"that all decrees and ordinances which shall be made and ordained by the archbishops, bishops, and doctors, and shall be published with the king's advice and confirmation, by his letters patent, in and upon the matters of Christian faith, and lawful rites and ceremonies, shall be in every point thereof believed, obeyed, and performed, to all intents and purposes, upon the pains therein comprised; provided nothing be ordained contrary to the laws of the realm." How near the book above mentioned comes to the qualifications of this statute, is obvious to the reader. It is no less evident, that by the same act the king was in a manner invested with the infallibility of the pope, and had the consciences and faith of his people at his absolute disposal. By this abstract of the Erudition of a Christian Man,* it appears farther, that our reformers built pretty much upon the plan of St. Austin, with relation to the doctrines of justification and grace. The sacraments and ceremonies are so deacons, acolytes, exorcists, &c. but lest peradventure it might be thought by some, that such authorities, powers, and jurisdictions, as patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and metropolitans, now have, or heretofore at any time have had, justly and lawfully over other bishops, were given them by God in Holy Scripture, we think it expedient and necessary, that all men should be advertised and taught, that all such lawful power and authority of any one bishop over another, were and be given them by the consent, ordinances, and positive laws, of men only, and not by any ordinance of God in Holy Scripture; and all such power and authority which any bishop has used over another, which have not been given him by such consent and ordinance of men, are in very deed no lawful power, but plain usurpation and tyranny."" To the view which Mr. Neal has given of the doctrinal sentiments, contained in this piece, which was also called the bishop's book, it is proper to add the idea it gave of the duty of subjects to their prince. Its commentary on the fifth commandment runs thus: " Subjects be bound not to withdraw their fealty, truth, love, and obedience, towards their prince, for any cause whatsoever it be." In the exposition of the sixth commandment, the same principles of passive obedience and nonresistance are inculcated, and it is asserted, "that God hath assigned no judges over princes in this world, but will have the judgment of them reserved to himself.”—ED. Though the Institution of a Christian Man is a book now disused, the same sentiments, connected with the idea of the jure divino of kings, still run through the ho milies, the articles, the canons, and the rubric, of the church of England, and have been again and again sanctioned by the resolutions and orders of our convocations. Bishop Blake, on his death-bed, solemnly professed "that the religion of the church of England had taught him the doctrine of nonresistance, and passive obedience, and that he took it to be the distinguishing character of that church."-High-Church Politicks, p. 75. 89, and the note in the last page. ED. It is not easy to say, what sincere or complete alliance there can be between the church and state, when the dogmas of the former are in such glaring repugnancy to the constitution of the latter; when the former educates slaves, the latter freemen; when the former sanctions the tyranny of kings, the latter, is founded in the rights of the people. In this respect, surely, the church needs a reform.-ED. * Dr. Warner observes, on this performance, that there were so many absurdities of the old religion still retained, so much metaphysical jargon about the merit of good works, about the essential parts and consequences of faith, about free-will and grace; that this book, instead of promoting the Reformation, visibly put it back. Eccles. History, vol. 2. p. 205. contrived, as to be consistent with the six articles established by parliament. But with regard to discipline, Cranmer and his brethren were for being directed wholly by the civil magistrate; which has since been distinguished by the name of Erastianism. Accordingly they took out commissions to hold their bishopricks during the king's pleasure, and to exercise their jurisdiction by his authority only. But notwithstanding this reformation of doctrine, the old Popish forms of worship were continued till this year [1544], when a faint attempt was made to reform them. A form of procession was published in English, by the king's authority, entitled, An Exhortation to Prayer, thought meet by his Majesty and his Clergy, to be read to the People; also a Litany, with Suffrages to be said or sung in the Time of the Processions. In the litany they invocate the blessed Virgin, the angels, archangels, and all holy orders of blessed spirits; all holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and all the blessed company of heaven, to pray for them. The rest of the litany is in a manner the very same as now in use, only a few more collects were placed at the end, with some psalms, and a paraphrase on the Lord's prayer. The preface is an exhortation to the duty of prayer, and says, that it is convenient, and very acceptable to God, to use private prayer in our mother-tongue, that by understanding what we ask,* we may more earnestly and fervently desire the same. The hand of Cranmer was no doubt in this performance, but it was little regarded, though a mandate was sent to Bonner bishop of London to publish it.† But Cranmer's power was now very much weakened; he strove against the stream, and could accomplish nothing farther, except a small mitigation of the rigorous prosecution of the six articles: for by the thirty-fifth of Henry VIII. cap. 5. it is enacted, "that persons shall not be convicted upon this statute, but by the oaths of twelve men; that the prosecution shall be within a year; and that if any one preaches against the six articles, he shall be informed against within forty days." This rendered the prosecution more difficult; and yet after all several were burnt at this time, for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, as Mrs. Anne Askew, Mr. Belenian, Adams, Lascels, and others. The books of Tyn Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. 1. p. 331, and the Records, b. 3. No. 28. dal, Frith, Joy, Barnes, and other Protestants, were ordered to be burnt; and the importation of all foreign books relating to religion was forbid, without special licence from the king. Upon the whole, the Reformation went very much backward the three or four last years of the king's life, as appears by the statute of 35 Henry VIII. cap. 1. which leads the people back into the darkest parts of Popery. It says, "that recourse must be had to the Catholic and apostolic church for the decision of controversies; and therefore all books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of Tyndal's false translation, or comprising any matter of Christian religion, articles of faith, or Holy Scripture, contrary to the doctrine set forth by the king [in the six articles] 1540, or to be set forth by the king, shall be abolished. No person shall sing or rhyme contrary to the said doctrine. No person shall retain any English books or writings against the holy and blessed sacrament of the altar, or other books abolished by the king's proclamation. There shall be no annotations or preambles in Bibles or New Testaments in English. The Bible shall not be read in English in any church. No women, or artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men, husbandmen, or labourers, shall read the New Testament in English. Nothing shall be taught or maintained contrary to the king's instructions. If any spiritual person shall be convicted of preaching or maintaining any thing contrary to the king's instructions already made, or hereafter to be made, he shall for the first offence recant; for the second bear a fagot, and for the third be burnt. Here is Popery and spiritual slavery in its full extent. Indeed the pope is discharged of his jurisdiction and authority; but a like authority is vested in the king. His majesty's instructions are as binding as the pope's canons, and upon as severe penalties. He is absolute lord of the consciences of his subjects. No bishop or spiritual person may preach any doctrine but what he approves; nor do any act of go vernment in the church but by his special commission. This seems to have been given his majesty by the act of supremacy, and is farther confirmed by one of the last statutes of his reign, [37 Hen. VIII. cap. 17.] which declares, that "archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but VOL. I. by, under, and from, Iris royal majesty; and that his majesty is the only supreme head of the church of England and Ireland; to whom, by Holy Scripture, all authority and power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of causes ecclesiastical, and to correct all manner of heresies, errors, vices, and sins, whatsoever; and to all such persons as his majesty shall appoint thereunto." This was carrying the regal power to the utmost length. Here is no reserve of privilege for convocations, councils, or colleges of bishops; the king may ask their advice, or call them in to his aid and assistance, but his majesty has not only a negative voice upon their proceedings, but may himself, by his letters patent, publish injunctions in matters of religion, for correcting all errors in doctrine and worship.His proclamations have the force of a law, and all his subjects are obliged to believe, obey, and profess, according to them, under the highest penalties. to Thus matters stood when this great and absolute monarch died of an ulcer in his leg, being so corpulent, that he was forced to be let up and down stairs with an engine. The humour in his leg made him so peevish, that scarce any body durst speak to him of the affairs of his kingdom or of another life. He signed his will Dec. 30, 1546, and died Jan. 28th following, in the thirty-eighth year of his reign, and the fifty-sixth of his age. He ought to be ranked (says bishop Burnet) among the ill princes, but not among the worst. CHAP. II. REIGN OF KING EDWARD VI. THE sole right and authority of reforming the church of England were now vested in the crown; and by the act of succession, in the king's council, if he were under age. This was preferable to a foreign jurisdiction; but it can hardly be proved, that either the king or his council have a right to judge for the whole nation, and impose upon the people what religion they think best, without their consent. The reformation of the church of England was began and carried on by the king, assisted by archbishop Cranmer and a few select divines. The clergy in convocation did not move in it but as they were directed and overawed by their superiors; nor did they consent till they were modelled to the designs of the court. Our learned historian bishop Burnet* endeavours to justify this conduct, by putting the following question, “What must be done when the major part of a church is, according to the conscience of the supreme civil magistrate, in an error, and the lesser part is in the right?" In answer to this question, his lordship observes, that "there is no promise in Scripture that the majority of pastors shall be in the right; on the contrary it is certain, that truth, separate from interest, has few votaries. Now, as it is not reasonable that the smaller part should depart from their sentiments, because opposed by the majority, whose interest led them to oppose the Reformation, therefore they might take sanctuary in the authority of the prince and the law." But is there any promise in Scripture that the king or prince shall be always in the right? or, is it reasonable that the majority should depart from their sentiments in religion, because the prince with the minority are of another mind? If we ask, what authority Christian princes have to bind thé consciences of their subjects, by penal laws, to worship God after their manner, his lordship answers, This was practised in the Jewish state. But it ought to be remembered, that the Jewish state was a theocracy; that God himself was their king, and their chief magistrates only his vicegerents or deputies; that the laws of Moses were the laws of God; and the penalties annexed to them as much of divine appointment as the laws themselves. It is therefore absurd to make the special commission of the Jewish magistrates a model for the rights of Christian princes. But his lordship adds, "It is the first law in Justinian's code, made by the emperor Theodosius, that all should every where, under severe pains, follow that faith that was received by Damasius bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria. And why might not the king and laws of England give the like authority to the archbishops of Canterbury and York?" I answer, Because Theodosius's law was an unreasonable usurpation upon the right of conscience. If the apostle Paul, who was * Hist. Ref. vol. 2. in preface. |