66 66 RIGHTLY DESCRIBES THE ULTRA-PROTESTANTS. 205 give themselves! How many places of Scripture "did they corrupt! In what horrible precipices did they throw down both themselves, and as many as "followed them! And because otherwise they could "not procure to themselves authority, unless they "slandered and laid false accusations to the charge "of the Catholic Priests and Bishops, they inculcated "lies of them without number. In fine, they had in "effect ruined Christ's religion, and had filled the "nation with innumerable errors. The Gospel "which so frequently they had in their mouths they fought against in an hostile manner, by their "works and their manner of doctrine." 66 He afterwards proceeded to direct the course to reform these evils, and he told his reverend fathers and brethren, that he thought it the wisest course to retract those ecclesiastical laws which had been made before, and that there was no need of their great labour and study to invent new Canons. "He exhorted," says Strype, "that such things might flourish which "had been wholesomely instituted by their ancestors, "and which had flourished before the innovation of 'things; which being before observed kept the "people in their duty; but lately being neglected, a "casement was opened to heresy, schism, and to all "licentiousness." After proceeding much in this strain, he then goes on to recommend my own favorite notion, that the second temple be destroyed, and the first temple, the old Catholic ritual (for the law for the abolishing of the Prayer Book and Commu 66 188 MARY BEGINS WITH THE POISONING SYSTEM." Bishop, into three religions: that which Bonner held—that which was the opposite extreme—and the neuter religion, which was professed by those who outwardly observed all things that were commanded whatever were their inward convictions.* This last party is always more numerous than either of the two others. It is always most influential also in rendering changes permanent, when they have been once effected. It waits the result of events, and can be rendered more quiet, and submissive, than the zealots of either of the two extremes, by the least appearance of decision on the part of their rulers. It became, therefore, the first policy of Mary, to proceed to the second stage of the poisoning system as soon as possible and we consequently find that the Queen continued to maintain her own religion as a favourite opinion only, for the shortest possible time, that is, for about one month after her accession. Immediately that Mary heard of the death of her brother, she retired into those parts of Suffolk and Norfolk, which she deemed most friendly to her interests. Bonner was still in the Marshalsea. The people of Suffolk were favorers of the Second Service Book of King Edward. In reply to the Queen's appeal to them against the usurper, they told her that their religion required them to assist her as their lawful Sovereign. Mary replied to them by a promise "not to make any alteration in their religion."† * Strype, Eccles. Memoir, Mary, cap. xxxi., folio edit. p. 248. + Foxe, edit., 1633, vol. 3, p. 13, and edit., 1841, vol. 6, p. DR. LINGARD AS TRUSTWORTHY AS OURSElves. 189 The last English historian, whose religion I prefer to that of the Ultra-Protestants, because he agrees with me on those points where I and my brethren Tractarian Critics differ with them-the historian who is equally candid with ourselves, and quite as much to be depended upon in all matters when the Faith of the Church of England is concerned, I mean Dr. Lingard, endeavours to prove that Mary never made this promise. My candid friend, however, omitted to notice the allusion of Lord Arundel to this declaration, in the speech which he made to the Council at Baynard's Castle. He assured them that there was no appearance that she meant to alter their religion. She had given a contrary intimation. She had lately been petitioned by the Suffolk men, and had given them a very hopeful answer. Dr. Lingard omits also the express assertion of Bishop Godwin upon his own evidence, that the words were these.* I am unable to resist this evidence, and I conclude, therefore, with reluctance, that Dr. Lingard is not more accurate here, than I have found him to be in many other parts of his history. It requires only this kind of accuracy to be a valuable book. I am compelled to believe that this promise to the Suffolk men 307; Strype, Eccles. Mem., An. 1553, p. 2; Collier's Eccles. Hist. fol. edit., 1714, vol. 2, p. 342; Sharon Turner's History of England, vol. 8, p. 396. note 92, p. 368; Lingard's History of England, vol. 7, edit. 1833, 161, and note C at the end of the volume. * Compare the Notes and Texts of Sharon Turner, just referred to. 190 MARY MAINTAINS HER OWN PIOUS OPINIONS. was actually made. I cannot venture to oppose the general, concurrent, and contemporary testimony of our historians. This promise, then, was made seven days after the death of Edward, before the end of July. On her arrival at the Tower, she released the prisoners who had been confined there for religion. On the 8th of August, Mass was sung in the Tower for the repose of the soul of her brother, the efficacy of prayers for the dead being now merely one of her pious opinions, not sanctioned by the public law. On the 11th of August a speech was made to the Mayor of London on occasion of the tumult at St. Paul's Cross, that she meant not to compel nor strain other men's consciences otherwise than God should convince them.* Preachers, however, were commanded to take out licenses from the Queen; and on the 18th of August another proclamation was issued, in which the former indulgence was limited; and though the time had not come to make the change in religion which she purposed by law, she began to effeet that change by influence. She declared what was her own religion (her own pious opinions) which she "was minded to observet and maintain for herself "during her life, and she would be glad the same "were of all her subjects quietly embraced: yet that "of her gracious disposition and clemency, she mind My friend Dr. Lingard quotes this speech from the Archeology xviii, 137. Ile might have found it in its place in Foxe, vol. 6, page 392, or vol. 3, page 16, folio edit., 1683. + Strype, vol. 3, p. 25. WE DEPRECATE PREACHING AGAINST ROME. 191 "ed not to compel any of her subjects thereunto, “until such time as further order by common con"sent, might be taken therein." (That is, as soon as she might compel them by authority of Parliament she would.) She forbad all her subjects, at their peril, to move sedition, or stir unquietness, by the interpreting the laws of the land according to their brains "and fancies. She willed them to live together in 'quietness and Christian charity; and forbear those new formed devilish terms (as the proclamation "calls them) of Papist, or Heretic, and such like." 66 66 66 During the whole of this time Bonner performed no recorded act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Many persons were apprehended by order of the Council, but not by the Bishop. These, however, were mostly identified with some of the tumults that had taken place, and though the Queen's wish was known, the second stage of the poisoning system had not begun. She had only proceeded so far as we, with a similar object in view, have proceeded. We, too, deprecate the perpetual opposition of the Ultra-Protestant preachers, to the peculiarities of the Church of Rome, and the consequent exasperation of the adherents to that Communion. We deem it to be a piteous spectacle to see Christian brethren, heirs of the same peace, and partakers of the same hope, "biting and devouring one another: each striving to outdo his antagonist in vehemence of railing, and variety of accusation; mutually dealing out such frightfully * British Critic, No. 59. |