in her strange and solitary experiment. Her zeal was ardent but the direction of it cannot have been altogether admirable in the sight of Pole and Rome. She wore not, it was true, her Supreme Head; and that was well: but there was much of the Tudor management in these Articles. There was repeated reference to Henry the Eighth, and to his later years, instead of his twentieth year, when he began to break with the Papacy. The restitution of religion should have been to the state that was before that fatal date. There was again that total silence about the Papacy which was observed in the edicts of the late Parliament. For aught that Mary said there might have been no Holy See. There was nothing of the repentance, nothing of the reconciliation of an erring realm: but of the filling of offices by proper persons and religious worship and the privileges of the Church were not interdicted but continued. She commanded her bishops and ordinaries as their natural sovereign, without seeking any sanction or warrant of the Holy Father. It was evident that Mary had much to learn or that she had great difficulties to surmount in the path of obedience. However it was something that the former discipline was to be restituted in whatever way the restitution of it went far back toward the time of the abolition of the Roman jurisdiction. It was pleasant also that the clergy, who had proceeded upon the Reformation, were to be tossed on every horn.

To make the beginning at the high end, two com

in them before, and then according to discretion admit them to minister." This does not seem intended to enjoin re-ordination, but the addition of the ceremonies that were omitted in the English Ordinal: which ceremonies were admittedly not essential, though held to be laudable and expedient. See on the subject Vol. III. 188-195 huj. oper. The essentials of order are prayer and the imposition of hands: see e. g. Pelliccia's Polity, p. 50. (Bellett). The Item about holy orders remained perhaps a dead letter.

missions were issued, a fortnight later, for the deprivation of seven bishops. For the exclusion of Taylor of Lincoln, Hooper of Worcester and Gloucester, and Harley of Hereford from their "pretensed bishoprics," the English language sufficed, and the simple allegation that they had received them by letters patent of the late king, with the express stipulation of good behaviour, which they had broken by erroneous teaching and inordinate life. Their cases the Commissioners were to consider, and either by order of the ecclesiastical laws, or of the laws of the realm, or of both, were to declare their bishoprics void, which were affirmed to be indeed already void.* But the commission against Holgate of York, Ferrar of St. David's, Bird of Chester, and Bush of Bristol, was couched in Latin: these men had all been professed religious and had married; and the vow of religious chastity was alleged against the former general of the Gilbertines, the late prior of Nostel, the provincial some time of the Carmelites, and the provincial in his younger days of the obscure order of the Bons Hommes. Very severely was the crime and scandal of their example denounced the proceedings against them might be

"Whereas John Taylor D.D. naming himself Bishop of Lincoln, John Hooper naming himself Bishop of Worcester and Gloucester, John Harley Bishop of Hereford, having these said pretensed Bishoprics given to them by Letters Patent of our late deceased brother K. E. VI, to have and to hold the same during their good behaviour, with the express Clause Quamdiu se bene gesserint, have sithence, as hath been credibly brought to our knowledge, both by preaching, teaching and setting forth of Erroneous Doctrine, and also by inordinate life and conversation, contrary both to the laws of Almighty God, and Use of the Universal Christian Church, declared themselves unworthy of that vocation and dignity in the Church" -the Commissioners were to take such order with them as stood with justice and the laws to call them before them, if they thought good; and to declare their bishoprics void. The cases were treated as notorious, and were prejudged. The only question was (as will appear from the sentences) in what particular each case was most notorious. Burnet, Coll. Bk. II. No. xii. date 15 March.

*

This

summary, and without the customary methods.* has been much and justly censured; but it was in strict accordance with the position now held by the Queen. These bishops were turned out for things that had been warranted by the laws of the realm: and though the laws allowing marriage to priests had been lately repealed, the repeal was not retrospective, but only regarded the future; and yet it was made retrospective in their case upon considerations drawn from the canons, or the custom of the Church; but the papal jurisdiction was still denied, and the Queen proceeded solely upon her Ordinary authority.† The Commissioners were the same in both the instruments: Gardiner, Tunstall, Bonner, Day, Parfew of St. Asaph's, Kitchin of Llandaff, or any three of them all were bishops without laymen added. Those whom they deprived at once were Taylor, Hooper and Harley, the three who were named in the English

* These cases were not treated as notorious; the Commissioners were not to declare them to be deprived, but to deprive them. But the proceedings were left to be wholly informal, "summarie, et de plano, sine ullo strepitu et figura judicii." See the Commission, Burnet Coll. Bk. ii. No. xi. date March 16. As to those terms, see Vol. III. 375 huj. op.: or take the following explanation from Collier. "The ecclesiastical judge is said to proceed summarily when the forms of the court are not exactly observed for instance, when evidence is admitted against those who are not upon the spot to defend themselves; but here nothing ought to be done to the prejudice of the parties, nor to bar them from bringing the cause to a further trial. The process is said to be managed de plano et sine strepitu judicii, when the Judge neither sits on the bench in the customary place, nor observes the stated days for hearing, but receives the libel or appeal, or any other thing (not disserviceable to the defendant) out of the customary method. And lastly the process is said to go on sine forma et figura judicii, when the supplemental methods of the civil or municipal laws are omitted, and nothing made use of but what results from the law of nature." Eccl. Hist. ii. 364.

Nos tam Autoritate nostra Ordinaria, quam absoluta, ex mero motu certaque scientia nostra vobis (et tribus vestrum) potestatem, autoritatem et licentiam concedimus et impertimur cum cujuslibet coercionis et castigationis severitate et potestate," &c. Burnet, ut supra. These commissions are also in Rymer, xv. 370.

commission to whom be added Holgate, Bird, and Ferrar. But of Holgate the deprivation had taken place before, and was now only declared, or repeated; Ferrar, if he were deprived now, had his deprivation repeated at the time of his cruel execution in the subsequent persecution. The seventh of the seven, Bush of Bristol, appears to have evaded the offices of the Commissioners. by a voluntary resignation.*

The sentences declared by the Commissioners remain in a brief register: and seem to show that in their actual inquiries they kept no difference between their two commissions. Thus Taylor was pronounced deprived on

"The 16 day of March was deprived the archbishop of York and the bishop of Lincoln Dr. Taylor, and the bishop of Chester, the bishop of St. Davids. The 17 day of March was deprived the bishop of Hereford and the bishop of Gloucester." Machyn, p. 58. The sentences were declared on the 20th, see below. For the whole affair look at Burnet: for some luculent remarks see Harmer's Specimen, p. 130, seq. Fox relates that Ferrar was deprived before his burning, and gives the sentence, and some of the proceedings. The questions then asked of him seem to have been shaped after those that were asked by this commission now in all cases, so far as can be known; and to have turned, first, on matrimony; second, on the Sacrament.

"The Register of Canterbury, in which all these deprivations are recorded, testifieth that on the 20th of March, 1554, the Bishops of Winchester, London, Chichester and Durham, by virtue of the Queen's Commission directed to them, pronounced the sentence of deprivation upon John Taylor Bishop of Lincoln Ob nullitatem consecrationis ejus et defectum tituli sui quem habuit a Rege Edw. VI per litteras patentes cum hac clausula, dum bene se gesserit: upon John Hooper Bishop of Worcester and Gloucester Propter conjugium et alia mala merita et vitiosum titulum, ut supra: upon John Harley Bishop of Hereford Propter conjugium et Heresin, et ut supra: upon Robert Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids Propter causas supradictas: upon John Bird Bishop of Chester Propter conjugium."-Harmer, Specimen, 133. It may be observed that the nullity of consecration here alleged was not meant to deny that they were bishops, but that any of them was the bishop of the see to which he was consecrated. They were not pretensed bishops, but "pretensed bishops of” this or that bishopric. In their cases, as they were appointed, or most of them, by letters patent without election, this made their consecration to be not canonical, but not to be invalid. It was "valid but not canonical." See Lea's Spiritual Jurisdiction, p. 38.

account of the nullity of his consecration, and defect of his title, which was by letters patent with the clause about good behaviour. Hooper was deprived on account of marriage, added to the other causes: Harley for marriage and heresy and the other causes: Ferrar for the causes aforesaid: Bird for marriage. In all cases the inquiry seems to have been first concerning marriage, then about the Sacrament. In one case only, that of the most celebrated of these prelates, has a narrative of the examination itself been preserved; and though the narrator is anonymous, and the manners depicted seem inconsistent with the characters, yet we may consent with the aid of an eye-witness to behold Hooper at the judgment seat of his fellow bishops, Gardiner, Bonner, Day and Tunstall. If what is said is true, it exhibits in an early case the fierce tumultuary spirit which was often manifested afterwards in the examinations of prisoners for religion. Hooper was brought from the Fleet to the Lord Chancellor's house, where the sitting was held, on the nineteenth of March. Gardiner asked whether he were married. "Yea, my lord," answered Hooper, "nor will be unmarried, till death doth unmarry me."-"That," said Tunstall," is matter enough to deprive you." "That is not," said Hooper, "except ye do against the law." Hereupon the Commissioners and the bystanders, some of whom were perhaps persons of Gardiner's household, began to make outcries, to laugh, to use such gesture, as was unseemly for the place and occasion. Day with scornful countenance called the transgressor of celibacy a hypocrite. The word that the gentle Tunstall applied was Beast: Smith, one of the clerks of the Council, used the same designation: which was repeated by others. The argument was then resumed by Gardiner, who alleged a text of the Gospel to prove that all men might live chaste that would. Hooper refuted the