we may be obliged to have shaven crowns, and to make use of oil, spittle, cream, and all other papistical additions to the ordinances of Christ.” Humphrey and Sampson having thus openly and fully delivered their opinions, a pacific proposition was drawn up, which they both subscribed, with the reserve of the apostle, All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful, but all things edify not. Upon this, it seems, they were both released. Dr. Humphrey, about the same time, wrote a very excellent letter to the queen, in which he addressed her majesty as follows:-“Kings being kindled with zeal for the house of God, “ have removed all the relics of superstition; so that no “token thereof remained. This form and pattern of “reformation is then perfect, when there is no blemish in “the face, and when, in religion and ceremonies, nothing “ is taken from the enemies of the truth. You know, that in “things indifferent, especially those which are it contro“versy, it is lawful for every man, without prejudice to “others, to have his full persuasion, and that the con“science ought not in any case to be bound. That the “matter which we handle is agreeable to religion and “equity, I think there is no man that doubteth. Seeing, “ therefore, the thing which we request is honest, and “ that which is commanded is doubtful; and they who make “the request, are your most loving and obedient subjects, “ and ministers of the word, why should your mercy, O “ queen which is usually open for all, be shut up from “us * You being the prince will not give place to your “subjects; yet being merciful, you may spare them who “ are in misery. You will not disannul a public decree; “yet you may mitigate it. You cannot abolish a law; “yet you may grant a toleration. It is not meet you “should follow every man's affections; yet it is most right “ and convenient, that the mind and conscience be not “ forced. “We do not go about, O most gracious queen, to bear “ rule, who ought to be subjects; but we would that reason, “ the queen of queens, should rule, and that the humble “entreaty of the ministers of Christ, might obtain that which “religion commandeth. Wherefore, O most noble prince, “I do in most humble sort, request and earnestly desire, “that your majesty would seriously and attentively consider

[ocr errors]

“ the majesty of the glorious gospel, the equity of the cause, “ the small number of workmen, the greatness of the “ harvest, the multitude of tares, the grievousness of the “ punishment, the lightness of the fault, the sighs of the “good, the triumphs of the wicked, and the mischiefs of “ the times.” By using these urgent endeavours, and having many friends at court, he, at length, obtained a connivance and a toleration. Dr. Humphrey having procured his liberty, the Bishop of Winchester presented to him a small living, in the diocese of Salisbury, but Bishop Jewel, his professed friend, and intimate acquaintance, refused to admit him; and protested he never would admit him, till he obtained some good assurance of his conformity. Jewel's great objection against admitting him, was his nonconformity; upon which, said he, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace; and diversity in the worship of God, is deformity, and a sufficient cause of deprivation.” Dr. Humphrey, in a letter to the bishop, dated December 20, 1565, replied, “That his lordship's objection had but little ground to rest upon.—That he never was the author of confusion.—That he had ever lived in peace and concord with his brethren, and in due obedience to his superiors, and, by the grace of God, was still resolved so to do.— And that if diversity in outward ceremonies be deformity, if it be any confusion, if it be a sufficient cause of deprivation, if conformity be a necessary part of the ministry; if all this came not from the pope,” said he, “ and if it existed before popery, then I am much deceived. But whatever he called it, whether order or disorder, it was of very little consequence. He assured his lordship, that he did not mean to innovate, nor to violate their ecclesiastical ordinances.” Though he had obtained the patronage of his grace of Winchester, and the favour of the archbishop, and the benefice was only very small, Jewel seems to have . remained inflexible;f for it does not appear that he was admitted.'

* Baker's MS. Collec. vol. vi. p. 353,354.
+ M.S. Register, p. 873.−Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 421.

# Strype's Parker, p. 185, 186.

§ Though Bishop Jewel was a zealous churchman, he was of a different spirit from many of his brethren. In a letter dated May 22, 1559, he wrote, “that the Queen (Elizabeth) refused to be called Head of the Church; and adds, that title could not be justly given to any mortal, it being due only to Christ; and that such titles had been so much abused by antichrist, that they ought not to be any longer continued.”—Simpson's Plea for Religion, p. 146. Edit. 1810.

WOL. I. 2 B

Upon the publication of the advertisements, for enforcing a more strict conformity, Dr. Humphrey wrote to Secretary Cecil, earnestly desiring him to use all his influence towards stopping their execution. In this letter, dated April 23, 1566, he says, “I am sorry that the old sore is broken out again, to the calamity of many, and to the wonder and sorrow of all. The cause is not so good, in my poor opinion, as it is represented. The trouble is greater than we imagine. The inhibition of preaching; how strange and lamentable ! The cries of numbers awaken the pity of God and man. The book of advertisements contains many things, which, on many accounts, are much disliked by wise men. The execution of it, which has hitherto been vehement, has so agitated and spoiled all. I humbly request you to a means with the queen's majesty, to put a stop to the execution of it, and that the book may sleep in silence. The people in these days, require other kind of advertisements. We stand in need of unity and concord; but these advertisements have produced greater variety and discord than was ever known before. f. your wisdom and goodness, I refer all.” About the same time, he wrote a very warm and affectionate letter to the bishops, boldly expostulating with them about their corrupt and unchristian proceedings. He says, “The gospel requireth Christ to be openly preached, professed, and glorified; but, alas! a "man qualified with inward gifts, for want of outward shews in matters of ceremony, is punished: and a man only outwardly conformable, and inwardly unfurnished, is exalted. The preacher, for his labour, is beaten; the unpreaching prelate offending, goes free. The learned man without his cap, is afflicted: the man with his cap is not touched. Is not this a direct breach of God's laws 7 Is not this the way of the pharisees 2 Is not this to wash the outside of the cup, and leave the inside uncleansed ? Is not this to prefer mint and annis, to faith, and judgment, and mercy 2 Is not this preferring man's traditions before the ordinance of God? Is not this a sore disorder in the school of Christ 2–Charity, my lords, would first have taught us, equity would first have spared us, brotherly-kindness would have warned us, pity would have pardoned us, if we had been found transgressors. God is my witness, that I think honourably of your lordships, osteeming you as brethren, reverencing you as lords and masters of the congregation. Alas then why have you not some good opinion of us : . Why do you trust known adversaries, and distrust your brethren : We confess one faith of Jesus; we preach one doctrine; we acknowledge one ruler upon earth : in all these things we are of your. judgment. "Shall we be used thus then for the sake of a surplice Shall brethren persecute brethren for a forked cap, devised for singularity by our enemy Shall we fight for the pope's coat, now that his head and his body. are banished out of the land 2 Shall the labourers, for lack of this furniture, lack their wages, and the church their preaching? Shall we not teach Shall we not exercise our talents as God hath commanded ?. My lords, before this take place, consider the cause of the church; the triumphs of antichrist; the of. of Satan; and the sighing, sorrowing, and misery of your fellow-creatures.” > In July 1566, Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Sampson wrote to Bullinger at Zurich, j him a particular account of their opinions and nonconformity. “We do not think,” say they, “that prescribing the habits is merely a civil thing. And how can that habit be thought decent, which was brought in to dress up the theatrical pomp of popery : The papists glory in this our imitation of them. "We approve of rules to promote order, but this ought not to be o to those things which destroy the peace of the church, and which are neither necessary, nor useful; and that tend not to any edification, but only to recommend those forms which most persons abhor. The papists glory in this, that these habits were brought in by them; for the proof of which, they vouch Otho's constitutions and the Roman pontifical. - “In King Edward's time, the surplice was not universally used, nor pressed upon the clergy, and the copes then taken away, are now restored. . This is not to extirpate popery, but to P. it again; and instead of going forwards in the work of reformation, is going backwards. We do not make religion to consist in habits; but only oppose those who do. We hate contention, and are ever ready to enter into a friendly conference about this matter. We do not desert our churches, and leave them exposed to wolves, but, to our great grief, are driven from them. And we leave our brethren (meaning those who conformed) to stand or fall to their own master, and desire the same favourable

* Strype's Parker, p. 217.

* Ames's Fresh Suit, part ii. p. 269–272.

forbearance from them. All that is pretended is, that the habits are not unlawful. But they ought not to be taken from our enemics. “We are far,” say they, “from any design of making a schism, or of quarrelling. We will not condemn things indifferent, as unlawful. We wish the occasion of the contention removed, and the remembrance of it for ever buried. They who condemn the papal pride, cannot like tyranny in a free church. The doctrine of our church is now pure, and why should there be any defect in our worship should we borrow any thing from popery : Why should we not agree in rites, as well as in doctrine, with the other reformed churches : . We have a good opinion of our bishops, and bear with their state and pomp. We once bore the same cross with them, and preached the same Christ with them; why then are we now turned out of our benefices, and some cast into prison, only about the habits 2 We pray that God may quiet these dissentions, and send forth more labourers into his vineyard.” “But the dispute,” say they, “is not about the cap and surplice. There are other grievances which ought to be redressed, or dispensed with: as music and organs in divine worship.–The sponsors in baptism answering in the name of the child.—The cross in baptism.—Kneeling at the sacrament, and the use of unleavened bread.—The want of discipline in the church.-The marriage of the clergy is not legitimate, but their children are looked upon as bastards.o: is not to be performed without a ring.—Women are not to be churched without a veil.—The court of faculties; pluralities; licenses for nonresidences, for eating flesh in Lent, &c.—Ministers have not free liberty to preach, without subscribing to the use and approbation of all the ceremonies.”4 During the above year, Queen Elizabeth paid her pompous visit to the university of Oxford, on which occasion our author distinguished himself in a public disputation before her majesty. Every day the queen was entertained with academical exercises of different kinds; in which the wits of the ablest men in that age, were stretched to the utmost, to merit the applause of so illustrious an audience. The queen, together with her train of courtiers, was present at a divinity act, in which Dr. Humphrey was defendant; and Drs. Godwin, Westphaling, Overton, Calfchill, and

* Burnet's Hist. of Refor. vol. iii. p. 310–312. + Ibid. Records, p. 335.

« 上一頁繼續 »