p. 138. finds the proportion far short of the computation above- MARY. mentioned. He observes, there are within the jurisdiction of the church of Canterbury about three hundred benefices and other ecclesiastical preferments; but, within this precinct, only seventy-three clergymen were deprived, either for marriage or upon any other account. Now, this number is far from holding the proportion of twelve to sixteen; and yet, as he observes, Thornden and Harpsfield, two dignified men in this diocese, were as forward in prosecuting the married clergy as any other Roman Catholic zealots elsewhere. It is affirmed, Harmer, the married clergy were all "summarily deprived;" but this Bp. Burnet, looks like mounting the rigour beyond matter of fact; for the pt. 2. p. 277. author above-mentioned, published by archbishop Parker, affirms a year's time was allowed the clergy "to abjure their heresy and put away their wives." Besides, in the Canterbury register, made for the vacancy of that see, there are many processes and deprivations of married clergymen entered from whence it follows the customary forms were observed, and that they were not all "summarily" deprived. It is further remarked, that the reformed clergy, besides the loss of their benefices, were forced to quit their wives. This Ibid. severity is supposed to have reached all those that were married. That the reformed clergy were roughly used is beyond question. However, the hardships put upon them seem swelled a little beyond the reality of the case for none of the married The secular clergy not clergy were obliged to part with their wives after deprivation, obliged to unless they had been regulars. And here their vow of chastity, their wives, as they called it, obliged them to separation; but the secular and why. clergy, who were under no such monastic engagement, were Harmer, gentlier used. That the secular clergy had made no vow of single life at their ordination, for some time before the Reformation, is highly probable; but, in a council at Winchester, held under Lanfrank, as hath been observed already, it was decreed that none should be ordained priest or deacon without making a declaration against matrimony, part with Ibid. and P. 139. Spelman. That many of the reformed clergy in queen Mary's reign had vol. 2. p. 11. taken monastic vows, is sufficiently evident for those regular priests, who had been ejected their houses at the dissolution of the monasteries, were qualified to hold benefices. Neither did their politic capacity lie idle upon their hands: for the king and other lay-patrons were willing to place them in cures at CRAN the first opportunity; for, by this means, they saved their Abp. Cant. pensions, which must otherwise have been paid. That these MER, regulars, who were very numerous, were forced to part with their wives, is not to be contested; but that the seculars were thus used, is more than appears. That the English Church had, for some time at least, ordained them without vows of celibacy, is pretty plain from the articles of inquiry drawn up this year, in which these interrogatories, amongst others, were put to every married clergyman: "Whether he had been a See Records, religious?-of what order?-and in what monastery?" num. 69. A new par To proceed on the 2nd of April a new parliament met at liament. Westminster. The commons are said to have been bribed to the court measures, and largely pensioned by Gardiner, the Bp. Burnet, lord chancellor. This is a hard reflection upon that honourpt. 2. p. 277.. able house. But the historian is not pleased to tell us how this secret came to his knowledge. If Beale is the reporter, -and he seems to have no other, the account looks very suspicious. The first act I shall mention confirms the articles of marriage between the queen, and Philip, prince of Spain. The statute mentions two treaties. The articles of the first have been already related. By the second, Philip was obliged to entertain a certain number of English gentlemen and others in his court. He was not to convey the queen out of England, unless at her own instance. The issue of the marriage were to be bred in England, and not carried into foreign countries A farther without the consent of the English nobility. In case the queen the articles should die without issue, Philip was barred claiming any right of the queen's to the kingdom, and the crown was to descend according to course of law. King Philip was likewise obliged not to transport any jewels or rich furniture, or alienate any part of the royal revenues. No part of the fleet, of the artillery, of the ammunition or stores, were to be conveyed out of England, or any ways embezzled. That, upon the score of this marriage, England should not be drawn into the war between the emperor and the French king, but that the late alliance with France should be inviolably maintained: with a liberty, however, to Philip, to assist the emperor his father from any other country of his dominions. Lastly, the sovereignty of the English realms was to rest solely in the queen; though in all 1st Mary, grants, public acts, and instruments of government, both their majesties' names were to be inserted. account of marriage. parl. 2d. cap. 2. To proceed this parliament repealed two statutes of the MARY. late reign for the dissolution of the bishopric of Durham. The preamble sets forth," that certain ambitious persons, taking advantage of the late king's minority, made an interest, by sinister practice, to procure the dissolution of the bishopric; that it was done out of mercenary views, to enrich themselves and their friends by seizing the lands of that see, rather than upon just occasion, or godly zeal; that Tunstal, bishop of Durham, was deprived upon untrue surmises and false accusations, and that the process against him was foul and illegal; that, upon a full examination of the matter by the queen's commissioners, the sentence of deprivation was declared void, as may be seen at large by an authentic instrument; that the queen had new founded the bishopric by her letters-patent, and restored all the lands in her possession; but that neither the reversal of the sentence of deprivation, nor the queen's letterspatent, were of sufficient force to recover the honours, lands, &c., to the see of Durham. To restore the bishopric, therefore, to its former interest, privilege, and revenues, the two dissolution-statutes of the late reign were repealed." 367. 1st Mary, parl. 2d. Statutes at As far as it appears by this act, the bishop of Durham re- cap. 3. covered all the estate formerly belonging to his see, excepting Large. a capital messuage, or mansion-house, called Colderborough, in Thames-street, London, in the parish of All-Hallows the Less, with some other messuages and tenements in the parishes of Barking and Gracechurch. These having been granted by the late king to the earl of Shrewsbury, were to remain to him and his heirs. However, in the close of the act, the bishop petitions the queen for an equivalent. By another act of this parliament, the queen is empowered to appoint statutes for the government of the deaneries, prebends, schools, and their revenues lately erected, and settled by king Henry VIII. The queen is likewise enabled to alter the statutes from time to time at pleasure. These statutes were drawn by king Henry's commissioners, and delivered to the respective 1st Mary, churches, but not being indented, they fell short of the condi- pal. 2d. tion required in the king's grant, which defect gave occasion to April 10. the making this act. cap. 9. A. D. 1554. During timer This parliament was dissolved on the fifth of May. the session, archbishop Cranmer, bishop Ridley, and bishop conveyed to Latimer, were removed from the Tower to Windsor, and from dispute. Oxford to MER, The convo CRAN thence to Oxford, to dispute with some persons selected from Abp. Cant. both universities. This disputation was brought on because a rumour was spread that the Roman Catholics had been lately worsted in the convocation-house. For this purpose the convocation and the two universities were authorised, by the cation meets, queen's letters, to constitute a committee for the managing this controversy. Those pitched upon in the university of Oxford were Dr. Weston, prolocutor, Dr. Tresham, Dr. Cole, tion, fol. 74. Dr. Oglethorpe, Dr. Chedsey, Mr. Pye, Mr. John Harpsfield, and Mr. Fecknam. Those of Cambridge were Dr. Young, the vice-chancellor, Dr. Glyn, Dr. Seaton, Dr. Watson, Dr. Sedgwick, and Dr. Atkinson. The committee who were to engage in the disputation had an authority from the convocation and both the universities. April 3. Convoca The three questions for tion. The queen sent her precept to the mayor and bailiffs of Oxford to bring the prisoners Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer into the public schools at the times appointed for disputation. At their appearance, there were these three articles given Cranmer and the other two bishops to subscribe; First. In the sacrament of the altar, by virtue of the words the disputa of consecration pronounced by the priest, the natural body of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, is present under the species of bread and wine. Part of the Latin runs thus: "Præsens est realiter sub speciebus panis et vini naturale corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Mariâ, item naturalis ejusdem sanguis.” Secondly. After consecration, neither the substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance remains, excepting that of Christ, God and man. In Latin: "Post consecrationem non remanet substantia panis et vini, neque ulla alia substantia nisi substantia Christi, Dei et hominis." Thirdly. The mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead. It stands thus in Latin: "In missa est vivificum ecclesiæ sacrificium pro peccatis tam vivorum quam MS. penes mortuorum propitiabile." me, Fox, vol. 3. ld. MS. These articles had been sent down to Cambridge by the convocation some little time before, where they were publicly examined and approved. Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, at the first sight of these articles, declared frankly they were not true. However, they promised to return an answer in writing; and in case of their dissent from the delegates, they were to argue upon the ques- MARY. tions in the schools. The disputation was to be managed in Latin, in the forms of logic. The three bishops returning a negative answer to all the articles, they proceeded to dispute, and notaries were appointed to take the argument in writing; Id. of these John Jewel and Gilbert Munson, masters of arts, were two, both of whom were allowed by Cranmer and Ridley. Weston and the rest of the committee, in their procuratorial letters from the convocation, own the episcopal character of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, though they mention them with some abatement, and call them the late bishops of Canterbury, Rochester, and Worcester. And the same respect is given them in the procuratorial letter from Cambridge. It is true, in the queen's precept to the mayor of Oxford, Ridley and Latimer are only styled doctor and clerk; but this instrument is singular in the distinction, and no counterbalance to the rest. The three bishops were forced to enter the lists at great disadvantages. They had but two days allowed them for preparation; they were kept in different and ill-accommodated prisons; not suffered to converse with each other; neither had they the convenience of their own books and papers. They were likewise obliged to appear single in the contest, each of them having a distinct day assigned, so that they had no opportunity of supporting each other, if occasion had required. frank. The two first questions having been dilated on in the first part of this work, and lately argued at length in the convoca- Vol. I. tion by Weston, Philpot, and others, I shall pass over the under Langreatest part of the disputation. And to prevent tiring the reader with the repetition of this controversy, I shall only refer him to the bishops' answers delivered in Latin to the committee. See Records, folio 339. et Cranmer's Upon the last question concerning the propitiatory sacrifice num. 71. Regist. of the mass, Cranmer was fully of opinion, that the holding it Bonner, in the affirmative was derogatory to the sacrifice upon the deinc. cross; that if the passion of our Saviour was sufficient for all April 16, purposes of redemption, what occasion could there be for any opinion conother? and that the necessity of any succeeding supplemental sacrifice in oblations supposed that at Jerusalem defective. To support this reasoning, he cited the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and the ninth to the Hebrews. And lastly, he seems to allow of no cerning the the mass. |