manifested their disapprobation of the numerous popish ceremonics and superstitions still retained in the church. King Edward desired that the rites and ceremonies used under popery, should be purged out of the church, and that the English churches might be brought to the APOSTOLIC PURITY. Archbishop Cranmer was also very desirous to promote the same; and he is said to have drawn up a book of prayers incomparably more perfect than that which was then in use; but he was connected with so wicked a clergy and convocation, it could not take place.+ And the king in his diary laments, that he could not restore the primitive discipline according to his heart's desire, because several of the bishops, some through age, some through ignorance, some on account of their ill name, and some out of love to popery, were opposed to the design.‡ Bishop Latimer complained of the stop put to the reformation, and urged the necessity of reviving the primitive discipline. The professors of our two universities, Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, both opposed the use of the clerical vestments. To Martyr the vestments were offensive, and he would not wear them. "When I was at Oxford," says he, "I would never use those white garments in the choir; and I was satisfied in what I did." He styled them mere relics of popery. Bucer giving his advice, said, "That as those garments had been abused to superstition, and were likely to become the subject of contention, they ought to be taken away by law; and ecclesiastical discipline, and a more thorough reformation, set up. disapproved of godfathers answering in the child's name. He recommended that pluralities and nonresidences might be abolished; and that bishops might not be concerned in secular affairs, but take care of their dioceses, and govern them by the advice of their presbyters." The pious king was so much pleased with this advice, that "he set himself to write upon a further reformation, and the necessity of church discipline." Bucer was displeased with various corruptions in the liturgy. "It cannot be expressed, how bitterly he bewailed, that, when the gospel began to spread in England, a greater regard was not had to discipline and purity of rites, in constituting the Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 73.-Strype's Cranmer, p. 299. + Troubles at Frankeford, p. 43. King Edward's Remains, numb. 2. in Burnet, vol, ii. Ibid. vol. ii. p. 155–157. He churches." He could never be prevailed upon to wear the surplice. And when he was asked why he did not wear the square cap? he replied, "Because my head is not square." The famous Dr. Thomas Sampson, afterwards one of the heads of the puritans, excepted against the habits at his ordination, who, nevertheless, was admitted by Cranmer and Ridley. But the celebrated John Rogers and Bishop Hooper, according to Fuller, were "the very ringleaders of the nonconformists. They renounced all ceremonies practised by the papists, conceiving (as he has expressed it) that such ought not only to be clipt with shears, but shaven with a razor; yea, all the stumps thereof pluckt out." The sad effects of retaining the popish habits in the church, began to appear at a very early period. In the year 1550, a debate arose, which to some may appear of small consequence; but, at this time, was considered of great importance to the reformation. The debate was occasioned by Dr. Hooper's nomination to the bishopric of Gloucester. Burnet denominates him a pious, zealous, and learned man. Fuller says, he was well skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He was some time chaplain to the Duke of Somerset, and a famous preacher in the city of London ; but declined the offered preferment for two reasons,-1. Because of the form of the oath, which he calls foul and impious. And, 2. Because of the popish garments. The oath required him to swear by the saints, as well as by the name of God; which Hooper thought impious, because the Searcher of Hearts alone ought to be appealed to in an oath. The young king being convinced of this, struck out the words with his own pen.** But the scruples about the habits were not so easily got over. The king and council were inclined to dispense with them, as his majesty openly signified in the above letter to Cranmer: but Cranmer and Ridley were of another Heylin's Hist. of Refor. p. 65. + Strype's Parker, Appen. p. 41. Strype's Cranmer, p. 192. Church Hist. b. vii. p. 402. Burnet's Refor. vol. iii. p. 199.-Fuller's Church Hist. b. vii. p. 402, 403.-King Edward, in his letter of nomination to Cranmer, dated Aug. 5, 1550, writes thus: "We, by the advice of our council, have called and chosen our right well-beloved and well-worthy Mr. John Hooper, professor of divinity, to be our Bishop of Gloucester; as well for his learning, deep judgment, and long study, both in the scriptures, and profane learning; as also for his good discretion, ready utterance, and honest life for that kind of vocation."-Ibid. Strype's Cranmer, p. 211. ** Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. iii. p. 203. mind, and refused their allowance. Ridley was therefore nominated to a deputation with Hooper, with a view to bring him to a compliance; but this proved ineffectual. Hooper still remained unconvinced, and prayed to be excused from the old symbolizing popish garments. These garments, he observed, had no countenance in scripture or primitive antiquity: they were the inventions of antichrist, and introduced into the church in the most corrupt ages: they had been abused to idolatry, particularly in the pompous celebration of the mass and to continue the use of them, was, in his opinion, to symbolize with antichrist, to mislead the people, and inconsistent with the simplicity of the christian religion. He could appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, that it was not obstinacy, but the convictions of his conscience alone, which made him refuse these gar ments.+ : Ridley's endeavours proving unsuccessful, Hooper was committed to the management of Cranmer, who, being unable to bring him to conformity, laid the affair before the council, and he was committed to the Fleet. Having remained in prison for several months, the matter was compromised, when he was released and consecrated. He consented to put on the vestments at his consecration, when he preached before the king, and in his own cathedral; but was suffered to dispense with them at other times. How this business was adjusted, and with what degree of severity he was persecuted, is related by Mr. Fox, in the Latin edition of his "Acts and Monuments of the Martyfs." The passage, says Mr. Peirce, he hath left out in all his English editions, out of too great tenderness to the party. "Thus," says Mr. Fox, "ended this theological quarrel in the victory of the bishops, Hooper being forced to recant; or, to say the least, being constrained to appear once in public, attired after the manner of the bishops. Which, unless he had done, there are those who think the bishops would have endeavoured to take away his life for his servant told me," adds the martyrologist," that the Duke of Suffolk sent such word to Hooper, who was not himself ignorant of what they were doing." Horrid barbarity! Who, before Hooper, was ever thrown into prison, and in danger of his life, merely *Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 62. + Fuller's Church Hist. b. vii. p. 404. Strype's Cranmer, p. 211-215.-Baker's MS, Collec, vol. xviii. p. 269. Burnet's Hist. of Refor. vol. ii. p. 166. Peirce's Vindication, part i. p. 30. because he refused a bishopric? It was certainly some kind of excuse, that the bishops would not consecrate him contrary to law; but there can be no excuse for his imprisonment, and their conspiring to take away his life. When Hooper wished to be excused accepting the offered preferment upon the conditions of the ecclesiastical establishment, was there any law to constrain him, contrary to the convictions of his own conscience? Ridley, however, who was by far the most severe against Hooper, lived to change his opinions, as will appear hereafter. Most of the reforming clergy were of Hooper's sentiments in this controversy. Several who had submitted to the habits in the late reign, now laid them aside: among whom were Bishops Latimer and Coverdale, Dr. Rowland Taylor, John Rogers, John Bradford, and John Philpot, all zealous nonconformists. They declaimed against them as mere popish and superstitious attire, and not fit for the ministers of the gospel. Indeed, they were not so much as pressed upon the clergy in general, but mostly left as matters of indifference.+ As During this reign, certain persons denominated anabaptists, having fled from the wars in Germany, and come to England, propagated their sentiments and made proselytes in this country. Complaints being brought against them to the council, Archbishop Cranmer, with several of the bishops and others, received a commission, April 12, 1550,"to examine and search after all anabaptists, heretics, or contemners of the common prayer. they were able to discover such persons, they were to endeavour to reclaim them, and, after penance, to give them absolution; but all who continued' obstinate, were to be excommunicated, imprisoned, and delivered over to the secular power. Several tradesmen in London being convened before the commissioners, abjured; but Joan Bocher, or Joan of Kent, was made a public example. She steadfastly maintained, "That Christ was not truly incarnate of the virgin, whose flesh being sinful, he could not partake of it; but the word, by the consent of the inward man of the virgin, took flesh of her."+ These were her own words; not capable of doing much mischief, and, surely, undeserving any severe punishment. The poor woman could not reconcile the spotless purity of * MS. Chronology, vol. i. p. 35. (30.) + Barnet's Hist. of Refor, vol. iii. p. 310, 311. Christ's human nature, with bis receiving flesh from a sinful creature; for which she was declared an obstinate heretic, and delivered over to the secular power to be burnt. The compassionate young king thought, that burning persons for their religious opinions savoured too much of that for which they censured the papists; therefore, when he could not prevail upon himself to sign the warrant for her execution, Cranmer, with his superior learning, was employed to persuade him. He argued from the practice of the Jewish church in stoning blasphemers; which silenced, rather than satisfied the king. He still looked upon it as cruel severity. And when at last he yielded to the archbishop's importunity, he told him, with tears in his "That if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his authority, he should answer for it to God." This is said to have struck the archbishop with much horror; yet he suffered the sentence to be executed.* eyes, Besides those denominated anabaptists, there were also many others who administered the sacraments in other manner than was prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. To prevent the number of these nonconformists from increasing, and to crush all who had already imbibed their sentiments, another commission was issued, empowering the archbishop and others to correct and punish them.+ And in the year 1552, Cranmer and others received a third commission from the council, to examine a certain sect newly sprung up in Kent. This was a sect of nonconformists, though their peculiar sentiments do not appear. Mr. Fox, in the Latin edition of his "Martyrs," observes, "That one Humphrey Middleton, with some others, had been kept prisoners in the last year of King Edward by the archbishop, and had been dreadfully teazed by him and the rest in commission, and were now just upon the point of being condemned; when in open court he said: Well, reverend Sir, pass what sentence you think fit upon * Burnet's Hist. of Refor. vol. ii. p. 111, 112.-This female sufferer, according to Mr. Strype, "was a great reader of the scriptures, and formerly a great disperser of Tindal's New Testament; which book she dispersed in the court, and so became acquainted with certain women of quality. She used, for the greater secrecy, to tie the books with strings under her apparel, and so pass with them into the court." Thus she exposed her own life, in dangerous times, to bring others to a knowledge of God's holy word.-Strype's Eccl. Memorials, vol. ii. p. 214. Strype's Parker, p. 27. Strype's Cranmer, p. 291. This person, a native of Ashford, in Kent, was afterwards burnt in the days of Queen Mary.-For's Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 313. |