parishioners?" They then require to be resolved upon certain points, "for the restitution of this noble Church of England to her pristine state and unity in Christ's Church": as, whether erroneous preachers should be brought to recant in the places where they had preached, and whether any process should be made against them according to the canons and constitutions of the Church in such cases used. They inquired whether Cranmer's book on the Sacrament, whether the schismatical book called the Communion Book, the English Ordinal, and all suspect translations of the Old or New Testament, and all other erroneous books might be destroyed; * that no such books might be printed, sold, or imported. They asked that the Church might be made as free as it was by Magna Charta: or at least might have as much of that ideal freedom as remained when Henry mounted the throne: that the temporal judges might be commanded to define præmunire, or "make a certain doctrine thereof," so that the ordinaries of the Church might not unwittingly run into it in exercising their jurisdiction: and that no attachment of præmunire might be awarded without a Prohibition brought first to the court of the ordinary concerned: that the Statute of Provisors might not be wrested by unjust interpretation: that in such points as punishment of usury, of violence against priests, of payment of tithes, of process against simoniacal clerks or patrons, the canon law might be restored. They demanded that married priests might be compelled to forsake "their women whom they took as their wives" that priests who lately had been married, and now refused to reconcile themselves to their order, * "That the pestilent book of Thos. Cranmer late archbishop of Cant. made against the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, and the schismatical book called the Communion book, and the book of ordering of ecclesiastical ministers, all suspect translations of the old and new Testament," &c. and to be restored to administration, might have some special animadversion, whereby they might be discerned from others as apostates: and that religious women, who had entered matrimony, might be divorced. They required' that ecclesiastics might be compelled to make reparation, who of their own motion had rifled or defaced any churches; and that the intolerable burden of firstfruits, tenths, and subsidies might be remitted. Some of these requests were reasonable, some savoured of severity: some were ineffectual, others brought forth fruit and there were others that bore a terrible growth. Among these petitions the clergy suggested the repeal of several of the great Henrician statutes that we have seen abrogated by this Parliament, such as pluralities and the submission of the clergy.* And they included in their requests the revival of the old Lancastrian heresy laws, which we have seen revived by this Parliament. † They therefore must bear their share of the blame of the tremendous consequences that ensued. To the twenty-eight Articles of which the petition consists, they added some others, of definite import, for mitigating the loss of the late religious foundations to the Church; as, that proprietors and portioners of churches might by the bishops be made liable to all * "10. Item, that the Statute of the submission of the clergy made anno 25 Henry VIII, and all other statutes made during the time of the late schism, in derogation of the liberties and jurisdictions of the Church, from the first year of king Henry VIII, may be repealed, and the church restored in integrum." See also Item 5. Wilkins, iv. 96. + "4. And that the bishops and other ordinaries may with better speed root up all such pernicious doctrine and the auctors thereof, we desire that the statutes made anno quinto of Richard II, anno secundo of Henry IV, and anno secundo of Henry V. against heretics, Lollards, and false preachers, may be by your industrious suit revived, and put in force, as shall be thought convenient: and, generally, that all bishops and other ecclesiastical ordinaries may be restored to their pristine jurisdiction against heretics, schismatics, and their fautors, in as large and ample manner as they were in the first year of king Henry VIII." Ib. burdens, notwithstanding the plea that the tithes and portions which they held had become altered into lay fiefs: that bishops might have power to increase the stipends paid to vicars; of compelling parishioners to tax themselves to supply ornaments for divine service; of compelling parishioners to pay to parish clerks a stipend equal to that before the schism: of compelling to restitution those who had detained church goods or lands without just title from the laws of the realm: that tithes might be paid of woodland that had been converted from pasture; that defaulters in personal tithes might be examined on oath: that hypocanons in cathedral churches and other celibates might be compelled to have a common table: and some other regulations.* Throughout these petitions it is remarkable that there was no reference made to the Holy See: nor was it possible to gather, save from a few indirect expressions, that the Papacy was being readmitted into the realm.† * Wilkins, iv. 97. Joyce's Sacred Synods, 518. + It is remarkable that Lingard is almost silent on this Convocation, and says nothing at all of these petitions of the clergy to the bishops. The reason may be that they contain no explicit mention of Rome. Even in a passage where this might be expected, it is not found. They say, "We perceiving the godly forwardness of your good lordships to the restoration of this noble Church of England to her pristine state and unity of Christ's Church, which now of late years hath been grievously infected with heresies, perverse and schismatical doctrine sown abroad in this realm by evil preachers," &c. This is Anglican language, or near it. There is nothing of the godly forwardness of the Pope and to the phrase "Unity of Christ's Church" the usual addition "and obedience of the Apostolic See" is not made. (As to that, cf. pp. 214 and 273 of this vol.) But there are two incidental references to Pole, one as the Lord Cardinal, the other as the lord legate and the word schism is used once, the word schismatical more than once. : CHAPTER XXV. 1555. Of the first year of the terrible period, to which this history is now descended, the first day was marked by a great affray between Spaniards and Englishmen in the cloisters of Westminster: the cause whereof was not to edification, and in which the combatants were only separated after the alarm was given by the ringing of the bells of the church.* The same day was distinguished more significantly by the detection and apprehension of a secret assembly, such as was aimed at in a recent Act of the Parliament; which met at even to receive the Holy Communion according to the English rite, to pray and have the Scriptures read in English, under the ministration of one of the silenced licensed preachers. More than thirty persons were seized upon the information of a false brother, and committed to the two Counters. The report got abroad that they were charged with praying for the death of the Queen; and that Hooper was implicated, having encouraged them from his prison of King's Bench: a rumour which moved him to write a complete and scornful * Holinshed: Strype, v. 329. vindication of himself. These secret assemblies are curious and interesting: they seem to have been for the purpose of celebrating the forbidden English service: they were held in sundry places in London: and collections were made at them for the relief of the imprisoned confessors, sometimes to the amount of ten pounds. The Anglican confessors, for so they deserve to be called who commonly called themselves professors of the Gospel, who now filled King's Bench, Newgate, the Marshalsea, the two Counters, and the other prisons * This meeting was in a house in Bow churchyard: the minister was Rose (see his name in the list of licensed preachers in Vol. II. 485 huj. oper.), an adventurous man who had tumbled about the world a good deal in Henry's time, and among other things instigated the famous outrage on the Rood at Doverscourt. He is said not to have been of irreproachable morals. See his life in Fox, iii. 783. Hooper, in his “ Apology against the untrue and slanderous Reports," &c., Later Writ. 549, shows that he knew nothing of the affair till January 3, when a friend sent him a letter to inform him that the congregation were imprisoned in the two Counters and that he then wrote them a comforting letter: which was all he had to do with the matter. He produced the letters, which remain (Later Writ. 612), and proved from them that his correspondent had said nothing of any charge of cursing the Queen, or praying against her, and that the congregation were taken for using the English language in prayer and reading, and that it was with this only in view that he had written to comfort them. Farther, he said that the charge of praying against the Queen had never been laid against that congregation, but against another that met "in the counter by the stocks in London." He contemptuously calls the allegation "a twopenny treason": and adds that he had been active for Mary when she came to the throne, in the time of the Dudleian plot. Hooper no doubt was above such a thing. As to Rose, there was at least the current report that on January 1 he prayed against Mary: "pro conversione reginæ oravit ita ut vel cito eam Deus converteret, vel illius jugum a cervicibus piorum tolleret." Orig. Lett. p. 773. Mr. Robertson in his Heylin (ii. 147) denies that there is any proof that Rose prayed against Mary in Mary's reign. And certainly, when he was before Gardiner in St. Mary's Overy, all that was said of such a thing was that he had prayed "that God would turn her heart or else take her out of the world" in Norwich in King Edward's time. Fox. Rose was examined by Gardiner on Thursday, January 10: and was the first examinate who made Gardiner wince at his own book De Vera Obedientia. |