Sivut kuvina

ments of the Pking and the leading members of his council. After the fall of the protector Somerset, and when the Romish party were looking upon that event as an indication in their favour, letters were addressed from the 'council to the bishops, enjoining them to call in and to destroy all the Romish books of offices; and "Edward, who felt the greatest aversion to the service of the mass, opposed himself openly to any ritual calculated to support it. Distrusting the superior clergy, he resolved to act independently of them, as far as he was able; and $declared to Cheke, that if the changes which were neces

9 P. Martyr, writing to Gualter in June 1550, says, Summum regis et procerum quorundam in religione promovenda studium. Hess, Catal. vol. II. p. 32. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 287. Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 78. q Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. part ii.

p. 272. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 355. King Edw. Remains, No. 2, in Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. part ii. p. 102. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 299. Hooper, writing to Bullinger in March 1550, says, Vix expugnatur idolum missæ; and Martyr to the same, in Jan. 1550, says, Regno Christi episcopi pro viribus resistunt.

s Strype, Cran. vol. I. pp. 301 and 361. II. p. 899. Martyr, writing to Bucer, on the 10th of Jan. 1551, says, “ Hoc non me parum recreat, quod mihi D. Checus indicavit ; si noluerint ipsi (episcopi), ait, efficere, ut quæ mutanda sint mutentur, rex per seipsum id faciet; et cum ad parliamentum ventum fuerit, ipse suæ Majestatis authoritatem interponet.” It is evident from this letter of Martyr, from a letter of Cox to Bullinger, in May 1551, (Strype, Mem. vol. II. part i. p. 533,) and from Strype, (Cran, vol. I. p. 299,) that Cranmer met with great opposition, at the end of the year 1550, from the bishops. It is not improbable that the opposition took place in the upper house of convocation; and if this were the case, the king probably intended it to be understood that, if driven to extremities, he would exercise his authority as head of the church, and bring the revision of the Liturgy before parliament, without consulting the convocation any further on the subject. It is not probable that he was compelled to carry his threat into execution ; but there is reason to believe that in this case, as in the subsequent case of the

sary to be made in the Liturgy, could not be accomplished otherwise, he would interpose his own authority, and ratify them by means of parliament.

In the mean time, as the Book of Common Prayer contained no form of consecrating and ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, the commissioners had drawn up an Office for that purpose, which was now confirmed by act of parliament, and published in March 1550. And this might naturally be considered as the termination of their labours; but there is reason to believe that the commission was not discharged, and that the same persons, who still continued members of it, were soon afterwards instructed to revise the whole Book of Common Prayer, and to introduce such alterations as might seem to them to be required.

The state of public opinion had now at once furnished an opportunity, and created a necessity, for further change. The hopes of the Romanists had been extinguished, partly by the defeat of the insurgents in Devonshire, but principally by the strong protestant feeling expressed in the council and the parliament; and the tendency was carried so far in the opposite direction, that encouragement was afforded for the circulation of books and the inculcation of opinions favourable to the turbulent sect of the Anabaptists. There were two subjects of dispute which require to be especially noticed, not merely for their im

Catechism, the convocation was induced to delegate its authority to a commission appointed by the king. (Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 121.) This explanation was certainly given in the first convocation of queen Mary, when an objection was made as to the authority of the Catechism, (Fox, Acts and Mon. f. 1410,) and may be extended to the case of the Liturgy, as no record of its approval appears to have been found in Heylin's time on the registers of convocation. Comp. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. III. p. 404.

portance among the controversies of that period, but also on account of their direct connection with the projected revision of the Liturgy.

The lawful use of clerical vestments was a question which, more than any other at this time, disturbed the harmony of the English church, and brought scandal upon the cause of the reformation. To common observers, and as expressed in common language, the question appeared to be of little consequence; but it was in reality the ground on which two great parties were content to meet, for the discussion of principles connected with the foundation of church government, and essential to their several existence. It was required, in a rubric of the first Liturgy, that " at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy communion, the priest that shall execute the holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope.” It was also required, that “ whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, beside his rochet, a surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.” Now it was a sufficient objection in those days, that a distinction was thus made between the services of the church, which had a tendency to uphold the ancient superstitions of the mass in the minds of the common people. But the question really at issue was of a much more vital character. It affected the first principles of church authority, and disputed the right of any body of men, under whatever name they were assembled, to impose ceremonies, which, though considered indifferent by the great body of believers, were held by many to be of noxious tendency, and by some were felt to be sinful. This question was brought to an issue by the determined resistance of Hooper, when nominated to the see of Gloucester. Having contracted tsentiments in accordance with those of the Swiss reformers, partly from a residence at Zurich, but still more from the natural vehemence of his character, he refused to wear the episcopal vestments. By the influence he had acquired from his learning, his indefatigable exertions, and his reputation for eminent sanctity, he had recommended himself to many of the leading reformers, had been supported in his conscientious scruples by his patron the u earl of Warwick, and had even obtained the interposition of the youthful monarch in his favour. But in this instance Cranmer was inexorable. In his own sentiments he was not unfriendly to an alteration of the rubric; and on a former Xoccasion, when a scruple of conscience had been pleaded, he had given the strongest proof of his moderation, by dispensing with the use of the customary habits. But in the present instance new dangers had

+ Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 302. The exertions of Hooper may be seen from the following notices in the Zurich letters. Micronius, writing to Pellicanus, in June 1549, calls Hooper the future Zuingle of England. The same to Bullinger, in Sept. 1549, speaks of Hooper's indefatigable exertions. Butler, writing to Stumphius in Feb. 1550, describes indefessum Hoperi in evangelio propagando studium. Utenhovius to Bullinger, in Jan. 1550, writes de summo Hoperi in officio ardore et mirifico fructu. And another correspondent of Bul. linger says, in April 155], Hoperus occupatissimus quotidie quatuor conciones habet. Comp. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. III. pp. 385. 402.

u Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 302.

* In the case of Sampson, in 1549, whom Cranmer and Ridley consented to ordain without the customary habits. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 273. Life of Ridley, pp. 302. 303. Wood's Ath. Ox. vol. I. col. 549. ed. Bliss.

arisen, and great principles were at stake; and Cranmer refused to confer consecration, when, by so doing, he would have acted in violation of positive law, and in contempt of the authority of the church. These views finally prevailed; and Hooper, having persisted in his refusal till he had lost the y confidence not only of his countrymen, but even of the foreign reformers, yielded to an apparent "compromise, and received a consecration at the hands of Cranmer.

The inquiries instituted in the progress of this dispute were decisive not only as to the conduct of the archbishop, but also as to the continuance of the rubric. The most eminent reformers, whether in England or on the continent, including bMartyr and Bucer, who endeavoured to overcome the resistance of Hooper, and «Bullinger and Calvin, who interceded in his favour, expressed an earnest hope that whenever an opportunity should arise, the obnoxious practice should be abandoned. The rubric was omitted in the second Liturgy, and the more temperate among the objectors were reconciled by the introduction of more simple vestments. But the dispute has ever since existed, although its outward form and

y John ab Ulmis, writing to Bullinger in Feb. 1551, says, Hoperus apud principes ob litem vestiariam excidit: and Hooper himself to Bullinger, in June 1550, states that a Lasco was the only person who supported him throughout. Hess, Catal. vol. II. pp. 30 and 53.

z Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 91.
a Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 364.
b Strype, Cran. vol. I. pp. 303. 304. 362.

< Bullinger, in a letter to Cranmer. See Cranmer's answer. Works, vol. I. p. 345. Calvin, in a letter to Somerset, which he notices in writing to Bullinger in 1551, (Calv. Epist. p. 60. ed. Amst.) and says that he approved of Hooper's resistance to the anointing ; but wished him to acquiesce de pileo et veste linea; being however himself of opinion that such ceremonies should not be continued.

« EdellinenJatka »