ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
of the party of reform. The whole question was intimately connected with that of the relation between 'faith' and 'works' in the Christian life; although the doctrine of justification by faith alone was probably held by very few, yet since its exposition by Bylney in 1527 its leavening influence is clearly traceable, at first chiefly with regard to one class of 'good works,' pilgrimages and offerings made to special images. On the destruction of all such images in 1538 a new phase of the controversy began with the greater prominence of disputes about the value of fasting, confession, and even prayer, but most of all in 1539 about the use of ceremonies.[1]
The reforming party clearly hoped that the kind of preaching ordered by the royal proclamation was intended to lead up to the abolition of 'superstitions' in the use of ceremonies, as Hilsey's sermon had done to that of 'idols' a year before. The reaction, however, began almost immediately. On 31 March Cromwell declared that he would defend the teaching of 'certain new preachers, as R. Barnes and other' even with the sword;[2] but little more than a month later Henry's actions showed clearly enough that those 'new preachers' were no longer to be free to expound their doctrine in the City. A man was hanged for eating flesh on Friday ; the king himself received holy bread and holy water every Sunday, and daily used 'all other laudable ceremonies,' and in all London no man dared speak against them on pain of death.[3] The Act of Six Articles was passed in June. Wriothesley speaks of the enforcement of the celibacy of priests as 'a godly
act,'[4] and according to him only four of the clergy in Convocation refused to sign the articles — Bishops Shaxton and Latimer (both of whom resigned their sees at the beginning of July) and the rectors of St. Mary Aldermary and St. Peter Cornhill, Dr. Crome and Dr. Taylor. The two City parsons do not seem to have been punished, though Crome was summoned before the Lord Chancellor and Cromwell, and was reported to have resigned.[5] Nor was there any immediate inquiry into offences against the Six Articles.[6] In spite of his own danger Crome boldly preached on Relic Sunday against the 'craft of lie-mongers ... in barbers' shops, in taverns, and at bishops' boards,'who slandered 'the good men who had lost their promotions.' He would not allow the feast of the Relics to be kept at his church, and it was reported that a week later, preaching at Allhallows Bread Street, he said that he found no vestments, tapers, torches, or masses mentioned in the gospel, and nothing in the mass of Christ's institution except the holy consecration which was only for them that were alive.[7]
- ↑ In at least three London churches a new form of words for blessing the holy water had already been introduced, and not long after a City rector was accused of having said the 'butcherly ceremonies' were to be abhorred; Foxe, op. cit. v, 448, 447.
- ↑ L. and P. Hen. VIII, xv, 498, i (60); cf. 939 and Corresp. politique de MM. de Castillon et de Marillac (Inventaire Analytique des Archives), 190.
- ↑ L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiv (i), 967.
- ↑ Ibid. xiv (i), 922; Gee and Hardy, Documents, &c., 303; Wriothesley, Chron. (Camd. Soc), i, 101-3.
- ↑ L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiv (i), 1219. Possibly both were imprisoned for a short time; see ibid. (2), 444, and Foxe, op. cit. v, 451; but cf. Orig. Letters (Parker Soc.), ii, 614.
- ↑ In July a priest did penance for attacking exorcism, but this was not specially connected with the Six Articles; L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiv (i), 1219.
- ↑ This deposition was made on 13 Aug. before the mayor and others; no result of the proceedings has been found, but in November Melanchthon had heard that Crome had been imprisoned, like Latimer and Shaxton; Foxe, op. cit. v, App. vi; L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiv (2), 41, 444; cf. 379.
