making use of it, in the church service, was, for the first offence, to suffer half a year's imprisonment, and forfeit

the Common-Prayer was publicly recited at the high altar, mass continued to be privately celebrated in the different chapels of the cathedral. This evasion of the law was, of course, speedily reported to the council; and it was for the purpose of preventing it, that the letter in question was addressed to Bonner. It recited the facts, on which it was grounded; denounced the conduct of the clergy, in this instance, as a scorn to the reverence of the communion of the Lord's body and blood"; and concluded by prohibiting any deviation, in the liturgy, from the form "appointed in the book of the public service". The letter and the act of parliament will be found in the Appendix, No. IX.

66

I may here mention two other acts, which Dodd has printed among his records, but which he has otherwise omitted to notice. The first is for the regulation of the fasts and abstinences of the church. It was passed in March, 1549, and was directed against the "sensuality" of those reformers, who, together with the doctrines, had been careful to throw aside the restraints, of religion. Its preamble, however, sufficiently indicates the character of the time. The king's subjects, it says, have now a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel, and true word of God". But they employ their knowledge, to indulge their appetites; and, instead of endeavouring to encrease in virtue ", seek only " to satisfy their sensuality". These abuses must be remedied. Wherefore, since "godly abstinence is a mean to virtue", and, at the same time, an assistance to trade; since it will at once "subdue men's bodies to their soul and spirit", and encrease the employment of those, who live “by fishing in the sea", it is now enacted and ordained, that, from and after the first day of May next ensuing, all persons, not specially licensed, or exempted by this act, shall be bound, under pain of fine and imprisonment, to abstain from flesh-meat, on the Friday and Saturday in each week, on the ember days, on the days of Lent, and on all other days commonly known and accepted as fish-days.-Such was the manner, in which piety and profit could be associated, in the discipline of a reformed church!-See Appendix, No. X.

The other act, to which I have alluded, was passed in March, 1552. It is called "An Act for the keeping of holidays and fasting days": but it relates principally to the former; and will not be uninstructive to those, who have been accustomed to hear the festivals of the catholic church condemned and reviled. It begins by lamenting the negligence of the people, in the discharge of their religious duties; says that, "to help their infirmity", certain days have been set apart, and consecrated to the exercises of prayer, and to the hearing of God's word; and declares, that, as no certain or definite number of such days has been prescribed in holy Scripture, so "the appointment both of the time, and also of the number of days, is left, by the authority of God's word, to the liberty of Christ's church, to be determined and assigned orderly, in every country, by the discretion of the rulers and ministers thereof, as they shall judge most expedient to the true setting forth of God's glory, and the edification of their people". It then proceeds to specify the days, which shall henceforth be kept holy, and on which the people shall be "commanded to abstain from lawful bodily labour".* It names the festivals still retained in the calendar of the Common-Prayer book: it ordains that the eves or vigils of the Nativity, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of our Lord, of Pentecost, of the Purification and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, of All Saints, and of all festivals of the Apostles, except that of St. John and of SS. Philip and James, shall be observed as fasting days; and it specially authorizes all archbishops, bishops, and other persons possessing spiritual jurisdiction, to enquire into all offences against its provisions, to proceed against the violators of its regulations, and to enforce its observance either

a year's profits of one of his benefices; the second offence was deprivation, ipso facto, and imprisonment for twelve months; the third offence was imprisonment during life. Thus the common prayer stood, from its first establishing, anno 1549, till it was revised and altered in the year 1552. It was revised and altered again under queen Elizabeth, anno 1559; again under king James I., in 1604; afterwards under king Charles II., anno 1662. Several alterations were made at those times, at the instance of the dissenters; and, lastly, they attempted to have it revised and corrected, in the year 1689, but without success. I will give all the particulars, as they fall in with the course of my history.

The common prayer being thus established, the reformers still wanted a standard for doctrine, whereby they might appear, at least, to be united in one belief.

"by the censures of the church", or by " such penance as, in their discretion, shall be thought meet and convenient". This act was repealed in the reign of Mary, but was restored to the statute book, at the accession of James I., and remains still in force. It will be found in the Appendix, No. XI.

Before I close this note, I must be permitted to refer to a curious letter, addressed by bishop Hooper to Cecil, and lately published by Mr. Tytler, in his Illustrations of the reigns of Edward and Mary. The prelate has been complaining of the high price of provisions, and of the consequent destitution of the poor; and, having called on the secretary" for the passion of Christ, to take the fear of God and a bold stomach, to speak herein for redress", thus concludes his epistle:" May it please you to be so good, as to desire a license of the king's majesty, for me to eat flesh upon the fish days. Doubtless, my stomach is not as it has been. In case it were, I could better eat fish than flesh: but I think it past for this life. There is also here a wise and sober man, one of the elder men of the town, a good and necessary subject for this little commonwealth here (Gloucester), called John Sanford, that is a weak and sickly man, desired me also to be a suitor to you for him in this case: and doubtless we will so use the king's authority, as none, I trust, shall take occasion for liberty and contempt of laws by us". Tytler, i. 365, 366.-T.]

[The arrest, however, of Somerset, in the following October, seems to have revived the hopes of those, who were still attached to the "old learning", and to have induced them to look for the restoration of the ancient liturgy of the church. To dispel the illusion, Edward, at the suggestion of the council, addressed a letter to the bishops, informing them of the expectation that was abroad, and requiring them to see that all books, containing any portion of the ancient service, were forthwith delivered up and destroyed (Wilkins, iv. 37, 38. See page 19, ante). But this measure was soon discovered to be unavailing. The bishops were unwilling to enforce, the clergy to obey, the royal mandate; and a bill, therefore, was soon after passed, by which it was enacted, that any person refusing to surrender, or any archbishop, bishop, or other officer, neglecting to destroy, such books, should suffer fine or imprisonment, as the case might be. The act will be found in the Appendix, No. XII.—T.]

VOL. II.

D

1552

To this purpose, a kind of committee of divines, under Cranmer's direction, were ordered to draw up a certain number of articles; for, as yet, the tenets of the old and new religion were so blended together, that they made one confused chaos; and though, outwardly, men seemed to be under the same regulation, they were, inwardly, under a continual distraction, every one being at liberty to carve out a creed for himself: so that it is a difficult matter to determine of what persuasion the generality of the people either lived, or died, in those struggling times of the reformation. When the commissioners had gone through their work, they presented the nation with a system of reformed doctrine, containing forty-two articles; and it was expected, that all, that were members of the reformation, should submit to them, as soon as they had the approbation of the king and council, which they readily obtained. "It is not altogether improbable," says Dr. Heylin, "but that these articles, being debated, and agreed upon by the said committee, might also pass the vote of the whole convocation, though we find nothing to that purpose in the acts thereof, which either have been lost, or were never registered. Besides, it is to be observed, that the church of England, for the first five years of queen Elizabeth, retained these articles, and no others, as the public tenets of the church, in point of doctrine; which certainly she had not done, had they been commended to her by a less authority than a convocation." However, it is certain they never had a parliamentary establishment, and came forth only by royal authority, as they were forged by the committee. Some difference is observable, between these forty-two articles

1553

Heylin, 122. [Burnet, however, has shewn that they were never submitted to the convocation (iii. 210-212). In Wilkins, they are called "Articuli, de quibus in Synodo Londinensi, anno Domini MDLII., ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem, et consensum veræ religionis firmandum, inter episcopos et alios eruditos viros convenerat, regiâ auctoritate in lucem editi" (iv. 73). The articles, with the several points, wherein they differed from those adopted in the reign of Elizabeth, may be seen in Burnet, ii. Rec. 190-200; Collier, ii. Rec. 75-80; and Heylin, 351 to the end.-T.]

2

Strype's Cranmer, 272, 293; Heylin, 121.

and the thirty-nine articles of queen Elizabeth, which has occasioned some contest among the reformers. I may, perhaps, have an opportunity of taking notice of this matter, in the course of this history. In the mean time, I will proceed, and give an account of some other advances made by these reformers.

Besides this regulation, as to doctrine, several things were still wanting, as to discipline. For the church being now swallowed up by the state, and the canon law, built upon the decrees of popes and councils, being rendered insignificant, by the nation's withdrawing itself from the usual jurisdiction, it was requisite that some sort of eeclesiastical laws should be established, that would answer the purposes of the reformation. This was thought of, from the beginning of England's defection from the see of Rome, and the embryo of a design was prepared in Henry VIII.'s reign; but that prince's death, and some difficulties that arose in the execution, retarded the project. Those that were of Erastian principles judged, the civil magistracy was qualified to make such a provision, and that it was making backward steps in the reformation, to allow a national church a power of making laws, which they refused to a church of nations. However, the bishops and clergy were unwilling to appear insignificant upon this occasion; and, therefore, the matter was so compromised, that a 1549 certain number of their body, jointly with some learned men of the laity, should compile a collection of laws, for the use of the church; and it was to be performed according to the scheme laid in Henry VIII.'s reign, when it was decreed, by act of parliament, that thirty-two commissioners, one half to be ecclesiastics, the other half laymen, were to finish the said work in three years, and, the mean while, church affairs were to be managed by occasional laws. The wording of these

1 Stat. 3 and 4 Ed. VI. c. 11. [The commission was issued on the 10th of February, 1550, to the archbishop of Canterbury; the bishops of London, Ely, Winchester, Exeter, Bath, Gloucester, and Rochester; the divines, Taylor of Lincoln, Tyler of Hadley, Cox, almoner to the king, Sir John Cheek, Sir Anthony Cook, Peter Martyr, John Alasco, and Parker of Cambridge; the civilians,

constitutions was left to a sub-committee of eight persons, viz. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Goodrick, bishop of Ely, Dr. Cox, the king's almoner, Peter Martyr, Dr. William May, Dr. Rowland Taylor; to these were joined two laymen, John Lucas, and Richard Goodrick, esquires. And then the polishing of the work was committed to two polite writers, sir John

Cheek and Dr. Haddon. The entire collection was

1552 completed, anno 1552, under fifty-one titles, besides an appendix "De Regulis Juris." It was called "Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum." King Edward VI. happening to die soon after, this notable scheme was knocked on the head, being never confirmed, either by parliament or convocation; and the reformers, at this day, are at a loss for some such sort of a provision, as it appears by the awkward and blundering proceedings of their spiritual courts, where they want standing laws for their direction. I remit the reader to the book itself, if he is curious to be informed of particulars, and shall only mention a few of the articles, which, perhaps, will not be according to the taste of every reformer. For instance, by the third article, apostates, and such as opposed Christianity in general, were to forfeit both life and estate. The eighth article annulled marriages, made without the consent of parents, or guardians. In the ninth article, the Levitical degrees were explained with remarkable severity. The tenth article allows of marriage after a divorce, in the case of adultery; especially, the party injured has this liberty; the woman, an adulteress, forfeits her jointure; the husband, an adulterer, is to return his wife's portion, and part with onehalf of his substance; and both parties, being guilty, are either to be imprisoned for life, or banished. Marriage might be annulled, in all cases where the parties were allowed to separate as to bed and board, viz. in attempts of poisoning, implacable hatred, &c. The

secretary Petre, secretary Cecil, Traherne, Read, Coke, May, and Skinner; and the lawyers, Justice Bromley, Justice Hales, Gosnald, Goodrick, Stamford, Caril, Lucas, and Gaudy (Edward's Journal, 42). There was, probably, another civilian, whose name has been omitted by the king.-T.}