« ZurückWeiter »
were, that the King is supreme head of the English and Irish Churches, both by God's law, and by the authority of Scripture; that his Majesty's prerogative extends to the regulation of fast and feast days; that the Common Prayer being godly and Christian, is such as the whole kingdom ought to receive; that the royal authority was complete and effective, notwithstanding the sovereign's minority; that the act of Six Articles was properly repealed ; and that the crown has authority to make, in ecclesiastical affairs, such alterations as are consistent with God's law, and Holy Scripture. Important as these admissions were at a time when bigotry and disloyalty were sheltering themselves under the most absurd pretences, they were such as no man of sense and station, who had gone along with the late King's proceedings, could refuse to make. It was, therefore, decided that the Bishop's submission could not be considered satisfactory, unless he would give some security for his future conduct by signing the preamble. This, however, although pressed to do it upon two subsequent occasions, and allowed to qualify any expressions which might appear harsh, he positively refused. A new series of articles, twenty in number, was then tendered to him for
though I would not have made it so myself, yet I find such things in it as satisfieth my conscience, and therefore, I will both erecute it myself, and also see other my parishioners inhabitants of my diocese) to do it. This was subscribed by the foresaid counsellors, that they heard him say these words.” King Edward's Journal. Burnet, Hist. Ref. Records, II. 22.
his subscription. Of these, the purport was, that monasteries and chantries had been justly suppressed; that no marriages unforbidden by the Levitical law need a dispensation from Rome; that pilgrimages were properly abolished; that the personation of saints was a mere mockeryo; that the Scriptures ought to be allowed in English; that private masses, half communion, and the elevation of the consecrated elements ought to be prohibited; that images and missals had been removed from churches upon good grounds; that inasmuch as God's law leaves marriage free to clergymen, the canons restraining them from it had been justly abrogated; that the homilies, and the new ordinal are good, and ought to be received ; that the minor orders, being unnecessary, were well omitted in the new service; that Scripture contains sufficiently all things necessary for salvation; and that the paraphrase of Erasmus had been set up in churches upon good considerations. To these doctrines the Bishop was required, in his Majesty's name, to set his hand, and at the same time, to pledge himself that he would preach and publish them, at such time, and before such audience as his Majesty should require'. These articles being prefaced as were
o The words are, “ That the counterfeiting of St. Nicholas, St. Clement, St. Catherine, and St. Edmund, by children heretofore brought into the church, was a mere mockery and foolishness." This clause relates to those scenic representations, which at some Romish festivals delight all who are children either in aye, or in understanding.
p Foxe, 1235. These articles were sent on the 15th of July.
the former ones, Gardiner refused to sign them upon that ground. He said, “I have never offended his Majesty in any such sort as should give me cause thus to submit myself. My earnest prayer is to have a fair trial.
I desire no mercy. To have justice done upon me is my only wish. If, however, I were set at liberty, it would be seen in what manner I should act respecting the doctrinal articles ; but to require of me that I should subscribe them, while in prison, is not reasonable 9.” In consequence of this language, the Bishop was brought before the council on the 19th of July, and the articles being read over to him, he was again desired to sign them. He refused to do so, or even to express a verbal assent', although threatened with the sequestration of his bishopric; but he offered to make particular observations upon the tendered articles, if he might be allowed to consider them at his leisure, in prison. “And if my answers,” he added, “shall be found illegal, such penalties as I may have incurred may then be inflicted upon me.." This evasive offer being rejected, a beginning was made of reading the sequestration, which was headed by a statement of the Bishop's disobedience; and when that portion of the instrument was concluded, he was again asked whether he would submit. His answer was, “ I am willing,
9 Proceedings of Privy Council, 20.
5 "Whereunto he refused either to subscribe, or consent." Ibid.
Bp. Gardiner's Relation. Foxe, 1233.
nay, most ready to obey his Majesty in all lawful commands; but inasmuch as divers things are now required of me which my conscience will not bear, I do humbly pray your Lordships to have me excused.” Mr. Secretary Petre, was then ordered to proceed in reading the sequestration. It set forth, that the Prelate, having been justly imprisoned for his disobedience to the royal commands, continued in his contumacy, to the great encouragement of disaffected persons. It was therefore ordered; that the revenues of the see of Winchester be sequestered for three months, and that if at the end of that time, the Bishop should refuse to accept, allow, preach, and teach the doctrines which had been tendered to him, he should be deprived as incorrigible and unworthy. As, however, Gardiner had displayed in the whole affair a considerable degree of his habitual tergiversation, hopes appear to have been entertained, that the decisive step taken at last against him would overcome his obstinacy. Accordingly, orders were secretly given, that his establishment should continue upon its ordinary footing during the three months. Even when these were expired, and no submission offered by the prisoner, he was allowed the indulgence of another month : soon after the end of which, measures were concerted for his deprivation. For this purpose a commission from the crown was directed to Archbishop Cranmer, the Bishops Ridley, Goodrich,
. Proceedings of Privy Council, 23.
and Holbeach, Sir William Petre, Sir James Hales, and some other lawyers. Before these commissioners Gardiner appeared at Lambeth, on the 15th of December ; when the proceedings were chiefly formal. The accused, however, made a speech, demanding counsel, which was allowed him, protesting against both the proceedings and his judges, and declaring, that the Duke of Somerset, with others of the council who had been with him in the Tower, had given him to understand that he should hear no more of the accusations against him. This assertion was rebutted at the next session by a letter which was produced, signed by the councillors mentioned on the former day. “The Bishop," wrote these distinguished persons, “ defends his cause with untruths. Upon our fidelities and honours, his tale is false. We came to him in the Tower for no other purpose, than to reclaim him.” Gardiner struggled hard to prevent the reading of this letter, or at all events to obtain a previous hearing. These endeavours, however, were unsuccessful; but the proceedings against him were conducted with great deliberation, and when the year closed little more had been accomplished in his case, than the adjustment of preliminary formalities.
While the government was engaged in these processes against Bishop Gardiner, it was involved in difficulties with a divine of very different principles. John Hooper, once a Cistercian
Strype, Mem. Cranm. 321.