ePub 版




death and

heated to rage and distraction by some scandalous pamphlets, ELIZAmade his way privately towards the queen's apartment, assaulted one or two with his drawn sword, and being apprehended, confessed he intended to kill the queen. For this Dec, 16,

, treason, himself, one Edward Ardern, esq., of the same county ; Ardern's wife, their daughter, married to Somerville ; and one Hall, a priest, were arraigned at Guildhall, and brought in guilty. About three days after, Somerville dispatched himself in the prison ; Ardern was hanged, drawn, and quartered; the women and the priest were pardoned. This last is said to have drawn Ardern into the conspiracy, and afterwards turned evidence against him.

Cambden, This

year Nicholas Harpsfield died. He was bred in Win- Harpsfield's chester school, from thence removed to New-college, in Oxford,

writings. where he took the degree of doctor of law, and was afterwards archdeacon of Canterbury. In the reign of Edward VI. he quitted the kingdom, returned at that prince's death, and made a figure in the Church, under queen Mary. Soon after queen Elizabeth came to the crown, he was imprisoned for denying her supremacy. During his confinement he wrote his “ Ecclesiastical History” in Latin. By this book, it appears he was a man of learning, and a master of style. He wrote six dialogues, against the centuriators and Fox's

Martyrology,” in defence of the pope's supremacy, the “ Monastic Institution," the “ Worship of Saints and Images,” &c. They were published in the name of Allen Cope; for had not the author been concealed, he might have suffered in prison upon that score. He likewise wrote “ Historia Hæresis Wickliffianæ," and a treatise concerning marriage, occasioned by the divorce between king Henry VIII. and queen Katherine.

About this time, several Sussex ministers excepted to some Oxon. parts of the rubric, and were suspended; but afterwards disengaged from their scruples, as appears by a letter of Mr. Regist.

Whitgift, Aubry's in Whitgift's register.

pt. 1. The letter suggests—“ That upon the 6th of December, 1583, Samuel Norden, parson of Hamsey; William Hopkinson, vicar of Salehurst; Anthony Hopton, vicar of Leominster; Thomas Underdown, parson of St. Mary's, in Lewes; John Jermain, vicar of Burfsham; Richard Wheataker, vicar of Ambrilly ; John Bingham, preacher of Hadleigh ; and Tho




fol. 348.




mas Helye, preacher of Warbleton ; being suspended, ab Abp. Cant. officio, for refusing to subscribe the Book of Common Prayer,

appeared before the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London, Sarum, and Rochester ; and being demanded the reason of their non-conformity, their answer was, "That there were several passages in the rubric which they desired to be explained.'

“ The rubrics upon which they found their exceptions are these :

“ That in the latter end of the preface set before the Catechism in the Communion-book, there are these words :— And that no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation, he shall know for truth that it is certain by God's Word, that children being baptized, have all things necessary for salvation, and are undoubtedly saved. Upon which words they moved this doubt, whether by these words the book confirmed this opinion, that the sacrament of baptism did of itself confer grace, ' tanquam ex opere operato;' that is, whoever is baptized, must of necessity be saved ex opere operato,' though otherwise a hypocrite or infidel ?

6 Whereunto it was answered, that the book had no such meaning; and that by these words it only dissuaded from the opinion which the Papists had of their confirmation, called bishoping; which they believed to be necessary to salvation, and do think that children are not perfectly baptized until they be also bishopped ; and therefore they make confirmation a sacrament, and bring their children thereunto, being infants : whereas the Church of England has no such opinion thereof, but doth use it for this end specially, that children may know what their godfathers promised for them in their baptism, and also learn to perform the same; and likewise, that it may be known that the godfathers have performed their promise in seeing these children instructed as the book requires. And therefore that rubric contains nothing in it contrary to God's word, to the substance of religion now professed in the Church of England, as by law established, or to the analogy of faith. With which answer they were satisfied.

“The second doubt was of this rubric in the form of baptism, · Then the priest shall make a cross upon the child's forehead.' Here their question was, whether, by the crossing of the child, there was made an addition to the sacrament, as ELIZA

BETH. a part thereof, and as though baptism were imperfect without it? Whereunto it was answered, that the book had no such meaning: and that the crossing of the child was only a ceremony significant, and a profitable circumstance, according to the words expressed in the book. With which answer they were also contented.

“ The third doubt was of these words in the book of ordering deacons and priests, &c., “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' It was answered, that the bishop did not thereby look upon himself to give the Holy Ghost, but only instrumentaliter,' even as the minister gives baptism when he says, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' &c. Whereby he does not take upon him to be the author or giver of baptism, but the minister thereof only, as John the Baptist did, for Christ only is the giver of the Holy Ghost, and of baptism ; John and others are the ministers of the sacrament, and of the ceremony.

“ The words are Christ's words, used in the admitting of the apostles into the ministry, and therefore used by us in the like action, to signify that God, by our ministry and imposition of hands, as by his instruments, doth give his holy Spirit to all such as are rightly called to the ministry. With which answer they were likewise satisfied.

“ The last doubt was of baptizing by women ; whereunto it was answered, that the book did not name women when it spake of private baptism; and that their subscription was not required to anything that was not expressed in the book. Upon these answers given unto them by us, they did voluntarily, and without any protestation at all, subscribe to the three articles set down for all preachers and ministers to subscribe unto. And upon this satisfaction given, their suspensions were taken off.”

This year Nicholas Sanders died in Ireland. He was born 588. in Surrey, and educated in New-college in Oxford, where Sanders dies he was king's professor of canon-law. When the times turned His chaagainst his persuasion, he retired to Rome, where he was ordained priest, and commenced doctor of divinity. He attended cardinal Hosius to the council of Trent; and here, by disputing and making speeches, he raised himself a considerable character. At last he was sent nuncio into Ireland, which was looked on as a hazardous undertaking; and so it proved. For



de Schism.


His treason

upon the miscarrying of his treasonable practices he was forced Abp. Cant. to abscond in the woods and bogs, where here he perished with Pitt's de Il. hunger. This Sanders was a desperate rebel. His business lust. Angl

. in Ireland, as Rishton, who published his history, confesses, Scriptor.

was to raise the natives upon the government; or, to speak in Rishton's words, to comfort the afflicted Catholics who had

taken the field in defence of their religion. Cambden reports Angl. in that his portmanteau, found about him when dead, was Præfat.

stuffed with letters and harangues to animate the Irish in their revolt. And here, amongst other things, he gave them

great expectations of succours from the pope and the king of Cambden, Spain.

About three years before he wrote a flaming letter to the Roman Catholic lords and gentry of that kingdom. He expostulates sharply with them for not taking arms against the government, reproaches them with their allegiance to the queen, and plays all his rhetoric to push them to rebellion. To give the reader part of this pestilent discourse. He begins with a wretched perversion of a text of Scripture.

“Pardon me,” says he, “I beseech you, if upon just cause able letter to I use the same words to your honours, &c., which St. Paul nobility, fc. wrote to the Galatians : Who has bewitched ye, that ye

should not obey the truth?' For unless ye are bewitched, what makes ye fight for heresy against the true faith of Christ, for the devil against God, for tyrants that seize your estates, take away your lives, and damn your souls; against your brethren, who run the utmost hazards, spend their treasure and their blood to rescue you from these miseries? What can the meaning be, that you should undergo such fatigues, exhaust your fortunes, and risk soul and body, to so remarkable a degree; and all for a wicked woman? A woman blemished in her birth, and disregarding her Christianity. For which reasons, the vicar of Christ, her lawful judge, and yours too, has deprived her of her kingdom. All Catholic princes, after intolerable provocation, have abandoned her. Several English lords and gentlemen have drawn their swords against her. Do you not see she is likely to be left without issue either to reward her friends or take revenge upon her enemies? Is she not a scandal to the throne? And, therefore, can those be true friends to the crown who do not make it their business to displace her? Are you not sensible that the next Catholic


heir (for the pope will take care there shall be no other) must ELIZAreckon all those no better than traitors that spend their estates for a heretic against his title? How will you justify yourselves to the pope's lieutenant when he appears amongst you, (as he will do shortly) at the head of his holiness's forces, and those of other Catholic princes? You will then be charged with abetting heresy, and with supporting an heretical pretended queen against a public sentence of Christ's vicar. Can she, with her chimerical supremacy, take off the pope's excommunication, and absolve you from his curse? Her counterfeit supremacy,


say, which the devil instituted in Paradise when he made Eve Adam's mistress in God's matters. Is not the adhering to her interest the way to bring a blemish upon yourselves, and stain you with the suspicion of heresy and treason? And besides, if the Catholic heir lets loose the law upon you, your lives and estates are forfeited, and your families undone for ever.'

After this he puts them in mind that king Henry VIII., who first began the schism, was unhappy in his issue, and that his line was extinguished. He gives another instance in the misfortune of sir William Drury, who commanded in the field against the pope's general. And after having flourished a little upon the goodness of the cause, he intreats them to open their eyes in time, to honour the Divine Majesty more than heretics, “whom hitherto,” says he, “you have worshipped above God.” But through this last sentence there is a line struck, and therefore it may be the expression was thought somewhat too strong. His letter is dated Feb. 21, 1580. . Life of Abp. This Sanders was particularly busy in misleading the noble


Append. Fitzgerald, earl of Desmond ; helped to blow him up into num. 7. rebellion; and was principally instrumental in his ruin. To Cambden, conclude with him: he was almost as bad an historian as he was a subject; but, his falsehoods having been detected at large already, I shall refer the reader to that performance. See Bp. Bur

On the 7th of February, John Fen, George Haddock, John Ref. ApMunden, John Nutter, and Thomas Hemertford, were indicted pend. book 3.

pt.2. 1583-4. for high treason at Westminster, brought in guilty, and all executed to the rigour of the sentence. The crime they were tried for was their being made priests beyond sea by the pope's authority.

Annals. The Irish rebels being reduced, James Fitz-Eustace, vis


net's Hist.


« 上一頁繼續 »