The surviving correspondence of Stephen Gardiner (c.1497–1555) is distinctly patchy for so prominent a figure. For a public career spanning more than thirty years, James Arthur Muller's edition collects 173 letters (an average of one every two months), with gaps as long as three-and-a-half years.Footnote 1 Two new letters, from a crucial period of Edwardian religious reform, shed fuller light on how Gardiner navigated the debates over English ecclesiastical life.
The letters come from Bodleian Library, Oxford, ms Eng. th. b. 2, the second of two manuscript volumes of loci communes supporting Catholic doctrine and practice, organised under ninety-three alphabetical headings. The volumes were compiled c.1605–8 by one ‘Thomas Jollet’ (a pseudonym), a lay convert to Catholicism with links to Northamptonshire.Footnote 2 Under the heading ‘Things contingent’, ‘Jollet’ includes four of Gardiner's letters, two of which appear in Muller (nos 116 and 119), as well as the anonymous treatise ‘An apology of private mass’, attributed to Gardiner under the title ‘A discovery of ceirteyne vanities and lewde phantasies against the Catholique Churche our Mother: wh are not prooved by the professours therof’.Footnote 3 Other entries under ‘Things contingent’ include a letter to Elizabeth i (1533–1603, r. 1558–1603) from the Catholic priest Anthony Tyrrell (c. 1552–1610); speeches in parliament from Anthony Browne, Viscount Montagu (1528–92) and John Feckenham, osb (c. 1515–84); and accounts of the trials of several early seventeenth-century recusants.
If ‘Jollet's' source gave a date for either letter, he did not transcribe that information. Nevertheless, the letters' addressees, purport and content allow a relatively secure dating to late August or early September 1547. The first letter is addressed to ‘Sr John Mason and Sr Frauncis Cave knights and Mr Doctor Briggs', the second to ‘Mr.r Mason’ alone: Sir John Mason (c.1503–66), an Oxford-educated diplomat, administrator and spy; Sir Francis Cave (c. 1502–83), a prominent lawyer; and Simon Briggs (c. 1513–c. 1611), a doctor of divinity and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. The only link between these three men and Gardiner is that in August 1547 they, along with Sir James Hales (c. 1500–54) and Sir Anthony Cope (c. 1486–1551), were tasked with conducting a royal visitation of the diocese of Winchester. Furthermore, both letters mention the Book of homilies, marshalled by Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) and issued on 31 July 1547.Footnote 4 That the homilies are treated as novelties suggests a date within a few months of their publication.
The longer second letter furnishes ampler evidence for its date. On 25 September Gardiner appeared before the privy council, and remained imprisoned in the Fleet until 8 January 1548.Footnote 5 As the first paragraph of the letter makes clear, Gardiner was not in London when he wrote it, establishing 25 September as a terminus ante quem. A terminus post quem of 23 August is indicated by Gardiner's mention of the absence of the lord protector, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset (c. 1500–52), on a ‘iourney’ of which there is as yet no news. On 23 August Somerset embarked on an expedition against Scotland, which culminated in a resounding victory at Pinkie Cleugh on 10 September.Footnote 6 Another clue comes from Gardiner's other surviving letter to Mason, dated 30 August 1547 (Muller, no. 128): the Bodleian letter mentions previous missives to Mason, while Muller's does not, suggesting that the manuscript letter is the later of the two. Given all this, the letter was probably written in the first or second week of September 1547.
These letters are part of Gardiner's rearguard action against the two-pronged evangelical assault of the Edwardian Injunctions and the Book of homilies. They raise many of the same points as other extant letters of late August: as a matter of law, the changes contradict Henrician statutes yet in force; as a matter of policy, it is unwise to legislate while the king is a minor; and as a matter of doctrine, sola fide is incoherent and unsupported by either the Bible or the Fathers. Some of the same evidence is adduced, notably the Epistle of James and the sermon De lege et fide, spuriously attributed to John Chrysostom (c. 349–407).Footnote 7
Here, as elsewhere, the foundation of Gardiner's position is Henry viii's ‘Act for the advancement of true religion’ (34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 1), which flatly invalidated the regime's proposed changes. To the council, Gardiner had declared that he would consider the visitation illegal if it sought to enforce anything contrary to that act or to the King's Book (which enshrined the act's provisions).Footnote 8 He warned Mason that
You and your companyons shall, for your personnes, be as wellcoom as any men of your degree in this realme, and all thing you shall doo, not contrary to thacte of Parliament yet standing in force, shall be as gladlye and thankfullye taken and executed; but as for thacte of Parlyament which preserveth our late soveraigne lordes doctryne sett forthe in his booke, I will not relent in any thing contrary to it.Footnote 9
Gardiner's use of such arguments has long been cited as evidence of a thoroughly legal mind.Footnote 10 That he possessed a legal mind can hardly be doubted, but there is a tendency, observable in Gardiner's most recent biographer, to place law in stark opposition to theology, as though legal training precluded theological thought.Footnote 11 Moreover, it is arguable whether this is necessarily proof of any particular legalism, rather than of a strategic consideration. The theological underpinnings of sola fide and the rest of the Edwardian religious programme were (as they remain) eminently arguable. On the legal question, by contrast, Gardiner was entirely in the right – indeed, the repeal of Henry's act was one of the council's first priorities in the parliamentary session of autumn 1547.Footnote 12 Ultimately, too clear a distinction between lawyer and theologian seems at best unhelpful and at worst untenable. In a context where a full legal education included the study of canon law, where bishops presided over ecclesiastical courts and sat in the House of Lords, where legislation was often religious in word and deed, Gardiner's legal training and habits of thought can be acknowledged, but they do not disqualify the bishop as a theologian.
Invoking the 1543 legislation, legally unimpeachable though it might be, was not a long-term tactic: it would last only as long as the law remained on the statute books. Gardiner knew this, and knew also that the act would be among the radicals' first targets in the coming parliament. Tellingly, he wrote to Mason that Henry's religious policies ‘must remayne in force till the Act be broken’ – ‘till’, not ‘unless’. Not that Gardiner was resigned to defeat. In the event, Edward's first parliament saw radical victories on the eucharist and the demolition of much of the Henrician religious settlement, but this was far from certain in late summer and early autumn of 1547.Footnote 13 It was the first parliament called in nearly three years; the government had neither the force of Henry viii's personality nor any political operator of the skill of Thomas Cromwell (c.1485–1540) on which to draw. On a local level, even with Gardiner in prison during the election, four of the six members from the Winchester boroughs were returned through his influence or that of his ally William Paulet, then Lord St John (c. 1483–1572).Footnote 14 Altogether, as he contemplated the coming session, the bishop was not without grounds for hope: a skilled debater, he had rallied conservatives to defeat reform before. Certainly, he had every intention of participating, declaring to Mason that
I am a Lorde of ye p[ar]liament & by that tytle a common counceller of the Realme, & doo therfore alleadg the Act of p[ar]liamt & force of yt: I am a Bishopp & therfore bounde to defend truthe, wherin I must & will speake ernestly.
As the visitation of Winchester geared up, however, the parliamentary session was still to come. Gardiner's immediate concern was to prevent any irreparable damage: though Mason and his colleagues were hardly fire-breathing radicals, other Visitors had engaged in spectacular displays of iconoclasm.Footnote 15 Accordingly, the bishop attempted to buy time, trying to sow enough doubt in the Visitors' minds to delay any substantive action. In addition to alleging violations of the 1543 act, Gardiner invoked the possible displeasure of the council: ‘I dare swear for my Lorde protectour and the noble men that agreed to this matter, they were not aware of the Acte of p[ar]liament.’ Furthermore, there was as yet no news from Scotland, and the outcome of the expedition – defeat or victory, Somerset's capture or death – could have dramatic repercussions for the government in London.
It is possible that Gardiner intended to scare the Visitors enough to dissuade them from their task. But he may also have liked his chances of convincing the council that sola fide was indeed an ‘Equus Traianus [sic]’. In the first months of Edward's reign, the government had thrown several sops to conservative opinion, and Gardiner seems to have believed that the protector in particular was, if not his ally, at least not his enemy.Footnote 16 There was also the real possibility of separating secular power-brokers like Somerset from their clerical colleagues. If nothing else, even a week's delay would bring the parliamentary session a week closer, and afford the Visitors less time to work. The letters may also have spoken to audiences beside their addressees: their lengthy, forthright rebuttals of radical positions could furnish fellow conservatives with both encouragement and useful arguments.
The first, briefer letter is more theological than legal in tone, critiquing a single sentence from the Book of homilies with reference to the Bible and the Fathers. It is termed a letter because ‘Jollet’ places it among letters, and because it is addressed to specific individuals. At the same time, it lacks any salutation or closing, and is probably incomplete. It may be a memorandum of sorts, prepared by Gardiner as part of his attack on the homilies. Given that the manuscript tells us little about the original – its length, its genre, its structure – the classification as a letter is necessarily tentative.
However they are categorised, these pieces showcase Gardiner's polemical and intellectual gifts. His arguments are clear and cogent, prosecuted through ‘the comōn playne reading’ of crucial texts. With a verve worthy of a brilliant lawyer and a brilliant preacher, he deploys vivid analogies – a man who claims a meal was not free because he had to chew it himself – that both render theological concepts accessible and deftly make his case.
The shadows of two men hang over the texts. The first is Henry viii, not yet a year in his grave: references to the deceased king, both as monarch and as man, abound, and not solely for the legal grounds that this provides. Gardiner felt a ‘genuine affection’ both for Henry and for the conservative elements of the Henrician religious settlement targeted by the reformers.Footnote 17 His declaration that in a debate over the homilies, ‘I will offre my self to defend that determination of our late soveraigne lord as the very trew[th], and agreable with tholde ancient teaching of Christes Churche’ is a literary flourish – but not devoid of truth.Footnote 18 More prosaically, dead though he was, Henry's name remained one to conjure with.
The second presence, Gardiner's almost-invisible adversary, is Thomas Cranmer. The archbishop of Canterbury is named only once in the letters, when Gardiner mentions having written to Cranmer about the radical preaching of his chaplain John Joseph (n.d.).Footnote 19 Yet the Book of homilies, the innovation most criticised in the letters, was Cranmer's project, and Gardiner knew this – protestations of incredulous ignorance notwithstanding.Footnote 20 Nor can he have expected what he wrote to Mason and his colleagues to remain secret from Cranmer for long. For all their courtesy, then, the pugnacity of the letters is clear: Gardiner's assault on the homilies' scriptural and patristic bona fides, his barbed use of Chrysostom (a favourite of Cranmer's) and his charges of illegality are attacks on the archbishop, albeit indirect ones.
Nor should the modern scholar's knowledge of Gardiner's imminent imprisonment unduly colour his position. With his power restricted by the visitation and the radical party ascendant, it is easy to imagine the bishop with his back against the wall, flailing out against Cranmer, Mason and the council. But he had good reason to be sanguine about his chances against the reformers: his imprisonment is a backhanded compliment to the threat that he posed.Footnote 21
There is no indication from ‘Jollet’ whence he got his text. In all likelihood, these letters were part of the covert, informal exchange of texts among English Catholics, a form of early modern samizdat. What is noteworthy, however, is their inclusion in a seventeenth-century collection, as well as the attribution of the ‘Apology’ to Gardiner. Unlike his contemporaries Thomas More (1478–1535) or John Fisher (1469–1535), or the Catholic martyrs of the next generation, Gardiner is rarely seen as inspiring a posthumous ‘following’. Much more familiar is the image of ‘Wily Winchester’, the ‘Protestant villain’ traced by Michael Riordan and Alec Ryrie.Footnote 22 That ‘Jollet’ included these letters in what is manifestly a project of many years' duration and considerable personal investment, and that Gardiner was linked to the confident, combative treatise, testifies to some enduring reverence for the bishop of Winchester half a century after his death.
APPENDIX
Two Letters of Stephen Gardiner
A note on the transcription
Folio numbers are indicated in bold, in square brackets. Scribal practice (abbreviations, diacritical marks) has been reproduced wherever possible, save the bars on the descenders of ‘p’ and ‘q,’ and other brevigraphs: given the multiplicity of possible meanings and the difficulty of satisfactorily reproducing these symbols, the abbreviated letters have been included in brackets. ‘Jollet’ numbers paragraphs with Roman numerals, but does so irregularly: where he omits a number, it has been supplied in square brackets. ‘Jollet's’ hand differs for Latin and English; to reflect this, Latin text has been italicised. Deletions have been indicated with strikethroughs, with the text approximated to the extent possible.
I
[fo. 875] To the Right wor: Sr John Mason and Sr Frauncis Cave knights and Mr Doctor Briggs
The opening of a doubtfull & ambiguous speeche in the homily of Salvation.
[I.] Faithe excludeth good deedes, so that we maye not doo them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them: ffor all the good workes that we can doo be imp[er]fect and therfore not able to deserve or Iustification.Footnote 1
[fo. 876] II. I see no daunger in this intent understanding the speeche after the comōn playne language, in wch wee saye only we goe to serve the kynge to the entent I maye be made riche & gett fforty pounde land by doing him service: in wch speeche yt is not signified to other mens vnderstanding that he that so speaketh thinketh to doo service worth fortie pounds a yere. And straungers therfore that serche maisters at libertye, they search to serve a liberall prynce that will not make his accompt in reward of service wt the value of service, wch is many tymes worthe nothing in respect of the rewarde, but after the prynces owne accustomed liberallitie: nor the speache implieth not in him that speaketh as afore, ne the intent neither that the service is the rewarde, for that were over grosse: and when wee saye in comōn speache I will goe to soiourne in a phisitians howse to thintent I maye be made hole by dwelling there, I doo not give men to vnderstand that dwelling is my healthe, or that I doo in going to the phisition is my healthe, but that the healthe commeth from the phisition to whom I goe: and wtout dymynution to the phisitians reputation vse this speeche afore: so likewise men beleeve, love, hope in god to this intent to be made good of god by doing of them, not that the workes of believing loving & hoping bee the full goodnes, for they bee but begynnings of a further goodnes in Iustification, by communication of christe vnto such as beleeve, love & hope: & so or imp[er]fect iustice is supplied by the p[er]fection of gods iustice. And thus wee maye & should endevor orselves wt thassistance of gods grace to creepe wher we cannot p[er]fectly goe, & doo good works to thintent to be made good by the doing of them,: for god loveth them that love himFootnote 2 & maketh them good & better that be occupied in doing goodnes, adding to man yt man had not, & not making the reckoning only of that man hath: for christe is the foundation of our worksFootnote 3 & the accomplishment also, who supplieth mans imp[er]fections, & measureth his gifte of goodnes to vs after his owne most bountyous liberalitie: as he by the prevention of his grace worketh so wth man, as men maye be meete to receive his further gifte.
III. And after this vnderstanding of the former speeche the inhabilitie of deserving or imp[er]fectnes of the worke is no reason to dissauade [sic] any man to haue an intent to doo good workes, to thintent to be made good by the doing of them, for god supplieth our imp[er]fection & giveth more & more to him that will thryve, & be doyng & specially be doing to this intent to be made good by so doing: for only god is p[er]fectly good, we never attayne here to the p[er]fection of goodnes, but let vs well m[ar]ke the terme (imperfections) for god in those that be called & haue opportunitie supplieth not their nothings, but of such as be desyrous to come when they be called, supplieth their imp[er]fections. And because the maker of the homelye deliteth in auncient teaching as he pretendeth & alleayeth St Chrisostome De lege et fide. Footnote 4 yt were good for him to consider howe to take this sentence of Chrisostome in the same homely expounding St peters words thus. In veritate compari quia non est personarum acceptor deus, sed in omnia gente qui facit iustitiam, ei acceptus est, Footnote 5 hoc est dignus sit vt assumatur:Footnote 6 This is a great waye from only faithe as the homelyes declare yt.
II
Stephan[us] Gardiner[us] Episc. win. Ao 15 Footnote 7
[I.] Mr.r Mason, after right hartie comendations I haue receaved yor l[ette]res touching the sending of my man to London, wch I would gladly haue accomplished if I could have tolde how to have sent him in tyme: but being the Iurisdiction suspended,Footnote 8 all such as intended vpon yt be spakeled:Footnote 9 nevertheles I thinke yor purpose maye vppon sight of the dyrectorie wch I have sent ther colleges be well served wthout any servaunt, & you have the comoditie of the poste of portsmouth to signifie yor determynation, wch concerning appearaunces shalbe executed accordingly. I thanke you for yor two books & trust you have by this tyme receaved my letters at London, in wch bookes such matter as I founde In medio cæno virulentarum annotationum serveth much to the improving of the learning of only faithe, wherin I haue also written in generall in my said letters vnto you, & more specially to my Lordes of the councell.Footnote 10
II. The Author of those Annotations pressed by them of Trident saith, nowe he & the Germaines vnderstoode by fidem in Iustification, fiduciam, wch fiducia signifieth to vs more then faithe: and therfore only faithe is by them a false proposition, for yt must be called only truste and confidence, in wch faithe cannot exclude that wherby she hath the name of confidence: that is to saye, love & hope.Footnote 11 And furthermore he that made those Annotations will not strive for sola, as he saith, & graunteth that speeche not to be in scripture, but saith sola is as muche to saye as gratis, wthout all workes of gods lawe &c: and so is or newe teaching of only faithe, to iustifye, laid in the duste even by them who should saye yt, if any man woulde saye yt, but they be weary of sola, & be come to gratis, [fo. 877] wch is a worde in deede of scripture & enforceth all men to confesse yt as it is in deede: truth it is wee [be] iustified gratis, & yet not by only faithe, for like as it repugneth not to gratis to receave faithe before iustification, no more repugneth yt to receave love before Iustification, & ther wt hope, & before penaunce gratia is not impayred by encrease of gifts but augmented. If one for example shall giue me leather & then helpe me to make of yt a purse, & then other leather agayne & helpe me to make of yt a girdell, & then silver & helpe me to make of yt a buckell, & further helpe to trymme the girdell & purse & all about mee, and afterFootnote 12 all theisse giue me xxli, should the liberalitie of this xxli be impayred because he gave me a purse, a gyrdell & a silver buckell before? If a man asked me wher I had my purse, I would saye of him that gave me the xxli, & wher my buckell? of him that gave me the xxli: now would any man saye that herein I diminished the glory of him that gave me the xxli? or is not the guift of the xxli gratis? because I saye he gave me a purse a girdell & buckell before? if scriptures had in theis tearmes handled the matter I would thinke in my selfe want of capacitie to comprehend yt: if any Auncient writers had resolved this poynt I would yield to authoritie: but when men argue of the worde gratis, it is insania to confesse that multiplication of benefytts should impayre gratis, and the Germayns leaving contention of sola, be come to gratis, wch they note equipollet to sola, wherby to exclude all or works of desert, & in deed no man saith we can deserve justification as desert soundeth in comōn language: but let vs leave the worde desert, & speak of or working, gods giving gratis. Shall we saye any guift to be impayred or not to be gratis: because he to whom the guift is made doth that wtout wch the guift cannot bee, or cannot take effect, according to the mynde of the giver, If the kynge give a man a thowsand pounde, in the receaving wherof he to whom the guift is made spendeth some tyme: is not the guift gratis, because ther was somwhat done in the receaving of yt? If I giue one a coate to weare, shall he saye yt was no free guifte, because I willed him to weare yt? and he that had bene fedd gratis at my table a whole yeare, shall he saye they are to blame that report he had yt gratis, for he had not his meate wtout worke, for he was fayne every daye at dynner once to arise, & once at supper to sytt downe at my table, & cut his meate, yea cut his breade himself, & then put it in his mouthe, & occupie his foreteethe wth sheering & his hynder teethe wt grynding, his tongue wt convaying it downe: besides the lifting of the cupp to his mouthe as ofte as he was a thirste & once or twise more somtymes wt such a labor and chafyng of his inwarde p[ar]te as he sweatt many tymes, as lustely as he that digged & delved for iiijd a daye: and call ye not shall he saye theis worke? will ye now saye that hee came by this meate & drynke gratis? he that should reason after this sorte, a man would thinke he were madd, & yet what differeth that from this? to make an accompt of or love & hope in god, wt wch vertues & faithe man is indowed to receave Iustification, as though if they remayned still vnexcluded by faithe, we should not be seene to be gratis iustified: for theis vertues be exercised in the receaving of or Iustification, & be no works of desertt, but wrks [sic] of convenyencie. to receave gods furoure further guifte: as the workes of eating & drynking be workes of convenyence to receave meate, wch I freely giue to them that will eate yt, & doo eate yt at my coste, although I doo not mynse yt, chawe yt, or alter yt for them, but leave these works to them to be donne, by them alone, otherwise then god doth who worketh wt vs in believing, loving & hoping, & wee wth him, & therwt helpeth vs to receave his guifts, so as men gave small cause to conceave the loving of god when he calleth man to life, to be a cause of desert, wherfore faithe should exclude charitye in Iustification.
[III.] Here if one that is full of mylde speeche should saye: my Lorde leave your carnall reasoning, leave yor sophistrye, receave gods meere truthe, further gods glorye spend gods talent in the furthering of gods worde, & marke howe you have overseene yorself in the first symilitude, wherin ye seemed to vnderstand by the xxli mans p[er]fect iustification, wch the purse only app[re]hendeth, & therfore like as in those three, of the buckell girdell & purse although the girdell & buckell were p[re]sent wt the purse, yet the purse did only apprehend the Iustification as the purse app[re]hendeth or comprehendeth the xxli, & the comōn speech is in deede of him that hath monye howe he hath xxli in his purse, he saith not xxli in his griddle [sic] & much lesse xxli in his buckell,: after wch speeche we should saye, we be iustified by faith only the purse receath the monye only.
[IV.] I haue heard many devises of symilitudes to set forthe only faith for wante of scripture & doctours, as my Cookes haue somtyme devised many freishe dishes for want of good meate. and this symilitude of the purse wch pleaseth mee p[er]case more because yt is of myne owne invention, & herein somtyme mans imp[er]fection sheweth it self. in non admirari sua quod est genus stultitiæ, & yet herein is no great matter worthy this p[re]face: but in good faithe, fond as yt is, it is neerer the purpose then many I have heard & coulde reherse if I had tyme to compose them, & if one of the converses made yt, it might be thought wyttely devised, [fo. 878] and to proceede from the right iudgment. But for my answere to my owne symilitude, I would saye, first that if yt were agreed to be a true speeche that only faithe iustifies, a symilitude had then some effect to open that truthe agreed on, & that is the proper vse of a symilitude, the wch volentem ducit, as Agricola saith, Invitum non trahit.Footnote 13 And therfore when yt is not founde in scripture & reproved by p[ar]liament, to such faithe only iustifieth: the symilitude only is nothing although yt were never so aptly conceaved, & therfore in my other symilitudes that I have made if the principle had not bene by scripture confyrmed, that accessio beneficiorū augit gratiam ab habenti dabitur Footnote 14 et tu esto supra quinq[ue] civitates.Footnote 15 [sic] I woulde never haue vsed the symilitudes before rehersed. Nowe a wrong ymagination of app[re]hending gods m[er]cy by faithe in him that is iustified entangleth this matter. It is fancied of them that defend only faithe, howe iustification is only receaved by faithe, & it hath a like subtilitie, as if a stokeFootnote 16 would defend that a man seeth wth his inward sense, only, wch is in sight the first, & wtout yt no sighte, & yet absq[ue] oculi organo it seeth not, & therfore yt were a fond conclusion to saye, mens solum videt, or oculus solum videt, for vitium in alteratio marred all & letteth the action: and so likewise in these things, we hope & looke for fides cum charitate apprehendeth: id est fides viua apprehendit promissionem cui imituntur: voluntas autem et intellectus fidei et charitatis subiecta apprehendunt dei iustitia qua innovantur: wch is as much to saye, as faith hope & charitie be vertues given to man of god wherwt man is indewed when god iustifieth him, wch vertues be so knytt together as eche one receaveth p[er]fection or encrease of other, for faithe wtout charitie is imp[er]fect, charitie wtout faithe cannot bee, nor hope can be p[er]fect wtout faith & charitie, being the worde only dissilabed omninosum to challeng a place amongst them, & was yet never allowed of any auncient wryter, in this vnderstanding. ffor the sola fides, the doctours speake of, make no trouble betwene charitie hope & faithe to dissever them in such sorte as the Homelye teacheth: and therfore whensoev[er] I come to answere the matter I will not put my truste & confidence in my owne learning, wch they defame wt sophistrie & many good morrowes: but in their ignoraunce they shall oppose mee, as I haue seene or late Soveraigne Lorde (god p[ar]don his soule) donne at the butts whoo in a dooble shoote somtyme would meat wt asmuch advantage as a gamster might have, but if he sawe the shoote wonne, he would saye to the other p[ar]tie, mete yt you and take yt:Footnote 17 and therfore I will leave reasons, leave symilitudes, leave writing, leave talke, & come to a short issue, a quyett issue, a playne issue, such as the homelye bindeth the maker to wynne in, that calleth only faithe an Auncient teaching, & nameth certeyne old ffathers of the churche, among wch let him showe but one of them that teacheth as the homely doth: howe the vertues of pennance, faith charitie hope obedience ioyned together him that is iustified, faithe excludeth them in thoffice of iustification, & that in justificacon man must renounce his good deedes, & maye not doo any good deede to thintent to be made good by the doing of them.
V. If theis three speeches cann be showed wrytten in this forme of doctrine I will for my p[ar]te wt shame ynough and asmuch to, to my confusion, as Saxton did receave,Footnote 18 wtout distaunce in such wise as I shall not neede to make a declaration of my recantation: other wise called Retractation: but if no such forme of doctrine cann be showed, as ther cannot, but only threpperingsFootnote 19 & bearings in hand, that the Authors alleaged meant this mann[er] of doctrine taken so, In wch vnderstanding if WestonFootnote 20 and SmythFootnote 21 would agree, shall their newe vnderstanding be a sufficient grounde to conclude the doctrine of only faithe, wch speech scripture hath not, to be auncient, & of such authoritie, as he were not to be reputed a true christen man, but reasoning wtout scripture: and that also at such tyme saye as men teache, that only scripture is sufficient for a true christian man, and at such tyme as or great adversary wanteth neither Arguers nor arguments wtout scripture? who by or owne bookes shall showe that we embrace a doctrine wtout foundation of scripture, & was never wrytten of any man for a doctrine in the forme we speake yt, reproved by or owne Acte of p[ar]liament, removed by an vniforme teaching all theis fower yeares, reproved by the Emperoour & ffrench kyngs determinacons: so many waies reprooved, & never approved, no not in Germany throughly that I haue read, after this sorte in any whole churche among them, but as every man at his owne libertie hath uttered his dreame, wch they did by priveledg Libertatis evangelice, out of wch they be fallen into a miserable state?
VI. It shall never be showed in sense or meaning that faithe excludeth charitie in thoffice of Iustification, otherwise then ffaithe excludeth herself wth them, & goo all out from Iustification for company, as neither of them being sufficient to deserve iustification, & in that sense to call faithe an office, wch by the light of the truthe declareth to penaunce, love [fo. 879] hope, obedience, that although they bee there & she wt them, yet in them not in her self neither is not the p[er]fection of mans iustice, but only in christe, & therfore they maye not p[re]sume nor forgett the estimation, nor they together ne shee wt them take the office of iustification from god who only iustifieth.
[VII.] This p[ar]te might be ymagined to make ffaithe an office if yt maye bee allowed to devise newe metaphores & swarve from the olde forme of holsome doctrine, & call faithe gentleman vsher to god to make waye for gods worke, where she is ioyned wt pennance, charitie & hope, in the man to be iustified, to exclude them in iustification: that is to saye, put them forthe of the Iustification chamber, & goo her self after to keepe the dore, on the outward syde: whiles god only iustifieth: for faithe cannot lyve, charitye being excluded, no more then my body can lyve, my soule excluded, & therfore this newely ymagined speech howe faithe excludeth charity in iustification, giveth occasion to two slanderous arguments deduced of other prynciples in the Homilies as bee theise.
[VIII.] The Homilies saye, dead faithe is no faithe: faithe voide of charitie is a dead faithe, & then in reason wthout the booke exclusion & void benuceFootnote 22 is all one.
[IX.] The Homilies teache, that faithe wtout love & hope is the divells faithe: Nowe ex premissis, as they be taught, arguitur sic.
[X.] Faithe, charitie excluded iustifieth: faithe, charitie excluded, is a devells faithe ergo a divells faith iustifieth. And otherwise this.
[XI.] Faithe, by exclusion of charitie, dead, iustifieth: ergo no faith iustifieth.
[XII.] And such Arguments shall or Adversaries make of the learning in the Homilies wch have such contradictions in them, as they confound themselves, And after muche adoo to declare howe only faith iustifieth, he bringeth yt to this poynte that by the true meaning we bee not iustifiethd by only faith, for he saith wee be iustified by only christe & by no vertue &c. Then assume the minor & faithe is vertue, ergo, faith iustifieth not, wch was St James his teaching,Footnote 23 wt only to yt, & our late Sovereigne Lorde teaching, & the whole p[ar]liament nowe by strength of the Acte.
[XIII.] In the Homilie of salvation, the divells faithe is so dilated as it hath neither scripture ne author to beare yt. It is affirmed that the divell beleeveth all the articles of our faithe, & beleeveth all things written in the old & newe testament to be true:Footnote 24 what an Asseveracon is this wtout scripture, or auncyent doctors, to sett forthe the divell? for though scripture saye the divell beleeveth god to bee,Footnote 25 yet yt goeth not so farr, for they be Spiritus tenebrarū & not lucis. and if the booke had no other fault then this, shall men affirme, they cannot proove? There was a mayster of Arte at cambridge that in an extreeme paroxisme of a fever, fancyed that he reasoned wth the divell & overcame him by reasoninge: in a probleme vppon publication wherof yt was resolved, the divell was but a flye, that could be overcome by such a maister of Arte that had so small learning. And nowe I must preache that the divells beleeve all the articles of or faithe, wch I will never beleeve till I see playne scripture in that specialtie because I knowe so, that many that have beene familyer wth the dyvell, & haue not believed the articles of or faith at all.
[XIV.] I talke wt you as wt one that is learned, but learned wt this advantage that ye may passe over in scilence, that you thinke ye cannot remedye, and so maye not I, my office is to speake, as long as I maye speake, & as the matter requyreth to be spoken in, et melius est incurrere in manus hominū quam in manus dei viventis.Footnote 26 And yet I neede bare no daung[er] of mans power, if my Lord protector returne prosperously from this iourney, as I trust he shall, I was so famylier of late wt all my good Lords, & knowe their vertues such as I were a beast to bare them, nor I will never slander them so muche: I am a Lorde of ye p[ar]liament & by that tytle a common counceller of the Realme, & doo therfore alleadg the Act of p[ar]liamt & force of yt: I am a Bishopp & therfore bounde to defend truthe, wherin I must & will speake ernestly, wt such circumstances as becommeth me to such as bee in authoritie & be not p[ar]ties, wherin I knowe my Lord protectour to be no doer, but one that will indifferently heare truthe: & to my Lord of canterbury I haue wrytten as playnly in this matter as I doo to you, requyring him to beware of one Joseph a ffryer quondam,Footnote 27 that begann to preach only faith, wch oppinion I esteeme to bee Equus Traianus [sic], and doubt not but if my Lord protector and other noble men sawe what were in yt, they would not suffer yt to be had in the cittie of our common wealthe: and specially to clyme over the walles to breake the strength of ye comōn wealthe, howe lamentably doth Ænæas rehearse that tale, wherin virgill learneth Rulers prudence, that after breache of the common force, for any purpose, followeth dissipation, as Ænæas saith in the p[er]son of the Rulers. Dividimus muros et menia scindimus [sic] vrbis. Accingunt omnes [fo. 880] operi,Footnote 28 and a litle after, et funē quisq[ue] contingere gaudet [sic].Footnote 29 Theis ment no evill to the cittie of Troye, the Rulers had a good intent, & such as medled by their comandmt also, but it had an other effect, because ther was one that p[er]suaded the matter that meant not so. what is in the matter I will speake no further then I can proove, but if men maye in any case contemne an Act of p[ar]liament, yt is a m[er]velous matter & I dare swear for my Lorde protectour and the noble men that agreed to this matter, they were not aware of the Acte of p[ar]liament, & by my troth I my selfe had forgotten yt that yt was so p[re]cisely made as it is, for by the Act all or Soveraigne Lordes Iniunctions, all & all his ordynaunces must remayne in force till the Act be broken, insomuch as because his highnes comanded p[ro]cessions they must remayne also, for it is in the Act sett forthe (or to be sett forthe) & so it is in the lightes before the Roode, & many other things that yor Iniunctions should forbidd.Footnote 30
XV. And yt is not wthout the doubte of a premunire for a Bishopp to breake a common lawe or Act of p[ar]liament, although it be done in the kyngs maties name. and so was yt reasoned in the p[ar]liament howse, when I thought yt no reason that a man might be in daunger of a premunire, executing the kyngs comandment, but ye common Lawiers haue a great respect to those peeces of the lawe wch they call the kyngs crowne, & in Ao. 32 in the Act of p[ar]liament p[ro]clamation it is specially provided that the kynges of this Realmes [sic] shall make no lawes by p[ro]clamations contrary to the common lawes or an Acte of p[ar]liament [vere 31 Hen. 8, c. 8]. It is necessarie to foresee when things be enioyned, by what lawe ye trasngression of the Iniunction maye be punished. If a beneficed man that maye spend cli by the yeare shall refuse to fynde a scholler,Footnote 31 & saye, if mens goods being their own by the comōn lawes of the realme maye be bestowed by Iniunctions & appoyntment yerely, what shall p[ar]liaments neede for graunts? The intent of the thinge is good, but of good examples have ensewed many p[ar]liaments: whatsoev[er] Iniunctions ye make if they be not executed the people shall learne disobedience, wch is a great matter: on the other side if ther be no evident lawes to enforce him wtout slander of such allegations as afore, ther shall follow as hath done in or late Sovereigne Lords daies in p[ro]clamations, wch when we said they disobeyed, the Iudges said we could not execute the paynes of yt, wher vppon ensewed the Acte.Footnote 32
XVI. I will make you weary of reading my letter & I am not weary of writing for I discharge some p[ar]te of such matter as troubleth me, but the Homilyes be overfarr out of the way as I saye to you: & as I must saye further if ye command me to preache them, but I trust my Lords will waye & consider the matter, & by your good meanes the letter, for this were a m[er]velous p[re]sident in the tyme of a kyngs Mynoritie to have two or three at London that shall make lessons in Religion for Bishopps, & bidd them preache this or that notwtstanding an Act to the contrary. But on my conscience I dare depose my Lorde protectour knewe not of the Acte to be thus p[re]cisely as yt is, but yt is very p[re]cise & taketh the p[re]sent state & doctrine in all religion as fyrme as is the Sacrament of the Aultar touching the Authoritie of the realme, for both be established by an acte of p[ar]liament. Thus I have pratled my mynde you, wch I am sure you will fryndly to doo good as yee maye & wou otherwise would advise you not to trouble yorself: If you were as not my Iudge I would not wryte to you: whom god send hartely well to fare.
