1553.

the establishment of the Queen's estate, so did it tacitly and AN.REG.1, implicitly acknowledge the supremacy to be in the Pope of Rome, which could not be attained explicitly and in terms express, as affairs then stood. For since the marriage neither was nor could be reputed valid but by the dispensation of Pope Julius the Second, the declaration of the goodness and validity of it did consequently infer the Pope's authority, from which that dispensation issued. And therefore it was well observed by the author of the History of the Council of Trent1, that it 29 seemed ridiculous in the English nobility to oppose the resti199 tution of the Pope's supremacy, when it was propounded to

them by the Queen in the following session-considering that
the yielding to this demand was virtually contained in their as-
sent to the marriage. There also passed another Act, in which
there was a clause for the invalidating of all such commissions
as had been granted in the time of the late Queen Jane2; and
one in confirmation of the attainders of the late Duke of
Northumberland, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, &c.3
Which shews that there was somewhat in the said proceedings
not so clear in law but that there seemed a necessity of calling
in the legislative power to confirm the same, for the indemnity
of those who had acted in them.

tion, Oct. 6.

20. Together with this parliament the Queen was pleased A Convocato summon a convocation, to the end that all matters of religion might be first debated and concluded in a synodical way, before they were offered to the consideration of the other assembly. In the writ of which summons she retained the title of Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, &c.; the want whereof in those of the present parliament occasioned a dispute amongst some of the members, whether they might lawfully proceed or not in such public businesses as were to be propounded to them in that session 4. Archbishop Cranmer had been before impri"But," says Collier, "the reasoning of this author seems not conclusive. For the parliament might found their declaration upon Deuteronomy xxv. 5, and believe that King Henry VIII.'s marriage with Katherine of Spain stood upon the reason and equity of that law."-vi. 25.

1 Sarpi, 385.

2 Sup. 43.

31 Mar. Sess. ii. c. 16.

4 Selden, Titles of Honour. Works, ed. Wilkins, iii. 177, (quoting Dyer's Reports.) There is a curious note on this title in Gibson,

1553.

AN.REG.1, soned in the Tower of London, and was detained there all the time of this convocation, so that he could not do that service to God and the Church which his place required. This took1 for a sufficient ground to transfer the presidentship of the convocation upon Bonner, of London, privileged in respect of his see to preside in all such provincial synods which were either held during the vacancy of the see of Canterbury, or in the necessary absence of the Metropolitan2. The lower house of

Codex, 34. "It is alleged by my Lord Coke, (4 Inst. p. 344,) that the repeal [by 1, 2 Phil. and Mar. c. 8, of the act for ratification of the King's Majesty's style, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 3] is only a repeal of the treasons made and enacted by that statute, 'but,' as he adds, 'the style and title of the crown without question remaineth of force unrepealed." In the first year of Elizabeth the same question was raised, whether the omission of the title of Supreme Head did not invalidate the writs of summons. It was held that it did not ;-this decision, however, did not rest on a supposition of the invalidity of Henry's act, through that of Philip and Mary, but on the ground that the words of the statute were "only affirmative, and not negative, so as to make it a style of absolute necessity." After all, the statement in the text appears to be questionable. "Why," says Collier, "the Queen should use the title of Supreme Head in a writ to the convocation, and omit it in those for the parliament, is not easy to imagine. Besides, in the Statutes at Large, printed from the Parliament-Rolls by Cawood, the Queen's printer, the distinction of Supreme Head of the Church of England, &c. is added to the rest of the royal titles, both in the first and second sessions of this parliament."- -vi. 38. (It is so in the Statutes of the Realm, published by order of George III. Vol. iv. pp. 177, 179.) For Mary's dislike of the title, see Phillips, Life of Pole, ii. 57, quoting Pole's Epistles.

1 i. e. was taken.

2 "But this post was not annexed to the see of London by common right, but by the choice of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury: in case a convocation meets when the see of Canterbury happens to be void, the Prior and Convent formerly, but since the Reformation the Dean and Chapter, direct a commission to some Bishop to represent them: for, being beneath an episcopal character, they are unqualified to preside in person in the upper house: they commonly make the Bishop of London their representative upon such occasions; they have the liberty, notwithstanding, of pitching upon any other; and thus, in the convocation held in the year 1532, when the see of Canterbury was void by the death of Archbishop Warham, the Prior and Convent chose the Bishop of St Asaph for their commissioner, who, upon the strength of this representation, presided in the convocation. Farther, they are not tied to the nomination of a single Bishop, but may join

1553.

the Clergy also was fitted with a Prolocutor of the same affec- AN. REG. 1, tions; Dr Hugh Weston, then newly substituted Dean of Westminster in the place of Cox, being elected to that office1. On Wednesday, the 18th of October, it was signified by the Prolocutor that it was the Queen's pleasure that they of the house should debate of matters of religion, and proceed to the making of such constitutions as should be found necessary in that case. But there was no equality in number between the parties, and reason was of no authority where the major part had formerly resolved upon the points. So partially had the elections been returned from the several dioceses, that we find none of King Edward's Clergy amongst the clerks2; and such an alteration had been made in the Deans and dignitaries, that we find but six of that rank neither to have suffrage in it, that is to say, James Haddon, Dean of Exeter; Walter Philips, Dean of Rochester; John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester; John Elmer, Archdeacon of Stow, in the diocese of Lincoln; Richard Cheny, Archdeacon of Hereford3. One more I find, but without any name in the "Acts and Mon.," who joined himself to the other five in the disputation. Nor would the Prolocutor admit of more, though earnestly desired by Philpot that some of the divines which had the passing of the Book of Articles in King Edward's time might be associated with them in the defence thereof. Which motion he the rather made, because two or three in the instrument for this purpose: and thus it happened [in the first convocation under Elizabeth, (see below, Eliz. i. 20)], the Bishops of Worcester and Coventry being joined in commission with Bonner."-Collier, vi. 205. Comp. Cardwell, Synodalia, 496.

1 Fox, vi. 395.

2 i. e. the proctors for the capitular and parochial Clergy.

3 These are the persons mentioned as dissentient from the articles agreed on by the convocation concerning the Eucharistic Presence and Transubstantiation.-Wilkins, iv. 88. Philips recanted in the following year (ib. 94), but retained his preferment under Elizabeth.-Fox, vi. 398.

4 Thomas Young, precentor of St David's, preferred under Elizabeth to the bishoprick of St David's and the archbishoprick of York.— Burnet, II. 527. Pollanus, in his Latin translation of the "Disputation," observes that, though Young took no part in the argument, yet he was one of those who refused to subscribe the acts of the Synod.— N. in Philpot's Works, ed. Park. Soc. 171.

5 Fox, vi. 396, seqq. The disputation is also reprinted in Philpot's Works.

AN. REG. 1, one of the points proposed by the Prolocutor related to a cate1553. chism set forth in the said King's time, intituled to the said

Zealous proceedings of Bonner.

2

convocation in the year 1552. Of which it was to be inquired
whether or no it was the work of that convocation1. But that
matter being passed lightly over, the main point in debate con-
cerned the manner of Christ's presence in the blessed Sacra-
ment. It was not denied by Philpot and the rest of the pro-
testant party that Christ was present in his Sacrament, rightly
ministered according to his institution; but only that he was
not present after the gross and carnal manner which they of
the popish party had before subscribed to. Six days the dis-
putation lasted, but to little purpose; for on the one side it
was said by Weston and his associates that their adversaries
were sufficiently confuted, and all their arguments fully answered;
and on the other side it was affirmed by the divines of King
Edward's time, that neither any satisfaction had been given to 3
their arguments, nor that any right judgment could be made in
the points disputed, where the adverse party sat as judges in
their own concernments. Many checks had been given by
Weston to the six divines, but especially to the Archdeacon
of Winchester2; and there was much disorder otherwise in the
disputation (though certain great Lords were present at it)
which hindered it from producing any good effect: so that,
being weary at the last of their own confusions, it was thought
fit to put an end to the dispute. Which Weston did accord-
ingly in these following words-" It is not," saith he, "the
Queen's pleasure that we should spend any longer time in these
debates, and ye are well enough already. For you," saith he,
"have the word, and we have the swords." So powerful is the
truth-that many times it will find some means to vent itself
when we least intend it, and sometimes also when we most
labour to suppress it.

21. The parliament and convocation had thus concluded on the point, and little question would be made but that such Bishops as disliked the alterations in the time of King Edward

1 Sup. i. 257-8.

2 "Penultimo die Octobris Mag. Philpot propter ignorantiam, arrogantiam, insolentiam ac pertinacitatem ad disputandum non est ulterius admissus nisi in causis civilibus."-Registr. Lambeth. ap. Wilkins, iv. 88. 3 Holinshed, iv. 9.

1553.

will be sufficiently active in advancing the results of both. But AN.REG.1, Bonner will not stay long: he is resolved to go along with the parliament, if not before it. For after the ending of the Evensong on St Katherine's day, before the consultations of the parliament had been confirmed by the royal assent, he caused the quire of St Paul's to go about the steeple, singing with lights after the old custom1. And on St Andrew's day next following he began the procession in Latin himself, with many parsons and curates and the whole quire, together with the Lord Mayor and divers of the Aldermen, the Prebendaries of the church attired in their old gray amises (as they used to call them); in which manner they continued it for three days after3. In setting up the mass with all the pomps and rites thereof at the time appointed, it is not to be thought that he could be backward who shewed himself so forward in the rest of his actings. And therefore it can be no news to hear that, on the 14th of January, he restored the solemn Sundays-procession about the church, with the Mayor and Aldermen in their cloaks; the Preacher taking his benediction in the midst of the church, according to the ancient custom; or that he should send out his mandates to all Parsons and Curates within his diocese, for taking the names of all such as would not come the Lent following to auricular confession, and receive at Easters: or, finally, that he should issue out the like commands to all Priests and Curates which lived within the compass of his jurisdiction, for the abolishing of such paintings and sentences of holy Scripture as had been pencilled on the church-walls in King Edward's days". He knew full well, that as the actions of the mother church would easily become exemplary to the rest of the city, so the proceedings of that city and the parts about it would in time give the law to the rest of the kingdom;

1 Nov. 25.-Strype, Eccl. Mem. iii. 52. Machyn, 49. 2 Edd. 1, 2, "Prebends."

3 Fox, vi. 413.

4 i. e. the Bishop's. See Gavanti, Thes. Sacr. Rit. i. 209, ed. Aug. Vindel. 1763.

5 Fox, vi. 426.

The texts had

6 Oct. 25, 1554.-Fox, vi. 565; Wilkins, iv. 108. been chosen with a controversial intention, as is declared in Bonner's order. Stow, relating the pulling down of images in the preceding reign, adds that "texts of scriptures were written on the walls of the churches, against images."-Chron. 595.