jected to other things as well as to the ordinal; especially to the removal of altars; a measure which could never have his consent. He was then informed, that two more days would be allowed him for reconsidering the matter, and that if, when they were expired, he should withhold his subscription he would be deprived of his bishopric. His reply was, " I cannot find in my conscience to do as his Majesty desires, and therefore, I shall be well contented to suffer deprivation, or any other pain which it may please his Highness to lay upon me." On the 28th of the month a commission was issued for the settlement of this affair, and of Bishop Day's. No clergyman was named for this purpose, only three lawyers, and three civilians, who were empowered to give a final sentence. By these commissioners the two disobedient prelates were deprived, or more properly cashiered, within a month. After their dismissal they were again consigned to the Fleet; where they continued until the following summer. Heath was then committed to the gentle custody of Bishop Ridley, Day to that of Bishop Goodrich, and these truly estimable men were directed to use their deprived brethren, " as to Christian charity should be most seemly." The Bishops of London and Ely well understood how

"Proceedings of Privy Council, 43.

• King Edward's Journal. Burnet, Hist. Ref. II. 50.

P Viz. Sir Roger Cholmondely, Lord Chief Baron, Sir Richard Read, Goodrick, Gosnold, Oliver, and Ryel. Strype, Mem. Cranm.

to put a practical comment upon this kind injunction 9. The see of Worcester was conferred in May, 1552, upon Bishop Hooper, to hold in commendam with Gloucester; that arrangement being calculated to place a considerable mass of ecclesiastical property within the reach of those rapacious courtiers who so much disgraced this reign by their incessant pillage of the Church. In the same month the see of Chichester was filled by the translation to it from Rochester, of Dr. John Scory'.

An opportunity occurred in November, of enquiring, under circumstances in which men seldom fail to express the genuine conviction of their minds, into the theological opinions of Dr. John Redmayn. That eminent scholar, like his estimable relative, Bishop Tunstall, had so managed to hold the even tenour of his way through an age of keen and angry controversy, that he was highly respected by each of the religious parties which divided the nation. It was, indeed, even doubted to which of the two he properly belonged. Being overtaken by a mortal illness at his prebendal house in Westminster, some learned friends would therefore not allow his valued life to close, before they had endeavoured to ascertain his judgment upon several interesting questions yet remaining undecided in many honest minds.

"So far more kindly were these Popish Bishops dealt withal in this reign, than the Protestant Bishops were in the next." Strype, Mem. Cranm. 331.

Godwin. de Præsul. 470. 513.

Redmayn then felt in a manner admitting of no self-deception, that his mortal frame was sinking fast into the grave. His intellectual energy, however, continued unimpaired, affording that striking proof often seen in the last hours of a temperate life, that spirit and matter are not necessarily dependent upon each other. While lingering thus at ease in mind, and unclouded in apprehension, upon the confines of that invisible region so interesting to man, Bishop Ridley and others who knew his worth resorted to the dying scholar's couch. The conversation chiefly turned upon that knowledge from above, to which Redmayn had devoted the most important portion of his earthly course. Of these interviews some particulars have been preserved. At one of them, Dr. Richard Wilkes, Master of Christ's College, in Cambridge, enquired Redmayn's opinion upon transubstantiation, and the worship of the Eucharist. His answer as to the former tenet was, "Because I found the opinion of transubstantiation received in the Church, when I heard it spoken against, I searched the ancient doctors diligently, and went about to establish it by them, because it was received. And when I had read many of them, I found little for it, and could not be satisfied. Then I went to the school-doctors,

"Then I communed with him of his sickness, and the weakness of his body, and said, that though he were brought never so low, yet if it were his pleasure that raised up Lazarus, he could restore him to health again. No, no, saith he, that is past.” Relation of Dr. Wilkes. Foxe, 1238.

and especially to Gabriel', and weighed his reasons. The which, when I had done, and perceived they were no pithier, my opinion of transubstantiation began to wax feeble. Then I returned again to Tertullian" and Irenæus, and when I had observed their sayings, mine opinion as to the truth of transubstantiation was wholly destroyed." His judgment upon Christ's presence in the Eucharist was, that the Saviour is truly there, and is in worthy communicants, not however with all the parts of an ordinary human body, and that the mode of receiving him is in the mind and soul by faith. When asked how he would designate the elements when elevated by a priest at mass, he simply answered, "It is the Sacra

'Gabriel Biel, a famous schoolman, born either in Switzerland, or at Spires, who died about the close of the fifteenth century. It was the usage among scholastic theologians to designate some of their principal authors by the Christian name alone. Thus Lombard was familiarly known in the schools as Peter, Aquinas as Thomas, Biel as Gabriel.

"In commenting upon the clause in the Lord's Prayer, Give us this day our daily bread, (Tertullian) says, that we should understand it spiritually. Christ is our bread: for Christ is life, and bread is life. Christ said, I am the bread of life; and a little before, the Word of the living God which descended from heaven, that is bread. Moreover his body is supposed to be in the bread, in the words, This is my body. It is evident from the whole tenour of the passage, that Tertullian affixed a figurative interpretation to the words, This is my body. In other places, he expressly calls the bread, the representation of the body of Christ; and the wine, of his blood." The Ecclesiastical History of the second and third Centuries illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian,. By John (Kaye) Bishop of Bristol. Cambridge, 1826, p. 450.

ment."

Wilkes rejoined, "But people were wont to worship that which was lifted up." Redmayn then said, "Yea, but we must worship Christ in heaven. Christ is neither lifted up, nor down.”

A more detailed account of the theological opinions in which Redmayn died was given to Dr. Alexander Nowell, then master of Westminster school, ultimately Dean of St. Paul's. To this eminent scholar his dying friend affirmed himself to be persuaded, that the Roman see is a sink of iniquities; that the received notions of purgatory are erroneous *; that the doctrine of masses propitiatory for the dead is ungodly; that wicked communi

x

* Redmayn, however, held that opinion respecting purgatory which obtained at an early period in the Church. "He answered, that the subtle reasons of the schoolmen concerning purgatory, seemed to him to be no less vain and frivolous, than disagreeing from the truth adding thereunto, that when we be rapt up to the clouds to meet Christ coming to judgment, with a great number of angels in all glory and majesty, then every one shall be purged with fire." (Dr. Young to Sir John Cheke. Foxe, 1240.) Of this notion, which has been thought to receive encouragement from some difficult texts of Scripture, it is sufficient to observe, that nothing can be farther than it is from the modern Romish doctrine of purgatory. Through this fire, as yet unkindled, it is assumed, will pass not only the sinful mass of men, but also those Popish saints, whose superfluous merits the Roman Bishop undertakes to retail as the means of relieving persons actually suffering purgatorial pains.

This judgment only excludes the doctrine of offering propitiatory sacrifices for the dead. Redmayn, as we learn from Dr. Young's letter, approved of praying for them, and cited the book of Maccabees, as his authority. This book, he was disposed to consider as canonical, in deference to various writers: although he admitted that Jerome held a different opinion.