further, except a small mitigation of the rigorous prosecution of the six articles; for by the 35th of Henry VIII. cap. 5, it is enacted, "That persons shall not be convict"ed upon this statute, but by the oaths of twelve men; that "the prosecution shall be within a year; and that if any one "preaches against the six articles he shall be informed a"gainst within forty days." This rendered the prosecution more difficult; and yet after all several were burnt at this time, for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, as Mrs. Anne Askew, Mr. Belenian, Adams, Lascels, and others. The books of Tyndal, Frith, Joy, Barnes, and other protestants, were ordered to be burnt; and the importation of all foreign books relating to religion was forbid, without special licence from the King.

Upon the whole, the reformation went very much backward, the three or four last years of the King's life; as appears by the statute of 35 Henry VIII. cap. 1, which leads the people back into the darkest parts of Popery: It says, "that recourse must be had to the Catholic and A. "postolic Church for the decision of controversies; and "therefore all books of the Old and New Testamentin En

66

66

66

glish being of Tyndal's false translation, or comprising "any matter of Christian religion, articles of faith, or ho❝ly scripture, contrary to the doctrine set forth by the King [in the six articles] 1540, or to be set forth by the King, shall be abolished. No person shall sing or rhyme con"trary to the said doctrine. No person shall retain any "English books or writings against the holy and blessed "sacrament of the altar, or other books abolished by the "King's proclamation. There shall be no annotations or "preambles in bibles or new testaments in English. The "bible shall not be read in English in any church. No 66 women, or artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving"men, husbandmen, or laborers, shall read the New Tes"tament in English. Nothing shall be taught or main"tained contrary to the King's instructions. If any spiritual "person shall be convicted of preaching or maintaining any "thing contrary to the King's instructions already made, or hereafter to be made, he shall for the first offence recant, for the second bear a fagot, and for the third be burnt."

Here is popery and spiritual slavery in its full extent. Indeed the Pope is discharged of his jurisdiction and authority; but a like authority is vested in the King. His Majesty's instructions are as binding as the Pope's canons, and upon as severe penalties. He is absolute lord of the consciences of his subjects. No bishop or spiritual person may preach any doctrine but what he approves; nor do any act of government in the church but by his special commission. This seems to have been given his Majesty by the act of supremaey, and is further confirmed by one of the last statutes of his reign, [37 Hen. viii. cap. 17.] which declares, that "Arch"bishops, bishops, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical "persons, have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but "by, under, and from his royal Majesty; and that his Ma"jesty is the only supreme head of the church of England and Ireland; to whom, by holy scripture, all authority "and power is wholly given to hear and determine all man"ner of causes ecclesiastical, and to correct all manner of "heresies, errors, vices, and sins whatsoever; and to all "such persons as his Majesty shall appoint thereunto."

This was carrying the regal power to the utmost length. Here is no reserve of privilege for convocations, councils, or colleges of bishops: The King may ask their advice, or call them into his aid and assistance, but his Majesty has not only a negative voice upon their proceedings, but may himself, by his letters patent, publish injunctions in matters of religion, for correcting all errors in doctrine and worship. His proclamations have the force of a law, and all his subjects are obliged to believe, obey and profess according to them, under the highest penalties.

Thus matters stood when this great and absolute monarch died of an ulcer in his leg, being so corpulent, that he was forced to be let up and down stairs with an engine. The humor in his leg made him so peevish, that scarce any body durst speak to him of the affairs of his kingdom or of another life. He signed his will Dec. 30, 1546, and died Jan. 28th following, in the 38th year of his reign, and the 56th of his age. He ought to be ranked (says Bishop Burnet) Among the ill princes, but not among the worst.

CHAP. II.

THE REIGN OF KING EDWARD VI.

THE sole right and authority of reforming the church of England was now vested in the crown; and by the act of succession, in the King's council, if he were under age. This was preferable to a foreign jurisdiction; but it can hardly be proved, that either the King or his council have a right to judge for the whole nation, and impose upon the people what religion they think best, without their consent. The reformation of the church of England was begun and carried on by the King, assisted by archbishop Cranmer and a few select divines. The clergy in convocation did not move in it, but as they were directed and overawed by their superiors; nor did they consent till they were modelled to the designs of the court.

Our learned historian bishop Burnet* endeavors to justify this conduct, by putting the following question, 'What 'must be done when the major part of a Church is, accord❝ing to the conscience of the supreme civil magistrate, in an error, and the lesser part is in the right ?' In answer to this question, his lordship observes, that there is no prom'ise in scripture that the majority of pastors shall be in the 'right; on the contrary it is certain, that truth, separate from interest, has few votaries. Now, as it is not reasonable that the smaller part should depart from their sentiments, 'because opposed by the majority whose interest led them 'to oppose the reformation, therefore they might take sanc, 'tuary in the authority of the prince and the law.' But is there any promise in scripture that the King or prince shall be always in the right? or, is it reasonable that the majority should depart from their sentiments in religion, because the prince with the minority are of another mind? If we ask, what authority Christian princes have to bind the

* His. Ref. vol. ii. in preface.

consciences of their subjects, by penal laws, to worship God after their manner? his lordship answers, this was practised in the Jewish state. But it ought to be remembered, that the Jewish state was a theocracy; that God himself was their King, and their chief magistrates only his vicegerents or deputies; that the laws of Moses were the laws of God; and the penalties annexed to them as much of divine appointment as the laws themselves. It is therefore absurd to make the special commission of the Jewish magistrates a model for the rights of Christian princes. But his lordship adds, 'It is the first law in Justinian's code, made by the emperor Theodosius,that all should every where,under severe pains, 'follow that faith that was received by Damasus bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria. And why might not the "King and laws of England give the like authority to the archbishops of Canterbury and Fork?" I answer, because Theodosius's law was an unreasonable usurpation upon the right of conscience. If the apostle Paul, who was an inspired person, had not dominion over the faith of the churches, how came the Roman emperor, or other Christian princes, by such a jurisdiction, which has no foundation in the law of nature or in the New Testament?

His lordship goes on, It is not to be imagined how any 'changes in religion can be made by sovereign princes, un'less an authority be lodged with them of giving the sanction of a law to the founder, though the lesser part of a 'church; for as princes and lawgivers are not tied to an im'plicit obedience to clergymen, but are left to the freedom of their own discerning, so they must have a power to choose what side to be of, where things are much enquired into.' And why have not the clergy and the common people the same power? Why must they be tied to an implicit faith in their princes and lawgivers? Is there any promise in the word of God, that princes and lawgivers shall be infallible, and always judge right which is the founder, though the lesser part of a church? If (as his lordship adds) the major 'part of synods cannot be supposed to be in matters of faith. 'so assisted from heaven, that the lesser part must necessa'rily acquiesce in their decrees; or that the civil powers 'must always make laws according to their votes, especial

ly when interest does visibly turn the scale;' how can the prince or civil magistrate depend upon such assistance? Can we be sure that interest or prejudice will never turn the scale with him; or that he has a better acquaintance with the truths of the gospel than his clergy or people? It is highly reasonable that the prince should choose for himself what side he will be of, when things are much enquired into; but then let the clergy and people have the same liberty, and neither the major nor minor part impose upon the other, as long as they entertain no principles inconsistent with the safety of the government. When the Christian belief had not the support of law, every bishop taught his own flock the best he could, and gave his neighbors such an account of his faith, at, or soon after his consecration, as satisfied them; and so' (says his lordship) they maintained the unity of the church.'-And why might it not be so still? Is not this better upon all accounts, than to force people to profess what they cannot believe, or to propagate religion with the sword, as was too much the case with our reformers? If the penal laws had been taken away, and the points in controversy between Protestants and Papists had been left to a free and open debate, while the civil magistrate had stood by, and only kept the peace, the reformation would certainly have taken place in due time, and proceeded in a much more unexceptionable manner than it did. ·

6

To return to the history. King Edward VI. came to the crown at the age of nine years and four months; a prince, for learning and piety, for acquaintance with the world, and application to business, the very wonder of his age. His father, by his last will and testament, named sixteen persons executors of his will, and regents of the kingdom, till his son should be eighteen years of age: Out of these the earl of Hertford, the King's uncle, was chosen protector of the King's realms, and governor of his person. Besides these, twelve were added as a privy council, to be assisting to them. Among the regents some were for the old religion, and others for the new; but it soon appeared that the reformers had the ascendant, the young King having been educated in their principles by his tutor Dr. Cox, and the new protector his uncle being on the same side. The majority of the bishops