therefore appointed a committee of divines to review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker, Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament; but not a word in favor of the stricter protestants.

Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made in favor of those who now began to be called Puritans, from their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than had yet been established. The Queen was more concerned for the papists, and therefore, in the litany this passage was struck out, From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us. The rubric that declared, that by kneeling at the sacrament no adoration was intended to any corporal presence of Christ, was expunged. The committee of divines left it at the people's lib. erty to receive the sacrament kneeling or standing, but the Queen and parliament restrained it to kneeling; so that the enforcing this ceremony was purely an act of the state. The old festivals with their eves, and the popish habits, were continued, as they were in the 2d year of King Edward VI. till the Queen should please to take them away; for the words of the statute are, They shall be retained till other order shall be therein taken by authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of the commissioners authorized under the great seal of England for causes ecclesiastical. Some of the collects were a little altered; and thus the book was presented to the two houses and passed into a law,* being hardly equal to that which was set out by King Edward, and confirmed by parliament in the fifth year of his reign. For whereas in that liturgy all the garments were laid aside except the surplice, the Queen now returned to

* Burnet's Hist. of the Ref. vol. ii. p. 390. Strype's Ann. p. 83. VOL. I.

23

King Edward's first book, wherein copes and other garments were ordered to be used.

The title of the act is, An act for the Uniformity of Com mon Prayer and Service in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments. It was brought into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and took place from the 24th of June 1559. Heath archbishop of York* made an elegant speech against it, in which among other things he observes very justly, that an act of this consequence ought to have had the consent of the clergy in convocation before it passed into a law. "Not only the orthodox, but even the "Arian Emperors (says he) ordered that points of faith "should be examined in councils; and Gallio by the light "of nature knew that a civil judge ought not to meddle with "matters of religion." But he was over-ruled, the act of supremacy which passed the house the very next day having vested this power in the crown. This statute lying open to common view at the beginning of the common prayerbook, it is not worth while to transcribe it in this place. I shall only take notice of one clause, by which all ecclesiastical jurisdiction was again delivered up to the crown: "The Queen is hereby empowered, with the advice of her "commissioners or metropolitan, to ordain and publish such "further ceremonies and rites as may be for the advance"ment of God's glory, and edifying his church, and the rev"erence of Christ's holy mysteries and sacraments." And had it not been for this clause of a reserve of power to make what alterations her majesty thought fit, she told archbishop Parker, that she would not have passed the act.

Upon this fatal rock of uniformity in things merely indifferent (in the opinion of the imposers) was the peace of the church of England split. The pretence was decency

*Mr. Strype says there is so much learning and such strokes therein, that we need not doubt but that it is his. Ann. Ref. vol. i. p. 73. The speech itself is in his appendix to vol. i. No. 6. This prelate was always honorably esteemed by the Queen, and sometimes had the honor of a visit from her. He lived discreetly in his own house, till by very age he departed this life. Annals, vol. i. p. 143. ED.

+ D'Ew's Journal, p. 29.

and order; but it seems a little odd that uniformity should be necessary to the decent worship of God, when in most other things there is a greater beauty in variety. It is not necessary to a decent dress that men's clothes should be always of the same colour and fashion; nor would there be any indecorum or disorder, if in one congregation the sacrament should be administered kneeling, in another sitting, and in a third standing; or if in one and the same congregation the minister were at liberty to read prayers either in a black gown or a surplice, supposing the garments to be indifferent, which the makers of this law admitted, tho' the Puritans denied. The rigorous pressing of this act was the occasion of all the mischiefs that befel the church for above 80 years. What good end could it answer to press men's bodies into the public service, without convincing their minds? If there must be one established form of worship, there should cer tainly have been an indulgence for tender consciences.When there was a difference in the church of the Romans about eating flesh, and observing festivals, the apostle did not pinch them with an act of uniformity, but allowed a latitude, Rom. xiv. 5. Let not him that eateth judge him that eateth not; but let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Why dost thou judge thy brother? or, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Had our reformers followed this apostolical precedent, the church of England would have made a more glorious figure in the protestant world, than it did by this compulsive act of uniformity.

Sad were the consequences of these two laws, both to the papists and puritans. The papists in convocation made a stand for the old religion; and in their 6th session agreed upon the following articles, to be presented to the parliament for disburdening their consciences.

1. "That in the sacrament of the altar the natural body "of Christ is really present, by virtue of the words of con"secration pronounced by the priest.

2. "That after the consecration there remains not the "substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance "but God-Man.

3. "That in the mass the true body of Christ is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.

4.

That the supreme power of feeding and ruling the

"church is in St. Peter and his successors.

5. That the authority of determining matters of faith "and discipline belongs only to the pastors of the church, and not to laymen."

These articles or resolutions were presented to the lord keeper by their prolocutor Dr. Harpsfield, but his lordship gave them no answer; nor did the convocation move any further in matters of religion, it being apparent that they were against the reformation.

As soon as the sessions was ended the oath of supremacy was tendered to the bishops, who all refused it, except Dr. Kitchen bishop of Landaff, to the number of fourteen; the rest of the sees being vacant. Of the deprived bishops three retired beyond sea, viz. Dr. Pate bishop of Worcester, Scot of Chester, and Goldwell of St. Asaph; Heath archbishop of York was suffered to live at his own house, where the Queen went sometimes to visit him; Tonstal and Thirle by bishops of Durham and Ely, resided at Lambeth in the house of archbishop Parker with freedom and ease; the rest were suffered to go at large upon their parole; only Bonner bishop of London, White of Winchester, and Watson of Lincoln, whose hands had been deeply stained with the blood of the protestants in the late reign, were made close prisoners; but they had a sufficient maintenance from the Queen. Most of the monks returned to a secular life; but the nuns went beyond sea, as did all others who had a mind to live where they might have the free exercise of their religion.

Several of the reformed exiles were offered bishoprics, but refused them, on account of the habits and ceremonies, &c. as Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Bernard Gilpin, old father Miles Coverdale, Mr. Knox, Mr. Thomas Sampson, and others. Many who accepted, did it with trembling; from the necessity of the times, and in hopes by their interest with the Queen to obtain an amendment in the constitution of the church; among these were Grindal, Parkhurst, Sandys, Pilkington, and others.

The sees were left vacant for sometime, to see if any of the old bishops would conform; but neither time nor any

thing else could move them; at length, after twelve months, Dr. Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth, by some of the bishops that had been deprived in the late reign, for not one of the present bishops would officiate. This, with some other accidents, gave rise to the story of his being consecrated at the Nags-head Tavern in Cheapside, a fable that has been sufficiently confuted by our church historians ;* the persons concerned in the consecration were Barlow and Scory, bishops elect of Chichester and Hereford; Miles Coverdale,the deprived bishop of Exeter, and Hodgkins, suffragan of Bedford; the two former appeared in their chimere, and surplice, but the two latter wore long gowns open at the arms, with a falling cape on the shoulders; the ceremony was performed in a plain manner without gloves or sandals, ring or slippers, mitre or pall, or even without any of the Aaronical garments, only by imposition of hands and prayer. Strange! that the archbishop should be satisfied with this, in his own case, and yet be so zealous to impose the popish garments upon his brethren. But still it has been doubted, whether Parker's conseeration was perfectly canonical.

1st. Because the persons engaged in it had been legally deprived in the late reign, and were not yet restored. To which it was answered, that having been once consecrated, the episcopal character remained in them, and therefore they might convey it; though Coverdale and Hodgkins never exercised it after this time.

2dly. Because the consecration ought by law to have been directed according to the statute of the 25th of Henry VIII. and not according to the form of King Edward's ordinal for ordaining and consecrating bishops, inasmuch as that book had been set aside in the late reign, and was not yet restored by parliament.

These objections being frequently thrown in the way of the new bishops by the papists, made them uneasy; they

Life of Parker, p. 38, 60, 61. Voltaire, though he knew, or, as a liberal writer observes, should have known, that this story was refuted even by the Puritans themselves, has yet related it as a fact. It was a calumny, to which the custom of the new ordained bishops furnishing a grand dinner or entertainment, gave rise. Wendeborn's View of En gland, vol. ii. p. 300. Ep.