108 WORDING OF THE SENTENCE ON JOAN BOUCHER.

so the sentence was headed," We-having enquir"ed, have found thee, Joan Boucher, unwilling to "return to the unity of the Church,* believing an "heretical opinion, therefore we pronounce thee an "obstinate excommunicated heretic." Then the writ was issued in the old form, and in the old spirit of our other mother and sister, "the Saviour's holy home," and "because," it proceeds to say,-"because "the said Joan defended and remained obstinately† "and with a hardened heart in her errors, heresies, "and damnable opinions, and refuses to return to the "bosom of the Holy Mother Church,' therefore "with bitterness of spirit, and with grief of heart,§

66

we pronounce that the same Joan, often advised "and exhorted by us to return to the unity of the "Church, be regarded as an obstinate heretic: and "since the Holy Mother Church has no more that "it can do, we relinquish to the secular arm, this "relapsed heretic aforesaid, to be visited with con“dign punishment.|| Signed by us, Thomas," that is, by us, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury! Oh, Holy Mother Church! Where-and what art thou? Was not Cranmer the regular successor of the Apostles when he burnt Joan Boucher?

* Ad Ecclesiæ unitatem redire nolentem, hereticam opinionem credentem.-See the original in Collec. Records, Burnet, part 2, book i., p. 168.

+ Pertinaciter, animo indurato.

Ad Sanctæ Matris Ecclesiæ gremium. § Animi amaritudine, et cordis dolore. See the original, ut supra.

THE CHURCH OF ROME OUR GRANDMOTHER.

109

And was not Bonner the regular successor of the Apostles when he burnt Thomas Cranmer ? Were not both our Saviour's representatives? Were not both to be regarded as Bishops, who were as worthy of attention, as such, by the people, as if the people saw them work miracles as the Apostles did? I confess I am in amazement! I cannot as yet approve the act of Bonner in burning Cranmer, neither can I approve the act of Cranmer in burning Joan Boucher. I have not approved of these acts of either "Holy Mother Church," in any of my Tracts, or articles in my beloved British Critic. Both my mothers—my old mother or grandmother of Rome, and my dear mother the Church of England-are alike the exciters of reverential fear. I do not dare, as a British Critic, to use my private judgment, and pronounce either to be unreprovable and illaudable. I therefore leave the question. I can only say that the Church which burnt Joan Boucher, and the Church which burnt Thomas Cranmer, were both called in the writs for burning-the "Holy Mother Church"; and that if these burnings be a proof of either Church's maternal tenderness, and holiness, our rival mother or grandmother, the Church of Rome, is infinitely more holy than our mother, the Church of England; and the theories of all my friends in favor of the Church of Rome, the "Saviour's holy home," which "soothes the heart,"* are amply con

*"Thou dost soothe the heart,

"Thou Church of Rome."*

*The Christian year.

110

BONNER COMMANDED TO ABROGATE THE MASS.

firmed by this most peculiar proof of her sanctity and love. I believe Joan Boucher was burnt on the 2nd of May, 1549, to intimidate Bishop Bonner into accepting the new Liturgy on the fourteenth of the same month; and the only comfort I can find in the study of this act is afforded me by my friend Froude, who assures me, or rather his editor assures me, that "we may fairly doubt the accuracy of the reasoning on which the revisers of the Liturgy proceeded, without impugning their statements as contrary to the word of God.*

The time had now arrived when the quiet moderation and passive obedience of Bonner, could no longer afford him protection. Soon after the adoption of the new Liturgy by the people, an order of Council was sent to him, dated the 24th of June, commanding him to abrogate the private Mass in the remoter parts of the Cathedral, and that the Holy Communion be administered at the "High Altar” of the Church. The word Altar was not yet disused, nor the Altar itself commanded by the public law to be changed into the Lord's Table. Bonner forwarded the order of Council, with letters from himself, to the Dean, Chapter, Canons, residentiaries and other ministers, of the Cathedral, commanding them to peruse them, and to proceed accordingly. I mention the date of this transaction, because the Counties of Yorkshire, Devonshire, and Wiltshire were now in open insurrection, demand

*Froude's Remains, part 2, vol. 1, p. 62, note.

BONNER COMMANDED TO ENFORCE THE LITURGY. 111

ing the restoration of the act of the Six Articles, and other doctrines, which were no longer sanctioned by the public law. This continuance of the private Masses was said to encourage the rebellious commons in their disobedience, and the Princess Mary on the 22nd wrote to the Council, refusing, in the most decided language, to obey the new laws respecting religion. The instant compliance of Bonner with the fresh order proved that he neither encouraged the rebellion, nor upheld at this time the opposition of his future Queen. This homage to the authority of the Council, however, was not deemed sufficient. The Bishops and Clergy who were unable to approve the new Liturgy were charged with "cloaked contempt, and stubborn disobedience"; so that the Book of Common Prayer was either kept back or irreverendly used.* Another order was, therefore, sent to Bonner, whose example in withholding any energetic enforcement of the reception of the Book of Prayer is supposed to have been an incitement to his inferiors to proceed further, to rebuke him for negligence, and to charge him to provide for the more effectual reception of the Prayer Book through his Diocese. He was commanded to give an example in his own person of attendance upon public worship, and to direct his Officials and Archdeacons to be more active in their duty. Bonner, in his continued hatred of the Reformation,

* Foxe, vol. 5, p. 726.

112 BONNER SUMMONED BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

received this order with the same calm and contemptuous indifference with which he accepted the former order. He took no notice of the personal exhortation to himself, but sent both letters to the Dean and Chapter, requiring them to take care that the order be obeyed, and to notify to him or to his Chancellor their proceedings, with the names of those who should be found negligent. The order and this letter are respectively dated the 23rd and 26th of July, 1549.*

It must be acknowledged by the most vehement Ultra-Protestant declaimer against Bonner, that no direct offence had been substantiated against him. The country, it is true, was in a state of rebellion : but this fact did not afford to him any sufficient reason for more activity in the questions relating to his obedience to God, than the letter of the law required. His mother Church was the Church of Rome. He had not been quite weaned from her bosom. He had not become fully reconciled to his step-mother, the Anglican Church, to whom his Sovereign and the nation had been so lately married. That step-mother and his father, the State, resolved, therefore, to proceed more actively, and Bonner was summoned before the Council, to answer to certain informations which were now formally alleged against him. A Bishop is a personage too sacred to be accused of malice, hatred, or revenge :

* Foxe, ut supra.