Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" (1530s) Anglo-Italian Oppositon Continued

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

Prof. Daniell has offered up a review of: (1) the significant influence of Erasmus’ Greek NT in the Continent-wide flood of vernacular Bibles translated from the Greek and brought into visibility, (2) the weighty impact of the English Bible for the English Reformation, and (3) the life of Tyndale and his impact. In chapter 10, he turns the attention to Chapter 10, “After Tyndale.”

One sees a shift from the strict Anglo-Italian view—no vernaculars for the churches towards a more reforming direction. Nevertheless, opposition remains—unsurprisingly given that idols were falling.

Prof Daniell reviews: (1) the changing landscape in the Church of England, (2) the continuing opposition, (3) Thomas Cranmer’s projected but frustrated “Bishop’s Bible, and (4) more continued opposition. 

The theme of the chapter: THE BATTLE CONTINUES IN ENGLAND.

Prof. Daniell, probably to the annoyance of some historians, claims that the “revolution and its permanence” [in England] would not have happened “without Tyndale” (160). For our side, we are inclined to advocate for an adjusted narrative on the English Reformation: Tyndale has been under-rated, under-appreciated and, along with Erasmus, less visible than should be the case; Tyndale may overshadow Cranmer himself…although he played his part when allowed.

Thomas More, the strenuous voice of Anglo-Italianism, saw that by 1529 there was a “demand for the Bible in English” (160). More already evinces a slight shift, perhaps unwillingly, in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies. At this point, Cranmer is ensconced at Cambridge sorting through affairs as a scholar and assessing Mr. (senior Anglo-Italian clerk) John Fisher’s works. Meanwhile, Erasmus’ NT is in several editions and Continental vernaculars are afoot.

Tyndale’s editions have entered the nation. More argues that certain books or parts of certain books be screened and translated; it still is an argument against the entire Bible in the vernacular; it still shows More’s fear of the whole Bible.

Anglo-Italian Fears of the Bible in England:

1. The evil heretics, as they were called, by-passed the Latin Vulgate, used Erasmus’ Greek NT, used the Hebrew, and “disobeyed” the Church (161).

2. The evil heretics put forward 66 books (and apocrypha); horrors! They might read Romans and the Pauline epistles!

3. Furthermore, these evil heretics put the Bible into the “vernacular.” This meant that anyone, any man, any woman or even any child or youth might read the Bible themselves, if literate. Or, it might mean that anyone—irrespective of age or gender—might have the Bible read to them, if not literate. Or, it might mean anyone “within earshot” could hear the Bible (161). And, to the Anglo-Italians, God forbid that Bible-reading in the vernacular would be had in the 9000 parishes of England! Horrors no! The Bible was too sacred, defended, dangerous, complex and difficult—it was beyond understanding. No one could interpret it without the mediation of the controlling hierarchy; they feared a “free-for-all,” a very “present hell of heretics destroying the Christian heritage…full of heresy and seething sedition” (161). That fear was certainly not Chrysostom’s view of advocacy for Biblical literacy...nor a host of other Churchmen.

4. The evil heretics allowed for the “principle of self-interpretation to operate” (161). But quite notably, Catholic (= not Roman, but Reformed and Reformational) Churchmen never denied Biblical “dark places,” e.g. Geneva notes. Who would deny that Revelation has its manifold challenges? Or, that certain biblical texts had numerous challenges? Or, that certain poetical sections presented more challenges?

But, the Bible was, on the whole and in the main, perspicuous.

One is well-reminded by the sage statements of The Westminster Confession of Faith, albeit later, Chap. 1, para 7, 8.

“1.7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

“1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

This was flatly denied by Rome and Anglo-Italians in England before Tyndale.

Of course, this would and did unleash varieties of understandings. Prof. Daniell notes: “Worse, as with Shakespeare, readers can find in the volume whatever they want” (161). But, when read, the Bible is both challenging yet simple too.

Prof. Daniell does a service by repeatedly returning to attempts to get the arms around the issue of print-runs and editions published. In the 16th century alone, the figures “are grand enough” he tells us (162). In the 18th-19th centuries, there were 1200 editions of the Bible, largely KJV; put differently, assuming even-ness over 200 years, we would do the math. That means over the 18th and 19th centuries, that 60 editions published per year.

By the 19th century, Pope Pee-on-us, or Pope Pee-on-everybody, Pee-on-the-people, or officially named Pope Pius IX, was declaiming and railing against vernacular Bibles in the 1864 Syllabus of Errors; the difference between Protestant England (minus the neo-Anglo-Italian Tractarians) and Romanism could not be starker. It would not be until Vatican II (1962-65) that Romanism would begin putting English services and English lections before English-speaking Romanists still under the Italian thumb.

As an aside, this explains a Roman priest assaulting this scribe and confiscating his English Bible in the narthex of a synagogue of darkness in/about 1960. We’ve covered that story elsewhere.

Continuing Prof. Daniell’s astute item of print-runs, he states it is “impossible to calculate the numbers running into the millions” of English Bibles.

In America, between 1777 and 1850, there were 1400 editions of the English Bible (162). Let us do the math. Again, assuming evenness per annum, that is 19.1 editions published each year. Prof. Daniell notes that 34 editions were printed in 1850 alone. Yes, millions of Bibles came from the Protestant presses.

By 1880, English Bibles were an “essential item in the furnishing of the American home.” It has been a “phenomenon beyond calculation.”

CONTINUED OPPOSITION IN THE 16TH CENTURY, 163—165

Tyndale continued to be a bogey-man in England--the pestiferous and poisonous heretic to use Ango-Italian terms of art. Henry VIII’s 1526 Preface in his famous letter denounced Luther as a man “who fell in device with one or two lewd person born in this our realm [= Tyndale and Roy]…for translating of the New Testament into English.” Henry promised, based on Prelatical counsel, to “burn Tyndale’s book and sharply punish its readers” (163). These were “false and erroneous translations and corruptions.” Never mind that 83% of Tyndale would be taken up into the KJV by 1611. This 1526 letter by Henry VIII would earn Henry the approval of the senior priest in Rome. Henry, defending his Anglo-Italian policy of supporting Italianism, would be called by the Pope Fidei Defensor, or “F.D.,” still on all British coins to this day. History has entirely turned over the Anglo-Italian and Italian policy, entirely.

Henry VIII’s moves tally with Thomas More's sustained vituperations. Henry convened an Assembly of divines on 24 MAY 1530. Tunstall, Gardiner, More and Canterbury Warham, all staunch Anglo-Italians were on hand; Latimer was there too and we are not sure of his reformist development at this point although some reports put him inside the circle of the White Horse Inn. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the Assembly was that “the people had no right to demand vernacular Scripture; it was not necessary for Christian men to have it; it could only work harm and the prelates do well in refusing it.”

Oh how obtuse and stupid were these Anglo-Italians.

In JUN 1530, old Harry issued a “Proclamation,” to wit:

1. “Damning erroneous books and heresies”

2. “Prohibiting the having of holy scripture [sic] translated into the vernacular tongues of English, French or Duche" [= German]

3. Five books are forbidden—by John Frith (later burned in 1533), Simon Fish, and Tyndale (including Wicked Mammon and Obedience)

CRANMER’S PROJECTED BISHOPS’ BIBLE, 1534, 165-167

Cranmer becomes Canterbury on 30 MAR 1533. ABC  Warham had departed to the next world. On Cranmer's part, a “fresh attempt” for a vernacular is made. A Convocation of Canterbury occurs in autumn, 1533. Significant attention is focused on “heresy” and “English books flooding in from overseas” (165).

On 19 DEC 1534, the Upper House directed Cranmer in these directions:

1. Approach the King seeking him to “order people” to turn in the Bibles and books within 3 months.

2. Ask the King to authorized learned men to translate the Holy Scriptures into English and deliver the Bibles for instruction from it. This sounds like an advance or shift; it also reflects a response to growing demand notable in England but also the Continent.

3. Ask the King to issue “an order” curbing the “presumption of laymen to dispute on faith or Scripture” (165). There was no freedom of religion and freedom of speech as we know it. On the other hand, this reflects realities on the ground and fears within the Anglo-Italian circles of leadership.

Cranmer proposed a “Bishops’ Bible” be brought forward by the Bishops. He partitions the Bible into 10 parts “to revise and correct” Tyndale. This clearly indicates that Cranmer was aware of Tyndale’s operations, achievements and views. Bp. Gardiner, ever hostile to the idea of an English Bible, did his part, finishing Luke and John. But, here is Bp. Stokesley’s response (as captured by Ralph Morice, the secretary to Cranmer):

“It chanced that the Acts of the Apostles were [sic] sent to bishop Stokesley to oversee and correct, then Bishop of London. When the day came, every man had sent to Lambeth [London] their parts correct: only Stokesley’s portion wanted. My lord Canterbury [= Cranmer] wrote to the Bishop letters for his part, requiring to deliver them the bringer thereof, his secretary [=Morice]. Bishop Stokesley being at Fullham received the letters, unto which he made this answer; I marvel what my lord of Canterbury meaneth that thus abuseth the people in giving them liberty to read the scriptures, which doth nothing but infect them with heresies. I have bestowed never an hour upon my portion, nor never will. And therefore my lord shall have his book again, for I will never be guilty to bring the simple people into error.
"My lord of Canterbury’s servant [= Morice] took the book [=Acts], and brought the same to Lambeth unto my lord, declaring my lord of London’s [Stokesley's] answer. When my lord [= Cranmer] had perceived that the Bishop had done nothing therein, I [= Cranmer] marvel, quod my lord of Canterbury, that my lord of London is so forward, that he will not do as other men do. Mr. Lowney stood by, hearing my lord speak so much of the Bishop’s untowardness, said:

"I [= Lowney] can tell your grace why my lord of London will not bestow any labour or pain this way. Your Grace knoweth well (quod Lowney) that his portion is a piece of the New Testament. And then he being persuaded that Christ had bequeathed him nothing in his testament thought it mere madness to bestow any labour or pain where no gain was to be gotten. And besides this, it is the Acts of the Apostles, which were simple poor fellows, and therefore my lord of London disdained to have to do with any of their acts" [emphasis added, 170]

A few evident observations on Stokesley’s worldview: (1) a vernacular Bible abuses the people, (2) the vernacular Bible infects the people with heresy, (3) based on these two things, he will not, he believes, lead the people into error, and (4) Lowney, being more practical, sees Stokesley as interested in gain and disinterested in apostles, those “simple poor fellows.” This--Stokesley--from the senior priest in the Anglo-Italian diocese of London in 1535; this view prevailed well in the 1970s for Romanists.

Upshot: Cranmer’s “Bishops’ Bible,” with excellent intentions, was frustrated (167). Cramner is always credited as being a man of patience; he had no other choice; either that or to the flames you go.

Two years later, 1537, Cranmer wrote Thomas Cromwell praising Matthew’s Bible [= Tyndale’s with a different title page] and begging that the King might license it until such time that “we bishops shall set forth a better translation, which I think will not be til a day after doomsday” (167).

A few self-evident observations on Cranmer in this letter to Cromwell: (1) Cranmer is aware of obstructionism, (2) Anglo-Italianism prevails amongst many bishops, (3) Cranmer endorsed a vernacular Bible, (4) if Tyndale was unacceptable, a revised Bible was needed, and (5) Cranmer is willing to employ sarcasm for bishops. Hah, bishops still deserve correction although they don't often respond to much of it...even when legitimate.

On 16 NOV 1538, the Anglo-Italian policy continued. Henry tried to stop the “import of naughty books from abroad” (169). Books from abroad were to be examined. No imports to England from abroad could be vernacular Bibles and no annotations.

In 1543, Parliament forbad “all translations bearing the name of Tyndale.”

Parliament further directed that all existing translations have the marginal notes and prologues be obliterated. The Bible Society holds 1 copy of the 1537 Matthew’s Bible with its prologues and notes—they were manually “inked over” in an act response to Parliament. The same Parliament decreed:

“At the same time it was enacted that no women (except noble or gentle women) no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men, husbandmen, or labourers should read to themselves or to others, publicly or privately, any part of the Bible under pain of imprisonment."

There years later (1546) the king repeated the prohibition against Tyndale’s books with many others…Thus the Great Bible alone remained unforbidden” (170).

The Great Bible had been ordered up for all 9000 parishes. However, no one could read it, privately or publicly. Hands off! It appears that the ground has shifted and this, a stop-gap, was a response to a growing readership. Fear was gripping the Anglo-Italian leaders amongst some Royals, Parliamentarians, and clerks.

But, God had other plans and no King of England could stay the Divine Hand.

Also, more proof that a nation and churches can be staffed by fools. Like then, like now.

"The Disputation Had at Oxford, the 16th Day of April, 1554, Between Mr. Hugh Latimer, Answerer, and Mr. Smith and Others, Opposers"

The Disputation Had at Oxford, the 16th Day of April, 1554, Between Mr. Hugh Latimer, Answerer, and Mr. Smith and Others, Opposers.

The disputation began on Wednesday, the 18th of April, at 8 o’clock. It was in the same manner as before, but mostly in English. Mr. Latimer, the answerer, alleged that his Latin was out of use, and unfit for that place. Mr. Smith of Oriel College replied, Dr. Cartwright, Mr. Harpsfield and various others bit at him, and gave him bitter taunts. He didn’t escape hissings and scornful laughing any more than those who went before him. He was very faint and desired that he not stay long. He did not drink for fear of vomiting. The disputation ended before 11 o’clock.

Mr. Latimer was not made to read what he said he had painfully written, but it was exhibited up, and the prolocutor read part of it, and then proceeded to the disputation.

Weston’s preface to the disputation

“Men and brethren, we are come together this day, by the help of God, to vanquish the strength of the arguments and dispersed opinions of adversaries against the truth of the real presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament. And therefore you, father, if you have any thing to answer, I do admonish that you answer in short and few words.”

Latimer: “I pray you, good master Prolocutor, do not exact that of me which is not in me. I have not these twenty years much used the Latin tongue.”

Weston: “Take your ease, father.”

Latimer: “I thank you sir, I am well. Let me here protest my faith, for I am not able to dispute; and afterwards do your pleasure with me.”

The Protest of Mr. Latimer

The conclusions that I must answer are these:

1. The first is, that in the sacrament of the altar, by the virtue of God’s word pronounced by the priest, there is really and naturally the very body of Christ present, as it was conceived of the virgin Mary, under the kinds of bread and wine. And, in like manner, his blood [in the cup].

2. The second is, that after the consecration there remains no substance of bread and wine, or any other substance but the substance of God and man.

3. The third is, that in the mass there is the lively sacrifice of the church, which is propitiatory for the living and the dead.

To these I answer:

1. Concerning the first conclusion, I think it is set forth with certain new terms, lately found, that are obscure, and do not agree with the speech of the scripture. Nevertheless, however I understand it, thus do I answer, although not without the peril of my life. I say: there is no other presence of Christ required than a spiritual presence; and this presence is sufficient for a Christian man, as the presence by which we both abide in Christ, and Christ in us, to obtain eternal life, if we persevere in his true gospel. And the same presence may be called a real presence, because to the faithful believer there is the real, or spiritual body of Christ. I say this again, so that some sycophant or scorner supposes me, with the Anabaptist, to make nothing else of the sacrament but a bare and naked sign. As for what is pretended by many, I, for my part, take it for an invention of the Popes, and therefore I think it should be utterly rejected from among God’s children, that seek their Savior in faith and are taught among the fleshly Roman Catholics, that will be again under the yoke of antichrist.

2. Concerning the second conclusion, I say boldly that it has no support or ground from God’s holy word; but is a thing invented and found out by man, and therefore to be reputed and known as false; and, I would almost say is the mother and nurse of all other errors. It would be good for you my masters and lords, the transubstantiators, to take better heed to your doctrine, so that you do not conspire with the Nestorians. For the Nestorians deny that Christ had a natural body: and I cannot see how the Roman Catholics can avoid it, for they would contain the natural body which Christ had (sin excepted) against all truth, into a wafer cake.

3. The third conclusion, as I understand it, seems subtly to sow sedition against the offering which Christ himself offered for us in his own person, for all, never again to occur, according to the scriptures written in God’s book. In that book read the forceful and brief words of St. Paul in Hebrews 9 and 10, where he says that Christ himself made a perfect sacrifice for our sins, never again to be performed; and then ascended into heaven, and there sits a merciful intercessor between God’s justice and our sins; and there shall wait until these transubstantiators and all his other foes are made his footstool. This offering he freely made of himself, as it is written in John 10, he did not need any man to do it for him. I say nothing of the amazing presumptions of men, that dare attempt this thing without any manifest calling, especially that which intrudes to the overthrow and make fruitless (if not wholly, then partially) the cross of Christ. Therefore, a man can worthily say to my lords and master offerers, ‘By what authority do you do this? And who gave you this authority? When and where?’ St. John says, ‘A man cannot take any thing except it be given him from above,’ much less then may any man presume to usurp any honor before he is called to do it.

For more at this Calvinistic blogsite, see:
http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/hugh-latimer-disputation

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND HIS ENGLISH AUDIENCE 1533-54

Ayris, Paul. "THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND HIS ENGLISH AUDIENCE 1533-54." Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 3 (2000): 9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.

We are pulling citations from Dr. Paul Ayris's scholarly work. Paul is working from Cranmer's correspondence. A most commendable works.

Cranmer and the Prayer Book,

"Of all the letters reproduced below, perhaps the most important is letter K which concerns the use of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. The 1552 text represents a thorough revision of the first edition of 1549 and was necessary when Stephen Gardiner's Explication and Assertion of 1551 demonstrated that the doctrine of the real presence could be found in Cranmer's work. The rite of 1552 dramatically altered the shape of the liturgy in the communion rite. No trace of the mediaeval canon of the mass survived. The emphasis in the 1552 service is on the reception of the bread and wine by the faithful. This represents a radical development on the doctrine and practice of the 1549 rite.(n13)"

Cranmer and Knox on kneeling to receive HM's body and blood at Holy Communion

"The Duke of Northumberland was an enemy of Cranmer, being influenced by the radicalism of John Knox, whom he brought south from Newcastle and Berwick. Knox's views were similar to those of John Laski and, when he arrived in London, Knox picked a quarrel with Cranmer over the issue of kneeling at the communion. Knox denounced this practice in a sermon before the king and the Privy Council. The Council were impressed by Knox's views, and his zeal, and ordered the printer Grafton to stop work until Cranmer explained himself.(n14)"

Cranmer pulls the trump card on the regulative principle of Knox

"Cranmer then turned to specific theological concerns, as though he were disputing a point with an undergraduate at Cambridge. His opponents objected that kneeling was not commanded in Scripture and that what is not commanded in Scripture is unlawful. Cranmer then produced his trump card by identifying this as the doctrine of the Anabaptists, representing a subversion of all order. If this assertion is true, asked Cranmer, why bother to have any prescribed form of service at all? This was a devastating argument and Cranmer drove his attack home by pushing his opponents' arguments to a form of conclusion. The latter maintained that Scripture did not expressly state that Christ ministered the sacraments to his apostles kneeling. Nor, insisted Cranmer, did they find that he ministered it standing or sitting. If the plain word of Scripture were to be followed, those receiving the bread and wine would receive it lying on the ground, as was then the custom and, as Cranmer pointed out, the Tartars and Turks still did."

Cranmer and the Black Rubric (1552) which disappears in the 1559 BCP, but reappears in the 1662 BCP, the benchmark for classical Anglicanism to this day (Tractarians are radical and fundamentalistic Puritans)

"The letter reveals a startling side to Cramer's character, one far removed from the traditional image of a 'doubting Thomas'. On the contrary, here was a man at the height of his career. Both Cranmer and Knox were invited to give further thought to the matter. On 22. October, just two weeks after Cranmer had sent his letter, the Council took the decision to add the Black Rubric to the 1552 Prayer Book. This text justified the practice of kneeling and ruled out any imputation of idolatry by that action, rejecting any notion of the real presence. It is usually taken that the publication of the Black Rubric represents a defeat for Cranmer and a victory for his opponents. Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch has maintained that, on the contrary, the Black Rubric marks Cranmer's victory over his adversaries, since it supports Cranmer's own theological understanding of the sacrament. This revisionism is probably going too far, since it was only the opposition of men like Knox that led to the publication of the Rubric in the first place. Nonetheless, Professor MacCulloch is right to claim that the Black Rubric supports, and does not overturn, the position which Cranmer took in his letter of 7 October. Despite lacking parliamentary sanction, the Rubric defends Cranmer's text in the rite of 1552 and the spirit of the Book presented to parliament.(n15)"

Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer--principal targets for the Marian regime for the purpose of international publicity of their fame as heretics

"In March 1554 Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were all sent to Oxford.(n20) This triumvirate was a principal target for the Marian regime. Between them, they represented the whole span of the English Reformation, starting in the 1520s. The government had decided to put the trio on trial at Oxford. The instrument was to be a delegation of the Canterbury convocation, headed by Hugh Weston, which was to act as a tribunal to investigate the prisoners. This was not a trial, rather a disputation which would display the heresies of the three men, all Cambridge graduates, to the world, thus providing material for a full heresy trial once Roman obedience has been re-established. The disputation lasted from 14 until 20 April.(n21)"

The Reformation in Britain - The Martyrdom of Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer

Theology Network - The Reformation in Britain - The martyrdom of Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer

The martyrdom of Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer by John Foxe

(John Foxe (1517-1587) was a writer and academic, best known for his work Acts and Monuments which is usually called Foxe's Book of Martyrs.)

These reverend prelates suffered October 17, 1555, at Oxford, on the same day Wolsey and Pygot perished at Ely. Pillars of the Church and accomplished ornaments of human nature, they were the admiration of the realm, amiably conspicuous in their lives, and glorious in their deaths.

Dr. Ridley was born in Northumberland, was first tauht grammar at Newcastle, and afterward removed to Cambridge, where his aptitude in education raised him gradually until he came to be the head of Pembroke College, where he received the title of Doctor of Divinity. Having returned from a trip to Paris, he was appointed chaplain by Henry VIII and bishop of Rochester, and was afterwards translated to the see of London in the time of Edward VI.

To his sermons the people resorted, swarming about him like bees, coveting the sweet flowers and wholesome juice of the fruitful doctrine, which he did not only preach, but showed the same by his life, as a glittering lanthorn to the eyes and senses of the blind, in such pure order that his very enemies could not reprove him in any one jot.

His tender treatment of Dr. Heath, who was a prisoner with him during one year, in Edward's reign, evidently proves that he had no Catholic cruelty in his disposition. In person he was erect and well proportioned; in temper forgiving; in self-mortification severe. His first duty in the morning was private prayer: he remained in his study until ten o'clock, and then attended the daily prayer used in his house. Dinner being done, he sat about an hour, conversing pleasantly, or playing at chess. His study next engaged his attention, unless business or visits occurred; about five o'clock prayers followed; and after he would recreate himself at chess for about an hour, then retire to his study until eleven o'clock, and pray on his knees as in the morning. In brief, he was a pattern of godliness and virtue, and such he endeavored to make men wherever he came.

His attentive kindness was displayed particularly to old Mrs. Bonner, mother of Dr. Bonner, the cruel bishop of London. Dr. Ridley, when at his manor at Fulham, always invited her to his house, placed her at the head of his table, and treated her like his own mother; he did the same by Bonner's sister and other relatives; but when Dr. Ridley was under persecution, Bonner pursued a conduct diametrically opposite, and would have sacrificed Dr. Ridley's sister and her husband, Mr. George Shipside, had not Providence delivered him by the means of Dr. Heath, bishop of Worcester.

Dr. Ridley was first in part converted by reading Bertram's book on the Sacrament, and by his conferences with archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr.

Edward VI

When Edward VI was removed from the throne, and the bloody Mary succeeded, Bishop Ridley was immediately marked as an object of slaughter. He was first sent to the Tower, and afterward, at Oxford, was consigned to the common prison of Bocardo, with archbishop Cranmer and Mr. Latimer. Being separated from them, he was placed in the house of one Irish, where he remained until the day of his martyrdom, from 1554, until October 16, 1555.

It will easily be supposed that the conversations of these chiefs of the martyrs were elaborate, learned, and instructive. Such indeed they were, and equally beneficial to all their spiritual comforts. Bishop Ridley's letters to various Christian brethren in bonds in all parts, and his disputations with the mitred enemies of Christ, alike proved the clearness of his head and the integrity of his heart. In a letter to Mr. Grindal, (afterward archbishop of Canterbury,) he mentions with affection those who had preceded him in dying for the faith, and those who were expected to suffer; he regrets that popery is re-established in its full abomination, which he attributes to the wrath of God, made manifest in return for the lukewarmness of the clergy and the people in justly appreciating the blessed light of the Reformation.

This old practiced soldier of Christ, Master Hugh Latimer, was the son of one Hugh Latimer, of Thurkesson in the county of Leicester, a husbandman, of a good and wealthy estimation; where also he was born and brought up until he was four years of age, or thereabout: at which time his parents, having him as then left for their only son, with six daughters, seeing his ready, prompt, and sharp wit, purposed to train him up in erudition, and knowledge of good literature; wherein he so profited in his youth at the common schools of his own country, that at the age of fourteen years, he was sent to the University of Cambridge; where he entered into the study of the school divinity of that day, and was from principle a zealous observer of the Romish superstitions of the time. In his oration when he commenced bachelor of divinity, he inveighed against the reformer Melancthon, and openly declaimed against good Mr. Stafford, divinity lecturer in Cambridge.

Mr. Thomas Bilney, moved by a brotherly pity towards Mr.Latimer, begged to wait upon him in his study, and to explain to him the groundwork of his (Mr. Bilney's) faith. This blessed interview effected his conversion: the persecutor of Christ became his zealous advocate, and before Dr. Stafford died he became reconciled to him.

Once converted, he became eager for the conversion of others, and commenced to be public preacher, and private instructor in the university. His sermons were so pointed against the absurdity of praying in the Latin tongue, and withholding the oracles of salvation from the people who were to be saved by belief in them, that he drew upon himself the pulpit animadversions of several of the resident friars and heads of houses, whom he subsequently silenced by his severe criticisms and eloquent arguments. This was at Christmas, 1529. At length Dr. West preached against Mr. Latimer at Barwell Abbey, and prohibited him from preaching again in the churches of the university, notwithstanding which, he continued during three years to advocate openly the cause of Christ, and even his enemies confessed the power of those talents he possessed. Mr. Bilney remained here some time with Mr. Latimer, and thus the place where they frequently walked together obtained the name of Heretics' Hill.

Mr. Latimer at this time traced out the innocence of a poor woman, accused by her husband of the murder of her child. Having preached before King Henry VIII at Windsor, he obtained the unfortunate mother's pardon. This, with many other benevolent acts, served only to excite the spleen of his adversaries. He was summoned before Cardinal Wolsey for heresy, but being a strenuous supporter of the king's supremacy, in opposition to the pope's, by favor of Lord Cromwell and Dr. Buts, (the king's physician,) he obtained the living of West Kingston, in Wiltshire. For his sermons here against purgatory, the immaculacy of the Virgin, and the worship of images, he was cited to appear before Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, and John, bishop of London. He was required to subscribe certain articles, expressive of his conformity to the accustamed usages; and there is reason to think, after repeated weekly examinations, that he did subscribe, as they did not seem to involve any important article of belief.

Guided by Providence, he escaped the subtle nets of his persecutors, and at length, through the powerful friends before mentioned, became bishop of Worcester, in which function he qualified or explained away most of the papal ceremonies he was for form's sake under the necessity of complying with. He continued in this active and dignified employment some years.

Beginning afresh to set forth his plow he labored in the Lord's harvest most fruitfully, discharging his talent as well in divers places of this realm, as before the king at the court. In the same place of the inward garden, which was before applied to lascivious and courtly pastimes, there he dispensed the fruitful Word of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, preaching there before the king and his whole court, to the edification of many.

He remained a prisoner in the Tower until the coronation of Edward VI, when he was again called to the Lord's harvest in Stamford, and many other places: he also preached at London in the convocation house, and before the young king; indeed he lectured twice every Sunday, regardless of his great age (then above sixty-seven years,) and his weakness through a bruise received from the fall of a tree. Indefatigable in his private studies, he rose to them in winter and in summer at two o'clock in the morning.

By the strength of his own mind, or of some inward light from above, he had a prophetic view of what was to happen to the Church in Mary's reign, asserting that he was doomed to suffer for the truth, and that Winchester, then in the Tower, was preserved for that purpose. Soon after Queen Mary was proclaimed, a messenger was sent to summon Mr. Latimer to town, and there is reason to believe it was wished that he should make his escape.

Thus Master Latimer coming up to London, through Smithfield (where merrily he said that Smithfield had long groaned for him), was brought before the Council, where he patiently bore all the mocks and taunts given him by the scornful papists. He was cast into the Tower, where he, being assisted with the heavenly grace of Christ, sustained imprisonment a long time, notwithstanding the cruel and unmerciful handling of the lordly papists, which thought then their kingdom would never fall; he showed himself not only patient, but also cheerful in and above all that which they could or would work against him. Yea, such a valiant spirit the Lord gave him, that he was able not only to despise the terribleness of prisons and torments, but also to laugh to scorn the doings of his enemies.

Mr. Latimer, after remaining a long time in the Tower, was transported to Oxford, with Cranmer and Ridley, the disputations at which place have been already mentioned in a former part of this work. He remained imprisoned until October, and the principal objects of all his prayers were three-that he might stand faithful to the doctrine he had professed, that God would restore his Gospel to England once again, and preserve the Lady Elizabeth to be queen; all of which happened. When he stood at the stake without the Bocardo gate, Oxford, with Dr. Ridley, and fire was putting to the pile of fagots, he raised his eyes benignantly towards heaven, and said, "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able." His body was forcibly penetrated by the fire, and the blood flowed abundantly from the heart; as if to verify his constant desire that his heart's blood might be shed in defence of the Gospel. His polemical and friendly letters are lasting monuments of his integrity and talents. It has been before said, that public disputation took place in April, 1554, new examinations took place in October, 1555, previous to the degradation and condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. We now draw to the conclusion of the lives of the two last.

Dr. Ridley, the night before execution, was very facetious, had himself shaved, and called his supper a marriage feast; he remarked upon seeing Mrs. Irish (the keeper's wife) weep, "Though my breakfast will be somewhat sharp, my supper will be more pleasant and sweet."

The place of death was on the northside of the town, opposite Baliol College. Dr. Ridley was dressed in a black gown furred, and Mr. Latimer had a long shroud on, hanging down to his feet. Dr. Ridley, as he passed Bocardo, looked up to see Dr. Cranmer, but the latter was then engaged in disputation with a friar. When they came to the stake, Mr. Ridley embraced Latimer fervently, and bid him: "Be of good heart, brother, for God will either assuage the fury of the flame, or else strengthen us to abide it." He then knelt by the stake, and after earnestly praying together, they had a short private conversation. Dr. Smith then preached a short sermon against the martyrs, who would have answered him, but were prevented by Dr. Marshal, the vice-chancellor. Dr. Ridley then took off his gown and tippet, and gave them to his brother-in-law, Mr. Shipside. He gave away also many trifles to his weeping friends, and the populace were anxious to get even a fragment of his garments. Mr. Latimer gave nothing, and from the poverty of his garb, was soon stripped to his shroud, and stood venerable and erect, fearless of death.

Dr. Ridley being unclothed to his shirt, the smith placed an iron chain about their waists, and Dr. Ridley bid him fasten it securely; his brother having tied a bag of gunpowder about his neck, gave some also to Mr. Latimer.

Dr. Ridley then requested of Lord Williams, of Fame, to advocate with the queen the cause of some poor men to whom he had, when bishop, granted leases, but which the present bishop refused to confirm. A lighted fagot was now laid at Dr. Ridley's feet, which caused Mr. Latimer to say: "Be of good cheer, Ridley; and play the man. We shall this day, by God's grace, light up such a candle in England, as I trust, will never be put out."

When Dr. Ridley saw the fire flaming up towards him, he cried with a wonderful loud voice, "Lord, Lord, receive my spirit." Master Latimer, crying as vehemently on the other side, "O Father of heaven, receive my soul!" received the flame as it were embracing of it. After that he had stroked his face with his hands, and as it were, bathed them a little in the fire, he soon died (as it appeareth) with very little pain or none.

Well! dead they are, and the reward of this world they have already. What reward remaineth for them in heaven, the day of the Lord's glory, when he cometh with His saints, shall declare.

In the following month died Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester and lord chancellor of England. This papistical monster was born at Bury, in Suffolk, and partly educated at Cambridge. Ambitious, cruel, and bigoted, he served any cause; he first espoused the king's part in the affair of Anne Boleyn: upon the establishment of the Reformation he declared the supremacy of the pope an execrable tenet; and when Queen Mary came to the crown, he entered into all her papistical bigoted views, and became a second time bishop of Winchester. It is conjectured it was his intention to have moved the sacrifice of Lady Elizabeth, but when he arrived at this point, it pleased God to remove him.

It was on the afternoon of the day when those faithful soldiers of Christ, Ridley and Latimer, perished, that Gardiner sat down with a joyful heart to dinner. Scarcely had he taken a few mouthfuls, when he was seized with illness, and carried to his bed, where he lingered fifteen days in great torment, unable in any wise to evacuate, and burnt with a devouring fever, that terminated in death. Execrated by all good Christians, we pray the Father of mercies, that he may receive that mercy above he never imparted below.