AN. REG.2, 4th of February1. On the 9th day of which month another 1555. fire was kindled at Glocester for the burning of Mr John Burning of Hooper, the late Bishop thereof, of whom sufficient hath been Hooper. spoke in another place2; condemned amongst the rest at London, but appointed to be burnt in Glocester, as the place in which he most had sinned by sowing the seeds of false doctrine amongst the people3. The news whereof being brought unto him, he rejoiced exceedingly, in regard of that excellent opportunity which was thereby offered for giving testimony by his death to the truth of that doctrine which had so oft sounded in their ears, and now should be confirmed by the sight of their eyes. The warrant for whose burning was in these words following, as I find it in the famous library of Sir Robert Cotton1. 4 "WHEREAS John Hooper, who of late was called Bishop of Worcester and Glocester, is by due order of the laws ecclesiastical condemned and judged for a most obstinate, false3, detestable heretic, and committed to our secular power to be 21 burned, according to the wholesome and good laws of our realm in that case provided; forasmuch as in those cities and the dioceses thereof he hath in times past preached and taught most pestilent heresies and doctrine to our subjects there :- We have therefore given order, that the said Hooper, who yet persisteth obstinate, and hath refused' mercy when it was graciously offered, shall be put to execution in the said city of Glocester, for the example and terror of others, such as he hath there seduced and mis-taught, and because he hath done most harm there. And will that you, calling [un]to you some of reputation, dwelling in the shire, such as you think best, shall repair unto our said city, and be at the said execution, assisting our Mayor and Sheriffs of the same city in this behalf. And forasmuch [also] as the said Hooper is, as heretics 10 [be], a vainglorious person, and delighted in his tongue, to persuade such 1 Fox, vi. 591-612. 2 Sup. i. 189, seqq. 3 For Hooper, see Fox, vi. 636–676. 4 Cleop. E. v. 380. The text of this document, (which the editor has not met with elsewhere in print) has been corrected by the MS. 5 Edd. "false and." 7 Edd. "refuseth." 9 Edd. "your." "Edd. 1, 2, omit "the." 8"Edd. "that." 1555. as he hath seduced to persist in the miserable opinions that he AN.REG. 2, hath sown amongst them, our pleasure is therefore, and we require you to take order, that the said Hooper be neither at the time of his execution, nor in going to the place there[of], suffered to speak at large, but thither to be led quietly and in silence, for eschewing of further infection and such inconveniency as may otherwise ensue in this part. Whereof fail ye not, as ye tender our pleasure, &c." Farrar and 18. The like course was also taken with Bishop Farrar; Burning of but that I do not find him restrained from speaking his mind others. unto the people, as the other was. A man of an implausible nature, which rendered him the less agreeable to either side; cast into prison by the Protestant, and brought out to his death and martyrdom by the Popish party2. Being found in prison at the death of King Edward, he might have fared as well as any of his rank and order, who had no hand in the interposing for Queen Jane, if he had governed himself with that discretion, and given such fair and moderate answers, as any man in his condition might have honestly done3. But, being called before Bishop Gardiner, he behaved himself so proudly, and gave such offence, that he was sent back again to prison and after condemned for an obstinate heretic. But for the sentence of his condemnation he was sent into his own diocese, there to receive it at the hand of Morgan, who had supplanted and succeeded him in the See of St David's. Which cruel wretch, having already took possession, could conceive no way safer for his future establishment than by imbruing his hands in the blood of this learned prelate, and to make sure with him for ever claiming a restitution or coming in by a remitter to his former estate; in reference whereunto he passed sentence on him, caused him to be delivered to the civil magistrate, not desisting till he had brought him to the stake on the third of March-more glad to see him mounting unto heaven in a fiery 1 Edd. "inconveniences." 3 Godwin, Ann. 186. ខ Fuller, vii. 1-28. Sup. i. 253. 4"A restitution of one that hath two titles to lands or tenements, and is seized of them by his latter title, unto his title that is more ancient, in case where the latter is defective." (Johnson, from Cowell.) Edd. 1, 2. "nor." 1555. AN. REG. 2, chariot than once Elisha was on the like translation of the prophet Elijah1. I shall say nothing in this place of the death and martyrdom of Dr Rowland Taylor, rector of Hadley in the county of Hartford 2, and there also burned, February 9. Or of John Cardmaker, Chancellor of the Church of Wells, who suffered the like death in London on the last of May3. Or of Laurence Sanders, an excellent preacher, martyred at Coventry, where he had spent the greatest part of his ministry; who suffered in the same month also, but three weeks sooner than the other. Or of John Bradford, a right holy man and diligent preacher, condemned by Bonner, and brought unto the stake in Smithfield on the first of July; though he had deserved better of that bloody butcher, (but that no courtesy can oblige a cruel and ungrateful person) in saving the life of Doctor Bourn his chaplain, as before was shewed. Or, finally, of any of the rest of the noble army of the martyrs who fought the Lord's battles in those times; only I shall insist on three of the principal leaders, and take a short view of the rest in the general muster. 1 For Farrar, see Fox, vii. 3, seqq. 2 Hadleigh, in Suffolk. See Fox, vii. 676–703. 3 May 30. Fox, vii. 77, seqq. 5 Fox, vii. 143-285. Fox, vi. 612-636. Sup. p. 92. See Maitland, 455. 50 220 ANNO REGNI MAR. 3. ANNO DOM. 1555, 1556. AN. REG. 3, 1555. 1. BEING against Ridley, and EING resolved to waive the writing of a martyrology, Proceedings which is done already to my hand in the Acts and Cranmer, Monuments, I shall insist only upon three of the most eminent rank, that is to say, Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Latimer, and Bishop Ridley-men of renown, never to be forgotten in the Church of England. Of whom there hath so much been said in the course of this History, that nothing need be added more than the course of their sufferings. Committed to the Tower by several warrants and at several times, they were at once discharged from the Tower of London on the 10th of April1, anno 1554, removed from thence to Windsor, and at last to Oxon, where they were to combat for their lives. A combat not unlike to that of St Paul at Ephesus, where he is said to "fight with beasts after the manner of men2;" the disputation being managed so tumultuously with shouts and outcries, and so disorderly, without rule or modesty3, as might make it no unproper parallel to St Paul's encounter. The persons against whom they were to enter the lists were culled out of the ablest men of both Universities, commissionated to dispute, and authorized to sit as judges. And then what was to be expected by the three respondents, but that their opposites must have the better of the day, who could not be supposed to have so little care of their own reputation as to pass sentence on themselves? Out of the University of Oxon were selected Dr Weston, Prolocutor of the Convocation then in being, Dr Tresham, 1 Fox, vi. 439, who states that the order for their delivery was sent to the Tower on March 10th. Burnet says that the order was sent on the 8th of March, Pt. ш. b. v. p. 226; and Machyn in his Diary, p. 57, records the removal from the Tower on that day. See Maitland, 431; also Cranmer, ed. Park. Soc. Vol. ii. Pref. p. xi., where it is shewn that the removal of the Bishops took place before Easter, which fell on March 25th, according to Nicolas, Chronol. 67. 2 1 Cor. xv. 32. 3 Godwin, Ann. 177. AN. REG. 3, Dr Cole, Dr Oylthorp1, Dr Pie, Mr Harpsfield, and Mr 1555. Fecknam; with whom were joined by the Lord Chancellor Gardiner, (who had the nomination of them) Dr Young, Vice- 2. The questions upon which the disputants were to try their fortune related to the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, and were these that follow. 1. "Whether the natural body and blood of Christ be really in the Sacrament, after the words spoken by the priest, or no? 2. Whether in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, any other substance do remain than the substance of the body and blood of Christ? 3. Whether [in] the mass be a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead?" Which having been propounded in the convocation at Cambridge, and there concluded in such manner as had been generally maintained in the schools at Rome, the Vice-Chancellor and the rest of the disputants which came from thence could have no power to determine otherwise in the points, when they should come to sit as judges. Nor is it to be thought but that as well the Cambridge as the Oxon disputants came well prepared, studied and versed in those arguments on which they intended to insist; having withal the helps of books and of personal conference, together with all other advantages which might flatter them with the hopes of an easy victory. But on the other side, the three defendants had but two days of preparation allotted to them,—debarred of all access unto one another, not suffered to enjoy the use of their own books and papers, and kept in such uncomfortable places as were but little different from the common dungeons. But out they must to try their fortune, there being no other 1 Oglethorpe, afterwards Bishop of Carlisle. 2 Fox, vi. 439. But the lists are incorrect. There were, in fact three sets of disputants-Holyman, Tresham, Marshall, Morwent, Smith, and others, of Oxford; Young, Glyn, Atkinson, Watson, Scot, Langdale, and Sedgwick, of Cambridge; with Weston, Oglethorpe, Seton, Chedsey, Cole, Geffrey, Pye, Feckenham, and J. Harpsfield, as representatives of the Convocation. Strype's Cranmer, 335, folio ed. 3 The questions were agreed on by the Convocation which was sitting in London, and were then sent down to Cambridge, where they were adopted by the Senate, as agreeable to Catholic doctrine. Strype's Cranmer, 334, folio. Fox, vi. 439-40. |