had much corrupted the morals of the nation; but the protestant clergy did and would do what they could. God would bless their efforts, and give increase; but as yet they hardly appeared to be returned from exile. He adds, "We have a prudent and pious queen who favours us. Religion is restored to the same state as in king Edward's time; to which I doubt not your letters and exhortations, and those of your state, have much contributed." He then mentions that the queen did not wish to be styled or addressed as head of the English church. He laments the state to which the universities had been brought. At Oxford there were hardly two persons of their sentiments: Soto and the other Spanish friar had so completely rooted up all that Martyr had so well planted. It seemed scarcely possible that such devastation could have been made in so short a period. He adds, "Wherefore, although it would give me great pleasure to see in England even a dog belonging to Zurich, I cannot at this time wish you to send your young people to us, either for learning or religion, unless you desire to have them returned wicked and barbarians."

Lord Russell was exerting himself to promote religion. He was sensible of the kindness the exiles had experienced at Zurich, and anxiously inquired how he could send their benefactors a grateful acknowledgement. Jewell replied that nothing would be more acceptable to them than for his lordship studiously to endeavor to propagate Christ's religion; which lord Russell promised to do.

In another letter, written about the same period, Jewell laments the indifference of the protestants when compared with the recent zeal of the papists. He says, "Christ was then expelled by his enemies; he is now kept out by his friends." He regretted the queen's retaining a crucifix in her chapel.

In August, 1559, he wrote with better expectations; the queen was well animated, the people everywhere "thirsting for religion." He was about to commence a visitation of the western counties. In this letter he also mentions the probability of his being appointed bishop of Salisbury. The visitation here referred to was general throughout England; its objects were the reforming many abuses which still remained, and promoting the knowledge of true religion.

From this visitation Jewell returned on the 1st of November, and wrote to Martyr the day following. He says, "We found everywhere the minds of the people well inclined towards religion, even where least expected. The manner in which the harvest and forests of superstition sprung up in the dark Marian days is beyond belief. We found everywhere superstitious relics of saints, the nails with which in their folly they believe Christ was fastened, and I know not how many pieces of the holy cross! The number of witches and sorcerers is increased everywhere. The cathedrals are mere dens of robbers; or any worse or fouler appellation may be given them.

If there be any obstinate malice, it is among the priests; those especially who were formerly of our opinions." Many such ministers were deprived. He adds, "The papal army has fallen almost of itself; unless help be wanting, we cannot be apprehensive as to religion." On the same day he wrote to another correspondent, who had congratulated him on his appointment. He says, that as yet he was only nominated; and expresses his hope that the bishops would be pastors, labourers, and watchmen. To promote this the larger revenues were to be reduced, so that they would not be expected to live with such pomp as formerly, but might have more leisure to attend to Christ's flock.

On the 5th of November he wrote again, lamenting the earnestness of some about certain rituals and vestments, which he wishes were prohibited. He regrets the little care taken with respect to education. There was much talk that Martyr would again be invited over; but Jewell feared that the Saxon, or Lutheran influence would prevail.

On the 16th of the same month he wrote in a more gloomy strain. Differences had begun to prevail on the subject of ceremonials. He says, that foolish ceremonies still abounded. The silver, crucifix remained in the queen's chapel.* The universities, Oxford especially, where Martyr had taught, still lay desolate, without piety, without religion, without teachers, or any attempt to promote literature. Many persons desired that Martyr should come over; Jewell wished it, but such was the uncertain, fluctuating, unstable, "island-like" state of affairs, that he would rather hear of Martyr's safety at a distance than see him present and in danger. At that time the state of political affairs was very threatening; an invasion from France being expected.

After his return from the visitation, Jewell was consecrated bishop of Salisbury. He had not sought this promotion. Being deeply impressed with a sense of the importance of the office, he often repeated the words, "He that desireth a bishopric, desireth a work." (1 Tim. iii. 1.) "And surely," adds his biographer, “if ever to any, to him his bishopric was a continual 'work' of ruling and governing; not merely by the pastoral staff of his jurisdiction in his consistory, but also in the court of men's consciences, by the golden sceptre of God's word preached." He found his diocese in a most disordered state. The revenues had been so miserably impoverished by the conduct of his popish predecessor, bishop Capon, that he complained he could not have the assistance he needed: "There was never a good living left him that would maintain a learned For the Capon has devoured all; because he hath either given away or sold all the ecclesiastical dignities and livings."

man.

*This crucifix occasioned many apprehensions to the reformers. See Tracy's letter respecting it. Tindal, p. 348

The additional labour which in consequence fell upon Jewell hastened him to the grave.

His next letter to Martyr is dated 4th February, 1560. The controversy about crucifixes was very bitter. Many good men were inclined to favour them. The following day there was to be a conference on the subject. He expected not to be a bishop when he wrote again, being informed that none would be allowed to retain that office who did not consent to crucifixes being set up in all the churches.

March the 5th, Jewell wrote that a change appeared visible among the people. This had been much promoted by inviting the congregations to sing psalms in public worship, according to the plan generally adopted upon the continent. It began at one church in London, St. Antholin's, and the example was soon adopted in others. At Paul's cross sometimes there were six thousand persons singing together. The Romish priests were become objects of derision, and the popish bishops were called executioners to their faces.

From the time of the conference being broken off by the Romanists, Jewell had been anxious publicly to expose the errors of popery, and in November 1559, he preached at Paul's cross, when he boldly attacked the pretensions of the Romish church, respecting the antiquity of its doctrines. He spoke against these claims in a manner which even many protestants apprehended he would hardly be able to support. But Jewell well knew the ground he had taken. On the Sunday before Easter, March 30, 1560, he again preached at Paul's cross, to an immense congregation. His text was 1 Cor. xi. 23. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, &c." when he referred to his former sermon, and repeated his arguments, complaining that although many had spoken against them in private, no scholar had come forward to meet him publicly. He summed up, by giving his adversaries a challenge in twenty-seven particulars, which he had a short time previously stated in a sermon at court. They are as follows:

"If any learned man of our adversaries, or all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old catholic doctor, or father, or general council, or holy scripture, or any one example in the primitive church during the first six hundred years, whereby it may clearly and plainly be proved-1. That there was at any time any private masses in the world. 2. Or that there was then any communion ministered unto the people under one kind. 3. Or that the people had their common-prayer in a strange tongue that the people understood not. 4. Or that the bishop of Rome was then called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal church. 5. Or that the people were then taught to believe that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporeally, carnally, or naturally in the sacrament. 6. Or that his body is or may be

in a thousand places or more at one time. 7. Or that the priest did then hold up the sacrament over his head. 8. Or that the people did then fall down and worship it with godly honour. 9. Or that the sacrament was then, or now ought to be, hanged up under a canopy. 10. Or that in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, there remained only the accidents and shows, without the substance of bread and wine. 11. Or that then the priest divided the sacrament into three parts, and afterwards received himself alone. 12. Or that whosoever had said the sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's body, had therefore been adjudged for an heretic. 13. Or that it was lawful then to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five masses said in the same church in one day. 14. Or that images were then set up in the churches, to the intent the people might worship them. 15. Or that the lay-people were then forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue. 16. Or that it was then lawful for the priest to pronounce the words of consecration closely, or in private to himself. 17. Or that the priest had then authority to offer up Christ unto his Father. 18. Or to communicate and receive the sacrament for another, as they do. 19. Or to apply the virtue of Christ's death and passion to any man by the means of the mass. 20. Or that it was then thought a sound doctrine to teach the people that the mass, 'ex opere operato,' (that is, even for that it is said and done) is able to remove any part of our sin. 21. Or that any Christian man called the sacrament his Lord, and God. 22. Or that the people were then taught to believe, that the body of Christ remaineth in the sacrament, as long as the accidents of bread and wine remain there without corruption. 23. Or that a mouse or any other worm or beast may eat the body of Christ, (for so some of our adversaries have said and taught.) 24. Or that when Christ said, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' the word, 'hoc' pointed not to the bread, but to an individuum vagum, (or an unascertained quality,) as some of them say. 25. Or that the accidents, or forms, or shows of bread and wine are the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not rather the very bread and wine itself. 26. Or that the sacrament is a sign or token of the body of Christ, that lieth hidden underneath it. 27. Or that ignorance is the mother and cause of true devotion and obedience. The conclusion is, that I shall THEN be content to hold and subscribe."

This sermon gave a most severe blow to the popish religion in England. Popery was generally odious for the barbarous cruelties so recently committed by the professors of that faith upon persons of all ranks, however excellent in character, who had differed from the church of Rome during the late reign, but its claims to antiquity, although unfounded, were still credited by many. These claims bishop Jewell now disputed, and a memorable controversy ensued.

This challenge, says his biographer, being thus published in so great an auditory, startled the English papists both at home and abroad, none more than such of our fugitives as had retired to Louvain, Douay, or St. Omers, in the Low-Country provinces belonging to the king of Spain. The business was first agitated by the exchange of friendly letters betwixt bishop Jewell and Dr. Henry Cole, the late dean of St. Paul's; more violence followed in a book of Rastal's, who first appeared in the lists against the challenger, followed by Dorman and Marshall, who severally took up the argument to as little purpose; the first being well beaten by Nowell, and the last by Calfhill; but these were only preparatory skirmishes in reference to the main encounter, which was reserved for the reverend challenger himself, and Dr. John Harding, one of the divines of Louvain, and the most learned of the college. The combatants were born in the same county, bred up in the same grammar school, and studied in the same university; both were zealous protestants in the time of king Edward, and both relapsed to popery in the time of queen Mary; Jewell for fear, and Harding upon hope of favour and preferment by it. Jewell's fall may be compared to that of St. Peter, which was short and sudden, he rising again by his repentance, and fortified more strongly in his faith than he was before; but Harding's was like to that of the other Simon, premeditated and resolved an, never to be restored again to his former standing, so much was there within him of the gall of bitterness. Some former differences had been between them in the church of Salisbury, whereof the one was prebendary, and the other bishop, occasioned by the bishop's visitation of that cathedral, in which Harding had the worst, and it was a presage of a second foil which he was to have in this encounter.

Harding's first work in answer to this challenge was printed in 1564. Jewell replied again to Harding in 1565, to which Harding wrote a rejoinder in 1566, and another in 1567. The bishop made a further reply in 1567, showing how abundantly he was able to make good his challenge. Several others zealously wrote against Jewell's book besides those already mentioned. Saunders discoursed upon some detached passages, and Stapleton wrote a great volume upon Jewell's marginal notes. Harding's language often was abusive; in a letter written to Jewell in 1565, he thus writes:-" Make ye not ministers of tag and rag for the Spirit's sake? Clap me not they the bare bible upon the desk, and preach thereupon after their own sense?" But such expressions are as nothing compared with much of his railing against Jewell and the reformation.*

* During the reign of Edward VI. Harding was chaplain in the family of the duke of Suffolk, and very zealous against popery. Previously to the accession of queen Mary he earnestly exhorted a congregation in London, to continue steadfast in the truth, if persecution should arise. But