composed by him in 1561, made some remarks on Knox’s book against
the Mass. “Shortly,” says he, “will we call to remembrance ane
notable syllogisme (or argument) sett furth be ane famouss preachour,
callit John Knox, in his sermon againis the mess, in manner as efter
followis.” And having quoted the first syllogism, as already expressed
in this note, he answers: “As to the first part of his syllogisme,
quhar he dois affirme all worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne
of manne without expres command of God to be ydolatrie, it is als
falss as Goddis wourd is trew; for quhy? did not Abel, Abraham, Noe,
and diuerse vtheris of the aulde fatheris, inuent meanis and ways
to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, and
wes acceptable to the Lord God, as the Aulde Testament techis ws?
Did not Cornelius centurio in likewise inuent meanis and ways to
the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, quhilk wes
acceptable to God, as the New Testament plainly teachis ws? Thus ma we
clearlie persaue that this wickit syllogisme aboue rehersit is express
aganis the scripture of Almychtie God, bayth Aulde Testament and New.
Secundlie, to preve his fals and wicket syllogisme, impropirlie callis
he to remembrance the scripture of Almychti God, quhare mentione
is maid how king Saule made sacrifice onto God of his owne brayne,
and wes nocht acceptable to the Lorde God. Mark this place of
the scripture, and it salbe easely persavit that it is all wayis
impropirlie appliit; for quhy, his syllogisme makis mentione of the
worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, without expres
commande of God; and this place of scripture testifeis plainly of the
worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, express contrar
to the commande of God. And sua may we clearlie vnderstand that
this first part of his syllogisme differis far fra the testimonie
of scripture, adducit be him for confirmatione of the samin; bicaus
thair is ane grete difference betuix the worschipping of God inuentit
be manne, without expres commande of God, and the worschipping of God
inuentit be manne, express contrar to the commande of God; the ane may
neuer stand with the scripture; the vther aggreis with the scripture,
bayth Aulde Testament and New, as I haif all reddy declarit.” In
fine, the abbot insists that Saul {399} “committit na ydolatrie,”
for “albeit the scripture dois affirme that stubborness is as the
wicketnes of ydolatrie, nochttheles stubbornes is nocht ydolatrie.”
Ane Oratioune set furth be Master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of
Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561, p. 5‒8. Edinburgh, 1812.
Note Q, Footnote 127.
_Changes on the English Liturgy._――In the Communion‑Book, as set forth
in 1548, the words pronounced by the minister at delivering the bread
were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life;” and at the delivery
of the cup, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for
thee, preserve,” &c. As altered in the corrected Prayer Book of Edward
VI. the words pronounced were, ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that
Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thy heart by faith――Drink
this in remembrance Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be
thankful.” A rubric was also added, to be read at the celebration of
the communion, declaring, that, although the posture of kneeling was
retained to signify our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the
benefits of Christ, and to prevent profanation and disorder; yet “no
adoration is intended or ought to be done, either to the sacramental
bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence
of Christ’s natural flesh and blood; for the bread and wine retained
their natural substances, and Christ’s natural body was in heaven,
and could not be in more places than one at the same time.” Collier,
ii. 310: Records, No. 70.
In the settlement of religion, at the commencement of Elizabeth’s
reign, the old form of words at delivering the elements was
super‑induced upon the new, which, like the patching of old and new
cloth in a garment, marred the whole, and pleased neither protestants
nor papists; and the rubric, explanatory of kneeling, was thrown
out. At the restoration of Charles II., “the church thought fit
(says Collier) to condescend so far as to restore the rubric of King
Edward’s reign,” to please “some people either of weak judgments or
contentious humours.” A piece of condescension, {400} with which the
historian pretty plainly intimates his dissatisfaction. In the liturgy
which was attempted to be imposed upon the Scottish church in 1637,
all the qualifications and explications in the last prayer‑book of
Edward VI. were completely excluded, and various expressions, postures,
and gestures, favourable to the popish notions and superstition, were
unblushingly borrowed from the mass‑book. But the rulers of the church
in the three kingdoms were then posting fast to Rome, when they were
overturned in their mad career.
Note R, Footnote 159.
_Sentiments of English Reformers respecting the government and
worship of the Church._――I shall endeavour to compress the body
of evidence which can be produced for the conformity between the
private sentiments of the English reformers respecting worship and
church‑government, and those of Knox, along with the reformers of
Switzerland and Geneva. Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 1550,
informs Bullinger that “the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of
Rochester, Ely, St David’s, Lincoln, and Bath, were sincerely bent
on advancing the purity of doctrine, agreeing IN ALL THINGS with the
Helvetic churches.” Burnet, iii. 201. Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich,
in a letter to Gualter, Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, “O! would to
God, would to God, once at last, all the English people would in good
earnest propound to themselves to follow the church of Zurich as the
most absolute pattern.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 342.
Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that “the bishops
and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both ONE
OFFICE in the beginning of Christ’s religion.”――“The bishop of St
David’s, my lord elect of Westminster, Dr Cox, Dr Redman, say that
at the beginning they were all ONE.” Collier, ii. Records, No. 49.
Burnet, i. Append. p. 223‒225. Thirteen bishops, with a great number
of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition, “that in the New
Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in
orders, but only deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops.”
Burnet, ut supra, p. 324. Cranmer says, “In the New Testament he that
is appointed a bishop or a priest {401} needed not consecration, by
the scripture, for election or appointment thereto is sufficient.”
And of the same judgment was the bishop of St David’s. Ibid. 228, 230.
Latimer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters,
by divine institution. Voetii Polit. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 837. This
was also the opinion of Pilkington, bishop of Durham. Treatise on the
burning of St Paul’s, apud Cald. Altare Damascenum, p. 204. Bishop
Jewel assents to it in his Answer to Harding, p. 121. And on the
accession of Elizabeth, he expressed his hope, that “the bishops would
become pastors, labourers, and watchmen, and that the great riches
of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to mediocrity, that,
being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, they might take care of
the flock of Christ.” Burnet, iii. 288. In the same year, Dr Aylmer
addressed the right reverend bench in these terms: “Come of, you
bishops, away with your superfluities, yield up your thousands,
be content with hundreds, as they be in other reformed churches,
where there be as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be
priestlike and not princelike. Let the queen have the rest of your
temporalities and other lands to maintain these warres which you
procured, and your mistresse left her; and with the reste builde and
found scholes thorow out the realme: that every parishe church may
have his preacher, every city his superintendent, to live honestly and
not pompously; which will never be onles your landes be dispersed and
bestowed upon many which now feedeth and fatteth but one.――I would
our countryman Wicliefe’s boke which he wrote, _De Ecclesia_, were
in print, and there should you see that your wrinches and cavillations
be nothing worthie. It was my chaunce to happen of it in ones hand
that brought it out of Bohemia.” An Harborowe for Faithful and Trew
Subjects, sig. O, 4. Cranmer expressed himself in a similar strain
respecting the “glorious titles, styles, and pomps,” which were come
into the church through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes,
and professed his readiness to lay them aside. Strype’s Cranmer,
Append. p. 20. Burnet, iii. 105. Append. p. 88. In fact, the title
of _bishop_ was very generally disused in common speech during the
reign of Edward VI., and that of _superintendent_ substituted in its
place. And this change of style was vindicated by Ponet, {402} bishop
of Winchester, in an answer which he published to a popish writer.
Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 444, 445.
It was proposed by Cranmer to erect courts similar to the
kirk‑sessions and provincial synods afterwards introduced into the
Scottish church. Burnet, iii. 214. Reformatio Leg. Eccles. cap. 8, 10.
He ardently wished the suppression of prebendaries, “an estate,” he
said, “which St Paule, reckoning up the degrees and estates allowed in
his time, could not find in the church of Christ.” Burnet, iii. Append.
p. 157, 158. All the protestant bishops and divines in the reign
of Edward VI. were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical
discipline. Dr Cox (Oct. 5, 1552,) complains bitterly of the
opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says, that, if it
was not adopted, “the kingdom of God would be taken away from them.”
Latimer’s Sermons, fol. cix. b. Lond. 1570. Strype’s Memor. of the
Reform. ii. 366. Repository of Orig. p. 150.
Cranmer and his colleagues were far from being satisfied with the
purity of the last common‑prayer book of Edward; and the primate
had drawn up one which is said to have been “an hundred times more
perfect.” Troubles at Franckfort, p. 50. He and Ridley intended to
procure an act for abolishing the sacerdotal habits; “for they only
defended their lawfulness, but not their fitness.” Burnet’s Letters
respecting Switzerland, &c. p. 52. Rotterdam, 1686. When Grindal was
appointed to the bishopric of London, he “remained under some scruples
of conscience about some things, especially the habits and certain
ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. For the
reformed in these times (says Strype) generally went upon the ground,
that, in order to the complete freeing of the church of Christ from
the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and custom practised
by that apostate and idolatrous church should be abolished,――and that
the service of God should be most simple, stript of all that show,
pomp, and appearance that had been customarily used before, esteeming
all that to be no better than superstitious and anti‑christian.” Life
of Grindal, p. 28. Horn and others had the same views and scruples.
“By the letters,” says Bishop Burnet, “of which I read the originals,
[in the archives of Zurich,] it appears that the bishops preserved
the habits rather in compliance with the queen’s inclinations than
out of any liking they had to them; so far {403} were they from liking,
that they plainly expressed their dislike of them.” Burnet’s Letters,
ut supra, p. 51. Before they accepted the office, they endeavoured to
obtain the abrogation of the ceremonies; and when the act enjoining
them passed, they were induced to comply chiefly by their fears that
Papists or Lutherans would be put into their places. Strype’s Annals,
i. 175, Burnet, ii. 376, and his Sermon on Psal. cxlv. 15, preached
before the House of Commons, Jan. 1688. Cox writes to Bullinger,
5th May 1551, “I think all things in the church ought to be pure
and simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and
elements of the world. But in this our church what can I do in so low
a station?” Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 305. Burnet, iii. 202.
Jewel, in a letter to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559, calls the clerical habits
“a stage‑dress” (_vestis scenica_), to which those alone were attached
who “had nothing else to recommend them to the people, but _a comical
dress_,”――“stipites sine ingenio, sine doctrina, sine moribus,
veste saltem comica volebant populo commendari.” He engages that no
exertions of his should be wanting to banish utterly these _ridiculous
trifles_, “ludicris ineptiis,” and _relics of the Amorites_, as his
correspondent (he says) had well designed them. And, at a period still
later, (Feb. 8, 1566), he writes to Bullinger, that he “wished that
the very slightest footsteps of popery might be removed out of the
church and minds of men; but the queen would at that time suffer no
change in religion.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 291. ii. Append. p. 351.
Strype’s Annals, i. 174. Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they
did not approve of, but merely suffered, kneeling in the eucharist,
and singing with the cross in baptism, with some other ceremonies,
hoping that they would speedily obtain their abrogation. Burnet,
ii. 310, 314. As to Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, Pilkington of
Durham, and Sands of Worcester, the non‑conformists bear testimony,
that these prelates discovered the greatest zeal in endeavouring to
procure their abrogation. Ibid. iii. 316. The most respectable of
the clergy in the lower house were of the same sentiments with the
bishops on this subject. In the year 1562, the abrogation of the most
offensive ceremonies was, after long reasoning, put to the vote in
the convocation, and carried by a majority of those present, but, when
the proxies were included, {404} there was found a majority of ONE for
retaining them. The arguments used, by archbishop Parker’s chaplains,
to prevail upon the house to agree to this, derived their chief force
from their being understood to be the sentiments of the queen. Burnet,
ii. Append. p. 319, 320. Strype’s Annals, i. 298‒300.
From these facts, (and a collection much more ample could easily
be made,) the reader will see who were the first puritans, and how
very different the sentiments of the English reformers were from
those of their successors. Those good men who had the direction of
ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Edward VI. thought it most
prudent to proceed gradually and slowly, in removing the abuses, and
correcting the evils, which had overspread the church; and to indulge
the people for a season with those external forms to which they had
been habituated, that they might draw them more easily from their
superstitious notions and practices, and in due time perfect the
reformation to the satisfaction of all. The plan was plausible; but
its issue was very different from what was intended by those who
proposed it. Nor was this unforeseen by persons who wished well to the
church of England. After the bishops had resolved to rest satisfied
with the establishment which they obtained, and felt themselves
disturbed by the complaints of the puritans, (as they were afterwards
called,) they endeavoured to engage the foreign divines on their
side; and having, by partial representations, and through the respect
entertained for the government of England, obtained letters from them
somewhat favourable to their views, they employed these to bear down
such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. Whitgift made great use
of this weapon in his controversy with Cartwright. Bishop Parkhurst
wrote to Gualter, a celebrated Swiss divine, cautioning him on this
head, adding, that he had refused to communicate some of Gualter’s
letters to Whitgift; because, “if any thing made for the ceremonies,
he presently clapped it into his book and printed it.” Strype’s Annals,
ii. 286, 287. But these divines had formerly delivered their unbiassed
judgment, disapproving of such temporizing measures. Cranmer having
signified to the Genevese Reformer, that he “could do nothing more
profitable to the church, than to write often to the king,” Calvin
wrote a letter to the archbishop in 1551, in which he {405} lamented
the procrastination used, and expressed his fears, that “a long winter
would succeed to so many harvests spent in deliberation.” Epist.
p. 62: Oper. tom. ix. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 413. Peter Martyr, in
June 1550, gave it as his opinion, that “the innumerable corruptions,
infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be reformed only by
a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, and unadulterated original
principles.” And the prudential advice, that as few changes as
possible should be made, he called “a device of Satan, to render the
regress to popery more easy.” Burnet, iii. Append, p. 200. Gualter,
in a letter dated Jan. 16, 1559, says, that such advices, though
“according to a carnal judgment full of modesty, and apparently
conducive to the maintenance of concord,” were to be ascribed to “the
public enemy of man’s salvation;” and he prophetically warns those who
suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves in England, that
“afterwards they would scarcely be able to eradicate them by all their
efforts and struggles.” Ibid. iii. 273. Append, p. 265.
Fuller says, that the English Reformers “permitted ignorant people to
retain some fond customs, that they might remove the most dangerous
and destructive superstitions; as mothers, to get children to part
with _knives_, are content to let them play with _rattles_.” Very
good: but if children are suffered to play too long with rattles, they
are in great danger of not parting with them all their days.
Note S, Footnote 160.
_Plan of Edward VI. for advancing the Reformation of the Church of
England._――A plan of improvements in the English church, which Edward
VI. drew with his own hand, may be seen in Strype’s Memorials of the
Reformation, ii. 341‒343. He was desirous of the establishment of
ecclesiastical discipline, but sensible that the incumbent bishops
were in general of such a description as to be unfit for its exercise.
“Some for papistry,” says he, “some for ignorance, some for their
ill‑name, some for all these, are men unable to execute discipline.”
Accordingly, he adds, “as for discipline, I would wish no authority
given generally to all {406} bishops; but that commission be given
to those of the best sort of them to exercise it in their dioceses.”
King Edward’s Remains: Burnet, ii. Records, p. 69.
Omitting other proofs of his intentions, I shall produce the decisive
one of his conduct towards the foreign churches settled in London
under the inspection of John A Lasco. A Lasco was a Polish nobleman,
who had forsaken his native country from love to the reformed religion.
In his youth, he enjoyed the friendship of Erasmus, who, in one of
his letters, passes a high encomium on him. “Senex, juvenis convictu,
factus sum melior; ac sobrietatem, temperantiam, verecundiam, linguæ
moderationem, modestiam, prudentiam, integritatem, quam juvenis a sene
discere debuerat, a juvene senex didici.” Erasmi Epist. lib. 28, ep. 3.
He was offered two bishoprics, one in his native country, and another
in Hungary; but he rejected both, and retiring into Friesland, became
pastor of a protestant congregation at Embden. Gerdes. Hist. Reform,
iii. 145‒150. The protestant churches in the Low Countries being
dissipated in consequence of the troubles produced by the _Interim_,
he came to England at the pressing invitation of Cranmer, and was
chosen superintendent of the German, French, and Italian congregations
erected in London, which consisted of between 3000 and 4000 persons.
Strype’s Cranmer, p. 234‒241. Gerdes. ut sup. p. 150, 235.
A Lasco afterwards published an account of the form of government
and worship used in these congregations, which greatly resembled
that which was introduced into Scotland at the establishment of
the Reformation. The affairs of each congregation were managed by
a minister, ruling elders, and deacons; and each of these offices
was considered as of divine institution. Ut infra, fol. i. 6, b. 11.
The inspection of the different congregations was committed to a
superintendent, “who was greater only in respect of his greater
trouble and care, not having more authority than the other elders,
either as to the ministry of the word and sacraments, or as to
the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, to which he was subject
equally with the rest.”――“Cestuy est appellé, au preuilege du Roy,
Superintendant, lequel est plus grand que les autres, seulement
en ce qu’il a plus de peine et de soing que tous les {407} autres,
non seulement au gouuernement de toute l’Eglise, mais aussy a la
defendre cōtre les effortz de tous ses aduersaires, et a retenir vn
consentement vnanime de tous, aux differens de la doctrine. D’avantage
il n’a point plus d’autorité que les autres Anciēs, au Ministere
de la parolle, et des sacremens, et en l’usage de la discipline de
l’Eglise, a la quelle il est subiect cōme tous les autres. Et comme
il a soing des autres au cause de son Ministere, pareillement il se
soubmet au soing des autres, en l’obeissance de la parolle de Dieu,
et obseruation de la discipline.” Ut infra, fol. i. b. It is proper,
however, to mention that A Lasco, although he allows no superiority
of office or authority to superintendents, considers that they were of
divine appointment, and that Peter held this rank among the apostles.
“Premierement que la Ministere de Superintendant, ou Inspecteur, est
vne ordonnance diuine en l’Eglise de Christ, instituée du Seigneur
Iesus Christ ētre les Apostres mesmes: quād il commanda a Pierre
specialement, de confirmer ses autres freres en la foy. Et non pas
qu’il luy ait donné autorité sus les autres Apostres: comme le Pape
de Rome songe: mais qu’il failloit retenir en l’Eglise vne puissance
egalle de tous les Apostres, auec Pierre per vng certain ordre d’une
solicitude, des vns pour les autres: ainsy que tres bien l’enseigne
sainct Ciprian martyr. Et aussy nous voyons manifestement, qu’un mesme
Ministere est egalement attribué a tous les Anciens de l’Eglise, qui
sont nommez Inspecteurs, et en Grec Euesques. Nous entendons aussy
Iean et Iaques auoir tel honneur que Pierre en l’Eglise de Ierusalem.
Mais a fin qu’il y ait quelque ordre, en vn mesme gouuernement
Ecclesiastique, entre tous les Anciens, et que tout soit faict par
ordre et honnestement, il le faut commencer a vn. Or pour ce qu’il
y a bien a faire de quelz, on doit cōmencer lé gouuernement en toute
l’Eglise; ores que tous les Anciens ayent vne mesme puissance.”
Toute la forme et maniere de Ministere Ecclesiastique en l’Eglise
des estrāgers, dresseé a Londres en Angleterre. Par M. Jean a Lasco,
Baron de Polonie. Traduit de Latin en Francois et imprimé par Giles
Ctematius. 1556, fol. 8, b. 9, a. Imposition of hands was used in the
ordination of superintendents, ministers, ruling elders, and deacons.
Ibid. fol. 27, 31, 35. The communicants sat at the Lord’s table, and
A Lasco spends a number of {408} pages in proving that this posture
is preferable to kneeling. Fol. 80‒88. In fine, he says, “We have
laid aside all the relics of popery, with its mummeries, and we
have studied the greatest possible simplicity in ceremonies.” Ibid.
fol. 79, b.
Notwithstanding these sentiments, and these pieces of disconformity
to the practice of the church of England, A Lasco was held in the
greatest esteem, and warmly patronized, not only by Cranmer, but also
by the young king, who granted him letters patent, erecting him and
the other ministers of the foreign congregations into a body corporate.
The patent runs in these terms: “Edward, &c. We being specially
induced, by great and weighty considerations, and particularly
considering how much it becomes Christian princes to be animated with
love and care of the sacred gospel of God, and apostolical religion,
begun, instituted, and delivered by Christ himself, without which
policy and civil government can neither subsist long, nor maintain
their reputation, unless princes and illustrious persons whom God
hath appointed for the government of kingdoms do first of all take
care that _pure and uncorrupted religion_ be diffused through the
whole body of the commonwealth, and that a church instituted in
_truly Christian and apostolical doctrines and rites_――be preserved,
&c, with this intent and purpose, that there may be an uncorrupted
interpretation of the holy gospel, and administration of the
sacraments, _according to the word of God, and apostolical observance_,
by the ministers of the church of the Germans, &c. we command
and strictly charge the mayor, &c. that they permit the said
superintendent and ministers, freely and quietly to enjoy, use, and
exercise their own peculiar ecclesiastical discipline, notwithstanding
that they do not agree with the rites and ceremonies used in our
kingdom,” &c. The patent may be seen at large in Burnet, ii. Records,
p. 202.