ties against Protestants, these instances were always produced; and when Cranmer himself was brought to the stake they called it a just retaliation. But neither this, nor any other arguments, could convince the divines of this age, of the absurdity and wickedness of putting men to death for conscience' sake. Bonner bishop of London, being accused of remissness in not settling the new service-book throughout his diocess, and being suspected of disaffection to the government, was enjoined to declare publicly, in a sermon at Paul's cross, his belief of the king's authority while under age, and his approbation of the new service-book, with some other articles; which he not performing to the council's satisfaction, was cited before the court of delegates, and after several hearings, in which he behaved with great arrogance, sentence of deprivation was pronounced against him Sept. 23d, by the archbishop of Canterbury, Ridley bishop of Rochester, secretary Smith, and the dean of St. Paul's. It was thought hard to proceed to such extremities with a man for a mere omission; for Bonner pleaded, that he forgot the article of the king's authority in his sermon; and it was yet harder to add imprisonment to his deprivation: but he lived to take a severe revenge upon his judges in the next reign. The vacant see was filled up with Dr. Ridley, who, on the 24th of February 1549-50, was declared bishop of London and Westminster, the two bishopricks being united in him; but his consecration was deferred to the next year. The parliament that met the 14th of November revived the act of the late king, empowering his majesty to reform the canon law, by naming thirty-two persons, viz. sixteen of the spirituality, of whom four to be bishops; and sixteen of the temporality, of whom four to be common lawyers, who within three years should compile a body of ecclesiastical laws, which, not being contrary to the statute law, should be published by the king's warrant under the great seal, and have the force of laws in the ecclesiastical courts. This design was formed, and very far advanced in king Henry VIII.'s time, but the troubles that attended the last part of his reign prevented the finishing it. It was now resumed, and in pursuance of this act a commission was first given to eight persons, viz. two bishops, two divines, two doctors of law, and two common lawyers, who were to prepare mate rials for the review of the thirty-two; but the preface to the printed book says, that Cranmer did almost the whole himself. It was not finished till the month of February 1552-53, when another commission was granted to thirty-two persons to revise it, of whom the former eight were a part, viz. eight bishops, eight divines, eight civilians, and eight common lawyers; they divided themselves into four classes, and the amendments of each class were communicated to the whole. Thus the work was finished, being digested into fifty-one titles. It was translated into Latin by Dr. Haddon and sir John Cheek; but before it received the royal confirmation the king died; nor was it ever revived in the succeeding reigns. Archbishop Parker first published it in the year 1571, under the title of Reformatio Legum Anglicarum, &c. and it was reprinted 1640. By this book Cranmer seems to have softened his burning principles; for though, under the third title of judgments for heresy, he lays a very heavy load upon the back of an obstinate heretic, as, that "he shall be declared infamous, incapable of public trust, or of being witness in any court; or of having power to make a will; or of having the benefit of the law;" yet there is no mention of capital proceedings. 9 Another remarkable act, passed this session,t was for ordaining ministers; it appoints, "that such forms of or daining ministers as should be set forth by the advice of six prelates and six divines, to be named by the king, and authorized under the great seal, should be used after April next, and no other." Here is no mention again of a convocation or synod of divines; nor do the parliament reserve to themselves a right of judgment, but intrust every thing absolutely with the crown. The committee soon finished their Ordinal, which is almost the same with that now in use. They take no notice in their book of the lower orders in the church of Rome, as subdeacons, readers, acolytes, &c. but confine themselves to bishops, priests, and deacons; and here it is observable, that the form of ordaining a priest and a bishop is the same we yet use, there being no express mention in the words of ordination whether it be for the one or the other office : this has been altered of late years, since a distinction of the two orders has been so generally admit* Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 271. + 3 and 4 of Edward VI. cap. 12. Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. 2. p. 144. Collyer's Eccles. Hist, vol. 2. p. 290. ted; but that was not the received doctrine of these times.* The committee struck out most of the modern rites of the church of Rome, and contented themselves, says bishop Burnet, with those mentioned in Scripture, viz. imposition of hands, and prayer. The gloves, the sandals, the mitre, the ring, and crosier, which had been used in consecrating bishops, were laid aside. The anointing, the giving consecrated vestments, the delivering into the hands vessels for consecrating the eucharist, with a power to offer sacrifice for the dead and living, which had been the custom in the ordination of a priest, were also omitted. But when the bishop ordained, he was to lay one hand on the priest's head, and with his other hand to give him a Bible, with a chalice and bread in it. The chalice and bread are now omitted; as is the pastoral staff in the consecration of a bishop. By the rule of this Ordinal a deacon was not to be ordained before twenty-one, a priest before twenty-four, nor a bishop before he was thirty years of age. The council went on with pressing the new liturgy upon the people, who were still inclined in many places to the old service; but to put it out of their power to continue it, it was ordered that all clergymen should deliver up to such persons whom the king should appoint, all their old antiphonals, missals, grails, processionals, legends, pies, portuasses, &c. and to see to the observing one uniform order in the church; which the parliament confirmed, requiring farther, all that had any images in their houses, that had belonged to any church, to deface them; and to dash out of their primers all prayers to the saints. 1550. Ridley being now bishop of London, resolved upon a visitation of his diocess. His injunctions were, as usual, to inquire into the doctrines and manners of the clergy; but the council sent him a letter in his majesty's name, to see that all altars were taken down, and to require the churchwardens of every parish to provide a table decently covered, and to place it in such part of the choir or chancel as should be most meet, so that the ministers and For a full vindication of the above assertions, see Mr. Neal's Review, p. 860— 864 of the first volume of the quarto edition of his history.-ED. + Among the other articles which he put to the inferior clergy, this was one: "Whether any Anabaptists or others, used private conventicles, with different opinions and forms from those established, and with other questions about baptism and marriages." Crosby, vol. 1. p. 51.-Ed. communicants should be separated from the rest of the people. The same injunctions were given to the rest of the bishops, as appears by the collection of bishop Sparrow.Ridley began with his own cathedral at St. Paul's, where he ordered the wall on the back side of the altar to be broken down, and a decent table to be placed in its room; and this was done in most churches throughout the province of Canterbury. The reasons for this alteration were these: 1. "Because our Saviour instituted the sacrament at a table, and not at an altar. 2. "Because Christ is not to be sacrificed over again, but his body and blood to be spiritually eaten and drunk at the holy supper; for which a table is more proper than an altar. 3. "Because the Holy Ghost, speaking of the Lord's supper, calls it the Lord's table, 1 Cor. x. 21. but no where an altar. 4. "The canons of the council of Nice, as well as the fathers St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, call it the Lord's table; and though they sometimes call it an altar, it is to be understood figuratively. 5. "An altar has relation to a sacrifice; so that if we retain the one we must admit the other; which would give great countenance to mass-priests. 6. "There are many passages in ancient writers, that shew that communion-tables were of wood, that they were made like tables; and that those who fled into churches for sanctuary did hide themselves under them. 7. "The most learned foreign divines have declared against altars; as Bucer, Ecolampadius, Zuinglius, Bullinger, Calvin, P. Martyr, Joannes Alasco, Hedio, Capito, &c. and have removed them out of their several churches: only the Lutheran churches retain them."+ Ridley, Cranmer, Latimer, and the rest of the English reformers, were of opinion, that the retaining altars would serve only to nourish in people's minds the superstitious opinion of a propitiatory mass, and would minister an occasion of offence and division among the godly; and the next age will shew they were not mistaken in their conjectures. * Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. 2. p. 150. Strype's Ann. vol. 1. p. 160. + Strype's Annals, vol. 1. p. 162. Hist. Ref. vol. 3. p. 158. Strype's Ann. vol. 1. p. 162. But some of the bishops refused to comply with the coun cil's order; as Day bishop of Chichester, and Heath of Worcester, insisting on the apostle's words to the Hebrews, “We have an altar;" and rather than comply they suffered themselves to be deprived of their bishopricks for contumacy, October 1551. Preachers were sent into the countries to rectify the people's prejudices, which had a very good effect; and if they had taken the same methods with respect to the habits, and other relics of Popery, these would 'hardly have kept their ground, and the reformers would have acted a more consistent and prudent part. The sad consequences of retaining the Popish garments in the service of the church, began to appear this year: a debate, one would think, of small consequence; but at this time apprehended of great importance to the Reformation. The people, having been bred up in a superstitious veneration for the priests' garments, were taught that they were sacred; that without them no administrations were valid ; that there was a sort of virtue conveyed into them by consecration; and in a word, that they were of the same importance to a Christian clergyman, as the priests' garments of old were in their ministrations; it was time therefore to disabuse them. The debate began upon occasion of Dr. Hooper's nomination to the bishoprick of Gloucester, in the room of Dr. Wakeman, who died in December 1549. Dr. Hooper was a zealous, pious, and learned man; he went out of England in the latter end of king Henry's reign, and lived at Zurich at a time when all Germany was in a flame on account of the Interim; which was a form of worship contrived to keep up the exterior face of Popery, with the softenings of some other senses put upon things. Upon this arose a great and important question among the Germans, concerning the use of things indifferent.* It was said, "If things were indifferent in themselves, they were lawful; and that it was the subject's duty to obey when commanded." So the old Popish rites were kept up, on purpose to draw the people more easily back to Popery. Out of this another question arose," whether it was lawful to obey in things indifferent, when it was certain they were enjoined with an ill design." To which it was replied, that the designs of legislators were not to be inquired into * Hist. Ref. vol. 3. p. 199. |