notwithstanding his remonstrances; and was sent a prisoner to the Fleet for refusing to be consecrated in the popish habits of the priesthood. Hooper, with others of the most devoted reformers, was for shaking off entirely the shreds of Popery; he was willing to be a bishop, if that was his sovereign's pleasure, and to be clothed in a suitable garment, to designate him from the laity; he, however, strenuously objected to the old Popish dresses, which had been venerated by the people as essential to the right and effectual performance of clerical duties. But the Reformers-technically so called-insisted that every jot and tittle of their ecclesiastical laws, relating to rites and ceremonies, as well as to religious faith, should be strictly observed: affirming, that, "in matters of rites and ceremonies, custom was a good argument for the continuance of those that had been long used." This has ever been a favorite argument with the friends of the English hierarchy: but, if it proves anything it proves too much. If antiquity sanctions the cap and surplice, why does it not also the gloves, the sandals, the mitre, the ring and crosier, which the Reformers laid aside? And not these things merely, but much more important matters besides. The recent movements among the antiquity-party in the English church clearly demonstrate the danger of this rule insisted on by the Reformers. For surely, if this argument is good for a part of the rites and ceremonies of the ancient church, it is equally good for all. If some of the relics of Popery may be venerated for their antiquity, all may, which have the same recommendation; and if so, the Reformation, so far as the order and ceremonies of the church were concerned, was an unwarrantable revolution; and the bitter Churchman, Heylin, was not so far astray, when he declared the reign of Edward " un fortunate; and that his death was not an infelicity to the church."* The Reformers were doubtless prudent and cautious in their movements; but, it is painfully evident that good men as they were-much of their prudence and caution was worldly and political, rather than such as cometh down from above. Instead of cutting loose at once from the rotten carcase of Popery, and taking the apostolic churches as their model, and throwing before the nation the New Testament as the statute book of the Church,-they adopted as much of Popery as their consciences would allow, and mixed as much of truth with it as they thought the nation would bear, and the interests of the crown would admit. They pulled down Roman Papacy, and employed the massive and venerable ruins in erecting English Epis copacy. They cut off the Pope's head from the English Church, and put on the king's, instead of it; and if the legs. of their image were iron, its feet were, at best, but "part of iron and part of clay;" the very foundation on which it was made to stand, was then, and is now, liable to be smitten by the stone "cut out without hands," and to be broken in pieces. It is not my intention to go into further details respecting the English Reformation. What has been said, seemed necessary to assist the reader to understand the history of after ages. The Reformers were wise and good men, and deserve to be had in lasting remembrance for what they did to emancipate the kingdom from the slavery of Romanism. Still, few Protestants will maintain, that it was not a material error in these fathers of the Church of England, to insist upon entire uniformity; and to persecute even their reforming brethren for refusing to conform to non-essential rites and ceremonies. It is to this reign-about the year * Neal, 1. p. 123. 1550-that the origin of Nonconformists is traced; and bishop Hooper may be regarded as the father of this new sect-if such we may call them-who afterwards made so considerable a figure in English history.* After what has been said of the errors of the Reformers, it is but an act of justice to their memory to add-that they would have gone further in their reformatory labors had they deemed it safe so to do. The insurrections which oc curred in connection with their movements, made them fear to carry out their full convictions. Some things were retained at the Reformation, as bishop Burnet tells us—“ to draw the people more entirely into it." Other things were received, or rather tolerated, as bishop Grindall and Horn tell us, "till the Lord shall grant better times." And bishop Jewell said: "I wish that all, even the minutest relics of Popery, could be removed, both out of the churches, and much more out of the minds of men."+ These sentiments were uttered in 1566-67, a period somewhat later than that now under consideration, but by men who breathed much of the spirit of the Reformers of Edward's reign. That king Edward was of the same mind appears from the writings of John a Lasco, a noble Polander-the learned and pious superintendent of all the foreign churches in Lon. don during Edward's time. In a work published in 1555, he says: King Edward desired that the rites and ceremonies used under Popery, should be purged out by de 66 * I say Nonconformists, rather than Puritans, because Puritanism was a higher degree of nonconformity; and it is desirable to mark the progress of reformation-First, Nonconformity; next, Puritanism; and finally, Separation. The first, to be sure, had the germ of both the others. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and oth ers then in power, finally came fully into Hooper's sentiments respecting the Popish habits. + See Burnet, Vol. III. Coll. Rec. Book 6. grees; that it was his pleasure that strangers should have churches to perform all things according 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."* Mr. Neal says of the Reformers of this reign,—" that they were not satisfied with the present discipline of the church.”+ Edward himself is said to have lamented that the times did not allow him to restore the primitive discipline of the church, according to his heart's desire. Dr. Cox, the king's tutor, wrote to the learned Bullinger, of Zurich, Switzerland, in 1550: "I think all things in the church ought to be pure and simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and elements of this world. But, in this our church, what can I do in so low a station? I can only endeavor to persuade our bishops to be of the same mind with myself. This, I wish truly, and I commit to God the care and conduct of his own work."‡ A further evidence of the intentions of the Reformers, appears from what is said 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 66 they lived in, and hoped they that came after them would, as they might, do more."§ Mr. Neal tells us, on the authority of Bullinger, that archbishop Cranmer was not satisfied with the liturgy "though it had been twice reformed." || From the above extracts it appears, that the Reformers -at least the more zealous among them-had no thought that they had completed their work. Acting upon the princi *Neal, Vol. 1. p. 121. Burnet, Vol. V. p. 296. t Ib. pp. 121–124. ples which they had embraced, and surrounded with the difficulties of those days, they did what they thought they could; leaving it in trust to those who should come after them, to finish, as they might, had they been disposed, the work so well begun. How fully this trust was fulfilled, has already been intimated, and will appear yet more fully in the sequel. Mr. Neal gives the following summary of the principles and doctrines of the Reformers of Edward's reign. "1. That in matters of faith the first Reformers followed the doctrine of St. Austin, [Augustine,] in the controverted points of original sin, predestination, justification by faith alone, effectual grace, and good works. 2. 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. 3. That they believed but two orders of churchmen in Holy Scripture, namely, bishops and deacons ; and consequently, that bishops and priests were but different ranks or degrees of the same order. 4. That they gave the right hand of fellowship to foreign churches, and ministers that had not been ordained by bishops; there being no dispute about re-ordination in order to any church preferment, till the latter end of queen Elizabeth's reign. In all which points most of our modern churchmen have departed from them.”* But, the Reformation was soon terminated, by the untimely and possibly, violent death † of the amiable, learned, * Vol. 1. Chap. 2. pp. 123, 124. See also, pp. 106 and 120. + Neal says: "It was more than whispered that he was poison ed."-Vol. I. p. 123. |