ANNALS OF THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION,
III. The queen’s majesty’s injunctions, and formal letters patents
IV. The letters of the lords of the privy council.
V. The metropolitan his injunctions and articles.
VI. The articles and mandates of his bishop.
VII. The articles and mandates of Mr. Archdeacon.
VIII. The mandates of chancellors or commissaries, sompners, receivers, &c.
IX. The comptrolment of all men with patience.
The other paper sheweth the state of a parish. To every parish belongeth, I. A parson, or vicar, or both, or a curate under him.
II. A clerk, to read, write, sing, and say.
III. A sexton, to sweep the church, shut the doors, &c.
IV. Two churchwardens to gather money, and order matters for reparation.
V. four or eight jurats for offences given and taken. [These seem to be a kind of censors or spies upon the manners of priest and people.]
VI. Two collectors, to gather for the poor, and alms pro hospitio Christi. [Probably for Christ’s hospital in London.]
VII. An assistance, being thirteen persons, to consist of such only as had before been churchwardens and constables.
VIII. A vestry, of the whole parish, being a public assembly of all, young and old.
IX. Two constables for the peace, both of the church and parish. But now let us return, and see what was further done about the habits.
Among those that were sent for up before the commissioners at Lambeth, as refusers to wear the habits, were two very eminent men of Oxford, Sampson and Humfrey, heads of the chief colleges, the one of Christ’s church, the other of St. Magdalen’s. They appeared about the beginning of March, together with some London ministers. The archbishop then
persuaded them to comply, urging the queen’s letters, and the great inconvenience of these varieties: and withal he shewed them the judgment of two great learned foreigners for wearing of these habits, viz. Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr: both whose letters may be read in Dr. Whitgift’s Defence. But all could not prevail: for upon their next appearance they remained immovable in their opinion. They wrote also a letter to the commissioners, shewing their reasons of their refusal; and so earnestly petitioning to be dismissed, and that they might go home to their charges.
But they were forced still to wait on the commissioners; till in fine they were told by the archbishop, that they must depart their places.
While they thus stood out, Horn, bishop of Winchester, notwithstanding, presented Humfrey (whether by that way to persuade him to conform, I know not) to a living in the diocese of Sarum. But Jewel, the bishop, would not admit him. And on this occasion wrote to the archbishop a letter about it, dated December 22, 1565; “That in respect of his vain contention about apparel, he thought best to make a stay, till he understood his grace’s pleasure: and that unless he should otherwise advise him by his letter, he minded not in any wise to receive him: adding, that his long sufferance bred great offence.” For Humfrey was connived at for a good while, till he at last consented. But Sampson was deprived this year, and succeeded by Tho. Godwin, D. D. of Magdalen college, in June, 1565.
But Sampson’s judgment in king Edward’s days differed from his present judgment; as may appear in his epistle to the professors of Christ’s gospel, the parishioners of Al-hallows, Bread-street, London, where he was once pastor, wrote from Strasburgh, the year after his flight out of England:
exhorting them in that epistle (among many other good admonitions) to submit to the ceremonies; which they were with humbleness to receive. But his converse, now he was abroad, with Calvin, and some other reformers, changed his judgment. For in his foresaid epistle these are his words and counsel:
“As for traditions, customs, and (by and for the order of the church) ceremonies received and used, which be not matters of faith, they may be admitted and altered at the discretion of them that have the rule of the church under Christ, according to the necessity of the time and the disposition of the people: so that in them be nothing else but true edifying to unfeigned godliness: and such are of the people with humbleness to be received.”
By which it seems he meant to direct these pious men to distinguish the ceremonies of the church reformed under the late king Edward from those that were required under the then reigning queen Mary. The former he recommended to them; the latter he forewarned them against.
But we have several things more to say concerning this controversy with these two learned men. Which will considerably unfold this history of the habits; a matter that long after kept up disturbance in this church.
CHAPTER 42.
Several letters between Sampson and Humfrey, and Bullinger and Gualter, divines in Zurick, about the habits. Fifteen questions propounded concerning them. Horn, bishop of Winchester, writes to those foreigners upon the same argument. Their answers.
Humfrey writes to the queen.
THE, archbishop, as was said before, had urged against them the judgment of two foreign divines of great note, viz. Bucer and Martyr. In like manner, that they on the other hand might leave no stone unturned, no means unused, they laboured to obtain on their side the judgment of two other foreigners, of great note also. And for that purpose both of them wrote distinct letters not long after, viz. in the year 1565, to Bullinger and Gualter, the chief pastors of the church of Zurick in Switzerland; with whom they had formerly been acquainted when they were exiles: thinking to gain under their hands their disallowance of these habits; and hoping that they, being persons of very reverend esteem with many of our bishops, would interpose their letters and supplications to them, to forbear their present proceedings.
Several letters passed to and fro, writ by these learned men upon this argument, in the years 1565 and 1566. In the month of August, 1565, Gualter sent them his mind and opinion at large. Which was to this tenor:
“That as he was troubled to hear of the queen’s ordinance for wearing the cap and surplice, considering the need there was of reformation of other things; so on the contrary he could not advise ministers to give over their office because of it; to prevent papists and Lutherans from coming into their places: who might bring into the church many abominable and idolatrous ceremonies and false doctrines. His opinion therefore was, that they should first make their humble suit to the queen, declaring their mind in this matter:
and if they found she would not condescend to them, then to strive no longer against it, but to take upon them this order; withal
protesting, that they did it in pure obedience to the queen’s majesty, and not that any should, upon account of this clothing, have the sacrament in any more reverence, or seek salvation therein. And he hoped in time it would be laid aside. He said, these habits might be
counted indifferent things; as circumcision was to Paul. But if the meaning of them should be, that preachers should behave
themselves as members of the Romish church, it were better to suffer death, than to administer any such occasion. And that,
because some Lutherans probably had put the queen upon enjoining this, therefore they should have the more consideration, and use discretion, lest her majesty should be clean drawn away from the protestant doctrine and religion. That it was not unknown to him, how the Lutheran divines did rail upon them, and say, they were a people without understanding, despising the sacrament, and not regarding rulers. The which sayings they must prove to be lies by their deeds.”
One of these two, Sampson I suppose, writ again to Gualter, August 28, concerning the same subject. To which he returned answer November 3, following. Therein he said,
“It was not needful to be troubled any more about it. And that he could hitherto find none otherwise by himself, than that no man for outward things, that do not touch or trouble the conscience, shall leave his office in the ministry, and give place to open wolves, that shall tear and devour the poor sheep, [meaning by the wolves, the papists or Lutherans.] And that it was not good, for such causes, to let the church come into confusion, whence might arise great persecutions to the good Christian. Especially considering it was openly set forth, in the queen’s commandments and ordinances, that the same clothing was not for any holiness, or for conscience sake, but only for a certain difference, to be had and used, between the ministers of the church and the common people.”
The 10th of November, Sampson, or Humfrey, wrote again to the said learned man; informing him that several of the bishops had been satisfied with what he had writ concerning his mind and opinion, that, it seems, were not satisfied before; not so much, I suppose, to use the apparel themselves, as to press others thereunto; but that some were yet
unsatisfied: he desired also, that Gualter would appoint this question to be brought into their schools. To this he gave his answer in March following.
Wherein he declined the discussing this controversy in the schools, saying,
“It was not their use or custom to dispute such things. And in his judgment it needed not much disputation, if men would with
earnest minds look to the matter that might be most for edifying:
and that no man of self-will should forsake his charge and people, that he thereby make not an entrance for a more wicked thing.”
As for Bullinger, he also wrote his letters to Sampson to the same purport;
and soon after to Humphrey briefly and closely. The brevity whereof Humphrey in his next letter complained of to him, as though he had not thoroughly understood the case, or had answered it too slightly. To which, in another letter, dated in May 1566, to both of them, (for I will lay these things together, though they belong to the following year,) Bullinger replied, “That he was so short, because he saw not then, nor yet
afterwards, any reason to be more copious. For he found he was able in few words to give answer to the question the other had asked him, which was only, what he thought of the controversy of the habits. And moreover, because he knew that the matter had been excellently well despatched before by a very able divine, viz. Peter Martyr; who, both at Oxford, and there at Zurick, had often more largely delivered his sense upon this argument.” To whom he referred them, for he had nothing more to add.
They had propounded the question in such ambiguous terms, that Bullinger at first seemed to have mistook the garments; and thought they were enjoined to wear a popish habit, used by priests when they said mass.
Which caused him thus to distinguish, “That he never should approve of it, if the command were to execute the ministry at the altar, with the image of a crucifix on it, and in a mass garment: that is, in alba et casula, i.e. in an albe, and another vesture over that, which on the back bore the image of the crucifix.” But by other letters from England he understood there was no contention about such a garment; and that the question was, (and so propounded, I suppose, by Horne, bishop of Winton, who had written to him also about this matter,) whether gospel ministers might wear a round cap, or a square, and a white garment, called a surplice; whereby a minister, so habited, might be discerned from the laity: and whether one ought sooner to forsake the ministry, and his sacred station, than to wear these garments.
To urge the learned man to declare his mind more largely and distinctly in these controversies, Sampson and Humphrey, in their second letters, propounded divers particular queries to him, desiring his solution of them:
some given by Humphrey, more by Sampson. All which were as follow:
I. An debeant ecclesiasticis leges praescribi vestiarioe, ut iis distinguantur a laicis?
II. An ceremonialis cultus Levitici sacerdotii sit revocandus in ecclesiam?
III. An vestitu cum papistis communicare liceat?
IV. An qui libertate sua hactenus acquieverunt, vi edicti regii, hac servitute implicare se, salva conscientia, possint
V. An vestitus clericalis sit res indifferens? These were Humphrey’s questions. To which, after Bullinger had answered, he proceeded to answer those of Sampson. Which were these following:
VI. An vestitus peculiaris, a laicis distinctus, ministris ecclesiae unquam fuerit constitutus: an et hodie in reformata ecclesia debeat constitui?
VII. An vestiure praescriptio congruat cum Christiana libertate?
VIII. An ullae ceremoniae novae, praeter expressum praescriptum verbi Dei, cumulari possunt?
IX. An ritus Judaeorum antiquatos revocare, religionique idololatrarum proprie dicatos, in usus reformatarum ecclesiarum liceat ferre?
X. An conformatio in ceremoniis necessario sit exigenda?
XI. An ceremoniae cum a perto scandalo conjunctae retineri possint?
XII. An ullae constitutiones ferendae in ecclesia, quae natura sua impiae quidem non sunt, sed tamen ad aedificationem nihil faciunt?
XIII. An quicquam ecclesiis a principe praescribendum in ceremoniis, sine libero consensu et voluntate ecclesiasticorum?
XIV. An consultius ecclesiae, sic inservire, an propterea ecclesiastico munere ejici?
XV. An boni pastores jure, ob hujusmodi ceremonias neglectas, a ministerio removeri possunt?
To all these questions this reverend man, at length in May 1566, gave brief, but very proper and clear answers; all of them in favour of conformity. And that partly out of the obligation of obedience to the magistrates’ commands in things indifferent, and partly to avoid being rejected from the ministry of the gospel, lest wolves, or unfit persons, should succeed them. But he did not like that matters should be thus nicely wiredrawn into a multitude of questions, and to be intangled with more knots than needed. The good man concluded,
“That he would neither urge nor ensnare any man’s conscience, and left what he said to be examined. He admonished, that no man should frame a conscience to himself ejk filoneiki>a| out of a love of contention; and exhorted all by Jesus Christ, the Saviour, head and king of his church, that every one would honestly weigh with himself, by whether of the two he should more edify the church, either for order-sake to use the garments, as an indifferent thing, and as making for concord, and the profit of the church; or for the sake of garments to forsake the church, and to leave it to be seized upon by wolves, or at least very unfit and evil ministers.”
And all this he wrote in his own and Gualter’s name; as Gualter had before made his to be Bullinger’s sense, as well as his own. This letter well deserves reading; and therefore I have placed it in my Repository.
This letter was so considerable, that I find Whitgift using a passage out of it against Cartwright, to prove that the distinction of apparel was appointed for ministers before the pope’s tyranny; which Cartwright would not allow of, and therefore questioned whether in these days it ought to be enjoined in the reformed churches. The said passage consisted of quotations out of certain ancient ecclesiastical authors, which mentioned a particular fashion used by priests in those days, as the pallium, and the white garment in their ministration; and St. Cyprian had his birrhus, and his dalmatica, his cap, and his garment with long sleeves: and John the apostle, before him, his petalum, i.e. a thin plate, like to a bishop’s mitre. For which allegations, when Cartwright had reflected somewhat severely upon Bullinger, either as to his integrity or understanding, using these words; “That a man would hardly believe that master Bullinger should use these places to prove a distinction of apparel among the ministers;” it may be worth reading Whitgift’s vindication of the said learned man in this matter.
And thus we have given a large account of the application of the two leading dissenters here to those two eminent divines of the church of Zurick. And as they had made their epistolary addresses, so some of the bishops also in the commission thought it not unadviseable to write for the judgment of these very men upon the same subject, that they might
proceed in this matter with as fair a correspondence as might be with other reformed churches. For Horne, bishop of Winchester, in the name, as I judge, of the rest, writ both to Gualter and Bullinger: and each returned their distinct answers this year.
In Horne’s letter to Gualter, dated from Farnham, July 17, 1565, he signified,
“That when the law was made for wearing the square cap and surplice, it was inserted expressly, that they were to be worn without any opinion of superstition. And that at the time it was enacted, they themselves were no bishops, and had therefore no authority of making or abrogating laws. And being then enjoined, there was no dispensing with it. And that for their parts they did use them, that the adversaries might not enter upon the Christian function, which they would, if they should desert it. And he added, that he hoped surely, the next parliament, part of this act would be repealed. He grieved at these contentions, considering how the papists made a great clamour upon occasion of this controversy, triumphing (said he) against us, that there is not that agreement in faith amongst us that is pretended; and that we are driven into different parties, and stand not in one opinion. The bishop also desired this learned man’s judgment, that in case they could not prevail the next parliament to repeal that part of the act about the garments, whether they should leave the ministry, or continue still in it, that they might thereby keep out the adversaries of the church.
And whether they might do it with a safe conscience. And that it was at present their judgment here, that they ought however to abide in their ministerial function.”
This is the sum of bishop Horne’s letter; but he that is pleased to read it may have it in the Appendix.
Gualter wrote an answer to this reverend father November the 3d; (at the same time he had wrote to Sampson;) wherein, as he delivered his
judgment to be, that the ministers ought to give their consent to the