other furniture, were in the churches.

The visitors were

to leave in every church one or two chalices of silver, with linen for the communion table and for surplices, but to bring in the best of the church furniture into the King's treasury; and to sell the linen copes, altar cloths, &c. and give the money to the poor. The pretence was, the calling in the superfluous plate that lay in churches more for pomp than use. Some have called this by no better a name than sacrilege, or church theft; and it was really no better. But it ought to be remembered, the young King was now languishing under a consumption, and near his end.

It must however be confessed, that in the course of this, as well as the last reign, there was a very great alienation of church lands: the chauntry lands were sold among the laity, some of whom held five or six prebendaries or canonries, while the clergy themselves were in want. Bishop Latimer complains in one of his sermons, "That the revenues of the "church were seized by the rich laity, and that the incum"bent was only a proprietor in title. That many benefices "were let out to farm by secular men, or given to their "servants, as a consideration for keeping their hounds, "hawks and horses; and that the poor clergy were reduced "to such short allowance that they were forced to go to "service; to turn clerks of the kitchen, surveyors, receivers, "&c." And Cambden complains, "that avarice and sacri"lege had strangely the ascendant at this time: that estates "formerly settled for the support of religion and the poor, "were ridiculed as superstitious endowments; first miscalled "and then plundered." The bishops were too easy in parting with the lands and manors belonging to their bishoprics, and the courtiers were too eager in grasping at every thing they could lay their hands upon.* If the revenues of the church had been abused to superstition, they might have been converted to other religious uses; or if too great a proportion of the riches of the kingdom was in the hands of the church, they should have made an ample provision for the maintenance of the clergy, and the endowment of smaller livings, before they had enriched their friends and families. Nor were the lives of many who were zealous for the

Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 218.

the

reformation free from scandal: the courtiers and great men indulged themselves in a dissolute and licentious life; and the clergy were not without their blemishes. Some that embraced the reformation were far from adorning their profession, but rather disposed the people to return to their old superstitions: nevertheless there were many Reform great and shining lights among them, who preached and prayed fervently against the corruptions of the times, and were an example to their flocks, by the strictness and severity of their lives and manners; but their numbers were small in comparison to the many that were otherwise, turning the doctrines of grace into lasciviousness.†

We have now seen the length of King Edward's reformation. It was an adventurous undertaking for a few bishops and privy counsellors, to change the religion of a nation only by the advantage of the supremacy of a minor, without the consent of the people in parliament or convocation, and under the eye of the presumptive heir, who was a declared enemy of all their proceedings; as was the case in the former part of this reign. We have taken notice of the mistaken principles of the reformers, in making use of the civil power to force men to conformity; and of their stretching the laws to reach at those whom they could not fairly come at any other way. But notwithstanding these and some other blemishes, they were great and good men, and valiant in the cause of truth; as appears by their sealing it with their blood. They made as quick advances perhaps in restoring religion towards its primitive simplicity, as the circumstances of the time would admit; and it is evident they designed to go further, and not make this the last standard of the reformation. Indeed Queen Elizaveth thought her brother had gone too far, by stripping religion of too many ornaments; and therefore when she came to the crown, she was hardly persuaded to restore it to the condition in which he left it.-King James I. King Charles I. archbishop Laud, and all their admirers, instead of removing further from the superstitious pomps of the church of Rome, have been for returning back to them, and have appealed to the settlement of Queen Elizabeth as the purest standard.

+ Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 290.

But the reformers themselves were of another mind, as appears by the sermons of Latimer, Hooper, Bradford, and others; by the letters of Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and John a Lasco,* who in his book de Ordinatione Ecclesiarum peregrinarum in Anglia, dedicated to Sigismund King of Poland, 1555, says, "That King Edward desired "that the rites and ceremonies used under popery should "be purged out by degrees; that it was his pleasure that "strangers should have churches to perform all things ac"cording to apostolical observation only, that by this "means the English churches might be excited to embrace apostolical purity with the unanimous consent of the "states of the kingdom." He adds, "that the King was at "the head of this project, and that Cranmer promoted it, "but that some great persons stood in the way.' As a further evidence of this, a passage was left in the preface of one of their service books to this purpose;† that they had gone as far as they could in reforming the church, considering the times they lived in, and hoped they that came after 'them would, as they might, do more.' King Edward in his Diary laments, that he could not restore the primitive discipline according to his heart's desire, because several of the bishops, some for age, some for ignorance, some for their ill name, and some out of love to popery, were unwilling to it. And the church herself, in one of her public offices, laments the want of a godly discipline to this day.

Martin Bucer, a German divine, and professor of divinity in Cambridge, a person in high esteem with the young King, drew up a plan, and presented it to his majesty, in which he writes largely of ecclesiastica! dicipline. The King having read it, set himself to write a general discourse *Voet. Eccl. Pol. lib. ii. cap. 6, part i. p. 421.

The following quotation, Mr. Neal, in answer to Bishop Maddox, observes is transcribed from Mr. Pierce's vindication, p. 11, where it is to be found verbatim, with his authority; and in Bennet's Memorial of the Reformation, p. 50. Mr. Strype intimates, that a farther reformation was intended ; (Life of Cran. p. 299) and Bishop Burnet adds, that in many of the letters to foreign divines, it is asserted, that both Cranmer and Ridley intended to procure an act for abolishing the habits. King Edward's Remains, number 2.

VOL. I.

§ Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 156.
16

[ED,

about reformation, but did not live to finish it. Bucer proposed, that there might be a strict discipline, to exclude scandalous livers from the sacrament; that the old popish habits might be laid aside. He did not like the half office of communion, or second service, to be said at the altar when there was no sacrament. He approved not of godfathers answering in the child's name so well as in their own. He presses much the sanctification of the Lord's day; and that there might be many fastings, but was against the observation of Lent. He would have the pastoral function restored to what it ought to be; that bishops, throwing off all secular cares, should give themselves to their spiritual employments. He advises that coadjutors might be given to some, and a council of presbyters appointed for them all. He would have rural bishops set over twenty or thirty parishes, who should gather their clergy often together, and inspect them closely; and that a provincial synod should meet twice a year, when a secular man, in the King's name, should be appointed to observe their proceedings.

Cranmer was of the same mind. He disliked the present way of governing the church by convocations as they are now formed; in which deans, archdeacons, and cathedrals, have an interest far superior in number to those elected to represent the clergy. These (says Bishop Burnet‡) can in no sort pretend to be more than a part of our civil constitution. They have no foundation in scripture, nor any warrant from the first ages of the church; but did arise from the model set forth by Charles the great, and formed according to the feudal law, by which a right of giving subsidies was vested in all who were possessed of such tenures as qualified them to contribute towards the support of the state. Nor was

† Bucer died in 1551, and was consulted on the review of the Common Prayer, 1550. But Mr. Neal has introduced his sentiments in this place, because he was here giving a summary of the changes in King Edward's reign. And in reply to Bishop Maddox, who, after Bishop Burnet, says, that the most material things to which Bucer excepted, were corrected afterwards. Mr.Neal observes,that they who will be at the pains to read over the abstract of his book, entitled, 'Of the Kingdom of Christ,' in Collyer's Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 296, &c. must be of another mind. Review. ED. Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 214.

Cranmer satisfied with the liturgy, though it had been twice reformed, if we may give credit to the learned Bullinger,* who told the exiles at Frankfort, "that the archbishop had "drawn up a book of prayers an hundred times more per"fect than that which was then in being; but the same "could not take place, for that he was matched with such "a wicked clergy and convocation, and other enemies." The King was of the same sentiments; but his untimely death, which happened in the 16th year of his age, and 7th of his reign, put an end to all his noble designs for perfecting the reformation. He was indeed an incomparable Prince, of most promising expectations; and in the judgment of the most impartial persons, the very phoenix of his age. It was more than whispered that he was poisoned. But it is very surprising that a protestant divine [Heylin] in his history of the reformations should say, "That he was ill princi"pled; that his reign was unfortunate; and that his death was not an infelicity to the church," only because he was apprehensive he would have reduced the hierarchy to a more primitive standard. With good King Edward died all further advances of the reformation; for the alterations that were made afterwards by Queen Elizabeth hardly came up to his standard.

We may observe from the history of this reign,

1st. That in matters of faith the first reformers followed the doctrine of St. Austin, in the controverted points of original sin, prædestination, justification by faith alone, effectual grace, and good works.

2dly. That they were not satisfied with the present discipline of the church, though they thought they might submit to it, till it should be amended by the authority of the legislature.

3dly. That they believed but two orders of churchmen

* Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 266.

The troubles at Frankfort in the Phoenix, vol. ii. p. 82, and Pierce's Vindic. p. 12, 13. Mr. Pierce remarks, that this is reported, as is plain to him who looks into the book itself, not on the testimony of Bullinger, as Strype represents it; but by one of Dr. Cox's party on his own knowledge. Review. ED.

§ Pref. p. 4, Part vii. p. 141.