for refusing to wear the popish habits. Accordingly, March 3, 1564, both Humphrey and Sampson, with four other divines, were cited before Archbishop Parker and his colleagues, at Lambeth. Upon their appearance, the archbishop urged the opinions of foreign divines: as, Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, with the view of bringing them to conformity. This, indeed, proved ineffectual; for their judgments remained unconvinced. They requested that they might be dismissed, and return to their usual exercises at Oxford; but this the archbishop refused, intending to bring them before the council. After attendance for some time, they prepared supplication, in a very elegant, but submissive style, which they presented to the Archbishop, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, and Lincoln, and other commissioners. In this supplication, they protested before God, how great a grief it was to them, that there should be any dissention about so small a matter as woollen and linen, as they styled the cap and surplice. But it comforted them, that, under Christ, the captain of salvation, they all professed the same gospel, and the same faith; and that in the matter of habits, each party followed the dictates of their own minds, where there was often room for liberty, and always for charity. They alleged the authorities of Augustin, Socrates, and Theodoret, to shew that in their times, there was a variety of rites and observances in the churches, yet unity and concord. They had many and powerful reasons for this address: as, "That their consciences were tender, and ought not to be grieved.-That they were not turbulent, nor obstinate, nor did they study novelty, nor refuse to be convinced, nor attempt to disturb the peace of the church. That they were certain, that things in themselves indifferent, did not always appear indifferent, even to persons of a tender conscience.-And that the law for restoring the ceremonies of the Romish church, was connected with bondage and superstition." They also added, "Because these things do not seem so to you, you are not to be condemned by us; and because they do seem so to us, we ought not to be condemned by you." They beseech their lordships, therefore, that if there be any fellowship in Christ, they would follow the direction of divine inspiration, about things in their own nature indifferent," that every one might be persuaded in his own mind.”* They wrote, also, to the Earl of Leicester, but all to no * Strype's Parker, p. 162, 163. : purpose. They could not procure their release; but were obliged to continue their attendance. The commissioners themselves were very much divided in their opinions. Some wished to have their reasons answered, and the habits enforced others were for a connivance. But the archbishop, who was at the head of the commission, would abate nothing. For April 29th, he peremptorily declared in open court, That they should conform to wear the square cap and no hats, in their long gowns; to wear the surplice with non-regent's hoods in the choirs, according to ancient custom; and to communicate kneeling, with wafer bread; or immediately part with their preferment." To this they replied, that their consciences would not suffer them to comply, whatever might be the consequences. Upon this, they were still kept under confinement; but the storm fell chiefly upon Dr. Sampson.+ In one of their examinations, during this year, the archbishop put the following questions to them, to which they gave the answers subjoined. Question. Is the surplice a thing evil and wicked, or is it indifferent? Answer. Though the surplice in substance be indifferent, yet in the present circumstance it is not, being of the same nature as the garment of an harlot, or the apparel of idolatry; for which God, by the prophet, threatens to visit the people. Q. If it be not indifferent, for what cause A. Because things consecrated to idolatry are not indif ferent. Q. May the bishop detesting popery, enjoin the surplice to be worn, and enforce his injunctions? A. It may be said to such a one, in the words of Tertullian, "If thou hatest the pomp and pageantry of the devil, whatsoever of it thou meddlest with, is idolatry." Which, if he believe, he will not enforce. Q. Is the cope a thing indifferent, being prescribed by law for decency and reverence, and not in respect of superstition or holiness? A. Decency is not promoted by a cope, which was devised to deface the sacrament. St. Jerome says, "That the gold, ordained by God for the reverence and decency of the Jewish temple, is not fit to be admitted to beautify the church of Christ;" and if so, how much less copes brought Strype's Parker, p. 164. + See Art. Sampson. în by papists, and continued in their service as proper ornaments of their religion. Q. May any thing that is indifferent be enjoined as godly, for the use of the common prayer and sacraments ? A. If it be merely indifferent, as time, place, and such necessary circumstances of divine worship, for which there may be ground brought from scripture, we think it may. Q. May the civil magistrate constitute by law, an abstinence from meats on certain days? A. If it be sufficiently guarded against superstition, he may appoint it, due regard being had to persons and times. Q. May a law be enacted to make a difference in the apparel of ministers from laymen ? A. Whether such prescription to a minister of the gospel of Christ be lawful, may be doubted; because no such thing is decreed in the New Testament. Nor did the primitive church appoint any such thing, but chose rather to have their ministers distinguished from the laity by their doctrine, not by their vestments. Q. Ought the ministers going in popish apparel, to be condemned for so doing? A. We judge no man. To his own master he standeth or falleth. Q. Ought such preachers to be reformed or restrained, or not? A. Irenæus will not have brethren restrained from brotherly communion, for diversity in ceremonies, provided there be unity of faith and charity; and it is desirable to have the like charitable permission among us. To these answers, they subjoined several additional arguments against wearing and imposing the habits: as, "Apparel ought not to be worn, as meat ought not to be eaten; but according to St. Paul, meat offered to idols ought not to be eaten, therefore popish apparel ought not to be worn. We ought not to give offence in matters of mere indifference; therefore the bishops who are of this opinion, ought not to enforce the habits.-Popish garments have many superstitious mystical significations, for which they are consecrated; we ought, therefore, to lay them aside.-Some suppose our ministrations are not valid, or acceptable to God, unless performed in the apparel; we apprehend it, therefore, highly necessary to undeceive the people.— Things indifferent ought not to be made necessary, because then their nature is changed, and we lose our liberty.-And if we are bound to wear popish apparel when commanded, 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 in 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 66 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. 66 "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, Ŏ most noble prince, "I do in most humble sort, request and earnestly desire, "that your majesty would seriously and attentively consider * Strype's Parker, p. 166–171. "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; for it does not appear that he was admitted.§ * Baker's MS. Collec. vol. vi. p. 353, 354. + MS. 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. VOL. I. 2 B |