the divine, and the human; and that these remain eternally unconfined, inseparable, and undivided:That, by baptism God saves us; and works in us, justice, and purgation of our sins; that he who perseveres to the end, in that covenant, and hope, does not perish, but has eternal life;-and that Christ died for all men; and wills that all men should be saved.

2. In opposition to the Lutheran doctrine on the eucharist, the Zuinglians maintained, that, in the sacrament, the bread and wine are only signs and symbols of the absent body of Christ; so that the eucharistic rite is merely a pious, and solemn ceremony, instituted or ordained to bring the passion, and the death, of Christ to the remembrance of the faithful.-In the doctrines, respecting baptism, the Lutherans and Zuinglians generally agree: With the doctrines, concerning the will of God for the salvation of the whole, or a part only of mankind, the Zuinglians did not meddle.

3. Calvin maintained, that when the true christian receives the sacrament of the eucharist, with a lively faith, he is united indescribably, but yet really, to Jesus Christ incarnate: so that, to him, Jesus Christ is really, though not corporally, present in the sacrament. Thus, when Calvin advocated the reality of the presence, he seemed to hold the language of Luther: When he denied the corporeal presence, he seemed to speak the language of Zuingle.-According to Calvin, baptism is not absolutely essential to salvation; and not all, but the elect only obtain by it, the grace

of God, and the gifts of faith. Calvin also maintained, without any qualification, that God, from all eternity, predestinated one part of mankind to everlasting happiness;-the other, to everlasting misery and that he was led to make this distinction by no other motive than his own mere pleasure.

4. On their notions, respecting the use of ceremonies in religion; respecting the gradations of rank in the hierarchy; and respecting the subordination of the ministers of the church to the magistracy, there was a considerable difference of opinion among the first reformers. Much ceremonial, much gradation of rank, much subordination to the magistracy, was allowed by the Lutherans ; less, by the Zuinglians; next to none by the Calvinists. In doctrine, and discipline, the Calvinists and the English puritans agreed almost entirely. It is observable, that, though their formularies sound differently, yet the doctrine of Zuingle, that the eucharist is no more than a solemn rite, has insensibly obtained admission into all the protestant churches.

5. The Anabaptists were not, at the time of which we are speaking, that peaceable, and respectable community, who are now distinguished by this appellation. They then held,--as they hold still, that baptism ought to be administered only to those who have attained to years of understanding; and that then, it should be performed by immersion a harmless doctrine, so far as civil society is interested. But, they were accused, and not without

foundation,-of teaching, that "all things ought to "be in common among the faithful; that taking "interest for the loan of money, tithes, and tribute,

66

ought to be entirely abolished; that, in the king"dom of Christ, civil magistrates are absolutely "useless; and that God still continues to reveal "his will to certain persons, by dreams, and reve"lations *."

XII. 2.

Ecclesiastical regulations in the reign of Henry the eighth, respecting the general reading of the Bible, in the English language, by the laity; and some account of the translation of it, 1st, by Tyndale; and 2dly, by Coverdale: 3dly. Of the edition of the latter by Cranmer : 4thly. And of the proclamations, and legislative enactments, respecting them.

WHEN Henry assumed the title of head of the church, it was naturally expected that he would have receded much farther, both in doctrine, and discipline, from the see of Rome, than he did, in reality. Respecting the propriety of a farther reformation, his council was much divided. Anne Boleyn, the new queen, Cranmer, who had succeeded Warham in the see of Canterbury, Lord Cromwell, and several other persons of distinction, were warm advocates for it. On the other hand, it was strenuously opposed by the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, and the bishops of Winchester and Rochester. To their opinion, the king was strongly inclined, both from principle and affection.

* Mosheim's Ecc. History, cent. xvi. ch. iii. sect. 5.

By education he was attached to the catholic church: By his writings in her defence, he had acquired great renown; he was proud of his title of defender of the faith; and prouder still of his spiritual supremacy over the church of England. On the other hand, the savage and contemptuous treatment, which he had received from Luther, alienated him from that reformer, and his adherents; while the severe simplicity of the creeds and liturgies, of Zuingle and Calvin, had no attractions for him. Still, he was fond of exercising his spiritual authority; and willingly interfered in the concerns of the church. The chief of his interferences we shall notice. We shall therefore succinctly mention, 1st, his principal proclamations, and legislative enactments, respecting the general reading of the bible by the laity; and 2dly, the most remarkable of his doctrinal regulations.

The new translation of the bible afforded the monarch an early opportunity for the exercise of his spiritual supremacy. It is well known, that, since the troubles, occasioned by the Albigenses, in the 9th and 10th centuries, it has been a point of catholic discipline, to prohibit, to the laity, the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the special leave of their respective pastors *. The reformers were anxious that such translations of them should be made, and generally circulated.

* This is shown in the writer's " Essay on the Discipline of the Church of Rome respecting the general perusal of Scripture, in the vulgar tongue, by the Laity, in the Appendix to the Confessions of Faith already cited.

1. There are many Anglo-Saxon versions of dif ferent parts both of the Old and the New Testament. Of the translation by archbishop Elfric, we have,of the Old Testament, the Heptateuch, published by Edmund Thwayte at Oxford, in 1699;-and, of the New Testament, the Gospels only, published by Matthew Parker, London, 1571. They were reprinted by Franciscus Junius, and Thomas Marshal, at Dordrecht, with the Mæso-gothic version, 1665, 4to. reprinted at Amsterdam, in 1684. An Anglo-saxon version of the Psalms, evidently translated from the Vulgate, was published by Sir Henry Spelman.

2. It is generally said, that the most antient English translation of the bible is that of Wickliffe. This is untrue :-" The hole bible was, before Wycliffe's days, by virtuous and learned men, "translated into the English tong, and by good "and godly people, with devotion and soberness, "well and reverently read."-Sir Thomas More, Dialogue III. ch.14. In the preface to Wickliffe's Bible, by Lewis, mention is made of two English translations of part of the bible, still existing in manuscript, and anterior to Wickliffe's. His translation was finished about the year 1367; and revised by one of his followers. Both the original, and the revised translation, are still extant in manuscript: the manuscript copies of the latter are more rare, than those of the former. In the writer's Hora Biblica, sect. xv., it is said that printed copies of it are not uncommon.-This is a great mistake, as the work was never printed.