WILL CON

many leading members of the Church of England who chose THE FREE exile rather than conformity to Rome, and who were now at TROVERSY. perfect liberty, if they were in any wise dissatisfied with the Prayer Book, either to modify it, or to lay it aside altogether. Indeed, they might have been excused, indebted as they were for an asylum to foreign churches, if they had acceded to the wish of the magistracy, and conformed, in some measure, to the French service; but, no, they stood out for the Prayer Book as it was, declaring their unfaltering atttchment to it.*

putes

nation.

The dispute which arose amongst the prisoners for the First disGospel on the subject of free-will, was indicative of future among trouble to the Church of England on doctrinal points. Some ants about held free-will, and the nature of their views appears from the Predesticomplaint which they made of Bradford, who held many conferences with them. They said: "He was a great slander to "the word of God in respect of his doctrine, in that he believed "and affirmed the salvation of God's children to be so certain, "that they should assuredly enjoy the same. For they said, it "hanged partly upon our perseverance to the end. Bradford "said, it hung upon God's grace in Christ, and not upon our "perseverance in any point; for then were grace no grace."† A congregation of free-willers had existed in London in the reign of Edward VI., whose teachers were brought into the Ecclesiastical Courts. They confessed, amongst other things, "that God's predestination was not certain but conditional." These were the first separatists from the Church of England. The free-willers who occasioned the controversy in prison were of little note; the names even of the leaders being known only in connection with the controversy itself. Bradford, apprehensive that their tenets might be very injurious, addressed a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer on the subject a letter which was signed also by Ferrar, Taylor, and Philpot. Bradford and his companions describe the doctrines of the free-willers as follows:-"The effects of salvation, they so mingle and confound with the cause, that if it be not seen to, more hurt will come by them than ever came by the "Papists; inasmuch as their life commendeth them to the

66

* See McCrie's Life of John Knox, p. 76. Edinburgh, 1841.

† Memorials of Cranmer, p. 503, vol. i. ut supra.

Trew, Abingdon, Kemp, Gibson, and Chamberlain.

CHAP. V. "world more than the Papists."* Upon this occasion Ridley wrote a treatise upon election and predestination, which has since been lost. Bradford also wrote upon the same subject, and sent his treatise to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer "for their approbation, and theirs being obtained," says Styrpe, "the rest of the eminent divines, in and about London, were ready to sign it also."+ Great efforts were made to convert the free-willers, and not without some success. On the subject of grace and predestination, the Reformers were of one mind, and the free-willers were regarded as schismatics.‡ It was not until many years after that, by the efforts of Laud, this very system received toleration in the Church of England.

Cranmer's

SUMMARY.

False hopes were at first entertained that Mary would not persecute, but these were soon dissipated by the imprisonment of Protestants. Cranmer at this crisis boldly came forward, and offered, with Peter Martyr, to maintain in public the Reformed faith. Cardinal Pole entered London on the 24th of Nov., 1554; Parliament soon after restored the Papal supremacy. Many Protestants, men, women and children, suffered at the stake.

Two significant events occur in this reign-the dispute at Frankfort about the Prayer Book, and in England about predestination. The conduct of Cox, and others, proved that English Churchmen, though free from state influence, loved their ritual, and the conduct of Bradford and others, in the discussion of predestination, proves that free-willers had as yet no locus standi in the Church.

AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN CHAPTER V.

No. 1.-" A declaration of the Reverend Father in God, Thomas Cranchallenge. mer, Archbishop of Canterbury, condemning the untrue and slanderous report of some, which have reported, that he should set up the mass at Canterbury, at the first coming of the Queen to her reign, 1553.

666

As the devil, Christ's ancient adversary, is a liar, and the father of lying, even so hath he stirred his servants and members to persecute Christ, and his true word and religion, which he ceaseth not to do most

*Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 958, vol. ii. ut supra.

+ Memorials of Cranmer, p. 503, vol. i. ut supra. The result is not known. Even Ridley's treatise on Predestination has been lost. No. 2.

MER'S

LENGE.

earnestly at this present, for whereas the most noble Prince of famous CRANmemory, King Henry VIII. seeing the great abuses of the Latin Masses, CHALreformed something herein in his time; and also our late Sovereign Lord King Edward VI. took the same whole away for the manifold errors and abuses thereof, and restored in the place thereof Christ's holy Supper, according to Christ's own institution, and as the apostles in the primitive Church used the same in the beginning; the devil goeth about, by lying to overthrow the Lord's holy Supper, and to restore the Latin satisfactory Masses, a thing of his own invention and device. And, to bring the same more easily to pass, some have abused the name of me, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, bruiting abroad that I have set up the Mass at Canterbury, and that I offered to say mass before the Queen's Highness, and at St. Paul's Church, and I wot not where. I have been well exercised these twenty years to suffer and bear evil reports and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, and have borne all things quietly; yet when untrue reports and lies turn to the hindrance of God's truth, they be in no wise to be tolerated and suffered. Wherefore, these be to signify to the world. that it was not I that did set up the mass at Canterbury, but it was a false, flattering, lying and dissembling monk which caused the mass to be set up there, without my advice or counsel.

66

And as for offering myself to say mass before the Queen's Highness, or in any other place, I never did, as her Grace knoweth well. But if her Grace will give me leave, I shall be ready to prove against all that will say the contrary; and that the Communion Book set forth by the most innocent and godly Prince, King Edward the VI. in his high Court of Parliament, is conformable to the order which our Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed, and which his apostles and primitive Church used many years. Whereas the mass in many things not only hath no foundation of Christ, his apostles, nor the primitive Church, but also is manifest contrary to the same, and containeth many horrible blasphemies in it. And although many, either unlearned or maliciously, do report that Mr. Peter Martyr is unlearned: yet if the Queen's Highness will grant thereunto, I with the said Mr. Peter Martyr, and other four or five, which I shall choose, will, by God's grace, take upon us to defend, that not only our Common Prayers of the Churches, ministration of the Sacraments, and other rites and covenants, but also that all the doctrine and religion by our said Sovereign Lord King Edward VI. is more pure and according to God's Word than any that hath been used in England these thousand years; so that God's Word may be the judge, and that the reason and proofs may be set out in writing. To the intent, as well all the world may examine and judge them, as that no man shall start back from their writing; and what faith hath been in the Church these fifteen hundred years, we will join with them in this point; and that the doctrine and usage is to be followed, which was in the Church fifteen hundred years past, and we shall prove that the order of the Church, set out at this present in this Church of England by Act of Parliament, is the same that was used in the Church

E

CHAP. V. fifteen hundred years past. And so shall they never be able to prove theirs."-Memorials of Cramner, p. 437. Oxford, 1812.

No. 2.-Philpot wrote to Careless, in which he said, "that he was sorry to hear of the great trouble which these schismatics did daily put him to, and wished that he were with him in part to release his grief."Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 504, vol. i. ut supra. Careless had taken a leading part in opposing the views of the Anti-Predestinarians. Laurence, Hardwick, and Browne refer to the following passage from Ridley in elucidation of his views on Predestination :-"In those matters, I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none otherwise than the text doth, as it were lead me by the hand." But this passage in itself shows that Ridley did not deny the doctrine of election to life.

1. Such caution would not be needed on the Arminian hypothesis. 2. The above passage is taken from a letter of Ridley to Bradford, who was the opponent of the free-willers, and the whole tone of the letter shows that Ridley agreed with Bradford.

3. Bishop Coverdale describes Ridley's treatise on predestination, to which he refers above, as "godly and comfortable," an observation which proves, as Goode observes, that "Ridley took, in the main, the same ground as Bradford on this subject, for there can be little doubt that Miles Coverdale would not otherwise have called it a godly and a comfortable treatise."

But the fact that Ridley noted many things for Ponet's Catechism, and gave his approval to it, is conclusive as to his views.*

* See Chap. VIII.

CHAP. VI.

HISTORY OF THE PRAYER BOOK IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH.

SION OF

WHEN the accession of Elizabeth to the throne was intimated ACCESto the Pope, he declared "that England was held in fee of the ELIZA"Apostolic see, that she (Elizabeth) could not succeed, being BETH. illegitimate, nor could he contradict the declarations made in "that matter by his predecessors, Clement the Seventh, and "Paul the Third. He said it was great boldness in her to 66 assume the crown without his consent; for which in reason "she deserved no favour at his hands; yet if she would renounce her pretensions, and refer herself wholly to him, he "would show a fatherly affection to her, and do everything for "her that could consist with the dignity of the Apostolic

66

tensions.

This did not concern the Queen, who had maintained her Elizabeth's disregard faithfulness to the Reformed faith under the most trying cirof the cumstances, and who now gave decisive indications of her Pope's preintentions. The prisoners for the Gospel were at once set at liberty, and the Queen directed that the Litany, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Gospels and Epistles should be read in English; she forbade the elevation of the Host. She issued an injunction on the 27th of December, forbidding any further changes until the meeting of Parliament, which was summoned for the 23rd of January.

soon abo

Parker, formerly chaplain to Anne Bullen, was chosen to fill the vacant see of Canterbury. Parliament soon proceeded to Papal abolish the Papal authority. The bill of supremacy was passed supremacy in the first session, in which it was provided that all in lished. authority, civil and ecclesiastical, should swear that they acknowledged the Queen to be "the supreme governor in all "causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal, within her dominions, "that they renounced all foreign power and jurisdiction, and "should bear the Queen faith and true allegiance."

The promptitude with which the Queen and Parliament renounced the Papal authority contrasted with the slowness of Mary in restoring it. Both Queens were equally attached to their respective principles; but, in the former instance, it is

* Burnet's Hist. Refor. p. 374, vol. ii. ut supra.