The nobility were divided, and the Queen herself seemed to be at a stand, but the archbishop spirited her forward; and having received her majesty's letter, authorising him to proceed, he entered upon the unpleasing work with vigor and resolution. The bishops Jewel and Horn preached at Paul's Cross to reconcile the people to the habits. Jewel said, he did not come to defend them, but to shew, that they were indifferent, and might be complied with. Horn went a little further, and wished those cut off from the church, that troubled it about white or black garments, round or square caps. The Puritans were not allowed to preach against the habits, but they expostulated with the bishops, and told them, that in their opinions, those ought rather to be cut off, which stopped the course of the gospel, and that grieved and offended their weak brethren, by urging the remnants of antichrist more than GoD's commandments, and by punishing the refusers of them more extremely than the breakers of GOD's laws. The archbishop, with the bishops of London, Ely, Winchester, and Lincoln, framed sundry articles to enforce the habits, which were afterwards published under the title of ADVERTISEMENTS. But when his grace brought them to court, the Queen refused to give them her sanction. The archbishop, chafed at the disappointment, said that the court had put him upon framing the Advertisements; and if they would not go on, they had better never had done any thing; nay, if the council would not lend their helping hand against the non-conformists, as they had done heretofore in Hooper's days, they should only be laughed at for all they had done.* But still the Queen was so cold, that when the bishop of London came to court, she spoke not a word to him about the redressing the neglect of conformity in the city of London, where it was most disregarded. Upon which the archbishop applied to the secretary, desiring another letter from the Queen, to back their endeavors for conformity, adding, in some heat, If you remedy it not by letter, I will no more strive against the stream, fume or chide who will. But the wearing the popish garments being one of the grand principles of non-conformity, it will be proper to set * Life of Parker, p. 159. VOL. I. 28 before the reader the sentiments of some learned reformers upon this controversy, which employed the pens of the most judicious divines of the age. We have related the unfriendly behavior of the bishops Cranmer and Ridley towards Hooper; and that those very prelates who once threatened his very life for refusing the habits, if we may credit Mr. Fox's Latin edition of the book of martyrs, lived to see their mistakes and repent:† for when Brooks bishop of Glocester came to Oxford, to degrade bishop Ridley, he refused to put on the surplice, and while they were putting it on him, whether he would or no, he vehemently inveighed against the apparel, calling it foolish, abominable, and too fond for a vice in a play. Bishop Latimer also derided the garments; and when they pulled off his surplice at his degradation, Now, says he, I can make no more holy water. In the articles against bishop Farrar in King Edward's reign, it was objected, Artic. 49, that he had vowed never to wear the cap, but that he came into his cathedral with a long gown and hat; which he did not deny, alledging he did it to avoid superstition, and without any offence to the people. When the popish vestments were put upon Dr. Taylor, the martyr, in order to his degradation, he walked about with his hands by his sides, saying, How say you, my Lord, am I not a goodly fool? If I were in Cheapside, would not the boys laugh at these foolish toys and apish trumpery? And when the surplice was pulled off, Now, says he, I am rid of a fool's coat. When they were pulling the same off from archbishop Cranmer, he meekly replied, All this I needed not, I myself had done with this gear long ago. Dr. Heyler testifies, That John Rogers the proto-martyr peremptorily refused to wear the habits, unless the popish priests were enjoined to wear upon their sleeves, by way of distinction, a chalice with an host. The same he asserts concerning Philpot, a very eminent martyr; and concerning one Tyms a deacon, who was likewise martyred in Queen Mary's reign. + Fox's Book of Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 500, The holy martyr John Bradford, as well as Mr. Sampson, and some others, excepted against the habits at their entrance into holy orders, and were ordained without them. Bucer and Peter Martyr, professors of our two famous universities, were both against the habits, and refused to wear them. Bucer being asked, why he did not wear the square cap, answered, Because his head was not square.* And Martyr, in one of his letters after his return home, says, When I was at Oxford, I would never use those white garments in the choir though I was a canon in the church; and I am satisfied in my own reasons for what I did.† In the same letter, Bucer says he would be content to suffer some great pain in his body, upon condition that these things were utterly taken away. And in such case as we are now, [1550] he willeth that in no case they should be received. He adds in his letter from Cambridge to a friend beyond sea, dated 12 Jan. 1550, that no foreigner was consulted about the purity of ceremonies, de puritate rituum scito hic neminem extraneum de his rebus rogari. And though both he and Peter Martyr thought they might be borne with for a season; yet in our case, he would not have them suffered to remain. These were the sentiments of our first reformers in the reign of King Edward VI. and Queen Mary. Upon restoring the protestant religion under Queen E. lizabeth, the same sentiments concerning the habits prevail. ed among all the reformers at first, though they disagreed upon the grand question, Whether they should desert their ministry rather than comply. Mr. Strype, in his life of archbishop Parker, a most cruel persecutor of the Puritans, says, That he was not fond of the cap, the surplice, and the wafer bread, and such-like injunctions, and would have been pleased with a toleration; that he gloried in having been consecrated without the Aaronical garments; but that his concern for his prince's honor made him resolute that her royal will might take place. + Hist. Ref. p 65. * Life of Parker, appendix, p. 41. Dr. Horn bishop of Winchester, in his letter to Gaulter, says, "That the act of parliament which enjoined the vest"ment was made before they were in office, so that they "had no hand in making it ;* but they had obeyed the law, "thinking the matter to be of an indifferent nature; and "they had reason to apprehend that if they had deserted "their stations on that account their enemies might have. "come into their places ; but he hoped to procure an al❝teration of the act in the next parliament, though he be"lieved it would meet with great opposition from the pa"pists." Yet this very bishop a little after wished them cut off from the church that troubled it about white or black garments. Bishop Jewel calls the vestments, "the habits of the "stage, the relics of the Amorites, and wishes they may be "extirpated to the roots, that all the remnants of former "errors, with all the rubbish, and even the dust that yet "remained, might be taken away." But he adds, the Queen is fixed; and so was his lordship soon after, when he refused the learned Dr. Humphreys a benefice within his diocese on this account, and called all the non-conformists men of squeamish stomachs.‡ Bishop Pilkington complains, "that the disputes which "began about the vestments were now carried further, even "to the whole constitution; that pious persons lamented "this, atheists laughed, and the papists blew the coals; and "that the blame of all was cast upon the bishops. He urged "that it might be considered, that all reformed churches "had cast away popish apparel with the pope; that many "ministers would rather leave their livings than wear them; and he was well satisfied that it was not an apparel becoming those that profess godliness. I confess, ઠંડ (says he) we suffer many things against our hearts, groan"ing under them; but we cannot take them away, though we were ever so much set upon it. We are under au"thority, and can innovate nothing without the Queen; nor "can we alter the laws; the only thing left to our choice "is, whether we will bear these things, or break the peace "of the church." § 66 Pierce's Vindication, p. 44. + Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 289, 294. Life of Parker, p. 154. + MS. p. 873. § Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 316. Bishop Grindal was a considerable time in suspense, whether he should accept a bishopric with the popish vest-. ments. He consulted Peter Martyr on this head, and says, that all the bishops that had been beyond sea had dealt with the Queen to let the habits fall; but she was inflexible. This made them submit to the laws, and wait for a fit opportunity to reverse them. Upon this principle he conformed and was consecrated; and in one of his letters, "He "calls GOD to witness, that it did not lie at their (the bish"ops) door, that the habits were not quite taken away. 66 Dr. Sandys bishop of Worcester, and Parkhurst of Norwich, inveigh severely against the habits, and they with the rest of the bishops threaten to declaim against them, "till they are sent to hell from whence they came." Sandys, in one of his letters to Parker, says, "I hope we shall not "be forced to use the vestments, but that the meaning of "the law is, that others in the mean time shall not take "them away, but that they shall remain for the Queen." Dr. Guest bishop of Rochester wrote against the ceremonies to secretary Cecil, and gave it as his opinion, "That "having been evil used, and once taken away, they ought "not to be used again, because the Galatians were com"manded, To stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had "made them free; and because we are to abstain from all "appearance of evil. The gospel teaches us to put away "needless ceremonies, and to worship GoD in spirit and "truth; whereas these ceremonies were no better than the "devices of men, and had been abused to idolatry. He "declares openly against the cross, against images in "churches, and against a variety of garments in the service "of God. If a surplice be thought proper for one, (says "his lordship) it should serve for all divine offices.-The "bishop is for the people's receiving the sacrament into "their hands, according to the example of Christ and the "primitive church, and not for putting it into the people's "mouths: And as for the posture, that it should be rather "standing than kneeling; but that this should be left to "every one's choice."+ Bishop Burnet quotes this as concerning the corruptions of the spiritual courts, vol. iii. T. MS. p. 891. Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 38. Appendix, No. 14. |