rest of the people; and to take down all other byaltars or tables." *

And about this same time began another innovation on popish custom, which indicates the progress of religious reform, and the disposition of the people for religious instruction. I refer to the practice of preaching sermons and lectures on week-days and working-days; which, we are told, occasioned a great running of people from neighboring parishes. This was not a government measure. It was in advance of their movements, and contrary to the wishes of the council. It may have been suggested by the "sectaries," which even then abounded in England. The practice, so far as the church of England was concerned,† began in Ridley's diocese; whether at his instigation or otherwise, does not appear. It occasioned a good deal of talk, and excited no inconsiderable interest among the people. It was complained of, and the council directed Ridley to stop all preaching on working-days, on which there should only be prayers. How this was submitted to, is not clear." +

* Burnet, vol. 11. pt. 1. bk. 1. p. 326, and Records, No. 52. The order of the council to Ridley, to take down altars and place communion-tables in their stead, is dated November 24th, 1550. Wilkins, IV. 63, 64; Lathbury, 31.

↑ Burnet, ut sup.

Wilkins, IV. 63, 64, has two letters from the council to the bishop of London (Ridley), prohibiting week-day preaching: one dated June 23d, and the other June 25th, 1550.

CHAPTER VI.

THE VESTMENT CONTROVERSY. -REMOVAL OF THE OLD BISHOPS.- COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. IRREGULARITIES, FRAUD, AND CORRUPTION.

THE years 1550 and 1551 are memorable as the time when the Reformers began openly to disagree among themselves about the right of the State to enforce absolute religious conformity, even in nonessential particulars. After discussing and settling all questions relating to the offices and general order of service in the church, the Reformers decided, though not without considerable debate, to retain the old garments of the Romish priesthood. It was objected at the outset, "that these garments had been part of the train of the mass, and had been superstitiously abused only to set it off with the more pomp." To this, however, it was replied, that white was the color of the priest's garments under the Levitical dispensation, and was also adopted by the African churches in the fourth century; and that it was a natural expression of the purity and decency which became priests. Furthermore, that the clergy generally were so poor that they could scarcely afford themselves decent

VOL. II.

13

(193)

clothing; and that should they attempt to officiate in their ordinary dress, the people who, from abject submission to the clergy, were now inclined to an opposite extreme, of despising them—would be likely to carry their contempt for the shabby priests to the services which they were performing. So it was resolved to retain the old garments of the priesthood, and to insist on a rigid conformity to the prescribed habits, as well as to the authorized rites and services of the Book of Common Prayer.

The controversy which this decision provokedwhich Fuller calls "the saddest difference that ever happened in the church of England, if we consider either the time how long it continued, the eminent persons therein engaged, or the doleful effects thereby produced"- broke out with violence in the summer of 1550. In May of that year, Dr. John Hooper was appointed by the king's letters patent to the bishopric of Gloucester.† He was a learned, zealous, and devoted man, "bred in Oxford and well skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew." On the accession of Edward, he returned among the exiles from Germany, having been driven

Ch. Hist., vol. IV. bk. vII. sect. 23, p. 60.

† Burnet says: "On the 3d of July, this year (1550) Hooper was by letters patent appointed to be his [Wakeman's] successor." - Vol. 11. pt. 11. bk. 1. p. 152. But the privy council book of Edward's reign contains this entry: "At Greenwich, the 15th of May, 1550, Master Hooper was constituted bishop of Gloucester." - In Bradford's Writings, p. 374.

thither during the latter part of Henry's reign. At Zurich, where he chiefly resided, he imbibed the spirit of the more thorough continental reformers. On his return he manifested uncommon ability and zeal as a preacher, being in the pulpit almost every day in the week, and preaching to crowded houses. The appointment of such a man to a bishopric seemed eminently judicious, and indicated quite significantly the disposition of the government. Hooper, so far from seeking this honor, actually declined it when pressed upon him. He was unwilling to take the oath of supremacy in the form in which it then stood—" By God, by the saints, and by the Holy Ghost"; for this he thought was impious, because God only ought to be appealed to in an oath. He also objected to the episcopal habits and ornaments - as the rochet, chimere, square cap, etc. on the ground that these were mere human inventions, having no countenance from the Scriptures, but brought into the church when in its most corrupt state, by tradition or custom; that they were not suitable to the simplicity of the Christian religion, and were condemned by the apostle as "beggarly elements"; and especially, that they had been invented chiefly to give effect to the pompous and idolatrous celebration of the mass, and were so consecrated in the minds of the ignorant that they were considered essential to the due celebration of religious services. He was willing to wear a decent, simple attire, different from the ordinary dress of a lay

man; but was not willing to sanction the superstitious notions of the people, that the peculiar habits of the clergy were necessary to the efficacy of religious services that no priestly act was of any value, unless performed in a priestly dress.

In relation to the oath of supremacy, the young king was so satisfied of the justness of Hooper's objection, that he struck out the offensive words. with his own pen.* But it was not so easy to remove the habits out of the way. Cranmer at first objected, that he could not dispense with the authorized garments without incurring a præmunire. To this Edward and the council replied by a letter, authorizing the archbishop, and the other bishops who were to take part in the consecration, to dispense with the habits. Cranmer was then disposed to yield; but Ridley, the bishop of London, and Dr. Goodrich, strenuously opposed any concession; declaring that, though "traditions in matters of faith were justly rejected, in matters of

*Hooper may have objected to the comprehensive character of the oath of supremacy, as well as to the appeal to the saints and evangelists. This oath required a bishop to swear to "maintain and defend the whole effects and contents of all and singular acts and statutes made, and to be made, within this realm, in derogation, extirpation, and extinguishment of the bishop of Rome and his authority; and other acts and statutes made, and to be made, in reformation of the king's power of supreme head in earth of the church of England. So help him God, all saints, and the holy evangelists." - Statutes of the Realm, 21 Henry VIII. ch. 2 (A. D. 1534); 28 Henry VIII., ch. 10; and 1 Edward VI. ch. 12; Gibson's Codex, vol. 1. pp. 25–27, 30, 31. See also Soames' Hist. Ref., 111. 568.