ANNO DOM. 1549, 1550. 1. THE Lords, thus furnished with sufficient matter for a legal proceeding, condemned him, by a sentence passed in the House of Peers, unto the loss of all his offices — of Earl Marshal, Lord Treasurer, and Lord Protector — as also to the forfeiture of all his goods, and near 2000 pounds of good yearly rents. Which being signified unto him, he acknowledged himself, in his letter of the 2nd of February, “to be highly favored by their Lordships, in that they brought his cause to be finable; which fine, though it was to him almost unsupportable, yet he did never purpose to contend with them, nor once to justify himself in any action.” He confessed, “that, being none of the wisest, he might easily err; that it was hardly possible for any man in eminent place so to carry himself, that all his actings should be blameless in the eye of justice.” He therefore “submitted himself wholly to the King’s mercy and to their discretion’s, for some moderation; desiring them to conceive of what he did amiss, as rather done through rudeness and want of judgment than through any malicious meaning: and that he was ready both to do and suffer what they should appoint. And, finally, he did again most humbly, upon his knees, entreat pardon and favor; and they should ever find him so lowly to their honors, and obedient to their orders, as he would thereby make amends for his former follies.” By which submission — (it may be called an abjectedness rather) — as he gave much secret pleasure to the most of his adversaries, so he gained so far upon the King, that he was released of his imprisonment on the fourth day after. And by his Majesty’s grace and favor he was discharged of his fine; his goods and lands being again restored unto him, except such as had been given away: either the malice of his enemies being somewhat appeased, or wanting power and credit to make resistance. 2. This great oak being thus shrewdly shaken, there is no doubt but there will be some gathering up of the sticks which were broken from him; and somewhat must be done, as well to gratify those men which had served the turn as to incline others to the like propensions. And therefore upon Candlemas-day, being the day on which he had made his humble submission before mentioned, William Lord St John, Lord Great Master and President of the Council, is made Lord Treasurer; John Dudley Earl of Warwick, Lord High Chamberlain, is preferred to the office of Lord Great Master; the Marquess of Northampton created Lord High Chamberlain; Sir Anthony Wingfield, Captain of the Guard, is made Comptroller of the King’s House, in the place of Sir William Paget — (of whom more anon) — and Sir Thomas Darcie advanced to the office of Vice-Chamberlain, and Captain of his Majesty’s Guard. And though the Earls of Arundel and Southampton had been as forward as any of the rest in the Duke’s destruction; yet now, upon some court displeasure’s, they were commanded to their houses, and dismissed from their attendance at the council-table: the office of the Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty’s Household being taken from the Earl of Arundel, and bestowed on Wentworth, ennobled by the title of Lord Wentworth in the first year of the King. Some honors had been given before, between the time of the Duke’s acknowledgment and the sentence passed on him by the Lords; and so disposed, that none of the factions might have any ground for a complaint — one of each side being taken out for these advancements. For, on the 19th day of January, William Lord St John, a most affectionate servant to the Earl of Warwick, was preferred unto the title of Earl of Wiltshire; the Lord Russell, who had made himself the head of those which were engaged on neither side, was made Earl of Bedford; and Sir William Paget, Comptroller of his Majesty’s Household, who had persisted faithful to the Lord Protector, advanced to the dignity of a Baron, and not long after to the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster. 3. Furnished with offices and honors, it is to be presumed that they would find some way to provide themselves of sufficient means to maintain their dignities. The Lord Wentworth, being a younger branch of the Wentworths of Yorkshire, had brought some estate with him to the court; though not enough to keep him up in equipage with so great a title. The want whereof was supplied in part by the office of Lord Chamberlain, now conferred upon him; but more by the goodly manors of Stebuneth (commonly called Stephey) and Hackney, bestowed upon him by the King, in consideration of the good and faithful services before performed. For so it happened that the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s, lying at the mercy of the times, as before was said, conveyed over to the King the said two manors, on the twelfth day after Christmas now last past, with all the members and appurtenances thereunto belonging. Of which the last named was valued at the yearly rent of 41 pounds 9s. 4d., the other at 140 pounds 8s. 11d. ob .

And, being thus vested in the King, they were, by letters patents bearing date the 16th of April, then next following, transferred upon the said Lord Wentworth. By means whereof he was possessed of a goodly territory, extending on the Thames, from St Katherine’s, near the Tower of London, to the borders of Essex, near Blackwall; from thence along the river Lea to Stratford-le-Bow; and, fetching a great compass on that side of the city, contains in all no fewer than six-and-twenty townships, streets, and hamlets; besides such rows of building as have since been added in these later times. The like provision was made by the new Lord Paget — a Londoner by birth, but by good fortune, mixed with merit, preferred by degrees to be one of the principal secretaries to the late King Henry: by whom he was employed in many embassies and negotiations. Being thus raised, and able to set up for himself, he had his share in the division of the lands of chantry, free chapels, etc., and got into his hands the episcopal house belonging to the Bishop of Exeter — by him enlarged and beautified, and called Paget-house: sold afterwards to Robert Earl of Leicester, from whom it came to the late Earls of Essex, and from them took the name of Essex-house, by which it is now best known. But — being a great house is not able to keep itself he played his game so well, that he got into his possession the manor of Beaudesart (of which he was created Baron) and many other fair estates in the county of Stafford, belonging partly to the Bishop, and partly to the Dean and Chapter, of Litchfield: neither of which was able to contend with so great a courtier, who held the see, and had the ear of the Protector, and the King’s to boot. What other course he took to improve his fortunes, we shall see hereafter, when we come to the last part of the tragedy of the Duke of Somerset. 4. For Somerset, having gained his liberty, and thereby being put into a capacity of making use of his friends, found means to be admitted into the King’s presence: by whom he was not only welcomed with all the kind expressions of a gracious Prince, and made to sit down at his own table; but the same day (the 8th of April) he was again sworn one of the Lords of the Privy Council. This was enough to make Earl Dudley look about him, and to pretend a reconciliation with him for the present; whom he meant first to make secure, and afterwards strike the last blow at him, when he least looked for it. And, that the knot of amity might be tied the faster and last the longer — (a truelove’s knot it must be thought, or else nothing worth) — a marriage was negotiated between John Lord Viscount Lisle, the Earl’s eldest son, and the Lady Ann Seimour, one of the daughters of the Duke; which marriage was joyfully solemnized on the 3rd of June, at the King’s manor-house of Shene; the King himself gracing the nuptials with his presence. And now who could imagine but that, upon the giving of such hostages unto one another, a most inviolable league of friendship had been made between them; and that, all animosities and displeasures being quite forgotten, they would more powerfully cooperate to the public good? But, leaving them and their adherents to the dark contrivances of the court, we must leave England for a time, and see how our affairs succeeded on the other side of the sea; where, in the middle of the former dissension’s, the French had put us to the worst in the way of arms, and after got the better in a treaty of peace. 5. They had the last year taken in all the out-works, which seemed the strongest ramparts of the town of Bulloign; but had not strength enough to venture on the town itself — provided plentifully of all necessaries to endure a siege, and bravely garrisoned by men of too much courage and resolution to give it up upon a summons. Besides, they came to understand that the English were then practicing with Charles the Emperor, to associate with them in the war, according to some former capitulation’s made between both crowns. And if they found such difficulties in maintaining the war against either of them, when they fought singly by themselves, there was no hope of good success against them, should they unite, and pour their forces into France. Most true it is that, after such time as the French had bid defiance to the King, and that the King, by reason of the troubles and embroilment’s at home, was not in a condition to attend the affairs of France, Sir William Paget was sent Ambassador to Charles the Fifth, to desire succor of him, and to lay before him the infancy and several necessities of the young King, being then in the twelfth year of his age. This desire when the Emperor had refused to hearken to, they besought him that he would at the least be pleased to take into his hands the keeping of the town of Bulloign: and that for no longer time than until King Edward could make an end of the troubles of his subjects at home, and compose the discords of the court, which threatened more danger than the other. To which request he did not only refuse to hearken except the King would promise to restore the catholic religion, as he called it, in all his dominions; but expressly commanded that neither his men nor ammunition should go to the assistance of the English. An ingratitude not easy to be marked with a fitting epithet: considering what fast friends the Kings of England had always been to the house of Burgundy, the rights whereof remained in the person of Charles; with what sums of money they had helped them; and what sundry ways they had made for them, both in the Netherlands, to maintain their authority, and in the realm of France itself, to increase their power. For from the marriage of Maximilian, of the family of Austria, with the Lady Mary of Burgundy, (which happened in the year 1478), unto the death of Henry the Eighth, (which fell in the year 1546), are just three-score and eight years. In which time only, it was found, on a just account, that it had cost the Kings of England at the least six millions of pounds in the mere quarrels of that house. 6. But the French, being more assured that the English held some secret practice with the Emperor, than certain what the issue thereof might be, resolved upon a peace with Edward; in hope of getting more by treaty than he could by force. To this end one Guidotti, a Florentine, is sent for England: by whom many overtures were made to the Lords of the Council, — not as from the King, but from the Constable of France. And, spying with a nimble eye that all affairs were governed by the Earl of Warwick, he resolved to buy him to the French, at what price soever: and so well did he ply the business, that, at the last, it was agreed that four Ambassadors should be sent to France from the King of England, to treat with so many others of that kingdom, about a peace between the crowns; but that the treaty itself should be held in Guisnes, a town belonging to the English, in the Marches of Calice. In pursuance whereof the Earl of Bedford, the new Lord Paget, Sir William Petre, principal Secretary of Estate, and Sir John Mason, Clerk of the Council, were, on the twenty-first of January, dispatched for France. But no sooner were they come to Calice, when Guidotti brings a letter to them from Monsieur d’Rochpot, one of the four which were appointed for that treaty in behalf of the French. In which it was desired that the English Ambassadors would repair to the town of Bulloign, without putting the French to the charge and trouble of so long a journey as to come to Guisnes. Which being demurred on by the English, and a post sent unto the court, to know the pleasure of the council in that particular: they received word, — (for so the oracle had directed) — that they should not stand upon punctilios, so they gained the point; nor hazard the substance of the work, to preserve the circumstances. According whereunto, the Ambassadors removed to Bulloign, and pitched their tents without the town, as had been desired, for the reception of the French; that so they might enter on the treaty for which they came. But then a new difficulty appeared; for the French would not cross the water, and put themselves under the command of Bulloign; but desired rather that the English would come over to them, and fall upon the treaty in an house which they were then preparing for their entertainment. Which being also yielded to, after some disputes, the French grew confident, that, after so many condescension’s on the part of the English, they might obtain from them what they listed, in the main of the business. For, though it cannot otherwise be, but that, in all treaties of this nature, there must be some condescending made by the one or the other, yet he that yields the first inch of ground gives the other party a strong hope of obtaining the rest. 7. These preparations being made, the Commissioners on both sides begin the treaty: where, after some expostulations touching the justice or injustice of the war on either side, they came to particular demands. The English required the payment of all debts and pensions concluded on between the two Kings deceased; and that the Queen of Scots should either be delivered to their hands, or sent back to her kingdom. But unto this the French replied — that the Queen of Scots was designed in marriage to the Dauphin of France: and that she looked upon it as an high dishonor, that their King should be esteemed a pensioner or tributary to the crown of England. The French, on the other side, propounded — that, all arrears of debts and pensions being thrown aside, as not likely to be ever paid, they either should put the higher price on the town of Bulloign, or else prepare themselves to keep it as well as they could. From which proposals when the French could not be removed, the oracle was again consulted: by whose direction it was ordered in the council of England, that the Commissioners should conclude the peace upon such articles and instructions as were sent unto them — most of them ordinary and accustomed at the winding up of all such treaties. But that of most concernment was, — that, all titles and claims on the one side, and defenses on the other, remaining to either party as they were before, the town of Bulloign, with all the ordnance found there at the taking of it, should be delivered to the French for the sum of four hundred thousand crowns of the sun. Of which four hundred thousand crowns, (each crown being valued at the price of six shillings and eight pence,) one moiety was to be paid within three days after the town should be delivered, and the other at the end of six months after; hostages to be given in the mean time for the payment of it. It was agreed also, in relation to the realm of Scotland, that, if the Scots rased Lowder and Dowglass, the English should rase Roxborough and Aymouth; and no fortification in any of those places to be afterwards made. 8. Which agreement being signed by the Commissioners of each side, and hostages mutually delivered for performance of covenants, peace was proclaimed between the Kings on the fourth of March: and the town of Bulloign, with all the forts depending on it, delivered into the power of the French on the twenty-fifth day of April then next following. But they must thank the Earl of Warwick for letting them go away with that commodity at so cheap a rate; — for which the two last Kings had bargained for no less than two millions of the same crowns, to be paid unto the King of Eng. land at the end of eight years; the towns and territory in the mean time to remain with the English. Nor was young Edward backward in rewarding his care and diligence in expediting the affair; which was so represented to him, and the extraordinary merit of the service so highly magnified, that he was made General Warden of the North, gratified with a thousand marks of good rent in land, and the command of an hundred horsemen at the King’s charge. Such is the fortune of some Princes, to be most bountiful to those who are falsest to them. Guidotti also was rewarded with knighthood, a present of a thousand crowns, and an annual pension of as much, to maintain his honor; besides a pension of two hundred and fifty crowns per annum, which was given to his son. What recompense he had of the crown of France, I have nowhere found; but have good reason to believe that he did not serve their turn for nothing. Great care was also taken for the preventing of such disorders as the dissolving of great garrisons and the disbanding of armies do for the most part carry with them. And to this end the Lord Clinton, Governor of the town and territory of Bulloign, was created Lord Admiral; the officers and captains rewarded with lands, leases, offices, and annual pensions; all foreign forces satisfied, and sent out of the kingdom, — the common soldiers, having all their pay, and a month’s pay over, dismissed into their several countries, and great charge given that they should be very well observed, till they were quietly settled at home; the light-horsemen and men-at-arms put under the command of the Marquess of Northampton, then being Captain of the Band of Pensioners; and finally, some of the chief captains, with six hundred ordinaries, disposed of on the frontiers of Scotland. 9. All things thus quieted at home and composed abroad, in reference to the civil state, we must next see how matters went which concerned religion: — all parties making use of the public peace for the advance of their private and particular ends. And the first matter of remark which occurs this year is the burning of Joan Butcher, (by others called Joan Knell, but generally best known by the name of Joan of Kent), condemned for heresy in the year last past, about the time that so many Anabaptists were convened in the Church of St Paul before Archbishop Cranmer and his assistants: whereof mention hath been made already. Her crime was, “that she denied Christ to have taken flesh from the Virgin Mary; affirming, (as the Valentinians did of old), that he only passed through her body, as water through the pipe of a conduit, without participating any thing of that body through which he passed.” Great care was taken and much time spent by the Archbishop, to persuade her to a better sense: but when all failed, and that he was upon the point of passing sentence upon her for persisting obstinate in so gross an heresy, she most maliciously reproached him for passing the like sentence of condemnation on another woman, called Ann Askew, for denying the carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament; telling him, that he had condemned the said Ann Askew not long before for a piece of bread, and was then ready to condemn her for a piece of flesh. 10. But being convicted and delivered over to the secular judges, she was by them condemned to be burnt; but no execution done upon it till this present year. The interval was spent in using all means for her conversion and amendment; which, as it only seemed to confirm her in her former obstinacy, so it was found to have given no small encouragement to others, for entertaining the like dangerous and unchristian errors. His Majesty was therefore moved to sign the warrant for her death. To which when the Lords of the Council could by no means win him, the Archbishop is desired to persuade him to it. The King continued both in reason and resolution as before he did, notwithstanding all the Archbishop’s arguments to persuade the contrary; — the King affirming that he would not drive her headlong to the devil, and thinking it better to chastise her with some corporal punishment. But when the gravity and importunity of the man had prevailed at last, the King told him, as he signed the warrant, that upon him he would lay all the charge thereof before God. Which words of his declare sufficiently his averse-ness from having any hand in shedding of that woman’s blood, how justly soever she deserved it. But that the Archbishop’s earnestness in bringing her to exemplary punishment should contract any such guilt in the sight of God as to subject him to the like cruel death within few years after — (as some would bear the world in hand) — is a surmise not to be warranted by any principle of piety or rule of charity. The warrant being signed, and the writ for execution sealed, she was kept a whole week before her death at the Lord Chancellor’s house; daily resorted to both by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, who spared no pains to bring her to a right belief in that particular. But the same spirit of obstinacy still continued with her, and held her to the very last. For, being brought to the stake in Smithfield, on the second of May, Dr Scory, (not long after made Bishop of Rochester), was desired to preach unto the people; who insisting on the proof of that point for denial whereof the obstinate wretch had been condemned, she interrupted him, and told him with a very loud voice, that “he lied like” etc. And so, the sermon being ended, the executioner was commanded to do his office, which he did accordingly. And yet this terrible execution did not so prevail as to extirpate and exterminate the like impious dotages, though it suppressed them for a time. For on the twentyfourth of April, in the year next following, I find one George Paris, a Dutchman, to have been burnt for Arianism in the very same place. 11. Better success had John a Lasco, a Polonian born, with his congregation of Germans and other strangers, who took sanctuary this year in England, hoping that here they might enjoy that liberty of conscience, and safety for their goods and persons, which their own country had denied them. Nor did they fall short in any thing which their hopes had promised them. For the Lords of the Council, looking on them as afflicted strangers, and persecuted for the same religion which was here professed, interceded for them with the King; and he as graciously vouchsafed to give them both entertainment and protection, assigned them the west part of the church belonging to the late dissolved house of Augustine friars for the exercise of religious duties, made them a corporation, consisting of a superintendent and four other ministers, with power to fill the vacant places by a new succession, whensoever any of them should be void by death or otherwise, — the parties by them chosen to be approved by the King and council. And this he did, with a command to the Lord Mayor of London, the aldermen and sheriffs thereof, as also to the Archbishop of Canterbury and all other Bishops of this realm, not to disturb them either in the free exercise of their religion and ecclesiastical government, notwithstanding that they differed from the government and forms of worship established in the Church of England. All which and more he grants by his letters patents, bearing date at Leez (the Lord Chancellor’s house) on the twenty-fourth of July, and the fourth year of his reign. Which grant, though in itself an act of most princely compassion, in respect of those strangers, yet proved the occasion of no small disturbance to the proceedings of the Church and the quiet ordering of the state; for, by suffering these men to live under another kind of government, and to worship God after other forms, than those allowed of by the laws, proved in effect the setting up of one altar against another in the midst of the Church, and the erecting of a commonwealth in the midst of the kingdom.

So much the more unfortunately permitted in this present conjuncture, when such a rupture began to appear amongst ourselves, as was made wider by the coming in of these Dutch reformers, and the indulgence granted to them: as will appear by the following story of John Hooper, designed to the bishopric of Glocester; which in brief was this. 12. John Hooper, the designed Bishop of Glocester, being bred in Oxford, studious in the holy Scriptures, and well affected unto those beginnings of the Reformation which had been countenanced by King Henry, about the time of the Six Articles found himself so much in danger as put upon him the necessity of forsaking the kingdom. Settling himself at Zurich, a town of Switzerland, he acquaints himself with Bullinger, a scholar in those times of great name and note: and, having stayed there till the death of King Henry, he returned into England, bringing with him some very strong affections to the nakedness of the Zuinglian or Helvetian Churches; though differing in opinion from them in some points of doctrine, and more especially in that of predestination. In England, by his constant preaching and learned writings, he grew into great favor and esteem with the Earl of Warwick; by whose procurement the King most graciously bestowed upon him, without any seeking of his own, the bishopric of Glocester, which was then newly void by the death of Wakeman, the last Abbot of Tewksbury, and the first Bishop of that see. Having received the King’s letters patents for his preferment to that place, he applies himself to the Archbishop for his consecration: concerning which there grew a difference between them. For the Archbishop would not consecrate him but in such an habit which Bishops were required to wear by the rules of the Church; and Hooper would not take it upon such conditions. Repairing to his patron the Earl of Warwick, he obtains from him a letter to the Archbishop — “desiring a forbearance of those things in which the Lord elect of Glocester did crave to be forborne at his hands;” implying also, that it was the King’s desire, as well as his, that such forbearance should be used. It was desired also, that he “would not charge him with any oath which seemed to be burthenous to his conscience.” For the elect Bishop, as it seems, had boggled also at the oath of paying canonical obedience to his Metropolitan; which, by the laws then and still in force, he was bound to take. But the Archbishop still persisting in the denial, and being well seconded by Bishop Ridley of London, (who would by no means yield unto it), the King himself was put upon the business by the Earl of Warwick; who thereupon wrote to the Archbishop this ensuing letter: “Right Reverend Father, and right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we, by the advice of our council, have calden and chosen our right well beloved and well worthy Mr John Hooper, Professor of Divinity, to be our Bishop of Glocester: — as well for his great learning, deep judgment, and long study, both in the Scriptures and other profound learning, as also for his good discretion, ready utterance, and honest life for that kind of vocation, etc. From consecrating of whom we understand you do stay, because he would have you omit and let pass certain rites and ceremonies offensive to his conscience, whereby you think you should fall in praemunire of our laws: we have thought good, by advice aforesaid, to dispense and discharge you of all manner of dangers, penalties, and forfeitures you should run into and be in, in any manner of way, by omitting any of the same. And these our letters shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge therefore. “Given under our signet, at our castle of Windsor, the fifth day of August, in the fourth year of our reigns.” 13. This gracious letter notwithstanding, the two Bishops, wisely taking into consideration of what danger and ill consequence the example was, humbly craved leave not to obey the King against his laws: and the Earl, finding little hope of prevailing in that suit which would not be granted to the King, leaves the new Bishop to himself; who, still persisting in his obstinacy and willful humor, was finally for his disobedience and contempt committed prisoner; and from the prison writes his letters to Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, for their opinion in the case. From the last of which, who had declared himself no friend to the English ceremonies, he might presume of some encouragement; but that he had any from the first, I have nowhere found. The contrary whereunto will appear by his answer unto John a Lasco, in the present case; whereof more anon. 14. In which condition of affairs Calvin addresseth his letters to the Lord Protector, whom he desireth to lend the man an helping hand, and extricate him out of those perplexities into which he was cast. So that at last the differences were thus compromised; that is to say, that Hooper should receive his consecration, attired in his episcopal robes; that he should be dispensed withal from wearing it at ordinary times, as his daily habit; but that he should be bound to use it whensoever he preached before the King, in his own cathedral, or any other place of like public nature.

According to which agreement, being appointed to preach before the King, he showed himself appareled in his Bishop’s robes; namely, a long scarlet chimere, reaching down to the ground, for his upper garment, (changed in Queen Elizabeth’s time to one of black satten), and under that a white linen rochet, with a square cap upon his head; which Fox reproacheth by the name of a popish attire, and makes to be a great cause of “shame and contumely to that godly man.” And possibly it might be thought so at that time by Hooper himself; who from thenceforth carried a strong grudge against Bishop Ridley, the principal man, as he conceived, (and that not untruly), who had held him up so closely to such hard conditions: not fully reconciled unto him, till they were both ready for the stake; and then it was high time to lay aside those animosities which they had hereupon conceived one against another. But these things happened not, — (I mean his consecration, and his preaching before the King) till March next following; and then we may hear further of him.

And thus we have the first beginning of that opposition which hath continued ever since against the Liturgy itself, the cap and surplice, and other rites and usages of the Anglican Church. 15. Which differences, being thus begun, were both fomented and increased by the pragmaticalness of John a Lasco, opposite both in government and forms of worship, (if not perhaps in doctrine also), to the Church of England. For John a Lasco, not content to enjoy those privileges which were intended for the use of those strangers only, so far abused his Majesty’s goodness as to appear in favor of the Zuinglian or Calvinian faction, which then began more openly to show itself, against the orders of the Church. For, first, he publisheth a book entitled Forma et Ratio Totins Ecclesiastici Ministerii: wherein he maintains the use of sitting at the holy Communion, — contrary to the laudable custom of the Church of England, but much to the encouragement of all those who impugned her orders. A controversy unhappily moved by Bishop Hooper, concerning the episcopal habit, was presently propagated amongst the rest of the Clergy, touching caps and surplices. And in this quarrel John a Lasco must needs be one: — not only countenancing those who refused to wear them, but writing unto Martin Bucer, to declare against them. For which severely reprehended by that moderate and learned man, and all his cavils and objections very solidly answered; which, being sent to him in the way of letter, was afterwards printed and dispersed, for keeping down that opposite humor which began then to overswell the banks and threatened to bear all before it. And by this passage we may rectify a mistake, or a calumny rather, in the Altare Damascenum . The author whereof makes Martin Bucer peremptory in refusing to wear the square cap, when he lived in Cambridge; and to give this simple reason for it, — “that he could not wear a square cap, since his head was round.” But I note this only by the way, to show the honesty of those men which erected that altar, and return again to John a Lasco; who, being born in Poland, where sitting at the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper had been used by the Arians, — (who, looking no otherwise on Christ than their elder brother, might think it was “no robbery” at all “to be equal with” him, and sit down with him at his table) — what he learned there, he desired might be practiced here, the better to conform this Church to the Polish conventicles. 16. As for the other controversy, about caps and surplices — though it found no encouragement from Martin Bucer, yet it received no small countenance from Peter Martyr. For in a letter of his, of the first of July, inscribed “Unto a nameless friend,” who had desired his judgment in it, he first declares, according to the very truth, “that, being indifferent in themselves, they could make no man, of themselves, to be either godly or ungodly, by the use or forbearance of them:” but then he addeth, that “he thinks it most expedient to the good of the Church, that they and all others of that kind should be taken away, when the next convenient opportunity should present itself.” And then he gives this reason for it, — that “where such ceremonies were so stiffly contended for, which were not warranted and supported by the Word of God, there commonly men were less solicitous of the substance of religion than they were of the circumstances of it.” But he might well have spared his judgment, which had so visibly appeared in his daily practice. For he hath told us of himself, in one of his epistles, bearing date at Zurich, the fourth of November, 1559, (being more than five years after he had left this kingdom) — that “he had never used the surplice, when he lived in Oxford, though he were then a Canon of Christchurch, and frequently present in the quire.” So that, between the authority of Peter Martyr on the one side, and the pragmaticalness of John a Lasco on the other, many were drawn from their obedience to the rules of the Church, for the time then present, and a ground laid for more confusions and disturbances in the time to come. 17. The regular Clergy in those days appeared not commonly out of their own houses, but in their Priests’ coats, with the square cap upon their heads; and, if they were of note and eminency, in their gowns and tippets.

This habit also is decried for superstitious; affirmed to be a popish attire, and altogether as unfit for Ministers of the holy gospel as the chimere and roebet were for those who claimed to be the successors of the Lord’s Apostles. So Tyros replied unto Bishop Gardiner, when, being asked, “whether a coat, with stockings of divers colors, the upper part white and the nether-stock russet,” (in which habit he appeared before him), “were a fit apparel for a Deacon” — (which office he had exercised in this Church) — he saucily made answer, “that his vesture did not so much vary from a Deacon’s as his Lordship’s did from that of an Apostle.” The less to be admired in Tyros, in that ! find the like averseness from that grave and decent habit in some other men, who were in parts and place above him. For, while this controversy was on foot between the Bishops and Clergy, about wearing Priests’ caps and other attire belonging to their holy order, Mr John Rogers, one of the Prebends of St Paul’s, and divinity reader of that church, then newly returned from beyond the seas, could never be persuaded to wear any other than the round cap when he went abroad. And, being further pressed unto it, he declared himself thus, “that he would never agree to the point of conformity, but on this condition, — that, if the Bishops did require the cap and tippet, etc., then it should also be decreed, that all popish Priests (for a distinction between them and other) should be constrained to wear upon their sleeves a chalice with an host upon it.” The like averseness is by some ascribed also to Mr John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, not long before returned from beyond the seas, as the other was, and suffering for religion in Queen Mary’s days, as the other did. Who, being by his place a member of the convocation, in the first of Queen Mary, and required by the Prolocutor to come appareled, like the rest, in his gown and tippet, or otherwise to forbear the house, chose rather to accept of the last condition than to submit unto the former.

But there was something else in the first condition, which made him unwilling to accept it, and that was, that “he must not speak but when he was commanded by the Prolocutor.” Which being so directly against the customs of the house, and the privileges of each member of it, he had good reason rather to forbear his presence than to submit himself, and consequently all the rest of the members, to so great a servitude. 18. Such were the effects of Calvin’s interposing in behalf of Hooper; and such the effects of his exceptions against some ancient usages in the public Liturgy; and such the consequence of the indulgence granted to John a Lasco and his Church of strangers, opposite both in practice and point of judgment to the established rules and orders of the Church of England. For what did follow hereupon, but a continual multiplying of disorders in all parts of this Church? What from the sitting at the Sacrament, used and maintained by John k Lasco, but first irreverence in receiving, and afterwards a contempt and depraving of it? What from the crying down of the sacred vestments and the grave habit of the Clergy, but first a disesteem of the men themselves, and by degrees a vilifying and contempt of their holy ministry? Nay, such a piquancy of humor began then manifestly to break out, that it was preached at Paul’s Cross by one Sir Stephen, — (for so they commonly called such of the Clergy as were under the degree of Doctor) — the Curate of St Katharine Christ Church, that it was fit the names of churches should be altered, and the names of the days in the week changed; that fish-days should be kept on any other days than on Fridays and Saturdays, and the Lent at any other time except only between Shrovetide and Easter. We are told also by John Stow, that he had seen the said Sir Stephen to leave the pulpit, and preach to the people out of an high elm, which stood in the midst of the church-yard; and, that being done, to return into the church again, and, leaving the high altar, to sing the Communion-service upon a tomb of the dead, with his face toward the north. Which is to be observed the rather, because Sir Stephen hath found so many followers in these later times. For, as some of the preciser sort have left the church, to preach in woods and barns, etc., and, instead of the names of the old days and months, can find no other title for them than the first, second, or third month of the year, and the first, second, or third day of the week, etc., so was it propounded not long since by some state reformers, — “that the Lenten Fast should be kept no longer between Shrovetide and Easter; but rather, (by some act or ordinance, to be made for that purpose), betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide.” To such wild fancies do men grow, when once they break those bonds and neglect those rules which wise antiquity ordained for the preservation of peace and order. 19. If it be asked, — what, in the mean time, was become of the bishops, and, why no care was taken for the purging of these peccant humors: — it may be answered, that the wings of their authority had been so clipped, that it was scarce able to fly abroad; the sentence of excommunication, wherewith they formerly kept in awe both Priest and people, not having been in use and practice since the first of this King. Whether it were that any command was laid upon the Bishops, by which they were restrained from the exercise of it: or that some other course was in agitation, for drawing the cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes to the Courts at Westminster: or that it was thought inconsistent with that dreadful sentence, to be issued in the King’s name — (as it had lately been appointed by Act of parliament) — it is not easy to determine. Certain it is, that at this time it was in an abeyance, (as our lawyers phrase it), — either abolished for the present or of none effect; not only to the cherishing of these disorders amongst the Ministers of the Church, but to the great increase of viciousness in all sorts of men. So that it was not without cause that it was called for so earnestly by Bishop Latimer, in a sermon preached before the King, where he thus presseth for the restitution of the ancient discipline: “Lechery,” saith he, “is used in England, and such lechery as is used in no other part of the world. And yet it is made a matter of sport, a matter of nothing, a laughing matter, [and] a trifle, not to be passed on nor reformed. Well, I trust it will be amended one day, and I hope to see it mended, as old as I am. And here I will make a suit to your Highness, to restore unto the Church the discipline of Christ in excommunicating such as be notable offenders. Nor never devise any other way; for no man is able to devise any better than that God hath done, with excommunication to put them from the congregation, till they be confounded. Therefore restore Christ’s discipline for excommunication: and that shall be a mean, both to pacify God’s wrath and indignation, and also that less abomination shall be used than in times past hath been, or is at this day. I speak this of a conscience, and I mean and move it of a [good] will to your Grace and your realm. Bring into the Church of England the open discipline of excommunication, that open sinners may be stricken withal.” 20. Nor were these all the mischief’s which the Church( suffered at this time. Many of the nobility and gentry, which held abbey lands, and were charged with pensions to the monks, out of a covetous design to be freed of those pensions, or to discharge their lands from those incumbrances which by that means were laid upon them, had placed them in such benefices as were in their gifts. This filled the Church with ignorant and illiterate Priests: few of the monks being learned beyond their massbook, utterly unacquainted with the art of preaching, and otherwise not well affected to the Reformation. Of which abuse complaint is made by Calvin to Archbishop Cranmer; and Peter Martyr much bemoaneth the miserable condition of the Church, for want of preachers; though he touch not at the reasons and causes of it. For the remedy whereof (as time and leisure would permit), it was ordained, by the advice of the Lords of the Council, that of the King’s six Chaplains which attended in ordinary, two of them should be always about the court, and the other four should travail in preaching abroad. The first year, two in Wales, and two in Lincolnshire; the second year, two in the Marches of Scotland, and two in Yorkshire; the third year, two in Devonshire, and two in Hampshire; the fourth year, two in Norfolk, and two in Essex; the fifth year, two in Kent, and two in Sussex: and so throughout all the shires in England. By which means it was hoped that the people might, in time, be well instructed in their duty to God and their obedience to the laws; in which they had not showed themselves so forward as of right they ought. But this course being like to be long in running, and subject to more heats and colds than the nature of the business could well comport with, the next care was to fill the Church with abler and more orthodox Clerks, as the cures fell void. And, for an example to the rest, it was ordered that none should be presented unto any benefice in the King’s donation, either as in the right of his crown, or by promotion, wardship, lapse, etc. till he had preached before the King, and thereby passed his judgment and approbation. And it was much about this time that sermons at the court were increased also. For whereas formerly there were no sermons at the court, but in time of Lent and possibly on some few of the greater festivals; — in which respect six Chaplains were sufficient to attend in ordinary: — it was now ordered that from thenceforth there should be sermons every Sunday, for all such as were so disposed to resort unto. 21. But the great business of this year was the taking; down of altars in many places, by the public authority; which in some few had formerly been pulled down by the irregular forwardness of the common people. The principal motive whereunto was, in the first place, the opinion of some dislikes which had been taken by Calvin against the Liturgy, and the desire of those of the Zuinglian faction to reduce this Church unto the nakedness and simplicity of those transmarine Churches which followed the Helvetian or Calvinian forms. For the advancement of which work, it had been preached by Hooper, above mentioned, before the King, about the beginning of this year, that “it would be very well that it might please the magistrate to turn the altars into tables, according to the first institution of Christ; and thereby to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they have of sacrifices to be done upon the altars. Because,” said he, “as long as altars remain, both the ignorant people and the ignorant and evilpersuaded Priests will dream always of sacrifice.” This was enough to put the thoughts of the alteration into the heads of some great men about the court, who thereby promised themselves no small hopes of profit, by the disfurnishing of the altars of the hangings, palls, plate, and other rich utensils, which every parish, more or less, had provided for them. And that this consideration might prevail upon them as much as any other, (if perhaps not more), may’ be collected from an inquiry made about two years after. In which it was to be interrogated, “what jewels of gold and silver, or silver crosses, candlesticks, censers, chalices, copes, and other vestments, were then remaining in any of the cathedral or parochial churches; or otherwise had been embezzled or taken away:” the leaving of one chalice to every church, with a cloth or covering for the communiontable, being thought sufficienth1. 22. The matter being thus resolved on, a letter comes to Bishop Ridley, in the name of the King, signed with his royal signet, but subscribed by Somerset and other of the Lords of the Council, concerning the taking down of altars and setting up tables in the stead thereof. Which letter, because it relates to somewhat which was done before in some of the churches, and seems only to pretend to an uniformity in all the rest, I shall here subjoin: — that being the chief ground on which so great an alteration must be supposed to have been raised, Now the tenor of the said letter is as followeth: “RIGHT Reverend Father in God, right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well: whereas it is come to our knowledge that, being the altars within the more part of the churches of this realm, upon good and godly considerations, are taken down, there doth yet remain altars standing in divers other churches; by occasion whereof much variance and contention ariseth amongst sundry of our subjects; which, if good foresight were not had, might perhaps engender great hurt and inconvenience: we let you wit that, minding to have all occasions of contention taken away, which many times groweth by those and such-like diversities; and considering, that, amongst other things belonging to our royal office and care, we do account the greatest to be, to maintain the common quiet of our realm: we have thought good, by the advice of our council, to require you, and nevertheless especially to charge and command you, for the avoiding of all matters of further contention and strife about the standing or taking away of the said altars, to give substantial order throughout all your diocese, that with all diligence all the altars in every church or chapel, as well in places exempted as not exempted, within your said diocese, be taken down; and instead of them a table to be set up in some convenient part of the chancel, within every such church or chapel, to serve for the ministration of the blessed Communion. And to the intent the same may be done without the offense of such our loving subjects as be not yet so well persuaded in that behalf as we could wish, we send unto you herewith certain considerations, gathered and collected, that make for the purpose. The which, and such others as you shall think meet to be set forth, to persuade the weak to embrace our proceedings in this part, we pray you cause to be declared to the people by some discreet preachers, in such places as you shall think meet, before the taking down of the said altars; so as both the weak consciences of others may be instructed and satisfied as much as may be, and this our pleasure the more quietly executed. For the better doing whereof, we require you to open the foresaid considerations in that our cathedral church, in your own person if you conveniently may; or otherwise by your Chancellor, or other grave preacher, both there and in such other market-towns and most notable places of your diocese as you may think most requisite.” Which letter, bearing date on the twenty-fourth of November, in the fourth year of the King, was subscribed by the Duke of Somerset, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Admiral Clinton, the Earls of Warwick, Bedford, and Wiltshire, the Bishop of Ely, the Lords Wentworth and North. 23. Now the effect of the said reasons, mentioned in the last part of this letter, were: first, to move the people from the superstitious opinions of the popish mass, unto the right use of the Lord’s Supper: — the use of an altar being to sacrifice upon, and the use of a table to eat upon; and therefore a table to be far more fit for our feeding on him who was once only crucified and offered for us. Secondly, that in the book of Common Prayer the name of altar, the Lord’s board, or table, are used indifferently, without prescribing any thing in the form thereof. For as it is called a table and the Lord’s board, in reference to the Lord’s Supper which is there administered, so it is called an altar also, in reference to the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which is there offered unto God. And so the changing the altars into tables not to be any way repugnant to the rules of the Liturgy. The third reason seems to be no other than an illustration of the first, for taking away the superstitious opinion out of the minds of the people touching the sacrifice of the mass, which was not to be celebrated but upon an altar. The fourth, that the altars were erected for the sacrifices of the law, which being now ceased, the form of the altar was to cease together with them. The fifth, that, as Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a table, and not at an altar, (as appeareth by the three Evangelists), so it is not to be found that any of the Apostles did ever use an altar in the ministration. And finally, that it is declared in the preface to the book of Common Prayer, that if any doubt arise in the use and practicing of the said book, that then, to appease all such diversity, the matter shall be referred unto the Bishop of the diocese; who, by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting of it. 24. The letter with these reasons being brought to Ridley, there was no time for him to dispute the commands of the one, or to examine the validity and strength of the other. And thereupon, proceeding shortly after to his first visitation, he gave out one injunction, amongst others, to this effect, that those churches in his diocese where the altars do remain should conform themselves unto those other churches which had taken them down; and that, instead of the multitude of their altars, they should set up one decent table in every church. But this being done, a question afterwards did arise about the form of the Lord’s board; some using it in the form of a table, and others in the form of an altar. Which being referred unto the determination of the Bishop, he declared himself in favor of that posture or position of it which he conceived most likely to procure an uniformity in all his diocese, and to be more agreeable to the King’s godly proceedings in abolishing divers vain and superstitious opinions about the mass out of the hearts of the people. Upon which declaration or determination, he appointed the form of a right table to be used in his diocese, and caused the wall standing on the back side of the altar in the church of St Paul’s to be broken down, for an example to the rest. And, being thus a leading case to all the rest of the kingdom, it was followed, either with a swifter or a slower pace, according as the Bishops in their several dioceses, or the Clergy in their several parishes, stood affected to it. No universal change of altars into tables in all parts of the realm, till the repealing of the first Liturgy, — in which the Priest is appointed “to stand before the midst of the altar,” in the celebration, — and the establishing of the second, — in which it is required that “the Priest shall stand on the north side of the table,” — had put an end to the dispute. 25. Nor, indeed, can it be supposed that all which is before affirmed of Bishop Ridley could be done at once, or acted in so short a space as the rest of this year: which could not give him time enough to warn, commence, and carry on a visitation — admitting that the inconveniency of the season might have been dispensed with. And therefore I should rather think that the Bishop, having received his Majesty’s order in the end of November, might cause it to be put in execution in the churches of London, and issue out his mandates to the rest of the Bishops, and the Archdeacons of his own diocese, for doing the like in other places within the compass of their several and respective jurisdictions. Which being done, as in the way of preparation, his visitation might proceed in the spring next following; and the whole business be transacted in form and manner as before laid down. And this may be believed the rather because the changing of altars into tables is made by Holinshead, (a diligent and painful writer), to be the work of the next year: as, questionless, it needs must be in all parts of the realm except London and Westminster, and some of the towns and villages adjoining to them. But much less can I think that the altar-wall in St Paul’s church was taken down by the command of Bishop Ridley in the evening of St Barnaby’s day this present year, as is affirmed by John Stow. For then it must be done five months before the coming out of the order from the Lords of the Council.