncU they would
have found it hard to show plausible grounds even
for a charge of disobedience. For in truth Gardiner
acted on principles of non-resistance almost as much
as Cranmer himself He showed himself conformable,
even to orders of which he disapproved, to an extent
which the modern mind might almost be tempted
to blame as unconscientious. But it was really for
reasons of conscience rather than of policy that he
obeyed, leaving the responsibility to others. In the
matter of the Royal Visitation he had in the first
' Compare the nineteen Articles and answers in Foxe, vi. 64-77, with the
further answers on pp. 101-3.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 235
place written to the Privy Council his conscientious
opinion,, but he gave orders to his proctor, his chan
cellor, his chaplains, and other officers throughout his
diocese to treat the Visitors with all due honour and
obedience.^ And when he had remonstrated in vain
against orders for putting down images and against
other innovations, his secretary, who wrote those
remonstrances for him, bore witness that he at once
obeyed the King's injunctions in these matters, and
caused them to be fully carried out in his diocese.^
In his own cathedral on Palm Sunday 1548 he
had preached to a great multitude " that the life of
a Christian man consisteth chiefly in suftering of
another man's will, and not his own ; and declared
the duty of the subject to the rulers, which was (as
he said) to obey their will and suffer their power." *
At that time he had just been liberated from the
Fleet, and had received commands to preach upon
the subject, but he did so willingly. He told his His doc-
hearers that subjects were bound to obey without ^™^ "^
resistance ; for aU power came from God, and who- resistance,
ever resisted that power did offend God. Nay, if the
King were an Infidel (instead of being, as he was, a
very true and faithful prince), and were to command
anything to be observed against God's law, though
they were not bound to do it, they should rather suffer
willingly such punishment as the prince would inflict
than offer any resistance.* That was the doctrine
inculcated by a man charged with disobedience.
So entirely did he himself carry out this principle which he
that he not only obeyed injunctions that he disliked, ^^"i^^/n^t.
but he did his utmost to discourage the murmurs that
arose against them in his own diocese. There the
Royal Visitation was very unpopular, especially the
injunctions issued about images, as the vicar of Farn-
ham informed his chaplain, Watson, when the Bishop
was passing that way home into Hampshire from
' Foxe, vi. 127-8. ^ ^j. p. 227-8. * Ib. p. 201. ^ lb. pp. 208-10.

236 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
London. But Gardiner himself next morning ^ (it
being St. Matthias' Day) preached in Farnham church
from the Gospel of the day (Matt. xi. 25), and when
he came to the words "hast revealed them unto
babes," took occasion to insist upon obedience to the
King's authority in the way that has just been
described, saying that a true subject should not ask
" why or wherefore he should do this or that," but do
as he was commanded. It was quite competent, he
said, for the King to abolish ceremonies, and good
subjects should conform their wills to the will of
their prince.^
Still, the Council (who were their own witnesses
to a large extent) had no difficulty in obtaining
depositions that he had not declared exactly every
thing that he was commanded to declare in his sermon
on St. Peter's Day, and that he had even touched
on some subjects in spite of express orders to the
contrary.^ They had, indeed, endeavoured before he
preached to treat him like a schoolboy, and dictate
what he should say ; but this attempt he had very
naturally withstood. And the only case that they
could make out against the sermon after it was
delivered was that the preacher had not exactly done
all that the Council wished him to do, although he
had never promised to do it. That a change was
going to be made in the authorised sacramental
doctrine was a thing that he had no desire to know,
and to which, notwithstanding various hints, he no
doubt desired to be blind. But it is a strange thing
to find a man guilty of breaking the law that is to be
when he obeys the law that actually exists. The Earl
of Bedford, indeed, deposed that the Bishop had " used
himself in the said sermon very evil, in the hearing of
' In the depositions as printed the vicar's conversation with the chaplain
is repeatedly said to have taken place on "St. Matthew's Eve," which
would be in September. But this was certainly not the time of year, and
St. Matthias' Eve is clearly intended. St. Matthias' Day in 1548, being a
leap year, would be 25th February.
^ Foxe, vi. 211-14. '¦> Ib. pp. 144-6, 148-9, 151, 154-6, 159, 161, etc.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 237
the King's Majesty, the Council and a great many be
sides — and so evil, that, if the King's Majesty and the
Council had not been present, his Lordship thinketh
that the people would have pulled him out of the
pulpit, they were so much ofiended with him." ^ But
this testimony is unique, and being put forth only as
a matter of private opinion, it is pretty fairly balanced
by the Bishop's own opinion that he had had a quiet
hearing, which led him to think he had given satis
faction, and to apprehend no further trouble.^
Yet there was no doubt of one thing, which indeed
was fully testified by Bishop Thirlby, even in bearing
witness to his obedience. Gardiner personally disliked
the religious changes that had taken place, not only in
the present but during the last reign. He had always
disliked innovations, and had been "earnest against He dis-
alterations, as well concerning the Bishop of Rome vatTous"but
as other orders in religion. Yet after those matters submitted
were established and set forth by the Acts, Statutes,
and laws of this realm, and the King's Majesty's
injunctions and proclamations, this Deponent hath
known and heard the Bishop of Winchester publish,
declare and set forth, as weU the supremacy, or
supreme authority, of the King's Majesty's father
of famous memory, as the abolishing of the usurped
power of the Bishop of Rome," ^ etc. Thus, even
friendly testimony, showing that he was submissive,
showed also that he did not love the things he had
submitted to. And then there was the Ratisbon
incident, about which all the existing evidence was
now carefully collected. Yes, he had actually received
a letter from the Pope at Ratisbon — an astounding The true
thing for an ambassador of Henry VIII. to have l\^^^l''^
received after the separation from Rome. The dead Ratisbon
King himself knew well how that had come about — "i^'^'^^^t-
a thing which no other man in his Council really
understood — and he knew well that Gardiner had done
' Foxe, vi. 161. ^ Ib. pp. 110-11, art. xxxviii. = lb. p. 190.

238 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
him a very great service by those conversations with
Granvelle that led up to it.^ But for Gardiner's
astuteness Henry's throne at that time might really
have been a little insecure, and on his return from
that embassy he met with a much better reception
from his master than many diplomatists expected.
But the crisis which Henry dreaded at that time
passed away, and political gratitude was not to be
expected of him. At the very end of his reign,
within eight weeks of his death, the King showed
himself displeased at the fact that Gardiner had mani
fested some reluctance to part with lands belonging
to his see by way of an exchange with the Crown.^
But there was pretty clear evidence that able services
such as his were fully recognised even then ; for it
was undeniable that within a fortnight or so of the
King's death he had been employed to address in
the Council's name ambassadors from Scotland, from
France, and from the Emperor. And Gardiner
appealed to the knowledge of the Councillors them
selves whether that was not the case.^
The Councillors had their own way of answering.
Lord Paget said he knew that the late King " mis-
liked the said Bishop ever the longer the worse ; and
that, in his conscience, if the said King had lived
any while longer than he did, he would have used
extremity against the said Bishop, as far forth as the
law would have borne his Majesty : thinking to have
just and sore matter of old against the said Bishop, in
store, not taken away by any pardon." That was a
little insinuation on Paget's part that Henry VIIL,
though he had condoned the fact of Gardiner having
once received a letter from the Pope, might have
brought it up against him any day if it had ever
suited his policy to impeach Gardiner of treason.*
1 See Vol. IL 346-50.
^ State Papers, i. 883 ; Foxe, vi. 138. ' Foxe, vi. 106.
* Warwick in his deposition (Foxe, vi. 179) says that Henry VIII. sus
pected the Bishop much to favour the Bishop of Rome's authority, not

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 239
" And at divers times " it seems the King had " asked
the said Lord Paget for a certain writing touching the
said Bishop ; commanding him to keep it, save that
he might have it when he called for it." ^ The deposi
tion then goes on to relate the circumstances of the
King having put Gardiner's name out of his will.
Afterwards Paget had to answer certain inter
rogatories proposed to him on Gardiner's behalf,
among which were the following : —
V. Whether the said lord Paget, incontinently upon the
attainder of the late Duke of Norfolk, did not do a message
from the King's Majesty to the said Bishop, that he would be
content that Master Secretary Petre, might have the same
hundred pounds a year of the said Bishop's grant that the
said Duke had ?
VI. Item whether, after the said Bishop had answered
himself, to gratify the King's Majesty, to be content there
with, the said lord Paget made relation thereof, as is said, to
the King's Majesty, who answered that he thanked the
Bishop very heartily for it, and that he might assure himself
the King's Majesty was his very good lord ? ^
These questions refer to what took place in the Henry's
month of January 1547, iust before Henry VIII.'s f''i*'«^^'"s
death, and were designed to bring out the fact that Gardiner.
Gardiner was still on such terms with that King that
being asked a favour he received the royal thanks for
according it. And Paget's answer was as follows : —
To the vth and vith Articles the said lord Paget
answereth, that after the attainder of the Duke of Norfolk,
as he remembereth, in the Upper and Nether House of the
Parliament, the late King of most worthy memory willed
only from the case of "one Gardiner, nearest about the said bishop"
(Germain Gardiner, see Vol. II. of this work, p. 411), but from the "secret
practice " with the Bishop of Rome's legate at Ratisbon. " Upon which
suspicions, and for other secret informations that the said late King had
touching the said Bishop's favour to the Bishop of Rome, his Grace caused
in all pardons afterwards, all treasons committed beyond the seas to be ex
empted ; which was meant most for the Bishop's cause, to the intent the
said Bishop should take no benefit by any of the said pardons." There is,
however, no pardon to Gardiner upon record, to bear out this statement.
' Foxe, vi. 163. = lb. p. 133.

240 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
him (the said lord Paget) to require ^ the Bishop's grant of
the hundred pounds mentioned in the articles : but in such
sort his Majesty willed it to be required as he looked for it
rather of duty than of any gratuity at the Bishop's hand, to
whom, the said Lord Paget saith of certain knowledge, as
men may know things, he, the said King, would have made
request for nothing, being the said Bishop the man, at that
time, whom, the said lord Paget beheveth, his Majesty
abhorred more than any man in his realm; which he
declared grievously, at sundry times, to the said lord against
the said Bishop, even naming him with such terms as the
said lord Paget is sorry to name. And the said lord Paget
thinketh that divers of the gentlemen of the Privy Chamber
are able to depose the same. Nevertheless it may be that
he, the said lord Paget, did use another form of request to
the said Bishop than the Kiog would have liked, if he
had known it ; which if he did, he did it rather for dexterity,
to obtain the thing for his friend, than for that he had any
such special charge of the said King so to do. And also the
said Lord Paget saith that afterwards it might be that he used
such comfortable words of the King's favorable and thankful
acceptation of the thing at the said Bishop's hand as in the
article is mentioned ; which if he did, it was rather for quiet
of the said Bishop than for that it was a thing indeed.^
Here Paget helps us wonderfully to take the
measure of his own character, and at the same time,
perhaps, does something to darken rather needlessly
that of Henry VIII. The King did, indeed, through
Paget, ask the Bishop a favour ; but no, it was not
a favour at all, for he had a right to command the
Bishop how to dispose of a certain annuity out of the
episcopal revenues. The Bishop's compliance deserved
no thanks, but Paget perhaps may have told a lie to
make him think Henry expressed a degree of gratitude.
1 The word "require " in the Sixteenth Century was precisely equivalent
to the word "request" in our days. It did not, in its ordinary use,
suggest a demand that could be enforced. In fact, there was so little of
this in the meaning of the word ' ' require " when standing by itself that in
royal letters we not unfrequently meet with the expression, " We require
and nevertheless charge you," which shows an actual antithesis between
the two verbs. So also, in the English marriage service to this day : "I
require and cliarge you both, " a more gentle word being followed up by a
stronger one. ^ Foxe, vi. 164-5.

CH.1 WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 241
For the Bishop was the man that Henry hated most
of all his subjects. And Henry's hatred of the Bishop
(if he did hate him) is not mentioned, of course, as
evidence of royal ingratitude, but rather of the fact
that the Bishop was a disloyal and very troublesome
man, whose name Henry VIII. very properly cut out
of his wiU, and whom his executors were well justified
in keeping in prison as dangerous ! But what has
Paget to say to another point, mentioned above,
which really seems to tell in Gardiner's favour ?
To the vuth Article the said lord Paget saith that it
may be that the said Bishop was used at the time mentioned
in the Article, with the Ambassadors, for the Council's
mouth, because that none other of the Council that sat
above him were so weU languaged as he in the French
tongue. But the said lord Paget beheveth that if the said
King that dead is had known it, the Council would have had
httle thanks for their labor.^
Marvellous ! The Council employed the services
of the man whom Henry hated most to express its
own sentiments to ambassadors, merely because he
was such an exceUent linguist ! And other Councillors
backed up Paget's statement. Wiltshire declared
that Gardiner was employed in this way both on
account of his command of French and because he
was learned in the civil laws.^ Lord Chancellor
Riche says simply " for that he was skilled in the lan
guage." ^ And Warwick tells us more particularly : —
He was in such reputation and estimation with the
Councillors of our late lord that dead is that commonly
they committed unto him the speech and answer to all
ambassadors, as weU those of Scotland, France, as the
Emperor's ; and that within fourteen days before the death
of our late Sovereign lord they did so use him, the said Earl
saith, that forasmuch as the answers to ambassadors com
monly required to be done by a man learned in the Civil
law, and specially when it was to be done in the Latin
1 Foxe, vi. 165. ^ Ib. p. 171. ^ n,_ p_ 175.
VOL. Ill R

and appeal.

242 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
tongue, the said Council did use the said Bishop's speech ;
and not for any other credit or estimation that they had of
him(!).
Gardmer's Need WO Say anything more about this very one-
sentence gi(jed trial? Ou thc 14th February the expected
sentence was delivered at Lambeth in spite 01 renewed
protestations of nullity from Gardiner and appeal
from the judges to the King.^ Of course, such an
appeal was virtually from the King's Council to the
King's Council. Nothing could reasonably be hoped
for from it. But we have the exact result once more
in the Council's own register ^ as follows : —
At Westminster, the 15th of February 1550 [-51].
Upon debating of the Bishop of Winchester's case, forasmuch
as it appeared he had at all times before the Judges of his
cause used himself very unreverently to the King's Majesty
and very sklaunderfulhe towards the Council, and speciaUy
yesterday, being the day of his judgment given against him,
he called his Judges heretics and sacramentaries, they being
there the King's Commissioners and of his Highness' CouncU ;
it was therefore concluded by the whole Board that he should
be removed from the lodging he hath now in the Tower to a
meaner lodging, and none to wait upon him but one by the
Lieutenant's appointment, in such sort as by the resort of
any man to him he have not the mean to send out to any
man, or to hear from any man ; and likewise that his books
and papers be taken from him and seen, and that from
henceforth he have neither pen, ink nor paper to write his
detestable purposes, but be sequestered from all conference
and from all means that may serve him to practise anyway.
The punishment was for contempt of Court ; and
of that he very likely had been guilty. For he had
never recognised the authority of the Court even from
the first. Nor was it wonderful if he really did call his
judges heretics and sacramentaries ; for they had made
it evident that they were engaged in changing the
doctrinal basis of the Church of England by simply
putting down all opposition with the strong hand and
1 Foxe, vi. 261-2. 2 Dasent, iii. 213.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 243
keeping in close prison those who ventured to remon
strate. There was, indeed, a full attendance of the
Council that day when this resolution was taken.
Warwick, no doubt, took care that the responsibility
was shared by as many as possible ; and there were
present Somerset and Cranmer, the worthy Lord Chan
ceUor Riche, the Lord Treasurer [William Paulet, now
Earl of Wiltshire], the Lord Great Master [Warwick,
not claiming undue precedence], the Lord Privy Seal
[Russell, Earl of Bedford], the Lord Great Chamber
lain [WUliam Parr, Earl of Northampton], the
Marquis Dorset, the Lord Admiral [Clinton], the Lord
Chamberlain [Lord Wentworth], Goodrich [Bishop of
Ely], Mr. Comptroller [of the Household, Sir Anthony
Wingfield], the Master of the Horse [Sir William
Herbert], Mr. Vice-Chamberlain [Sir Thomas Darcy],
two Secretaries, and Sir Edward Northe.
So the sentence was held to stand good, and Gardiner
Gardiner was deprived of his bishopric of Winchester,^ of wr^*^
which on the 8th March ^ was given to John Ponet, bishopric.
or Poynet, Bishop of Rochester ; and the see of
Rochester a little later was filled up by the appoint
ment of John Scory. Thus the new school was
strengthened in episcopal power to lord it over the
Church. But what was to be thought of it morally
is another matter. Of Gardiner's successor, Poynet, character
three months after his appointment, we read as follows °' '"'^
J^f ' successor,
m a contemporary chronicle : — Ponet.
The 27th day of the same month (July) the Bishop of
Winchester that was then was divorced from his wife in
Paul's, the which was a butcher's wife of Nottingham, and
gave her husband a certain money a year during his life as
it was judged by the law.^
Another chronicle says that he was " divorced
from the butcher's wife with shame enough." But,
^ While Gardiner was deprived of his bishopric Cranmer had his expenses
paid for prosecuting him. See Appendix to this Chapter.
^ Dasent, p. 231. '¦' Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 70.

244 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
to mend matters, he married again three months
later, on the 25th October, at Croydon, before Arch
bishop Cranmer and a large assembly of spectators.^
He had pubUshed in 1549 A Defence ofthe Marriage
of Priests,^ and he thus gave a shining example of
the principles he had defended with his pen.
Archbishop Auothcr married prelate of the time, Holgate,
Holgate. Archbishop of York, was accused of doing much the
same thing as Ponet; for in November 1551 three
gentlemen were commissioned by the Council to
examine and report upon the case between him and
one Norman, who claimed the Archbishop's wife as
his own.^ Apparently, however, the Archbishop was
held to be rightly married to her, till he was deprived
of his bishopric under Mary, when he repented the
fact of having married, saying that he had been
driven to it for fear of being called a papist !

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I
See pp. 229, 243
In connection with the story of Cranmer and Gardiner
the following further extracts from the Acts of the Privy
Council will be read with interest. The two entries are both
under date 8th March 1550 [1551].
Upon knowledge that one Sethe had brought over certain ill
books made by Dr. Smythe in France against the Bishop of
Canterbury's and Peter Martyr's books, forasmuch as he directed
his said books to divers persons by name, and also sent special
letters which Sethe delivered, being thought a matter necessary
to be examined, it was resolved that Dr. Poynett, now named
Bishop of Winchester, Mr. Gosnall,  , and John Throg
morton should have the examination of the matter.
' Machyn's Diary, pp. 8, 320.
' See Strype's Memorials, bk. ii. ch. 18.
^ Dasent, iii. p. 427. The Archbishop had at first been summoned
to Westminster and ordered to bring his wife with him, but the summons
was countermanded. Ib. pp. 421, 426.

CH.I WARWICK, GARDINER, & CRANMER 245
A warrant to  to pay £246, 13s. 4d. to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, in respect as well of his charges and pains
sustained in the late process against the late Bishop of Winchester,
as divers other ways.
The Council, however, knew of the printing of Smith's
book at Paris even in the middle of January. See TurnbuU's
Calendar, i. 67.

CHAPTER II
THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION AND BISHOP HOOPER
The witty Sir John Harington, who was born early
in the reign of Queen EUzabeth, is the author of a
well-known couplet :
Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason ?
For if it prosper none dare call it treason.
The saying, though rather cynical, was characteristic
of an age that had not yet passed away ; and, cynical
as it was, it still contains philosophy, both sound
and unsound. Revolutions are brought about by
conspiracies which a loyal community will never
encourage, but which are not to be greatly feared so
long as wholesome poUtical and reUgious sentiments
prevail among the people. If a revolution of any
kind is successful, it implies clearly that there was
much amiss in the community before it broke out ;
but it does not imply that those who engineered
conspiracy and rebellion were necessarUy ia the
right. Success itself, no doubt, is a kind of
justification which provokes a misinterpretation of
history in behalf of a victorious party ; and a just
sense of positive advantages gained makes us some
what unwilUng to criticise the means too closely.
The advantages gained for religion under Edward
VI. were not permanent, and the work done would
certainly have been far more severely criticised by
historians, but that during the long reign of Queen
246

Reforma
tion.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 247
Elizabeth there was a reversion to Edwardine causes
principles in religion, protected by a secular foreign *^J°|^ p™'
policy similar to that of the Queen's father, which Edwardine
was wonderfully successful in maintaining the in
dependence of England against foreign aggression
and the spiritual claims of the papacy. It was only
under EUzabeth that the mediaeval pretensions of
Rome completely lost their hold on the EngUsh
people, and from that day onward the tradition
grew and grew that the Reformation had been entirely
the result of a devout zeal, emancipating the nation
from bUnd superstitions. There was a plausible truth
in this, for old superstitions fared ill. But it was
forgotten that some very earthly motives conspired
to protect the doings of the " godly," and that the
acquisition of monastic spoils by wealthy noblemen
and ambitious courtiers inspired the governing classes
with the strongest possible objections to a counter
revolution, which would have involved another large
redistribution of property over the whole kingdom.
The truth is, that it was the political element in
reUgion that determined the matter far more than
theology. Religion does and must afi"ect politics in
every age, and politics must afi'ect religion. So,
while the worldlings were set on things of earth,
and old devotees were persecuted for clinging to
the traditional faith, theologians possessed of prac
tical minds were naturally driven to consider how
essential principles were to be maintained in a
world so entirely altered. In this realm of practical
theology, as we have seen,^ even in the days of
Henry VIIL, Cranmer and Gardiner were the leaders
of two opposite schools of thought, each of which
accepted royal supremacy as the basis for a new
religious settlement ; and Henry, as Supreme Head
of the Church, secured himself by the advice either
of one or of the other, as occasion seemed to require.
1 See Vol. I. pp. 316 sq.

248 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
Cranmer, indeed, from the very first felt himself
committed to the principle of royal supremacy, not
only by the conditions to which he owed his advance
ment (though, indeed, it was an advancement that
he never sought), but apparently by a conviction of
its very necessity in the nature of things ; so that he
maintained in his latter days that even if the ruler of
a kiugdom were a pagan, nay, a persecutor of religion,
he would still be Head of the Church in his own
dominions.^ On the other hand, Gardiner, not less
impressed by the political necessity of the new
doctrine, subscribed to it with reluctance. He
represented the conservative element in religion, as
Cranmer did the progressive, and the opposition
between the two was naturally irreconcilable. At
last as Henry drew near his end and revised his wiU,
he felt that he must absolutely choose between the
incompatibles. So he left out Gardiner's name among
the executors.^ A progressive policy in reUgion under
royal supremacy had become inevitable, and Gardiuer's
presence in the Council of his son would make govern
ment on such lines impossible.
But perhaps even Henry VIII. had little idea of
the length to which the revolution would go. In
Royal his time, under royal supremacy, the bishops were
suprernacy ^^^n supposcd to rulc their scvcral dioceses ; but under
anextreme. his SOU stcps wcrc taken from the first that none of
them should be sufi'ered long to rule who were not
imbued more or less with Lollard principles. For
this reason it was that the doctrine of royal supremacy
was even at the outset pushed to an extreme — ^that
bishops under the new reign had to take out fresh
licences to exercise their functions ; that they were
commanded, in preaching, to declare the King's
1 When interrogated by Dr. Martin in 1555, he confessed that even
Nero, who beheaded St. Peter, was head of the Church ' ' in worldly respect
of the temporal bodies of men of whom the Church consisteth, " and that the
Turk, too, was "head ofthe Church in Turkey." — Foxe, viii. 57.
^ See p. 11 ante.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 249
authority, whether as Head of the Realm or Head of
the Church, to be quite as great in his juvenile years
as if he had attained maturity ; and that bishops who
would not favour a new poUcy were put in prison
and afterwards deprived of their bishoprics.
Under the rule of Somerset only Bonner was
deprived, and the proceedings against him were
irregular enough. This was just before the Pro
tector's fall in October 1549, and it was a subject
of doubt for some time whether the sentence would
be maintained. But Warwick reversed nothing that
his predecessor had done in that way. Ridley was
made Bishop of London in Bonner's place. Heath
was sent to the Fleet on the 4th March 1550, andoepriva-
Day on the 11th December of that year. Gardiner ji^pri^Z^.
was deprived on the 14th February 1551, and the ments of
venerable Bishop Tunstall in May following was '^ °^'
ordered to keep within his own house in London till,
on the 20th December, he was removed and lodged in
the Tower. In 1551 also Bishop Voysey of Exeter,
an old man, was got out of the way, intimidated
into resignation to make room for Coverdale, who
was intruded into the see on the 14th August. In
October the imprisoned bishops, Heath and Day, were
deprived of their bishoprics by a special commission,
and their places were fiUed up in May of the next
year by Hooper, already Bishop of Gloucester,
who had Worcester given him in commendam, and
John Scory, translated from Rochester to Day's see
of Chichester. Finally, in October 1552, Bishop
Tunstall was deprived of his bishopric of Durham.
Thus no less than six bishops of the old school
were dislodged, and the sees of five of them given to
others ofthe new school. What would ultimately have
been done about Bishop Tunstall's diocese of Durham
we do not know, but there was a scheme for dividing
it into two separate bishoprics, one of which was to
have been given to Ridley. An attempt was first

2SO LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
made to deprive Tunstall by Act of Parliament — an
extraordinary proceeding ; but the Lords threw out
the bill. Then a bill for his attainder was introduced
in the Commons ; but the Commons would not agree
to it unless he was brought face to face with his
accusers. Finally, he was deprived in October by
an irregular commission of laymen. After all the
attempts in years past to secure absolutism by ex
alting the authority of a boy King, whose will could
be moulded by a knowing statesman, it is satisfactory
to find that neither House of ParUament was com
pletely at the command of that great leader of
faction ; for the Protector Somerset, whose rule had
been despotic enough in Church matters, was a mere
chUd to the knowing and unscrupulous Dudley.
It is certainly not pleasant to think that an old
school of divines was driven out, and a new school
intruded into their places simply by the arm of
power. But we cannot make facts to our liking.
We must study them as things done, and inquire
their meaning. Setting aside for the present the
story of the deprived bishops, which has carried us
a year or two beyond the date we are now con
sidering, let us see what was done about the new
ones. On the 1st April 1550, Ridley was placed
in Bonner's see of London.^ It is needless to say
that such a bishopric had always been well en
dowed. But it had sufi'ered some diminution of
revenues when the see of Westminster had been
carved out of the diocese in 1540 ; and after Bonner's
deprivation the temporalities, as usual in a vacancy,
fell into the hands of the Crown. The opportunity
was used for an unaccustomed amount of spoliation.
Within a year and a half after his promotion, Ridley
wrote to Cecil in answer to an application for a few
trees, promising him half a dozen, such as he could spare.
Cecil himself was but a poor man at this time, com-
' Rymer, xv. 222

CH. II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 251
plaining that he saw " the bottom of his purse," and
Ridley was wUling to do for him what he would not
do for other applicants. But he had a sad tale to
teU. " If you knew," he writes, " the miserable spoil
that was done in the vacation time by the King's
ofl&cers upon my woods, whereby in time past so
many good houses have been builded, and hereafter
might have been, also so many lame relieved, so many
broken amended, so many fallen down reedified, —
forsooth I do not doubt but you were able to move
the whole country to lament and mourn the lament
able case of so pitiful a decay." ^
It was some advantage to the new Bishop of
London that the see of Westminster was sup
pressed and the diocese merged in that of London
on his promotion. Westminster was vacated by
Thirlby, a divine of the old school whom there was
no good reason to deprive, and who was therefore
transferred to Norwich to be out of the way. The
vacancy at Norwich was due to the resignation of
Bishop Repps, once Abbot of St. Benet's Holme, who
died a few months later. But, if the diocese of
London was enlarged on Bishop Ridley's promotion, he plunder of
was immediately called upon to alienate some of the ^'^i^op^a.
property of the see, and on the 12th April, the day
he was enthroned, he surrendered to the Crown the
manors of Braintree, Southminster, Stepney, and
Hackney, with the advowson of Coggeshall Church.^
In return for which he received from the Crown
various parcels of property in Middlesex, the city of
London, and other counties, valued at £526 : 19 : 9j
per annum,, which had belonged to the see of West
minster. But the lands which he gave up to the
King were granted away again four days later in three
portions to Sir Thomas Darcy, Vice-Chamberlain of
the Royal Household, Lord Chancellor Riche, and
' Tytler's England under Edward VI. and Mary, i. 431.
2 Eymer, xv. 226.

2 52 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
Thomas Lord Wentworth, Lord Chamberlain of the
Household, their whole yearly value amounting to
£480 : 3 : 9f . By this it would seem that the
separate see of London was a gainer by over £46 a
year ; but the united bishopric of London and West
minster was certainly a loser. For the clear revenues
of the whole bishopric before Westminster was taken
out of it, were valued in 1535 at £1119 : 8s. a year, and
Ridley gave up very nearly if not quite the half of
the Church property supposed to be at his disposal.^
But it must be admitted that this method of
confiscating Church property was not altogether new ;
for it was painfully characteristic of the whole era
of the Reformation. When Henry VIII. made him
self Supreme Head of the Church, he could of course
dispose of the things of Church and State aUke ; and
though he would not have it said that he turned to
secular uses what was set apart for God's service,
and had not been misapplied, he forced bishops easUy
to exchange their lands for others which he himself
could afford to part with. Neither Cranmer nor
Gardiner could withstand his rapacity, and they were
both compelled, in this way, to give up what belonged
to their sees, which, except upon compulsion, they
had no right to surrender. And the like was done
' In Stowe's Survey, bk. v. p. 5 (Strype's edition), is an incorrect
account of these transactions, partly corrected by the Editor, who en
deavours to make out in the margin that what Ridley gave up to the King
was "in exchange for other lands of like or better value." Strype's own
account of the matter, however {Ecclesiastical Memorials, II., pt. i. 340),
when compared with the Valor Ecclesiasticus does not bear out this state
ment. I do not quite understand Dixon's view of this matter {Hist. Ch.
of England, iii. 198). The dean and chapter, it is true, in confirming
Ridley's grant, reserved some lands and rents in Southminster, Stepney, and
Hackney to themselves. But I fail to see evidences of an undesigned error
corrected afterwards. The good intentions of the Council, with regard to
Ridley at least, if not with regard to the see, may be read in the Acts of
the Privy Council as follows : — On the 21st February he was summoned
" to repair to the Lords for purposes to be declared to him at his arrival."
On the 24th it was decided : "The Bishop ofRoohester to be Bishop of London
and Westminster, and to have lands of £1000 per annum to be appointed by
the King's Majesty." On the 5th March letters were ordered to be sent to
Sir John York (Sheriff of London) to stay from felling any more of the woods
of the see ; and this order had to be repeated on the i7th.

CH. n THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 253
just two years before the King's death by Robert Archbishop
Holgate, Bishop of Llandaff, on being translated to yoir'* °*
the Archbishopric of York. He alienated to the
Crown no less than sixty-seven manors belonging to
his new see.^ Indeed, he had been pretty well accus
tomed to the process before then. For before he
was a bishop he had been forced upon the priory of
Watton as their head, and head also of all the
GUbertine Order in England, to which that house
belonged. Being then made Bishop of Llandaff,
and allowed to hold Watton in commendam, he
made a free surrender of all the GUbertine houses to
the King, receiving back again the lands of the priory
of Watton, to help him, no doubt, to fulfil his duties
as President of the Council of the North.^ Let us,
however, by all means give him the benefit of what
we are told of his good deeds. The industrious Strype
writes ' of him under Edward VI. in the year 1552 : —
In this month of May did Holgate, Archbishop of York,
the only wealthy bishop then in England, bestow some part
of his wealth very commendably, for the benefit of his
successors m that see. For he made purchase from the
King of the site, circuit and precincts, capital messuage and
mansion, lordship and manor of Scrooby in Scrooby, with the
appurtenances, in the county of Nottingham, lately parcel
of the possessions of the Archbishop of York ; which premises
were extended to the yearly value of £37, Ss. 5|d. above aU
reprises and allocations. To have the premises to the Arch
bishop and Barbara, his wife, during the life of the Archbishop
and Barbara, and either of them living longest, with impeti-
tion of waste during the hfe of the said Archbishop; and
after the departure of the Archbishop and his wife, then to
his successors, Archbishops of York, for ever. To hold of
the King and his successors in free soccage; which was
purchased by him for the sum of £630, 7s. 6d., May 27.
Having been successful in proving that Barbara
was really his wife, and not another man's,* it was
1 Diet, of Nat. Biog. "^ L. P., xvi. p. 715.
^ Eccl. Memorials, II. ii. 77. * See p. 244 ante.

254 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
very good, certainly, in the Archbishop to make
proper provision for himself and her during their
joint and several lives by buying back from the King
a portion of the possessions of the see, and then
securing the property to their own use so long as
they could enjoy it, allowing it to go back to the
succeeding Archbishops of York when neither he nor
his wife was alive to use it any more. This was the
act of " the only wealthy bishop then in England."
There seems, however, to have been something in
this man not ignoble. It is said that on surrender of
his priory of Watton he had a benefice in Lincoln
shire, but Sir Francis Askew, a gentleman of the
neighbourhood, gave him so much trouble by a law
suit that he quitted the living and went up to
London. After being Lord President of the North,
Sir Francis came before him as a suitor in that court,
and had little hope of the success of his cause at the
hands of his former adversary. But, contrary to his
expectation, he found that the Archbishop determined
the matter, simply according to right and justice, in
his favour. And the Archbishop himself, referring to
the matter in conversation with his friends, said jest
ingly " that he was more obliged to Sir Francis than
to any man in England ; for, had it not been for his
pushing him to London, he had lived a poor priest
all his days." ^
Ponet But promotions to bishoprics under Edward VI.
Bishop of were mostly accompanied by still greater alienations of
Chester. Church property. Of Ponet (or Poynet), Gardiner's
successor at Winchester, we are told by Heylyn that
he was " purposely preferred to that wealthy bishopric
to serve other men's turns. For before he was well
warm in his see he dismembered from it ^ the goodly
palace of Marwell, with the manors and parks of
' Drake's Eboracum, pp. 452-3. Tlie story rests upon the authority of
Sir John Harington.
2 This is fully confirmed by the Acts of the Privy Council. See Dasent,
iii. 310, 358.

CH. II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 255
Marwell and Twyford, which had before been seized
upon by the lord Protector to make a knight's estate
for Sir Henry Seymour. The palace of Waltham, with
the park and manor belonging to it, and some good
farms depending on it, were seized into the hands of
the lord Treasurer Paulet, Earl of WUtshire ; who,
having got into possession so much lands of the
bishopric, conceived himself in a fit capacity to affect
(as shortly after he obtained) the title of lord Marquess
of Winchester. But this, with many of the rest of
Poynet's grants, leases and alienations, were again
recovered to the Church by the power of Gardiner,
when being restored unto his see, he was by Queen
Mary made lord Chancellor." ^
The same sort of story is told of the bishopric of
Lincoln (except as to the subsequent recovery of its
lands) on the promotion of Henry Holbeach from Holbeach,
Rochester in the first year of Edward's reign. Strype LJnooin°*
informs us that thirty -four rich manors belonging to
that see were alienated in his time, " though not by
his fault." ^ Of Exeter, too, when Coverdale was
made bishop in Voysey's place, " the bones," according
to Heylyn, " were so clean picked that he could not
easily leave them with less flesh than he found upon
them." The truth is, Voysey was driven to resign
the see on the ground of old age (he was, by his own
account, over eighty-seven years old), after having,
^ See Strype, Eccl. Memorials, II. ii. 264-5. Fuller, writing a century
later, says with charming simplicity : "It seems some legal formalities were
pretended wanting in Gardiner his deprivation ; for in my memory a suit
was commenced to overthrow a long lease made by Bishop Poinet (Gardiner's
successor in Winchester) on this point, that Gardiner still remained lawful
Bishop ; but nothing therein was effected." The practical effect of a suit
touching private interests so long after Gardiner's deprivation does not con
cern us. But that the point could be raised even then is very significant.
See Fuller's Church Hist. (ed. Brewer) iv. 60. As to Ponet, it is character
istic to find that in 1547 he was instrumental, as one of the canons of Christ-
church, Canterbury, in taking down out of the church a pix of gold and a
crucifix of silver, to be converted into money for the repair of their house.
The crucifix had already been sold when the dean and chapter received order
from the Council to take back the pix with its "pearls and stones counter
feited," 364 oz. in weight, and keep it safe in the church. Dasent, ii. 139.
" Eccl. Memorials, II. ii. 168.

256 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
at the King's request, alienated the fee-simple of a
number of manors, and the reversion of certain
episcopal rents reserved to him for life, leaving a
revenue of £485 : 9 : 3j only,^ though the bishopric
was valued in 1535 at £1566 : 14:6^. In considera
tion of which great diminution of the emoluments,
Coverdale was only charged £50 a year for tenths.^
Perhaps a Church gains spiritually by spoliation.
But what does the fact say for the nation itself and
its rulers ? One thing is clear as to the time at which
we have now arrived. Subordination of the Church
to royal power having been already established by
Henry VIIL, the progressive principle under royal
supremacy had beaten the conservative principle out
of the field. Conservative bishops were one and all
imprisoned, and Cranmer had now the direction of
Church policy, because royal supremacy with a boy
king was virtually the supremacy of the Archbishop of
Cranmer's Canterbury. And what were Cranmer's views as to
nrtTonli" ^^® essential principles of the Church at large and the
Church, government of a national Church ? The nationality
of a Church and its geographical limitations did not
cut it off, in his view, from communion with other
Churches abroad, provided they agreed with England
in rejecting papal supremacy ; and, as we have seen,
he was most anxious to establish a true Catholicity
by the aid and advice of foreign Reformers. On the
other hand, there were serious stumbling-blocks in
the way of a progressive policy ; for he could fix
nothing as a basis but he was met by a more pro
gressive policy still.
So the final defeat of Gardiner — if that could be
called a defeat which was simply an unjust sentence
with imprisonment and elimination from all possible
councils in Church and State — did little to secure the
smooth working of a new Church policy. To what
lengths the Reformers were advancing we learn best
1 Rymer, xv. 282. 2 lb. xv. 286-8.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 257
from their own words. Here is John Hooper, one of Favour
the two London clergymen who had denounced their j^^^" *°
own bishop, Bonner, to the Government in September Hooper.
1549 for his accidental omission, in preaching, to set
forth that the fulness of the King's authority was
unimpaired by the fact of his tender years. In
reward for this service he had been appointed by
Cranmer to answer his bishop's sermon at Paul's
Cross,^ the Protector Somerset having already made
him his chaplain. On the Protector's fall he was
not unnaturally anxious lest Bonner should be re
stored to his bishopric. But so entirely did Warwick
foUow up the policy of Somerset that next year Hooper
was made a Lent preacher, and shortly afterwards —
actually — a bishop. That he should have reached
such a position was indeed a strange thing, consider
ing how much he had done in defiance of episcopacy.
Nor did he really for his part covet it ; on the con
trary, he strongly objected to it at first, but it
suited the higher powers to promote him. Moreover,
well as he stood with them, he was not in favour
with the general public ; for so his own words testify.
Writing at the end of March to BuUinger, after he
had only been a year in England, he says : "I have
not yet visited my native place " (he was a Somerset
shire man), " being prevented, partly by the danger
of the rebellion and tumult in those quarters, and
partly by the command of the King that I should
advance the Elingdom of Christ here at London ; nor,
indeed, am I yet able to stir even a single mile from
the city without a numerous attendance." Was he
favoured by the Government with an armed guard ?
A httle further on he says : —
But there has lately been appointed a new bishop of
London, a pious and learned man, if only his new dignity
' " Item, the xxii. of the same monyth [September] the byshoppe of
Cauntorbery caused Hopper to preche at PowUes Crosse, and there he spake
mooh agayne the byshope of London." — Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 63.
VOL. Ill S

258 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
do not change his conduct. He will, I hope, destroy the
altars of Baal, as he did heretofore iu his church when he
was bishop of Rochester. I can scarcely express to you, my
very dear friend, under what difficulties and dangers we are
labouring and strugghng that the idol of the mass may be
thrown out. It is no small hindrance to our exertions that
the form which our Senate, or Parhament (as we commonly
call it) has prescribed for the whole realm is so very defective
and of doubtful construction, and in some respects, indeed,
manifestly impious. ... I am so much offended with that
book, and that not without abundant reason, that if it be not
corrected, I neither can nor will communicate with the Church
in the admniistration of the [Lord's] supper. ^
Surely it was a most extraordinary thing to make
an unpopular clergyman bishop in a Church whose
appointed ritual he abhorred as " manifestly impious " !
But as he hated popery still more, and was a man of
undoubted spiritual vigour, the rulers of England set
much store by his services and promoted him against
his will. Later on in the same letter he speaks as
emphatically about the new ordinal, just published,
as he had just done against the book of Common
Prayer. "I have sent it," he tells BuUinger, "to
Master Butler, that you may know their fraud and
artifices, by which they promote the kingdom of
Antichrist, especially in the form of the oath ; against
which form I brought forth many objections in my
public lecture before the King and the nobility of the
realm ; on which account I have incurred no small
hostiUty. On the fourth day after the lecture an
accusation was brought against me before the Council
by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I appeared before
them. The Archbishop spoke against me with great
severity on account of my having censured the form
of the oath. I entreated the judges to hear with
impartiality upon what authority I had done so.
The question was long and sharply agitated between
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 79.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 259
the bishops and myself; but at length the end and
issue was for the glory of God." ^
This honest, but vehement, man had triumphed,
even over Archbishop Cranmer, nearly two months
before his nomination to a bishopric, which cost him
further struggles. But he believed that his own
valour as a disputant had also been effective to some Hooper
extent with Cranmer's chief opponent ; and whether Q^rdiaer
he was right in this or not, his words deserve to be
noted. For he says in the very same letter : —
The Bishops of Winchester, London, and Worcester are
still in confinement, and maintain the popish doctrines with
all their might. The Bishop of Winchester, who is a prisoner
in the Tower of London, came forward and challenged me to
a disputation about a month since. He doubtless assured
himself of a glorious victory; which should he fail in obtaining,
he would submit himself to the laws and to the King for
punishment. The keeper of the prison had at first accepted
the conditions. The day was fixed. But when the Bishop
knew for certain that 1 would not shrink from that duty,
but that I would firmly maintain the best of causes, even at
the pern of my life, he changed his mind and said that if
the King would set him at liberty he would take his part in
a disputation, in full rehance on the help of God that he
should obtain the victory. What will at length be done I
know not. Meantime let us pray that God may be present
with us, and that we may fearlessly advance His glory.
This incident does not seem to have been noted
hitherto ; but it really has some significance. It
may seem strange indeed that Gardiner should have
challenged such a one as Hooper to a disputation ;
but there were reasons for it. First of all, as we
shall see presently, he had known Hooper of old and
had sought to preserve him from heretical tendencies
before he went abroad. Yet in 1547, while staying
with BuUinger at Zurich, Hooper had published
there an answer to a book of his which appeared the
year before, entitled A Detection of the Devil's
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 81.

26o LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
Sophistry, wherewith he robbeth the unlearned of
the true belief in the most blessed Sacrament of the
Altar. And now Hooper had come home and,
fortified at first by the patronage of Somerset, had
made himself conspicuous by his opposition to
Bonner. But the Protector had since fallen from
power; and Gardiner, even in prison, had been
fondly indulging the hope that the new Government
would no longer favour heretics so much. His
challenge to Hooper, which the latter dates " about
a month since " in the above extract, should by that
reckoning have been in February 1550 ; and no doubt
he felt it a positive duty to caU to account in some
way one whom he knew so well to be a promoter of
unorthodox views about the Eucharist. We may,
however, take with a grain of salt Hooper's suggestion
that Gardiner shrank from the encounter when he
found Hooper prepared for it. He was in prison
while Hooper was free ; he had no liberty to turn
up books and exhibit authorities on his side. The
logical disputation was postponed, and we may be
pretty sure did not take place at all ; but certainly
not owing to Gardiner's fear of his opponent.
Hooper's Of Hoopcr's early history we know several matters
h^tory which are undoubtedly true, but which it is difficult
to relate accurately because we have no exact clue
to their chronological sequence. And it is best to
begin with his own account of himself written to
BuUinger, evidently at the beginning of their corre
spondence, probably in the year 1546, where we read
as follows : —
Not many years since, most honored master and much
loved brother in Christ, when I was a courtier and hving
too much of a court hfe in the palace of our King, there
most happily and auspiciously came under my notice certain
writings of Master Huldrich Zwinghus, a most excellent
man, of pious memory, and also some commentaries upon the
Epistles of St. Paul which your reverence had pubhshed for

cH.n THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 261
the general benefit, and which will prove a lasting monument
of your renovm. These singular gifts of God exhibited by
you to the world at large I was unwilling to neglect, especiaUy
as I perceived them seriously to affect the eternal salvation
and happiness of my soul ; and therefore I thought it worth
my while, night and day, with earnest study and an almost
superstitious dihgence, to devote my entire attention to your
writings. Nor was my labour in this respect ever grievous
to me. Por after I had arrived at manhood, and, by the
kindness of my father, enjoyed the means of living more
unrestrainedly, foUowing the evil ways of my forefathers,
I had begun to blaspheme God by impious worship and all
manner of idolatry, before I certainly knew what God was.
But being at length delivered by the goodness of God, for
which I am solely indebted to Him and to you, nothing now
remains for me, as regards the future of my hfe and my
final destiny but to worship God with a pure mind, etc.^
Here we have undoubtedly an excellent account
of the man, showing plainly enough the motive
power of his thought and action during the whole
remainder of his career. But what were his be
ginnings ? He is commonly said to have been born
in the end of the fifteenth century, and there was
certainly a " John Hoper " who took a B.A. degree
at Oxford in 1519.^ These things by themselves
fit together very well, and there is no doubt that he
did take a degree at Oxford, and that he was an
excellent scholar. The name, moreover, was spelt
indifferently Hoper, Hopper, or Howper, even by
himself, quite as often as Hooper. But if this
graduate were the man we speak of, he had arrived
at manhood before 1519, which is not what we
should naturally suppose from the above letter
written seven -and -twenty years later. It is true
the words at the beginning, " Not many years since,"
do not necessarily apply to all that follows ; but we
should hardly imagine from the passage that he had
1 Original Letters (Parker Soc), Letter xxi. Cp. original in Epistolae
Tigurinae. I have altered a word or two in the translation.
^ Boase's Register of the University of Oxford, i. 108.

262 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
reached manhood more than a quarter of a century
before. However, there is another positive fact to
be noted. He was at one time a Cistercian monk ;
and though we do not know when he entered the
Order, we can tell pretty surely when he left it.
For it appears by the sentence pronounced upon him
in Mary's time that he had belonged to the small
Cistercian monastery of Cleeve in Somersetshire,^
which was one of the houses dissolved by Parliament
among the smaller monasteries in 1536.
Now his words to BuUinger not only do not
mention his ever having been a monk at all, but
would rather suggest that he never had been one.
For they tell us that on attaining manhood he
obtained from his father the means of living at ease ;
and this is the time that we should naturally suppose
that he took to a Court life. But here again comes
a difficulty, or rather more than one. For the
writings of Zwingli and BuUinger would certainly
not have induced him to desert the Court for a
monastery ; and, moreover, those of BuUinger referred
to could hardly have been obtainable in England
before his monastic life was ended. ^ Possibly the
truth is that he did go to Court soon after attaining
manhood ; that afterwards, taking a serious turn, he
returned to his native Somersetshire and entered the
monastery of Cleeve ; and that again, after the dis
solution of that monastery, he relapsed for a while
into worldliness, from which he was reclaimed by the
study of Zwingli and BulUnger's writings.
Next we find him at Oxford, according to Foxe,'
"about the beginning of the Six Articles" — that is
to say, in 1539 or next year. He had returned to
1 See Strype's Eccl. Mem., III. pt. ii. No. xxviii.
* BuUinger had published a commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (printed by Froschover) in 1534, on the Second in 1535. Of
these thfere are copies in the Bodleian Library. But Hooper probably in
speaking of his Commentaria in Paulinas Epistolas was referring to the
edition of his commentaries "in omnes Apostolicas Epistolas" printed by
Froschover in 1539. ^ Acts and Mon. vi. 637.

cii.ii THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 263
his university probably before the Act passed, and
Oxford was no longer a comfortable place for him.
Dr. Smith was active in behalf of the law, and
Hooper found it advisable to leave. He became
steward to Sir Thomas Arundel, who had a personal
liking for him, but did not like his tendencies in
reUgion. Hoping to correct these he sent him on a
message to Bishop Gardiner. But a four or five
days' conference with the Bishop had no effect, and
Gardiner sent him back again to Sir Thomas, com
mending his learning but not his theology. Soon
after he found it advisable to escape abroad ; but
after a brief stay at Paris he came back to England,
and was retained for a time by a Master Sentlow.
But again being in danger, " he was compelled," says Hooper's
Foxe, " under the pretence of being a captain of a "Adventures.
ship going to Ireland, to take the seas. And so
escaped he (although not without extreme peril of
drowning) through France to the higher parts of
Germany." ^ Once abroad, he first corresponded with
BuUinger, as we have seen ; and BuUinger dissuaded
him strongly fi:om going back once more to his
country and kin, even for a time, to secure some part
of his property,^ lest he should " participate in the
ungodly worship of the mass." No doubt the struggle
in his own mind was acute. He was an only son,
and his father was set against him if he would
not conform to the ordinary religion. He remained
abroad, and after staying some time at Strassburg
he went to Zurich and made BulUnger's personal
acquaintance. He also married, while abroad, a
" Burgonian " lady (a Fleming, it would seem) and
appUed himself studiously to Hebrew.^
He remained abroad, as his letters show, till the His return
sprmg of 1549, when he reached London, fuU of*°^°siand
Swiss doctrine, which, he painfully felt, there were
^ Acts and Mon. vi. 637.
2 Original Letters (Parker Soc), pp. 34, 40. " Foxe, u.s.

tures
St. Paul's,

264 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
few who could venture to propagate in England.
" Such," he wrote to BuUinger, " is the maliciousness
and wickedness of the Bishops that the godly and learned
men who would willingly labour in the Lord's harvest
are hindered by them ; and they neither preach
themselves nor allow the liberty of preaching to
others. For this reason there are some persons who
read and expound the Holy Scriptures at a public
lecture, two of whom read in St. Paul's cathedral
four times a week. I myself, too, as my slender
abilities will allow me, having compassion upon the
His "lee- ignoraucc of my brethren, read a public lecture twice
in the day to so numerous an audience that the
church cannot contain them." ^ There is an un
doubted interest in watching the early stages of modern
pulpit eloquence. Hooper, indeed, is not at liberty
to preach in St. Paul's, but lectures there to such an
audience as the church cannot contain ! This is
pretty well for a newly-returned exile who had fled
abroad to avoid prosecution for heresy ; and Bonner
was his Bishop ! We are told, moreover, that he
did preach " most times twice, at least once, a day,
and never failed." ^ We can very well understand
how a clergyman who had such an opinion of " the
maliciousness and wickedness of the Bishops"
generally had a dislike of his own diocesan in
particular, and had no strong feeUng of the virtue
of canonical obedience. His case surely gives point
to the complaint of the bishops in ParUament referred
to in the last chapter, which was made at the end of
this year. In Hooper they saw a clergyman, now a
member of the Protector Somerset's household, who,
relying on such patronage (while his brethren gener
ally were tongue-tied by edicts), had just denounced
his own bishop, and succeeded in getting him
' Original Letters, p. 65.
^ Foxe, vi. 639. So also says Martin Micronius, writing from London to
BuUinger in September 1549 : " He lectures at least once a day ; more
frequently two or three times." — Original Letters, p. 557.

CH. II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 265
deprived for not having completely fulfilled some
arbitrary injunctions laid upon him as regards his
preaching. But as he considered his own bishop to
be " the most bitter enemy of the Gospel," ^ he was
not sorry to be instrumental in putting him down.
Well, this is the sort of man wanted now by the
Government of the day to put the Church of Eng- Hooper
land under suitable control, and so they seek to make "te^OTCTa.
him a bishop in spite of the opposition of almost all ment.
other bishops.^ He wUl no doubt co-operate with
Ridley in " destroying the altars of Baal," and
replacing them by communion tables, and he will
do other things besides in a very thorough fashion —
at least if you can get him to accept the episcopal
office at all .; for in his view the new ordinal prescribed
by Parliament is "manifestly impious" in some
points. It is a thing he hates quite as much as
old Catholic-minded bishops do, considering it a
product of " fraud and artifice," tending to " promote
the Kingdom of Antichrist " — in short, an attempted
compromise with Rome, although Rome disowns it.
Strange as it may be to make such a man a bishop,
his fervour is valuable as against Rome, and he can
actually fill St. Paul's with men come to hear his
sermons or lectures. If we want to justify the
imprisonment of Gardiner, and Bonner, and Heath,
and Day, and Tunstall, this is clearly the man for
us, and we must even humour his eccentricities a
little to get him into the episcopal chair. For " the
people in great flocks and companies daUy came
to hear his voice, as the most melodious sound and
tune of Orpheus' harp, as the proverb saith ; insomuch
that oftentimes when he was preaching the church
would be so full that none could enter further than
' Original Letters, p. 69.
^ So we are told by John ab LTlmis, writing from Oxford, 28th May 1550,
and he says it was the Duke of Somerset's influence that carried the day
(Original Letters, p. 419). Very likely. Somerset was his old patron, and
was now in the Council again. Warwick, no doubt, approved without being
quite so fervent.

266 LOLLARDY AND THE REP^ORMATION bk.vi
the doors thereof" So says our Martyrologist.^ And
even while he was alive, Dr. Richard Smith, who did
not mean to praise him, wrote that " he was so
admired by the people that they held him for a
prophet ; nay, they looked upon him as some deity." ^
There are at all times, and in all countries, plenty of
Athenians who desire to hear " some new thing," and
surely this was something new when a clergyman
opposed to all existing authority in the Church
was favoured with the use of large churches by the
authorities of the land to denounce the principles
that half the clergy, and probably more than half the
nation, held by still !
The bishopric of Gloucester had become void at
the end of the year 1549 by the death of its first
incumbent, the last Abbot of Tewkesbury. On Easter
Monday, 7th AprU 1 550, it was offered to Hooper by the
Lord Chancellor, the see of Rochester being at the same
Hooper's time offered to Ponet. " On many accounts I declined
scruples, mine," wrote Hooper himself to BuUinger, " both by
reason of the shameful and impious form of the oath
which all who choose to undertake the function of a
bishop are compelled to put up with, and also on
account of those Aaronic habits which they stUl retain
in that calling, and are used to wear, not only at the
administration of the Sacraments, but also at public
prayers." He had an objection, likewise, to the tonsure
still in use, but this was not insisted on by the
Council^ His other scruples were not so easily met.
The King himself inquired about them, and on
Ascension Day (15th May) he was called before the
CouncU to justify them, when, after much discussion,
it was agreed to reUeve him at least from the necessity
of taking the oath.* The result is stated in a minute
of the CouncU held that day : " Mr. Hoper was consti
tuted Bishop of Gloucester." ^ This being apparently
^ Foxe, vi. 639. ^ See Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, II. i. 66.
^ Original Letters, pp. 87, 187, 559, 665.
¦• Ib. pp. 87, 410. ¦> Dasent, iii, 31.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 267
settled, he had the satisfaction, for the first time
since his return to England, of revisiting his native
district, though he was bound to return to London
to receive consecration before going to his bishopric.''
But the Council had gone beyond its powers in
promising to relieve him from taking the statutory
oath, for they could not thus alter a legal obligation.
The bishopric was indeed conferred upon Hooper by
patent (according to the new mode of episcopal
appointments) on the 3rd July following, but the
question stUl remained whether his exemption from
taking the oath could be legally justified. The form
of words was, " So help me God, all Saints, and the
Holy Evangelists." ^ Hooper was firm in his refusal
to swear by God's creatures as well as by Himself
He appeared before the King in Council on the
20th July, and succeeded in convincing his young
Sovereign that the oath should be taken in the name
of God only, so that Edward with his own pen struck
out the objectionable words,* and the royal youth
wrote in his Journal, under that date, " Hooper was
made Bishop of Gloucestre."''
Warwick accordingly gave Hooper a letter to
deliver to the Primate, desiring indulgence for him
in the King's name. " The matter," he said, " is
weighed by his Highness none other but that your
Grace may fairly condescend unto. The principal
cause is that you would not charge this said bearer
with an oath burdensome to his conscience." This
letter was dated on the 23rd July,^ and, as far as
the oath was concerned, may perhaps have lessened
Cranmer's difficulty. But even this was a doubtful
warrant, and Cranmer referred the bearer to the
Bishop of London. Hooper, moreover, had another
scruple not so easily dealt with, on which he had
' Original Letters, p. 566. ^ See Wilkins, iv. 67.
* Original Letters, pp. 566-7.
* Nichols's Lit. Rem. of Edward VI. p. 284. Cp. Original Letters, p. 566.
* Foxe, vi. 641.

268 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
to make further application to the King, and what
followed will be seen by the report of his sympathiser,
Martin Micronius, writing to BuUinger within a month
after the facts : —
On the 30th July Hooper obtained leave from the King
and his Council to be consecrated by the Bishop of London
Hooper (Ridley) without any superstition. He repUed that he would
ffidif '^^°^ shortly make an answer, either to the Council or to Hooper.
While, therefore. Hooper was expecting the Bishop's answer,
the latter went to Court and alienated the minds of the
Council from Hooper, making hght of the use of the vest
ments and the like in the church, and calhng them mere
matters of indifference. Many were so convinced by him
that they would hardly hsten to Hooper's defence when he
came into Court shortly after. He therefore requested them
that if they would not hear him speak they would at least
think proper to hear and read his written apology. His
request was granted. Wherefore he dehvered to the King's
CounciUors, in writing, his opinion respecting the discontinu
ance of the use of the vestments and the hke puerihties.
And if the Bishop cannot satisfy the King with other reasons.
Hooper will gain the victory. We are daily expecting the
termination of this controversy, which is only conducted
between individuals, either by conference or by letter, for
fear of any tumult being excited among the ignorant. You
see in what a state the affairs of the Church would be if
they were left to the Bishops, even to the best of them.^
Nothing surely is more refreshing, or more iUumi-
nating in an historical point of view, than to read the
sanguine and sympathetic statement of a thorough
partizan in a matter like this. Micronius was well
aware that he was speaking the sentiments of a smaU
minority which might excite " tumult among the
ignorant " if they were too much ventilated ; and he
relied on the wisdom of the young King and his
Council to release Hooper from the bondage of mere
" puerilities." He never thought of releasing Hooper's
mind from the bondage of puerile objections to them.
But let us look at the facts thus revealed, as far as
^ Original Letters, p. 567.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 269
they had gone before the 28th August, when Micro
nius wrote. The above passage tells us nothing,
by itself, of the attitude of Cranmer who was to be
Hooper's chief consecrator, but only of that of Ridley,
who evidently from the first was a much more formid
able obstacle to Hooper's demands being accepted.
And knowing what we do of Cranmer, we may well
believe, what indeed a previous passage in the same
letter shows,^ that he was a good deal less ready than
other bishops to insist on some objections to the
King's will which were probably not absent even
from his oivn mind. For the Primate himself could
hardly relax the law as to the form of consecration
without making himself liable to a praemunire if
at some future date affairs should take a new turn.
At aU events, the Council saw that it was necessary
to give some kind of assurance on this head ; and on
the 5th August they sent a letter, signed by six
of their leading members, to the Archbishop and
the other bishops who were to join in the Act, a
dispensation to secure them against " all manner of
dangers, penalties and forfeitures " which they might
incur by omitting those rights and ceremonies that
offended Hooper's conscience.^ This again Cranmer
may have been willing to accept as sufficient ; but
not so Ridley, whose action in the matter is described
above. Our next information is that on the 6th
October the Privy Council at Richmond, having pre
viously (so we seem compelled to construe an ill-
worded minute) written to Bishop Ridley with a view
to the pacification of controversies, he appeared before
them and asked leave to put in writing his reasons
^ Hooper had first, according to Micronius, obtained a letter from the
King to the Archbishop ' ' that he might be consecrated without super
stition." This was just after the King had with his own hand struck out
the objectionable words in the oath. "But he (Hooper) gained nothing
by this, " it is added, " as he was referred from the Archbishop of Canterbury
to the Bishop of London, who refused to use any other form of consecration
than that which had been prescribed by parliament." The question was
simply about obeying an Act of Parliament, or disobeying it to please a
king in his teens. ^ Foxe, vi. 640.

270 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
for not yielding to Hooper's objections ; and, this
being granted, he was commanded to repair to Court
with his answer on Sunday following (which would
be the 12th).-^ We know not what passed in the
interval, but both Ridley and Hooper were at Court
the next Sunday again (the 19th), and there was
a violent collision between them, in which Ridley,
according to Micronius, loaded his opponent with the
greatest insults.^
The situation was an awkward one ; for neither
Bucer party would give way. Hooper appealed to Bucer
amd Peter a,nd Peter Martyr for their advice. Both sympathised
advise with him to some extent, wishing the garments to
Helper to ^jjig]! '^q objected had not been imposed by law.
But both were of opinion that they were things
indifferent, which might be enjoined by law without
offence to God ; and Bucer even admitted to Cranmer
that to declare them unlawful or refuse to wear them
as enjoined was to sin against both God and the civil
ruler. ^ As to sacerdotal garments being a mark of
Judaism, Peter Martyr remarked that even the first
Council at Jerusalem ordained some things of Judaic
institution, such as abstaining from blood and things
strangled, to avoid giving ofience. Moreover, tithes
were also a part of the Mosaic law ; and the Christian
festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide were grounded,
to some extent, on Jewish ordinances. Martyr also
combated many other arguments of Hooper, whUe
Bucer expressed his regret that he should take
exception to things immaterial while there was a
multitude of much more serious abuses to remedy in
England. Erroneous belief and Ucentiousness, Uttle
restrained at the universities ; holy rites like baptism
and marriage administered without due seriousness;
the Lord's Supper almost undistinguishable from the
Mass, except that the words were in English ; lack of
' Dasent, iii. 136. ^ Original Letters, p. 573.
^ Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, bk. ii. ch. xvii.; Strype's Eccl. Mem.
II. pt. ii., Rep. of Originals, LL, MM, NN (pp. 444-65).

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 271
pastoral care, of catechising, of private admonitions,
or of public censures ; indiscriminate admission to
communion ; little provision for the poor ; abuse of
churches as places for commerce and amusement ;
showiness in dress with vanity of gold and jewels ;
and together with these things, a sad want of dis
cipline, the parent of them all, — such were the
matters that required most amendment from Bucer's
point of view.^
There was only one divine of note in England who
supported Hooper in this matter, and he was a but John
foreigner — one of the many whom Cranmer had ^ ^'^"^
1 -r-iTl 111- • r> supports
attracted to England to help him m conference as his
to the dogmatic basis of a national Church. This "Ejections.
was John a Lasco, a learned Pole of noble birth who
appears at one time to have been nominated Bishop
of Veszprim in Hungary, but owing doubtless to the
troubles of that country and his own change of
religion, could never have been consecrated.^ In his
earlier days he was a Mend both of Erasmus and of
Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer. He afterwards married
at Mainz, and then became superintendent of the
Reformed Churches of Friesland — Reformed, but not
Lutheran in doctrine. From Emden, where his cure
lay, he came to England for a visit on Cranmer's
invitation in 1548, but afterwards to settle in the
spring of 1550. He arrived on the 13th May,^ and
it was not long before he took up an important
position in London. He obtained letters of deniza
tion for himself and his family on the 27th June,
and on the 24th July he procured a foundation
charter granting the church of the late Austin Friars
to a community of Germans and other foreigners in
London, of which he was named superintendent.*
Under him were appointed two ministers, of whom
one was Martin Micronius, a notable preacher ; four
1 Collier's Eccl. Hist. r. 388-92. ^ See English Historical Review, xi. 105.
s Original Letters, p. 560. * Wilkins, iv. 64.

272 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
elders, one of whom was the no less notable John
Utenhovius ; and four deacons, ordained in ApostoUc
fashion, to see to the poor. This community was
largely composed of Dutchmen who had fled to
England from the Spanish Inquisition, just introduced
into the Netherlands, and being in constant corre
spondence with BuUinger, they sympathised with
Hooper as no others did. Their letters patent, granted
by the King and Council, exempted them entirely
from the jurisdiction of the bishops. Ridley, as
Bishop of London, did not like their immunity, as it
was naturally an encroachment on his proper sphere
of action ; but they received great encouragement
from Cranmer, who was noted as " the special patron
of foreigners." ^
As to Hooper, though he was made Bishop of
Gloucester by patent in the beginning of July, he
remained unconsecrated all the rest of the year.
Hooper's Loug before the end of the year the CouncU were
obstinacy, ^^j.^^ q£ ji^j^g obstiuacy, especially Warwick ; and
he had given so much offence that but for the
intercession of Cranmer and the Marquis of Dorset
(father of Lady Jane Grey) he would by that
time have been committed to prison. Both Cranmer
and Ridley agreed with him that the habits were
objectionable ; but they felt that they could not be
abolished even by an Order in Council without the
consent of Parliament.^ Hooper, however, main
taining that it was impious and wicked to wear
them, cast aspersions on those who were more com
pliant than himself; and he gave further offence
by writing and publishing a book in defence of
his opinions. His controversy with Ridley still re
mained unsettled until the 13th January 1551, when
we read in the minutes of the Privy CounciP as
follows : —
' Original Letters, pp. 567-8, 570-71.
2 Ib. pp. 426, 486-7, 666-7, 571, 573, 585. » Dasent, iii. 191.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 273
This day Mr. Hoper, Bishop Elect of Gloucester, appeared
before the Council touching his old matter of denial to wear
such apparel as other Bishops wear, and, having been before
commanded to keep his house, unless it were to go to the
Bishop of Canterbury, Ely, London, or Lincoln, for counsel
or satisfaction of his conscience in that matter, and further,
neither to preach or read tUl he had further hcence from the
Council ; it appeared, both that he had not kept his house,
and that he had also written and printed a book wherein
was contained matter that he should not have written ; for
the which, and for that also he persevered in his former
opinion of not wearing the bishop's apparel, he was now
committed to the Bishop of Canterbury's custody, either
there to be reformed or further to be punished as the
obstinacy of his case requireth.
There must be some ultima ratio to end disputes,
even in cases of conscience — nay, of episcopal con
science, if it will not conform to the law of the land.
And exactly a fortnight later we read again in the
minutes : —
Upon a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury that
Mr. Hoper cannot be brought to any conformity, but rather,
persevering in his obstinacy, coveteth to prescribe orders and
laws of his [own] head, it was agreed he should be committed
to the Fleet.
A letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury to send Mr.
Hoper to the Fleet upon the occasion aforesaid.
A letter to the Warden of the Fleet to receive the said
Mr. Hoper, and to keep him from conference with any person,
saving the ministers of that house.^
They were at this time just about to deprive
Gardiner of his bishopric for disobedience such as we
have already related. How could they pardon dis
obedience of a far more unreasonable kind in a bishop
of their own selection ? It seemed as if he must
submit to " popish ceremonies " after all, such as
"that he must carry the bible on his shoulders, and put
on a white vestment, and, thus habited and bearing
1 Dasent, iii. 199, 200 (Acts of 27th Jan. 1551).
VOL. Ill T

274 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
the book, turn himself round three times." ^ If he
would only consent to do things of this sort, he
would at once be liberated. Hooper was left to
meditate upon the situation a little more fully in the
atmosphere of the Fleet ; and his meditations, after
more than a fortnight there, were not unfruitful.
On the 15 th February he addressed a letter to Arch
bishop Cranmer, written in Latin, to the foUowing
effect : —
I am very sorry that I did not satisfy the will of the Lords
of the Council by my writing. Yet I was in hope that by
that writing of mine I had given such satisfaction that they
could demand nothing more of me. For what more could I
do than, my conscience being freed from every scruple
by which it had previously been troubled, refer the judgment
of this question to your Clemency and promise to do what
ever you ordered? I did not wish by that writing to be
contentious, butjonly to purge myself of any imputation of
disobedience and contempt of the King's authority and your
Clemency's ; and it was to that end that I brought in a few
arguments which had hitherto moved me. This also I
wished you to understand, — that I now acknowledge the
liberty of the sons of God in all outward things; which
I neither declare nor feel to be impious in themselves, nor
any use of them to be impious in itself. Only the abuse of
them, a fault that is possible to all men when they are used
superstitiously or otherwise ill, I denounce along with Bucer,
Martyr, and all pious and learned men. But as far as I am
concerned in this matter of the use of garments and rites of
episcopal inauguration, if I stiU at all doubted or hesitated,
yet I should think I fully satisfied every duty of reverence and
obedience if, willing to prefer my own sense and judgment
to all others, I subject myself to the judgment of your
Clemency to do ex animo whatever you judge right. That
is what I meant by my writing ; and now I do and promise
the same. For in this matter I have begun to hold my own
judgment and sense so far suspected that I hold it wiser and
more worthy of Christian humility to stand to, and trust, the
judgment of your Clemency, or of those pious men learned in
the law of God whom you shall name, than merely to my
¦* Original Letters, p. 673.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 275
own. This I do not think is changed in me. I thank your
reverend Clemency that you have deigned to submit to
so much trouble and labour on my account. I beg you will
also intercede with the other lords that they may be content
in the name of Christ, and not think of me as if I did
anything with dissimulation or fear, or for any other cause
except that of the Church. The Lord Jesus is witness, who
knows the secrets of hearts. May He always augment by
his Spirit your reverend Clemency and bless you with all
good things. In prison, 15 Feb. 1551. Your reverence's
most devoted John Hopper^
After all, it may be said in excuse of Hooper's
obstinacy that he was made a bishop against his will
on conditions which he considered were not kept.
But this was hardly a justification. And now he was
compelled, apparently as the price of liberty, to accept
not only the vestments but even the statutory oath to
which he had so much objected ; for it is recorded in
Cranmer's register that at his consecration, on the 8th
March following, he took it with that in vocation of God,
the Saints, and Evangelists,^ which Edward himself
had struck out with his own pen to satisfy him. The
statement in the register may, indeed, be a fictio
juris, for other evidences hardly bear it out. But if
he did not use the unmodified oath, there is no doubt
that he agreed to wear the vestments, and that
he was set at liberty only on promise to do so.
In the words of Foxe : " The bishops having the
upper hand. Master Hooper was fain to agree to this
condition — that sometimes he should in his sermon
show himself apparelled as the other bishops were.
Wherefore, appointed to preach before the King, as
a new player in a strange apparel, he cometh forth
on the stage. His upper garment was a long scarlet
chimere down to the foot, and under that a white
linen rochet that covered all his shoulders. Upon
^ The original Latin text will be found in the Parker Society's edition of
Hooper's Later Writings, Biographical notice, pp. xv. xvi. It may also be
consulted in Durel's Ecclesise Anglicanx Vindiciss, pp. 140-41, where it was
first published. ^ See Wilkins, iv. 67.

276 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
his head he had a geometrical, that is a four-squared
cap, albeit that his head was round. What cause of
shame the strangeness hereof was to that good
preacher, every man may easily judge." ^
Even lay graduates now wear scarlet gowns and
" geometrical " caps, albeit that their heads are round,
and do not look upon it as a cause of shame. The
spirit of LoUardy has lost much of its strength in
the course of centuries. But it was strong among
the English correspondents of BuUinger, and in
the foreign settlement under John a Lasco. John
Utenhovius was grieved to report to BuUinger what
had been the end of Hooper's heroism. "He was
inaugurated," he writes, " in the usual manner, about
the middle of Lent, yet not without the greatest
regret both of myself and of all good men, nor without
affording a most grievous stumbling-block to many
of our brethren — a circumstance that I would not
conceal from you, though, from my affection for
Hooper, I am very unwilling to make the com
munication." ^ He adds that he would rather give
BuUinger the particulars by word of mouth than by
letter ; and indeed, having been unable to despatch
this epistle for four months for want of an opportunity,
he wrote then that he had hesitated much to write
such things of one to whom he felt so kindly. But
as even prophets and apostles had failings, BuUinger
would doubtless bear with the infirmity of a brother
Christian.^ Hooper's mind, however, was satisfied. The
responsibility for those dreadful garments did not
rest with him. After his consecration as bishop he
preached before the King in his scarlet gown ; and
then went down to Gloucester to begin his episcopal
duties.* Hooper's struggle with authority demands special
1 Foxe, vi. 641. « Original Letters, p. 586.
* Ib. p. 588. ¦¦ Ib. p. 271.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 277
notice in Church history. It was quite unprecedented
in character ; but in the days of Elizabeth he had
many followers. He was the beginner of what, by
the commencement of the seventeenth century, and
probably earlier still, had received the name of
Nonconformity. The word, as then used, did not Beginning
mean a separation from the Church of England ; ?o™it7.°"'
for as yet the idea of separate communions was
universally condemned. It meant a protest from
within the Church of England against certain
ordinances laid down by authority, and a refusal to
comply with them. Of course, where there was no
thought of separation on account of difference of
opinions, the contest between those opinions became
all the more acute ; but it could only yield to
authority in the long run if men continued loyal.
Hooper yielded after a protracted fight for liberty.
But in a later age Nonconformists were more
numerous and more difficult to deal with. And
here I cannot forbear from quoting the very appo
site remarks of the lively Church historian Thomas
Fuller, who lived in days when the fruit of Non
conformity was fully developed. It is thus he
writes : —
Alas, that men should have less wisdom than locusts,
which when sent on God's errand, did not thrust one another
[Joel ii. 8] ; whereas here such shoving and shouldering, and
hoisting and heavings, and jostling and thronging, betwixt
clergymen of the highest parts and places ! For now non
conformity in the days of King Edward was conceived, which
afterward in the reign of Queen Mary (but beyond sea, at
Frankfort) was born ; which in the reign of Queen Elizabeth
was nursed and weaned ; which under King James grew up
a young youth or tall stripling ; but towards the end of
King Charles his reign shot up to the full strength and
stature of a man, able not only to cope with, but conquer,
the hierarchy, its adversary.
Two opposite parties now plainly discovered themselves,
driving on different interests under their respective patrons :

278 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi

Founders of Conformity.
i. Such as remained here all
the reign of King Henry the
Eighth, and weathered out the
tempest of his tyranny at open
sea, partly by a politic com
pliance, and partly by a cautious
concealment of themselves.
ii. These in the days of King
Edward the Sixth were possessed
of the best preferments in the
land.

iii. And retained many cere
monies practised in the Romish
Church, conceiving them to be
ancient and decent in them
selves.

iv. The authority of Cranmer
and activity of Eidley headed
this party ; the former being
the highest, the latter the hot
test in defence of conformity.

Founders of Nonconformity.
i. Such as fled hence beyond
the seas, chiefly into Germany,
where, living in states and cities
of popular reformation, they
sucked in both the air and
discipline of the place they
lived in.
ii. These, returning late into
England, were at a loss for
means and maintenance, only
supported with the reputation
of being confessors ; rendering
their patience to the praise,
and their persons to the pity of
all conscientious people.
iii. And renounced all cere
monies practised by the papists,
conceiving that such ought not
only to be clipped with the
shears, but to be shaved with
a razor ; yea, all the stumps
thereof to be plucked out.
iv. John Rogers, lecturer in
St. Paul's and vicar of St.
Sepulchre's, with John Hooper,
afterwards bishop of Gloucester,
were ringleaders of this party.

Hooper',-! But wc must not take the measure of Hooper
his' diocese. ^7 ^^ narrow-mindcdncss, which even his letter of
submission seems to show that he was outgrowing.
Being now consecrated as bishop, he went down
to his diocese, where he certainly did a very great
work. Here we may well believe the words of
Foxe : " No father in his household, no gardener in
his garden, nor husbandman in his vineyard was
more or better occupied than he in his diocese
among his flock, going about his towns and villages
in teaching and preaching to the people there. That
time he had to spare from preaching he bestowed,
either in hearing public causes, or else in private
study, prayer, and visiting of schools. With his

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 279
continual doctrine he adjoined due and discreet
correction, not so much severe to any as to them
which, for abundance of riches and wealthy state,
thought they might do what they Usted. And
doubtless he spared no kind of people, but was
indifferent to all men, as well rich as poor, to the
great shame of no small number of men nowadays ;
whereof many we see so addicted to the pleasing of
great and rich men, that in the meantime they have
no regard to the meaner sort of people, whom Christ
hath bought as dearly as the other." ^
Nor can we doubt the justice of the same writer's
commendation of the way he governed his family,
" insomuch that ye could not discern whether he
deserves more praise for his fatherly usage at home,
or for his bishop-like doings abroad." And an inter
esting anecdote of Foxe's own experience here deserves
notice as regards his later bishopric of Worcester.
" Twice," he says, " I was, as I remember, in his
house in Worcester, where, in his common hall, I saw
a table spread with good store of meat, and beset full
of beggars and poor folk ; and, I asking his servants
what this meant, they told me that every day their
lord and master's manner was, to have customably to
dinner a certain number of poor folk of the said city
by course, who were served by four at a mess with
hot and wholesome meats ; and when they were
served (being before examined, by him or his deputies,
of the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of their Faith, and
[the] Ten Commandments), then he himself sat down
to dinner, and not before." ^
But of his religious activity as bishop in his diocese
of Gloucester we have still better evidence than the
words of an admiring contemporary. For he was not
long settled before he began a visitation there with His visita-
very remarkable results. He passed his own clergy Gloucester.
through the same examination in all the deaneries of
^ Acts and Mon., vi. 643-4. 2 /j_ p, 644.

280 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
Gloucester that he afterwards caused the poor men
whom he feasted at Worcester to go through. Each
of the resident clergy was required to answer three
questions upon the Ten Commandments, three upon
the Christian Faith (or the Apostles' Creed), and
three upon the Lord's Prayer. And an exact record
of the answers of each to all the questions has been
preserved. The answers elicited are certainly amaz
ing, and leave no doubt that there had been sad lack
of episcopal supervision in times past. The number
of clergy examined amounted in all to 311, there
being besides sixty -two incumbents, who were mostly
pluralists and non-residents. Of the 311 examined,
171 were found unable to repeat the Ten Command
ments, though all but thirty-three of them could tell
the book and chapter in which they were contained.
Ten were unable to repeat the Lord's Prayer, twenty-
seven could not tell who was its author, and thirty
could not tell where it was to be found. Yet some
of these could repeat the words of the Prayer without
being able to tell who its author was, or where it
was to be sought for. A mere parrot utterance of the
Paternoster had sufficed, it seems, for some beneficed
clergymen. There was scarcely one man utterly un
able to repeat the Articles of the Creed, though six
did so imperfectly ; but very few were able to do
what Hooper thought highly important — prove the
truth of them by Scripture. Perhaps the most curi
ous answer given to any of the questions was one
about the Lord's Prayer. John Dumbell, vicar of
South Cerney (a living in the patronage of the Bishop,
so he probably owed his preferment to Hooper's im
mediate predecessor Wakeman, the first bishop of the
see), could repeat the Prayer, and knew it was the
Lord's Prayer, " because it was delivered by our Lord
the King and written in the King's Book of Common
Prayer ! " '
' See English Historical Review, xix. 98-121, for the whole visitation.

CH. II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 281
The prevalence of such dense ignorance among the
clergy must have been due to two causes — not only
to gross abuse of the rights of patronage, but also
to extreme laxity of supervision on the part of the
bishops. Gloucester, indeed, was a new diocese
carved by Henry VIII. out of the diocese of Worce
ster ; and Worcester may have suffered special
neglect before the day that Latimer was made bishop
there, sixteen years earlier than Hooper, from having
been held a long time by two successive Italian
bishops of the same family who lived continually at
Rome. But absentee bishops had always vicars-
general in England ; and we cannot feel by any means
certain that the state of other dioceses was not just
as bad. If so, more than a twelfth of the rural clergy
in England were to all intents and purposes pagans,
quite unable to instruct the people, because they were
not instructed themselves. And when it is noted
that some of these unsatisfactory clergymen owed
their preferment not to lay but to episcopal patron
age, we see evidence of a state of matters altogether
deplorable, which Hooper set himself manfuUy to
correct. We are accustomed to dwell upon the corruptions corrup-
of the Church of Rome as very strong arguments ^!™'°J ^'j**
in justification of the Reformation. It would, per- Rome.
haps, be better to say that those corruptions made
the Reformation inevitable as soon as the time
came when it was possible for some one or other,
strong tyrant or perfervid friar, backed by worldly
princes, to make a breach in an established system
which had the sanction of general support for cen
turies. The system, indeed, was a wonderful one ;
it is wonderfully perfect still, if it were only as truly
CathoUc as it professes to be. Many are caught by
its theoretical perfection, and go over to join its
communion for that very reason. Protestantism, as
opposed to it, seems weak, broken up into a number

282 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
of sects which certainly cannot all be right, as their
principles are opposed to each other ; and the Church
of England itself confesses once a year to the loss of
a godly discipline, for which a poor substitute is
found in a "commination service," attended by, per
haps, three or four out of a hundred parishioners.
But the most perfect machinery will not work well if
it is allowed to rust ; and the most perfect system
will not save society if there is no power anywhere
to enforce its principles. The abuses and corruptions
of the Church of Rome, so far as discipline was con
cerned, were lamented by the best and most loyal
sons of the Church all through the Middle Ages.
We have seen how they were deplored by Gascoigne
in the fifteenth century.^ They were admitted by
Dean Colet,^ who, however, saw no remedy except in
the better enforcement of laws long ago laid down
by the Church herself. They were tacitly confessed
even by Sir Thomas More ; only it was time for him
to speak in another tone when he saw the system
itself in danger, on which, as he considered, the whole
weal of Christendom depended. But the egg was
broken now, — even the yolk was running out ; and
the real safety of Christendom depended on a just
respect for secular power, which knew how to make
itself obeyed in matters wherein it deserved obedi
ence. As to other matters, if it was tyrannical, men
could only testify against wrong by suffering in
patience. Another visitation made at this time by a bishop
1 Vol. I. pp. 247-64.
^ See his Convocation Sermon printed by Lupton at the end of his lAfe,
App. C, especially pp. 299, 300: " The way whereby the Church may be
reformed into better fashion is not for to make new laws. For there be laws
many enough and out of number, as Solomon saith nothing is new under
the sun. For the evils that are now in the Church were before in time past ;
and there is no fault but that Fathers have provided very good remedies for
it. There are no trespasses but that there be laws against them in the Canon
Law. Therefore it is no need that new laws and constitutions be made, but
that those that are made already be kept. Wherefore in this your assembly
let those laws that are made be called before you and rehearsed, — those laws,
I say, that restrain vice and those that further virtue. "

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 283
of the Reformation Church has come down to us ;
and it shows that, while Bishop Ridley in London Ridley -.s
took a somewhat different line from that of Hooper "j^Londm,
at Gloucester, he was no less vigorous in his way.
The documents preserved concerning this visitation
are two : first, the " Articles to be enquired of," and
second, the Injunctions given by the Bishop. A few
extracts from the Articles, with a little general descrip
tion of those passed over, may suffice to show their
character : —
Articles to be enquired of in the visitation of the diocese
of London by the Reverend Father in God, Nicholas Bishop
of London in the fourth year of our Sovereign Lord King
Edward VI., etc.
Whether your curates and ministers be of that conversa
tion of living that worthily they can be reprehended of no
man? Whether your curates and ministers do haunt and resort
to taverns or alehouses, otherwise than for their honest neces
sity, there to drink and riot, or to play at unlawful games ?
Whether your ministers be common brawlers, sowers of
discord rather than charity among their parishioners, hawkers,
hunters, or spending their time idly, or coming to their
benefice by simony ?
Whether your ministers, or any other persons, have com
mitted adultery, fornication, incest, bawdry, or to be vehe
mently suspected of the same, common drunkards, scolds, or
be common swearers or blasphemers of God's holy name ?
Whether your parsons and vicars do maintain their houses
and chancels in sufficient reparation ; or, if their houses be in
decay, whether they bestow yearly the fifth part of the fruits
of the benefice until the same be repaired ?
Whether your parsons and vicars, absent from their
benefice, do leave their cure to an able minister; and if he
may dispend yearly £20 or above, in this deanery or else
where, whether he doth distribute every year, among his poor
parishioners there, at the least the fortieth part of the fruits
of the same ? And likewise, yearly spending £100, whether
he doth find one scholar, at either of the universities or some
grammar school, and so for every other hundred pound one
scholar ?
Whether every dean, archdeacon, and prebendary, being

284 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
priest, doth personally by himself preach twice every year at
the least, either where he is entitled or where he hath juris
diction, or in some place united or appropriate to the same ?
Whether your minister, having licence thereunto, doth
use to preach ; or, not licensed, doth dihgently procure other ^
to preach that are licensed; or whether he refuseth those
offering themselves that are hcensed, or absenteth himself, or
causeth other ^ to be away from the sermon, or else admitteth
any to preach that are not hcensed ?
Whether any by preaching, writing, word or deed, hath or
doth maintain the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome ?
Whether any be a letter [i.e. hinderer] of the Word of God
to be preached or read in the Enghsh tongue ?
Whether any do preach, declare, or speak anything
in derogation of the Book of Common Prayer, or anything
therein contained, or any part thereof?
Whether any do preach and defend that private persons
may make insurrection, stir sedition, or compel men to give
them their goods ?
These were the twelve first articles to be inquired
of, but there were many more, and, strange to say,
no less than twenty-eight of those following in the
register have been omitted in all printed collections.^
They are printed by themselves in the Appendix to
Townsend's edition of Foxe ; and the general drift of
these and the remaining articles is as follows : —
Abstract. — Whether any preached or affirmed that aU
things should be common and we should have no magistrates.
Or, that it was not lawful for a Christian to swear before a
judge when required ; or, when wronged, to seek a remedy by
law. Whether any said that Christ took no blood of the
Virgin Mary [Joan Bocher had just been burned, 2nd May
1550, for having said He took neither flesh nor blood from
her]. Whether the Homihes, Epistles and lessons were
properly used, and whether ministers recited "openly and
^ " other '¦ was a plural form in the sixteenth century.
^ See Foxe, vi. App., p. 741, and further, the documents at the end,
after p. 782. Tlie Articles were first printed by Bishop Sparrow with the
omission above noticed, and afterwards by Wilkins and Cardwell and in the
Supplement to the Parker Society edition of Ridley's Works. There is also
an eiTor in the text of these Articles given by Wilkins and Cardwell which
I have corrected by reference to Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 285
plainly in the pulpit" the Paternoster, Creed, and Ten
Commandments in English.
Then come nine articles about " Service," six about Books,
and eight about " Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies."
Those on Service are to maintain the use of the Book of
Common Prayer, and that of the Litany, which is to be said
or sung " in the middle alley of the church, kneeling " ; to
ascertain if the people come regularly to church on Sundays
and holy days ; whether any " deprave the book " in inter
ludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by open words ; whether any,
by threats or otherwise, compel a minister to sing prayers or
minister sacraments in any other form ; " whether any doth
use to talk or jangle in the church in time of service," or
ring any beU at such times except in case of necessity;
whether innholders or alehouse keepers sell meat or drink
during service time ; whether grace be said at dinner or
supper in any tongue but English, and "whether organs
do play away any part of the prayer or service."
As to Books : whether every minister under the degree of
B.D. has of his own the New Testament, both in English
and Latin, with the Paraphrases of Erasmus, and studies
them ; whether one " bible of the largest volume " in Enghsh
be set in some convenient place in the church, and whether
the minister discourage any from reading it, " so that it be
done quietly without contention" [see what is said about
Porter in Vol. II. p. 300] ; whether any other primers are
used but those set forth by the King or his father, or any
other grammar than that set out by the King ; " vrhether
any doth use to pray upon beads," and whether a register be
kept in which the weddings, christenings, and burials of the
week before are entered each Sunday.
As to Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies : whether they
are reverently administered, and parishioners properly ex
horted to the often receiving ; whether evil livers or other
offenders are admitted before amendment of life and satisfac
tion to their neighbours ; whether the minister receives
without one at least to communicate with him ; whether he
uses elevation, reservation, etc. ; whether the parishioners
offer " the just value of the holy loaf " every Sunday, etc. ;
whether the curate admit any one before he be confirmed, or
any that know not the Paternoster, the Articles of the
Faith, and the Ten Commandments in English; whether
curates minister the communion for money, or have trentals
of communions; whether any Anabaptists hold private

286 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
conventicles; whether masses are held in private houses;
whether baptism be ministered, except of necessity, at any
other time than on a Sunday or holy day, or in any other
tongue than Enghsh ; whether any spake against the baptism
of infants. Then come various articles about marriages,
about examination of children, keeping of abolished holy
days or rites, and so forth.
The Injunctions ^ were as follows : —
jiism- l- That there be no reading of such injunctions as ex
junctions. toUeth and setteth forth the popish mass, candles, images,
chantries; neither that there be used any superaltaries or
trentals of communions. [As masses for the dead were ordered
in trentals, i.e. thhty at a time (" a month's mind"), so some
had begun to do with communions — no doubt, with the same
suggestion, that they benefited souls in Purgatory.]
2.2 That no minister do counterfeit the popish mass in
kissing the Lord's board; washing his hands or fingers
after the Gospel or the receipt of the holy communion;
shifting the book from one place to another ; laying down
and hcking the Chahce after the Communion; blessing
his eyes with the sudary [napkin] thereof, or patten, or
crossing his head with the same ; holding his forefingers and
thumbs joined together towards the temples of his head after
receiving of the sacrament ; breathing on the bread or chahce ;
saying the Agnus before the communion ; showing the
sacrament openly before the distribution, or making any
elevation thereof; ringing of the sacring beU, or setting any
light upon the Lord's board. And finally, that the minister in
the time of the holy communion, do use only the ceremonies
and gestures appointed by the Book of Common Prayer, and
none other, so that there do not appear in them any counter
feiting of the popish mass.
3. That none be admitted to receive the holy communion
but such as will, upon request of the curate, be ready with
meekness and reverence to confess the articles of the Creed.
4. That none make a mart of the holy communion by
buying and selhng the receipt thereof for money, as the
popish mass in times past was wont to be.
^ Printed by Burnet, and in Ridley's Works, p. 319 (Parker Soc). The
nunil)ering of the items is mine.
- This article, except the last sentence, is almost verbally the same as
Article xii. of the Injunctions in Hooper's first visitation of Gloucester.
See Hooper's Later Writings (Parker Soc), p. 127.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 287
5. Whereas in divers places some use the Lord's board
after the form of a table, and some of an altar, whereby
dissension is perceived to arise among the unlearned ; there
fore, wishing a godly unity to be observed in all our diocese,
and for that the form of a table may more move and turn
the simple from the old superstitious opinions of the popish
mass, and to the right use of the Lord's Supper, we exhort
the curates, churchwardens, and questmen here present to
erect and set up the Lord's board after the form of an honest
table decently covered, in such place of the quire or chancel
as shall be thought most meet by their discretion and
agreement, so that the ministers with the communicants
may have their place separated from the rest of the people ;
and to take down and abohsh aU other by-altars or tables.
6. That the minister in the time of the communion, im
mediately after the offertory, shall monish the communicants,
saying these words or such like, "Now is the time, if it
please you to remember the poor man's chest with your
charitable alms."
7. That the Homihes be read orderly, without omission
of any part thereof.
8. That the Common Prayer be had in every church upon
Wednesdays and Fridays, according to the King's Grace's
ordinance; and that all such as conveniently may shall
diligently resort to the same.
9. That every curate be dihgent to teach the Catechism
whensoever just occasion is offered, upon the Sunday or
holy day, and at least every six weeks once shall call upon
his parishioners and present himself ready to instruct and
examine the youth of the same parish, according to the book
of service touching the same.
10. That none maintain Purgatory, Invocation of Saints,
the Six Articles, bede-roUs, images, relics, rubric primers,
with invocation of saints, justification of man by his own
work, holy bread, palms, ashes, candles, sepulchre pasohal,i
creeping to the Cross, haUowing of the fire or altar, or any
other such like abuses and superstitions, now taken away by
the King's Grace's most godly proceedings.
11. That aU ministers do move the people to often and
worthy receiving of the holy communion.
12. That every minister do move his parishioners to come
dhigently to the church ; and when they come, not to talk
1 The Easter " Sepulchre " in church, in which the Sacrament was kept
after the mass of Maundy Thursday till the morning of Easter day.

288 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
or walk in the sermon, communion or divine service time,
but rather at the same to behave themselves reverently,
godly and devoutly in the church; and that they also
monish the churchwardens to be dihgent overseers in that
behalf. 13. That the churchwardens do not permit any buying,
selling, gaming, outrageous noise or tumult, or any other
idle occupying of youth in the church, church porch or
churchyard, during the time of common prayer, sermon or
reading of the homily.
14. That no persons use to minister the sacraments, or in
open audience of the congregation presume to expound the
Holy Scriptures, or to preach, before they be first lawfuUy
called and authorised in that behalf.
God Save the King.
To return to Hooper, we find evidence, as may be
imagined, that his higher duties as bishop did nothing
to relax his old assiduity in preaching ; and his wife
is driven to appeal to BuUinger — so far off, at Zurich
— even to urge him to spare himself " I entreat
Hooper's you," shc writcs, " to recommend Master Hooper to
assiduity Y,Q more moderate in his labour ; for he preaches four,
preaching, or at Icast three, times every day ; and I am afraid
lest these over-abundant exertions should cause a
premature decay." Both she and her husband had
other causes for anxiety, fearing that riots would
break out in consequence of the dearness of pro
visions, which everywhere made the ruling classes
unpopular, though there was abundance of corn ; and
as to her husband's preaching, there was the greatest
possible desire of multitudes to hear him.^ In the
summer, first he himself and then his wife, with five
others of his household (chaplains and domestics),
were attacked by the sweating sickness, which raged
in the west, as it did in London ; but the crisis, as
usual in that disease, was past in twenty -four hours,
and the whole of them escaped.^ Next year, after
Heath had been deprived of his bishopric of Worcester,
' Original Letters, p. 108. ^ ^J. p. 94.

CH.II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 289
the Council gave that bishopric to Hooper in com
mendam, to hold along with Gloucester. But at the
end of the year another arrangement was made by
the union of the two bishoprics, and the united
diocese of Worcester and Gloucester became exactly
what the diocese of Worcester was before Gloucester
was taken out of it.
In July 1552 he began a visitation of Worcester;
but was soon compelled to return to Gloucester,
where the loss of his personal influence had at once
produced serious efi"ects. " The negligence and un- The
godly behaviour ofthe ministers in Gloucestershire " — Gloucester
so he writes to Cecil on the 6th July — " compelled revert to
me to return, except I should leave them behind as °^'\]^*'*'^
far out of order as I should find the other to whom absence.
I am going unto." Whatever crowds flocked to his
preaching, it was clearly not an easy thing to get the
clergy to accept a new reUgious settlement ; and he
desires help from headquarters. " For the love of
God," he goes on to say, " cause the Articles that
the King's Majesty spoke of when we took our
oaths to be set forth by his authority. I doubt not
but they shall do much good ; for I will cause
every minister to confess them openly before their
parishioners. For subscribing privately in the paper,
I perceive, Uttle availeth ; for, notwithstanding that,
they speak as evil, of good faith, as ever they did
before they subscribed. I left not the ministers of
Gloucestershire so far forward when I went to London,
but I found the greatest part of them as far backward
at my coming home. I have a great hope in the
people, God send good justices and faithful ministers
in the Church, and all wiU be weU." ^
It was probably to allow him to proceed without
hindrance in the visitation of Worcester that he
appointed superintendents in Gloucestershire to look
^ Biographical Notice prefixed to Hooper's Later Writings, edited by
Nevinson (Parker Soc), p. xviii.
VOL. Ill U

290 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
after the clergy in his absence. But when he went
to Worcester it was only to encounter new troubles
at the hands of two canons of the cathedral there,
named Henry Jolifi"e and Kobert Johnson. He brought
with him a new set of articles, partly the same that
he had used in his Gloucester visitation ; and these
two canons raised objections to which he alludes in
a letter to Cecil from Worcester, dated the 25th
October 1552.^ An account of the controversy was
pubUshed twelve years later by Joliffie at Antwerp,
he being then an exile in the days of Queen Elizabeth.
Before we leave the story of Hooper, and what he
did in the brief reign of Edward VI. , there is yet one
Hooper incident characteristic of his rule as bishop which it
TnthoTL "would be a pity to omit. But it is better to let
Kingston. John ab Ulmis tell it in his letter to BuUinger, written
from Oxford on the 4th December 1551 : — ^
When he was lately accused by certain persons of acting
with severity in the discharge of his function towards trades
people and those of the lower orders, but lax and indulgent
towards those of higher rank, "My brethren," he says, "I
wish you would bring before me any of the chief nobihty
whom you can prove by positive evidence to have been guilty
either of fornication or adultery, and you may punish me
with death if I fail to convince you of the impartiahty of
my proceeding to all alike." It happened some days after
that Sir Anthony Kingston, a man of great influence, was
accused of adultery before Hooper. Hooper cited him into
his court, but the knight at first refused to make his appear
ance. Induced, however, at length, as I suppose, by the hope
of impunity, he waited on the Bishop, and, being severely
rebuked by him, gave him a blow on the cheek before aU
the people, and loaded him with abuse. Hooper laid the
whole matter before the Government. The Council sum
moned the man forthwith, and treated him so severely that
it would have been better for him to have endured anything
rather than the punishment inflicted on him by the (Govern
ment. For he was both mulcted in the penalty of £500,
" Biographical Notice prefixed to Hooper's Later Writings, edited by
Nevinson (Parker Soc), p. xix.
^ Original Letters, p. 441.

CH. II THE EPISCOPAL REVOLUTION 291
and handed over to Hooper to be dealt with according to
law and custom, to do penance ; which kind of punishment
is the most shameful and disgraceful of any.
However other bishops might be controlled and
forbidden to exercise their functions, it would not
have suited the poUcy of the Council to play the
same game with Hooper. He had submitted to take
upon himself the office of bishop when they insisted
on it ; but having done so he meant to be a bishop
indeed. He revived the old Church discipline, which
had been so lax, without fear or favour ; and his action
in this case, as we know, had a most beneficial efi'ect.
Sir Anthony Eangston had been provost -marshal
in the suppression of the Western rebellion, and
was not one whom the Government would have cared
to punish for their own sakes. But they could not
allow him to insult Bishop Hooper with impunity
and slight his authority. It is to be feared, however,
that the punishment he underwent at this time
did little permanent good to a singularly brutal
character.^
' The story told by Grafton in his Chronicle (ii. 519, 520) of the way he
caused the unconscious Mayor of Bodmin to put up gallows for his own
execution is very well known. And Mrs. Rose 'Troup informs me that
although he received a pardon from Queen Mary, there are evidences of his
complicity in the Dudley conspiracy against her in 1556, in which year he
died.

CHAPTER III
DESTROYING " THE ALTARS OF BAAL "
It might be considered that the religious revolution
which began after the death of Henry VIIL, not
withstanding its severity towards those who clung
to old Church principles, tended on the whole to
religious toleration. On this account high praise
has been given to the government of Somerset, who,
within a year of Henry's death, not only mitigated
Compara- the trcasou laws but repealed the Act of the Six
nesl of Articles and all previous laws for the punishment of
Somerset's hcrcsy. Under him, moreover, the religious changes
me™t." made by authority were really moderate in character.
The first Order of Communion did not abolish the
Latin mass of the priest, and the first Prayer Book
made no such changes as Gardiner himself could not
conscientiously accept. But, as we have seen, it was
a grave constitutional question whether he and the
Council had a right, during the King's minority, to
authorise such changes as they did, and both Somer
set and those who bore rule along with him were
extremely touchy upon the subject. For this reason
it was that both Gardiner and Bonner were imprisoned,
while at the same time real disobedience to exist
ing law — when it was a law that the Protector and
Cranmer wished to repeal — was connived at and
encouraged. In short, the religious liberty promoted
by Somerset was a religious liberty for heretics, not
for those who desired to worship as their fathers
292

cH.in 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 293
had done. Not even the Princess Mary was left
unmolested when she endeavoured to do that.
We might praise Somerset for the gentleness and
clemency attributed to him as a fault. Undoubtedly
he was far more popular than Warwick and the other
lords, and just because he was less tyrannical. But
men who take a leading part in a revolution ought to
consider beforehand how far that revolution must
necessarily carry them, and Somerset certainly had
not counted the cost. The original separation of
England from Rome had been efi'ected by royal
authority, and the people submitted because they
beheved that Henry VIII. knew his ground a good
deal better than they did. To follow up the revolu
tion everything had to be done by royal authority
still — nominally by that of his little Majesty,
Edward VI. , belauded by Reformers as a miracle
of nature, and a full-grown man in wisdom ; but, of
course, while he had a Protector, it was all really
done by the Protector exercising royal power. And
Somerset was not the man to balance poUtical and
spiritual power in the way Henry VIII. had done — to
mark the side of the horizon on which one might
discern threats of stormy weather, and to make
provision accordingly. Henry VIIL, moreover, had
his way in the world by being (after a certain
fashion) a man of principle ; he had a principle to
meet every case, so as to justify the line he chose
to take up, and to bear down all opposition. No
feeble sentimentality ever stood in his way. Somerset
was selfish enough, but he was not equally politic.
He did not always measure truly the degree of
severity his policy required ; and it was inevitable
that in the end power must pass from his hands to
those of one more like Henry VIIL himself, who could
take the exact measure of every situation, and see
the precise principle involved.
Just two years after his fall, this was clearly

294 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
Warwick's appreciated by John ab Ulmis, who wrote about his
ascend- gucccssor Warwick as follows : — ^
ancy. He almost alone, with the Duke of Suffolk, governs the
State, and supports and upholds it on his own shoulders.
He is manifestly the thunderbolt and terror of the papists.
When the Duke of Somerset last year, at the urgent entreaty
of the King's sister, had given her licence still to attend
mass and have access to her sacrificing knaves, and was un
willing to restrain her in any respect, Warwick is reported
to have been very angry with him, and to have said, " The
mass is either of God or of the Devil. If of God, it is but
right that all our people should be allowed to go to it ; but
if it is not of God, as we are taught out of the Scriptures,
why then should not the voice of this fury be equally pro
scribed to all?" Scarce a year had elapsed from this
expostulation, when, lo ! the wretched and calamitous faU
of the Duke of Somerset, by which he is hurled headlong
from the highest pinnacle of his power; and doubtless for
this special reason, that he was of a more gentle and phant
nature in religious matters than was befitting a nobleman
possessed of so much authority. Warwick, therefore, as
soon as he had succeeded into his office, immediately took
care that the mass-priests of Mary should be thrown into
prison, while to herself he entirely interdicted the use of the
mass and of popish books.
That is the way to do things if you mean to be
efi'ective. First have a clear principle laid down ; be
sure also that you can carry it out without interfer
ence ; then force the greatest in the land to obey,
however they may grudge at it. And we have seen
already how Warwick secured himself in the matter
of principle by referring it to divines, and then
seemed to carry it out almost in spite of the advice
given him by his referees ! For even divines are
politicians, and have their weaknesses ; and when
Cranmer and Ridley and Ponet, then of Rochester,
were asked for their spiritual advice on the grave
question of tolerating Mary's mass, they were
appaUed by the serious political danger that
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 439.

CH. Ill 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL'

295

threatened if they said that it was to be put
down at all hazards. No doubt "idolatry" was
utterly detestable in itself, but they thought it
might be winked at in a crisis for the safety of the
nation. Warwick, however, saw through the political
clouds a good deal more clearly than they did. He
knew the Emperor's difficulties, and was not afraid
that he would interfere. So he determined that
Mary should not have her mass at all.
Not long after her interview with her brother, the Renewed
CouncU not only sent to the Fleet, as we have seen, ^^^-
two conspicuous men for hearing mass in her house, with Mary
but they examined her controller, Robert Rochester, t°^gg^oi^
as to how many ordinary chaplains she had. He told
them four — Dr. Mallet, Hopton, Barker and Ricardes.^
On the 14th April they sent instructions to the Earl
of Shrewsbury to apprehend Dr. Mallet and send him
up.^ On the 29th he was brought before them and
" examined what he meant that, after he had been
once forgiven, he would again wUfuUy offend the
King's Majesty's laws in saying of mass and other like
matter ? " The record goes on to say that he " could
not deny but he had done evil in so doing ; so that,
partly (^having confessed his faults, forasmuch as,
besides ^his lewd doings, he also had (sic) and per
suaded certain others of the King's subjects to
embrace his naughty opinions, he therefore was com
mitted to the Tower." ^ This Mary learned by report,
not by information from the Council, and she wrote
to them on the 2nd May to express her surprise and
regret, wishing to know what his offence was.* The
Council expressed no less astonishment at her inquiry,
as she was aware that he was an offender against
the King's laws, and they had already written to her,
five months before,'' that he might be delivered to the
SheriflF of Essex. His new committal was simply for
1 Dasent, iii. 240. ^ Ib. p. 258. ' Ib. p. 267.
* Foxe, vi. 18. ^ See p. 195.

296 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
a repetition of his old offence.^ Mary repUed on the
11th that she had heard that he had been indicted,
but did not know that he had been condemned. But
she must confess that what he had done he did at her
command, being assured by her that none of her
chaplains should be in danger of the law for saying
mass in her house ; and she begs that they will set him
at liberty, not to falsify her word. " And if you have
cause," she adds, "to charge my chaplain for this matter,
lay that to me, and I will discharge it again by your
promise made to the Emperor's Majesty, which you
cannot rightfully deny ; wishing rather that you had
refused it in the beginning than, after such promise
made, and to such a person, to seem to go from it ;
which, my lords, as your very friend, I desire you to
consider." ^
The Council, however, had considered very well, and
were not afraid of the Emperor's interference. Their
news from Germany was encouraging ; for not only
did Magdeburg hold out well against the siege laid to
it by Duke Maurice of Saxony, but those within had
taken the Duke of Mecklenburg prisoner and made
a successful foray in January, by which they re-
victualled the town.^ Nevertheless, the Council for
bore to reply to Mary for over a fortnight, and wrote
on the 27th excusing the delay by matters of State.
As to her insinuation that Dr. Mallet was indicted
but not condemned, her informant should have told
her " that by the Act of Parliament, if either Mallet
hath been convicted by the oaths of twelve men, or
that the fact hath been notorious, then the punish
ment doth follow justly. The truth of the one and
the other way of conviction in this case is notorious
enough, besides his flying from the process of the
law." It was quite true that under the Act of Uni
formity of 1549 (2 and 3 Edward VI. cap. 1) an
' Foxe, vi. 18. ' Ib. vi. 19.
^ See Edward's Journal, April 2.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 297
offender might be convicted, as above, " either by
verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or
by the notorious evidence of the fact," and be im
prisoned and compelled to forfeit his benefices. The
CouncU further regretted that Mary took her chap
lain's fault upon herself and was ready to defend one
whom the law condemned. As to the promise made
to the Emperor, they had already explained that ;
and the temporary licence given her once to have
mass said before herself could never cover Dr.
Mallet's act in saying mass at one of her houses
when she was not there. Moreover, neither of
the Imperial ambassadors, the former or the present
one, ever made suit in behalf of any one but Mary
herself; and Dr. Mallet was not privileged. Such
was the CouncU's answer.
Mary wrote again on the 21st June, saying that she Mary
understood by the bearer of her letters that they p'**1^ '"
desired to please her, but she had not heard from her
them whether they would set her chaplain at Uberty reitase!" '
or not, and she urged the matter again, " being not a
little troubled that he is so long in prison without
just cause, seeing the matter of his imprisonment is
discharged by the promise made to the Emperor's
Majesty, as in my late letter I declared unto you." ^
To this the CouncU replied on the 24th, apologising
partly by their occupation in the King's business for
not having given her a satisfactory answer. They
were sorry she desired Dr. Mallet's release as it was a
thing they could not grant consistently with their
duty to the King. " So necessary a thing it is to
see the laws of the realm executed indifferently in aU
manner of persons, and in these cases of contempt of
the ecclesiastical orders of this Church of England,
that the same may not, without the great displeasure
of God and the slander of the State be neglected ;
and therefore your Grace may please to understand
' Foxe, vi. 20.

298 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
that we have not only punished your chaplain but all
such others whom we find in like case to have dis
obeyed the laws ofthe King's Majesty." As to the
promise by which she would excuse her chaplain, they
assured her that not one of the Council had ever
been privy to such a promise " otherwise than hath
been written." ^
This ended the correspondence for a time. Mary
could no longer hope effectually to intercede for her
chaplain. But eight weeks later, on the 9th August,
there was a Council at Richmond, at which it was
resolved that as the long sufferance of Mary's doings
had been " occasion of diversity of opinions, strife,
and controversy in this realm," the head officers of
her house " should be sent for and charged that from
henceforth they shall not permit nor suffer any other
divine service to be done or used within the said
lady Mary's house than is set forth by the laws of
this realm." The chaplains also were to be charged
"not to presume" to say any mass henceforth, and
the other servants not to be present at any on pain
of His Majesty's indignation and punishment by law.^
It was further determined at the same meeting that
as by the report of the English ambassador, the
Emperor desired leave for his ambassador in England
to have mass in his house " after the Popish manner,"
and yet his Imperial Majesty would not allow the
English ambassadors to have in their houses the
communion and other divine services according to the
laws of England, the ambassador should be directed
to show the Emperor the unreasonableness of this
answer, and that the King could not permit the
Imperial ambassador to use their manner of service
unless the King's ambassador had the like permission
to use the English form.^
Thus the Council had made up its mind that
no religion except its own should be allowed in
1 Foxe, vi. 20. ^ Dasent, iii. 329. = Ib, p. 330.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 299
England, even to the Princess Mary or to the No
Emperor's ambassador. They might indeed make™}j,^°"
an exception to the Emperor's ambassador as the but one.
representative of a foreign power, if the Emperor
would Ukewise recognise the right of England's
representatives at Brussels or elsewhere, to use the
English form of reUgion ; but only on that condition.
The position laid down was painfully logical ; it was
the State Church principle, now in its infancy but
extremely perplexing to the veteran statesmen and
crowned heads of Europe, who nevertheless were
bound to accept it in the long run, simply because
there was no escape from it. The Emperor could
but rage internally and submit ; he could do nothing
against England. But the Princess Mary was not so
easy to manage. On the 10th, the day after the
Council had come to these resolutions, they ordered
letters to be sent to the officers of her household
to repair to Court on Thursday following, that is,
the 13th.^
The Council was now at Hampton Court ; but it
was only on the 14th that the persons summoned
appeared before them, viz., Robert Rochester, the
controller of her household, Edward Walgrave (or
Waldegrave), one of her Council, and Sir Francis
Englefield. The decree made at Richmond on the
9th was read to them and they received orders
to call before them her chaplains, "and not only Mary's
to inhibit them from further saying of mass or^^^^^j^^,^
other ministrations of any manner of ceremonies officers
before her, or within her house, or in any other t^^fofbtd
place, contrary to the order of the King's Majesty's saying of
laws, but also to see that neither they themselves nor house?
any other of her family presume to hear any mass or
other such forbidden rites or ceremonies in any
manner of wise contrary to the King's Majesty's laws,
nor to suffer any such to be used or ministered, not
1 lb.

300 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
only upon the pains limited by the same, but also
of the King's high indignation and displeasure."
Rochester protested very strongly against having
such an ungracious task imposed upon him ; but
they would hear of no excuse. On his allegiance,
they told him, he must see it performed ; and if his
mistress chose to dismiss him and the rest from her
service on delivering such a message, they were
neither to quit her service nor leave her house, but
see the order fulfilled till they had other orders from
the Council.^
The three gentlemen appeared before the Lords
again at Windsor on Saturday, the 22nd, to report
what they had done in consequence. On the previous
Saturday, the 15th, they had arrived at Copthall,
where the Princess was then staying, rather late at
night, and could not execute their orders till Sunday
morning, the 16th ; then, as she that morning
received the Sacrament, they waited till the after
noon, and after she had dined they delivered their
letters (one apparently was from the King himself^),
"praying her Grace to be contented to hear the
same." She replied that she knew quite well from the
letters what their commission was ; but after some
pressing she agreed to hear it. When they had de-
whioh she Uvercd their message " she seemed to be marvellously
resents^ offcndcd with them, and charged them that they
should not declare that same they had in charge to
say, neither to her chaplains nor family ; which, if
they did, besides that they should not take her
hereafter for their mistress, she would immediately
depart out of the house." Her colour came and
went during the interview, and she was so deeply
moved that the gentlemen durst not press her further
lest it should bring back " her old disease " (her
' Dasent, iii. 333.
^ See Edward's Journal under the 14th ; " another to herself from me."

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 301
health had never been robust). They only begged
her to consider the matter at leisure, and they would
wait upon her again on Wednesday following.
Meanwhile they forbore declaring their charge to her
chaplains and household. But when they came to
her on the Wednesday,-' they only found her more
angTy than ever ; and under the circumstances they
felt it simply impossible to execute their charge at
all. They only brought back a letter from Mary to
the King, dated from Copthall on the 19th, declaring
how much she was troubled that any of her servants
should attempt to move her in matters touching her
soul — a thing which she thought the meanest subject
" could evil bear at their servants' hands." She had
altogether refused to talk with them upon the subject;
but she fervently appealed to her brother to allow
her still the accustomed mass, which the King their
father and all his predecessors had used. She had
been brought up in the use of it ; her conscience
bound her to use it ; and by the promise which the
Council had made to the Emperor she was assured
that she might do so without offending the laws.
She also reminded Edward of their last interview,
when she told him she preferred death to giving up
her mass, and he, as she said, made her " a very
gentle answer." She could not beUeve that his
letters now, though signed by him, were really his,
because, great as his gifts were for his years, it was
impossiljle he could be at his age a judge of religious
matters, and she hoped he would bear with her as
hitherto till he could understand such matters
himself^ The three gentlemen were rebuked by the Council
for not having fully carried out their instructions ;
and pains were taken with each of them apart to
1 Perhaps Thursday is meant, for it is called the 20th, and the messengers
made their report on the 22nd at Windsor.
' Dasent, iii. 338-40 ; also in Foxe, vi. 21.

302 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
Her return and do as they were commanded, on their
refu™to allegiance. But every one of them refused, saying
persecute they would rather endure whatever punishment or
^"^™^'^®''- imprisonment the Council should think meet for
them ; and Sir Francis Englefield protested that he
could neither find it in his heart nor conscience to do
as desired. It was accordingly determined to send a
new embassy who should carry a reply from the
King to his sister.
The King replied to her by a letter under his
signet, formally dated at Windsor, the 24th August,
the fifth year of his reign. It was hard and official,
regretting that he perceived no amendment in her.
His sufferance hitherto had been prompted rather by
natural love than by duty ; and, not to be found guilty
before God any longer, he sent to her the Lord
So high Chancellor Riche (a fine conscientious monitor, truly !)
Tenf to ""' with Sir Anthony Wingfield, ControUer of the Royal
coerce her. Houschold, and Sir WilUam Petre, one of the two
principal Secretaries of State. Their instructions
were to show that they were sent because her own
three servants had so negUgently, indeed falsely,
executed their charge, and had actually refused,
before the King's Council, to do the duty of faithful
subjects, so that it was impossible to refrain from
punishing them ; yet in the manner of punishment
His Majesty and the Council had such consideration
of her as his sister that he could not have shown the
Uke favour to the dearest councillor he had, if he had
offended. Then they were to answer again her allega
tion of the promise to the Emperor ; also to assure
her that they had no intention of doing her any bodily
harm, but the King was moved by conscience to
avoid offence to God and to see his laws executed.
As the absence of Rochester might be inconvenient
to her for the affairs of her household, the King
had sent " a trusty, skilful man of his own house
hold," instructed by Rochester, to serve in his place.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 303
Then having thus explained to Mary the object of their
mission, they were to call before them the rest of her
household, and, in the King's name, strictly forbid
the chaplains " to say or use any mass or kind of
service, other than by the law was authorised," and
also forbid the rest of the company to be present at
any such prohibited service, on pain of the King's
indignation. Any who disobeyed this order were at
once to be committed to prison.^
Thus the matter was clear. The Council were in
no fear of interference by any other power, at home
or abroad, in the work of religious persecution.
Nothing but complete coercion would serve their
purpose now, and the heiress presumptive to the
throne must submit, like everybody else, to a law
which more than half the people, probably, if they
durst speak their minds, considered of very doubtful
authority. But the law of force carries its own
warranty. Mary received the unwelcome visitors at
Copthall on Friday the 28th, and their own report
to the Council -tells us how. When the Lord
ChanceUor deUvered to her the King's letters " she
received them upon her knees, saying that for the
honour of the Bang's Majesty's hand wherewith the
said letters were signed, she would kiss the letter,
and not for the matter contained in them ; for the
matter, said she, I take to proceed not from His
Majesty but from you of the Council." ^
She read the letter secretly to herself, and re- Her re
marked in the hearing of her visitors, " Ah ! good ^"^°vs
Master Cecil took much pain here." When the Lord letter.
Chancellor began to speak she prayed him to be
brief " I am not well at ease," she said, " and I
will make you a short answer, notwithstanding that
I have already declared and written my mind to His
Majesty plainly with mine own hand." Then the
Lord Chancellor told her that the King, having used
1 Dasent, iii. 340-46 ; Foxe, vi. 21-23. ^ lb. p. 348.

304 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
all gentle means to induce her to comply with the
reUgion set forth by law, and finding that she would
not conform but remained in her former error, had
resolved, "by the whole estate of His Majesty's
Privy Council, and with the consent of divers others
of the nobiUty, that she should no longer use the
private mass, nor any other divine service than is set
forth by the laws of the realm." And they offered
to show her the names of all persons in the Council
when this resolution was taken. But she told them
she cared not for their names ; " for, said she, ' I
know you be all of one sort therein.' "
Then they told her they were charged to forbid
her chaplains to say mass and her attendants to hear
and her it. In her reply she protested her wilUngness to
reply to obey her brother in anything, and even to suffer
message, death to do him good ; but sooner than agree to use
any other service than that which was used at the
time of her father's death, she would lay her head
upon the block. " But," said she, " I am unworthy to
suffer death in so good a quarrel. When the King's
Majesty," said she, " shall come to such years that he
may be able to judge these things himself. His
Majesty shall find me ready to obey his orders in
religion ; but now in these years, although he, good
sweet King, have more knowledge than any other of
his years, yet is it not possible that he can be a
judge in these things. For if ships were to be sent
to the seas or any other thing to be done touching
the policy and government of the realm, I am sure
you would not think His Highness yet able to
consider what were to be done ; and much less," said
she, " can he in these years discern what is fittest in
matters of divinity. And if my chaplains do say no
mass I can hear none, no more can my poor servants.
But as for my servants, I know it shall be against
their wills, as it shall be against mine ; for if they
could come where it were said, they would hear it

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 305
with good will. And as for my priests, they know
what they have to do. The pain of your laws is but
imprisonment for a short time, and if they will refuse to
say mass for fear of that imprisonment, they may do
therein as they will ; but none of your new service,"
said she, " shall be used in my house, and if any be
said in it I will not tarry in the house."
They then explained to her, as instructed, for
what causes the Council had appointed her servants,
Rochester, Englefield, and Walgrave, " to open the
premises to her," and how ill they had conducted
themselves in the charge committed to them. She
said it was not the -wisest counsel to appoint her
servants to control her in her own house, especially
as they knew her mind well enough, and if they
refused to do their message they were the honester
men, for otherwise they would have spoken against
their consciences. But as to their punishment, my
Lords might do as they thought right.
In further conference she stood to her assertion
about the promise made to the Emperor, " and that
the same was granted once before the King's Majesty
in her presence, then being there seven of the Coun
cU," notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor's denial of
it when he was last with the King. (Of how much
value this denial by an old perjurer was, it is
needless to point out.) "And I have," quoth she,
" the Emperor's hand, testifying that this promise
was made, which I believe better than you all
of the Council ; and though you esteem little the
Emperor, yet should you show more favour to me
for my father's sake, who made the more part of you,
almost of nothing. But as for the Emperor," said
she, "if he were dead I would say as I do, and if he
would give me now other advice I would not follow
it. Notwithstanding," quoth she, "to be plain with
you, his ambassador shall know how I am used at
your hands."
VOL. Ill X

3o6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
StUl following their instructions, they then "opened
the King's Majesty's pleasure for one to attend upon
her Grace for the supply of Rochester's place during
his absence." Her answer was that she would appoint
her own officers — she was old enough for that ; and
if they left any such man she would go out of her
gates, for they two would not dwell in one house.
" And," quoth she, " I am sickly, and yet I will not die
willingly, but will do the best I can to preserve my
life ; but if I shall chance to die, I will protest openly
that you of the Council be the causes of my death.
You give me fair words, but your deeds be always
ill towards me." With this she departed into her
chamber, after delivering to the Lord Chancellor a
ring for presentation to the King with the message
that she would die his true subject and sister, and
obey him in all things except these matters of religion.
After she was gone, they called the chaplains and
Her house- the rcst of her household, to whom they delivered
''b^oiutei ^^® further commands against performing or hearing
forbidden mass ; and the chaplains, after some talk, promised
mass^to^be ^^ obey. They likewise charged every one of the
said. household to give notice to the Council in case of
any disobedience.
Then after leaving the house, they waited for one
chaplain who was not with the rest, when Mary sent
for them to speak one word more at a window. They
offered to come up, but she insisted on speaking to
them from the window, and prayed them to ask the
lords of the Council that she might have her con
troller back again soon, for she was obliged to take
account of her expenses herself, " and learn how many
loaves of bread be made of a bushel of wheat." " I
wiss," she said, " my father and mother never brought
me up with baking and brewing, and, to be plain with
you, I am weary with mine office." ^
After this we lose sight of the Princess Mary
^ Dasent, iii. 348-52.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 307
and her household for some months, except that in
October the Lieutenant of the Tower had orders to
allow her servant Waldegrave to be conveyed " to
some honest house out of the said Tower," where he
might be better attended, though still a prisoner, to
recover from a quartan ague ; and in March following,
not only Waldegrave, but Englefield and Rochester,
were entirely released for similar reasons of health,
that they might take the air in the country. As
regards Mary herself, moreover, she and her sister
Elizabeth were written to on the 25th October, 1551,
about the expected arrival of the Queen Dowager of
Scotland at Portsmouth, and her coming to the King's
presence on her return to Scotland.^
It is a pleasing delusion that the Reformation
made such great strides as it did under Edward VI.
purely by its own sweet reasonableness. Coercion Progress
did the work, and unless coercion had been very ^"orma-
thorough the work would not have been done. Just tion due to
as John Knox would rather have had an invading '^°^'^'='°"-
army than a single mass in Edinburgh, Warwick
was not disposed to allow a single mass to the most
exalted person in the land. For it was manifest in
this, as afterwards in Queen Elizabeth's day, that if
mass were tolerated in one instance, even in an
ambassador's household, others would naturally flock
to it, and the religion of the Government would be
despised. That would have been the way to bring in
the Pope again. But superior power must be re
spected, whether its doings be just or unjust. It will
be observed that in Ridley's visitation of his London
diocese, in 1550, there was one article quoted above ^
for the setting up of tables instead of altars in churches,
in order that " a godly unity " should be observed,
as the practice varied in different places, " whereby
' Dasent, iii. 395, 397, 508. Nothing ia said, however, of the King's two
sisters having taken any part in her actual reception. They are not named
in the MS. programme drawn up for it iu Hwrl. 290, f. 6.
2 See p. 287.

3o8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
dissension is perceived to arise among the unlearned."
But why a more godly unity was to be attained when
the practice varied in different places by enforcing a
new form rather than an old one to which the people
were accustomed, the Bishop did not think it neces
sary to state. London, no doubt, was always a chief
hotbed of LoUardy, or opposition to old methods of
Church government, and tables may have been more
popular there than altars. But the process had been
going on for some time of putting down altars and
degrading them in the basest fashion. " At this very
time," writes John ab Ulmis to BuUinger from Oxford
as early as November 1548, "those privileged altars
are en-tirely overthrown in a great part of England,
and by the common consent of the higher classes
altogether abolished. Why should I say more ?
Altars ' Those idolatrous altars are now become hogsties "
ste! ^°^' (™ '^^® Latin the words are Arce factm sunt harce) ;
" that is, habitations of s-wine and beasts." ^
This, it must be observed, was under the Protector
ship of the Duke of Somerset, and was not the work
of the rabble. We are expressly told that it was done
" by the common consent of the higher classes."
Apparently the work began with " privUeged altars " ;
and we can very well understand how the aris
tocracy, largely emancipated from the belief in
Purgatory and from any feeling of the necessity of
opening their purses to benefit the souls of departed
kinsmen, led the way in such a revolution. We
have seen already how Somerset himself connived at
the destruction of images when it was his function,
at least, to preserve good order in the realm ; and
when good order was preserved, which it was by no
means everywhere, it was only because the lovers of
ancient order bore their griefs in silence. Conserva
tive feeling got no relief from the displacement of
Somerset and the ascendancy of Warwick ; and as
^ Original Letters, p. 384.

CH. Ill 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 309
soon as Ridley was made bishop, London saw very
considerable changes. Hia bishopric was conferred
upon him by patent, after the new fashion, on the
lat AprU 1550, and he began his visitation at St. Paul's
within five weeks after, on the 5th May. He preached
at Paul's Cross on Whitsunday (the 25th). On Trinity
Sunday (1st June) a London clergyman, Dr. Kirkham
by name, preached (whether in St. Paul's or elsewhere
is not stated) that there was no substance in the
Sacrament but bread and wine. Corpus Christi Day
(5th June) was not observed as a hoUday as hitherto, changes
St. Barnabas' Day (11th June) was ordered by the ^^^^j^ '^y^
mayor not to be so kept anywhere in London ; and London.
at night the high altar in St. Paul's was pulled down.
That day " the veil was hung up beneath the steps
and the table set up there." A week later the com
munion was administered there. Also, on Saturday
the 14th, before evening, a murder took place in the
cathedral, and two further riots after it within the
sacred buUding. Fighting in St. Paul's became a
common thing this year, and nothing was done to
stop it.^
Another incident of the year is worth relating in
the words of the contemporary chronicler : —
The last day of August, preached at the Cross Stephen
Gaston, and there spake against the lady Mary as much as he
might; but he named not her, but said there was a great
woman within the realm that was a great supporter and
maintainer of popery and superstition, and prayed that she
might forsake her opinions, and to follow the King's proceed
ings, as he said. And also he said that King Henry VIII.
was a papist, with many opprobrious words of him, as it was
heard.^ To hear from a preacher at Paul's Cross that
Henry VIII. was a papist was something new. No
one would have dared to utter it without encourage
ment from some very infiuential quarter. But let
' Ctrey Friars' Chronicle, pp. 66, 67. ^ lb.

310 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
us note the further progress of the revolution in
London in the following year. It was on Palm
Sunday, 22nd March 1551, that Sir Anthony Browne
and others were sent to the Fleet, as we have seen,
for hearing mass in the Princess Mary's house.^ Next
day Ponet, Bishop of Rochester, was promoted to
Gardiner's see of Winchester. He and Scory, who was
promoted to Rochester soon after in his place, had
already been preaching before the King in Lent on
Wednesdays and Fridays. On the 24th March, in
preparation for Easter, Bishop Ridley caused the iron
grates on the north and south sides of the place
where the high altar had stood in St. Paul's to be
closed up with brick and mortar, and the veil was
hung up. On Easter Eve, the 28 th, the table was
removed from beneath the steps into the midst of
the upper choir, and set with the ends east and west,
instead of north and south, " the priest standing in
the midst at the communion on the south side of the
board ; and after the creed sung he caused the veU
to be drawn, that no person should see but those
that received." ^
These were ritualistic changes of the highest
magnitude. Think how far a very few years have
carried us. Henry VIII. has been Uttle more than
four years dead, but some look upon him now as
really a papist ! Within a year after his death they
legaUsed communion in both kinds, and very soon
followed it up (March 1548) with an " Order of
Communion " in accordance with this legal sanction.
Yet even then the priest's Latin mass was not
abolished ; it was allowed to continue till the first
Act of Uniformity (January 1549) which brought in
' See p. 202.
" Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 69 ; Wriothesley's Chronicle, ii. 46, 47. There
is a verbal discrepancy between these two accounts of the alterations ; but
the Grey Friars' writer apparently meant to have said, "and then was the
table removed and set beneath the veil [east and west instead of] north
and south " ; which would be, in effect, what Wriothesley says.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 311
the first Prayer Book. Then came the Western
rebelUon with other outbreaks all over the country,
war with France, and the Protector's fall (October
1549), just after they had by a mere mockery of
justice deprived Bishop Bonner. But the tide con
tinued fiowing faster than ever ; more old bishops
were deprived, and new ones set in their places. A
new ordinal was imposed, hated alike by the old
school and by Bishop Hooper ; and episcopal visita
tions of a totally new type were imposed upon the
clergy. Where are matters to stop ? The revolution
will undo some of its own work by and by ; for the
new English Prayer Book will no more suit some
people than the " Order of Communion," which em
bodied the old Latin mass in an English envelope
for the use of laymen. But if we are not to be
" Papists " again, we must endeavour to placate
revolutionary minds.
Still, as to some matters, we stand upon the
ancient ways. For though there are new views which
we wish to promote, there are others which we must
not allow to spread, even for the peace of society,
not to mention our own repute abroad. So when
ParUament in the beginning of 1550 passes a great Great
Act of general pardon ^ for offences committed before j^jf '"*'
the 20th January to pacify those implicated in the severeij^
recent disturbances, it was necessary to except not ^^^^^ ^^^^'
only those guilty of great crimes, but also heretics of
a very pronounced character, whose teaching would
undermine the Christian faith altogether. There was
accordingly a clause (cl. 13) inserted in the Act as
follows : —
" That this Act of free pardon shall not extend to
any person or persons which at any time heretofore
have offended in these heresies and erroneous opinions
hereafter ensuing. That is to say. That infants ought
not to be baptised, and if they be baptised they
1 statute 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 24.

Bocher.

312 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
ought to be rebaptised when they come to lawful
age ; that it is not lawful for a Christian man to bear
office or rule in the Commonwealth ; that no man's
laws ought to be obeyed ; that it is not lawful for
a Christian man to take oath before any judge ; that
Christ took no bodily substance of our Blessed Lady ;
that sinners after baptism cannot be restored hj
repentance ; that all things be, or ought to be,
common, and nothing several."
It is not difficult to understand how, in a state of
society where schism was quite as pugnacious as
orthodoxy was resolute to put it down, opinions
like these were both troublesome and dangerous.
One of the heresies above mentioned had already
compelled special attention in the case of Joan
Joan Bocher, who was condemned for it on the 30 th April
1549.^ She was not burned tUl a year later, on the
2nd May 1550, after this Act was passed. She may
have owed her long respite partly to Cranmer, who had
in past years undoubtedly protected her, as we have
seen already.^ But since Henry VIII.'s days her
heresies had become more glaring, and such as
Cranmer himself could in no wise extenuate. For
she maintained that our Lord took no fiesh of the
Virgin Mary, though the Virgin brought him into
the world. She was brought before a Commission
issued 12th April 1549^ for the trial of Anabaptists.
Of the other accused persons some recanted and bore
faggots, but she was immovable.* She felt herself
superior to the bench who tried her. "It is a
goodly matter," she said, " to consider your ignorance.
It was not long ago since you burned Anne Askew
for a piece of bread, and yet came yourselves soon
after to beUeve and profess the same doctrine for
which you burned her. And now, forsooth, you will
needs burn me for a piece of fiesh, and in the end you
' Wilkins, iv. 43, 44. 2 Yo\. II. pp. 372-3.
" Rymer, xv. 181. * Grey Friars' Chron., p. 58.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 313
will come to believe this also, when you have read
the Scriptures and understand them."^ Sentence
was pronounced against her as a heretic who refused
to return to the unity of the Church,^ and she was
delivered by the spiritual tribunal over to the secular
arm, just as heretics had been in past times ; but
execution of the sentence, as we have seen, was
suspended for a whole twelvemonth. She was visited
in prison by the most distinguished divines of the
new school, including Bishop Ridley and Bishop Good
rich ; but they failed to make her change her opinion.^
At last the fatal warrant was issued. Dr. Scory,
then Ridley's chaplain, preached at her burning,
and she uttered her mind about him freely, saying
that he " lied like a knave." *
Another Commission for the trial of Anabaptists
was issued on the 18th January 1551,^ and it too had
one victim. A Flemish surgeon, named George van George van
Paris, had been excommunicated by the Dutch Church ^^™'
at Austin Friars for denying the divinity of Christ.
Sentence was passed upon him by the Commission,
and after seventeen days' imprisonment, in which he
showed himself obstinate in his disbelief, he was
burned in Smithfield on the 24th April.
These two were the only cases of heretics burned
' strype's Eccl. Mem., II. i. 335.
^ Wilkins, iv. 43. It must be carefully noted that England did not
consider herself cut off from the unity of the Church.
' Nevertheless she seems to have been hard pressed to defend it. Eoger
Hutchinson reports an interview with her as follows : ' ' And when I and
my well-beloved friend, Thomas Lever, and others, alleged this text against
her opinion, Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis, ' The seed of the woman
shall grind, or break, the serpent's head,' she answered : ' I deny not that
Christ is Mary's seed, or the woman's seed, nor I deny him not to be a man.
But Mary had two seeds, one seed of her faith, and another seed of her flesh
and in her body. There is a natural and a corporal seed, and there is a
spiritual and an heavenly seed, as we may gather of St. John, where he
saith, The seed of God remaineth in him and he cannot sin (1 John iii. 9).
And Christ is her seed ; but he is become- man of the seed of her faith and
belief ; of spiritual seed, not of natural seed, for her seed and flesh was
sinful, as the flesh and seed of others.' " Hutchinson's Works (Parker Soc),
pp. 145-6.
-* Stow's Annals, p. 604.
^ Eymer, xv. 250.

314 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
in the reign of Edward VI. The old heresy laws
being repealed, there should not have been even
these. But the repeal of the heresy laws was not
done in the interests of humanity ; it was done to
make some old heresies authoritative, and change
the basis of acknowledged orthodoxy. Men could
call Henry VIII. a papist now because he had treated
the Pope merely as a foreign bishop who had no
jurisdiction in England ; he had never denied the
Pope's authority in his own diocese. Papal juris
diction was even now kept out only by the fact that
to recognise it was treason, at least on a third offence.
But, as papal jurisdiction was kept out, bishops who
would go no further than Henry VIII. did were
imprisoned and deprived, to make room for men of
more advanced ideas. And ideas were now advancing
so rapidly that even the Act of Uniformity and the
Prayer Book so recently established could not find
room for them all. But the authorities could not
allow it to be said that new ideas were carrying
them away from Christianity altogether.
Just after the burning of Joan Bocher there issued
from the press a poem about her by one Edmund
Becke, which the late Mr. Payne Collier reprinted in
1864 in his Illustrations of Early English Popular
Literature (vol. ii. ). It is not in truth very edifying
to read, but the title deserves a moment's considera
tion. It is as follows : —
A brefe Confutacion of this most detestable and Ana-
baptistical opinion, That Christ dyd not take hys flesh of the
blessed Vyrgyn Mary, nor any corporal substance of her
body. For the maintenance whereof Jhone Bucher, other
wise called Jhone of Kent, most obstinately suffered, and was
burned in Smythfyelde the ii day of May, Anno domini
MDL. No pity was expected for a poor woman who
" obstinately suffered " for a perverse opinion like
this. There is not much danger of its being shared

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 315
by many now, and sympathy may lead us to inquire
a little more into her past history. Strype cites
the testimony of Parsons the Jesuit for the state- gome
ment that she was at first a great disperser of *''^'i''io"is
Tyndale's forbidden New Testaments printed at Boche"
Cologne, "which books she dispersed in the Court,
and so became known to certain women of quality,
and was more particularly acquainted with Mrs.
Anne Ascue. She used for the more secrecy to tie
the books in strings under her apparel, and so pass
with them into the Court." Dealing in contraband
goods is not a business favourable to moraUty, even
when the laws are bad laws. But such dealings had
been favoured by a demoralised Court long ago in
the days of Anne Boleyn and of Tyndale, as we
have seen already, and the same process, as we have
also seen, had been revived in the days of Katharine
Parr, who very nearly fell a victim to the consequences
of her encouragement of heresy. Let us continue
Strype's reference to Parsons about Joan : " The same
author writes that she was openly reported to have
been dishonest of her body with base fellows, which I
charitably suppose may be a calumny, too common
with Parsons."
I am quite wUling, for my own part, to share
Strype's charitable supposition, but not absolutely, I
confess, without misgivings ; for as to other calumnies
of Parsons, a considerable number of them, since
Strype's day, have turned out, on fuller investigation,
to be positive facts, though some, undoubtedly, which
he gave as hearsays, were false surmises and some
times facts confused in the telling. Nor must we
altogether take it for granted, as we are apt to do,
that the influence of a new-fangled reUgion naturally
raised its devotees above all base propensities. There
is something elevating, certainly, even in fanaticism
for the most part, and so I agree with Strype in
rather discrediting the calumny here. But to say

3x6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
that a fervid heresy in the sixteenth century could
not possibly have lowered its votaries in this way is
to say a good deal too much. However, we have seen
already how, in Henry VIII.'s time, Joan Bocher had
been positively favoured for a whUe by influential
support and protected by Cranmer's commissary
against the law.^ So it is no wonder that her
extravagance as a female theologian increased.
But even in 1548 — the year before Joan Bocher's
case came before the tribunals — there had been pro
secutions for heresy before Cranmer and others. First,
there was a sitting at St. Paul's on the 27th April, at
John which John Champneis of Stratford at Bow (who, appar-
uds™^ ently from what follows, must have been a preacher)
retracted the following " damnable opinions," viz. :
— 1. That a man, after he is regenerate in Christ,
cannot sin : 2. That he had defended that article,
granting that the " outward man " might sin, but the
inward man could not : 3. " That the Gospel hath
been so much persecuted and hated ever since the
Apostles' times, that no man might be suffered openly
to follow it " : 4. " That godly love falleth never away
from them which be regenerate in Christ ; wherefore
they cannot do contrary to the commandment of
Christ" : 5. " That, that was the most principal of our
marked man's [? men's] doctrine, to make the people
believe that there was no such Spirit given unto man
whereby he should remain righteous always in Christ ;
which is a most devilish error" ^ : 6. " That God doth
permit to all his elect people their bodily necessities of
all worldly things." The last proposition was more
clearly expressed in the words by which he renounced
it, confessing " that God doth not permit to all His
elect people their bodily necessities of all worldly
' See Vol. II. (as above).
2 The meaning is, as shown later in the recantation, that he had wrongly
denounced as a devilish error " our marked men's doctrine to make the
people believe that there was no such Spirit given," etc. He now expressly
admitted that a man having the Spirit might afterwards fall away.

cH.in 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 317
things to be taken, but by a law and order approved
by the civU policy.'' So the doctrine here renounced
was communism for the elect.
Champneis was ordered henceforth to forbear
preaching or setting forth books of doctrine without
special Ucence, and to call in and destroy, as far as it
lay within his power, all books that he had already
published ; and finally he was bound over to do
penance at Paul's Cross on the following Sunday,
with a faggot on his shoulder.
In the same year, on the 28th December, at
Lambeth, John Ashton, parson at Shitlington, Lincoln john
diocese, was convented before Cranmer and abjured Ashton.
the following heresies : —
1. " That the Trinity of Persons was only
established by the confession of St. Athanasius by
the psalm Quicumque vult ; and that the Holy Ghost
is not God, but only a certain power of the Father " :
2. " That Jesus Christ, that was conceived of the
Virgin Mary, was a holy prophet and specially
beloved of God the Father ; but that He was not
the true and Uving God, forasmuch as He was seen,
and Uved, hungered and thirsted" : 3. " That this is
only the fruit of Jesus Christ's Passion, that whereas
we were strangers from God and had no knowledge
of His Testament, it pleased God by Christ to bring
us to the knowledging of His holy power by the
Testament." Having recanted these heresies, and
made full submission, he was dismissed till Monday
after Epiphany, the day appointed for his penance.
Next year, 1549, after the sentence passed on
Joan Bocher (which was not executed for a twelve
month), Michael Thombe of London, butcher, abjured Michael
at Lambeth. It may have been that he was her t'i°™^'^-
husband ; for his case, though brought up eleven days
later, takes precedence of hers in Cranmer's register ;
and there are strong reasons for believing that the
name, Joan Bocher or Butcher (though she was also

3i8 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
named Baron and Knel^), indicates a butcher's wife.
Further, his heresies were clearly of the same kidney
as hers ; for he confessed he had affirmed " that rather
Christ took no fiesh of our Lady " ; moreover, he
believed that he had said " that the baptism of infants
is not profitable, because it goeth without faith."
Here we see the root of the Anabaptist heresy, of
which there was so much in Westphalia. Infants
when baptized are unconscious, and therefore, it is
supposed, cannot really become members of Christ.
Needless to say, such a plausible view is common
enough even in our day.^
But where, it may be asked, does the Church of
England stand at this time? There are heresies
which she deems worthy of the fire, yet she upholds
what are thought heresies in other countries, desecrates
altars in the most shameful fashion, and forbids even
a royal princess to have mass said in her house. It
seemed very necessary that a Church which did
things like these should define her own principles
clearly, and show plainly what from her point of view
was or was not legitimate. Warwick himself, doubt
less, would have been glad to see the Church of
England relieved from the anarchy in which it had
been left since 1532, as the boy King could not well
act the part of a Uving head of the insular Church in
the way his father had done, discussing questions of
theology with Cranmer or determining them in
Parliament by the weight of his own authority.
Still less was Warwick the man to supply what was
wanting by acting Uke Thomas Cromwell as the
King's vicegerent in matters spiritual. Yet the
Attempts legislation passed in 1549-50 in opposition to bishops.
Church '" ^^ ^^^ ^^^ alike, however regardless of long-cherished
govern- traditious, was really a set of successive efforts to lay
down some principles of order in Church government ;
1 See L.P., xviii. ii. ; and Strype, Eccl. Mem., II. i. 334.
'' For the whole of these processes see Wilkins, iv. 39-43.

ment.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 319
for if the Church was no longer to be governed by
her own canons as of old, it was only reasonable that
she should know by what principles she was to be
governed at all. Yet, as we have seen, all those
successive attempts to deal with Ecclesiastical Juris- Another
diction only ended in another Act of Parliament to ^''l*"-.'^
authorise thirty -two commissioners (who were to be sion of °
appointed afterwards) to revise the canon law, asP'"''^"''™
origmally mtended by Henry VIII. ; and whether the canon
this was to lead to anything more than previous ^**'
Acts remained still to be seen.
As a matter of fact, it did lead to something more.
That is to say, it led to the actual issuing of a Com
mission this time, though only after the lapse of
twenty months. On the 6th October 1551 the
Thirty-two were at length nominated, and the Lord
ChanceUor received orders to make out the requisite
letters for their appointment. The Commission then The com-
consisted of eight bishops, eight divines, eight 0"',^''°"
civUians, and eight lawyers ; and of the whole thirty- stituted.
two, it was intended that eight members should in
the first place " rough hew the canon law, the rest
to conclude it afterwards." ^ On the 22nd a separate
Commission was issued to the eight chosen for this
preUminary work ; and they consisted of two of each
class. But this was set aside, and a new Commission
issued on the 11th November with three names
altered ; and the list stood ultimately thus : The
two bishops were Cranmer and Goodrich of Ely ; the
two divines. Cox and Peter Martyr ; the two civilians
(doctors of laws), WUliam May and Rowland Taylor
of Hadley ; and the two common lawyers, John Lucas
and Richard Gooderike.^ The rough-hewing process
' Dasent, iii. 382.
' Cardwell's Documentary Annals, i. 106-9. The footnote in Cardwell at
p. 107 is inaccurate ; and so, unfortunately (in another way), are the state
ments in my English Church History at p. 300. The language of this separ
ate Commission is a little peculiar. The word "vos" in the first line of
p. 108 in Cardwell seems undoubtedly to be an error for "nos." But in that
case the Thirty-two had not yet received their commission, notwithstanding

320 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
seems really to have proceeded some length, as we
shall see hereafter. It could not have been an easy
task. For one thing, a new body of canon law
involved a restatement of the essential doctrines of
the Church — a subject on which the Primate himself,
at the head of the Commission, had undergone a
serious change of opinion. Yet on this point he was
not Ukely to meet with much opposition from those
appointed to be his fellows. The real question was
how to form a body of canon law that should entirely
keep clear of statute law.
With Cranmer, clearly, as Primate of All England,
Cranmer the responsibility for the formation of a new theo-
to'^re^arr l^gi*^^^ Standard particularly rested ; and, in fact, he
a new had becu labouring at the work for years. We find
stantoT^ him already engaged upon it at the close of the year
1549, when Hooper, writing to BuUinger, having
recovered somewhat from his anxiety lest a change
in religion should result from the fall of Somerset,
says : " The Archbishop of Canterbury entertains
right views as to the nature of Christ's presence in
the Supper, and is now very friendly towards myself
He has some articles of religion, to which all preachers
and lecturers in divinity are required to subscribe, or
else a licence for teaching is not granted them ; and
in these his sentiments respecting the Eucharist are
pure and religious, and similar to yours in S-witzer-
land. We desire nothing more for him than a firm
the order given to the Chancellor on the 6th October ; for the words follow
ing declare that it was only proposed to appoint them shortly. Perhaps upon
further consideration the Chancellor was directed to suspend for a while the
issue of the Commission. Canon Dixon {History of the Church of England,
iii. 352, end of footnote) considers that "the Commission of October 6 was
only for the fragment of the three years that was left," and that the lan
guage of this separate Commission had reference to the necessity of a new
Commission for the Thirty-two being made out when the appointed three
years should expire. But they would not have expired till the beginning of
1553, and a new Commission was actually issued in February 1552. So I
think the reasonable conclusion is that very shortly after tlie Council's order
to the Chancellor on the 6th October, it was determined at least to suspend
the appointment of the Commission, and ultimately to hold it over till
February.

CH.ni 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 321
and manly spirit. Like all the other bishops in this
country, he is too fearful what may happen to him." ^
And again in February 1550 Hooper writes : " The
Archbishop of Canterbury, who is at the head of the
King's Council, gives to all lecturers and preachers
their licence to read and preach. Every one of them,
however, must previously subscribe to certain articles. He requires
which, if possible, I will send you ; one of which, ^'gul,!'^^'^
respecting the Eucharist, is plainly true, and that scribe
which you maintain in Switzerland." ^ The Swiss ^"^'"^ ^^'
divines had come to accord on this subject the year
before in the celebrated Consensus Tigurinus ; ^ so
matters were tending to identity of teaching in
England and in Switzerland. And this was really a
great step gained in the programme of our early
Reformers. The vision which appealed most of all to
the heart of Cranmer was that of a true Catholicism
throughout all Europe, the different Churches in
different countries each confessing the control of that
great principle called in England Royal Supremacy,
whUe each of these local Churches, being but a branch
of the true Church in every country, agreed in one
common faith emancipated from the corruptions of
Rome. Such agreement may seem to us a dream,
and yet there was much more substance in it than
we imagine ; and Cranmer's whole life — blemished, as
it certainly was, by many a weakness, and by no
small amount of tyranny when he was allowed to
have the upper hand — was, in truth, a very earnest
effort to make it a reality.
There were only two tendencies of which Cranmer
was intolerant — the one was the acknowledgment of
Roman authority, and the other the denial of royal
supremacy. He had early in his life become con-
1 Original Letters, pp. 71, 72. ^ Ih. p. 76, letter xxxvii.
' An account of the origin of this Consensus will be found in Niemeyer's
Preface to his Collectio confcssionum in ecclesiis refor'nmtis publicatarum,
p. ili, and the text of the agreement, with other documents relating thereto,
in the work itself, pp. 191-217.
VOL. Ill Y

322 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
vinced of what many others, with far less clearness of
vision, were practically convinced as well — that royal
supremacy was a power which could no longer be
ignored, even in matters of religion ; and he admitted
that, if the supreme ruler of a country were a pagan
— nay, even, the Great Turk — royal supremacy over
the Church in his realm was nevertheless a fact. The
subject's duty would then be, by suasive influences, to
christianise the ruler as much as possible, or to pro
cure from him the utmost possible toleration. And
when the ruler was avowedly Christian the same
principle, practically, held good. The royal theology
was bound to take note of the theology of Christian
divines ; and Cranmer himself, as one among the
number, only submitted his own opinions with all
due deference as an aid to general agreement. But
when the King was a minor the Archbishop was
charged with higher authority, and he felt he was
called on to lay down the law for others. Yet even
here — despotic as he was towards men whose prin
ciples seemed to be built on a merely Roman founda
tion — he offered hospitality to men of various views
from different parts of the Continent, and eagerly
sought to harmonise them. In the process he himself
shed his Lutheranism, as we have seen already ; and
even in 1549, just after Somerset's fall, he had begun
administering articles for subscription to candidates
for Holy Orders.
In fact, even a year before that date, we see
clearly his aim in what he wrote both to Melancthon
and to John a Lasco when inviting them to England.
and desires " Wc are dcsirous," he said to the latter, "of setting
to have a foj.^]j [j^ q^j. churches the true doctrine of God, and
Council 01 . . ' .
divines in havc UO wish to adapt it to all tastes, or to deal in
England, ambiguitics ; but, laying aside all carnal considera
tions, to transmit to posterity a true and explicit
form of doctrine agreeable to the rule of the sacred
Writings ; so that there may not only be set forth

cH.ni 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 323
among all nations an illustrious testimony respecting
our doctrine, delivered by the grave authority of
learned and godly men, but that all posterity may
have a pattern to imitate. For the purpose of carry
ing this important design into execu-tion we have
thought it necessary to have the assistance of learned
men, who, having compared their opinions together
with us, may do away with all doctrinal controversies,
and buUd up an entire system of true doctrine." ^
Posterity, it is to be feared, have not appreciated
Cranmer's view much better than Cranmer could
have appreciated the "moderation" of the twentieth
century. He had no more idea than his Romanist
opponents of allowing private judgment to hold the
field against the general consent of the learned. It
was a true Catholicism which he had in view, to be
laid down by thoughtful divines after careful confer
ence among themselves, and he hoped that it would
justify itself as Catholic in the end by drawing the
consent of all Christian Europe not under papal
bondage. Such an idea evidently was in his mind
even in the days of Henry VIIL, when his royal
master, who only played with theology as far as it
suited his poUtics, invited a Lutheran embassy over
to England, simply to strengthen himself against
Rome by the friendship of German princes. But it
really became of much practical importance when in
1550 a new Pope, Julius III., promised to revive the
Council of Trent, and actually succeeded next year in
getting it to reassemble. The German Protestants,
too, in 1551, were partly caught by the appeal to
send deputies thither ; and it was quite essential for
England, holding aloof from the Pope and all his
doings, to have some definite theology and Church
principles of her own, in sympathy at least with
Swiss, and, if possible, with other Reformers.
Cranmer had been in Germany, and had, doubt-
1 Original Letters, p. 17, letter ix., dated 4th July 1548.

324 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
less, studied the Augsburg Confession carefully years
before the Lutheran embassy came to England in
1538. He had also held conferences with their
divines in that year, and the Articles which he drew
up by royal command in 1551 are shown to have
been partly moulded upon a set of thirteen Articles
proposed by them when in England, to English theo
logians. Of these thirteen Articles there is one com
plete copy ^ in the Public Record Office, and several
drafts, either of the entire set or of separate articles.
And among these drafts are one or two which contain
corrections, some in the handAvriting of Cranmer, and
some in that of Henry VIII. himself^ These Articles,
of course, breathe the spirit of the Augsburg Con
fession, and some of them are identical, or nearly so,
in the wording with those of that great Lutheran
formula. They were, indeed, much fewer in number ;
but the discussions previously held with Foxe and
Heath in Germany must have suggested to the negoti
ators the necessity of making their conditions as clear
and concise as possible. And though nothing came
at that time of these efforts to attain unity in religion,
Cranmer assuredly gave them much consideration in
the days of Edward VI. when he was drawing up
articles for his clergy to sign before they could be
licensed to preach. Thus we can very well account
for the Lutheran character of some of the Articles of
the Church of England at this day.
It is unfortunate that at this critical period we
have no exact account of what the Convocations
were doing. Their records, indeed, are said to have
been exceedingly meagre, and those of the Canterbury
Convocation were burnt in the Great Fire of London.
But some points have been noted by writers who
made use of them before the Fire ; and Heylyn,
' Printed by Jenkyns in the Appendix to Cranmer's Remains, vol. iv.
pp. 273 sq., with the text of corresponding articles in the Augsburg Con
fession underneath for comparison.
2 i. P., XIII. i. 1307 (1-19).

CH.ni 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 325
taking note of the efforts of Calvin to control the
English Church and Government, tells us something
about a Convocation which began in the year 1550.
This very likely means 1551 by our mode of com
putation, which begins the year on the 1st January,
but the exact date when the session opened must be
uncertain. " The first debate among the prelates,"
writes Heylyn, "was of such doubts as had arisen Doubts
about some things contained in the Common Prayer ™g^J
Book ; and more particularly, touching such feasts as matters
were retained and such as had been abrogated by the prayer
rules thereof, the form of words used at the giving of Book.
the bread, and the different manner of administering
the Holy Sacrament. Which being signified unto
the Prolocutor and the rest of the clergy, who had
received somewhat in charge about it the day before,
— answer was made, that they had not yet sufficiently
considered of the points proposed, but that they
would give their lordships some account thereof in
the foUo-wing session. But what account was given
appears not in the Acts of that Convocation ; of
which there is nothing left upon record but this very
passage." ^
This is a gleam of light in darkness, and shows
what questions were now coming on. Moreover, it
shows us that the chief advocates of change were in
the Upper House, of course among the new bishops,
and that the representatives ofthe clergy of lower ranks
were slow to adopt their proposals, and apparently
did not adopt them. But in another great matter
Cranmer was able to take action without leave of
Convocation; for in 1551 the King and Council
ordered him to draw up a book of Articles of Re
Ugion, to be set forth afterwards by authority.
This, of course, was a thing he had been doing for
some time ; and he delivered his Articles that year to
the Bishops ; for we read in a Council minute of the
1 Ecclesia restaurata, i. 227-8 (Robertson's edition), old paging 107.

326 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
2nd May, 1552, that a letter was ordered to be
addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury " to send
hither the Articles that he delivered last year to the
Bishops, and to signify whether the same were set
forth by any public authority or no, according to the
minute." ^ No doubt he had deUvered them to that
same Convocation which began in 1550 (old style);
but what criticism they received there we cannot
tell. After he had handed them, as desired, to the
CouncU, they were returned to him for further
consideration. Then four months later, on the 19 th
September, he notified Cecil that he had sent them
to Sir John Cheke, set in a better order, with " the
titles upon every matter, adding thereto that which
lacked." And thereupon he desired Cecil to take
counsel with Cheke about submitting them to the
King.^ Now it will be remembered that Hooper, writing
to Cecil from Gloucester when he revisited the diocese
in July, 1552, mentions certain articles * that the King
had spoken of when he took his oath at his consecra
tion as bishop. But the King had not authorised
them, and when he first visited Gloucester, in 1551,
he wrote to the clergy there merely as their bishop,
that with a view to better order in the diocese he
Hooper's had " coUccted and gathered out of God's holy Word
ttmi ^ ^^^ articles." These were fifty in number; they
have been printed by the Parker Society.* So it
seems that Hooper began his work as bishop by
framing articles of his own to instruct the deans and
parsons under his spiritual guidance what kind of
doctrine they were to inculcate. Yet we can hardly
imagine that in formulating these he struck out a
path entirely for himself without reference to what
Cranmer had been already doing for some time in
formulating articles for the clergy to sign. And as a
' Dasent, iv. 33. 2 Cranmer's Letters (Parker Soc), p. 439.
^ See p. 289. * Hooper's Later Writings, pp. 120-29.

CH.ni 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 327
matter of fact, whatever originality there may have
been in Hooper's selection, it is certain that a good
number of these articles of his were either adopted
by Cranmer in his own scheme or were borrowed by
Hooper from it ; for no less than twenty of them
may be identified with articles in our familiar Thirty-
nine, though the wording sometimes varies a little.
But when next year Hooper attempted to begin a
simUar visitation at Worcester, though he contented
himself there with a set of nineteen articles merely
(and these were much criticised by two of his own
canons there), yet sixteen of those nineteen also may
be recognised among our Thirty -nine. ^
^ A comparison of the two sets of Articles with the Tliirty-nine may
interest the reader. Among the Fifty Articles of Gloucester the 2nd
corresponds to Art. I. of the Tliirty-nine, the 3rd to Art. VIII., the 4th to
Art. XIX. (first par.), the 7th to XI., the 8th to XII., the 9th to XXII.,
the 10th to XXVIII. (2nd par. Transubstantiation, but more positively
denied), the 15th to XXXL, the 16th to XXXIV., the 17th to XXIII., the
18th to XXXIX., the 22nd to XXV. (last par.), the 23rd to XXV. (first par.),
the 25th to XXVI. (differently put), the 29th to XXXII., the 34th, 35th,
36th, and 37th to XXXVII., the 39th to XXV. (pars. 2 and 3). In two or
three of the above parallelisms the correspondence is not exact.
Among the Nineteen Articles of Worcester (which are quoted and replied
to in JoUffe's book (see p. 290 ante), the 2nd corresponds to Art. VIII. of
the Thirty-nine, the 3rd to Art. XIX. (1st par.), the 4th to XIX. (2nd par.),
the 5th to VI. (with a difference), the 6th to XX. (from " It is not lawful
for the Church"), the 7th to XI. (a little different), the 8th to XXII., the
9th to XXVIII. (2nd par.), the 11th to XXXI., the 12th to XIII., the
13th to XV., the 14th to XXV. (last par.), the 15th to XXV. (1st par.), the
16th to XIV., the 17th to XXVIII. (last par.), the 19th to XXXII.
As to the other articles in the two visitations they are briefly as
follows : —
Gloucester. — 1. Nothing to be preaclied not contained in the Bible.
5. Though the true Church of Christ cannot err, any known Church may.
6. Against Anabaptist doctrines. 11. Those who unworthily come to
Baptism or the Lord's Supper do not receive the virtue and effect of the
Sacraments, but only the external signs. 12. Sacraments received with
faith must lead to salvation ; yet God may save children or elder persons
otherwise. 13. Sin remains even in the regenerate ; but, if admonished by
the Spirit of God, a man repents, he obtains remission of his sins. 14.
Against preaching in unknown tongues or with indistinct utterance (different
from XXIV.). 20. Christ took flesh of the Virgin without the seed of any
man. 26. Against Reservation of the Sacrament and non-communicating
attendance. 27. None to receive for others. 28. The Popish mass an
enemy to God's Word. 30. Celebration to be but once in the day. 31. For
teaching the catechism. 32. Consent makes matrimony, but it should not
be celebrated without inquiry and banns. 33. Correction, punishment,
and excommunication. 38. Collections for the poor. 40. Not to read
injunctions extolling the Popish mass, candles, etc. 41. Not to counterfeit
the Popish mass. 42. Not to buy and sell receipt of Holy Communion for

328 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
But before proceeding further with the story of
the Articles it will be necessary to take note of the
great events that were taking place in England all
the while, by which the power of the Earl of Warwick
Warwick reached a climax. He was created Duke of North-
Duke'of umberland on the 11th October 1551, and five days
Northum- later his old rival Somerset was again arrested and
beriand. ^^^^ ^^ ^-^q Towcr, just as he had been two years
previously, even at the same time of year. With
the elevation of War-wick to a dukedom came that of
Henry Grey, Marquis of Dorset, to the same dignity,
as Duke of Suffolk ; of Sir William Paulet, not long
since made Earl of Wiltshire to a marquisate, with
the title of Winchester ; of Sir William Herbert,
married to a sister of the Marquis of Northampton
and the late Queen Katharine Parr, as Earl of Pem
broke. These promotions in the peerage took place
within a day or two of each other ; and at the same
time Secretary Cecil and John Cheke, one of the
King's tutors, were made knights. The bearers of all
these new honours knew well to whom they were
indebted for them, and they were naturaUy strong
supporters of the new Duke of Northumberland. On
the other hand, a number of allies of the fallen Duke
of Somerset, Sir Ralph Vane and Sir Thomas Palmer,
Sir Miles Partridge, Sir Michael Stanhope, Sir Thomas
Arundel and some others were sent to the Tower hke
the Duke himself, and consigned to separate cells ;
also the Duchess of Somerset and one Crane and his
wife. Nor was it long before Sir William Paget, who
had been created a baron at the beginning of the
year, and the Earl of Arundel were committed to the
Tower also.
money. 43. Altars to be abolished. 44. Homilies to be read. 45-50.
Matters of discipline.
Worcester. — 1. Same as 20 of the Gloucester visitation. 10. Same as
11 Gloucester. 18. The mass which was used to be said by priests was
superstitious, and, except the Epistles and Gospels and Words of the
Supper, had very few things instituted by Christ, but was the invention of
Roman pontiffs and men of the like sort.

CH. Ill 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 329
The charges against Somerset were no doubt true
in part, though much exaggerated. It was stated
that he had been trying to recover the Protectorship
by making a party for himself ; ' that he had intended
to have Warwick, Northampton, and Sir William
Herbert invited to an entertainment at Lord Paget's
house in the Strand and attacked by the way or
assassinated at dinner ; that he had been making
plans for raising forces in the North and attacking the
gendarmerie, a newly established body of mounted
soldiers ; also that he had entertained a project for
raising the city by riding through it and proclaiming
liberty. The root of the whole matter was doubtless
his popularity in the country, of which Dudley was
not unnaturally jealous, and some indiscretions
of his own which he actually admitted on his trial.
He had only talked, he said, of killing Warwick, but
had never seriously resolved on it. To attack the
gendarmerie, a body of 900 men, with his own little
band of 100 would have been a mad project, and
useless even if he had prevailed. He had never
thought of raising London, and the fact that he kept
men in his chamber at Greenwich was no proof of it,
as he never used them in that way when he might
have done it.
His trial was deferred till the 1st December ; and
it is not insignificant that in the meantime the
meeting of Parliament which had been arranged for
the 4th November was postponed. Another thing
which tended to make Northumberland almost an
absolute ruler was an order taken in Council on the
10th November.^ It had been the practice during
^ This Warwick had been insinuating almost ever since Somerset's libera
tion and restoration to the Council in 1550 ; for it is in that year, not in 1551,
that we ought to place Whalley's letter to Cecil in Tytler's England under
Edw. VI. and Mary, ii. 21-4. The letter, as Mr. Pollard has shown
{England under Somerset, 282 note), "is really dated 26th June 1550, not
1651," and internal evidence shows this clearly, both by what is said about
Gardiner, and by the 26th June being a Thursday in the date.
2 Daaent, iii. 411, 416.

330 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
the King's minority that when important documents
were drawn up in the King's name for the royal
signature, they should be signed in the first place by
at least six of the Council ; and, in September, Lord
Chancellor Riche refused to pass under the Great
Seal some documents for which fewer signatures were
appended to the warrants. Order was therefore taken
that in such cases the King's signature alone should
henceforth be sufficient, a docket of the bills submitted
to him being prepared beforehand and signed by the
responsible Councillors. This doubtless should have
been some guarantee against absolutism if the Coun
cillors were not mere tools of the reigning statesman,
and a plausible reason was given for the change as
avoiding " derogation to his Majesty's honour and royal
authority." But Lord Chancellor Riche knew that
he had not given satisfaction to Northumberland,
and found himself too ill to discharge the duties of
Chancellor any longer. Just before Christmas the
Great Seal was delivered to Goodrich, Bishop of Ely,
as Lord Keeper during his illness ; but in January, in
view of the meeting of Parliament, Bishop Goodrich
was made Lord Chancellor in his place.
Trial of the Somerset's trial on the 1st December scarcely
Duke of seems to have been conducted with fairness ; ^ and
there is some uncertainty on what precise charges he
was condemned. The Middlesex grand jury had
found, besides some of the points recorded above,
that he had conspired with others at Somerset
Place on the 20th April preceding "to deprive
the King of his royal dignity, and to seize his
person " ; and that with a view to this he had
planned with Sir Michael Stanhope, SU Miles Par
tridge and others to seize and imprison Warwick, and
take possession of the Great Seal and the Tower of
^ Mr. Pollard may be partial in his England under the Protector
Somerset, pp. 292 sq. ; but he seems to have gone more thoroughly into
tlie matter than any one before him.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 331
London. On the other hand, there was nothing said
in his indictment about any assassination scheme.
Nor was Somerset confronted with the witnesses
against him, except one, and that one on a point
which was not very material even if true, though
Somerset denied it on oath. The examination of his
chief accusers. Sir Thomas Palmer and Crane, was
read to him in Court, and he seems to have shown,
convincingly enough, that they were altogether un
worthy characters. At the end of the day the Duke
was acquitted of treason but found guilty of felony.
He apparently had come under the Act (3 and 4
Edw. VI. c. 5), passed in the first session after his
faU from the Protectorate, for the special protection
of lords of the Council against designs to kill or
imprison any one of them ; for a man proved guilty
of any such design was liable to be adjudged a felon
"ftithout benefit of clergy.-'
The last act of the tragedy took place on the morn- ms
ing of the 22nd January 1552, when the quondam '^^«'="*^™-
Protector was beheaded on Tower Hill. Then came,
shortly after, the trial and execution of four of his
alleged accomplices. Sir Thomas Arundel, Sir Ralph
Vane, Sir Michael Stanhope, and Sir Miles Partridge,
all of whom denied at their death that they had ever
done anything against the King or his Council.
Neither Stanhope nor Partridge, indeed, was greatly
pitied. The last is notorious in history for having
won of Henry VIIL, by a throw of the dice, the bells
of the .Jesus Chapel at St. Paul's.
It was not matters touching reUgion that brought
about, or in any way influenced, the fate of Somerset.
It was only a triumph of faction ; and the people
^ See the account given by Micronius to BuUinger of the case against
Somerset, Orig. Letters, p. 579. The letter which the King wrote to Baruaby
Fitzpatrick (see Fuller's Church History, iv. 84) about his uncle's case is,
after all, only Northumberland's' version of the story. Edward's domestic
feeling was not warm towards either of his beheaded uncles ; and now he
was under the spell of Dudley.

332 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
were well aware that they had now got a King
Stork instead of a King Log. The late Protector
was generally lamented, and certainly not least by
those whose religion was of a Reformed type, as
we shall have occasion to see ere long. And yet
Northumberland was carrying matters in religion
further than Somerset or Cranmer himself would
probably ever have been inclined to do. For
Meetmg of Parliament met on the 23rd January, the day after
ment^ Somerset's execution, and at once plunged into
Jan. 'i552. Church questious. A bill for compelling people to
go to church, which was introduced into the Lords
the first day, indicates a new policy in these matters.
Till now there had been no compulsion by secular
law to attend religious services, and the proposal
shows more clearly a fact of which we have had
evidence already — that the new ritual was not
generally popular, at all events not everywhere.
Parliament, however, could not be persuaded to
adopt that policy even now. The bill had three
readings in the Lords, but only one in the Commons,
and was lost as an independent measure. But
a new Bill of Uniformity having been introduced
in the Lords on the 9th March, on the 30th there
was produced another bill " for the due coming to
common prayer and other services of God in churches."
This was presently combined with the Bill of Uni
formity ; which passed both Houses in April, though
not without serious protests in the Lords from Bishops
Thirlby and Aldridge, and from the Earl of Derby
and Lords Stourton and Windsor.^
New Act But why was a new Act of Uniformity necessary ?
foJ^ity. The answer is that it was wanted in order to give
authority to a new Prayer Book, the first Prayer
Book having by this time been subjected to a good
deal of criticism and revision. Yet to authorise a
new book meant naturally to discredit the book
' Journals ofthe Lords, 6th April.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 333
already authorised and give a character of fickleness
to the exercise of royal power in Church matters ;
and this was particularly undesirable at a time when
Rome seemed to be putting forth fresh vigour, the
Council of Trent having been already resumed in the
preceding year, and the eucharistic doctrines and
ordinances of the Reformers having been there em
phatically condemned. Nay, such was the prestige of
the reassembled Council that there were envoys from
some of the German Protestants there now, and what
was likely to occur might have been a source of
anxiety in England. Yet it seemed as if the ruling
powers in England sought safety rather in a good
understanding with the Swiss Reformers, and Calvin
istic theology recommended itself to them more than
ever. Still they were most anxious to avoid that
imputation of fickleness or inconsistency ; and the
preamble to the new Act is curiously worded alike to
justify the new legislation and to avoid any imputation
on the old. The preamble speaks of the first Prayer
Book as a " very godly order agreeable to the Word Reasons
of God and the primitive Church, very comfortable pr^aye^^
to all good people desiring to live in Christian con- Book,
versation, and most profitable to the estate of this
Realm." Where, then, was the necessity for a new
Book ? It is true that, notwithstanding this, we are
told that " a great number of people in divers parts
of the realm do wilfully and damnably refuse to come
to their parish churches " — the evil which it had been
proposed to remedy by coercion. By this Act the
bishops were merely encouraged to deal with de
faulters by Church censures. But the reason given
for the new book being set forth is that doubts had
arisen about the proper use of the old one, " rather
by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers than of
any other worthy cause." ^
We cannot commend the honesty of these words ;
1 statute 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 1.

334 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
and when we read further that the object in view
was " explaining, perfecting, and making the same
prayer and service more earnest and fit to stir
Christian people to the honouring of Almighty God,"
we are led to look into the character of the liturgi
cal changes designed by the statute, and also into
some previous correspondence about them — evidences
which, taken together, can leave no possible doubt
that the persons designated " mistakers " were per
sons whom the first book was positively designed to
conciliate. For in the first place the book, already
authorised and in use, had been laid by Cranmer
before each of the two foreign divines, Bucer and
Peter Martyr, for their criticisms, and this is what
Peter Martyr had written to Bucer from Lambeth on
the 10th January 1551: "I thank God who has
afforded us an opportunity of admonishing the
Bishops of these things. It has now been determined
in this conference of theirs, as the Most Reverend has
reported to me, that many things shall be changed.
But what those things are which they have agreed to
alter he did not inform me, nor did I dare to inquire
of him. But I am not a little comforted by what
Master Cheke has intimated to me. ' If the Bishops,'
he says, ' will not take care that the things that ought
to be changed are changed, the King will do it of
himself, and when the matter comes before Parlia
ment he will interpose his own royal authority.' " -^
This was very much how the matter was managed
a year later, in the beginning of 1552. By royal
authority through Parliament the authorised book of
public devotions was changed in such a way that it
should be no longer possible for men like Gardiner to
believe that the doctrine of Transubstantiation found
any support in it. Gardiner, as we have seen, when
he was asked his opinion of the first book, did
not think it just such a book as he would have
' strype's Cranmer, App. No. 61.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 335
composed himself, but said that he could con
scientiously accept it and set it forth. And in his
book against Cranmer he had found the old doctrine
of the Church expressed in the prayer of consecration,
where the words were — " to bless and sanctify these
thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they
may be unto us the body and blood of thy most
dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ." But Cranmer
put a receptionist interpretation on the words "be
unto us " and denied that they indicated any change
in the substance of the elements. In short, the
whole Church of England must move now with the
Primate's change of view, and those who had found
the previous liturgy compatible with old-fashioned
doctrines must be told that they were " mistakers."
It was not difficult, however, to obtain the con
sent of a renovated Bench of Bishops to the desired
changes. Parliament only met in January 1552, for which
but Convocation had assembled again more than ^°"?'^j"
a month beiore it met and paved the way tor what prepared
was to be done in the secular assembly. So we learn *^® ^^''''''
from John ab Ulmis, writing from Oxford on the
10th January : —
The Convocation began to be held by command of the
King's Majesty on the 12th December by most excellent
and learned men, who are to dehberate and consult about a
proper moral disciphne and the purity of doctrine. The
Archbishop of Canterbury and Peter Martyr, the Archbishop
of York and the Bishop of London, together with the newly
appointed Chancellor of England, who was previously Bishop
of Ely, and our friend Skinner (who is almost the only
acknowledged manager and leader in aU controversial matters
concerning religion) are to form a Select Committee on these
points. The affairs will then be submitted to the approba
tion of every member of parhament, that is, to the judgment
both of high and low. It is uncertain what will be the issue.^
' Original Letters, {Yorker: Soc), p. 444. The words translated "to the
judgment both of high and low " (iu the Latin, " hoc est, summorum et in-
fimorum hominum judicium") mean, no doubt, of both Houses of Parlia
ment. Epp. Tigurinse, p. 293.

336 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
" Our friend Skinner," who took such a leading
part in this business of a religious settlement, though
well known to John ab Ulmis and to BuUinger, is
scarcely so well known to fame as one might expect.
And it may be enough for the reader to be told about
him that early in the reign of Elizabeth he attained
the dignity of Dean of Durham and died two years
later. But he, too, has something to say about the
matter in hand, writing likewise from Oxford to
BuUinger five days earUer than John ab Ulmis.
" They have lately," he says, " assembled a Convoca
tion, and appointed certain persons to purify our
Church from the filth of Antichrist, and to abolish
those impious laws of the Roman Pontiffs by which
the spouse of Christ has for so long a time been
wretchedly and shamefully defiled ; and to substitute
new ones, better and more holy, in their place." ^ No
question of correcting " mistakers " here ! Bad laws
framed under the infiuence of Antichrist are to be
thoroughly abolished and replaced by new ones. But
we do not gather either from the words of Skinner
or of the ardent John ab Ulmis how far the reforming
party had their way. The latest news from either
of them says, " It is uncertain what will be the
issue." There is, indeed, one further reference to the
subject in a short letter of ab Ulmis to BuUinger
on the 1st March following ; but it is of a most
disappointing character. " Perhaps," he writes,
" you may wish to know what has been decreed in
Convocation respecting ecclesiastical matters, and in
what condition are the affairs of our Duke.^ But
as I am aware that you will learn all these matters
both from the letter of [Lady] Jane, the Duke's
daughter, and from Traheron, I deem it superfiuous
1 Original Letters, p. 314. This letter is misdated by the editor 1560.
It is dated from Oxford on the 5th January, and the correspondence of its
contents with those of John ab Ulmis, writing from the same place on the
10th, shows that it was written in 1552.
2 The Duke of Suffolk, father of Lady Jane Grey

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 337
to write more concerning them at this present
time." 1
We can teU, however, from other sources the
course things took after the month of January. The
Commission of Thirty -two for remodelling the canon
law may or may not have been issued by this time ;
but the smaller Commission of Eight was certainly
doing the preparatory work expected of it, as
Skinner's words in the above extract imply. The
three years' term aUowed by the Act would not have
expired for a twelvemonth yet. But on the 2nd
February the CouncU directed the Lord Chancellor to
make out a new Commission of Thirty- two according New com-
to the Act,' and the King in his Journal notifies the ^^^ °^
fact on the 10th. The names were nearly the same two.
as those in the previous Commission ; but there were
some changes. The eight bishops remained as before.
In the set of eight divines Latimer was left out and
Taylor of Hadley was put in. This made a vacancy
among the eight civUians, in which two others also
were left out, Sir Thomas Smith and Dr. Lyell;
but there were inserted two new names, Mr. Rede
and Mr. Coke. Among the lawyers the name of
Brock, recorder of London, was replaced by that of
Gawdy.^ These, however, made only thirty -one
Commissioners, unless it was by accident that the
King omitted one name among the civiUans ; for
after all, we are dependent on a list drawn up by
himself But while this list contains the full number
of bishops, it does not include the Archbishop of
York (Holgate), whom John ab Ulmis places upon the
select committee. Perhaps this Swiss student at
Oxford was not very well informed. We may, how
ever, judge that the tendency of things, as shown
abeady by the new Act of Uniformity, was more
decidedly anti-Roman than before, and that a body
^ Original Letters, p. 450. ^ Dasent, iii. 471.
^ See Edward's Journal, under date.
VOL. Ill Z

338 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
of canon law turned out by the new Commission was
not likely to be very conservative. In the course of
one year more, it would seem that they had actually
agreed on a new scheme of canon law ; of which, how
ever, I defer speaking for the present. For some other
symptoms of the times deserve attention first.
This second Act of Uniformity was certainly a
curious measure, cunningly introduced for politic
reasons, because it was clear that the first Act did
not satisfy ardent Reformers. Calvin had expressed
pretty clearly, in that letter which he wrote to the
Protector Somerset in ignorance of his fall, his dislike
of various matters in the EngUsh ritual.-' The book,
he considered, still countenanced superstition ; and
Calvin's feeling in this was shared by all the Swiss
Reformers and their English allies. But the power
which gets Acts passed by ParUament is not that of
divines but of statesmen ; and matters were guided
now by one subtle head which only considered how
divines might promote its purposes. Northumber
land, by no means fervid himself, had a high
appreciation of fervour. It was at least a very un
mistakable thing, and showed clearly what currents
might be made available.
An admirable example of the value of fervour
John presented itself at this time in the case of a Scottish
Knox at preacher who had found a field of usefulness at
' Newcastle and drawn many of his countrymen thither,
creating a Uttle colony of Calvinists in that notable
seaport. The name of this preacher was John Knox,
and he requires no further introduction to the reader.
Countenanced by the authorities, he had been preach
ing continually in the great church of St. Nicholas
(now in these days a cathedral) through the summer
of 1551 and the succeeding winter; and when news
reached Newcastle of the final ruin and death of the
Duke of Somerset, he made the pulpit ring with
1 See pp. 120-1.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 339
denunciations of the act in a style which we can
easily appreciate from his own words. For it is thus
he writes in exile two years later " to the faithful in
London, Newcastle, and Berwick " : —
What the Devil and his members, the pestilent Papists,
meant by his away-taking, God compelled my tongue to
speak in more places than one ; and especiaUy before you,
the professors of God's truth, and in the Newcastle, as Sir
Robert Brandhng did not forget of long time after. God
grant that he may understand all other matters spoken
before him then, as at other times, as rightly as he did that
mine interpretation of the vineyard whose hedges, ditches,
towers, and winepress God destroyed because it would bring
forth no good fruit ; and that he may remember that what
ever was spoken by my mouth that day is now complete and
come to pass, except that the final destruction and vengeance
of God is not yet fallen upon the greatest offenders, as
assuredly shortly it shall, unless that he and such other of
his sort that then were enemies to God's truth, will speedily
repent, and that earnestly, of their stubborn disobedience.
God compelled my tongue, I say, openly to declare that the
Devil and his ministers intended only the subversion of
God's true rehgion by that mortal hatred amongst those
which ought to have been knit together by Christian charity
and by benefits received, and especially that the wicked
papists, by that ungodly breach of charity, dihgently minded
the overthrow of hun that, to his own destruction, procured
the death of his innocent friend.^
This was written from Dieppe after a great change
of times. Edward VI. was dead and Mary was
Queen. Northumberland had met with his deserts on
Tower HiU. Burning of heretics had not begun again,
but the " godly " were sore discouraged. Sir Robert
Brandling, who had been three times Mayor of New
castle,^ though an " enemy to God's truth," had once
been impressed with Knox's words, but was not likely
to repent in these days. But the point to be noted
is how John Knox speaks of the fate of Somerset,
' Quoted in Lorimer's John Knox and the Church of England, p. 83.
2 Brand's Hist, of Newcastle, ii. 436, 433, 439.

340 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
and how he spoke about it at the time. We cannot
doubt that he spoke about it in the way his very
earnest words in the above extract imply. But who
would imagine that he became soon after chaplain to
Somerset's rival and supplanter, whom it is scarcely
uncharitable to call the real author of his death ?
His language, indeed, is curiously discreet. While
lamenting " that mortal hatred amongst those which
ought to have been knit together by Christian charity,
and by benefits received," he had suggested that the
only gainers by it would be those wicked papists who
were now indeed supreme. But he has not a word
to say about the " vaulting ambition " of Dudley,
which was the real cause of the whole catastrophe.
John Knox, however, demands special attention
from us at this time in connection with the rule
of Northumberland, the second Prayer Book, and
the Act of Uniformity. It has been surmised that
even in 1551 he was in the King's service as
a preacher with the not inconsiderable stipend
of £40 a year. He was not, however, at first one
of the six royal chaplains appointed on the 18th
December^ of that year, of whom two were to
be always at Court, and four away preaching in
different parts of the kingdom. Nor is it so clear as
has been supposed, on evidence which, no doubt,
Knox in suggcsts such an inference, that he ever held one
serv^^^' of those appointments. He was indeed next year
recognised as "preacher in the North," and as such
had what was technically called a " reward " of £40
given him from the King by warrant of the 27th
October 1552. It is, moreover, quite true that £40
was the stipend given to each of the royal chaplains
above mentioned,^ and also that a stipend of the same
^ See Edward's Journal under date.
2 Annuities of this amount were given to Harley, Bill, Grindall, and
Perne, by patent 6th March, 6 Edw. VI. part 7. Strype {Eccl. Mem.,
II. i. 524) gives the date as March 13. The warrant for them was issued
on the 2nd. MS. Reg. 18 C 24, f. 186 b.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 341
amount was given to Knox himself, which he lost on
Mary's accession.^ But it appears from Strype ^ that
Knox's annuity of £40 was given him " for his good
service in preaching in the North, till he should have
some place in the Church conferred on him." It was
merely a temporary grant to be paid quarterly, it
appears, tiU some promotion were obtained for him.
But a powerful patron was thinking of promotion for
him even then. He was still at Newcastle during
the greater part of the year 1552. During the
summer of that year, the Duke of Northumberland
went to the north as Warden General of the
Marches.^ He was at Newcastle on the 12th August,*
and may even have heard Knox preach there. At
all events the Duke was one who could form an
exceUent judgment of the political value of such a
man ; and after his return south he wrote to Cecil
from Chelsea, on the 28th October (the day after the
date of Knox's "reward"), wishing that the King
would make that preacher Bishop of Rochester. This,
in his opinion, would serve three good purposes :
First, " he would not only be a whetstone to quicken
and sharpen the Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he
hath need, but also he would be a great confounder of
the Anabaptists lately sprung up in Kent. Secondly,
he should not continue the ministration in the North
contrary to this set forth here. Thirdly, the family
of the Scots now inhabiting in Newcastle chiefiy for
his feUowship would not continue there, wherein
many resorts unto them out of Scotland ; which is
not requisite." ^
These reasons, which were those of an acute
' See Lorimer, pp. 79, 80. Knox's patent does not seem to be enrolled.
The "reward" was simply a gratuity, but was probably intended to serve
as a first payment.
2 Eccl. Mem., II. i. 525.
-" He took horse for the north early on the 16th June. Machyn's Diary,
p. 21.
-* Brand's ffisi. of Newcastle, ii. 441.
' Tytler's Edw. VI. and Mary, ii. 142.

342 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
politician, deserve some consideration. Northumber
land, it is clear, was hastening on the religious
revolution which Cranmer would rather have kept
within bounds. Knox would help in this, whUe at
the same time he would confound the troublesome
Anabaptists of Kent. Then his withdrawal from the
north would relieve the situation there ; for his
extreme nonconformity, I fancy, was not popular in
Newcastle, and was not made more palatable by the
fact that a number of his countrymen had come to
him there, " chiefly for his feUowship," especially as
the number was continually increasing. It would be
just as well that those Scots went back to their own
country. This, indeed, the Duke insists upon again
in a letter of the 23rd November, in which he writes :
" And further I have thought good to put you, and
so my lords, in memory that some order be taken for
Knokks, otherwise you shall not avoid the Scots from
out of Newcastle, which, all things considered, me-
think should not be forgotten." ^ Dr. Lorimer wonders
what harm the Duke feared from aUowing " the family
of Scots " to continue and increase in Newcastle in a
time of peace between the two kingdoms ; but it
evidently has not struck him that Knox's Calvinism
might not have been generally relished south of
Tweed, and that perhaps he and his countrymen were
just barely tolerated because they were known to
have influential support.
Knox was not made a bishop, but he was by this
His sermon time making a stir much farther south, and if there be
knelling anything in the above conjecture, what he was doing
at Cora- at Court would have made his return northward all
mumon. ^^^ morc undcsirablc. For there can be no doubt of
the identity of the person referred to by Utenhovius
in the following passage of a letter to BuUinger written
from London on the 12th October 1552 : —
' Lorimer, p. 78.

CH. Ill 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 343
Some disputes have arisen within these few days among
the bishops in consequence of a sermon of a pious preacher,
chaplain to the Duke of Northumberland, preached by him
before the King and Council, in which he inveighed with
great freedom against kneehng at the Lord's Supper, which
is still retained here by the Enghsh. This good man, how
ever, a Scotsman by nation, has so -wrought upon the minds
of many persons that we may hope some good to the Church
¦will at length arise from it ; which I earnestly implore the
Lord to grant.^
" Some disputes," indeed ! They were very serious
disputes, and never had contention been stirred up at
a more inconvenient period. Calvinistic principles
had been growing more and more powerful, and
Cranmer's moderating influence was put to a severe
trial. Cranmer's own policy had drawn the Council
towards Geneva as a centre of spiritual power in
opposition to Trent. Hooper's crotchets were for
gotten. His influence in the Council is noted as
daUy increasing even in March 1552.^ He was Bishop
of Worcester as well as of Gloucester. And now
there was not only John a Lasco to back him up
in things opposed to ancient order, but this Scots
man, Knox, as well, powerful in his preaching and
favoured at Court. Note also that both Hooper and
A Lasco were on the Commission of Thirty-two, to
gether with "our friend Skinner" and some more
lawyers besides, and perhaps the fact may assist us
to conjecture why Cranmer and other bishops, even
of the new school, did not like the passing of the
Act for setting up that commission.^ For Hooper
was just as strong against kneeling at the Supper as
Knox, and in his Lent Sermons, preached before the
King and Council in 1550, he had said: "Seeing
kneeUng is a show and external sign of honouring
and worshipping, and heretofore hath grievous and
damnable idolatry been committed by the honouring
1 Original Letters, pp. 581-2.
2 Ib. p. 580. ' See p. 177.

344 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
of the Sacrament, I would wish it were commanded
by the magistrates that the communicators and
receivers should do it standing or sitting. But sit
ting, in mine opinion, were best, for many considera
tions." ^ A Lasco, also, was in favour of sitting, and
his opinion to that effect was cited by Cartwright
in his controversy with Whitgift in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth.^
Such a sermon as that of Knox, actually preached
before the King and his Council, was certainly calcu
lated to justify the expectation of Northumberland
that the preacher would be a whetstone to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury. The new Book of Common
Prayer was then on the eve of publication, and by
the statute it was to come into use on AU Saints'
Day, the 1st November, only a few weeks later. And
this sermon was actually levelled at a practice of old
standing which was distinctly enjoined by the book !
Nay, it was enjoined by this book for the first time ;
for hitherto the kneeling posture had been simply
taken for granted, but now there was a rubric requir
ing the bread and wine to be delivered " to the people
in their hands, kneeling." If the preacher was not
rebuked for his boldness, it seemed necessary to cor
rect the book somehow, even at the last moment ;
and how was it to be done ?
In the minutes of the Council for the 27th
September we read as follows : —
A letter to Grafton, the printer, to stay in anywise from
the uttering of the books of the new Service, and if he have
distributed any of them amongst his company, that then he
give strait commandment to every of them not to put any of
them abroad until certain faults therein be corrected.
The 27th September was a Tuesday. Was Knox's
sermon delivered on Sunday the 25th ? One would
^ "Sixth Sermon on Jonas," Hooper's Early Writings, p. 536.
2 Whitgift's Works, iii. 94 (Parker Soc).

CH. in 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 345
almost think that was the date. So great was the
importance attached to the preacher's sermon that
the Council had determined, even at the eleventh
hour, to delay publication of the book till the objec- issue of
tion to kneeling at reception had been considered. p^lyeT
Early in October they wrote to Cranmer that the Book
King desired him carefully to examine the book and '^^^'^y"'*-
correct printer's errors. They also intimated to him
the objection that had been taken on this special
point, and desired him to consult with Bishop Ridley
and some other learned man like Peter Martyr, to see
whether the direction to kneel ought to be allowed to
remain. The Archbishop replied on the 7th, promis
ing to do his utmost in both matters, albeit as to the
latter he said, " I trust that we with just balance cranmer
weighed this at the making of the Book ; and not tbHwec-
only we but a great many bishops and others of the tion to
best learned within this realm, and appointed for ''"^®^"'^"
that purpose. And now, the Book, being read and
approved by the whole state of the Realm in the
High Court of Parliament, with the King's Majesty
his royal assent, that this should be now altered again
without Parliament, of what importance this matter
is I refer to your Lordships' wisdom to consider."
He went on to suggest the inconvenience of defer
ring to " glorious " (i.e. self-important) " and unquiet
spirits which can Uke nothing but that is after their
own fancy," adding that if the book were made anew
every year they would stUl find faults in it. Kneel
ing, they said, was not commanded in Scripture, and
was therefore unlawful. That was the argument of
the Anabaptists and other sects (it was certainly the
old Lollard argument, but Cranmer refrained from
speaking of LoUardy), and he was ready to confute
it. Then he winds up his discourse with these
weighty observations : —
"My good Lords, I pray you to consider that
there be two prayers which go before the receiving

346 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
of the Sacrament, and two immediately follow, all
which time the people, praying and giving thanks,
do kneel ; and what inconvenience there is that it
may not be thus ordered, I know not. If the kneel
ing of the people should be discontinued for the time
of the receiving of the Sacrament, so that at the
receipt thereof they should rise up and stand or sit,
and then immediately kneel down again, it should
rather import a contemptuous than a reverent re
ceiving of the Sacrament. But it is not expressly
contained in the Scripture, say they, that Christ
ministered the Sacrament to his Apostles kneeling.
Nor they find it not expressly in Scripture that he
ministered it standing or sitting ; but if we wQl
follow the plain words of Scripture, we shall rather
receive it lying down on the ground, as the custom
of the world at that time [was] almost everywhere,
and as the Tartars and Turks use yet at this day to
eat their meat lying upon the ground. And the
words of the Evangelist import the same, which be
dvaKeifjiai and avatriirTO), which signify properly to lie
down upon the floor or ground, and not to sit upon a
form or stool. And the same speech use the Evan
gelists where they show that Christ fed five thousand
with five loaves, where it is plainly expressed that
they sat down upon the ground, and not upon
stools." ^
This should have been a pretty convincing answer
to any argument that the practice objected to was
not warranted by Scripture. But the Lollard spirit
saw danger in the act of kneeling as naturally imply
ing adoration ; and Cranmer, who was about to
repair to his diocese, was requested to remain in town
till Tuesday foUowing, the 11th, that the Lords
' Lorimer's John Knox and the Church of England, pp. 103-5. The
letter is not included either in the Parker Society's edition of Cranmer's
Letters or in that of Jenkyns, but is in the Record Office. It was first
printed by Perry in Some Historical Considerations relating to the Declaration
on Kneeling, p. 77.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 347
might confer with him. On that day, accordingly,
he attended a meeting of the Council at Westminster ;
but the record of that meeting contains nothing that
bears on this particular subject. Probably some
thing was said about it at a later meeting of the
Council which took place in the Archbishop's absence
on the 20th ; for though there is no mention of it in
the record of this meeting either, we have a minute
of the agenda for this meeting in Cecil's hand, con
taining the brief entry : —
" Mr. Knokes— B. of Cat^^- : y" booke in y' B. of
Durh'"- (?)." '
The second part of this memorandum is open to
different interpretations, which need not detain us
here; but the first is not a little significant. Not
withstanding the Archbishop's answer to Knox on
the subject of kneeling, his sermon before the King
was evidently stiU much esteemed, and he and five Knox and
others were selected at this time to criticise the most fj examine
effective part of the Primate's Church policy. For cranmer's
Cecil's brief minute of agenda for the 20th has surely ^'^"''*'-
some bearing on a determination of the Council on
the 21st, which is recorded in these words : —
A letter to Mr. Harley, Mr. Bill, Mr. Home, Mr. Grindall,
Mr. Perne,^ and Mr. j^nox, to consider certain articles
exhibited to the King's Majesty to be subscribed by all
such as shall be admitted to be preachers or ministers in
any part of the realm, and to make report of their opinions
touching the same.
Cranmer's Articles had already been submitted to
the bishops ; but now they were to be submitted to
the six preachers, four of whom at least were royal
chaplains. This is not surprising, because, as we
' state Papers, Domestic, Edward VI., vol. xv. Printed by Perry, p. 96.
I have referred to the original MS. to give the words, as nearly as possible,
verbatim et literatim,.
^ Misread "Percie" in Dasent. All others who have referred to the
MS. have made the name Perne, and there is no doubt it was Andrew
Perne, afterwards Dean of Ely.

348 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
have seen, after having been handed about a good deal
already between Convocation and the Council, they
had been finally presented to the King, and it lay
with the King and the divines whom he and North
umberland favoured most, to say the last word,
whether they should be authorised or not.
The Articles were at this time forty-five in
number, and the 38th (which was afterwards made,
with a little modification, the 35th) declared that the
Prayer Book and Ordinal lately issued by authority
of the King and Parliament were " holy, godly, and
not only by God's Scriptures probable in every rite
and ceremony, but also in no point repugnant thereto."
This was a statement that such men as Knox, and
even Hooper, could not be expected readily to endorse.
Probably not one of the six chaplains or preachers
would have willingly let it pass. As a matter of fact
they made a report to the Council, which to all
appearance was unanimous, in response to the letter
Their directed to them. This report was in Latin and does
report. ^^^ appear to be extant ; but its general drift is placed
beyond a doubt by another paper in EngUsh,^ which
they thought right to submit to the Council at the
same time. Disclaiming any sentiment of arrogance
or vain curiosity which they felt that " some " might
suspect (whether or not they had seen Cranmer's
letter, they had certainly been informed of its con
tents), or any desire to have " innovation " in things
already " weU ordered," they felt constrained to
remonstrate about this 38th Article. No one could
doubt that the kneeling posture at the Lord's table
proceeded from the erroneous opinion that Christ's
natural body was there, either by transubstantiation
" or by conjunction, real or corporal, of his body and
blood with the visible elements." And this simply
encouraged idolatry and gave idolaters occasion to
triumph over the Church. Christ Himself was not
^ Printed by Lorimer, pp. 267-74.

cH.in 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 349
conscious that His institution might be brought into
contempt by sitting, for no such suggestion occurred
in Scripture. It was to be feared we were building
strongholds for our enemies, who might hereafter
repair the walls of Jericho to our displeasure. Kneel
ing was not a right posture at table ; it was the
attitude of suppliants, and we ought to partake of
the Lord's Supper joyfully, without any sign of the
fear of servitude and thraldom, though we ought
previously to bewail our sins and miseries. Such
was in brief the substance of a rather lengthy docu
ment which the writers called their " Confession."
There can be very little doubt that it was mainly,
if not entirely, the composition of John Knox.
Such counsel, when the publication of the new
Prayer Book was due immediately, was extremely
perplexing. Cranmer evidently could not yield to it ;
yet the objection taken by the chaplains was vital
and could not be passed by. A compromise was
determined on. The text of the new rubric was left
untouched ; but an explanation must go out along
with it. The celebrated " Declaration on KneeUng "
was drawn up (otherwise known as "the Black "The
Rubric "), which, printed on a separate slip of paper, ]^J^^^^ ,
was ordered by the Council to be inserted in the
copies of the book already printed. This order was
given on the 27th October^ — late enough, seeing
that the book was to be in use five days after. It
was a hurried business, and some copies apparently
had got abroad even before the order came ; nor was
the slip always inserted in the same position in the
different copies. Yet after all, the book in which it
was inserted had only been in use a few months when
King Edward died, and in the Prayer Book of Queen
EUzabeth the Declaration was altogether omitted.
It was restored, however, in the Prayer Book of
Charles II. , with the omission of a rather wordy
1 Dasent, iv. 154.

350 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
preamble and an important variation by which only
"a corporal presence" was repudiated, not a "real
and essential presence" as in the first issued
" Declaration." And in this form " the Black Rubric "
still stands in the Book of Common Prayer.
The printers were now free to issue the book. But
The the Articles stiU remained under consideration of the
Articles j-oyal chaplaius, who made a few alterations, and on
criticised, the 20th Novcmbcr they were again sent to Cranmer
by the Council for his further comments.^ Cranmer
received them at Ford on the 23rd, and returned them
next day with a paper declaring his opinions, and
urging that the bishops should at once be authorised
to require their clergy to subscribe them.^ In this
hope he was disappointed. We know nothing indeed
of the further discussions that went on, but it seems
as if Cranmer and John Knox at least had still many
differences of opinion. The Articles certainly under
went some slight changes, and before the end of the
reign they were cut down from forty -five to forty -two.
At last they were signed by the King on the 12th
June 1553, within four weeks of his death.^
By this time, at least, Northumberland as a
politician had found out what it was to take counsel
with a perfervid LoUard, who could not be tempted
by a bishopric or any other means to be a little
tractable. On the 7th December he -wrote again to
Northum- CccU from Chelsca : " Master Knox being here to
ophdou^ speak with me, saying that he was so -wUled by you,
of Knox. I do return him again, because I love not to have to
do with men which be neither grateful nor pleasable.
I assure you I mind to have no more to do with him
but to wish him well ; neither also with the Dean of
Durham,* because under the colour of a false conscience
' Dasent, iv. 173.
'¦' Cranmer's Letters, pp. 140-41 (Parker Soc).
' Strype, Eccl. Mem., II. ii. 24. The date of the King's signature appears
in MS. Reg. 18 0. 24, f. 357.
¦• Robert Home, who became an Elizabethan Bishop of Winchester.

cH.in 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 351
he can prettUy malign and judge of others against
good charity upon a froward judgment. And this
man, you might see in his letter cannot tell
whether I be a dissembler in religion or not. But I
have for twenty years stand [stood] to one kind of
religion, in the same which I do now profess; and
have, I thank the Lord, passed no small dangers
for it.;' ^ ^
It is pleasant to find such a very consistent states
man finding fault with theologians for lack of charity.
He had been constant to one religion for twenty years !
Alas ! two years more, or somewhat less than two
years, made a vast difference, and he died a traitor's
death, lamenting his sins, and reconciled to the Church
of Rome. But the tale of his gigantic treason belongs
to our next chapter.
Before closing the present one, however, we must
take note of one happy result arising out of all this
controversy. Even John Knox became reasonable.
He returned to the north, and preached at Newcastle
on Christmas Day. But before he left London, at
least then most probably, he wrote a very long
pastoral letter, worded Uke an apostoUc epistle, to
his old congregation at Berwick, beginning, " John
Knox to the Congregation of Berwick. Grace be
multipUed and peace from God the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, with all that unfeignedly thirsts
the glory of his name. Amen." This is followed by
a lengthy prelude, showing why he felt it his duty to
¦write, not only to signify his " present estate," but to
urge them " in the bowels of Jesus Christ " to continue
in the truth they had professed. They must remember
how the best beloved of God are sometimes for a time
left comfortless. Who would not have thought Esau
Jacob's lord, when, after having fled for fear of him,
he returned with great substance, seven times to bow
^ Tytler's England under Edward VI. and Mary, ii. 148. I have cor
rected one word by the MS.

352 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
and make " homages before the face of his brother and
his company " ? If troublous days were in store they
must remain steadfast, and so forth. As to his own
present estate, he was no hypocrite, but in heart just
what he had been when with them, one of the
Knox common sort of " God's elect children," continuaUy
compliance lamenting his fraUty and sin, but bound to preach
with God's truth. But to come to doctrine, he would not
orders. movc Contention about ceremonies if he could avoid
it. And he further explains himself thus : —
To touch the point. Kneeling at the Lord's Supper I have
proved by doctrine to be no convenient gesture for a table,
which hath been given in that action to such a presence of
Christ as no place of God's Scriptures doth teach unto us.
And therefore, kneehng in that action appearing to be joined
with certaiu dangers, no less in maintaining superstition than
in using Christ's holy institution with other gestures than
either he used or commanded to be used, I thought good
amongst you to avoid, and to use sitting at the Lord's table ;
which ye did not refuse, but -with ah reverence and thanks
giving unto God for His truth, knowing, as I suppose, ye
confirmed the doctrine with your gestures and confession.
And this day yet, -with a testimony of good conscience, I
signify unto you that, as I nother repent nor recant that
my former doctrine, so do I (for divers causes long to re
hearse) much prefer sitting at the Lord's table either to
kneehng, standmg, or going at the action of that mythical
Supper. But because I am but one, having in my contrah
magistrates, common order, and judgments of many learned,
I am not minded for maintenance of that one thing to
gainstand the magistrates, in all other and chief points
agreeing with Christ and with his true doctrine, nor yet
to break nor trouble common order, thought meet to be kept
for unity and peace in the congregations for a time. And
least of aU intend I to damn or lightly regard the grave
judgments of such men as unfeignedly I fear, love, and will
obey in all things by them judged expedient to promote God's
glory — these subsequents granted unto me —
First, that the magistrates make known (as that they have
done if ministers were willing to do their duties), that
kneeling is not retained in the Lord's Supper for maintenance

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 353
of any superstition, much less that any adoration appertaineth
to any real presence of Christ's body natural there contained
or joined with those elements of bread and wine, but only
for uniform order to be kept, and that for a time, in this
Church of England.
Secondly, that common order claim not kneehng in the
Lord's Supper as either necessary or decent to Christ's action,
but only as a ceremony thought goodly by man and not by
Christ himself; for otherwise shall common order accuse
Christ and his action of indecency, or lacking some gesture
necessary. And last, that my fathers whom I fear and honor, and my
brethren in labors and profession whom I unfeignedly love,
do not trouble my conscience, imputing upon me any foohsh
enterprise for that I have, in ministration of Christ's Sacra
ments, more regarded attempting to foUow what Christ
himself did in his own perfect action than what any man
after hath commanded to be done.
These things granted unto me, I neither will gainstand
godly magistrates, neither break common order, nor yet
contend -with my superiors or fellow-preachers, but with
patience will I bear that one thing; daily thirsting and
calling unto God for the reformation of that and others.^,
So Knox conformed and desired others to conform,
in the hope that the objectionable practice of kneeling
would be upheld only for a time in the Church of
England. He would not " for so small a matter," as
he caUs it in one place, obstinately resist authority,
and yet he occupies whole pages in showing his
correspondents that though he counsels acquiescence
it should be acquiescence under protest. It is no
wonder that he foresaw trouble in store for himself
and those faithful to his teaching. He returned to
the north, where the people were not in sympathy
with his advanced ideas. The Council wrote in his
favour to Lord Wharton, the Warden of the Marches.^
But he had not been long back again at Newcastle
(where he preached on Christmas Day) when he was
¦' Lorimer's John Knox and the Church of England, pp. 251-65.
« Dasent, iv. 190.
VOL. Ill 2 A

354 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
informed against by the mayor,^ and found himself
called upon to answer written articles as if he had
been indicted of treason ; and he must have spent
an anxious New Year's tide when Wharton reported
his examinations to Northumberland. " Poor Knox,"
the Duke actually called him in a letter to Cecil
of the 9th January, adding : " You may perceive
what perplexity the poor soul remaineth in at this
present " ; and he wishes Cecil to urge the rest of the
lords to do something for his relief Disappointed as
Northum- he had been before at finding he could not mould
swifpr^o- I^nox to his will by hope of a reward, he wished
tectsKnox. Wharton and those of Newcastle to be assured that
the preacher was stiU in favour. " Otherwise," he
said, " some hindrance in the matter of religion may
rise and grow among the people, being inclined of
nature to great constancy and mutations." In other
words, there was likely -to be serious difficulty about
the new Prayer Book in the north ; and if Knox
were not respected it might have a very disturbing
effect. " And the rather do I think this meet to be
done," the Duke adds, " for that it seemeth to me
that the Lord Wharton himself is not altogether
without suspicion how the said Knox's doings hath
been here taken. Wherefore I pray you that some
thing may be done whereby the King's Majesty's
pleasure to my Lords may be indelayedly certified
to the said Lord Wharton, of the King's Majesty's
good contentation towards the poor man and his
proceedings, with commandment that no man shall
be so hardy to vex him or trouble him for setting
forth the King's Majesty's most godly proceedings, or
[what he] hereafter by His Majesty's commandment
shall do ; for that His Majesty mindeth to employ
the man and his talent from time to time in those
1 Not Brandling. In 1552 Robert Lewin was mayor. He was at that
time governor of the Merchant Company of Newcastle, as Brandling had
also been, and had served like him before both as sheriff and mayor. See
Brand's Hist, of Newcastle, ii. 240, 437-8, 441.

CH.III 'THE ALTARS OF BAAL' 355
parts and elsewhere as shall seem good to His
Highness for the edifying of his people in the fear of
God. And that something might be written to the
Mayor for his greedy accusation of the poor man,
wherein he hath, in my poor opinion, uttered his
maUcious stomach towards the King's proceedings if
he might see a time to serve his purpose." ^
It is quite clear that Northumberland's pity for
Knox was a very politic kind of compassion. With
the new Prayer Book just launched and the temper
of the north uncertain, Knox was indeed far more
necessary to the Government than the Government
was to him. Yet it might be a question whether
he would not be more useful now in the south of
England than in the north. A London living — that
of All Hallows in Bread Street — was offered to him
on the 2nd February 1553, but he decUned it. He
was summoned up to London to say why — at least
that was one of the reasons why his presence was
desired by the Privy CouncU, before whom he appeared
on the 14th April ;^ and being driven to confess that
he did not love the ritual, after some lively disputes
with the Council about kneeling, he was dismissed
¦with gentle words.^ On the 2nd June he was sent
to preach in Buckinghamshire without a benefice, the
Council writing to Lord Russell, Lord Windsor, and
the Justices of Peace within the county in his favour.*
Buckinghamshire had always been a hotbed of old
LoUardy, and as Northumberland was now fully
intent on his audacious project of diverting the suc
cession from the dying King's sister Mary, we can
understand pretty well what kind of service Knox's
preaching was likely to do in that quarter.
On the whole the Reformation was at this time in
a highly precarious state ; and when, in spite of all
1 Lorimer, ii. 162-3 ; Tytler, ii. 158-60. - Daseut, iv. 212.
^ Calderwood's Hist, of the Kirk of Scotland, i. 280-81 (Wodrow Soc).
•• Dasent, iv. 283.

356 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
attempts to conceal the gravity of the young«King's
illness, the fact that his days were numbered was
more and more suspected, the anxiety that prevailed
everywhere must have been intense.
But meanwhile one point at least had been gained
for a while. On All-Hallows' Day, 1st November
The new 1552, the ncw service came into use, according to
comeTinto ^^^ statutc. Bishop Ridley himself introduced it at
use. St. Paul's, and in the afternoon preached a sermon
at Paul's Cross, which was attended by the Lord
Mayor and Aldermen. The same day " all copes and
vestments were put down through all England ; and
the prebendaries of Paul's left off their hoods, and
the bishops their crosses, so that all priests and clerks
should use none other vestments, at service nor
communion, but surplices only," as the Act required.^
But whether obedience to the Act throughout the
country was so general as our London chronicler's
words would seem to imply, may perhaps admit of a
doubt,
^ Wriothesley's Chronicle, ii. 78.

CHAPTER IV
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY
Something more requires to be said about the
Articles, originally forty-five in number, but after
wards reduced to forty -two and signed by the King,
as already mentioned, within four weeks of his death.
The reduced number was due only to four Articles
being made into one ; and the other changes, when
not merely verbal, are but of the slightest importance,
except in that particular Article — the thirty -eighth
of the original forty -five, and thirty -fifth of the later
forty-two — to which Knox took such strong excep
tion. Here the Scottish Reformer had his way, for a
time, to some extent. But the effect of his remon
strances on this point seems to me to have been
curiously misapprehended by Dr. Lorimer, whose
discovery of the Knox papers in Dr. Williams's
library has thro-wn such an important light on the
history of " the Black Rubric." We have the text of
Article 38 as it stood among the original forty -five,
and we have also the altered text of the same Article
when it was made thirty-fifth out of forty-two ; and
Dr. Lorimer infers that the alterations in the wording
were due to the protest made by Knox and his friends
against the earlier form. But he has overlooked
the remarkable fact that the Forty-five Articles, in
the only form in which we know them, were signed
by the six preachers commissioned to report on them,
of whom Knox was one, while the Forty-two Articles,
357

358 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
so far as we know, were not signed by Knox or
any one of them. So that it would really be more
The plausible to suppose that Knox approved of the
Forty-five earlier form, to which he attached his signature, than
of the later one which he did not sign.
But assuredly Knox did object strongly to Article 38
of the Forty -five ; and how he and his five colleagues
could have signed the whole set of Articles when they
took such strong exception to one of them, is a
matter that requires explanation. Surely the six
preachers had already corrected the Articles laid
before them when they signed a fair copy of the set.
There are no drafts or earlier copies extant ; but I
think we may fairly presume that the text which
they so severely criticised was not the text to which
they appended their signatures. Indeed, this is not
had been merely a very natural presumption ; it looks some-
bSore the tl^iiig more than a presumption if we consider carefully
preachers thc language of the remonstrance. " In the 38th
tlfJJ^^ Article," the preachers report, " the Book of Common
Prayer now last published by the King's Majesty, and
confirmed by common assent and Act of Parliament,
is confirmed to be holy, godly, and not only by God's
Scriptures probable in every rite and ceremony, but
also in no point repugnant thereto, as well concerning
, common prayers and ministration of the Sacraments
as the ordering and admission of priests, deacons,
bishops, and archbishops."
This statement the preachers felt themselves un
able to endorse ; but the Article, as they set their
hands to it, when translated from the Latin, reads as
follows : —
The Book which quite lately was delivered to the Church
of England by authority of the King and Parhament, con
taining the manner and form of praying and administering
the Sacraments in the Church of England, and likewise that
httle book, published by the same authority, of the ordina
tion of Ministers of the Church, as to truth of doctrine are

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 359
pious, and as to the character of the ceremonies are in
nothing repugnant to the wholesome liberty of the Gospel,
if those ceremonies be esteemed by their own nature, but
very well agree with it, and in many things highly advance
the same ; and, therefore, they are to be received and
approved by all faithful members of the Church of England,
and especially by aU Ministers of the Word, with aU readiness
of mind and gi-ving of thanks, and to be commended to the
people of God.i
The language here has, no doubt, a good deal in
common -with that which the preachers cite as ob
jectionable ; but there are qualifying expressions
which look as if they had been absent from the
original document. For, according to the preachers,
the Article declared the two books to be holy and
godly, and their contents " probable " by Scripture
(that is to say, such as could be proved by Scripture)
in every rite and ceremony, and nowise repugnant
thereto. But here it is only asserted that the books
are pious and true in doctrine, and there is a little
special pleading for the ceremonies. They are not
repugnant to Gospel freedom, if judged simply as Nature of
ceremonies, and in many things they highly advance n^ej^t"^™^^
it. This is a very different thing from saying that Article,
the whole contents of the books, and even every
ceremony, could be justified out of Scripture. In
short, the text of this Article as one of the Forty -five
signed by Knox and his companions has a look of
being toned down somewhat, just as it might have
been after the Declaration on Kneeling was adopted,
which repudiated any superstitious interpretation oi'
^ The original Latin is as follows: "Liber qui nuperrime authoritate
Regis et Parliamenti Ecelesiae Anglicanae traditus est, continens modum_ et
formam orandi et Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesia Anglicana : Simili
ter et libellus ille, eadem authoritate editus, de Ordinatione Ministrorum
Ecelesiae, quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt, et quoad oeremoniarum
rationem salutari Evangelii libertati, si ex sua natura ceremoniae illae
estimentur, in nullo repugnant, sed probe congruunt, et eandem in com-
plurimis promovent ; atque ideo ab omnibus Ecelesiae Anglicanae fidelibu.s
membris, et maxime a Ministris Verbi, cum omni promptitudine animorum
et gratiarum actione recipiendi, approbandi, et populo Dei sunt com-
mendandi."

36o LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
the Act. And we have seen already that with this
understanding Knox himself accepted the Prayer
Book, including the instruction to kneel, with which
he urged others to comply until a more enlightened
view was taken by the authorities.
But the authorities, it is to be feared, never took
what Knox considered the more enlightened view,
and instead of Knox and his friends putting up for a
while with a little too much ceremonial, the authori
ties only put up for a while with the ambiguous
language which he and his friends had introduced
into the Article. For in June 1553, when the Forty-
two were printed off in Latin and in English, that
particular Article, now become the 35th, appeared in
which is a form which fully justified the description given of
ag^^^fnthe^* in the Remonstrance, and even went a degree
Forty-two. further in unqualified commendation of the books
than anything which Article 38 of the older set was
reported to have said of them. For the text (in
English) was now as follows : —
The Book which of very late time was given to the
Church of England by the King's authority and the Parha
ment, containing the manner and form of praying and
ministering the Sacraments in the Church of England,
likewise also the book of Ordering Ministers of the Church
set forth by the foresaid authority, are godly and in no point
repugnant to the wholesome doctrine of the Gospel, but
agreeable thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a
httle, and therefore of all faithful members of the Church of
England, and chiefly of the Ministers of the Word, they
ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind,
and thanksgi-ving, and to be commended to the people of God.
"Furthering and beautifying the same" (the
doctrine of the Gospel) "not a little" ! How could
Dr. Lorimer have imagined that the introduction of
language like this was the result of Knox's remon
strances ? It is rather an evidence that the impression
made by those remonstrances at the time had gone

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 361
off or given place to other considerations.^ If the
text of the Article generally was not now restored
to the very state in which John Knox and his friends
complained of it, I should be much inclined to think
that the "furthering and beautifying" clause was
inserted in it now for the express purpose of warding
off henceforth any attack upon the ritual in deference
to Knoxian criticisms. It might be all very well to
send John Knox to preach in Buckinghamshire
without any parochial charge, with a view to warn
the local Lollards of the danger they might incur if
Mary came to the throne. That was a matter in
which Knox could be very serviceable stiU ; but
to tell the world everywhere that he had persuaded
the Church of England to give up " adoration " at
the Lord's Supper was a very different thing. As a
matter of fact this was said during Mary's reign,
and it was a thing that told against the Reforma
tion altogether. For Cranmer meant that there
was adoration in kneeling, but not adoration of the
elements. At the same time, while the practice of kneeling one Article
and the prescribed ceremonies were thus vindicated, fP'S^*,
i--i'i T • !• T-r«Ti-n the Real
anything like adoration 01 a supposed Bodily Presence Presence.
was discredited by the 31st Article of the Forty-
five, which, with some slight verbal modification,
afterwards formed the third clause of Article 28
of the Forty -two ; and it is not a little remarkable
that this clause was dropped in the days of Queen
Elizabeth, and has never since been revived. The
English version of it published in 1553 was as
follows : —
Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the
body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in
^ The Latin text of the whole article is identical with that given in the
footnote on p. 359 except after the words "quoad doctrinae veritatem," the
words which follow being ' ' pii sunt, et salutari doctrinae Evangelii in nullo
repugnant sed congruunt, et eandem non parum promovent et illustrant ;
atque ideo," etc.

362 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
divers places, but must needs be in some one certain place,
therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in
many and divers places. And because (as Holy Scripture
doth teach), Christ was taken up into heaven, and there
shaU continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man
ought not either to believe, or openly to confess, the real and
bodily presence (as they term it), of Christ's flesh and blood
in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
This Article was doubtless one of Cranmer's
drawing up, and contains, it will be observed, the
same argument as the Declaration on Kneeling,
expressed in a very similar manner. Moreover, we
have every reason to believe that he drew it up before
the Declaration was called for, as it was natural
enough that he should seek to set forth in the
Articles what he had taught in his book on the
Sacrament. Yet, though thus far he took up a
position which gave men like Knox satisfaction, he
felt strongly the injury that would be done to
reverential feeling if effect were given to the objection
against kneeling ; and his remonstrance was not
in vain.
Cranmer's The victory, then, in this matter lay with Cranmer,
prevailed. ^^^ ^°* ''^^^^ Kuox, for Craumcr gave way no further
to the objections of the Scottish preacher than he had
done already, with a clear conscience, in the Declara
tion on Kneeling ; but in the remodelUng of the
Article he put in a word for the ceremonies enjoined,
to which Knox could never have subscribed. And it
is sufficiently clear that thus far he must have had
the support of Northumberland, who, if he cared
about the forms of public worship at all, had seen
at least that Knox was altogether intractable, and
that it would be useless to attempt to satisfy such a
man at the cost of wounding the reverential feelings
of the great majority. This is the more noteworthy
because personally, there can be little doubt,
Northumberland did not care for Cranmer one whit
more than for Knox. Indeed, it was not very long

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 363
since he had shown this in rather a marked manner,
as we shall presently see.
By this time the Commission of Thirty-two seems The
to have completed its labours, and made up a new f ^^^^"*'"'
code of canon law, which, however, was destined to Ecciesias-
remain m MS. till the days of Queen EUzabeth,'^''''™''"
when it was actually put in print. But even then
it was not authorised as a practical working code,
and it never has been since. It has, however, been
reprinted in later days, and is kno-wn to students as
the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. What was
done about it at this particular time is related in a
dispatch to the Emperor preserved in the Brussels
archives, of which the foUowing is an extract trans
lated, as well as may be, from the original French : —
" Touching religion nothing has been innovated,
notwithstanding that the Bishops had a volume ready
made up in the form of canon law. But it has not
been received, and when the said volume was
presented to the Estates by the Bishop of Canter
bury, the Duke of Northumberland [protested] that vetoed by
nothing should be done about it, and that the said ^j^^^jg^,,^
Bishop and his brethren should look well to what
they did, because the charge had been given to
them, and the rest of the said estates knew not what
it was ; adding that if they would not teach the true
doctrine and pure word of Christ, it was to them the
blame would attach. And in connection with this,
he related how certain preachers had, some days past,
preached about the incorporation of the goods and
property, and division of the bishoprics which the
King intended to make, saying that they all wished
to diminish or restrain the right of the said churches,
which they used against the Divine law, and that
they were heretics ; which was a very scandalous
thing, tending to sedition and commotion, and that
the Bishops should give order that the like did not
occur hereafter, and that they should forbear in their

364 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
sermons to speak of the Prince or his ministers,
otherwise they would have to suffer with the said
preachers. Whereupon the said Bishop of Canterbury
excused himself, affirming that he had heard no talk
of it, and if there was anything in it, it was only to
rebuke vices and abuses. The Duke replied that
there were vices enough to detest, and that it seemed
that the fruits of their life were very meagre, so that
some imagined they would fall lightly back into the
old life, others that matters of religion and other
articles have been for certain reasons postponed and
reserved for another time, especially touching the
authority and absolute power which ought to be given
to the King. Yet there are those who say that this
last point is an invention of the Duke's, who might
have spread the report to learn people's opinions, and
what might be said and judged of it." ^
Roaiiyan Whatever his motives, it is hardly a matter for
unpractical regret that Northumberland should at this time have
scheme, 0 if. i t • i i
put a stop to a new scheme of canon law devised by
Cranmer and other Reformers for English use. For
it not only had no chance of coming into operation
in the time that was close at hand, or even in the
days of Queen Elizabeth, when it was actually taken
in-to consideration only to be dismissed as inexpedient,
but it was really not a scheme in every way to be
recommended, and some of its contents are rather
unaccountable. None the less ought we to take note
of the fact that at this time, concurrently with the
Articles, Cranmer and others had endeavoured to
supply — what they were not permitted to supply —
something like method, system, and discipline in the
Reformed Church of England. For such an object
Northumberland cared no more than other secular
rulers, and was quite content with ecclesiastical
anarchy so long as it gave him no trouble. For the
' From a paper in the Brussels archives, of which there is a transcript in
the Public Record Office, in volume 146 of what are called the Kymer
Transcripts. I give the original text in an Appendix to this chapter.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 365
one thing secular statesmen can hardly be expected
to favour is zeal for Church principles, or even a
desire to ascertain what they really are. Yet I
think that through the ages since the Reformation
one may trace beneath the surface a tendency towards
true and harmonious order in things essential.
Englishmen are governed by an unwritten constitu
tion, alike in Church and State.
But we are concerned at present with facts which
belong to the spring of 1553, for errors began to be
spread about them in less than twenty years ; and
when this scheme of Reformation was printed in 1571,
with a preface by Foxe the Martyrologist, it was
stated as a thing which could not be doubted that
Parliament would have sanctioned it, and given
authority for its use, if King Edward's life had been
prolonged.^ Parliament would have done nothing of not one
the sort, for Parliament was entirely at Northumber- ^5^^^^,^^
land's bidding, and we have just seen by authentic death.
contemporary evidence how that nobleman regarded
it. So we must dismiss from our minds the idea to
which Foxe's words have given rise in Strype and all
writers who have treated of the subject since, that a
much more effective reform in the discipline and order
of the Church would have taken place but for the
premature death of a much lamented Prince. It is
easy to glorify what might have been, and imagine
how much good would have resulted, if, " the rubbish
of the old Popish canons and constitutions being laid
aside, this, as a just and complete codex, to be used
in the room thereof," ^ had been officially adopted.
A detailed examination of the scheme, however, does
not lend itself to such idealism, as perhaps a few
examples may serve to show.
The general plan of the work was undoubtedly
laid down on lines similar to those of the Decretals
^ See the last paragraph of Foxe's Preface (p. xxvii in Cardwell's edition
of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum).
^ Strype's words, quoted by Cardwell in his Preface of 1850.

366 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
and other " old Popish canons and constitutions,"
such as Strype spoke of so disparagingly. Of this
the reader may easily satisfy himself by reference to
a footnote in Canon Dixon's work.'- Not that sub
jects were treated in the same order or under the
same headiags, but simply that the Reformatio was
meant as a codification of Church laws, or, it might
be said, of Church principles, after the Roman style,
for a Church which acknowledged Royal Supremacy.
Some I.^ First of all, the principles of the Catholic Faith
Ifthr^ are set forth in seventeen chapters. It being pre-
Refo-rmatio miscd that the King's power is derived from God, hfe
described. J.eq^^pgg ]jig gu^jects to accept and profess the Chris
tian religion. So they are taught what to believe of
the nature of God and the Blessed Trinity, of Christ
and the mystery of our Redemption, of the two
natures of Christ, and so forth. Then comes a section
(II.) concerning heresies, iu twenty-two chapters,
with an epilogue. In the 19th chapter of this section
transubstantiation is denounced very much in the
language of the Articles, as it is again in another
section (V.) concerning sacraments. But in chapter 4
of this latter section the Eucharist is defined in a
manner which would have pleased John Knox, as it
speaks of receiving in a sitting posture without any
mention of kneeling,^ and emphasises rather strongly
that the food is bread and the drink wine, while the
act itself is only spoken of as one by which grace
is sealed. It is not easy to understand how Cran
mer could have agreed to such a treatment of the
subject after he had answered so ably the objection
to kneeling. But as stress is not laid upon the
1 History ofthe Church of England, iii. 369.
- The sections are not numbered as printed, though the chapters into
which they are divided are. I have numbered the sections here for con
venience. ^ ' ' Eucharistia sacramentum est in quo cibum ex pane sumunt et potum
ex vino qui convivae sedent in sacra Domini mensa : cujus panis inter iUos
et vini communicatione obsignatur gratia Spiritus Sancti, veniaque pecoa-
torum," etc.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 367
posture here, he perhaps had passed the matter before.
In chapter 7 of this section it is required that mar
riages should be performed with due solemnity, and
that if anything be omitted in the rite they shall be
considered null. It seems impossible to vindicate
such a provision. In Section III. the mode of pro
ceeding in cases of heresy is laid down. Heresy is
still treated as a crime of great atrocity, and any one
suspected must purge himself or incur condemnation ;
but an appeal is allowed from the bishop to the
archbishop, and from the archbishop to the King. In
the first instance, however, if the accused deny the
charge, and cannot find sureties that he will stand
his trial, the bishop can commit him to prison till
the case is decided. Those hardened in heresy were
to be pronounced heretics by the judge, and then
excommunicated ; but if within sixteen days they
would abandon their heresy, they were to do public
penance, and swear that they would never return to
it, and thirdly, give pubUc satisfaction as to the
contrary doctrine ; on which they were to be absolved,
but only after an earnest exhortation. If the accused
was not moved even by sentence of excommunication,
he must be handed over for punishment to the civil
power (caps. 1-5). Section VI. treats of idolatry,
magic, divination, witchcraft, and superstitions, and
how they are to be counteracted.
In Section VIII. (of Marriage), chapter 4, neither
chUdren nor orphans are allowed to marry without
consent of parents or guardians, and if they do so,
such marriage is to be held null ; but if parents or
guardians are unreasonable, the parties may resort
ad magistratum ecclesiasticum, who shall have power
to decide the matter. By chapter 5 the lowest ages
allowed at which parties can marry are, twelve in the
case of a woman, fourteen in that of a man. In
Section IX. (on Prohibited degrees), chapter 3 declares
the law in Leviticus (caps, xviii. and xx.) binding.

368 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
and that men wound their consciences who procure
dispensations from Rome. It is noted also that all
the prohibited cases are not expressly named in
Leviticus ; others can be inferred of the like prox
imity. Chapter 7 declares spiritual relationship no
bar to marriage. In Section X. (of Adulteries and
Divorces), by chapter 5 an innocent party is allowed
to marry again, and by chapter 9 divorce is allowed
under certain conditions in case of the husband's long
absence ; but if he return, the wife must receive him
again, provided he has not been to blame for desert
ing her. In chapter 19 decrees of separation from
bed and board are abolished.
These are a few characteristic examples of the
proposed legislation. It deals with many problems
that seemingly are not decided even now, and it deals
with them simply by a new system of law, not by
the law of liberty. True social principles will un
doubtedly work themselves out in the end, with just
so much aid from the law of the land as experience
shows to be requisite. But the binding character of
religious ties wUl always depend mainly upon pubhc
opinion formed by long experience.
So, after all, the Commission of Thirty-two, promised
in statute after statute both in Henry VIII.'s reign
and in Edward's, when it was at last constituted and
had done its work, saw its work unceremoniously put
aside. Perhaps Cranmer, who was naturally looked
upon as the chief architect of the structure, was not
altogether disappointed. He was really only the
president of the Commission by which it was elabor
ated. We have seen that he protested against the
passing of the Act under which that Commission at
length was issued ; and, as I have just shown, there
was at least one passage in the work which did not
truly refiect his mind. But whatever Cranmer, or
any of the bishops, may have felt about the imposi
tion of a new scheme of canon law, Northumberland

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 369
had other things in view at this time, and was not
going to promote any great change in matters of
public concern that did not contribute to the stability
of his own power. For he must have been thinking
seriously, even before this, what was to become of
himself if the young King died. So the very reason
why he supported Cranmer against Knox may have
been his reason also for not supporting Cranmer's
Reformation Scheme.
Edward's constitution could not have been a strong Edward's
one, and those who saw much of him doubtless had ^'^''^^^^^•
some anxiety about him even before his fatal illness.
Even in the early spring of 1552 he had a trouble
some and complicated visitation, which he records
himself in his Journal. There, under the date April 2
in that year, we read : " I fell sick of the measles and
the smallpox" ; and on the 15th of the same month
he further writes : " The Parliament brake up, and
because I was sick and not able to go well abroad as
then I signed a bill containing the names of the Acts
which I would have pass ; which bill was read in
the House. Also I gave commission to the Lord
Chancellor, two Archbishops, two Bishops, two Dukes,
two Marquises, two Earls, and two Barons to dissolve
wholly this Parliament." By the 12th May he was
so far recovered that he rode through Greenwich
Park to Blackheath, and four days later rode into
the park again to see the musters.^ But apparently
he did not regain real health. Ilayward, at least,
says he complained " of a continual infirmity of body,
yet rather as an indisposition in health than any set
sickness." At the end of November his Journal comes
to an abrupt close. It may be that he only found
it too tedious to keep up. It may be, as Nichols
suggests, that in the month of December he had
been already advised to abstain from study and from
writing. It is from next month, January 1553, that
^ See his Journal under those dates.
VOL. Ill 2 B

370 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
his fatal Ulness is commonly dated. ' ' A tough, strong,
straining cough" had seized upon him, and all pre
scriptions seemed to be unavailing. In February his
sister Mary came to see him, riding through London
with ladies and gentlemen to the number of 200
horse ; and great lords and knights and ladies about
the Court seemed anxious to do her all possible
honour.^ It was well to be in the good graces of the
heiress presumptive.
City Statesmen and divines might well feel grave.
pastimes. ^^^.^^ ^j(j common people feel, or how much did
they know ? Although the young King's health had
not been satisfactory even in 1552, he had kept
Christmas pleasantly at Greenwich, where he had a
Lord of Misrule. Sheriff Maynard in the city had
a Lord of Misrule also, with morris-dances and " all
goodly pastime " ; and on the 4th January, as we
learn from Henry Machyn, a citizen who had a keen
eye for every spectacle, the King's Lord of Misrule
landed at Tower Wharf, where he was met by the
Sheriff's Lord of Misrule with his men, " everyone
having a riband of blue and white about their necks,
and then his trumpet, [drums ?], morris-dance, and
tabret ; and he took a sword and bare it before the
King's Lord of Misrule." For this and a good deal
more recorded in a mutilated text, I must refer the
lover of the picturesque to Machyn's Diary. But it
would be a pity not to mention how " the King's
lord gave the Sheriff's lord a gown with gold and
silver ; and anon after, he kneeled down, and he took
a sword and gave him three strokes and made him
knight, and after they drank one to the other upon
the scaffold, and his cofferer casting gold and silver
in every place as they rode." Then there is dining
and banqueting till the Sheriff's lord accompanies
the King's lord to his pinnace by torchlight, and he
embarks " with a great shot of guns." ^
1 Machyn's Diary, pp. 30, 31. ^ Ib. pp. 28, 29.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 371
One would think the citizens could never have
enough of this sort of thing. We have some little
remains of civic pageantry stiU ; but for the most
part we take our amusements now indoors and, those
who can afford it, occasionally in theatres. It is the
poor, unhappily, who cannot get amusement now ;
and all because we are so terribly serious. But
amusement, when you can get it, plays a very great
part in the life of man, and the problem is how
to make it wholesome. To devise wholesome and
gratuitous entertainment for the multitude might
well be a task for a patriot. But there have been
statesmen in various ages who knew how to do it for
their own benefit. Let us have a little more foolina;
before we proceed to serious business.
The I7th day of March came through London from
Aldgate Master Maynard, the Sheriff of London, with a
standard and drums, and after, giants both great and small,
and then hobbyhorses, and after them the g. . ., and after,
great horses and men in coats of velvet with chains of gold
about their necks, and men in harness ; and then the morris-
dance, and then many minstrels. And after came the
Serjeants and yeomen on horseback, with ribbons of green
and white about their necks. And then my lord . . ., late
being lord of Misrule, rode gorgeously in cloth of gold and
-with chains of gold about his neck, with hand full of rings
of great value ; the w[hich] Serjeants rode in coats of velvet
with chains o-f gold. And then came the duUo (the Devil)
and a sawden (sultan, or Turk), and then a priest shriving
Jack-of-Lent on horseback, and a doctor, his physician ; and
then Jack-of-Lent's wife brought him his physicians and
bade save his hfe and he should give him a thousand pound
for his labour. And then came the cart with the wreath,
hanged with cloth-of-gold and fuU of banners and minstrels
playing and singing ; and afore rode Master Cook in a coat
of velvet with a chain of gold and with flowers.^
Fastiug bad evidently gone out of fashion, and
Jack-of-Lent was in a perilous condition. Great
1 Machyn's Diary, p. 33.

372 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
lords and citizens could agree about that very well
and make merry over it.
But by and by the general public evidently
became uneasy. On the 11th April the King came
from Westminster to Greenwich by water, and on
passing the Tower was saluted by " great shot of
guns and chambers," while all the ships in the river
joined in the firing, including three that were about
to set sail for the New-found land.^ In the beginning
False of May, however, false rumours had been spread of
nimoursof jjjg (jeath, for which the Council ordered a man to
Edwards . ' .1 i 1 -n ¦ r^^ i
death. havc his cars nailed to the pillory m Cheapside, and
two women to stand on the pillory at Westminster
Palace, all three wearing papers with the words, " For
false and untrue reports touching the King's Majesty's
life," and all three were taken back to their prisons
afterwards. Unpleasant rumours arose also about
the Duke of Northumberland, for reporting which
one " Shengleton " (perhaps Robert Singleton, Anne
Boleyn's chaplain, of whom we have heard before^)
was committed to the Marshalsea with strict orders
to keep him from conference with any one. Like
orders were given nine days later touching four men
committed to the Tower for reporting words " touching
the King's person " ; and on the 27th of that same
month of May orders were despatched to Reading to
set a man on the pillory the next market day with a
paper, " For lewd and seditious words touching the
King's Majesty and the State " ; and also to have his
ears cut off. It is a comfort to know, however, that
the above-mentioned prisoners in the Tower, and
some others with them, were dismissed in June with
admonitions "to be of a more quiet and better be
haviour hereafter."' They might well afford to do
so, as there was soon to be a change of scene.
Meanwhile there were some very remarkable things
1 Machyn, pp. 33, 34. 2 See Vol. II. p. 382.
^ Dasent, iv. 266, 269, 274, 278, 289.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 373
doing about Religion. The Articles so long under The
the supervision of Cranmer, the bishops, and the ^^J'^'p^^^^,^
Council obtained at last authorisation from the King, catechism.
but in a manner which may be called peculiar.
Connected with their history is a certain Catechism,
the composition of the worthy Bishop Ponet, the
story of which goes back a little further. In Sep
tember 1552, Day, the King's printer, had a licence
fr'om the Council to print this Catechism,^ and at the
beginning of the following month we meet with a
business memorandum in Cecil's hand, containing,
among other items, the following : " Item, where
one Day has the privilege for the Catechism, and one
Reyne Wolfe for all Latin books, that they both may
join in printing the Catechism." ^ This little treatise
was prepared for publication, alike in a Latin and in
an English form, and it was needful for both printers
to co-operate, so as not to infringe each other's
privileges. The publication, however, seems to have
been suspended for several months, till at length
Day obtained letters patent dated the 25th March,
7 Edward VI. (1553),' which gave him full authority
to print the book. This was prefixed to the English
version when it appeared ; and another document
called " An Injunction," dated 20th May of the same
year, was prefixed, both to the English and to the
Latin publication, commanding all schoolmasters to
use it.* In this Injunction it is stated that the
1 Koyal MS. 18 C 24 f. 254 b.
^ Calendar of Hatfield Papers, part i. p. 99.
^ See the royal letters patent prefixed to the work in Liturgies of King
Edward VI (Parker Soc), pp. 487-8.
* In the English there is a reference to a previous Catechism which is
not found in the Latin. The words are— "teach this Catechism in your
schools immediately after the other brief Catechism which we have already
set forth." This earlier Catechism appeared in a Primer which William
Seres had been authorised to print on the 6th March 1553. It is virtually,
indeed almost verbally, identical with the Church Catechism now in use,
except that it does not contain the Questions and Answers about the
Sacraments at the end {Liturgies of Edward VI. (Parker Soc), pp. 359, 369).
Apparently it was drawn up by Cranmer, who acknowledged the authorship
in the Disputations at Oxford. See Cranmer's Works (Parker Soc. ), vol. i.
p. 422.

374 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
King had submitted the Catechism to the examina
tion of certain bishops whose judgment he highly
esteemed. Subjoined to this Catechism were the Forty-two
Articles, which apparently had never before been
printed. In a book of warrants we find under date
21st May 1553 the following consecutive entries : — ^
Twenty letters undirected signifying that the K.M. hath
sent unto every of them certain Articles for a uniform order
to be observed in every church within the realm; which
Articles are gathered with great study and by the advice of
the greatest learned men of the Bishops.
Fifty-four Articles concernhig the uniform order to be
observed in every church of this realm.
A Catechism also to be taught to scholars as the ground
and foundation of their learning.
The above "fifty -four Articles concerning the
uniform order " have been taken by Strype ^ to mean
a set of Articles laying down a form of ritual. But
no such Articles are known to exist, and Canon
Dixon ^ finds the number very mysterious. What is
meant, however, seems to be fifty-four copies of the
Articles mentioned in the previous item, just as the
"twenty letters undirected" are evidently copies of
one circular. For there can be no doubt that the
Articles referred to in both the two first items were
the Forty -two now agreed upon, and that the
"twenty letters undirected" were circulars, in which
they were to be enclosed and forwarded to the bishops.*
This is evident because, as we have seen, the King's
Injunction for the use of the Catechism was dated
1 Royal MS. 18 C 24, f. 353 b.
^ Ecclesiastical Memorials, II. ii. 25.
^ Hist, of the Church of England, iii. 518 note.
* One of these unsigned circulars, a little mutilated, remains in the
State Papers, Domestic, Edward VI., vol. xviii. No. 25. It is endorsed
in a hand which is probably Elizabethan — "A Minute of the K. Ma'?''
letter to the Bishops for the subscription of the Articles and setting forth
of the doctrine of the same  {blank) Mali 1552 " (it should be 1553).
In Bishop Ridley's Register the letter is dated 9th June.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 375
20th May, and the above items are entered in the
warrant book under date of the 21st.
It is very curious, certainly, that the Articles were at
first issued subjoined to the Catechism as one pubUca-
tion. This was the case both in the English form
and in the Latin, the only difference being that some
prayers were added at the end of the English Articles.
And as the Catechism, which stood first, though
called a short one, was more than three times as long
as the Articles, it seemed as if these were only of
subordinate importance. In fact, they were referred
to afterwards as "The Articles of the Catechism."
Yet a separate edition of these Articles by themselves
was pubUshed immediately afterwards by Grafton,
with a title which it is important to note particularly.
It was —
Articles agreed on by the Bishops and other learned men
in the Synod at London in the year of our Lord God 1552,
for the avoiding of controversy in opinions, and the establish
ment of a godly concord in certaiu matters of religion.
Published by the King's Majesty's commandment in the
month of May 1553. Rich. Graftonus, typographus regius
excudebat. Loud., mense Junii ^ 1553.
There are some points here that require a little
explanation. A Synod is spoken of as having been
held at London in the year 1552, and the Articles
agreed upon in that Synod are only published in
May 1553. But the interval which this suggests
between their enactment and pubUcation was really
not so long. For the year 1553, according to the
computation then in common use in England, only
began on the 25th March, and the Synod referred to,
which was really the Convocation of the province of
Canterbury, met at London on the 2nd March, just a
day after the meeting of Parliament. It also rose a
day after Parliament, on the 1st AprU.^ Thus the
' The issue of this edition was authorised on the 12th June. Royal MS.
18 C 24, f. 357.
^ Wake's State ofthe Church, pp. 599-600.

376 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
most of its sittings were held during that which
was then accounted the year 1552. And that this
was the time of the Synod referred to in the title-
page is further shown conclusively by the title-pages,
both Latin and English, of the Catechism to which
they were appended in Day's and Wolfe's issues, in
both of which it is called " the last Convocation at
London" (in ultima Synodo Londinensi), in 1552,
although -the publication was in 1553. It is most
important to make this matter clear, because the
two dates on these title-pages have been a fruitful
source of error to many Church historians treating
of this subject, and there are other errors besides,
which it is still more necessary to expose.^
Moreover, it wUl be as well for another reason
that the reader should be able to see one of these
title-pages in full. And here is Day's, to which the
Latin one of Wolfe exactly corresponds : —
^ A Short Catechisme or playne instruction, eonteynynge
the summe of Christian leaminge, sett fourth by the King's
Maiesties authoritie, for all Scholemaisters to teache.
IT To thys Catechisme are adioyned the Articles agreed
upon by the Bishoppes and other learned and godly men,
in the last Conuocation at London in the yeare of our Lorde
MDLII., for to roote out the discord of opinions, and stabhsh
the agreement of trew religion : Likewyse pubhshed by the
Kinges Maiesties authoritie, 1553.
No one, certainly, in the face of evidence Uke this,
could easily bring himself to believe that the Articles
in question were not submitted to and confirmed by
Convocation. And yet this has been questioned, even
by Burnet, and by others after him, on grounds that
appear to be perfectly convincing. In fact, not to
mince the matter, I may say at once that the state
ment in those title-pages appears to me nothing but
^ The merit of fully unravelling these complications belongs to the late
Canon Dixon. All his predecessors, misled partly about the 1552 date and
partly about other matters about to be explained, have adopted erroneous
views as to the facts.

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 377
a shameful piece of official mendacity. At least, I see
no other conclusion that will really account for what
has now to be related.
The year 1553 which saw the publication of those
Articles in the spring had not advanced further than
the autumn when, under a new reign, another Con
vocation met in London with a view to a new
religious settlement ; and on the very first day of its
meeting, the 18th October, Dr. Weston, the Pro
locutor, said in opening the proceedings : " There is
a book of late set forth called the Catechism, bearing
the name of this honorable Synod, and yet put forth
without your consents, as I have learned, being a
book very pestiferous, and full of heresies." ^ Then
within a month after, Dr. Brookes, who next year
was made Bishop of Gloucester, preaching at Paul's
Cross on the 1 2th November, advanced the very same
charge in these words : " Was there not," he asked,
" one perilous, pernicious, pestilent Catechism among
other things se-b forth of late, with a commandment
to be read in all grammar schools throughout the
whole realm ? And that also set forth as allowed by
the clergy in Synod. Londi. , whereas the Convocation
without all doubt (for the Lower House, at least) was
never made privy thereunto." ^
Now, surely, when Dr. Weston declared to Con
vocation itself that the Catechism was not set forth
with their authority, and when Dr. Brookes after
wards said at Paul's Cross that the Lower House, at
least, was not consulted about it, the veracity of the
title-page is very seriously impugned. But this is
not all. For at the second day's sitting of the
Convocation, which was on the 20th October, the
Prolocutor exhibited two bills, which he hoped each
member of the House would sign ; and the second had
reference to the Catechism, declaring " that it was not
1 Foxe, vi. 396.
2 Quoted in Hardwick's History ofthe Articles, p. 107 (ed. 1904, Bell).

378 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
of that House's agreement set forth, and that they
did not agree thereunto." Hereupon a remonstrance
was made by John Philpot (afterwards a Marian
martyr), "that he thought they were deceived in the
title ^ of the Catechism in that it beareth the title of
the Synod of London last before this, although many
of them which then were present were never made
privy thereof in setting it forth ; for that this House
had granted the authority to make ecclesiastical laws
unto certain persons to be appointed by the King's
Majesty ; and whatsoever ecclesiastical laws they, or
the most part of them, did set forth, according to a
statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said
to be done in the Synod of London, although such as
he, of this House now, had no notice thereof before
the promulgation. And in this poiut he thought the
setter forth thereof nothing to have slandered the
House, as they, by their subscription, went about to
persuade the world, since they had our synodal
authority unto them committed, to make such
spiritual laws as they thought convenient and
necessary." ^
When nothing better than this could be said in
Convocation in reply to Dr. Weston's charge, one
would think the truth of that charge was most
effectually made out. For indeed Philpot himself
admitted that he believed it was literally true. He
was a new member, and had not sat in the previous
Convocation, and his special pleading after all, so far
as it was based upon fact, amounted to this only, that
previous Convocations had urged and obtained the
appointment of a Commission for the codification of
ecclesiastical laws. And, after all, the Catechism was
not the fruit of this Commission's labours.
Even Archbishop Cranmer was obliged to acknow
ledge a little later the very same fact that Dr.
1 Philpot apparently meant "in objecting to the title."
^ Foxe, U.S.

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 379
Weston and Dr. Brookes had publicly declared. For,
in the Disputation at Oxford in April 1554, Dr.
Weston repeated the charge to his face. " You have
set forth a Catechism," he said, " in the name of the
Synod of London, and yet there be fifty who,
witnessing that they were of the number of the
Convocation, never heard one word of this Catechism."
Cranmer replied, " I was ignorant of the setting to of
that title, and as soon as I had knowledge thereof, I
did not Uke it. Therefore, when I complained thereof
to the Council, it was answered me by them that the
book was so entitled because it was set forth in the
time of the Convocation." ^
It was the Council, not Cranmer, who were
answerable for the falsehood, and the plea by which
it was justified, even if we were to accept it as true,
was a miserable prevarication akin to that of Philpot.
But, as a matter of fact, it was not true even that the
book was set forth in the time of that Convocation.
Both the warrant book and the date of the Injunction
prefixed, show clearly that it was published in May,
whereas the Convocation had ended its sittings on the
1st April. The book came out in May — on the 21st,
as we have seen above — and there was no loss of time
in making use of it to bind the clergy. Thus we read
in the Grey Friars' Chronicle : —
Item, the 26th day of May began the Bishop of Canter-
bery to sit for the new book that the Bishop of Winchester,
Powny [Ponet], made, that he would have that all parsons
and curates should set their hands unto it, and to every
bishop in his diocese. And in London was divers that denied
many of the Articles, as Dr. Weston, with divers others. ^
Thus we find that in London, even under Edward
VI. , the book did not meet with a perfectly cordial
reception from the clergy ; and if not there, it was
not likely to be much more popular in the country.
1 Foxe, -vi. 468.
2 Chron. ofthe Grey Friars (Camden Soc), pp. 77, 78.

38o LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
Earlier in the month, as the same chronicle
informs us, there had been a general seizure of church
plate and of all the coin in the church boxes, with
vestments and copes, to supply the necessities of the
Royal Treasury. Commissions for this purpose had
been issued for all the different counties ; and when
the Commissioners for London " sat in Paul's " on the
25th with the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord
Mayor, the amount realised " drew unto a great goods
for the behoof of the King's Grace." The Parliament,
too, which Northumberland had been obliged to call
in March, and which met in the King's own palace of
Whitehall, as in his failing health he could not go
abroad to open it, was called mainly to vote a very
heavy subsidy to relieve the King's poverty, which
the Duke was careful to attribute to the wasteful and
impolitic government of his predecessor Somerset.
So difficulties, financial and other, were gathering in
the management of public affairs under the artful
leader who had now the control of everything.
But, to return to the subject of the Catechism and
Articles, it is right to notice some arguments which
have been thought to confirm the natural inference
from the title-page, that they were really approved
by Convocation. We might suppose that the records
of Convocation itself would have afforded some light
on this matter ; but these unfortunately perished in
the Fire of London. We know, however, from the
testimony of more than one writer who actually con
sulted them, that there was really nothing to be got
from them. They were, according to Fuller, "but
one degree above blank, scarce affording the names of
the clerks assembled therein " ; and Heylyn's testi
mony is to the same effect. ¦" So we must form our
judgment from other evidences; and in opposition
to what has been already shown, we are referred,
first, to a letter of the 1st June from the Senate of
' See Hardwick's Hist, of the Articles, pp. 105-6.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 381
Cambridge, speaking " De Articulis quibusdam in
Synodo Londinensi a.d. 1553 ad toUendam opinionum
dissensionem." But this is manifestly taken from
the inculpated title-page itself with a rectification of
the number of the year according to a usage touching
the commencement of the year which became more
common afterwards. Then on the 7th June Sir John
Cheke, writing to BuUinger of the great reforms in
reUgion accomplished by King Edward, ends by
saying : " Besides this, he has lately recommended to
the schools by his authority the catechism of John,
Bishop of Winchester, and has published the Articles
of the Synod at London, which if you will compare
with those of Trent, you will understand how the
spirit of the one exceeds that of the other. Why
should I say more ? I send you the book itself,"
etc.^ But this clearly has no more authority than
" the book itself," the accuracy of which is im
pugned. Cheke quite naturally followed the official
view. Evidences of the time of Queen Elizabeth are also
appealed to in this matter. Ten years after the
publication of these Articles of 1553 they were revived
in the Convocation of 1563 and described by the
Prolocutor as Articuli in Synodo Londinensi tem
pore nuper Regis Edwardi VIti editi. (Articles
set forth in the Synod of London in the time of the
late King Edward VI.) But this is simply the old
error handed down. More telling is a reference when
the Vestiarian controversy came up in 1566, and the
London clergy were examined as to their reasons for
nonconformity. They were urged to consider what
a great offence it was to disturb " public quiet in rites
and ordinances." This they might learn not only
from Scripture and usage, but also from " the deter
mination of this Church in England, both agreed
upon in King Edward's days, and also testified and
1 Original Letters (Parker Soc), p. 142.

382 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
subscribed by themselves, who now would gainsay
their own doings then." So we read in a contempo
rary tract called An Answer for the Time, in which
it is explained : " The words which the whole Synod
were well pleased withal, and whereunto all the
Clergy's hands are set to, be these (as in the 23rd ^
Article of that book). To this charge the Answerer of
the Examination makes but a short reply. He owns
the truth of the allegation that they had subscribed
that Article, but justifies it by the qualification of
that clause in it, of such traditions and ceremonies as
be not repugnant to the Word of God ; in which case
he o-wns it be their duty to obey orders. ' The
Articles of the Synod (1552), have such considera
tions annexed to them that we need not fear to
subscribe to them again,' etc." ^
Here, however, we must consider what evidences
lay before "the Examiner" who pressed the matter
in 1566, and "the Answerer" who confessed the
facts. The clergy were confronted with their own
signatures given in 1553, which they could not
repudiate ; that is quite true. But when were those
signatures given in that year ? Not in any regular
Synod or Convocation — certainly not in that which
sat in March — but, as the Grey Friars' Chronicle
shows us in a paragraph quoted above, on the 26th
May, when Cranmer called the clergy together for
the express purpose of getting their signatures to
"the new book" made by Bishop Ponet, to which, as
we have seen, the Articles were appended. This
might, indeed, be called a " Convocation " of one
kind, but not of the kind which technically bears that
name, and "the Answerer" in 1566 had no occasion
to go into the niceties of that matter. The assertion
on the title-page of the Articles that they were
^ So in Wake, but in Hardwick it is given as the 33rd ; which is
evidently right. The 33rd Article of the Forty-two was the one on
"Traditions of the Church."
2 Wake's State ofthe Church, pp. 699, 600.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 383
agreed to in " the Synod of London " was absolutely
false. Now, why was the Council so anxious to stamp
these Articles of Religion with a false authority ? I
think we may give Cranmer credit for speaking truth
when he said that this was not his doing and that he
did not like it. But it is curious if Northumberland,
who was so much opposed to Parliament's authorisation
of the Reformatio Legum, in March, was very eager to
publish the Articles in May, clothed with an authority
which had given them no sanction. Cranmer did his
best, undoubtedly, to enforce those Articles for his
own part, and to persuade other bishops to do the
like in their own dioceses ; but he would never have
gone so far as to say they had been approved by the
clergy in Convocation.
To Northumberland we may well believe that
Articles of Religion were in themselves matters of as
great indifference as reformation of the canon law.
But he felt at this time that there were other great
interests at stake — especially his own — which de
pended on a well-established rule of Religion being
set forth as binding upon the whole people. And
binding it could not have been unless seemingly set
forth by the highest ecclesiastical authority in the
realm. How was the Church of England at this time
to cope with the Church of Rome, which was at this
very moment doing what the English Church had
been hitherto continually restrained from doing —
setting forth her own doctrines and principles of
action in distinct canons, alike as to doctrine and
discipline ? As to discipline, indeed, and reformation
of laws, Northumberland had shown himself almost
as cold as any of his predecessors who had borne
sway for a time. He had, it is true, allowed the
Commission of Thirty -two to be nominated, and the
more select Commission of Eight to set to and rough-
hew the work ; but he had not allowed the fruit of

384 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
their labours to be promulgated as having any legal
validity.^ It would never do, however, to let it be
said that a Church independent of Rome had no valid
principles at all, and the tendency of things since
Edward's accession had been to discredit even the last
of the Henrician formularies — the book of " Necessary
Doctrine " — by the action of Cranmer himself and all
the new bishops. If the new religion had no author
ised basis at all, then Rome would assuredly recover
her hold, and the foes of Roman jurisdiction would
have to answer for it.
The danger was all the more serious if Edward
was soon to be succeeded by his sister Mary. In
that case, the prospect for those who now held sway
was very black indeed. Northumberland was really
becoming desperate, but he was doing all he could for
Protestantism and his own personal safety. In that
very month of May he had begun laying the founda
tion of his audacious scheme for altering the succes
sion. The King apparently was somewhat better —
at all events, reports were spread that he was mend
ing. But Northumberland was preparing for the
event which was not far off by something quite
unprecedented in English history. He had already
taken the first step towards its accomplishment on
Whitsunday, 21st May, when he had got his son,
Guildford Dudley, married to the accomplished
Lady Jane Grey, the daughter of Henry Grey,
Marquis of Dorset, who, about a year and a half
before, had been raised to the dukedom of Suffolk.
This promotion in the peerage was given him on
account of his wife, Frances, the daughter of Henry
VIII.'s favourite, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk,
and of that king's sister Mary. And Lady Jane,
being the daughter of Frances, was of royal blood,
' Even a bill to extend the term of three years allowed to the Commis
sioners by the Act of 1549, though it reached a second reading in the House
of Lords (see Lords' Journals, i. 419, 428), was not allowed to become law.
Perhaps the Commissioners hastened their work iu consequence.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 385
not far removed from the throne, if, besides failure of
the male line of Henry, which was imminent, his two
daughters were both to be accounted illegitimate (as
their father had actually made them), and the line of
his elder sister Margaret, who had married James IV.
of Scotland, were set aside in favour of that of the
younger, Mary. Nor would even this supersession of
Margaret's line have been without warrant ; for
Henry VIII.'s will, confirmed by special Acts of
Parliament, had expressly provided for the issue of
his younger sister succeeding before that of the elder.
But then the wUl had also given priority in the
succession to each of Henry's two daughters, bastards
though they were declared to be. So the claim could
not be vindicated on any theory whatever.
To complete the matter, Edward, under age as he
was, must be persuaded to do as his father had done
— dispose of the succession to the Crown by will.
But this was an act that, even in his father's case,
could not have been justified had not the power to
do so been expressly conferred upon him by Parlia
ment. Northumberland, however, proposed to out
rage constitutional principles still further by getting
the poor lad first to make a wiU altering the succes
sion, trusting to get it ratified by Parliament after
wards. And by this wUl, executed in the first place
without the consent of Parliament at all, it was
actuaUy proposed to set aside the wiU of the King's
father confirmed by statute ! Never was a more
outrageous project set on foot as regards the con
stitution ; but Northumberland was irrecoverably
ruined unless it could be carried out successfully.
And he could naturally reckon on the aid of Suffolk,
and to some extent on the sympathy of others who
had benefited by monastic plunder, and had cause
to dread a Catholic reaction.
I need not dwell on well-known details. He
persuaded young Edward to disinherit both his sisters.
VOL. Ill 2 c

386 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
In fact, he had worked upon his feelings as to the
danger of a return to popery, and had got him to go
all lengths with, his design. It was in vain for the
Chief-Justice himself to urge upon his little Majesty
that neither he nor the other lawyers summoned to
draw up the will durst act in such a manner. It
would be treason to do anything of the kind in defi
ance ofthe statutes. But Northumberland threatened
even the Judges with violence if they did not comply ;
and at last they agreed, aU but Sir James Hales, to
do what was required on receiving a special commis
sion and pardon under the Great Seal. Having so
far prevailed, it was not difficult to obtain the signa
tures of Councillors and others — even of Cranmer,
though he pleaded at first that it would be inconsistent
with his oath to maintain the will of Henry VIII.
So when Edward died (6th July) a desperate
effort was made to supplant Mary in the succession.
The death was concealed for days, whUe arrangements
were made to capture Mary at Hunsdon and to pro
claim Queen Jane. Queen Jane was proclaimed and
became a nine -days' wonder. But Mary was not
captured. She was warned that it was sought to
entrap her, and rode off to Kenninghall in Norfolk.
She was joined by the Earl of Bath and many others,
while the gentry proclaimed her in other counties.
Then on the 19th she was proclaimed Queen in
London amid great rejoicing. Suffolk himself pro
claimed her on Tower HUl, having told his daughter
that she was Queen no longer.
On the 3rd August Mary rode into London and
released the victims of her father's and her brother's
tyranny — the Duke of Norfolk, Edward Courtenay,
Bishop Gardiner, and the widowed Duchess of Somer
set from the Tower, and Bishop Bonner from the
Marshalsea. It is interesting to read what a con
temporary tells us about the liberation of this much
maUgned prelate : —

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 387
The 5 th of August at 7 o'clock at night came home
Edmund Boner bishop from the Marshalsea hke a bishop,
that aU the people by the way bade him welcome home, both
man and woman, and as many of the women as might kissed
him ; and so came to Paul's and knelt on the steps and said
his prayers. And then the people rang the beUs for joy.^
This carries us back through the centuries into an
age before Puritanism had either controlled the too
great freedom of common intercourse or succeeded in
wea-ving a web of general prejudice against a bishop
who soon afterwards had much painful duty imposed
upon him. As yet, at least, it is clear that Bonner had
not come to be looked upon as a repulsive character.
Many years before this, as we learn, even from a
writer who tried to make the most of those prejudices,
he had shown himself very humane to the poor lad
Mekins who fell a victim to the severity of the Six
Articles. By that Act, in order to overcome double-
dealing heretics, no recantation was allowed as a plea
for pardon, and the unhappy youth, who had too
freely expressed his disbelief in Transubstantiation,
was committed to the flames. An admirer of Dr.
Barnes, he had come to believe the Lutheran view of
the Eucharist, generally called Consubstantiation ;
but in conversations with Bishop Bonner before he
suffered he became convinced that he was wrong.
Bonner did the best he could for him under the
circumstances ; and so we read even in the words of
a prejudiced contemporary : " At the time he was
brought to the stake he was taught to speak much
good of the Bishop of London, and of the great
charity he showed him ; and that he defied all
heresies and cursed the time that ever he knew
Dr. Barnes, for of him had he learned that heresy
which he died for." The reader does not require much
guidance to see the animus expressed here in the
curious words " was taught to speak much good of
1 Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 82.

388 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
the Bishop of London," as if a lad, even of fifteen, as
Hall makes him (eighteen was his age by another
authority), placed in such an awful position, had any
interest in flattering his bishop. But the writer, to
make the insinuation plausible, goes on to suggest
further what is plainly untrue. " The poor boy," he
says, " would for the safeguard of his life have gladly
said that the Twelve Apostles taught it him, for he
had not cared of whom he had named it, such was
his childish innocency and fear." This, forsooth, he
would have done when " brought to the stake " under
a law that was absolutely relentless !
Dr. Cox, Dean of Westminster, the late King's
schoolmaster, took Bonner's place in the Marshalsea.^
It was an iU time now for heretics, but as yet and
for more than a year there was no thought of sending
them to the fire. Only in so far as they had done
unconstitutional things could they be punished at
present. But the whole of the government carried on
in Edward's name had been really quite unconstitu
tional ; and the great conspiracy of Northumberland
was, in fact, but the climax of a long course of
unconstitutional action. We may find, indeed, much
to claim our sympathy in Cranmer's persistent efforts
to establish a Catholicism independent of Rome. But
none the less what he had done, and what Somerset
and Northumberland had done in his behalf, was all
distinctly unconstitutional. The justification of it
all, indeed, was that the law of God was above the
Constitution ; and the law of God, of course, was
that which Somerset and Warwick administered.
But whatever may be said of the gain to religion
secured by Cranmer and others, it does not appear
that there was any similar gain to morality in the
days of Edward VI. On the contrary, it looks as if
both public and private morals had been worse in
his day than before. Of this the reader may have
• Machyn's Diary, p. 39 ; Grey Friars' Chron., u.s.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 389
already perceived some indications, and abundance
will be found in contemporary chronicles.^ But for
the general fact it is desirable to read what the most
zealous of Reformers and the most ardent of the
young King's admirers writes only a few months
after his death, especiaUy as his remarks supplement
the record of the months preceding that catastrophe.
This is what John Knox has to say in his " Godly
Letter of Warning or Admonition to the Faithful in
London, Newcastle, and Berwick, 1554" : —
" That we had not God's word truly preached
among us wiU none except ane errant and despiteful
papist deny. We had ane King of sa godly disposi
tion towards virtue and the truth of God that none
from the beginning passit him (and to my know
ledge, none of his years did ever match him in that
behalf gif he mycht half been lord of his awn will).
In this meantime, if sins did abound let every man
accuse his awn conscience. For here I am not minded
to specify all that I know ; neither yet is it necessary,
being some crimes were so manifest and heinous that
the earth could not hide the innocent blood, neither
yet could the heavens behold without shame the
craft, the deceit, the violence and oppression that
universally were wrought. And in the mean season
the hand of God was busy over us, and His true
messengers kept not sUence.
" Ye know the realm of England was visited with
divers and strange plagues, and whether it was not
ever prophesied, unless that with more obedience we
embrace God's Word, that the worse plagues was
to foUow, I appeal to the testimony of your awn
conscience. But what ensewit hereupon ? AUace !
I esehame to rehearse it. Universal contempt of all
God's admonitions, hatred of them that rebuked vice,
authorising of them that could invent most villany
1 See Wriothesley s Chron., ii. 8, 36, 50, 52, 54, 68 ; Grey Friars' Chron.,
pp. 62, 70, 78.

390 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
against the preachers of God's Word. In this matter
I may be admitted for a sufficient witness, for I
heard and saw, I understood and knew with the
sorrow of my heart, the manifest contempt and
crafty devices of the Devil against those most
godly and learned preachers that this last Lent,
Anno MDLIIL, were appointed to preach before the
King's Majesty, as also against all others whose
tongues were not temperat with the halie water of
the Court — plainly to speak, wha could not flatter
against their conscience and say all was well, and
nathing needed reformation. What reverence and
audience, I say, was given to the preachers this last
Lent by such as then were in authority, their awn
consciences declared — assuredly, even such as by the
wicked Princes of Judah was given to Jeremiah.
They hated such as rebuked vice, and stubbornly
they said. We will nocht amend. And yet how
boldly their sins were rebuked, even in their faces,
such as were present can witness with me. Almost
there was none that occupied the place but he did
prophesy and plainly speak the plagues that are
begun and assuredly shall end. Maister Grindal
plainly spake the death of the King's Majesty, com
plaining on his household servants and officers, who
neither eschamed nor feared to rail against God's true
Word and against the preachers of the same. The
godly and fervent man, Maister Lever, plainly spake
the desolation of the common weal, and the plagues
which should follow shortly. Maister Bradfurde
(whom God for Christ His Son's sake comfort to the
end) spared not the proudest, but boldly declared
that God's vengeance should shortly strike them that
then were in authority because they abhorred and
loathed the true Word of the Everlasting God ; and,
amongst many others, willed them to take example
by the late Duke of Somerset, who became so cold
in hearing God's Word that the year before his last

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 391
apprehension he wald ga visit his masons, and wald
not deny himself to ga from his gallery to his hall for
hearing of a sermon. God punished him (said the
godly preacher), and that suddenly, and shall He
spare you that be doubly more wicked ? " ^
John Knox does not describe in detail wickedness
that is well known to aU his contemporaries ; but he
ascribes it to their not hearing sermons or showing
true Calvinistic devotion. He felt that the godly
preachers were only employed by the Court for a
politic purpose, and that the politicians who employed
them had not the least idea of regulating their own
lives by their preaching.
And now there was a new Queen — one whom
Knox assuredly did not admire, but quite as honest
a woman as he was a man, and she had the hearts of
her subjects generally with her. But she was one
who, owing to the way she had been treated, both in
her father's and in her brother's reign, knew nothing
of the world, and was no way educated for the part
she had to play. And was such a one likely to
restore healthy government where so much had gone
amiss ?
Before closing this volume — that is to say Books
V. and VI. of this history, setting forth what was
done and suffered during the Protectorship of Somer
set and the ascendancy of Dudley — I feel tha,t I
must add a few words, to prevent misapprehension.
The reader must not imagine that I have even
attempted to set before him an exhaustive history of
the reign of Edward VI. That is a work that I
must leave to others who, I hope, will accompUsh it
hereafter. My own working powers are well-nigh
spent, and what is left of them must be reserved for
1 Laing's Knox, iii. 175, 176. I have modernised the spelling in this
extract tS a large extent, to make it more readable, without altogether
Anglicising it, -^hich would have made it look more like a translation
than a mere quotation.

392 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
the continuation of my task — which is simply to
show the influence of LoUardy on the Reformation.
The two things almost seem to be one at this time ;
but they are really not so, and never can be.
LoUardy, it is true, is with us still to some extent,
and there is no getting rid of it entirely, just as there
is no getting rid of error and narrowness. But, looking
through the ages since Edward VI. we can easily see
that, though it seemed to grow more and more imperi
ous for a whole century, and the broad catholic prin
ciples of the Reformation were even trampled under
foot at one time — though it provoked civil war and
confusion, — the triumph of LoUardy was really the
beginning of its decline. And from that day to this
Puritanism has generally lost more and more of its
old tenacity, as people now alive can bear witness
that it has done in their own day.
There were two kinds of LoUardy from the first —
aristocratic LoUardy, favoured in high places, but
avowed or disowned at convenience ; and the fervid.
Scriptural LoUardy of half-instructed men. The
lower-class LoUardy had been cynically cultivated by
the Court ever since the breach with Rome for
the very purpose of destroying papal power and the
authority of the canon law — an object in which it was
completely successful. But this ill-informed LoUardy
was quite as impatient of episcopal as of papal
government, and hated all bishops merely because
they were bishops, except that it felt some regard for
those of the New Learning. On the other hand, the
Court required bishops, even to regulate the Church
in its own way, and to maintain itself against Rome,
on the theory that it had made no breach whatever in
the essential principles of religion. In fact, it had
restored true Church principles and got rid of a
foreign usurped authority. Such was the plea of
despotism, and all the literary supporters of the New
Learning supported despotism through thick and

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 393
thin. Only when despotism, being a little afraid of
its own security, made a strong declaration by an Act
like the Six Articles of its allegiance to time-honoured
doctrine, did literary Lollards like Foxe heave a sigh
and wonder how such a noble King could have been
so painfully misled. The declaration, indeed, with all
its menaces, was not such a serious matter as they
made it, for the victims were really very few. But the
words of the Act of Parliament were quite enough to
serve the purposes of LoUardy by suggesting that,
instead of being still favoured underhand, it had gone
through a period of fierce and bitter persecution.
I do not propose to say much even about the
literature of LoUardy. But some general features
should be noted. Aristocratic LoUardy, first of all,
obtained the aid of poet libertines such as from age to
age had always grown up unchecked because there
was no moral censor to restrain their utterances.
What could be done ? Confessors only dealt with
individual souls, and the souls of individual libertines
disburdened themselves to their priests just exactly
when they thought it would be prudent, or perhaps
very necessary to do so. Reconciliation with the
Church could always be obtained by penance, and
the penalty, especially to the rich, was not very
severe. Priests themselves were far too many of
them libertines, and there was nothing like a distinct
change of faith implied in reviling priests, bishops,
and even Popes, ad libitum. It could all be set right,
if necessary, in the long run. And the dissolute wits
and singers of the Court of Henry VIII. — Sir Francis
Brian, Anne Boleyn's cousin; her brother, George
Viscount Rochford (who is said to have been a poet) ;
Sir Thomas Wyatt the elder, and the unhappy Surrey
— might all of them have been reconciled in the end
to the Papal See if their master had found it neces
sary for his part. But as Henry VIII. himself found
no real necessity for this in his day, neither did his

394 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
minions. Nay, a Lollard literature grew up in the
Court itself, or rather was fostered there, and, just as
Clement Marot in France had versified the Psalms of
David in French, Thomas Sternhold, Groom of the
Robes to Henry VIIL, had set about versifying some
of them in English before that King's death.
Sternhold himself died two years later in 1549. He
had then just published nineteen of the Psalms in
metre ; and just after his death there appeared, with
a dedication to Edward VI. , a collection consisting of
thirty-seven Psalms versified by him, and seven by
John Hopkins, a clergyman of Suffolk. But the
complete Psalter bearing the names of Sternhold and
Hopkins was not published till 1562, in the days of
Queen Elizabeth, when it appeared annexed to the
Prayer Book. On the title-page the work is said to
have been " conferred with the Ebrue " — a great
guarantee, no doubt, for the strict accuracy of the
translation, which, from a LoUard point of view, was a
matter of supreme importance.^ "The lasting celebrity
of this work was certainly not due to its poetical
merits. Among other poetasters who continued under
Edward VI. was William Gray, of whom we have
heard before. He, too, was a Court poet, author, as
it would seem, of a " merry ballad," beginning :
The hunt is up, the hunt is up,
as well as of the abominable profanities referred to in
a past volume.^ Under Edward VI. he was a friend
of the Duke of Somerset, to whom he presented two
poetical " New year's gifts " that have survived — the
last two, if he had made it an annual practice, which
^ Even down to our own time the metrical " Paraphrases" of Scripture
used in the Church of Scotland have been disliked by many Presbyterians
just because, being paraphrases, they are not close translations of the
inspired Word. Even Milton was affected by this literalness, and he
actually preferred in one case to do his Muse such injustice as to fill up the
metre with meaningless words : " lest as a lion (and no wonder) " (Ps. vii. 2)
rather than take other liberties with the text.
2 Vol. II. 171, 290.

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 395
we cannot tell ; for the first was composed at the
beginning of 1550, whUe the Duke was stiU in prison ;
the second in 1551, some months before his second
fall. They are both flavoured with the new piety in
a rather curious fashion, and full of good advice, the
first suggesting that the Duke's punishment will make
him know God the better ; the second, that, now he
is free, he should further God's Word to the utmost,
think of the wretched state of the commonwealth,
and beware of flatterers. There is also " an epitaph
on Gray," probably written by himself, indicating
that he died young after a stormy life, his days being
shortened by a wicked wife.^ What are we to think
of such effusions ? They are, at least, of the time.
Of other and better known authors of the period,
such as John Leland and Nicholas Udall, it is scarcely
necessary to speak in relation either to LoUardy or
the Reformation, though their poetical gifts were
perhaps of higher grade. Generally speaking, the
times were hardly favourable either to literature or to
education. For the higher education surely suffered
no small loss when in 1550 the Visitors of the
University of Oxford, headed by the Chancellor,
Dr. Cox, dean of Christ Church, acting, no doubt,
under the new law for the destruction of papistical
books and images, destroyed illuminated MSS. and
works of scholastic divinity by the cart-load. The
Act had only been carried through Parliament in the
teeth of numerous and weighty protests. But it was
carried out relentlessly, and Dr. Cox was remembered
afterwards for his zeal as the " Cancellor," not Chan
cellor, of the University. Ship-loads of MSS. are said
to have been exported, to be used by bookbinders ;
and even painted windows were not spared under the
Act, except where a coUege was able to plead, as New
College is said to have done, that it could not at once
destroy them as it could not afford new glass ! Here
¦¦ YnrmYnn's Ballads from MSS., vol. i. pt. i. 414-25, 435.

396 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi
the impecuniosity of the college saved its treasures.
And there were other disgraceful ravages of which
superstition was the plea, though gold and sUver seem
to have been the real objects. Even the King's
library, as we have seen,^ was not spared, but was
specially purged of " superstitious books " when they
had gold and silver ornaments.
From the very commencement of the reign. Heads
of Houses at Oxford had begun to see how the tide
was running, and several of them showed signs of
compliance with new tendencies. Even Dr. Henry
Cole, Warden of New College, is said to have done so,
though he resigned his wardenship, and some other
livings as well, during Edward's reign, and showed
himself under Mary whole-hearted for the old religion.
The Universities, in truth, suffered in other ways than
by a " Cancellor's " acts. Endowments given even
by Henry VIII. for lectureships were misappropriated,
as the fervid Thomas Lever, of Cambridge, complained
in sermons preached sometimes before King Edward
himself.'' Particularly to be noted is the way he
addressed the citizens of London on this subject from
Paul's Cross. After describing Henry VIII.'s endow
ments at Cambridge he observed : —
" Every man may perceive that the King, giving
many things and taking nothing from the Univer
sities, was very desirous to have them increased and
amended. Howbeit all they that have known the
University of Cambridge since that time that it did
first begin to receive these great and manifold benefits
from the King's Majesty at your hands have just
occasion to suspect that you have deceived both the
King and University to enrich yourselves. For before
that you did begin to be disposers of the King's
liberality towards learning and poverty, there was in
houses belonging unto the University of Cambridge
^ See page 184.
"^ See Arber's edition of his Sermons, pp. 80, 81, 120.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 397
two hundred students of divinity, many very well
learned; which be now all clean gone, house and
man, young toward scholars and old fatherly doctors,
not one of them left. One hundred also of another
sort, that having rich friends, or being beneficed men,
did live of themselves in Ostles [halls] and inns, be
either gone away or else fain to creep into colleges
and put poor men from bare livings. Those both be
all gone, and a small number of poor godly, diligent
students now remaining only in colleges be not able
to tarry and continue their study in the University
for lack of exhibition and help. There be divers there
which rise daily betwixt 4 and 5 of the clock in the
morning, and from 5 until 6 of the clock use common
prayer, with an exhortation of God's word in a
common chapel, and from 6 unto 10 of the clock use
either private study or common lectures. At 10 of
the clock they go to dinner, whereas they be content
with a penny piece of beef amongst four, having a
few porage ^ made of the broth of the same beef, with
salt and oatmeal and nothing else.
" After this slender dinner they be either teaching
or learning until 5 of the clock in the evening, when-
as they have a supper not much better than their
dinner. Immediately after the which they go either
to reasoning in problems or unto some other study
until it be 9 or 10 of the clock and, there being with
out fire, are fain to walk or run up and down half an
hour to get a heat on their feet when they go to
bed." ^
It was these poor and zealous students, sorry to
leave their studies, that were being driven from the
Universities for lack of maintenance, and grammar
schools were at the same time given up in the country
owing to the greed and covetousness of trustees.^
1 The expression " a few porage " is interesting. To this day Scotsmen,
who are much given to porridge, talk of supping "them," always making
the word a plural.
2 Lever's Sermons (Arber), pp. 121-2. ' 7j_ p_ 123.

398 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk.vi
Nor must we overlook pretty clear indications here
and there that, in the opinion even of this stout
preacher of the New Learning, things were really
better in the days when monasteries stUl stood.
Lamenting that noblemen gave their chaplains no
wages, and that servants of Mammon spoiled the
parishes, leaving the people untaught, he declares :
"If ye were not stark blind, ye would see and be
ashamed that whereas fifty tun-bellied monks given
to gluttony filled their paunches, kept up their house
and reUeved the whole country round about them,
there one of your greedy-guts devouring the whole
house and making great pillage throughout the
country, cannot be satisfied." ^
Again : —
" Surely the abbeys did wrongfuUy take and abuse
nothing so much as the improperations of benefices." ^
And here are more specific indictments : —
" The King's Majesty that dead is did give a
benefice to be appropriate unto the University of
Cambridge in liberam et puram, eleemosynam (as
free and pure alms). Howbeit, his hands were so
unpure which should have delivered it that he
received £600 of the University for it. Whether
that this £600 were conveyed to the King's behoof
privily for that alms which by plain writing was
given freely, or else put into some Judas' pouch, I
would it were known. . . .
" There was in the North country, amongst the
rude people in knowledge (which be most ready to
spend their lives and goods in serving the King at
the burning of a beacon) there was a grammar school
founded, having in the University of Cambridge, of
the same foundation eight scholarships, ever re
plenished with the scholars of that school ; which
school is now sold, decayed and lost. Mo there be of
like sort handled." ^
' Lever's Sermons (Arber), p. 119. ^ Ib. p. 125. ' Ib. pp. 80, 81.

CH. IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 399
" The New Learning " itself seemed to be on the
way to complete extinction. Some halls at Oxford
were absolutely void of students ; and some of the
unfrequented schools were, towards the end of
Edward's reign, bought by citizens of Oxford who
pulled them down and made gardens on their sites,
selUng the very tiles and timber, or using them for
their own houses. Academic education was falUng
into complete disrepute. Old academic terms were
despised as pedantic. Some thought degrees anti-
Christian, and others would not study for them, as
they opened the door to no preferment. Early in
Elizabeth's reign, at a visitation of the diocese of
SaUsbury, a preacher was asked why the schools of
Oxford were suffered to go down and disputations
left off in the days of Edward VI. ; and his answer
was, " By Dr. Cox's endeavours." ^
After Mary's accession it was surely time to revive
the old learning, and even the old religion, to which
the country at large was still devoted ; and she did
so as far as it could be done. But there was yet
something in the way that could not be got rid of
The Pope might be restored, but he was restored by
the same power by which he had been deposed.
Royal supremacy had laid the foundation of the
Reformation, and royal supremacy still remained.
Even religious order — whatever order there was to be
henceforth — must exist under the sanction of royal
supremacy.
' See Anthony Wood's Annuls ofthe University of Oxford, ii. 82-115.

400 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION bk. vi

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV
The original text of the document referred to at p. 363 is
as follows. It is derived from a transcript in the Brussels
archives, and apparently the original was among the despatches
of Scheyfve, the Imperial ambassador.
" EXTKAIT DE LA PREMIERE SESSION DU PaRLEMENT ACHBVfi
ET PAR LE Roy RATIFFI^E et AUTHORISJ^E LES CON
STITUTIONS ET DECRETZ D'ICELUI.
" Occurans du 10^ d'Apvril 1553, en sa maison de West-
munster, y present les 6tats, les dites constitutions concement
la plus part la pohce, et entre autres Ton a diminu^ et
restrainct le nombre des taverniers. . . .
" Quant aux habitz et vestemens, quelques autres articles
out est^ proposez au dit Parlement, mais la chose n'est tumble
en resolution.
" Touchant la rehgion I'on n'y a rien innov^, nonobstant
que les Evesques avoient ung volume prest et compost par
forme de droit canon ; mais il n'a point est^ receu, et estant
ledit volume present^ aux Estats par I'Evesque de Cantor-
bery, Due de Noorthumberlant ^ que riens ne sen feroit, et
que ledit Evesque et ses confreres regardassent bien ee qu'ilz
feissent puisque la charge leur avoit est^ denude, et que les
autres des dits Estatz ignoroient ce que c'estoit ; y adjoustant
que s'ilz n'enseignassent la vraie doctrine et pure parole de
Christ, que ce seroit k eux qu'on en prendroit, entremeslant
en cecy comme certains concionateurs avoient ces jours passez
pressez (prSch^ ?) sur I'incorporation du bien et fons et division
des Eveschez que le Roi entendoit faire, disant que tous ceulx
vouloient diminuer ou restraindre le droit des dites Esghses,
qu'ilz usoient contre la loi Divine et qu'ilz estoient heretiques ;
qu'estoit chose trop schandaleuse tendant a sedition et com
motion ; et que les dits Evesques donnassent ordre que sem-
blable n'advint dore8navant,et se deportassent en leurs sermons
d'attirer le Priuce ou ses ministres, ou autrement qu'ilz
auroient a souffrir avec les dits prescheurs. Surquoy ledit
de Cantorbery s'excusoit, affermant qu'il n'en avoit ouy
parler, et si quelque chose en estoit que cela avoit est^ fait
seulement pour reprendre et noter les vices et abuz. Ledit
' It would seem as if some words were omitted here in the transcript.

CH.IV THE GREAT CONSPIRACY 401
Due rephcqua qu'il y avoit des vices assez a detester, et qu'il
sembloit que les fruits de leur vie estoient bien maigre, de
sorte que aucuns estiment que Ton tumberoit legerement a
I'enehienne, les autres que le fait de la rehgion et plusieurs
autres articles pour certains respectz et considerations out
est4 postposez et reservez pour une autre fois, mesme tou
chant I'auctoritd et absolute puissance laquelle devoit estre
donn4 au Roi ; si y a il de ceulx qui dient que ce dernier
point soit de I'invention du dit Due, qui en auroit fait semer
le bruit, pour cognoistre I'opinion des gens, et ce qu'on en
pourroit dire et juger.
" Durant le dit Parlement les villes Henses ont envois en
Angleterre certain docteur et commissaire de la ville appeUe
Maistre Herman Ploninges, pour declairer au Roi et son
Conseil I'envoi des ambassadeurs des dites villes apr^s que la
diette seroit tenue.
" Le Roi se refait et doit aUer a Grunwits.
" Du 10 Avril 1553."

VOL. Ill 2 ^

INDEX

" Aaronic habits," 266
Adrian VI., Pope, 130
Agricola, John, of Eisleben, 155
Aldgate, 371
Aldrich, Robert, Bishop of Carlisle
(1537-56), 174, 177, 178, 332
All Hallows, Bread Street church,
offered to Knox, 355
Altars taken down, 180, 308-9
Anabaptists, 312-13, 341-2, 345
Antwerp, 290
Arderne, Thomas, 43
Aries, AJexander of, 71
Arras [Ant. Perrenot], Bishop of,
190
Articles to be set forth, 289, 290, 320,
324-7, 347-8
Articles, the Forty -five, reduced to
forty-two, 387
the Forty-two, authorised (subjoined
at first to Ponet's Catechism), 373-
377, 383
Anmdel, Henry FitzAlan, 12th Earl
of (1544-80), 328
Arundel, Sir Thomas, 263, 328, 331
Ashton, John, parson of Shitlington,
317
Askew, Anne, 76, 142, 312, 315
her examination, published by Bale,
30
Askew, Sir Francis, 254
Aucher, Sir Anthony, 184
Augsburg, Confession of, 130, 324
the Armed Diet of, 152
Aunsell, Simon, Mayor of Feversham,
43
Austin Friars, Dutch church at, 271-2
Baal, "the altars of," 265. See also
Book VI. Ch. III.
Baker, Sir John, 45, 46
Speaker of the Commons, 47
Bale, John (afterwards bishop), two
hooks of, 29, 30

Barbarossa, the Tm'kish naval com
mander, 132
Barker (Dr. Barkley ?), chaplain of the
Princess Mary, 295
Barkley, Dr. , chaplain of the Princess
Mary, 195. See Barker
Barlow, William, Bishop of St. David's,
21, 22, 60
Barnes, Dr. Robert, 387
Baron, Joan. See Bocher
Basel, Council of, 138, 159
Bath, John Bourchier, second Earl of,
386
Battle Abbey, 12
Beaulieu, in Essex. See Newhall
Becke, Edmund, his poem about Joan
Bocher, 314
Bedford, Barl of. See Russell, John
BeU, John, Bishop of Worcester (1539-
1543), 50
Berne, Council of, 127
Berwick, Knox's faithful at, 339, 351,
389
Beton, Cardinal, murderers of, 13, 16
Bible, the English, vii, 84
Bigg, Canon, xiii, xviii, xix n.
Bill, William, royal chaplain, 347
Bilney, Thomas (burned at Norwich),
xiv, xix
Bishoprics, division of, 400
Bishops, bills touching the election of,
54, 55
their appeal to the Lords, 172
dislike of, 264, 392
"Bishops' Book," the. See Institution
of a Christian Man
Bisse, John, of Wycombe, 61
Blackheath, 369
"Black Rubric, the," 357. See also
Kneeling
Bocher, Joan (otherwise named Baron
and Knel), burned in Smithfield,
188, 312-16
Body, William, slain, 64

403

404 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION

Boleyn, Anne, Queen, 315
her chaplain Singleton. See Shengle
ton
Boleyn, Sir Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire,
1529-38 (Anne Boleyn's father),
33, 34
Boleyn, George, Viscount Rochford
(brother of Anne), 393
Bologna, translation of the CouncU of
Trent to, 148, 149, 151-4
Bonner, Edmund, Bishop of London,
21, 52, 55, 61, 83, 115, 204, 260,
265, 292
committed to the Fleet, 38
commanded to preach against re
bellion, 101
deprived, 102-3, 126, 185-9, 249,
250, 257, 259, 311
released from prison, 386-8
' ' Book, the Bishops'. " See Institution
of a Christian Man
"Book, the King's." See Necessary
Doctrine
Book of Common Prayer. See Prayer
books
Books, papistical (or of old Service),
173-6
Act against, 181
Boulogne, 105, 116, 128
Bradford, John, the Marian martyr, 390
Braintree, Essex, 251
Brandenburg, Albert of, Cardinal Arch
bishop of Mainz, 155
Brandling, Sir Robert, of Newcastle,
339
Brian, Sir Francis, 393
Bromley, Thomas, Justice, 10, 12
Brook, Recorder of London, 337
Brookes, Dr. James, afterwards Bishop
of Gloucester, 377, 379
Browne, Su- Anthony, 10, 12, 15
sent to the Fleet, 202, 310
Brunswick, Henry, Duke of, 142
Brussels, 299
Bucer, Martin, the Reformer, 69, 71,
81, 114, 116, 117, 188, 228, 270
Buckinghamshire, Knox sent into, 355,
361
BuUinger, Henry, of Zurich, the Re
former, 11, 54, 68, 70, 78, 79,
114, 118, 224,257-60, 262-4, 268,
272, 276, 288, 290, 308, 320, 336,
342, 381
his writings, 262 n.
Burcher, John, correspondent of Bul-
linger, 70, 71, 118
Burnet, Bishop, his History of the
Reformation, 376
Butler, Master, 267

Cajetan, the Cardinal (Thomas de Vio),
129
Calais, doctrinal disputes at, 73
Calvin, John, the Reformer, 117, 325,
338
his letter to the Protector Somerset,
118-22
Calvinism, 188, 333, 343
Cambridge, 116
Cambridge, Senate of, 380-81
Cambridge, University of, 396, 398
Capo di Ferro, Cardinal, 160
Capon, John, Bishop of Salisbury (1539-
1657), 50
Capuchin Order, 163
Caraffa, Gian Pietro, Cardinal, after
wards Pope Paul IV., 162-4
Cardwell's Documentary Annals, cited,
319 ».
Cartwright, Thomas, the Puritan, temp.
Elizabeth, 344
Caston, Stephen, 309
Catechism. See Cranmer, Thomas ;
Ponet, John
Catechism printed by Seres in a primer
(1553) 373 n.
CecU, William, afterwards Lord Bur
leigh, 203-4, 233, 250, 289, 290,
303, 326, 328, 341, 347, 350, 354,
373
Centum Gravamina, the, of Germany,
130
Ceremonies, Book of, 50
Ceremonies, Committee of, 50
Cervini, Cardinal, 133, 134
Chamberlain, Sir Thomas, ambassador
at Brussels, 200
Champneis, John, retracts heresies,
316-17
Chantries, Act touching, 55 ; sale of
their lands, 56, 57
Chapuys, Eustace, Imperial ambas
sador, 5
Charles II., toleration policy of, xxv
Charles V., Emperor, 86, 89, 129, 131-
135, 139-40, 143-58, 160
his interference on behalf of Mary,
190-96, 199,200-3,296,301-2,305
his ambassador forbidden to have
mass in his house, 298
Chartres, the Vidame of, 189
Cheapside, 200, 372
Cheke, Sir John, 326, 328, 334, 381
Chelsea, 341, 350
Chertsey abbey, meeting of bishops at,
80, 81, 128, 186 ; transferred to
Windsor, 82
Cheyney, Sir Thomas, vii
Chichester, Bishop. See Day, George

INDEX

405

Church, bill to compel attendance at,
332
Church plate, seizure of, 380
Cleeve, Soms., Cistercian monastery of,
262
Clement VII., Pope, 132
Clergy, marriage of, 67, 68
Clergy's right to sit in Parliament, 48,
49
Clerk, John, Bishop of Bath and Wells
(1523-41), 50
Clerkenwell, St. John's, 200
Clinton, Edward, Lord (1517-84), Lord
Admiral, 209, 212, 243
Cobham, (Jeorge Brooke, Lord (1629-
1568), 209, 212
Coggeshall Church, Essex, 251
Coke, Mr., civUian, 337
Cole, Dr. Henry, Warden of New
College, Oxford, 396
Colet, Dean, 282
Collier, Mr. Payne, 314
Commons, House of, its subservience,
46
Communion, Order of (in 1548), 62,
77, 78, 310
Confession of Augsburg, 130
Consensus Tigurinus, the, 321
Constance, Council of, 136, 169, 160
Constantine, George, vii
Consubstantiation, 387
Contarini, Gaspar, Cardinal and Legate,
143, 162
Convocation of Canterbmry, 47-50, 324-
326, 836-6, 380
Copenhagen, 117
Copthall, 300-1, 303
Cornwall, revolt in (1548), 64 ; (1549)
85, 102
Coimcfl, General, needed, 129-32
ineffectually summoned to meet at
Mantua, 131
Courtenay family, 86
Courtenay, Edward, 386
Coverdale, Miles, Bishop of Exeter
(1551-53), 189, 249, 256, 266
Cox, Richard (Edward VI.'s school
master). Dean of Christchurch
(1544-53), Dean of Westminster
(1549-53), 319, 388, 395, 399
Crane and his wife, 328, 331
Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canter
bury, vii, vui, 10, 18, 19, 23, 25,
34, 58, 61, 68-81, 83, 89, 117-18,
128, 177, 194, 209, 220, 223,
243-5, 247-8, 252, 256-9, 267,
269-74, 292, 312, 316, 318, 341-
360, 361-4, 366, 368-9, 373, 378-
379, 382-4, 388, 400

in Convocation, 50, 51, 57
his book of Homilies, 36
his earlier controversy with Gardiner,
39, 40
" Catechism'' published, but not
composed, by him, 70, 71, 77, 78
Catechism composed by him, 373 n.
considered to be Lutheran, 70
invites foreign divines to England,
71
his mental history, 73-80, 224
on commission to examine Bonner,
102
royal letter addressed to him, 174
consulted about allowing Mary her
mass, 191, 201, 294
his character, 191
his book on the Sacrament, 224-6 ;
Gardiner's answer to it and his
rejoinder, 227-31
his reticence about the Sacrament,
226 ; his change of view, 335
on the Commission for Gardiner's
trial, 231-2, 245
Dr. Smith's book against him, 244-
245
his view of a national Church, 256,
332
his register, 276
on Commission to revise the Canon
Law, 319, 336
seeks to prepare a new theological
standard, 320
requires the clergy to subscribe
articles, 321, 326-7
desires to have a council of divines
in England, 322
submits the first Prayer Book to
revision, 334
Crediton, barns of, burnt, 85
Crepy, peace of, 133
Cromwell, Oliver, xxv
Cromwell, Thomas, Henry VIII.'s
mmister, 38, 45 n., 49, 64, 73,
74, 318
Croydon, 244
Damplip, Adam, of Calais, 73
Darcie (or Darcy), Sir Thomas (after
wards Lord Darcy), 184, 191, 243,
251
Day, George, Bishop of Chichester
1543 (deprived 1551, but restored
by Queen Mary 1563), 52, 174,
177, 178, 189, 249, 266
Day, the King's printer, 373j 376
Deacon, the, and the Jewess, xvii
Decretals, 366
Denny, Sir Anthony, 10, 16

4o6 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION

Derby, Edward, third Earl of (1521-
1672), 174, 332
Devonshure rising (of 1649), 84-6, 100,
102, 127
Dieppe, Knox's letter from, 339
Dissenting chapels, the first, xxv
Dixon, Canon, xiii
his History of the Church of England
cited, 204 »., 252 n., 320 n., 366,
374, 376 n.
Doctrine, Committee of, 49
Dorset, Henry Grey, Marquis of (1530-
1551), Duke of Suffolk (1561-54),
127, 243, 272, 294, 328, 336,
384, 386
his wife, Frances, daughter of Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, 384
Dovercourt, the Rood of, 27
Dowve, Mr., 43
Dryander, Francis, Spanish Reformer,
72
Dudley, Sir John, Lord Lisle, Admiral
under Henry VIIL, 5, 6, 10, 13,
15
Earl of Warwick, 15, 16, 87, 105,
122, 127, 170, 174, 187-9, 249,
250, 267, 272, 293, 308, 318,
329, 368
his son, Lord Lisle, marries Somer
set's daughter, 187
Morysine's account of him, 189-
194
Lord Great Master (1550), 211, 212,
215-6, 219, 220, 241, 243
created Duke of Northumberland,
328-30
his forward policy, 332, 338, 340-44,
354-5, 362-5, 380, 383-6, 388,
400
his execution, 339
rumours about, 372
Dudley, Guildford, son of the pre
ceding, married to Lady Jane
Grey, 384
Dumbell, John, Vicar of South Cerney,
Gloucester, 280
Durham, Bishop of. See Tunstall,
Cuthbert
Durham diocese, scheme for dividing,
249
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 56, 172-3,
176
Ecclesiastical laws, the promised Com
mission of Thirty-two on, 47, 48,
177, 318, 337
it is at last issued, 319
and another Commission of Eight to
rough-hew the work, 319, 337

a new Commission of Thirty -two
made out, 337, 383
result of their labours. See Refor
matio, 368
Edward VI., rxiii, xxxix
accession of, 4-7, 9, 143
his coronation, 23
his council, 24, 29
his parliament, 46
his Journal, 82
writes to the senate of Zurich, 127
his supremacy, 127, 293
the Emperor will not take up arms
against him, 160
his library purged of "superstitious
books," 184, 396
his political education, 189, 191
his decision in Council, 192
writes a rebuke to his sister Mary,
197
receives a visit from her, 201, 301
the religious change under him, 246,
365, 381
alters the consecration oath for
Hooper, 267
his death, 339
his illnesses, 356, 369, 370, 372, 384,
401
he makes a will to alter the suc
cession, 385
morals in his reign, 388-91
Eleanor, niece of Henry VIIL, daughter
of Mary, "the French Queen," 7
Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII.,
9, 123, 307
as Queen, 361, 363-4 ; her objection
to a married clergy, 58 ; reversion
to Edwardine principles under her,
247 ; papal pretensions under her
lost their hold, 247
Ely, Bishop of. See Goodrich, Thomas
Ely Place, Holborn, 105
Emden in East Friesland, 271
Enclosure of commons, 84-6
Englefield [Su:] Fras.,servantof Princess
Mary, 92, 93, 299, 302, 305, 307
Erasmus, the Scholar, 271
his Paraphrase, 40, 219
"Established Church." See "State
Church "
Eucharistic usage at Nuremberg, 64
Eugenius IV., Pope, 159
Exeter, siege of (1549), 84-5
Bishop of: see Voysey, John (1519-
1561) ; Coverdale, Miles (1551-53)
bishopric of, 265
Fagius, Paul, German Hebraist, 72,
114, 116, 117, 188

INDEX

407

Farnese, Cardinal, son of Pierluigi,
145, 166
Ottavio, 135
Pierluigi, Duke of Castro, sou of
Pope Paul HI., 136, 147
murder of, 162
Farnham, Vicar of, 235
Gardiner preaches at, 236
Ferdinand, King ofthe Romans, brother
of Charles v., 133, 136, 155
Ferrar, Rob., Bishop of St. David's
(1548-54), 177
Fieschi, the, conspiracy of, 147, 151
Fighting in churches, 80, 81
Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, 22
Flanders, 202
Fleet prison, the, 180, 233, 273-4, 295
Fleet Street, 200
Florence, Margaret, widow of Alex, de
Medici, Duke of, 135
Foxe, Edward, Bishop of Hereford
(1536-58), 324
Foxe, John, his Acts and Monuments,
206, 210, 213, 217 n., 219 »., 263,
275, 278-9, 365
France, peace with, 187, 194
Frances, nieeeof Henry VIIL, daughter
of Mary, "the French Queen," 9
Francis I. of France, 28, 86, 149, 160
his alliance with the Turk, 131
Frederic II. , Elector Palatine, 139
Friesland, Reformed Churches of, 271
Frith, John, the Martyr, 74, 76 n.
Froude, James A., the historian, 23 n.
FuUer's Church History, 255 n., 277,
380
Garde, Baron de la, envoy from France,
20, 28
Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Win
chester, 6, 10-18, 21-3, 35, 65,
252, 292, 310, 334
the omission of his name in Henry
VIII.'s wiU, 11, 16, 248
his correspondence with Paget, 13,
14, 17
his acceptance of royal supremacy,
22, 23, 247-8
distressed at iconoclasm at Ports
mouth, 24, 25
the Protector's reply to Ms com
plaints, 26-8
their further correspondence, 29-36,
39, 40
his relations with Henry VIII. , 32-4,
238-41
his appeal to the Council, 38-41
in prison, 38, 40, 46, 53, 79 n., 101,
102, 125, 187, 189, 259, 265, 292

sent for that he might promise to
conform, 67
called on to preach before the King,
68, 203-4
his sermon, 205-8, 227, 233, 236
required to approve the King's pro
ceedings, 209, 210
steps taken to procure his complete
submission, 211-20
refuses to criminate himself, 221
sequestration of his bishopric, 222-3
his controversy with Cranmer on the
Sacrament, 227-31, 335
his trial, 231-42, 245
deprived, 243, 249, 273
his receipt of a letter from the Pope
at Ratisbon, 237
Lord Chancellor under Mary, 255
his relations with Hooper, 269, 260,
263
released from the Tower, 386
his book, A Detection of the Devil's
Sophistry, 259
Gascoigne, Dr., Chancellor of Oxford
University, xxxix, 282
Gasquet, Abbot, xxx-xxxii
Gawdy, a lawyer, 337
Gendarmerie, a new body, 329
Geneva, influence of, 343
Germany, images in, 28
Protestantism in, 31
Troubles in (Schmalkaldie War and
Interim), 81, 140, 144-6
Reformation in, 129, 132
Giberti, Giov. Matteo, Bishop of Verona,
162
GUbertine Order, 253
Glasier, Dr., 23
Gloucester, 326
Gloucester, Bishop of : see Wakeman,
John (1541 - 49) ; Hooper, John
(1550-54)
Gloucester, bishopric of, 276
visitation of, 279-81, 289
Goderick, or Goodrick, Richard, lawyer,
218, 221, 231, 339
Gonzaga, Governor of Milan, 152
Goodrich, Thomas, Bishop of Ely
(1534-64), Lord Chancellor (1552),
50, 171, 177, 185, 209, 231, 243,
273, 313, 319, 330, 335
Goodrick, Richard, lawyer. See, God
erick
Gosnold, John, 231, 244
Grafton, the printer, 344, 375
Grammar Schools, 56, 398
Granvelle, minister of Charles V., 131,
151, 238
Gray, WiUiam, Court poet, 394

408 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION

Greenwich, 329, 369, 370, 401 ("Grun
wits ").
Grey Friars' Chronicle, 382
Grey, Lady Jane, 272, 336, 384
proclaimed Queen, 386
Grindal, Edmund, afterwards Arch
bishop of Canterbury, 347, 390
Guise, Cardinal, 154, 166
Guise, family of, in Prance, 149
Hache,  , 43
Hagenau, conference summoned at, 131
Hales, Mr. (Sir James), justice of the
Common Pleas, 172, 231, 386
HaU, Edward, the Chronicler, 388
Hancock, Thos., preacher, 64, 65, 185
Hanse towns (" les villes Henses "), 401
Harbard. See Herbert
Hardenberg, Albert, 71, 116
Harington, Sir John {temp. Elizabeth),
250
Harley, royal chaplain (made Bishop
of Hereford in 1553), 347
Hayward, Sir John, historian of
Edward VL, 111, 369
Heath, Nic., Bishop of Worcester
(1644-62, afterwards Archbp. of
York), 52, 79, 83, 174, 177-180,
187, 189, 249, 259, 265, 288
his embassy to the Schmalkaldie
League (1535) before he was
Bishop, 324
Hebrew language, 263
Helding, Mich., Bishop of Sidon
(Sidonius), 155
Henry IL of France, 28, 29, 147-51,
189
Henry VII., his efforts in behalf of
religion, xxxi
puts the Earl of Warwick to death, 88
Henry VIIL, xxv, 88
situation at his death, 3-7, 86, 95,
96, 129, 206
his wUl, 7-11, 22, 28, 29
his order about images, 25, 34
religious settlement left by, 30, 85,
94
his regard for Gardiner, 32-34
"the King's Book," 36, 36
his royal supremacy, 36
rebellion against him, 97
intended a more perfect reformation,
97-8
his policy, 114, 128, 200, 247
how his crimes affected the Church
at large, 161
his despotism, 219 n., 293
declared to have been a papist, 309
Herbert (Harbard), Sir William (cre

ated Earl of Pembroke iu 1551),
10, 13 ; Master of the Horse
(1550), 209, 211, 212, 217-8, 221,
243, 328-9
Heresy laws repealed, 51
great heretics still severely dealt
with, 311, 314
"Heretic," the term, xiii
Hertford, Earl of. See Seymour, Edw.
Hesse, Philip, landgrave of, 143
Heylyn, Peter, the Church historian,
45 n., 46, 254-5, 324-5, 380
HUles, Richard, 54, 118
Holbeach, Henry, Bishop of Lincoln
(1547-51), 177, 231, 265, 273
Holgate, Robert, Bishop of Llandaff
(1537-46) ; Archbishop of York
(1545-54), 50, 244
alienates lands to the Crown, 253
repurchases same, ib.
Barbara, his wife, 244, 253
reported to be on committee for
reform of the Canon Law, 335,
337
HomUies, First Book of, 36
Hooper, John, informs against Bonner,
102
preaches against him at Paul's Cross,
257
his arrival in England, 114-16, 125-6
chaplain to the Protector Somerset,
257
made Bishop of Gloucester (1650),
188, 224, 266 ; and also of Worce
ster (1552), 249
his acts after his return to England,
257-60, 311, 320-21
his early history, 260-65
his lectures in St. Paul's, 264
his scruples about the form of epis
copal consecration, 266-73, 343
he prints a book which is objected
to, 273
his submission, 274-6
the beginner of Nonconformity,
277-8
his visitation of Gloucester, 279-
281
his assiduity in preaching, 288
returns to Gloucester as the clergy
are refractory, 289, 326-7
his rebuke of Sir Anth. Kingston,
290-1
his influence with the Council, 343
objects to kneeling at the com
munion, 343-4, 348
his wife, 288
Hopkins, John, versifier of the Psalms,
394

INDEX

409

Hopton, Dr., chaplain to Princess
Mary, 90, 92, 93, 95, 295
Home, Rob., Dean of Durham, after
wards Bishop of Winchester, 347,
350
Howard family, 5
Hunsdon, 386
Ignorance of the clergy, 280-81
Images, taking down of, 21, 25-7, 41,
61, 66, 235
denounced, 23
in Germany, 25
biU for defacing, 174 ; Act passed,
183
Index Expurgatorius, 182
Indulgences, sale of, 129
Innocent III. , Pope, 227, 231
Innocent VIIL, Pope, xxxi
Inqiusition, established at Rome, 164
Institution of a Christian Man { ' ' the
Bishops' Book"), vii n., 50, 75
Interim, the, of Augsburg, 72, 114.
See Germany
origin of, 155-8
Irreverence towards the Sacrament, 53
Jack of Lent, 371
James II. , toleration policy of, xxv
Jent, a servant of the Princess Mary,
96
John of Gaunt, xvui
Johnson, Rob., Canon of Worcester,
290
Joliffe, Henry, Canon of Worcester,
290
his book in reply to Bishop Hooper's
Articles, 327 n.
Jonas, Justus, the German divine, 77
Joseph, Cranmer's chaplain, 90
Julius III., Pope, 166, 323. See
Monte, Cardinal del
Justification, doctrine of, 131, 143-6
Katharine Parr, Queen. See Parr
Kenninghall in Norfolk, 90, 92, 386
Kent, election for, 45, 46
Kett's rebellion in Norfolk, 84, 89,
105, 110 ; defeat of the rebels,
90, 102
King, under age, powers of, 55
Act touching, 62
Kingston, Sir Anthony, 290-91
Kkkham, Dr., 309
KneeUng at communion, 343-6, 348-9 ;
Declaration on ("the Black
Rubric"), 349, 350, 362; Knox
agrees to, 351-3, 355, 361
Knel, Joan. See Bocher

Knox, John, 12, 307, 338
his letter to the faithful in Loudon,
Newcastle, and Berwick, 339, 389
in service of Edward VI. , 340
Northumberland desires his pro
motion, 341
his sermon against kneeling at com
munion, 343-4, 347
commissioned, with others, to ex
amine Articles, 347-9
Northumberland is tired of him, 360
further references, 351-6, 357-62,
366, 369
his account of the state of England
under Edward VL, 389-91
Lambert (or Nicholson), John, martyr,
74, 83
Lambeth, 73, 114, 232 n., 317
Lasco, John a, Polish divine, 71, 78,
226, 271, 276, 322, 343-4
Lateran, CouncU of (1215), 227
Latimer, Hugh, the Reformer, quon
dam Bishop of Worcester, vii ».,
67-69, 78, 103, 281, 337
Latuner, WUliam, 80, 102-3, 115
Leder, Oliver, 43
Lee, Edward, Archbishop of York
(1531-44), 50
Leipzig, siege of, 143
Leland, John, the antiquary, 14 n.,
395
Lever, Thos., preacher, 390, 396
Leyson, Griffith, LL.D., 231
"Light horsemen," their dishonesty,
110-11
Lincoln, Bishop of. See Holbeach,
Henry
bishopric of, 255
Lionel (Lyonel), a servant of Princess
Mary, 99
Lisle, Viscount. See Dudley, Sir John
Litany sung kneeling at St. Paul's, 89
Llandaff, Bishop of (1537-45). See
Holgate, Rob.
Lollards, 25
LoUardy, vii, vui, xxiii
London a chief hotbed of, 308
triumph and decline of, 392
two kinds of; 392
subservient to despotism, 392-3
literature of, 393-5
London, an old hotbed of LoUardy,
308
London, Bishop of : see Bonner,
Edmond (1539 - 49) ; Ridley,
Nicholas (1560-53)
London, Knox's letter to the faithful
in, 389

4IO LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION

London, Mayor and Aldermen of, 7
London, see of, property alienated,
251-2
Lords, House of, its composition, 46
Lorimer, Dr. , his Johm Knox and the
Church of England, 339 n., 342,
357, 360
Loyola, Ignatius, 164
Lucas, John, lawyer, 319
Lupset. See Pole
Luther, Martin, xxxix, 25, 30, 69, 75,
129-31, 139, 141, 143
Lutheran embassy in England (1538),
323-4
Lutheranism — "All over with L.," 79
Lutherans. See Protestants
Lyell, Dr., 337
Machyn, Henry, his Diary, 370
Magdeburg, siege of, 296
Mainz, in Germany, 271
Mainz, Archbishop of. See Branden
burg, Albert of
Maitland, F. W., his Canon Law in the
Church of England, xvii
Maitland, S. E,, his Essays on the Re
formation, 14 n.
Mallet, Dr., chaplain of the Princess
Mary, 195, 296-8
Mantua, Council summoned to meet at,
131
Marbeck, John, the musician, 220
Margaret, Duchess of Florence, daughter
of Charles V., 135
Margaret Tudor, Queen of James IV.,
385
Marot, Clement, 394
Marshalsea prison, 186, 372, 386-7
Martial law in London, 89
Martineau, Dr., xxi
Martyr, Peter. See Vermigli
Marvin, or Mervin, Edmond, justice,
52
Marwell palace and park, Isle of Wight,
255
Mary, daughter of Henry VIIL, 9, 68,
123-4
continues her mass after the new
Prayer Book is authorised, 90, 293
her letter to the Council, 90-92
their reply drawn up, 93
meanwhile she makes a stronger re
monstrance, 95
to whieh the Protector replies, 96
the Council seek to implicate her
servants in the risings, 99
her reply, ib., allowed a dispensation
to have mass in her own cham
ber, 100

the question comes up again under
Warwick, 189-97, 295
Edward writes to her himself, 197-8
further correspondence and diplo
macy about the case, 198-203
her interview with Edward, 201
renewed interference with her and
her household, 295-306
other mentions, 307, 309, 355, 369
as Queen, 339, 386, 391
her controller, 90, 92-3
Mary, Queen Dowager of Hungary,
Regent of the Netherlands, sister
of Charies V., 190, 194
Mary, sister of Henry VIIL, "the
French Queen," 9
Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, betrothed
to the Dauphin, 187
Mass, the, questions on, submitted to
the Bishops, 77
revived at Oxford, 125, 126
the Princess Mary's. See Mary
May, Dr. William, dean of St. Paul's,
102, 319
Maynard, John, sheriff of London, 370-
371
Mecklenburg, Duke of, 296
Mekins, Richard, 387
Melancthon, 71, 117, 144, 322
Mendoza, Diego de, 146, i50-61, 154
Mercenaries, 128
Mervin. See Marvin
Micronius, Martin, 268-71
Milton, the poet, 394 n.
Misrule, lords of, 370-71
Mont, Christopher, 127
Montague, Sir Edward, Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, 10, 12, 172
Monte, Cardinal del, 133, 145, 166;
elected Pope (Julius II. ), 166
Montmorency, the Constable, French
minister, 149
More, Sir 'Thomas, xxii, xxxv, 22,
282
Morgan, Serjeant, sent to the Fleet,
202
Morley, Henry Parker, Lord, 174
Morton, John, Abp., xxx-xxxiv
Morysine, Sir Richard, his account of
Warwick's diplomacy, 189-94
Ambassador with the Emperor, 200,
203
Muhlberg, defeat of the Protestants at,
28, 30, 143
Myconius, a German Protestant divine,
117
Necessary Doctrine{"t\ie'K.V!ig's&ook"),
50, 75, 76, 384

INDEX

411

Netherlands, Regent of the. See Mary,
Queen Dowager of Hungary
Newcastle, 338, 341-2, 353-5, 389
Mayor of, 354
Newdigate, Sebastian, Carthusian
martyr, xxxiv
Newfoundland, 372
Newhall, or Beaulieu, Essex, 34, 198,
200, 202
New Learning, the, vu, 68, 187, 392,
398-9
Nicene Creed, 139
Nichols, J. G., editor of Literary Re
mains of Edward VI., 369
Nonconformity, beginning of, 277
Norfolk, rebellion in. See Kett
Norfolk, Thomas, third Duke of, 5, 11,
210, 239, 387
Norman,  , claims Archbishop Hol-
gate's wife as his own, 244
North, Su: Edward, 10, 209, 212, 243
Northampton, Marquis of. iSee Parr,
WUliam
Northampton Priory, xxxii
Norwich Priory, visitation of, xxviii
Nuremberg, 54, 77
Diet of (1522-23), 130
Pacification of (1532), 130
Ochino, Bernardin, Italian divine, 71
Old Learning, the, 68, 399
Oliver, John, LL.D., 231
Ordinal, the (of 1650), 178-81, 258,
311, 358, 360
Original Sin at Trent, 141, 143
Oxford, 38, 116, 117, 262-3, 290, 308,
335-6
mass revived at, 125-6
halls at, bought by the citizens, 399
Oxford, Earl of, his players, 11
Pacheco, Cardinal, 146, 165
Paget, Sir William, Secretary to Henry
VIIL, 6, 10, 16, 17, 24, 212
his correspondence with Gardiner,
13, 14, 17, 18
his letter to the Protector Somerset,
111-13
his promise at Brussels that Mary
should be aUowed her mass, 190,
193
his statements about Gardiner, 238-
241
made a baron, 328
sent to the Tower, ib.
his house in the Strand, 329
Palmer, Sir Thomas, 328, 331
Papistical books, 173
Paris, 263

Paris, George van, a Flemish heretic,
313
Parhament, Edward's first, 45, 47
legislation for vagabonds, 51 ; the
Sacrament, 52, 81-3 ; election of
bishops, 54 ; ecclesiastical juris-
dictiou, 55 ; chantries, 55 ; mar
riage of the clergy, 58
new session (1549-60), 178-84
session of Jan. 1662, 332
dissolution of, 369
new Parliament (March 1553), 380,
400
Parma and Piacenza, 135, 152
Parr family, 5
Parr, Katharine, Queen, 6, 9, 315, 328
Parr, William, Earl of Essex, created
Marquis of Northampton, 16, 212,
243, 328-9
Parsons, Robert, the Jesuit, 316
Partridge, Sir MUes, 328, 330-31
Paul IIL, Pope, 86, 132-40, 145-64
his death, 166-6
Paul's Cross, 23, 67, 101, 257, 309,
317, 356, 377, 396
Paulet, WUliam, Lord St. John (1539-
1550) ; Lord Treasurer, Earl of
Wiltshke (1550-51) ; Marquis of
Winche.ster (1551-72), 10, 12, 24,
41, 42, 191-2, 209, 211, 212, 216,
241, 243, 255, 328
Peculation, official, 67
Pembroke, Earl of. See Herbert, Sir
William
Percy, Sir Henry, a protector of
Wycliffe, xviii
Perne, Andrew, afterwards Dean of
Ely, 347
Petre, Dr. WUliam, the King's Secre
tary, 102, 209, 211, 212, 217,
218, 221, 231, 239, 302
Pflug, Julius, Bishop of Naumburg,
155
PhUpot, John, a Marian martyr, 378-9
Piacenza. See Parma
Pinkie Cleuch, battle of, 104
Ploninges, Herman, 401
Pole, Reginald, Cardinal, 84, 86-9,
127, 129, 133, 144-5, 150, 158,
162, 165-6
imaginary dialogue of Pole and
Lupset, xxxvii, xxxviii
Politiques in France, xxiv
Ponet (or Poynet), John, Bishop of
Rochester (1550-61), of Winchester
(1551-53), 201, 243, 254, 256, 266,
294, 310
his shameful divorce, 243 ; and
marriage afterwards, 244

412 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION

Ponet (or Poynet), his Defence of the
Marriage of Priests, 244
his Catechism, 373-82
Pooley, a servant of Priucess Mary, 99
Poor relief, 51
Portman, WUliam, Justice, 52
Portsmouth, outrages on images at, 25,
32 ; Mary of Guise expected at, 307
Prayer Books, the first and second, 72,
82, 174, 314, 333
the First, composed by Bishops at
Windsor, 82, 83 ; its introduction
causes an insurrection, 84, 311 ;
copy sent to Cardinal Pole, 88 ;
doubts raised about its contents,
325, 333 ; rejected by Mary, 90
the Second, 332, 344-7, 354-6, 358,
360
Preaching forbidden, 80, 264
Priests, xxxvi, xxxvii
ill usage of, 44
Proclamation against ill usage of
priests, 44
Prophecies, bill touching fantastical,
173
Protestantism, seeming weakness of,
181
Protestants (Lutherans, etc.), the
German, 6, 24, 131, 133-6, 140,
145, 147, 194, 333
Purgatory, belief in, decayed, 308
Puritanism, 392
Rationale of Ceremonial, 50 n.
Ratisbon, conference at (1541), 131 ;
incident at, 237
Diet at (1646), 140, 142
Real Presence, the, 69
Rebellions, 101, 106
Rede, Mr., civilian, 337
Reforinatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,
the, resulting from the Commission
of Thirty-two, 363, 400
Reformation planned at Rome, 162-3
Repps, William, Abbot of St. Benet's
Holme, made Bishop of Norwich
(1536-50), 251
Ricardes, chaplain of the Princess
Mary, 296
Riche, Richard, Lord ChanceUor, 24,
47, 186, 241, 243, 251, 266, 302-
306, 330
Richmond, Henry, Earl of, bastard son
of Henry VIIL, 5
Richmond, Surrey, 269, 295, 299
Ridley, Dr. Nicholas, 23, 76, as Bishop
of Rochester (1547-50), 79, 102,
171, 177 ; promoted to London
(1550), 186, 188, 191, 194, 201,

218, 221, 226, 231, 249-252, 257-
258, 267, 272, 313, 345
his contest with Hooper about vest
ments, 268-70, 272-3, 278
his visitation articles and injunctions,
283-8, 309
consulted about the Princess Mary's
mass, 201, 294
changes made by him at St. Paul's,
309, 310
ou the commission to revise the
Canon Law, 335
introduces the Second Prayer Book
at St. Paul's, 366
Rochester, Bishop of. See Ridley, N.
(1547-50) : Ponet, John (1560-51)
Rochester, Robert, the Princess Mary's
controller, 295, 299, 300, 302,
305-7
Rochford, Viscount. See Boleyn,
George
Rogers, John, the martyr, 67, 58 n.,
219, 278
Rome, corruptions of the Church of,
281
Romford, m Essex, 202
Russell, John, Lord (1539-50), Privy
Seal, 10, 85 ; Eari of Bedford
(1550-54), 209, 212, 236, 243
Russell, Francis, Lord, son of the
preceding, 355
Sacrament, the, bUls touching, 52
Act and proclamation touching, 58,
66
questions about, 73, 203, 206
disputes in Parliament about, 81-3
preaching against, 80
contentions about, 81
Cranmer's book on. See Cranmer,
Thomas
Sadler, Sir Ralph, 45 n., 208
Sadolet, Cardinal James, 162
St. Albans, case of, xxvii, xxx-xxxiv
St. Andrews, castle of, 16
St. John, Lord. See Paulet, WiUiam
St. Martin's, Ironmonger Lane, 21
St. Paul's, 89, 90, 316, 356, 380
images taken down in, 60
fighting in, 80, 128 ; and murder,
309
Hooper's lectm-es iu, 264-5
high altar pulled down, 309
bells of Jesus Chapel gambled for,
331
prebendaries of, 366
See also Paul's Cross
Salisbury, Countess of, mother of
Cardinal Pole, xxxviii, 88

INDEX

413

Sampford Courtenay, Devon, insur
rection begins at, 85, 99
Sampson, Richard, Bishop of Chichester
(1536-43), of Coventry and Lich
field (1543-64), 50, 174
Sark, island of, 105
Sawtre, William, burnt, temp. Henry
IV., xviii
Saxony, Eucharistic usage in, 64
Saxony, Frederic, Duke of, Luther's
protector, 130
Saxony, John Frederic, Duke Elector
of, 142-3
his capture at Muhlberg, 28, 30
Saxony, Maurice, Duke of, 143, 296
Scheyfve, Imperial ambassador, 400
Schmalkalden, League of, 130, 139
Schmalkaldie War. See Germany
Schomberg, Nicholas, Cardinal of
Capua, 163
Scory, John, Bishop of Rochester
(1551-62), of Chichester (1652-53),
249, 310, 313
Scotland, English troops withdrawn
from, 187
Scrooby, Notts, 253
Selve, Odet de, French ambassador,
28, 80
Sentlow, Master, 263
Seres, William, primer printed by,
373 ».
Sethe,  , 244
Seymour, family, 5
Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hertford, 5,
6, 10, 16. .See Somerset, Duke of
Seymour, Sir Henry, 265
Seymour of Sudeley, Thomas, Lord,
Lord Admiral, 16, 42
beheaded, 84, 170
Seymour, Jane, Queen, 37
Sfondrato, Cardinal, 150-51
Shengleton (Shingleton, Robert ?), 372
Sidonius. See Helding
Singleton. See Shengleton
Sion House, Midd., 64
Six Articles, the Act of, xxii, 50, 69,
76, 76, 84-6, 88, 292, 393
Skinner, Ralph, afterwards (1561-63)
Dean of Durham, 336-7, 343
Skyp, John, Bishop of Hereford (1539-
52), 52
Smith, Sir Clement, 202
Smith (or Smyth), Dr. Richard, recan
tation of, 32
his answer to Cranmer, 229, 244-
245
at Oxford, 263
his testimony to Hooper's popularity,
266

Smith, Sir Thomas, the King's Secre
tary, 102, 337
Smithfield, 188, 200, 313
Somerset, Edward Seymour, Duke of
(the Protector), 16, 25, 28, 37, 38
44, 47, 57, 83, 84, 87-90, 170, 185,
194, 203-5, 209, 212, 216, 233,
243, 249, 250, 260, 292-4, 308,
311, 380, 388, 390, 394-5
his position as Protector, 19, 20,
104, 125, 128, 166
his correspondence with Gardiner,
25-7, 29-36, 39-41
his auswer to Mary, 96
his religious policy, 41-3, 64, 114-
115
Calvin's letter to him, 118-22
sent to the Tower, 105, 175 ; re
leased, 126-7, 187
causes of his fall, 106-7 ; its results,
122-6
his commission about enclosures, 107
state of the kingdom in his time
shown in a poem, 108-10 ; and
otherwise, 110-11
Paget's letter to him. 111
his character, 111
sent to the Tower again, 328 ; his
trial, 329-30 ; his execution, 331-
332, 338-40
Somerset, Duchess of, wife of the pre
ceding, 328
Somerset House (or Place) in the
Strand, 84, 330
Southampton, 65
Southampton, Thomas, Lord Wrioth
esley, created Earl of, 16. See
Wriothesley
Southminster, 261, 252 n.
Southwark, 13
Spires, the Protest at, 130
the Diet of (1544), 132, 133
Stanhope, Sir Michael, 328, 330-31
" State Church " or " Established
Church " principle, xl, 132, 299
Stepney, 251, 262 n.
Sternhold, Thomas, Groom of the
Robes to Henry VIIL, versifier
of the Psalms, 394
Stoke, John, Abbot of St. Albans, xxxi.
[This name was unfortunately
omitted in the index at the end of
Volume IL, where it should have
appeared, with the reference "ii.
98."]
Stourton, Charles, 7th Lord (1648-57)
174, 332
Stowe, John, his Survey, 252 n.
Strassburg, 114, 117, 118, 263

414 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION

strype, John, the Church historian,
253, 316, 365-6, 374
Stumphius, 126
Submission of the clergy, 36
Suffolk, Duchess of, widow of Charles
Brandon, 6
Suffolk, Charles Brandon, Duke of, 384
Henry Grey, Duke of. See Dorset,
Marquis of
Supremacy, royal, xxiii, xxxix, 36, 116,
237, 248, 399
Surrey, Henry, Earl of (son of Thomas,
Duke of Norfolk) (beheaded Jan.
19, 1547), 5, 11, 393
Swiss Reformers, 333
Taylard, Sir Laurence, 43
Taylor, Rowland, of Hadley, 319, 337
Tetzel, John, the preacher of in
dulgences, xxxix
Tewkesbury, John Wakeman, last
Abbot of, Bishop of Gloucester
(1541-49), 266
Theatine Order, founded by Cardinal
Caraffa, 163-4
Thirlby, Thomas, Bishop of West
minster (1540-60), of Norwich
(1650-64), of Ely (1554-8), 62,
83, 171, 174, 177, 178, 186-7,
237, 251, 332
Thombe, Michael, abjures heresy, 317
Throgmorton, Sir Francis, in the ser
vice of Princess Mary, 198
Throgmorton, John, 264
Throgmorton, Michael, a servant of
Cardinal Pole, 87
Toledo, John Alvarez de. Cardinal of
Burgos, 164
Tower of London, 7, 74, 105, 187, 214,
216, 232, 242, 249, 269, 328, 330-
372, 386
Ueutenant of, 210
Tower HiU, 386
Tower Wharf, 370
Traheron, Earth., 54, 68, 69, 78, 79, 336
Transubstantiation, 73-5, 227-8, 230,
334. See also Sacrament
Trent, CouncU of, xxxv, 86, 131, 133-
134, 136-47
translated to Bologna, 148-9
a mere Papal CouncU, 160
its results under Paul IIL, 161
resumed (1551), 333, 343, 381
Trent, Madruzzi, Cardinal of, 141, 145,
163
Trinity, the, heresy touching, 317
Tunstall, Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham,
10, 12, 35, 174, 177, 178, 186,
227

removed from the CouncU, 46
sent to the Tower and deprived,
249, 260 ; attempt to deprive
him by Act of Parliament, 250
Turk, the, French alliance with, 131
Turks, the, 147
Twyford, Hants, 256
Tyndale, WilUam, his New Testament,
315
Tytler, P. F., the historian, 17
Udall, Nicholas, poet, 395
Ulmis, John ab, 70, 79, 290, 294, 308,
336-6
Uniformity, first Act of, 83, 171, 310,
314, 338
second Act of, 332, 338
Utenhovius, John, 272, 276, 342
Utopia, More's, xxii
Vadianus, Joachim, and his Aphorisms,
69, 73
Vagabonds, punishment of, 51
Vane, Sir Ralph, 328, 331
Vargas, minister of Charles V., 164
Vaughan, Captain, at Portsmouth, 25
Velasco, minister of Charles V., 154
Vermigli, Peter Martyr, the Italian
divine, 70, 71, 81, 116-17, 270,
319, 334-5, 345
his treatise on the Sacrament, 82, 244
Vestiarian controversy, temp. Elizabeth,
181
Vestments put down, 356
Veszprim, in Hungary, John ci Lasco
nominated Bishop of, 271
Vio, Thomas de. See Cajetan
Visitation, royal, 38, 60, 234-5
Voysey, John, Bishop of Exeter (1519-
1551), 189, 249, 255
Vulgate (Bible), 141
Wakeman, John, first Bishop of Glou
cester (1541-49), 266, 280. See
Tewkesbury
Waldegrave, or Walgrave, Edward,
councillor of Priucess Mary, 299,
305, 307
Wallingford, Wm. , Abbot of St. Albans,
xxx-xxxiii
Waltham, palace and park, Hants, 255
Wartburg, Luther at the, isO
Warwick, Edward, Earl of (son of
Clarence), 88
Warwick, John Dudley, Earl of. See
Dudley
Watson, Thomas, Gardiner's chaplain
[afterwards Bishop of Lincoln],
235

INDEX

41S

Watton priory, 253-4
Wentworth, Thomas, first Lord (1529-
1551), 209, 243, 262
Western rebellion (of 1549), xxxv, 84-
86, 89
Westminster, Court at, 200
Westminster Palace, 372
Westminster, Bishop of. See Thirlby,
Thomas (1640-50)
bishopric of, reunited to London,
187, 250-52
Dean of. See Cox, Richard
Weston, Dr. (prolocutor of Convocation
in 1553), 377-9
Wharton, Thomas, first Lord, 174,
353-4
WhitehaU Palace, 380
Whitgift, Archbishop, 344
Wied, Hermann von, Archbishop of
Cologne, 139
his Consultation, 62
WUtshire, Earl of. See Boleyn, Sir
Thomas (1529-38) ; Paulet, WUl
iam (1550-51)
Winchester, bishopric of, given to
Gardiner, 33 ; taken &om him,
208. See Gardiner, Stephen
Winchester, Marquis of. See Paulet,
WUliam (1561-72)
Windsor, 8, 9, 300, 302
Bishops compose a Prayer Book at,
82
Windsor, WilUam, second Lord (1643-
1558), 174, 332, 355

Wingfield, Sir Anthony, Comptroller
of the Household, 201, 208, 209,
212, 243, 302
Wittenburg, Luther at, 130
Wolfe, Reyner, printer, 373, 376
Wolsey, Cardinal, 34, 200
Worcester, Bishop of. See Heath,
Nicholas (1543 - 52) ; Hooper,
John (1652-64)
Worcester, bishopric of, 279, 281 ;
visitation begun, 289, 290, 327
Worms, Diet of (1521), 130 ; (1564)
133
conference summoned at, 131
Wotton, Sir Edward, 10, 12
Wotton, Dr. Nicholas, Dean of Can
terbury and York, brother of Sir
Edward, 10, 12 ; ambassador to
the Emperor, 202-3
Wriothesley, Thomas, Lord Chancellor,
6, 7, 10, 12 ; created Earl of
Southampton, 16, 19, 125
the Great Seal taken from him, 23, 24
Wyatt, Su: Thomas, the elder, 393
Wycliffe, John, xviii
his scholasticism, 229
York, Archbishop of. iSee Holgate,
Robert (1545-54)
York, Sir John, Sheriff of London, 252
Zurich, 259, 263, 288
Zwingli ("Huldrich Zwinglius"), the
Swiss Reformer, 260, 262, 271

END OF VOLUME IIL

Printed ly E. & B. Clabk, Limited, EdMmrgh,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02415 6615

t.-'-lflfi'lT f J. n

,V,. i"'- v< ' ¦•'¦ "'"•¦¦Si' j.cJarTisSffii
•an u •»— iaW'Ji-1'l'ti-'
r-ri -::^- ..iil,-

fe

i^'' •

i-n M— f ,11- 1

,! 'I
¦EU'vf?
:j .'¦'i'-™Mh-''}r'Aff "-"*a
„•. a.t-'r'-"i'«-3' 
.-• •.. /ffi±' - 'I /i"5iy!S7'i J >
ili
:a¥S5'
gj^ io, lh,l
Ha'-
>li
»fS'=f(
re- i' -»¦* - I J. »i»»*9|
'S^'' "t' " . '¦ifiiiHii^is
I -j."? -¦(-•'
^^
[:3^;
f=lr:
X - ¦i.L * ~"'K=»-^J+'.i*jhn|
— ^^
11^ -r^-
"¦;. ,' .'"BiHii iJ('-Ja_' -,
mi
Eei]$
!¦'¦¦>• I. ¦•'si.'" -"ij I
PI .» ¦>... tjsj+.ji..-*..-'