for the posture of sitting rather than kneeling at the Lord's supper. *

1551. Upon the translation of Ridley to the see of London, Dr. Poynet was declared bishop of Rochester, and Coverdale, coadjutor to Veysey, bishop of Exeter. The see of Winchester had been two years as good as vacant by the long imprisonment of Gardiner, who had been confined all this time without being brought to a trial: the bishop complained of this to the council, who thereupon issued out a commission to the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London, Ely, and Lincoln, with secretary Petre, judge Häles, two civilians, and two masters in Chancery, to proceed against him for contempt. It was objected to him, that he refused to preach concerning the king's power while under age; that he had been negligent in obeying the king's injunctions, and was so obstinate that he would not ask the king mercy. It was the declared opinion of the Popish clergy at this time, that the king's laws were to be obeyed, but not the orders of his council; and therefore that all things should remain as the late king left them, till the present king, now a child, came of age. This the rebels in Devon pleaded, as well as the lady Mary and others. For the same opinion Gardiner was deprived of his bishoprick April 18th,+ upon which he appealed to the king when at age; and so his process ended, and he was sent back to the Tower, where he lay till queen Mary discharged him. Nothing can be said in vindication of this severity but this, that both he and Bonner had taken out commissions, with the rest of the bishops, to hold their bishopricks only during the king's pleasure; which gave the regents a right to displace them whensoever they pleased. Dr. Poynet was translated from Rochester to Winchester; Dr. Story was made bishop

About the end of December 1550, after many cavils in the state, bishop Barnet informs as, that an act passed for the king's general pardon, wherein the Anabaptists were excepted. Crosby, vol. 1. p. 50.

Mr. Neal, in his Review of the transactions of this year, has also omitted to inform his readers, that the doctrines established by the reformers by no means met with an implicit reception froin all. The doctrine of the Trinity was denied by many, and Unitarian sentiments were so plainly avowed, and spread so fast, that the leading charchmen were alarmed at it, and feared their generally prevailing. Mr. Strype's words are, “ Arianism now shewed itself so openly, and was in such danger of spreading farther, that it was thought necessary to suppress it, by using more ragged methods than seemed agreeable to the mercifal principles of the profession of the gospel.” Lindsey's Historical View of the State of tbe Unilarian Doctrine and Worship, p. 84.Ep.

+ Strype's Life of Crapmer, p. 191.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of Rochester; and Veysey resigning, Coverdale was made bishop of Exeter in his room; so that now the bench of bishops had a majority for the Reformation,

It was therefore resolved in council to reform the doctrine of the church. Archbishop Cranmer and bişhop Ridley were appointed to this work, who framed forty-two articles upon the chief points of the Christian faith; copies of which were sent to the other bishops and learned divines, for their corrections and amendments; after which the archbishop reviewed them a second time, and having given them his last hapd presented them to the council, where they received the royal sanction.* This was another high act of the supremacy; for the articles were not brought into parliament, nor agreed upon in convocation;t as they ought to have been, and as the title seems to express : whef this was afterward objected to Cranmer as a fraud in the next reign, he owned the charge, but said, he was ignorant of the title, and complained of it to the council, who told him, the book was so entitled, because it was published in the time of the convocation; which was no better than a collusion. It is entitled, “ Articles agreed upon by the bishops and other learned men in the convocation held at London in the year 1552, for the avoiding diversity of opinions, and establishing consent touching true religion. Published by the king's authority.” These articles are for substance the same with those now in use, being reduced to the number of thirtynine in the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, where the reader will meet with the corrections and altera.

* Hist. Ref. vol. 3. p. 210.

+ Bishop Maddox objected to this representation, and said it was confuted by archliishop'Wake, who had examined the matter fully. Mr. Neal rests the vindication of his state of it on lhe authority of bishop Burnet, supported by the remark of Mr. Collyer ;

“ 'Tis pretty plain they were passed by some members of convocation ouly, delegated by both houses, as appears by the very title, articles, &c. agreed upon in the sypod of London, by the bishops and certain other learned men." Eccles. Uisl. vol. 2. p. 325. Neal's Review. fo.

# An alteration in the twenty-eighth article is not noticed by Mr. Neal, in the place to which he refers. The last clause of the article was laid down in these words: • The custom of the church for baptizing young children, is both to be commended, and by all means to be retained in the church." This clause was left out of queen Elizabeth's articles. Il seems by this, however, obseryes Crosby, " that the first reformers did not found the practice of infant baptism upon Scriplare; but took it only as a commendable custom, that had been used in the Christian church, and there, fore ought to be retained.”-Hist. Eng. Bapt. vol. 1. p. 54, 55. But what shall we think of, rather how should we lament the bigotry and illiberality of those times, when wen were harassed and put to death for declining a religious practice, which they who enjoined it did not pretend to enforce on the authority of Scripture, but only as a custom of the churches ; a plea which would have equally justified all those other religious ceremonies which they themselves, notwithstanding this sanction, rejected !-En.

who says,

tions. The controverted elause of the twentieth article, that the church bas power to decreé rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, is not in king Edward's articles, nor does it appear how it came into queen Elizabeth's. It is evident by the title of the articles, that they were designed as articles of truth, and not of peace, as some have since imagined, who subscribed them rather as a compromise, not to teach any doctrine contrary to them, than as a declaration that they believed according to them. This was a notion the imposers never thought of, nor does there appear any reason for this conceit. So that (says bishop Burnet*) those who subscribed, did either believe them to be true, or else they did grossly prevaricate.

With the book of articles was printed a short catechism,t with a preface prefixed in the king's name. It is supposed to be drawn up by bishop Poynet, but revised by the rest of the bishops and other learned men. It is dated May 7th, about seven weeks before the king's death; [and in the first impression of the articles it was printed before them. 1]

1552. The next work the reformers were employed in, was a second correction of the Common Prayer-book. Some things they added, and others that had been retained through the necessity of the times were struck out. The most considerable amendments were these. The daily service opened with a short confession of sins, and of absolution to such as should repent. The communion began with a rehearsal of the ten commandments, the congregation being on their knees; and a pause was made between the rehearsal of every commandment, for the people's devotions. A rubric was also added, concerning the posture of kneeling, which declares that there was no adoration intended thereby to the bread and wine, which was gross idolatry; nor did they think the very flesh and blood of Christ there present. This clause was struck ouť by queen Elizabeth, to give a latitude to Papists and Lutherans; but was inserted again at the restoration of king Charles II. at the request of the Puritans. Besides these amendments, sundry old rites and ceremonies, which had been retained in the former book, were discontinued; as the use of oil in confirmation and extreme vuction;

* Hist. Ref. vol. 2. p. 169.

t Ibid. col. 3. p. 211. 214. Neal's Review.


for the dead in the office of burial; and in the communion-service, auricular confession; the use of the cross in the eucharist, and in confirmation. In short, the whole liturgy was in a manner reduced to the form in which it appears at present, excepting some small variations that have since been made for the clearing some ambiguities. By this book of Common Prayer, says Mr. Strype,* all copes and vestments were forbidden throughout England; the prebendaries of St. Paul's left off their hoods, and the bishops their crosses, &c. as by act of parliament is more at length set forth.

When the parliament met January 23d, the new Common Prayer-book was brought into the house, with an ordinal or form of ordaining bishops, priests, and deacons ; both which passed the houses without any considerable opposition. The act requires “ all persons after the feast of Allhallows next, to come to common prayer every Sunday and holy day, under pain of the censures of the church. All archbishops and bishops are required to endeavour the due execution of this act; and whereas divers doubts had been raised about the service-book, it is said, the king and parliament had now caused it to be perused, explained, and made more perfect.” The new service-book was to take place in all churches after the feast of All Saints, under the same penalties that had been enacted to the former book three years before.

By another act of this session the marriages of the clergy, if performed according to the service-book, were declared good and valid, and their children inheritable according to law; andby another the bishoprickof Westminster was suppressed, and reunited to the see of London. Dr. Heath bishop of Worcester, and Day of Chichester, were both deprived this year [1553], with Tonstal bishop of Durham, whose bishoprick was designed to be divided into two; but the act never took effect.

One of the last things the king set his hand to was a royal visitation, in order to examine what plate, jewels, and other furniture, were in the churches. The visitors were to leave in every church one or two chalices of silver, with linen for the communion-table and for surplices, but to bring in the best of the church-furniture into the king's treasury; and

Life of Cranmer, p. 290.

+ Burnet's Hist. Res. vol. 2. p. 190.

to sell the linen copes, altar-cloths, &c. and give the money to the poor. The pretence was, the calling in the superfluous plate that lay in churches more for pomp than use. Some have called this by no better a name than sacrilege, or church theft; and it really was no better. But it ought to be remembered, the young king was now languishing under a consumption, and near his end.

It must however be confessed, that in the course of this as well as the last reign, there was a very great alienation of church-lands: the chantry-lands were sold among the laity, some of whom held five or six prebendaries or canon-' ries, while the clergy themselves were in want. Bishop Latimer complains in one of his sermons, " that the revenues of the church were seized by the rich laity, and that the incumbent was only a proprietor in title. That many benefices were let out to farm by secular men, or given to their servants, as a consideration for keeping their hounds, hawks, and horses; and that the poor clergy were reduced to such short allowance that they were forced to go to service; to turn clerks of the kitchen, surveyors, receivers, &c." And Camden complains, “ that avarice and sacrilege had strangely the ascendant at this time, that estates formerly settled for the support of religion and the poor, were ridiculed as superstitious endowments; first miscalled and then plundered.” The bishops were too easy in parting with the lands and manors belonging to their bishopricks, and the courtiers were too eager in grasping at every thing they could lay their hands upon.* If the revenues of the church had been abused to superstition, they might have been converted to other religious uses; or if too great a proportion of the riches of the kingdom was in the hands of the church, they should have made an ample provision for the maintenance of the clergy, and the endowment of smaller livings, before they had enriched their friends and families.

Nor were the lives of many who were zealous for the Reformation free from scandal: the courtiers and great men indulged themselves in a dissolute and licentious life; and the clergy were not without their blemishes. Some that émbraced the Reformation were far from adorning their pro, fession, but rather disposed the people to return to their old

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »